DOCSLIB.ORG

Syriac Nsr, Ugaritic Nsr, Hebrew Nsr Ii, Akkadian Nsr Ii

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Syriac Nsr, Ugaritic Nsr, Hebrew Nsr Ii, Akkadian Nsr Ii SYRIAC NSR, UGARITIC NSR, HEBREW NSR II, AKKADIAN NSR II by JOHN F. HEALEY Cardiff This note suggests the existence in Ugaritic, Hebrew and Akkadian of the proto-Semitic root *N$R, best known in Syriac. The num- bering of the Hebrew and Akkadian roots as N$R II is meant to contrast with N$R I which has the well-established sense "keep, guard" in both languages (1) There is a well-documented Syriac verb nefar/na;rar (also in Jewish Aramaic-nefar) with a range of meanings, according to Payne Smith 2), from "chirp" (striduit) to "sigh, groan, murmur, howl, shriek, lament" (quiritavit). Derived nouns include ndsartd, "song", equated also by Payne Smith with naenia, "lament" and "lullaby". He also quotes Arabic bukj', "weeping". This nefar may be related to Arabic sarsara, "scream", and farra, "chirp, etc." 3). nesar appears in Syriac alongside near, "keep, etc.", the /t/ being usually regarded as an Aramaic development (cf. older Aramaic n?rr and the Aramaism in later Hebrew ntr) 4). According to the regular pattern of consonantal correspondences, the proto-Semitic form of these two roots would be *nsr and *ntr respectively. They would be expected to appear in Akkadian and Hebrew a s nsr and in Ugaritic as nfr and n?r (or ngr). 1) In the present discussion the Hebrew noun neser, "sprout, shoot", is not relevant. Cf. F. Brown, S. R. Driver, C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament(Oxford, 1907) (henceforth BDB), pp. 665-6. 2) R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus (Oxford, 1879-91), II, cols. 2442-5. Cf. also J. Payne Smith, A CompendiousSyriac Dictionary (Oxford, 1903), D. 349. For Jewish Aramaic ne sar, cf. M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmiand the Midrashic Literature (New York, Berlin, London, 1926), p. 930. 3) Cf. H. Wehr, A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic (Wiesbaden, 1961), (English ed. Milton Cowan), pp. 510, 511. 4) Cf. S. Moscati (ed.), An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages(Wiesbaden, 1969), § 8.18. Vetus Testamentum,Vol. XXVI, Fasc. 4 430 (2) As expected the two appear distinctly in Ugaritic as nsr and ngr. The latter is common though there has been much dispute about it. The /i/ always found in the written form instead of (also in other words) may be an orthographic peculiarity with the pronunciation still This is, however, unlikely for it can be seen that /i/ has its normal value from a word list which equates nafâru (Akkadian) with Ugaritic ni-ib-rttlJJ (syllabic for njr(gw) ) 5). We should also note the dispute between S. E. Loewenstamm and A. F. Rainey whether the assumed root is ngr or gyr (so Loewenstamm). This seems to have been settled in Rainey's favour (cf. the Ugaritiea text quoted above and clear instances of ngr, as in 4 viii 14 ff.) 6). The other root appears at least once in nfrt (CTA 16 vi 5). In his glossary entry C. H. Gordon refers to the Syriac verb 1). It has been normally assumed that n rrt is in close parallelism with bkt in the preceding line. Since lamentation fits the context well, Gordon translated the two words as "weeping" and "sobbing" (nfrt) s). This must be looked at further since M. Dahood misrepresents nsrt as parallel to bt and meaning "enclosure" (cf. Hebrew BDB, p. 666) 9). J. C. de Moor and P. van der Lugt rightly reject the equation of Ugaritic nsr with Hebrew nsr I, since Hebrew J1:fr I is certainly to be equated with Ugaritic ngr 10). But the suggestion that nsr II operates in Hebrew opens the question again, though not in the case quoted by Dahood (Job xxvii 18). In any case Dahood's translation of the Ugaritic lines is at odds with most others. The text reads: 5) C. F.-A. Schaeffer (ed.), Ugaritica V (Paris, 1968) (henceforth Ugar. V) 137 I 11'; cf. 135 rev. 17', 20'. Other Ugaritic texts are quoted according to A. Herdner, Corpus des Tablettes en cunéiformesalpbabétiques (Paris, 1963) (hence- forth CTA). 6) The arguments arc found in B. Hartmann, Supp. VT 16 (1967), pp. 102-5; S. E. Loewenstamm, BASOR 194 (1969), pp. 52-4; A. F. Rainey, Leshonenu35 (1970), pp. 11-15; Loewenstamm, Leshonenu36 (1971), pp. 67-70. 7) Ugaritic Textbook (Rome, 1965) (henceforth UT), § 19.1691. 8) Ugaritic Literature (Rome, 1949), p. 81. 9) In Ras Shamra Parallels I, (ed. L. R. Fisher) (Rome, 1972), II 132. 10) BibOr 31 (1974), p. 11. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Towards Understanding the Status of the Dual in Pre-Islamic Arabic
    Towards Understanding the Status of the Dual in Pre-Islamic Arabic MUHAMMAD AL-SHARKAWI (Wayne State University, Detroit) Abstract This article suggests that the dual suffix in pre-Islamic Arabic did not differentiate for case. Tamīm, one of the most trustworthy pre-Islamic dialects, treated the dual suffix invariably although it had a full case system. There are also tokens of the same invariable treatment in the Qurʾān. The article proposes that the suffix long vowel variation due to the phenomenon of ʾimāla makes the formal origin of the invariable dual suffix difficult to ascribe to the East and Northwest Semitic oblique dual allomorph. Keywords: Dual, pre-Islamic Arabic, ʾimāla, Classical Arabic, vowel harmony. Introduction This article discusses data on the dual suffix in pre-Islamic dialects from medieval Arab grammarians and manuals of qirāʾāt to suggest that the status of the dual suffix in the pre- Islamic Arabic linguistic situation was unique among the Semitic languages.1 The article does not, however, seek to take a comparative Semitic framework. It rather seeks to discuss the dual suffix behavior on the eve of the Arab conquests and probably immediately thereafter. Although attempts to understand particular structural concepts of pre-Islamic Arabic are forthcoming, the formal, functional and semantic shape of the dual system remains to be studied in detail. In addition, despite the limited and sporadic data about the morphological and syntactic aspects of pre-Islamic Arabic,2 the dual suffix3 is one of the features of pre-Islamic Arabic dialects that can shed light on both the position of grammati- cal case4 in the Arabic dialects in the peninsula, and how it came to be standardized after the emergence of Islam.
    [Show full text]
  • Ugaritic Studies and the Hebrew Bible, 1968-1998 (With an Excursus on Judean Monotheism and the Ugaritic Texts)
    UGARITIC STUDIES AND THE HEBREW BIBLE, 1968-1998 (WITH AN EXCURSUS ON JUDEAN MONOTHEISM AND THE UGARITIC TEXTS) by MARK S. SMITH Philadelphia This presentation offers a synopsis of the major texts and tools as well as intellectual topics and trends that have dominated the field of Ugaritic-biblical studies since 1968. 1 This year marked a particu­ lar watershed with the publication of Ugaritica V 2 which included fourteen new Ugaritic texts and several polyglots. For the sake of convenience, this discussion is divided into three periods: 1968-1985, 1985 to the present, and prospects for the future. The texts and tools for each period are listed, followed by a brief discussion of the intellectual topics and trends. This survey is hardly exhaustive; it is intended instead to be representative. 1 Earlier technical surveys of Ugaritic-biblical studies include W.F. Albright, "The Old Testament and Canaanite Language and Literature", CBQ. 7 (1945), pp. 5-31; H. Donner, "Ugaritismen in der Psalmenforschung", ZAW 79 (1967), pp. 322-50; H.L. Ginsberg, "Ugaritic Studies and the Bible", BA 8 (1945), pp. 41-58; H. Ringgren, "Ugarit und das Alte Testament: einige methodolische Erwagungen", UF II (1979 = C.F.A. Scha4fer Festschrift ), pp. 719-21 ; and E. Ullendorff, "Ugaritic Studies Within Their Semitic and Eastern Mediterranean Setting" , BJRL 46 (1963), pp. 236-44. Popular surveys include: M. Baldacci, La scoperta di Ugarit: La citta-stato ai primordi della Bibbia (Piemme, 1996); P.C. Craigie, Ugarit and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI, 1983); AHW. Curtis, Ugarit (Has Shamra) , Cities of the Biblical World (Cambridge, 1985); AS.
    [Show full text]
  • Classical and Modern Standard Arabic Marijn Van Putten University of Leiden
    Chapter 3 Classical and Modern Standard Arabic Marijn van Putten University of Leiden The highly archaic Classical Arabic language and its modern iteration Modern Standard Arabic must to a large extent be seen as highly artificial archaizing reg- isters that are the High variety of a diglossic situation. The contact phenomena found in Classical Arabic and Modern Standard Arabic are therefore often the re- sult of imposition. Cases of borrowing are significantly rarer, and mainly found in the lexical sphere of the language. 1 Current state and historical development Classical Arabic (CA) is the highly archaic variety of Arabic that, after its cod- ification by the Arab Grammarians around the beginning of the ninth century, becomes the most dominant written register of Arabic. While forms of Middle Arabic, a style somewhat intermediate between CA and spoken dialects, gain some traction in the Middle Ages, CA remains the most important written regis- ter for official, religious and scientific purposes. From the moment of CA’s rise to dominance as a written language, the whole of the Arabic-speaking world can be thought of as having transitioned into a state of diglossia (Ferguson 1959; 1996), where CA takes up the High register and the spoken dialects the Low register.1 Representation in writing of these spoken dia- lects is (almost) completely absent in the written record for much of the Middle Ages. Eventually, CA came to be largely replaced for administrative purposes by Ottoman Turkish, and at the beginning of the nineteenth century, it was function- ally limited to religious domains (Glaß 2011: 836).
    [Show full text]
  • Identifying Semitic Roots: Machine Learning with Linguistic Constraints
    Identifying Semitic Roots: Machine Learning with Linguistic Constraints Ezra Daya∗ University of Haifa Dan Roth∗∗ University of Illinois Shuly Wintner† University of Haifa Words in Semitic languages are formed by combining two morphemes: a root and a pattern. The root consists of consonants only, by default three, and the pattern is a combination of vowels and consonants, with non-consecutive “slots” into which the root consonants are inserted. Identifying the root of a given word is an important task, considered to be an essential part of the morphological analysis of Semitic languages, and information on roots is important for linguistics research as well as for practical applications. We present a machine learning approach, augmented by limited linguistic knowledge, to the problem of identifying the roots of Semitic words. Although programs exist which can extract the root of words in Arabic and Hebrew, they are all dependent on labor-intensive construction of large-scale lexicons which are components of full-scale morphological analyzers. The advantage of our method is an automation of this process, avoiding the bottleneckof having to laboriously list the root and pattern of each lexeme in the language. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first application of machine learning to this problem, and one of the few attempts to directly address non-concatenative morphology using machine learning. More generally, our results shed light on the problem of combining classifiers under (linguistically motivated) constraints. 1. Introduction The standard account of word-formation processes in Semitic languages describes words as combinations of two morphemes: a root and a pattern.1 The root consists of consonants only, by default three (although longer roots are known), called radicals.
    [Show full text]
  • The Biradical Origin of Semitic Roots
    Copyright by Bernice Varjick Hecker 2007 The Dissertation Committee for Bernice Varjick Hecker certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: The Biradical Origin of Semitic Roots Committee: Robert D. King, Supervisor Robert T. Harms Richard P. Meier Esther L. Raizen Peter F. Abboud THE BIRADICAL ORIGIN OF SEMITIC ROOTS by Bernice Varjick Hecker, M.A., M.A. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin May, 2007 Dedication To Mark Southern, who awakened and sustained my interest in the Ancient Near East. Acknowledgments I would first like to thank Prof. Harms, who supervised my earlier paper, for teaching me that there is no way to conclusively prove a theory about an early stage of a prehistoric language but that it was possible to demonstrate its likelihood. His comments at an early stage of this work were invaluable in showing me how to go about doing so. I would also like to thank Prof. King, my dissertation supervisor, who was an unfailing font of support and who gave me excellent advice and direction. My husband, Ran Moran, was the sine qua non of this project. There is no way that I could have completed it without his help, both in accommodating to my schedule and in expending all the resources that I brought to bear on writing this dissertation. v The Biradical Origin of Semitic Roots Publication No._____________ Bernice Varjick Hecker, Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on the Emergence of New Semitic Roots in the Light of Compounding
    ISSN 0806 -198X Notes on the Emergence of New Semitic Roots in the Light of Compounding LUTZ EDZARD (University of Erlangen-Nürnberg / University of Oslo) Abstract Independently of the question as to whether bi- or triradical roots have historical preponderance in Semitic, there are clear cases of Semitic verbal and nominal roots that have emerged through a process of com- pounding or integration of additional elements (verbal or nominal affixes and even prepositions). In this paper, an attempt will be made to establish a hierarchical typology of such processes of morpho- phonological re-analysis, in both historical and modern times. Key words: affix, re-analysis, root, compounding 1 Introduction It has long been recognized that new roots in Semitic can emerge through the re-analysis of verbal or nominal affixes. On the one hand, there has been the theory of “matrices et éty- mons”, propagated notably by Georges Bohas (e.g., BOHAS 2000) and a number of his pupils, which builds on the observation that roots with two common consonants and a hom- organic, but different third consonant, often share a common semantics. Christopher Ehret (notably EHRET 1995) has developed this theory even further, in trying to reconstruct uni- consonantal semantic core elements at an early stage of Afroasiatic. This well-known line of thought will not be pursued here (for an overview of the pros and cons, cf. e.g., ZA- BORSKI 1991). Rather, with a focus on Arabic and Hebrew, I will give an overview of vari- ous processes that can be described as “compounding”, which involve either the integration of grammatical morphemes—verbal and nominal affixes, including prepositions—or the creation of new roots by exploiting acronyms or the conjunction of clipped elements, cap- tured by the Arabic term na ḥt, literally ‘sculpture’.
    [Show full text]
  • A Tale of Two Morphologies
    A Tale of Two Morphologies Verb structure and argument alternations in Maltese Dissertation zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Doktors der Philosophie vorgelegt von Spagnol, Michael an der Geisteswissenschaftliche Sektion Sprachwissenschaft 1. Referent: Prof. Dr. Frans Plank 2. Referent: Prof. Dr. Christoph Schwarze 3. Referent: Prof. Dr. Albert Borg To my late Nannu Kieli, a great story teller Contents Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................. iii Notational conventions .................................................................................................................... v Abstract ............................................................................................................................................... viii Ch. 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. A tale to be told ............................................................................................................................................. 2 1.2 Three sides to every tale ........................................................................................................................... 4 Ch. 2. Setting the stage ...................................................................................................................... 9 2.1. No language is an island .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • ROTWELSCH, Hebrew Loanwords in 431 ——
    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]
  • The Relationship Between Arabic Alla¯H and Syriac Alla¯Ha¯1
    The relationship between Arabic Alla¯h and Syriac Alla¯ha¯ 1 David Kiltz Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Potsdam Abstract Various etymologies have been proposed for Arabic allah but also for Syriac allaha. It has often been proposed that the Arabic word was borrowed from Syriac. This article takes a comprehensive look at the linguistic evidence at hand. Es- pecially, it takes into consideration more recent epigraphical material which sheds light on the development of the Arabic language. Phonetic and morphological analysis of the data confirms the Arabic origin of the word allah, whereas the prob- lems of the Syriac form allaha are described, namely that the Syriac form differs from that of other Aramaic dialects and begs explanation, discussing also the possi- bility that the Syriac word is a loan from Arabic. The final part considers qur#anic allah in its cultural and literary context and the role of the Syriac word in that con- text. The article concludes, that both, a strictly linguistic, as well as cultural and literary analysis reveals a multilayered interrelation between the two terms in ques- tion. The linguistic analysis shows, that Arabic allah must be a genuinely Arabic word, whereas in the case of Syriac allaha, the possibility of both, a loan and a spe- cific inner-Aramaic development are laid out. Apart from linguistic considerations, the historical and cultural situation in Northern Mesopotamia, i.e. the early Arab presence in that region is taken into scrutiny. In turn, a possible later effect of the prominent use of Syriac allaha on the use in the Qur#an is considered.
    [Show full text]
  • Semitics (SEMITIC) 1
    Semitics (SEMITIC) 1 SEMITIC 101 Syriac 4 Units Semitics (SEMITIC) Terms offered: Fall 2021 This introductory course will cover both the study of the classical Syriac Courses language and a more general introduction to Syriac literature in all its diversity, with particular emphasis on East Syriac. Syriac is both an Expand all course descriptions [+]Collapse all course descriptions [-] ancient tongue that can help us access older Christian histories as well SEMITIC 100A Aramaic 3 Units as a living language within the liturgy of current Christian communities, Terms offered: Fall 2017, Fall 2016, Fall 2013 such as the Assyrians. For some communities, Syriac is close to the Biblical and Ancient Aramaic, including study of the Aramaic parts of living vernacular language. Undergraduate students will read Christian Daniel and Ezra and the inscriptions and papyri from Syria, Egypt, narratives developed in the Middle East from as far back as 1600 years Mesopotamia, and the Persian Empire. Sequence begins Fall. ago. Aramaic: Read More [+] Syriac: Read More [+] Rules & Requirements Hours & Format Prerequisites: Hebrew 100A-100B Fall and/or spring: 15 weeks - 3 hours of lecture per week Repeat rules: Course may be repeated for credit without restriction. Additional Details Hours & Format Subject/Course Level: Semitics/Undergraduate Fall and/or spring: 15 weeks - 3 hours of lecture per week Grading/Final exam status: Letter grade. Final exam required. Additional Details Syriac: Read Less [-] Subject/Course Level: Semitics/Undergraduate SEMITIC 205A Ugaritic 3 Units Terms offered: Fall 2014, Fall 2009, Fall 2006 Grading/Final exam status: Letter grade. Final exam not required. Ugarit language and literature with stress on comparative morphology Aramaic: Read Less [-] and lexicography.
    [Show full text]
  • Izreel for Pdf 27.2.2009
    EGYPTIAN, SEMITIC AND GENERAL GRAMMAR STUDIES IN MEMORY OF H. J. POLOTSKY __________ e __________ EDITED BY GIDEON GOLDENBERG ARIEL SHISHA-HALEVY JERUSALEM 2009 THE ISRAEL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES contents Introduction vii Edward Ullendorff The Young (and Not So Young) Polotsky, Scholar and Teacher 1 Orly Goldwasser A Comparison Between Classifier Languages and Classifier Script: The Case of Ancient Egyptian 16 Wolfgang Schenkel Prädikatives und abstrakt-relativisches È@m.n=f Beobachtungen an den Verben II. gem. und ult. n im Korpus der Sargtexte 40 Helmut Satzinger On Some Aspects of jw in Middle Egyptian 61 Wolf-Peter Funk Methodological Issues in the (Morpho)Phonological Description of Coptic 70 Ariel Shisha-Halevy On Conversion, Clause Ordination and Related Notions Some Reflections on General and Polotskean Models 92 Shlomo Izre’el Constructive Constructions: The Semitic Verbal Morphology and Beyond 106 Eran Cohen Nexus and Nexus Focusing 131 Nathan Wasserman The Modal Particle tu∆a in Old-Babylonian 149 Rainer Voigt Südtigrinische Dialekte: Phonologie und Personalpronomina im Dialekt von May-Ç’äw (T∞gray) 169 Gideon Goldenberg From Speech to Writing in Gurage-Land: First Attempts to Write in the Vernacular 184 Rafael Talmon Two Studies in Arabic Tamyˆz 197 Joshua Blau Reconstruction of Neo-Arabic Dialectal Features From Middle Arabic Texts 220 vi Contents Otto Jastrow The Arabic Dialects of the Carmel Coast 230 Roni Henkin How Interdialectal is Peripheral Oral Bedouin Poetry ? 239 Rami Saari Some Remarks on Maltese Prepositions
    [Show full text]
  • Weak" Phonetic Change and the Hebrew Sin
    .. WEAK" PHONETIC CHANGE AND THE HEBREW SIN By JOSHUA BLAU Hebrew University of Jerusalem 0. Introduction THIS ARTICLE originally arose out of the author's attempt to restate the current, "conservative" view on the existence of a third unvoiced non­ emphatic sibilant in Hebrew, and, of course, in Proto-Semitic, viz. the Sin, against suggestions raised recently. Yet it soon became clear that the analysis of alleged exceptional sound correspondences of the Hebrew sibilants, claimed by some scholars, has to be based on the examination of the problem of exceptional sound correspondences in the Semitic languages in general, i.e., on what we shall in this paper dub "weak phonetic change." Since, it seems, the notion of "weak phonetic change" and its cautious handling is of great importance not only for the elucida­ tion of the status of the Hebrew s in particular, but for comparative Semitic studies in general, I eventually decided to begin this article with a somewhat long exposition on weak phonetic change, and to deal with the special problem of the Hebrew (and Proto-Semitic) s later. I. "Weak Phonetic Change" As is well known, occasional deviations from regular sound cor­ respondences are well attested in Semitic languages in general and in 67 68 JOSHUA BLAU Hebrew in particular. This gives rise to two problems: a theoretical one, concerning the origins of these deviations, and a practical one, concern­ ing how far they authorize scholars to jump to conclusions and apply ex­ ceptional sound correspondences for the etymological interpretation of difficult words, thus elucidating abstruse passages.
    [Show full text]