20. duppuru (dubburu)-fuppuru, too?

In Or. NS 18 (1949) 393-95, W. von Soden argued that in Akkadian two verbs are to be distinguished, one intransitive, duppuru, "to go away," the other transitive, tuppuru, "to drive away." The distinction has not gained currency; duppuru is still generally considered to be transitive as well as intransitive.1 The Mari specialists, whose corpus contains large part of the Old Babylonian evidence, have given tuppuru a respectful nod, but their transliterations and statements on the Mari syllabary make their rejection clear.2 Nevertheless, as we now see, von Soden still holds to the distinction, which we find canonized and rather emphatically reaffirmed ("nicht duppuru!") in AHw (3 1980).3 A brief review of the evidence seems appropriate.

1J. Bottero, Le probleme des Habiru a la 4e Rencontre Assyriologique Interna• tionale, Cahiers de la Societe Asiatique 12 (Paris, 1954) 87 n. 2, accepted transi• tive tuppuru in the . For its existence in Old Babylonian, see also the cautious note of R. Kutscher and C. Wilcke, ZA 68 (1978) 124 n. 55. 2ARM 15 42 n. 2, 64f., 275;ARM 14 221 ("l'emploi du signe DA avec la valeur ta n'a pas encore ete recontre a Mari"-and see the writings below). See, too, M. Stol, On Trees, Mountains, and Millstones in the Ancient Near East (Leiden, 1979) 10, who from writings like bu-du-ma-tum, bu-du-um-ti, and the like at Mari infers, not tu in the syllabary, but the byform budumtum in the lexicon. 3To the references of the AHw article, which contains minor revisions of the Ori• entalia article, add Kutscher and Wilcke, ZA 68 (1978) 115:60 (OB). The interpre• tation of some forms as transitive is at times questionable (for example, UET 6 391:37), and following CAD A/2 474a and K 445a we would delete the reference to BAM 401:29f. ("unkl.") and read sit-pu-ru rather than dup-pu-ru (cf. da-da-ru: sit-pu-ru : da-da-ru : ki-i$-$[u-ru], and [da-d]a-ra-ak-ab = si-it-par, MSL 4 163:1, and other bilingual passages cited AHw 3 1171b).-The sorting out of dbr and dpr roots and determining their meanings are still beset with difficulties. Perhaps only adding to the confusion, I would suggest that in Lambert-Millard Atrahasis 94:39, rather than daparu, "to be sated," a verb of questionable existence and not very illuminating here, or an emendation, it-pe-sa (von Soden, Or. NS 38 [1969] 431), we see a verb dab/pii,ru, related to dab/pru, mundab/pru I I muddab/pru (JCS 31 [1979] 91), "to become strong," or the like: den-lil id-bi-ra u-sa-aq-bi pi-i-[ia] ki-ma ti-ru-ru su-a-ti u-sa-as-b,i pi-i-i[a] Did Enlil prove too strong for me, force my mouth to speak, Like Tiruru's in the tale, helpless make my mouth? (On susb,u, "to make useless," see AHw 2 1035a. In view of the rest of Nintu's speech, a rhetorical question stressing her guilt seems more likely than an asser• tion diminishing it.) Perhaps the forms in Gilg. I ii 40 and II ii 40 (daparu, "to be 292 Amarna Studies

Of the transitive verb there are nine occurrences in the Amarna let• ters: tu-Da-Bi-ir (EA 76:39), [tu/ti]-Da-Bi-ra-su (EA 85:81),4 u-Da-Bi-ra (EA 85:68), nu-Da-Bir5 (EA 74:34), Du-Bi-ru (EA 104:27), all in letters from Byblos; yu-TaB-Bi-ra-[su-nu] (EA 138:106) and ti-[Ta]B-Bi-ru (EA 138:69), in a letter from Rib-Hadda in exile; ni-Du-Bu-ur (EA 279:20), Du-uB-Bu-ru-ni (EA 248:17), in letters from Palestine. It should be ob• served that the only CV-signs used are either da or du, for this is clear and important evidence. At Byblos, without exception, It/ is written with the TA-TI-TE-TU series:5 1. always t

or te4 : te-pa-te4 -ru-na (once); 3. always tu: ba-al-tu (once), tu-ba-li-tu-na (once), ip-ta-tu-ur (once). Consistent with this representation of / t/ is the writing of / q/ in the Byblos letters: always qi or qu. Thus, in forms of lequ (ca. ninety-five times), maqatu (five times, plus formulaic am-qu-ut, passim), ia-qu-ul

(once), ri-qi (once), ri-qu-tam (once), SIG5 -qu (once), sa-ra-qu-ma (once). Such regularity, without a single demonstrable or even probable exception, makes only one conclusion possible: in the Amarna letters, the verb in question is duppuru or dubburu, not tuppuru.6 sated" CAD; taparu, "sich herandrangen an" AHw) belong to the same verb, "to push in, become aggressive"(?). 4so restored rather than [u] (Knudtzon) because ERIN.MES pitatu is regularly construed as fem. sg. (JCS 6 [1952] 78 [above, Paper 7, p. 168), and in the verb 3 sg. masc. and fem. are distinguished. 5For the loci, see EA glossaries (VAB 2 and A. Rainey, AOAT 8/2). Note also tam: b,u-mi-tam (EA 102:29), ba-la-tam (EA 126:15). The reading ip-tu-ra in EA 84:29 (Rainey, UF 7 [1975] 411) is excluded by both syllabary and collation (read ib-ni SIG4 ?). The syllabary of EA 137-138, letters of Rib-Hadda not written at Byblos, is somewhat different. Note especially b,e-e-ti (EA 137:33) and ti-[i]m-[t]a-[tli (EA 137:44, rendering 38ff. "May the king heed the words of his servant, and may the king, my lord, grant archers so they may seize Byblos, and traitorous troops and the sons of Abdi-Ashirta not enter it, and then the archers of the king, my lord, be too few (to take it back)"). 6Perhaps in EA, under West Semitic influence (see below), the verb was dubburu.