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

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 ...... 1

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 phoenician/punic and hebrew 71 qÆ, ∫Ær ‘grave’ (like *kálbv > References ֶק ֶבר < qíbrv > *qábr* qi∫rì ‘my Bauer, Hans and Pontus Leander. 1922. Historische ִק ְב ִרי < kÆ, lÆ∫ ‘dog’) versus *qibrÛ ֶכּ ֶלב grave’; and feminine participles of the shape Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten .kòμÆ∫Æμ; Testaments. Halle: Niemeyer ֶכּת ֶבת < -zëqan; and Ben-£ayyim, Ze’ev. 1988–1989. “Remarks on Philip ְז ַקן zåqèn ‘old’, but construct ָז ֵקן similarly constructs of the form miq†al from pi’s law” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 53:113–120. -mirbaß ‘resting- Bergsträsser, Gotthelf. 1918. Hebräische Gramma ִמ ְרַבּץ maq†èl nouns, such as .marbèß (Brockelmann tik. Vol. 1. Leipzig: Vogel ַמ ְרֵבּץ place’ < absolute 1908: 108, 147). Blake, Frank R. 1950. “The apparent interchange between a and i in Hebrew”. Journal of Near East- ern Studies 9:76–83. Philippi’s Law is, however, notorious for hav- Blau, Joshua. 1981. “On pausal lengthening, pausal ing as many exceptions as examples: stress shift, Philippi’s law and rule ordering in Biblical Hebrew”. Hebrew Annual Review 5:1–14 tèláúnå< we ﬁnd imperative (reprinted in idem, Topics in Hebrew and Semitic ֵתּ ַל ְכןָ alongside imperfect .(lËúnå< ‘go (fpl)!’, and è rather than a in the linguistics, 36–49. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1998 ֵל ְכ ָנה feminine plural imperfect forms of hif≠il and some ——. 1986. “Remarks on the chronology of Philippi’s pi≠el verbs; law” (in Hebrew). Proceedings of the Ninth World with the alleged development *bíntv > *batt Congress of Jewish studies, Jerusalem, August èμ 4–12, 1985. Division D, vol. 1: Hebrew and other≠ ֵﬠת < baμ above, compare *≠íntv > *≠itt ַבּת < ‘time’, and nearly all nouns of the pattern *qill, Jewish languages, 1–4. Reprinted in idem, Studies whose reﬂex in Tiberian Hebrew is qèl, not qal as in Hebrew Linguistics (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1996), .16–12 ֵאם < predicted by Philippi’s Law, such as *±immv -lè∫ ‘heart’; Brockelmann, Carl. 1908. Grundriss der vergleichen ֵלב < èm ‘mother’; *libbv±* with the alleged development *qíbrv > *qábr > den Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen. Vol. 1. .Berlin: von Reuther ֵס ֶפר < qÆ, ∫Ær above, compare *tsíprv > *sípr ֶק ֶבר sËƒÆ< r ‘book’. Harviainen, Tapani. 1977. On the vocalism of the closed unstressed syllables in Hebrew: A study based on the evidence provided by the transcrip- The only forms to which Philippi’s Law applies tions of St. Jerome and Palestinian punctuations with some degree of consistency, in fact, are (Studia Orientalia 48/1), 16–21. Helsinki: Finnish those of the perfect and imperfect verb para- Oriental Society. Lambdin, Thomas O. 1985. “Philippi’s law reconsid- digms in which the Proto-Semitic theme vowel ered”. Biblical studies presented to Samuel Iwry, *i in an originally closed, accented syllable ed. by Ann Kort and Scott Morschauser, 135–145. appears in Tiberian Hebrew as pata™, forms Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. t lá nå< , and Philippi, Friedrich W. M. 1878. “Das Zahlwort Zwei ֵתּ ַל ְכןָ zåqánt< and ָז ַק ְנ ִתּי such as ì è ú im Semitischen”. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Mor- even in the latter the sound change to a is often genländischen Gesellschaft 32:21–98. blocked by paradigmatic pressure, especially in the derived stems. John Huehnergard Some Hebraists, following Philippi, have (University of Texas at Austin) maintained that the sound rule operated early in the history of Hebrew (e.g., Bergsträsser 1918:149; Ben-£ayyim 1988–1989). Blau Phoenician/Punic and Hebrew (1981; 1986), however, established a relative chronology in which pausal lengthening must 1. Introduction precede Philippi’s Law, so that the latter must therefore be relatively late in the development Hebrew and Phoenician (along with Punic, of Hebrew. Likewise, in a methodologically on which see below) belong to the Canaanite innovative paper, Lambdin (1985) showed that group of North-West Semitic ( Northwest the rule did not operate in all attested varieties Semitic Languages and Hebrew), though no of Biblical Hebrew (such as those exhibited consensus exists on how closely related the two by Babylonian vocalization and by the Greek dialects/languages may be. According to dialect transcriptions of Origen’s Hexapla), and thus geography, Garr (1980) speaks of a dialect must have operated rather late in the history of chain sweeping across all the Canaanite and Tiberian Hebrew. Lambdin also showed that Aramaic dialects (before the Persian period), the phonetic history of the Segholates was with Phoenician at one linguistic extreme, Ara- at least partly determined by the nature of the maic at the other and Hebrew as a minor lin- medial root consonant. guistic center. In historical perspective, Ginsberg

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 72 phoenician/punic and hebrew (1970) places Phoenician and Ugaritic in the Phoenician colonies would be called Poeni by Phoenic sub-group within Canaanite, with their Latin-speaking Roman neighbors; and Hebrew and the Transjordanian dialects clas- from this term derives the modern scholarly sified together in the Hebraic sub-group; while term ‘Punic’ to refer to the stage of the Phoeni- Rainey (2007), somewhat in line with Gins- cian language used in the West under Carthag- berg (though not concerning Ugaritic), sees inian hegemony (Amadasi Guzzo 2005). even stronger links between Hebrew and the In Phoenician/Punic we recognize different Transjordanian dialects, with a concomitant dialects and phases distinguished by ortho- argument against a close Hebrew-Phoenician graphic (in many cases representing phono- relationship. In any case, after Hebrew, Phoe- logical), morphological, and, to a lesser degree, nician/Punic is the best known dialect/language lexical features. In Phoenicia proper, Standard of the Canaanite group. Moreover, regardless Phoenician (or Tyro-Sidonian) is attested from of which classification schema one adheres to, about the 9th to the 2nd (or perhaps 1st) almost all scholars would agree that Hebrew century B.C.E., though some of the important and Phoenician were characterized by a cer- inscriptions in this dialect come from Cyprus tain amount, if not a high degree, of mutual and Anatolia (e.g., the aforementioned Kara- intelligibility. tepe). However, attested earlier is the Byblian The first known Phoenician inscriptions dialect (Amadasi Guzzo 1994; Gzella forth- belong to the 11th century B.C.E. (cf. Lemaire coming) which has two phases: a) an ancient 2006–2007; Rollston 2008, against Sass 2005). one attested mainly in the 11th-century (?) As such, Phoenician is attested slightly earlier A™ìròm sarcophagus (more archaic than the than Hebrew, whose first inscriptions date to following documents), and by a group of royal the 10th century B.C.E. Hebrew eventually inscriptions from the 10th–early 9th century; achieved a long and extensive literary tradition and then, after a gap, b) a series of Persian- (cf. the biblical books especially), while Phoe- period (late 6th–late 4th century B.C.E.) nician is known only from inscriptions. The inscriptions reflecting the influence of Standard Phoenician epigraphic corpus comprises several Phoenician. In the West, a Punic phase devel- hundred texts from the Levant and neighboring oped from Phoenician starting with the early/ lands, some of which (e.g., Karatepe and Incirli) mid-6th century B.C.E. After the destruction of are quite extensive, and reaches approximately Carthage (146 B.C.E.), we speak of Late Punic 7000 texts when one includes the Punic mate- for the language which is still written in Punic rial. The epigraphic material has been published script until the 2nd century C.E. (as proven by over the course of more than a century in the KAI 173 from Sardinia, mentioning the name two series Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum of the emperor Antoninus Pius [r. 138–161]; cf. (CIS I; 1881–) and Répertoire d’Épigraphie Amadasi Guzzo 1999; Sznycer 1999; Jongeling Sémitique (RÉS; 1900–), with selections of the 2008). The language survived for at least three most important texts collected in works such as more centuries, however, since the writings KAI and Gibson 1982. of St. Augustine (354–450), who hailed from The Greeks referred to the inhabitants of Hippo in modern-day eastern Algeria, demon- coastal Lebanon and northern Israel, and pre- strate that Punic was still spoken in his day. sumably of inland southern Syria as well, as Proposals for more detailed dialect divisions Phoenicians—though they probably called than that offered here (see, e.g., Garbini 1988) themselves Canaanites. The language and its are based mainly on the geographic distribution speakers spread quickly: by the 9th century of the inscriptions. B.C.E. Phoenician travellers had already reached The Phoenicians used a 22-letter alphabet, southern Anatolia, Egypt, Cyprus, Crete, Rho- which in turn was borrowed by the Israel- des and other Aegean islands, and probably ites and all others in the Levant (Arameans, Mainland Greece. From the first half of the 8th Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, Philistines). century B.C.E., they founded towns (‘colonies’) In the West, a Punic variant of the Phoenician on Cyprus and in the Western Mediterranean, script developed, especially under Carthagin- most importantly Carthage, near modern-day ian influence. The script which prevailed in Tunis (founded according to tradition in 814 the Late Punic phase is a cursive variant of the B.C.E.). Eventually the people of these western Phoenician alphabet, called Neo-Punic. It is © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 phoenician/punic and hebrew 73 šån< å< ‘year’ < *šanat), though one must , ָשׁ ָנה important to note that while the scribes who wrote Hebrew, Aramaic, etc., developed matres admit that this feature is characteristic of Ara- lectionis to indicate vowels, especially long maic as well. vowels, this practice was not adopted by Phoe- As noted, Phoenician and Hebrew are closely nician scribes, who apparently were much more related and typologically similar. Nonetheless, conservative in their approach. As a result, a many recognizable differences exist. In what ,mlkt is ambiguous, with follows, we list some of these distinctions מלכת form such as possible meanings including (but not limited to) concentrating on phonology and, to a lesser ‘I ruled’ and ‘you ruled’, though, fortunately, extent, morphology, syntax, and vocabulary. context usually helps to resolve potential ambi- On occasion, we cite parallels from Hebrew, guities. Only in the Late Punic texts do vowel especially from compositions presumed to be letters appear, most likely under the influence written in IH, such as the sections of Kings that of Greek and Latin orthography. describe the northern kingdom of Israel (Rends- Other sources for Phoenician include the burg 2002), the stories of the northern judges transcriptions of personal names in Egyptian, (Rendsburg 2003), the book of Proverbs (Gins- Assyrian, Greek, and Latin. We also have a berg 1982:35–36), selected psalms (Rendsburg ten-line speech in Punic preserved in Plautus’ 1990), and others. These IH features represent Latin comedy Poenulus (Sznycer 1967; Grat- grammatical and lexical isoglosses linking IH wick 1971), some Punic inscriptions written in and Phoenician. the Greek alphabet, and about fifty so-called ‘Latino-Punic’ inscriptions (2nd–5th century 2. Phonology C.E.), that is, texts written in the Punic language using Latin letters. Each of these sources Phoenician had 22 consonants, represented by provides information about the late phases of 22 alphabetic signs. Hebrew possessed the addi- the language (Kerr 2010). tional phonemes /«/, /x/ and /ÿ/ (Blau 1982), Our knowledge of Phoenician/Punic remains which did not exist in Phoenician. In the course partial because of the limited sources, the pres- of its development, Phoenician/Punic merged ent lack of a real literature, and the nature of /š/ with /s/; cf. the Phoenician transcriptions ptlmyš for Greek פתלמיש ptlmys and פתלמיס the writing system. The language must be partly reconstructed based on comparison with related Πτολεμαιος (KAI 19.5, 6–7 and KAI 42.2; 43.4, languages, especially with the better known 6, 7, 8). However, some Latino-Punic inscrip- Hebrew. By contrast, the contribution of Phoe- tions apparently distinguish between the two nician to our understanding of Hebrew is very phonemes and use the Greek character Σ for limited. In some instances, Phoenician helps to /š/, but Latin S for /s/. Compare Latino-Punic account for specific Hebrew features, especially Σumar ‘watcher’ (KAI 179.3), correspond- šòmèr (see further PPG3 שֹׁ ֵמר those characteristic of Israelian (i.e., northern) ing to Hebrew Hebrew (henceforth IH). This is due to a) the §§43–48). Somewhat surprisingly Greek ren- geographical proximity between northern Israel derings of the names of the two large Phoenician and Phoenicia, b) cultural influence between city-states present different letters, even though the two, especially in the direction of Phoenicia both begin with the same Phoenician (though ,/ß/ צ over Israel (as attested archaeologically in some apparently not Proto-Semitic) consonant ’ßr) and Σιδών ‘Sidon צר northern Israelite sites), and c) the intermar- viz., Τύρος ‘Tyre’ (for ßdn) (PPG3 §11 note; see also Steiner צדן riage of the royal families, as described in the (for Bible specifically for Ahab, king of Israel, and 1982:66–67). Peculiar to Phoenician/Punic is Jezebel, daughter of Ethbaal of Tyre (even if the the tendency for voiced /z/ (<*ð) to become ’skr ‘he remembered סכר Bible uses the term ‘Sidonian’ [1 Kgs 16.31]). voiceless /s/, as in ’st ‘this סת zå< úar) and Late Punic ָז ַכר The best examples of features shared by (Hebrew .([.zòμ ‘this’ [f ז ֹאת Phoenician and northern Hebrew come from (m. and f.) (cf. Hebrew the Samaria ostraca: a) monophthongization As in Hebrew, stops tended to become frica- yèn tives, without following, however, the rules ין of the diphthong ay > è, as reflected in ‘wine’ (cf. Biblical Hebrew [reflecting Judahite established for Tiberian Hebrew (for this rea- šat son, in the conventional reconstruction of שת yayin); and b) the use of ַי ִין [Hebrew ‘year’ (< *šatt < *šant) (cf. Biblical Hebrew Phoenician/Punic words, these consonants are © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 74 phoenician/punic and hebrew usually transcribed, regardless of their position long vowel, the original -hù suffix was written /l-±dtw /l-adòttiw/ < /*la-±adòttiu לאדתו ,.within the word, as stops and not as fricatives). -w, e.g In particular, there is not enough evidence for < /*la-±adòtti-hù/ ‘for his lady’. the entire set of the so-called bgdkpt letters. In Phoenician/Punic, the suffix pronoun of The development is clear for /p/, which in Late the 3rd masculine and feminine plural, /-humu/ Punic was always pronounced [f], even at the and /-hima/, respectively, also had two variants: beginning of words, e.g., Latino-Punic fel ‘he did’ after an original -u or -a, these were /-òm/ and ,.m, e.g- -ם på< ≠al. Concern- /-èm/, respectively, both written ָפּ ַﬠל IRT 873.2) versus Hebrew) (.zr≠m /zar≠òm/ < /*zar≠a-humu/ ‘their (m זרעם –ing /k/ and /t/, only in the West from the 3rd -msprm /misparèm/ < /*mis מספרם 2nd century B.C.E. do Greek and Latin tran- seed’ and scriptions of Phoenician/Punic words attest to parahima/ ‘their (f.) number’. After -i or a long ,nm- -נם the regular fricative pronunciation (for details, vowel, these suffixes were written לאדננם ,.see PPG3 §37). For the other stops, the devel- for masc. /-nòm/ and fem. /-nèm/, e.g לכננם ;’opment is less certain (cf. PPG3 §§38 and 41). l-±dnnm /l-adòninòm/ ‘for their (m.) lord As in Hebrew, /n/ normally assimilates before lknnm /lakòninèm/ ‘for their (f.) being’ (KAI nm is- -נם another consonant. In Punic, however, there is 14.20). The origin of the variant a strong tendency to secondary dissimilation, as unclear. Again, Byblian preserved the original lhm /≠alèhùm/ ‘on them’. For the≠ עלהם mnßbt /manßibt/(?) ‘stele’, instead of -h, as in מנצבת in -mßbt /maßßibt/(?). 3rd person suffixes of Phoenician, see Huehner מצבת Phoenician Concerning vowels, along with the general gard (1991) and PPG3 (§112). Canaanite shift of (long) /à/ > /ò/, in Phoeni- In the nominal qatl, qitl, and qutl patterns cian stressed (short) /a/ also developed into /o/ (‘segholate’ in Hebrew; Noun), Phoenician (long?), as revealed by transcriptions such as did not insert, as does Tiberian Hebrew, an -bd ‘servant’, for exam≠ עבד .ׇ lå< ∫ån< ) and ναδωρ anaptyptic vowelל ָבן λαβον ‘white’ (cf. Hebrew .nå< ≈ar). ple, was transcribed into Greek as αβδ- (cf ָנ ַדר he vowed’ (cf. Hebrew‘ Æ∫Æ≈). Similarly, we know that≠ ֶﬠ ֶבד Contrary to Judahite Hebrew, diphthongs Hebrew mlk was pronounced /milk/ (cf. Hebrew מלך were regularly monophthongized in Phoenician mÆlÆú) (PPG3 §§81a, 193b; see ֶמ ֶלך < bt /bèt/ ‘house, temple’ ver- *malk בת see above), as in) -ll /lèl/ ‘night’ ver- also Fassberg 2002:210). By Late Punic, how לל bayiμ, and ַבּ ִית sus Hebrew laylå< . With some exceptions ever, there may have been a tendency to develop ַל ְי ָלה sus Hebrew ,’qb≠r ‘tomb קבער in Byblos, intervocalic /h/ was regularly elided; anaptyxis, as illustrated by consequently, the system of the suffix pronouns probably /q(a)bar/ (ﬠ ≠ in this period was often of the 3rd masculine and feminine singular dif- used to represent the vowel /a/). fered from the Hebrew variants. After -u and Unlike Hebrew, Phoenician feminine singu- t in- -ת a (the original nominative and accusative case lar nominal suffix preserved the final- ’mlkt ‘queen מלכת ending), the suffixes -hù and -hà developed the absolute state, as in malkå< ). The form of ַמ ְל ָכּה into the vowels -ò and -à, respectively, though /milkot/ (cf. Hebrew these vocalic suffix are not indicated in the the feminine singular suffix is thus /-ot/, based ql ‘his/her voice’ on the aforementioned stressed /a/ > /o/ shift קל ,.Phoenician script, cf., e.g t. Such forms- -ת ql±). Unlike in Hebrew, and the preservation of final קלא though in Punic) after -i (the original genitive case ending) or occur in IH texts as well (note the feminine a long vowel (dual/plural endings), these suf- singular verbs predicated to these subjects), ,å< úmòμ ‘wisdom’ (Prov. 1.20, 9.1™ ָח ְכמוֹת ,.y and, in Late Punic, e.g- -י fixes were written .aúmòμ ‘wise woman’ (Judg™ ַח ְכ ֣מוֹת ,(y±, indicating a pronunciation 24.7- -יא sometimes -maßßë∫òμ ‘pil ַמ ְצּ ֥בוֹת b-bty /bi-bètiyù/ < 5.29, Prov. 14.1); see also בבתי ,.iyù/ and /-iyà/, e.g-/ b-d ±dny lar’ (Ezek. 26.11) in a proclamation directed at בד אדני ;’bi-bèti-hù/ ‘in his temple*/ /bòd ±adòniyà/ < /*bi-yad ±adòni-hà/ ‘from her Tyre ( Addressee-Switching). lord’. In the dialect of Byblos (except A™ìròm, where intervocalic /h/ was still present), only 3. Morphology the 3rd person feminine singular preserved the mdh /≠ammùdèhà/ ‘her For the independent personal pronoun of the≠ עמדה ,.original /h/, e.g columns’, while in the masculine, after -i or a 1st person singular, Phoenician/Punic had

.(nk /±anòkì/ and not, with prosthetic ±aleph (cf. Holmstedt 2007± אנך only the older form ֲא ֶשׁר like Hebrew, the apparently more recent form This would then contrast with Hebrew ,nì. In Phoenician/Punic the distinction ±≥šÆr, which is of nominal origin. However≤± ֲא ִני š and± אש between the independent pronoun of the 3rd others have argued that Phoenician -šÆr are cognate, with Phoeni≤± ֲא ֶשׁר person masculine and feminine consisted of Hebrew a vowel alternation: /u/ for the masculine, /i/ cian attesting to an abbreviated form resulting for the feminine, while the ending was /m/ for from grammaticalization (Huehnergard 2006). both genders: masculine humat(u) and femi- Regardless, we may note that IH texts use the ,-šÆ ֶשׁ- (hmt. This is shorter form (without prosthetic ±aleph המת nine himat(u), both written contrary to Hebrew, which differentiates the e.g., the Song of Deborah (Judg. 5.7 [2x]) and genders (in the 2nd and 3rd person plural) by the Gideon cycle (Judg. 6.17, 7.12, 8.26) (in šå-< ), both ָשׁ- n-, respectively, the first three attestations actually- -נ- m- and- -מ- the consonants while the vowel was è (< *i) for both genders of which are geographically set in the north. š, Late Punic, in contrast to all± אש hènnå< ). The Instead of ֵה ָנּה .hèmmå< and fem ֵה ָמּה .masc) same difference between masculine and femi- other West Semitic languages, sometimes used /my /mì מי nine appears in the suffixed pronouns, Hebrew the interrogative/indefinite pronoun /m±) /mò/ > /mu מא m (Late Punic מ m for the masculine, ‘who’ and- -ם having the ending ±mnßbt m מנצבת מא בענא יורחתן ,.n for the feminine, while Phoenician/ ‘what’, e.g- -ן but ’m/-nm for both genders, but b≠n± ywr™tn ‘the stele which Yura™tan built- -נם/-ם Punic has a vowel opposition, namely /ò/ versus /è/ (see (Jongeling 2008: 83). above). To negate nouns and verbs, Phoenician/Punic bl /bal/ (along with the בל y /±ì/ and± אי Contrary to Hebrew, the Phoenician/Punic used ybl /±ìbal/), as opposed to± איבל causative was yip≠il instead of hif≠il, for exam- compound lò. For a Hebrew example from ל ֹא yqdšt /yiqdištì/ ‘I consecrated’; in Hebrew יקדשת ple ַוּב ֽל־י ֹ ְאמ ֙רוּ Punic and Late Punic the prefix was written a prophet active in the north, see ù-∫al-yòmrù li-l∫å< ∫åm< ‘and they do not ִל ְל ָב ָ֔בם y-. Two examples of the yif≠il± אי- or -± א- may occur in the Bible (Gordon 1951:50, 59): say in their hearts’ (Hos. 7.12). For prohibi- l was used, corresponding± אל ,tions, however ַי ִכּ ָ ֑ירנוּ ;(yòda≠tì ‘I informed’ (1 Sam. 21.3 ַ֔יוֹד ְﬠ ִתּי .al± ַאל yakkìrån< ù ‘he [Israel] recognizes us (not)’ (Isa. to Hebrew 63.16), though, admittedly, neither one of these passages occurs in an Israelian context. 4. Syntax The root of the verb ‘go’ in Phoenician/Punic ylk (with initial yod, as also in Ugaritic), In syntax, Phoenician/Punic did not make use ילך is (hlk (with initial of the ancient preterite (prefix conjugation הלך in contrast to Hebrew he), though note that the prefix-conjugation preceded by w- as a narrative tense (Hebrew in Hebrew seems to be built on the root wayyiq†ol). Phoenician instead developed the ylk. usage of the (absolute) infinitive followed by ילך The passive participle probably had the pat- an independent personal pronoun for narra- wškr ±nk ≠ly ושכר אנך עלי מלך אשר ,.tern qa†ìl, as in Aramaic and against Hebrew tion, e.g /b≠ryk ‘blessed’ and mlk ±šr /wa-šakor ±anòkì ≠alaya milk ±aššùr בעריך qa†ùl; cf. Late Punic the personal names transcribed in Latin as ‘and I engaged against him the king of Assyria’ Baricbal and Baric. (KAI 24.7–8; though for a different analysis As relative/determinative marker, Old Byblian of such constructions see LipiÐski 2010). Note ְו ָנ ֥פוֹץ ַה ַכּ ִ ֖דּים ,.instances of this usage in IH, e.g זוּ zÆ and ֶזה z, corresponding to Hebrew ז had zù. The Hebrew forms occur in archaic poems, wë-nå< ƒòß hak-kaddìm ‘and the vessels shat- e.g., Judg. 5.5, Exod. 15.13, 16 (the former is tered’ (Judg. 7.19; albeit with a noun rather also northern), but occasionally in IH texts as than a pronoun as subject), once more in the .å< ∫ìúå< zÆ yëlå< ≈Æúå< ‘your Gideon story± ָא ִביָך ֶז֣ה ְי ָל ֶ ֑דָך ,.well, e.g father who bore you’ (Prov. 23:26). Standard Phoenician/Punic used the relative/ 5. Lexicon š. According to some± אש determinative marker /š stems from an original Some lexical differences between Phoenician± אש scholars, the form š (supposedly connected with Akkadian ša), Punic and Hebrew are worth noting. Phoenician ש © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 76 phoenician/punic and hebrew .Donner, Herbert, and Wolfgang Röllig. 1966–2002 ָה ָיה kn /kòn/ ‘he was’ versus Hebrew כן uses :.p≠l /pa≠al or pa≠ol/ ‘he did, made’ Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. 3 vols פעל ; >håy< å 5 2 2 -ׇ på< ≠al is I 2002, II 1966, III 1969. Wiesbaden: Harrasפּ ַﬠל å< «å< (Hebrew≠ ָﬠ ָשׂה versus Hebrew sowitz (= KAI). rß ‘gold’ versus Hebrew Fassberg, Steven E. 2002. “Why doesn’t melex™ חרץ ;(rare and poetic ”?ׇ ™år< ùß, see below); appear as ma:lex in pause in Tiberian Hebrewחרוּץ zåh< å< ∫ (on Hebrew ָז ָהב .ìr (on Hebrew (in Hebrew) Lłšonénu 64:207–219≠ ִﬠיר qrt ‘city’ versus Hebrew קרת .yr ‘month’ versus Friedrich, Johannes, and Wolfgang Röllig. 1999 ירח ;(q r , see below ֶקֶרת Æ Æμ ™ Phönizisch-punische Grammatik. 3rd edition, ed. yÆra™, see by Maria Giulia Amadasi Guzzo with cooperation ֶיַרח ò≈Æš (on Hebrew™ חֹ ֶדשׁ Hebrew šm ‘men’ (based directly on singu- of Werner R. Mayer. Rome: Pontifical Biblical± אשם ;(below 3 .( nåš< ìm Institute (= PPG≤± ֲא ָנ ִשׁים š ‘man’) versus Hebrew± אש lar (built from a different stem from the singular Garbini, Giovanni. 1988. “I dialetti del Fenicio”. Il Semitico nordoccidentale. Studi di storia lingui- -ìš). stica (Studi semitici N.S. 5), 51–68. Rome: Univer± ִאישׁ form Traces of such forms occur in the Bible, e.g., sità degli Studi “La Sapienza”. -ׇ ™år< ùß ‘gold’ appears four times in Prov- Garr, W. Randall. 1985. Dialect geography of Syriaחרוּץ Palestine, 1000–586 B.C.E. Philadelphia: Univer- erbs and is used in Zech. 9.3 in a judgment sity of Pennsylvania Press. qÆrÆμ ‘city’ appears Gibson, John C. L. 1982. Textbook of Syrian Semitic ֶקֶרת ;directed against Tyre -ìšìm ‘men’ inscriptions. Vol. 3: Phoenician inscriptions includ± ִא ִישׁים four times in Proverbs; and occurs in Ps. 141.4 and Prov. 8.4. Finally, ing inscriptions in the mixed dialect of Arslan Tash. Oxford: Clarendon. -yÆra™ ‘month’ in Ginsberg, H. L. 1970. “The Northwest Semitic lan ֶיַרח note the presence of 1 Kgs 6.37–38, 8.2, along with the Phoenician guages”. Patriarchs, ed. by Benjamin Mazar, 102– month names Ziv, Bul, and Etanim, suggesting 124, 293. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers that Phoenician scribes are responsible for the University Press. ——. 1982. The Israelian heritage of Judaism. New Temple-building account, just as Phoenician York: Jewish Theological Seminary. architects and craftsmen were responsible for Gordon, Cyrus H. 1951. “Marginal notes on the its actual construction. ancient Middle East”. Jahrbuch für Kleinasiatische Forschung 2:50–61. Gratwick, A. S. 1971. “Hanno’s Punic speech in the References Poenulus of Plautus”. Hermes 99:25–45. CIS = Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum. Gzella, Holger. Forthcoming. “The linguistic position IRT = Reynolds and Ward Perkins 1952. of Old Byblian”. Lingustic studies in Phoenician KAI = Donner and Röllig 1966–2002. grammar, ed. by Robert D. Holmstedt and Aaron PPG3 = Friedrich and Röllig 1999. Schade. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. RÉS = Répertoire d’Épigraphie sémitique. Harris, Zellig S. 1936. A grammar of the Phoenician language. New Haven, Connecticut: American Amadasi Guzzo, Maria Giulia. 1994. “Lingua e Oriental Society. scrittura a Biblo”. Biblo. Una città e la sua cul- Holmstedt, Robert D. “The etymologies of Hebrew tura, ed. by Enrico Acquaro, Federico Mazza, ±≥šer and šeC-”. Journal of Near Eastern Studies Sergio Ribichini, Gabriella Scandone, and Paolo 66:177–191. Xella, 179–194. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Huehnergard, John. 1991. “The development of Ricerche. the third person suffixes in Phoenician”. Maarav ——. 1999. “Quelques spécificités phonologiques du 7:183–194. punique tardif et la question de leur chronologie”. ——. 2006. “On the etymology of the Hebrew rela- Numismatique, langues, écritures et arts du livre, tive šÆ-”. Biblical Hebrew in its Northwest Semitic spécificité des arts figurés. Actes du VIIe col- setting: Typological and historical perspectives, loque international sur l’histoire et l’archéologie ed. by Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz, de l’Afrique du Nord, Nice, 21–31 octobre 1996, 103–125. Jerusalem / Winona Lake, Indiana: ed. by Serge Lancel, 183–190. Paris: Éditions du Magnes / Eisenbrauns. comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques. Jongeling, Karel. 2008. Handbook of Neo-Punic ——. 2005. “Les phases du phénicien: Phénicien inscriptions. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. et punique”. Proceedings of the 10th Meeting Kerr, Robert M. 2010. Latino-Punic epigraphy. of Hamito-Semitic (Afroasiatic) Linguistics (Flor- Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ence, 18–20 April 2001), ed. by Pelio Fronzaroli Krahmalkov, Charles R. 2000. Phoenician-Punic dic- and Paolo Marrassini, 95–103. Florence: Diparti- tionary. Leuven: Peeters. mento di Linguistica, Università di Firenze. ——. 2001. Phoenician-Punic grammar. Leiden: Brill. Avishur, Yitzhak. 2000. Phoenician inscriptions Lemaire, André. 2006–2007. “La datation des rois and the Bible. Tel-Aviv: Archaeological Center. de Byblos Abibaal et Elibaal et les relations entre Blau, Joshua. 1982. On polyphony in Biblical l’Égypte et le Levant au Xe s. av. n.è.”. Académie Hebrew. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences des inscriptions et belles-lettres. Comptes rendus: and Humanities. 1697–1716. Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum. Pars prima. 1881– . Paris: E Reipublicae Typographeo (= CIS I). © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 phonetics of modern hebrew: acoustic 77

LipiÐski, Edward. 2010. “Le gérondif en Phénicien”. ence of Phonetics is divided into two areas of Journal of Semitic Studies 55:1–10. speech investigation: the study of the physiol- Masson, Olivier and Maurice Sznycer. 1972. Recher- ogy of speech production, articulatory phonet- ches sur les Phéniciens à Chypre. Geneva / Paris: Droz. ics; and the research of the acoustic output of Peckham, J. Brian. 1968. The development of the speech, acoustic phonetics. Phonetics is related Late Phoenician scripts. Cambridge, Massachu- to phonology, as both fields study speech sounds. setts: Harvard University Press. However, phonetics is distinct from phonology Rainey, Anson F. 2007. “Redefining Hebrew—A Transjordanian language”. Maarav 14:193–203. in that it handles tangible properties of speech, Rendsburg, Gary A. 1990. Linguistic evidence for while phonology focuses on the abstract prop- the northern origin of selected psalms. Atlanta, erties of speech sounds, their organization and Georgia: Scholars. patterning cross-linguistically. ——. 2002. Israelian Hebrew in the Book of Kings. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL. ——. 2003. “A comprehensive guide to Israelian 2. History of Phonetics Hebrew: Grammar and lexicon”. Orient 38:5–35. Répertoire d’Épigraphie sémitique. 1900–. Paris: Imprimerie nationale (= RÉS). Theories about speech production date back to Reynolds, Joyce M. and John B. Ward Perkins. 1952. the 18th century; however, the investigation of The inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania, in col- the acoustic output of speech began only in the laboration with Salvatore Aurigemma, et al. Rome late 1930’s, when machines such as the spectro- / London: British School at Rome (= IRT). Rollston, Christopher A. 2008. “The dating of the graph and cineradiographs became available. early royal Byblian Phoenician inscriptions: A Acoustic phonetic research developed with the response to Benjamin Sass”. Maarav 15:57–93. technological ability to record, measure and Sass, Benjamin. 2005. The alphabet at the turn of the analyze speech. millennium (Tel-Aviv. Occasional publications, 4). Tel-Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Phonetic research in Modern Hebrew is Archaeology. scarce, and much of the available phonetic Segert, Stanislav. 1976. A grammar of Phoenician research is largely acoustic in nature (for few and Punic. Munich: C. H. Beck. studies in articulatory phonetics see Articula- Steiner, Richard C. 1982. Affricated ßade in the Semitic languages. New York: American Academy tory Phonetics). Several studies can be men- for Jewish Research. tioned here: Chayen (1972, 1973), whose work Sznycer, Maurice. 1967. Les passages puniques en was mostly descriptive in nature, recorded and transcription latine dans le “Poenulus” de Plaute. studied the Modern Hebrew accent of the Paris: Klincksieck. ——. 1999. “Le punique en Afrique du Nord à 1960’s. Devens (1980) documented the speech l’époque romaine d’après les témoignages épi- of Oriental Hebrew speakers at the end of the graphiques”. Numismatique, langues, écritures et 1970’s and beginning of the 1980’s. Enoch and arts du livre, spécificité des arts figurés. Actes du VIIe colloque international sur l’histoire et Kaplan (1969) provided measurements regard- l’archéologie de l’Afrique du Nord, Nice, 21–31 ing Modern Hebrew stress. Kreitman (2008) octobre 1996, ed. by Serge Lancel, 171–180. Paris: presented data of an acoustic phonetic study of Éditions du comité des travaux historiques et consonantal clusters in Modern Hebrew. Laufer scientifiques. (1994, 1995, 1998) provides data regarding Maria Giulia Amadasi Guzzo the acoustic nature of Modern Hebrew con- (“Sapienza” Università di Roma) sonants, particularly the nature of voicing in Gary A. Rendsburg obstruents, while Laufer (1975, 1977) provides (Rutgers University) data regarding Modern Hebrew vowels. Lastly, Aronson et al. (1996), Most, Amir and Tobin (2000), Schwarzwald (1972) and Tene (1962) Phonetics of Modern Hebrew: all provide acoustic measurements of vowels in Acoustic Modern Hebrew.

1. Introduction to Acoustic 3. Speech Production and Phonetics Acoustic Output

Phonetics is a branch of linguistics which focuses Speech commences when air is expelled from on the study of speech sounds from a concrete the lungs through the vocal tract and is released physiological and physical perspective. The sci- into space. As a result, the air which exits the © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3