Phoenician/Punic and Hebrew
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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 ................................................................................................................................... 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 Al ten .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 s˃Æ< 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