DOCSLIB.ORG

The Canaanite Shift

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Canaanite Shift chapter 3 The Canaanite Shift 3.1 Introduction The Canaanite Shift is one of the better-known sound changes to have affected Biblical Hebrew. Phonetically, it is uncomplicated: at some point, some cases of Proto-Northwest-Semitic *ā shifted to *ō in an ancestor of Hebrew, resulting well-being’, to reflexes of‘ םוֹלָשׁ in correspondences of Biblical Hebrew o, as in *ā in other languages, as in Aramaic šlām, Arabic salāmun, Gəʕəz salām, and Akkadian /šalāmu/. As Proto-Northwest-Semitic did not have a phonemic *ō vowel, this change of *ā > *ō would originally have been phonetic, only reach- ing a phonemic status when new cases of *ā were created by the contraction of triphthongs (see below and Chapter 5). Besides Hebrew, this sound change is also attested in Phoenician and Amarna Canaanite, hence its identification as a shared Canaanite innovation. Cognates of the Phoenician and Amarna Canaanite examples and counterexamples of the Canaanite Shift all occur in Biblical Hebrew, where they show the same behaviour, so these languages do not add anything to the investigation of the Canaanite Shift’s conditioning (Suchard 2012). Consequently, they will not be discussed in this chapter. The controversy surrounding the Canaanite Shift is due to a number of apparent exceptions, where ā-vowels in other languages correspond to Bibli- cal Hebrew å, not **o. As sound laws should be exceptionless, this has led to two approaches which aim to resolve this problem (Huehnergard 2013b). Either the Canaanite Shift is given a relatively restrictive conditioning, which then, together with analogy, explains the anomalous cases of å for expected **o, or the reconstructions of the supposed counterexamples are revised, showing that they did not contain *ā at the time of the Canaanite Shift and could therefore not have been affected by it. After a brief consideration of various previous pro- posals, we will attempt to combine these approaches, first making sure that only words and grammatical categories with reconstructible *ā are taken into account, and then establishing phonetically plausible conditions which ade- quately explain the reflex of *ā in these words. Three important groups of words which did not undergo the Canaanite Shift nominals. We shall לָטַּק are the II-wy and III-wy classes of weak verbs and the see that based on comparative evidence, the å vowels in the former two should qawama* > םָק .be reconstructed as deriving from so-called triphthongs, e.g banaya; assuming that this triphthong contraction postdated the* > הָנָבּ and © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004390263_004 52 chapter 3 Canaanite Shift, this explains their non-participation (see further Chapter 5). nominals, on the other hand, can derive from *qaṭṭal- patterns, as ַקָטּל The argued, for instance, by Huehnergard (2015, 51). Thus, none of these categories provides evidence for the operation of the Canaanite Shift. As the words which can securely be reconstructed with Proto-Northwest- Semitic *ā show no evidence of stress conditioning, I will argue for a Canaanite Shift that was not conditioned by the stress. Based on a few counterexamples, the presence of *u or *w in the preceding syllable will be argued to have blocked the Canaanite Shift. This leads me to posit a dissimilatory sound change of *u to *i next to bilabial consonants, which is needed to explain the operation of the Canaanite Shift in several words with Proto-Northwest-Semitic *u in the preceding syllable. 3.2 Previous Suggestions 3.2.1 Stress-Conditioned Like many later scholars, Brockelmann (1908, 142–143) holds that the Canaan- ite Shift only affected stressed vowels, formulating it as *ā́ > *ṓ. Unstressed and ָ֫כָּכה secondarily stressed syllables kept *ā, giving rise to interchanges such as like me’, etc. Nouns would originally‘ ָכּ֫מוִֹני what’ but‘ ָמה ,’idem‘ כֹּה thus’ but‘ have shown a similar interchange, as the position of the stress varied through- out the paradigm, but either the *ā or the *ō was then generalized. This then cook’, formed after the plural‘ ַטָבּח resulted in some apparent exceptions like ṭabbāḫīma.́ The observation that the Canaanite Shift took place in* > ַטָבִּחים as well as a few other forms that show an o which ,קֵֹטל the qal active participle is never stressed in Biblical Hebrew, leads Brockelmann to posit the same stress system as is found in Classical Arabic (but see Chapter 4) for Proto-Canaanite, in which the stress falls on the last heavy non-final syllable of a word (‘heavy’ meaning closed or containing a long vowel), or, if the word does not contain any heavy syllables, on the first syllable. Thus, *qā́ṭilum, the Proto-Northwest- pattern, would have an accented *ā́, which קֵֹטל Semitic reconstruction of the then underwent the Canaanite Shift.1 1 Note that I reconstruct the word-final absolute state marker *-m, known as mimation, for the singular and feminine plural of the Proto-Northwest-Semitic nominal paradigms. Since mimation on these forms has been lost in Iron Age Canaanite (including Hebrew), Ara- maic, and Ugaritic, Proto-Northwest-Semitic forms are often reconstructed without it, too, as in *qāṭilu. There are several arguments for the retention of mimation in Proto-Northwest- Semitic, however: 1) traces are retained in the individual Northwest Semitic languages, most.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Canaanite Languages
    CHAPTER 20 THE CANAANITE LANGUAGES Aren M. Wilson-Wright 1 INTRODUCTION The Canaanite languages include Ammonite, Amarna Canaanite, Edomite, Hebrew, Moabite, Phoenician and the language of the Deir ʕAllā plaster text (from here on, sim- ply Deir ʕAllā) (Pat-El and Wilson-Wright 2015, 2016). Together with Aramaic, they form the Aramaeo-Canaanite subgroup of Northwest Semitic (Pat-El and Wilson-Wright, forthc.). As a family, the Canaanite languages are attested from roughly 1360 BCE to 400 CE with Proto-Canaanite dating no earlier than 1550 BCE (Wilson-Wright, forthc.). The Canaanite languages were originally attested in what is today Israel (Hebrew), Western Jordan (Ammonite, Deir ʕAllā, Edomite and Moabite) and the coast of Lebanon (Phoe- nician). Beginning around 1000 BCE, Phoenician seafarers, traders and colonists spread their language across the Mediterranean basin, to sites in Cyprus, North Africa and Spain. With the exception of Phoenician, speakers of Canaanite languages never wielded much political power, and their languages only ever assumed regional importance. Phoenician, by contrast, was the language of the Carthaginian Empire and continued to serve as a lingua franca in North Africa after the fall of Carthage in 146 BCE. Because Hebrew is treated separately in Chapters 21 and 22, this chapter will focus on the other six Canaanite languages with occasional references to Hebrew when necessary. Texts in the Canaanite languages represent a variety of genres, including monumen- tal, votive and dedicatory inscriptions as well as narratives, epitaphs, financial docu- ments and letters. Edomite is attested in a single late 7th- or early 6th-century BCE letter.
    [Show full text]
  • Epigraphy, Philology, and the Hebrew Bible
    EPIGRAPHY, PHILOLOGY, & THE HEBREW BIBLE Methodological Perspectives on Philological & Comparative Study of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of Jo Ann Hackett Edited by Jeremy M. Hutton and Aaron D. Rubin Ancient Near East Monographs – Monografías sobre el Antiguo Cercano Oriente Society of Biblical Literature Centro de Estudios de Historia del Antiguo Oriente (UCA) EPIGRAPHY, PHILOLOGY, AND THE HEBREW BIBLE Ancient Near East Monographs General Editors Ehud Ben Zvi Roxana Flammini Alan Lenzi Juan Manuel Tebes Editorial Board: Reinhard Achenbach Esther J. Hamori Steven W. Holloway René Krüger Steven L. McKenzie Martti Nissinen Graciela Gestoso Singer Number 12 EPIGRAPHY, PHILOLOGY, AND THE HEBREW BIBLE Methodological Perspectives on Philological and Comparative Study of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of Jo Ann Hackett Edited by Jeremy M. Hutton and Aaron D. Rubin SBL Press Atlanta Copyright © 2015 by SBL Press All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by means of any information storage or retrieval system, except as may be expressly permit- ted by the 1976 Copyright Act or in writing from the publisher. Requests for permission should be addressed in writing to the Rights and Permissions Office, SBL Press, 825 Hous- ton Mill Road, Atlanta, GA 30329 USA. Library of Congress has catologued the print edition: Names: Hackett, Jo Ann, honouree. | Hutton, Jeremy Michael, editor. | Rubin, Aaron D., 1976- editor. Title: Epigraphy, philology, and the Hebrew Bible : methodological perspectives on philological and comparative study of the Hebrew Bible in honor of Jo Ann Hackett / edited by Jeremy M.
    [Show full text]
  • Ancient Hebrew
    Ancient Hebrew Holger Gzella 1. Introduction and language history Until the gradual emergence of Semitic epigraphy from the middle of the eighteenth century on, Hebrew was only known from manuscripts con- taining biblical and rabbinic texts. However, the language, too, reflects the long and complicated history of the Hebrew Bible with its organic growth and its many redactional layers. Even the received text, which has been transmitted since the canon was completed and which under- lies the Codex Leningradensis from 1008 ce, the most authoritative manu- script, went through the hands of countless scribes, echoing their voices as well. For the purpose of synagogal recitation, scholars (“Masoretes”) indicated the traditional pronunciation of the erstwhile almost purely consonantal text by means of a very precise system of vowel signs, ac- cents, and other diacritical marks. They accompany the consonantal skeleton but also exhibit, besides ancient features, several instances of later linguistic development. In Western grammatical tradition, the pointing of the Masoretes from Tiberias in Galilee has become normative and dominates the teaching of Biblical Hebrew since the first Christian textbook, De rudimentis Hebraicis (published in 1506) by Johannes Reuch- lin (1455–1522). The exact pronunciation, by contrast, toward which this system is geared, has been lost and must be reconstructed on the basis of Medieval sources like the works of Jewish grammarians. None of the present reading traditions with their many ramifications exactly corre- sponds to the Tiberian one. Hence its origin is very difficult to trace. Already in the nineteenth century, grammarians endeavored to “sweep away the dust of the ages” by reconstructing, with the help of Classical Arabic (which is typologically more conservative), the pre-Exilic stage of Hebrew lurking behind the vocalization.
    [Show full text]
  • THE STRUCTURE of the HEBREW LANGUAGE Steven W
    THE STRUCTURE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE Steven W. Boyd, M.S., Th.M., Ph.D. chapter one: meet & greet biblical hebrew—a semitic language For your convenience, here is an outline of this chapter. 1. Preliminary Remarks 1.1 Linguistics in general; Semitic languages in particular 1.2 What’s in a Name? —origin of name ‘Semitic’ 1.3 The Old Ones —Semitic languages among the world’s oldest 1.4 Today’s Scene —how many speakers of Semitic languages today 1.5 Closing 2. What makes the Semitic languages tick? 2.1 The “Big One”—Root & Pattern 2.2 Tri-radicalism 2.3 Sounds 2.4 Forms 2.4.1 Number—singular, plural, dual 2.4.2 Gender—masculine and feminine in both 2nd person and 3rd person 2.4.3 Verbs 2.4.3(a) Structure 2.4.3(b) Patterns 2.4.3(c) Stems 2.4.4 Location of person, gender, and number marking 2.4.5 Nominal patterns 2.4.6 Numerals 2.4.7 Plurals 2.4.8 Adjectives 2.5 Relations 2.6 Meaning 2.7 Lexicography 3. The Panorama of the Semitic Languages 3.1 Akkadian 3.2 Ugaritic 3.3 Hebrew 3.4 Aramaic 3.5 Arabic 3.6 Ethiopic 3.7 Transition 4. Family Groupings 4.1 Lexical considerations 4.2 Odd man out: Akkadian 4.3 Whither Arabic? 4.4 NW Semitic 5. Hebrew’s Place 5.1 Vs. the Rest 5.2 Vs. Aramaic 5.3 Ganging up on Aramaic 5.4 Vs. Ugaritic 5.5 The Conclusion of the Matter 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Phoenician/Punic and Hebrew
    ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HEBREW LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS Volume 3 P–Z General Editor Geoffrey Khan Associate Editors Shmuel Bolokzy Steven E. Fassberg Gary A. Rendsburg Aaron D. Rubin Ora R. Schwarzwald Tamar Zewi LEIDEN • BOSTON 2013 © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 Table of Contents Volume One Introduction ........................................................................................................................ vii List of Contributors ............................................................................................................ ix Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... xiii Articles A-F ......................................................................................................................... 1 Volume Two Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... vii Articles G-O ........................................................................................................................ 1 Volume Three Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... vii Articles P-Z ......................................................................................................................... 1 Volume Four Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... vii Index
    [Show full text]
  • Intermediate Biblical Hebrew Grammar
    INTERMEDIATE BIBLICAL HEBREW GRAMMAR Press SBL R ESOURCES FOR BIBLICAL STUDY Editor Marvin A. Sweeney, Old Testament/Hebrew Bible Number 89 Press SBL INTERMEDIATE BIBLICAL HEBREW GRAMMAR A Student’s Guide to Phonology and Morphology E ric D. Reymond Press SBL Atlanta C opyright © 2018 by E ric D. Reymond A ll rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by means of any information storage or retrieval system, except as may be expressly permit- ted by the 1976 Copyright Act or in writing from the publisher. Requests for permission should be addressed in writing to the Rights and Permissions Office,S BL Press, 825 Hous- ton Mill Road, Atlanta, GA 30329 USA. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Reymond, Eric D., author. Title: Intermediate biblical Hebrew grammar : a student’s guide to phonology and mor- phology / by Eric D. Reymond. Description: Atlanta : SBL Press, [2017] | Series: Resources for biblical study ; number 89 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers:LCCN 2017037103 (print) | LCCN 2017037346 (ebook) | ISBN 9780884142492 (ebook) | ISBN 9781628371895 (pbk. : alk. paper) | ISBN 9780884142508 (hardcover : alk. paper) Subjects: Hebrew language—Phonology. | Hebrew language—Morphology. Classification: LCC PJ4576 (ebook) | LCC PJ4576 .R49 2017 (print) | DDC 492.45/9— dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017037103 Press Printed on acid-free paper. SBL T o Robin, Lucy, and Oliver ἀρχὴ γὰρ αὐτῆς ἡ ἀληθεστάτη παιδείας ἐπιθυμία “The beginning of wisdom is open yearning for instruction” (Wis 6:17).
    [Show full text]
  • A Study on Some Semitic Toponymic Types of the Second Millennium Bc in the Southern Levant
    A STUDY ON SOME SEMITIC TOPONYMIC TYPES OF THE SECOND MILLENNIUM BC IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT Pauli Rahkonen University of Helsinki The present study is based on the onomasticon of the Southern Levant in the second millennium bc. The results from onomastics are compared with the corresponding archaeological data and with the parallel literary sources. There existed a frequently found toponymic type stem + -ōn that was common in the area of Phoenicia and the coastal area of modern Israel. Another widely spread toponymic type bêṯ + adjunct appeared in the Galilee and the Judean Hill Country, the analogue of which is found in Syro-Mesopotamia. It is notable that these two particular types are not found in the Hill Country of Ephraim. As for the origin of these two toponymic types, the archaeological evidence, in accordance with the toponymic material, hints at migrations or at least at linguistic influence from the north to the Southern Levant during the first part of the second millennium bc. 1. INTRODUCTION AND TOPIC OF THE RESEARCH The question of the toponyms in the Southern Levant originating from the second millennium bc is an interesting but complicated issue. Linguistic groups are not the primary topic of inquiry in this study, even though toponyms are always named by people. Instead, we concentrate on actual names, although we are naturally obliged to touch on linguistic groups to some extent as well. A number of different ethnonyms are documented in several historical written sources. We find such ethnonyms as the Canaanites, Amorites (Amurru), Israelites, Hurrians, Hittites, and Philistines that are known not only from biblical texts but from various extrabiblical sources, as well (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • ENCYCLOPEDIA of HEBREW LANGUAGE and LINGUISTICS Volume 3 P–Z
    ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HEBREW LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS Volume 3 P–Z General Editor Geoffrey Khan Associate Editors Shmuel Bolokzy Steven E. Fassberg Gary A. Rendsburg Aaron D. Rubin Ora R. Schwarzwald Tamar Zewi LEIDEN • BOSTON 2013 © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 Table of Contents Volume One Introduction ........................................................................................................................ vii List of Contributors ............................................................................................................ ix Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... xiii Articles A-F ......................................................................................................................... 1 Volume Two Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... vii Articles G-O ........................................................................................................................ 1 Volume Three Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... vii Articles P-Z ......................................................................................................................... 1 Volume Four Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... vii Index
    [Show full text]
  • Affricated Sade in the Semitic Languages
    THE AMERICAN ACADEMY FOR JEWISH RESEARCH MONOGRAPH SERIES, NO.3 Affricated Sade in the Semitic Languages BY RICHARD C. STEINER NEW YORK 1982 •~ j I To my dear parents il:n~J Cil'~' me 'il 1',M' Copyright© 1982 by The American Academy for Jewish Research 3080 Broadway, New York, New York 10027 Produced by Bet Sha'ar Press, Inc., New York, N.Y. Manufactured in the United States of America r Acknowledgments It would take a second monograph to give a complete account of the help I have received in writing this work. I am painfully aware of the inadequacy of the acknowledgments given here and in foot­ notes throughout the book. Thus, the thank-you's below should also be understood as apologies. Let me begin by thanking the many colleagues in the field of Semitics who answered questions, made suggestions, and provided references: Professors Z. Ben-I;Iayyim, H. Blanc, J. Blau, D. Boyarin, F. M. Cross, D. 0. Edzard, M. Goshen-Gottstein, G. Gragg, J. Greenfield, R. Hetzron, S. Hopkins, T. M. Johnstone, T. 0. Lambdin, S. J. Lieberman, J. Naveh, H. J. Polotsky, E. Porada, F. Rosenthal, Ch. Rabin, E. Reiner, S. Segert, M. Silverman and M. Stolper. I am particularly grateful to Professors Blau and Edzard for their detailed and penetrating comments on an earlier draft of the entire monograph. I would also like to thank the Iranists whom I consulted at every turn for their patient help: Professors C. Brunner, R. N. Frye, H. Paper, Sh. Shaked, G. Windfuhr, and M. Zand. I am particularly indebted to Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Features of Aramaeo-Canaanite
    Features of Aramaeo-Canaanite NA’AMA PAT-EL UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, AUSTIN and ARen WILSON-WRIGHT UNIVERSITY OF ZÜRICH One of the sub-branches of Central Semitic, Northwest Semitic, contains a number of languages with no established hierarchical relation among them: Ugaritic, Ara- maic, Canaanite, Deir Alla, and Samalian. Over the years, scholars have attempted to establish a more accurate sub-branching for Northwest Semitic or to suggest a dif- ferent genetic affiliation for some languages, usually Ugaritic. In this paper, we will argue that Aramaic and Canaanite share a direct ancestor, on the basis of a number of morphosyntactic features: the fs demonstrative *ðaˀt, the direct object marker *ˀayāt, the development of dative subjects with adjectival predicates, the use of the construct state with prepositions, the G imperfect inflection of geminate verbs, and the plural form of *bayt. We will also address arguments that Ugaritic is a Canaanite dialect, or that Canaanite and Ugaritic are more closely related. This proposal not only outlines a more coherent family tree for Northwest Semitic, but also accounts for numerous “Aramaic”-like features in some Canaanite dialects, primarily Biblical Hebrew, which have thus far been treated as the result of language contact in the early Iron Age. 1. INTRODUCTION The internal subgrouping of the Central Semitic languages was first established by Hetzron (1976) and later refined by Huehnergard (2005a). One of the sub-branches of Central Semitic, Northwest Semitic, contains a number of languages, with no established hierarchical relation among them; that is, they remain in a polytomic formation (Huehnergard 1991, 2005a): Ugaritic, Aramaic, Canaanite, the Deir ‘Allā dialect, and Samalian.
    [Show full text]
  • Canaanite Varieties in the Second Millennium Bc: Can We Dispense with Anachronism?
    CANAANITE VARIETIES IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM BC: CAN WE DISPENSE WITH ANACHRONISM? Shlomo IZRE'EL* Introduction In a paper delivered at the meeting of the team of the forthcoming new edition of The Dictionary of Northwest Semitic Inscriptions (DNWSI) in Leiden at the end of 2001 (Izre'el 2003), I tried to set up a methodology for marking out West Semitic words in cuneiform texts from the Canaanite region. In that paper I dwelt on primary identification of Canaanite glosses, basically discussing the writing system and scribal traditions. The following are the main points to be considered: • Cuneiform writing does not separate between words, and thus signs can be attributed to strings on either side. • Cuneiform signs can be interpreted either as syllabic signs or as logograms. • Cuneiform signs are polyphonic and can bear different, sometimes quite remote values. Also, cuneiform signs have different values in different areas and periods, and must be interpreted according to their assigned scribal traditions. • When a sign is not inscribed carefully or the surface upon which it was inscribed has been damaged, there are many more options for reading and restoration than in alphabetic or consonantal, linear or pictographic script. • Non-Akkadian phonemes that form part of the Semitic stock and could have been part of the phonological system of the languages of the Levant in the second millennium BC (d, t, z, g, d, g,, h, h, o) are not represented faithfully by the cuneiform writing system. Laryngeal and pharyngeal consonants can be indicated in spelling only indirectly; in many cases such consonants are in effect ignored.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Kill a Dragon in Northwest Semitic: Three Linguistic Observations Regarding Ugaritic Ltn and Hebrew Liwyātān
    Vetus Testamentum (2021) 1–12 Vetus Testamentum brill.com/vt How to Kill a Dragon in Northwest Semitic: Three Linguistic Observations regarding Ugaritic ltn and Hebrew liwyātān Aren M. Wilson-Wright | orcid: 0000-0001-8217-6381 Department of Philosophy, Theology, and Religious Studies, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands [email protected] John Huehnergard | ORCID: 0000-0001-8922-5393 Department of Middle Eastern Studies, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA [email protected] Published online: 01 July 2021 Abstract Although scholars have generally treated Ugaritic ltn as a cognate of Hebrew liwyātān, the vocalization of this word and its relationship to the Hebrew form remain debated. In this article, we will argue that ltn should be vocalized /lītan-/ and that Ugaritic ltn and Hebrew liwyātān derive from Proto-Northwest Semitic *lawiy-(a)t-an- through a series of attested sound changes. We will also discuss the morphology of *lawiy-(a)t-an- and the syntax of the Northwest Semitic formula *lawiy(a)tanu baṯnu barīḥu … baṯnu ʕaqallatānu “Leviathan, the fleeing serpent … the twisting serpent” found in KTU 1.5 i 1–3 and Isa 27:1. Keywords Leviathan – Hebrew noun patterns – Ugaritic noun patterns – inherited poetic formula © Aren M. Wilson-Wright and John Huehnergard, 2021 | doi:10.1163/15685330-bja10047 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0Downloaded license. from Brill.com10/01/2021 05:59:39AM via free access 2 Wilson-Wright and Huehnergard … In memory of Calvert Watkins ∵ Since the Ugaritic word ltn was first discovered, scholars have generally treated it as a cognate of Hebrew liwyātān.1 But the vocalization of the Ugaritic word and its relationship to the Hebrew form remain debated.
    [Show full text]