505 BOEKBESPREKINGEN — SEMITICA 506
same year, the somewhat idiosyncratic Historische semi- tische Sprachwissenschaft by Burkhart Kienast (2001), and the monumental Semitic Languages: An International Hand- book edited by Stefan Weninger (2012), as well as a number of shorter sketches and overviews in German, English, French and Italian. For a small discipline like Semitics, this is a surprisingly large number, all the more so since works like these hardly present new insights, but are rather designed as easy-to-read (and quick-to-write) state-of-the-art summa- ries. Supposedly, different factors combine to explain the surge in overviews on Semitic languages: The monographs of Lipiński and Kienast, for example, are magna opera writ- ten as a culmination of decades of academic activity in the field (though Lipiński in particular has also been highly pro- ductive after the publication of this book). On the other hand, some of the shorter sketches are probably by-products of the ʻpublish or perishʼ doctrine, while the monumental over- views can supposedly be seen as the result of deliberate aca- demic publisher policies to produce voluminous handbooks and encyclopediae and to cash in on university libraries that have to order them even at exorbitant prices. However that may be, in light of the above one might ask whether the field needs yet another overview whose title reads Semitic Languages. Gideon Goldenberg answered the question in the affirmative and produced the volume under review. Goldenberg, a student of Hans Jakob Polotsky, was a pro- lific writer on matters Semitic until his untimely death in July 2013. An Israel Prize winner in Linguistics in 1993, member of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities since 1996, and corresponding fellow of the British Academy since 1999, he exerted great influence on generations of Israeli linguists and Semitists. Many of his articles on Syriac, Neo-Aramaic, and Ethio-Semitic became classics in the field and have been republished in two collective volumes, Studies in Semitic Linguistics (1998) and Further Studies in Semitic Linguistics (2013). The book under review called Semitic Languages: Features, Structures, Relations, Processes builds upon Goldenbergʼs previous work and presents some aspects more systematically and in a wider perspective. The work falls into two very different parts. The first one hundred pages, roughly one third of the book, are similar in character to the various introductions to the Semitic lan- guages mentioned above. Chapters 1–5 in particular, and to a lesser degree also chapters 6–8, present summaries of var- ious well-known aspects of the Semitic languages (well- known in the field, that is, of course). It is the second, and more substantial part of the book, chapters 9–16, extending over another two hundred pages, which make G.ʼs work SEMITICA special and cause the present reviewer to concur with G.ʼs affirmative answer to the question posed above. For this sec- GOLDENBERG, G. — Semitic Languages. Features, Struc- ond part, which discusses the ʻfeatures, structures, relations, tures, Relations, Processes. Oxford University Press, and processesʼ mentioned in the subtitle of the book, pro- Oxford, 2013. (25 cm, XIX, 363). ISBN 978-0-19- vides the Semitist with an unusual perspective on the Semitic 964491-9. £ 70.00. languages, different from the classical treatment encountered in most studies in the field. Additionally, it offers linguists The last twenty years saw the publication of a substantial without special training in Semitics a glimpse at characteris- number of comprehensive studies on the Semitic languages. tics as well as peculiar features of the various Semitic lan- Examples include the classic edited The Semitic Languages guages and thus helps them to tap their linguistic riches for, by Robert Hetzron (1997), Edward Lipińskiʼs Semitic Lan- e.g., typological studies. Examples are glossed throughout published in the guages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar the book, which undoubtedly facilitates its use by non-Sem- itists. In the preface, G. stresses that the introductory chap- ters are aimed at the same readers, who will surely appreciate 3) For convenience’s sake simply rendered by h in this review. them.
997575_Bior2014_3-4_02.indd7575_Bior2014_3-4_02.indd 253253 225/11/145/11/14 12:0012:00 507 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXXI N° 3-4, mei-augustus 2014 508
The short introduction (pp. 1–9) sets the scene and clari- provide references for his examples (and this is a serious fies technical issues pertaining to the glosses and transcrip- handicap), but presumably he quotes these words from the tions. Chapter 2 (pp. 10–20) offers brief characterizations of 8th-century Azitawada inscription (KAI 26:I.1; similarly in the various Semitic languages (including languages such as the 10th century Ahirom sarcophagus KAI 1:2) and they may Phoenician that do not feature prominently throughout the thus come from a variety of Phoenician that did not have a book), their geography and periods of attestation, as well as cognate of Arabic min. The next chapter deals with references to standard grammatical treatments and the rele- ʻDerivational Morphologyʼ (pp. 116–129) and elucidates vant dictionaries. Such brief overviews are necessarily very the typical Semitic interdigitation of a discontinuous tripartite selective and thus provide the reviewer with the opportunity root morpheme and vocalic patterns in both nominal morphol- to lament the omission of ʻimportantʼ bibliographical items: ogy and the verbal system. Here, as elsewhere, G. builds on Readers might be interested in Peter Steinʼs new Sabaic his earlier work and succeeds in offering a very concise, eco- grammar Lehrbuch der sabäischen Sprache (2013) and Janet nomical and unique elucidation of the workings of Semitic C.E. Watsonʼs The Structure of Mehri (2012). Chapter 3 (pp. word formation. In chapter 10, G. briefly discusses ʻEntity 21–29) treats the geographical ʻDistribution of the Semitic Termsʼ (pp. 130–139), viz. gender and number on nouns, Languagesʼ in different periods; Maps provide useful over- and then moves on to outline the case system of Akkadian, views. Note that map 3 (p. 24) antedates Palmyrene Aramaic Classical Arabic, and Gəˁəz in chapter 11 (pp. 140–148). (attested from the middle of the 1st cent. BC) and Syriac The following, most substantial chapters treat the three (attested from the beginning of the common era) to “ca. 300 basic syntactic relations—predicative, attributive, and com- BC”. In the same map, Hebrew could have been added as a pletive—and related issues. In the chapter on the ʻPredicative spoken and written language in the Land of Israel. Chapter 4 Relationʼ (pp. 149–198), G. demonstrates the structural (pp. 30–43) introduces the reader to the ʻWriting Systems analogy between nominal, verbal, and copular sentences, and Scriptsʼ in which the linguistic data from ancient lan- which draws upon the analysis of finite verbal forms as ver- guages was encoded. In the discussion of the syllabic values bal complexes comprising a pronominal representation of represented by the cuneiform sign KA (p. 31), the diacritics the subject, a verbal base as predicate, and the nexus. Isolat- in qà, pi4, and zú are superfluous. The acrophonic theory (p. ing the components of the verbal complex allows G. to gain 35), advocated, e.g., by K. Beyer in MLR 19 (2012), would insights into the workings of, e.g., impersonal constructions, not seem to be as far fetched as G. has it. Chapter 5 (pp. the inner object, verb-initial sentences seemingly lacking 44–57) offers a good overview on the status quaestionis of agreement between the verbal form and the overt subject, ʻGenetic Classificationʼ of the Semitic languages. Particu- extraposition, cleft-constructions, and others. While this part larly, G. presents the problems of subgrouping in the South of the book is clearly based on G.ʼs article ʻOn Verbal Semitic branch and the affiliation of Arabic. G. opts to leave Structure and the Hebrew Verbʼ, it has a much wider scope. the latter suspended between the southern branch and North- Additionally, G.ʼs thoughts on individual points changed west Semitic, belonging to neither. Chapter 6 (pp. 58–63) and he took the opportunity to correct himself (e.g., p. 178, deals with selected topics of Semitic grammar in which the 1st paragraph). Interpolated between the chapters on the medieval Arabic and Hebrew grammatical traditions antici- basic syntactical relations is a short sketch of the ʻVerbal pated insights of modern linguistic analysis. Systemsʼ (pp. 199–225), which covers the principles of the The chapter on ʻPhonologyʼ (pp. 64–80) discusses the Semitic binyanim or stem system and some peculiarities in consonantal triads, sound correspondences (especially the tense systems: the special forms employed in Biblical the sibilants), reconstructed phonemes and other topics. In Hebrew narrative, Syriac auxiliaries, the complex classical Aramaic, proto-Semitic *ṣ (p. 68 table) developed to /ˁ/ via Arabic tense system, as well as North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic an intermediate stage represented by {Q} in writing, presum- and Ethio-Semitic tenses. In the first example on p. 208, the ably a voiced uvular continuant (cp. K. Beyer, Die aramäi- alignment of the glosses is garbled; the same is true for the schen Texte vom Toten Meer, Bd. 1 [1984], p. 99). Note that last example on p. 218. Chapter 14 deals with the ʻAttributive the Aramaic examples for epenthesis (p. 79 n.) come from Relationʼ (pp. 226–277) and includes discussions of the different dialects: i-epenthesis in the perfect 1csg is common genitive construction, adjectives, and relative clauses. G. Aramaic whereas the u-epenthesis in 3mpl hdūr ʻthey offers detailed overviews and insightful comparative returnedʼ is typical of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. In chap- remarks on the various syntagms of annexion in Akkadian, ter 8 entitled ʻClosed-class Morphemesʼ (pp. 81–115), Syriac, Hebrew, Arabic, Mehri, Gəˁəz, and some Neo-Ethio- G. compares sets of morphemes or paradigms, such as per- Semitic languages. Systematic comparison of the various sonal pronouns, demonstratives, numerals, etc., in the vari- syntagms leads him to argue for the independence of syn- ous languages. The chapter presents much linguistic data in tagms with a pronominal head, and for virtual heads in the tables; Usually, short remarks on individual points follow. case of seemingly headless attributes. Constructions with a Obviously, this is not the place for a comprehensive presen- genitive exponent are analyzed as comprising a pronominal- tation of all the relevant data, but G.ʼs selection is not always ized head (the exponent) with a following attribute, while self-evident: Why, for example, are Aramaic and Modern the preceding noun stands in apposition to this complex. South Arabian represented in the table of adverbs (p. 103), The clause in row J of the table on p. 237 could also trans- but not in the table of demonstratives (p. 102)? The Classical late as ʻhe who gave to usʼ, which makes for a better paral- Arabic allaðī paradigm is not inflected for case, except in the lel to the adjective. In row B of the table on p. 247, Tigrinya dual (p. 106, 2nd paragraph). G. mentions the Phoenician con- wädd should be glossed ʻsonʼ. The example šaˁr māl sibiˁ is struction mlk b-mlkm “a king among kings” (p. 114 [4]) with adduced twice on p. 264 (penultimate paragraph). In the b- instead of min, as in Arabic. The preposition min, how- Arabic examples on p. 269, the transcription varies between ever, is rare in Phoenician and not attested before the 4th cent. ẓ and ð for the same root. The ʻCompletive Relationʼ is BC (KAI 33:2). Throughout the book, G. does not usually discussed in chapter 15 (pp. 278–299). Since it is under-
997575_Bior2014_3-4_02.indd7575_Bior2014_3-4_02.indd 254254 225/11/145/11/14 12:0012:00 509 BOEKBESPREKINGEN — SEMITICA 510
stood as a relation between the predicative construction as Aramaic and Ethiopic1). This time he limits his study to the such and the complement, the term covers direct and indi- modern languages alone and he deserves to be warmly con- rect objects, adverbs, and circumstantial complements. G. gratulated for his choice, especially of Amharic, an almost adduces various examples in order to show that accusative exceptional case in comparative Semitic. It is a good sign complements refer to different constituents of the verbal that Amharic, second Semitic language after Arabic with its complex; the same is true of adverbs. Parenthetic circum- 25 million native speakers and an extremely interesting stantial clauses, whether syndetic or asyndetic, are discussed, structure, is finally recognized as a language which can too. For the Syriac adverbial suffix -āˀīṯ (p. 283) cf. also contribute to the general knowledge of Semitic outside the A.M. Butts in JNES 69 (2010). A detailed treatment of the narrow frame of Ethio-Semitic. Another recent work which Jewish Babylonian Aramaic syntagm with proleptic object rendered Amharic its rights as a meaningful Semitic lan- suffix + l-NP (p. 289) can be found in M. Morgenstern, Stud- guage by raising some interesting comparative issues, was ies in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic Based Upon Early East- Lutz Edzard’s Arabisch, Hebräisch und Amharisch als ern Manuscripts (2011), pp. 223–266. For an updated dis- Sprache in modernen diplomatischen Dokumenten2). There cussion of the syntagm min + participle in Samaritan is no doubt that it would be profitable for other comparative Aramaic see my The Morphosyntax of Samaritan Aramaic Semitists to include in their research Amharic and other (2013; in Hebrew), §176. Chapter 16 (pp. 300–311) treats Ethio-Semitic languages3). genuine statements of existence, existential verbs, and pre- The author adduces a very rich factual material, starting dicative constructions which are structurally related to those. both for Arabic and Neo-Aramaic with the best documented A substantial bibliography (pp. 313–350) and a detailed sub- central dialects, then adding parallel examples from other ject and author index (pp. 351–363) complete the book. For locations. The well documented dialect of Cairo, especially the former, two minor corrections can be offered: p. 316 ad as represented in M. Woidich’s publications of texts, has Blau 1977: The reprinted version of the article appears on been chosen as the starting point of the discussion on Status pp. 50–103, not 50–68. p. 349 ad Weninger 2001: In the pendens (henceforth StP) in the Arabic dialects. The descrip- subtitle read “des Interferenzproblems”. tive and theoretical discussion on the Cairene dialect is To sum up: Gideon Goldenbergʼs Semitic Languages: followed by examples in the dialects of Syria, Lebanon, the Features, Structures, Relations, Processes is a very valuable Oasis Soukhne in Syria, the Moslem dialect of Baghdad, introduction to the Semitic languages and their grammatical the Jewish dialect of ʿAqra and Arbil in Northern Iraq, the peculiarities. Goldenberg wisely decided to deviate from the Jewish dialect of Tripoli in Libya, the Moroccan urban dia- well-trodden path taken by most such introductions, and shoul- lect, Maltese and the dialect of Sanʿa. Similarly, for the dered the audacious task of writing a book which is aimed at North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic dialects the Westernmost two very different audiences: Semitists and general linguists. Turoyo dialect and its cognates of Midin and Midyat (clas- In this reviewerʼs opinion, he succeeded admirably in produc- sified by some as Central Neo-Aramaic), amply documented ing a work that makes an interesting and rewarding read for in H. Ritter’s and O. Jastrow’s collections of texts, serve as both. The few minor corrections suggested above surely do not the starting point of the discussion, further completed by distract from the value of the book, and neither do some small examples from the dialects of Hertevin, Bespən and Mlahsô inconsistencies which seem to be the result of the piecemeal from Turkey, Koy Sanjaq, Amadiya, Arbel and Barwar from writing process (for example, the treatment of the passive con- Iraq as well as from Neo-Mandaic from Ahwaz in Iran. struction [p. 198] is repeated on p. 205; p. 268 n. 60 occurs In Amharic, in which dialectal differences don’t represent almost verbatim on p. 275). As with all of Goldenbergʼs a salient feature, the source of the factual material is differ- works, this book is demanding. But the reader willing to invest ent. The greater part of the examples come from secondary time and thought will surely be rewarded. Indeed, it is to be sources — grammars and articles. The three collections of hoped that the book finds many such readers. texts used: J. I Eadie’s An Amharic Reader4), E. Ullendorff’s An Amharic Chrestomathy5) and J. Tubiana’s Recueil de ver- Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Christian STADEL sions amhariques6), definitely not the latest vintage to say May 2014 the least, could easily be replaced by examples from the recent dozens of books, newspapers, reviews and official texts published every year in Addis Ababa. Among the sec- * ond-hand sources those written in a generativist perspective * * should be handled with special caution. Sometimes the authors, mostly native linguists, produce examples which DIEM, W. — Vom Status pendens zum Satzsubjekt. Studien theoretically are “acceptable” but which no normal speaker zu Topikalisierung in neueren semitischen Sprachen. of Amharic would ever pronounce, write or even understand, Verlag Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 2012. (25 cm, for instance p. 67 “Ich wunderte VI, 120). ISBN 978-3-447-06829-1, € 54,-. bä-nəgəggəru gärrämä-ňň mich über das Gespräch”, literally “In/by the speech it The book by W. Diem is a comparative study of the spe- cific syntactic construction of extraposition, or Status pen- 1) Werner Diem, Alienable und inalienable Possession im Semitischen, dens according to the author’s terminology, in Arabic dia- ZDMG 136/2 (1986): 227-291. lects (pp. 5-30), in Neo-Aramaic (pp. 31-50) and in Amharic 2) Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz Verlag 2006. Reviewed by O. Kapeliuk (pp. 51-114). It is not the first time that the author offers us Bi.Or. 64/5-6 (2007): 727-729; see also G. Khan, Studies in Semitic Syntax, a cross linguistic analysis of a syntactic phenomenon in Oxford, Oxford University Press 1988. 3) On condition of having at least a basic first hand knowledge. Semitic. In 1986 he published a lengthy essay on inalienable 4) Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1924. possession in several Semitic languages, both classical and 5) London, Oxford University Press 1965 modern which, based mainly on Arabic, also included 6) Paris, Paul Geuthner, 1966.
997575_Bior2014_3-4_02.indd7575_Bior2014_3-4_02.indd 255255 225/11/145/11/14 12:0012:00 511 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXXI N° 3-4, mei-augustus 2014 512
astonished me” or p. 86 Almaz zämäd mot-at “Almaz ist ein subject is stressed. The few examples with ʾit-be have a loc- Verwandter gestorben”, literally “Almaz a relative died-her” ative, not a possessive meaning. Follows an interesting anal- and Almaz-ən zämäd mot-at “id.”, literally “Almaz-ACC a ysis of the Neo-Aramaic preterite which views sentences relative died-her”. Another remark: Ethiopian names are such as in Midin: youmo uzʿuro mǝll-e līhoto “One day the customarily quoted in full without a comma, namely Taddese youngster said to the sister” as sentences with extraposition Beyene and not Beyene, T. which is his fathers first name, with uzʿuro as StP and -e, or rather -le, as a resumptive pro- Hailu Fulass instead of Fulass, H., Mengistu Amberber and noun. Such an analysis, correct when applied to Old Syriac, not Amberber, M. etc. does not seem applicable anymore to the Neo-Aramaic dia- The author defines the StP as a sentence component which lects spoken to the East of the Tigris where the the histori- is extracted from the sentence to the left, placed at its begin- cally datival resumptive pronoun is not felt anymore as such ning and then resumed by a mandatory possessive or object and the form qtil-le is treated as any other verb with the pronoun within the sentence itself. The basic function of this subject in the nominative. However in a few examples construction is to attribute to the extracted sentence compo- adduced by the author from the dialect of Midyat from the nent more weight in the discursive perspective, or in other more conservative Western Turoyo branch, the datival origin words to turn it into topic with the remaining sentence parts of the construction may still be felt, e. g.: l-äbrǝ dumälko acting as comment. Given that the process of extraction is mobel-e utaʿloste aʿme “The king’s son brought the fox with generally accompanied by the loss of case agreement in favor him”. of the nominative, in the long run the topicalizing character The chapter on Amharic, the longest of the three, deals of the StP can be discarded and it becomes the regular sub- with intransitive verbs, infinitival and possessive construc- ject of the sentence. The author starts his demonstration with tions and the gerund. All these elements are devised as basi- prepositional sentences, i. e. nominal sentences with a prep- cally StP constructions due to the presence of the extraposi- osition and its complement as the predicate in the Cairene tion and of a resumptive pronoun: either a suffix object dialect such as, for instance, ʾAhmad ʿand-u ʾasbabu “Ahmad pronoun or a pronoun with the prepositions -llät and -bbät has his reasons” or with another preposition: izzabit maʿa with the intransitive verbs or a possessive pronoun with the ʾawraʾ ilʾifrag “The officer has the discharge papers”. There rest. The direct object pronoun suffixed to an intransitive or are four prepositions in the Arabic dialects, ʿand, maʿa, li an impersonal verb resumes several kinds of objects as can and fi which can form such possessive constructions but they be ascertained when it is rendered explicit beside an extra- also may stand in prepositional sentences with a locative posed noun or pronoun, e.g.: əne rabä-ňň, əne-n rabä-ňň and meaning, e. g. ilʾawlad ʿandə Huda “The children are at lä-ne rabä-ňň “I am hungry” or corresponding to the prepo- Huda’s” or, with the two possible interpretations, e. g.: sadri sition kä- “from”, e. g.: kä-lam wätät yəwät-at-al “From the ma-fi-hu-š laban “There is no milk in my breast” or “My cow comes milk”8). The verb mässälä in particular offers breast has no milk”. The locative sentence can be rendered several readings as a full verb “to resemble” and “to seem”, also without the StP and without the resumptive pronoun, as an uncertain equivalent of the copula, or as an impersonal which according to the author’s definition is essential in StP verb mässälä-w “it seemed to him”9). But not to every constructions, e. g.: fi ktab ʿala tt-awla and with the StP: intransitive verb a direct object pronoun may be suffixed. ittawla ʿale-ha ktab “There is a book on the table”, whereas Beside the verb of existence allä “there is”, these are mainly in the possessive prepositional sentences only the second impersonal verbs indicating bodily or spiritual sensations10) construction is possible in the modern dialects, thus: ilʾamis and certain relations, e. g.: əčči säw b-ammämä-w gize li-h kummen “The shirt has two sleeves” but not *li-lʾamis “When this man fell sick” (lit. “This man when it.was.pain- kummen as in classical Arabic. Consequently, while in the ful-him”), Itiyoppəya bǝzu yätämaru gäbärewočč yasfälləg- locative prepositional sentence the extracted element still has at-al (and not yasfälləgw-at-al) “Ethiopia needs many edu- its topicalizing effect, it is no more the case in possessive cated farmers” (lit. “Ethiopia many educated farmers it.is. prepositional sentences and the StP may be defined as the necessary-her”). With the infinitive the subject may stand in subject. the nominative or as the first member of a possessive con- The discussion of prepositional sentences in Arabic is fol- struction, e. g. assər aläqa Garrädäw mämot-u-n täräddu lowed by pseudo verbs and frozen verbal expressions such “They ascertained the death of corporal G.” (lit. “Corporal as bǝdd-o “he wants”, kan ġarad-o and ʾasd-o “it was his G. his to.die-ACC they ascertained”), yä-ne bəčča mawäq intention” and a few others. No sentences with regular verbs mən yadärgal “What does it matter if only I know?” (lit. are included since they lack the resumptive pronoun consid- “Of me only to.know what does?”). A similar duality exists ered by the author as an essential component of the StP con- in possessive expressions. struction. In the two remaining branches, characterized by the absence of nominal sentences and the obligatory use of a 8) For several prepositions resumed on the verb as a direct object pro- copula or a verb of existence, the discussion is centered noun in Gəʿəz see O. Kapeliuk, “Les fonctions multiples du pronom suffixe around the resumptive object pronouns on verbs. Neo-Ara- d’objet et de préposition la- en guèze” in P. O. Scholz (ed.), Studia in maic sentences with ʾit-le are first discussed, e. g. in the Honorem Stanislaus Chojnacki = Orbis Aethiopicus, Albstadt, Karl Schuler Midin dialect: ʾu malko dīwalae kitl-e7) tlo o bno e “…and 1992:1.153-163 [id. Selected Papers in Ethio-Semitic and Neo-Aramaic t t Linguistics, Jerusalem, Magnes Press 2009: 199-209]. the king of the city has three daughters” and in Koy Sanjaq: 9) See O. Kapeliuk, “‘Il semble que’ ou ‘Il semble qui’: un problème ʾana xa baruxta ʾitt-i “I have a friend (f.)” and a similar de syntaxe amharique” in D. H. Young (ed.) Studies Presented to H. J. process of what probably was a StP but now acts as the Polotsky, Gloucester MA, Pirtle and Polson 1981: 51-67 [id. Selected Papers in Ethio-Semitic and Neo-Aramaic Linguistics, Jerusalem, Magnes Press 2009: 319-331]. 7) For the initial k- see O. Jastrow “The Neo-Aramaic Languages” in 10) See O. Kapeliuk, “Some Special features of Ethio-Semitic Morphol- R. Hetzron, The Semitic Languages, London, Routledge: 334-377 (here ogy and Syntax: Inalienables and Intimate Relationship in Amharic”, Jeru- 372-375). salem Studies in Arabic and Islam 37 (2010): 207-222 (here 213-215).
997575_Bior2014_3-4_02.indd7575_Bior2014_3-4_02.indd 256256 225/11/145/11/14 12:0012:00 513 BOEKBESPREKINGEN — SEMITICA 514
It may be guessed that the question of the StP and of its of Mesopotamia or Egypt; rather, the finds from Ras Shamra transformation into subject preoccupies the author and a are to be valued for the evidence they provide concerning the number of other arabists as being the source of the change of local culture and traditions, so close in time and space to the classical VSO word order into the modern SVO both in Ancient Israel. But Ugaritic is not just interesting for biblical nominal and verbal sentences11). However, it must be stressed scholars; it offers “the first evidence for the everyday use of that in the two remaining branches the order SOV is anyway a West Semitic language for the purpose of recording, stor- the prevailing word order in regional terms, be it as the result ing and sending of information as well as the first literary of the action of the Turkish and Kurdish12) adstrates for productions in a West Semitic language.” (26) The even Neo-Aramaic, or of the Cushitic substrate and adstrates for more ancient roots of Ugaritic literature are demonstrated by Ethio-Semitic. adducing older attestations of the ‘weather god defeats the The factual material of this interesting and extremely well sea’ motif central to the Baal Myth, possibly going all the researched book is accompanied by lengthy diachronic and way back to third millennium Ebla. Various examples from synchronic discussions which lead to the initial hypothesis of different attested genres of Ugaritic literature are then pre- the author as to the transformation the StP into subject. sented, including letters, the founding charter of a marzihu I think that I may testify that this problem occupied the (a kind of ancient Near Eastern equivalent of the gentlemen’s author since at least fifteen years. I recall that at a Deutscher club), and literary texts, of which the Epic of Kirta, the Orietalistentag meeting of the DMG in Bonn in 1998 I quoted Legend of Aqhat, and the Baal Myth are identified as most in an entirely different context the following Amharic exam- important. ple: lä-Rəbqa-mm Laba yä-täbalä wändəmm näbbär-at Chapter 2 (41-77) takes a closer look at this last composi- (Genesis 24:29) “And Rebecca had a brother who was called tion, the Baal Cycle. After some background information Laban” (lit. “To-Rebecca Laban who-was.called brother about its writer — or at least, scribe — ᾿Ilîmilku, Pardee was-her”) and W. Diem asked why lä-Rebqa and not simply discusses three questions surrounding the Baal Myth, in Rəbqa and I did’t understand what was wrong with lä-Rəbqa. increasing order of controversy. Are the various tablets con- Now I understand, it was not close enough to the status of taining mythological narratives surrounding Baal literary subject. documents (50-61)? Do these texts form a continuous ‘cycle’ (61-72)? And finally, what was their synchronic function in Department of Linguistics Olga KAPELIUK Ugaritic society (72-77)? Of these sections, the first is fairly Hebrew University undisputed, and the last is limited to speculation, but the Jerusalem question of the continuity and order of the various Baal tab- 26.01.2014 lets gives rise to some interesting arguments from paleogra- phy for their proper reading order. The already commonly accepted order of the tablets 3 and 4 is confirmed by * CTA Pardee’s discovery that 8 should be joined to 3, * * CTA CTA strengthening the narrative connection between (new and improved) 3 and 4, as both now discuss gifts that are to PARDEE, D. — The Ugaritic Texts and the Origins of West- CTA be prepared for the goddess ʾAṯiratu. “Because the continuity Semitic Literary Composition. Oxford University Press, between 5 and 6 is epigraphically certain and that New York, 2012. (24 cm, X, 149). ISBN 978-0-19- CTA between 4 and 5 is well established on literary grounds,” 726492-8. £ 35.00; $ 55.00. CTA the author concludes, “this demonstration of the continuity On 30 November and 1 December 2007, Dennis Pardee between CTA 3 and 4 means that we are are on very solid delivered three Schweich Lectures on Biblical Archaeology ground in claiming that these four tablets were intended by at the British Academy, giving the audience an introductory their author/scribe to represent a narrative sequence, (part of) overview of what is known about Ugaritic literature and how a continuous story about Baʿlu, a ‘cycle’ in the traditional it can deepen our understanding of literary and especially terminology.” (66) A more controversial conclusion is that, poetic texts found in the Hebrew Bible. These lectures, edited based on a physical examination of the tablet, the traditional to be more suitable to their new, written form, have now identification of the obverse and reverse sides of both CTA 1 been published in this book. The target audience is “an audi- and 2 is the wrong way around. Unfortunately, the order ence with a general interest in the ancient Near East and, in in which these two tablets should be read with regard to particular, in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament” (ix), and CTA 3-6 remains uncertain. taken together, the three presentations aim to show some Chapter 3 (79-124) compares and contrasts Ugaritic and examples of Ugaritic influence on the culture that produced Biblical Hebrew literature. The first major difference that the Hebrew Bible, and through it, on so many others, in order must be mentioned is that narrative prose is still unknown in “to lay bare this particularly long root of our own culture.” Ugaritic literature, while the Hebrew Bible, on the other (2) hand, contains little to no narrative poetry. Genres that can Chapter 1 (1-40) introduces the reader to the Ugaritic lan- be compared, however, are those of prayer, wisdom litera- guage and literature. Eschewing exaggeration, Pardee does ture, love poetry, lamentation and prophesy, the latter four not try to portray Ugarit as a grand civilization on the scale not being attested in independent Ugaritic compositions but as parts of greater narratives. Pardee examines numerous pas- sages from both corpora, indicating shared features in both 11) See for instance in the dialect of Jerusalem A. Levin, A Grammar of structure, such as the famous parallelismus membrorum, and the Arabic Dialect of Jerusalem (in Hebrew). Jerusalem, Magnes Press 1995: 221. poetic imagery, e.g. thunder being equated with the deity’s 12) In Kurdish the word order is SOV with the exception of local com- voice. Some Hebrew texts are shown to be more easily plements which follow the verb. understandable from a Ugaritic-like mythological framework,
997575_Bior2014_3-4_02.indd7575_Bior2014_3-4_02.indd 257257 225/11/145/11/14 12:0012:00 515 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXXI N° 3-4, mei-augustus 2014 516
with Psalm 29 as a nice case study. After having identified to the Proto-Semitic (PS) verbal root.”2) (19) The Biblical the motifs in this psalm that are also known from Ugaritic Hebrew data are taken from Gesenius3) and HALOT4) (21), literature (thunder as a god’s voice being, perhaps, the most while the main source for Afroasiatic etymological informa- important one), Pardee makes a convincing case that the tion is HSED5) (136). psalm is meant to show “that Yahweh can do anything that Chapter 1 (23-33) gives a typological overview of the Baal can and do it better.” (96) Semitic languages, focusing on shared aspects of their Due to the broadness of the intended audience, this book phonology (such as the presence of ‘emphatic’ consonants necessarily gives a somewhat cursory overview of the sub- and the originally simple vowel system), morphology (most ject, and scholars who are already familiar with the field notably the system of word-independent roots) and syntax of Ugaritic studies will not encounter any great surprises. (e.g. the predominance of coordination over subordination). They will, however, be able to appreciate the author’s clear The Afroasiatic phylum is also briefly introduced. Chapter 2 writing style, as well as the more controversial claims he (35-47) discusses the Proto-Semitic verbal root. The author makes regarding the correct sequence of the Baal Cycle. agrees with some other scholars6) that the system of triconso- Somewhat ironically, the third chapter, in which the stated nantal roots that can be reconstructed for Proto-Semitic is a goal of these lectures is reached by relating Ugaritic studies relatively late development, as Proto-Afroasiatic had biconso- to Hebrew Bible studies, is less well-structured than the first nantal — or, more accurately, monosyllabic (46) — roots, two chapters, losing itself to some extent in the literary which were then extended with affixes in Semitic. And while analysis of several biblical psalms. Overall, though, Pardee Semitic roots are often held to be consonantal, only taking does an excellent job of what he intended: to interest an their vowels from whatever morphological form they are cast audience which is familiar with the Hebrew Bible but not into, Vernet i Pons argues that for both nouns and verbs, with Ugaritic to the latter and its relevance to the former. a vowel is often also a part of the root. Chapter 3 (49-60) Especially due to the many detailed maps, footnotes and discusses phonotactic restrictions on verbal roots. Considering references, The Ugaritic Texts and the Origins of West- the three consonants of a verbal root, no two consonants with Semitic Literary Composition is a great starting point for the same place of articulation may occur in first and second the interested layman. or in second and third position; roots with the same consonant in first and third position are rare. The blatant exception, then, Leiden University Benjamin SUCHARD is formed by the so-called geminate roots, where the second Centre for Linguistics and third consonant are identical. This chapter also reviews January 2014 the 20th century literature on verbal root constraints in Semitic. Chapter 4 (61-90) takes a closer look at the idea of root exten- sion. I-yw, II-yw, III-yw, geminate and reduplicated roots are * all seen as possible extensions of originally biconsonantal * * roots, which solves the problem of the exceptional phonotac- tic status of geminate roots noted in chapter 3. This chapter is VERNET I PONS, E. — Origen etimològic dels verbs crucial to the overall line of reasoning, as it links the book’s làmed-he de l’hebreu masorètic. Un estudi sobre la for- two otherwise not necessarily connected topics of Proto- mació de les arrels verbals en semític. (Publicaciones de Semitic root structure and Biblical Hebrew roots with a weak la Societat Catalana d’Estudis Hebraics, 2). Societat third radical. Chapter 5 (91-130) deals with verbal ablaut, i.e. Catalana d’Estudis Hebraics, Barcelona, 2011. (24 cm, morphologically conditioned interchange between vowels or 404). ISBN 978-84-9965-090-6. € 30,- the lack thereof, in Proto-Semitic and its various descendants. If M. Carrasquer Vidal’s recent suggestion1) that Catalonia After reviewing the attested systems, the author zooms in on takes its name from Arabic qattāl ‘murderous, deadly, lethal’ the different thematic vowels that occur in the imperfect, con- has any truth to it, Catalan might indeed be the most suitable sidering their semantics and, more specifically, why *i was Romance language for a book on a Semitic linguistic topic. almost completely replaced by *u and *a as a thematic vowel This work by Dr. Vernet i Pons, published in that language, in the Biblical Hebrew imperfect. originally appeared as a doctoral thesis at the University of Chapter 6 (131-298), then, forms the main body of this Barcelona in 2007, under the supervision of Dr. G. del Olmo work: a review of every verb with a weak third radical Lete. Due to its technical nature, the book’s language should attested in Biblical Hebrew, with a Proto-Semitic or Proto- be fairly easily comprehensible to most readers, even if they Afroasiatic etymology, when the author deems one possible. are not acquainted with Catalan itself, but only with its rela- Finally, chapter 7 (299-336) presents a number of statistics tives. on the verbs that were examined in chapter 6, sorting them As the title indicates, this book takes a quite broad look at into denominal and deverbal roots, Proto-Semitic and Proto- the nature of the verbal root in Semitic and even Afroasiatic, Afroasiatic denominal formations, etc. Additionally, there is using the more specific focus on the III-weak roots in Bibli- a useful list of groups of weak roots in Hebrew and related cal Hebrew as a starting point and motivation. In the author’s words, she aims “to offer a historical and comparative study .verbs of masoretic Biblical 2) All translations and inevitable errors therein are mine (ל״ה) of the tertiae infirmae Hebrew and to show, in those cases in which it is possible, 3) W. Gesenius, & F. Brown (Ed.). (1951). A Hebrew and English lexi- the etymological origin of the determinative radical suffixed con of the Old Testament (E. Robinson, Trans.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. 4) L. Koehler, & W. Baumgartner. (1967). The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (3rd ed.). Leiden: Brill. 1) M. Carrasquer Vidal. (June 2013). Catalunya, català. Academia.edu. 5) V. E. Orel, & O. V. Stolbova. (1995). Hamito-Semitic etymological Retrieved January 8, 2014, from https://www.academia.edu/3815281/Ety- dictionary. Leiden: Brill. mology_of_catala_Catalunya. 6) Most notably I. M. Diakonoff (various publications).
997575_Bior2014_3-4_02.indd7575_Bior2014_3-4_02.indd 258258 225/11/145/11/14 12:0012:00 517 BOEKBESPREKINGEN — OUDE TESTAMENT 518
languages which may go back to the same biconsonantal root Having said that, however, Vernet i Pons is to be com- on pp. 331-336. The book is completed by summary of the mended for her extremely meticulous listing of references conclusions reached (ch. 8, pp. 337-351), a key to the vari- and sources. The reader is never left to guess where a certain ous transcriptions used (ch. 9, pp. 353-354), a bibliography assumption comes from or wonder whether a word is actu- (ch. 10, 355-400) and a general index (401-404), which is ally attested. The final section on multiple triconsonantal more detailed than the table of contents (5-7). roots that seem to go back to the same biconsonantal etymon Any analysis can only be as good as the data upon which also deserves to be mentioned again, and it is a much more it is based. One may wonder, then, why the author did not convincing argument for the biconsonantal root hypothesis choose to use the most recent editions of HALOT (1994-2000) than the shaky evidence from Afroasiatic. and Gesenius (1972); but a large part of this work, viz. the In summary, Origen etimològic dels verbs làmed-he de Afroasiatic reconstruction of the Biblical Hebrew words with l’hebreu masorètic’s biggest contribution to the field is prob- a weak third radical, suffers from more serious issues. As ably its systemization and examination of the various argu- was noted above, it is mainly based on Orel & Stolbova’s ments for the presence of a non-triconsonantal verbal root HSED. Unfortunately, this 1996 dictionary, which humbly pro- system in Proto-Semitic or one of its ancestors. If it fails to fesses in its subtitle to have collected “materials for a recon- satisfactorily meet its stated purpose, viz. to give a convinc- struction”, is quite problematic. In his scathing review7), ing etymology for the lāmēd-hē verbs, it is almost completely S. Weninger, having presented some statistics on the stagger- due to the lack of reliable sources. Given the current state of ingly high rate of inaccuracies in the Semitic part of HSED’s scholarship, tracing this many Biblical Hebrew words back data alone, sneers that “[t]he HSED is unreliable to a hitherto to Proto-Afroasiatic is still a bridge too far. unknown degree.” (61) In his reply8), one of HSED’s authors accepts most of Weninger’s content-based criticism, empha- Leiden University Benjamin SUCHARD sizing that the dictionary is a work in progress. Nor is HSED’s Centre for Linguistics inaccuracy limited to Semitic, as is shown by H. Satzinger’s January 2014 more recent review9), with 17 pages of corrigenda regarding the Ancient Egyptian material. Vernet i Pons is aware of the HSED’s many errors and problematic status, “but it is the only material which is available to us.” (136) The other sources for Afroasiatic she uses to supplement HSED are sadly of a similar quality, cf. F. Kortlandt’s review10) of Ehret (1995), in which he notes that “there appears to be a large gap between Ehret’s far-reaching claims and the available data supporting them.” (187) If all the available material is too unreliable, then Vernet i Pons’s work, interesting as the results of a well-founded study would be, is simply premature. The author’s own treatment of what data she must, per- force, work with is not always felicitous either. While one may agree or disagree with the various cited theories on Proto-Semitic, the frequent comparison to Proto-Indo- European and other reconstructed languages (approximately once every 15 pages, on average, in the first part of the book) to support these claims is a methodological flaw. Proto- Semitic and Proto-Indo-European have no reason whatsoever to be especially alike due to their shared status as proto-lan- guages; rather, a claimed characteristic of Proto-Semitic should be substantially more suspect if it is only paralleled in Proto-Indo-European, which is by its very nature not a secure source of data, and not in any actually attested language. In the part of the book concerned with reconstruction, one may also doubt many semantic equations, as well as the perhaps too frequent invocation of onomatopoeia. Does it really make sense to derive ‘to decide’ from ‘father’(138)? Does weeping really sound like *bVk (148)?
7) S. Weninger. (1996). [Review of the book Hamito-Semitic Etymo- logical Dictionary, by V. E. Orel, & O. V. Stolbova]. Languages of the World, 10, 57-61. 8) V. Orel. (1996). On St. Weninger’s review of the Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary. Languages of the World, 10, 63-65. 9) H. Satzinger. (2007). An Egyptologist’s perusal of the Hamito- Semitic Etymological Dictionary of Orel and Stolbova . Lingua Aegyptia, 15, 143-160. 10) F. Kortlandt. (1996). [Review of the book Reconstructing Proto- Afroasiatic (Proto-Afrasian), by C. Ehret]. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics, 17, 183-189.
997575_Bior2014_3-4_02.indd7575_Bior2014_3-4_02.indd 259259 225/11/145/11/14 12:0012:00