DOCSLIB.ORG

Ugaritic Paradigms for Both Verbal and NonVerbal Forms

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ugaritic Paradigms for Both Verbal and Non�Verbal Forms Ugaritic Paradigms for both verbal and non-verbal forms Compiled by Joshua L. Harper Fall 2008 Based on information from: Daniel Sivan, A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language (HdO 1:28; Atlanta: SBL, 2001) William M. Schniedewind and Joel H. Hunt, A Primer on Ugaritic: Language, Culture and Literature (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007) and course materials produced by Meredith M. Kline Noun Paradigms Masculine Feminine Singular Unbound Bound Singular Unbound Bound Nom mlk malku mlk malku Nom mlkt malkatu mlkt malkatu Gen mlk malki mlk malki Gen mlkt malkati mlkt malkati Acc mlk malka mlk malka Acc mlkt malkata mlkt malkata Dual Dual Nom mlkm malkāmi mlk malkā Nom mlktm malkatāmi mlkt malkatā Obl mlkm malkēmi mlk malkē Obl mlktm malkatēmi mlkt malkatē Plural Plural Nom mlkm malkūma mlk malkū Nom mlkt malkātu mlkt malkātu Obl mlkm malkīma mlk malkī Obl mlkt malkāti mlkt malkāti Independent Pronouns 3ms hw huwa 3cd hm humā 3mp hm hum(ū) Independent Oblique 3fs hy hiya 3fp hn hin(ā) 3ms hwt huwāti 2ms at ʾatta 2cd atm ʾattumā 2mp atm ʾattum(ū) 3fs hyt hiyāti 2fs at ʾatti 1cs ank ʾanāku 3cd hmt humāti an ʾanā 3mp hmt humūti Pronoun Suffixes 3ms -h/n/nh/nn -hu 3cd -hm -humā 3mp -hm -hum(ū) 3fs -h/n/nh/nn -ha 3fp -hn -hun(ā) 2ms -k -ka 2cd -km -kumā 2mp -km -kumū (?) 2fs -k -ki 2fp -kn -kun(ā) 1cs NOM -ø -ī 1cd -ny -nayā 1cp -n -ni/-na (?) OBL -y -ya VBL -n -nī Other Pronouns Determinative-Relative Interrogatives Indefinite ms d dū/dī/dā my mīyu/i/a “who(m)” mnk mīnuku “whatever, fs dt dātu/dāti/dāta mh mahu/i/a “what” mnkm mīnukumu}{ whoever, any- mp dt dūtu/dūti (?) mn mannu/i/a mnm mīnuma one, whichever” fp dt dūtu/dūti (?) or: mīnu/i/a “which” kl kullu/i/a “all, every” klkl kulkullu “every, all” ay ʾayyu “which, any” Demonstratives hnd hānādū (hannadū) “this” hnk hānāka (masc) “that” hnkt hānākata (fem) “that” Cardinal Numbers Feminine Masculine 1 aḥt ʾaḥ(ḥ)attu aḥd ʾaḥ(ḥ)adu Tens and Greater - Common 2 ṯt ṯittā/ṯittê ṯn ṯinā/ṯinê 20 ʿšrm ʿašrāma/i 3 ṯlṯ ṯalāṯu ṯlṯt ṯalāṯatu 30 ṯlṯm ṯalāṯūma 4 arbʿ ʾarbaʿu arbʿt ʾarbaʿatu 40 arbʿm ʾarbaʿūma 5 ḫmš ḫamišu ḫmšt ḫamišatu 50 ḫmšm ḫamišūma 6 ṯṯ ṯīṯṯu ṯṯt ṯīṯṯatu 60 ṯṯm ṯīṯṯūma 7 šbʿ šabʿu šbʿt šabʿatu 70 šbʿm šabʿūma 8 ṯmn ṯamānû ṯmnt ṯamānîtu 80 ṯmnym ṯamāniyūma 9 ṯšʿ ṯišʿu ṯšʿt ṯišʿatu 90 ṯšʿm ṯišʿūma 10 ʿšr ʿašaru ʿšrt ʿašaratu 100 mit miʾtu 11 ʿšt ʿšr ʿaštê ʿašaru ʿšt ʿšr/ʿšrh ʿaštê ʿašaru/ʿišrêh 200 mitm miʾtāma/i 12 ṯt ʿšr ṯittā ʿašaru ṯn ʿšr/h ṯinā ʿašaru/ʿišrêh 300 ṯlṯ mat ṯalāṯ(u) miʾātu/i ṯn ʿšrt ṯinā ʿašaratu 1000 alp ʾalpu 13 ṯlṯ ʿšr ṯalāṯu ʿašaru ṯlṯ ʿšr/h ṯalāṯu ʿašaru/ʿišrêh 2000 alpm ʾalpāma/i ṯlṯt ʿšrt ṯalāṯatu ʿašaratu 3000 ṯlṯ alpm ṯalāṯ(u) ʾal(a)pūma 53 ḫmšm ṯlṯ ḫamišūma ṯalāṯu 10000 rbtm ribbatu 37 ṯlṯm w šbʿ ṯalāṯūma wa šabʿu 20000 rbtm ribbatāma/i 122 mit ʿšrm ṯn miʾtu ʿašrāma ṯinā 30000 ṯlṯ rbbt ṯalāṯ(u) ribabātu Prepositions and Particles before לִפְנֵ י directional lpn lepani ־◌ָ ה or -h -ah אוֹ u ʾu id ʾida when, after hlm halumma here -m -ama/i on noun > adverb after, behind hlny hallinīya here -m -ma emphatic suff. on אַחֲרֵ י aḫr ʾaḫra/ê if/or nouns or vbl. forms אִ ם (how? hm him(ma אַ יִ ik ʾêka ?why מַ דּוַּ behold mdʿ madduʿa \הֵ ן הִ נֵּ ה where? hn hinnī אֵ י Iy ʾiyyi after impv א־נָ to, toward ht hitta now mʿ maʿ אַ ל al ʾal up to, until ַ ד and ʿd ʿadi/ê וְ an ʾan where? w wa upon, over ֶ ל/ ַ ל there isn’t y yā vocative marker ʿl ʿalê אַ יִן in ʾêna with ִ ם also yd yada with ʿm ʿimma אַ ף ap ʾappa now ַתָּ ה like, as, while ʿnt ʿanata כְּ k ki ( אִ יתַ י BA) יֵשׁ iṯ ʾiṯê aṯr ʾaṯra after k- kî- emphatic before verbs p pa then, and ( קֳדָ ם in, with, by, etc. kbd kabida midst of qdm qudāma before (BA בְּ b bi to, for, etc. qrb qirbu/a midst of לְ bd bādi from the hands of l le under, beneath תַּחַ ת no, not tḥt taḥtu/a לֹא bl bal negates noun clauses l la ( תּוֹ) or vocative marker tk tôku/a inside, middle לוּ between l lu בֵּ ין bn bēna there שָׁמָּ ה why? ṯm ṯamma לָמָּ ה bʿd baʿda behind/after lm lamma The Strong Verb:111 QṬL G Stem Perfect/Suffix Conjugation Singular Dual Plural 3m qṭl qaṭala qṭl qaṭalā qṭl qaṭalū 3f qṭlt qaṭalat qṭlt qaṭal(a)tā qṭl qaṭalā 2m qṭlt qaṭalta qṭltm qaṭaltumā qṭltm qaṭaltum(ū) Imperative 444 2f qṭlt qaṭalti qṭltm qaṭaltumā qṭltn qaṭaltunā ms qṭl quṭul/ quṭla 1c qṭlt qaṭaltu (?) qṭlny qaṭalniyā qṭln qaṭalnū fs qṭl quṭulī dual qṭl quṭulā Preterite/Jussive/Short Prefix Conjugation mp qṭl quṭulū Singular Dual Plural 3m yqṭl yaqṭul y/tqṭl y/taqṭulā tqṭl taqṭulū 3f tqṭl taqṭul tqṭl taqṭulā tqṭln taqṭulna Active Participle 2m tqṭl taqṭul tqṭl taqṭulā tqṭl taqṭulū ms qṭl qāṭilu 2f tqṭl taqṭulī tqṭl taqṭulā tqṭln taqṭulna fs qṭlt qāṭilatu 1c aqṭl ʾaqṭul nqṭl naqṭulā nqṭl naqṭul mp qṭlm qāṭilūma fp qṭlt qāṭilātu 222 Imperfect/Prefix Conjugation Singular Dual Plural 3m yqṭl yaqṭulu y/tqṭln y/taqṭulāni tqṭln taqṭulūna Passive Participle 555 3f tqṭl taqṭulu tqṭln taqṭulāni tqṭln taqṭulnā ms qṭl qaṭūlu 2m tqṭl taqṭulu tqṭln taqṭulāni tqṭln taqṭulūna fs qṭlt qaṭūlatu 2f tqṭln taqṭulīna tqṭln taqṭulāni tqṭln taqṭulnā mp qṭlm qaṭūlūma 1c aqṭl ʾaqṭulu nqṭln naqṭulāni nqṭl naqṭulu fp qṭlt qaṭūlātu 333 Volitive/Extended Short Prefix Conjugation Singular Dual Plural Infinitive 666 3m yqṭl yaqṭula y/tqṭl y/taqṭulā tqṭl taqṭulū qṭl qaṭālu 3f tqṭl taqṭula tqṭl taqṭulā tqṭln taqṭulna 2m tqṭl taqṭula tqṭl taqṭulā tqṭl taqṭulū 2f tqṭl taqṭulī tqṭl taqṭulā tqṭln taqṭulna 4 The vowel is the theme vowel 1c aqṭl ʾaqṭula nqṭl naqṭulā nqṭl naqṭula of the Imperfect/Prefix Conju- gation, doubled. The second may be apocopated. 5 Uncertain vocalization; this is 1 This also includes all I-Guttural verbs, which are strong in Ugaritic. on the BH pattern. 2 6 Any Short form ending in C 3 gets -u; in long V gets -na , except Dual -ni ; fp -na If in bound relationship, then lengthened. Infinitive Construct; if unbound, 3 Any Short form ending in C 3 gets -a. then Infinitive Absolute. Strong: N Stem Perfect/Suffix Conjugation Singular Dual Plural 3m nqṭl naqṭala nqṭl naqṭalā nqṭl naqṭalū 3f nqṭlt naqṭalat nqṭlt naqṭal(a)tā nqṭl naqṭalā 333 2m nqṭlt naqṭalta nqṭltm naqṭaltumā nqṭltm naqṭaltum(ū) Imperative 2f nqṭlt naqṭalti nqṭltm naqṭaltumā nqṭltn naqṭaltunā 1c nqṭlt naqṭaltu (?) nqṭlny naqṭalniyā nqṭln naqṭalnū Preterite/Jussive/Short Prefix Conjugation Singular Dual Plural 3m yqṭl yiqqaṭil y/tqṭl y/tiqqaṭilā tqṭl tiqqaṭilū 3f tqṭl tiqqaṭil tqṭl tiqqaṭilā tqṭln tiqqaṭilna 444 2m tqṭl tiqqaṭil tqṭl tiqqaṭilā tqṭl tiqqaṭilū Participle 2f tqṭl tiqqaṭilī tqṭl tiqqaṭilā tqṭln tiqqaṭilna ms nqṭl naqṭalu 1c iqṭl ʾiqqaṭil nqṭl niqqaṭilā nqṭl niqqaṭil fs nqṭlt naqṭalatu mp nqṭlm naqṭalūma Imperfect/Prefix Conjugation 111 fp nqṭlt naqṭalātu Singular Dual Plural 3m yqṭl yiqqaṭilu y/tqṭln y/tiqqaṭilāni tqṭln tiqqaṭilūna 3f tqṭl tiqqaṭilu tqṭln tiqqaṭilāni tqṭln tiqqaṭilnā 555 2m tqṭl tiqqaṭilu tqṭln tiqqaṭilāni tqṭln tiqqaṭilūna Infinitive 2f tqṭln tiqqaṭilīna tqṭln tiqqaṭilāni tqṭln tiqqaṭilnā nqṭl naqṭalu 1c iqṭl ʾiqqaṭilu nqṭln niqqaṭilāni nqṭl niqqaṭilu Volitive/Extended Short Prefix Conjugation 222 Singular Dual Plural 3m yqṭl yiqqaṭila y/tqṭl y/tiqqaṭilā tqṭl tiqqaṭilū 3f tqṭl tiqqaṭila tqṭl tiqqaṭilā tqṭln tiqqaṭilna 2m tqṭl tiqqaṭila tqṭl tiqqaṭilā tqṭl tiqqaṭilū 2f tqṭl tiqqaṭilī tqṭl tiqqaṭilā tqṭln tiqqaṭilna 3 There are no attestations for 1c iqṭl ʾiqqaṭila nqṭl niqqaṭilā nqṭl niqqaṭila the Imperative; the Jussive is used instead. The pattern would presumably be nqṭl naqṭil , but the last vowel is questionable. 4 Very rare. 5 The final a may be long. If in 1 Any Short form ending in C 3 gets -u; in long V gets -na , except Dual -ni ; fp -na bound relationship, then Infi- lengthened. nitive Construct; if unbound, 2 Any Short form ending in C 3 gets -a. then Infinitive Absolute. Strong: D Stem Perfect/Suffix Conjugation Singular Dual Plural 3m qṭl qaṭṭila qṭl qaṭṭilā qṭl qaṭṭilū 3f qṭlt qaṭṭilat qṭlt qaṭṭil(a)tā qṭl qaṭṭilā 2m qṭlt qaṭṭilta qṭltm qaṭṭiltumā qṭltm qaṭṭiltum(ū) Imperative 2f qṭlt qaṭṭilti qṭltm qaṭṭiltumā qṭltn qaṭṭiltunā ms qṭl qaṭṭil 1c qṭlt qaṭṭiltu (?) qṭlny qaṭṭilniyā qṭln qaṭṭilnū fs qṭl qaṭṭilī dual qṭl qaṭṭilā Preterite/Jussive/Short Prefix Conjugation 111 mp qṭl qaṭṭilū Singular Dual Plural 3m yqṭl yuqaṭṭil y/tqṭl y/tuqaṭṭilā tqṭl tuqaṭṭilū 3f tqṭl tuqaṭṭil tqṭl tuqaṭṭilā tqṭln tuqaṭṭilna 2m tqṭl tuqaṭṭil tqṭl tuqaṭṭilā tqṭl tuqaṭṭilū Participle 2f tqṭl tuqaṭṭilī tqṭl tuqaṭṭilā tqṭln tuqaṭṭilna ms mqṭl muqaṭṭilu 1c aqṭl ʾaqaṭṭil 2 nqṭl nuqaṭṭilā nqṭl nuqaṭṭil fs mqṭlt muqaṭṭilatu mp mqṭlm muqaṭṭilūma Imperfect/Prefix Conjugation 333 fp mqṭlt muqaṭṭilātu Singular Dual Plural 3m yqṭl yuqaṭṭilu y/tqṭln y/tuqaṭṭilāni tqṭln tuqaṭṭilūna 3f tqṭl tuqaṭṭilu tqṭln tuqaṭṭilāni tqṭln tuqaṭṭilnā 555 2m tqṭl tuqaṭṭilu tqṭln tuqaṭṭilāni tqṭln tuqaṭṭilūna Infinitive 2f tqṭln tuqaṭṭilīna tqṭln tuqaṭṭilāni tqṭln tuqaṭṭilnā qṭl quṭṭalu 1c aqṭl ʾaqaṭṭilu nqṭln nuqaṭṭilāni nqṭl nuqaṭṭilu Volitive/Extended Short Prefix Conjugation 444 Singular Dual Plural 3m yqṭl yuqaṭṭila y/tqṭl y/tuqaṭṭilā tqṭl tuqaṭṭilū 3f tqṭl tuqaṭṭila tqṭl tuqaṭṭilā tqṭln tuqaṭṭilna 2m tqṭl tuqaṭṭila tqṭl tuqaṭṭilā tqṭl tuqaṭṭilū 2f tqṭl tuqaṭṭilī tqṭl tuqaṭṭilā tqṭln tuqaṭṭilna 1c aqṭl ʾaqaṭṭila nqṭl nuqaṭṭilā nqṭl nuqaṭṭila 1 The preformative vowel may be u like other Semitic languages (cf.
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • The Damascus Psalm Fragment Oi.Uchicago.Edu
    oi.uchicago.edu The Damascus Psalm Fragment oi.uchicago.edu ********** Late Antique and Medieval Islamic Near East (LAMINE) The new Oriental Institute series LAMINE aims to publish a variety of scholarly works, including monographs, edited volumes, critical text editions, translations, studies of corpora of documents—in short, any work that offers a significant contribution to understanding the Near East between roughly 200 and 1000 CE ********** oi.uchicago.edu The Damascus Psalm Fragment Middle Arabic and the Legacy of Old Ḥigāzī by Ahmad Al-Jallad with a contribution by Ronny Vollandt 2020 LAMINE 2 LATE ANTIQUE AND MEDIEVAL ISLAMIC NEAR EAST • NUMBER 2 THE ORIENTAL INSTITUTE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO CHICAGO, ILLINOIS oi.uchicago.edu Library of Congress Control Number: 2020937108 ISBN: 978-1-61491-052-7 © 2020 by the University of Chicago. All rights reserved. Published 2020. Printed in the United States of America. The Oriental Institute, Chicago THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LATE ANTIQUE AND MEDIEVAL ISLAMIC NEAR EAST • NUMBER 2 Series Editors Charissa Johnson and Steven Townshend with the assistance of Rebecca Cain Printed by M & G Graphics, Chicago, IL Cover design by Steven Townshend The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Services — Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. ∞ oi.uchicago.edu For Victor “Suggs” Jallad my happy thought oi.uchicago.edu oi.uchicago.edu Table of Contents Preface............................................................................... ix Abbreviations......................................................................... xi List of Tables and Figures ............................................................... xiii Bibliography.......................................................................... xv Contributions 1. The History of Arabic through Its Texts .......................................... 1 Ahmad Al-Jallad 2.
    [Show full text]
  • DIES DIEM DOCET: the DECIPHERMENT of UGARITIC Peggy L. Day in the Field of Ugaritic Studies, Three Scholars Are Generally Credit
    DIES DIEM DOCET: THE DECIPHERMENT OF UGARITIC Peggy L. Day In the field of Ugaritic studies, three scholars are generally credited with playing major roles in the decipherment of Ugaritic: Hans Bauer, Paul Dhorme and Charles Virolleaud. To date, only one scholar, Alan D. Corre\ has produced a detailed analysis of the precise roles that each of these scholars played1. While Corre's reconstruction of the decipherment process is, in general, commendably sound, it nevertheless does not take all of the relevant data into account, leaves certain facts unexplained (or underexplained) and is methodologically weak in its assigning dates to two important elements of the primary record that involve instances where lecture presentations preceded the published versions of the papers2. Thus there is room for improvement on Corre's work. The present article will proceed by laying out in chronological order and considerable detail the pertinent facts, attending more fully to data such as paper presentation dates, article completion dates, and intellectual context. It will also glean relevant data from articles, records and private communications heretofore overlooked as sources for reconstructing the decipherment process. It will then bring all of this information to bear on assessing the above scholars' respective roles, especially the problematic role of Charles Virolleaud. In March of 1928 a local farmworker plowing near Minet el-Beida dislodged a stone slab that covered a passageway leading to a vaulted tomb. When the Assyriologist Charles Virolleaud, then Director of the French Service des Antiquites* in Beirut, was informed A.D. Corre, "Anatomy of a Decipherment", Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters 55, 1966, 11-20.
    [Show full text]
  • Ancient Hebrew
    Ancient Hebrew Holger Gzella 1. Introduction and language history Until the gradual emergence of Semitic epigraphy from the middle of the eighteenth century on, Hebrew was only known from manuscripts con- taining biblical and rabbinic texts. However, the language, too, reflects the long and complicated history of the Hebrew Bible with its organic growth and its many redactional layers. Even the received text, which has been transmitted since the canon was completed and which under- lies the Codex Leningradensis from 1008 ce, the most authoritative manu- script, went through the hands of countless scribes, echoing their voices as well. For the purpose of synagogal recitation, scholars (“Masoretes”) indicated the traditional pronunciation of the erstwhile almost purely consonantal text by means of a very precise system of vowel signs, ac- cents, and other diacritical marks. They accompany the consonantal skeleton but also exhibit, besides ancient features, several instances of later linguistic development. In Western grammatical tradition, the pointing of the Masoretes from Tiberias in Galilee has become normative and dominates the teaching of Biblical Hebrew since the first Christian textbook, De rudimentis Hebraicis (published in 1506) by Johannes Reuch- lin (1455–1522). The exact pronunciation, by contrast, toward which this system is geared, has been lost and must be reconstructed on the basis of Medieval sources like the works of Jewish grammarians. None of the present reading traditions with their many ramifications exactly corre- sponds to the Tiberian one. Hence its origin is very difficult to trace. Already in the nineteenth century, grammarians endeavored to “sweep away the dust of the ages” by reconstructing, with the help of Classical Arabic (which is typologically more conservative), the pre-Exilic stage of Hebrew lurking behind the vocalization.
    [Show full text]
  • Joseph C. Lam
    CURRICULUM VITAE Joseph C. Lam Department of Religious Studies University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 125 Carolina Hall, CB #3225 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3225 [email protected] EDUCATION Ph.D. (2012) with Honors, University of Chicago (Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations) M.A. (2005), University of Chicago (Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations) M.Div. (2003), Regent College (Old Testament) B.A.Sc. (1999) with Distinction, University of British Columbia (Engineering Physics) PROFESSIONAL APPOINTMENTS University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Associate Professor, Department of Religious Studies, 2020–present Assistant Professor, Department of Religious Studies, 2014–2020 Lecturer, Department of Religious Studies, 2011–2014 North Carolina State University Teaching Assistant Professor, Department of History, Fall 2012 University of Wisconsin-Madison Associate Lecturer, Department of Hebrew and Semitic Studies, 2010–2011 University of Chicago Lecturer, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, 2007–2008 Regent College Sessional Lecturer, Summer 2004, Summer 2005 PUBLICATIONS (Note: all works are sole-authored unless explicitly indicated.) Books (authored): 2016 Patterns of Sin in the Hebrew Bible: Metaphor, Culture, and the Making of a Religious Concept. New York: Oxford University Press. § Reviews: Y. Feder, Journal of Religion 98 (2018): 579–581; B. A. Anderson, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 42.5 (2018), 191–192; T. Mayfield, Religious Studies Review 44.2 (2018), 218; G. Carey, Theology Today 75.1 (2018): 114–115; L. DiFransico, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 80 (2018): Lam CV—Page 2 of 10 123–125; M. E. Biddle, Interpretation 72 (2018): 79–80; L. M. Morales, Journal of Theological Studies 68.1 (2017): 234–236; C.
    [Show full text]
  • Possible Ugaritic Influences on the Hurrian of Ras Shamra-Ugarit in Alphabetic Script
    Possible Ugaritic Influences on the Hurrian of Ras Shamra-Ugarit in Alphabetic Script Joseph Lam The interaction between Ugaritic and Hurrian in the Late Bronze Age city of Ugarit (modern Ras Shamra in Syria) represents a fascinating example of lan- guage contact from the ancient Near East. Ugaritic and Akkadian are the two languages that dominate the textual record at the site, with Ugaritic (approxi- mately 2000 texts) being the primary spoken vernacular of the ancient city and Akkadian (approximately 2500 texts) functioning as the diplomatic lin- gua franca of the period (Bordreuil and Pardee 2009: 8). However, among the remaining six languages that are known from the Late Bronze Age at Ras Shamra (Sumerian, Hittite, Hurrian, Luwian, Cypro-Minoan, and Egyptian), Hurrian stands out as the one most likely to have represented a spoken lan- guage for a significant minority segment of Ugaritic society.1 A number of factors point in this direction. First, Hurrian is the only language other than Ugaritic (and Akkadian) to have been inscribed in the locally-invented alpha- betic cuneiform script.2 In fact, unlike Ugaritic (mostly alphabetic cuneiform) and Akkadian (mostly logosyllabic cuneiform), Hurrian is more evenly attested in the two major scripts used at the site, with texts in each of the scripts num- bering in the dozens; their distribution reflects the particular importance of Hurrian in hymnic and ritual contexts.3 In addition, a significant number 1 For a useful survey of languages and scripts attested at Ugarit, see Malbran-Labat (1999). 2 As Juan-Pablo Vita (1999: 457) observes, “the only successful adaptation of the Ugaritic alpha- bet to another language, in a significant way, was to Hurrian,” notwithstanding the several isolated examples of Akkadian written in alphabetic script.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Notes on the Ugaritic Counterpart of the Arabic Ghain
    chapter 28 Some Notes on the Ugaritic Counterpart of the Arabic ghain One of the Ugaritic consonants is transliterated ǵ by Gordon and regarded as the counterpart of Arabic ghain. It is thought by him to be represented by sev- eral signs in the Ugaritic alphabet. Thus, UT § 3.3 notes one sign (no. 23) and lists three variants in a footnote (cp. § 4.9), and adds yet another variant in § 4.12. The interpretation of these signs was formerly much discussed, but the view that they represent ǵ is now generally accepted. Where it is possible to identify the Arabic cognates of Ugaritic words, the Arabic usually has ghain, just as the majority of Arabic cognates with Ugaritic words with ʿ have ʿain. Although much uncertainty remains about the meaning of numerous Uga- ritic words, and the resources of the Arabic lexicon are sometimes perhaps too helpful in offering possibilities, the extent of the agreement between the two languages is generally recognized to have established the existence of ǵ in Ugaritic. There is no point in pushing at an open door, and it might appear superfluous to say any more on the subject of the existence of ǵ in Ugaritic. Nevertheless, certain arguments were brought against the theory in the past, and, as far as I am aware, they have never been thoroughly examined and refuted.1 A consensus among scholars is sometimes attained even though opposing arguments have not been answered. The commonly-held opinion is probably correct, but it is scarcely satisfactory that it should be reached and maintained without an attempt to refute the case that has been made against it.
    [Show full text]