Saoc67 PDF

http://oi.uchicago.
edu/
Language and Nature
http://oi.uchicago.edu/
John Huehnergard (photo by Christopher Rose)
Language and Nature

papers presented to John Huehnergard
on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday
edited by
Rebecca hasselbach
and
Naama pat-el
studies in ancient ORIENTAL civilizationnumber 67

The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago
ChicagoIllinois
Library of Congress Control Number: 2011933159

ISBN-10: 1-885923-91-0
ISBN-13: 978-1-885923-91-2
ISSN: 0081-7554
The Oriental Institute, Chicago
2012 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.
Published 2012. Printed in the United States of America.
Studies in Ancient Oriental CivilizationNumber 67

The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago
Series Editors
Leslie Schramer
and
Thomas G. Urban
with
Rebecca Cain and Zuhal Kuru

Series Editors Acknowledgments
Jessen OBrien and Tate Paulette assisted in the production of this volume.
Cover prepared by Kristy Shuey of 2nd Street Design Lab, Austin, Texas
Selection of Ethiopic, Ugaritic, Akkadian, Hebrew, and Old South Arabian texts.
We thank the Semitic Museum, Harvard University, Wayne T. Pitard, and John Huehnergard for their use.
Printed by McNaughton & Gunn, Saline, Michigan

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Services Permanence of Paper for
Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.
Table of Contents
Contributors and Affiliations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
vi
Preface. Rebecca Hasselbach and Naama Pat-El . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
vii
Students of John Huehnergard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
John as a Teacher and Mentor. Rebecca Hasselbach and Naama Pat-El . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Research of John Huehnergard. Rebecca Hasselbach and Naama Pat-El . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Publications of John Huehnergard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ix
xi
xiii
A Brief Note on the Festschrift Illustrations. X Bonnie Woods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xviii
Contributions
1. Functional Values of iprus Forms in Old Babylonian umma Protases. Eran Cohen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. The Hypotaxis-Parataxis Dichotomy and Elliptic Conditional Clauses in Semitic. Lutz Edzard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3. t-Stem Verbs without Metathesis in Aramaic and Hebrew Documents from the Judean Desert.
Steven E. Fassberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4. People without Town: The apiru in the Amarna Evidence. Daniel E. Fleming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5. Denominal, Lexicalized hiphil Verbs. W. Randall Garr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
6. The Treatment of Vowel Length in Arabic Grammar and Its Adaptation to Hebrew. Gideon Goldenberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
7. Wisdom in Ugaritic. Edward L. Greenstein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
8. Predicate Nominals and Related Constructions in Neo-Mandaic. Charles G. Hberl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
9. Yaqtul and a Ugaritic Incantation Text. Jo Ann Hackett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

10. The Verbal Endings -u and -a: A Note on Their Functional Derivation. Rebecca Hasselbach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
11. Ibn Khaldn as a Historical Linguist with an Excursus on the Question of Ancient gf.
Wolfhart Heinrichs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
12. A Morphosyntactic Explanation of tptkem (Jer 25:34). Jeremy M. Hutton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

13. Canaano-Akkadian: Linguistics and Sociolinguistics. Shlomo Izreel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
14. The Evidential Function of the Perfect in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic Dialects. Geoffrey Khan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
15. Les noms de plantes akkadiens dans leur contexte smitique. Leonid Kogan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
16. Grammaticalization and the Biblical Hebrew Pseudo-Cohortative. Paul Korchin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
17. The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System in a Nutshell. Dennis Pardee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
18. The Syntax of er and eC Yet Again. Naama Pat-El . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
19. Late Biblical Hebrew in the Book of Haggai. Gary A. Rendsburg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
20. Two Modern South Arabian Etymologies. Aaron D. Rubin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
21. If Water Had Not Been Made to Dry Up, This Earth Would Have Been Drowned: Pahlavi *ws- to dry.
Prods Oktor Skjrv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
22. Vowel Syncope and Syllable Repair Processes in Proto-Semitic Construct Forms: A New
Reconstruction Based on the Law of Diminishing Conditioning. Richard C. Steiner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
23. Reconciling Some Morphological Eccentricities of the Semitic Genitive Case Marker. David Testen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391
24. Mixed Linguistic Features in a Judeo-Arabic Text from Algeria: The ar to the hafarot from
Constantine. Ofra Tirosh-Becker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407
25. Alternierende Metrik in der akkadischen Poesie. Josef Tropper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433
26. On Personal Names Ending in -yu in the Amarna Letters and in Texts from Canaan. Wilfred van Soldt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443
27. Jumping Spiders (Araneae: Salticidae) of the Concord Area, Middlesex County, Massachusetts. Richard K. Walton . . . . . . . . . 451
28. Verbal Endings in the Afroasiatic Prefix Conjugations. Andrzej Zaborski . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459
29. Prepositional Phrases as Subjects in Several Semitic Languages. Tamar Zewi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465
v
Contributors and Affiliations

Eran Cohen, Department of Linguistics, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Lutz Edzard, Department of Culture Studies and Oriental Languages, University of Oslo
Steven E. Fassberg, Department of Hebrew Language, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Daniel E. Fleming, Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies, New York University
W. Randall Garr, Department of Religious Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara

Gideon Goldenberg, Department of Linguistics, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Edward L. Greenstein, Department of Bible, Bar Ilan University
Charles G. Hberl, the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Rutgers University
Jo Ann Hackett, Department of Middle Eastern Studies, The University of Texas at Austin
Rebecca Hasselbach, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, University of Chicago
Wolfhart Heinrichs, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University
Jeremy M. Hutton, Department of Hebrew and Semitic Studies, University of WisconsinMadison
Shlomo Izreel, Department of Hebrew Culture, Section of Semitic Linguistics, Tel Aviv University
Geoffrey Khan, Hebrew and Semitic Studies, University of Cambridge
Leonid Kogan, Institute of Oriental and Classical Studies, Russian State University for the Humanities
Paul Korchin, Religion Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks
Dennis Pardee, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, University of Chicago
Naama Pat-El, Department of Middle Eastern Studies, The University of Texas at Austin
Gary A. Rendsburg, Department of Jewish Studies, Rutgers University
Aaron D. Rubin, Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies, Penn State University
Prods Oktor Skjrv, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University
Richard C. Steiner, Bernard Revel Graduate School, Yeshiva University
David Testen
Ofra Tirosh-Becker, Department of Hebrew Language, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Josef Tropper, Theologische Fakultt, Humboldt-Universitt, Berlin
Wilfred van Soldt, Institute for Area Studies, Leiden University
Richard K. Walton, Author and Videographer
X Bonnie Woods, Artist and Designer
Andrzej Zaborski, Afroasiatic Linguistics, Jagellonian University, Krakow

Tamar Zewi, Department of Hebrew Language, Haifa University
vi
Preface
This volume includes thirty contributions twenty-nine papers and one artistic contribution by Johns colleagues, former students, and friends, on a variety of topics, representing Johns versatility and many interests:
Eran Cohen reviews and discusses the functional value of Akkadian iprus in conditional clauses in epistolary and
legal texts. Cohen points to the syntactic environment and the genre as conditioning factors.
Lutz Edzard discusses the Akkadian injunctive umma, used in oath formulae, where it expresses positive statement when it is followed by a negation particle. Edzard examines whether this pattern should be considered
an elliptical conditional.
Steven E. Fassberg deals with verbal t-forms that do not exhibit the expected metathesis in Hebrew and Aramaic of
the Dead Sea Scrolls. Fassberg suggests an explanation on the basis of diachronic evidence as well as comparative evidence from other Aramaic dialects.
Daniel F. Fleming asks who were the Apiru people mentioned in Egyptian texts in the Late Bronze Age and what
was their social standing as is reflected in the Amarna letters.
Randall Garr studies one class of denominal hiphil verbs and asks why these verbs are assigned to the causative
stem despite their non-causative semantic content.
Gideon Goldenberg discusses the concept of vocalic length and the status of y, waw, and alif in Arabic grammatical tradition and in the medieval Hebrew tradition that was its product.
Ed Greenstein suggests that the roots of biblical wisdom can be located in second-millennium Canaanite literature
by identifying wisdom sayings and themes in the Ugaritic corpus. This is a part of the authors ongoing research into this genre.
Charles Hberl looks into predicates of verbless sentences in Semitic and particularly in Neo-Mandaic, which exhibits syntactic subtleties not found in the classical Semitic languages.
Jo Ann Hackett takes another look at Ugaritic yaqtul and argues for the existence of a preterite yaqtul, contra several recent studies.
Rebecca Hasselbach tackles the evasive origin of the Semitic verbal endings -u and -a and explains their development in the various branches.
Wolfhart Heinrichss contribution is a study of a passage from Ibn Khaldns Muqaddima on the pronunciation of
Arabic qf. This study shows that Ibn Khaldn held innovative views of language and its evolution.
Jeremy Hutton sheds more light on tG forms in Biblical Hebrew, through an analysis of the anomalous form
tptkem. This study further uses comparative evidence to suggest a better understanding of this, and similar forms.
Shlomo Izreel offers a revised and improved version of his important study of the language of the Amarna letters,
so far available only as an unpublished manuscript.
Geoffrey Khan discusses the functional differences between the preterite and the perfect in NENA. Khan suggests
that one of the functions of the perfect is marking a speakers attitude toward the event.
Leonid Kogan offers a comparative etymological study of botanical terminology in Akkadian.
Paul Korchin argues that occurrences of the cohortative in Biblical Hebrew that do not conform to the normative
volitive function, the so-called pseudo-cohortatives, represent instances of a centrifugal directive affix expressing motion away from the speaker/main event.
vii
viii
Preface
Dennis Pardee provides a detailed description and explanation of his understanding of the Hebrew verbal system
as primarily expressing aspect, tense only secondarily.
Naama Pat-El continues the discussion of the origin of the Hebrew relative particle eC- from a syntactic perspective. She argues that, based on its syntactic distributions, the origin of the particle from the relative particle
er as proposed by John Huehnergard is more likely than a recent suggestion that the two particles are unrelated.
Gary A. Rendsburg argues in favor of Late Biblical Hebrew features in the book of Haggai against Young, Rezetko,
and Ehrensvrd, who denied the presence of such features in the text. Rendsburg argues that Late Biblical
Hebrew features are found in various layers of grammar and style throughout the book.
Aaron D. Rubin provides Semitic etymologies of two Modern South Arabian words, lxm shark, and Mehri nxli
under.
Prods Oktor Skjrv elucidates a passage from the Pahlavi Rivyat and discusses the Pahlavi verb *ws to dry.
Richard C. Steiner discusses a universal that governs the evolution of phonological rules and applies it to the reconstruction of Proto-Semitic. He proposes a new vowel syncope rule for Proto-Semitic construct forms that accounts
for many alternations and biforms throughout the Semitic languages, and for phonological enigmas such as Hebrew
tey two of (fem.), ml queen of, ln white of, Aramaic tartey two of (fem.), Arabic (i)smu name of, Mehri brt
daughter of, and Akkadian ati wife of (gen.).
David Testen argues that the traditionally reconstructed case system is a secondary development and that the
original system should be reconstructed with a contrast of nominative *-u- and a genitive with two allomorphs, *-i- and *-ay-.
Ofra Tirosh-Becker discusses the language of a Judeo-Arabic translation of portions of the books of Prophets and
argues that the language is characterized by a mixture of conservative and colloquial linguistic elements.
Josef Tropper argues that Akkadian poetry, as well as Northwest Semitic poetry, are based on certain metric principles, based on stressed and unstressed syllables.
Wilfred van Soldt lists and discusses personal names ending in -yu from Amarna. This contribution is a continuation of his recent work studying the orthography of personal names in this language.
Richard K. Walton, a naturalist with a special interest in Concord, Massachusetts, contributes a paper about the
jumping spiders (Araneae: Salticidae) of the region. His short paper is accompanied by a series of videos showing these spiders in their natural habitats.
Andrzej Zaborski, in the sole Afroasiatic contribution, suggests that Berber and Cushitic preserve archaic features
that have been lost for the most part in the Semitic languages. One such example, which is discussed at length,
is the verbal suffixes of the prefix conjugation.
Tamar Zewi offers a comparative study that purports to show that prepositional phrases function as subjects in a
variety of Semitic languages. Zewi provides a constructive discussion and suggests a number of explanations
to this phenomenon.
We started working on this volume in early 2009 without Johns knowledge andwith the help of his wife and our
teacher, Jo Ann Hackett. We wish to thank all the contributors to this Festschrift for their participation and for
their help and patience. Special thanks go to Jo Ann Hackett, who was always ready to answer our questions and
offer invaluable advice. Finally, we wish to thank the Oriental Institute and Thomas Urban, Leslie Schramer, and
Rebecca Cain for their help with the publication.
Rebecca Hasselbach
Naama Pat-El
John as a Teacher and Mentor

Being one of Johns students has been a great honor and, at the same time, a bit of a challenge. It is hard not to
become too exuberant when describing our time at HarvardNELC, and we know that many of his students feel the
same.
Given the size of the field in Semitic linguistics, John does not admit many students, and we all remember the
moment when, sitting in his office as a prospective student, he advised us to seriously consider a minor field in
addition to Semitic philology to enhance our later prospects, just in case. Most of us did not take his advice, not
because we did not appreciate it, but because it was hard enough to live up to his expectations in Semitic linguistics, let alone take on another field of study. John himself regularly audits classes in other departments, showing
us that education does not have an end point.
As for his life outside academia, John is a very private man. We all read his papers and knew his opinions about
everything Semitic, but most of us knew little of how he spends his free time and what are his hobbies and nonlinguistic interests. It took quite a bit of inquiry to discover that he is a passionate bird watcher and naturalist and
even co-authored articles on nature. Visiting his Carlisle home for his annual BBQ for students, we learned of his
passion for Darwin (both man and dog) and his love for art and photography. Only after he went through knee surgery did we know of his habit to run marathons. How he finds time for all this is still a mystery.
As a teacher and mentor, he treated us all equally with professional respect. He might not have discussed
many issues concerning his life outside academia, but once we raised a linguistic issue, a wealth of information
would pour out uninterrupted: the history of the debate, major breakthroughs, empirical data, and references.
If he did not remember something, out came a 3-by-5-inch index card from his front pocket, on which he would
quickly scribble the request with a fancy pen to attend to it later. Many of us still seek his advice and opinion even
as we hold our own teaching positions.
His enthusiasm to share his knowledge does not set him apart from other great teachers; what does, however,
is his willingness to share his own ideas and even unpublished research without limit. On many occasions, once
learning of a students interest in a certain topic, he would hand over his notes and data he had collected for years.
He never limited his gift, never asked not to use it and never demanded to be mentioned in the paper: on the contrary. (We secretly refer to it as Johns Freedom of Information Act.) This character trait shows his unequaled
prioritization of scholarship and dissemination of knowledge over personal fame. The obvious result is seen in the
many papers he co-authored with his students.
Indeed, John treats his students as peers and expects them to be mature scholars while in graduate school. His
famous Turbo-Hebrew class is a classic example. In this class students are requested to research the text and its
linguistic pitfalls before coming to class, not merely read it and sit sheepishly in the room while he untangles the
difficulties for them. This attitude and his subtle pressure on all his students to conform to the highest academic
levels produced and instilled confidence in us.
His teaching does not end with supplying us with knowledge and understanding our limits; one of the major
things he exemplifies is respect, toward both peers and adversaries. He takes everyone seriously, no matter how
wrong he thinks the persons ideas might be. He does not speak ill of those with whom he disagrees, and he teaches his students to learn from everything and everyone. His criticism of others is always professional, deferential,
and gracious, and he asks his students to behave similarly, in person as well as publicly.
While each of us carries many personal anecdotes about John and our time as his students, we all share reverence for him as a mentor and advisor, and we see him as a paragon of excellence in scholarship and intellect.
Rebecca Hasselbach
Naama Pat-El
ix
Students of John Huehnergard

1996
Edwina M. Wright
Studies in Semitic Historical Semantics: Words for Man and Woman
1996
Joshua T. Fox
Noun Patterns in the Semitic Languages
1997
Paul V. Mankowski
Akkadian and Trans-Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew
1998
Eugen J. Pentiuc
Studies in Emar Lexicon
1999
Allan C. Emery
Weapons of the Israelite Monarchy: A Catalogue with Its Linguistic and Crosscultural Implications
2001
Paul D. Korchin
Markedness and Semitic Morphology
2001
Chulhyun Bae
Comparative Studies of King Dariuss Bisitun Inscription
2004
Rebecca Hasselbach
A Historical and Comparative Study of Sargonic Akkadian
2004
Aaron D. Rubin
Studies in Semitic Grammaticalization
2005
Mark Arnold
Categorization of the Hitpael of Classical Hebrew
2005
David Elias
Tigre of Habab: Short Grammar and Texts from the Rigbat People
2006
Charles G. Hberl
The Neo-Mandaic Dialect of Khorramshahr
2008
Naama Pat-El
Studies in the Historical Syntax of Aramaic
2009
Elitzur Bar-Asher
A Theory of Argument Realization and Its Application to Features of the Semitic

Languages
2012
Ahmad Al-Jallad
Ancient Levantine Arabic: A Reconstruction based on the Earliest Sources and the
Modern Dialects
The Research of John Huehnergard

For over thirty years, John Huehnergard has rigorously advanced the study of Semitic philology through his
work on the languages of the ancient Near East and the Semitic language family as a whole. Johns research is truly
exceptional in its breadth and depth and has become an important milestone in the field of comparative semitics.
His work ranges from studies of sounds, morphemes, syntax, and etymologies of words in individual Semitic languages; descriptions and grammars of languages such as Akkadian and Ugaritic; and editions of ancient texts to
important reconstructions of Proto-Semitic features and even descriptions of the Swamp Milkweed Leaf Beetle
found in Carlisle, Massachusetts. The courses he taught throughout his career likewise reflect the breadth of his
scholarship. These include classes in all levels of Akkadian and Hebrew, various dialects of Aramaic, Ethiopian
Semitic in its various ancient and modern forms, Old South Arabian, Ugaritic, classes in Semitic linguistics, and
even Middle Egyptian. Johns work is an inspiration for every scholar in the field and his rigorous application of
linguistic methodology a guideline for his students and future scholars.
Johns interest in Semitic languages began when he went to college at Wilfried Laurier University (Waterloo,
Ontario), where he studied religion and culture. One summer, he took a class in Hebrew, and this class got him
hooked on ancient Semitic languages. He graduated from college in 1974 and, after an influential conversation
with M. Coogan, who at this time taught at St. Thomas, decided to go to Harvard to work on Semitic languages.
At Harvard, he studied with T. O. Lambdin, F. M. Cross, and W. L. Moran. After John discovered Akkadian, Moran
became his primary mentor. Even before graduating from Harvard with distinction in 1979, John became an assistant professor at Columbia University (19781983), where he taught Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Mesopotamian and
Egyptian history in the departments of Middle Eastern Languages and Cultures and History. In 1983, he was appointed associate professor at Harvard University, where he worked until 2009 as professor of Semitic Philology. In
2009, he moved to Austin, where he is now teaching in the Department of Middle Eastern Studies at the University
of Texas.
It is impossible to give recognition to all the various projects John has worked on so far and his achievements
in a short introduction to his scholarship. The following is merely an attempt to focus on some of his major interests, being aware that this short description cannot give full credit to a scholar like John.
Most of Johns early work, including his dissertation, and a significant number of his later studies are on
Semitic languages that are part of ancient Near Eastern cuneiform culture. His first book Ugaritic Vocabulary in
Syllabic Transcription, published in 1987 (revised edition 2008), is a compilation of Ugaritic words that are attested
in Akkadian texts written at Ugarit. The study serves to enhance our understanding of Ugaritic a language usually written in a consonantal alphabet with only few vowel indications. By analyzing syllabically written material,
John made major improvements to our understanding of Ugaritic phonology and, as a direct consequence, its morphology. Another ancient Near Eastern language John has worked on assiduously is Akkadian, including its various dialects. His main interest lies in the reconstruction and understanding of developments of certain linguistic
features. His work on Akkadian includes numerous articles on Akkadian phonology, morphology, and syntax, such
as Asseverative *la- and Hypothetical *l/law in Semitic (1983), which goes beyond Akkadian and is still a major
work on the reconstruction of asseverative particles across Semitic; the seminal On Verbless Clauses in Akkadian
(1986), which establishes and explains certain word order phenomena involving predicate and subject in Akkadian
verbless clauses that lead to important distinctions of this clause type also in Proto Semitic; Stative, Predicative,
Pseudo-verb (1987), an article that deals with the status of the Akkadian stative as either verbless clause or (partially) verbalized, an issue that is very much debated among Semitic scholars; the important dialect study on The
Akkadian of Ugarit (1989), a monograph that investigates all Akkadian texts from Ugarit regarding orthography,
phonology, morphology, and syntax; and Akkadian and West Semitic * (2003), which suggests the existence of
a thirtieth Proto Semitic consonant the traditional reconstruction assumes twenty-nine consonantal phonemes
for Proto Semitic. This reconstruction also argues for a voiced-voiceless-emphatic triad in the gutturals. Johns
work on Akkadian culminates in the Grammar of Akkadian (1997; 3rd edition, 2011), a teaching and reference grammar of Akkadian that is now used as the standard introduction to Akkadian in universities around the world.
xi
xii The Research of John Huehnergard
Besides Akkadian and Ugaritic, John has worked on many other Semitic languages, specifically Northwest
Semitic languages such as Hebrew and Aramaic. Some of his studies on these languages include The Feminine
Plural Jussive in Old Aramaic (1987), which, based on epigraphic data, establishes that Aramaic originally had
a feminine plural ending on verbs na like Hebrew and Arabic. This discovery, in turn, allows us to reconstruct
this ending as a feminine plural marker for Proto Semitic. His article Historical Phonology and the Hebrew Piel
(1992) provides a detailed discussion of the various forms of the D-stem in Semitic and its different vocalizations in
the perfect, which again leads to a revised reconstruction of this stem in early Semitic. The article Hebrew Verbs
I-w/y and a Proto-Semitic Semitic Sound Rule (2005) equally goes beyond Hebrew and attempts to explain assimilations of the semi-vowels /w/ and /y/ in Semitic languages that probably go back as far as Proto Semitic.
As these few examples of Johns research show, his studies, although they often start out with a phonological
or morphological problem in a single Semitic language, go beyond the scope of the language in question and have
important implications for the reconstruction of Proto Semitic. Throughout his research, John has made major
progress in the reconstruction of Proto Semitic that has radically changed our understanding of the language family. His article on Afro-Asiatic (2008) summarizes his work up to this point and represents a brief description of
Proto Semitic as far as we can reconstruct it today.
Another major interest of John is Semitic sub-grouping. In his research, he has greatly improved our understanding of how the individual Semitic languages are related to one another by establishing innovative features
that mark different sub-branches of Semitic and by making a strict distinction between true innovations and archaic retentions. The currently widely used Semitic family tree is much more firmly established thanks to Johns
meticulous work. His work on sub-grouping includes studies on various sub-branches and individual languages of
Semitic, such as Remarks on the Classification of the Northwest Semitic Languages (1991), where John argues
for an independent and new branch of Northwest Semitic that is represented by the inscription found at Deir Alla
(Jordan) this inscription has long defied classification as either Canaanite or Aramaic and What Is Aramaic?
(1998), an article in which John provides the first detailed overview of which features can actually be reconstructed to Proto Aramaic and serve as identifying characteristics of this language. In addition, John has written
various articles on Semitic sub-grouping in general, including Features of Central Semitic (2005) and the Phyla
and Waves: Models of Classification (2011). Many of the features that determine sub-grouping in Semitic are also
found in Johns more descriptive works on Semitic languages, such as Languages: Introductory Survey (1992),
Semitic Languages (1995), and Introduction to Beyond Babel (2002). These surveys of Semitic languages and
their main features are major reference works for scholars from all fields who wish to familiarize themselves with
the basics of Semitic languages and Semitic linguistics.
In all of his research, John strictly adheres to the principles and methodologies of historical and comparative
linguistics. Combined with his eye for detail, this methodological rigor is what truly marks his work. In years of
teaching, he has imparted his diligent methodology and enthusiasm for Semitic languages to generations of students who follow in his footsteps and have become leading scholars in the field of Semitic linguistics.
John is truly an exceptional and remarkable scholar, and it is a great honor to present this volume to him.
Rebecca Hasselbach
Naama Pat-El
Publications of John Huehnergard

1979 The Akkadian Dialects of Carchemish and Ugarit. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.
1981
Akkadian Evidence for Case-vowels on Ugaritic Bound Forms. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 33: 199205.
1982

El-Amarna Letter 252. With Baruch Halpern. Orientalia 51: 22730.

Review of R. Caplice, Introduction to Akkadian. With Daniel C. Snell. Bibliotheca Orientalis 39: 12231.
1983

Asseverative *la- and Hypothetical *l/law in Semitic. Journal of the American Oriental Society 103: 569
93.
Five Tablets from the Vicinity of Emar. Revue dAssyriologie 77: 1143.
1984
On Breaking Teeth. With Jo Ann Hackett. Harvard Theological Review 77: 25975.
1985
Biblical Notes on Some New Akkadian Texts from Emar (Syria). The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 47: 428
34.
A Dt Stem in Ugaritic? Ugarit-Forschungen 17: 402.

1986

1987

On Verbless Clauses in Akkadian. Zeitschrift fr Assyriologie 76: 21849.

RS 15.86 (PRU 3, 51f.). Ugarit-Forschungen 18: 16971.
RS 19.55 (PRU 4, 293b). Ugarit-Forschungen 18: 453.
Review of A. Abou-Assaf, P. Bordreuil, and A. R. Millard, La statue de Tell Fekherye. Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 261: 9195.
Review of F. E. Greenspahn, Hapax Legomena in Biblical Hebrew. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 264: 8890.
Note brve (**ani). Revue dAssyriologie 80: 191.
Texts and Fragments (an Ur III Tablet in the Collection of the Museum of World Cultures, UNC Wilmington). Journal of Cuneiform Studies 38: 245.
Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription. Harvard Semitic Studies 32. Atlanta: Scholars.
Stative, Predicative, Pseudo-Verb. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 46: 21532.
The Feminine Plural Jussive in Old Aramaic. Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlndischen Gesellschaft 137:
26677.
Northwest Semitic Vocabulary in Akkadian Texts. Review of D. Sivan Grammatical Analysis and Glossary.
Journal of the American Oriental Society 107: 71325.
Three Notes on Akkadian Morphology. In Working with No Data: Semitic and Egyptian Studies Presented to
Thomas O. Lambdin, edited by D. Golomb, pp. 18194. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Thomas O. Lambdin. In Working with No Data: Semitic and Egyptian Studies Presented to Thomas O. Lambdin,
edited by D. Golomb, pp. ixxii.
Review of W. R. Garr, Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000586 B.C.E. Journal of Biblical Literature 106:
52933.
The Early Hebrew Prefix-conjugations. Hebrew Studies 29: 1923.

The Museum of World Cultures Elamite Brick. Discoveries (Newsletter of the Museum of World Cultures, UNC Wilmington): February 1988.
Articles Ctesiphon, Cuneiform, and Elamite. In The Encyclopedia of Asian History, edited by A. T. Embree. New York: Scribners.
1988

1989
The Akkadian of Ugarit. Harvard Semitic Studies 34. Atlanta: Scholars.
1990
Lingering over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran. Co-editor with I.
Tzvi Abush and Piotr Steinkeller. Harvard Semitic Studies 37. Atlanta: Scholars.
xiii
xiv

1991

1992

Remarks on the Classification of the Northwest Semitic Languages. In The Balaam Text from Deir Alla Reevaluated (Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Leiden 2124 August 1989), edited by J.
Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij, pp. 28293. Leiden: Brill.
More on KI.eretu at Emar. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brves et Utilitaires 2/58: 39.
Further South Semitic Cognates to the Akkadian Lexicon. In Semitic Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau on
the Occasion of his Eighty-fifth Birthday November 14th, 1991, edited by A. S. Kaye, vol. 1, pp. 690713. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Languages: Introductory Survey. In Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by D. N. Freedman, vol. 4, pp. 15570.
New York: Doubleday.
Hurrian In Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by D. N. Freedman, vol. 4, pp. 21617.
Historical Phonology and the Hebrew Piel. In Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, edited by W. R. Bodine, pp.
20929. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
The Twentieth North American Conference on Afroasiatic Linguistics. Languages of the World and Linguistic News Lines 5/3: 5960.
1993

The Development of the Third Person Suffixes in Phoenician. Maarav 7: 18394.

The Twentieth North American Conference on Afroasiatic Linguistics. Orientalia 62: 1113.
Meskene (Imar/Emar), A. Philologisch. In Reallexicon der Assyriologie, edited by D. O. Edzard, vol. 8, p.
83. New York: de Gruyter.
1994
Review of J. Levi, Die Inkonguenz im biblischen Hebrisch. Hebrew Studies 35: 17481.
1995
sm: The Semitic Languages. An Overview. With Andrew Rippin and Wolfhart Heinrichs. In Encyclopedia of Islam, vol. 8, pp. 100711. Leiden: Brill.
Semitic Languages. In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by J. M. Sasson, vol. 4, pp. 211734.
New York: Scribners.
OBCT Hamrin Basin no.21. N.A.B.U. 4/106: 9293.
No ukunu at Ras Shamra. N.A.B.U. 4/107: 93.
Introduction, Dialects of Aramaic, Orthography and Phonology, Glossary, Bibliography, and revisions to main text in T. O. Lambdin, An Introduction to the Aramaic of Targum Onqelos. Cambridge: Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations.
1996

1997

1998

A Byblos Letter, Probably from Kmid el-Lz. Zeitschrift der Assyriologie 86: 97113. Reprinted in Kmid
el-Lz, vol. 20: Die Keilschriftbriefe und der Horizont von el-Amarna, edited by Rolf Hackmann, pp. 87102.
Bonn: Rudolf Habelt.
New Directions in the Study of Semitic Languages. In The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twentyfirst Century: The William Foxwell Albright Centennial Conference, edited by J. Cooper and G. M. Schwartz, pp.
A Grammar of Akkadian. Harvard Semitic Studies 45. Atlanta: Scholars.
Key to A Grammar of Akkadian. Harvard Semitic Studies 46. Atlanta: Scholars.
Akkadian. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, edited by E. M. Meyers, vol. 1, pp.
4449. New York: Oxford.
Emar Texts. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, edited by E. M. Meyers, vol. 2, pp.
23940.
Akkadian Grammar. Review article of W. von Soden with W. Mayer, Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik
(third edition). Orientalia 66: 43444.
The Form i-na-a-ku-um-mi in KBo 1 5 iii 59. N.A.B.U. 4/139: 12930.
A Grammar of Akkadian. Second, revised printing. Harvard Semitic Studies 45. Atlanta: Scholars.
Notes on Ras Shamra-Ougarit VII. Review article of P. Bordreuil, ed., Une bibliothque au sud de la ville: les
texts de la 34e campagne (1973). Syria 74: 21320.
What is Aramaic? Aram 7: 26586.
A Grammar of Amarna Canaanite. Review article of A. F. Rainey, Canaanite in the Amarna Letters, 4 volumes. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 310: 5977.

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

xv
Ugaritic Words in Syllabic Texts. In Handbook of Ugaritic Studies, edited by W. G. E. Watson and N. Wyatt,
pp. 13439. Leiden: Brill.
The Akkadian Letters. In Handbook of Ugaritic Studies, edited by W. G. E. Watson and N. Wyatt, pp. 375
89.
On the Etymology and Meaning of Hebrew nb . Eretz Israel 26: 88*93*.
A Cuneiform Lexical Text from Ashkelon with a Canaanite Column. With Wilfred H. van Soldt. Israel
Exploration Journal 49: 18492. Reprinted in Ashkelon 1: Introduction and Overview, edited by L. E. Stager, J.
D. Schloen, and D. M. Master, pp. 32732. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Old South Arabian Inscriptions in the Harvard Semitic Museum. In The Archaeology of Jordan and Beyond:
Essays in Honor of James A. Sauer, edited by L. E. Stager, J. A. Greene, and M. D. Coogan, pp. 196206. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Key to A Grammar of Akkadian, second, revised printing. Harvard Semitic Studies 46. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns.
A Grammar of Akkadian. Third, revised printing. Harvard Semitic Studies 45. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Proto-Semitic Language and Culture. In The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, pp.
205659. Fourth edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Appendix II: Semitic Roots. Ibid., 206268.
A bala-a Tablet. With Tonia M. Sharlach. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 52: 12325.
Review of G. Beckman, Texts from the Vicinity of Emar in the Collection of Jonathan Rosen. Orientalia 70: 133
36.
Review of Robert Hetzron, ed., The Semitic Languages. Journal of the American Oriental Society 121: 14849.
Historiography in the Cuneiform World: Proceedings of the XLVe Rencontre Assyriologique International, co-editor
with Tzvi Abusch, Paul-Alain Beaulieu, Peter Machinist, and Piotr Steinkeller. Bethseda: CDL Press.
Preface, in Chulhyun Bae, The Targum of Genesis. Seoul: Hannim.
izuzzum and itlum. In Riches Hidden in Secret Places: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobson, edited by Tzvi Abush, pp. 16185. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Bibliography of Thorkild Jacobson. With Tzvi Abush. In Riches Hidden in Secret Places: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen, edited by Tzvi Abush, pp. ixxvii.
Introduction. In Beyond Babel: A Handbook for Biblical Hebrew and Related Languages, edited by J. Kaltner
and S. L. McKenzie, pp. 118. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Comparative Semitic Linguistics. In Semitic Linguistics: The State of the Art at the Turn of the Twenty-first
Century, edited by Shlomo Izreel, pp. 11950. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
The Hebrew and Aramaic Languages. With Jo Ann Hackett. In The Biblical World, edited by J. Barton,
vol. 2, pp. 324. London: Routledge.
Review of T. Muraoka and B. Porten, Grammar of Imperial Aramaic. Journal of the American Oriental Society
122: 60407.
Review of Mireille Hadas-Lebel, Histoire de la langue Hbraque: des origines lpoque de la Mishna. 4th ed.
Leaves from an Epigraphists Notebook. By Frank M. Cross; co-editor with Jo Ann Hackett. Harvard Semitic
Studies 51. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Amarna Studies. By W. L. Moran; co-editor with Shlomo Izreel. Harvard Semitic Studies 54. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns.
Revision of Robert Hetzron, Semitic Languages. In Oxford International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, edited
by W. J. Frawley, vol. 4, pp. 2933. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Akkadian and West Semitic *. In Studia Semitica, edited by L. Kogan, pp. 10219. Moscow: Russian
State University for the Humanities.
The Alphabet on a Late Babylonian Cuneiform School Tablet. With Frank M. Cross. Orientalia 72: 223
28.
Review of Franoise Briquel-Chatonnet, ed., Mosaque de langues, mosaque culturelle: le bilinguisme dans le
Proche-Orient ancien. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 62: 29498.
xvi

2004
Afro-Asiatic. In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Worlds Ancient Languages, edited by R. D. Woodard, pp.
13859. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Akkadian and Eblaite. With Christopher Woods. In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Worlds Ancient Languages, edited by R. D. Woodard, pp. 21887.
Translation of Ancient South Arabian. By N. Nebes and P. Stein. In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the
Worlds Ancient Languages, edited by R. D. Woodard, pp. 45487.

Hammurabi. In Berkshire Encyclopedia of World History, edited by W. H. McNeill, vol. 3, pp. 88284. Great
Barrington: Berkshire.

YOS 2/AbB 9 no. 40, 2021: Distributive Possession in an OB Letter. N.A.B.U. 4/87: 88.
2005

2006

2007

2008

A Grammar of Akkadian. Second edition. Harvard Semitic Studies 45. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Key to A Grammar of Akkadian. Second edition. Harvard Semitic Studies 46. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Features of Central Semitic. In Biblical and Oriental Essays in Memory of William L. Moran, edited by A. Gianto, pp. 155203. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico.
William L. Moran. With Tzvi Abusch. Archiv fr Orientforschung 50: 51112.
Reflexes of *qatl Forms in Gz. In Semitic Studies in Honour of Edward Ullendorff, edited by G. Khan, pp.
2636. Leiden: Brill.
Johann Heinrich Hottinger. In Elementale Quadrilingue, edited by J. F. Coakley, pp. 14. Oxford: Jericho
Press.
On the Etymology of the Hebrew Relative -. In Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives, edited by S. E. Fassberg and A. Hurvitz, pp. 10325. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Proto-Semitic and Proto-Akkadian. In The Akkadian Language in Its Semitic Context: Studies in the Akkadian
of the Third and Second Millennium B.C., edited by G. Deutscher and N. J. C. Kouwenberg, pp. 118. Leiden:
NINO.
Hebrew Verbs I-w/y and a Proto-Semitic Sound Rule. In Memoriae Igor M. Diakonoff (Babel und Bibel 2),
edited by L. Kogan, N. Koslova, S. Loesov, S. Tishchenko, pp. 45974. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Biodiversity Corner: Swamp Milkweed Leaf Beetle. In Carlisle (MA) Mosquito (July 21, 2006): 14.
Henry David Thoreau: Speaking for Nature. With Richard K. Walton. DVD. Concord: Three Rivers Productions.
qtl and qtl Nouns in Biblical Hebrew. In Shacarei Lashon: Studies in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Jewish Languages Presented to Moshe Bar-Asher, edited by A. Maman, S. E. Fassberg, and Y. Breuer, vol. 1, pp. *3*45.
Jerusalem: Bialik Institute.
Northwest Semitic Languages. With Rebecca Hasselbach. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, edited by K. Versteegh, vol. 3, pp. 40822. Leiden: Brill.
Some Aspects of the Cleft in Semitic Languages. With Naama Pat-El. In Studies in Semitic and General
Linguistics in Honor of Gideon Goldenberg, edited by T. Bar and E. Cohen, pp. 32542. Mnster: Ugarit.
Bible-Translations: Ancient Translations: Ethiopic. In Encyclopedia Judaica, edited by F. Skolnik, vol. 3,
pp. 60102. Second edition. Jerusalem: Macmillan.
Michael Patrick OConnor. With Jo Ann Hackett. SBL Forum (June 27, 2007):
http://sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleId=693
Comments on Yushu Gong, Graph-typology of Ancient Chinese and Sumerian Writing Systems A
Comparative Perspective. In Oriental Studies (Peking): Special Issue: Collection of Papers on Ancient Civilizations of Western Asia, Asia Minor and North Africa, pp. 10915.
Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription. Revised edition. Harvard Semitic Studies 32. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns.
Additions and Corrections to Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription, published online:
https://www.eisenbrauns.com/ECOM/_2IA0LS3H8.HTM
http://utexas.academia.edu/JohnHuehnergard/Papers/170732/2008_Ugaritic_Vocabulary_in_Syllabic_
Transcription_Additions_and_Corrections
Qia: Arabic Cats. In Classical Arabic Humanities in Their Own Terms: Festschrift for Wolfhart Heinrichs on His
65th Birthday Presented by His Students and Colleagues, edited by B. Gruendler, pp. 40718. Leiden: Brill.
xvii
Languages of the Ancient Near East. In The New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, edited by K. D. Sakenfeld, vol. 3, pp. 57680. Nashville: Abingdon.

On Revising and Updating BDB. With Jo Ann Hackett. In Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III: Colloquia
of the International Syriac Language Project, edited by J. Dyk and W. T. van Peursen, pp. 22734. Piscataway:
Gorgias.

A Grammar of Akkadian. Second edition, second, revised printing. Harvard Semitic Studies 45. Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Edwina Maria (Wyn) Wright. In SBL Forum (January 10, 2008):
http://www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?articleId=745

Afro-Asiatic. In The Ancient Languages of Syria-Palestine and Arabia, edited by R. D. Woodard, pp. 22546.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Akkadian and Eblaite. With Christopher Woods. In The Ancient Languages of Mesopotamia, Egypt and
Aksum, edited by R. D. Woodard, pp. 83152. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Translation of Ancient South Arabian. By N. Nebes and P. Stein. In The Ancient Languages of Syria-Palestine and Arabia, edited by R. D. Woodard, pp. 14578. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2009

2010

2011

A Proper View of Arabic, Semitic, and More: A Response to George Mendenhall. With Gary A. Rendsburg and Aaron D. Rubin. Journal of the American Oriental Society 128: 53341.
Silver from the Souk: Semitic Loanwords in English. In The Bible and Our World: Ancient Lessons for Today.
DVD. Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeological Society.
Key to A Grammar of Akkadian. Second edition, second, revised printing. Harvard Semitic Studies 46.
Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Hammurabi. InBerkshire Encyclopedia of World History, edited by William H. McNeill, vol. 3, pp. 118586.
Second edition. Great Barrington: Berkshire.
Reader, exercises and texts. In A Basic Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, by Jo Ann Hackett. Peabody: Hendrickson.
A Grammar of Akkadian. Third edition. Harvard Semitic Studies 45. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Proto-Semitic Language and Culture. In The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, pp.
206669. Fifth edition. Boston/New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Guide to Appendix II. Ibid., pp. 207071.
Appendix II: Semitic Roots. Ibid., pp. 207278.
Phyla and Waves: Models of Classification. With Aaron D. Rubin. In Semitic Languages: An International
Handbook, edited by Stefan Weninger in collaboration with Geoffrey Khan, Michael P. Streck, and Janet
Watson, pp. 25978. Handbcher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft. Berlin: de Gruyter
Mouton.
Commentary: Dont Close Book on Humanities. With Jo Ann Hackett. In Austin American-Statesman,
Sunday, May 15. Section D, pages 1, 8. Online: Two Texas Professors on Why Academic Research Matters: http://www.statesman.com/opinion/insight/two-texas-professors-on-why-academic-researchmatters-1475412.html. Also in Houston Chronicle, Monday, May 16.
Review of Akten des 7. internationalen Semitohamitistenkongresses, Berlin 2004, edited by Rainer Voigt. Journal
of the American Oriental Society 131: 709.
2012
Third Person Possessive Suffixes as Definite Articles in Semitic. With Naama Pat-El. Journal of Historical
Linguistics 2(1): 2551.
In Press

An Introduction to Ugaritic. Peabody: Hendrickson.

The Etymology of Hebrew and Aramaic ykl to be able. With Saul M. Olyan. Journal of Semitic Studies.
Canaanite Shift. In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by G. Khan. Leiden: Brill.
Hebrew Loanwords in English. Ibid.
Philippis Law. Ibid.
Relative Particle (Morphology and Historical Background). Ibid.
Segholates (Historical Background). Ibid.
Hebrew as a Semitic Language. Ibid.
The Biblical Prohibition against Tattooing. With Harold Liebowitz. Vetus Testamentum.
A Brief Note on the Festschrift Illustrations

During 1983 I met John Huehnergard and Jo Ann Hackett when I had an exhibition of paintings in Los Angeles
at Occidental College; Jo Ann was teaching there, John was teaching at Columbia, and I was living in Boston. We
kept in touch, and eventually all of us ended up in Boston-Cambridge. Ever since, despite later geographical
changes, we have remained close. Art has always been a common denominator for us, so I feel especially honored
to be included as illustrator in this important scholarly work.
I am neither a scholar of Near Eastern languages and cultures, nor any scholar at all. Rather, I am a visual artist who also likes language. Through the illustrations I hope to somehow portray dimensions of John Huehnergard
that might not otherwise come across in the articles, namely, his vast interests in the wider humanities and natural sciences, and his fine sense of humor.
Initially, my grand idea was to come up with a series of small, witty, and fresh cuneiform signs, a leitmotif
similar to the graphic spots in the New Yorker. But given my grand limitations with the language, I found it excessively difficult to be witty in Neo-Assyrian. In any case, the inevitable flaws in these illustrations might provide
their own comic relief, and if they bring a smile to a few faces, then perhaps Ive succeeded. And if cuneiform,
specifically, and language in general can be looked at in a slightly different way as a result of these drawings, then
that is even better. At the very least, the illustrations are designed to provide additional visual flow and rhythm to
the book, whether or not one can read cuneiform.
As an outsider to the field of Semitic languages, I have relied on Neo-Assyrian signs here rather than an earlier
form of cuneiform or other later written language simply because, for me, they were the easiest to make, and with
them my connection with John is most clear.
Also, as an outsider, I thought my best recourse was to return to some original cuneiform, which I found
in abundance at the Pergamon Museum in Berlin. Secondarily, I purchased a battered edition of Ren Labats
Manuel dpigraphie Akkadienne (1959) and a second edition of Huehnergards A Grammar of Akkadian (2005). Kathryn
Slansky and Jo Ann Hackett spurred me on with their initial enthusiasm and encouragement, and Slansky along
with Eckart Frahm took a look at the final drawings. The insightful article by Benjamin Studevent-Hickmann The
Ninety-degree Rotation of the Cuneiform Script (2007) helped me with my new personal interest in the curious
transformation of the signs over time, from vertical to horizontal. Parts of Rebecca Hasselbachs Sargonic Akkadian
(2005) served as overview for a time period I found most interesting in the history of writing.
Regarding technical matters, there was much trial and error. In the end, I avoided Photoshop in hopes of more
closely simulating the physicality of a scribe writing cuneiform, to catch some tactile sense of the actual handwork. I fashioned homemade tools carved out of plastic cork and used the tools as ink stamps to arrive at a stylized, standard typography. Then, manually, I drew into the images further with pen and ink for graphic uniformity.
I used a small mirror to decide on the bilateral compositions.
Among the many cuneiform artifacts at the Pergamon Museum, my favorites are perhaps the stamps and cylinder seals because they announce a change in the writing technology. With them, images and signs can be reproduced countless times, as small precursors of movable type and the printing press. The scribes time is potentially
freed up, economically and manually, and there can be more aesthetic focus on other aspects of the communication. When cuneiform becomes added to representational images, the long cycles of repeating marks and bands
created by those marvelous tools, the cylinder seals, can begin to provide an almost cinematic, seamless view into
the culture.
On the stamps and cylinder seals, the scribes carve the cuneiform signs in reverse to create a legible sign when
it is stamped or rolled out as a print on clay. That is, the scribe is making a legible sign from its mirror image. Or,
conversely, a mirror image of the sign occurs in the print when the correct version of the sign is carved into the
printing implement. In either case, there is a close connection between the correct sign and the backwards
sign. To an artist who likes language, this is intriguing.
I decided to use bilateral shapes in the illustrations because I have been exploring bilateral shapes visually and
conceptually in my paintings for many years. By using those shapes in the context of cuneiform, I tried, among
other things, to put myself inside the mind of a scribe whose goal is to create the sign in reverse on a stamp or cylxviii
A Brief Note on the Festschrift Illustrations
xix
inder seal. Interestingly, for many of the less complex cuneiform signs I have used in this Festschrift, they are the
same in their reversed mirror image as they are in their correct form.
A jump in technology, such as the cylinder-printing rollers for making seals, can often lead to a change in accessibility to a language, as well as an aesthetic and mental jump in how one sees and how one understands what
one sees. Did this change in technology contribute to a ninety-degree change in orientation of the signs? If the
cylinders were also worn as beads on a necklace, or stored on sticks and mounted horizontally, thus perhaps familiarizing the viewer with seeing them horizontally rather than vertically, could this have also hastened the change
in orientation? Did writing the signs backwards have an effect on how a scribe could see and think? A contemporary artist can only speculate.
In some cases the stylized signs for each chapter of the Festschrift relate to the specific article. I also wanted
to include signs for flora and fauna of the geographic region, so I have done that as often as possible. (For example,
etttu, for spider, manages both connections preceding Richard Waltons article.) And then sometimes I include
a sign simply because I find it beautiful and direct, and a good visual fit for the article, regardless of the signs
meaning. My apologies to anyone who tries to find any other connection between those signs and the subsequent
articles.
In conclusion, ever since my daughter Dorian was a child, John Huehnergard and Jo Ann Hackett have been
her great and kind mentors. Eight years ago, Dorian named her only son John, in honor of John Huehnergard. My
young grandson John has a lot to live up to.
Any scholarly tribute to John Huehnergard must simultaneously include a tribute to Jo Ann Hackett for the
long and deep collaboration between those two souls, without which Johns work might have faltered. I am pleased
to be part of this Festschrift tribute, and to have also learned a great deal in the process. May we all continue to
solve language mysteries.
X Bonnie Woods
Berlin, 2012
************
Biography of X Bonnie Woods

X Bonnie Woods is an artist and designer based in Boston and Berlin. She is intrigued by the connections between image and language and has also worked in maps and in Braille. In addition to having exhibited her paintings and photos widely in the United States and Europe, she worked as a documentary photographer at Ground
Zero during SeptemberOctober 2001, and in post-Katrina New Orleans. Woods would like to thank Kathryn
Slanski for her help and encouragement in this project, although Doctor Slanski is not to be held responsible for
artistic license taken by Woods, who has used Neo-Assyrian cuneiform as a departure point for these illustrations.
Functional Values of iprus Forms in Old Babylonian umma Protases
Functional Values of iprus Forms

in Old Babylonian umma Protases
Eran Cohen, The Hebrew University
Background and General Objectives
John Huehnergard is nowadays known chiefly as a comparative Semiticist. However, in the earlier phases
of his career, he had spent both time and effort making his mark on various issues of Akkadian linguistics and
was persistent enough to confidently oppose, when necessary, authoritative figures.1 This paper is intended as a
tribute to this part of his work and to his perseverance.
The paper deals with several important and interesting linguistic points that came up while investigating
the conditional structures of Old Babylonian. The project started with the epistolary corpus and was further
expanded to include the law collections and the omens.2 In this paper, I would like to concentrate on the verbal
form iprus and its functional values in umma protases in both Mesopotamian letters and laws, and to attempt
to explain the differences.
Since the functional value of a form is derived from its opposition to other forms, I will occasionally discuss the functional values of other forms in the same paradigm with iprus. The text corpus used includes the
Mesopotamian law collections and the letter corpus from Mesopotamia proper.
A note is due: the described research is complex, involving numerous details. Naturally, in a paper of this
scope, not every point can be properly elaborated.
The Laws: General Observations

Trying to determine a temporal functional value (of course, it does not have to be temporal) of these iprus
forms depends on choosing some arbitrary reference point for instance, the point in which the law is composed,
or the point in which a legal decision is made. This is essentially the strategy taken in most cases so far. Instead,
it seems more useful to postpone these decisions and try first to examine the laws for what they are.
One prominent case was writing his 1986 and 1987 papers (originally meant to be one paper) in response to Kraus 1984b, all papers dealing with non-verbal clauses and the stative.
This paper emanates from a manuscript of a book analyzing

and describing the conditional structures in Mesopotamian Old
Babylonian, which is planned to be published with Eisenbrauns
in the series Languages of the Ancient Near East.
Eran Cohen
The conditional structures in the laws exhibit, right away, various characteristics that are very different from
the ordinary conditional3 structures found in the letters:
1. They are impersonally constructed, containing third person only. The first and second persons occur
only in direct speech.4
2. Unlike the letters, which are dictated by, as well as addressed to, a specific, concrete person, the laws
do not necessarily emanate from a particular speaker, nor are they directed at a specific addressee,
but rather at anyone, anytime.
3. Contrary to the dialogic environment in the letters, they lack characteristics of hic et nunc here and
now, showing no concrete reference to a specific time or location.
4. They are devoid of forms that denote speaker-oriented modality, such as directives (signaled by
precative forms), except in rare occurrences of direct speech (where there is a speaker, albeit not
a specific speaker but rather a prototype).
5. They do not have a textual context specific to each (as opposed to the conditional structures in the
letter corpus). This makes them all refer to the same, unchanging background, whatever it may be.5
6. Going deeper, the substantives in their first occurrence in a law represent a prototype a man, a
woman, a slave. This has no explicit expression in Akkadian, since noun determination (which often
covers generic noun marking as well) is not consistently marked. In their second occurrence in the
laws, substantives are characterized just enough to be distinguished from a seemingly identical
substantive (exx. 1 and 2):

ex. 1. a elu kip nad the one who is blamed with witchcraft
ex. 2. a elu kip idd the one who blamed him of witchcraft (CH 2)
But they hardly become any more specific than that: even when a substantive is followed by the pronoun
(e.g., awlum ), it still refers to the same non-specific, prototypical man mentioned beforehand. Note that in the
letters we generally find the opposite namely, specific, definite, real referents.
These points are all characteristic of generic conditionals. They are described by Snitzer-Reilly (1986)
as timeless, impersonal dependencies where every occurrence mentioned in the protasis has its consistent
consequence(s) in the apodosis. In those cases it is common to have a paraphrase of if by when(ever), for instance, in Classical Arabic in if, i if, when, and kullam whenever are interchangeable (Peled 1992, p. 25, ex.
33). Podlesskaya (2001, p. 1000) refers to the similarities of this type of conditionals (which she terms habitual)
with temporal clauses and relative clauses (see further below).
These characteristics have serious repercussions on the cardinal time reference in the laws. Consequently,
one issue to be re-evaluated presently in view of these observations is tense in the laws. Another is the syntactic
form of the laws.
Different Strategies
Conditional structures in Old Babylonian are subdivided into several patterns umma structures (GAG 161;
Huehnergard 2005, 17.3b), paratactic structures (GAG 160 ohne einleitende Partikel iparras or iprus as
Ordinary conditionals are structures containing two domains
of events or state of affairs, both found somewhere on the epistemic scale that is, they constitute a modal expression
whereby neither side can be confirmed or denied at the time
of utterance, and the likelihood of one domain (the apodosis)
to take place depends directly on the realization of the other
domain (the protasis). This precludes many other uses of the
conditional structure (concession, inference, circumstance, etc.).
4
ana abim murabbu ummim murabbtiu ul ab atta ul umm atti
iqtabi If he says to the father raising him or to the mother raising
3
him you are not my father, you are not my mother (CH192).
Note that he who says is no one in particular (it may in principle apply to a female just as well).
5
As is explained below, this is true for primary laws, which state
a case for the first time. Secondary laws namely, ones that
continue, or are dependent on, a preceding law are of course
referential to it. Any attempt to find such context in the CH prologue is problematic, since there is actually a shift between two
extremely different genres, royal inscriptions and legal codes,
which happen to cohabit the same text.
well as liprus in the protasis; Huehnergard 2005, 17.3a unmarked conditions). Further elaboration of the
paratactic patterns is found in Cohen 2005, pp. 14460 (precative protasis) and 16179 (indicative protasis). In
Cohen 2006b, pp. 55961, there is a short survey of other conditional patterns.
The variety of patterns turns out to be an important tool of inquiry into the collective nature of conditional
groups. Further examination of the laws, especially the laws of Eshnunna (LE) and the edicts,6 reveals several strategies at work. The group of strategies used to formulate the laws is not identical to the one used for conditional
structures in the letter corpus; there is some overlap, but some strategies are unique to each genre. Consequently,
the overall effect is not quite the same. For instance, one strategy used only in the letters to signal condition is
the one introduced by modal particles. Whenever midde or pqat (otherwise maybe, perhaps) is followed by one
iparras form or more (as protasis) and one or more purus or liprus forms (as apodosis), it forms with them a
conditional pattern. This pattern is more or less equivalent to the other patterns in the letters, in producing a
modal expression in which two states of affairs are interdependent on each other:

ex. 3. pqat kaspam irrika l tanaddiu7 If they ask you for silver, do not give it (AbB 1, 139:910)
This is a regular conditional pattern in epistolary Old Babylonian (see Cohen 2006b, p. 561).
Note, however, that this pattern is not found in the laws. We do find, in common with the epistolary conditional structure, umma structures and two different paratactic patterns. We also find two strategies in the laws
that are frequent in the letters, but have no affinity whatsoever with conditional structures the a strategy and
the m strategy.8 Table 1.1 shows the entire group of strategies:9
Table 1.1. Syntactic strategies that express laws
conditional type
protasis
conditional
particle
umma
B
C
D
E
relative
temporal
paratactic
precative
a
m
(forms)
iprus
iptaras
iparras
paris
iparrasu
iparrasu
iparras
liprus
CS = conditional structure, NVC = non-verbal clause
connective
(-ma)
apodosis (forms)
iparras
predicative noun
NVC
CS
iparras
iparras
iparras
NVC, umma CS
The a strategy in the laws, or rather the adjective clause strategy (pattern B in the table), seems to be both
common and crucial for understanding the nature of the laws:

ex. 4. awlum a ina btim a muknim ina btim ina mullim iabbatu 10 iqil kaspam iaqqal a ina mim
ina btim iabbatu imt ul iballu A man who is caught in the house of a commoner inside the
house at midday shall pay 10 sheqels (of) silver; he who is caught inside the house at night
shall die, he will not live. (LE 13)
In the Edict of Ammadqa (EA), a royal extension to the laws, structures with a freely alternate with umma
structures, both in the same function, expressing laws:
Possibly due to normalization of their language, the laws of

ammurabi seem to be quite unified and show far less diversity
than the laws of Eshnunna, which turns out to be a disadvantage
in these circumstances.
7
The form l taparras is a respectable member of the precative group, serving as the negative counterpart of purus.
8
umma [...] rikstim u kirram ana aba u ummia ikunma ussi
aat m ina sn awlim iabbatu imt ul iballu If [...] he ar6
ranges a contract and a nuptial feast and marries her, she is a

wife. The day she is caught in the lap of a man, she shall die,
not live (LE 28). m introduces a new clause, while the time the
woman is caught is immaterial. It is the case of adultery itself to
which the corrective measure applies.
9
The fields show the forms that figure in each functional slot.
Eran Cohen
ex. 5. a eam kaspam bam ana mim iddinuma kankam uzibu He who lends barley, silver
or property as price and draws up a document (EA 910)
Compare with the better-known formulation:

ex. 6. [um]ma awlum eam kaspam ana ubullim idd[in] u uppam uzib [I]f a man gi[v]es as
interest-bearing loan barley or silver, and draws up a document (EA 7)
In the letters, these two strategies are not even similar: umma patterns signal ordinary conditions, whereas
a structures never do. The two strategies coincide only in laws.
In the letters, what few legal formulations we find are very instructive:

ex. 7. awlum balum gimil gmiliu utr umma balku gimillaka utr A healthy man returns his
benefactors favor. If I live/am healthy, I will return your favor. (AbB 3, 33:2426)
ex. 8. a l izzazzu mim<ma> ulileqqe [sic] 7 mana aklam idudnim ulazzazma [sic] mannum litru He
who does not serve does not take anything. They provided me with seven minas of food;
if I do not serve, who would pay it back? (AbB 11, 27:1217)
The legal protasis is basically given the form of an adjective,11 either simple (balum alive, well) or complex (a l
izzazzu he who does not serve). This is done in the letters in order to distinguish between two markedly different
expressions a generic formulation of a rule of conduct, on the one hand (the law), as opposed to an epistemic
interdependency, a modal expression that expresses likelihood (the ordinary condition), on the other.
Note that the law in both cases (exx. 7 and 8) is evoked for a currently relevant reason stated immediately
thereafter. The law itself is formulated as a general truth, while its desired application is firmly anchored in the
here and now of the speaker. In both examples this part is incidentally an ordinary conditional, which cannot
stand for a law in the epistolary genre.
Athanasiadou and Dirven (1996) primarily differentiate between two types of conditional course-of-event
conditionals and hypothetical conditionals. While the hypothetical conditionals refer to a single occurrence,
the former represent relations between recurring events. These events belong to a world of reality, characterized
by an interchange between if and whenever, which does not alter their reality status. The events are characterized as generally occurring events rather than hic et nunc occurring events, namely, events that take place in a
specific time and location.
The hypothetical issue is in principle absent from the laws whereas in ordinary conditionals in the letters,
the conditional structures express obvious uncertainty, conforming with the idea of maybe. This is evident
from the a clause formulation as well, especially when compared, inside the letters, to umma conditionals. This
strategy seems to be representative of the strategies expressing a law. Uncertainty is not a factor in these laws,
but it is a central facet of the conditionality type found in the letters. The table ennumerates the differences
between the two types:
Table 1.2. Differences between generic and hypothetical conditionals
Parameter
Generic Conditionals
introductory particles
if/whenever/(he) who
specificity of occurrence
generally recurring
modality
hic et nunc (here and now)

co-text
realis
irrealis
if/maybe
none or very little
specific time and location
none
almost always
In the edicts there is a greater variety, and iprusu is found in

addition to iparrasu, without any appreciable difference.
10
Hypothetical Conditionals
single occurrence
In the letters as well as in the laws; compare l zzu without

inheritance in LE 16.
11
Types of Genres
I have spent some time characterizing the language of the laws. The epistolary language has not received a
similar specialized description. It seems, however, to be dialogic in nature when compared with the characterization of the dialogue in the epic (Cohen 2006a, pp. 3638). The point of this is the profound difference between
these two Old Babylonian genres (letters and laws) despite many external linguistic similarities between them. 12
In the literature, the differences between the genres are sometimes disregarded; in GAG 161 hardly any such
distinction is mentioned (except under h, discussing single verbal forms in the law), and letters are not mentioned
as a separate genre, although many of the examples in GAG are taken from them.
Streck (1999, pp. 11213) refers to the function of iptaras in a chain (i.e., iprusma ... iptaras) in umma
clauses of the ammurabi letter sub-corpus, but adduces examples from the laws. Streck in this case presupposes
identity between the two genres. The only reason to adduce from another corpus is that the chain he wants to
illustrate is simply not attested inside umma protases in the letters (unlike the laws, where it is normal).
On the other hand, as early as Maloney 1982, we find two distinct chapters Verbal Usage in umma-Clauses
(chapter 3) and Verbal Usage in the CH and LE (supplement). The description is dedicated to the form iptaras,
whose functional value is different across the two genres, and the distinction is hence inevitable. This has become
the norm with Metzler 2002 (chapter 2 devoted to laws and omens with notable differences) and in Loesov 2004,
where the two genres, letters and laws, are referred to separately.
Protatic iprus Forms in the Letters

The epistolary language has, on the whole, received less attention than the laws, and iprus forms have drawn
far less interest than iptaras. In the letter itself, being dialogic in nature (see Cohen 2006a, pp. 3638), one might
have expected the verbal forms to demonstrate temporal functions rather than, for example, aspectual ones (as
one finds in the epic narrative, ibid., pp. 5463). Since, however, one often observes a peculiar behavior within
conditional clauses,13 the issue calls for confirmation.
The form iprus in epistolary umma protases is discussed separately in Maloney 1982, pp. 21930 and 25154.
Maloney (ibid., pp. 22930) cannot decide between past and present-future and resorts to saying that the form
signals that the condition is real. This of course is true also when iparras is in the protasis. Leong (1994, pp.
11822) mentions, for the functional value of iprus, two kinds of anteriority one of the present and one of the
future. It is Loesov (2004, pp. 14144) who provides the ultimate solution:
The non-negated Preterite in umma-clauses denotes facts anterior to the coding time, while the negated
Preterite can have both past and future reference. (ibid., p. 141, my emphasis)
The past value of iprus forms within epistolary umma clauses, as observed by Loesov, is best seen when the
context and the protasis are co-referential, and the same lexemes as well as participants are found. Such protases
are termed verificational protasis. It is often attested in the ammurabi letters sub-corpus,14 but not exclusively:

ex. 9. ina GN tum ibbama (ib-ba-i-ma) awl a tam ilq u b a awtim d iba (i-ba-a-u-) ()
(20)
warkatam purusma umma tum i[b]ba[i] kaspam u mimma a ina tim i[lq] kunkamma ...
[]b[i]l[a]m In GN bribery took place and the people who took bribe and witnesses who
know this matter exist look into the matter and if bribery too[k p]lace, seal the silver
and whatever one to[ok] as bribery and s[en]d me (AbB 2, 11:713, 2024)
Ungnad 19031905 undoubtedly served as basic for the description of both laws and the epistolary language. The languages are
very similar morphologically and (morpho-)syntactically, but
above this level there are considerable dissimilarities.
12
For instance, the difference that exists in Biblical Hebrew

among im yiqol, im (ye/e yn) qel, and im qal does not seem
to be temporal.
14
For a list of these letters, see Streck 1999, p. 103 n. 13.
13
Eran Cohen
In this example a crime is reported, told (lines 713) as a past event. In the royal letter, the purpose of the conditional construction is verifying the report. Whether the directives in the apodosis are to be carried out depends
on the results of the verification. This co-referentiality between the reportative context and the verificational
protasis compels us to recognize the past value of iprus in the protasis.
The form l iprus has two distinct values in epistolary umma protases: it is the negative form of both iprus
and iptaras. Loesov (2004, p. 141) observes that l iprus can have both past and future reference. l iprus forms
are often regarded as the negative allomorph of iptaras (e.g., Streck 1999, pp. 10708), but there are examples that
show that these forms negate the form iprus as well. The following letter demonstrates this value of l iprus:

ex. 10. a. PN a umim kam ulammidanni umma ma (7) eqel bt abya a itu m mdtim abtnu PN
sukkukum mr PN ibqurannima PN lum u btum izziz warkat eqlim uti iprusma kma
PN abi sukkukim eqlam uti l ibatu eqlum ibitnima ubirrnimma uppam iddinnim u ina
uppim a iddinnim PN abi sukkukim [ana] btim aer inanna sukkukim mr PN eql ibtaqranni
(20)
u inaar kam ulammidanni The wrestler PN informed me thus: My familys field, which
we possess for a long time, PN the deaf, son of PN, claimed (it) and PN, the town and witnesses served, they investigated the matter of this field and established that PN, father of
PN the deaf, did not possess the field (and that) this field was our possession and they gave
me a document and in the document which they gave me, PN, father of the deaf, is registered
[as] witness. Now the deaf, son of PN, has claimed my field and (additionally) he holds my
barley. Thus he informed me. (AbB 4, 40:521)

b. umma kma PN a umim iqb warkat awtim a eqlim uti PN lum u btum iprusma
eqlam ana PNma ubirr u ina uppim PN abi sukkukim ana btim aer (28) eqlam u eam ana
PNma terr If, as the wrestler PN said, PN, the town and witnesses (themselves) investigated the matter of the field and established the field (as belonging) to PN, and (additionally)
in the document PN the father of the deaf was registered as witness, return the field and
barley to PN. (AbB 4, 40:2228)

c. umma warkat eqlim uti l ipparis PN eqlam uti l ubrma ana PN l iddin kakkum a ilim
ana eqlim liridma attunu lum u btum awtim a eqlim uti maar ilim birrma eqlam ana driu
idn If the matter of the field was not investigated, PN did not establish this field and did
not give (it) to PN, may the divine emblem descend to the field and you, town and witnesses,
establish the matter of this field in front of God and assign the field its permanent status.
(AbB 4, 40:2936)
The letter has three parts: a. the complaint (lines 720), referring to past occurrences; b. a verificational clause,
referring, like any affirmative iprus form in the protasis, to the past (lines 2227) and its apodotic directives (line
28); and c. the alternative (lines 2936). This last part is the negative of the verificational clause; this means that
l iprus forms are here negating iprus and not iptaras forms, all having past value.
On the other hand, the existence of another homonymous (but functionally different) l iprus form in the
protasis is beyond any doubt:

ex. 11. aum ipir PN nadnim l apurakkum ammnim l taddin ipir PN a[n]a ma[t] tanaddi[n] idin umma
l [t]addin a[]apparamma ipir []attia ina btka tanaddin I did write to you about giving PNs
ration, why did you not give (it)? When do you intend to give PNs ration? Give (it)! If [you]
will not have given it,15 I will write and you will (have to) give the yearly ration out of your
house. (AbB 2, 129:419)
This example has maximum resumption both general and immediate context, protasis and apodosis, all show
the same lexeme, nadnum, always referring to the same event. The event has not yet taken place by the time of
the utterance (this is evident from the imperative idin in the same utterance). This resembles the various iptaras
forms: PN is expected to have his ration by a certain point in the future, and that as a result of the addressee
Standard English requires if you have not given, which neutralizes present and future perfect. The situation in Old Baby15
lonian is similar, but in this case we know it means the future

perfect.
giving it to him at a moment prior to that point in the future. In fact, in umma protases iptaras forms signal
non-past perfect.
In all these occurrences, the dialogue rules: there is a fixed reference point to wit, the point of utterance,
the speakers now a specific speaker, and a designated addressee, and each conditional structure has its own
particular context.
Two additional issues need to be mentioned as summary first, mentioned above, is that in the epistolary
protasis there are hardly any chains of verbal forms interconnected via the particle -ma. Second, unlike the chain,
where the difference between iprus and iptaras is hardly temporal, and unlike the single-clause protases in the
laws where there may be no difference at all between the two forms, in the epistolary umma protasis, they have a
clearly distinct functional value whereas iprus signals past, iptaras signals non-past perfect, usually actualized
as future perfect and only rarely as present perfect.
Protatic iprus Forms in the Laws

Having looked already into the textual nature of the laws and discussed the epistolary protasis and the temporal value of iprus, we now proceed to the long-debated functional value of iprus in the laws. Here the form
has been claimed to signal the following functional values:
1. preterite (the additions to GAG 161, following Hirsch 1969)
2. present (GAG 161c)

3. future anterior (Streck 1999, p. 113)
4. anterior to the recipient point of view (Metzler 2002, p. 875)
5. forming the narrative part of the law (Loesov 2004, pp. 14850)
6. depicting background activities as opposed to iptaras forms (Maloney 1982, p. 278) however,
both iprus and iptaras together are essentially viewed as aoristic:
it is probably best to consider the preterites and perfects in the legal sections of the CH as well as the LE as
essentially aoristic (in the etymological sense). They serve to express punctual events, as opposed to the
present-future, but their tense reference is really indeterminate. The law codes themselves provide
no strong contextual indicators to help us in this area, and so we shall leave the question aside here.
(Maloney 1982, p. 263, my emphasis)
Such variety implies that this work is not finished yet; it seems to me that it is possible to settle a few problems
and point out several sources for the difficulties encountered. I chose to place Maloneys description at the end
because he reached results very similar to the ones obtained here from a different angle and method.
The following is a representative example of a protasis a paris form serving as circumstantial and a list
of actions:

ex. 12. umma kalbum egma bbtum ana bliu udma kalabu l iurma awlam iukma utamt If
a dog is raving and the ward authorities notify its owner but (the owner) does not guard his
dog and it bites a man and kills him (LE 56)
Note that the example is not interpreted as if iprus forms imply present tense, or any tense at all, for that matter.16 Rather, iprus in a chain seems to represent an unmarked event (Maloneys aorist, that is, non-specific,
or general, tense). Example 12 has three such events: notifying, not-preventing, and biting. The discussion of how
this form is to be translated is not as important as understanding what it does iprus represents a non-specific
It is rendered with the English present tense: Sentences in
the present tense sometimes refer to a state which holds at all
16
times or at every time in the existence of the referent of the subject. Such sentences are called universal (or gnomic) sentences
(Declerck 2006, p. 130, my emphasis).
Eran Cohen
act that has a consistent association with a certain mode of action (in the apodosis). It therefore has no real time
of its own and is analogous to saying the following:
Under California Civil Code Section 3342, the owner of the dog who bites another person, is liable regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owners knowledge of such viciousness. (Gibson 2009, my
emphasis)
Note that bit instead of bites would mean a specific case. This is a generally valid statement. So are the Old
Babylonian laws. The English present tense is suitable for rendering it because it is a general rather than specific
present, whereas the English preterite is rather specific.
To corroborate these conclusions, we need to compare cases of iprus with the functions of iparras, since
functional values can only be arrived at via opposing forms that interchange in the same functional slot, in our
case the protasis. The main values of iparras forms in a main protasis17 are the following:
Expressing a circumstantial:

ex. 13. umma aat awlim a ina bt awlim wabat ana wam pna itakam-ma sikiltam isakkil bssa
usappa mussa uama ukann-ma If a mans wife who is living in a mans house decides to
leave (while) she acquires property illegally, squanders her own house, (and) belittles her
husband, she will be convicted and ... (CH141)
Conveying will or intention:

ex. 14. umma ina at itn zittau ana kaspim inaddin u au mam ae If in a partnership, one
wants to sell his share and his partner is willing to buy (LE 38)
Communicating a potential:

ex. 15. umma igrum iqmma bbtum ana bl igrim udma igru l u<dan>nin igrum imqutma mr
awlim utamt If a wall is about to collapse, and the ward authorities notify the walls
owner but he does not reinforce his wall, and wall collapses and causes the death of a member
of the awlum class (LE 58)
The common denominator for all these functions is their duration, all basically describing a state. So, confronted in one group with paris forms (see egi is raving, ex. 12), iprus covers punctual actions. Such opposition
lies in the aspectual spectrum and is comparable to the functions in narrative (Cohen 2006a, pp. 5463), and it
accordingly may be termed events versus descriptions, despite the fact that these events do not necessarily
take place and are in fact still considered non-specific (the agent is always a prototype).
There are of course exceptions. In some cases, brought up by Hirsch (1969, pp. 12325; which eventually set
off a partial correction in GAG), iprus forms are not generic; Hirsch phrases it differently, saying that they cannot
be translated as present, and consequently (but wrongly) draws the conclusions that all iprus forms should be
counted as denoting the past. Examples 16 and 17 are some of his evidence:

ex. 16. umma awlum nadtam uzma amtam ana mutia iddinma mr ittalad warknum amtum itti
bltia utatamir aum mr uldu blessa ana kaspim ul inaddii If a man marries a nadtum
and she gives a maid to her husband and she bears children, thereafter the maid considers
herself on equal status as her mistress, (but) because she bore children, her mistress may not
sell her (CH 146)
ex. 17. umma mr l ulid blessa ana kaspim inaddii If she did not bear children, her mistress may
sell her (CH 147)
17
See further below, discussion of secondary protases.
The first occurrence of the lexeme to bear a child is in the form ittalad. This form describes a general case (a
maid giving birth) and is hence not referential to any preceding context, not being anchored anywhere our
standard generic occurrence (for the laws). In contrast, the same lexeme, first in the causal clause (aum uldu
in ex. 16) and then in the second protasis (ex. 17, umma l ulid), is referential and does have a context. The adverbial clause in example 16 has its own main clause (ul inaddii) for context, while the secondary umma clause
in example 17 has the primary law in example 16 for context. Both occurrences must be rendered by a preterite
because they are referential to the first mention of the lexeme, referring to one and the same action. The form
uldu and l ulid are referential to ittalad. Here we do have tense, albeit a relative one.
Hirsch (1969, pp. 12325) was on to something: he put his finger on cases where this special property of the
laws, the generic quality, is absent. Hirsch (ibid., pp. 12023) adduces other examples, of iparras, which do not
conform with the values we suggested above, but rather denote the present. The common denominator of all
his examples is the fact that they all come from secondary protases. These protases are different from primary
protases in that they are referential to some external reality, and therefore relative tense is found in them as
well as other types of referentiality. For instance, we know perfectly well to whom l ulid in example 17 refers.
Protatic iprus Forms: Conclusions

The form iprus in the theoretical framework of this research is shown to have several functions in the protasis
depending on the genre and syntactic environment. When negated, it has to do, in the letters, with two different
forms, both iprus and iptaras. There it has temporal oppositions with the other forms that figure in the same
slot past when affirmative, either past or (future) perfect when negative. This is made possible by the fact that
these umma protases always have a real context and are often referential to events outside the protasis.
To extract the function of iprus in the laws, one first had to study the laws textually and then work within the
restrictions of the genre: there the oppositions seem to be aspectual, and iprus denotes an event that is essentially
tenseless and is not actually referential to anything external to the protasis. A generic expression has universal
validity, way beyond the time it was formulated, or used. Therefore, these questions, provided that one accepts
the generic nature of these structures, are irrelevant. It does not really matter when the law was written, nor who
wrote it, nor when the offense took place. What matters is the type of offense, the corresponding corrective act,
and the interdependency between them, all of which are signaled by the various structures that together form
the paradigm of the Old Babylonian laws.
Table 1.3 summarizes these conclusions and includes, in addition, a mention of secondary protases:
Table 1.3. Comparative view of iprus forms in umma protases
Forms
Values
laws
umma protasis
letters
(non-chained clauses)
(chained clauses)
iprus~ l iprus
past
event
iptaras~ l iprus
(non-past) perfect
chain-final event
iparras
non-past
description
secondary protasis
relative past
relative present
In such protases, being referential to external events, one finds, again, tense. Since the reference point is not the
point of the utterance, such tense is considered relative tense.
10
Eran Cohen
Abbreviations
AbB 1
Fritz Rudolf Kraus. Briefe aus dem British Museum (CT 43 und 44). Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und
bersetzung 1. Leiden: Brill, 1964.
AbB 2
R. Frankena. Briefe aus dem British Museum: LIH und CT 233. Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und
bersetzung 2. Leiden: Brill, 1966.
AbB 3
R. Frankena. Briefe aus der Leidener Sammlung (TLB IV). Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und bersetzung 3. Leiden: Brill, 1968.
AbB 4
Fritz Rudolf Kraus. Briefe aus dem Archive des ama-zir in Paris und Oxford (TCL 7 und OECT 3). Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und bersetzung 4. Leiden: Brill, 1968.
AbB 11
Marten Stol. Letters from Collections in Philadelphia, Chicago, and Berkeley. Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und bersetzung 11. Leiden: Brill, 1986.
CH
Codex ammurabi (cited by )
EA
Edict of Ammadqa (Kraus 1984a, pp. 16983)
GAG
Wolfram von Soden. Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik. 3rd edition. Analecta Orientalia 33/47. Rome:
Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1995.
GN
geographical name
LE
Reuven Yaron. The Laws of Eshnunna. 2nd edition. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988.
PN
personal name
Bibliography
Athanasiadou, Angeliki, and Ren Dirven
1996
Typology of If-Clauses. In Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods: The Expansion of a New Paradigm in Linguistics, edited by Eugene H. Casad, pp. 60954. Cognitive Linguistics Research 6. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cohen, Eran
2005
2006a
2006b
Declerck, Renaat
2006
The Modal System of Old Babylonian. Harvard Semitic Studies 56. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
The Tense-aspect System of the Old Babylonian Epic. Zeitschrift fr Assyriologie 96: 3168.
Syntactic Marginalia in Old Babylonian, a review of Letters in the Louvre, by K. R. Veenhof. Journal of
the American Oriental Society 126/4: 55165.
The Grammar of the English Tense System: A Comprehensive Analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gibson, R. Sebastian
2009
Dog Bite Law in California: Can a Dog Bite a Lawyer in California and Get Away with It? Accessed
February 21, 2009, http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=6036
Hirsch, H.
1969 Zur Frage der t-Formen in den keilschriftlichen Gesetzestexten. In lin miturti: Festschrift Wolfram
Freiherr von Soden zum 19.4.1968 gewidmet von Schlern und Mitarbeitern, edited by Wolfgang Rllig, pp.
11931. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 1. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
Huehnergard, John
1986
1987
2005
Kraus, Fritz Rudolf
1984a
On Verbless Clauses in Akkadian. Zeitschrift fr Assyriologie 76: 21849.

Stative, Predicative Form, Pseudo-verb. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 46/3: 21532.
A Grammar of Akkadian. 2nd edition. Harvard Semitic Studies 45. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Knigliche Verfgungen in altbabylonischer Zeit. Studia et documenta ad iura Orientis antiqui pertinentia
11. Leiden: Brill.

1984b
11
Nominalstze in altbabylonischen Briefen und der Stativ. Mededelingen der Koninglijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks, deel 47/2. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands
Academy.
Leong, Tien Fock

1994
Tense, Mood and Aspect in Old Babylonian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of CaliforniaLos Angeles.
Loesov, Sergey
2004
2005
T-perfect in Old Babylonian: The Debate and a Thesis. Babel und Bibel 1: 83182.
Additions and Corrections to T-perfect in Old Babylonian. Babel und Bibel 2: 71317.
Maloney, John Frederick

1982
The T-perfect in the Akkadian of Old Babylonian Letters, with a Supplement on Verbal Usage in the
Code of Hammurapi and the Laws of Enunna. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.
Metzler, Kai Alexander
2002
Tempora in altbabylonischen literarischen Texten. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 279. Mnster: UgaritVerlag.
Peled, Yishai
1992
Podlesskaya, Vera
2001
Conditional Structures in Classical Arabic. Studies in Arabic Language and Literature 2. Wiesbaden: Otto
Harrassowitz.
Conditional Constructions. In Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook,
edited by Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard Knig, Wulf Oesterreicher, and Wolfgang Raible, vol. 2, pp.
9981010. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Snitzer-Reilly, Judith
1986
The Acquisition of Temporals and Conditionals. In On Conditionals, edited by Elizabeth C. Traugott,
Alice ter Meulen, Judith Snitzer-Reilly, and Charles A. Ferguson, pp. 30931. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Streck, M. P.
1999
Ungnad, Arthur
19031905
Das Perfekt iptaras im Altbabylonischen der Hammurapi-Briefe. In Tempus und Aspekt in den semitischen
Sprachen: Jenaer Kolloquium zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft, edited by Norbert Nebes, pp. 10126. Jenaer
Beitrge zum Vorderen Orient 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Zur Syntax der Gesetze Hammurabis. Zeitschrift fr Assyriologie und vervandte Gebiete [I] 17 (1903): 35378,
[II] 18 (19041905): 167.
The Hypotaxis-Parataxis Dichotomy and Elliptic Conditional Clauses in Semitic
13
The Hypotaxis-Parataxis Dichotomy

and Elliptic Conditional Clauses in Semitic
Lutz Edzard, University of Oslo*
In a seminal paper of 1983, Asseverative *la and Hypothetical *lu/law in Semitic, John Huehnergard traced
the etymology of asseverative and conditional particles in Semitic in their syntactic context. Inspired by
Huehnergards paper, I address a modal-deontic feature in Akkadian treaty texts and other documents,
namely, the injunctive umma (l) clauses (oath clauses/Schwurstze). Two issues arise in this context: (1) Do
the resulting syntactical structures synchronically have to be considered as hypotactic or paratactic and (2)
is it appropriate in this context to label the umma (l) clauses elliptic conditional clauses?
Introduction
Among the formal features in Akkadian treaty texts, one finds the individual clauses or paragraphs of
the treaty introduced by the conditional marker umma (l). Normally, this conditional marker introduces the
protasis of a conditional sentence, as in legal texts like the Codex Hammurabi. However, the particle umma is
also widely attested in oath sentences (see von Soden 1995, p. 293 [= 185gi] and Huehnergard 2005, pp. 437f.
[=36.3]), in which the Boolean value of the sentence is seemingly inverted. Thus, umma introduces negative
statements (may not) and umma l positive statements (may). Here are three examples of such inverted
positive statements:

ex. 1. umma a Purattim gulgulltim l umalli
ex. 2. umma l umalli u l ui
ex. 3. umma l attalk-ak-kim-ma u ibt-ki l tepu
I will fill the banks of the Euphrates with skulls =

if I wont fill the banks of the Euphrates with skulls, <<negative consequence>>
I shall certainly fill and bend =

if I wont fill and bend, <<negative consequence>>
I will certainly come to you and carry out your wish =

if I (will) have not come to you and carried out your wish, <<negative consequence>>
* This is an elaborated version of a similar paper (L. Edzard 2010),

which draws on some of the same sources. Thanks to Michael
P. Streck for comments on this earlier version. Responsibility

remains with the author alone.
13
14
Lutz Edzard
As we see further below, the inherent logic in such clauses as examples 1 to 3, at least from a diachronic perspective, probably is that an apodosis la may I die or may I be cursed has to be mentally supplied after the
respective protases. In other words, in a diachronic analysis, the oath clauses may be analyzed as elliptic conditional sentences.1 In a synchronic analysis, however, umma and umma l may have to be analyzed as asseverative
particles that can be rendered by certainly not and certainly, respectively.
In the following, an attempt is made to present the synchronic analysis in a comparative Semitic and typological perspective. First, I show that injunctive forms and protases can appear in comparable syntactical distribution. In a second step, I assemble data on elliptic (or defective) conditional clauses (protases) in general,
independently of the issue of injunctions.
Conditional Clauses and Hyperbolic Imperatives

The connection between conditional clauses and/or hyperbolic imperatives, to allude to the title of a paper
by Lawler (1975), has not escaped the attention of theoretical linguistics. In this context, it is important to note
that conditional structures are not necessarily hypotactic, but may be paratactic as well (see also Haiman 1983).2
Lawlers (1975, p. 371) examples involving the conjunctions and and or are as follow:

ex. 4. a
Open the window and Ill kill you.
b Open the window and Ill kiss you.

c
Open the window or Ill kill you.
d ?Open the window or Ill kiss you.

Obviously, example 4a could be paraphrased as if you open the window, Ill kill you, 4b as if you open the
window, Ill kiss you (assuming that being kissed is desirable), and 4c as if you dont open the window, Ill kill
you. Only example 4d is semantically ill formed (unless being kissed is undesirable).
German, among many other languages, allows for similar constructions. Knig (1986, p. 234) offers the following example, which likewise can be paraphrased by a conditional structure:

ex. 5. Stre ihn nicht, dann wird er dich auch nicht stren.
If you dont disturb him, he wont disturb you either.
Turning to Semitic, injunctives in the protasis of a conditional structure are also attested in Akkadian.
Consider the following example, in which the protasis consists of two precative verb phrases, lter lim-ma (see
Huehnergard 2005, p. 146):

ex. 6. kaspum lter lim-ma ul atr-ma ul araggam
let the silver increase, let it decrease, and I will not contest again =
whether the silver increases or decreases, I will not contest again
Diehl (2004, pp. 10003 and 33135) adduces relevant examples from Biblical Hebrew, in which the injunctive
forms (mostly imperatives) function as protases:3

ex. 7 z() wi-y (Gen 42:18) do this, and live4 =

if you do this, you will live
Tietz (1963, pp. 8790) problematizes the term ellipsis in this

context and operates with the alternative term brachylogy, as it
is not clear a priori whether the optative use of certain particles
preceded the conditional use, and as elliptic structures were
not necessarily conceived as such by native Semitic speakers.
2
Diem (2002) makes the same point for complement clauses (e.g.,
an yaf ala).
1
See also GKC 325 (= 110f) and Bergstrsser 1929, p. 50 (= 10k).

The immediate translations of biblical verses (between ) are
based on the JPS 1917 edition (see http://www.mechon-mamre.
org), unless indicated otherwise, with modern English verb forms
and pronouns being used.
3
4
15
The second member of such constructions need not be an imperative. One encounters also examples with a
consecutive perfect in the second position (the apodosis, if one so pleases):

ex. 8. har-n n() e-m() h-r w-n imm- se (Judg 1:24)
show us, we pray you, the entrance into the city, and we will deal kindly with you =
if you show us the entrance into the city, we will be kind to you
This phenomenon has also caught the attention of the native Arab grammarians, who commented on structures such as

ex. 9. ulub taid search [and] you will/shall find =

if you search, you will find5
which, according to the native Arab(ic) grammarians, had an underlying representation in talub taid. According
to Sbawayhi, al-all claimed regarding injunctive forms in a protasis position anna hih l-awila kulla-h f-h
man in that all these first parts [of the sentence] have the inherent meaning if (Sbawayhi 18811889, ch.
253, p. 399).6
The examples in this section illustrate the ambivalent position of such sentences between paratactic and
hypotactic structures: while the surface structure is clearly paratactic, the underlying logical form (deep
structure) is hypotactic. This is at least the standard position in the (Eurocentric) literature that a priori associates a hypotactic structure with a conditional sentence. Whether this is really the case in Semitic, that is,
whether paratactic structures cannot be equally supposed to be underlying, remains to be seen.7
Conditional Clauses without an Apodosis

Defective or elliptic conditional clauses (protases) are attested sporadically, irrespectively of whether they
convey an injunctive sense. Reckendorf (1921, pp. 515f. = 264.4), among others, devotes some space to the phenomenon of conditional clauses without an apodosis. Here is an example:

ex. 10. fa-in abat muhiratu qurayin
and if the emigrants from Quray are unwilling [, then what?]
A frequent explanation offered by the grammars of Arabic is that the apodosis is clear anyway in such cases
and hence does not have to be spelled out. Pragmatically, such examples are not rare in oral registers of languages.
In German, for instance, it is perfectly normal to utter examples as

ex. 11. Ja, wenn du meinst.
Well, if you think so [, do it. (But I have warned you.)]
Relevant examples also appear in the context of disjunctive conditional clauses (see Brockelmann 1913, p.
653 [=439]):

ex. 12. in tamamta al m kna bayn- wa-bayna-ka wa-il-l naztu-ka
if you fulfill our agreements [, it is good]; if not, I shall draw into battle against you
For a thorough discussion of such implied conditionals, see

Reckendorf 1921, pp. 491f., and Peled 1987.
6
For the topic of conditional clauses in general in the native
Arab(ic) tradition, see Dvnyi 1988 and 2007, as well as Versteegh 1991. See also Trumpp 1881.
5
James Dickins (pers. comm.) points out that the intonational

structure of seemingly paratactic structures (as in implied conditionals) often is indeed hypotactic, e.g., in the New York bumper
sticker running you touch-a my car I break-a your face. While
car will be pronounced with ascending tone, face will be pronounced with descending tone.
7
16
Lutz Edzard
Renate Jacobi (1967), Bernhard Lewin (1970), and Helmut Gtje (1976), among others, have analyzed the type
of conditional clauses in which the apodosis does not express a direct consequence of the protasis, but rather
reflects a logical break or split (Bedingungsstze mit [logischer] Verschiebung in the German grammatical nomenclature). One could also argue that the apodosis proper is missing and that the extant apodosis is really the
beginning of a new syntactic period. The best-known example in this context emanates from the Joseph story as
related in sra 12:

ex. 13. in yasriq fa-qad saraqa aun la-h min qablu (Quran12:77)
if he has stolen [, it is not noteworthy, because] already one of his brothers has stolen earlier (see Brockelmann 1913, p. 645 [=430])
The further analysis of this type of defective conditional clause with a logical break, however, is not the
subject of this paper.
Elliptic Conditional Clauses as Polite Injunctions and Oath Clauses

Based on the previous observations and, notably, Huehnergard 1983, there is solid evidence that (a) injunctives and protases have a comparable distribution, that (b) elliptic conditional clauses are typologically nothing
unusual, and that (c) conditional markers are at least in the Semitic scenario etymologically related to certain
injunctive markers. As a result, we are prepared to analyze the two most relevant types of elliptic clauses in our
context. In terms of deontic modality, conditional clauses without an apodosis can constitute a formal and polite
order or rather injunction. Alternatively, the elliptic conditional clauses can constitute assertory or promissory
oath clauses, depending on the use of tense and/or aspect (see below). Let us turn first to the polite order or
injunction type. Conditional clauses as polite injunctives (both with the real particle in and the irreal particle
law) are widely attested in Arabic (as they are in many other languages).8 An example involving the particle in
is the following:

ex. 14. fa-in ra l-amru an yamura bi-ibti-h la-h
if the Emir wishes to order that they [2500 dirham that are the subject of this episode] be
ascribed to him = may the Emir be so kind as to order that they be ascribed to him
Regarding the latter example, Diem (2002, p. 136) provides a slightly different interpretation: Wenn also der
Emir befehlen mchte, sie [2500 Dirham] ihm gutzuschreiben, (dann mge er es tun!). Examples involving the
Arabic particle law, on which I have been focusing so far, include the following:

ex. 15. law arsalta il abbin
ex. 16. law kna yanfau l-inru
ex. 17. law raan
ex. 18. law an-n arifu-h
ex. 19. law saalta-h an yuqma inda-n
if you could have sent for a doctor (see Brockelmann 1913, p. 658 [=443])
if only the postponement would be useful (see Reckendorf 1898, p. 709 [=233])
if we returned = let us return (see Reckendorf 1921, p. 516)
if I only knew him
had you only asked him to stay with us
See also Ullmann 1998, pp. 36f. and 53ff.
17
ex. 20. inna ab bakrin raulun raqqun l yusmiu n-nsa fa-law amarta umara
Ab Bakr is a weak man whose voice would be difficult for the people to hear, so I wish
you ordered Umar [to conduct the prayer] (see Peled 1992, p. 53).
Comparable examples involving the conditional marker im (which is etymologically related with both
Akkadian umma and Arabic in)9 are also found in Biblical Hebrew:

ex. 21. im tittn rn a ole- (Gen 38:17)
will you give me a pledge, till thou send it (see Brockelmann 1913, p. 658 [=445])
The same observations hold for the conditional marker l:

ex. 22. l yiml yiye l-p ne- (Gen 17:18)
oh that Ishmael might live before You! (see Brockelmann 1956, p. 6 [=8b])
In Gz, one also finds relevant examples involving the particles sba and m:

ex. 23. sba mtna
ex. 24. m nassku
had we only died (see Brockelmann 1913, p. 658 [=443])

if (only) I had repented! (see Lipiski 2001, p. 547)
Huehnergard (1983, p. 570), based on Wagner (1953, p. 19 [=24]), also adduces a relevant example from the
Modern South Arabian language Jibbali (or eri):

ex. 25. bu-l ykn ri
would that he were my husband
Comparable Akkadian examples involving the particle l exhibit a wider semantic range (see Huehnergard
1983, p. 572, and 2005, p. 326). I do not consider here concessive clauses (e.g., kuss-u l iaser even though his
saddle was broken) and alternatives in a string of clauses (e.g., umma awlum l kaspam l uram l wardam l
amtam l mimma umu itm if a man has purchased (be it) silver, (be it) gold, (be it) a male slave, (be it) a
female slave or anything at all = Codex Hammurabi 7), which are not directly germane to the discussion at
hand. Relevant examples, however, are as follow:
1. Optative

ex. 26. l apur-a-um
ex. 27. l awlat
would that I had written him = I should have written him / had I only written him
would that you were a man = (may you) be a man (see von Soden 1995, p. 292 [= 185b],
and Huehnergard 1983, pp. 57274)
2. Attainable wishes and injunctions:

ex. 28. sn l rbi lemutti-u
may Sn be the bringer of evil against him
As is well known, comparable phonological correspondence

(/h/) is also attested in the Semitic personal pronouns and
causative prefixes (see, e.g., D. O. Edzard 1984 and Lipiski 2001,
pp. 547f.). Contra Voigt (1995), I do not believe that it is meaningful to reconstruct a proto-form in this context.
18
Lutz Edzard
ex. 29. l almta l balta
(may you) be well and healthy
3. Asseverative particle in oaths (before preterite and durative):

ex. 30. lim
ex. 31. l anaddi-kum
indeed he [will have] purchased

I will certainly give you
Let us turn now to the other type of elliptic conditional clauses, namely the so-called oath clauses. There is a
clear semantic connection between the oath clauses in Classical Arabic and umma (l) clauses in Akkadian contractual documents (and elsewhere). In both cases, one can reasonably argue that grammaticalization has taken
place. The missing apodosis is no longer felt as such. Grammaticalized in / il-l oath clauses are widespread in
Classical Arabic. Here are some relevant examples:

ex. 32. anudu llha abdan alima anna l- tawbatan il-l abara-n
ex. 33. bi-ayt- il-l anadta-n l-bayta
ex. 34. naadtu-ka llha in rimta h l-makna abadan
ex. 35. aqsamtu alay-kum in baratum
ex. 36. aqsamtu alay-ka il-l aabta Lubn li-bni-ka Qays
I implore by God a man, who knows my repentence, to tell me (see Brockelmann 1913,
p. 657 [=443])
by my life, you must recite this verse for me
I implore you to never leave this place
I implore you not to go away (see Nldeke 1897, p. 114)

I implore you to marry Lubn with your son Qays
Wright (1967, vol.2, pp. 339f. [= 186, Rem.c]) and W. Fischer (2006, pp. 205f. [=456]), among others, devote
some space to this kind of logically inverted oath clauses. The idea is that the negative consequence (apodosis) of
the protasis (e.g., il-l aabta Lubn li-bni-ka Qays in the last example) is not mentioned, but nevertheless implied.
Therefore, a translation la I implore you is warranted in such cases.
Comparable examples are found in both Akkadian (ex. 37) and Hebrew (ex. 38) (see Brockelmann 1913, p. 658
[=445]), and, according to Lipiski (2001, p. 549), even in Tamazight Berber (ex. 39):10

ex. 37. umma l iqbi-an-ni
ex. 38. im l() nezaq m-hem
ex. 39. ullah m ri
10
if he didnt tell me [that], [may I die] = he must tell me
if we shall not be stronger than they, [may I die] = we must be stronger than them
by God, if I have thrown [it], [may I die]
Examples 3739 are excerpted from Lipiski 2001, p. 549.
19
A number of Hebrew oath clauses compiled by Brockelmann (1913, pp. 658f. [=445], and 1956, pp. 161f.
[=170]) illustrate the phenomenon of logical conversion after the particle im even better:

ex. 40. th n l bn-n im ta imm-n r (Gen 26:2829)
ex. 41. w- nap e- im ee e-had-dr haz-ze (2 Sam 11:11)
ex. 42. hin-n nibat bi-m- hag-gl mar YHWH im yihye m niqr() b-p kol yh mr
ay n-y YHWH b-ol ere miryim (Jer 44:26)
let there now be an oath between us that you will do us no hurt

and as your soul lives, I will not do this thing (see GKC 472 = 149c)
I hereby swear by my great name, says YHWH my name shall no more be invoked in the
mouth of every Judahite in the land of Egypt who says (by) the Lord YHWHs life (see Waltke
and OConnor 1990, p. 679 = 40.2.2b)
Again, the (negative) apodoses to the protases im ta imm-n r, im ee e-had-dr haz-ze, and im yihye
m niqr() b-p kol yh , are omitted in these examples, thus yielding the inverted logical meaning.
Let it also be mentioned that concessive k im clauses may have their origin in such elliptic constructions, as
claimed by Brockelmann (1913, p. 659 [=445c], and 1956, p. 162 [=170c]).11 An example is the following:

ex. 43. p ar(h) im-t miz-ze k im b-() -em haq-qan hnn (Gen 42:15)
as Pharaoh lives, you shall not go forth hence, except your youngest brother come hither
umma (l) Clauses in Akkadian Treaties

As was stated initially, the phenomenon of (seemingly) elliptic conditional clauses is already attested in
Akkadian and analyzed as such in Wolfram von Sodens Grundriss (1995, p. 293 [= 185gi]) and John Huehnergards
Grammar (2005, p. 438 [=36.3]). Clauses in contracts and treaties beginning with umma if can be translated by
may you not, and clauses beginning with umma l can be translated by may you. (This is not to say that all
contractual clauses have to start out in this way.) Formally, one could argue that the apodosis is introduced later
in the treaty, when the dire consequences are listed, which apply in the case that the contracting parties do not
follow up on the individual clauses. Streck (1998), however, argues against this view.
The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon with various Iranian notables are an important case in point (see Wiseman
1958 for the editio princeps as well as Reiner 1969, pp. 53441; Borger 1961/1964; 1983, pp. 16076; Watanabe 1987;
and Parpola and Watanabe 1988 for further editions and translations). Streck (1998, pp. 18790) has analyzed the
syntactic function of the umma (l) clauses in this context. Referring to previous works, inter alia by Watanabe
(1987, pp. 28ff.) and Parpola and Watanabe (1988), he comes to the conclusion that genuine conditional clauses
in this textual genre have either a perfect predicate (e.g., 7, lines8384: umma [] ana mti ittalak if [] he has
died ) or a stative (verbal adjective) predicate (e.g., 12, lines13839: umma [] abti-unu duki-unu makunu
if you can arrest (and) kill them ). Grammaticalized umma (l) clauses (a term not used by Streck), however,
are always characterized by a predicate in the imperfect (durative), typically in the subjunctive (affirmative)
(e.g., 4, line 55: umma attunu tunakkar-u-ni (by God), you will not be hostile to him) and have to be considered syntactically independent in a synchronic perspective.12 While it is true that promissory oaths are usually
expressed by a predicate in the durative (imperfect), the perfect can also occur in such structures, as in example
On the issue of concessive clauses in this context, see also
Huehnergard 1983, p. 574.
12
See Streck 1998, p. 190: Daher [] sind sind die Stipulationen [i.e., the individual paragraphs of the treaty, LE] und die
Flche nicht als Protasen und Apodosen eines Konditionalgefges, sondern als syntaktisch selbstndig und die Stipulationen
11
als Schwre aufzufassen. Already Brockelmann (1913, p. 641 [ =

425]) made the point that the verbs in Akkadian protases lacked
the final vowels typical of verbs in subordinate clauses. See also
D.O. Edzard 1973 on the question of moods in Akkadian in
relation to the concept of subordination.
20
Lutz Edzard
3 cited above: umma l attalk-ak-kim-ma u ibt-ki l tepu I will certainly come to you and carry out your wish
(see von Soden 1995, p. 293 [= 185g]).
In the large volume Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, Erica Reiner (1969) concedes this
grammatical point (oath clauses) but chooses nevertheless to translate the individual paragraphs with conditional clauses introduced by if (not), as do Borger (1983) and Watanabe (1987) in their German translations,
but not Wiseman and Parpola/Watanabe in their editions of 1958 and 1988, respectively. In order to illustrate
this central issue, the translations of Reiner (1969), followed by Borger (1983), and Wiseman (1958), followed by
Parpola and Watanabe (1988), are reproduced in the following excerpts of the treaty (following the transcription
in Watanabe 1987, pp. 146, 156, and 162). Here is the first set of provisions in the treaty, which is embedded in
paragraph 4:13

ex. 44. Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon, example of several grammaticalized injunctive protases
49 <umma attunu> ina eqli ina berti li14
50 l tanaar--ni ina mui-u l tamaa-ni

51 l tamutt-ni ina ketti a libb-kunu
52 iss-u l tadabbub-ni milku danqu
53 a gammurti libb-kunu l tamallik-u-ni
54 arrnu danqu ina p-u l taakkan-ni
55 umma attunu tunakkar-u-ni issu libbi a-u

56 rabti a(e)rti ina kmu-u ina kuss Aur
57 tueab-ni umma abutu a Aur-au-iddina ar mt Aur

58 tennn tuann-ni umma Aur-bni-apli mara rabiu
59 a bt ridti a Aur-au-iddina ar mt Aur (bl-kunu)
60 (ukallim-ka-nni) anmma l tadaggal-ni
61 arruttu bluttu a mt Aur ina mui-kunu l u[pp]au-n
49 You will
50 protect him in the country and in town; you will fight,

51 and (even) will die, for him. You will speak
52 with him in the truth of your heart, you will give

53 him sound advice loyally.
54 You will set a fair path at his feet.
55 (You swear) that you will not be hostile to him nor will you
56 seat one of his brothers, older or younger, on the throne of Assyria

57 in stead of him. That the word of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria,
58 you will neither change nor alter. That you will
59 serve only Ashurbanipal, the crown-prince,
60 whom Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, your lord (hereby commends),

61 that he will exercise the kingship and dominion over you
(Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon, 4, Wiseman 1958, pp. 32, 34)
13
The paragraph numbering is, of course, a modern editorial
convention. Still, as in this example, a paragraph may comprise
several provisions. Otherwise, both the transcription and the
translations are oriented at the line structure in the original

tablets (often they cannot be made to be totally overlapping).
14
<umma attunu> probably has to be supplemented here in the
initial lacuna; see Watanabe 1987, pp. 61, 146.
21
If you do not serve him in the open country and in the city, do not fight and even die on his
behalf, do not always speak the full truth to him, do not always advise him well in full loyalty,
do not smooth his way in every respect; if you remove him, and seat in his stead one of his
brothers, younger or older on the throne of Assyria, if you change or let anyone change the
decree of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, if you will not be subject to this crown prince designate Ashurbanipal, son of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, your lord, so that he cannot exercise
kingship and lordship over you.
(Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon, 4, Reiner 1969, p. 545)
After a while, the list of clauses is interrupted by paragraph 25, which restates the ground rules of the treaty
in the form of an anacoluth (part of 25). As we see below, this circumstance lends support to the idea of analyzing
both the stipulations and the curses of the treaty as (synchronically) independent syntactic units:

ex. 45. Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon, example of an intervening anacoluth

283ad annte a Aur-au-iddina ar mt Aur
284ina mui Aur-bni-apli mari arri rabii a bt ridti
285u a-u mar umm-u a Aur-bni-apli mari arri rabii

286a bt ridti udannin-ni iss-kunu
287ikun-ni tmtu utamm-ka-nni
283As for these treaty-provisions which Esarhaddon, king of Assyria,

284has firmly made with you concerning Ashurbanipal,
285the crown-prince (and) his brothers, son(s) by the same mother

286as Ashurbanipal, the crown-prince,
287he has made you take an oath
(Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon, 25, Wiseman 1958, p. 50)
This treaty which Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, has established with you in a binding fashion,
under oath, on behalf of the crown prince designate Ashurbanipal and his brothers, sons by
the mother of the crown prince designate Ashurbanipal.
(Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon, 25, Reiner 1969, p. 537)
Finally, paragraphs 35 and 36 of the treaty stipulate that the tablet on which the treaty is written may not be
altered in any way, let alone be destroyed. It is only in paragraphs 37 to 106 that the series of dire sanctions set
in, should the treaty not be followed. Here are paragraphs 37, 38, and 38A:

ex. 46. Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon, example of several apodoses (curse formulae)
414Aur ar iln mum [mti] mat lemutti
415l bti li[m-k]unu abt (older editions: abutu) btu

416kiid litt[ti a]ji iq-kunu
417Mullissu rtu narmta-u amt p-u

418lilammin-ma aji ibata abbt-kun
419Sn nannar am u eretim saarubb
420liallip-kunu ina pn() iln u arri e<r>b-kunu aji iqbi

421kma sirr-me abti ina rim rupd
22
Lutz Edzard
414(if you do,) [may Ashur, king of the] gods who decrees the fates,
415[decree for you] evil and not good. May he never grant
416you fatherhood and attainment of old age.
417[May Ninlil], his beloved wife [evilly interpret the] utterance

418of his mouth evil, may she not intercede for you.
419[May Sin], the brightness of heaven and earth, clothe you with
420[a lep]rosy; [may he forbid you entering into the presence of the gods]
421[or king (saying): Roam the desert] like the wild-ass (and the ga-zelle
(Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon, 37, 38, and 38A, Wiseman 1958, p. 60)
May Ashur, king of the gods, who determines the fates, decree for you an evil, unpropitious
fate, and not grant you fatherhood, old age, ripe old age. May Ninlil, his beloved wife, induce
him to pronounce evil for you and may she not intercede for you. May Anu, king of the gods,
rain upon all your houses disease, exhaustion, diu-disease, sleeplessness, worries, ill health.
May Sin, the luminary of heaven and earth, clothe you in leprosy and (thus) not permit you
to enter the presence of god and king; roam the open country as a wild ass or gazelle!
(Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon, 37, 38, and 38A, Reiner 1969, p. 538)
Interestingly, the structure of the treaty allows for both a diachronic and a synchronic analysis of the umma
(l) clauses. From a birds perspective, the large apodosis in the form of dire sanctions stipulates a diachronic
analysis. Thus, umma (l) can be literally translated as if (not), as done by Reiner (1969), Borger (1983), and
Watanabe (1987). Read in isolation, and especially in view of the intervening anacoluths (e.g., 25 cited above), a
synchronic analysis is warranted, which parses the (historically) conditional umma (l) clauses as grammaticalized oath sentences, in line with Parpola and Watanabes (1988) and Strecks (1998) analyses. Such sentences can
be rendered simply by an injunctive form, which reverses the Boolean value of the clause that is, a sentence
starting with umma will be translated as You will (certainly) not , and a sentence starting with umma l will
be translated as You will (certainly) . As we have seen, Wiseman (1958) already exploited this option in his
translation, which works out nicely, especially in view of the intervening anacoluths in the treaty body. 15 Needless
to say, the curses then have also to be understood as independent syntactic units, not as apodoses.
Conclusion
Given the comparative Semitic scenario regarding the particles l/law and *l(v), on the one hand, and typological observations on elliptic conditional clauses, on the other hand, the functioning of the Akkadian umma (l)
oath clauses appears to be perfectly natural and understandable. The explanation of such syntactic constructions
was further corroborated by recourse to the evidence of comparable constructions in Classical Arabic with in/
il-l and law/law l, as well as in Biblical Hebrew with im/im l() and occasionally l. The issue of whether the
constructions in question diachronically are truly elliptic (a notion that is problematic in the first place) must
remain open. Especially in view of the comparable distribution of independent or paratactic injunctive clauses, on
the one hand, and genuine conditional clauses, on the other hand, it is equally possible that these constructions
are just traces of originally independent optative clauses. In that perspective, the concept of grammaticalization
would not really be pertinent here.16
Streck (1998, p. 190 n. 46) also adduces the case of the intervening precative form liplu let them revere in 34, line 396,
which supports the syntactic independence of the stipulations
and the curses.
15
Rubin (2005) does not include optative/conditional particles

in his overview of grammaticalization phenomena in Semitic.
16
23
Abbreviation
GKC
Wilhelm Gesenius, Emil Kautzsch, and Arthur E. Cowley. Gesenius Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch,
translated by A. E. Cowley. 2nd English edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910.
Bibliography
Bergstrsser, Gotthelf
Hebrische Grammatik. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs.
19181929
Borger, Rykle
1961/1964
1983
Zu den Asarhaddon-Vertrgen aus Nimrud. Zeitschrift fr Assyriologie 54 (1961): 17396; 56 (1964): 261.
Assyrische Staatsvertrge. In Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, edited by Rykle Borger and Otto
Kaiser, pp. 15577. Gtersloh: Gerd Mohn.
Borger, Rykle, and Otto Kaiser

1983
Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments I/2. Gtersloh: Gerd Mohn.
Brockelmann, Carl
1913
1956
Dvnyi, Kinga
1988
2007
Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, Volume 2: Syntax. Berlin: Reuther and
Reichard.
Hebrische Syntax. Neukirchen: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Erziehungsvereins Neukirchen Kreis Moers.
The Treatment of Conditional Sentences by the Mediaeval Arabic Grammarians: Stability and Change
in the History of Arabic Grammar. The Arabist: Budapest Studies in Arabic 1: 1142.
Jaza. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, Volume 2, edited by Kees Versteegh, pp. 47781.
Leiden: Brill.
Diakonoff, Igor
1965
Semitokhamitskie jazyki: Opyt klassifikatsii (Semito-Hamitic Languages: Essays in Classification). Moscow: Nauka.
Diehl, Johannes F.
2004
Die Fortfhrung des Imperativs im Biblischen Hebrisch. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Diem, Werner
2002
Nichtsubordinatives modales an yafala: Ein Beitrag zur Syntax der nachklassischen arabischen Schriftsprache. In Sprich doch mit deinen Knechten aramisch, wir verstehen es! 60 Beitrge zur Semitistik: Festschrift fr Otto Jastrow zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by Otto Jastrow, Werner Arnold, and Hartmut Bobzin,
pp. 11345. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Edzard, Dietz Otto

1973
Die Modi beim lteren akkadischen Verbum. Orientalia 42: 12141.
1984 Ursemitisch *ha, *a? Studia Orientalia 55/10: 24956.
Edzard, Lutz
2010
Fischer, August
1948
Injunctive Protases and the Grammaticalisation of Elliptic Conditional Clauses in Semitic. In Verbal
Festivity in Arabic and other Semitic Languages (Proceedings of the Workshop at the Universittsclub Bonn
on January 16, 2009), edited by Lutz Edzard and Stephan Guth, pp. 7493. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Grammatisch schwierige Schwur- und Beschwrungsformeln des Klassischen Arabisch. Der Islam 28:
1105.
Fischer, Wolfdietrich
2006
Grammatik des Klassischen Arabisch. 4th edition. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Gtje, Helmut
1976
Zur Struktur gestrter Konditionalgefge im Arabischen. Oriens 2526: 14886.
24
Lutz Edzard
Haiman, John
1983
1986
Paratactic If-clauses. Journal of Pragmatics 7: 26381.

Constraints on the Form and Meaning of the Protasis. In On Conditionals, edited by Elizabeth C. Traugott, Alice ter Meulen, Judith Snitzer-Reilly, and Charles A. Ferguson, pp. 21527. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Huehnergard, John
1983 Asseverative *la and Hypothetical *lu/law in Semitic. Journal of the American Oriental Society 103/3:
56993.
2005
A Grammar of Akkadian. 2nd edition. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Jacobi, Renate
1967
Knig, Ekkehard
1986
Larcher, Pierre
2009
Lawler, John M.
1975
Lewin, Bernhard
1970
Lipiski, Edward
2001
Nldeke, Theodor
1897
Ntscher, Friedrich
1953
Bedingungsstze mit Verschiebung. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft 117: 7886.
Conditionals, Concessive Conditionals and Concessives. In On Conditionals, edited by Elizabeth C.
Traugott, Alice ter Meulen, Judith Snitzer-Reilly, and Charles A. Ferguson, pp. 229246. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Les systmes conditionnels en in de larabe classique. Bulletin dtudes orientales 58: 20532.
Elliptical Conditionals and/or Hyperbolic Imperatives: Some Remarks on the Inherent Inadequacy of
Derivations. In Papers from the Eleventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, edited by Robin
E. Grossman, L. James San, and Timothy J. Vance, pp. 37182. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Non-conditional If Clauses in Arabic. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft 120: 26470.
Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. 2nd edition. Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 80.
Leuven: Peeters.
Zur Grammatik des classischen Arabisch. Vienna: C. Gerold. Reprinted Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1963.
Zum emphatischen Lamed. Vetus Testamentum 3: 37280.
Parpola, Simo, and Kazuo Watanabe

1988
Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths. State Archives of Assyria 2. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
Peled, Yishai
1987
1992
Pritchard, James B.
1969
Conditional Sentences without a Conditional Particle in Classical Arabic Prose. Zeitschrift fr Arabische
Linguistik 16: 3143.
Conditional Structures in Classical Arabic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Reckendorf, Hermann
1898
Die syntaktischen Verhltnisse des Arabischen. Leiden: Brill.
1921
Arabische Syntax. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Reiner, Erica
1969
Rubin, Aaron D.
2005
Akkadian Treaties from Syria and Assyria. In Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament,
edited by James B. Pritchard, pp. 53141. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Studies in Semitic Grammaticalization. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Sbawayhi, Ab Bir Amr ibn Umn

188189
Kitb Sbawayhi: Trait de grammaire arabe. 2 volumes. Edited by Hartwig Derenbourg. Paris: Imprimerie
Nationale. Reprinted Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1970.

Streck, Michael P.
1998
25
Die Flche im Sukzessionsvertrag Asarhaddons. Zeitschrift fr Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 4: 16591.
Testen, David
1993
The East Semitic Precative Paradigm. Journal of Semitic Studies 38/1: 113.
Tietz, Renate
1963
Bedingungssatz und Bedingungsausdruck im Koran. Ph.D. dissertation. Tbingen.
Traugott, Elizabeth C.; Alice ter Meulen; Judith Snitzer-Reilly; and Charles A. Ferguson
1986
On Conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Trumpp, Ernst
1881
Ullmann, Manfred
1998
Versteegh, Kees
1991
Der Bedingungssatz im Arabischen. Sitzungsberichte der Kniglich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Mnchen, Philosophisch-philologische Klasse 2/4. Munich: Bayerischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften.
Stze mit lau. Beitrge zur Lexikographie des klassischen Arabisch 14. Munich: Bayerischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften.
Two Conceptions of Irreality in Arabic Grammar: Ibn Him and Ibn ib on the Particle Law. Bulletin
dtudes Orientales 43: 7789.
Voigt, Rainer M.
1995 Akkadisch umma wenn und die Konditionalpartikeln des Westsemitischen. In Vom Alten Orient zum
Alten Testament: Festschrift fr Wolfram Freiherrn von Soden zum 85. Geburtstag am 19. Juni 1993, edited by
Manfried Dietrich and Oswald Loretz, pp. 51728. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 240. Kevelaer: Butzon
and Bercker.
von Soden, Wolfram
1995
Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik. 3rd edition. Analecta orientalia 33. Rome: Pontificium Institutum
Biblicum.
Wagner, Ewald
1953
Syntax der Mehri-Sprache: Unter Bercksichtigung auch der anderen neusdarabischen Sprachen. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Waltke, Bruce, and Michael OConnor

1990
An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Watanabe, Kazuo
1987
Wiseman, Donald J.
1958
Wright, William
1967
Die ad-Vereidigung anllich der Thronfolgeregelung Asarhaddons. Baghdader Mitteilungen, Beiheft 3.

Berlin: Gebr. Mann.
The Vassal-treaties of Esarhaddon. London: The British School of Archeology in Iraq.
A Grammar of the Arabic Language. 3rd edition. 2 volumes. Translated from the German of Caspari, rev.
W. Robertson Smith and M. J. de Goeje. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
t-Stem Verbs without Metathesis in Aramaic and Hebrew Documents from the Judean Desert
27
t-Stem Verbs without Metathesis in Aramaic

and Hebrew Documents from the Judean Desert
Steven E. Fassberg, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
1. Introduction
The publication over the past sixty years of Aramaic and Hebrew documents from the Judean Desert has
dramatically transformed our understanding of the linguistic landscape in Palestine before and after the beginning of the Common Era. The Aramaic manuscripts have demonstrated the heterogeneity and dialectal variation
of the language during the Middle Aramaic period; the Hebrew documents have done the same for the Hebrew
of the late Second Temple period and for Tannaitic Hebrew. The linguistic impact of the finds from the Judean
Desert the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, the Bar Kosiba letters, and legal documents cannot be overestimated.
One salient feature of the Aramaic and Hebrew documents that has surfaced since the publication of the
first documents in the 1950s is the extent of t-stem verbs without the expected metathesis of the derivational t
and an initial sibilant radical. In addition, there are now examples from the Judean Desert of the lack of partial
assimilation of derivational t to a neighboring z, as well as the total assimilation of z to derivational t. Qimron
(1976, pp. 18981; 1986, pp. 5556) has collected the relevant Hebrew material, Folmer (2003) the Aramaic, and
Mor (2009, pp. 9596) has added some additional observations. The Hebrew forms, according to Qimron, reflect
spoken speech. Folmer, on the other hand, hesitates to draw a definitive conclusion from the Aramaic data, noting
that the non-metathesized forms might be due to speech, substandardness, or hypercorrection.
Before the discovery of the Judean Desert documents, a few non-metathesized forms were known from
Nabatean and Palmyrene; there were also isolated examples of the lack of partial assimilation of t to a neighboring z, as well as of the total assimilation of z to t. The new examples from the Judean Desert corroborate the existence and extent of the phenomenon. The relationship of the non-metathesized forms to earlier and later forms
in Aramaic and Hebrew, however, has not yet been fully explained. The purpose of this paper is to examine the
origin and development of the non-metathesized t-stem verbs in Middle Aramaic and in the Hebrew of the Dead
Sea Scrolls in the light of the diachronic development of both languages. The wider perspective of comparative
Semitics will also be taken into consideration.
2. Evidence from Middle Aramaic, and from Second Temple

and Tannaitic Hebrew
2.1. Aramaic
The t-stems with I-sibilant roots in the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls correspond to what is common in earlier and
later Aramaic, namely, metathesis of t and an I-sibilant radical (Fitzmyer 2004, p. 280; Sokoloff 1974, pp. 18182).
27
28
Steven E. Fassberg
See, for example,

it changed (1QGenAp II 11),
they were confused (1QGenAp V 16). One also
be careful! (1QTQohath ar I i 4).
finds metathesis and partial assimilation of t to z, for example,
The situation differs, however, in Jewish Aramaic documents from after the destruction of the First Temple
(68 c.e.) until the end of the Second Revolt (135 c.e.), where only non-metathesized forms are attested. Examples
it was sold (5/6Hev 7:16,54 [P. Yadin 7]) and
it will be placed
from the legal documents include
(Ketef Jericho 3:5 [DJD 38]). In three other verbs, which are also from legal documents, there is no metathesis,
(tG), and not
(tC):1
they are provided for (5/6Hev 10:14,15 [P.
if one analyzes the forms as
she is provided for (Mur 21:15). Another possible example with derivational t,
Yadin 10] and Mur 21:11) and
(5/6Hev 10 [P. Yadin 10]), is apparently an error for
you will be taken captive. The Bar-Kosiba
(=
) they were found (P. Yadin 54:6),
he will
letters reveal more non-metathesized forms:
send! (P. Yadin 53:4). An additional example, whose reading is not certain, is
be found (P. Yadin 54:10),
you should be careful (P. Yadin 50:6); the orthography seems to reflect the total assimilation of the initial
radical z to the derivational t > d.2
In Nabatean, on the other hand, one finds both metathesized and non-metathesized I-sibilant verbs. The
,3 are
he will change
forms without metathesis, which, some have argued, reflect the Arabic V stem
4
he will be sold (CIS II, 208:4). Nabatean forms with metathesis are
he will be sold
(CIS II 350:4) and
he will be found (Hammond,
(but without partial assimilation; Jaussen and Savignac 1909, p. 151, 5:5) and
Johnson, and Jones 1986, 78:3).
Palmyrene, like Nabatean, has both metathesized and non-metathesized I-sibilant verbs. There is one unshe is sold (CIS II, 132). Context demands that two additional forms
equivocal non-metathesized example:
he will be sold (CIS
from the famous tariff of Palmyra be taken as t-stems with assimilated derivational t:
he is sold (CIS II, 3913 ii 136). Metathesis is attested in Palmyrene in
they are thrown
II, 3913 ii 56),
(=
) it was found (Inv 10 127:3).
away (CIS II, 3913 ii 108) and
In Hatran the evidence with sibilants is limited to three examples, all of which exhibit metathesis (Beyer 1998,
they agreed (H336b:2; 343:2) and
they are served (H408:7). There is total regressive asp. 138):
similation of derivational t to the first radical in two other examples without sibilants (Beyer 1998, p. 128):
) he will be killed (H336b:10; 343:7) and
(<
) he will be stoned (H343:9).
(<
A transcription of Aramaic in the New Testament also shows an example of an assimilated derivational t
) be opened! (Mark 7:34).
(Morag 1972): (=
2.2. Hebrew
Metathesis is the rule with triliteral verbs in the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls in both biblical and non-biblical
texts (Qimron 1976, p. 180; 1986, p. 55). The majority of quadriliteral verbs show metathesis,5 though non-meshe will be shaken (1QH XIV 27) and
they will grow tall (1QH XVI 9).
tathesis is attested in
There are a few other curious examples that would appear to reflect a certain confusion on the part of scribes
she will be shaken (1QH XV 9; cf. 1QS VIII 8
), the scribe has clearly
(Qimron 1986, pp. 5556). In
erased a zayin after the daleth and added another zayin after the taw; the form before the erasure and addition of
), whereas the form after erasure
supralinear zayin is a non-metathesized form with partial assimilation (
). In
and with the supralinear addition turns the verb into the classical form with metathesis (
(1QIsaa 29:9) the incorrectly placed second taw above the line suggests scribal uncertainty (Kutscher 1974, p. 346).
Qimron (1976, p. 102) wonders if the orthographies of two more examples originate in a tension between
(=
?) (1QS X1
what the scribe may have said or heard and what he knows to be the classical form:
(=
) (1QHa XVII 8). Another possible form shows up in a document from after the destruction
4);
See 3.2 below.

For expected
. See Folmer 2003, p. 234 n. 6, for a discussion of the form, and n. 26 below.
3
For bibliography, see Folmer 2003, p. 238, who shows convincingly that the phenomenon need not be attributed to Arabic. See
also Morgenstern 1999, p. 139.
1
2
In the same inscription, there are two examples of non-I-sibilant verbs:

it will be examined (CIS II, 350:3) and
it will be pawned (CIS II, 350:4). The root
is clearly a loan
from Arabic.
5
Qimron (1986, p. 55) mentions ten examples.
4
29
of the Second Temple:

and sends/strives? (Mur 49:3).6 This verb is typically Aramaic, yet the occurrence
in the same extremely fragmentary text makes it impossible to decide if
is an Aramaism in
of ]
is a Hebraism in an Aramaic text.
a Hebrew text or ]
The late medieval, artificial hybrid of Hebrew and Aramaic known as Late Samaritan Hebrew (Florentin 2005,
it will increase) and t followpp. 20307, 23034) also evidences many examples of t preceding a sibilant (
it is heard).
ing a sibilant (
3. Comparative and Diachronic Evidence

3.1. Comparative Semitic
t-stems are generally thought to have been formed in Proto-Semitic with a prefixed derivational t,7 but when
the first verbal radical was a sibilant, the t metathesized with the sibilant.8 According to Greenberg (1950, pp.
17588), this was part of a general Semitic phonological restriction on dentals followed by sibilants.9 It is widely
held that the infixing of t in sibilant environments was later generalized to other radicals in certain daughter
languages (Wright 1890, p. 208; Bergstrsser 1928, p. 13; Fleisch 196179, vol. 2, pp. 28788 [129ee]). t is prefixed
in Aramaic tG/tD/tC and Hebrew tD, except when the verb is I-sibilant. t is infixed in Akkadian Gt/Dt/t, and apparently also Eblaite.10 There are other languages in which t occurs prefixed in some stems but infixed in others:
Arabic Gt/St but tD, Ugaritic Gt/t but tD, Gz tG/tD but St. Our jubilarian believes that the regular infixing of
t in the Akkadian verbal system is a shared East Semitic innovation (Huehnergard 2006, pp. 1415).
The description given above is schematic. A closer look at the different Northwest Semitic languages (Garr
1985, pp. 11920) reveals variant forms. In Phoenician and Punic, where tD forms seem to be the norm,11 Gt (or
may it be overturned (KAI 1:2),
may it be
Dt?) forms are attested in the dialect of Old Byblian:
torn away (KAI 1:2). There is one transliterated example in Punic of a t-stem verb with a sibilant: ysthyalm I ask
and
them on my behalf (Poenulus 931). In the Moabite Mesha stela, one finds the infixed t-stem forms
when he fought (KAI 181:19). The language of the Deir Alla combinations
I fought (KAI 181:11) and
they gathered together (KAI 312 1:5),
he will not seek advice (KAI
seems to show prefixed t-stems:
he will not take counsel (KAI 312: B:9).
312 B:9),
3.2. Evidence from Other Aramaic Periods

The long history of Aramaic provides an interesting diachronic view of t-stems. The limited corpus of Old
it will be cut off (KAI 309:23;
Aramaic inscriptions exhibits both Gt (or Dt?) and tG (or tD?) forms. One finds
For a discussion of this form and the possibility that it is an

Aramaism, see Mor 2009, p. 96. Folmer (2003, p. 239) would include
(ev 51:2) as an example of a tD form, though
the form is usually taken as a G imperfect following the relative
- (=
). On the writing of heh following the relative -,
see Fassberg 1996.
7
This derivational t marks reflexivity, reciprocity, or passivity in
the daughter languages (Brockelmann 1908, pp. 52935 [257];
Lieberman 1986, p. 613; Lipinski 2001, pp. 40411 [41.2032]).
On the question of whether the Proto-Semitic derivational prefix
was *ta or *t, see Diem 1982; Garr 1993, pp. 19293; Kienast 2001,
p. 217 [189.56].
8
E.g., Brockelmann 1908, p. 268 [98]. In what is a minority view,
Lipinski (2001, p. 40507 [41.2125]) believes that t was originally
infixed in Semitic languages and that what appears to be metath6
esis involving sibilants in fact reflects the original Proto-Semitic

situation. Joon and Muraoka (2009, pp. 6768 [17b]) do not
rule out this possibility (contra Joon 1923, p. 50 [17b]). Kienast (2001, p. 217 [189.5]) reconstructs a prefixed ta-, which was
metathesized in Akkadian, the Arabic VIII form, all t-causative
stems, but in Hebrew only in sibilant-initial roots. Lieberman
(1986, p. 615) is of the opinon that the St stem is what drove analogies leading to the infixing of the t. For a complex reconstruction of the derivational prefix and its position, see Diem 1982.
9
See Malone 1971 on the dating of the metathesis.
10
The meager evidence from Amorite (one geographical name
and one proper name) seems to point to Gt. See Huffmon 1965,
pp. 81, 94.
11
They are poorly attested (Friedrich, Rllig, and Amadasi Guzzo
1999, p. 94 [149]).
30
Steven E. Fassberg
Tell Fekherye),
when] he fought (KAI 310; Tel Dan),
it will be heard (KAI 222 A1:29; Sefire),12
it will be slaughtered (KAI 222:A1:32; Sefire).13
and
Official Aramaic overwhelmingly shows tG and tD forms and the metathesis of t and sibilants (Muraoka and
it remained (TAD B3.12:6), as well as the shift t > d, for example,
Porten 2003, pp. 2526), for example,
be careful! (TAD A4.1:5; Muraoka and Porten 2003, p. 17). There are, nonetheless, variant forms. The qre
(< ?
) you agreed together (Dan 2:9) reflects a form with an assimilated t,14 either
of the I-z verb
hizzemintn or hizzammintn (Rosenthal 2006, p. 46). Moreover, a lack of metathesis with sibilants in tG stems is
commonly argued for II-w/y verbs in Official Aramaic (and in subsequent periods Brockelmann 1908, p. 616
he will be placed (Ezra 4:21),
he will be
[280]; Bauer and Leander 1927, p. 145 [46n]), for example,
15
nourished (Dan 4:9).
Late Aramaic sources are of particular interest for understanding the forms attested in Middle Aramaic. In
addition to the classical Aramaic t-stem forms found in both eastern (Jewish Babylonian, Mandaic) and western
(Jewish Palestinian, Christian Palestinian, Samaritan) dialects, one finds clear proof of regressive assimilation of
; Yalon 1931; Epstein 1960, p. 50; Ben-ayyim 1981, pp.
t, which is reflected in the orthography
20708; Morgenstern 2007, pp. 27274). In Syriac (Duval 1881, p. 105; Nldeke 1904, p. 20), t assimilates in pronuneae it was concealed; t also assimilates
cation before t and , but not in orthography, for example,
neddaxrx he remembers you; when
in pronunciation before d with an unreduced vowel, for example,
ettxar.
d is realized with a reduced vowel, it assimilates progressively to the derivational t, for example,
The assimilation of t resulted in gemination of the contiguous consonant, which is still attested in the traditional
pronunciation of Eastern Syriac (Duval 1881, p. 109; Nldeke 1904, p. 13), the oral tradition of Samaritan Aramaic
it opened up [Ben-ayyim 1967, p. 235 line 109]), and the Yemenite oral tradition of Jewish
(iffta =
=
ine he was punished [Morag 1988, p. 140]).16
Babylonian Aramaic, even with gutturals (
In the Late Aramaic period, the total assimilation of t and subsequent gemination were not limited to t-stem
forms with initial non-sibilant. There are also examples with sibilants in all dialects (Nldeke 1875, p. 214; Benayyim 1981, pp. 20708), save Syriac, in which forms may have existed in speech but were not represented in
(=
) he was found (Ben-ayyim 1981, p. 208), Christian
writing. See, for example, Jewish Palestinian
yielb he will be hanged (Bar-Asher 1977, p. 472 n. 365), Samaritan
(=
) misski
Palestinian
(=
) was required (Friedman
looking forward (Ben-ayyim 1967, p. 92 line 51), Jewish Babylonian
(=
) it will be poured (Nldeke 1875, p. 214). The phenomenon was prob1995, p. 42), and Mandaic
ably much more widespread than indicated by the orthography (Bar-Asher 1977, p. 225 n. 287).17
Neo-Aramaic witnesses a significant reduction in verbal stems, particularly in t-stems. Analogical and phonological processes are responsible for the merger and loss of stems: 18 the assimilation of the derivational t
and the subsequent simplification of gemination undoubtedly played a role in the reduction of verbal stems.
In Northeastern Neo-Aramaic, the t-stems have merged into other stems and disappeared completely (Nldeke
1868, p. 207). Neo-Mandaic has preserved only a few examples of t-stems. For example, from the dialect of Ahwaz,
) he was killed, tD ekammar (=
)
Macuch (1965, pp. lxi, 247, 26768; 1989, pp. 40, 6465) cites tG egel (=
he returned, and a tC etaqliat she turned around (Macuch 1993, pp. 7677). The few verbs that Hberl (2009,
) he became extinct,
pp. 22123) notes from the dialect of Khorramshahr include, for example, tG epseq (=
tD kammar he returned, tC etaqla he turned around. Examples with metathesis known from both Ahwaz and
Ben-ayyim (1971, p. 249) interprets this as a reflexive-passive
t-stem of a C verb because of the lack of metathesis.
13
Rosenthal (1969, p. 660 n. 10), followed by Garr (1985, p. 119),
suggests another example of infixed t in
May a
name not be acquired by [h]im! (KAI 222 A3:2425), though the
passage is usually taken as
May his sci[on] inherit
no name!
14
It is also possible that t had already shifted to d and only then
assimilated. See 4 below.
15
Ben-ayyim (1971, p. 249), however, has persuasively interpreted the lack of metathesis in II-w/y verbs as reflecting an
original reflexive-passive t-stem of C: *yitham > *yittam >
yittm. He bases this on two factors: (1) there is no metathesis
of t and the sibilant, and (2) the G active/Ct passive relationship
12
in Aramaic parallels the relationship of II-w/y verbs in Hebrew

G/Cp (hufal) stems.
16
The oral tradition follows the written tradition. t is realized
only when it is preserved in the consonantal text, e.g.,
inela she was taken (Morag 1988, p. 140).
17
In his discussion of the Christian Palestinian Aramaic material, Bar-Asher (1988, p. 52) has suggested that scribes sometimes
wrote the historical t in order to distinguish the t-stem forms
(tG/tD
/eppeel/, /eppaal/ with assimilated t) from two
other homographs: G
/efal/ with prosthetic aleph and C
/afel/.
18
See, e.g., the system of stems in Koy Sanjaq as described by
Mutzafi (2004, pp. 7577).
31
Khorramshahr are Gt e he was baptized (Hberl 2009, p. 221; Macuch 1993, p. 429), and from only Ahwaz Dt
etallem he was welcome (Macuch 1993, p. 439; Hberl 2009, pp. 22122 n. 182).
In the dialects of Western Neo-Aramaic (Malula, Baxa, and Jubbadin), the only native Aramaic verbs derived
) he trusted and ine (< tG/tC
)
from t-stems that have survived are the G verbs ixel (< tG
) he played; non-native t-stem verbs are borrowings from
he rested, as well as with metathesis ia (< Dt
Arabic (Spitaler 1938, pp. 4143). Central Neo-Aramaic, as represented by uroyo and Mlas, preserves the older
tG, tD, and tC stems after the assimilation of the derivational t and the loss of gemination (Ritter 1990, pp. 5556;
Jastrow 1997, p. 360):

tG Late Aramaic mepel > *meppel > mfl
tD Late Aramaic mepaal > *meppal > mfl
tC Late Aramaic mettafal > mtaf l
) he plays (Jastrow 1985, p. 87

An inherited I-sibilant verb that still shows metathesis is mte (< Dt
[85]). In other I-sibilant verbs, however, there is no metathesis since the derivational t has been lost at a previous
; Jastrow 1985, p. 80 [78]).
stage of the language, for example, tG msm he is placed (< tG/tC
3.3. Evidence from Other Hebrew Sources

Although Biblical and Tannaitic Hebrew regularly exhibit metathesis of the derivational t and an I-sibilant
run to and fro! (Jer 49:3).19
radical, there is, nonetheless, one example in which it does not occur:
Moreover, there seem to be possible traces of additional variant stems in Biblical Hebrew, some more certain than
others: tG, tGp, tD, tDp, and tC. The following verbs have been suggested by different scholars (see, e.g., Joon
and Muraoka 2009, p. 147 [53gh]):
tG
they were mustered (Judg 20:15);
tDp it was washed out (Lev 13:55),

(Isa 34:6)
tGp
I washed myself (Job 9:30; Dan 2005)

she was defiled (Deut 24:4),
it got fat
they were mustered (1 Kgs 20:27)
it will be established? (Ezek 33:17;

tC you shall be pure (2 Sam 22:27;
and she stationed herself (Exod 2:4;
you shall contend with
; Blau 1957)
(Jer 12:5
urinate (
urine attested as
Variant infixed t-stem forms have also been proposed for the verbs
their urine [2 Kgs 18:27; Isa 36:12]) and even for
mock from
(Lipinski 2001, p. 406
a ktiv in
[41.23]). Moreover, scholars (e.g., Bergstrsser 1929, p. 100 [18i]) have viewed some place names as relics of old
(Josh 15:33),
(Josh 19:44),
(Josh 21:4).
infixed t-stem forms:
Some of the assimilations of derivational t attested in Aramaic dialects are paralleled in Biblical and Tannaitic
speaking 2 Sam 14:13,
purify yourselves!
Hebrew. t assimilates regularly before other dentals (e.g.,
Gen 35:2), and sporadically before other consonants, including sibilants (Gesenius, Kautzsch, and Cowley 1910, p.
you will be established (Isa 54:14),21
it will be covered (Prov 26:26),
149 [54]),20 for example,
make yourselves clean! (Isa 1:16). Although some of the examples have
you will destroy yourself (Ecc 7:16),
Since the Middle Ages, many have attributed the lack of metathesis of the sibilant and t to the avoidance of three consecutive dentals (Joon and Muraoka 2009, p. 146 n. 3 [53e]).
20
Baden (2010) believes that the consonantal biblical text contains many more examples than those commonly cited in grammars. He is inclined to interpret many N-vocalized verbs as tD
with assimilated t. Ben-ayyim (2000, pp. 11718) points out that
19
in the Samaritan reading tradition of the Pentateuch, there are

verbs realized as tD with assimilated t whose consonantal frame
reflects N. He adds that the tD realization was in fact more common in the Samaritan vernacular than in the Pentateuchal reading tradition. See also Florentin 1992.
21
1QIsaa reads
. See Kutscher 1974, pp. 34546.
32
Steven E. Fassberg
been viewed as scribal errors (Joon and Muraoka 2009, p. 147 n. 1 [53e]), the existence of the phenomenon in
I will pray, points
Tannaitic Hebrew manuscripts (Bar-Asher 1983, pp. 14547), for example,
and they will submit themselves to chastisement
to a genuine linguistic feature. The Masoretic pointings
and it will be expiated (Deut 21:8) also reflect the assimilation of the derivational t; these
(Ezek 23:48) and
are Tannaitic pointings of the nitpaal stem, which have been imposed here on the nifal forms of the consonantal
biblical text.22
4. Proposed Explanation of the Phenomenon in the Judean Desert Forms

In the light of the different t-stem forms attested in Northwest Semitic in general, and in Aramaic in particular, the non-metathesized forms found in the Aramaic documents from the Judean Desert should be viewed
as authentic, vernacular t-stem forms, which existed side-by-side with more classical metathesized forms, and
whose roots probably go back to an earlier period of Aramaic. The non-metathesized forms are not direct reflexes
of Proto-Semitic forms since early Semitic did not allow the sequence of dental and sibilant.23
The Aramaic data can be explained by two analogies:
1.
qael : hitqael : : zabben : X ; X = hitzabben
2.
allem : hiallem : : qael : X; X = hiqqael
Analogy 1, the generation of a t-stem from its related non-t-stem verb and its extension to verbs I-sibilant, is
(*yitma?) and appears several times in Middle Aramaic in the
possibly attested already in Old Aramaic
hiaddar,
yia), and in Nabatean24 and Palmyrene. Analogy 2, the
Judean Desert material (e.g.,
assimilation of t to following dentals and its extension to non-dentals, shows up in Middle Aramaic in Hatran
lirrgem; it is widely distributed over Late Aramaic dialects. This second analogy could have led to
liqqel and
hizzmintn/
forms with a geminated sibilant such as hizzabben, which are spotted first in Official Aramaic
yizzabben and
mizzabben, and are documented
hizzammintn, show up in Middle Aramaic in Palmyrene
in all Late Aramaic dialects except for Syriac, where in all likelihood the orthography masks the phenomenon.
It is also possible to view the origin of hizzabben and similar forms with geminated sibilants as arising not from
analogy 2, but directly from hitzabben (the result of analogy 1), as suggested by Cantineau (1935, p. 92), Rosenthal
(1936, pp. 5657), and Bar-Asher (1988, p. 50 n. 95) for each of the dialects they described. 25 A dissenting voice is
that of Ben-ayyim (1981), who argues that the examples in Late Aramaic stem from the metathesized classical
forms, that is, hizdabben > hizzabben.26 Ben-ayyim notes that, although progressive assimilation is not as common
as regressive assimilation, dentals are attested assimilating progressively to sibilants.27
As for Hebrew, even though there are variant t-stem forms in Biblical Hebrew, as in Aramaic and other
Northwest Semitic languages, the limited distribution of non-metathesized forms has led scholars (Gzella 2007,
p. 102; Mor 2009, p. 96) to see Aramaic influence in the Judean Desert documents. This assessment is further
strengthened when one notes that the only (certain) non-metathesized forms in Hebrew are attested with t-stem
and
, both of which may possibly have been asociated by speakers with comforms of the quadriliterals
29
with Aramaic
,28 and
with Aramaic
.30
mon Aramaic roots:
Bar-Asher 1992, p. 125.
This restriction no longer operated in later stages of the languages. See, e.g., the Greek loan into Syriac
first thread
of a web (Sokoloff 2009, pp. 716, 872), or the Persian loan into
Late Biblical Hebrew
copy (Est 3:14; 4:8; 8:13).
24
Cantineau (1930, p. 73) prefers this explanation to the possibility of Arabic influence.
25
Schulthess (1924, p. 22) attributed examples of geminated sibilants in Christian Palestinian Aramaic to Arabic influence.
26
If the reading
in P. Yadin 50:6 is correct and not merely
a scribal error, then this form could have developed from
with regressive assimilation. See 2.1 above.
22
23
27
See, e.g., in Arabic V, VI, and VIII t-stems (Wright, Smith, and
de Goeje 1896, pp. 6465; Fleisch 196179, vol. 1, pp. 9697 [15]).
Brockelmann (1908, p. 157 [56]) points out that the original form
of the VIII stem in Arabic was tG and not Gt, and thus the assimilations with sibilants that took place reflected, in fact, the more
frequent regressive assimilation.
28
Cf. from the same semantic field the Hebrew roots
,
.
29
Brown, Driver, and Briggs (1906, p. 691) take it from
;
Koehler, Baumgartner, and Stamm (19942000, p. 13066) consider
it a biform of
.
30
The Hebrew root that belongs to this semantic field is
.
33
Conclusion
The non-metathesized t-stems in Aramaic attested in documents from the Judean Desert (as well as from
other Middle Aramaic sources Nabatean, Palmyrene, and the New Testament) reflect vernacular forms that may
have arisen early in Aramaic and Northwest Semitic on the analogy of t-stem forms with I-non-sibilant radicals.
In addition, the widely distributed Late Aramaic evidence of assimilated derivational t next to non-sibilants and
sibilants suggests that existence of the phenomenon in the preceding Middle Aramaic period was more widespread
than the conservative orthography reveals.
The few examples of non-metathesized t-stems in Hebrew documents from the Judean Desert are most likely
the result of Aramaic influence at this period.
Abbreviations
C
CIS
D
DJD 38
G
Inv
KAI
N
p
S

t
TAD
causative stem (e.g., Hebrew

)
Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum. Paris: Academie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, 1881
)
stem with doubled medial consonant (e.g., Hebrew
James Charlesworth et al. Miscellaneous Texts from the Judaean Desert. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert
38. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000
)
ground stem (e.g., Hebrew
Inventaire des inscriptions de Palmyre. Beirut: Imprimerie catholique, 1930
Herbert Donner and Wolfgang Rllig. Kanaanische und aramische Inschriften. Volume 1. 5th edition.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002
)
stem with prefixed n- (e.g., Hebrew
internal passive
)
stem with prefixed s- (e.g., Arabic
stem with prefixed - (e.g., Akkadian uprusum)
stem with affixed t
Bezalel Porten and Ada Yardeni. Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, Newly Copied, Edited
and Transliterated into Hebrew and English. 4 volumes. Jerusalem: Department of the History of the Jewish
People, Hebrew University, 19861999
Bibliography
Baden, Joel S.
2010
Bar-Asher, Moshe
1977
1983
1988
1992
Hithpael and Niphal in Biblical Hebrew: Semantic and Morphological Overlap. Vetus Testamentum 60:
3344.
Palestinian Syriac Studies: Source-texts, Traditions and Grammatical Problems. Jerusalem: n.p. [In Hebrew]
A Preliminary Study of Mishnaic Hebrew as Reflected in Codex Vatican 32 of Sifre-Bemidbar. Teuda
3: 13965. [In Hebrew]
Le syro-palestinien: tudes grammaticales. Journal asiatique 276: 2759.
The Conjugations of Mishnaic Hebrew (A Morphological Study). Language Studies 56 (Israel Yeivin
Festschrift): 12351. [In Hebrew]
Bauer, Hans, and Pontus Leander

1927
Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramischen. Halle: Max Niemeyer.
34
Steven E. Fassberg
Ben-ayyim, Zeev
1967
The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic amongst the Samaritans, Volume 3, Part 2: The Recitation of Prayers and Hymns. Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language. [In Hebrew]
1971
Comments on the Inscriptions of Sfire. Lonnu 35: 24353. [In Hebrew]
1981
Word Studies III. Tarbi 50: 192208. [In Hebrew]
2000 A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew Based on the Recitation of the Law in Comparison with the Tiberian and Other
Jewish Traditions. Jerusalem: Magnes; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Bergstrsser, G.
1929
Beyer, Klaus
1998
Blau, Josua
1957
Brockelmann, Carl
1908
Hebrische Grammatik. 2 volumes. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs.

Die aramischen Inschriften aus Assur, Hatra und dem brigen Ostmesopotamien: (datiert 44 v. Chr. bis 238 n. Chr.).
Gttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.
ber die t-form des Hif il im Bibelhebrisch. Vetus Testamentum 7: 38588.
Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen sprachen, Volume 1: Laut- und Formenlehre. Berlin:
Reuther and Reichard.
Brown, Francis; S. R. Driver; and Charles A. Briggs

1906
A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Reprint 1959. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cantineau, Jean
19301932
1935
Le nabaten. 2 volumes. Paris: Ernest Leroux.

Grammaire du palmyrnien pigraphique. Cairo: Imprimerie de linstitut francais darchologie orientale.
Dan, Barak
(Job 9:30): Another Vestige of the Light hitpael Conjugation in Biblical Hebrew. Lonnu 67:
2005
14345. [In Hebrew]
Diem, Werner
1982
Die Entwicklung des Derivationsmorphems der t-Stmme im Semitischen. Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft 132: 2984.
Duval, Rubens
1881
Trait de grammaire syriaque. Paris: F. Vieweg.
Epstein, J. N.
1960
A Grammar of Babylonian Aramaic. Jerusalem: Magnes; Tel Aviv: Dvir. [In Hebrew]
Fassberg, Steven E.
1996
Fitzmyer, Joseph A.
2004
Fleisch, Henri
19611979
Florentin, Moshe
1992
2005
The Orthography of the Relative Pronoun Classica Israelica 15: 24050.
in the Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods. Scripta
The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (1Q20): A Commentary. 3rd edition. Biblica et Orientalia 18/B.
Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
Trait de philologie arabe. 2 volumes. [1] Beirut: Imprimerie catholique; [2] Beirut: Dar al-Mashreq.
and
in the Samaritan TradiThe Disappearance of the Internal Passive and the Status of
tion and Mishnaic Hebrew. Lonnu 56: 20111. [In Hebrew]
Late Samaritan Hebrew: A Linguistic Analysis of Its Different Types. Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 43. Leiden: Brill.
Folmer, Margaretha L.
2003
Metathesis in Jewish Aramaic: A So-called Pan-Semitic Feature Reconsidered. In Hamlet on a Hill:
Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of His Sixty-fifth Birthday, edited
by M. F. J. Baasten and W. Th. van Peursen, pp. 23243. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 118. Leuven:
Peeters.
Friedman, Shamma
1995
35
An Ancient Scroll Fragment (B. ullin 101a105a) and the Rediscovery of the Babylonian Branch of
Tannaitic Hebrew. Jewish Quarterly Review 96: 950.
Friedrich, Johannes; Wolfgang Rllig; and Maria Giulia Amadasi Guzzo

1999
Phnizische-Punische Grammatik. 3rd edition. Analecta Orientalia 55. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
Garr, W. Randall
Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000586 b.c. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
1985
1993 The Niphal Derviational Prefix. Orientalia 62: 14262.
Gesenius, Wilhelm; Emil Kautzsch; and Arthur E. Cowley
Gesenius Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch, translated by A. E. Cowley. 2nd English edition. Oxford:
1910
Clarendon Press.
Greenberg, Joseph H.
1950
Patterning of Root Morphemes in Semitic. Word 6: 16281.
Gzella, Holger
2007
Hberl, Charles G.
2009
Elemente systemischen Sprachkontaktes in den hebrischen Bar-Kosiba-Briefen. In der seine Lust hat
am Wort des Herrn! Festschrift fr Ernst Jenni zum 80. Geburtstag, edited by Jrg Luchsinger, Peter Mathys,
and Markus Saur, pp. 93107. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 336. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag.
The Neo-Mandaic Dialect of Khorramshahr. Semitica Viva 45. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Hammond, Philip C.; David J. Johnson; and Richard N. Jones

1986
A Religio-legal Nabataean Inscription from the Atargatis/Al-Uzza Temple at Petra. Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 276: 7780.
Huehnergard, John
2006
Proto-Semitic and Proto-Akkadian. In The Akkadian Language in Its Semitic Context: Studies in the Akkadian of the Third and Second Millennium B.C., edited by Guy Deutscher and N. J. C. Kouwenberg, pp. 118.
Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.
Huffmon, Herbert B.
Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts: A Structural and Lexical Study. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
1965
Press.
Jastrow, Otto
1985
1997
Laut- und Formenlehre des neuaramischen Dialekts von Mdin im r Abdn. 3rd edition. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
The Neo-Aramaic Languages. In The Semitic Languages, edited by Robert Hetzron, pp. 33477. London:
Routledge.
Jaussen, Antonin, and R. Savignac

1909
Mission archologique en Arabie (marsmai 1907): de Jrusalem au Hedjaz Mdain-saleh. Paris: E. Leroux.
Joon, Paul
1923
Grammaire de lhbreu biblique. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
Joon, Paul, and Takamitsu Muraoka

2009
A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Second reprint of the 2nd edition, with corrections. Subsidia Biblica 27.
Rome: Gregorian and Biblical Press.
Kienast, Burkhart
2001
Historische semitische Sprachwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Koehler, Ludwig; Walter Baumgartner; and Johann Jakob Stamm

The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J.
19942000
Richardson. 6 volumes. Leiden: Brill.
Kutscher, Edward Yechezkel
The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa). Leiden: Brill.
1974
36
Steven E. Fassberg
Lieberman, Stephen J.
1986
The Afro-Asiatic Background of the Semitic N-stem: Towards the Origin of the Stem-afformatives of
the Semitic and Afro-Asiatic Verb. Bibliotheca Orientalis 43: 577628.
Lipinski, Edward
2001
Macuch, Rudolf
1965
1989
1993
Malone, Joseph L.
1971
Mor, Uri
2009
Morag, Shelomo
1972
1988
Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. 2nd edition. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 80.
Leuven: Peeters.
Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Neumandische Chrestomathie mit grammatischer Skizze, kommentierter bersetzung und Glossar. Porta Linguarum Orientalium, n.s., 18. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Neumandische Texte im Dialekt von Ahwz. Semitica Viva 12. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Systematic Metathesis in Mandaic. Language 47: 394415.
The Grammar of the Epigraphic Hebrew Documents from Judaea between the First and the Second
Revolts. Ph.D. dissertation. Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. [In Hebrew]
(Mark 7:34): Certainly Hebrew, Not Aramaic? Journal of Semitic Studies 17: 198202.
Babylonian Aramaic: The Yemenite Tradition. Historical Aspects and Transmission, Phonology, the Verbal System.
Jerusalem: Ben Zvi Institute. [In Hebrew]
Morgenstern, Matthew
1999
The History of the Aramaic Dialects in the Light of Discoveries from the Judaean Desert: The Case of
Nabataean. Eretz-Israel 26 (Frank Moore Cross Volume): *134*142.
On Some Non-standard Spellings in the Aramaic Magic Bowls and Their Linguistic Significance. Journal
2007
of Semitic Studies 52: 24577.
Muraoka, Takamitsu, and Bezalel Porten
2003
A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic. 2nd revised edition. Handbuch der Orientalistik 32. Leiden: Brill.
Mutzafi, Hezy
2004
The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Koy Sanjaq. Semitic Viva 32. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Nldeke, Theodor
1868
1875
1904
Grammatik der neusyrischen Sprache am Urmia-See und in Kurdistan. Leipzig: T. O. Weigel.

Mandische Grammatik. Halle: Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses.
Compendious Syriac Grammar. Translated by James A. Crichton. London: Williams & Norgate.
Qimron, Elisha
1976
1986
A Grammar of the Hebrew Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Ph.D. dissertation. Hebrew University of
Jerusalem. [In Hebrew]
Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Harvard Semitic Studies 29. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Ritter, Hellmut Ritter

ryo: Die Volkssprache der syrischen Christen des r Abdn, Volume C: Grammatik. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
1990
Rosenthal, Franz
1936
1969
2006
Die Sprache der palmyrenischen Inschriften und ihre Stellung innerhalb des Aramischen. Mitteilungen der
Vorderasiatisch-aegyptischen Gesellschaft 41. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs.
Canaanite and Aramaic Inscriptions. In Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, edited
by James B. Pritchard, pp. 65362. 3rd edition with supplement. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Grammar of Biblical Aramaic. 7th edition. Porta Linguarum Orientalium, n.s., 5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Schulthess, Friedrich
1924
Grammatik des Christlich-Palstinischen Aramisch. Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr.
Sokoloff, Michael
1974
2009
The Targum to Job from Qumran Cave XI. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University.
A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin; Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmanns Lexicon
Syriacum. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns; Pistcataway: Gorgias Press.

Spitaler, Anton
1938
37
Grammatik des neuaramischen Dialekts von Malla (Antilibanon). Deutsche morgenlndische Gesellschaft
26. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus.
Sznycer, Maurice
1967
Les passages puniques en transcription latine dans le Poenulus de Plaute. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck.
Wright, William
1890
Lectures on the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wright, William; W. Robertson Smith; and M. J. de Goeje

1896
A Grammar of the Arabic Language. 3rd edition. 2 volumes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yalon, Henoch
1931
Assimilation of
in Hebrew and Aramaic. Tarbiz 3: 99106. [In Hebrew]
People without Town: The apiru in the Amarna Evidence
39
People without Town:

The apiru in the Amarna Evidence
Daniel E. Fleming, New York University*
Egyptian texts for the Late Bronze Age name two classes of people in the southern Levant that are neither
regional labels nor specific polities: the shosu and the apiru. The former are associated more narrowly with the
southeastern steppes that border the Arabian Desert, while the latter are a class encountered more widely across
Canaan, Syria, and farther north. By the geography alone, it is not surprising that the shosu are linked to pastoralism and nomadic life, though Egyptian texts do occasionally mention the existence of towns in shosu-land
(Routledge 2004, pp. 7778). The apiru are more widespread and more difficult. They cannot be defined by cities
and kingdoms in the standard fashion; indeed, they are regarded as the antithesis of these in some statements,
and the category somehow identifies a non-standard relationship to settlements and their polities. Many of the
Amarna letters, especially those sent to the Egyptian court by their vassals in Canaan, mention the apiru, often
with the assumption that they stand outside the web of loyalty to the empire.1 These texts date to the mid-fourteenth century, and the image of outsiders to the Egyptian system has offered a tantalizing background to the
emergence of Israel, even if there is no relation to the word Hebrew (ibr).2 The numerous Amarna references to
the apiru have greatly influenced definitions of the type as renegade outsiders.3 Dever (2003, pp. 179, 181) calls
them landless and among the impoverished and socially marginalized, the social bandits. 4 Liverani (1979)
Origin for Hebrew, forthcoming in Catholic Bible Quarterly. The

biblical word Hebrew does not derive from the old West Semitic term apiru, though it may come from the same root and
be indirectly related. George Mendenhall (1962) first proposed
that Israel began as apiru who rejected the dominance of their
Egyptian-affiliated city rulers. The hypothesis has been much
criticized, even as it opened the door to more durable interpretations that did not depend on bringing the Israelites in as outsiders by migration.
3
It is now generally agreed that the term represents a category
rather than a proper noun, but this was once considered possible
for some examples, at least (e.g., Pohl 1957, p. 159; de Vaux 1968,
pp. 22627). Ivanov (1974, pp. 3940) offers an early (Marxist)
argument that this is truly a social and not an ethnic group. Note
that three Amarna letters use the KI-determinative for localities
(EA 215: 15; 289: 24; 298: 27), but this seems to reflect the scribes
attempt to treat these as comparable to political entities (see
Astour 1999, p. 33).
4
Dever aligns himself not far from Mendenhall, emphasizing
the lowland urban origin of the new highland population and
accepting a peasant revolt in some form, which he would call
agrarian reform (p. 189). Norman Gottwald (1979, pp. 401, 404)
considered them outlaws to the established order.
* As with so many before and after my time as a student, John

Huehnergard played a crucial role in my training and in my sense
of what it meant to be a good teacher to scholars in training. His
devotion to this task was phenomenal; with John, we knew that
we mattered, and this gave us the best of motivations to work for
him in return. In the time since my graduation in 1990, Johns
work and his mind have been a persistent point of reference in
my own study of the Near East. I have realized with time that
our reasons for pursuing the form and meaning of words diverge
somewhat. Where John attends above all to the language itself,
which he understands far better than I, I am preoccupied more
with the societies that produced and used these words. I offer
this article to John with the greatest appreciation, recognizing
that it is just this sort of social study of a difficult word of uncertain nominal form. The paper is drawn from one chapter in my
forthcoming book, The Legacy of Israel in Judahs Bible.
1
Nadav Naaman (2005, p. 277) cautions that in contrast to
Egypts wars against the shosu, Egyptian scribes rarely treat the
apiru as enemies. The writers of the Amarna letters thus reflected their own use of the term, with their own attempt to get the
Egyptians to consider such people a danger.
2
On this well-worn problem, with bibliography and a new proposal, see my Maris iBrum and the Bibles ibr: An Alternative
39
40
Daniel E. Fleming
argued that to become an apiru meant to abandon the king and become a rebel.5 More neutrally, they may be seen
as refugees or migrants, populations that could represent a threat to the longstanding locals.6
Above all, the problem with the standard interpretation of the apiru is the conclusion that they were not
fully integrated into the society of town dwellers. In the Amarna letters, the apiru generally appear as powerful
groups with effective political leadership on a scale that could be seen to threaten every city-based vassal in the
Egyptian Levant. Peoples identified as apiru defeated or won the support of major towns and would have incorporated large populations that were indistinguishable from those of the kingdoms they overwhelmed. The apiru
peoples were never identified by a city center, however, and some of Egypts vassals regarded them as intrinsically
resistant to Egyptian authority. In the end, they have something in common with the Hana of Zimri-Lim and the
Binu Simal in the early second-millennium Mari archives, where the Hana/Simal are a population named by its
mobile potential and yet carrying the identity of a whole city-based kingdom. Both the Binu Simal and their Binu
Yamina counterparts in the Mari evidence represent modes of political and social identity not defined by towns,
somehow like the apiru, a similarity to which I return below.7
Amarnas apiru Powers

The apiru category appears in over fifty of the 350-plus letters found at el-Amarna in Egypt. Among Egypts
Asian vassals, apiru people were a constant presence and concern. In fact, however, a majority of these texts refer
not to unnamed bands of neer-do-wells but to particular political threats associated with two impressive leaders.
To the north, the land of Amurru, a highland polity never defined by a city center, was led by Abdi-Airta, the
scourge of Rib-Hadda, the ruler of Byblos who lived with the persistent terror of being overrun by this powerful
inland neighbor. Rib-Hadda repeatedly identifies Abdi-Airta with the apiru in his missives to the Egyptian king,
and he spits out the term as a pejorative epithet that proves at least an inclination to escape pharaohs authority.
Farther south, also in the highlands, Labayu governed a people also linked strongly to the apiru. Brendon Benz
(2012) proposes that Labayus domain included the city of Shechem but was not defined by this or any single
center.8
In large part because the Amarna letters reflect such concern about conflict with Abdi-Airta and Labayu,
the majority of references to the apiru treat them as a military opponent not from the Egyptians own point
of view, but from the view of individual city-based rulers in the Levant. Rib-Hadda of Byblos and others speak of
the war of the apiru (EA 68, 71, 75, 185, 243, 313, 366), and there is repeated nervousness about who may join
the apiru, not as individuals enlisting in banditry but as whole populations who could switch allegiance in favor
of Abdi-Airta or Labayu, if not others.9 Such populations are often identified by their towns, either generically
(EA 74, 116, 117, 144, 189) or with specific names, as Sumur (EA 76), Byblos (Gubla, EA 104), and Hazor (EA 148).
Whole lands (mtu) are sometimes at stake (EA 77, 79, 85, 88, 272, 273, 290), and Rib-Hadda, never one to hold
back for fear of overplaying his hand, once declares that all the lands of the pharaoh, as far as Egypt, may become
part of Abdi-Airtas apiru (EA 88). Other letters describe more than just conflict and concern; actual apiru successes are characterized by incorporation of towns and lands (EA 83, 85, 90, 118, 286, 288).
See the objection in Astour 1999, p. 32.

Ahlstm (1986, p. 12) compares them to the resident aliens described by the Hebrew term gr. Naaman (1986) defines them
first of all as migrants and then discusses at length how the
term took on a derogatory aspect in the Amarna letters. Buccellati (1977) likewise accepts the notion of displaced persons but
distinguishes the munnabttu as politically displaced from the
apir as socially uprooted. See also I. M. Diakonoff 1982, p. 96:
They were persons who, fleeing from their communities because
of impoverishment, had lost their civil rights and roamed about
the neighboring countries, settling in the difficult accessible
maquis and living by robbery, hired labour or as hired warriors.
5
6
7
On the social landscape of the Mari archives, see most recently
Durand 2004 and Fleming 2004. For the key identification of Zimri-Lim and his ruling family as Simalite, see Charpin and Durand
1986. On Zimri-Lims political life as a Simalite, see the recent
work of Miglio (2010).
8
In Benzs interpretation, Shechem itself originally designated a
larger region, from which the city took its name.
9
For ease of reference, I cite the letters simply by number. The
locations of the specific mentions are easily found in the classic
translations of Moran (1992), with a still useful edition of the
Akkadian in Knudtzon 1964.
41
This majority of Amarna references has generally been explained as derived from the primary identity of
the apiru as a class of people who have lost all affiliation by the settled towns and lands that define ordered
society under Egypts empire and its vassal domains. Whether or not this can be maintained on some other basis,
the mass of Amarna usage does not serve this interpretation. Most often, the apiru are linked to major political
powers in the Levantine highlands that seem to challenge the stable configuration of city-based dominions under Egyptian rule. Occasionally, these apiru are distinguished from the individuals who lead them, so that they
represent a separate social force, capable of acting in support of or against other groups or leaders. Abdi-Airtas
army is said to be strong through the apiru, who will enable him to take over two cities if he can assemble them
for the purpose (EA 71; cf. 76, 85, 91). Later in his career, Rib-Hadda writes that Aziru, the son of Abdi-Airta, has
assembled the apiru and addressed them with plans to assault Byblos (EA 132). The apiru are viewed as a body
that can gather to make decisions in distinction from an individual leader even while they may be in service to
such a leader.
In this respect, the apiru of Abdi-Airta and his son resemble the Hana of King Zimri-Lim at Mari, who counts
on these kinsmen as his primary base of power and yet has to negotiate their support in any given undertaking.
Also like the apiru, the term hana defines a social category, in this case the people who live outside of settlements
with flocks on the move. In the peculiar Mari usage, Zimri-Lims entire Simalite people is identified by this mobile pastoralist element, even though many of the Simalites are settled in towns.10 The Mari Hana do not explain
the particular meaning of the word apiru, but the parallel adds to the impression that the apiru cannot easily be
understood as marginal to the social and political landscape to which they contribute. In both cases, a category
that derives from notions of mobility and separation from towns is linked to the core constituency of kings who
have a base of power outside of any one city center, yet who still rule from urban capitals.
One of the rare letters from Labayu himself offers a closer view of the apiru that should not be pejorative. In
EA 254, Labayu responds to pharaohs request that this leader hand over his son for a visit to Egypt, an invitation
that forced submission to the suzerain. Labayu insists that he would give anything the king requests, including his
own wife if so ordered. Unfortunately, his son has been frustratingly out of contact. Moran translates the excuse,
I did not know that my son was consorting with the Apiru. I herewith hand him over to Addaya. Without the assumption that the apiru category is necessarily negative in this case, the key lines may be rendered differently: I
did not know that my son was going around with the apiru, and I hereby entrust him to Addaya.11 For Labayu, if
his son is not currently with him, he is naturally with the apiru, who are understood to live or move at a distance
from their king, rather like the Hana of Zimri-Lim. As addressed by Labayu, the apiru are a coherent population
with an established relationship to him, yet whose movements cannot be managed by the ruler they acknowledge.
Such independence may reflect a life in more remote areas, especially in highlands and inland regions that
were less accessible to Egyptian power. The realms of Abdi-Airta and Labayu appear to have been more difficult
for Egypt to control than the city-centered polities of the lowlands, and we also find one rare positive reference to the apiru in a letter from Biryawaza of Damascus, also inland. In proclaiming his loyalty and availability,
Biryawaza lists his military resources: Indeed I myself, along with my troops and my chariots, along with my
kin, along with my apiru, and along with my sut, am at the service of the archer-troops, wherever my lord the
king may command (EA 195: 2432).
In this account, the ruler at Damascus seems to define his own people by the different categories of their
relationship to him, none of which needs to be considered outside the normal social order. By their combination, the opening troops and chariots appear to reflect Damascus itself, so that the other three groups all stand
at a physical distance and must be associated with Biryawaza by commitments appropriate to their ways of life.
First, his kin, or brothers, would represent a following that is constituted as his own clan or tribe, a bond not
dependent on residence in the same town or settlement. The Sut are widely known as nomads. 12 In the Mari
evidence, where large groups are defined by connections that bridge settlement and steppe, farming and flocks,
in what are often called tribal peoples, the Sut are a much smaller group, never identified with settled life and
I elaborate my interpretation of the Hana category in Democracys Ancient Ancestors (Fleming 2004, pp. 4750, 8592, and 148
50), with a revision of my general understanding of the Hana in
Zimri-Lims kingdom in Fleming 2009.
10
The verb translated by Moran as consorting is in the Gtn

iterative stem of the verb alku (to go), which I render by its
common meaning as go around.
12
The one extended study is still that of Heltzer (1981).
11
42
Daniel E. Fleming
distinct from the well-attested Binu Simal and Binu Yamina populations.13 In the Damascus letter as well, these
may be nomads, entirely separate from towns. This leaves the apiru, who are neither direct kin nor true nomads.
However we define them, the apiru are equally committed to Biryawaza as his own, with no greater sense of social
or political distance. Another Amarna letter (EA 318), perhaps from somewhere in Syria, follows the term apiru
with the habbtu, perhaps even as a gloss on the common writing sa.gaz: Save me from powerful enemies, from
the hand of the apiru, the habbtu, and the Sut so save me, O great king, my lord! The word habbtu in this
use may be derived from a verb of movement, crossing from one domain to another, rather than to rob, so that
we cannot identify the apiru here with bandits.14 We are left with the same combination of apiru and Sut.
If we understand the apiru as runaways, detached from the social bonds of settled society and gathered in
bands of renegades on the fringes of regular civilization, one answer would be to consider such military support
as grounded purely in financial and practical motives. When associated with Abdi-Airta, Labayu, and Biryawaza,
the apiru may be understood as mercenaries.15 Support for such an interpretation could then be found in EA 246,
a letter to pharaoh from Biridiya, ruler of Megiddo, who complains of payments to the apiru in what might be
taken as a scheme to buy military muscle. Biridiya concludes, My lord the king should know: the two sons of
Labayu have indeed given their silver to the apiru and to the Sut , evidently in connection with war against
Megiddo. Before we conclude that this describes an obvious mercenary arrangement, we must keep in mind that
the Amarna evidence does not generally characterize the apiru as professional soldiers for hire, and this is not
the only way to account for such exchange. In a Mari letter published under the tantalizing title Vie nomade,
Hammi-itamar, leader of the Yaminite Uprap people, scoffs at the attempts of his counterpart to guarantee the
support of his fighters by paying them silver:
You put your trust elsewhere, thinking, I have given silver to my tribe. What is this silver of yours that
you gave? All of your silver that you gave I know about it. Yesterday, all your tribe assembled at Hen, and
the one who loves you was saying, Write to him so he will go, while the one who rejects (hates) you was
saying, He should not bother coming. Now if I did not make a habit of turning up in person, they would
never manage to act as one.16
Yasmah-Addu offers silver to his own limum or tribe, the term that defines his Yarih people as a whole.
This has nothing to do with the employment of foreigners and instead involves a leaders strategy for persuading his own people to join him in a dangerous military undertaking. Biridiyas opponents may well be the people
of Labayu and sons, classified by apiru and Sut groups, as in the list of Biryawazas fighters at Damascus. In
the Amarna correspondence, the apiru represent the category more feared and loathed than the Sut, and it is
their name that embodies potential rebellion in the mind of Rib-Hadda at Byblos. It seems that in Amurru of the
north, at least, the apiru were most central to defining the political role of populations not identified by their
settled abode.
13
To my knowledge, there is no systematic treatment of the Sut
in the Mari evidence; for sporadic references, see Fleming 2004,
pp. 99, 209; others can be found by browsing the published volumes of Mari letters.
14
See CAD s.v. abtu A v. (1) to rob, take away by force; (2) to
commit a robbery; abtu D v. (1) to move across, make an incursion, a razzia into enemy territory. Both verbs are common
in the Old Babylonian period (early second millennium), with
continued use in Babylonian dialects, as discussed in the dictionary articles. Naaman (1994, pp. 39899) calls these outlaw
refugees. Von Soden (1984) observed that the term sa.gaz (for
habbtu, the related noun) is usually read as bandit, including
in his own AHw, from the verb to rob, but that there is a homonym meaning to wander. The two verbs may have the same
foundational meaning, so that the apiru cannot be interpreted as
outside the law based on this comparison. Bottro (1972) likewise
emphasizes the importance of the sa.gaz connection: if this truly
means bandit, then it would provide a firm starting point for a

negative meaning except that the root may not be universally
pejorative. The basis for seeing the apiru as unstable and dangerous really comes from Amarna.
15
Ahlstrm (1986, p. 12) considers the lists of apiru fighters in
texts from Alalakh to be mercenaries (AT 18084). Grabbe (2007,
p. 48) mentions together the notions of mercenaries and thieves
in connection with EA 68, 185, and 186. Bottro (1972, p. 25) mentions the basis for considering them a military force; they are
found in enlistment accounts already at Mari; this is also the
entire purpose of their listing in the mid-second-millennium
text published by Mirjo Salvini (1996). Military enlistment does
not mean mercenary service, as is discussed further below. In
fact, it is not entirely clear that the category of mercenary is
appropriate to any military service in this pre-imperial period.
16
The text is A.1146, in Marello 1992.
43
apiru in Stable Relationships

In all of the evidence for the apiru, which has been gathered above all by Bottro, it is clear that they are
not defined by cities and settlements, even if they may inhabit these. 17 In this respect, we must keep in mind
the ubiquitous Hana of the Mari archives, whom Zimri-Lim rules as his core Simalite population, towns and all,
even though the word means something like tent dweller, the antithesis of settled life. Zimri-Lims own people
were identified by a way of life in which many of them did not participate. While the apiru may be difficult to
lay ones hands on, as with Labayus son in EA 254, the purely nomadic existence seems to be claimed already by
the Sut category. The explanation for such groups may remain elusive as well, but perhaps we do best to begin
by looking back at the early phenomenon.
Several texts from the early second millennium, before the term apiru became a fixed type, attest a verb
that appears to be cognate with the noun, without being simply denominative.18 Whatever the original meaning
of the root, in common usage, the verb always has to do with departure from ones home to take up residence in
a different place, especially a different political entity. Repeatedly, the verb accompanies a claim of legitimate
absence and assumes a recognized standing, not just in the new location but in the home left behind.
In one Mari letter, the governor of Qaunan, the northernmost district of the kingdom, writes to the king to
anticipate the possibility that men who came through Qaunan will file a false complaint. They may charge the
governor with holding two diplomats in custody, when these prisoners are nothing of the sort: One Numhean
was resident in Saggaratum and moved away to Kurd; and one man is in the service of (a man named) Sagaran.19
In this mix, Saggaratum is the city center of another district in Zimri-Lims Mari-based kingdom; Numh is the
name of a people identified specially with the city center of Kurd, so that this man moved away (verb habrum/
aprum) from a town where he was a relative foreigner back into the kingdom defined by his own Numh people.
Although he is moving into something that looks like home terrain, it is still a departure from Zimri-Lims authority. This is far from departure toward status as an outcast. So far as one could still question whether the verb is
in fact cognate with the noun, the Mari texts include references to the apiru status itself that involve the same
movement from one political domain to another. One letter from Terru, sometime ruler of Urkesh, defines the
status by departure (verb wasm): I make constant blessing on [my lords] behalf. Now, I have had to abandon
the comfort of my house, and so I have left to live as an outsider at (the town of) Shinah. My lord must not be
neglectful regarding this.20 Terrus town has forced him out of power, and he has fled to a neighboring polity.
The question, then, is how such displaced people came to be identified by large groups. The notion of their
gathering in bands does not explain the scale and integration of the Amarna evidence and is not required by the
apiru evidence as a whole. In evidence slightly later than that of Mari, the so-called habiru-prism of Tunip-Teup,
from roughly the late seventeenth century, counts by name three groups of apiru fighters joined under three
leaders, in a total of 438 men available to the ruler of this upper Tigris kingdom (Salvini 1996). Neither the men
nor their leaders receive any further title, and they are counted simply as apiru, a category evidently sufficient
to record their commitment to Tunip-Teup. It would seem that this mass of men lives within Tunip-Teups
domain but will not fight with town and village units, which are based on long-term solidarity and serve together.
Wherever and however they live, they are joined for military service under a separate census category, and this
is what unites them for classificatory purposes. In actual combat, such groups would probably have moved and
camped and fought together, as they were organized under this heading.21
The most systematic work on the cuneiform evidence has been

that of Jean Bottro, first in Le problme des abiru (1954) and
updated in RlA 4 (1972), and then in Nomads and Sedentary Peoples
(1981). See also Greenberg 1955. Other reviews of the evidence
have largely been based on the primary evidence gathered by
Bottro.
18
For listed examples, see the two long treatments by Bottro,
with Mari examples gathered in my Maris iBrum. The verb is
written in cuneiform with ha/ih, etc., and the labial B/P may
be read either way. By comparison with the ayin preserved at
Ugarit and in Egyptian, the first consonant is surely this one, and
the middle radical remains to be interpreted (see Borger 1958).
17
Whichever consonant is to be found in the early second-millennium texts, the verb is almost certainly cognate with the noun.
19
1 lNu-ma-ha-yu i-na Sa-ga-ra-timki wa-i-ib a-na Kur-da 32 ihbu-ra-am 1 l wa-ar-ki Sa-ga-ra-an i-la-ak (ARM 27, 116: 3132).
20
I have left to live as an outsider is a-na ha-p-ru-tim at-ta-s
(see ARM 28, 46: 28); the translation depends on the meaning
of the term under discussion, of course.
21
Many of the earlier apiru references, from the early second
millennium, have to do with soldiers; see Bottro 1954 for the
texts.
44
Daniel E. Fleming
If the identification of apiru groups in later texts does reflect a social reality with real links to this terminology and experience, then it is possible that they initially consisted particularly of men who were gathered
to fight as units and then maintained such communities over longer periods, beyond their commitments to the
kings who identified them this way. Although the Tunip-Teup text shows a kind of apiru census, even if as a
catch-all, it may be that by declining to assimilate into other defined communities, they committed themselves
to leaders without accepting the framework of census by settlements, like Maris Hana people, who also fought
by independent agreement. Such independence from accounting by royal census would have been anathema to
imperial rulers like the Egyptian pharaohs, even as large polities such as those of Abdi-Airta with Amurru and
of Labayu in the southern highlands could be founded on such an alternative social order.
Most simply, it appears that the apiru of the later second millennium, including the usage associated with
the Amarna letters, represents a social approximation of the Hana in the Mari letters. At Mari, that term may
refer to Zimri-Lims Binu Simal people but is ultimately a social category defining those not identified by town
of residence. The apiru are rooted in a terminology as old as the Hana, though with a slightly different meaning.
If the word hana derives from the root /hny/ to camp, then the category focuses on the mode of residence, which
depends on movable tents rather than fixed houses.22 In contrast, the verb ab/pru has to do with movement,
leaving one residence to take up another. Only the word hana envisions life with movement as a habit, whereas
the apiru category is rooted in the notion of a single disruption. They share, however, the picture of people who
continue to be identified by the fact that they cannot be related to a town of current and permanent residence. The
question is who such people can be when they represent a large social class, and here again, Mari offers a useful
point of reference, because this archive gives us an unusually detailed view of the world away from settlements.
In the social landscape offered by the Mari archives, there are no appreciable numbers of migrant bandits or
gangs of dislocated people who live outside of urban boundaries. Equally, there is no special concern to define
resident aliens, a class of permanent outsiders who may reside in a town long-term and yet who are always
foreign.23 Where groups of significant scale are considered as peoples identified by names, these are of the sort
commonly called tribal: the Binu Simal and the Binu Yamina, the Numh, the Yamutbal, and others. The question is what such groups may be when identified as a class by those who have no interest in their particular associations. By the time of the Amarna letters, the answer may be apiru. The earliest treatment of apiru as massed
groups appears to have been for military enlistment, when such people lived in the domain served and yet could
not be said to originate there. We know neither the backgrounds of these people nor their current affiliations
only that the government did not know how to count them by towns. In the Amarna correspondence, however,
the apiru are coherent, connected, and the primary political base for the kingdoms of Amurru and Labayu, as
seen from outside. If we set aside the assumption that the backcountry of the southern Levant was populated
by disaffiliated bands with no durable identity, and we consider the Mari landscape as a comparison, it is more
likely that the population not defined by towns would have maintained identities that could transcend settled
space. Such identities would look like those of the Binu Simal and the Binu Yamina at Mari, where they are called
tribal. One Mari text identifies a fighting force of apiru as explicitly belonging to one such group, the Yamutbal,
serving under a Yamutbal leader who has offered to help Mari capture a recalcitrant city.24 These are not people
who are displaced from their proper places in a social system; they are merely classed as a group traveling from
what one might consider a fixed home base, or without one yet identified adequately as Yamutbal on the move. 25
For this proposed etymology, which suits the actual usage of
the noun, see Durand 1992, pp. 11314; cf. Fleming 2004, p. 47.
23
This is what is envisioned for the biblical gr, a category that is
compared to the apiru by Ahlstm (1986, p. 12). In the Bible, this
class is of interest for the individual legal standing of its members, not because any large communities of grm are recognized
and feared or courted.
24
30 l.meYa-mu-ut-ba-la-yu ha-bi-ru i-na qa-ti-u i-la-ku Thirty
Yamutbalite apiru are under his command (A.2939: 1314, in
Charpin 1993, p. 188; cf. Bottro 1954, no. 19; Pohl 1957, p. 159).
25
Although his sense of the ancient social landscape reflected
earlier conceptions, Michael Astour (1999, p. 36) offered an interpretation of the apiru that anticipates mine and likewise works
especially from the Amarna evidence. He observes that the perfectly sane view of the apiru as seminomadic tribal intruders of
22
the tilled land, for all its textual and historical support, was all
but drummed out in the nineteen twenties and thirties. The idea
of the apiru as aliens, i.e. immigrants, fugitives, refugees, people
of most diverse geographical or ethnic origin, who had nothing
in common with each other but their homelessness, who were
kept apart from the indigenous population by special discriminatory laws was a retrojection of postWorld War I European
experience onto the past by the likes of Benno Landsberger and
Julius Lewy (Astour 1999, pp. 3637). Likewise, Michael Rowton
followed Landsberger in denying the apiru any tribal identity,
even though there was no basis to know they lacked such organization: If the apiru bands were externally similar to
tribal units, the right thing is to admit that they were indeed
tribal units. History shows that wherever one finds independent armed bands, these were always ethnically homogeneous
45
The apiru of Amarna would not be tribes in any direct sense, especially as viewed from inside. Rather, they
would include so-called tribal peoples as viewed from outside by the rulers of towns not invested in this social
framework, undifferentiated from others without town-based identity. This would explain why the Egyptians did
not fight against the apiru or consider them enemies; the apiru who fought for Egypt were simply people from
such tribe-like groups not nomads, not necessarily herdsmen, but listed this way as the most convenient way
to take their census for military purposes. Viewed this way, the apiru need not be detached from the social order,
and we need not even assume that they had cut ties to settled homes and kin. They were identified as without a
fixed town of residence, like Maris Hana, but this may often have reflected an integrated society of farmers and
herdsmen.
The apiru in the Landscape of the Late Bronze Age Southern Levant
The political landscape of the southern Levant during the Late Bronze Age remains something of a conundrum, worth further study.26 Despite the fact that archaeologists and historians alike know about the apiru and
attempt to account for them, their supposed character as displaced persons places them outside the normal
classifications of study based solely on excavation and survey. In search of identities for the inhabitants of any
setting urban, rural, or hinterland the primary occupants are rarely considered not to belong. Instead, one
speaks of townspeople and villagers, farmers and herdsmen, agricultural and pastoralist ways of life, degrees of
craft specialization in urban situations, and so on. Where are the apiru in the excavated and surveyed landscape
of the Late Bronze Age southern Levant?
Certain basic facts are available. In the early to mid-second millennium, the Middle Bronze Age IIB marked
a high point in local life, as measured by large populations in numerous sites. This thriving period overlapped
with the so-called Hyksos rule in the Egyptian north, when links between Egypt and Asia were vigorous (Frankel
et al. 2001, p. 129; cf. Broshi and Gophna 1986). The end of the Middle Bronze Age came with Egyptian invasion
of the Levant as one expression of a major political transition, and many of the great walled cities suffered destruction or damage. Egypt ruled the Mediterranean Levant as Canaan through the Late Bronze Age, from the
later sixteenth century through the early part of the twelfth. Viewed from the Egyptian side, the earlier phases
of conquest and consolidation were followed by the establishment of military strongholds and administrative
centers in a system that resulted in the relatively stable rule of the more southern lands, at least, through the
Amarna period and the fourteenth century (Weinstein 1981).27 The Egyptians faced more difficulty with the local
regimes in the thirteenth century and responded with more intrusive policies, reflected in further construction.
There is considerable discussion over how Egyptian rule was expressed in actual local conditions as encountered in archaeological research. Gonen (1984, p. 63) tracks the numbers of settlements across southern Palestine
throughout the Late Bronze Age. The numbers for the Middle Bronze II are roughly matched by the thirteenth
century, with gradual recovery after the vast drop-off in the sixteenth century. 28 Many more of the later sites
are small, and where the Middle Bronze towns survived, it was often on a much smaller scale. The result would
have been a vastly smaller population, concentrated near the coast and in the lowlands. 29 Although there is some
(ibid., p. 40). This is a remarkably independent and insightful

line of reasoning, in response to the basic nature of the evidence.
Note that Rowton (1976, p. 14) considered the apiru to reflect
the continuous seepage from the tribe that occurs when nomadic tribes are in close contact with sedentary populations a
reconstruction that displays his understanding of Near Eastern
society as ultimately polarized between sedentary and nomad as
fully separate groups.
26
This is the general problem investigated by Brendon Benz (2012
and n. 8, above).
27
Higginbotham (2000, p. 1) emphasizes the significant rebound
of the region after the initial wave of Egyptian destructions in
the sixteenth century.
For the Bronze Age, these are Middle Bronze II (54), sixteenth
century (24), fifteenth century (28), fourteenth century (48), thirteenth century (56). These numbers are only based on excavated
sites; survey evidence sharpens the pattern (Gonen 1984, p. 66,
table 2). Frankel et al. (2001, pp. 12830) observe a similar pattern
for the Upper Galilee, which they compare with the Benjamin
region, where the reduction is even sharper.
29
Herzog (2003, p. 93) bases this conclusion on the work of Bunimovitz (1989, p. 152), who estimated a change from 137,000 to
27,600 between Middle Bronze II and Late Bronze I, with the early
impact of the Egyptian takeover.
28
46
Daniel E. Fleming
question about the possible reuse of the great Middle Bronze ramparts at some sites, Late Bronze towns seem
to have been generally unfortified. Reinforced palaces formed the central strongholds of these sites, reflecting
their modest scale (Herzog 2003, pp. 8992; cf. Gonen 1984, pp. 6970). Bunimovitz (1995, p. 323) considers that
while in the Middle Bronze, the concentration of large sites in the southern coastal plain suggests a unified polity which he does not name the Late Bronze Age shows little such political integration. This is the landscape
of semi-autonomous states visible in the Amarna correspondence. Despite Gonens count of small settlements,
Bunimovitz emphasizes the essentially urban nature of the Late Bronze population (1995, p. 324).30 For him, there
was no true circle of peasants dependent on the urban centers that would provide the basis for a revolt in
Mendenhalls terms. Instead, the conflict at the end of the Late Bronze Age must have been between sedentary
and non-sedentary groups.
In general, this leaves us with a countryside occupied by few fixed settlements, without large populations of
farming villages dependent on urban centers. People either live in towns or not, and if they do not, the first conclusion is that they are pastoralists. Yet the shosu herdsmen known to Egypt are identified with lands to the south
and east of the highlands that came to be occupied by Israel and that are visible in the Amarna correspondence.
Given the frequent association of the apiru with the regions outside of town centers, in highland strongholds like
Amurru to the north and the region surrounding Shechem to the south, we may wonder whether these peoples
could also be involved with what Anne Porter calls broad range herding, beyond the limits of daily travel from
towns.31 Mari shows us that such groups developed forms of social organization that allowed them to maintain
bonds across space, with group members resident both in settlements and in herding camps, thus distributing
labor according to need. The actual names of groups not defined by town centers seem to have been beyond the
interest of the vassals who reported to Egypt. Maris insight into this world is rare in the ancient Near East, a
reflection of the unusual identity and circumstances of Zimri-Lim.
If something like this scenario is conceivable, then the southern Levant in the thirteenth century would have
been occupied by a mosaic of political forms with diverse characters. Some would have been constituted by central
towns with limited scope, as commonly imagined. Especially in the highlands and farther inland, however, society may not have been divided between socially separate urbanites and country pastoralists. The peoples of the
steppe may have been linked by social bonds that formed the basis for polities incorporating urban populations
as well. A model may be the kingdom of Labayu in the Amarna evidence, where town centers like Shechem did
not define his people, and his son could conveniently be found far from town with the apiru when his Egyptian
overlords called.
Abbreviations
ARM 27
ARM 28
EA
Maurice Birot. Correspondance des gouverneurs de Qaunn. Archives royales de Mari 27. Paris: Editions
Recherches sur les Civilisations, 1993
Jean-Robert Kupper. Lettres royales du temps de Zimri-Lim. Archives royales de Mari 28. Paris: Editions
Recherches sur les Civilisations, 1998
Moran 1992
Killebrew (2005, p. 97) contrasts the continuity between Middle

and Late Bronze material culture patterns in Canaan with the
30
breakdown into distinct regional material cultures in the early

Iron Age.
31
Porter 2012, chapter 1.
47
Bibliography
Ahlstm, Gsta W.
1986
Who Were the Israelites? Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Astour, Michael C.
1999
The Hapiru in the Amarna Texts: Basic Points of Controversy. Ugarit-Forschungen 31: 3150.
Benz, Brendon C.
2012
Borger, Riekele
1958
Bottro, Jean
1954
1972
1981
The Varieties of Sociopolitical Experience in the Amarna Age Levant and the Rise of Early Israel. Ph.D.
dissertation. New York University. [Projected date]
Das Problem der apiru (abiru). Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palstina-Vereins 74: 12132.
Le problme des abiru la 4e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.
abiru. Reallexikon der Assyriologie 4: 1427.
Les abiru, les nomades et les sdentaires. In Nomads and Sedentary Peoples: 30th International Congress
of Human Sciences in Asia and North Africa, edited by J. Silva Castillo, pp. 89107. Mexico City: Collegio de
Mexico.
Broshi, Magen, and Ram Gophna

Middle Bronze Age II Palestine: Its Settlements and Population. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
1986
Research 261: 7390.
Buccellati, Giorgio
1977
Apir and Munnabttu The Stateless of the First Cosmopolitan Age. Journal of Near Eastern Studies
36: 14547.
Bunimovitz, Shlomo
The Land of Israel in the Late Bronze Age: A Case Study of Socio-cultural Change in a Complex Society.
1989
Ph.D. dissertation. Tel Aviv University. [In Hebrew]
On the Edge of Empires Late Bronze Age (15001200 B.C.E.). In The Archaeology of Society in the Holy
1995
Land, edited by Thomas E. Levy, pp. 32031. New York: Facts on File.
Charpin, Dominique
Un souverain phmre en Ida-Maras: Ime-Addu dAnakkum. MARI 7: 18587.
1993
Charpin, Dominique, and Jean-Marie Durand
Fils de Simal: les origines tribales des rois de Mari. Revue dAssyriologie 80/2: 14183.
1986
de Vaux, Roland
1968
Le problme des apiru aprs quinze annes. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 27: 22128.
Dever, William G.
2003
Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Diakonoff, I. M.
1982
The Structure of Near Eastern Society before the Middle of the 2nd Millennium B.C. Oikumene 3: 7100.
Durand, Jean-Marie
1992
2004
Fleming, Daniel E.
2004
2009
Unit et diversits au Proche-Orient lpoque amorrite. In La circulation des biens, des personnes et des
ides dans le Proche-Orient ancien (actes de la 38 e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Paris, 810
juillet 1991), edited by Dominique Charpin and Francis Joanns, pp. 97128. Compte Rendu Rencontre
Assyriologique Internationale 38. Paris: ditions Recherche sur les civilisations.
Peuplement et socits lpoque amorrite (I): Les clans Bensimalites. Amurru 3: 11197.
Democracys Ancient Ancestors: Mari and Early Collective Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kingship of City and Tribe Conjoined: Zimri-Lim at Mari. In Nomads, Tribes, and the State in the Ancient
Near East: Cross-disciplinary Perspectives, edited by Jeffrey Szuchman, pp. 22740. Oriental Institute Seminars 5. Chicago: The Oriental Institute.
48
Daniel E. Fleming
Frankel, Rafael; Nimrod Getzov; Mordechai Aviam; and Avi Degani

2001
Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee: Archaeological Survey of Upper Galilee.
Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.
Gonen, Rivka
1984
Urban Canaan in the Late Bronze Period. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 253: 6173.
Gottwald, Norman K.
The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel, 12501050 B.C.E. Maryknoll: Orbis Books.
1979
Grabbe, Lester L.
2007
Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It? London: T. and T. Clark.
Greenberg, Moshe
1955
The ab/piru. American Oriental Series 39. New Haven: American Oriental Society.
Heltzer, Michael
1981
The Suteans. Series maior 13. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale.
Herzog, Zeev
2003
The Canaanite City between Ideology and Archaeological Reality. In Saxa Loquentur: Studien zur Archologie Palstinas/Israels: Festschrift fr Volkmar Fritz zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by Cornelis G. den Hertog,
Ulrich Hbner, and Stefan Mnger, pp. 8596. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 302 Mnster: Ugarit
Verlag.
Higginbotham, Carolyn R.
2000
Egyptianization and Elite Emulation in Ramesside Palestine: Governance and Accommodation on the Imperial
Periphery. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 2. Leiden: Brill.
Ivanov, V. V.
1974
Killebrew, Ann E.
2005
abiru in Cuneiform Hittite and Luwian Texts. In Internationale Tagung der Keilschriftforscher der sozialistischen Lnder, Budapest, 2325 April 1974, edited by G. Komoroczy, pp. 3940. Budapest: Etvs Lornd
Tudomnyegyetem, kori Trtneti Tanszk.
Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, and Early Israel
13001100 B.C.E. Archaeology and Biblical Studies 9. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Knudtzon, J. A.
1964
Die el-Amarna-Tafeln. Aalen: Otto Zeiler (from 1915 edition).
Liverani, Mario
1979
Farsi Habiru. Vicino Oriente 12: 6577.
Marello, Pierre
1992
Vie nomade. In Recueil dtudes en lhonneur de Michel Fleury, edited by Jean-Marie Durand, pp. 11525.
Florilegium Maniarum. Mmoires de NABU 1. Paris: SEPOA.
Mendenhall, George
1962
The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine. Biblical Archaeologist 25/3: 6687.
Miglio, Adam E.
2010
Moran, William L.
1992
Naaman, Nadav
1986
1994
2005
Solidarity and Political Authority during the Reign of Zimr-Lm (c. 17751762 B.C.). Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Chicago.
The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
abiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary Sphere. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 45: 27186.
The Canaanites and Their Land. Ugarit-Forschungen 26: 397418.
The Town of Ibirta and the Relations of the apiru and the Shasu. In Ancient Israel and Its Neighbors:
Interaction and Counteraction Canaan in the Second Millennium B.C.E., pp. 27579. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Pohl, Alfred
1957
Porter, Anne
2012
Einige Gedanken zur Habiru-Frage. Wiener Zeitschrift fr die Kunde des Morgenlandes 54: 15760.
Mobile Pastoralism and the Formation of Near Eastern Civilizations: Weaving Together Society. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Routledge, Bruce E.
2004
Moab in the Iron Age: Hegemony, Polity, Archaeology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Rowton, Michael
1976
Dimorphic Structure and the Problem of the apir-ibrm. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 35: 1320.
Salvini, Mirjo
1996
49
The abiru Prism of King Tunip-Teup of Tikunani. Documenta Asiana 3. Rome: Istituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali.
von Soden, Wolfram

1984
Review of abiru-Hebrer: Eine sozio-linguistische Studie ber die Herkunft des Gentiliziums ibr vom Appellativum abiru, by Oswald Loretz. Ugarit-Forschungen 16: 36468.
Weinstein, James M.
1981
The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: A Reassessment. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
241: 128.
Denominal, Lexicalized hiphil Verbs
51

W. Randall Garr, University of California, Santa Barbara
1. Introduction
The hiphil is widely recognized as a stem that serves mainly as the causative of the qal (Blau 2010, 4.3.5.7.1
[emphasis original]; see also Bergstrsser 1929, 19aa*; and Tropper 1990, pp. 1617; cf. Speiser 1936, pp. 2324
= 1967, pp. 40405).

The sun will set. (Mi 3:6)
I will make the sun set. (Am 8:9)
[after NJPS])
Your sins I remember no more. Help me remember! (Is 43:2526

Whoever takes refuge in me will possess the land. (Is 57:13)
You will lead this people to possess the land. (Jo 1:6)
It has a distinct and definable profile. The hiphil has a clearly derivational status: it is completely predictable in
form, and largely predictable in function; it is fully productive in that it can be derived from all kinds of verbs,
both intransitive and transitive (Kouwenberg 1997, p. 250, on the Akkadian stem). It usually adds an external
agent to the underlying nonderived verb (ibid., p. 243).
A number of hiphil verbs, however, do not conform to this model. Bergstrsser labels this group isolated
(1929, 19b; see also Waltke and OConnor 1990, 27.4). Joon prefers pseudo-hifil (Joon and Muraoka 2006,
54f). In either case, these verbs have hiphil morphology but are often non-productive and largely unpredictable
in semantic content. Such verbs are assigned to the hiphil stem on a lexical basis. Two common verbs in this cathit, strike (
) and
throw; their attestation lies entirely or predominantly in the hiphil
egory are
and associated passive. The majority of these verbs, though, originate from nonverbal roots. That origin may be
inform, tell <
facing, opposite (Waltke and OConnor 1990, 27.4b). The origin may
prepositional, as in
turn white (Jo 1:7; Is 1:18; Ps 51:9; see also Dn 11:35) <
white or
act modestly
be adjectival, as in
modest (Prov 11:2). Frequently, that origin is nominal: for example,
soar (Job 39:26) <
(Mi 6:8) <
rain <
rain, and
testify <
witness. Yet whether the hiphil be de-prepositional, dewing,
1
adjectival, or denominal, its morphological assignment is uniformly lexical. Such verbs are called lexicalized.2
Cf. the widespread archaic alternative denominative.
2
Cf. lexical causative, which is also unproductive but expresses a cause-effect relationship in a nonderived stem: e.g.,
kill
(as opposed to
put to death).
51
52
W. Randall Garr
Practically all lexicalized hiphils are non-productive, morphologically causative, and semantically non-causative
(Premper 1987, p. 119; in conjunction with Bybee 1985, p. 18).
This study focuses on the denominal subset of lexicalized hiphils (see Gerber 1896, pp. 3650 for an overambitious yet incomplete discussion). It is a delimited group whose members are identifiable and relatively uncontroversial, and it constitutes the largest class within lexicalized hiphils (~35 percent). It has not been determined,
however, why this semantically non-causative group bears causative grammatical coding (see, in this context,
Steiner 1997, p. 161). In general terms, grammarians attribute the causative form to the effecting nature of these
hiphil verbs (Gesenius 1910, 53g; and Joon and Muraoka 2006, 54d; for a compatible notion, see Porges 1875, pp.
29798). But they also recognize that this feature does not explain every denominal, lexicalized hiphil or, for that
matter, non-denominal, lexicalized hiphils. An explanation should be available, though (cf. Jenni 2000, p. 87 = 2005,
p. 101). Functionalists, for example, believe that the relationship between form and meaning is non-arbitrary
(see Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca 1994, p. 40). They claim that certain formally identifiable morphemes in the
languages of the world have certain semantic properties and are drawn from certain areas of semantic space
(ibid., p. 37; see also Kemmer 1993, pp. 8, 222; and, somewhat differently, Nss 2007, p. 4). This credo suggests, in
fact, that all hiphil verbs causative and non-causative share certain semantic properties.
2. The Causative hiphil

The morphological and semantic templates for denominal, lexicalized hiphils lie in the sphere of causativity.
For as the consensus holds, the hiphil is a prototypical causative structure. It has two identifiable parts. Its root
or basic verb expresses effect, result, or consequence. Its derivational morphology a combination of prefixed
*ha- and infixed -- expresses cause or antecedence. Together, they form a single clause comprising two discrete
sub-events: X (the subject) caused that Y (the second subject) be or do something (Waltke and OConnor 1990,
27.1e; see also Joon and Muraoka 2006, 54d). Stated differently, an entity (person, thing, abstract force) either
brings about or, at the very least, fails to prevent the situation expressed by the non-causative verb (Comrie
1985, p. 330; see also Lewis 1973, p. 563; or Tropper 1990, p. 3).
2.1. Causer
By definition, all causative structures commence with a causer. The causer is the newly introduced actor
that initiates, controls, or is responsible for causes the subsequent situation (see Speiser 1936, p. 29 = 1967,
p. 412). The causer is usually an agent, whether human (Jo 1:6; Is 43:26) or divine (Am 8:9). Sometimes, however,
it is neither.

(It is) a meal offering of recollection, recalling wrongdoing. (Num 5:15)
The rain and the snow , having watered the

earth, will get it to bear and sprout (Is 55:10)
The scorn of clans made me terrified. (Job 31:34); see also
The ravens brought him bread and meat. (1 Kgs 17:6)
In all cases, though, the causer is the force that initiates and propels the dependent situation. It is a force that
proceeds from the causer and usually moves outward.
2.2. Impingement
The manner by which the causer effects the dependent situation is never expressed in the hiphil (Jenni 1992,
p. 84 = 1997, p. 169). It may be conveyed by physical contact and manipulation (1 Kgs 17:6; see also Is 55:10). It
53
may be an act of assistance (Is 43:25) or leadership (Jo 1:6). It may be an abstract and overwhelming power (Am
8:9), or it may be perceived as an undeflectable stimulus (Job 31:34). Regardless, it is dynamic and impinging.
2.3. Causee
The force of the causer impinges upon a referentially discrete causee. The causee may be a coparticipant
whether cooperating or not in the effected situation (Jo 1:6; Job 31:34), in which case the causee is an instrument through which the causer effects the ultimate causative goal. Alternatively, the causee may lack agentive
force and, controlled by the causer, become a dynamic patient (Am 8:6). The force of the causer affects the causee,
making a transition between antecedent/cause and consequence/effect.
2.4. Resultant Change of Status

The transition marks the onset of the dependent situation expressed by the embedded non-causative verb.
While this situation may be transitive (Jo 1:6), intransitive (Am 8:9), or ambitransitive (see Is 43:26), it consistently
registers a change that would not have occurred without instigation by the causer at least in the mind of the
speaker or writer. The type of change is broad: for example, location (1 Kgs 17:6), position (Am 8:9), experience
(Job 31:34), cognition (Is 43:26), or even regeneration (see Is 55:10). The type naturally depends on the situation
expressed by the non-causative verb. Still, this change marks the goal and endpoint of causative force initiated
by the causer. Causative input effects perceptible change.
3. Denominal, Lexicalized hiphil Verbs

The semantic profile of this group seems very different from that of the causative hiphil. It is not derived from
a simpler, non-causative verb. It does not add a new, external agent to a basic proposition and thereby rearrange
any underlying participants. Though morphologically transparent and bipartite, it does not express two discrete
sub-events in a causeeffect relationship. Rather, it expresses a single unmediated event.
3.1. Directed, Initiating Force

Whereas the activity of the causative hiphil is largely initiated by an agentive causer, this causative role fades
in denominal, lexicalized hiphils. An agent may initiate a process and produce the underlying nominal: for exmake oil (Job 24:11) and, perhaps,
idolize (Jer 44:19). An agent may provide or contribute
ample,
give shoes (2 Chr 28:15) and
offer (sacrifice) (for the latter, see Gerber
a nominal: for example,
in Num 13:30: Caleb
1896, pp. 4446). An agent may impose a nominal through directive order: for example,
hushed the people (cf. Tawil 2009, p. 87a). The agent need not be part of a causercausee relationship.
The grammatical subject of denominal, lexicalized hiphils may also have a variety of referents. In the examples
let out a cry (Job 35:9);
above, it is a human agent who instigates, controls, and effects. The same is true for
rain. In other examples, the agent behaves in a focused and deliberate mansee also the divine agent of
undertake and perform Nazirite practice; abstain (Num
ner or, at least, is perceived as such: for example,
testify, and arguably
act like an ass (Hos 13:15; see 8:9) (see Waltke and OConnor 1990,
6:2.3.5.6.12),
27.4a; and, perhaps, Kienast 2001, 188.1d, for the behavioral component). Alternatively, the subject may be a
semantic patient undergoing and without control (Talmy 1976, p. 89; in conjunction with Mithun 1991, p. 527).
be in labor (Jer 48:41, 49:22). It may be faunal, as in
have
On occasion, that patient is human, as in
snow (Ps 68:15).
twins (Sg 4:2, 6:6). Or it may be inanimate, especially a meteorological phenomenon, as in
These denominal, lexicalized hiphils share several features with their canonical counterpart. First, the activity expressed by the verb originates in the subject. Whether it is agentive or patientive, the subject is the sole
party responsible for causes the activity. Second, the subject radiates energy or force. It usually initiates
54
W. Randall Garr
the activity as if by intervention. Or, the source may be internal and arise spontaneously by natural cause. It need
not have an external source. Third, the energy or force is channeled along a particular path (Matisoff, cited in Li
1993, p. 355). In a minority of cases, that energy stays within the subject. For the most part, however, it is directed
outward. It proceeds away from the subject in transitive, intransitive, and ambitransitive clauses.
3.2. Motion
In the canonical hiphil, the causer embodies an instigative force that affects the causee and motivates the situation expressed by the non-causative base. This energy has a source, affects a referentially discrete intermediary,
and usually rests at a goal; since these stages cannot be rearranged, the propelling force in the causative hiphil
proceeds in only one direction. It emanates from the causer, proceeds along a path, and reaches an endpoint.
This unidirectional force has several manifestations in the denominal, lexicalized hiphil. It may be an audible
let out a cry. It may have an inchoative reading, as in de-adjectival hiphils (e.g., Bergstrsser
outburst, as in
increase a thousandfold (Ps 144:13). The force may transfer its nominal along a
1929, 19d) and, perhaps,
they gave them shoes (2 Chr 28:15) (see Nyberg 1920, p. 251). Or the force
path and attain its goal, as in
go right (Gen 13:9; 2 Sam 14:19; Ez 21:21)
may be physical movement directed at its underlying nominal:
go left (Gen 13:9; 2 Sam 14:19; Is 30:21; Ez 21:21) (Porges 1875, p. 298; and Brockelmann 1908, 257Gh
and
bed down (
) (Is 58:5; Ps 139:8; see also Is 14:11; Est 4:3). Unidirectional force can be
[p. 528]); see also
interpreted concretely.
3.3. Instrument
As in the canonical hiphil, the manner by which the subject conveys its animating force is not expressed. In
the examples given in 2.2, the manner must be inferred. Most have a common element. Whether physical contact, manipulation, assistance, or leadership, that common element is the (human) body. Among non-denominal,
hit, strike involves a large part of the upper body.
throw involves
lexicalized hiphils, for instance,
the hands and arms. The force of the hiphil is commonly conveyed through the body or a body part.
Among denominal, lexicalized hiphils, the underlying nominal may name an instrument. The instrument
scrape (Lev 14:41); see also
may be the gear or device that accomplishes an activity: for example,
playing the trumpet (1 Chr 15:24; 2 Chr 5:12, 7:6, 13:14, 29:28 [ktiv]).
trapped (Is 42:22
[passive]) may belong here too, though its nominal also represents the goal of the activity. In each case, the underlying instrument is an alienable entity. In other cases, though, it is an inalienable body part: for example,
listen up, pay attention to; see also
badmouth (Prov 30:10). In these latter hiphils, the
soar and
subject uses the appropriate body part to activate or accomplish a physical, cognitive, or communicative activity.
3.4. Resultant Change of Status

Whether a hiphil be causative or not, the outcome is the same: a state or status that is perceptibly different
from what obtained before. In denominal, lexicalized hiphils, that difference is often obvious. For example, when
the hiphil effects the underlying nominal, that nominal which did not exist beforehand is completely new. The
make rain (Jer 14:22),
assemble (lit. make ___ into a
),
instigative force may be external, as in
destroy (lit. make ___ a
). Alternatively, the force may develop internally: for example,
and probably
blossom (Sg 6:11, 7:13; see also Eccl 12:5) and
take root (Ps 80:10 [subj. vine]). The resultant change
(gold) plated (
) (1 Kgs 10:18 [passive]). It may be location,
may be an altered physical state: for example,
go right, or even ownership, as in
give shoes.
as in
have hoofs,
have horns (Ps 69:32), and,
One last hiphil category, in fact, denotes ownership:
ballsy (
?) (Jer 5:8) (Nyberg 1920, p. 272; see also Bauer and Leander 1922, 38z). In this inperhaps,
stance, the change formation, development, and growth has already occurred. The goal is therefore attained
and persists as a state of existence.
55
4. The hiphil
This discussion of the hiphil aims to correlate a formally identifiable morpheme with certain semantic
properties drawn from certain areas of semantic space (see 1). The morpheme is clear. But the semantic
properties remain unidentified, in part, because causativity has been interpreted narrowly. Once that concept is
broadened and its constituents isolated, though, a new semantic picture of the hiphil emerges.
Causativity has a schematic structure. On one analysis, that structure is bipartite, having an antecedent cause
and a consequent effect; energy, as it were, moves from source to goal (Radden 1985, p. 187). On another analysis,
the structure is tripartite: anteriority, a discrete transition, and consequence (Talmy 1985, p. 330). Again, the
situation progresses in one direction only.
But not all causatives are alike.
The rain and the snow ... will get [the earth] to bear ... (Is 55:10)
Haran; and Haran fathered Lot. (Gen 11:27)
Terah fathered Abram, Nahor, and
Now Yahweh, Israels God,

has driven the Amorites away from his people Israel. And youd possess [their territory]?
Dont you possess what Chemosh your god gives you to possess? (Shouldnt) we possess all
that Yahweh our God has driven from us (and has given us to possess)? (Judg 11:2324)

You mustnt observe

your fellows ass or ox fallen on the road and ignore it. You must get it up with his help. (Dt
22:4)
10:21)
Then you will erect the tabernacle. (Ex 26:30; see also 40:2.18; Num 7:1, 9:15,
As these texts illustrate, some causative hiphil verbs express two distinct sub-events that stand in a causeeffect
relationship; they are instigated by a causer and involve an intermediary (second subject) executing the effect
(indirect causative) (e.g., Kittil 2002, p. 261). Frequently, however, causatives express single events. Absent an
intermediary, the causer not only instigates but is also directly responsible for the activity as well as any dependent change (direct causative) (ibid., p. 259). In the indirect causative, the cause-effect relationship involves
a causer, causee, and effected situation reflecting a change of status. In the direct causative, the causeeffect
relationship is condensed; it has an agent and a patient. The direct causative resembles a simple transitive clause
registering immediate affect or effect.
Denominal, lexicalized hiphils substantially follow the pattern of the direct causative. Whether transitive,
intransitive, or ambitransitive, they too signify immediate affect or effect. Moreover, they have a number of semantic properties in common with direct causatives and, ultimately, prototypical indirect causatives. First, they
are each initiated by a causative force that is represented grammatically as the subject. Its specific nature varies:
for example, external or internal, applied or spontaneous, controlled or uncontrolled. It nevertheless instigates,
propels, and is responsible for causes the subsequent situation. It is dynamic and goal-oriented. Second,
this force is conveyed along a path. That path may be an overt causee, an underlying instrument, an appropriate
body part, or a natural direction. The path is the channel through which the force attains or effects its goal. Third,
the channeled force produces a change. Usually the change is perceptible and clear. Occasionally, it is inferred
from the result. In either case, the force reaches its endpoint.
Inasmuch as the semantic properties common to hiphil verbs rely on linguistic abstractions of force dynamics (Talmy 1986), they also resolve another semantic issue troubling the study of the hiphil. The hiphil projects
different degrees of transitivity.
56
W. Randall Garr
to hear chariots, horses a great army. (2 Kgs 7:6)
The Lord caused the Aramean camp
Then King Asa called all Judah. (1 Kgs 15:22)
You mustnt let your voice be heard. (Jo 6:10)
They will sound out. (Ez 27:30)
A causative hiphil may be ditransitive, monotransitive, or intransitive. Transitivity, then, is not an intrinsic
feature of the hiphil. It is an epiphenomenon that depends on a linguistic interpretation of force dynamics as well
as the number and roles of participants in an expressed activity (cf. Kienast 2001, 188.2).
Bibliography
1922
Historische Grammatik der hebrischen Sprache des Alten Testamentes. Halle: Niemeyer.
Bergstrsser, G.
1929
Blau, Joshua
2010
Brockelmann, Carl
1908
Bybee, Joan L.
1985
Hebrische Grammatik, Part 2: Verbum. Leipzig: Hinrichs.

Phonology and Morphology of Biblical Hebrew: An Introduction. Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic
Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, Volume 1: Laut- und Formenlehre. Berlin:
Reuther and Reichard.
Morphology: A Study of the Relation Between Meaning and Form. Typological Studies in Language 9. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Bybee, Joan; Revere Perkins; and William Pagliuca

1994
The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Comrie, Bernard
1985
Gerber, Wenzel J.
1896
Gesenius, Wilhelm
1910
Jenni, Ernst
1992
1997
Causative Verb Formation and Other Verb-deriving Morphology. In Language Typology and Syntactic
Description, Volume 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, edited by Timothy Shopen, pp. 30948.
Die hebrischen Verba denominativa insbesondere im theologischen Sprachgebrauch des Alten Testamentes. Eine
lexikographische Studie. Leipzig: Hinrichs.
Gesenius Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch and A. E. Cowley. 2nd English edition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kausativ und Funktionsverbgefge: Sprachliche Bemerkungen zur Bitte: Fhre uns nicht in Versuchung. In Das universale Gebet: Studien zur Unservater. Jan Milo Lochman gewidmet zum 70. Geburtstag, pp.
7788. Theologische Zeitschrift 48/1. Basel: Reinhardt.
Studien zur Sprachwelt des Alten Testaments. Edited by Beat Huwyler and Klaus Seybold. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

2000
2005
57
Aktionarten und Stammformen im Althebrischen: Das Piel in verbesserter Sicht. Zeitschrift fr Althebraistik 13: 6790.
Studien zur Sprachwelt des Alten Testaments, Volume 2. Edited by Jrg Luchsinger, Hans-Peter Mathys, and
Markus Saur. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Joon, Paul, and T. Muraoka

2006
A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 3rd edition. Subsidia Biblica 27. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico.
Kemmer, Suzanne
1993
The Middle Voice. Typological Studies in Language 23. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Kienast, Burkhart
2001
Historische Semitische Sprachwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Kittil, Seppo
2002
Transitivity: Towards a Comprehensive Typology. Yleisen kielitieteen julkaisuja/Publications in General

Linguistics 5. Turku: University of Turku.
Kouwenberg, N. J. C.
1997
Gemination in the Akkadian Verb. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 32. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Lewis, David
1973 Causation. Journal of Philosophy 70: 55667.
Li, Fengxiang
1993
An Examination of Causative Morphology from a Cross-linguistic and Diachronic Perspective. In Papers

from the 27th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 1991, Part 1: The General Session, edited by Lise
M. Dobrin, Lynn Nichols, and Rosa M. Rodrguez, pp. 34459. Chicago Linguistic Society 27:1. Chicago:
Chicago Linguistic Society.
Mithun, Marianne
1991
Active/Agentive Case Marking and its Motivations. Language 67: 51046.
Nss, shild
2007
Prototypical Transitivity. Typological Studies in Language 72. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Nyberg, H. S.
1920
Wortbildung mit Prfixen in den semitischen Sprachen. Le monde oriental 14: 177288.
Porges, Nathan
1875
Premper, Waldfried
1987
Radden, Gnter
1985
Speiser, E. A.
1936
1967
Steiner, Richard C.
1997
Talmy, Leonard
1976
1985
Ueber die Verbalstammbildung in den semitischen Sprachen. Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Classe der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaft 79: 281354.
Kausativierung im Arabischen (Ein Beitrag zur sprachlichen Dimension der Partizipation). Arbeiten
des Klner Universalien Projekts (akup) 66: 1131.
Spatial Metaphors Underlying Prepositions of Causality. In The Ubiquity of Metaphor: Metaphor in Language and Thought, edited by Wolf Paprott and Ren Dirven, pp. 177207. Current Issues in Linguistic
Theory 29. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Studies in Semitic Formatives. Journal of the American Oriental Society 56: 2246.
Oriental and Biblical Studies: Collected Writings of E. A. Speiser. Edited and with an introduction by Jacob J.
Finkelstein and Moshe Greenberg. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Ancient Hebrew. In The Semitic Languages, edited by Robert Hetzron, pp. 14573. London: Routledge.
Semantic Causative Types. In The Grammar of Causative Constructions, edited by Masayoshi Shibatani,
pp. 43116. Syntax and Semantics 6. New York: Academic Press.
Force Dynamics in Language and Thought. In Papers from the Parasession on Causatives and Agentivity at
the Twenty-first Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, April 2527, 1985, Part 2, edited by William H.
Eilfort, Paul D. Kroeber, and Karen L. Peterson, pp. 293337. Chicago Linguistic Society 21:2. Chicago:
Chicago Linguistic Society.
58
W. Randall Garr
1986
Force Dynamics as a Generalization over Causative. In Languages and Linguistics: The Interdependence
of Theory, Data, and Application, edited by Deborah Tannen and James E. Alatis, pp. 6785. Georgetown
University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1985. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University
Press.
Tawil, Hayim ben Yosef

An Akkadian Lexical Companion for Biblical Hebrew: Etymological-semantic and Idiomatic Equivalents with
2009
Supplement on Biblical Aramaic. Jersey City: Ktav.
Tropper, Josef
1990
Der ugaritische Kausativstamm und die Kausativbildungen des Semitischen: Eine morphologisch-semantische
Untersuchung zum -Stamm und zu den umstrittenen nichtsibilantischen Kausativstmmen des Ugaritischen.
Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palstinas 2. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Waltke, Bruce K., and M. OConnor

1990
The Treatment of Vowel Length in Arabic Grammar and Its Adaptation to Hebrew
59
The Treatment of Vowel Length in Arabic Grammar

and Its Adaptation to Hebrew
Gideon Goldenberg, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
The phonological value of vowel length was one of the questions that medieval Arab grammarians treated
with thoughtful attention and great insight. Their work on this as on other matters does still excite interest not
only as a chapter in the history of linguistic thought, but also as an important achievement in itself, which would
challenge any present-day linguistic theory. Some doubts and inconsistencies concerning the phonological interpretation of long vowels in Arabic (and in cognate languages) are still found in scholarly discussions on the
subject among linguists of our day as among their medieval predecessors.
The ideas that medieval Arab philologists had on long vowels will better be presented as conceived from
three different points of view: (a) structural analysis, (b) theoretical speculation, and (c) phonetic description.
I. Structural Analysis of Long Vowels

Structurally long vowels were clearly understood as being necessarily a realization of vowel + weak consonant (VC). In the classical terminology, consonants (), in contrast to sonants (), are literally
dened by not sounding on their own ( ), needing some other element with which
they would gain sonority. In this literal sense, consonant will not be inapposite in the present context. In Arabic
grammar, consonants (urf, here literally referring to the letters of the alphabet) are considered the basic sound
units. Vowels (arakt, lit. movements) are indispensable, but they are additions (zawid) added to link between
the letters in order to make speech realizable1 as if consonants were the bricks and vowels the mortar. Without
a vowel, a consonant would not be pronounceable. 2 It is therefore the consonant that is said to be vowelled
(mutaarrik, lit. movent) when it supports a following vowel; the arresting consonant (coda) of a syllable, necessarily unvocalized, is said to be skin quiescent or motionless.
would open his mouth with a alif and then get to produce the
consonant, like ab, at, a, a, a (al-Xall Kitb al-ayn 52:1213),
certainly a device for attempting to pronounce consonants unvowelled, as bare as possible. Ibn inn asked the same question,
and answered it similarly: if the consonant is skin, i.e., with no
vowel following, one needs to add a prothetic vowel. For pronouncing b, , or q, one must say ib, i, iq, respectively. And if you
wish to say, e.g., that the word Bakr begins with a b, you say that
it begins with bah, and ilah begins with ih (Ibn inn Xai I
27:1428:5).
The clearest expression of this conception is attributed to alXall: wa-zaama l-Xallu anna l-fatata wa-l-kasrata wa-l-ammata
zawidu, wa-hunna yalaqna l-arfa li-yala il l-takallumi bih.
wa-l-binu huwa l-skinu lla l ziydata fhi al-Xall claimed that
the fatah and the kasrah and the ammah [i.e., the three vowels]
are augments, and they are afxed to the letter in order that its
pronounceability is achieved; the building element is the unvowelled which has no addition (Sbawayh II 315:24).
2
Arab linguists asked the question what one could do if one
wished for some reason to pronounce a consonant in isolation.
About al-Xall it was told that when he wanted to pronounce a
single consonant in order to discover its point of articulation, he
1
59
60
Gideon Goldenberg
or CV
C, no clusters being normally tolerated. When
In our terms we might say that a syllable must be either CV
the arresting quiescent consonant of a closed syllable is weak, represented by one of the weak letters (urf
al-ln, urf al-illah), the sequence of homorganic VC will yield a smooth long vowel: uw , iy , a` ,3 so
that the weak letters are at the same time letters of prolongation (urf al-madd ). These letters, alif, ww, and
y, which correspond to the three vowels a, u, and i, respectively, are the most common of all letters susceptible
to being zawid (v. Sbawayh II 349:1116). They are said to be ummaht al-zawid (Sbawayh II 350:23, 351u,
352:1, 354:1; cf. Ibn an Kitb al-Luma 34:9). Ww and y represent, in the rst place, semi-vowels, or glides
(w, y), and /uw/ or /iy/, the same as /aw/ or /ay/, do not differ structurally from any other VC sequence. The
alif, however, does not represent anything else but the zero consonant arresting a syllable whose center is the
vowel a, and the presence of alif is only manifested through the length of the vowel.
W, y, and alif are, then, regarded as three phonemes; w and y are sometimes, and alif is always, found to be
weak following a homorganic vowel together with which they form long vowels. The change of a long vowel
means in Arabic grammar a change of a short vowel with the corresponding conditioned change or substitution
(qalb or ibdl) of the arresting weak consonant. In a word like possessor of, which is in the accusative and
in the genitive, the Arab grammarian would recognize /uw/, /iy/, and /a`/ with the nal weak unvowelled
w changing to y after i and to alif after a.4 All three are equally regarded as unvowelled consonants. 5 Even long
vowels resulting from the contraction of V+weak C+V would be presented as VC with the C becoming skin motionless unvowelled, for example uwu > uw, pronounced [].6
The common shortening of a long vowel in a closed syllable would consequently be described as falling out
or elision (suq or af ) of the arresting weak quiescent: the actual realizations of, for example, uw + l-immah
turbaned (person), sarkl, 7 as ul-immah, or of a` + l-immah as al-immah or of iy + l-immah as ilimmah, would be presented, like any other vowel reduction, as cases of elision of the weak consonant to avoid,
the same as required with any other sequence of consonants, the meeting of two quiescents (iltiqu l-skinayni,
also itimu l-skinayni, or al-amu bayna skinayni), that is, to avoid the nascence of a cluster. 8
The meeting of two unvowelled consonants is generally permitted only in pause (v. infra), where pausal increase of sonority is said to enable syllabic realization of consonants. Long vowels, however (and diphthongs),
are allowed to occur before geminate consonants in connected speech ( l-dara) as well.9 This would mean, in
terms of Arabic grammar, the meeting of two quiescents, the rst of which is a weak consonant as in da`bbatun
[dbbatun] animal, beast, yalimuwnniy [ yalimnn ] they (pl.) oppress me, they do me wrong, yalima`nniy
[ yalimnn ] they (du.) oppress me, talimiynniy [ talimnn ] you (sg.f.) oppress me (or forms like duwaybbatun
little animal.10 Such exceptional violation of the basic rule is explained by abstract features of the sequence in
question: Sbawayh would say that the weak consonant, though (in this position) unvocalizable, is here regarded
as quasi-syllabic, as if it were vocalized, or in the status of vowelled (bi-manzilati mutaarrikin).11 Ibn Ya tries
to be more precise when formulating the same idea, saying that in the weak consonant (qua letter of prolongation), it is the length that here takes the position of a vowel.12
The Hebrew letter ` represents here for convenience the Arabic
weak alif ( ). It marks a phonological segment functionally present though phonetically void; v. infra.
4
In forms derived from roots with medial w, like dr (dwr) or r
(rw), the w is said to be mayyitah skinah dead and quiescent
(al-Zamaxar Mufaal 182:14) or afah mayyitah li-suknih
feeble and dead because of its being unvowelled (Ibn Ya ar
al-Mufaal X 88:2), and therefore easily replaceable by another
weak quiescent.
5
anna hihi l-arufa ll yaduna li-ibi l-arakti l
yakunna ill sawkina li-annahunna maddtun, wa-l-maddtu l
yataarrakna abadan that these letters that occur for satiating
the vowels (v. infra) are inevitably vowelless because they are
lengthening, and the lengthening (letters) will never be vowelled (Ibn inn Sirr inat al-irb 31:1617).
6
Wa-fuulun in kna min al-wwi sukkinat aynuh l-itimi
l-ammatayni wa-l-wwi fa-yuqlu nrun wa-nun and [the pattern] fuul, i.e., CuCuC, if it is from [root with] ww, i.e., CuwuC, its
medial radical will become vowelless, i.e., CuwuC > CuwC, because
3
of the combination of the two u-vowels with the w, and it will

be said [nuwur un > nuwrun] nr un, [uwunun > uwnun] nun (alZamaxar Mufaal 181:19). The words referred to here are nr,
that is, one of the plural forms of nr re, and n, plural form
of awn middle-aged or the like, both being of the fuul pattern.
7
For the use of this phrase for doctor of religious law, one of the
ulam, cf. Dozy II 169a:2329.
8
See al-Azhar Tahb al-luah I 52:24; cf. Sbawayh II 27677; alZamaxar Mufaal 16768; Ibn Ya ar al-Mufaal IX 12021.
9
Such gemination would generally result from the reduction
of short vowels between identical consonants, as in llna for
*lilna, or inna l-ml laka for inna l-mla laka.
10
See, e.g., Sbawayh II 407; al-Zamaxar Mufaal 167 (663); Ibn
Ya ar al-Mufaal IX 12122; Fleisch Trait I 16365.
11
li-anna arfa l-maddi bi-manzilati mutaarrikin l-idm
(Sbawayh II 407:15.17).
12
As an explanation of the first condition allowing such a sequence (viz., that the rst of the two meeting quiescents must
be a weak consonant), Ibn Ya states anna l-madda lla f ur
61
If the weak alif before geminates can be said to be bi-manzilati mutaarrikin, still it cannot become a vowelled consonant in reality unless it is strengthened into a glottal stop,13 as happened actually in that form
of speech that would have daabbatun for da`bbatun [dbbatun], aallna for a`llna [llna], or ibyaaa for
ibya`a [ibya], and so on.14 The variation []/[a ] in representing an original /a` / is not in itself restricted to
this environment, but is rather reported to have been existing in doublets such as [bzun] / [bazun], [al-lamu] /
[al-alamu].15
Ibn inn explained that the a-coloring of the weak quiescent alif as if it were vowelled, bi-manzilati
mutaarrikin is induced by the preceding adjacent fatah (Ibn inn Xai III 147), but the addition of an actual vowel that should resolve the cluster created by the meeting of the two vowelless consonants necessarily
requires the strengthening of the weak consonant alif into a glottal stop (hamzah), its closest related sound,
which is able to carry a vowel. In any case, (/a`/ ) > aa as in aallna, ibyaaa, or imaarra can mean for the
Arab grammarian nothing but a (< , /a`/ ) + a. The interpretation of -aa- in such forms as a division of the long
into two short a-vowels separated by a hamzah, as made by H. Fleisch, 16 is alien to Arab grammatical theory.
Ibn inn, as quoted above, explained that it was the alif that was changed into a hamzah when the addition of
a following vowel was necessary.
The structural analysis of long vowels in the Arabic grammatical tradition can now be summed up: (i) the
formation of a long vowel as such belongs to the level of actualization; (ii) its underlying structure involves the
sequence of V + homorganic weak C: /uw/, /iy/, or /a`/; and (iii) the rst constituent in such a sequence is a
vowel (by denition short) and the second one a consonant, weak, quiescent (unvowelled), and non-syllabic.
Ultra-long vowels in pausal position or in otherwise closed syllables are treated in the terms of the basic theory
and optionally resolved accordingly.
In Arab grammatical theory, the fact that the alif is abstract and incapable of carrying a vowel (i.e., being
the onset of a syllable) is no reason to deny its status as a arf in the phonological sense of the term, that is, consonant. Indeed, if consonant is conceived according to the original meaning of in Western terminology, dened as a segment of speech not sounding on its own, then alif might even be considered the prototypical
consonant. The status of alif in Arabic grammar was the subject of a controversy among Western Arabists in
the mid-nineteenth century. G. A. Wallin followed the Arab grammatical tradition in regarding alif as the weak
quiescent silent segment, whereas H. L. Fleischer expressed his disinclination to recognize tht abstract alif
as a consonant, since jeder Consonant muss eine Sylbe einleiten knnen (apud Wallin Laute des Arabischen I 14
and note).
The theoretical structural nature of the Arab traditional doctrine is reected in the following story about the
renowned Baghdadi grammarian al-Za (844923), who explained the intolerability of two successive weak
quiescents in word-inner position and the compulsory elision of one of them. To a man who prolonged the sound
of the in his speech, claiming that he was combining the two alifs, al-Za said, even if you had protracted
(the sound) all day long, it would have been only one single alif.17 Measuring the physical length of vowels belongs in Arabic culture to another realm of learning.
l-maddi yaqmu maqma l-arakati that the length which is in the

letters of prolongation takes the position of a vowel (Ibn Ya
ar al-Mufaal IX 122:45. He goes on, explaining the second
condition of the same (viz., that it must be l-idm, where the
second quiescent and the consonant that follows should be identical to form a geminate), saying that al-skin i kna mudaman
yar mar l-mutaarriki li-anna l-lisna yartau bihim duf atan
widatan the quiescent [that follows the long vowel] when it is
assimilated [with the following consonant] is similar to a vowelled consonant because the tongue is raised in both of them
in one stroke (Ibn Ya ar al-Mufaal IX 122:56). I am not
certain that I understand this argument.
13
al-alifu i taarrakat inqalabat hamzatan (Ibn inn Sirr inat
al-irb 37:4; Ibn inn Xai III 147:12); li-anna l-alifa arfun
afun wsiu l-muxrai l yatamilu l-arakata, fa-ia urr il
tarkih qalabhu il aqrabi l-ur ilayhi wa-huwa l-hamzah (Ibn

Ya ar al-Mufaal IX 129:11130:2 = ibid., X 12:1415).
14
See Ibn inn Xai III 14748; al-Zamaxar Mufaal 168:15
17 (665), 172:1617 (683); Ibn al-Anbr arb irb al-Qurn
41; Ibn Ya ar al-Mufaal IX 12930, X 1213; Fleischer Kleinere
Schriften I 48; Nldeke Zur Grammatik 8 with Spitalers Anhang
ibid., pp. 12627; Fleisch Trait I 16465.
15
See, e.g., Ibn inn Xai III 147:712; al-Zamaxar Mufaal
172:17 (683); Ibn Ya ar al-Mufaal X 13.
16
Une manire dviter ce genre de syllabe ultra-longue a t de
diviser la voyelle longue en deux brves, spares par un hamza.
De (i)f lla naissait (i)faalla: imrra > imaarra; Fleisch Trait
II 333 ( 133 f ); cf. ibid., I 165 (34 i), I 167 (34 n), II 453 ( 148 a).
17
Fa-qla lah ab isq: law madadtah il l-ari la-m knat ill
alifan widah (Ibn inn Xai II 493:78).
62
Gideon Goldenberg
Vowel length is thus conceived not as a supra-segmental feature, nor segmental in the sense that it is attributed to particular segments; it is not described as a quality applicable to vowels (Beeston Arabic Today 16), and
certainly not as VV. In the modern treatment of Arabic phonology, the clearest description of long vowels was
made by H.Blanc, who analyzed them as /VC/ compound phonemes that are not set apart from other combinations of VC by any essential difference (Blanc North Palestinian 42 44).18 This brings us back to the Arab grammatical tradition. Vowel length in this sense also plays an important role in morphology and thus belongs to the
core of language structure (cf. Goldenberg Principles 3742 [1823]).
Whereas consonant gemination is essentially /CC/, that is, C + an identical segment of the same class, structurally equivalent to any CC, a long vowel conceived as /VC/ is not V + an additional V and will not be represented
properly if the same device, such as / /, is used for both.
It will be noticed that in Arabic grammatical tradition there is no reference to a long vowel as a phonological unit, neither is there any reference to the notion of syllable.
II. Theoretical Speculations

While the structural analysis as here described was clear and consistent and rather commonly accepted
throughout the history of Arabic grammar, medieval scholars were troubled by some relevant questions as to the
relation between the vowels and the corresponding weak consonants with regard to their articulation and origin
and the nature of their contact within the long vowels. There was the question of how to understand a long vowel
both as one inseparable phonetic unit and at the same time as vowel-plus, and there was the unanswered question of how one could regard the most fully vocalic of all sounds (the long vowel) as being brought to its vocalic
perfection by means of an unvowelled consonant. Without shaking the basic structural analysis, some Arab
grammatical thinkers tried in many ways to answer those questions.
(a) First it was recognized that a and alif, u and ww, i and y come from the same place of articulation, or
from the same phonetic origin, yan anna al-fatata tuzdu al l-ar wa-muxrauh min muxrai l-ali, wa-kalika l-kasratu min muxrai l-yi wa-l-ammatu min muxrai l-ww it means that the fatah is added to the letter and
its origination is from the place of origination of the alif, and likewise the kasrah is from the place of origination
of the y, and the ammah from the place of origination of the ww (al-Srf ad Sbawayh II 315).
(b) The question then was whether the vowel came from the homorganic consonant or the consonant from
the vowel. The idea that the consonant (arf ) was the origin and that vowels came, or were extracted, from the
corresponding consonants had actually commanded general assent. Al-Xall, for example, after his statement
that the unvowelled arf is the building element (v. n. 1), says that the vowels are from the weak consonants:
al-fatatu min al-ali wa-l-kasratu min al-yi wa-l-ammatu min al-ww (apud Sbawayh II 315:4). More explicitly
it is said that the alif, the y, and the ww hiya l-urfu l-maxatu minh l-arakt they are the letters from
which the vowels are taken (al-Srf ad Sbawayh II 135), or al-urfu l-mutawallidatu anh l-arakt the letters
from which the vowels are born (al-Za 124:5). This opinion is repeatedly expressed in many writings.
The opposite idea is mentioned as held by some of the grammarians: wa-qad qla bauhum: al-alifu min alfatati wa-l-yu min al-kasrati wa-l-wwu min al-ammah some of them say: the alif is from the fata and the y
from the kasrah and the ww from the ammah (al-Za 123; cf. al-Srf ad Sbawayh II 315). 19
(c) In the phonetic tractate of Ibn Sn, a sounding alif, ww, or y and its corresponding vowel are said
to be sisters: al-alifu l-muawwitatu wa-uxtu-h l-fatah al-wwu l-muawwitatu wa-uxtu-h l-ammah al-yu
l-muawwitatu wa-uxtu-h l-kasrah the alif when it marks a long vowel and its sister the fatah the ww when
it marks a long vowel and its sister the ammah the y when it marks a long vowel and its sister the kasrah
VC as an optional type of a long vowel analysis is not unknown

in twentieth-century theoretical phonology (Goldenberg Principles 54 [35]).
19
In other words, perhaps less clearly, it was said about the alif,
the y, and the ww, anna hihi l-urfa murakkabatun min al18
arakti al qawli bai l-nawiyyn that these letters are made

of the vowels, according to some of the grammarians (Ibn alAnbr Asrr al-Arabiyyah 32223).
63
(Ibn Sn ud al-urf 43).20 In another version of Ibn Sns book, a different terminology is used: instead of
al-alif al-muawwitah and its sister al-fatah and so on, it speaks (with regard to the muawwitt) about al-alif
al-kubr and al-alif al-ur, that is, the larger alif and the lesser alif, and the same with the the ww and the
y, wa-kullu ur fa-hiya wqiatun f aari l-azminah, wa-kullu kubr fa-f ih and every lesser is of the
shortest duration, and every larger in twice as long (Ibn Sn ud al-urf 19:1419).
The meaning of alif, ww, and y in this treatise is different from the pure structural sense they have in the
grammatical tradition. All letters are mainly classied as either muawwitah sounding, which are alif, ww, and
y, or mitah mute, which are all the others.21 The vocalic letters are thus regarded as being sonant when
they mark long vowels, not considered isolated from the corresponding short vowels (or vowel signs) but compared to them.
(d) Reminiscent of that approach is the old tradition mentioned by Ibn inn, telling that some people of
old (mutaqqadim l-qawm), or grammarians of old (mutaqqadim l-nawiyyn), used to call the vowel a little arf:
yusammna l-fatata l-alifa l-arata, wa-l-kasrata l-ya l-arata, wa-l-ammata l-wwa l-arah they would call
the fatah a little alif, the kasrah a little y and the ammah a little ww (Ibn inn Sirr inat al-irb 19:1112;
idem Xai II 315:78). Though this story is integrated in the phonological issues raised by Ibn inn, historically it stands for itself and might even be related originally to the graphical relation between vowel-signs and
the letters of prolongation.
(e) The vowel is sometimes said to be part of the arf from which it comes. In discussing substitutions of
vowels and weak letters, Sbawayh mentions several times the indispensability of those letters or their parts in
all such cases (Sbawayh II 349:12, 357:1617; especially al-Srf ad Sbawayh II 315), as generally said in the commentary about the three weak letters that al-kalm l yaxl minhunna aw baihinna speech would not dispense
with them or with their parts (Sbawayh II 315). Occasionally the grammarian was kind enough to add after
minh aw min baih wa-bauh araktuh and their parts are their vowels (Sbawayh II 165:3). The idea
of the vowels being part of the weak letters was emphasized by Ibn inn: ilam anna l-arakti abu ur lmaddi wa-l-ln fa-l-fatatu bau l-ali wa-l-kasratu bau l-yi wa-l-ammatu bau l-ww know that the vowels
are parts of the weak letters of prolongation the fatah is part of the alif, the kasrah is part of the y and the
ammah part of the ww (Ibn inn Sirr inat al-irb 19:8 11; ibid., 20:10.14). Sometimes, various conceptions,
not always compatible, are considered in the same context.
(f) A vowel has also been conceived as a decient (or defective, incomplete, or imperfect) form of the homorganic arf. This theory is attributed to the Greek logicians (ab al-maniq min al-Ynniyyn), who regarded the
nominative -u and generally the amm and its brothers (i.e., the vowels close to it) as ww nqiah incomplete
ww, the kasr and its brothers y nqiah, and the fat and its brothers alif nqiah (al-Xwarizm Maft alUlm 46).
(g) The various ideas about the relation of the vowels to the corresponding weak letters are connected with
one another, but they often lack consistency. In Ibn inns writing vowels are said to be parts (ab or az)22
of the urf, their beginnings (awil)23 or their little (arah)4 or incomplete (nqiah)25 counterparts; the urf
being saturated (or satiated) or completed vowels (arakt mubaah26 or mutakammilah27). It could be said that
the urf are born (mutawallidah)28 or growing (mutanaiah)29 from the vowels, but to explain that the vowels
are parts of the urf and at the same time to say that the urf follow the vowels that precede them (tatbau
l-arakti llat qablah)30 is rather loose.
Also the vowels are said to be called arakt movements because a vowel moves (tuqliqu) 31 the arf with which
it is combined (i.e., which it vocalizes) and drags it (tataibuh)32 toward the arf of which it is a part.
A similar comment in the text of Sbawayh II 165:23 is of
uncertain authenticity; cf. Sbawayhi in the edition by Abd alSalm Mu. Hrn III (Cairo 1971), 544:11.
21
imm muawwitah, wahiya llat tusamm l-Arabiyyah urf
al-madd wa-l-ln, wa-imm mitah, wahiya m siwh (e.g., al-
Mawqif II 2021); see further Versteegh Greek Elements 21; and
Morag 1979.
22
For ab, v. supra (g); az in Ibn inn Sirr inat al-irb
27:1.
23
Ibn inn Sirr inat al-irb 20:14, 27:1.
24
See supra (d).
20
Ibn inn Sirr inat al-irb 30:12.

Ibn inn Sirr inat al-irb 27:14; cf. ibid., 20:15, 34:12. The
same is also said in terms of lengthening (i maalta if you
lengthen, e.g., Ibn inn Xai II 315:9) or completing (i
tammamtah if you complete it, e.g., Ibn inn Sirr inat alirb 34:12).
27
28
29
30
31
25
26
64
Gideon Goldenberg
III. Phonetic Actualization

The reference made above (II (c)) to Ibn Sn was mainly intended to mention his view that a short vowel and
its long counterpart are sisters, but in what follows, the alternative version of his Asbb ud al-urf is shown
to have stated that a short vowel is of minimal duration and that a long vowel is twice as long. The latter statement is typical of tawd instructions and differs from the grammatical explanations. In the orthoepic literature,
all details of correct recitation of the holy text are meticulously discussed and the necessary rules formulated.
Whereas for the grammarian it was important to stress that a long , regardless of its actual duration, involves one
single alif and no more,33 the orthoepist was interested in the exact duration of sounds, often trying to dene it in
absolute terms, and would refer to the letter of prolongation (i.e., long vowel) as VV, the satiation (or saturation) of a vowel interpreted in this context as doubling the vowel: ilam anna l-alifa murakkabun min fatatayni
wa-l-wwu murakkabun min ammatayni wa-l-yu murakkabun min kasratayni, fa-i abata l-fatata yatawalladu
minh alifun wa-i abata l-ammata yatawalladu minh l-wwu wa-i abata l-kasrata yatawalladu minh l-y
know that the alif is composed of two fatas, the ww is composed of two ammas and the y is composed of
two kasras, and if you satiate the fatah a alif is born from it and if you satiate the ammah a ww is born from
it and if you satiate the kasrah a y is born from it (al-Qr Mina 50:3436).
Generally we are reminded that, as already mentioned above, the violation of some strict phonological rules
is permitted in pausal position: al-waqfu yazu fhi ltiqu l-skinayn in a pause, the meeting of two quiescents is
permitted (ibid., 50:18), but in the orthoepic literature, special attention was paid to special lengthening, which
has traditionally been preserved in certain positions in the recitation of the Qurn. The term madd in its specic
sense refers mainly to such extra lengthening, which makes an important chapter of tawd.34 Unlike grammatical
length, which is analyzed as VC (with a weak C), in this sense, al-madd laysa arfan wa-l arakatan bal ziydatun
al kammiyyati ar l-madd the madd is not a letter nor a vowel but an addition to the quantity of the letter of
prolongation (al-Qr Mina 49:21), that is, addition to duration marked by the letter of prolongation. It was
said to imitate the prolongation of syllables witnessed in the qirah of the Prophet (ibid., 50:23).
According to some writings, the actual duration of such extra-long vowels (miqdr al-maddt) was measured
in units, the basic unit being the alif,35 as to how many times one could pronounce, or write, the word alif in the
time that the extra-long vowel takes. The duration of the madd could also be measured by folding the fingers and
so on (al-Qr Mina 49:1319; Bakalla Vowel Length 20001).
Such madd, and the orthoepic teachings as a whole, differ radically from the grammatical analysis of the
language. Only in the context of practical performance was it said that alif is the combination of two fatahs.
From the examination of the relevant literature, it becomes clear that in Arabic grammar throughout its history
[V ] = /VC/, where the C is w or y or `. Theoretical speculations reected the effort to bridge the gap between
the abstract notion of a weak quiescent consonant that embodies length as a segment and the realization of the
/VC/ as one long V. Phonetic description of V as V + V is only found in the orthoepic literature, in the practical
teaching of recitation of the Qurn, as part of dening the actual quantity of normal vowel duration, where the
excessive madd is not required.
IV. Long Vowels in Hebrew Grammar

Medieval Arabicwritten Hebrew grammar was in a sense a direct product of the development of Arabic linguistics, at the time when literary and scientic activities of the Jews in general, mainly in Islamic Spain, were
given an unusual impetus by the vitality shown in Arabic letters and scholarly work.
32
33

See supra I and n. 17.
Cf. the special chapter on such madd in Bravmann Materialen

7681; Gade Tajwd; Nelson Tajwd.
35
Al-alif alla huwa l-madd al-al (al-Qr Mina 49:21).
34
65
The most important of all Jewish linguists of the time was the tenth-century Hebrew scholar Yhd b. David
ayy. His adaptation of Arab grammatical doctrines laid the foundation to all further development in the eld.
Among other things, ayy introduced into Hebrew grammar the idea that a long vowel was the actualization
of V + weak quiescent C, namely, [] = /a`/, [] = /uw/, and [] = /iy/.36
In Hebrew, however, greater abstraction was needed because of the more complicated vowel system and the
less consistent morphology and orthography. ayy soon discovered that in many cases he could not easily
establish in each case which of the three weak quiescent consonants was there in the rst place and what was
the direction of substitution. He stated that he would give up that problem and be satised with establishing the
presence of a weak consonant without specifying whether it was alif or ww or y. In discussing the verba mediae
inrmae, ayy states without former planning, wa-laysa ara f tal hihi l-af li l-layyinati l-ayni tamyza
awti l-wwi min awti l-yi i l yamtzu lika f ullih li-btidli aadihim min al-xari l-tar wa-tiyzih
mawiah l-taf l; lkin ara tarfu mawii l-skini l-layyini wa-l-tanbhu al annah aynu l-li wwan kna
lika l-skinu aw y it is not my intention in compiling these verbs with a weak medial radical to distinguish
those that have ww from those that have y, since that is not distinct in most of them because of the substitution
of one of the two for the other in the derivation and the replacement of (one another) in the formation; but my
intention is to apprise of the place of the weak quiescent and to give notice that it is the medial radical whether
that quiescent is a ww or a y (ayy urf al-ln 87:1588:1).
ayy came to use the general term al-skin al-layyin the weak quiescent for what some twentieth-century
linguists would regard as an archiphoneme. This skin layyin might change forms or be assimilated in a following
consonant, represented through length or elided. The term still covers, in ayys terminology, the three weak
consonants when, unvowelled, they follow the homorganic vowel.
A further stage in the development of the theory of long vowels in Hebrew grammar was probably reached
by ml ha-Ngd (Ab Ibrhm Isml ibn Narella, 9931056), ayys disciple, poet, scholar, statesman,
and general, who regarded the weak quiescent as a zero phoneme, and no longer as a neutralizing position of
alif, ww, and y. The weak quiescent as such can still also be a radical, and long vowels should seemingly in
this view be interpreted as /a0/, /u0/, /i0/, /e0/, and so on. References to quotations from writings of ml haNgd and a discussion of their meaning are fully given in Goldenberg Weak Quiescent 28990).
Prosodically lengthened vowels are considered in ayys theory equivalent to VC the same as those incorporating a weak radical. ayy explained it very clearly: laysa f l, , r skinun mutawassiun min ali l-luati
wa-innam huwa maddun bi-l-lani lla tuqrau bih, fa-i zla l-lanu zla lika l-maddu, wa-l-dallu al lika min
l-l m-ar, w-l-l l-r hammriyy, l-n l-han, qm l y-l w--m allat laysa
fh lanun wa-l skin there is not in l, , r a medial quiescent inherent in the word; it is because of the
accent with which it is read that [the vowel] is long, and when the accent goes away that length goes away, and
the proof of it is from l-l m-ar [Gen 12:1], w-l-l l-r hammriyy [Gen 22:2], l-n l-han
[Gen 27:9], qm l y-l w--m [Gen 35:1], where there is no accent and no quiescent (ayy urf
al-ln 72:1015). To make sure that the positional length of in l and so on is still regarded as involving a weak
quiescent, we may quote ayys explicit statement mentioning al-skin al-mutawassi f l, , r the medial
quiescent in l, , r (ibid., 72:1718).37
The medieval Arabic-Hebrew view of vowel length as a weak quiescent segment, without recognizing in fact
long vowel phonemes, and without direct reference to syllables, makes an integral part of consistent morphological analysis of Arabic and other Semitic languages (e.g., Goldenberg Principles 3843 [1924]; idem Morphological
Analysis 178 88 and elsewhere; cf. for the Akkadian Izreel Segmental length). Closely examined, the traditional
analysis seems arguably capable of challenging any other phonological theory old or new.38
36
For a more detailed study of vowel length, weak radicals, and
the meaning of weak quiescent in medieval Hebrew grammar,
cf. Goldenberg Weak Quiescent, where the translated Hebrew terminology with its pitfalls is also discussed.
37
In discussing vowel duration in Biblical Hebrew, some confusion is sometimes caused by involving orthoepic instructions for
degrees of stress-related duration irrespective of vocalic structure.

38
A comprehensive survey and thorough critical examination of
modern phonological theories with regard to vowel length, done
with rare clarity, will be found in Odden Vowel Length.
66
Gideon Goldenberg
Abbreviations
C
consonant
feminine
f.
pl. plural
sg. singular
V
vowel
Bibliography
al-Azhar Tahb al-luah
Ab Manr Muammad b. Amad al-Azhar (895980). Tahb al-luah, Volume 1.

Edited by Abd al-Salm Muammad Hrn. Cairo: Al-Muassasah al-Miriyyah almmah li-l-talf wa-l-anb wa-l-nar, Al-dr al-Miriyyah li-l-talf wa-l-taramah,
1964.
Bakalla Vowel Length
Muammad asan Bakalla. The Contribution of the Arabs and Muslims to the
Study of Vowel Length. The 50th Anniversary of Phonetic Society of Japan and The
Proceedings of the World Congress of Phoneticians. The Study of Sounds 18 (1978):
197202.
Beeston Arabic Today
Alfred Felix Landon Beeston. The Arabic Language Today. London: Hutchinson, 1970.
Blanc North Palestinian
Haim Blanc. Studies in North Palestinian Arabic: Linguistic Inquiries among the Druzes of
Western Galilee and Mt. Carmel. Oriental Notes and Studies 4. Jerusalem: Israel Oriental
Society, 1953.
Bravmann Materialen
Meir Max Bravmann. Materialen und Untersuchungen zu den phonetischen Lehren der Araber.
Inaugural-Dissertation Breslau. Gttingen: Dietrichsche Universitts-Buchdruckerei,
1934.
Dozy
Reinhart Pieter Anne Dozy. Supplment aux dictionnaires arabes. 2nd edition. 2 volumes.
Leiden: Brill, 1927.
Fleisch Trait I
Henri Fleisch. Trait de philologie arabe, Volume 1: Prliminaires, phontique, morphologie

nominale. Institut de lettres orientales de Beyrouth, Recherches 16. Beirut: Imprimerie
catholique, 1961.
Fleisch Trait II
Henri Fleisch. Trait de philologie arabe, Volume 2: Pronoms, morphologie verbale, particules.
Facult des Lettres et des sciences humaines de lUniversit Saint-Joseph, Beyrouth,
Recherches, Nouvelle Srie: A. Langue arabe et pense islamique 11. Beirut: Dar elMachreq, 1929.
Fleischer Kleinere Schriften
Heinrich Leberecht Fleischer. Kleinere Schriften. 3 volumes. Leipzig: Hirzel, 18851888.
Gade Tajwd
Anna M. Gade. Recitation of the Qurn (chapter on The System of tajwd).

Encyclopaedia of the Qurn. Edited by Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Volume 4. Leiden: Brill,
2004.
Goldenberg Morphological Analysis
Gideon Goldenberg. Word-structure, Morphological Analysis, the Semitic Languages

and Beyond. In Proceedings of the 10 t h Meeting of Hamito-Semitic (Afroasiatic) Linguistics (Florence 1820 April 2001), edited by Pelio Fronzaroli and Paolo Marrassini, pp.
16993. Quaderni di Semitistica 25. Florence: Department of LinguisticsUniversity
of Florence, 2005.
67
Goldenberg Principles
Gideon Goldenberg. Principles of Semitic Word-structure. In Semitic and Cushitic

Studies, edited by Gideon Goldenberg and Shlomo Raz, pp. 2964. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1994. Reprinted in Studies in Semitic Linguistics: Selected Writings, by Gideon
Goldenberg, pp. 1045. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1998.
Goldenberg Weak Quiescent
Gideon Goldenberg. The Weak Quiescent and the Hebrew Root. Lonnu 44/4 (1980):
28192. [In Hebrew]
ayy Hurf al-ln
Yhd (Ab Zakariyy Yay) b. David al-Fs ayy (10th century). Kitb alaf l awt urf al-ln. In The Weak and Geminate Verbs in Hebrew by Ab Zakkariyy
Yay ibn Dwud of Fez known as ayy, pp. 1219. Arabic text for first time by Morris
Jastrow. Leiden: Brill, 1897.
Ibn al-Anbr Asrr al-Arabiyyah
Abu l-Barakt Abd al-Ramn b. Muammad Ibn al-Anbr (11191181). Asrr

al-Arabiyyah. Edited by Muammad Bahat al-Bayr. Damascus: Al-Mama al-ilm
al-Arab, 1957.
Ibn al-Anbr arb irb al-Qurn
Abu l-Barakt Abd al-Ramn b. Muammad Ibn al-Anbr. Al-Bayn f arb irb
al-Qurn I. Edited by h Abd al-amd h. Cairo: Wizrat al-aqfah, Dr al-ktib
al-Arab li-l-ibah wa-l-nar, 1969.
Ibn an Luma
Jonah Abu l-Wald Marwn Ibn an (11th century). Kitb al-Luma: Le livre des
Parterres euris. Paris: F. Vieweg, 1886. [In Judeo-Arabic]
Ibn inn Sirr inat al-irb
Abu l-Fat Umn Ibn inn (9151002). Sirr inat al-irb I. Edited by Muaf
al-Saq, Muammad al-Zafzf, Ibrhm Muaf, and Abdallh Amn. Wizrat almarif al-ummiyyah Idrat al-aqfah al-mmah Idrat iy al-tur
al-Qadm. Cairo: Muaf al-Bb, 1954.
Ibn inn Xai
Abu l-Fat Umn Ibn inn (9151002). Al-Xai. Edited by Muammad Al alNar. 3 volumes. Cairo: Dr al-kutub al-Miriyyah, 19521956.
Ibn Sn ud al-urf
Ab Al al-usayn b. Abdallh Ibn Sn (9801037). Asbb ud al-urf.

In : , , .
, : , 1966.
Ibn Ya ar al-Mufaal
Muwaffaq al-Dn Abu l-Baq Ya b. Al Ibn Ya. (11581245) ar al-Mufaal

[li-l-Zamaxar]. 10 parts. Cairo: al-Munriyyah, 19281931.
al- Mawqif
Aud al-Dn Abu l-Fal Abd al-Ramn b. Rukn al-Dn Amad b. Abd al-affr b.
Amad al- (12811355). Kitb al-Mawqif. 3 volumes. Beirut: Dr al-l, 1997.
Izreel Segmental Length
Shlomo Izreel. Segmental Length: A View from Akkadian. In Studies in Semitic and
General Linguistics in Honor of Gideon Goldenberg, edited by Tali Bar and Eran Cohen, pp.
1328. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 334. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2007.
Morag Muawwitt
Shelomo Morag. Some Notes on muawwitt in Medieval Hebrew and Arabic

Literature. The Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 11 (1979):
8590.
Nelson Tajwd
Kristina Nelson. Tajwd. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, edited by

Kees Versteegh, Volume 4. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Nldeke Grammatik
Theodor Nldeke. Zur Grammatik des Classischen Arabisch. Originally published 1897. Im
Anhang: Die handschriftlichen Ergnzungen in dem Handexemplar Theodor Nldekes, edited
with additions by Anton Spitaler. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,
1963.
Odden Vowel Length
David Odden. The Representation of Vowel Length. http://www. ling.ohio-state.

edu/~odden/Vowel%20Length.pdf. To be published in The Blackwell Companion to
Phonology, edited by Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume, and Keren
Rice. Forthcoming.
68
Gideon Goldenberg
al-Qr Mina
Al b. Suln al-Qr (d. 1605). Kitb al-Mina al-kriyyah al matn al-azariyyah (wabi-hmiih ar Zakariyy al-Anr al Muqaddimat al-azariyyah). Cairo: Mabaat
al-Maymaniyyah, 1890/1891.
Sbawayh
Ab Bir Amr b. Umn Sbawayh. Kitb Sbawayhi. 2 volumes. Blq: Al-Mabaah

l-kubr l-amriyyah, 18981900.
al-Srf
Ab Sad al-asan b. Abdallh b. al-Marzubn al-Srf (903979). ar Kitb

Sbawayh. Printed in the margins of Sbawayh.
Versteegh Greek Elements
Cornelis Henricus Maria (Kees) Versteegh. Greek Elements in Arabic Linguistic Thinking.
Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 7. Leiden: Brill, 1977.
Wallin Laute des Arabischen
Georg August Wallin. Ueber die Laute des Arabischen und ihre Bezeichnung. I.
Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft 9 (1855): 1 69; II. Zeitschrift der
Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft 12 (1858): 599665.
al-Xall Kitb al-ayn
Ab Abd-al-Ramn al-Xall (718776). Kitb al-ayn. Edited by Abdallh Darw.

Baghdad: Mabaat al-n, 1967.
al-Xwarizm Maft al-Ulm
Ab Abdallh Muammad b. Amad b. Ysuf al-Ktib al-Xwarizm (10th century).

Maft al-Ulm Liber Mafth al-olm explicans vocabula technica scientiarum. Edited
by Gerlof van Vloten. Leiden: Brill, 1895.
al-Za
Abu l-Qsim Abd-al-Ramn b. Isq al-Za (d. 949). Al- f ilal al-naw.
Edited by Mzin al-Mubrak. Cairo: Maktabat Dr al-Urbah, 1959.
al-Zamaxar Mufaal
Abu l-Qsim Mamd b. Umar al-Zamaxar (10751144). Kitb al-Mufaal l-naw: AlMufaal, Opus de re grammatica Arabicum. Edited by J. P. Broch. Christianiae: Mallingii,
1879.
Wisdom in Ugaritic
69
Wisdom in Ugaritic
Edward L. Greenstein, Bar-Ilan University
The study of the so-called wisdom literature of the Hebrew Bible has flourished spectacularly in the past
half century. Wisdom is typically conceived as an international literary category (much broader and vaguer than
a genre), the Hebrew exponents of which manifest a worldly, non-parochial character. For that reason, wisdom
books like Proverbs, Job, and Qohelet pay little if any attention to specifically biblical concerns like the covenant,
its laws, and its rituals, and the historical traditions of Israel (see, e.g., Murphy 1992, pp. 92122).1 The international character of biblical wisdom is often underscored by reference to the impact of foreign literatures upon it.
Conventionally, it is the influence of Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Hellenistic literature that is cited. Accordingly,
the article on Wisdom in the O[ld] T[estament] in the standard Anchor Bible Dictionary (Murphy 1992) includes
sections on Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Hellenistic literature in its chapter on Extra-biblical Wisdom (ibid., pp.
92830). In a similar vein, the volume Wisdom in Ancient Israel (Day, Gordon, and Williamson 1995) has chapters on
Egyptian, Babylonian, and Aramaic wisdom (the proverbs of Aqar) in the part entitled The Ancient Near Eastern
Setting [of Israelite Wisdom] (ibid., pp. 1752).2 The fact that an Egyptian text, the Instructions of Amenemope
(see, e.g., Emerton 2001), and certain Mesopotamian texts such as Ludlul bl nmeqi (Let Me Praise the Lord of
Wisdom, sometimes called the Babylonian Job) and the Dialogue between a Master and His Servant (sometimes
called the Dialogue of Pessimism) would seem to have had a direct influence on works of biblical wisdom
(viz., Proverbs, Job, and Qohelet, respectively; for the last see, e.g., Greenstein 2007) bolsters the significance of
the somewhat remote neighbors of Israel, Mesopotamia, and Egypt on the development of biblical wisdom (cf.,
e.g., Perdue 2008, p. 49).
Evidence of a far more local breeding ground for biblical wisdom the Syro-Canaanite cultures of the mid- to
late second millennium b.c.e. has been sporadically acknowledged but widely neglected. As late as 1999, a scholar of biblical wisdom could assert, with the probable exception of Ahikar [sic], we know nothing of the wisdom
literature which may have been produced in the nations close to Israel, and which may have served as a conduit
for Egyptian and Mesopotamian material (Weeks 1999, p. 8). And yet, not only have various scholars called attention to the likely sources of biblical wisdom in earlier Canaanite culture (e.g., Albright 1955; Thompson 1974, pp.
5457; and see below), but also several works of Sumero-Akkadian wisdom have been found at Ras Shamra-Ugarit
and brought to light (see esp. Nougayrol 1968, pp. 265300; Khanjian 1974; Arnaud 2007, pp. 13993).3
1
It should be noted that Murphy is citing features of wisdom
indicated by von Rad (1972) and criticizing them for their lack
of nuance. The present essay is drawn from a larger study that
the author is conducting together with Dr. Yoram Cohen of Tel
Aviv University on the Syro-Canaanite roots of Israelite wisdom.
Our research has been supported by a grant from the Israel
Science Foundation (no. 621/08), and we have been brilliantly
assisted by Ms. Sivan Kedar and Ms. Shirly Natan-Yulzary. This
article is essentially my own work, in which I have been assisted
in particular by Ms. Natan-Yulzary. Texts in Ugaritic are cited
according to their CAT (KTU) number (Dietrich, Loretz, and
Sanmartn 1995).
The same three literatures are classified in Walton 1989, pp.

16997. Clifford (1999, pp. 917) surveys precursors of Proverbs
in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Syro-Palestine, but of the last category, he cites only Aqar. On the other hand, Clifford (1975) has
shown awareness of Canaanite language and motifs in Proverbs.
For a comparison of Proverbs 9 to a scene in the Kirta epic, see
Lichtenstein 1968.
3
For a bibliographic survey of this literature, see Mack-Fisher
1990a. Although Ugarit is located north of what was regarded
as Canaan proper in the second millennium b.c.e., its striking
and extensive affinities to Canaanite language, literature, and
culture place it squarely within the cultural orbit of Canaan; see,
e.g., Pitard 2002, pp. 25355; cf. Golden 2004; Yon 2006, pp. 1, 7.
69
70
Edward L. Greenstein
In addition to a short set of proverbial sayings (Nougayrol 1955, pp. 31124; Lambert 1960, p. 116; Khanjian
1974, pp. 14043; Kmmerer 1998, pp. 17475; Arnaud 2007, pp. 13940),4 there are three major works of wisdom
among the Akkadian texts from Ugarit. One is a relatively lengthy instructional or advice piece in dialogue form
with versions known at Emar and Boghazkoy as well the Wisdom of p-awli (Nougayrol 1968, pp. 27390;
Khanjian 1974, pp. 14876; Dietrich 1991, pp. 3368; Kmmerer 1998, pp. 176207; Arnaud 2007, pp. 14879); 5 the
fatherson exchange is reminiscent of the classical Mesopotamian work, the Instructions of uruppak (cf., e.g.,
Nougayrol 1968, pp. 27576; Seminara 2000, pp. 52728; Alster 2005, pp. 4142). This Akkadian work from Ugarit
displays a number of parallels in theme and formulation to the biblical books of Proverbs and Qohelet (see, e.g.,
Smith 1975; Hurowitz 2007). A second major Akkadian text from Ugarit is a concise version of the Babylonian
classic Ludlul bl nmeqi a pious sufferers complaint and his restoration by Marduk (Nougayrol 1968, pp. 26573;
Khanjian 1974, pp. 191206; Dietrich 1993, pp. 6267; Kmmerer 1998, pp. 16063; Arnaud 2007, pp. 11014).6
This text, like its apparent Mesopotamian prototype, displays numerous affinities to the book of Job (see, e.g.,
Khanjian 1975; Ben Basat 2008). The third Akkadian composition from Ugarit that can be classified as wisdom is
a Mesopotamian classic, known in Sumerian (Alster 2005, pp. 288311; cf. Klein 2000), and found at Emar as well
(Arnaud 1987, pp. 35965) the Ballad of the Early Rulers or A Life without Joy (Nougayrol 1968, pp. 291300;
Dietrich 1992; Kmmerer 1998, pp. 20813; Alster 2005: 31219; Arnaud 2007, pp. 14248). Its sober reflection on
the ephemeral existence of even the greatest of men recalls the fatalistic outlook of Qohelet (cf., e.g., Lambert
1995; Gianto 1998; Klein 2000, pp. 21415).
Despite the clear existence in second-millennium b.c.e. Syro-Palestine of literary works similar in type and
content to biblical wisdom, some biblicists adhere to the old notion that wisdom literature must be a late development in the formation of the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Toy 1916, pp. xxxxxi; Scott 1965, pp. xxxvxxxix). It is assumed
that such a development cosmopolitan in character could only have taken place through the influence of
foreign wisdom in the mid-first millennium b.c.e. (cf., e.g., Westermann 1995, p. 5).7 Works of wisdom among the
Syro-Canaanite scribes of the mid- to late second millennium b.c.e. could well have passed from their largely
Mesopotamian sources or, in some cases, like the poem of the pious sufferer (the Ras Shamra Ludlul text), sources
of inspiration to the Canaanite cultural-literary heritage (cf. Gray 1970; Wiseman 1977, pp. 8687; Mattingly
1990, p. 325; Perdue 2008, p. 39). Scribes who were trained in the Mesopotamian cuneiform tradition and who
produced the Akkadian wisdom texts at Ugarit wrote and transmitted texts in the local Ugaritic language
as well (see, e.g., Saad 1988; van Soldt 1995a; Mrquez Rowe 2008; cf., e.g., Horwitz 1979; Mack-Fisher 1990b, p.
115; Hawley 2008, esp. pp. 6061).8 The wisdom literary traditions both written and oral (see, e.g., Carr 2005,
pp. 2729 and passim) represented in the Akkadian texts from Ugarit could well have been conveyed through
some form of Canaanite intermediation to the early Hebrew scribes. Throughout the land of Canaan, scribes were
educated in the Akkadian tradition (e.g., Demsky 1990; Horowitz and Oshima 2006), a situation that enabled the
easy transmission of culture; and the transparent continuities between Ugaritic literature of the late second millennium b.c.e. and Hebrew and Phoenician literature of the first millennium b.c.e. (e.g., Cassuto 1971; Greenfield
1971; Greenfield 1987; Greenstein 1996) make it necessary to assume an unbroken literary chain of tradition
from Canaanite to later biblical literature.9 The fact that the unique Ugaritic alphabet was adapted and utilized
4
The text is a Hurrian bilingual; for the Hurrian text, see E. Laroche in Nougayrol 1955, pp. 31324. Another important study
of this bilingual text is Dijkstra 1993. This text is passed over in
the survey of Syrian precursors to Proverbs by Fox (2000, p. 23).
5
For additional and very helpful analyses of this text, see also
Seminara 2000; Hurowitz 2007. For the Emar text, see Arnaud
1987, pp. 37782. For an analysis of the Hittite version, see Keydana 1991.
6
On the relationship of the Ras Shamra Ludlul to Job, see Craigie 1985; Ben Basat 2008. Dietrich (1993, pp. 6263) and Arnaud
(2007, p. 110) categorize the Ras Shamra version of Ludlul as a
hymn. Although there is certainly a component of praise for
Marduk in this piece, as there is in Ludlul (Let me praise!), even
in the section of praise, the erstwhile suffering of the speaker is
strongly evoked.
7
Westermann, like Pfeiffer (1948, pp. 65359), discriminates between secular wisdom, which he attributes to an earlier popular
provenience, and religious proverbial wisdom, which he attributes to later foreign influence. Pfeiffer ascribes the emergence
of religious wisdom to Deuteronomistic theology. The presence
of religious wisdom along with secular wisdom at ancient
Ugarit undermines the assumptions of such opinions; see further below.
8
For the significance of the scribal invention of the alphabetic
cuneiform writing system for writing Ugaritic and occasionally
other languages see Sanders 2009, pp. 5458. Of course, the Akkadian written at Ugarit, while generally similar to other forms
of peripheral Akkadian in the Middle Babylonian period, also
exhibits unique local features; see Huehnergard 1989; von Soldt
1991; von Soldt 1995b. And, as is well known, scribes at Ugarit
writing Akkadian frequently inserted Ugaritic glosses in their
texts; see Sivan 1984; Huehnergard 1987.
9
The arguments of Morrow 2008 and Rainey 2008 to the effect
that the Canaanite sources were drawn upon by Hebrew writers
Wisdom in Ugaritic
71
within Canaan, as far south as Beth Shemesh, in the late second millennium b.c.e. (see, e.g., Sanders 2006, and
the references there), means that the earliest Hebrew scribes, who emerged in that same period, could even have
read Ugaritic unmediated (Greenstein 1996, pp. 2631). But we need not assume that much in order to allow that
Syro-Canaanite wisdom literature in Akkadian flowed into the stream of the biblical tradition.
Even without acknowledging that particular influence, several scholars have speculated that Israelite wisdom
drew on Canaanite and/or Ugaritic precursors (e.g., Blank 1962, p. 855b; Rof 2009, p. 521). However, there is, and
has for many decades been, evidence of Canaanite wisdom, in addition to the relatively recently discovered trove
of Akkadian wisdom from Ras Shamra. Canaanite documents without any direct dependence on Mesopotamian
sources attest a local tradition of wisdom. Proverbs and gnomic sayings are embedded in several text types in the
ancient Near East both belles lettres and such mundane fare as letters (e.g., Beckman 1986; Hallo 1990; Hallo
2004, p. xi).10 And just as proverbs and wisdom-like observations are incorporated within the Mari correspondence
(Marzal 1976; Sasson 1995; Durand 2006), so are they employed to make a rhetorical point in several Canaanite
letters from the El Amarna correspondence (e.g., Albright 1943; Marcus 1973; Hess 1993; Bodi 2006; and esp.
Cochavi-Rainey 1997). These Amarna proverbs, which display the distinctive Canaano-Akkadian that characterizes virtually all the letters from Canaan found at El Amarna (see esp. Marcus 1973 and Hess 1993), represent the
most quintessential wisdom genre.11 In addition to the best-known proverbs from this corpus about the ants
who bite back (Hess 1993) and the unplowed field (Marcus 1973) there is the analogy of the cooped-up king to
a caged bird (EA 74: 4546 etc.; Moran 1992, pp. 143); the saying of the townspeople A deed that has not been
done since time immemorial has been done to us (EA 122: 4044; trans. Moran 1992, p. 201);12 and the proverblike metaphor a brick may move fro[m u]nder [its] par[tner]; still I will not move from [un]der the feet [of the
k]in[g], my lord (EA 266: 1825 etc.; trans. Moran 1992, p. 314). Proverbs belong to the scribal curriculum (e.g.,
van Soldt 1995a, pp. 18283; Byrne 2007, p. 20a), and it may be surmised that the scribes of second millennium
Syro-Palestine so assimilated sapiential literature that they could make use of it at will no matter what type of
text they were writing.
Back in the early 1940s, Albright (1943, p. 7) pointed to the most salient of the Amarna proverbs as the best
evidence of wisdom among the Canaanites. At that time, no wisdom literature was known or discerned among
the texts from Ugarit. Since then, as we have seen above, works of wisdom have come to light at Ras Shamra; but
because they are primarily in Akkadian, it has often been claimed that there is no native wisdom no wisdom
in Ugaritic (e.g., Sparks 2005, pp. 7576; Mrquez Rowe 2008, pp. 9596; cf., e.g., Murphy 1981, p. 27a; Crenshaw
1985, pp. 37071). The chapter Wisdom in the multi-volume anthology Ras Shamra Parallels, while acknowledging that wisdom literature is present in Ugarit (Khanjian 1975, p. 373), deals only with the Akkadian texts. The
first full-length study of all the Akkadian wisdom texts from Ugarit (Khanjian 1974) devotes barely two pages
to a handful of Ugaritic passages reminiscent of wisdom. On the basis of three examples, only two of which are
properly interpreted13 and only one of which might, in my judgment, be regarded as sapiential,14 it is concluded
for the first time in the mid-first millennium b.c.e. do not come
to terms with the massive evidence of literary and linguistic continuity between Ugaritic and biblical literature, beginning with
the very earliest stages of Hebrew literature. See my arguments
case by case in Greenstein 1996.
10
This is not the place for an extended discussion of the definitions of proverb and proverbial expression. For an exemplary
treatment, see Fontaine 1982, for whom a traditional saying
is characterized by its brevity, its occurrence in a fixed form, its
elevated style, and its lack of grammatical continuity with the
surrounding discourse (ibid., p. 73). For my purposes I adopt the
definition of a proverb by the folklorist Hasan-Rokem (1990, p.
108): A proverb is a short text summarizing an idea formulated
in such a way that it implies collective experience and wisdom,
and is applicable to numerous situations. A proverbial expression, in my usage, sounds like a wisdom observation but is less
pithy than a proverb (cf. Bodi 2006, pp. 4041).
11
For the Canaano-Akkadian language, see especially Rainey 1996
and Izreel 1998.
12
Compare biblical expressions in Gen 20:9; Qoh 1:1011; Dan
9:12.
13
The phrase wum tm mab (CAT 2.16.1011) can hardly mean

May my mother derive pleasure from my father (Khanjian
1974, p. 208). For discussion of the various perspectives and
despite that a similar mistranslation see Cunchillos 1989, pp.
299300 (n. 18). For one thing, the reading mab is uncertain; the
b may be a d (Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartn 1995, p. 167). For
another, the preposition m in Ugaritic does not mean from.
For yet another, if mab were a prepositional phrase, one would
expect to find the genitive suffix iya (written y). The parsing
and translation of Pardee (2002, p. 89; cf. Bordreuil and Pardee
2009, p. 236) so may my mother cause Maab (PN) to rejoice
violate no Ugaritic norms and are therefore to be preferred.
14
The analogy found in two Ugaritic narrative poems (Baal and
Kirta) comparing someones longing to the attachment of a cow
to her calf strongly resembles a motif known from the Sumerian
lamentation literature and is more appropriately classified with
that genre rather than with wisdom; see, e.g., Greenstein 2001a,
p. 97. The rhetorical pattern kkkm of the Baal passage does
resemble a rhetorical pattern found in Prov 25:20:
(Story 1945, p. 322) but only the pattern is common to the two
passages. Khanjian (1974, p. 207) regards the following Ugaritic
72
that wisdom might not be limited to the Akkadian texts alone and that there was wisdom in Ugarit which was
expressed in the local dialect (ibid., p. 207). Of course, one cannot gainsay the fact that there is no wisdom poetry in Ugaritic comparable to Job, Proverbs, or Ecclesiastes (Pardee 2000, p. 62a). Nevertheless, in what follows
I intend to show that there are several proverbial expressions embedded in the Ugaritic texts from Ras Shamra
and that the two epic texts in Ugaritic (Aqhat and Kirta) are suffused with wisdom themes. Without aspiring to
be comprehensive, I believe that the extent and quality of the Ugaritic examples demonstrate that wisdom was
integral to Canaanite culture.
An Akkadian letter from Carchemish to an official at Ugarit explicitly cites a saying (teltu(m)) of the Hittites: A
certain man has been imprisoned for five years; and when they said, Tomorrow they will release you, he choked
(or strangled himself) (Nougayrol 1968, pp. 10810; Khanjian 1974, pp. 14547). However one understands the
irony just as he was to go free, he choked, either from joy at the news or by accident or whether he killed
himself in his misery just before he received the news that he was about to be freed, the purpose of the citation
would seem to be to make the point that timing is everything; delaying an action may achieve a result opposite
from the intention. Unfortunately, there do not appear to be any proverbial sayings in any of the Ugaritic letters
from Ras Shamra.15
The following sentence from a Ugaritic letter may, however, have a sapiential background: wyd ilm p kmtm z
mid There is plague [lit., the hand of a god] here, for death is very strong (CAT 2.10.1113; cf. Pardee 2002, p. 108
with n. 152).16 Although the strongest biblical parallel is, as Avishur (2007, pp. 15759) maintains, 1 Sam 5:11b
) throughout the town; the hand of God was very heavy there the
For there was a panic of plague/death (
theme of the power of death and the language in which it is formulated (mt z) recall the simile in Song 8:6a: For
). Zakovitch (1992, pp. 13334) quite trenchantly points out the didactic
love is as strong as death (
character of the entire unit (vv. 68), which, in a manner entirely peculiar among the love poems of the Song of
Songs, comments on love philosophically, in the abstract (cf. Klein 1997, p. 64). Almost every line of this unit has
a parallel in the book of Proverbs, leading Zakovitch to conclude, very plausibly, that the section has been influenced by that wisdom text. If that is the case, then there is a good likelihood that the simile love is as strong as
death, with its gnomic character, lies behind the scribes formulation in the Ugaritic letter.
Be that as it may, a passage in the Baal cycle shows clear affinities to a didactic passage in Proverbs (cf., e.g.,
Schoors 1972, p. 20). Let us begin by looking at Proverbs 6:1619:

),
These six things YHWH hates (
And seven are abominations to him:
Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that spill innocent blood;
A heart that devises evil schemes,
Feet that run quickly to (do) evil;
A deceitful witness giving false testimony;
) among brothers.
And one who spreads contention (
couplet as a wisdom saying (CAT 1.23.56): bm nq whr / bbq w[m]

mt By kissing there is impregnation, by embracing there is
conception (cf. Pardee 1997, p. 281 with n. 57). I do not regard
this worldly observation as proverbial, however, because it does
not stand out from its context (see n. 10 above) but is an integral
part of the narrative sequence.
15
Wiseman (1977, p. 89) points to a possible example in a juridical text (RS 17.376 + 377; Nougayrol 1970, p. 26, lines 2021),
but the passage is too broken to establish its gnomic character. Dijkstra (1999, p. 152) interprets and classifies CAT 2.2 as a
wisdom exercise. This analysis does not seem likely. First, the
fragment appears to be part of a larger document, possibly a
letter (see Herdner 1963, text 59, pl. 46, fig. 113; cf. Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartn 1995, p. 161) although no letter formula
is preserved, it does feature some Iyou discourse. Second,
Dijkstras interpretation involves several restorations and several
moot readings of signs, especially at the beginnings and ends

of lines; moreover, he treats the fragment as though it were an
almost complete tablet, so that the end of one line continues
almost directly in the following line which appears to be an
erroneous assumption. (I am indebted to West Semitic Research
for their assistance in clarifying the readings in this text. I expect
to publish my transliteration of this text on another occasion.)
And even if Dijkstras reading and translation of the fragment
are correct, the result is incoherent according to him, in the
first part, the addressee is advised to seek well-being, and in the
second part, he is assured that Baal will grant him the children
he has asked for. In both parts, it should be mentioned, the verb
for asking (l and r, respectively) is mostly restored.
16
For yd ilm in the sense of plague or the like, see Pardee 1987,
p. 67.
Wisdom in Ugaritic
73
On account of its striking similarities in theme, literary structure, and language, the following Ugaritic passage (CAT 1.4.3.1721) would appear either to serve as a distant source of the unit in Proverbs or to reflect a shared
literary template:

dm n dbm na bl / l rkb rpt

db bt wdb17 dnt / wdb tdmm amht
For two feasts Baal hates, / three the Rider of the Clouds:
A feast of shame and a feast of contention,
And a feast of the lewdness of maids.18
The two passages begin almost identically: there are X number of things that the high god hates (na/
).
Both passages open with a couplet structured by a graded numerical sequence in parallelism (two-three, sixseven). In both passages the objects of hatred are itemized (three and seven, respectively). And one of the hated
). I maintain that the affinities in content and form between the two passages sugitems is contention (dnt/
gest that the Ugaritic passage has been borrowed from a sapiential source. Such a conclusion may be supported
by the fact that, as Smith and Pitard (2009, p. 477) observe, the unit does not easily fit[] into the context of the
speech in which it occurs. Note, too, that Baal has apparently been speaking in the first person and that, with
this unit, he shifts, speaking of himself in the third person. Such shifts can indicate the embedding of a proverbial saying (see n. 10 above). The parallel passage in Proverbs 6 would also seem to be autonomous it is the
only numerical saying in the book outside of chap[ter] 30 (Clifford 1999, p. 77), where we find a string of them.
The Aqhat epic is often held up as a unique example of Ugaritic wisdom by virtue of its protagonist, the righ) mentioned
teous judge Danel (Dna-ilu),19 who is almost certainly to be identified with the figure Danel (
twice in Ezekiel 14 (vv. 14, 20) and once in a north Canaanite context (Ezek 28:3), where he is characterized as a
paragon of wisdom (see, e.g., Story 1945, p. 326; Day 1980; Day 1995, pp. 5759; cf., e.g., Mack-Fisher 1990b, p. 109;
Marquz Rowe 2008, p. 97). Below I discuss additional wisdom motifs and themes in this epic; but here I would
call attention to an apparently sapiential remark made by Aqhat in his refusal of the goddess Anaths offer of
immortality (CAT 1.17.6.3538):

mt uryt mh yq / mh yq mt aryt
spsg ysk [l]ri / r lr qdqdy
[ank?] mt kl amt / wan mtm amt
A mortal what future can he attain? / What hereafter can a mortal attain?
Glaze will be poured on (my) head, / Plaster on my crown.
[I] will die the death of everyman; / I will die like a mortal.20
Many if not most specialists have come to understand the reference to glaze/plaster on the head as a figure for
old age (cf. Hos 7:9; Ginsberg 1945b, p. 21 n. 56) the hair turning white (see, e.g., Spronk 1986, p. 152 n. 3; Pardee
1997, p. 347 n. 46; de Moor 2003, pp. 144 nn. 19798; contrast Margalit 1983; Margalit 1989, pp. 30710). 21 The
philosophical wisdom character of Aqhats reply to the goddess has been keenly discerned by Margalit
(1989, p. 307). Aqhats realism, eschew[ing] comforting illusions, is an outlook shared by the Ugaritic Baal cycle,
by Job in his dialogues, and by ancient Near Eastern Wisdom literature generally (cf. Khanjian 1974, p. 119).
17
The repetition of wdb on the tablet is uncontroversially understood as dittography.
18
The philological options for interpreting these lines are laid
out in, e.g., van Zijl (1972, pp. 8894), Caquot, Sznycer, and Herdner (1974, p. 201), and Smith and Pitard (2009, pp. 47579). Obviously I derive dnt (*dnatu) from dw/yn; cf. Hebrew
contention and Akkadian dittu (underlyingly /diintu/) lawsuit (the
Arabic verb dna to be base, another plausible etymon, is not
otherwise known in Ugaritic); and tdmm (read perhaps tdmt =
*taimmatu; cf. Smith and Pitard 2009, pp. 461, 477) from *mm
= Hebrew
and cf.
perversity and Arabic amma to find
blameworthy. The interpretation of db dnt as feast of contention finds support in the Hebrew wisdom expression
feasts of strife (Prov 17:1). Fox (2009, pp. 62324) elaborates

the ways in which a feast or, in his understanding, a sacrifice
can be contentious.
19
The heros name, meaning El judges, as well as the matching
name of his wife, Dnatiya (dnty), signify Danels judicial role;
Ginsberg 1945a, p. 4 n. 6; cf. OConnor 2006, pp. 28082.
20
Or I will die, yes, die (parsing as an infinitive absolute with
enclitic mem rather than as a noun with the adverbial suffix am).
21
For the difficulties of determining the precise meaning of Ugaritic spsg and r, see the detailed discussion in Wright 2001, pp.
14852. Wright himself does not offer a compelling alternative
(see p. 111).
74
It is expressed in a quasi-syllogistic fashion: all humans die, I am human, ergo I will die (Margalit 1989, p. 307).22
The generality of the observation, together with the figurative expression, establishes the proverbial character
of Aqhats discourse.
Further support for the gnomic quality of Aqhats reply can be garnered from his ensuing pronouncement
(lines 3941): qtm [] mhrm / ht tdn tin [bh?] Bows are [the implements of?] soldiers! Do females go hunting
[with one]? This essentializing remark, which infuriates the goddess to the point of murder, constitutes yet another general observation. Anath explicitly recognizes Aqhats impudence as a juvenile attempt at wisdom, referring to the youth sarcastically as mq nm the wisest of people (CAT 1.17.6.45; cf. Natan-Yulzary 2007, p. 170).23
Anath responds further to Aqhat threatingly, warning that she will meet him on the path of defiance (ntb
p), on the path of pride (ntb gan) (CAT 1.17.6.4344). These locutions conform to a metaphoric pattern, wherein
a persons good and bad conduct is analogized to a road or path. Instances of this pattern in Hebrew wisdom are
abundant. Psalm 1, a wisdom song (Weiser 1962, p. 103), is a parade example. With the language of the Aqhat
passage under discussion in mind, compare Proverbs 12:28:

On the road of righteousness is life,

) is not-dying.
And the course of its path (
One might infer that the metaphor is a wisdom clich.

The epic of Kirta, on the wisdom themes of which I shall expatiate below, would also seem to incorporate
pronouncements of wisdom. When Kirta appears to be dying, his younger son Ilau poses a theological paradox:
ap ab ik mtm tmtn O father, how can you die like a mortal? (CAT 1.16.1.34; cf. 1718).24 The king, observes Ilau,
is called a son of El (bn il; ibid., line 20). If so, how can kings die, when gods do not uilm tmtn Do gods, after
all, die? (ibid., line 22).25 This piece of philosophical reasoning, expressed in almost catechistic terms, may not
be gnomic in its formulation, but it is, in the manner of many proverbs, concise and marked by assonance (
ilma tamtna). Moreover, the paradox is a distinctive form of wisdom (see, e.g., Thompson 1974, pp. 6872 and
passim), characteristic of both Qohelet and its Mesopotamian counterpart, the Dialogue between a Master and
His Servant (Fox 1987; Greenstein 2007).26
Toward the end of what remains of the Kirta epic, the monarchs elder son, Yaib, accuses his (formerly) ill
father of malfeasance and demands that he cede the throne to him. Prominent among the accusations are the
following lines (CAT 1.16.6.4450):27

qlt blt ydk / ltdn dn almnt / ltp p qr np

ltdy m l dl / lpnk ltlm ytm / bd kslk almnt
Youve let your hand fall to vice.28
You dont pursue the widows case,
You dont take up the wretcheds claim.
You dont expel the poors oppressor.29
You dont feed the orphan who faces you,
Nor the widow who stands at your back.
22
For a brief discussion of syllogistic-type argument in ancient
Near Eastern literature (including the Hebrew Bible), see Greenstein 2002, pp. 45253; see now also Herzog 2009.
23
The term for wise is derived etymologically from mq deep
as in Akkadian emqu and occasionally Hebrew
; see further
Greenstein 2003, pp. 26163. Some (e.g., del Olmo Lete and
Sanmartn 1996, p. 80) render mq as strong, referring to Akkadian emqu strength. However, the Akkadian word occurs only
as a noun, neither as a verb nor an adjective, and I am not convinced that there is any cognate in Ugaritic.
24
The parallel passage has k like. For the problem of interpreting ik how in the first passage, see Pardee 1973, p. 231. For
Kirtas illness and evident mortality as a sign of his humanity,

see, e.g., Knoppers 1994, p. 579; cf. Kleven 1988, p. 40.
25
Parker (1989, pp. 180, 213) interprets the question ambiguously
(perhaps the gods do actually die) as an expression of theological
skepticism. Wyatt (1996, pp. 29699) insists that Kirta be understood mythologically as a son of El.
26
The essence of this paragraph is drawn from Greenstein 2001b,
p. 6.
27
The reading and translation follow Greenstein 1997, p. 41.
28
Cf. Hebrew
(Ginsberg 1946: 49) and cf. Ps. 125:3, where
we find the locution
did not extend a hand to
vice.
29
Cf. Hebrew
and Amos 5:11 (Ginsberg 1946, p. 49).
Wisdom in Ugaritic
75
Although the passage does not in and of itself belong to a wisdom genre, it bears a strong resemblance to Job
22:69,30 where Eliphaz accuses Job of similar deeds of injustice:

For you seize a pledge from your brothers without cause,
By stripping the clothes off the naked.
You give no water to the weary, / and withhold food from the hungry.
Widows you send away empty-handed,
And the arms of the fatherless you push away.31
The Kirta passage also resembles Psalm 82:24, where the old gods are similarly charged with failure to promote
justice:32

How long will you take the side of the corrupt,
Showing favor to the wicked? (Selah!)
Take the side of the poor and the fatherless,
Render justice to the needy and indigent!
Rescue the poor and the desperate,
Save (them) from the hand of the wicked!
Aside from the recurrent motif of giving succor to the widow, the orphan, and the needy, one finds in both the
vice, corruption as well as the cognate terms for widow, orphan,
Ugaritic and biblical passages the word lt). The usage of the materials in Job 22, as well as the general inclusion of justice
and taking up a ca(u)se (tpand caring for the weak as a theme in the ancient Near Eastern wisdom texts (for Mesopotamia, see, e.g., Lambert
1960, pp. 10002, lines 5665; for Egypt, see, e.g., Lichtheim 1976, pp. 14142), provide a basis for surmising that
the theme of doing justice and caring for the powerless in Kirta, as in Job and Psalms, has a wisdom source (see,
e.g., Fensham 1962; Weinfeld 1985, pp. 12930). As mentioned above, it is the Ugaritic Danels devotion to justice
that leads to his reputation as a sage.
For a final example of a wisdom-related passage in Ugaritic, we turn again to the Baal cycle and to part of
Baals cryptic message to Anath inviting her to come and hear a further message (CAT 1.3.3.2028):

dm rgm i ly wargmk / hwt wanyk

rgm wlt abn / tant mm m ar / thmt mn kbkbm
abn brq dltd mm / rgm ltd nm / wltbn hmlt ar
For I have a word33 that I would tell you, / a message I would relate
A word of tree and a whisper of stone,
A converse34 of heaven with earth, / of the sea with the stars.
I understand lightning the heavens know not,
A thing35 people know not, / the masses of the earth do not understand.
30
Cf., e.g., Pope 1965, p. 150.

Reading
with the ancient translations (see Dhorme 1967,
p. 329). I follow Tur-Sinai and Ginsberg in understanding Eliphaz to be parodying the charges that Job believes God is holding
against him exaggerating the accusations to show the absurdity of Jobs claim; see Greenstein 2009, pp. 34748.
32
For the overall interpretation of the psalm, see Parker 1995.
33
Ugaritic rgm is apparently used here in the sense of message
(derived metonymically from voice), but on account of Baals
31
being a storm god who thunders, there is, as in Akkadian rigmu

and Hebrew
, a punning connotation of thunder as well.
34
See, e.g., Smith and Pitard 2009, p. 227.
35
Here rgm voice, word is generally understood to denote the
derived sense of thing or matter (cf. Hebrew
and Akkadian
watu; for the vocalization of the latter, see Greenstein 1984, p.
37), but in parallelism with brq lightning it might actually denote thunder (see n. 33) and produce a true pun.
76
Baals claim to special, esoteric knowledge in itself a sign of wisdom (cf. Wyatt 1996, pp. 25758) recalls
the rhetoric of the Lord from the whirlwind in Job, for example, Job 38:3335:

Do you know the regularities of the heavens?
Have you imposed their regimen on earth?36
Can you raise your voice toward a cloud,
And be answered by a downpour?37
Can you send lightning bolts on their way,
As they say to you, Yes, sir!38
Just as YHWH is pointing to his exclusive knowledge including his control of lightning so, it would
seem, is Baal. My comparison to Job is not meant to suggest a literary dependency, only a common background
in a wisdom mindset. Baals rhetoric, as well as his claim to esoteric knowledge, are not proverbial, but they are
sapiential in character.
As said above, literary works in Ugaritic are replete with wisdom motifs and themes. Wisdom notions may
inform a narrative even if it is not of a marked didactic character, just as proverbs may add rhetorical power to a
letter that is not sapiential in its thrust.39 The Aqhat epic features the positive figure of Danel the righteous judge
(see above) as well as the negative example of Aqhat the impudent youth (see above and cf. Prov 14:3; 16:18; 29:23;
Qoh 7:89). Wisdom can be discerned in several other aspects of the Aqhat text.
Most striking among these is the fourfold presentation of the so-called duties of the son the services that
a son is meant to perform for his father during his life and after his death (CAT 17.1.2533; 4248 [plus missing
lines]; 17.2.18 [plus missing lines]; 1423).40 The duties involve diverse services, such as repairing the fathers
roof and supporting him when he is drunk, on the one hand, and making funerary offerings after he is dead, on
the other.41 The repetitive enumeration of the duties in a fixed form, outside the action sequence of the narrative (cf. Margalit 1989, p. 280; Wright 2001, p. 69), gives the impression of a set piece, imported into the present
context; its pronounced ethical character, focused on filial piety, bespeaks a wisdom association (van Selms 1954,
p. 101; Healey 1979, p. 356; Avishur 2007, pp. 14244) in which case the pericope may comprise a wisdom saying
and belong to the preceding discussion.
Healey (1979, p. 356), following Eissfeldt (1966), compares the pericope to some biblical ethical instructions.
Compare, for example, the Ugaritic duty bq lt nih / gr d y lnh who suppresses the slander of his [viz., his fa) the scoffer and
thers] maligners,42 who dispels the one who acts against him, with Proverb 22:10: Dispel (
36
Read
with plural possessive suffix, referring to
; so,
e.g., Kahana 1928, p. 209.
37
In parallelism with the following verse, in which the meteorological phenomenon is said to speak in response, read
it
(the downpour) answers you for
; so Kahana (1928, p. 210)
on the basis of context and the Greek; cf. Dhorme 1967, p. 591.
38
Lit., here we are; for
+ pronominal suffix as an expression of compliance, see, e.g., Gen. 22:1, 7, 11; cf. Akk. anna/u yes
and post-biblical .
39
Well-known studies highlighting wisdom themes in biblical
narratives are Talmon 1963; von Rad 1966; and Whybray 1968; see
also McKenzie 1967. The critical remarks of Crenshaw (1995) do
not undermine the basic arguments of these and similar studies.
My approach is closer to Whybrays than to von Rads. While von
Rad understands the Joseph story as a didactic tale, Whybray
discerns wisdom themes and motifs within the David narratives,
which are not in and of themselves didactic.
40
For the literary effect of the fourfold repetition, see Greenstein
2000, pp. 14445; cf. Wright 2001, p. 69.
41
The precise interpretation of several lines is debated. For

philological analyses, see, e.g., Lewis 1989, pp. 5371; Boda 1993;
Wright 2001, pp. 4869; Avishur 2007, pp. 13047. Wright maintains that all the activities take place while the father is alive (cf.
Schmidt 1994, pp. 5962), but many scholars see the cultic acts
described connected to mortuary offerings (for a list up till 1994,
see Schmidt 1994, p. 59 n. 69). I understand the reference to setting up a stela and cult object (ztr), raising the fathers spirit (qr
// mr), and the consumption of offerings in the temple to reflect
most simply the activities of ancestral worship. Concerning mr,
lit. strength, force, see Lewis (1989, p. 63), who, like others who
preceded him, compares
in Exodus 15:2. However, I parse
the second clause of the pertinent couplet differently than does
Lewis. I would render the couplet thus: Who raises his spirit
from the earth, / the force of his (burial-)place (or: shrine) from
the dust. Compare the syntactic structure of the preceding couplet (with gapping of the verb): Who sets up a stela of his divineancestor, / in the sanctuary the cult-symbol of his kinsman.
42
See, e.g., Lewis 1989, p. 66; Boda 1993, p. 17.
Wisdom in Ugaritic
77
contention goes away; and dishonorable accusations will cease. Even more to the point in the context of Aqhat
is this advice from a sapiential psalm (Ps 127:45; cf., e.g., Gerstenberger 2001, pp. 34647):

Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, / thus are the sons of (ones) youth.
Happy is the man who has filled his quiver with them;
They will not be discomfited when they contend with (his) adversaries at the city-gate.
The first couplet is formulated as a proverb, and the second elaborates it (Weiser 1962, p. 766).
Wisdom literature in the Hebrew Bible is often characterized by stark contrasts between the righteous, who
are wise, and the wicked, who are foolish or even roguish (see, e.g., Otzen 1974; Kugel 2003, pp. 14348, 24041).
The dramatis personae in the Aqhat epic are aligned in a similar fashion, as we meet with two gendered pairs, in
each of which one member represents the wise and the other the fool or the rogue. The two male protagonists,
Danel and Aqhat, have been characterized above. The father is portrayed as a righteous judge, and his efforts
both to obtain a son (a six-day ritual of entreating the deity during which he never leaves the sacred precincts
[CAT 1.17.1]) and to locate him or his remains (having deduced from the flight of the vultures overhead that his
sons carcass may be the source of the attraction [CAT 1.19.13; cf. Greenstein 2000, p. 143]) evince a deliberate
and persevering character (cf. Sun 2008, p. 118). His son, Aqhat, manifests foolishness (youthful intemperance,
as Landy 1981, p. 10, puts it) in a number of ways: he speaks arrogantly to the goddess Anath; not only does he
reject her demand for his bow, but he also insults her as a goddess, accusing her of falsehood and he insults
her as a female to boot (see above).
We find a similar contrast between the two leading female characters, Anath and Pughat Danels daughter
and Aqhats sister (see Walls 1992, pp. 20610). Anath is, like Aqhat, impetuous after plotting Aqhats murder in
her rage, she seems to regret her impulsive behavior and weeps (CAT 1.18.4.39; cf. Sun 2008, p. 101). Pughat, on the
other hand, who is explicitly characterized as wise the one who knows the path of the stars (CAT 1.19.2.23,
7; ibid., 4.38) exhibits the same deliberation and perseverance that her father does. She tracks down and apparently, by means of a clever subterfuge, slays the henchman who killed Aqhat (CAT 1.19.4).
Pughats triumph is facilitated by a double gender reversal that recapitulates the gender issues that exacerbate
the conflict of wills between Anath and Aqhat (cf. Hillers 1973; Landy 1981, pp. 1113). Pughat, whose name not
incidentally means girl (pt; cf., e.g., OConnor 2006, p. 278), dresses like a warrior in order to slay her brothers
assassin but disguises her masculine garb with a female costume, in order to gain entry to the soldiers camp. She
blurs gender boundaries while her brother Aqhat had insisted on maintaining them. He rejected Anaths proposition to turn him immortal, whereby he would transgress the boundary between human and god, and he denied
Anaths assertion of male prerogatives to hunt and therefore need a bow (cf. Sun 2008, p. 96).
The transgression of borders leads to disorder, if not chaos, and herein lies the irony and perhaps the subversiveness of the tale. The creation and maintenance of order are a premiere feature of ancient Near Eastern
and biblical wisdom (e.g., Crenshaw 1995, pp. 34454 , 49498; Perdue 2008, pp. 10910). The father god of the
Ugaritic pantheon, El (Ilu), is apparently the creator god at Ugarit the establisher and maintainer of order
and it is he alone among the gods who is expressly called wise (km; e.g., CTA 1.4.5.35; see, e.g., Handy 1994, pp.
7992; Greenstein 2003, pp. 26062 with references). In Ugaritic metaphysics, as in that of Egypt and the Bible,
wisdom and order are interconnected. In Aqhat, it is the foolish eponymous hero of the tale who presses for order
and his transgressive sister Pughat who proves to be wise. The conclusion of the story is missing, but it seems almost certain that in the end, the sensible (Danel and Pughat) succeed, whereas the petulant (Aqhat and Anath) fail.
The epic of Kirta is not a didactic tale, but it is one whose leading protagonist is a sort of righteous sufferer
a stock figure of ancient wisdom and whose plot turns on a number of wisdom themes.43 The figure of the
pious sufferer, well developed in Mesopotamia (see Mattingly 1990) and best known from the book of Job, was, as
mentioned above, represented at Ugarit by a local Akkadian version of the Babylonian classic Let Me Praise the
Lord of Wisdom. Aspects of King Kirta of the Ugaritic epic can be, and have been, compared to the story of Job
(e.g., OConnor 1989; Parker 1989, pp. 14647), and Kirta, too, has been classified as a righteous sufferer (e.g., de
Moor 1986, p. 14). Both Kirta and Job suffer through no fault of their own. Job learns of the ruin of his estate and
the death of his servants through an uninterrupted sequence of messenger reports, blow after blow (Job 1); and
43
The following discussion has been drawn from Greenstein

2001b, pp. 813.
78
the death of Kirtas children is reported by the narrator in a single stream of narration (CAT 1.14.1).44 Both Job (ch.
42) and Kirta (CAT 1.15.3) are restored, receiving new children in place of those who died. Although Kirta is not
)
explicitly described as righteous, as Job is (Job 1), Kirta, like Job (1:8; 2:3; 42:78), is called the servant (bdof the deity. Moreover, he is, like Job (29:1217), one who defended the powerless as part of his public service (see
above). On the other hand, Kirtas suffering is not drawn out like Jobs, nor does Kirta brood philosophically over
the possible causes of his afflictions, as Job does.
However, Kirta follows the dictates of wisdom when he follows Els instructions to the letter. Obedience is
the beginning of wisdom (cf. Prov 1:7 etc.). Although there is one thing Kirta does that is not part of Els directions (see below), there is nothing in the hundred lines of instructions that El directs him to do that he does not
perform (cf., e.g., Parker 1977, esp. p. 174). Ideally, a monarch in the Syro-Canaanite-biblical milieu was meant to
govern through wisdom (see, e.g., Isa 11:2; Prov 8:1516; cf., e.g., Weinfeld 1972, pp. 24447, 25457; Launderville
2003, esp. pp. 298300). Thus the biblical king Solomon, in a scene reminiscent of Kirtas request for children (see
Seow 1984), turns down wealth and honor and asks for wisdom (1 Kgs 3:3, 9).45
Kirta, too, would have done well to have asked for wisdom because his second affliction (after his loss of family) might have been prevented had he applied the wisdom befitting a king. Kirta was stricken with illness, as was
Job. The apparent cause was Kirtas failure to fulfill a vow he made to the goddess Asherah (Airatu) during his
seven-day march to Udum, where he was to obtain his princess bride (CAT 1.15.3.2530; see Greenstein 1997, pp.
2627). Kirtas one departure from Els instructions was to stop at the shrine of Els consort Asherah midway on
the journey and to make a vow in exchange for her support (CAT 1.14.4.1943).46 When Kirtas eight children were
all born, a process that must have taken years, the happy father had not yet paid his vow but, as the narrator
takes pains to remind us, Asherah remembered the vow (cf. Loewenstamm 1992, pp. 19697). Kirtas deviation
from Els directions and his failure to pay the vow, in particular, proved nearly fatal for the king.
The importance of fulfilling a vow to a god is a commonplace of ancient Near Eastern wisdom. Qohelet (5:35)
has this to say about it:

When you vow a vow to God, do not delay in paying it.

For He has no desire in fools what you have vowed, pay!
Better it is not to have vowed than to vow and then not pay.
Do not allow your mouth to cause your flesh to sin.
And do not say before the angel it [viz., what I said] was a mistake.
Why should God get angry over your speech [lit., voice] and ruin the work of your hands?
Similar advice is found in Proverbs 20:25, Ben Sira 18:2223, the Torah (Num 30:3; Deut 23:2224),47 and ancient Near Eastern literature in general (see Parker 1979; 1989, pp. 17274). The importance of fulfilling a vow
informs the episode in which Absalom goes to Hebron under the pretense that he must pay a vow (2 Sam 15:7);48
and it takes on grand and grotesque proportions in the story of Jephthah (Judg 11; see esp. Marcus 1986).
This piece of wisdom also finds a place in the Akkadian wisdom written at Ugarit (Arnaud 2007, p. 139: 12; cf.
Khanjian 1974, pp. 14043):
44
A large number of specialists interpret the passage in question
to refer to the death of Kirtas seven wives. This is not the place
to discuss the issue at any length; see Greenstein 2006, p. 93 n. 91
for some linguistic points. I would only reiterate here that from
the perspective of narrative structure and theme, it only makes
sense if Kirta lost his children and not a series of wives. In order
to produce the eight children he sired according to the opening
of the epic (CAT 1.14.1.79), he had need of only one wife. Once
blessed by El, he will sire another eight children, all by the same
wife. When El asks Kirta what he is lacking that leads him to
weep, he indicates a lack of children (bnm; CAT 1.14.2.45), not
wives, and it is children that El promises him: the princess bride
he obtains will bear him a male heir (CAT 1.14.3.4849). Finally,
the number of children that Kirtas new wife produces for him
is eight (CAT 1.15.2.2325 and col. 3 there) the same as the

number of children Kirta had had at the start. The tale revolves
around children, not wives. Accordingly, I refer the reader to
my translation of the passage at issue (Greenstein 1997, p. 12).
45
For parallels elsewhere in the ancient Near East, see Weinfeld
1972, pp. 24754.
46
For the possible motivation of Kirtas curious gesture, see
Greenstein 2000, pp. 15051.
47
For the origins of the Deuteronomy passage in wisdom, see
Weinfeld 1972, pp. 27072.
48
Whybray (1968, p. 70) identifies a wisdom element in this aspect of the story.
Wisdom in Ugaritic
79
ukun kaspa a mamti itti il teleq[q]i

mamta pilaemma pagarka ullim
Deposit the silver of a vow you will get it (back) from the gods.
Respect a vow thus take good care of yourself!
Kirta, therefore, forgoes wisdom by failing to pay his vow after receiving the blessings he had sought.
But Kirta also like Job never seems to have learned the actual cause of his catastrophic illness. Support
for this supposition may be gathered from a scene from the period of his debilitation in which Kirta instructs his
youngest daughter, Thitmanit (Octavia), to offer a vow for the sake of his healing (CAT 1.16.1.48): ndr qrb ksp /
bmgnk wr lkl Make a vow and offer up silver, / by your donation gold for all! (see Greenstein 1998, p. 114 for
the reading and translation). It seems improbable that Kirta would have his beloved daughter make a vow on his
behalf had he remembered that he himself had a vow to fulfill. As the proverb goes, Like a dog who returns to
his vomit is a fool who repeats his blunder (Prov 26:11). We ought to assume that the king has entirely forgotten
his vow to Asherah and that he is ironically commissioning another vow, unaware that all his troubles stem from
his failure to pay the former vow.
As indicated above, Kirta commits another error, more subtle than that concerning the vow, but no less serious. Traditional wisdom teaches that a person should punctiliously follow and not at all deviate from divine
instructions. The biblical teacher par excellence, Moses, advises as follows: You are to be careful to do as YHWH
your God has commanded you; do not turn from it to the right or the left (Deut 5:28). This Deuteronomistic
formulation has its source in wisdom, as verses like the following from Proverbs 4:27 suggest: Do not bend right
or left, / Turn your foot from evil.49 Moreover, the same literature teaches that one should neither add to nor
subtract from divine instructions (Weinfeld 1972, pp. 26165), as the sage Qohelet reiterates (3:14).50 King Kirta,
in making the vow to Asherah, broke with accepted wisdom in adding to the directions he received from El and
made an apparently unnecessary vow (see above). His forgetting to pay the vow nearly cost him his life; and it
was the disability he suffered as a result of his neglect that prompted his elder son Yaib to challenge him for the
throne. And so did the king who was desperate for an heir set off a series of events that ended with his cursing
his presumptuous son (CAT 1.16.6.5458).
A wise king was meant to understand that a persons heart (i.e., mind) designs his path, but the Lord fixes
his steps (Prov 16:9); many are the designs in a mans heart, but it is the Lords counsel that is upheld (Prov
19:21). That one should be chary of ones own instincts and try to follow the ways of the gods is a theme one finds
in several biblical narratives (see, e.g., von Rad 1966, p. 297, concerning Joseph and his brothers, and Whybray
1968, pp. 6266, concerning David). Kirtas older son Yaib would have done well to have learned this lesson.
Instead he obeyed the promptings of his own heart in demanding that his father relinquish the throne to him
(CAT 1.16.6.2554). The wisdom that one should rely on the determinations of the deities instead of on oneself is
expressed in the Ballad of the Early Rulers, an Akkadian wisdom text found at Ugarit (Arnaud 2007, pp 14243,
lines 12, 12):

itti (d)Ea uurma uurtu / [i]na em ilma us<su>q usqtu

awltu a[kn]i a ramana l d
Ordinances are ordained by (the god) Ea.
Lots are allotted by order of the gods.
Humankind does not know how to po[siti]on itself.51
Human limitations in knowing what is right is a biblical theme as well (see, e.g., Prov 20:24; Qoh 6:12; cf. Khanjian
1975, p. 383).
Yaibs behavior, however, ignores other wisdom lessons as well. For one thing, he should know that it is
imprudent to anger a king. Compare Proverb 20:2: The dread rage of a king is like the growl of a lion whosoever provokes his anger jeopardizes his life (cf. Prov 19:12). For another thing, it is unseemly to disrespect ones
49
Additional examples from Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic literature are Deut 2:27; 17:11, 20; 28:14; Josh 1:7; 23:6;
1Sam 6:12; 2 Kgs 22:2; Weinfeld 1972, p. 339.
50
See also Deut 4:2; 13:1.

For a different restoration and slightly different understanding
of this line, see Khanjian 1974, pp. 184, 187.
51
80
parents. As Proverbs 30:17 delicately puts it, The eye that scorns a father, and shows contempt for a mothers
discipline ravens of the wadi will pluck it out, and young vultures will eat it.52 For a more banal image, see
Proverbs 20:20. In any event, like father like son: both Kirta and Yaib violate the principle of wisdom: Do not be
wise in your own eyes (Prov 3:7). They both pursued schemes of their own imagination and brought misfortune
upon themselves.
These characters of Ugaritic narrative present a model lesson of what happens when wisdom is ignored. And
yet, a prominent theme of ancient Near Eastern wisdom is that one can never really ascertain what the gods have
in mind (Lambert 1960, p. 40, lines 3638):

Who can learn the mind of the gods in the heavens?

The counsel of the underworld gods, who can understand?
Where have people learned the ways of the gods?53
It is perhaps as a response to this frustration that the son in the Akkadian Wisdom of p-awli answers the
didacticism of his father by comparing humanity to a variety of wild animals (Arnaud 2007, p. 153, lines 131135)
we are offspring of the wild donkey (trans. Foster 2005, p. 419).
The vagaries of the human condition and of our relationship to the gods are a subject that, as we have seen,
preoccupied the storytellers of Ugarit as well. Although no Ugaritic wisdom works per se have yet been found at
Ras Shamra, the number of Ugaritic passages that evince wisdom themes and forms, and the wisdom issues that
pervade Ugaritic narrative, should suffice to make it clear that wisdom was native as well as imported and that
the full-blown wisdom texts we find in the Hebrew Bible may well be the heirs of an old Canaanite legacy.
Abbreviations
CAT
EA
PN
RS
Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartn 1995

J. A. Knudtzon. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erluterungen. 2 volumes. Vorderasiatische Bibliothek. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1915
personal name
signature of texts found at Ras Shamra
Bibliography
Albright, William F.
1943
1955
Alster, Bendt
2005
52
An Archaic Hebrew Proverb in an Amarna Letter from Central Palestine. Bulletin of the American Schools
of Oriental Research 89: 2932.
Some Canaanite-Phoenician Sources of Hebrew Wisdom. In Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near
East Presented to Professor Harold Henry Rowley by the Society for Old Testament Study in Association with the
Editorial Board of Vetus Testamentum, in Celebration of His Sixty-fifth Birthday, 24 March 1955, edited by Martin
Noth and David Winton Thomas, pp. 115. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 3. Leiden: Brill.
Wisdom of Ancient Sumer. Bethesda: CDL Press.
In Egyptian art the Canaanite god oron is depicted as a vulture (Rtterswrden 1995, p. 807). In Kirtas curse of Yaib, his
impertinent son, he invokes the god oron to crack open his
sons head (CAT 1.16.6.5457). Perhaps this Canaanite tradition

lies behind the imagery in Prov 30:17.
53
Literally in the singular: alakti ili.
Wisdom in Ugaritic
Arnaud, Daniel
1987
2007
Avishur, Yitzhak
2007
81
Recherches au pays dAtata. Emar VI/4. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
Corpus des textes de bibliothque de Ras Shamra-Ougarit (19362000). Aula Orientalis Supplement 23. Barcelona:
Editorial Ausa.
Comparative Studies in Biblical and Ugaritic Languages and Literatures. Tel AvivJaffa: Archaeological Center
Publication.
Beckman, Gary
1986
Proverbs and Proverbial Allusions in Hittite. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 45: 1930.
Ben Basat, Kobi

2008
Job in Ugarit? A New Way of Looking at the Text RS 25.460. M.A. thesis, Tel Aviv University. [In Hebrew]
Blank, Sheldon H.
1962
Wisdom. In The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible: An Illustrated Encyclopedia Identifying and Explaining all
Proper Names and Significant Terms and Subjects in the Holy Scriptures, Including the Aprocrypha, with Attention to Archaeological Discoveries and Researches into the Life and Faith of Ancient Times, edited by GeorgeA.
Buttrick, pp. 852b861a. New York: Abingdon Press.
Boda, Mark J.
1993
Ideal Sonship in Ugarit. Ugarit-Forschungen 25: 924.
Bodi, Daniel
2006
Une locution proverbiale Mari, El-Amarna et dans la Bible. Journal asiatique 294: 3952.
Bordreuil, Pierre, and Dennis Pardee

2009
A Manual of Ugaritic. Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 3. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Byrne, Ryan
2007
The Refuge of Scribalism in Iron I Palestine. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 345:
131.
Caquot, Andr; Maurice Sznycer; and Andre Herdner

Textes ougaritiques, Volume 1: Mythes et legends. Paris: Cerf.
1974
Carr, David M.
2005
Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cassuto, Umberto M. D.
1971
The Relationship between Ugaritic Literature and the Bible. In The Goddess Anat, translated by Israel
Abrahams, pp. 1852. Jerusalem: Magnes.
Clifford, Richard J.
1975
1999
Proverbs IX: A Suggested Ugaritic Parallel. Vetus Testamentum 25: 298306.

Proverbs: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.
Cochavi-Rainey, Zipora
1997
Selected Similes, Descriptions, and Figures of Speech from the El-Amarna Letters and Their Biblical
Parallels. Leonnu 60: 16579. [In Hebrew]
Craigie, Peter C.
1985
Crenshaw, James L.
1985
1995
Job and Ugaritic Studies. In Studies in the Book of Job, edited by Walter E. Aufrecht, pp. 2835. Waterloo:
Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
The Wisdom Literature. In The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters, edited by Douglas A. Knight and
Gene M. Tucker, pp. 369407. Philadelphia: Scholars Press.
Urgent Advice and Probing Questions: Collected Writings on Old Testament Wisdom. Macon: Mercer University
Press.
Cunchillos, Jess-Luis
Correspondance. In Textes ougaritiques, Volume 2: Textes religieux et rituels, edited by Andr Caquot,
1989
Jean-Michel de Tarragon, and Jess-Luis Cunchillos, pp. 239421. Littratures anciennes du ProcheOrient 14. Paris: ditions du Cerf.
82
Day, John
1980
1995
The Daniel of Ugarit and Ezekiel and the Hero of the Book of Daniel. Vetus Testamentum 30: 17484.
Foreign Semitic Influence on the Wisdom of Israel and Its Appropriation in the Book of Proverbs. In
Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in Honor of J. A. Emerton, edited by John Day, Robert P. Gordon, and H. G. M.
Williamson, pp. 5570. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Day, John; Robert P. Gordon; and H. G. M. Williamson

1995
Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in Honor of J. A. Emerton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
del Olmo Lete, G., and Joaqun Sanmartn
1996
Diccionario de la lengua ugartica. 2 volumes. Aula orientalis. Supplementa 7-8. Barcelona: Editorial AUSA.
de Moor, Johannes C.
The Crisis of Polytheism in Late Bronze Ugarit. In Crises and Perspectives: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern
1986
Polytheism, Biblical Theology, Palestinian Archaeology, and Intertestamental Literature: Papers read at the Joint
British-Dutch Old Testament Conference, held at Cambridge, U.K., 1985, edited by A. S. van der Woude, pp.
120. Oudtestamentische Studin 24. Leiden: Brill.
2003
Theodicy in the Texts of Ugarit. In Theodicy in the World of the Bible, edited by Antti Laato and Johannes
C. de Moor, pp. 10850. Leiden: Brill.
Demsky, Aaron
1990
Dhorme, Edouard
1967
Dietrich, Manfried
1991
1992
1993
The Education of Canaanite Scribes in the Mesopotamian Cuneiform Tradition. In Bar-Ilan Studies in
Assyriology Dedicated to Pinchas Artzi, edited by Jacob Klein and Aaron Skaist, pp. 15770. Ramat Gan:
Bar-Ilan University Press.
A Commentary on the Book of Job. Translated by Harold Knight. London: Thomas Nelson.
Der Dialog zwischen p-amli und seinem Vater: Die Tradition babylonischer Weisheitssprche im
Westen. Ugarit-Forschungen 23: 3368.
Ein Leben ohne Freude: Studie ber eine Weisheitskomposition aus den Gelehrtenbibliotheken von
Emar und Ugarit. Ugarit-Forschungen 24: 929.
Babylonian Literary Texts from Western Libraries. In Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose, edited by Johannes C. de Moor and Wilfred G. E. Watson, pp. 4167. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 42. Kevelaer:
Butzon and Bercker.
Dietrich, Manfried; Oswald Loretz; and Joaqun Sanmartn

1995
The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places (KTU: 2nd enlarged edition).
Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Dijkstra, Meindert
1993
1999
The Akkado-Hurrian Bilingual Wisdom-text RS 15.010 Reconsidered. Ugarit-Forschungen 25: 16371.

Ugaritic Prose. In Handbook of Ugaritic Studies, edited by W. G. E. Watson and Nicolas Wyatt, pp. 14064.
Handbuch der Orientalistik 39. Leiden: Brill.
Durand, Jean-Marie
2006
Dictons et proverbes lpoque amorrite. Journal asiatique 294: 338.
Eissfeldt, Otto
1966
Sohnespflichten im Alten Orient. Syria 43: 3947.
Emerton, J. A.
2001
Fensham, F. Charles
1962
Fontaine, Carole R.
1982
Foster, Benjamin R.
2005
The Teaching of Amenemope and Proverbs XXII 17XXIV 22: Further Reflections on a Long-standing
Problem. Vetus Testamentum 51/4: 43165.
Widow, Orphan, and the Poor in Ancient Near Eastern Legal and Wisdom Literature. Journal of Near
Eastern Studies 21/2: 12939.
Traditional Sayings in the Old Testament: A Contextual Study. Bible and Literature Series 5. Sheffield: Almond
Press.
Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature. 3rd edition. Bethesda: CDL Press.
Wisdom in Ugaritic
Fox, Michael V.
1987
2000
2009
83
Qoheleth and His Contradictions. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series 71. Sheffield: Almond Press.
Proverbs 19. Anchor Bible 18A. New York: Doubleday.
Proverbs 1031. Anchor Yale Bible 18B. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Gerstenberger, Erhard S.
2001
Psalms, Part 2, and Lamentations. Forms of the Old Testament Literature 15. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Gianto, Augustus
1998
Ginsberg, H. L.
1945a
1945b
1946
Human Destiny in Emar and Qohelet. In Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom, edited by Antoon Schoors, pp.
47379. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium 136. Leuven: Leuven University Press/
Uitgeverij Peeters.
The North-Canaanite Myth of Anath and Aqhat. Bulletin of the Schools of Oriental Research 97: 310.
The North-Canaanite Myth of Anath and Aqhat, II. Bulletin of the Schools of Oriental Research 98: 1523.
The Legend of King Keret: A Canaanite Epic of the Bronze Age. American Schools of Oriental Research. Supplementary Studies 23. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research.
Golden, Jonathan M.
2004
Ancient Canaan and Israel: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gray, John
1970
Greenfield, Jonas C.
1971
1987
The Book of Job in the Context of Near Eastern Literature. Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
82: 25169.
Scripture and Inscription: The Literary and Rhetorical Element in Some Early Phoenician Inscriptions.
In Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright, edited by Hans Goedicke, pp. 25368. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
The Hebrew Bible and Canaanite Literature. In The Literary Guide to the Bible, edited by Robert Alter
and Frank Kermode, pp. 54560. Cambridge: Belknap Press.
Greenstein, Edward L.
1984
The Phonology of Akkadian Syllable Structure. Afroasiatic Linguistics 9: 171.
1996
The Canaanite Literary Heritage in Ancient Hebrew Writing. Michmanim 10: 1938. [In Hebrew]
1997
Kirta. In Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, edited by Simon B. Parker, pp. 948. Society of Biblical Literature,
Writings from the Ancient World 9. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
1998
New Readings in the Kirta Epic. In Past Links: Studies in the Languages and Cultures of the Ancient Near East,
edited by Shlomo Izreel, Itamar Singer, and Ran Zadok, pp. 10523. Israel Oriental Studies 18. Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns.
2000
The Role of the Reader in Ugaritic Narrative. In A Wise and Discerning Mind: Essays in Honor of Burke
Long, edited by Saul M. Olyan and Robert C. Culley, pp. 13951. Brown Judaic Studies 325. Providence:
Brown Judaic Studies.
2001a
The Lament over the Destruction of City and Temple in Early Israelite Literature. In Homage to Shmuel
[Aituv]: Studies in the World of the Bible, edited by Zipora Talshir, Shamir Yona, and Daniel Sivan, pp.
8897. Beersheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press. [In Hebrew]
2001b
The Ugaritic Epic of Kirta in a Wisdom Perspective. In Studies in Judaica, edited by Yair Hoffman, pp.
113. Teuda 1617. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. [In Hebrew]
2002
Some Developments in the Study of Language and Some Implications for Interpreting Ancient Texts
and Cultures. In Semitic Linguistics: The State of the Art at the Turn of the Twenty-first Century, edited by
Shlomo Izreel, pp. 44179. Israel Oriental Studies 20. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
The Poem on Wisdom in Job 28 in Its Conceptual and Literary Contexts. In Job 28: Cognition in Context,
2003
edited by Ellen van Wolde, pp. 25380. Biblical Interpretation Series 64. Leiden: Brill.
Forms and Functions of the Finite Verb in Ugaritic Narrative Verse. In Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest
2006
Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives, edited by Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz, pp.
Sages with a Sense of Humor: The Babylonian Dialogue between a Master and His Servant and the
2007
Book of Qohelet. In Wisdom Literature in Mesopotamia and Israel, edited by Richard J. Clifford, pp. 5565.
Symposium Series 36. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
84
2009
Hallo, William W.
1990
2004
Handy, Lowell K.
1994
Hasan-Rokem, Galit
1990
Hawley, Robert
2008
The Problem of Evil in the Book of Job. In Mishneh todah: Studies in Deuteronomy and Its Cultural Environment in Honor of Jeffrey H. Tigay, edited by Nili S. Fox, David A. Glatt-Gilad, and Michael J. Williams, pp.
Proverbs Quoted in Epic. In Lingering over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of
William L. Moran, edited by Tzvi Abusch, John Huehnergard, and Piotr Steinkeller, pp. 20317. Harvard
Semitic Studies 37. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Foreword. In A Culture of Desert Survival: Bedouin Proverbs from Sinai and the Negev, by Clinton Bailey, pp.
ixxvi. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Among the Host of Heaven: The Syro-Palestinian Pantheon as Bureaucracy. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
And God Created the Proverb : Inter-generic and Inter-textual Aspects of Biblical Paremiology Or
the Longest Way to the Shortest Text. In Text and Tradition: The Hebrew Bible and Folklore, edited by Susan
Niditch, pp. 10720. Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
On the Alphabetic Scribal Curriculum at Ugarit. In Proceedings of the 51st Recontre Assyriologique Internationale held at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, July 1822, 2005, edited by Robert D. Biggs,
Jennie Myers, and Martha T. Roth, pp. 5767. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 62. Chicago: The
Oriental Institute.
Healey, John F.
1979 The Pietas of an Ideal Son in Ugarit. Ugarit-Foruschungen 11: 35356.
Herdner, Andre
1963
Herzog, Eliezra
2009
Hess, Richard S.
1993
Hillers, Delbert R.
1973
Corpus des tablettes en cuniformes alphabtiques dcouvertes Ras Shamra-Ugarit de 1929 1939. 2 volumes.
Mission de Ras Shamra 10. Paris: Imprimerie Natonale/Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner.
The Triple Rhetorical Argument An Expression of Syllogism in the Bible. Beit Mikra 54: 6282. [In
Hebrew]
Smitten Ants Bite Back: Rhetorical Forms in the Amarna Correspondence from Shechem. In Verse in
Ancient Near Eastern Prose, edited by Johannes C. de Moor and Wilfred G. E. Watson, pp. 95111. Alter
Orient und Altes Testament 42. Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker.
The Bow of Aqhat: The Meaning of a Mythological Theme. In Orient and Occident: Essays Presented to
Cyrus H. Gordon on the Occasion of His Sixty-fifth Birthday, edited by Harry A. Hoffner, Jr., pp. 7180. Alter
Horowitz, Wayne, and Takayoshi Oshima

2006
Cuneiform in Canaan: Cuneiform Sources from the Land of Israel in Ancient Times. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
Society/Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Horwitz, William J.
1979
The Ugaritic Scribe. Ugarit-Forschungen 11: 38994.
Huehnergard, John
1987
1989
Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription. Harvard Semitic Studies 32. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
The Akkadian of Ugarit. Harvard Semitic Monographs. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Hurowitz, Victor A.
2007
The Wisdom of p-aml A Deathbed Debate between a Father and Son. In Wisdom Literature in
Mesopotamia and Israel, edited by Richard J. Clifford, pp. 3751. Symposium Series 36. Atlanta: Society
of Biblical Literature.
Izreel, Shlomo
1998
Canaano-Akkadian. Languages of the World 82. Munich: Lincom Europa.
Kahana, Avraham
1928
The Book of Job. Torah, Neviim u-Ketuvim with a Scientific Commentary. Tel Aviv: Meqorot. [In Hebrew]
Wisdom in Ugaritic
85
Kmmerer, Thomas R.
1928
im milka: Induktion und Reception der mittelbabylonischen Dichtung von Ugarit, Emr und Tell el-Amrna.
Alter Orient und Altes Testament 251. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Keydana, Gtz
1991
Khanjian, John
1974
1975
Klein, Jacob
1997
2000
Kleven, Terence
1988
Anhang: Die hethitische Version. Ugarit-Forschungen 23: 6874.

Wisdom in Ugarit and in the Ancient Near East with Particular Emphasis on Old Testament Wisdom
Literature. Ph.D. dissertation, Claremont Graduate School.
Wisdom. In Ras Shamra Parallels II, edited by Loren R. Fisher, pp. 371400. Analecta orientalia 50. Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute.
olam hattenakh: megillot [The Five Scrolls]. Tel Aviv: Davidson-Itti. [In Hebrew]
The Ballad about Early Rulers in Eastern and Western Traditions. In Languages and Cultures in Contact:
At the Crossroads of Civilizations in the Syro-Mesopotamian Realm; Proceedings of the 42th [sic] RAI, edited by
Karel van Lerberghe and Gabriela Voet, pp. 20316. Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 96. Leuven: Peeters.
Kingship in Ugarit (KTU 1.16 I 123). In Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and Other Studies in Memory of Peter C.
Craigie, edited by Lyle Eslinger and Glen Taylor, pp. 2953. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
Supplement 67. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
Knoppers, Gary N.
1994
Dissonance and Disaster in the Legend of Kirta. Journal of the American Oriental Society 114: 57282.
Kugel, James L.
2003
The God of Old: Inside the Lost World of the Bible. New York: Free Press.
Lambert, W. G.
1960
1995
Launderville, Dale
2003
Babylonian Wisdom Literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Some New Babylonian Wisdom Literature. In Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in Honor of J. A. Emerton,
edited by John Day, Robert P. Gordon, and H. G. M. Williamson, pp. 3042. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Piety and Politics: The Dynamics of Royal Authority in Homeric Greece, Biblical Israel, and Old Babylonian Mesopotamia. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Landy, Francis
1981
The Tale of Aqhat. London: Menard.
Lewis, Theodore J.
1989
Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit. Harvard Semitic Monographs 39. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Lichtenstein, Murray H.
1968
The Banquet Motif in Keret and in Proverbs 9. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia
University 1: 1931.
Lichtheim, Miriam
1976
Ancient Egyptian Literature. A Book of Readings, Volume 2: The New Kingdom. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Loewenstamm, Samuel E.
On the Theology of the Keret-epic. In From Babylon to Canaan: Studies in the Bible and Its Oriental Back1992
ground, pp. 185200, by Samuel E. Loewenstamm. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.
Mack-Fisher, Loren R.
A Survey and Reading Guide to the Didactic Literature of Ugarit: Prolegomenon to a Study on the Sage.
1990a
In The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East, edited by John G. Gammie and Leo G. Perdue, pp. 6780.
1990b
The Scribe (and Sage) in the Royal Court at Ugarit. In The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East, edited
by John G. Gammie and Leo G. Perdue, pp. 10915. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
86
Marcus, David
1973
1986
Margalit, Baruch
1983
1989
A Famous Analogy of Rib-Haddi. The Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 5:
28186.
Jephthah and His Vow. Lubbock: Texas Tech Press.
The Neolithic Connexion of the Ugaritic Poem of Aqht. Palorient 9: 9398.
The Ugaritic Poem of AQHT: Text, Translation, Commentary. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 182. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Mrquez Rowe, Ignacio

2008
Scribes, Sages, and Seers in Ugarit. In Scribes, Sages, and Seers: The Sage in the Eastern Mediterranean
World, edited by Leo G. Perdue, pp. 95108. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.
Marzal, Angel
1976
Mattingly, Gerald L.
1990
Gleanings from the Wisdom of Mari. Studia Pohl 11. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
The Pious Sufferer: Mesopotamias Traditional Theodicy and Jobs Counselors. In Scripture in Context,
Volume 3: The Bible in the Light of Cuneiform Literature, edited by William W. Hallo, Bruce W. Jones, and
Gerald L. Mattingly, pp. 30548. Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 8. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen.
McKenzie, John L.
1967
Reflections on Wisdom. Journal of Biblical Literature 86: 19.
Moran, William L.
1992
Morrow, William S.
2008
Resistance and Hybridity in Late Bronze Age Canaan. Revue Biblique 115: 32139.
Murphy, Roland E.
1981
1992
Hebrew Wisdom. Journal of the American Oriental Society 101: 2134.

Wisdom in the OT. In Anchor Bible Dictionary, Volume 6, edited by David N. Freedman, pp. 92031. New
York: Doubleday.
Natan-Yulzary, Shirly
2007
Characterization and Text Texture in Ancient West-Semitic Literature from Ugarit. Shnaton An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 17: 16197. [In Hebrew]
Nougayrol, Jean
1955
1968
1970
OConnor, Daniel J.
1989
OConnor, M.
2006
Otzen, Benedikt
1974
Pardee, Dennis
1973
Textes accadiens et hourrites des archives est, oust, et centrales. Le palais royal dUgarit 3. Mission de Ras
Shamra 6. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale/Librairie C. Klincksieck.
Textes sumro-accadiens des archives et bibliothques prives dUgarit. In Ugaritica V, by Jean Nougayrol, Emmanuel Laroche, Charles Virolleaud, and Claude Schaeffer, pp. 1446. Mission de Ras Shamra
16. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.
Textes en cuniformes babyloniens des archives du grand palais et du palais sud dUgarit. Le palais royal dUgarit
VI. Mission de Ras Shamra 12. Paris: Imprimerie nationale-Librairie C. Klincksieck.
The Keret Legend and the Prologue-Epilogue of Job. Irish Theological Quarterly 55: 16.
The Human Characters Names in the Ugaritic Poems: Onomastic Eccentricity in Bronze-age West
Semitic and the Name Daniel in Particular. In Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives, edited by Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz, pp. 26983. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns.
Old Testament Wisdom Literature and Dualistic Thinking in Late Judaism. In Congress Volume, Edinburgh
1974, pp. 14657. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 28. Leiden: Brill.
A Note on the Root tq in CTA 16 I 2,5 (UT 125. KRT II). Ugarit-Forschungen 5: 22934.
Wisdom in Ugaritic
1987
1997
2000
2002
Parker, Simon B.
1977
1979
1989
1995
As Strong as Death. In Love and Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope, edited
by John H. Marks and Robert M. Good, pp. 6569. Guilford: Four Quarters Publishing.
Canonical Compositions (West Semitic). In The Context of Scripture, Volume 1: Canonical Compositions
from the Biblical World, edited by William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Jr., pp. 241356. Leiden: Brill.
Ugaritic Studies at the End of the Twentieth Century. Bulletin of the Schools of Oriental Research 320:
4986.
Ugaritic Letters. In The Context of Scripture, Volume 3: Archival Documents from the Biblical World, edited
by William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Jr., pp. 87116. Leiden: Brill.
The Historical Composition of the Krt and the Cult of El. Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
89/2: 16175.
The Vow in Ugaritic and Israelite Narrative Literature. Ugarit-Forschungen 11: 693700.
The Pre-Biblical Narrative Tradition: Essays on the Ugaritic Poems Keret and Aqhat. Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study 24. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
The Beginning of the Reign of God: Psalm 82 as Myth and Liturgy. Revue biblique 102: 53259.
Perdue, Leo G.
2008
The Sword and the Stylus: An Introduction to Wisdom in the Age of Empires. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Pfeiffer, Robert H.
1948
Introduction to the Old Testament. New York: Harper and Row.
Pitard, Wayne T.
2002
Pope, Marvin H.
1965
von Rad, Gerhard
1966
1972
Rainey, Anson F.
1996
2008
Rof, Alexander
2009
Rtterswrden, U.
1995
Saad, Gabriel
1988
Sanders, Seth
2006
2009
Sasson, Jack M.
1995
87
Voices from the Dust: The Tablets from Ugarit and the Bible. In Mesopotamia and the Bible: Comparative
Explorations, edited by Mark W. Chavalas and K. Lawson Younger, Jr., pp. 25175. Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic.
Job. Anchor Bible 15. Garden City: Doubleday.
The Joseph Narrative and Ancient Wisdom. In The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. Translated
by E. W. Trueman Dicken, pp. 292300. London: Oliver and Boyd.
Wisdom in Israel. Translated by James D. Martin. New York: Abingdon Press.
Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect Used by the Scribes from Canaan. 4
volumes. Leiden: Brill.
The Northwest Semitic Literary Repertoire and Its Acquaintance by Judean Writers. Maarav 15: 193
205.
Introduction to the Literature of the Hebrew Bible. Jerusalem Biblical Studies 9. Jerusalem: Simor.
Horon. In Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, edited by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and
Pieter W. van der Horst, pp. 80508. Leiden: Brill.
La vie intellectuelle et lenseignement Ougarit. In Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and Other Studies in
Memory of Peter C. Craigie, edited by Lyle Eslinger and Glen Taylor, pp. 6990. Journal for the Study of
the Old Testament Supplement 67. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Alphabetic Cuneiform Texts. In Cuneiform in Canaan: Cuneiform Sources from the Land of Israel in Ancient
Times, by Wayne Horowitz and Takayoshi Oshima, pp. 15766. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/
Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
The Invention of Hebrew. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Water beneath Straw: A Prophetic Phrase in the Mari Archives. In Solving Riddles and Untying Knots:
Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield, edited by Ziony Zevit, Seymour Gitin,
and Michael Sokoloff, pp. 599608. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
88
Schmidt, Brian B.
1994
Schoors, Anton
1972
Israels Beneficient Dead: Ancestor Cult and Necromancy in Ancient Israelite Religion and Tradition. Forschungen
zum Alten Testament 11. Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Literary Phrases. In Ras Shamra Parallels: The Texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible I, edited by Loren R.
Fisher, pp. 170. Analecta orientalia 49. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
Scott, R. B. Y.
1965
Proverbs: Ecclesiastes. Anchor Bible 18. Garden City: Doubleday.
Selms, A. van
1954
Marriage and Family Life in Ugaritic Literature. London: Luzac.
Seminara, Stefano
2000
Seow, Choon-Leong
1984
Sivan, Daniel
1984
Smith, Duane E.
1975
Le Istruzioni di p-aml: Vecchio e nuovo a confronto nella sapienza siriana del Tardo Bronzo.
Ugarit-Forschungen 32: 487529.
The Syro-Palestinian Context of Solomons Dream. Harvard Theological Review 77/2: 14152.
Grammatical Analysis and Glossary of the Northwest Semitic Vocables in Akkadian Texts of the 15th13th Centuries
B.C. from Canaan and Syria. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 214. Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker.
Wisdom Genres in RS 22.439. In Ras Shamra Parallels, Volume 2, edited by Loren R. Fisher, pp. 21547.
Analecta Orientalia 50. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
Smith, Mark S., and Wayne Pitard

2009
The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, Volume 2: Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU/CAT 1.31.4.
Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 114. Leiden: Brill.
van Soldt, W. H.
1991
1995a
1995b
Sparks, Kenton L.
2005
Spronk, Klaas
1986
Studies in the Akkadian of Ugarit Dating and Grammar. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 40. Kevelaer: Butzon
and Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
Babylonian Lexical, Religious, and Literary Texts and Scribal Education at Ugarit and Its Implications
for the Alphabetic Literary Texts. In Ugarit: Ein ostmediterranes Kulturzentrum im alten Orient: Ergebnisse
und Perspektiven der Forschung, Volume 1: Ugarit und seine altorientalische Umwelt, edited by Manfried
Dietrich and Oswald Loretz, pp. 171212. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag.
The Akkadian of Ugarit: Lexicographical Aspects. Studi epigrafici e linguistici 12: 20515.
Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible: A Guide to the Background Literature. Peabody: Hendrickson.
Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 219. Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker.
Story, Cullen I. K.
1945
The Book of Proverbs and Northwest Semitic Literature. Journal of Biblical Literature 64: 31937.
Sun, Chloe
2008
The Ethics of Violence in the Story of Aqhat. Piscataway: Gorgias.
Talmon, Shemaryahu
1963
Wisdom in the Scroll of Esther. Vetus Testamentum 13: 41955.
Thompson, John M.
1974
Toy, Crawford H.
1916
Walls, Neal H.
1992
The Form and Function of Proverbs in Ancient Israel. The Hague: Mouton.
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Proverbs. International Critical Commentary. New York:
Charles Scribners Sons.
The Goddess Anat in Ugaritic Myth. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation 135. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Wisdom in Ugaritic
Walton, John H.
1989
Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Environment. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Weeks, Stuart
1999
Early Israelite Wisdom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weinfeld, Moshe
1972
1985
Weiser, Artur
1962
Westermann, Claus
1995
89
Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Justice and Righteousness in Israel and the Nations: Equality and Freedom in Ancient Israel in Light of Social Justice
in the Ancient Near East. Jerusalem: Magnes. [In Hebrew]
The Psalms: A Commentary. Translated by Herbert Hartwell. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Roots of Wisdom: The Oldest Proverbs of Israel and Other Peoples. Translated by J. Daryl Charles. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox Press.
Whybray, R. Norman
1968
Wisdom in the Succession Narrative. In The Succession Narrative: A Study of II Samuel 9-20, [and] I Kings
1 and 2, pp. 5695. London: SCM Press.
Wiseman, D. J.
1977
Wright, David P.
2001
Wyatt, N.
1996
Israels Literary Neighbors in the 13th Century B.C. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 5: 7791.
Ritual in Narrative: The Dynamics of Feasting, Mourning, and Retaliation Rites in the Ugaritic Tale of Aqhat.
Myths of Power: A Study of Royal Myth and Ideology in Ugaritic and Biblical Tradition. Ugaritisch-biblische
Literatur 13. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Yon, Marguerite
2006
The City of Ugarit at Tell Ras Shamra. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Zakovitch, Yair
1992
The Song of Songs: Introduction and Commentary. Jerusalem: Magnes. [In Hebrew]
Zijl. Peter J. van

1972
Baal: A Study of Texts in Connexion with Baal in the Ugaritic Epics. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 10.
Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker.
Predicate Nominals and Related Constructions in Neo-Mandaic
91
Predicate Nominals and Related Constructions

in Neo-Mandaic
Charles G. Hberl, Rutgers University*
This paper is a small contribution to the much larger project of developing a metalinguistic framework for
discussing the Semitic languages that is viable both individually and cross-linguistically. My own interest in this
project owes much to John Huehnergards influence, whose scholarship bridging as it does areas as diverse as
linguistic typology, the diachronic and synchronic description of the Semitic languages, interconnections among
these languages extending even into the greater Afroasiatic language phylum, and the broader question of language contact represents some of the last centurys most profound contributions to the subject.
1. Introduction
The term predicate nominal describes a variety of phrases in which the semantic content of the predication is provided not by a verb but by a noun. It belongs to a wider category of related constructions that employ
a noun or some other complement such as an adjective or a prepositional phrase to indicate equation, attribution (predicate adjectives), location (predicate locatives), existence (existential constructions), and possession
(possessive clauses), among other types of predication.1 All of these constructions are characterized by the lack
of a semantically rich verb, one that contributes to the meaning of the clause by supplying the major semantic
content of the predication. In languages such as Russian, Hungarian, Turkish, and most classical Semitic languages,
it is possible to dispense with the verb altogether in the simple present.
Generally, the verb employed in such constructions will be either a copular verb or some kind of grammatical verb, namely, one that is inflected to express predication but contributes little if anything to the meaning of
the predicate. While predicate nominals and related constructions are interesting for several reasons, they merit
particularly close attention due to the fact that they serve as a basic grammatical template that adapts to serve
many other functions in discourse (Payne 1997, p. 113).
Classical Mandaic, a Semitic language belonging to the eastern subgroup of Aramaic dialects, preserves the
full panoply of constructions found in these languages.2 Its modern reflex, Neo-Mandaic, not only preserves the
original strategies for dealing with predication, but also has innovated a much fuller repertoire for dealing with
predication than any of the related Aramaic dialects. Through these strategies, which are the subject of this
contribution, speakers of Neo-Mandaic are able to make fine distinctions in the syntax of the nominal sentence,
* I am much obliged to the volume editors, Rebecca Hasselbach
and Naama Pat-El, for their careful attention to earlier drafts
of this contribution and the many helpful suggestions that they
have made for its improvement. Abbreviations are explained at
the end of the text; copular verbs are glossed with the word be.
For predication in Semitic, see Goldenberg 1998 and 2005. For

a cross-linguistic perspective on predicate nominals, see Payne
1997, p. 111.
2
Nldeke (1875, 273) noted that Mandaic nominal sentences retain their Semitic character to a much greater extent than Syriac
or any of the later Semitic languages.
1
91
92
Charles G. Hberl
including distinctions not found in these other languages or even in its immediate linguistic ancestor. In order
to introduce the syntax of the predicate nominal and related constructions in its proper context, it serves to first
survey these languages and their treatment of analogous constructions.
1.2. Presentation of the Data

The majority of the data cited herein have been collected from standard sources on the various languages,
such as religious texts and reference grammars. The one major exception is the data from the Neo-Mandaic dialect
formerly spoken in Khorramshahr, Iran, which were collected during the course of my own doctoral research,
conducted under Huehnergards supervision.3 The fact that these data are not available elsewhere is in some ways
both a blessing and a curse; on the one hand, they offer crucial information and a new perspective on one of the
most important surviving Aramaic dialects, but on the other hand, the usefulness of these data is mitigated by
the fact that they, having been freshly collected, have yet to be analyzed and presented in their proper context.
This article is a modest attempt to provide a context for a portion of these new data and highlight their relevance
to scholars of Aramaic and linguists in general.
A potential obstacle to the comparison of the data is posed by the widely varying standards applied to the
description of individual Middle Eastern languages. Even an issue as basic as transcription is problematic, due to
the fact that each language is generally transcribed according to a different scheme, which makes comparison
difficult. Furthermore, while Huehnergard inculcated in his students and colleagues a respect for transcription
and the use of a uniform system for precisely this purpose, transcription continues to be unpopular among the
great bulk of scholars who work exclusively within individual languages, as they generally prefer to cite examples
from these languages in their original scripts.4
Comparatively little effort has been made to develop a metalinguistic framework for discussing these languages that is viable both individually and cross-linguistically. Most descriptions of these languages employ
idiosyncratic mixed systems based partially upon the grammar of classical European languages like Greek and
Latin (using obscure metalinguistic terms such as subjunctive or accusative, which are freighted with cultural
baggage and not entirely appropriate for the object languages) and partially upon these languages own grammatical traditions (using terms such as ifa or efe, which are borrowed directly from the object languages and
therefore more appropriate, but completely opaque to all scholars not versed in these languages). Such mixed
systems present clear obstacles to the comparison of the grammatical structures of these languages.
Most of the metalinguistic conventions currently employed by linguistic typologists, such as interlinear
morphosyntactic glosses, have yet to be applied extensively to the languages of the Middle East and have been
ignored by Semitists in particular. Because these conventions have proven to be extremely useful for facilitating
the description of different languages and the comparison of their structural diversity, I have attempted to apply them to each language. Examples drawn from the languages surveyed are given a line-by-line analysis with
interlinear glosses, utilizing a slightly modified version of the Leipzig Rules followed by a free translation.5 I have
opted to use the Leipzig Rules because they reflect current notational conventions in glossing morphosyntax and
because they have the most currency among documentary linguists. According to these conventions, each of the
following examples is left aligned, vertically, word for word, with the gloss beneath it. Segmentable elements are
separated by a dash, both in the example and in the gloss. When a single element in the example corresponds to
several English elements (words or morphemes), each element in the gloss is separated by a period.
The fruit of this research was eventually published as Hberl

2009.
4
The transcription scheme adopted here for Hebrew and Syriac is that of the Society for Biblical Literature, as indicated in
their Handbook of Style, 5.19; for Classical Arabic, that of the
Deutsche Morgenlndische Gesellschaft adopted in 1936 by the
3
International Convention of Orientalist Scholars; for Classical

Mandaic, that adopted by Drower and Macuch 1963; and for NeoMandaic, the scheme that I developed for Hberl 2009.
5
For a more thorough description of the Leipzig Glossing Rules,
see Lehmann 1983 and more recently Croft 2003, pp. xixxxv.
93
2. Biblical Hebrew
Roughly contemporaneous with Old Aramaic and Phoenician, and preceded only by Akkadian, Eblaite, and
Ugaritic, Biblical Hebrew is one of the earliest attested Semitic languages and is the best documented and most
thoroughly studied of the ancient Semitic languages. Furthermore, as a member of the Northwest Semitic subfamily, it is more closely related to Aramaic (and therefore Mandaic) than most other attested Semitic languages.
Finally, there is no evidence for contact between Biblical Hebrew and Mandaic, as they are separated from each
other by a considerable geographic distance and a span of several centuries.6 For these reasons, it provides an
excellent point of departure for this survey.
2.1. Predication in Biblical Hebrew

In Biblical Hebrew, a personal or demonstrative pronoun may be used to express predication in verbless
clauses, as in example 1, but its appearance is not obligatory, as indicated in example 2:

ex. 1. YHWH h
h-lh-m n

mil-ladd-
PN
3SG.M DEF-god-PL ext.neg else beside-3SG.M
The Lord is God; there is none else beside him. (Deut 4:35)
ex. 2. YHWH ha-addq

wa-n w-amm-
h-r-m
PN
DEF-righteous and-1sg and-people-1SG def-wicked.PL-PL
The Lord is the righteous one, and I and my people are the wicked. (Exod 9:27)
This copula pronoun can intervene between the subject and the predicate, as in example 1 above, or follow
the predicate:

ex. 3. z-
m
h
discharge-3sg.m unclean 3sg.m
His discharge is unclean. (Lev 15:2)7
As noted above, such basic nominal sentences are restricted to the simple present.8 Predicate nominals in all
other tenses, moods, and aspects are indicated by a copular verb, h-y-h:

ex. 4. w-lleh hy-

bn
ohlm
and-these be.pfv-3pl son-PL PN
And these were the sons of Oholibamah (Gen 36:14)
Mandaean traditions of a Palestinian origin aside, the Mandaic

language is clearly related to the Eastern Aramaic dialects of
Mesopotamia rather than the Western Aramaic dialects of the
Levant; see Nldeke 1875, p. xxv.
7
It should be noted that the identity of this pronoun and the
function that it performs within the Biblical Hebrew nominal
6
sentence has been the subject of much discussion; see, for example, Dyk and Talstra 1999, pp. 17375.
8
For the expression of tense in nominal sentences in Biblical
Hebrew, see Zewi 1994.
94
Charles G. Hberl
2.2. Existential Predication in Biblical Hebrew

Existential predication is expressed by the particles y there is/are and n there isnt/arent, as in example1 above and in examples 5 and 6 below.9 Generally the tense, aspect, and mood of the clause must be determined from context, although they may be expressed with the copular verb h-y-h in the place of the existential
particle.

ex. 5. w-gam y gl,

qr mimmenn-
and-also ext kinsman close from-1sg
and there is also a kinsman who is closer than me. (Ruth 3:12)
ex. 6. n
leem w-n
mayim
ext.neg bread and-ext.neg water
There is no bread and there is no water. (Num 21:5)
ex. 7. way-y-hi

e mi-orh
cons-3sg.m-be.ipfv man one from-PN
There was a man from Zorah (Judg 13:2)
These same particles are also used to express predicate locatives:
ex. 8. l y-ere
b-y-
if ext-sword in-hand-1sg
If only there were a sword in my hand (Num 22:29)
ex. 9. n-ysf
b-ab-br
ext.neg-PN in-def-pit
Joseph was not in the pit. (Gen 37:29)
2.3. Possessive Clauses in Biblical Hebrew

Biblical Hebrew employs the predicate locative construction to express the notion of possession. In fact, the
equivalent construction found in languages such as English, in which a special verb to have is used to express
possession, is not necessarily the most common cross-linguistically.10 In the case of Biblical Hebrew, possession
is expressed using a variety of prepositions, the most common of which is the preposition l- to, for. The preposition may optionally be preceded by the existential particles y and n, as in the following examples. Note again
that the tense of the possessive clause must often be determined from context, although the copular verb h-y-h
may be used to express possessive clauses in tenses other than the simple present.

ex. 10. w-l-

t n-m
and-to-3sg.m two wife.pl-pl
and he had two wives (1 Sam 1:2)
ex. 11. y l-
r
ext to-1sg much
I have plenty. (Gen 33:9)
In addition to serving to indicate existential predication, these

two particles can also serve in a variety of different functions
when modified with a possessive suffix. The inflected forms of
y appear almost exclusively after im if where they serve in
precisely the same function as the independent pronoun (e.g.,
Gen 24:49). The more common inflected forms of n frequently

negate sentences with participial predicates (e.g., Exod 5:10) or,
more rarely, adjectival and adverbial predicates (e.g., Ps 73:5).
10
This is the position of Payne (1997, p. 126); a dissenting view
is offered by Stassen (2009, pp. 6469).
ex. 12. n
l-h
wl
ext.neg to-3sg.f child
She had no child. (Gen 11:30)
ex. 13. l-yi-hyeh

l-
lh-m r-m al-pn-y
neg-3sg.m-be.ipFv to-2sg.m god-pl other-pl upon-face.pl-1sg
You will have no other gods before me. (Exod 20:2)
95
3. Classical Arabic
Arabic, the language of the Quran and of the classical literature of Islam, is the most widespread of the Semitic
languages and, through its standardized version and daughter languages, the most widely spoken as well. From the
time of Islamic conquest of the Near East until the present date, the Mandaeans have lived alongside speakers of
Arabic, resulting in a prolonged contact situation that has profoundly influenced the modern Mandaic language.
The traces of this contact are apparent in the lexicon of Neo-Mandaic and from its phonology, but surprisingly
absent from its syntax.
3.1. Predication in Classical Arabic

In Classical Arabic, a linking pronoun much like that attested in Biblical Hebrew is employed to express
predication, but its appearance is much more regular than in Biblical Hebrew. It serves primarily to eliminate
ambiguity, expressing predication only when both the subject and the predicate of the clause are definite, as in
example 14, and following the subject as a rule. Classical Arabic dispenses with this pronoun as superfluous whenever the subject of the clause is definite and its predicate is indefinite, as in example 15. As in Biblical Hebrew,
clauses in tenses other than the simple present must employ a copular verb, k-w-n, which typically stands at the
head of the clause before its subject; see example 16 below.11

ex. 14. ah-u

huwa l-ayy-u
l-qayym-u
God-NOM 3SG.M DEF-living-NOM DEF-self.subsisting-NOM
God is the living, the self-subsisting.
ex. 15. as-suln-u

mar-u-n
DEF-sultan-NOM sick-NOM-INDF
The sultan is sick.
ex. 16. kna huwa wa-ax-hu

muallim-na
bi--if-i
be.pfv 3SG.M and-brother.nom-3SG.M teacher-PL.OBL in-DEF-Taif-GEN
He and his brother were teachers in al-Taif.
Note that the predicate follows the subject and takes the oblique case, as if it were the object of a transitive
verb. Nominal sentences may also be introduced by the topicalizing particle inna, in which case the subject of
the clause follows the particle appearing in the accusative case, and its predicate follows the subject appearing
in the nominative case, as in example 17. The copula pronoun may follow the subject of the nominal sentence, as
in example 18, but its appearance is not obligatory:
Unless otherwise specified, the following examples are taken

from Wright 1996. Note that this copula pronoun can be omitted
under certain circumstances; ibid., ii 12829.
11
96
Charles G. Hberl
ex. 17. inna h-a

li-u
alat-i-n
top God-acc third-nom three-gen-indf
Verily God is one of three.
ex. 18. inna l-xir-at-a

hiya
dr-u
l-qarr-i
top def-last-sg.f-acc 3sg.f abode-nom def-steadfastness-gen
Verily the world to come is the everlasting abode.
3.2. Existential Predication in Classical Arabic

The predicate locative construction is formed with the use of the preposition, but without any additional
particle, such as an existential particle or the copula pronoun. If the subject of the clause is indefinite, then the
predicate must precede it, as in example 19; if the subject is definite, on the other hand, the predicate may follow
or precede it without any change in meaning, as in example 20.

ex. 19. fi-d-dr-i

mraat-u-n
in-def-house-gen woman-nom-indf
There is a woman in the house.
ex. 20. zayd-u-n

fi-l-masjid-i
or fi-l-masjid-i
zayd-u-n
pn-nom-indf in-def-mosque-gen in-def-mosque-gen pn-nom-indf
Zayd is in the mosque.
These constructions are negated with the particle laysa, which is inflected as if it were a verb in the perfective, but renders the imperfective, as in example 21. In many respects, laysa behaves like an existential particle
similar to Biblical Hebrew n. It may be governed by the copular verb in the perfect tense to express the negative
imperfect of that verb, as in example 22. Note that the object of laysa is often (but not exclusively) marked with
the preposition bi- rather than the accusative.

ex. 21. laysa

ur-u-n
f tark-i
t-taallum-i
ext.neg excuse-nom-indf in neglect-gen def-learning-gen
There is no excuse for neglecting the acquisition of knowledge.
ex. 22. kna

n-naby-u
laysa
bi--awl-i
wa-l
bi-l-qar-i
be.pfv def-prophet-nom ext.neg obj-def-tall-gen and-neg obj-def-short-gen
The Prophet was neither of high nor low stature.
In the Quran, the indeclinable particle lta appears once in its place:
ex. 23. wa-lta

n-a
man-i-n
and-ext.neg time-acc avoidance-gen-indf
and there wasnt time to escape (d 38:3)
Likewise, the indeclinable particle in behaves in a similar manner, appearing (like laysa and lta) in initial
position:

ex. 24. in
kull-u
man f s-samwt-i
wa-l-ar-i
ext.neg all-nom who in def-heaven.pl-gen and-def-earth-gen
There is no one in heaven and earth
ill
t
r-ramn-i
abd-an
except come.ptc def-merciful-gen servant-acc-indf
except he who comes to the Merciful only as a servant. (Maryam 19:93)
97
3.3. Possessive Clauses in Classical Arabic

As in Biblical Hebrew, possessive clauses are expressed using a predicate locative construction:

ex. 25. kna

tjir-u-n
wa-kna
la-hu
ban-na
al-at-u-n
be.pfv merchant-nom-indf and-be.pfv to-3sg.m son.pl-pl.nom three-sg.f-nom-indf
There was a merchant and he had three sons.
4. Classical Syriac
Classical Syriac is an Aramaic dialect roughly contemporaneous with and closely related to Classical Mandaic.
Initially the dialect of the city of Edessa (Urhy), it was eventually adopted by all Aramaic-speaking Christians
throughout the Middle East as their primary language of worship and scholarship.
4.1. Predication in Classical Syriac

As in Biblical Hebrew and Classical Arabic, predicate nominals are often marked by the personal pronoun in
Classical Syriac. This personal pronoun may agree fully with the subject in person and number, as in example
26, or appear in the third person and agree only in number. When this pronoun marks the predicate, it often
assumes an enclitic form. This enclitic pronoun is most often attached to the head noun of the predicate, as in
example 28, and may even intervene between the noun and any adjective modifying it, as in example 29. Note
that the predicate may appear before the subject of the clause, so long as it is marked by the enclitic pronoun.12

ex. 26. nan ()nan bnay arhm

1pl
1pl
son.pl PN
We are the sons of Abraham. (Aphr. 331:5)
ex. 27. nan ennon bnay arhm

1pl
3pl.m son.pl PN
We are the sons of Abraham. (Aphr. 331:15)
ex. 28. ra-(h)

eh-eh
great-3SG.M sin-3SG.M
His sin is great. (Aphr. 45:10)
ex. 29. ezw-(h)w

daggl
vision-3SG.M false
It is an apparition. (Matt 14:26)
As Nldeke (2001, 313) notes, there is a wide variety of ways to express the nominal sentence in Classical
Syriac, demonstrated by the following possible variations on the two sentences examples 26 and 27 from the
Homilies of Aphraates cited above:

ex. 30. nan bnay arhm ()nan

1pl
son.pl PN
1pl
We are the sons of Abraham. (Nldeke 2001, 313)
12
The examples that follow are collected from Nldeke 2001 and
from Joosten 1992. The authoritative study on nominal sentences in Syriac remains Goldenberg 1983. The texts employed by
Nldeke 2001 and cited here include Wright 1869 (Aphr.) and
Assemanus 1748 (Mart.). All examples from the Bible are quoted
according to the Peshitta version.
98
Charles G. Hberl
ex. 31. bnay arhm ()nan

son.pl PN
1pl
These types of predicate nominals (i.e., those in which predication is marked by the linking pronoun) are
negated with the negative particle l followed by the perfect of the copular verb h-w-y, which invariably stands
at the head of the clause, as often do Biblical Hebrew n and Classical Arabic laysa. Despite the fact that this copular verb is fully inflected, it does not express past tense or perfectivity, but merely the negation of the predicate
nominal, much like these other particles:13

ex. 32. l
hw
ar alh
neg be.pfv man God
God is not a man. (Num 23:19)
ex. 33. l
hw-
gar -mell-
neg be.pfv-1sg man of-word-pl
I am not a man of words. (Exod 4:10)
Furthermore, while predicate nominals are normally marked in this manner, with some exceptions (see
Nldeke 2001, 310), predicate adjective constructions are generally marked by the absolute state, and not by
the enclitic pronoun.

ex. 34. srq- -gabb-aw(hy)

ner- -a-eh
wa-zr-n
l-eh
comb-pl on-side-pl.3sg.m lash-pl on-back-3sg.m and-small-pl to-3sg.m
Lacerating combs (were) in his sides, lashes (were) on his back, and (they were) trifling to him
(Moes. II, 56 v. 124)
ex. 35. tl
al
alh
trusting upon God
He is confident in God. (Matt 27:43)
4.2. Existential Predication in Classical Syriac

Much like Biblical Hebrew, existential predication is expressed with an existential particle, in this case
there is/are and its negative l / layt there is/are not, both of which can also serve as copulas in the simple
present when inflected with the pronominal suffixes, as in examples 38 and 39.

ex. 36. ka

l-
when ext to-2sg.m
When it is there for you = when you have it. (Prov 3:28)
ex. 37. en layt

k()n-
if
ext.neg just-pl
If there are no just persons . (Aphr. 458:9)
ex. 38. gaww-h

-eh
rlem
inside-3SG.F ext-3SG.F PN
Jerusalem is inside her. (Aphr. 98:9)
See Joosten 1992, p. 586. Joostens analysis of l hw and related constructions was recently rephrased and clarified by Pat-El
2006, pp. 33536.
13
ex. 39. nan ayn

bnay arhm
1pl ext-1pl son.pl PN
ex. 40. ()nanan l-ayn

arr-
1pl neg-ext-1pl magician-pl
We are not magicians. (Mart. I, 182, 3)
99
4.3. Possessive Clauses in Classical Syriac

Example 36 above demonstrates that the existential particle can also be used to express possession in the
simple present by means of a predicate locative, as in Biblical Hebrew. To express this and other kinds of predication in all other tenses, an enclitic form of the copular verb h-w-y is employed, in a manner analogous to the
copular verb in Biblical Hebrew and Classical Arabic.

ex. 41. alh -hn

-aw(hy)-(h)w
God
in-3pl.m ext-3SG.M-be.pfv
God was in them. (Aphr. 70:6)
ex. 42. qr-

-ah -(h)wa-w
l-hn
ext-be.pfv-3pl to-3pl
earring-pl of-gold
They had golden earrings. (Judg 8:24)
ex. 43. w-layt-(h)waw

mayy
and-ext.neg-be.pfv-3pl water
There was no water. (Exod 17:1)
5. Classical Mandaic
Having surveyed the evidence from some of the languages related to Neo-Mandaic, we may now turn to its
direct ancestor, Classical Mandaic. Classical Mandaic is known exclusively from the Mandaean religious texts,
chief among which is the Ginza Rba, the Great Treasure. This book is divided into two volumes. The first volume,
the Right Ginza, which is the larger of the two, is an eclectic assortment of legends, prophecies, prayers, hymns,
historical anecdotes, and no fewer than seven differing accounts of the creation of the world. The second volume,
the Left Ginza, is concerned exclusively with death and the fate of the soul in the afterlife.
5.1. Predication in Classical Mandaic

In Classical Mandaic, predication may be expressed simply by juxtaposing the subject of the clause with its
predicate as in all of the languages treated above, or by linking the two by means of a personal pronoun as in
the Semitic languages introduced above (in the case of Classical Mandaic, these pronouns are hu he, h she, or
hinun they). This pronoun always follows the subject of the clause as in Classical Arabic, rather than following
the head noun of the predicate as in Classical Syriac. Less frequently, the existential particle (variously written
t, it, or ait-) is used in conjunction with this pronoun, resulting in a shift of word order as the subject follows
the predicate of the clause:14
14
The following examples are taken from Macuch 1965, p. 442.
100
Charles G. Hberl
ex. 44. dmut-ai-hun dmauat-ata pik-ata

form-pl-3pl.m form.pl-pl perverted-pl
Their appearance is (of) perverted shapes. (Petermann 2007, 139:9f.)
ex. 45. ana hu

hiia, ana hu
rara
1sg 3sg.m Life 1sg 3sg.m Truth
I am the Life, I am the Truth. (Petermann 2007, 207:15)
ex. 46. it laita umia hu

u-it
titaita arqa h
ext upper heaven 3sg.m and-ext lower earth 3sg.f
Heaven is the upper part, and Earth is the lower part. (Petermann 2007, 201:12)
As in Biblical Hebrew and Classical Syriac, this existential particle can also take personal suffixes, in which
case it behaves more explicitly as a copula:

ex. 47. ait-ak

mn iuma qadmia
ext-2sg.m from day
first
You were from the first day (Petermann 2007, 7)
ex. 48. k
ana luat-ik
l-ait-an
when 1sg with-2sg.f neg-ext-1sg
When I am not with you. (Petermann 2007, 156:15)
5.2. Possessive Clauses in Classical Mandaic

Likewise, in conjunction with an enclitic preposition and a personal suffix, the existential particle can express
possession. In this capacity it is occasionally followed by the relative pronoun -:

ex. 49. t-b-ak haila

ext-in-2sg.m power
There is power in you = you have power (Petermann 2007, 173:16).
ex. 50. t-l-h

-gubr-ia
u-n-ia
ext-for-3sg.m rel-man.pl-pl and-women-pl
There are men and women for him = he has men and women. (Petermann 2007, 280:14)
There is no enclitic form of the copular verb h-w-y such as that found in Classical Syriac, demonstrated in
examples 4143. Therefore, the tense of the clause must be derived from context (Macuch 1965, p. 440), as demonstrated in example 47 above and the following example:

ex. 51. u-anpi-u-ia

l-ziua-i
-t-l-ia
and-extended.pfv-3pl.m-3sg.m obj-radiance-1sg rel-ext-for-1sg
and they extended my radiance over what I had (Petermann 2007, 91:17)
6. Neo-Mandaic
Neo-Mandaic shares with the other languages surveyed the possibility to dispense entirely with the copula
in the simple present. Otherwise, predication may be expressed in one of three now-familiar ways:

with an enclitic pronominal copula, which is suffixed directly to the predicate;
101
with an independent copula, et-, which also follows the predicate and is invariably modified by a pronominal suffix that agrees in number and gender with the subject; and
with a copular verb, hw ~ hwi (hwi) to be.
Note that both the enclitic copula and the independent copula follow the predicate, as in Middle Persian but
unlike the other Semitic languages surveyed above, including Classical Mandaic. Predictably, as both are limited
to the simple present, the copular verb hw ~ hwi (hwi) to be must be used to express more complex distinctions in tense, aspect, or mood.
6.1. The Enclitic Pronominal Copula

The enclitic pronominal copula takes the following forms, seen here on the adjective bir good:
Person
Singular
Gloss
Plural
Gloss
3rd
bir-y
s/he is good
bir-non
they are good
2nd
bir-yt
you are good
1st
bir-n
I am good
Note that the enclitic pronominal copula does not distinguish between masculine and feminine gender in the
third person, and that there are no enclitic forms for the plural second and first persons.15
The enclitic pronominal copula is most commonly used with predicate adjectives, predicate locatives, and
interrogatives. Note that it attaches to the final element of the predicate, as demonstrated in example 53, and
not merely the head noun of the predicate, as in the Classical Syriac examples given above.

ex. 52. bir-n

good-1sg
I am good.
ex. 53. ahni barra

m-wel-non
3pl outside from-city-3pl
They are outside the city.
ex. 54. qazn-d-e

elli-y?
cauldron-of-1sg where-3sg
Where is my cooking pot?
Clauses containing the enclitic pronominal copula are negated with the negative morpheme lu non-, which
appears before the predicate:

ex. 55. lu
ona-y
non- good-3sg
It is not good.
When an interrogative pronoun or question word anticipates the predicate of a sentence or the object of a
verb rather than its subject, it may be followed by the enclitic pronominal copula:

15
ex. 56. mo-yy

hat-ell-i?
what-3sg give.pfv-2sg-obj-3sg.m
What did you give him?
The independent copula is employed in their place; see below.
102
Charles G. Hberl
ex. 57. mu
hat-ell-i
what give.pfv-2sg-obj-3sg.m
What did you give him?
ex. 58. mu
zipn-i
min
mojur-n
what liar-indf from what.kind-1sg
What a liar he is, in comparison to me!
Whenever the enclitic pronominal copula is attached to a noun modified by a pronominal suffix ending in a
vowel, an epenthetic -h- intervenes between it and the copula:

ex. 59. mojur

b-ah-y
what.kind father-3sg.f-3sg
Whats her father like?
Although the process by which it arose is not entirely clear, this enclitic pronominal copula is likely derived
from the independent personal pronouns. Interestingly, this enclitic form always follows the predicate of the
nominal sentence, as in Syriac and Persian, rather than its subject, as in Classical Mandaic. Homologous enclitic
forms of pronominal origin are also attested in Central Aramaic dialects such as Turoyo and the Northeastern
Neo-Aramaic dialect of Halabja (Fox 1994, p. 158), but not in other Northeastern Neo-Aramaic dialects, which use
a different set of enclitic forms whose origins are subject to debate. According to Khan (1999, pp, 10304), these
enclitic forms may be derived from an irregular or suppletive part of the copular verb h-w-y rather than the
personal pronouns as in Central Aramaic and Neo-Mandaic.
6.2. The Independent Copula and Its Development

No homologous or analogous form to the Neo-Mandaic independent copula, et-, is attested in the other
surviving Eastern Neo-Aramaic dialects. The origins of this copula, which does not appear independently of its
pronominal suffixes, have thus far not effectively been identified. Rudolf Macuch (1965, p. 379) derives it from the
demonstrative pronoun ka ekk there, which expresses the predication of existential clauses in Neo-Mandaic:
I can only explain the t of these forms by the progressive assimilation of sonority of the encl. d (cf. 106b):
*ekde > *ekte > *ete (20 k). This enclitic, used otherwise only with substantives, proves a substantival use
of t, ka, so that the forms could be interpreted as my being etc.16
Macuchs explanation is not satisfactory, if only for the reason that ka does not take pronominal suffixes
in either Classical or Neo-Mandaic, and it fails to explain how this demonstrative pronoun came to assume the
functions of the Classical Mandaic existential particle t. There is, in fact, no reason to assume that the modern
independent copula is anything other than the reflex of the classical existential particle. The unusual form of
this reflex can be explained by a feature of Mandaic phonology. In Neo-Mandaic, all word-internal syllables must
have an onset, and lax vowels are generally not tolerated in open accented syllables. Consequently, whenever a
vowel is added to a closed accented syllable containing a lax vowel, the coda of the accented syllable is geminated
to provide the following syllable with an onset. The geminated consonant thus straddles the syllable boundary,
such as examples 60 and 61. If the second syllable is deleted (for example, in the bound form preceding a noun
or adjective with which it is in construct), or the accent shifts from the first syllable, the gemination will be lost.
ex. 60.
ex. 61.
Unbound
zamm
bell
IPA
[zm.m]
[bl.l]
Bound
zam
bel
Macuchs identification of the two particles with one another

is endorsed by Mller-Kessler 2003, pp. 64243.
16
Gloss
blood (Classical Mandaic zma or zma)
husband (Classical Mandaic bla)17
As the Classical Mandaic forms suggest, the geminated consonant is not etymological; cf. Syriac dm blood, cs. dem, and
Syriac bal husband, cs. bel.
17
103
The reverse, namely the gemination of a consonant that was not formerly geminated, occurs whenever an
inflectional morpheme (e.g., a pronominal suffix) is added to a closed accented syllable containing a lax vowel.
The coda of the closed accented syllable is geminated, leaving the syllable structure intact, as below, example 62
becomes example 63.

ex. 62. hzon
ex. 63. hzonna
[h.zon]
[h.zon.na]
they saw
they saw her
With one exception, all Neo-Mandaic consonants can be geminated in this manner. The sole exception is
the voiceless interdental fricative //. Whenever // closes an accented syllable to which a vowel is added, the
outcome is the cluster [t] rather than the expected []. This sound change is most evident from the paradigm
of the verb me ~ mo (mye) to die; compare examples 64 and 65 with example 66. It is also apparent from the
modern form of the abstract ending -ot (Classical Mandaic -uta), as in example 67. Additionally, it is attested
in a rare variant of the word for cow, example 68.

ex. 64. me
[m]
he is dead
ex. 66. metat
[m.tat]
she is dead
ex. 65. mie
ex. 67. golot

ex. 68. turet
[mi]
[gt.l.t]
[tu.r.t]
I will die
massacre
cow18
Examples of the sequence [] do occur in Neo-Mandaic. Such examples either are etymological or result
from the assimilation of certain consonants (such as dentals and, in an earlier stage of the language, nasals) to a
following interdental fricative //, such as ex. 69 from Classical Mandaic nta (cf. Syriac <TT> att woman)
and ex. 70 from the verb adde ~ adde (madde) to speak.

ex. 69. e
[.]
woman
ex. 70. qmaen [qm.a.n] they speak
This same sound change is responsible for the unusual form of the allomorphs of the modern reflex of the
existential particle t after the addition of the pronominal suffixes; instead of the expected reflex *e [], it regularly takes the form et- [t], for example, example 71.

ex. 71. eta
[.ta]
you (m.sg.) are
The erstwhile existential particle is negated with the negative morpheme l- not, the vowel of which becomes
elided. The set of pronominal suffixes used is the same that serves as possessive and object suffixes on the noun
and verb, respectively:

Copula
et-i
et-a
et-a
et-e
et-
et-u
et-on
et-an
Gloss
he is
she is
you (m.sg.) are
you (f.sg.) are
I am
they are
you (pl.) are
we are
This form is derived from Classical Mandaic turita; cf. DC 46

turikta. The more usual form of this word is turt [tu.t]; Drower and Macuch 1963, s.v. tura.
18
l- + Copula
l-et-i
l-et-a
l-et-a
l-et-e
l-et-
l-et-u
l-et-on
l-et-an
Gloss
he is not
she is not
you (m.sg.) are not
you (f.sg.) are not
I am not
they are not
you (pl.) are not
we are not
104
Charles G. Hberl
The independent copula generally follows the predicate, or interrogative pronoun in interrogative clauses.
The relationship among the constituents of the clause may be either strictly equative (He is a Mandaean) or
merely ascriptive (He is sick). While the independent copula may be used to express both, the enclitic pronominal copula can only be used for the latter. The strictly equative sense of the clause must be expressed by either
the independent copula in the simple present or the copular verb hw ~ hwi (hwi) in other tenses.19

ex. 72. kfen

l-et-
hungry neg-cop-1sg
I am not hungry.
ex. 73. man et-a

who cop-2sg.m
Who are you?
ex. 74. an
qany et-
1sg smith cop-1sg
I am a smith.
6.3. The Neo-Mandaic Copular Verb hw ~ hwi (hwi)

Cognate to the copular verbs h-y-h and h-w-y introduced in 2.1 and 4.1 above, and formally analogous to
the copular verbs k-w-n introduced in 3.1, the Neo-Mandaic copular verb hw ~ hwi (hwi) to be is the only
form of the copula that can be inflected for tense, aspect, or mood. The perfective form is generally used for pasttense clauses; it is inflected by means of suffixes indicating the gender and number of the subject and is negated
with the negative morpheme l-:

Copula
hw
hw-at
hw-et
hwi-t
hw-on
hwi-ton
hwi-ni
Gloss
he was
she was
you (sg.) were
I was
they were
you (pl.) were
we were
l- + Copula
l-hw
l-hw-at
l-hw-et
l-hwi-t
l-hw-on
l-hwi-ton
l-hwi-ni
Gloss
he was not
she was not
you were not
I was not
they were not
you (pl.) were not
we were not
The imperfective form of the verb is used for clauses in the future tense or the subjunctive mood; the base of
this form of the verb is the active participle (hence the term participial present tense, which was employed in
Macuch 1965, 204), which is inflected with a separate set of suffixes, and (when describing factual statements
and positive beliefs) the indicative mood marker q-. It is also negated with the enclitic prefix l-:

Copula
q-hwi
q-hwy-
q-hw-et
q-hawi-n
q-hw-en
q-haw-etton
q-haw-enni
Gloss
he will be
she will be
you will be
I will be
they will be
you will be
we will be
Compare the distribution of the Spanish copulas ser and estar,

e.g., Ofelia est enferma Ofelia is sick, Ofelia es enferma Ofelia is a
19
l- + Copula
l-q-hwi
l-q-hwy-
l-q-hw-et
l-q-hawi-n
l-q-hw-en
l-q-haw-etton
l-q-haw-enni
Gloss
he will not be
she will not be
you will not be
I will not be
they will not be
you will not be
we will not be
sick woman, and Ofelia es profesora Ofelia is a teacher, but never

**Ofelia est profesora (examples from Payne 1997, p. 120).
105
Unlike the enclitic pronoun and the independent copula, the syntax of the verb hw ~ hwi (hwi) follows
that of other transitive verbs, that is, the subject of the clause precedes it, and its complement generally follows it. While the copular verb hw ~ hwi (hwi) is necessary to introduce action in the past tense, it may be
followed by the enclitic pronoun or independent copula in subsequent clauses, once the tense and aspect have
been established.20

ex. 75. ya yeki

hw
marizi
a someone be.pfv ill
There once was a man who was ill.
ex. 76. hw
ya yeki
pahli-d-i
yhem-y
t-i
be.pfv a someone beside-of-3sg.m seated-3sg.m hear.pfv-3sg.m
There was someone, sitting beside him, who heard him.
6.4. Possessive Clauses in Neo-Mandaic

As in the other Semitic languages surveyed above, as well as non-Semitic languages such as Middle Persian
and Russian, Neo-Mandaic uses a predicate locative construction to express the notion of possession. In NeoMandaic, the subject of the clause, namely the possessed, is indicated by the proclitic preposition l- to, for. When
the subject is expressed by means of a pronoun, both may be attached to the independent form of the copula:21

Copula + l-
eh-l-i
eh-l-a
eh-l-a
eh-l-e
eh-l-
eh-l-u
eh-l-on
eh-l-an
Gloss
he has
she has
you (m.sg.) have
you (f.sg.) have
I have
they have
you (pl.) have
we have
l- + Copula + l-
l-eh-l-i
l-eh-l-a
l-eh-l-a
l-eh-l-e
l-eh-l-
l-eh-l-u
l-eh-l-on
l-eh-l-an
Gloss
he doesnt have
she doesnt have
you (m.sg.) dont have
you (f.sg.) dont have
I dont have
they dont have
you (pl.) dont have
we dont have
When used to express possession in a declarative sense, the copula always stands at the head, in contrast with
other predicate nominal constructions, in which the predicate precedes the copula.

ex. 77. eh-l-i

rz
cop-for-3sg.m secret
He has mes secret.
ex. 78. eh-l-

ps-i
cop-for-1sg pass-indf
I have a pass.
d-me
of-PN
In interrogative clauses, by contrast, the preposition is attached to the interrogative pronoun or question
word, and the whole prepositional phrase is modified by the copula (in the simple present tense, the enclitic
pronominal form of the copula is employed). As demonstrated in example 56, the interrogative pronoun serves
as the predicate of the clause.
20
Predictably, due to its absence in the classical stage of the language, Neo-Mandaic preserves no reflex of the enclitic form of
this verb, which distinguishes it from the other surviving Eastern
Neo-Aramaic dialects (Fox 1994, p. 158).
The preposition b-, which was used alongside l- in the classical dialect as demonstrated in example 49 above, has become
obsolescent in the modern language.
21
106
Charles G. Hberl
ex. 79. ahni el-man-non

3pl
for-who-3pl
Whose are these?
Note the unexpected allomorph of the copula before the proclitic l- to, for. Macuch (1965, p. 65) derives ehlfrom Classical Mandaic t-l- and adduces several examples of Neo-Mandaic words in which Classical Mandaic /t/
has become /h/, but does not isolate the specific environment in which this sound change occurs.
This sound change appears to be the result of the lenition of // before a syllable beginning with a consonantal segment. As a result, the voiceless interdental fricative // becomes /h/ or even disappears entirely. Evidence
for such a sound change is not lacking in the contemporary sister dialects of Aramaic, as place names containing the Aramaic element b- house of attest.22 In the Aramaic of the Babylonian Talmud, // often drops out
word-finally in the words b house, and abb week, and the feminine singular of participles and verbs in the
perfect. Furthermore, this sound change is not unattested in Classical Mandaic. Macuch (1965, p. 203) identifies
five examples of the deletion of // in compounds formed with the word baita house, including bimanda (= bit
manda house of knowledge), the sacred space in which many Mandaean rituals take place.
This sound change does not appear to be productive in Neo-Mandaic, although it has left numerous traces
in the paradigm of the verb. When the third feminine singular G-stem perfective form of the root -m-r takes
a pronominal object with l-, the // is weakened to an /h/, which then disappears, causing the following /l/ to
become geminated:

ex. 80. mrelli
[m.rl.li]
she told him23
Likewise, the reflexive morpheme t- has been deleted from all verbs in the so-called reflexive stems save one,
e ~ ei (mei) to be baptized, in which it has undergone metathesis with the following sibilant and is
therefore no longer followed by a stop, fricative, or sonorant. The loss of the reflexive morpheme was already
well underway in the classical dialect (Macuch 1965, pp. 26667). While it is difficult to isolate the precise environment in which this sound change occurred, especially considering that it is no longer productive and seems
not to have affected all of the various dialects represented by the corpus of the Talmud or the Classical Mandaic
literature, the major difference between ehl- and these other examples is that the accent continued to reside
upon the syllable in which // became lenited; as I note above, Mandaic phonology does not permit lax vowels
in open accented syllables, thus necessitating the retention of some glottal friction to maintain a closed syllable,
even as oral contact was lost.
As expected, the verb hw ~ hwi (hwi) to be is employed in the place of the simple present copula in all
other tenses.

ex. 81. bie

mand-i
hw-l-u
house knowledge-indf be.pfv-obj-3pl
They had a House of Knowledge.
6.5. Existential Clauses in Neo-Mandaic

The survival of the old Classical Mandaic existential particle in the form of the Neo-Mandaic independent
copula raises an interesting question: Why has its independent form, Classical Mandaic t, not survived? This
particle is no longer used to express existential predication, for which the particle ekk (Classical Mandaic ka
there) is now exclusively used.24
Michael Morony (2005, p. 177) cites Greek Begarmeon and Arabic
Bajarma for Syriac Beth Garme, Arabic Baarbaya for Syriac Beth
Arbhaye, Arabic Bazabda for Syriac Beth Zabhde, Arabic Bahudhra
for Syriac Beth Nuhadhra, Arabic Barusma for Syriac Beth Rushme,
Arabic Baniqya for Syriac Beth Neqya, Arabic Badaqla for Syriac
Beth Deqla, Arabic Badaraya for Syriac Beth Daraye, and Arabic Bakusaya for Syriac Beth Kusaye as examples of this phenomenon.
22
Although this form is problematic for several reasons, perhaps

the most striking feature is the deletion of the /t/ of the personal
morpheme -at from the expected form **amrali (< amra + li)
24
Mller-Kessler (2003, p. 642) derives this particle from the existential particle t and the deictic element k.
23
ex. 82. ekk Hyi,

ekk Mr-,
ekk Mand
d-Hyi
ext life
ext lord-1sg ext knowledge of-life
Life exists, God exists, Knowledge-of-Life exists!
ex. 83. mend-i

l-ekk
thing-indf neg-ext
There isnt anything.
107
In this case, the old Classical Mandaic existential particle still survives in a restricted role (that of the copula,
which was formerly only one function of the existential particle), whereas the derived form ekk has assumed its
basic role (of existential predication).
6.6. The Neo-Mandaic Copula as an Auxiliary

One of the most characteristic properties of the copula, cross-linguistically, is its propensity to serve as an
auxiliary (Payne 1997, p. 117). In the case of the Neo-Mandaic copula, its most frequent use as an auxiliary is in the
passive voice of the verb, which is often rendered by means of the passive participle with the copula in an analytic
construction.25 The paradigm of the construction is illustrated below with the verb gal ~ gol (gel) to kill:

Person
3rd m.sg.
3rd f.sg.
2nd m.sg.
2nd f.sg.
1st sg.
3rd pl.
2nd pl.
1st pl.
Present (Short)
gel-y
gil-i
gel-yt
gel-yt
gel-n

Present (Long)
gel et-i
gil et-a
gel et-a
gil et-e
gel et-
gilen et-u
gilen et-on
gilen et-an
Perfective
gel hw
gil hw-at
gel hw-et
gil hw-et
gel hw-it
gilen hw-on
gilen hwi-ton
gilen hwi-ni
Imperfective
gel q-hwi
gil q-hwy-
gel q-hw-et
gil q-hw-et
gel q-hawi-n
gilen q-hw-en
gilen q-haw-etton
gilen q-haw-enni
Note that this analytic passive construction is formally no different from the predicate adjective constructions cited above, such as examples 52 and 72. As the enclitic and independent forms of the copula are used for
all statements in the simple present tense, the imperfective is reserved for statements in the progressive present or the future tenses. Likewise, the subjunctive of hw ~ hwi (hwi) to be, which is regularly derived from
the imperfective after the removal of the indicative marker and pretonic reduction, is used to indicate modality
(suggestions, wishes, and hopes):

ex. 95. yhim-en

et-an
seated-pl cop-1sg
We are seated.
ex. 96. yhim-en

q-haw-enni
seated-pl ind-be.ptc-1sg
We are being / will be seated.
ex. 97. yhim-en

haw-n
seated-pl be.ptc-1sg
Let us be seated.
This construction is already well represented in Classical Mandaic (see Macuch 1965, pp. 43334).
The passive voice is not exclusively expressed by this analytic

construction; in fact, the impersonal 3rd pl. is more common
when rendering the passive, at least in the speech of my chief
25
informant, although the reverse appears to be true in the NeoMandaic texts from Ahvaz collected by Rudolf Macuch.
108
Charles G. Hberl
7. Conclusions
The syntax of the various forms of the copula and of predicate nominal and related constructions in Mandaic
is consistent with that of other Semitic languages. Despite the prolonged contact situation between Mandaic and
other languages such as Arabic and the Iranian languages, all forms of the copula and the various constructions
expressing predication are quite clearly reflexes of those found in Classical Mandaic and earlier stages of the
language. The proof of this is the use of an independent form of the copula in affirmative statements, which is attested in Biblical Hebrew and Classical Syriac, but not Classical Arabic. Furthermore, this independent form of the
copula is derived from an existential particle, like Biblical Hebrew and Classical Syriac. Therefore, it is reasonable
to assume that the treatment of predicate nominals and other related constructions described above is the natural
result of internal developments within Mandaic (and more broadly Semitic) rather than that of contact influence.
Nevertheless, there are some important distinctions between the syntax of these constructions in Mandaic and
in the related Semitic languages. Some form of the copula is necessary to express possession, much like Classical
Syriac, but unlike Biblical Hebrew and Classical Arabic, which allow for the notion of possession to be expressed
by a nominal sentence. Unlike Classical Syriac, however, there is no enclitic form of the copular verb a feature
that distinguishes Neo-Mandaic from all other surviving Aramaic dialects. Also, a distinction between ascriptive
and equative clauses has arisen in Neo-Mandaic, the former being expressed by either the independent or the
enclitic forms of the copula, and the latter being represented exclusively by the independent form of the copula.
Finally, the particle ekk has replaced the Classical Mandaic existential particle, which now serves exclusively as
the independent copula.
Abbreviations
ACC
COP
cs.
DC
DEF
EXT
F/f.
GEN
PTC
IND
INDF
IPFV
accusative
copula
construct state
Drower Collection of Mandaean manuscripts
in the Bodleian Library, Oxford
definiteness
existential particle
feminine
genitive
participle
indicative
indefiniteness
imperfective
M/m.
NEG
NOM
OBJ
OBL
PL/pl.
PN
PRES
PST
NEG
SG/sg.
SUBJ
TOP
masculine
negative
nominative
object
oblique
plural
proper noun
present
past
negation
singular
subjunctive
topicalizer
109
Bibliography
Assemanus, Stefano Evodio
Acta Sanctorum Martyrum Orientalium et Occidentalium. Rome: Joseph Collini.
1748
Croft, William
2003
Typology and Universals. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Drower, Ethel S., and Rudolf Macuch

A Mandaic Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
1963
Dyk, Janet W., and Eep Talstra
Paradigmatic and Syntagmatic Features in Identifying Subject and Predicate in Nominal Clauses. In
1999
The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches, edited by Cynthia L. Miller, pp. 13386. Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Fox, Samuel
1994
Goldenberg, Gideon
1983
1998
2005
The Relationships of the Eastern Neo-Aramaic Dialects. Journal of the American Oriental Society 114/2:
15462.
On Syriac Sentence Structure. In Aramaeans, Aramaic, and the Aramaic Literary Tradition, edited by Michael Sokoloff, pp. 97140. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press.
On Verbal Structure and the Hebrew Verb. In Studies in Semitic Linguistics: Selected Writings, edited by
Gideon Goldenberg, pp. 14896. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.
Pronouns, Copulas, and a Syntactical Revolution in Neo-Semitic. In Studi Afroasiatici: XI incontro italiano
di linguistica camitosemitica, edited by Alessandro Mengozzi, pp. 24357. Milano: Franco Angeli.
Hberl, Charles G.
2009
The Neo-Mandaic Dialect of Khorramshahr. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Joosten, Jan
1992
The Negation of the Non-verbal Clause in Syriac. Journal of the American Oriental Society 112/4: 58488.
Khan, Geoffrey
1999
A Grammar of Neo-Aramaic: The Dialect of the Jews of Arbel. Handbuch der Orientalistik 47. Leiden: Brill.
Lehmann, Christian
1983
Directions for Interlinear Morphemic Translations. Folia Linguistica 16: 193224.
Macuch, Rudolf
1965
Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Morony, Michael G.
2005
Iraq after the Muslim Conquest. 2nd edition. Piscataway: Gorgias Press.
Mller-Kessler, Christa
Aramaic k, lyk and Iraqi Arabic aku, maku: The Mesopotamian Particles of Existence. Journal of the
2003
American Oriental Society 123/3: 64146.
Nldeke, Theodor
1875
2001
Mandische Grammatik. Halle: Weisenhaus.

Compendious Syriac Grammar. Reprint of the 1904 edition. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Pat-El, Naama
2006
Syntactic Aspects of Negation in Syriac. Journal of Semitic Studies 51/2: 32948.
Payne, Thomas E.
1997
Describing Morphosyntax: A Guide for Field Linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Petermann, J. Heinrich
The Great Treasure. Piscataway: Gorgias Press.
2007
Stassen, Leon
2009
Predicative Possession. New York: Oxford University Press.
110
Wright, William
1869
1996
Zewi, Tamar
1994
Charles G. Hberl
Homilies of Aphraates, The Persian Sage. London: Williams and Norgate.

A Grammar of the Arabic Language Translated from the German of Caspari and Edited with Numerous Additions
and Corrections. New impression reprint of the 3rd edition. Beirut: Librarie du Liban.
The Nominal Sentence in Biblical Hebrew. In Semitic and Cushitic Studies, edited by Gideon Goldenberg
and Shlomo Raz, pp. 14567. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Yaqtul and a Ugaritic Incantation Text
111

Jo Ann Hackett, University of Texas at Austin*
Ever since Edward Greensteins 2006 article Forms and Functions of the Finite Verb in Ugaritic Narrative
Verse, the once largely accepted occurrence of a yaqtul preterite in Ugaritic has been a matter of discussion. 1
Until this time, most Ugaritiologists had simply assumed that Ugaritic, like so many other languages, included a
yaqtul preterite in its repertoire (although their explanations of the form often differed) and found it useful to have
such a verb when a doublet contained both a prefix-conjugation verb and a suffix-conjugation verb, for instance.
One would a priori look for a yaqtul preterite in Ugaritic, given that it exists, often in some restricted context, in Amarna Canaanite, Akkadian, Arabic, Aramaic, Ethiopic, Hebrew, and Moabite, although not, apparently,
Phoenician; the yaqtul preterite, then, is by definition a proto-Semitic feature, and so one would not be surprised
to find it in Ugaritic. Cyrus Gordon (1998), Eddy Verreet (1988), and Daniel Sivan (1997) all attest to a preterite
yaqtul, although with various degrees of certainty. Josef Troppers more recent 2000 Ugaritische Grammatik (73.25)
also describes a Kurzform of the prefix conjugation that serves as both preterite and jussive. Actually, he says
the PKKi, our preterite yaqtul, represents the perfective aspect that is usually in the past. John Huehnergard in
his Ugaritic Outline (2009, unpublished manuscript) also assumes a yaqtul preterite. Both these scholars note a
few exceptions to an otherwise well-attested form.
More recently still, however, Dennis Pardee and Pierre Bordreuil (2004) claimed that the inconsistent use of
the short form of III-y verbs leads us to a lack of certainty about the existence of the yaqtul preterite, and in their
translations, they do not use it. (Here, I am assuming that the grammatical statement is Pardees work since he
is the grammarian of the two.) The book is now in English (Bordreuil and Pardee 2009), and the section about the
absence of yaqtul preterites is even stronger (p. 49):
Greensteins arguments (2006) have convinced us that the level of uncertainty is too high to continue taking
/YQTL/ forms of III-y roots in poetry that are written without the third radical as /YQTL/ perfectives; in his
view, the /YQTL/ perfective/preterite was no longer operative in poetic narrative, and the two principal
forms were /QTLa/ and /YQTL/ according to his hypothesis, the /YQTLu/ and /YQTL/ forms would have
lost distinctive functions, and both would have been used as historical futures.2
In this paper, I first review some of the evidence that should decide whether the Ugaritic verbal system includes a yaqtul preterite; second, I give examples of such a form; and third, I show in an incantation text how the
small change from yaqtulu to yaqtul in one place can make more sense of the text. The example is truly minor, but
when my students and I studied the text in a Ugaritic seminar in 2009, it seemed clear to me that avoiding the
yaqtul preterite had forced Pardee and Bordreuil to suggest a less likely interpretation of the beginning of the
text than I will suggest.
* This paper is dedicated to John Huehnergard, who has read
and commented on everything Ive ever written, including this
paper (although he didnt realize he was editing an article for
his own festschrift).
1
Greenstein has in fact been making similar claims since at least
1988; see his 1988 article and his long 1998 review of Daniel
Sivans Ugaritic grammar. But his 2006 article (revised from a

paper read in the Israel Academy for Advanced Studies in 2002)
is thorough and is dedicated specifically to the question at hand.
2
See Pardee in the present volume, n. 5.
111
112
Jo Ann Hackett
Greenstein uses as his sample the three large epics from Ugarit: Aqhat, Baal, and Kirta. In doing so, he is dealing with most of the poetry we have from Ugarit, and so it is a perfectly fine corpus for deciding whether there
is a possibility of finding yaqtul preterites. His description of the evidence he uses to prove his point is somewhat
different from the kinds of evidence that I would allow myself, however. He says (2006, p. 81),
The claim [that there is a yaqtul preterite in Ugaritic] is based on two phenomena: (a) that III-y verbs often
appear with the final y apocopated which is interpreted to mean that the form is yaqtul rather than
yaqtulu; and (b) that several YQTL forms append the suffix -n which is interpreted to mean that the form
is yaqtulu rather than yaqtul. An examination of the full evidence, however, can lead to a very different
interpretation.
And as Greenstein points out, Ugaritic prose seems to use yaqtulu for future/durative verbs and qatala for
past tense. In fact, one of Greensteins arguments is that since we know Ugaritic regularly used qatala for its past
tense, there was no reason for it to have a yaqtul preterite. In other words, a language should not have two pasttense verbs operating at the same time. In poetry, however, archaisms occur, as we all know, and the argument
suggesting that poetic texts cannot show evidence of two forms with the same or similar functions carries little
weight, it seems to me. The Hebrew Bible alone provides evidence against such an assumption.
I would present the evidence for a yaqtul preterite in a different order from Greensteins: I would look for,
first, singular and 1cp III-aleph verbs that end in i, indicating that there is either a long -vowel or no vowel at
all after the aleph; second, any plural or dual verbs without the -n ending that accompanies their long forms; and
third, the short forms of III-y verbs.
First, III-aleph verbs. Such a singular verb or a 1cp verb in the prefix conjugation with a syllable-ending i
would be a yaqtul verb. Even once such verbs are found, they have to be verbs that are not jussive because no
one doubts the fact of a yaqtul jussive in Ugaritic; it is the preterite use of the same form that is in question.
But Greenstein finds not a single instance of a non-jussive singular III-aleph verb with a syllable-ending i in his
corpus. He does recognize the form ispi in CAT 1.5.i.5, but notes that Pardee (Pardee 2003, p. 265) translates I am
devoured as though the verb were indicative, and Smith (1997, p. 41) translates as volitive, Let me devour (which
is probably correct). I have to agree that there is practically no example of the yaqtul form with singular III-aleph
verbs in the Ugaritic poetry we have, even if we accept a liberal interpretation of one or two forms.
When I examined III-aleph verbs,3 I came up with only two certain examples, one from Greensteins corpus
and one outside it.
Example 1. CAT 1.14.ii.2631

In the Kirta story, CAT 1.14.ii.2631 says:
wyrd / krt . lggt . db / akl . lqryt / t . lbt . br / yip . lm . dm / mgd [.] d. yrm / dn [.] ngb .
wyi / bu . bi . ngb / wyi . dn . m.
The lines are directed at Kirta, which is made clear by the reference to your army buk in line 35, so it makes
sense to translate the passage as volitive and the yaqtul forms as jussive.
wa-yarid Kirta li-gaggti adbu / akla li-qaryti / ittata li-Bti ubri / yapi lama d-ami
/ magda adi yarama / adnu nagubu wa-yai / abau abai nagubu / wa-yai adnu
mau
Now, let Kirta come down from the roof, [let him] prepare food for the city, wheat for Bt
ubr; let him bake bread for five months, provisions for six. Let the equipped host go
forth, the great equipped host, let the strong host go forth. (Note that my vocalization
makes db in line 27 an infinitive, substituting for a volitive form.)
I used Josef Troppers list of III-aleph verbs in order to look

up the ones that might be considered yaqtuls: Tropper 2000, pp.
61924.
113
CAT 1.14.iv.812 is very similar, but this time the passage is in the third person, and not directed at Kirta, and
so a volitive form is not really called for. It can easily all be read in the past tense, getting rid of the infinitive and
translating a suffix conjugation there, suggesting that we translate the whole little section in the past tense. The
passage is the same, except for the w at the beginning, but now we can read,
yarid/yarada Kirta li-gaggti adaba / akla li-qaryti / ittata li-Bti ubri / yapi lama dami / magda adi yarama, and so forth.
Kirta came down from the roof, prepared food for the city, wheat Bt ubr; he baked
bread for five months, provisions for six (and so on).
It is not impossible to read the whole thing in the narrative present, as Greenstein has (1997, pp. 1819), dealing
with the infinitive again or, as he would have it, simply translating a suffix conjugation as a variant rather than
as a past tense, and doing the same with the short forms yip and yi, but my reading gives a reason for the short
form both times, without equating yip and yipy or yi and yy, and uses what appears to be a suffix conjugation
more reasonably as a past-tense verb. H. L. Ginsberg, I should add, in his old but wonderful Legend of King Keret
(1946), also translates these verbs in the second occurrence of the passage as past tense and then switches to narrative present in the next line, when we begin having yaqtulu verbs, and it still makes perfect sense. In fact, you
can actually go all the way back to line 50 of the tablet before and find the following verbs, all of which can be
taken as either yaqtul preterites or suffix conjugations: y, yrt, yadm, yrs, rb, lqh (bis), yq,ly, rkb, na, db, rd,
yrd, db, yip, yi (reconstructed), yi. And, by the way, Ginsberg does go this far back with his past-tense translation.
Example 2. CAT 1.96:3

Greenstein mentions this very confusing text, and it also happens to be the text about which I wrote my Ugaritic
paper when I was a graduate student. It contains another good example, I think. When I was a graduate student, it
definitely concerned the goddess Anat, and now it seems to be leaning toward the Evil Eye, since the first word is
clearly -n-n and not -n-t. Whether -n-n is eye (that is, the Evil Eye) plus enclitic -n or simply a mistake for Anat,4
there is clearly a III-aleph non-jussive yaqtul in the text, along with what may be another non-jussive yaqtul, if tp can
really be taken to be a yaqtul verb from the root p-h-y that has somehow assimilated the h.
Lines 14
nn/nt! . hlkt . wnwt / tp . ah . wnm . ah / kysmsm . tspi . irh / l . blrb . tt . dmh . lbl . ks.
nu-nv/Anatu halakat wa-anuwat5 / tipp6 aha wa-numu aha / ka-yasimsimi7

tissapi irahu / libal arbi tit damahu libal ksi
The Evil Eye/Anat moved/walked along and flashed. It/She saw the fairness of its/her
brother, and that the pleasantness of its/her brother was lovely. It/She ate his flesh without
a knife; it/she drank his blood without a cup
Even though this is a strange text,8 and we have little idea what it means, it is probable that two suffix-conjugation verbs are followed by what should be three yaqtul verbs, the first possibly a short-form III-y verb, the next
a Niphal III-aleph verb that ends in i, and again a short-form III-y verb. It would seem to be obvious to translate
at least the eating and drinking passage in the past tense.
See Lewis 1996.

From Arabic snw/y shine, glisten, flash?
6
A difficult verb, to be sure. Here, I have assumed the verb is a
yaqtul form, derived from the III-weak root p-h-y, and that the h
has assimilated to the p. I.e., *tiphay > *tiph > tipp.
7
Vocalized according to Arabic wasm.
4
5
Greenstein (1998, p. 410) calls the text a scribal exercise that

begins with a probable error and has a syllabic sequence on the
flip-side. He feels for these reasons that the texts verbs are not
reliable examples of Ugaritic usage. Still, it is there, and the verbs
are written correctly for a past-tense account (assuming that
use of yaqtul).
114
Jo Ann Hackett
Example 3. CAT 1.2.iv.2

A third example is in CAT 1.2.iv.2: it has the form ai hm. There is no context, unfortunately, but both
Greenstein (1997, p. 102) and Bordreuil and Pardee (2009, p. 159) bother to translate it. They both translate future, however: I will send them out and I will force them to leave, even though the verb clearly ends in i. In
Greensteins translation (1997), and in the Bordreuil-Pardee Manual (2004, 2009), many passages are translated
as narrative present, no matter what the verbs involved. Without context, none of us can use this example as
evidence, but with a final i, I think the assumption of future tense is misguided.
Greensteins second line of evidence concerns the -n attached to the end of some verbs, but he himself proves
that -n can be added to practically any verb, so its presence tells us really nothing. Its absence, on the other hand,
where it is expected, as in dual and plural verbs, is important. In other words, I would turn Greensteins second
criterion on its head and say that any prefix-conjugation form that ends in -n in the long form is a possible yaqtul
preterite when it occurs without the -n ending. It is also possibly a jussive and in some cases a subjunctive, so
those categories would then need to be ruled out before we could feel sure that we had a yaqtul preterite.
Example 4. CAT 1.15.iii.1718

In the Kirta epic, in CAT 1.15.iii.1718, after El declares that he will make Kirtas youngest daughter the firstborn (grthn . abkrn) and ends his speech, the gods who have gathered leave.
tbrk . ilm . tity / tity . ilm . lahlhm / dr il . lmknthm
We know that we are speaking of plural gods, and the verbs are written without the final -n. They really should
be plural past tense:
tibarrik ilma tatiy / tatiy ilma li-ahalhumu / dru ili li-mikantihumu.
The gods blessed, (then) left; the gods left for their tents; the circle of El for their dwellings.
It is consistent and exactly what we would expect of such verbs. In fact, the rest of that part of the story reads
perfectly well as past tense: She conceived and bore him a son, and so on. Note also that one of the verbs in
this passage is a plural of the III-y verb -t-y in what seems to me to be a clearly yaqtul plural form, and there is
no reason to suggest that it is jussive, but rather simply past-tense indicative.
Finally, we turn to III-y verbs in general. Greenstein presents a long and involved discussion of III-y singular
verbs, finally arriving at the conclusion that the triphthong -iyu can contract (although obviously not always),
so that yabn, for instance, can be the same as yabniyu. His argument here is a little vaguer than I am making
it. He actually says (2006, pp. 8485), Ugaritic exhibits a general tendency to curtail or contract final syllables
containing the glide y, and he points us to two articles by Sivan for further proof (1982; 1984). Both Tropper
(2000, p. 195) and Huehnergard (2008, pp. 28892), however, do not allow for triphthongs in -iyV to contract, and
they have evidence to support their position: words such as apy /piyu/ baker and hy /hiya/ she. While several
other triphthongs contract, this one does not. This would mean that all short forms from III-y verbs with an i stem
vowel, that is, yaqtil-forms (as most III-y verbs are) yabniyu, yaniyu, and so on would represent truly jussive/
preterite forms and not simply variants of the longer forms.
Consequently, I looked at several III-y verbs of the form yaqtil-, a form that in the indicative would give us
-iyu in the 1cs, 2ms, 3ms, 3fs, and 1cp, and a final -n in the 2fs, 2mp, 2fp, 3mp, or 3fp (and the dual forms). The
verbs in the first list, found without final -y, and those in the second list, found without final -n, are signs of a
verb type other than the yaqtulu long form. Although not all of these short III-y verbs actually occur in extant
texts, many do;9 I checked the list of G-forms that are missing -y or -n, as the case may be. I also looked at all the
occurrences of the verb -n-y that Greenstein reports, which is a large set. My conclusion was, briefly, that the
Again, Troppers list (2000, pp. 65371) is invaluable.
115
short forms were either volitive or preterite, as Huehnergards and Troppers analyses suggested would be the
case.10 I use only two here.
Example 5. CAT 1.19.iv

In the Aqhat epic, in CAT 1.19.iv, Danel has gone around cursing certain cities (and his going is expressed with
ym, so he arrived at those cities, rather than the narrative present translation comes in Parker 1997b, p. 7511),
after which we read (lines 811),
dnil . bth . ym{.}yn . yt/ql . dnil . lhklh . rb . b/<bth b>kyt . bhklh . mspdt . brh / pm . r
In this passage, Danel arrives home (or when he arrives home), the professional weepers have come, or
perhaps had already come arab, suffix conjugation, past tense. Next, lines 1113,
ybk . laqht / zr . ydm . lkdd . dnil / mt . rpi ...
Danel wept yabki, past tense for Aqhat. This goes on for days and months and years, and again yabki .
laq/ht and so on. Then, in the seventh year, the text says, yn [dnil mt] rpi, Danel spoke yani (line 18). I see no
reason for translating this passage as narrative present when the verbs as they stand tell the story quite nicely.
Example 6. CAT 1.4.vi.16

In another, simple example, in the Baal epic, in CAT 1.4.vi.16, Kothar-wa-asis builds Baals house this way:
tbnn. This can only be tabni with enclitic -n, or possibly the final -n as an object suffix, even though the suffix is
not necessary in this sentence.
I also dealt with all of the -n-y examples in Greensteins article, the ones from Aqhat, Baal, and Kirta, and I
think his numbers actually point to a different conclusion from the one he presented. Briefly, he points out that
this verb is almost always used in a formula, sometimes followed by the prefix-conjugation y/tu he/she lifted up
[his/her voice], but most often it is not found with that verb. In the thirty-eight clear forms he finds, only four
use the long form yny, whereas thirty-four use the short form yn. Furthermore, three of the four long forms
occur with Kirta t Noble Kirta as subject; in fact, Kirta never occurs as the subject of the short form. The fourth
occurrence is also in the Kirta story, and once (or maybe twice) azru ilau is the subject. It seems to me that the
burden of proof lies with the person who needs to explain the long form in its very limited use: the long form suggests the narrative present, and the narrator may have had some reason to use that meaning in these few places;
or the answer could be metrical, as Greenstein suggests. But the weight of the evidence falls with the short form.
It can in every occasion be translated easily as past tense, even in those few cases where y/tu follows, since the
prefix conjugation could simply be a circumstantial addition.12
Example 7. RS 92.2014
Finally, I turn to the incantation text that made me want to restore past-tense yaqtul to Ugaritic: RS 92.2014
(text 18 in Bordreuil and Pardee 2004 and 2009), which they call An Incantation against Snakes and Scorpions.
After all these examples, I have to admit that the small change that started me on this path is something of an
anti-climax, but here are the first five lines:
(1) dy . l . yd . yk . u zb (2) w . ank . ak . amrmrn (3) . qd . w . lk . l . (4) tl . bn . w . ttk
(5) l . tqnn. qrb.
In a couple of cases, such as CAT 1.5.vi.16 and 1.12.i.35, I had
to allow for a change of tense between one paragraph or even
one doublet and the next, but even there, I would rather stick to
the general rule about verb forms than to ignore all the others
in order to make the difficult ones work more easily.
10
Of which article I was the editor, so I formally present my mea

culpa here.
12
See GKC 120c and note 2 for examples in Hebrew, plus the information that the syntax is frequent in Arabic and in Syriac.
11
116
Jo Ann Hackett
Bordreuil and Pardee translate: When the unknown one calls you and begins foaming, I,
for my part, will call you. I will shake pieces of sacred wood, so that the serpent does not
come up against you, so that the scorpion does not stand up under you.
The problem, of course, is with the first line, and the one point I want to make about the text is that it makes
more sense if the first line describes something that has already happened. Bordreuil and Pardee translated by
adding When at the beginning of the text When the unknown one calls you and begins foaming so that
it reads as though the unknown one is the one who begins foaming. But the one who is unknown is the person
who has cursed our victim (Pardee says the same in 2000, p. 830), so I am not certain why he or she is foaming. I
have translated as if yk is a yaqtul past tense, with a 2ms object suffix: One who is unknown has called you, and
moreover it has foamed/frothed.13 The last part of the line is difficult, to say the least, but I think it refers to
a result of snake-bite a foaming wound, frothing at the mouth, something like that and it is something that
has already happened. (I am interpreting zb as a suffix-conjugation verb.) The attacker has called the victim
called his name, perhaps, within a curse that has brought a snake to bite him and moreover, foaming has
happened (literally, it has foamed, and it could perhaps be our victims wound14). The healer then says in the
next line that he will now call the victim (or call his name), but this time within a healing ritual, and he goes on
to perform the ritual.15
If the text had actually begun when or whenever, I would have no problem with Bordreuil and Pardees
interpretation of the verb for calling, although I still think the foaming word is a problem but in fact the text
does not start that way. The text as it is makes better sense when we assume that (the texts author believes) the
sorcerer has already cursed the victim and the victim has been bitten by a snake or scorpion, so that already he
is frothing at the mouth or his wound is foaming. It is not unusual for an incantation text to begin this way, with
a decscription of what has (already) happened to bring the victim to the healer, before we read that the healer
then performs the ritual.
While it is not impossible to read most Ugaritic finite verbs as narrative present, as Greenstein and Bordreuil
and Pardee have demonstrated, I have tried to show that there is still a distinction being made in Ugaritic between yaqtul and yaqtulu, and I much prefer the nuanced distinctions in time that using yaqtul preterites allows.
Abbreviations
CAT
GKC
RS
Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartn 1995

Gesenius, Kautzsch, and Cowley 1910
signature of texts found at Ras Shamra
Bibliography
2004
Manuel dougaritique. 2 volumes. Paris: Paul Geuthner.
2009
I think the verb for knowing is probably another yaqtul, this

time plural yadiy: one whom they do not know, the they being
impersonal.
14
Naama Pat-El has pointed to Lev 15:25, where the womans
blood flows abundantly. In this case also, the foaming or
13
frothing does not happen to a person, but to the afflicted ones

wound.
15
The second part of the text is more general and tries to deny
any potency to the words of the evil people who have cursed
our victim.
117
Dietrich, Manfried; Oswald Loretz; and Joaqun Sanmartn

1995
The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places (KTU: 2nd enlarged edition).
1910
Clarendon Press.
Ginsberg, Harold L.
1946
Gordon, Cyrus
1998
The Legend of King Keret: A Canaanite Epic of the Bronze Age. American Schools of Oriental Research. Supplementary Studies 23. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research.
Ugaritic Textbook. Revised reprint. Analecta Orientalia 38. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
1988
On the Prefixed Preterite in Biblical Hebrew. Hebrew Studies 29: 717.
1997
Kirta. In Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, edited by Simon B. Parker, pp. 948. Writings from the Ancient World
9. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
1998
On a New Grammar of Ugaritic. Review of A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language, by Daniel Sivan (Brill:
Leiden, 1997). Israel Oriental Studies 18: 397420.
2006
75102. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Huehnergard, John
2008
2009
Lewis, Theodore
1996
Pardee, Dennis
2003
Parker, Simon B.
1997a
1997b
Sivan, Daniel
1982
1984
1997
Smith, Mark S.
1997
Tropper, Josef
2000
Verreet, Eddy
1988
Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription. Revised edition. Harvard Semitic Studies 32. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns.
Ugaritic Outline. Unpublished manuscript.
The Disappearance of the Goddess Anat. Biblical Archaeologist 59: 11521.
Ugaritic Myths. In The Context of Scripture, Volume 1, edited by William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger,
Jr., pp. 24183. Leiden: Brill.
Ugaritic Narrative Poetry. Writings from the Ancient World 9. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Aqhat. In Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, edited by Simon B. Parker, pp. 4980. Writings from the Ancient
World 9. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Final Triphthongs and Final yu/a/i wu/a/i Diphthongs in Ugaritic Nominal Forms. Ugarit-Forschungen
14: 20918.
Diphthongs and Triphthongs in Verbal Forms of Verba Tertiae Infirmae in Ugaritic. Ugarit-Forschungen
16: 27993.
A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language. Translated by Anson Rainey. Handbuch der Orientalistik 28. Leiden:
Brill.
The Baal Cycle. In Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, edited by Simon B. Parker, pp. 81180. Writings from the
Ancient World 9. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Ugaritische Grammatik. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 273. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Modi ugaritici: Eine morpho-syntaktische Abhandlung das Modalsystem im Ugaritischen. Orientalia Lovaniensia
Analecta 27. Leuven: Peeters.
The Verbal Endings -u and -a: A Note on Their Functional Derivation
119
10
The Verbal Endings -u and -a:

A Note on Their Functional Derivation
Rebecca Hasselbach, University of Chicago
1. Introduction1
As is well known, Semitic languages make use of various vocalic markers to express subordination and modal
notions on the verb. These markers include -u, used to indicate subordination in East Semitic and the indicative
imperfect in Central Semitic; -a, which marks mood in Central Semitic but seems to occur as subordinate marker in
East Semitic; and , which expresses mood (jussive) and perfect tense/aspect in all major Semitic sub-branches.
It has been suggested by various scholars that the endings -u and -a are derived from original case markers,2 the
ending -u presumably originates in the nominative -u, while -a is considered to reflect the accusative.3
Despite the fact that the derivation of verbal affixes from nominal markers is cross-linguistically well attested, internal Semitic problems have been cited against a common derivation of the East and Central Semitic
morphemes. These arguments are primarily based on the functional differences of the endings -u and -a specifically the ending -a does not seem to have any functional relationship in the two branches. Brockelmann (1908, p.
554) went so far as to state that given that both the forms and functions of modal endings differ significantly in
the individual languages, it is impossible to discern a coherent system of modal forms for Proto Semitic. It is the
purpose of this paper to investigate the potential functional relationship of the forms in -a in the various Semitic
sub-branches and to evaluate the proposed nominal derivation of the verbal endings -u and -a.
1.1. The Nominal Derivation of Finite Verbal Forms in Semitic

The notion that the verbal markers -u and -a are derived from the nominal system can in part be connected
to the assumption that verbal forms in Semitic generally originate in verbless clauses. The fact that at least the
East Semitic predicative verbal adjective/stative the West Semitic suffix conjugation/perfect is derived from
a nominal clause has been recognized early on in the study of the Semitic verbal system.4 In early discussions,
Abbreviations used in this paper include the following: ABS
= absolute state; ACC = accusative; ACT = active; c = communis;
COH = cohortative; CSTR = construct state; DEF = definite; DIR
= directive morpheme; DUR = durative; EA = El Amarna; ENER =
energic; f = feminine; GEN = genitive; IMP = imperative; IMPF =
imperfect; INDIC = indicative; INFIN = infinitive; m = masculine;
NOM = nominative; p = plural; PERF = perfect; pl = plural; PN =
personal name; PRED = predicate; PRET = preterite; PTC = participle; REL = relative pronoun; s = singular; SING = singular; SUBJ
= subjunctive; VENT = ventive; VOC = vocative.
2
See, e.g., Kuryowicz 1949, p. 53; Voigt 1997, p. 219; Voigt 1999,
p. 13; Lipiski 2001, p. 359.
1
Voigt, for example, suggested that the non-nasalized noun in

the accusative (-a) corresponds to the West Semitic perfect (qatala) and to the prefix conjugation (yaqtula), the nasalized noun
in the nominative (-um) corresponds to the relativized prefix
conjugation in -u (yaqtulu) in East Semitic and the indicative imperfect in Central Semitic, while the nasalized accusative (-am)
corresponds to the ventive (Voigt 1997, p. 220; 1999, p. 13).
4
For a summary of the early discussion, see, e.g., Fleisch 1975, p.
8. For the assumption that Semitic verbs are ultimately derived
from verbless clauses, see also Kuryowicz 1949, p. 51; Hodge
1974, p.22; Goldenberg 1983, p. 113.
3
119
120
Rebecca Hasselbach
it has likewise been suggested that the prefix conjugation might go back to a nominal clause based on a verbal
noun or verbal adjective. Wright, for example, states, Verbal forms in Semitic are really nominal forms, mostly
in combination with pronouns. Each person of the verb is, so to say, a sentence, consisting of a noun and a pronoun, which has gradually been contracted and shriveled up into a single word (1890, p. 164). The development
of a verbal form from an original nominal clause involving a verbal adjective and independent personal pronouns
is known not only from the Akkadian predicative adjective/stative but also from other Semitic languages, such
as Syriac. In Syriac, adjectives and particularly participles serving as predicates appear in the so-called status
absolutus, or unmarked state, and are as a rule accompanied by a shortened form of the independent pronoun in
the second and first persons that indicates the subject. In combination with the participle, the shortened form
of the pronoun is commonly suffixed to the participle (Nldeke 1904, pp. 45, 247):

zakky-
()n
innocent.ABS I
I am innocent

ql-at
kill.PTC.ACT.ms-2ms
you (ms) kill
In fact, almost every non-verbal predication requires a personal pronoun indicating the subject in Syriac.
This construction and the obligatory use of an independent pronoun make a nominal clause in Syriac, as noted by
Goldenberg (1983, p. 112), rather verb-like since the predicate in these cases is actually conjugated. It has been
repeatedly observed that this construction in Syriac resembles the predicative adjective/stative of Akkadian.5 In
several modern Aramaic dialects, the participle plus personal pronoun replaced the original imperfect and developed into a finite verbal form. In Urmia, for example, only the imperative is still productive as a derivative of the
original imperfect, while other verbal forms were replaced by newly developed forms.6 The grammaticalization
of original verbless clauses into finite verbal forms is thus not uncommon in Semitic.
The observable developments in both Akkadian and Aramaic strengthen the claim that Semitic verbal forms
are generally derived from verbless clauses. The fact that verbal forms are derived from nominal clauses can also
be observed beyond Semitic. Hodge argues that historically all verb forms in Egyptian are derived from nominal
constructions. In fact, he claims, One of the implications of the history of the Egyptian language is that verbs
are not primes in the linguistic order of things. 7 Instead, according to Hodge, verbs are semantic-formal combinations that are the result of language internal developments. Given these general tendencies, it is very likely
that we are indeed dealing with grammaticalized verbless clauses involving a verbal adjective/verbal noun and a
pronoun in the case of all major Semitic verbal conjugations. Another argument in favor of an adnominal derivation of the Semitic prefix conjugation is the fact that the pronominal elements of the first and second persons
are still clearly identifiable as being derived from the attested independent pronouns.8
Since verbal forms are derived from original verbless clauses through the grammaticalization of a nominal
and pronominal element, it seems likely that the modal endings, which phonologically resemble Semitic case
markers, are likewise derived from the nominal system. The question remains how these endings, specifically -u
and -a, can be derived on a functional level. In order to answer this question, I will first briefly review the main
attestations and suggested reconstructions of these two verbal markers and subsequently propose a functional
derivation. Since the evidence for the two endings is well known, examples have been kept to a minimum.
See, e.g., Gai 1984, p. 72. A similar situation is found in Eastern

Aramaic dialects contemporary to Syriac such as Mandaic and
the Aramaic of the Babylonian Talmud.
6
Hodge 1975, p. 2. For the grammaticalization of nominal clauses
into finite verbs, see also Rubin 2005, pp. 2728. A similar development occurred in Tigrinya (Rubin 2005, p. 31).
5
Hodge 1974, p. 22. See also Hodge 1975, p. 2.

For a recent study of the derivation of the prefixes of the prefix
conjugation from independent pronouns, see Hasselbach 2004.
7
8
121
2. The Ending -u: Distribution and Function

The verbal ending -u is attested in Akkadian, Ugaritic, early Canaanite represented by the evidence from
letters dating to the fourteenth century b.c. found at Tell El-Amarna in Egypt and Classical Arabic.9
2.1. The Ending -u in Akkadian

In Akkadian, -u is used to mark verbs in any kind of subordinate clause. It can be formed of all tenses, meaning it does not modify tense but is syntactically conditioned.10
Subordinate marker in relative clause:

arrq-am er-am
ina eql--ni
thief-ACC young-ACC REL in
ni-bat-u
ni-dk
field-GEN-1cp.GEN 1cs-seize.PRET-SUBJ 1cs-kill.PRET
we killed the young thief whom we had seized in our field
Subordinate marker in temporal clause:

inma m
ta-m-u
ta-llik-am
when grain.ACC 2ms-buy.PRET-SUBJ 2ms-come.PRET-VENT

when you had bought the grain, you came here
mr-um
warki ab-u
i-mt-u
i-rgum
son-NOM that after father.NOM-3ms.GEN 3ms-die.PRET-SUBJ 3ms-sue.PRET

that son brought suit after his father had died
Although it is commonly referred to as subjunctive, the Akkadian form has no functional parallel with the
subjunctive modal form known from Indo-European languages. As von Soden states, the Akkadian form is eine
Art Genitivendung des Verbum finitum.11 Instead of the traditionally used term subjunctive, it has become
more common in recent years to refer to this form as subordinating marker/form.12
In addition to its use in subordinate clauses, -u is used in main clauses after umma when in both promissory
(involving a present-tense verb) and assertory (with a preterite verb) oaths:13
Assertory:

umma un-ma
say
kirm
pnm
burr-u
ina il-im
te-lq
they.mp-and orchard.NOM previous.NOM confirmed-NOM in god-GEN 2ms-take.PRET.SUBJ
the previous orchard was confirmed; you (ms) took (it) under (an oath to) a god
For the hypothesis that the ending -u as marker of the imperfect

expressing present/future is also preserved in a few Ethiopian
languages mainly languages of the Gurage cluster (Muher,
Gogot, Soddo); see Leslau 1967. Leslau himself admits, however,
that there might be a different derivation of the imperfects in
-u in these languages. The evidence from Ethiopic has thus not
been included in the present investigation.
10
Huehnergard 1998, pp. 18385; Kienast 1960, p. 154. For the
examples given, see Huehnergard 1998, pp. 185, 284.
9
Von Soden 1995, p. 135.

See, e.g., Huehnergard 1998, p. 183.
13
Von Soden 1995, p. 136; Hecker 1968, p. 133; Kienast 1960, p.
155. For the examples, see Huehnergard 1998, p. 437. Von Soden
did not provide an explanation why the subordinate marker is
used in oaths, stating, Wie sich dieser fr einen Modus relativus
sehr eigenartige Sprachgebrauch erklrt, ist noch unbekannt
(1995, p. 136).
11
12
122
Rebecca Hasselbach
Promissory:

ina maar awl-
ana dayyn-
annt-im
kiam i-qb
umma un-ma
in before men-GEN these-GEN thus 3m-say.PRET.pl say
arr-im
they.mp-and life.CSTR king-GEN
ni-llak--ma
to judges-GEN 1cp-go.DUR-SUBJ-and
before these men they said as follows: by the life of the king, we will go to the judges
2.2. The Ending -u in Ugaritic

In Ugaritic, yaqtulu is directly attested in the singular in roots III- that are written with <U> and by the addition of final n in the second feminine singular and the second and third person plural.14 It is used as imperfect
indicative, expressing present and, less frequently, future events. In addition it is frequently used in circumstantial clauses:15
For present:

mh
t-ar-n
btlt
nt
what 2fs-wish.IMPF-INDIC virgin PN

what do you wish, virgin Anat?
For future:

zbl
rm y-u
sick bed 3-take.IMPF.INDIC
the sick one will take his bed
For circumstantial with past reference:

y-b
aliyn
bl
pcn-h
t-my-n
hdm
3m-sit.PRET to throne mighty Baal feet-3ms.GEN not 3-reach.IMPF-INDIC.DUAL footstool
he sat down on the throne of mighty Baal, his feet not reaching the footstool
The form yaqtulu is also used in temporal and relative clauses, where its use resembles Akkadian -u.16
In relative clause:

il
mrm dt
t-r-n
np
gods.CSTR Egypt REL.mp 3p-protect.IMPF-INDIC.PL life.CSTR sun

the gods of Egypt who protect the life of the sun
In temporal clause:

y-ru
y-tn s3s3w
and when not 3-defecate.INDIC.SING and not 3-urinate horse
and when the horse does not defecate and does not urinate
Lastly, yaqtulu can appear in both the protasis and apodosis of a conditional clause:17
14
15
Tropper 2000, p. 458.

Tropper 2000, pp. 458, 68488.
16
17
Tropper 2000, p. 686.

Tropper 2000, p. 686.
In both protasis and apodosis:

hm t-p-n
if
qbr
bny
123
t--n-nn
3-fly.IMPF-INDIC.PL over grave.CSTR son-1cs.GEN 3-wake.IMPF-INDIC.PL-3ms.ACC
b nt-h
in sleep-3ms.GEN
if they fly over the grave of my son they wake him from his sleep
2.3. The Ending -u in Early Canaanite

In early Canaanite, yaqtulu is used as imperfect indicative. It is the standard form to express present and
future. It can further stand for continuous or repeated action in the past and for circumstantial events. As circumstantial, most attestations have past reference:18
For the present:

anumma ank-ma e-rri-u //
now
I-PRED
ari-u ina
1cs-cultivate-INDIC.SING (gloss)
in
now it is I who is cultivating in Shunem
For the future:

i-naar--u
adi
URU
unama
Shunem
yi-mluk-u
arr-um
1cs-guard-INDIC.SING-3ms.ACC until 3ms-take.counsel-INDIC king-NOM
I will guard him until the king takes counsel

For circumstantial with past reference:
antam ar
KUR
mitanni ai
adi
URU
second king.CSTR
Mitanni go.out.3ms up.to
alka
yu-ba
adi
and 3ms-seek.INDIC go.INFIN up.to
URU
umura
umur
gubla
Byblos
Furthermore, the king of Mitanni came out as far as umur and was seeking to come to Byblos
2.4. The Ending -u in Classical Arabic

In Classical Arabic, yaqtulu is used in the same environments as in Ugaritic. Its main use is for verbal actions
referring to the present or future:19
For present:

a-lam-u
ta-lam--na
1cs-know.IMPF-INDIC.SING what not 2-know.IMPF-mp-INDIC
I know what you do not know
Rainey 1996, vol. 2, pp. 7, 22830, 234. For the examples, see
ibid. I have not indicated the verbal base as PERF, IMPF, etc. in
18
the examples from early Canaanite since the system used by the
scribes differs significantly from normative Semitic usage.
19
Fischer 1987, p. 93.
124
Rebecca Hasselbach
For future:

ta-jid-u
kull-u
nafs-in
amil-at
3f-find.IMPF-INDIC.SING every-NOM.CSTR soul-GEN what do.PERF-3fs
every soul will find what it has done
It is further frequently used for circumstantial events and for repeated actions with present and past
reference:20
For circumstantial:

a-r-ka
ta-bk
1cs-see.IMPF-2ms.ACC 2ms-cry.IMPF
I see you crying
For repeated action:
a-fu
ani
l-jhil-i
wa-u-
s-sil-a
1cs-forgive.IMPF PREP DEF-ignorant-GEN and-1cs-give.IMPF DEF-ask.PTC.ACT.ms-ACC
I (habitually) forgive the ignorant one and give to the asking one
As such it denotes imperfect(ive) tense/aspect. In addition, yaqtulu appears in subordinate clauses such as
relative clauses:21

al-qawm-u
lladna
yu-min--na
DEF-people-NOM REL.mp 3-believe.IMPF-mp-INDIC
the people who believe
In very few instances, yaqtulu can appear in the apodosis of a conditional clause when it follows another verb
in the jussive and is connected by either wa- or fa-. In this case, the verb can also appear in the jussive or in the
subjunctive.22
2.5. Summary of the Evidence for -u

Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Classical Arabic share only one environment in which yaqtulu is used, namely, certain types of subordinate clauses including relative clauses. Otherwise, the function of this verbal form does not
overlap in East and West Semitic. In East Semitic, it is a subordinate marker for all types of subordinate clauses,
and it is used in oaths. In West Semitic, yaqtulu primarily marks aspect, more specifically imperfective aspect,
including present and future tense. It also appears in most types of subordinate clauses. For limitations on the use
of -u in subordinate clauses in Classical Arabic, see 3.1 below. Lastly, in rare instances, the ending -u can occur
in conditional clauses in Classical Arabic and Ugaritic.
2.6. The Ending -u: Functional Reconstruction

The etymological relationship of yaqtulu in East and Central Semitic is widely accepted. 23 The more difficult
issue is the functional relation of yaqtulu in these two branches of Semitic. The main question regarding the ending -u is whether it originally reflected indicative or subordinating function. Most scholars consider the use of
*yaqtulu in subordinate function original while its use as imperfect indicative is thought to be secondary. The
20
21
Fischer 1987, pp. 9394.

Fischer 1987, p. 194.
22
23
Wright 1898, vol. 2, p. 40.

See, e.g., Kienast 1960, p. 154.
125
subordinate function of this verbal form is further often connected to relative clauses. Kuryowicz, for example,
who suggested that yaqtulu might be of nominal origin, thought that it was originally only used after relative
pronouns, as in a ikudu, which he considers to have had the meaning le vainqueur de before its verbalization.24
In his opinion, yaqtulu thus functions like the nominative.25 A similar original restriction of yaqtulu to relative
clauses has been suggested by Kienast with regard to Akkadian. Kienast assumes that relative clauses originally
were dependent on a noun in the construct, as in bt puu the house he built, since, according to him, it is not possible to reconstruct a single form of the relative pronoun for Proto Semitic.26 When a relative clause is dependent
on a noun in the construct, it is solely the form of the verb that marks relativizing function since the construct
itself does not express this function. With the development of relative pronouns, the old relative form, according to Kienast, lost its restricted use and was extended to other subordinate clauses in Akkadian, while in West
Semitic, it was expanded beyond the subordinate clause.27 The same basic assumption that yaqtulu originates in
subordinate clauses, although without the limitation on relative clauses, is found in Hamoris study of the Semitic
verbal system, where he claims that the transition from subordinate to imperfect indicative happened through
circumstantial constructions involving the imperfect that had a close parallel in relative clauses.28 This means that
a sentence like a man came in speaking (IMPF) has a very similar meaning to a man came in who spoke (SUBJ),
where the first is expressed by an imperfect and the second by a subordinate marker. The semantic similarity of
these two constructions, according to Hamori, led to the extension of the use of yaqtulu from subordinate clauses
to circumstantial constructions and subsequently to a generalization of yaqtulu as general imperfect indicative.
The development suggested by Hamori from relative clause > circumstantial > imperfect indicative is, in my
opinion, very convincing. He has proven with relative certainty that the subordinating function of -u, as suggested
by various scholars before him, is more original than its use as imperfect indicative. The subordinating function
should thus be reconstructed as the primary function of -u.
3. The Ending -a: Distribution and Function

A verbal ending -a is, just like -u, attested in Central Semitic languages, more specifically in Classical Arabic,
Ugaritic, early Canaanite, and Hebrew. In addition, a form iprusa occurs in a few texts in a sub-corpus of Old
Akkadian.
3.1. The Function of -a in Classical Arabic

The subjunctive of Classical Arabic primarily occurs in subordinate clauses. As such it expresses an act that
is dependent on that mentioned in the previous clause.29 It occurs after the particles an that and all that not,
after which it expresses intention, wish, expectation, command, or prohibition.
For a wish:
arad-tu
wa-abab-tu
an
u-bayyin-a
wish.PERF-1cs and-desire.PERF-1cs that 1cs-make.clear-SUBJ

la-hum
arq-a
t-taallum-i
to-3mp.GEN way-ACC DEF-learning-GEN
I wished and desired to make clear to them the path of learning

Kuryowicz 1949, p. 53.
Kuryowicz 1949, p. 54.
26
For the assumption that it is possible to reconstruct a full paradigm of relative pronouns for Proto Semitic, see, for example,
Huehnergard 2006, p. 118, and Hasselbach 2007, pp. 20, 24.
27
Kienast 1960, pp. 15558.
24
25
28
Hamori 1973. A connection of yaqtulu with subordinate clauses
has also been suggested by Lipiski, although he further claims
that -u reflects an original ergative case (2001, p. 359). Voigt
likewise assumes that the West Semitic imperfect goes back to a
relative construction that corresponds to the Akkadian subjunctive (1997, p. 218).
29
Wright 1898, vol. 2, pp. 2426.
126
Rebecca Hasselbach
For a command:

amar-tu-ka
bi-an
ta-fal-a
ka
command.PERF-1cs-2ms.ACC in-that 2ms-do-SUBJ thus

I commanded you to do thus/such a thing
The omission of an before the subjunctive is very rare.

It further occurs after a number of particles meaning that, in order that, including kay, li-, lian, and att.
These particles introduce purpose clauses and indicate the intention of the agent:30

tub
li-ya-fir-a
repent.IMP.ms so.that-3ms-forgive-SUBJ
repent, so that god may forgive you
la-ka
llh-u
to-2ms god-NOM
The subjunctive originally only occured after an and att when these particles express intent or consequence/
result, otherwise the perfect or imperfect are used. In post-Classical Arabic, the use of the subjunctive has been
extended so that it occurs regularly after these two particles.31
It is further used after fa- when the particle introduces a clause that expresses the result or effect of a preceding clause:32

ifir
l-
rabb-i
fa-a-dul-a
forgive.IMP.ms to-1cs VOC lord-1cs that-1cs-enter-SUBJ
forgive me, o my lord, so that I may enter Paradise
l-jannat-a
DEF-garden-ACC
The preceding clause in this case has to contain an imperative or another modal form expressing a wish. In this
use, fa- is equivalent to att with the meaning in order that, so that.
The subjunctive can further follow aw when it is used with the meaning unless (that), that is, when it is
semantically equivalent to ill an. It also occurs after the particle ian in that case when it begins a clause that
expresses result or effect.33

la-a-qtul-anna
truly-1cs-kill-ENER
l-kfir-i
aw
yu-slim-a
DEF-unbeliever-GEN unless 3ms-surrender-SUBJ
I will certainly kill the unbeliever, unless he becomes a Muslim

idan
u-hn-a-ka
well.then not 1cs-insult-SUBJ-2ms.ACC

well then, I will not insult you
In all these usages, the subjunctive has future sense.34

Furthermore, the subjunctive is used for negating the future after the particle lan (*< l an):35

lan ya-zr-a-ka
not 3ms-visit-SUBJ-2ms.ACC
he will never visit you
abadan
ever
The appearance of the subjunctive after this negative particle clearly seems to be motivated by the fact that it
contains an.
Wright 1898, vol. 2, p. 28.

32
Wright 1898, vol. 2, p. 30.
Wright 1898, vol. 2, p. 33.

Wright 1898, vol. 2, p. 22.
35
30
33
31
34
127
Lastly, there are instances in which the subjunctive can be used in conditional clauses: when a verb in the
jussive in either the protasis or apodosis is followed by another verb that is connected by either fa- or wa-, the
second verb can occur in the subjunctive, although this use is rare. In this environment, the jussive and indicative can occur as well.36
To summarize, the subjunctive in Classical Arabic expresses wish, command, and purpose, although only in
subordinate clauses.37
3.2. The Use of -a in Ugaritic

Ugaritic likewise has a form of the prefix conjugation ending in -a. This ending can so far only be traced in
the 1cs and 3ms in roots III- in volitive function, that is, when it functions like the jussive.38

uba
i-qra
I shall enter
1cs-call.COH
ilm
n[mm]
gods pleasant
I shall call the pleasant gods
Attestations for other persons are doubtful. In volitive function, the seemingly same notion can usually also
be expressed by the jussive instead of yaqtula.39
3.3. The Use of -a in Early Canaanite

Early Canaanite yaqtula, also called subjunctive or volitive, is used for all persons, although the forms
known so far comprise only singular and 1cp forms. It is used to express wish, request, and demand, in addition
to purpose clauses. The latter occurs when the clause is dependent on another injunctive clause.40
For wish, request, and demand:

knanna yu-ammi-a
thus
3ms-hasten-SUBJ
thus may he hasten

ul
yu-pair-a
not 3ms-assemble-SUBJ
let him not assemble
Wright 1898, vol. 2, p.40.

See also Blau 1971, p. 142; Kienast 1960, pp. 155, 164; Lipiski
2001, p. 360.
38
Tropper 2000, pp. 45556.
39
Tropper 2000, pp. 456.
40
Rainey 1996, vol. 2, pp. 25557. According to Moran, the form
yaqtula occurs seventy-four times in the six letters from Byblos.
Of these occurrences, thirty-six seem to be direct volitive and
thirteen indirect volitive, meaning they occur after another injunctive form such as the imperative (Moran 1960, p. 11). Moran
states that there is a clear contrast in use between yaqtulu and
yaqtula in the Byblos letters, which, according to him, proves that
yaqtula does not represent the Akkadian ventive (ibid., pp. 68,
36
37
11). For an interpretation of most of these yaqtula forms as volitive, see also Blau 1971, pp. 13536. Another argument against
the interpretation of these forms as ventive is that the ventive
is no modal form but a directional morpheme, while many of the
occurrences of yaqtula in early Canaanite are clearly modal. For
the interpretation of the ventive as non-modal see Edzard 1973,
p. 127. Despite following Morans ground-breaking analysis from
1960 in principle, Rainey concludes, It is abundantly clear that
the EA texts have not given us any conclusive evidence for the
existence of a Canaanite yaqtula pattern (Rainey 1996, vol. 2, p.
262). At the same time, Rainey argues in favor of a Northwest
Semitic yaqtula pattern based on comparative evidence from Arabic (subjunctive), Hebrew (cohortative), and a Ugaritic example
(ibid.).
128
Rebecca Hasselbach
For purpose clause:

a-qbi
ana kta
i-leu
u-ar-u
ul
yi-ma
Abdi-Airta
1cs-say.PRET to you.ACC not 1cs-be.able 1cs-send-3ms.ACC not 3ms-hear.SUBJ PN
I said to you: I am not able to send him lest Abdi-Airta hear
The indirect volitive that denotes purpose or intended result occurs in paratactic sentence structures and
contrasts with yaqtulu that states a simple fact.41 An important observation made by Moran is that the use of
yaqtula in purpose clauses is governed by what he calls modal congruence. Modal congruence means that when
the first clause states a fact in the perfect or indicative, the purpose clause is likewise in the indicative. When
the first clause, however, has an imperative, jussive, or yaqtula form expressing wish, the purpose clause verb is
either in the jussive or in the volitive, meaning it conforms to the injunctive form of the first clause.42
Lastly, yaqtula can appear in both the protasis and apodosis of conditional clauses:43
In protasis:

inma a-mt-a
if
mnu yi-naar--i
1cs-die-SUBJ who
if I die, who will protect it?
In apodosis:
umma i-rm
if
uir-a
3m-protect-pl-3fs.ACC
arr-u
bl-
abad
kitt--u
3ms-love king-NOM lord-1cs servant.CSTR faith-GEN-3ms.GEN and

3 awl-
i-blu-a
i-nair-a
l-am
ana arr-i
send.IMP-SUBJ 3 men-ACC and 1cs-live-SUBJ and 1cs-guard-SUBJ city-ACC for king-GEN
If the king, my lord, cares for his faithful servant, send the three men that I may survive and that I
may protect the city for the king
The form yaqtula can thus be used in the same environments as the jussive in early Canaanite. Rainey states
that the examples from the El-Amarna correspondence seem to suggest that yaqtula was used in almost complete
parallelism with the jussive.44
3.4. The Use of the Cohortative in Hebrew

The cohortative in Hebrew occurs primarily in the first person with only a few exceptions. The basic meaning
of the cohortative is, as stated by Gesenius and Kautzsch (1910, p. 130), as follows: The cohortative expresses the
direction of the will to an action and thus denotes especially self-encouragement (in the 1st plur. an exhortation
to others at the same time), a resolution or a wish. Waltke and OConnor (1990, p. 573) state that the Hebrew
cohortative has two main functions: (1) as direct volitive expressing a wish, request, or command, and (2) as
indirect volitive in clauses of purpose or intended result. 45 This functional distinction of the cohortative is
syntactically conditioned by whether it occurs in independent or dependent clauses. In independent clauses, the
cohortative expresses will. When it follows an imperative or jussive after waw, it expresses intention or intended
consequence, that is, purpose.
Blau 1971, p. 136.

Moran 1960, pp. 810. Moran claims that this modal congruence is rigorously observed in early Canaanite (ibid.). He also
claims that the same modal congruence is attested in Classical
Arabic when yaqtula is used after fa- and the latter stands after
an imperative, negative command, wish, jussive, or particle of
exhortation or reproach. Moran states that one seems to dis-
41
42
cern an older rule of modal congruence, meaning that yaqtula

was originally a modal form corresponding to such forms as the
jussive and imperative (Moran 1960, p. 12).
43
Rainey 1996, vol. 2, p. 260.
44
Rainey 1996, vol. 2, p. 263.
45
For this type of distinction, see also Blau 1971, p. 133, where
he calls the indirect use volitive.
For wish/will:

-l-
129
w-e-r-enn
1cs-go.IMPF-COH and-1cs-see.IMPF-3ms.ACC
I will go and see him (Gen 45:28)

n-l-
dyn-
1cp-go.IMPF-COH Dotan-DIR
lets go to Dotan (Gen 37:17)
For purpose:

w-h-
l-
w--l-
and-bring.IMP.ms-3fs.ACC to-1cs and-1cs-eat.IMPF-COH
and bring it to me so that I may eat (Gen 27:4)
In these cases the purpose clause is governed by the same rule of modal congruence as mentioned in the case
of early Canaanite.46
The cohortative can further appear in conditional clauses, in both the protasis and apodosis.47
In protasis:

m a-abbr-
if
l() y-
k-
1cs-speak.IMPF-COH not 3ms-be.relieved.IMPF pain-1cs.GEN
if I speak, my pain is not relieved (Job 16:6)

In apodosis:

myi-ttn-n
mr
ayi
b-am-milm e-p-
who3ms-give.IMPF-1cs.ACC briars thorns in-DEF-war
b-h
1cs-march-COH in-3fs
if only there were briars and thorns confronting me, I would march against them in battle
lit., whoever would give me briars and thorns (Isa 27:4)
In the rare occurrences when -a is found on a third-person verb, it expresses wish in independent clauses:48

h-mrm
ma a-h
y-mahr
y--
DEF-say.PTC.ACT.mp 3ms-make.haste.IMPF 3ms-speed.IMPF-COH

lmaan ni-re
deed-3ms.GEN so.that 1cp-see.IMPF
who say: let him make haste, let him speed his work that we may see (Isa 5:19)
The Hebrew cohortative is thus functionally close to early Canaanite yaqtula as analyzed by Moran. In fact,
Moran claims that almost two-thirds of yaqtula forms in the Byblos letters conform exactly to the use of the cohortative in Biblical Hebrew.49
Moran 1960, p. 11.

Gesenius and Kautzsch 1910, p. 320; Waltke and OConnor 1990,
pp. 57475. According to Blau, the use of the cohortative in imclauses in Biblical Hebrew is rare and only a marginal phenomenon (Blau 1971, p. 134).
46
48
47
49
Gesenius and Kautzsch 1910, p. 130; Moran 1960, p. 11.

Moran 1960, pp. 16. See also Blau 1971, p. 135.
130
Rebecca Hasselbach
3.5. Derivation of the Hebrew Cohortative

The etymological and functional connection between early Canaanite yaqtula and the Hebrew cohortative has
been recognized ever since Morans groundbreaking study of the forms.50 The use of yaqtula in Ugaritic likewise
fits the functional range of the corresponding forms in Canaanite, so that we can say that Northwest Semitic
languages exhibit a uniform functional range of this verbal form. The more problematic question is how the
Northwest Semitic forms relate to the subjunctive attested in Classical Arabic. In the scholarly literature, we find
two main derivations for the Hebrew cohortative, both of which connect it to verbal forms attested in Classical
Arabic. The first suggested derivation is from the energic ending -an, a reconstruction that has found wide support among Semitic scholars.51 Closely related to this derivation is the assumption that the Hebrew cohortative
ultimately goes back to the ventive, since the ventive and energic are commonly assumed to be etymologically
related.52 The second proposed reconstruction connects the Hebrew cohortative to the Classical Arabic subjunctive
ending -a.53 Although there are still proponents of the first derivation today, Morans paper on early Canaanite
yaqtula contains important arguments against a derivation from the energic. Moran showed convincingly that
early Canaanite yaqtula corresponds to a significant degree to the Hebrew cohortative in terms of function. Early
Canaanite, however, has a separate energic form yaqtulanna. Thus, if any Classical Arabic form can correspond to
the Hebrew cohortative, it is the subjunctive, not the energic.54
If the Classical Arabic subjunctive is related to Canaanite yaqtula, the question remains how to explain the
functional differences between the two. Blau argued that it seems unlikely that the volitive developed from the
subjunctive and that it is more likely that the volitive sense is the original one. Parallels for a development from
volitive to subjunctive are, according to Blau, known from other languages. The use of yaqtula for the subjunctive
presumably developed from clauses in whose paratactic original form yaqtula was used to express volition. 55
Moran likewise explains the restricted use in Classical Arabic by an earlier paratactic stage. This earlier use can
presumably still be noticed in the use of the subjunctive after fa-, wa-, and aw, in clauses that have no introductory
conjunctions, and in the rare use of the subjunctive in the protasis and apodosis of conditional clauses. All these
usages, according to Moran, allow for the independent use of yaqtula found in the Amarna letters.56 Although,
as I argue in 4 below, I do not follow Morans and Blaus directionality of the proposed semantic change, their
arguments point to an important connection between the Classical Arabic and Northwest Semitic yaqtula forms.
There are, as they show, a few usages of yaqtula that overlap in Canaanite and Classical Arabic. These include its
use in purpose clauses and its use in conditional clauses, which argues in favor of a derivational relationship of
the two types of yaqtula.
Before trying to connect the remainder of the functions, it is helpful to ask how we can categorize the Central
Semitic yaqtula forms functionally and from a cross-linguistic perspective.
Modal forms have often been described based on an Indo-European model primarily established on the
basis of languages such as Classical Greek and Latin in terms of realis ~ irrealis, which can also be expressed as
indicative ~ subjunctive.57 There are, of course, well-known inherent problems in transferring both the terminology and definition of grammatical forms and concepts from one language/language family to another. I nevertheless start with a general description of indicative ~ subjunctive based on the Indo-European understanding
of the terms and, I hope, show that they, in this particular case, can indeed be applied to the Semitic evidence.
The subjunctive as described in typological literature has several main functions and syntactic characteristics. It is primarily found in subordinate clauses, that is, it is the typical mood used for subordination.58 This
Before the discovery of yaqtula in early Canaanite, it had been

suggested that the Hebrew cohortative was derived from locative
h or from a demonstrative. For a discussion of the history of
the derivation of the Hebrew cohortative, see Israel 2007, p. 115.
51
For a discussion, see Israel 2007, p. 117.
52
This derivation has, for example, been suggested by Voigt
(1997, p. 220; 1999, p. 13). See also Lipiski 2001, p. 361, and Israel
2007, pp. 123, 134. The latter assumes that there are two main
hypotheses for the derivation of the cohortative: first from the
energic and second from the ventive (ibid.). Since the energic
and ventive most likely go back to the same original morpheme,
50
the two hypotheses cited by Israel are considered a single one

in this paper.
53
For a discussion of the two derivations, see also Blau 1971, p.
135.
54
Moran (1960, p. 17) states that the existence of early Canaanite
yaqtula establishes the origin of the Hebrew cohortative from
yaqtula, not yaqtulan. See also Blau 1971, p. 135.
55
Blau 1971, p. 143.
56
Moran 1960, p. 12.
57
Palmer 2001, p. 3.
58
Palmer 2001, p. 5.
131
close connection has led to the statement by some linguists that one of the functions of the subjunctive is simply
that of being subordinate.59 The use in subordinate clauses can even be extended to clauses that have no inherent notion of irrealis. The functions of the subjunctive in subordinate clauses can be quite varied, typically more
varied than in main clauses. Some of its main functions in subordinate clauses include future reference and the
expression of wishes, fears, commands, and requests. It is further often used to indicate what is reported, as in
German er sagte er wre krank, that is, it is used after verbs of speaking and so on. 60 The subjunctive is common
in temporal clauses to refer to hypothetical future events. More importantly, it is used in conditional clauses in
several languages, including Classical Greek and Latin. It is also often attested in purpose clauses. Indo-European
languages that make such use of the subjunctive include Classical Greek, Latin, Spanish, and Italian.61 When no
notion of purpose is present in these languages, they use the indicative instead.
In main clauses, the subjunctive is used for wishes referring to the future, as, for example, attested in Latin,
Italian, and Portuguese.62 The subjunctive is further used instead of an imperative or jussive to express a polite
command in Italian and Spanish and as a notional jussive for the first person in Classical Greek and Spanish (let
us sail).63
Almost all the functions of the subjunctive attested in Indo-European languages have correspondences in
Semitic. In Semitic, the subjunctive of Arabic is primarily found in subordinate clauses, reflecting its common
association with subordination cross-linguistically. In subordinate clauses, it can appear for purpose clauses,
which is attested in Classical Arabic, Hebrew, and early Canaanite, and for content clauses after verbs of speaking, commanding, wishing, and believing, which is the typical construction of these clauses in Classical Arabic,
where content clauses are introduced by the particle an followed by a verb in the subjunctive. In main clauses, it
primarily expresses wish or corresponds to the jussive, which is the situation we find in Ugaritic, early Canaanite,
and Hebrew. The subjunctive can appear in conditional clauses, which we find, although not as a common construction, in all the Semitic languages under discussion. Lastly, the subjunctive, especially in subordinate clauses,
tends to have future reference, which is, again, exactly what we find in Classical Arabic. It is therefore, in my
opinion, justified to functionally identify Central Semitic yaqtula with what is commonly called the subjunctive
in typological literature. This identification also allows us to explain the restriction of the morpheme to subordinate clauses in Classical Arabic and its seemingly unusual occurrences in conditional clauses. How the syntactic
limitations in Classical Arabic might have arisen will further be discussed in 4 below.64
3.6. The Use of -a in Old Akkadian

It has been a matter of dispute whether Old Akkadian possesses a form that corresponds morphologically to
Central Semitic yaqtula. In a sub-corpus of Old Akkadian texts from the Diyala region of Iraq, a form iprusa appears
a few times in subordinate clauses. Kienast argued that these iprusa forms reflect ventives without mimation.65
This interpretation faces the problem that the ventive is not otherwise attested without mimation in Old Akkadian.
Other scholars have thus argued that the iprusa forms are not related to the ventive but rather represent a subordinating morpheme that reflects either a different Akkadian dialect or an Amorite substrate.66
Jespersen as quoted in Palmer 2001, p. 108.

Palmer 2001, pp. 11113.
61
Palmer 2001, pp. 12528.
62
Palmer 2001, p. 132.
63
Palmer 2001, pp. 13840.
64
In other language families, especially Native American families
and those of Papua New Guinea, the terms realis and irrealis have been adopted to describe basically the same contrast
as the one expressed by indicative and subjunctive in IndoEuropean. The basic functions of the realis/irrealis markers are
the same as in Indo-European, that is, the irrealis can express
future events, commands, exhortations, warnings, etc. (Palmer
2001, pp. 14548). There is thus not always a clear functional
distinction between the two sets of terms. The function in main
clauses, however, can differ. The use of the subjunctive in main
59
60
clauses does not commonly include the notions of denial and

futurity or its use in questions. These notions are, however, associated with the irrealis (Palmer 2001, pp. 18688). The subjunctive further has a stronger association with subordinate clauses
than the irrealis. Lastly, realis/irrealis systems are often binary,
while indicative/subjunctive systems often also include a jussive
and imperative (ibid., pp. 18688). The Semitic evidence is thus
closer to the Indo-European concept of indicative/subjunctive
than to realis/irrealis.
65
Kienast 1960, p. 152 n. 2; 2001, p. 272.
66
Edzard 1973, p. 127; Hasselbach 2005, p. 204. Edzard leaves the
question of the origin of the iprusa forms open, while others,
such as Israel, assume that these forms are from Amorite (Israel
2007, p. 131).
132
Rebecca Hasselbach
In order to understand the use of iprusa in Old Akkadian, it is helpful to look at the attestations of the morpheme. There are only five attestations of iprusa known to me:

1 PN, 1 PN, 1 PN. u.nign 10 lal 2 ab+-bu-ut mu-tu-tu a-na dingir-a-zu i-du-da
1 PN. Total of 8 witnesses that Mututu measured the house for Ilum-as. (OAIC 1)
PN, PN ab+ 1 (pi) e gi-nu-nu a-na dar-e-tum i-ti-na gem ib-bu-bu
PN, PN ab+ en-ma ma-nu-nu a-na gi-nu-nu in i u-da-a-bi-la a-na si-tim m-me lu-u-ku-ul-kum
3 qa zd.gu 1 qa u.i 1 qa kug.babbar-sa 1 qa ane.libir.sal u a-na u-ni-tum a-ti-na
PN witnesses that Ginunu gave one pi of barley to Daretum, slave girl of Ibbubu. (OAIC 3)
PN witnesses that Manunu thus (said) to Ginunu: In the house which I considered, let me weigh out
the rest (lit. for/to) of the price for you. (OAIC 10)
(Of the) 3 qa of gu-flour, 1 qa: the barber; 1 qa: Kaspa; 1 qa: the mare. That is what I gave to
untum. (OAIC 21)
10 e.gur e.ar.a[n] na-b-um ik-sur 10 (gur) na-b-um a-na e-na-na edin i-dm e.ar.an -ni-um u nab-um in i-te-su ik-su-ra 10 (gur) in -ti la-ni sal.l.tg 5 (gur) in -ti tg.du 5 gur [] -lum
10 gur of ar.an-barley Nabium bound/joined(?). 10 GUR Nabium gave(!) to Enana, the potter. (Of)
the ar.an-barley of Enium which Nabium bound/joined(?) with his hand, 10 gur are in the house of
Lani the woman-fuller, 5 gur are in the house of the upholsterer, 5 gur (OAIC 36:114)
All these occurrences appear in relative clauses, which can be either syndetic or asyndetic. The occurrences
in OAIC 1, 3, and 21 clearly reflect verbs in subordinate function, twice dependent on a noun in the construct,
and once dependent on the relative pronoun u. OAIC 36 also clearly reflects a verb in subordinate function in a
past-tense context dependent on a relative pronoun. The only occurrence that might be interpreted as reflecting
a different, perhaps volitive, function is found in OAIC 10, where iprusa is followed by a precative and might be
translated as in the house that I shall consider, let me weigh out although it is difficult to prove such an
interpretation, and thus I prefer the simple interpretation as subordinate form.
The interpretation of the ending -a in these texts as ventive without mimation is unlikely in my opinion
because the same verbs, markedly addum and nadnum, are not used with the ventive in the same corpus when
they are not in a subordinate clause; see, for example, i-du-ud he measures (OAIC 2:4; 8:21) and i-ti-in he gave
(OAIC 4:5). In the case of the semantically problematic verb ik-su-ra, the same verb occurs without -a in a main
clause in the same text.
The fact that we are dealing with an allomorph of -u and not the ventive is further confirmed by texts of
similar structure found in the same sub-corpus that use -u instead of -a, such as the following:

e-nu na-b-um u-ut gi-um l-gi-am-ma it-ba-lu na-b-um k dTipak it-ma
(In respect to) the utensils of Nabium which Gium took and carried away, Nabium swore in the gate of
Tipak. (OAIC 7:2126)
In this clause, we find the same dependency of a verb in the subordinate clause to a relative pronoun, although in
this case the 3ms verb is marked by -u with another preceding subordinated verb that is marked by the ventive
(l-gi-am-ma), which clearly has mimation.
Given these facts, it seems very likely to me that we are indeed dealing with a subordinate marker and not
with a shortened form of the ventive in these occurrences. The primary function of iprusa in Old Akkadian seems
to be to mark a verb as subordinate, that is, it is functionally parallel to normative Akkadian -u, as also attested
in the remainder of Old Akkadian texts from the Diyala region and beyond.
133
4. The Derivation of -a and -u

The question that remains is whether the Old Akkadian verbal ending -a and the Central Semitic ending -a can
be connected etymologically. Most scholars who accept the existence of Old Akkadian iprusa are hesitant to claim
a direct connection between the West and East Semitic morphemes because of their functional differences.67 In
East Semitic, -a is used as subordinate marker, while in West Semitic, it is a modal form, which, as argued above,
can best be described as subjunctive from a cross-linguistic perspective. Blau suggested, based on Jacobsen, that
iprusa in Old Akkadian presented the subject as willing, in order to make a hypothetical connection with the
Arabic subjunctive and Canaanite yaqtula.68 Other scholars, such as Israel, assume that there is no relationship
between the two morphemes.69
The solution to the functional problem, in my opinion, lies in the above-mentioned nominal derivation of
verbal forms in Semitic. If the verbal forms themselves are derived from nominal clauses, it would be no surprise
to find vestiges of the nominal morphology on these forms. Even without a derivational connection between
nominal and verbal forms, it is a well-known phenomenon cross-linguistically that case markers can develop into
non-case markers, especially into verbal affixes. In some instances, case itself can be marked on the verb. In others,
the original case marker can be reinterpreted so that the original marking remains but signals a new function.70
It has been observed that local expressions can develop into markers of tense and aspect. One example of such
a development is found in Kala Lagua Ya, an Australian language, where almost the whole system of cases was
transferred to the verbal system and developed into tense/aspect markers. The original ergative and accusative
developed into completive, the dative/allative into incompletive, the comitative into habitual, the ablative into
past tense expressing yesterday, and the locative into an immediate past marker.71 Although this is not the situation we find in Semitic, it shows the potential connection between case and verbal markers.
Another common and more relevant in our context grammaticalization path is from case marker to clause
subordinator, which is the most salient attested development. The development from case to subordinate marker
is usually based on the principle of extension, meaning that the use of case markers is extended from (non-verbal)
nouns to nominalized verbs such as the infinitive, gerundives, participles, and finally to subordinate clauses. 72 In
many case languages, at least some type of subordinate clause is marked by historical case markers.73
The subordinate markers that arose from original case markers can further acquire new functions. As mentioned in 3.5 above, subordinate clauses tend to express modally marked meanings, which, in Indo-European
terms, are commonly referred to as subjunctive or irrealis. Because of this functional connection between
clause subordination and certain modal functions, it may happen when a case marker has been grammaticalized into a clause subordinator, that it acquires modal meanings, specifically modal meanings associated with
subjunctive moods.74
This means that we can trace a cross-linguistic grammaticalization path from case marker > subordinate
marker > modal marker (= subjunctive-marker).
Considering the Semitic evidence, this development is extremely close to what we can observe in this language
family. The nominative marker -u, as has been suggested before, grammaticalized into a subordinate marker,
a development that corresponds to cross-linguistically common tendencies. In this function, it is attested in
Akkadian. It then extended its function to main clauses on the basis of circumstantial constructions mentioned in
2.6 above, and it became the marker of the imperfective aspect in Central Semitic. The use of yaqtulu in certain
subordinate clauses in all Central Semitic languages that preserve yaqtulu is a vestige of its original subordinating
function. The use of yaqtulu in oaths in Akkadian might be connected to the tendency of subordinate clauses to
This problem is independent of whether yaqtula in Old Akkadian is a substrate from another Semitic language such as Amorite.
68
Blau 1971, pp. 14344.
69
Israel 2007, p. 132.
70
Blake 2001, p. 180.
71
Blake 2001, p. 180.
72
In Semitic, nominalized verbs are, of course, marked with the
same case markers as nouns in general, which might be inter67
preted as an initial step in an extension process as described here

based on typological observations.
73
Heine 2009, p. 468. In Tibeto-Burman Newari, the ergative/
instrumental developed into a temporal clause subordinator that
is suffixed to verbs (ibid.).
74
Heine 2009, p. 469.
134
Rebecca Hasselbach
express modal notions and thus for the subordinate marking morpheme to be extended to modal functions since
oaths are naturally related to wishes semantically and to conditional clauses syntactically.75
The situation concerning yaqtula is a bit more complex. Just like -u, the final -a in this form is the result of
grammaticalization from an original case marker, the accusative. Also parallel to -u, it was first grammaticalized
into a subordinate marker. This original function is attested in the examples from Old Akkadian cited above.
Unlike -u, -a did not further grammaticalize into a tense/aspect marker but into a modal marker, as attested in
Classical Arabic, early Canaanite, and Hebrew. The original connection of -a with subordination is still found in
Classical Arabic, where -a primarily appears in subordinate clauses. In early Canaanite and Hebrew, its use was
extended to main clauses, and it became a general marker of modality, specifically for the expression of wishes.
This extension from subordinate to main clauses can explain the frequent functional overlap of yaqtula and the
jussive in early Canaanite. This overlap is not original to the forms but the result of a secondary extension of the
innovative modal form yaqtula.
The seemingly unbridgeable differences in the use of yaqtula in East and West Semitic are thus the result of
a process of grammaticalization that was further advanced in West than in East Semitic assuming that the Old
Akkadian examples are not the result of substrate influence, in which case they would represent different stages
of the grammaticalization process in the same sub-branch of Semitic.
To conclude, the verbal endings -u and -a are derived from original case markers. Both first grammaticalized
into subordinate markers, corresponding to cross-linguistic tendencies this initial grammaticalization process
most likely occurred in Proto Semitic since we find verbal forms in -u and -a in all major branches of the language
family. Subsequently, the two endings developed differently in individual sub-branches/languages of Semitic. The
original association with subordination is still clearly noticeable for both endings. The rare usages of both endings
in conditional clauses can be explained by their shared derivation and grammaticalization paths.
Abbreviation
OAIC
Ignace J. Gelb. Old Akkadian Inscriptions in the Chicago Natural Museum: Texts of Legal and Business Interest.
Chicago: Chicago Natural History Museum, 1955.
Bibliography
Blake, Barry J.
2001
Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blau, Joshua
1971
Studies in Hebrew Verb Formation. Hebrew Union College Annual 42: 13358.
Brockelmann, Carl
1908
Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, Volume 1. Berlin: Reuther and Reichard.
For a description of oaths in terms of wishful exclamations and

their syntactic similarity to conditional clauses in Hebrew, see
Waltke and OConnor 1990, p. 679. For similar constructions in
Akkadian, see Huehnergard 1998, p. 438. If this interpretation of
75
yaqtulu in Akkadian oaths is correct, it implies that -u, similar to

-a in West Semitic, developed certain restricted modal functions
in East Semitic that are reflected in its use in oaths, despite its
primary use as subordinate marker.

Edzard, Dietz O.
1973
135
Die Modi beim lteren akkadischen Verbum. Orientalia 42: 12141.
1987
Grammatik des Klassischen Arabisch. Porta linguarum orientalium 11. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Fleisch, Henri
1975
Gai, Amikam
1984
Gesenius, Wilhelm
1910
Goldenberg, Gideon
1983
Hamori, Andras
1973
Le verbe du smitique commun les discussions a son sujet. Semitica 15: 518.
Predicative State and Inflection of the Nominal Predicate in Akkadian and Syriac. Afroasiatic Linguistics
9: 72.
Gesenius Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch and A. E. Cowley. Second English edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
On Syriac Sentence Structure. In Arameans, Aramaic and the Aramaic Literary Tradition, edited by Michael
Sokoloff, pp. 97140. Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press.
A Note on Yaqtulu in East and West Semitic. Archiv Orientalni 41: 31924.
Hasselbach, Rebecca
2004
The Markers of Person, Gender, and Number in the Prefixes of G-preformative Conjugations in Semitic.
2005
Sargonic Akkadian: A Historical and Comparative Study of the Syllabic Texts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Demonstratives in Semitic. Journal of the American Oriental Society 127: 127.
2007
Hecker, Karl
1968
Heine, Bernd
2009
Hodge, Carleton T.
1974
1975
Huehnergard, John
1998
2006
Israel, F.
2007
Grammatik der Kltepe-Texte. Analecta orientalia 44. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.
Grammaticalization of Cases. In The Oxford Handbook of Case, edited by Andre Lvovich Malchukov and
Andrew Spencer, pp. 45869. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Verbum Mortuum est. Vivat Verbum! Language Sciences 29: 2223.
The Nominal Sentence in Semitic. Afroasiatic Linguistics 2/4: 17.
A Grammar of Akkadian. Harvard Semitic Studies 45. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
On the Etymology of the Hebrew Relative -. In Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives, edited by Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz, pp. 10325. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns.
Il coortativo e le sue origine storiche. In Der seine Lust hat am Wort des Herrn! Festschrift fr Ernst Jenni
zum 80. Geburtstag, edited by Jrg Luchsinger, Hans-Peter Mathys, and Markus Saur, pp. 10842. Mnster:
Ugarit.
Kienast, Burkhart
1960
2001
Das Punktualthema *japrus und seine Modi. Orientalia 29: 15167.

Historische semitische Sprachwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Kuryowicz, Jerzy
1949
Le systme verbal du Smitique. Bulletin de la Socit de linguistique de Paris 45: 4756.
Leslau, Wolf
1967
Lipiski, Edward
2001
Hypothesis on a Proto-Semitic Marker of the Imperfect in Gurage. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 26:
12125.
Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. Second edition. Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 80.
Leuven: Peeters.
136
Rebecca Hasselbach
Moran, W. L.
1960
Early Canaanite yaqtula. Orientalia 29: 119.
Nldeke, Theodor
1904
Compendious Syriac Grammar. Reprint 2001. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Palmer, Frank R.
2001
Mood and Modality. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rainey, Anson F.
1996
Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets. 4 Volumes. Handbuch der Orientalistik 25. Leiden: Brill.
Rubin, Aaron D.
2005
Studies in Semitic Grammaticalization. Harvard Semitic Studies 57. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Tropper, Josef
2000
Voigt, Rainer
1997
1999
Zur Nominal- und Verbalnasalierung im Semitischen. Zeitschrift fr die Kunde des Morgenlandes 87:
20730.
Nominal (and Verbal) Nasalization and the Nominal Plural Morphemes in Semitohamitic. In Afroasiatica
Tergestina (Papers from the 9th Italian Meeting of Afro-Asiatic [Hamito-Semitic] Linguistics Trieste,
April 2324, 1998), edited by Marcello Lamberti and Livia Tonelli, pp. 1122. Padova: Unipress.
von Soden, Wolfram

1995
Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik. 3rd edition. Analecta orientalia 33. Rome: Pontificium Institutum
Biblicum.
Waltke, Bruce K., and Michael P. OConnor
1990
Wright, William
1890
1898
Lectures on the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages. Reprint 2002. Piscataway: Gorgias.
A Grammar of the Arabic Language. Third edition. Reprint 1999. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ibn Khaldn as a Historical Linguist with an Excursus on the Question of Ancient gf
137
11
Ibn Khaldn as a Historical Linguist with

an Excursus on the Question of Ancient gf
Wolfhart Heinrichs, Harvard University
When we examine the many selective translations of parts of Ibn Khaldns Muqaddimah that have been produced since the days of Silvestre de Sacy, we will mostly find his novel theories on history and society represented
there.1 And this is, of course, as it should be. But it is also in a sense regrettable, because the weighty last chapter
of the Muqaddimah, chapter 6, stretching over more than the third volume in Rosenthals translation, often does
not receive the attention it deserves. In this chapter Ibn Khaldn presents a grandiose picture of the universitas
litterarum islamicarum, the system of Islamic disciplines and sciences.2 This in itself may not make it interesting
reading, since the genre dealing with the division of sciences was nothing new at the time of Ibn Khaldn it
had been around since at least the fourth/tenth century. But Ibn Khaldn does not, as he could have done, simply
summarize what others have said in this respect.3 On the contrary, not infrequently he adds a fresh and sometimes
critical perspective to the topic at hand a perspective that usually flows from the larger context of his developmental theory of culture and society. If I am not mistaken, the only work specifically devoted to chapter 6 of the
Muqaddimah is the 1912 doctoral dissertation of Simon van den Bergh.4 Very little attention has, however, been
given to Ibn Khaldns ideas concerning language and linguistics this despite the fact that some of these ideas
are rather revolutionary. Kees Versteegh has included a section from the Muqaddimah plus commentary in his
fascinating book on the Arabic linguistic tradition, but to my mind he did not pick the most interesting passage.5
In what follows, I would like to subject to a close reading a passage that deals with the language of the
Bedouins at the time of Ibn Khaldn. I should add that the chapter subjected here to close scrutiny and commentary and dealing specifically with Bedouin dialects by no means exhausts Ibn Khaldns treatment of linguistic
themes. He has much more to say about the old fu; he discusses the urban dialects and the influence of substratum and adstratum languages, and he has much to say about language instruction. One need only follow up the
many references given in the index of Rosenthals translation under language, linguistics to get an impression
of the full breadth of his interest in language matters.
See, e.g., Silvestre de Sacy 182627, vol. 1, pp. 370411, vol. 2, pp.
279336, vol. 3, pp. 34246; Schimmel 1951; Bousquet 1961; 1965.
2
Some of the anthologies do include excerpts from chapter 6;
thus, e.g., Silvestre de Sacy 1829, pp. 16786 [Arabic], 40847,
47276; Issawi 1950, pp. 14979; Labica 1965, pp. 13777; likewise
the Arabic selection by Prs (1947, pp. 6070).
3
See, e.g., Heinrichs 1995, pp. 11939.
4
Van den Berg 1912. With regard to language, the author deals
only with Ibn Khaldns description of the four linguistic disciplines (naw grammar, lugha lexicography, bayn rhetoric,
1
and adab philology [in the old sense of love for language and
literature]), not with the latters own linguistic ideas.
5
Versteegh 1997, pp. 15365. Two earlier works on Ibn Khaldns
attitude and approach to language, Arabic first and foremost,
deserve mention here: Irving 1959, pp. 18592; and Cooke 1984,
pp. 2736. Their focus is different, as neither deals with the unusual historical-linguistic perspective proposed by Ibn Khaldn.
The same is true for the more recent article by Ben-Ari (2009,
pp. 21930).
137
138
Wolfhart Heinrichs
As a general framework for the treatment of this topic before Ibn Khaldn, I may mention the following:
(1) There was no scholarly interest in dialects, except in the context of the poetics of zajal, the originally
Andalusian dialect poetry.6 It is only much later that Ysuf al-Maghrib (d. 1019/1611) compiled a dictionary
of Egyptian Arabic words, but even he is, at least explicitly, more interested in proving the true Arabicness of
these words rather than taking them for what they are: words from a different register, or even a different variety,
of the Arabic language.7
(2) The geographers at times make remarks about the linguistic situation of the region they are dealing with.
Thus, al-Hamdn (mid-fourth/tenth century) in his ifat Jazrat al-Arab describes the dialect geography in his
native Yemen, but mainly in terms of good and bad Arabic and giving only general, impressionistic, details.8
Similarly, al-Muqaddas (d. after 381/991), in his Asan al-taqsm f marifat al-aqlm, often remarks on the linguistic peculiarities of the areas he describes.9
(3) If non-fu Arabic is discussed at all, it is usually under the rubrics of fasd deterioration, corruption and
lan solecism against the background of the pure fu language. However, the works on lan al-mma (or: lan
al-awmm) deal with solecisms of the semi-literate, not with the everyday speech of the person in the street.10
Some of these mistakes may be used to infer dialect features, but it is not a rich source for this purpose.
Ibn Khaldn, though certainly subscribing to the idea of the fasd of the pure Arabic language, does not simply
reject the result of this fasd as worthless. In fact, he fights the prejudices of the well-educated elite with regard
to the spoken language and attempts, quite successfully, to deal with it equitably and in historical perspective.
The passage I would like to look into deals with the language of the Bedouins at the time of Ibn Khaldn. I
shall follow Franz Rosenthals translation (iii, 34451),11 with occasional suggestions for improvement.
The title of the section in question here is Contemporary Arabic is an independent language different from
the languages of the Muar and the imyar (f anna lughata l-arabi li-hdh l-ahdi mustaqillatun mughyiratun lilughati Muara wa-imyar). As Rosenthal remarks in a footnote, Ibn Khaldn is thinking here of Bedouin Arabic.
This becomes, of course, clear from indications within the section, but it is already understood from the use of the
term arab, which, in the usage of Ibn Khaldn as well as before and after him, predominantly refers to Bedouins
(less frequently to urban speakers of Arabic, who are often not of pure Arab descent).12 What he is saying, then,
is that the Bedouin language of his day is a language separate from the language of the ancient Arabs, that is, the
original fu (why he uses lughat Muar wa-imyar for this is tentatively explained below). This is a distinctly
novel idea, which implicitly removes the corruption label from this type of speech and endows it with the
dignity of a legitimate language.
Ibn Khaldn starts the section as follows: We find that with regard to clear indication of what one wants to
express and full expression of meaning, Arabic (as it is spoken today) follows the ways of the Muar language. In
other words, with regard to the essential function(s) of language, contemporary Bedouin Arabic proceeds along
the lines of the ancient fu. By saying that, Ibn Khaldn puts the two speech forms on an equal footing as languages. The name he uses for the ancient fu, that is, al-lisn al-muar (or: lughat Muar), is based on the idea
that the Muar tribes (Muar b. Nizr b. Maadd b. Adnn13) were farthest from any area where agriculture and
The groundbreaking work is af al-Dn al-ill (d. ca. 749/1348):

al-Kitb al-il al-l wa-l-murakhkha al-ghl (see Hoenerbach
1956). For linguistic peculiarities of zajal, see pp. 3152 [Arabic],
and Hoenerbachs list in his German analysis of the work, pp.
5961.
7
Ysuf b. Zakariyy al-Maghrib: Daf al-ir an kalm ahl Mir.
Udaleniye bremeni bremeni s rei iteley Egipta, see Awwd 1968;
for the authors intentions, see folio 2a, lines 711: fa-qaada
l-faqru Ysufu l-Maghribiyyu adkhalah llhu f shafati l-nabyi
l-arabyi an yurattiba hdh l-kitba al abhaji l-tartb / wayuhadhdhiba m yaqau min awmmi ahli Mira bi-an yurajjiah il
l-awbi wa-hdh huwa l-tarb / mughtarifan mina l-Qmsi wal-Ubb / wa-mubayyinan lim ukima bi-khaih annah awb.
8
See below, n. 29.
6
See Miquel 1988, pp. 33348.

For an overview and evaluation of this literature, see Abd alTawwb 1967 and Maar 1966.
11
To reduce the number of footnotes, I have inserted references
to Rosenthals translation in the text; I am quoting Rosenthal
1967. In the same way, I quote at times the French translations
by Monteil 19671968 and Cheddadi 2002.
12
See the important remarks in Mahdi 1964, pp. 199200 n. 5; and
the criticism of Rosenthals equation arab = Arab by Hodgson
(1974, vol. 2, pp. 48182 n. 13).
13
Adnn is the patriarch of the Northern Arabs, but Maadd,
Nizr, and Muar are all used to designate the Bedouin population of Najd and adjacent areas.
9
10
139
animal husbandry could be found that is, they were the most distant from Syria, Iraq (i, 266), and also Yemen;
they were the true Bedouins, living hard lives, jealously guarding their pedigrees and their language.14
He continues, The only loss is that of the vowels indicating the distinction between subject and object. This
must be considered shorthand; obviously, Ibn Khaldn must have been aware that the irb vowels also served
other purposes. He may have been prompted to use this abbreviation by the sentence that follows: Instead, one
uses position within the sentence and syntactic combinations (qarin) to indicate certain special meanings one
wants to express. (Monteil [p. 1267]: que lon remplace par la position (respective des mots) dans les phrases
et les combinaisons (qarin) de syntaxe correspondant aux nuances de la pense; Cheddadi [p. 1106]: Cela est
remplac par la position [des mots dans la phrase] et par les procds [syntaxiques] qui indiquent certaines circonstances particulires que lon veut exprimer.) This is a crucial sentence. Ibn Khaldn shows an astonishing
awareness of the fact that other linguistic phenomena may substitute for desinential inflection and make up for
its lack; in other words, the lack is not a deficiency. But what exactly are these other phenomena? Rosenthals
translation may need some fine tuning here. The Arabic runs as follows: fa- t minh [sc., al-arakt] bi-l-taqdmi
wa-l-takhri wa-bi-qarina tadullu al khuiyyti l-maqidi. The word pair taqdm wa-takhr is a technical term
in grammar and in rhetoric, indicating an unusual reversal of word order, usually for the purpose of emphasis.15
But it seems clear that our author wants to use this term here in the vaguer sense of word order in general, so
Rosenthal is certainly right when he interprets it as position within the sentence. This, too, is a perspicacious insight on the part of Ibn Khaldn. The change from the more synthetic irb Arabic to the more analytical irb-less
Arabic entails a more rigid word order, a phenomenon that can be seen in the history of other languages as well
and may even be universal16 (compare the free Latin word order with the much more regulated word order in the
Romance languages).17 But what is the other element he mentions, the qarin? Rosenthals syntactic combinations, which appear in Monteils translation as combinaisons de syntaxe, and in Cheddadis as procds [syntaxiques],
is rather opaque and does not reflect the basic meaning of qarna.18 For a correct appraisal, we need to draw on
the technical use of this term as it is found in grammatical discourse, a fact that has not yet attracted much attention. Ibn al-jib (d. 646/1249), in al-Risla al-kfiya, where he discusses the permissibility of the word order
VOS, instead of the regular VSO, says in one passage, If the nominal inflection is absent on the surface from
both of them [i.e, subject and object, as in araba s Ms] and likewise the qarna [is absent] , putting it [i.e.,
the subject] first is obligatory.19 According to the commentator, Ra al-Dn al-Astarbdh (seventh/thirteenth
century, exact dates unknown), the qarna is a word or feature that disambiguates the syntactic functions of the
ambiguous subject-object pair. It may be either a lexical or morphological item (qarna lafiyya) or a semantic
property (qarna manawiyya). Compare the following examples adduced by Ra al-Dn:

ex. 1. araba Ms s l-arfu (It was) s, the dandy, (who) beat Ms. Here the apposition alarfu shows that s is the subject; therefore, it is permissible to put the object, Ms, first.
ex. 2. arabat Ms ubl (It was) a pregnant woman (that) beat Ms. Here the gender agreement
shows that ubl is the subject, which makes this word order permissible.
ex. 3. araba fathu Ms (It was) his slave (that) Ms beat. If the intended meaning were His
slave beat Ms, the sentence would be ungrammatical; except for this very circumscribed
situation, where the object precedes the subject, the anaphoric pronoun must not precede
its antecedent.
14
As Ibn Khaldn explains elsewhere (i, 26566), this would include tribes like Quraysh, Kinna, Thaqf, Asad, Hudhayl, and
Khuza, but exclude imyar, the Kahln tribes (Lakhm, Judhm,
Ghassn, ayyi, and Qua), and Iyd. Muars brother, Raba,
is not mentioned here either way, but elsewhere (iii, 343) they are
listed alongside the Southern Arabs (imyar etc.); their linguistic habits are imperfect due to their proximity to the Persians.
15
A highly sophisticated discussion of taqdm wa-takhr may be
found in Mamd Muammad Shkir, ed., 1984, pp. 10609.
16
See the discussion in Harris and Campbell 1995, pp. 21ff., 233ff.
I am grateful to John Huehnergard for drawing my attention to
this reference.
On the opposition synthetic vs. analytic as applied to fu

and Neo-Arabic, see the debate between Corriente and Blau:
Federigo Corriente 1971, pp. 2050; Joshua Blau 1972, pp. 2938;
F. Corriente 197374, pp. 15463.
18
Silvestre de Sacy (1829, p. 410) and de Slane (1868, p. 334) both
render this term certains accessoires, which is even vaguer.
19
Mukarram (Makram?), ed., 2000, vol. 1, p. 184. See also al-Rif
1983, vol. 1, pp. 25657, where Jm makes the important statement that the qarna is something that disambiguates subject and
object, but not as part of the original coining of the language (l
bi-l-wa), as irb would be. Some criticism of this notion may
be found in the gloss on Jms commentary by Im al-Dn alIsfarn (1864, pp. 8990).
17
140
Wolfhart Heinrichs
ex. 4. akala l-kummathr Ms (It was) Ms (who) ate the pears. Real-life probability determines
subject and object.
ex. 5. istakhlafa l-Murta l-Muaf (It was) al-Muaf [honorific of the Prophet] (who) appointed
al-Murta [honorific of Al] his successor. Chronology determines subject and object.
Examples 13 are examples of qarin lafiyya, 4 and 5 of qarin manawiyya. If there is no qarna to be detected,
a sentence like araba s Ms can only mean s beat Ms.
It seems very probable that Ibn Khaldn had such instances of qarna in mind when he characterized the
syntactic means of Bedouin dialect. The peculiarity of these examples is, of course, that all subject and object
nouns end in alif maqra and, thus, show no overt inflection; by this fact they become an appropriate model for
irb-less dialect Arabic.
In what follows Ibn Khaldn presents a characterization of the old fu (the Muar language, in his terminology), described in contrast to all other existing languages, including, it seems, the contemporary Bedouin Arabic.
He does this in very abstract terms, which makes it rather difficult to discern to what he is alluding. He looks at
the situation from the angle of bayn and balgha, that is, clarity (in the sense of unambiguous expression) and
optimal economy (this meaning of balgha eloquence becomes clear from subsequent indications of Ibn Khaldn),
and says that, in the old fu, these qualities were more common and more deeply rooted. He proceeds to explicate this by stating first and this seems to be a universal rule that words per se indicate ideas per se (al-alf
bi-aynih dllatun al l-man bi-aynih). But this one-to-one relationship between words and ideas (or words
and referents) is something like a series of dots of reality mapped onto language. The referents are surrounded
by circumstances that specifically belong to them, and these, because they are attributes or characteristics of
the referent, need to be taken into account, when it comes to the conveyance of what is intended to be said. Ibn
Khaldn says that this halo of circumstances is called bis al-l, which Rosenthal renders fairly literally as the
spread of the situation and Monteil (p. 1267) as lexpos de ltat [des choses] (but he mistranslates the sentence),
while Cheddadi (p. 1107) omits the metaphor bis and says les circonstances. The word bis, of course, also means
carpet, and I find the metaphorical interpretation quite appealing: the carpet of the situation with all its
threads and patterns and colors. En passant one might note that, by introducing the genitive construct bis al-l
with the phrase yusamm it is called, Ibn Khaldn intimates that this is a technical term of sorts. One wonders in
what context it was historically invented. Rosenthal provides quotation marks but no reference (nor do Monteil
and Cheddadi). It is not listed in the large dictionary of technical terms by al-Tahnaw (d. after 1158/1745), the
Kashshf iilt al-funn.
Now with regard to this carpet of the situation that surrounds each referent, there is a difference between
the old fu and all other languages in the way they express it linguistically. In the other languages, the circumstances are as a rule expressed by words that have been specifically coined for them. In the old fu, however,
they are expressed by certain conditions and peculiarities in the combinations and compositions of words, such
as changed word order (taqdm wa-takhr), ellipsis (adhf), inflectional vowels (arakt irb), and at times also the
use of non-independent particles (al-urf ghayr al-mustaqillah). These four linguistic phenomena probably do not
constitute an exhaustive list, and they are rather inhomogeneous. What they have in common is the fact that
they convey meaning without the help of full-fledged words.20 This is also the reason that Arabic is terser and less
prolix than other languages. Fortunately, Ibn Khaldn adduces at least one example to make his point (iii, 345);
it is an anecdote involving the early grammarian s b. Umar (d. 149/76667) and an anonymous colleague of
his. The latter said to s, I find duplications in Arabic speech. The (three) sentences, Zayd is standing [Zaydun
qimun], Behold, Zayd is standing [inna Zaydan qimun], and Behold, Zayd is indeed standing [inna Zaydan laqimun] all mean the same. s replied,
(No! All three) mean something different. The first (sentence) gives information to a person who has no
previous knowledge as to whether Zayd is standing (or not). The second (sentence) gives information to a
person who has heard about it but is uncertain about it.21 And the third (sentence) gives information to a
20
See also Rosenthal 1967 III, p. 321, where the same idea is expressed, exemplified, in this passage, by irb vowels and patterns
of nominalization.
Both Rosenthal and Cheddadi (2002, p. 1107) have denies

(nie); the Arabic has taraddada fh is uncertain about it, which
Monteil (19671968, p. 1268) correctly renders La seconde (i.e.,
inna Zaydan qimun) rassure un hsitant.
21
141
person who knows it but persists in denying it. Thus, the meaning differs according to the different situations (one wants to express).
One might mention in passing that this story is a migrant anecdote. It is also told, though with some variation
in the explicated meanings (information, answer to a question, answer to a denial), as a dialogue between
the grammarian al-Mubarrad (d. 285286/898899) and the philosopher al-Kind (d. after 252/865).22 This situates
it in the incipient battle between the grammarians and the logicians, and thus it gains poignancy by proving that
the logicians disdain for the fuzziness of everyday language is ill founded. In our context, the story points out
that the situational fine tuning of a sentence can be achieved by the absence or presence of non-independent
particles, in this case inna and la-. As the example suggests, by non-independent particles he means what the
grammarians call urf al-man, function particles, and not, as one might think at first blush, single-letter
particles that are attached to the words they govern. In other words, its opposite, al-urf al-mustaqilla, would be
independent words that have their own essential meaning and not just relational meanings as the particles do.
At this point in his description of the linguistic situation, he changes his emphasis somewhat by stressing the
continuity between the old fu and the contemporary Bedouin language. This gives him a chance to debunk the
opinion of contemporary grammarians that eloquence had vanished from the (spoken) Arabic language, because
the irb had vanished. He attributes it to their professional biases and blinders.
He then explains why so much attention was lavished on the old fu and repeats the communis opinio that
it became corrupted after the conquests due to contacts with non-Arabs. Interestingly, he says at this point that
through these contacts it was transformed into another language: wa-rat malakatuh [i.e., malakatu lisni Muar]
al ghayri l-rati llat knat awwalan fa-nqalaba lughatan ukhr, which should likely be translated and the competence (malakah) to speak it [i.e., the Muar language] turned into something else than what it had originally been
and it became another language. (Rosenthal [p. 346]: (At that time) the (Arabic linguistic) habit took on a form
different from the one it had had originally. Monteil [p. 1269]: Cest alors que lhabitude linguistique prit une
autre forme et que lidiome de Muar devint une autre langue. Cheddadi [p. 1108]: La langue mudarite perdit
sa forme originelle et se transforma en une autre langue.) In other words, the natural competence of the native
speakers turned into the insufficient competence of those who picked up the language for practical reasons. But
since the sources of the religion were laid down in the old fu, scholars started a rescue mission by establishing
the laws that governed the language and turning the knowledge of Arabic (the old fu) into a science (called
ilm al-naw wa-inat al-arabiyya).23
But then Ibn Khaldn offers an extraordinary thought. If one were to lavish on contemporary Bedouin Arabic
the same attention that the old fu has been accorded, and if one found out, by induction, the rules that govern
it, one might find that the function of the irb vowels has been taken over by other things that have their own
peculiar rules. They may even be rules that regulate the ends of words but in a manner different from the old fu.
Here Ibn Khaldn is reiterating his initial thought that the old fu and the contemporary Bedouin language are
two different languages, each with its own separate methods of expressing relationships. But he adds the twist
that the two languages have a different status, in the sense that the Bedouin language has not been turned into
an object of intense grammatical scrutiny and codification as the old fu had been. This also means that he is
quite willing, which even today many laymen in Arab countries are not, to accord the term language to a speech
form that has not (or has only marginally) been reduced to writing.
Ibn Khaldn closes that paragraph with the short and enigmatic sentence fa-laysati l-lughtu wa-malaktuh
majjnan. Rosenthal (p. 347) translates this as Languages and (linguistic) habits are not matters of chance. Monteil
(p. 1270) says, Ni les langues, ni les habitudes linguistiques, ne sont gratuites, while Cheddadi (p. 1108) has, Les
langues et les habitus qui leur correspondent ne son pas le fruit du hasard. 24 I would like to suggest arbitrary for
majjnan, not, of course, in the sense of the arbitrariness of the linguistic sign. What he wants to say is that, when
rules fall away, other rules take their place; arbitrariness in the system cannot be tolerated, as it will be an obstacle
to communication. And this arbitrariness has to be kept away from the lught, that is, the languages considered
as systems, as well as from their malakt habits or, as I would prefer, competenc(i)e(s). In the preceding chapter,
Mamd Muammad Shkir, ed., 1984, p. 315.

It is also possible that Ibn Khaldns statement about the
change in malakah refers to this stage: the natural competence
22
23
of the native speaker is superseded by the artificial competence of those who learn the language according to rules from
teachers and books.
142
Wolfhart Heinrichs
Ibn Khaldn had equated, rather than juxtaposed, lught and malakt and compared the latter (or both) to a craft
(ina): all languages are habits similar to crafts (p. 342. The slight contradiction between the two statements
may be resolved as follows: when speaking about languages and their competenc(i)e(s) [i.e., competence in using
them], one differentiates between language as it exists outside of the individual speaker as an abstract system
codified in a grammar, on the one hand, and language as it exists in the mental competence of the individual
speaker, on the other; if you equate the two, lught and malakt, you mean to point out that language as a system,
actually and concretely, exists only in the mind of the one who can use it. In addition, the term malakah indicates
that the ability to use a language has to be acquired; it is not there naturally. Ibn Khaldn neatly and succinctly
describes this process following the above quotation, and it is likewise implied in the parallel he draws between
lught/malakt and crafts: by repeating acts that imitate acts of a competent speaker/craftsman, the malakah is
gradually acquired. In short, translating malakah as competence appears to be very appropriate, also in view of
modern linguistic usage. Issawi uses skill in the same passage, which is a felicitous choice, though it lacks the
technical character that competence has.25
The next paragraph is also surprising and somewhat mysterious (p. 347). Ibn Khaldn says that the relationship between the contemporary Bedouin language and that of Muar (the old fu) is the same as that between
the Muar language and imyaritic. In other words, linguistic changes also took place in the transition from
imyaritic to Muar. This fact, he says, is attested by the transmitted material available to us (yashhadu bidhlika l-anqlu l-mawjdatu ladayn)26 (Monteil [p. 1270]: comme le montrent les documents qui nous sont
parvenus; Cheddadi [p. 1109]: comme lattestent les matriaux qui nous sont parvenus.) And he asserts the
ignorance of those who claim that Muar and imyaritic are one and the same language. Notwithstanding the
fact that it is difficult to make out what he had in mind with regard to imyaritic, it is quite clear that he is extending his diachronic historical view of language backward into the past, thus, I think, pointing out that the
Arabic language has never ceased to develop and transform itself.
What could he have had in mind, when speaking of imyaritic? imyar in medieval Arabic texts has at
least three different referents:
(1) It might refer to the Sabaic language and script of the inscriptions left by the imyar, the last indigenous
ruling people of Yemen, and by all their predecessors. The script remained known in Islamic times for a while.
There are some early Islamic inscriptions in Sabaic script, but in Arabic language,27 and al-Hamdn in the tenth
century was still able to read the Sabaic inscriptions for the names they contained, but could no longer understand them.28
(2) It might denote the language of the imyar themselves, who spoke a language different from the Sabaic
they usually wrote in. This language continued to be used in Islamic times. We have some sentences and words
transmitted in medieval Arabic texts; they have, to varying degrees, the appearance of an aberrant type of Arabic.29
The medieval authors who mention this language usually declare it to be totally incomprehensible to an Arabic
Similarly already Silvestre de Sacy (1829, p. 413), who has

les langues et les facults de les parler ne sont point produites
par le hasard, ni dpourvues de motifs, which de Slane (1868, p.
337) repeats, omitting the last phrase.
25
Issawi 1950, p. 149.
26
Rosenthals rendering of this intriguing sentence seems to
agree with Monteils (196768, p. 1270) comme le montrent les
documents qui nous sont parvenus, but diverges sharply from
de Sacys (1829, p. 413) Nous en avons une preuve dans la formation tymologiques de quelques-uns des mots qui ont pass
des Himyarites dans notre langage, followed by de Slanes (1868,
p. 337) Cela nous est attest par les changements de signification que certains mot ont subis chez nous. Rosenthal and Monteil understand naql in the sense of transmission, tradition,
while de Slane falls back on the meaning semantic shift (naql
al-man). De Sacys interpretation may be based on the same
idea, but is less clear; he seems to derive his interpretation from
Ibn Khaldns remark that some lexicographers believe that the
word qayl leader, of imyaritic origin (and denoting something
24
imyaritic!), is somehow derived from the Arabic qawl speaking,

which he denies on the grounds that they are two different languages. In view of this example, it is possible that the transmitted material refers to imyaritic words adduced and glossed in
dictionaries, especially the Shams al-ulm of Nashwn al-imyar
(see also Amad 1916). But he does not cite Nashwn anywhere.
In view of this fact, it seems more likely that the transmitted
material refers to works like Kropp 1982, see also n. 32.
27
Robin 1976, pp. 18893; 1992, p. 134.
28
See Lfgren 1965.
29
On imyar and imyar-influenced Arabic, see the description
of the linguistic situation in Mller, ed., 1968, pp. 13436, translated and commented on by Rabin (1951, pp. 4348). Rabin also
adduces two snippets of imyar attested in the sources, to which
can now be added the material from the astronomical work Kitb
al-Tabira f ilm al-nujm of the Rasulid ruler al-Malik al-Ashraf
Ab l-Fat Umar b. al-Malik al-Muaffar Ysuf (r. 1295-97), discussed in Saliba 1985.
143
speaker. From the preserved fragments, one would not necessarily think so. This may mean either that the fragments have undergone Arabization at the hands of copyists, or that they are specimens of imyaritic-influenced
Arabic. According to al-Hamdn, genuine imyaritic shaded into the surrounding Arabic dialects to various
degrees. It is quite possible that the original imyaritic was neither Arabic nor Old South Arabian.30
Since Sabaic as a language was no longer known to the medieval Arab authors, they assumed that the Old
South Arabian inscriptions were composed in the imyaritic they knew, or knew about. This is also the reason
that the Old South Arabian inscriptions forged by the Yemeni patriots al-Hamdn and Nashwn al-imyar (d.
573/1178) are written in some sort of imyaritic.31
(3) Genealogically, the imyar form part of the Southern Arabs who are personified as Qan (imyar b. Saba
b. Yashjub b. Yarub b. Qan). The Qan were supposed to have spoken, in the legendary past, the first pure
Arabic. According to Ibn Sad (d. 685/1286), whose work was used by Ibn Khaldn, the Ban Qan are known
as [al-arab] al-riba, the Pure Arabs, because they made their speech into (true) Arabic (arab; may also mean:
introduced inflection into their speech) and composed good poems, as opposed to the Extinct Arabs (like d
and Thamd etc.) whose language had been confused ([al-arab] al-mubalbala al-bida, referring to the Confusion
of the Tongues). Of Qans son, Yarub, it is said that he was the first to speak clear Arabic, and the first
among the Arabs to compose poetry in its various meters and genres. imyar himself, that is, the tribal patriarch, is said to have composed the first Arabic dirge, bewailing his father.32 This idea of pure Arabic originating,
against all evidence, among the early Southern Arabs, which finds its completion in the equally surprising idea
that the Northern Arabs are mustariba, Arabized, has to be attributed to Yemeni shubiyya (esprit de corps): the
undeniable title to glory of the Northern Arabs, the prophethood of Muammad, was counterbalanced with the
glorious history and cultural achievements of the Southern Arabs, which necessarily included language and poetry.
Which of the meanings of imyar did Ibn Khaldn have in mind? If his historical remark about the shift
from imyaritic to Muar is to make any sense, he cannot be talking about the language of the imyarites, as
understood by al-Hamdn and Nashwn al-imyar. It seems likely that his notion of imyar is an aggregate
of the legendary origin of pure Arabic among the Southern Arabs, including imyar, and the use of imyar
as a name for the formerly ruling people of Yemen. We have to keep in mind that Ibn Khaldns family was of
Southern Arab extraction, and he probably viewed the past glory of the imyarites with interest and pride. The
transmitted material available to us most likely refers to legendary reports like those quoted from Ibn Sad,
often going back to Ibn Hishms (d. 218/833) Kitb al-Tjn.
Next (pp. 34851), he has a lengthy disquisition on one of the characteristic features of the contemporary
Bedouin language, to wit, the sound g, which is the Bedouin realization of the sound q in standard pronunciation.
He says that all Bedouin speakers have it, while the urban speakers do not. This distinction is, of course, still
valid today, though rather than urban, one uses the more comprehensive term sedentary. Ibn Khaldn now
makes the interesting point that, since it is shared by all the Bedouins, it must have belonged to the old fu,
the Muar language. Even the Prophet, he says, may have had the gf pronunciation. Ibn Khaldn admits to not
knowing how the split into qf and gf dialects came about. Since the urban speakers of Arabic33 are also mostly
descendants of the Muar, there is no good reason for the split. The problem is very clearly stated. His ingenious
solution is that there is a certain variability in the pronunciation of the qf from one kind of Arabic to the other.34
The so-called Hymn of Qniya, a second/third-century extended rock graffito in Sabaic script, representing a hymn to the
goddess Shams, has been tentatively identified as imyaritic by
its discoverer; see Abdallh 1988. However, Stein (2008) has argued that the three inscriptions (including the Hymn of Qniya)
that were considered to be sufficiently divergent from normal
Sabaic to be candidates for being imyaritic were all in rhymed
poetry, the divergences thus being attributable to that particular
medium. He goes even further by putting imyar texts in Arabic literature, and the modern Yemeni k-dialects (gumu = qumtu)
in the same tradition.
30
Rabin 1951, pp. 42, 48.

Kropp 1982, pp. 81, 83, 87, 213, 215, 221.
33
It should be noted here that Ibn Khaldn considers urban Arabic, like Bedouin Arabic, a separate language, as well. See Rosenthal, trans., vol. 3, pp. 35153.
34
See Rosenthal, trans., vol. 3, pp. 349, lines 3ff.; 350, lines 2325;
351, lines 13.
31
32
144
Wolfhart Heinrichs
Excursus: The Plausibility of Bedouin gf

Being a Feature of the Ancient fu
A short aside on this problem may not be amiss, if only to show that Ibn Khaldn had the right idea, when he
posited gf for the old fu. In fact, the gf pronunciation is highly likely, as it offers a convincing explanation
of the shift from gm to jm, which would otherwise be difficult to explain: once the qf had become gf, it pushed
the original gm forward to a dorso-prepalatal articulation. 35 That a gf did arise and, subsequently, a gf/qf
split did develop must have something to do with the switch from an ejective (Ethiopian-style) to a uvularized36
(Arabic-style) pronunciation for the emphatics. This assumption rests on the presupposition that the ejective
pronunciation (glottalization) is proto-Semitic, while uvularization in Arabic is an innovation; though there is
no total unanimity on this score, the direction of development suggested here seems to take better care of all the
relevant phenomena. This then is the scenario: when the proto-Semitic (or, more cautiously: pre-Arabic) ejectives /t/, //, /s/, /tl/, and /k/ were shifted to uvularized emphatics, the first four changed their secondary articulation from glottalized to uvularized without a problem, becoming //, //, //, and /l/ (the last one
indicating the lateral pronunciation of d as described by Sbawayh).37 But the /k/ was in the awkward position
that, when uvularization set in, the primary articulation (velar) and the secondary articulation (uvularized) were
very close to each other. A uvularized velar38 would presumably be identical with a uvular /q/. Note that, with
the indigenous grammarians, the first four phonemes, but not qf, are mubaqa, emphatic, because they consider
the retraction of the back of the tongue characteristic for ibq. After losing glottalization, /q/ could either stay
voiceless or become voiced.39 In this latter respect, it resembles some of its emphatic sisters: the reflex of earlier
/t/ may appear as both // and //,40 and that of // as both / / and //. The reason that these emphatics in
Arabic vacillate between voiced and voiceless has to be sought in the fact that the emphatics form a third series
alongside the voiced and voiceless series (t-d-, s-z-, etc.); their mark is emphaticness, that is, uvularization,
and their being voiced or voiceless is immaterial for the phonemic system.
Cantineau (1960, p. 57) says, En arabe ancien, le point darticulation de la sonore g a t, dune faon inconditionne et pour
des raisons qui nous chappent, report trs en avant, dans la
rgion prpalatale. Since he posits the gf pronunciation for
ancient Arabic (ibid., p. 67), it is somewhat surprising that he
did not suggest the connection between the rise of gf and the
rise of jm. However, Cantineau assumes a development g > j even
before the q > g development set in, and so does Blanc (1969) in
his painstaking study of the qf/gf split. The relative chronology
of /g/ > /j/ and /q/ >/g/ still deserves further attention, but this
footnote is not the place for it.
36
I am using the term uvular and derivatives rather than
velar or pharyngeal, which can also be encountered in this
context, because it seems to me the phonetically most appropriate term. Depending on the individual language or dialect, one
should, however, not discount the possibility of a wider articulatory area for the production of emphasis, including velar
and pharyngeal. What caused the switch from glottalization to
uvularization is still moot and cannot be discussed here. For one
35
suggested solution to the problem, see Zemnek 1996 (my thanks

to John Huehnergard for drawing my attention to this booklet).
37
On the unexpected voicing of // and /l/, see below.
38
Not listed in the IPA; there is no diacritic for uvularization.
39
Ejective sounds are per se voiceless, as the glottis is closed.
Interestingly, T. M. Johnstone (1987, p. xiii) mentions that //
(= /s/) is partially voicedand / / (= // ? [not clear]) is partially voiceless in the Modern South Arabian languages. This was
not too clear to me, so when I met one of the few specialists on
Modern South Arabian, Antoine Lonnet, at a conference in Paris
in 2007, I asked him about the voiced ejectives, and he produced
some, but not being a seasoned phonetician, I had trouble identifying what I heard; there seemed to be a creaky voice effect on
the following vowel.
40
The standard pronunciation would, of course, be //. But
Sbawayh describes it as //, and the latter appears as // in
some Northern Yemeni dialects; see Cantineau 1960, p. 32, and
Behnstedt 1987, p. 5.
145
The attestations of voiceless and voiced realizations of the Arabic emphatics are as follows:
Glottalized
(ejective)
Uvularized
Dental
(voiceless, standard pronunciation)
Interdental
Sibilant
(voiced, standard pronunciation)

(voiceless, dialect of the Ban Abdil in Northern Yemen42)
(voiceless, standard pronunciation)
Lateral
t l
Velar
(voiced, Sbawayhs description of as majhra41)
(voiced, Qurnic reading of Ab Amr Ibn al-Al 43: a-ir

for a-ir in al-Ftia)
l (voiced, Sbawayhs description, uvularized /l/ in Dathna,
Yemen)
Uvular
q (voiceless, standard pronunciation)
G (voiced, Northern Arabia and other dialects, Persian

pronunciation of <q>) In most Bedouin dialects, the latter is
further shifted to g.
This would suggest that /k/ after deglottalization became either /q/ (voiceless uvular) or /G/ (voiced uvular).
The latter, attested in a few modern dialects,44 mostly became regular /g/. This seems to have happened in the
Central Arabian area, the center of camel nomadism and of the language of poetry. It is interesting to note that
the grammarian Sbawayh also heard something like /g/ or /G/, since he classes the qf with the majhra, namely
voiced, sounds. The /q/ pronunciation of the sedentary dialects may be a feature of early Arabic in the Fertile
Crescent, which developed under the influence of Aramaic, though this is far from proven. Maxime Rodinsons
attempt to make the case that the ancient pronunciation of qf in Arabic was predominantly /q/ is based on
transliterations of names into mainly Greek and Latin (inscriptions and otherwise); 45 most of his sources
hail from outside the posited gf area. Since most qf dialects as well as standard Arabic also have jm, in which
case the push-chain gf > gm = jm does not really work anymore, there is a problem here that has mostly been
solved by assuming borrowing, either of jm or of qf. Since widespread bilingualism can be assumed among the
anb (peasants, whether originally arabophone or aramaeophone) see also cognate spelling of Arabic words
with the Aramaic alphabets of the Fertile Crescent the borrowing of qf from Aramaic into Arabic seems natural. However, my point in the above list is that, when glottalization is superseded by uvularization, the resulting
uvularized sound may unpredictably have resulted in a voiced or voiceless sound, and, at this point, the substrate
(or adstrate) languages (like Aramaic) may have influenced the choice of the Arabic speakers.
41
As far as the much-debated pair majhra/mahmsa in
Sbawayhs terminology is concerned, I follow Henri Fleisch
(1958), who has (to my mind) proven that the terms correspond
with voiced/voiceless.
42
See Behnstedt in n. 38.
43
Thus Cantineau (1960, p. 46), who quotes Ibn Yashs commentary on al-Zamakhshars grammar al-Mufaa; see Yaqb
2001, vol. 5, p. 520. The context is phonemes and allophones in
the Arabic language. Ibn Yash goes into considerable detail, as
follows: And likewise the d which is like zy (i.e., voiced), just
as they say madar for madar and yaduqu for yaduqu [assimilation of voiceless d to the voiced dl]. And al-ir al-mustaqm
(Surah 1, 6) has been read giving the d a whiff of zy (bi-ishmmi
l-da z-zya). This is the reading of amza. Transmitted from
Ab Amr there are four readings of this: (1) al-ir with the
[first consonant] between d and zy [i.e., //}; Uryn b. Ab
Shaybn transmitted this, saying: I heard Ab Amr recite al-
ir between d and zy, as if he imbued the d with the voice

(awt) of zy, so that it would agree with the (of ir) in its
being voiced (f l-jahr) [following Sbawayhs description of ],
because the d is voiceless (mahmsa), but and dl [referring
back to madar] are voiced [majhratn], so there is incompatibility and disagreement between the two. So they imbued the
d with the voice of the zy because it [the d] is its [the zys]
sister in sibilance and place of articulation, and agreeing with
the and the dl in being voiced. So the two sounds are close
to each other and not very different. I have translated this passage, because it indicates that the existence of the // is a result
of the aesthetics of Qurnic recitation; we cannot be sure that
it was a regular sound in any dialect, nor can we reject this idea.
44
Cantineau 1960, p. 69. One might also adduce the Persian pronunciation /G/ of /q/ in Arabic loans (and some indigenous
words, such as qashang elegant).
45
Rodinson 1970.
146
Wolfhart Heinrichs
The close reading of Ibn Khaldns chapter has revealed, against the background of the linguistic tradition in
which he stood, a number of novel positions in his views of language:
(1) He still subscribes to the corruption theory, that is, the corruption of the old fu, the Muar language; however, the result of the corruption is a new language and not corrupted Muar.
(2) The means a language has to express specific relations may change over time; irb may be replaced by
qarin and so on.
(3) A dialect is a language without an explicit grammar.
(4) Language change occurred at least twice in the history of Arabic (imyaritic > Muar > contemporary
Bedouin language).
(5) Phenomena in existing language forms may be traced back to more ancient forms through comparative
methods: the gf seems to be attributable to the old fu.
The common denominator for most of these views is Ibn Khaldns diachronic-historic approach, which tries
to ignore, and sometimes combat, the numerous biases surrounding the Arabic language. The latter stem mainly
from the view of Arabic as a language that is static and immutable. Kees Versteegh has pointed out that diachronic
perspectives in language study arise from an awareness of chronologically distant varieties of the same language,
such as Homeric versus Attic Greek, and/or from an interest in other languages than ones own. Arabic language
scholars were lacking, he says, in both respects.46 Ibn Khaldn is the exception to this verdict. Whether he had
a good knowledge of other languages is none too clear. He certainly knew some Berber, since he discusses the
question of transliteration of Berber words into Arabic script (i, 6568), and he glosses a number of Berber words
throughout his work (see Rosenthals index under Berber). More importantly, he speaks about the characteristics of (all) other languages in comparison with those of Arabic (see above); though, on what empirical evidence
he does so is unclear. With Versteeghs other criterion we are on terra firma. The alleged immutability of Arabic
is jettisoned, in two separate steps. First, he shows that the speech of the contemporary Bedouins is a language
in its own right, not just corrupted Muar. But he does not stop there. In a second move, he proposes that the
Muar language itself is the result of a historical development, this time from imyaritic. Despite the fact that
he has very little evidence to offer for his contention, the idea is ingenious, since it makes the immutable fu
even more prone to change. He is, of course, aware of the fact that Muar and contemporary Bedouin differ in
their cultural status (language of revelation and all intellectual pursuits vs. everyday colloquial), but he makes
the important observation that, if the Bedouin language had been subjected to the same scrutiny and language
guardianship that the Muar language had enjoyed, one would realize that it did indeed have all the trappings
of a real language.
It is the seriously historical view of all cultural artifacts, including language, that allowed Ibn Khaldn to
see many phenomena with fresh eyes, unencumbered by many of the prejudices and foregone conclusions that
dominated the existing discourse, based as it was on the idea of stable systems of language as well as knowledge.
This freshness makes reading his insightful discussions so enjoyable.
Versteegh 1997, pp. 10506. In their of necessity synchronic study of the immutable Arabic language, they were,
of course, eminently sophisticated and successful.
46
147
Bibliography
Abd al-Tawwb, Raman
Lan al-mma wa-l-taawwur al-lughaw. Cairo: Dr al-Marif.
1967
Abdallh, Ysuf M.
1988
Naqsh al-qada al-imyariyya aw tarnmat al-Shams. Raydn 5: 81100 (Arabic section).
Amad, Amuddn
Die auf Sdarabien bezglichen Angaben Nawns im ams al-ulm. Leiden: Brill.
1916
Awwd, Abd al-Salm Amad, editor
Ysuf b. Zakariyy al-Maghrib. Daf al-ir an kalm ahl Mir. Udaleniye bremeni s rei iteley Egipta. Fac1968
simile edition. Moscow: Nauka.
Behnstedt, Peter
1987
Ben-Ari, Shosh
2009
Blanc, Haim
1969
Blau, Joshua
1972
Die Dialekte der Gegend von ada (Nord-Jemen). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Language, Civilisation and Globalisation in the 14th Century: Historical Periodicity and the Evolution
of Language at [sic] Ibn Khaldn. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 62: 2.
The Fronting of Semitic G and the QL-GL Dialect Split in Arabic. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Semitic Studies, held in Jerusalem, 1923 July 1965, pp. 737. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.
On the Problem of the Synthetic Character of Classical Arabic as against Judaeo-Arabic (Middle Arabic).
Jewish Quarterly Review 63: 2938.
Bousquet, Georges-Henri
Les textes conomiques de la Mouqaddima, 13751379, [par] Ibn Khaldon. Classs, traduits et annots. Paris: M.
1961
Rivire.
Les textes sociologiques et conomiques de la Mouqaddima, 13751379, [par] Ibn Khaldon. Classs, traduits et
1965
annots. Paris: M. Rivire.
Cantineau, Jean
1960
Cours de phontique arabe. Paris: C. Klincksieck.
Cheddadi, Abdesselam, translator

2002
Ibn Khaldn Le Livre des Exemples. I. Autobiographie, Muqaddima: Texte traduit, prsent et annot. Bibliothque de la Pliade 490. Paris: ditions Gallimard.
Cooke, Miriam
1984
Corriente, Federigo
1971
19731974
Ibn Khaldun and Language: From Linguistic Habit to Philological Craft. In Ibn Khaldun and Islamic Ideology, edited by Bruce B. Lawrence, pp. 2735. International Studies in Sociology and Social Anthropology
40. Leiden: Brill.
On the Functional Yield of Some Synthetic Devices in Arabic and Semitic Morphology. Jewish Quarterly
Review 62: 2050.
Again on the Functional Yield of Some Synthetic Devices in Arabic and Semitic Morphology. Jewish
Quarterly Review 64/2: 15463.
de Slane, Willliam McGuckin

Prolgomnes dIbn Khaldoun. Paris: Imprimerie Impriale 1868 [= Notices et extraits des manuscrits de
1868
la Bibliothque Impriale, Volume 21].
Fleisch, Henri
1958
Mahra, mahmsa, examen critique. Mlanges de lUniversit Saint Joseph 35: 193210.
Harris, Alice C., and Lyle Campbell

Historical Syntax in Cross-linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1995
148
Heinrichs, Wolfhart
1995
Wolfhart Heinrichs
The Classification of the Sciences and the Consolidation of Philology in Classical Islam. In Centres of
Learning. Learning and Location in Pre-modern Europe and the Near East, edited by Jan Willem Drijvers and
Alasdair A. MacDonald, pp. 11940. Leiden: Brill.
Hodgson, Marshall G. S.
1974
The Venture of Islam. Conscience and History in a World Civilization. 3 volumes. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Hoenerbach, Wilhelm, editor
1956
af al-Dn al-ill (d. ca. 749/1348): al-Kitb al-il al-l wa-l-murakhkha al-ghl. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.
Irving, Thomas B.
1959
A Fourteenth-century View of Language. In The World of Islam: Studies in Honour of Philip K. Hitti, edited
by James Kritzeck and R. Bayly Winder, pp. 18592. London: Macmillan.
al-Isfarn, Im al-Dn
1864
shiya al Shar al-Jm li-l-Kfiya. [Istanbul]: Maba Bsnaw al-jj Muarram Afand.
Issawi, Charles
1950
An Arab Philosophy of History: Selections from the Prolegomena of Ibn Khaldun of Tunis (13321406). London:
John Murray.
Johnstone, Thomas M.
1987
Mehri Lexicon and English-Mehri Word-list. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.
Kropp, Manfred, editor and translator
1982
Ibn Sad al-Maghrib: Nashwat al-arab f tarkh jhiliyyat al-arab; Die Geschichte der reinen Araber vom
Stamme Qan. 2nd edition. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Labica, Georges
1965
Lfgren, Oscar
1965
Mahdi, Muhsin
1964
Maar, Abd al-Azz
1966
Miquel, Andr
1988
Le rationalisme dIbn Khaldoun: Extraits de la Muqaddimah (Histoire, sociologie, politique, sciences, philosophie),
choisis et classs avec avant-propos, notes et index. Translated by Jamel-Eddine Bencheikh. Algiers: Centre
pdagogique Maghribin.
al-Hamdn. In Encyclopaedia of Islam, Volume 3, edited by H. A. R. Gibb, pp. 12425. Facsimile 1. Leiden:
Brill.
Ibn Khaldns Philosophy of History: A Study in the Philosophic Foundation of the Science of Culture. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Lan al-mma f aw al-dirst al-lughawiyya al-adtha. Cairo: al-Dr al-Qawmiyya.
La gographie humaine du monde musulman jusquau milieu du 11 e sicle. Civilisations et socits 7. Paris:
cole des hautes tudes en sciences sociales.
Monteil, Vincent, translator

19671968
Ibn Khaldn: Discours sur lhistoire universelle (al-Muqaddima), Traduction nouvelle, prface, notes et index. 3
volumes. Beirut: Commission Libanaise pour la Traduction des Chefs-duvre.
Mukarram, Abd al-l Slim, editor
Ibn al-jib: al-Kfiya f l-naw, shar Ra al-Dn al-Astarbdh. 2 volumes. Cairo: lam al-Kutub.
2000
Mller, David Heinrich, editor
1968
al-Hamdn: ifat Jazrat al-Arab, Al-Hamdns Geographie der Arabischen Halbinsel. Leiden: Brill.
Prs, Henri
1947
al-Muntakhab min al-Muqaddimah wa-Kitb al-Ibar l-Ibn Khaldn. Algiers: Imprimerie officielle.
Rabin, Chaim
1951
Ancient West Arabian. London: Taylors Foreign Press.
149
al-Rif, Usma h, editor

1983 [1403]
Jm, al-Fawid al-iyiyya, shar Kfiyat Ibn al-jib. 2 volumes. [Baghdad:] Wizrat al-awqf wa-l-shun
al-dniyya.
Robin, Christian
1976
1992
Rodinson, Maxime
1970
Rsultats pigraphiques et archologiques de deux brefs sjours en Rpublique Arabe de Ymen.

Semitica 26: 16793.
Les critures de larabe avant lIslam. In LArabie antique de Karibl Mahomet: nouvelles donnes sur
lhistoire des Arabes grce aux inscriptions, edited by Christan Robin, pp. 12737. Aix-en-Provence: disud
1992 [= Revue du Monde Musulman et de la Mditerrane 61 (199193)].
Sur la prononciation ancienne du qf arabe. In Mlanges Marcel Cohen; tudes de Linguistique, Ethnographie
et Sciences connexes offertes par ses amis et ses lves loccasion de Son 80me Anniversaire: Avec des Articles
et tudes indits de Marcel Cohen, edited by David Cohen, pp. 298319. Paris: Mouton.
Rosenthal, Franz, translator

1967
Ibn Khaldn: The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History. 3 volumes. 2nd edition. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Saliba, George
1985
A Medieval Note on the Himyaritic Dialect. Journal of the American Oriental Society 105/4: 71517.
Schimmel, Annemarie
1951
Ibn Chaldun: Ausgewhlte Abschnitte aus der Muqaddimah. Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr.
Shkir, Mamd Muammad, editor
1984
Abd al-Qhir al-Jurjn, Dalil al-ijz. Cairo: Khnj.
Silvestre de Sacy, Antoine Isaac
18261827
Chrestomathie arabe, ou, Extraits de divers crivains arabes, tant en prose quen vers, avec une traduction franaise
et des notes, lusage des lves de lcole royale et spciale des langues orientales vivantes. 3 volumes. 2nd
edition. Paris: Imprimerie royale.
1829
Anthologie grammaticale arabe: ou, Morceaux choisis de divers grammairiens et scholiastes arabes, avec un traduction franaise et des notes. Paris: Imprimerie Royale.
Stein, Peter
2008
The Himyaritic Language in Pre-Islamic Yemen: A Critical Re-evaluation. Semitica et Classica 1: 20312.
van den Bergh, Simon

1912
Umriss der muammedanischen Wissenschaften nach Ibn aldn. Leiden: Brill. Originally doctoral dissertation Freiburg im Breisgau.
Versteegh, Kees
1997
Landmarks in Linguistic Thought III: The Arabic Linguistic Tradition. New York: Routledge.
Yaqb, Iml Bad, editor

2001
Ibn Yash (d. 643/1245): Shar al-Mufaal li-l-Zamakhshar. Six volumes. Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya.
Zemnek, Petr
1996
The Origins of Pharyngealization in Semitic. Prague: Enigma Corporation.
A Morphosyntactic Explanation of tptkem (Jer 25:34)
151
12
A Morphosyntactic Explanation
of tptkem (Jer 25:34)
Jeremy M. Hutton, University of WisconsinMadison*
1. Introduction
The anomalous lexeme tptkem in Jeremiah 25:34 has been the subject of much speculation. The words
form is unclear morphologically, and this lack of clarity has resulted in a variety of bewildering translations.
The verse provides some context, but the lexeme under investigation can be understood (or misunderstood) to
comport with that context in a variety of ways. The complete verse reads,

(34a) hll hrm wzaq whitpall addr ha()n

(34a) k-ml ymkem liba
(34b) tptkem npaltem kikl emd.
Hebrew manuscripts have exhibited a variety of pointings, all of which have influenced subsequent interpretation to one degree or another (see Barthlemy 1986, pp. 65859). As is perhaps to be expected in such cases
of ambiguity among the Hebrew traditions, the ancient translations also differed in their treatment of the word
tptkem. The Septuagint (LXXOG) (= 32:34) omits the word entirely, although it has been rendered by subsequent
recensions as (and your dispersions). The Peshita reads wttbrwn (and you will be shatand you will be scattered. McKane thus suggests that both versions
tered), while the Targum translates
assume a verb, and only a verb will fit into the syntax of the verse, and assumes that the Peshita likely rendered
and the Targum, Hebrew
(McKane 1986, p. 652). However, in addition to the confusing morphology
Hebrew
of the Hebrew word, one suspects that the graphic similarity in both the Aramaic block-script ( vs. ) and the
Syriac Estrangela ( vs. ) further complicated the text-critical relationship between the Targum and Peshita.
Specifically, the orthographic difference between these two versions is limited to the omission of only one letter
in the latter, a letter that is itself graphically similar to an immediately contiguous grapheme.
English translations, too, have handled verse 34b differently, depending on their analysis of tptkem and the
concomitant understanding of the words relation to verse 34a. Some understand tptkem to be a mispointed
nominal form (emended to tptkem) following directly on the preceding noun (emphasis added here):

kjv: for the days of your slaughter and of your dispersions are accomplished; and ye shall fall like a
pleasant vessel.
* It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to honor John Huehnergard in this publication. I thank here Rebecca Hasselbach and
Naama Pat-El for their gracious invitation to contribute an essay
commemorating Professor Huehnergards work in the field of
Semitic Philology and particularly, his work in Hebrew ver-
bal morphology. Additional thanks go to Aaron Rubin, who graciously read and commented on an earlier draft of this paper. As
always, all mistakes remain the sole responsibility of the author.
151
152
Jeremy M. Hutton
asv: for the days of your slaughter and of your dispersions are fully come, and ye shall fall like a
goodly vessel.
rsv: for the days of your slaughter and dispersion have come, and you shall fall like choice rams.
Other translations understand the word as a verb, separating verse 34b from the preceding stich as an independent clause coordinated with the preceding one by a conjunction:

jps: . For the day of your slaughter draws near. I will break you in pieces, And you shall fall like a
precious vessel.
niv: . For your time to be slaughtered has come;

you will fall and be shattered like fine pottery.
The nrsv attempts to split the difference, rendering tptkem as a noun, but separating it from the preceding clause with an m-dash:

nrsv: . for the days of your slaughter have come and your dispersions,
and you shall fall like a choice vessel.
Unfortunately, this tactic and its accompanying enigmatic lineation only serve to obfuscate an already difficult passage.
Grammarians have regularly analyzed tptkem as either the product of textual corruption or a conflation
of the regularly formed verbs tp (i.e., the 2.m.pl. qal imperfect ) and hpt (i.e., the 1.c.sg. hipil perfect
; e.g., GKC 91l). However, I will argue in this paper that the verb shows indications of being a morphosyntactically conditioned 1.c.sg. perfect of a tG-stem verbal form of . Although uncommon in Biblical Hebrew,
the tG-stem is found in a number of roots that seem to have been productive for at least some of the time of
the Hebrew Bibles composition. Usually, these occurrences are found in texts deriving from Northern Israelite
(i.e., Benjaminite and Ephraimite) contexts and exhibiting a set of linguistic features identifiable as markers
of a specifically Northern (Israelian) Hebrew dialect (Yoo 1999, pp. 13436). The word has undergone a regular
developmental process, with cognate developments still found in the chronologically later but geographically
overlapping dialect of Samaritan Hebrew.
2. Morphological Analysis: Previous Interpretations

It is quite common for grammarians to analyze tptkem as a nominal form with the 2.m.pl. possessive suffix attached. Such understandings usually reconstruct a t-preformative nominal form tp1 or tp, in which
and alternated somewhat irregularly.2 While some seem to consider the form the result of normal development,
Bauer and Leander parse the form as a noun, simultaneously correcting the suffix to -kem, but recognize that it
is most likely a (misanalyzed) corrupted verbal form (wahrsch. aber eine entstellte Verbalform [BL 28x]); see
earlier Qimi 144 n. c; Olshausen 1861, 400 213d). This interpretation led to the translations of kjv, asv, and
rsv (see above).
Some scholars have analyzed the form as a verb (e.g., Saadia; see Skoss 1942, pp. 20910 and n. 19), many suggesting that it has undergone some form of corruption. Ibn Jana and Judah ibn Balaam (both cited in Barthlemy
) identify the form as a hipil perfect
1986, p. 659; and Skoss 1942, p. 210 n. 19) and ibn Paron (1844, 52b s.v.
in which the h has been replaced by tw (see also Hitzig 1841, pp. 20506; Graf 1862, pp. 33637).3 On this model,
1
E.g., Vulgate, et dissipationes vestrae (and your dispersions);
Rashi (cited in Barthlemy 1986, p. 659); Qimi 144 37p(b); BDB
807a, s.v.
; Bttcher 1868, p. 33 n. 2; Mhlau and Volck
1883, p. 667, s.v.
Hithpal.; Carroll 1986, p. 505; G. Fischer 2005,
p. 731; cf. Gesenius 1817, p. 254.
BL 74h with reference to 14q; Kuriakos 1973, p. 121; see

also Barthlemy 1986, pp. 65859, for further discussion of
manuscript evidence.
3
Ibn Jana used this same explanation to describe tirgalt in
Hosea 11:3 (1875, p. 664).
2
153
the word comprises a forma mixta in which the verb tpt (i.e., the 1.c.sg. hipil perfect with an anomalous tprefix) has been conflated with the regularly formed verb tp (i.e., the 2.m.pl. qal imperfect; see, e.g., GKC
91l) or with the nominal form tpt (i.e., the f.pl. of tp; ayyuj, cited in Chomsky 1952, p. 194 n. 256, and
Barthlemy 1986, p. 659; Graf 1862, pp. 33637; Keil 1872, p. 288; L. Allen 2008, p. 282). Weiser suggested reading
w-nippatkem, translating ich zerschmettere euch (1952, p. 230 and n. 1; cf. Bright 1965, p. 159).
The preceding solutions posit the necessity of some sort of textual emendation to provide a clear reading of
the word. There is, however, a solution that suggests a clear meaning of the verb without requiring emendation
of the text. Gesenius recommended this plausible explanation in his Thesaurus, when he parsed the verb as a tipel
(TLHC 2:1095; see also Gesenius 1817, p. 254). Knig (1881, pp. 471, 557), too, approached the verb as a causative
tipel, comparing the form to tirgalt (Hos 11:3) and mturgm (Ezra 4:7; see Knig 1881, p. 217; and Yoo 1999, p.
136 for this category). They add this form to the list given in the latest edition of Gesenius grammar, which
conspicuously omits the form currently under discussion (GKC 55h), despite its inclusion in the Thesaurus and
(ttare[h]) and
(mtare[h]), respectively you contend
the Lehrgebude. This list includes (a)
(mturgm) translated, interpreted (Ezra 4:7), and
with and one contending with (Jer 12:5; 22:15), (b)
(tirgalt) for meaning, see Hutton and Marzouk 2012 (Hos 11:3).
(c)
3. Establishing the Parameters

For the most part, the following analysis concurs with Gesenius interpretation of the verbs morphology,
since several difficulties emerge in the attempts to explain these forms other than as legitimate verbal forms.
The lexemes mentioned above (ttare[h]/mtare[h], mturgm, and tirgalt) are often analyzed as quadriliteral
denominalizations (i.e., verbalizations) of t-preformative nouns, as is tptkem, as discussed earlier. This interpretation may, in fact, prove an adequate understanding of the second of these lexemes (mturgm), since it is
treated the same way in other Semitic languages that seem to have received the word as an Akkadian loan, pos(see, e.g., BDB 1076a).4 But explanation as a quadriliteral
sibly via Aramaic, and thus as the quadriliteral root
denominalization seems unlikely for the first (ttare[h]/mtare[h]) and third (tirgalt). Although there was at
(/tar/) related to Mishnaic Hebrew
(tart) and Aramaic
some point a Hebrew noun
(tart; Jastrow 1662), the earliest attestations of the noun in Sir 31:29; 40:5 (cited by Joon 1:169 59e; see also
hitpael) are both too textually inconclusive and too chronologically late to serve as decisive
BDB 354a, s.v.
proof of the verbs identity as a denominalized form (cf. discussion in Hutton and Marzouk 2012). Similarly, we
may regard as dubious the attempt by Tur-Sinai to link tirgalt to Akkadian tarkullu mooring post (1967, p. 431).
Although the connection would have justified the various ancient versions interpretation of the verb as some
sort of binding, both major dictionaries of Akkadian analyze the word as a Sumerian loan (CAD T, p. 236; cf. AHw
1330). If the word is no longer taken to be derived from Semitic RGL foot, then it is pointless to try to justify the
versions disparate translations incorporating some sort of binding, since all of them also depend precisely on
the self-evidently podiatric connotations of the word to justify the binding nuance of the word (cf. Hutton and
Marzouk 2012). The difficulties encountered in analyzing any of these verbs as denominalized lexemes suggest that
an alternative explanation is warranted, at least in the cases of ttare(h)/mtare(h), tirgalt, and tptkem.
In the following analysis, the prefixed forms ttare(h) and mtare(h) (imperfect and participle, respectively) will not figure heavily into the discussion. Instead, the major point of concern here is the anomalous
appearance of the *tV- prefix onto the perfects tirgalt and tptkem, and particularly the latter. If these verbs
respective morphologies are in fact to be subsumed under the general rubric of Semitic t-stems, why do they
not appear in Hebrew as **hitrVgalt and **hitptkem, with the *hit- prefix common to the hitpael, the Hebrew
Compare, for example, the Old Assyrian verb ragmu (Gt) raise
claims against each other (AHw 942a; CDA 295a; CAD R, pp. 63b
64a) and the more common Assyrian and Babylonian nominal
form targumannu interpreter, dragoman (AHw 1329b; CDA 400a;

CAD T, pp. 229a30a). The same quadriliteral root appears as the
Ethiopic Q-stem verb targwama to translate.
154
Jeremy M. Hutton
reflex of the Semitic tD-stem?5 In this study, I demonstrate that the representatives of the putative tipel stem
are most likely analyzed as morphosyntactically constrained forms demonstrating otherwise regularly developed
morphology. If correct, this conclusion brings in its wake two corollaries. First, although those who parse the
verb tptkem as a verbal tipel stem are essentially justified, the common description of the prefixed *tV- as a
causative marker akin to the hV- prefix of the hipil (e.g., Ibn Jana [Barthlemy 1986, p. 659]; Paron 1844, 52b;
Hitzig 1841, pp. 20506; Graf 1862, pp. 33637; see above) is incorrect. Second, it becomes probable that we should
reconstruct a (semi-)productive tG-stem 6 in Northern (i.e., Israelian) Hebrew, as evidenced in the work of the
northern prophets Jeremiah (12:5; 22:15; 25:34) and Hosea (11:3).
4. The Derivational Prefix in Semitic

Although an extended discussion of the presence of the tG/Gt-stem in Proto-Semitic and of the tG-stem in
Hebrew is not possible here, a brief review of its development in Hebrew is warranted. Comparative evidence from
the wider Semitic language family demonstrates conclusively that a tG-stem existed in Proto-Semitic (in which
the derivational *t was prefixed; Diem 1982; Lieberman 1986; Garr 1993; Testen 1999). The tG-stem (represented in
some languages by its metathesized counterpart, the Gt-stem) was subsequently inherited by the major Semitic
sub-families and appears productively in East Semitic,7 as well as in the various sub-groupings of West Semitic,
among which are (a) the Ethiopian languages,8 (b) the non-Northwest branches of Central Semitic,9 and (c) the
Northwest branch of Central Semitic represented by Ugaritic,10 Deir Alla,11 the Aramaic dialects (along with the
related Samalian),12 and the Canaanite dialects.13
In an article dealing primarily with the Hebrew nipal, Garr (1993) has shown that in Proto-Semitic the derivational prefixes */n-/ and */t-/ were most likely attached immediately to the verbal base. When this verbal base
was */-qtal/, as in the Proto-Semitic verbal adjective (which was appropriated as the suffix-conjugation in West
Throughout this study, I distinguish between the tG- and
Gt-stems and between the tD- and Dt-stems. This distinction
does not derive from an original Proto-Semitic or ProtoNorthwest Semitic distinction; both groups most likely began
as tG and tD (Diem 1982; Lieberman 1986; Garr 1993; Testen
1999). The distinction emerged as various languages began
to infix the derivational *t instead of prefixing it; the stems
diverged functionally as well in the different languages, but this
divergence is an effect of the languages respective developments
and is not predicated on the morphological distinction between
prefixed *t and infixed *t.
6
By (semi-)productive I mean a grammatical form that,
when analyzed synchronically, is used in new formulations and
compositions (i.e., is productive) while at the same time, when
viewed diachronically, is in the process of becoming vestigial.
Because the tG-stem was used in a variety of forms and with at
least five different verbal roots (see below, 8), it seems as though
the stem was productive in northern Hebrew for at least part
of the biblical period (until ca. 600 b.c.). However, the rarity of
the stem as it may be traced in Biblical Hebrew, combined with
the clear indications that the stem was not recognized by the
Masoretes as independent of the hitpael, suggests that the tGstem was already becoming vestigial if not entirely so by the
time of the closure of the Hebrew canon.
7
E.g., Akkadian: Inf.: pitrusum; Dur.: iptarras; Perf.: iptatras; Pret.:
iptaras; Imptv.: pitras; Part.: muptarsum; Vb. Adj.: pitrus- (Gelb
1952, p. 222; GAG 12021 92; Huehnergard 1997, pp. 39093).
8
E.g., Classical Ethiopic: Pref.: ytqat(t)al; Suff.: taqat(a)la; Imptv.:
taqatal; Inf. taqatlo(t) (Dillmann 1907, pp. 15153 80 [stem III, 1];
Lambdin 1978, p. 205 [Gt]; Tropper 2002, pp. 10304, esp. 44.442
[stem T]).
5
E.g., Classical Arabic: Pref.: yaqtatilu; Suff.: (i)qtatala; Imptv.: (i)

qtatil; Vb. Noun: (i)qtitlun (i.e., the VIII-stem; W. Fischer 2002, p.
98 162g, 240 para. 6). Fischer notes further, Pre-classical Arabic
had a t-prefix, i.e., as still demonstrated in the ta-prefix of the
tD- (V) and tL- (VI) stems (ibid., p. 98 162g n. 4, also p. 27 47).
10
Pref.: yiqtatvl-; Suff.: iqtatvl-; Imptv.: (i)qtatvl- (UT 1:81 9.33;
Segert 1984, p. 66 54.32; Tropper 2000, pp. 51832 74.23; Sivan
2001, pp. 12831).
11
Pref.: ytqtl(?); Suff.: tqtl(?) (see Hoftijzer and van der Kooij
1976, pp. 192, 22829, 25657, 292:I 7 [= line 5 in McCarter 1980;
and Hackett 1984]; II 9 [2x]; V; but cf. Garr 1985, pp. 11920;
Hackett 1984, pp. 40, 64, 96, 97).
12
Garr 1985, p. 119; Tropper 1993, p. 311; Huehnergard 1995, p.
274 n. 35. Dialects displaying the tG include Biblical Aramaic
(Bauer and Leander 1927, p. 90 28a; Rowley 1929, pp. 7980;
Rosenthal 1995, p. 46 99), Palestinian Aramaic (Stevenson 1924,
pp. 4446 16; Golomb 1985, pp. 13335; Fassberg 1990, pp. 17778
134 [despite calling it a Gt-stem]), Syriac (Hutchinson 1855,
pp. 5859 21; Nldeke 1904, pp. 10607 162; Arayathinal 1957,
pp. 28287 11114; Coakley 2002, pp. 6870), and the dialects
recorded in the inscriptions at Sefire (Sf I A 28, 29; Sf I B [9]; Sf
I C [7]; Fitzmyer 1995, pp. 86, 87, 103, 195; cf. Dupont-Sommer
1958, pp. 214, 241; and Greenfield 1964, p. 308), Nerab 2.4 (Gibson 1975, p. 98), and Zinjirli (ancient Samal; KAI 214:30; Sarauw
1907, pp. 6061; Dion 1974, pp. 16670; Muraoka 1984, pp. 9598
1112). Dialects displaying the Gt include that recorded at Tell
el-Fakheriyah (line 23; Abou-Assaf, Bordreuil, and Millard 1982,
pp. 37, 46; cf. Kaufman 1982, p. 173; Muraoka 1984, p. 95 10).
13
E.g., Byblian Phoenician (Pref.: yqttl; Harris 1936, p. 43 13.7;
Friedrich and Rllig 1999, p. 94 150; Krahmalkov 2001, p. 157) and
Moabite (KAI 181:11, 15, 19, 32; Jackson 1989, pp. 111, 117, 121).
9
155
Semitic), the resultant form (**/n=qtal/) contained a word-initial triconsonantal cluster. Although such clusters
were apparently unproblematic in pre-Proto-Semitic, they were not permissible in Proto-Semitic. Some daughter
languages of Proto-Semitic inserted an anaptyctic */a/ between the derivational prefix and the base of the verbal
adjective in order to alleviate this triconsonantal cluster, yielding **/n=qtal/ > */naqtal/ (cf. Akk. naprus and Heb.
niqtal, each displaying further language-internal developments; contrast Arab. VII infaala, which did not insert
an anaptyctic vowel).14 The same innovation, Garr argues, occurred in the causative -stem perfect (**/=qtal/
> */a=qtal/ [ > */ha=qtil/ in many daughter languages; cf. Heb. hipil]). According to Garr, however, a separate
verbal base was used in the N-stem prefixed forms, in which the derivational morpheme becomes medial, since
it follows the inflectional prefix. Cross-Semitic comparison demonstrates that the verbal base of the prefixed
conjugation forms was not */-qtal/ but rather */-qatil/ (cf. Akk. tapparis, Arab. tanqatil, Heb. tiqqtl). In contrast,
the lack of inflectional pronoun prefixes in the infinitive and imperative forms based as they were on the imperfect form created yet another problem. The biconsonantal cluster, which was permissible in Proto-Semitic
(hence, */n=qatil/), was not tolerated in most of the daughter languages. These daughter languages developed
a prothetic syllable */V-/ in order to alleviate the word-initial consonant cluster (cf. Eth. anqalqala; Ug. itm
[/itama/ < *tama] listen! [m.sg.] [KTU 1.16 VI 42]; and the Canaanite toponyms etl [Josh 15:33; Judg 13:25],
etma [Josh 21:14], eltqn [Josh 15:59], eltq [Josh 19:44; 21:23]). Several languages show the lenition of the
causative morpheme in the C-stem: phonemic *// (= IPA [s]) > /h/.15 In these languages, the anaptyctic prefix of
the N-stem infinitive also became aspirated as a result of the analogical extension of the /h-/ (< *//) to all derived stems. For this reason, we find in these languages derived stems beginning with */hV-/, such as Heb. nipal
imptv. hiqqtl; compare the hitpael perf. hitqattl, and so on. Thus, Garrs solution deftly explains the variation
of the derivational morphemes presentation throughout the Hebrew nipal paradigm: niqtal ~ yiqqtl ~ hiqqtl.
We can reconstruct similar developmental processes for the t-stems of the Semitic languages. In pre-ProtoSemitic, the derivational *t was prefixed directly to the verbal base, yielding */t=q(V)tVl/. Because of the complex
developmental processes undergone by this form, each of its constituent elements will be handled separately in
the following discussion. First I treat the morphology of the verbal base */q(V)tVl/, and then the morphology of
the prefixed derivational *t.
5. The Verbal Base of the tG-Stem in Semitic and in Hebrew

Although the presence of a tG-stem in Hebrew is still contested in some camps (e.g., Bean 1976, pp. 1719),
enough cross-Semitic and Hebrew-internal evidence exists to situate the (semi-)productive existence of the stem
in some varieties of Biblical Hebrew on solid ground. One of the primary indicators of this productivity is the
probable presence in Biblical Hebrew of a tG-stem in the roots of RGL (tirgalt [Hos 11:3]16), PQD (e.g., hitpqd
[Judg 20:15, 17]17), YN (matn [1 Sam 25:22, 34; 1 Kgs 14:10; 16:11; 21:21; 9:8]),18 RH (ttareh and mtareh [Jer
12:5; 22:15]), and PW (the verb currently under examination). Many of these roots exhibit abnormal morphologies in the preserved forms. Some require independent analysis (e.g., RGL [Hutton and Marzouk 2012] and PW),
some require corroboration from later Hebrew traditions (e.g., PQD, which appears in the tG-stem in Samaritan
Hebrew [itfqdu; Ben-ayyim 2000, p. 119; Arnold 2005, pp. 8, 143 G1]),19 and some require corroboration from
cognates in other Semitic languages (e.g., YN).
This insertion of the anaptyctic vowel is unrelated to the

intrusive vowel intervening between consonantal personal
markers and the verbal base in the G-stem imperfects, as
reconstructed by Hasselbach (2004).
15
Leslau 1944; Bravmann 1969; Voigt 1994; 1995.
16
Hutton and Marzouk 2012.
17
BL 281 38f; Bergstrsser 1929, 2.100 18i; Yalon 1932, p. 217;
Blau 1957, p. 386; Schottroff 1976, p. 468; Garr 1985, p. 120; Testen
1999, p. 5; Arnold 2005, p. 143 G1; Creason 2007, p. 40.
18
BL 405 56u; HALOT 1479, s.v.
; Krebernik 1991, 238 3.1.7;
IBHS 425 n. 1; cf. BDB 1010a, s.v.
. The form, of course, is an
14
original tG-stem, which has subsequently undergone the typical

metathesis of the derivational *t with the root-initial sibilant.
19
Two prefixed-t stems are found in Samaritan Hebrew: one
with geminated second radical, corresponding to the Biblical
Hebrew hitpael = Proto-Semitic tD-stem, and one with simple
second radical, corresponding to the Proto-Semitic tG-stem and
identified here as synonymous with the so-called Hebrew tipel
(Ben-ayyim 2001, p. 119 2.1.5.1; cf. Macuch 1969, p. 292 73,
who apparently considers the latter an Aramaic morphological
loan). For Hebrew in the post-biblical Jewish tradition, see Ornan
1990.
156
Jeremy M. Hutton
Cross-Semitic comparison is inconclusive as to the vowel pattern of the tG-stem verbal base(s). In Arabic,
the base of the Gt- (VIII)-stem perfect was */-qatal/ (e.g., [i]qtatal; cf. Akk. perf. iptatras, pret. iptaras; Eth. impf.
yqat[t]al, perf. taqat[a]la, imptv. taqatal), although the other forms are formed on a */-qatil/ base (Arab. impf.
yiqtatilu, imptv. [i]qtatil, part. muqtatil; cf. Eth. inf. taqatlot[?]) or a */-qitl/ base (verb. noun [i]qtitlun; for these
forms, see charts in W. Fischer 2002, p. 240; and Bennett 1998, p. 104). Aramaic evidence would support a */-qatil/ base in the perfect (BiblAram. [h/]itqtl < */hitqatil/ [e.g., hitr,20 Dan 3:28], cf. Syr. tqtl / tqtl),
imperfect (BiblAram. yitqtl [e.g., yitbd, Dan 3:29], cf. Syr. ntqtl / ntqtl), and participle (BiblAram. mitqtl
[e.g., mityhb, Ezra 4:20], cf. Syr. mtqtl / mtqtl). The verbal base of the infinitive, however, was most likely
*/-qatl/ (BiblAram. hitqtl [e.g., l-hitql, Dan 2:13]; cf. the Canaanite toponyms mentioned above with form
eqttl; for Aramaic forms, see Bauer and Leander 1927, pp. 10609 34). The evidence from Ugaritic is sparse,
thanks to its general orthographic lack of vowels, combined with complications occasioned by the possibility of
syncope of the theme vowel (e.g., Tropper 1990; 2000, pp. 51819 74.232.1, 528 74.234.1; cf. Krebernik 1991, pp.
22931 2.1.3; Huehnergard 1987, pp. 32021; Sivan 1984, pp. 17273). Despite the surfeit of ambiguous evidence,
it may be summarized here that Hebrews closest relatives seem to exhibit a propensity toward verbal bases in
the */-qatal/ or */-qatil/ categories, perhaps with passive and active semantic values, respectively.
Hebrew-internal evidence is equally ambiguous. Although the one Biblical Hebrew root demonstrating a
relatively paradigmatic form, PQD, provides evidence of a t-prefixed verbal stem in which the middle radical
lacked gemination, the root appears too infrequently to provide much evidence as to the vowels in the stems
paradigmatic verbal base. We can at most posit an original */-qatVl/ base, in which the thematic vowel has been
reduced in each exemplar because of the addition of 3.m/c.pl. suffixes (cf. the prefix-form [way-]yitpqd [Judg
20:15] and the suffix-form hitpqd [Judg 20:15, 17]). In isolation, the verb tirgalt also provides minimal information, since its perfect base can be derived from either */-qtVl/ or */-qVtVl/. Yet, comparing hitpqd and
tirgalt side by side may prove instructive. We may accept with some degree of certainty the vowel */a/ between
R and R suggested by the former verb, on the basis of cross-Semitic comparison (although cf. 7, below, for an
alternative explanation of tirgalts development from */-qtal/). Evidence from the latter verbal exemplar limits
the thematic vowel to */a/ or */i/ (> /a/ by Philippis law; Lambdin 1985), again in conformity with the crossSemitic data summarized above. Finally, we may find some Hebrew-internal corroboration for a tG-verbal base
*/-qatil/ albeit derived from a later vocal tradition in the single case of Babylonian pointing reading hitn
(Ezek 17:14; for text, see Kahle 1913, p. 195; cited by Bergstrsser 1929, 2.100 18i).
The verbal base of the tG-stem in Hebrew is thus quite difficult to determine with certainty. Nonetheless,
enough evidence exists to suggest that we are dealing with a */-qatVl/ base, in which V = /a/ or /i/, and in which
the middle radical is singleton (i.e., not geminate).
6. Prefixed Derivational *t in Hebrew

Whereas Ethiopic alleviated the initial consonant cluster of the tG-stem through epenthetic insertion of a
vowel following the derivational *t (see Eth. perf. taqat[a]la, imptv. taqatal, and inf. taqatlo[t]), most other West
Semitic languages prefixed the epenthetic vowel to the verbal base in all forms. This prefixation of the tG- and
tD-stems epenthetic vowel before derivational *t stands in contrast to the N-stem, where, as was seen above,
many languages inserted the vowel after the derivational morpheme in the perfect. In the N-stem, consistency
was maintained only in Arabic, where we find perfect inqatala, imperfect yanqatilu, infinitive inqitlun, and so on.
This consistency, however, was the norm in the tG-/Gt-stem of all Central Semitic languages and the tD-stem of
the Northwest Semitic languages (though cf. the Arab. and Ug. tD-stem and the Arab. tL-stem). In the various
reflexes of these stems, whenever the inflected verbal form was not naturally prefixed with a personal morphological marker (/yV-/, /tV-/, /V-/, or /nV-/) or the participial morpheme (/mV-/), an epenthetic prefix (/V-/)
was inserted before the cluster comprised of -tR-/-Rt-:
20
The long // thematic vowel presumably developed here as a
response to the open syllable formed by the suffixation of the
3.m.pl. morpheme. However, Bauer and Leander (1927, p. 108
34hj) derive the perfect verbal base originally from */-qatal/.
Since none of the Biblical Aramaic 3.m.sg. perfects is formed

from a strong root, it is quite difficult to validate this assertion,
and */qatil/ is not precluded.

Perf.
Imperf.
Imptv.
Arab. tD
(i)qtatala
taqattala
yaqtatilu
(i)qtatil
(i)qtitlun
muqtatilun
Ug. tD
iqtatVla
yiqtatVlu
iqtatil
tVqtatVlu
muqtatVlu
*(h/)itqatil
*yitqatil
*(h/)itqVtVl
*(h/)itqatl
*mitqatil
*(h/)itqattal
*yitqattal
*(h/)itqattal
*(h/)itqatl
*mitqattil
Arab. Gt
Ug. tD
Aram. tG
Aram. tD
Syr. tG
Syr. tD
Heb. tD
taqattVla
etqt /l
etqattal
hitqattl
yataqattalu
yiqtatVlu
netqt /l
taqattal
taqattVI
etqatl
netqattal
etqattal
yitqattl
hitqattl
Inf.
157
taqattulun
tVqattVlu
metqtl
metqattl
hitqattl
Part.
mutaqattilun
muqattVlu?
metqt/l
metqattal
mitqattl
The precise nature of the epenthetic syllable requires further analysis, because it is manifested differently
in the various Central Semitic languages. In most languages, it displays a great deal of language-internal regularity, appearing throughout the paradigm regardless of morphosyntactic environment. For example, so far as
the grammars are concerned, Biblical Hebrew and all forms of Aramaic maintain the syllable ubiquitously, even
if the constituent consonant gradually shifted from /h/ to // in Aramaic. In Biblical Aramaic, this alternation
between the prefix consonants in the tG hitpeel and itpeel stems and between the tD hitpaal and itpaal stems,
which for the most part appears to be chronologically and dialectally conditioned, is purely formal and does not
affect the semantic value of the word:

tG: l-hitql (to be killed, Dan 2:9)
tD: hitnaddb (they offered freely, Ezra 7:15)
vs. etqar (they were plucked up, Dan 7:8)

vs. itya (they have consulted, Dan 6:8)
In Biblical Hebrew, the prefix /Vt-/ occurs once on a t-stem form: in Psalm 76:6 we find etll (they are
spoiled). One might posit that this form shows Aramaic influence, a particularly compelling hypothesis in light
of the many cases of the Aramaizing apel causative stem found irregularly in Biblical Hebrew (e.g., the perf.
eglt [I have stained, Isa 63:3], inf. abs. akm [persistently, Jer 25:3], and possibly imptv. abrk [kneel down!
]).
Gen 41:43; see Bttcher 1868, p. 281 1015; cf. Lambdin 1953, p. 146; Janssen 1956, p. 68; HALOT 10, s.v.
Regardless of the linguistic source of the odd form etll, it is clear that the lexeme fits into the broader developmental context of Northwest Semitic.
In two reasonably well-attested Central Semitic languages, however, the morphosyntactic environment constrains the morphological realization of this epenthetic prefix. Like Hebrew and Aramaic, Ugaritic and Arabic
normally affix this epenthetic prefix to otherwise unprefixed t-stem forms: the perfect, the imperative, and the
infinitive (/verbal noun). For example, the imperative in Ugaritic is realized as iqttl (/iqtatal/) when sentenceinitial or independent. However, when the Ugaritic imperative is preceded by a conjunction, the operation of
sandhi eliminates the epenthetic prefix of the isolated imperative form.21 The two forms appear together in the
sequence itm wtq (/itama wa[t]taqa/ give heed and attune your ear, 1.16.VI.2930, 42; see Sivan 2001, p.131;
21
Lass (1984, p. 70) describes sandhi as syntactically conditioned
allomorphy, with rules operating on the termini of the peripheral
morphemes of words of any internal structure, that is, variation
in morphology conditioned by the syntactic environment and
manifested at word boundaries; cf. the distinction made by
Hock (1991, p. 246) between external sandhi (occurring at word
boundaries) and internal sandhi (occurring word-internally
with the addition or deletion of morphemes). Insofar as the
Semitic languages rely heavily on inseparable prepositions and

affixed personal morphemes to augment their nominal and
verbal systems, it is difficult to make a hard distinction between
Hocks internal and external sandhi. For studies of sandhi
in Northwest Semitic languages, see Tsumura 1991; 1997 and
sources cited there. For sandhi more generally, see W. Allen 1962;
and Anderson 1986.
158
Jeremy M. Hutton
Krebernik 1991, p. 231 2.1.4; cf. Tropper 2000, pp. 52728 74.233).22 The verbal noun similarly exhibits a variety
of forms (e.g., Huehnergard 1987, p. 321; Krebernik 1991, pp. 23132 2.1.5; Tropper 2000, pp. 53031 74.236; see
also ibid., p. 573, 74.434 for the tD-stem).
Arabic also exhibits a variation in the morphology of such forms, similarly conditioned by morphosyntactic
environment. When naturally resulting biconsonantal clusters were sentence-initial or isolated, Classical Arabic
alleviated these clusters by prefixing an epenthetic vowel, marked with alif al-wal. This epenthetic syllable was
ubiquitously represented in the orthography of non-classical Arabic23 with an alif (hence {QTTL} /iqtatala/).
However, in Classical Arabic this epenthetic syllable was pronounced only in certain environments, such as when
in sentence-initial position (e.g., istami Listen!24). This epenthetic insertion was represented orthographically
through the addition of the epenthetic vowel in those positions where the syllable was pronounced in Classical
Arabic, with the concomitant insertion of the glottal-stop marker hamza. In most environments, however, the
word-initial consonant cluster was alleviated in one of two ways, each of which was affected by sandhi and is
marked orthographically through the addition of wala, the marker of elision, to the alif. If the consonant cluster
was not already alleviated naturally by following a word ending in a vowel (e.g., qla stami He said, Listen!),
a connecting vowel /i/ was added orthographically to the preceding word (e.g., qlati stami < *qlat stami She
said, Listen!).25 Thus, it is evident that even though Classical Arabic does not exhibit the epenthetic insertion
in most syntactic structures, non-classical Arabic partakes in the same epenthetic insertion of */V-/ before a
word-initial consonant cluster comprising -tR-/-Rt- as do the other Central Semitic languages. Because of its
retention of case vowels and other conservative morphological features, Classical Arabic had fewer environments
than non-classical Arabic in which epenthesis was necessary.
With respect to the tG/Gt-stem, the significant difference between Arabic and the Northwest Semitic languages lies in the conditioning environment. As Garr notes, in Ugaritic specifically, [t]he prothetic syllable
is sensitive to the derivational boundary separating the initial two consonants, in that its insertion occurs only
when this boundary is present (1991, p. 153). We might generalize this principle to Northwest Semitic as a whole,
citing the alleviation of the biconsonantal, mono-morphemic Proto-Semitic cluster */bn/ son in Hebrew and
Aramaic through the insertion of a medial anaptyctic vowel (PS */bn/ > Heb. ben, Aram. bar; Testen 1985). In
contrast, Arabic usually alleviates an initial consonant cluster through sandhi or with the insertion of alif al-wal,
regardless of whether the cluster spans a morphemic boundary (PS */bn/ > CArab. [i]bn).
Classical Arabic seems to be the outlier among the Central Semitic languages in its non-operation of epenthetic
insertion preceding the consonant cluster occasioned by the addition of derivational *t. However, the evidence
from Ugaritic indicates that the phenomenon obtained in Northwest Semitic as well, at least in limited environments or under sporadically operating constraints. Ugaritic is not the only Northwest Semitic language displaying
evidence of this phenomenon. In fact, a third language Hebrew demonstrates the non-operation of epenthetic
vowel insertion on a t-stem perfect in a well-defined morphosyntactic environment in later recorded dialects of
the language (see below). An examination of a few derived-stem verbal forms in Mishnaic Hebrew leads to a fuller
discussion of the environmentally constrained tG-stem perfect forms in Samaritan Hebrew.
In Mishnaic Hebrew, asserts Segal (1927, p. 58 115), the nipal infinitive lost the consonant /h-/ of its epen/l-ibbal/ < */l-hibbal/ < */l-hinbail/;
thetic prefix when following an inseparable preposition (e.g.,
the yd seems to mark the short /-i-/ epenthetic vowel). Typically, this apocope of /h-/ is presumed to occur as
a function of the elision of intervocalic h, known from elsewhere in Hebrew. However, Aaron Rubin and Naama
Pat-El have independently drawn my attention (pers. comm.) to the fact that the form of the infinitive in Mishnaic
Hebrew may have come about by anology with the imperfect; if this is the case, the apocope of */h/ discussed is no
longer an issue. Rather, in light of the foregoing discussion, we may wonder whether some dialects of Hebrew allowed the nipal infinitive to remain without prefix when following an enclitic particle preposition or a vowel-final
For additional cases of sandhi in Ugaritic, see Tsumura 1991;

1997, pp. 57981; and Sivan 2001, pp. 32, 138.
23
I have taken the terminology non-classical Arabic from
W.Fischer 2002, p. 12 19.
24
All Arabic examples except qlati stami (below) were taken
from Abboud and McCarus 1983, p. 58. I am grateful for the help
of Safwat Marzouk in understanding the operation of alif al-wal.
22
Philippi 1895, pp. 18892; Lambert 1895, pp. 22528; HmeenAntilla 1984, pp. 30513; Garr 1991, pp. 147, 153; W.Fischer 2002,
pp. 1213 1922; although, cf. Barth 1894, pp. 710.
25
159
word (i.e., *n=qatil > inqatil / -V# __, with sandhi then operating on the two consecutive vowels). More accurately
stated, it may be that the development of the epenthetic prefix consonant was blocked in environments where
sandhi operates. Indeed, a similar morphological phenomenon is not unknown in Biblical Hebrew, where we find
in the Masoretic text the forms bikkl (< *-b-hikkl, literally and in his being tripped, Prov 24:17), bhrg
(< *b-hhrg, in the killing of, Ezek 26:15), and bp (< *b-hp, in the faintness of, Lam 2:11; cf. Ps 61:3)
and others.26 Clearly, this was not the form that became generalized throughout Biblical Hebrew; nonetheless, its
existence in Biblical Hebrew and Modern Hebrew is noteworthy.
Moreover, grammarians of Samaritan Hebrew regularly describe the collapse of the epenthetic syllable
in the perfect of the hitpael stem(s) (see above) when the verbal exemplar follows the conjunction wa-. In the
, wtmakkertimma
,
Samaritan recitation tradition, we find forms such as wtqaddetimma
, [and] wtbrrku
(Ben-ayyim 2001, p. 119 2.1.5.1) as well as tllak and tttanu
wtbrrk
(Arnold 2005, p. 9; see also Macuch 1969, p. 291 a).27 According to Ben-ayyim,
A feature to be noted especially is the length of the vowel in the syllable wt- in the perfect, for as a rule
waw conjunctive attaches itself directly to the vowel of a word beginning with an original guttural consonant,
: wiron,
: wit. Thus, *wit- and not wt, is to be expected. This would seem to indicate that
such as
what we have here is a different origin, as if it were *wahit > *wait > wt, i.e., that the vowel a of the waw
conjunctive was not elided here as in the other combinations. (2001, p. 119 2.1.5.2)
Although it is currently impossible to describe fully the developmental changes that yielded the Samaritan
Hebrew forms (Ben-ayyim 2001, pp. 9293 1.5.3.4: the problem requires further study), it is clear that one of
two processes is at work in this dialect of Hebrew: either (a) the */h/ of the hitpael prefix has elided in environments involving the prefixation of the conjunction, or (b) the regular development of the t-stems epenthetic
syllable (* > *V- hV- / #__tq[V]tal) was arrested or blocked entirely in those same environments, so that the
epenthetic syllable never fully developed as it did in the remainder of the paradigm, but instead allowed the present pronunciation to obtain. Orthographically, the first option is preferable, since it would explain the presence
of h in the written forms. Phonologically, however, the second option is more consistent with the forms of the
proposed Biblical Hebrew tG-stem we have been examining, as the following discussion will show. If this latter
solution is the case, the presence of h in the Samaritan Hebrew forms may be explained as a case of orthographic
leveling: on this model, it was never pronounced.
7. Morphosyntactic Conditioning Environments of the So-called tipel

The first point of note upon reconsidering the forms tptkem and tirgalt is that, although they are generally
handled extra-contextually (see, e.g., GKC 55h, 91l), they each appear in linguistic environments replicating the
same conditions governing the elision or non-development of h in the Mishnaic and Samaritan Hebrew examples
described above. To be specific, the form tirgalt appears immediately after the 1.c.sg. independent pronoun nk.
If we accept the general applicability of the morphosyntactic explanation proposed here, two avenues are then
open to us to describe the lexeme tirgalt more precisely. Each of the following solutions assumes that, when following words or proclitic morphemes ending naturally in vowels, the Hebrew tG-stem perfect did not need to
insert an epenthetic vowel to alleviate its word-initial consonant cluster. Instead, it preferred to allow sandhi to
take effect, which blocked the expected development of the epenthetic syllable. Thus, while development of an
epenthetic syllable */hi-/ broadly obtained, juxtaposition with a preceding vowel-final word optionally prevented
this development.
Cf. GKC 51l; BDB 742, s.v.

III; BL 228 25z; Joon 1:150
51b; also Rendsburg 1982; Tsumura 1997.
27
Naama Pat-El has kindly brought to my attention the
argument presented by Kutscher (1962, pp. 1819) explaining the
loss of // in the direct-object marker in some forms of Hebrew
26
and Aramaic. The process is not entirely identical to the one

presented here, since Kutscher does not relate this syncope to a
vowel-final preceding word. Nonetheless, the problem deserves
further study.
160
Jeremy M. Hutton
(Solution 1): Positing an original verbal base */-rgal/ (see above) allows us to reconstruct an analogical process
whereby the proto-Masoretic reading tradition substituted a known vowel pattern on an unfamiliar derived stems
). The form clearly comprised two elements: a derivational prefix , recognizable
consonantal structure (
. This composite derived form stood over against the expected developfrom the hitpael, and the verbal root
, not to mention
ment of the form **hitrgalt (with its analogically anticipated orthographic realization **
its violation of rules of syllabification in Hebrew) and instead paralleled that of the nipal perfect. This analogue
allowed the pre-Masoretic vocal tradition to insert the same vowels into the new forms consonantal structure,
yielding *niRRaR- */tirgal-/.
(Solution 2): It is possible to obtain the same form tirgalt by reconstructing the direct affixation of derivational *t to the verbal base */-ragVl/. On this model, we postulate the forms morphological development in the
following manner. We begin by positing the (optional?) blocking of the normal development of the epenthetic
syllable when following a vowel-final word:

(1) *ank t=ragVlt > *ank tragVlt
This form was presumably stable throughout the era of spoken Biblical Hebrew, but with the reduction of
unstressed short vowels in open, unaccented syllables, a morphologically unstable form developed:

(2) *ank tragVlt > **ank trgVlt
Not recognizing the effect of the juxtaposition, the pre-Masoretic tradition inserted an anaptyctic vowel
of indeterminate quality between the derivational prefix and the verbal base, which quickly reduced to vocalic
w and then became hreq by the rule of w. Concomitantly, the thematic vowel either retained its original
identity as */a/, or developed into /a/ through the operation of Philippis law (* > / __CCV#; hence, */-rglt/
> /-rglt/; Lambdin 1985):

(3) **ank trgVlt > *ank trgVlt > *ank tirgVlt > nk tirgalt
In either of these reconstructed scenarios that is, analogical extension from the nipal or natural development the morphogenesis of tirgalt may plausibly be traced to its morphosyntactic environment, in which the
form followed a vowel-final word and was thus eligible for sandhi.
Similarly to the case of tirgalt, the verb tptkem is actually prefixed with the waw conjunctive and must be
analyzed as tptkem. Here, however, the two variant explanations of the forms development that is, normal
development and analogy coalesce. Again, we begin by assuming that the forms expected development of the
epenthetic prefix /hi-/ was blocked by the possibility of sandhis operation on the vowel-final preceding word. In
this case, the preceding word was the prefixed conjunction. The conjunction most likely began in Proto-Semitic as
the labiovelar approximant glide [w], with rounding at the lips and vocalic articulation in the velar area (Hock
1991, p. 135). In Tiberian Hebrew, this morpheme is realized in two different ways. In most contexts, the consonant remained articulated as [w], which was followed by an anaptyctic vowel (*/wV-/) realized as vocalic w in
Biblical Hebrew (w-). However, in contexts preceding consonant clusters and (other) bilabials, the conjunctions
consonantal articulation had been weakened (perhaps already in Proto-Semitic or Proto-West Semitic) so that
only the high, back vocalic articulation was perceived, hence its final realization in Tiberian Biblical Hebrew as
- (cf. ml [1 Sam 2:18]):28

(1) PS *w t=pV- > PNWS * tpV-
was originally */w/, the resultant theme vowel must have been eiBecause the middle radical of the root
ther // or //. Both vowels are commonly represented in middle weak roots in the nipal; the alternation between
the two is predicated on the personal inflection of the verb. In the 3rd person, we find the -vowel predominant,
with the lengthening of the anaptyctic vowel alleviating the word-initial consonant cluster. For the most part,
the vowel is unmarked by a mater lectionis (e.g., nmg [1 Sam 14:16; Nah 2:7]; ng [2 Sam 1:22]; nsg [Ps 44:19];
28
For the semivocalic nature of the labiovelar glide [w] and its
various alternations and common developments, see, e.g., Hock
1991, pp. 1718 2.1.7 and esp. 13536 7.3.6; Chitoran and Nevins
2008, p. 1901 and bibliography cited there.
161
nd [Isa 25:10]; np [Jer 10:21]; np [Gen 10:18; 2 Kgs 25:5; Jer 40:15; 52:8; Ezek 28:25; 29:13; 34:6, 12]; nmg
[Exod 15:15; Josh 2:9, 24; Jer 49:23]; nzr [Isa 1:4; Ezek 14:5]; nsg [Isa 42:17; Jer 38:22]; nkn [Ezek 16:7; Prov
19:29]; nbk [Joel 1:18]; np [Nah 3:18]), with the sole exception of nbk (Est 3:15), where the vowel is
marked. In the 1.c.sg. and 2.m.pl., the anaptyctic vowel has been reduced to w, and the -vowel occurs in the
1.c.sg. forms (e.g., nsgt [Isa 50:5]; npgt [Ps 38:9]). In the 2.m.pl., however, the forms containing continue
to predominate: nptem (Ezek 11:17; cf. nptem [Ezek 20:34] and nptem [Ezek 20:41]); and nqtem (Ezek
20:43; 36:31) over against a few anomalous forms (nr [Zech 2:17]; nm [Ps 17:5]). It is tempting to assume
has been mistakenly pointed with a medial //, on analogy with the
that the consonantal structure
other 1.c.sg. forms adduced above containing the vowel //. However, the heavy suffix at the end of the word
may have conditioned the quality of the vowel, in a manner similar to the role of the heavy suffix on the 2.m.pl.
forms, which seems to have preserved the // vowel. Thus, we may suggest that the form is, if not the expected
one, an explicable one nonetheless:

(2) PNWS * t=pVt=kVmV > PHeb. *tptkim
As in the case of tirgalt described above, a morphologically unstable form developed unless, that is, an
anaptyctic vowel between the derivational prefix and the verbal base had not already developed on analogy with
the same development in the nipal:

(3) PHeb. *tptkim > *tptkim > TibHeb. tptkem
Again, the morphosyntactic environment of this tG-stem perfect form has blocked the development of the
epenthetic prefix /hi-/.
8. Conclusion
Two distinct conclusions have been reached here concerning the lexeme tptkem in Jeremiah 25:34. The
first pertains to the specific morphological development of the word and its semantic value, the second more
broadly to the analysis of the purported tipel stems in general.
I have traced the lexemes development from an original tG-stem form, which, when following a word permitting sandhi to alleviate its initial consonant cluster, was irregularly prevented from developing the expected
epenthetic /hi-/ prefix characteristic of the t-stem perfects in Hebrew (the vast majority of which are currently
pointed as tD-stem hitpael s). Orthographically, the omission of a prefixed in the two verbs discussed in 7
above may be described in the words of OConnor (1983, p. 441) as sandhi writings or utterance-level parsings.
Otherwise, the word has developed predictably, with the exception of the pointing of the medial vowel as a long-
vowel rather than a long-. But here, too, the morphosyntactic presence of the heavy 2.m.pl. object suffix -kem
may have influenced the theme vowel on analogy with the effects of the 2.m.pl. subject suffix in the nipal perfects
of middle-weak roots. Given the difficulty of predicting the precise semantic value of tG- and tD-stems merely
from their morphology (e.g., IBHS 42429 26.1), the word tptkem may best be translated simply as and I
to scatter.29 This word, comprising verse 34b,
will scatter you, founded on the basic meaning of the root
continues the idea from verse 34a and persists in envisioning the individuals under judgment as a flock of sheep.
Although the Septuagint allows this image to endure in the remainder of verse 34, drawing the falling leaders in
comparison to the choice animals falling in the slaughter (and you will fall like the chosen rams [
]), the Masoretic text shifts the image to one of an earthenware vessel falling either
falling off something onto a lower surface, or simply falling over, perhaps. For the purposes of the present study, it
Although the t-stem in Biblical Hebrew (usually realized as

the hitpael) is typically reflexive in usage, it is not limited to
such semantic values (see, e.g., Grneberg 2003, pp. 191210). The
case is presumably the same for the originally tG-stem, which
demonstrates transitivity in some Ugaritic cases, for example
29
(e.g., Smith 2006, p. 77). Unfortunately, a thorough crossSemitic investigation of the various usages of the tG-stem is
impossible here, for considerations of space; such a study would
undoubtedly be a desideratum in Semitic studies (see already
the recent linguistic studies of Streck [2003] and Arnold [2005]).
162
Jeremy M. Hutton
is unnecessary to hypothesize the developmental history of the variants, as is attempted by J. Gerald Janzen (1973,
p. 14, 194 n. 17). Rather, in both cases the image is naturally one of the sickeningly wide distribution of constituent pieces (i.e., scattering). In the Masoretic text, the word tptkem functions as a pivot between the two
metaphors of verse 34. In verse 34ab, the best of the sheep are being chosen for the slaughter, and the flock is
thus scattered that is, dispersed or distributed while in the context of verse 34b, the word proleptically
anticipates the fate of the politys leadership, comparing them to a vessel that will fall (npaltem), shatter (implicitly), and have its sherds scattered (made explicit through the anticipatory use of the verb tptkem). This
scattering is all too well known to those who have dropped a favorite vase or carafe. Thus, despite its semantic
to
coincidence with the image of the Masoretic text, reliance on the purported Syriac rendering of Hebrew
justify this image is unnecessarily circular, since the lexeme could be the result of graphic confusion combined
with haplography, as suggested above (cf. Targ. wttbdrwn vs. Pesh. wttbrwn).
Alongside this exegetical possibility of tptkem arises a set of principles guiding my interpretation of the
putative tipel stem. As has been discovered in the preceding discussion, the morphology of the so-called tipel is
in reality morphosyntactically and optionally conditioned by an environment in which the preceding word
ends in a (long) vowel. Thus, the form is much more plausibly construed within the broader rubric of the Semitic
tG-stem than as a development internal to Hebrew and derived from t-preformative nouns, as Barth suggested
long ago (1889, pp. 27881 180a, esp. 279; 1894, pp. 1921). There is, properly speaking, no tipel stem, although
the original Hebrew tG-stem may occasionally take that form when environmentally constrained. Moreover, I
have sought to show elsewhere that the Hebrew tG-stem is plausibly reconstructed as a productive stem in some
varieties of Hebrew; the unrecognized exemplars of this stem were subsequently conflated with and pointed as
the hitpael (Hutton and Marzouk 2012; see previously Bergstrsser 1929, 2.100 18i; Yalon 1932, p. 220; Speiser
1955, pp. 11821; Dombrowski 1962, pp. 22023; Boyle 1969; Siebesma 1991, pp. 167, 169; see also Ornan 1990; but
cf. Bean 1976, pp. 9, 1719; and IBHS 424 26.1.1.a). In particular, this seems to be the case for the bundle of dialects
commonly known as Israelian Hebrew (e.g., Rendsburg 2002, esp. pp. 1726; Yoo 1999, esp. pp. 1217), in which
can be found plausibly reconstructed tG-stem forms of the verbal roots RGL30, PQD,31 YN,32 RH, and PW.33 If this
analysis is correct, the productive or semi-productive use of the tG-stem would potentially serve as an isogloss
between Israelian (Northern) and Judahite (Southern) Hebrew dialects.
Abbreviations
AHw
Akk.
Arab.
Aram.
BDB
BiblAram.
BL
c.
C
CAD
Wolfram von Soden. Akkadisches Handwrterbuch. 3 volumes. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 19651981.

Akkadian
Arabic
Aramaic
Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Reprint
1959. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907.
Biblical Aramaic
Hans Bauer and Pontus Leander. Historische Grammatik der hebrischen Sprache des Alten Testaments. Halle:
Niemeyer, 1922.
common
consonant
A. Leo Oppenheim et al. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago:
The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 19562010.
Hutton and Marzouk 2012.

BL 281 38f; Bergstrsser 1929, 2.100 18i; Yalon 1932, p. 217;
Blau 1957, p. 386; Schottroff 1976, p. 468; Garr 1985, p. 120; Testen
1999, p. 5; Arnold 2005, p. 143 G1; Creason 2007, p. 40.
30
31
BL 405 56u; HALOT 1479, s.v.

IBHS 425 n. 1; cf. BDB 1010a, s.v.
33
Cf. GKC 151 54l.
32
; Krebernik 1991, 238 3.1.7;

.

CArab.
CDA
163
Classical Arabic
Jeremy Black, Andrew George, and Nicholas Postgate, editors. A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian. SANTAG
5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999.
Eth.
Ethiopic
f.
feminine
GAG
Wolfram von Soden. Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik. 2nd edition. Analecta orientalia 33. Rome:
Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1995.
GKC
Wilhelm Gesenius, Gesenius Hebrew Grammar. Edited by Emil Kautsch. Translated by Arthur E. Cowley.
2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1910.
GVG Carl Brockelmann. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen. Hildesheim: Olms, 1966.
Heb.
Hebrew
Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann Jakob Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the
HALOT
Old Testament. 2 volumes. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
IBHS
Bruce K. Waltke and Michael P. OConnor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
impf.
imperfect
imptv.
imperative
inf.
infinitive
infinitive absolute
inf. abs.
Jastrow
Marcus Jastrow. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature.
New York: Judaica Press, 1971.
Joon
Paul Joon. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and revised by T. Muraoka. 2 volumes. Subsidia
biblica 14/12. Rome: Editrice Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1991.
KAI
Herbert Donner and Wolfgang Rllig. Kanaanische und aramische Inschriften, Volume 1. 5th edition.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002.
KTU
Manfried Dietrich, Oswald Loretz, and Joaqun Sanmartin. The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts: From Ugarit,
Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places. Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palstinas und Mesopotamiens 8.
2nd enlarged edition. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995.
LXX
Septuagint
m.
masculine
MT
Masoretic text
part.
participle
perf.
perfect
Proto-Hebrew
PHeb.
pl.
plural
PNWS
Proto-Northwest Semitic
pret.
preterite
Qimi
Chomsky 1952
sg.
singular
Syr.
Syriac
Suff.
suffix form
TibHeb.
Tiberian Hebrew
TLHC
Wilhelm Gesenius. Thesaurus Philologicus Criticus Linguae Hebraeae et Chaldeae Veteris Testamenti. Leipzig:
Vogel, 1839.
Ug.
Ugaritic
UT
Cyrus H. Gordon. Ugaritic Textbook. 3 volumes. Analecta orientalia 38. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute,
1965. Revised reprint 1998.
V
vowel
Vb. Adj.
verbal adjective
Vb. Noun
verbal noun
164
Jeremy M. Hutton
Bibliography
Abboud, Peter F., and Ernest N. McCarus
Elementary Modern Standard Arabic, Part 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1983
Abou-Assaf, Ali; Pierre Bordreuil; and Alan R. Millard
La statue de Tell Fekherye et son inscription bilingue assyro-aramenne. tudes Assyriologiques. Paris: ditions
1982
Recherche sur les civilizations.
Allen, Leslie C.
2008
Allen, W. Sidney
1962
Jeremiah: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.
Sandhi: The Theoretical, Phonetic, and Historical Bases of Word-Junction in Sanscrit. Janua Linguarum 17. The
Hague: Mouton.
Anderson, Henning, editor

Sandhi Phenomena in the Languages of Europe. Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 33. Berlin:
1986
Mouton de Gruyter.
Arayathinal, Thomas
2007
Aramaic (Syriac) Grammar, Volume 1. Gorgias Historical Grammars 2. Piscataway: Gorgias Press.
Arnold, Mark A.
2005
Barth, Jakob
1889
1894
Categorization of the Hitpal of Classical Hebrew. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.

Die Nominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs.
Zur vergleichenden semitischen Grammatik. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft 48:
121.
Barthlemy, Dominique
Critique textuelle de lAncien Testament, Volume 2. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 50/2. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck
1986
and Ruprecht.
Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramischen. Halle: Niemeyer.
1927
Bean, Albert Fredrick
A Phenomenological Study of the Hithpael Verbal Stem in the Hebrew Old Testament. Ph.D. disserta1976
tion, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Ben-ayyim, Zeev
2001
Bennett, Patrick R.
1998
A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew: Based on the Recitation of the Law in Comparison with the Tiberian and Other
Jewish Traditions. Revised edition. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Comparative Semitic Linguistics: A Manual. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Bergstrsser, Gotthelf
Hebrische Grammatik. 2 volumes. Leipzig: F. C. W. Vogel and Hinrichs.
1929
Blau, Joshua
1957
ber die t-Form des Hifil im Bibelhebrisch. Vetus Testamentum 7: 38588.
Bttcher, Friedrich
1868
Ausfhrliches Lehrbuch der hebrischen Sprache. Volume 2. Leipzig: J. A. Barth.
Boyle, Milton Lorimer

1969
Infix-T Forms in Biblical Hebrew. Ph.D. dissertation, Boston University.
Bravmann, Mer M.
1969
The Semitic Causative-Prefix /sa. Le Muson 82: 51722.
Bright, John
1965
Jeremiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 21. Garden City: Doubleday.

Carroll, Robert P.
1986
165
Jeremiah: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
Chitoran, Ioana, and Andrew Nevins

2008
Introduction. Lingua 118: 190005.
Chomsky, William, editor
David imis Hebrew Grammar (Mikhlol). New York: Bloch Publishing for Dropsie College for Hebrew and
1952
Cognate Learning.
Coakley, J. F., editor
2002
Creason, Stuart
2007
Diem, Werner
1982
Dillmann, August
1907
Dion, Paul-Eugne
1974
Robinsons Paradigms and Exercises in Syriac Grammar. 5th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
PQD Revisited. In Studies in Semitic and Afroasiatic Linguistics Presented to Gene B. Gragg, edited by CynthiaL. Miller, pp. 2742. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 60. Chicago: The Oriental Institute.
Die Entwicklung des Derivationsmorphems der t-Stmme im Semitischen. Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft 132: 2984.
Ethiopic Grammar. Second edition. Edited by Carl Bezold. Translated by James A. Crichton. London: Williams and Norgate. Reprint Ancient Language Resources, Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2005.
La langue de Yaudi: Description et classement de lancien parler de Zencirli dans le cadre des langues smitiques
du nord-ouest. Waterloo: ditions SR.
Dombrowski, Bruno W. W.
1962
Some Remarks on the Hebrew Hithpael and Inversative -t- in the Semitic Languages. Journal of Near
Eastern Studies 21: 22023.
Dupont-Sommer, Andr, with Jean Starcky
Les inscriptions aramennes de Sfir (Stles I et II). In Mmoires prsents pars divers savants lAcadmie
1958
des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 15, pp. 197351, pls. ixxix. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.
Fassberg, Steven E.
1990
Fischer, Georg
2005
A Grammar of the Palestinian Targum Fragments from the Cairo Genizah. Harvard Semitic Studies 38. Atlanta:
Scholars Press.
Jeremia 125. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg: Herder.
2002
A Grammar of Classical Arabic. Third edition. Translated by Jonathan Rodgers. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A.
1995
The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire. Revised edition. Biblica et orientalia 19A. Rome: Editrice Pontificio
Istituto Biblico.
Friedrich, Johannes, and Wolfgang Rllig

1999
Phnizisch-Punische Grammatik. Third edition. Analecta orientalia 55. Rome: Pontificium Institutum
Biblicum.
Garr, W. Randall
1985
1993
Gelb, Ignace J.
1952
Gesenius, Wilhelm
1817
Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000586 B.C.E. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

The Niphal Derivational Prefix. Orientalia 62: 14262.
Old Akkadian Writing and Grammar. Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary 2. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Ausfhrliches grammatisch-kritisches Lehrgebude der hebrischen Sprache mit Vergleichung der verwandten
Dialekte. Leipzig: F. C. W. Vogel.
166
Jeremy M. Hutton
Gibson, John C. L.
1975
Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, Volume 2: Aramaic Inscriptions. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Golomb, David M.
1985
A Grammar of Targum Neofiti. Harvard Semitic Monographs 34. Chico: Scholars Press.
Graf, Karl Heinrich

1862
Der Prophet Jeremia. Leipzig: Weigel.
Greenfield, Jonas C.
1964
Linguistic Matters in the Sfire Inscriptions. Leshonenu: Journal for the Study of the Hebrew Language and
Cognate Subjects 2728: 30313. [In Hebrew]
Grneberg, Keith N.
Abraham, Blessing and the Nations: A Philological and Exegetical Study of Genesis 12:3 in its Narrative Context.
2003
Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 332. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Hackett, Jo Ann
1984
The Balaam Text from Deir All. Harvard Semitic Monographs 31. Chico: Scholars Press.
Hmeen-Antilla, Jaakko
1984
The Prothetic Vowel (wala) in Classical Arabic. In Studia Orientalia Memoriae Jussi Aro Dedicata, pp.
30513. Studia orientalia 55. Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica.
Harris, Zellig S.
1936
A Grammar of the Phoenician Language. American Oriental Series 8. New Haven: American Oriental Society.
Hasselbach, Rebecca
2004
The Markers of Person, Gender, and Number in the Prefixes of G-Preformative Conjugations in Semitic.
Hitzig, Ferdinand
1841
Der Prophet Jeremia. Leipzig: Weidmann.
Hock, Hans Heinrich

1991
Principles of Historical Linguistics. 2nd edition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hoftijzer, Jacob, and G. van der Kooij, editors
1976
Aramaic Texts from Deir Alla. Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 19. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Huehnergard, John
1987
1995
1997
Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription. Harvard Semitic Series 32. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
What Is Aramaic? Aram 7: 26182.
A Grammar of Akkadian. Harvard Semitic Series 45. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Hutchinson, Enoch, translator

1855
Uhlemanns Syriac Grammar. New York: Appleton.
Hutton, Jeremy M., and Safwat Marzouk
2012
The Morphology of the tG-Stem in Hebrew and Tirgalt in Hos 11:3. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures (anticipated 2012).
Ibn Jana, Abu l-Wald Marwn
1875
The Book of Hebrew Roots. Edited by Adolf Neubauer. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Jackson, Kent P.
1989
Janssen, Jozef M. A.
1956
Janzen, J. Gerald
1973
The Language of the Mesha Inscription. In Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab, edited by Andrew
Dearman, pp. 96130. Archaeology and Biblical Studies 2. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Egyptological Remarks on The Story of Joseph in Genesis. Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap: Ex Oriente Lux 14 (19551956): 6372.
Studies in the Text of Jeremiah. Harvard Semitic Monographs 6. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Kahle, Paul
1913
167
Masoreten des Ostens: Die ltesten punktierten Handschriften des Alten Testaments und der Targume. Beitrge
zur Wissenschaft vom Alten Testament 15. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs.
Kaufman, Stephen A.
1982
Reflections on the Assyrian-Aramaic Bilingual from Tell Fakhariyeh. Maarav 3: 13775.
Keil, Carl Friedrich
1872
Biblischer Commentar ber den Propheten Jeremia und die Klagelieder. Biblischer Commentar ber das Alte
Testament III/2. Leipzig: Drffling and Franke.
Knig, Friedrich Eduard

1881
Historisches-kritisches Lehrgebude der Hebrischen Sprache. Volume 1. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs.
Krahmalkov, Charles R.
A Phoenician-Punic Grammar. Handbuch der Orientalistik 54. Leiden: Brill.
2001
Krebernik, Manfred
1991
Kuriakos, Luke M.
1973
Kutscher, Yehezkel
1962
Gt- und tD-Stmme im Ugaritischen. In Texte, Methode und Grammatik: Wolfgang Richter zum 65. Geburtstag,
edited by Walter Gross, Hubert Irsigler, and Theodor Seidl, pp. 22770. St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag.
Non-paradigmatic Forms of Weak Verbs in Masoretic Hebrew. Quilon: Assisi Press.
The Language of the Hebrew and Aramaic Letters of Bar Kochbah and Those of His Generation, Part 1:
The Hebrew Letters. Leshonenu: Journal for the Study of the Hebrew Language and Cognate Subjects 26: 723.
[In Hebrew]
Lambdin, Thomas O.
1953
Egyptian Loan Words in the Old Testament. Journal of the American Oriental Society 73/3:14555.
Introduction to Classical Ethiopic (Geez). Harvard Semitic Series 24. Missoula: Scholars Press.
1978
Philippis Law Reconsidered. In Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry, edited by Ann Kort
1985
and Scott Morschauser, pp. 13545. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Lambert, Mayer
1895
Lass, Roger
1984
Leslau, Wolf
1944
Llif wesla. Journal Asiatique 9/5: 22534.

Phonology: An Introduction to Basic Concepts. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Le rapport entre et h en semitique. In Annuaire de lInstitut de Philologie et dHistoire Orientales et Slaves
7, pp. 26572. New York: ditions de lInstitut.
Lieberman, Stephen J.
1986
The Afro-Asiatic Background of the Semitic N-stem: Towards the Origins of the Stem-afformatives of
the Semitic and Afro-Asiatic Verb. Bibliotheca Orientalis 43: 577628.
Macuch, Rudolf
1969
McCarter, P. Kyle
1980
McKane, William
1986
Grammatik des samaritanischen Hebrisch. Studia Samaritana 1. Berlin: de Gruyter.

The Balaam Texts from Deir All: The First Combination. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 222: 4960.
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, Volume 1: Jeremiah IXXV. International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments 21. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark.
Mhlau, Ferdinand, and William Volck, editors

Wilhelm Gesenius Hebrisches und Chaldisches Handwrterbuch ber das Alte Testament. 9th edition. Leipzig:
1883
Vogel.
Muraoka, Takamitsu
The Tell-Fekherye Bilingual Inscription and Early Aramaic. Abr-Naharain 22 (19831984): 79117.
1984
168
Jeremy M. Hutton
Nldeke, Theodor
1904
Compendious Syriac Grammar. Translated by James A. Crichton. London: Williams and Norgate. Reprint,
Ancient Language Resources. Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2003.
OConnor, Michael P.
1983
Writing Systems, Native Speaker Analyses, and the Earliest Stages of Northwest Semitic Orthography.
In The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth
Birthday, edited by Carol L. Meyers and M. OConnor, pp. 43965. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Olshausen, Justus
1861
Ornan, Uzzi
1990
Lehrbuch der Hebrischen Sprache. Braunschweig: Vieweg and Sohn.

Two Types of Hitpael. In Studies on Hebrew and Other Semitic Languages, Presented to Professor Chaim
Rabin on the Occasion of His 75th Birthday, edited by M. Goshen-Gottstein, S. Morag, and S. Kogut, pp. 13.
Jerusalem: Academon. [Hebrew, with English summary on p. vii]
ibn Paron, Solomon ben Abraham

1844
Maberet He-Aruch. Edited by Solomon Gottlieb Stern. Pressburg: Schmid.
Philippi, F.
1895
Das Aliful Wali. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft 49: 18792.
Rendsburg, Gary A.
1982
2002
Laql Infinitives: Yiphil or Hiphil? Orientalia 51: 23138.

Israelian Hebrew in the Book of Kings. Bethesda: CDL Press.
Rosenthal, Franz
1995
A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic. Sixth revised edition. Porta Linguarum Orientalium, neue Serie, 5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Rowley, Harold H.
1929
The Aramaic of the Old Testament. London: Oxford University Press.
Sarauw, Chr.
1907
Zu den Inschriften von Sendschirli. Zeitschrift fr Assyriologie 20: 5967.
Schottroff, W.
1976
dqp pqd heimsuchen. Theologisches Handwrterbuch zum Alten Testament 2: 46686.
Segal, Moses H.
1927
Segert, Stanislav
1984
Siebesma, P. A.
1991
Sivan, Daniel
1984
2001
Skoss, Solomon L.
1942
Smith, Mark S.
2006
Speiser, E. A.
1955
A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Reprint, Ancient Language Resources. Eugene:
Wipf and Stock.
A Basic Grammar of the Ugaritic Language with Selected Texts and Glossary. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
The Function of the Niphal in Biblical Hebrew: In Relationship to Other Passive-reflexive Verbal Stems and to the
pual and hophal in Particular. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 28. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Grammatical Analysis and Glossary of the Northwest Semitic Vocables in Akkadian Texts of the 15th13th c. B.C.
from Canaan and Syria. Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language. Handbook of Oriental Studies 28. Leiden: Brill.
A Study of Inflection in Hebrew from Saadia Gaons Grammatical Work Kutub al-Lughah. Jewish
Quarterly Review 33: 171212.
The Rituals and Myths of the Feast of the Goodly Gods of KTU/CAT 1.23: Royal Constructions of Opposition, Intersection, Integration, and Domination. Resources for Biblical Study 51. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
The Durative Hithpael: A tan-Form. Journal of the American Oriental Society 75: 50614.
Streck, Michael P.
2003
169
Die akkadischen Verbalstmme mit ta-Infix. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 303. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Stevenson, William B.
1924
Grammar of Palestinian Jewish Aramaic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reprint, Ancient Language Resources. Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1999.
Testen, David
1985
1999
Tropper, Josef
1990
1993
2000
2002
The Significance of Aramaic r < *n. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 44: 14346.
Arabic Evidence for the Formation of the Verbal Noun of the Semitic Gt-Stem. Journal of Semitic Studies
44: 116.
Zur Vokalisierung des ugaritischen Gt-Stammes. Ugarit Forschungen 22:371-73.
Die Inschriften von Zincirli. Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palstinas 6. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Altthiopisch: Grammatik des Geez mit bungstexten und Glossar. Elementa Linguarum Orientis 2. Mnster:
Ugarit-Verlag.
Tsumura, David Toshio

1991
Vowel sandhi in Ugaritic. In Near Eastern Studies: Dedicated to H. I. H. Prince Takahito Mikasa on the Occasion of His Seventy-fifth Birthday, pp. 42735. Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan 5.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
1997
Vowel sandhi in Biblical Hebrew. Zeitschrift fr die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 109: 57588.
Tur-Sinai, N. H.
1967
Voigt, Rainer M.
1994
1995
Weiser, Arthur
1955
The Plain Meaning of the Bible, Volume 3/2. Jerusalem: Kiryath Sepher. [In Hebrew]
Der Lautwandel s > h in wurzellosen Morphemen des Alt- und Neusdarabischen. In Semitic and Cushitic
Studies, edited by G. Goldenberg and S. Raz, pp. 1928. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Akkadisch umma wenn und die Konditionalpartikeln des Westsemitischen. In Vom Alten Orient zum
Alten Testament: Festschrift fr Wolfram Freiherrn von Soden zum 85. Geburtstag am 19. Juni 1993, edited by M.
Dietrich and O. Loretz, pp. 51728. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 240. Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
Das Buch des Propheten Jeremia, Volume 1: Kapitel 125,13. Alte Testament deutsch 20. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.
Yalon, Henoch
1932
Hithpelformen im Hebrischen. Zeitschrift fr die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 50: 21720.
Yoo, Yoon Jong

1999
Israelian Hebrew in the Book of Hosea. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.
Canaano-Akkadian: Linguistics and Sociolinguistics
171
13

Shlomo Izreel, Tel Aviv University*
1. Introduction
1.1. The Amarna Letters and Their Language
The Amarna letters are named after the site in Egypt in which they were discovered. These letters were sent
to the Egyptian pharaohs Amenophis III and (his son) Akhenaten around the middle of the fourteenth century
b.c. Among the senders were the kings of Babylonia, Assyria, Hatti, and Mittani, as well as minor rulers of the
Near East at that time. The letters were written in the cuneiform script, most of them in Akkadian or what was
thought to be Akkadian by the scribes who wrote them (I elaborate on this issue below). During the second millennium b.c., Akkadian, or what is now termed Peripheral Akkadian, served as the lingua franca, that is, the diplomatic language, of the ancient Near East. Many of the letters were sent to the Egyptian pharaohs by the rulers
* This paper is in essence a revision of the first part of a paper

delivered at the El-Amarna Centennial Symposium held in Chicago in February 1987. The written version of that paper was
submitted for publication in the proceedings of that conference,
which, however, have never been published. Machine-typed
copies of that paper (now available on the Internet; see Izreel
1987b) have been circulating and were occasionally referred to
by some of my colleagues on various occasions (I am thankful
that they have found this paper worthy of academic discussion).
In the meantime, some advances in the study of both CanaanoAkkadian and the theoretical foundations upon which this paper
was written have been made, as well as the publication of a new
hypothesis by Eva von Dassow on the nature of the language as
being Canaanite rather than a mixed Canaano-Akkadian dialectal continuum. Therefore, I felt it necessary to make the paper
available to the public in a revised form to fit the accumulation
of knowledge since its initial delivery. As the version published
here is sizeable enough, space has not permitted me to include
some discussions included in the previous versions (see below,
n. 27). These discussions are still available for the reader online in an intermediary version, which includes some revisions
made on the 1987 version (Izreel 2007a). Acknowledgments: In
its primary version, the lecture given at the Amarna centennial
has benefitted from comments from the original audience. The
ideas that formed the basis for that lecture have been presented
on various occasions before different audiences, with yet accumulated gains I have received from the interaction with the
audience. Robert Wilson, Anson F. Rainey, Gideon Goldenberg,
Baruch Podolsky, and Naphtali Kinberg commented on some of
the issues presented in this paper when preparing the original

version. Tony Badran read an intermediary version some years
ago. Ehsan Yarshater, Baruch Podolsky, and David Yerushalmi
assisted me with issues concerning Loteri (see 1.5). Eva von
Dassow and Jun Ikeda kindly sent me their papers before their
publication. Uri Horesh assisted me in eliminating substratal influence from yet another intermediary, revised version, and Eitan
Grossman has contributed significantly to make my ideas expressed therein more clear. Just before sending this last version
for publication, I had the privilege to present my ideas before an
audience at Tsukuba University, Japan, where, again, I benefitted from comments from the audience. Masamichi Yamada and
Jared Miller addressed my queries about Akkadographs in Hittite. Jared Miller has further sent me some valuable comments
on a previous draft of this version. Mark Weeden discussed with
me logography in Hittite texts. Seth Sanders has commented
elaborately on a draft of this revised version, offering many important insights. I thank all of you, colleagues and friends, for
your kindness and willingness to help. I further thank the editors of this volume, Rebecca Hasselbach and Naama Pat-El, who
kindly accepted to include this long article in this volume, and
for some constructive comments. Both the editors and I believe
that John will appreciate this contribution, as he was one of the
first to hold the original paper in his hands and use it, to my
satisfaction. (John: you can discard your copy of the 1987 paper
now.) May it be a worthy tribute to my colleague and friend, from
whose wisdom and scholarship I have benefitted so much during
decades of friendship.
171
172
Shlomo Izreel
of Canaanite city-states, which were at that time under the sovereignty of Egypt. When we examine the letters
in terms of their linguistic structure, we realize that most of them were not written in the common Peripheral
Akkadian dialect, but rather in a mixed language: Akkadian almost entirely predominated in its lexical inventory, while Canaanite, the mother tongue of the scribes who wrote these letters, predominated in the domain of
grammar. The latter influenced the syntax and the morphology of this mixed language and affected its phonology
and semantics. Here and there a purely Canaanite word appears, written in the cuneiform syllabary, serving as
a reading aid, typically used to translate or to clarify an Akkadian word or a (Sumerian) logogram. These are the
famous glosses of the Amarna letters.
To highlight the characteristics of this mixed language and the differences between the language of the
Canaanite letters and that of letters from other sites, let us take a look at two passages from the Amarna
correspondence.

ex. 1.
a-ti-ip i-il-la-k-am -ub-b-la-am a-ma-te.me lugal en-ia b-nu-tam dg.ga-ta a-adia-ku ma-gal ma-gal kur-ia e.me-ia 9 l.me.r a lugal en-ia l.me.r mt-u-t
en-ia a-du-nim ma-gal ma-gal i-nu-ma i-il-la-k-am a-ar-ru a lugal en-ia ugu-ia
i-tu a-ma-te.me en-ia dingir-ia dutu(erim)-ia i-tu a-ma-te.me mt-u-t en-ia
la a-pa-a-ar
atip has come and brought the nice and good words of the king, my lord, and I am very
very glad. My land and my brothers, the servants of the king, my lord, and the servants of
Tutu, my lord, are very very glad when the breath of the king, my lord, comes to me. From
the orders of my lord, my God, my Sun-God, and from the orders of Tutu, my lord, I shall not
deviate. (EA 164:417)
ex. 2. a-nu-ma i!-ru a-nu-ma [i]-te-m[u ]ud.kam-ma mu-a a-wa-ti.me a lugal en-ia
yi-il-ma![-ad] lugal en-ia a-na r-u nu-kr-tu i-tu ur.sag ana ia-i ra-as-pa-ti \
b[a-n]i-t[i] 1-en uru ma-an-a-ti um-i ana u-i-ri a-na pa-ni rin.me p--at lugal
en-ia
Here I guard and here I obey day and night the orders of the king, my lord. May the king, my
lord, be informed about his servant: There is war from the mountain against me. So I built
baniti one house, Manati by name, to prepare for the pt-troops of the king, my lord. (EA
292:2232)
The first passage is taken from a letter of Aziru, the ruler of the northern land of Amurru, and it is written
in a language that shows close affinities with Akkadian. The second passage is taken from a letter of Balushiptu,
ruler of the city of Gezer in southern Canaan, written in the mixed language used by Canaanite scribes, which I
have termed Canaano-Akkadian (Izreel 1998a).
For the differences, note especially the use of the verbs. The two letters can be distinguished both in their
verbal morphology and in their TAM (= Tense-Aspect-Mood) system. The letter from Amurru, EA 164, has the prefix
a- for the 1sg (apaar, line17) and i- for the 3rd person (e.g., illakam, lines4, 12); it also has the ending -uni(m)
for the 3pl (aduni(m), line11). It uses the ventive ending -am extensively (illakam) and the normal Akkadian
imperfective (present-future, durative) and stative forms. The Gezer letter, on the other hand, has forms with
initial i for the 1sg (iuru, line23), while the 3sgm has a y- prefix, as in the Northwest Semitic (henceforth: NWS)
languages (yilmad, line26); there is extensive use of the NWS suffix conjugation with active meaning, both by
means of attaching the suffix verbal person morphemes to Akkadian stems (as in rapati, line29), and by using
pure Canaanite patterns (this feature is attested here only in the gloss for rapati, viz., baniti I built). Another
important feature is the use of the Canaanite verbal modus morphemes, as in iuru and itemu (lines23 and 24,
respectively), reflecting the indicative ending, or yilmad, reflecting the jussive - suffix.
1.2. The State of the Art

The Amarna tablets have drawn much attention since their discovery in 1887, and considerable research effort has been invested in studying the linguistic characteristics of these letters. The last decade of the nineteenth
173
century saw the decipherment and the publication of the texts. The first decade of the twentieth century witnessed Knudtzons great achievement in the publication of his monumental edition of the texts (Knudtzon 1907
[= 1915, vol. 1]), still the standard edition in use today. There immediately followed studies by Bhl (1909), Ebeling
(1910; also in Knudtzon 1915, pp. 13581583), and Dhorme (19131914), who gave us the first descriptions of the
language of these texts and noted the mixed nature of Canaano-Akkadian, in which many of the letters from
Canaan were written. After a few decades of neglect, the 1950s and 1960s gave us the studies by Albright (mainly
1942; 1943a, b; 1944) and especially by Moran, who described the syntactic features of the Amarna letters from
Byblos and who was the first to see that the Canaanite modal system was an inherent feature of the language of
these letters (Moran 1950a; see his collected Amarna studies, 2003). The 1980s was the age of morphological study,
mainly by Rainey (1971; 1973; 1975; 1976; 1978b), and the beginnings of holistic and detailed studies of several
subcorpora within the Canaanite domain, written at Tel Aviv University under Raineys supervision (Nitzan 1973;
Izreel 1976, 1978; Finkel 1977; Rabiner 1981). These lines of research have become mainstream in the linguistic
study of the Amarna letters. Scholars followed the path paved by Moran and Rainey with studies of the larger
corpus or of specific subcorpora, either holistically or for specific linguistic domains, mainly morphology and
morphosyntax (Youngblood 1961; Kossmann 198788; Smith 1998; Westhuizen 1992; 1993; 2005; Tropper 2005;
Cochavi-Rainey and Rainey 2007; Korchin 2008). Syntax and discourse structure have also been given attention
(Finley 1979; Hayes 1984; Gianto 1990; Rainey 1992; 1996, vol. 3 in passing and ch. 8; Westhuizen 1994; Zewi 1995;
1999; Israel 2006), as has phonology (Shehadeh 1968; 1987; Izreel 1987a; 2003a; Sivan 1984). Apart from these
studies, progress has been made in the study of the lexicon (mainly Ebeling in Knudtzon 1915; Rainey 1970; 1978a;
Moran 1984; Sivan 1984; Izreel 1998b; 2003b; Tawil 2009), as well as in the study of phraseology, idiomatics, style,
and rhetoric (e.g., Bhl 1914; Jirku 1933; Gevirtz 1973; Liverani 1983; Hess 1989; 1990; 1993b; 1998; Mangano 1990;
Izreel 1995a; Rainey 2002, pp. 5053). Rainey has continued his research in both the morphology and semantics
of the verb and in other domains, a research effort that culminated in his four-volume book (Rainey 1996), a significant achievement that includes penetrating observations on the verbal system and on other domains (writing,
nominals, adverbs, and particles). I myself have published a concise grammar of Canaano-Akkadian, which consists
of a description of its phonology, morphology, and syntactic structure (Izreel 1998a [2005]). This research effort
has benefited much from Morans comprehensive edition of the Amarna tablets in translation, which includes
a detailed commentary with philological and linguistic notes (Moran 1987; 1992). Hess (1984; 1986; 1993a; 2003)
has studied the proper names, including personal, divine, and geographical names.
Also, minute investigations of other subcorpora from the Amarna archives have been conducted (Adler 1976
on the Mitanni letters; Izreel 1985; 1991a on the letters from Amurru; Cochavi-Rainey 1988; 1989; 1990a; 1990b;
1993; 1998; 2011 on the Egyptian letters; Cochavi-Rainey 2003 on the Alashia letters; for a very brief summary,
see Rainey 2002, pp. 4749).
In addition to the Amarna find, cuneiform tablets have been unearthed in the Canaanite territories (Horowitz,
Oshima, and Sanders 2006). These tablets have enriched our linguistic data, having added some interesting linguistic insights on the accumulated knowledge of Canaano-Akkadian (e.g., Rainey 1976), but more significantly, they
have taught us lessons about the sociolinguistic setting of Canaano-Akkadian. An interesting find in this respect
is a small cylindrical letter found in Beth Shean (Horowitz 1996; Horowitz, Oshima, and Sanders 2006, pp. 4849),
written in Canaano-Akkadian. While cuneiform tablets for internal objectives had been known for quite some time,
this latter find may suggest that Canaano-Akkadian was employed also for correspondence within the Canaanite
territories and not only for correspondence between Canaanites and foreigners. Yet a more appealing alternative
is that this small cylinder was actually used in scribal education (Rainey 2003, pp. 23940). I return to this issue
later (1.5). Still a case in point although attested in a text sent from out of the borders of Canaan is EA 170,
a letter sent to Aziru, the ruler of Amurru, by his brother and son, while Aziru was in Egypt. This letter seems
to forward sensitive data to Aziru about the advance of the Hittites in the Amurru region, with a note about the
relationship between Amurru and the Hittites, Egypts enemies. This letter was written in (Peripheral) Akkadian.
One might ask at this juncture why a confidential letter like this would be written in the lingua franca if not due
to the lack of any written codes to forward a message to their king other than Akkadian. However, one may bear
in mind that Hurrian had had the tradition of being written in the Akkadian cuneiform syllabary, so that the use
of the Akkadian lingua franca in this letter might have been the medium used by the scribes of Amurru by rote. In
fact, this very letter exhibits apart from Hurrian interference also the use of Hurrian glosses (Izreel 1991a,
vol. 1, pp. 37173). In another place (Izreel 1995b, pp. 10507) I suggested that it was the scribe who served as the
messenger, personally carrying this tablet to Egypt. If indeed so, this would make the case even more intriguing.
174
Shlomo Izreel
(For a detailed Amarna bibliography, see Heintz 1982; 1995; Heintz and Millot 1995; 1996; 2000; Heintz, Millot, and
Mehmedi 2003; Heintz, Mehmedi, and Vita 2006.)
1.3. Attitudes toward Canaano-Akkadian and Its Linguistic Nature

Considerable progress has indeed been made. During the last few decades, scholars dealing with the language
of the Canaanite Amarna letters have become more and more aware of its structural nature. This awareness is the
result of the change in attitude toward the language: once considered a degraded form of Akkadian, it has now
been recognized that it possesses an elaborate linguistic system of its own.
As late as the 1970s, the scribes of Canaan were regarded as writing in a barbarous language. The following
is an exemplary remark by William L. Moran, the scholar who more than anyone else has contributed to
our understanding of the structure of Canaano-Akkadian. In his entry on the Amarna tablets in the Encyclopaedia
Judaica from 1971, he writes,
The letters are written in Akkadian, the lingua franca of the Ancient Near East in the second millennium
B.C.E. In general, the language belongs to the peripheral Akkadian found at Nuzi, Alalakh, Ugarit etc.
Eloquent and moving as it may be at times, it lacks all elegance; it is awkward, often barbarous, betraying
the scribes ignorance not only of Akkadian but of their native speech.1 This is especially true of the letters
from Phoenicia and Palestine. (Moran 1971, p. 933)
Well, this is a good description as far as an Akkadophile is concerned. From the eyes of a potential member
of the Babylonian Language Academy, had one existed, the language of the Canaanite scribes would indeed be
regarded as barbarous Akkadian:
It is no wonder that Assyriologists found the texts difficult and frustrating; they represent such a radical
departure from the Akkadian norm that many were disposed to call them barbaric. Today that charge can
no longer be sustained, especially for the letters written from the land of Canaan, that is the Levant south
of the Nahr el-Kebr and ancient Kedesh on the Orontes. (Rainey 1996, vol. 2, p. 1)
Indeed, some twenty years later, in his introduction to his translations of the Amarna letters, Moran writes,
In the southern tradition the transformation of the Babylonian language and the resulting deviations from
normal usage were far more radical than in most forms of Hurro-Akkadian (i.e., the Peripheral Akkadian
dialects used in the northern Levant and beyond, marked by Hurrian influence; S.I.). Indeed, so radical is
the transformation that one may ask whether the language of this tradition, even when qualified as extremely barbarized, should be called Babylonian at all. It is a pidgin in which the Babylonian component
is mainly lexical, whereas the grammar is profoundly West-Semitized, most notably in the word order and,
most important of all, in the verbal system. The language can only be described as an entirely new code,
only vaguely intelligible (if at all) to the West Semite because of the lexicon, and to the Babylonian because
of the grammar. (Moran 1992, pp. xxixxii)
It has thus become a consensus that the language exhibited by Amarna letters from Canaan is not to be regarded and analyzed as a corrupt form of Akkadian, but as a linguistic system bearing its own features. As such,
it deserves due consideration and description other than looking at it and evaluating it through the filters of
standard Akkadian. This new code, to use Morans terminology, served its purposes as a means of communication, being an offshoot of the Akkadian lingua franca of Western Peripheral Akkadian.
1.4. Theoretical Background

This change in attitude is the result of substantive progress in general linguistics and theoretical linguistics during the twentieth century. Theoretical linguistics has developed new ways of looking at languages and
I find this comment quite perplexing. How can speakers be ignorant of their own native speech?
175
analyzing languages. Structuralism brought with it the call for distinguishing between synchronic and diachronic
studies of language. This call highlighted the necessity of defining and describing the systemic relationships
between linguistic components. It has also resulted in the recognition of the essential difference between langue
and parole, or much later between competence and performance (see, e.g., Sampson 1980, pp. 4546, 4950). For
our needs, it would be better to follow the Saussurian conception of these terms. Thus langue will be considered
as the linguistic system of the community, parole as the speech production of an individual within the linguistic
community (de Saussure 1955, p. 37).
Linguistics has developed an interest in various specific aspects of human language behavior of the community
and of the individual. Subdisciplines of linguistics sociolinguistics, dialectology, anthropological linguistics,
cultural linguistics, and so on have arisen in response to new questions and problems, such as those related to
registers, diglossia, bilingualism, multilingualism, and other phenomena of language contact, to name but a few.
Notably, variation has become an issue of importance in the study of both synchronic and diachronic aspects of
a language, and the recognition that variation as an inherent feature of language is slowly gaining general acceptance. (A convenient, comprehensive overview of the state of the art in these areas will be found in Chambers,
Trudgill, and Schilling-Estes 2002.)
With regard to the question of language contact, which interests us here, we have come to know contactinduced languages with features similar to those of Canaano-Akkadian, such as stem borrowing in Maltese
(Aquilina 1965, pp. 20107; Drewes 1994, pp. 8991; cf. already Izreel 1978, pp. 7980 n. 262), Maa (or Inner
Mbugu) (Goodman 1971; Thomason 1997b), Media Lengua (Muysken 1994; 1997), Michif (Bakker 1994; Bakker and
Papen 1997), Copper Island Aleut (Menovshchikov 1968, pp. 40405; Golovko 1994; Thomason 1997a), and Loteri
(Yarshater 1977). We see below (1.5) samples from some of these languages to show the similarities in structure
between these languages and Canaano-Akkadian. Data from these and many other languages of contact may now
greatly enhance our ability to understand the complicated phenomena that we are faced with when studying
the language of the Canaanite Amarna letters. Indeed, a relatively recent collection of linguistic descriptions
of mixed languages (Bakker and Mous 1994) includes also a brief description of Canaano-Akkadian (Kossmann
1994).2 Therefore, along with the consensus of the nature of Canaano-Akkadian as a linguistic system that deserves
study in its own right rather than a corrupt form of Akkadian, there is wide consensus of the nature of CanaanoAkkadian as a contact language, similar to many attested linguistic systems.
1.5. Terminology and Concepts

When scholars began to realize the nature of the structural profile of the language written by the Canaanite
Amarna scribes, they looked for a convenient term to describe it. Terms are important, because a term is a linguistic sign, of which the signifi is a concept, and therefore reflects our view of the nature of this language. In
the first version of this paper (Izreel 1987b), I used the term jargon (cf. also Albright 1966, p. 4), referring more
to the sociological aspect of the term than to its linguistic one. As a sociological term, a jargon is a type of language used by a professional or another specialized group. However, as a general term it can also be understood
as a confused unintelligible language, or as a strange, outlandish, or barbarous language or dialect (MerriamWebster 199496; see also Crystal 2010, p. 451). While it had been used in the past to indicate a mixed language (Hall
1966, p. xiv), in more recent studies of language contact, this term has sometimes come to stand for an unstable
pre-pidgin state of a language, extremely reduced in form and use (Mhlhusler 1997, vol. 6, pp. 12838; Matras
2009, p. 278). My faithful reader already knows, and will become even more aware later, that this is not a happy
term for Canaano-Akkadian.
Moran has used the term pidgin (see citation above), a term used also by Ikeda (1992). It is also used indiscriminately by Rainey (e.g., 1996, vol. 2, pp. 17, 29), along with other terms (including jargon; see below), although he
claims that the term interlanguage better fits this type of language than pidgin (1996, vol. 2, pp. 3132, in a section
entitled The Late Bronze Jargon in Canaan; my emphasis). For both Moran and Rainey, it seems, the term pidgin
means a linguistic type consisting of features from different languages.
Kossmann terms it Amarna Akkadian. I myself fancied once the

term Amarnaic (1995a, p. 2418; also Ikeda 1992). Both terms imply
that the interference took place in Egypt, which is obviously not

the case.
176
Shlomo Izreel
A pidgin is a much-reduced language that arises on the lexical basis of a model language in a bilingual or a
multilingual society, where no indigenous tongue serves as a common language. When such a language becomes a
native language for a specific community, it is called a creole. As such, it expands so that it can serve for all needed
communicative purposes like any other native tongue (Hymes 1971; Romaine 1988; Holm 19881989; Mhlhusler
1997; Matras 2009, 10.2). Pidgins and creoles are, hence, products of language contact par excellence, so that
apart from the study of various contact phenomena and languages of contact it is this specific branch of the
linguistic science that may prove central to a deeper understanding of language-contact phenomena.
Clearly, Canaano-Akkadian was not a native tongue, and hence the use of the term creole for it would be inappropriate. But also the use of the term pidgin for this linguistic continuum hardly fits. Among other issues, one
may note that pidgins are not mixed languages in the sense most often intended. It appears that the most mixed
area is the lexicon, where syncretisms of various types are common, and not syntax (Mhlhusler 1997, p. 5).
This is certainly not the case of Canaano-Akkadian. I further believe that the emergence of Canaano-Akkadian
was not similar to the emergence of the commonly attested pidgins, that is, it was not developed out of an urgent
need for oral communication among parties or individuals, but was rather the result of a break in a long tradition
of cuneiform writing in the Levant (Izreel 1995a, p. 2418).
The term interlanguage, or rather, institutionalized interlanguage, has been suggested for Canaano-Akkadian by
Gianto (1990, pp. 1011; 2000). Interlanguage is a system of rules said to develop, in the mind of someone learning a foreign language, which is intermediate between that of their native language and that of the one being
learned (Matthews 2007, p. 198). I doubt whether the circumstances of the emergence of Canaano-Akkadian
would permit us to regard the outcome as an imperfectly learned language at a synchronic view, as required by
the term interlanguage. Was Akkadian education so impoverished that scribes could not learn enough as to make
their way toward the goal of writing a sentence in Peripheral Akkadian? In fact, they could, at least for the rote
opening formulae as well as in other contexts. As against Giantos claim, the Canaanite cuneiform scribes were
not denied access to the target language, as they were receiving letters written in Peripheral Akkadian throughout this whole period, and at times they accommodated their writing to conform to the language and style they
were reading from the pharaohs letters (see below, 3.2). Moreover, cuneiform education in second-millennium
Canaan seems to have been rather widespread, although precise measures are still wanting. The find suggesting
scholarly activity within the boundaries of mid-second-millennium Canaan includes, inter alia, lexical tablets of
local origin, produced either in the place of their find or elsewhere in Canaan (Goren, Finkelstein, and Naaman
2009). Thus the Gilgamesh fragment from Megiddo was probably originated in Gezer (op. cit.). Goren, Finkelstein,
and Naaman (2009, p. 771) suggest that the scribes attending the Gezer school studied classical literary texts of
the Mesopotamian scribal tradition and distributed them to other Canaanite centers like the one in Megiddo. The
existence of a school at Megiddo is further inferred by certain features in the letters sent from that site, notably
the use of tripartite glosses, reminiscent of the three-column lexical tablets used for scribal education (Izreel
2003b, p. 91). One other indication of scribal education at Megiddo is the use of the Akkadian 1sg affix of the
suffix conjugation form -aku, as against standard Canaano-Akkadian -ati or -ti (Izreel 2005, p. 4). The question
of impoverished education may surface at this point, especially as there has not been any solid proof of scribal
education in Canaano-Akkadian (Sanders 2009, p. 83). An argumentum ex silentio can hardly be sustained, for either claim. However, I still believe that due to the break in direct contacts between Canaan and the northern
Levant mentioned above the curriculum of the Canaanite scribal schools did include training in letter writing
in Canaano-Akkadian rather than in standard Akkadian or Peripheral Akkadian of any type known to us (e.g.,
Egyptian Akkadian or Syrian Akkadian). How this was done we can only guess, and the very term suggested by
Gianto, institutionalized interlanguage, claims precisely that. As is noted below, variation in the output language
of different scribes does not necessarily entail impoverished education, and the rules of intertwining elements
from Canaanite and Akkadian into the Canaano-Akkadian system may have well been variable in various scribal
schools within the Canaanite region or just used variably by different scribes.
At this juncture, one will recall the small cylinder from Beth-Shean mentioned above (1.2), which may well
be an educational artifact. As against Horowitzs suggestion that this small cylinder served as an intelligence mail
(1996, pp. 21317), Rainey (2003, pp. 23940) reminds us of the inscribed cylinder found at Amarna (EA 355) that
exhibits a series of repeated identical signs. While the genre of this text is still under discussion (for the various
suggestions, see Izreel 1997, pp. 4142), the very fact that it was found among scholarly tablets at the so-called
records office at Amarna (op. cit., 3, 49) suggests precisely that: this item did serve as a scholarly artifact. One
should especially recall the actual text inscribed on the Beth-Shean cylinder, which says, To Labaya, my lord,
177
speak. Message of Tagi: To the king, my lord: I have heard your message to me (cf. Horowitz 1996, p. 210; Horowitz,
Oshima, and Sanders 2006, pp. 4849). As such, it does not seem to include a real, actual message on behalf of an
alleged sender, but a standard text of letter writing.3 In that it reminds us of three fragments from the scholarly
corpus found at Amarna, EA 342, EA 343, and EA 344, which seem to be exercises in letter writing (Izreel 1997, pp.
2023). Notably, some features of at least one of these fragments, EA 343, may suggest that the scribe who inscribed
this practice tablet was not Egyptian but Canaanite (op. cit., p. 22, comment to line 4). If indeed the Beth-Shean
cylinder can be regarded as an exercise in letter writing, then it can serve as evidence for scribal education in
the same language used for writing letters to Egypt, namely, Canaano-Akkadian.
Cases of fossilized, or stabilized, interlanguage are attested mainly among minority ethnolects (Matras 2009,
pp. 58, 76), but imperfect second-language acquisition is one of the major constructs in the formation of many
cases of contact-induced languages, notably pidgins (op. cit., pp. 77, 284). In such cases, interlanguage would be
a term that refers to the historical emergence of that language, not a denotation of its synchronic status. When
the term interlanguage is to be used as a denotation for a synchronic status of linguistic use, it should refer to a
dynamic situation where learners are still in the process of learning the language and therefore the form of their
interlanguage is due to change in time. This is not a happy term for the denotation of the languages of minority
ethnolects or English in India, thus described and called collective interlanguage by Matras (2009, p. 76).
To my mind, the best term used so far for indicating the nature of Canaano-Akkadian is mixed language.
There is no consensus on what constitutes a mixed language. Still, in their essence, mixed languages are languages
that show a mixture of linguistic features from different systems to the extent that their genetic affiliation cannot be ascribed to one of their sources (Matras 2009, p. 288, following Thomason and Kaufman 1988). While not
attempting a definition of the term, Bakker and Mous still see similarities among the languages described in their
collection Mixed Languages (1994). They do, however, propose the term language intertwining for the process
forming mixed language showing a combination of the grammatical system (phonology, morphology, syntax) of
one language with the lexicon of another language (Bakker and Mous 1994, pp. 45). As mentioned above (1.4),
Canaano-Akkadian is included among the languages listed therein. In fact, there are no two mixed languages described in the extant literature that are similar in their mixture of different components, and Canaano-Akkadian
is not exceptional in this matter (pace Sanders 2009, pp. 8889). A few examples may suffice to illustrate the point.
The African language Maa (or Inner Mbugu), spoken in Tanzania, consists of Bantu grammar and mixed Bantu
and non-Bantu (largely Cushitic) lexicon (Goodman 1971; Mous 1994; Thomason 1997b). In the following example
(taken from Mous 1994, pp. 17576; 2003, p. 9; Matras 2009, p. 297), the Maa (Inner Mbugu) text (in the first line)
is compared with Normal Mbugu (in the second line). The elements in Maa that would be different in Normal
Mbugu are italicized, whereas all others are printed in underlined roman characters. Mostly, it will be content
words that will be replaced by Non-Bantu elements.4

ex. 3. h-l
h-na
mw-agir -s-we kimwri

dila
w-a
m-zima -tang-we
kimwri m-fumwa w-a
16-have 1-elder 1-call-past.perf Kimweri king
i-i
i-d
l- lust
i-sanga l-
lust
1-con this 5-land 5-con Lushoto
There was an elder called Kimweri, king of this land of Lushoto.
Media Lengua is a language spoken in central Ecuador. Its basic structure is Qechua, whereas the vast majority of its lexical stems are taken over from Spanish. In the following example (taken from Muyskin 1997, p.
365), Spanish stems and their respective glosses are printed in italics, whereas Qechua morphemes are printed
in underlined roman characters.
The two broken lines would not include more than two or three
words, which would not detract from this impression.
4
Grammatical glosses: absolutive; accusative; benefactive; causative; connective; dative; definite article; epenthetic segment;
genitive; hn = nominal head (a; see Izreel 2005, 3.1.4); jussive;
3
negative; oblique case; past; plural; nominative; passive; perfect; possessive; progressive; present; relative; repetitive; sg =
singular; subjunctive; 1st person. The numbers in the gloss line
indicate nominal classes; see Mous 2003, ch. 6, for details.
178
Shlomo Izreel
ex. 4. Unu fabur-ta

one
pidi-nga-bu
bini-xu-ni
favor-acc ask-nom-ben come-prog-1
I come to ask a favor.
Michif is a North American language composed mainly of Cree (Native American) and French components.
Michif exhibits, by and large, a split between the nominal domain, which is mostly of French origin, and the
verbal one, which is mostly Cree. In the following example (taken from Bakker 1994, p. 28; cf. Matras 2009, p.
303), French elements and their respective glosses are printed in italics, whereas Cree elements are printed in
underlined roman characters.

ex. 5. un vieux ana ayi un vieux opahikt -nhcihcikt

an old
this uh an old trapper
kwa ayi un matin

and
kwaniskt
uh one morning woke-up
trapped
ahkosiw
be.sick
An old trapper this uh an old trapper was trapping

and uh one morning he woke up sick.
Mednyj Aleut, the Aleut dialect of the Copper Island in the far eastern part of Russia (near Alaska), exhibits
a mixture between Russian and Aleut (Menovshchikov 1968, pp. 40405; Golovko 1994; Thomason 1997a). Here
again, the split is between the nominal and the verbal domains: nouns and their inflections are largely of Aleut
origin, and finite verbs originate largely in Russian. In the example below (taken from Golovko 1994, p. 115), the
Russian elements are italicized; the Aleut elements are printed in underlined roman characters.

ex. 6. boochki-x
ni-umnaa-l
poetomu taanga-gan huzu-u
barrel-abs.sg neg-tight-past so
water-rel
The barrel had a hole in it, so all the water went away.
hyuu-l
all-poss drip-past
Our last example is taken from a language that is usually ignored in the discussions of contact languages in
general and of mixed language in particular. This is the mixed language of Persian Jews known as Loteri, in
which Hebrew and Aramaic lexemes are introduced into the grammatical frame of their Persian dialect. As summarized by Yarshater (1977, p. 1), Loteri serves to protect the privacy of conversation among members of the
community in the presence of gentiles. Loteri is a mixed language. Pronouns, adjectives, and the majority of
nouns and verbal bases, as well as some prepositions, are Semitic, whereas verbal endings, modal prefixes, suffix
pronouns, most of the particles, and the sentence structure are Iranian.
In the following example (taken from Yarshater 1977, p. 2), Semitic elements are printed in italics, Iranian
elements in underlined roman characters.

ex. 7a. anni by-un
b-ez-on
xibn, on v-ez-on
I want-1sg subj-go-1sg street
go
rep-go-1sg
I want to go out (lit. in the street); I shall go and return.

ex. 7b. vaxti ez(z)-id-am5 derax-e
nim gdul-ie, be--met-n-
when go-past-1sg with-gen wife

anni tm
I
big-def dat-3sg-say-epen-past
mi--un-am
whole prs-do-caus-1sg
When I went to the wife of the elder one, she said, I shall put it right.
Both am and on/un (colloquially) mark the 1sg.
179
The notion of mixed language has been subject to debate mainly due to the fact that languages taken as prototypical of language mixtures are not identical in the way their structural components reflect the originating
languages of contact. Thus Matras (2009, pp. 30304) wonders whether it is at all possible to define a structural
prototype for mixed languages, or whether the only feature that defines them as a unique sub-type of contact
language is the history of their emergence coupled with an unusual by comparison with cases of gradual borrowing combination of sub-components. Matras then suggests that [t]he mixed language prototype is thus
not a lexicon-grammar split, but a split between finite verb inflection or the predication-anchoring language,
and the bulk of referential lexical vocabulary, or content-reference language. This kind of split, writes Matras,
can be explained in terms of the language processing mechanism and especially the mechanism of selection
and inhibition of wholesale components within the repertoire: the anchoring of the predication is the more
intuitive, less conscious mental act (2009, pp. 30405). The concentration on the verbal domain in CanaanoAkkadian seems to fit this explication of the outcome of a community where two languages are at play, in our
case Canaanite speaking scribes learning and using Akkadian, or rather Canaano-Akkadian, as their language
of written communication.
As we do not have direct access to the emergence of Canaano-Akkadian, any attempt to classify it according
to any speculative non-linguistic setting must be viewed as precisely that: speculative. One should note at this
juncture that there have also been some arguments raised against classifying types of linguistic mixture along
historical grounds (Winford 2010, pp. 18285).6 On the other hand, Canaano-Akkadian certainly exhibits structural
traits that show a similar split between its linguistic components described above, where the key feature is the
verbal inflectional morphology that is purely Canaanite (but see below, 3, for an analysis of the complexities
of the overall system). We have already seen above (ex. 2) one example of Canaano-Akkadian in an extract from
a letter from Balushiptu of Gezer to the pharaoh. In the following Canaano-Akkadian example, extracted from
another letter from Gezer this time from Yapau the originating languages of the different components are
indicated as follows: the Akkadian components in italics, the Canaanite ones in underlined roman characters.7

ex. 8. mimma
a qaba-
arr-u
be:l-i-ya
ana ya:i
everything hn say.past-3sgm king-nom lord-gen-1sggen to 1sgobl

-iteme--u
magal damqi
1sg-hear.prf-juss-3sgmacc much
beautifully
I have heard very well everything that the king, my lord, has said.
ani:ta
innepa:-ti
ki:ma ri:qi
moreover make.pass-past.1sg like
pot-gen
Moreover: I have become like a pot (EA 297:816)

As one can see, the vocabulary lexical and function words alike is largely of Akkadian origin, whereas
the inflectional morphology of the verb is largely Canaanite. One should note that even the non-concatenative
morphemes within the verbal forms can at times be Canaanite, whereas the roots are Akkadian. In our example,
this is the case with the form qaba he said (Izreel 2005, pp. 2829). Interestingly, the use of grammatical morphemes is not the same in the nominal and the verbal domains, as the nominal domain very much like the cases
of Michif and Mednyj Aleut consists of morphemes of the same origin as the lexemes, in our case Akkadian. In
many instances Canaano-Akkadian shows convergence in form of Akkadian and Canaanite components, notably
in the pronominal and case systems, as well as in some stem or pattern formations. As regards pronouns and
case markers, paradigmatic comparison suggests that the convergent forms are basically part of the Akkadian
rather than the Canaanite component of the language. Thus, for example, the genitive 1sg pronominal suffix,
which had been identical in Akkadian and Canaanite, must be compared to the 3rd-person forms with //, which
are part of the Akkadian paradigm (for the Canaano-Akkadian paradigm as a whole, see Izreel 2005, p. 20). As for
6
Winford reshuffles the classification of contact languages in
general and tries to do it on different terms altogether; see Winford 2007.
For the grammatical glosses, see note 4 above.
180
Shlomo Izreel
the case system, although the forms and function of the case ending in the two languages are similar, the lack of
the Canaanite plural ending -ma suggests that the nominal number-case indicators u and i should be regarded
as Akkadian, and by implication the system as a whole. For the plural-masculine in their unbound forms, compare, for example, the commonly attested amu, ame heaven with the Canaanite gloss amuma (EA 211:17; cf.
Izreel 2005, p. 16).8
All in all, I do not see any fundamental differences between the morphological structure of Canaano-Akkadian
and those languages usually taken as prototypical to language mixing or ones that eluded the general linguistics
literature such as Loteri (pace Sanders 2009, p. 89). In addition to the morphological split, one should note that
the syntax of Canaano-Akkadian is also largely Canaanite (Izreel 2005, 3), as is much of its grammatical semantics (with some inevitable lexical semantics as well; Izreel 2005, 5; for the general issue of lexical semantics in
contact languages, see, e.g., Lefebvre 2008).
One other point raised against using the concept of mixed language as a theoretical construct for the study
of Canaano-Akkadian is that all mixed languages described in the literature essentially rise in the context of a
spoken environment (von Dassow 2004, pp. 64950 and n. 20). As we shall see below (4), while Canaano-Akkadian
was essentially employed in the written medium and was probably intended by and large to be used in written
communication, the formation of Canaano-Akkadian cannot be understood unless it was spoken in some form at
least at the time of its emergence. I should also add at this juncture that whether there was any direct contact at
any time between Canaanites and Akkadian speakers is not something that I should consider in order to classify
or define the nature of the resulting contact between the languages (pace Sanders 2009, pp. 8890). One should
recall at this point that whereas older cuneiform documents from Canaan show (Peripheral) Akkadian related to
the Old Babylonian period, Canaano-Akkadian data seem to be attested in written documents from Taanach dating perhaps to the late fifteenth century (Rainey 1999; Horowitz, Oshima, and Sanders 2006). This points to the
potentiality of further finds in the area to make the research into the origins of Canaano-Akkadian rely on more
solid bases than the materials found hitherto, including also, I hope, some clues about the sociolinguistics of the
emergence of the mixed language and the linguistic contacts between Canaanite speakers and Akkadian speakers at various points in the history of this region. At this stage of research and with the existing stock of written
materials available to us, I would argue that the linguistic materials as reflected in the cuneiform find is enough
to determine the structural similarity between known mixed languages and Canaano-Akkadian.
One other term that may well fit the nature of Canaano-Akkadian is fused language. This term, which I prefer
over fused lect (Auer 1999),9 refers to a linguistic continuum that has resulted from the mixing of two linguistic
systems and that has gone through a process of grammaticalization so that it has become characterized by rule
governed, nonvariable structural regularities (Auer 1999, p. 310). In this meaning, nonvariable does not mean
that linguistic variation does not exist, but that the use of elements borrowed from the two languages in contact
is governed by rules and that the borrowed elements are not freely interchangeable. In other words, variation is
not random, and the system shows stabilized form-function relationships. According to Auer,
While L[anguage] M[ixing] by definition allows variation (), the use of one language or the other for
certain constituents is obligatory in F[used] L[ects]; it is part of their grammar, and speakers have no choice.
(Auer 1999, p. 321)
While this definition of the term may seem to be too neat, it may fit well the nature of Canaano-Akkadian,
as is perhaps the case with other mixed languages. However, the difference between the hitherto categorized
Blau (1970, pp. 3637) suggests that the Canaanite case system
had already been in decline during the Amarna period, judging
from pseudo-corrections and (rare) inconsistencies in the use
of cases according to our expectations of the system based on
comparative evidence. While this is not the place to discuss this
contention, one could think of geographical or other variation in
the employment of case system. Of course, if Blaus thesis is correct, it will give further support to the point raised here, i.e., that
the case system is part of the Akkadian component of the system
rather than a carry-over from Canaanite. For an overall survey of

the Canaano-Akkadian case system, see Kossmann 198788. For
some Canaanite substratal influence in the preservation of case
endings in the construct state, see Rainey 1996, vol. 1, pp. 17475.
9
Auer refers to Matras 1996 for this term, and to Scotton 1988
for the term fused variety. For more recent discussion of the
notion of Fusion by Matras, see Matras 2005; Matras 2009, p. 363
(index). For the term lect, see below, n. 14.
181
mixed languages and the so-called fused lects still needs further investigation (Auer 1999, pp. 32132 and n. 20;
cf. Matras 2009, p. 318 n. 8).
One might also suggest the term hybrid language, which is usually not associated with any specific type of
language contact (although it can sometimes be associated with code switching; cf. Auer 2005). Therefore, I could
resort to this solution. However, the use of this term would not be transparent enough for the actual split between
linguistic components in Canaano-Akkadian, which, as mentioned, does resemble, to the best of my judgment,
other cases of mixed language hitherto described, without ignoring the differences.
Therefore, I see no real point at this stage of research in discarding the accepted term mixed language as the
term that as I have tried to argue above fits best the nature of Canaano-Akkadian.
The aim of this paper is to pinpoint some key features of Canaano-Akkadian and its sociolinguistic setting,
which may serve us well in deepening our understanding of this linguistic continuum in any future research. In
what follows, I first discuss in some detail the perception of Canaano-Akkadian by the Canaanite scribes, suggesting that they thought of this mixed language as Akkadian (2). I then proceed to ask whether we can share
the ancient scribes view of Canaano-Akkadian as Akkadian (3). This is done by discussing variation as an inherent characteristic of Canaano-Akkadian, along with its implications for the nature of the language as a single
linguistic system. I then delve into the issue of the underlying spoken reality of Canaano-Akkadian (4). In the
last, concluding section (5), I again inquire into the identity of Canaano-Akkadian, now from the point of view
of the two languages involved: Akkadian and Canaanite. The study concludes with a few remarks on synchrony
and diachrony and on some prospects for possible inquiries concerning sociolinguistic aspects of the Canaanite
Amarna letters and related texts (6).
2. What Did the Canaanite Scribes Think of the Language

They Were Writing?
The language written by the Canaanite scribes, like any other linguistic system, served as a means of communication. As far as we know now, Canaano-Akkadian was used for correspondence between Canaanite and Egyptian
scribes (and officials?) of that time. The Canaanite scribes would write their letters in Canaano-Akkadian, but
could understand the letters sent to their rulers on behalf of the Egyptian pharaoh perfectly well. These letters
were written in Egyptian Akkadian, a closely related variety of the northwestern Akkadian lingua franca of that
time (Cochavi-Rainey 1988; 1998; Edel 1994). The Egyptian scribes who received letters from Canaan could, for
their part, understand the mixed language of these letters.
Yet there was a significant difference between the languages of these parties. The structure of Egyptian
Akkadian was closely related to that of other Akkadian dialects; the linguistic varieties used by the Canaanite
scribes had many structural traits similar or identical to contemporary NWS dialects. The structural gap between
the languages used by the Canaanite scribes and Egyptian Akkadian was sometimes very large. I am not at all
confident of the mutual intelligibility of these languages had an Egyptian scribe encountered his fellow Canaanite
scribe in face-to-face interaction. I also suspect that previous training was needed for an Egyptian scribe to understand a Canaanite scribe, and vice versa, even in writing. From a sociolinguistic point of view, the language
of the Egyptian scribes was superior to that of the Canaanite scribes. In other words, it served as a superstratum.
In spite of the marked difference between Egyptian (or other Peripheral) Akkadian and Canaano-Akkadian,
I argue that the Canaanite scribes perceived their language of correspondence as (a dialect of) Akkadian. This
perception can be shown in different ways, of which the most conspicuous manifestations are the following: the
use of Akkadian opening formulae (2.1); the perception of Canaanite glosses as foreign words and the occurrence
of Akkadian glosses in the texts (2.2); the use of genuine Akkadian verbal morphology within the letters (2.3);
the occurrence of Akkadian-like hyper-corrections (2.4); the fact that the lexical basis of that language and the
bulk of its nominal grammatical domain are almost purely Akkadian and thus give an overall Akkadian look to
the language (2.5). To these factors one may add the important psychological factor of their using the Akkadian
script. Although the use of script cannot serve as a sole argument (cf. the use of cuneiform script for Hittite and
Hurrian), in this case it may well support this claim, given all other arguments. An illuminating paragraph in this
respect written by Weeden on the use of cuneiform in Hittite will be cited in 5 below.
182
Shlomo Izreel
2.1. Opening Formulae

The Canaanite scribes used letter-opening formulae and some other formulae that had been adopted from
Mesopotamian chancellery practice. In these formulae, the scribes used, in most cases, genuine standard Akkadian
expressions and standard Akkadian verbal forms. A typical example is the following:

ex. 9. a-na lugal-ri en-ia dutu-ia q-b-ma um-ma mri-ib-dikur r-ka-ma a-na gr.me en-ia
d
utu-ia 7-u 7-ta-an am-q-ut
To the king, my lord, my Sun-God, say: Message of Ribhaddi, your servant:
I fall at the feet of my lord, my Sun-God, 7 times (and) 7 times. (EA 104:15, Byblos)
The training of the Canaanite scribes had indeed been based on the usual practice of Mesopotamian scribal
schools (cf. below, 4.0; further Knutson 1982 and especially Mynov 2007; for opening formulae in general,
see Salonen 1967). In Ugarit, scribes used Akkadian formulae in Akkadian letters, and the opening formulae of
letters written in Ugaritic exhibit strong similarities to the Akkadian formulae, to the point that some are literal
translations (Ahl 1973; Knutson 1982; Cunchillos 1999; Huehnergard 1999; Hawley 2003). Still, they did not use
Akkadian words in these formulae but did translate them into Ugaritic. As we see below, there are some indications that the opening formula had also been pronounced (4.1.5).
2.2. Glosses
The Canaanite scribes regarded the Canaanite glosses as foreign words. By foreign I mean not foreign to
their native tongue, but foreign to the linguistic system they were writing in (cf. Gianto 1995, p. 73). These glosses
and not the so-called Akkadianisms (3.0) were, in most cases, marked by a Glossenkeil (cf. Artzi 1963). Most
instructive is the gloss na-a-a-a in the following passage:

ex. 10. li-il-ma-ad lugal-ru en-ia i-nu-ma l.sa.gaz a yi-na-a-i \ na-a-a-a i-na kur.
ki. na-da-an dingir-lu a lugal-ri en-ia a-na ia-i i-du-uk-u
May the king, my lord, be informed that the Apiru man who had become elevated naaa
in the lands, the god of the king, my lord, gave to me and I killed him. (EA 366:1116, Gath)
The gloss na-a-a-a translates yi-na-a-i, a verbal form typical of Canaano-Akkadian. It has Canaanite markers for person (y-) and mood (-), and these are annexed to a stem taken from Akkadian, namely, -inai- (<i+nai;
Izreel 2005, pp. 3032; 2007a, 5.2). The roots were very similar in the three cognate languages, namely, Akkadian,
Canaanite, and Canaano-Akkadian. The Canaano-Akkadian verbal form yinai was glossed not because the scribe
felt it necessary to interpret the lexical difference between the two forms, but to interpret the grammatical differences between them.
He thus used a verbal form stemming from the Canaanite, namely, naaa, to interpret the form he used in
the flow of his letter. It is the first form, yinai, that he regarded as Akkadian.
The existence of Canaanite glosses is well understood if one takes into consideration the imperfect knowledge of Canaanite scribes of the language they were using. However, the Amarna letters further exhibit Akkadian
glosses, and one wonders what the need of such glosses was if the language as a whole would not be interpreted
by its users as an Akkadian system. One interesting case is the invention of an Akkadian-like noun that glosses
a Sumerogram in a letter from Egypt to Milkilu, the ruler of Gezer, probably by one of his scribes (Izreel 1995b,
pp. 10918):

ex. 11. m.d \ a-q-tum
woman-cupbearer (EA 369:8)
The equation between the Sumerogram d and the Akkadian term q is attested only in lexical lists (AHw
1181a; CAD /1, p. 24b) and seems to be evoked in this case only due to scribal education. As the feminine counterpart of the referent cupbearer seems to have not been known in Mesopotamia, the acute need for this linguistic
innovation arose in the context of the demand of women cupbearers on behalf of the pharaoh from his vassal
183
Milkilu, and therefore the scribe had to generate this form. Why would he not write it down in his own mother
tongue? The answer to this question seems to be clear: the linguistic system he wrote in was not Canaanite but
one that he regarded to be Akkadian.
One other case in point is the occurrence of a Canaano-Akkadian gloss in a letter from Jerusalem:

ex. 12. []-ba-na la-a gaz \ di-[k]a-t[i]
I was almost killed. (EA 287:73)
This verb, translating the Sumerogram gaz, consists of a stem originating in the Akkadian stative and the
person morpheme, ati, in itself a hybrid form consisting of the Canaanite person suffix ti preceded by the vowel
a, which originates in the stative conjugation of Akkadian (Rainey 1996, vol. 2, p. 285). As in other cases of nonCanaanite glosses, the only way I can explain the occurrence of a Canaano-Akkadian gloss is the perception of
the scribe that his language of correspondence in this letter is not Canaanite. As we see below (4.1.5), there are
indications that Akkadian glosses were actually pronounced.
2.3. Hyper-corrections
An example of hyper-correction is attested in the form i-ru-da-am found in a letter from Gezer. The context
is as follows:

ex. 13. tu-u-ru-ba-ni a-na uru.didli.ki-ni-ia u lu- i-ru-da-am lugal en-ia ki-ma a a.a-ia u
t[-p]-ti-[ia]
May you10 (re)admit me into my cities, so that I may serve the king, my lord, like my father
and [my] co[llea]gues. (EA 300:1820)
The meaning of the Akkadian verb aradu is to descend. As a verb of motion, it may be used in standard
Akkadian with the ventive ending. In Canaano-Akkadian, however, there exists a verb aradu, which is a denominative from ardu servant, thus denoting to serve. Additional ventive endings in forms of this verb with the meaning
to serve are hence unwarranted. The verb irudam is found in a final clause that requires a (Canaanite) volitive
form, since it follows another volitive verb (cf. Moran 1960 = 2003, #10).11 Therefore, either the long or the short
volitive is expected, since regarding their volitive force, yqtl and yqtla are essentially the same (cf. Moran 1950a,
p. 105 = 2003, pp. 9798). The scribe of this letter chose the long volitive not haphazardly, but because he sought
to make use of a good Akkadian form. However, he went too far. Knowing the (correct?!) spelling of the ventive
ending in Akkadian, he added an am sign at the end. By adding the -am ending to this verb instead of the long
volitive ending -a (i.e., with no m), the scribe felt he granted it a better Akkadian look (cf. Izreel 1978, excursus
C and p. 82 n. 278[b]).
Such hyper-corrections could not have occurred unless the scribes were unaware of the alleged Akkadian
nature of the language they were using. Mimation is a feature of older dialects of Akkadian and might have preserved as a spelling anachronism, as is the case in core Akkadian texts or in some Peripheral Akkadian dialects (see,
e.g., Izreel 1991a, 1:1.7). However, in this case we might think of this spelling not as an anachronism, but as an
indication of the actual pronunciation of this ending, due to the lack of historical tradition of the pronunciation
of this specific verb with mimation and, especially, due to the explicit use of a final Vm syllabic sign (as against a
final Cvm one). Such spellings may have pointed to the actual pronunciation of forms preserving mimation also in
core Akkadian dialects in some cases, as I have tried to show elsewhere (Izreel 2000; for a suggestion that mimation in Akkadograms in Hittite texts was pronounced, see Weeden 2007, pp. 2021; for Canaano-Akkadian cf. also,
briefly, Izreel 2005, p. 13). Another possible case of hyper-correction has been suggested in Izreel 2005 (p. 12;
cf. below, 4.1.3). Such cases stress the need for further investigation in order to search for similar phenomena.
10
Moran (1992, p. 341) takes tuurubani as a 3sgf. Cf. Izreel 1978,
p. 80 n. 265.
11
There has been some discussion regarding the nature of the
long volitive; see Izreel 1978, pp. 8082; Rainey 199193; 1996,
vol. 2, pp. 25463; Tropper 1997; 1997/1998, p. 136; Huehnergard

1998, p. 71; Korchin 2008, 4.3.
184
Shlomo Izreel
2.4. The Lexicon

It is repeatedly noted above that the lexical basis of Canaano-Akkadian is almost purely drawn from Akkadian.
This is not a minor trait of a language as regards the way its speakers perceive it. On the perceptual level, the
lexicon is by far more prominent than the grammatical structure, and people tend to perceive the identity of
their language according to its lexical basis, its vocabulary, even if it has a remarkably different syntax than does
the standard variety of the language. This is so in many areas in the world where English is spoken, notably the
language of African American on one hand and pidgin varieties on another. A Nigerian student once told me that
in Nigeria there is Pidgin English and Grammar English; in Pidgin English there is no grammar, he said, but
people understand.
I have argued that the Canaanite scribes perceived their language of correspondence as (a dialect of) Akkadian.
Would it be justified also for us, as students of Canaano-Akkadian, to describe this complicated situation as a single
linguistic system? In order to address this question, we should discuss with some detail the notion of variation
in the Amarna letters.
3. Variation
Variation appears to be found everywhere throughout Canaano-Akkadian. Variation is not only geographical; it is also influenced by the tradition of each scribal school, sometimes by idiosyncrasies of a certain scribe.
Moreover, variation may be found within one and the same text. It thus appears that variation is an inherent
characteristic of the language employed by the Canaanite Amarna scribes. By this attribute, Canaano-Akkadian
is not different from any other natural language, written or spoken.
Variation in the Amarna letters is based on structured changes between components of (Peripheral) Akkadian
and of Canaano-Akkadian. The (Peripheral) Akkadian components that occur within a text written in CanaanoAkkadian have been termed Akkadianisms (Izreel 1978, 7.2.1; 2005, p. 5; following, e.g., Rainey 1975, p. 420;
1996, vol. 2, p. 23). Akkadianisms are found in Canaano-Akkadian in letter-opening formulae and in a few other
formulaic phrases. Of course, these are rote phrases and formulae learned at school for serving the traditional
functions in letter openings. However, aside from these formulae, there are many other Akkadianisms used in the
Amarna letters sent from Canaan. For example, one will note the standard Akkadian imperative, attested with
great frequency, and especially precative forms of the verb, which are utterly foreign to NWS dialects. Such are
also a plethora of other verbal forms. Note the following example:

ex. 14. e-ia tur i-tu ia-ti i-na-kar-mi uru.gub-la.ki a-na na-da-ni uru.ki-li a-na dumu.me
r-ma-i-ir-ti
My brother, (who is) younger than me, became hostile towards Byblos, in order to hand
the city to the sons of Abdiashirti. (EA 137:1619)
The form i-na-kar(-mi) he has become hostile is the only finite verbal form in this letter of Ribhaddi, the
ruler of Byblos,12 that has an Akkadian structure. All other 3sgm forms have an initial y- marker for this person,
for example, yi-i-mi he heard (line7), yi-mur he saw (line20), ia-an-a-ni he despised me (line23), and many
others.13
Akkadianisms are used in the great majority of cases not as haphazard insertions, but in perfectly fitting
contexts, and one can formulate rules for their occurrence. These rules can be either linguistic or discoursive.
This letter was not sent from Byblos, but from Beirut (cf. lines
1415). Yet its language does not resemble that of the other Amarna letters from Beirut (EA 14143; probably also EA 9798). Several similarities in style to the other Byblos letters perhaps indicate that a scribe from Byblos may have accompanied Ribhaddi in
his journey. Further research may yield more solid conclusions.
12
Knudtzons i[-tu-ur] (line 9) should be corrected to i[a-tu-ur],

to conform with the pattern attested in other forms of this verb
in Amarna (Ebeling in Knudtzon 1915, p. 1530).
13
185
Before illustrating these rules, I wish to introduce the theoretical framework that I find most appropriate to deal
with the complex linguistic continuum of the Canaanite Amarna letters.
3.1. Theoretical Framework

A Canaanite scribe was almost always writing on behalf of a local vassal ruler, who was always inferior in
rank compared to the addressee, be it the pharaoh himself or one of the Egyptian officials. From a comparison of
the language of each of the Canaanite scribes to the language of the Egyptian scribes, it seems preferable to consider that we are dealing with two distinct linguistic systems, for the most part. Admittedly, in certain instances,
there are minor differences between the language of the Egyptian and Canaanite scribes. As such, they may be
regarded as different variants of the same language. Nevertheless, in most of the subcorpora from Canaan, the
two languages show deep and significant structural differences between them.
Canaanite scribes usually read Egyptian Akkadian in the letters they received from the pharaohs scribes.
Whether they had been taught also to write in the standard Peripheral Akkadian system is not a question that
can be solved with our present knowledge (but cf. the remarks below, 4.0). What we do know is that the scribes
of Canaan wrote in a different language and that the language they were using was an accepted linguistic system
among the chancellery officials of Canaan.
Research in linguistic variation has shown that a speech communitys language, that is, any natural language,
forms a system of orderly heterogeneity, which implies that variation is omnipresent and non-random, constrained by multiple linguistic and social factors (Montgomery 2007, p. 118, citing from Weinreich, Labov, and
Herzog 1968, p. 100). Yet there are linguistic situations where variation is especially prominent and displays large,
sometimes even extreme, divergences between lects.14 Parallels to the linguistic situation attested in the Amarna
correspondence can be found in similar contexts elsewhere. Variation in the context of two different linguistic
structures will be found in diglossic situations as defined by Ferguson (1959), namely, the use of significantly different linguistic systems in various registers, notably in writing and speech, as in Arabic-speaking communities
(see further Fishman 1967; Fasold 1984: ch. 2; Kaye 2001).
A continuum of variants used by scribes in various diglossic settings is probably not the case here (for a suggestion to thus treat the Arabic diglossia, see Hary 1996). In the Arabic-speaking communities, a single person
would use both extremes and the continuum between those two extremes in various situations. He would speak his
native dialect at home and write in Modern Standard Arabic, and when speaking in a formal situation, he would
go along the continuum to various extents. As against this situation, Peripheral Akkadian and Canaano-Akkadian
would not be used discretely by one and the same scribe. He would read a letter in Egyptian Akkadian and write
in Canaano-Akkadian. The Canaanite scribes diglossia would therefore manifest itself between his reading the
letters he was receiving from Egypt and the ones he himself would write. However, when looking at the language
of the scribal community of Canaan as a whole, a linguistic continuum is what we observe. The Amarna letters
indeed form a continuum of lectal varieties.
Clear cases of continua within a linguistic community that are similar in some respects to the Amarna
Canaanite situation may be found in several creole-speaking areas where there has been continued contact with
the model language. In such communities, a plethora of lects forms a vast continuum of linguistic varieties. The
creole basilect is found at one of its extreme points. The acrolect, that is, the model language, is found at the
other extreme. This linguistic situation is generally termed a postcreole continuum (see, e.g., Holm 198889,
vol. 1, pp. 9, 5260; Mhlhusler 1997, pp. 1112, 21121; Kaye and Tosco 2001, pp. 9697).
Two approaches have been developed to handle such cases of variation. One tends to distinguish between
two or more linguistic systems with a great deal of overlapping between the systems (e.g., Tsuzaki 1971; cf. also
Winford 1985). The other approach regards this linguistic situation not as a static one, but rather as a dynamic
14
The term lect: (used in sociolinguistics or dialectology aside
the term of language variety) is used here to indicate a single
linguistic system, whether of a single scribe or of a single text
reflecting a unique linguistic system of its own, even from among
a choice of texts written by one and the same scribe. The notion of lect was introduced by C.-J. N. Bailey, who used lect as
a non-committal term for any bundling together of linguistic
phenomena (Bailey 1973, p. 11).
186
Shlomo Izreel
system, in which both the community and the individual play different rles within each situation. As such, this
approach provides for one linguistic system in which variation follows specific and orderly rules. Such rules may
be either obligatory or optional and are regulated by linguistic and by discoursive factors.
It is this latter method that has been preferred and adopted by dialectologists and sociolinguists, since variability has gained recognition as an inherent structural feature of language per se (Decamp 1971; Bailey 1973;
Labov 1971; Petyt 1980, chs. 5 and 8; Chambers and Trudgill 1998, ch. 9; Chambers, Trudgill, and Schilling-Estes
2002 in various chapters; for yet another alternative, see Matras 2009, pp. 45).
Two main objections have been raised against postulating more than one system. One is in the domain of the
community. Here it would require either attributing to each idiolect its own distinct system or postulating two
or three systems within the community with many points of interference and overlapping between them, and a
lot of variation within each. The second objection is relevant to the domain of the individual, that is, the idiolect.
Here we would have to posit too many switches from system to system within a single discourse.
Both objections will prove valid for the linguistic description of the El-Amarna letters from Canaan, since
there is variation not only between the different scribes, but also within the linguistic output of each scribe.
Therefore, I would like to suggest the second approach for their study. I suggest that Canaano-Akkadian be treated
as a single linguistic system consisting of lectal varieties stretching between the extreme of the clear cases of the
mixed language of the Canaanite letters, and the opposite extreme of lects closer to standard Peripheral Akkadian
as used by some Canaanite scribes. This methodology will not only help us in our endeavor to understand the
essence and the spirit of this language as it was perceived by the scribes themselves, but also allow us to contextualize the variety of Akkadianisms properly, that is, within Canaano-Akkadian. It must be stressed: this language,
with all its variants, did serve as an accepted and most probably, learned means of communication, so that
it must have had a basic structural system that was relatively solid. As such, variation must be admitted into the
description of this system.
This concept of a single system will also help us to account for Akkadianisms within a single letter, numerous
as they may be, and to distinguish them from clear cases of slips into a different linguistic system, in our case
Peripheral Akkadian, occurring in a haphazard manner and without apparent governing rules (cf. Izreel 2007a,
5.3). Akkadianisms that regularly appear in the flow of the text should be described according to rules that govern them. If some of the Akkadianisms are to be proven haphazard or when an irregular code switching occurs,
these may be considered as calques or insertions from a different linguistic system.
I believe that a great majority of Akkadianisms are structurally determined. That is, occurrences of forms
that are closely related to or identical with the analogous forms of standard Akkadian can be determined and
anticipated by rules. In the following sections, I deal with several types of variation, the rules that govern them,
and the triggers for variant forms.
3.2. Intrasystemic Variation

Variation within the system is a feature of the langue (see above, 1.4). Its manifestations can be observed
mainly as dialectal or idiolectal peculiarities. Intra-systemic variation usually manifests itself by differences
among individual texts or groups of texts. There are, however, notable instances in which variations are found
within one and the same text.
Apparent cases of switching toward the Akkadian superstratum also belong to this kind of variation. It is the
task of the student of Canaano-Akkadian to find out whether these switches are structural, and if they are, to
describe the circumstances under which they tend to appear in each case. These circumstances may be triggers
that are either lexical or discoursive, obligatory or optional. In the following two sections, I illustrate some types
of triggers for variation.
3.2.1. Lexical Triggers

An example of a lexical trigger that may induce an apparent deviation from the system is the surfacing of an
Akkadian prefixed stative verbal form of id to know, a form with exceptional behavior also within the structure
of standard Akkadian. Many of the Canaanite Amarna scribes (yet by no means all of them) would use the standard
187
Akkadian forms of this verb: i-de for the 1sg and the 3sgm, ti-de for the 2sgm, and so on (cf. Ebeling in Knudtzon
1915, pp. 142021; Rainey 1973, pp. 24447; 1996, vol. 2, pp. 32328). For example, in EA 100 (a letter from the city
of Irqata), the scribe wrote,

ex. 15. i-de lb-bi lugal en
May the heart of the king, the lord, know ... (EA 100:89)
In this letter we also have [t]i-de you know (line23). All other 3sgm verbs in this letter have an initial y-:
yu-wa-i-r[a he sent (line11); yi-iq-bi he said (line13);
yi--mi may he listen (line31); ia-di-na may he give. (line33)
This is, obviously, a lexical trigger that constrains verbal forms of id from admitting the y- prefix of the 3sgm.
In other words, the verb id does not inflect according to the Canaano-Akkadian norm and thus might be regarded
as an apparent exception to the system. However, the constraints that inhibit the affixation of y- to this verb are
controlled by rules within the system. Therefore, the form ide, although closely related to standard Akkadian
norms, must be regarded as part of the linguistic system of Canaano-Akkadian.
3.2.2. Discoursive Triggers

Several southern Canaanite scribes, when representing the words of the pharaoh to their ruler and quoting
them, or when referring to the pharaohs words even without directly quoting them, use verbal forms closer to
the Akkadian standard than in the rest of the letter. Examples:

ex. 16. a-wa-at ul-te-bi-la lugal
The order that the king has sent (EA 267:910; Milkilu of Gezer)
a-wa-at iq-ba(sic)-bi lugal
The order that the king has said (EA 275:910; Yazibhadda, of an unknown city in southern Canaan)
a-wa-at i-tap-pr lugal
The order that the king has sent (EA 276:910; same ruler as EA 275 above)
a-wa-ti.me! a i-pu-ur lugal
The orders that the king sent (EA 292:1819; Balushiptu of Gezer)
m-ma a i-qa-ab-bi lugal
Everything that the king has said (EA 298:1416; Yapau of Gezer)
All other verbs in these texts, as well as the system itself, are Canaano-Akkadian. This discoursive trigger
that brings about the use of an Akkadian form in an otherwise mixed environment is optional or lect dependent.
Thus, another scribe of Yapau of Gezer writes in the same context as follows:

ex. 17. mi-im-ma a qa-ba lugal
Everything that the king said (EA 297:89)
Here the scribe made use of a typical NWS suffix-conjugation pattern, namely, the active Canaanite stem qatal
(see above, notes to ex. 8), instead of the Akkadian imperfective-iparras form (iqabbi) that his fellow scribe used.15
15
Note the absence of the subjunctive, which is typical of these
texts.
188
Shlomo Izreel
Note that we can formulate discoursive rules that operate on various lects in the same way, yet the output
would not necessarily be the same. That is, whereas the rule may determine the conditions for the use of a form
consisting of purely Akkadian material, the form itself may vary and be in the examples given one of the
various forms cited.
When we deal with quotes from the pharaohs letters, one may claim that quoting is an act of code switching
that takes the scribe from Canaano-Akkadian to Egyptian Akkadian. However, in the citations above, this is not
the case, and it is only reference to the pharaohs orders that brought about the use of Akkadianized forms.
While this rule is optional, as we have seen, whenever the need for the same underlying meaning (signifi)
shows up, a variant form may still surface. This occurs not only in actual quotes from the pharaohs letters, but,
interestingly, also in a pseudo-citation from the kings words:

ex. 18. ki-i i-qa-bu lugal a-na mi-nim i-tap-r[u] mri-ib-dikur up-pa a-na ma-ar be-li-[u]
Concerning (that) what the king has said: Why does Ribhaddi keep sending a tablet to his
lord? (EA 106:3031; Byblos)16
Here one notes the surfacing of a form without the y- prefix of the 3sgm, namely, itapru he keeps sending.
Note further the Akkadianized verb introducing the citation, iqabbu. In a similar environment in the very same
letter, the surfacing form does carry this prefix:

ex. 19. -ni-tam a-na mi-nim yi-i-tap-ru mri-ib-dikur ki-na-an-na-ma up-pa a-na .gal
Furthermore: Why does Ribhaddi keep sending a tablet this way to the palace? (EA 106:1315)
Here the subject is Ribhaddi rather than the pharaoh, and therefore the surfacing form is the one typical of
the mixed language.17
In some letters, the discoursive trigger may act upon the entire letter. In another letter from Byblos, EA 81,
the form iq-bi he said is attested without the y- (line11). This lack of the Canaanite-originating prefix is probably
triggered by the existence of the same form in the opening formula, common in Byblos, which is also attested at
the beginning of this letter (although fragmentary):

ex. 20. [mri-ib-dikur iq-b]i a-na en-[u]
[Ribhaddi sa]y[s] to [his] lord (EA 81:1)
In the opening address, this standard Akkadian form is of course the rule. In such cases, we might also posit
a lexical trigger rather than discoursive. We might formulate a rule that inhibits the annexation of the y- prefix
in 3sgm forms of qab, as was the case with id (3.2.1). These questions need, however, much further research.
We have seen that the Canaano-Akkadian system integrates components that are closely related to the
(Peripheral) Akkadian linguistic system. We have further seen that these components are governed by rules and
therefore must be regarded not as haphazard borrowings into the Canaano-Akkadian system, but as integral to it.
As mentioned, these items have been termed Akkadianisms. The term Akkadianisms may thus be misleading, as
it may suggest that the scribes themselves looked upon such forms as foreign to their linguistic system. However,
it is my claim that both the occurrence of Akkadian glosses (2.2) and this complex situation, where hybrid forms
and (Peripheral) Akkadian forms occur within one system and are bound by rules, support the hypothesis that
the Canaanite scribes indeed perceived their chancellery language as Akkadian.
Moreover, the rules governing variation in Canaano-Akkadian, both the lexical and the discoursive ones,
are similar to rules governing variation in natural languages everywhere. I believe that the set of examples for
such rules as the ones given above suffice to support the claim that Canaano-Akkadian could not have been an
artificial invention of a certain scribal school or of a specific scribal community, as has been suggested by Rainey
(1975, pp. 42324; cf. also Izreel 1978, p. 83, mentioned further in 5 below; Rainey 2002, p. 50; see further 5 for
von Dassows hypothesis). It must have been a product of a natural linguistic development, as attested in various
16
Moran 1992, p. 179: How can the king say:
Pace Moran (1992, p. 179 with n. 2), who suggests that this too
is a quote from the pharaohs letter.
17
189
linguistic communities elsewhere (see 1.4 and especially 1.5 above; further illustrative examples and discussion can be found, inter alia, in Gardner-Chloros 2009). By implication, this further supports an assumption of an
underlying spoken reality for that language.
4. Canaano-Akkadian Had an Underlying Spoken Reality

Being a written language used for specific purposes, the language of the Amarna Canaanite scribes manifests
conventional scribal formulaic phrases of various kinds, and some adopted learned spellings. These are also found
elsewhere in the Akkadian correspondence, both in the core areas, namely, Mesopotamia proper, and in the periphery. This trait was one of the characteristics of scribal training in the Mesopotamian culture in all periods
and all geographical areas (Lambert 195760; Oppenheim 1977, ch. 5; Knutson 1982; Mynov 2007; Pearce 1995;
cf. Artzi 1990; Izreel 1997).
Indeed, the prominence of Canaano-Akkadian as a language whose manifestations are in a written medium
may explain many of its linguistic traits. However, although it may explain the origin of some elements of this
complicated linguistic structure, the emergence and structuring of the system are essentially the same as in
spoken languages. Moreover, an underlying spoken reality for the language attested in the Amarna letters can
be shown to have existed, albeit not as a native tongue or in use in everyday speech. By underlying spoken reality I mean that the texts written in Canaano-Akkadian did not serve as a visual code on its own, but represent
a language that can be decoded phonemically rather than solely graphemically. An underlying spoken reality
would be necessary first and foremost for the emergence of Canaano-Akkadian, at least in scribal communities.
I further claim that Canaano-Akkadian continued to play a role not only as a written code, but also as a genuine
linguistic system, which was necessary for maintaining the scribal curriculum at Canaanite cuneiform schools,
when the scribes-to-be would have vocalized words in that language. I further claim that this language was at
least potentially pronounced. In any case, it had a phonological system underlying the graphemic strings as
they are attested in Canaano-Akkadian texts. On the other hand, with the data at hand at this stage, we are unable to tell whether Canaano-Akkadian might have actually served in the spoken medium not only by the scribes
during their studies or as a potential living language while writing and reading these texts, but also elsewhere,
as well as, perhaps, by wider circles of speakers, like high officials (cf., for now, Ikeda 2010, for Emar).
In what follows, I try to support this hypothesis with some data, first dealing with some phonological features
and by adducing support for the thesis that Canaano-Akkadian was indeed pronounced (4.1), then by dealing
with morphological, morphophonological, and morphosyntactical features, from diachronic and synchronic
points of view (4.2).
4.1. Phonological Features Representing an Underlying Spoken Reality

In the domain of phonology, we have strong evidence for the spoken reality of the mixed language itself,
which manifests occasionally in spelling.
4.1.1. i E = i e18 (Evidence from Amqi)

Let us first observe some consistent spellings attested in some of the letters from Amqi (the Lebanese Baqa;
EA 17380, 363), which are unusual elsewhere in the Amarna correspondence, yet are the norm in this group of
letters. These letters were written by scribes of the same school, as they exhibit striking similarities, not only in
contents, but also in form (cf. Knudtzon 1915, p. 1278 n. 1; cf. Goren, Finkelstein and Naaman 2004, ch.8). In these
18
In formulae, lowercase characters represent phonemic or phonetic values; uppercase characters stand for sign forms. An arrow
indicates representation in writing for uppercase characters, a

linguistic change for lowercase characters.
190
Shlomo Izreel
letters, we find only once the sign i: i-na in (EA 179:21).19 This spelling is in complete accordance with the standard Akkadian norm. In all other instances where we would have expected i to appear, the sign e is used instead:

ex. 21. e-ba-a-nu we are (EA 174:8 etc.); e-ba-a-e he is (EA 179:15); e-din (most probably for idin)
give! (EA 179:23); e-na-a-ar I guard (EA 179:26; for 1sg forms with initial i, see Izreel 2007a,
5.2; for naaru, ibid., 5.2.2.3.3); also e-a-te fire (EA 174:13); ni-e-nu we (EA 174:8 etc.);
te-na-a-ru they (will) guard (EA 180:8)
This constant spelling with e signs should be interpreted as reflecting a genuine pronunciation. The two following 1pl forms offer further support in favor of this conclusion:

ex. 22. ni-e-ta-l we have come (line4); [ni]-e-na-a-ar-u we guard it (line6)
In these two latter cases, the scribe of this letter felt it necessary to show the full verbal stem in the script
(e-ta-l and e-na-a-ar, respectively), while adding to them the 1pl person prefix ni-, so he did not omit its initial
e sign. This e sign, which shows the basic pronunciation of the stem used in this area, thus becomes superfluous
for these specific forms. Of course, the sign ni, used by rote for the 1pl person prefix, can also be read n, which
would yield pronunciations like netali and nenaaru. However, at least for the second form, a long vowel is not
expected. These forms might be explained as idiosyncrasies of a specific scribe who used this language not speaking but in writing. Still, the constant use of the sign e in all other forms, as well as in these two specific forms,
may reflect a phonemic or phonetic reality in the substrate dialect. We would think of a timbre [e], which would
appear in all these instances when the scribes were trying to pronounce these forms on the grounds of their foreign phonological system. Therefore, these two forms would be pronounced netali and nenaaru, respectively.
4.1.2. (Akkadian) a e; (Canaano-Akkadian) e i

The difference in phonemic status or phonetic distribution of the vowels e and i between Akkadian and the
NWS dialects may explain the introduction of the vowel i to the verbal forms of predominating e formations of
Akkadian in some dialects of Peripheral Akkadian. In another paper (Izreel 1987a), I suggested a phonological
intervention that served as one of the initializing forces for the admission of the Canaanite person prefixes to
the Amarna verbal system. Canaano-Akkadian verbal stems can consist of originally 3sgm Akkadian forms 20 thus
including their initial i- person prefix (Izreel 2005, pp. 3031; Izreel 2007a, 5.2.1; and subsequent analyses). The
phonological rule suggested here may have thus become an impetus, or a support, to bring about this structural
change. If structural changes of Canaano-Akkadian can be explained by phonological factors, this would support
the view that it had a spoken aspect at some point during its history.
In the aforementioned paper, I showed that in some older Amurru letters, verbal forms from roots with e as
their first radical (usually called primae aleph verbs of the e-class)21 and other verbs with predominant e had an
initial i instead of the expected e. The forms affected were 1sg forms of the prefix conjugation and infinitives.
The same applies to most of the Byblos letters, for example,

ex. 23. i-pu-u-na I should do (energic; EA 74:63 and passim); i-p-i (to) do (EA 69:17)
Had the change occurred only in forms of the finite verb, one would be tempted to see this change in primae-e
verbs as part of the overall adoption of the 3sg person prefix into the stem. The fact that this change between
Akkadian and Canaano-Akkadian is a feature not only of finite verbal forms but also of infinitives is better explained by phonology than by morphology. Therefore, it may well be that at Byblos and at other Canaanite sites,
19
The sign i is quite clear in Schroeders copy (1915, no. 103).
Knudtzon inserted it between square brackets in his transliteration (1907, p. 690).
20
The standard Babylonian dialects (Old Babylonian and later)
did not have gender distinction in the 3sg person verbal prefix.
Old Akkadian, Assyrian, and some Babylonian dialects still distinguish between the two genders also in the third person, which
makes gender distinction in the 3sg, attested also in some dialects of Peripheral Akkadian, the linguistic standard upon which
the verb structure of Canaano-Akkadian emerged. The reference
to 3sgm for the i- person marker relates to this structural trait.
21
For vocalic root radicals in Akkadian, see Izreel 1991b; Izreel
and Cohen 2004, 2.4.2.5.
191
we can identify a different phonological structure not only of the NWS substrate dialects, but of Canaano-Akkadian
as well. Similar forms occur also in fifteenth-century Taanach (Taanach Tablet 2:11; Horowitz, Oshima, and
Sanders 2006, p. 133) and the recently discovered fragment from Jerusalem (obverse, line 4; Mazar et al. 2010).
This peculiar phonologically feature may further suggest an underlying spoken reality for Canaano-Akkadian.
4.1.3. Vowel Deletion

For vowel deletion, let us look at two examples from Byblos:

ex. 24. ti-ir-bu you enter (EA 102:11); ir-bu-nim they enter (EA 127:22)
The first form, most probably for tirbu, a 2sgm prefix-conjugation verb with an indicative ending, attests to
the deletion of the vowel between the second and the third root radicals r and b. This deletion is not attested in
the cognate standard Akkadian form, which is terubu (you entered+subjunctive). Note that vowel deletion in
standard Akkadian is inhibited by the long vowel in the first syllable. The second form, to be read irbuni, attests to
the same feature, albeit in a letter that exhibits a different subdialect of Byblos Canaano-Akkadian (for this interpretation, cf. Ebeling 1910, p. 44; for another analysis, see Ebeling in Knudtzon 1915, p. 1406). Whether these forms
are the ad hoc result of interference from the phonological structure of the local indigenous dialect or the result
of analogical processes within the mixed language (in Izreel 2005, p. 12, I suggest a hyper-correction), they could
not have arisen in any scenario other than one involving an underlying spoken reality. In any circumstances other
than actually uttering the forms in question, such written forms simply could not have been generated. The forms
that would have been generated would necessarily appear in script as ti-ri-bu and i-ri-bu-nim, respectively. This is
the case with EA 137:42 [ti-r]i-bu-mi for the 3pl or in EA 127 itself, several lines before the above-cited form
and in a similar context: i-ri-bu-nim (EA 127:19). The spelling of the latter form reflects the correct (Peripheral)
Akkadian underlying phonology,22 which is for our scribes a learned conventional spelling.
4.1.4. nC CC
Since Ebelings presentation of its verbal system (Ebeling 1910, 21), Canaano-Akkadian has been known to
have energic forms (see further Moran 1950a, pp. 5356 = 2003, pp. 5051; Rainey 1996, vol. 2, pp. 23444, 26364;
Zewi 1999, pp. 15773; Izreel 2005, pp. 4243; Korchin 2008, 4.46). The energic marker is -(n)na, but when followed by a suffix or by an enclitic particle, the final vowel is deleted. In such forms the n of the energic marker
is assimilated to the first consonant of the suffix, for example,

ex. 25. i-ti-mu-u-u (itemun+u) I have indeed heard it (EA 320:20; Ashkelon)
nu-ub-ba-lu-u-u (nubbalun+u) we will indeed bring him (EA 245:7; Megiddo)

ni-ik-u-du-um-mi (nikudun+mi) we will indeed capture (EA 245:5; Megiddo)
In the first two examples, the final n of an originally Canaanite morpheme is assimilated by the following
first consonant of an originally Akkadian pronominal suffix, namely, -u. In Canaanite languages this type of assimilation does exist, but only to the initial consonant of the second-person suffixes, for example, (wa)abrkkk
(< abrknk) I will bless you (Gen 26:3; cf. Joon-Muraoka 2006, 61f). However, this would not have happened to
the initial consonant of the third-person suffixes, which was glottal fricative (guttural) [h]. In Biblical Hebrew,
/h/ is usually assimilated to the preceding /n/ rather than the /n/ being assimilated by the /h/; for example, (lo)
tbrknnu (< tbrknhu) you will (not) bless him (2 Kgs 4:29; cf. Joon-Muraoka 2006, 17g[end]). That the substrate language in our case also had /h/ in its third-person pronominal suffix rather than // is proved by the gloss
ma-a-- /mauhu/, where -hu stands for the 3sgm pronominal suffix. This gloss translates Canaano-Akkadian
The second i presents a vocalic pattern for this verb which is

different from the common standard Akkadian one (with u). This
22
i-pattern is usually found in Peripheral Akkadian dialects (Hallo

and Tadmor 1977, p. 9).
192
Shlomo Izreel
da-ku-u they killed him in the very same letter as our second example (EA 245:14). This type of assimilation is,
therefore, a phonological trait of a spoken language transferred to a written medium. Assimilation of n to the following consonant is not only a trait of the substrate language, but also a feature of the mixed language. There is
no other way to explain the assimilation of a phone of a Canaanite morpheme by the following consonant, which
forms part of an originally Akkadian morpheme other than realize that Canaano-Akkadian had a spoken reality.
4.1.5. Indication for the Pronunciation of Akkadian Glosses or Akkadian Lexemes

As shown by Gianto (1995, nos. 36, 8, 11), Akkadian glosses serve to clarify the reading of a Sumerogram. As I
claim above (2.2), Akkadian glosses serve as support to the hypothesis that the Canaanite scribes thought of their
language of correspondence as Akkadian. By implication, this would mean that such lexemes were pronounced
in Akkadian, if not in reading aloud before the addressee, definitely so tacitly by the scribe who applied them,
intending, as it were, to be read in Akkadian by the receiving scribe.
An interesting case in point that shows the actual pronunciation of a Sumerian logogram is dg.ga \ tu-ka
alliance of friendship (EA 136:28, from Byblos; Gianto 1995, p. 67; already Bhl 1909, p. 85). While we look at this
gloss as reflecting a Sumerian lexeme, this was not so for the scribe, who would not make this historical distinction between lexemes according to their original language. This letter exhibits two other Akkadian glosses: saar
\ e-p-ri dust (line 3); l.me.un \ ma-a-ar-ta garrison (line 18). Note that in a letter from Megiddo, the latter
lexeme exhibits a different spelling, suggesting a different pronunciation of this lexeme in the Canaano-Akkadian
dialect of Megiddo and its environment: ma-an-a-ar-ta (EA 244:35; also EA 238:11 and Taanach 6:7; cf. CAD M/1,
p. 333b; see also above, 2.2).
Another interesting case is the form of the Akkadian lexeme eperu or epru dust (CAD E, s.v. eperu; see the previous paragraph). In a series of letters from the Bashan and the Damascus area, this lexeme is spelled up-ri (e.g.,
EA 174:5), suggesting the labialization of the first vowel. (In another letter from that area, probably written by
a different scribe, this word is spelled as in standard Akkadian, namely, ep-ri [EA 185:4].) Interestingly, this word
occurs in the opening of these letters, suggesting an actual pronunciation also in this formulaic section. This is
also the case with the gloss e-pe-ru, discussed above. One should note that the language exhibited in letter-opening
formulae is in the majority of cases closely related to standard (Peripheral) Akkadian (see above, 2.1).
4.2. Morphological, Morphophonological, and Morphosyntactic Features Representing an

Underlying Spoken Reality
Morphological creativity is very difficult to understand within an inherited, fixed, solely written linguistic
system. The following examples are instances of creativity that must have occurred in a living, flexible language,
representing unconscious processes within an underlying spoken reality. It might not be superfluous to remind my
readers that by underlying spoken reality I do not necessarily suggest a widespread use of Canaano-Akkadian in
the spoken medium but for our needs here that the written texts did not serve as a visual code on their own
but represent a language that can be decoded phonemically rather than solely graphemically (see 4 above). In
paragraph 4.2.1, some paths of morphological development are briefly discussed. In 4.2.2, we see the generation
of a new verb out of a borrowed Akkadian unit taken as a stem in the borrowing language, whereas in the donor
language it was an adverbial complex. 4.2.3 adduces examples of verb formation in which the morphophonemic
routine of person prefix attachment is simplified. In 4.2.4, I illustrate the formation of new, simpler, precative
forms that were different from their counterparts in both Babylonian and Assyrian. 4.2.5 deals with the contraction of final vocalic sequences in tertiae vocalis verbs.
4.2.1. Lines of Development

As I have shown elsewhere (Izreel 1984), morphological and morphosyntactic features from various Amarna
letters may be cited as evidence for the gradual development of the mixed nature of this language. In that case, it
was the perception of the -ni (<-nim) allomorph of the Akkadian ventive ending as a part of the plural morpheme of
193
the 2pl and 3pl inflection of the verb in letters of Abdi-Ashirta of Amurru, of which the verbal system is halfway
between Peripheral Akkadian and Canaano-Akkadian (Izreel 1991a, vol. 1, pp. 14041, 26062). To be sure, this
change in function occurs also in Canaano-Akkadian texts southern of Amurru, notably Tyre (e.g., la-a i-l--nim
they will not be able, EA 149:66) and some letters from Byblos (e.g., i-qa-bu-nim they say, EA 127:10). The conflation of the originally ventive allomorph -ni with the plural marker u to form a unified plural marker -uni thus
became very similar to the indicative ending of the respective plural marker in NWS -una. This must have been one
of the initial steps in the introduction of the NWS modal system into many of the Canaano-Akkadian lects, which
exhibit -na for the indicative forms in these two plural forms. It must be emphasized, however, that gradual is
not necessarily to be understood in chronological terms, as I indicate below (6.1). In any case, these facts show
that a written-only understanding of Canaano-Akkadian is not a tenable hypothesis, as here too there is support to the thesis suggesting a spoken reality underlying the development and expansion of this mixed language.
4.2.2. Spontaneous Generation of New Verbal Stems

We now turn to some forms that attest to an actual, contemporary underlying spoken reality. EA 137 from
Byblos attests a unique verbal form derived from the Akkadian adverb ari promptly, quickly, immediately,
namely, ya-ar-i-a may he hasten (EA 137:97). This verbal form is derived in a Canaanite pattern that can be
interpreted either as a qal form of the yaqtil pattern or as a hifil form.23 This must be regarded as a spontaneous
production, constructed in accordance with a common procedure in which an Akkadian stem (i.e., root+pattern)
is taken as an unanalyzable unit to serve as the lexical morpheme in the verb formation of Canaano-Akkadian
(Izreel 1978, excursus B; Izreel 2005, pp. 3032). In this case, the borrowed lexical morpheme is the adverbial
form ari, which in the source language, namely, Akkadian, consists of the lexical stem -ar- together with the
adverbial ending -i. Such formations are not made deliberately or consciously, as the following parallels from
another contact situation show.
Israeli Hebrew, spoken today after two millennia of almost exclusive use as a literary and liturgical language,
has borrowed many new verbal lexemes from other languages, notably European. The usual procedure of such
borrowings in Israeli Hebrew is according to the common Semitic pattern, that is, extracting the consonants of the
foreign word and taking them as a root morpheme in the piel pattern, which is the denominative verbal derivation
par excellence and the default verbal pattern in Israeli Hebrew (Izreel 2007b, p. 118). Thus we have, for example,
tilfen he telephoned (< telephone), nitrel he neutralized (< neutral), fikes he focused (< focus), and many others.
There are, however, some borrowed verbal lexemes that have adopted not the piel pattern but the hifil one. These
are verbs like hipric he sprayed (< Yiddish pric a jet of water), hiflik he slapped (< English flick), and hisnif he
sniffed (< English sniff). Such forms are constructed according to their original pattern in the source language or
preserve the original consonant clustering structure of the originating language (Bolozky 1999, pp. 7677). They
are used exclusively in informal speech, which supports the view that they are popular, spontaneous formations. I
was lucky enough to witness the ad hoc generation of a verb when my son, upon hearing within a Hebrew context
the English expression let them bleed, echoed in response its exact translation as eyablidu (lit., nominalizer24
+they-will-bleed). Obviously, this verb generation in the hifil pattern was sensitive to the English consonantal clustering and vocalic pattern of the form bleed, which fits into the Hebrew hifil pattern (Izreel 2007b, pp. 11516).
This is exactly the case with Amarna yaria, constructed with this pattern in order to preserve its original form.
23
If we would assume elision of the h already at that early period.
For the possibility of such forms in the Amarna tablets, see Sivan
1984, pp. 17576.
The nominalizer e is frequently used for the expression of deontic modality in the environment of prefix-conjugation forms.
24
194
Shlomo Izreel
4.2.3. Creative Prefixconjugation Verbal Forms

Let us now examine two other instances of verb formation that illuminate another morphological process,
very common in Canaano-Akkadian, namely, the adjunction of inflectional prefixes to the stem. The Tyre letters
attest the forms a-te-mu I hear and ta-a-te-me you have heard (EA 149:42 and 56, respectively). In these cases,
the person prefixes do not exhibit the same change of a > e as in Babylonian and are therefore examples of a simplification of the system,25 where no allomorphs are being used in the environment where standard Babylonian
would require them. While Assyrian would exhibit a similar form of the stem when vowel harmony would affect
the pattern vowel (GAG, Verbalparadigma 31), it would not contract the final vowels as is the case with a-te-mu
above (cf. below, 4.2.5). Therefore, these forms here seem to be independent innovations of this specific dialect,
typical of non-native speech (similar forms are found in other peripheral dialects too, e.g., EA 1:10 from Egypt).
In this process, the person prefixes and the modus morphemes (when they exist in the system) are attached to
the stem anew, as a dynamic procedure of a living language rather than of linguistic forms taken over by rote
from an already existing system. Thus a+teme+u atemu; ta+teme tateme. This procedure is, in fact, the norm
throughout the entire span of Canaano-Akkadian, yet in this case it plays not with Akkadian stems and Canaanite
inflectional morphs, but with the stem and the person prefix taken over both from Akkadian, while the modus
morphemes (where they exist) are taken over from Canaanite. Many of the Byblos letters also show this combination of the Akkadian 1sg morpheme and Akkadian stems (Izreel 2007a, 5).
4.2.4. Innovative Precative Formations

Still in Tyre, note the precative forms li-ru-ub I may enter and li-mu-ur I may see (EA 148:16, 17; EA 149:19,
20; also EA 151:17, 30). These too are ad hoc formations, sometimes found elsewhere in Peripheral Akkadian (cf.
Izreel 1991a, vol. 1, 2.4.2.3). The consonant l is attached to the 1sg verbal form, that is, l+irub lirub; l+imur
limur. In fact, this is the way Assyrian structures its precative forms (cf. Izreel 1991b, pp. 4748). Assyrian, however, would have lerub and lamur, respectively. Babylonian would have lurub and lumur. Indeed, the Jerusalem
letters, which show Assyrian traits in their language, do attest such borrowings (Moran 1975a, p. 153 = 2003, p. 267;
Izreel 2005, p. 40). Therefore, the Tyre formations are an independent innovation of this dialect. They are made
of the linguistic materials of Akkadian, without any triggering from the substrate language. Of course, analogical
formations might be postulated rather than restructuring of the system as suggested here (Rainey 1996, vol. 2,
p. 212, followed by von Dassow 2004, p. 663). In any case, postulating an underlying spoken reality resulting in
the restructuring of forms seems preferable to me in the context of the type of morphological restructuring that
results in simplification like the one mentioned in the previous section.
4.2.5. Vowel Contraction at the Boundary between Stem and Modal Morphemes
The last feature I would like to discuss in this section is the usual way in which modal morphemes are attached
to the stem of tertiae vocalis verbs. These verbs exhibit the tripartite morphosyntactic distinction among the indicative (yqtlu), the short volitive (yqtl), and the long volitive (yqtla), indicated by the addition of the Canaanite
modus morphemes to an adopted Akkadian stem, as is the usual procedure with any other verb (cf. Izreel 1978,
7.2 with references; further Izreel 2005, pp. 3638). However, since the last segment of tertiae vocalis verbal stems
is a vowel, it contracts with the vowel of the modus morpheme. The resulting forms are as follows:

ex. 26. yilqu (y+ilqe+u) for the indicative, as in yi-l-q he takes (EA 71:18)
yilqe (y+ilqe+) for the short volitive, as in yi-l-q may he take (EA 116:36)
yilqa (y+ilqe+a) for the long volitive, as in yi-l-qa may he take (EA 71:30)
As against pidgins or other drastically reduced languages, reduction or simplification of the system is not a prerequisite of
mixed languages (see, briefly, Noonan 2010, p. 61). Still, simplification of the system and reduction of linguistic elements are
25
commonly attested in any contact between languages (for the

notions of simplification and reduction, see Trudgill 1983, pp.
10914), as well as in the linguistic structure of Canaano-Akkadian (Izreel 2005, 2.3.12, 2.5.3, 2.5.4, 3.8.1).
195
All three forms are from Byblos, but are widespread throughout the Amarna correspondence from Canaan. At
this stage of research, I am unable to reach any conclusion regarding the length of the final vowel (cf. Izreel 2005,
10). Therefore, what has been referred to here as contraction may have been in fact the deletion of the final stem
vowel. (Non-contracted forms occur only in the Jerusalem Amarna letters, where they represent Assyrianisms;
Moran 2003, p. 268; Izreel 2005, 10.)
These contractions also point to an underlying spoken reality. Similar phenomena are attested elsewhere in
contact situations in spoken languages. Such is the case, for example, with Israeli Hebrew words borrowed into
the Russian speech of new immigrants from the former Soviet Union. For example, the Hebrew loanword taxana
station, when appearing in the prepositional case, changes its last vowel into e. The resulting form is taxane,
as in the phrase na taxane in the station. It is hard to see such contractions occurring in a language that is not
spoken at all.
The evidence presented above, both in its individual features and, especially, as a whole, brings ample support to the hypothesis that Canaano-Akkadian had an underlying spoken reality. I suggest above (2) that the
scribes themselves thought of Canaano-Akkadian as (a dialect of) Akkadian. If so, one can further deduce that at
least in the course of their studying the language, the scribes-to-be would have vocalized words in that language.
5. On the Nature of Canaano-Akkadian as a Language of Communication: Akkadian,

Canaanite, and Canaano-Akkadian
In my first substantive contribution to the study of Canaano-Akkadian (Izreel 1978), I wondered about its Sitz
im Leben. As doubts had been raised concerning the underlying spoken reality of Canaano-Akkadian (Rainey 1975,
pp. 42324; see above, 3.1), I could not, at that stage of my research, give a definite answer to this question. Since
then, Moran came up with the notion of pidgin for Canaano-Akkadian, with the obvious implication of a spoken
background (see above, 1.3). I myself have presented arguments in favor of a spoken reality of Canaano-Akkadian
in the centennial celebration of Amarna in 1987 (Izreel 1987b; see note *, above), and Gianto has presented the
idea of an institutionalized interlanguage. Rainey himself has been vacillating between his stand that CanaanoAkkadian was an invented code and the possibility of its being a pidgin, a jargon, or an interlanguage (see 3.1).
Only recently he writes,
So somewhere between the end of the Middle Bronze Age and the beginning of the Late Bronze Age, the
scribes of Canaan came to some kind of agreement as to the method to be employed whereby Canaanite
inflection would be applied to the Old Babylonian stems. How we would like to know just where and when
that happened! Was it due to some dominant, creative personality in one of the scribal schools? Did this
result in, or was it the result of, a spoken interlanguage that developed among the local administrators?
(Rainey 2002, p. 50; my italics)
Similarly, in her review article on Raineys Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets (Rainey 1996), von Dassow
(2003) comes to the conclusion that one must almost characterize the Canaanite scribes use of cuneiform as
Akkadographic, and the texts they wrote as tablet-length Akkadograms, punctuated by occasional Canaanite words
and explanatory glosses (p. 215). The implication of this hypothesis, according to von Dassow, is that the true
lingua franca shared by Canaanite scribes and their correspondents in the Late Bronze Age was not Akkadian,
as is usually assumed, but Canaanite (p. 216). Von Dassow elaborated her views in a detailed article entitled
Canaanite in Cuneiform (2004) and then broadened the scope of this outlook to the entire span of Peripheral
Akkadian (2010). According to von Dassow, there is need to distinguish between language and text, and
[t]he idea of a dominant language would be replaced by the idea of a dominant writing system, which was
implemented in various ways to encode different languages, in diverse regions: not Sumerian and Akkadian, but cuneiform litterae francae (adopting Civils coinage ), were the medium of written communication among the multitude of Near Eastern states, with their multiplicity of tongues . On the theory that
Canaano-Akkadian was not a hybrid language but the Akkadographic writing of Canaanite, it emerges that
we have numerous extant tablets written in Canaanite, for the scribes of Canaan wrote their own language
in cuneiform. (von Dassow 2004, pp. 67374)
196
Shlomo Izreel
Sanders (2009, ch. 3) discusses the state of the art on this issue, and he too claims that it is more accurate
to say that the Near East was united in this period by a form of writing the litterae francae of Babylonian cuneiform. These litterae francae encoded a variety of messages and related to language in a variety of ways (p. 82).
Sanders does not accept, however, the thesis that Canaano-Akkadian always encoded Canaanite rather than the
language that seems to be straightforwardly related to these texts, namely Canaano-Akkadian, as there is evidence that Canaano-Akkadian was actually pronounced (see further below). On the other hand, Sanders rightly
states that there is ample evidence that Canaano-Akkadian was probably never read aloud before the addressees
of the letters. As for the term litterae francae, suggesting, as it does here, the total disengagement of text from
language, or, rather, a polyglot nature of the text, I myself would hesitate to expand its use beyond the lists for
which Civil had originally coined this term, namely, Sumerian lexical lists used at Ebla (Civil 1987, p. 140, cited by
von Dassow 2004, p. 670). Indeed, the written texts we are dealing with here are related to language in a variety
of ways. However, they encode a single linguistic system, a linguistic system abounding with variation, which in
itself suggests a living entity. To me it is unimaginable that morphosyntactic variation of the sort manifested in
the Amarna letters, involving components from two languages, fine tuned and orchestrated, could have been a
feature of mere spelling, or a rationale for the failure of the data to conform systematically to the rules proposed
under that model (von Dassow 2004, p. 652). That this code could be translated to other linguistic codes does not
make it different in essence from any linguistic system encoded in writing or decoded from the written.
Von Dassows main thesis leans on what she sees as a gap between the written and the spoken systems. For
her, [i]t need not be the case that the signs with which a text is written directly represent the language in which
it is written (2004, p. 641). However, this claim, which obviously (and explicitly) draws its apparent strength
from writing systems such as third-millennium Akkadian or Eblaite texts exhibiting mostly Sumerograms, should
not be taken further to the extreme of stating that the language of a text may be dissociated from the language
employed to write it (von Dassow 2010, p. 895).
I definitely endorse the statement that writing need not (and often does not) straightforwardly represent
the language in which a text is read or understood but not that writing may not directly encode a specific
target language at all (von Dassow 2010, p. 895). Detachment of text from language as in the case of Aramaic,
the Akkadian lingua franca, Canaano-Akkadian, or any other written communication in the ancient world where
texts would be read aloud in translation (see also Sanders 2009, pp. 20203 n. 14) does not mean the detachment
of writing from any language. Also today, a written language, detached in its linguistic system from the spoken
linguistic varieties of the community in which it is used, does not mean that the text must be read in the same
linguistic system as its spoken counterpart. When a text is being read (aloud or silently), it usually follows verbatim the language it stands for, even if it differs in its form and structure from the language the readers usually
use in their other linguistic performances. Furthermore, there are seemingly aural features to any language when
read, even silently, including some intonational features (see. e.g., Fodor 2002).
Writing systems reflect linguistic features remotely or closely. Signs of a newly invented alphabetic system
tend to be closely related to the phonemes of that language. However, as a writing system is usually designed for
a standard variety of a language, it will never fit exactly all varieties of that language even at the moment of its
conception (for the notion of a standard variety, see, e.g., Hudson 1996, 2.2.2; McWhorter 1998, pp. 2331).
When time passes, even the phonology of the standard variety will distance itself from the graphemic system of
the invented (or adopted) writing system. When such a split occurs, the contemporary phonological structure
of a language known only through the written medium may be impossible to retrieve. Anyone who has learned a
second language and come to learn its vocabulary from writing knows that similar spellings do not always reflect
similar pronunciations. However, despite the distance between the written and the spoken, some notion of the
actual phonological structure of the language used by the people using this writing system may nevertheless be
retrieved by studying regularities of spellings. For example, we deduce that mimation was lost toward the Middle
Babylonian and Middle Assyrian period since we see that spellings with extra Vm signs are no longer used. On
the other hand, it may happen that some gleanings from the spoken reality of the contemporary language will
emerge through irregular spellings or what may prima facie seem to be spelling errors. For example, from sporadic spellings without mimation one can deduce that despite the common knowledge falling of mimation
had started long before the end of the older period (Izreel 2010, 2.9). It has been noted by many that dialectal
features find their way into written texts, including literary ones (e.g., Reiner 1966, p. 21; Huehnergard 1997, p.
595; George 2003, pp. 43536 and passim in his commentaries; Izreel 2010). Likewise, for the Peripheral dialect of
197
Emar, Ikeda has recently shown that some features suggest that Akkadian was indeed spoken at that city, at least
by the royal scribes (Ikeda 2010).
Indeed, looking for spelling irregularities is the methodology commonly used to get some hold of the spoken
reality behind the writing conventions of any language, contemporary or historical, living or dead (cf. Campbell
2004, 14.5.2). Von Dassow seems not to accept this widespread methodology, which for her seems logically flawed
or circular argumentation. Obviously, my logic differs radically from hers. I cannot understand the constant objection to any deductions on such bases as being too few or as not having parallels, especially when typological
or other comparisons with later Canaanite dialects can be adduced (pace von Dassow 2004, p. 650). Therefore, I
cannot understand the claim that these spelling practices are just that, not evidence for phonology (p. 661).
After all, spelling is our main tool for studying a dead language when its attested records allow us to do that, and
all we know about ancient languages is due to their having been written.
Excursus
A Few Words on von Dassows Endeavor to Discard the Thesis of an Underlying
Spoken Reality for Canaano-Akkadian
Unfortunately, von Dassow tries to base her hypothesis on negative evidence, mainly by trying to refute
the hypothesis advanced here on the underlying spoken reality of Canaano-Akkadian. Her main support
for her approach is typological, although this too bears little on the case adduced from Canaano-Akkadian
(see above). Positive evidence is hardly brought at all apart from an example of a textual sample aiming
to show how that allegedly Akkadographic code would actually be reflected upon conception and reading
(2004, pp. 66506). This effort does not necessarily show anything more than that a scholar skilled in comparative Semitics can fill in the texts universally acknowledged West Semitic syntax with a reconstructed
West Semitic vocabulary and morphology. (Sanders 2009, p. 203 n. 17). Von Dassow seems to have targeted
every point I had raised that she deemed to bear even a remote threat to her evolving hypothesis and well
beyond.26 Therefore, it is impossible and in fact not really necessary to respond to all the points she
raised. I suffice by emphasizing some points of special interest and respond to only some counter-arguments
in order to make my methodological requisites stand on a more solid basis.27
For the Labanese Baqa forms that constantly exhibit spellings with e instead of the expected standard
Akkadian i (4.1.1; Izreel 2007, 2.2.1), von Dassow (2004, p. 662) suggests that such spellings might have
become allographs due to a phonological feature such as Izreel postulates, but even so, the spellings at
issue would be the outcome of orthographic practices influenced by the substrate languages phonology,
rather than evidence for the pronunciation of Canaano-Akkadian. We agree, of course, on the origin and
nature of the allographs as reflecting differences in phonologies of substrate dialects. However, if CanaanoAkkadian would be used only in writing where words would be representation of different forms of words
in another language (viz., Canaanite), why would the phonology of the substrate be reflected in forms that
would not be pronounced at all?
Similarly, von Dassow explains the primae vocalis 1sg forms with i (4.1.2; Izreel 2007, 2.2.3) instead
of standard Akkadian e as reflecting the orthographic convention of using the Akkadian 3sgm form as the
Is the glass half empty or half full? Unfortunately, for von Dassow it is always half empty. But why is the half-empty method,
which refuses to see a pattern when there are any exceptions, not
productive? This is what von Dassow (2004, pp. 65152) does in
her otherwise unfounded objection to use the data and analyses
in Izreel 2007a, 5.
27
As it stands now, this paper is of a hybrid nature in itself, being
composed in two main layers, that is, the original one to which
von Dassow responded, and the one presented here in full, including a response to some of the issues raised by von Dassow.
Due to lack of space, I have here omitted the elaborate discussion
26
of the 1sg person verbal prefix variation, dealt with in 5 of the

original article. This discussion entailed some further notes in
the following sections of the original paper. These discussions
and some further notes on the methodological requisites for the
study of Canaano-Akkadian omitted from this version can be
retrieved in my 2007 version of the paper, which can be downloaded from:
http://www.tau.ac.il/~izreel/publications/CanAkkMethRequisites_2007.pdf
I hope to have an opportunity to publish the discussion of the

1sg person prefix in Byblos letters (5 in that paper) sometime
in the future.
198
Shlomo Izreel
base, to which Canaanite prefixes and suffixes were applied (2004, p. 662). As already noted, this change
between Akkadian and Canaano-Akkadian is a feature not only of finite verbal forms but also of infinitives,
ignored by von Dassow, and therefore it is better explained by phonology rather than by morphology, all
the more so by a writing convention.
The most striking feature of Canaano-Akkadian, to use Sanderss words (2009, p. 82), is the assimilation of n of the originally Canaanite energic morpheme to of the originally Akkadian person marker in
forms from Megiddo and Ashkelon (4.1.4; Izreel 2007, 2.2.5). This assimilation, which bridges between
morphemes of different origins, seems indeed to be the strongest phonological feature (or, rather, morphophonological feature; see below) in favor of the thesis that Canaano-Akkadian had a spoken reality and
was not just a conventional written system representing Canaanite as the lingua franca of that region. Von
Dassow, alas, has not been convinced even by this feature (2004, p. 662; 2010, pp. 91415). She wonders
about the scantiness of this find. However, as discussed above, this is precisely the type of find we must
seek in order to enable ourselves to get some gleanings for the spoken reality of any language through the
thick camouflage of its writing system. Still, I should note that this feature is attested in letters from two
different Canaanite cities, one northern (Megiddo), one southern (Ashkelon). Von Dassow also wonders why
comparable forms not exhibiting this assimilation also occur. As I have shown in my Canaano-Akkadian
grammar (2005, 1.3.1), the rule of n-assimilation probably did not apply when the consonant following n
was velar, pharyngeal or the glottal stop (as is the case in Hebrew), or locally, . Lastly, von Dassow suggests
that given that kind of assimilation in both languages, it could have been imported into writing in the absence of speaking of the hypothesized mixed language. However, this is definitely not the case. Besides the
improbability, in my mind, that such transfer from linguistic rules to a different system that have existence
only in the visual medium would occur, one should note that in both Canaanite (where Hebrew would be a
representative) and Akkadian, a rule of n-assimilation by a suffix could not possibly happen, since in both
Canaanite and Akkadian and by implication also Canaano-Akkadian at specific morphemic boundaries,
such as between the stem and inflectional morphemes, the original quality of /n/ would be retained (with
some rare exceptions, notably in forms of the Akkadian root ndn and the cognate Canaanite n/ytn; GAG 33h;
Joon and Muraoka 2006, p. 69).
Von Dassow further explains all morphological transformations of verbal forms as having occurred in
writing only. For yaria (4.2.2; Izreel 2007, 2.3.2), von Dassow raises the possibility that this form is a
deliberately introduced Akkadographic stem, very much like the introduction of 3sgm stems from Akkadian
to form standard verbal forms in Canaano-Akkadian. First, I wonder whether an Akkadographic representation of a verb would be spelled syllabically as has been done in this case, denoting the final consonant of
the borrowed stem and the vocalic morpheme of the borrowing language in one and the same sign. Should
we not expect a spelling like *ya-AR-I-I-a, or perhaps ya-AR-I-I-a? The spelling attested here, ya-ar-ia, conforms to the general structure of syllabic writing in Canaano-Akkadian, which does not behave as
Akkadographic and as a persisting rule visualizes all forms according to their Canaano-Akkadian syllable
structure, whether or not they consist of elements from one of the languages involved or both (cf. the spellings of tertiae vocalis verbs in 4.2.5 above). But, more importantly, when suggesting a solely written insertion in this outstanding case of a non-verbal stem into this paradigm, one ignores the recurring formation
of new hybrid forms in contact languages, as has been demonstrated above and as has been described time
and again in the vast secondary literature on the formation of contact languages, of which only a handful
has been mentioned above (1.45).
As for the morphological innovations atemu and tateme (4.2.3; Izreel 2007, 2.3.3), von Dassow discards their significance as insufficient to demonstrate innovation in speech (2004, p. 663). I, however,
believe that using Akkadian morphemes as building blocks in this case person morphemes and verbal
stems and combining them anew is a feature of a living language rather than of a fossilized structure,
and Canaanite in disguise can hardly be the case here. Even in the case of tertiae vocalis verbs (4.2.5; Izreel
2007, 2.3.5), von Dassow, admitting to the strength of this argument, would not take it at face value, stating
that this, the soundest of Izreels arguments, is not sufficient to sustain the case for Canaano-Akkadian
having been spoken (2004, pp. 66364).
As regards forms reflecting vowel deletion such as tirbu and irbuni (4.1.3; Izreel 2007, 2.2.4), von
Dassow (2004, p. 662) suggests either scribal errors or an influence of alphabetic or consonantal writing
habits. Resorting to explanations such as scribal errors is, of course, totally unwarranted. A possible influence of the scribes habit to use consonantal script is anachronistic, far-fetched, and remote from the reality
of literacy in Canaan at that period. If scribes were so much into consonantal writing, why did they not use
it to write their own language, and why were they so desperate as to invent such a cumbersome hybrid as
Canaano-Akkadian?
199
While not all linguistic features listed above have the same explanatory power, some of them do show
even by themselves that a spoken reality must lie at the background of the written texts, notably the assimilation of n across morphemes which originate in different languages (4.1.4; Izreel 2007, 2.2.5), and
the contraction (or deletion) of final stem vowels with the following modus morphemes, again each
originating in a different language (4.2.5; Izreel 2007, 2.3.5). Some of the features would prove that at
some point in its history, certainly during the time of its formation as a mixed language, this language was
spoken. Other features lead to the inevitable conclusion that Canaano-Akkadian was spoken contemporarily
with our data, at least to some extent. Of course, looking at the entire picture yields a stronger conviction
than any single argument may bring forth. The whole picture is clear and shows to my mind without any
doubt that a spoken reality for Canaano-Akkadian, at least at some level, must be assumed.
**********
Let us now return to the issue of writing and speech, or rather the issue of written texts and the language they
represent. Von Dassows starting point for her thesis is Gershevitchs notion of alloglottography. This term was
coined by Gershevitch (1979) to denote the use of one writable language for the purpose of writing another
language (p. 138). In his eloquent, witty manner, Gershevitch (p. 117) describes an imaginary scene from Old
Persia as follows:
An ancient Persian, let us call him Mirata, wants to write to his girl-friend, let us call her Hutau, fifty
miles away. He dictates to a scribe in Persian, the scribe meanwhile inscribing a clay tablet. At the end of
dictation, the scribe reads out to him in Persian the text he had dictated. On receipt of the tablet Hutau
goes to or summons a scribe, who reads to her the message in Persian as often as she asks him or pays him.
The tablet that would remain from that transaction would have not been written in Persian, as one might
expect, but in Elamite. Surely this is the kind of setting we can restore for fourteenth-century Canaan. Milkilu,
the ruler of Gezer, would probably not dictate his scribe a letter to the pharaoh in Canaano-Akkadian but in the
language he would use in his daily life, and when the letter would get to Egypt, surely it was not read aloud in
Canaano-Akkadian before the pharaoh. Indeed, there are ample indications that letters written in CanaanoAkkadian, as in other lingua francas of the ancient Near East, would usually be translated upon reading (Izreel
1995b; Sanders 2009, pp. 84, 99). There are further indications that letters were actually meant to be read by the
scribes receiving them rather than by their addressees, as explicitly stated in postscripts addressed to a scribe
in Egypt in the Jerusalem Amarna letters (e.g., EA 286:6164; Izreel 1995b, p. 107; Sanders 2009, p. 82). As rightly
noted by Sanders (n. 14 on pp. 20203), Canaano-Akkadian and Aramaic differed in this respect, as Aramaic was
definitely more widespread in both geographical span and the range of its use than Canaano-Akkadian.
But all of this does not mean that the language was not conceived as such by its scribes. After an analysis that
covers two allegedly alloglottographic periods in Iran, that of Elamite and that of Aramaic, Gershevitch concludes
as follows:
And I would urge that the tiresome speculations as to whether an Aramaic text written in the service of
Iranians in the third century or second century B.C. is Aramaic or Iranian be henceforward dispensed with.
Such texts are all Iranian, despite their being written in Aramaic. The language of each is Iranian, even if
it be one of the Iranian languages unknown to us, such as Kambojan, Parnian or Middle Median. They are
unknown to us only because the texts speaking to us in them were written alloglottographically. (Gershevitch 1979, p. 143)
While I am definitely not in the position to say whether Gershevitchs conclusions are based on reasonable
analysis and solid data, I should point it out to my readers that Gershevitchs setting does not include the role
of the scribe except as a carrier of messages, compared by Gershevitch himself to a tape recorder: push button
A and the text is recorded, push button B and the text is played back (p. 117).28 But the poor scribe is not a tape
recorder! Even in our technologically sophisticated era, tape recorders, or rather computers, cannot execute the
task of translating back and forth a spoken text. Our scribe very much like any human translator today had
to listen to the context of the letter in Persian, translate it into Elamite, write it down in that language, and, after
28
Stolper and Tavernier (2007, p. 9 n. 3) speculate that Gershevitchs paper (which stems out of an originally oral presentation)
was meant not only as an amusement in its oral form, but actually as a parody of Iranian philology and epigraphy.
200
Shlomo Izreel
he arrived at his destination, read the letter in Elamite and simultaneously (or not) translate it back into Persian.
An old Sumerian proverb, obviously referring to an Akkadian-speaking scribal environment, says, If the scribe
does not know Sumerian, how will the translator succeed? (Alster 1997, 2.49). But how would a scribe acquire
the knowledge to do all this? How would he acquire this sophistication of writing Elamite, Sumerian, Akkadian?
Indeed, neither Gershevitch nor von Dassow refers to the system behind the text, which is a linguistic system
with all its complexities. Both Gershevitch and von Dassow relate only to what happens before the text is written
or after it is read aloud rather than taking a look at the text itself, representing a genuine linguistic system on
its own, which in the case of Canaano-Akkadian represents also the complexities of a contact language for which
parallels are amply attested. To put it more pointedly, von Dassow (2004, p. 674) concludes, no longer would
we imagine platoons of scribes studying Akkadian in order to write letters to Egypt and elsewhere, then bowdlerizing the language into a host of ultra-localized idiolects whose proper analysis can occupy legions of scholarly
careers. How would an ancient Canaanite scholar learn to write Canaano-Akkadian texts, then?
While Gershevitch did not refer at all to scribal education, Rubio (2006), widening the scope of Gershevitchs
notion to include other literate societies in the ancient Near East, does refer to scribal learning. While claiming
that (t)he use of a written language different from the language of utterance seems the epitome of textual artificiality and, in many instances, scribal antiquarianism (pp. 4849), Rubio endorses the view that Sumerian was
spoken in schools long after it had died (p. 50; see also, inter alia, Charpin 2008, pp. 8587). Rubio states that a
scribe had to deal with two parallel streams of tradition: a written curriculum characterized by an antiquarian
ideology and an oral heritage of scholarly interpretation of this written tradition. This situation, Rubio claims,
resembles the linguistic dichotomy of alloglottography, in which the oral component (the language of utterance) is completely divorced from the written anchor (the language in which the text is written). In a way, it
does, as do all diglossic situations, where the language of the written medium is different from the language of
everyday life (for diglossia, see above, 3.1). However, in all diglossic societies, even in the extreme cases, at least
some spoken variants of the so-called H (high) variant of the diglossia do exist along the written medium. This
is the case with Arabic, where spoken varieties of H are quite widespread (Kaye 2001), and this was the case with
Hebrew throughout the entire age of Diaspora, where Jews would speak in a variety of the local language and write
in Hebrew, but could also converse in this tongue when the need would call for such a means of communication
(Izreel 2003c). In principle, the cases addressed by Rubio are not different, although only a single setting of such
speech is described: the school environment. This should imply that Mesopotamian scribes learned not only the
Akkadian readings of Sumerograms, but also their respective Sumerian readings. The existence of columns with
syllabic spellings of Sumerian signs in lexical lists conforms to this hypothesis (for pronunciation glosses in
lists and other texts, see Krecher 1969, pp. 43335).
Scribal education in a spoken environment is also in the heart of analysis of Gianto, who coined the term institutionalized interlanguage for the emergence of Canaano-Akkadian (see above, 1.5). It is also in the heart of
the interesting analysis by Weeden on logography in Hittite (2007). Weedens in-depth study of the employment
by Hittite scribes of logographic writing in general and of Akkadographic writing in particular is grounded upon
a study of scribal education of Hittite scribes:
Occasional phonetic pronunciations have been uncovered in the course of this investigation. The cases of
BE-LU-u-a-an (p. 145 in Weedens study; S.I.) and ANE.KUR.RAI.A-ia (HKM 15 obv. 8), both from Maat letters, indicate that at some level at least these were being read phonetically. The fact that these are both
in letters may attest to a dictated environment, involving quick writing. ... It is quite possible that a kind
of learned pidgin had emerged for dictation purposes, a scribe-talk much comparable to the mixture
of much Latin, less Greek and various levels of native tongue found in early English or Irish manuscripts.
(Weeden 2007, p. 279)
The following remark by Weeden may help us view cuneiform writing in Canaan in a better perspective:
Hittite cuneiform was at first burdened with a layer of Akkadograms which could not flexibly represent
Hittite words. Paradoxically it was the extension of the domain of the Sumerian words that allowed the
Hittite language to be expressed more freely but still use logograms. This, in conjunction with the other
201
items of evidence we have mentioned, indicates that the Akkadian words were most probably pronounced
in Akkadian, while the Sumerian ones were really logographic. (Weeden 2007, p. 315)29
In sharp contrast with Hittite texts, Canaano-Akkadian is indeed burdened with a layer of Akkadograms,
to use Weedens wording. If Weedens thesis is correct, then a text burdened with Akkadograms as the Canaanite
extrapolated by von Dassow for the Amarna letters is, in fact, written and pronounced not in Canaanite but in
Akkadian.
With a narrow definition of alloglottography, one that sees language learning via speech as inherent to scribal
education and scribal life, I could definitely agree. If a process of translation between the oral codes and the written one would be meant by this term, I would also not discard it altogether, as this, of course, is the way things
seem to have happened when a Canaano-Akkadian text would be written and read after arriving at its destiny (see
above). However, if a total disengagement between text and language is to be meant, as defined by von Dassow,
my answer is absolutely not. The language of the Amarna tablets is not Canaanite! In this connection, one should
further ask whether Canaano-Akkadian conforms with the general observations of logographic writing to the
extent that each written word will have an equivalent in an alleged setting where a scribe would actually conceive
of Canaanite structures to be written in syllabically logographic strings.
Logography is known to us from early Semitic writings in Mesopotamia (including Ebla), as well as from
genuine systems like the one of early Sumer or the Chinese writing system, to take just the notable examples
(for the Chinese writing system, see Sampson 1985, ch. 8). Early Japanese writing, consisting entirely or almost
entirely of logographs borrowed from Chinese, has been taken as a supportive evidence for the alloglottographic
hypothesis (Rubio 2006, pp. 4246). One should note at this juncture that Old Japanese writing might not serve
as a good example for alloglottography, since in the 8th and 9th centuries the original Chinese sentences were
first and foremost read aloud in Chinese (ondoku) . Kundoku was developed in subsequent centuries as a very
efficient technique for translating Chinese texts into Japanese rather than as a writing system (Ikeda 2007, p.
6). In any case, Rubio suggests that [t]he Semitized forms in Sumerian texts can be regarded as the written
reflections of an onduko-like style of reading Sumerian in Semitic context, and might perhaps point to a diglossic
bilingual setting within the scribal realm (2006, p. 44).
As against logographic writing, syllabic writing is a phonetic one (Gelb 1963, pp. 6668; Sampson 1985, pp.
5457), and one wonders whether an Akkadographic view of Canaano-Akkadian is sensible at all. After all, syllables
are the primary phonological processing units across most of the worlds languages (Goswami 2009, pp. 13536).
Research in the processing of reading, although inconclusive in many respects, has come up with interesting results as regards the differences between processing of reading in logographic scripts and phonetic (mainly
alphabetic) ones. While phonology is involved in the reading of both types of script, logographic reading involves
different cognitive abilities than those in the process of learning a phonetic-based system such as the English
alphabet, because the phonological information is not specified in the script or is specified only indirectly (Wang,
Tsai, and Wang 2009, pp. 40405). The consensus seems to be such that logographic characters are processed differently from phonetic ones because of the greater significance of orthographic information in reading the script
(Jahandarie 1999, ch. 9, esp. pp. 15565).
Still, cases of alleged alloglottography in texts written in phonetic characters are, inter alia, the case of Latin
in Romance-speaking environments or the so-called Aramaic heterograms (or, as earlier called, ideograms) used
in the writings of Iranian languages. Both cases are different from the case of Canaano-Akkadian. As for Latin,
Emilano (1991) suggests that the apparent Latin notarial texts from medieval Spain are to be read in the vernacular, which seems prima facie a close case to Gershevitchs alloglottography. However, the majority of changes
between the written strings and the allegedly read-aloud ones are shown to be of the type known to us from all
languages, where historical changes require readings that are divorced from the spelled word, sometimes quite
largely. Still, [p]honemic and morphophonemic conversion of Latinate spellings seems relatively straightforward
when there is a historical link between the written forms of Latin and the spoken forms of Romance vernaculars (Emiliano 1991, p. 242). Would anyone suggest that French reading today is alloglottohraphic? Or English,
29
The so-called Hittite Landschenkungsurkunden (Riemschneider 1958) make an exception to the bulk of Hittite texts, as they
are indeed abundant in Akkadograms. However, even these texts
cannot serve as support to a thesis as advanced by von Dassow
for Canaano-Akkadian, since they are formulaic in nature, use

fossilized language taken as such from original Akkadian prototypes, and include terminology that was perhaps not readily
available in Hittite.
202
Shlomo Izreel
or Israeli Hebrew? There were, to be sure, also lexemic differences in some cases, but these are not many. As for
the Aramaic heterograms used for writing Iranian languages, the common impression given by some secondary
literature is that the lexical stock of Parthian, Middle Persian, or Pahlavi is written in toto in Aramaic or that the
majority of words in these texts are written as their Aramaic cognates. However, this is not the case. As explicitly
noted by Skjrv (1995, p. 291) heterograms are common, but restricted to a relatively limited set of words and
forms. Indeed, the Arameograms in Nybergs Glossary (1974, vol. 2, pp. 17) are a defined, closed set of words
with fewer than 250 entries. The system of heterography in these texts is different from the one we observe in
Canaano-Akkadian texts, as the Iranian grammatical elements (phonetic complements) are not confined to the
verbal system (for a discussion with textual samples, see Skjrv 1995; 1996).
There are Latin words written in English texts that are read in the language in which the majority of words
are written, namely, English. Numbers are written logographically in our languages. Rubio (2006, pp. 4849), to
be sure, indeed makes a distinction between total and partial alloglottography, as the latter was inherent to the
cuneiform culture in Mesopotamia and beyond. Rubio further makes a distinction between true alloglottography and partial alloglottography, which he defines not only quantitatively but also qualitatively, that is, whether
the text would be read and grammatically understood in the other language (p. 44; italics in the original). Rubio
goes on to explain the qualitative criterion, which may or may not exist for specific languages, notably ones
with a significant number of logographs. As for the quantitative criterion, the following crucial question should
be raised: When a text is written in its entirety in a syllabic script, with only occasional or limited insertions of
logograms (or other non-syllabic signs like determinatives), would it serve as a pure visual code for a linguistic
system that is not directly related to the bulk of its signifiants?
Having reviewed some of the issues concerned with phonetic writing and its differences from logographic, it
seems useful now to repeat Weedens conclusion as regards Akkadography in Hittite texts and its implications for
Canaano-Akkadian as follows: when a text is burdened with Akkadograms, it is, in fact, written and pronounced
in Akkadian. In addition, I hope to have shown in the previous sections that the evidence as a whole points to the
inevitable conclusion that Canaano-Akkadian had indeed been a language rather than a visual code for Canaanite.
Furthermore, Canaano-Akkadian had an underlying spoken reality, that is, it was pronounced not as Canaanite
but as a language in its own terms. This language was regarded by its users as Akkadian; by us it should be viewed
as a mixed language that can be termed Canaano-Akkadian.
Neither Rainey nor von Dassow seems to be convinced of the linguistic evidence, so similar to other language
contact phenomena known from all parts of the world. No! There has never been a convention of Canaanite
scribes at the Megiddo Hilton30 that decided upon an artificial written code for correspondence, nor were they
writing Canaanite. The evidence points clearly against it. None of the known contact languages, none of the mixed
languages mentioned and exemplified above (1.45), none of the known contact languages, neither Loteri,
the secret language of Persian Jews, nor any other language into which deliberate changes had been introduced
(Thomason 2007), not even one of these languages with all their complexities was invented and used solely
as a written code. All have emerged in a spoken environment, whatever the reasons for their emergence might
have been.
I began this section recalling my views when taking my initial steps into the study of Canaano-Akkadian. Now
I would like to reiterate my views regarding the nature of Canaano-Akkadian as they were about thirty-five years
ago, when I wrote my conclusions to my masters thesis on the Gezer Amarna letters:
A language that its writers have never spoken and have never understood in its entirety; a language that
had a certain higher status over the language of the scribes who wrote it; an only-written language used
for (logographic only?) communication between Canaanite scribes and their colleagues in Egypt, who were
also speakers of Canaanite. (Izreel 1976, pp. 9899; translated from Hebrew; italics added)
I was much more prudent when I rewrote my thesis in English for publication:
A very interesting question is whether or not the Amarna language was spoken at any time during the history of the land of Canaan by a certain upper social class or by officials or the like, as was the case, for instance, with the Latin spoken by French officials and scholars side by side with French. Otherwise this would
30
I owe this metaphor to the late Bill Moran, way back in 1988.
203
be the only recorded mixed language in the history which was exclusively a written language. This question
may never be solved, however we do believe that a thorough investigation of the whole W[est]S[emitic]
Akkadian corpus may also lead us to the key for the solution of this problem as well. (Izreel 1978, p. 83)
As my faithful readers already know, I am glad I have changed my mind between the completion of my masters
thesis and the publication of my 1978 article, as I believe I have since found some evidence for the underlying
spoken reality, or background, of Canaano-Akkadian as well as support for its classification as a mixed language.
As we have seen, von Dassows hypothesis is founded to a large extent on the refutation of my own hypothesis
regarding the underlying spoken reality of Canaano-Akkadian. Therefore, von Dassows challenges have not convinced me to change my views, which have been forwarded here in enough detail for my readers own scrutiny
and judgment.
It is with this background that we can now step forward and deepen our observations into the linguistic continuum attested in the Amarna letters, in our attempt to gain a better understanding of the linguistic structure
of Canaano-Akkadian, of its sociolinguistic background, and of its emergence. A few concluding remarks are now
in order.
6. Concluding Remarks
6.1. Synchrony and Diachrony
I hope to have shown that variation is one of the basic characteristics of Canaano-Akkadian, one that actually
shapes its system. Moreover, as I have argued more than once, variation of the type exhibited in Canaano-Akkadian
texts is a clear manifestation of a living language. Therefore, it must play an important role in our description
of its grammar.
I have mentioned above (3.01) post-creole continua, that is, those linguistic areas in which an emergent
creole language has remained in close contact with its model language and has continued to be influenced by it.
It has been claimed for such linguistic settings that variation is the synchronic manifestation of the diachronic
development of the language. This insight may apply to any other linguistic continuum as well, be it a geographical dialect continuum, a sociolectal continuum, and so on. Cross-variety approach to the study of language change
is well established by now. Using data from two or more speech communities, the cross-variety approach seeks or
presumes a common historical ancestor for features that are distinct synchronically among varieties. It is through
the study of such synchronic variation that we can learn about linguistic change and the diachronic development
of linguistic varieties (Weinreich, Labov, and Herzog 1968; Bailey 1973; Bickerton 1973; 1975; Petyt 1980, pp. 18597;
Rickford 1987, pp. 3538; Fasold 1990, ch. 8; Labov 1994, ch. 1; Montgomery 2007).
True enough, the end result of many linguistic changes is reported as an invariant outcome, where the
original form or rule is said to be entirely extinct. However, this study will turn up more than a few cases
where the variation continues over enormous stretches of time, and others where the same process is renewed as if it had never ended. The close examination of the present shows that much of the past is still
with us. The study of history benefits from the continuity of the past as well as from analogues with the
present. (Labov 1994, p. 27)
A nice metaphor for the use of the present to explain the past (taking Labovs title for this study) is looking
at a photograph in which although presented in only two dimensions the third dimension, that is, the depth,
is still reflected in other features of the photographs (size of objects etc.). As much as variation in contemporary speech communities can present us with a different dimension of historical change, so do ancient written
documents originating from different places of the same period. As language change occurs in different places
in different times, we can learn of changes in a distinct linguistic community by looking at variants not only in
contemporary setting, but also from different time settings. Variants may be persistent in some areas for much
longer periods than in others and still reflect the historical predecessors of features attested contemporarily in
other areas. Semitic languages are abundant with examples for such settings, notably the preservation of case
endings in (Classical) Arabic long after their extinction in Hebrew or Aramaic. In order to show the way one can
204
Shlomo Izreel
adduce evidence for diachronic change from synchronic variation in Canaano-Akkadian, let me draw briefly one
example.
In my study of the ventive morpheme in the Akkadian texts of Amurru (Izreel 1984; see 4.2.1 above), I discussed a diachronic aspect of the development of Canaano-Akkadian. I have shown that a new plural morpheme,
that is, -uni, has been formed by blending the standard Akkadian plural morpheme -u and the allomorph -ni(m)
of the ventive. This, so I claimed, was a stage in the introduction of the NWS modus morpheme into CanaanoAkkadian. I have also suggested that the various linguistic systems reflected by the various corpora are in fact
those linguistic systems of different phases of linguistic development retained by scribes in diverse peripheral
schools (Izreel 1984, p. 92).
This insight may now be better understood in the framework of continuum research, where we see variation
as an inherent feature of language. In standard Peripheral Akkadian, the ventive ending is operative, very much
as in standard Mesopotamian Akkadian. For example, in Ugarit Akkadian the ventive is used throughout in both
its allomorphs; still, there are four cases where the morph -ni(m) is used without the morph -u to indicate the
plural (Huehnergard 1989, p. 166).31 In Amurru Akkadian and in some related lects among the Canaano-Akkadian
ones, the morph -ni(m) has lost its ventive force, as explained above, whereas in standard Canaano-Akkadian,
with some exceptions, the morph -na is used to mark the imperfective (= indicative) (Izreel 2005, pp. 25, 36).
Synchronic variation thus exhibits the various stages on the way to the formation of the basilect extreme of
this continuum (i.e., the lect most remote from the model language). In our case it is the mixed language of the
Canaanite scribes, which I have termed Canaano-Akkadian.
6.2. Toward Sociolinguistics

The diachronic aspect reflected by linguistic variation raises another very interesting and most important
question. That is the sociolinguistic aspect of the formation of Canaano-Akkadian.
We have some evidence for Akkadian writing in Palestine both prior to and contemporary with the Amarna
period (Horowitz, Oshima, and Sanders 2006). From the Middle Babylonian period, a Gilgamesh fragment is known
from Megiddo (Goetze and Levy 1959; George 2003, pp. 33947; Horowitz, Oshima, and Sanders 2006, pp. 10205),
suggesting learning at that site,32 as well as several lexical tablets found at other sites, for example, a trilingual
(Sumero-Akkadian-Canaanite) lexical list from Aphek (Horowitz, Oshima, and Sanders 2006, pp. 3132). These
finds and others, roughly contemporary of the Amarna period, add to the finds of older cuneiform materials
from that area, that is, Byblos (Edzard 1985, pp. 249 and 256 nn. 910; van der Toorn 2000, p. 98). Apart from such
finds, Canaanite sites are mentioned in cuneiform tablets from outside Canaan and Mesopotamia itself, as well
as from times before the Amarna periods (e.g., Aharoni 1967, p. 87; Rainey and Notely 2006, ch. 5). All these data
raise the question of the connections between Palestine and Syria and the Mesopotamian cultures and political
powers before the Amarna period (cf. Labat 1962, pp. 2627; Tadmor 1977, pp. 10102; Edzard 1985, pp. 25255).
I believe that a thorough investigation into the formation of the mixed Canaano-Akkadian language of the
Canaanite Amarna scribes may help to resolve this enigma. Some clues may be found in searching for the origins
of specific linguistic features, for example, in locating various pure Assyrian linguistic traits in a single subcorpus
or throughout the whole Amarna corpus (cf. Izreel 2007a, 5.3). For such an investigation, the study of variation
is of extreme importance, since variation, as I have already mentioned, may prove to be but another aspect of
diachronic development. Therefore, we must investigate the synchronic aspects of Canaano-Akkadian not just
for their own sake, but also for the sake of understanding its line of development in other words, to search for
an answer to the question of how this language evolved. I believe that through the study of variation we shall
find an answer to this question, with regard not only to the purely linguistic components, but also to its sociolinguistic ones.
Many years ago, a call for research into the sociolinguistic aspects of Canaano-Akkadian was raised by
Oppenheim. With a slight emendation of the timespan mentioned, this call may now be raised again:
Out of six plural forms with -ni(m), the date of only one text is
known, which is later than the Amarna period.
31
Even if this Gilgamesh piece was written elsewhere (cf. George

2003, pp. 33947; Goren, Finkelstein and Naaman 2009).
32
205
Although these letters have been known for more than half a century and have been the topic of a number
of scholarly investigations, much more is to be learned of their style, the provenience and literacy of the
scribes and scribal schools (to teach Akkadian to foreigners) that flourished all over the Near East at that
period, and the linguistic features of their several vernaculars. (Oppenheim 1964, pp. 27879)
Some studies of scribal education in Palestine have been conducted since then (van der Toorn 2000, pp. 10508
with previous references). It is the integration of purely linguistic investigation and analysis into the study of
extralinguistic features done hitherto that I call for here.
To illustrate what kind of questions we may ask when dealing with the linguistic material of the Amarna letters, let me note the following, out of many similar questions that can be asked:
1.
2.
Since there is an observable tendency of Canaano-Akkadian to make use of a single borrowed verbal stem
into their system, one may ask why was it precisely that stem of a specific verb that had been borrowed
and adopted; for example, why for dagalu look it is the idaggal stem, while for aparu write, send it is
mostly ipur, the stem used for the preterite in standard Akkadian, and for (w)uuru it is the imperative
form.
Why does the Jerusalem scribe, while adding a special address to his fellow Egyptian scribe (EA 287:64
70), write in a different register that is closer in its linguistic character to the Canaanite substratum
than the rest of the letter?
3. What can we learn from a comparison between the language of the Megiddo letters and that of letters
from other cities in its vicinity (cf. Rabiner 1981, section VII), in the context of our knowledge of the
finding of a Gilgamesh fragment in that site?
4.
5.
6.
Why do we find Middle Babylonian forms like ultebila he sent in the Gezer letters, where we would
have expected to find more conservative forms of this verb?
Why is there such a form attested in EA 369, a letter from the pharaoh, although other pharaohs letters
use forms with instead?
As regards the spoken aspect of Canaano-Akkadian, one may further investigate precisely this point:
Who spoke that language? Was it just the scribes themselves,33 or can we account for a larger circle of
speakers, such as messengers, ambassadors, high officials, clerks, and the like? (Cf. Labat 1962; Nougayrol
1962; 1975; Oppenheim 1965; Ikeda 2010 [see above, 5].)
Of course, we have no answers yet for many such questions that may arise, since there is still a long way ahead
of us until a thorough and deep understanding of the Amarna linguistic continuum is achieved. Still, I can already
point to some starts in this direction.
For example, one may suggest that the use of some features in the language of the Megiddo letters, like the
1sg suffix conjugation marker -aku, directly taken over from the Akkadian stative paradigm, is preferred over
Canaano-Akkadian -ati precisely because of the alleged existence of a scribal school in that site (see Izreel 2003b,
p. 91, where other features in the Megiddo letters are discussed in this context).
Similarly, the employment of Middle Babylonian forms in letters from Gezer can be ascribed to the existence
of a scribal school at Gezer (Goren, Finkelstein, and Naaman 2009), whereas the use of the Akkadianized form
ultebila in EA 369 can serve as yet another support as regards the Gezerite identity of its scribe (cf. Izreel 1995b,
pp. 10918; cf. above, 2.2).34
Robert Wilson draws my attention to a general tendency to

capitalize on the scribes special skill by using it as a secret language, as scribes and priests have always done with Latin or
Sanskrit.
33
For the importance of scribal education and the role of scribes

in the task of sociolinguistics research of Canaano-Akkadian, see
now Vita 2010, a study that was not available to me before the
completion of this article.
34
206
Shlomo Izreel
As for the last question listed, I believe I have done my best to address it in detail in this study, and I would
refer my loyal readers again to the final paragraphs in 5 for some retrospective remarks.
We are now only at the beginning of the investigation into the deep and subtle details of lectal variation in
Canaano-Akkadian. Still, having at hand the linguistic knowledge accumulated since the discovery of the Amarna
corpus, we are now in a better position than ever to study variation and its implications. As for me, I hope to have
laid another paving stone in the long and complicated way toward the achievement of this goal, namely, a real
understanding of the nature of Canaano-Akkadian.
Abbreviations
AHw
CAD
GAG
NWS

A. Leo Oppenheim et al., eds. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 21
volumes. Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 19562010.
Wolfram von Soden. Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik. Analecta Orientalia 33/47. Rome: Pontificium
Institutum Biblicum, 1969.
Northwest Semitic
Bibliography
Adler, Hans-Peter
1976
Aharoni, Yohanan
1967
Ahl, Sally W.
1973
Albright, William F.
1942
1943a
1943b
1944
1966
Das Akkadische des Knigs Turatta von Mitanni. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 201. Kevelaer: Butzon
and Bercker.
The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Translated by Anson F. Rainey. London: Burns and Oats.
Epistolary Texts from Ugarit: Structural and Lexical Correspondences in Epistles in Akkadian and Ugaritic. Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
A Case of Lse-Majest in Pre-Israelite Lachish, with Some Remarks on the Israelite Conquest. Bulletin
of the Schools of Oriental Research 87: 3238.
Two Little Understood Amarna Letters from the Middle Jordan Valley. Bulletin of the Schools of Oriental
Research 89: 717.
An Archaic Hebrew Proverb in an Amarna Letter from Central Palestine. Bulletin of the Schools of Oriental
Research 89: 2932.
A Prince of Taanach in the Fifteenth Century B.C. Bulletin of the Schools of Oriental Research 94: 1227.
The Amarna Letters from Palestine. In The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 2, chapter 20, fascicule
51. Cambridge. [= The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 2, Part 2: History of the Middle East and the Aegean
Region c. 13801000 B.C., 3rd edition, edited by I. E. S. Edwards, C. J. Gadd, N. G. L. Hammond, and E. Sollberger, pp. 98116. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.]
Alster, Bendt
1997
Proverbs of Ancient Sumer. Bethesda: CDL Press.
Aquilina, Joseph
1965
Maltese. Teach Yourself Books. London: English Universities Press.
Artzi, Pinchas
1963
The Glosses in the El-Amarna Documents. Bar Ilan 1: 5784. [In Hebrew]

1990
Auer, Peter
1999
2005
Bailey, Charles J. N.
1973
Bakker, Peter
1994
207
Studies in the Library of the Amarna Archive. In Bar-Ilan Studies in Assyriology Dedicated to Pinhas Artzi,
edited by Jacob Klein and Aaron Skaist, pp. 13956. Bar-Ilan Studies in Near Eastern Languages and
Culture. Publications of the Bar-Ilan University Institute of Assyriology. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University
Press.
From Code-switching via Language Mixing to Fused Lects: Toward a Dynamic Typology of Bilingual
Speech. Journal of Bilingualism 3: 30932.
A Postscript: Code-switching and Social Identity. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 40310.
Variation and Linguistic Theory. Arlington: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Michif, the Cree-French Mixed Language of the Mtis Buffalo Hunters in Canada. In Mixed Languages:
15 Case Studies in Language Intertwining, edited by Peter Bakker and Maarten Mous, pp. 1333. Studies in
Language and Language Use 13. Amsterdam: Instituut voor Functioneel Onderzoek naar en Taalgebruik.
Bakker, Peter, and Maarten Mous, editors

1994
Mixed Languages: 15 Case Studies in Language Intertwining. Studies in Language and Language Use 13. Amsterdam: Instituut voor Functioneel Onderzoek naar en Taalgebruik.
Bakker, Peter, and Robert A. Papen
1997
Michif: A Mixed Language Based on Cree and French. In Contact Languages: A Wider Perspective, edited
by Sarah G. Thomason, pp. 295363. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Bickerton, Derek
1973
1975
The Nature of a Creole Continuum. Language 49: 64069.

Dynamics of a Creole System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blau, Joshua
1970
On Pseudo-corrections in Some Semitic Languages. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.
Bhl, Franz M. T.
1909
1914
Bolozky, Shmuel
1999
Campbell, Lyle
2004
Die Sprache der Amarnabriefe mit besonderer Bercksichtigung der Kanaanismen. Leipziger Semitische Studien
5/2. Reprinted, Leipzig: Zentralantiquariat der DDR, 1977.
Hymnisches und Rhythmisches in den Amarnabriefen aus Kanaan. Theologisches Literaturblatt 35/15:
33740. (= Opera Minora: Studies en Bijdragen op Assyriologisch en Oudtestamentisch Terrein, pp. 37579,
51617. Groningen: Wolters.)
Measuring Productivity in Word Formation: The Case of Israeli Hebrew. Studies in Semitic Languages and
Linguistics 27. Leiden: Brill.
Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. 2nd edition. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chambers, J. K., and Peter Trudgill

Dialectology. 2nd edition. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1998
Chambers, J. K.; Peter Trudgill; and Natalie Schilling-Estes, editors
2002
The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Blackwell Handbook in Linguistics. Malden: Balckwell.
Charpin, Dominique
2008
Lire et crire Babylone. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Civil, Miguel
1987
The Early History of HAR-ra: The Ebla Link. In Ebla 19751985: Dieci anni di studi linguistici e filologici.
Atti del convegno internazionale (Napoli, 911 ottobre 1985), edited by Luigi Cagni, pp. 13158. Istituto
Universitare Orientale, Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici, series minor, 27. Naples: Istituto Universitario
Orientale.
Cochavi-Rainey, Zippora
The Akkadian Dialect of the Egyptian Scribes in the 14th13th Centuries B.C.E.: Linguistic Analysis.
1988
With Supplement: The Akkadian Texts Written by Egyptian Scribes in the 14th13th Centuries B.C.E.:
208
Shlomo Izreel
1989
1990a
1990b
1993
1998
2003
2011
Transliterations and Hebrew Translations. Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University. [In Hebrew, with
English summary]
Canaanite Influence in the Akkadian Texts Written by Egyptian Scribes in the 14th and 13th Centuries
B.C.E. Ugarit Forschungen 21: 3946.
Tenses and Modes in Cuneiform Texts Written by Egyptian Scribes in the Late Bronze Age. Ugarit
Forschungen 22: 523.
Egyptian Influences in the Akkadian Texts Written by Egyptian Scribes in the Fourteenth and Thirteenth Centuries B.C.E. Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Studies 49: 5765.
The Style and Syntax of EA 1. Ugarit Forschungen 25: 7584.
Some Grammatical Notes on EA 14. In Past Links: Studies in the Languages and Cultures of the Ancient Near
East, edited by Shlomo Izreel, Itamar Singer, and Ran Zadok, pp. 20728. Israel Oriental Studies 18.
The Alashia Texts from the 14th and 13th Centuries BCE: A Textual and Linguistic Study. Alter Orient und Altes
Testament 289. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag.
The Akkadian Dialect of Egyptian Scribes in the 14th and 13th Centuries B.C.E. Alter Orient und Altes Testament
374. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Cochavi-Rainey, Zipora, and Anson F. Rainey

Finite Verbal Usage in the Jerusalem Amarna Letters. Ugarit Forschungen 39: 3756.
2007
Crystal, David
2010
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Third edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cunchillos, Jess-Luis
1999
The Ugaritic Letters. In Handbook of Ugaritic Studies, edited by Wilfred G. E. Watson and Nicolas Wyatt,
pp. 35974. Handbuch der Orientalistik, Erste Abteilung, Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten 39. Leiden: Brill.
DeCamp, David
1971
Dhorme, Paul
191314
Drewes, A. J.
1994
Ebeling, Erich
1910
Edel, Elmar
1994
Edzard, Dietz Otto

1985
Emilano, Antnio
1991
Fasold, Ralph
1984
Fasold, Ralph W.
1990
Toward a Generative Analysis of a Post-Creole Speech Community. In Pidginization and Creolization of

Languages (Proceedings of a Conference Held at the University of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica, April
1968), edited by Dell Hymes, 34970. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
La langue de Canaan. Revue Biblique 10: 36993; 11: 3759, 34472.
Borrowing in Maltese. In Mixed Languages: 15 Case Studies in Language Intertwining, edited by Peter Bakker and Maarten Mous, pp. 83111. Studies in Language and Language Use 13. Amsterdam: Instituut
voor Functioneel Onderzoek naar en Taalgebruik.
Das Verbum der El-Amarna-Briefe. Beitrge zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft 8: 3979.
Die gyptisch-hethitische Korrespondenz aus Boghazky in babylonischer und hethitischer Sprache. 2 volumes.
Abhandlungen der Rheinisch-Westflischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 77. Oplanden: Westdeutscher
Verlag.
Amarna und die Archive seiner Korrespondenten zwischen Ugarit und Gaza. In Biblical Archaeology
Today (Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, April 1984), pp.
24859. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Latin or Romance? Graphemic Variation and Scripto-linguistic Change in Medieval Spain. In Latin and
Romance Languages in the Early Middle Ages, edited by Roger Wright, pp. 23347. London: Routledge.
Introduction to Sociolinguistics, Volume 1: The Sociolinguistics of Society. Language in Society 5. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Introduction to Sociolinguistics, Volume 2: The Sociolinguistics of Language. Language and Society 6. Oxford:
Blackwell.
209
Ferguson, Charles A.
1959
Diglossia. Word 15: 32540.
Finkel, Marcie
1977
The Tyre Letters of the El-Amarna Archives: A Study of Selected Linguistic Aspects. M.A. thesis, Tel Aviv
University.
Finley, Thomas John

Word Order in the Clause Structure of Syrian Akkadian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los
1979
Angeles. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International.
Fishman, Joshua A.
1967
Fodor, Janet Dean
2002
Bilingualism with and without Diglossia: Diglossia with and without Bilingualism. Journal of Social
Issues 2: 2938.
Prosodic Disambiguation in Silent Reading. In Proceedings of the Northeast Linguistic Society 32, edited
by Masako Hirotani, pp. 11332. New York: City University of New York and New York University.
Gardner-Chloros, Penelope
2009
Code-switching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gelb, Ignace J.
1963
George, Andrew R.
2003
A Study of Writing. Revised edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Gershevitch, Ilya
1979
Alloglottography of Old Persian. Transactions of the Phililogical Society 77: 11490.
Gevirtz, Stanley
1973
On Canaanite Rhetoric: The Evidence of the Amarna Letters from Tyre. Orientalia 42: 16277.
Gianto, Agustinus
1990
1995
2000
Word Order Variation in the Akkadian of Byblos. Studia Pohl 15. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico.
Amarna Lexicography: The Glosses in the Byblos Letters. Studi epigrafi e linguistici sur Vicino Oriente
antico 12 (= The Lexicography of the Ancient Near Eastern Languages): 6573.
Amarna Akkadian as a Contact Language. In Languages and Cultures in Contact: At the Crossroads of Civilizations in the Syro-Mesopotamian Realm, edited by Karel Van Lerberghe and Gabriela Voet, pp. 12332.
Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 96. Leuven: Peeters.
Goetze, Albrecht, and Selim Levy

1959
Fragment of the Gilgamesh Epic from Megiddo. Atiqot 2: 12128.
Golovoko, Evgenij
1994
Goodman, Morris
1971
Mednyj Aleut or Copper Island Aleut. In Mixed Languages: 15 Case Studies in Language Intertwining, edited
by Peter Bakker and Maarten Mous, pp. 11321. Studies in Language and Language Use 13. Amsterdam:
Instituut voor Functioneel Onderzoek naar en Taalgebruik.
The Strange Case of Mbugu. In Pidginization and Creolization of Languages (Proceedings of a Conference
Held at the University of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica, April 1968), edited by Dell Hymes, pp. 24354.
Goren, Yuval; Israel Finkelstein; and Nadav Naaman

Inscribed in Clay: Provenance Study of the Amarna Letters and Other Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Tel Aviv
2004
University, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology, Monograph Series 23. Tel Aviv: Emery
and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology.
A Provenance Study of the Gilgamesh Fragment from Megiddo. Archaeometry 51: 76373.
2009
Goswami, Usha
2009
The Basic Processes in Reading: Insights from Neuroscience. In The Cambridge Handbook of Literacy,
edited by David R. Olson and Nancy Torrance, pp. 13451. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
210
Hall, Robert A.
1966
Shlomo Izreel
Pidgin and Creole Languages. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Hallo, William W., and Hayim Tadmor

1977
A Lawsuit from Hazor. Israel Exploration Journal 27: 111.
Hary, Benjamin
1996
Hawley, Robert
2003
Hayes, John Lewis
1984
The Importance of the Language Continuum in Arabic Multiglossia. In Understanding Arabic: Essays in
Honor of El-Said Badawi, edited by Alaa Elgibali, pp. 6990. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press.
Studies in Ugaritic Epistolography. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago.
Dialectical Variation in the Syntax of Coordination and Subordination in Western Akkadian of the elAmarna Period. Ph.D. dissertation, University of CaliforniaLos Angeles. University Microfilms. UMI
no. NBN 84-20184.
Heintz, Jean-Georges
1982
Index documentaire dEl-Amarna I.D.E.A., 1 -. Liste/Codage des texts; Index des ouvrages de rfrence. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
1995
Index documentaire dEl-Amarna I.D.E.A., 2 -. Bibliographie des textsbabyloniens dEl Amarna [1888 1993] et
Concordances des sigles EA. With D. Bauer, D. Bodi, L. Millot, and C. B. F. Walker. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Heintz, Jean-Georges, and Lison Millot
1995
Bibliographie dEl-Amarna: Supplement I (19941995) (Addenda and Corrigenda - Edition du 31 Dc.
1995). Ugarit Forschungen 27: 2140.
1996
Bibliographie dEl-Amarna: Supplement II (19951996): (Addenda and Corrigenda - Edition du 31 Dc.
1995). Ugarit Forschungen 28: 25774.
2000
Bibliographie dEl-Amarna: Supplement III (1997-2000) - [= Supplment I.D.E.A. 2 (1995): 1119] [Addenda and Corrigenda - Edition du 31 Dcembre 2000]. Ugarit Forschungen 32: 21936.
Heintz, J.-G.; Lison Millot; and Rijad Mehmedi
Bibliographie dEl-Amarna: Supplement IV (20002003). Ugarit Forschungen 35: 23138.
2003
Heintz, Jean-Georges; Rijad Mehmedi; and Juan-Pablo Vita
2006
Bibliographie dEl-Amarna: Supplement V (20032006) - [= Supplment I.D.E.A. 2 (1995): 1119] [Addenda and Corrigenda - dition du 30 Juin 2007]. Ugarit Forschungen 38: 31339.
Hess, Richard Samuel
1984
Amarna Proper Names. Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew Union College, Ohio. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International.
1986
Divine Names in the Amarna Texts. Ugarit Forschungen 18: 14968.
1989
Hebrew Psalms and Amarna Correspondence from Jerusalem: Comparisons and Implications. Zeitschrift
fr die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 101: 24965.
1990
Rhetorical Forms in EA 162. Ugarit Forschungen 22: 13748.
1993a
Amarna Personal Names. American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series 9. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns.
1993b
Smitten Ant Bites Back: Rhetorical Forms in the Amarna Correspondence from Shechem. In Verse in
Ancient Near Eastern Prose, edited by Johannes C. de Moor and Wilfred G. E. Watson, pp. 95111. Alter
1998
The Mayarzana Correspondence: Rhetoric and Conquest Accounts. Ugarit Forschungen 30: 33551.
Preliminary Perspectives on Late Bronze Age Culture from the Personal Names in Palestinian Cuneiform
2003
Texts. Dutch Studies - Society of Near Eastern Languages and Literatures 5: 3557.
Holm, John
19881989
Pidgins and Creoles. 2 volumes. Cambridge Language Surveys. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Horowitz, Wayne
1996
An Inscribed Beth Shean Clay Cylinder from the Amarna Age. Israel Exploration Journal 46: 20818.
Horowitz, Wayne; Takashi Oshima; and Seth L. Sanders

2006
Society and The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Hudson, Richard A.
1996
Huehnergard, John
1989
1997
1998
1999
Hymes, Dell, editor
1971
211
Sociolinguistics. 2nd edition. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.
The Akkadian of Ugarit. Harvard Semitic Studies 34. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
A Grammar of Akkadian. Harvard Semitic Studies 45. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
A Grammar of Amarna Canaanite. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 310: 5977.
The Akkadian Letters. In Handbook of Ugaritic Studies, edited by Wilfred G. E. Watson and Nicolas Wyatt,
pp. 37589. Handbuch der Orientalistik, Erste Abteilung, Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten 39. Leiden: Brill.
Pidginization and Creolization of Languages (Proceedings of a Conference Held at the University of the West
Indies, Mona, Jamaica, April 1968). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ikeda, Jun
1992
2007
Amarnaic: A Pidgin in the Second Millennium B.C.E. Orient 35: 121. [In Japanese, with English abstract]
Early Japanese and Early Akkadian Writing Systems: A Contrastive Survey of Kunogenesis. In Proceedings of the Conference Origins of Early Writing Systems, October 5 to 7, 2007, Peking University, Beijing.
http://www.caeno.org/origins/papers/Ikeda_Kunogenesis.pdf
2010
Was Akkadian Spoken in Emar? Diglossia in Emar. In Language in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of
the 53rd Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Volume 2, edited by L. Cogan, N. Koslova, S. Loesov, and
T. Tishchesko, pp. 84150. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Israel, Felice
2006 Ynu + accusativo nel semitico siro-palestinese e il sincretismo dei casi nel semitico. In Loquentes linguis:
Studi linguistici e orientali in onore di Fabrizio A. Pennacchietti, edited by Pier Giorgio Borbone, Allessandro
Mengozzi, and Mauro Tosco, pp. 33753. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Izreel, Shlomo
1976
1978
1984
1985
1987a
1987b
1991a
1991b
1995a
1995b
1997
1998a
1998b
The Gezer Letters of the El-Amarna Archive: Linguistic Analysis. M.A. thesis, Tel Aviv University. [In
Hebrew, with English summary]
The Gezer Letters of the El-Amarna Archive: Linguistic Analysis. Israel Oriental Studies 8: 1390.
On the Use of the So-called Ventive Morpheme in the Akkadian Texts of Amurru. Ugarit Forschungen
16: 8392. [References in Ugarit Forschungen 17 (1985): 40304.]
The Akkadian Dialect of the Scribes of Amurru in the 14th13th Centuries B.C. Linguistic Analysis. Ph.D.
dissertation, Tel Aviv University. [In Hebrew, with English summary]
The Complementary Distribution of the Vowels e and i in the Peripheral Akkadian Dialect of Amurru
A Further Step towards Our Understanding of the Development of the Amarna Jargon. In Proceedings
of the Fourth International Hamito-Semitic Congress (Marburg, 2022 September 1983), edited by Herrmann
Jungraithmayr and Walter W. Mller, pp. 52541. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science Series 4; Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 44. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Some Methodological Requisites for the Study of the Amarna Jargon: Notes on the Essence of That
Language. http://tau.ac.il/~izreel/publications/amarna-1987.pdf
Amurru Akkadian: A Linguistic Study. 2 volumes. Harvard Semitic Studies 4041. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
On the Person-prefixes of the Akkadian Verb. The Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 20: 3556.
The Amarna Letters from Canaan. In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, pp.
241119. 4 volumes. New York: Scribners.
The Amarna Glosses: Who Wrote What for Whom? Some Sociolinguistic Considerations. In Language
and Culture in the Near East, edited by Shlomo Izreel and Rina Drory, pp. 10122. Israel Oriental Studies
15. Leiden: Brill.
The Amarna Scholarly Tablets. Cuneiform Monographs 9. Groningen: Styx.
Canaano-Akkadian. Languages of the World/Materials 82. Munich: LINCOM Europa. Second printing, with
corrections 2005.
Review of Dictionary of the North-west Semitic Inscriptions, Volumes 12, by J. Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling.
Handbuch der Orientalistik, Erste Abteilung, Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten 21. Leiden: Brill, 1995. In Past
Links: Studies in the Languages and Cultures of the Ancient Near East, edited by Shlomo Izreel, Itamar Singer,
and Ran Zadok, pp. 42129. Israel Oriental Studies 18. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
212
Shlomo Izreel
2000
2003a
2003b
2003c
2005
2007a
2007b
2010
Linguistics and Poetics in Old Babylonian Literature: Mimation and Meter in Etana. Journal of the
Ancient Near Eastern Society 20: 5768.
Vocalized Canaanite: Cuneiform-Written Canaanite Words in the Amarna Letters: Some Methodological
Remarks. Dutch Studies - Society of Near Eastern Languages and Literatures 5: 1334.
Canaanite Varieties in the Second Millennium BC: Can We Dispense with Anachronism? Orient 38:
66104.
The Emergence of Spoken Israeli Hebrew. In Corpus Linguistics and Modern Hebrew: Towards the Compilation of the Corpus of Spoken Israeli Hebrew (CoSIH), edited by Benjamin H.
Hary, pp. 85104. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, The Chaim Rosenberg School of Jewish Studies.
http://www.tau.ac.il/~izreel/publications/Emergence_Hary2003(corr).pdf
Canaano-Akkadian. Languages of the World/Materials 82. Munich: LINCOM Europa. Second printing, with
corrections.
Canaano-Akkadian: Some Methodological Requisites for the Study of the Amarna Letters from Canaan.
http://www.tau.ac.il/~izreel/publications/CanAkkMethRequisites_2007.pdf
Constructive Constructions: The Semitic Verbal Morphology and Beyond. In Egyptian, Semitic and
General Grammar: Workshop In Memory of H. J. Polotsky (812 July 2001), edited by Gideon Goldenberg and
Ariel Shisha-Halevy, pp. 10631. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.
At Her Speech the Gods of the Land Rejoiced: Some Thoughts on the Language of Old Babylonian
Mythologic Narratives. In Gazing on the Deep: Ancient Near Eastern and Other Studies in Honor of Tzvi Abusch,
edited by Jeffrey Stackert, Barbara Nevling Porter, and David P. Wright, pp. 87106. Bethesda: CDL Press.
Izreel, Shlomo, and Eran Cohen

2004
Literary Old Babylonian. Languages of the World/Materials 81. Munich: LINCOM Europa.
Jahandarie, Khosrow
1999
Spoken and Written Discourse: A Multi-disciplinary Perspective. Contemporary Studies in International Political Communication. Stamford: Abex.
Jirku, Anton
1933
Kanaanische Psalmenfragmente in der vorisraelitischen Zeit Palstinas und Syriens. Journal of Biblical
Literature 52: 10820.
Joon SJ, Paul, and Talamitsu Muraoka

2006
A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Subsidia Biblica 27. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico.
Kaye, Alan S.
2001
Diglossia: The State of the Art. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 152: 11729.
Kaye, Alan S., and Mauro Tosco

2001
Pidgin and Creole Languages: A Basic Introduction. LINCOM Textbooks in Linguistics. Munich: LINCOM Europa.
Knudtzon, J. A.
1907
1915
Knutson, F. Brent
1982
Korchin, Paul D.
2008
Die El-Amarna Tafeln, Volume 1. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs.

Die El-Amarna Tafeln, Volume 2. Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 2. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. Reprinted: Aalen,
1964.
Cuneiform Letters and Social Conventions. In Studies in Ancient Letter Writing, edited by John L. White,
pp. 1523. Semeia 22. Chico: Society of Biblical Literature.
Markedness in Canaanite and Hebrew Verbs. Harvard Semitic Series 58. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Kossmann, Maarten
198788
The Case System of West-Semitized Amarna Akkadian. Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschapt Ex Oriente Lux 30: 3860, 48788.
1994
Amarna-Akkadian as a Mixed Language. In Mixed Languages: 15 Case Studies in Language Intertwining,
edited by Peter Bakker and Maarten Mous, pp. 16973. Studies in Language and Language Use 13. Amsterdam: Instituut voor Functioneel Onderzoek naar en Taalgebruik.
Krecher, J.
1969 Glossen. Reallexikon der Assyriologie 3: 43140.
Labat, Ren
1962
Labov, William
1971
1994
Lambert, Maurice
195760
Lefebvre, Claire
2008
Liverani, Mario
1983
Mangano, Mark J.
1990
Matras, Yaron
1996
2005
2009
Matthews, Peter H.
2007
213
Le rayonnement de la langue et de lcriture akkadienne au deuxime millnaire avant notre ra.

Syria 39: 127.
The Notion of System in Creole Languages. In Pidginization and Creolization of Languages (Proceedings
of a Conference Held at the University of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica, April 1968), edited by Dell
Hymes, pp. 44772. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Principles of Linguistic Change, Volume 1: Internal Factors. Language in Society 20. Oxford: Blackwell.
Formules de politesse et formules dintroduction dans les langues msopotamiennes. Comptes rendus
du groupe linguistique dtudes chamito-smitiques 8: 8890 (en sumrien), 10507 (en akkadien).
Relabelling: A Major Process in Language Contact. Persistance et intrt de la mtaphore. Journal of
Language Contact: Evolution of Language, Contact and Discourse; Thema Series, Language Contact and the
Dynamics of Language 2: Language Contact and the Dynamics of Language/Theory and Implications,
edited by Robert Nicolai and Bernard Comrie, 2: 90111.
Political Lexicon and Political Ideologies in the Amarna Letters. Berytus 3: 4156.
Rhetorical Content in the Amarna Correspondence from the Levant. Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew Union
College, Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati. UMI 9028107.
Prozedurale Fusion: Grammatische Interferenzschichten im Romances. Sprachtypologie und UniversalienForschung 49: 6078.
The Full Extent of Fusion: A Test Case for Connectivity and Language Contact. In Prozesse des Wandels in historischen Spannungfeldern Nordafricas/Westasien (Akten zum 2. Symposium des SFB 296, Mainz,
15.10.17.10.2001), edited by Walter Bisang, Thomas Bierschenk, Detlev Krekenbom, and Ursula Verhoeven, pp. 24155. Kulturelle und Sprachliche Kontakte 2. Wrzburg: Ergon.
Language Contact. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. 2nd edition. Oxford Paperback Reference. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Mazar, Eilat; Wayne Horowitz; Takayoshi Oshima; and Yuval Goren

2010
A Cuneiform Tablet from the Ophel in Jerusalem. Israel Exploration Journal (Miriam Tadmor Volume)
60/1: 421.
McWhorter, John
1998
The Word on the Street: Fact and Fable about American English. New York: Plenum Trade.
Menovikov, Georgiy A.
1968
Aleutskiy Iazyk. In Iazyki Narodov SSSR, Volume 5: Mongolskie, Tunguso-Manurskie i Paleoaziatskie Iazyki,
pp. 386406. Leningrad: Nauka. [In Russian]
Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary
Electronic edition, version 1.5.
199496
Mynov, Jana
2007
Language of Amarna: Language of Diplomacy: Perspectives on the Amarna Letters. Prague: Czech Institute of
Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University.
Montgomery, Michael
Variation and Historical Linguistics. In Sociolinguistic Variation: Theories, Methods, and Applications, edited
2007
by Robert Bayley and Ceil Lucas, pp. 11032. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moran, William L.
1950
1960
A Syntactical Study of the Dialect of Byblos as Reflected in the Amarna Tablets. Ph.D. dissertation, Johns
Hopkins University. [= Moran 2003: 1130, #1.]
Early Canaanite yaqtula. Orientalia 29: 119. [= Moran 2003, pp. 17995, #10.]
214
Shlomo Izreel
1971
1975
1984
1987
1992
2003
Mous, Maarten
1994
2003
Mhlhusler, Peter
1997
Muysken, Peter
1994
1997
Nitzn, Shemul
1973
Noonan, Michael
2010
Nougayrol, Jean
1962
1975
Tell el-Amarna. In Encyclopaedia Judaica, Volume 15, pp. 93335. Jerusalem: Keter. [= Moran 2003, pp.
23741, #15.]
The Syrian Scribe of the Jerusalem Amarna Letters. In Unity and Diversity. Essays in History, Literature
and Religion of the Ancient Near East, edited by H. Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts, pp. 14666. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University. [= Moran 2003, pp. 24974, #17.]
Additions to the Amarna Lexicon. Orientalia 53: 297302. [= Moran 2003, pp. 30106, #22.]
Les lettres del-Amarna: Correspondance diplomatique du Pharaon. Traduction franaise de Dominique Collon
et Henri Cazelles. Littrature anciennes du Proche-Orient 13. Paris: Les ditions du Cerf.
Amarna Studies: Collected Writings, edited by John Huehnergard and Shlomo Izreel. Harvard Semitic
Studies 54. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Maa or Mbugu. In Mixed Languages: 15 Case Studies in Language Intertwining, edited by Peter Bakker
and Maarten Mous, pp. 175200. Studies in Language and Language Use 13. Amsterdam: Instituut voor
Functioneel Onderzoek naar en Taalgebruik.
The Making of a Mixed Language: The Case of Maa/Mbugu. Creole Language Library 26. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Pidgin and Creole Linguistics. Expanded and revised edition. Westminster Creolistics Series 3. Westminster:
University of Westminster Press.
Media Lengua. In Mixed Languages: 15 Case Studies in Language Intertwining, edited by Peter Bakker and
Maarten Mous, pp. 20105. Studies in Language and Language Use 13. Amsterdam: Instituut voor Functioneel Onderzoek naar en Taalgebruik.
Media Lengua. In Contact Languages: A Wider Perspective, edited by Sarah G. Thomason, pp. 365426.
Creole Language Library 17. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
The Jerusalem Letters from the el-Amarna Archive: Linguistic Aspects. M.A. thesis, Tel Aviv University.
[In Hebrew, with English summary]
Genetic Classification and Language Contact. In The Handbook of Language Contact, edited by Raymond
Hickey, pp. 4865. Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics. Chichester: Winey-Blackwell.
Linfluence babylonienne lUgarit daprs les textes en cuniformes classiques. Syria 39: 2835.
La Babylonien, langue internationale de lantiquit. Slovenska Akademija Zuanosti in Umetnosti; Academia
Scientiarum et Artium Slovenica; Razred za Zgodovinske in Druzbene vede; Classis 1: Historia et Sociologia. Dissertationes 9/1. Ljubliana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti.
Nyberg, Henrik Samuel

1974
A Manual of Pahlavi. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Oppenheim, A. Leo
1964
1965
1977
Pearce, Laurie E.
1995
Petyt, K. M.
1980
Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

A Note on the Scribes in Mesopotamia. In Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on His Seventy Fifth Birthday, April 21, 1965, edited by Hans Gterbock and Thorkild Jacobsen, pp. 25356. Assyriological Studies
16. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Revised edition completed by Erica Reiner. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
The Scribes and Scholars of Ancient Mesopotamia. In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by
Jack M. Sasson, pp. 226578. New York: Scribners.
The Study of Dialect: An Introduction to Dialectology. Language Library. London: Andr Deutsch.
Rabiner, Sara
1981
Rainey, Anson F.
1970
1971
1973
1975
1976
1978a
1978b
199193
1992
1996
1999
2002
2003
215
Linguistic Features of the El-Amarna Tablets from Akko, Megiddo and Shechem. M.A. thesis, Tel Aviv
University. [In Hebrew, with English summary]
El-Amarna Tablets 359379. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 8. Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker.
Verbal Forms with Infixed -t- in the West Semitic El-Amarna Letters. Israel Oriental Studies 1: 86102.
Reflections on the Suffix Conjugation in West-Semitized Amarna Tablets. Ugarit Forschungen 5: 23562.
Morphology and the Prefix Tenses of West-Semitized el-Amarna Tablets. Ugarit Forschungen 7: 395426.
KL 72:600 and the D-Passive in West Semitic. Ugarit Forschungen 8: 37341.
El-Amarna Tablets 359379. 2nd edition, revised. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 8. Kevelaer: Butzon and
Bercker.
The Barth-Ginsberg Law in the Amarna Tablets. Eretz Israel 14: 8*13*.
Is There Really a yaqtula Conjugation Pattern in the Canaanite Amarna Tablets? Journal of Cuneiform
Studies 4345: 10718.
Topic and Comment in Byblos Akkadian. Bibliotheca Orientalis 49: 32957.
Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect Used by Scribes from Canaan. 4 volumes. Handbuch der Orientalistik, Erste Abteilung, Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten 25. Leiden: Brill.
Taanach Letters. Eretz-Israel 26: 15362.
The Amrnah Texts a Century after Flinders Petrie. Ancient Near Eastern Studies 39: 4475.
Syntax, Hermeneutics and History. Israel Exploration Journal 48: 23951.
Rainey, Anson F., and R. Steven Notely

2006
The Sacred Bridge: Cartas Atlas of the Biblical World. Jerusalem: Carta.
Reiner, Erica
1966
Rickford, John R.
1987
2002
A Linguistic Analysis of Akkadian. Janua Linguarum, Series Practica 21. The Hague: Mouton.
Dimensions of a Creole Continuum: History, Texts and Linguistics Analysis of Guyanese Creole. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Implicational Scales. In The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, edited by J. K. Chambers, Peter
Trudgill, and Natalie Schilling-Estes, pp. 14268. Blackwell Handbook in Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Riemschneider, K. K.
1958
Die Hittitische Landschenkungsurkunden. Mitteilungen des Instituts fr Orientforschung 6: 32181.
Romaine, Suzanne
1988
Rubio, Gonzalo
2006
Salonen, Erkki
1967
Pidgin and Creole Languages. Longman Linguistics Library. London: Longman.

Writing in Another Tongue: Alloglottography in the Ancient Near East. In Margins of Writing, Origins
of Cultures, edited by Seth L. Sanders, pp. 3164. Oriental Institute Seminars 2. Chicago: The Oriental
Institute.
Die Gruss- und Hflichkeitsformeln in babylonisch-assyrischen Briefen. Studia Orientalia 38. Helsinki: Societas
Orientalis fennica.
Sampson, Geoffrey
1980
1985
Schools of Linguistics. Competition and Evolution. London: Hutchinson.

Writing Systems: A Linguistic Introduction. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Sanders, Seth L.
2009
The Invention of Hebrew. Traditions. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
de Saussure, Ferdinand
Cours de linguistique gnrale. Publi par Charles Bally et Albert Sechehaye avec la collaboration de Albert
1955
Riedlinger. Paris: Payot. First edition 1916.
Schroeder, Otto
1915
Die Tontafeln von El Amarna. 2 volumes. Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmler der Knigliche Museen zu
Berlin 1112. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Reprinted, Osnabrck, 1973.
216
Shlomo Izreel
Scotton, Carol Myers

1988
Codeswitching as Indexical of Social Negotiations. In Codeswitching: Anthropological and Sociolinguistic
Perspectives, edited by Monica Heller, pp. 15186. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Shehadeh, Lamia A. Rustam
The Sibilants in the West Semitic Languages of the Second Millennium B.C. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard
1968
University.
1987
Some Observations on the Sibilants in the Second Millennium B.C. In Working with No Data: Semitic
and Egyptian Studies Presented to Thomas O. Lambdin, edited by David M. Golomb, pp. 22946. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns.
Sivan, Daniel
1984
Grammatical Analysis and Glossary of the Northwest Semitic Vocables in Akkadian Texts of the 15th13th c. B.C.
from Canaan and Syria. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 214. Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker.
Skjrv, Prods Octor

1995
Aramaic in Iran. Aram 7: 283318.
1996
Aramaic Scripts for Iranian Languages. In The Worlds Writing Systems, edited by Peter T. Daniels and
William Bright, pp. 51535. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, Scobie P.
1998
The Inflectional Morphology of the YVQTVL- Verb in the uwardata Amarna Letters (EA 278284, 366).
In Past Links: Studies in the Languages and Cultures of the Ancient Near East, edited by Shlomo Izreel, Itamar
Singer, and Ran Zadok, pp. 12570. Israel Oriental Studies 18. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Stolper, Matthew W., and Jan Tavernier

2007
From the Persepolis Fortification Archive Project, No. 1: An Old Persian Administrative Tablet from
the Persepolis Fortification. ARTA 2007: 127.
http://www.achemenet.com/document/2007.001-Stolper-Tavernier.pdf
Tadmor, Hayim
1977
A Lexicographical Text from Hazor. Israel Exploration Journal 27: 98102.
Tawil, Hayim ben Yosef

An Akkadian Lexical Companion for Biblical Hebrew: Etymological-semantic and Idiomatic Equivalents with
2009
Supplement on Biblical Aramaic. Jersey City: KTAV.
Thomason, Sarah G.
1997a
Mednyj Aleut. In Contact languages: A Wider Perspective, edited by Sarah G. Thomason, pp. 44968. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
1997b
Maa (Mbugu). In Contact Languages: A Wider Perspective, edited by Sarah G. Thomason, pp. 46987.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
2007
Language Contact and Deliberate Change. In Journal of Language Contact: Evolution of Language, Contact
and Discourse; Thema Series 1: Contact: Framing Its Theories and Descriptions, edited by Robert Nicolai, pp.
4162.
Thomason, Sarah Grey, and Terrence Kaufman
1988
Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
van der Toorn, Karel
Cuneiform Documents from Syria-Palestine: Texts, Scribes, and Schools. Zeitschrift des Deutschen
2000
Palstina-Vereins 116: 97113.
Tropper, Josef
1997
1997/1998
2005
Ventiv Oder yaktula-Volitiv in den Amarnabriefen aus Syrien-Palestina? In Ana ad Labnani lu allik:
Beitrge zu altorientalischen und mittelmeerischen Kulturen: Festschrift fr Wolfgang Rllig, edited by Beate
Pongratz-Leisten, Hartmut Khne, and Paolo Xella, pp. 397405. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 247.
Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker.
Kanaanaischen in den Amarnabriefen. Archiv fr Orientforschung 44/45: 13445.
Der Energikus an Jussiven im Kanaano-Akkadischen der Amarna-Periode. Orientalia 74: 5764.
Trudgill, Peter
1983
Tsuzaki, Stanley
1971
Versteegh, Kees
1984
217
Language Contact in Greece: Reduction and Simplification in the Albanian Dialects of Attica and Biotia.
In On Dialect: Social and Geographical Perspectives, edited by Peter Trudgill, chapter 6. New York: New York
University Press.
Coexistent Systems in Language Variation: The Case of Hawaiian English. In Pidginization and Creolization of Languages (Proceedings of a Conference Held at the University of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica,
April 1968), edited by Dell Hymes, pp. 32739. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pidginization and Creolization: The Case of Arabic. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic
Science, Series 4: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 33. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Vita, Juan-Pablo
2010 Scribes and Dialects in Late Bronze Age Canaan. In Language in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the
53rd Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Volume 2, edited by L. Cogan, N. Koslova, S. Loesov, and T.
Tishchesko, pp. 86394. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
von Dassow, Eva
2003
2004
2010
What the Canaanite Cuneiformists Wrote: Review Article. Israel Exploration Journal 53: 196217.
Canaanite in Cuneiform. Journal of the American Oriental Society 124: 64174.
Peripheral Akkadian Dialects, or Akkadography of Local Languages? In Language in the Ancient Near East:
Proceedings of the 53rd Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Volume 2, edited by L. Cogan, N. Koslova, S.
Loesov, and T. Tishchesko, pp. 895924. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Wang, Feng; Yaching Tsai; and William S.-Y. Wang

2009
Chinese Literacy. In The Cambridge Handbook of Literacy, edited by David R. Olson and Nancy Torrance,
pp. 386417. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weeden, Mark
2007
Hittite Logograms: Studies in Their Origin and Distribution. Ph.D. dissertation, School of Oriental and
African Studies, University of London.
Weinreich, Uriel; William Labov; and Marvin I. Herzog

1968
Empirical Foundations for a Theory of Language Change. In Directions for Historical Linguistics, edited
by Winfred P. Lehmann and Yakov Malkiel, pp. 95195. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Westhuizen, J. P., van der
Morphology and Morphosyntax of the Verb in the Amqi Amarna Letters. Journal for Semitics 3: 5484.
1991
1993
Morphology and Morphosyntax of the Noun in the Amqi Amarna Letters. Journal for Semitics 5: 1856.
1994
Word Order Variation of the Verbal Sentence in Amqi Akkadian. Journal for Semitics 6: 11753.
2005
Morphology and Morphosyntax of the Adjective as Attributive in the Jerusalem-Amarna Letters.
In An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein, edited
by Yitschak Sefati, Pinhas Artzi, Chaim Cohen, Barry L. Eichler, and Victor A. Hurowitz, pp. 60023.
Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Institute of Assyriology and Ancient Near Eastern Studies,
The Faculty of Jewish Studies, Bar-Ilan University. Bethesda: CDL Press.
Winford, Donald
1985
2007
2010
Yarshater, Eshan
1977
The Concept of Diglossia in Caribbean Creole Situations. Language in Society 14: 34556.
Some Issues in the Study of Language Contact. In Journal of Language Contact: Evolution of Language,
Contact and Discourse; Thema Series 1: Contact: Framing Its Theories and Descriptions, edited by Robert
Nicolai, pp. 2240.
Contact and Borrowing. In The Handbook of Language Contact, edited by Raymond Hickey, pp. 17087.
Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics. Chichester: Winey-Blackwell.
The Hybrid Language of the Jewish Communities of Persia. Journal of the American Oriental Society 97:
17.
Youngblood, Ronald Fred

1961
The Amarna Correspondence of Rib-Haddi, Prince of Byblos (EA 6896). Ph.D. dissertation, Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learnings, Philadelphia. UMI 72-31,957.
218
Zewi, Tamar
1995
1999
Shlomo Izreel
Subject-predicate Word Order of Nominal Clauses in El-Amarna Letters. Ugarit Forschungen 27: 65793.
A Syntactic Study of Verbal Forms Affixed by -n(n) Endings in Classical Arabic, Biblical Hebrew, El-Amarna Akkadian and Ugaritic. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 260. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag.
The Evidential Function of the Perfect in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic Dialects
219
14
The Evidential Function of the Perfect

in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic Dialects
Geoffrey Khan, University of Cambridge
Most North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA) dialects have a perfect verbal form in addition to the preterite. The
basic function of the perfect is to express a state resulting from a preceding event, whereas the function of the
preterite is to express an event in the past. When the perfect is used, the event is not expressed directly, but is an
implicature. The preterite, by contrast, expresses the event directly. In the majority of NENA dialects, the present perfect, that is, a perfect expressing a resultative state in the present, is formed by combining the resultative
participle with the verb to be, usually in the form of a copula. The resultative participle is derived historically
from the passive participle in earlier Aramaic in the determined state (ql). The purpose of this paper is to draw
attention to the existence of a secondary function of perfect verbal forms in a number of NENA dialects.
The first dialect to be considered is the Jewish dialect of Sanandaj (western Iran). This dialect has two verbal
forms whose basic function is to express the resultative perfect. The present perfect is formed by combining
the resultative participle with the present copula. In this dialect the participle has a different pattern for active
transitive (e.g., qla killed) and intransitive/passive verbs (e.g., smixa stood):

qla-y
he has killed
resultative part trans-cop.3ms

qla-yena (contracted to qlena)
I have killed
resultative part trans-cop.1ms

smixa-y
he has stood up
resultative part intrans-cop.3ms
I have stood up
smixa-yena (contracted to smixena)
resultative part intrans-cop.1ms
The past perfect, on the other hand, is not formed with the resultative participle, but rather by adding an
anterior affix wa to the preterite. The preterite consists of a past base, which is derived from the historical passive
participle in the undetermined form (ql). A different pattern of past base is used according to whether the verb
is active transitive or intransitive/passive. The transitive form is inflected by an ergative suffix, which is historically a pronominal prepositional phrase containing the preposition l-. The intransitive/passive form is inflected
by suffixes that derive historically from nominative clitic pronouns:

ql-wa-le
he had killed
past base trans-anterior-erg.3ms
I had killed
ql-wa-li
past base trans-anterior-erg.1ms

219
220
Geoffrey Khan
smix--wa
past base intrans-nom.3ms-anterior

smix-ena-wa
past base intrans-nom.1ms-anterior
he had stood up
I had stood up
In the dialect there is a past copula (yele he was), for example, zora-yele he was small, gnawa-yele he was a
thief, but this cannot be used with an eventive predicate expressed by a resultative participle (*qlayele).
The perfect of the verb to be is formed by using the resultative participle of the verb xr to become (derived
historically from dr) combined with the present copula, for example, xira-y he has been/he has become, xirena
I have been/I have become.
The present-perfect and past-perfect forms, which for the sake of convenience are henceforth referred to as
the qla-y and qlwale forms, are sometimes used with a secondary function to express a perfective event from
which the speaker is in some way distanced. In many cases the distancing arises from the fact that the speaker
has not witnessed the event directly and knows about it only indirectly by way of report. One may, therefore,
identify this as an expression of evidentiality, that is, the grammatical coding of the source of knowledge in the
verbal form. The grammatical coding of evidentiality exists in numerous languages. In the Middle East, this is a
well-known feature of Turkish and Iranian languages. In the linguistic literature on these language groups, various
terms are used for the phenomenon. Recently a term that has come to be widely used is indirective, which was
introduced originally by Lars Johanson (1996; 2000; 2003). Gilbert Lazard (1985; 1996; 2000) refers to the phenomenon by the French terms mdiatif and distanci. Such verbal forms present events that the speaker becomes
conscious of from an indirect source of knowledge. I shall use here the term indirective to refer to the phenomenon in NENA. As I have remarked, in many cases where indirective forms are used, the speaker is distanced
from the event since he or she has learned about the event indirectly by report. In some cases the speaker may
have witnessed the event in the past but is distanced from it temporally. In both cases of distancing, one may say
that the experience of the described event is not directly accessible to the speaker, but rather the description of
the event is based on an abstraction of the experience through the verbal report of somebody else or through an
internal mental processing of the experience of the speaker. It is possible that the distancing of the speaker from
the event may cause him some degree of uncertainty with regard to it. This phenomenon, therefore, has some
association with epistemic modality. Such modality is not, however, grammatically encoded in the verbal forms in
question, which are assertive (Lazard 2000; Aikhenvald 2003, p. 25). The existence of modality with regard to the
commitment of the speaker to the truth of the utterance should be regarded as an implicature in certain contexts.
In many languages indirective evidential verbal forms developed historically from resultative perfect forms
(Aikhenvald 2004, pp. 27981). This is clearly what happened in Turkish and Iranian languages (Johanson 2000;
Lazard 1996). Such a development occurs since the resultative perfect presents events through their results rather
than directly (Comrie 1976, p. 110).
The Semitic languages generally express evidentiality by means of adverbials rather than by verbal morphology (Isaksson 2000; Gianto 2005). The identification of grammatical coding of the phenomenon in NENA is,
therefore, of particular significance.1
In the NENA dialect of the Jews of Sanandaj, the perfect forms may function in an indirective sub-system.
This is shown in the following table, in which section I presents the basic function of the forms, and section II
presents the indirective sub-system:
Goldenberg (1992, pp. 13133) has drawn attention to the use of

the uroyo perfect to express mirativity, that is, an unpreparedness of the mind of a speaker for the occurrence of the event.
This is a common function of evidential verbal forms (Aikhenvald 2004, pp. 195215). The phenomenon in uroyo is likely to
have developed under the influence of Turkish evidential verbal
forms (containing the affix mi). The uroyo perfect is not used,
however, with an indirective function to express events that the
speaker learns about by report or from which he or she is distanced temporally. For a discussion of the functions of the uroyo
perfect, see Tomal 2008, pp. 3349.
221
Primary Function
ql-le
qla-y
qlwa
qlwale
he killed
he has killed
he used to kill he had killed
II Secondary Function (Indirective)

qla-y
qla-y
qlwale
qla-xira-y
he killed
he used to kill
he killed
he had killed
It can be seen that the forms qla-y and qlwale are used both with the primary function of resultative perfect
and also in the indirective sub-system with the function of an indirective perfective or imperfective. They are,
therefore, ambiguous with regard to their function. The form qla-xira-y, on the other hand, occurs only in the
indirective sub-system and so should be identified as an unambiguous indirective verbal form. It consists of the
perfect form of the verb to be xira-y combined with the resultative participle and is used to express the indirective past perfect (he had killed).
There is a close parallelism between the indirective sub-system in the NENA dialect and the indirective subsystem of verbs in Persian (Lazard 1985; 1996; 2000), and it is likely that the former imitated the latter:
IPrimary Function
NENA
Persian
he has killed
qla-y
kote-ast
he killed
qlle
kot
he used to kill
qlwa
mi-kot
he had killed
qlwale
kote-bud
IIIndirective
NENA
Persian
qla-y
qlwale
kote-ast
qla-y
mi-kote-ast
qla-xira-y
kote-bude-ast
It can be seen that the indirective form qla-y in the NENA dialect corresponds not only to the perfective
indirective form in Persian kote-ast but also to the Persian imperfective indirective form mi-kote-ast, which is
formed by combining the prefix mi- with the perfective form.
In the NENA dialect of the Jews of Sanandaj, one may identify the following functions of the indirective forms.
qla-y II (Indirective)
This form is used to express perfective events that the speaker knows about by way of report. The process of
report may be made explicit in the context, for example,

ex. 1. xarte nef qle baqn| ga-zmn-e Mozfar-din h| hiy-y bqa Irn bqa tass-e madrs
ali ns.|
He told us his reminiscences. He came to Iran in the time of Mozafaredin Shah in order to
found the school of the Alliance. (Khan 2009, p. 296)
The form is used in narratives of a legendary nature. In such cases the speaker presents the events as information received indirectly by tradition and not as events that he or she has witnessed directly, for example,

ex. 2. zil-y| lb mlka b.| mlka b gwirt-ya.|
He went to seek the hand of the Queen of Sheba. He married the Queen of Sheba. (Khan
2009, p. 297)
222
Geoffrey Khan
Another function of the indirective form qla-y is to express historical events that occurred in the remote
past. The Persian indirective forms sometimes have this function (Lazard 2000, pp. 21819). In such cases the
indirective form expresses temporal distancing between the speaker and the experience of the event, that is, the
description of the event is not based directly on the experience of the event. It is possible to use the form with
this function in the first person when the speaker has witnessed the event but is separated from it by a considerable temporal distance, for example,

ex. 3. ziln baq Rusya,| ziln bqa Turkya.| j ns ql-y,| miy-y ga-Kurdstn zbn-y.|
ex. 4. nyexe paetaxt| Kure-e Kbr xirn.|
They used to go to Russia, they used to go to Turkey. They used to buy goods, used to
bring them to Kurdistan and used to sell them there. (Khan 2009, p. 297)
These were the capitals of Cyrus the Great. (Khan 2009, p. 301)
qlwale II (Indirective)
This form, whose basic function is to express the past perfect (he had killed), is used with a secondary indirective function to narrate events in the past that the speaker has not witnessed. In the examples that are found
in my corpus of recordings, the form occurs in contexts where there is no explicit reference to the act of reporting. In (ex. 5) the speaker narrates events that occurred in Sanandaj when he himself was in Teheran, and so he
was not able to witness them directly:

ex. 5.
zH zlawa| mrwala baq xonf-u| naf l halbta,| xa-nfar-xt rwala baq xonf | hmr k |
ay-bron| hl-d-y brat gb.| HzH on- qbl wlwalu.|
H
Then she (my mother) went and said to her (the girls) brother of course not her herself,
she sent somebody else to her brother to say that the boy loves the girl. Then they agreed.
(Khan 2009, p. 287)
In example 6 the speaker uses the qlwale form to narrate events that took place inside a house and out of his
sight, since he was standing in the street outside. The speaker did witness, however, the event of the man Xnka
looking out of the window and seeing him, and he returns to the normal preterite narrative form:

ex. 6. ay-zlwala mrwala bqa Mrza Xnk,| mrwala Mrza Xnk x-gora gbelx.| la-kyan mni-ye.|
Xnk- mn-panjrk mine-| hl-did xle.|
She went and said to Mrza Xnka, she said Mrza Xnka, a man wants you. I do not
know who it is. Xnka looked from the window and saw me. (Khan 2009, pp. 28788)
qla-xira-y II (Indirective)
This form has the function of a past perfect in reported discourse. In example 7 the speaker narrates the
reminiscences of another man concerning events in the past that the speaker has not witnessed. The past perfective indirective form presents the event in question as anterior to other past events, which are expressed by
present historic forms:

ex. 7. yarx-u p lge ga-Tarn nrxira-y| ba-ws d-a orx lq xirt-ya.| lmhre re bqa
Kurdst n,| bqa Ham n.| ta-blaxr gez l lagf | km r an l-keli ytun.|
For a month and a half he had kept him in Tehran on account of the fact that there were
disturbances on the road, he (the Grand Vizier) did not dare send him to Kurdistan, to Hamadan until in the end he goes to him and says I cannot sit (idly). (Khan 2009, p. 301)
223
It is important to note that indirective verbal forms are not obligatory in contexts that may be appropriate for
them. In all cases the basic form of the verb with the corresponding tense and aspect may be used. It may be said
that the basic forms are unmarked with regard to evidentiality, whereas the set of indirective forms are marked
and may be used with their particular tense and aspect only with an indirective function.
Indirective functions of the perfect may be identified also in other NENA dialects. Such forms are used, for
example, in the Jewish dialects of Sulemaniyya and Arbel in Iraq, which, like Jewish Sanandaj, belong to the Jewish
trans-Zab sub-group of NENA (Mutzafi 2008). These dialects are outside the area of the influence of Persian, the
main substrate language being Kurdish in these areas. The most common indirect function of the perfect in these
dialects is to express an event in the remote past. Although some indirective functions of the Kurdish perfect
have been identified (Bulut 2000), these all appear to be of the inferential type relating to events that have not
been witnessed by the speaker. The use of the perfect in the NENA dialects in question to express an event in the
remote past, therefore, may be the result of internal development.
In the Jewish dialect of Sulemaniyya, the perfect is formed by combining the resultative participle with the
verb to be, usually the copula, as in the Jewish dialect of Sanandaj. In example 8 the indirective perfect form
milay is used to express the temporal remoteness of the death of one of the brothers in contrast to the more
recent death of the other brother, which is expressed by the normal narrative perfective form (preterite) mil:

ex. 8. treaxne ruww| mli.| xyu qme trenne ml,| Me.| HavlH xaxt| qme xamsar nne bizda
mily.|
The two older brothers of mine died. One of them, Moe, died two years ago, but the other
one died more than fifteen years ago. (Khan 2004, p. 317)
As I have remarked, the indirective forms are not obligatory. The unmarked perfective form qlle (preterite)
can also be used to express the remote past. In some sections of my corpus of recordings of the Jewish Sulemaniyya
dialect, the speaker interchanges between the marked indirective forms and the unmarked preterite when narrating events in the remote past. The choice is not random. The speaker uses the marked indirective forms in clauses
that have prominence and importance in the discourse. In example 9 the speaker uses the indirective form in the
clause that expresses the event of his emigration to Israel, which is the pivotal point in the section of discourse
in question and the main concern of the speaker. The event of his getting married is presented as background
elaboration, with a lower level of prominence:

ex. 9. na hiyna mSleman baat xamiux.| qme hna gaSleman| na bxta mli|
I came from Sulemaniyya in the year fifty-one. Before I came, I married in Sulemaniyya.
(Khan 2004, p. 317)
In the Jewish dialect of Arbel, the perfect is formed by combining the preterite qlle with the particle l,
which is a fossilized form of the copula without inflection:
I
II
Primary Function
qlle
l qlle
he killed
he has killed
Secondary Function (Indirective)

l qlle
he killed
In example 10 the speaker uses the l qlle form in its indirective function to express the remote past. In
the same section of discourse, he also uses the preterite form qlle to express an event in the remote past. As in
the Jewish dialect of Sulemaniyya, the motivation for the use of the marked indirective form is the importance
of the clauses in questions in the discourse. They relate to the central point of the section, which concerns the
origin of his father from Ruwanduz. The fact that a previous generation came from another town has the status
of elaborative background information.
224
Geoffrey Khan
ex. 10. bab Ruwandznle.| alu l-Ruwndz l-dre.| son- lRuwndz l-dre| . sont bab| l-Brzan
dre.|
My father is from Ruwandiz, he was born in Ruwandiz, also my grandfather was born in Ruwandiz. The grandfather of my father was born in Barzan. (Khan 1999, p. 269)
In a number of Christian NENA dialects, the perfect verbal form is used in narratives with the function of
a preterite to relate a specific punctual event in the past without any assertion of the existence of a resultant
state in the present. This may be identified as an indirective usage of the perfect. It is found in various Christian
dialects in southeastern Turkey and the adjacent regions of northern Iraq. A detailed study has been made of the
phenomenon in the Christian dialect of Barwar, spoken in the Barwar-i-bala region of Iraq, which lies approximately ten miles north of Amedia in Dihok province (Khan 2008), and the following examples are from this dialect.
In the Christian Barwar dialect, the perfect is formed by combining the resultative participle with the verb
to be. This is usually some form of copula. The dialect has two forms of present copula and a past copula. The
two forms of present copula that are combined with the resultative participle are the enclitic copula, which is
attached after the participle, and the deictic copula, which is placed before the participle:
Enclitic copula:
Deictic copula:
qila-ile (contracted to qille)

hole qila
In non-narrative discourse, the perfect with the present copula is used to express a resultative state. The
deictic copula is used with the participle to draw particular attention to a current situation. There is a certain
amount of subjectivity in the use of the deictic copula, but it is generally employed in assertive clauses that refer
to a resultant state that has some kind of relevance to the immediate present moment in time, for example, hole
ya He has come. In interrogative clauses, the enclitic copula is used, for example, yle? Has he come?
When the perfect is used with an indirective function to narrate perfective events, it is normally used with
the enclitic copula rather than the deictic copula. This is in contrast to the general use of the deictic copula to
express present relevance when the form has a resultative function, for example,

ex. 11. qmela| b-l le| rplla Zne| u-mylla,| nbllla ks-Mmo.| nbllla ks-Mmo.| dmxela.| tla,|
zptllela| la-Mmo.|
At night they went and seized Zine and brought her, they took her to Mmo. They took her
to Mmo. They slept. She woke up and pushed Mmo (out of bed). (Khan 2008, p. 669)
The copula is sometimes omitted from the participle when it has this narrative indirective function. This typically occurs in a series of clauses that open with a verb with the copula. The clause or clauses without the copula
express events that are closely sequential to that of the opening clause. The purpose of the speaker is to present
these as components of one overall event rather than as a series of discrete events, for example,

ex. 12. yela jmye| They came and gathered together. (Khan 2008, p. 670)
ex. 13. yle wra| He came and entered. (Khan 2008, p. 670)
Normally in such chains of events, the clause with the participle without the copula has the same subject as
the preceding clause, as is the case in the examples above. When there is a change in subject, a copula is generally
used, for example,

ex. 14. sqle m xya l-tra| u-plla Sttye.|
He went up and knocked on the door and Sttiye came out. (Khan 2008, p. 670)
In narratives the indirective qille form is used interchangeably with the perfective past forms qille and qmqal, which are the other main narrative verbal forms. The qille form consists of a past base, derived historically
from the undetermined state of the passive participle (ql), and an ergative pronominal suffix containing the
preposition l. The qm-qal form, which is used only with pronominal object suffixes, consists of the present base,
225
which is derived historically from the active participle (qil), and the prefix qm-, which is probably a contracted
fossilized form of the verb qam. The narrator constantly shifts from the indirective form to the perfective past
forms. These shifts often coincide with some kind of reorientation in the narrative, especially where there is a
change in subject and the narrator directs attention to another character, for example,

ex. 15. qmle l le tya qwa.| twle l-x sse dye| u-dle lyle r-d- -na.| -na -le ya qamye
ra.| Qra Tdin de| le b a| mr h| bxta kle rxa?|
He got up [qille] and did not drink the coffee [qille]. He sat on the back of his horse [qille]
and went back down to the spring [qille], the spring to which he had come previously [qille].
Qara Tedin returned home [qille] and said [qille] Ah, wife, where is the guest? (Khan 2008,
p. 671)
On some occasions there is no change in subject across the transition from one verbal form to the other. In
such cases some kind of reorientation on another dimension of the discourse can usually be discerned. In example
16, for example, the shift from qille for qille coincides with the start of a chain of clauses that narrate a new
event, that is, the eating of the third fox cub.

ex. 16. qmela ap-o-tr prmlle,| xllle.| mt xlla ap-o-tr,| pla x-aba,| tr abba,| kpnna.| p-o-laa
qm-prmle.|
They slaughtered also the second one [qille] and ate him [qille]. After they ate [qille] the
second one, a week, two weeks went by [qille], they became hungry [qille] and slaughtered
also the third one [qm-qal]. (Khan 2008, p. 672)
The transition in the narrative between the two verbal forms is also attested where the narrator repeats the
mention of an event of particular importance in the story. The shift of verbal form is no doubt exploited in such
circumstances to mark off the repeated clause more sharply from what precedes in order to give it prominence,
for example,

ex. 17. -yom t-le pla mlka m-b a,| -yoma brne dye mle.| -yoma mtle brne dye.|
On the day that the king left home [qille], on that day his son died [qille]. On that day his
son died [qille]. (Khan 2008, p. 672)
Occasionally the deictic copula is used with a resultative participle when the construction has the indirective function of expressing a punctual event. This is found when the speaker wishes to give the event particular
discourse prominence. In example 18 the motivation for this construction is to give particular attention to the
event due to its unexpectedness. It is not usual for a barber to have to bring a ladder to cut a persons hair.

ex. 18. twle Zlo| qmtt qre dye| oallqa| hle muylla xasemlta| muttlla bar t rune dye.|
Zl sat before his palace. The barber brought a ladder and placed it behind his shoulders.
(Khan 2008, p. 675)
The indirective perfect form in the Christian Barwar dialect is typically used in narratives of folktales and
legends, which are traditions passed down to the speaker that do not consist of events that the speaker has witnessed. It is not used, however, as a general evidential form to convey information that the speaker has acquired
by report, but is restricted to the genre of narratives. This differs, for example, from Turkish evidential verbal
forms, which are used not only in fictional narratives with no basis in reality, such as myths and folktales (Slobin
and Aksu-Koc 1982; Aksu-Koc and Slobin 1986; Aksu-Koc 1988, p. 25), but also outside of this genre of discourse
as a general marker of reported information. As in the Jewish Sulemaniyya and Jewish Arbel dialects, the basic
function of the indirective perfect in Christian Barwar is to express events that are remote from the speaker.
The speaker may have witnessed the events, but they are temporally remote. The construction is attested, for
example, in narratives by elderly speakers of events that took place in their childhood. In example 19 a speaker
is narrating an experience he had with a refractory ass when he was a young boy. He uses the indirective perfect
together with perfective narrative forms:
226
Geoffrey Khan
ex. 19. rxn htxa biyadya.| yya qmpatlla gyndya| na xwn l maxyli.| qmpatlla gyndya| ...
qmmaxyla p ena.|
I shouted at it like this. It turned itself round. I thought it would not strike me. It turned itself
round. It gave me a kick. (Khan 2008, p. 677)
The indirective evidential function that has been described in this paper is unusual in Semitic. In some dialects, such as Jewish Sanandaj, it is clear that it has developed by imitation of the form and function of verbs in
a non-Semitic language with which speakers were in contact. In other dialects, however, the indirective has no
or only partial parallels in the non-Semitic languages spoken in the area, and it appears to be largely an internal
development of Near-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA).
Abbreviations
COP Copula
ERG
ergative
INTRANS intransitive
M masculine
NOM
nominative
TRANS transitive
Bibliography
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
2003
Evidentiality in Typological Perspective. In Studies in Evidentiality, edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald
and Robert M. W. Dixon, pp. 131. Typological Studies in Language 54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
2004
Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aksu-Koc, Ayhan
1988
The Acquisition of Aspect and Modality: The Case of Past Reference in Turkish. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Aksu-Koc, Ayhan, and Dan Isaac Slobin

1986
A Psychological Account of the Development and Use of Evidentials in Turkish. In Evidentiality: The
Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, edited by Wallace L. Chafe and Johanna Nichols, pp. 15967. Advances
in Discourse Processes 20. Norwood: Ablex Publishing.
Bulut, Christiane
2000
Comrie, Bernard
1976
Gianto, Agustinus
2005
Indirectivity in Kurmanji. In Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and Neighbouring Languages, edited by Lars
Johanson and Bo Utas, pp. 14784. Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 24. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Evidentiality in Biblical Hebrew. In Biblical and Oriental Essays in Memory of William L. Moran, edited by
Agustinus Gianto, pp. 13353. Biblica et orientalia 48. Rome: Pontificio Instituto Biblico.
Goldenberg, Gideon
1992
Isaksson, Bo
2000
Johanson, Lars
1996
2000
2003
Khan, Geoffrey
1999
2004
2008
2009
Lazard, Gilbert
1985
1996
2000
Mutzafi, Hezy
2008
227
Aramaic Perfects. Israel Oriental Studies 12: 11333.

Expressions of Evidentiality in Two Semitic Languages Hebrew and Arabic. In Evidentials: Turkic,
Iranian and Neighbouring Languages, edited by Lars Johanson and Bo Utas, pp. 383400. Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 24. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
On Bulgarian and Turkic Indirectives. In Areale, Kontakte, Dialekte. Sprache und ihre Dynamik in Mehrsprachigen Situationen: Beitrage zum 10. Bochum-Essener Symposium Areale, Kontakte, Dialekte: Sprache und ihre
Dynamik in Mehrsprachigen Situationen, edited by Norbert Boretzky, Werner Enninger, and Thomas Stolz,
pp. 8494. Bochum-Essener Beitrage zur Sprachwandelforschung 24. Bochum: N. Brockmeyer.
Turkic Indirectives. In Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and Neighboring Languages, edited by Lars Johanson
and Bo Utas, pp. 6187. Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 24. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Evidentiality in Turkic. In Studies in Evidentiality, edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and Robert M. W.
Dixon, pp. 27390. Typological Studies in Language 54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
A Grammar of Neo-Aramaic: The Dialect of the Jews of Arbel. Handbuch der Orientalistik, Erste Abteilung,
Nahe und der Mittlere Osten 47. Boston: Brill Academic Publishers.
The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Sulemaniyya and Halabja. Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics
44. Leiden: Brill.
The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Barwar. Handbuch der Orientalistik, Erste Abteilung, Nahe und der Mittlere
Osten 96. Leiden: Brill.
The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Sanandaj. Gorgias Neo-Aramaic Studies 10. Piscataway: Gorgias Press.
Linfrentiel ou pass distanci en persan. Studia Iranica 14: 2742.
Le mdiatif en persan. In Lnonciation mdiatise, edited by Zlatka Guentchva, pp. 2130. Bibliothque
de linformation gramaticale. Louvain: Peeters.
Le mdiatif: Considrations thoriques et application liranien. In Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and
Neighbouring Languages, edited by Lars Johanson and Bo Utas, pp. 20928. Empirical Approaches to
Language Typology 24. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Trans-Zab Jewish Neo-Aramaic. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 71/3: 40931.
Slobin, Dan Isaac, and Ayhan Aksu-Koc

1982
Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Use of the Turkish Evidential. In Tense-aspect: Between Semantics
and Pragmatics; Containing the Contributions to a Symposium on Tense and Aspect (Held at UCLA, May 1979),
edited by Paul J Hopper, pp. 185200. Typological Studies in Language 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tomal, Maciej
2008
Studies in Neo-Aramaic Tenses. Austeria: Krakow.
Les noms de plantes akkadiens dans leur contexte smitique
229
15
Les noms de plantes akkadiens

dans leur contexte smitique
Leonid Kogan, Russian State University for the Humanities*
En mars de 2008, grce laimable invitation de Jean-Marie Durand, jai pu prsenter laudience du Collge
de France quatre confrences concernant la perspective comparatiste sur la terminologie botanique akkadienne.
Il ne sagissait alors que des premiers prolgomnes pour le futur troisime volume du Dictionnaire tymologique
des langues smitiques (SED III), ddi aux noms de plantes du proto-smitique. Par consquent, aucune publication dfinitive du texte franais ntait originellement prvue. Cependant, peu de temps aprs mon retour
Moscou jai commenc me rendre compte que, pour plusieurs raisons scientifiques autant que personnelles, la
publication du SED III tait loin dtre imminente. Dans de telles conditions, il ma paru opportun de prsenter
au public smitisant et assyriologue une version renouvele du texte franais. Cest avec un grand plaisir que je
ddie ces pages John Huehnergard, un grand matre de grammaire compare et dtymologie smitiques dont
plusieurs tudes ont jou un rle prminent dans ma propre formation scientifique.1
I. Terminologie botanique gnrale

1. Le nom gnrique pour arbre est iu, dont les premiers exemples syllabiques en Msopotamie proprement dite ne sont pas antrieures aux priodes palo-assyrienne et palo-babylonienne (AHw. 390, CAD I 214).
Nanmoins, quelques formes comparables sont dj attestes dans le Vocabulaire dEbla: - ba-ne = sum. gi.
inig dans VE 395, - gu-pi = sum. gi.urudu.urudu dans VE 411 (Krebernik 1983, pp. 1516). Dans la premire
locution, le second lment est videmment identifier avec lakkadien bnu tamaris (voir le numro 17 cidessous). Lidentification de gu-pi dans la seconde locution reste plus problmatique, mais il nest peut tre pas
trop os de mentionner dans ce contexte lakkadien cuivre, bronze (CAD Q 291; Reiter 1997, pp. 29599). La
comparaison est parfaite du point de vue phontique (le signe gu tant lquivalent rgulier de la syllabe /u/
Ebla2). Smantiquement, on pourrait penser une dsignation botanique spcifique comparable a notre ironwood,
sidroxylon, bien quon doive admettre que la correspondance sumrienne de est zabar plutt que urudu.
tymologiquement, akk. iu doit tre trac proto-smitique *i- (Fronzaroli 1969a, pp. 276, 290, 299), trs
probablement la seule dsignation gnrique darbre dans la proto-langue, comme on peut le dduire du fait que
cette fonction fondamentale est prserve par ses rflexes dans des domaines gographiquement aussi loigns
* Je remercie cordialement Herv Reculeau qui a corrig le style
de cet article, tout en contribuant plusieurs observations assyriologiques dune grande utilit. Cet article a t prpar dans
le cadre du projet 12-04-00164. Je remercie vivement cette institution pour son support financier.
1
La prsence de plusieurs remarques tymologiques sur la terminologie botanique smitique dans Huehnergard 2007 par
ailleurs, une tude ddie un thme purement morphologique

montre clairement que ce sujet nest pas trop loign de la
trs vaste sphre dactivit de notre honor. De mme pour la
langue franaise de cette prsentation, une langue dont John est
un amateur reconnu.
2
W. von Soden apud Krebernik 1982, p. 207.
229
230
Leonid Kogan
entre eux que le cananen (oug. , ph. , hb. )3 et lthiopien (gez. ).4 Dans toutes ces langues tout comme
en akkadien les rflexes de *i- dsignent larbre comme plante vivante ainsi que le bois comme matriau.
La situation est diffrente en aramen, o (ou avec dissimilation) ne dsigne que le bois comme matriau ds les plus anciens tmoignages accessibles.5 En revanche, larbre comme plante est dsign par les rflexes
de *ln-, un terme tymologiquement intressant qui sera discut plus loin en relation avec akk. allnu (no. 21
ci-dessous). Une restriction smantique tout fait similaire a eu lieu dans la plupart des langues no-thiopiennes
(par exemple, har. ini bois, EDH 28).
En sudarabique pigraphique, est appliqu un type de matriau de construction dont la nature exacte
bois ou pierre? nous chappe (pour une discussion dtaille, voir Sima 2000, p. 290). Il est par ailleurs impossible
de savoir si ce terme avait aussi t utilis pour dsigner un arbre vivant car la nature des documents noffre pas
de contextes pertinents.
En arabe, le terme proto-smitique persiste dans i-, u-, ih- qui dsignent diffrentes varits darbres
ou arbrisseaux pineux (Lane 1876, pp. 2070, 2076). En sudarabique moderne, il na laiss aucune trace. Dans les
deux cas, les mots qui lont remplac (ar. aar- et le sudarabique moderne commun *haram-) sont tymologiquement obscurs.
2. Akk. tu bois, fort nest pas attest syllabiquement avant la priode palo-babylonienne (AHw. 923,
CAD Q 272), mais, cette fois encore, le mot akkadien a une correspondance transparente Ebla: -sa-tum = sum.
gi.tir (VE 400; Krebernik 1983, p. 15).
Akk. tu peut tre facilement trac proto-smitique *ay- (Fronzaroli 1969a, pp. 277, 290), une reconstruction qui se base sur les donnes sudarabiques modernes (soq. aen, mh. nt bois, fort,6 avec un -n suffix) et
aramennes (AJP s, syr. ays bois [comme matriau]).7 Contra S. Kaufman (qui, en outre, noffre aucun support
pour son hypothse [1974, p. 86]), on ne voit pas de raison de traiter les mots aramens comme des emprunts
akkadiens. Tout au contraire, il sagit dun cas exemplaire et assez rare o le caractre autochtone dun mot
smitique peut tre dmontr avec toute une srie darguments.

(1) Consonantisme: au vu de la sifflante latrale en sudarabique moderne, la correspondance Akk. Aram. s

est tymologiquement parfaite et ne suggre pas un emprunt.
(2) Vocalisme et structure morphologique: la diphtongue -ay- en syriaque est difficile imaginer dans un emprunt akkadien mais compltement rgulire dans un mot autochtone. De mme pour le suffixe fminin
-t-, vident dans la forme akkadienne mais absent de laramen.
(3) Distribution dialectale interne: le mot est bien attest dans la plupart des langues aramennes et pas uniquement dans les langues les plus exposes linfluence lexicale de lakkadien (comme le judo-babylonien
ou le manden).
(4) Distribution dialectale externe: comme les termes sudarabiques (apparemment inconnus de Kaufman) le
montrent, il ne sagit pas dune comparaison bilatrale akkadienne-aramenne mais dune racine smitique commune dune considrable anciennet.
(5) Smantique: la correspondance smantique bois fort, bien naturelle pour des mots apparents gntiquement (voir la polysmie de bois ou wood) serait inattendue dans le cas dun emprunt.
3. La dsignation akkadiennela plus gnrale pour he r b e, plante herbace en opposition aux arbres, est
ammu (AHw. 1156, CAD /1 315). Jusqu prsent, on na pu tracer ce terme aucune proto-forme smitique
commune car aucun terme gntiquement apparent nest connu dans dautres langues smitiques: comme cela
est reconnu depuis longtemps, les formes du type *samm- dsignant une herbe mdicinale ou un poison dans la
plupart des langues ouest-smitiques (lhbreu sam, le syriaque samm ou larabe samm-)8 ne sont que des adaptations du terme akkadien dans ses deux sens drivs bien attests.9
3
DUL 186, DNWSI 879, HALOT 863.

CDG 57.
5
Off. bois (DNWSI 879), bibl. id. (HALOT 1821), etc.
6
ML 242, LS 388.
7
DJPA 491, LSyr. 665.
4
HALOT 759, LSyr. 479, Lane 1876, p. 1419.

Il est difficile de prendre au srieux la proposition de S. Kaufman (1974, p. 100) qui a voulu identifier le mot akkadien avec le
masdar arabe amm- action de flairer (jamais smell et encore
moins perfume).
9
231
Il est intressant dobserver que, bien que le terme akkadien soit compltement isol en smitique,
P.Fronzaroli (1969a, pp. 274, 289) a pu reconstruire une proto-forme smitique *amm- sur cette seule base un
cas tout fait extraordinaire dans le cadre de la stricte mthodologie comparatiste caractrisant les travaux du
savant italien. Sa dcision a t videmment conditionne par lexistence dun parallle frappant dans une langue
afroasiatique non-smitique, savoir lgyptien: le terme gyptien sm.w, attest depuis les textes des Pyramides,
est connu pour avoir une smantique gnrale exactement similaire celle du mot akkadien: herbe en opposition arbre (Wb. IV 119).
4. Akk. du herbe (AHw. 173, CAD D 163) est bien attest dans les deux dialectes anciens, bien quon doive
noter que le palo-assyrien dau est surtout connu avec le sens driv de printemps. Le mme sens est attest
pour du dans le palo-babylonien de Mari, mais on doit admettre quici la diffrence entre herbe de printemps
et printemps comme saison est souvent lusive.10
Le mot akkadien peut tre trac au proto-smitique *da- (Fronzaroli 1969a, pp. 275, 289, 299) qui apparat
comme un terme botanique (herbe) en hb. d (HALOT 233), aram. bib. dit (HALOT 1856) et syr. tad (LSyr.
816, avec mtathse). En mme temps, il est indubitable quune troite relation entre herbe et printemps tait
dj prsente en smitique commun, comme le montrent ar. daaiyy- pluie du printemps (Dozy I 424), sab. d
printemps; rcolte de printemps (SD 36),11 min. d id. (LM 26), jib. d pluie de printemps (JL 42) et soq. dote
printemps (LS 137).
5. Un autre terme proto-smitique pour h e rb e *Vb- (Fronzaroli 1969a, pp. 27475, 289, 299) est connu
principalement par ses rflexes dans le smitique central, tels que hb. b (HALOT 889), syr. esb (LSyr. 536) et
ar. ub- (Lane 1876, p. 2050).12 Ce terme commun na laiss que de maigres traces en akkadien, tant possiblement
prserv dans le verbe (dnominatif?) ebu pousser exubramment (AHw. 253, CAD E 352) ainsi que dans ibabtu,
dsignation dune espce dherbe relativement bien atteste dans les listes lexicales du premier millnaire (AHw.
393, CAD I 233).
II. Noms des parties des plantes

6. Akk. uru racine est bien attest depuis le palo-babylonien et, dans les noms propres, ds le sargonique
(AHw. 1286, CAD /3 363). Selon toute vraisemblance, le sumrien a emprunt ce terme comme suu, avec la
correspondance r bien connue par ailleurs (Steiner 2003, p. 643; Civil 2007, p. 31) et un lger changement de
sens (racine > fondation). Selon certains savants, quelques rflexes de ce terme se trouvent aussi dans la liste
lexicale blaite. Pour M. Krebernik, telle est linterprtation de si-li-sa-a, attest comme lquivalent du an.ki
sumrien en VE 781, terre et ciel tant ici interprts mythologiquement comme deux racines (Krebernik
1983, p. 30). Au moins du point de vue de lorthographe, cette comparaison est possible, car lusage des signes de
la srie LV avec les valeurs /rV/ est bien connu Ebla. Pour G. Conti, il faut plutt prendre en compte si-su dans VE
478, quivalent au sumrien gi.e+nm (Conti 1990, pp. 13839). Dans ce cas, on devrait supposer la rduction du
-r- prconsonantique, un phnomne peu frquent mais, nanmoins, attest avec certitude Ebla (cf. Krebernik
1997, p. 189). Dans les deux cas, on doit admettre que la structure vocalique de la forme blate tait similaire la
Cf. ina m dim dans ARM 2, 130:37, traduit au moment du

printemps mais comment en mot mot, au moment de
lherbe dans Durand 1997, p. 525. Il y a, cependant, quelques
passages o le sens printemps parat assez vident, par exemple
ki-ma a u-um di-i-[im] dim ri-ig-ma-ti-u [id-di] []a-mu--um iznu-un comme par un jour de printemps, Adad a tonn; il a plu
(ARM 23, 102:6-8, rfrence due Herv Reculeau).
11
Cf. dathiathum chez Pline (Biella 1982, p. 86). Noter surtout la
concidence structurelle entre des paires contrastives comme
10
itu da adi arp en palo-assyrien (CAD 106) et d w-rf en

saben (Jamme 1962, pp. 431, 437).
12
Sa prsence dans les autres langues ouest-smitiques est beaucoup moins vidente: sab. sbt pturage (SD 21) et qat. sb produits agricoles (LIQ 126) sont difficiles comparer car s dans
le sudarabique ancien ne correspond pas rgulirement la sifflante latrale * dans les autres langues, tandis que tig. ebay
une plante cirres (WTS 466) parat plutt un arabisme.
232
Leonid Kogan
rare variante ouest-smitique en *-i-, limite laramen et larabe dialectal, et non pas la variante en -u- de
lakkadien standard et de lhbreu.
Le terme akkadien doit tre trac au proto-smitique *Vr-, dsignation dune partie de plante de loin la plus
rpandue dans le domaine smitique (Fronzaroli 1969a, pp. 276, 290, 299). En mme temps, il sagit dun terme
proto-smitique avec une histoire phonologique trs complique dont lvolution (sans parler de la reconstruction
mme) reste jusqu prsent extrmement problmatique.
Directement comparables sont oug. r (DUL 845), hb. r (HALOT 1659), AJP r (DJPA 568), chacun fonctionnant comme le terme de base pour le concept fondamental de racine dans les langues en question. 13 Le
sudarabique ancien srs, prserv avec le sens driv base, fondation (SD 134; LM 88; LIQ 172), est dune grande
importance pour la reconstruction phonologique du mot en question car il permet dtablir avec beaucoup de
prcision la combinaison originelle des sifflantes. Ainsi, on doit admettre que les termes hbreu et aramen sont
phonologiquement innovants, avec une assimilation des sifflantes observe dans le cas parallle de la dsignation
proto-smitique du soleil (hb. m vs. SAE sms). Lakkadien et lougaritique najoutent rien la reconstruction
phonologique dans ce cas car dans les deux langues les rflexes de proto-smitique * et * ne se distinguent pas
ds leur premiers tmoins crits.
La reconstruction phonologique propose plus haut semble tre supporte par les donnes de larabe classique o aras-, irs- reprsentent, du point de vue phontique, une volution directe de proto-smitique *Vr-.
La comparaison entre les formes arabes et le terme proto-smitique en question reste cependant problmatique
pour des raisons smantiques: les mots arabes ne dsignent pas la racine (qui est al-, dorigine peu claire), mais
les arbres pines (Lane 1876, p. 1532), avec un passage smantique qui nest gure vident. Quant larabe ir
racine, not dans Dozy I 745 pour les sources post-classiques et bien connu dans les dialectes modernes de la
rgion syrienne, il sagit plus probablement dun emprunt aramen et non pas dun mot arabe autochtone.
On ne peut exclure que dautres mots apparents lakkadien uru soient attests dans le domaine sud-smitique. Plus particulirement, il sagirait de gez. rw (CDG 535, avec un grand nombre des parallles dans les
langues modernes) ainsi que de jib. ir (JL 256) et soq. ra (LS 433). Sils sont vraiment en relation avec le terme
en question, ces mots doivent prserver sa forme la plus originelle un lment biconsonantique *Vr- augment par -w ou - comme triconsonantisateurs. Pour une telle reconstruction, avec ses mrites et ses dfauts,
voir larticle ddi de A. Faber (1984).
7. Akk. zru graine, semence, attest syllabiquement ds le palo-assyrien et le palo-babylonien (AHw.
1521; CAD Z 89), a quelques prcdents dans le Vocabulaire dEbla (Krebernik 1983, p. 26): a-la-um = sum. e.mar
(VE 659), a-lani-dar-tum, ar- ni-dar-tim, e- a-dar-t = sum. e.lessig (VE 684).14 Le mot akkadien drive
du proto-smitique *ar- grain, semence (Fronzaroli 1969b, pp. 910, 26, 33), dont des rflexes rguliers sont
oug. r, dr (DUL 280)15 et hb. zra (HALOT 282).
Il est difficile de sparer les termes mentionns ci-dessus des autres formes probablement apparentes qui
prsentent, nanmoins, quelques changements phonologiques inattendus.
Le premier type de telles formes mutiles est reprsent par le syriaque zar grain, semence (LSyr. 207)
et ses parallles immdiats dans dautres langues aramennes ainsi que la racine verbale zr cultiver en arabe
(Lane 1876, p. 1225). La prsence de z- au lieu de d-/- dans ces formes nest pas rgulire et a t quelquefois
regarde comme un indice de linfluence cananenne (Fronzaroli 1969b, p. 10) une hypothse assez difficile
prouver. Dans un cadre purement thorique, on pourrait observer que le z en akkadien (ainsi quen hbreu) est
un rflexe lgitime de *z autant que *-. Une reconstruction *zar- (et non pas *ar-) pour ces deux langues est
donc possible, mais parat peu probable au vu des donnes ougaritiques et blates (dans le syllabaire blate, le
syllabogramme a est rgulirement utilis pour /a/ mais jamais pour /za/, Krebernik 1982, pp. 21118).
Un autre type dirrgularit peut tre dcouvert en gez. zar (CDG 642), soq. deri semence, grain (LS 135) et
sab. mrt champ cultiv (SD 40). Dans chacune de ces langues, le * proto-smitique devrait tre prserv. Par
consquent, son absence complte ou son remplacement par restent nigmatiques.
13
Bien quon doive reconnatre quen aramen, dj lpoque

ancienne, *Vr- est srieusement menac par *ir-, qui
lvince finalement dans la plupart des dialectes modernes
(Kogan 2005, pp. 51920).
14
Le sens du second membre de la dernire locution nous

chappe malheureusement.
15
Avec une double ralisation du * proto-smitique bien connue
par ailleurs dans cette langue (Tropper 2000, pp. 11519).
233
8. Akk. anan est une dsignation gnrale (souvent difie) de grain ou de crale (CAD A/2450; AHw. 82).
W. von Soden, vu labsence dtymologie smitique transparente, a qualifi ce mot comme Lehnwort unbekannter
Herkunft. Toujours conscient du caractre assez os dune telle comparaison, on se demande si le mot akkadien
pourrait tre apparent la dsignation principale du grain en soqotri (ne, LS 145), son tour videmment
en relation avec mh. mhny une ferme, un champ cultiv (ML 159) et jib. en cultiver un jardin, un champ
(JL 263). En outre, bien que la comparaison chamito-smitique (ou afroasiatique) ne fasse pas lobjet de cette
recherche tymologique, il est difficile domettre dans ce cas particulier que certains termes pour grain, semence
phontiquement trs proches des termes smitiques en question sont connus depuis longtemps dans le domaine
couchitique oriental (Oromo sai, Somali uni).16
9. Akk. peru pousse, germe, rejeton, feuille, bien attest syllabiquement depuis le palo-assyrien et le
palo-babylonien (CAD P 416; AHw. 856), a t souvent compar proto-smitique *par- germe, fleur, reprsent par hb. pra germe (HALOT 966), syr. par fleur (LSyr. 594) et ar. far- rejeton (Lane 1876, p. 2362).
Une comparaison alternative assez rpandue est avec proto-smitique *piry- fruit: oug. pr (DUL 678), hb. pr
(HALOT 967), AJP pyryyh (DJPA 446), gez. fre (CDG 167), jib. frt (JL 59).
Bien quon ne puisse pas exclure une relation ventuelle entre ces trois groupes des mots (Fronzaroli 1969a,
p. 276), une identification immdiate avec le terme akkadien semble impossible dans les deux cas, car lakkadien
(crit avec les signes de la srie V dans les priodes anciennes) ne correspond jamais ni *, ni *y du proto-smitique. En fait, lhistoire de laleph fort akkadien reste trs peu tudie, mais une recherche mme superficielle
montre quune des sources principales de laleph fort est luvulaire sonore *.17 Effectivement, une recherche
dans cette direction permet de dcouvrir quelques parallles intressants dans le sudarabique moderne, savoir
mh. ftr fleurir (ML 98) et jib. fr souvrir (une fleur) (JL 60). Probablement apparents sont aussi syr. per
germe, rejeton (LSyr. 603) et tna. frre fleurir (TED 2667).
10. Le concept de feuille, une notion importante du vocabulaire de base au point de faire partie de la hundred
word list de Morris Swadesh, nest que peu dvelopp dans le lexique akkadien, du moins dans les textes qui nous
sont accessibles. Le seul candidat quon peut reconnatre est aru, attest aussi comme eru et aru (la dernire
forme dans la lettre palo-babylonienne YOS 2, 2:20), avec une variante fminine artu (CAD A/2 311; AHw. 71),
que les auteurs du CAD A/2 traduisent comme frond, leaf, et foliage. Ces termes, dont le premier est dordinaire
appliqu aux feuilles du palmier et a par consquent t discut en dtail par B. Landsberger dans son ouvrage sur
le palmier-dattier en Msopotamie (1967, pp. 16, 2327), sont tymologiquement obscurs. Dans notre tude sur
les rflexes akkadiens du * proto-smitique (Kogan 2001, p. 282), nous les avons compars, titre dhypothse,
avec larabe r- feuilles de la vigne (Lane 1876, p. 2308). Cette comparaison, peu assure du fait de lattestation
assez marginale du mot arabe, est nanmoins attractive phonologiquement, car loscillation entre a/e dun ct
et de lautre est bien connue dans les mots akkadiens ayant * dans le proto-type.18
11. Akk. ubultu pi, bien attest depuis le palo-babylonien (AHw. 1258, CAD /3187), peut tre facilement
trac proto-smitique *u(n)bul-at- (Fronzaroli 1969b, pp. 12, 27, 34) reprsent par oug. blt (DUL 805), hb.
ibblt (HALOT 1394), syr. ebl (LSyr. 752), ar. sabalat-, sunbulat- (Lane 1876, p. 1440), sab. sblt (SD 123), gez. sabl
(CDG 484), mh. sblt (ML 340), soq. seboleh (LS 280). La structure vocalique du mot akkadien est trs proche de
celle des formes arabe et hbraque.19 En revanche, labsence de redoublement du -b- est inattendue au vu de la
prsence constante du redoublement (ou dun -n-) dans le reste du smitique.
12. Akk. tibnu paille, connu depuis le palo-assyrien et le palo-babylonien (CAD T 380, AHw. 1354), drive
du proto-smitique *tibn- (Fronzaroli 1969b, pp. 12, 27, 34) avec le mme sens, dont tmoignent hb. tbn (HALOT
1685), syr. tebn (LSyr. 814) et ar. tabn-, tibn- (Lane 1876, p. 297).
16
Pour ce rapprochement, voir Militarev 1999, p. 394.

17
Telle tait la conclusion prliminaire de notre tude portant
sur les rflexes akkadiens du * proto-smitique (Kogan 2001,
pp. 29293). La mme opinion se trouve, plus explicitement formule, dans le rcent article de B. Kouwenberg (2006, p. 152). Il
suffit de mentionner quelques exemples vidents comme akk.
bu chercher, demander, vouloir vs. ar. by, akk. perau puce
vs. ar. bur- ou akk. rutu jus, mucus, rsine vs. ar. ruwat-.
Pour cette correspondance phontique voir akk. ribu/ribu/

ribu corbeau vs. ar. urb- ou akk. apru/apru/epru couvrir
la tte vs. ar. fr (Kogan 2001, pp. 27882).
19
Le passage de *u i dans une syllabe doublement ferme non
accentue est bien connu en hbreu comme en tmoignent des
exemples tels que hb. qippod vs. ar. qunfu- hrisson (Huehnergard 1992, p. 222).
18
234
Leonid Kogan
III. Plantes sauvages: les herbes

La terminologie proto-smitique des herbes sauvages est relativement pauvre, et seule une petite partie de
ces termes communs est prserve par la langue akkadienne. Les cinq lexmes suivants sont les plus certains des
points de vue philologique et tymologique.
13. Akk. daddaru, interprt comme an ill-smelling, thorny plant dans CAD D 17,20 est possiblement attest la
premire fois par le toponyme Da-da-r-im dans le texte sargonique Ancient Kudurrus 38 i 89 (1 bur gn u pla-ag Da-da-r-im 18 iku du terrain sur le canal du hardon).21 La premire attestation certaine se trouve dans
la composition littraire palo-babylonienne du type juste souffrant. Il sagit de la tablette AO 4462 (Nougayrol
1952), rdite avec un commentaire dtaill par W. Lambert (1987). La ligne 29 de ce texte indique:
pi-ya-am ma-la?-am tu-ma-ar-ri-ra-am da-an-ni-i x x x x-tu-u i-wi da-da-ar-u
tu mas rempli la bouche avec des choses amres, gravement, son est devenu comme la
plante daddaru.
Le sens de ce passage, malheureusement endommag, peut tre facilement compris grce quelques vidents
parallles dans les textes du premier millnaire, tels que Ludlul II 8889:

-na-an um-ma da-ad-da-ri a-la--ut
d
sira nap-at un.me ugu-ia im-tar-u
le grain, comme si ctait la plante daddaru, javale,

la bire, lesprit des hommes, est amre pour moi.
Il sagit, donc, dune plante avec un got (et/ou une odeur) prototypiquement dplaisant.
Une autre catgorie de contexte strotyp o daddaru est attest se trouve dans quelques textes du premier
millnaire dans lesquels ce mot apparat, en combinaison avec giu, comme une dsignation de plante pineuse:
gi.tir.me aki-ma giu daddaru girri amu
jai abattu les forts, jai brl les giu et les daddaru. (Iraq 16, 192:69)
Prises ensemble, ces donnes textuelles permettent une identification tymologique assez certaine avec le
terme proto-smitique *dardar- chardon (Fronzaroli 1969a, pp. 276, 289, 299), avec une rduction de la structure
quadriconsonantique propre la langue akkadienne (cf. aaru terrain < proto-smitique *arar- ou kakkabu
toile < proto-smitique *kabkab-).
Ce terme est reprsent par ailleurs par hb. dardar (HALOT 230), syr. dardr (LSyr. 166), gez. dandar, dader
(CDG 123, 136), tna. dander, dandr (TED 2130), amh. dndr (AED 1804).
Dans deux passages de lAncien Testament, le terme hbraque parallle dardar apparat dans la combinaison
strotype w-dardar22 qui dsigne des mauvaises herbes, des qualits comme mauvaise odeur, amertume ou
pines ntant pas prcises:

w-dardar tam lk elle (la terre) va produire des mauvaises herbes pour toi. (la
fameuse maldiction agraire de Gense 3:18)

w-dardar yal al-mizbtm des mauvaises herbes vont crotre sur leurs autels. (Hose
10:8)
Traduit par ailleurs comme (stinkende) Flockenblume dans AHw.
148.
21
Propos avec hsitation par Gelb, Steinkeller, et Whiting 1991,
p. 115 (sur limportance linguistique de cette collocation, voir
Sommerfeld 2010, p. 154). Le contexte de da-da-r-im dans la
ligne III 11 du texte littraire sargonique UmH 342a (Biggs 1989)
est malheureusement trop peu certain pour une identification
convaincante.
20
22
Il est difficile de ne pas rapprocher la locution hbraque de

lakkadien giu daddaru, bien que lquivalence entre giu et
(observe avec hsitation dans HALOT 1090) ne soit pas parfaite
du point de vue de la phonologie historique: la dissimilation *
> g (au lieu de k) nest pas usuelle; la structure vocalique est diffrente; en hbreu, il ne sagit pas dune racine gmine comme
le montre clairement le pluriel m.
235
Lhistoire de ce terme en arabe pose dintressants problmes quil vaut la peine dexposer ici. Aucun mot
comparable ne semble tre enregistr pour la langue classique, car le terme dardr- (Lane 1876, p. 864), avec un
a long et dsignant une espce darbre (orme), peut difficilement tre en relation avec la racine en question.
Quelques exemples de dardar tribulus provenant des sources post-classiques ont t nots dans Dozy I 432 mais,
comme W. Leslaulobserve justement (CDG 136), il ne sagit que des transcriptions de dardar hbraque dans les
traductions bibliques. En mme temps, quelques formes videmment apparentes ont t notes pour les dialectes arabes modernes de lArabie du sud, savoir durdurin dans les parlers du Ymen du Nord (Behnstedt 369).
Compte tenu de la prsence de notre terme dans le domaine thiopien, il ne nous parat pas trop os de supposer
quil sagit ici dun mot appartenant au substrat sudarabique, dont labsence dans les sources pigraphiques nest
gure surprenante pour ce type de corpus.
14. Akk. alu jonc, un terme relativement peu utilis dans les textes msopotamiens depuis le moyen babylonien (AHw. 81, CAD A/2449), a un excellent prcdent Ebla (a-sa-lu = sum. .ninni dans VE 300), identifi depuis
longtemps par M. Krebernik (1983, p. 13) et E. Zurro (1983, p. 265). Il est difficile dnoncer une opinion cohrente
sur la possible identit de ce terme botanique avec alu comme nom de corde et comme mesure de longueur.23
Akk. alu doit tre trac au proto-smitique *aal- jonc (Fronzaroli 1969a, pp. 276, 289, 299), qui se base, par
ailleurs, sur larabe asal- (Lane 1876, p. 59) avec le mme sens.24
15. Beaucoup plus rpandu est an roseau, canne, bien attest depuis le palo-assyrien et le palo-babylonien (AHw. 898, CAD Q 85). Le terme akkadien drive sans problme du proto-smitique *anay- (Fronzaroli 1969a,
pp. 276, 290, 299), bien connu par ses rflexes en oug. n (DUL 704), hb. n (HALOT 1113), syr. any (LSyr. 677)
et ar. qant- (Lane 1876, p. 2994).25
Pour lhistoire phontique du mot akkadien (ainsi que celle de son anctre proto-smitique) ce sont les critures dites brises en palo-assyrien (-nu-e, -na-im) qui sont surtout intressantes. Un bel exemple de ce
type se trouve dans la lgende sargonique palo-assyrienne, publie par C. Gnbatt (1997) et rcemment rdite
par J. G. Dercksen:
a na.gug na.za.gn -nu-a-am lu ar-ku-s (ll. 4446),
interprt par Dercksen (2005, p. 109) comme
jai pris une canne de mesure dcore de cornaline et de lapis-lazuli.26
23
Pour une rponse affirmative cette question, voir le traitement de W. von Soden dans AHw.; pour deux lexmes diffrents,
voir les pages correspondantes du volume A/2 du CAD.
24
Cette reconstruction na aucune relation proto-smitique
*al- (*il-) tamaris, absent de lakkadien, mais rpandu dans
presque tout le domaine ouest-smitique: hb. l (HALOT 95),
ar. al- (Lane 1876, p. 21), sab. l (SD 9), mh. l (ML 9), soq.
itl (Morris 2002, p. 51). Une lgante explication pour cette
lacune a t propose par P. Fronzaroli (1969a, p. 279), qui observe, juste titre, que les langues ne faisant pas de distinction
entre les rflexes des * et * ne prservent quune seule des deux
dsignations botaniques phontiquement similaires, savoir
*Vl- tamaris ou *aal- jonc. Ainsi, lhbreu a choisi la premire possibilit, tandis que lakkadien a opt pour la seconde.
En revanche, en arabe, o les deux sifflantes sont prserves,
lopposition entre asal- jonc et al- tamaris a gard sa valeur.
25
Il est curieux dobserver que le sens roseau, canne, toujours
enregistr pour le mot arabe dans les dictionnaires compars des
langues smitiques (e.g., HALOT 1113), est plutt vit par les
lexicographes traditionnels qui prfrent dfinir qant- comme
quelque chose semblable la canne, elle-mme appele qaab(cf. LA 15 23536).

26
I did take a measuring rod (decorated with) carnelian and lapis
lazuli. la page 113 de son tude, Dercksen prsente une riche
collection dexemples provenant des textes littraires sumriens
o limage de la canne de mesure dcore de pierres prcieuses
est atteste. Toutefois, lusage de raksu lier dans le texte paloassyrien offre un redoutable obstacle pour cette interprtation,
car ce verbe peut difficilement tre compris comme prendre ou
faire. La traduction propose par A. Cavigneaux (javais nou
une botte de cornaline et de lapis-lazuli, 2005, p. 599) nous parat plus attractive: tant parvenu au jardin enchant, Sargon
aurait cueilli une vritable gerbe des prcieux roseaux minraux,
quil a distribue son pays aprs cette formidable aventure.
La ressemblance phontique entre anuum roseau et unuum
lapis-lazuli aurait pu jouer un certain rle dans la cration de
cette image un peu inattendue: bien que la dsignation rgulire
de cette pierre en palo-assyrien tait usrum (Michel 2001), le
terme babylonien tait certainement bien connu de lauteur de
cette remarquable uvre littraire.
236
Leonid Kogan
La prsence de la troisime radicale faible est aussi vidente dans le prcdent blate -nu-wu = sum. gi.
gi (VE 416; Krebernik 1983, p. 16). La prsence de -u dans les formes palo-assyriennes ainsi que celle du w dans
la forme blate fait penser une reconstruction proto-smitique *anaw- au lieu du *anay- nonc ci-dessus.27
16. Akk. elpetu jonc, bien attest depuis le palo-babylonien (AHw. 205; CAD E 108), a t depuis longtemps
identifi avec les dsignations de lherbe alfa dans les langues ouest-smitiques: hb. rabbinique lp (Jastrow
156), syr. ulp (LSyr. 237), arb. alaf- (Lane 1876, p. 627). Sur cette base, on peut reconstruire un terme botanique
proto-smitique *Vlp(-at)- (Fronzaroli 1969a, pp. 276, 289, 299), avec une structure vocalique peu claire.
17. Akk. pe, petu coloquinte, peu attest si ce nest dans les listes de plantes du premier millnaire
(AHw. 854; CAD P 326), peut difficilement tre spar des termes ouest-smitiques qui dsignent la mme plante,
une espce de courge sauvage, comme hb. pa (HALOT 960), syr. pa (LSyr. 590), ar. fuqq- (Lane 1876,
p. 2428). Le mot hbraque est attest dans le contexte remarquable du deuxime livre des Rois (4:39) qui parle
des qualits vnneuses (ou, au moins, delextrme amertume) des pat d, littralementles coloquintes
sauvages, dont leffet a t neutralis par Elise laide dune poigne de farine (Cogan et Tadmor 1988, p. 58). 28
Tandis quon pourrait supposer un aramisme en arabe, la relation entre les termes akkadien et hbraque peut
seulement tre celle de mots apparents gntiquement et non pas demprunts grce la conduite spcifique de
* proto-smitique en akkadien (chute accompagne par une coloration en e). Ainsi, postuler un terme botanique
proto-smitique *pVV- nous parat invitable.
IV. Plantes sauvages: les arbres

18. Akk. bunu, buumtu trbinthe (AHw. 144, CAD B 35859) a reu un traitement extrmement dtaill
dans une monographie de M. Stol (1979). Le livre de Stol, dont le niveau de discussion assyriologique ainsi que
smitologique est sans prcdent dans lhistoire de la recherche sur la terminologie botanique akkadienne, laisse
peu despace pour une prsentation vraiment originale. Par consquent, on doit se restreindre une exposition commente des rsultats obtenus par Stol, tout en mettant en relief quelques aspects moins discuts ou
problmatiques.
On doit commencer sans doute avec la controverse bien connue sur lidentification botanique de la plante en
question: trbinthe (Pistacia atlantica ou Pistacia terebinthus) ou pistache (Pistacia vera)?
Dun ct, Stol attire notre attention sur la thorie selon laquelle lintroduction de la pistache au Proche-orient
doit tre un phnomne assez rcent, probablement pas plus ancien que les conqutes dAlexandre le Grand, les
lieux dorigine de cette plante tant lIran oriental, lAfghanistan et lAsie Centrale, une thorie avance par V.
Hehn ds 1902 et qui, selon Stol, reste en accord avec les donnes palobotaniques et archologiques modernes.
Dun autre ct, Stol met en vidence plusieurs tmoignages sur lusage pratique de la noix de trbinthe
dans le Proche-Orient moderne, y compris ses qualits comestibles. Ainsi, lidentification de bunu, buumtu avec
le trbinthe devient contrairement une conception assez rpandue compatible avec leur usage alimentaire
illustr par les documents de la pratique.
En somme, Stol soppose radicalement au traitement indiffrenci de deux concepts par von Soden (Terebinthe;
Pistazie) ainsi qu la diffrenciation pour lui artificielle bunu terebinth et buumtu pistachio tree (Pistacia
Vera) faite par les auteurs du CAD. Pour Stol, toute la varit phonologique et morphologique des termes en
question ne sapplique quau trbinthe.
En effet, la variation phonologique et morphologique est extrmement prononce dans le cas du mot en question, et cest un grand mrite de Stol que den offrir une prsentation systmatique, organise par forme et par
priode dattestation. Au vu de cette collection, la forme palo-babylonienne la plus courante est buumtu, crite
La situation est donc tout fait similaire celle que lon observe dans le cas bien connu du mot akkadien pour la montagne,
ad dans le babylonien classique, mais avec un grand nombre
dcritures brises sargoniques (a-d-e, a-d-im) et palo-assyriennes (a-ad-wi-im, a-du-im), voir Kienast 1994, pp. 27880
et CAD /1 51 respectivement. Le *-y et le *-w ntant pas diff27
rencis dans cette position en hbreu, il nest pas tonnant que

la forme hbraque d champ (HALOT 1307) soit exactement
parallle n canne.
28
Curieusement, la plante do les fruits ont t cueillis est dcrite comme une vigne sauvage (gpn d).
237
avec le signe tu () mais, assez souvent, aussi avec du, dont la lecture nest pas usuelle dans les rgions concernes (par exemple, Mari). Dici viennent les doutes de Stol sur la prononciation vritable de ce terme (buumtum
or budumtum). Les formes avec un -n- explicite, plutt rares dans les priodes anciennes (palo-assyrien bu-ud-nini dans TCL 4, 42r:4, palo-babylonien de Mari bu-ud-na-tim dans ARM 10,116:28), ne deviennent communes que
dans les textes du premier millnaire. Les formes avec un -t- double, d lassimilation du -n- prconsonantique
(connues ds le palo-babylonien) appartiennent, elles aussi, cette dernire catgorie.
Pour Stol, la premire attestation de ce lexme est le nom propre sargonique bu-tu-um-tum (Gelb 1957, p. 103).
Ds 1979, dautres exemples plus anciens et surtout plus assurs ont t dcouverts dans la grande liste lexicale
blaite: bu(ni)--t = sum. gi.i dans VE 462 et a-k-lu b-a-ma-tim = sum. ninda.lam dans VE 32b. La dernire locution a t interprte comme Terebinthenbrot par M. Krebernik, qui ne donne aucune rfrence sur la
nature de la substance en question. P. Fronzaroli (1984a, p. 134) nest pas beaucoup plus explicite (cake (made) with
terebinth nuts). Dans ce contexte, il est intressant de noter que M. Stol, qui en 1979 ignorait videmment les
donnes blates, ne manque pas de mentionner le logogramme ninda gi.lam.gal, attest dans quelques textes
hittites. En sappuyant sur les donnes des voyageurs europens du XIX sicle (Grce et Jebel Sinjar irakien), Stol
offre deux explications alternatives: pain lhuile de trbinthe ou un vritable pain des pauvres, prpar avec
la farine obtenue des noix de trbinthe.
Dans les documents conomiques mariotes, bu-tu-um-tum ou bu-du-um-tum est souvent appliqu une crale
(probablement, un type dpeautre). Il est difficile de nier une certaine relation tymologique entre ce terme et la
dsignation de la noix de trbinthe, mais la nature du passage smantique reste expliquer. Pour Stol, il sagirait
dune crale qui nest pas compltement mre, donc verte et, par consquence, comparable la chair verte
de la noix de trbinthe. Comme argument, Stol fait une intressante comparaison entre le nom allemand dun
type dpeautre (Grnkorn) et la dsignation dialectale arabe de la noix de trbinthe abbat al-ar grain vert.
tymologiquement, lakkadien bunu, buumtu est apparent au terme proto-smitique reconstruit par P.
Fronzaroli comme *bum(-at)- (1969a, pp. 278, 290, 300), reprsent par ailleurs par oug. bm (Pardee 2002, pp.
17677, Watson 2004, p. 114),29 hb. bonm (HALOT 121), AJP bwnh, bom (DJPA 87, 91), syr. bemt (LSyr. 67),
arb. bum- (Lane 1876, p. 219). Les formes bm, bum en thiopien classique et quelques formes no-thiopiennes
apparentes sont considres, probablement juste titre, comme empruntes larabe (CDG 114).
La seule rfrence aux bonm dans lAncien Testament est en Gense 43:11, o ce terme apparat dans la liste
des cadeaux prsents aux Egyptiens par les fils de Jacob, au ct de dba miel, de plusieurs sortes de substances
aromatiques (r, nkt, l) et de dm amandes, ne parat pas trs informative. Quelques exemples connus
des sources rabbiniques ont t soigneusement analyss par I. Lw (1881, pp. 4344), dont lidentification (trbinthe et non pas pistache) et les arguments utiliss pour la soutenir sont assez comparables ceux de Stol.
Il nous reste traiter lalternance entre m et n comme dernire consonne radicale. Pour Stol, la principale
raison de cette alternance est lincompatibilit des deux consonnes labiales dans la racine: ainsi, la forme originelle *bum(-at)- devient bun(-at)- grce la dissimilation des labiales. Dans sa forme gnrale, cette hypothse
doit tre correcte, comme le montrent quelques exemples similaires dcouverts par Stol lintrieur de la langue
akkadienne ainsi quentre des mots akkadiens et leur parallles dans les autres langues smitiques: bamu/
banu tondre, pasmu/pasnu couvrir, pmu/pnu jambe (cf. hb. paam vs. oug. pn), akk. bamu/ar. baan-,
oug. bn serpent (mythique), akk. ubnu, hb. bhn/ar. ibhm- doigt. Si le modle gnral est assez clair, les
dtails comme ladmet Stol lui-mme restent souvent nigmatiques. Par exemple, Stol est enclin considrer
les formes banu et pasnu comme typiquement assyriennes, en expliquant comme assyrianismes les pluriels
en -n- (bu-ud-na-tum, bu-ud-na-tim) dans les textes palo-babyloniens de Mari. Il est difficile de nier, cependant,
quau moins pour banu tondre quelques formes en n peuvent tre trouves dans les textes o une influence
assyrienne serait difficile imaginer (par exemple, ib--un-u-m[a] dans la version palo-babylonienne du mythe
dEtana, V 6). Par ailleurs, le mme phnomne de linfluence lexicale assyrienne dans le corpus mariote (pour
Stol, not uncommon) reste tre soigneusement tudi.30 En somme, un certain degr de variation au niveau
29
Dans la l. 10 de lindit RS 94.2276:10.
30
Cf. Kogan 2006, p. 213.
238
Leonid Kogan
synchronique peut difficilement tre exclu pour la plupart des mots mentionns ci-dessus. Dans le cas de bunu,
buumtu cette variation peut tre stimule par le contact entre *-m- et les deux dentales ( et t) qui lentourent.31
19. Akk. bnu (CAD B 239; AHw. 127) est le principal terme pour tamaris, attest syllabiquement ds le sargonique (10 gi b-num dans HSS 10, 38 iii 10) et avec un excellent parallle dans la liste lexicale blate: - ba-ne,
ba-nu = sum. gi.inig (VE 395; Zurro 1983, p. 265).
Ce mot a reu des traitements tymologiques trs divers. Pour quelques savants, la seule forme gntiquement apparente bnu est le syriaque bn, dsignant la mme espce botanique, le tamaris. 32 Telle est, par
exemple, lopinion de M. Streck qui a rcemment ddi ce terme une intressante tude (2004, pp. 25152).
On doit observer, cependant, que lidentit complte entre les deux termes tant dans la forme quau niveau du
sens signale probablement un emprunt akkadien en syriaque, une opinion nonce dj depuis longtemps par C.
Brockelmann dans LSyr. 69.
En revanche, les vritables parallles gntiques pour le mot akkadien peuvent tre trouvs en arabe et en
saben, savoir, larabe bn- (Lane 1876, p. 278) et le saben bn (SD 33). Cette comparaison est loin dtre originale,
ayant t propose par Brockelmann et accepte dans DRS 62. On trouve surprenant, par consquent, quelle ne
soit gure mentionne dans ltude encyclopdique sur les noms des plantes sudarabiques anciens par A. Sima
(2000, pp. 19899), tandis que Streck la rejette explicitement dans son article mentionn ci-dessus. La principale
raison pour cette dcision est videmment dordre smantique: comme Simala clairement dmontr, les termes
arabiques ne dsignent pas le tamaris mais sappliquent un arbre tout fait diffrent, savoir, le moringa.33
La nature de la controverse est donc mthodologique: la diffrence biologique entre les espces est-elle un obstacle pour la comparaison tymologique entre les mots qui les dsignent? notre avis, la rponse est un nergique
non. En effet, il suffit de feuilleter chacun des grands dictionnaires tymologiques des langues indo-europennes
pour se convaincre que, dans le domaine dela terminologie biologique, les changements historiques des signifis
peuvent tre vraiment drastiques, souvent beaucoup plus drastiques que ceux observs pour leur signifiants. En ce
qui concerne les langues smitiques, quelques exemples de la terminologie zoologique (dhabitude beaucoup plus
concrte pour nous quela terminologie botanique) peuvent tre assez frappants. Par exemple: doit-on cesser de
comparer lhbreu zb avec lakkadien zbu et lamharique b (SED II no. 72) sous prtexte que le premier terme
dsigne le loup, le second, le vautour et le troisime, la hyne? Probablement, non. Un autre exemple: doit-on
nier la relation tymologique entre la forme a-ba- ours dans une liste lexicale mariote (= sum. az, akk. a-su,
Emar 551:37) et les dsignations smitiques de la hyne (ar. abu-, hb. ba, SED II no. 220)?
En somme, le fait que les mots phontiquement comparables peuvent souvent dsigner des espces biologiques plus ou moins diffrentes ne doitpas tre peru comme un argument contre leur ventuelle parent
tymologique. Tout au contraire, une telle diffrence peut offrir dimportants arguments en faveur de la parent:
cest prcisment lvolution du sens qui caractrise la parent gntique, tandis que sa prservation statique est
souvent une marque de lemprunt.
Au vu de ces considrations, postuler une reconstruction proto-smitique *bay(a)n- comme un terme dsignant une espce darbre (certes, difficile prciser botaniquement) nous parat invitable. En arabe, la combinaison triphtongique *-aya- aboutit rgulirement un a long. Ebla, lcriture ba-na doit probablement tre
interprte comme /bayna/, au vu des plusieurs exemples similaires dont le plus connu est a-na-a /ayn/,
/aynay/les deux yeux (Fronzaroli 1984b, pp. 15556).La forme akkadienne standard, avec la contraction *-ay- >
-- apparat ainsi comme la plus volue.
20. Une autre dsignation akkadienne du tamaris, arpau, est relativement bien atteste depuis le babylonien moyen (AHw. 1382; CAD 62). Comme il est connu depuis longtemps, le terme akkadien trouve un parallle
tout fait frappant en arabe classique o arf- dsigne la mme espce darbre (Lane 1876, p. 1844). notre
connaissance, aucun intermdiaire aramen nest connu dans ce cas, ce qui rend peu probable un akkadisme en
31
Il est intressant de noter que le mme type de variation est
observ aussi en dehors de la langue akkadienne, savoir, dans
laramen judo-palestinien: cf. m d-bwnyn (fragments targoumiques de la Geniza) et m d-bomin (Targoum Neofiti) qui
dsignent lhuile de trbinthe dans deux versions targoumiques
palestiniennes de Gense 43:11 (on doit admettre que dans le
premier cas, une influence hbraque ne peut pas tre exclue).
32
Lidentification de lougaritique bnt avec ce terme botanique

(DUL 233; Watson 2004, p. 114) nous parat assez ose; voir del
Olmo Lete 2004, p. 313.
33
Tel est aussi le sens du jibbali yn signal par M. Morris (2002,
p. 57).
239
arabe. Encore plus exotique serait une hypothse postulant un arabisme dans les textes akkadiens de la priode
mdio-babylonienne. Dans de telles conditions, notre mthodologie nous force reconstruire une forme protosmitique quadriconsonantique *arpa- tamaris, moins que lon suppose un emprunt indpendant en akkadien
et en arabe dune troisime langue inconnue, une hypothse attractive mais absolument impossible vrifier
pour le moment.
21. Akk. eettu dsigne un arbre ou un arbrisseau pineux (selon les auteurs du CAD E 23, lycium barbarum, anglais boxthorn). Le mot est surtout attest dans les textes littraires et les listes lexicales du premier millnaire,
avec un seul prcdent plus ancien dans la version dAmarna du texte pique connu sur le nom de ar tamri Roi
de bataille (Goodnick Westenholz 1997, p. 120, l. 31). Toutefois, un prcdent blate a t correctement identifi
par E. Zurro (1983, p. 264) dans VE 436: a-a-dum = sum. gi.d.
Traditionnellement, le mot akkadien est compar plusieurs dsignations darbres pineux dans les langues
ouest-smitiques, savoir, hb. d (HALOT 37), syr. ad (PS 131, SL 30), ar. aad- (LA 3 88). Cest sur cette base
que la reconstruction proto-smitique *aad- a t dveloppe par P. Fronzaroli (1969a, pp. 278, 291, 300). Tandis
que lattestation des mots arabe et syriaque est plutt problmatique, lhbreu d est clairement attest dans
deux passages de lAncien Testament.34 Comme I. Lw la soulign depuis longtemps (1881, pp. 4445, 404), la forme
hbraque trouve un intressant parallle punique chez Dioscoride, savoir , expliqu par le grec .
Dautres parallles moins assurs ont t proposs pour les mots en question dans lhistoire de la recherche. Il
en va ainsi, par exemple, de quelques formes aramennes comme syr. ha (LSyr. 174) et mand. (MD 13) avec
une assimilation des dentales et un changement sporadique des gutturales. Certaines formes no-thiopiennes,
savoir aa en amharique et gouragu (AED 1340, EDG 110),35 sont superficiellement similaires, mais une tude
phonologique plus approfondie montre que le prototype de ces formes a eu deux ayns dans la racine (tna. aa,
TED 1939). Leur relation ventuelle avec le proto-smitique *aad- devient, par consquent, assez problmatique.
On doit rappeler que lidentification de eettu avec *aad- proto-smitique nest pas la seule interprtation
tymologique qui ait t propose pour le mot akkadien. En effet, les auteurs du CAD ont opt pour une normalisation eddetu, en drivant ce mot du verbe eddu tre aigu. Pour eux, une relation tymologique entre eettu
et *aad- est douteuse pour des raisons orthographiques, parce quaucun exemple dorthographe avec nest
connu.
notre avis, cet argument nest pas suffisamment convaincant. En effet, le mot en question est toujours crit
avec le signe di dans les textes du premier millnaire, et il est assez difficile de comprendre pourquoi cette orthographe devrait tre tellement incompatible avec la lecture /i/. De mme pour et-ta-du dans ar tamri: dans le
cadre de lorthographe priphrique qui caractrise ce texte ( juste titre souligne dans Goodnick Westenholz
1997, pp. 10506), ta pour /a/ apparat tout fait naturel.
Dans de telles conditions, cest surtout la structure morphologique du terme akkadien qui parat importante,
savoir, le fait que les deux dentales sont systmatiquement redoubles dans lcriture (ed-de-et-tum). La normalisation eddettu que cette criture implique (AHw. 266) nest pas facilement compatible avec la proto-forme
smitique *aad-: tandis que le -tt- double peut tre expliqu par laddition du suffixe fminin -t- (donc, *aad-at-),
le -dd- (ou plutt --) reste difficile comprendre. Le mme problme, nanmoins, persiste dans le cas dune drivation directe de la racine verbale eddu tre aigu prfre par les auteurs du CAD: une identification immdiate
avec ladjectif eddu aigu nest pas possible au vu du redoublement du t final.36 Il est difficile de ne pas penser
quelque type de contamination occasionne par ltymologie populaire, lancien nom primitif tant dform par
une association secondaire avec le concept de lacuit. Une telle contamination pourrait aussi expliquer la coloration en -e-, naturelle pour la racine verbale eddu (< proto-smitique *dd, HALOT 291) mais assez inattendue
34
Juges 9:14 (la fameuse parabole des plantes qui lisent leur
roi) et le Psaume 58:10 (b-rm ybn srtkm d). Le dernier passage est difficile comprendre, la traduction avant que
vos chaudires sentent les branches sches (de larbre pineux
utilises comme combustible) nest quune possibilit entre plusieurs autres.
35
Selon S. Strelcyn, il sagit dun arbre recouvert sur toute sa
surface de petites pines, mais les hommes lmondent et en font
des btons (1973, p. 146).
36
Comme M. Krebernik me lindique aimablement, une drivation de ladjectif intensif *eddedu trs aigu serait toutefois
possible: *edded-t-u > eddettu. Il parat, cependant, quun tel adjectif nest pas prsent dans le corpus akkadien disponible (cf.
AHw. 185 et CDA 65).
240
Leonid Kogan
pour un prototype immdiat avec - (*aad-). Cette explication devient encore plus probable au vu de la forme
blate a-a-dum, dont lorthographe nest pas compatible avec *dd dans le prototype.
Un rapport tymologique entre *aad-/eddettu et sa correspondance sumrienne ad (adda, addu) (PSD
A/3 26) peut difficilement tre tabli malgr la ressemblance superficielle.
22. Akk. ilpu saule, connu depuis le palo-babylonien (AHw. 345, CAD 185), se rattache facilement aux
syr. ellp (LSyr. 235) et ar. ilf- (Lane 1876, p. 797). La reconstruction proto-smitique *ilp- propose par P.
Fronzaroli (1969a, pp. 278, 291, 300)37 peut paratre suffisamment assure grce la prsence du en arabe qui,
a priori, devrait exclure la possibilit dun aramisme.38
23. Akk. allnu chne, attest comme un emprunt smitique al-la-nm ds les documents sumriens de
la troisime dynastie dUr (PSD A/3 15152), est relativement bien connu dans les textes dpoques postrieures
(AHw. 37, CAD A/1 354). Il faut surtout noter de nombreux exemples palo-assyriens traits en dtail par C. Michel
(1997, pp. 10607), o ce terme est appliqu une substance comestible.39
Nanmoins, cest juste titre que les auteurs du CAD observent que les attestations de ce terme sont, en
gnral, assez peu nombreuses. Devrait-on supposer quil ne sagit pas dun mot akkadien autochtone, mais dun
trs ancien emprunt ouest-smitique? Dans ce cas, a-a-la-nu-um = sum. gi.ud dans lentre 496 du vocabulaire
bilingue dEbla (Krebernik 1983, p. 18; Zurro 1983, p. 265) pourrait tre attribu la couche ouest-smitique
des donnes lexicales blates (Lambert 1989, pp. 2932). 40 Une origine ouest-smitique dallnu ne serait pas
incompatible avec lusage frquent de ce terme dans les documents palo-assyriens: quelques traits particuliers
du vocabulaire assyrien sont en effet explicables par une interfrence linguistique avec le smitique de louest,
interfrence certainement plus prononce que celle quon peut observer pour la Msopotamie centrale (Kogan
2006, p. 212).
Toutefois, selon la conception traditionnelle le mot akkadien est considr comme apparent des termes
ouest-smitiques commelhbreu ayil, l et alln (HALOT 40, 5154), laramen commun *ln- (Kogan 2005,
pp. 55960) et lougaritique aln (DUL 58). Selon P. Fronzaroli (1969a, pp. 277, 290, 300), ces formes peuvent tre
rduites deux proto-formes alternatives, savoir, *ayl(-n)- et *all(-n)-. Fronzaroli attribue un sens assez gnral (grande albero) la premire proto-forme, tandis que la seconde est interprte, dune manire plus concrte,
comme chne. Il parat utile dtudier, dans quelle mesure une telle identification smantique peut tre justifie
par les donnes disponibles des langues smitiques o les rflexes de ce terme sont attests.
(1) Comme on la dj observ ci-dessus, laramen commun *ln- est devenu le terme gnrique pour larbre
en aramen, qui a remplac son prcurseur proto-smitique *i-. Par consquent, le terme aramen na aucune
pertinence quant au sens exact de sa source proto-smitique *ayl(-n)-.
(2) La forme ougaritique aln napparat, notre connaissance, que dans KTU 1.12 I 20, dont linformation
contextuelle (i b aln tkm part pour aln tkm) est minimale. La traduction chnaie est trs rpandue (voir, par
exemple, Watson 2004, p. 113) mais, videmment, difficile prouver.
(3) Les deux termes hbraques l et alln sont traditionnellement interprts comme trbinthe et
chne respectivement. La tradition, qui sappuie surtout sur les donnes des traductions anciennes ainsi que sur
les attestations de ces termes dans la littrature post-biblique, peut tre correcte, mais on doit admettre que les
contextes bibliques, bien que relativement nombreux pour chacun des deux termes, noffrent jamais dlment
37
Selon Fronzaroli, cette forme nominale proto-smitique doit
tre mise en relation avec la racine verbale reconstruite par lui
comme *-lup- sentrelacer. Pour Fronzaroli, le lien smantique
entre le nom et le verbe est d aux techniques artisanales utilisant les branches du saule comme matriau.
38
En outre, lhistoire des gutturales smitiques en aramen telle
quon la voit maintenant est beaucoup plus complexe quon tendait le penser jadis. Comme le montrent clairement les transcriptions gyptiennes dmotiques, la distinction entre et ,
cache par lcriture alphabtique, tait tout fait vivante au
moins lpoque de laramen imprial (Steiner 2005, p. 23537).
La mme conclusion a t faite depuis longtemps pour lhbreu
biblique et pour une poque encore plus tardive sur la base

des transcriptions des noms propres hbraques dans la Septante
(Blau 1982). On ne possde pas de donnes pour les priodes plus
rcentes, mais il est difficile dexclure quune telle distinction
existait encore lpoque des premiers contacts aramo-arabes
(cf. Telegdi 1935, pp. 197202, Ciancaglini 2008, p. 80).
39
Donc, une sorte de noix et non pas les glands du chne?
40
De mme pour al-la-nu comme une dsignation dun bijou
en forme de gland Ebla, identifie depuis longtemps avec le
terme en question et rcemment traite en dtail par J. Pasquali
(2005b, pp. 98101).
241
dcisif en faveur de ces identifications. Ainsi, les traductions un arbre massif, toute sorte de grand arbre adoptes par les auteurs du HALOT nous paraissent assez objectives.
On peut conclure, par consquent, que lappui smantique pour linterprtation de *ayl(n)-, *all(-n)comme chne est extrmement maigre.
Aucun parallle assur pour allnu nest connu en dehors du domaine du smitique du nord-ouest. Pour
Fronzaroli, un terme apparent en arabe est allat- qui dsigne un type de javelot (LA 11 2728), mais lvolution
smantique assez peu vidente que cette comparaison implique nous parat un obstacle tout fait srieux pour
laccepter.41
24. Akk. arbatu peuplier de lEuphrate, bien attest syllabiquement ds le palo-babylonien (AHw. 1085,
CAD 108) et avec un net prcdent dans la liste lexicale blaite (VE 397: r-ba-tum = sum. gi.asal) est identifi
dune manire presque unanime avecles dsignations de la mme espce en hbreu (rb, HALOT 879), syriaque
(arbt, LSyr. 546) et arabe (arab-, Lane 1876, p. 2242).
On doit observer que, malgr toute son attractivit smantique, cette comparaison reste extrmement difficile
du point de vue phonologique.
La rfrence lalternance */* faite par les auteurs du CAD ne parat pas viable pour plusieurs raisons.
(1) Lalternance suppose ne serait atteste, par ailleurs, que dans un seul exemple, savoir, emru (CAD E
148) et emru (CAD 126) avoir une indigestion.
(2) Il est difficile de prouver que, dans ce dernier cas, il sagisse des variantes dun seul verbe et non pas de
deux verbes diffrents avec une signification similaire. Au moins du point de vue tymologique, une tellepossibilit trouve une confirmation relativement solide, savoir, larabe mr avoir une indigestion (Lane 1876, p. 640),
oppos au syriaque mr souffrir de rtention durine (LSyr. 632).42
(3) Dans le cas de arbatu, il ne sagit pas dune variation interne au sein de la langue akkadienne mais de
doublets au niveau smitique commun.
P. Fronzaroli, bien conscient de ces difficults, a voulu les viter en sparant les termes akkadien et aramen
du reste des donnes ouest-smitiques et en postulant sur cette base une reconstruction proto-smitique *arbat- (1969a, pp. 278, 291, 300). Effectivement, si la sifflante latrale emphatique * est postule dans la proto-forme,
la correspondance entre lakkadien arbatu et le syriaque arbt dvient tout fait rgulire: le rflexe pharyngal
du * proto-smitique est un des traitsles plus remarquables de la phonologie historique de la langue aramenne.
Mais que faire des parallles hbraque et arabe? Pour Fronzaroli, dans les deux cas il doit sagir demprunts
aramens. Thoriquement, on ne peut pas exclure une telle possibilit, et la prsence du en arabe ny est pas un
obstacle trop grave: lvolution du * en aramen na pas t instantane et cest prcisment un son similaire
au ( savoir, une affrique glottalise [x ]) qui a d servir dintermdiaire, exprime par la lettre dans lcriture
aramenne des priodes anciennes (Steiner 1977, pp. 4041).
Nanmoins, il reste assez difficile de comprendre quels facteurs auraient conduit ce terme botanique aramen
tre emprunt dune manire indpendante en arabe et en hbreu. Dun autre ct, on ne devrait pas ngliger
le fait que dautres parallles avec sont connus pour hb. rb, syr. arbt et ar. arab- dans les langues ouestsmitiques, pour lesquelles une influence lexicale aramenne serait difficile imaginer: tig. rb une plante
cires, arob un arbre (WTS 460)43 ainsi que soq. arhieb un arbre (LS 325).44
Lexistence dun terme botanique proto-ouest-smitique *arab-at- peut difficilement tre nie. Une ventuelle parent avec lakkadien arbatu reste toujours attractive du fait du paralllisme smantique, sans quil soit
possible de la prouver par des stricts moyens de phonologie historique.
41
On doit admettre, cependant, que quelques exemples de dsignations de flches ou javelots drives des noms darbres (gnriques ou concrets) pourraient militer dans ce sens, savoir lougaritique arbre, bois (k k bk serre le javelot et la massue
dans KTU 1.3 III 18), lhbreu br genivre (brm horl on
brandit les javelots dans Nahum 2:4) et, en dehors du domaine
smitique, le grec arbre; javelot, apparent arbre;
chne (Buck 1949, p. 1390).
42
La premire comparaison, qui montre un parfait synchronisme
smantique, a t propose par M. Bulakh (apud SED I no. 28); la
dernire est universellement reconnue malgr les significations

assez diffrentes.
43
Lidentification botanique reste prciser.
44
Selon Miller et Morris 2004, p. 325, cest le nom du fameux
arbre sang-dragon (Dracaena cinnabari). On remarquera que la
forme jibbali ayrb signale par M. Morris (2002, p. 52) ne favorise pas lidentification de ce terme avec la reconstruction protosmitique avec * propose prsentement (ce phonme devrait
tre conserv en jibbali).
242
Leonid Kogan
25. Akk. buru genivre (AHw. 139, CAD B 326), bien attest depuis le palo-babylonien, est peut-tre dj
prsent, comme un emprunt akkadien, dans un document sumrien de lpoque de la troisime dynastie dUr
(Gelb 1957, p. 101). Le terme akkadien est clairement identique aux hb. br (HALOT 155)45 et syr. brt (LSyr. 98).
Sur cette base, la proto-forme *bur- a t traditionnellement suppose au niveau proto-smitique (Fronzaroli
1969a, pp. 278, 291, 300). En labsence dun parallle explicite avec linterdentale sourde (par exemple, en ougaritique ou en arabe), la correspondance de en akkadien et en hbreu t en aramen a t considre comme une
preuve suffisamment solide pour une telle reconstruction.
La reconstruction traditionnelle est devenue plus problmatique aprs la dcouverte de la grande liste lexicale
blaite, dont lentre 374 indique: ba-ra-su-um = sum. gi.li (Krebernik 1983, p. 14). La parent entre la traduction
smitique du gi.li dans cette entre et le terme botanique en question est vidente, mais lcriture avec su nest
pas compatible avec cette identification, car cest la srie V qui correspond normalement aux interdentaux proto-smitiques Ebla. Aucune explication convaincante pour cette irrgularit na t propose jusqu prsent.
De mme pour la vocale a- dans la premire syllabe, incompatible avec -u- en akkadien et -- en hbreu.
26. La premire attestation syllabique du terme akkadien ernu, traditionnellement interprt comme cdre
(AHw. 237, CAD E 274), date de la priode sargonique et se trouve dans la fameuse incantation MAD 5, 8:29:
i-ir-gu-a i-da-u
ti-bu-ut-tum a-ap-t-u
a-s-am in -ti-u
a-s-am i-ri-nim in bu-d-u
ses bras sont beaux,

ses lvres sont huile et tibbuttum,46
un vaisseau dhuile est dans sa main,
un vaisseau de cdre47 est sur son paule.
Selon M. Civil (1987, p. 148), une forme apparente est atteste dans le vocabulaire bilingue blate, savoir,
-ri-nm comme un quivalent du sumrien gi..suh dans VE 1362. Plus spcifiquement, Civil fait rfrence
la variante urnum atteste comme une dsignation du cdre dans les documents nuziens.
Les dictionnaires akkadiens ne proposent aucune tymologie smitique pour ce mot, tout en observant son
identit avec le terme sumrien eren qui probablement dsignait la mme espce darbre.
Il nest pas impossible, nanmoins, quune tymologie smitique pour lakkadien ernu puisse tre trouve.
Plus concrtement, il sagirait des dsignations botaniques ouest-smitiques qui peuvent tre rduites une
proto-forme commune *arar-. Les rflexes de cette proto-forme sont connus pour tre appliqus deux espces
botaniques en principe tout fait diffrentes, savoir, le tamaris et le genivre. Essayons de suivre la distribution
de ces deux significations dans le domaine ouest-smitique.

(1) En arabe, linterprtation du arar- comme genivre est assure par des dfinitions dtailles de la lexicographie classique (LA 4644; Lane 1876, p. 1990), ainsi que par la prsence de ce sens dans larabe standard
moderne (Baranov 509) et dans lusage dialectal (Behnstedt 819).
(2) Aucun rflexe du proto-smitique *arar- nest enregistr dans les dictionnaires standard du sudarabique moderne (ML, JL, LS). Nanmoins, une description trs dtaille du areyr jibbali se trouve dans
lencyclopdie botanique de la rgion omanaise du Dhofar par A. Miller and M. Morris (1988, p. 282).
Linformation scientifique recueillie par les auteurs ainsi que les belles images qui laccompagnent ne
laissent pas de doute quil sagisse dune espce de tamaris (plus concrtement, Tamarix aphylla).48
45
48
Un curieux doublet aramisant (brt) est attest dans Cantique 1:17.

46
Une plante?
47
Ou: d(huile de) cdre?
On remarquera toutefois que le terme mhri arr enrgistr

par A. Sima (2009, p. 200) a t traduit par lui comme Juniperus.
243
(3) Dans la Bible hbraque, les rflexes de cette racine sont attests deux fois dans le livre de Jrmie:
w-hy k-arr ba-rb il sera comme un . dans le dsert (17:6)
tihyn ka-rr ba-mmidbr vous serez comme des . dans le dsert. (48:6)49
videmment, on ne peut pas gagner beaucoup dinformation contextuelle pour lidentification de larbre de ces
passages. Les traductions classiques ont opt pour tamaris (LXX ). Pour quelques commentateurs modernes,
la mention de lhabitat dsertique a t un srieux argument en faveur de cette identification. Cest cette opinion
qui est codifie par un des dictionnaires standard de lhbreu biblique, savoir, BDB 792. Pour plusieurs autres
savants, ltymologie arabe a t la cl principale pour lidentification botanique du terme hbreu, do genivre
dans HALOT 887 ainsi que dans lusage actuel de lhbreu moderne.

(4) En syriaque, la forme avec rduplication arr sapplique la rsine du tamaris, la plante elle-mme tant
dsigne par une forme structuralement plus primitive arr (LSyr. 544, SL 1141, 1133).
(5) Dans le corpus ougaritique, le terme botanique rr est attest trois fois (DUL 178). Deux exemples sont
concentrs dans lincantation contre les serpents KTU 1.100 (ll. 6465) (Pardee 1988, pp. 21516):

ydy b m rr
w b t mt
rrm ynrn!h
ssnm ysynh
il rejette le tamaris (de) parmi les arbres,

et la plante de la mort (de) parmi les buissons:
au moyen du tamaris il lloigne
au moyen de la grappe de dattier il le chasse
La troisime attestation, un peu moins claire, se trouve dans le texte rituel 1.109:2930 (Pardee 2000, pp.
60204):
l bl pn b rr pamt lm pour bl pn, (loffrande) dans le(s) tamaris, trente fois
Pour D. Pardee, lidentification avec le tamaris est certaine parce que le tamaris (bnu) joue un grand rle dans
les namburbi msopotamiens, et parce que le rr est une plante du dsert (1988, p. 216).50La mention de ssnm
grappe de dattier dans la ligne qui suit immdiatement pourrait tre prise comme un troisime argument, car
lusage similaire du dattier et du tamaris est bien connu dans les textes rituels msopotamiens (Streck 2004, pp.
255, 27273, 28285). Lidentification de rr avec genivre, bien quelle ne soit compltement absente des tudes
ougaritologiques, est clairement minoritaire.51

(6) Le terme botanique rr a t rcemment dcouvert dans un document saben inscrit sur bois (Stein 2010, p.
200, l. 12). Le contexte de ce Hapax Legomenon est peu informatif du point de vue botanique, mais genivre
est la seule interprtation considre positivement par lditeur (Stein 2010, pp. 203, 720).
Malgr la diffrence smantique, lidentit tymologique entre les mots ouest-smitiques est difficile nier.
Quel est donc le sens originel de la proto-forme occidentale *arar-: tamaris ou genivre? Les deux sens tant
solidement attests dans les langues smitiques vivantes, le choix risque dtre arbitraire,52 mais, en tout cas,
le passage smantique dutamaris augenivre (ou inversement) quon doit postuler pour quelques langues
49
La remarquable diffrence structurelle entre les deux formes

hbraques en question (arr vs. rr) doit attirer notre attention. Dans un contexte synchronique, la seconde forme nest
quune trange variante morphologique difficile expliquer.
Cette vision change radicalement dansla perspective comparatiste: lopposition *arar- vs. *arir- nest rien dautre que
lopposition du singulier au pluriel apophonique (dit bris) en
arabe, o cette procdure est rgulirement atteste pour tous
les noms quadriconsonantiques, y compris arar- genivre. Quil
ne sagit pas dune concidence fortuite devient clair si on compare les contextes o les deux formes sont attestes: la variante
arr correspond, effectivement, une forme verbale au singulier (w-hy), tandis que la variante rr saccorde avec tihyn
au pluriel. Une explication diachronique pour la prsence dune

telle forme de pluriel bris en hbreu doit encore tre propose.
50
Mais cf. un arbre du type des genvriers dans Pardee 2000,
p. 611.
51
V. Belmonte 1993, o les qualits mdicales des baies du genivre sont mises en relief.
52
Un argument inattendu en faveur de la priorit de tamaris
peut tre trouv dans la tradition arabe concernant larbre
arar-: il est rput ennemi du palmier et tenu distance de
ce dernier (BK 2 224). Cette allusion est difficile sparer de la
fameuse controverse entre la palme et le tamaris (Streck 2004).
La raison dtre de lantagonisme palme-tamaris dans la littrature msopotamienne reste jusqu aujourdhui mal comprise.
244
Leonid Kogan
ouest-smitiques est beaucoup moins compliqu que ce quon pourrait penser. Bien sr, les deux espces sont
compltement diffrentes du point de vue de la systmatique botanique, en commenant par le fait que le premier
est un arbre feuillu et le second un conifre. Nanmoins, une convergence morphologique dans la perception
visuelle des anciens est tout fait probable: les feuilles du tamaris ont t souvent dcrites comme trs petites,
alternes et cailleuses, un peu semblables celles de certains conifres.53
En retournant au terme akkadien ernu, on devra admettre que la diffrence entre cdre dun ct et tamaris
(ou mme genivre) de lautre est naturellement beaucoup plus srieuse, mais, probablement, pas insurmontable pour postuler une ancienne parent tymologique. Il est bien connu que quelques varits de genivre (par
exemple, Juniperus polycarpus, bien rpandu dans les rgions montagneuses lest de la Msopotamie) peuvent
atteindre 20 mtres de hauteur et on nhsitera pas rappeler que pour certains assyriologues la location orientale
de la fort des cdres dans les lgendes sumriennes de Gilgamesh a t un argument dcisif pour lidentification du sumrien eren avec le genivre et non pas le cdre (pour une prsentation quilibre de ce complexe
problme voir Klein et Abraham 1997).54
Du point de vue de la phonologie historique, le rapport tymologique entrelakkadien ernu et la proto-forme
ouest-smitique *arar- ne pose pas de problmes majeurs. Lhypothse la plus probable consiste envisager
une proto-forme *ar-n-, qui reprsenterait un ancien lment *ar-, sans rduplication mais augment avec le
suffixe *-n- bien rpandu dans la drivation nominale smitique et akkadienne. Au vu de la forme syriaque arr
mentionne plus haut, lexistence dune telle forme primitive nest gure improbable. Dun autre ct, on ne doit
pas exclure une reconstruction *arar- identique celle postule pour les formes occidentales, mais avec une
dissimilation des sonores (*erru > ernu). Dans les deux cas, le passage du *a- e- est tout fait rgulier et, par
consquent, favorise lidentification propose.
Si cette approche tymologique est accepte, le mot sumrien e re n doit tre considr comme un ancien
emprunt akkadien et non linverse comme la suppos S. Lieberman dans son livre sur les emprunts sumriens
dans le palo-babylonien (1977, pp. 23132).55
V. Plantes domestiques: les crales

Les noms akkadiens des crales ayant une tymologie smitique plus ou moins assure ne sont pas nombreux:
on ne connat gure plus de cinq termes pertinents.
27. Les attestations syllabiques de lakk. bulu malt (CAD B 323, AHw. 139) sont assez abondantes dans les
documents palo-babyloniens et surtout palo-assyriens.
M. Streck a consacr ce problme toute une section dans son

article, o il indique plusieurs raisons possibles sans parvenir
aucune solution dfinitive (2004, pp. 25455, voir dj Krebernik
1984, p. 326). Au vu de la tradition arabe quon vient de citer
(dont les sources devraient videmment tre tudies dune
faon beaucoup plus dtaille), on se demande si la raison principale de cet antagonisme ne pourrait pas tre recherche dans
le domaine des techniques de la culture du dattier ne serait-il
pas en effet incompatible avec le voisinage du tamaris? En ce qui
concerne la tradition arabe sur lincompatibilit du dattier avec
le genivre, la seule explication diachronique quon puisse envisager est quune ancienne tradition concernant le tamaris a t
transfre au genivre quand le mot commun ouest-smitique a
chang son sens en arabe.
53
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamaris. Comme le montrent les

images dans Miller et Morris 1988, p. 283, la ressemblance entre
les deux espces est, effectivement, frappante.
54
On remarquera que le terme proto-ouest-smitique *arzcdre, reprsent par oug. arz (DUL 11314; Watson 2004, p.
113), hb. rz (HALOT 86), syr. arz (LSyr. 47), ar. arz- (Lane
1876, p. 47), gez. arz (CDG 41) et soq. rz (LS 73) est absent de
lakkadien msopotamien. La prsence de ar-za-tum = sum. gi.
nun.sal dans la liste lexicale blate (VE 471) a t explique,
probablement juste titre, par une influence ouest-smitique
(Lambert 1989, p. 30).
55
Une approche plus modre peut tre trouve dans AHw. qui
se borne constater la parent entre les deux mots sans prciser
les dtails diachroniques. Les auteurs du CAD nnoncent pour
leur part aucune opinion sur ce problme.
245
Pour les auteurs du CAD, le plus ancien exemple syllabique est attest dans le document sargonique RA 55,
94:3 (bu-uk-lu), mais comme la montr M. Stol (1989, p. 323), le contexte ne favorise pas une telle identification.
Dans son explication de ce passage Stol prfre ne pas rompre compltement avec lakkadien bulu, en normalisant bu-uk-lu comme buql lgumes. Une approche diffrente, rcemment propose dans CAD P 476, nous
parat prfrable: la forme sargonique est rendue ici comme pu-ug-lu radis, sans aucune relation avec les termes
akkadien et smitique discuts prsentement.
Ebla, notre mot est clairement attest dans lentre VE 856 de la liste lexicale bilingue: b--lu = sum.
mnu. Pour certains savants il existe encore un parallle pour ce terme dans la liste blate, savoir, b-ga-lu =
sum. i.sar dans lentre VE 1073 (Sjberg 1999, p. 542). Comme M. Stol lobserve judicieusement (1989, p. 323),
lquivalent sumrien i.sar ne favorise gure une telle identification, mais milite plutt en faveur dune sorte de
salade. On se demande, bien sr, si puglu radis, dj mentionn plus haut, ne serait pas un candidat acceptable.
On sait depuis longtemps quune des lectures phontiques sumriennes pour la combinaison pap+pap (= dim)
qui dsigne le malt et correspond lakkadien bulu est b u - l u - u n / b u - l u - u g (Borger 2004, p. 265). Il est bien
sr tentant de supposer une relation tymologique par mtathse entre les mots sumrien et akkadien, et au vu
dune tymologie smitique tout fait vidente (voir ci-dessous), il doit sagir dun ancien emprunt akkadien en
sumrien et non de linverse. Une telle hypothse, implicite dj dans le traitement classique de ces termes par B.
Hrozn (1913, p. 154), parat assez problmatique aujourdhui, car on sait que dans tous les cas o pap+pap correspond bulu dans les listes lexicales, cest la lecture mu-nu et non pas bu-lu-un/bu-lu-ug qui a t choisie par
les compilateurs anciens. La lecture qui nous intresse est rserve, en revanche, pour le sens grandir, crotre,
appliqu aux enfants et aux plantes (Civil 2007, p. 27). Dans la mesure o ce dernier sens est, lui aussi, trs bien
attest pour la racine *bl dans les langues smitiques (par exemple, larabe bql crotre, commencer avoir des
feuilles), lhypothse postulant un ancien emprunt smitique en sumrien garde son attrait.
Lakkadien bulu peut tre clairement trac la racine proto-smitique *bVl- avec un sens assez gnral de
plante cultive, graine, crale (Fronzaroli 1969b, pp. 5, 24, 32), qui doit probablement tre postul la base de
syr. bul grain, semence (LSyr. 87), ar. baql- plantes qui ne sont ni arbres, ni arbrisseaux; lgume, toute plante
quon recueille aprslavoir seme (Lane 1876, p. 236), sab. bl plantes cultives, plantations, min. s-bl et qat.
bl planter (SD 30, LM 23, LIQ 31, Sima 2000, p. 185), gez. bawl plante, herbe, vgtation (CDG 101), mh. bl,
jib. bl plantes qui croissent aprs la pluie (ML 47, JL 25). Mais peut-tre doit-on suivre M. Stol, pour qui le
composant smantique crotre, pousser est le plus important ici, do sa traduction grne (sprieende) Pflanze.
Et en tout cas, on ne manquera pas dobserver la concidence frappante entre lakkadien et quelques langues
no-thiopiennes, o les rflexes du *bVl- proto-smitique sappliquent non seulement au malt, mais aussi la
bire quon prpare avec (par exemple, tigre bl, WTS 284). Et de fait, cest cette concidence qui avait fascin
Hrozn au point de proposer, pour la premire fois dans lhistoire de notre discipline, la traduction malt pour
lakkadien bulu.
Il est difficile de savoir pourquoi un mot si rpandu dans les langues smitiques na laiss aucune trace
ou presque dans le domaine cananen. La seule exception est la locution m bl dans les textes hippiatriques
ougaritiques KTU 1.71:25 et 1.85:32: dblt ynt w mm yn[m] w m bl y b aph une vieille boulette de figues,
des vieux raisins, et de la farine de malt (broys) ensemble doivent tre administrs par ses narines (traduction
adapte de Pardee 1985, p. 68). Les deux ditions standard de ces textes (Pardee 1985, p. 68; Cohen et Sivan 1983,
p. 10) sont unanimes dans leur traduction farine de malt pour cette locution. Pour D. Pardee, il existe un lien
immdiat entre cette attestation ougaritique et les donnes lexicales dEbla prsentes ci-dessus.56Toutefois, la
prsence de ce terme dans la liste lexicale blate noffre pas dargument dfinitif en faveur de son usage dans les
langues ouest-smitiques de la rgion. Il serait tentant, au contraire, de supposer que la combinaison m bl en
ougaritique ne reprsente quune adaptation (loan translation) de la phrase akkadienne m buli une phrase qui
(comme Pardee lobserve juste titre) ne parat pas tre syllabiquement atteste dans les sources.57
28. La signification exacte de lakkadien uetu (AHw. 1446) comme dsignant une crale dans les diffrents
couches chronologiques et gographiques de la langue akkadienne nest pas encore suffisamment bien comprise.
56
Nous savons maintenant, daprs les textes dEbla, que le mot

buqlu tait connu dans le Levant ds le 3e millnaire.
57
Dans ce sens voir dj Fronzaroli 1969b, p. 32.
246
Leonid Kogan
Les traductions bl, orge et crale en gnral peuvent tre trouves dans les dictionnaires ainsi que dans
les tudes ddies tels priode ou dialecte, et on attend avec beaucoup dimpatience la parution du volume U
du CAD pour une opinion commune moderne.58
La signification gnrale (crale) parat convenir avant tout pour la priode palo-assyrienne, comme on
peut le dduire de passages comme 21 naru uatam milum e-am milum gig 21 sacs de grain, moiti en orge, moiti en bl (d/k 48b:2, cit daprs CAD /2350), ou 8 naru uatum .ba 2 naru artum huit sacs de grain, dont
2 sacs de bl (d/k 19 enveloppe:5, cit daprs Michel 1997, p. 99). Cependant, comme C. Michel lobserve juste
titre, le problme peut tre encore plus compliqu car quelques exemples de formulations dites tautologiques
sont connues, savoir 5 naru e-am milum e-um milum gig (d/k 9b:14, cit daprs Michel 1997, p. 101). Les
exemples palo-babyloniens restent tudier en dtail, mais une certaine incertitude peut tre observe mme
dans les traductions rcentes de K. Veenhof dAbB 14 (comparer e uetya my barley corns dans 152:8 et mimma
uetum ul ibai no grain of barley is available dans 168:7). En outre, au vu de la collection dexemples prsents
par W. von Soden dans AHw., on peut remarquer que lusage de uetu, uatu comme dsignant une crale est
beaucoup plus rpandu en assyrien quen babylonien.
Du point de vue tymologique, le mot akkadien est insparable du proto-smitique *in-at- (Fronzaroli 1969b,
pp. 12, 27, 34), traditionnellement dfini comme bl. 59 La traduction gnralement accepte pour la reconstruction proto-smitique se base videmment sur les donnes des langues smitiques centrales, savoir oug. t (DUL
377), hb. i (HALOT 307), syr. et (LSyr. 227), ar. inat- (Lane 1876, p. 657). Le mme sens est propre au
soqotri ineh (LS 182), mais comme un emprunt arabe apparat trs probable dans ce cas, la valeur de la forme
soqotri est assez rduite. En revanche, le sens des parallles sudarabiques modernes continentaux et thiopiens
est diffrent, savoir, mh. t grain (ML 192), jib. t aliments en gnral, fves, toute crale, iet un pi
de riz (JL 119), gez. at, at grain, semence (CDG 268). La ressemblance smantique entre ces termes sudsmitiques et lakkadien ne doit pas nous chapper, car elle peut avoir des consquences pour la reconstruction
smantique au niveau proto-smitique: en effet, le sens bl apparat plutt comme une innovation du smitique
central, tandis que les zones latrales, comme souvent, ont possiblement prserv la smantique originelle plus
gnrale.60
Plusieurs savants ont voulu dcouvrir un rflexe de *in-at- comme un ouest-smitisme dans lakkadien dEmar, savoir, dans le nom divin dkaskal.kur.ra.me a i-id-di, supposment le dieu Balih du froment (373:158,
378:43). Malgr lopinion commune (Pentiuc 2001, p. 70), cette identification, difficile prouver contextuellement,
reste problmatique du point de vue linguistique car (comme Pentiuc lui-mme lobserve) virtuellement aucune
forme masculine de ce terme nest connue dans aucune langue smitique.61
29. Les attestations du burrum pour dsigner une crale sont limits aux textes palo-babyloniens de Mari,
Tuttul, et Chagar-Bazar (AHw. 140; CAD B 330; Bottro 1957, pp. 25152; Talon 1997, p. 140; Krebernik 2001, p. 234).
Comme lobserve J. Bottro, le terme doit tre apparent plusieurs dsignations de crales dans le domaine
ouest-smitique, dont la proto-forme a t reconstruite comme *burr- par P. Fronzaroli (1969b, pp. 12, 27, 34) sur
la base de hb. bar (HALOT 153), ar. burr- (Lane 1876, p. 176), sab. br (SD 31), mh. barr (ML 51), jib. bohr (JL 27), soq.
bor (LS 98).62 La traduction bl attribue cette reconstruction se base surtout sur les donnes arabes. Pour le
saben br, A. Sima a pu reconnatre six passages o ce terme, quatre fois suivi par sr orge, dsigne clairement
une espce concrte de crale, probablement le bl (Sima 2000, pp. 20002). En hbreu, la nature des passages
relativement peu nombreux o bar est attest est telle que la traduction gnrale grain, crale, adapte par les
dictionnaires, parat raisonnable.63 Les formes sudarabiques modernes dsignent le mas selon T. M. Johnstone,
bien que la traduction froment soit prsente dans le Lexique Soqotri.
Voir maintenant CAD U/342 (edible grain (wheat or barley)),
avec une note dtaille la p. 357.
59
La diffrence vocalique entre -u- en akkadien et -i- dans les
langues occidentales est inattendue mais pas sans prcdent;
cf. a6059 La structure phonologique des termes sud-smitiques
est aussi fort intressante, car le *-n- proto-smitique, si vraiment originel, naurait pas d tomber (comme en sudarabique
moderne), ni sassimiler (comme en thiopien).
61
Contrairement ce quaffirme Pentiuc, les donnes ougaritiques ne changent en rien la situation: la forme n pour le
58
masculin singulier ne parat pas exister (la rfrence au DLU 184

est fautive) et serait, de fait, difficile imaginer avec un -n- non
assimil.
62
Pour Fronzaroli, la forme nominale commune *burr- doit tre
drive de la racine verbale *brr, assez rpandue dans les langues
ouest-smitiques avec le sens tre pur, clair, le lien smantique
entre les deux reposant sur lide du grain comme substance
pure, dbarrasse de la balle.
63
Par exemple, Jrmie 23:28: ma-la-ttbn t-ha-bbrla paille
a-t-elle quoi que ce soit voir avec le grain?
247
Selon G. Conti (1990, p. 75), *burr- est aussi attest dans la liste lexicale bilingue blate, savoir, b-ur-tum
comme lquivalent de ninda.gme dans VE 81.64 La comparaison de Conti doit tre srieusement prise en compte,
bien que lquivalence smantique ne soit pas parfaite et le -t- fminin soit absent dans toutes les formes ouestsmitiques connues jusqu prsent.
Quelle est lorigine des termes blate et mariote? Sagit-i-il dun ancien mot proto-smitique perdu dans
lakkadien standard de lest mais prserv dans les rgions plus occidentales? Ou doit-on, au contraire, considrer ces termes comme des ouest-smitismes locaux qui non pas affect la Msopotamie? Il ny a pas chez les
savants de rponse unanime cette question. Selon Conti, le terme blate est un mot occidental, et le burrum
mariote est, lui aussi, explicitement qualifi comme amorrite par le mme auteur. notre avis, cette hypothse
est assez probable. Dun autre ct, on remarquera que ce terme est absent de la liste des ouest-smitismes potentiellement attests en palo-babylonien propose par M. Streck (2000, pp. 82123), une liste qui, en principe, prend
en compte la plupart des hypothses demprunt mme lorsquelles sont rejetes par Streck lui-mme.
30. Akk. dunu dsigne le mil dans les textes attests depuis le mdio-babylonien et le mdio-assyrien (AHw.
174, CAD D 171). Son absence complte aux priodes plus anciennes ainsi que dans les listes lexicales ne favorise
pasune origine akkadienne autochtone. Il sagit plus probablement dun emprunt ouest-smitique relativement
ancien ou mme dun emprunt indpendant depuis une troisime langue inconnue, en akkadien comme dans les
langues ouest-smitiques. La prsence rcurrente de ce terme dans les documents de Nuzi est ainsi tout fait
remarquable.
Dans ce contexte, le proto-smitique *dun- reconstruit par P. Fronzaroli (1969b, pp. 13, 28) sur la base de
lakkadien dunu et de ses parallles ouest-smitiques tels que hb. dan (HALOT 218), syr. dun (LSyr. 149) et ar.
dun- (Lane 1876, p. 861), devient assez problmatique. On ne manquera pas de remarquer quele terme hbraque,
lui aussi, nest attest quune seule fois, dans un passage tardif dEzchiel 4:9 o laccumulation la plus grande
possible de noms de crales (froment, orge, fves, lentilles, mil, peautre) est videmment intentionnelle.
31. Akk. kunu peautre (CAD K 536, AHw. 506), est bien attest syllabiquement ds la priode palo-babylonienne. Comme il est reconnu au moins depuis Hrozn (1913, p. 55), ce terme est tymologiquement identique
la dsignation aramenne commune de cette crale *kunt-, repsente par off. knt (DNWSI 521), AJP kwnt (DJPA
254) et syr. knt (LSyr. 336).
Ds lors quune relation entre les deux mots est vidente, il convient den tablir la nature. Sagit-t-il dun
terme proto-smitique qui, accidentellement, a t perdu par toutes les langues sauf lakkadien et laramen?
Ou doit-on postuler un ancien emprunt akkadien en aramen? Il nexiste pour le moment pas de consensus sur
ce problme.
Pour quelques savants, la correspondance du akkadien au t aramen doit sans aucune doute signaler que
la parent entre les deux mots est de nature gntique. Telle est la position de P. Fronzaroli qui nhsite pas
postuler une reconstruction proto-smitique *kun- (1969b, pp. 13, 28).
notre avis, une comparaison lexicale bilatrale entre un mot akkadien et un mot aramen est toujours
suspecte, et on aurait bien voulu suivre Hrozn qui a postul un emprunt akkadien en aramen. Mais comment
pourrait-on prouver cette hypothse?
Lakkadien ne donnerait pas un -t- en aramen, ni dans un mot apparent gntiquement, ni dans un emprunt. Cest donc une -- interdentale qui, en tous les cas, doit tre postule dans le mot-source akkadien. Mais on
sait bien que la distinction entre * et *, qui en ralit existait en akkadien laube de sa formation comme langue
crite, a commenc disparatre ds le sargonique tardif (textes de la priode de Narm-Sn et ar-kali-arr)
et svanouit compltement ds la troisime dynastie dUr.65 Quel type de langue aramenne pourrait-on donc
postuler, pour la seconde moiti du troisime millnaire, dans laquelle une certaine forme proto-akkadienne
de ce mot aurait pu pntrer?
Il est remarquable que kunu napparat pas dans le livre sur les emprunts akkadiens en aramen de S.
Kaufman, o, nanmoins, deux intressants parallles peuvent tre trouvs, savoir, ptr table, emprunt
lakkadien paru, et tr Assyrie, qui drive de lakkadien Aur (1974, pp. 8182). Dans les deux cas, la prsence
64
Source i. Dans les autres sources pour cette entre on trouve

a-k-lu dnisaba pain de la desse Nisaba ou dnisaba la desse
Nisaba tout court.
65
Voir les remarques de W. Sommerfeld dans GAG 30. Pour une

analyse plus dtaille de ce phnomne, voir Hasselbach 2005,
pp. 13543; Kogan 2011, pp. 17986.
248
Leonid Kogan
du * dans la proto-forme nest gure vidente mais ne peut pas tre exclue non plus. Ainsi, lakkadien paru
lui-mme doit tre emprunt au sumrien banur, mais, en juger par les valeurs anciennes des signes akkadiens
de la srie V, il nest pas impossible que le sumrien ait t phontiquement proche de ce quon considre
comme le rflexe sargonique du * proto-smitique. Le second cas est encore plus compliqu, et ce nest quavec
une grande prcaution que lon peut supposer que Aur possdait un * dans la proto-forme: (1) si le nom de la
ville (et du pays) dAssour est vraiment identique au nom divin correspondant et (2) si le nom divin Assour est
vraiment apparent aux thonymes ouest-smitiques comme lart ougaritique.
Comme on la not depuis longtemps, la forme akkado-aramenne *kun- est un certain degr similaire aux
dsignations de lpeautre en hbreu et en ougaritique, savoir ksm, km (DUL 462) et kussmt (HALOT 490). Ces
formes sont dhabitude expliques comme des drivs nominaux de la racine verbale *ksm couper, fendre. Une
telle drivation nest pas improbable du point de vue de la typologie dvolution smantique: comme la observ
dj Hrozn (1913, p. 13), le mot latin spelta do le franais peautre et une bonne partie des autres dsignations
de cette crale dans les langues europennes modernes tels que langlais spelt est clairement apparent la
racine indo-europenne *spel- couper, fendre. Une motivation pour ce dveloppement smantique a t cherch,
non sans raisons, soit dans les techniques spciales ncessaires au battage de cette crale (Hrozn 1913, pp. 41,
56; Fronzaroli 1969b, p. 13), soit dans quelques particularits morphologique de sa graine (HALOT 490; I. Lw apud
Hrozn 1913, p. 41).66
VI. Plantes domestiques: les lgumes

32. Akk. m ail, bien attest syllabiquement dans la Msopotamie proprement dite ds la priode palobabylonienne (AHw. 1275, CAD /3298), montre un clair prcdent Ebla, savoir u-mi comme le second lment de lexpression li-ma u-mi dans la liste lexicale MEE 3, 61v. iv 6. Cet entre a t interprte par M. Civil
comme un pot pour broyer lail, li-ma tant compris comme une criture syllabique du logogramme bur pot
(Civil 1987, p. 156).67
Le mot akkadien est clairement apparent plusieurs termes ouest-smitiques qui dsignent lail, savoir,
hb. m (HALOT 1442), syr. tm (LSyr. 819), ar. m- (Lane 1876, p. 365), mh. mt (ML 417), jib. uhm (JL 284),
gez. som, somat (CDG 501).68
Pour plusieurs savants, il sagit dun terme proto-smitique trs ancien qui pourrait tre reconstruit comme
*m- (Fronzaroli 1969b, pp. 6, 24). Il est bien connu, nanmoins, quune dsignation de lail (ou dune autre
sorte de bulbe) existe aussi en sumrien, savoir s u m , dont la premire attestation certaine se trouve, selon
W. Sommerfeld (2006, p. 64), dans le texte UET 2,163v. i 5 (gn sum un champ dail), datant de la priode dUr
archaque.
Comme Sommerfeld la observ dans son analyse critique des smitismes dans les plus anciennes sources
sumriennes, la correspondance entre la proto-forme smitique *m- et le sumrien sum est, malgr le dsaccord de surface, phontiquement parfaite. Comme on le sait maintenant, lakkadien sargonique na pas aboli
compltement la distinction originelle entre les sifflantes * et * dun ct et linterdentale * de lautre ct: les
phonmes du premier groupe sont dans le cas idal transcrits par les signes de la srie SV, la srie V tant
rserve lancienne interdentale. Or, cette distinction est valable non seulement pour les syllabogrammes du
En outre, on se demande si une drivation similaire pourrait

tre responsable de lmergence de la dsignation sumrienne de
lpeautre, savoir, zz. Ce terme, sans aucune motivation vidente au sein du sumrien, a t dj interprt comme un akkadisme par G. Steiner (2003, p. 642), mais son tymologie *kinu,
une Spielform akkadienne inexistante, avec palatalisation du *ket akkadien correspondant z en sumrien peut difficilement
nous convaincre (Sommerfeld 2006, p. 66). On ne manquera pas
de noter, en revanche, que terme zzu, soit une dsignation rare
de lpeautre, existe aussi en akkadien. Depuis Birot 1960, pp.
26162, on la considre toujours comme un sumrisme, en ngli-
66
geant quune drivation partir du verbe akkadien zzu diviser,

sparer pourrait offrir un excellent parallle smantique aux
termes hbraque et latin discuts ci-dessus. Si la prsente hypothse est correcte, cest le terme sumrien qui doit tre considr
comme un akkadisme et non linverse.
67
Pour Civil, un rflexe akkadien de ce mot est lummu un petit
pot, bien attest dans les listes lexicales du premier millnaire
(CAD L 246).
68
Dans le dernier cas, le vocalisme irrgulier pourrait indiquer
un arabisme.
249
type CV, mais aussi pour ceux qui finissent en -m, savoir, um = /*um/ et /*um/ soppose sum = /*um/
autant qu zum = /*zum/, /*sum/ et /*um/.69
Lidentit fondamentale entre le proto-smitique *m- et le sumrien sum tant assure smantiquement
autant que phontiquement, on doit admettre quune concidence fortuite entre les deux termes, envisage comme
une possibilit par Sommerfeld (2006, p. 65), devient fort difficile imaginer. Il doit y avoir une certaine relation
diachronique entre les deux termes, et il nexiste que trois possibilits concurrentes: un emprunt smitique en
sumrien; un emprunt sumrien en smitique; un emprunt indpendant fait par les deux langues une troisime
langue inconnue.
La troisime solution, toujours possible thoriquement, ne peut en aucun cas tre prouve et, par consquent,
ne sera pas discute ici. La premire solution est codifie par les deux traditions assyriologique et smitologique.
Elle repose sur des raisons phonologiques et smantiques videntes et ne parat pas exiger dargument spcial.
Cest la deuxime hypothse fort intressante comme on doit ladmettre ds prsent qui a besoin dune
srieuse argumentation. De fait, dans sa vigoureuse dfense de cette hypothse, Sommerfeld (2006, pp. 6465) a
pu noncer quelques arguments en sa faveur qui mritent dtre soigneusement analyss ici.
(1) Le premier argument concerne la signification exacte du terme sum dans les sources du troisime millnaire. Comme on la observ plusieurs reprises, dans les documents sumriens sum est souvent utilis comme le
premier lment de plusieurs dsignations des plantes alliaces. Quant aux contextes o ce terme apparat comme
un mot indpendant, sa haute frquence fait penser plusieurs savants quil ne sagissait pas de la dsignation
dune plante concrte mais plutt dun terme gnrique: bulbe, plante alliace. Telle est, semble-t-il, la situation
dans le fameux Onion Archive de la priode sargonique conserv Philadelphie (Westenholz 1987, pp. 87183).
De lavis de Sommerfeld, lusage gnrique si rpandu du sumrien sum offre un argument important contre
lorigine smitique de ce terme: pour lui, il serait difficile dexpliquer comment le sumrien a pu donner un sens
aussi gnral un mot emprunt dont la signification dans la langue-source smitique (akkadienne) tait tout
fait concrte ( savoir, lail).
Pour dautres savants, nanmoins, cet obstacle nest gure insurmontable. Ainsi, comme laffirme M. Powell
dans sa synthse rcente sur les fruits et lgumes en Msopotamie (2003, p. 21), il ya rien de surprenant dans le
fait quun mot qui, en principe, dsignait spcifiquement lail puisse se transformer en un terme gnrique pour
les bulbes (mme ceux qui nappartiennent pas aux plantes Allium proprement dits). Selon Powell, le rle dominant de lail dans la culture alimentaire sumrienne (et, par consquent, dans la terminologie correspondante)
est d au fait que les bulbes de lail sont beaucoup moins prissables que ceux des autres plantes alliaces. 70 En
outre, on ne doit pas perdre de vue le fait que sum apparat au moins dans quelques passages dans des oppositions
binaires avec dautres types de bulbes (par exemple, 5 sila s[um] 5 sila sum-sikil dans le texte MC 4, 41:78). Ici,
son interprtation comme la dsignation dune plante concrte devient invitable, et cest la traduction ail qui
est dhabitude choisie en de tels cas (Steinkeller 1992, p. 76).
69
On doit admettre que la nature du corpus sargonique est telle
quil serait difficile de trouver un nombre relativement consquent dexemples pertinents. Les quelques exemples actuellement connus se limitent un nombre rduit des noms propres
(Gelb 1961, pp. 7273) tels que -ra-sum cultivateur, fermier
(CAD E 306, cf. ar. r cultiver) ou pir-a-sum puce (CAD P 411,
cf. ar. bur-). En outre, le systme des oppositions phonologiques dans le domaine des sifflantes a commenc saffaiblir ds
le sargonique et, dans de telles conditions, il ny a rien de surprenant dans le fait que le mme nom propre cultivateur, fermier
puisse tre rendu alternativement comme -ra-um (Gelb 1957,
p. 66). Cest donc Ebla quune preuve dfinitive de la valeur
/um/ pour le signe sum doit tre recherche, et non sans succs: dans la grande liste lexicale bilingue le systme mentionn
ci-dessus est bien document, comme le montrent des exemples
comme p-a-sum, pi-sum = sum. u. oindre; oint (VE 502; Krebernik 1983, p. 18) ou a-za-a-sum = sum. .l.a.ki une plante
(VE 298, Conti 1990, p. 115). Certes, aucune tymologie smitique avec nest disponible dans les deux cas en question, mais
les graphies alternatives avec les syllabogrammes de la srie V

(p-a-u-um et a-za-u-um), une srie qui est toujours rserve
aux interdentales Ebla, ne laissent aucune doute sur la nature
phontique du syllabogramme sum dans les plus anciennes traditions cuniformes smitophones. Un exemple tymologiquement plus certain peut tre attest dans VE 1214: wa-ru-sum/
wu-ru-sum 1 dam = sum. .munus.du interprt comme to
give the wife the right to take over the possessions (after the death of
her husband) by . Sjberg (2003, p. 557), qui tablit juste titre
un rapport entre les formes blates et la racine ouest-smitique
commune *wr hriter (on remarquera, encore une fois dans
ce cas, une graphie alternante avec u: wa-ru-u). On notera,
enfin, wa-r-sum/wa-r-u dans VE 608, quivalent au sumrien
zal.a.engur et mis en rapport avec lougaritique mr et lhbreu
tr vin par Conti (1990, pp. 16768).
70
That garlic was regarded as the primary bulb vegetable is probably
because it is, by far, the least perishable of the Allium crops. The cloves
tend to dry out rather than rot like onions, and the loss of a single clove
does not mean loss of the whole bulb, as with onions or other juicy Allium species.
250
Leonid Kogan
(2) Le second argument contre lorigine smitique du sumrien sum concerne la structure morphologique
de ce mot. Il est bien connu que les plus anciens smitismes en sumrien apparaissent typiquement avec la terminaison -a (Gelb 1961, pp. 5, 14142) dont lorigine reste peu claire malgr plusieurs tudes ddies a ce problme.71 Comme on le remarque tout de suite, ce mot se termine en revanche par une consonne.72 Limportance
de cet argument doit nanmoins tre relativise en observant quil y a dautres exemples danciens smitismes
en sumrien o la terminaison -a fait dfaut. Dans les listes de Krebernik, par exemple, on trouve pa-e un
prtre < akk. pa-um (Ur archaque, Fra) et ma-gag-en muknum < akk. muknum (Ebla, Ab alb). En
somme, bien que dans le cas prsent labsence de terminaison -a ne favorise pas un emprunt smitique, elle peut
difficilement tre considre comme un obstacle dfinitif contre une telle ventualit (cf. Edzard 1961, p. 263).
(3) Le troisime argument met en relief la distribution gographique de lakkadien mu pendant les priodes
anciennes. Comme cela a t depuis longtemps not, ce terme manque dans le corpus mariote, o son remplaant
doit tre a-za-nu, un terme qui est, en outre, aussi attest dans les textes palo-babyloniens provenant de la
Msopotamie proprement dite (CAD A/2526, AHw. 92). La situation mariote trouve un parallle frappant dans le
corpus blate, rcemment discut dans une tude synthtique (Catagnoti 2007, pp. 22122). Ebla, comme on la
dj observ ci-dessus, mu nest pas compltement mconnu au vu de lattestation de u-mi dans la liste lexicale
MEE 3, 61v. iv 6. Cette liste, cependant, nappartient pas la tradition lexicographique locale mais est clairement
importe de Msopotamie. En revanche, dans la grande liste lexicale autochtone le terme sumrien sum.sar
est traduit par a-za-nm (EV 0363, source d) ou laiss sans traduction (VE 1076). Lusage rpandu de ce terme
Ebla est confirm par son utilisation, plusieurs reprises, comme dsignation dun type de bijou, rcemment
discute en dtail par J. Pasquali (2005b, pp. 15355). On remarquera, enfin, que mu nest pas attest dans le
corpus palo-assyrien, tandis que a-zu-a-num dans OIP 27, 55:33 a correctement t identifi avec lail par W.
Farber (1981, pp. 13537).73
Pour Sommerfeld, cette distribution gographique est un important argument en faveur de lorigine sumrienne de lakkadien mu: ce terme est prsent dans le core Akkadian (une langue en contact permanent avec le
sumrien), mais manque dans les traditions occidentales gographiquement isoles du sumrien.
Pour un argument contraire, on remarquera tout de suite que labsence de mu dans lusage des documents
cuniformes de la zone occidentale est en flagrante opposition avec la prsence largement atteste dans ces
domaines dun terme manifestement apparent lui, savoir, amakillu.
Le mot akkadien amakillu, traduit gnralement comme oignon 74 (CAD /1 298, AHw. 1155), est tymologiquement insparable de son parallle sumrien sum-sikil, littralement ail clair. 75 Or, amakillu est attest
dans la liste bilingue blate: a-ma-k-lu = sum. sum.sar.sikil (VE 1080).76 De mme pour Mari, o ce mot est bien
attest, non seulement sous sa forme habituelle a-ma-a-ki-lu (e.g., ARM 12,241:5) mais aussi dans un curieux
71
Quelques exemples plus ou moins assurs peuvent tre cits

daprs la rcente synthse de M. Krebernik sur les rapports linguistiques entre le sumrien et lakkadien dans les documents
de Fra et Ab alb (1998, pp. 265, 26970): b u r - u - m a
vieillard(e) < akk. purum-um, l-ga une mesure < akk. litk-um,
dam-gara marchand < akk. tamkr-um, na-gada berger < akk.
nid-um.
72
Cet argument, malgr son importance, nest pas explicitement
avanc par Sommerfeld.
73
Ltymologie de a-za-nu reste jusquau prsent incertaine, il
sagit probablement dun terme local syro-anatolien que certains
savants ont voulu retrouver dans le hittite azzuwanni et lougaritique swn (Farber 1991, p. 236; HW III 554; DLU 201; Watson
2004, p. 127).
74
La dsignation ouest-smitique de loignon est *baal-: hb.
bl (HALOT 147), syr. bel (LSyr. 86), ar. baal- (Lane 1876, p.
212), sab. bl (SD 33), gez. baal (CDG 111), mh. blt (ML 55),
jib. bl (JL 29), soq. ble (LS 93). Ce terme semble tre compltement absent de la langue akkadienne, de nombreuses tentatives
dy trouver un rflexe nayant jamais abouti (Fronzaroli 1969b,
p. 6). Ainsi, le terme bisru (biru) qui dsigne une sorte dalliace
dans quelques documents lexicaux et littraires du premier millnaire (CAD B 268, AHw. 130), est difficilement comparable pour
dvidentes raisons phonologiques, comme la dj observ B.
Landsberger dans son dition du Practical Vocabulary of Assur, o
ce mot explique le sumrien .gara.tl.la.sar, donc une sorte
de poireau (Landsberger et Gurney 195758, p. 337). Akk. biiltu
rcipient pour lhuile (CAD B 268, AHw. 130), en revanche, nest
pas une dsignation botanique du tout, mais sapplique, dans certaines listes lexicales du premier millnaire, ce qui parat tre
un rcipient pour lhuile. Quil sagisse dun rcipient en forme
doignon (Fronzaroli 1969b, p. 6) est thoriquement possible mais
trs difficile prouver.
75
Une intressante explication pour le changement vocalique
dans la premire syllabe a t propose par P. Steinkeller (1992, p.
76): pour lui, il sagit dune association secondaire avec lakkadien
ammu herbe par tymologie populaire.
76
On remarquera, en outre, que la forme blate est intressante
pour sa graphie: lusage du syllabogramme a /a/ montre que
la relation avec le mot-source *m- nest pas perdue malgr le
changement vocalique en -a- d la contamination avec ammu
herbe suppose par Steinkeller.
251
doublet u-ma-at-ki-lu discut par J.-M. Durand propos dARM 21,103:5 (une forme qui semble reflter le vocalisme original en -u-).
On ne manquera pas dobserver, enfin, lexistence dun autre mot akkadien videmment en rapport avec mu,
savoir, umku (CAD /3 274, AHw. 1272). Ce terme, bien attest dans les documents palo-assyriens, nest pas prsent dans le dialecte babylonien et semble fonctionner comme un quivalent assyrien du babylonien amakillu.77
Lquivalence umku amakillu oignon est en outre confirme par .sum.sikil.la.sar = u-un-ki dans lentre
82 du Practical Vocabulary of Assur (Landsberger et Gurney 195758).78
Ces facteurs pris en compte, on se demande pourquoi labsence de contact gographique immdiat entre le
domaine sumrophone dun ct et Ebla, Mari et Assur de lautre, qui expliquerait labsence du sumrisme mu
dans les textes blates, mariotes et palo-assyriens, na pas empch ces dialectes demprunter amakillu, un
sumrisme assez vident,ni umku pour lequel un intermdiaire sumrien est fortement probable? notre avis,
dans de telles conditions la logique de largument gographique devient beaucoup plus fragile quon pourrait le
penser.
En rsum, aucun des trois arguments ne parat suffisamment fort pour nous faire abandonner le concept
traditionnel selon lequel *m- reste un ancien terme proto-smitique, emprunt comme sum par le sumrien.
33. Akk. karau poireau est bien attest syllabiquement ds le palo-babyonien (AHw. 448, CAD K 212). Dans
la forme standard de ce mot, cest videmment la prsence du -r- qui a protg de la syncope le -a- bref dans
la seconde syllabe. Le doublet karum est, cependant, trs bien attest, comme le montre une riche collection
dexemples faite par M. Stol dans son tude synthtique sur les alliacs dans les documents palo-babyloniens
(1987b, pp. 6263, 71). Pour Stol, cest prcisment la forme syncope qui apparat dj dans quelques noms des
champs de lpoque de la troisime dynastie dUr (gisar gr.umki dans ITT 5, 6925:8).
En tout cas, cest Ebla que lon trouve les plus anciennes attestations de ce terme au sein dune tradition
smitophone. Ici, karau apparat deux fois dans la liste lexicale MEE 3, 61 vi 9 et ibid. vii 8. Dans le premier cas,
il sagit de lexpression na k-ra-!(tg)-im, interprte par M. Civil (1987, p. 153) comme une pierre verte,
couleur de poireau. Comme Civil lobserve juste titre, une telle dsignation trouve quelque support dans les
sources msopotamiennes postrieures o certaines pierres sont effectivement compares au poireau, tandis
que dans la lettre ABIM 20:65 le terme karumlui-mme parat dsigner une pierre semi-prcieuse (ka-ar-a-am u
adnam mala tubilam itbal). Dans le second cas, le terme se trouve dans lexpression l i-m a k-ra-sa!() aten,79
probablement un pot couleur de poireau ou un pot pour prparer le poireau.
Comme on la dj mentionn dans le cadre de la discussion sur les plus anciennes attestations de mu ail,
la liste MEE 3, 61 nappartient pas la tradition blate locale. Par consquent, les deux formes k-ra-!-im et
k-ra-sa! doivent tre considres comme les plus anciens tmoins de lexistence de ce mot dans une forme trs
ancienne de la langue akkadienne. Une possible manifestation locale syrienne sera discute plus loin.
tymologiquement, lakkadien karau poireau est insparable de lhbreu post-biblique kr (Jastrow 667),
syr. karrt (LSyr. 349), arb. kar-, karr-, kurr- (Lane 1876, p. 2604). Pour P. Fronzaroli (1969b, p. 6, 24, 32), il
sagit en effet dun terme proto-smitique reconstruit par lui comme *kara-. On ne manquera pas dobserver,
cependant, que la probabilit dune srie demprunts est assez haute dans ce cas. Bien sr, le en arabe peut
tre un rflexe fidle de linterdentale sourde proto-smitique, mais il est difficile dexclure quil rend plutt la
variante fricative du t aramen dans un mot emprunt. Et comme on la dj vu dans le cas de lakkadien kunu
vs. laramen knt peautre, la correspondance du akkadien au t aramen, bien que celane favorise pas un
emprunt, nest pas suffisante pour lexclure compltement. La question est donc difficile rsoudre. Elle devient
encore plus complique au vu de lorthographe contradictoire des formes proto-akkadiennes attestes Ebla.
Comme Civil lobserve juste titre, le syllabogramme dans k-ra-!-im correspond parfaitement au *-- dans
la reconstruction proto-smitique, tandis que lusage du syllabogramme sa dans k-ra-sa! nest pas rgulier (on
attendrait plutt a).
77
Un rare exemple de nette opposition lexicale babylonien

vs.assyrien, dont quelques autres manifestations (telles que
ammium vs. ullm celui-l, uzrum vs. am cochon, adrum vs.
makanum aire, kna vs. anna/anni oui, prum vs. isum sort,
destin) ont t discuts dans Kogan 2006, pp. 17980.
78
Ltymologie de umku reste nigmatique: lidentit de son premier lment (um-) avec mu ail nest pas mettre en doute,
mais lorigine de la terminaison -ku est obscure. Ne sagirait-t-il

pas dune adaptation du terme sumrien sum-gud, bien attest
comme une dsignation de plante alliace dans les sources du
troisime millnaire (Waetzoldt 1987, p. 33)?
79
Sur la lecture difficile de cette cartouche, voir en dernier lieu
Civil 2008, p. 72.
252
Leonid Kogan
Comme on la observ depuis longtemps, lakkadien karau a t emprunt par le sumrien comme ga-ra.
Cette graphie, bien connue dans les documents du deuxime millnaire, est en fait atteste ds les sources prsargoniques: ga-ra(kaskal)sar dans la liste lexicale OIP 99, 33 iii 22 (Ab alb) oule document SRU 118 iii
5 (Lagash prsargonique). En outre, dautres graphies sont attestes pour ce mot dans les sources du troisime
millnaire, savoir, kaskal.gasar (e.g., HSS 10, 11:4, Gasur sargonique, transcrit comme gara dans Borger 2004,
p. 484) ou kaskalsar tout court.80 En tout cas, la lecture /gara/ pour le mot sumrien parat tre certaine ds le
milieu du troisime millnaire, une date fort ancienne pour un emprunt smitique en sumrien avec une lecture
phontique assure. Labsence de la terminaison -a est donc remarquable au regard de ce qui a t dit sur ce problme dans le cadre de notre discussion du sumrien sum.
Le sumrien g a - ra parat tre re-emprunt en akkadien comme girnum, une dsignation dune plante
alliace bien atteste syllabiquement ds le palo-babylonien (CAD G 96, AHw. 286). Son quivalent sumrien est
ga-ra-sag poireau (grande) tte. Ce terme doit tre le mot-source de lakkadien girnu, bien que lvolution
phonologique et structurelle quun tel emprunt suppose soit assez singulire (Lieberman 1977, pp. 25152).
Il nous reste mentionner, enfin, la forme blaite ga-ba-ra-u atteste dans la grande liste lexicale (VE 1078)
et discute en dtail par A. Catagnoti (2007, p. 226). Il reste toujours tentant de rapprocher cette forme du *karaproto-smitique. Une telle identification pose cependant de redoutables problmes sur les deux plans smantique
et phonologique. Dun ct, la forme smitique ne correspond pas au ga.ra sar sumrien, mais plutt au sum.
kur, donc une sorte dail ou doignon et non pas le poireau, une plante qui est immer deutlich von den Zwiebeln
getrennt dans les sources du troisime millnaire (Waetzoldt 1987, pp. 3031). On doit admettre, cependant, que
dans une liste dont lentre suivante traduit le sumrien ga.ra sar par a-za-nu ail un tel obstacle est probablement moins grave quon ne pourrait le penser. Laspect phontique de cette comparaison est, en revanche,
beaucoup plus problmatique.
Il est vrai que la squence ga-ra-u pourrait parfaitement correspondre au proto-smitique *kara-. Mais que
faire du syllabogramme ba? Comme Catagnoti lobserve, une graphie rapide (ou plutt condense), doncgara-u ou ba-ra-u, est difficilement possible dans ce cas: comme le montre M. Bonechi dans sa note ddie ce
phnomne orthographique (2008), dans tous les cas assurs il sagit de variants morphologiques dun seul mot
(ou, au moins, dune seule racine) et non pas de paronymes.81 Selon Catagnoti, ba-ra-u, serait thoriquement
comparable au biru, une plante alliace atteste dans les textes du premier millnaire et discute ci-dessus, mais
cette comparaison luit parat, juste titre, trs peu probable.
Plus attractive, au moins superficiellement, pourrait tre une comparaison avec le grec poireau et
le latin porrus, porrum. Ces termes, sans aucune tymologie satisfaisante au sein de lindo-europen, ont t en
effet compars au *kara- smitique par W. Vycichl (1963), pour lequel der Wechsel k : p darf nicht verwundern.82
Cependant, les deux exemples cites par lui comme illustration de ce phnomne le nom de la ville Gubla,
rendue en grec comme , et le mot hittite kura- peau, probablement apparent au grec ne nous
aident pas beaucoup, surtout parce que dans le deux cas il sagit dun vocalisme stable en -u- dans le mot-source,
ce qui nest pas le cas du *kara- poireau. La concidence entre ba-ra-u et reste toutefois intressante
bien quaucune explication convaincante ne puisse tre avance lheure actuelle.
34. Akk. i dsignait une plante c u c u r b i t a c e dont lidentification est assez difficile aujourdhui. Nos
dictionnaires hsitent entre concombre, courge, et melon (AHw. 923, CAD Q 271). La nature des contextes
assez nombreux par ailleurs est telle quune conclusion dfinitive est difficilement possible. Dans sa synthse
rcente M. Powell affirme, tout de mme: the Akkadian term seems to denote primarily the cucumber (2003, p. 20).
Le mot akkadien est clairement apparent quelques dsignations des cucurbitaces dans dautres langues
smitiques, savoir, hb. im (HALOT 1151), syr. at (LSyr. 657), ar. qi-, qu- (Lane 1876, p. 2487), gez.
wsyt (CDG 447). Une signification botanique plus ou moins exacte est difficile obtenir. Par exemple, lhbreu
im nest attest que dans Nombres 11:5, ct de quatre autres sortes de plantes lgumineuses consommes
80
Souvent Ebla, voir Catagnoti 2007, p. 227 o cette graphie est

rendue comme gara.sar, le signe ga qui la prcde quelque
fois tant interprt comme un complment phontique (donc
ga
gara.sar).
81
Par exemple, li-la-u = gar.gg.gg pte; ptrir la pte (VE

127), si-sa-a-b = .im.ga une plante lacteuse (VE 286) ou dadu-du = .ki.g amour (VE 584).
82
Pour ltymologie des mots grec et latin, voir par ailleurs Frisk
1960, p 589; Chantraine 1968, p. 934; Ernout et Meillet 1967, p.
523.
253
en gypte dont labsence a t tellement regrette par les Isralites dans le dsert. De mme pour le terme thiopien classique qui nest attest que dans le mme passage de la Bible thiopienne.83
La reconstruction proto-smitique *V()V-, propose sur cette base par P. Fronzaroli (1969b, pp. 6, 25, 32),
parat bien justifie, bien que les dtails de la structure vocalique de la proto-forme restent peu clairs. Toutefois,
on remarquera que la graphie -i-u-e, atteste dans la lettre palo-babylonienne VAS 16, 2:18 (5 -i-u-e bilm
envoi-moi cinq .) est structuralement assez proche la base i- de la forme hbraque.
Comme on la suppos depuis longtemps, le terme sumrien ku(l), dont les graphies syllabiques /uku/
ou /ku/ sont attestes ds le palo-babylonien, doit tre mis en rapport avec lakkadien i.84 Bien quil reste
tentant de penser que les deux formes soient apparentes, on ne doit pas ignorer quelques vidents obstacles
structurels, savoir, le vocalisme -u- dans la premire syllabe de la forme sumrienne (qui nest pas attest pour
cette racine en akkadien et, dans les autres langues smitiques, nest vident quen arabe) autant que la prothse
en u-. On doit observer, nanmoins, que la lecture syllabique plus ancienne de ce mot est /ku-u/ (ku), do on
peut dduire la nature secondaire du u- dans lAnlaut.
35. Akk. ass laitue, bien attest syllabiquement ds le palo-babylonien (AHw. 331, CAD 128), ne peut pas
tre spar du syriaque ast (LSyr. 245) et de larabe ass- (Lane 1876, p. 736), qui paraissent dsigner la mme
plante. Pour P. Fronzaroli, il sagit de rflexes dune proto-forme commune *ass- (1969b, pp. 6, 25, 32). Cependant
comme Fronzaroli lui-mme lobserve juste titre une chane demprunts nest pas inenvisageable dans ce
cas.Il est vrai que la prsence du en arabe ne favorise pas a priori une telle hypothse, mais comme on a dj pu
le remarquer propos de laramen ellp et de larabe ilf- saule, elle noffre pas un obstacle insurmontable
non plus, car la perte de lopposition entre * et * est un phnomne assez tardif en aramen.
La similitude entre lakkadien assu et son quivalent sumrien i-is sar na pas bien sr chapp lattention
des assyriologues. Pour les auteurs du CAD, il sagit dun emprunt akkadien en sumrien, ou dun Kulturwort (pour
la dernire solution voir aussi Farber 1991, p. 236).
Le terme sumrien dans sa graphie pleinene remonte pas au-del des documents de la troisime dynastie
dUr mais les sumrologues sont enclins identifier ce terme botanique la graphie de la liste lexicale ED Plants 69
et 115. Dans le cas dun emprunt soit sumrien > akkadien, soit akkadien > sumrien une diffrence vocalique
aussi marquante parat assez difficile expliquer et on se demande sil ne sagirait pas plutt dune convergence
secondaire entre deux dsignations botaniques tymologiquement diffrentes.
VII. Plantes domestiques: les arbres

36. Lakkadien idu amandier, dont les plus anciennes attestations syllabiques remontent au palo-babylonien (AHw. 1247, CAD /3 94), est prsent, comme un emprunt akkadien, ds les documents sumriens de la
priode sargonique et de la troisime dynastie dUr o toute une varit de doublettes ont t enregistres dans
Gelb 1957, pp. 28283 (i-ik-dum, si-ik-dum, si-ik-da).
Le mot akkadien trouve des parallles immdiats dans lougaritique d (DUL 927; Watson 2004, pp. 117
18) et lhbreu d (HALOT 1638), ce qui permet de reconstruire une proto-forme smitique commune *aid(Fronzaroli 1969a, pp. 279, 291, 300). Le changement vocalique en akkadien est remarquable mais non sans prcdent: comme parallle exact, on peut mentionner lhbreu nmr lopard vs. lakkadien nimru (SED II no. 164).85
Une structure morphologique plus archaque du mot akkadien a t signale au sein de la tradition mariote par
J.-M. Durand, savoir, a--di dans les lettres T.135:10 et M.5249:56 (Durand 2001, pp. 13031). Ces graphies
pourraient tre normalises comme /aidum/, un prototype idal pour la forme hbraque atteste (d).
83
Quil ne sagit pas ici dun ghost-word est nanmoins assur par
les parallles amhariques: wasa concombre, ussyat sorte de
courge (AED 751, 757).
84
Pour S. Lieberman (1977, p. 426), il sagit dun sumrisme en
akkadien, mais la direction inverse de lemprunt nest gure
inenvisageable.
85
Voir aussi la variante en -u- (udu), atteste ds le mdio-assyrien (1 gi a u-u-di mat-i dans KAJ 310:51) avec un parallle
possible dans les graphies syllabiques de lougaritique (giu-udu(-)ma [] dans PRU 6,159:4, voir Huehnergard 1987, pp. 188
89), la forme alphabtique d ntant atteste que dans les textes
hippiatriques dans la phrase d mr amandes amres (Cohen et
Sivan 1983, p. 23; Pardee 1985, pp. 5556).
254
Leonid Kogan
Selon Zurro 1983, p. 266, la mme structure archaque se trouve dans le prcdent blate a--dum = sum. gi.
dalla (VE 457).
Les termes akkadiens et cananens mentionnes ci-dessus sont difficiles sparer des formes qui ont le mme
sens et possdent un -g- comme deuxime consonne radicale en aramen et en thiopien, savoir, le syriaque
egdt (LSyr. 755) et le guze sgd (CDG 491). Il sagit manifestement dune assimilation de sonorit (*-d- > -gd-)
qui, apparemment, a affect les deux langues dune manire indpendante: on ne manquera pas de remarquer
que la racine est absente de larabe, tandis quun emprunt immdiat de lthiopien laramen dans le domaine
de la terminologie botanique est improbable.
La vlaire sonore irrgulire dans la forme aramenne ne doit pas nous faire perdre de vue le fait que la mme
forme prsente une autre irrgularit tout fait remarquable, savoir, comme rflexe de linterdentale sourde
*. La nature de cette irrgularit nest pas difficile comprendre: il sagit videmment dune incompatibilit
de deux dentales dans la racine nominale hypothtique (*tukdu). Dans un tel contexte, il est trs intressant de
remarquer quune forme tout fait proche de la forme aramenne rgulire nous est probablement parvenue
dans la tradition cuniforme. Il sagit du lexme normalis comme dukdu ou duqdu dans CAD L 238 and CDA 62,
qui dsigne une sorte de bois et ses fruits comestibles dans quelques textes no-assyriens. La lecture dukdu tant
assure par du-uk-di dans Cult of Aur 100 X 21, lancienne normalisation *luddu est donc abandonner.86 Comme
M. Stol la reconnu (1979, p. 14), il est trs probable que cette forme soit apparente udu akkadien. Mais de quel
type de relation sagirait-il dans ce cas? Dans la mesure o une alternance d au sein de la langue akkadienne
parat peu probable, on est enclin penser un aramisme (ou au moins une forme akkadienne aramisante)
*tudu avec une assimilation de sonorit (dudu).
Le terme proto-smitique *aid- ne semble pas tre attest Ebla. Dans la grande liste lexicale bilingue le
sumrogramme gii qui dsigne lamandier dans la tradition lexicographique msopotamienne correspond
bu(ni)--t trbinthe (VE 462), une preuve de plus de la relation troite entre les deux arbres dans les sources
cuniformes dj observe par Stol. En revanche, la forme lu-zu-um, videmment identique la dsignation de
lamandier dans quelques langues ouest-smitiques,87 traduit le sumrien gi.im.gam.gam dans VE 375, dont
lquivalent msopotamien rgulier est kukru, une plante aromatique discute en dtail par Stol (1979, pp. 1618).
37. Akk. tittu f i g u e , f i g u i e r, attest syllabiquement ds le palo-assyrien et le palo-babylonien (CAD T
435, AHw. 1363), montre un clair prcdent Ebla, savoir, ti--tum = sum. gi.p dans VE 368a (Catagnoti 2008,
p. 181).88
Le terme akkadien doit tre ramen la reconstruction proto-smitique *tain(-at)- (Fronzaroli 1969b, pp. 7, 25,
32) ou, comme la forme blate le montre, plutt *tiin(-at)-, atteste par ailleurs en oug. ti-[n]a?-[t]u (Huehnergard
1987, p. 184), hb. tn (HALOT 1675) et syr. tett (LSyr. 813). Le -n- prconsonantique, assimil au suffixe fminin
-t- en akkadien, devient manifeste dans le pluriel tntum, attest plusieurs fois dans les documents palo-babyloniens ainsi que dans le nom de mois palo-assyrien a tntim.
La forme arabe tn-, connue ds la fameuse sourate coranique qui porte son nom, est considre dhabitude comme un emprunt aramen (Jeffery 1938, pp. 9697), probablement juste titre une fois prise en compte
labsence du --.
Dans la liste lexicale Malku II 124, tittu dans la colonne de droite a pour quivalent ti--u (ti--) dans la colonne
de gauche, une forme probablement apparente pour laquelle une explication cohrente nous chappe. Un ouestsmitisme ne serait bien sr pas inattendu dans ce cas, mais aucune forme ouest-smitique nest mme de loin
analogue. Serait-il trop os de penser plutt un particularisme no-assyrien, avec le passage du -n- au -- dcrit
par W. von Soden dans GAG 33c?
38. Akk. au, attest dans quelques documents no-assyriens autant que dans les listes lexicales du premier
millnaire, a t identifi diffrentes sortes darbres fruitiers: prunier (Powell 2003, pp. 1819) ou pcher
86
La seule attestation sur laquelle cette normalisation aurait
pu thoriquement sappuyer tait lu-ud-di dans la ligne 83 de
la Lgende du roi de Cutha, correctement interprte par J. G.
Westenholz comme une forme verbale prcative luddi je vais
rejeter (1997, pp. 31618).
87
Lhbreu lz (HALOT 522), le syriaque lz (LSyr. 361), larabe

lawz- (Lane 1876, p. 2681).
88
Comme M. Krebernik (1983, p. 14) et E. Zurro (1983, p. 268)
lobservent juste titre, une lecture ti-ni-tum parat assez peu
probable dans ce cas.
255
(Postgate 1987, pp. 12030). Selon W. von Soden (AHw. 308, suivi par CDA 101), le mot akkadien est dj prsent
dans le palo-babylonien, mais la seule rfrence quil a pu citer ninspire pas beaucoup confiance.89
Le mot akkadien a t depuis longtemps identifi aux dsignations du prunier dans les langues ouest-smitiques, savoir, syr. a, (PS 1243, 1219), arb. aw- (Lane 1876, p. 820), gez. o (CDG 260). Selon P.
Fronzaroli (1969b, pp. 7, 25, 33), il sagit des rflexes dun terme proto-smitique *- prunier, mais on doit
admettre que la probabilit demprunt est trs haute dans ce cas. Cest surtout le terme akkadien la seule
attestation palo-babylonienne ntant pas assure qui parat un emprunt (un aramisme?) plutt quun mot
autochtone. On remarquera, dailleurs, que selon Fronzaroli cette forme est apparente quelques dsignations
darbrisseaux pineux sauvages90 et dsignerait donc, lorigine, le prunier sauvage (prunus spinosa), che si presenta appunto come un arbusto con rami terminanti in lunghe spine.
39. Le proto-smitique *tam(a)r- palmier dattier (Fronzaroli 1969a, pp. 291, 279, 300), reprsent par hb.
tmr (HALOT 1756), AJP twmrh (DJPA 577), ar. tamr- (Lane 1876, p. 317), sab. et min. tmr (Sima 2000, p. 246), gez.
tamr, tamart (CDG 576), mh. tmr (ML 402), jib. tmrt (JL 271), soq. timreh (LS 443), na laiss aucune trace dans
la langue akkadienne, qui dsigne le palmier par le sumrisime giimmaru, dont les graphies syllabiques, bien que
rares, sont clairement attestes ds le palo-babylonien (CAD G 102; AHw. 292; Lieberman 1987, p. 297).
Cependant, une certaine ressemblance entre le sumrien giimmar et le proto-smitique *tam(a)r- a men
quelques chercheurs penser que le terme sumrien lui-mme avait t emprunt au smitique. Plus concrtement, pour G. Pettinato (1981, p. 259) il sagirait dune fusion du sumrien gi arbre avec un terme smitique
rendu par lui comme samar.
Une telle tymologie quoi quelle soit tentante premire vue (Zurro 1983, p. 268) se heurte des obstacles redoutables dans les deux domaines sumrologique et smitologique.
La prsence de llment g i dans le mot sumrien est videmment difficile nier. Cependant, les plus
anciennes graphies syllabiques de la partie restante de ce mot (ni-in-bar, nim-mar, nim-bar) sur lesquelles se
base la reconstruction *gi+nimbar rcemment propos par K. Volk (2004, pp. 28384) ne sont compatibles avec
aucune forme smitique connue. De surcrot, il n y a pas de graphie qui montre un redoubl en sumrien un
redoublement qui serait plutt ncessaire dans une forme provenant du *gi + samar hypothtique.
Quant au smitique *samar-, une telle forme nexiste pas. La forme smitique standard est, comme on la vu,
*tam(a)r-. La forme *amar-, souvent perue comme une sorte de doublet du *tamar-, nest attest quen arabe et
le sudarabique pigraphique, o ces mots, par ailleurs, ne sappliquent pas au fruit du palmier mais fonctionnent
comme termes gnriques pour fruit (Lane 1876, p. 353; SD 150). Cest donc la forme blate sa-ma-lum, quivalente au sumrien gi.giimmar dans VE 399, qui doit attirer notre attention. Comme on le voit clairement, cette
forme correctement normalise comme *am(m)arum par Volk ne correspond rgulirement ni au *tamar-, ni
mme au *amar-: dans le dernier cas, on attendrait une graphie avec a. La judicieuse remarque de W. Lambert
(the irregular correspondences with the first consonant suggest a Kulturwort, 1989, p. 30) ne change pas grand-chose:
la nature de la forme blate reste nigmatique et il ne semble pas quune telle forme puisse servir comme base
plus au moins solide pour une tymologie smitique du sumrien giimmar.
VIII. La vigne
Limportance de la viniculture en Msopotamie tant assez rduite, on ne stonnera pas dobserver que la
plupart des termes ouest-smitiques communs ayant trait la vigne sont absents ou marginaliss en akkadien.
Il nous parat utile, toutefois, de discuter ici brivement quatre termes fondamentaux appartenant ce groupe.
40. Le proto-smitique *gapn- vigne (Fronzaroli 1969b, pp. 8, 25, 33) est bien attest dans les langues smitiques centrales, savoir oug. gpn (DUL 304), hb. gpn (HALOT 200), syr. gpett (LSyr. 128), ar. afn- (Lane 1876,
p. 434). En akkadien, gapnu et gupnu ne sont attests que dans les sources tardives (AHw. 281, 298; CAD G 44) et
pourraient tre considrs, en principe,comme des emprunts ouest-smitiques. Le vieux problme auquel cette
89
a--ib gia-e!?-e?, lu et interprt comme a--ib gia-a-a

the cutter of the fruit tree dans Leemans 1960, p. 26.
Hb. a (HALOT 296), syr. (LSyr. 226), tig. aot (WTS

58), tna. eot (TED 168).
90
256
Leonid Kogan
hypothse se heurte est le sens des termes akkadiens. F. Thureau-Dangin (1912, pp. 29, 4243) a t le premier
reconnatre quau moins gupnu fonctionnait comme une dsignation gnrique pour arbre dans les inscriptions
royales no-assyriennes. La mme traduction est probable pour les quelques attestations du gapnu. Dans les documents no-babyloniens, ce dernier terme sapplique clairement diffrentes sortes darbres fruitiers et ce nest
que dans un nombre rduit de passages quil dsigne spcifiquement la vigne. La diffrence smantique entre
les termes akkadiens et leur hypothtique source ouest-smitique parat suffisamment remarquable pour nous
faire douter quil sagisse dun vritable emprunt. B. Meissner (1931, pp. 2728) a voulu rsoudre ce problme en
remarquant que le *gapn- ouest-smitique sapplique parfois aux plantes autres que la vigne, mais le seul exemple
quil a pu citer le fameux gpn d dsignant les fruits du coloquinte dans le deuxime livre des Rois (4:39)
ne semble gure suffisant,le sens exclusif vigne tant trs stable dans tout le domaine ouest-smitique.
Pourrait-on supposer, en revanche, que gupnu et gapnu sont en ralit des mots akkadiens autochtones (ventuellement, des dialectismes assyriens, do leur absence dans les listes lexicales babyloniennes classiques), qui
ont peut-tre t contamins par le *gapn- vigne ouest-smitique,lequel, effectivement, aurait pu treemprunt
aux priodes les plus rcentes?91
Dans un tel contexte, il est intressant de suivre lhistoire du terme hittite ga-pa-nu/ka-pa-nu, rcemment
tudi en dtail dans Kassian, Korolv, et Sideltsev 2002, pp. 52324. Dans la plupart des contextes, ce terme
dsigne arbre, tronc (dans quelques passages, de faon remarquable, tige de la vigne)92 et il est bien sr tentant
dy voir un emprunt akkadien qui serait, en mme temps, le plus ancien tmoignage de lakkadien (assyrien?)
gapnu plusieurs centaines dannes avant les exemples no-assyriens mentionns ci-dessus.93
On remarquera, enfin, que selon E. Arcari (1984, p. 324) *gapn- a laiss quelques rflexes Ebla, savoir,
ga-p-na-na-u, gp-na-ne-u = sum. .tir (VE 1431, EV 0432) et ga-p-na-na- = sum. e.ninni (EV 0392). Cette
identification est tentante car il ny a pas de doute que les quivalents sumriens reprsentent des termes botaniques, mais la terminaison -na-ne-u/-na-na-u (un redoublement suivie par un accroissement guttural ou -y-)
reste compltement nigmatique.94
41. Le proto-smitique *inab- raisin est bien attest dans la plupart des langues ouest-smitiques: hb. nb
(HALOT 851), syr. enbt (LSyr. 534), ar. inab- (Lane 1876, p. 2167), sab. nb (SD 17). 95 La racine est aussi atteste en
ougaritique, mais sous une forme phontiquement inattendue nb (DUL 323). Il est bien probable que ce terme
soit prserv en akkadien comme inbu, attest syllabiquement ds les noms propres sargoniques. Le sens du mot
akkadien est cependant plus gnral, savoir, fruit (AHw. 381, CAD I 144).96
42. Le proto-smitique *Vkl- dsignait probablement un racme de fruits, en premier lieu, une grappe de
vigne: oug. ukl (DUL 125; Watson 2004, p. 120), hb. kl (HALOT 95), AJB itkl (DJBA 178), ar. ikl- (Lane 1876,
p. 21), gez. askl (CDG 42). La forme -k-lum, i-k-um dans VE 660, dont lquivalent sumrien est e.getin,
offre un excellent parallle aux termes ouest-smitiques sur les deux plans smantique et phonologique (Zurro
1983, pp. 266; Catagnoti 2008, p. 179).97
Il est bien sr difficile de sparer de ces termes lakkadien isunnatu/iunnatu, un mot relativement peu frquent qui dsigne la mme ralit (CAD I 190, AHw. 387), probablement dj dans le nom propre palo-babylonien
91
Cf. Fronzaroli 1969b, p. 8: un significato non specializzato, che
potrebbe essere pi antico di quello tecnico della viticoltura.
92
nam-ma gigetin ga-pa-nu i-tu t[g.k]a.d an-da u-u-lali-an-zi alors ils enveloppent une cein[ture de tiss]us autour de
la vigne (KUB 30, 19+vs. i 10).
93
On doit admettre, cependant, que dans certains contextes
le sens du terme hittite reste assez mal compris. Tel est, par
exemple, le cas du texte mdical StBoT 19, 18 i 1112 o ga-panu sapplique lail, au poireau et la plante ullittini: sum sar
ga-pa-nu ga.rasar ga-pa-nu u-ul-li-it-ti-in-ni-isar ga-pa-nu
(Burde 1974, p. 19).
94
Dans un tel contexte, lidentification avec kamnu cime, propose par Steinkeller (1992, p. 77) et dveloppe en dtail par
Catagnoti (2010, pp. 14346), devient prfrable.
95
Dans le dernier cas, avec un changement du sens en vignoble
discut par A. Sima (Sima 2000, p. 19596).
96
Au moins en thorie, le mot akkadien pourrait tre driv

dune autre racine smitique bien rpandue, savoir *Vbbpousse, germe, fleur, fruit: oug. ib fruit, fleur (DUL 4), hb.
b pousse, bb pi (HALOT 2, 4), syr. ebb fruit (LSyr. 1), ar.
abb- vgtation (Lane 1876, p. 3), amh. abba fleur (AED 1197).
Le plus grand obstacle pour cette tymologie qui reste mme
aujourdhui assez rpandue parmi les smitisants (HALOT 2; DUL
4; cf. Kaufman 1974, pp. 5859) est la ncessit de postuler le
dveloppement dissimilatoire *-bb- > -mb- > -nb- en akkadien,
assez difficile imaginer pour les phases les plus anciennes de
lhistoire de cette langue.
97
Comme on la reconnu depuis longtemps, le syllabogramme
i (lamkur) dans les syllabaires anciens est toujours rserv
rendre linterdentale sourde (Conti 1990, pp. 1214; Krebernik
1988, p. 50).
257
is-u-na-tum (TCL 1,222:11, 27). Les irrgularits phonologiques trs importantes auxquelles cette comparaison
se heurte restent inexplicables.
43. Le proto-smitique *karm- vignoble est bien attest dans les langues centro-smitiques: oug. krm (DUL
455), hb. krm (HALOT 498), syr. karm (LSyr. 347), ar. karm- (WKAS K 140). Ce terme a t souvent rapproch du
sumrien ka-ra-an, qui sapplique pour la premire fois, dans le document UET 9,128:4, datant de la troisime
dynastie dUr aux racmes de diffrentes sortes des fruits (pommes, figues, prunes, vigne). Dans le cadre de
cette hypothse, lakkadien karnu vigne, fruit de la vigne mais surtout vin (CAD K 202, AHw. 446) est expliqu
comme un r-emprunt au sumrien.
La comparaison entre le sumrien ka-ra-an et le smitique karm-, propose par A. Poebel (1930, p. 149) et
accepte par beaucoup dauteurs jusqu nos jours (Fronzaroli 1969b, p. 78, 25, 33; Steiner 2003, p. 633),pose
cependant plusieurs problmes suffisamment graves pour mriter quon les prenne en compte: (1) le changement
du -m- en -n, (2) le passage smantique inattendu (dans aucune langue ouest-smitique les rflexes de *karm- ne
sappliquent aux fruits de la vigne, mais dsignent plus ou moins strictement lespace o la vigne est plante) et,
enfin, (3) la ncessit de postuler une source smitique autre que lakkadien (o *karm- nexiste pas avec ce sens).
Dans de telles conditions, il nous parat prfrable de ne pas associer ka-ra-an/karnu avec le proto-smitique *karm-. Le vritable parallle akkadien pour ce dernier serait, en revanche, karmucolline (CAD K 218, AHw.
449), un rapprochement accept par von Soden qui trouve une intressante confirmation dans le sudarabique
moderne, savoir, le mhri krmym, la dsignation principale de la montagne dans cette langue (ML 214). Cette
comparaison, propose par W. W. Mller (1985, p. 272), implique quun ancien terme topographique ait prserv
son sens originel dans les zones latrales (akkadien et sudarabique moderne), le sens vignoble tant une innovation des langues smitiques centrales.
IX. Les champignons

44. Lakkadien kamatu est traduit traditionnellement comme truffe (CAD K 120, AHw. 432). Depuis la premire
identification de ce terme par Ch.-F. Jean (1957), kamatu a t discut plusieurs reprises (voir, par exemple, Stol
1978, p. 220; Charpin 1989; Heimpel 1997). Aujourdhui, la question de lidentit biologique du champignon en
question parat tre dfinitivement rsolue,98 mais il n y a gure de consensus propos de la nature diachronique
du terme akkadien. Pour A. Salonen (1952, p. 3) et R. Zadok (1993, p. 325) il sagit dun emprunt ouest-smitique.
Telle parat tre aussi lopinion de J.-M. Durand qui qualifie kamatu comme un terme occidental (1997, p. 312).
M. Streck, au contraire, ne voit aucune raison pour considrer kamatu comme un ouest-smitisme, en lexcluant
explicitement de la liste des emprunts ouest-smitiques dans son ouvrage sur lanthroponymie amorrite (2000,
p. 101).
La question est, effectivement, difficile rsoudre, et il vaut la peine dvaluer soigneusement les possibles
pros et contras de chacune des deux hypothses.
Comme J.-M. Durand lobserve juste titre, les attestations de kamatu clairement prdominent dans les
sources occidentales. plusieurs attestations mariotes on peut ajouter maintenant le terme blate k-ma-a-tum/
kam-ma-a-tum qui dsigne un objet mtallique (une poigne?), probablement en forme de champignon (Pasquali
2005b, pp. 12932; Pasquali 2005a). En revanche, CAD K 120 ne cite quun seul exemple palo-babylonien non-mariote, savoir, la lettre ABIM 5:18, o la forme lue comme i-a-tim!? par lditeur a t corrige en *kam-a-tim
par B. Landsberger (1964, p. 250). Dans la mesure o la provenance de la lettre est sud-babylonienne (Larsa), on
devrait supposer que kamatu tait connu aussi dans les rgions fort loignes de lespace occidental de la civilisation cuniforme. Toutefois, les donnes contradictoires sur la lecture de la forme en question doivent nous
faire viter des conclusions prmatures.
Dans de telles conditions, un emprunt ouest-smitique parat, en effet, assez probable99 La forme ka--ma-t
dans Uruanna III 321 noffre pas dobstacle pour une telle interprtation car un emprunt plus au moins exotique
98
Comme le signale J.-M. Durand (1997, p. 312), ce mot dsignait

probablement une espce de champignon autre que la truffe.
On doit consulter aussi la synthse rcente dans la dissertation
dHerv Reculeu pour lequel il sagit dun reprsentant de la

famille terfezia.
99
Un akkadisme en arabe suppos par H. Zimmern (1917, p. 57)
devient, au contraire, presque impossible.
258
Leonid Kogan
nest gure inattendu dans cette immense collection des termes botaniques. De mme pour le document nobabylonien Ni. 528:5 o la prsence de ce terme a t suppose par R. Zadok (1997).100
Un obstacle plus gnant est fourni par les mots akkadiens kamnu (CAD K 133, AHw. 434) et kammu (CAD K
125, AHw. 433). Au moins dans le premier cas, la traduction une sorte de champignon est trs probable grce
lquivalent sumrien uzu.dir dans les listes lexicales, identifi au champignon par B. Landsberger (1934, p.
111) dans la composition littraire sumrienne Le mythe de Martu (Klein 1997, p. 112, l. 135). Or, les deux mots
kamnu et kammu sont trs bien documents dans diffrents types de sources akkadiennes du premier millnaire,
ce qui serait assez improbable dans le cas dun ouest-smitisme.
Il nous reste, finalement, tudier les parallles ouest-smitiques. Dans la littrature assyriologique, cest le
terme arabe kamat- qui est le plus souvent mis en rapport avec le mot akkadien, ce qui est bien comprhensible
vu la prsence massive de ce terme dans les sources arabes classiques (quelques douzaines dattestations dans
WKAS K 346) et sa persistance dans les parlers modernes, y compris ceux de la rgion syrienne du Moyen Euphrate.
On remarquera, cependant, que kmhim, kmht sont plusieurs fois attests dans les sources hbraques rabbiniques.101 Ces parallles nous montrent clairement que lemprunt ouest-smitique en akkadien envisag ci-dessus
ne doit pas ncessairement tre conu comme un emprunt une langue du type nord-arabique: il sagit, selon
toute vraisemblance, dun mot assez rpandu dans lancien domaine linguistique syro-palestinien,102 bien que la
diffrence consonantique entre larabe (--) et lhbreu (-h-) reste mal comprise.
Abrviations
ABIM
AED
AHw.
ARM
Baranov
BDB
Behnstedt
BK
CAD
CDA
CDG
DJPA
DLU
DM
DNWSI
Dozy
100
A. al-Zeebari. Altbabylonische Briefe des Iraq-Museums. Mnster, 1964

T. L. Kane. Amharic-English Dictionary. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1990
W. von Soden. Akkadisches Handwrterbuch. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 19651981
Archives royales de Mari
. . . - .
F. Brown, S. R. Driver, et Ch. A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon,
1951
P. Behnstedt. Die nordjemenitischen Dialekte, Teil II: Glossar. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 19922006
A. de Biberstein-Kazimirski. Dictionnaire arabe-franais. Paris: Maison-neuve et cie, 1860
A. Leo Oppenheim et al., ds. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 19562010
J. Black, A. George, et N. Postgate. A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000
W. Leslau. Comparative Dictionary of Geez (Classical Ethiopic). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1987
M. Sokoloff. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University
Press, 1990
G. del Olmo Lete et J. Sanmartn. Diccionario de la lengua ugartica. Aula orientalis. Supplementa 78.
Barcelona: Editorial AUSA, 19962000
E. S. Drower et R. Macuch. A Mandaic Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon, 1963
J. Hoftijzer et K. Jongeling. Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions. Leyde: Brill, 1995
R. Dozy. Supplment au dictionnaires arabes. Leyde: Brill, 1927
Dailleurs, la traduction champignon ne parat pas vidente

dans un contexte qui parle dun terrain cultiv: elat e.numun.
me ka-ma-a-t e.numun.me as-pa-as-ti (not in arable lands
planted with k. (and) the arable lands planted with lucerne? dans la
traduction de M. Stolper, qui prfre penser une variante du
terme botanique kamantu (Donbaz et Stolper 1997, p. 98).
En revanche, kmhh en judo-aramen palestinien nest attest

quune seule fois (DJPA 262). Pour une possible attestation en
cuniforme syllabique Ougarit, voir Huehnergard 1987, p. 136.
102
Pour A. Salonen (1952, p. 2; cf. Zimmern 1917, p. 57), il sagit
dun emprunt aramen en arabe, ce qui est plutt improbable.
101

DRS
DUL
259
D. Cohen. Dictionnaire des racines smitiques ou attestes dans les langues smitiques. Paris: Mouton, 1970
G. del Olmo Lete et J. Sanmartn. A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition. Leyde:
Brill, 2003
EDG
W. Leslau. Etymological Dictionary of Gurage (Ethiopic), Vol. 3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1979
EDH
W. Leslau. Etymological Dictionary of Harari. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1963
EV
Extracts from the Vocabulary of Ebla, dans MEE 4
Frisk
H. Frisk. Griechisches etymologisches Wrterbuch. Heidelberg: Winter, 1960
GAG
W. von Soden. Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik. Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1995
HALOT
L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, et J. J. Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leyde:
Brill, 19942000
HSS
Harvard Semitic Studies
HW III
J. Friedrich, A. Kammenhuber, et I. Hoffmann. Hethitisches Wrterbuch. III/17. Heidelberg: Winter, 2007
Iraq 16
C. J. Gadd. Inscribed Prisms of Sargon II from Nimroud. Iraq 16/2 (1954): 175201
ITT
Inventaire des tablettes de Tello
Jastrow
M. Jastrow. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. New
York: Judaica, 1996
JL
T. M. Johnstone. Jibbli Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981
KAJ
E. Ebeling. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur juristischen Inhalts. Wissenschaftliche Verffentlichung der Deutschen
Orient-Gesellschaft 50. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1927
KTU
M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, et J. Sanmartn. Die Keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. Alter Orient und Altes
Testament 24/1. Kevelaer: Butzon und Bercker, 1976
LA
Ibn Manr. Lisn al-arab. Bayrt: Dr dir, 19551956
LIQ
S. D. Ricks. Lexicon of Inscriptional Qatabanian. Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1989
LM
M. Arbach. Le mabien: lexique, onomastique et grammaire dune langue de lArabie mridionale prislamique.
Tome 1. Lexique mabien. Aix-en-Provence, 1993
LS
W. Leslau. Lexique Soqori (Sudarabique moderne) avec comparaisons et explications tymologiques. Paris:
Klincksieck, 1938
LSyr.
C. Brockelmann. Lexicon Syriacum. Halle: M. Niemeyer, 1928
LXX Septuagint
MAD
Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary
MC 4
Piotr Steinkeller. Third-Millennium Legal and Administrative Texts in the Iraq Museum, Baghdad. Mesopotamian Civilizations 4. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992
MD
Mandaic Dictionary
MEE 3
Giovanni Pettinato. Testi lessicali monolingui della Biblioteca L. 2769. Materiali epigrafici di Ebla 3. Napoli:
Istituto universitario orientale di Napoli, 1981
MEE 4
Giovanni Pettinato. Testi lessicali bilingui della biblioteca L. 2769. Materiali epigrafici di Ebla 4. Napoli:
Istituto universitario orientale di Napoli, 1982
OIP 99
R. D. Biggs. Inscriptions from Tell Ab albkh. Oriental Institute Publications 99. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1974
T. M. Johnstone. Mehri Lexicon and English-Mehri word-list. London: School of Oriental and African Studies,
ML
University of London, 1987
PRU
Palais royal dUgarit. Mission de Ras Shamra. Paris: Impr. Nationale, 1956
PS
R. Payne Smith. Thesaurus Syriacus. Oxford: Clarendon, 18791901
PSD
. Sjberg, d. The Sumerian Dictionary of the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: Babylonian Section of the University Museum, 1984
Puhvel
J. Puhvel. Hittite Etymological Dictionary, Vol. 4: Words beginning with K. Berlin: Mouton, 1997
RA
Revue dAssyriologie et dArchologie Orientale
Museum siglum of the Louvre and Damascus (Ras Shamra)
RS
SD
A. F. L. Beeston, . A. Ghul, W. W. Mller, et J. Ryckmans. Dictionnaire saben (anglais-franais-arabe).
Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters, 1982
A. Militarev et L. Kogan. Semitic Etymological Dictionary, Vol. 1: Anatomy of Man and Animals. Mnster:
SED I
Ugarit-Verlag, 2000
A. Militarev et L. Kogan. Semitic Etymological Dictionary, Vol. 2: Animal Names. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag,
SED II
2005
SL
M. Sokoloff. A Syriac Lexicon. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009
260
Leonid Kogan
SRU
StBoT
TCL
TED
UET
VE
Wb.
WH
WKAS
WTS
YOS
D. O. Edzard, Sumerische Rechtsurkunden des III. Jahrtausends. Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, neue Folge, 67. Mnchen: Verlag der Bayerischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1968
Studien zu den Bogazky-Texten
Textes cuniformes, Muses du Louvre
T. L. Kane. Tigrinya-English Dictionary. Springfield: Dunwoody, 2000
Ur Excavations, Texts
Vocabulario di Ebla (= MEE 4, 1982)
A. Erman et E. Grapow. Wrterbuch der aegyptischen Sprache. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1955
A. Walde et J. Hofmann. Lateinisches etymologisches Wrterbuch. Heidelberg: Winter, 1938
Wrterbuch der Klassischen Arabischen Sprache. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1957
E. Littmann et M. Hfner. Wrterbuch der Tigr-Sprache. Tigr-deutsch-englisch. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1956
Yale Oriental Series, Babylonian Texts
Noms des langues

AJP
aramen judo-palstinien
akk. akkadien
amh. amharique
ar. arabe
aram. aramen
gez. guze
har. harari
hb. hbreu
jib. jibbali
mand. manden
mh. mhri
min. minen
off.
aramen officiel
oug. ougaritique
ph. phnicien
qat. qatabanien
SAE
sudarabique pigraphique
sab. saben
soq. soqotri
sum. sumrien
syr. syriaque
tig. tigr
tgn. tigrinya
Bibliographie
Arcari, E.
1984
Il bilinguismo nei testi amministrativi di Ebla. Dans Il bilinguismo a Ebla (atti del convegno internazionale, Napoli, 1922 aprile, 1982), dit par L. Cagni, pp. 31927. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale.
Belmonte, J.
1993
Los productos vegetales de KTU 1.100:6467. Aula Orientalis 11/1: 11415.
Biella, J. C.
1982
Dictionary of Old South Arabic (Sabaean Dialect). Chico: Scholars Press.
Biggs, R. D.
1989
Birot, M.
1960
Blau, J.
1982
An Old Akkadian Literary Text from Umm al-Hafriyat. Dans DUMU-E-DUB-BA-A: Studies in Honor of
ke W. Sjberg, dit par H. Behrens, D. Loding, et M. T. Roth, pp. 3336. Occasional Publications of the
Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 11. Philadelphia: The University Museum.
Textes administratifs de la salle 5 du palais. Archives Royales de Mari 9. Paris: Impr. Nationale.
On Polyphony in Biblical Hebrew. Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 6/2.
Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.
Bonechi, M.
2008
Synthetic Writings at Ebla. NABU: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brves et Utilitaires 2008/2: 26.
Borger, R.
2004
Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexikon. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 305. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Bottro, J.
1957
Textes conomiques et administratifs. Archives royales de Mari 7. Paris: Impr. Nationale.
Buck, C.
1949
Burde, C.
1974
Catagnoti, A.
2007
2008
2010
Cavigneaux, A.
2005
A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Hethitische medizinische Texte. Studien zu den Boazky-Texten 19. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Il lessico dei vegetali ad Ebla, 1. Aglio, cipolla, porro. Quaderni del Dipartimento di Linguistica 17: 21532.
Il lessico dei vegetali ad Ebla, 2. La frutta (parte I): Uva, fico, mela. Quaderni del Dipartimento di Linguistica 18: 17587.
Il lessico dei vegetali ad Ebla, 3. Piante aromatiche (parte I): cumino e timo. Quaderni del Dipartimento
di Linguistica 20: 14349.
Les soires sargoniques des marchands assyriens. Dans : Mlanges offerts Andr Hurst,
dit par A. Kolde, A. Lukinovich, et A.-L. Rey, pp. 595602. Recherches et Rencontres 22. Geneva: Droz.
Chantraine, P.
1968
Dictionnaire tymologique de la langue grecque. Paris: Klincksieck.
Charpin, D.
1989
Cueillette de champignons. NABU: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brves et Utilitaires 1989/3: 58.
Ciancaglini, C. A.
2008
Iranian Loanwords in Syriac. Beitrge zur Iranistik 28. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Civil, M.
1987
2007
2008
261
The Early History of ar-ra: The Ebla Link. Dans Ebla 19751985: dieci anni di studi linguistici e filologici
(atti del convegno internazionale, Napoli, 911 ottobre, 1985), dit par L. Cagni, pp. 13158. Series
minor 27. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale.
Early Semitic Loanwords in Sumerian. Dans Studies Presented to Robert D. Biggs, dit par M. T. Roth, W.
Farber, M. W. Stolper, et P. von Bechtolsheim, pp. 1133. Assyriological Studies 27. Chicago: The Oriental
Institute.
The Early Dynastic Practical Vocabulary A (Archaic HAR-ra A). Archivi reali di Ebla, Studi 4. Rome: Missione
archeologica italiana in Siria.
Cohen, H., et D. Sivan

1983
The Ugaritic Hippiatric Texts: A Critical Edition. American Oriental Society Essays 9. New Haven: American
Oriental Society.
Conti, G.
1990
Il sillabario della quarta fonte della lista lessicale bilingue eblaita. Miscellanea Eblaitica 3. Quaderni di Semitistica 17. Florence: Universit di Firenze, Dipartimento di Linguistica.
262
Leonid Kogan
del Olmo Lete, G.

2004
Dercksen, J. G.
2005
Canaanite Religion According to the Liturgical Texts of Ugarit. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Adad is King! The Sargon Text from Kltepe. Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap Ex
Oriente Lux 39: 10729.
Donbaz, V., et M. W. Stolper

Istanbul Mura Texts. Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 79.
1997
Leyde: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.
Durand, J.-M.
1983
1997
1998
2001
Edzard, D. O.
1961
Textes administratifs des salles 134 et 160 du palais de Mari. Archives royales de Mari 21. Paris: Librairie
Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.
Les documents pistolaires du palais de Mari I. Littratures anciennes du Proche-Orient 16. Paris: ditions
du Cerf.
Les documents pistolaires du palais de Mari II. Littratures anciennes du Proche-Orient 17. Paris: ditions
du Cerf.
Une alliance matrimoniale entre un marchand assyrien de Kanesh et un marchand mariote. Dans
Veenhof Anniversary Volume: Studies Presented to Klaas R. Veenhof on the Occasion of His Sixty-fifth Birthday,
dit par W. H. van Soldt, J. G. Dercksen, N. J. C. Kouwenberg, et Th. J. H. Krispijn, pp. 11932. Uitgaven
van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 89. Leyde: Nederlands Instituut
voor het Nabije Oosten.
Compte-rendu de Gelb 1957. Zeitschrift fr Assyriologie 54: 25764.
Ernout, A., et A. Meillet

1967
Dictionnaire tymologique de la langue latine. Paris: Klincksieck.
Faber, A.
1984
Semitic Sibilants in an Afro-Asiatic Context. Journal of Semitic Studies 29/2: 189224.
Farber, W.
1991 Altassyrisch adda und azuann, oder von Safran, Fenchel, Zwiebeln und Salat. Zeitschrift fr Assyriologie 81: 23442.
Frisk, H.
1960
Fronzaroli, P.
1969a
1969b
1984a
1984b
Gelb, I. J.
1957
1961
Griechisches etymologisches Wrterbuch. Indogermanische Bibliothek, II. Reihe, Wrterbcher. Heidelberg:

Carl Winter.
Studi sul lessico comune semitico. V. La natura domestica. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Rendiconti
VIII/XXIII/712: 267303.
Studi sul lessico comune semitico. VI. La natura selvatica. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Rendiconti
VIII/XXIV/712: 136.
The Eblaic Lexicon: Problems and Appraisal. Dans Studies on the language of Ebla, dit par Pelio Fronzaroli, pp. 117-57. Quaderni di semitistica 13. Florence: Istituto di linguistica e di lingue orientali,
Universit di Firenze.
Materiali per il lessico eblaita. Studi Eblaiti 7: 14590.
Glossary of Old Akkadian. Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary 3. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Old Akkadian Writing and Grammar. 2me dition. Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gelb, I. J.; P. Steinkeller; et R. M. Whiting

1991
Earliest Land Tenure Systems in the Near East: Ancient Kudurrus. Oriental Institute Publications 104. Chicago:
The Oriental Institute.
Gnbatt, C.
1997
Kltepeden akadli Sargona it bir tablet. Archivum Anatolicum 3: 13155.
Hasselbach, R.
2005
Sargonic Akkadian. A Historical and Comparative Study of the Syllabic Texts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Hehn, V.
1902
263
Kulturpflanzen und Hausthiere in ihrem bergang aus Asien nach Griechenland und Italien sowie in das brige
Europa. 7me dition. Berlin: Gebrder Borntraeger.
Heimpel, W.
1997 Mushrooms. NABU: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brves et Utilitaires 1997/1: 3.
Hrozn, F.
1913
Das Getreide im alten Babylonien. Vienna: Hlder.
Huehnergard, J.
1987
1992
Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription. Harvard Semitic Studies 32. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Historical Phonology and the Hebrew Piel. Dans Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, dit par W. R. Bodine,
pp. 20929. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
2007 qtl and qtl Nouns in Biblical Hebrew. Shaarei Lashon: Studies in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Jewish Languages
Presented to Moshe Bar-Asher, dit par A. Maman, S. E. Fassberg, et Y. Breuer, pp. 345. Jerusalem: Mosad
Byali.
Jamme, A.
1962
Sabaean Inscriptions from Maram Bilqs (Mrib). Publications of the American Foundation for the Study
of Man 3. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.
Jean, C.-F.
1957 Kam-a-tum truffes (?). Revue dassyriologie et darchologie orientale 43:8992.
Jeffery, A.
1938
The Foreign Vocabulary of the Quran. Gaekwads Oriental Series 79. Baroda: Oriental Institute.
Kassian, A; A. Korolv; et A. Sideltsev

2002
Hittite Funerary Ritual alli watai. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 288. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Kaufman, S.
1974
Kienast, B.
1994
Klein, J.
1997
The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic. Assyriological Studies 19. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Glossar zu den altakkadischen Knigsinschriften. Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 8. Stuttgart: Franz
Steiner.
The God Martu in Sumerian Literature. Dans Sumerian Gods and Their Representations, dit par I. L.
Finkel et M. J. Geller, pp. 99116. Cuneiform Monographs 7. Groningen: STYX Publications.
Klein, J., et K. Abraham

2000
Problems of Geography in the Gilgame Epics: The Journey to the Cedar Forest. Dans Landscapes:
Territories, Frontiers and Horizons in the Ancient Near East (papers presented to the XLIV Rencontre assyriologique internationale, Venezia, 711 July 1997), dit par L. Milano, pp. 6373. History of the Ancient
Near East, Monographs 3/1. Padova: Sargon.
Kogan, L.
2001 * in Akkadian. Ugarit-Forschungen 33: 26398.
2005
Lexicon of the Old Aramaic Inscriptions and the Historical Unity of Aramaic. Babel und Bibel 2: 51366.
2006
Old Assyrian vs. Old Babylonian: The Lexical Dimension. Dans The Akkadian Language in its Semitic Context, dit par G. Deutscher et N. J. C. Kouwenberg, pp. 177214. Uitgaven van het Nederlands Instituut
voor het Nabije Oosten te Leiden 106. Leyde: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.
2011
Old Babylonian Copies of Sargonic Royal Inscriptions as Linguistic Evidence. Dans Akkade is King: A
Collection of Papers by Friends and Colleagues Presented to Aage Westenholz On the Occasion of His 70th Birthday
15th of May 2009, dit par G. Barjamovic, J. L. Dahl, U. S. Koch, W. Sommerfeld, et J. Goodnick Westenholz, pp. 177204. Uitgaven van het Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten te Leiden 118. Leyde:
Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.
Kouwenberg, N. J. C.
2006
The Reflexes of the Proto-Semitic Gutturals in Old Assyrian. Dans The Akkadian Language in Its Semitic
Context, dit par G. Deutscher et N. J. C. Kouwenberg, pp. 15076. Uitgaven van het Nederlands Instituut
voor het Nabije Oosten te Leiden 106. Leyde: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.
264
Leonid Kogan
Krebernik, M.
1982
1983
1984
1988
1997
1998
2001
Lambert, W. G.
1987
1989
Landsberger, B.
1934
1964
1967
Zu Syllabar und Orthographie der lexikalischen Texte aus Ebla. Teil 1. Zeitschrift fr Assyriologie 72:
178236.
Zu Syllabar und Orthographie der lexikalischen Texte aus Ebla. Teil 2 (Glossar). Zeitschrift fr Assyriologie 73: 147.
Die Beschwrungen aus Fara und Ebla. Texte und Studien zur Orientalistik 2. Hildesheim: Olms.
Prefixed Verbal Forms in Personal Names from Ebla. Dans Eblaite Personal Names and Semitic NameGiving, dit par A. Archi, pp. 4569. Rome: Missione archeologica italiana in Siria.
Zur Interpretation von ARET 5, 2426. Dans Ana ad Labnni l allik: Beitrge zu altorientalischen und
mittelmeerischen Kulturen. Festschrift fr Wolfgang Rllig, dit par B. Pongratz-Leisten, H. Khne, et P.
Xella, pp. 18592. Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker.
Die Texte aus Fra und Tell Ab alb. Dans Mesopotamien: Spturuk-Zeit und Frhdynastische Zeit,
par J. Bauer, R. K. Englund, et M. Krebernik, pp. 235428. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 160/1. Freiburg:
Universittsverlag.
Tall Bia/Tuttul, II: Die altorientalischen Schriftfunde. Ausgrabungen in Tall Bia-Tuttul 2. Wissenschaftliche Verffentlichung der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 100. Saarbrcken: Saarbrcker Druckerei und
Verlag.
A Further Attempt at the Babylonian Man and His God. Dans Language, Literature, and History: Philological and Historical Studies Presented to Erica Reiner, dit par F. Rochberg-Halton, pp. 187202. American
Oriental Series 67. New Haven: American Oriental Society.
Notes on a Work of the Most Ancient Semitic Literature. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 41/1: 133.
Die fauna des alten Mesopotamien nach der 14. tafel der serie ar-ra = ubullu. Abhandlungen der Schsischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philologisch-Historische Klasse 42/6. Leipzig: S. Hirzel.
Einige unerkannt gebliebene oder verkannte Nomina des Akkadischen. Die Welt des Orients 3: 24668.
The Date-palm and Its By-products according to the Cuneiform Sources. Archiv fr Orientforschung, Beiheft
17. Graz: Weidner.
Landsberger, B., et O. R. Gurney

19571958
Practical Vocabulary of Assur. Archiv fr Orientforschung 18: 32841.
Lane, E. W.
1876
Leemans, W. F.
1960
An Arabic-English Lexicon. London: Williams and Norgate.

Legal and Administrative Documents of the Time of Hammurabi and Samsuiluna (mainly from Lagaba). Studia
ad tabulas cuneiformes collectas ab de Liagre Bhl pertinentia 1/3. Leyde: Brill.
Lieberman, S. J.
1977
The Sumerian Loanwords in Old Babylonian Akkadian. Harvard Semitic Studies 22. Missoula: Scholars Press.
Lw, I.
1881
Aramische Pflanzennamen. Leipzig: Engelmann.
Meissner, B.
1931
Michel, C.
1997
2001
Beitrge zum assyrischen Wrterbuch, Volume 1. Assyriological Studies 1. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
A table avec les marchands palo-assyriens. Dans Assyrien im Wandel der Zeiten (XXXIXe Rencontre
assyriologique internationale, Heidelberg, 6.10. Juli 1992), dit par H. Waetzoldt et H. Hauptmann,
pp. 95113. Heidelberger Studien zum alten Orient 6. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag.
Le lapis-lazuli des assyriens au dbut du IIe millnaire av. J.-C. Dans Veenhof Anniversary Volume: Studies Presented to Klaas R. Veenhof on the Occasion of His Sixty-fifth Birthday, dit par W. H. van Soldt, J. G.
Dercksen, N. J. C. Kouwenberg, et Th. J. H. Krispijn, pp. 34059. Uitgaven van het Nederlands HistorischArchaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 89. Leyde: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.
Militarev, A.
1999
265
Sumerian-Afrasian Language Contacts. Dans Landwirtschaft im Alten Orient (ausgewhlte Vortrge der
XLI. Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Berlin, 4.8. Juli 1994), dit par H. Klengel et J. Renger,
pp. 393402. Berlin: D. Reimer.
Miller, A. G., et M. Morris

2004
Ethnoflora of the Soqotra Archipelago. Edinburgh: Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh.
Morris, M.
2002
Mller, W. W.
1985
Nougayrol, J.
1952
Pardee, D.
1985
1988
2000
2002
Plant Names in Dhofar and the Soqotra Archipelago. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 32:
4761.
Beitrge aus dem Mehri zum etymologischen Teil des hebrischen Lexikons. Dans Mlanges linguistiques
offerts Maxime Rodinson par ses lves, ses collgues et ses amis, dit par C. Robin, pp. 26778. Comptes
rendus du Groupe linguistique dtudes chamito-smitiques. Supplment 12. Paris: P. Geuthner.
Une version ancienne du juste souffrant. Revue biblique 59: 23950.
Les textes hippiatriques. Ras Shamra-Ougarit 2. Mmoire, ditions Recherche sur les civilisations, 53.
Paris: ditions Recherche sur les civilisations.
Les textes para-mythologiques de la 24e campagne (1961). Ras Shamra-Ougarit 4. Mmoire, ditions Recherche
sur les civilisations, 77. Paris: ditions Recherche sur les civilisations.
Les textes rituels. Ras Shamra-Ougarit 12. Paris: ditions recherche sur les civilisations.
Un nouveau mot ougaritique. Aula Orientalis 20: 16382.
Pasquali, J.
2005a Eblaita kamtum = (pomelli a forma di) fungo. NABU: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brves et Utilitaires
2005/3: 52.
Il lessico dellartigianato nei testi di Ebla. Quaderni di semitistica 23. Firenze: Dipartimento di linguistica,
2005b
Universit di Firenze.
Pentiuc, E. J.
2001
Pettinato, G.
1981
West Semitic Vocabulary in the Akkadian Texts from Emar. Harvard Semitic Museum Publications, Harvard
Semitic Studies 49. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
I vocabolari bilingui di Ebla: Problemi di traduzione e di lessicografia sumerico-eblaita. Dans La lingua
di Ebla (atti del convegno internazionale, Napoli, 2123 aprile 1980), dit par L. Cagni, pp. 24176. Series
minor (Istituto universitario orientale, Naples, Italy). Seminario di studi asiatici 14. Naples: Istituto
universitario orientale, Seminario di studi asiatici.
Poebel, A.
1930
Sumerische Untersuchungen IV. Zeitschrift fr Assyriologie 39: 12964.
Postgate, J. N.
1987
Notes on Fruit in the Cuneiform Sources. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 3: 11544.
Powell, M.
1984
2003
Sumerian Cereal Crops. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 1: 4872.

Obst und Gemse. Reallexikon der Assyriologie 10: 1322.
Reiter, K.
1997
Salonen, A.
1952
Sima, A.
2000
2009
Die Metalle im Alten Orient: Unter besonderer Bercksichtigung altbabylonischer Quellen. Alter Orient und Altes
Testament 249. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Alte Substrat- und Kulturwrter im Arabischen. Studia Orientalia 17/2. Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica.
Tiere, Pflanzen, Steine und Metalle in den altsdarabischen Inschriften: Eine lexikalische und realienkundliche
Untersuchung. Verffentlichungen der Orientalischen Kommission 46. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Mehri-Texte aus der jemenitischen arqyah. Semitica Viva 47. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
266
Leonid Kogan
Sjberg, . W.
1999
2003
Sommerfeld, W.
2006
2010
Stein, P.
2010
Steiner, G.
2003
Steiner, R. C.
1977
2005
Steinkeller, P.
1992
Notes on Selected Entries from the Ebla Vocabulary. e3-bar-kin5 (II). Dans Munuscula Mesopotamica:
Festschrift fr Johannes Renger, dit par B. Bck, E. Cancik-Kirschbaum, et T. Richter, pp. 51352. Alter
Orient und Altes Testament 267. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Notes on Selected Entries from the Ebla Vocabulary. e3-bar-kin5 (I). Dans Festschrift fr Burkhart Kienast:
zu seinem 70. Geburtstage dargebracht von Freunden, Schlern und Kollegen, dit par G. J. Selz, pp. 52768.
Alter Orient und Altes Testament 274. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Die ltesten semitischen Sprachzeugnisse eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme. Dans The Akkadian
Language in Its Semitic Context, dit par G. Deutscher et N. J. C. Kouwenberg, pp. 3075. Uitgaven van
het Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten te Leiden 106. Leyde: Nederlands Instituut voor het
Nabije Oosten.
Pr-Akkadisch: Die Vorlufer der Sprache von Akkade in der frhdynastischen Zeit. Dans Language
in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 53e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale,Volume 1, Part 1, dit
par L. Kogan, N. Koslova, S. Loesov, et S. Tishchenko, pp. 77163. Orientalia et Classica 30. Babel und
Bibel 4/1. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Die altsdarabischen Minuskelinschriften auf Holzstbchen aus der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek in Mnchen.
Epigraphische Forschungen auf der Arabischen Halbinsel 5. Tbingen: Wasmuth.
Akkadische Lexeme im Sumerischen. Dans Semitic and Assyriological Studies: Presented to Pelio Fronzaroli
by Pupils and Colleagues, dit par P. Marrassini, pp. 63047. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
The Case for the Fricative-Laterals in Proto-Semitic. American Oriental Series 59. New Haven: American
Oriental Society.
On the Dating of Hebrew Sound Changes (* > and * > ) and Greek Translations (2 Esdras and
Judith). Journal of Biblical Literature 124/2: 22967.
Third-Millennium Legal and Administrative Texts in the Iraq Museum, Baghdad. Mesopotamian Civilizations
Stol, M.
1978
Compte-rendu de Lettres de Yaqqim-Addu, gouverneur de Sagartum, transcites, traduites et commentes et

Lettres de Yaqqim-Addu, gouverneur de Sagartum, par M. Birot. Bibliotheca Orientalis 35: 21721.
1979
On Trees, Mountains and Millstones in the Ancient Near East. Mededelingen en verhandelingen van het
Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux 21. Leyde: Ex Oriente Lux.
1985
Beans, Peas, Lentils and Vetches in Akkadian Texts. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 2: 12739.
1989 Malz. Reallexikon der Assyriologie 7: 32229.
1987a
The Cucurbitaceae in the Cuneiform Texts. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 3: 8192.
1987b
Garlic, Onion, Leek. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 3: 5780.
Streck, M. P.
2000
2004
Strelcyn, S.
1973
Das amurritische Onomastikon der altbabylonischen Zeit. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 271. Mnster:
Ugarit-Verlag.
Dattelpalme und Tamariske in Mesopotamien nach dem akkadischen Streitgesprch. Zeitschrift fr
Assyriologie 94: 25090.
Mdecine et plantes dthiopie, II: Enqute sur les noms et lemploi des plantes en thiopie. Naples: Istituto
Orientale di Napoli.
Cogan, M., et H. Tadmor

1988
II Kings: A New Translation. The Anchor Bible 11. Garden City: Doubleday.
Talon, Ph.
1997
Old Babylonian Texts from Chagar Bazar. Akkadica, Supplementum 10. Brussels: Fondation assyriologique
Georges Dossin.
267
Telegdi, S.
1935
Essai sur la phontique des emprunts iraniens en aramen talmudique. Journal asiatique 226: 177256.
Thureau-Dangin, F.
1912
Une relation de la huitime campagne de Sargon (714 av. J.-C.). Textes Cuniformes 3. Paris: P. Geuthner.
Tropper, J.
2000
Volk, K.
2004 Palme. Reallexikon der Assyriologie 10: 28392.
Vycichl, W.
1963
Der sumerische Ursprung von lateinisch porrus, porrum Lauch. Die Sprache 9: 2122.
Waetzoldt, H.
1987
Knoblauch und Zwiebeln nach den Texten des 3. Jt. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 3: 2356.
Watson, W.
2004
Westenholz, A.
1987
Westenholz, J. G.
1997
A Botanical Snapshot of Ugarit: Trees, Fruit, Plants and Herbs in the Cuneiform Texts. Aula Orientalis
22: 10755.
Old Sumerian and Old Akkadian Texts in Philadelphia, Part 2: The Akkadian Texts, the Enlilemaba Texts, and
the Onion Archive. Carsten Niebuhr Institute of Ancient Near Eastern Studies 3. Copenhagen: Museum
Tusculanum Press.
Legends of the Kings of Akkade: The Texts. Mesopotamian Civilizations 7. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Zadok, R.
1993
On the Amorite Material from Mesopotamia. Dans The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor
of William W. Hallo, dit par M. E. Cohen, D. C. Snell, et D. B. Weisberg, pp. 31533. Bethesda: CDL Press.
1997 Mushrooms. NABU: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brves et Utilitaires 1997/3: 88.
Zimmern, H.
1917
Zurro, E.
1983
Akkadische Fremdwrter als Beweis fr babylonischen Kultureinfluss. 2me dition. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs.
Notas de lexicografa eblata: nombres de rboles y plantas. Aula Orientalis 1: 26369.
Grammaticalization and the Biblical Hebrew Pseudo-Cohortative
269
16
Grammaticalization and the Biblical Hebrew

Pseudo-Cohortative
Paul Korchin, University of Alaska Fairbanks
Scholars of Biblical Hebrew have long been puzzled by more than one hundred ostensible instances of the
eqtla and first common plural
niqtla) that do not
so-called cohortative (first common singular
conform to the normative volitive functions signified by the forms elsewhere in Biblical Hebrew,1 as well as by
the cognate Northwest Semitic paradigm (yaqtula) that extends at least as far back as the late second millennium b.c.e.2 William Moran definitively mapped the core volitional character of Canaanite yaqtula more than a
half century ago initially in his groundbreaking dissertation concerning the Byblos (Gubla) dialect within the
Amarna Letters (Moran [1950] 2003), and subsequently in an influential Orientalia article (Moran 1960). Morans
diligent application of the morphosyntactic method yielded consistent and convincing correlations between the
form and the functions of yaqtula, thereby confirming its volitive value (occurring, as it does, most frequently
in precative, purpose, and asseverative clauses). Similar and often identical formfunction connections among
most instances of Biblical Hebrew eqtla / niqtla have produced a firm consensus that the Northwest Semitic
and the Biblical Hebrew paradigms are genetically related.3 And yet, in addition to more than 500 genuinely volitive eqtla / niqtla examples, there exist in Biblical Hebrew at least 113 non-volitive instances of the forms.4 The
vague scholarly consensus, inasmuch as there is any agreement, is that these pseudo-cohortatives (so called in
Waltke and OConnor 1990, p. 576) constitute a diachronically broad and increasingly frequent yet essentially
optional and random indicative divergence from the paradigms volitive core. Indeed, the pseudo-cohortative is
wayyiqtol paradigm, and
often employed in the same past narrative syntagms that are typically filled by the
it frequently occurs in conjunction with this consecutive preterite form (so termed by John Huehnergard and
Jo Ann Hackett). Waltke and OConnor (1990, p. 576) observe somewhat plaintively that the cohortative form is
sometimes used where an appropriate sense is lacking [and] the use of a single form to denote both the volitional
and indicative moods cannot be readily explained.
Yet a closer inspection of where and how these forms are employed does reveal both a functional and a formal explanation. The pseudo-cohortative is indeed neither cohortative nor even volitive in the broader sense.
Instead, the Biblical Hebrew eqtla / niqtla forms in question possess a functional value that consistently signifies
verbal action oriented either away from or outside of the deictic center for each given syntagm. In other words,
Driver [1892] 1998, pp. 7475; Gesenius, Kautzsch, and Cowley
1910, 49e; Joon and Muraoka 2006, 47d; Polzin 1976, pp. 5455;
McFall 1982, pp. 21114; Qimron 1986, pp. 4447; consult Rezetko
2003, p. 227 n. 34 for additional bibliography.
2
See Korchin 2008, pp. 21723, for a discussion and an evaluation
of the scholarly debate regarding yaqtula in Canaano-Akkadian.
3
Moran ([1950] 2003, pp. 8487) also delineated a secure functional link between these forms and Classical Arabic yaqtula,
thereby demonstrating that the paradigm extends at least as far
back as Central Semitic (see Huehnergard 2005, p. 165).
1
Jenni (200203, p. 27) tallies 94 non-volitive examples (88 first

common singular, 6 first common plural) alongside 527 volitive
instances, whereas Rezetko (2003, p. 227) posits 101 examples (95
first common singular, 5 first common plural, 1 third feminine
singular). The database for my study comprises an amalgam of
Jennis and Rezetkos respective totals, minus the forms in Ezek
3:3 (containing an unvocalized third feminine singular object
suffix) and Zech 11:13 (with a misaligned definite article). This
corpus thus consists of 105 first common singular, 7 first common plural, and 1 third feminine singular, all of which are either
cited or cross-referenced below.
269
270
Paul Korchin
the activities and movements entailed by verbal lexemes when they appear as non-volitive eqtla / niqtla are
centrifugal proceeding away from, or emanating outside of, their spatial locales of expression. This andative or
itive value (as it also has been termed) is, furthermore, signified explicitly by the (qames-he = -a) afformative
of the non-volitive, which remains formally equivalent to the affix of the true volitive. In surveying the extant
data, however, it becomes evident that the affix on the pseudo-cohortative functions quite differently compared
to the affix on the genuine volitive deriving from Canaanite yaqtula.
The verbal lexemes to which non-volitive -a is appended coagulate around a relatively confined group of
functional/semantic categories. All of the examples can be accorded to one of five cognitive domains:5 verbs of
utterance (e.g., speak, call), verbs of conveyance (e.g., give, carry), verbs of perception (e.g., look, listen), verbs of locomotion (e.g., exit, escape), and verbs of impact (e.g., grab, smash). Akin to the true cohortative, the Biblical Hebrew
pseudo-cohortative occurs almost uniformly in the first person, and mostly in the first common singular (see n. 4).
Hence, the expresser of the verb is also the verbal agent, and the speaker-as-agent is directly and paradigmatically
associated with the concomitant verbal action. The speaker/agent also regularly functions as the deictic center
for his/her communicational matrix, encompassing both the spatial here and the temporal now (Kuryowicz
1972, p. 174) to which language defaults, absent explicit deictic indicators to the contrary (known as shifters;
Jakobson [1957] 1984). It is no surprise, therefore, that verbal lexemes that overtly convey manners of expression
occur so frequently with first person (speaker/agent) paradigms.
This is indeed the case with the pseudo-cohortatives, where thirty-one of its occurrences involve verbs of
utterance. The most commonly used such lexeme is also the most explicit: mr (say). The verbal action of pseudocohortative mr is always directed from the speaker outward centrifugally, from an agent as source to a patient
as target.6 Sometimes this is mediated by a locative preposition:
I said to you, I am YHWH, your God (Judg 6:10)
I said to them, You are holy to YHWH (Ezr 8:28)
I said to them, We have purchased our Jewish brothers (Neh 5:8; cf. Neh 13:22, I gave
order to)
In other instances, the pseudo-cohortatives centrifugal action is not mediated prepositionally:
I said (to God), My God, I am ashamed (Ezr 9:6)
I said (to Shemaiah), Should a man such as I flee? (Neh 6:11; see also Neh 5:13; cf. Neh
13:9a, 19, I commanded)
I said (to the heavenly messenger), Let my lord speak (Dan 10:19; see also Dan 12:8)
Proceeding heuristically from the SourcePathGoal image schema as envisioned by cognitive linguistics (Johnson 2008, p. 22;
Graf 2006, pp. 4142), wherein a given action (motion event) proceeds from an origin (source), to/toward a target (goal), via a
sequence (path) of positions and trajectories.
5
Contrast this, for example, with the agent-focused qatal construction

I said to myself (lit. in my heart; Qoh
2:1; 3:17, 18; cf. 2:15).
6
271
Affixed mr and its synonym dbr are attested in a quasi-hendiadys:

I opened my mouth and I spoke, saying to the one standing before me (Dan 10:16)7
Affixed mr is also paired with morphologically congruent lexemes of admonishment (rib, ud) that are
trained squarely at the patient from the agent:
I scolded the nobles of Judah, and I said to them (Neh 13:17; see also Neh 5:7; 13:11)
I rebuked them, and I said to them (Neh 13:21)
In another instance a consecutive string of utterance verbs (pll, ydh, mr) appended by -a underscores the
agent-to-patient trajectory of entreaty:
I prayed to YHWH my God, and I confessed, and I said (Dan 9:4)
Conversely, when the desperate king Saul conjures Samuels ghost, the centrifugal affix is joined only to
the petitionary utterance verb qr, which constitutes the lone speaker/agent-toward-patient trajectory in the
syntagm:

Saul said, I am very hard pressed; the Philistines are battling against me, and God has
turned away from me, for He no longer answers me either by the power of the prophets or
in dreams. So I have called out to you, to make known to me what I should do (1 Sam 28:15)
Verbs of mourning (bkh,8 bl) can also be paired with the affix to highlight the outbound trajectories of the
entailed actions from their point of origination:
I shed tears and cried out for days (Neh 1:4)
The centrifugal affix is employed even more frequently (thirty-five times) with first person verbs of conveyance, where the incumbent action is borne from the agent to/toward the patient. An apt example involves the
transmission of money:
I weighed out to him the silver (sql, Jer 32:9; see also Ezr 8:25, 26)
There is also the transmittal of information:
I have sent to declare to my lord (slh, Gen 32:6; see also Ezr 8:16; Neh 6:3, 8)
Compare the series of qatal + eqtla syntagms in Psalm 119:

I have sworn and confirmed (qum, v. 106);
I stretched open my mouth and panted (sp,
I arose at twilight and cried out (sw,

v. 131);
v. 147).
8
Regarding the presence of the affix with 3rd-h verbs, see n. 18.
272
Paul Korchin
Hiphil (C stem) verbs are common in this category, foregrounding the agents causative role in effecting the
action upon the patient, and mediated by a locative preposition:
I set in their mouths words (sim, Ezr 8:17b)9
I delegated as treasurers over the storehouses (sr, Neh 13:13)10
I set forth regulations before the priests and Levites (md, Neh 13:30; see also Neh 12:31)
I brought you to the land of the Amorites (bo, Josh 24:8)
Such centrifugal forms can also convey agent-imposed displacement of a patient from its spatial setting, in
concert with an ablative preposition:11
You cried out to me, and I delivered you from their power (ys, Judg 10:12)
I set apart twelve from the leaders of the priests (bdl, Ezr 8:24)12
I tossed all the articles of the household of Tobiah outside from the chamber (slk, Neh
13:8)
The conveyance verb attested most frequently with the centrifugal affix is ntn (give), used thirteen times in
syntagms where a speaker/agent (subject) bestows a patient (direct object) to a recipient (indirect object). Some
of these instances are revealing in that they also describe actions that are directed toward or focused upon the
deictic center of the syntagm, in which cases the -a affix is not employed:

I came [without affix] to the provincial governors Beyond the River, and I gave [with affix] to
them the letters of the king (Neh 2:9; see also Neh 2:1, 6)

I have taken [without affix] the Levites instead of every firstborn among the sons of Israel,
and I have given [with affix] the Levites as gifts to Aaron and his sons (Num 8:1819)
Ezr 8:17a also belongs under this subgroup when its Masoretic
vocalization is repointed via the Lucianic recension:
(ys)
I made (them) go out (to Iddo).
10
Cf. Qal (G stem, qbs)
in Neh 7:5, I roused (them to
registration).
9
Or (once) in combination with a far demonstrative adverb:

I restored there the articles of the
house of God (sub, Neh 13:9b).
12
Cf. Qal
in Ezr 7:28, I roused (from among Israel).
11
273
I myself anointed you king over Israel, and I myself delivered you from the power of Saul.
And I gave to you the house of your master, and the wives of your master into your lap. And
I gave to you the house of Israel and Judah. And if this were too little, I added for you twice
as much! (2 Sam 12:78; see also Judg 6:9; 1 Sam 2:28; Ezek 16:11)
I gave over to destruction Jacob, and Israel to revilement (Isa 43:28)

I apportioned to my wardrobe sackcloth (Ps 69:12)
The lexeme ntn is also used with the -a affix to convey the speaker/agents centrifugal orientation toward
perspicacity:
I set my mind toward knowing wisdom, and understanding madness and folly (Qoh 1:17;
see also Dan 9:3)
This last usage shades off into a third semantic domain that is frequently attested (twenty-one times) with
the centrifugal affix: verbs of perception, whereby the speaker/agent directs sensory attention toward a patient
that is either explicitly or implicitly conveyed within the syntagm. Lexemes of understanding and knowing are
among the examples:
I saw among the simple, I perceived among the youths a boy without sense (bin, Prv 7:7)13
YHWH made (it) known to me, and I knew (it) (yd, Jer 11:18)14
Who has foretold (it) from the beginning, so that we knew (it)? (yd, Isa 41:26)
There is also an instance of auditory perception:
I heard one of the holy speaking (sm, Dan 8:13)
Lexemes of inquiry fall under the broader semantic domain of perception verbs and likewise are attested
with the centrifugal affix:

For I expected goodness, but evil came; and I longed for light, but darkness arrived (yhl,
Job 30:26)
13
This is one of the very few instances of a pseudo-cohortative
lacking either a conjunctive or consecutive waw (cf. Ezr 8:15 and
Neh 13:7, both with waw).
14
Notice here the qatal form with ventive action, but the pseudocohortative with itive action (see also
in Neh 13:10).
274
Paul Korchin
When I, Daniel, had apprehended the vision, I sought out (its) meaning (bqs, Dan 8:15)15
I scrutinized, and indeed, it was not God who had sent him (nkr, Neh 6:12)
I resolved to know this thing (hsb, Ps 73:16)
Such a centrifugal orientation can even juxtapose lexemes of perception to more materially grounded actions,
yielding hendiadic-like syntagms:
We fasted and sought after our God concerning this (sum, bqs, Ezr 8:23)
I have despaired and longed for pity, but there is none (nus, qwh, Ps 69:21)
Perception verbs with the centrifugal affix sometimes entail a morally evaluative dimension toward the
patient:
I have been attentive to your law (smr, Ps 119:55)
I saw treacherous men, and I felt disgust (toward them) (qut, Ps 119:158)
She lusted over their studs (gb, Ezek 23:20)16
Centrifugal verbal orientation is not limited to the waking actions of the speaker/agent(s), either:
We dreamed (into) a dream on one night, I and he (hlm, Gen 41:11)
Biblical Hebrew verbs of locomotion compose another functional subset employed with the centrifugal affix
(twenty times). Movement into the realm of somnolence is again attested:
I lay myself down and I go (in)to sleep (ysn, Ps 3:6)
Itive motion can be as close as arms length:
It was when we had come to the lodging place that we accessed our sacks (pth, Gen 43:21)
Note the morphosyntactic distinction between the wayyiqtol

+ infinitive construction conveying speaker/agent-centered action, versus the pseudo-cohortative form signaling deictically
itive action.
15
This is the lone instance of a non-first person pseudo-cohortative form in Biblical Hebrew. Genuine cohortatives in the third
person are also rare (Joon and Muraoka 2006, 45):
may
he hasten (Isa 5:19);
let it come (Isa 5:19);
may it
fly away (Job 11:17).
16
275
Or, at the disposal of ones feet:

I exited by the Valley Gate at night (ys, Neh 2:13)
Movement can be oriented toward the ground:

It was while they were smiting, and I alone remained, that I fell upon my face (npl, Ezek
9:8; see also Dan 8:17)
Or, the trajectory of the verbal action can be more distant:

For it (life) passes away quickly, and we fly off (up, Ps 90:10)
Even simultaneous and divergent itive motions are possible:
I bent down on my knees, and I stretched out my palms to YHWH my God (kr, prs, Ezr
9:5)
The -a affix also occurs in circumstances where the speaker/agent has undergone deictic displacement, away
from one locale and to another:
We set off from the River Ahava, on the twelfth of the first month, to go to Jerusalem
(ns, Ezr 8:31)
This deixis-shifting function is invoked repeatedly and with great rhetorical flourish as a refrain to the cascade
of catastrophes that befall Job, dutifully recounted by their respective sole survivors:
I escaped (from there) only I alone! to report to you (mlt, Job 1:15, 16, 17, 19; see also
Job 19:20)
Movement can also entail an ethical (re)orientation of the speaker/agent:
I have turned my feet toward your precepts (sub, Ps 119:59)
A final and less frequent (six times) lexemic subset occurring with the centrifugal affix involves verbs of impact,
where the agent impinges directly (and violently) upon the patient via the verbal action. Examples are extant in
prosaic texts:
I grabbed onto him, and I killed him at Ziklag (hz, 2 Sam 4:10)
I cut down all your enemies from before you (krt, 2 Sam 7:9)
276
Paul Korchin
I tore out hair from my head and my beard, and I sat down in desolation (mrt, ysb, Ezr
9:3)17
As well as in poetic texts:

I smashed (penetrated) the jaws of the wicked, and from his teeth I wrested prey (sbr, Job
29:17)
The -a affix can even lend a centrifugal nuance to a patient that whether literally or figuratively occupies
distant space with respect to the agent (like an adversary), versus one that does not (like a friend):

If I have repaid my ally with evil, or I have despoiled my enemy without cause (hls, Ps
7:5)
Via textual doublets, Biblical Hebrew preserves at least three examples18 of minimal pairs comprising verbs
with the centrifugal affix versus verbs without it. One such pair occurs within the poetic account of Sennacheribs
unsuccessful siege upon Jerusalem, preserved in both Isaiah and 2 Kings:
I reached its farthest peak, its densest forest (Isa 37:24)
I entered its farthest lodge, its densest forest (bo, 2 Kgs 19:23)
The other minimal pairs are found within Davids song of deliverance, preserved in both Psalms and 2 Samuel:
I was blameless regarding him, and I kept guard from my sin (Ps 18:24)
I went blameless before him, and I was vigilant against my sin (hyh, smr, 2 Sam 22:24)
I pursued my enemies, and I overtook them (Ps 18:38)
I chased after my enemies, and I destroyed them (rdp, 2 Sam 22:38)
Despite minor lexical variations, each of these doublets is syntagmatically identical, and there are no obvious
temporal and/or modal differences between the verbs in question. Instead, the intended semantic nuance here
is spatial, with the -a affix functioning as an overt yet optional marker of deictically centrifugal verbal action
emanating from the speaker/agent and aimed toward a patient. It is likely that these Isaiah and Psalms excerpts
Notice here a verb of impact paired with a verb of locomotion,

both oriented centrifugally.
18
Counting
in 2 Sam 22:24a yields four examples. This relies
upon resolving the morphonemic ambiguity of final-he prefixed
verbs (see Joon and Muraoka 2006, 79m, o) in favor of their
17
syntagmatic contiguity with juxtaposed and unambiguous eqtla

/ niqtla forms. For every such instance tallied by this study, there
also exists no compelling reason why a yiqtol (< *yaqtulu, so-called
imperfective, future) form should be employed.
277
antedate their respective parallels in Kings and Samuel, especially since the latter texts overtly reference the
characters and traditions associated with the former. Furthermore, the centrifugal affix is most frequently attested
in biblical books that are indisputably post-exilic, including Daniel (eleven times), Ezra (seventeen times), and
Nehemiah (thirty-three times). Such evidence might suggest that the centrifugal affix is itself a historically late
development. Conversely, the affix does not appear at all in Chronicles (another patently late textual tradition),
and it is sprinkled throughout the ostensibly earlier Pentateuchal, Deuteronomistic, and prophetic books. From a
distributional standpoint, therefore, the linguistic origins of the Biblical Hebrew centrifugal affix remain clouded.
Yet through a closer investigation of the lexemic, grammatical, and syntactic components that are associated with
this affix, a clear diachronic trajectory emerges via the phenomenon of grammaticalization.
Grammaticalization is a process of linguistic change that was first explicitly posited a century ago, during
the twilight of Neogrammarianism, by Antoine Meillet in his 1912 article entitled Lvolution des formes grammaticales. The concept was largely eclipsed by the ensuing structuralist and generativist enterprises, which
tended to focus upon non-diachronic dimensions of language.19 But interest in language universals and typology
has gradually extended from the synchronic into the diachronic realm, and dynamics of language change have
again come to occupy the attentions of linguists. Expanding upon the classic formulation by Jerzy Kuryowicz
([1965] 1975, p. 52),20 Paul Hopper and Elizabeth Traugott (2003, p. xv) define grammaticalization as the change
whereby lexical items and constructions come in certain linguistic contexts to serve grammatical functions and,
once grammaticalized, continue to develop new grammatical functions. Grammaticalization involves the transformation of a content item into a function item (ibid., p. 4) or, of an existing function item into a new function
item (Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca 1994, p. 11) and it is this dynamic that is responsible for the emergence of
the centrifugal affix in Biblical Hebrew.
Both grammaticalization and analogy yield change in language; but whereas analogy entails the extension,
often via reanalysis, of an already existing pattern, Meillet and most linguists since have viewed grammaticalization as creating novel forms.21 A widely acknowledged phenomenon with respect to grammaticalization is the
so-called cline of grammaticality, by which crosslinguistically forms tend to undergo the same kinds of changes or
have similar sets of relationships, in similar orders (Hopper and Traugott 2003, pp. 67).22 Numerous instances
of grammaticalization in Semitic languages adhere to this typological tendency,23 and key points along the cline
are discernable regarding the development of the Biblical Hebrew centrifugal affix.
Cross-linguistically with regard to verbs, grammaticalization turns out to be especially prevalent among superordinate lexemes known as hyperonyms (Hopper and Traugott 2003, p. 101), which convey broad yet core
cognitive meanings. These include concepts such as go, come, say, and give, to name a few. This typological tendency is highly suggestive concerning Biblical Hebrew, given that the core deictic centrifugal lexeme, hlk (go),
is attested forty-six times in the volitive eqtla / niqtla paradigm. This is more than twice as frequent as the next
most common verbal lexemes so employed with the paradigm (sub twenty-two times; dbr twenty-one times).
Even more pertinent is the cross-linguistic evidence that exists for grammaticalization of the verbal lexeme go
into a centrifugal verbal affix. Likewise, the verbal lexeme come often grammaticalizes into a deictically centripetal (ventive) affix. For inferences to play a significant role in grammaticalization, they must be frequently
occurring, since only standard inferences can plausibly be assumed . . . to function crosslinguistically (ibid., p.
Regarding the development of generative linguistics, see Cook

and Newson 2007; on structural linguistics, see Hawkes 2003.
20
Viz. Grammaticalization consists in the increase of the range
of a morpheme advancing from a lexical to a grammatical or
from a less grammatical to a more grammatical status, e.g., from
a derivative formant to an inflectional one.
21
Notable exceptions to this consensus include Paul Kiparsky
one of the founders of Optimality Theory (see McCarthy 2002;
Kager 1999) who argues that grammaticalization is ultimately
a subset of analogy motivated by non-exemplar-based categories
and constraints grounded within Universal Grammar (Kiparsky
2005, p. 6). Joseph (2004, p. 61) suggests that grammaticalization
19
is really an epiphenomenon that is a result or product rather

than a process or mechanism of language change. On the debated relationship among grammaticalization, reanalysis, analogy, and extension, see Traugott and Trousdale 2010; Campbell
2001; Fischer 1997.
22
Although instances of degrammaticalization have been documented in languages (Harris and Campbell 1995, pp. 33743;
Campbell 2001; cf. Haspelmath 1999; 2004), the consensus among
linguists is that grammaticalization most typically proceeds according to uniform directionality constraints, from syntagmatic
toward paradigmatic structures (e.g., lexeme > clitic > affix).
23
See Rubin 2005, pp. 1764.
278
Paul Korchin
82). Indeed, come and go are the motion verbs chosen most often for grammaticalization (Bybee, Perkins, and
Pagliuca 1994, p. 9).
Examples of this are found in the Oceanic languages stemming from the Eastern Malayo-Polynesian branch
of Austronesian. Toqabaqita (from the Solomon Islands) employs the post-verbal directional particles mai for
ventive orientation and kau for itive orientation (Lichtenberk 2003, p. 152): thus, lae mai (move here) versus lae
kau (move away). Similarly, Tokelauan (from its eponymous atolls northwest of Samoa) uses mai for ventive and
atu for itive (Hooper 2002, pp. 284, 286): thus, koutou e faitatala mai (you-all talk to us) versus kimatou e faitatala
atu (we talk to you-all). Based upon such evidence, linguists can reconstruct for Proto-Oceanic a centripetal
enclitic *mai and a centrifugal enclitic *ua[tu], which themselves derive from earlier verbs meaning come and go,
respectively (Lichtenberk 2003, p. 152).
Less far afield genetically to Hebrew are the locative verbal extensions found within the Chadic language
subgroup of Afro-Asiatic. In a seminal study of these extensions, Zygmunt Frajzyngier (1987) confirmed, via
morphonological patterns, that verbs of movement constitute the lexical sources for the deictic directional extensions: come (or, return) for the centripetal, go (or, depart) for the centrifugal. Among the examples (ibid., p. 35),
centrifugal -d in Hona is traceable to Proto-Chadic *d (go), centrifugal -li in Logone derives from verbal l (go),
and centrifugal -ba of Margi stems from the verb ba (go out). Even more critically, Frajzyngier delineated the syntagmatic origins of these locative affixes, recognizing that there must once have been a construction consisting
of two verbs . . . whereby some verbs become part of a verbal compound, then lose their semantic content and
eventually become affixes (ibid., p. 36). Such deictic directional verbal lexemes, in other words, become grammaticalized. Furthermore, Frajzyngier discovered that a locative extension can develop in Chadic only when the
deictic directional verb follows the main verb. No such extensions are attested in those languages where the compound order is reversed. This typological path of development is corroborated by Japanese, wherein the deictic
directional verbs kuru (come) and iku (go) respectively manifest centripetal and centrifugal values as the second
elements of verbal compounds linked by the conjunctive particle te (Shibatani 2003, pp. 25961): thus, Ken-ga
heya-ni hait-te ki-ta Ken came into the room (using compound enter + come) versus Ken-ga heya-ni hait-te it-ta Ken
went into the room (using compound enter + go).
Returning to Biblical Hebrew, conjunctive compounds are attested with volitive eqtla / niqtla forms wherein
the deictic directional verb hlk appears in either the first or the second position with respect to the adjoining
main verb. The order of the verbal lexemes generally appears to be iconic, reflecting the practical sequence of
the actions described. Thus we find examples such as the following:
Let us go and serve other gods (Deut 13:7, 14)
I will go and return to my first husband (Hos 2:9)
But we also find attested the following compounds:
Let us journey and go (Gen 33:12)
Let us get up and go (Gen 43:8)
I will get up and go (2 Sam 3:21)
It is precisely this latter construction supported by the cross-linguistic evidence surveyed above that
provides a conduit for grammaticalization of the itive verb into a centrifugal affix. But exactly how did this hapconstruction in Biblical Hebrew to
pen? What were the mechanisms that permitted the main verb +
so grammaticalize? To answer this, we must examine how the typological dynamics composing grammaticalization are manifested within the specific and relevant structures of Biblical Hebrew. Initially, as discussed above,
279
the Biblical Hebrew eqtla / niqtla paradigm conformed formally as well as functionally (albeit largely in the first
person) with earlier Canaanite yaqtula. This most often entailed syntagms involving precative and/or intentional
meanings, including the compound constructions just cited. Thanks to Moran and others, it is recognized that
yaqtula shares a partial functional overlap with Canaanite yaqtul, the prefixed short form that was employed in
both volitive and indicative contexts and that persisted into Biblical Hebrew as the jussive and the consecutive
preterite. Such formal and functional convergences within a language provide what Bernd Heine (2002, pp. 8486)
refers to as bridging contexts. A bridging context is a linguistic environment that can give rise to an inference in
favor of a new meaning, and it is a critical prerequisite for grammaticalization. This is because it provides the
ground for reanalysis, the formal and/or functional reinterpretation of a language unit or sequence. 24 Hopper
and Traugott (2003, p. 50) provide a familiar and tasty example of reanalysis with the lexeme hamburger, which
originally consisted of [Hamburg + er], item (of food) from Hamburg, but eventually underwent resegmentation
and reformulation into [ham + burger], likely under analogical pressure from the porcine noun. The constituents
of hamburger are thus redistributed both formally and functionally via processes such as back-formation (now
simply burger), as well as analogical extension (cheese-burger, tuna-burger, veggie-burger, etc.). But grammaticalization cannot happen without reanalysis, and reanalysis does not occur without a bridging context.
When it comes to Biblical Hebrew, I propose that the functional overlap of volitive eqtla / niqtla and jussive
yiqtol allowed for reanalysis of the former into eqtol + a and niqtol + a. Volitive verbs including those in compound
and
thus became subject to resegmentation and reinterpretation
constructions such as
from *yaqtula cohortatives into *yaqtul jussives + affix. Final qames-he was thereby rendered superfluous for explicitly signifying the volitional value of such forms. Instead, this affix due to its high frequency co-occurrence
with the verb hlk was further reanalyzed and, functionally as well as formally, bracketed with the lexeme go.
This triggered the transition from an itive lexical construction into a centrifugal morpheme. Indeed, it is not
lexemes in isolation that undergo grammaticalization, but rather lexical constructions within particular speech
contexts. Hopper and Traugott (2003, pp. 76, 82) assert that meaning changes are initially pragmatic and associative . . . and for inferences to play a significant role in grammaticalization, they must be frequently occurring.
and
and they allow for metonymy, which is definable
These very circumstances obtain with regard to
as semantic transfer through contiguity (Anttila 1989, pp. 14142), that is, meaning change along languages
syntagmatic axis, via reanalysis (Hopper and Traugott 2003, p. 93).
Another common corollary of grammaticalization that is evidenced by the emergence of the Biblical Hebrew
centrifugal affix involves irregular phonological reduction via erosion or fusion. Among the more well-known
examples of this process is the conversion of the English motion verb construction be going to into the imminent
future tense gonna. Grammaticalization and reduction frequently co-occur because they are both motivated by
the metalinguistic principle of economy. The economy principle (Kiparsky 2005, p. 6; Hopper and Traugott 2003,
pp. 7173) stipulates that maximal functional output be achieved via minimal formal input or, more colloquially, that one should speak less and say more. Erosion and fusion aid in the attainment of syntagmatic economy,
and grammaticalization systematizes this economy into paradigmatic structures. Clitics and contractions are
hallmark instances of grammaticalized economization (e.g., can not > cannot > cant). The volitive get up and
go compounds of Biblical Hebrew are particularly receptive to similar compression, given that equivalent morphonemic structures (qames-he) frame the itive lexeme. This remains congruent with the cross-linguistic cline
of grammaticalization, wherein clitics and affixes tend to develop from full verbs that have come to be used as
auxiliaries (Hopper and Traugott 2003, pp. 11112). Furthermore, phonetic reduction can be manifested in any
of the segmental or suprasegmental features of the phonetic string (Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca 1994, p. 107).
It is also significant, yet not surprising, that hlk never once occurs as a pseudo-cohortative in Biblical Hebrew,
since it would be redundant and thereby violate the principle of economy.25
A subtle facet of grammaticalization is that reanalysis is discoverable only in retrospect, once the target form
has assumed a new and incongruous function compared to the source form (see Langacker 1977, p. 58; Timberlake
1977, p. 151). This requires what Heine (2002, pp. 8586) terms a switch context. A switch context involves a
For seminal studies concerning reanalysis, see Langacker 1977

and Timberlake 1977.
25
The centrifugal affix is, however, twice attested with hyh
(be), providing a locomotive nuance to the copular verb that ap24
proaches the semantics of hlk:

I was
with you in every (place) which you went (i.e., I went where you
went; 2 Sam 7:9a). Also see 2 Sam 22:24a, above (and n. 18).
280
Paul Korchin
syntagmatic environment that is incompatible with (or at least in conflict with) some salient property of the
source form in its original context, thereby ruling out the original meaning. The new meaning that has arisen via
the bridging context becomes applicable within a switch context that favors it over the original meaning. Switch
contexts may be viewed as a filtering device that rules out the source meaning (Heine 2002, p. 86). I propose that
the switch context for the Biblical Hebrew pseudo-cohortative is traceable to the novel use of eqtla / niqtla with
indicative past narrative syntagms, as opposed to the volitive future syntagms that employ the true cohortative.
How and why this new application emerged has to do with what Philippe Bourdin (2002) characterizes as
the grammaticalization of deictic directionals into modulators of temporal distance. Bourdin cites numerous
languages that encode what he terms temporal modulation via markers that also function as deictic directionals.26 These markers frequently derive from the verbs come and go (ibid., p. 182; Nicolle 2007, p. 48). Temporal
modulation refers to either the contraction or the expansion of the interval expressed between the event time
and the speech time (Bourdin 2002, pp. 18182). Ventive markers are used to signify interval contraction, whereas
itive markers are used to signify interval expansion. For example (ibid., p. 183), Mohawk of the Iroquoian family
employs its ventive prefix t- in constructions such as t-ahat:ko (he ran away just now), but its itive prefix y- in
constructions like y-ahat:ko (he ran away sometime ago). Also (ibid., p. 184), the Figuig dialect from Morocco
belonging to the Berber group of Afro-Asiatic can use its ventive morpheme dd to signify interval contraction
either in the past (i-su dd taqeddit-t he bought the meat just now) or in the future (sa dd i-se taqeddit-t he
will buy the meat right away). Returning to the Oceanic languages, Manam from Papua New Guinea (ibid., p.
187) applies its itive affix lao to a similar range of temporal frames: zamalu (second day after tomorrow) versus
zamalu-lao (beyond the second day after tomorrow), and toira (some time ago) versus toira-lao (a longer time
ago). There is also the itive marker aku of Hawaiian (ibid., p. 188), which signifies a spatio-temporal deictic distance: thus, nehinei a ia la aku (lit. yesterday and day thither = the day before yesterday), as well as apopo a ia la
aku (lit. tomorrow and day thither = the day after tomorrow). In all of the foregoing cross-linguistic examples,
the deictic directional morphemes signify either a ventive/centripetal nearness to, or an itive/centrifugal remoteness from, the deictic here-and-now of the speaker. The correlative qualities involved with distance in both
its spatial and its temporal dimensions thus forge a cognitive conduit through which deictic directionals can be
further grammaticalized into temporal modulators. The Biblical Hebrew evidence supports this grammaticalization pathway, whereby the spatially centrifugal affix that emerged within the bridging context of temporally
imminent volitive syntagms (e.g., precative and purpose clauses) became conventionalized via the switch context
of temporally distal indicative syntagms (i.e., narrative preterite clauses). This development for eqtla / niqtla
was fostered analogically by the core morphonological equivalence of the *yaqtul- paradigm in both its volitive
and its indicative applications.
The diachronically sporadic yet increasing use of the centrifugal affix throughout the Biblical Hebrew corpus
attests to what linguists term layering, whereby an older form and a newer form can coexist for an extended period
of time and produce synchronic variability at particular stages along the grammaticalization cline (Hopper and
Traugott 2003, p. 124). Thus, we find the innovative pseudo-cohortative sprinkled into pre-exilic Biblical Hebrew
texts where the true cohortative is still normative, as well as vestigial applications of the true cohortative within
post-exilic Biblical Hebrew texts where the pseudo-cohortative has become dominant. By the time of Qumranic
Hebrew around the turn of the Common Era, eqtla / niqtla have undergone further semantic bleaching another
hallmark feature of grammaticalization and they are employed universally for the first person conjunctive
and consecutive preterites (Qimron 1986, pp. 4445). Semantic bleaching (Hopper and Traugott 2003, pp. 9498;
Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca 1994, pp. 5, 14) involves the gradual functional abstraction and generalization of a
grammaticalized element, correlating roughly with its formal erosion.
By way of conclusion, there are two instances among the 113 examples of Biblical Hebrew pseudo-cohortatives
that are seemingly resistant to the hypothesis presented herein:
26
Regarding the cross-linguistic semiotic pathway from spatial
markers to temporal markers, see Haspelmath 1997; Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca 1994, p. 103.
281
I summoned to myself reliable witnesses (Isa 8:2)

I placed my life into my hand (Judg 12:3)
The juxtaposition in Isaiah of the first person reflexive pronoun with the eqtla form starkly contradicts
any centrifugal orientation of the verbal action vis-a-vis the speaker/agent. This syntagm also is situated within
a consecutive preterite chain that firmly conveys a past narrative context, rendering an explicit cohortative
meaning most unlikely. The Judges text too is located within a past narrative sequence (signified by wayyiqtol
and qatal verbs), and its first person pronominal suffixes linked by a proximal preposition unambiguously convey
centripetal deictic orientation. For a potential solution to these anomalies, it is noteworthy that verbs of coming
and going are among a small group that have developed into what Indo-Aryan linguists term vector verbs (or light
verbs), which as quasi-auxiliaries modify the meaning of the complex predicate in terms of manner specification, variously signifying values such as deliberateness, volitionality, benefaction, inclusiveness, and transition
(Goswami and Tamuli 2007, pp. 46972; Butt 1995, pp. 9091; Masica 1991, p. 326). 27 For example, Urdu (Schmidt
2007, pp. 37273; cf. Hook 1974 for Hindi) employs the vector verb jana (go) in combinations such as kar jana (do
+ go = accomplish), kha jana (eat + go = gobble), and sikh jana (learn + go = master). Furthermore, Indo-Aryan
vectors regularly occur as the second verb in a compound construction, not unlike the Biblical Hebrew get up
and go conjunctive sequence that triggered the creation of the centrifugal affix.28 It is possible, therefore, that
an intentional dimension of hlk as a light verb got preserved vestigially by the grammaticalized qames-he, and
that its application in these two instances retains a nuance of speaker/agent benefactive volition with regard
to the recounted narrative actions. This would mark a plausible point of intersection along the original volitive
spectrum of the eqtla / niqtla paradigm. Indeed, syntagms such as those preserved in Isaiah 8:2 and Judges 12:3
might well have operated as a key functional link in the grammaticalization chain extending from the cohortative
verb, via the itive lexeme, to the centrifugal affix of Biblical Hebrew.
Bibliography
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
2006
Serial Verb Constructions in Typological Perspective. In Serial Verb Constructions: A Cross-linguistic
Typology, edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon, pp. 168. Explorations in Linguistic
Typology 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Anttila, Raimo
1989
Bourdin, Philippe
2002
Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Second edition. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 6. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
The Grammaticalization of Deictic Directionals into Modulators of Temporal Distance. In New Reflections on Grammaticalization, edited by Ilse Wisher and Gabriele Diewald, pp. 18199. Typological Studies
in Language 49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
27
Light verbs are therefore distinct from serial verbs, which combine to form a single, non-complex predicate (see Aikhenvald
2006, pp. 46).
28
Hopper and Traugott (2003, pp. 108, 11112) situate light verbs
upon the grammaticalization cline as an optional developmental
stage in between full verbs and auxiliaries. Butt (2010, pp. 6869)
instead contends that light verbs remain formally associated
with full (main) verbs, and that the functional distinctions arise
via differing syntactic (predicative) environments.
282
Paul Korchin
Butt, Miriam
1995
2010
The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu. Dissertations in Linguistics. Stanford: Center for the Study of
Language and Information.
The Light Verb Jungle: Still Hacking Away. In Complex Predicates: Cross-linguistic Perspectives on Event
Structure, edited by Mengistu Amberber, Brett Baker, and Mark Harvey, pp. 4878. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bybee, Joan L.; Revere D. Perkins; and William Pagliuca

1994
Chicago Press.
Campbell, Lyle
2001
Whats Wrong with Grammaticalization? Language Sciences 23: 11361.
Cook, Vivian, and Mark Newson

2007
Chomskys Universal Grammar: An Introduction. Third edition. Malden: Blackwell.
Driver, Samuel R.
[1892] 1998
Fischer, Olga
1997
A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and Some Other Syntactical Questions. Third edition. Biblical
Resource Series. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans. Reprint of the 1892 third edition by Oxford University Press.
On the Status of Grammaticalization and the Diachronic Dimension in Explanation. Transactions of the
Philological Society 95/2: 14987.
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt
1987
Ventive and Centrifugal in Chadic. Afrika und bersee 70: 3147.
1910
Gesenius Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch, translated by A. E. Cowley. Second English edition.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Goswami, G. C., and J. Tamuli
2007
Asamiya. In The Indo-Aryan Languages, edited by George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain, pp. 42984. Routledge Language Family Series. New York: Routledge.
Graf, Eva-Maria
2006
The Ontogenetic Development of Literal and Metaphorical Space in Language. Language Development 31.
Tbingen: Gunter Narr.
Harris, Alice, and Lyle Campbell

1995
Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 74. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Haspelmath, Martin
1997
From Space to Time: Temporal Adverbials in the Worlds Languages. Lincom Studies in Theoretical Linguistics
3. Munich: Lincom Europa.
1999
Why Is Grammaticalization Irreversible? Linguistics 37: 104368.
2004
On Directionality in Language Change with Particular Reference to Grammaticalization. In Up and
Down the Cline The Nature of Grammaticalization, edited by Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde, and Harry Perridon, pp. 1744. Typological Studies in Language 59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hawkes, Terence
2003
Heine, Bernd
2002
Hook, Peter Edwin

1974
Structuralism and Semiotics. Second edition. New York: Routledge.

On the Role of Context in Grammaticalization. In New Reflections on Grammaticalization, edited by Ilse
Wischer and Gabriele Diewald, pp. 83101. Typological Studies in Language 49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
The Compound Verb in Hindi. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Center for South and Southeast Asian
Studies.
Hooper, Robin
2002
283
Deixis and Aspect: The Tokelauan Directional Particles mai and atu. Studies in Language 26/2: 283313.
Hopper, Paul J., and Elizabeth Closs Traugott

2003
Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huehnergard, John
2005
Jakobson, Roman
[1957] 1984
Jenni, Ernst
200203
Johnson, Mark
2008
Joseph, Brian D.
2004
Features of Central Semitic. In Biblical and Oriental Essays in Memory of William L. Moran, edited by Agustinus Gianto, pp. 155203. Biblica et Orientalia 48. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico.
Shifters, Verbal Categories, and the Russian Verb. Harvard University, Department of Slavic Languages
and Literatures Project. Reprinted in Roman Jakobson: Russian and Slavic Grammar Studies 19311981, edited
by Linda R. Waugh and Morris Halle, pp. 4158. Janua Linguarum Series Maior 106. Berlin: Mouton.
Untersuchungen zum hebrischen Kohortativ. Zeitschrift fr Althebraistik 1516: 1967.
The Meaning of the Body. In Developmental Perspectives on Embodiment and Consciousness, edited by Willis F. Overton, Ulrich Mller, and Judith L. Newman, pp. 1943. The Jean Piaget Symposium Series. New
York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rescuing Traditional (Historical) Linguistics from Grammaticalization Theory. In Up and Down the
Cline The Nature of Grammaticalization, edited by Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde, and Harry Perridon, pp.
4571. Typological Studies in Language 59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

2006
A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Revised edition. Subsidia Biblica 27. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico.
Kager, Ren
1999
Kiparsky, Paul
2005
Korchin, Paul
2008
Kuryowicz, Jerzy
[1965] 1975
1972
Langacker, Ronald
1977
Optimality Theory. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Grammaticalization as Optimization. Plenary paper presented at the New Reflections on Grammaticalization 3 conference, Santiago, Chile.
Markedness in Canaanite and Hebrew Verbs. Harvard Semitic Studies 58. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
The Evolution of Grammatical Categories. Diogenes 13: 5571. Reprinted in Esquisses Linguistiques II, by
Jerzy Kuryowicz, pp. 3854. International Bibliothek fr allgemeine Linguistik 37. Munich: Fink.
The Role of Deictic Elements in Linguistic Evolution. Semiotica 5: 17483.
Syntactic Reanalysis. In Mechanisms of Syntactic Change, edited by Charles N. Li, pp. 57139. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Lichtenberk, Frantisek
Directionality and Displaced Directionality in Toqabaqita. In Motion, Direction and Location in Languages:
2003
In Honor of Zygmunt Frajzyngier, edited by Erin Shay and Uwe Seibert, pp. 15175. Typological Studies in
Language 56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Masica, Colin P.
1991
McCarthy, John J.
2002
McFall, Leslie
1982
The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge Language Surveys. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
A Thematic Guide to Optimality Theory. Research Surveys in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
The Enigma of the Hebrew Verbal System: Solutions from Ewald to the Present Day. Historical Texts and Interpreters in Biblical Scholarship 2. Sheffield: Almond.
284
Paul Korchin
Meillet, Antoine
[1912] 1958
Moran, William L.
[1950] 2003
1960
Nicolle, Steve
2007
Polzin, Robert
1976
Qimron, Elisha
1986
Rezetko, Robert
2003
Rubin, Aaron D.
2005
Schmidt, Ruth Laila
2007
Lvolution des formes grammaticales. Reprinted in Linguistique historique et linguistique gnrale, pp.
13048. Collection Linguistique publie par la Socit de Linguistique de Paris 8. Paris: Champion.
A Syntactical Study of the Dialect of Byblos as Reflected in the Amarna Tablets. In Amarna Studies:
Collected Writings, edited by John Huehnergard and Shlomo Izreel, pp. 1130. Harvard Semitic Studies
Early Canaanite yaqtula. Orientalia 29: 119.
The Grammaticalization of Tense Markers: A Pragmatic Reanalysis. In Tense, Mood and Aspect: Theoretical
and Descriptive Issues, edited by Louis de Saussure, Jacques Moeschler, and Genoveva Puskas, pp. 4765.
Cahiers Chronos 17. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose. Harvard Semitic Monographs
12. Missoula: Scholars Press for the Harvard Semitic Museum.
The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Harvard Semitic Studies 29. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Dating Biblical Hebrew: Evidence from SamuelKings and Chronicles. In Biblical Hebrew: Studies in
Chronology and Typology, edited by Ian Young, pp. 21550. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
Supplement Series 369. London: T. and T. Clark.
Studies in Semitic Grammaticalization. Harvard Semitic Studies 57. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Urdu. In The Indo-Aryan Languages, edited by George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain, pp. 31585. Paperback
edition. Routledge Language Family Series. New York: Routledge.
Shibatani, Masayoshi
2003
Directional Verbs in Japanese. In Motion, Direction and Location in Languages: In Honor of Zygmunt
Frajzyngier, edited by Erin Shay and Uwe Seibert, pp. 25986. Typological Studies in Language 56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Timberlake, Alan
1977
Reanalysis and Actualization in Syntactic Change. In Mechanisms of Syntactic Change, edited by Charles
N. Li, pp. 14177. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Graeme Trousdale, editors

2010
Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization. Typological Studies in Language 90. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Waltke, Bruce K., and Michael OConnor
1990
The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System in a Nutshell
285
17

Dennis Pardee, University of Chicago
Though I have taught Biblical Hebrew on a regular basis since 1972 and made occasional observations even
proposed some elements of a systematic presentation, in reviews1 I have never laid out in a single place the
broad explanation of the Biblical Hebrew verbal system as I see it that would enable my various reviewees to take
me, reviewee in my turn, to the whipping post. 2
I lay out here briefly my view of the Biblical Hebrew verbal system as primarily aspectual, only secondarily
temporal;3 I will not touch here on the function of the derived stems (the binyanim) as means of expressing various
forms of Aktionsart.4 It must further be remarked here that the system is isolatable as a system only in Standard
Biblical Hebrew prose: the varieties of usage in Biblical Hebrew poetry, as perhaps in Ugaritic poetry,5 are such
1
These minor contributions are cited here not out of rampant

immodesty but as proof that I have not been totally uninvolved
in the discussions that have taken place on the Biblical Hebrew
verbal system over the past three decades: Pardee 1979; 1983a;
1983b; 1985a; 1985b; 1989; 1990; 1993a; 1993b; 1994; 1995; 1999;
2001; 200304.
2 I have only had the courage to put this overview, which has
existed in various forms for well over a decade as a class handout,
into print because the honorand was kind enough to invite me to
present it to his graduate students while he was still at Harvard,
and he and Jo Ann Hackett invited me to submit an expanded version for publication as a monograph. Realizing that the burden
of other projects coupled with the march of time would almost
certainly keep the larger project from ever being realized, I have
decided to put the briefer version here. What began as a nutshell has been expanded by extensive footnotes and two sample
texts to a whole bag of nuts (that many uses may be made of
the image is not lost upon me); the title has been maintained,
however, because the basic text remains a brief presentation of
one persons view of a vast and vastly debated topic of which the
footnotes, however extensive, provide an inadequate representation. Finally, lest anyone be deceived by the occasional citation
of linguistic literature here below, I should make clear that I do
not consider myself to be a general linguist, only to have done
some reading in linguistics and perhaps to have picked up a few
notions that may have some validity.
3 On verbal systems as generally expressing both aspect and
tense, with one or the other constituting the primary level of
expression, see the general works on aspect, e.g., B. Comries
classic study (1976) but see below, n. 20. I am well aware of
DeCaens claim that it is theoretically implausible that Biblical
Hebrew would have had an aspectual verbal system (e.g., in his
1995 dissertation), but do not presently find it acceptable because of (1) unproven assumptions (ibid., p. 181) regarding the
antecedents of Hebrew and possible developments therefrom to

an aspectual system, i.e., that the older Semitic languages were
tensed (the Ugaritic verbal system is as plausibly aspectual as
temporal, though a large body of prose texts by which this could
be determined has not yet been discovered; to my knowledge, a
thorough study of the Akkadian verbal system in tense-aspect
terms remains to be done note for the present that Huehnergard refers to the principal forms as tenses, i.e., the word is
placed in quotation marks: 1995, p. 205 et passim, and Andrasons
recent claim [2010] that the Akkadian iprus evolved from originally unmarked for tense/aspect through aspectually marked to
significantly tense marked); and (2) DeCaens failure plausibly
to explain the Hebrew system as expressing primarily a form of
temporality.
4 This view was treated in detail by Creason in his 1995 dissertation.
5 Pardee 1997a, p. 137; 2004, p. 303. Tropper (2000) has made a
valiant attempt to explain verbal usage in Ugaritic poetry as a
coherent system of which the authors of the poems were fully
aware and which they were fully able to manipulate in a systematic way though he does leave a place for purely stylistic
manipulation of the aspectual forms. In our manual of Ugaritic,
Bordreuil and I essentially adopted Troppers view of the Ugaritic
verbal system (2004, vol. 1, pp. 6064); in the English edition,
however, convinced by Greensteins (2006) observation of incongruities between this view and the orthography of YQTL forms
of weak roots, particularly III-alif roots, we have presented the
distribution of yaqtul and yaqtulu forms in Ugaritic poetry as essentially in free variation (Bordreuil and Pardee 2009, pp. 4550).
If there is anything to this and because the yaqtul perfective/
preterit was not in use in Ugaritic prose, there is no attested
West Semitic verbal system where the yaqtul perfective/preterit
was fully functional as such alongside the qatala perfective.
285
286
Dennis Pardee
that the use of the verbal forms must be judged as reflecting remnants of an older system; precisely what the
declaimers of Hebrew poetry had in mind in any given case is all too often uncertain a problem that is exacerbated by doubts regarding the reliability of the Massoretic vocalization tradition.6
Finally, it must be noted here that the artificiality that some have ascribed to the Biblical Hebrew verbal
system is a figment of their imagination: the growing number of Hebrew inscriptions dating from the last century or so of the kingdom of Judah manifest a verbal system in all essential points identical to that of Standard
Biblical Hebrew prose. That they reflect the speech of several strata of society (Parker 1997, pp. 1618) shows that
the verbal system itself, as distinct from various uses thereof,7 was part of everyday speech, and the view of the
system as a post-exilic construct may only be described as absurd.8
I thus doubt that, even if Tropper is correct about Ugaritic poetry (see preceding note), all the poets represented in the Hebrew
Bible and their redactors and transmitters were always using
the verbal forms according to a linguistically coherent system.
7 For example, the language attested in the extra-biblical Judaean
Hebrew inscriptions makes greater use of non-verb-initial sentences than does Standard Biblical Hebrew prose, and the same
may be said of direct speech embedded in narratives in the Hebrew Bible. For this reason, it would be interesting to separate
direct speech from reportorial discourse (see below, nn. 16 and
39) in studies of word order in Biblical Hebrew (that is not the
case, for example, in Jongeling 1991).
8 Knauf (1990), though treating the entirety of the Hebrew Bible,
recognizes implicitly the essential identity of pre-exilic Judaean
Hebrew and Standard Biblical Hebrew prose the facts that the
Judaean Hebrew of the largest body of attested inscriptions patently existed alongside other dialects (much more poorly attested) and that not all strata of the Hebrew Bible represent the
dialect spoken in Judah in the two centuries or so preceding the
Babylonian exile (viz., the dialect that is attested by inscriptions
dating to this period) do not lead to a required negative response
to the question in Knauf s title. The verbal system visible in these
inscriptions, the point of his paper, is essentially identical to
that of Standard Biblical Hebrew prose. Knauf s general treatment is exploited to his own ends by Davies (1992, pp. 10405):
biblical Hebrew is another scholarly construct; indeed, we
might say that it is no more than the imputed language of the
scholarly ancient Israel, and thus part of a larger fabrication.
One can only express a certain agreement with so general a
statement, i.e., when biblical Hebrew and ancient Israel are
viewed as monolithic concepts; but, with the proper limitation of
comparable data to Biblical Hebrew prose and pre-exilic Judean
Hebrew, the statement loses its force. The differences cited by
Knauf between pre-exilic Judaean Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew
represent a very small number of morphological features; he has
little to say about the essential identity of morphology, syntax,
and discourse structure between the Hebrew of the inscriptions
from the last two centuries or so before the Babylonian exile and
the standard prose of the Hebrew Bible; these are so important,
in my estimation, as to preclude attaching a tag of artificiality
to the language of the vast majority of the biblical prose texts.
Rather, it appears clear that these texts, as we know them today,
were for the most part redacted in the literary prose of pre-exilic Judah, which had only undergone minor orthographic and
morphological changes; the most likely general date for such
a linguistic situation appears to be within or shortly after the

Babylonian exile itself, when the pre-exilic language was still a
living entity. But in point of fact, the virtual absence of Hebrew
inscriptions between the pre-exilic ones and the Dead Sea Scrolls,
the latter written by persons whose Hebrew had evolved beyond
the language known from the biblical texts, obliges us to leave
the question open. This formulation is not meant to imply that
even Standard Biblical Hebrew prose does not contain textual
and, to a lesser extent, linguistic strata; it says nothing about
the possibility of some linguistically aberrant phenomena visible
in the Massoretic text representing corruptions within the oral
tradition; it says nothing about the pre-history of the redactions
actually attested in the Massoretic text (though their existence
seems to be proven by the evolution visible within the prose
texts themselves, from so-called Standard Biblical Hebrew to Late
Biblical Hebrew it appears difficult to envision circumstances
in the post-exilic period that would have created such an evolution, though an explanation by dialectical strata is certainly
possible); it explicitly leaves open the possibility that in certain
circles pre-exilic Judaean Hebrew may have been maintained as
a living entity for several centuries (cf. the prose of the Book of
Daniel); it explicitly excludes Biblical Hebrew poetry from the
comparison; and it recognizes that the extra-biblical textual data
from before the middle of the eighth century b.c.e. are too sparse
to allow anything solid to be said about the evolution of Judaean
Hebrew (and all the less of Israelian Hebrew) up to that date. But
the data do appear sufficient to give a qualified yes to Knauf s
question: the vast majority of the prose in Genesis2 Kings does
represent a single language and dialect, Judaean Hebrew showing
a relatively low level of evolution from that visible in the immediate pre-exilic inscriptions. Only someone unacquainted with
the Lachish letters (for example) could entertain the notion that
the consecutive or wayyiqtol was actually a strictly literary
tense (Kawashima 2004, p. 39) there are too many linguistic
similarities between the language of the pre-exilic Judaean inscriptions and that of Standard Biblical Hebrew prose (of which
one may mention the system constituted by wayyiqtl/qtal in
opposition to wqtal/yiqtl) to allow for the hypothesis that the
verbal system of Standard Biblical Hebrew prose corresponds to
anything but the presence in the literary language of exilic or
post-exilic times of the verbal system characteristic of spoken
Judaean Hebrew in the pre-exilic period. For a general statement
critical of Davies, but one that does not make the requisite distinction between prosaic and poetic texts in the Hebrew Bible,
see Hurvitz 1997.
287
Morphology and Morpho-semantics

The system is binary, expressing perfectivity and imperfectivity,9 and there are two forms that express each
aspect: perfectivity is expressed by qtal and wayyiqtl, imperfectivity by yiqtl and wqtal.10 The four forms consist of two that came into use when the proto-West Semitic system began to express perfectivity by QTL (SC
= suffix conjugation) and imperfectivity by YQTL (PC = prefix conjugation) and two that constitute frozen usages retained from a previous stage of the language when the perfective and/or preterit was expressed by yaqtul
while qatala (and its variants) expressed stativity.11 The view that only wayyiqtl is a true retention, one that I
once entertained seriously (Pardee 1983b), seems to be disproved by the fact that both Ugaritic and Phoenician
(Pardee 1983a, pp. 6667) use forms corresponding to wqtal,12 while forms corresponding to wayyiqtl are as yet
unattested in Ugaritic prose.
9 Pardee 1990, pp. 20204; 1993a; 1994, p. 152; 1995. The aspect
that is marked in the finite verbal forms is thus the viewpoint
type: see the summation of the various theories regarding types
of aspect in Dobbs-Allsopp 2000, pp. 2132. The key publications
in the history of the debate on aspect in general and on aspect
in Biblical Hebrew have been provided recently by Joosten (2002)
and in the response by Cook (2006).
10The forms cited are to be considered as shorthand for all possible morphological variants of the forms known traditionally
as perfect and w-consecutive imperfect (or whichever of the
various terms be preferred), on the one hand, and as imperfect
and wconsecutive perfect, on the other. I will below use the
forms vocalized as Biblical Hebrew according to the Sephardic
tradition to denote Biblical Hebrew forms and the forms with
proto-Hebrew vowels (yaqtul etc.) to represent proto-Hebrew
forms (usually the proto stage remains undefined i.e., the
linguistic stages leading up to Biblical Hebrew as we know it were
innumerable, and rarely will any attempt be made here to express that history in a properly rule-ordered fashion). I adopt
here the term w-retentive not because I find it particularly
elegant but because it expresses diachronic reality and does not
have the obvious weaknesses of such popular terms as w-conversive and w-consecutive or even wconservative (for a discussion, see Waltke and OConnor 1990, pp. 46678, 51963, whose
preferred term, wrelative, is not, in my estimation, without
problems: first, it lends itself to confusion because it introduces
clauses that are not relative in the traditional sense of the
word; second, and fundamentally more important, such verbal
forms are not necessarily relative to a preceding verb or clause,
as we shall see in the course of this study). It is important to note
with regard to the traditional use of terms that begin with w
that (1) it is not the w that was an active agent in retaining (or
conserving) the archaic forms but that the archaic forms happen
to have been retained, for the most part (see below, n. 26), after
w and (2) that this w was in all likelihood simply protoWest
Semitic wa, not an expanded form of this particle or a totally different one (see below, nn. 12 and 47). Finally, Cook has proposed
serious arguments, based on Biblical Hebrew usage rather than
on hypothetical proto-Hebrew forms, for wayyiqtl being the only
truly tensed form in the system (2001; this conclusion is also assumed in 2006, pp. 3334), his principal internal argument being
that the wretentive + YQTL of stative verbs expresses past state
not present state; I remain, however, unconvinced (I see no reason to take wayyigbah in Isa 5:16, for example, as past tense and
no reason to doubt that more forms with this function would be

attested in a larger corpus).
11 Pardee 1995, pp. 6466. For the history of the appeal to the
Akkadian permansive/stative to explain Biblical Hebrew qtal
and w qtal, see McFall 1982, pp. 18284 (with more detailed
treatments of the theories of J. A. Knudtzon and H. Bauer on pp.
87115). The view shared by Tropper (1998a, pp. 18487) and
Cook (2001, pp. 13435) that both qtal and wqtal function as
perfectives in Biblical Hebrew and Troppers view that Akkadian
paris was perfective in Akkadian (1998a, p. 182) appear equally
untenable to me (on this latter point, contrast Andersen 2000, p.
34). The functional interchangeability of yiqtl and wqtal (according to the strictures of morpho-syntax and discourse strategy, of course) in Standard Biblical Hebrew prose as exemplified in
the sample passages cited below disallow the description of the
former as imperfective the latter as perfective. One must either
admit, it appears to me, that wqtal arose secondarily in Biblical
Hebrew as a counterpart to wayyiqtl (a notion that I no longer
accept, as will be indicated below) or that it had a proto-Hebrew
origin similar to that of wayyiqtl. That origin can only have been
in the proto-West Semitic form corresponding to Akkadian paris,
which was basically adjectival and hence unmarked for aspect.
It appears plausible to explain the origin of the Hebrew wqtal
form as a frozen form, like wayyiqtl, consisting of wa + this form,
which was aspectually neutral but took on the function of expressing non-perfectivity in contrast with wayyiqtl (see Pardee
200304, pp. 33940 n. 1222, 35758). What might be termed the
reigning hypothesis regarding the origin of the wqtal imperfective is that it began life in the apodosis of conditional clauses (see
the recent statement, with bibliography, by Kawashima 2010, p.
16), an explanation whose origin can only be understood as an
attempt to explain the form as part of a tensed system, and a
rather desperate one at that.
12 Insufficient data exist to explain to the satisfaction of all
why the w appears to derive from a CVC syllable in the case of
wayyiqtl, but from a CV syllable in the case of wqtal (cf. below,
n. 47). It appears in any case likely to me that the proto-Hebrew
conjunctival element was identical, i.e., /wa/, and that the doubling of the preformative consonant of the PC is secondary (the
plausibility of this hypothesis rests on the observation that the
PC presents a small range of consonantal possibilities /, t, y,
n/ while the SC, because it has no preformative, presents all
such possibilities).
288
Dennis Pardee
The type of aspect is that which views acts as complete or incomplete;13 duration versus point in time is subsumed under this heading that is, either type of act may be expressed perfectively or imperfectively.14 Time/
tense are also subsumed under the aspectual heading that is, events that have already taken place or that are
yet to take place may be expressed perfectively or imperfectively according to whether the speaker wishes to
refer to them as complete or incomplete; what some tensed languages express explicitly by a present tense may
be expressed in Biblical Hebrew by either of the aspectually marked forms, by non-finite verbal forms, or by
nominal phrases.
The details of the historical development from the proto-West Semitic system to Biblical Hebrew are uncertain
for paucity of data, but it is clear that Hebrew has retained to some extent the expression of stativity by Ablaut
within both the perfective and the imperfective systems (fientive is ktab yiktb, stative is kbdyikbad), though
the expression is not nearly so systematic as in Arabic.15
Because the notions of perfectivity (the viewing of an act in its entirety) and past tense are often related,
reportorial discourse16 is generally expressed by perfective forms. It is nonetheless the case, however, that the
verb forms are marked at the surface level for aspect and the interpreters role, ancient (hearer) or modern
(reader), is thus not to determine the aspect, which is expressed on the surface level of the language and is not
ambiguous, but the function of each form.17 That the opposite is not true namely, that the hearer automatically
registered the tense of an utterance is clear from the most superficial analysis of both narrative and direct
discourse in Biblical Hebrew, perhaps most indubitably in texts such as the ones chosen below as sample texts
but in just about any extensive passage that one might choose to examine. The marking of time relationships is
not the primary function of the finite verbal forms and the interpreter must determine from the logic of the
situation what these are.18 Such a description does not deny that Hebrew expresses time/tense; it denies that the
Hebrew verbal system is primarily marked for the expression of tense.19
13 On the aspects of aspect, see Pardee 1985a, p. 108 (a reference
to P. Friedrichs view that verbal aspect includes the expression
of completeness vs. incompleteness, duration vs. punctility, and
stativity vs. fientiveness). On the distinction between complete
and completed, see Waltke and OConnor 1990, pp. 48081.
The recent refutation of the aspectual theory by Blau (2010, pp.
20102) is remarkably naive in this regard, depicting the view
of those who describe a Semitic verbal system as aspectual in
the following way: According to the prevailing theory of aspect
in Semitic languages, the Semitic speaker either looked at the
verb as describing its action during its happening (the imperfective aspect) or simply stated that such an action took place
(the perfective aspect) (quotation from p. 201). One would be
hard pressed to find a serious proponent of aspect who would so
describe the system today.
14 As shown, for example, by Waltke and OConnor 1990, p. 480.
That duration is one of the features expressed by various aspectual systems is a linguistic given (see preceding note); that it is
not the primary feature expressed by the Biblical Hebrew system
is proved by the use of both finite forms to express both duration and punctility (for a clear example of a SC durative in the
first sample text below, see on v. 5.2; there is another possible
example in v. 12.2) as well as by the fact that the expression of
duration is one of the important functions of the participle (it
is this characteristic of the participle that has led to the various theories criticized below that would see the participle as
expressing present tense or progressive acts). This having been
said, however, there is no doubt that there is a large gray area
between acts that are clearly repeated punctiliar acts and those
that clearly constitute duration, e.g., the acts of weeping in 1Sam
1; another fuzzy case is /wqwlh l yima/ in v. 13 (has the
use of the Niphal and the negative particle transformed what
would normally be a punctiliar act into a durative one? each
emission of her voice could not be heard or her voice was unhearable?).
15
Stativity thus appears to be the one Aktionsart of which the formal expression occurs primarily within the basic verbal system;
only secondarily is it expressed by derived stems (see Creason
1995). On stativity as one of the poles of situation aspect, see
Dobbs-Allsopp 2000.
16 On this term, see Pardee 1995, p. 65.
17 Thus, though I agree fully with Longs description of the basic
structure of 1 Sam 1:35 (1999, pp. 17980), I must disagree with
his explicit classification of the imperfective forms in this passage as expressing habitual aspect. There is no such thing as
habitual aspect: there is imperfective aspect of which one of
the functions is to express habitual acts.
18 Cf. Pardee 2001. This stance, which appears obvious to me from
a passage such as 1 Sam 1 examined below, is in contrast with the
view of Endo (1996), who believes that the time reference and
aspect of a verbal form are determined by the context (quotation from Giantos review [1997, p. 346]). Even further from plausibility is Nicaccis argument from three brief passages where the
perfective and imperfective forms function to express acts that
occurred in the past or that will occur in the future that those
forms are tenses and nothing else (1994, p. 129) the system
is not to be defined by the great number of cases in which the
aspects reflect real-world temporal categories but by the many
cases in which they do not do so. His claim that wayyiqtol is the
only verb form for the mainlinewhile waw-X-qatal indicates a
unique event and waw-X-yiqtol repetition or custom (ibid.) simply does not conform to the structure of 1 Sam 1 (just to cite
the example of the first sample text analyzed here below) where
wqtal appears out of nowhere in v. 3 to express iteritivity. This
and many examples like it in 1 Sam 1 and elsewhere show that
aspect (admitted by Nicacci only as a form of Aktionsart) is not
limited to the subsidiary line of communication (ibid.), i.e.,
to sentences that begin with something other than a verb. The
distribution of perfective and imperfective forms in conditional
sentences, in which the possible forms appear in what in terms
289
The imperfective forms express acts as incomplete, including any act belonging to the broad category of ir
realis. The primary sub-categories were expressed in proto-Hebrew by morphemes that were a part of the basic
imperfective form, namely, affixed thereunto; certain forms show the system still to be functional in Standard
Biblical Hebrew in spite of the modification of final short vowels (loss [e.g., yaqtulu > yiqtl] or lengthening [e.g.,
aqtula > eqtl]) in a stage of the language prior to Biblical Hebrew. Acts expressed as future or frequentative20
were expressed by the *yaqtulu form (commonly known as indicative, e.g., yqm < *yaqmu, he will arise),
volitivity by *yaqtul (commonly known as jussive, e.g., yqm < *yaqum < **yaqm, may he arise)21 and yaqtula
(commonly known as cohortative, e.g., qmh < *aqma, may I arise). The precise semantics of the energic
forms (<*yaqtulan and *yaqtulanna) is a disputed topic.22 That the imperative is directly related to the imperfective is shown by the fact that the two forms have identical second vowels (Pardee 1995, p. 65) and that both can
be expanded by (< *a). The multiple forms and nuances within the imperfective system would seem to support
Waltke and OConnors hypothesis according to which the perfective is the more highly marked of the two forms,
that imperfective aspect in Biblical Hebrew is essentially non-perfectivity.23
of tense may only be termed random distribution (see above,
n. 11, and below, n. 72) poses no problem in a system primarily
expressive of aspect, in which the speakers view of the reality
of the events expressed in both protasis and apodosis may be
ranked by the use of the appropriate forms.
19 As basic works on the interactions of tense and aspect (and
mood), one may consult Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca 1994;
Bartsch 1995; Chung and Timberlake 1995, pp. 20258; Hollebrandse and van Hout 2005; as an online resource, Binnicks
website, last updated in 2006.
20 Pardee 1985a, p. 108; 1993a, p. 313. A standard dictionary of
the English language defines frequentative as in grammar,
denoting the frequent repetition of an action; iterative as
characterized by iteration (which in turn is defined as repetition), in grammar = frequentative; habitual as formed
or acquired by habit, frequent use, or custom; customary. Thus
in standard English usage, the three terms are essentially synonyms; I prefer frequentative or iterative over habitual
because they appear to express repetition without the more explicit notion of habit. In the first sample text cited below, 1 Sam
1, some of the acts described by *yaqtulu forms are presented as
being repeated annually (and one may query whether that constitutes an expression of habit), others as constituting repetition
or duration within the frame of the present narrative (e.g., v. 8).
Though Comries distinction between iterative and habitual
is sometimes cited as authoritative, Macaulay (1978) essentially
trashed Comries linguistic theory in his review of Comrie 1976.
21The two asterisks before **yaqm represent the fact that this
is the theoretical -ending equivalent to yaqmu, but, because it
was a rule in Proto-Semitic that historically long vowels shortened when the syllable in which they appeared became closed,
the form could not have existed as such. Since the final syllable
of the YQTL form was by definition closed, proto-Hebrew yaqm
is a strictly theoretical form. I have never expressed and have no
strong opinion on the proper explanation for the identity of the
jussive and perfective in proto-Semitic. The primary options are
Hetzrons (1969), where the distinction is said to have been provided by accent and the view prevailing before Hetzrons article
according to which the jussive and perfective/preterit correspond to two functions of a single form only distinguishable by
usage/context. Because Hetzrons theory is not borne out by the
data from any functioning Semitic language, perhaps the second
view is to be preferred.
22 Pardee 1999, pp. 31317. Rainey (2003) has responded to this
review, but says nothing new about the questions regarding the
semantics and distribution of the energic forms in the various
Northwest Semitic languages. See also Tropper 1998b and the

longer and more explicit version of his views in Tropper and
Vita 2005, where he argues very plausibly that there were only
two basic prefix-conjugation forms in early West Semitic, *yaq
tul and *yaqtulu; *yaqtula being an extension of *yaqtul jussive
while *(a)n(na) represent a tense/aspect-neutral expanding
morpheme that could be added to both *yaqtul and *yaqtulu; the
former in both of its functions, as a jussive and as a perfective/
preterit. In the singular, both -an and Vnna forms are retained in
Biblical Hebrew before pronominal suffixes, yiqtlenn (<*yaqtul
+ an + hu) and yiqtlenh (<*yaqtul + anna + hu). In the 2f.s. and
the plural, the problem is the origin of the n in forms such as
yiqtln: indicative, energic, or enclitic? Suffixed forms also provide examples of the *yaqtulu form (yiqtol, with aspirated //,
< *yaqtulu + ka) and of the *yaqtul jussive (inscriptional {ybrk}
corresponding to biblical ybre [with medial shewa between
the two tokens of //] and hence to be vocalized /ybrekk/
[in Massoretic terms!] < *yabarrik + ka). The inscriptional form is
attested both in the Ketef Hinnom versions (Barkay et al. 2004)
of the Priestly Blessing (the form cited from the Hebrew Bible is
in Num 6:24) and in an epistolary graffito from Kuntillet Ajrud
(Dobbs-Allsopp et al., p. 293).
23 Waltke and OConnor 1990, pp. 34748; cf. ch. 31, pp. 496518,
entitled Prefix (Non-perfective) Conjugation. Joostens claim
(2002) that the verbal system is not aspectual because the Hebrew expression of aspect does not conform precisely to other
such systems, in particular in not expressing the real present
by *yaqtulu, reflects the historical place of *yaqtulu as part and
parcel of the modal system in West Semitic (cf. also the limitation of u forms in Akkadian to subordinate clauses) and contains
some intriguing grains of truth. The definition of the YQTL forms
as all marked for non-perfectivity, however, handles that problem
(cf. Joosten 2002, p. 51 n.15), and the real question, then, boils
down to the function of *qatala and to the functioning together of
the primary forms as a system. Because the *qatala form does not
have the modal variety of YQTL, it appears better to see the latter
as providing the nonperfective counterpart to *qatala than to see
it as having another function altogether. Here Joostens desire to
describe the Biblical Hebrew system purely synchronically leads
to implausible results: if what must at some level have characterized the proto-Hebrew verbal system, i.e., what we know empirically as el-Amarna Canaanite or Ugaritic, functioned aspectually
(cf. Joosten 2002, p. 52), systems in which *yaqtulu was no less a
part of the modal system than it is in Biblical Hebrew, then is it
likely that the morphological and morpho-syntactic developments particular to Biblical Hebrew resulted in a nonaspectual
verbal system? As a non-linguist, I have three major questions
290
Dennis Pardee
The commonly accepted notions that the participle functions as a tense to express contemporaneity, present
tense, or progressives (Joosten 1989; 1997a, p. 59; 1997b, p. 76; DeCaen 1995) in Biblical Hebrew is to be rejected.
First, it must be recognized that there are three types of participles, not one or two: there is an active participle
(qtl <*qtil), two stative participles (qtl <*qatil and qtl < *qatul), and a passive participle (qtl <*qatl). As
was clearly demonstrated in Nashs dissertation (1992), the participles are verbal adjectives (i.e., a form productively derivable from any given verb but substantival in form and verbal or substantival in syntax [i.e., the
active participle of a transitive verb can take either accusative or genitive complements]) whose function is to
express acts non-aspectually by describing the actor adjectivally. As was shown long ago (Kedar-Kopfstein 1977),
the range of actual usage in Biblical Hebrew is very broad, from the purely substantival to the purely verbal. The
real-world aspect and/or tense reflected by the participle may only be determined from context, which only
can indicate whether the act so expressed is past, contemporaneous, or yet to occur; the predicative function of
the participial forms is, therefore, essentially that of any other substantive, adjective or noun, functioning as a
predicate. The fact that the participle may be marked as a progressive by use with HYH, to be that is, to be
in the state of performing such-and-such an act, a relatively rare usage (not attested in the sample texts below)
is neither, therefore, grounds for seeing that function as a general one nor proof of the tensed nature of the
Biblical Hebrew verbal system.24
Morpho-syntax25
Though two forms exist to express each aspect, use is determined largely, though not exclusively, 26 by the
presence or absence of the conjunction w, that is, the frozen forms exist as composites with this conjunction
and only appear where this conjunction can properly be used in a Hebrew sentence. Hence qtal can theoretically
express perfectivity anywhere in a sentence, while wayyiqtl can do so only at the beginning of a sentence, and
the same is true, mutatis mutandis, of yiqtl and w qtal.27
In spite of the importance of verbal sequences (Pardee 1994, pp. 15253), it must be recognized that the
wretentive28 forms can function independently of the verbal form that appears in the immediately preceding
position: a wretentive form not only need not be introduced by its opposite counterpart (qtal wayyiqtl, yiqtl
w qtal), as has long been recognized,29 but, even more strikingly, it can also express the opposite aspect to that
with regard to Joostens study. (1) Does the fact that the primary expression of the real present is not expressed uniquely
by what would be the imperfective form really disqualify the
Hebrew system as aspectual? This is the real basis for Joostens
attempt to deny the aspectual nature of the system (cf. p. 67),
and it deserves assessment by a qualified linguist. My assumption
has been that in a primarily aspectual system, the expression
of the real-world tenses would vary from language to language
and might not be tied to specific forms within a given language.
Joostens assertion that the real present (as opposed to the
habitual present) is only expressed by the participle in Biblical
Hebrew should also be examined in detail (he discounts examples
of yiqtl having this function by claiming that they are in fact
modal as translatable by English modal forms, e.g., why might
you be weeping is this really a plausible approach to a Semitic
problem?). But English-translation presents (contemporaneity,
habit, state) can be expressed by any of the finite and non-finite
forms in Biblical Hebrew, i.e., from the aspectual perspective,
they are not aspect sensitive, and one wonders if Joostens strictures on the real present are as valid as he believes. (2) Why
should the identification of *yaqtulu as part of a modal system be
incompatible with identifying it as an imperfective? (3) Is it plausible to define *qatala as a past-tense form in Biblical Hebrew, of
which *yaqtulu would be the corresponding future/modal? Since
the qtal functions in so many ways as the mirror image of yiqtl,
but perforce without the attachment of the former to a modal
system, it does not appear plausible to limit its function to the

expression of tense diachronically, of course, this cannot be
the case considering its origin as an adjective (see above, n. 11).
24 On the non-finite element of periphrasitic constructions as a
converb, see Haspelmath 1995, pp. 4345.
25 The distinction between morphology and morpho-syntax corresponds to what Talstra (1997) refers to as a distinction between
clause-level and text-level grammar.
26 As is well known, the PC appears commonly after the adverb
z, then. The semantic conditioning is less clear in this case
than in that of (b )erem, before, after which the PC is also regularly used. This idiom is sometimes cited as an example of retention of yaqtul, but seems rather to express the imperfectivity
implied by (b)erem.
27 Nicacci (cf. Pardee 1993a, p. 313) has pointed out actual restrictions on the appearance of the SC and PC forms at the beginning
of sentences (see also Joosten 2006).
28 I have not found this particular term used before; my description of the system is certainly less detailed and comprehensive
than was the system created by H. Bauer in which the ww was
said to be conservative (cf. McFall 1982, pp. 93115).
29 Gesenius, Kautzsch, and Cowley 1910, p. 326 (111a); Joon
1923, p. 321 (118c); cf. Longacre 1992, p. 178; Tropper 1996, p.
636.
291
of the immediately preceding utterances (Pardee 1994, p. 152 n. 3). This is clear in the first sample text examined
below (wlh, v. 3, following wayhy in vv. 1, 2), as well as in the second (see v. 13 in particular), and sporadic
examples may be found throughout Hebrew prose.30
The primary function of the two forms has since the early 1980s been thought by many to express foregrounding in the case of wretentive forms and backgrounding in the case of the independent forms (e.g.,
Reinhart 1984; Longacre 1989), and I have in the past accepted this terminology (e.g. 1990; 2001) while wishing that
a detailed study of the various functions of backgrounding in Biblical Hebrew would be carried out. Heimerdinger
(1999) has, however, shown that this view of Hebrew narrative structure is overly formal and does not properly
represent the modern linguistic notion of foregrounding.31 He provides a convincing critique of Longacres system,
but his own main concern is with defining foregrounding, not with explaining the function of the four principal
aspectual forms.32 He does at one point, however, observe that all the NP + qatal clauses which indicate markedness for the three types of information structure may be viewed as standing out against the routine development
of the narrative provided by vayyiqtol clauses. Such clauses would seem to indicate foregrounded rather than
backgrounded material (p. 219).33 And in his conclusions, he remarks that foregrounding may be expressed by all
types of clauses (pp. 23940). Taking these observations in conjunction with those of his predecessors, one might
conclude that the metaphor for wayyiqtl forms according to which they expressed the backbone of the narrative
had a grain of truth to it but that it is necessary to lower the frame of the metaphor so that the reference is no
longer to the high points or even to the essential points of the story but to its flow. If one accepts Heimerdingers
view that not all wayyiqtl forms express foregrounding, then foregrounding is occurring all around these forms,
while backgrounding may be expressed by wX qtal forms, by non-verbal phrases, and by entire clauses that
have this function, particularly circumstantial clauses. One can thus view wayyiqtl forms as expressing the flow
of the narrative, including both routine events and events essential to the progress of the narrative, while other
structures show far more variety of function.34 It is essential to observe that flow of the narrative is not to be
understood in strict temporal terms: as the Hebrew verbal system does not primarily express tense, so its contribution to the structure of a narrative cannot be expected to be temporal. The real-world flow of the narrative will
usually be along a temporal line, but both qtal and wayyiqtl forms may (and must) be translated as pluperfects
according to the logic of the story (see below on 1 Sam 1:6.2 and 22.2). The conclusion to be drawn from this view
of the four finite verbal forms is that their function in discourse is no more predetermined than is their function
within a given sentence: the function is not to be defined in terms of information essential (foregrounding) or
30
This is always one of the difficult points for students learning Biblical Hebrew from Lambdins grammar (1971): because
he presents the ww-consecutive forms as strictly sequential,
then, in an exercise (p. 121, c, 8), the sequence consisting of a
participle followed by a wqtal form, students are frequently at
a loss to know what to do with the sequence. A more accurate
definition of the wretentive forms is required to deal with real
biblical texts, such as 1 Sam 1:3 or the striking morpho-syntactic
parallel, but where the imperfective expresses a promise to be
realized in the future, in 2 Sam 7:9, wt y drops into a sequence
of perfectives that begin in v. 8, two qtal and two wayyiqtl, and
the hearer/reader must recognize by form alone that the fifth
finite verb of the sequence is imperfective.
31For a detailed analysis of the various ways of expressing newness, topic, and emphasis within a verbal sentence, but without
Heimerdingers comparison with the attempts to define foregrounding/backgrounding in terms of the use of w-retentive
forms, see Disse 1998.
32 Biblical Hebrew does indeed have four forms marked for aspect
(cf. Talstra 1997, p. 89), but the four forms represent only the two
standard aspects and are distributed according to the syntactic
categories of discourse structure, what Talstra calls text grammar (cf. Pardee 1993b, p. 314). That the two aspectual forms
can express a wide variety of real-world situations is well known
to linguists (cf. Comrie 1976), and it should be no surprise that
the aspectual parsing of a form is only the first step of analysis

and that the determination of the precise function of the form
within a particular discourse should require that the rhetorical
function of any given form be analyzed within the larger context
in which it occurs; indeed, it verges on the incomprehensible
that grammarians should have proposed that one or the other
of these two levels of analysis be qualified as representing the
proper description of the Biblical Hebrew verbal system (some of
the major presentations are cited and classified by Talstra). The
steps of analysis are, therefore, precisely the opposite of those
which Talstra himself proposes (94101): the decision regarding aspect is a purely formal one and hence extremely easy, but
only after it is made can one begin considering what the author
intended to convey by the use of one aspect or the other (this
formulation is not meant to imply that text-critical decisions
may not complicate the task of parsing).
33 See also Long 1999, pp. 17781.
34 For Bailey and Levinsohn 1992 (cf. Andersen 2000, pp. 43
44), w Xqtal expresses topic discontinuity. Unfortunately,
Heimerdinger disposes of the foregrounding/backgrounding hypothesis without adequately discussing a possible topicalizing
function for w-Xqtal. By this hypothesis, the primary function
of wXqtal formulae would be to topicalize; whether a given
one is foregrounding depends on the information it imparts.
292
Dennis Pardee
non-essential (backgrounding) for understanding the narrative, but in terms of the authors (speakers, narrators ) desire to stress a given bit of information. Viewed thus, the distribution in discourse of these forms is
analogous to their distribution in a clause or sentence: as the author chooses whether to present a given act as
complete or incomplete (with certain restrictions imposed by the real-world flow of time), so the author chooses
whether to present a given act as occurring in the narrative flow or as narratologically subsumed to another element or to other elements of the clause or sentence.35
The explanation for the distribution of forms just outlined is that wayyiqtl and w qtal by definition contain
a verbal form and must have the conjunction w in initial position, while all other structures can mix all the other
principal components of a sentence as the speaker/author wishes and place them, theoretically, anywhere in a
given phrase. Thus in terms of marking theory, the sentence beginning with something other than a wretentive
form is more highly marked than are those beginning with wretentive forms,36 and it contains by definition
much more potential for variety (because any morpho-syntactic element can be fronted); it is hence relatively
emphatic and serves to set up contrast on many possible levels with the regular flow of wayyiqtl forms.37 The
variety of nuances expressed by the fronting of an element of the sentence other than a wretentive verbal form
was probably great and almost certainly varied from one register of speech to another.38
The best-known function of wayyiqtl, because so much of the text of the Hebrew Bible is in reportorial discourse (Pardee 1990, p. 203; 1995, p. 65) the linguistic form, whatever the value of the reporting may be as judged
by the historians is that of expressing a perfective narrative line. The first sample text offered below contains
some of the more striking examples of imperfective forms expressing a frequentative narrative line within the
larger structure of perfective narrative line.
The use of wqtal in volitive sequences is better known and recognized because that usage is more common
than is the expression of the frequentative within a perfective narrative line and because it causes far less difficulty for readers whose own verbal system is primarily tensed rather than aspectual. It may be observed, however, that a purely indicative narrative in the imperfective39 is easily comprehensible and would be more widely
attested if prophetic speech were more commonly given in prose.40 It will be seen in my second sample text that
the nuancing of volitivity, as expressed by both PC and wretentive SC forms, is very complex.41
35Pre-exilic
Hebrew prose is famous for its fronting of non-verbal

elements. Cf. the striking example of Lachish 3:1921, where an
object phrase consisting of fourteen words precedes the main
verb, which bears a resumptive pronominal suffix that gives
the entire sentence a cleft structure (for recent treatments, see
Pardee 2002, pp. 7980; Lindenberger 2003, p. 126; Dobbs-Allsopp
et al. 2005, pp. 30814).
36Heimerdinger 1999, p. 212; Long 1999, p. 171.
37 Lambdins term disjunctive (Introduction [1971] 132) for
phrases that do not begin with a wretentive form, however correct it may be on the discourse level, is pedagogically confusing
because many, probably most, disjunctive clauses are introduced
by a conjunction (cf. Pardee 1995, p. 64 n. 4).
38Compare the relatively high frequency of the use of non-verb
fronting in quotations of direct speech in Biblical Hebrew and in
epigraphic Hebrew (Pardee 1990, p. 203) with the preference for
casus-pendens constructions in spoken French: Jean, je lai vu is
almost normative in spoken French, where it is much less highly
marked than it would be in the formal register.
39On the principal types of discourse as defined by distribution
of verbal forms, see Pardee 1990; 1995, p. 65. Niccacis basic
distinction in Hebrew and in practically every language between historical narrative and direct speech (1994, p. 119)
corresponds to some extent to what I have called reportorial
discourse as opposed to the various types of discourse that are
expressed imperfectively (1995, p. 65). One must not, of course,
forget that direct speech can be embedded in historical narrative while historical narrative can and often is an integral part
of direct speech. The most readily visible difference between the
two is that the imperfective forms will often express future acts
and all sorts of modalities in direct speech while they primarily

express iteration in historical narrative; the perfective forms, on
the other hand, will often express past acts in historical narrative
but primarily acts viewed as complete when embedded in imperfective direct speech (on the example of Num 5:1314, see Pardee
2001, pp. 310 n. 7 and 311 n. 11). For these reasons, Nicaccis description of the Hebrew verbal system in terms of these discourse
types makes no sense to me. One cannot admit that the verbal
system is built from bottom to top upon a coherent binary basis
consisting of two types of sentence (ibid., p. 130); rather, it is
built from bottom to top upon a coherent binary basis consisting
of two verbal aspects expressed in four verbal forms. These four
forms appear in different distributions to create verbal sentences
alongside which various types of nominal sentences occur (Pardee 1993a; for extensive discussion of nominal sentence types, see
the various contributions in Miller 1999).
40Longacre (1994, p. 51) cites the example of 1 Sam 10:26, presented as a speech by Samuel addressed to Saul in which he predicts upcoming events. See the briefer sequence, non-prophetic
in nature, below in the first sample text (1 Sam 1:22)
41Longacre (1994, pp. 5355, 9195) distinguishes five principal
types of discourse involving w qtal forms: predictive, procedural, instructional, hortatory, and juridical. The last four are
volitive in the sense that the speaker is imparting his will to the
listener, whether or not a marked volitive form appears at the
head of the sequence. See the second sample text below, where
the only marked volitive in the apodictic first section (vv. 113)
is a verb of speech. Such commands from YHWH to Moses are, of
course, scattered throughout the texts that belong to Longacres
category of procedural. These four categories are formally dis-
293
Because of the variety of PC forms, the variety of imperfective structures is particularly daunting. Though
improperly defined as imperative sequences, Lambdins classification of the volitive sequences according to
the form that follows the first expression of volition covers a vast number of occurrences. The three principal
structures as outlined in his 107 are as follow: a volitive form may be followed by (a) another volitive form,
whether of the same category or not (and, I would add, whether or not preceded by the conjunction w), which
expresses a marked continuation of the volitional expression; (b) a wqtal form, which expresses the subsequent
act as explicitly marked for imperfectivity but for volitivity by the context alone; or (c) a wyiqtl form, that is,
a nonwretentive but conjunctive phrase, which expresses purpose, goal, or result more strongly than either of
the others.42 The wyiqtl form also functioned to express purpose or result in nonvolitive sequences, though
this usage is less frequently attested (no example in the sample texts below).43
Because the SC form does not include marking for mood, the wretentive SC functioning as an imperfective
does not in and of itself express any of the moods of the PC forms, though, in cases of sequencing with a PC form,
the mood of the first form will normally be carried over to the wretentive SC; the precise translation value may
only be determined from context, and ambiguities remain, exactly as in the case of the PC itself (see below on 1
Sam 1:17, 18). It appears to me, therefore, that the form, whatever its origin, functions essentially as the equivalent of the yiqtl form, and attempts to bring all uses under a single heading are misguided.44
The morpho-syntax of what may broadly be termed circumstantial clauses is rendered complex in Biblical
Hebrew by the optional use of HYH, to be, to introduce such clauses and by the optional use of so-called w of
apodosis to introduce the main verb after the circumstantial clause; the complexity produced by these two optional uses is increased by the fact that a circumstantial clause may in fact be followed by one or more similar
clauses, and the sequence of these clauses can be expressed in the very same manner as the main clause (hence
it is sometimes impossible to determine the cleft between the circumstantial and the main clause by any means
other than logic), and by the fact that the circumstantial and the main clause(s) may be expressed in forms other
than wayyiqtl (Pardee 1993a, p. 313; 1994, p. 152). Space in the nutshell does not permit a more extensive treatment of these varieties of usage; some examples will be encountered in the texts treated below.
tinguished by the incidence and distribution of marked volitive

forms, *yaqtulu imperfectives, and w qtal imperfectives; one
wonders, however, what the functional difference was among
them. It is difficult to believe that YHWHs volition is significantly different in his instructions to Noah on building the ark
(Gen 6:1321; 7:14 = instructional) from the volition expressed
in how to present the offering for an inadvertent sin (Lev 4:112
= procedural). The juridical category (only Exod 21 and 22
are cited as examples) as distinct from the other three is defined
only by its not showing the same thematic connections as are
found in the other categories. Here also, then, the literary category has very little to do with morpho-syntactic considerations.
My hesitancy regarding Longacres discourse types was already
expressed in my review (1990) of his book on the Joseph narrative
(cf. Nicacci 1994, p. 119). His observation expressed in the article
under consideration here (Longacre 1994, pp. 5556: transformations among discourse types) that the various discourse
types can melt into one another makes me even more curious
about the functional load of each type. The predictive category clearly functions differently, however, in that the speaker is
describing the future rather than expressing his own volition.
It must nevertheless be observed that the distinction between
prediction and volition is perceived in a text by pure logic: in
1 Sam 10, for example, instructions (what routes Saul is to take
and, especially, the order expressed in v. 8 to the effect that he
is to wait seven days in the final place named) are mixed with
predictions (various persons whom he will meet, i.e., events over

which he has no power). Finally, to me it appears fundamentally
misguided to use the same term to designate volitive and narrative imperfective sequences: I refer to the use of procedural
both for volitional discourse not expressed by explicit volitive
forms (just discussed) and for the expression of iteration within
perfective discourse (Longacre 1994, pp. 5666). A procedure
that is being dictated for future performance is fundamentally
different from acts that happen to have been repeated in the
past: repetition is not procedure (though it may become such).
Moreover, it appears clear to me, though Longacre appears not
to share this view, that the function of the imperfectives in, e.g.,
Lev 4 is fundamentally different from that in, e.g., 1 Sam 1, viz.,
volitional vs. descriptive. I, for this reason, hold that volitional
procedure will be differentiated from iteration within a narrative
by the context in which each is found.
42Pardee 1994, pp. 15253. See Fassberg 2006, who provides statistics on Lambdins first two categories as restricted to imperative + imperative and imperative + wqtal (1150 to 180) but finds
no readily definable functional/semantic distinction between
them.
43 E.g., 2 Sam 9:1 h ak y ye- wd aer n wtar l b yt w l w e ee h
imm w esed, Is anyone left of the house of Saul that I might do
him well?
44E.g., Joosten 1997b, pp. 8182.
294
Dennis Pardee
Some Problematic Morpho-syntactic Types

(1) Perfective weqtlh, that is, apparent wretentive + cohortative functioning in a perfective sequence to express a perfective notion. Because (a) this structure is fairly common and appears to have been considered regular
in Standard Biblical Hebrew; (b) the *yaqtula form was historically volitive (Pardee 1993b, pp. 31617; 1999) only
and did not share the perfective/volitive ambiguity of the *yaqtul form; (c) with very few exceptions, the *yaqtula
form of the second and third persons has disappeared, with only first-person forms remaining; because of these
three factors one wonders if already in late proto-Hebrew (i.e., at a stage of the language when the full-blown
volitive system no longer existed but before the rise of Biblical Hebrew as we know it) the functional similarity
of the cohortative and the first-person jussive did not lead to an extrapolation of usage permitting the cohortative to be used like what was perceived at some level to be the jussive (i.e., the formally identical perfective from
an earlier stage of the language) after w. The analogy would thus have been as follows: as aqtul and aqtula both
function volitively, so should both be able to appear after wa as expressions of perfectivity.45
(2) Perfective w-retentive + *yaqtulu, for example, wayyibne h instead of wayyben. This appears to be an
inner-Biblical Hebrew phenomenon, that is, not to represent the highest form of Standard Biblical Hebrew, and
as such probably represents a relatively early stage of confusion between the old w-retentive perfective and
the standard imperfective form. Such a confusion would have arisen because of the formal identity that existed
between *yaqtul and *yaqtulu forms in most root types (the formal distinction is preserved in Standard Biblical
Hebrew only in hollow roots, III-h roots, to a lesser extent in geminate roots, and in the Hiphil stem in most root
types). It appears that the speaker intuitively broke the wa + yaqtul unit into its two constitutive elements and
considered that if he could say wayyiqtl, he could say wayyibneh.
(3) An even harder nut to crack is the use of wqtal as an apparently perfective (or even preterit) form. The
basic question is this: was this verbal phrase in Standard Biblical Hebrew symmetrically identical to wyiqtl (see
above) as a mirror image thereof, and did it therefore have a morpho-syntactic functional status that we have
yet adequately to describe, or was its aspectual/temporal function the same as qtal? Two primary factors lead
to the second conclusion: (a) its relative rarity, 46 and (b) the fact that native speakers apparently did not feel the
need to devise a means of differentiating this form from the imperfective form, as they did with the wayyiqtl
and wyiqtl forms.47 If such be the case, it appears necessary to surmise that the perfective *waqatal fell largely
45For
a discussion, see Rainey (2003, pp. 40102), though he refers only to the relegation of the first person cohortative into
the preterite paradigm (quotation from p. 401). Another solution is to identify the *a morpheme as not originally volitive
in nature, but etymologically related to the Akkadian ventive
(Gentry 1998). To what extent the identification with the morphologically varied ventive morphemes in Akkadian is debatable,
but the function of the yaqtula form in Arabic as a subjunctive
(the form appropriate for relative clauses) with no particular
volitive function may be taken as an argument for the *a morpheme being, like *an(na) (see above, n. 22), itself unmarked for
volitivity and not necessarily attached to volitive forms. However
that may be, wretentive plus a PC form ending in occurs in
Biblical Hebrew only in the first person, and such forms not preceded by wretentive function as volitives which allows for the
syntagm being a development internal to Biblical Hebrew rather
than a retention from proto-Hebrew.
46 This formulation, which may appear infuriatingly bland to
some, is not offered in total unawareness of the ambiguities inherent in a number of passages couched in what is apparently Standard Biblical Hebrew prose. On the example of 2 Kings
23:415, see Pietsch 200407. The ambiguity arises from the fact
that there are several 3 m.s. wqtal forms in this passage whose
subject appears to be Hezekiah (though the possibility must be
considered that the subject is in fact meant to be indefinite, i.e.,
the equivalent of they in English, on in French, or man in
German) but not a single 3 m.s. yiqtl form appears in the passage, and thus the overall structure of the pericope is very different from that of 1 Sam 1. There is a plural yiqtl form with a
specific subject (l ya a l w in v. 9) that fairly clearly has the same
function as the wqtal forms but is that a sufficient indicator
of the imperfective function of the latter? If the wqtal forms in
this passage are indeed imperfective and not simply indicators
of late redaction and expressing the same tense/aspect as the
wayyiqtl forms, their function must be that of multiplicatives
(the subject performs the act several times within a brief period),
not that of frequentatives (the subject repeats the act over an
extended period).
47This statement assumes (a) that the retention of /a/ and the
gemination of the following consonant had already occurred in
late proto-Hebrew, i.e., after the disappearance of the final /u/
from the *yaqtulu form, as a means of distinguishing perfective
wa + YQTL from imperfective wa + YQTL; (b) that the accentual
marking of wqtal imperfective (e.g., wqtalt with final accent)
is, on the contrary, late (as is shown by the retention of // in
the open pro-pretonic syllable: cf. Pardee 1985b, p. 69) and hence
may perhaps be seen as having arisen as a means of distinguishing imperfective wqtal from perfective wqtal after the latter
had begun to be used (Revell [1984, p. 444] dates the secondary
form to quite late; on the progressive disappearance of imperfective wqtal, see Joosten 2006).
295
out of usage at some stage of proto-Hebrew (it remained in usage in Ugaritic and Phoenician, where the usage of
w-retentive forms was never systematized) because of competition from *wayyaqtul. Note in this respect that
wyiqtl survived by taking on a particular function (see above), a development that was easily conceived within
the imperfective system but for which *waqatal found no corresponding place in the more limited perfective
system. Perfective wqtal was, therefore, to a great extent abandoned by the time that Judaean Hebrew reached
the state that we know from the preexilic inscriptions and from Standard Biblical Hebrew; it was retained only
in morpho-syntactic slots where confusion with imperfective wqtal was not a significant problem, particularly
as the last of a series of qtal forms.48 Subsequently, as the verbal system that we know from Standard Biblical
Hebrew came to be sensed as counter-intuitive because of the formal overlap between categories (cf. the example
of wayyibneh cited in the preceding remark), perfective/temporal wqtal appears to have staged a come-back.49
Sample Texts: 1 Samuel 1 and Numbers 19

I have decided to append to this brief overview a detailed analysis of two Hebrew texts, one primarily narrative, the other providing an example of prescriptive discourse containing both apodictic (vv. 213) and casuisitic
(vv. 1422) forms. In no large part, the decision to include sample texts arose out of frustration with various attempts to define the Biblical Hebrew verbal system that treat the details piecemeal rather than exhaustively.50
This is even true of studies of which 1 Samuel 1 is the illustrative passage.51
1 Samuel 1 was chosen because it incorporates several major types of discourse expressed by a variety of
morpho-syntactic structures: narrative discourse, including a relative high incidence of frequentative expression and circumstantial clauses, and various types of imperfective discourse in addition to the frequentatives
just mentioned (indicative, volitive, and conditional); Numbers 19 because it illustrates the interplay of yiqtl and
wqtal in expressing primarily imperfective discourse.
The analysis is arranged as a translation on the left with morpho-syntactic notes to the right. The translations are my own, and in them I attempt to provide a relatively idiomatic English version, with the implications
of the Hebrew morpho-syntactic structures indicated in parentheses. To avoid any possible misunderstanding,
the purpose of the translation is not to prove my view of the Biblical Hebrew verbal system by appealing to the
necessary rendition of this text in English (which would be no more than the translational syntax of which I have
doubted the usefulness in the past: Pardee 1979; 1994, p. 151), but to express to the extent possible in English what
I believe the Hebrew meant for the speaker/writer-listener/reader of the text in antiquity.
Textual matters are not treated here except to the extent that they impinge directly on the translation or on
questions of morpho-syntax.52 In general, I do not include reconstructed texts as part of my morpho-syntactic
analysis in order to avoid the subjectivity of such a procedure. Though such a practice would not be admissible
if I were proposing a full-scale commentary, it does not appear to have had any serious effect on the analysis of
the text as an illustration of Biblical Hebrew discourse structures.
Each finite verbal and nominal clause is indicated separately (clauses of which the verb is in the infinitival
form are not); relative clauses are indicated as dependent on the main clause by a letter of the alphabet (e.g.,
48Several
clear examples are cited in Longacre 1994, pp. 6884.

say appears to because of the dearth of post-exilic Hebrew
inscriptions which would allow us to chart the evolution of the
language (the literary character of most of the texts known as the
Dead Sea Scrolls makes them difficult to exploit as examples of
a living language) and because the links between Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew are uncertain; the latter may go back
to an independent dialect (cf. the so-called marzea inscription:
Bordreuil and Pardee 1990; 2000) rather than a linear development from the former.
50DeCaens dissertation (1995), for example, is said to be based
on the Hebrew of SamuelKings, but the reader has no way of
knowing what the relationship was between the theory and the
49I
data in the authors mind. To this reader, it does not appear unlikely that he began with the hypothesis that the Biblical Hebrew
verbal system is more plausibly explained as temporal than as
aspectual and that he developed this hypothesis, citing passages
to illustrate one detail or another of the hypothesis. But, it appears to me, when one sets about a strict parsing of every form
and of every paragraph and attempting to determine what the
author meant thereby, the temporal hypothesis encounters insurmountable difficulties.
51Joosten 1997b; van der Merwe 1997.
52For a textual study of 1 Samuel 1 that takes into account the
data from the Dead Sea scrolls, see McCarter 1980.
296
Dennis Pardee
17.4a means verse 17, fourth sentence, relative clause). The expression of a verbal attributive by means of a
participle with prefixed definite article is common in Numbers 19; these attributive phrases are not here analyzed
as clauses. As regards the stance taken in this study regarding the nature of the participle, namely, that it is neither marked for aspect nor expressive of the present tense, the form in this passage may refer (a) to an event that
has already occurred in the time line foreseen by the discourse (e.g., harp, v. 8, refers back to the person who
has burned the cow as prescribed in v. 5, hsp in v. 10 refers back to the person who has gathered the ashes as
prescribed in v. 4, mazz h m y hannidd h in v. 21 refers back to the person who has sprinkled the water of purification as prescribed in vv. 18 and 19), (b) to a long-term state (v. 10 laggr haggr), or (c) to an eventuality (e.g., v. 11
hanng a, to be contrasted with the usage of the very same form in v. 18, where it refers back to someone who will
have touched a corpse). It should be noted that the attributive use of the active participle finds its morphological
counterpart in substantivized stative adjectives preceded by the definite article, which, in this text, refer only to
persons who occupy a state that is actually or theoretically changeable (e.g., v. 19 whizzh hahr al-ham).
No attempt is made here to determine the paragraphs of the Hebrew text, a concept of dubious value in
analyzing ancient narrative.53 As the concept of strophe is generally an invalid one for Hebrew poetry, so the
validity of that of the paragraph which in both etymology and actual practice refers to a graphic separation
is debatable for prose narrative. In Ugaritic letters, for example (no prose narrative is yet attested), the horizontal paragraph divider is used inconsistently. In both prose and poetry, sense units, 54 which vary in length
and in distinctiveness one from the other and which may overlap from one level to another, are thus discernable
by a combination of formal markers and content. Certain of the biblical texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate sense units by horizontal or vertical spacing, but determining the pre-history of this usage would require
earlier manuscripts.
1 Samuel 1
Morpho-Syntactic Analysis
1.1)
There was a man from Haramataim, a ophite55 from

Mount Ephraim,
wayh y: w-retentive PC functioning as perfective

and expressing the beginning of the narrative as already on the main narrative
line56 and as at least loosely linked with
a preceding narrative, though that need
not have been the present Book of Judges.
1.2)
whose name (was) Elqanah ben Yeroham, ben-Elihu,

ben-Tou, ben-uph
Nominal clause, of which the function is to provide Elqanahs genealogy.57
an Ephratite.
The indefinite form of the gentilic marks this

word either as appositional to the indefinite forms in 1.1 or as constituting a
predication; the extreme rarity of singlesubstantive predications makes the former analysis the more likely.
1.1 cont.)
53 Van
Translation
der Merwe makes the attempt, while recognizing how

often it is difficult to decide where one paragraph or sub-paragraph ends and the next begins (1997, p. 157).
54 Pardee 19811982, p. 269; 1983c, p. 300; 1988, pp. 3, 7071;
1993c, p. 156.
55One solution to the problem posed by the phrase hrmtayim
wp ym is to take the {m} of the second word as dittographic with
the following {mhr} (so, e.g., Heimerdinger 1999, p. 136 n. 5).
56 On
the problems of HYH, the most stative of all the stative

verbs, within the aspectual system, see Lambdin 1971, pp. 27982
(197); Pardee 1985a.
57On the identification of referents by their geographical origin
in sentences such as these, see Heimerdinger 1999, pp. 13638.
1 Samuel 1
58 The
Translation
297
2.1)
He had two wives;
Nominal clause; information necessary for the rest

of the story.
2.3)
one (was) named Hannah,
Asyndetic nominal clause.
2.4)
the second Peninnah.
Nominal clause.
2.5)
Peninnah had children
wayh y: w-retentive PC marking this datum as on

the same level of the story line as the first
clause of v. 1.58
2.6)
but Hannah did not.
Nominal clause expressing contrast.
3.1)
This man used to go 59 (on a regular basis) to

do obeisance and to offer sacrifices to Yahwehebaot at Shiloh
wl h: w-retentive SC functioning as imperfective

and expressing iteration; 60 note use of
this form out of sequence (see above).
3.2)
where ophni and Pinas were serving as priests

of Yahweh.
Nominal clause; the indefinite form of khnym

marks this word as predicative.
4.1)
On each such occasion,
wayh y: w -retentive PC introducing perfective aspect of the following main clause + adverbial phrase.61
4.2)
when Elqanah had offered the sacrifice,
wayyizba: w-retentive PC marking a given occasion within the frequentative structure

as belonging to the perfective narrative
line.62
relative weakness of w-retentive HYH clauses is visible

here in the constrastive structure formed by this clause with the
following, for the expression of the following clause is markedly
nominal (yn instead of l hyh).
59The verb expressing the trip to the sanctuary at Shiloh is consistently LH, to ascend, in this narrative. I have avoided the up
part of the lexeme in translation and attempted to represent it
where appropriate by reference to the sanctuary.
60As stated above, the w-retentive imperfective may express
any of the nuances or moods of the various forms of the imperfective, and reading a notion of irrealis into that form (Joosten
1997b, p. 82:what is expressed by hl[w (v. 3) is merely that
one might expect him to do so) appears to me to be placing too
much emphasis on the element of irrealis in the imperfective.
(This is my perspective Joostens view of the Biblical Hebrew
verb system is, of course, tense based.) Joostens analysis, in that
he uses the English verb would as proof of the irrealis character
of the expression of iteration in English with no mention of the
parallel expression used to, both of which may be used to translate the Hebrew frequentative, is defective. There must be levels
of irrealis. Here the imperfective expresses the nonboundedness
in terms of number of occurrences of the act in question: whenever it was appropriate, he would go.
61 This appears to be a very brief form of the circumstantial
clause structure (Lambdin 1971, pp. 12324 [110], 127 [114];
cf. Pardee 1994, pp. 15253), and hayy wm is thus to be parsed
either as a one-word nominal clause, (there was) a certain day,

or as an unmarked adverbial, on a given day. The rarity of onenoun predicative nominal clauses in Biblical Hebrew makes
the latter solution preferable. This structure probably, therefore, corresponds as an unmarked adverbial to structure IIIB
(preposition + noun), common noun option, in my charting of the
circumstantial-clause structures (1994, p. 152 where I did not
point out explicitly that the embedded clause may or may not
be an independent clause). In any case, the phrase appears to be
the structural equivalent of wayh y bayym ym hhm, and it thus
is unlikely that hayy wm is to be parsed simply as the subject of
wayh y. This explanation of wayh y hayy wm appears to hold for
its occurrences elsewhere (e.g., 1 Sam 14:1; 2 Kings 4:8): in each
case the function of the phrase is to mark a break, either from
general to specific or from one episode to another, while that
of the definite article is to mark the upcoming events as nongeneral, as occurring on a certain day.
62Lambdin 1971, pp. 27982 (197), terms this structure anticipatory subordination. Because the structure is not marked as
subordinate in Hebrew, that term should be avoided, even though
the structure may often be translated felicitously in English as a
subordinate clause. Note that the structure does not constitute
formally a case of ww of apodosis, because each clause is formally marked as principal (on the theoretical problem posed by
ww of apodosis in Biblical Hebrew, see Gro 1987 and Pardee
1989).
298
Dennis Pardee
1 Samuel 1
Translation
4.3)
he would give portions to his wife Peninnah and to all

her sons and daughters.
wntan: w-retentive SC expressing return to frequentative discourse; note use of this

form out of sequence (see above).
5.1)
But to Hannah he would give a double portion,63
yittn: PC in non-initial position expressing contrast on the imperfective discourse line.
5.2)
for he loved Hannah
hb: SC in explanatory clause (ky clauses are formally off the main narrative line); HB is
semantically durative64 and need not be
marked for iteration; direct object fronted for emphasis.
5.3)
but Yahweh had closed her womb.
sgar: SC in w X-qtal clause with focus on YHWH;

the SC expresses the completeness of the
act, viewed as punctual and past, hence
translated as a pluperfect.65
6.1)
Her rival-wife would harass her mercilessly in order

to upset her,
w ki asatt h: w-retentive SC expressing continuation of frequentative discourse.
6.2)
on account of the fact66 that Yahweh had closed her

womb.
sgar: SC in explanatory clause expressing the act

as complete.
7.1)
Just as he would act thus every year, as often as she

(Hannah) went to the House of Yahweh,
ya ae h: PC frequentative expressing a summary; 67 correlative with following clause

(knkn).
7.2)
so she (Peninnah) would harass her
takisenn h: PC frequentative correlative with preceding clause.
7.3)
and (each time that) she wept
wattibke h: w-retentive PC marking a given occasion within the frequentative structure

(see 4.2).68
63Hypothetical
translation; on the textual problem, see the com-
mentators.
64 On semantic iterativity/durativity, see below on 12.2. The
verbs HB, to love, and N, to hate, share characteristics of
both transitive and intransitive verbs; cf. the somewhat different
view of Dobbs-Allsopp (2000, pp. 3539). In any case, HB clearly
carries the aspect of durativity characteristic of stative verbs.
65In spite of the English translation as a pluperfect, this is not a
pluperfect in Biblical Hebrew because Biblical Hebrew is not a
tensed language (Pardee 2001).
66On the multiple referential functions of ky, see Claassen 1983
and, more recently, Meyer 2001 (note that in the putative parallels with English because [pp. 5056], that word never introduces a new rhetorical unit but that is precisely the problem
with Hebrew ky; English so would have provided a more interesting set of comparisons).
67Whether the form ya a eh and the two forms marked for feminine gender simply indicate different subjects (Elqanah and
the two wives), or whether the first should be emended to the
Niphal, the syntactic analysis remains the same.
68This
form as marked in the Massoretic text, i.e., as w-retentive

PC, may be explained along the same lines as 4.2. On the other
hand, because the consonantal text here shows the long form,
i.e., {wtbkh} instead of {wtbk}, one must consider the possibility
of an error in the Massoretic vocalization, i.e., wattibkeh, and
she wept, in place of w tibkeh, in order that she weep. Though
wretentive PC forms of III-h verbs do occur in the long form
(see above), it nevertheless appears legitimate to take the spelling here with {h} as an indication of a mistake in the Massoretic
tradition. The use of nonwretentive PC to mark a purpose clause
within a volitive sequence is well known, but it also occurs in indicative sequences (see above). The translation would be would
harass her so that she would weep and not eat. In favor of the
Massoretic tradition, one could query that Peninnahs specific intention was to incite Hannah not to eat and drink; the interpretation as the narrators expression of the result of the harassment
seems better to reflect the situation. As I have already stated
elsewhere, Fokkelmans interpretation (1991) of forms such as
this as unmarked iteratives makes no linguistic sense to me;
cf. my remarks in 2001, p. 311 n. 14.
1 Samuel 1
Translation
299
7.4)
she would not eat.
tkal: PC in negative imperfective clause expressing frequentatively the result of the

weeping.
8.1)
(On each such occasion,) Elqanah said to her:
wayymer: w-retentive PC marking a given occasion within the frequentative structure

(see 4.2).
8.2)
Hannah, why do you weep,
tibk y: PC expressing iteration in direct speech.
8.3)
and why do you not eat,
tok l y: ditto.
8.4)
and why are you so despondent?
yra: PC expressing a continuous state in direct

speech.
8.5)
Am I not worth more to you than ten sons?
Nominal sentence.
9.1)
(On the occasion with which this story is dealing

particularly,) Hannah arose (and separated from the
others) after (everyone else) had eaten in Shiloh and
drunk.
wattqom: w-retentive PC; that we here return to

the principal narrative (as distinct from
individual moments within the preceding frequentative discourse) is only determinable from context.
9.2)
Now Eli the priest was (all the while) 69 sitting on a

chair70 beside the entrance to the temple of Yahweh.
Nominal clause (participial predicate).
10.1)
She was feeling very bad
Nominal clause.
10.2)
and began to pray to Yahweh,
wattitpalll: w-retentive PC expressing perfectivity

in principal narrative.71
10.3)
weeping all the while.
tibkeh: PC in absolute infinitival construction expressing the intensity of the weeping as

well as its continuousness during the
prayer.
11.1)
She made
wattiddr: w-retentive PC.
11.2)
the following vow:
wattmar: ditto.
11.3)
O Yahweh-ebaot, should you deign to look upon my

affliction, servant of yours that I am,
tireh: PC + inf. abs. in protasis of conditional sentence in direct speech.72
11.4)
and remember me,
z kartan y : w-retentive SC as continuation of

preceding.
69 This sentence does not constitute a major change of scene

because Elis position would have been near to where Hannahs
family had been banqueting. The function of the clause is to explain how it was that he was able to observe Hannah praying.
70 The translation of hakkiss as indefinite is meant to reflect
another standard feature of Hebrew narrative: the first mention
of an entity is frequently definite in Hebrew narrative, while it
is indefinite in standard English narrative (contrast colloquial
English narrative: Eli was sitting on this chair).
71The translation as an inchoative only reflects the logic of the
story: the verb itself is not marked semantically as inchoative
and is here only marked morpho-syntactically for perfectivity.

In another narrative where the contents of the prayer itself did
not follow, it would be translated as a preterit in English. On ingressivity as a pragmatic implicature, see Dobbs-Allsopp 2000,
pp. 4849.
72As is well known, the two clauses of a conditional sentence may
be expressed either as perfectives or as imperfectives, a situation
easily comprehensible in an aspectual system where the speaker/
author may choose to phrase either element as complete or as
incomplete (see above, n. 11).
300
Dennis Pardee
1 Samuel 1
Translation
11.5)
and not forget me your servant,
tika: PC in negative continuation of preceding.
11.6)
and grant to me your servant male offspring,
w ntatt h : w-retentive SC as continuation of

preceding.
11.7)
I would give him73 to Yahweh for his entire life,
ntatt yw: w-retentive SC in apodosis of conditional sentence; note the absence of a specific
marking for the junction of protasis and
apodosis (the junction is only determinable by the logic of a given statement).
11.8)
and a razor would never touch his head.
ya aleh: PC in continuation of apodosis with fronted subject noun (the function of the
fronting may have been to emphasize the
somewhat elliptically expressed promise
to vow the child as a Nazirite).
12.1)
73 The direct object (and other pronominal indicators further

along in the utterance) agree in gender and number with the
head noun of the construct chain zera anym, lit. offspring of
men, but in context refer to the male child for which Hannah
hopes and which she will in fact receive.
74This circumstantial-clause sequence is one of the most complex in the corpus: the HYH introducer, instead of agreeing in
aspect with the logical main clause, wayyabeh (13.4), assumes
the structure of an imperfective circumstantial-clause sequence,
as though the nominal clauses 12.313.3 were the main clauses.
Because the function of everything up to wayya beh appears to
be to explain why Eli accounted Hannah a drunk (three nominal
clauses and a subject-fronted verbal clause), it appears best to see
this as a truly mixed structure, i.e., as one in which w hy h introduces, as is normal, an imperfective clause or series of clauses
(it is not, therefore, so-called conjunctive w, contra Fokkelman
1991, p. 55), with this sequence of clauses serving as explanation
for a perfective main clause. Verses 12 and 13 constitute, therefore, a combination of the imperfective and perfective circumstantial-clause sequences. This sequence incorporates a further
anomaly, viz., the presence of a SC verb within the imperfective
sequence (see 12.2). Fokkelman and van der Merwe (1997, p. 164)
cite 1 Sam 17:48 as a parallel to this verse without noting the
complexity of this passage as compared with the other, where
whyh follows an imperfective sequence in direct speech and
precedes a perfective one of reportorial narrative and appears,
therefore, to constitute a textual error (McCarter 1980, pp. 285,
289). Fokkelman also cites 1 Sam 10:9, an example similar to 1
Sam 17:48, and 1 Sam 25:20 and 2 Sam 6:16, two examples where
w hy h: w-retentive SC introducing the long series of nominal and frequentative (13.3)

clauses that lead up to the perfective
expression (13.4) that functions narratologically as the main clause.74
why h introduces participial duratives followed by perfective

main clauses it appears valid to see in those cases mixed structures similar to the present text. The value of the present text is
that, by its inclusion of a lexical frequentative/durative, three
participles, and a PC (12.213.3), the function of w hy h as introducing these various expressions of iteration is relatively clear.
Longacre (1994, pp. 8491) cites a number of examples, including
those to which reference has just been made and 1 Sam 1:12, in
support of his claim that why h was used to mark significant
background or important events to follow, and this example
would not, according to that classification, have functioned to
introduce the imperfectivity of the embedded clauses. I wonder,
however, if it is not the case, in the examples cited by Longacre,
that whyh expresses the overlap of the action in the embedded
clause with that of the main clause and the ongoing nature of the
two acts and this to an extent that is significantly different from
what wayhy expresses in similar clauses (the temporal overlap
is clear in 1 Sam 25:20 and 2 Sam 6:16: while X was going on Y
occurred). The function of the structure would be to express the
imperfectivity inherent in the concurrency of the two acts and
the resultant durativity whereas the function of the structure
with wayhy is to introduce the perfectivity of the main clause.
Also, though Longacre is loath to accept emendation, whyh
might in some of his examples be simply erroneous for wayh y
and owing to the presence in the immediately preceding passage
of w qtal forms expressing iteration (emendation is the common approach among grammarians and text critics to several of
these texts, including 1 Sam 1:12, where I judge that solution to
be unnecessary).
1 Samuel 1
Translation
12.2)
Now, as she was a long time praying,
hirbt h: SC in embedded clause, formally the first

of five clauses of the circumstantial sequence introduced by 12.175; lexically frequentative or durative (RBH Hiphil + inf.,
do something repeatedly or lengthily).76
12.3)
and Eli was watching her mouth,
Nominal (participial) clause.
13.1)
but Hannah was speaking inwardly,
Nominal (participial) clause continuing the circumstantial sequence.
13.2)
only her lips were moving
Asyndetic nominal (participial) clause expanding

on previous.
13.3)
and her voice could not be heard;
yim a : PC in a strongly marked circumstantial

clause (the structure is verbal in contrast with the preceding nominal clauses
, imperfective and frequentative, and
the subject is fronted).
13.4)
(for these reasons) Eli took her to be a drunk.77
wayya beh: w-retentive PC expressing return to

main narrative line.
14.1)
Eli said to her:
wayymer: w-retentive PC expressing continuation of main narrative line.
14.2)
How long will you keep getting drunk?
titakkr yn: PC (with paragogic nun) reflecting

Elis perception of Hannah as capable of
getting drunk on a regular basis.
14.3)
Get rid of that wine!78
hs yr y: Impv.
15.1)
Hanna replied:
wattaan: w-retentive PC expressing return to main

narrative line.
15.2)
15.3)
75See
301
wattmer: w-retentive PC expressing continuation

of main narrative line.
Youre wrong, my lord!
two preceding footnotes and Pardee 1994, p. 152, IIIE. As

regards the function of the participle here and in the next two
clauses, it expresses an ongoing act, a nuance deducible from the
surrounding context, in particular the preceding whyh and the
following yim a .
76The structure of this clause is rare: normally a finite verb in
an embedded clause is marked for the same aspect as the introducing form of HYH (yim a [13.3] is so marked) and as the
main verb (see two preceding notes and Pardee 1994, p. 152). The
presence of the perfective form may be explained by two factors:
(1) the verb is semantically frequentative or durative, or (2) the
mainest of the main clauses, wayya beh (13.4) see preceding note is perfective. Because the prayer as quoted is very
brief, it is not possible to determine whether the author wished
to say by the use of hirbth that Hannah kept repeating the words
One-word adverbial clause, functioning as assertion to the contrary of what the interlocutor had just said, followed by vocative.
quoted (in which case the verb is lexically frequentative) or that

these words were to be considered a summary of a much longer
prayer (in which case the verb is lexically durative, as was HB
in v. 5); the meaning of the root does not help us here, for the
Hiphil of RBB to be many + HTPLL could here mean either to
produce many repetitions of a short prayer or to produce many
words in a long prayer. I thus agree with Fokkelman (1991, p. 53)
as regards the semantics of hirbt h, but cannot agree with his
exegetical method for determining such matters in general.
77Nominal forms from the qattl base, whether qittl or qattl in
Biblical Hebrew, correspond to the traditional category of the
nomen professionis and thus carry semantically a notion of longterm state (see 14.2).
78The l here is incommodus.
302
Dennis Pardee
1 Samuel 1
Translation
15.4)
Im a very troubled woman,
Nominal sentence functioning as self-description.
15.5)
but I havent had a drop of anything with alcohol in it.
t yt y: SC in strongly marked clause (verb at end

of sentence) expressing contrast to what
the interlocutor has just stated and hence
a refutation of that assertion.
15.6)
I have only poured out my soul to Yahweh.
wepk: w-retentive PC continuing perfective expression within direct speech.79
16.1)
Dont consider me, your servant, as a corrupt women.
tittn: PC (jussive) after al in negative impv.
16.2)
For it is on account of my being so downcast and so

vexed that I have spoken the whole time.
dibbarty: SC in motivation clause (i.e., the reason

Hannah presents for not being accounted
a corrupt woman).
17:1)
Eli replied:
wayyaan: w-retentive PC expressing return to

17.2)
wayymer: w-retentive PC expressing continuation

17.3)
Go in peace.
l k y: impv.
17.4)
The god of Israel will grant the request
yittn: PC functioning either as indicative or as

jussive.80
that you have made to him.81
alt: SC in relative clause.
18.1)
She said:
wattmer: w-retentive PC expressing return to

18.2)
May your servant-woman (i.e., I) find favor with

you.
tim: PC functioning as jussive (cf. note 80).
18.3)
So the woman went her way,
wattlek: w-retentive PC expressing return to main

narrative line.
18.4)
ate,
wattkal: w-retentive PC expressing continuation

18.5)
and was no longer despondent.
hyw: SC in negative contrastive clause.82
17.4a)
79Note that the fact that the act was, as previously described, frequentative or durative is not expressed here or in the following
sentence (16.2). The author presents Hannahs act as complete
in her mind as indeed it was, at this point of the encounter,
when Eli had interrupted her and she had stopped praying. Note
also that, in both cases, the act may be coherently expressed
in English either as durative (I was pouring out I have been
speaking) or as perfective, i.e., by the present perfect (I have
poured out I have spoken).
80The absence of markedly distinct (indicative) imperfective and
jussive forms in most root forms requires the interpreter working
in English to make a choice based on the surrounding context.
81The double marking of the initiator of the request characteristic of Hebrew (lit. your request which you made to him) need
not be expressed in English.
82Whatever the textual solution be to the problematic last clause
of this verse, it appears likely that its form was negative and
hence by definition not expressive of progress on the main narrative line. It is to be noted that negative clauses, because the
negative adverb normally intervenes between a possible w and
the verb, are by definition non-w-retentive in nature.
1 Samuel 1
Translation
303
19.1)
Early next morning
wayyakmw: w-retentive PC expressing continuation of main narrative line.83
19.2)
they did obeisance to Yahweh,
wayyitaaww: ditto.
19.3)
and returned
wayybw: ditto.
19.4)
home to Haramatah.
wayybw: ditto.84
19.5)
Elqanah and Hannah had conjugal relations
wayyda: ditto.
19.6)
and Yahweh remembered her.
wayyizk reh: ditto.
20.1)
As time went by,
wayh y: w-retentive PC introducing a circumstantial clause embedded in the main narrative line + adverbial phrase.85
20.2)
Hannah became pregnant
wattahar: w-retentive PC marking main verb of circumstantial structure.
20.3)
and bore a son.
wattled: w-retentive PC expressing continuation

20.4)
She called his name Samuel,
wattiqr: ditto.
20.5)
For, (said she,) (it is) from Yahweh (that) I re

quested him.
ilt yw: SC in direct speech.
21.1)
Elqanah and his entire household went to offer to

Yahweh the periodic sacrifice and .86
wayyaal: w-retentive PC expressing return to main

narrative line.
22.1)
But Hannah did not go along,
lt h: SC in negative contrastive clause.
22.2)
for she had said to her husband
mr h: SC in motivation clause.87
22.3)
(I will not go) until the child is weaned.
yiggml: PC expressing imperfective (here the future) in direct speech.
22.4)
Then I will take him
wahabt yw: w-retentive SC expressing continuation of previous structure.
83 This
and the following verbal clauses illustrate a feature of

Hebrew morpho-syntax not discussed above, i.e., what Lambdin
(1971, pp. 23840 [173]) calls hendiadys, in this case a structure in which the verb is translated as an adverb in English. As
Lambdin indicates, the coordinate structure (attested here) is
only one of three possible sequences (the others being asyndetic
and finite + infinitive).
84This and the preceding verb do not reflect the structure discussed in the preceding note because B does not here express
repetition but literal return. On the other hand, two verbs are
used because verbs of movement are not in Biblical Hebrew
marked for direction in terms of the speaker, as in English, but
in terms of the spaces to which reference is made. Thus B is to
be translated either go back or come back (i.e., return) and
B either go in or come in (i.e., enter or arrive) according to
the position of the speaker. This has long been observed (e.g., by
Rosn 1969, pp. 98101), but is still not always correctly registered in the introductory grammars (e.g., in Lambdin 1971, p. 28
[36], Y is glossed as going forth, leaving, but not as coming

forth and exiting; p. 32 [39] YRD is glossed as descending,
going down, but not as coming down).
85On the structure, see above on 4.1. The plural tqpwt either
expresses the stages of childbearing or refers to the return of
the time to go to Shiloh to sacrifice (cf. McCarter 1980, p. 55).
If the former solution is correct, the reference may be to the
appearance of a visible bulge in the fifth month, accounted as
the halfway point of pregnancy in the ancient Semitic world (cf.
Pardee 1997b, p. 282 with n. 60).
86MT appears corrupt here (cf. McCarter 1980, p. 55).
87 The motivation clause, which logically includes Elqanahs
reply recorded in the next verse, describes what had occurred
before Elqanah left and Hannah did not leave and hence is to be
translated with the pluperfect in English. Note that this structure does not correspond to what has been called the anterior
construction (lt h is not logically anterior, whereas mrh
and wayymer are cf. Pardee 2001).
304
Dennis Pardee
1 Samuel 1
22.5)
and he will make his appearance in the presence of

Yahweh
w nir h: ditto.
22.6)
and stay there permanently.
w yab: ditto.
23.1)
Elqanah her husband had said to her:
wayymer: w-retentive PC sequential to 22.2 (i.e.,

part of motivation structure, not of main
narrative line) and hence to be translated
as a pluperfect.
23.2)
Do as you see fit.
a y: impv.
23.3)
Stay (here) until you wean the child.
b y: impv. in asyndetic continuation of the volitive sequence.
23.4)
Moreover, may Yahweh carry out his promise.88
yqm: jussive (new subject preceded by asseverative adverb) in asyndetic continuation of

the volitive sequence.
23.5)
So the woman stayed (at home)
watteb: w-retentive PC expressing return to main

narrative line.
23.6)
and nursed the child until she weaned him.
watt yneq: w-retentive PC expressing continuation

24.1)
She took him with her (to the sanctuary)
watta a lh w: ditto.
24.2)
when she had weaned him,
g mlatt w: SC in temporal clause.
24.1 cont.)
88MT
Translation
along with a three-year-old bull 89 and an ephah of

flour and a skin of wine.
24.3)
So she brought him to the House of Yahweh
watt bh w: w-retentive PC expressing return to

24.4)
where the boy was to serve.
Nominal clause; MT usually taken as corrupt but

cf. Exod 33:11.
25.1)
They slaughtered the bull
wayyi a w: -retentive PC expressing return to

25.2)
and brought the boy to Eli.
wayyb y w: w-retentive PC expressing continuation of main narrative line.
26.1)
She said:
wattmer: ditto.
26.2)
If you please, my lord, may your life prosper, my lord.
Nominal clause(s) expressing greeting.
26.3)
I am the woman who (once) stood near you here pray

ing to Yahweh.
Nominal self-identification clause (participle

marked as attributive adjective).
translated literally; Qumran and other witnesses show a

different text (see McCarter 1980, p. 56).
89 The correction of MT pr y m l h appears clear, though

doubt remains regarding other segments of the text (cf. McCarter
1980, pp. 5657).
1 Samuel 1
Translation
305
27.1)
For this boy did I pray
hitpalllt y: SC in asyndetic clause (in MT) which

places the object of the prayer in focus:
the prepositional phrase is fronted for
purposes of emphasis and contrast (between the humble human request and
YHWHs gracious granting thereof).90
27.2)
and Yahweh has granted the request
wayyittn: w-retentive PC sequential to SC in preceding clause.
that I asked of him.
alt y: SC in relative clause.
Now I, for my part, hereby return the requested boy

to Yahweh:
hiilth w: SC functioning as performative.91
as long as he lives,
The form of predication in the relative clause is

uncertain for textual reasons (hyh SC is
present in the text as it stands).92
28.2)
he is (to be considered as) one requested of Yahweh.
Nominal clause.
28.3)
Then he did obeisance to Yahweh there.
wayyitaw: w-retentive PC expressing return to

main narrative line.93
27.2a)
28.1)
28.1a)
Translation
Numbers 19
1)
2.1)
Yahweh said to Moses and to Aaron:
waydabbr: w-retentive PC expressing the narrative context of the following legal section and linking it, in the expression
of the author/redactor, to the preceding section, which was also introduced
narratively.
This is a statute regarding legal procedure
Nominal sentence.
90Direct speech, both in the Hebrew Bible and in the extra-biblical inscriptions, shows a higher incidence of fronting of nonverbal elements than does perfective narrative, even when, as
here, the discourse is perfective.
91To my knowledge, a comprehensive study of SC performatives
in Biblical Hebrew remains to be done, though it is clear that
performativity is expressed perfectively (cf. Pardee and Whiting
1987; more recently and with broader perspectives, Sanders 2004;
Dobbs-Allsopp 20042007).
92The LXX reflects the root YH here; the text is not extant in
the witnesses from the Dead Sea Scrolls (see McCarter 1980, p.
57).
93In MT, Hannas prayer in ch. 2 appears to be marked as a continuation of this clause, in spite of the fact that the verb in this
clause in MT is 3 m.s. The text here appears corrupt (cf. McCarter
1980, pp. 5758).
306
Dennis Pardee
Translation
Numbers 19
that Yahweh has ordained:
With attributive relative clause (iww h: SC expressing perfectivity of the act within
the context of the ordained speech).
2.2)
Tell the Israelites
dabbr: impv. beginning a volitive sequence

that continues without a marked break
through verse 13 (i.e., after this imperative, the volition is expressed only by
forms not explicitly marked for volitivity: there are no cohortatives, imperatives, or marked jussives).94
2.3)
that they should bring to you (sing., point of reference Moses) a red cow in perfect condition
wyiqw: w-conjunctive PC expressing the volition in the form of indirect discourse and
as formally sequential to Moses speech
(this first verb in the sequence following the imperative represents Lambdins
type 107c, expressive of a purpose);
2.3a)
without a blemish,
this sentence contains two attributive relative

clauses, one nominal,
2.3b)
one that has never borne the yoke.
the other verbal: l h, SC expressing perfectivity

of the negatively stated act.
3.1)
You (pl., the point of reference, if the form is

correct, is Moses and Aaron) are to turn it over to
Eliezer the priest.
ntattem: w-retentive SC continuing the volitive

sequence as part of YHWHs address to
Moses and Aaron (this and all following
forms introduced by w belong formally to
Lambdins type 107b, which expresses
the simplest form of continuity in a volitive sequence, simple imperfectivity with
the volitive expressed only by the preceding form, in this case the impv. in 2.2).
3.2)
He is to have it taken outside the camp
w h w y: w-retentive SC, 3m.s., marking the shift

from Moses and Aaron as indirect objects
of the address to third-person forms
designating the actors in the rite being
prescribed.95
2.1a)
94The absence of marked volitive forms is characteristic of casuistic juridical expression (which takes two principal forms: if
X happens, Y occurs or a man who does X, then Y occurs
the macrostructure of the second part of this chapter is based
on the latter form); but, by definition, apodictic law giving allows for explicitly volitive expression in addition to the use of
the *yaqtulu and w qtal imperfectives. Here, the only explicit
volitive is in this introduction to the law, which presents YHWH
as ordaining the following directives, a common paradigm for
both casuistic and apodictic formulations. The tying together of

the narrative and the law is here more extensive than in many
cases (i.e., second-person forms continue into v. 3) and morphosyntactically more intricate (with both *yaqtulu and wqtal forms
used in vv. 2 and 3).
95According to the Codex Leningradensis, this is the last secondperson form in the chapter (there is, however, manuscript and
versional evidence for reading lkem in 21.1).
Translation
Numbers 19
307
3.3)
and see that it is slaughtered there.
wa: w-retentive SC, 3m.s. indefinite subject,

lit. and (someone) is to slaughter it in
his presence.
4.1)
Then Eliezer the priest is to take some of its blood on

his finger
wlqa: w-retentive SC expressing continuation

of the volitive sequence.
4.2)
and sprinkle it seven times in the direction of the

front of the Tent of Meeting.
whizz h: ditto.
5.1)
The cow is to be burned in his sight:
wrap: w-retentive SC active with 3m.s. indefinite subject; as in the previous verse, the
literal translation would be and (someone) is to (perform the act in question)
this interpretation is made certain
here by the fact that the actor is mentioned explicitly in v. 8.
5.2)
its skin, its flesh, its blood, even its offal are to be
burned.
yirp: PC, 3m.s. indefinite subject, expressing

the continuation of the volitive sequence
with fronted objects; the function of the
fronting here appears to be to make explicit that the person responsible is to
burn the cow in its entirety.
6.1)
Then the priest himself is to take some cedar-wood,

hyssop, and a piece of scarlet cloth
wlqa: w-retentive SC expressing continuation

6.2)
and throw them into the fire in which the cow is

burning.
whilyk: ditto.
7.1)
Next the priest will wash his clothes
wkibbes: ditto.
7.2)
and bathe his body in water.
wra: ditto.
7.3)
Thereafter he may re-enter the camp,
yb w : PC expressing the continuation of the volitive sequence with fronted adverb.
7.4)
but the priest will remain ritually unclean until

sun-set.
wm: w-retentive SC expressing continuation

of the volitive sequence (here translated
indicatively as a state, but there can be
no doubt that the state is being ordained
within the volitive sequence).
8.1)
The person who burned it must also wash his clothes

in water,
y kabbs: PC expressing the continuation of the

volitive sequence with fronted (participial) subject (the fronting is rendered in
the translation by also).
8.2)
bathe his body in water,
wra: w-retentive SC expressing continuation

308
Dennis Pardee
Translation
Numbers 19
8.3)
and (he also) will remain ritually unclean until

sun-set.
w m: ditto.
9.1)
Someone who is ritually pure is to collect the ashes

of the cow
w sap: ditto.
9.2)
and deposit them in a pure place outside the camp.
w hinn ya : ditto.
9.3)
The congregation of the Israelites are to preserve

(the ashes of the cow) for the water of purification:
w hy t h: w-retentive SC, 3f.s., apparently with

cow as the grammatical subject, 96 expressing the continuation of the volitive
sequence.
9.4)
it ([the sacrifice of] the cow) is (classified as) a

sin-offering.97
Nominal sentence.
10.1)
The one who collected the ashes of the cow must

wash his clothes
wkibbes: w-retentive SC expressing continuation

10.2)
and will (also) remain ritually unclean until sun-set.
wm: ditto.
10.3)
This will be a perpetual statute for Israelites and for

persons of other ethnicities dwelling among them.
w hy t h: ditto.
As for anyone who touches a human corpse, he

remains ritually unclean for seven days.
wm: w-retentive SC expressing the continuation of the volitive sequence with fronted
(participial) subject and pleonastic w (the
equivalent of the ww of apodosis in a
marked conditional sentence).
12.1)
Such a person will undergo the rite of purification

from sin on the third day
yita: PC expressing the continuation of the

volitive sequence with fronted pronominal subject in what is formally a casus
pendens (lit., As for him, the rite of purification from sin will be performed for
him).
12.2)
but only on the seventh day will he legally become

pure.
yihr: PC expressing the continuation of the

volitive sequence with fronted adverbial
phrase.
12.3)
If the sin-offering is not performed on the third day,
yita: PC in protasis of conditional sentence.
12.4)
then he will not be pure on the seventh.
yihr: PC in apodosis of conditional sentence with

fronted adverbial phrase.
11)
96 According to the traditional interpretation of this verse

(e.g., Levine 1993, pp. 459, 463), the subject of the verb is per
happr h, with grammatical attraction to the second word of the
construct chain. The literal translation is It [3f.s.] is to be for
the congregation of the Israelites for a preservation for water
of purification.
97Sin
offering reflects the traditional etymological translation,

the functional inadequacy of which has been demonstrated by J.
Milgrom (see Pardee 1996, which follows Milgroms arguments
but finds decontamination offering/sacrifice preferable as a
technical term to Milgroms choice of purification offering/sacrifice because it avoids confusion with Hebrew expressions for
purification). See also below, n. to 19.2.
Translation
Numbers 19
13.1)
309
Anyone who touches a dead person, (that is) the

body of a human being
First element of complex subject: kol + substantivized participle.98
13.1a)
who should die,
Relative clause: ymwt, PC expressing the eventuality of the case.
13.1b)
but refuses to undergo the rite of purification from

sin
yita: PC in coordinate clause with negative

verb continuing the presentation of the
case.
will (thereby) have rendered unclean Yahwehs

dwelling.
imm: SC in main clause with fronted object

expressing the act of defilement as complete (note absence here of pleonastic w,
in contrast with 20.1).
13.2)
Such a person is to be cut off from Israel
w nikr t h: w-retentive SC expressing the conclusion of the casuistic sequence.
13.3)
because the purifying water will not have been cast

over him.
zraq: SC in explanatory clause expressing the act

as never having been carried out.
13.4)
(Therefore) he remains impure:
yihye h: PC in periphrastic verbal phrase, yaqtulu

expressing the inevitability and the permanency of the state, the stative verbal
adjective the state itself.
13.5)
his impurity (is still) upon him.
Nominal sentence expressing the final legal

situation.
14.1)
This is the law:
Nominal sentence functioning to introduce the

stipulations for the preparation and use
of the water of purification.
14.2)
When a man dies in a tent,
ymwt: PC in a marked subordinate clause introducing a case.
14.3)
anyone who enters the tent, as well as anyone in

the tent (when the death occurs), remains ritually
impure for seven days.
yim: PC, stressing continuity of the state, in

main clause (complex subject expressed
by two tokens of the noun kol, the first
followed by a substantivized participle,
the second by a relative nominal clause).
15)
As for (the contents of) any vessel without a tight

cover, it is ritually impure.
Nominal sentence (complex subject containing

relative nominal clause).
16)
Anyone
First element of complex subject (kol alone).
who, in the open countryside, happens to touch

someone who has died by the sword or of natural
causes, or a bone, or a grave,
Relative clause: yigga, PC expressing the eventuality of the case.
13.1 cont.)
16a)
98This verse is divided as follows because of the two finite verbal

clauses, the first functioning as attributive to the substantivized
participle, the second as sequential to this participle. Each of the
subject phrases of the casuistic formulae in vv. 1316, 20, and
22 is different, some containing explicit relative clauses with a

finite verb, others containing only nominal/participial formulae,
others containing both. Only the clauses with finite verbs are
analyzed independently here.
310
Dennis Pardee
Translation
Numbers 19
16 cont.)
shall be unclean for seven days.
yim: PC, stressing continuity of the state, in

(asyndetic) main clause.
17.1)
They shall take for the person who has become

impure some of the dust of the cow that was burned
as a sin-offering,
wlqw: w-retentive SC, 3m.pl., indefinite subject with stress on the plurality of the
actors (contrast following sentence), expressing the legal/ritual remedy for the
case.
17.2)
and then (one of them) shall pour fresh water over it

into a container.
wntan: ditto but 3 m.s.
18.1)
(The actual rite of purification takes place as fol

lows:) A pure person is to take some hyssop
wlqa: ditto but with expressed subject (after

next verb).
18.2)
and dip (it) into the water
wbal: ditto.
18.3)
then sprinkle (it) over the tent, over the vessels, over
the persons
whizz h: ditto.
who were there,
Relative clause: hy w, SC expressing complete

state.
18.3 cont.)
and over the person who has touched a bone or the

body of someone killed by the sword or the body of
someone who has died of natural causes or a grave.
Here it is the prepositional phrase that is expanded (the four categories of items touched
are expressed definitely in Hebrew in explicit reference to v. 16).
19.1)
The pure person is to sprinkle (the water) on the

unclean person on the third day then (again) on the
seventh day.
w hizz h: w-retentive SC expressing the continuation of the remedy sequence.
19.2)
The actual purification from sin will take place on

the seventh day
w i w: ditto (lit. he will unsin him the socalled privative Piel).99
19.3)
(at which time) (the previously unclean one) shall

wash his clothes
wkibbes: ditto.
19.4)
and bathe (his body) in water.
wra: ditto.
19.5)
He will legally become pure at sun-set.
whr: ditto.
20.1)
(As for) a man
First element of complex subject ( y alone).
20.1a)
who is impure
Relative clause: yim, PC expressing a sub-case.
20.1b)
and does not undergo the rite of purification from

sin,
yita: PC in negative coordinate clause continuing the presentation of the case.
such a person shall be cut off from the congregation,
w nikr t h: w-retentive SC (pleonastic w) in main

clause.
18.3a)
20.1 cont.)
99 The
semantics of the verb and of the related noun are discussed briefly and with reference to the problems of translation
into English in Pardee 1996.
Translation
Numbers 19
311
20.2)
for he will (thereby) have rendered unclean the

sanctuary of Yahweh.
imm: SC in marked explanatory clause expressing the defilement as complete (as in

13.3).100
20.3)
The water of purification will not have been cast

over him.
zraq: SC in (unmarked) explanatory clause expressing the act as never having been
carried out (as in 13.3).
20.4)
He remains an unclean person.
Asyndetic nominal sentence (contrast PC in 13.6)

expressing the final legal situation.
21.1)
This shall be for them an eternal statute.
w hy t h: w-retentive SC expressing the continuation of the primary sequence.
21.2)
The person who has sprinkled the water of purifica

tion must wash his clothes.
y kabbs: PC after fronted (participial) subject expressing a further stipulation regarding

the use of the purifying water.
21.3)
Moreover, anyone who touches the water of purifica

tion remains legally impure until sun-set.
yim: ditto.
22.1)
Anything
First element of complex subject (kol alone).
that such an impure person touches
Relative clause: yigga, PC expressing an act constituting a sub-case.
shall be impure,
yim: PC in main clause after fronted subject

phrase, expressing result of sub-case.
and any person who touches (such an object) re

mains legally impure until sun-set.
tim: ditto in coordinate clause wherein the

characterization of the subject is by
means of a participle rather than by a
relative clause with PC.
22.1a)
22.1 cont.)
22.2)
Abbreviations
C consonant
f. feminine
impv. imperative
m. masculine
MT
Massoretic text
PC
prefix conjugation
pl. plural
s. singular
100 The two final clauses of this sequence are here in reversed
order as compared with v. 13. The two verb forms are nevertheless identical (imm and wnikrth), and the w- of wnikrth is
thus formally pleonastic here. Also, imm is introduced by ky,

making it a marked explanatory clause, while the zraq clause,
which was markedly explanatory in v. 13, is here asyndetic.
312
Dennis Pardee
SC
suffix conjugation
V vowel
v(v). verse(s)
Bibliography
Andersen, T. David
2000
The Evolution of the Hebrew Verbal System. Zeitschrift fr Althebraistik 13: 166.
Andrason, Alexander
2010
The Akkadian iprus from the Unidirectional Perspective. Journal of Semitic Studies 55: 32545.
Bailey, Nicholas A., and Stephen H. Levinsohn
1992
The Function of Preverbal Elements in Independent Clauses in the Hebrew Narrative of Genesis. Journal
of Translation and Textlinguistics 5: 179207.
Barkay, Gabriel; Marilyn J. Lundberg; Andrew G. Vaughn; and Bruce Zuckerman
2004
The Amulets from Ketef Hinnom: A New Edition and Evaluation. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 334: 4171.
Bartsch, Renate
1995
Binnick, Robert I.
20022006
Blau, Joshua
2010
Situations, Tense, and Aspect: Dynamic Discourse Ontology and the Semantic Flexibility of Temporal System in
German and English. Groningen-Amsterdam Studies in Semantics 13. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
The Project on Annotated Bibliography of Contemporary Research in Tense, Grammatical Aspect,
Aktionsart, and Related Areas. http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/~binnick/TENSE/
Phonology and Morphology of Biblical Hebrew. Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 2. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns.

1990
Le papyrus du marzeah. Semitica 38: 4968.
2000
Nouvel examen du Papyrus du Marzea. Semitica 50: 22426.
2004
Manuel dougaritique. 2 volumes. Geuthner manuels. Paris: Geuthner.
2009
Bybee, Joan L.; Revere D. Perkins; and William Pagliuca
1994
Chicago Press.
Chung, Sandra, and Alan Timberlake
1995
Tense, Aspect, and Mood. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Volume 3: Grammatical Categories
and the Lexicon, edited by Timothy Shopen, pp. 20258. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Claassen, Walther T.
1983
Speaker-Oriented Functions of k in Biblical Hebrew. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 11: 2946.
Comrie, Bernard
1976
Cook, John A.
2001
2006
Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
The Hebrew Verb A Grammaticalization Approach. Zeitschrift fr Althebraistik 14: 11743.
The Finite Verbal Forms in Biblical Hebrew Do Express Aspect. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society
30: 2135.

Creason, Stuart
1995
Davies, Philip R.
1992
313
Semantic Classes of Hebrew Verbs: A Study of Aktionsart in the Hebrew Verbal System. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago.
In Search of Ancient Israel. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 148. Sheffield:
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press.
DeCaen, Vincent J. J.
1995
On the Placement and Interpretation of the Verb in Standard Biblical Hebrew Prose. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Toronto.
Disse, Andreas
1998
Informationsstruktur im Biblischen Hebrisch. Sprachwissenschaftliche Grundlagen und exegetische Konsequenzen

einer Korpusuntersuchung zu den Bchern Deuteronomium, Richer und 2 Knige. Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache
im Alten Testament 56/1. St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag.
Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W.
2000
Biblical Hebrew Statives and Situation Aspect. Journal of Semitic Studies 45: 2153.
200407
(More) on Performatives in Semitic. Zeitschrift fr Althebraistik 1720: 3681.
Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W.; J. J. M. Roberts; C. L. Seow; and Richard E. Whitaker
2005
Hebrew Inscriptions: Texts from the Biblical Period of the Monarchy with Concordance. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Endo, Yoshinobu
1996
Fassberg, Steven E.
2006
Fokkelman, Jan P.
1991
Gentry, Peter J.
1998
The Verbal System of Classical Hebrew in the Joseph Story: An Approach from Discourse Analysis. Studia Semitica
Neerlandica 32. Assen: Van Gorcum.
In Biblical Hebrew in
Sequences of Positive Commands in Biblical Hebrew:
Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives, edited by Steven E. Fassberg and Avi
Hurvitz, pp. 5164. Jerusalem: Magnes; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Iterative Forms of the Classical Hebrew Verb: Exploring the Triangle of Style, Syntax, and Text Grammar. In Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Syntax: Presented to Professor J. Hoftijzer on the Occasion of His SixtyFifth Birthday, edited by K. Jongeling, Hendrika L. Murre-Van den Berg, and Lucas van Rompay, pp. 3855.
Leiden: Brill.
The System of the Finite Verb in Classical Biblical Hebrew. Hebrew Studies 39: 739.

1910
Clarendon Press.
Gianto, Agustinus
1997
Review of The Verbal System of Classical Hebrew in the Joseph Story: An Approach from Discourse Analysis, by
Yoshinobu Endo. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 59/2: 34647.
2006
75102. Jerusalem: Magnes Press; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Gro, Walter
1987
Die Pendenskonstrucktion im Biblischen Hebrisch: Studien zum althebrischen Satz I. Arbeiten zu Text und
Sprache im Alten Testment 27. St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag.
Haspelmath, Martin
1995
The Converb as a Cross-linguistically Valid Category. In Converbs in Cross-linguistic Perspective: Structure
and Meaning of Adverbial Verb Forms Adverbial Participles, Gerunds, edited by Martin Haspelmath and
Ekkehard Knig, pp. 155. Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 13. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
314
Dennis Pardee
Heimerdinger, Jean-Marc
1999
Topic, Focus and Foreground in Ancient Hebrew Narratives. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 295. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Hetzron, Robert
1969
The Evidence for Perfect *yqtul and Jussive *yaqtl in Proto-Semitic. Journal of Semitic Studies 14: 121.
Hollebrandse, Bart; Angeliek van Hout; and Co Vet

2005
Crosslinguistic Views on Tense, Aspect and Modality. Cahiers Chronos 13. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Huehnergard, John
1995
Hurvitz, Avi
1997
Jongeling, Karel
1991
Joosten, Jan
1989
1997a
1997b
2002
2006
Joon, Paul
1923
A Grammar of Akkadian. Harvard Semitic Museum Studies 45. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
The Historical Quest for Ancient Israel and the Linguistic Evidence of the Hebrew Bible and Some
Methodological Observations. Vetus Testamentum 47: 30115.
On the VSO Character of Hebrew. In Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Syntax Presented to Professor J. Hoftijzer
on the Occasion of His Sixty-fifth Birthday, edited by K. Jongeling, Hendrika L. Murre-Van den Berg, and
Lucas van Rompay, pp. 10311. Leiden: Brill.
The Predicative Participle in Biblical Hebrew. Zeitschrift fr Althebraistik 2: 12859.
The Indicative System of the Biblical Hebrew Verb and Its Literary Exploitation. In Narrative Syntax
and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996, edited by Ellen van Wolde, pp. 5171. Biblical
Interpretation Series 29. Leiden: Brill.
Workshop: Meaning and Use of the Tenses in 1 Samuel 1. In Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible:
Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996, edited by Ellen van Wolde, pp. 7283. Biblical Interpretation Series
29. Leiden: Brill.
Do the Finite Verbal Forms in Biblical Hebrew Express Aspect? Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society
29: 4970.
The Disappearance of Iterative WEQATAL in the Biblical Hebrew Verbal System. In Biblical Hebrew in
Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives, edited by Steven E. Fassberg and Avi
Hurvitz, pp. 13547. Jerusalem: Magnes Press; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Grammaire de lhbreu biblique. Rome: Institut Biblique Pontifical.
Kawashima, Robert S.
2004
Biblical Narrative and the Death of the Rhapsode. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
2010
Orphaned Converted Tense Forms in Classical Biblical Hebrew Prose. Journal of Semitic Studies 55:
1135.
Kedar-Kopfstein, Benjamin
1977
Semantic Aspects of the Pattern Qtel. Hebrew Annual Review 1: 15576.
Knauf, Ernst A.
1990
War Biblisch-Hebrisch eine Sprache? Zeitschrift fr Althebraistik 3: 1123.
Lambdin, Thomas O.
1971
Introduction to Biblical Hebrew. New York: Scribners.
Levine, Baruch A.
1993
Numbers 120: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 4A. New York: Doubleday.
Lindenberger, James M.
Ancient Aramaic and Hebrew Letters. 2nd edition. Writings from the Ancient World 14. Atlanta: Society of
2003
Biblical Literature.
Long, Gary A.
1999
The Written Story: Toward Understanding Text as Representation and Function. Vetus Testamentum
49: 16585.
315
Longacre, Robert E.
1989
Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence. A Text Theoretical and Textlinguistic Analysis of Genesis 37 and 3940. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Discourse Perspective on the Hebrew Verb: Affirmation and Restatement. In Linguistics and Biblical
1992
Hebrew, edited by Walter R. Bodine, pp. 17789. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
1994 Weqatal Forms in Biblical Hebrew Prose. A Discourse-Modular Approach. In Biblical Hebrew and Dis
course Linguistics, edited by Robert D. Bergen, pp. 5098. Winona Lake: Summer Institute of Linguistics/
Eisenbrauns.
Macaulay, R. K. S.
1978
Review of Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems, by Bernard Comrie.
Language 54: 41620.
McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr.

1980
ISamuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary. Anchor Bible 8. New York: Doubleday.
McFall, Leslie
1982
Meyer, Esias E.
2001
The Enigma of the Hebrew Verbal System: Solutions from Ewald to the Present Day. Historic Texts and Interpreters in Biblical Scholarship 2. Sheffield: Almond Press.
The Particle
3962.
, a Mere Conjunction or Something More? Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 27/1:
Miller, Cynthia L., editor

1999
The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew, Linguistic Approaches. Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 1.
Nash, Peter Theodore
1992
The Hebrew Qal Active Participle: A Non-aspectual Narrative Backgrounding Element. Ph.D. dissertation
University of Chicago.
Nicacci, Alviero
1994
Pardee, Dennis
1979
198182
1983a
1983b
1983c
1985a
1985b
1988
1989
1990
1993a
1993b
1993c
On the Hebrew Verbal System. In Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, edited by Robert D. Bergen,
pp. 11737. Winona Lake: Summer Institute of Linguistics/Eisenbrauns.
Review of Hebrew Syntax: An Outline (2d edition), by Ronald J. Williams. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 38:
148.
Review of A Matter of Life and Death: A Study of the Baal-Mot Epic (CTA 4-5-6), by Baruch Margalit. Archiv
fr Orientforschung 28: 26770.
Review of Recherches sur les inscriptions phniciennes de Karatepe, by Franois Bron. Journal of Near Eastern
Studies 42: 6367.
Review of Hebrisches Perfekt und Imperfekt mit voangehendem we, by Bo Johnson. Journal of Near Eastern
Studies 42: 16163.
Review of Hebrew Verse Structure, by Michael Patrick OConnor. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 42: 298301.
Review of HYH: Bedeutung und Funktion eines hebrischen Allerweltwortes; Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Frage des
hebrischen Tempussystems, by Rdiger Bartelmus. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 47: 10710.
Review of Arad Inscriptions, by Yohanan Aharoni, English translation by J. Ben-Or. Journal of Near Eastern
Studies 44: 6771.
Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetic Parallelism: A Trial Cut (nt I and Proverbs 2). Supplements to Vetus Testamentum
39. Leiden: Brill.
Review of Die Pendenskonstruktion im biblischen Hebrisch, by Walter Gro. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 51:
32629.
Review of Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence: A Text Theoretical and Textlinguistic Analysis of Genesis 37 and
3948, by Robert E. Longacre. Hebrew Studies 31: 20004.
Review of The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose, by Alviero Nicacci. Journal of Near Eastern Studies
52: 31314.
Review of Modi Ugaritici: Eine morpho-syntaktische Abhandlung ber das Modalsystem im Ugaritischen, by E.
Verreet. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 52: 31417.
Review of Directions in Biblical Hebrew, edited by Elaine R. Follis. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 52: 15556.
316
Dennis Pardee
1994
1995
1996
1997a
1997b
1999
2001
2002
20032004
2004
Review of An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, by Bruce K. Waltke and M. OConnor. Journal of Near
Eastern Studies 53: 15053.
Review of Studies in Verbal Aspect and Narrative Technique in Biblical Hebrew Prose, by Mats Eskhult. Journal
of Near Eastern Studies 54: 6466.
Review of Leviticus 116: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, by Jacob Milgrom. Journal of
Near Eastern Studies 55: 30001.
Ugaritic. In The Semitic Languages, edited by Robert Hetzron, pp. 13144. London: Routledge.
Dawn and Dusk: The Birth of the Gracious and Beautiful Gods. In The Context of Scripture, Volume 1:
Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, edited by William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, pp.
27483. Leiden: Brill.
Review of Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect Used by the Scribes from
Canaan, by Anson F. Rainey. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 58: 31317.
Review of The Anterior Construction in Classical Hebrew, by Ziony Zevit. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 60:
30812.
Hebrew Letters. In The Context of Scripture, Volume 3: Archival Documents from the Biblical World, edited
by William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, pp. 7787. Leiden: Brill.
Review of Ugaritische Grammatik, by Joseph Tropper. Archiv fr Orientforschung online version 50: 1404.
Ugaritic. In Encyclopedia of the Worlds Ancient Languages, edited by Roger D. Woodard, pp. 288318.
Pardee, Dennis, and Robert M. Whiting

Aspects of Epistolary Verbal Usage in Ugaritic and Akkadian. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African
1987
Studies 50: 131.
Parker, Simon B.
1997
Pietsch, Michael
20042007
Stories in Scripture and Inscriptions: Comparative Studies on Narratives in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions and
the Hebrew Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Einige berlegungen zur syntaktischen Funktion der wqal-Formen in 2 Kn 23,415. Zeitschrift fr
Althebraistik 1720: 15977.
Rainey, Anson F.
2003 The yaqtul Preterite in Northwest Semitic. In Hamlet on a Hill: Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to
Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of his Sixty-fifth Birthday, edited by Martin F. J. Baasten and W. T. Van
Peursen, pp. 395407. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 118. Louvain: Peeters.
Reinhart, Tanya
1984
Principles of Gestalt Perception in the Temporal Organization of Narrative Texts. Linguistics 22: 779
809.
Revell, Ernest J.
1984
Stress and the WAW Consecutive in Biblical Hebrew. Journal of the American Oriental Society 104: 43744.
Rosn, Haiim B.
1969
Israel Language Policy, Language Teaching and Linguistics. Ariel 25: 92111.
Sanders, Seth L.
2004
Performative Utterances and Divine Language in Ugaritic. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 63: 16181.
Talstra, Eep
1997
Tense, Mood, Aspect and Clause Connections in Biblical Hebrew. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages
23/2: 81103.
Tropper, Josef
1996 Aramisches wyqtl und hebrisches wayyiqtol. Ugarit-Forschungen 28: 63345.
Althebrisches und semitisches Aspektsystem. Zeitschrift fr Althebraistik 11: 15390.
1998a
Review of A Syntactical Study of Verbal Forms Affixed by -n(n) Endings in Classical Arabic, Biblical Hebrew, el1998b
Amarna Akkadian and Ugaritic, by Tamar Zewi. Ugarit-Forschungen 30: 94748.
2000
Tropper, Josef, and J.-P. Vita
Der Energikus an Jussiven im Kanaano-Akkadischen der Amarna-Periode. Orientalia 74: 5764.
2005
317
van der Merwe, C. H. J.

1997
Workshop: Text Linguistics and the Strucutre of 1 Samuel 1. In Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible:
Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996, edited by Ellen van Wolde, pp. 15765. Biblical Interpretation Series
29. Leiden: Brill.
Waltke, Bruce; K. Waltke; and M. OConnor
1990
The Syntax of er and eC Yet Again
319
18
The Syntax of er and ec Yet Again

Naama Pat-El, University of Texas at Austin*
1. Status Quaestionis
Biblical Hebrew has three attested relative particles: the reflex of the common Semitic relative pronoun,
which is mostly found in relics, ze; a new form, er, which is written as an independent form, but shows distinct
vocalization as a construct (i.e., dependent) form;1 and finally another form, eC, which is systematically written
as proclitic to a following word and causes gemination. This latter particle appears infrequently in the Bible, but
spreads thereafter. While it is widely agreed that er replaced ze, the relationship between er and eC is less
obvious. This relationship will be the subject of the current paper.
There are two major theories regarding the relationship between er and eC: (a) eC is a reduced form of
er, or (b) er and eC are unrelated, the latter possibly a borrowing from Akkadian.2 The nature of er and
eC, and the historical relationship between them, is still hotly debated (Holmstedt 2007). In the last several
years, this relationship, as well as the syntax of these particles, has been addressed by a number of scholars from
a variety of approaches (e.g., Givon 1991; Holmstedt 2001; 2006; 2007; Huehnergard 2006; Huehnergard and Pat-El
2006; Pat-El 2010).
In a 2006 paper, John Huehnergard suggested that eC is a result of aphaeresis of the glottal stop in er, and
a metanalysis succeeding an assimilation of the final -r to a following consonant. This is not a novel idea, but
Huehnergard explained the change as a result of known, though sporadic, phonological changes (Boyarin 1976;
Huehnergard 2006, pp. 12122). The process is essentially the following: er# > *er-C- > *eC-C- > eC-C-. The
phonological changes suggested as the basis for this change are not widespread changes, nor are they regular
changes in Biblical Hebrew. Therefore, Huehnergard used grammaticalization as a theoretical framework for his
reconstruction, pointing to similar processes in other languages, where irregular sound changes caused localized
changes (Engish one > an). In other words, the changes involved in the process er > eC are not assumed to be
part of the set of sound changes that underlie Hebrew and are expressed in the Tiberian vocalization of the MT.
In a 2007 paper, which is largely a response to Huehnergard (2006), Robert Holmstedt rejects the proposed
connection er > eC, primarily because the sound changes are ad hoc and would therefore complicate the phonology of the Canaanite languages (2007, p. 190). He is also skeptical about the etymology of er, because the
evidence does not allow us to trace a sure diachronic path of reanalysis, semantic bleaching, and phonetic reduction for *atar in Hebrew or other Semitic languages; we simply lack the appropriate pieces of the puzzle (ibid.,
p. 188). In addition, Holmstedt argues that the grammaticalization of er to eC did not occur in all the languages
where er is attested (Akkadian, Aramaic, and Ugaritic), a fact that he considers to be a weakness (ibid., p. 190).
* I wish to thank John Huehnergard for helpful comments on an

earlier draft. All remaining errors are my own.
1
The origin of this particle has been connected to a spatial noun,
*atar, place.
A comprehensive bibliography and history of research is found

in Huehnergard 2006, and partially in Holmstedt 2007.
319
320
Naama Pat-El
After rejecting Huehnergards proposal and any connection between er and eC, Holmstedt suggests that
eC could be a borrowing of the Akkadian relative pronoun a. In order to explain the gemination caused by eC
in Hebrew, but not in Akkadian, he postulates that the Akkadian masculine form was similar to the feminine singular relative pronoun tu, that is, it had a long vowel //, which was the result of a compensatory lengthening
after a sonorant (/n) had dropped: *atu/*altu/antu > tu (ibid., p. 183). The masculine form would therefore
have had a consonant to account for the gemination in Hebrew, and the process should be reconstructed as this:
*a/*al/*an > . According to Holmstedt, in the absence of any other apparent cognate, it seems not only
feasible but likely that Akkadian a is the source for Hebrew eC- (ibid., p. 183). Holmstedt advocates a solution
that is based on regular sound changes (ibid., p. 191) and, when regular sound changes cannot be applied, prefers
the solution of language contact.
Holmstedts objections are, of course, legitimate and need to be addressed before moving on to my own
arguments. First and foremost, it is important to understand the role and limitations of historical comparative
linguistics. Holmstedts complaint that we lack the appropriate pieces of the puzzle (Holmstedt 2007, p. 188) is
exactly where historical linguistics operates through reconstruction. If we had all the pieces of the puzzle, the
method to use would be descriptive linguistics. Historical linguistics is a hypothesis very often based on incomplete sets of evidence.3 Meillet rightly observes that [t]outefois ce sont des observations isolees, precieuses en
ceci quelles permettent de se former une idee de la faon dont les langues evoluent, mais dont on na jamais
lequivalent pour les periods plus anciennes, et dont one a mme tres peu dexample encore a lepoque actuelle
(1965, p. 45).4 Historical linguists are no longer content with merely pointing to a change, but seek to explain how
and, if at all possible, why a certain change occurred (Campbell 1998, p. 5). Thus, sparse or partial attestation is a
natural hurdle to deal with in reconstruction, and not a deterrent.
Holmstedts rejection of the etymology of er because not all languages show the changes atar > er and
er > eC should also be dismissed. Not all related languages share every change; if they had, we would not
have a language family, but rather a language.5 First, innovative features are what set one language family apart
from its sister (Hetzron 1976). But even within closely related languages, selective changes, which take part only
in some sister languages and even outside the dialect group, may occur. This type of change is referred to as
parallel development. A well-known parallel development in Semitic is the loss of final feminine -t, which in
Hebrew happened in both the verbal and nominal systems, in Phoenician only in the verbal, and in Aramaic only
in the nominal (Blau 1980).6 In short, a change does not have to be sweeping to constitute a change, and there is
no necessity for a language to change in a certain direction, even if its sister language had. Thus, this counterargument does not hold.
Holmstedt further rejects Huehnergards suggested -r assimilation because it complicates the phonology
of Hebrew, while admitting that sporadic changes do occur in Semitic (Holmstedt 2007, p. 190). For example,
Holmstedts own etymology of the Akkadian relative pronoun, outlined above, is ad hoc: n, l do not cause compensatory lengthening in Akkadian, and the glottal stop does not cause gemination in Hebrew. 7 Moreover, beyond
invoking it as support for Homstedts language-contact hypothesis, there is no reason to assume that a glottal stop
closed an initial syllable in the Akkadian relative pronoun. No other language provides evidence to support such
See Forston regarding the development of the different branches of proto-Indo-European: The evidence that can confidently
be used to evaluate these claims is unfortunately sparse (2004,
p. 11).
4
This was said in the context of internal reconstruction of
French, but the same principles apply to comparative reconstruction (Hock 1986, p. 581).
5
Holmstedts doubts regarding the etymology atar > er is
based on the syntax of er in Hebrew, which is only attested
as a relative particle and never as a noun. Homstedt notes that
[w]e simply lack the necessary data to complete the reconstruction (2007, p. 181). But this argument is not relevant. The comparative method allows us to reconstruct forms whose history is
known only from data gathered in related languages (external
reconstruction). Most languages have grammatical forms whose
lexical origin has been lost; e.g., the post-positive negation par3
ticle in many Neo-Arabic dialects, -, originated from the noun

ay thing however, this noun is no longer extant in these
dialects. Yet, the etymology of - is certain, thanks to comparative data. Similarly, the Hebrew preposition qeb because is not
found as an isolated noun in Hebrew, but the Arabic equivalent
aqibun consequence is an indication of its previous meaning
and function. In short, Holmstedts objection quoted above is
perhaps adequate for isolated languages, like Sumerian, but not
for Hebrew, which has multiple well-attested relatives.
6
See also Rendsburg 1991 for other types of parallel development in Semitic.
7
An alternative explanation for the gemination in Hebrew is
Lambdins junctural doubling (1971), which he originally postulated to explain the gemination caused by the definite article; as
far as I know, junctural doubling has never been suggested as an
explanation in this context.
321
a reconstruction, including Akkadian itself. Since there is very little doubt regarding the origins of the Akkadian
relative pronoun,8 such an alternative unsubstantiated etymology is less than convincing.
Finally, Holmstedt suggests that Hebrew had synchronically three particles of different origin, zV, er, and
eC, but offers no distinction among them (2007, p. 191). Following his own insistence on Occams Razor (Holmstedt
2001; 2007), one may note that this is hardly the most economical solution.
Although, as was shown above, some of Holmstedts arguments are not persuasive, the fact that Huehnergards
phonological reconstruction is ad hoc still stands. Holmstedt advocates a strict no exceptions rule,9 while admitting exceptions do occur, whereas Huehnergard relies on grammaticalization to account for the phonological
irregularities. So can there be a solution, or will this issue continue to plague Hebrew historical grammar? I suggest that we should look at other aspects of this problem as complementary evidence to tilt the scale.
While the phonological aspects of this problem have by now been thoroughly exhausted, the syntax of the
relevant particles has not been sufficiently studied. An investigation of the syntax of these particles, specifically
er and eC, in comparison to one another and to other Semitic languages, may point to the difference among
them and subsequently may point to their origin. If indeed their syntax is identical, then Holmstedts assertion
that Hebrew had three relative particles with the same function synchronically stands, along with the difficulties
he raised regarding the phonology of Huehnergards reconstruction. However, if er and eC differ in their syntax
from each other and from other languages, primarily Akkadian, then Holmstedts proposal should seriously be
questioned, along with his language contact solution for eC.
2. Introduction: Marking Nominal Dependency in Semitic

The relative pronoun in Semitic is traced to two proto-forms: *V in proto-West Semitic and *V in proto-East
Semitic (Huehnergard 2006; Hasselbach 2007, pp. 2224). In terms of syntax, both branches of proto-Semitic are in
complete agreement; in all the Semitic languages, the so-called relative pronoun may be followed by a sentence, a
prepositional phrase or an adverb, or a noun. These elements are thus marked as attributes of a head noun (Pat-El
and Treiger 2008). Note the following examples from Akkadian, where the attribute in (1a) is a sentence, (1b) a
prepositional phrase, and (1c) a noun:

(1a) Sentence:
arru-kn ar
Sargon
mt-im
Enlil mir-a l
iddin-u-um
king.ms.cnst land-gen REL.ms.nom Enlil rival-acc Neg. he.gave-SUB-to him
Sargon, king of the land, to whom Enlil has given no rival (RIME 2.1.1.6.)

(1b) Adverb/Preposition:
kaspu u-pti
gabbi a
silver and-wool all
itti-ya
ana
REL.ms.acc with-me to
agrti attadin
wages I.gave
All the silver and wool with me I gave as wages (VOS III 19, 1213, apud Aro 1963, p. 403)
(1c) Noun:
E
Nairil
barley REL.ms PN
The barley of Nairil (OAIC 6:9 Di, apud Hasselbach 2005, p. 163)
Huehnergard 2006, pp. 11416, and see the extensive bibliography quoted there, starting from the late nineteenth century.
9
I suggest following a variation of Occams razor for historical
and comparative linguistics: If the apparent connection between
8
two words contains phonetic difficulties, the linguist should look

elsewhere for a more economic solution (Holmstedt 2007, p.
191).
322
Naama Pat-El
Several languages have lost some of these patterns during their attested history, and some differentiate among
the different patterns. Classical Arabic, for example, has a different form of the relative pronoun for sentential
attributes (lla) and nominal attributes ();10 both, however, share the same etymon, West Semitic *V. Several
languages severely restricted or slightly changed the distribution of these patterns. In most Neo-Arabic dialects,
for example, it is no longer possible to use the relative pronoun to mark a relationship between two nouns.11
3. Hebrew: Three Relative Particles

The Canaanite languages are the only branch that replaced its inherited relative particle in antiquity.12 The
exact etymology and process of change to account for the form er are irrelevant for the current discussion.
Suffice it to note that the new relative particle did not develop from, and is not related to, the original West
Semitic relative pronoun *V. What is of interest to us is the relationship between this particle and eC.
A question, which is hardly ever addressed, is whether the change of the relative particle zV > er was followed by, or caused, a change in syntax, or whether the syntax remained unchanged and the change of relative
particles was a mere lexical replacement. It is implied in Holmstedts discussion, as well as in earlier studies, that
at least er and zV have the same syntax. Holmstedt seems to assume that this is also true for eC. If Holmstedt
is correct, we would expect all three particles to have the same syntax as well as show a distribution similar to
what other Semitic languages have, that is, to introduce attributive sentences, nouns, and prepositions. Let us
review the distribution of these particles to make sure this is indeed the case:
(a) Sentence:
ZE:
hinne lh-n
here
ze
qiwwn
l-
god.mp-our REL hope.pf.1cp to-him
Here is our god whom we trust. (Isa 25:9)

ER: hinn-k
mt
al
h-i
er lqat
here-you.ms dead because DEF-woman REL
take.pf.2ms
You will die on account of the woman you have taken. (Gen 20:3)

E: ak ze
hay-ym eq-qiwwn-h
but DEM.ms DEF-day REL-hope.pf.1cp-him
This is the day we have waited for. (Lam 2:16)

(b) Adverb/Preposition
ZE: tiren-n
min
had-dr z
l-lm
protect.impf.2ms-us from DEF-generation REL for-ever
You shall protect us from these eternal people. (Ps 12:8)

ER: -mip-pr
h-
er b-tk
and-from-fruit DEF-tree REL
hag-gn
tkl
mimmen-n
in-inside DEF-garden NEG eat.impf.2mp from-him
Do not eat any of the fruit of the tree in the garden. (Gen 3:3)
10
Both particles were inflected for gender-number-case in Classical Arabic.
11
Such dependency is marked either by annexation, or by a genitive exponent, normally based on a noun. Only Moroccan dyl
possibly goes back to a relative pronoun, though it is no longer

an independent relative (see Brustad 2000, pp. 8587 for syntax).
12
The origin of Neo-Arabic illi is still debated.
E: w-li-gmall-hem
mispr
ka-l
e-al
323
spat
hay-ym la-rb
and-to-camels-their NEG number as-sand REL-on bank.cnst DEF-sea to-many
Their camels are innumerable as the sand on the sea-shore. (Judg 7:12)
(c) Noun:
nzl
ZE: hrm
mip-pn
YHWH ze Sinay
mountains melt.pf.3mp from-face PN
REL PN
Mountains melted before YHWH of Sinai. (Judg 5:5)

ER: lam-md
to.DEF-time
er ml
REL
PN
Samuels appointed time. (1 Sam 13:8)

E: NONE
While er, ze, and eC share most of their syntax, the genitive marker is not a function of the particle eC,
although it is of er and zV. The function of er in 1 Sam 13:8 is not a unique example; the genitival function
of er is attested a number of times. Note the following, where an er genitival pattern is compared with the
more common construct pattern:13
5) ER as a Genitive Marker:
h-r
er Hdd
rat
DEF-evil REL
PN
Cf.
evil.CNST PN
Hadads mischief (1 Kgs 11:25)
Nabals mischief (1 Sam 25:39)
ham-mizrqt er zhb
mizrq
DEF-basins
REL gold
Cf.
The golden basins (2 Kgs 25:15)
Nbl
zhb
basins.CNST gold
The golden basins (2 Chr 4:8)
It is important to note that the number of genitive clauses with er far exceeds those with *z-, and thus
the absence of the pattern with eC cannot be dismissed as a mere coincidence. Moreover, even after eC pushed
er and ze out and became the sole relative particle in post-Biblical Hebrew,14 it is never attested as a genitive
marker. It rather developed a genitive exponent on the basis of the attributive prepositional phrase el-l- > el-.15
6) Mishnaic Hebrew:
hab-bsmm
DEF-perfumes GEN foreigners
Qumran Hebrew:
16
el
nokrm
The perfumes of foreigners (Ber 8:6)
h-gnwt
l-yn Gdy
DEF-gardens GEN-En Gedi
The Gardens of En Gedi (apud Mor 5.27)
For a full discussion of this pattern, see Pat-El 2010. This piece
of readily available information is not mentioned in any of the
regular Biblical Hebrew grammars, nor in Holmstedt 2002.
14
Qumran Hebrew normally uses er, and eC appears there
only sporadically. Morag (1988, pp. 16061) believes that this is
an intrinsic feature of Qumran Hebrew, possibly evidence of dialectical differentiation, while Qimron (1986, p. 82) claims that
eC was deemed inappropriate for literary style, but was in fact
a part of the language.
13
Mor (2009, pp. 24748) notes that in Qumran, the second noun
is always definite (either a definite noun or a pronoun). Mor emphasizes that although -l is similar in some aspects to Aramaic
dl-, there are some substantial syntactic differences between
them. He concludes that the syntax of -l is a typical Qumran
development and not an Aramaism (ibid., p. 285).
16
The genitive marker l is not necessarily attached to a following noun.
15
324
Naama Pat-El
So it seems that er shares its syntax with the old relative particle ze; this indicates lexical replacement,
as has been assumed by many linguists. Since many Semitic languages use their relative particle for the three
patterns discussed above, the existence of er and ze in similar patterns is hardly surprising. It should be expected. The particle eC, however, shows fewer patterns than both of them. The absence of any attestation of eC
as a marker of possession is significant. If eC cannot mark possession, it cannot possibly be a borrowing from
Akkadian, where a- is regularly used for this function (see example 1c above). There is no scenario that might
explain why eC was borrowed into Hebrew without a prominent part of its syntax.
Other languages in the vicinity of Hebrew, most prominently Aramaic,17 also regularly use their bare relative particle to mark possession, yet Late Biblical Hebrew and post-Biblical Hebrew, which show many syntactic
Aramaisms, have not been influenced by this feature (Mor 2009, p. 285). Moreover, two etymologies have been
offered for eC (Huehnergards er > eC; Holmstedts Akk. a > eC), under both of which we would expect eC to
have a genitive function. But this function is not attested. So how can this distribution of eC be explained? And
what can it possibly tell us about the history and origin of eC?
4. Syntactic Reduction
I suggest that the situation observed above is a likely consequence of phonological and syntactic reduction
of a function word. This phenomenon is well known cross-linguistically. One of the most famous examples is the
phonological and syntactic reduction of verbal negation in English.
As Zwicky and Pullum noted in their 1983 paper, the loss of independent status has distributional consequences. They had observed that while the English verbal negation NOT can negate non-finite verbs or clitic
forms of verbs, the reduced form -NT is highly selective: it can be attached only to full-form finite auxiliary
verbs. Semantically NOT and -NT are equivalent, and they obviously share the same etymon; but syntactically
-NT covers only a part of the functions of NOT:
7) Syntactic Erosion: English not and -nt

(a) negating non-finite verbs:

i. Would the police have not been informed?
ii. **Would the police havent been informed?
(b) negating clitic verbal forms:

i. Id not be doing this unless I had to.
BUT: I wouldnt be doing this unless I had to.
ii. **Idnt be doing this unless I had to.
Similarly, I argue, eC is a reduced form of er, both phonologically and syntactically, and thus shares only a
part of its syntax. This scenario is far more reasonable and better documented than the borrowing of a function
word without a significant part of its syntax.
One may justifiably wonder, however, why a reduced form eC should be excluded from marking genitive
relations? After all, in Syriac d-, a phonologically reduced form of d, is perfectly capable of marking genitive
relation; in fact nothing in the distribution of the Aramaic relative particle had changed due to this development:
Several linguists have claimed that the function of Akkadian

a as a genitive exponent influenced Aramaic d (Kutscher 1971;
17
Kaufman 1974). I strongly disagree (Pat-El 2008), but this is an indication of how prominent and widespread this function of a- is.
325
8) Aramaic: phonological reduction without syntactic reduction.

(a) Qumran Aramaic (Middle A):
dy
lyly
vision REL night
zw
dream (1Q20: 21.8)
(b) Syriac (Late A):18
lb
d-gabr
clothes
good
REL-men
fine male attire (Bar Daian 46:2)
A possible reason for the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic is the nature of their relative pronouns.
The Semitic *V pronoun is a bound form, i.e., it is the head in a construct pattern.19 When the Canaanite languages replaced their original pronoun with a nominal form, it too had a bound form (Huehnergard 2006, p. 121).
eC appears very early after this innovation. Unlike er, which has a clear construct form, eC is not formally
a construct, but rather a clitic, and so perhaps was not capable of functioning as a head in a construct pattern.
But, as was already mentioned above, there is no necessity for a change to occur. The fact that one language
shows phonological reduction alongside syntactic reduction does not necessitate such a change in every case of
phonological reduction.
A similar syntactic reduction, though without a phonological reduction, as is argued for Hebrew, is also attested in Classical Arabic. The original relative pronoun is attested as a genitive marker, but the innovative one
ll, although it is genetically derived from , is never used to mark genitive, because it is not a bound form:
(9) Arabic: Innovation and Syntactic Reduction

(a) Sentence:
umma inna waladay-hi

then
llaayni
qatal-hu
fi Ninw harab
Adv child.m.du.obl-his REL.m.du.obl. kill.pf.3md-him in Ninwe flee.pf.3md
Then, his children, who killed him in Nineveh, fled.

(b) Adverb/Preposition:
al-kasu
llat
f yadi-ka
DEF-cup.fs.nom REL.fs in hand-your.ms

The cup in your hand
(c) Noun:
ml-in
REL.ms.nom wealth-gen.
Wealthy (= of wealth)
Again, the forms of the relative pronouns in Arabic, unlike the genitive marker d, are not bound forms. Note
the plural lldna and dual lldni; had these forms been bound, their form should have been **lld and **lld.20
The current form of these pronouns is an independent form, not a construct, which means that their syntax is
different from that of , which is a construct form.
The vowel of the relative particle in Syriac is conditioned on

the following syllabic structure: a before #CC, and before #CV.
19
Semitic is typologically a head-marked language (Nichols 1986).
18
Furthermore, the Arabic relative pronouns contain a definite

article that excludes a construct morphology.
20
326
Naama Pat-El
5. Conclusions
This paper points to a significant syntactic difference between er and eC-, which proves that it is highly
unlikely that eC was borrowed from Akkadian. It is further suggested that this difference is well known from cases
of a dependent, phonologically reduced form, which developed from a full independent form. English supplied a
classic example, but the phenomenon is attested in other Semitic languages as well.
The paper did not address the issue of grammaticalization and the possibility of the phonological changes
suggested by Huehnergard (2006), but rather suggested that the syntactic evidence supports a connection between
er and eC- and rejects language contact as an explanation.
Bibliography
Allegro, J. M.
1955
Uses of the Semitic Demonstrative Element z in Hebrew. Vetus Testamentum 5/3: 30912.
Aro, Jussi
1963
Prpositionale Verbindungen als Bestimmungen des Nomens im Akkadischen. Orientalia 32: 395406.
Blau, Joshua
1980
Boyarin, Daniel
1976
Brustad, Kristen E.
2000
Campbell, Lyle
1998
The Parallel Development of the Feminine Ending -at in Semitic Languages. Hebrew Union College Annual 51: 1728.
The Loss of Final Consonants in Babylonian Jewish Aramaic (BJA). Afroasiatic Linguistics 3/5: 10307.
The Syntax of Spoken Arabic: A Comparative Study of Moroccan, Egyptian, Syrian, and Kuwaiti Dialects. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Forston, Benjamin W.
Indo-European Language and Culture. Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics 19. Malden: Blackwell.
2004
Givn, T.
1991
Goldenberg, Gideon
1995
The Evolution of Dependent Clause Morpho-syntax in Biblical Hebrew. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, edited by Elizabeth C. Traugott and Bernd Heine, vol. 2, pp. 257310. Typological Studies in
Language 19. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Attribution in the Semitic Languages. Langues orientales anciennes: philologie et linguistique 5/6: 120.
Hasselbach, Rebecca
2005
Demonstratives in Semitic. Journal of the American Oriental Society 127/1: 127.
2007
Hetzron, Robert
1976
Two Principles of Genetic Reconstruction. Lingua 38: 89198.
Hock, Hans Henrich

1986
Principles of Historical Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Holmstedt, Robert D.
2001
Headless and Extraposition: Another Look at the Syntax of
27/1: 116.
. Journal of Northwest Semitic Linguistics

2002
2006
2007
Huehnergard, John
2006
327
The Relative Clause in Biblical Hebrew: A Linguistic Analysis. PhD. dissertation submitted to the University of Wisconsin.
The Story of Ancient Hebrew er. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 43: 726.
The Etymologies of Hebrew er and eC-. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 66/3: 17792.
On the Etymology of the Hebrew Relative s-. In Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives, edited by Avi Hurvitz and Steven E. Fassberg, pp. 10325. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns.
Huehnergard, John, and Naama Pat-El

2006
Some Aspects of the Cleft in Semitic Languages. In Studies in Semitic and General Linguistics in Honor of
Gideon Goldenberg, edited by Tali Bar and Eran Cohen, pp. 32542. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 334.
Kaufman, Stephen A.
1974
The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic. Assyriological Studies 19. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kutscher, Edward Y.
1971
A History of Aramaic. Jerusalem: Akademon. [In Hebrew]
Lambdin, Thomas O.
1971
The Junctural Origin of the West Semitic Definite Article. In Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William
Foxwell Albright, edited by H. Goedicke, pp. 31533. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
Meillet, Antoine
1965
Mor, Uri
2009
Linguistique historique et linguistique gnrale, Volume 1. Collection Linguistique publiee par la Socit de
Linguistique de Paris 8. Paris: Champion.
The Grammar of the Epigraphic Hebrew Documents from Judaea between the First and the Second
Revolts. Ph.D. dissertation submitted to Ben Gurion University, Beer-Sheva. [In Hebrew]
Morag, Shelomo
1988
Qumran Hebrew: Some Typological Observations. Vetus Testamentum 38: 14864.
Nichols, Johanna
1986
Head-Marking and Dependent-Marking Grammar. Language 62/1: 56119.
Pat-El, Naama
2008
2010
The Proleptic Genitive in Aramaic: A Re-evaluation. A talk delivered at the American Oriental Society
annual meeting in Chicago, IL, March 2008.
On Periphrastic Genitive Constructions in Biblical Hebrew. Hebrew Studies 51: 4348.
Pat-El, Naama, and Alexander Treiger

2008
On Adnominalization of Prepositional Phrases and Adverbs in Semitic. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft 158/2: 265352.
Qimron, Elisha
1986
Rendsburg, Gary A.
1991
The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Harvard Semitic Studies 29. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Parallel Developments in Mishnaic Hebrew, Colloquial Arabic, and Other Varieties of Spoken Semitic.
In Semitic Studies: In Honor of Wolf Leslau on the Occasion of His Eighty-Fifth Birthday, edited by Alan S. Kaye,
vol. 2, pp. 126577. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Zwicky, Arnold M., and Geoffrey K. Pullum

Cliticization vs. Inflection: English NT. Language 59/3: 50213.
1983
Late Biblical Hebrew in the Book of Haggai
329
19

Gary A. Rendsburg, Rutgers University*
Among the venerable and time-honored methodologies in the field of biblical studies specifically, ancient Near
Eastern studies generally, and philology more broadly is the application of diachronic linguistic analysis to the
texts at hand. Thus, already in the nineteenth century, or the early twentieth century at the latest, scholars had
distinguished among Old Akkadian, Old Babylonian, and Late Babylonian (in addition to the Assyrian dialects);
Old Egyptian, Middle Egyptian, and Late Egyptian; Old Latin and Classical Latin (in addition to Vulgar Latin); Old
Chinese and Middle Chinese; and so on.
As intimated in the opening sentence above, the world of biblical studies participated in this trend, with
the major finding differentiating between Standard Biblical Hebrew (SBH) and Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH). In
the words of one classical reference work, Even in the language of the Old Testament, notwithstanding its general uniformity, there is noticeable a certain progress from an earlier to a later stage. Two periods, though with
some reservations, may be distinguished: the first, down to the end of the Babylonian exile; and the second, after
the exile (GKC, 12). This judgment in the field of Hebrew studies has been more recently ensconced in the two
standard histories of the Hebrew language, by E. Y. Kutscher (1982, pp. 12, 45, 8184) and by Angel Senz-Badillos
(1993, pp. 11229).
A challenge to this approach has been introduced of late through the work of Ian Young, Robert Rezetko, and
Martin Ehrensvrd. These scholars argue that seeing SBH and LBH as two successive chronological phases of BH
is incompatible with the evidence. Rather, they aver, a better model sees LBH as merely one style of Hebrew in
the Second Temple period and quite possibly First Temple period also. Early BH [= SBH] and Late BH, therefore,
do not represent different chronological periods in the history of BH, but instead represent co-existing styles of
literary Hebrew throughout the biblical period. Which is to say, these two general language styles, EBH and LBH,
are best taken as representing two tendencies among scribes of the biblical period: conservative and non-conservative which is to say, not as successive chronological stages of the language, as per the dominant approach. 1
* It is my great pleasure to dedicate this article to my friend,

colleague, and (on one occasion) co-author, John Huehnergard,
who has done so much to place the field of Semitic studies at the
center of the humanities and whose own humanity and good
cheer are among his most enduring traits. I take the opportunity
to thank Shalom Holtz (himself a student of our jubilarian during his undergraduate career; see Holtz 2001, p. 241 n. *) for his
very insightful comments on an earlier version of this article. We
had the good fortune of presenting our somewhat interrelated
studies at the same panel during the fifteenth World Congress
of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, August 2009, with Holtzs research
already in print (see below, n. 21) and with mine now included
herein. Finally, it is my pleasant duty to thank the Oxford Centre
for Hebrew and Jewish Studies at Yarnton Manor for granting
me visiting scholar status and for providing the perfect environment in which to conduct research. It was during my residency
at Yarnton Manor during Michaelmas Term 2010 that the present
study was completed.
1
For the direct quotations, see Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvrd
2008, vol. 1, p. 361. For the most recent statements, see Young
2009b and Rezetko 2009, with the former essay representing a
fine summary of the findings of the co-authored 2008 book. As
an aside, note that Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvrd use the term
EBH (Early Biblical Hebrew) as the equivalent of SBH (Standard
Biblical Hebrew) employed by most scholars, myself included (see
also Ben Zvi 2009, p. 269 n. 1). For the periodization of ancient
Hebrew, see Kutscher 1982, p. 12, and Senz-Badillos 1993, p. 52.
329
330
Gary A. Rendsburg
This assertion thereby allows Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvrd to claim that certain books of the Persian period are written in Early BH (see below for sample statements), and by extension to claim that books written
in SBH and hence traditionally dated to the First Temple period (for example, virtually all of Genesis through
Kings) may be dated to the Persian period as well.2 I have already voiced my opinion on the subject (Rendsburg
2003; 2006), siding with those scholars who adhere to the traditional scholarly methodology, embodied most of
all in the work of Avi Hurvitz.3 There is much more work to be done, however, in order to demonstrate that the
conclusions drawn by Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvrd are incorrect, based on a misinterpretation of the data.
The present essay will expound the point vis--vis the book of Haggai, dated by all responsible scholars to the
early part of the Persian period, around 520500 b.c. Haggai is a parade example for the Young-Rezetko-Ehrensvrd
thesis, since they contend that this short book of two chapters is devoid of LBH features, even though it is written during the (early) post-exilic period. The following statements are illustrative: 4 undisputed postexilic texts,
including Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, and probably also Isaiah 4066 and Joel, lack characteristic LBH features,
and instead, when the opportunities arise, they use linguistic features that are characteristic of EBH texts (1.56;
see also 1.87); We certainly have undisputed postexilic texts written in EBH (e.g., Haggai-Malachi) (1.56); EBH
continued in the postexilic period, as demonstrated by the EBH language of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, but
also IIIII Isaiah and Joel (1.141); and However, there are very few good LBH candidates in Haggai and Malachi
(2.68).5 As the evidence below will make clear, there are ample lexical and grammatical LBH traits present in the
book of Haggai; these features collectively constitute sufficient evidence to refute the aforecited comments by
Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvrd.6 I anticipate my conclusion: no writer of the Persian period could write in preexilic Hebrew any longer; it was simply beyond his/her ability to do so.
Before proceeding to the specific LBH characteristics, it is apposite to mention the recent dissertation of
Seoung-Yun Shin (2007), written under Hurvitzs guidance, to be cited freely below.7 Note, however, that this work
was devoted to Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi as a collective unit, representing the three prophets of the early
Persian period, plus it dealt with lexical features only. Since Haggai is the smallest of these three books, only a
very few traits were recognized in its two chapters. Not only do I identify several more LBH lexemes in what follows, but I also deal with grammatical features and further expand the discussion in the direction of phraseology,
syntax, and poetic elements.
I begin with a few basic grammatical points, to set the stage.
I. The coordinating particle
if appears in Hag 2:12:
If a man carries sacrificial flesh in the fold of his garment, and with his fold touches the bread
or the stew or the wine or oil or any food, will it [sc. any of the foodstuffs] become holy? And
the priests answered and said, No.
if is well known from Aramaic (e.g., it appears sixteen times in Biblical Aramaic and throughThe particle
out Egyptian Aramaic [BDB: 1090; Muraoka and Porten 1998, p. 94]); it is attested elsewhere in BH in Lev 25:20,
Jer 2:10, 3:1, Prov 11:31, 2 Chr 7:13 (two times). Lev 25:20 appears in an Israelian pericope (see Rendsburg 2008),
while Prov 11:31 occurs in a book replete with Israelian Hebrew features (Ginsberg 1982, pp. 3536; Chen 2000).
2
The latter contention, in turn, serves to bolster the allegations
of other scholars (most prominently, N.-P. Lemche, T. L. Thompson, and P. R. Davies) who have dated virtually the entire biblical
corpus to the Persian if not Hellenistic period. Note, however,
that these scholars completely ignore the linguistic evidence,
which remains the most objective criterion for the dating of biblical texts. See the perceptive comment of Joosten (2005, p. 328):
Linguistic data are no longer expected, it seems, to play a part
within the historical-critical approach.
3
The most important works are the two books: Hurvitz 1972a and
Hurvitz 1982. Among the more recent articles, see Hurvitz 2006.
Quotations from Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvrd 2008 page

numbers are indicated in the body of the article.
5
See also Ehrensvrd 2003, p. 185: It seems fair, then, to regard
Isaiah 4066, Joel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi as EBH texts;
they have their (expected) share of features that may belong to
LBH, and no clear LBH features.
6
In addition, note that Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvrd also err
regarding Isaiah 4066, which is replete with LBH features, for
which see the convenient list compiled in Paul 2008, vol. 1, pp.
3133.
7
I am grateful to Dr. Shin for providing me with a copy of his
dissertation.
4
331
The twofold use of

if in Jeremiah may reflect the Benjaminite dialect that characterizes this book, or it may
be due to Aramaic influence already in late First Temple times (see Smith 2003). The presence of this form in
later in the verse), is plainly
Judean texts of the Persian period, namely, Hag 2:12 and 2 Chr 7:13 (alongside
due to Aramaic influence.
until and
still, while, whereas Aramaic uses only
for the
II. SBH retains the distinction between
during [the next] thirty
range of meanings until, still, while, during (note, for example, Dan 6:8, 13
to render
; etc.). The employment of
still, while for expected
occurs
days; the Targumic use of
in the Hebrew portions of the Bible in 2 Kgs 9:22 and Ps 141:10, as an Israelian Hebrew trait in these northern
compositions (Rendsburg 2002, pp. 11617); in Judg 3:26 and 1 Sam 14:19, in passages concerning Benjaminite
heroes (Ehud and Saul, respectively) and thus reflecting the Benjaminite dialect; and in the LBH texts Jon 4:2, Job
1:18, and Neh 7:3,8 under Aramaic influence, in addition to our relevant text, Hag 2:19:9
Indeed the seed is still in the granary, and the vine and the fig and the pomegranate and the
olive tree still has not borne fruit.10
III. Twice in Haggai (1:5, 7) we encounter the idiom
place (ones) heart > consider, pay heed, pay
, in the following verbatim expression:
mind followed by the preposition
pay mind to your ways
Normally in BH this idiom governs the preposition , (as in Deut 32:46; 1 Sam 9:20; and Ezek 40:4; 44:5), or
(as in Exod 9:21; 1 Sam 25:25; 2 Sam 18:3; Job 2:3, 34:14). Also germane is the semantically
the preposition
, which governs the preposition
(in Exod 7:23; 2 Sam 13:20; Jer 31:21; Ps 48:14; Prov
equivalent idiom
(in Job 7:17). Against all these cases stand the two aforecited Haggai pas22:17; 27:23), and the preposition
, namely, Job 1:8, within the LBH prose prologue.11 This
sages and only one other instance with the preposition
to LBH
, with no apparent change in meaning, is part of the larger
shift from SBH
during the Persian period in a wide variety of contexts (most
picture of the increased use of the preposition
likely due to Aramaic influence) as illustrated by several idioms studied by Hurvitz (1974, pp. 23, 2526). In fact,
the Aramaic nature of this idiom is detectable via the translation technique reflected in Targum Yonatan, which
to render the SBH idiom with
(in 1 Sam 9:20; 25:25; 2 Sam 18:3), and in the Targum to Job, which does
uses
likewise when it translates Job 2:3.
much, greatly, which originates as a Hiphil infinitival form from the root
, serves as
IV. The form
an adverb throughout the history of the Hebrew language. Two developments transpire in LBH: (a) the word itself
is used much more frequently (thirty times [Jonah once, Haggai twice, Qohelet fifteen times,12 EzraNehemiah
six times, Chronicles six times], out of a total of forty-nine occurrences in the Bible), and (b) the word undergoes
substantivization.13
8
On the Job and Nehemiah passages, with the specific usage
of
+ participle, see Hurvitz 1974, pp. 2628. Since I deduce
another LBH feature in the prose framework of Job (see immediately below, no. III), it is appropriate to mention the recent
challenge to Hurvitzs position by Young (2009a) even if I side
with Hurvitz against Young on the matter.
9
Another factor is at play in two of these passages, namely, the
employment of morphological variation, as described by Ratner
(1992). Note how
in Job 1:18 parallels
in Job 1:16, 17; and
observe the presence of both forms in Hag 2:19 though such
variation is possible in these late texts only because of the neologistic usage of
still, while as part of the Aramaic impact
on LBH. See further n. 11 below.
For the use of the interrogative marker

(in this case
before the ayin in
) with an exclamatory nuance, see Joon
and Muraoka 1991, pp. 60910.
11
Note that the SBH idiom can continue in late texts, such as Job
2:3, but that the LBH idiom occurs only in late texts, such as Job
1:8. This allows the author of the prose prologue in Job to employ
morphological variation (see above, n. 9), with the two expressions in Job 1:8, 2:3, using different prepositions though once
more this specific application of this technique is feasible only
because the new usage is now available.
12
For discussion, see Schoors 2004, pp. 26366.
13
I am grateful to Jan Joosten for drawing this feature to my
attention.
10
332
Gary A. Rendsburg
The two occurrences in Haggai (see the passages below) represent both of these developments, though it is
the process of substantivization that attracts our attention here.

1:6
1:9
you have sown much and harvested little

you have expected much, and behold a little
no longer functions as an adverb, but now appears as a noun, with the

In both of these passages,14 the word
(pausal
) little, small amount.
connotation great quantity, especially in contrast to its opposite member
is either
or
(but never
as illustrated by Gen 30:30; Lev 25:16;
In SBH, the polar opposite to
Num 13:18; 26:54, 56; 33:54; 35:8; Deut 28:62; 1 Sam 14:6; Prov 16:8). The LBH usage, as reflected in the two Haggai
passages, occurs elsewhere in the Bible only in Jer 42:2 (on the way to LBH) and Qoh 5:11 (a decidedly late text). 15
Other LBH texts that reflect substantivized
much, large quantity, abundance include Jon 4:11; Qoh
16
and
5:16; Neh 5:18; and 2 Chr 25:9. The only SBH text that includes this usage is 2 Sam 1:4
there fell many from among the people. 17 Given the placement of these words in the mouth of the Amalekite,
who reports the death of Saul and Jonathan to David, one wonders whether a colloquial, non-standard, or substandard phrase is not represented here, which only in later times surfaced in literary usage.18 Regardless, the
much, large quantity, abundance is an LBH feature,
evidence demonstrates quite clearly that substantivized
with seven of the nine attestations occuring in post-exilic compositions, along with one attestation in Jeremiah.
continue into post-biblical
One also should note that the two aforementioned developments concerning
Hebrew as well. The figures for the total number of usages are Ben Sira four, Dead Sea Scrolls three, Tannaitic texts
185 (with the latter demonstrating the continuation of this trend most dramatically). Among these (especially,
, including cases of the
though not only, in the Tannaitic corpus) one finds more instances of substantivized
, for example, Ben Sira 5:15
small and large, do not
word standing as the antithesis of
say little and do much (the famous dictum of Shammai), and so on.
ruin,19 M. Avot 1:15
I now turn to some basic lexical items found in the book of Haggai.
V. The noun
governor occurs in pre-exilic and exilic texts to refer to foreign rulers only: 1 Kgs 10:15
(even if the exact country is unclear); 1 Kgs 20:24 (Aram, in the mouth of the kings advisors to their king); 2 Kgs
18:24 // Isa 36:9 (used by Rabshaqeh); Jer 51 (three times, with reference to Babylonian governors); and Ezek 23
(three times, with reference to [mainly] Assyrian governors). This usage continues in post-exilic texts as well, for
example, three times in Esther and five times in EzraNehemiah, all with reference to Persian governors, along
governor now comes to be used for
with 2 Chr 9:14 (// 1 Kgs 10:15). At the same time, however, the word
Jewish governors serving at the pleasure of the Persian emperor. Thus we find the term applied to Zerubavel (Hag
1:1, 14; 2:2, 21) and to Nehemiah (5:14 [twice], 18; 12:26), in addition to one generic usage in Mal 1:8. Obviously,
this new application of the term arises from the new political structure within the Persian empire (with Jews
serving as governors of Judea), but the new linguistic usage remains such nonetheless. Also relevant here are the
Persian-period epigraphic attestations (bullae, seals, jar impressions from Ramat Rael and other sites) of the
and
, including those with Yahwistic names.20
word
By coincidence, these two passages are treated below, item no.

XIII, concerning the infinitive absolute.
15
In 2 Kgs 10:18, the two words
and
also stand in
contrast, though both serve as adverbs here.
16
See the examples presented in Knig 1897, p. 339; BDB: 915;
DCH: 7.401 though without attention to the lateness of this
feature.
14
Note the comment of Driver (1913, p. 232): Almost =

Strictly, of course,
is an inf. abs. in the accus., qualifying
, lit. with a much-making there fell.
18
For general orientation, see Rendsburg 1990.
19
See also Ben Sira 35:8
, difficult as the text
may be.
20
For a listing, see Davies 1991, p. 470; for discussion, see Meyers
and Meyers 1987, p. 14.
17
333
VI. Among the findings of E. Y. Kutscher (19621963, p. 124; 1982, p. 84) relevant to this subject is the greatly
(lit.) stand in LBH, especially in the direction of the semantic field
expanded semantic range of the verb
(lit.) arise (again, most likely due to Aramaic influence).21 This drift is nicely
typically occupied by the root
exemplified by comparing two biblical passages, in which the same idiom occurs, with the two aforecited verbs
bearing the special nuance abide, endure:
Josh 2:11
Hag 2:5
and the spirit no longer abides in anyone on account of you

and my spirit abides in your midst
The former passage employs the SBH idiom (with

), while the latter presents the LBH idiom (with
).
To complete this picture, I submit the data compiled by Francis Andersen and Dean Forbes, regarding the gein LBH. I utilize here sizable chunks of text (since a book such as Haggai
neral increase in the use of the verb
is too short for this kind of analysis), presenting both (a) the raw number of attestations, and (b) the ratio based
on number of attestations per 10,000 words, as per the method employed by these two scholars (Andersen and
Forbes 1989, p. 32):22

Torah
Samuel
Kings
Zechariah

Psalms V
Esther
Daniel

2 Chronicles
a
69x
32x
54x
12x
13x
11x
39x
31x
b
9:10,000
13:10,000
21:10,000
38:10,000
26:10,000
36:10,000
66:10,000
23:10,000
VII. The word

message (of God) is a hapax legomenon appearing in Hag 1:13, with no parallel usage
elsewhere in Northwest Semitic. Normally under such circumstances, a lone usage serves little or no diagnostic
, a common feature of both LBH and
purpose. In the present instance, however, we note the abstract suffix
/ MH
old age, BH
post-Biblical Hebrew, including Mishnaic Hebrew (MH). Compare, for example, BH
/ MH
mourning, BH
/ MH
integrity, and so on. We can conclude, therefore, that
messenger (of
message (of God) was formed during the early Persian period, based on the common noun
God) (see Shin 2007, pp. 7273, with additional discussion).
Several phrases appear in Haggai, which also reflect new developments of the sixth century and following.
VIII. The idiom
rouse ones spirit occurs eight times in the Bible: Jer 51:1, 11; Hag 1:14; Ezra 1:1, 5;
1 Chr 5:26; 2 Chr 21:16, 36:22. There is no SBH expression to serve as a contrast, though one observes the following. In 2 Kgs 15:19, 29; 17:6; and 18:11, the Assyrian king (Pul/Tiglat-Pileser in the first two verses; the unnamed
Sargon in the second two) simply arrives and deports Israelites, whereas in 1 Chr 5:26 we read,
And the God of Israel roused the spirit of Pul king of Assyria and the spirit of Tilgat-Pileser
king of Assyria; and he exiled the Reubenites, the Gadites, and half the tribe of Manasseh
21
See now also Holtz 2009/2010.
22
Note that I do not include 1 Chronicles here, since the long
lists of personal names at the beginning of the book skew the
data considerably.
334
Gary A. Rendsburg
The verse in Hag 1:14 fits well into this overall picture:
And YHWH roused the spirit of Zerubavel ben Shaltiel, governor of Judah, and the spirit of
Joshua ben Jehozadaq, the high priest, and the spirit of the all the rest of the people; and
they came and they did the work in the house of YHWH of Hosts, their God.
In earlier accounts of the building of the Tabernacle and the construction of the First Temple, no such statements
occur (in general see Hurowitz 1992).
temple of YHWH occurs twice in Haggai (2:15, 18a), as another lexical feature of
IX. The phrase
the times. The expression is rare in SBH, occuring only three times (1 Sam 1:9; 3:3; 2 Kgs 18:16). During the texts
emanating from the sixth century b.c. (the transitional period between SBH and LBH), the phrase is more common (eight times: 2 Kgs 23:4; 24:13; Jer 7:4 [three times]; 24:1; Ezek 8:16 [twice]). And then during the LBH stage
a temple of YHWH relatively frequently (eleven times: Hag 2:15, 18;
of the language, one encounters
Zech 6:12, 13, 14, 15; Ezra 3:6, 10; 2 Chr 26:16; 27:2; 29:16).
(thus) says YHWH of Hosts occurs only twice in SBH (1 Sam 15:2;
X. The expression
2 Sam 7:8 // 1 Chr 17:7). It becomes a pet phrase of Jeremiah, with fifty-one occurrences in the book (fifty times
with introductory , once without); while a half century later, Second Isaiah employs the expression once (45:13,
). The three prophets of the Persian period then make
(thus) says YHWH of
without
Hosts a regular part of their phraseology:
Haggai seven times (five times with
, twice without)
Zechariah twenty-one times (seventeen times with
Malachi twenty-one times (once with
, four without)
, twenty without)
thus). Clearly, this phrase achieved

The attestations in Haggai are 1:2, 5, 7; 2:6, 7, 9, 11 (with 2:7 and 9 lacking
great currency during the sixth and fifth centuries b.c. (presumably popularized by Jeremiah himself), becoming
a hallmark of prophetic speech in the century and a half following.23 The SBH usage is the simpler
(thus) says YHWH, attested throughout prose books such as Exodus, Samuel, and Kings and in eighth-century
prophets such as Amos, Isaiah, and Micah, but hardly used by the Persian-period trio (see only Hag 1:8; Zech 8:3;
).
11:4; Mal 1:2; 3:13 and of these only the two Zechariah passages with
XI. An important and well-recognized diagnostic in the diachronic study of BH is the shift from SBH X
X, that is, whether the word
the king either precedes (as in SBH) or follows (as in LBH) the
to LBH
personal name of the monarch (Kropat 1909, pp. 48, 74; Hurvitz 1972a, p. 45). 24 The SBH phrase may continue
into later texts, as it does in Esther twenty-five times, perhaps as an intentional archaism by the author. The LBH
phrase is exceedingly limited in earlier texts (1 Sam 18:6; 2 Sam 13:39; 1 Kgs 2:17; 2 Kgs 8:29; 9:15);25 it is used twice
by Jeremiah (3:6; 29:2) and then becomes the characteristic mark of Persian-period compositions: Haggai twice
(1:1, 15), Zechariah once (7:1), Daniel twice (1:21; 8:1), and Chronicles twenty-once times (again, Esther excepted).
The two Haggai attestations are the same phrase:
of Darius the king
For the larger picture concerning this divine name, see Rof
1991 (with special attention to Haggai-Zechariah-Malachi on p.
315 n. 31). My thanks to Dr. Holtz for calling this essay to my
attention.
24
For a different interpretation of the data, see Rezetko 2003, p.
229; Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvrd 2007, vol. 2, p. 103.
23
2 Sam 24:23
is not a relevant example, since the
first word is not a personal name, but rather the Hurrian title
erwi-ne the lord, which then is glossed with the Hebrew term
the king.
25
335
This ordering, with royal name preceding

, reflects Aramaic influence over Hebrew during the Persian
X is preferred over X
. In Biblical Aramaic, for example, the
period, since in the former language
X occurs thirteen times in Daniel and fourteen times in Ezra; whereas the phrase X
occurs
phrase
six times in Daniel and not at all in Ezra. In the Aramaic papyri from Egypt, published by Cowley (1923), the
X formula is the only one attested (Darius: letters 1, 20, 21, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32; Behustan, line 37; Artaxerxes:
letters 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14; Sennacherib: Ahiqar 27, 50, 51, 55; Esarhaddon: Ahiqar 53, 7071, 7677, 78). 26
XII. The Bible attests to a number of different calendar formulas, though three are most dominant. Moreover,
these options may be plotted on a diachronic development, as follows (Wright 2005, pp. 5659; Shin 2007, pp.
13437):
X
A. SBH
B.
Transitional
8:12)
C.
LBH
Ezra 6:15
(e.g., Gen 7:11; Num 28:17; 1 Kgs 12:32)

X
(e.g., Lev 23:5; 2 Kgs 25:27 // Jer 52:31; Hag 2:1, 20; Ezek 29:21; Esth
(e.g., Hag 1:1, 15; Esth 9:17; Dan 10:4; Neh 9:1; 2 Chr 7:10); see also BA
Note the overlap of Type B, which spans both a Torah text such as Lev 23:5 and a late text such as Esth 8:12, but
which concentrates most of all in works emanating from the late monarchic period, the exile, and early Persian
period. On either side of Type B, then, we have the earlier Type A and the later Type C (with the latter paralleled
by the Aramaic usage). In light of this scheme, one is not surprised to learn (as indicated in the above listings of
illustrative passages) that Haggai attests to two instances of Type B and two instances of type C:
Hag 2:1
Hag 2:20
Hag 1:1
Hag 1:15
(type B)
(type B)
(type C)
(type C)
Which is to say, the linguistic profile of Haggai on this particular usage sits right at the cusp of the transitional
formula and the LBH formula (and with no instances of the SBH formula), exactly as one would expect from a
composition dated to circa 520 b.c.
We turn now to a set of three (somewhat) interrelated grammatical issues relevant to our study, all concerning the infinitive absolute.
XIII. As is well known, the employment of the infinitive absolute in place of the finite verb is common in
Ugaritic, Phoenician, Byblos Amarna, and Israelian Hebrew.27 Somewhat surprisingly, especially since instances of
this syntagma are rare in SBH (that is, Judahite Hebrew of the First Temple period), this usage appears relatively
frequently in LBH:28 Isa 42:20; 59:4; Ezek 23:30, 36, 47; Hag 1:6, 9; Zech 3:4; 7:5; 12:10; Job 15:35; Qoh 4:2; 8:9; 9:11;
Esther fourteen times (e.g., 9:1618 [seven times]); Dan 9:5, 11; Neh 7:3; 8:8; 9:8, 13; 1 Chr 5:20; 16:36; 2 Chr 28:19;
31:10. The two Haggai examples are the following:

1:6 you have sown much and harvested little
1:9 you have expected much
26
As far as I know, no systematic study of the
X formula
in Aramaic (along with its counterpart X
) has been undertaken, but the dozens of instances of the former (to the exclusion of the latter) in the Cowley corpus of documents clearly
represents the norm during the heyday of Imperial Aramaic. As
an aside, in light of the Aramaic evidence, I would note that two
instances of the
X formula in early texts reflect Israelian
Hebrew, with an isogloss to Aramaic. I refer to 2 Kgs 8:29 and
9:15, parallel passages dealing with Joram of Israel (in fact, just
wounded by the Arameans).
27
For a survey of the evidence, see Rendsburg 2002, pp. 7779.
28
For general orientation, see Gordon 1955 and Gevirtz 1986.
336
Gary A. Rendsburg
The presence of these two infinitive absolute forms in place of the finite verb in Haggai29 is yet another example
of how the language of this book reflects the developments of the Persian period (see further Cohen 2008, pp.
21522).30
XIV. In contrast to the above point, that the infinitive absolute in place of the finite verb appears more frequently in LBH, the employment of this grammatical form for the imperative appears far less frequently in late
texts. The following chart demonstrates the point clearly. The first column of numbers presents the number of
infintive absolutes serving as the imperative (IA.Impv.), the second column presents the number of morphological
imperatives (Impv.), and the third column furnishes the ratio of the former per hundred instances of the latter.31
The corpora are, respectively, (a) all books in the great narrative that spans Genesis through Kings, plus Ruth; (b)
the prophets who can confidently be dated 750550 b.c., namely, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk,
Zephaniah, Jeremiah, Obadiah, and Ezekiel;32 (c) the late prose books Qohelet, Esther, Daniel, EzraNehemiah,
and Chronicles; and (d) the prophets of the period 550450 b.c., that is, Second Isaiah, Haggai, Zechariah, and
Malachi.33
a)
b)
c)
d)
IA.Impv.
Impv.
61
4,253
Entire Bible:
GenesisKings + Ruth
AmosEzekiel
Late Prose Books
SecIsaHagZechMal
IA.Impv.
per Impvs.
1.43
27
1,744
1.55
265
0.75
31
938
230
3.30
0.43
As can be seen, a comparison between (a) and (c) reveals that later prose books use the infinitive absolute for the
imperative less than half as frequently as earlier prose books (see also Cohen 2008, pp. 22730), while a comparison
between (b) and (d) reveals even more strikingly the precipitous drop in this usage in the later prophetic books,
with Zech 6:10 the sole attestation in the four works included in group (d).34 The total absence of the infinitive
absolute with imperative force in Haggai (alongside fourteen instances of the regular imperative in this book) is
yet another LBH element in this book.
XV. Yet a third discernible trend concerning the infinitive absolute in LBH is the great decrease in the usage
of this form to add emphasis to the finite verb, what scholars call the paronomastic infinitive absolute or the
tautological infinitive absolute, that is, ql yiql (with the prefix conjugation) and ql qal (with the suffix
Hag 1:6 includes three other instances of the infinitive absolute
eat,
drink, and
dress which some have
taken as additional examples of this form with predicative use,
but which I would prefer to render as true verbal nouns, akin to
the English gerund. Thus I would translate the middle section
of this verse: (like) eating though without being satiated, (like)
drinking though without being inebriated, (like) dressing though
without his being warm.
30
My thanks to Naama Pat-El for bringing Ohad Cohens dissertation to my attention.
31
I adopt here the statistical methodology of (and utilize the
data provided by) Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvrd (2008, vol. 2,
pp. 13031). The number of attestations of the imperative registered in Andersen and Forbes 1989, pp. 2329, is ever-so-slightly
different from time to time, but none of these extremely minor
deviations affects the overall statistical analysis presented here.
32
I omit here Joel, since its date remains questionable, and Jonah,
since the book is mainly prose.
29
The chart does not include the data from works for which a
diachronic comparison cannot be made, such as Psalms, Proverbs,
Job, and Song of Songs. Though it is worth noting that Psalms
uses the imperative more frequently (354 times per 10,000 words)
than any other biblical book (save Joel, whose 45 imperatives or
470 times per 10,000 words is a statistical outlier in a short composition), no doubt because of the psalmists constant petitions
and entreaties to God. For the data, see Andersen and Forbes
1989, pp. 2329.
34
As one might expect, Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvrd (2008,
vol. 2, pp. 12832) arrive at a different conclusion, based on the
same data. They make much of the fact, for example, that Judges
also has no instances of the infinitive absolute with imperative
force. For that reason, I have arranged the data as above, to show
the larger picture and to allow comparison between sizeable
chunks of material of the same genre (early prose vs. late prose;
early prophets vs. late prophets). In such a picture, the absence
of the grammatical usage under consideration here in Judges
remains a curiousity, but it is less critical to the larger issue.
33
337
conjugation)35 (see Eskhult 2000a; 2000b, p. 90; Cohen 2008, pp. 21517, 230; Kim 2009, pp. 99, 10607). This major
shift is especially demonstrable via the following data for the narrative books.36 There are 324 examples of this usage in SBH prose (that is, GenesisKings + Ruth), but only thirteen occurrences in LBH prose (that is, Esther, Daniel,
EzraNehemiah, Chronicles [and of these note that four examples in the latter book appear in passages parallelling
SamuelKings]). One hardly needs to present the ratios (as presented in the preceding section, for example) to
realize the point for the prose texts of the Bible. The decrease in this usage is less marked in prophetic books, but
a decrease is present nonetheless. I count 137 examples among the 57,878 words in the group (b) prophets listed
above, that is, 2.36 per 1,000 words; and only fifteen examples (nine in Second Isaiah, six in Zechariah) among the
11,636 words in the group (d) prophets noted, that is, 1.29 per 1,000 words. In Haggai specifically, however, there
are no examples of this usage, so once more we observe how the language of this book fits into the LBH stratum.
The final set of items presented in this essay derives from the methodology introduced into the field of
Hebrew studies by Frank Polak.37
XVI. Polak has determined that (a) the ratio of nouns to verbs (NV ratio) in BH prose greatly increases with
the passage of time, from the classical period (= SBH) to the Persian era (= LBH); and (b) within the verbal group,
the ratio of nominal verbs (participle, infinitive) to finite verbs (suffix conjugation, prefix conjugation, imperative) (NF ratio) also increases during the same span of time.38 In the book of Haggai, most scholars would agree
that the following verses are written in prose: 1:1, 1215; 2:1, 1014, 20. Within this material, one encounters 140
nouns and 33 verbs, yielding an exceedingly high NV ratio of .809, exactly as one would expect from a Persianera composition.39 On the other hand, these 33 verbs divide as 5 nominal verbs and 28 finite verbs, yielding a low
NF ratio of .152, more befitting the classical stratum. According to Polaks methodology, however, it is the NV
ratio that is more consistent and thus serves as a better diagnostic to situate a particular composition within a
particular stratum. The prose verses of Haggai would not be the only instance of a text with a high (or relatively
high) NV ratio with a concomitant low (or relatively low) NF ratio.40
The database for the above figures is naturally very small, since the prose portion of Haggai amounts to only
twelve verses. Accordingly, even though the NV and NF ratios are relevant for prose texts mainly (or perhaps only),
according to the method developed by Polak, it may be worth expanding the database, if for no other reason than
the data are so readily available. The full two chapters of Haggai present the following figures: 323 nouns and 120
verbs, yielding an NV ratio of .729, with a division of the latter figure into 27 nominal verbs and 93 finite verbs,
yielding an NF ratio of .225. The former places Haggai on the cusp of the Late Monarchic/Exilic- and Persian-era
strata, while the latter places the book in the Late Monarchic/Exilic period.
XVII. Polak also has demonstrated that Persian-period prose compositions reflect a much more complex
syntax, with greater use of hypotaxis (subordinate clauses) and with more explicit syntactic constituents (arguments) per clause. Again we limit the data to the prose sections of the book (with the number in the second
column indicating the percentage of clauses):

01 arg

2+ arg
Hypotaxis

Complex Hypotaxis

3+ arg
43.91
29.26
26.83
9.76
12.20
Thus the most common patterns, since the infinitive absolute

also may follow the finite verb, plus there are several arrangements to express the negative. For a thorough treatment, see
now Kim 2009.
36
See the data furnished by Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvrd
2008, vol. 2, pp. 13241.
35
I issue here a blanket expression of gratitude to Professor Polak

for graciously providing me with the various data sets presented
below.
38
The basic work remains Polak 1998.
39
In fact, this NV ratio is higher than other (slightly later) texts,
for example, Ezra: .772; Esther: .714; Nehemiah 810: .731; Daniel
1:12:3: .749 for which see Polak 1998, p. 70.
40
Again, see the summary chart at Polak 1998, p. 70.
37
338
Gary A. Rendsburg
These figures comport with a later (not earlier) style of prose writing.41 For a sample passage, reflecting the complex syntax of Haggai, consider the following, Hag 1:12, with the subordination in the last four words:
And Zerubavel son of Shaltiel, and Joshua son of Jehozadaq the high priest, and all the rest
of the people obeyed the voice of YHWH their God and the words of Haggai the prophet, as
YHWH their God had sent him
And then the following verse, Hag 1:13, with four arguments serving the single verb:
And Haggai the messenger of YHWH said, in the message of YHWH to the people, saying
In an earlier style of Hebrew prose, one could imagine a far simpler wording, something like this perhaps:
*and Haggai said to the people, saying
Or even simpler yet:
*and Haggai said to the people
And even though our treatment here concerns prose, I also take the opportunity to present the following verse
(as
from the poetic material, Hag 2:3, with double subordination, the first introduced by the definite article
before the finite
expected before the participle) and the second introduced by the standard relative marker
verb (both rendered as who below):
who among you who remains, who saw this house in its first glory
XVIII. Polak also has observed the manner in which extended noun groups characterize LBH texts. According
to his calculations, the percentage of such noun groups in the prose sections of Haggai is 145 percent, which is to
say, almost every noun clause has a noun group consisting of three nouns, as the mean.42 The following passages
are illustrative:
Hag 1:11
And I summoned a drought upon the land and upon the mountains and upon the grain and
upon the wine and upon the oil and upon that which the soil brings forth, and upon humankind and upon the animals and upon all the toil of your palms
Hag 2:6
And I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry-land
Again, see Polak 1998 for a sampling of passages by way of

comparison.
41
The figure of 145 percent represents an exceedingly high number, as can be determined by perusing the key study Polak 2006
(see also Polak 2009a).
42
339
Hag 2:12
and with his fold touches the bread or the stew or the wine or oil or any food
Anyone with a sense of the workings of earlier biblical writings (prose or poetry) will realize that such strings of
nouns are well nigh never encountered in the classical stage of the language and its literature.
XIX. Yet another diagnostic tool developed by Polak is the distribution of key verbs in the biblical corpus,
based on their association within the same semantic field. Polak noticed that (a) within the conveyance field,
take is more common in earlier texts, and
bring is more common in later texts (with
bear, carry
go is more common in earlier texts, and
come
serving as the control verb); (b) within the motion field,
go out serving as the control verb); and (c) within the cognition field,
is more common in later texts (with
see is more common in earlier texts, and
hear is more common in later texts (with
know serving as the control verb).43 The data for the book of Haggai are as follows:

a) Conveyance
take
bring
1x
3x
bear, carry 2 x

b) Motion
go
come
go out

c) Cognition
0x
5x
1x
see
2x
know
0x
hear
1x
When we total these verbs, we note that (a) those more characteristic of the classical stratum (the first in each list)
occur three times, representing 20 percent of the attestations; (b) those more characteristic of the late stratum
(the second in each list) occur nine times, representing 60 percent of the attestations; and (c) the control verbs
(the third in each list) occur three times, representing 20 percent of the attestations.
If we now chart these figures against Polaks aggregate data of the relevant verbs for the Persian period, we
note a remarkable correspondence between the two:
Conveyance
Motion
Cognition
Aggregate
Haggai
Classical
Late
Control
64.1%
11.4%
23.9%
48.9%
21.8%
50.0%
24.5%
23.4%
20.0%
54.3%
60.0%
27.3%
28.2%
22.3%
20.0%
Once more, the linguistic profile of the book of Haggai, even when the data are relatively limited (that is, fifteen verbs altogether, due to the brevity of the book), is exactly what one would expect from a Persian-period
composition.
43
The basic studies are Polak 1997/1998 and Polak 2009b.
340
Gary A. Rendsburg
XX. The final point raised by Polak, relevant to the current study, is the change in poetic parallelism in the
later biblical books. The richness of word pairs evident in classical poetry is frequently not encountered in poetic
texts dated to the Persian era (Polak 2009a). In Haggai, for example, one finds the collocations of lexemes known
chiefly from prose texts indeed, in Polaks words, collocations with trivial, prosaic lexemes (Polak 2009a, p.
205):
1:6
sow : bring
1:8
go up : bring
1:6
much : little
Plus one instance of two stichs containing words that are rarely associated and do not reveal semantic correspondence (Polak 2009a, p. 205):
dew : yield
1:10
Even more common are the many instances of repetitive parallelism, with parallel stichs employing the same
lexeme:
time
1:2
1:4
house
2:4
be strong
2:7
nations
1:10
withhold
2:6-7
2:16
shake
come
2:16
be
2:22
rider
2:22
kingdoms
In addition, as Polak further notes, compositions of the Persian era reveal a conspicuous decline in the use of gapping (typically with compensation or ballast variant), a distinctive trait of both Ugaritic and classical Hebrew
poetry (Polak 2009a, p. 210). Consider, for example, Hag 1:10:

the heavens withhold the dew
and the earth withholds its produce
In classical Hebrew poetry, one could imagine any number of two-word phrases that would serve in the bwithhold, expressions such as
the fruit of its yield
line, without repetition of the verbal root
the yield of the soil (cf. Isa 30:23). In short, the poetry of Haggai represents a
(cf. Ps 107:37) and
major departure (deterioration, to be subjective) from the richly imaginative poetry of the pre-monarchic and
monarchic periods such as many of the psalms, poems embedded into narrative texts (e.g., the song of Deborah
and the song of Hannah), and the oracles of Amos and Isaiah.
The twenty items canvassed here make it abundantly clear that the judgment expressed by Young, Rezetko,
and Ehrensvrd (see above) is incorrect. Far from being generally devoid of LBH features, the book of Haggai reflects LBH developments at every turn, in grammar, lexicon, phraseology, prose syntax, and poetic style.44 This is
not to say that certain SBH features do not appear in Haggai (see below), but the author of Haggai clearly was no
longer writing in SBH (= EBH, to use the term preferred by Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvrd).
Conveniently, the book of Haggai has 600 words, which allows
us to compare the accumulation of LBH features in the book to
that of other compositions, using the method of Young, Rezetko,
and Ehrensvrd (2008, vol. 1, pp. 12936), which counts LBH traits
44
in 500-word samples. Twenty features have been identified in the

present study (= 16.6 features per 500 words), which places Haggai on a par with Esther 5:16:13a, as analyzed by the co-authors.
If the five traits derived from Polaks studies are removed (since
341
Of the various discriminants between SBH and LBH recognized by scholars (Avi Hurvitz super omnes alios),
silver : gold in 2:8
I have identified only three of the former in Haggai. The first is the word order
(as opposed to LBH where the typical word order is
gold : silver) (Hurvitz 1972b;
used to express direction
Rooker 1990, pp. 17475; Shin 2007, pp. 12629). The second is the phrase
from this day onward (as
(either in space or in time), found in identical phrases in 2:15, 18:
) (Hurvitz 1982, pp. 10709; Shin 2007, pp. 14547).45 And the third is the personal
opposed to LBH
Joshua found throughout the book (1:1, 12, 14; 2:2, 4) (in contrast to LBH
[Ezra ten times,
name
[Ezra 5:2]) (Shin 2007, pp. 14144). To this list
Nehemiah seventeen times, Chronicles twice]; see also BA
one could add the absence of Persian loanwords in the book, though one must recall that the Jewish experience
within the Achaemenid empire was only two decades old at the time of the floruit of the prophet Haggai. Which
is to say, the author of this short book, at the beginning of the Persian period, still utilizes several SBH elements,
but both his prose and his poetry are infused with LBH traits, so much so that this latter stratum of the language
clearly dominates.
In sum, no writer during the Persian period certainly not the author of the book of Haggai, still at the onset
of Achaemenid rule over the land of Israel could compose in SBH. By the year 520 b.c., such an achievement
no longer was possible.
Abbreviations
BA
Biblical Aramaic
BDB
Brown, Driver, and Briggs 1906
BH
Biblical Hebrew
DCH
Clines 19932010
EBH
Early Biblical Hebrew
GKC
Gesenius, Kautzsch, and Cowley 1910
infinitive absolute
IA
impv. imperative
LBH
Late Biblical Hebrew
MH
Mishnaic Hebrew
N noun
SBH
Standard Biblical Hebrew
V verb
typically Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvrd do not contend with

these), then one still counts fifteen LBH features in Haggai (=
12.5 features per 500 words), which would place the book on a
par with portions of Chronicles, as analyzed by the co-authors.
True, the individual features treated herein are not necessarily
the ones treated by Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvrd (thus, for
example, the trio [2008, vol. 1, p. 135] specifically omit
still,
while from consideration [see also Young 2009a, pp. 61617],
while I have included this feature [item no. II above]) and thus
to some extent the aforecited figures derive from a comparison of
apples and oranges. Nonetheless, the overall analysis presented
herein, demonstrating an accumulation of LBH features in Haggai, should dispel any notion that the book of Haggai represents
an undisputed postexilic text, which lacks LBH features and is
written in EBH (paraphrasing Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvrd
2008, vol. 1, p. 56 [cited above]).
45
One should note, though, that the specific phrase with
occurs only in 1 Sam 16:13; 30:25
from that
day onward; the more standard usage is with the word
,
attested in Lev 22:27; Num 15:23; 1 Sam 18:9; Ezek 39:22; 43:27.
The general point remains, nonetheless.
342
Gary A. Rendsburg
Bibliography
Andersen, Francis I., and A. Dean Forbes
The Vocabulary of the Old Testament. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
1989
Ben Zvi, Ehud
2009
The Communicative Message of Some Linguistic Choices. In A Palimpsest: Rhetoric, Ideology, Stylistics,
and Language Relating to Persian Israel, edited by Ehud Ben Zvi, Diana V. Edelman, and Frank Polak, pp.
26990. Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and Contexts 5. Piscataway: Gorgias Press.

A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
1906
Chen, Yiyi
2000
Israelian Hebrew in the Book of Proverbs. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.
Clines, David J. A., editor

The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 8 volumes. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
19932011
Cohen, Ohad
2008
Maareket ha-Zemanim el ha-Poal ba-Ivrit ha-Miqrait ha-Meueret. Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew

University.
Cowley, A. E.
1923
Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. Oxford: Clarendon.
Davies, Graham I.
1991
Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions: Corpus and Concordance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Driver, S. R.
1913
Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel. Second edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Ehrensvrd, Martin
2003
Eskhult, Mats
2000a
2000b
Gesenius, Wilhelm
1910
Gevirtz, Stanley
1986
Ginsberg, H. L.
1982
Gordon, Cyrus H.
1955
Holtz, Shalom E.
2001
2009/10 (5770)
Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts. In Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology, edited by Ian
Young, pp. 16488. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 369. London: T. & T.
Clark.
Hebrew Infinitival Paronomasia. Orientalia Suecana 49: 2732.
Verbal Syntax in Late Biblical Hebrew. In Diggers at the Well (Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira), edited by T. Muraoka and John F. Elwolde,
pp. 8493. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 36. Leiden: Brill.
Gesenius Hebrew Grammar. 2nd English edition. Edited by E. Kautzsch, translated by A. E. Cowley. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Of Syntax and Style in the Late Biblical HebrewOld Canaanite Connection. Journal of the Ancient
Near Eastern Society 18: 2529.
The Israelian Heritage of Judaism. Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America 24.
New York: Jewish Theological Seminary.
North Israelite Influence on Post-Exilic Hebrew. Israel Exploration Journal 5: 8588.
To Go and Marry Any Man That You Please: A Study of the Formulaic Antecedents of the Rabbinic
Writ of Divorce. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 60/4: 24158.
Hitpatuyot Semaniyot ba-eruf amad al ba-Ivrit ha-Miqrait ha-Meueret. Leonenu 72: 718.
343
Hurowitz, Victor
1992 I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic
Writings. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 115. Sheffield: Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament Press.
Hurvitz, Avi
1972a
1972b
1974
1982
2006
Joosten, Jan
2005
Ben Laon le-Laon. Jerusalem: Bialik.

Kiazmus Diakroni ba-Ivrit ha-Miqrait. In Ha-Miqra we-Toldot Yisrael: Meqarim ba-Miqra u-weSifrut Yeme Bayit eni le-Zikro el Yaaqov Liver, edited by B. Uffenheimer, pp. 24855. Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv
University.
The Date of the Prose-Tale of Job Linguistically Reconsidered. Harvard Theological Review 67: 1734.
A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel. Paris: J. Gabalda.
The Recent Debate on Late Biblical Hebrew: Solid Data, Experts Opinions, and Inconclusive Arguments.
Hebrew Studies 47: 191210.
The Distinction between Classical and Late Biblical Hebrew as Reflected in Syntax. Hebrew Studies 46:
32739.

1991
A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 2 volumes. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico.
Kim, Yoo-ki
2009
The Function of the Tautological Infinitive in Classical Biblical Hebrew. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Knig, Eduard
1897
Historisch-comparative Syntax der hebrischen Sprache. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs.
Kropat, Arno
1909
Kutscher, E. Y.
196263 (5723)
1977
1982
Die Syntax des Autors der Chronik verglichen mit der seiner Quellen. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 16. Giessen: A. Tpelmann.
Bavua (calque) el ha-Aramit be-Ivrit. Tarbiz 33: 11830. Reprinted in Kutscher 1977, pp. 374406
(Hebrew section).
Meqarim be-Ivrit u-ve-Aramit. Edited by Zeev Ben-ayyim, et al. Jerusalem: Magnes.
A History of the Hebrew Language. Jerusalem: Magnes; Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Meyers, Carol L., and Eric M. Meyers

1987
Haggai, Zechariah 18. Anchor Bible. Garden City: Doubleday.
Muraoka, T., and Bezalel Porten
1998
A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic. Leiden: Brill.
Paul, Shalom M.
2008
Yeayahu 4066. 2 volumes. Miqra le-Yisrael. Tel-Aviv: Am Oved.
Polak, Frank
1997/98
1998
Temurot u-Tequfot bi-Lon ha-Siporet ba-Miqra. Bet Miqra 43: 3052, 14260.
The Oral and the Written: Syntax, Stylistics and the Development of Biblical Prose Narrative. Journal
of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 26: 59105.
2006
Sociolinguistics: A Key to the Typology and the Social Background of Biblical Hebrew. Hebrew Studies
47: 11562.
2009a Parallelism and Noun Groups in Prophetic Poetry from the Persian Era. In A Palimpsest: Rhetoric, Ideology, Stylistics, and Language Relating to Persian Israel, edited by Ehud Ben Zvi, Diana Edelman, and Frank
Polak, pp. 199235. Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and Contexts 5. Piscataway: Gorgias Press.
2009b Verbs of Motion in Biblical Hebrew: Lexical Shifts and Syntactic Structure. In A Palimpsest: Rhetoric,
Ideology, Stylistics, and Language Relating to Persian Israel, edited by Ehud Ben Zvi, Diana Edelman, and
Frank Polak, pp. 16197. Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and Contexts 5. Piscataway: Gorgias Press.
Ratner, Robert J.
1992
Morphological Variation in Biblical Hebrew Rhetoric. In Let Your Colleagues Praise You: Studies in
Memory of Stanley Gevirtz, volume 2, edited by Robert J. Ratner, et al., special issue Maarav 8: 14359.
344
Gary A. Rendsburg
Rendsburg, Gary A.
1990
2002
2003
2006
2008
Rezetko, Robert
2003
2009
Rof, Alexander
1991
Rooker, Mark F.
1990
Diglossia in Ancient Hebrew. American Oriental Series 72. New Haven: American Oriental Society.
Israelian Hebrew in the Book of Kings. Occasional Publications of the Department of Near Eastern Studies
and the Program of Jewish Studies, Cornell University 5. Bethesda: CDL Press.
Hurvitz Redux: On the Continued Scholarly Inattention to a Simple Principle of Hebrew Philology. In
Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology, edited by Ian Young, pp. 10428. Journal for the Study
of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 369. London: T. & T. Clark.
Aramaic-Like Features in the Pentateuch. Hebrew Studies 47: 16376.
Qea enat ha-Yovel (Vayyiqra 25:824) ke-ibbur efoni. Meqarim be-Lashon 1112 (= Sefer ha-Yovel
le-Avi Hurvitz): 297308.
Dating Biblical Hebrew: Evidence from Samuel-Kings and Chronicles. In Biblical Hebrew: Studies in
Chronology and Typology, edited by Ian Young, pp. 21550. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament,
Supplement Series 369. London: T. & T. Clark.
What Happened to the Book of Samuel in the Persian Period and Beyond? In A Palimpsest: Rhetoric,
Ideology, Stylistics, and Language Relating to Persian Israel, edited by Ehud Ben Zvi, Diana V. Edelman, and
Frank Polak, pp. 23752. Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and Contexts 5. Piscataway: Gorgias Press.
The Name YHWH SBT and the Shorter Rescension of Jeremiah. In Prophetie und geschichtliche
Wirklichkeit im alten Israel: Festschrift fr Siegried Herrmann zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by Rdiger Liwak
and Siegried Wagner, pp. 30716. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer.
Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament,
Supplement Series 90. Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press.
Senz-Badillos, Angel
1993
A History of the Hebrew Language. Cambridge: Cambridge Univerisity Press.
Schoors, Anton
2004
Shin, Seoung-Yun
2007
Smith, Colin
2003
Wright, Richard M.
2005
Young, Ian
2009a
2009b
The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words: A Study of the Language of Qoheleth, Part 2: Vocabulary. Leuven:
Peeters.
A Lexical Study on the Language of Haggai-Zechariah-Malachi and Its Place in the History of Biblical
Hebrew. Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University.
With an Iron Pen and a Diamond Tip: Linguistic Peculiarities in the Book of Jeremiah. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.
Linguistic Evidence for the Pre-Exilic Date of the Yahwistic Source. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament
Studies 419. London: T. & T. Clark.
Is the Prose Tale of Job in Late Biblical Hebrew? Vetus Testamentum 59: 60629
What is Late Biblical Hebrew? In A Palimpsest: Rhetoric, Ideology, Stylistics, and Language Relating to Persian
Israel, edited by Ehud Ben Zvi, Diana V. Edelman, and Frank Polak, pp. 25368. Perspectives on Hebrew
Scriptures and Contexts 5. Piscataway: Gorgias Press.
Young, Ian; Robert Rezetko; and Martin Ehrensvrd

Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts. 2 volumes. London: Equinox.
2008
Two Modern South Arabian Etymologies
345
20

Aaron D. Rubin, Penn State University*
Modern South Arabian lxm shark
It is well known that the Hebrew noun lm bread; food and the very rare verb laam eat (e.g., Prov 4:17)
have a number of cognates in Central Semitic that fall within the same semantic field. These include Ugaritic lm
(noun) food, bread, meat?,1 lm (G-Stem verb) eat, lm (D-Stem verb) feed, lm (C-Stem verb) feed, fatten;
Syriac lam bread, food; and Arabic lam meat, flesh, lam butcher. Despite the differences as to which food
the above substantives can signify, the semantic differences pose no problem to relating these words to a common
root.2 Let us, for the moment, assume a Central Semitic noun *lam food, and a verb *laama eat. There are clear
cognates to this root in Akkadian, on which more below.
Scholars have long debated the connection of this Central Semitic root with Geez lahm cow and its cognates
in the modern Ethiopian tongues (Amharic lm etc.). Isenberg (1841, p. 6), Armbruster (1920, p. 29), and Ullendorff
(1956, p. 192; 1967, p. 126) have all maintained that the Ethiopic term is cognate with the Central Semitic terms,
while Leslau (1958, p. 29; 1991, p. 309) and others have argued that they are not. Leslaus reasonable rejection of
this idea is based simply on the fact that Semitic does not normally appear as h in Geez, though he recognizes
that such a change is simple enough. We will not concern ourselves here with whether either of these camps
can be proven correct, but rather with a related topic. Ullendorff makes an interesting argument, which is that a
noun from the root lm is not simply food, but refers to the dietary staple, which necessarily differs from region
to region. A similar idea was devised by Swiggers (1981), who suggests that the basic meaning of the noun from
the root lm is common food, which is bread among sedentary groups (e.g., Hebrews) and meat among nomads
(e.g., Arabs). This neatly explains the semantic differences noted above.
Both Ullendorff and Swiggers consider another set of words to be cognate with this root, namely, the Modern
South Arabian words for shark. These are Soqori lem, pl. lom;3 Eastern Jibbali lxm (Central Jibbali lxum,
pl. lxihm);4 Yemeni Mehri laxaym or lxaym (< *laxm), pl. laxawmt;5 Omani Mehri wxaym (< *lxaym < *lxm), pl.
wxawmt (< *lxawmt);6 and arsusi lxem.7 It is possible that this word can also mean big fish in Soqori, though
* I am delighted to be able to write this article in honor of John

Huehnergard, my teacher and my friend. My thanks to Rebecca
Hasselbach and Naama Pat-El for organizing this well-deserved
volume, and for their helpful comments on this piece. Thanks
also to Leonid Kogan and Gary Rendsburg for fruitful discussions
related to the first section of this article.
1
The evidence for lm meaning meat in Ugaritic is slim. The
most convincing, but still uncertain, context is KTU 1.114:7; see
del Olmo Lete and Sanmartn 2004, pp. 49597.
2
A few general studies of this root can be found in Krotkoff 1969;
Fronzaroli 1971, pp. 61516; and Dolgopolsky 1999.
Leslau 1938, p. 232; Naumkin 1981, p. 53. Four versions (Mehri,

Jibbali, Soqori, and Arabic) of a story containing this word can
be found in D. H. Mller 1907, p. 23. Note that, in the context
of that story, the word shark is not used independently, but
rather all four languages use a word for fish before the word
for shark.
4
Johnstone 1981, p. 167; 1987, p. 259.
5
Jahn 1902, pp. 209, 252. See also Sima 2009, text 16, for numerous occurrences of this word.
6
Johnstone 1987, p. 259.
7
3
345
346
Aaron D. Rubin
this is very uncertain.8 A related word for shark occurs also in South Arabian Arabic dialects, in the forms luxam,
laxam, or laxm,9 and it is reasonable to suspect that this is a borrowing from Modern South Arabian.10 The phonological correspondence of the Modern South Arabian words with the Central Semitic ones is problematic, since
we must reconstruct a root *lxm for Modern South Arabian.11 The problem, recognized by others before me,12 is
that Central Semitic *lm and Modern South Arabian *lxm do not exhibit a regular sound correspondence. That
is, Central Semitic *lm should derive from Proto-Semitic *lm, while Modern South Arabian *lxm should derive
from Proto-Semitic *lxm. The irregular correspondence of the middle gutturals is precisely the issue that renders
Geez lahm problematic. But Ullendorff s and Swiggers idea that a single word meaning staple food has come
to refer to either bread, meat, or a kind of fish in communities of different types is quite tempting. So, can it be
possible that Central Semitic *lm and Modern South Arabian *lxm are somehow related?
We might suggest a simple irregular shift of to x within Modern South Arabian. Such a change is not unknown in this language group. For example, the verb want in Mehri is normally m, but in the dialect of the
village of Redan, in the southeastern corner of Yemen, it is xm, as it is also in arsusi, which I consider to be a
dialect of Mehri.13 Still, such examples are very rare. We can also point to irregular correspondences between
and x elsewhere in West Semitic. Huehnergard (2003, p. 111 n. 17) gives several examples, including Ugaritic dr
room versus Arabic, Geez, and Sabaic xdr reside; Geez alosasa whisper versus Ugaritic lxt whispering; and
Geez aba slaughter versus Arabic abaxa cook and Ugaritic bx sacrifice, slaughter. So perhaps to this list we
could add Central Semitic *lm and Modern South Arabian *lxm.
At this point let us introduce the Akkadian evidence. Old Akkadian lamum, Old Babylonian lmum, 14 and
Neo-Assyrian limu or lemu eat; taste; drink reflect a Proto-Semitic root *lm.15 Middle, Neo-, and Standard
Babylonian laxmu or lexmu eat; taste,16 and Neo-Assyrian lexmu food seem to reflect a Proto-Semitic root *lxm.
So, both *lm and *lxm are attested in Akkadian with a meaning connected to eating. There are two ways to account
for this fact. The first possibility is that biforms existed in Proto-Semitic. If this were the case, then Central Semitic
*lm and Modern South Arabian *lxm could also reflect these biforms. A second possibility, noted by Huehnergard
(2003, p. 110 n. 16), is that the Akkadian forms with x do not reflect a Proto-Semitic *x, but rather are the result of
inter-dialectal mixing. Huehnergard (2003, p. 110) suggests, Perhaps some early dialects of Akkadian preserved
Proto-Semitic * (as some dialects of Old Akkadian almost certainly did). Some dialectal words with Proto-Semitic
* could well have been borrowed into the later mainstream or literary (written) dialects, in which Proto-Semitic
* was otherwise lost, and in which [] would probably have been assimilated to /h/, or at least written as such.
A third possibility, which Huehnergard (2003, p. 110 n. 16) believes to be more likely, is that the Akkadian forms
with x, all of which are in later dialects, are borrowings from West Semitic. This is essentially the same idea as the
second possibility, namely, that the Akkadian forms with x are borrowed and not inherited from Proto-Semitic,
only in this case the borrowing is inter-Semitic, rather than intra-Akkadian.
Leslaus (1938, p. 232) definition of requin is based on the passage cited in note 4. His secondary definition of grand poisson
is based on D. H. Mller 1905, p. 68, in which lem is translated
into German as einen groen Fisch. In this folktale, the main
character is supposed to climb into the mouth (Rachen) of this
large fish, which will then take him to his homeland. It is certainly possible that this refers to some unspecified sea creature
large enough to hold a man in its jaws, but equally possible that it
refers to a shark. It is believed on some Pacific islands that sharks
can help man in a time of need. Naumkins secondary definition
of bolaja ryba (big fish) is presumably taken from Leslau.
9
Arabic forms can be found in Stace 1893, p. 154; Jahn 1902,
p. 274; Jayakar 1904, p. 268; and Landberg 1909, p. 396; 1942, p.
2625; cf. also Dozy 1881, vol. 2, p. 531. This word can also mean
stingray or other poisonous fish in some Eastern (Gulf) Arabian
dialects; see Holes 2000, p. 476.
10
Militarev and Kogan (2005, p. 198) have raised the possibility that Modern South Arabian has borrowed from Arabic, but
given that the word occurs in all of the Modern South Arabian
8
languages, including the relatively isolated Soqori, but only in

South Arabian dialects of Arabic, a borrowing into Arabic seems
more likely.
11
In the dialect of Soqori on which Leslau based his lexicon, the
fricative x has merged with , hence Soqori lem. It has been
reported that some dialects of Soqori do preserve x (SimeoneSenelle 1998), though, as far as I am aware, the word for shark
has not been documented for such dialects.
12
Fronzaroli (1971, p. 615), Dolgopolsky (1999, pp. 15758).
13
For arsusi, see Johnstone 1977, p. 145. For the dialect of
Rehan, see Sima 2009; an example of xm can be found on p. 474,
text 83/2.
14
Old Babylonian also has lemm, which reflects metathesized
root *lm.
15
On the Old Akkadian writing of , see Hasselbach 2005, pp.
8082.
16
The only Middle Babylonian attestation of which I am aware is
in an Amarna letter from Mitanni, EA 29:57. In this context, the
word could easily be viewed as a West Semitic lexeme.
347
In short, we can make a case that Central Semitic *lm and Modern South Arabian *lxm are related, by suggesting either Proto-Semitic biforms though the Akkadian evidence for this is extremely shaky or by suggesting
an irregular, but not unknown, correspondence of * and *x. Both scenarios have weak supporting evidence, but
are not impossible. However, I think that the relationship of Central Semitic *lm and Modern South Arabian *lxm
can be conclusively disproven on other grounds.
First, let us re-examine the semantic connection of Central Semitic *lm and Modern South Arabian *lxm.
Following the argument of Ullendorff and Swiggers that *lm refers to the staple food item, it does not seem to
be a stretch to suggest that this root could have come to refer to fish on an island like Soqora, which still today
depends largely on fishing, at least in the coastal regions. However, the root *lxm refers not to fish in general
(as Central Semitic *lm refers to bread or meat in general), but rather to shark. As noted above, the Soqori
word can possibly refer to a big fish, but even if this is correct (which I doubt), it is still not the general word for
fish, but rather is just one of many different words for types of fish.17 The general words for fish are sodh and
ot; the latter term may refer to larger fish, as it does in Mehri and Jibbali. Moreover, while shark is an important
export of Soqora, and while dried shark is a common food item in the coastal areas of Soqora, it is not commonly eaten in the pastoral areas of the island (Naumkin 1993, pp. 16263). Fish is also not an important part of
the diet of modern Mehri or Jibbali speakers. We can perhaps overlook the fact that the word refers not to fish
in general, but to a specific kind of fish; such a semantic shift is well attested cross-linguistically (cf. English deer
< Old English dor animal). However, when we consider the fact that fish is simply not the staple food item of
most Modern South Arabian speakers, we have to seriously question the semantic link between Central Semitic
*lm and Modern South Arabian *lxm.
An even more damaging argument against the relationship of Central Semitic *lm and Modern South Arabian
*lxm is the simple fact that Modern South Arabian *lxm has a far more likely cognate. As noted briefly by Fronzaroli
(1971, p. 615), and outlined in convincing detail by Militarev and Kogan (2005, pp. 19798), Modern South Arabian
*lxm should be connected to the Akkadian word lax(a)mu, attested in several dialects, including Old Akkadian. This
Akkadian word is most often used to refer to some kind of mythological sea monster, and the fact that it refers
to a sea creature, coupled with the regular correspondence of Modern South Arabian and Akkadian consonants,
makes it highly probable that the Akkadian word is cognate with the Modern South Arabian words. Therefore,
Modern South Arabian *lxm is not cognate with Central Semitic *lm.
In the end, though we have only disproven an etymology that many did not believe in the first place, and
ultimately presented a known etymology, we have at least adduced a further example of a word attested only in
East Semitic and South Semitic (i.e., Modern South Arabian and Ethiopian Semitic), which can be added to the
lists compiled by Leslau (1962; 1964; 1969) and Huehnergard (1991).
Mehri nxli under

There are many examples of prepositions in Semitic that stem from the grammaticalization of nouns with
a spatial connotation.18 A few examples are Palestinian Arabic add next to (< Classical Arabic add border),
Modern Standard Arabic janba next to (< janb side), Maltese flok instead of (< Arabic f in+ Sicilian locu place),
Aramaic btar after (< b- in + atar place), and Amharic b-bet according to (< b in + bet house). However, in
none of these examples does the original noun refer to a particular feature of topography. 19 At least one example
is possibly to be found in Modern South Arabian.
See Naumkin 1981, pp. 5254, for a long list of fish names in
Soqori.
18
Numerous Arabic examples can be found in Prochzka 1993.
For some discussion of the grammaticalization aspect, see Rubin
2005, pp. 4648; Esseesy 2010.
17
The preposition yamm beside, next to, near; toward found in

a wide variety of Arabic dialects is probably not connected with
the word yamm sea (Prochzka 1993, pp. 24749).
19
348
Aaron D. Rubin
It has been suggested that the Mehri preposition nxli under20 is cognate with Akkadian naxallu (also naxlu),
Hebrew naal, Aramaic nal, and Ugaritic nxl,21 all having the meaning wadi, stream, (river-)valley.22 We can
imagine a source phrase (in) the valley of X becoming grammaticalized as under X. Can this idea be supported?
In fact, this idea is supported most strongly by Omani Mehri xr down(ward), downstairs (directional) and
b-xr down there, downstairs (locational), which have as their source the noun xr valley.23 Though we are
dealing in this case with adverbs rather than a preposition, the connection between a locational function word
and a topographical noun is clear. This example has a nice parallel in Polish na gr upstairs (directional), na
grze upstairs (locational), do gry up, upward, and several other similar constructions, all of which are based
on the noun gra mountain.
We can also turn to Jibbali for another possible parallel to the derivation of Mehri nxli. In Jibbali, the
preposition a in, inside; at (before suffixes, am-) clearly derives from the word am middle; place. The basic
meaning of am in Modern South Arabian is middle, as attested by Soqori, Mehri, and arsusi, in which it has
only this meaning; only in some dialects of Jibbali does it have the secondary meaning place. That the preposition and the noun are distinct (i.e., that the noun has been fully grammaticalized as a) is proven by a phrase
like a am ag among [lit. in the middle of] the men,24 in which we see both the source lexeme and the grammaticalized form used side by side. The irregular loss of the m in the form a is simply a by-product of the grammaticalization. Still, the grammaticalization of a noun meaning middle or place into a locative preposition
is unremarkable. More interesting is that some cognates of the word am have a topographical sense, namely,
Hebrew emq, Ugaritic mq,25 and Phoenician mq, all meaning valley.26 However, in each of these languages, as
in Aramaic, Arabic, and Ethiopic, the basic meaning of the root mq is be deep, as attested by a wide variety of
verbal, nominal, and adjectival forms.27 So the use of this root to indicate a feature of topography would seem to
be secondary. However, this example highlights once again the close connection between topographical words
and words describing physical/spatial relations. In sum, there is a very plausible semantic connection between
Mehri nxli under and the Akkadian and Northwest Semitic words for wadi, (river-)valley.
But let us now consider another possible etymology of Mehri nxli, for which we must turn to Soqori. The
Soqori word for under is na (or nat).28 Bittner (1918, p. 62) suggested a possible connection between this
word and Mehri nxli, despite the obvious phonetic differences. Soqori can correspond to Mehri x or , as
noted in the previous section (note 11), but the correspondence of Mehri l and Soqori (or t) is totally irregular.
The Soqori word is possibly to be connected with the root nt descend, go down, attested in Hebrew, Aramaic,
and Ugaritic, as suggested by Leslau (1938, p. 263). This connection still leaves the final glottalic unexplained,
but the Soqori word is attested with non-glottalic t (see note 28), and a shift t > is not overly problematic.29
We have suggested a plausible etymology for Soqori na (Semitic root nt) and a plausible etymology for
Mehri nxli (Semitic root nxl), but the fact that two of the three consonants of the Mehri and Soqori prepositions
correspond must give us pause. There is no obvious way to derive na from nxli, but what if we assume that
these two words are cognate, deriving from a form *nxa (or *nxat)? This is explainable if this *nxa were used
in conjunction with the common preposition *li-; compare Hebrew mit-taat l-.30 We might suggest the following
chain of events: *(mn) nxa li- *(mn) nxal li- nxli. The assimilation of the preposition li- to a preceding
word is known elsewhere in Semitic; compare Syriac netel he will give, back-formed from phrase such as netel li <
This Mehri preposition can also be pronounced (and transcribed) as nxli or nxli. This minor phonetic variation is irrelevant to the present discussion.
21
The Ugaritic form is possibly attested syllabically as naxal(l)u;
see Huehnergard 2008, p. 152.
22
The same suggestion was also made by Bittner (1918, p. 62) and
W. W. Mller (1985, p. 272), though they provide no discussion. I
have also mentioned this idea previously (Rubin 2011).
23
The noun is not found in Johnstones lexicon (1987), but appears in the lexicons of Jahn (1902) and Nakano (1986). This etymology was also recognized by Bittner (1918, p. 62).
24
25
This is attested syllabically as amuqu (Huehnergard 2008, p.
160).
20
Corresponding forms in Samaritan Aramaic and in some of the

Targumim are perhaps Hebraisms.
27
Cf. Leslau 1991, p. 63.
28
The form appears as na or nat in the texts collected by
the South Arabian Expedition, on which Leslau based his lexicon
(1938). Johnstone, in various publications, only gives n()a or
na (1975, p. 118; 1977, p. 99; 1981, p. 167; 1987, p. 308). Nakano
(1986, p. 134), on the other hand, gives only nt.
29
It is not clear what to make of Soqori (di-)ale under Leslau
(1938, p. 175), attested only twice, in poetic contexts (D. H. Mller
1902, p. 162; 1905, p. 193). Clearly, having more reliable data for
Soqori remains a desideratum.
30
In fact, Mehri nxli sometimes appears in the compound mn
nxli with the simple meaning under; see Rubin 2010, p. 199,
for examples.
26
349
*neten li he will give me.31 The loss of gemination (i.e., *nxalli > nxli) is regular in Modern South Arabian; compare Mehri D/L-Stem ml versus Arabic D-Stem ammala he loaded.32 It is noteworthy that in Mllers Mehri
texts, the preposition is sometimes transcribed inxlli, with a geminate consonant.33
We are thus presented with two options:

1. Mehri nxli is connected with the Akkadian and Northwest Semitic words for wadi, (river-)
valley. Soqori na is not cognate and may be connected with the Northwest Semitic root
nt descend, go down.
2. Mehri nxli is cognate with Soqori na, and the final l is the result of a misanalysis of an
earlier compound nxa li-. Both forms may still then be connected with the Northwest
Semitic root nt descend, go down however, we would have an irregular correspondence
of Modern South Arabian x and Northwest Semitic .34 See the previous section for discussion of such a correspondence, which is not unknown.
Both of these etymologies for Mehri nxli are quite acceptable. But there remain a handful of other details
to consider. Regardless of which etymology is correct, we could argue that the final -i of nxli is unexpected, as
inherited final short vowels are normally lost in Mehri. If nxli comes from an earlier noun meaning something
like valley, we could explain the -i as a genitive case ending; this should have dropped, but could have been
frozen along with the grammaticalization. Frozen case endings are found in various Semitic languages that have
otherwise lost the case system. If Mehri nxli derives from an earlier compound *nxa li-, then the final -i would
be the original vowel of the preposition li-. This clitic preposition has normally lost the vowel (cf. Mehri l()- to,
for), but its survival can be attributed to the re-analysis of the original compound in general, or, specifically, to
the re-analysis of the i as part of the pronominal suffixes in the suffixed forms (see below).
Whatever the source of the final -i of nxli, its presence has had consequences for the declension of this
preposition. When nxli takes pronominal suffixes, it takes those suffixes used with plural nouns (cf. Hebrew taat
and others).35 The dual and plural pronominal suffixes used with plural nouns are identical to those that attach to
singular nouns, except that they are preceded by the vowel i, for example, ayb-hm their father (< ayb father),
but b-ihm their fathers (< awb fathers, parents).36 So, an original nxli-hm under them, for example, was
re-interpreted as nxl-ihm, with the suffix -ihm that is found attached to plural nouns, and subsequently the
entire paradigm shifted to the pattern used for plural nouns. We might then expect the non-suffixed form to be
nxl, since the final -i was re-interpreted as part of the pronominal suffixes. In fact, a shorter form without the
final -i is indeed found in some Mehri dialects and in Jibbali (see below). This leads us to the next remaining issue,
which is the form of this lexeme in the other Modern South Arabian languages.
In arsusi, the form of under is essentially the same as in Mehri: nxli or nx li. In Jibbali, however, this
preposition is attested in a variety of forms. Johnstone records nxn for the Eastern dialect, and lxn for the Central
dialect;37 Nakano records lx;38 the texts of Mller, recorded seventy or eighty years before Johnstone and Nakano
collected their data, have nxal.39 In addition to the difference in vowel quality found in the more modern Jibbali
forms (and here we can cite the vowel correspondence of Mehri lhn all that which and Jibbali lhn idem),
the Jibbali forms show either an assimilation of the initial and final consonants (nxn) or a metathesis (lxn). A
metathesized form lxn is also attested in some Mehri dialects, for example in the Mehri of the Yemeni arqiyah.40
For similar cases of the assimilation of the preposition l- in

Aramaic, though with a different result, see Boyarin 1976.
32
See Rubin 2010, pp. 9497, for more examples. Also note that
if this derivation of nxli < *nxalli is correct, and if it proceeded
by regular sound change, it must have taken place after the shift
of * > that we see in the D/L-Stem and elsewhere.
33
An example can be found in D. H. Mller 1905, p. 43. Note that
Bittner (1914) adjusted this transcription to (i)nxli, without the
gemination, in his edition of Mllers text. It is also worth noting that the preposition is transcribed once as just xli in a text
collected by Hein (1909, p. 115).
31
If the root nt descend, go down is connected with the common West Semitic *tat under (see Leslau 1991, pp. 57273), then
the can be reconstructed for all of West Semitic.
35
See Rubin 2010, p. 207, or Johnstone 1987, p. xviii, for a complete set of forms.
36
Rubin 2010, p. 36.
37
Johnstone 1977, p. 99; 1981, p. 167; 1987, p. 308.
38
Nakano 1986, p. 134.
39
An example can be found in D. H. Mller 1907, p. 43.
40
Numerous examples can be found in Sima 2009; one example
is on p. 200, text 36/6. The form nxl is found only about six or
seven times in this large collection (e.g., p. 518, text 91/2), all of
which are from the dialect of Redan.
34
350
Aaron D. Rubin
In the Jibbali dialects, as well as in arqiyah Mehri, the preposition still takes the pronominal suffixes attached
to a plural noun, even though they have lost the final -i in the base. The loss of the final -i is presumably the next
step in the analogy that caused this preposition to take the plural suffixes in the first place, as described above.
In the end, we can explain the forms of the preposition under in the Modern South Arabian languages,
though we are left with a choice with regard to their etymology (or etymologies).
Bibliography
Armbruster, Charles H.
1920
Initia Amharica: An Introduction to Spoken Amharic, Part 3: Amharic-English Vocabulary with Phrases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bittner, Maximilian
1914
1918
Boyarin, Daniel
1976
Studien zur Laut- und Formenlehre der Mehri-Sprache in Sdarabien, Volume 5: Zu ausgewhlten Texten, Part 1:
Nach den Aufnahmen von D. H. v. Mller. Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften
in Wien, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 176/1. Vienna: Hlder.
Vorstudien zur Grammatik und zum Wrterbuche der Soqori-Sprache, Volume 2: Das Mrchen vom Aschenputtel
in den drei Mahra-Sprachen (Soqori, Mehri und hauri): Eine sprachvergleichende Studie. Sitzungsberichte der
Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 186/4. Vienna:
Hlder.
The Loss of Final Consonants in Babylonian Jewish Aramaic (BJA). Afroasiastic Linguistics 3/5: 10307
[1923].
del Olmo Lete, Gregorio, and Joaqun Sanmartn

2004
A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition. Translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson. Second
edition. 2 volumes. Leiden: Brill.
Dolgopolsky, Aharon
. In Michael: Historical, Epigraphical, and Biblical Studies in Honor of Prof.
1999
On the Etymology of Hebrew
Michael Heltzer, edited by Yitzhak Avishur and Robert Deutsch, pp. 15760. Tel Aviv: Archaeological
Center Publications.
Dozy, R.
1881
Supplment aux dictionnaires arabes. 2 volumes. Leiden: Brill.
Esseesy, Mohssen
2010
Grammaticalization of Arabic Prepositions and Subordinators: A Corpus-Based Study. Leiden: Brill.
Fronzaroli, Pelio
1971
Studi sul lessico comune semitico, VII: Lalimentazione. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Rendiconti 26:
60342.
Hasselbach, Rebecca
2005
Hein, Wilhelm
1909
Holes, Clive
2000
Huehnergard, John
1991
Mehri- und adrami-Texte Gesammelt im Jahre 1902 in Gischin. Compiled and edited by David Heinrich Mller. Sdarabische Expedition 9. Vienna: Alfred Hlder.
Dialect, Culture, and Society in Eastern Arabia, Volume 1: Glossary. Handbuch der Orientalistik. Erste Abteilung, Nahe und der Mittlere Osten 51. Leiden: Brill.
Further South Semitic Cognates to the Akkadian Lexicon. In Semitic Studies: In Honor of Wolf Leslau on
the Occasion of his Eighty-fifth Birthday, edited by Alan S. Kaye, volume 1, pp. 690713. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
351
2003 Akkadian h and West Semitic . In Orientalia: Papers of the Oriental Institute 3 (Studia Semitica), edited by
Leonid Kogan, pp. 10219. Moscow: Russian State University for the Humanities.
Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription. Revised edition. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
2008
Isenberg, Charles William
1841
Dictionary of the Amharic Language. London: The Church Missionary Society.
Jahn, Alfred
1902
Die Mehri-Sprache in Sdarabien: Texte und Wrterbuch. Sdarabische Expedition 3. Vienna: Alfred Hlder.
Jayakar, A. S. G.
1904
The Shahee Dialect of Arabic. Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 21: 24677.
Johnstone, T. M.
1975
1977
1981
1987
The Modern South Arabian Languages. Afroasiatic Linguistics 1/5: 93121 [129].
arssi Lexicon and English-arssi Word-List. London: Oxford University Press.
Jibbli Lexicon. London: Oxford University Press.
Mehri Lexicon and English-Mehri Word-List. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.
Krotkoff, Georg
1969
Lam Fleisch und leem Brot. Wiener Zeitschrift fr die Kunde des Morgenlandes 62: 7682.
Landberg, Carlo
1909
1942
Leslau, Wolf
1938
1958
1962
1964
1969
1991
tudes sur les dialectes de lArabie mridionale, Volume 2: Danah, Part 2: Commentaire des textes prosaques.
Leiden: Brill.
Glossaire danois, Volume 3. Published by K. V. Zettersten. Leiden: Brill.
Lexique Soqori (sudarabique moderne). Paris: C. Klincksieck.
Ethiopic and South Arabic Contributions to the Hebrew Lexicon. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press.
Southeast Semitic Cognates to the Akkadian Vocabulary 1. Journal of the American Oriental Society 82:
14.
11518.
1822.
Comparative Dictionary of Geez (Classical Ethiopic). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Militarev, Alexander, and Leonid Kogan

Semitic Etymological Dictionary, Volume 2: Animal Names. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag.
2005
Mller, David Heinrich
1902
Die Mehri- und Soqori-Sprache, Volume 1: Mehri-Texte. Sdarabische Expedition 4. Vienna: Alfred Hlder
1905
Die Mehri- und Soqori-Sprache, Volume 2: Soqori-Texte. Sdarabische Expedition 6. Vienna: Alfred Hlder.
1907
Die Mehri- und Soqori-Sprache, Volume 3: hauri-Texte. Sdarabische Expedition 7. Vienna: Alfred Hlder.
Mller, Walter W.
1985
Nakano, Akio
1986
Naumkin, Vitaly V.
1981
1993
Prochzka, Stephan
1993
Beitrge aus dem Mehri zum etymologischen Teil des hebrischen Lexicons. In Mlanges linguistiques
offerts Maxime Rodinson par ses lves, ses collgues et ses amis, edited by Christian Robin, pp. 26778. Paris:
P. Geuthner.
Comparative Vocabulary of Southern Arabic: Mahri, Gibbali, and Soqotri. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of
Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
(Essays in the Ethnolinguistics of Soqotra). Moscow: Nauka.
Island of the Phoenix: An Ethnographic Study of the People of Socotra. Translated by Valery A. Epstein. Reading, UK: Ithaca.
Die Prpositionen in den neuarabischen Dialekten. Vienna: VWG-Verlag.
352
Rubin, Aaron D.
2005
2010
2011
Sima, Alexander
2009
Aaron D. Rubin
Studies in Semitic Grammaticalization. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

The Mehri Language of Oman. Leiden: Brill.
Mehri Dialect Studies: Omani and arqyah Mehri. Zeitschrift fr Arabische Linguistik 54: 6783.
Mehri-Texte aus der jemenitischen arqyah. Annotated and edited by Janet C. E. Watson and Werner Arnold,
and in collaboration with Askari ugayrn Sad. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Simeone-Senelle, Marie-Claude
1998
The Soqotri Language. In Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Soqotra Island: Present and
Future, Volume 1, edited by H. J. Dumont. New York: United Nations.
Stace, E. V.
1893
An English-Arabic Vocabulary for the Use of Students of the Colloquial. London: Bernard Quaritch.
Swiggers, Pierre
1981
The Meaning of the Root lm food in the Semitic Languages. Ugarit-Forschungen 13: 30708.
Ullendorff, Edward
1956
1967
The Contribution of South Semitics to Hebrew Lexicography. Vetus Testamentum 6: 19098.

Ethiopia and the Bible. The Schweich Lectures 1967. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pahlavi *ws- to dry
353
21
If Water Had Not Been Made to Dry Up, This Earth Would
Have Been Drowned: Pahlavi *ws- to dry
Prods Oktor Skjrv, Harvard University
Old Iranian literature contains a number of statements phrased as irrealis conditions that justify common
practices: if something were (not) so, the order of the cosmos would be hopelessly corrupted. One of the most
famous occurs in chapter five of the Avestan Videvdad, a book dealing with the pollution of this world caused by
the forces of evil in the Zoroastrian dualist cosmology. The setting is that of a bird, which, having nibbled on a
corpse, flies from the deepest valley up to the highest mountain and onto a tree, on which it vomits, defecates,
and -s. A man comes up from the deepest valley up to the highest mountain seeking firewood. He chops down
the tree and uses the wood as firewood. The question Zarathustra asks god (Ahura Mazd) is whether the pollution
caused by the bird also pollutes the fire, Ahura Mazds son. Ahura Mazd sensibly answers no. For if (non-obvious)
polluting matter brought by birds, wolves, wind, or flies were polluting, then the entire world of the living would
have been hopelessly polluted by all the dead things (of which we are not aware) that lie all over the earth, and
salvation would have been beyond everybodys reach.1
The Zoroastrian priests of the Sasanian period (a.d. 224650) had serious problems with the passage, with
the nature of the pollution (whether hixr or nasy, see below), in what way the dead matter was affected by digestion, whether there were aggravating circumstances (the wood had been used for hanging, had been touched by
a menstruating woman, etc.), and so on.
I am happy to offer to John Huehnergaard, who introduced me to Harvard in 1991 (and advised me on how to
negotiate with the dean!), in acknowledgment of a long friendship, these notes, which also highlight the fate of
the Aramaic script among the Sasanian Iranians.
The statement quoted in the title is from the so-called Pahlavi Rivyat, a miscellany of texts on a large variety
of issues of Zoroastrian theology.2 In chapter 13 Zarathustra asks Ahura Mazd about a number of things caused
by Ahrimen (the creator of evil) that might seem only evil, but Ahura Mazd explains what their functions are in
the great scheme of things. Our passage is edited by Alan V. Williams as follows (text in brackets added):3
Another such statement is in the first book of the Videvdad, in

which the two creators create the lands and the things that
are good and bad for the lands, respectively. Ahura Mazd tells
Zarathustra that, first of all, he made a very nice land, where
all is pleasure, and explains that if he had not done so, then the
whole world would have flocked into the Aryan Expanse, the
mythical homeland of the Iranians, which he then goes on to
make. This type of statement may be part of the Indo-European
poetic language as it is also found in other Indo-European literatures. There is, for instance, a quite similar statement in Snorri
Sturlusons Edda, where Gangleri asks the High One why there
is fire on the Bifrost bridge (which leads from earth to heaven).
The answer is that the red in the rainbow is fire. If it were not,
then any and all evil beings would have been able to cross over
and up to heaven.
2
The Pahlavi Rivyat Accompanying the Ddestn Dng (Williams
1990). It accompanies the Ddestn Dng because they are associated in the manuscripts.
3
The text is not metrical, but I have divided the text so as to
make it easier to orient oneself in the text and translation.
353
354
Prods Oktor Skjrv
Pahlavi Rivyat 13a9
k n ka- b b (hnd
agar b) hnin n h
hamg n zamg (b) b estd h
u- azi garn angh h
One (i.e., yet another) is when he made the water dry up,
for, if the water had not been made to dry up,
water would have stood all (over) this earth,
and there would be severe evil from it.
The restorations in () are justified by the parallel next sentence:

Pahlavi Rivyat 13a10
k n ka- tax b afsrd

agar tax h sxt h b n afsrd h
hamg en ghan tax b estd h
One (i.e., yet another) is when he cooled the fire,

for, if the fire had burnt (on) in the usual way (and) had not been cooled down,
fire would have stood all (over) this world of the living.
, however, is an emendation for <wyn-n'>
The reading hn-in, <hwyn-n'>
<wsyn-n'> *wsn-in.4
most probably, for
, which is,
This verb is found in three basic spellings:
1.
<ws->, past tense in -d, and causative in -n- (most common);5 the spelling is very ambiguous: *aws-, *ws-, *haws-, *xws-, ans-, ns-; *awh-, *wh-, etc.; *awy-, wy-, etc.
are the most obvious alternatives.
2.
<wbs->; this spelling rules out forms in xw- and an-/n-, while the spelling <ws-> rules
out a reading of <wbs-> as <hnbs-> with initial hanb- (hamb-).
3.
<wps->; taken together with 1 and 2, this spelling fairly guarantees the readings with
aw- or w- (with <-wp-> = -w-).
As the reading of the verb is still conjectural, it has been given an asterisk *ws- here, which does not mean
that the identity of the letters is in doubt, only their interpretation.
The Pahlavi verb was discussed by Jehangir C. Tavadia in his edition of the yest n yest,6 where he pointed
out several passages in which it occurs. His discussion, unfortunately, has been overlooked.
Williams also edited hnin the following passage:
Pahlavi Rivyat 35c2
n-iz strag be widerd c

n hgnisn az ahrimen
ka mardmn ftd wars spd kund
ud ka urwarn ftd b hnd
ud ka b () gospandn ftd mrd
Recall that the Pahlavi script descended ultimately from Imperial Aramaic and, still fairly unambiguous in the third to fourth
centuries, had become much less so by the time the Zoroastrian
texts were written down in the ninth century. In the manuscripts
(13th to 19th centuries), we have <> = <h> (for <> or <>); <w>
= <n> = <r> = <ayn>; <y> = <d> = <g> = <b>; <s> = <yy>; <> or =
<y, yh>; etc. In arameograms, <> and <> are interchangeable.
5
Further derivatives from both the intransitive stem *ws- and
the transitive *ws-n- include those in -in, active verbal action noun and participle of necessity and those in -h and -in-h,
verbal action nouns.
6
Tavadia (1930) suggested the readings haws- or hanbs-, which
he pointed out look like inchoatives in -s-.
Pahlavi *ws- to dry
355
And what is this star that passes by! (falling star)

This is a pollution from Ahrimen.
When it falls on humans, it makes the hair white;
and when it falls on plants, it makes them dry out;
and when (it falls on) animals, they die (lit.: it dies).
Here, the analysis of the manuscripts is slightly more complex. 7 Apparently, the passage is only found in late
manuscripts: BKa (a later replacement of a number of folios in BK [1572]) has <wptyt'>, that is, ftd falls. MR1a
(copied from BKa in 1867) and Jb (unrelated to BKa, copied between 1841 and 1847) have hnd. As the late
manuscripts MR1a and Jb, despite not being directly related, may have interdependent readings, it is possible
<wpsyt'> wsd in the original he
that BKa contains an older form. Perhaps unfamiliar with the form
<wptyt'> ftd falls, which was already used three
was copying, the scribe may have corrected it to
times in this passage.8
The first time, however, I noticed the verb ws- was in the Pahlavi translation of a repeated Avestan phrase
in chapter five of the Videvdad (5.1213),9 which I have been studying for years at the instigation of my Talmudist
friend and colleague Yaakov Elman at the Yeshiva University in New York. Later on, I remembered my former
acquaintance with the verb when I came across it again in the Zand fragard J u d-dw-dd (commentary on chapters of the Videvdad) in a passage dealing with the pollution of water, which I also read with Yaakov. 10 Having
begun looking for other occurrences, I came across two in the yest n yest (what should or should not be
done), which I originally studied with Yaakov and his student Shai Secunda during their sojourns at Harvard
and which led me to Tavadias discussion. In all three texts, the same kind of problems encountered by both the
rabbis and the Zoroastrian priests are discussed and are of great importance for understanding the intellectual
development of these two groups, who shared living spaces in Sasanian Ctesiphon, older Babylon, in the fourth
to seventh centuries. Lastly, after having begun to suspect all instances of the verb h-n-, I came across the verb
in the Pahlavi Rivyat and the Nrangistn.
The two passages from yest n yest (both <wbs->) are the following:
yest n yest 3.10
dast pad pdybh *wsdag

ka zan datn wnd
pad wnin apdyb b bawd
A hand that has been dried in the ritual cleansing,11

if a menstruant woman sees it,
by being seen (by her) it becomes unclean.
yest n yest 10.5
k n k hnd az-iz hwitn

ka yazin yazdn kerdan ham awnd
mwag ham *wsnnd
ud agar n *wsin namb-w azi b burdan ry kund
ninn kunin
One thing is this: there are even some of the students who,
when they go to perform a sacrifice for the gods,
keep drying off the fruits.
See Williams 1990, part 1, pp. 2025.
But cf. also the unexplained readings
,
<wc(y)yyyt> in the Nrangestn 10.15 (below).
9
The standard edition of the Pahlavi Videvdad is that of Hoshang
Jamasp (1907). The Pahlavi text here is heavily edited, however,
and it is crucial to consult available manuscripts, many of which
are now accessible at the website of the Avestan Digital Archive
7
8
(http://www.avesta-archive.com/). The Avestan text is cited

after Karl Friedrich Geldner (188695).
10
The text is in the manuscript TD2, published by Kaikhusroo M.
JamaspAsa and Y. Mahyar Nawabi (197879). It was brought to
the attention of my Talmudist friends and me by Dr. Gtz Knig
at the Freie Universitt, Berlin.
11
On this term, see Boyce 1991.
356
Prods Oktor Skjrv
And if one does the drying in order to remove (even?) a single (drop) of moisture from it,
one should do it sitting down.
The passage from Videvdad chapter five is the following:12
Videvdad 5.12 (Avestan)13
ataa h uzbaom tanm nidaiiin

bixaparm v rixaparm v mzdrjahm v
vspm ahmt yat fr vaii patn fr uruuara uzuxiin14
niic apa tacin us vt zm hacaiit
Here they should lay down the body whose consciousness has left it
for two nights or three nights or a whole month,
until the (scavenging?) birds fly away (from it) and plants grow forth (over it),
the waters flow down (over it), and the wind *dries out the earth.
Videvdad 5.13
at yat h fr vaii patn fr uruuara uzuxiin

niic apa tacin us vt zm hacaiit
ataa h ate mazdaiiasna
atm khrpm huuar.darsm krnaot
Then, when the birds fly away (from it) and plants grow forth (over it),
the waters flow down, and the wind *dries out the earth,
here these Mazdayasniansv
should expose this his body to the sun.
The Avestan phrases vspm ahmt yat us vt zm hacaiit and at yat h us vt zm hacaiit are rendered
in Pahlavi as follows, according to Jamasps edition:
ham az n t ka ul wd zamg *wsnd
ka ul wd zamg *wsnd hd
until the wind dries the earth;
when the wind has dried the earth.
Here, the two oldest manuscripts with Pahlavi translation, K1 (1324; Royal Library, Copenhagen) and L4 (1323;
British Library), copied by the same scribe, are missing, and only some of their descendants are available. The
passage is present in another old manuscript, however, Jamasps IM (1575), which is from an independent branch
from K1 and L4, but whose whereabouts are unknown.
<wsynt'> and gives the following manuscript reading from IM
In the first occurrence, Jamasp edits
<wsynt'>. Online mss.: B1
<wstt>; E10 (derived from L4)
<wsynt'>.
<wsynyt'>, but gives IM
<wwstt'> (with
<-st-> a
In the second occurrence Jamasp edits
<-syn->). Online mss.: B1
<wwsynyt' >; E10
<synyt'>.
common error for
The meaning of the Avestan verb us hacaiia- is also disputed, although, from the context, it should mean
something like dry out. Bartholomae connected the Avestan verb etymologically with Avestan hiku- dry and
rendered it as dry up,15 and this seems to me to be the most likely derivation, although Kellens has objected,
Jamasp 1907, pp. 15556. See also Skjrv 2009, especially pp.
29193.
13
There are three branches of manuscripts of the Videvdad: Persian manuscripts with Pahlavi translation (PPV: K1, L4; B1, M3;
IM), Persian manuscripts without Pahlavi translation (PVS: Mf2,
12
Jp1), and Indian manuscripts without Pahlavi translation (IVS:

the rest).
14
The manuscripts Mf2 and Jp1 have uzuxiin will grow up (here
and next).
15
Bartholomae (1904, col. 1728) has hak only with us exarescere (dry out intrans.), causative arefacere (dry out trans.).
Pahlavi *ws- to dry
357
arguing that the root hic has two primary meanings, to sprinkle (water) and to draw (water).16 Drawing water
(out of a well), however, is not quite like drawing water out of wet matter, making it dry.17 See more below.
The passages I have noted so far in the Zand fragard J u d-dw-dd are the following.18 The first deals with the
same issue as Videvdad 5.1213:
Zand fragard J u d-dw-dd (TD2, 443)
and zamn andar n xnag pdixy dtan.

mard-w rz- ud mh-drahny
ud ka wafr b n awd zamg b n *wsd <wbs->
w-iz pdixy.
For how long is it allowed to keep them in that house?19

One man: for the length of a day and a month.
And if the snow does not go away (and) the earth does not dry out,
even more is allowed.
Zand fragard J u d-dw-dd (TD2, 55960)
n-i tzin k hamg tan b * b bard

ayb srik-w b pad tan datn abz paind
g-i b abyd kerdan ayb uttar.
ka hamg tan b *wsnd <ws-> g-i 15 tanbuhl.
ud ka-iz [560] handm-w guft
g-i grihagn angust handm guft
Should he atone for this too, who immerses his/her whole body in water
or splatters a drop of water back onto the body of a menstruous woman?
Should he do it (in the same manner) then too or differently?
If he dries the whole body, then (a sin accrues) to him of 15 tanbuhl
(or: [a merit accrues] to him [worth] 15 tanbuhl).
And also if he said (it was just) a limb,
then the smallest joints of the finger (would count for?) the limb mentioned.
ka dast andar b frd kund
ud pad datn abz paind
pad harw srik-w tanbuhl h bawd.
If he/she puts a hand down into the water

and splatters some back onto the body of a menstruous woman,
for every drop he will incur, as usual, a tanbuhl sin.
ka 15-slag g-i paixt

g-i winh hamg tan xn burdan
pad n wnag hangdag bun
If it is a fifteen-year-old, then whatever he splattered,

then the sin of bringing the entire body into (contact with) blood (accrues) to him.
In this way and manner (these things?) accrue to him.
Kellens 1984, p. 151.

Grassmann (1976, col. 1515) suggested the meaning to dry
was from pour empty.
18
One of them was noticed by Tavadia (1930, viii, p. 75) as well,
who referred to MF. 438.8 havsnt, a manuscript in the Mulla
16
17
Firoze Library (MS D 51), which contains another copy of the

Zand fragard J u d-dw-dd.
19
The house to store dead bodies in winter; see Skjrv 2009.
358
Prods Oktor Skjrv
n tzin iyn pad hamg tan b *wsndan <ws->

wizrin abyd kerdan ayb n.
sr sprixtg wkardag b- wizrin
az n ka hamg tan and uttar k
ham ka pad k tis-w gnag wizrd
- pad wizrd drin.
How is that atonement in the case he dries the whole body?

Must it be resolved (expiated) or not?
If it is in contact with a sprouting fire,20 he must resolve it.
It is so much different from when it is the whole body that,
as long as he resolves it in the manner of one thing,
then it is to be regarded as having been resolved by him.
Tavadia also referred to four further examples found in the Pahlavi Rivyat and the Nrangestn, all concerned
with the presentation of the drn (the ritual cake). In all four instances, the manuscripts have <ws->, but the
editors h-:
Pahlavi Rivyat 58.9
drn szag ud padixwar dn pad-pdyb b kunin

ka- barsom abar ras
-iz y ud b *wsnin
ka *wsndan n yd n yin
huk apdyb weh k xwd pad-pdyb
The tray and bowl for the drn should be ritually cleansed in this manner
if some barsom were to get onto it
it would, then too, be permissible and should be dried.21
If it is not possible to dry it, it should not be washed.
For dry and not ritually cleansed is better than wet and ritually cleansed.
The same passage is in the Nrangestn with minor differences:22
Nrangestn 10.15 (HJ, p. 82, TD, fol. 29r)23
drn szag ud padixwar dn pad-pdyb b kunin

ka- barsom abar rasd -iz yd ud b *wsnin
(ka) *wsndan n yd n yin
huk apdyb weh k xwd pad-pdyb
The tray and bowl for the drn should be ritually cleansed in this manner
if some barsom gets onto it, then too it is permissible and should be dried.
(If) it is not possible to dry it, then it should not be washed.
For dry and not ritually cleansed is better than wet and ritually cleansed.
Nrangistn 10.26 (HJ, p. 86, TD, fol. 30v)
ka tbhd24 ayb b szd ayb b *hd

pdybh wehh
pas ddan ud pas xwrom
With the common sr for r and sprixt- sprout, blossom,

Manichean Middle Persian wisprixt, idem, cf. ispixt ispz- sprout,
blossom, said of fires and luminaries. Cf. also Pahlavi spg/spg
brilliance, sprout, New Persian saprg.
21
See Boyce 1991, p. 283.
20
Most recent edition: Kotwal and Kreyenbroek 19922009. Manuscripts: HJ; TD.
23
Discussed in Tavadia 1930, p. 76. Kotwal and Kreyenbroek 1992
2009, vol. 2 (Cahiers de Studia Iranica 16), pp. 6667.
24
Spelled HJ
<AKWN-yt'>, TD
<YKWNyhyt'> (identical with the common <BKWN-> hil- let). The verb
22
Pahlavi *ws- to dry
359
When it is heated or burns or dries up.

(First) ritual purity (is to be considered), (then) goodness,
then appearance, and then taste.
Here, the manuscripts read as follows (\ / = superscript interlinear):
HJ (p. 86): ayb b <wcyyyyt>
TD (30v): ayb b <wcyyyt> \ <wyyt'> : drn tis /
<wcyyyyt'>, TD
For the moment, I do not know what to do about the word spelled HJ
<wcyyyt'>, but the scribe of TD obviously added the more familiar verb <wyyt'> *wsd, commenting: drn tis
<wpsyt'> as
<wycsyt'>, corrected to
a drn thing. It could be a scribal misunderstanding of
but that is quite uncertain.
Our verb occurs once more in the Nrangistn in a passage containing instructions for how to cut the meat of
a sacrificial animal and the barsom, presumably, the grass on which the meat was laid out:25
Nrangistn 47.15 (HJ, pp. 25455; TD, fols. 86v87r)26
barsom abz war brnin
ka b brnin - band27 b brnin
u- pdyb andak-w abar frd hilin
u- b-*wsinh pad esm w-tg
pdyb abg28 kunin.
az kust dan b nihin
ast k dn gwd az n hy b-hilinh [] xb29
b-*wsinh pad yhmc
The barsom should be cut back to(ward) the chest.

If it must be cut, then the string should be cut (first).
And a little ritual water should be let down upon it.
And its drying should be done with a single piece of firewood.
The ablution should be done together with (it).
It should be left on the right side.
There is one who says thus: Leaving it on the left is (also) fine.30
The drying should be done at yhmc.31
Here, both manuscripts have <wpsnyh> the first time, the second time <ws->, both of which Kotwal and
Kreyenbroek emended, to *xb *hnin and *xb b *hnin let it be dried well, respectively.
A final remark. The meaning of *ws- would clearly seem to be dry off, dry up, dry out, but it is remarkable
that the drying could be done with firewood: u- b-wsinh pad esm w-tg and its drying should be done with a
single piece of firewood. Thus firewood could be used to dry an object that had been wetted in the ritual cleansing
process. Is it possible that the piece of firewood might still be lit and that it was the heat of the fire that dried the
object? If so, that may provide a clue to the correct reading of the verb. Although the burning firewood cannot
be expected, literally, to cook the meat, the Avestan word for cooked meat is, in fact, xvsta, which is close to
is included as
<YHKHWN-> in some manuscripts of the
Frahang Pahlawg; see Nyberg 1988, pp. 2425, 99, according to
whom the expected form would be <YHKDHWN->
(qd)
corrupted to <YHKHWN>
.
25
Discussed in part by Tavadia (1930, p. 76).
26
Kotwal and Kreyenbroek 19922009, vol. 3 (Cahiers de Studia
Iranica 30), pp. 20405.
Manuscripts
<bwny> for
<bnd>? Tavadia read bun and
rendered it as root end. Unfortunately, he did not comment on
the preceding text.
28
Kotwal and Kreyenbroek omit.
29
In HJ, dn gwd he says thus follows hy; in TD it is omitted.
30
This is a common usage of xb good, well, for instance, in the
yest n yest.
31
Part of the Ye h htm formula, which is recited during this
ritual.
27
360
Prods Oktor Skjrv
one of the possible readings of our verb: xws-. Thus, the Pahlavi verb might be xws- and signify heat up, which
was further restricted to the drying process.
Clearly, there are other possible explanations. The more obvious one would be to derive the verb from the root
w- blow, with intransitive-inchoative *w-sa- be blown and *-wsa-, Pahlavi ws- be blown upon, causative
ws-n- cause to be blown upon.
The technical meaning might also be to wipe rather than to dry, but for the moment I do not see how to
decide.
Additional Note
After this had been submitted, I noticed the term sin -ing in a fragmentary Manichean Middle Persian
text describing the effect on the earth of the various months and seasons.32 The term is found in the description
of the month of bn and the sign of Taurus and corresponds to garmg heat in the description of the following
month of dur and the sign of Gemini.33 Both months are the opponents of the demons that dry out (hgn) and
burn (szgn) the land. If the term sin is related, then the Pahlavi verb would have to be read as aws- and be
from a form of the same basic verb s- with the preverb awa-.
Note on haik/hik
Derived from this root are hiku dry (Bartholomae 1904, col. 1812) and hixra, Pahlavi hixr, which appear to
refer to dry dead matter, as opposed to Pahlavi nasy (nas) which is non-dry dead matter, although the distinction may actually be more sophisticated than this.34 The contrast between hixr and nas is seen, for instance, in
Videvdad, chapter 5, the passage about the bird cited at the beginning of this article and the second regarding the
spread of pollution among several men sleeping on the same bed:
Pahlavi Videvdad 5.135
abar n wmd
abarg hixr guft
mdmh nas
abar n riyd hixr ud abar n paind hixr
(The bird) vomits on that (tree)

Abarg said: (then it is) hixr dry dead matter,
Mdmh said: (then it is) nas wet dead matter.
it defecates on it: hixr, and it *sprinkles on it: hixr.
This passage involves another verb of uncertain meaning: pain-, which here renders Avestan paitita. The
common meaning of the verb pain- (past stem paixt) is to sprinkle, but here it obviously has a technical
meaning. The Avestan verb ought to mean come onto, which may be a euphemism (sexual?). The verb riyd apparently means to defecate, so the third verb might mean to urinate, but that is usually mistan (present mz-).36
Manuscript M506 recto, p. 68 (Berliner Turfantexte 4).

33
Manuscript M7981/II/R/ii (buhragn); Andreas and Henning
1932.
34
Bartholomae 1904, col. 1812: hixra fluid excrement from hak
is wrong.
32
In the translation, the passages that render the Avestan are in

single quotes. The rest are glosses.
36
A passage in the Zand fragard J u d-dw-dd shows that sprinkling may be connected with urinating, however (JamaspAsa and
Nawabi 197879, vol. 1, pp. 61314): dr b mzd dr b kand
was srik b painjd g-i winh and Someone who urinates far,
throws it far, sprinkles many drops, how great then is his sin?
35
Pahlavi *ws- to dry
361
The verb pain- is found in several other places, as well; notably, it renders another problematic Avestan verb,
also one of a series of three, the precise meanings of which are all unclear:
Videvdad 5.27
at am narm auu iriiit

cuuat atar nr aa drux y nasu
axtica piuuatica hitica frnaoiti
Then one of these men passes away.

How much among (between) the men does this corpse demon
reach with axti, piuuat, and hit?
Videvdad 5.27
az awn mardn k be widerd

and andarg awn mardn -n n druz nasu
pad xndagh watagh
painin rmanh
ud hgnin akrh frz rasd
of those men, one passes away;

how much among those men does that corpse demon
reach with illness, (i.e.) sickness,
*sprinkling, (i.e.) filth, and *contagion, (i.e.) *impotence?
The same phrases are found in Videvdad 6.30, where the demon pollutes standing water. The word that concerns us here is piuuat, which is rendered as painin *sprinkling (or splattering) and glossed with the common
term rmanh filth, which is the most common term for things that cause pollution.37
Two of the terms are also found in Videvdad 20.3, in a list of evil things produced by the Evil Spirit to plague
humanity that must be withstood.
The manuscript readings vary considerably, however:
V.5.27 (instrumental): pauuiti K1; pauuaiti B1, M3; piuuati Pt2 (< L4), Mf2, Jp1, L2, Br1, K10,
L1, B2.
V.6.30 (instrumental): pauuiti K1; pauuaiti B1, M3; piuuati Pt2, Jp1, L2, K10, B2; piuuate Mf2;
piuuiti Br1, Dh1, L1.
V.20.3 (genitive): puitii L4; pitii K1, L2, Br1, M2, L1, B2; pitaii Mf2, Jp1.
The oldest readings are those of manuscripts L4 and K1, which point to early forms in pauui-, but the consensus of two other branches of the tradition points to old forms in piuua-. The forms in Videvdad 20.3 are easier to
analyze: pitii is the correct genitive of pit-, presumably the demoness of rot (root p-, Pahlavi pdag rotten).
The other forms could then conceivably be explained as developments of *piti > *puuiti (with the insertion of a
glide: *puuiti) > *puuaiti, *pauuaiti (with the common insertion of epenthetic -a-), which was then variously cor
rected by the scribes. That this is the correct analysis of the word is suggested by the fact that the passage in
V.6.30 is the answer to a question involving the two verbs friiieti-ca puiieti-ca decays and rots describing corpses.38
Note that Avestan paiti-ica- (from which pain- is descended)

is rendered by Pahlavi in-, not pain-.
38
Bartholomae (1904, col. 849) simply assumes that pauuiti- is
the correct form, derived directly from pauu-, but the correct
form is obviously piti-. See Kellens 1984, pp. 12021. Note also
37
the description of the evil dn in the Ard Wirz-namag (17.9) zan

eh rdag pdag paixtag frz-ng abz-kn an evil woman,
plucked(?), rotted, *sprinkled (with filth?), knob-kneed, flatassed (see Gignoux 1984, pp. 7071).
362
Prods Oktor Skjrv
The only problem, of course, is that rot does not really fit the contexts, unless it means something like
leprosy, but, in that case, the Pahlavi translation must continue a tradition in which the original meaning had
been lost. Thus the meaning of pain- has not been clarified and we are left with a non liquet.
With these sprinklings I hope I have given some idea of the problems of the Zoroastrian priests and how similar they are to those of the rabbis who composed the Babylonian Talmud. I also hope that they have shown how
problematic the Pahlavi (and Avestan) texts can be, on account of both the language and script they are written
in and our deficient knowledge of the issues involved. Most of all, I hope that our dedicatee may have been, at
times, amused.
Abbreviations
HJ
Sanjana 1894
yast-n yast Tavadia 1930
TD
Kotwal and Boyd 1980
Bibliography
Andreas, Friedrich Carl, and Walter B. Henning
1932
Manuscript M7981/II/R/ii (buhragn). In Mitteliranische Manichaica aus Chinesisch-Turkistan, by Friedrich Carl Andreas and Walter B. Henning, volume 1, p. 17 [189]. Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften 10. Berlin: Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Bartholomae, Christian
1904
Altiranisches Wrterbuch. Strassburg: Trbner.
Boyce, Mary
1991
Pdyb and Nrang. Two Pahlavi Terms Further Considered. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African
Studies 54: 28191.
Geldner, Karl Friedrich

188695
Avesta, the Sacred Book of the Parsis. 3 volumes. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Gignoux, Philippe
1984
Le livre dArd Vrz, Paris: ditions Recherche sur les civilisations.
Grassmann, Hermann
1976
Wrterbuch zum Rig-Veda. 5th edition. Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz.
Jamasp, Asa Hoshang
1907
Vendidd: Avesta Text with Pahlavi Translation and Commentary, and Glossarial Index, Volume 1: The Texts.
Bombay: Government Central Book Depot.
JamaspAsa, Kaikhusroo M., and Y. Mahyar Nawabi
19781979
MS. TD 2: Iranian Bundahin and Rivyat-i mt-i Aavahitn, etc. 2 volumes. The Pahlavi Codices and Iranian
Researches 5455. Shiraz: Asia Institute of the Pahlavi University.
Kellens, Jean
1984
Le verbe avestique. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert.
Kotwal, Firoze M., and James W. Boyd

1980
rbadistn ud Nrangistn: Facsimile Edition of the Manuscript TD. Harvard Iranian Series 3. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Pahlavi *ws- to dry
363
Kotwal, Firoze M., and Philip G. Kreyenbroek, editors

19922009
The Hrbedestn and Nrangestn, Volumes 14. Cahiers de Studia Iranica 10, 16, 30, 38. Paris: Association
pour lavancement des tudes iraniennes.
Nyberg, Henrik S.
1988
F rahang i Pahlavk. Edited with transliteration, transcription, and commentary from the postumous
papers of H. S. Nyberg by Bo Utas and Christopher Toll. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Sanjana, Darab Dastur Peshotan

1894
Nirangistan: A Photozincographed Facsimile of a MS Belonging to Shams-ul-Ulama Dastur Dr. Hoshangjee Jamaspjee
of Poona; Edited with an Introduction and Collation with an Older Iranian MS in the Possession of Ervad Tahmuras
D. Anklesaria. The Pahlavi Text Series 1. Bombay: Trustees of the Parsee Punchayet.
Skjrv, Prods Oktor
2009
On Videvdad 5.11 and Its Pahlavi Commentaries. In Zarathushtra entre lInde et lIran: tudes indo-iraniennes et indo-europennes offertes Jean Kellens loccasion de son 65 e anniversaire, edited by ric Pirart
and Xavier Tremblay, pp. 289304. Beitrge zur Iranistik 30. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert.
Sundermann, Werner
1973
Manuscript M506 recto. In Mittelpersische und parthische kosmogonische und Parabeltexte der Manicher.
Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des alten Orients 8; Berliner Turfantexte 4. Berlin: AkademieVerlag.
Tavadia, Jehangir C.
1930
yast-n yast: A Pahlavi Text on Religious Customs. Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien 3. Hamburg: Friederichsen, de Gruyter.
Williams, Alan V.
1990
The Pahlavi Rivyat Accompanying the Ddestn Dng. 2 parts. Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes
Selskab, Historisk-filosofiske meddelelser 60/12; Copenhagen: Munksgard.
Vowel Syncope and Syllable Repair Processes in Proto-Semitic Construct Forms 365
22
Vowel Syncope and Syllable Repair Processes in

Proto-Semitic Construct Forms: A New
Reconstruction Based on the Law of
Diminishing Conditioning
Richard C. Steiner, Yeshiva University*
1. Introduction
The idea of a Proto-Semitic syncope rule has its roots in the nineteenth century. Ewald (1863, p. 443, 173)
conjectured that *-at is the original feminine ending but that, even so, the vowel syncope that abbreviated the
ending to *-t took place already in Proto-Semitic.1 Lagarde (18891891, p. 72), generalizing from a dozen segolate
(*CvCC-) construct forms of bisyllabic (*CvCvC-) nouns and adjectives in Hebrew (e.g., k, the construct of ke
shoulder), theorized that all segolate nouns originated as Proto-Semitic construct forms of bisyllabic nouns, and
that their use as absolute forms was a late and erroneous development.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, Brockelmann (1903, p. 6) attempted to make Ewalds insight more
precise by formulating a rule:
Short vowels drop out in open unstressed medial syllables immediately after an open syllable
with a short vowel and a primary or secondary accent.
Later in the article (p. 11), Brockelmann amends the rule:
So too after an open syllable with a long vowel and a two-peak accent.
This addendum is meant to account for forms such as Akkadian tali(:)mtum sister (Brockelmann 1903, p. 11),
Geez ngt queen < *nvgutu (vs. masc. ngu king < *nvgu:u); Hebrew amr < *amurtu (vs. amuwrh ), and
g r < *gvbirtu (vs. g i yr h ) (Brockelmann 1903, p. 12).
Brockelmanns Proto-Semitic syncope rule has been accepted by some Semitists, with or without modification.
Bauer and Leander (1922, p. 176) formulate the rule in diachronic terms: Short free vowels fell out immediately
after a free stressed vowel. Bravmann (1977, p. 134) writes, Though some of [Barths] objections2 may be justified,
* Parts of this article are based on a paper entitled A ProtoSemitic Alternation and Its Flip-flopped Akkadian Reflex, read at
the Third North American Conference on Semitic Linguistics, on
April 22, 1975. I alluded to the paper in my two earliest published
articles, and then I put it aside. The invitation to honor an outstanding Semitist has inspired me to dust it off and rethink the
issue. I have added many new proposals, deliberately erring on
the side of incaution in an attempt to provoke debate. Professors

J. Blau and L. Kogan have read the article and, like the editors of
this volume, have done their best to save me from error, but that
task is a daunting one, even for them.
1 That seems to be the meaning of the phrase im Semitischen in
line 17. Cf. the assertion in n. 3 that *-t is uralt.
2 See below.
365
366
Richard C. Steiner
I adhere on the whole to Brockelmanns opinion. He believes that Proto-Semitic *t was particularly frequent
in biliteral monosyllabic nouns and in triliteral nouns with a long vowel in the second syllable (ibid., p. 133).
Blau (2010, p. 264) appears to be in this camp as well, although he is pessimistic about the possibility of reconstructing the original structural description of the rule:
It stands to reason that these two feminine suffixes are genetically related, -at being the original
ending from which, under certain phonetic conditions (caused by stress), the a was elided. The
original conditioning of this elision has been blurred by widespread analogy, so that the original
constraints can no longer be reconstructed.3 In Biblical Hebrew, there is a certain tendency to use
-at (< -) in the absolute, -t in the construct and preceding pronominal suffixes (such as *mamlakat
kingdom in the absolute,
< *mamlakt in the construct, and
).
>
Other scholars have rejected Brockelmanns Proto-Semitic syncope rule. Barth (Barth 1903, p. 628) admits
that *-at and *-t are etymologically related and that they split apart from each other already in the Proto-Semitic
period. Nevertheless, he argues (ibid., pp. 62836) that Proto-Semitic could not have had such a syncope rule
because it is possible to reconstruct many counterexamples to it verbs and nouns that seemingly did not
undergo syncope in Proto-Semitic. In addition, he sharply criticizes Brockelmanns methodology. In his view, a
Proto-Semitic Lautgesetz must be based solely on reconstructed Proto-Semitic forms.
Janssens (1975/1976, p. 278) believes that in many of these cases -t has developed from -at in the separate
languages, not in Proto-Semitic. For example, he argues that in a prehistoric stage of Accadian the ending -at
occurred more often than in the historic stage (ibid., p. 279). He concludes that no wordstructure (sic) had with
certitude the ending -t in Proto-Semitic, except nouns ending in -t, -t and the word *bintum daughter (ibid.,
p. 284).
Greenstein (1984, p. 40) eliminates the possibility of a Proto-Semitic syncope rule by assigning a late date to
vowel syncope in West Semitic: It is a bit startling to a Semitist to find that a rule of VOWEL DELETION had
developed in Akkadian by the middle of the third millennium b.c.e. when the syncopation of short internal open
vowels did not occur in the West Semitic languages before the first millennium b.c.e.
Dolgopolsky (1999, p. 102) believes that vowel syncope occurred in some of the West Semitic protolanguages,
after the Proto-Semitic stage:
any short vowel in the posttonic open syllable that follows another open short syllable is syncopated:
pS * kalab-um4 > pCan., pArab. * kalb-Vm (> Hb. kl, Ar. kalbun).
pS * amalat-um > prae-Can., pArab. * aml-at-Vm (> Hb. * iml, Ar. * amlatun).
pS * bir-at-Vm > pCan., pArab. * birt-Vm burrying [sic] (> Hb. r, but in Ar. the form has
reintroduced a in the feminine ending due to morphological generalization of the fem. ending
at-: qbir-at-un).
pS * bin-at-um > pCan., pArab. * bint-um daughter (> Hb. ba, Ar. bintun).
Dolgopolskys theory resembles Lagardes in deriving segolate nouns in the Semitic languages from ProtoSemitic bisyllabic nouns.
Huehnergard (2004, p. 144) accepts the existence of a Proto-Semitic syncope rule, but he restricts it drastically:
Internal reconstruction indicates the existence of a Proto-Semitic rule of vowel syncope: a > / aCCV, as in
kalalum > kallum light, small.5 Concerning syncope in the feminine ending and noun stems, he writes (2006, p. 8),
Another characteristic of Akkadian is the syncope of unstressed short vowels. Internal reconstruction of
course shows that this is not a feature of Proto-Semitic: most West Semitic languages do not exhibit such
syncope,6 and in Akkadian allomorphs such as damqum ~ damiqtum and damiq ~ damqat show that we must
3
Cf. Huehnergard (2004, p. 147): The original distribution of *-t

versus *-at is difficult to recover with certainty.
4 The sign indicates that the following syllable is stressed.
5 Huehnergard 2004, p. 231.
6 This assertion needs clarification; it seems to contradict Huehnergards own detailed description of Ugaritic vowel syncope
(1987, pp. 28083), which includes a comparison with vowel syncope in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Akkadian (ibid., p. 282 n. 66). The
syncope of unstressed short vowels is also attested in Old Arabic
(see below).
reconstruct earlier forms such as *damiqum and *damiqatum. The evidence of Eblaite is mixed here, but some
forms, such as wa-ri/r-gm/g-um = warikum side, flank (cf. Akkadian warkatum) do not exhibit syncope
where Akkadian would. Since the process is attested in all forms of Akkadian, however, we may safely assign it to Proto-Akkadian.
In Steiner 1975, I restricted Proto-Semitic syncope to the construct state, based on internal reconstruction
from Hebrew. I never published that paper, but I briefly mentioned the idea in a footnote a few years later (Steiner
1979, p. 166 n. 20):
the alternation between absolute *CVCVC and construct *CVCC in a few Hebrew nouns (
[rib],
[shoulder],
[thigh],
[hair],
[wall],
[slope],
[wages]) and adjectives (
[heavy],
[uncircumcised],
[smoke],
[kingdom of ],
[long]) and the existence of feminine construct forms ending in *-CVCt (e.g.
[family of ],
[crown of ]) are surely products of a very early syncope rule af[chariot of ],
fecting construct forms.7
This theory, too, bears some resemblance to Lagardes theory, although I did not know of the latter until shortly
before finishing the present article.
In the remainder of this essay, I present arguments for this theory, but one of them can be stated already at
this point. In my view, most of the arguments that have been adduced against Proto-Semitic syncope do not apply
to the version of the rule presented here. Thus, Barths counter-examples are not nouns in the construct state but
rather nouns in the absolute state and verbs. Similarly, Greensteins dating of syncope in West Semitic (1984, pp.
4041) is based on two verbal forms, one from Amarna Canaanite and the other from Ugaritic. Such evidence is,
of course, perfectly compatible with a thesis that deals with construct forms. The same goes for Janssens claim
that in a prehistoric stage of Accadian the ending -at occurred more often than in the historic stage, as well
as Huehnergards claim that unsyncopated forms such as *damium and *damiatum existed in Proto-Akkadian.
I would only add that the attested, syncopated Akkadian forms, damum and damitum, also existed in ProtoAkkadian, as conditioned variants and/or doublets of the fuller forms.
Finally, a word about Barths methodological strictures. Brockelmanns methodology is indeed rather loose;
his article presents an interesting idea without much in the way of rigorous proof. In rebutting that idea, however,
Barth may have gone too far in the opposite direction, imposing an overly rigorous methodological requirement
that would inevitably hinder progress in the field if strictly observed.8 I attempt to steer a middle course, basing
my Proto-Semitic phonological rule not only on reconstructed Proto-Semitic forms (as demanded by Barth) but
also on what I take to be vestiges of the rule that have survived in only one or two of the daughter languages. I
present my methodology more fully in 3 below.
2. Proto-Semitic Syllable Constraints and Syllable Repair Processes

The thesis of this article is that at least one short open-syllabic vowel9 was deleted in Proto-Semitic construct
forms of nouns and adjectives, as long as the deletion did not violate Proto-Semitic syllable constraints but
what were those constraints? It is generally agreed that Proto-Semitic did not permit syllables to begin or end
with any of the following clusters: CC, C:, and :C.10
See also Steiner 2010, p. 227.

Barth himself based most of the Proto-Semitic reconstructions in his rebuttal on West Semitic data alone. Just as Brockelmann preferred to ignore Arabic in reconstructing his syncope
rule, Barth preferred to ignore Akkadian in refuting it!
8
For nouns with more than one vowel of this type, see 10 below.
In this article, the symbol : represents any kind of length, be
it consonant length (C:) or vowel length (v:). Thus, v: represents
any long vowel, and v represents any short one.
10
368
Richard C. Steiner
I argue below that these syllable constraints did not interfere with the syncope rule as much as one might
imagine, thanks to four Proto-Semitic syllable repair processes:

(1) prothesis;
(2) loss of length in/after consonants (degemination);
(3) loss of length in/after vowels (vowel shortening);
(4) syllabicization of semivowels and nasals.11
These repair processes allowed syncope to operate at times in initial syllables, in syllables following syllables of
the form CvC and Cv:, and in two consecutive syllables.
I attempt to show that both the syncope rule and the syllable repair processes have left traces in the Semitic
languages and that among these traces are phonological enigmas such as Hebrew tey two of (fem.), ml queen
of, ln white of, Aramaic tartey two of (fem.), Arabic (i)smu name of, Mehri brt daughter of, and Akkadian ati
wife of (gen.).
It should be stressed that I am not claiming that the construct state was the only environment for ProtoSemitic syncope; the conditioning may well have been broader than that (including perhaps imperatives12 and
nouns with some13 or all of the suffixed pronouns), but I shall leave that possibility to others.
3. Methodology
During the past half century, historical linguists have turned their attention to linguistic universals, including universals that govern the evolution of phonological rules. When my (soon-to-be) teacher asked Are There
Universals of Linguistic Change? he answered in the affirmative (Hoenigswald 1966, pp. 4142):
Greenberg and others feel that sound change has a typical mechanism of successively widening scope. Sound
change, they say, may begin as sporadic, then become phonologically conditioned, and finally unconditional . There is no doubt that here we have an important principle.
Not long afterward, Wang (1969, pp. 2223) found that the phonetic condition that originally stimulated
the change may create a snowball effect across the lexicon, so that the condition itself eventually becomes
irrelevant. More recently, Janda and Joseph (2003, p. 214) have asserted that sound-change rapidly yields to
generalization along non-phonetic (phonological or morphological) and social lines that may contribute further
regularity via extension to broader contexts.
In this article, I take it as a given that change in the conditioning of phonological rules is largely unidirectional. When phonological rules change, they normally do so in the direction of diminished phonetic conditioning,
with one or more of the original phonetic conditions being eliminated through analogical change.
Analogical change can affect phonological rules in various ways; the elimination of original phonetic conditions is only one of the possible outcomes. Another possible outcome is elimination of the rules themselves. This
occurs when analogical leveling turns most of the conditioned allomorphs generated by the rule into doublets,14
11 It is remarkable that this list does not include epenthesis, the
best-known syllable repair process in the daughter languages
(e.g., mobile shewa and segolation in Hebrew). Epenthesis in Akkadian feminine segolates (*CiCCatu > CiCiCtu) has been discussed
since the nineteenth century; e.g., Zimmern 1890, p. 379; Janssens 1975/76, pp. 27879, 28384; Greenstein 1984, p. 44; Testen
2003.
12 See note 74 below.
13 Possibly just the heavy suffixes (plural second and third persons), which always attract the stress.
14 Hoenigswald (1960, p. 39) explains how conditioned allomorphs become differentiated into doublets: The Latin noun
stem for god, divine once had, owing to an earlier conditioned

sound change , two alternants, de- and deiv- (nominative singular deus; genitive singular deiv). Each was extended into the
former domain of the other so that later there are two paradigms: *deos (later deus), genitive de; and deivos (later dvus),
genitive deiv (dv). My sense is that analogical leveling works
especially quickly in the Semitic languages because the root-andpattern system tends to promote it. Although one occasionally
finds the opposite process, in which two paradigms merge into
one paradigm, the result is a syncretistic paradigm, in which the
conditioning is clearly non-phonetic; for a Hebrew example, see
Steiner 1996, pp. 255, 259 n. 5.
leaving at best a few relics of the original phonetic conditioning (or of the later, diminished phonetic conditioning). This too can be viewed as a kind of unidirectional reduction of phonetic conditioning.
In short, phonetic conditioning tends to be diminished by analogy, through either the loss of conditions or the
loss of conditioned allomorphs. I refer to this as the law of diminishing conditioning.15 In my view, this law can
be very useful in reconstructing the original conditioning of phonological rules in proto-languages. That is one
of the reasons that I do not share the pessimism implicit in Blaus assertion that the original conditioning of this
elision has been blurred by widespread analogy, so that the original constraints can no longer be reconstructed.
Another reason for optimism is what I shall call the principle of cognate anomalies. This principle, explained
below, is another tool that can be used to reconstruct the structural description of the Proto-Semitic syncope rule.
4. Syncope in Non-initial Syllables of the Stem

In Akkadian, the last of two or more non-final short vowels in open syllables was syncopated (Huehnergard
and Woods 2004, p. 240; cf. Hasselbach 2005, p. 105). Greensteins formulation (1984, pp. 1314) of the rule is
similar: Delete a short vowel in the environment VC_CV. Greenstein (ibid., pp. 4042) argued that the Akkadian
syncope rule had a Sumerian origin, but Edzard (1986, p. 360) was not convinced. To my mind, the fact that the
Sumerian loanwords in Akkadian were exceptions to the Akkadian syncope rule (Greenstein 1984, pp. 3132) is
evidence against Greensteins thesis. It may well be true, as Greenstein believes, that borrowings from Sumerian
retained their foreign phonological structure (at least for a while), but if the Akkadian syncope rule was really
borrowed from Sumerian, a word like nuatimmum should have lost its second vowel before being borrowed. My
own view is that Akkadian inherited the rule from Proto-Semitic but eliminated one of the original phonetic
conditions. Fortunately, the lost condition can be recovered with the help of Hebrew.
In the Hebrew vocalization of the Masoretes (Tiberian more than Babylonian), there are adjectives of the form
*CvCvC that have two construct forms. The adjectives ke heavy and rel uncircumcised, in addition to the
expected construct forms k a and ral found in biblical prose, have segolate (*CvCC) construct forms, k <
*kabdu and rl < *arlu, in poetry (Steiner 2010, pp. 22627). No synchronic rule can explain the shift of these
adjectives to the segolate class in the construct state. These are clearly very archaic forms relics preserved in
poetry. Other segolate construct forms of adjectives are r (the construct of ro)16 and, in my opinion (ibid.,
pp. 20913), yr (the construct of yer in Gen 49:3).17 Segolate construct forms of nouns are slightly more common; as noted above, they include words for body parts (rib, shoulder, thigh, hair) and others (slope,
smoke, wages,18 fence).19
Most of these examples have the form *CaCiCu(m) in the absolute state, syncopated to *CaCCu in the construct
state; however, some of them have the form *CaCaCu(m) > *CaCCu, or *CiCaCu(m) > *CiCCu, or *CaCuCu(m) > *CaCCu. I
have argued elsewhere (Steiner 1979, pp. 16667 n. 20) that the vowel syncope in these forms must have preceded
the loss of case endings in the construct state. Since the Hebrew case endings were lost earlier in the construct
15 This should be understood as an abbreviation of the law of

diminishing phonetic conditioning. It applies only to phonetic
conditioning.
16 Thus we have r ap:ayim long of patience (Prov 14:29, etc.)
contrasting with r ap:ayim length of patience (Prov 25:15)
and with ar ap:ayim short of patience (Prov 14:17).
17 Another form that probably belongs here is the obscure *l ben,
attested only in its proclitic form l n- white of (teeth) (Gen
49:12). I suggest that its obscurity derives from the fact that it
combines the peculiarities of both k heavy of and the noun
hel vanity of. Thus, the original construct form of *lbanum
was the syncopated *lbnu. Unlike most segolates, it did not keep
its CvCC pattern very long after the loss of case endings in the
construct state. Instead, thanks to its final resonant, it under-
went epenthesis early enough to be affected by the general stress

shift, much like the noun *hblu > *hbl > *hbel > *habl > hel
(cf. Steiner 1976). The complete sequence of changes affecting
the construct of *lbanum was thus: *lbanu > *lbnu > *lbn >
*lben > *labn > *l ben > l n-. The enigmatic construct form
le milk of must have a similar origin even though it does
not end in a resonant.
18 The context of r in Prov 11:18 suggests that it is the construct form of r.
19 The construct form of gzel robbery, attested in Ezek 18:18 and
Eccl 5:7, may belong here as well. Although the Tiberian reading tradition has gzl < *gizlu, the Babylonian reading tradition
has the equivalent of gzl < *gazlu (Yeivin 1985, p. 923) the
expected outcome of the syncope rule applied to *gazilu.
370
Richard C. Steiner
state than in the absolute,20 the vowel syncope that produced the construct forms discussed in this paragraph
must be very early indeed.
These reconstructed examples of syncope look very much like the Akkadian examples, except for the fact
that the Akkadian examples are not restricted to the construct state. Indeed, when we examine the state of the
Akkadian examples, they seem, at first glance, to exhibit precisely the opposite conditioning, with syncopated
kabtum heavy in the reflex of the Proto-Semitic absolute state versus unsyncopated kabit heavy of in the
contruct state. However, this is just an illusion created by the loss of case endings in the construct state, which
turns the open penultimate syllable into a closed final one; the Akkadian syncope rule is, of course, not really
conditioned by state.
In the Hebrew dual and plural too, there are a few alternations that seem to point to an old syncope rule
conditioned by state. The most interesting is the word for rear/remote parts: yarayim (absolute) ~ yark e y
(construct). The absolute form occurs always (3x) with a spirantized , while the construct form occurs always
(15x) with an unspirantized k (pointing to early elision of the preceding vowel). This could very well be the reflex
of a Proto-Semitic alternation: *warikataym/nv (absolute) ~ *warkatay (construct). Note the perfect match between
this alternation and the one involving its masculine singular counterpart:
yarayim < *warikataym/nv ~ yark e y < *warkatay
yre < *warikum ~ yr < *warku21
The Masoretes cannot possibly have manufactured this match or even been aware of it, for it is visible
only through the lens of comparative and internal reconstruction. A similar match can be seen in the word for
slope(s). In the plural, we find eow (absolute) ~ adow (construct). The relationship between the singular
construct form < *adu and the plural construct adow (with unspirantized d in the construct form pointing
to early elision of the preceding vowel) is comparable to the relationship between yr and yark e y.
Also worth mentioning here is example 5 below, the word for pairs/teams (of yoked/harnessed draft animals):
mi ym (absolute) ~ imde y (construct). Here again we find unspirantized d in the construct form pointing to
early elision of the preceding vowel. Most such construct forms underwent analogical leveling; in the case of the
word for flames, r ai ym ~ ripey/rie y,22 both the old construct form and the new one are attested.
In short, the pre-Hebrew syncope rule was more restricted than the Akkadian syncope rule, because it was
conditioned by syntax in addition to syllable structure. We may assume that the syntactic conditioning reflects an
original phonetic conditioning, with nouns in the construct state losing their stress (morphosyntactic proclisis).23
Accordingly, the law of diminishing conditioning leads us to conclude that the pre-Hebrew version of the rule
is more archaic than the Akkadian version.
In syllabic transcriptions of Ugaritic, we find doublets differing in the presence/absence of one short vowel,
sometimes in the very same text, e.g., ma-sa-wa-tu = /masawa:tu/ alongside ma-s-wa-tu = /maswa:tu/ cypress(?)
logs; and na-b-ki-ma = /nabaki:ma/ alongside na-AB/NAB-ki-ma = /nabki:ma/ springs (Huehnergard 1987, p.
281).24 Based on such pairs, Huehnergard (ibid., pp. 28183) reconstructs two optional rules of vowel syncope,
one pretonic in the environment vC_Cv and the other posttonic. The pretonic rule looks very much like our ProtoSemitic rule, except of course that it is (1) optional, (2) restricted to pretonic vowels, and (3) not restricted to the
construct state. At least two of these differences are attributable to analogical leveling.
In the Aramaic vocalization of the Tiberians and the Syrians, the syncope/reduction 25 rule is even more
general than the one in Akkadian. However, Beyer (1984, pp. 12836) has claimed that this is a late development,
and he has amassed an impressive body of evidence in support of this claim.26 None of this evidence contradicts
20
For bibliography and discussion, see Steiner 1976, p. 92.

For this alternation, see below.
22 Song 8:6, Ps 76:4. The variation between ripey and rie y, is
pointed out already by David imi (1847, p. 361, col. b s.v. rp).
23 In the Masoretic vocalization, construct forms have normal
stress, but they exhibit vowel changes that are associated with
destressing elsewhere in the language: vowel reduction (e.g.,
d ar word of ~ dr), vowel shortening (e.g., bn son of ~
ben), and monophthongization (e.g., be y house of ~ bayi). All
21
of these suggest that in pre-Masoretic Hebrew, construct forms

were proclitic.
24 Cf. the fluctuation in the Uruk incantation between ga-[a]b-re-e
(line 12) and ga-ba-re-e (line 37) (Geller 2006, pp. 82, 86, 88). There
too we are dealing with the segolate plural infix (see below).
25 By reduction I mean the replacement of vowels with mobile
shewa instead of zero (quiescent shewa).
26 For discussion of this and other evidence, see Kaufman 1983.
our thesis (since it includes no construct forms), and some of it may actually support it. Take, for example, the
infix -a- inserted between the second and third consonants of at least some segolate plurals in virtually all of the
pre-modern West Semitic languages.27 In addition to citing transcriptions of the infix with cuneiform a,28 Beyer
(ibid., pp. 129, 453) points to Official Aramaic plurals such as mmyn peoples, kddn pitchers, n sack-cloths, dn
doors, and so on. In these segolate plurals in the absolute state, the double letters (not found in the singular) 29
seem to indicate that the infix was still pronounced. If so, the variation in TAD A4.7 Cowley 30 between dy the
doors in line 11 and dyhm their doors in line 1030 may indicate that Official Aramaic segolate plurals had the
infix in the determined state but not in the bound state or, at least, not with the suffix -hm.31 The analogy of
Biblical Aramaic (not to mention Biblical Hebrew) suggests that segolate plurals had the same vocalization with
the suffix -hm that they had in the construct state.32 In short, this variation may hint at a connection between
syncope and the construct state.
In Arabic, bisyllabic nouns frequently have segolate variants that seem to exhibit syncope, but their relevance
for the reconstruction of Proto-Semitic is uncertain. Sbawaihi (18851889, vol. 2, p. 277, lines 2123) asserts that
some Arabic nouns and verbs may be pronounced without one of their underlying vowels for ease of articulation.33
His examples are all of the form fal- < fail-/faul-, e.g., kabdun < kabidun liver. He tells us that such syncopated
variants occur in the speech of some tribes (Ban Bakr b. Wil and many of the Ban Tamm), but unfortunately
he does not mention if these tribes have the unsyncopated variants alongside the syncopated ones. This dialectal
variation is, of course, reminiscent of the variation in some Semitic words for heavy: Hebrew ke < *kabidum ~
k < *kabdu and Akkadian kabtum ~ kabit. However, it is far from clear that the Arabic form kabdun is inherited
from Proto-Semitic. The fact that Sbawaihis examples include verbs as well as nouns and exhibit the elision
of high vowels only (as in the later so-called differential dialects) suggests that this may be an independent
development within Arabic. In his initial remarks, Rabin (1951, p. 97) seems to be a firm proponent of this view:
The most outstanding difference between the phonetics of the Eastern dialects and West-Arabian is that in
the former vowels are changed under the influence of surrounding phonemes and of stress, while such influences are almost wholly absent from West-Arabian. The latter preserves the fuller forms found in cognate
languages, such as Canaanite and Ethiopic. Classical Arabic on the whole sides more with West-Arabian in
this respect than with the Eastern dialects. Since it exhibits this character in the oldest poetry, where Hijazi
influence is quite unthinkable, we can only attribute the preservation of the full vowels to the archaic character of Classical Arabic, and assign to the vowel elision of the Eastern dialects a comparatively late date.
A few lines later, however, he backtracks a bit:

It cannot always be said that the Hijazi form is older and the Eastern form produced by elision. As the instance of Arabic malik and Hebrew malk- proves, there was a good deal of wavering between segolate and
bisyllabic noun forms in Semitic.
This statement leaves the door open a crack for the possibility that the Eastern form kabdun liver and the Hebrew
construct form k heavy of are both reflexes of the Proto-Semitic construct form *kabdu liver of; heavy of,
just as kabidun liver in West-Arabian and Classical Arabic and ke liver; heavy in Hebrew are both reflexes of
the Proto-Semitic absolute form *kabidum liver; heavy.
27 According to Huehnergard (2006, p. 9), there may also be an

Old Assyrian example.
28 For example, ga-ba-re-e men and ru-ga-ze-e (eruptions of)
anger in the Uruk incantation. However, as noted in note 24
above, the syncopated form ga-[a]b-re-e men occurs there as
well. Was the spread of syncope just beginning at the time? Was
it a variable rule outside of the construct state?
29 Muraoka and Porten (1998, p. 39) muddy the waters by raising
the possibility that singular forms like lbby and bllh show that
the phenomenon is not confined to plural nouns, unless one
should postulate two distinct variants. Since these non-segolate
biforms are well established on independent grounds (see, e.g.,

ibid., n. 187), they should not be cited as counterexamples.
30 This variation is noted but not explained by Muraoka and
Porten (1998, p. 38).
31 It is possible that the alternation between [daaay:a] and
[da:ayhum] was an innovation on the analogy of the alternation between [kalabay:a] and [kalbayhum]. If that is the case,
then, strictly speaking, only [kalbayhum] can be described as a
product of syncope.
32See note 13 above.
33For discussion, see Rabin 1951, p. 97; and Fleisch 1961, p. 157.
372
Richard C. Steiner
We can now turn to some Proto-Semitic examples. Many of them are drawn from the groundbreaking dictionary of Militarev and Kogan (2000), which the reader should consult for a full presentation and evaluation of
the data. One of the many important contributions of this work is the decision to postulate two or even three
alternative protoforms, especially in cases in which deviations from traditional reconstructions are identical in
more than one language (ibid., vol. 1, p. cxxxvi). Among the examples given of this approach are reconstructed
forms with vowels in parentheses (ibid., vol. 1, p. cxxxvii). This is quite legitimate, even by the strict standard I
have called for elsewhere (Steiner 1987), because it is not uncommon for individual Semitic languages to have
two variants of a single noun, one with vowel syncope and one without it.

(1) (back of) shoulder, shoulder blade: *katipum (absolute) ~ *katpu (construct); cf. Militarev and
Kogan (2000, vol. 1, pp. 13839, no. 154): *kat(i)p-, that is, *katip- and *katp-. The alternation
survives in Hebrew: ke (absolute) ~ k (construct). It is possible, but not certain, that
Arabic katfun (alongside katifun and kitfun)34 is a direct descendant of Proto-Semitic *katpu
rather than an inner-Arabic parallel development from Proto-Semitic *katipum.
(2) rib, (side of) chest: *ilaum (absolute) ~ *ilum (construct); cf. Militarev and Kogan (2000, vol.
1, pp. 24344, no. 272): *il(a)-, that is, *ila- and *il-. Here, too, the alternation survives in
Hebrew: el (absolute) ~ la (construct). And here, too, it is possible, but not certain, that
Arabic ilun (alongside ilaun)35 is a direct descendant of Proto-Semitic *ilu rather than an
inner-Arabic parallel development from Proto-Semitic *ilaum.
(3) hip(-bone): *warikum (absolute) ~ *warku (construct); cf. Militarev and Kogan (2000, vol. 1,
pp. 25859, no. 288): *warik(-at)-. As noted above, the alternation survives in Hebrew: yre
(absolute) ~ yr (construct). And once again, it is possible, but not certain, that Arabic
warkun (alongside warikun)36 is a direct descendant of Proto-Semitic *warku rather than an
inner-Arabic parallel development from Proto-Semitic *warikum.
(4) moon, month: *warium (absolute) ~ *waru (construct); cf. Kogan (2011, p. 193 2.3.3):
*war(i)-. In Hebrew, yra moon is normally in the absolute state,37 while singular yra
month is normally in the construct state.38 In Standard Biblical Hebrew, the word for month
in the absolute state is , as a result of the following semantic development:
month of
40
yra/
Pre-Hebrew
*yariu
(cf. Akkadian
warum
Hebrew
34 See
month
moon
new moon
*yar
*yariu
*ud yarii 39
waru
warum
warum)
Zimmern 1890, p. 369; Ullmann 1970, vol. 1, p. 48 s.v.

katifun.
35 See Rabin 1951, p. 97.
36 See Zimmern 1890, p. 369.
37 Twenty-six examples plus one example with suffixed pronoun.
38 Five examples plus one Late Biblical Hebrew example in the
absolute state.
39 The original meaning of this phrase must have been renewal of the moon; cf. the phrase id:uw hay:ra used by David
imi (1847, p. 97, col. a, l. 7 s.v. d) in explaining the etymology of o. Cf. Ugaritic b d yr on the new moon (Olmo Lete
and Sanmartn 2003, p. 356 s.v. d II). Cf. also Phoenician bd
yr tnm and bd yr plt, but these are usually taken to mean
yra
41
at/with the new moon of the month of E./P. (Donner and Rllig
197379, vol. 2, p. 54 [37A 2; 37B 2]; Amadasi and Karageorghis
1977, pp. 10405, 11819; Hoftijzer and Jongeling 1995, p. 351 s.v.
d). If this interpretation is precise, the phrase has undergone
semantic reanalysis in Phoenician.
40 The shift from new moon to month is of course a case of synecdoche, as pointed already by David imi in his commentary
to Ps 81:4. The shift seems to be exhibited in Ugaritic dates such
as b b d`s, even though Olmo Lete and Sanmartn (2003, p. 356
s.v. d II) render this as on the seventh (day) of the new moon.
41 Already in Ugaritic the phrase d yr is abridged to d in the
phrase ym d day of the new moon (Olmo Lete and Sanmartn
2003, p. 356 s.v. d II).
Alternation between the two Hebrew words for month can be seen in 1 Kgs 6:38 (b yra
buwl huw ha ha: mi yni y) and 8:2 (b yra heni ym huw ha ha: iyiy). This alternation supports the claim that yra could not be used in the absolute state in Standard
Biblical Hebrew.

(5) pairs/teams (of yoked/harnessed draft animals): imadu:ma (absolute) ~ imdu: (construct). Note
the reconstruction of the absolute plural form with the vocalic infix -a-, despite the fact that
it is absent in Akkadian indu:. As noted above, the vocalic infix is attested for at least some
segolate plurals in virtually all of the pre-modern West Semitic languages; our reconstruction assumes that it goes back to Proto-Semitic (not merely Proto-West-Semitic)42 and that
it was lost in Akkadian when the syncope rule was extended to the absolute state43 and other
non-proclitic forms. As noted further above, the alternation survives in Hebrew: mi ym
(absolute) ~ imde y (construct).
5. Syncope in the Feminine Ending

Reflexes of both *-at and *-t survive in virtually all of the ancient descendants of Proto-Semitic, but none of
those languages has a (productive) phonological rule that governs the relationship between the two feminine
endings. That is the case even in Akkadian, where the similarity between anat ~ antum and rapa ~ rapum led
Delitzsch (1906, p. 97, 45b) to view these alternations as products of the same vowel syncope rule. 44 This view is
no longer accepted. There appears to be a consensus today that, from a synchronic point of view, the absence of
a second a in rapum is the result of a vowel syncope rule, while the absence of a in the feminine ending of antum
is not. From a diachronic point of view, however, I believe that Delitzsch was right. In other words, Proto-Semitic
*-t was derived from underlying *-at by a vowel syncope rule.
The relationship between *-at and *-t is less obvious in Hebrew, but it is arguably more revealing there. As
noted above, in some nouns the two proto-variants are in complementary distribution, conditioned by the syntax
(absolute state vs. construct state), e.g., mamlh < *mamlakatum ~ maml < *mamlaktu kingdom; mrkh <
*markabatum45 ~ mirk < *markabtu chariot; m lh ~ m l work;46 map:lh ~ map:l ruin; miph ~
mipa clan; rh ~ r crown; d elh ~ d l cake of pressed figs; loh ~ l three; arbh ~
arba four; mi:h ~ m five; i:h ~ six; rh ~ r ten. In my view, this alternation cannot
be separated from the alternation discussed in the preceding section; both derive from a Proto-Semitic vowel
syncope rule. It is true that a number of these lexical items seem to postdate Proto-Semitic. For example, there
is no evidence for chariots or other wheeled vehicles in Mesopotamia before the third millennium b.c. (Dalley
1995, p. 414).47 We must assume, therefore, that the Proto-Semitic syncope rule continued to operate in Northwest
Semitic down to historical times.
In other Hebrew nouns, the two proto-variants are in free variation in the absolute state, e.g., moiy:h ~
moy Moabitess; iyh ~ i y female captives (collective); a:h ~ a: sin; mat:nh ~ mat:a < *mantantu
gift; tirh ~ tir glory; buwh ~ b shame; nuwh ~ n copper; yab:h ~ yab: dry land (together in Exod 4:9!). The same free variation is found in G-stem participles, e.g., olh ~ ol (pausal oelh ~
ol) consuming (three verses apart in Isa 30 in the expression consuming fire!); and in Iy/w G-stem verbal
42 For a possible trace in Old Assyrian, see Huehnergard 2006,

p. 9.
43 Once the infix was lost in the overwhelming majority of segolate plurals, there would be no reason for speakers to preserve
it in the few segolate plurals where syncope may have been
blocked.
44 For a survey of the scholarly literature, see Greenstein 1984,
pp. 4546.
45 Cf. Coptic broout chariot < New Kingdom mrkbt (Hoch 1994,
pp. 14547). According to Hoch (ibid., p. 146) the Coptic vowel
points to markbatu rather than markabtu.
46 So in the Tiberian reading tradition; the Babylonian reading
tradition has malh ~ mala (Yeivin 1985, p. 1015).
47 Of course, we cannot rule out the possibility that *markabatum
originally had a different meaning.
374
Richard C. Steiner
nouns, e.g., deh ~ da knowledge.48 Free variation between *-at and *-t is found only rarely in the construct
state, e.g., ma:a ~ ma: pillar of ; malka ~ ml queen of ;49 and mat:na yow ~ mat:a yow his donation (lit., the gift of his hand). According to the law of diminishing conditioning, all of this free variation must
be a later development, a product of analogical leveling.
In Ugaritic, only -at is found after bases ending in CC (Huehnergard 1987, p. 295). This phonologically necessary distribution appears in all of the Semitic languages (Huehnergard 2004, p. 147). In other environments, no
regularity is apparent in the data collected by Gordon (1965, pp. 5253 8.3) and Huehnergard (1987, pp. 29596).50
We may now consider three Proto-Semitic examples:

(6) childbirth, giving birth: *lidatum (absolute) ~ *lidtu/*lit:u51 (construct). Most of the Semitic languages preserve only one of these three forms. The absolute form survives in Arabic lidatun,
Geez ldat, and Ugaritic ldt.52 Two of the forms survive in the Akkadian word for offspring:
lit:um (absolute) ~ lidat (construct). All three forms survive in Hebrew: leh, l, and la
(1Sam 4:19).53 Of these, only l is attested as a construct form.
(7) ten: *aaratum (absolute) ~ *aartu (construct). The alternation survives in Hebrew: rh ~
r ten.
In the third example, the Semitic conditioned variants ended up as Canaanite dialectal variants:

(8) year: *anatum (absolute) ~ *antu/*at:u54 (construct). In Northern Hebrew, Moabite, and Phoenician, we find at < *at:u even in the absolute state (Garr 1985, pp. 9394). In Biblical Hebrew,
we have nh < *anatum in the absolute state and na in the construct state. The simplest
explanation is that Proto-Semitic *anatum and *at:u became doublets in Proto-Canaanite
and that the daughter languages selected one or the other. This is a good example of dialectal
differentiation following analogical leveling. Something similar may have happened with the
word for widow, appearing as almnh in Hebrew but almat in Phoenician.
Another example of dialectal differentiation has been suggested by Blau (2010, p. 264). According to him, the
Hebrew absolute form br a emerald, a doublet of br id., is presumably borrowed from another dialect
that preserved -at. Blau compares the Phoenician toponym ra Sarepta,55 a comparison that is of interest for
two reasons. First, it suggests that bra, attested in a prophecy addressed to the king of Tyre (Ezek 28:1213), is
a Phoenician form.56 Second, the ending of the toponym in question reflects *-at in some sources and *-t in others: Hebrew r a, Egyptian a-ar-p-ta (so according to Albright 1934, p. 42), Arabic arafand vs. ariptu, Greek
, , and so on (Murtonen 19861990, vol. 1, p. 319).
Hebrew is the only Semitic language in which we find a significant number of examples of *-t in the construct
state alternating with *-at (> -h) in the absolute. In Akkadian, the situation looks very different; indeed, at first
glance it appears to be the polar opposite, with *at:um in the reflex of the Proto-Semitic absolute state versus
*anat in the construct state. Here too, however, the reversal is just an illusion created by the loss of case endings
in the construct state.57
There is, in fact, one indication in Akkadian that -t was once associated with the construct state. Alongside of
a:at wife of, there is a second, irregular construct form ati occurring only in the genitive case. This form bears
a remarkable resemblance to the Hebrew construct form < *it- wife of (abs. i:h) in that both exhibit an
48
The forms toeh and toa appear to have diverged to the

point where they have distinct plural forms and perhaps different nuances as well.
49 See example 29 below.
50 Huehnergard (1987, p. 295) refers to the distribution in these
other environments as free variation, but given the dearth/
absence of actual doublets in Ugaritic (comparable to the Hebrew
doublets immediately above), it may be preferable to use the
term lexical conditioning.
51 For assimilation in Proto-Semitic, see 8 below.
52 For -at as the feminine ending of the last form, cf. Ugaritic at
coming out of.
53 For the vowel of the last form, cf. ba daughter and m ra

serving (1 Kgs 1:15).
54 For assimilation in Proto-Semitic, see 8 below.
55 For personal names in the Bible with an -at ending, see Driver
1913, p. 139 (although the Semitic origin of the name Goliath has
been contested).
56 If so, the vowel of the ending (a rather than o) hints that this
borrowing predates the transcription Ab-di-mil-ku-ut-ti from the
time of Esarhaddon; see Friedrich and Rllig 1999, p. 40, 78.
57 See the discussion of Akkadian kabtum ~ kabit in 4 above.
unexpected absence of gemination. The importance of this similarity cannot be overstated, because these forms
are anomalous in both Akkadian58 and Hebrew.
Here we may invoke what I shall call the principle of cognate anomalies: corresponding forms in two cognate languages that are anomalous in both are very reliable witnesses to the proto-language (or even the preproto-language), since they are highly unlikely to have resulted from parallel (independent) development. To
my mind, the correspondence between these aberrant construct forms, ati in Akkadian and in Hebrew, is
the closest thing that students of Proto-Semitic have to the holy grail.59 I shall return to these forms and similar
ones in 8 below.
Another very significant vestige of what must now be considered the original conditioning is found in Mehri.
In that language, the feminine singular ending is virtually always derived from *-at, with the vowel usually lengthened and often raised to [e:] or [i:], as in kwbe:t bitch and ba:li:t mistress (Rubin 2010, pp. 5960). Although the
construct state has all but disappeared , remnants of the older construction survive with a handful of words
(ibid., p. 74). Among these words is one that is relevant to our topic, namely, the word for daughter. This appears
as bri:t (definite bri:t) in the absolute state, but brt in the construct (ibid., pp. 60, 74). Thus, the interrogative
phrase whose daughter? (lit., the daughter of whom?) can be expressed in Mehri either as brt mo:n or as bri:t
-mo:n (Watson 2009, p. 232). Here we have a clear case of *-at in the absolute alternating with *-t in the construct.
I return to this form in 10 below.
In Arabic, too, *-t survives in only a handful of forms, including bintun (alongside (i)bnatun) daughter and
utun sister. I agree with the view of Dolgopolsky (1999, p. 160 n. 53) that in Arabic the syncopated a in -at- was
reintroduced everywhere, except for some archaisms like bint-un daughter (< pS *bin-at-um), due to grammatical analogy. The survival of *-t in Arabic bintun and utun must be attributed to the common use of daughter
of X and sister of X both in the construct state to identify women. This usage is well attested in Arabic,60
not to mention Biblical Hebrew61 and so on. Here we see another correlation, albeit a weak one, between *-t and
the construct state.
6. Syncope in Initial Syllables of the Stem and Prothetic Aleph

The use of prothetic vowels (the so-called prothetic aleph) in the Semitic languages has been discussed for at
least a millennium,62 and yet its origin is still poorly understood. Militarev and Kogan (2000, vol. 1, cxliii) state
that the strict phonetic conditions under which the prothesis must take place have never, to our knowledge,
58
So I was assured by Walter Farber and the late Erica Reiner

in 1981; cf. Soden 1995, p. 17, 12f: ganz ungewhnlich. Most
of the parallels I know of have -artum for -ar:atum, viz., martum
gall bladder < *mar:atum (contrast mar:atum bitter [fem.]) and
sartum falsehood < *sar:atu (contrast sar:a:tum lies). Greenstein (1984, pp. 5253) views the degemination that produced
ati as a later development, an example of weak phonological
change within Akkadian, comparable to the weak diachronic
phonological change in be:la/etum > beltum lady and ma:ratum >
martum daughter. He argues (ibid., p. 53) that the stem was
restructured as /a+t/ and the construct was formed by the
phonological rule of i-ADDITION. In Greensteins analysis, the
ending of the construct form ati is quite different from the ending of the construct forms belti (for belet) and marti (for marat):
These words are not simple constructs but archaic formations
in which the genitive case ending i is preserved word-finally
(ibid., p. 52). Since ati, too, is a construct form in the genitive
case according to the editors of the CAD, the reason for this
difference is not completely clear to me. Why not include ati
among the archaic formations in which the genitive case ending
i is preserved word-finally?
59 Brockelmann (1903, p. 15) believes that the correspondence
between ati and is the product of parallel development, but
this belief forces him to posit various contaminations and folketymologies to account for the exceptions on an ad-hoc basis.
Janssens (1975/76, p. 281) mentions the Hebrew alternation but
not the Akkadian parallel.
60 Cf. O sister of Aaron! addressed to Mary (not Miriam) in
Quran 19:28 and the many examples of sister of found in the
searchable databases of the Hadith online.
61 Cf. the commentary of R. Joseph Bekhor Shor to Exod 15:20:
Then Miriam the prophetess, Aarons sister took the way
of Scripture is that when it mentions a woman, it mentions her
oldest brother, as in Basemath, [daughter of Ishmael and] sister
of Nebaioth (Gen 36:3) and Elisheba, [daughter of Amminadab
and] sister of Nahshon (Exod 6:23).
62 The literature on this subject is vast, stretching back to the
tenth century (Dunash 1866, p. 49, 141), if not further. In addition to the well-known classics (e.g., Barth 1889, pp. 21826;
Brockelmann 190813, vol. 1, pp. 20917, 37174; Blake 1911, pp.
21719), I mention a few recent studies: Talshir 1992; Militarev
and Kogan 2000, vol. 1, cxliicxliii, vol. 2, lxxiiilxxiv; Steiner
2001a; and Lipiski 2001, pp. 18687, 20001, 22122. Brockelmann and Lipiski cite much evidence from modern Semitic
languages for the use of prothetic vowels to break up initial con-
376
Richard C. Steiner
been adduced, adding that it is not impossible that future research in the historical morphology of the bases in
question will reveal such conditions.
An important contribution of Militarev and Kogan (2000, vol. 1, p. cxlii) to the solution of this problem is
their recognition that, in a considerable number of roots, *V- can obviously be traced to the proto-level, so that
bases with and without prefixed *V- are to be reconstructed as alternative Proto-Semitic variants. As we shall
see below, it is not uncommon for individual Semitic languages to have two variants of a single noun, one with
vowel prothesis and one without it.
I would argue that, although the two variants are doublets in some of the Semitic languages, they were not
doublets in Proto-Semitic but rather conditioned allomorphs. More precisely, vowel prothesis originally functioned
as a syllable-repair process63 necessitated by syncope in the initial syllable of a construct form except when
the resulting cluster could be repaired by a vowel at the end of the preceding word.
The original conditioning of vowel prothesis has not survived unchanged in any of the Semitic languages; however, various traces of it can be occasionally be discerned, as we shall see in the following Proto-Semitic examples:

(9) finger: *ibaum (absolute) ~ *(i)bau (construct); cf. Militarev and Kogan (2000, vol. 1, pp.
22728, no. 256): *Vb(-at)- and *V-ba-. Reflexes of both forms are widely attested in West
Semitic. It is true that only forms with a prothetic vowel are known from East Semitic (Eblaite
i-ba-um etc.), but adding Egyptian b finger (Coptic tbe) to the picture would seem to compensate for this deficiency by pushing *iba- back to Proto-Egypto-Semitic. I disagree with
the claim of Militarev and Kogan (2000, vol. 1, p. 228) that the underlying protoforms are
presumably *ib(at)-, *a-ib-. It is true that one occasionally finds prothetic vowels in the
Semitic languages even where there is no initial consonant cluster that needs resolving, but,
in my opinion, the assumption that such examples are to be reconstructed for Proto-Semitic
(Militarev and Kogan 2000, vol. 1, p. cxliicxliii) needs to be reexamined.
(10) posterior, buttocks: *itum (absolute) ~ *(i)tu (construct); cf. Militarev and Kogan (2000, vol.
1, p. 22527, no. 255): *Vt- and *i-Vt-. The prothetic vowel of Arabic (i)stu(n) exhibits sandhi
conditioning (see below). The same is true of the Arabic prothetic vowel in the following three
examples:
(11) son: *binum (absolute) ~ *(i)bnu (construct);64 cf. Phoenician bn alongside bn; Arabic (i)bnu(n);
Mandaic bra (pronounced [ebra]), abra, bra (determined) ~ br, bar (construct).65
(12) name: *imum (absolute) ~ *(i)mu (construct); cf. Old Aramaic m alongside m; Mandaic
uma, uma (pronounced [oma], [ema]) alongside uma;66 Tur Abdin im-; Arabic (i)smu(n)
alongside si/u/amu(n).
(13) two (masc.): *ina:m/nv (absolute) ~ *(i)na: (construct); cf. Phoenician nm; Arabic (i)na:(ni).67
The last four examples are important because they enable us to recover another piece of the puzzle, another detail of the conditioning for vowel prothesis in Proto-Semitic. All of them exhibit prothetic vowels in
Arabic in addition to at least one other Semitic language; we even find doublets in examples 11 (Phoenician and
Mandaic) and 12 (Old Aramaic). However, it is only in Arabic that the prothetic vowel (alifu l-wal) is known to
have a sandhi condition, occurring at the beginning of a sentence but not after a word ending in a vowel unless
there is an intervening pause.68 It seems very likely that something like this Arabic sandhi restriction operated in
Proto-Semitic hence the parentheses that I place around the Proto-Semitic prothetic vowel. The Arabic word
for name (example 12) is of particular importance since it exhibits three major variants, reflecting all three of
sonant clusters resulting from syncope. An intriguing example
worth adding here is the Palestinian Arabic toponym Jebel Usdum
Mt. Sodom. The form Usdum < Som presumably goes back to
a time when Palestinian Aramaic allowed words to begin with a
consonant cluster but Palestinian Arabic did not.
63 Cf. the much later use of vowel prothesis as a syllable repair
process in Semitic loanwords from Greek.
64 See also examples 33a and 33b below.
65
See Macuch 1965, pp. 14, 227.

See Drower and Macuch 1963, pp. 45455; Macuch 1965, p. 21.
67 See also examples 34a and 34b below.
68 After words ending in a consonant, a linking vowel is inserted.
For the details, see Wright 1967, vol. 1, pp. 1924.
66
the reconstructed Proto-Semitic variants (albeit with some distributional changes): simu(n) < *imum (absolute);
ismu(n) < *imu (construct, post-pausal/consonantal); and smu(n) < *mu (construct, post-vocalic). If prothetic
vowels did not exhibit this sandhi condition in most of the daughter languages,69 we must attribute that fact to
the law of diminishing conditioning.
Evidence for this reconstruction can be adduced from the history of prothesis in Late Latin (Sampson 2010,
pp. 7273):
[W]e can see I-prosthesis as a development which arose in Latin for syllabic reasons . [I]t seems likely that
I-prosthesis was carried through in a two stage process; first, these sequences were modified in contexts
where they were anomalously tautosyllabic, i.e. post-consonantally and post-pausally, and subsequently
the restructuring could be generalized to post-vocalic contexts (where the sequences were already heterosyllabic).
Vestiges of the original conditioning (or something close to it) survive in modern Romance. In the Gascon dialect
of Bagnres-de-Luchon, the word for thorn, derived from Latin spina, is espy after a pause or a word ending in
a consonant but spy after a word ending in a vowel (Sampson 2010, p. 66). In addition, other Romance varieties have continued to operate with a sandhi-style prosthesis which typically inserts the prosthetic vowel in just
post-consonantal contexts only, e.g. in Piedmontese varieties and, in a more marginal way, standard Italian
(ibid., p. 66).
In most Romance varieties, as in most of the Semitic languages, prothetic vowels do not exhibit this sandhi
condition. Janda and Joseph (2003, p. 209) have cited this fact as evidence for non-phonetic generalization (= the
law of diminishing conditioning):
in origin, this development was not a word-boundary phenomenon; rather, it was sensitive to sentencelevel sandhi conditioning, referred to in German under the rubric of Satzphonetik. That is, originally the
prothesis was just for initial sC- after a consonant /C#_sC but not after a vowel. This distribution
is still preserved in (prescriptive) standard Italian, where one finds in iscuola in school, with prothesis, but
la scuola the school, with no prothesis. Thus, it seems that this innovation was, at the outset, a syllablestructure-based development repairing the per se unsyllabifiable sequence C#sC (but not V#sC, which
required no adjustment). The extension of prothesis to any word-initial sC- cluster, regardless of the preceding sound, must be a later (non-phonetic, non-syllable-structure-driven) generalization.
Three additional Proto-Semitic examples are worthy of consideration:

(14) arm: *ira:um (absolute) ~ *(i)ra:u (construct); cf. Militarev and Kogan (2000, vol. 1, p. 62,
no. 65): *Vra:-. Doublets are attested in two Northwest Semitic languages: z ra/zra in
Biblical Hebrew and d r/dr in Biblical Aramaic. Indeed, one could argue that Hebrew
has a reflex of *ra:u as well, in u-zra and the arm of (Isa 53:1).70 The examples of vowel
prothesis considered above go back to Proto-Semitic, and there is no reason to assume that
this example is any different.
(15) armpit: *aa:tum (absolute) ~ *(i)a:tu (construct); cf. Militarev and Kogan (2000, vol 1,
p. 212, no. 240): *aw/y-at- and Kogan (2011, p. 217, 6.1.11): *a(a)y(-at)-. The form with
prothesis is attested only in Eblaite: i-a-tum flank (Conti 1990, p. 159, no. 569). Thus, there
is no certainty that it existed in Proto-Semitic. Nevertheless, it is worth citing because Eblaite
i-a-tum interchanges with sa-a-tum flank in copies of the bilingual lexical list (loc. cit.).
Unless this variation is purely orthographic, it shows the correlation between prothesis and
syncope.
69 I say if because there is no way of being certain that this is

the case. The Arabic sandhi condition is, to a large extent, disguised by morphophonemic spelling in unvocalized texts; the
prothetic vowel is usually represented by alif even when elided.

Hence, we cannot totally rule out the possibility that Old Aramaic
m (alongside m) and Hebrew zra (alongside zra) exhibited
a similar sandhi condition.
70 See the discussion of example 36 below.
378
Richard C. Steiner
(16) thumb, big toe: *baha:num (absolute) ~ *(i)bha:nu (construct); cf. Militarev and Kogan (2000,
vol. 1, p. 33, no. 34): *bVh/n-, *V-bhn-. Both forms are attested in East Semitic and West
Semitic. The form without prothesis survives in Eblaite and Hebrew (plur. b honow), while
the form with prothesis survives in Arabic ibha:mun and probably in Akkadian uba:nu finger,
toe. Arabic ibha:mun has several biforms. In addition to bahi:mun, there was a form biha:mun,
which al-Azhar (895981 c.e.) considered unacceptable (Lane 18631877, p. 269, col. b s.v.
ibha:mun). It is possible, although far from certain, that this substandard form goes back to
*baha:num. If so, Arabic once again preserves variants with and without a prothetic vowel,71
although in this case we are not dealing with alifu l-wal.
In short, prothetic vowels were used in Proto-Semitic to break up initial consonant clusters resulting from syncope in the construct state. Their connection with the construct state, which has not previously been recognized,
may help to explain the fact that animal names with prefixed V- which is clearly detectable as early as in PS are
less in number in comparison to the anatomic terms, among which this element was certainly rather widespread
already in the proto-language (Militarev and Kogan 2000, vol. 2, p. lxxiii). This distribution follows naturally
from the fact that names of body parts occur far more often in the construct state than do names of animals.
Another form worth mentioning in this connection, even though it is not a noun, is the negator al, widely
attested in West Semitic. A century ago, Blake (1911, pp. 21718) suggested that it too exhibits prothesis.72 Blake
noted that Biblical Hebrew/Aramaic, lo/l is regularly authotonic, whereas al is proclitic, as is indicated by the
Maqqeph which joins it to the following word (ibid., p. 217). Similarly, in Ethiopic we find it only in the quasiadverb alb there is not, has not and in the negative akk, in both cases without accent (ibid., p. 218). Blake
concludes that proclitic al may have been developed from the authotonic l as follows. With loss of accent the
vowel was shortened and finally disappeared, leaving only l, probably pronounced as ; this vocalic l developed
a prothetic vowel (ibid., p. 218).
Blakes characterization of the Tiberian Masorah is reasonably accurate. A search with the Haketer program
turns up 733 occurrences of (w -)al of which 726 are followed by maq:e; 4,834 occurrences of (w -)lo of which
2,061 are followed by maq:e; and 78 occurrences of (w -)l of which 25 are followed by maq:e. The difference
between al (99 percent proclitic) and lo/l (43 percent/32 percent proclitic) is striking. It is therefore reasonable
to assume that the stress contrast between lo as:i y guwl (Deut 19:14) and al-tas:e guwl (Prov 22:28) is original.
But how did it arise? I suggest that prothesis may have arisen in cases where the negator la:/la had a proclitic
allomorph la- (with a short vowel)73 that underwent syncope when attached to a word that was itself proclitic.74
Is al comparable to b- in in Phoenician-Punic and Postbiblical Hebrew, to b- in in Tigre and ab- in
in Tigrinya, and to ab in and al to in the modern Samaritan Hebrew reading tradition (Lipiski 2001, p. 470;
Steiner 2001a, p. 102)? Blakes discussion of prothesis is limited to cases involving resonants that became syllabic.
However, examples 9 and 10 above seem to show that the presence of an initial resonant was not a necessary
condition for prothesis.
7. Syncope Following Syllable-initial Semivowels

Another syllable-repair process, syllabicization of semivowels, is illustrated by the following examples:

71
(17) hand: *yadum (absolute) ~ *idu (construct); cf. Militarev and Kogan (2000, vol. 1, pp. 26263
no. 291): *yad- and *id-. Forms that could reflect *i or *i: instead of *ya are attested in Geez
Cf. si/u/amun alongside (i)smun in example 12 above.

I am indebted to the editors for reminding me of this article;
I had internalized the suggestion when I read this article as a
graduate student and subsequently forgotten the source. They
also called my attention to Lipiski 2001, p. 464.
73 Cf. CAD la versus AHw l.
72
74
Since al normally precedes the jussive in Hebrew (e.g., altas:e in the preceding example), one might suggest that transitive jussives were originally proclitic (e.g., *al-tas:e-guwl). And
since the jussive stands in for the imperative following al, one
could support this suggestion by pointing to the prothetic vowel
of the Arabic G-stem imperative, which hints that (transitive)
imperatives were proclitic.
(d), Modern South Arabian (Jibbali d, Soqotri ed) and Aramaic.75 To the copious evidence
that Militarev and Kogan cite from Late and Modern Aramaic, I would add the form eytyh.m
= ydyh her hands in pAmherst 63 (IX/18), alongside many examples without the initial
e = (Steiner and Mosak Moshavi 1995, p. 1257). 76 The construct form idu makes excellent
phonetic sense: when the initial consonant was a semivowel, no prothetic vowel would have
been needed to repair an impermissible cluster resulting from syncope. When semivowels
are neither preceded nor followed by a vowel, they undergo syllabicization and function as
vowels themselves.

(18) kidney: *kvlyatum (absolute) ~ *kvlitu (construct); cf. Militarev and Kogan (2000, vol. 1, p. 141,
no. 156): *kwaly-at-. Forms that could reflect *i or *i: instead of *ya are attested in Akkadian
(kali:tu), Syriac (ko(:)li:ta:), and Geez (kwlit). Moreover, in Syriac we find an alternation between *i and *y in this word: ko(:)li:ta: (singular) ~ kolya:ta: (plural).
(19) afterbirth, fetal membrane: *vlyatum (absolute) ~ *vlitu (construct); cf. Militarev and Kogan
(2000, vol. 1, pp. 21617, no. 246): *a/ily-at-. Forms that could reflect *i or *i: instead of *ya
are attested in Akkadian (sili:tu, eli:tu, ali:tu) and Syriac (li:ta:). Syriac has an alternation
between *i and *y in this word: li:ta: (singular) ~ elya:ta: (plural).
(20) gazelle: *. abyatum (absolute) ~ *. abitu (construct); cf. Militarev and Kogan (2000, vol. 2, pp.
31012, no. 242): *. aby(-at)-. Forms that could reflect *i or *i: instead of *ya are attested in
Akkadian (abi:tu) and Aramaic (Syriac bi:ta: and the New Testament name ()). Syriac
has an alternation between *i and *y in this word, as well: bi:ta: (singular) ~ abya:ta: (plural).
(21) female captives (collective): *vbyatum (absolute) ~ *vbitu (construct). Reflexes of this word
(and/or its masculine counterpart) are widely distributed in West Semitic (Hebrew, Aramaic,
Arabic, Epigraphic South Arabian) but are not attested in East Semitic. Thus, there is no
certainty that it existed in Proto-Semitic. Nevertheless, it is worth citing because Hebrew
preserves both forms as doublets, both with the meaning female captives: iyh and i y.
They interchange in virtually identical contexts in Num 21:29 and Jer 48:46.
(22) town: *aryatum (absolute) ~ *aritu (construct). Reflexes of these forms are attested in West
Semitic (Ugaritic, Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic)77 but not in East Semitic. Thus, there is no certainty that it existed in Proto-Semitic. Nevertheless, it is worth citing because forms that
could reflect *i or *i: instead of *ya are attested not only in Syriac (ri:ta:) but also in Ugaritic
(*a-ri-t[u]).78 Syriac has an alternation between *i and *y in this word too: urya: (singular
absolute) ~ ri:ta: (singular determined).79
The last five examples belong to the class of feminine segolates (e.g., *kalbatum bitch). Nouns of this class
normally did not permit the vowel of the feminine ending to undergo syncope (in the construct state), since
that would have yielded a form that could not be divided into acceptable syllables (e.g., **kalbtu). In these five
75 One is tempted to add Akkadian idu; however, Sargonic Akkadian forms like i-dam hand and i-da-su his hands are now
understood to represent /yidam/ and /yidsu/ (Hasselbach 2005,
pp. 8687, 271; Militarev and Kogan 2000, vol. 2, p. 344). (For
Eblaite i-da, understood to represent /yiday(n)/, see Conti 1990,
p. 172 no. 626). Even so, the fact that i-ti from represents /it:i/
(Hasselbach 2005, p. 272) seems to show that we cannot completely rule out /idam/ and /idsu/.
76 That Demotic ey can represent word-initial [i] in this text
is clear from its use in the words eymrm = ymr a lamb (VII/8)
and eynt . / y = ynt(y) / y my wife (XVI/7), where it represents
word-initial [i] or [e].
77 It has often been noted that this noun has a variant art in
West Semitic. Huehnergard (1987, p. 286 n. 86) describes this
variant (attested in Targumic Aramaic, poetic Biblical Hebrew,

and Phoenician) as a biform based on a biradical root. It is
also possible that the triradical root -r-y (meaning cover with a
roof in Hebrew) had a metathesized biform -y-r, which survives
in Moabite r city and perhaps also in Hebrew i yr wall. The
Moabite meaning of i yr-Mowb (Isa 15:1) is recognized by Targum Jonathan (city of Moab). For the connection between the
meanings city and wall, cf. Greek , which has the meaning walled city in addition to the meaning wall. The feminine
of i:r city would be irt, with shortening of the long vowel.
78 Huehnergard (1987, p. 286 n. 86) derives the latter from a
*ariy-tu, but, as he himself notes, this form deviates from all
of these [other Semitic forms of the word for town].
79 See Sokoloff 2009, p. 1410, col. a bottom.
380
Richard C. Steiner
examples, however, it appears that syncope was allowed thanks to a syllable repair process that made y syllabic:
*CvCyatu > *CvCytu > CvCitu.
For another example of a semivowel becoming syllabic in Proto-Semitic, see example 36 in 10.
8. Syncope Following Long Consonants

Proto-Semitic *anatum woman, wife and *idatum six also belonged to the class of feminine segolates;
hence, they did not have syncopated construct forms. However, it appears that these absolute forms had assimilated variants already in Proto-Semitic, variants that did have syncopated construct forms:

(23) woman, wife: *anatum / *a:atum (absolute) ~ **a:tu > *atu (construct). The alternation
survives in Hebrew and Akkadian: i:h (absolute) ~ (construct); a:atum (reflex of absolute) ~ ati (construct). Note also nt:a women in some of the Gurage languages (Masqan,
Gogot, and Soddo) versus ta women in others (aha, Ea, and Gyeto) (Leslau 1979, vol. 2, pp.
68485, vol. 3, p. 102).80 Should the distribution of these Gurage forms be viewed as another
case of dialectal differentiation following analogical leveling, as in example 8 above?
(24) six: *idatum / *i:atum (absolute) ~ **i:tu > *itu (construct). The alternation survives in
Hebrew: i:h (absolute) ~ (construct).
In each of these forms, assimilation replaced a sequence of two consonants with one long consonant. This made
syncope possible in the feminine ending because Proto-Semitic had a syllable repair process for this case: degemination (loss of consonant length).
The assumption of an assimilated form *a:atum, alongside *anatum, in Proto-Semitic may go against the
grain of some Semitists, who are used to attributing such secondary forms to the daughter languages. However,
as noted above, the principle of cognate anomalies requires that we reconstruct something like *atu for the
construct state, which, in turn, implies the existence of *a:atum in the absolute state. In other words, the agreement between Hebrew i:h (absolute) ~ (construct) and Akkadian a:atum (reflex of absolute) ~ ati (construct) cannot be plausibly explained without positing such protoforms. Moreover, if Proto-Semitic was a natural
language, rather than some sort of artificial construct, there is no reason to assume that it did not have such
forms, at least in rapid speech.81 Last but not least, many of the daughter languages have an n-less form of this
word: Akkadian a:atum, Ugaritic at, Hebrew i:h, Phoenician-Punic t, Lihyanite t, Qatabanian t, Sabaic t
(alongside nt), Tigre ssit. In my view, we have more than enough evidence to reconstruct *a:atum as a biform
or sociolinguistic variant of *anatum in Proto-Semitic. More generally, I would suggest that n-assimilation was
a variable rule in Proto-Semitic.
This approach is not all that different from that of Sanmartn 1995.82 Sanmartn stresses the extreme antiquity
of n-assimilation: The first orthographic witnesses to Semitic testify to a total assimilation of syllable-final preconsonantal /n/; this goes for the Fara and late Presargonic documentation through Ur III down to Old Assyrian
and Old Babylonian scribal practice . Moreover, in the West (Ugarit) too, /n/ was regularly assimilated; possible,
apparent exceptions can be explained on purely orthographic grounds (avoidance of homography in vowelless
orthography) (ibid., p. 458).83 Sanmartn suggests that the n-assimilation rule is conditioned by sociolinguistic
factors: The ubiquitous alternation between /n/-assimilating and /n/-preserving spellings is only one of the
signs of a permanently diglossic society in the ancient Orient, which used both a relatively standardized written
80
These are cognates of anst woman, wife, female in Geez

(Leslau 1987, p. 32). For a chart showing the genealogy of the
Ethiopian Semitic languages, including the six Gurage languages
cited here, see Hetzron 1977, p. 17.
81 Cf. Bolozky (1977, p. 220): Since in fast speech a given string
must be articulated in a shorter time-span than in normal
speech, assimilation of segments to neighboring elements is to be
expected; it makes articulatory transitions easier and smoother,

and possibly also requires less time to articulate.
82 I read this article after writing the preceding paragraph.
83 We may now add that the oldest connected Semitic texts, the
Northwest Semitic serpent spells in the Pyramid Texts, have a
rather clear example of the assimilation of the final n of min
from in PT 286 (Steiner 2011, pp. 52, 5455).
language as well as a spontaneous, informal, vulgar variant (ibid., p. 459). I would add only that, in my view,
n-assimilation was a variable rule even before the invention of writing.
Degemination following assimilation of n seems to be attested as a syllable repair process in Akkadian.
According to Soden (1995, p. 43, 33j): Before a two-consonant cluster in certain -tan- forms of the verb, n is
completely elided, as, e.g., ittapras < *ittanpras , since a sequence of three consonants was not permitted. There
is no need to assume that the n was immediately elided; it seems more likely that this was a two-step process:
assimilation followed by degemination.
Degemination is also found as a repair process for long consonants that are not the product of assimilation:

(25) daughter-in-law, bride: *kallatum (absolute) ~ *kaltu (construct); cf. Kogan (2011, p. 236, 8.4.3):
*kall-at-. The degeminated form is attested only in Eblaite: gal-tum daughter-in-law (Conti
1990, p. 118, no. 322). Thus, there is no certainty that it existed in Proto-Semitic. Nevertheless,
it is worth citing because Eblaite gal-tum interchanges with gal-la-du and gal-la-tum in copies
of the bilingual lexical list (loc. cit.). Unless this variation is purely orthographic, it shows
the correlation between degemination and syncope. Is gal-tum a construct form, comparable
Akkadian ati? There is no evidence that it is, but the possibility cannot excluded.84
(26) ending for feminine singular relational adjectives: *-iy:atum (absolute) ~ **-iy:tu > *-iytu > *-i:tu
(construct); cf. the Hebrew doublets moiy:h ~ mo y Moabitess.
This syllable-repair process can perhaps also be seen in a more common Hebrew alternation between the absolute and construct states: zik:rown ~ zirown, ib:rown ~ irown, iz:yown ~ zyown, hig:yown ~ hgyown, kil:yown
~ kilyown, ni:yown ~ niyown, and so on. Now, the Hebrew pattern CiC:Cown < *CaC:aCo:n 85 is generally believed to
postdate Proto-Semitic (Barth 1889, pp. 32426; Bauer and Leander 1922, p. 498).Be that as it may, this alternation
is important because it clearly demonstrates the connection between the construct state and degemination as a
repair process for syncope.86 My claim is that the use of this repair process for syncope in the construct state is
inherited from Proto-Semitic, even if these specific examples of it are not.
9. Syncope Following Long Vowels

Vowel shortening is a syllable-repair process that has much in common with degemination. It can be seen in
the following example:

(27) shame: *bu:atum (absolute) ~ **bu:tu > *butu (construct); cf. the Hebrew doublets buwh/
b.
Unfortunately, this example does not provide conclusive proof that vowel shortening took place already in ProtoSemitic, since the length of the stem vowel in Akkadian bu(:)tum shame is uncertain, 87 part of a larger, unresolved controversy (Edzard 1986, p. 361; Knudsen 1986, cols. 72831). In theory, then, vowel shortening as a
syllable-repair process in closed syllables could be a Proto-West-Semitic innovation. However, vowel shortening
is a special case of loss of length, which can be reconstructed as a syllable repair process in at least one ProtoSemitic construct form (**a:tu > *atu wife of ).88 It seems likely, therefore, that Huehnergard (2006, p. 10) is
right in claiming that vowel shortening in closed syllables goes back to Proto-Semitic.89
84 The mimation is no obstacle, since construct forms are sometimes written with (apparently purely orthographic) mimation
in the Eblaite bilingual lexical list; see the examples given by
Krebernik (1996, p. 235 n. 1) and add /kari budim/ the articulation of the shoulder, which appears as both ga-za-rm b-tum and
gi-zi-r b-tim (Conti 1990, p. 153 no. 544). According to Krebernik
(1996, p. 235), this is logographic spelling, possibly characteristic of dictionary style.
85 For this pattern, its appearance in transcriptions (
deposit, pledge; , Am-qar-ru-na, Am-qar-u-na, Egyptian
ngrn Ekron), and its alternation with CiCCown, see Hurvitz 1968
69, supplemented by Koehler, Baumgartner, et al. 19942000 s.v.

rown, and by Masson 1967, pp. 3031.
86 Cf. the use of degemination as a (diachronic) repair process
for apocope (loss of case endings) in Hebrew and other Semitic
languages.
87 It is normalized with a short vowel in CAD and a long one in
AHw.
88 See 4 and 8.
89 Cf. the literature cited in Greenstein 1984, pp. 4243, and add
now Steiner 1996, p. 259 n. 10.
382
Richard C. Steiner
In any event, it is clear that Proto-Semitic allowed syncope in the feminine ending following a long vowel.
Was the same true in the stem? According to Fox (2003, p. 237), *a:tilum, the active participle of the G-stem, is
CvC. If so, our question reduces to the questhe only reconstructible pattern with the syllabic structure *Cv
tion of whether *a:tilum had a construct form *atlu (with vowel shortening), identical to the construct form of
*atilum. We should not be overly optimistic about the possibility of reconstructing such a form, even if it existed,
since it would have been highly vulnerable to analogy. I can think of only one or two segolate nouns in Hebrew
that could possibly be viewed as relics of such a form. One of them is hl traveler in 2 Sam 12:4, although this
form would seem to be derived from *hilk.90 Another is r upper millstone, attested in Deut 24:6, Jud 9:53, 2
Sam 11:21, and in a Northwest Semitic text in Egyptian hieratic script from around the early eleventh century
b.c.e. (Shisha-Halevy 1978, pp. 146, 15758).91 The etymological meaning of this is rider, referring to one stone
mounted on another. This is a meaning for which the participle would be appropriate, and, indeed, Onelos uses
the Aramaic participle ra:a: to render r at Deut 24:6.92 Other possible relics of a Proto-Semitic *rakbu rider
may be cited from Akkadian,93 Arabic,94 and Hebrew.95 Thus, a Proto-Semitic alternation *rkibum (absolute) ~
*rakbu (construct) is not out of the question.
10. Syncope in Nouns with Two Elidable Vowels

How did the Proto-Semitic syncope rule treat nouns with more than one short open-syllabic vowel? In example
7 above (*aaratum ~ *aartu ten), the last non-final short open-syllabic vowel is deleted, but is that always the
case? It is obvious that no definitive answer can be given, but the daughter languages do provide some tantalizing
hints. For such nouns, one occasionally finds several different construct forms or several different syncopated
forms surviving in a single language as doublets or dialectal variants. In such cases, I would tentatively reconstruct
several Proto-Semitic construct forms:

(28) holy (fem.): *adiatum (absolute) ~ *aditu/*adatu (construct); cf. Akkadian aditum/
a:atum.96
(29) queen: *malikatum (absolute) ~ *malkatu/*maliktu (construct); cf. Hebrew malka/m l.97
(30) man (of high status)?: *marvum (absolute) ~ *maru/*(i)mrvu (construct); cf. Arabic maru(n)/
(i)mra/uu(n).98
(31) heavy: *kabidum (absolute) ~ *kabdu/*(i)kbidu (construct); cf. Hebrew ke (absolute) ~ k/

k a (construct poetry/prose).
90
The expected form is *halk, but cf. gzl (the construct of gzel)
and Arabic forms like kibdu < kabidu as discussed by Rabin (1951,
p. 97).
91 In this text, we find the phrase kbu-rkbu. Although the context
of the latter is obscure, kb and rkb also occur together in mBaba
Batra 2:1 as the words for the lower and upper millstones. The
Bibles failure to mention the kb together with the rkb is easily
explained on the assumption that the former was fixed to the
ground; unlike the rkb, it could not be taken in pawn (Deut 24:6)
or dropped on a besiegers head (Jud 9:53; 2 Sam 11:21).
92 As for the Peshita, there are two traditions: rakba: and ra:kba:
(Sokoloff 2009, p. 1467, col. b).
93 See Soden 196581, p. 947, col. b s.v. rakbu(m): Meldereiter?
(auch Fahrer?? ).
94 See the discussion of the mass noun rakbun riders (on horses
and/or camels) in Lane 18631877, p. 1144, cols. bc s.v. ra:kibun.
95 See Brown, Driver, and Briggs 1907, p. 939 s.v. r mng. 4.
96 The latter form is a dialectal variant, known only from Mari
(Greenstein 1984, p. 53).
97 Hebrew m l queen occurs only in the phrase meaning

Queen of Heaven (five times in Jeremiah), where it is ordinarily
emended to malka (McKane 19861996, vol. 1, p. 170; Holladay
1986, p. 251; Lundbom 1999, p. 476). The emendation is shown to
be unnecessary by comparative Semitic evidence. Hebrew ml
corresponds perfectly to the form maliktum queen in Eblaite and
the pre-Sargonic native language of Mari (Gelb 1992, p. 148). It is
also close to Arabic malikatun and to Akkadian malikatu, attested
as a variant of Ishtars title malkatu (CAD s.v. malkatu B). The Akkadian title of Ishtar is particularly important here because the
Queen of Heaven in Jeremiah is believed to be Ishtar and because two verses (7:18 and 44:19) refer to cakes made for her
using an appropriate Akkadian loanword (kaw:ni ym < Akkadian
kamnu) that is unattested elsewhere in Hebrew (Holladay 1986,
pp. 25455; Lundbom 1999, pp. 47677). It is therefore possible
that the non-standard form m l < *maliktu is used deliberately, together with the Akkadian loanword, to evoke the foreign
goddess.
98 For the various vocalizations of the Arabic, see Lane 18631877,
pp. 270203.
(32) uncircumcised: *arilum (absolute) ~ *arlu/*(i)rilu (construct); cf. Hebrew rel (absolute) ~
rl/ral (construct poetry/prose).99
(33a) daughter: *binatum (absolute) ~ *bintu/*(i)bnatu (construct); cf. Arabic bintu(n)/(i)bnatu(n), not
to mention Phoenician bn/bn, cited in example 11 above.
(34a) two (fem.): *inata:m/nv (absolute) ~ *inta:/*(i)nata: (construct); cf. Arabic inta:(ni)/(i)nata:(ni)
not to mention Phoenician nm, cited in example 13 above.
In most of these cases, the deletion of one vowel would have sufficed to block the rule from deleting the other,
since deletion of both would have created a sequence of three consonants. However, in the last two examples,
there seems to have been a third construct form with both vowels deleted. I would conjecture that, in these cases,
syllabicization made it possible for both elidable vowels to undergo syncope in the same construct form:

(33b) daughter: *binatum (absolute) ~ *(i)bn tu (construct). In one dialect (or immediate descendant)
of Proto-Semitic, the alternation turns into *binatum (absolute) ~ *(i)br tu (construct). This
later alternation is partially preserved in Mehri: bri:t (absolute) ~ brt (construct).100
(34b) two (fem.): *inata:m/nv (absolute) ~ *(i)n ta: (construct). In one dialect (or immediate descendant) of Proto-Semitic, *(i)n ta: > *(i)r ta:, perhaps as a means of blocking assimilation to
**(i)t:a:; in another dialect (or immediate descendant) of Proto-Semitic, *(i)n ta: > **(i)t:a: >
*(i)ta:.
The reconstruction given in examples 33b and 34b corrects the conjecture I made in Steiner 1982, p. 195:
It is striking that MSA and Aramaic, against all of the other Semitic languages, have an r in the words for
son, daughter, and two, and when the alternation with n101 is taken into account, the similarity becomes
astounding. No wonder Christian (1944) was convinced that MSA and Aramaic are closely related! Scholars
who reject this view, and that includes just about everyone, must project this alternation back into Proto(West-)Semitic.
It is worth noting that the two morphemes involved here have something else in common: their Arabic
forms, ibn(at)un and in(at)ni, have a base consisting of two consonants WITH NO VOWEL IN BETWEEN. A
similar form must be reconstructed as the ancestor of the much-discussed Hebrew tayim two (f.). The latter
can hardly be the reflex of *intaym since vowels in closed syllables are immune to deletion in Hebrew. It
is more reasonable to posit an original *n taym or *in taym, with a syllabic n , which yielded *(i)ttayim and
then *(i)tayim. If so, it is conceivable that r alternated with n in Proto-(West-)Semitic in positions where a
syllabic consonant was called for, e.g., n taym ~ r taym, bn tum ~ br tum .102
When I made this conjecture, it did not occur to me to restrict it to the construct state, let alone to suggest that
all of the processes posited in my presentation of it syllabicization, degemination, and prothesis were employed regularly in Proto-Semitic construct forms as syllable repair processes. The relevance of prothesis here
is clear; in addition to the Arabic and Phoenician evidence, we have more than ample testimony from Masoretic
treatises and medieval grammars (as well as hints from the Masoretic accents) that the word for two (fem.) was
read with a prothetic vowel: i/tayim ~ i/te y (Neuman 2009, pp. 29093).
In short, I now suggest that i/tayim ~ i/te y be derived as follows: Pre-Proto-Semitic *inatay (accusativegenitive construct) > Proto-Semitic *(i)n tay > **(i)t:ay > *(i)tay > Hebrew i/te y two of. The n must have become
syllabic as the result of a syllable-repair process when the two vowels that flanked it were elided in the construct
99
The absence of prothetic vowels for k a and ral does not

preclude a derivation from *(i)kbidu and *(i)rilu. Hebrew developed a new syllable repair process, shewa-epenthesis, that superseded prothesis except with consonant clusters that resisted
epenthesis, e.g., t.
100 See the end of 5 above.
101 Both languages have an n in the words for sons, daughters,
and second.
102
For a subsequent discussion of this alternation with a somewhat similar conclusion, see Testen 1985, p. 145: Proto-Semitic
*n becomes r when it is the second element of an initial consonant cluster - #Cn->#Cr-. (Coincidentally, Dr. Testen took my
course, Introduction to Comparative Semitics, at the University
of Chicago in the spring of 1981, when I was working on the problem; I am sure that neither of us can recall whether I discussed
it in class.)
384
Richard C. Steiner
state. When syllabic n assimilated to the t of the feminine ending in a dialect (or immediate descendant) of ProtoSemitic, an additional syllable-repair process would have been triggered: degemination. That explains why the t of
i/tey is not geminated in Hebrew. This suggestion also explains why the ungeminated t is not spirantized; Hebrew
spirantization is a partial assimilation to an immediately preceding vowel, but, according to my reconstruction,
there was no vowel immediately preceding t in this form at any point in its development after Pre-Proto-Semitic.
It also explains the contrast between mah-:ne y what are the two (masc.) (Zech 4:11) and mah-te y what are the
two (fem.) (Zech 4:12). Only the feminine form blocks the secondary gemination normally found in the consonant
following mah- (in this case, ), because only the feminine form never had a vowel following that consonant. The
same goes for the even more striking absence of gemination in mite ym-reh more than twelve (fem.) (Jon 4:11;
contrast Jud 16:28, where analogy eliminated the anomaly).
As for the replacement of n by r, I now believe that it was originally restricted to two feminine construct
forms (two of, daughter of ), spreading by analogy to masculine and absolute forms only later, in Aramaic103
and Modern South Arabian. It was only in the feminine construct that these two biconsonantal lexemes were in
danger of losing their second consonant to assimilation. The replacement of n by r, a consonant that does not
undergo total assimilation, eliminated this danger.
In the preceding two examples, I conjectured that two vowels that flanked a nasal were deleted in the same
construct form. There may be a third Proto-Semitic example of this very specific scenario:

(35) tear(drop)s: *dimaa:tum (absolute) ~ *(i)dm a:tu (construct). Militarev and Kogan (2000, vol.
1, p. 49 no. 51) correctly reconstruct the singular as *dim(-at)-, with no prothetic vowel.
As explained above, segolate nouns have a syllable structure that blocks syncope in the construct state of the
singular (in both the stem and the feminine ending). Segolate plurals, however, are a different story; as already
noted, they have a vocalic infix, -a-, inserted between the second and third consonants of the stem. This (short)
vowel is open-syllabic, and it makes the preceding (short) vowel open-syllabic, as well; it appears that both vowels
were elided in our construct form. The plural form with prothesis survives in both East Semitic (Eblaite -ti-maa-tum) and West Semitic (Ugaritic udmt). In Soqotri edma tear(drop) (Leslau 1938, p. 130), the prothesis has
spread to the singular.104 The Eblaite spelling may reflect syllabicization as well as prothesis; -ti-ma-a-tum (Conti
1990, p. 183 no. 716) seems to make better sense as a spelling of [idm a:tu] than as a spelling of [idmaa:tu]. The
plural form without prothesis survives in both East Semitic (Akkadian di:ma:tum) and West Semitic (Syriac deme:).
The Ugaritic alternation dm [dimu] tear ~ udmt [udmaa:tu] tears is very significant; it appears to be another
vestige of the link between Proto-Semitic vowel prothesis and syncope.105
I conclude with another possible case of double syncope made possible by syllabicization:

(36) and two: *wa-ina:m/nv/*wa-inaym/nv (absolute nominative/oblique) ~ *u-na:/*u-nay (construct nominative/oblique); cf. Akkadian u-e/ina and Hebrew u-ney.
The syllabicization of w- allows the Proto-Semitic construct form of the word for two to dispense with its
prothetic vowel.106 This reconstruction explains one of the anomalies of Hebrew morphophonemics, namely,
the form adopted by the conjunction *wa- when it is attached to a word whose first vowel has been reduced to
shewa. Analogy would predict that the reflex of *wa- in that environment would be wi- (like li- for *la- and ki- for
*ka-), and that is indeed what we find in the Babylonian reading tradition (Yeivin 1985, p. 1152). In the Tiberian
tradition, however, we find u- (with a short vowel) for *wa-.107 This reflex of *wa- is anomalous in another way as
103
For a full presentation of the Aramaic data, see Fassberg 2008.

Do the Ethiopian Semitic nouns meaning tear (Geez anb,
Tigre mb, nb, Tigrinya nbat, Amharic, Gurage and Argobba
mba, Gafat mbw, and Harari bi) belong here as well? Leslau
(1987, p. 382) connects them with Arabic nabaa gush forth, flow,
etc., but their similarity to the Soqotri form makes one wonder
whether -nb- could be derived from *-dm- by metathesis of
nasalization. In that case, the related verbs in Geez, Tigre, and
Tigrinya meaning shed tears, weep would have to be taken as
denominatives, comparable to Arabic damaa shed tears, flow,
Mehri ado:ma to weep, (of tears) to drip from the eyes (John104
stone 1987, pp. 71 [misprinted], 618), etc. If Leslaus list of nouns

and verbs is complete, the verb forms are geographically restricted, suggesting that they are younger than the noun forms.
105 For other examples of vowel prothesis connected with syncope in Ugaritic, see Huehnergard 1987, p. 285.
106 See example 13 above.
107 For syllabic w in Hebrew, see Steiner 1997, p. 148. The spelling of the conjunction u- with waw is morphophonemic; there is
no mater lectionis, and no reason to consider this long (except
secondarily, in cases like
). Malone (1993, pp. 14244) has
demonstrated that in medieval Sephardic poetry, the conjunc-
well: it is the only example of a word-initial vowel that is clearly reflected in the biblical vocalization. Like many
synchronic anomalies, this one has a simple diachronic explanation. We need only assume that we are dealing
with a fossil, another relic of the Proto-Semitic syncope rule. Note that the phonetic conditioning governing the
use of the u- allomorph of the conjunction has remained more or less unchanged in Hebrew.108 Nevertheless the
allomorph is far more common in Hebrew than it was in Proto-Semitic. In Hebrew, it is common not only with
singular construct forms (e.g., u-o and the glory of and u-a and heavy of ), but also with singular absolute
forms derived from Proto-Semitic construct forms (e.g., u-zra and an arm, also attested with the meaning and
the arm of ) and with plural absolute forms (e.g., u-nhrow and rivers). The increased frequency of the u- allomorph is the product of a change in the conditioning of the syncope/reduction rule. In Akkadian u-, by contrast,
the u- allomorph is no longer phonetically conditioned, being used in all environments. This may well be another
example of the law of diminishing conditioning.
11. Conclusions
Phonetic conditioning tends to be diminished over time by analogy, through the loss of conditions or the
loss of conditioned allomorphs. This law of diminishing conditioning makes it possible to reconstruct details
of Proto-Semitic phonology from faint traces that have survived in the daughter languages. It enables us to recover a Proto-Semitic vowel syncope rule, together with the syllable-repair processes that allowed it to operate
unhindered in unexpected environments.
The syncope rule of Proto-Semitic affected construct forms of nouns and adjectives, because they were unstressed (morphosyntactically proclitic). It deleted at least one short open-syllabic vowel in each construct form
as long as the deletion did not create syllables containing an impermissible cluster, namely, two consonants (CC)
or a long consonant (C:) or a consonant preceded by length (:C). These syllable constraints did not interfere with
the syncope rule as much as one might imagine, thanks to four Proto-Semitic syllable repair processes: (1) prothesis, (2) loss of length in/after consonants (degemination), (3) loss of length in/after vowels (vowel shortening),
and (4) syllabicization of semivowels and nasals.
The alternations produced by the syncope rule and the syllable-repair processes were subjected to massive
analogical leveling in the daughter languages. In Classical Arabic, the construct forms were replaced by absolute
forms, the few exceptions being nouns that were typically used in the construct state (e.g., ibn and bint). As a
result, the rule was obliterated, with only a few vestiges surviving. Akkadian and Aramaic preserved the rule
but changed its conditioning. Hebrew is the only Semitic language that has preserved a fair number of syncope
alternations with their original conditioning, both in the stem (e.g., ke ~ k) and in the feminine ending
(e.g., mamlh ~ maml).
Traces of the repair processes are even harder to find. Repair process (1) is best preserved in Arabic (e.g.,
ismu(n) ~ smu(n) / si/u/amu(n)); (4) is best preserved in Syriac (e.g., bi:ta: ~ abya:ta:); and (2) can be glimpsed in
Hebrew (e.g., buwh / b). In some of the daughter languages, new repair processes have replaced the old ones.
Thus, in Hebrew examples of prothesis as a repair process are very rare. Instead, we usually find epenthesis of
mobile shewa (e.g., z ra rather than the rare zra).
tion u- scans as a short vowel. The only exception, he says (ibid.,

p. 145), is immediately preceding a sequence of two consonants
(e.g., ulon), where it scans as long. In my view, this exception is
illusory. It is based on the assumption that meter in Sephardic
poety is based on vowel length, whereas, in fact, it is based on
syllable weight, with all closed syllables (and most open ones as
well!) being heavy. Thus, the form ulon consists of two heavy
syllables. It must have had a short vowel in the first syllable,
because long vowels were not permitted in closed unstressed

syllables in any period of Hebrew, including the medieval period.
For a discussion of the history of vowel length in Hebrew, see
Steiner 1997, p. 149; and Steiner 2001b. For the quiescent shewa
following u-, see Yalon 1963.
108 I am not referring to the use of this allomorph before bilabials, whose dating is unclear.
386
Richard C. Steiner
Abbreviations
AHw
CAD

A. Leo Oppenheim et al., eds. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of Chicago. Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 19562010.
Bibliography
Albright, William Foxwell
1934
The Vocalization of the Egyptian Syllabic Orthography. New Haven: American Oriental Society.
Amadasi, Maria Giulia G., and Vassos Karageorghis
1977
Inscriptions phniciennes. Fouilles de Kition 3. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities, Cyprus.
Barth, J.
1903
1889
C. Brockelmann, Die Femininendung t im Semitischen. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlndischen Gesellschaft 57: 62836.
Die Nominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs.

1922
Historische Grammatik der hebrischen Sprache des Alten Testamentes. 2 volumes. Halle: M. Niemeyer.
Beyer, Klaus
1984
Die aramischen Texte vom Toten Meer. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Blake, Frank R.
1911 Vocalic r, l, m, n in Semitic. Journal of the American Oriental Society 31: 21722.
Blau, Joshua
2010
Phonology and Morphology of Biblical Hebrew. Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 2. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns.
Bolozky, Shmuel
1977
Fast Speech as a Function of Tempo in Natural Generative Phonology. Journal of Linguistics 13: 21738.
Bravmann, M. M.
1977
Studies in Semitic Philology. Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 6. Leiden: Brill.
Brockelmann, Carl
1903
19081913
Die Femininendung T im Semitischen. Sitzung der orientalisch-sprachwissenschaftlichen Sektion der schlesischen Gesellschaft fr vaterlndische Kultur 81: 323.
Grundri der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen. 2 volumes. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard.

1907
A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Conti, Giovanni
1990
Dalley, Stephanie
1995
Delitzsch, Friedrich
1906
Dolgopolsky, A.
1999
Il sillabario della quarta fonte della lista lessicale bilingue eblaita. Miscellanea eblaitica 3, Quaderni di semitistica 17. Florence: Universit di Firenze.
Ancient Mesopotamian Military Organization. In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by J. M.
Sasson, vol. 1, pp. 41322. New York: Scribner.
Assyrische Grammatik. 2nd edition. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard.
From Proto-Semitic to Hebrew: Phonology; Etymological Approach in a Hamito-Semitic Perspective. Studi CamitoSemitici 2. Milan: Centro Studi Camito-Semitici.
Donner, Herbert, and Wolfgang Rllig

197379
Kanaanische und aramische Inschriften. 3 volumes. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Driver, S. R.
1913
Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel. 2nd edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Drower, E. S., and Rudolf Macuch

1963
A Mandaic Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Dunash b. Labrat
1866
Edzard, Dietz Otto
1986
Ewald, Heinrich
1863
Fassberg, Steven E.
2008
Fleisch, Henri
1961
Fox, Joshua
2003
. Edited by R. Schrter. Breslau: Schletter.

Edward Greenstein, The Phonology of Akkadian Syllable Structure. Journal of the American Oriental
Society 106: 35962.
Ausfhrliches Lehrbuch der hebrischen Sprache des Alten Bundes. 7th edition. Gttingen: Dieterich.
The Forms of Son and Daughter in Aramaic. In Aramaic in Its Historical and Linguistic Setting, edited by
Holger Gzella and Margaretha L. Folmer, pp. 4153. Verffentlichungen der Orientalischen Kommission
50. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Trait de philologie arabe. Recherches publies sous la direction de lInstitut de lettres orientales de
Beyrouth 16. Beirut: Imprimerie catholique.
Semitic Noun Patterns. Harvard Semitic Studies 52. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Friedrich, Johannes, and Wolfgang Rllig

Phnizisch-Punische Grammatik. 3rd edition, by M. G. Amadasi Guzzo with W. R. Mayer. Rome: Editrice
1999
Pontificio Istituto Biblico.
Garr, W. Randall
1985
Gelb, Ignace J.
1992
Geller, M. J.
2006
Gordon, Cyrus H.
1965
Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000586 B.C.E. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Mari and the Kish Civilization. In Mari in Retrospect: Fifty Years of Mari and Mari Studies, edited by Gordon
D. Young, pp. 121202. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Philology versus Linguistics and Aramaic Phonology. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies
69: 7990.
Ugaritic Textbook. 3 volumes. Analecta Orientalia 38. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.
1984
The Phonology of Akkadian Syllable Structure. Afroasiatic Linguistics 9: 171.
Hasselbach, Rebecca
2005
Hetzron, Robert
1977
Hoch, James E.
1994
The Gunnn-Gurage Languages. Naples: Istituto orientale di Napoli.

Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Hoenigswald, Henry M.
1960
Language Change and Linguistic Reconstruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1966
Are There Universals of Linguistic Change? In Universals of Language, edited by Joseph H. Greenberg,
pp. 3052. 2nd edition. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.
388
Richard C. Steiner
Hoftijzer, J., and K. Jongeling

1995
Dictionary of the North-west Semitic Inscriptions. 2 volumes. Handbuch der Orientalistik, Erste Abteilung,
Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten 21. Leiden: Brill.
Holladay, William Lee
1986
Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 125. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Huehnergard, John
1987
2004
2006
Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

Afro-Asiatic. In Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Worlds Ancient Languages, edited by Roger D. Woodard,
pp. 13859. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Proto-Semitic and Proto-Akkadian. In The Akkadian Language in Its Semitic Context: Studies in the Akkadian
of the Third and Second Millennium B.C., edited by G. Deutscher and N. J. C. Kouwenberg, pp. 118. Leiden:
Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.
Huehnergard, John, and Christopher Woods

2004
Akkadian and Eblaite. In Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Worlds Ancient Languages, edited by Roger D.
Woodard, pp. 21887. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hurvitz, A.
19681969
: = Amqar(r)una =
. Leonenu 33: 1824.
Janda, Richard D., and Brian D. Joseph

2003
Reconsidering the Canons of Sound-change: Towards a Big Bang Theory. In Historical Linguistics 2001
(Selected Papers from the 15th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Melbourne, 1317
August 2001), edited by Barry J. Blake and Kate Burridge, pp. 20519. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Janssens, G.
1975/1976
Johnstone, T. M.
1987
Kaufman, S. A.
1983
imi, David
1847
Knudsen, E. E.
1986
The Feminine Ending -(a)t in Semitic. Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 6/7: 27784.
Mehri Lexicon and EnglishMehri Word-list. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of
London.
The History of Aramaic Vowel Reduction. In Arameans, Aramaic and the Aramaic Literary Tradition, edited
by Michael Sokoloff, pp. 4755. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press.
. Berlin: G. Bethge.
Edward L. Greenstein, The Phonology of Akkadian Syllable Structure. Bibliotheca Orientalis 43: 72332.
Koehler, Ludwig; Walter Baumgartner; et al.

19942000
The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. 5 volumes. Leiden: Brill.
Kogan, Leonid
2011
Krebernik, Manfred
1996
Lagarde, Paul de
188991
Proto-Semitic Lexicon. In The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook, edited by Stephan Weninger,
Geoffrey Khan, Michael P. Streck, and Janet C. E. Watson. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
The Linguistic Classification of Eblaite: Methods, Problems, and Results. In The Study of the Ancient
Near East in the Twenty-first Century: The William Foxwell Albright Centennial Conference, edited by Jerrold S.
Cooper and Glenn M. Schwartz, pp. 23349. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
bersicht ber die im Aramischen, Arabischen und Hebrischen bliche Bildung der Nomina. Gttingen: Dieterich.
Lane, E. W.
186377
ArabicEnglish Lexicon. London: Williams and Norgate.
Leslau, Wolf
1938
1979
1987
Lexique Soqori. Paris: C. Klincksieck.

Etymological Dictionary of Gurage (Ethiopic). 3 volumes. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Comparative Dictionary of Geez (Classical Ethiopic). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Lipiski, Edward
2001
Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. 2nd edition. Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 80.
Leuven: Peeters.
Lundbom, Jack R.
1999
Jeremiah 120: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York: Doubleday.
Macuch, Rudolf
1965
Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Malone, Joseph L.
1993
Tiberian Hebrew Phonology. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Masson, milia
1967
Recherches sur les plus anciens emprunts smitiques en grec. Paris: C. Klincksieck.
McKane, William
19861996
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah. 2 volumes. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark.
Militarev, Alexander, and Leonid Kogan

2000
Semitic Etymological Dictionary. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 278. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Muraoka, Takamitsu, and Bezalel Porten
1998
A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic. Handbuch der Orientalistik. Erste Abteilung, Nahe und Mittlere Osten
32. Leiden: Brill.
Murtonen, A.
19861990
Neuman, Yishai
2009
Hebrew in Its West Semitic Setting: A Comparative Survey of Non-Masoretic Hebrew Dialects and Traditions. 4
volumes. Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 13, 16. Leiden: Brill.
. In
,
edited by D. Sivan, D. Talshir and C. Cohen, pp. 289318. Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Press.
Olmo Lete, Gregorio del, and Joaqun Sanmartn

2003
A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition. Handbuch der Orientalistik, Erste Abteilung,
Nahe und der Mittlere Osten 67. Leiden: Brill.
Rabin, Chaim
1951
Ancient West-Arabian. London: Taylors Foreign Press.
Rubin, Aaron D.
2010
The Mehri Language of Oman. Leiden: Brill.
Sampson, Rodney
2010
Vowel Prosthesis in Romance: A Diachronic Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sanmartn, Joaqun
1995
Shisha-Halevy, A.
1978
Sbawaihi
188589
ber Regeln und Ausnahmen: Verhalten des vorkonsonantischen /n/ im Altsemitischen. In Vom Alten
Orient zum Alten Testament: Festschrift fr Wolfram Freiherrn von Soden, edited Manfried Dietrich and Oswald
Loretz, pp. 43366. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 240. Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
An Early North-west Semitic Text in the Egyptian Hieratic Script. Orientalia 47: 14562.
Le livre de Sbawaihi: trait de grammaire arabe. Edited by Hartwig Derenbourg. 2 volumes. Paris: Imprimerie
Nationale.
Soden, Wolfram von

19651981
Akkadisches Handwrterbuch. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
1995
Grundri der akkadischen Grammatik. 3rd edition. Rome: Pontifium Institutum Biblicum.
Sokoloff, Michael
2009
A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin; Expansion and Update of C. Brockelmanns Lexicon Syriacum.
390
Richard C. Steiner
Steiner, Richard C.
1975
A Proto-Semitic Alternation and its Flip-flopped Akkadian Reflex. Unpublished paper read at the North
American Conference on Semitic Linguistics, April 22, 1975.
1976
On the Origin of the r ~ r Alternation in Hebrew. Afroasiatic Linguistics 3: 85102.
and . Hebrew Annual Review 3: 15774.
1979
From Proto-Hebrew to Mishnaic Hebrew: The History of
1982
T. M. Johnstone, arssi Lexicon and English-arssi Word-List. Afroasiatic Linguistics 8: 189200.
1987 Lulav versus *lu/law: A Note on the Conditioning of *aw > in Hebrew and Aramaic. Journal of the
American Oriental Society 107: 12122.
1996
The History of the Ancient Hebrew Modal System and Labovs Rule of Compensatory Structural
Change. In Towards a Social Science of Language: Papers in Honor of William Labov, edited by G. R. Guy, C.
Feagin, D. Schiffrin, and J. Baugh, vol. 1, pp. 25361. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
1997
Ancient Hebrew. In The Semitic Languages, edited by R. Hetzron, pp. 14573. London: Routledge.
2001a Albounout Frankincense and Alsounalph Oxtongue: Phoenician-Punic Botanical Terms with Prothetic
Vowels from an Egyptian Papyrus and a Byzantine Codex. Orientalia 70: 97103.
. Meqarim Belaon 8:
2001b
20328.
2010
Poetic Forms in the Masoretic Vocalization and Three Difficult Phrases in Jacobs Blessing:
(Gen 49:3),
(Gen 49:4) and
(Gen 49:10). Journal of Biblical Literature 129: 20935.
2011
Early Northwest Semitic Serpent Spells in the Pyramid Texts. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Steiner, Richard C., and A. Mosak Moshavi

1995
A Selective Glossary of Northwest Semitic Texts in Egyptian Script. In Dictionary of the North-west Semitic
Inscriptions, edited by J. Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling, pp. 124966. Leiden: Brill.
Talshir, D.
1992
Testen, David
1985
2003
. Leonenu 56: 285.

Evidence of an Early Metathesis among Akkadian piristum-stem Nouns. Journal of the American Oriental
Society 123: 57794.
Ullmann, Manfred
1970
Wrterbuch der klassischen arabischen Sprache. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Wang, William S-Y.

1969
Competing Changes as a Cause of Residue. Language 45: 925.
Watson, Janet C. E.
2009
Wright, William
1967
Yalon, Henoch
1963
Yeivin, Israel
1985
Zimmern, H.
1890
Annexion, Attribution and Genitives in Mahriyyt. In Relative Clauses and Genitive Constructions in Semitic, edited by Janet C. E. Watson and Jan Rets, pp. 22944. Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 25.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
A Grammar of the Arabic Language. 3rd edition. 2 volumes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jerusalem: Wahrmann.
. In
, edited by H. Yalon, section 1, pp. 1619.
. 2 volumes. Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language.

Zur assyrischen und vergleichenden semitischen Lautlehre. Zeitschrift fr Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archologie 5: 36798.
Reconciling Some Morphological Eccentricities of the Semitic Genitive Case Marker
391
23
Reconciling Some Morphological Eccentricities

of the Semitic Genitive Case Marker
David Testen
For the most part, reconstructing the case markers of the ancestral Semitic substantival system has been
treated as a comparatively simple task. It is possible to arrive at what appears to be a quite tidy constellation
of endings by juxtaposing paradigms such as the following from early Akkadian and Literary Arabic, the two
languages which show us the most extensive and, it may be presumed, best-preserved case systems in Semitic.
Inflection of reflexes of the participles eating (*kil-) and building (*bniy-) in early Akkadian and Arabic: singular m. (f.)
Case
Nominative
Accusative
Genitive
Old Babylonian
Literary Arabic
kil(-t)-um
kil(-at)-u-n
bnm (bn-t-u-m)
bni-n (bniy-at-u-n)
kil(-t)-am
kil(-at)-a-n
bnm (bn-t-a-m)
bniy-(at-)a-n
kil(-t)-im
kil(-at)-i-n
bnm (bn-t-i-m)
bni-n (bniy-at-i-n)
This three-case (triptotic) pattern characterizes the inflection of the Akkadian singular and is the prevailing
system for Arabic singular stems, as well as for a good number of Arabics broken-plural stems compare, for
example, kutub-u-n, -a-n, -i-n books (nom., acc., gen.), the plural of kitb-; awld-u-n, -a-n, -i-n children (nom.,
acc., gen.), the plural of walad-.1
The triptotic paradigm contrasts with several paradigms reflecting diptotic patterns, which distinguish between a nominative shape and a common oblique (accusative-genitive) shape and which are most familiar through
the declensions of dual and sound plural substantives.2
In certain circumstances, the surface paradigm does not display

the full three-way opposition but it may be presumed that the
endings *-u-n, *-a-n, *i-n are to be understood at an underlying
level. When the final consonant of the stem is a semivowel, the
vowel of the stems final syllable often melds with the case ending. The stem bniy- building in the table above thus shows only
two surface-level distinctions, viz., nominative/genitive bni-n
(definite al-bn) (< *bniy-u-n or *bniy-i-n) versus accusative
bniy-a-n (definite al-bniy-a). When the stem-final semivowel is

preceded by an underlying short *-a-, there is no case distinction at the surface level whatsoever; cf. musamm-n (definite almusamm) named (passive participle) < underlying *musammayu-n, *-a-n, *i-n.
2
The diptotic declension of singular (and broken-plural) stems
is addressed below.
391
392
David Testen
Inflection of reflexes of the participles eating (*kil-) and building

(*bniy-) in early Akkadian and Arabic: plural and dual
Case
Nominative
M. Plural
Oblique
Nominative
F. Plural
Oblique
Old Babylonian
Literary Arabic
kil-
kil--na
bn
bn--na
kil-
kil--na
bn
bn-na
kil-t-um
kil-t-u-n
bnt-um
bniy-t-u-n
kil-t-im
kil-t-i-n
bnt-im
bniy-t-in
Nominative
[(-t)-n]
Oblique
[(-t)-n]
Dual m. (f.) 3
kil(-at)--ni
bniy(-at)--ni
kil(-at)-ay-ni
bniy(-at)-ay-ni
Starting from paradigms like those above, historians of Semitic have reconstructed an early Semitic casemarking system that juxtaposed a triptotic singular distinguishing three cases and a set of non-singular paradigms
that formally distinguished only two. The triptotic type was expressed through a tripartite paradigm of short
vowels (*-u-, *-a-, *-i-), while in the diptotic patterns of the other numbers, the principal marker of number took
the shape of a long vowel or a diphthong, located either after the stem (kil-, kil--na, Hebrew l-m, Syriac
l-n, etc.) or, in the feminine plural, as part of the stem-suffix (kil--t-um, kil-t-un, Hebrew l--, Syriac
l---).4
Singular
Dual
M. Sound Plural
Nominative
*-u-m
*--n-
*--(m)
Accusative
*-a-m
Genitive
*-i-m
*-ay-n-
*--(m)
F. Sound Plural
-u-m
*-t-
-i-m
This general picture is supported by the other, somewhat less transparent, case-marking systems employed
or residually attested elsewhere among the documented Semitic languages.

(1) On those occasions in which the alphabetic writing system of Ugaritic provides information
on that languages vocalization, the case markers that we find are consistent with the Arabic
and Akkadian case systems, with the proviso that Ugaritic has lost the final nasal after short
vowels (cf. nominative ksu chair [to be read *kVssV-u] vs. accusative ksa vs. genitive ksi).
Deviations from the triptotic pattern prevailing in Ugaritic are discussed below.
In Old Babylonian, the dual is generally confined to natural

pairs of objects, in addition to surviving in a small number
of nouns with the same meaning as the singular such as idn
(= id-um foundation), qabln (= qabl-um middle, waist, hips)
(Huehnergard 1997, p. 8).
4
The details of the reconstruction of the endings of the dual
(Arabic -ni/-ayni, Babylonian -n/-n, etc.) and of the masculine
sound plural (Arabic -na/-na, Babylonian /-, Hebrew -m,
Syriac -n, etc.) are not relevant to the present discussion. It is
3
likely that the historical forerunner of these shapes contained

one or more final nasals, and it is quite possible that the final
vowels seen in Arabic are secondary. The conventional labeling
of the triptotic type as singular is inaccurate, since it is likely
that early Semitic had broken plural stems like those which
have survived most robustly in Arabic and Southwest Semitic
that were declined using the singular inflectional endings (cf.
awld-u-n, -a-n, -i-n children (nom., acc, gen.) and many other
singularly declined stems such as those exemplified below).
(2) Phoenician provides even less evidence about its voweling, but early Phoenician nouns seem to
have possessed genitive-case shapes distinct from non-genitive forms, at least in the environment of a following possessive suffix compare bt aby (Kilamuwa 3) the house of my father
(presumably to be read *ab-ya) with wkn ab (Kilamuwa 5) and my father (presumably *ab-)
was, d mby (Karatepe A i 5) until its setting (= *mab-iy-u?) versus m (Karatepe A iii 14) his
name (= *Vm-?) as a direct object (Garr 2004, pp. 100f.).
(3) Certain of the Semitic languages seem to have preserved the nominative/oblique distinction in
their masculine sound plural endings but offer no evidence in their written shape, at least
of further case distinctions. Compare Samali (nominative lhw gods vs. qdm.lhy before
the gods [gen.], [Garr 2004, p. 62]) and apparently Sabaean compare nominative bnw the
sons of versus genitive bny (Kogan and Korotayev, p. 230).
(4) The accusative marker -a of Geez seems to be a survival of the original Semitic *-a-. The early
Semitic case-markers *-u- and *-i- apparently underwent the regular shift to * and were ultimately lost in word-final position hence pre-Ethiopic *kalb-u, *kalb-i, *kalb-a > *kalb- vs.
*kalb-a > Geez kalb vs. kalb-a.
393
Even in those Semitic languages whose grammars preserve no productive case-marking distinctions, it is possible to explicate many details of the substantival morphology of these languages by positing that their grammars
and lexica preserve frozen remnants of a prehistorical case-marking stage like the one outlined above. Thus, for
example, resolving the discrepancy between the second syllables of Hebrew - your (m.sg.) father and its
Syriac cognate a- becomes simple if we assume that these languages shared a common ancestor that featured
case-governed vowel-quality distinctions (cf. Arabic ab-ka, ab-ka, ab-ka), and that the documented shapes have
preserved one or another shape drawn from the original paradigm.5 Similarly, the distinction between the forms
of the third-person masculine singular possessive suffixes of Hebrew (malk- his king) and Aramaic (e.g., Syriac
malk-eh id.) is routinely ascribed to a contrast in the case forms underlying each thus malk- < pre-Hebrew
*malk-a-(h)u (accusative) versus malk-eh < pre-Aramaic *malk-i-hu (genitive).
Diptosis in Arabic and Ugaritic

In addition to the diptotic inflectional systems associated with the masculine and feminine sound plural
and the dual, a further diptotic pattern is extensively attested in literary Arabic. While the diptotic types of the
plural and the dual outlined above were characterized by an oblique-case vowel that mirrors in its quality the
triptotic systems genitive *-i- (sound m.pl. *--, sound f.pl. *-t-i-, dual *-ay-), this additional diptotic pattern of
Arabic features a genitive case marker that looks superficially like the triptotic patterns accusative -a-. In addition to showing this curious -a in the genitive, substantives following this diptotic pattern are distinguished from
the triptotic type by the absence of the indefinite-marking final nasal -n. Contrast the declension of the literary
Arabic noun phrase (a) white dog, the noun of which (kalb-) belongs to the triptotic type while its accompanying
adjective (abya-) is of the diptotic type.
Nominative
il janbi-hi
Accusative
raaytu
Genitive
marar-tu bi-
kalb-u-n
kalb-a-n
kalb-i-n
The long vowels of *ab-, *ab-, *ab- and comparable stems

presumably represent a fusing of the ending of the stem with the
following case marker (i.e., *ab-ka < *abX-u-ka).
abya-u
abya-a
Next to him (there is) a white dog.

(I) saw a white dog.
(I) passed by a white dog.
394
David Testen
Literary Arabic nominal and adjectival stems are thus divided into two classes, distinguished by the endings
that they show in their indefinite form. Lexical items in literary Arabic showing the -u/-a diptotic paradigm are
not rare, but they are largely restricted to specific subsets of the substantival lexicon certain singular and
broken-plural nominal and adjectival classes and, even among these, only to the non-determined manifestations of these substantives. If the definite article or a possessive suffix is added to a substantive of the diptotic
type, the case marking shifts to the triptotic pattern.
(a) desert, (some) keys, (an)other (m.)
ar-u
maft-u
xar-u
Nominative
Accusative
his...
(a)l- ar-u
(a)l- maft-u
(a)l-xar-u
ar-u-hu
maft-u-hu
xar-u-hu
(a)l- ar-i
(a)l- maft-i
(a)l-xar-i
ar-i-hi
maft-i-hi
xar-i-hi
(a)l- ar-a
(a)l- maft-a
(a)l-xar-a
ar-a
maft-a
xar-a
Genitive
the...
ar-a-hu
maft-a-hu
xar-a-hu
Evidence from the cuneiform rendering of Ugaritic indicates that this diptotic pattern was not restricted to
Arabic. A small number of Ugaritic substantives, many of which have stems ending in the stem-formant -n-, are
documented with genitive-case shapes ending either in the vowel -a or in -a apparently alternating with -i.6 See,
for example, i-na a. : ra-a-ba!-na (PRU 3 91f.:6) in the field, the wide (place) (Huehnergard 1987, pp. 178f.).
In short, Arabic and Ugaritic provide evidence suggesting that early West Semitic possessed two contrasting
case-marking regimens, distinguished from each other by (1) the quality of the vowel by which the genitive case
is marked, and (2) the absence of the final nasal from the diptotic type.
Alternations in Quantity in the Akkadian Genitive

The ending -a of the Arabic and Ugaritic diptotic pattern is an interesting deviation from the simple paradigm
that has been drawn up for the Semitic case system. Another deviation is to be found in the shape assumed by
the Akkadian genitive marker when the latter is followed by a possessive pronominal suffix. In such situations,
we encounter evidence that also runs counter to the simple case paradigm as it is conventionally reconstructed.
When a singular noun in the genitive is followed by a pronominal suffix, Akkadian consistently shows the
nouns case vowel, despite the fact that the corresponding nominative and accusative forms typically show no
sign of their case markers.
Nominative
Accusative
Genitive
his lord
her god
her daughter
your (m.sg.) donkey
their (m.) dog 7
bl-u
il-a
mras-sa
(< * mrat-a)
imr-ka
kalab-unu
bl-i-u
il-i-a
mrt-i-a
imr-i-ka
kalb-i-unu
The diptotic Ugaritic stems in -n- are reminiscent of the Arabic adjective class of sakrn-u drunken and its ilk, which are
likewise diptotic.
7
The stem is *kalb-, with a stem-final cluster cf. Arabic kalbun, Hebrew kle (suffixed form kalb- my dog) into which an
epenthetic vowel is inserted when a following consonant-initial
6
suffix is added. For Akkadian nominal stems ending in a geminate

rather than a cluster, the addition of a consonant-initial suffix
leads to the insertion of an epenthetic vowel between the geminate and the suffix (e.g., upp-a-unu their (m.) tablet (nominate/accusative; the genitive counterpart upp-i-unu displays
the case vowel.
395
When such genitive forms are masculine, their syllabic rendering is often superficially indistinguishable from
the plural, but the context on many occasions renders it clear that they are singular.
Genitive
(with -i-)
Nominative, Accusative
(without case vowel)
... il-ka Adad lidammi[qqum] (PBS 7 61:4) may your

god Adad show you favor
... ana Adad i-li-u ana nu.gig iq (Grant Smith

College 260:3) [the father] presented [his daughter] to his god Adad to become a qaditum
Aur u il-k qt iabtuma (CCT 4 14b:8) Aur

and your god have helped me
ina amat -l-u Nergal umu lidmiq (Corpus of

Ancient Near Eastern Seals 1 No. 571:4) may his
reputation become good by the command of his god
Nergal
... il- ana idiu ukun (4R 17:55f.) place his god at
his side!
Note that forms such as il-i-a in which the case-marker -i- is found following a short open syllable
demonstrate that the genitive marker -i- is not subject to Akkadians overarching syncope rule, which typically
deletes the second of two vowels in consecutive short, open syllables.8 The syncope rule similarly fails to delete
the genitive marker following longer stems containing a short vowel in their final syllable hence kil-i-u the
one (masc. gen.) eating it rather than *kil-u, the anticipated outcome of *kl--u. The fact that we find the
genitive marker preserved between a stem-final short syllable and a following suffix is a good indication that the
syllable containing the genitive -i- counted as phonologically long. While Assyriologists differ on this point, it
seems appropriate to read genitive forms such as those above as containing a long vowel -- (hence bl--u, id--a,
imr--ka, kalb--unu, etc.). The alternative would amount to positing an unmotivated and otherwise unparalleled
blocking of Akkadians pervasive and productive syncope rule.
We thus find ourselves obliged to reconstruct what appears to be an odd fluctuation in the quantity of the
Akkadian case markers: the genitive marker seems to have been long before a following possessor suffix, whereas
there is no reason to reconstruct length in the corresponding nominative and accusative forms. The apparent
length of the presuffixal genitive marker notwithstanding, the genitive of the status rectus with its final -m (-i-m)
is conventionally and in all likelihood correctly read as a short vowel (il--m). It is unclear whether we can
presume that the shortness of the vowel of -im is original either we are to follow the model of the nominative
and accusative markers (and of Arabic) and reconstruct a short *-i- here, or we can posit that in the casus rectus
a long *-- like that of the presuffixal case marker has been shortened in the syllable closed by the -m. Before a
following noun in the genitive, finally, the overall absence of the case marker in standard Akkadian suggests that
the marker of the genitive here was, like those of the the other cases, short. However, the genitive singular of the
Old Akkadian status constructus was -i contrasting with the zero of the nominative and accusative (GAG 64.a),
suggesting that the genitive originally was quantitatively different from the other cases and that the restructuring of the genitive had not been completed by the time of early documented Akkadian.
Akkadian 9
vs. Arabic
Presuffixal
Status Rectus
Status Constructus
um--u
um-i-m
um(i) ab-u
< *(u)m--u
< *(u)m-i/?-m
< *(u)m- ab-u
(i)sm-i-hi
(i)sm-in
(i)sm-i ab-hi
Cf., e.g., paris (he) has been divided vs. pars-ku, pars-at (<
*paris-ku, *paris-at) I have, she has been divided.
On the reconstruction of the Proto-Semitic stem meaning

name as vowelless *m-, see Testen 1985.
396
David Testen
Synthesis: Two Genitive Markers Rather Than Three

The two languages that provide the clearest evidence of the Semitic case-marking system Arabic and
Akkadian thus show genitive-case evidence that deviates from the familiar *-i- both in vowel quality (e.g., Arabic
li-abya-a to a white one vs. li-bayt-i-n to a house) and in vowel quantity (e.g., Akkadian ana il-u to god-his
rather than the expected *ana il-su < *ana l-u). We thus seem to be obliged to reconstruct multiple allomorphs
of the ancestral Semitic genitive case marker.
To be sure, the student of the prehistory of these languages might opt simply to note that each of these deviant shapes is restricted to a single corner of the Semitic family and therefore posit that the familiar *-- alone
merits being traced back to the ancestral language. This approach amounts to the tacit assumption that any shape
other than *-- reflects a historically secondary innovation, leaving Akkadian -- and Arabic/Ugaritic -a to be explained as local and in the absence of any non-arbitrary explanation for how they could have arisen more
or less spontaneous deviations from the original *--. Such an approach is predicated on the assumption that it is
mere coincidence that it is specifically the genitive that is the locus of these putative secondary perturbations.
Until such time as coherent, independently justifiable theories can be advanced to explain how each of these
shapes could have arisen secondarily, treating the indeterminacy in the shapes of the genitive marker(s) as anything other than a Common Semitic issue will remain more convenient than it is convincing.
A more specific objection to ignoring these alternative genitive markers draws upon Ockhams admonition
to minimize wherever possible the number of theoretical entities that a given theory posits. In other words, are
we truly justified in concluding that each of the three of the shapes noted above --, --, and -a is sufficiently
supported to be regarded as a discrete entity, or might there be some avenue by which this hypothetical inventory of synonymous elements can be reduced?
In assessing the diptotic genitive -a of Arabic, it should be borne in mind that observing an Arabic -a is not the
same thing as reconstructing a Pre-Arabic *-a. It is abundantly clear that a word-final Arabic -a may potentially
originate with a historically underlying diphthong *-ay. This may be seen clearly from the internal reconstruction
of the jussive forms of verbs containing *-a- as the vowel of their final stem-syllable and *-y as their final radical. 10
Jussive
y-a-bqa
may (he) remain
< *y-a-bqa(y)
y-u-bna
may (it) be built
< *y-u-bna(y)
y-a-bq
(he) remains
< *y-a-bqay-u
y-u-bn
(it) is built
< *y-u-bnay-u
y-a-bq
(that he) remain
< *y-a-bqay-a
y-u-bn
(that it) be built
< *y-u-bnay-a
Contrast
Non-past indicative
Subjunctive
Since the imperative endings mirror the endings of the jussive, the same picture emerges from an inspection
of the endingless (= masculine singular) form of the imperative of stems ending in *-ay. Compare, for example,
tala, the masculine singular form of the stem talay- come!
The character is used here and in what follows to represent

the Arabic character alif maqrah, a variant of the character y.
In standard literary Arabic, this character serves as an alternate
means of graphically rendering the vowel , but in early Arabic it
most probably represented a long vowel differing in one manner
or another from the typical . Whatever the details of its articulation in early Arabic might have been, the vowel represented
by - is historically the outcome of the loss of an intervocalic
semivowel *-y- and the subsequent contraction of *a and a fol10
lowing short vowel hence, e.g., ban (read today as if it were

*ban) (he) built < *banay-a; ya-bq (read as if it were *yabq)
(he) remains < *ya-bqay-u; contrast da (he) called (with -
rather than *-) < *daaw-a. Reconstructing an underlying *-y- in
a form such as ban or ya-bq is justified by those portions of the
paradigm in which the syllabic structure allows the underlying
*-y- to escape deletion (cf. banay-na, ya-bqay-na (they fem.) built,
remain, banay-, ya-bqay--ni (the two of them) built, remain.

Masculine
Feminine
Singular
tala (< *tala(y))
tala-y (< *talay-)
Plural
tala-w (< *talay-)
talay-na
Dual
397
talay-
I suspect that a further instance of the development of *-ay > -a is to be seen in the equative particle ka- like,
as. This is transparently akin to Akkadian kma like, the -- of which can easily have arisen from an earlier Semitic
*-ay-. It is therefore possible to trace both ka- and k-ma back to a historically underlying *kay- (i.e., Akkadian
kma < *kay- + m [retaining a reflex of the original diphthong] but Arabic ka- < *kay through the regular loss of
word-final *-y).11
A pair of Arabic particles suggests that an analogous simplification occurred in words that originally contained a word-final diphthong *-aw. This assumption provides the simplest way to account for the existence of
the synonym pair sawfa and sa-, both of which serve as future-tense markers in literary Arabic. I suggest that
we reconstruct the prehistorical precursor to the Arabic future construction as a syntagm composed of an element reconstructable as *saw a form that early lexicographers documented as an alternate shape of the future
particle (saw yaknu = sawfa yaknu, sa- yaknu [he] will be), according to Stewart (1998, p. 122) followed by
an indicative clause. This *saw evidently served as a full clause in its own right, followed by a second full clause
[[*saw] [yaj-u]] *[[saw] [(he) comes]]. The particle sa- seems to reflect a simplification of word-final *-aw > *-a
comparable to the *-ay > -a that we saw above in jussive ya-bqa and imperative tala with the resulting *sa
subsequently cliticized at the head of the clause in the course of its grammaticalization as a preverbal particle.
Sawfa, in contrast, apparently arose from the same pre-Arabic syntagm, albeit with the following clause introduced by the familiar conjunction fa- for, then ([*saw [fa-yaj-u]] *[[saw] for-[(he) comes]]. In this case, the *saw
evidently melded with the conjunction, which acted as a buffer and kept the diphthong from being reduced.12
In short, the evidence provided by Arabic allows for the possibility of reconstructing the diptotic genitive
marker of Arabic as a diphthong *-ay rather than as *-a.13 It is entirely possible that the Ugaritic diptotic genitive
-a might have arisen from the same source, although, given the empirical indeterminacies surrounding the historical phonology of Ugaritic word-final vowels, the discussion must of necessity be conducted at a much lower
degree of certainty.14 In the absence of good evidence elsewhere in Ugaritic indicating how an original Semitic
word-final *-ay would have emerged in Ugaritic, we cannot rule out that the genitive -a seen in Ugaritic reflects
If this interpretation of kais valid, it is possible that the shift

of *-ay > *-a took place quite early, since we find reflexes of this
particle that are compatible with the reconstruction *ka- elsewhere in West Semitic (cf. Geez ka-ma like; Hebrew k-m-n
like me, k-ll like these, but generally with -- reduced from
*-ak-ye like an enemy, etc.).
Positing that word-final *-ay systematically gave rise to Arabic
-a leads to the conclusion that the few cases in which -ay appears
at the end of an Arabic word are likely to have other sources
cf., e.g., the feminine singular imperative tala-y above. It is
unlikely, for example, that the Arabic subordinating conjunction
kay so that represents a simple pre-form *kay. I would like to
posit provisionally that kay arose through the contraction of two
syllables thus Arabic kay < *ka(w/y)i/ (?) vel sim., a preform
that, in any case, seems to provide a likelier source for the vowel
of the Hebrew subordinating conjunction k than a simple reconstruction *kay would.
12
See Stewart 1998 for previous discussion of the topic, as well
as for an alternative approach to their etymology. The lexical
value of the reconstructed element *saw remains to be determined. Given the semantic function of sa-/sawfa, and given the
historically underlying syntax reconstructed above, we may
speculate that the proto-construction originally served to alert
the addressee to the future event that would be identified in the
11
following clause (*be aware! take note! (for) he is coming

vel sim.). For other Arabic particles that presumably originated
as small clauses introduced by fa-, cf. the adverbials faqa and faasb only, which evidently originated as small postposed clauses
(presumably on the order of * and thats all!).
13
The outcome of the word-final diphthong *-ay as historical
Arabic -a mirrors what we see resulting from the word-final sequences *-iy and *-uw. Here too the semivowel has been lost,
yielding a short word-final vowel; cf., e.g., the masculine singular
imperatives (i)bni build! (< *bni(y) < *bniy) and (u)du call! (<
*du(w) < *duw).
14
Please note that, for Ugaritic as for the remaining West Semitic languages in question, we are addressing the outcome of
a word-final *-ay (or *-aw) at the Proto-Semitic level, not at the
level of the historical languages or their immediate prehistorical forerunners. Thus, of the III-y verbs, only the outcome of
the endingless jussive/imperative shapes (*yi-CCay, *CCay) is of
relevance, since we may presume that, at the deepest historical level, the shapes of the other moods were marked by a final
vowel (cf. indicative *yi-CCay-u). Similarly, the shapes assumed by
semivowel-final nominal stems (e.g., Hebrew mir pasture, stw
winter, etc.) will not be of relevance to the issue unless it can be
demonstrated that they are to be traced back specifically to morphosyntactic environments in which there was no case vowel.
398
David Testen
the same underlying diphthong. As we saw above in the discussion of Arabic ka-, there is a good chance that the
shift of word-final *-ay > -a took place rather early in West Semitic.15
Such a reconstructed *-ay-, in turn, is entirely consistent with the -- that we find representing the Akkadian
genitive case before the possessive suffixes that is, the presuffixal -- in bt--u house-genitive-his could have
arisen entirely regularly from a diphthong (i.e., bt--u < Pre-Akkadian *bt--u ultimately < *bayt-ay-u).
To be sure, the distribution of the Arabic/Ugaritic -a does not match that of Akkadian --. Judging by what is
found in Arabic and (apparently) Ugaritic, the posited West Semitic *-ay seems to have been restricted to a certain
subsection of the lexicon and moreover was quite possibly limited to certain morphosyntactic circumstances (i.e.,
in predicate position and similar non-determined situations). The Akkadian --, in contrast, shows no sign of having
been restricted within the lexicon, and the morphosyntactic position in which it occurs differs from the environment defined for Arabic -a. The discrepancies in the details of distribution do not necessarily gainsay drawing a
connection between *-ay and --, however. It is likely that neither West Semitic nor Akkadian has preserved the
full details surrounding the original distribution of this element, but rather each has developed its own system
to manage the remnants that it inherited from the original proto-system. The chief point is that regardless of
whether the *-ay- was employed with all substantives or only with a subset, and regardless of what its originally
morphosyntactic conditioning might have been the two reconstructable shapes of the Semitic genitive (*-- and
*-ay-) seem to have been in systematic alternation with each other.16
We can thus imagine that the familiar asymmetrical paradigm of a suffixed Akkadian noun (nominative/accusative il-u but genitive il--u) preserves a fundamental asymmetry in the historically underlying shapes of the
case markers (nominative *-u-, accusative *-a-, but genitive *-ay-). In the Arabic case system, in contrast, this asymmetry has evidently been abandoned under the analogical pressure of the more general genitive allomorph *-i-.
Akkadian
*Pre-Akkadian
Contrast Arabic
Nominative
il-u
< *il-(u-)u
bayt-u-hu
Accusative
il-u
< *il-(a-)u
bayt-a-hu
Genitive
il--u
< *il-ay-u
bayt-i-hi
Speculation: One Genitive Marker Rather Than Two?

By reconstructing both Arabic -a and Akkadian -- as *-ay(-), it becomes possible to reconcile two of the three
allomorphs identified above for the Semitic genitive case marker and thereby reduce the three shapes that we
find representing the genitive (--, --, and -a-) down to a bipartite alternation (*-i- vs. *-ay-).
Conversely, it might be useful to reflect on the apparent indeterminacy shown by the Ugaritic diptotic genitive. As was
noted above, such forms are marked either with -i or -a, with
the two endings alternating within the same lexeme in some
cases (cf., e.g., PRU 3 72f., where both spellings occur in a single
text; Huehnergard 1987, p. 299). While this indeterminacy may
quite plausibly be taken as an indication of wavering between
the triptotic and diptotic inflections, if we reconstruct the diptotic ending as word-final *-ay it behooves us to wonder whether the graphic -i/-a alternation might reflect differing ways of
rendering a vowel whose quality the cuneiform syllabary was
not equipped to handle adequately. Let us call this hypothetical vowel *e. To be sure, word-internal Semitic *-ay- fairly
clearly yielded Ugaritic -- (Huehnergard 1987, pp. 258f.), but
there is no a priori reason that in word-final position *ay could
not have had its own peculiar outcome in Ugaritic just as it did
in Arabic. We might in theory speculate that this *e arose early
15
in West Semitic hence an early West Semitic (diptotic) genitive *rabn-e, an equative particle *ke, a III-infirmae jussive
(a-vowel type) *(y)i-bqebut the distinction between *e and *a
was subsequently lost everywhere but in Ugaritic.
16
It will be recalled that the suffixed forms of Phoenician showed
a comparable disjunction between genitive and non-genitive
shapes, reflected in the suffix -y for my, his attached to genitive
nouns vs. zero for non-genitive nouns. This has been conventionally ascribed to the effects of the quality of the case marker *-i(d mby (Karatepe A i 5) until its setting < *ad() mab-i-hu). At
the same time, the discrepancy is equally consistent with what
we have posited here, viz. an asymmetry between nominative
*-u- and accusative *-a- on the one hand and a diphthongal genitive *-ay- on the other. In other words, the -y of d mby could thus
just as easily be traced back to a diphthongal case marker such
as the one envisioned above (*mab--hu ?).
399
Of the two shapes *-i- and *-ay-, *-i- is consistently found before Semitic mimation (Akkadian bt-i-m, Arabic
bayt-i-n), whereas our reconstructed *-ay- seems never to have been found in this situation. 17 At this point,
Ockhams dictum obliges us to assess the strength of the evidence supporting the notion that these two shapes
of the genitive reconstructed above *-i- versus *-ay were truly distinct at the deepest historical level.
To a considerable degree, the pattern outlined above is marked by complementary distribution that is,
whenever we reconstruct mimation, we reconstruct the case marker as *-i- (kil-i-m, kil-i-n), while whenever
we reconstruct the case marker as *-ay-, we reconstruct a syllable that is not closed through the presence of
mimation. This distribution renders it likely that the original distinction between the triptotic and diptotic declensions resided at least as much in the presence versus absence of the final nasal as it did in the nature of the
case-marking vowel. In other words, the distribution noted above licenses us to consider the possibility of reconstructing a unified Pre-Semitic genitive marker *-ay-, positional variants of which have given rise to the various
parallel allomorphs (-i-, -a, --) documented in the descendant languages. Given the fact that, on the whole, the
Semitic languages avoid surface-level diphthongs in closed syllables, it is entirely conceivable that the *-i- that
we conventionally reconstruct as the default manifestation of the genitive marker might ultimately reflect the
shape that *-ay- assumed when it occured in a syllable closed by a following nasal that is, that *bayt-i-m arose
from an earlier **bayt-ay-m.
There is independent evidence indicating that an original *-ay- might have developed into *-- under comparable circumstances in at least certain branches of Semitic. The high vowel that we find in the Ethiopic negative
particle i and its Arabic counterpart in (pointing to a common South Semitic *n) corresponds to an original
Semitic diphthong *-ay-, judging by Hebrew yin, n- and the Akkadian vetitive particle ayy-. If we reconstruct this
negative particle as *ayn, it becomes possible to speculate that in the common ancestor of Arabic and Ethiopic,
at least *-ay- developed into *-- in a syllable closed by a word-final nasal (Testen 2007). The development of
*ayn > *n entitles us to speculate that in pre-South-Semitic, if not earlier there was an intermediate stage
in which the genitive marker featured a long vowel *-- before mimation, that is, mimated *kil--m (< *kil-ay-m)
versus mimation-less *kil-ay, from which the attested short vowel (kil-i-m, kil-i-n) would have subsequently
arisen naturally in a closed syllable.18
From this perspective, we should rephrase the question of the Semitic diptotic declension from Why is the
diptotic genitive marker -a? to Why do the diptotes lack a final nasal? If the speculations above are justified,
the relation between the diptotic *-ay and the triptotic *-i- ultimately hinges on whether the case marker was
followed by mimation. Whatever factors might ultimately have governed the presence or absence of the ProtoSemitic nasal remain to be determined, but this question, I suggest, should be handled independently from the
question of the nature of the vowel by which the genitive was expressed in Proto-Semitic.
17
It is presumed here that the -n of Arabic nunation results from
a general shift of pre-Arabic *-m in word-final position to -n,
comparable to what took place in pre-Greek and other Indo- European branches (cf. Greek e-lip-on (I) left (aorist), agr-o-n field
(accusative) < Indo-European *(-)likw-o-m, *Hagr-o-m vs. Sanskrit
a-ric-am, ajram).
I see good evidence that a shift of *-m > -n took place in preArabic in the stem alin- (reflected in the adjective alin-un publicly known, whence the verbs alin-a (it) was/became known
and its causative derivative alan-a (he) announced) alongside
alim-a (he) learned, knew. I take alin- to have originated as a
predicate participle *alim (it is) known built from of the ancestor of the verb *alim-a in a structure corresponding to the
Akkadian stative (the type of Akkadian paris (it) is divided,
which is equivalent to the adjective pars-um divided in predicate position). In other words, the Pre-Arabic verb *alim-a (he)
knew seems to have originally had a corresponding resultative
adjective *alim-um *known (subsequently replaced by what has
emerged as the productive passive participle, malm-) which in
its endingless predicate form underwent the regular shift of *-m

> -n thus *alim *(it is) known > *alin. Once the *-m > *-n shift
was no longer an active factor in the languages phonology, the
new shape *alin came to be treated as an independent stem and
served as the starting for the creation of a new constellation of
derivatives (alin-a, alan-a, etc.).
18
The fact that Hebrew n shows the reflex of an earlier diphthong rather than a long vowel does not necessarily gainsay the
possibility that *-ay- became a long high vowel in early West Semitic before a word-final nasal. Unlike Ethiopic i and Arabic in,
Pre-Hebrew *ayn retained or acquired a capacity for taking clitic
pronouns, which means that, in many cases, it did not meet the
conditions for the hypothetical raising of *-ay-. In other words,
while simple *ayn might have yielded something like *n in PreHebrew, that form would have coexisted with alternate manifestations in which the diphthong survived. It would have been a
simple matter for this diphthong to spread by analogy to yield
what would appear to be a survival of *-ay in unprefixed *ayn.
400
David Testen
Hypothetical reconstruction of the posited Proto-Semitic genitive case marker *-ay-19
*In (the) house
*Mimated
*bV-bayt-ay-m
*Non-mimated
*bV-bayt-ay-
*In the kings house
*bVbayt-ay
malk-ay-m
malk-ay-
*In his house
*bVbayt-ay-/hu
Regardless of the ultimate nature of the relation between the final *-m and its zero-marker counterpart, once
the shape *-i-m had arisen from **-ay-m, analogical pressure capitalizing on the metrical similarity between the
new genitive *-i- and the original nominative and accusative *-u- and *-a- could have easily expanded it beyond
the pre-mimation position so that it emerged as the default shape of the case-marker. Consequently, the tidy
tripartite pattern *-u-/*-a-/*-i- that we conventionally reconstruct would be like many tidy patterns historically secondary, and the historically original aspects of the paradigm as preserved in the descendant languages
(Arabic -a, Ugaritic -a, Akkadian --) would have survived as synchronic eccentricities.
The Sound Feminine Plural *-t-ay-: A Trace of the Original Genitive?

I suspect that we may find indirect evidence for our reconstructed genitive marker *-ay- if we examine
the sound plural endings associated with feminine substantives. As is noted above, the sound feminine plural
throughout Semitic is marked by *-t-. In the casus rectus, the languages preserving case markers indicate that
the resulting stem was followed by a special paradigm of case markers a paradigm that was diptotic like the
sound masculine plural but had the vowel quantity and final nasal of the singular.
Case
Old Babylonian
Literary Arabic
Nominative
kil-t-um
bnt-um
kil-t-u-n
bniy-t-u-n
Oblique
kil-t-im
bnt-im
kil-t-i-n
bniy-t-in
The various descendant languages differ, however, in the shape assumed by feminine-plural-ending substantives when they are followed by a possessive suffix. While some languages (e.g., Arabic and Aramaic) handle
the addition of a possessive pronoun to sound feminine plural nouns in much the same way that they deal with
singular nouns, in other languages we find an extra, heavy syllable interposed before the suffix. This syllable is
homophonous with the presuffixal case-number ending of the masculine-sound plural noun.
Your (m. sg.) queens exemplifying the intrusive syllable following the feminine plural stem ending
Feminine pl. *-tArabic
Nominative
malik-t-u-ka
Oblique
malik-t-i-ka
Syriac
Hebrew
mal--
mal---
Compare:
mal--
your kings
Purely for illustrative purposes, the same noun *bayt- is used

to examplify both the mimated and non-mimated morphology.
As noted above, it remains to be determined whether the non19
Feminine pl. *-t- + X Akkadian
arr-t--ka
arr-t--ka
arr--ka
your kings
(obl. arr--ka)
mimated shape was an option in Proto-Semitic for any given

substantive or, as in historical Arabic, this shape was limited to
specific subset of the lexicon.
401
How is it that the Semitic languages have come to differ from one another in the formation of the presuffixal
feminine plural ending? I suggest that we can reconcile these varying shapes if we assume that, in the original
ancestral language, the possessive suffixes were added to a diptotic paradigm composed of elements drawn from
the triptotic paradigm, just as we find in historical Arabic compare malikt-u-ka your (m.sg.) queens (nom.),
malikt-i-ka (obl.), in which we see the genitive marker -i- pressed into service as the marker of the accusative/
genitive oblique. If in early Semitic, however, the genitive marker was originally *-ay- rather than *-i-, we can
reconstruct a diptotic paradigm like the following, in which the genitive marker *-ay- of the possessed shape is
juxtaposed to the more prosaic paradigm of the casus rectus:
Presuffixal
Casus Rectus
Nominative
*malakt-u-ka
*malakt-u-m
Oblique
*malakt-ay-ka
*malakt-i-m (ult. < *-t-ay-m?)
Once the new, contracted genitive marker *-i- of the casus rectus had replaced the original *-ay-, the various
language branches seem to have differed on how to deal with the singular genitive ending in the context of
a plural noun like *malakt-. Pre-Arabic and Pre-Aramaic simply extended the new, generalized genitive -i- into
this position as well, yielding the structure malak-t-i-ka. Early Canaanite, by contrast, evidently preserved the
now-stranded genitive marker *-ay, but reassigned it a new role within the new inflectional pattern that it was
developing for the marking of plurality.
Nominative
Oblique
*kings, your (m.sg.) kings
*queens, your (m.sg.) queens
*malak --m
*malak-t-u-m
*malak--ka
*malak-t-u-ka
*malak--m
*malak-t-i-m
*malak--ka
*malak-t-ay-ka
In languages like Hebrew, the loss of the case system led to what were originally the oblique forms assuming
the role of the default shape of the plural noun hence, for example, the Hebrew (now caseless) ml-m was
expanded at the expense of the original nominative *malak-m. In the course of this generalization, the presuffixal shape *-t-ay- would have come to yield the (now caseless) shape *malaktay-ka. This in turn seems to have
served as the starting point for a restructuring of the masculine plural, with the presuffixal *-ay- of the feminine
plural expanding to replace the masculine plural *-- before suffixes (hence *malak--ka *your kings was replaced
by *malak-ay-ka [whence ultimately Hebrew mal-], on the model of *malakt-ay-ka). In other words, the *-ay-,
which originated as a case marker, was regrammaticalized first as a redundant component in the presuffixal
manifestation of the gender/number marker hence *malak-t-ay-ka, where *-t-ay- had become the presuffixal
counterpart to the feminine plural *-t- and later as the general presuffixal shape for the marking of plurality,
hence the general presuffixal plural *-ay-, added to either the feminine plural stem (*malakt-ay- ka) or to the
masculine plural stem (*malak-ay-ka).20
20
Traditionally the *-ay- of the Hebrew presuffixal plural, feminine as well as masculine (see below) mal---, mal--
has been ascribed to an analogical spread of the obsolescent
dual ending, but it remains unclear what could have motivated

such a spread.
402
David Testen
Regrammaticalization of *-ayin the evolution of the pre-Hebrew presuffixal declension

(your [m. sg.] kings, queens)
*t+ay- = fem. pl.
*malak--ka
*malak--ka
*malakt-u-ka
*malak-t-ay-ka
>
*-ay- (> --) = plural
*malak--ka
>
*malak-
[]
-ka
= mal--
-ka
= mal--
ay>
*malakt-ay-ka
>
*malak-
t-
Pre-Akkadian evidently preserved the genitive marker *-ayin the presuffixal feminine plural oblique (arrt-ka your [m.sg.] queens) just as it seems to have done, we have seen, in the presuffixal singular (arrat--ka vs.
nominative/accusative arrat-ka). Just as in early Canaanite, Pre-Akkadian identified the reflex of the *-ay- of
*-t-ay- with the oblique ending of the masculine. As a result of this identification, Pre-Akkadian reshaped the
original nominative counterpart to this form (originally *arrt-u-ka, cf. Arabic malikt-u-ka) by creating a new
presuffixal nominative form arrt--ka, where -- has drawn upon the nominative plural marker of the masculine
(arr--ka your [m.sg.] kings).21 The outcome of all this is historical Akkadians systematic but rather asymmetrical number-marking system, which opposes the more archaic shapes used in the casus rectus to the refashioned
shapes that appear before the possessive suffixes.
Morphological decompositon of Akkadian kings, queens and your (m.sg.) kings, queens
Casus Rectus
M
arr-
arr-
Presuffixal Position
-/-
Gender/Number/Case
-t-
-um/-im
Gender/Number
Case
arr-
()
-/-
ka
arr-
-t-
-/-
ka
Gender
Number/Case
Conclusion
The aim of the preceding pages was to raise the possibility that the simple, symmetrical case-marking paradigm that is conventionally assumed for early Semitic reflects a secondary development. Once we are willing
to ascribe significance to the deviations from this pattern that we find in Akkadian and Arabic the languages
providing us with our best evidence of the case system we must be ready to entertain the possibility that the
morphology of the early Semitic case system was more complex than the conventional reconstruction allows. We
have a choice as to where we ultimately envision the morphological complexity that the data seem to demand
either in a fundamental coexistence of parallel by-forms (*-i- vs. *-a- vs. *--) or in a fundamental asymmetry in
the paradigm (viz. genitive (*-i-)/*-ay- vs. nominative *-u-, accusative *-a-). The latter approach, it is suggested,
has more to commend it. Its chief cost resides in our acknowledging that like so much that has become familiar
to students of the history of the Semitic languages the case system will benefit from a careful reexamination
of some of our fundamental assumptions.
It remains possible, of course, that Pre-Canaanite shared

this restructuring to create a new feminine plural nominative
(*malak-t--ka) but subsequently lost this when it abandoned
its case-marking mechanisms. Since the Northwest Semitic lan21
guages that provide details on their voweling have not retained

their case systems, we cannot know by what steps the philologically familiar Semitic languages may have reached their attested
shapes.
403
Appendix: What Has Become of the Arabic Diptotic Stems in *-iy-?

A considerable number of the Arabic stems displaying the characteristic features of the diptotic declension
namely, the appearance of -a rather than *-i as the genitive marker and the absence of the final nasal are to
be traced back to stems ending in a semivowel preceded either by -a- or --. However, given the various general
processes by which Arabic eliminates semivowels in many enviroments through either syllable contraction or
a shift to the glottal stop many such forms will overtly reveal neither the underlying semivowel nor the case
marker. For example, on the basis of the absence of the indefinite nasal, we may infer that kubr, the feminine
counterpart to the elative adjective akbar- greater, greatest, is just as much a diptote as its masculine analogue,
but this fact is not evident from the form itself.
Great m./ (f.)
Greater m.
Greater f.
Triptotic
Diptotic
Monoptotic
Nominative
kabr(-at)-u-n
akbar-u
Accusative
kabr(-at)-a-n
Genitive
kabr(-at)-i-n
akbar-a
< *kubray-u
kubr
< *kubray-a
Stems ending in an underlying short *-a- + a semivowel whether those stems be diptotic or triptotic thus
appear to be monoptotic, showing a neutralization of the surface-level case distinctions.
Triptotic Declension
Nominative
Accusative
Genitive
aa-n
a staff
Diptotic Declension
< *aaw-u-n
< *aaw-a-n
< *aaw-i-n
l
first (f.)
< *lay-u
< *lay-a
asr
captives
< *asray-u
< *asray-a
Stems in which the underlying semivowel is preceded by a vowel other than *-a-, in contrast, preserve a fragment of the underlying case paradigm in the form of the accusative *-a-, which remains uncontracted compare
the nominative/genitive shape bni-n one who builds (< *bniy-u-n, *bniy-i-n) versus the accusative bniy-a-n.
While in principle we can readily envision how diptotic stems corresponding to this shape might show a comparable lack of contraction, such diptotic stems seem not to be attested in historical Arabic.
Stems ending in *-ayStems ending in *-iy-
Triptotic Declension
Diptotic Declension
--n
Nom./gen. -i-n
Unattested *Nom. *-
vs. acc. -iy-a-n
vs. acc./gen. *-iy-a
It is in this light that we should consider the eccentricities of the various shapes assumed by quadriconsontal
broken plurals built from semivowel-final stems. As a general rule, the quadriconsonantal broken plurals belong
to the diptotic declension type.22
Arabic morphology subsumes under its quadriconsonantal broken plurals many forms built from triconsonantal singular stems
containing a long vowel cf. awmil- (sg. mil-), jazir- (sg.
jazr-at-) where -- < *-w- or *-y-, cf. Geez qsaws-t, wayz-t,
22
the plurals of qsis priest, wiz river, etc. hady gifts

(< *hadyay-) (singular hadiyy-at- < *hady-at-), etc. The pluralformation morphology treats such singular stems as if their long
vowels reflected an underlying semivowel.
404
David Testen
maktib-u (acc./gen. -a), plural of maktab-u-n (an) office

maft-u (acc./gen. -a), plural of mift-u-n (a) key
awmil-u (acc./gen. -a), plural of mil-u-n (a) factor
jazir-u (acc./gen. -a), plural of jazr-at-u-n (an) island
The quadriconsonantal plural stems ending in a semivowel, however, deviate from the typical quadriconsonantal in two noteworthy respects:

(1) As may be seen from the examples cited above (maktib-, maft-, awmil-, jazir-, etc.), the
quadriconsonantal broken plurals systematically show an -i-quality vowel in their final stem
syllable. Stems ending in a semivowel, however, routinely display a final -, an ending associated with stems ending in an underlying *-ay- rather than in *-iy-.
(2) Unlike other types of quadriconsonantal broken plurals, many semivowel-final quadriconsonantal broken plurals show what appear to be alternants displaying triptotic-style morphology, including the final nasal. These alternants show the -i-quality expected in the final stem
syllable of a quadriconsonantal broken plural thus *CaCCiy- (cf. maktib-, etc.), whence
indefinite CaCCi-n, definite al-CaCC. For some plural stems of this structure, only the diptotic or the triptotic type is documented.
Quadriconsonantal Broken Plural Stems (IV-infirmae)
Diptotic Type
Triptotic Type
fatw legal opinion
fatw (< *fatway-u)
fatwi-n (def. al-fatw)
ar-u desert
ar (< *aray-u)
ari-n (def. al-ar)
layl night
layl (< *laylay-u)
layli-n (def. al-layl)
[asr- prisoner 23 ]
asr (< *asray-u)
jriy-at-u-n girl
jawri-n (def. al-jawr)
An additional eccentricity of the triptotic variant of the semivowel-final quadriconsontantal plural type is
the absence in the accusative of the indefinite final -n which characterizes the remaining shapes in the paradigm.
Nominative
fatwi-n
layli-n
Genitive
fatwi-n
layli-n
Accusative
fatwiy-a
layliy-a [rather than *-iy-a-n like bniy-a-n, etc.]
This odd accusative ending in -iy-a is in fact the very shape that I posited above as the expected form for the
oblique case of a semivowel-final diptote. I would like to suggest that the various morphological eccentricities of
the semivowel-final quadriconsonantal broken plurals are ultimately to be traced back to an inflectional pattern
that no longer exists in documented Arabic namely, diptotically declined stems ending in *-iy-. Apparently
Pre-Arabic abandoned the morphological mechanism for producing such forms, but in the quadriconsonantal
plurals a subsection of the lexicon where such forms would presumably have originally been quite routine it
23
Most probably asr (root -s-r) originated not as a plural built
anomalously from asr- but as a secondary plural built regularly
from asr (< *asr-ay-). The latter is documented as an alternate
plural of asr- constructed in accordance with the pattern shown

by qatl (pl. of qatl- slain), jar (pl. of jar- wounded), ayl
(pl. of il- (< *yil-) poor, etc.
405
compensated for the resulting gap by splicing together a new paradigm from the endings of the semivowel-final
stems which it still possessed viz. the contracted diptotes in *-ay- and the triptotes in *-iy-. The odd indefinite
accusative shape -iy-a, which has no counterpart in either of the familiar surviving paradigms, seems to be a fossil, the sole fragmentary remnant of the now-lost diptotic *-iy-stem type.
The inflection of semivowel-final quadriconsonantal plurals in Arabic, featuring forms drawn
from the paradigms of the diptotic stems in *-ay-, the triptotic stems in *-iy-,
and a trace of the now-lost diptotic paradigm in *-iyNom.
Attested
*Expected
Nom.
*layl
Obl.
*layliy-a
kubr
< *kubray-u
Obl.
< *kubray-a
Nom.
bni-n
< *bniy-u-n
Acc.
bniy-an
< *bniy-a-n
Gen.
bni-n
< *bniy-i-n
layli-n
layliy-a !
layl
layli-n
Abbreviations
acc. accusative
def. definite
f. feminine
gen. genitive
m. masculine
nom. nominative
obl. oblique
pl. plural
sg. singular
bibliography
Garr, W. Randall
2004
Huehnergard, John
1987
1997
Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000586 B.C.E. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Reprint of 1985 University
of Pennsylvania Press edition.
Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
A Grammar of Akkadian. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Kogan, Leonid E., and Andrey V. Korotayev

1997
Sayhadic (Epigraphic South Arabian). In The Semitic Languages, edited by Robert Hetzron, pp. 22041.
London and New York: Routledge.
406
Stewart, Devin J.
1998
Testen, David
1985
2007
David Testen
Clitic Reduction in the Formation of the Modal Prefixes in the Post-Classical Arabic Dialects and Classical Arabic sa-/sawfa. Arabica 45: 10428.
West Semitic Perspectives on the Akkadian Vetitive. In Studies in Semitic and Afroasiatic Linguistics Presented to Gene B. Gragg, edited by Cynthia L. Miller, pp. 20113. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations
60. Chicago: The Oriental Institute.
Mixed Linguistic Features in a Judeo-Arabic Text from Algeria
407
24
Mixed Linguistic Features in a Judeo-Arabic Text from

Algeria: The ar to the hafarot
from Constantine
Ofra Tirosh-Becker, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem*
It is my pleasure to dedicate this paper, which focuses on the Judeo-Arabic language of a Bible translation
(ar) from eastern Algeria, to my colleague and friend John Huehnergard. On this festive occasion I would like
to congratulate him by quoting from the ar to Proverbs 3:1314:1
Happy is the man who finds wisdom, the man who attains understanding.
Her value in trade is better than silver, her yield, greater than gold.
1. Introduction
Selections from the biblical books of Prophets, known in Hebrew as hafarot (singular hafara), are publicly
read in Jewish synagogues as part of the religious practice. A hafara is read on each Sabbath, and on Jewish festivals and fast days, after reading the Torah portion (paraa), and is usually thematically linked to it. The specific
sections from the books of Prophets that are read as the hafarot vary to a certain extent among different Jewish
communities. Since in these communities Hebrew did not serve as a spoken language, but rather primarily as a
language of prayer, the biblical text has become largely unintelligible to all but the most scholarly members of
the community. The elevated language in the books of Prophets, compared to that of the Torah stories, made the
hafara even less widely comprehensible. Consequently the Torah, the hafarot, and a few other biblical books,
such as the biblical Scrolls, were translated into various Jewish languages, among them Judeo-Arabic.
Early Judeo-Arabic translations of the Bible precede even the famous Bible translation of Rabbi Saadya
Gaon (882942), known as the Tafsr.2 Modern Judeo-Arabic translations of the Bible, which have evolved mainly
This paper is based on a lecture presented at the third international symposium of the International Association for the Study
of Middle Arabic and Mixed Arabic (AIMA 3), Florence, Italy, October 13, 2010. This research was supported by grant no. 814/03
from the Israel Science Foundation.
*
Renassia 1916a. The English translation is according to Jewish

Publication Society 1985.
2
See, for example, Blau 1992; Blau and Hopkins 2007, pp. 23538,
pp. 28182; Tobi 1993, pp. 87127; Tobi 1996.
1
407
408
Ofra Tirosh-Becker
since the fifteenth century in many Jewish communities in the Muslim world, known as ur (singular, ar),
were orally transmitted through the generations from teacher to disciple, and from father to son. Only in recent
centuries were some of these translation traditions recorded in manuscripts or in printed books, ensuring their
preservation for future generations.3
In this paper I discuss the language of an Algerian Judeo-Arabic translation of the hafarot. This ar tradition was printed circa 1935 by Rabbi Yosef Renassia (18791962), one of the pillars of the Jewish community of
Constantine, which is the largest city in eastern Algeria. This book, entitled Pirat Moe, comprises six parts encompassing all eighty-five hafarot. Seventy-four of the hafarot were accompanied by a Judeo-Arabic translation
and a Judeo-Arabic commentary, written as customary in Hebrew characters. In addition, the book also includes
a French translation of the hafarot.4
Such a complete Judeo-Arabic translation to almost all of the hafarot is quite rare. Rabbi Raphael Berdugo
of Miknes, Morocco (eighteenth to nineteenth centuries), compiled in his Lon Limmudim a partial ar to the
hafarot, focusing on difficult verses, phrases, and words.5 This compilation survived in several manuscripts.6 A
ar to the hafarot from Aleppo, Syria, was preserved both in manuscripts and in recordings of its oral tradition. 7
One also finds printed editions for a limited number of specific hafarot from Algeria and Tunisia. For example,
translations of a few hafarot were printed in the widely disseminated book Four Grails (Arbaa Giim), which was
first published in 1839,8 and a handful of others were printed in short booklets.9
The Judeo-Arabic translation of the hafarot was used primarily for didactic purposes. In the different maghrebian Jewish communities there were varied customs with regard to reading out loud the translation of specific
hafarot in the synagogue.10 Only on selected holidays was the translation of the hafara read out loud in some
Moroccan synagogues alongside the Hebrew original and the Aramaic translation.11 In some synagogues in the
Jewish communities of Constantine and its vicinity, there was a custom to read out loud the Judeo-Arabic translation of the hafarot for the three Sabbaths between seventeenth of Tammuz and ninth of A, known as telata
de-puranuta (the three [Sabbaths] of tribulation).12
In the book Pirat Moe Rabbi Yosef Renassia had put down in writing the translation tradition of the majority of the hafarot for the benefit of his young students in the talmud torah and in the E ayyim yeshivah, to help
them understand the original Hebrew text. The publication of this ar to the hafarot is part of an extraordinary
endeavor undertaken by this prominent leader of the Constantinian Jewish community. Rabbi Yosef Renassia
took upon himself the preservation of the Judeo-Arabic culture of his community, publishing scores of books,
among them translation traditions (ur), dictionaries, history books, and commentaries.13 It should be noted
that since Algerias French colonization in 1830, and especially after Algerian Jews were granted French citizenship in 1870, they gradually adopted the French language as their main means of communication at the expense
of their Judeo-Arabic dialect. Nonetheless, one can study the Constantinian Judeo-Arabic in the first half of the
Bar-Asher 1988; Bar-Asher 2001; Maman 2000, pp. 4853; Avishur 2001, pp. 10611. The ar often includes a variety of postbiblical texts, such as the Passover Haggadah, tractate Aot of
the Mishnah, and the liturgical poem Mi amoa. See Maman
1999; Hary 2009; Bar-Asher 2010c; Tirosh-Becker 2006; TiroshBecker 2011.
4
The book comprises six parts that were printed in several printing houses in different cities in Algeria and Tunisia. The different
parts were bound into several volumes in various combinations,
e.g., Volume 1: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus Hebrew, Judeo-Arabic,
and French; Volume 2: Numbers, Deutronomy, Moadim Hebrew,
Judeo-Arabic, and French. For details see Fraenkel 1982, vol. 2,
pp. 24344; also see the bibliography at the end of this paper. In
another binding combination, we have found only the hafarot
to Exodus and Leviticus bound in a single volume, with a French
translation that was printed in a different printing house: Imprimerie Assoun, Philippeville.
5
Lon Limmudim is a short commentary on the Bible written by
Rabbi Raphael Berdugo of Miknes, Morocco (17471821), which
aimed to replace the oral ar tradition of this community and
correct inaccuracies that were introduced into it throughout the
generations; see Bar-Asher 2001, part 1, pp. 57.
3
6
An annotated scientific edition of the entire Lon Limmudim
was published in Bar-Asher 2001. Part 4 includes the ar to the
hafarot. On the transmission of this partial ar to the hafarot
and its characteristics, see Bar-Asher 2001, part 4, pp. 335.
7
Avishur 2006, pp. xvii*xix*; Avishur 2009, p. 137.
8
Arbaa Geiim, Livorno 1839. Due to its popularity, this book was
reprinted in many editions; see Ilan and Dahan 2002, pp. 14.
9
E.g., Sep er Qeren Meio o Hafarat mini el Pesa. Tunis 1910;
Hafarat Tia B-A. Tunis: Wazan imprimerie (n.d.). For more
details, see Attal 2007, pp. 3233, 38, 4041; Tobi and Tobi 2000, p.
26. A hafara for the first day of Rosh Ha-Shanah was published in
Tedghi 2006, pp. 30104, 30710. For a ar to hafarat Tia B-A
in Egyptian Judeo-Arabic, see Hary 2009, p. 64. ur to hafarat
Tia B-A were also printed in Baghdad, Calcutta, Bombay, and
Livorno.
10
Bar-Asher 2001, part 4, pp. 10, 1416; Tedghi 2008, pp. 14344.
11
Chetrit 1994, pp. 38, 18384; Maman 2003, p. 147.
12
Tedghi 2008, p. 144; Bar-Asher 2001, part 4, p. 19 n. 57.
13
Charvit 2010; Tirosh-Becker 1988, pp. 46.
409
twentieth century from compositions that were penned in this dialect, from the Judeo-Arabic newspaper l-ikma,
which was published in this city (191213, 192223), and from recordings of elderly informants who emigrated
from Constantine to Israel and France, both in free speech and in reading selections from the ar.14
2. The Language of the ar

By its nature the language of the ar was forged under the influence of two opposing forces. On the one
hand, the goal of the translation is to make the text comprehensible to the local community, leading to the use
of vernacular features. On the other hand, the sanctity of the text that is being translated imposes an elevated
style and conservative traits. As a consequence the language of ar traditions is characterized by a mixture of
layers.15 It includes conservative Arabic elements, features from Medieval Judeo-Arabic, dialectal features that
are not used in the daily spoken dialect, and local vernacular traits. Naturally, different ur vary in the relative
prevalence of conservative components versus vernacular features, reflecting the sanctity of the text and the
period in which its translation tradition was formulated. 16 Furthermore, despite the presence of some colloquial
features in the language of the ar, this language remains significantly elevated even with respect to the language
used by the rabbinic elite in their original exegetical compositions and other writings.17 In this paper I examine
the Mixed Judeo-Arabic of the Constantinian ar to the hafarot, mainly in the realm of morphology and lexicon.
It should be noted that the ur adopt a word-for-word translation method, due to the traditional influence
of the famous ancient Aramaic translation of the Torah, Targum Onqelos.18 Hence, the syntax of the ar reflects
the syntax of the original biblical Hebrew text, and not Arabic syntax. Moreover, even the Hebrew direct-object
particle e ( ), which does not have an exact counterpart particle in Arabic syntax, is translated in this ar by
).19 For example:20
an artificial equivalent ila (
1 Kings 3:20 (hafarat Miqq):
She arose in the night and took my son from my side.

In this respect the ar to the hafarot aligns with the Constantinian ar to other books of the Bible (except for
the ar to Ecclesiastes) and with the Constantinian ar to Mishnah tractate Aot.21
E.g., Tirosh-Becker 2010a; 2010b; 2011.

Bar-Asher 1991; Bar-Asher 1988, pp. 3032; Tedghi 1993; TiroshBecker 1990a.
16
For example, the language of the Moroccan ar to the Passover
Haggadah is not as elevated as the language of the Moroccan ar
to the Bible; see Bar-Asher 1985, pp. 24244. On the classification
of the ur from Constantine to different Bible books according
to their linguistic characteristics, see Tirosh-Becker 1990a.
17
For a detailed comparison between the language of the Constantinian ar to tractate Aot and the language of Rabbi Renassias commentary on this tractate, see Tirosh-Becker 2011.
18
Bar-Asher 1988, p. 27.
19
The Arabic particle il ( ) usually carries the meaning to; see
Wright 1981, vol. 1, p. 280, 358a. The direct object is expressed
in Arabic by the accusative case, although in some instances it
can be expressed by li-, bi- or iyya-. See Wright 1981, vol. 1, pp.
10304, 18889; vol. 2, pp. 15960, 56b). On the use of li-, bi-,
14
15
and iyya- in Medieval Judeo-Arabic, see Blau 1980a, pp. 172,

254e; 17780, 265c, 266d, 269a; 325, 252. For a detailed discussion on ila as a translation to
, see Tirosh-Becker 1988,
pp. 29497; Hary 1991.
20
I adopt the following conventions for all the examples in this
paper: The Judeo-Arabic text appears exactly as it is printed in
the book Pirat Moe. The biblical verses are quoted from M.
Breuers addition of the Tanakh (Jerusalem, orev publishing),
which is based on Keter Aram oa. The English translation is
according to Jewish Publication Society 1985.
21
Tirosh-Becker 2006, pp. 32628. Tirosh-Becker 2011. Ila for
is also found in a Judeo-Arabic translation of the Passover
Haggadah from Algiers; see Attal 1975. It is also present in ur
from Baghdad; see Blanc 1964b, p. 28. Artificial translations for
are found already in Pre-Saadianic Bible translations; see,
for example, Blau 1992, pp. 3233; Tobi 1993, pp. 8990; Tobi
1996, p. 486.
410
Ofra Tirosh-Becker
3. Mixed Features in the Pronominal System

The mixture of linguistic elements in the ar to the hafarot from Constantine (SHC) is observed even in the
same paradigm. I demonstrate it here in the paradigm of the independent personal pronouns, and in the paradigm
of the demonstrative pronouns used in this ar.
3.1. Independent Personal Pronouns

In the spoken dialect of this community, Judeo-Arabic of Constantine (JAC), there is no distinction between
the masculine and feminine forms of the second-person singular independent pronouns, and both are denoted
by nti.22 In contrast, SHC preserves the distinction between the masculine and feminine forms: the masculine
), while the feminine pronoun is
(nt / ant).23 Examples in SHC:
pronoun is nta (
Jon 4:2 (hafarat Mina le-Yom Kippur):
For I know that You are a compassionate and gracious God.

Isa 51:12 (hafarat p m):
What ails you that you fear.

The preservation of the distinction between masculine and feminine forms, as well as the use of the archaic
), are among the conservative features in SHC. These two forms are also used in the
pronoun nta (cf. CA
Constantinian ar to the book of Proverbs.24 Interestingly, unlike the loss of the distinction between 2mSg and
2fSg pronouns in JAC, this distinction is preserved in the Muslim dialect of Constantine (MAC), where nta or ntya
are used for 2mSg and nti or ntiyya for 2fSg.25
), is another conservative feature in SHC. Example:
The 2mPl independent personal pronoun, ntum (

1 Sam 12:20 (hafarat Qra):
You have, indeed, done all those wicked things.
Tirosh-Becker 1988, pp. 25658; P. Marais 1977, p. 189.

It is noteworthy that the occurrence of 2fSg pronoun is rare
in the original Hebrew text of the hafarot. The 2mSg form nta
(
) occurs numerous times in this text. Only once did we find
in SHC, in one of the hafarot for Leviticus, the dialectal form nti
(
) for 2mSg (Ezek 22:2: hafarat Ar M), although even in
the ar to the hafarot for Leviticus, nta is usually used. On the
uniqueness of the hafarot to Leviticus, see 4.1 below.
24
Renassia 1916a; Prov 7:4:
(
Say to Wisdom, You are my sister ). In the books of
Psalms, Job, Ecclesiastes, and Lamentations, for which we also
22
23
have printed editions of the ar from Constantine, there were no

occurrences of the 2fSg pronoun in Hebrew. The form ant (
)
appears twice in the ar to the book of Daniel denoting 2mSg
pronoun; see Renassia 1917b. However, since the typical 2mSg
pronoun in the ar to Daniel is nta (
), and in these two
specific occurrences the original Qre Aramaic form is
(Dan
6:17, 21), the occurrence of
in the ar to these two verses
in Daniel is most likely influenced by the original Aramaic form.
25
According to Laraba, the short or long forms are variants conditioned by phrase stress; see Laraba 1981, p. 103.
411
This pronoun is similar to its CA form antum (

), while in the local dialect, it is replaced by the vernacular
forms ntma or ntman, usually with an initial ultra-short vowel.26
Nonetheless, alongside these conservative features, we also find in SHC several dialectal independent personal
). However, in SHC we find the
pronouns. For example, in CA the 1Pl independent personal pronoun is nanu (
) or na ( ) for the 1Pl independent personal pronoun.27 The dialectal JAC form for
vernacular forms na (
this pronoun is na. Examples:
Josh 2:17 (hafarat la L):
We will be released from this oath which you have made us take.
Josh 2:18 (hafarat la L):
When we invade the country.

), similar to the dialectal JAC form
Likewise, the 3Pl independent personal pronoun in SHC is hum(m)n (
28
for this pronoun, hum(m)n or hum(m)a, and in contrast to CA hum ( ). For example:
Jer 2:11 (hafarat Mas):
Has any nation changed its gods, Even though they are no-gods?
2 Kings 4:5 (hafarat Wayyr):
They kept bringing [vessels].

To conclude, the paradigm of the independent personal pronouns used in SHC exhibits a mixture of conservative and colloquial forms, as is clearly seen in comparison to this paradigm in JAC:
No 2fPl independent pronoun appeared in the hafarot. In JAC

there is no distinction between 2mPl and 2fPl pronouns. In MAC
ntma for both 2mPl and 2fPl pronouns, see Laraba 1981, p. 103.
See the variants of this personal pronoun form in other maghrebian dialects: M. Cohen 1912, pp. 33637; D. Cohen 1975, p. 210;
GrandHenry 1972, pp. 129, 131; P. Marais 1977, p. 189.
27
The pronoun
is sometimes pronounced ana, due to the
proximity of the initial vowel to the pharyngeal consonant . The
form
(na) is more frequent than
(na) in SHC, and
no conditioning for their use could be determined, at least according to the written text (i.e., it was not dependent on the last
phoneme of the preceding word). There was only one occurrence
in SHC for the conservative 1Pl independent personal pronoun
; cf. CA
. Interestingly, in the first occurrence of this pronoun in the same verse, the dialectal form na was used: 2 Kings
26
7:9 (hafarat Mr):
Then they said to one another: We are not doing right. This is
a day of good news, and we are keeping silent! ). Note that this
sole occurrence appeared in one of the hafarot for Leviticus; on
the linguistic features in the ar to the hafarot for Leviticus,
see 4.1 below.
28
When reading the ar to Psalms, the rabbi informants usually
pronounced this pronoun with a doubled m; see Tirosh-Becker
1988, p. 260. This pronoun was usually pronounced with doubled
m also in the recordings of linguistic questionnaires. A form with
doubled m, hmma, is documented in south Tunisia and Libya; see
P. Marais 1977, p. 190. See also a in the Arabic dialect of the
Jews of Tripoli, Libya, in Yoda 2005, p. 115.
412
Ofra Tirosh-Becker
SHC:
JAC:
MAC:29
1Sg
()ana (
2mSg
nta (
3mSg
huwa / huwwa (
1Pl
na (
2mPl
ntum (
3Pl
hum(m)n (
1Sg
()ana
2Sg
nti
3mSg
huwa / huwwa
1Pl
na
2Pl
3Pl
hum(m)a / hum(m)n
1Sg
na
2mSg
2fSg
nt / ant (
3fSg
hiyya (
2fPl
[no examples]
3fSg
hiyya
nta / ntya
2fSg
nti / ntiyya
3mSg
huwwa
3fSg
hiyya
1Pl
na
2Pl
ntma
3Pl
hma
) / na (
)
)
)
)
ntma / ntman
3.2. Plural Demonstrative Pronouns

Another example for the blend of conservative and dialectal properties in SHC is the plural demonstrative pro),30 which is similar to the CA form huli (
)
nouns. The plural demonstrative for near deixis is hwlay (
and differs from the local dialectal form hdu. In contrast to the near deixis by hwlay, the plural demonstrative
), which is part of the common maghrebian dialectal paradigm of demonstratives
for distant deixis is hdk (
). For example:
for distant deixis hdk, hdk, hdk,31 and differs from the CA demonstrative lika (
Isa 44:21 (hafarat Wayyiqr):
Remember these things, O Jacob. For you, O Israel, are My servant.

Zech 14:3 (hafara for the first day of Sukkot):
Then the Lord will come forth and make war on those nations as He is wont to make war
on a day of battle.
Laraba 1981, p. 103.
On similar variants in Spanish-Arabic, see Corriente 1977, p. 98,
5.12.3. See also the other variants in Fischer and Jastrow 1980,
p. 256, 12.2.2.1.
29
30
P. Marais 1977, pp. 19798; Laraba 1981, p. 108. In many

maghrebian Jewish dialects, the fricative interdentals shift to
their plosive counterparts (e.g., * > d); see Fischer and Jastrow
1980, p. 256, 12.2.2.1.
31
We found the colloquial demonstrative pronoun hdu (

translation to the conservative pronoun hwlay.32
413
) in SHC only once in parenthesis, as an alternative
Ezek 37:18 (hafarat Wayyigga):
Wont you tell us what these actions of yours mean?

As in many other maghrebian dialects, when hdu appears in JAC before a definite noun, it shortens to hd
regardless of gender or number, for example, hd l-bnt (these girls).33 In SHC we found only one occurrence for
(hawlay) also aphd as a plural demonstrative pronoun before a definite noun.34 The plural demonstrative
35
pears in R. Berdugos Lon Limmudim, while it is not used in the spoken dialect of Miknesian Jews. Nonetheless,
there are other maghrebian ar traditions in which the colloquial form hdu is employed.36
The following table summarizes the common plural (cPl) demonstratives of near and distant deixis discussed
herein:
SHC
JAC
MAC37
CA
Near deixis (cPl)

)
hwlay (
hdu
hdu
huli (
Distant deixis (cPl)
hdk (
hdk
hdk
lika (
4. Conservative Features in SHC

The conservative components in the language of SHC are not limited to pronouns, but rather they are observed
in all parts of speech. Their occurrence in SHC reflects the elevated and venerable language of the ar. Following
are some of the conservative elements in SHC.
4.1. The Negation Particle

The negation particle that is used in SHC to translate the various Hebrew negation words n ( ), bal ( ),
al ( ), and l ( ) is lay ( ), which reflects the CA laysa ( ). The negation particle laysa has become invariable in Medieval Arabic, that is, in Jewish and Christian Middle Arabic and in early Muslim Middle Arabic.38 It is
sometimes accompanied by suffixed pronouns,39 a phenomenon that is also observed in SHC, where we find the
), nenn (
), nem (
). The particle lay is
forms layi, layu, and laykum as translations for nenn (
not used in the Constantinian local Jewish dialect (JAC), where negation is expressed mainly by the pattern m ,
for example, m ktb (he did not write), like in many other maghrebian dialects.40 It is noteworthy, however, that
The alternative translation in parenthesis often offers explanations or synonyms of a vernacular nature, and rarely even the
French equivalent of the Judeo-Arabic word, especially when the
word refers to a term for realia (in the entire SHC, there were
approximately thirty occurrences of French words in parenthesis). Hebrew words are seldom used in these parentheses. On the
various applications of parenthesis in the Constantinian ar,
see Tirosh-Becker 2006, pp. 32938. Cf. Tedghi 2006, pp. 29799.
33
A similar shortening to hd occurs also when hda or hdi appear before a definite noun. See, for example, P. Marais 1977,
p. 197.
32
Isa 42:16 (hafarat Br):

(
These are the promises I will
keep them without fail).
35
Bar-Asher 2001, part 3, pp. 94, 485, and n. 4.
36
Bar-Asher 2010a, p. 184.
37
Laraba 1981, p. 108.
38
Blau 2002, p. 47, 89; Blau 1980a, pp. 14344, 317, 206; Blau
1999, pp. 87, 132; Blau 196667, 2, p. 305, 204.
39
Blau 1980a, p. 144, 206c; Blau 196667, vol. 2, p. 310, 204.5.1.
34
414
Ofra Tirosh-Becker
the negation particle that serves in some Algerian Bedouin dialects is leys.41 The voiceless post-alveolar fricative
// in the SHC word lay, instead of the voiceless alveolar fricative /s/, is notable as these two consonants are
distinct phonemes in this dialect.42 Examples:
Mic 7:18 (hafarat Wayyle):
Who has not maintained His wrath for ever.43

2 Kings 12:8 (hafarat Shabbat Shqalim):
Why have you not kept the House in repair?

Isa 1:15 (hafarat Drm):
Though you pray at length, I will not listen.44

In SHC we found only two occurrences of the colloquial negation pattern m . Both examples appeared
in parenthesis, which often present explanations, different interpretations, parallel traditions, or synonyms of
vernacular nature, for example:45
1 Kings 1:4 (hafarat ayy Sr):
But the king was not intimate with her.46

In this respect, the ar to the hafarot for Leviticus differs from the Constantinian ar to all the other hafarot.
used in the other sections of SHC, in the ar to the hafarot for Leviticus the negaIn contrast to the spelling
, for example:
tion particle is spelled
2 Sam 6:10 (hafarat mn):
So David would not bring the Ark of the Lord to his place in the City of David.
On negation particles in maghrebian dialects, see P. Marais

1977, pp. 27580.
41
GrandHenry 1995, p. 52.
42
Tirosh-Becker 1988, pp. 3439. Both spellings
and
are attested in the ar Lon Limmudim from Miknes, Morocco;
see Bar-Asher 2001, part 4, pp. 94, 116, 153, 168, 203 (even side
by side, see n. 2).
43
The word
was printed with although it should be read
. This was the method that this specific printing house used
to denote a final ( ). In other printing houses it was denoted
by .
44
The spelling with two yods is found only in a few examples
of this negation particle, which had a pronominal suffix
(
).
40
The other example: Jer 31:14 (hafarah for the second day of
Rosh Ha-Shanah):
(
Rachel weeping for her children. She refuses to
be comforted. For her children who are gone).
46
While the main translation of the biblical phrase
is literal
(did not know her), the alternative translation
in parenthesis,
, conveys the meaning of mating.
Note however, that in some maghrebian dictionaries,
also
means to have relations with a woman; see Beaussier 1958, p.
645; Marais and Guga 195861, 5:2529.
45
415
This is not the only feature in which the ar to the hafarot for Leviticus differs from the rest of SHC. Among
its distinctive characteristics are the use of the perfect inflectional morpheme -tu for 2cPl (6.4 below), and the
plural form umam (6.5 below).47 A possible explanation for the somewhat different character of this section of
Pirat Moe is that it was printed in Makhluf Najjrs printing house in Sousse, Tunisia, while the other volumes
were printed in other printing houses in Djerba and Constantine.48 Alternatively, it is possible that Rabbi Renassia
incorporated in his edition of SHC a version of the ar to the hafarot for Leviticus that was put down in writing
by someone else and was available to him.
4.2. The Relative Pronoun

The main relative pronoun in SHC is ldi (
), which translates the Hebrew relative pronoun er (
).49
). However, in contrast to the inflection of alla in CA, the proThe pronoun ldi reflects the CA form alla (
was mostly invariable already in Medieval Judeo-Arabic,50 and ldi is invariable in the Constantinian
noun
) is also characteristic of the literary language of the Jews of Tunis and of the
ar. The relative pronoun ldi (
Jews of Baghdad (where it is pronounced llai).51 The following examples demonstrate the invariability of this
pronoun in SHC:
The prophecies of Isaiah son of Amoz who prophesized concerning Judah and Jerusalem.
Ezek 44:22 (hafarat mr):
Or widows who are widows of priests.

The dialectal relative pronoun lli occurs in SHC only in 15 percent of the occurrences of the Hebrew relative
pronouns in the original biblical text, reflecting a limited penetration from the spoken dialect.52 The pronoun
lli follows one of the two directions in which the relative pronoun has evolved in North African Arabic dialects,
). The dialectal forms lli and lli preserve the
each preserving a different element of the CA pronoun alla (
alveolar liquid element ll, while the dialectal forms ddi and ddi reflect the original interdental element i.53
In most of the occurrences of lli in SHC, it stands for the Hebrew definite article ha ( ) when it is used as a
relative before attributive participles,54 a use that is also found in the Constantinian ar to Psalms.55 Albeit not
47
See also the marginal examples in notes 23 (
) and 27 ( )
above, and note 81 (
) below.
48
On the distinctive character of the language of the ar to the
Scroll of Ruth, which was also printed in Sousse and bound with
another work by Rabbi Renassia, see Tirosh-Becker 1990a, pp.
198, 204.
49
The pronoun ldi (
) is also one of the two alternative
translation options for the Hebrew pronoun z ( ), the other
option being hda/hdi (
). Both translation options are
given side by side in the following example: Isa 43:21 (hafarat
Wayyiqr):
(
The people I formed for Myself ). See also Tirosh-Becker 1988, pp. 27475.
Blau 2002, p. 55, 139; Blau 1980a, pp. 23537, 361.

D. Cohen 1975, p. 221; Blanc 1964b, p. 28.
52
In JAC both lli and lli are used. In MAC the typical form is
lli; see Laraba 1981, p. 109. The form
is documented, albeit
rarely, in medieval Judeo-Arabic manuscripts. See Blau 1980a,
pp. 237, 338, 362.
53
Fischer and Jastrow 1980, pp. 8485, 6.3.1; 258, 12.2.4;
Huehnergard 2006, p. 120. Note, however, that the origin of
the form lli is still debated; see, for example, the discussion in
GrandHenry 1972, pp. 14142; D. Cohen 1975, p. 221.
54
Joon and Muraoka 1991, vol. 2, pp. 53738, 145d.
55
Tirosh-Becker 1988, pp. 251, 273.
50
51
416
Ofra Tirosh-Becker
every such use of Hebrew ha is translated by lli, and we also find examples of lli translating the Hebrew relative
pronoun er. Examples:
Jer 34:18 (hafarat Mipm):
I will make the men who violated My covenant, who did not fulfill the terms of the covenant.56
1 Kings 6:2 (hafarat Trm):
The House which King Solomon built for the Lord.

that translates some of the occurThis pronoun also serves as the first component in the pattern
rences of an infinitive construct in the original Hebrew text,57 for example:
Mal 3:14 (hafarat Shabbat Ha-Gadol):
You have said, It is useless to serve God.
4.3. The Eighth Verbal Stem

The conservative traits of SHC are observed also in verb morphology. Such is the presence of the verbal stem
with the infix t (eighth stem) in SHC, *iCtaCaCa > iCtCC (*iftaala > iftl). It should be noted that the use of this
verbal stem has diminished in maghrebian dialects and is on the verge of disappearing.58 Eighth verbal stem forms
are documented also in the Constantinian ar to other biblical and post-biblical books as well as in Moroccan
ar traditions.59 Examples:
Isa 41:5 (hafarat L L):
The coastlands look on in fear. The ends of earth tremble.

1 Sam 20:30 (hafarat Maar ode):
I know that you side with the son of Jesse.
56
On the metathesis in the word
, see Tirosh-Becker 2010a,
pp. 51315.
57
See also in the ar to Psalms: Tirosh-Becker 1988, p. 252. For
other options for translating Hebrew infinitive constructs in
Constantinian Judeo-Arabic, see Tirosh-Becker 2006, pp. 35052.
58
M. Cohen 1912, pp. 22227; P. Marais 1956, p. 196; GrandHenry
1972, pp. 6364; D. Cohen 1975, p. 126; P. Marais 1977, pp. 6364;
Yoda 2005, pp. 17981.
59
Tirosh-Becker 2006, pp. 35657; Tirosh-Becker 1990a, p. 199;
Tirosh-Becker 2011, pp. 19495; Bar-Asher 1988, p. 17; Bar-Asher
1991, p. 21; Bar-Asher 2010a, p. 184.
417
4.4. The Seventh Verbal Stem

Another conservative phenomenon in SHCs verbal system is the favoring of the seventh verbal stem *inCaCaCa
> nCCC (*infaala > nfl) for denoting the passive voice, over the colloquial reflexive/passive verbal stem with
a prefix t/tt, ttCCC (ttfl).60 Examples:
Isa 41:16 (hafarat L L):
But you shall rejoice in the Lord, and glory in the Holy One of Israel.
Hos 12:2 (hafarat Wayy):
Now they make a covenant with Assyria, now oil is carried to Egypt.
4.5. Remnants of the Fourth Verbal Stem

As in other maghrebian dialects, the fourth verbal stem has ceased to function as a productive category in
),
JAC, with only a few relic participle forms in the language of the Constantinian ar. 61 The word muxf (
awe-inspiring, revered), is an active participle of the fourth verbal
which translates the Hebrew word nr (
stem of the root *xwf 62 and is an example of this conservative trait in SHC. Another such example in SHC is the
savior) from the root *w.63 The Hebrew letter vav in both
and
denotes the quality
form mut (
of the vowel u and not its length. For example:
Mal 3:23 (hafarat Shabbat Ha-Gadol):
Before the coming of the awesome, fearful day of the Lord.

2 Sam 22:42 (hafarat Hazn):
They looked, and there was none to deliver.

) is sometimes translated in SHC by the word mawxf (
The Hebrew word nr (
limited to the language of the ar,64 for example:
I do not elaborate on this phenomenon herein, as I have discussed it at length elsewhere; see Tirosh-Becker 1989, pp. 30509;
Tirosh-Becker 2006, pp. 35556. On the seventh verbal stem in
maghrebian dialects, see P. Marais 1977, pp. 6263; D. Cohen
1975, p. 125; M. Cohen 1912, pp. 21822; GrandHenry 1972, pp.
6263. On the verbal stem with a prefix t/tt, see P. Marais 1977,
pp. 6667; D. Cohen 1975, pp. 12324; M. Cohen 1912, pp. 22731;
Fischer and Jastrow 1980, p. 264, 12.4.6.2. For a comprehensive
study on the passive voice in Arabic dialects, see Rets 1983.
61
On this phenomenon in maghrebian dialects, see Fischer and
Jastrow 1980, p. 46, 3.8.1. A few participle forms of the fourth
60
). This word is also
verbal stem are documented also in the JA dialect of Algiers; see

M. Cohen 1912, p. 212. Cf. in Baghdad Blanc 1964b, p. 26.
62
Ben Sedira 1995, p. 95.
63
On the shift of the fricative interdental consonants, see n. 31
above. The participle form mut occurs also in the Constantinian
ar to Psalms (e.g., Psalm 7:11,
); see Tirosh-Becker 1988,
pp. 22728.
64
This passive participle of the hollow triliteral stem *xwf follows the pattern of verbs with a weak first radical; see 5.4 below.
418
Ofra Tirosh-Becker
Mal 1:14 (hafarat Tld):
My name in revered among the nations.

), mawxf and muxf, appear also in the Constantinian ar to Psalms.65
Both translation alternants for nr (
Muxf as a translation of nr appears in Moroccan ar traditions as well.66
fear, revThe two aforementioned alternants, mawxf and muxf, also translate the Hebrew word mr (
erence), although due to the rareness of this biblical Hebrew word, we did not find both alternants in the same
text. Namely, in the sole occurrence in which mr was translated by a participle form in SHC, it was translated
).67 While in the only occurrence of mr in Psalms, it was translated muxf (
).68 The example
as mawxf (
in SHC is:
Jer 32:21 (hafarat Bhar Snay):
With a strong hand and an outstretched arm, and with great terror.
In a Passover Haggadah from Algiers, we also find the word mr translated muxf (
).69
4.6. Plural Feminine Participle Forms

Unlike the spoken Judeo-Arabic dialect of Constantine (JAC), and many other maghrebian dialects, 70 in which
the distinct feminine plural participle forms ceased to exist, these forms were preserved in SHC. Hence, while
in JAC the masculine plural form with the suffix -n denotes the participle of both genders, in SHC the feminine
plural form with the suffix -t is still in use, reflecting the Hebrew feminine plural participle forms. For example:
This woman and I live in the same house.71

Ezek 29:12 (hafarat Vr):
And its cities shall be the most desolate of ruined cities.

E.g., Renassia 1954; Psalm 47:3
(
For the Lord Most High is awesome); Psalm
(
76:8
O You! You are awesome! Who can withstand You).
66
Bar-Asher 2001, part 2, pp. 54, 399, 518; Tedghi 2006, p. 305.
67
Other occurrences of
in the hafarot were translated by the noun xawf (fear), e.g., Mal 1:6 (hafarat Tld):
(
and if I am
a master, where is the reverence due Me?).
68
Renassia 1954; Psalm 76:12
(
Make vows and pay them to the
Lord your God; all who are around Him shall bring tribute to the
Awesome One). Note here the use of the alternant xawf.
65
Attal 1975, p. 21 a translation of Deuteronomy 21:8. According to Ratzabi, the Hebrew word mr was translated in different
sources of Saadya Gaons Tafsr as
or
; Ratzabi 1985, p.
63. See also the translation variants of
therein.
70
D. Cohen 1975, p. 94; W. Marais 1908, p. 76.
71
Note that the dual form of the participle is not used in the
JA translation to this verse in SHC. The dual participle form is
not used in JAC. On the limited presence of dual forms in Arabic dialects, see Blanc 1970, pp. 4257. In SHC we do find dual
forms denoting quantities, for example: 2 Kings 7:18 (hafarat
Mr):
(
Two seahs of barley and a seah of choice
flour).
69
419
The conservative trait of preserving feminine plural participle form is found also in the Constantinian ar
to Psalms, and in the ar tradition from Tafilalt, Morocco.72
5. Non-classical Features Unique to the ar

In addition to phenomena that are clearly conservative in nature, the language of the ar also includes nonclassical features that are not used in the spoken dialect. These are identified by the speakers of the dialect as
characteristic of the elevated language of the ar. Some of these features may have been introduced into the
ar during the period when they were employed in the spoken dialect, as part of the effort to make the biblical
text more comprehensible to the community. However, with time the ar itself gained a special status and has
become more resistant to change, while the spoken dialect continued to evolve. As a result these dialectal features
are found only, or mainly, in the language of the ar. It should be noted that ar traditions were also influenced
by relocation, from one community to another, of rabbis who taught the ar, adding further complexity to its
language by introducing features from other dialects.73
5.1. The Adverb Now

It is well known that the adverb now, which is frequently conveyed in CA by the word aln ( ), is expressed
in Arabic dialects by a variety of lexemes.74 Even among maghrebian dialects, one finds several dialectal words
to denote now:75 tawwa in Tunisian dialects76 and tsuwa in the dialect of the Jews of Tripoli, Libya (both from CA
tawwan, ),77 dba in Moroccan dialects and in the Jewish dialects of Tlemcen and Algiers,78 and dlwaqt in Algerian
dialects (with numerous variants such as dlwaq, drwaq, rwaq, dlk, and drk).79 Many of the dialectal words for
now are constructed from a demonstrative pronoun accompanied with a definite noun that denotes time; for
leads to the Baghdadi variant hassa,
leads to haln in some Palestinian dialects, and
example,
80
leads to dlwaqt and its variants.
The adverb denoting now in the spoken JAC dialect is dqa, also pronounced dawqa and qa. In SHC, on
) and less frequently dlwaqt
the other hand, the dialectal variants that are used to denote now are dlwaq (
81
). This form, which is not used in daily spoken JAC, is common to various Constantinian ur and is also
(
used in the language register of the Constantinian rabbanite elite.82 In this register this aforementioned word is
sometimes pronounced drwaq, with an interchange of the liquid consonants l and r.
72
Tirosh-Becker 1989, pp. 30405, and n. 100; Bar-Asher 1991,
p. 22.
73
An example is the use of the Tunisian adverb ysr as an alternative translation in the Constantinian ar; see 5.3 below.
74
Fischer 1959, pp. 14356; Levin 1994, p. 259.
75
I mention here only representative examples of the main dialectal forms; needless to say, each has many local variants. For
a more detailed review of the various variants, see P. Marais
1977, pp. 25455.
76
The Jews of Tunis also use, albeit less frequently, the form
na, and rarely the older form deln; see D. Cohen 1975, p. 243.
Also see Talmoudi 1980, p. 160 [tw:]; Cheraifi 2005, p. 480; Attal
1999, pp. 46*, 48.
77
Yoda 2005, pp. 265, 267.
78
Heath 2002, pp. 11819, 452; Colin 199396, vol. 3, p. 495;according to Collin, drk is used in Marakesh; see ibid., p. 524;
Cheraifi 2005, p. 480; M. Cohen 1912, pp. 37374, 478; Ben Sedira
1995, p. 98; W. Marais 1911, pp. 28990.
79
M. Cohen 1912, pp. 37374, 478; Tirosh-Becker 1988, pp. 30102;
Laraba 1981, p. 112 [urk]); GrandHenry 1972, pp. 16061; P. Marais 1977, pp. 25455.
80
Fischer 1959, pp. 14349; Blanc 1964a, pp. 13839; Levin 1994,
p. 259.
81
These variants are sometimes spelled with a single vav:
. There were two occurrences in SHC of the spelling
in the ar to the hafarot for Leviticus (Jer 32:8, hafarat
Bhar Snay; Isa 44:1, hafarat Wayyiqr), although it is usually
spelled in this section of the ar
as in the rest of SHC.
82
This register was used in conversations among rabbis and
scholars, and in the original literature composed by them, such
as commentaries.
420
Ofra Tirosh-Becker
The adverb dlwaq / dlwaqt that translates the biblical Hebrew att (
now) also frequently renders the
Hebrew modal interjection (or vocative) n ( ), which indicates a request or a plea. 83 Interpreting n ( ) as
denoting now is an age-old tradition that goes back to the Second Temple period and is attested in numerous
Judeo-Arabic Bible translations.84 Examples in SHC:
Jud 13:4 (hafarat N):
Now be careful not to drink wine or other intoxicant.

Do me a favor, let me slip away to see my kinsmen.
5.2. The Presentative hawda

The presentative hawda (
) is unique to the language of SHC and is not used in JAC.85 It translates the
), which occur in the biblical text of the hafarot. Hawda is an invariHebrew presentatives hinn ( ) and hal (
) in CA.86 Note that already the Medieval Judeo-Arabic
able form, possibly originating from h-huwa- (
were invariable in the 3mSg form.87 It is found, spelled
, also in Saadya
and Medieval Christian Arabic
Gaons Tafsr as a translation of the Hebrew hinn ( ). In addition to SHC, hawda also serves in ar traditions of
other Jewish communities in North Africa and Egypt, and likewise ha in Iraq.88 Examples:
Ezek 37:19 (hafarat Wayyigga):
I am going to take the stick of Joseph.

You must have heard that Adonijah son of aggit has assumed the kingship.
83
The Hebrew word n ( ) is sometimes translated as b-rba
(
). For example, in the first occurrence of
in the verse
1 Sam 20:29 (hafarat Maar ode), a part of which is cited in
the main text, it was translated as b-rba:
(
He said, please let me go ). Another example: Jud 4:19 (hafarat Balla):
(
Please let me have some water, I
am thirsty). On b-rba in other ar traditions, see Bar-Asher
2001, part 2, pp. 49697; part 4, p. 85; Doron 1979, pp. 33839.
84
Blau 1980b, pp. 18791. For examples, see Bar-Asher 1988, p.
28; Bar-Asher 2001, part 4, p. 97; Tedghi 1994, p. 110; Hary 2009,
pp. 19596; Doron 1979, pp. 33538.
85
In SHC this presentative is almost always spelled
. There
were only two occurrences of the spelling
, and two occurrences of the spelling
. A detailed discussion on the various
presentatives used in the different genres of the Judeo-Arabic

literature of Constantine, based on a lecture that I presented at
a Conference On Hebrew and Jewish Languages in honor of
Professor Moshe Bar-Asher, held in Jerusalem November 2007,
will be published elsewhere.
86
For a discussion on the derivation of
, see Blau 196667,
vol. 2, p. 466 n. 15; Fischer 1959, pp. 16162, 180. Cf. Blanc 1964b,
p. 30 and n. 32.
87
Blau 1980a, pp. 174, 32526, 260; Blau 2002, pp. 51, 119; Blau
2006, pp. 73738; Blau 196667, pp. 46567, 36465.
88
Bar-Asher 1988, p. 18; Bar-Asher 2001, 3, pp. 168, 350, 355,
51415, 535; Tedghi 1993, pp. 53839; Tedghi 1994, p. 110; Hary
2009, pp. 19798; Blanc 1964b, pp. 2930. The word
is used
also in -ar S-Ssn from the sixteenth century, see Doron
1979, pp. 32831.
421
5.3. The Adverb Very

The Hebrew adverb m (
), which means exceedingly, greatly, very, is translated in SHC by the Arabic
), sometimes pronounced by informants who are rabbis as mowd.89 The use of mawd as
word mawd (
an adverb to denote very by the Jews of Constantine is restricted to the language of the ar.90 This probably
results from a semantic extension of the regular meaning of this word in spoken JAC and other Algerian Arabic
dialects, which is exists. 91 In contrast, in spoken JAC the word bzzf is used to denote very and much.92 The
word bzzf is frequent also in the Jewish dialect of Algiers, in the Muslim dialect of Cherchell (near Algiers), and
in Moroccan dialects.93 Evidently, the use of the word mawd to denote the adverb very was unfamiliar to speakers of JAC, hence an alternative translation was added in parenthesis for most of the occurrences of this word
), which is typical to Tunisian
in SHC. The alternative translation that was offered in parenthesis was ysr (
94
dialects, and not the local colloquial word bzzf. This is not that surprising since Constantine is relatively close
, from CA
) was favored over mawd, sugto the Tunisian border.95 In a few occurrences in SHC, idda (
gesting an influence of the famous Medieval Judeo-Arabic Bible translation of Saadya Gaon, which is known to
have influenced many later ur.96 Like mawd, the word idda is also accompanied in SHC by the colloquial
word ysr in parenthesis. Examples:
1 Sam 11:15 (hafarat Qra):
and Saul and all the men of Israel had a great celebration there.
Ezek 37:10 (hafarat Sabbath ol Ha-Moed Pesa):
a vast multitude.
1 Kings 2:12 (hafarat Way):
and his rule was firmly established.
89
This adverb is in the form of the passive participle of wd. In
Constantine the diphthong in this form is preserved; see TiroshBecker 1988, pp. 189, 192, 301. It is also preserved in the Arabic
dialect of Tlemcen; see W. Marais 1902, pp. 6667. In the JudeoArabic dialects of Algiers and Tunis, the diphthong in this word is
contracted; see M. Cohen 1912, pp. 18889; D. Cohen 1975, p. 101.
90
Mawd is not listed among the maghrebian words that denote
beaucoup, see P. Marais 1977, pp. 26768.
91
Ben Sedira 1995, p. 266. In Takrona (Tunisia ) the word mud
also has the meaning of exists in abundance; see Marais and
Guga 195861, p. 4251. The active participle of the same root,
wd, is used to denote abundant, many, much in post-classical Yemeni Arabic; see Piamenta 1991, vol. 2, p. 518. In Gulf Arabic, the word wjid, and its variant wyid, denotes much, many
and is also used as an adverb meaning very; see Holes 2001,
vol. 1, p. 552. I would like to thank Professor Antoine Lonnet for
referring me to this use of wd.
92
See already in Dozy 1881, vol. 1, p. 614.
93
M. Cohen 1912, p. 375; P. Marais 1977, p. 267; Caubet 1993, p.
197; Colin 199396, vol. 3, p. 692; Bar-Asher 2001, part 4, p. 215;
GrandHenry 1972, p. 138.
94
D. Cohen 1975, p. 238; Attal 1999, pp. 31*, 77.
95
The word ysr was also known to Jews from southeast Morocco
as characteristic of Tunisian Judeo-Arabic. They encountered it
in the speech of Tunisian Jews who immigrated to their Moroccan towns, and in Judeo-Arabic books printed in Tunisia. See
Bar-Asher 2010b, pp. 28586.
96
On the influence of Saadya Gaons Tafsr on the translation
of Hebrew m by zdda ( ) in Moroccan ar traditions, see
Bar-Asher 1991, p. 23. Cf. Tedghi 1993, pp. 54041 n. 1. The word
giddan ( ) as a translation of the Hebrew m occurs also in
a Judeo-Arabic ar of the Scroll of Esther from Egypt (while in
the Egyptian ar to Genesis and to the Passover Haggadah the
word
is used); see Hary 2009, p. 197.
422
Ofra Tirosh-Becker
5.4. Passive Participles of Some Hollow Triliteral Roots

Another dialectal feature that is limited to the language of SHC is the passive participle forms of hollow triliteral roots, which follow the pattern of roots with a weak first radical. In SHC we found two roots that exhibit
) of the hollow triliteral root xwf, and the participle
this phenomenon. These are the participle mawxf (
mawb of the hollow triliteral root yb. While their perfect forms are xf (was afraid) and b (brought) as
expected of hollow triliteral roots, their dialectal passive participle in SHC mawxf and mawb follow the pattern
of roots with a weak first radical, such as mawd, whose root is wd.97 In CA we would have expected the passive
) for the root xwf. Note that the verbal form b in itself is non-classical, as it originated
participle maxf (
), and its record in Judeo-Arabic dates back at least to the ninth century.98 Examples:
from a bi (
My name is revered among the nations.99

2 Kings 12:10 (hafarat Shabbat Shqalim):
All the money that was brought into the House of the Lord.100
Another example of a dialectal passive participle of a hollow triliteral stem qwl, which follows the pattern
of stems with a weak first radical, is mawql (was told). This form is found in the Constantinian ar to Mishnah
tractate Aot, in R. Renassias commentary on tractate Aot, and in his commentary on Psalms.101 Likewise, the
passive participle muqul is documented in the JA dialect of Tripoli, Libya.102 A similar form mb, from the root
wb, is used in the JA dialect of Algiers.103
6. Dialectal Features in SHC

The language of SHC also includes some dialectal features that are prevalent in spoken JAC. Some of these
colloquial attributes are pan-maghrebian, while others are of a local character. Furthermore, a few of these vernacular features are frequent in the ar, while others reflect only a sporadic penetration of the spoken dialect
into this text. I demonstrate a few of these traits herein.
6.1. Imperfect Forms of the First Person

The most prominent characteristic of maghrebian dialects is nafal for 1cSg imperfect and naf alu for 1cPl
imperfect.104 These forms are prevalent in SHC. For example:
The root wxf (probably through a methatesis of xwf) appears in Dozys dictionary, which reports the form waxfn (
)
denoting a fearful person; see Dozy 1881, vol. 2, p. 798. As to
mawb, cf. the JA dialect of Tripoli, Libya, in which the passive
participle form of yb is myb; see Yoda 2005, p. 162.
98
Blau 2006, p. 106; Blau 1980a, pp. 67, 54a; 69, 60a.
99
See also 4.5 above.
100
Note that in this example there is an attraction in gender. The
word mawb has a masculine form, although the grammatical
97
gender of fa is feminine, reflecting the grammatical masculine gender of the Hebrew word kesef (
). The plural feminine
form mawbt (
) appears in the ar to Psalm 45:15 as a
translation for m (
); see Renassia 1954[?].
101
E.g., Renassia 1916b; Aot 5:8; Aot 1:1 (commentary); Renassia 1954[?]; Tirosh-Becker 2011, p. 198.
102
Yoda 2005, p. 162.
103
M. Cohen 1912, p. 191.
104
Fischer and Jastrow 1980, p. 261, 12.4.2; P. Marais 1977, p. 37.
423
and I will come in after you and confirm your words.

2 Kings 4:10 (hafarat Wayyr):
Let us make a small enclosed upper chamber and place a bed, a table, a chair, and a lamp
stand there for him.
6.2. The Verbal Stem CCC

Another well-documented North African phenomenon is the use of the verbal stem CCC (fl) for indicating
a process of change in the properties of an object or a person, for example, smn to gain weight and yq to
, or possibly from the CA
become narrow. This verbal stem originated probably from the CA eleventh stem
105
106
. However, the use of the CCC stem in the Maghreb is much broader than the respective
ninth verbal stem
use of the eleventh and ninth verbal stems in CA, where it had been limited to colors and defects. 107 The dialectal
verbal stem CCC is also attested in SHC, for example:108
Be your sins like crimson they can turn snow-white. Be they red as dyed wool they can
become like fleece.
6.3. The Verbs Eat and Take

The CA verbs akala (
ate) and axaa ( took) have undergone a variety of changes in Arabic dialects
once the initial glottal stop was lost.109 Among the Jewish dialects of the Maghreb, there are three distinct paths
of change in these verbs.110 In most of the Jewish Moroccan dialects, the perfect form of these verbs is kl and xd,
reflecting a strong biliteral stem.111 In contrast, in the Jewish dialects of eastern Morocco, Algiers, Constantine,
and Tunis, the perfect form of these verbs reflects a weak triliteral stem, kla and xda.112 A third option, reflecting
a hollow triliteral stem, kal and xad, is used in Tafilalt in southeastern Morocco.113 In SHC we find the dialectal
forms kla and xda that are common in JAC. Interestingly, the imperative forms of these verbs in JAC, kl and xd, 114
Fischer and Jastrow 1980, p. 264, 12.4.6.1; GrandHenry 1972,
p. 66; P. Marais 1977, pp. 55, 6465; P. Marais 1956, p. 200; D.
Cohen 1975, p. 122.
106
Brunot 1950. On the inflection patterns of this stem in various
maghrebian dialects, see M. Cohen 1912, p. 23637; W. Marais
1902, p. 85.
107
Wright 1981, vol. 1, pp. 4344, 5859.
108
A possible example for such a verb is found already in an incunabula of Maqre Dardeqe (Naples 1488) ml (became pretty),
although it may alternatively be the plural form of ml (pretty);
see Tirosh-Becker 1990b, p. 66.
109
Fischer and Jastrow 1980, pp. 67, 5.1.3.1; 18384, 10.2.3.1;
226, 11.2.5.9.
110
Heath 2002, pp. 37986, 571. A fourth possibility, kll, with a
geminate triliteral stem, occurs in a few Muslim Moroccan dia105
lects, but is not documented in Jewish Moroccan dialects; see

ibid., p. 381.
111
Heath 2002, pp. 38081, 571.
112
M. Cohen 1912, pp. 19899; D. Cohen 1975, pp. 10810; TiroshBecker 1988, pp. 20304. These forms are also common in Muslim
dialects, e.g., Talmoudi 1980, pp. 9293; P. Marais 1956, p. 173;
W. Marais 1902, p. 71; Laraba 1981, p. 77.
113
The Jews of Tafilalt pronounce it tal, due to the *k > t shift in
their dialect; see Heath and Bar-Asher 1982, p. 67.
114
On the long vowel in the imperative form of hollow triliteral
stems in maghrebian dialects, see M. Cohen 1912, pp. 18990; D.
Cohen 1975, pp. 10203; P. Marais 1956, pp. 162, 164; Talmoudi
1980, pp. 8586; W. Marais 1902, p. 68.
424
Ofra Tirosh-Becker
reflect a hollow triliteral stem, and not a weak triliteral stem as in the perfect forms.115 These imperative forms
appear in SHC as well. Finally, the imperfect forms in JAC nkul, tkul, and so on exhibit a long vowel compensating for the loss of the original glottal stop (CA takulu).116 Examples:
and took my son from my side.

1 Kings 19:21 (hafarat Pns):
He boiled their meat with the gear of the oxen and gave it to the people, and they ate.
Now then, have him brought to me.

Jer 7:21 (hafarat av):
Add your burnt offerings to your other sacrifices and eat the meat!
6.4. Perfect Inflectional Morpheme of 2cPl

An example for a dialectal phenomenon in SHC, which is characteristic of the local spoken JAC, is the 2cPl
perfect suffix -tw. As in many other sedentary Arabic dialects, the distinction between 2mPl and 2fPl forms in
the perfect conjugation has ceased to exist in JAC.117 The common form in many North African dialects ends with
the suffix -tu, for example ktbtu (you [pl.] wrote). However, in JAC and SHC, we find the 2cPl perfect suffix -tw
(e.g., ktbtw) in which the plural inflectional morpheme -u is realized as a semi-vowel w when added to the 2cSg
morpheme -ti. It should be noted that in JAC, like in many other maghrebian sedentary dialects, the distinction
between 2mSg and 2fSg perfect was also lost.118 However, unlike other dialects, in JAC there is a free alternation between two 2cSg perfect forms: ktbt and ktbti. 119 This phenomenon reflects the location of the city of
Constantine on a dialectal junction,120 between a region in which the form ktbt is used for both 2mSg and 2fSg
perfect (e.g., in Jijel [formerly Djidjelli]), and a region in which the form ktbti is used for both 2mSg and 2fSg
perfect (e.g., in Skikda [formerly Phillipeville] and Edough). 121 Nonetheless, in JAC when a pronominal object
suffix is added to a 2cSg perfect form, the alternant ktbti is always selected, for example, trkth (you left him).
Similarly, when the plural morpheme -u is added to the 2cSg form, the -ti alternant is always used resulting in
the suffix -tw.122 This form is also documented in Skikda and in the dialect of one of the tribes in the Edough
This is attested in other maghrebian dialects as well; see for

example D. Cohen 1975, p. 109.
116
Tirosh-Becker 1988, p. 204. Cf. Fischer and Jastrow 1980, p.
67, 5.1.3.1.
117
Fischer and Jastrow 1980, pp. 6164, 5.1.1.
118
For details regarding dialects in which this distinction was lost
or preserved, see Tirosh-Becker 1989, p. 301 and n. 83.
115
Tirosh-Becker 1989, pp. 30103.

Another phenomenon that reflects the junctionalism in JAC
is the two free alternative realizations [] and [] of the phoneme
//; see Tirosh-Becker 1989, pp. 29697.
121
Cantineau 1938, pp. 85354, 864; Ostoya-Delmas 1938, p. 64.
122
Tirosh-Becker 1989, pp. 30304.
119
120
425
region (where ktbti is used),123 although it is not used by the Muslims of Constantine (MAC), who use the more
customary form ktbtu.124 Examples:
I have shown you love, said the Lord. But you ask, How have You shown us love?
Amos 2:12 (hafarat Wayye):
But you made the nazirites drink wine and ordered the prophets not to prophecy.
The only occurrence of a 2cPl perfect form in the ar to the hafarot for Leviticus was altu (
is of the ktbtu type and not the ktbtw type:125
), which
Jer 17:4 (hafarat Buqqtay):
For you have kindled the flame of My wrath, which shall burn for all time.
Note, however, that elsewhere in SHC the same word was written in the regular JAC form altw:
Isa 50:11 (hafarat qe):
Walk by the blaze of your fire. By the brands that you have lit!
6.5. The Plural Form for Nations

Another dialectal phenomenon in SHC is the plural form of the word umma (
a nation). In CA the plural
form of this noun is umam ( ). This plural form (often pronounced without the initial glottal stop) is documented in many Arabic dictionaries.126 On the other hand, in SHC as well as in other JA texts from Constantine,
). Umm most likely resulted from the phonetic process of vowel harthe plural form of this noun is umm (
monization, assisted by the nasal-bilabial phoneme /m/ that occurs twice in this word. Examples:
Isa 49:22 (hafarat qe):
I will raise My hand to Nations and lift up My ensign to peoples.
Ostoya-Delmas 1938, p. 64; Mangion 1937, p. 374.

Laraba 1981, p. 71.
125
On the uniqueness of the hafarot to Leviticus, see 4.1 above.
123
124
E.g., Cherbonneau 1973, vol. 1, p. 14; Beaussier 1958, p. 17;

Biberstein-Kazimirski 1860, vol. 1, p. 52; Ben Sedira 1995, p. 6;
Colin 199396, vol. 1, p. 28; Cheraifi 2005, p. 526; Blau 2001, p. 19;
Avishur 2008, vol. 1, p. 90.
126
426
Ofra Tirosh-Becker
We find this plural form in the Constantinian ar to other Books of the Bible (e.g., Psalms127 and Job128), in the
ar to the liturgical poems known as the Hoanot,129 and even in the local Constantinian Judeo-Arabic newspaper
l-ikma.130 This plural form is also documented in a few other Algerian and Tunisian JA texts, including a ar to
a Passover Haggadah from Djerba131 and a ar to a Passover Haggadah from Algiers.132
) is used in all the occurInterestingly, in the ar to the hafratot for Leviticus, the plural form umam (
rences, for example:133
Ezek 22:4 (hafarat Ar M):
Therefore I will make you the mockery of the nations and the scorn of all the lands.
7. Summary
To conclude, in this discussion we demonstrated that the language of the Constantinian Judeo-Arabic translation of portions of the books of prophets, known as hafarot, is characterized by a mixture of linguistic elements.
Conservative linguistic features are interwoven with colloquial phenomena creating an intricate combination,
unique to this type of text. Nonetheless, despite the penetration of vernacular features, the numerous conservative traits as well as certain dialectal features that were perceived as characteristic of the ar indicate that the
language of the ar was significantly elevated compared to the spoken dialect of this community, reflecting the
revered status of this text.
E.g., Renassia 1954[?]; Psalm 102:23:

(
When the nations gather together, the kingdoms, to
serve the Lord).
128
E.g., Renassia 1917a; Job 36:31:
(
By these
things He controls peoples; He gives food in abundance).
129
E.g., Renassia 1930, p. 40b:
(
).
130
For more details about this newspaper, see Tirosh-Becker
2010b, pp. 118, 132.
127
B.-Z. Cohen 1931, e.g., in a translation to Psalm 117:1, which

appears in the Hallel section of the Haggadah:
(
Praise the Lord, all you nations);
see B.-Z. Cohen 1931, p. 49.
132
Attal 1975, e.g., the translation to Psalm 117:1 (
); see ibid., p. 52. On the occasional realization
of the Arabic hamza as a glottal fricative /h/ in the JA dialect of
Algiers, see M. Cohen 1912, p. 39. The form
is also documented in an incunabula of Maqre Dardeqe (Naples 1488); see
Tirosh-Becker 1990b, p. 66.
133
On some special features in the ar to the hafarot for Leviticus, see 4.1 above.
131
427
Abbreviations
CA
JA
JAC
MAC
SHC
Classical Arabic
Judeo-Arabic
Judeo-Arabic of Constantine
Muslim Arabic of Constantine
ar to the hafarot from Constantine
Judeo-Arabic Sources
Main Source
Renassia, Y. circa 1935, Sep er Pirat Moe: [= ar to hafarot]
Volume 1:
Genesis, David Idan and Raamim Sofer Imprimerie, Djerba
Exodus [no details]
Leviticus, Makhluf Najjr Imprimerie, Sousse
French translation, Attali Imprimerie, Constantine
Volume 2:
Numbers, Yaaqov addd Imprimerie, Djerba
Deutronomy, Yaaqov addd Imprimerie, Djerba
Moadim [no details]
French translation, Audrino Imprimerie, Constantine
Additional Sources
Attal, R.
1975
Cohen, B.-Z.
1931
Renassia, Y.
1916a
1916b
1917a
1917b
1930
1954[?]
Haggadat Algiers: A Facsimile Edition of the First Haggadah that Was Printed in North Africa, Alger 1855. Jerusalem.
LeSapper be-iyyon, Djerba.
Azharot ben David: Sep er Mile b-ar Arai, Tunis [= ar to Proverbs]
Sep er Milama be-alom: Pirqe Aot b-Sap a Arait, Tunis [= ar to Mishnah Aot]
Bne imon, w-hu Seper Iyo b-ar Arai, Tunis [= ar to Job]
Maase Nissim, Tunis [= ar to Daniel]
Seper Kibbud A Wa-Em: Livre des Hochanoths traduits et comments en judo-arabe, Djerba [Rep. Jerusalem,
1987] [= ar to Hoanot]
Ziron Yaaqo: Tafsir Thillim Pa u-Dra, Djerba [= ar to Psalms]
428
Ofra Tirosh-Becker
Bibliography
Attal, Robert
1999
2007
Avishur, Yitsa
2001
2006
2008
2009
Bar-Asher, Moshe
1985
1988
1991
1999
2001
2010a
2010b
2010c
Beaussier, Marcelin
1958
Lexique judo-arabe tunisien. Jerusalem. [In Hebrew]

Un sicle de littrature judo-arabe tunisienne (18611961): Notices bibliographiques. Jerusalem. [In Hebrew]
Modern Judaeo-Arabic Translations of the Bible in the East: A Cultural-Linguistic Presentation. In
Studies in Judaeo-Arabic Translations of the Bible, by Yitsa Avishur, pp. 10621. Tel-Aviv. [In Hebrew]
The Aleppo Shar of the Torah. Tel-Aviv. [In Hebrew]
A Dictionary of the New Judeo-Arabic Written and Spoken in Iraq (16002000). Tel Aviv. [In Hebrew]
Literature in Judeo-Arabic. In Jewish Communities in the East in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries:
Syria, edited by Y. Harel, pp. 13546. Jerusalem. [In Hebrew]
The Hebrew Elements in the ar of Morocco (According to the Traditions of Tafilalt). Lshonenu 4849:
22752. Reprinted in Traditions linguistiques des juifs dAfrique du nord, by Moshe Bar-Asher, pp. 17397.
Jerusalem, 1999.
The Shar of the Maghreb: Judeo-Arabic Exegesis of the Bible and Other Jewish Literature Its Nature
and Formulation. In Studies in Jewish Languages: Bible Translations and Spoken Dialects, edited by Moshe
Bar-Asher, pp. 334. Jerusalem. Reprinted in Traditions linguistiques des juifs dAfrique du nord, by Moshe
Bar-Asher, pp. 334. Jerusalem, 1999. [In Hebrew]
Les couches linguistiques dans le er marocain. In Recherches sur la culture des juifs dAfrique du Nord,
edited by I. Ben-Ami, pp. 1924. Jerusalem. Reprinted in Traditions linguistiques des juifs dAfrique du nord,
by Moshe Bar-Asher, pp. 4556. [In Hebrew]
Traditions linguistiques des juifs dAfrique du nord. 2nd edition. Jerusalem. [In Hebrew]
Le commentaire biblique Leshon Limmudim de Rabbi Raphal Berdugo. 4 parts in 3 volumes. Jerusalem. [In
Hebrew]
Bible Study in North African Jewish Communities. In Leshonot, Massorot u-Minhagot: Linguistics, Traditions and Customs of Maghrebi Jews and Studies in Jewish Languages, by Moshe Bar-Asher, pp. 17687. Jerusalem. [In Hebrew]
A New Shar to Ecclesiastes. In Leshonot, Massorot u-Minhagot: Linguistics, Traditions and Customs of
Maghrebi Jews and Studies in Jewish Languages, by Moshe Bar-Asher, pp. 281304. Jerusalem.
On the ar to Tractate Avot. In Leshonot, Massorot u-Minhagot: Linguistics, Traditions and Customs of
Maghrebi Jews and Studies in Jewish Languages, by Moshe Bar-Asher, pp. 32939. Jerusalem. [In Hebrew]
Dictionnaire pratique arabe-franais: contenant tous les mots employs dans larabe parl en Algrie et en Tunisie.
Nouvelle dition, revue, corrige et augmente par M. Mohamed ben Cheneb. Algiers.
Ben Sedira, Bel Kassem

1995
Dictionnaire arabe-franais (langue, letters, conversation). Beirut.
Biberstein-Kazimirski, Albert de
Dictionnaire Arabe-Franais. 2 volumes. Paris.
1860
Blanc, Haim
1964a
1964b
1970
Blau, Joshua
196667
1980a
1980b
Communal Dialects in Baghdad. Harvard Middle Eastern Monographs 10. Cambridge.

Notes on the Literary Idiom of the Baghdadi Jews. In For Max Weinreich on his Seventieth Birthday: Studies
in Jewish Languages, Literature and Society, edited by Lucy S. Dawidowicz et al., pp. 1830. Mouton: The
Hague.
Dual and Pseudo-Dual in the Arabic Dialects. Language 46: 4257.
A Grammar of Christian Arabic, Based Mainly on South-Palestinian Texts from the First Millennium. Corpus
Scriptorum Christianorum orientalium 267. Louvain.
A Grammar of Mediaeval Judaeo-Arabic. 2nd, enlarged edition. Jerusalem. [In Hebrew]
On General and Specific Features in Judeo-Arabic. In Cairo Geniza Studies, edited by Mordechai A. Friedman, pp. 18592. Teuda: The Chaim Rosenberg School of Jewish Studies Research Series 1. Tel Aviv. [In
Hebrew]

1992
1999
2002
2006
429
On a Fragment of the Oldest Judaeo-Arabic Bible Translation Extant. In Genizah Research after Ninety
Years: The Case of Judaeo-Arabic, edited by Joshua Blau and Stefan C. Reif, pp. 3139. University of Cambridge Oriental Publications Series 47. Cambridge.
The Emergence and Linguistic Background of Judaeo-Arabic. 3rd, revised edition. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute
for the Study of Jewish Communities in the East.
A Handbook of Early Middle Arabic. Max Schloessinger Memorial Series, Monographs 6. Jerusalem.
A Dictionary of Mediaeval Judaeo-Arabic Texts. Jerusalem. [In Hebrew]
Blau, Joshua, and Simon Hopkins

2007
The Beginnings of Judaeo-Arabic Bible Exegesis According to an Old Glossary to the Book of Psalms.
In A Word Fitly Spoken: Studies in Mediaeval Exegesis of the Hebrew Bible and the Qurn Presented to Haggai
Ben-Shammai, edited by Meir M. Bar-Asher et al., pp. 23584. Jerusalem. [In Hebrew]
Brunot, Louis
1950
Cantineau, Jean
1938
Caubet, Dominique
1993
Charvit, Yossef
2010
Cheraifi, Claudie
2005
Sur le theme verbal f l en dialectal marocain. In Mlanges offerts William Marais par lInstitut dtudes
islamiques de lUniversit de Paris, pp. 5562. Paris.
Les parlers arabes du dpartement de Constantine. In IVe congrs de la Fdration des socits savantes
de lAfrique du Nord, vol. 2, pp. 84963. Rabat.
LArabe marocain, Volume 1: Phonologie et morphosyntaxe. Paris.
Renassia, Joseph. In Encyclopedia of Jews in the Islamic World, edited by N. A. Stillman, vol. 4, pp. 15759.
Leiden.
Larabe maghrbin: petit dictionnaire franais-arabe. Geneva.
Cherbonneau, Auguste
1973
Dictionnaire arabe-franais: langue crite. Beirut.
Chetrit, Joseph
1994
The Written Judeo-Arabic Poetry in North-Africa: Poetic, Linguistic and Cultural Studies. Jerusalem. [In Hebrew]
Cohen, David
1975
Le parler arabe des juifs de Tunis, Volume 2: tude linguistique. Paris-The Hague.
Cohen, Marcel
1912
Le parler arabe des juifs dAlger. Paris.
Colin
199396
Le dictionnaire Colin darabe dialectal marocain. Edited by Zakia Iraqui Sinaceur. Rabat.
Corriente, Federico
1977
A Grammatical Sketch of the Spanish Arabic Dialect Bundle. Madrid.
Doron, David
1979
Dozy, Reinhart
1881
The Arabic Translation of the Torah by Issachar ben Susan Hammaravi. Ph.D. thesis, Bar-Ilan University,
Ramat-Gan. [In Hebrew]
Supplment aux dictionnaires arabes. 2 volumes. Leiden. Reproduction of the original edition, Beirut, 1991.
1959
Die Demonstrativen Bildungen der Neuarabischen Dialekte. Gravenhage.
Fischer, Wolfdietrich, and Otto Jastrow
1980
Handbuch der Arabischen Dialekte. Wiesbaden.
Fraenkel, Jacqueline
Limprimerie hbraque Djerba (tude bibliographique). 2 volumes. Ph.D. dissertation, Universit de
1982
Paris III (Sorbonne Nouvelle).
GrandHenry, Jacques
1972
Le parler arabe de Cherchell, Algrie. Louvain-la-Neuve: Universit catholique de Louvain.
430
Ofra Tirosh-Becker
1995
Hary, Benjamin H.
1991
2009
Heath, Jeffrey
2002
Conservation and Change in Algerian Bedouin Arabic. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of
LAssociation internationale pour la dialectologie arabe (held at Trinity Hall in the University of Cambridge,
1014 September 1995), pp. 5157. Cambridge.
On the Use of il and li in Judeo-Arabic Texts. In Semitic Studies: In Honor of Wolf Leslau on the Occasion
of His Eighty-Fifth Birthday, edited by Alan S. Kaye, vol. 1, pp. 595608. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Translating Religion: Linguistic Analysis of Judeo-Arabic Sacred Texts from Egypt. Leiden-Boston.
Jewish and Muslim Dialects of Moroccan Arabic. London.
Heath, Jeffrey, and Moshe Bar-Asher

1982
A Judeo-Arabic Dialect of Tafilalt (Southeast Morocco). Zeitschrift fr arabische Linguistik 9: 3278.
Holes, Clive
2001
Huehnergard, John
2006
Dialect, Culture, and Society in Eastern Arabia. Handbuch der Orientalistik, Erste Abteilung: Nahe und der
Mittlere Osten 51. Leiden.
On the Etymology of the Hebrew Relative -. In Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological
and Historical Perspectives, edited by Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz, pp. 10325. Jerusalem-Winona
Lake.
Ilan, Nahem, and Naim Dahan

2002
Ten Things were Created at Twilight on the Eve of the First Sabbath: From Partial Midrashim to an
Oral Maghrebian Folktale. Massorot 12: 132. [In Hebrew]
Jewish Publication Society
1985
Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures The New JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text, PhiladelphiaJerusalem.
1991
A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 2 volumes. Rome.
Laraba, Ahmed
1981
A Linguistic Description of the Algerian Arabic Dialect of Constantine. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Manchester.
Levin, Aryeh
1994
A Grammar of the Arabic Dialect of Jerusalem. Jerusalem. [In Hebrew]
Mangion, M.
1937
Le dialecte arabe de lEdough. Revue Africaine 81: 37380.
Maman, Aharon
1999
2000
2003
The ar of the Haggadah from Sefrou (Morocco): Provenance, Linguistic Features, Hebrew and Hebraisms. In Vena Hebraica in Judaeorum Linguis: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Hebrew
and Aramaic Elements in Jewish Languages, edited by Shelomo Morag, Moshe Bar-Asher, and Maria MayerModena, pp. 289320. Studi camito-semitici 5. Milan-Jerusalem.
The Maghrebi ar of the Bible. Peamim 83: 4856. [In Hebrew]
Language. In Jewish Communities in the East in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries: Morocco, edited by
Haim Saadoun, pp. 14354. Jerusalem. [In Hebrew]
Marais, Philippe
1956
1977
Le parler arabe de Djidjelli, Nord constantinois, Algerie. Paris: Librairie dAmrique et dOrient.
Esquisse grammaticale de lArabe Maghrbin. Paris.
Marais, William
1902
1908
1911
Le dialecte arabe parl Tlemcen. Paris.

Le dialecte arabe des ld Brhm de Sada. Paris.
Textes arabes de Tanger. Paris.
Marais, William, and Abderrahmn Guga

19581961
Textes arabes de Takrona, Volume 2: Glossaire. Paris.
Ostoya-Delmas, S.
1938
Notes prliminaires ltude des parlers de larrondissement de Philippeville. Revue Africaine 82:
6083.
Piamenta, Moshe
1991
Dictionary of Post-Classical Yemeni Arabic. Leiden.
Ratzabi, Yehudah
1985
A Dictionary of Judaeo-Arabic in R. Saadyas Tafsir. Ramat-Gan.
Rets, Jan
1983
The Finite Passive Voice in Modern Arabic Dialects. Orientalia Gothoburgensia 7. Gteborg.
Talmoudi, Fathi
1980
The Arabic Dialect of Ssa (Tunisia). Orientalia Gothoburgensia 4. Gteborg.
Tedghi, Joseph
1993
1994
2006
2008
Tirosh-Becker, Ofra
1988
1989
1990a
1990b
2006
2010a
2010b
2011
Tobi, Yosef
1993
1996
431
Lange leve et langue parle dans une version du mazor rituel juif en judo-arabe marocain. In
Actes des premires Journes internationales de dialectologie arabe de Paris, edited by Dominique Caubet and
Martine Vanhove, pp. 53345. Paris.
A Moroccan Mazor in Judeo-Arabic. Massorot 8: 91160. [In Hebrew]
Translation of Hebrew Prayers into Judeo-Arabic by Shmuel Malka. Massorot 1314: 279314. [In Hebrew]
Yehudah Ibn Abbs Judeo-Arabic E Shaare Raon In Ben Ever la-Arav 4: Prof. Amnon Shiloa Jubilee
Volume, edited by Yosef Tobi, pp. 14258. Haifa. [In Hebrew]
The Phonology and Topics in the Morphology of a Judeo-Arabic Translation of the Book of Psalms from
Constantine (Algeria). Masters thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. [In Hebrew]
A Characterization of the Judeo-Arabic Language of Constantine. Massorot 34: 285312. [In Hebrew]
On the Linguistic Uniformity of the Shar of the Jews of Constantine. In Proceedings of the Tenth World
Congress of Jewish Studies, section D:1, pp. 197204. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies. [In Hebrew]
On the Arabic Glosses in the Italian Version of the Maqre Dardeqe. Italia - Studi e ricerche sulla storia,
la cultura e la letteratura degli ebrei dItalia 9, pp. 3777. [In Hebrew]
An Algerian Judeo-Arabic Translation of Piyyu Mi Khamokha by Rabbi Yehuda Ha-Levi. Massorot
1314: 31569. [In Hebrew]
On Dialectal Roots in Judeo-Arabic Texts from Constantine (East Algeria). Revue des tudes juives 169:
497523.
The Languages of Algerian Jewry. In Jewish Communities in the East in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries: Algeria, edited by Haim Saadoun, pp. 11732. Jerusalem. [In Hebrew]
Archaic and Dialectal Features in an Algerian Judeo-Arabic Translation and Commentary of Tractate
Avot. In ikrei Maarav u-Mizra: Studies in Language, Literature and History, Presented to Joseph Chetrit, edited
by Yosef Tobi and Dennis Kurzon, pp. 181207. Jerusalem. [In Hebrew]
Pre-Saadianic Arabic Translation of the Pentateuch. Massorot 7: 87127. [In Hebrew]
Another Popular Judeo-Arabic Translation of the Pentateuch. In Studies in Hebrew and Jewish Languages
Presented to Shelomo Morag, edited by Moshe Bar-Asher, pp. 481501. Jerusalem. [In Hebrew]
Tobi, Yosef, and Zivia Tobi

2000
La littrature judo-arabe en Tunisie (18501950). Tel Aviv. [In Hebrew]
Wright, William
1981
A Grammar of the Arabic Language. 3rd, revised edition. 2 volumes in 1. Cambridge.
Yoda, Sumikazu
2005
The Arabic Dialect of the Jews of Tripoli (Libya): Grammar, Text and Glossary. Semitica viva 35. Wiesbaden.
Alternierende Metrik in der akkadischen Poesie
433
25

Josef Tropper, Freie Universitt Berlin
The present contribution presents the hypothesis that Akkadian poetry as a whole was composed according to the principle of alternating-accentual metrics as known from classical Syriac poetry and, in the
authors opinion, from the whole corpus of early Northwest Semitic poetry (for example Biblical Hebrew
and Ugaritic). The basic principle of alternating metrics is simple: every second (metrically counted) syllable in a verse is stressed, so that we have an evenly spread pattern of stressed and unstressed syllables
(or: beats and offbeats; in German: Hebungen und Senkungen). Every verse or stichos ends in a stressed
syllable (beat). At the beginning of a verse, both stressed and unstressed syllables can occur. The majority
of verses in Akkadian narrative literature (epic poetry) have ten or nine syllables. Verses with ten syllables
begin with an unstressed syllable (offbeat), while verses with nine begin with a stressed syllable (beat).
Both types have five stressed syllables. The present contribution should be considered a pioneering enterprise and is, as such, for certain not free of errors. Even if the basic thesis should prove to be correct,
it is well possible that many of the conclusions drawn regarding meter might turn out to be incorrect in
detail. The current contribution introduces text samples of various periods and genres, epic poetry, and
hymns, and it provides both a translation and commentary.
Einleitung
Nachfolgend wird die These vertreten, dass die akkadische Poesie insgesamt nach dem Prinzip der alternierend-akzentuierenden Metrik komponiert wurde, wie wir sie aus der klassisch-syrischen Poesie1 und meines Erachtens ebenso aus der gesamten frhen nordwestsemitischen Poesie (z.B. Althebrisch und Ugaritisch)
kennen.2 Und im Gegensatz zu den nordwestsemitischen Quellen ist der akkadische Befund insofern klarer, weil
es sich hier um vokalisierte Originaltexte handelt. Ein weiterer Vorteil besteht darin, dass die Zeilen auf einer
Tontafel poetischen Inhalts in der Regel den Verszeilen (Stichoi) entsprechen. 3
Das Grundprinzip der alternierenden Metrik ist einfach: Betont wird im Vers jede zweite (metrisch gezhlte)
Silbe, so dass ein gleichmiger Wechsel von betonter und unbetonter Silbe entsteht. Jede Verszeile (= Stichos)
endet mit einer betonten Silbe (= Hebung). Am Beginn der Verszeile kann aber entweder eine unbetonte Silbe
(= Senkung) oder eine betonte Silbe (= Hebung) stehen.
Siehe dazu vor allem Hlscher 1932.

Der vorliegende Beitrag ist Teil einer lngeren Studie des Verfassers, die auch poetische Texte des Biblisch-Hebrischen, Aramischen und Ugaritischen erfasst. Sie wird als Monographie im
Verlag Hartmut Spenner, Kamen, unter dem Titel Altsemitische
Metrik. Alternierende Metrik im Biblisch-Hebrischen, Aramischen,
1
2
Ugaritischen und Akkadischen erscheinen (voraussichtlich 2011).

Die Grundprinzipien der hier vertretenen Metrik wurden ausgehend von klassisch-syrischen Texten einerseits und biblischhebrischen Texten andererseits entworfen.
3
Fr Sekundrliteratur zur akkadischen Metrik siehe vor allem
von Soden 1981 und West 1997, bes. S. 175, Anm. 1.
433
434
Josef Tropper
Die Mehrzahl der Verszeilen der akkadischen narrativen Poesie (Epik) hat zehn oder neun Silben. Zehnsilbler
setzen mit einer Senkung ein, Neunsilbler mit einer Hebung. Beide Typen haben fnf Hebungen. Ich bezeichne deshalb weil es vor allem auf die Zahl der Hebungen ankommt ersteren als Typ 5, letzteren als Typ 5.
Graphisch lsst sich dies wie folgt darstellen (x = Senkung; X = Hebung):
Typ 5:
xXxXxXxXxX
Typ 5
XxXxXxXxX
Als illustratives Textbeispiel fr Verstyp 5 mag Enma eli, Tafel IV, Z. 4 = 6 dienen:

matka l ann siqirka An
Dein Schicksal ist ohne gleichen, dein Name ist An.
Ein illustratives Textbeispiel fr Verstyp 5 begegnet etwa im Gilgamesch-Epos (jB.), Tafel XI, Z. 140:

appalis kibrti pattu (oder: pu) tmt
Ich betrachtete die Himmelsufer, die Begrenzung des Ozeans.
Die zu betonenden Silben sind hier unterstrichen dargestellt. In der Umschrift hochgestellte Vokale oder
Silben werden metrisch nicht gezhlt (sie wurden in der Rezitation entweder flchtig artikuliert oder ganz
elidiert).
Da Verse entweder mit einer Senkung oder mit einer Hebung einsetzen knnen, gibt es in der akkadischen
Poesie keinen einheitlichen Versfu (= Metrum) im Sinne eines metrischen Grundbausteins wie etwa Jambus
oder Trochus. Zwar besteht der Verstyp 5 aus einer Abfolge von genau fnf Jamben. Bei Typ 5 kann man jedoch
nicht von einem jambischen Grundcharakter sprechen, da er zwar jambisch endet, aber trochisch einsetzt.
Rein theoretisch ist die alternierende Metrik somit ein sehr einfaches System. Die Problematik fr uns
besteht jedoch darin, dass ganz offensichtlich nicht jede geschriebene Silbe metrisch gezhlt wurde. Auch
der umgekehrte Fall ist denkbar, nmlich, dass scheinbar plene geschriebene Silben in Wirklichkeit metrisch
fr zwei Silben stehen knnen. Metrisch unbercksichtigt bleiben m.E. auf jeden Fall nicht betonte Silben am
Versende als Folge der sogenannten Pausalaussprache. Somit gibt es in der akkadischen Poesie entgegen lteren Lehrmeinungen gerade keinen trochischen Versschluss (Landsberger 1926, S. 371). 4 Vielmehr steht am
Versende metrisch betrachtet immer eine Hebung. Auch im Versinnern werden m.E. gewisse Silben metrisch
nicht gezhlt, da beispielsweise unbetonte Auslautvokale vor vokalisch anlautenden Folgewrtern relativ regelmig elidiert. Schlielich ist auch nicht auszuschlieen, dass die Akkader sporadisch das Stilmittel der metrischen Synkope eingesetzt haben. Man versteht darunter die Auslassung einer Senkung, so dass zwei Hebungen
direkt aufeinander folgen, mit dem Effekt, das die erstere Hebung stark betont (weil gedehnt skandiert) wird.
Es sei mir an dieser Stelle ein Wort zur Tragweite dieses Forschungsansatzes gestattet: Wenn die hier vertretene metrische Analyse auch nur in groben Zgen korrekt ist, dann handelt es sich um eine Entdeckung mit
weitreichenden Folgen. Denn mit einem Mal wre es forthin mglich, die Jahrtausende alte akkadische Poesie
im ursprnglichen Rhythmus zu skandieren, was beispielsweise die dramaturgische Auffhrung eines ganzes
Epos im Original-Ton ermglichen wrde. Zum anderen hat der Ansatz aber ganz konkret auch wesentliche
phonologische und grammatische Implikationen (Wortbetonung; Definition von Vokalq uantitten bei diversen Morphemen). Er knnte so zu einem erheblich besseren Verstndnis der akkadischen Schriftsprache(n)
beitragen.
Was spricht dafr, dass der hier prsentierte metrische Ansatz in seinen wesentlichen Punkten korrekt ist?
Die Analyse liefert alles in allem ein durchaus kohrentes System. Die Betonung der Wortformen im Vers ist im
Groen und Ganzen phonologisch plausibel, zumindest, wenn man davon ausgeht, dass die Versakzentuierung
Fr eine Kritik an diesem Konzept siehe bereits Hecker 1974,
S. 10208.
4
435
wie etwa im Altgriechischen in etwa 7080% der Flle dem natrlichen Wortakzent entsprechen sollte. Und
identische Wortformen bleiben in unterschiedlichen Kontexten und Texten weitgehend gleich betont.
Auf der anderen Seite ist aber auch zu betonen, dass sich der vorliegende Beitrag als Pionierarbeit versteht und als solche gewiss nicht frei von Fehlern ist. Selbst wenn sich die Grundidee als korrekt herausstellen
sollte, knnten im Detail viele hier getroffenen metrischen Festlegungen falsch sein. Fehler sind auch deshalb
vorprogrammiert, weil ber die tatschlichen Betonungsverhltnisse akkadischer Wortformen nur sehr wenig
Sicheres bekannt ist. Da dieser Beitrag auf einem vllig neuen Forschungsansatz beruht, fehlt im brigen auch
die Auseinandersetzung mit Sekundrliteratur zum Thema der akkadischen Metrik fast vollstndig.
Im Folgenden werden Textbeispiele unterschiedlicher Epochen und Gattungen (Epik und Hymnus) mit
bersetzung und Kommentierung vorgestellt. Sie sollen die Prinzipien und Raffinessen, aber auch die Probleme
des hier postulierten Metrik-Systems illustrieren.
1. Enma eli, Tafel IV, Z. 36:

attm kabtta in il rabt

5
Marduk(?) kabtta in il rabt
6
3
4
Du bist der Wichtigste unter den groen Gttern,

dein Schicksal ist ohne gleichen, dein Name ist An;
Marduk, du bist der Wichtigste unter den groen Gttern,
dein Schicksal ist ohne gleichen, dein Name ist An.
Es handelt sich um vier Stichoi mit je 10 Silben, die jeweils mit einer unbetonten Silbe (= Senkung) beginnen
und mit einer betonten Silbe (= Hebung) enden. Jeder Stichos hat somit fnf Hebungen. Diesen Verstyp bezeichne
ich als Verstyp 5. Dieser Befund ist charakteristisch fr die akkadische Poesie: Die Verszeilen des Akkadischen
sind durchschnittlich lnger als die in nordwestsemitischen Sprachen. Verse haben hier eine durchschnittliche
Lnge von zehn Silben (gegenber hufigen Achtsilblern im Nordwestsemitischen).
Die Zeilen 4 // 6 sind darberhinaus geprgt durch die Stilmittel Stabreim (/a/si) und Endreim (ann
An).
Aus dem Textbeispiel ist zu ersehen, dass die Versakzente in der Regel zusammenfallen mit den als lang
geltenden Silbentypen, nmlich a) den geschlossenen (bzw. geschrften) Silben oder b) den (offenen) Silben,
die einen Langvokal aufweisen. Wir drfen annehmen, dass diese Versakzente weitgehend die natrlichen
Wortakzente widerspiegeln, z.B. matka, kabtta, ann. Das Beispiel matka zeigt ferner, dass der Wortakzent
nicht auf die drittletzte (= erste) Silbe zurckgeht, wenn die vorletzte (= Pnultima) lang ist. Am Namen Marduk
lsst sich ablesen, dass bei zwei langen Silben die letztere den Wortton erhlt (entgegen der Schulaussprache
im anglophonen und deutschsprachigen Raum [Mrduk]). Ganz hufig wird die Silbe vor einem leichten
Pronominalsuffix betont, z.B. matka und siqirka (sonst z.B. regelmig btu seines Hauses).
Die am Versende stehenden Wortformen rabt und An zeugen von der sogenannten Pausalaussprache.
Dabei werden unbetonte Auslautsilben (bzw. in anderen Fllen unbetonte Auslautvokale) metrisch nicht bercksichtigt. Die Wortformen zeigen zugleich, dass die Kasusendungen, sofern sie sich aus einem kurzen Kasusvokal
und der Mimation zusammensetzen, nicht betont wurden (obwohl es sich um eine geschlossene Silbe handelt).
Aus dem Beispiel in il ist zu ersehen, dass Auslautvokale hufig aber nicht immer elidiert werden, wenn
die folgende Wortform vokalisch anlautet (vgl. die Elisionsregel 1 der lateinischen Metrik).
436
Josef Tropper
Die Wortform attm zeigt, dass der Auslautvokal der enklitischen Partikel -ma, nach Vokal metrisch unbercksichtigt bleiben kann (nach einer geschlossenen Silbe wird -ma dagegen metrisch regelmig als Silbe
gezhlt).
2. Enma eli, Tafel IV, Z. 22 und 28

22
abtum u ban qibi liktn

Befiel Zerstrung oder Erschaffung es soll geschehen!
28
id (oder dreisilbig: id) ikrub Mardukma arr

Sie freuten sich und erteilten den Segen (mit den Worten): Marduk ist Knig!
Die Zeile 22 hat zehn Silben bei fnf Hebungen (= Verstyp 5); die Zeile 28 hat neun Silben, aber ebenfalls
fnf Hebungen (= Verstyp 5).
Die Wortformen liktn und arr zeugen wiederum von der Pausalaussprache am Versende (dabei werden unbetonte Auslautvokale metrisch nicht bercksichtigt). An abtum lsst sich wiederum ablesen, dass die
Kasusendung (bei Kurzvokal) unbetont bleibt. Die Konjunktion u und kann (wie hier) im Vers betont sein.
In der Imperativform qibi (von qab) ist die zweite Silbe betont. Daraus knnte zu entnehmen sein, dass der
Auslautvokal hier in Wirklichkeit entgegen GAG doch als Langvokal zu normalisieren ist: qib. Das Beispiel
ikrub zeigt, dass lngere Wortformen auch mehr als einen Akzent haben knnen. In diesem Fall drfte der
Hauptakzent auf der langen Endsilbe und ein Nebenakzent auf der ersten Silbe ruhen (d.h. krub). Die Betonung
von id scheint den bisher genannten Regeln zu widersprechen (man erwartet eher id). Es knnte tatschlich einer der (nach meiner Einschtzung insgesamt nicht besonders hufigen) Flle vorliegen, wo die Vers
akzentuierung nicht mit den natrlichen Wortakzenten kongruiert. Andererseits ist aber auch sonst mehrfach
zu beobachten, dass gerade Kontraktionsvokale im Auslaut, die traditionell als berlang gelten, in der Metrik
nicht betont werden. Denkbar ist aber auch, dass die Wortform metrisch dreisilbig behandelt und als id
(Grundform id- [Verb III w] + Pluralendung -) skandiert wurde.
3. Gilgamesch-Epos (jB.), Tafel VIII, Z. 131

131
[alp kabr]tu immer mart (|) uabbi ittabak ana (oder: ittbak an) ibr
Fette Rinder (und) gemstete Schafe schlachtete (und) opferte er fr seinen Gefhrten.
Es handelt sich metrisch betrachtet um einen berlangen Stichos, eventuell mit einer Mittelzsur (wofr ich das Symbol | verwende), mit insgesamt 20 Silben (alternativ 18 Silben) und zehn bzw. neun Hebungen
(= Verstyp 10 [alternativ: Typ 9]). Oder es handelt sich berhaupt um zwei Stichoi zehn Silben mit je fnf
Hebungen bzw. fnf + vier Hebungen (5 + 5 [bzw. 4]).
Wiederum sind die Versakzente berzeugend, weil sie abgesehen von ana immer auf langen Silben
liegen, die wahrscheinlich natrlich betont wurden. Nur die Akzentuierung der Prposition ana auf der zweiten Silbe entspricht nicht dem natrlichen Akzentbefund (ist aber meinen Untersuchungen zufolge hufig
so bezeugt). Mglicherweise ist der Befund aber metrisch ohnehin anders zu analysieren: Statt ittabak ana
knnte einfach ittbak an (ibr) zu skandieren sein, mit einer Silbenellipse (bzw. einer nur flchtigen, metrisch nicht gezhlten Artikulation der zweiten Silbe) im Zusammenhang mit einer (mglichen Aufgabe einer)
437
Konsonantengemination und der Elision des Auslautvokals von ana vor der vokalisch anlautenden Wortform
ibru.
Die Wortform ibr zeigt ferner, dass am Versende in Pausalposition auch der Auslautvokal eines
Pronominalsuffixes metrisch unbercksichtigt bleibt. Der Genitiv-Kasusvokal /i/ vor dem Suffix scheint der
Metrik zufolge tatschlich (sekundr) gelngt gesprochen worden zu sein, da betreffende Silben durchgehend
akzentuiert sind (siehe GAG 38h und 65a).
4. Gilgamesch-Epos (jB.), Tafel XI, Z. 13840

uktammisma attaab abakk

eli dr appja illak dimj
140
appalis kibrti pattu (oder: pu) tmt
138
139
Ich warf mich auf die Knie und hockte dann weinend da,
dabei liefen mir Trnen ber meine beiden Wangen.
Ich betrachtete die Himmelsufer, die Begrenzung des Ozeans.
Die Stichoi haben neun, elf und wieder neun Silben (Verstypen: 5 + 6 + 5). Jeder Stichos beginnt mit
einer Hebung. Alle Versbetonungen (Hebungen) auer im Falle von eli (Z. 139) liegen auf langen Silben
und gehen mit den mutmalich natrlichen Wortbetonungen konform. Bei Wortformen wie appalis (Z. 140),
die zwei Hebungen aufweisen, ist in der Regel davon auszugehen, dass sie den Hauptt on auf der Ultima und
einen Nebenton auf der drittletzten Silbe haben, d.h. ppals. Am Versende werden kurze unbetonte Vokale,
wie etwa die Auslautvokale von Pronominalsuffixen oder kurze Kasusvokale, metrisch nicht bercksichtigt (=
Pausalaussprache).
5. Enma eli, Tafel I, Z. 1 und Z. 7

1
7
enma eli l nab amm

enma il l p manm
Als oben die Himmel (noch) nicht benannt worden waren.
Als die Gtter berhaupt (noch) nicht hervorgebracht worden waren.
Die vorgestellten Stichoi bestehen aus je zehn Silben (Verstyp: 5). Betont werden wiederum weitgehend die
als lang und deshalb betont geltenden Silben. Scheinbare oder echte Ausnahmen bilden eli oben und il
Gtter. Die Wortform eli knnte aber durchaus die natrliche Akzentuierung widerspiegeln (die Kasusendung
-i trug wie die Endungen -um, -im und -am an sich wohl nicht den Hauptton im Wort). il Gtter wird auch
sonst in anderen von mir metrisch untersuchten Texten berwiegend auf der ersten Silbe betont (auch bei
anderen Nomina wird die Pluralendung - bzw. - durchaus nicht immer betont).
438
Josef Tropper
6. Nergal und Erekigal (mB.), Z. 15

3

4

5

1
2
inma il ikun qert

an atiun Erekigal
ipur mr ipr
nnu ulu nurradakk
u att (oder: u att ) ul tillinn
Als die Gtter ein Gastmahl veranstalteten,
schickten sie zu ihrer Schwester Erekigal
einen Boten:
Wir knnen nicht zu dir hinabsteigen,
und du kannst nicht zu uns herausfsteigen
Die fnf Verszeilen (Tristichon + Distichon) sind unterschiedlich lang: zehn, neun, fnf, sieben und sieben (bzw. sechs) Silben: Verstypen 5 + 5 + 3 + 4 + 4 (bzw. 3). Trotz der unterschiedlichen Verslngen ist der
Textabschnitt als Ganzes rhythmisch und metrisch beeindruckend durchkomponiert. Vers- und natrliche
Wortakzente fallen weitestgehend oder gar vollstndig zusammen. Es folgen Einzelbemerkungen:
il (Z. 1) ist wiederum auf der ersten Silbe betont (vgl. Enuma eli I 1 und 7).
ikun (Z. 1) und ipur (Z. 3) sind als Formen des Prt. 3.c.pl. charakteristisch betont: Hauptton auf der langen
Endsilbe, Nebenton auf der (geschlossenen und deshalb ebenfalls langen) Prfixsilbe (d.h. kun).
an (atiun, Z. 2) zeugt von der Elision des Auslautvokals vor einem vokalisch anlautendem Folgewort (Elisionsregel 1).
atiun (Z. 2): Der Auslautvokal des Suffixes -unu wird meinen Untersuchungen zufolge sehr hufig elidiert.
Man beachte in diesem Zusammenhang, dass in der akkadischen Poesie bekanntlich auch Schreibungen
ohne Auslaut-u bezeugt sind.
mr ipr (Z. 3): Die Wortform mr wird als einsilbige Form des St.cs. erwartungsgem nicht betont; betont wird
dagegen das folgende Nomen rectum.
att (Z. 5): Es ist nicht klar, ob dieses Pronomen auf der ersten oder der zweiten Silbe betont wurde. Das mask.
Pendant, att, wird metrisch nicht einheitlich behandelt (berwiegend att, teilweise aber auch att, z.B.
AH VI 27: [aa]r att tallikum).
Nebenbei sei bemerkt, dass analog zu Enuma eli I Z. 1 und 7 sowie Nergal und Erekigal, Z. 1, auch Atramasis
I 1 wohl wie folgt metrisch analysiert werden kann: inma il awl (mit Elision des Auslautvokals bei il/u [Pl.
oder Sg.]; alternativ: inm il awl).
7. Gilgamesch (jB.), Tafel XI, Z. 16163

(hnlicher Text: Atramass III v 3435)
il in ir
il in ira b[]
163
il kma zumb eli bl niq iptar
161
162
439
Die Gtter rochen den Duft;

die Gtter rochen den guten Duft;
da sammelten sich die Gtter wie die Fliegen ber dem Opferspender.
Die Verszeilen haben sieben, neun und dreizehn Silben (Verstypen: 4 + 5 + 7). Es folgen Einzelbemerkungen:
il: Diese Wortform ist wiederum durchgehend auf der ersten Silbe betont.
zumb: Auch hier ist der auslautende Langvokal sehr wahrscheinlich nicht betont.
iptar : Die Form zeigt, dass auch lange Auslautvokale wenn sie unbetont sind am Versende metrisch unbercksicht bleiben.
8. Nan-Hymnus (18. Jh.)

Wurden bisher hauptschlich epische Texte aus dem 1. Jt. vorgestellt, so zeigen die folgenden Texte, dass das
gleiche Metrik-System auch schon im 2. Jt. und auch auerhalb der Gattung Epik anzuwenden ist.
Als erstes mchte ich alle relativ gut erhaltenen und verstndlichen Verszeilen des Nan-Hymnus des Samsuiluna vorstellen (2. Hlfte des 18. Jhs.).
[itt]allak idu kint
[u]lmum btum simt
11
[mal] a ulmi u bal
12
[al]kass addr damiqtum itt
[.]
9
10
___________________________
ikkullatu iltim lbum An
lidu ulli ru
19
ettum mutarat u kant
20
imi nama kada ul
17
18
[Es] gehen ihr zur Seite Stetigkeit,

[He]il, Wrde, gute Erscheinung,
[(und) F]lle an Heil und Leben.
Ihr [Wa]ndel ist auf ewig ein gutes Zeichen.
[..]
17
Unter allen Gttinnen hat der Lwe Anu,

ihr Erzeuger, ihr Haupt erhht.
Sie ist als einzige voller Pracht und gehegt.
Er bestimmte fr sie ppigkeit, festliche Freude (und) Jubel.
Die Verszeilen dieses Hymnus schwanken in ihrer Lnge zwischen fnf Silben (Z. 33) und zwlf Silben (Z. 7).
Die Mehrzahl hat entweder acht Silben (Z. 11, 12, 19 u.a. = Verstyp 4) oder zehn Silben (Z. 17, 20 u.a. = Verstyp
5). Die Akzent uierungen im Vers (d.h. die Hebungen) gehen wohl weitgehend konform mit den natrlichen
Wortbetonungen.
Eine Besonderheit dieses Hymnus und wohl auch anderer frher Hymnen des sogenannten hymnischepischen Dialekts (HED) besteht darin, dass die genitivischen (= possessivischen) Pronominalsuffixe an Nomina
allgemein metrisch nicht als eigene Silben gezhlt und damit wohl ohne Auslautvokal rezitiert werden, z.B.
440
Josef Tropper
[al]kass (< *alkat-a) ihr Wandel (Z. 12) oder idu (< *idum-a) an ihrer Seite (Z. 9). Mehrfach werden die
betreffenden Auslautvokale auch orthographisch nicht bercksichtigt, z.B. a-li-du-u ihr Erzeuger und [r]e-eu-u ihr Haupt (jeweils Z. 15).
Einzelbeobachtungen:
Z. 912: ein Musterbeispiel fr die Gltigkeit des hier zugrunde gelegten metrischen Systems. Alle
Versbetonungen (Hebungen) liegen auf langen und mutmalich natrlich betonten Silben; vgl. besonders Z.
10-11: ulmum btum simt / mal a ulmi u bal. Eine andere Betonung der betreffenden Wortformen ist hier
gar nicht mglich. So ergibt sich gleichsam von selbst der beeindruckende alternierende Grundrhythmus, der
charakteristisch ist fr die altsemitische Poesie als Ganze.
ikkullatu bzw. ikkullat (Z. 17): Die Endung des Lokativ-Adverbial ist mglicherweise langvokalisch anzusetzen.
ulli (Z. 18): auffallende Ultima-Betonung.
9. Etana-Epos (aB.): BRM 4, Nr. 2, I 15

rabtum Anunna im(?) imt
ub imlik milika mt
3
bn kibrtim kin ikitt

r ana n il Igig
isinnam ana n im
Die groen Anunna, die Bestimmer der Geschicke,
setzten sich (und) hielten Rat ber das Land,
die Bildner der Weltufer, die Schpfer der Schpfung,
die erhaben sind ber den Menschen, die Igigu-Gtter;
sie setzten fr die Menschen ein Fest ein.
Die fnf Verse haben meiner metrischen Analyse zufolge zehn, neun, zehn, neun und acht Silben (Verstypen
5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 4). Einzelbeobachtungen:
Anunna (Z. 1): zu dieser Betonung vgl. etwa AH II vi 23 (ergnzt nach Parallelen): rabtum Anunna kalun Wir, die
groen Anunna allesamt; vgl. ferner AH III iii 30: Anunna il rabt.
im (Z. 1): Partizip (G-Stamm, m.pl.), hier wohl mit nicht-charakteristischer Betonung (dieses Phnomen ist
im St.cs. hufiger zu beobachten als im St.rectus).
ub (Z. 2): Man achte auf die Betonung der ersten Silbe (< *ib).
bn und kin (Z. 3): Partizipien (m.pl.) mit charakteristischer Betonung.
n (Z. 4 und 5): Man beachte die Betonung der ersten Silbe (und nicht der langvokalischen Endung); vgl. hierzu
etwa Gilgme (aB.) OB III (iv) 165 und 167: p / patr ipuk rabt Sie gossen (zwei) groe xte /
Schwerter (p und patr jeweils mit Betonung der Stammsilbe). In anderen Texten findet sich sowohl
diese Betoung (n) als auch die Betonung der Ultima (n).
im : Man beachte, dass hier bei einer Verbalform mediae infirmae der Akzent auf der Stammsilbe und nicht
auf der Endung liegt (vgl. etwa hebr. yam sie setzen/stellen).
441
10. Gilgamesch-Epos (aB.), OB II (vi), Z. 21217

itbma Enkdu 213 ana pn
214
ittamar ina ribtu mt
215
Enkdu bbam iptarik 216 ina p
217
Gilgme erbam ul iddin
212
Enkdu wandte sich ihm entgegen.

Sie trafen in der Hauptstrae des Landes aufeinander.
Enkdu blockierte den Eingang mit seinem Bein;
er lie Gilgme nicht eintreten.
Bemerkungen:
ana, ina (Z. 213 / 214): Bei den betreffenden Prpositionen wird nicht selten die zweite Silbe betont (hufiger
trgt jedoch die erste Silbe den Ton).
11. Gilgamesch-Epos (aB.) OB VA+BM: Kol. III, Z. 114

Gilgme tadl (oder: Gilgme ee )
balam a tasauru l tutt
(oder: balam a tasaru l tutta)
3
inma il ibn awlt
4
mtam ikun an awlt
5
balam ina qtiun iabt
(oder: in qtiun iabt )
6
att Gilgme l mali karak
7
urr u m itaddu att (oder: ... itadd att )
8
miam ukun idt
9
urr u m sr u mlil (?)
[.....]
12
ubbi eram bitu qtk
13
martum litaddm ina snk
14
annma [mti awlt (?)]
1
2
Gilgme, wohin willst du denn gehen?

Das (ewige) Leben, das du suchst, wirst du nicht finden!
Als die Gtter die Menschheit erschufen,
legten sie den Tod auf die Menschheit,
das Leben aber behielten sie in ihren Hnden zurck.

12
Du aber, Gilgme, dein Bauch sei voll;

Du sollst du dich stndig erfreuen, Tag und Nacht!
Veranstalte tglich ein Freudenfest;
tanze und spiele Tag und Nacht!
[.....]
Starre (lustvoll) auf den jungen Mann, der deine Hand hlt;
eine Frau soll sich stndig deines Schoes erfreuen!
Von dieser Art ist die Bestim[mung des Menschen. (?)]
442
Josef Tropper
Bemerkungen:
Z. 1: sehr kurzer Stichos, eventuell nur sechs Silben (Typ 3).
tutt bzw. tutta (Z. 2): wat, Prs. 2.m.sg., mit Pnultima- oder Ultima-Betonung.
urr u m vs. urr u m (Z. 7 / Z. 9): gegenlufige Betonung als bewusstes Stilmittel (sogen annte metrische
Variation).
ukun (Z. 8): Imp. m.sg. mit charakteristischer Ultima-Betonung.
mll bzw. ml (Z. 9): (unregelmiges Verb) mlulu, G-Imp.; eventuell in der Pausa so zu rezitieren (PnultimaBetonung).
Abkrzung
GAG
Wolfram von Soden. Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik. Analecta Orientalia 33. Roma: Pontificium
Institutum Biblicum, 1995.
Bibliographie
Hecker, Karl
1974
Hlscher, Gustav
1932
Untersuchungen zur akkadischen Epik. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 8. Neukirchen Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
Syrische Verskunst. Leipziger semitistische Studien, n.F., Band 5. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs.
Landsberger, Benno
Die Eigenbegrifflichkeit der babylonischen Welt. Islamica 2: 35572. Translated as The Conceptual Au1926
tonomy of the Babylonian World, by Thorkild Jacobsen, Benjamin R. Foster, and Heinrich von Siebenthal.
Sources and Monographs, Monographs on the Ancient Near East 1/4. Malibu: Undena, 1976.
von Soden, Wolfram
Untersuchungen zur babylonischen Metrik, Teil I. Zeitschrift fr Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Ar1981
chologie 71: 161204.
Tropper, Josef
2011
West, M. L.
1997
Altsemitische Metrik. Alternierende Metrik im Biblisch-Hebrischen, Aramischen, Ugaritischen und Akkadischen.

Kamen: Spenner.
Akkadian Poetry: Metre and Performance. Iraq 59: 17587.
On Personal Names Ending in -yu in the Amarna Letters and in Texts from Canaan
443
26
On Personal Names Ending in -yu in the Amarna Letters

and in Texts from Canaan
Wilfred van Soldt, Leiden University*
In two recent articles,1 I have discussed abbreviated personal names attested in texts from Ugarit and the suffixes that were added to these names. My main conclusion was that the suffixes that were used most frequently
were -n-, -y-, -n-, and -y-. To these the case vowels were added, so that the suffixes appear in the nominative
as -nu, yu, -nu, and -yu. I also concluded that the suffixes -nu and -yu were normally used in abbreviated
names ending in a consonant (Balnu), whereas in names ending in a vowel, the suffix was usually preceded
by -y- (Numeynu). Both suffixes could be shortened to - (Yair[nu], Eliy[yu]). The suffixes -n- and -y- were
normally used after an abbreviated name ending in a vowel (Numeyu, Numenu). Names ending in -yu and -yu
were triptotically declined, while those ending in -nu and -nu had a diptotic declension.2
Among the many names mentioned in the Amarna letters,3 there are several that appear to have the same suffixes as the ones identified in names from Ugarit. However, since the Amarna corpus is very limited in comparison
with the material from Ugarit, the number of names is much smaller, and their spelling is often ambiguous. As in
Ugarit, the suffixes -yu and -nu can also be added to place names.4 I first discuss the names that I have collected
from Hesss study. The names are discussed in the order of their frequency in the corpus.
Names with the Suffix -yu in the Amarna Letters

Labyu
This name is certainly the best-documented one in our corpus. It refers to the ruler of Shechem and occurs
in letters written at Jerusalem, Megiddo, Ginti-Padalla, Shechem, Beth-Shean, and possibly Rehob.5 There are two
different spellings for this name, la-ab-a-pi and la-ab-a-ia, and according to Hess6 the name should be normalized
Labaya. First I discuss the attestations from Labyus own town Shechem, then the ones from the other towns.
In letters from Shechem, la-ab-a-pi occurs in EA 252:3, 253:2, and 254:3 and in all three in the formula umma
PN, Thus (says) PN. In Mesopotamia umma is followed by a nominative, but in western peripheral texts, umma
was often interpreted as a word for message. Because of this, the following name often appears in the genitive,7
but this is certainly not always the case.8 Thus the name that appears after umma can have either the nominative
* It is a pleasure for me to contribute to John Huehnergards
Festschrift. I wish to express my admiration for his scholarship
and to thank him for his friendship.
1
Van Soldt 2010 and forthcoming.
2
Van Soldt 2005, pp. 165f., and 2010, pp. 318f.
3
The Amarna personal names have been discussed in detail in
Hess 1993.
Van Soldt 2005, pp. 162ff.

For the political situation, see Finkelstein and Naaman 2005.
6
Hess 1993, p. 103.
7
See the discussion in Rainey 1996, vol. 3, pp. 17480.
8
Compare, for example, umma mra-ra-tu in EA 60:2.
4
5
443
444
Wilfred van Soldt
or the genitive case, and instead of -ya (Hess) the sign pi can also be read yu or yi. As can be seen from the verbal
forms, the latter interpretation is consistent with the use of pi in these two letters.9 Whenever /ya/ has to be
expressed, the sign ia is written.10 On the basis of the use of the sign pi, it seems likely that this sign should not
be interpreted as /ya/, but either as /yu/ or /yi/, as in Ugaritic.11
As for the texts sent from other towns, the letters sent by Biridiyu of Megiddo (EA 24446) are most instructive. The form la-ab-a-pi appears where the context requires a nominative (244:11, 29, 38) or a genitive (244:17, 41;
246 rev. 6), but where an accusative is required, the spelling la-ab-a-ia is used (245:6, 43). The sign pi is attested
in several verbal forms and nouns as a spelling for /yi/ or /yu/.12 As in the Shechem letters, the sign ia is only
used for /ya/.13 However, in EA 245, pi can sometimes also be used for /ya/, as in mya-a-da-ta (245:12, 1514) and
ya-q-l-li-ni (245:38).
In two letters from Balu-ur.sag of Ginti-padalla (EA 249 and 250), we find a similar distribution, pi for /yi/
and /yu/15 and ia for /ya/.16 La-ab-a-pi serves again as nominative (249:17?; 250:14, 39) or genitive (2 dumu la-aba-pi, 250:6 and passim).
In a letter from Mut-Balu of Pella,17 we possibly find another attestation of Labyu, this time spelled m[la-a]ba-ia (EA 255:15). Since the name is preceded by amur, it is possible that it was understood here as an object.18 Note
that the spelling of pi and ia follows that of the previously discussed texts.19
In EA 26320 the last line has i-na mla-ab-a-P[I], which requires a genitive. There are no other examples of pi to
write y+vowel in this text.
In a letter from uwardata of Gath (EA 280), la-ab-a-pi occurs twice, both times in the nominative (30, 33). In
this text, too, the signs pi and ia are used in the way that has been observed for the previous texts.21
A number of references to Labyu can also be found in two letters of Abdi-eba of Jerusalem. In EA 287 he
is attested in line 30 in a context that requires the genitive (dumu.me la-ab-a-pi). In this letter the sign pi is not
used in verbal forms, but only in names, where it stands for /yu/ or /yi/.22 The sign ia is always used for /ya/.23
In letter EA 289, there are two attestations, one in the genitive (6, dumu.me la-ab-a-yi) and one in the nominative (22, mla-ab-a-yu). With one exception, the sign pi is only used for /yu/ or /yi/ in this text,24 and the sign ia is
only used for /ya/.25
Finally, Labyu is attested in a letter from Tagi found in Beth-Shean.26 He occurs as addressee in the first line,
la-ab-a-p[i], where the context requires a genitive. This is the only occurrence of pi in this letter. Note, however,
that ia is consistently used for /ya/.27
9
Compare yi-ma-a-a-i (252:19); ye-en-ni-nu-nu-mi (253:24); yiiq-ta-bu (253:30); yi-i-li-q (254:9); yi-ka-lu (16); yu-s-an-ni-q
(18); yi-il-te-q (25).
10
Compare the first person suffix -ia (252:1, 4, 11, and passim),
ia-(a-)i (252:6, 254:41), ia-nu (253:26); mi-ia-ti (254:8); a-ia-ka-am
(27); mad-da-[i]a (37). For the last example, see below, Addyu.
11
See van Soldt 2010 and forthcoming.
12 m
bi-ri-di-yu/i (244:3, 246:3); yi-i-bat-i (244:28,37); yu-ba-a-
(244:43); yi-pu-u-mi (245:3); yi-ru-ub-mi (245:17); ye-el-q-me
(245:25); yi-iq-bi (245:27); a-na-yi (245:28); yi-l-q-u (245:30); yuta-ar (245:31, 42, 44); yu-ka-bi-id (245:39); yi-de-mi (245:46).
13
Apart from the many occurrences of -ia (1st p. sg.), cf. i-ia-nu
(244:39); a-ia-ma (245:6, see Rainey 1996, vol. 1, p. 167); ia-a-[i]
(245:27).
14
The name is also attested in EA 248:3.
15
yi-a-ba-lu (249:7); yi-[i]p-[pu-u] (249:18); yi-de (250:4, 9); yi-(ik)ki-im-ni-mi (20, 48); yi-it-r[u-u] (22); ye-e[n]-na-bi-il (33); yi-iz-zi-iz
(42); yi-is-s-u-i-ni (45); yi-i-bat-mi (46); yu-pa-at-ti (47); yi-nammu-u (53); yu-ba-a- (56); yi-qa-bu (59).
16
Cf. i[a]-a-p[ur-m]e (250:23); ia-a[]-p[u-r]a (28); mbir5-ia-wa-za
(250:24); ia-a[n?-]u? (45, see Moran 1992, p. 304); i-ia-nu-um (57);
ia-i (58).
17
According to Goren, Finkelstein, and Naaman (2004, p. 261) the
tablet was written at Beth Shean.
The translation should then be See my father Labyu, he used

to serve the king, his lord. This use of amur is also attested in
other letters, see Rainey 1996, vol. 3, pp. 169f., but the phrasing
is usually different (amur X a ).
19
pi: yu-wa-e-ru (255:17). ia: -ia (1st p. sg.); ma-a-ia (255:8); miia-ti (12); KUR ka-ra-du-ni-ia-a (21).
20
The names of the sender and the addressee are broken. According to Goren, Finkelstein, and Naaman 2004, p. 250, the letter
was possibly sent from Rehob or Beth-Shean.
21
pi: yu-u-i-ir-ni (280:9); yi-de (21, 36); yi-i-ta-al (25); ye-el-te-q
(31, 35); yu-u-te-ru (39; Moran 1992, p. 322: yu-na-ki-ru?). ia: -ia
(1st p. sg.); ia-ti-ia (13, 15).
22
ka-i-yi (287:33); mad-da-yu (47); ma-da-yu (49). Moran (1975, p.
151) discusses the use of the sign pi in the Jerusalem letters, but
only the values pi and .
23
-ia (1st p. sg.); ia-a-i (287:12, 28, 32, 49, 78?); ia-(a)-nu (23);
uru
ia-lu-naki (57).
24
ar-za-yi (289:7, see below); an-ni-yu (12); ad-da-yu (32); myi-ina-m[u] (45). The exception is an-ni-ya in line 9. The reading of
the personal name a-pi (31) is unclear, but the name is usually
spelled with ia, see Moran 1992, p. 382, and Hess 1993, pp. 75f.
25
-ia (1st p. sg.); mi-ia-re-e (31); ia-a-nu-mi (36).
26
Horowitz and Oshima 2006, pp. 48f.
27
Cf. -ia (1st p. sg., 2, 6) and [i]a-i (9).
18
445
In view of the prevalent distribution of pi and ia for writing the sound combinations /yu/ and /yi/ (pi) and
/ya/ (ia), it seems likely that the name la-ab-a-pi/ia should be read Labyu in the nominative, Labya in the accusative, and Labyi in the genitive. These spellings, in particular those in the accusative written with ia, show
that the name was triptotically declined. I return to the length of the vowel a at the end of this article.
The name Labyu should be interpreted as a hypocoristicon of a name starting with the element labu lion28
and ending with the suffix -yu. A similar name is attested in Ugarit, but instead of -yu, the suffix appears to be
-iyu (or -i-yu); compare mla-ab-i-yu in 19.42:3 (PRU 6, no. 79) and lbiy in KTU 4.376:2.
Addyu
This name is attested only in a letter from Labyu and in three letters sent by Abdi-eba of Jerusalem. The
name is spelled in three different ways: ad-da-pi, a-da-pi, and ad-da-ia. According to Hess29 the name should be
read Addaya, and he includes the name an-da-a-pi mentioned in EA 175:3.30 However, the identification of these
two persons is far from certain. Addyu was a commissioner who, according to EA 289:33, had a house in Gaza.
In the letter sent by Labyu of Shechem, the name is written ad-da-ia (254:37). The sign ia is broken, but according to Knudtzons collation, the reading is certain.31 The context requires a genitive: i-na u mad-da-[i]a, in
the hand of Addaya. Since the texts from Shechem generally distinguish between pi (for /yu/ and /yi/) and ia
(for /ya/),32 it seems certain that the scribe interpreted the name as Addaya.
In the three letters from Jerusalem, the spelling varies. In EA 285:24, only part of the sign ia remains, and the
rest of the name has disappeared. The restoration proposed by Campbell 33 is based on a parallel passage in EA
287:47. In the reconstruction the context would require a genitive ([a-na mad-da-i]a. In 287:47 the name is written
[ma]d-da-pi, and it is the subject of the infinitive pa-a-a!-ri! in line 46.34 As we have seen above, the signs pi and
ia are clearly separated according to the vowels they represent in EA 287, and the name should probably be read
Addyu. In line 49 the name is spelled a-da-pi, and here, too, a nominative is required. In EA 289:32 we find again
ad-da-pi, and also here a nominative must be assumed. With one exception, text 289 is as consistent as EA 287 in
its use of the signs pi and ia (see above, Labyu).
Although the evidence for Addyu is ambivalent, one may conclude that the scribe of the Schechem letter
EA 254 possibly understood the name as Addaya, while the Jerusalem scribe probably declined it triptotically as
Addyu/a/i.
For the interpretation of this name, there are several possibilities. First, the name can be a hypocoristicon in
-yu of a name beginning with the divine name (H)addu. A parallel from Ugarit would be dumu du-ta-yi (15.09:435),
which probably has to be read du-d-yi, that is, (H)addyu.36 However, there is also the frequently attested Ugaritic
name dy and the longer dyn, of which the vocalizations are uncertain.37
*Arzyu
Only two attestations of this name are known, and its interpretation is not clear. Izreel and Moran read it
Arsawa,38 while Hess interpreted it as a variant of the name Arsa(w)uya, the mayor of Ruizzi. 39 Since the spellings
of these two names are different in the sense that Arsa(w)uya is always written with an extra sign pi or , I prefer
to treat the name Arzyu separately. Note also that the two forms do not occur in one text. The two attestations
discussed here probably refer to different persons.
See the literature in Hess 1993, p. 103; and cf. DULAT 490.
Hess 1993, pp. 19f.
30
For the reading of this name, see Hess ibid.; Naaman 1988, p.
188, n. 41; Moran (1992, p. 261} reads Ildayyi.
31
Knudtzon 1915, p. 812.
32
See the discussion of EA 254 under Labyu.
33
Campbell 1964, p. 103 n. 75. See Moran 1992, p. 325 n. 8.
34
Rainey 1996, vol. 2, p. 384.
35
See PRU 3, p. 195.
28
29
36
One could compare this name with [du]mu a-da-ta-yi in 17.430
IV:11 (PRU 6, no. 83), a name that occurs in alphabetic script as
adty; see Grndahl 1967, p. 90, and DULAT 23, but this name is
probably derived from adt lady and not from Haddu.
37
See Grndahl 1967, pp. 196f., and DULAT 152. For dyn there
is one possible syllabic match, ma-da-ia-nu in 15.09:20 (PRU 3,
p. 195).
38
Izreel 1991, vol. 1, pp. 42, 141; vol. 2, p. 11. Moran 1992, p. 380.
39
Hess 1993, pp. 40f.
446
Wilfred van Soldt
In EA 62:27, a letter from Abdi-Airta of Amurru to Paanate, a certain mar-za-pi is said to have stayed behind
with three others in the palace of umur. The context requires a nominative. In this text the sign pi is attested
only in this name, and the sign ia is used only for /ya/.40
In EA 289:7, ar-za-pi is mentioned in the same context as Labyu. The text says that Milkilu does not break
away from the sons of Labyu and ar-za-pi. In both names a genitive is required.41 For the use of pi and ia in this
text, see under Labyu and Addyu.
In an adoption contract from Ugarit, a azannu called mar-za-pi acts as a supervisor.42 Since the context requires
a genitive,43 we have to read the name Arzyi.44
An explanation of this name is difficult. Hess suggested Indo-Aryan, West Semitic, and Egyptian origins, but
one could also think of an Anatolian origin, as for Ugaritian Arsuw(nu).45 However, if the ending -yu is indeed
part of this name, one would expect the first element to be of West Semitic origin, and the first word that comes
to mind is arzu cedar. The same word is probably attested in the personal name arz attested in an Ugaritic text.46
Bayyu
The name is attested in two letters in which this person acts as the sender. It is usually read ba-ia-wa.47 The
interpretation of the name is uncertain, but most scholars tend to see in it a writing for Indo-Aryan py,
protector.48
In EA 215 the name appears as ba-ia-pi in line 3 after umma, which probably points to a genitive in -i. This
short text contains no other examples of pi, but it is clear that ia is only used for /ya/.49
In EA 216 the name appears in the same spelling and context, but here we have more evidence for the spelling
with pi. The attestations show that pi is used for /yu/ and /yi/,50 whereas ia represents /ya/.51
Although a reading ba-ia-wa is acceptable, I would prefer to interpret the sequence ia-pi in the light of a few
other attestations in texts from Ugarit where this spelling indicates the suffix -y preceded by /y/ and followed
by the case vowel.52 The reading of the name would then be Bayyu, to be understood as Ba-y-y-u. In the context
of these two letters, the case vowel should be either the nominative in -u or the genitive in -i.
In Ugarit similar names are attested. There are the alphabetic spellings by and byy,53 and there is the syllabic
spelling be-pi.54 The spelling byy probably stands for a name with the suffix -yu, which, like Bayyu, is separated
from the name element by an inserted /y/. If the vowel in byy were the same as that in be-pi, the name would be
reconstructed as Beyyu, that is, Be-y-y-u. Since the vowel differs from the one in the Amarna name, the first
element may have to be explained differently. I can offer no explanation for either Bayyu or Beyyu.
*Andyu
The interpretation of this name is too uncertain; see footnote 29.
ia: i-na (62:12, 23); ia-i (29); cf. the name ia-ma-a-ia in lines
42 and 45.
41
See also above, Labyu.
42
25.134:2; see Lackenbacher 1991.
43
a-na pa-ni mar-za-pi.
44
Since ia is used consistently in this text to spell /ya/ the sign pi
was most probably employed to write either /yu/ or /yi/. Spellings with ia are a-ia i-din (25.134:20); mi-i-ia-nu (27); mia-ap-lu-tu
(29).
45
Grndahl 1967, p. 272.
46
bn.arz.rty, 5.248:25 (KTU 4.33).
47
Moran 1992, pp. 283f., and Hess 1993, p. 48.
40
Hess 1993, p. 48, no. 40.

Cf. -ia (1st p. sg., 215:1, 2, 7, 8), mia-an-a-ma (10); i-ia-a-nu (11).
50
Cf. yu-i-ra (216:15), yi-im-lu-ku (20). pi is used for /wa/ in awa-ti (13).
51
Cf. -ia (1st p. sg., passim); mma-ia (216:13).
52
van Soldt 2010 and forthcoming.
53
For attestations, see DULAT 253.
54
Compare also the names byn (11.788:30; KTU 4.86) and mbeia-nu (15.37:15; PRU 3, p. 35). The name mbe-e-ia in RS 86.2230:1
(RSO 14, no. 18) is borne by an Egyptian and is irrelevant for the
name discussed here.
48
49
447
Names with the Suffix -yu in Texts from Canaan

Several names ending in -(C)a-pi are attested in the documents found in Canaan. Most of these are found in
the texts discovered at Taanach,55 which are about a century older than the texts of the Amarna archive.
I discuss the names in alphabetical order.
Abdyu
r-da-pi (Taanach 14:7).56 The text contains a list of personal names that are probably all in the nominative
case. The only proof for this comes from mzi-bi-lu in line 4, but note that all names ending in /y/ use the sign pi,
which should probably be read /yu/. Although this makes a reconstruction of this name as Abdyu likely, it cannot be shown that pi is used only for /yu/ and /yi/ in this text. In line 12 we find the name mbi-ir-pi-ma-a-da, in
which the vowel /a/ seems certain.57 The sign ia is not attested in the text. The full name probably consisted of
the element abdu, servant, slave, and the name of a god.
m
Purdyu
pur-da-pi (Taanach 2:12).58 According to the context, the name should have the genitive case. This is the only
occurrence of pi in this text, but note that ia is used consistently for /ya/.59 The meaning of this name, that is to
say of the first element, is unclear.60
m
Rabbyu
dumu-ra-ba-pi (Taanach 3: obv. 9)61 and mra-ba-ia (Taanach 8: obv. 4).62 In Taanach 3 the word for son is
written after the determinative preceding personal names. The first element of the name could be the word rabbu
big, the suffix is probably yu (in the first text the genitive -yi, in the second the accusative -ya). Taanach 3
is a list of personal names in the nominative, for example, [m]e-li-tu (obv. 7), mta-a-gu (rev. 5), [mka-m]a-ru (8),
[mia-d]i-in-nu (12), and [mx]-x-lu (15), which makes the reading of pi as /yu/ at the end of the names in this text
rather likely. Note that the sign ia is used for /ya/ in [ma-i]a-ri (rev. 11). Taanach 8 is a fragment of a letter in which
the name mra-ba-ia seems to be an object to a lost verb in obv. 4. The only other occurrence of ia is the pronoun
ia-i in rev. 3. Since in both attestations the spellings of the suffix -yu appear to be consistent with the required
case endings, the name should probably be explained as Rabbyu, that is, Rabb-y-u.
m
byu
a-ba-pi (Taanach 14:2).63 For the orthography of this text, see above, Abdyu. I have assumed that the first
element is derived from the verb wb, to return. Names beginning with b(a)- are attested, for example, in the
Amarna letters64 and in Ugarit. Parallels for the name byu can be found in Ugarit, m-be-PI65 and by.66 Note,
m
Horowitz and Oshima 2006, pp. 127ff.

Ibid., pp. 150f.
57
Ibid., p. 151.
58
Ibid., pp. 133f.
59
For ia, see -ia (1st p. sg., 2, 15, 23); tgup-pa-a-ia-ni-ma (9).
60
Compare the names brdd, brdn, prd, and prdny in Ugaritic; see
Grndahl 1967, pp. 120 and 174; DULAT 236 and 679f.; Watson
1990, p. 247.
61
Grndahl 1967, p. 135. For the high percentage of names with
bin-, see van Soldt 2010, p. 155.
55
56
Ibid., p. 145.
Horowitz and Oshima 2006, p. 150.
64
Cf. ma-bidingir in EA 62:26 (Hess 1993, pp. 138f.) and in RS
11.787:7 (PRU 3, p. 194). Compare also the alphabetic spelling
bil (DULAT 896). For the Ugaritic toponym bail, see van Soldt
2005, p. 186. For other personal names from Ugarit containing
forms of this verb, see Grndahl 1967, p. 200.
65
19.65:7, PRU 6, no. 72.
66
16.193:11, KTU 4.222.
62
63
448
Wilfred van Soldt
however, that the syllabic spelling suggests a form be-y-u, and a similar reconstruction could be applied to the
Taanach attestation, ba-y-u, in which the second -a- would be part of the verbal form.
ZIryu67
zi-ra-pi (Taanach 3: rev. 4).68 For the orthography of this text, see above, Rabbyu. Since the reading of the
first sign is unclear, the etymology of the first element of the name remains uncertain. Possible parallels from
Ugarit are zry69 and ry.70 The name is certainly a hypocoristicon, but the nature of the suffix cannot be determined with any precision.
m
Three names are too uncertain to be included here:

ya-ur-r-zi-ir-ta-pi (Taanach 3: rev. 9 71). The meaning of this name is obscure. It is probably not a
hypocoristicon.72
za-pi-ia (Taanach 7: rev. 1:2).73 Since the names in this text tend to be written in the nominative74 and
since at least one name ending in -yi is written with pi,75 I have assumed that the suffix that was intended
in za-pi-ia is /ya/. How the sign pi should be read in this name is not clear.
x-da-pi (Taanach 4: rev. 6).76 The name could be a hypocoristicon ending in -yu.
Conclusion
On the basis of the orthography of the texts studied in this contribution, it seems inevitable to concede that
names written with pi as their last sign and attested in contexts that require either a nominative or a genitive
ending in -yu and -yi, respectively. Since the sound combinations -ayu/a/i would have resulted in the contracted
vowels -//, respectively, the suffix -a-yu must be reconstructed as /y/ plus the case vowel, the same suffix
that was used in texts written in Ugarit.77
Only nine cases of hypocoristicons with the suffix -yu have been found in the Amarna letters and the texts
from Canaan. Hess (1993) lists 217 names in the Amarna texts, but if we exclude the broken names, we are left
with 194. In their edition of the texts from Canaan, Horowitz and Oshima (2006) list about 75 names in the texts
from Taanach. Texts from other Canaanite Late Bronze Age towns provide about 25. All in all we have almost 300
names from these two text groups. The names in -yu form 3 percent of the total.
If we compare this figure with the number of names in the texts from Ugarit, we have 52 certain cases of
hypocoristicons with the suffix -yu, but more cases can be expected among alphabetic names ending in -y. How
many there are remains unknown. The 52 attestations amount to less than 1 percent of the total number of 6,000
names in texts from Ugarit, but in view of the large number of alphabetic names ending in -y, the total could be
as high as 2 or 3 percent. The difference in percentages is almost negligeable.
In the texts from Ugarit, the suffix -yu was often used in names of women.78 The number of cases was no less
than 40 percent of the total, and my conclusion was that women are overrepresented in this group. In the texts
studied here, no women are mentioned, and all nine instances refer to names borne by men. The limited number
of documents of the corpus used in this article is certainly partially to be blamed for this outcome.
Horowitz and Oshima 2006, p. 135, read mZe-ra-ya without
further commentary. In the text this person is referred to as a
Sutean (lSU).
68
The same name could be attested in Taanach 7: rev. 1:5 mzira-[].
69
Grndahl 1967, p. 313; zry is also attested in 19.60:1, KTU 4.628.
70
Grndahl 1967, p. 190.
71
Horowitz and Oshima 2006, p. 136.
67
See the remarks of Horowitz and Oshima 2006, p. 137.

Horowitz and Oshima 2006, p. 143, read mZa-wa-ia.
74
Cf. obv. 5 and rev. 911.
75
Cf. obv. 6.
76
Horowitz and Oshima (2006, p. 138) read mDup-da-ya.
77
For examples from the Amarna texts, see Sivan 1984, p. 18;
for Ugarit, see van Soldt 2005, p. 165 with previous literature.
78
See van Soldt 2010, p. 316.
72
73
449
Abbreviations
DULAT
EA
KTU
PRU 3
PRU 6
RS
RSO 14
Gregorio del Olmo Lete and Joaqun Sanmartn A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition. 2nd edition. 2 volumes. Handbuch der Orientalistik, Erste Abteilung, Nahe und der Mittlere Osten
67. Leiden: Brill, 2004
siglum of the Amarna tablets
Manfried Dietrich, Oswald Loretz, and Joaqun Sanmartn. The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit,
Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places (KTU). 2nd edition. Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palstinas und
Mesopotamiens 8. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995
Jean Nougayrol. Textes accadiens et hourrites des archives est, ouest et centrales. Mission de Ras Shamra 6,
Palace Royal dUgarit 3. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1957
Jean Nougayrol. Textes en cuniformes babyloniens des archives du grand palais et du palais sud dUgarit. Mission de Ras Shamra 12, Palace Royal dUgarit 6. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1970
siglum of texts from Ras Shamra
Marguerite Yon and Daniel Arnaud. tudes ougaritiques 1: travaux 19851995. Ras Shamra-Ougarit 14. Paris:
ditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 2001
Bibliography
Campbell, Edward F., Jr.
The Chronology of the Amarna Letters with Special Reference to the Hypothetical Coregency of Amenophis III and
1964
Akhenaten. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
Finkelstein, Israel, and Nadav Naaman
Shechem of the Amarna Period and the Rise of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Israel Exploration Journal
2005
55/2: 17293.
Goren, Yuval; Israel Finkelstein; and Nadav Naaman
Inscribed in Clay: Provenance Study of the Amarna Letters and Other Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Monograph
2004
Series 23. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology.
Grndahl, Frauke
1967
Hess, Richard S.
1993
Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit. Studia Pohl 1. Rome: Ppstliches Bibelinstitut.
Amarna Personal Names. American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series 9. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns.
Horowitz, Wayne, and Takayoshi Oshima

2006
Society and The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Izreel, Shlomo
1991
Amurru Akkadian: A Linguistic Study. 2 volumes. Harvard Semitic Studies 41. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Knudtzon, Jrgen A.
1915
Die El-Amarna-Tafeln. 2 volumes. Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 2. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs.
Lackenbacher, S.
1991
Moran, William L.
1975
Un contrat dadoption en fraternit. In Marchands, diplomates et empereurs: tudes sur la civilisation

msopotamienne offertes Paul Garelli, edited by Dominique Charpin and Francis Joanns, pp. 34143.
Paris: ditions Recherche sur les civilisations.
The Syrian Scribe of the Jerusalem Amarna Letters. In Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature, and Religion of the Ancient Near East, edited by Hans Goedicke and Jimmy J. M. Roberts, pp. 14666.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
450
Wilfred van Soldt

1992
Naaman, Nadav
1988
Rainey, Anson F.
1996
Sivan, Daniel
1984

Biryawaza of Damascus and the Date of the Kmid el-Lz Apiru Letters. Ugarit-Forschungen 20: 17993.
Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets. A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect Used by Scribes from Canaan. 4
volumes. Handbuch der Orientalistik, Erste Abteilung, Nahe und der Mittlere Osten 2125. Leiden: E. J.
Brill.
Grammatical Analysis and Glossary of the Northwest Semitic Vocables in Akkadian Texts of the 15th13th Centuries
B.C. from Canaan and Syria. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 214. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker.
van Soldt, Wilfred H.

2005
The Topography of the City-State of Ugarit. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 324. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag.
2010
The Ugaritic Suffixes -yu and -nu. In Von Gttern und Menschen. Beitrge zu Literatur und Geschichte des
Alten Orients. Festschrift fr Brigitte Groneberg, edited by Dahlia Shehata, Frauke Weiershuser, and Kamran
V. Zand, pp. 30727. Leiden: Brill.
On Abbreviated Personal Names in Texts from Ugarit. To be published in the Proceedings of the RenForthcoming
contre Assyriologique Internationale, Paris 2009.
Watson, Wilfred G. E.
1990
Ugaritic Onomastics (2). Aula Orientalis 8: 24350.
Jumping Spiders (Araneae: Salticidae)
451
27
Jumping Spiders (Araneae: Salticidae) of the Concord Area,

Middlesex County, Massachusetts
Preliminary List, Annotations, and Video Footage Based
on the Observations of John Huehnergard and Dick Walton
Richard K. Walton
Concord, Massachusetts, the Commonwealths first inland settlement, was founded by men seeking land they
could call their own. While religious persecution motivated some of the earliest immigrants, most Europeans
were drawn to the New World by the economic possibilities. Potential colonists facing bleak prospects at home
were also motivated by speculators and promoters in England and on the Continent touting Americas natural
resources in their glowing accounts of a land of milk and honey.
The realities of eastern North America in the seventeenth century presented a stark contrast to the romanticized descriptions of the promotional literature. The lessons of Jamestown and Plymouth included starvation,
death, and failure along with opportunity. One mirror on the undaunted colonists, freshly arrived in the New
World, is their attitude toward the natural world. While this untamed wilderness offered untold promise, it was
at the same time a very real threat to their dreams. This duality is also reflected by contemporary religious and
philosophical tenants (Walton 1984, pp. 111).
The Judeo-Christian concept of land is, in essence, utilitarian. As Aldo Leopold points out, Abraham knew
exactly what the land was for: It was to drip milk and honey into Abrahams mouth (Leopold 1949, pp. 20506).
That the natural world might be seen in any other way was moot.
John Locke, whose concepts informed Jeffersons work on Americas founding documents, states, land that is
left wholly to nature, that hath no improvement of pasturage, tillage, or planting, is called, as indeed it is, waste,
and we shall find the benefit of it amount to little more than nothing (Locke 1689, p. 42). The colonists focus was
to improve their piece of the natural world and in so doing to make their acreage profitable.
Wilderness was the enemy, cultivated acres the ally. And for the most part, the lives of Concords founding
fathers and their immediate descendants were defined by their struggle to establish and maintain crops in rockfilled fields. Woodlands and woodchucks, meadow grasses and meadow larks, raccoons and river otters, cardinal
flowers and crows were either a nuisance to be eliminated or, in a few cases, were deemed suitable for the pot.
In the early 1800s, nearly two centuries after its founding, most Concordians were still engaged in a perennial
struggle to turn a profit on their land. At this same time a small group of citizens established Concords reputation as a center of intellectual activity. Often referred to as transcendentalists, this learned group included
among their number Henry David Thoreau. The transcendentalists metaphor for nature was also a utilitarian
one, but one that envisioned nature as a source of inspiration on the path to philosophical, even divine, truths.
And much of Thoreaus writing is characterized by philosophical musings inspired by Concords woodlands and
wildlife. During the last decade of his life, Thoreau devoted most of his time to local nature studies (Walton 1984,
pp. 1219). At this point, however, both his motivation and his focus were transformed. Thoreau was studying the
natural world as an end in itself. Are we to be put off or amused in this life, as it were with a mere allegory? Is not
nature, rightly read, that which she is commonly taken to be the symbol merely (Thoreau 1849, p. 250). To his
451
452
Richard K. Walton
twenty-first-century admirers, Thoreaus attention to the intrinsic value of the natural world, his preoccupation
with learning the specific details of bird identification or the exact day on which each local wildflower bloomed,
and even his investigations of the ecological complexities of the effects of wood cutting on species composition
in a particular woodlot, seems anything but surprising. This is Thoreau the naturalist and field biologist. And
yet, measured against the prevailing attitudes of his fellow townsfolk Thoreaus perspective was revolutionary.
For present-day naturalists, Thoreau is the originator of a unique tradition of nature studies in and around
Concord, Massachusetts. No other place in North America has a longer written record of its natural history and
Thoreau penned the first significant chapters. Scattered throughout his journals and manuscripts are references
to the intellectual seeds of Thoreaus transformation. His conversion to naturalist is also reflected in his library.
While his focus is local and devotedly on Concord, Thoreau is influenced by his cosmopolitan embrace of ideas
from the ancient Far East to contemporary western Europe. From the Bhagavad Gita (Mitchell 2000, p. 13) to
Darwins revolutionary On the Origin of Species (Darwin 1859) and from the parochial perspective of Gilbert White
of Selborne (White 1887) to the cosmos of von Humbolt (von Humbolt 1806), Thoreau draws on numerous sources
and then concocts a unique brew to inspire his work.
Nearly two centuries after Thoreaus birth, the naturalist with an interest in Concord has access to a comprehensive record of the areas birdlife and botany. In addition to these subjects, whose foundations are the direct
legacy of Thoreau, subsequent fieldwork and research have defined the regions butterflies and dragonflies, its
reptiles and amphibians, and even several rather more obscure groups including freshwater bivalves and solitary
wasps. A search of Thoreaus forty-seven manuscript journal volumes will return observations and comments, in
some cases voluminous, on each of these subjects.
In 2004 John Huehnergard and I began work on a project focusing on the specific plants and animals observed
by Thoreau. Ultimately we combined narrative from his journals (Thoreau 1671) with video of the same flora
and fauna occurring in Concord today (Walton and Huehnergard 2006). In 2007 John and I were spending much
of our field time looking for solitary wasps. This project, however, was nearing completion and I was gradually
paying more attention to spiders, in particular a group called jumping spiders. While arachnids were not a subject
of particular interest to Thoreau, spiders and especially their webs do receive some attention in his writings.
As far as we could determine, however, Thoreau never mentioned jumping spiders in his field notes. His legacy,
however, invites and encourages new discoveries. And new discoveries on familiar ground constitute one of the
delights of naturalizing no matter where you make your home. In the spring of 2008, John and I made a beginning to what was and is the initial study of the jumping spiders in the Concord area. In August 2009, John moved
to Texas, where he and his wife and colleague, Professor Jo Ann Hackett, joined the faculty of the Department of
Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Texas at Austin. I have continued to search for and record local jumping
spiders. The list that follows and the accompanying video footage are the results of Johns and my collaborative
efforts as well as my ongoing studies.
Jumping Spiders (Araneae: Salticidae) Observed

Spiders belong to the class arachnida. They have two main body parts (cephalothorax and abdomen), as distinct from insects, which have three body parts. The salticids or jumping spiders is the largest family of spiders.
Members of this family are easily recognized by their two large, prominent eyes located centrally on the front
of the face (six smaller eyes are located on the sides and the top of the head). These large eyes provide jumping
spiders with unusually acute vision. Unlike many spiders, salticids do not build a fixed web but rather are freeroaming predators. Their keen vision and powerful legs enable jumping spiders to locate and pounce on their
prey from a relatively long distance. Salticids are also known for their elaborate mating behavior and, in the case
of the males, ornate and colorful anatomical embellishments. Although common in almost all habitats, salticids
are easily overlooked due to their small size.
This list comprises jumping spiders seen in the towns of Acton, Carlisle, Concord, and Sudbury during the
period of June 2008 through July 2012. In all cases identifications and/or confirmations have been made by
professional arachnologists. Names follow the currently accepted nomenclature (Platnick 20002012). Specific
453
data for each record are referenced with the online video footage on my website: www.rkwalton.com . This is a
preliminary list for the Concord area as there are likely a number of species present here but not observed by the
author. The annotations are included to note points of interest about the biology of salticids and the historical
context of jumping spider studies in Massachusetts rather than to elucidate in any systematic way the details of
the species listed.
Burgess 1875, pl. 8, fig. 21
Admestina wheeleri (Peckham & Peckham) Video Length: 00:53

http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/saoc/saoc67/saoc67_admestina_wheeleri.mp4
Eris militaris (Hentz) Video Length: 02:37

http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/saoc/saoc67/saoc67_eris_militaris.mp4
Evarcha hoyi (Peckhams) Video Length: 02:01

http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/saoc/saoc67/saoc67_evarcha_hoyi.mp4
Habronattus calcaratus maddisoni (Banks) Video Length: 02:39

http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/saoc/saoc67/saoc67_habronattus_calcaratus_maddisoni.mp4
The genus Habronattus includes some of North Americas most colorful and behaviorally interesting jumping
spiders. The etymology of the generic name is derived from habron, the Greek adjective for graceful, delicate,
pretty, and attus, the old genus name for jumping spiders (Ubick et al. 2005): thus, the pretty jumping spider. And
indeed, many of Habronattus males are strikingly adorned with bright green leg parts with showy fringes as well
as bold red facial markings. These adaptations all play their role in attracting females.
Habronattus coecatus (Hentz) Video Length: 02:13

http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/saoc/saoc67/saoc67_habronattus_coecatus.mp4
Previously the northern limit of H. coecatus was thought to be Long Island, New York. In October 2011, I found
a worn male of this species in Middlesex County, Massachusetts (Harvard Universitys Museum of Comparative
Zoology archive). In the spring of 2012 I located several H. coecatus subadult males as well as adult females.
Although this species has likely expanded its range northward it may also have been overlooked in part because
of its furtive behavior. H. coecatus spends a good deal of time hidden in grasses and thatch and is, in my experience, quicker to head for cover as compared with other Habronattus spiders.
454
Richard K. Walton
Habronattus decorus (Blackwall) Video Length: 02:08

http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/saoc/saoc67/saoc67_habronattus_decorus.mp4
While spiders are a hard sell even to naturalists, anyone willing to take the time to look for jumping spiders will be richly rewarded. Perhaps the most significant hurdle is size. Most jumping spiders are small and
an appreciation of their Lilliputian world may be best achieved through a macro lens. The present species is a
medium-sized jumper and a thing of beauty. The adult male combines soft, rose-colored and pearly-gray hues
with black-striped legs.
Habronattus viridipes (Hentz) Video Length: 02:59

http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/saoc/saoc67/saoc67_habronattus_viridipes.mp4
The video of this species includes a segment showing malefemale interactions. Much of the males short adult
life is spent searching for receptive females. Ultimately the female makes her selection(s) influenced at least in
part by the males bright colors and striking patterns.
Hentzia mitrata (Hentz) Video Length: 01:34

http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/saoc/saoc67/saoc67_hentzia_mitrata.mp4
Nicholas Marcellus Hentz, considered the father of American arachnology, was born in France and came to
America in 1816 at the age of nineteen. While he made his living as a teacher and briefly attended medical lectures
at Harvard, his passion was the study of insects and spiders. A short biographical sketch based on his sons recollections relates that, [a]lthough of a genial, affectionate, and generous nature, his peculiarly nervous organization
made him often morbidly sensitive and suspicious, and a prey to groundless fears, which not a little marred his
enjoyment of life. Hentz habitually and without regard to circumstance would drop on his knees, press his hands
to his forehead, and raising his eyes heavenward, remain in more or less protracted prayer. Despite these apparent
burdens, Hentz published the first important works on American spiders. A brief look at the nomenclature of the
present list indicates the significance of his contribution. And his fieldwork and notes on Massachusetts spiders
are considerable. Hentz lived and worked in Northampton, Massachusetts, in the 1820s. While he and Thoreau
shared acquaintances at Harvard and in the larger natural history community, it is unlikely they ever met. The
last quarter century of his life was spent in the southern states. Much of Hentzs work on spiders was published
by the Boston Society of Natural History (BSNH); twenty years after Hentz died the BSNH produced a volume of
his collected works (Burgess 1875, pp. xxi).
Hentzia palmarum (Hentz) Video Length: 01:27

http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/saoc/saoc67/saoc67_hentzia_palmarum.mp4
Maevia inclemens (Walckenaer) Dimorphic Jumper Video Length: 02:17

http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/saoc/saoc67/saoc67_maevia_inclemens.mp4
While variation in physical appearance is typical of jumping spiders as they mature from immature to adult,
mature adults typically have a single characteristic form for the female and for the male. The dimorphic jumper
is an exception to the rule as there are two adult male forms. One is overall gray in appearance, the other is black.
455
Marpissa lineata (C. L. Koch) Video Length: 01:15

http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/saoc/saoc67/saoc67_marpissa_lineata.mp4
Naphrys pulex (Hentz) Video Length: 01:33

http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/saoc/saoc67/saoc67_naphrys_pulex.mp4
Pelegrina galathea (Walckenaer) Peppered Jumper Video Length: 02:16

http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/saoc/saoc67/saoc67_pelegrina_galathea.mp4
Pelegrina sp. (proterva) (Walckenaer) Video Length: 02:17

http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/saoc/saoc67/saoc67_pelegrina_sp.mp4
Most arachnologists work with collected and preserved spiders. And traditionally, spider identification relies
on microscopic examination. The naturalist is more interested in the living animal in the field. Identification to
species level, therefore, may at times be difficult if not impossible. Such is the case with Pelegrina proterva and
its congeners P. peckhamorum, P. montana, and P. insignis. While P. proterva is the most likely species in our area the
similarity of external characteristics precludes accurate field identification to species (Maddison 1996, pp. 27073).
Phidippus audax (Hentz) Bold Jumper Video Length: 02:14

http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/saoc/saoc67/saoc67_phidippus_audax.mp4
This large jumping spider is widespread and abundant and may be the most commonly observed salticid in our
area. Like many Phidippus jumpers, the adult male had large, iridescent green chelicerae (jaws with fangs). First
described by Hentz, this species varied forms have caused a good deal of confusion, much of which is reflected
in the literature subsequent to Hentzs original description (Hentz 1845). G. B. Edwards Revision of this genus
details the synonomy for each species and the spider we now call Phidippus audax has over fifty entries for its
various synonyms (Edwards 2004, pp. 7274).
Phidippus cardinalis (Hentz) Video Length: 03:07

http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/saoc/saoc67/saoc67_phidippus_cardinalis.mp4
Phidippus clarus Keyserling Video Length: 02:18

http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/saoc/saoc67/saoc67_phidippus_clarus.mp4
Phidippus princeps (Peckhams) Video Length: 02:19

http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/saoc/saoc67/saoc67_phidippus_princeps.mp4
456
Richard K. Walton
Phidippus whitmani (Peckhams) Video Length: 02:57

http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/saoc/saoc67/saoc67_phidippus_whitmani.mp4
The Bristers Hill site, preserved and maintained by the Walden Woods Project, includes part of the route
Thoreau walked from Concord center to his cabin at Walden. Short quotes from Thoreau, engraved in granite,
are placed along the trail. John and I visited here several times to enjoy the natural delights as well as Thoreaus
inspirational words. On May 15, 2010, I was at Bristers Hill where just off the path among the oak leaves scattered
under lowbush blueberries I noticed movement. It wasnt long before I was admiring the first P. whitmani I had
ever seen a bright red male jumping spider with dark legs heavily fringed with gray. Initially it seemed a puzzle
that although Thoreau walked here many times he apparently never saw this spider. But P. whimani is restricted
to woodland edges and in Thoreaus day this was an area of fields and meadows.
Phlegra hentzi (Marx) Video Length: 01:42

http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/saoc/saoc67/saoc67_phlegra_hentzi.mp4
Platycryptus undatus (De Geer) Familiar Jumper Video Length: 02:09

http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/saoc/saoc67/saoc67_platycryptus_undatus.mp4
Jumping spiders do not build fixed web snares as do many spiders but do produce silk for a variety of uses
including as material to build protective enclosures during molt, to fashion a container for their eggs, or for constructing an over-wintering shelter. When jumping to catch prey they also use a silken strand much like a rock
climber uses a rope. Hentzs description includes the following: Before leaping, this Attus always fixes a thread
on the point from which it departs; by this it is suspended in the air if it miss its aim, and it is secure against falling far from its hunting ground (Burgess 1875, p. 57).
Salticus scenicus (Clerck) Zebra Jumper Video Length: 02:26

http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/saoc/saoc67/saoc67_salticus_scenicus.mp4
Sitticus concolor (Banks) Video Length: 01:33

http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/saoc/saoc67/saoc67_sitticus_concolor.mp4
Sitticus fasciger (Simon) Video Length: 00:56

http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/saoc/saoc67/saoc67_sitticus_fasciger.mp4
Sitticus floricola palustris (Peckhams) Video Length: 00:57

http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/saoc/saoc67/saoc67_sitticus_floricola_palustris.mp4
457
Sitticus pubescens (Fabricius) Video Length: 02:05

http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/saoc/saoc67/saoc67_sitticus_pubescens.mp4
Synemosyna formica (Hentz) Video Length: 01:24

http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/saoc/saoc67/saoc67_synemosyna_formica.mp4
Mimicry is a common adaptation in a variety of organisms and is especially prevalent in the insect world. Some
arachnids are also mimics and mimetic adaptations may function in different ways. Many red salticids living in
xeric habitats are thought to mimic velvet ants (wasps). The mutillids are actually kleptoparisitic wasps whose
wingless females are known for their powerful sting. A jumping-spider mimic of this wasp may deter predators
by its look-alike form (Edwards 1984). The present species is an ant mimic. Their rather astonishing similarity to
ants may function as a protective adaptation against potential predators that find ants distasteful, but it may also
provide cover as the spider hunts the ants themselves by facilitating a close approach without alarming its prey.
Talavera minuta (Banks) Video Length: 00:44

http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/saoc/saoc67/saoc67_talavera_minuta.mp4
Tutelina elegans (Hentz) Video Length: 03:02

http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/saoc/saoc67/saoc67_tutelina_elegans.mp4
Tutelina harti (Peckham in Emerton) Video Length: 01:09

http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/saoc/saoc67/saoc67_tutelina_harti.mp4
Zygoballus nervosus (Peckham & Peckham) Video Length: 01:35

http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/saoc/saoc67/saoc67_zygoballus_nervosus.mp4
Zygoballus rufipes (Peckhams) Hammerjawed Jumper Video Length: 01:54

http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/saoc/saoc67/saoc67_zygoballus_rufipes.mp4
Acknowledgments
Jay Barnes, Contributing Editor, BugGuide; G. B. Edwards, Curator: Arachnida (except Acari), Myriapoda, Terrestrial
Crustacea, Thysanoptera Florida State Collection of Arthropods; Patsy Eickelberg; Jo Ann Hackett; John Heuhnergard; and
Wayne Maddison, Professor and Canada Research Chair, Departments of Zoology and Botany University of British Columbia.
458
Richard K. Walton
Bibliography
Burgess, Edward, editor
The Spiders of the United States: A Collection of the Arachnological Writings of Nicholas Marcellus Hentz M.D.
1875
Boston: Boston Society of Natural History.
Cameron, H. D.
2005
Darwin, Charles
1859
An Etymological Dictionary of North American Spider Genus Names. In Spiders of North America: An
Identification Manual, edited by D. Ubick, P. Paquin, P. E. Cushing, and V. Roth, chapter 73. 2005. Poughkeepsie: American Arachnology Society.
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life. London: John Murray.
Edwards, G. B.
1984
Mimicry of Velvet Ants (Hymenoptera: Mutillidae) by Jumping Spiders (Araneae: Salticidae). Peckhamia
2/4: 4649. Peckhamia 2/4: 4649. Available online; search for Peckhamia 59.1:
http://peckhamia.com/pubs.html
2004
Revision of the Jumping Spiders of the Genus Phidippus (Araneae: Salticidae). Occasional Papers of the Florida
State Collection of Arthropods 11. Gainesville: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
Emerson, Ralph Waldo

Thoreau. The Atlantic Monthly 10/58: 12436.
1862
Hentz, Nicholas Marcellus
1845
Descriptions and Figures of the Araneides of the United States. Boston Journal of Natural History 5:
189202.
Leopold, Aldo
1949
Locke, John
1689
A Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There. New York: Oxford University Press.
An Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent and End of Civil Government. Published Anonymously. Printed
for Awnsham and John Churchill, at the Black Swan in Pater-Noster-Row.
Maddison, Wayne P.
Pelegrina Franganillo and Other Jumping Spiders Formerly Placed in the Genus Metaphidippus (Araneae:
1996
Salticidae). Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology. 154/4: 215368.
Mitchell, Stephen, translator
Bhagavad Gita: A New Translation. New York: Three Rivers Press.
2000
Platnick, Norman I.
20002012
The World Spider Catalog, Version 13.0. New York: American Museum of Natural History.
Available online: http://research.amnh.org/iz/spiders/catalog/
Thoreau, Henry David

A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers. Boston and Cambridge: James Munroe.
1849
Writings. 13 volumes to date. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
1971
Ubick, D.; P. Paquin; P. E. Cushing; and V. Roth, editors
Spiders of North America: An Identification Manual. Poughkeepsie: American Arachnology Society.
2005
von Humboldt, Alexander
Personal Narrative of a Journey to the Equinoctial Regions of the New Continent. Abridged edition. New York:
1806
Penguin Books, 1696.
Walton, Richard K.
1984
Birds of the Sudbury River Valley: An Historical Perspective. Lincoln: Massachusetts Audubon Society.
Walton, Richard K., and John Huehnergard

Henry David Thoreau Speaking for Nature. Concord: Three Rivers Productions. DVD, 50 minutes.
2006
White, Gilbert
1887
The Natural History of Selborne. London: Walter Scott.
Verbal Endings in the Afroasiatic Prefix Conjugations
459
28

Andrzej Zaborski, Jagiellonian University
Contemporary that is, the living Afroasiatic/Hamitosemitic languages represent different stages: some of
them have preserved many important archaisms going back to the oldest historical periods and even to prehistorical
Proto-Afroasiatic dialect cluster, while others have introduced radical changes that make them very innovative even
in comparison with languages that had undergone substantial evolution from Old Afroasiatic much earlier. Just like in
the case of the living Indo-European languages, there are very archaic and very innovating living Afroasiatic languages
today. There are very few true Hamitosemitists since one cannot study Hamitosemitic/Afroasiatic linguistics at
a university, although one can study Indo-European linguistics, and, therefore, among Semitists, not to mention
Egyptologists, there is still a strong tendency to ignore the evidence of the languages from other branches, which,
except Egyptian and Berber (the latter unnecessarily misnamed Libyan as far as the oldest deciphered ancient
records are concerned) are known almost exclusively from the sources going back to the nineteenth or the twentieth
century. There are two answers that can be given to the hypercritical questions about a possibility of comparison
of ancient and modern languages. (1) The relative chronology of language history and change is different from the
chronology of written records so that there are cases of very early recording of not very archaic languages (e.g., early
recorded Hittite shows a number of morphological innovations; in case of Afroasiatic, Egyptian has lost the prefix
conjugation and has developed a new verbal system based on nominalizations that have typological parallels, e.g., in
much later Aramaic and Ethiosemitic), and there are cases of rather late records of languages that have preserved many
archaic features Lithuanian is a classical example within Indo-European, while Modern Semitic of Southern Arabia
(usually called Modern South Arabian) represents Semitic in this case. Archaic and innovating languages coexist for
example, today within the Germanic branch archaic, and typically inflectional Icelandic coexists with Afrikaans, which
is the most analytic or inflectionless Indo-European language; within contemporary Semitic (apart from Modern
South Arabian), relatively many conservative Arabic dialects (not to mention Modern Literary Arabic!) coexist with
very innovative Neoaramaic. (2) The result is that even if we had known only the living Semitic languages since the
nineteenth century ignoring earlier records of Semitic, nevertheless it would be possible (using the evidence of such
conservative languages like Modern South Arabian, Tigre, and many archaic Arabic dialects even without Modern
Literary Arabic) to write a comparative-historical grammar of the Semitic languages that would not be radically
different (although it would certainly be more controversial and less detailed) from the grammar that is based on
Akkadian, Classical Arabic, Ugaritic, and so on. There is no doubt that longer-range comparison, that is, the comparison
of Semitic with other branches (first of all Berber and Old Cushitic, which have preserved the prefix conjugation), can
be sometimes rather risky, but there is also no doubt that there is no scientific excuse for ignoring these and other
archaic contemporary languages that may elucidate some problems of the internal reconstruction of Proto-Semitic.
A long time ago, Marcel Cohen maintained that allegedly Proto-Hamitosemitic was tantamount to Proto-Semitic, but
in my opinion the nearest relatives, Berber and Old Cushitic (Beja, Afar-Saho, and Rendille), have preserved some
archaic features that had been either lost or marginalized in the oldest (both in relative and in absolute terms) Semitic
languages for example, the system of stem and prefix vowels in Berber and in Old Cushitic is in many respects more
archaic than in Semitic (probably with the exception of Modern South Arabian; see Zaborski 2007), despite the fact
that, quite naturally, even in the most conservative Berber and Cushitic dialects, archaisms coexist with innovations
like everywhere.
459
460
Andrzej Zaborski
The vocalic endings of the verbal categories (tense/aspect and mood, i.e., TAM) conjugated with prefixes
(traditionally called prefix conjugation) started disappearing very early in Proto-Afroasiatic, but at least in
Semitic and in Old Cushitic represented by Afar1 and Saho, the following morphemes have been preserved: (1) -u
of the Imperfect Indicative (shifted to future and conjunctive in Afar and Saho), (2) -a of the subjunctive (in Afar
preserved in the negative present), (3) zero ending of the past (any connection with *-i/e of the Cushitic past?) with
a secondary function of jussive, and (4) -an(na)/-am of the modi energici (in Akkadian surviving as ventive mainly,
but not exclusively, with the verbs of motion). As is well known, in Semitic these morphemes have partially survived
almost exclusively in Modern Literary Arabic2 as a result of the traditional school teaching of this language, which is
not a real mother tongue of any Arab today. The question is whether these endings have survived elsewhere and what
can be hypothetically reconstructed for Proto-Afroasiatic.
Let me introduce some elementary data on the Beja verbs conjugated with prefixes that represent both archaisms
and innovations. I was the first after Reinisch (1893, 202) to remind years ago (Zaborski 1997a and 1997b; cf. Fleisch
1944, who missed the fact, although he did check the grammars of Beja) that the third derivational class of Semitic
verbs that is, qtala (misnamed conative) being a variant of the second or D intensive or rather multiple action
class has a cognate in Beja (e.g., o-tak i-dr-na they killed the man but n-da i-dr-na they killed the men; cf. verbal
nouns, i.e., nomina actionis with --, in this case dr) in which the plural forms of the present of the first class go back
to the intensive with -- (< *) in the prefix vowel.3 In biconsonantal verbs, this long -- of the prefix occurs together
with the -i ending in intensive forms of the present, for example, -dir-i I kill often/many and n-dir-i we kill
often/many, but the -i ending in at least some verbs may go back rather to root final -y (or - as Reinisch [1895, p. 69]
connected Beja d-r tentatively with Arabic d-r-) since there is, for example, t-diri-y-i you (fem.) kill often/many, tdiri-a you (masc.) kill often/many, t-diri-na you (pl.) kill often/many, and so on (Roper 1928, pp. 6869) although -i
does not appear in other tenses, for example, a-dir I killed, t-dir-a you (masc.) killed, t-dir-i you (fem.) killed. There
is another problem Reinisch (1895, p. 69) provides an intensive pluperfect (old past used also in conditional clauses)
form -der-a with -a, which needs verification since it is not mentioned in other sources!
Apart from the doubtful -i of the intensive present of biconsonantal verbs discussed above, there are some other
alleged remnants of the TAM endings in Beja for example, the past of hay has -i, such as -h- and -f-i he was, n-h-
we were, but in the present it has - (< *a ?) in the dialect described by Roper (1928, p. 78) , such as i-h- and -f-e he
is, ne-h- and n-f-e we are, but -i and -a in the dialect described by Wedekind, Wedekind, and Abuzeinab (2007, pp.
12324), that is, -f-i and ih-a he is. Negative present has a zero ending, such as k--hay he is not and k-n-hay we are
not, and optative has -a, for example, b-y-hi-a let him be and b-n-hi-a let us be. Perhaps the optative -a could be
identified with the Semitic -a of the subjunctive, but there are big questions concerning these final vowels since there
are also verbs that have -i in the present, such as i-br-i he has, and in the past, such as -bir-i he had; compare -ym-i
it is raining (Roper 1928, p. 69). There are also past forms with -e, such as -yih- he took, -n-e or -d-e he said (Morin
2001, p. 121, has only forms with -i, e.g., di in the dialect of Gash) and with -a (see above). Since these endings occur
with defective, that is, monoconsonantal or biconsonantal verbs, a lot of further research is needed to elucidate the
problem.
A similar problem exists in Berber, where vocalic endings occur also with defective verbs, although there are
also triconsonantal verbs that have such endings, such as Tuareg present yu-rd-u, past yu-rd-a, negative past yu-rd-e
to think, then (in the same order) yu-qq-u, yu-qq-a, yu-qq-e to vomit; Kabyle past i-wal-i, present i-wal-a, to think,
then (in the same order) i-li, i-l-a to have, yi-n-i and ye-nn-a to say, ye-sfuhr-i and ye-sfuhr-a to make insolent. There
are different endings in the intensive past, such as Ahaggar Tuareg past ils-a: intensive past ils-, Irjen dialect yelsa:
yels-i to dress oneself ; Kabyle dialect: yefk-a : yefk-i to give. There is -i in some negative paradigms, and Brugnatelli
(2002) has repeated his earlier hypothesis that the appearance of -i instead of -a in negative paradigms may be due
to a postposed negative particle this is possible but not quite clear, since -i with some verbs occurs also in the
imperfect/aorist (see examples in Nat-Zerrad 1994, pp. 19192 and elsewhere; cf. Kossmann 1989, pp. 2122). Berber
-u of the present seems to correspond to the -u of the Semitic imperfect, whose cognate has been shifted in Afar to a
conjunctive (usually called subjunctive) function. By the way: the Semitic imperfect yaqtul-u does not go back to the
The spelling Qafar with <q> for ayn should be avoided in
foreign languages.
2
Another, somewhat controversial, case is Gurage, e.g., Goggot
and Muxer; see Hetzron 1977, pp. 9092, and 1972, pp. 3738.
1
Original auxiliary to be < to live allegedly surviving with a

secondary meaning to say, to speak; there is a chance that it
might be either the well-known h-w-y as suggested by Hetzron
(1975 and 1980) at least for passive forms or H-y-y reduced to a
vowel.
461
Akkadian subordinative allegedly shifted to main clauses, but iprus-u = yaqtul-u survived, ousted by iparras from the
main clauses, in subordinate clauses, namely, not before a pause as subordinative iprus-u (Kuryowicz 1972, pp. 5354).
This was explained already by Sarauw (1912, p. 68) and was accepted by, among others, Hetzron (1974, pp. 18789), but
ignored by Assyriologists so much that I rediscovered it in my paper of 2010, where Sarauw should have been quoted.
In general the -u of the indicative survived in Akkadian in non-pausal forms, that is, not only in the old imperfect
shifted to subordinative as iprus-u but also in non-pausal, that is, in subordinate clause forms of iparras-u.
Prasse the great master of Tuareg and general Berber linguistics has ascribed every survival of final vowels in
weak verbs to the alleged original -h. It is clear, however, that Berber had and still has ultimae w and ultimae y verbs
like Semitic and Cushitic (not to mention Egyptian and Chadic) in which final /w/ and /y/ conditioned the vocalic
Auslaut (see Basset 1929, pp. 5866, 197213). It is rather improbable that only final -h (original or secondary?) could
be responsible for that. Actually, Prasse (19722009, 1:11416) discusses the alternation of Tuareg /w/, /y/, and */h/
(the last one with asterisk!). When we have in Tuareg imperfect yurd-u, perfect positive yurd-a, perfect negative yurd-e,
intensive perfect yurd-, positive intensive imperfect itrd-u, and negative intensive imperfect iturd-u of to think
reconstructed respectively as *yrduh, *yrdah, *yrdh, *yrdh, *yitrdh, *yitrdh,4 and iruh-u, yaruh-a = yaruh-a,
yarh-u and itirh-u of (French) dgringoler (Prasse 19722009, 3:245, 4:371), it is not quite certain that all the verbs
of this kind must be reconstructed only in this way. Compare also (in the same order) ilk-u, ilk-a, ilk-e, ilkk-u, and
ilukk-u to hate, to despise; yar, yur-a, yur-e, itr, and itir to open; ilw-i, ylw-a, ylw-e, itlw-i, and itilw-i to be large; and
ilkensi, ilkn-sa=ilkns-a, ylkns-a, itlkens-i, and itelkens-i to lie dead. Compare Arabic imperfect yarm and subjunctive
yarmiy-a, passive imperfect yurm- of to throw. It is highly probable that the Tuareg forms like imperfect ymmt and
perfect ymmut of to die (cf. Rendille yamt he is dying) originally not only differed in the stem apophony but also
had different endings, probably -u and zero. The problem of the Berber short vocalic endings in verbs requires a lot of
further research phonological, morphological, and etymological reconstruction.
Is it possible to find traces of the original Proto-Berber vocalic endings in verbal forms elsewhere? Vocalic endings
could have survived in front of the suffixed personal pronouns and other possible suffixes. Actually, the Berber prefix
conjugation uses both personal prefixes and personal suffixes going back to personal pronouns with the exception of
the future in the dialect of Ghadames, which is an archaism as pointed out by Kossmann (2000, p. 250, and 2001, p. 35).
Prasse (1963 and 19722009, 2:911, 4:95) speaks about a mixed prefix and suffix conjugation, for example, 1st sing.
e-kres-G, 2nd sing. te-kres-d to make a knot where -G (< (n)-ak I) and d (<*-at you (sing.)) are used with quality
verbs in the paradigm cognate to the Akkadian stative, for example, Tuareg (Prasse 19722009, 2:11, 4:356) waar-G
I am old, (te)waar-d you are old (with facultative prefix!), Kabyle meqqr-eG I am big, meqqr-ed you are big (NatZerrad 1994, pp. 21434; 2001, pp. 8889), but see Galand-Pernet 1991 and Galand 2010, pp. 10809, for alternative
hypothetical etymologies. The question is whether in Berber and in the Cushitic languages personal pronouns in their
elsewhere-independent forms are simply suffixed to verbs conjugated with prefixes. Is it possible that it was rather a
postposed suffix-conjugated auxiliary whose stem had been reduced to a vowel that was later elided? This would be
the model of the Neoethiosemitic (there probably due to the contact with Cushitic) periphrastic conjugation used for
example in Amharic, that is ye-sbr-all-h, EnnE-sbr-all-n but in more innovative Harari yi-sbr-x, ni-sbr-na, Selti
tE-sabr-a (Hetzron 1972, pp. 3940). In this way forms like Tuareg e-lmed-aG I learn and te-lmed-ad you learn could go
back to something like *e-lmad-Vk(u), *telmed-Vat, where -V- stands for an original suffix-conjugated auxiliary reduced
to a vowel. I emphasize that this is only an Arbeitshypothese. Compare also Somali ti-rh-da/ti-rh-a/ti-rh you say, nirhan-na/ni-rh-na/ni-rh we say, and so on, and ti-rh-did that/let you say, which suggest a relationship with Berber
(Zaborski 1975, pp. 4849). In this case one of the difficulties consists in the fact that in Berber these personal suffixes
occur in all the tenses5 of the prefix conjugation. Analogy could work in this direction. A more complicated and
therefore less probable assumption would be that there were several suffix-conjugated auxiliaries in postposition,
but the whole explanation must be much more sophisticated and requires further research. In any case, Galands
reservation (Galand 2010, p. 108) is that Prasses hypothesis about the mixed prefix and suffix conjugation in Berber is
too vague actually Galand says only that this hypothesis may be too much influenced by the data of West Semitic.
4
Prasse 19722009, 2:134, 1:73; cf. 4:ix, where he quotes
intensive imperfect forms of the ultimae y verbs with -iy, and see
paradigms on pp. 35455.
Except the Ghadamsi future mentioned above; see also Galand

2010, pp. 10607, for forms without these suffixes.
462
Andrzej Zaborski
Original verbal endings might have survived also before suffixed pronouns. While suffixed indirect-object personal
pronouns have initial --, 6 suffixed object personal pronouns with vocalic Anlaut that is, i, -k, -m, , -t, -n-G, -wn,
-k-m-t, -n, -n-t replace the vocalic endings of the weak verbs, namely, of the imperfect and, less frequently, *-a
of the intensive imperfect, while in Kabyle final vowels of the weak verbs remain, and the hiatus is eliminated by
-y-, for example, inna-y-as he told him (Nat-Zerrrad 1994, p. 28). The same happens in Beja, for example, ne dey-y-ki I told you (Roper 1928, pp. 3132), although this may be due to phonological universals. It is remarkable that the
vowels of the personal possessive pronouns suffixed to nouns in Tuareg have also variants (Prasse 2009, p. 1012) with
-e- and -i-, such as -ek and -ik, -ak your (masc.), and -em and im, -am your (fem.). Thus the evidence of the initial vowels
of the suffixed personal pronouns is not clear, and it is possible that the original verbal endings have not survived
before them, but this problem also requires further research. The same concerns the forms in front of other suffixes
(demonstratives and particles).
By the way: there is an -h- before personal suffixed direct and indirect object personal pronouns in Beja 1st sing.
-h-e-b me, -h-o-k you, -h-o-s him/her, -h-o-n us, -h-o-k-na you (pl.), -h-o-s-na them, for example, ne irhn-hokna
I saw you (pl.). 7 In Tuareg the indirect-object personal pronouns are (Prasse 19722009: 1:17677): 1st sing. h-i, 2nd
masc. sing. h-k, 2nd fem. sing. h-m, 3rd h-s, 1st pl. h-na-G, 2nd masc. pl. h-wan, 2nd fem. pl. h-k-m-t, 3rd masc.
pl. h-s-n, 3rd fem. pl. h-s-n-t. The forms of 1st sing. hi and 1st pl. h-nG are used also for the direct object. These
pronouns are usually preverbal, but with a few verbs they are suffixed, for example, aba-hs there is no for him, innahs = inn-s he told him. The origin of this -h (originally deictic, a preposition, or a particle?) remains obscure (Prasse
19722009, 1:17778, 173), but a connection with the Arabic (also Ugaritic, Middle Aramaic, etc.) prefix in h-ka here,
take it is probable (cf. Prasse 19722009, 1:179).
Mainly in Old Assyrian, but with remnants in Old Akkadian and in Old Babylonian (von Soden 1995, p. 135;
Huehnergard 2005, p. 602), the ending of subordinative forms has additional -ni suffixed to the preserved vocalic
ending -u, such as iprus--ni. In Awngi 8 there is a paradigm called conditional protasis imperfect by Hetzron (1969,
pp. 2425) with the --ni ending, that is, the ending of the Old Cushitic Subjunctive -u (< Proto-Afroasiatic imperfect/
present; subjunctive -u survives also in Chadic) and the following -ni, such as n des--ni EncGe ygc if I study, I shall
find work. This occurs also in the temporal (Hetzron 1969, pp. 2122) after the ending - (going back to the Old
Cushitic Present -a), and it expresses the idea of when and indicates that the main action was performed at the
same time as the subordinate one, for example, n des--ni kwa antta kantGw when I studied, I saw you coming. The
temporal is also used in narrative texts as a connective element, that is, the last verb of the preceding sentence is
repeated in the temporal form to continue the narration. It is a big question of whether Cushitic Awngi has preserved
a morpheme that was used in Assyrian since the relative chronology gap (real time difference is not so important at
all!) is very considerable. Perhaps this similarity is too nice to be a case of relationship. Nevertheless it should be taken
into consideration even if Hetzron, who admitted the existence of very old archaisms in otherwise late or innovating
languages (e.g., in Gurage), says (1969, p. 74) that [t]he element -ni can be related etymologically to the second part
of the interrogative pronoun wni when. It is rather improbable that two semantically related suffixes meaning if
and when could have a different origin. Theoretically the interrogative w-ni could be a secondary formation using
the postverbal -ni, but this weak hypothesis would need a lot of additional support.
General conclusion: as expected, TAM endings must be reconstructed for Proto-Afroasiatic prefix conjugation,
or rather, conjugations. They have largely disappeared in Berber and in Beja and Somali (including Rendille) but have
survived in Old Semitic (Akkadian, Classical Arabic, and Ugaritic) and in Afar-Saho.
Except 1st sing. -i; see Prasse 19722009, 1:176 and 173; Prasse
2009, pp. 101215 and 19722010, 4:34243; Galand 2010, pp.
11022.
Wedekind et al. 2007, p. 133; Roper 1928, p. 29; with the old
past/conditional and when the meaning of intention is dubious
forms without -h are used Roper 1928, para. 100 and 102.
8
Pronounced [awNi], sometimes misspelled Awnji, also called
Southern Agaw.
7
463
Abbreviations
A aspect
fem. feminine
M mood
masc. masculine
pl. plural
sing. singular
T tense
Bibliography
Basset, Andr
1929
La langue berbre Morphologie Le verbe tude de thmes. Paris: E. Leroux.
Brugnatelli, Vermondo
Les thmes verbaux ngatifs du berbre. In Articles de linguistique berbre: mmorial Werner Vycichl,
2002
edited by Kamal Nat-Zerrad, pp. 16580. Paris: LHarmattan.
Fleisch, Henri
1944
Galand, Lionel
2010
Galand-Pernet, P.
1991
Hetzron, Robert
1969
1972
1974
1975
1977
1980
Huehnergard, John
2005
Les verbes allongement vocalique interne en smitique. Travaux et mmoires de lInstitut dethnologie 43.
Paris: Institut dethnologie.
Regards sur le berbre. Studi camito-semitici 8. Milan: Centro studi camito-semitici.
Sur lorigine des dsinences verbales en berbre. Comptes rendus du Groupe linguistique dtudes chamitosmitiques 2930: 738.
The Verbal System of Southern Agaw. Near Eastern Studies 12. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ethiopian Semitic: Studies in Classification. Journal of Semitic studies. Monograph 2. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
La division des langues smitiques. In Actes du premier Congrs international de linguistique smitique et
chamito-smitique, edited by Andr Caquot and David Cohen, pp. 18194. Janua linguarum. Series practica
159. The Hague: Mouton.
La vocalisation de prfixes verbaux en smitique. In Etudes smitiques, edited by Andr Caquot, pp.
2324. Actes du 29e Congrs international des orientalistes. Paris: LAsiathque.
The Gunnn-Gurage Languages. Naples: Istituto orientale di Napoli.
The Vocalization of Prefixes in Semitic Active and Passive Verbs. Mlanges de lUniversit St. Joseph 48:
3548.
A Grammar of Akkadian. 2nd edition. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Kossmann, Marteen
1989
Linaccompli ngatif en berbre. Etudes et documents Berbres 6: 1929.
2000
Le futur Ghadams et lorigine de la conjugaison verbale en berbre. In tudes berbres et chamitosmitiques: mlanges offerts Karl-G. Prasse, edited by Salem Chaker, pp. 33756. M.S. Ussun amazigh
15. Louvain: Peeters.
2001
Les dsinences modales en berbre. Rivista degli Studi Orientali 74: 2539.
464
Andrzej Zaborski
Kuryowicz, Jerzy
1972
Morin, D.
2001
Nat-Zerrad, Kamal
1994
2001
Prasse, Karl-G.
1957
1963
19722009
2009
Studies in Semitic Grammar and Metrics. Krakow: Ossolineum.

Bridging the Gap between Northern and Eastern Cushitic. In New Data and New Methods in Afroasiatic
Linguistics: Robert Hetzron in memoriam, edited by Andrzej Zaborski, pp. 11724. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Manuel de conjugaison kabyle. Paris: LHarmattan.
Grammaire modern du kabyle. Paris: Karthala.
Le problme berbre des radicales faibles. In Mmorial Andr Basset, 18951956, edited by G.-S. Colin et
al., pp. 12130. Paris: A. Maisonneuve.
Les affixes personnels du verbe berbre. Acta Orientalia 27: 1121.
Manuel de grammaire touargue. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.
Grammatik und Verbalsystem. In Wrterbuch zur Sprache und Kultur der Twareg, by Hans Ritter and
Karl-G. Prasse, vol. 2, pp. 100389. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Reinisch, Leo
1893
1895
Die Bedauye-Sprache in Nordost-Afrika. Vienna: A. Hlder.

Wrterbuch der Bedauye-Sprache. Vienna: A. Hlder.
Roper, E. M.
1928
Tu Beauye: An Elementary Handbook. Hertford: S. Austin.
Sarauw, Ch.
1912
von Soden, W
1995
Das altsemitische Tempussystem. In Festschrift: Vilhelm Thomsen zur Vollendung des siebzigsten Lebensjahres
am 25. Januar 1912, edited by friends and colleagues, pp. 5969. Leipzig. Harrassowitz.
Grundri der akkadischen Grammatik. 3rd edition. Rome: Pontifium Institutum Biblicum
Wedekind, Klaus; Charlotte Wedekind; and Musa Abuzeinab

2007
A Learners Grammar of Beja (East Sudan). Cologne: Rdiger Kppe.
Zaborski, Andrzej
1975
1997a
1997b
1997c
2005
2007
2009
2010
The Verb in Cushitic. Krakow: PWN.

Qtala and Qattala in Semitic and Hamitosemitic. Rocznik Orientalistyczny 50: 25762.
Problems of the Beja Present Seven Years Later. Lingua Posnaniensis 39: 14553.
The Position of Cushitic and Berber within Hamitosemitic Dialects. In Afroasiatic Neapolitana: contributi
presentati all8 Incontro di linguistica afroasiatic (camito-semitica), edited by Alessandro Bausi and Mauro
Tosco, pp. 4959. Naples: Istituto universitario orientale.
Tense, Aspect and Mood Categories in Proto-Semitic. In Current Issues in the Analysis of Semitic Grammar
and Lexicon, edited by Lutz Edzard and Jan Rets, vol. 1, pp. 1130. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Notes on the Reconstruction of the Prefix-Conjugations in Modern South Arabian Languages. Lingua
Posnaniensis 49: 195206.
Akkadian Subjunctive iprus-a, Old Imperfective iprus-u and Energici -am, -anni. In Language. Science
and Culture: Essays in Honor of Professor Jerzy Baczerowski, edited by Piotra obacz, Piotr Nowak, and
Wladyslaw Zabrocki, pp. 37986. Poznan: Adam Mickiewicz University.
Afar-Saho and the Position of of Cushitic within Hamitosemitic/Afroasiatic. In Camsemud 2007: Proceedings of the 13th Italian Meeting of Afro-Asiatic Linguistics, edited by Frederick Mario Fales and Giulia
Francesca Grassi, pp. 13947. History of the Ancient Near East, Monographs 10. Padua: S.A.R.G.O.N.
Prepositional Phrases as Subjects in Several Semitic Languages
465
29
Prepositional Phrases as Subjects

in Several Semitic Languages
Tamar Zewi, Haifa University
1. Prepositional Phrases as Subjects
Prepositional phrases might regularly play the role of logical/psychological subjects, namely topics or themes,
as do all main word categories in many languages. But can they also serve as grammatical subjects? 1 Logical and
grammatical subjects generally differ in their degree of grammaticalization, the latter being more formally marked
as subject than the former. As Li and Thompson put it, Subjects are essentially grammaticalized topics (Li and
Thompson 1976, p. 484; see also Hopper and Traugott 2003, pp. 2829). Grammaticalization might be reflected
in various language properties, a prominent one being verbal agreement between a subject and a verb (Hopper
and Traugott 2003, p. 28). Although prepositional phrases cannot carry agreement markers, some prepositional
phrases serving as grammatical subjects in English are indeed recognized and presented in English grammars,
albeit as no more than a marginal feature: prepositional phrases taking a nominal function. Some examples are
Between six and seven will suit me (Quirk et al. 1972, p. 305), On Tuesday will be fine, In March suits me, During
the vacation is what we decided, and Between 6 and 7 may be convenient (Quirk et al. 1985, p. 658).
Jaworska (1986) tackled this question yet again in English and Polish, principally to offer solutions for the
proper presentation of prepositional phrases as subjects and objects in the government-binding framework. As
she comments, various scholars writing in the frame of generative grammar have claimed that prepositional
phrases serve as subjects in English only in copular constructions (Jaworska 1986, pp. 35657, and other references
there). Disputing these scholars, Jaworska presents other examples of prepositional phrases as subjects in English
and Polish in non-copular constructions, suggesting that this feature is somewhat less marginal than previously
assumed (Jaworska 1986, pp. 35760). To the English examples already discussed in the linguistic literature, she
adds passive and non-passive sentences, such as Until Christmas was planned in detail, Behind the garage is being
reclaimed by the new tenants,2 and By air seems to be quite cheap. She indicates that the prepositional phrases
in these cases are temporal, are locative, or express manner, and must be referential. 3
Logical/psychological subjects usually refer to the components

conveying the given information or the information talked about
in a clause, while another component serves in it as a grammatical subject, prevalently displaying grammatical agreement with
the predicate and playing a role of an agent or a patient (Crystal
2003, pp. 44142, 468). For parallel terms to logical/psychological subjects, also see Goldenberg 1971, p. 37 n. 3. For discussion
of various definitions of subject and predicate in Biblical Hebrew
nominal clauses, see Zewi and van der Merwe 2001.
This statement refers to prepositional phrases as both subjects

and objects. The locative prepositional phrases presented in
Jaworska 1986, p. 359, are in the role of object, and the example
presented here in the role of subject is from ibid., p. 356.
3
Prepositional phrases may also function as subjects in other
languages. See, e.g., Frajzyngier 2008 on prepositional phrases
in the role of subjects in Wandala (Central Chadic), their
conditioning and limitations, in comparison to some other cases
of dative subjects in other languages. I thank Professor Zygmunt
Frajzyngier for this reference.
2
465
466
Tamar Zewi
2. Prepositional Phrases as Subjects in Semitic Languages

Now, what do we see in Semitic languages? The languages examined in this paper are Hebrew, Arabic, Geez,
and Biblical Aramaic. Their syntax is generally considered typical of Semitic languages in their classical phases,
though Hebrew, Arabic, and Geez have been subject to change through the years, and they have adopted, adapted,
and absorbed foreign syntactic patterns through contact with other Semitic and non-Semitic languages. The syntactic patterns discussed in this paper are mostly original in these four Semitic languages and have not evolved
from such language contact. Though some of the constructions in question are not shared by all Semitic languages,
not necessarily even by the four discussed here, and a few constructions appear only in one language, they should
not be regarded as marginal developments but as genuine representative Semitic syntactic patterns.
Nominal clauses and verbal clauses are best treated separately here, as each clause type shows independent
properties and might display different syntactic patterns of prepositional phrases as subjects.
2.1. Prepositional Phrases as Subjects in Semitic Nominal Clauses

Nominal clauses are profuse and central in Semitic languages, far more than in English and other IndoEuropean languages. They include (1) simple nominal-clause patterns consisting of just two main members,
subject and predicate, without any additional member to express the predicative relation, and (2) extended
nominal-clause patterns that include a pronominal element. This element is sometimes interpreted as a resumptive pronoun, or alternatively as a copula representing the predicative relation (e.g., Zewi 1996; Khan 2006, and
more references there). With either interpretation, prepositional phrases are mostly found functioning as subjects
in simple nominal clauses lacking additional pronominal elements.
Determining which of the two main components of a nominal clause plays the role of subject and which that
of predicate is difficult, and often controversial. The main point to consider in this respect is that, except for
nominal clauses with adjective or participle predicates, nominal clauses are in fact indifferent to the distinction
between logical and grammatical subjects and predicates, as grammatical agreement between subject and predicate is regularly not required or marked in them. So many logical subjects and predicates in a nominal clause can
also be interpreted and presented as grammatical subject and predicate. Prepositional phrases are well recognized as capable of serving as predicates in Semitic nominal clauses, and it remains to be seen whether they can
also play a parallel role as subjects. The following discussion aims to prove that a subject role can regularly be
played by prepositional phrases in Semitic nominal clauses, and it is clearly revealed in those expressing possession, location, time, manner, comparison, and partitive. As indicated above, Jaworska (1986, p. 359) recognized
referential prepositional phrases expressing time, location, or manner as typical of prepositional phrases in the
role of subjects in English verbal clauses. As the examples below suggest, there is a partial overlap in the patterns
and contexts where prepositional phrases in the role of subject are found in Semitic and non-Semitic languages.
As to the syntactic analysis of the two main components of a Semitic simple nominal clause, where grammatical agreement is nowhere to be found, the predicative status should be attributed to the clause component that
conveys the new information in the clause, or to the indefinite noun phrase, should there be one. 4 In such cases,
if the other clause component is a prepositional phrase, it remains to serve as the subject. Even though this is a
logical, not a grammatical, definition, it is the only one available or possible in such constructions. That is, the
predicate status of one main clause component in this pattern and the subject status of the other component,
the prepositional phrase, are established by the indefiniteness of the former, when available, and by context.
From a standpoint expecting a subject role to be fulfilled by a nominal phrase, certain prepositional phrases
replacing nouns, and involving ellipsis of a nominal head to which they are implicitly attributed, are defined as
nominalized, and the entire feature belongs to the domain of nominalization. This explanation is certainly apt
when omission of a certain head is involved (ellipsis), and consequently the prepositional phrase becomes the
A written [agreement/contract/etc.]
predicate, for example, Modern Hebrew
On the contribution of definiteness to the identification of
subject and predicate in Biblical Hebrew nominal clauses, see
Zewi 1994, pp. 15153; Lowery 1999; and Zewi and van der Merwe
2001. However, note that this feature is not available for us in all
Semitic languages.
467
(literally: in writing) is better than an oral [one] (or: by heart), where

in writing presumably stands for
written agreement,
written contract, and so on. In such cases the prepositional phrase
is originally an attribute to a nominal head, which is absent but implicit in the clause. However, not all examples
demonstrate ellipsis. Nominal clauses expressing possession, for example, contain prepositional phrases indicating possession in the role of subject without any ellipsis, and similarly certain prepositional phrases expressing
location and manner. These are illustrated below.
Classification according to types is as follows.
2.1.1. Nominal Clauses Expressing Possession

Possession is mainly expressed in Biblical Hebrew5 by the preposition l, for example,
And he had sheep, oxen, he-asses, menservants, maidservants, she-asses, and
Behold, I have two daughters who have not known
camels (Gen 12:16) and
man (Gen 19:8). Possession is also revealed in a structurally similar construction expressing defiance, for example,
What have you against me, O man of God (1 Kgs 17:18),
What have I to do with
What have we to do with each other, king of Judah? (2 Ch 35:21). In all
you? (2 Kgs 3:13),
these examples, the possessive pronouns attached to the Biblical Hebrew preposition l are incarnated in the
English translation by subject pronouns, as obliged by the English rules for possessives.
Logically, the Biblical Hebrew possessive suffixes and the English subject pronouns play in these examples a
similar role. This similitude appears yet again in the interchange of prepositional phrases with subject pronouns
He said to them, Is it well with him? They said, It is well
in clauses like
*He is well, as in
Peace be to you (1 Sam 25:6), according to the RSV, or
(Gen 29:6), and
alternatively be well (Kogut 1993, p. 102; Zewi 2002, p. 112). Such an interchange also occurs in Bible transla(Derenbourg edition) or
(asd
tions, for example, Saadya Gaons translation of Genesis 29:6 by
edition), in which an independent personal pronoun in a subject role replaces the Biblical Hebrew prepositional
(Zewi 2002, p. 112). Similar replacement appears in the translation of this verse in the Geez Octateuch:
phrase
dn--nu wtu? Is he well? where wtu is a 3rd personal pronoun and not a possessive prepoin Gen 29:6 only by
the elliptical reply
sitional phrase. Also notable is the reply to the question
maintains only the predicate, leaving the role of the subject to the prepositional phrase.6 In all these examples,
the prepositional phrases serve as logical as well as grammatical subjects. The construction itself is made up of an
indefinite noun phrase, provided that indefiniteness is possible and marked, along with a preceding or following
prepositional phrase indicating possession. It is a regular pattern in Biblical Hebrew, which does not involve any
special linguistic operations like ellipsis or nominalization.
In later stages of Hebrew, the relative particle gradually merged with the following preposition l to cre. Originating as a relative clause expressing possession, this preposiate a new preposition of possession: el
tion came to play a role of a subject in a nominal clause, as in, for example,
There are four sorts of people: He who says, Whats mine is mine and whats yours is yours
this is the average sort. (And some say, This is the sort of Sodom.). Whats mine is yours and whats
yours is mine this is a boor. Whats mine is yours and whats yours is yours this is a truly pious
man. Whats mine is mine and whats yours is mine this is a truly wicked man (Mishnah, Avot 5,10). 7
Eight nominal clauses in this example consist of nothing but two prepositional phrases, composed of the
plus possessive suffixes in the role of subject and predicate next to each other:
prepositional particle
. These are justly translated into
English as equative nominal clauses in the pattern Whats mine/yours is mine/yours. Since both the subject and
the predicate in these clauses are prepositional phrases, there is no way but to analyze one of them as filling the
role of a logical as well as a grammatical subject, while the other is the predicate. Since the prepositional phrases
All Bible translations into English in this paper are according
to the RSV unless indicated otherwise.
6
See a brief discussion of this example in Zewi 1994, pp. 15455
n. 29, where it is stated that prepositional phrases can function
5
as subjects in Biblical Hebrew nominal clauses. For another brief

discussion of prepositional phrases as subjects, see Zewi 2002,
pp. 11112.
7
Translation is according to Neusner 1988.
468
Tamar Zewi
and
stand in these examples as replacements for relative clauses, they should be analyzed as nominalized, or more specifically as adjectivized, and as equivalent to independent relative clauses lacking a head. That
is equivalent to
without a head and
with a head (Goldenberg 1995; Pat-El and
is,
Treiger 2008, p. 277). This parallelism is also reflected in the English translation employing the word what in
whats mine/yours.
Constructions similar to the Biblical Hebrew pattern of a prepositional phrase composed of l plus a personal
suffix, which marks possession, and an indefinite noun phrase indicating the item in possession, also exist in
Theirs is great deprivation (literally: for
Arabic. Examples in Classical Arabic are, for example,
is indefinite and therefore should be understood
them is great deprivation) (Koran 2:7),8 in which the noun
Theirs is suffering/painful punishment (literally: for them is suffering//
as a predicate. Similarly
painful punishment) (Koran 2:10). Another pattern in which the prepositional phrase should be regarded as a
subject is demonstrated in the negative clause with a prepositional phrase composed of al plus a personal suffix
[They] will have no fear (Koran 2:62). Especially notable is
and a negated indefinite noun phrase
the following example in which two prepositional phrases serve as the two main parts of the clause, the former as
But the wicked will have none to help them (lit.: No[ne]
a predicate and the latter as a subject:
, is initiated by the Arabic preposition
to the wicked out of/as to helpers) (Koran 2:270). The subject,
And none will they have to help them
min as a partitive particle.9 A closely similar example is
(Koran 3:22). More examples with this min lil-bayn are further discussed below. Another type expressing possession by a prepositional phrase introduced by l, in which both subject and predicate are prepositional phrases, is,
Do you have/Can you get the chieftain of the people of a-am? (Nldeke 1895,
for example,
p. 50). In such examples, again, only prepositional phrases can serve as subject and predicate, since there are no
other main components in the clause to play this role.
A similar pattern, consisting of a prepositional phrase composed of l plus a personal suffix, which marks
possession, next to an indefinite noun phrase indicating the item in possession, also exists in Biblical Aramaic,
And the beast had four heads (Dan 7:6),
And it had great iron
for example,
And it had ten horns (Dan 7:7).
teeth (Dan 7:7),
ba with suffixed personal pronouns assumes a similar role to express possession
In Geez the preposition
(Dillmann 1907, p. 40708, 167, 43738, 176h; Tropper 2002, pp. 21820) and in the same way can also serve in
Behold, I
such cases as a subject, for example, the translation of Gen 19:8 mentioned above
nhu bya kle awlda. Interestingly, the noun in possession
have two daughters
might occasionally take the nominative in Geez but usually takes the accusative, consequently leaving the nominative slot to the prepositional phrase (Dillmann 1907, p. 438, 176h).
2.1.2. Nominal Clauses Expressing Location

Location, frequently expressed by the preposition
b in Biblical Hebrew, is found in, for example,
in which is the breath of life (Gen 6:17, 7:15). The indefinite status of the noun phrase
in
indicates that it is the predicate and the new information in this clause. This leaves the prepositional phrase
and the hair in it is yellow and thin (RSV) / and there is
the status of a subject. Likewise in
thin yellow hair in it (JPS) (Lev 13:30). The JPS translation in this case seems to reflect better the original Biblical
Hebrew syntactic construction. Prepositional phrases in the subject role also exist in interrogative nominal
Who is in the court? (Esth 6:4). In such clauses the interrogative pronoun is the
clauses, for example,
logical predicate, because the reply to it is the new information, and once a logical predicate is acknowledged as
identical to the grammatical predicate in every nominal clause lacking grammatical agreement, the prepositional
phrase is left to play the role of a subject.
Modern Hebrew displays equative explicative nominal clauses that include a locative prepositional phrase
In the house is inside the house, not in the
in the role of subject in, for example,
Translations of the Koran are according to Ali 1988 with minor
changes, mostly syntactic, where necessary.
9
The Arabic grammatical term for this is min lil-bayn (Nldeke
1895, p. 52; Wright 18961898, vol. 2, pp. 13538; Reckendorf
8
1921, p. 254; Fischer 2002, p. 160). Note that Fischer (ibid., p.

185) acknowledges the subject role of a prepositional phrase
introduced by this preposition.
469
backyard. Modern Hebrew also displays examples like

At home suits me,
At
home is what we decided, and so on, which are counterparts of English (and Hebrew) examples similar to the
temporal English ones presented above, such as In March suits me and During the vacation is what we decided.
All these Modern Hebrew examples can be explained as nominalizations, in which infinitives are omitted before
noun phrases like to be at home/to do it at home and so on.
Clauses consisting of locative prepositional phrases in the role of subject alongside an indefinite noun
Sickness is in their hearts (Koran
phrase are very common in Classical Arabic, for example,
is indefinite and consequently should be interpreted as a predicate. Likewise
2:10), in which the noun
In this was a great trial from your Lord (Koran 2:49) and
It con10
tains (literally, in it) clear signs, and the spot where Abraham had stood (Koran 3:97). Another example of a
And on the top of it (the pillar) is (something) like
prepositional phrase as subject in Arabic is
a pointed cap (Wright 18961898, vol. 2, p. 176d). This example includes two prepositional phrases as the main
components of the clause, so necessarily one, probably the former is the subject, and the other, probably the
latter, is the predicate.11
Such a pattern comprising locative prepositional phrases in the role of subjects also exists in Biblical Aramaic.
: It had three ribs in its mouth
A similar example in Biblical Aramaic is
is the predicate in this example.
between its teeth (Dan 7:5).
Examples of equivalent locative prepositional phrases as subjects in Geez appear in, for example, the translaThere is a noise of war in the camp (Exod 32:17)
tion of
[d]ma (!)abt wsta tyynt, and in the negative in
For there is no enchantment in Jacob, no divination in Israel (Num 23:23)
sma albotu sagala wsta Yqob wa-albotu maqsama wsta srel.
2.1.3. Nominal Clauses Expressing Time

Prepositional phrases expressing time might also play the subject role in Biblical Hebrew, when an adjacent indefinite noun clause functions as a predicate. An example of this pattern, which is very similar to the
nominal clauses expressing possession and location presented above, appears in the second part of the verse
Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, and on the seventh day there
is the subject, and
shall be a feast to the LORD (Exod 13:6). In the second half of this sentence,
and
of
the predicate. This can be learned from the contrast between
. Since this nominal
the first half of the sentence, which tells us that the new contrasting information is
clause shows no grammatical agreement, the new contrasting information is not just the logical but the gramis the logical and grammatical subject.
matical predicate as well, so the temporal prepositional phrase
Constructions in which temporal prepositional phrases serve as subjects are typical of Modern Hebrew, in
equative explicative nominal clauses involving some kind of ellipsis, like

[Coming/being/starting] on six is in fact on eight. Everybody is late. Parallels of clauses involving temporal expressions like the English examples cited above Between six and seven will suit me, On Tuesday will be fine, In
March suits me, During the vacation is what we decided, Between 6 and 7 may be convenient are also possible in
Modern Hebrew, with their verbal translations:
. The prepositional phrases in the role of subjects in all these
Modern Hebrew examples should be regarded as nominalized and as involving the omission of possible nominal
heads to which the prepositional phrases are implicitly attributed.
Several colloquial Arabic prepositional phrases might play

a similar role (e.g., Fischer and Jastrow 1980, p. 186, 10.2.5).
Beeston (1970, p. 68) defines the role of the indefinite locative
prepositional phrases preceding indefinite nouns in such
nominal clauses as theme, while he defines the indefinite
nouns themselves as predicates. Beeston indicates (ibid.) that
his analysis runs counter to that of the Arab grammarians,
who identify the prepositional phrase as predicate and the
10
substantive as theme, and are hence obliged to say that a theme

can be undefined if it follows a prepositional predicate.
11
Wright indicates that the preposition ka is in fact not a
preposition but a substantive formally developed but may
stand in any case [as] a governing word, to a following noun
in the genitive (Wright 18961898, vol. 2, p. 176d). These words
actually suit most prepositions in Semitic languages, which are
indeed grammaticalized nouns.
470
Tamar Zewi
Similar constructions also appear in Arabic, for example, the translation of Saadya Gaon to
and on the seventh day there shall be a feast to the LORD (Exod 13:6) mentioned above,
(Derenbourg and asd editions), maintaining a structure similar to the
which is
Hebrew.
2.1.4. Nominal Clauses Expressing Manner

Nominal clauses expressing manner may also occasionally consist of prepositional phrases in the role of
for fear was upon them because of the
subject. A Biblical Hebrew example is
peoples of the lands, literally, for in fear was upon them (Ezra 3:3), which means they were in fear. This is
indeed rare in Biblical Hebrew.
Another possible Modern Hebrew example involving ellipsis and nominalization has already been mentioned
A written [agreement/contract/etc.] (lit.: in writing) is better
above:
than an oral [one] (or: by heart).
2.1.5 Comparative Nominal Clauses

Biblical Hebrew examples consisting of prepositional phrases as subjects regularly appear in comparative
nominal clauses in which two parts are compared to each other, both introduced by the comparative prepok. Examples of such comparative clauses in Biblical Hebrew are, for example,
sition
As the sojourner, so will the naso that the righteous fare as the wicked (Gen 18:25),
As you are, so shall the sojourner be before the LORD (Num 15:15),
tive (Lev 24:22), 12
I am as you are, my people as your people, my horses as your horses (1 Kgs
And it shall be, as with
22:4),
the people, so with the priest; as with the slave, so with his master; as with the maid, so with her mistress; as with
the buyer, so with the seller; as with the lender, so with the borrower; as with the creditor, so with the debtor (Isa
k is regarded as a preposition, each phrase it introduces is prepositional. In all the
24:2). Since the particle
k form both the subject and the predicate.
above examples, prepositional phrases introduced by the particle
Other examples of similar prepositional phrases expressing comparison in the role of subject are found in
It is OK as you said (literally,
Modern Hebrew equative nominal clauses, for example,
It is good as decided. The particles
and
are considered
As you said is OK),
prepositions in Hebrew, and they evidently introduce the phrases serving as subject in these clauses.
As you are, so shall the sojourner be before
The Arabic translation by Saadya Gaon for
the LORD (Num 15:15), mentioned above, presents a similar structure, in which a prepositional phrase serves as a
(Derenbourg and asd editions). Yet at the same time, it is different,
subject:
. Another Arabic example
because it employs not only the preposition ka but also a nominalizing complex
There is something (burning) like oil in my liver (cited in Fischer 2002, p. 185).
is
A similar pattern with prepositional phrases as subject and predicate is also attested in the Geez Bible translabakama antmu kamhu gyyurn qdma
tion of this verse:
gziaber. Here the comparative prepositions bakama and kamhu introduce the two main components of the
clauses.
2.1.6. Nominal Clauses Whose Subject Is a Prepositional Phrase Introduced by a Partitive Preposition min
Examples of the partitive min in Biblical Hebrew are, for example,
Also, of the sons of the priests: the sons of Habaiah, the sons of Hakkoz, and the sons of Barzillai (Ezra 2:61), and
Besides two hundred and twenty of the temple
12
I have used for Lev 24:22 my own translation to better reflect
the special comparative pattern. The RSV has here You shall
have one law for the sojourner and for the native.
471
servants, whom David and his officials had set apart to attend the Levites, according to the RSV, or And of the
temple servants whom David and the officers had appointed for the service of the Levites 220 temple servants,
according to the JPS (Ezra 8:20). The latter translation better reflects the use of the partitive prepositional phrase
in the role of subject in this verse. The partitive min is more common in Late than in Classical Biblical Hebrew,
and it refers to persons and not to objects, as Qimron and Strugnell point out (1994, p. 93).13
A prepositional phrase containing the partitive min (min lil-bayn) is especially common in the role of
And there are some who say (Koran 2:8),
subject in Arabic, for example, in Classical Arabic
And there is a man who is willing to sell even his soul to win the favour of
Some of you desired this world, and some of you the next
God (Koran 2:207),
Certainly among the people of the Book are some who believe in God
(Koran 3:152);
(Koran 3:199). In all these clauses, the subject is the prepositional phrase introduced by the partitive min (min
lil-bayn), and the predicate is a following phrase introduced by the nominalizing particle man.
More examples with the partitive min in verbal clauses in Arabic, Biblical Hebrew, and more are presented
below.
Following the discussion and demonstration of the most common patterns in which prepositional phrases
play a subject role in nominal clauses in Hebrew, Arabic, Biblical Aramaic, and Geez, it is time to see how this
feature is used in verbal clauses in these languages.
2.2. Prepositional Phrases as Subjects in Semitic Verbal Clauses

Can a prepositional phrase serve as a grammatical subject in a clause whose grammatical predicate is a verb?
It can in English and Polish, according to Jaworska (1986), as mentioned above. The situation in Semitic languages
seems generally similar, and all the earlier English examples might retain a similar pattern in Modern Hebrew
translation. In addition, verbal clauses in which prepositional phrases play a subject role seem generally to correspond to nominal clauses with prepositional subjects. Thus, in Modern Hebrew prepositional phrases expressing
Yours has grown and mine hasnt; preppossession might be manifested in verbal clauses, such as
At home suited us;
ositional phrases expressing location can be found in verbal clauses, such as
At three will suit us; and
temporal prepositional phrases can be found in verbal clauses, such as
prepositional phrases expressing manner can be found in verbal clauses, such as
On foot seemed to us better than by bus. All these clauses involve omission of an implicit nominal head (ellipsis)
and should be defined in terms of nominalization.
In addition, certain constructions regularly employ prepositional phrases in the role of subject in verbal
clauses, only in one Semitic language or more. The following are such patterns.
2.2.1. Verbal Clauses Whose Subject Is a Comparative Prepositional Phrase

Verbal clauses whose subject is a prepositional phrase introduced by the comparative preposition k in Biblical
and behold, there stood before me [one] having the apHebrew are, for example,
And behold, [one] in the likeness of the sons of
pearance of a man (Dan 8:15),
Again [one] having the appearance of
men touched my lips (Dan 10:16), and
a man touched me and strengthened me (Dan. 10:18). The comparative prepositional phrases of these examples
, and
are all grammatical subjects of adjacent participles and verbs,
,
, and
,
, and they are also marked as such by grammatical agreement between the nouns
following the prepositions and the verbs.
There came [one] like a son of man (Dan 7:13), in
A similar example in Biblical Aramaic is
is a comparative prepositional phrase serving as grammatical subject, the noun of which shows
which
.
grammatical agreement with the following verbal phrase
I thank Dr. Matthew Morgenstern for mentioning this reference
to me. On this use see also BDB 580b581a and Ewald 1881, p. 41,
mentioned in Qimron and Strugnell 1994, p. 93.
13
472
Tamar Zewi
In all the examples in this section, a head one/someone is omitted and should be regarded as implicit.
Consequently, the comparative prepositional phrases can be regarded as nominalized.
2.2.2. Verbal Clauses Whose Subject Is a Prepositional Phrase Introduced by the Partitive Preposition min
A prepositional phrase introduced by the partitive min is attested in Biblical Hebrew as a subject in nominal clauses as presented above, but also in verbal clauses. Examples of this construction are
On the seventh day some of the people went out to gathis the subject of the verb
er, and they found none (Exod. 16:27), in which the prepositional phrase
;
Or his uncle, or his cousin may redeem him,
or a near kinsman belonging to his family may redeem him (Lev 25:49), in which the prepositional phrase
is the subject of the verb
of a status equivalent to the noun phrases
and
;
And some of the servants of David among the people fell (2 Sam 11:17), in which the
;
Some of the kings
prepositional phrase
;
servants are dead (2 Sam 11:24), in which the prepositional phrase
And some of those who are wise shall fall, to refine and to cleanse
is the subject of the
them and to make them white (Dan. 11:35), in which the prepositional phrase
Some of the heads
verb
of families, when they came to the house of the LORD which is in Jerusalem, made freewill offerings for the house
of God, to erect it on its site (Ezra 2:68), in which the prepositional phrase
; and
And some of the heads of fathers houses gave into the treasury of
. Compare the last example with its
the work (Neh. 7:70), in which
Now some of the heads of fathers houses gave to the work (Neh
preceding verse
introduces a noun, and together they constitute a prepositional
7:69), in which the prepositional phrase
is probably originally an Aramaic loanword and is demonstrated in
phrase serving as subject. The word
a Biblical Aramaic example below.14 As stated by Qimron and Strugnell (1994, p. 93) and mentioned above, the
partitive min is found in Classical and Late Biblical Hebrew, but is more common in the latter.
An example in which the partitive min introduces prepositional phrases in the subject role is attested in Biblical
Aramaic:
And as the toes of the feet were partly iron and partly clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly
and
serve
brittle (Dan. 2:42). In the Biblical Aramaic construction, the prepositional phrases
and
. A literal translation would be part of
as grammatical subjects of the verbal phrases
the kingdom shall be strong and part of it brittle.15
The Arabic partitive min (min lil-bayn) introducing a prepositional phrase in a subject role in a verbal clause
let no one come to me (Wright 18961898,
is revealed in, for example, the negative expression
is the grammatical subject of the negated verb
, and the noun following the
vol. 2, p. 136), in which
preposition shows grammatical agreement with it.
The translation into Geez in the Ethiopic Bible of the verse presented above,
On the seventh day some of the people went out to gather, and they found none
(Exod 16:27), is especially interesting. It does not employ the prepositional phrase introduced by the
Ethiopic partitive preposition mwsta out of, parallel to min, as a subject by itself but inserts the word
boza before the verb. This word means someone or something, and the combination of boza with
the following verb and prepositional phrase means in this example some went out, out of the people:
wa-ama sbt lat boza-waa
mwsta zb kama ystagb wa-i-rakaba. Nonetheless, the Ethiopic word boza is also a prepositional phrase in
itself.
On the use of
in various Hebrew stages, its origin, and
its connection with the partitive min, see Qimron and Strugnell
1994, p. 93.
14
For more on this example and this use, see Qimron and
Strugnell 1994, p. 93.
15
473
2.2.3. Arabic Verbal Clauses Whose Subject Follows the Phrase i bi

Special phrases that include prepositions as part of one lexical unit can also make prepositional phrases serve
as subjects. One such Arabic lexical unit is i bi. In the following examples, a prepositional phrase serves as a
Behold, a man
grammatical subject in a verbal clause introduced by i bi behold:
is the grammatical subject
called Sayyid Baraka came forward (Wright 18961898, vol. 2, p. 158a), in which
;
And behold, he has entered the mosque (Nldeke 1895, p. 50), in which is
of the verb
.
the grammatical subject of the verb
2.2.4. Biblical Hebrew Verbal Clauses Whose Subject Follows the Preposition
Contrary to all other syntactic patterns discussed above, the one presented in this section is not a typical pattern of prepositions introducing prepositional phrases in a subject role. The occurrence of the preposition before subjects in Biblical Hebrew is well known and has been explained in various ways, namely, as an emphatic particle preceding and highlighting subjects, as part of impersonal passive constructions,
and even as related to ergative or semi-ergative patterns (e.g., Blau 1954; 1956; 1978; Joon and Muraoka
2006, p. 43132; Khan 1984; Muraoka 1985, pp. 15258; Zewi 1997, and more references there). Examples
But the words of Esau her older son were told
of this construction are
These four were descended from the giants in Gath
to Rebekah (Gen 27:42),
And there was a fire burning in the brazier before him (Jer 36:22), and
(2 Sam 21:22),
The pillar of cloud which led them in the way did not depart from them (Neh 9:19).
Here I stay with my earlier suggestion (Zewi 1997) that the preposition in such cases should not be regarded as
anything but an accusative particle in Biblical Hebrew. It is primarily a particle preceding an object; it precedes a
subject mostly in hybrid cases, in which the subjects introduced by were originally objects (Zewi 1997, p. 181).
Similar cases are certain extrapositions in Biblical Hebrew, in which one sentence component is transferred to
the beginning of a clause to serve as a logical subject, and a resumptive pronoun refers to it in the following clause.
In some cases a leftover in the form of a preposition is maintained both in its original place in the clause and at its
What the LORD says to me, that I will speak (1 Kgs 22:14).
beginning, for example,
Such examples occur with , but with other prepositions as well, for example,
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat [lit.: from it] (Gen 2:17) (Zewi 1997, pp. 17677).
According to some interpretations, these are cases of prepositions introducing subjects in Biblical Hebrew;
still, they are not consistent and regular patterns of prepositional phrases serving in a subject role in Biblical
Hebrew and should be regarded as marginal non-representative constructions of hybrid nature.
3. Final Words
In this paper I first suggested that prepositional phrases regularly serve as subjects in nominal clauses in
Semitic languages. Prepositional phrases occurring in nominal clauses along with indefinite noun phrases should
be analyzed as logical as well as grammatical subjects. The interpretation of nominal clauses in which the two
main components of a clause, the subject and the predicate, are both prepositional phrases is obvious, since
only prepositional phrases are available to serve as subjects in such constructions. Also, the syntactic status of
prepositional clauses involving omission of nominal heads (ellipsis) is conclusive: these prepositional phrases are
considered nominalized, playing the role of an implicit noun phrase and functioning as subjects in its place. Next,
I showed that prepositional phrases can also serve in a subject role in verbal clauses just as in nominal clauses,
when involving ellipsis of a nominal head and nominalization. Furthermore, certain prepositional phrases, like
comparative prepositional phrases and the phrases introduced by the partitive min, regularly occur in a subject
role in nominal and verbal clauses alike.
On the basis of the data and discussion presented in this paper, my main assertion is that prepositional phrases
regularly serve as subjects in nominal and verbal clauses in Semitic languages.
474
Tamar Zewi
Abbreviations
BDB
Derenbourg edition
Geez Bible translation
asd edition
JPS
RSV
F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1906
J. Derenbourg et al., eds. Oeuvres compltes de R. Saadia ben Iosef alFayyom, Volume 1:Version
arabe du Pentateuque. Paris: E. Leroux. Hildesheim: Georg Olms. 1893. Reprint 1979
August Dillman. Octateuchus Aethiopicus. Lipsiae: Guil. Vogelii, 18531855. Available online:
http://www.ranhacohen.info/Biblia.html
. Jerusalem:
, 1968. Revised
A. asd.
reprint of A. Nadaf and S. Katz.
. Jerusalem, 1899
Tanakh, A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures according to the Traditional Hebrew Text. Philadelphia, New York, and Jerusalem: The Jewish Publication Society, 1985
H. G. May and B. M. Metzger, eds. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, Revised
Standard Version. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977
Bibliography
Ali, Ahmed
1988
Al-Qurn: A Contemporary Translation. Revised definitive edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Beeston, A. F. L.
1970
The Arabic Language Today. London: Hutchinson University Library.
Blau, Joshua
1954
1956
1978
Crystal, David
2003
Dillmann, August
1907
Ewald, Heinrich
1881
vor dem Nominativ. Vetus Testamentum 4: 719.

Zum angeblichen Gebrauch von
Gibt es ein emphatisches e im Bibelhebrisch? Vetus Testamentum 6: 21112.
On Invariable Passive Forms in Biblical Hebrew and Classical Arabic. In Studies in Bible and the Ancient
Near East, edited by Y. Avishur and Joshua Blau, pp. 8594. Jerusalem. E. Rubinstein. [In Hebrew]
A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. 5th edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ethiopic Grammar. 2nd edition, by Carl Bezold, translated by James A. Crichton. Amsterdam: Philo Press.
Reprint 1974
Syntax of the Hebrew Language of the Old Testament. Translated by J. Kennedy. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark.
2002
A Grammar of Classical Arabic. 3rd, revised edition, translated from the German by Jonathan H. Rodgers.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Fischer, Wolfdietrich, and Otto Jastrow
1980
Handbuch der arabischen Dialekte. Porta linguarum orientalium, neue Serie, 16. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt
2008
One Way of Becoming a Dative Subject. In Interaction of Morphology and Syntax: Case Studies in Afroasiatic,
edited by Zygmunt Frajzyngier and Erin Shay, pp. 6183. Typological Studies in Language 75. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goldenberg, Gideon
1971
1995
Tautological Infinitive. Israel Oriental Studies 1: 3685. Reprinted in Studies in Semitic Linguistics: Selected
Writings, by Gideon Goldenberg, pp. 66115. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1998.
Attribution in Semitic Languages. Langues orientales anciennes: philologie et linguistique 56: 120. Reprinted in Studies in Semitic Linguistics: Selected Writings, by Gideon Goldenberg, pp. 4665. Jerusalem:
Magnes Press, 1998.

1998
475
Studies in Semitic Linguistics: Selected Writings. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.
Hopper, Paul J., and Elizabeth Closs Traugott

2003
Grammaticalization. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jaworska, Ewa
1986
Prepositional Phrases as Subjects and Objects. Journal of Linguistics 22: 35574.

2006
A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Revised English edition. Subsidia Biblica 27. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico.
Khan, Geoffrey
1984
2006
Kogut, Simha
1993
Object Markers and Agreement Pronouns in Semitic Languages. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and
African Studies 47: 468500.
Some Aspects of the Copula in North West Semitic. In Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting:
Typological and Historical Perspectives, edited by Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz, pp. 15576. Jerusalem:
Magnes Press; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Alternative Usages of Independent and Suffixed Personal Pronouns to Express Possession in Biblical
Hebrew. In Studies in Bible and Exegesis, Vol. 3: Moshe Goshen-Gottstein In Memoriam, edited by Moshe
Bar-Asher et al., pp. 40111. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press. [In Hebrew]
Li, Charles N., and S. A. Thompson

1976
Subject and Topic: A New Typology of Language. In Subject and Topic, edited by Charles N. Li, pp. 45789.
New York: Academic Press.
Lowery, K. E.
1999
Relative Definiteness and the Verbless Clause. In The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches, edited by Cynthia L. Miller, pp. 25172. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Muraoka, T.
1985
Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew. Jerusalem: Magnes; Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Neusner, Jacob
1988
The Mishnah: A New Translation. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Nldeke, Theodor
1895
Zur Grammatik des classischen Arabisch. Vienna: Correspondierendem Mitgliede der Kais. Akademie der
Wissenschaften.
Pat-El, Naama, and Alexander Treiger

On Adnominalization of Prepositional Phrases and Adverbs in Semitic. Zeitschrift der deutschen mor2008
genlndischen Gesellschaft 158: 26583.
Qimron, Elisha, and John Strugnell
1994
Qumrn Cave 4. V: Miqat Maae ha-Torah. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 10. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Quirk, Randolph; Sidney Greenbaum; Geoffrey Leech; and Jan Svartvik
1972
A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.
1985
A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Reckendorf, H.
1921
Tropper, Joseph
2002
Wright, William
18961898
Zewi, Tamar
1994
Arabische Syntax. Heidelberg: C. Winter.

Altthiopisch: Grammatik des Geez mit bungstexten und Glossar. Elementa linguarum orientis 2. Mnster:
Ugarit-Verlag.
A Grammar of the Arabic Language. 2 volumes. 3rd, revised edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
The Nominal Sentence in Biblical Hebrew. In Semitic and Cushitic Studies, edited by Gideon Goldenberg
and Shlomo Raz, pp. 14567. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
476
Tamar Zewi
1996
1997
2002
The Definition of the Copula and the Role of 3rd Independent Personal Pronouns in Nominal Sentences
of Semitic Languages. Folia Linguistica Historica 17: 4155.
Subjects Preceded by the Preposition et in Biblical Hebrew. In Studien zur hebrischen Grammatik, edited
by Andreas Wagner, pp. 17183. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 156. Freiburg: Universittsverlag; Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Syntactic Questions in Saadya Gaons Translation of the Pentateuch. Massorot 12: 10315. [In Hebrew]
Zewi, Tamar, and Christo H. J. van der Merwe

Biblical Hebrew Nominal Clause: Definitions of Subject and Predicate. Journal of Northwest Semitic
2001
Languages 27: 8199.

Saoc67 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Saoc67 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Saoc67 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

http://oi.uchicago.

Language and Nature

John Huehnergard (photo by Christopher Rose)

Language and Nature

studies in ancient ORIENTAL civilizationnumber 67

Library of Congress Control Number: 2011933159

Studies in Ancient Oriental CivilizationNumber 67

Rebecca Cain and Zuhal Kuru

Printed by McNaughton & Gunn, Saline, Michigan

Preface. Rebecca Hasselbach and Naama Pat-El . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Students of John Huehnergard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

John as a Teacher and Mentor. Rebecca Hasselbach and Naama Pat-El . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Research of John Huehnergard. Rebecca Hasselbach and Naama Pat-El . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Publications of John Huehnergard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A Brief Note on the Festschrift Illustrations. X Bonnie Woods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xviii

7. Wisdom in Ugaritic. Edward L. Greenstein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

8. Predicate Nominals and Related Constructions in Neo-Mandaic. Charles G. Hberl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

9. Yaqtul and a Ugaritic Incantation Text. Jo Ann Hackett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

12. A Morphosyntactic Explanation of tptkem (Jer 25:34). Jeremy M. Hutton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

25. Alternierende Metrik in der akkadischen Poesie. Josef Tropper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433

Contributors and Affiliations

Steven E. Fassberg, Department of Hebrew Language, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

W. Randall Garr, Department of Religious Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara

Paul Korchin, Religion Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks

Josef Tropper, Theologische Fakultt, Humboldt-Universitt, Berlin

Wilfred van Soldt, Institute for Area Studies, Leiden University

Richard K. Walton, Author and Videographer

X Bonnie Woods, Artist and Designer

Andrzej Zaborski, Afroasiatic Linguistics, Jagellonian University, Krakow

John as a Teacher and Mentor

Students of John Huehnergard

Studies in Semitic Historical Semantics: Words for Man and Woman

Noun Patterns in the Semitic Languages

Akkadian and Trans-Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew

Studies in Emar Lexicon

Markedness and Semitic Morphology

Comparative Studies of King Dariuss Bisitun Inscription

A Historical and Comparative Study of Sargonic Akkadian

Studies in Semitic Grammaticalization

Categorization of the Hitpael of Classical Hebrew

The Neo-Mandaic Dialect of Khorramshahr

Studies in the Historical Syntax of Aramaic

A Theory of Argument Realization and Its Application to Features of the Semitic

The Research of John Huehnergard

xii The Research of John Huehnergard

Publications of John Huehnergard

El-Amarna Letter 252. With Baruch Halpern. Orientalia 51: 22730.

On Verbless Clauses in Akkadian. Zeitschrift fr Assyriologie 76: 21849.

The Early Hebrew Prefix-conjugations. Hebrew Studies 29: 1923.

The Akkadian of Ugarit. Harvard Semitic Studies 34. Atlanta: Scholars.

Publications of John Huehnergard

The Development of the Third Person Suffixes in Phoenician. Maarav 7: 18394.

Publications of John Huehnergard

Publications of John Huehnergard

Publications of John Huehnergard

An Introduction to Ugaritic. Peabody: Hendrickson.

A Brief Note on the Festschrift Illustrations

A Brief Note on the Festschrift Illustrations

Biography of X Bonnie Woods