Babel und Bibel 3: Annual of Ancient Near Eastern, Old Testament and Semitic Studies 9781575065823

This is the third volume of Babel & Bibel, an annual of ancient Near Eastern, Old Testament, and Semitic studies. Th

346 18 6MB

English Pages 648 [626] Year 2007

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

Babel und Bibel 3: Annual of Ancient Near Eastern, Old Testament and Semitic Studies
 9781575065823

Citation preview

Babel&Bibel3.FM Page i Thursday, May 31, 2007 11:23 AM

Babel und Bibel 3

Volume XIV

i

Российский государственный гуманитарный университет

Выпуск XIV

Вавилон и Библия 3 Древнеближневосточные, библейские и семитологические исследования

Babel&Bibel3.FM Page iii Thursday, May 31, 2007 11:23 AM

Papers of the Institute of Oriental and Classical Studies Volume XIV

Babel und Bibel 3 Annual of Ancient Near Eastern, Old Testament, and Semitic Studies

Edited by

L. Kogan, N. Koslova, S. Loesov, and S. Tishchenko

Published for the Russian State University for the Humanities by EISENBRAUNS Winona Lake, Indiana 2006

Babel&Bibel3.FM Page iv Thursday, May 31, 2007 11:23 AM

ISBN 978-1-57506-134-4 ISSN 1938-5668

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.†‰

Contents Contents

1

I. Articles Ancient Near Eastern Studies J. Keetman. Gab es ein h im Sumerischen? M. Khachikyan. Towards the Aspect System in Sumerian N. Koslova. Barley Rations in Umma during the Third Dynasty of Ur M. Krebernik. Philologische Aspekte elamischmesopotamischer Beziehungen im Überblick S. Loesov. Marginalia on the Akkadian Ventive S. Loesov. Akkadian Sentences about the Present Time (II/1) W. Sommerfeld. Eine Sammeltafel der Akkade-Zeit aus der St. Petersburger Eremitage über die Ausgabe von Waffen I. Schrakamp. Kommentar zu der altakkadischen “Rüstkammerurkunde” Erm. 14380

9 31 41 59 101 133 149 161

Old Testament Studies M. Bulakh. Basic Color Terms of Biblical Hebrew in Diachronic Aspect Y. Eidelkind. Two Notes on Song 4:12 L. Kogan. The Etymology of Israel (with an Appendix on Non-Hebrew Semitic Names among Hebrews in the Old Testament) L. Kogan. Animal Names of Biblical Hebrew: An Etymological Survey S. Ruzer. Son of God as Son of David: Luke’s Attempt to Biblicize a Problematic Notion M. Seleznev. Syntactic Parsing behind the Masoretic Accentuation (I) M. Seleznev. A Greek Rhetorician and the LXX (What does στερKωMα mean?)

181 217

237 257 321 353 371

2

Babel und Bibel 3

Semitic and Afroasiatic Studies V. Blažek. Natural Phenomena, Time and Geographical Terminology in Beja Lexicon. Fragment of a Comparative and Etymological Dictionary of Beja (II) L. Kogan. Lexical Evidence and the Genealogical Position of Ugaritic (I) A. Militarev. Towards the Genetic Affiliation of Ongota, a Nearly-extinct Language of Ethiopia (II)

383 429 489

II. Short Notes Ancient Near Eastern Studies M. A. Dandamaev. A Babylonian Trader from Uruk I. T. Kaneva. Sumerian Comparative Clauses I. Khait, R. Nurullin. Observations on an Old Babylonian Gilgamesh Tablet from the Schøyen Collection F. Rahman. “A city does not approach a city, a man approaches a man”: Interpretation of one Old Babylonian Proverb in the Light of a Neo-Aramaic Proverb

517 523 529

535

Old Testament Studies S. Tishchenko. To Curse God? Some Remarks on Jacob Milgrom’s Interpretation of Lev 24:10–16, 23

543

III. Reviews Ancient Near Eastern Studies R. Hasselbach. Sargonic Akkadian. A Historical and Comparative Study of the Syllabic Texts (L. Kogan, K. Markina) Assyria and Beyond. Studies Presented to Mogens Trolle Larsen (L. Kogan, N. Koslova)

555 589

Old Testament Studies E. Gaß. Die Ortsnamen des Richterbuchs in historischer und redaktioneller Perspektive (M. Seleznev)

615

Contents

3

Semitic Studies H. Gzella. Tempus, Aspekt und Modalität im Reichsaramäischen (S. Loesov)

627

Abbreviations of Periodicals, Reference Works, Series, and Sources

635

Gab es ein h im Sumerischen?* Jan Keetman Istanbul

Immer wieder ist ein ausgefallener Konsonant für das Sumerische vorgeschlagen worden. Dafür könnte die große Zahl an Wurzeln mit scheinbar nur einem Vokal sprechen, wie a “Wasser”, á “Kraft; Vermögen”, e “sprechen”, e “Wassergraben”, é “Haus, Tempel”, è “hinausgehen”, e11 “hinauf-, herabsteigen”, i “5”, ì “Fett, Öl”, i7 “Fluss”, u “10”, ú “Gras; feste Nahrung”, ù “Schlaf ”, u4 “Tag, Licht; Orkan”, u5 “fahren, segeln, reiten”, u6 “Staunen erregend”, u8 “Mutterschaf ”, u9 “hoch”; “sterben”.1 .

.

* Im vorliegenden Beitrag werden die Abkürzungen nach http://cdli.ucla. edu/wiki/index.php/Abbreviations_for_ Assyriology verwendet. 1 Für das normalerweise in der Bedeutung “sterben; töten” ug5 gelesene Zeichen BÀD (EZEN×BAD) ist zwar g-Auslaut belegt, aber keine Lesung /ug/. Das gleiche gilt für ug7 (BAD). Die für den Lautwert uq5 etc. angeführten Belege aus dem älteren Akkadischen lassen sich auch mit u9 lesen (vgl. Gelb 1961, 72; AHw. 1461b waqûm, lies u9-qi4! statt uq5-qi4!), eine Lesung, die mit Sicherheit auch in Ebla in semitischen Texten belegt ist. In Synonymenlisten gibt es das Wort ugu = mūtu “Tod” (AHw. 1403b), das auch mit umāšu/emāšu “Klammerhaken für Ringer”, “Kraft” und emūqu “Kraft” geglichen ist. Dies muss aber nicht von einem sumerischen Wort für “Tod” kommen. Nachzuweisen ist die Lesung u9 für das Verbum durch die Emesalformen des Namens dnin-tin-BÀD-ga: dgašan-ti-lu/le-ba, ga-ša-an-ti-il-lu-ba / -tinlu-ba / -tin-u9-ba (< *tin-lú/mu-lu-u9-ba?). Dazu Krecher (1966, 121f.), Schretter (1990, 149f.). Die Emesalform u9-b, /ub/ ist sonst nicht belegt ([ub] in MSL 14, 499 ist ziemlich unsicher). Da aber Emesal b für Emegi g im Auslaut gut belegt ist (Schretter 1990, 49f.), passt dies zu BÀD(-g) bzw. ug5 “sterben”. Nach Aa VIII/II sollte es zu šaqû, elû, šamû eine gemeinsame Lesung des Zeichens BÀD geben. Dies dürfte ùn (dazu Volk 1995, 177) sein. Als nächstes haben mūtu, g[i…], šaqû, e[lû], šamû und eventuell līlātu eine gemeinsame Lesung. Da ùn eindeutig auf n und nicht auf ŋ endet und mithin eine Variante *ug5 zu ùn ausscheidet, liegt es nahe, u9 als Kurzlesung zu ùn und ug5 (oder ušx = úš = mūtu) anzunehmen und nicht wie MSL 14 [ú-ug] zu ergänzen. Dann kommt noch einmal mūtu, und wir könnten hier eine Langlesung ug5 einsetzen (vgl. MSL 14, 498–99). In der gleichen Weise ist der Abschnitt zu den Lesungen gú, gún von GÚ aufgebaut (Aa VIII/I 58–71 = MSL 14, 491). Es bleibt aber ein Rest von Zweifel, denn das Verbum wird häufig BAD(-g) geschrieben und die Lesungen von BAD sind ziemlich gut überliefert (Zusammenstellung bei Borger 2003, 67–8; insbesondere Proto-Ea und Ea sind vollständig). Trotzdem sind weder ug7 noch

10

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

Indessen gibt es auch eine ganze Reihe anderer Möglichkeiten, diese Häufung an Worten bzw. Wurzeln mit nur einem Vokal zu erklären, insbesondere mehr Vokalphoneme bzw. phonologisch relevante Vokallängen,2 Diphthonge, graphische Trennung verschiedener Bedeutungen ei/u/ für BAD bezeugt. Der Fall erinnert ein wenig an kal, kala, *kalag (die letzte Form folgt KAL(-ga) und unorthographischen Schreibungen ka-la(-ak)-ka, CAD D 93a). Edzard (2003, 77) gebraucht ug5 und ug7, als gäbe es zumindest in den älteren Texten die Aufteilung ug7 (BAD) “sterben” (¶am¢u Plural) und ug5 (BÀD) “töten” (Singular u. Pl.). Dies beruht wohl darauf, dass in den altsum. Texten nur kurzes BAD verwendet wird und die Masse der Belege aus Wirtschaftstexten stammt, die den Tod vermerken, aber nicht vom Töten handeln. Jedenfalls wird zu Rosengarten 1967, Nr. 286 nur die Lesung bàd verzeichnet. Vgl. jedoch muBAD “er hat getötet” (Ean. 2 iv 15; 3 iv 19). Dies ist zwar kein Gegenbeweis, da die Grammatiken ¶. Sg. úš lesen, doch bleibt so das Argument völlig offen, denn der ¶. Pl. in der Bedeutung “töten” ist nicht belegt und es gibt keinen Grund, eine Trennung des transitiven und intransitiven Gebrauches durch verschiedene Zeichen anzunehmen. Ohnehin ist der ¶. Sg. úš angesichts von häufigem BAD-ga fraglich. Zu der Lesung úš sind nur die Gleichungen mūtu “Tod”, mītu “tot”, nicht aber mâtu “sterben”, šumūtu “töten” belegt. Der bei Edzard nicht verzeichnete Sg. marû wird vermutlich als BAD/BÀD-ge gebildet. Z. B. en-na ba-BÀD-ge-a “(ich werde ihn nicht mit dem Blick des Lebens ansehen), bis er gestorben ist” (Enki u. Ninhursanga 219); šìr kù-ŋá-ke4-eš ì-BÀD-ge-dè-en “soll ich wegen meines heiligen Liedes sterben?” (Nin me šár-ra 99). Das Verbum bedarf weiterer Untersuchung. 2 Recht unwahrscheinlich ist die von Adam Falkenstein (1959, 23) vorgeschlagene Möglichkeit von bedeutungsunterscheidenden Tonhöhen. Tonhöhen spielen vor allem bei Sprachen mit isolierender Tendenz eine Rolle (z. B. Chinesisch, Vietnamesisch, Ewe), während Sumerisch stark agglutinierend ist. D. h. Bedeutung kann durch Wortkoppelung, Wortbildungs- und grammatische Elemente übernommen werden, und es besteht theoretisch kein Grund, mit Hilfe von Tonhöhen die Zahl möglicher Wurzelsilben stark zu steigern, wie es für isolierende Sprachen typisch ist. Das den Umschriften zugrunde liegende und eigentlich vom Akkadischen geborgte System der Vokale i, e, a, u ist wegen seiner Asymmetrie und äußerst geringen Zahl an Vokalen ohnehin unwahrscheinlich (s. auch unten). Die Vernachlässigung eines vermutlich reicheren Vokalsystems in den Umschriften führt dann aber automatisch zu vielen Homophonen, auch ohne dass man Tonhöhen annehmen muss. Ebenfalls ausgelassen hat der Verfasser die ebenfalls von Falkenstein (1959, 45; vgl. auch Thomsen 1984, 38f.) ins Spiel gebrachte Möglichkeit von Nasalvokalen. Gerade das Präfix ì- / e-, welches Falkenstein für [ĩ] anführt, reagiert (süd-) altsumerisch in einer Vokalharmonie auf den folgenden Vokal. Daher kann man eine Übereinstimmung in Bezug auf eine der beiden Formantfrequenzen erwarten (da die Vokalharmonie auf der Mundöffnung beruht, handelt es sich um den

J. Keetman, Gab es ein h im Sumerischen?

11

nes Wortes bzw. tatsächliche Homophone. Man kann sich auch darüber streiten, welche dieser Wurzeln nach den Umschriften als Homophone anzusehen sind, denn e “Wassergraben”, u6 “Staunen erregend”, u9 “sterben” haben g-Auslaut, u9 “hoch” n-Auslaut, e11 “hinauf-, herabsteigen”, i7 “Fluss”, u4 “Tag” und ebenso è in der marû-Form haben d-Auslaut. Außerdem wird man von Wurzeln, die durch die Satzstellung und den Gebrauch von Affixen im Sumerischen praktisch immer unterschieden werden können, wie Verben von Substantiven, eher Homophone erwarten können. Trotzdem ist die Zahl von 18 Worten, die nach den Umschriften nur aus einem Vokal bestehen, auffallend und verlangt nach einer Erklärung. Der ausgefallene Konsonant ist eine davon. Wenn es einen solchen gab, so hat h eine gute Chance,3 denn diesen Konsonanten gab es im Akkadischen nicht. Da h auch weit ab von den im Akkadischen benutzten Artikulationsstellen gebildet wird, wäre es nicht verwunderlich, wenn h im Akkadischen einfach durch den Stimmabsatz wiedergegeben würde. Nennen wir also einen möglichen, ausgefallenen Konsonanten stellvertretend auch für andere Möglichkeiten einfach h. Eine Zusammenstellung der Argumente für einen ausgefallenen Konsonanten findet sich bei Edzard,4 und wir können sie als Ausgangspunkt für unsere Diskussion benutzen, fügen aber noch einen 5. Punkt hinzu, den Edzard nur streift: 1) Sumerisch é-gal “Palast” erscheint im Ugaritischen als hkl, hebr. hēkāl und ähnl. in anderen Sprachen.5 É steht im älteren Akkadischen für

1. Formanten). Bei einem Nasal werden diese aber von einer starken Nasalfrequenz überschattet. D. h. Nasalvokale sind zum Ausdruck einer Vokalharmonie wenig geeignet. Die Alternative, dass in Wirklichkeit eine (meines Wissens sonst nicht belegte) Vokalharmonie zwischen nasalen und nichtnasalen Vokalen besteht, führt nicht nur zu Schwierigkeiten mit den beteiligten Vokalen, sondern lässt auch unberücksichtigt, dass beide Alternativen vor nasalen und nichtnasalen Konsonanten stehen. Auch in Bezug auf bedeutungsunterscheidende Längen ist der Autor skeptisch, weil sich Pleneschreibungen in sumerischen Lehnworten im Akkadischen fast nur in der letzten Silbe mit sumerischem Anteil nachweisen lassen. Ein bedeutungsunterscheidendes Merkmal, das nur in der letzten Silbe auftaucht, erscheint aber unwahrscheinlich. Verf. wird die Vokale an anderer Stelle behandeln, weswegen diese Ausführungen hier knapp gehalten sind. 3 So auch Edzard 2003, 19. 4 Edzard 2003, 19. 5 Vgl. zuletzt Dreier 2004.

12

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

später ausgefallenes ‫ ح‬in Ebla, auch noch für h, und letzteres wohl auch noch im ältesten Akkadischen, insofern dort auch dieser Konsonant noch erhalten ist. 2) Hebr. µideqqel als Name für den Tigris (sum. idigna) und der Name der Stadt Hīt, altbabyl. i-daki, könnte von sum. i7 / íd “Fluss” bzw. vergöttlicht díd abgeleitet sein. 3) In Ugarit steht Ú für zu erwartendes hu. Edzard vermutet, dass dies auf die Schreibung amurritischer Eigennamen zurückgeht. 4) Nach einem vokalisch endenden Wort wird ein Vokal einer Endung entweder nicht geschrieben, an den vorangehenden Vokal assimiliert oder einfach beibehalten. Z. B. gala-e-ne “die kalû-Sänger”, ì-lá-e(-ne) “sie werden zahlen”. 5) In Ebla werden die in semitischen Worten weitgehend für h, µ reservierten Zeichen É, U96 auch in sumerischen Lehnworten, Lautwertangaben zu sumerischen Worten und in Zeichennamen verwandt. Wir wollen zunächst die ersten 4 Punkte diskutieren und danach erst auf den Fall Ebla eingehen. Zu 1: Es ist auffallend, dass es nur ein einziges Zeichen für ‫ ح‬im ältesten Akkadischen gibt. Daher ist es möglich, dass ‫ ح‬+ a sumerische Hörer an einen pharyngalisierten Vokal kurz vor a erinnerte. Dass ein sumerisches “e” kurz vor a anzunehmen ist, lässt sich mit Hilfe der altsumerischen Vokalharmonie mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit nachweisen.7 Dies 6

Das Zeichen U9 wechselt häufig mit Ù (dem einzigen anderen Vokalzeichen für [u]). Z. B. u9-ba-ra-tù-um / ù-ba-ra-tum (VE 91; cf. Sjöberg 2003b, 532); u9- / ùzi-ba-tù / ù-zu-ba-tum (VE 650a). Ein eigenes Vokalzeichen für [e] außer É gibt es nicht. Dies ist einigermaßen in Übereinstimmung mit der “klassischen” Annahme, e sei im Akkadischen aus a unter Einfluss von etymologischem ‫ غ ع ح‬entstanden (GAG³ § 9a). Daraus ließe sich der Verdacht ableiten, É stünde in Ebla auch für ‫ع‬. In anderem Zusammenhang werden wir darauf noch einmal zurückkommen, doch die empirische Basis bleibt für eine definitive Entscheidung zu schmal. Beachte auch, dass Leonid Kogan (2001) eine große Zahl von Abweichungen in beiden Richtungen von der klassischen Theorie gesammelt hat, nämlich a > e ohne scharfes Alif und a bleibt trotz einer Etymologie mit scharfem Alif erhalten. Doch lässt sich daraus nicht der Schluss ziehen, Ebla zeige eine im späteren Akkadischen aus unbekannten Gründen nur verschwommen sichtbare Regel in ganzer Schärfe, denn ein Allophon “e” könnte sich auch hinter anderen Zeichen verstecken. 7 Der Vokal e ist in altsumerischen Verben relativ selten und noch seltener ist e in der Wurzel und e- als Präfix. Da e- als Präfix sonst nur vor a in der Wurzel und ganz selten vor u vorkommt, ist anzunehmen, dass einige Verben mit e spä-

J. Keetman, Gab es ein h im Sumerischen?

13

könnte sehr wohl der Ausgangspunkt für die Verwendung von É als Zeichen für ‫ ح‬im Semitischen und, weil es nichts anderes gab, auch für h gewesen sein. Beachte auch, dass É im Sumerischen nie als Silbenzeichen verwendet wird. Das h von hkl kann auf dem Umweg über den Gebrauch von É als Schriftzeichen erklärt werden.8 Zu 2: Sehr wenige Ortsnamen haben eine gesicherte sumerische Etymologie.9 Doch wenn die Namen Ñideqqel und Hīt (wie immer sie zueinander stehen mögen) nicht ursprünglich sumerisch sind, fällt die Argumentation in sich zusammen. Beachte auch, dass Hīt weit außerhalb des historisch belegten sumerischen Siedlungsgebietes liegt. Von sum. i7(-d) kommt man auch kaum auf eine Schreibung i-daki im aB. Dagegen ist ein auslautendes -a ein Kennzeichen vieler semitischer Lehnworte im Sumerischen. Auch sem. t > sum. d wäre die normale Entsprechung. Wu Yuhong hat für den Nachbarfluss Euphrat, sum. i7buranuna, eine sumerische Etymologie vorgeschlagen: bùru(-d) + a + nun + a(-k) “the source of great water”.10 Den ersten Bestandteil leitet Yuhong von burù / burud “Loch” und bu4 / buru(-d)x (= PÚ) “Brunnen” ab und beide von akk. būrtum “Brunnen”. Letzteres mag durchaus sein, aber vom Brunnen kommt man nicht so leicht zum Fluss. Eine mögliche Brücke für einen Vergleich hat indessen Christopher Woods gefunden.11 Woods glaubt, dass die Bezeichnung von der Gegend um Sippar ausging, wo sich der Strom in einzelne Arme aufspaltete. Auf diese Situation scheint auch das Lugalbanda-Epos mit dem Ausdruck i7ka-umun5 dutu “Der Fluss des Utu mit sieben Mündern” (Lugalbanda II 35) anzuspielen, denn Utu/Šamaš ist Stadtgott in Sippar. Damit ginge die Bezeichnung von einer charakteristischen geographischen Situation aus, für die das Bild eines Brunnens möglich erscheint, allerdings eher das eines plätschernden Brunnens, denn eines Ziehbrunnens, wie wir ihn für

ter als Verben mit a aufgefasst wurden. Diese Veränderung wird in der Sumerologie zu Unrecht als i/a-Wechsel verstanden. Die Statistik bestätigt auch Arno Poebel’s Auffassung der Präfixharmonie als Vokalharmonie nach der Mundöffnung (Poebel 1931). Daher kann man annehmen, dass ein e näher an a rückte, um den Unterschied zwischen geringer Mundöffnung (ì-) und großer Mundöffnung (e- und eben a) so groß wie möglich zu machen. Vgl. Keetman 2005. 8 Die Argumente in diesem Abschnitt finden sich ausführlicher in Keetman 2004a. 9 Vgl. Rubio 1999, 6. 10 Yuhong 2005, 392f. 11 Woods 2005, Anm. 139 auf S. 37f.

14

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

den sumerischen Süden annehmen müssen. Dass sich ein sumerischer Name bei den Semiten vollständig durchgesetzt hat, würde aber zugleich dafür sprechen, dass die Semiten nach den Sumerern an den Euphrat gelangten. Woher kam dann das semitische Lehnwort für Brunnen ins Sumerische? Eine von beiden Etymologien ist also vermutlich falsch. Daher ist es weiter gut möglich, in i7buranuna nur eine sumerische Volksetymologie für einen ähnlich klingenden Namen zu sehen. Die Situation um Sippar mag bei dieser Etymologie durchaus Pate gestanden haben. Für den Tigris lässt sich eine sumerische Etymologie etwas leichter behaupten, weil man von dem Wort i7 / íd “Fluss” ausgehen kann. Etwa íd ì-ŋen-na “der Fluss, welcher sich (schnell) fortbewegt” im Gegensatz zum langsameren Euphrat oder zu Seitenarmen und Kanälen, die auch mit i7 bezeichnet werden.12 Der Wechsel n / l ist überdies für das Sumerische gut bezeugt. Trotzdem zwingt diese Möglichkeit keineswegs dazu, ein h im Sumerischen anzunehmen. Es kann sich im Sumerischen um eine gut treffende Volksetymologie handeln. Dafür spricht, dass bei einem alten sumerischen Lehnwort im Semitischen nicht d, sondern t zu erwarten wäre13 und auch q für ŋ nicht wahrscheinlich ist. Doch selbst wenn die sumerische Etymologie zutrifft, kann der Pharyngal von in Ñideqqel sekundär entstanden sein, z. B. zur Wiedergabe eines pharyngalisierten Vokals im Sumerischen.14 Zu 3: Im Ugaritischen musste man das h entweder unausgedrückt lassen oder eine Schreibung dafür festsetzen. Die amurritischen Eigennamen liefern vielleicht eine Brücke in Richtung auf das Sumerische. Diese Brücke ist aber doch sehr unsicher über Zeit und Raum gebaut. Wir wer12

So ich mich recht erinnere, wurde diese Etymologie erstmals von Thorkild Jacobsen vorgeschlagen. 13 Vgl. du¶ > tu¶¶um “Rückstand”; dub > ¢uppum “Tafel”; nu-bànda > laputtā’um “Leutnant”; gidim > e¢emmum “Totengeist”; mu¶aldim > nu¶atimmum “Koch”; kid > kītum “Matte”. Der Befund bei sum. D wird durch analoge Beobachtungen zu B und G gestützt. Z. B. é-gal > ekallum “Palast” (hēkāl); eri-gal > erkallum “Unterwelt”, aber jung èš-gal > ešgallu “Großheiligtum”. Vgl. Keetman 2004b. 14 Die Entstehung eines h oder ¶ aus einem Stimmabsatz ist belegt, aber so weit ich sehen kann, können immer spezielle Gründe angenommen werden. Z. B. ba’ūlātu(m) “Untertanen”, nA ba¶ūlātu “Truppen” (aram. Einfluss?). Tatarisch urdu “Lager” > türk. ordu “Heer” > poln. hordu “Horde”. Pejorativ lautmalend? Vgl. Eule > heulen. Oft im Dialekt von Mehri. Vgl. hām (’mm) “Mutter”, µeib (’b) “Vater” usw.

J. Keetman, Gab es ein h im Sumerischen?

15

den weiter unten noch darstellen, dass selbst wenn man ein h im älteren Sumerisch annimmt, es recht unwahrscheinlich ist, dass die Schreiber der altbabylonischen Zeit davon noch Kunde hatten. Da außerdem für É [h] bzw. [ha] als semitische Entsprechungen nachgewiesen sind, würde man im Falle, dass Ú im Sumerischen für [hu] stand, diesen Gebrauch parallel zu É auch im ältesten Akkadischen erwarten, was aber nicht der Fall ist. Zu 4: Das Phänomen bedarf sicher einer eingehenden Untersuchung, wie sie überhaupt für den Gebrauch der sumerischen Silbenzeichen erforderlich wäre. Auffallend ist ugula-ne gala-e-ne … e-ŋá-ŋá-ne.15 Nach dem Lehnwort ugula “Aufseher” und der marû-Verdoppelung (¶am¢u ŋar) können wir uns mit vokalischem Auslaut sicher sein, GALA “Kultsänger” könnte ein h im Auslaut gehabt haben. Ferner fällt eine Häufung der Schreibung didli-e-ne (“einzelne”) altsumerisch auf, insbesondere wenn man bedenkt, dass -e-ne altsumerisch selten ist. Andererseits ist -e-ne für den Auslaut nicht spezifisch, denn es wird nach verschiedenen Konsonanten geschrieben.16 Normalerweise wird das Suffix nach dem Vokal eines Nomens altsumerisch nur -ne geschrieben.17 Dies scheint zwar *gala¶ zu stützen,18 doch das Ergebnis ist etwas zu gut und lässt auch an eine ganz andere Lösung denken. Obwohl die Form gala lexikalisch und durch das Lehnwort kalû gut bezeugt ist, gibt es auch eine Nebenform galx19 und hinter Konsonant ist -e-ne durchaus zu belegen. Dass AŠ + AŠ = dili + dili oder dil + dil u. a. altsum. in Lagaš didli gelesen wurde, ist auch nicht unbedingt sicher. Selbst wenn wir die Tücken des Schriftsystems, wie sie etwa in lugalné “sein Herr” gegenüber diŋir-ra-né “sein Gott” und ähnlichen Beispielen zum Ausdruck kommen, außer Acht lassen, ist das Unterbleiben einer sonst vollzogenen Kontraktion kein sicherer Hinweis auf einen Konsonanten. 15

Ukg. 6 i 12′–21′. Nach Konsonant: šu-ku6-e-ne (VS 14, 136 = AWL 6 iv 4) und šu-ku6-re6-ne (VS 25, 62 = VAT 4488 R iii 2); ferner gidim-e-ne-kam (VS 14, 163 = AWL 167 vi 7); munus-e-ne (VS 25, 75 = VAT 4632 i 6); šu na-mu-da-né-bal-e-ne (Luzag. 1 iii 34). 17 Verf. konnte kein weiteres Beispiel für -e-ne nach Vokal finden, war aber nicht in der Lage, das gesamte Material durchzusehen. Doch selbst wenn noch irgendwo Beispiele auftauchen sollten, kann doch zumindest gesagt werden, dass sie sehr selten sind. 18 Vgl. auch neusum. …x-GALA-e-ne-ra (NG 101, 10). 19 Diri IV 154, vgl. Borger 2003, 117 zu Nr. 381. 16

16

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

Angesichts der Inkonsistenzen der altsumerischen Orthographie und der Seltenheit von -e-ne kann auch der parallele Gebrauch von -e-ne und -ne und der Umstand, dass der Verfasser kein nach unserem Verständnis auf einen Vokal endendes Wort nachweisen kann, das sowohl mit -ne als auch mit -e-ne gebraucht wird, nicht für h überzeugen. Vgl. jedoch šu-ku6-re6-ne, šu-ku6-e-ne, šu-ku6-ne “die Fischer”.20 Vergleichen wir ein anderes Verbum gu7 “essen; nutznießen”: Gut belegt sind ì-gu7-e21 und ì-gu7-ne.22 Setzen wir wegen ì-gu7-e die Wurzel als /guh/ an, so zeigt ì-gu7-ne, dass -ne anstelle von -e-ne kein Argument ist, um ein h im Auslaut zu verneinen. Damit verliert aber der Gegensatz -ene zu -ne an Überzeugungskraft. Nehmen wir die Wurzel wegen ì-gu7-ne als /gu/ an, so zeigt ì-gu7-e, dass auf eine vokalisch endende Wurzel ebenfalls ein Vokal folgen kann. Dies ist ohnehin offensichtlich, denn alle vokalisch endenden Verben ohne Stammveränderung bilden marû im Singular mit -e. Das Antreten des Suffixes -e-ne an Nomen und marû-Formen lässt sich als dumu + e-ne, ŋá-ŋá + e-ne und lá-e + e-ne denken. Damit ist klar, dass für den Unterschied dumu-ne, ŋá-ŋá-ne zu lá-e-ne die Singularform marû verantwortlich gemacht werden kann. Diese Regel gilt nicht für alle Belege, z. B. nicht für die bekannten Pluralformen von gu7. Doch dass eine Kontraktionsregel nicht immer angewandt wird oder die Form häufig nicht vollständig geschrieben wird, ist nicht ungewöhnlich. Um auf ein auslautendes h zu schließen, müsste man dagegen anhand einer statistisch relevanten Zahl von Beispielen zeigen, dass -e-ne nur nach ganz speziellen Verben geschrieben wird. Aber selbst wenn dies gelingen würde, würde es erst bedeuten, dass ein auslautender Konsonant als Lösung des Problems in die nähere Auswahl kommt, denn der Unterschied kann auch mit dem jeweiligen Vokal zusammenhängen, über den wir durch die akkadische Wiedergabe möglicherweise unzureichend informiert sind. Wenn man h als Konsonanten annimmt, so fällt das Fehlen einer spezifischen Schreibung auf. Man vergleiche diŋir-ré-ne, jünger häufig diŋir-re-e-ne. Parallel wäre nicht GALA-e-ne, sondern GALA-*HE(-e)-ne oder GALA-É(-e)-ne zu erwarten. Zwar wird -e-ne auch nach Konsonant geschrieben, aber Konsonanten werden sonst im Auslaut nicht regel-

20

Siehe Anm. 16 und Nik 1, 269 iii 7. En. I 29 viii 6; e-da-gu7-e (Ean. 1 vi 15). 22 DP 222 v 1; viii 2 passim. 21

J. Keetman, Gab es ein h im Sumerischen?

17

mäßig ignoriert. Z. B. ist lugal-né “sein Herr” altsum. die übliche Form, ebenso aber auch nam-ti-la-né “sein Leben”. Dass sich aus dem Unterbleiben einer Kontraktion nicht auf einen später ausgefallenen Konsonanten schließen lässt, zeigen auch Beispiele, die unkontrahierte und kontrahierte Schreibungen beim gleichen Wort bzw. der gleichen Form bieten, z. B. u4-bé-a23 und u4-ba.24 Dieser Wechsel von kontrahierten und nicht kontrahierten Formen25 folgt offenbar keinem historischen Schema, nachdem man ihn als Ausdruck für die allmähliche Aufgabe eines h im Sumerischen interpretieren könnte. Auch folgender Vergleich ist aufschlussreich: Sowohl das /-a/ des Lokativs wie das /-a/ zur Bildung untergeordneter bzw. nominalisierter Verbalformen werden auch nach Vokal immer geschrieben. Dagegen kann das a des Genitivsuffixes /-ak/ zwar nach Konsonanten, die am Wortende vorkommen, geschrieben werden, nach dem Vokal einer Wurzel wird es hingegen fast nie geschrieben.26 Eine Ausnahme stellen sowohl die Personalpronomina als auch die von ihnen abgeleiteten Possessivsuffixe dar, die vor /-ak/ ihren letzten Vokal verlieren: za-e “du”, za-kam “es gehört zu dir”, dšul-šà-ga-na “der Jüngling seines Herzens” (GN), nam-ti-damdumu-na-šè “für das Leben seiner Frau und seines Kindes” etc. Diese Regeln über die Behandlung des Vokals der Endung haben offensichtlich nichts mit einem auslautenden h zu tun, führen aber zum gleichen orthographischen Ergebnis, dass a mal geschrieben wird, mal nicht.

23

Ukg. 4 iii 4. Ean. 22 iii 7. 25 Gerade bei u4-bé-a liegt der Verdacht nahe, dass es sich, obwohl bé und a auch als Silbenzeichen betrachtet werden können, in Wirklichkeit um eine morphemanalytische Schreibung handelt, die mit der häufigeren phonetischen Schreibung -ba konkurriert. Doch das ändert nichts an der Gültigkeit des Argumentes, denn wenn u4-béa für u4-ba steht, dann kann auch gala-e-ne für gala-ne o. ä. stehen. Nicht festzulegen brauchen wir uns auch in einer anderen Frage, nämlich ob wirklich eine Kontraktion von Vokalen stattfand oder ob, wie J. Bauer eingewandt hat, das Sumerische vielleicht eine Sprache ist, die nur die Ausdrängung von Vokalen kannte (cf. Bauer 2005, 25). Dafür sprechen Lehnworte, in denen sich mutmaßliche Kontraktionslängen normalerweise nicht nachweisen lassen, z. B. gizillû < gi-izi-lá “Fackel”. 26 Daraus ergibt sich kein sicherer Beweis gegen einen ausgefallenen Konsonanten am Wortende. Auch für h, š und z konnte der Autor keine entsprechenden Beispiele für die Schreibung des Vokals des Genitivs finden, obwohl diese Konsonanten am Wortende möglich sind. Auch wenn solche Beispiele noch beigebracht werden, muss man doch eine hohe Seltenheit zugeben. 24

18

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

Daraus folgt, dass die 4 Argumente für h zwar zu bedenken sind, aber keines ein besonderes Gewicht hat. Sie stehen auch jedes für sich, ohne sich gegenseitig zu stützen. Drehen wir den Spieß um und nehmen an, es hätte im Sumerischen ein h bzw. einen entsprechenden Konsonanten gegeben. Gab es dann im Sumerischen auch KV-Silbenzeichen für diesen Konsonanten? Wir können jedenfalls feststellen, dass die Zeichen A und E nicht speziell für *ha / *he standen, denn sie werden für grammatische Elemente gebraucht, die auch mit Zeichen für Konsonant + a, e geschrieben werden können. D. h. ein *h könnte nur zur Wurzel gehören. Formen wie u4-bé-a “an diesem Tag”27 und gidim-e-ne-kam28 zeigen eindeutig, dass keine spezifische Schreibung für *ha / *he vorliegen kann. Dass Ì speziell für *hi steht ist ebenfalls recht unwahrscheinlich. Altsumerisch wechselt es im Süden mit E als Präfix entsprechend einer Vokalharmonie, wir müssten also für E noch einen zweiten Lautwert mit h annehmen, wenn Ì ausschließlich für *hi gebraucht worden wäre. Dies erscheint immerhin noch möglich, wenn auch problematisch, da É und nicht E im Semitischen auch für h verwendet werden kann. Ähnliches gilt für Ì selbst: Da h wenn auch nur noch schwach im älteren Akkadischen und dessen Variante in Ebla belegt ist und auch mindestens ein eigenes Zeichen hatte, fragt man sich, warum ein speziell für *hi gebrauchtes Ì nicht auch im Semitischen für [hi] gebraucht wurde. Schwerer wiegt noch das Problem mit den Präformativen: Bis auf seltenes nu-uš- haben sie alle vokalischen Auslaut und sie sind vor allen Präfixen belegt, die die Verbalkette eröffnen können, außer vor ì-(/e-). Es lässt sich also mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit vermuten, dass dieses Präfix nur deshalb nicht hinter Präformativen belegt ist, weil sein Vokal im Vokal des Präfixes aufgegangen ist. Damit kämen wir zu der Annahme, dass h in dieser Position regelmäßig ausfällt. D. h. wir können Ì = [hi] nur mit einer sonst durch nichts gestützten Hilfskonstruktion retten. Alle diese Schwierigkeiten zusammen führen zu dem Schluss, dass Ì als spezielles Zeichen für *hi sehr unwahrscheinlich ist. Das Silbenzeichen Ù wechselt ab Gudea unter Einfluss von benachbartem /u/ mit E: lú-e > lú-ù, dumu-ù etc.29 Später wird hierfür auch U8 ge-

27

Ukg 4 iii 4. Wegen häufigerem u4-ba ist es möglich, dass es sich hier um eine analytische Schreibweise handelt. Aber auch dann spricht sie gegen *ha. 28 VS 14, 163 = AWL 6 iv 4. 29 Siehe Falkenstein 1949, 44.

J. Keetman, Gab es ein h im Sumerischen?

19

schrieben. An diesen Stellen lässt sich kaum jeweils ein *hu annehmen.30 Anders als bei Verben ist nach Substantiven der Übergang “e > u” (wenn es sich darum handeln sollte) hinter keinem bekannten Konsonanten nachgewiesen, h wäre eine Ausnahme. Andererseits würde es dann nach vokalischem Auslaut keinen Übergang “e > u” geben. Es ließen sich weitere Gründe anführen, aber ich glaube, dass es hinlänglich bewiesen ist, dass Ù nicht als spezifische Schreibung für [hu] gedeutet werden kann. Als Silbenzeichen, das h anzeigt, blieben wohl nur Ú und alt kaum verwandtes I übrig. Beide aber nur deshalb, weil es keinen ganz sicheren Weg gibt, diese Verwendung auszuschließen. Ihr Gebrauch im Akkadischen für [u] bzw. [i] (alt aber vor allem [ji]) passt aber schlecht zu einer Deutung als sumerische Zeichen für [hu] und [hi]. Die Betrachtung sollte indes nicht auf die Phonologie der Umschrift des Sumerischen abgestellt werden. Theoretisch besteht die Möglichkeit von Kompromissen. Nehmen wir etwa an, Ù = [o], Ú = [hu]. Dann können wir für [u] im Akkadischen mal einen Kompromiss beim Vokal machen und Ù schreiben und mal einen Kompromiss beim Konsonanten und Ú schreiben. Schwerer fällt es einzusehen, warum gerade ein I = [hi] zur Schreibung von [ji] gebraucht werden sollte. Spricht das Akkadische eher gegen sumerisch I = [hi], so auch gegen Ú = [hu], denn nur ein Silbenzeichen für hV im Sumerischen ist nicht wahrscheinlich und das auffallende Nebeneinander von Ù und Ú, findet in I und Ì eine Parallele. Da am Anfang sumerischer Suffixe nur die Vokale a, e belegt sind, wären vor allem Zeichen für [ha], [he] zu erwarten. In Bezug auf diese Vokale hat das System der sumerischen KV-Zeichen nur bei seltenem und überdies am Wortende wohl ausgeschlossenem P kein Zeichen. Aus dieser Betrachtung der Vokalzeichen ergibt sich, dass h weder im Auslaut noch in grammatischen Elementen je geschrieben worden wäre. Nun kann eine Regel für die Bildung von Wurzeln, nach der h am Wortende ausgeschlossen gewesen wäre, bestanden haben.31 Auch die zahlreichen Prä- und Suffixe des Sumerischen müssen nicht den gesamten Phonembestand aufweisen. Es gibt auch nur eine beschränkte Zahl sumerischer Worte, die syllabisch geschrieben wurden. 30

Vgl. z. B. dumu-ù (< *dumu-e) in Gudea Zyl. A xiii 4 und ama dumu-dumune (< *ama dumu-dumu-e-ne-a(k)) in Gudea Statue A i 3; sowie schon altsumerisch dumu-dumu-ne-kam (VS 25, 45 = VAT 4467 R iv 3; Nik 1, 203 R iv 3; VS 14, 101 = AWL 47 iii 6); dumu-dumu-ne (VS 25, 37 = VAT 4456 R x 4; Nik 1, 205 i 3) u. a. 31 Beachte, dass damit das einzige direkt aus dem Sumerischen stammende Argument für h (unsere Nr. 4) entfallen würde.

20

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

Die Feststellung, dass es keine speziellen Zeichen für hV gibt, und die Feststellung, dass h weder im Auslaut, noch in grammatischen Elementen, noch in den wenigen syllabischen Schreibungen bezeichnet wurde, folgen auseinander. Doch unabhängig, ob man die Frage von den fehlenden Silbenzeichen oder von den Ausschlussregeln her betrachtet, erscheint ein so schwer zu fassendes Phonem h recht unwahrscheinlich. Man könnte zwei Einwände formulieren. Der erste ist, dass fast die gleichen orthographischen Argumente auch gegen mehr als 4 Vokale im Sumerischen zu gebrauchen wären, obwohl das Sumerische sicher mehr Vokale besaß. Dieses System ist unsymmetrisch, mit ungewöhnlich wenigen Vokalen besetzt und entspricht ausgerechnet dem akkadischen eins zu eins. Schon daraus ließe sich vermuten, dass es das akkadische und nicht das sumerische Vokalsystem wiedergibt. Eine statistische Auswertung der (süd-)altsumerischen Vokalharmonie bei den Präfixen zeigt ferner, dass weniger als 10% der vergleichbaren Verben e- als Präfix und e in der Wurzel haben, was kaum zu erklären ist, wenn man im Akkadischen und Sumerischen praktisch identische Vokalsysteme annimmt.32 Doch angewandt auf die Vokale fallen die gleichen Argumente wesentlich schwächer aus. Über einen Vokal am Ende eines Wortes lässt sich aus dem Auslaut nichts sagen. Schon alleine das Auftreten von Vokalharmonien bei den Präfixen und in geringerem Umfang Suffixen des Sumerischen spricht für eine Tendenz, den Vokalismus der Affixe zu beschränken. Bleiben die nicht eben vielen syllabischen Schreibungen. Die nicht eindeutige Wiedergabe von Vokalen ist aber vielfach nachweisbar. Z. B. DU für [DRa], [DRe], GÁ für [ŋa], [ŋe], NI für [ni], [ne], TI für [de] (altsum. -TI-né- aus -da-né-). Dazu die nicht ganz sicheren aber auffallenden Beispiele A = e4 “Wasser”, E für ein anderes “e” in altsum. ì-e und e-ŋar. Dass sich mehr als 4 Vokale für das Sumerische nachweisen lassen, nimmt natürlich auch dem eingangs für h formulierten Argument der vielen Wurzeln mit nur einem Vokal erhebliches Gewicht. Der zweite mögliche Einwand besteht darin, dass sich auch für andere Konsonanten des Sumerischen nur schwer eigene Silbenzeichen nachweisen lassen. Doch bei genauerer Untersuchung bleibt kein Konsonant ohne eigene Silbenzeichen. Am schwächsten ist p bezeugt. Dafür gibt es gute Gründe, denn nach einer Regel für Lehnworte gibt es keinen akkadischen Konsonanten, der in Lehnworten zu sumerischem P (ziemlich si-

32

Dazu ausführlich Keetman 2005.

J. Keetman, Gab es ein h im Sumerischen?

21

cher als aspiriertes [ph] zu interpretieren) würde. Außerdem gibt es im Sumerischen eine Regel, die die im Sumerischen aspirierten, im Akkadischen einfach stimmlosen Konsonanten P, T, K am Wortende weitgehend ausschließt. Trotzdem lässt sich pa4 als spezifisches Zeichen für p schon im Altsumerischen nachweisen.33 Ein weiteres Argument liefern die sumerischen Lehnworte im Akkadischen und die Wiedergabe der Aussprache sumerischer Worte in lexikalischen Listen. Stünde das von uns bára(-g) gelesene sumerische Wort (etwa “erhöhter Thronsitz”, “Kapelle”) in Wirklichkeit für *bahra(-g), *bahara(-g) oder *barha(-g), so wäre nach den Lautgesetzen des Akkadischen davon ein Lehnwort *pārakkum zu erwarten. Belegt sind aber nur Schreibungen, die auf eine Aussprache parakkum hindeuten. Dies lässt sich verallgemeinern: für sumerische Lehnworte im Akkadischen lässt sich praktisch nie ein langer Vokal in der vorletzten oder drittletzten sumerischen Silbe nachweisen. Ähnlich fällt eine Betrachtung der Lautwerte aus Proto-Ea aus: Der einzige Hinweis auf einen Stimmabsatz findet sich in wa-ar-im (145a, URI) und ist ganz offensichtlich ein Akkadismus. Außerdem gibt es nur vier Pleneschreibungen eines Vokals vor der letzten Silbe: e-da-ku-ú-a (229, É×(A+ÚA+DA)), ne-e-ne (458, NINNI5), ka-a-ku (510, KAŠ4), ú-tu-ú-a (828, DAG.KISIM5×UŠ). Auffallend sind insbesondere das erste und das letzte Beispiel. Das erste Beispiel hat 4 Silben, drei verschiedene Vokale und zwei Vokale in direkter Folge. Dies alles ist ziemlich ungewöhnlich für ein sumerisches Wort. Geglichen ist es mit si¶il nūni “Fischgräte”34. Die Pleneschreibung des Vokals mag mit einer Etymologie zusammenhängen, die sich – wahrscheinlich fälschlich – auf das Wort ku6 “Fisch” bezog,35 dessen Zeichen ÚA in die phonetische Glosse aufgenommen wurde. Ebenfalls wegen seiner Lautgestalt fällt ú-tu-ú-a (nach dem Akkadischen pu¶ālu “männliches Zuchttier”) auf. Drei Silben, zwei verschiedene Vokale und zwei Vokale in direkter Folge, sind für eine sumerische Wurzel ungewöhnlich. Sumerische Wortbildung mit Verb + -a oder Lehn33 Vgl. E×pa4 (= PAB) für pa5 “Bewässerungsrinne”, “Kanal” (Rosengarten 1967, 54 Nr. 298; Behrens–Steible 1983, 274). Etwas weniger sicher ist pa4-šeš von pāšišum “Salbungspriester”, weil ein Verstoß gegen die Regel akkad. p > sum. b vorliegt. Vgl. Behrens–Steible 1983, 273. 34 CAD S 237b. 35 Als sehr unsicheren Versuch könnte man an *è.d + a + ku6 + a(-k) “was aus dem Fisch herauskommt” denken.

22

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

wort unbekannter Herkunft? Im Akkadischen wird der Begriff u. a. mit Ableitungen von der Wurzel rkb “reiten” gebildet. Dies legt eine Etymologie aus *udu-u5-a nahe.36 Mit dem 7. und letzten Eintrag zu KAŠ4 in Proto-Ea, ka-a-ku kann ich nicht viel anfangen. Nicht ganz ausgeschlossen, dass es ein Fremdwort für “Läufer, Bote” unbekannter Herkunft ist. Für die Glosse ne-e-ne zu ninni5 = ašlu “Binse” (in etwa) weiß ich keine Erklärung.37 Man könnte an eine Wortbildung durch Verdoppelung denken, wie in bad5-bad5 “Niederlage” und kukku (ku7-ku7) “süß”, kúkku (ku10-ku10) “Finsternis”. Als verdoppelte Form könnte ne-e-ne eine Ausnahme darstellen. Doch steht diese Annahme nicht auf festen Füßen. Hätte ein ausgefallener Konsonant im Sumerischen Spuren hinterlassen, so wären auf jeden Fall mehr Beispiele für eine Pleneschreibung in einer vorderen Silbe oder für einen Stimmabsatz zu erwarten. Natürlich ist es möglich, dass Spuren eines h aus dem Sumerischen der altbabylonischen Zeit bereits spurlos verschwunden waren, z. B. weil die Lautgesetze des Sumerischen einen langen Vokal nur in der letzten Silbe einer Wurzel oder eines Wortes duldeten. Das Fehlen entsprechender Längen auch in sumerischen Lehnworten im Akkadischen ist hingegen kaum zu erklären, wenn wir ein ausgefallenes h im Sumerischen annehmen. Umgekehrt ist der Umstand, dass das Akkadische als einzige semitische Sprache h verloren hat, am besten durch das Fehlen dieses Konsonanten im Sumerischen zu erklären. Zu 5: Stellen wir zunächst einige Beispiele zusammen. Lehnworte: é-ga-ra-gú-um / é-ba-rux-gú (agrig, VE 706); é-ga-ra-kà-tum / [é]-ba-rux-[kà]-tum (agrig-mí, VE 707). Syllabische Wiedergabe: mu-é / e (KA.SAR, VE 169, 0162; cf. KA×SAR = KA×mú bzw. KA×ma4 = mu11 / ma8; wg. der Übersetzung qá-ma(-u9)-um ist wohl KA×ZÌ = mù / ma5 gemeint); šu-ta-é šu-ti-a (šu-ta šu-DU, VE 512a, 0413); zu-é-ar-ša (KA.ÚAR.DU = zú-ÚAR-ša4, VE 208, 0152); zu / suu9-ur (KA.ÚAR = zú-¶ur / ur5, VE 209, 0151); é-si4-an (für ú-si4-an / usan);38 u9-wa-mu (für u-àm).39

36

Vgl. CAD R 107f. s. v. rākibu und rakkābu. Andere Glossen sind ni-en-ni, ni-in-ni, ni-nu-u, ni-in. Siehe CAD A2 449a s. v. ašlu B. 38 Cf. Sjöberg 2003b, 546. 39 Siehe gleich. 37

J. Keetman, Gab es ein h im Sumerischen?

23

Zeichennamen:40 a-é-tum (ùz / ud5); é-ti-núm (dím = šitim); la-é-núm (KID.ALAN); lu-ma-é-ru12-um (DÙL), ma-é-ru12-um (amar); mar-u9-um (gur8, gar13, uru5); u9-ru12-um (ùr); su-du-u9 (Zeichen ungefähr munšub). Affix: Prospektiv u9-(DU).41 Diese Liste lässt sich erheblich reduzieren. Der Zeichenname é-ti-núm kommt offenbar von der akkadischen Gleichung šitim = itinnum “Baumeister”. Das Sumerische šitim ist wohl als *sig4-dím (sig4 = šig6) “Ziegel(mauer)hersteller” zu interpretieren. In Ebla wurde stattdessen wohl eine Etymologie itinnum < *é-dím zugrunde gelegt. Daher ist es möglich, dass bei der Wiedergabe von agrig “(Tempel-)Verwalter” ebenfalls auf é “Haus, Tempel” zurückgegriffen wurde. Wahrscheinlich semitischen Ursprung hat la-é-núm. Vgl. lānum “Gestalt”, sum. alan / alam “Statue” (akk. ´almum) klingt eventuell nur zufällig ähnlich. Ebenso bei ma-é-ru12-um, für welches das sumerische amar “Jungtier” (von Stier, Anzu-Adler) an akk. mūrum “Eselsfohlen, Jungtier”, arab. muhr- “Füllen” erinnert (SED II Nr. 149; den Hinweis auf die Etymologie verdanke ich L. Kogan). Zu denken gibt vor allem die Schreibung u9- für den Prospektiv. Sonst wird bereits altsumerisch durchgängig ù- und nicht etwa ú- geschrieben. Durch den folgenden Vokal bedingte Varianten sind bereits altsum. a-(ba-…)42 und spätestens ab Gudea ì-(bí-…).43 Die Schreibungen des 40

Siehe Archi 1987; vgl. auch Gong 2000, 3–5. TM 75 G 2459 ii 3. Dazu Krebernik 1984, 148–49. 42 Vgl. Attinger 1993, 295–96. 43 Gudea Zyl. A vi 15: ki ì-bí-ús, ähnl. Zyl. A xi 21. Nach Gudea kommen ì-bíund ù-bí- vor, ù- wird aber sonst nicht zu ì-. Die naheliegende Erklärung, dass ù+ im-mi- um-mi- ergeben musste, weil im-mi- hätte verwechselt werden können, während es kein zweites ì-bí- gab, muss nicht zutreffen, denn eine Unterscheidung, die die Schrift nicht wiedergibt, z. B. Betonung als Folge von Kontraktion, ist möglich. Diese Überlegung beseitigt auch einen möglichen Einwand gegen die These von Gerd Steiner (2003), wonach ù- altsumerisch auch in anderer Position zu ì- werden konnte. Zunächst sieht Steiners Vorschlag, der auf zum Teil schwierigen Textdeutungen fußt, nicht sehr wahrscheinlich aus: ì- statt ù- ist sonst nur vor bí- bezeugt, in der Position vor der Wurzel haben alle Präformative nur eine Form. Eine Ausnahme stellt jedoch ši-e “erklärt er (diesbezüglich)” (Ean. 1 x 25) dar, denn sonst hat dieses Präformativ altsum. die Form šè-. Weiter fällt auf, dass alle drei von Steiner für ù- > ì- reklamierten Verben šub, šuš, du11 altsum. ì- statt e- verlangen (im letzten Fall lese ich -ni ì-du11 statt wie Steiner ì-ni-du11). Umgekehrt steht ù- altsum. vor Wurzeln die e- erfordern, nämlich ù-sa10 (Ukg. 6 i 2′), ù-taka4 (Ukg. 6 ii 15′), ù-ak (Ukg. 6 iii 8′), ù-ur4 (Ukg. 6 i 17′). Häufig steht ùauch vor dem Präfix -na-. Unsicher ist Ukg. 4 vi 16, wo sich ù-DU allerdings sehr 41

24

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

Prospektivs im sumerischen Gebiet deuten also in keiner Weise auf ein *hu-. In Ebla sind Ù, A, Ì gerade nicht auf h bzw. ‫ ح‬festgelegt. Würden wir das Risiko eingehen, uns nur auf den einen Beleg zu stützen, so wäre die These, U9 in Ebla spräche für h im Sumerischen, durch dieses Beispiel widerlegt. Da die Argumente die gleichen sind, würde entsprechendes auch für É gelten. Man mag noch das eine oder andere Wort aus unserer Liste erklären, trotzdem bleibt ein Rest, bei dem die Annahme eines Laryngals oder der Pharyngals nicht so leicht von der Hand zu weisen ist. Spielen wir diese Möglichkeit einmal durch. Interessant ist insbesondere das Beispiel mit ÚAR, weil hierzu Lesungen mit und ohne ¶ existieren: ¶ar / ¶ur, àr / ur5. Andererseits erscheint eine semantische Trennung der verschiedenen Lesungen möglich.44 Stört man sich trotzdem an der Häufung ähnlicher Lesungen für das gleiche Zeichen, so wird es jedenfalls mit h / ¶ nicht besser. Eine Lesung mit ¶ ist in Ebla ebenso wie altsumerisch belegt.45 Eine zusätzliche Schwierigkeit entsteht, denn ‫ خ‬und h haben in Ebla sonst keine gemeinsamen Zeichen. Dies gut auch ù-ŋen lesen lässt. Ebenfalls unsicher ist das erste Zeichen in x-de5-de5 (Ukg. 6 i 1′), das wohl wegen folgendem ù-sa10 oft als ù rekonstruiert wird (siehe Steible 1982, 158); Sallaberger (2005) liest altsum. na di5(-g) wegen ì-, dies ist aber nicht nötig, da ì- vor e altsum. bezeugt ist; wir nehmen an, dass die gleiche Wurzel in na de5(-g) und RI(-g) “sammeln” gemeint ist. Erhalten bleibt ù- in ù-nišuš (Ent. 28 vi 23 = 29 vi 34). Auffallend ist weiter, dass sich diese Verteilung in Lagaš auch bei dem Präformativ ši- findet, dessen altsum. Grundform šè- lautet (getrennt zu betrachten sind die Belege aus den Istr. of Šuruppak aus Abū Ôalābī¶ und Adab; Alster 2005, 214–16). Nach Ukg. 6 ii 14′ ist von ì-e auszugehen (weitere Beispiele u. Disk. Keetman 2005, Anm. 18). Allerdings bleibt šè- trotz ì- in šè-šub (Urn. 49 iii 7) erhalten. Obwohl die Zahl der Belege für eine sichere Beweisführung nicht ausreicht, stützen sie Steiners Vermutung und präzisieren sie dahingehend, dass an Stellen, an denen altsum. ì- im Gegensatz zu e- zu erwarten ist, ein Vokalwechsel von ù- zu ì- und šè- zu ši- möglich war. Bei šè- / ši- ist die Möglichkeit einer Analogiebildung zum Präfix des Terminativs zwar ebenfalls zu bedenken, doch alt ša4-ba-, šè-mu-, jung ša-ba-, ša-mu- (šu-muist so gut wie nicht belegt) fügen sich nicht einer solchen Analogie. 44 Beachte, dass die Lehnworte ¶uršānu (< ¶ur-saŋ) “Gebirge”, giš¶u(r)ru (< ŋiš-¶ur) “Vorzeichnung”, ararru (< lúàr-àr) “Müller” (das Sumerische könnte vom Typ dub-sar sein, vgl. na4ur5 = erû “Mahlstein”, àr(a) = ¢ênu “mahlen”) ebenfalls eine wirkliche Aufteilung verschiedener Lesungen auf verschiedene Worte vorführen. 45 Vgl. ¶ur/¶u-rí-lu (ú-gukkal) in VE 274 u. ¶a¶ar-ra-an in Ent. 79 ii 8. Eine Interpretation als ¶a-àr-ra-an wäre altsum. ungewöhnlich, da VK-Zeichen selten gebraucht werden.

J. Keetman, Gab es ein h im Sumerischen?

25

spricht auch gegen die Annahme von I. M. Diakonoff, dass es eine Schreibung “¶ // zero for Old Sumerian /h/” gab.46 Wenn dem so gewesen wäre, wäre zu fragen, warum dann die Semiten nicht einfach auch ¶-Zeichen für h gebrauchten. Außerdem sollte man mehr Beispiele erwarten. Schließlich sei an unser Argument erinnert, dass ein genuin sumerisches Phonem im Sumerischen auch mit eigenen Zeichen auszustatten wäre. Ein weiteres oft besprochenes Beispiel ist u9-wa-mu vermutlich für u “10” und sumerisch -àm.47 Ea II 146–49 bietet úU = ú-ba-an, ú, a, ha-aU = eše-ret.48 In Aa II/4 werden die Einträge getrennt. Zunächst kommt II/4, 1–2: úU = e-še-ret, ú-ba-an. Danach geht der Abschnitt U ohne neue Glosse mit anderen Übersetzungen weiter. Dann folgen Z. 36–8 die Glossen a, ¶u-u, ¶a-a erneut zu der Gleichung U = e-še-ret. Z. 39f. bietet dann ohne neue Glosse noch die Bedeutungen ma-’-du-tum und šá IGI.U.A i-na-an.49 Z. 39 geht wohl auf ¶i-a / ¶á “verschiedene, mehrere” zurück. Der letzte Ausdruck lässt sich nach Nabnītu I 173–75 mit igi-tab = naplastu “Scheuklappe” verbinden. Diakonoff hat hieraus das Sumerische als [haw] bzw. [hau] erschlossen, ähnlich Edzard.50 Wir wollen für’s erste festhalten, dass neben dem Alif/¶-Wechsel auch ein a/u-Wechsel vorliegt und dass Aa vermuten lässt, ú sei die normale Glosse und a, ¶u-u (eventuell noch ¶a-a) gehörten zu einer anderen Tradition. So klar einige Belege aus Ebla auch aussehen, so wenig sind sie in Übereinstimmung mit unseren übrigen Beobachtungen. Drei mögliche Erklärungen bieten sich an: 1) Das Sumerische von Ebla, obwohl selbst ungefähr gleichzeitig mit Lagaš I, konservierte eine ältere Form des Sumerischen oder 2) beruht auf einem lokalen Dialekt des Altsumerischen, den wir in Sumer nicht fassen können. 3) Außerdem bleibt die Möglichkeit, dass es sich um eine Art “EblaSumerisch” handelt. Über die ersten beiden Möglichkeiten lässt sich wenig sagen. Was den dritten Punkt angeht, so ist denkbar, dass im Semitischen Konsonanten gebraucht wurden, um spezielle Vokale im Sumerischen wiederzugeben.

46

Diakonoff 1984, 91, Anm. 64. Edzard 2005, 103; 2003, 64; 1980, 126; Diakonoff 1984, 90. 48 MSL 14, 253. 49 MSL 14, 281. 50 Siehe Anm. 47. 47

26

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

Pharyngale werden mit der Zungenwurzel im Rachen gebildet. Der Vokal a und Vokale in seiner unmittelbaren Nachbarschaft bedingen meistens ebenfalls eine Enge in diesem Bereich, schon weil die Zunge so am besten Platz findet. Im Hebräischen wird deshalb zur einfacheren Aussprache zwischen einem langen Vokal, der nicht ā ist und silbenschließendem Pharyngal ein kurzes a eingeschoben (Patach Furtivum). Vermutlich wegen der weiten Mundöffnung wurde diese Gewohnheit auch auf den Laryngal h übertragen. Das ω in griechischen Lehnworten im Arabischen führt häufig dazu, dass ein benachbarter Konsonant pharyngalisiert wird: Πλ4των >  ‫ أ‬, εικ:ν >  ‫إ‬.. Ähnliche Beispiele sind Soda > ‫ ا‬, soba (türk. “Ofen”) > .. Im Akkadischen spricht schon der Lautwandel a > e, der den Verlust der Pharyngale begleitet, für eine Wechselwirkung zwischen dem Vokal und den Pharyngalen. Schwächt man das Merkmal der starken Mundöffnung bei a ab, behält aber das auch zum Pharyngal gehörende zweite Merkmal, die hintere Enge bei, so ergibt sich in etwa ein ä. Machen wir das gleiche mit u, so ergibt sich am ehesten ein Vokal ähnlich dem kurzen deutschen o in “offen” oder französisch “sort”. D. h. der Vokal ist gegenüber u stark gesenkt, um die Zungenwurzel besser nach hinten schieben zu können, es gibt aber keinen Grund, die Lippenrundung aufzugeben. Im Altsumerischen gibt es 6 Verben mit u, die e- statt ì- als Präfix haben. Da sich die Vokalharmonie an der Mundöffnung orientiert, ist ein “o” in der Nähe von a zu erwarten, welches einen Gegensatz zu u bildet. Es gibt wenigstens einen direkten Hinweis auf diese Interpretation. In der syllabisch geschriebenen Beschwörung TM.75.G.2195 taucht die Verbalform é-na-gàr auf.51 Ausgeschlossen ist das Präformativ ¶é-, da dieses im gleichen Text wie sonst in Ebla ¶e- geschrieben wird und É ohnehin nicht für ¶ gebraucht wird. Andererseits fehlt in Ebla das Silbenzeichen E. Folglich kann man eine syllabische Schreibung für e-na-ŋar annehmen. Weil sich die Vokalharmonie an der Mundöffnung orientiert, ist das Präfix e- als besonders offenes “e” und mithin möglicherweise pharyngalisiert zu erwarten. Dass das Präfix in Ebla sonst immer ì- bzw. íb-, im-, in- geschrieben wird, ist kein Gegenargument, denn auch andere Vokalveränderungen in der Präfixkette werden in normaler Orthographie nicht geschrieben. Vgl. insbesondere ¶e-mu-.52 51 52

Siehe Krebernik 1984, 66–8. Siehe D’Agostino 1990, 133.

J. Keetman, Gab es ein h im Sumerischen?

27

Es gibt ein Problem mit dieser Theorie. Weder É noch U9 scheinen ‫ع‬ auszudrücken. In Ebla ist aber sogar selteneres ‫ غ‬wenigstens einmal belegt.53 ‫ ع‬sollte aber ähnliche Effekte auslösen wie ‫ح‬. Doch dieser Einwand ist nicht unüberwindlich. Die Schreib- und Aussprachetradition des Eblaitischen mag durch einen anderen altsemitischen Dialekt beeinflusst sein. Vor allem aber ist ‫ ع‬im Eblaitischen bisher nur theoretisch erschlossen. Wir können also nicht sicher sein, ob dieses Phonem tatsächlich unterschieden wurde. Es gibt aber zumindest eine Spur, nämlich die Gleichung géme = la ba-u9-lum von Åke Sjöberg als lā ba‛ūlum “unverheiratete Frau” gedeutet.54 Ebenso ŋiš-gú = ¶a-´ú é-da-gi-tim “Holzbündel” von einer Wurzel ‛tq,55 KA.ÚAR = ší-na-tum é-la-um / ší-na-ti é-la-mu “die oberen Zähne” (?). Diese Beispiele reichen nicht aus, um die gelegentliche Schreibung von ‫ ع‬durch die entsprechenden Zeichen zu beweisen. Doch es reicht für folgenden Schluss: Entweder wurde etymologisches ‫ ع‬in der Schrift vom Stimmabsatz nicht unterschieden, dann ist seine Existenz nicht sicher genug, um als Einwand zu dienen, oder es wurde wenigstens teilweise unterschieden, dann kommen eigentlich nur die Zeichen É, U9 in Frage, die wir nach unserer Hypothese vermuten können. Andererseits bestätigt gerade das Eblaitische, dass es im Sumerischen keine Silbenzeichen für h gab. Die im Eblaitischen hierfür verwendeten Zeichen sind jedenfalls keine Silbenzeichen im Sumerischen und das sumerische Vokalzeichen, das am ehesten für h stehen könnte, nämlich Ú, wird in Ebla nicht gebraucht. Es fällt ferner auf, dass eine Lesung [hur] für ÙR in dem Lehnwort gušūrum < ŋiš-ùr “Balken” über *ŋišhur / ŋušhur > *ŋuš’ūrum > *gūšūrum führen sollte.56 Natürlich ist unser Ansatz nur eine Hypothese, für die allerdings spricht, dass sich auffällig häufig bei den entsprechenden Worten oder

53

VE 295 ú-nág-gamušen = ga-rí-bù, a-rí-bù(-um) “Rabe”; vgl. arabisch ‫راب‬. Sjöberg 2003a, 264. Vgl. VE 701: IGI.MURUB4 = ba-é-lum. Zwar ist hier das Sumerische nicht klar, doch das Eblaitische könnte gut zu der weit verbreiteten semitischen Wurzel b‛l passen. 55 Sjöberg 1999, 529. 56 GAG³ § 15b. Eine Durchsicht der in AHw. gebuchten sumerischen Lehnworte ergibt, dass die letzte Silbe immer entweder einen langen Vokal hat oder auf einen verdoppelten Konsonanten endet. Deshalb spricht die Länge auf der letzten Silbe nicht für eine Unregelmäßigkeit gegenüber dem akkadischen Lautgesetz, wonach die durch den Wegfall des Alif geöffnete Silbe die Länge erhält. 54

28

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

Zeichen ein a/u-Wechsel beobachten lässt. In dem Falle, in dem KA×SAR anstelle von KA×ZÌ gebraucht wird, für beide Varianten. Die Nebenform zu u “10” lässt sich nun so deuten, dass sich hier eine semitische Aussprachetradition des Zahlzeichens erhalten hat, so wie in hēkāl. Für das Altbabylonische wäre dann der Wechsel Alif/¶ zur Wiedergabe von westsemitischem µ nicht verwunderlich. Das w in u9-wa-mu lässt sich als Gleitlaut deuten (*o-am > µuwam(u)). Dafür, dass /o/ der Ausgangspunkt war, spricht auch, dass das Zeichen U altbabyl. zur Darstellung von /o/ im Akkadischen gebraucht werden konnte, worauf schon Edzard in diesem Zusammenhang hingewiesen hat.57 Bibliographie D’Agostino 1990 Alster 2005 Archi 1987 Attinger 1993 Bauer 2005 Behrens–Steible 1983 Borger 2003 Diakonoff 1984

Dreier 2004 Edzard 1980 Edzard 2003 Edzard 2005 Falkenstein 1949 Falkenstein 1959 57

Siehe Anm. 47.

D’Agostino, Franco. Il sistema verbale sumerico nei testi lessicali di Ebla (SS NS 7). Roma. Alster, Bendt. Wisdom of Ancient Sumer. Bethesda. Archi, Alfonso. The “Sign-List” from Ebla. Eblaitica 1, 91–114. Attinger, Pascal. Eléments de linguistique sumérienne. La construction de du11 / e / di (OBO Sonderband). Freiburg (Schweiz)–Göttingen. Bauer, Josef. Gudea-Studien. “An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing” (Fs. Jacob Klein). Bethesda. Pp. 19–28. Behrens, Hermann; Steible, Horst. Glossar zu den altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften (FAOS 6). Wiesbaden. Borger, Rykle. Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexikon (AOAT 305). Münster. Diakonoff, Igor M. Some Reflections on the Numerals in Sumerian: Towards a History of Mathematical Speculation. Studies in Literature from the Ancient Near East (Fs. S. N. Kramer) (AOS 65). New Haven. Pp. 83–94. Dreier, Leonid. Usage of hê−āl in Biblical Hebrew. B&B 1, 211–18. Edzard, Dietz Otto. Sumerisch 1 bis 10 in Ebla. StEb 3, 121–7. Edzard, Dietz Otto. Sumerian Grammar (HdO 71). Leiden–Boston. Edzard, Dietz Otto. Sumerian One to One Hundred and Twenty Revisited. “An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing” (Fs. Jacob Klein). Bethesda. Pp. 98–107. Falkenstein, Adam. Grammatik der Sprache Gudeas von Lagaš. I. Schrift- und Formenlehre (AnOr 28). Roma. Falkenstein, Adam. Das Sumerische (HdO 2). Leiden.

J. Keetman, Gab es ein h im Sumerischen? Gelb 1961 Gong 2000 Keetman 2004a Keetman 2004b Keetman 2005 Kogan 2001 Krebernik 1984 Krecher 1966 Poebel 1931 Rosengarten 1967 Rubio 1999 Sallaberger 2005 Schretter 1990

Sjöberg 1999 Sjöberg 2003a Sjöberg 2003b Steible 1982 Steiner 2003 Thomsen 1984

29

Gelb, Ignace J. Old Akkadian Writing and Grammar. Second edition (MAD 2). Chicago. Gong, Yushu. Die Namen der Keilschriftzeichen (AOAT 268). Münster. Keetman, Jan. Der Verlust der “Kehllaute” im Akkadischen und der Lautwandel a > e. AoF 31, 5–14. Keetman, Jan. Verschlusslaute, Affrikaten und Frikative im Sumerischen. ArOr 72, 367–84. Keetman, Jan. Die altsumerische Vokalharmonie und die Vokale des Sumerischen. JCS 57 (im Druck). Kogan, Leonid. *ġ in Akkadian. UF 33, 263–98 (Nachträge UF 34). Krebernik, Manfred. Die Beschwörungen aus Fara und Ebla (Texte und Studien zur Orientalistik 2). Hildesheim–Zürich–New York. Krecher, Joachim. Sumerische Kultlyrik. Wiesbaden. Poebel, Arno. The Sumerian Prefix Forms E- and I- in the Time of the Earlier Princes of Lagaš (AS 2). Chicago. Rosengarten, Yvonne. Répertoire commenté des signes présargoniques sumériens de Lagaš. Paris. Rubio, Gonzalo. On The Alleged “Pre-Sumerian Substratum”. JCS 51, 1–17. Sallaberger, Walther. The Sumerian Verb na de5(-g) “To Clear”. “An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing”. (Fs. Jacob Klein). Bethesda. Pp. 229–53. Schretter, Manfred. Emesal-Studien, Sprach- und literaturgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur sogenannten Frauensprache des Sumerischen (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft. Sonderheft 69). Innsbruck. Sjöberg, Åke. Notes on Selected Entries from the Ebla Vocabulary éš-bar-kin5 (II). Munuscula Mesopotamica (Fs. J. Renger) (AOAT 267). Münster, Pp. 513–552. Sjöberg, Åke. Notes on Selected Entries from the Ebla Vocabulary éš-bar-kin5 (IV). Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien (Fs. C. Wilcke) (OBCh 14). Wiesbaden. Pp. 251–66. Sjöberg, Åke. Notes on Selected Entries from the Ebla Vocabulary éš-bar-kin5 (I). Festschrift für Burkhart Kienast (AOAT 274). Münster. Pp. 527–68. Steible, Horst. Die altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften. Teil II (FAOS 5). Wiesbaden. Steiner, Gerd. Bestrafung oder Verschleierung der Frau? (Uruinimgina 6 iii 14′–19′). Festschrift für Burkhart Kienast (AOAT 274). Münster. Pp. 597–619. Thomsen, Marie-Louise. The Sumerian Language, An Introduction to its History and Grammatical Structure (Mesopotamia 10). Kopenhagen.

30 Volk 1995 Woods 2005 Yuhong 2005

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies Volk, Konrad. Inanna und Šukaletuda. Zur historisch-politischen Deutung eines sumerischen Literaturwerkes. Wiesbaden. Woods, Christopher. On the Euphrates. ZA 95, 7–45. Yuhong, Wu. A Study of the Sumerian Words for “Animal Hole” (¶abrud), “Hole” (burud), “Well” (burud2), and “Copper” (wuruda). “An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing” (Fs. Jacob Klein). Bethesda. Pp. 374–95.

Towards the Aspect System in Sumerian Margarit L. Khachikyan Institute of Oriental Studies of Armenia

This paper offers a new interpretation of the element -e- in the 3 p. sg. imperfective form. This interpretation is important for tracing the evolution of the verbal typology and, in particular, of the aspectual system in Sumerian. The subject-object relationships in the Sumerian verb are expressed by pre-radical and post-radical affixes, cf. table 1. Table 1. Subject / object pronominal affixes

1 sg. 2 sg. 3 active sg. 3 inactive sg. 1 pl. 2 pl 3 active pl. 3 inactive pl.

1 Subject of perfective transitive / object of imperfective transitive -?-*/ -en**-R-e-*/ -en**-R-n-R-b-R-?-R-enden -e-R-enzen -n-R-eš -b-R-

2 Subject of imperfective transitive

3 Subject of intransitive / object of perfective transitive

-R-en -R-en -R-e – -R-enden -R-enzen -R-ene –

-R-en -R-en -R-Ø -R-Ø -R-enden – -R-eš -R-Ø

* Subject of perfective transitive. ** Object of imperfective transitive.

The affixes of the pre-radical position (cf. column 1 of table 1) denote either the subject or the direct object of the transitive verb: they function as subject markers in the perfective and as direct object markers in the imperfective forms. The post-radical affixes function as subject markers of the intransitive verb (column 3), subject markers of the imperfective transitive verb (column 2), object markers of the perfective transitive verb (column 3), cf. examples below: 1a. /imma-n-gi4-Ø/ ‘he turned-it away’, G. Cyl. B XVIII 3; 1b. /nu-ĩ-n-tuku-tuku-u (< e)/ ‘he shall not (nu-) take her (as a wife)’, CL XVII 49;

32

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies 2a. /šu ba-ni-b-ti-Ø/ ‘it (the bird) took it there’, DD 35; 2b. /mu-ni-b-nú-ene/ ‘they lay it there’, GLL 141; 3a. /mu-ni-n-dab5-eš/ ‘they seized there’, GA 61; 3b. /ĩ-bši-n-gi4-eš/ ‘he sent them after it’, NG 120b, 21.

From the table it follows that: a) the aspectual distinctions are limited to the transitive verb, whereas the intransitive verb is aspectless; b) the subject markers of the intransitive verb completely coincide with the object markers of the perfective transitive verb: 4a. /ĩ-gub-en/ ‘I am standing’, IE I v 16; 4b. /mu-n-túm-en/ ‘he brought me’, LE 101; 5a. /mu-nši-re7-eš/ ‘they came to him’, GA 2; 5b. /ĩ-bši-n-gi4-eš/ ‘he sent them after it’, NG 120b, 21.

c) the aspectual distinctions are not denoted by special morphs. They are expressed by functional reversal of the subject / object prefixes and suffixes: the pre-radical affixes function as subject markers in the forms of the perfective aspect and as object markers in the imperfective forms and vice versa, except for the 3 p. imperfective subject markers -e (sg.) and -ene (pl.), which are different from the perfective object markers -Ø (sg.) and -eš (pl.), cf. examples 2b, 3b and 7a, 7b. 6a. /ĩ-n-túd-en/ ‘he beat me’, SD 37; 6b. /mu-dù-en/ ‘I build / am building’, G. Cyl. A VIII 18; 7a. /ĩ-pàd-e/ ‘he was / is searching for / choosing (the answer)’, ELA 238; 7b. /ĩ-n-pàd-Ø/ ‘he found/chose it (the answer)’, ibid. 239.

The verbal base in both finite and non-finite forms may be followed by the suffix -e(d)- with a seemingly modal / subjunctive / future meaning (Kaneva 1996:98–102; Thomsen 1984:128–131): 8. /ĩ-bši-gam-ed-eš/ ‘they will bow to it’, NE 35; 9. /ba-ni-tuš-ud (< ed)1-en/ ‘I shall sit / be sitting there’, GEN 81.

Since the consonant /d/ in Sumerian was not pronounced in Auslaut (Kaneva 1996:21), this suffix was reduced to -e- (or another vowel, cf. note 1) in the 3 p. sg. form of the intransitive verb, where it appeared in the final position. Hence, the 3 p. sg. intransitive verb with the suffix -edis identical in form with the 3 p. sg. imperfective form:

1

The vowel of this suffix is subject to phonetical variations, such as contraction or assimilation (Steiner 1981:39–41).

M. L. Khachikyan, Towards the Aspect System in Sumerian

33

10. /na-ni-dùg(R)-e (< ed)-Ø/ ‘may it not be pleasant’, CA 270; 11. /nu-ug6-e (< ed)-Ø/ ‘he shall not die’, GLL 106.

An analysis of the element -e, different from its traditional interpretation as the imperfective transitive subject marker of the 3 p. sg., was suggested by Th. Jacobsen and M. Yoshikawa, who ascribed it the function of an imperfective marker (Jacobsen 1965; 1988; Yoshikawa 1968a; 1968b; 1974). Yoshikawa’s interpretation is based on the presence of this vowel in the verbs that reveal no stem variation in perfective and imperfective aspects (those of the “Affixation group”, according to Yoshikawa’s definition) and its absence (which actually results from the assimilation of -e- to the preceding vowel) in the verbs of the “Reduplication” and “Alternation” groups. The weak point of Yoshikawa’s argumentation, however, is the large number of examples contradicting this statement. Moreover, the reduplication and expansion of verbal roots, as well as the use of suppletive roots are, obviously, means of modifying the action expressed by the verbal root, that is, expressing Aktionsart, not aspectual distinctions (Kaneva 1996:84–85; Thomsen 1984:113–115). Th. Jacobsen, in support of his thesis, cites several examples (Jacobsen 1988:181) in which -e- in the intransitive form is followed by the nominalizing / subordinative affix -a and hence should be considered an imperfective marker rather than the suffix -ed-, as the latter would have retained its consonant in the intervocal position.2 However, the subjunctive meaning of one of these examples, ba-ug5-ge-a ‘(until) he dies’3 (EN 219), as well as that of the form ba-ug6-e-da-a ‘(when) she dies’ (NG 7, 15), suggests the identity of these forms and allows us to presume that the vowel -e- in the former may be considered an allophone (or allograph?) of -ed-. Yet, the interpretation of the forms cited by Jacobsen as those of the imperfective aspect with the imperfective marker -e- cannot be absolutely ruled out. Coming back to the expression of subject-object relationships, we should note, that the subject markers of the perfective conjugation are opposed to the subject markers of the intransitive one, whereas the latter coincide with the object markers of the perfective conjugation (see columns 1 and 3 of the table 1), which means that the transitive verb in the perfective aspect is conjugated ergatively. On the other hand, the subject markers of the intransitive conjugation coincide, though partly, with

2 3

Some of these examples are questionable, cf. Attinger 1993:185. This translation seems preferable to Jacobsen’s ‘(until) he is dying’.

34

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

those of the imperfective conjugation (see columns 2 and 3 of the table 1). According to P. Michalowski (1980), this situation is to be interpreted as a split between the ergative and nominative typologies. This interpretation, however, ignores the differences displayed by the imperfective and intransitive conjugations (note the different subject markers in the 3 person forms in columns 2 and 3). A historical typological approach based on G. A. Klimov’s hypothesis, according to which the logical interrelations of the language types are able to reflect a historic sequence of typological transformations (namely, from the active typology to ergative and / or nominative) (Klimov 1973:143ff.; 1977:170ff.; 1983:138ff.), may help to elucidate the character and origin of this split and to sketch the evolution of the aspect system in Sumerian. Before examining the linguistic data of Sumerian I will briefly mention the implications of the active and ergative language types relevant to this study (Klimov 1983:91–105). In the languages with active typology which are characterized by the opposition of the active and inactive principles, the nouns fall into active (animate) and inactive (inanimate) classes, and the verbs into verbs of action and verbs of state. One of important syntactic implications of the active type is the distinction of the nearest and distant objects. The nearest object is broader in scope than the direct object of nominative and ergative languages. It denotes an object, to which an action (transitive, as well as intransitive) refers, cf. the noun “house” in “he is building a house”, “he is running to the house”. A feature of the verbal morphology of the active languages is the distinction of the active and inactive sets of personal affixes. Another peculiarity of the active type is the presence of Aktionsart gradations rather than temporal and/or aspectual oppositions. Peculiar to the ergative linguistic type is the opposition of the agentive and factitive verbs, which is quite close, though not identical, to the opposition transitive vs. intransitive, typical of the nominative / accusative languages. The factitive verbs are broader in scope than the intransitive ones: they express the state of the subject, as well as the superficial influence of the subject upon the object and thus include, along with intransitive verbs, a number of verbs of low transitivity, as e. g. “to bite / pull / hold / kiss (on the hand)”.4 Unlike the active languages with no distinction between the direct and oblique objects, in the ergative languages the di4 However, for the sake of convenience in the paper the terms transitive / intransitive verbs will be used with respect to Sumerian, which is a non-nominative language.

M. L. Khachikyan, Towards the Aspect System in Sumerian

35

rect and oblique objects are treated differently. Among the morphological implications of the ergative type to be mentioned is the opposition of the ergative case, that of the agent (subject of the transitive verb), to the absolutive, the case of the goal (object of the transitive) and of the subject of the intransitive verb. The ergative case in a considerable number of languages, especially those of early ergativity, coincides with an oblique case (locative, directive, ablative etc), the absolutive case is usually unmarked. The verbal morphology of the ergative languages is characterized by the opposition of two sets of personal affixes: ergative and absolutive. In connection with the syntactical features of the ergative type, along with the ergative and absolutive constructions of the sentence, the socalled antipassive construction is to be mentioned. In this construction the subject of the transitive verb stands in the absolutive (direct) case, whereas the semantic object appears in an oblique case.5 It is actually an absolutive construction and is used with those verbs which are transitive in nominative languages, but signal lower transitivity in comparison with the agentive verbs of the ergative languages. Thus, the ergative construction implies higher transitivity as compared with the antipassive construction and, hence, manifests high-transitivity features, in particular perfectivity (Hopper–Thompson 1980:252). It should also be noted that in a number of languages displaying a split, the ergative construction is limited to perfective or preterit environments, while the non-ergative to the imperfective or non-preterit ones (Hopper–Thompson 1980:271). Sumerian, as was noted above, displays a split in verbal morphology: in the perfective aspect the transitive verb is conjugated according to the ergative pattern, whereas the subject markers of the imperfective transitive forms are partially identical with those of the intransitive verb (cf. different subject markers of the 3 p. sg. and pl. in columns 2 and 3 of the table 1). The element -ene, besides denoting the 3 p. pl. subject of the imperfective conjugation, expresses the plural of the active nouns (dingir ‘god’ ~ /dingir-ene/ ‘gods’). This fact allows us to ascribe it the function of the active subject marker as opposed to the inactive one.6 Respectively, the 5

This construction reminds of and, evidently, originates from the active construction of active languages with the nearest object. 6 The same phenomenon is known in Elamite, where the morph -b/p performed the function of the plural marker of the active nouns and the active subject marker of the 3 p. pl.

36

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

suffix -e- in the imperfective forms of the 3 p. sg., the one that was defined as the imperfective aspect marker by Th. Jacobsen and M. Yoshikawa, is to be interpreted as the 3 p. sg. active subject marker as opposed to the corresponding Ø-marker of column 3 of the table 1, which, apparently, represents the set of inactive markers. It is quite natural that the distinctions between these two sets are only manifest in the 3 person: the speaker and the addressee of the speech act imply an active referent.7 Thus, unlike nominative languages with a single set of subject markers, in Sumerian we deal with two sets of affixes, typical of active typology. However, the functional distribution of these sets of affixes is different from that in the active languages, but is peculiar to the ergative ones: the inactive set is not limited to the verbs of state, but denotes the subject of the intransitive verbs, whereas the active set of affixes is only limited to the transitive verbs. The fact that the morphology of the imperfective transitive verb is typical of active languages entails that the object markers in the imperfective forms (column 1) belong to the set of the nearest object, which encompasses both the direct and oblique objects of the ergative and nominative languages. At the same time these very affixes perform the function of ergative markers in the perfective forms. This fact is to be explained in the following way: the ergative case is correlated with the absolutive case as an oblique case with the direct (unmarked) one (cf. the frequent coincidence of the ergative case with an oblique case in many languages, including Sumerian with its ergative and directive case marker -e). Respectively, the correlation ergative (oblique) : absolutive (direct) is typical of the ergative (column 1) and absolutive (column 3) verbal affixes of the perfective conjugation. Since the use of the oblique case / set of affixes in the function of direct object is peculiar to the antipassive construction, it is obvious that the imperfective transitive verb is conjugated according to the antipassive pattern. This split, however, is limited to the verbal morphology, as the imperfective (antipassive) verbal form appears

7 This is not the only peculiarity manifested by the first and second person singular affixes. Unlike the 3 person imperfective object markers, which are identical with the perfective subject markers (see column 1), the 1 and 2 person object markers of this set are different from the subject markers of the perfective forms: the role of the object markers is displayed by the subject markers of the imperfective and intransitive forms, shifted from the post-radical to the pre-radical position.

M. L. Khachikyan, Towards the Aspect System in Sumerian

37

in the ergative construction of the sentence with the subject in the ergative and the direct object in the absolutive case. 12. /inim-Ø (abs.) mu-(e)ra-b-e-en/ ‘I will say-it a word (inim) to you’, ELA 262; 13. /en-e (erg.) … inim-Ø (abs.) mu-na-b-dah-e/ ‘the lord (en-e) … he-adds-it a word (inim) to him (speaks again to him)’, ELA 156–157.

It was noted above that the verb of the ergative construction signals features of high transitivity, including perfectivity, in contrast with the antipassive construction, which is characterized by a lower degree of transitivity. It was also noted that in a number of languages the nonergative (antipassive) construction is limited to the imperfective in contrast with the ergative construction, denoting the perfective aspect. Sumerian, apparently, belongs here. If, however, we accept Th. Jacobsen’s and M. Yoshikawa’s interpretation of the element -e- as the imperfective marker, it will not contradict the present interpretation of this element and the hypothesis of the origin and evolution of the aspect system in Sumerian. It will, apparently, mean that the vowel -e-, being used with imperfective forms, had lost its original function of active subject marker and was reinterpreted into imperfective marker, which resulted in the emergence of the grammatical category of aspect in Sumerian. Table 2 presents the evolution of the verbal morphology in Sumerian. Table 2. Evolution of the verbal morphology in Sumerian Stage 1

Verbs of state Verbs of action Intransitive action *(-)R-e *(-)R-Ø Agentive (transitive) verb Factitive (intransitive) verb *(-)R-e *(-)R-Ø Ergative conjugation “Antipassive” (imperfecAbsolutive (perfecive) tive) conjugation conjugation -n/b-R-R-e -R-Ø

Transitive action Stage 2 Stage 3

Notes to Table 2: Stage 1. The finite verb originally consisted of the verbal base and post-radical subject markers, which may be deduced from such forms as /tuš-ed-en/ ‘I shall sit’, /gar-enden/ ‘we shall put’ etc., cf. (Kaneva 1996:79). The emergence of preradical morphs may be ascribed either to the end of this stage, or to stage 2. At any rate, it predated stage 3, when the ergative conjugation with pre-radical subject markers came into being. Stage 2. This stage, which may be characterized as transitional from the active to the ergative typology is marked by the redistribution of the verbal vocabulary

38

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

into groups of agentive and factitive verbs and, thus, the exclusion of the active intransitive verbs from the group of verbs of action. This phenomenon finds its morphological expression in the use of the originally inactive 3 p. subject marker -Ø with the verbs of intransitive action. Stage 3. The main feature of this stage is the emergence of a new (ergative) type of conjugation, alongside with the older (active) type: the former covers the sphere of the perfective aspect, whereas the latter is limited to the imperfective one.

To summarize the results of this investigation: a) the correlation between the transitive perfective and intransitive conjugations in Sumerian is that of ergative vs. absolutive, while the transitive imperfective conjugation is to be qualified as antipassive; b) the element -e in the imperfective transitive forms of the 3 p. sg., opposed to the -Ø subject marker of the intransitive verb, goes back to the subject marker of the active set of pronominal affixes; c) Sumerian originally had no special morphological devices to denote aspectual distinctions; the ergative conjugation expressed the perfective, while the antipassive conjugation the imperfective aspect; the subsequent reinterpretation of the 3 p. sg. subject marker -e into the marker of imperfectivity resulted in the emergence of a new grammeme in Sumerian, which was used with both transitive and intransitive verbs (if only the thesis of Th. Jacobsen and M. Yoshikawa proves to be true); d) the imperfective conjugation should be qualified as a vestige of active, rather than a feature of nominative typology. Consequently, the typological split in Sumerian is to be qualified as that between the active and ergative, rather than that between ergative and nominative typologies. Abbreviations CA CL DD ELA EN G. Cyl. A, B GA GEN

Cooper, J. S. The Curse of Agade. Baltimore–London, 1983. Steele, F. The Code of Lipit-Ištar. AJA 52 (1948):425–450. Alster, B. Dumuzi’s Dream. Aspects of Oral Poetry in a Sumerian Myth (Mesopotamia 1). Copenhagen, 1972. Cohen, S. Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta. Diss. Philadelphia. 1973. Kramer, S. N. Enki and Ninhursag: A “Paradise” Myth (BASOR Supplementary Studies 1). New Haven, 1945; Attinger, P. Enki et Ninhursaga. ZA 74 (1984):1–52. Falkenstein, A.; von Soden, W. Sumerische und akkadische Hymnen und Gebete. Zürich–Stuttgart, 1953. Kramer, S. N. Gilgameš and Agga. AJA 53 (1949):1–29. Shaffer, A. Gilgameš, Enkidu and the Netherworld. Sumerian Sources of Tablet XII of the Epic of Gilgameš. Diss. Philadelphia. 1963.

M. L. Khachikyan, Towards the Aspect System in Sumerian GLL IE LE NE NG SD

39

Kramer, S. N. Gilgamesh and the Land of the Living. JCS 1 (1947):3–46. Farber-Flügge, G. Der Mythos “Inanna und Enki” unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Liste der me (StP 10). Rome, 1973. Wilcke, C. Das Lugalbandaepos. Wiesbaden, 1969. Sjöberg, Å. W. Nungal in the Ekur. AfO 24 (1973):19–46. Falkenstein, A. Die neusumerischen Gerichtsurkunden. II. München, 1956. Kramer, S. N. Schooldays: A Sumerian Composition Relating to the Education of a Scribe. JAOS 69 (1949):199– 215.

References Attinger 1993 Hopper–Thompson 1980 Jacobsen 1965 Jacobsen 1988 Kaneva 1996 Klimov 1973 Klimov 1977 Klimov 1983 Michalowski 1980 Steiner 1981 Thomsen 1984 Yoshikawa 1968a Yoshikawa 1968b Yoshikawa 1974

Attinger, P. Eléments de linguistique sumérienne. La construction de du11/e/di “dire”. Fribourg–Göttingen. Hopper, P. J.; Thompson, S. A. Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language 56:251–299. Jacobsen, Th. About the Sumerian Verb. Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger. Chicago. Pp. 71–102. Jacobsen, Th. The Sumerian Verbal Core. ZA 78:161– 220. Kaneva, I. T. Šumerskij jazyk. Saint-Petersburg (The Sumerian Language). Klimov, G. A. Očerk obščej teorii ergativnosti. Moscow (General Theory of Ergativity). Klimov, G. A. Tipologija jazykov aktivnogo stroja. Moscow (Towards a Typology of Active Languages). Klimov, G. A. Principy kontensivnoj tipologii. Moscow (An Outline of a Content-oriented Typology). Michalowski, P. Sumerian as an Ergative Language, I. JCS 32:86–103. Steiner, G. The Vocalisation of the Sumerian Verbal Morpheme /=ED/ and its Significance. JNES 40:21–41. Thomsen, M.-L. The Sumerian Language (Mesopotamia 10). Copenhagen. Yoshikawa, M. On the Grammatical Function of -e- of the Sumerian Verbal Suffix -e-dè/-e-da(m). JNES 27: 251–261. Yoshikawa, M. The Marû and Hamtu Aspects in the Sumerian Verbal System. Or NS 37:401–416. Yoshikawa, M. The Marû-Conjugation in the Sumerian Verbal System. Or NS 43:17–39.

Barley Rations in Umma during the Third Dynasty of Ur* Natalia V. Koslova The Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg

1. The working personnel of the public institutions in third-millennium Mesopotamia was divided into two basic categories according to the compensation for their work: those who held land allotments šuku for services they provided to the state (the first category) and those who received rations on a monthly basis and held no land (the second category). This system can be traced back at least to Early Dynastic times. In PreSargonic Girsu only the workers of the first category could be conscripted for unskilled collective labor, as K. Maekawa has concluded. Besides their allotment plots, they were also provided with rations called še-ba lu2šuku-dab5-ba “barley rations to the men who get allotments” but only at the time of working on collective projects for the state.1 Turning now to the Ur III period we should keep in mind that the study of the compensation system is closely connected to the study of the character of labor in public households. In other words, there are several questions that should be investigated together: can we find in Ur III times categories of population differing from each other in the character of labor; can we distinguish between groups of workers receiving different types of payment; if yes how did the type of payment depend on the character of labor or vice versa?2 The Ur III compensation system has been thoroughly discussed by I. J. Gelb, K. Maekawa, H. Waetzoldt, P. Steinkeller, R. K. Englund, and * The present article is based on my paper read at the RAI in Chicago in 2005 (workshop on the Ur III archives). For abbreviations see M. Sigrist; T. Gomi. The Comprehensive Catalogue of Published Ur III Tablets. Bethesda, 1991. Pp. 7–12; for additional abbreviations see http://cdli.ucla.edu/wiki/index.php/Abbreviations_ for_Assyriology. I would like to express my gratitude to the Trustees of the British Museum as well as to Bram Jagersma und Remco de Maaijer for their kind permission to use their transliterations of the unpublished texts from the British Museum for my research. 1 Maekawa 1987. 2 See also Steinkeller 2003:44–49; Koslova 2005a; 2005b.

42

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

other scholars.3 However, the main points presented in these discussions are contradictory. H. Waetzoldt stated, for example, that the Sumerian terms še-ba “barley ration” and siki-ba “wool ration”, which reflect the two basic concepts of the ration system, had no social connotations, that these rations were issued (on a monthly basis or once a year) “to all personnel who were permanently attached to or employed by the state or by temple establishments, regardless of their status,” and that, furthermore, “in addition to these types of payment, personnel who belonged to the middle or higher ranks could also be rewarded with a land allotment.” The principles distinguishing this system from the system of barley rations were not entirely clear to the author.4 On the contrary, K. Maekawa, having studied mainly the sources from Ur III Girsu, came to the conclusion that “there seem to have been two socially different groups of people” in the Ur III period (as in Pre-Sargonic times): “those who received land allotments (as well as barley rations for a limited period of the year) and those who received monthly barley rations only.”5 However, the Pre-Sargonic principle that collective labor should be performed solely by allotment holders was transformed somewhat in Ur III times. Against the background of this transformation, K. Maekawa assumed that “the Pre-Sargonic distinction between special types of barley rations and monthly rations had disappeared or become blurred.”6 2. In the present article I am going to discuss some aspects of the Ur III compensation system using the sources from Umma. In Ur III Umma we find two different categories of population roughly corresponding to the two different ways of compensation mentioned above. The persons of the first category—allotment holders—were designated as eren2 (in the inspection lists of working teams)/dumu-gi7 (in the balanced accounts of labor), the persons of the second category—being in most cases recipients of monthly rations—as UN-ga6.7 The distinction between these two categories in respect to compensation can be best seen in the inspection lists that were intended above all to calculate how many members of a working team should be provided with 3

Gelb 1965; Maekawa 1976; 1986; 1987; 1989; 1998; Waetzoldt 1987; Steinkeller 1987; 1996; 2003; Englund 1990. 4 Waetzoldt 1987:118–119, 128. 5 Maekawa 1989:45. 6 Maekawa 1987:69. 7 Steinkeller 2003:44–49; cf. Koslova 2003; 2004:23–25.

N. Koslova, Barley Rations in Umma…

43

regular rations.8 Each category was further divided into several classes (perhaps, according to age): A—grown-up male workers with full working capacities; B—junior male workers, able to work but at least in some cases registered as having ½-, ⅓- or ⅔-output of a grown-up worker; C— children who probably did not work at all; D—old people who often continued working but with lower output.9 The inspection lists describe as recipients of monthly rations mainly the UN-ga6 persons of all classes (A: 60– 75, B: 20–40, C: 10–20, and D: 40–50 liters of barley per month), and sometimes also the eren2 persons of classes B, C, and D. The eren2 workers of class A were allotment holders and normally kept their family members of other classes. The eren2 persons of classes B, C, and D were granted provisions only in some special cases, probably if they had no A-classworker in their family: for example, if an A-class-worker died his sons would receive barley every month according to the rates of their class.10 The data of the inspection lists are comparable with that of the labor accounts.11 In the latter, the distinction between the two categories is revealed in the different ways in which their work time was calculated: working on collective projects, the dumu-gi7 (= eren2) persons could be employed only at half the output of the UN-ga6 persons. Here I will try to compare the data of the texts where workers are explicitly classified within two categories (that is inspection lists and labor accounts), on the one hand, and actual receipts of barley, on the other hand. Such comparison is always difficult and often impossible because, on receipt tablets, the recipients are mentioned usually by name, seldom by profession and never by their status. Our attempts to identify persons 8

See, for example, Or SP 47–49 324 (AS 2); YOS 4 232 (AS 6/XII); BM 106132 (AS 6/XII); BCT 2 288 (AS 6/XII); SANTAG 6 384 (AS 6); Or SP 47/49 382 (AS 8/XII); Or SP 47–49 483 (no date); Tablette Ott, RA 73:116f. (no date). For more detailed discussions on these texts see Sigrist 1979–1980; Steinkeller 1987; Sallaberger 1999:327ff.; Koslova 2003; 2004. 9 Cf. Steinkeller 1987:78ff.; Sallaberger 1999:327f. 10 Or SP 47–49 483 obv. II 5–7: Lu-Šara and Alla—eren2 persons of class B and sons of Ludi×ira who has died (ba-uš2) before the inspection—are described as recipients of 40 liters of barley each; Or SP 47–49 324 obv. III 5–6: Ur-A-ÚI— an eren2 person of class C and son of Ursukkal (uš2)—is described as a recipient of 15 liters of barley; Or SP 47–49 324 obv. III 35–36: another Ur-A-ÚI —an eren2 person of class B and son of Lugina (ba-uš2)—is described as a recipient of 30 liters of barley. 11 For a detailed comparison between lists and accounts dealing in some cases with one and the same working team see Koslova 2003. The views expressed below are based on the analysis presented there.

44

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

and to elucidate principles underlying the system of barley distribution are successful only in rare cases. Before proceeding to concrete examples, I would like to discuss briefly some theoretical points. It is worth noting that in the inspection lists the A-class-persons of the first category were sometimes divided into full- and half-time workers. My point is that this distinction was probably based on the differences in the character of labor: workers marked as full-time were engaged in some kind of specialized labor, workers marked as half-time fulfilled at the moment of the inspection their corvée obligations towards the state, having been conscripted for unskilled labor for a certain period of time. This interpretation, which is confirmed by the data of the labor accounts, differs from the interpretation suggested by P. Steinkeller.12 According to the latter, all persons of the first category worked for the state only 15 days per month (half-time), while persons of the second category—all year round, with three days off each month (full-time). From my point of view, this distinction was confined to the corvée sphere. On the other hand, P. Steinkeller pointed out that the unskilled laborers belonging to the first category, who worked on collective projects, were not provided with land allotments but received rations when fulfilling their obligations to the state and wages during their free time (because at that time they continued to be employed, but in return for wages).13 This theory does not fit well the conclusions one can draw from comparing inspection lists with labor accounts: persons of the first category working half-time on corvée projects belonged to allotment holders and received no rations.14 Generally speaking, I failed to find in the Umma inspection lists known to me any example of an A-class-worker of the first category (full- or half-time) marked as a ration recipient. A-classworkers of the first category were allotted land, regardless of the character of their labor. 3. Some remarks on terminology. We will first of all consider the documents containing the term še-ba “barley ration” traditionally associated with payments on a monthly basis. In Ur III times this term could be expanded through additional elements: še-ba iti-da “barley ration for a month” and še-ba za3-mu “barley ration for a culmination of the 12

Steinkeller 2003:45. Ibid. 14 Koslova 2003, see especially the comparison between YOS 4 232 (AS 6/XII) and AAICAB I/1 Ashm. 1924-0665 (AS 6/I–XIII). 13

N. Koslova, Barley Rations in Umma…

45

year”.15 It should be noted, that the term še-ba iti-da which seems to be mostly appropriate to designate monthly payments occurs very seldom; strangely enough, such payments usually bear the designation either simply še-ba, or še-ba za3-mu. Unfortunately, the exact meaning of the latter is unclear from the texts.16 On the whole, I have the impression that šeba za3-mu interchanged rather arbitrarily with še-ba: there is no difference between the two terms—neither in the pattern of documents, nor in the amounts of issued barley, nor in the dates of issues. Furthermore, I cannot explain the opposition of the terms še-ba iti-da and še-ba za3mu.17 According to one document from Girsu,18 we can assume that the former designated barley issued for one month, whereas the latter— barley for the whole year. But this assumption is not confirmed by the Umma texts. 4. Based on the dated receipts, we can conclude that barley designated as še-ba (za3-mu) was issued during the whole year, hardly more often than once a month. The minimum can be observed in months II– V, the maximum—in the XII month. In the inspection lists we find the standard monthly amounts of barley per worker corresponding to his status. Nevertheless the amounts of barley mentioned in the actual receipts often exceed these standards. This fact can be explained in two different ways. As P. Steinkeller has pointed out in his article on potters in Umma, the high volumes of barley issued per person (up to 1200 liters) must have represented either yearly rations of a single potter or monthly rations intended for several potters.19 I would think that the same two explanations can be assumed also for workers employed in other offices. 15

Cf. the conventional translation: “barley ration for the New Year”; for za3mu see Sallaberger 1993:142f. with fn. 669. 16 See Waetzoldt 1987:127–128: “Barley rations issued at the beginning of the New Year (še-ba za3-mu-ka) should perhaps also be understood as special allotments, but this is not entirely clear from the texts.” Cf. MVN 21 233 (AS 1/VII) and CHEU 68 (AS 1/VIII): the first text mentions three soldiers of the governor (aga3-us2 ensi2)—Agugu and Urni×ar, sons of Puzur-Ea, and Ur-Mami—receiving 72 liters of barley each as še-ba za3-mu; according to the second document, one month later the same three persons received 60 liters of barley each as a simple še-ba. A possible assumption would be that rations issued “for a culmination of the year” were somewhat higher than normal monthly rations, but the evidence is not sufficient for general conclusions. 17 For example, in MVN 21 228 (Š 44/XII); BCT 2 253 (AS 4/I); MVN 10 219 (AS 4); BIN 5 56 (AS 5/IX). 18 Maekawa 1998, No. 7. 19 Steinkeller 1996:240.

46

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

Actually, barley rations were not issued regularly. A worker might have received his provisions for one month, or two, or five, or for the whole year, though the periods of time the barley was intended for are seldom explicitly mentioned in the texts. A receipt contained normally only the date of the issue. But in some rare cases we luckily have deviations from this pattern. According to SAT III 1502 (ŠS 4/VIII–XI), the boatman Šešani received 120 liters of barley in the VIII, 60 liters in the X and 60 liters in the XI month; the first 120 liters were obviously intended for two months (VIII–IX). The reasons for such irregularity of issues are not quite clear to me. But, in my opinion, we can hardly deduce the duration of a worker’s service from the volume of his barley ration. That is, if we have a receipt for 300 liters of barley, it does not necessarily mean that a recipient worked for the state five months a year (at the rate of 60 liters per month).20 BM 105578 (AS 8/X) mentions 120 liters of barley—a ration for the potter Adudu in months IX–X; in MVN 21 203 (AS 8/I–XI), a labor account of pottery, we find the same potter Adudu conscripted as a full-time worker to fulfil his obligations towards the state under the supervision of the official Lukala from the I to the XI month of the same year. Besides, barley issued for an A-class-worker was often intended not only for him but also for at least the male members of his family. Sometimes the scribe explicitly noted this fact in the receipt.21 In most cases, however, we can judge by the amount of issued barley. According to Or SP 47–49 432 (ŠS 5/VIII), a certain Apinkidu with a ration of 75 liters and his son Ni×urum with a ration of 10 liters have been transferred from the official Šara-a×u to the office of nu-banda3-gu4 Ipa’e; Or SP 47– 49 416 (ŠS 3/XI) mentions the same Apinkidu who, at that time still under supervision of Šara-a×u, had received 85 (75+10) liters of barley, obviously (though not explicitly recorded) for himself and for his son. 5. Let us now examine different patterns of documents. Among hundreds of še-ba records, I distinguish those which deal with rations distributed to several persons (collective issues) from those which mention only

20

Cf. Steinkeller 1996:250. Orient 16, 71:97 (ŠS 2): 180 liters of barley—rations for Ugi and his sons; SAT III 1290 (ŠS 2): 90 liters of barley in the VIII, 90 liters in the IX month— rations for the smith Gurzan and his sons; SAT III 1292 (ŠS 2/IX): 95 liters of barley—rations for Šadda and his son; SAT III 1361 (ŠS 3): 1380 liters of barley—rations for Urdudam and his son, for 10? months; Or SP 47–49 452 (ŠS 7): 1380 liters of barley—rations for Abala and his son. 21

N. Koslova, Barley Rations in Umma…

47

one recipient (individual issues). In both groups of documents there are sealed and unsealed ones. Who sealed the records concerned with barley rations? Evidently, in very few cases it had been the recipients of rations themselves. In the studies of the Ur III period there have been different reconstructions of the system of distribution of rations. P. Steinkeller in his article devoted to the foresters of Umma supposed that providing the workers with barley and wool rations during the period of their employment in the forests was one of the duties of an overseer or foremen.22 An opposite opinion was held by R. K. Englund: “Die Rationen wurden anscheinend nicht über die Aufseher (ugula/nu-banda3), sondern über einen höheren Beamten, im Normalfall den šabra, ausgegeben und wurden auch auf dieser Verwaltungsebene abgerechnet. […] Ein entscheidender Unterschied zur vorsargonischen Periode besteht darin, daß in dieser die Arbeiter über ihre ugula entlohnt wurden. Man kann daraus schließen, daß der ugula in der vorsargonischen Periode, anders als in der Ur IIIZeit, die volle Verantwortung für seine Arbeiter besaß: er verantwortete nicht nur wie der ugula der Ur III-Periode die Leistungen des Trupps, sondern er kontrollierte auch die Verteilung von Rationen. Damit war er weitaus enger mit den Arbeitern verbunden, denn er konnte […] auf die Leistungen unmittelbar und persönlich Einfluß nehmen.”23 P. Steinkeller, having studied the case of potters, assumed furthermore that as the potters of Umma worked in a fairly autonomous way, they “did not participate in organized distribution of rations that was carried by and within their home institutions. What happened, instead, is that each potter would himself go to a mill or some other grain-storing facility and collect the barley due to him and his male pendants.”24 I would argue that we have strong evidence that barley rations in Umma were issued for a working team, and a foreman (ugula), who was responsible for further distribution of these rations, was the actual recipient and sealed a receipt. Probably it was just one way of distribution of provisions but operating both in the sphere of corvée services and that of specialized labor. It should be emphasized that in all following examples an ugula received rations only for those members of his team who were otherwise known as belonging to the second category.

22

Steinkeller 1987:93. Englund 1990:64–65. 24 Steinkeller 1996:249. 23

48

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

MVN 21 199 (Š 47/I–XIII) is an account of ugula Urmes, son of UrAšnan, concerned with collective labor. At the time the account was written the team under the supervision of Urmes consisted of 13 workers of the first category (half-time) and 12 of the second (full-time). Several barley receipts (see table 1) demonstrate that most of the staff members belonging to the second category remained under the supervision of Urmes during a certain period of time—he certified the receipts of rations with his seal at least from Š 45 to AS 1. Only in one case is a worker of the first category (named Sipa-anšu) mentioned among the recipients of barley; perhaps he was a B-class-worker, left alone, and had to be supported by the state. All other workers of the first category are not mentioned in the receipts, because they belonged obviously to the class A and were land holders. Strictly speaking, we don’t know if they received some payments in barley or not. But, anyway, if they did, these payments were recorded in some other documents. MVN 21 203 (AS 8/I–XI) is an account of the official Lukala, dealing with pottery production (see table 2). The team under the supervision of Lukala consisted of 23 workers, many of them being well-known potters. Among the 21 members of the main staff (libir), 19 persons were registered as full-time, one—as half-time, and one—as ⅔-time. One of the fulltime workers (named Utu-sig) is explicitly marked as dumu-gi7, which means that he was regarded as belonging to the first category. This account deals with specialized labor; that is why a person of the first category could evidently be employed as a full-output worker. Two additional workers (da¶-¶u-am3)—the potters Emahkidu and Lu-Ibgal—were registered as half-time; I suppose that they belonged to the first category (see table 3/1 ex. 1; 3/2 ex. 1) and fulfilled in the accounting period their corvée obligations to the state. Several records concerned with barley rations which can be connected to the potter’s account confirm, as far as I can see, my assumption that an ugula was responsible for barley distribution among his subordinates in the sphere of specialized labor as well. Or SP 47–49 387 (AS 9/III) deals with barley rations for three persons who in the previous year (AS 8) worked in the team of Lukala: Erra’a, Šešani and Lugal-itida. The rations are said to have been “separated?” (perhaps, left) in the granary and transferred from the office of Lukala who was responsible for them in the previous year (the seal of Lu-Šulgira, not sealed?). Five (future) members of Lukala’s team (Pešam, Erra’a, Adudu, UrBilgames, and Lugal-itida) and a certain Akala (also the potter) received

N. Koslova, Barley Rations in Umma…

49

rations, according to MVN 1 167 (AS 1/V). Pešam functioned as ugula, but in this case he did not himself seal the receipt. It was certified by Utusaga whom we also know from Lukala’s account as Utu-sig, a potter belonging to the first category. Accordingly, he himself received no ration; cf. Rochester 158 (ŠS 3/VII) rev. III 7–9: Utu-sig received (kišib) rations for two potters but not for himself, unlike Pešam who might have belonged together with other members of his small team to the second category. Both—Pešam and Utu-sig—functioned as low-level officials in the pottery industry, probably much lower than Lukala because the latter had their working time at his disposal. But both of them were, nevertheless, responsible for providing their subordinates with food. It should be noted that an ugula often certified also individual receipts, that is those which mention only one recipient. The potter Akala having received in the V month of AS 1 his ration within a group of other potters received the next one in the VIII month of the same year individually, according to SET 235 (AS 1/VIII). This time the receipt was sealed by Pešam, son of Ur-[…], the potter. The limits of the present article do not allow me to increase the number of examples. But all parallels known to me between the labor accounts or inspection lists and sealed receipts of barley rations (both collective and individual) lead to the conclusion that the rations were distributed through the foremen of working teams in many if not all branches of the Ur III Umma economy. Let us return to the assumption of P. Steinkeller cited above that the potters in Umma as well as probably other craftsmen such as carpenters, reed-workers, leather-workers and even some metal-workers did not participate in the organized distribution of rations but received their rations independently. On the one hand, some of the evidence that we have just seen points to the existence of a system of organized distribution of provisions among potters. On the other hand, we have indeed quite a number of texts dealing with individual issues of barley to potters: TENUS 377 (AS 5/II); BIN 5 309 (AS 5/XI); BIN 5 306 (AS 5/XII)—unsealed tablets recording barley rations given to the potter Ur-Bilgames (60 liters each time); also MVN 21 243–244 (no date)—unsealed documents dealing with barley issued to different individuals, including the same potter UrBilgames.25 25 Note that one and the same text is concerned with rations received by this potter, by the forester Dugani, the reed-worker Šara-bazige, and other persons, all being employed in different economic spheres.

50

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

I am not sure that we can reconstruct the system of distribution of rations based on the unsealed texts. These texts were possibly internal records of the grain office. Unfortunately I cannot determine what principles the scribes followed as they joined individual recipients on one and the same tablet. Was it one and the same profession (MCS 2:22 BM 105581 (AS 9/XII): potters of the countryside)? Or the same location (BIN 5 307 (AS 2/V): in prison)? Or the same working place (MVN 21 244 (no date): at the place of Ur-Suen, the singer)? Or belonging to the same household (SAT II 588 (Š 48): in the household of Šara)? Or, perhaps, just the same locale where the issue of barley took place (CHEU 34 (Š 46/XI); MVN 21 231 (Š 47/VIII): from the mill; SET 170 (Š 47/X): from the old threshing-floor on the field Lamah; Rochester 158 (ŠS 3/ VII): from the new mill; BCT 2 243 (no date): from the threshing-floor on the field Ninura)? Probably all of these factors played a certain role, but at present the matter should be left open.26 6. In conclusion, I would like to return to the problem of special barley rations for workers of the first category. As K. Maekawa has pointed out, the term še-ba lu2-šuku-dab5-ba “barley rations to those who get allotments”, which used to denote special payments in barley to allotment holders for their unskilled collective labor in Pre-Sargonic Girsu, was not used any longer in Ur III times. K. Maekawa suggested that the term ša3gal eren2-bala-gub-ba “food for workers engaged in regular service” could be its analog in Ur III Girsu.27 However, the latter never occurs in Umma. The term še šuku-ra, literally “barley of the allotment (land)”, seems to be connected with people who held allotments. Sometimes it refers simply to the yield from an allotment plot but even more often it seems to denote barley equivalent in amount to the yield from a plot, or probably barley given to the workers instead of the allotment land.28 In Umma, in most cases known to me, the term še šuku-ra should refer to the issued barley, not to the barley which a person took from his allotment plot. There are many documents enumerating both the recipients of monthly barley rations še-ba, on the one hand, and the recipients of še šuku-ra, on the other hand.29 The amounts of barley in both cases 26

Cf. Steinkeller 2004:68–73. Maekawa 1976; 1987. 28 Maekawa 1987; 1989. 29 See, for example, Rochester 158 (ŠS 3/VII): both types of barley were issued from the new mill, from the office of ka-guru7. 27

N. Koslova, Barley Rations in Umma…

51

are comparable or even identical.30 It is worth noting that še šuku-ra “allotment barley” was distributed in Umma all year round, not only during the harvest time, and was therefore not necessarily connected to the yield. Some sealed receipts of še šuku-ra lead to the assumption that barley payments of this type could also have been distributed through foremen of working teams.31 The exact nature of this type of payment is not clear to me. However, the following points should be made. The allotment barley was at least in some cases given to people who were otherwise known as half-time workers (see table 3/1). I suppose, this half-time employment—for example, in the case of two additional potters, Emahkidu and Lu-Ibgal, in the team of Lukala (see above)—was due to the fact that the respective persons belonged to the first category and fulfilled their corvée obligations to the state but at present I am unable to prove it. The allotment barley was, furthermore, given to people who were otherwise known as land holders in approximately the same period of time (see table 3/2). Therefore, we can hardly speak about the substitution of the allotment barley for the allotment land in Ur III Umma.32 I would rather propose that še šuku-ra could have denoted barley distributed to the persons of the first category, that is to the holders of allotment land, on account of the future yield from their allotment plots, which they then owed to the state.

30

See also BM 105590 (AS 7/X): 300 liters—še-ba of Ninurada, 300 liters—še šuku-ra of Lu-Ninšubur, both received their barley from the threshing-floor opposite Isala. 31 See, for example, YOS 4 309 (AS 9): še šuku-ra for several cultivators (engar) and ox-drivers (ša3-gu4), received (kišib) from ka-guru7 by Urmes; the document is sealed by Urmes, scribe, son of Ur-Ašnan. Two of these cultivators— Ni×irhedu and Šaramu-DU—are mentioned together in MVN 5 66 (AS 7) under the supervision of nu-banda3-gu4 Urmes (in all probability the same Urmes, son of Ur-Ašnan). Another example is perhaps MVN 18 679 (ŠS 1)—a receipt of še šuku-ra for Nur-Suen sealed by Agu, scribe, son of Lugal-emahe. Probably the same Nur-Suen is mentioned in a labor account of Agu, scribe of craftsmen, TCL V 6036 (AS 4/I–XIII) obv. II 6 as a half-output worker and obviously a person of the first category belonging to the team of Agu. 32 Cf. Steinkeller 1999:303 and note 52: “šuku plots were cultivated and harvested en masse by the granting institution, by means of its own teams of plowmen (…) and of conscripted harvesters, with the yield then distributed among šuku holders, based on their designated lot size and the average yield per iku from the overall cultivated area.” See also Steinkeller 2002:115f.

N. Koslova, Barley Rations in Umma…

57

References Civil 1994 Englund 1990 Gelb 1965 Koslova 2003

Koslova 2004 Koslova 2005a

Koslova 2005b

Maekawa 1976 Maekawa 1986

Maekawa 1987

Maekawa 1989 Maekawa 1998 Mayr 1997 Sallaberger 1993 Sallaberger 1999

Sigrist 1979–80 Steinkeller 1987

Civil, M. The Farmer’s Instructions: A Sumerian Agricultural Manual (AuOr Sup 5). Barcelona. Englund, R. K. Organisation und Verwaltung der Ur III-Fischerei (BBVO 10). Berlin. Gelb, I. J. The Ancient Mesopotamian Ration System. JNES 24:230–243. Koslova, N. Bezeichnungen der Arbeitskräfte in Umma der Ur III-Zeit. Forthcoming in the Proceedings of the London 2003 RAI Workshop on the Administration of the Ur III State; based on paper read in London in 2003. Koslova, N. Fluktuation der Arbeitskräfte im Umma der Ur III-Zeit: SANTAG 6:384. B&B 1:23–81. Koslova, N. Zemel’nye nadely za službu v Umme perioda III dinastii Ura. M. Dandamayeva; L. Kogan; N. Koslova; I. Medvedskaya (eds.). Edubba večna i postojanna. St. Petersburg. Pp. 115–126 (Land Allotments in Umma during the Third Dynasty of Ur). Koslova, N. Feld oder Gerste? Zur Versorgung der landwirtschaftlichen Arbeiter in Umma der Ur III-Zeit. B&B 2:703–712. Maekawa, K. The Erín-People in Lagash of Ur III Times. RA 70:9–44. Maekawa, K. The Agricultural Texts of Ur III Lagash of the British Museum (IV). Zinbun 21:91–157 (with plates I–XII). Maekawa, K. Collective Labor Service in Girsu–Lagash: The Pre-Sargonic and Ur III Periods. M. Powell (ed.). Labor in the Ancient Near East (AOS 68). New Haven. Pp. 49–71. Maekawa, K. Rations, Wages and Economic Trends in the Ur III Period. AoF 16:42–50. Maekawa, K. Ur III Girsu Records of Labor Forces in the British Museum (1). ASJ 20:63–110. Mayr, R. The Seal Impressions of Ur III Umma. Diss. Leiden. Sallaberger, W. Der kultische Kalender der Ur III-Zeit (UAVA 7/1–2). Berlin–New York. Sallaberger, W. Ur III-Zeit. Sallaberger, W.; Westenholz, A. Mesopotamien: Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit. Annäherungen 3, edited by P. Attinger; M. Wäfler (OBO 160/3). Fribourg–Göttingen. Pp. 119–390. Sigrist, R. M. ERIN—UN.ÍL. RA 73:101–120; 74:11–28. Steinkeller, P. The Foresters of Umma: Toward a Definition of Ur III Labor. M. Powell (ed.). Labor in the Ancient Near East (AOS 68). New Haven. Pp. 73–115.

58 Steinkeller 1996

Steinkeller 1999

Steinkeller 2002

Steinkeller 2003

Steinkeller 2004

Waetzold 1987

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies Steinkeller, P. The Organization of Crafts in Third Millennium Babylonia: The Case of the Potters. AoF 23: 232–253. Steinkeller, P. Land-Tenure Conditions in Third-Millennium Babylonia: The Problem of Regional Variation. M. Hudson; B. Levine (eds.). Urbanization and Land Ownership in the Ancient Near East. Study of Long-term Economic Trends. International Scholars Conference of Ancient Near East Economies. Vol. 2. Bethesda. Pp. 289–329. Steinkeller, P. Money-Lending Practices in Ur III Babylonia: The Issue of Economic Motivation. M. Hudson; M. van de Mieroop (eds.). Debt and Economic Renewal in the Ancient Near East. International Scholars Conference of Ancient Near East Economies. Vol. 3. Bethesda. Pp. 109– 137. Steinkeller, P. Archival Practices at Babylonia in the Third Millennium. M. Brosius (ed.). Ancient Archives and Archival Traditions. Concepts of Record-Keeping in the Ancient World. Oxford. Pp. 37–58. Steinkeller, P. The Function of Written Documentation in the Administrative Praxis of Early Babylonia. M. Hudson; C. Wunsch (eds.). Creating Economic Order. Record-keeping, Standardization, and the Development of Accounting in the Ancient Near East. International Scholars Conference of Ancient Near East Economies. Vol. 4. Bethesda. Pp. 65–88. Waetzoldt, H. Compensation of Craft Workers and Officials in the Ur III Period. M. Powell (ed.). Labor in the Ancient Near East (AOS 68). New Haven. Pp. 117–141.

Philologische Aspekte elamisch-mesopotamischer Beziehungen im Überblick* Manfred Krebernik Universität Jena

1. Einleitung Elam war unter historischen und kulturellen Gesichtspunkten einer der wichtigsten Nachbarn des Alten Mesopotamien.1 Aus mesopotamischer Sicht scheint “Elam” primär den südöstlich von Sumer bzw. Babylonien gelegenen Teil des iranischen Hochlands (mit Zentrum Anšan) bezeichnet zu haben;2 dementsprechend könnte sich, wie gemeinhin angenommen, das keilschriftliche Logogramm NIM(ki) von der Bedeutung “oben”, sum. (igi-)nim, herleiten. Erst sekundär traten Susa bzw. die Susiana als Inbegriff “Elams” in den Vordergrund.3 Einheimische Quellen differenzieren zunächst zwischen einzelnen Regionen wie Awan und Šimaški, wo die beiden ersten überlieferten Herrscherdynastien beheimatet waren, * Der Aufsatz ist die leicht überarbeitete Fassung eines auf dem Deutschen Orientalistentag 2004 in Halle gehaltenen Vortrags. Zur Umschrift des Elamischen: Zeichenformen und Lautwerte s. Stève 1992. Den Gepflogenheiten entsprechend wird h statt ¶ verwendet. Im Gegensatz zum weitgehend triadisch gegliederten semitisch-akkadischen Konsonantensystem (stimmlos–stimmhaft–“emphatisch”) scheint das elamische nur 2 Reihen besessen zu haben, deren Opposition keilschriftlich durch Einfach- bzw. (nicht konsequente) Doppelschreibung des jeweiligen Konsonanten ausgedrückt wird. In eigenen Umschriften verwende ich dem entsprechend stets stimmlose Konsonanten in einfacher bzw. doppelter Setzung, also z. B. pá für ba, ka4 für qa; Kutur- statt Kudur-, -ippe/i statt -ibbe/i etc. In Zitaten werden jedoch andere Umschriftweisen, insbesondere aus dem “Elamischen Wörterbuch” (Hinz–Koch 1987, abgekürzt EW) übernommen, in Transliterationen mesopotamischer Quellen werden die dort üblichen Lautwerte benutzt. 1 Allgemein zur Geschichte Elams und seiner Beziehungen zu Mesopotamien s. Vallat 1997; Potts 1999. 2 Vgl. die von Vallat, RGTC 11, CVIII angeführten lexikalischen Gleichsetzungen von Anšan und Elam. 3 Aus mesopotamischer Sicht wird Susa aber schon in dem aB Brief ARM 2, 121:5 explizit zu Elam gerechnet; andererseits differenziert der Anzu-Mythos (III 131f., hier nur in jüngeren Textzeugen erhalten, s. Annus 2001:28 und Foster 2005:576) zwischen Elam und Susa.

60

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

sowie Anšan und Susa als hauptsächlichen Bestandteilen des Reiches; Ha(l)tamti “Elam” erscheint zuerst in der Titulatur des Großregenten Siwe-palar-huhpak,4 eines Zeitgenossen Hammurapis von Babylon. Das Elamische war wohl nicht die einzige, offenbar aber die wichtigste indigene Sprache der Region; Keilschrifttexte in elamischer Sprache reichen von der sargonischen bis in die achämenidische Epoche. Bevor die Keilschrift importiert wurde, waren die “protoelamische” Schrift (Anfang des 3. Jt.s) und die nur durch wenige Denkmäler bezeugte “Strich-” oder “Linearschrift”5 (Ende des 2. Jt.s) in Gebrauch. Nach der Übernahme der Keilschrift diente als Schriftsprache vorwiegend das Akkadische, altelamische (aE) Schriftdenkmäler sind dagegen relativ selten. Dies änderte sich unter den Igihalkiden (14. Jh.) in mittelelamischer (mE) Zeit: Humbannumena und sein Sohn Untaš-Napiriša, der Erbauer von Čoġā Zambīl, sowie die folgende Šutrukiden-Dynastie (Šutruk-Nahhunte, Kutir-Nahhunte, Šilhak-Inšušinak, Hutelutuš-Inšušinak) haben eine größere Anzahl elamischer Inschriften hinterlassen. In diese Zeit datieren auch die mE Wirtschaftstexte aus Tall-i Mālyān, dem alten Anšan. Aus der neuelamischen (nE) Epoche sind Inschriften, Wirtschaftstexte, Briefe und Omina in elamischer Sprache überliefert. Eine letzte Blüte erlebte das Elamische unter den ersten Achämeniden (achE), bevor es als Verwaltungssprache vom Aramäischen abgelöst wurde. Mesopotamische Einflüsse auf Elam machen sich, vor allem in der Susiana, archäologisch seit der späten Urukzeit bemerkbar. In frühdynastischer Zeit war der elamische Osten nach dem Zeugnis zeitgenössischer sumerischer Inschriften und Wirtschaftstexte Handelspartner, aber auch Ziel von Kriegszügen; beides hat sich in den später aufgezeichneten Sagen um Enmerkar und Lugalbanda niedergeschlagen. In sargonischer Zeit und unter der III. Dynastie von Ur standen Teile Elams unter mesopotamischer Oberherrschaft, die Keilschrift wurde übernommen, und mesopotamische Herrscher hinterließen in Susa und der Susiana ihre Inschriften. In der ersten Hälfte des 2. Jt.s schrieb (und sprach?) man in der Susiana überwiegend akkadisch,6 auch das Onomastikon der Verwaltungstexte dieser Zeit weist einen starken Anteil akkadischer Personennamen auf. Andererseits griff das Reich Elam auch mehrmals auf Mesopotamien über: bedeutende Kriegszüge fanden am Ende der Ur III-Zeit, in 4

EKI 3:5: me-ni-ik ha-tá-am-[ti-ik] “ich (bin) der Regent von Elam”. Zu den älteren Schriften s. Vallat 1986; Damerow–Englund 1989; Englund 1996 und 1997; Salvini 1997. 6 Vgl. De Meyer 1962; Salonen 1962; Labat 1970; Lambert 1991. 5

M. Krebernik, Aspekte elamisch-mesopotamischer Beziehungen…

61

aB Zeit und am Ende der Kassitenzeit statt. Die mE Könige waren, wenn man einer späteren literarischen Quelle glauben darf, mit den kassitischen Königen Babyloniens verschwägert.7 In nE Zeit verbündeten sich Elam und Babylonien gegen das neuassyrische Reich. Während die elamisch-mesopotamischen Kontakte aufgrund primärer Schriftquellen gut faßbar sind, ist es mit unserem Wissen um die Grenzen, Nachbarn und Kontakte Elams auf dem iranischen Hochland schlechter bestellt. Ganz unsicher sind die Verhältnisse im Norden und Osten: auch wenn von D. McAlpin (1981) vertretene These einer Verwandtschaft des Elamischen mit den Drawida-Sprachen zutrifft, kann man aus der Tatsache, daß deren westlichster Vertreter, das Brahui, heute in der Gegend von Quetta (Pakistan) gesprochen wird, für die altorientalischen Epochen keine sicheren Schlüsse ziehen. Im Nordwesten dürfte es Berührungen mit Gutäern, Hurritern und Kassiten gegeben haben, in der Folge dann mit Iranern. Spätestens zu Beginn des 6. Jh.s hatte sich das Altpersische bis Anšan, d. h. in die nachmalige Provinz Fars, ausgebreitet. Kyros II. nennt sich in der elamischen Legende seines noch unter Dareios benutzten Siegels “Kuraš, der Anšanite, der Sohn des Teispes”.8 Das achämenidenzeitliche Elamisch weist starke iranische Einflüsse in Wortschatz und Syntax auf. Was die vielschichtigen Beziehungen zwischen Elam und Mesopotamien betrifft, so standen in der Forschung die materiellen, kunstgeschichtlichen und politisch-historischen Aspekte im Vordergrund,9 während den sprachlich-philologischen weniger Aufmerksamkeit zuteil wurde: es existieren zwar wichtige Einzeluntersuchungen (vor allem zum Akkadischen von Susa und zum elamischen Onomastikon), eine umfassende Darstellung fehlt jedoch. Im Folgenden möchte ich einen kurzen Überblick über die lexikalischen Aspekte des Themas geben, d. h. über elamisches Namen- und Wortgut in sumerisch-akkadischer Überlieferung und vice versa.

7 Inwieweit der diesbezügliche, von van Dijk 1986 bearbeitete Brief VS 24, 91 als historische Quelle gelten darf, ist unsicher. 8 Photo und Kopie bei Garrison–Root 1996, Fig. 2. Zur Lesung s. zuletzt Henkelman 2003:193 Anm. 39 mit Lit. 9 So befaßten sich nur zwei Beiträge der 36. Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, die 1989 unter dem Titel “Mésopotamie et Elam” in Paris stattfand, mit den sprachlichen Aspekten des Themas: W. G. Lambert 1991; Steiner 1991.

62

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

2. Elamisches in Mesopotamien 2.1. Ortsnamen 2.1.1. “Elam” Zur neuzeitlichen Begriffsgeschichte s. Basello 2004. Früher als in Elam selbst ist der Landesname in mesopomatischen Quellen bezeugt,10 allerdings in der vorherrschenden logographischen Schreibung NIM(ki). Es wird allgemein angenommen, daß das in akkadischem Kontext auch in der Form NIM.MAki auftretende Logogramm auf der Bedeutung von sum. (igi-)nim “oben” beruht, doch scheint mir in Anbetracht der syllabischen Schreibung é-nam (s. u.) eine lautliche Grundlage nicht ganz ausgeschlossen. In keilschriftlichen Quellen aus Elam, wo man in sumerischen und akkadischen Texten zunächst ebenfalls das Logogramm verwendete, sind seit aB Zeit syllabische Schreibungen der einheimischen Namensform Ha(l)tamti belegt, die meist durch Suffixe erweitert ist: -k(-) für die 1. Sg., -r(-) für die 3. Sg., -p(-) für die 3. Pl. der Personenklasse (“elamisch”, “Elamer”); -n(-) für die Sachklasse bzw. den Genitiv. In der Folge sind die Belege nach dem “Elamischen Wörterbuch” (= Hinz–Koch 1987; jeweils mit Seitenzahl) und RGTC 11, 90f. unter Beibehaltung der jeweiligen Umschrift zusammengestellt; Belege ohne Verweis auf EW finden sich nur in RGTC. A. Unerweitert: ha-d[am(?)-ti(?)] (EW 585; aE: Narām-Sîn-Vertrag, Ergänzung unsicher) ha-tam5-ti (EW 644) = ha-tame-ti mE, nE hal-ha-tam5-ti (EW 597) = (hal) ha-tame-ti mE, nE ha-tàm-ti mE AŠ (hal) ha-tame-ti nE AŠ (hal) ha-tame-ti(-na) nE GAM.ha-tam5.lg (EW 644) nE hh.ha-tam5-tam6 (EW 644) = BEha-tame-tamé achE v.hal-tam5-ti (EW 609) = mhal-tame-ti achE h.hal-ta-[ta]m5-[ti] (EW 609; nE: unsicher, Kontext zerstört) 10

Zu den Belegen aus vorsargonischer Zeit s. Selz 1991. Als mutmaßlich älteste Zeugnisse nennt er (l. c. 31) die Ğemdet Na´r-Texte OECT 7, 88 und 22: “NIM.KI, vermutlich als Zusatz zu Personennamen, wird dort, wie auch später, als Herkunftsbezeichnung ‘(aus) Elam’ interpretiert werden dürfen”. In der Neuedition durch Englund–Grégoire 1991 findet sich die Kombination jedoch nur in No. 217 (= OECT 7, 88 + 166) iii 2: 1N1 NIMb2 KIa. Auf sichererem Boden befindet man sich mit dem Theonym dlugal-NIM (nach dlugal-aratta) in der Götterliste aus Tell Abū Ôalābī¶ (IAS 82 iii 18f.) sowie den inschriftlichen Belegen bei Enna-il von Kiš und Eanatum von Lagaš (l. c. 31–36).

M. Krebernik, Aspekte elamisch-mesopotamischer Beziehungen…

63

v.hal-la-tam5-ti (EW 601) = AŠhal-la-tame-ti achE hal-la-tamé-ti achE

m

B. Mit -k erweitert: ha-da-am-ti-ik (EW 584 s. v. ha-da-am-ti) = ha-tá-am-ti(-ik) aE, mE ha-ta-am-ti-ik (EW 644 s. v. ha-tam5-ti) = ha-ta-am-ti(-ik) mE ha-tam5-ti-ik (EW 644) = ha-tame-ti(-ik) mE (EW “nE” Druckfehler) ha-tam5-ti-ki (EW 644) = ha-tame-ti(-ki) mE ha-tam5-ti-ik-ki (EW 644) = ha-tame-ti(-ik-ki) nE ha-tam5-tuk (EW 645) = ha-tame-ti(ke) nE C. Mit -r erweitert: ha-ta-am-ti-ir (EW 644) = ha-ta-am-ti-(ir) mE ha-tam5-ti-ir (EW 644) = ha-tame-ti(-ir) mE hal-ha-tam5-ti-ir (EW 597) = (hal) ha-tame-ti(-ir) mE [v.ha-tam5]-t[i]-ra (EW 645; achE) v.ha-tam5-tur-ra (EW 645) = mha-tamé-ti(re-ra) achE v.ha-tam6-tar-ra (EW 644) = mha-tamé-ta(r-ra) achE D. Mit -p erweitert: ha-da-am-ti-ip (EW 584) = ha-tá-am-ti(-ip) aE ha-tam5-ti-ip (EW 644) = ha-tame-ti(-ip) mE v.ha-tam5-ti-ip (EW 644) = mha-tame-ti(-ip) nE ha-tame-ti(-ip-ti) mE hw.ha-tam5-ti-ib-be (EW 644) = BEha-tame-ti(-ip-pè) nE v.ha-tam5-ti-ib-be (EW 644 s. v. hw.ha-tam5-ti-ib-be) = mha-tame-ti(-ip-pè) achE h.ha-tam5-tub-be (EW 645) = AŠha-tame-ti(pe) achE h.ha-tam5-tup (EW 645 s. v. v.ha-tam5-tup) = AŠha-tame-ti(pe) achE v.ha-tam5-tup (EW 645) = mha-tame-ti(pe) achE h.ha-tam5-tup-pi (EW 645) = AŠha-tame-ti(pe-pè) achE m ha-tame-ti(pe-pè) achE v.hal-tam5-ti-ip (EW 609) = mhal-tame-ti(-ip) achE v.hal-tam6-tup (EW 609) = AŠhal-tamé-ti(pe) achE E. Mit -n erweitert: AŠ (hal) ha-tame-ti(-na) nE

In mesopotamischen Quellen ist, wie oben erwähnt, die logographische Schreibung NIM(.MA)(ki) üblich, während syllabische Schreibungen wesentlich seltener vorkommen. In sumerischen Texten ist zwar der mAuslaut der sumerischen Namensform durch Fortsetzungen mit -ma(-) gut dokumentiert, doch fehlen vollständige syllabische Schreibungen weitestgehend: der einzige mir bekannte Beleg ist é-nam in einem syllabisch geschriebenen literarischen Brief (Šulgi an Išbi-Erra) aus Susa.11 Es 11

Suse XII/1 iv 7, s. Edzard 1974:16 und 20f.: kur mar-du é-nam du-a-be / amur !-ri-i ù NIM-ti ka-li-šu.

64

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

ist unwahrscheinlich, daß das in dem Text sonst nicht verwendete Syllabogramm É hier noch den aAK Lautwert ’à besitzt. -n- für den mittleren Konsonanten begegnet nur hier; es erinnert an den l/n-Wechsel in sum. kalam und kanam und könnte einer innersumerischen Entwicklung zuzuschreiben sein. Die übliche sumerische Lesung elam des Logogramms NIM beruht auf dem Zeugnis lexikalischer Texte.12 Die gewöhnliche akkadische Namensform ist Elamtu(m), wozu die Nisben elamû(m) und im 1. Jt. auch elamāy13 gehören. Der früheste syllabische Beleg dürfte in dem aAK PN fe-la-mì-tum vorliegen.14 In aB Texten aus Mari wird der Landesname zuweilen mit phonetischem Komplement, mehrmals aber auch vollsyllabisch geschrieben: NIM-tim (Gen.),15 NIM.MA-tim(ki) (Gen.),16 e-la-am-tumki (Nom.),17 e-la-am-tim(ki) (Gen.).18 In der Schreibung e-la-an-ti (Gen.) ist die akkadische Form auch einmal in Elam, in einer akkadischen Inschrift des Untaš-Napiriša, bezeugt.19 Syllabische Schreibungen der akkadischen Namensform geben den Anlaut überwiegend mit e- wieder, nur selten mit i-.20 Die reguläre sprachgeschichtliche Entwicklung (Schwund von Mimation und Kasusendung) führte zur nB Form Elam(m)at.21 Eine direkte Wiedergabe der zeitgenössischen elamischen Form als Haltammatim (Gen.) glaubte Oppenheim1969 in einem aB Brief aus Mari

12 Proto-Ea 706 (MSL 14, 59): e-la-am / e-lam NIM; Ea VIII 170 (MSL 14, 481): -lam NIM; Proto-Aa sec. branch No. 10 (OB Sippar) ii′ 9′f. (MSL 7, 130f.): e-lam NIM = e-la-mu-um; mudû = e-la-am-tu-um. Ú¶ XXI 38 (MSL 11, 14): KUR. NIM[ki] = [MIN] e-la-mi-i. 13 Geschrieben kur/lúNIM.MA(ki)-a-a, seltener auch lúe-la-ma-a-a (ABL 478, Rs. 11), e-lam-a-a (SAA 15, 98:10). 14 OAIC 9, 10, in RGTC 1, 43 s. v. Elam gebucht. 15 Z. B. ARM 26, 362:38; 42; 43; 44. 16 Z. B. ARM 26, 362:3; 10; 15; 24; 25; 28 und ARM 28, 56:8. 17 ARM 26/2, 369:19. 18 ARM 26/1, 225:5; 23; 25 (in 23 neben NIM.MA). – ARM 26/2, 305:13; 17. – ARM 26/2, 306:34; 35. 19 MDP 10 (1908) 85 und Tf. 10 = MDP 28 (1939) 32, Z. 9: [EŠ]ŠANA e-la-an-ti. 20 Ú¶ XX–XXII Ras Shamra Recension A i 8′ (MSL 11, 43): [ma-d]a elam-maki = i-la-mi. Ú¶ XXI section 4:38 (MSL 11, 15): kur elam[ki] = [MIN (scil. māt)] i-la-mi-i. LB 878:2f. nach Boehl 1936:113 (49): Ium-man-ši-bir lúi-la-mu-u (nB). 21 Von den seltenen syllabischen Belegen dieser Zeit (vgl. RGTC 8, 130–132) stammen fast alle aus § 21 der Bisutun-Inschrift: kure-lam-mat und halb-logographisch lúe-lam-mat[meš]; ansonsten noch kure-lam-matki in VS 4, 126:4.

M. Krebernik, Aspekte elamisch-mesopotamischer Beziehungen…

65

entdeckt zu haben, was sich aber nicht bestätigt hat.22 Jüngere Quellen liefern dafür jedoch in der Tat vereinzelte Belege: in der Liste Malku = šarru findet sich die Gleichung a-da-an-tú // a-da-at-tum = MIN (scil. e-lamtum),23 und ein nB astrologischer Text aus Uruk hat anstelle der gewöhnlichen Schreibung bzw. Form a-ta-a-am-tik[i] mit Variante KUR.¶a-[…].24 Aus akk. Elamtu ist wohl heth. *E/ilamta-25 entlehnt, während hurr. *Elami-26 entweder auf die akkadische Nisbe zurückzuführen ist oder aber eine vom Akkadischen unabhängige Parallele zu sum. Elam darstellt. Gegen einen etymologischen Zusammenhang von Elamtum und akk. elûm “hoch” sprechen sprachgeschichtliche und morphologische Gründe27. Vielmehr dürften sowohl sum. Elam als auch akk. Elamtum, wie bereits Arno Poebel sah,28 aus dem Elamischen, d. h. Ha(l)tamt(i) oder einer Vorstufe davon, entlehnt sein. W. Hinz hat in Ha(l)tamti eine Zusammensetzung aus elam. hal “Land” und tampt “gnädiger Herr” vermutet,29 was auch unter der Prämisse, daß es sich um eine genuin elamische Bezeichnung handelt, unsicher ist, denn Schreibungen mit inlautendem -l- treten erst in achämenidischer Zeit auf, und das Wort für “Herr” ist anhand

22

In ARM 10, 78:23 ist statt ¶a-al-ta-[a]m-ma-tim (so auch in EW 576) oder ¶aal-d[a?-a]m-ma!-tim nach Durand 1984:277 ¶a-al-du-mu-lu-uk (PN) zu lesen. 23 Kilmer 1963:428, 222, nach šu-su-ul-la = e-lam-tum. Von Civil 1998:13 mit Adamdun (s. o. 2.1.5) in Verbindung gebracht. 24 LKU 108, Rs. 11′: [...] / a-ta-a-am-tik[i] // K. 8129:14: ina KUR.¶a-[…]; s. Leibovici 1957:23, 20. In EW zitiert s. v. a-ta-a-am-ti.KI (S. 25) und ha-ta-a-am-ti.KI (S. 644). 25 RGTC 6, 138 s. v. Elam bucht die Ablative e-lam-ta-az (KUB 29, 4 iii 44), i-laam-da-az (KUB 19, 33 Vs.14′ = KBo 4, 1 i 37), i-la-am-ta-az (KUB 2, 4 i 47). 26 Erschlossen aus der in RGTC 6, 138 s. v. Elam verzeichnete Form URUe-la-mine-e-wee (KUB 27, 38 = CHS 5, No. 87 iv 10′), die als Elami=ne=ve zu analysieren ist. 27 Quintana 1996 möchte sogar die von ihm postulierte elam. Form *halhatamti auf akk. *ala’itum mātum zurückführen. Er stützt sich dabei auf die (unsichere) Deutung von a-la-i-tum in einer Mari-Prophetie (A.2233 = ARM 10, 9, Z. 12), das Durand 1988:437f. mit Anm. a, “le Haut-Pays” (mit Bezug auf Idamara´!) bedeutet; ihm folgt mit leichten Bedenken Heimpel 2003:258 Anm. 257. Vallat 1996 stellt richtig, daß die elam. Namensform Ha(l)tamti lautet (mit evt. vorangestelltem hal “Land” bzw. Determinativ), und daß der akk. Ausdruck für “oberes Land” mātum elītum; daran ändert auch Quintana 1997 nichts. Unscharf bleibt die Annahme von Damerow–Englund 1989:1 Anm. 1, “ ‘Elam’ may be an akkadianized rendering of both Sumerian and Elamite terms influenced by elûm ‘to be high’.” 28 Poebel 1931–2. 29 Hinz 1964:18; 1971:644.

66

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

der überlieferten Schreibungen etwa als *t(s)e/impt zu rekonstruieren.30 Plausibel erscheint aber Hinz’ Annahme, daß sich hinter geschriebenem …m-ti (zumindest auf morphologischer Ebene) auslautende Doppelkonsonanz verbirgt. Das auslautende -t, das ein elamisches Wortbildungsmorphem sein könnte, hat im Sumerischen keine Entsprechung: entweder wurde hier der Auslaut vereinfacht, oder aber die sumerische Form geht auf eine tlose Variante / Vorstufe von Ha(l)tamt zurück. Im Akkadischen wurde -t wohl als Femininendung interpretiert, was mit hinzugefügter Kasusendung und Mimation Elamtum ergab. Die biblisch-hebräische Form ,2ly#c stimmt auffälligerweise im Auslaut mit der sumerischen überein. Zudem zeigt sie ein anlautendes c, das dem keilschriftlich durch ha- und hal- ausgedrückten Phonem entspricht. Es liegt nahe, hier einen im jüngeren Akkadischen und Elamischen verstummten, sem. ġ ähnelnden Laut zu rekonstruieren, der wie dieses (und ", µ) akk. a zu e färbte. Das Hebräische hat hier eine nicht aus dem zeitgenössischen Akkadischen herleitbare Form bewahrt, die aus einer älteren Nebenüberlieferung stammen muß, wie dies auch bei l2ky3h (ug. hkl) < sum. é-gal = *ha(y?)-kal gegenüber akk. ēkallu und bei l4q4D%i < sum. (?) idigna31 gegenüber akk. Dig/qlat der Fall ist. Was den mittleren Konsonanten betrifft, so ist zunächst darauf hinzuweisen, daß Affinitäten und Wechsel von Dentalen, Interdentalen und Lateralen in vielen Sprachen der Welt zu beobachten sind, vgl. etwa heth. labarna- neben tabarna-; griech. PalmÚra < Tadmur; griech. 'OdusseÚj neben lat. Ulixes (das aus einer westgriech. Dialektform stammt); griech. d£kru, got. tagr, dt. Zähre neben lat. lacrima; got. tungō, dt. Zunge neben lat. lingua; lat. olēre “riechen” neben odor “Geruch”. Die Graphien -d/t-, -lt- (elamisch) und -l- (außerelamisch) spiegeln also wohl nur ein zugrundeliegendes Phonem wider. Innerhalb des Elamischen läßt sich als Parallelfall das in den Schreibungen dbu-la-la / dbi-la-la / dbuda-da / dbu-ne-ne überlieferte Theonym (s. u. 2.4.2) anführen. Dasselbe Phänomen ist wohl auch in nE, achE halmi “Siegel” greifbar, falls dies, wie ich vermute, aus gleichbedeutendem aram. ¶ātam (< äg. ¶tm), oder in akk. liāru neben tiāl/rum “Weißzeder”, falls es sich hier um ein elamisches Lehnwort handeln sollte. Die Graphie -lt- erinnert an die Wiedergabe 30

Darauf deuten die variierenden Anlautschreibungen, s. EW s. v. te-im-ti(-…), te-ip-ti(-…) und si-im-ti-…. 31 Eine l-haltige sumerische Form ist in Diri Sippar 6:04 (MSL 15, 56 und Fig. 2) bezeugt: id-da?-la.

M. Krebernik, Aspekte elamisch-mesopotamischer Beziehungen…

67

des altarabischen Theonyms *ru¥ay(w)u durch ru-ul-da-a-a-ú32, worin die Graphie -ld- einen “emphatischen” Lateral” ¥ darstellt wie viel später z. B. in span. alcalde < arab. al-qā¥ī. Die elamische Form des Landesnamens “Elam” wäre somit als *ĠaÓam(-)t zu rekonstruieren (worin Ġ und Ó zwei nicht präzise rekonstruierbare Phoneme velarer oder pharyngaler bzw. dentaler Natur symbolisieren). Daß das Wort, wie Hinz annahm, eine alte Zusammensetzung mit hal “Land” darstellt, ist damit nicht gänzlich ausgeschlossen. Mit dem Landesnamen sind möglicherweise identisch der in aB Urkunden aus Susa belegte Monatsname e-la-ma-tum, dem nE hal-la-me entsprechen könnte,33 und der Sternname (Ištar) e-la-ma-tum/ti (s. AHw. s. v.). 2.1.2. “Susa” In Elam wird der Name dieser bedeutenden Metropole in der Regel syllabisch geschrieben, nur in akkadischen Texten kommt das Logogramm MÙŠ.EREN(ki) (s. u.) zur Anwendung. Die Schreibung des ältesten Beleges auf einer Tafel aus Susa kann als elam. su-sínk[i] oder aAK su-simk[i] interpretiert werden.34 In elamischem Kontext ist das Toponym meist durch Suffixe erweitert: -k(-) für die 1. Sg., -r(-) für die 3. Sg., -p(-) für die 3. Pl. der Personenklasse; -m(-), -n(-) für die Sachklasse bzw. den Genitiv. In der Folge sind die Belege nach dem “Elamischen Wörterbuch” (= Hinz–Koch 1987) und RGTC 11, 90f. unter Beibehaltung der jeweiligen Umschrift zusammengestellt. Aufgrund der spezifischen Anordnung der Lemmata in EW wurde hier jeweils die Seitenzahl mit angegeben. Belege ohne Verweis auf EW finden sich nur in RGTC. A. Unerweitert: h.šu-še-en (EW 1184) = AŠšu-še-en mE šu-šu-un (EW 1185) = šu-šu-un mE h.šu-šu-un (EW 1185) = AŠšu-šu-un mE, nE h.šu-šu-in (EW 1185) = AŠšu-šu-in achE šu-šá-an (EW 1183 s. v. h.šu-šá-an) = šu-šá-an achE h.šu-šá-an (EW 1183) = AŠšu-šá-an achE h.šu-šá-in (EW 1184) = AŠ-šá- achE h.šu-šá (EW 1183) = AŠšu-šá achE

32

In den Inschriften Asarhaddons (Borger 1996:53 A IV 11) unter den Gottheiten der Araber erwähnt, deren von Sanherib verschleppte Kultbilder er restauriert und mit seinen Inschriften versehen zurückgegeben habe. 33 So Hinz 1963:14; EW 394. 34 MDP 14, S. 5, Rs. 2–5: e-bir5-mu-bí ÉNSI su-NAMk[i].

68

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

B. Mit -k erweitert: šu-še-en(-ki) mE h.šu-še-en-ki (EW 1184 s. v. h.šu-še-en) = AŠšu-še-en(-ki) mE šu-ú-še-en-ki (EW 1193) = šu-ú-še-en(-ki) mE šu-šu-un-ga (EW 1185) = šu-šu-un(-ga-a) mE šu-šu-ga (EW 1185) = šu-šu(-ga) mE šu-šu-un-ka (EW 1185) = šu-šu-un(-ka) mE AŠ šu-šu-un(-ka) mE šu-šu-ka (EW 1185) = šu-šu(-ka) mE šu-šu-un-qa (EW 1186) = šu-šu-un(-ka4) mE, nE AŠ šu-šu-un(-ka4) mE, nE [h.šu]-šu-un-h (EW 1185) = AŠšu-šu-un-uh nE h.šu-šu-h (EW 1185) = AŠšu-šu-uh nE C. Mit -r erweitert: h.šu-še-en-ri (EW 1184) = AŠšu-še-en(-ri) mE h.šu-še-en-ni-[ir] (EW 1184) = AŠšu-še-en(-ni-ir) mE šu-šu-un-ra (EW 1186) = AŠšu-šu-un(-ra) nE D. Mit -p erweitert: šu-še-ni-ip-na (EW 1184) = šu-še-ni(-ip) aE, mE h.šu-še-ni-ip (EW 1184) = AŠšu-še-ni(-ip) mE h.šu-še-en-pi (EW 1184) = AŠšu-še-en(-pi) mE šu-še-en-ip (EW 1184) = šu-še-en(-ip) mE h.šu-še-en-ip (EW 1184 s. v. šu-še-en-ip) = AŠšu-še-en(-ip) mE E. Mit -n, -m erweitert: h.šu-še-en-ni (EW 1184) = AŠšu-še-en(-ni) mE AŠ šu-šu-un(-me) mE

Die Belege ergeben zusammen folgendes Bild: Die älteste Form ist offenbar Šušen.35 Sie liegt auch dem Namen des Gottes (In)šuš(i)nak zugrunde.36 In mE Texten existieren nebeneinander Šušen und Šušun.37 Die zunächst vorherrschende Form Šušen wird in nE Zeit durch Šušun verdrängt, das schließlich seinerseits von Šušan, der in achE Texten üblichen Form, abgelöst wird. Der (graphische) i/e/u-Wechsel in geschlossenen (und unbetonten) Silben hat im Elamischen mannigfache Parallelen, vgl. 35

In aE hu-úr-tù an-ša-ni-ip-na a-kí šu-še-ni-ip-na “das Volk der Anšaner und der Susaner” (Siwe-palar-huhpak, EKI 3 VI). 36 S. die syllabischen Belege in EW s. v. d.in-šu-ši-na-ak(-), d.in-su-uš-na-ak(-), d.in-šu-uš-na-ak. 37 Nach Vallat (RGTC 11, 270f. mit Verweis auf 1980, 4) bestand zwischen Šušun und Šušen ein Bedeutungsunterschied: “les inscriptions de l’époque classique distinguent Suse (Šušun) de la Susiane (Šušen)”. Dies läßt sich aber nicht durch kontrastive Belege bestätigen.

M. Krebernik, Aspekte elamisch-mesopotamischer Beziehungen…

69

etwa das in Personennamen häufige kute/i/u-r “Erhalter”; vermutlich stand dahinter ein besonderes Phonem, etwa /3/. Auch die Entwicklung von Šuše/un zu Šušan ist nicht ganz ohne Parallele, vgl. etwa den Ortsnamen Hupša/en. Dieser sprachgeschichtliche Befund spiegelt sich, wie gleich zu sehen sein wird, in den mesopotamischen Quellen wider. In Mesopotamien wird “Susa” meist mit dem Logogramm MÙŠ.EREN (u. ä.) geschrieben. Statt MÙŠ kommt auch die gunierte Form MÚŠ vor. Anstelle von EREN verwenden die frühesten, d. h. Uruk III- und Fārazeitlichen, Schreibungen das ähnliche Zeichen ŠÉŠ = LAK668, welches später mit EREN = LAK671 zusammenfiel.38 In dieser logographischen Schreibung findet sich das Toponym schon in einem Uruk III-zeitlichen Textzeugen der archaischen Städteliste.39 Die Lesung ergibt sich aus Varianten40 und aus lexikalischen Texten: MÚŠ.ERENki = šu-ú-šu-um;41 [šu]-šum MÙ[Š.ERENk]i = Š[U].42 Die ursprüngliche Graphie ist vielleicht im Sinne eines in Sumer gut bezeugten Typs von Toponymenschreibungen zu interpretieren, welcher aus dem Namen der Hauptgottheit des betreffenden Ortes nebst eventuellen Erweiterungen besteht, wie z. B. SÙDki für Šuruppak, NISSABAki für Ereš, UTU.UNUGki für Larsa, zaINANA.UNUGki für Zabalam. Das erste Element wäre dann als Theonym zu interpretieren (sum. INANA), šéš als Lautindikator. Dem steht entgegen, (1) daß in historischer Zeit die Hauptgottheit von Susa, Inšuš(i)nak, männlich war, und (2) daß der Vokalismus von šéš nicht mit der seit frühdynastischer Zeit syllabisch bezeugten Namensformen Šuši/en übereinstimmt. Beide Einwände lassen sich aber relativieren. Bezüglich (1) könnte man etwa auf die Möglichkeit hinweisen, daß das Inanna symbolisierende “Schilfringbündel” auch für eine andere, in diesem Falle männliche Gottheit verwendet worden sein könnte, vgl. dINANAgunû für Tišpak oder dINANA.NITA in Mari; auch könnte zur Entstehungszeit der Schreibung eine weibliche Gestalt an der 38 Zu jüngeren Formen, verkannten Formen von ŠÉŠ/EREN bzw. verlesenen Belegen für Susa s. Joannès 1988 und Durand 1988. 39 ATU 3, 43 ii ultima, und 147. Das Fāra-Duplikat SF 23, ii 12 hat (wie kopiert) ein klares ŠÉŠ. 40 Z. B. TCL 10, 98, Tafel 10: KASKAL MÙŠ.ERENki // Hülle: KASKAL urušu-šiki; TCL 10, 125, Tafel 13: ¶a-ra-an šu-ši-im // Hülle 12: MÙŠ.ERENki; beide Texte nach Leemans 1960:57–61. 41 Diri Oxford 462 (MSL 15, 47). Die Liste enthält ansonsten in der rechten Spalte akkadische Ausdrücke, so daß man die Namensform auch als akk. Šūšum auffassen kann. 42 Diri IV 94 (MSL 15, 153).

70

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

Spitze des Pantheons von Susa gestanden haben. Hinsichtlich (2) könnte man anführen, daß (graphischer) i/u-Wechsel im Elamischen häufig ist und gerade auch in der zweiten Silbe des Toponyms Šuši/un vorkommt; dasselbe Schwanken ist indirekt auch für die Lesung von MÙŠ.ŠÉŠ erschließbar aufgrund der dafür in Ebla bezeugten Variante ŠE+NÁM und der Gleichung gišŠE+NÁM = su-šum, si-{x}-su, i. e. akk. šū/īšum.43 In den ältesten syllabisch-sumerischen Belegen lautet der Name *Šušin: su-sín-na (Lok.)44 bzw. su-sín-naki (Gen./Lok.?).45 Ur III-zeitlich findet sich šu-šu-umki (Gen.).46 Diese Form ist später auch in lexikalischen Listen belegt (s. o. mit Anm. 42). In akkadischem Milieu lag es nahe, das auslautende -um als Nominativendung aufzufassen. Zu demselben Ergebnis könnte auch ein n/m-Wechsel im Auslaut geführt haben (der als Randerscheinung im Elamischen wie auch im Sumerischen und Akkadischen vorkommt). Danach kommt -im als Genitivendung interpretiert werden – und zwar umso leichter, als Toponyme in akkadischen Kontexten meist im Genitiv stehen (nach Präpositionen, Titeln, ša). Aufgrund einer solchen Reinterpretation dürfte Šūšum und nach Abfall der Mimation schließlich Šūš(u) entstanden sein – eine Entwicklung, wie sie sich ähnlich auch bei Ur(im) beobachten läßt. Aus der (mimationslosen) akkadischen Form Šūšu dürften hurr. *Šūšu- und heth. *Šūša- entlehnt worden sein.47 Die beiden Sibilanten werden in aAK Orthographie durch Zeichen der S-Reihe dargestellt: su-si-imki (Gen.),48 su-simki (Gen.). Dem entspricht in aB und jüngeren Texten aus Mesopotamien regelhaft die Schreibung šu-ši(-im)(ki) (Gen.).49 In akkadischen Texten aus Elam50 überwiegen dage43

MEE 4, VE 478 (Lesung von Text AD nach Photo). Vgl. Steinkeller 1984: 139f. mit Verweis auf MEE 3, 50 ii 9 (ŠE+NÁM) // SF 59 ii 8 (MÙŠ+ŠÉŠ; ŠÉŠ ist l. c. zu Unrecht in ERIN! emendiert). 44 Eanatum, Geierstele, Rs. vii 3′, s. identifiziert von Sollberger 1956:24. 45 YBC 828 Rs. 3, zitiert von Sollberger 1956:24. 46 kaskal šu-šu-umki (ITT II/1 950), s. Lafont 1986:75. Als vergleichbarer Fall sei elam. hu-h-pi-in “Becken” erwähnt, das in einem aB Inventar (UET 5, 795 i 11) als ¶u-ú¶-pu-um erscheint. 47 Ersteres aus dem Zugehörigkeitsadjektiv URUšu-šu-¶é (KBo 19, 124 = CHS 6, No. 3 iii 4′) erschließbar, letzteres aus dem Ablativ šu-u-ša-az (KUB 29, 4 iii 44; es folgt Elam), beide Belege in RGTC 6, 370 s. v. Šuša. 48 Sargon (RIME 2, S. 24, E2.1.1.8 Caption 18: NÍG.LA+IB su-si-imki); Rīmuš (o. c., S. 53, E2.1.2.6:37–40: in ba-rí-ti a-wa-anki ù su-si-imki). 49 Beispiele aus aB Texten (vgl. RGTC 3, 230): ARM 2, 121:5: SUKKAL šu-ši-im; ARM 26, 373:11: iš-tu šu-ši-imki; YOS 2, 134 = AbB 9, 134:15: ana URUki šu-ši. 50 Für Belege s. RGTC 11, 268.

M. Krebernik, Aspekte elamisch-mesopotamischer Beziehungen…

71

gen bei weitem Schreibungen mit si = ší für den zweiten Sibilanten: šu-ší(-im)(ki) (Gen.) neben seltenem šu-ši-im (Gen.). Erst in mE Zeit nimmt šu-ši neben šu-ší zu (Verhältnis etwa 2:3). Ein Unterschied in der Aussprache der beiden Sibilanten läßt sich daraus jedoch nicht ableiten, da ší und ši in demselben Verhältnis auch in akkadischen Texten aus Susa alternieren.51 In Mesopotamien wurde die traditionelle akkadische Form im 1. Jt. durch die offenbar neu aus dem jüngeren Elamischen entlehnte Form Šuša(n) verdrängt.52 Vereinzelte Vorkommen von Šūšu(m)53 sind somit als literarische Archaismen zu werten. Einen gleichnamigen – nach der elamischen Metropole benannten? – Ort Šuša(n) gab es übrigens im 1. Jt. auch im südlichen Babylonien.54 Die nE Form Šuša(n) bildete offenbar die Grundlage von altp. Çūšā (> griechisch Soàsa). Der hier im Anlaut eingetretene Sibilant ist im Altpersischen das Produkt der Entwicklung *tr > *ϑr > ç. š ist wohl (ebenso wie ç) die direkte Wiedergabe des in autochthoner Aussprache gehörten Lautes, und nicht ein Produkt der schon im Indoarischen wirksamen “RukiRegel”, derzufolge s nach u, i, k, r zu š wurde. Mit dem Namen der Stadt Susa hängt nach verbreiteter Annahme55 auch der altpersische Name Elams, Ūja (geschrieben u-v-j) bzw. das davon abgeleitete Adjektiv ūjiya (geschrieben u-v-j-y), zusammen. Im Griechischen entspricht OÜxioi (verderbt aus OÜzioi), womit die Alexanderhistoriker die östlich von Susa auf dem Weg nach Persepolis angetroffene Bevölkerung bezeichnen; die “Susiana” heißt griechisch OÙzhn».56 Ūja läßt sich mit regulärem Schwund von h vor u auf *hūja zurückführen, eine entsprechende ältere Form lebt im mittel- und neupersischen Namen der Provinz Úūzistān weiter. Die vorauszusetzende Entwicklung von s > h ist gemeiniranisch und weist auf ein relativ hohes Alter der Übernahme hin. Im Wortinneren dürfte iranisch * (< *g(h), *gw(h)), der Vorgänger von altpersisch j, für ein stimmhaft ausgesprochenes š, also [ž], eingetreten zu sein, was ebenfalls zu einem frühen Übernahmedatum (uru)

51

Vgl. Salonen 1962:66f. Für Belege s. z. B. RGTC 8, 298f., Parpola 1970:340f. 53 Nabonid, Babylon-Stele iii 43′ (Schaudig 2001:517): (Ištar …) a-ši-bat šu-šiki. Šurpu II 161 (Reiner 1958; Borger 2000:32): ina Šu-ú-šiki // .ŠÉŠki. 54 Dandamaev 1986; Biggs 1994. 55 S. z. B. Mayrhofer 1989:7 § 1.2.2.4. 56 S. Potts 1999:349–351 mit Lit. 52

72

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

paßt. Ūja wäre somit eine ältere und/oder in einem anderen Dialekt beheimatete Entlehnung als Çūšā. Für die Rekonstruktion der elamischen Form ist von Interesse, (1) daß die externen Quellen in der ersten Silbe einen stabilen und z. T. deutlich als lang gekennzeichneten u-Vokal zeigen, und (2) daß sowohl Çūšā als auch Ūja eine Differenz zwischen erstem und zweitem Sibilanten reflektieren, die keilschriftlich nicht zum Ausdruck kommt: möglicherweise wurden kontextbedingte Allophone von den Iranern als unterschiedliche Phoneme wahrgenommen und rezipiert.57 2.1.3. Aratta Der Name der aus der sumerischen Epik wohlbekannten Stadt Aratta, die im östlichen Elam oder jenseits davon gelegen haben soll, ist bemerkenswerterweise in Elam selbst nicht belegt. Er wird logographisch durch die Zeichengruppe LAM.KUR.RU(ki) dargestellt, deren Bestandteile z. T. zu Ligaturen verbunden werden, ebenso wie bei der später manchmal damit verwechselten Gruppe SU.KUR.RU = šuruppag/sùd. Kernbestandteil des Logogramms scheint LAM×KUR zu sein, das eine Lesung àrad besitzt.58 Über diese ergibt sich überraschenderweise eine – freilich erst späte bezeugte – Verbindung zu Elam, insofern der Vogel àrad-damušen = kati-ma-tum/tú, kati-mut-tum, e-ru-ul-lum59 mit der elamischen Göttin Narunti assoziiert bzw. als “Schwester der sieben (scil. elamischen) Gottheiten” bezeichnet wird.60 Für das Toponym ist bereits in zwei syllabisch geschriebenen Textzeugen einer frühdynastischen sumerischen Ama-ušumgal-Dichtung eine syllabische Schreibung a-rí-da belegt.61 Eine andere, in “UD.GAL.NUN-Or57

Einen älteren externen Hinweis auf unterschiedliche Qualität der Sibilanten würde šu-su-ul-la liefern, falls dieses in Malku = šarru mit Elam gleichgesetzte Toponym (s. o. Anm. 24) mit Susa zu identifizieren ist. 58 Auf Lautwert und Gleichungen weist bereits Green 1980:17 Anm. 98 hin. 59 S. CAD s. v. katīmatu und AHw. s. v. katima/uttu, wo auf die lexikalischen Belege nachgewiesen sind. 60 KAR 125:18: ka-ti-matmušen i´-´ur dna-ru-du // STT 2, 341:13: ka-ti-matmušen MUŠEN a-¶a[t] IMIN. Zu der elamischen Götter-Heptade vgl. unten 2.2.4 und 2.4.12. 61 ARET 5, 20 xi 4 // 21 xii 3 gegenüber logographischem LAM.KUR.RU in IAS 278, v′ 5, s. Krebernik 2003:176. Die Identifikation in dem schwierigen Kontext wird durch folgendes NIM = Elam (?) gestützt (IAS 278, v′ 7), dem in den EblaDuplikaten TÙM (i. e. NIMgunû) zu entsprechen scheint. Spätere lexikalische Belege: Diri Nippur 9:02 (MSL 15, 32): [LAM.KUR].RU.KI = [a-ra-at]-tu-um (?); Diri Oxford 546 (MSL 15, 49): LAM×KUR.RU.K[I = a-ra-(at)]-tu-ú; Diri IV 87 (MSL 15, 152): a-rat-ta LAM×KUR.RU.KI = ŠU. KAV 183: 12 (Úg zu Ú¶ XX–XXII, s. MSL 11, 35): [a]-ra-tu LAM×KUR.RU.KI = ŠU = KUR su-.

M. Krebernik, Aspekte elamisch-mesopotamischer Beziehungen…

73

thographie” aufgezeichnete frühdynastische Dichtung erwähnt einen “En von Aratta(?)” neben einem “En von Kiengi(?)”:62 […] 1′–2′ 3′–4′ 5′ 6′–7′ 8′ […]

[lugalUGN(PA.NUN)] k[iš]; kiš-t[a] lugalUGN(PA.NUN) adab; adab-ta enUGN(GAL) LAM+KUR.RU LAM+KUR.RU- enUGN(GAL) GI.EN.KI; GI.EN.KI-t[a] dUGN(UD).enUGN(GAL)-kiUGN(UNU)

Ob hier tatsächlich das ferne Aratta der späteren Epik gemeint ist, scheint aufgrund des geographischen Kontextes unsicher: Kiš–Adab– Aratta (!?)–Kiengi / Enegi.63 Noch größere Zweifel bestehen hinsichtlich der Zeichengruppe LAM×KUR KUR+RU EN KA in einem archaischen Wirtschaftstext aus Uruk.64 2.1.4. Šimaški Šimaški, die Heimat der Ur III-zeitlichen elamischen Dynastie, in Texten aus Elam si-maš-ki geschrieben,65 vermutete P. Steinkeller (1988) hinter der vor allem Ur III-zeitlichen Graphie LÚ.SUki: er deutete diese als eine auf dem Akkadischen beruhende Rebusschreibung aus LÚ = šī und SU = maški(m), was natürlich eine annähernd gleiche Aussprache des elamischen Toponyms voraussetzt. Steinkellers Vorschlag, gegen den Vallat

62

IAS 247, ii′ 5′. Vgl. Krebernik 1998:242 Anm. 60, wo auf weitere Fāra-zeitliche Belege für den “En von Aratta” hingewiesen ist: SF 39, xvii 19 // IAS 163, x 2′; 4′ und NTSŠ 82, ix 13. 63 Später steht ARATTAki auch für babylonische Bā´, s. Abraham 1997 mit Lit. Die Bedeutung der mit späterem ki-en-gi “Sumer” identische Zeichengruppe in den Fāra-Texten ist umstritten, s. Krebernik 1998:242 mit Lit. In den ZameHymnen aus Tell Abū Ôalābī¶ (IAS S. 50: 128–139) bezeichnet sie das Kultzentrum des Gottes Ninazu und somit höchstwahrscheinlich Enegi, s. Wiggermann 1999:333. 64 W 20494.6, s. Green 1980:27 No. 21. Das Fragment gehört zu einer Gruppe von Wirtschaftstexten, welche die urukäische Viehwirtschaft betreffen. Auf der ibid. S. 17 vorgeschlagene Interpretation als EN-LAM×KUR-KUR-RU-KA “the lord of Aratta” beruht der Ansatz LAM+KUR+KUR+RU = ARATTA(?) in ZATU 35. Die Analyse ist unwahrscheinlich, denn die in 17 von 22 erhaltenen Subskripten vorkommende Kombination KUR+RU dürfte auch hier vorliegen und vom Rest zu trennen sein. 65 Für Belege s. RGTC 11, 242.

74

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

schwerwiegende Bedenken erhob,66 wurde wenig später durch einen Text aus Emar bestätigt, der syllabisch ši-ma-aš-ki für LÚ.SUki schreibt.67 2.1.5. AdamDUN Der üblicherweise a-dam-dunki gelesene Ortsname ist häufiger in mesopotamischen als in elamischen Quellen belegt. Frühere Annahmen, daß er mit Ha(l)tamti “Elam” bzw. Hubšen gleichzusetzen sei, haben sich nicht bestätigt.68 Aufgrund einer vom Tepe Surkhegan in der Nähe von Šūštar stammenden Weihinschrift Gudeas an Nanše von a-dam-DUNki 69 müßte der nur präsargonisch und Ur III-zeitlich dokumentierte Ort dort zu lokalisieren sein. Die anhand von Kopien und Photos überprüften Belege weisen die Zeichenform DUN/ŠUL auf, doch ist nicht völlig sicher, ob das Zeichen von den Kopisten immer genau wiedergegeben wurde, und inwieweit es von dem sehr ähnlichen ŠAÚ differenziert wurde (DUN/ŠUL = šá¶). Schreibungen mit phonetischem Komplement kommen, soweit ich sehe, nicht vor, es sei denn, die einmal präsargonisch belegte Schreibung é-dam[s]ul-la (Lok.)70 würde sich auf unseren Ort beziehen, der dann Adamsul zu lesen wäre.71 M. Civil (1980) hat nun eine Verbindung zu der später in lexikalischen Texten belegten Gefäßbezeichnung duga-dam-ša¶ = ŠU-u (i. e. adamša¶û) / x(x)-gu-ú hergestellt, für welche die Lesung ša¶ durch die Variante KID = šà¶ gesichert ist.72 Falls sich die Gefäßbezeichnung tatsächlich von dem Ortsnamen herleitet, würde für diesen die Lesung adam-šá¶(ki) erweisen. Civil verband desweiteren die Gefäßbezeichnung mit dem Tiernamen dam/dìm-ša¶/šá¶/šà¶ = dabû; dieser sei unzweifelhaft ein semitisches Lehnwort, das mit arab. timsāµ und weiterhin mit äg. msµ “Krokodil” verwandt sei. Die akkadische Entsprechung dabû sei ein

66

RGTC 11, CXXVIII–CXXXIV. Civil 1996 erkannte in dem von D. Arnaud publizierten Fragment ein syllabisch-sumerisches Duplikat zum Brief des Sîn-iddinam von Larsa an den Sonnengott. 68 S. RGTC 11, 4 mit Lit. 69 Die Publikation von Stève 2001 enthält leider nur eine schnell angefertigte Kopie und kein Photo. 70 Nik. 310, i 5, s. Selz 1989:537; der Text verzeichnet verschiedene Lieferung nach Elam. 71 In diesem Text kommt diesselbe Zeichenform für šá¶ “Schwein” vor. 72 Ú¶ X 293f. (MSL 9, 192; Sallaberger–Civil 1993:148). Civil 1980:11 möchte in letztere Gleichung sa!-a!-gu-ú lesen (sa!-a!-gú a. a. O. ist Druckfehler). 67

M. Krebernik, Aspekte elamisch-mesopotamischer Beziehungen…

75

Lehnwort aus äg. db(j) “Nilpferd”,73 das dann mit dem gleichlautenden Wort dabû “Bär” verwechselt worden sei. Diese ingeniöse Deutung dürfte kaum zutreffen. Der sumerische Terminus ist schon in altbabylonischer Zeit belegt,74 ein äg. Lehnwort im Sumerischen dieser Zeit ohne akkadisches Bindeglied ist an sich schon recht unwahrscheinlich; zudem müßte es von der seltenen femininen Form mit Artikel kommen (t±-msµt),75 der schriftsprachlich erst seit dem Neuägyptischen in Gebrauch war. 2.2. Personennamen Elamische Personennamen76 finden sich seit dem späten III. Jt. in mesopotamischen Quellen. Ihre zuweilen recht abenteuerliche Wiedergabe kann dennoch Indizien auf Phonologie und Orthographie des Elamischen liefern. Zur Illustration seien drei verschiedenartige Beispiele herausgegriffen. Der Großregent Siwe-palar-huhpak schreibt sich in seinen eigenen Inschriften si20(ZÉ)-we-pa-la-ar-hu-h-pa-ak.77 Dieselbe Schreibung verwenden auch zeitgenössische akkadische Urkunden aus Susa,78 während spätere, mE Herrscher ihren berühmten Vorgänger si-me-pá-la-ar-hu-h-pa/ pá-ak, si-me-pá-la-ar-hu-up-pá-ak, si-me-pá-la-ar-hu-up-pak schreiben.79 In zeitgenössischen Texten aus Mari lautet der Name in der Regel še-ep-la73

Das Wort lautet db, als regelmäßige Entsprechung von äg. d wäre sem. ¢ zu erwarten. 74 In einem von Civil zitierten Sprichwort (= Alster 1997:287f., No. 3395) ist es mit Mar¶aši assoziiert und durch akk. ma-ar-gi4 (St. constr.) wiedergegeben – ein Hapax und allem Anschein nach Lehnwort: es ist in CAD s. v. margû gebucht; die beiden anderen Belege sind aus nur lexikalisch belegtem gišdìm-dìm/meaddir = sa-gu-ú(-)mar-gu-u bzw. sa-gum(-)mar-gu-u abstrahiert, woraus AHw. ein Lemma sagummargû macht. Ein anderes von Civil zitiertes Sprichwort (= Alster 1997:168, SP 8, B 9) soll sich auf das typische Defäkieren des Nilpferds im Wasser als Zeichen des Respekts gegen höherrangige Artgenossen beziehen, doch ist sehr fraglich, ob dieses Verhalten im nilpferdlosen babylonien so bekannt war, daß es Eingang in ein sumerisches Sprichwort fand. 75 Wie später akk. nimšā¶u bzw. namsū¶u < n±-msµ(w) (Pl.) und arab. timsāµ < t±-msµ(t?). 76 Grundlegende Arbeiten zum elamischen Onomastikon sind R. Zadok zu verdanken, s. vor allem Zadok 1984, eine umfassende Sammlung und Analyse elamischer Personnennamen, ergänzt durch Zadok 1990 und 1994. 77 EW 1307 s. v. zí-we(pi).pa-la-ar.hu-h-pa-ak. 78 MDP 18, No. 201:9: si20(ZÉ)-we-pa-la-a[r-hu-h-pa-ak] ist in EW unter dem Sigel S. jur. 134 fälschlich auch s. v. si-we- (S. 1095) zitiert. 79 Belege in EW 1082f. s. v. si-me-ba-la-ar-hu-h-pa-ak etc.

76

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

ar-pa-ak (und einmal še-ep-[l]a-ra-pa-ak), lediglich ein Text, der einen feierlichen Schwur Hammurapis von Babylon zitiert, bietet eine der elamischen weitestgehend entsprechende Schreibung si20(ZÉ)-we-pa-la-ar-huúh-p[a-ak].80 Hinter der mariotischen Wiedergabe steckt möglicherweise eine volksetymologische Entstellung, etwa šēp lā rapāq “nicht auszuhackender Fuß”. Dennoch dürfte etwas von der tatsächlichen Aussprache hindurchschimmern: schwache, d. h. spirantische oder halbvokalische Aussprache des später mit -me- notierten Phonems und dadurch ermöglichte Vokalkontraktion se/iwe- > sê-; Betonung und wohl auch Länge der zweiten Silbe von -palar-, was zu einer Analyse *-pala-ir- (mit ir als Pronomen der 3. Person) stimmen würde. Die Entsprechung zwischen Syllabogrammen der z- und der š-Reihe in elamischer bzw. mesopotamischer Orthographie hat eine Parallele in den Schreibungen von Kudu-suluš, dem Namen eines Mitregenten des Siwe-palar-huhpak.81 Kedorlaomer, der Name eines sagenhaften elamischen Königs in Gen 14, 17 (rmclrdk, Kodollogomor) läßt sich problemlos auf elamisch *Kutur-Lagamar zurückführen. Er enthält als theophores Element einen auf akk. Lāgamāl zurückgehenden Gottesnamen, der in elam. Texten in den Schreibungen dla-ga/qa-ma-ar, dla-ga/qa-mar belegt ist.82 Hebr. c und griech. g anstelle von keilschriftlichem g weisen auch in diesem Fall auf die spirantische Aussprache eines elamischen Konsonanten in intervokalischer Stellung. Keilschriftliche Quellen für die soeben erwähnte biblische Episode glaubte man einst in den deshalb so genannten “Kedorlaomer-Texten” gefunden zu haben, doch ist der Name des darin erwähnten elamischen Königs nicht “Kudur-Lagamal” zu lesen, wie man anfangs meinte, sondern Kutur-Na¶¶unte. Er wird dort wortspielerisch und vielleicht entstellend mKU.KU.KU.KU.GÁ geschrieben. In der jüngsten Bearbeitung83 80

S. Durand 1986, wo der betreffende Text M.6435+M.8987 publiziert ist. Nach Durand handelt es sich um einen Entwurf von mariotischer Seite. Die isolierte, der elamischen Namensform adäquate Schreibung könnte aber auch Indiz für einen externen Hintergrund sein. 81 Elam. ku-du-zu-lu-uš (für Belege s. EW 501 s. v.); in Mari ku-du-zu-lu-úš (ARM 25, 5 rev. 7; 6 rev. 1′, vgl. Durand 1986:119). *Šulšikudur als angebliche Entstellung dieses Namens (s. EW 1191 s. v. šu-ul-ši-ku-du-ur mit Lit.) existiert hingegen nicht: nach Durand 1986:119, ist an der betreffenden Stelle (ARM 25, 6 rev. 1′) zu lesen: a-na {šu-ši-imki} ku-du-šu-lu-ú[š] LUGAL šu-ši-im. 82 S. EW 806 und 816. 83 Lambert 1994; neueste Übersetzung mit Bibliographie: Foster 2005:369– 375.

M. Krebernik, Aspekte elamisch-mesopotamischer Beziehungen…

77

wird die Schreibung als mku-dúr-nā¶(ÚUN)-¶un-GÁ interpretiert, was jedoch hinsichtlich des Auslautes nicht ganz befriedigt. Möglicherweise ist der zweite Teil des Namens als ÚUĜ.ÚUĜ.ĜÁ zu interpretieren, basierend auf ÚUĜ.ĜÁ = nâ¶u und mit Reduplikation zum Ausdruck eines Plurals und/oder D-Stammes, also etwa nē¶ūti (Verbaladjektiv G-Stamm) oder nu¶¶ūti (Verbaladjektiv D-Stamm) für Na¶¶unte. Zugleich konnte man ÚUĜ.ĜÁ aber auch als agru “Lohnarbeiter” verstehen. Bemerkenswerte Umdeutungen erfuhr der elam. Name šu-tur-dUTU, zu lesen bzw. analysieren als *Šutu/ir-Nahhunte, durch nA Schreiber: sie hörten aus dem ersten Element den Namen der Göttin Ištar (in seiner babylonischen Form – nA lautete er Issar) heraus, verkannten aber den elamischen Namen des Sonnengottes, der das zweite Element bildet: (d)ištar-na(-an)-¶u(-un)-di, diš-tar-na-an-di.84 2.3. Monatsnamen In Elam sind von aE Zeit an einheimische Monatsnamen bezeugt,85 die z. T. mit mesopotamischen übereinstimmen. Die bis heute fortlebenden babylonischen Monatsnamen Šabā¢u und Addaru könnten elamischen Ursprungs sein.86 In nA Texten waren – vielleicht zur Abgrenzung von Babylonien – auch elamische Monatsnamen (Sililītu und BAR.SAG.SAG) in Gebrauch.87 2.4. Götternamen Elamische Gottheiten sind seit frühdynastischer Zeit in mesopotamischen Götterlisten überliefert. Daneben finden sich Aufzählungen elamischer Gottheiten in der Beschwörungsserie Šurpu, in der “Unterweltsfahrt eines assyrischen Kronprinzen” und in den Annalen Assurbanipals (Liste der in Susa verehrten Gottheiten, deren Statuen und Kultinstitutionen bei der Eroberung nach Assur deportiert wurden). Eine detaillierte Diskussion und Auswertung dieses Materials würde hier zu weit führen,88

84

Belegt in den Inschriften Assurbanipals: Borger 1996:54, A vi 53; 106, C vii 49. Hinz 1963:12–18; Reiner 1973:97–102; Cohen 1993:362–366; Basello 2002. Die aE Namen berücksichtigt ist dort der in aB Urkunden aus Susa vorkommende Monat ITU e-la-ma-tum. Zu den altpersischen Monatsnamen und ihren elamischen Wiedergaben Schmitt 2003. 86 Cohen 1993:303. 87 Cohen 1993:299; Basello 2002:25. 88 Die meisten der folgenden Götternamen (allerdings nicht alle Schreibvarianten) haben Eingang in das EW und RlA gefunden, wo jeweils auch Sekundär85

78

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

ich beschränke mich auf eine Präsentation der Quellen (in ungefährer chronologischer Reihenfolge) nebst einigen Bemerkungen. Nicht alle in den mesopotamischen Quellen erwähnten elamischen Theonyme lassen sich sicher deuten oder mit Äquivalenten in elamischen Quellen verbinden. Einige sind aus dem Sumerischen bzw. Akkadischen ins Elamische entlehnt. Wie schon die Personennamen, so zeigen auch die elamischen Götternamen in mesopotamischer Wiedergabe manche lautlich und wohl auch volksetymologisch bedingten Entstellungen. Beispielsweise erscheint der elamisch als Ru¶u-rati-r “Erbsohn-Nährer” analysierbare Name (EW 1045) im Akkadischen gewöhnlich in der durch Dissimilation entstandenen Form La¶uratil. Die elamische Gottheit wird mit Ninurta gleichgesetzt (s. u. 2.4.5), weshalb d¶u-rap-til, im AnzuMythos der Name Ninurtas in Elam,89 eine Umformung desselben Theonyms sein könnte, die sich jedoch auf lautlichem Wege schwer erklären läßt. Oder sollte hier eine Reminiszenz an den aus babylonischen Chroniken bekannten elamischen Herrschernamen Úurbatila90 vorliegen? Oder ist d¶u-rab-be zu lesen und dies zu dem im aE Naram-Sîn-Vertrag erwähnten d¶u-ur-bi91 zu stellen? Von religions- und redaktionsgeschichtlichem Interesse ist ein elamische Gottheiten enthaltender Abschnitt in Tafel VI der Götterliste An = Anum. Er fehlt noch im aB Vorläufer TCL 15, 10. Bei genauerem Hinsehen zeigt sich, daß die in Z. 176–185 enthaltenen Namen sich großenteils in Z. 186–194 wiederholen, allerdings z. T. in so unterschiedlichen Schreibungen, daß sie kaum als Varianten zu erkennen sind. Die Namen bzw. Namenselemente Iabnu / Ibnu sind mit Iabru in Šurpu zu verbinden, den die Kommentare mit dem mesopotamischen Himmelsgott Anu gleichsetzen. Obwohl es sich also um eine hochrangige Gottheit handelt, ist Iabru in elamischen Quellen bisher nicht auffindbar, in Ur III-Texten hingegen kommt es als PN vor. Die gesamte in Šurpu genannte Trias Iabru, Humban und Naprušu fungiert nach der “Unterweltsvision eines neuassyrischen Kronprinzen” eigenartigerweise als Beschützer des toten Sanherib bzw. seiner Grabstätte (?).

literatur vermerkt ist. Einen Überblick über das elamische Pantheon bieten Koch 1995 und Vallat 1997. 89 III 131 (Annus 2001:28; Foster 2005:576): id-di-nu MU-ka ina kure-la-ma-ti d ¶u-rap-til. 90 EW 722 s. v. hu-ur-ba-ti-la; Glassner 1993:224, 225. 91 Scheil 1911:4 i 16 mit fig. 1 und pl. I; Hinz 1967:91.

M. Krebernik, Aspekte elamisch-mesopotamischer Beziehungen…

79

Hingewiesen sei auch noch auf die ungewöhnliche Schreibung der Göttin Narunti in An = Anum VI 193 mit dem Zeichen PEŠ4(ŠÁ×A) = rux, dessen Lautwert wohl von akk. erû “schwanger sein / werden” abgeleitet ist und auf die Funktion der Göttin anspielt; zugleich erinnert sie an die Schreibung dna-rux(URU×A)-dè im aE Naram-Sîn-Vertrag.92 2.4.1. Götterliste aus Tell Abū Ôalābī¶ (Zeilenzählung nach Mander 1986:24–32) d

62 63 72

lugal-aratta (IAS 82 iii 18) lugal-NIM (IAS 82 iii 19) d NIN.MÙŠ.ŠÉŠ (IAS 82 iv 5 // 86 iii′ 4′) d

2.4.2. Weidner’sche Götterliste (Zeilenzählung nach Nougayrol 1968:210–250) 37 108 174 216 217 218 218 (bis) 219

d

la-ga-ma-al (nach Uraš und Ninegala; = Nergal) si-mu-ut (= Nergal) d MÙŠ.ŠÉŠ (im Mardu-Abschnitt) d bu-la-la / dbi-la-la / dbu-da-da / dbu-ne-ne d a-ma-nu-um / da-ma-tum / da-ma-nu?-tum d ši¶-¶a-aš / dši¶-aš d ti-pi-tum / dti-pi-ni-tum / dti-pa-an-tum / dti-pa-ni-tum d ti-ŠA?-li-tum / dte-li-tum / dti-li-tum / dti-li-te d

2.4.3. Götterliste aus Nippur (nach eigener vorläufiger Zeilenzählung) 39 271 272

d

la-ga-ma-al (SLT 123 ii 16 // 124 ii 7; im Ninurta-Abschnitt) te!-[pi?]-tum (SLT 122 vii 5) si-ma-at (SLT 122 vii 6)

2.4.4. An = Anum (Zeilenzählung und Siglen nach Litke 1998, Lesungen z. T. abweichend) I 172 III 171

92

[d…] = MIN (scil. Enlil) [e]-lam-tu // NIM.MAki d iš-me-kár-ab / deš-me-ka-ra-ab (unter den 8 Richtern des Šamaš)

Scheil 1911:4 i 22; 24 mit fig. 1 und pl. I; Hinz 1967:68 (mit Verweis auf Gelb 1961:54) und 91.

M. Krebernik, Aspekte elamisch-mesopotamischer Beziehungen…

2.4.5. CT 25, 11f., K. 4339 d ii 34 sag-kud d ii 35 zi-za-nu d ii 36 ra-bi-i´-GU.ZA d ii 37 la-¶u-ra-til d iii 1 DI.MEŠ d iii 2 a-da-e-ne d iii 3 šu-ši-na-ak d iii 4 da-ak-ba-ak d iii 5 as-sa7(SIG7)-a

d

nin-urta ina SU

MIN MIN

ina (Kopie ) nin-urta ina MIN ina MIN ina MIN ina NIM MIN ina NIM

MIN d

2.4.6. CT 25, 16f., K. 2100 d i 20 kun-zi-ba-mi [d] i 40 -i¶-¶a-áš

(scil. dIM) NIMki MIN (scil. dIM)

2.4.7. CT 25, 27 K. 4365 d 1 ra-ap-pa-an-ku-uz-bi

MIN

2.4.8. CT 25, 32 K. 2124 d 10′ AN.KAL-da-kar-ra

81

MIN

(scil. d[UTU])

d

30 (im Sîn-Abschnitt)

2.4.9. CT 25, 35 Rm. 510 // 36 K. 29 19/18 de-la-gu MIN (scil. dzar-pa-ni-tum) NIMki 2.4.10. Unterweltsvision eines assyrischen Kronprinzen (Livingstone 1989, No. 32: 25) d ia-ab-ru d¶um-ba dnap-ru-šú zu-mur-šú na-a´-ru ú-šal-la-mu NUMUN-šu umman-šú KI.KAL-šú ú-še-za-bu “Whose body Yabru, Humban and Naprušu protect, whose progeny they keep healthy, and whose army and camp they rescued…” (bezieht sich auf toten Sanherib in der Unterwelt). 2.4.11. Šurpu II 161–163 (Reiner 1958:17; Borger 2000:32) mit Kommentar (Reiner 1958:50f.) lip-¢u-ru ina Šu-ú-šiki (Var. .ŠÉŠki) d+MÚŠ.ŠÉŠ(ki) u dla-¶u-ra-til d ia-ab-ru (Var. dia-am-ba-ar) d¶um-ba-[an] (Var. d¶um-ba-ar) -ru-šu (Var. dnap-riš) “in Susa may Inšušinak and Lahuratil release, may Humban, Naprušu release”.

82

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

K. 4320 (IIR 35, 1 = Bab. 7, pl. VIII = RA 28:134)

VAT 13846 (AfO 12:241f.) d

d

d

ki

[ ia-ab-ru = a]-nu NIM [¶um-ba-an = den]-líl MIN -r[u-ša = d]é-a MIN l[a-¶u-r]a-til = dMAŠ MIN

ia-ab-ru d¶um-ba nap-ru-ši lip¢ur(ū) ia-ab-ru = da-nu NIMki d ¶um-ba = den-líl nap-ru-šá = dé-a d

2.4.12. Assurbanipals Elamfeldzug (nach Borger 1996:53 und 241 mit z. T. anderer Interpretation) 1

d

2 3 4 5

d

6

d

7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

MÚŠ.EREN il pirišti-šun ša ašbu ina puzrāti ša manman lā immaru epšēt ilūtī-šu

šu-mu-du la-ga-ma-ru d pa-ar-ti-ki-ra d am-man-ka-si-BAR d

ú-du-ra-an (fehlerhaft ddu-ra-an, dúra-an) d sa-pa-ak ša šarrānu māt Elamti iptalla¶ū / iptanalla¶ū ilūs-sun d ra-gi-ba d su-mu-un-gúr(GAM)-sa-ra / dsu-un-gúrsa-ra(-a) d ka-ar-sa d ki-ir--ma-as d šu-da-(a-)nu d a-a-pa-ak-si-na d bi-la-la d pa-ni-in-gír!?(TIM)-ri d si-la-ga-ra-a d na-ap-sa-a d na-bir-tu d ki-in-da/di-kar-bu

Inšušinak, ihr geheimnisvoller Gott, der im Verborgenen wohnt, dessen göttliches Wirken niemand sieht, Simut, Lagamar, Partikira, Amman-KasiBAR (= Humban…?), Hutran, Sap(p)ak, deren (Pl.) Göttlichkeit die Könige Elams zu verehren pfleg(t)en; Rakiba, Sunkir-rišarra (?), Karsa, Kirwaš (?), Šutanu (= achE Šitanu), Ajapaksina, Pilala (= Pulala), Pinenkir (?), Silakara(ya), Nap(-)sa(ya), Nap-riša (?), Kinda-karpu (vgl. elam. PN Kindadu)

M. Krebernik, Aspekte elamisch-mesopotamischer Beziehungen…

83

2.5. Elamische Fremd- und Lehnwörter (Appellative) Im Sumerischen sind bisher nur wenige mögliche Beispiele elamischer Lehnwörter namhaft gemacht worden, wenngleich aufgrund der geographischen Nachbarschaft mit lexikalischen Interferenzen zu rechnen ist. Das mag z.T daran liegen, daß es sich (wenn man von weitläufigen Beziehungen des Elamischen zum Drawidischen absieht) um isolierten Sprachen handelt, deren Lexikon sich der historisch-genetischen Analyse noch weitgehend entzieht. Auch fehlen bislang gezielte Untersuchungen. Ein möglicher Kandidat ist beispielsweise sum. zabar “Bronze”, das gemäß der Schreibung UDzú-bar ursprünglich zubar lautete, ebenso wie das entsprechende elam. Wort zupar (jünger auch za-bar geschrieben). Da Metall in Sumer bekanntlich nicht vorkommt, dürften mit dem Material auch entsprechende Termini importiert worden sein. Für eine zumindest mittelbare elamische Herkunft des Wortes könnte auch die akkadische Entsprechung siparru sprechen, da u/i-Schwankungen im Elamischen recht gewöhnlich sind; allerdings reichen die Verwandtschaftsbeziehungen dieses Wortes über Elam hinaus nach Westen.93 In akkadischem Milieu sind elamische Wörter einerseits in Texten aus Elam selbst bezeugt (insbesondere in aB Urkunden aus Susa), andererseits in Synonymenlisten, die seltene Wörter oft fremder Herkunft erklären und Angaben zu ihrer Herkunft machen.94 Einzelne elamische Termini sind ferner in Texten, die auf Elam Bezug nehmen, überliefert. In all diesen Fällen handelt es sich meist um klar als elamisch erkenntliche Fremdwörter, die selten mehr als einmal belegt sind. Ins Akkadische integrierte elamische Lehnwörter hingegen verbuchen die Lexika nur wenige: es sind in erster Linie kidinnu und kudurru, ferner nāb(u), simmagir, für das von Soden (1972) wohl zurecht elamischen Ursprung postuliert hat, und šarnuppu, das Stolper (1978) elamisch gedeutet hat. Die folgende Tabelle gibt einen Überblick über Lemmata, die in akkadischem Milieu belegt und in den Quellen selbst oder in den Wörterbüchern als elamisch klassifiziert sind.

93

Vgl. MEE 4, VE 1100 bzw. 0448: URUDU = ga-ba-lum, hurr. kab(a)li“Kupfer”, griech. KÚproj und lat. cuprum; s. Neu 1995–6. 94 Elamische und andere fremdsprachige Terminie solcher Listen hat bereits Frank 1928–9 gesammelt und kommentiert.

M. Krebernik, Aspekte elamisch-mesopotamischer Beziehungen…

91

Elamische Herkunft kommt theoretisch für zahlreiche weitere Lemmata aufgrund ihrer Form und fehlender Anschlußmöglichkeiten an das Sumerische oder Semitische in Betracht. Der Forschung sind hier allerdings enge Grenzen gesetzt, da uns vom elamischen Wortschatz nur ein wesentlich kleinerer Teil überliefert ist als vom sumerischen und akkadischen, und da zudem die Bedeutungen vieler elamischen Wörter unsicher sind. Eine mögliche Entlehnung, die sich mit einem gut belegten elamischen Lemma in Verbindung bringen läßt, ist z. B. akk. sippu “Türlaibung, Schwelle” neben elam. sip “Tür”; allerdings gibt es dazu auch nordwestsemitische Anknüpfungspunkte in Gestalt von hebr. sap(p) und syr. seppā, und es wäre näher zu untersuchen, ob dort Entlehnungen aus dem Akkadischen vorliegen. Auch qurpi(s)su, qursi(p)u(m) (AHw.), gurpisu (gursipu) (CAD) “Panzer mit Nackenschutz” oder siss(i)rinnu (AHw.), sisrinnu (sissirinnu) (CAD), das mit šikittu und šubtu geglichen ist,95 könnten elamischer Herkunft sein: ersteres begegnet zuerst in Ešnunna und Mari und wird in den akkadischen Wirtschaftstexten aus Haft Tepe als endungsloses Fremdwort behandelt;96 letzteres könnte man elamisch als *si.ssiri-n analysieren, mit Reduplikation und n-Suffix, das in vielen Orts- und Bautermini auftritt. 3. Sumerisches und Akkadisches in Elam Das älteste Beispiel sumerischen Einflusses ist der Name des Stadtgottes von Susa, (In)šuš(i)nak (s. o. 2.4.1), der auf sum. *(nin) šušin-ak “der (Herr) von Susa” zurückgehen dürfte, wobei das anlautende n dissimilatorisch geschwunden wäre wie bei Inana < *nin an-ak. Auch der Names des mit Ninurta gleichgesetzten Igeštu (s. o. 2.4.4) scheint sumerischer Herkunft zu sein. Die elamischen Herrscher der altbabylonischen Zeit führten den auf die Tage mesopotamischer Oberherrschaft zurückgehenden sumerischen Titel sukkal-ma¶, der im Staat von Ur III den höchsten militärischen Rang bezeichnete. Falls das Wort im Onomastikon der georgischen Mythologie weiterlebt – Sul£alma¶i heißt dort der Vater des Helden Amirani – müßte es durch das Elamische vermittelt worden sein.97 Einer der elamischen Monate trägt den Namen ¶ultuppê, der – direkt oder über das Akkadische? – auf sum. ¶ul-dúb-ba-è zurückgeht.98

95

Malku I 268 (Kilmer 1963:429) bzw. Malku expl. II 146 (ibid. 443). kur-pi-is: Herrero–Glassner1990:44, No. 69 Rs. 11. 97 Fähnrich 1999:307 mit Lit. 98 Hinz 1963:18; Cohen 1993:364. 96

92

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

Unter den wenigen Appellativen potentiell sumerischer Herkunft ist elamisch tippi “Tafel, Schrift(stück)” von besonderem kulturgeschichtlichem Interesse. EW 365 s. v. tup-pi merkt zwar an, das Wort sei “nicht verwandt mit akk. tuppu”, doch fällt es schwer, die naheliegende und schon früh postulierte99 Verbindung mit sum. dub “Tontafel” von der Hand zu weisen. Ob allerdings die Entlehnung vom Sumerischen ins Elamische erfolgte, und nicht etwa umgekehrt, erscheint unsicher: das elamische Substantiv ließe sich immerhin mit dem Verbum tip(p)i/u-“formen” verbinden. Damit identisch oder sekundär von substantivischem tippi abgeleitet ist tippi- “aufzeichen”, wovon wiederum tippi-r “Schreiber” gebildet ist. Dem Lemma war jedenfalls über altpersisch dipī- “Schrift” und dem davon abgeleiteten oder direkt aus elam. tippi-r entlehnten *dipīr “Schreiber” (mpers. dibīr) ein langes Nachleben beschieden, welches bis hin zu dt. Diwan reicht. Ähnlich steht es mit elam. ašta(m), das wie akk. aštammu “Wirtshaus, Bordell” als Lehnwort aus sum. éš-dam gilt. Ein ašta(m) genanntes Gebäude errichtete König Untaš-Napiriša in der von ihm gegründeten, durch ihre Zikkurrat berühmten Tempelstadt Čoġā Zanbīl für die Göttin Pinenkir. Üblicherweise benennt er die Kultbauten und ihre Teile elamisch oder akkadisch, das Sumerische war zu seiner Zeit als gesprochene Sprache in Mesopotamien längst vom Akkadischen abgelöst worden. Daß es sich um kein akkadisches Lehnwort handelt, zeigt das Fehlen der gewöhnlich mitübernommenen akkadischen Nominativendung -u(m). Es muß sich also um ein zeitgenössisches elamisches Wort handeln, dessen sumerische Herkunft keineswegs sicher ist: elamischer Urspung oder ein dem Sumerischen und Elamischen gemeinsames Substratwort scheinen ebenso gut möglich. Ein gemeinsames Substratwort ist wohl – eher als eine Lehnbeziehung – auch für elam. pitt(i) und sum. pèš “Feigen” (vgl. weiterhin griech. sukÁ, lat. fica?) anzunehmen. Vor allem die mE Texte enthalten eine Reihe akkadischer Fremdund Lehnwörter. Typischerweise werden Bauten und ihre Teile, insbesondere im kultischen Bereich, akkadisch benannt – gewissermaßen ein Abbild der mesopotamischen Sitte, Kultbauten in der Sakralsprache Sumerisch zu benennen. Die Entlehnungen zeigen in der Regel die akkadische Nominativendung mit Mimation, enden also auf -u(m). In elamischer Wiedergabe sind sie allerdings nicht immer eindeutig zu erkennen

99

Kent 1953:191 s. v. dipī- mit Verweis auf Meillet–Benveniste 1931, § 282.

M. Krebernik, Aspekte elamisch-mesopotamischer Beziehungen…

93

bzw. zu analysieren. Hinzu kommt, daß es auch elamische Wörter mit suffixalem -m gibt. Ein Theonym akkadischer Herkunft ist der oben (2.2) schon als Bestandteil von Kedorlaomer erwähnte Lagamar, dessen Name sich von akk. Lā-gamāl “erbarmungslos” herleitet. Lagamars positives Pendant ist Išmekarab < Išme-karāb “er erhörte das Beten”; in mE Texten erscheint der Name zu Išnikarab umgeformt. Die beiden Gottheiten geleiten den Verstorbenen in die Unterwelt – vermutlich zum Totengericht.100 Der Form nach akkadisch sieht der Name der vorwiegend in Elam bezeugten Göttin Manziat, Manzât101 aus, der im Akkadischen für den “Regenbogen” steht; eine semitische Etymologie fehlt allerdings, so daß eine umgekehrte Entlehnung auch nicht ganz auszuschließen ist. Appellative deutlich akkadischer Herkunft sind kukunnum “Hochtempel” < akk. gegunnûm < sum. ge-gun4-na102 und za/ikratume “Zikkurrat” < ziqqurratum.103 Der ebenfalls mit dem Tempel assoziierte Terminus kumpum wurde zu akk. kūb/pum gestellt,104 doch liegt das besser bezeugte akk. kummum “Innenraum, Heiligtum” als Ausgangsform näher. pitum “Innenseite” und kitum “Außenseite” wurden von M.-J. Stève zu akk. bītum “Haus” bzw. kīdum “Außenseite, Feld” gestellt, was Hinz und Koch aber für “nicht zwingend” erachten.105 Falls pitum in der Tat aus dem Akkadischen stammt, wäre auch eine Herleitung von pittum, etwa “Seite, nächste Umgebung, Verantwortungsbereich” zu erwägen. Bislang ungeklärt ist die Etymologie von elamisch erem/ntum “Ziegel(werk)”. Es wird gewöhnlich als akkadisches Lehnwort angesehen, was jedoch von Hinz und Koch bezweifelt wurde, die mit Recht darauf hinweisen, daß ein entsprechendes Wort in Mesopotamien nicht vorkomme.106 Eine chronologische Sichtung elamischer Bauinschriften107 zeigt, daß syllabisch geschriebenes erem/ntum in mE Zeit die sumerographischen Termini SIG4 = libittum und SIG4.AL.LU.RA = epertum (das zu epr(e)ru “Erde” gehört) ablöste. Ich vermute daher, daß elam. erim/ntum durch spirantisch-stimmhafte Aussprache des einfachen, zwischenvokalischen p 100

S. Stève–Gasche 1996. S. Lambert 1989. 102 EW 509 s. v. ku-ku-un-nu-um mit Lit. 103 EW 1275 s. v. zag-ra-tu4-me mit Lit.; zu den sum. und akk. Termini s.a. Waetzoldt 2005. 104 EW 563 s. v. ku-um-pu-um mit Lit. 105 EW 226 s. v. pi-tu4-um-ma bzw. 492 s. v. ki-tu4-um-ma. 106 EW 399 s. v. e-ri-en-tum4. 107 S. Malbran-Labat 1995:152f. 101

94

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

und Metathesis aus epertum entstanden ist: akk. epertum > elam. ewertum > erewtum > erem/ntum. Schwieriger erkenntlich und beweisbar als substantivische Lehnwörter sind verbale. Als mögliche Fälle seien luppuru- und šullume- erwähnt, die auf akkadischen D-Stamm-Infinitive (lubburu “alt machen” bzw. šullumu “heil machen”) zurückgehen könnten; ihre Einschätzung als Lehnwörter hängt jedoch entscheidend von ihrer Bedeutung und damit von der Interpretation der schwierigen elamischen Belegstellen ab,108 deren Diskussion hier zu weit führen würde. Literaturverzeichnis NB: Für geläufige Nachschlagewerke und Textserien wurden die üblichen Abkürzungen benutzt, s. z. B. D. O. Edzard e.a. (eds.). Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Bd. 10. Berlin / New York, 2003–2005, III–XXX, wo auch die in dem folgenden Literaturverzeichnis benutzten Abkürzungen von Zeitschriften und Serien zu finden sind. Abweichend: EW = Hinz–Koch 1987. Abraham 1997 Alster 1997 Annus 2001 Basello 2002

Basello 2004

Biggs 1994

Boehl 1936

Abraham, K. TCL 13 193: Šušan and Bā´. NABU 1997/53. Alster, B. Proverbs of Ancient Sumer. Bethesda. Annus, A. The Standard Babylonian Epic of Anzu (SAACT 3). Helsinki. Basello, G. P. Elam and Babylonia: The Evidence of the Calendars. Ideologies as Intercultural Phenomena. Proceedings of the Third Annual Symposium of the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project Held in Chicago, USA, October 27–31, 2000 (Melammu Symposia 3). Milano. Pp. 13–36. Basello, G. P. Elam between Assyriology and Iranian Studies. Schools of Oriental Studies and the Development of Modern Historiography. Proceedings of the Fourth Intellectual Heritage Progect Held in Ravenna, Italy, October 13–17, 2001 (Melammu Symposia 4). Milano. Pp. 1–40 + pl. I–IV. Biggs, R. D. Šušan in Babylonia. Cinquante-deux reflexions sur le Proche-Orient Ancien offerts à Léon De Meyer (MHEO 2). Leuven. Pp. 299–304. Boehl, F. M. Th. de Liagre. Mededeelingen uit de Leidsche Verzameling van Spijkerschrift-Inscripties. III. Assyrische en Nieuw-Babylonische Oorkonden (1100–91 v. Chr.). (MKNAW, deel 82, serie B, No. 2). Amsterdam.

108 S. EW 845 s. v. lu-up-pu-ru-h-ni bzw. 1190 s. v. šu-ul-lu-me-en-ga mit Lit. Für letzteres werden l. c. semitische Herleitungen von V. Scheil, F. W. König und M. Lambert zitiert, die von M.-J. Stève mit Recht abgelehnt worden seien.

M. Krebernik, Aspekte elamisch-mesopotamischer Beziehungen… Borger 1996 Borger 2000

Civil 1996 Civil 1998 Cohen 1993 Damerow–Englund 1989 Dandamaev 1986

De Meyer 1962 Durand 1984 Durand 1986

Durand 1988 Edzard 1974

Englund 1996 Englund 1997 Englund–Grégoire 1991 Fähnrich 1999 Foster 2005 Frank 1928–9 Garrison–Root 1996 Gelb 1961 Glassner 1993 Green 1980

95

Borger, R. Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals. Wiesbaden. Borger, R. Šurpu II, III, IV und VIII in Partitur. Wisdom, Gods and Literature. Studies in Assyriology in Honour of W. G. Lambert. Winona Lake. Pp. 15–90. Civil, M. Sîn-iddinam in Emar and SU.A = Šimaški. NABU 1996/41. Civil, M. “Adamdun,” the Hippopotamus, and the Crocodile. JCS 50:11–14. Cohen, M. The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East. Bethesda. Damerow, P.; Englund, R. K. The Proto-Elamite Texts from Tepe Yahya. Cambridge, Ma. Dandamaev, M. A. Šušan in the Murašu Documents. Fragmenta Historiae Elamicae. Mélanges offerts à M.-J. Stève. Paris. Pp. 289–290. De Meyer, L. L’accadien des contracts de Suse (IrAnt Sup. 1). Leiden. Durand, J.-M. Le nom de l’Elam dans les archives de Mari. MARI 3:277–278. Durand, J.-M. Fragments rejoints pour une histoire élamite. Fragmenta Historiae Elamicae. Mélanges offerts à M.-J. Stève. Paris. Pp. 111–128. Durand, J.-M. *Iggurki. NABU 1988/34. Edzard, D. O. Deux lettres royales d’Ur III en sumérien “syllabique” et pourvu d’une traduction accadienne. R. Labat; D. O. Edzard. Textes littéraires de Suse (MDP 57). Pp. 9–34. Englund, R. K. The Proto-Elamite Script. The World’s Writing Systems. New York–Oxford. Pp. 160–164. Englund, R. K. Proto-Elamite. Encyclopaedia Iranica. Vol. 8. Costa Meza. Pp. 325–330. Englund, R. K.; Grégoire, J.-P. The Proto-Cuneiform Texts from Jemdet Nasr (MSVO 1). Berlin. Fähnrich, H. Lexikon Georgische Mythologie. Wiesbaden. Foster, B. Before the Muses. An Anthology of Akkadian Literature. 3rd edition. Bethesda. Frank, C. Fremdsprachige Glossen in assyrischen Listen. MAOG 4:36–45. Garrison, M. B.; Root, M. Cool Persepolis Seal Studies (Achaemenid History 9). Leiden. Gelb, I. J. Old Akkadian Writing and Grammar. Chicago. Glassner, J.-J. Chroniques mésopotamiennes. Paris. Green, M. W. Animal Husbandry at Uruk in the Archaic Period. JNES 39:1–35.

96 Heimpel 2003 Henkelman 2003

Herrero–Glassner 1990 Hinz 1963 Hinz 1964 Hinz 1967 Hinz 1971 Hinz–Koch 1987 Huyse 1999

Joannès 1988 Kent 1953 Kilmer 1963 Koch 1995

Krebernik 1998

Krebernik 2003

Labat 1970 Lafont 1986 Lambert 1989 Lambert 1991

Lambert 1994

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies Heimpel, W. Letters to the King of Mari (MC 12). Winona Lake. Henkelman, W. Persians, Medes and Elamites: Acculturation in the Neo-Elamite Period. Continuity of Empire (?). Assyria, Media, Persia (History of the Ancient Near East / Monographs 5). Padova. Pp. 181–231. Herrero, P.; Glassner, J.-J. Haft-Tépé: Choix de textes I. IrAnt 25:1–45. Hinz, W. Elamica I. Or NS 32:1–20. Hinz, W. Das Reich Elam. Stuttgart. Hinz, W. Elams Vertrag mit Narām-Sîn von Akkade. ZA 58:66–96. Hinz, W. Persia c. 2400–1800 B.C. CAH 3 I/2:644–680. Hinz, W.; Koch, H. Elamisches Wörterbuch (AMI Ergänzungsband 17). Berlin. Huyse, Ph. Die dreisprachige Inschrift Šābuhrs I. an der Ka"ba-i Zardušt (ŠKZ). Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum III/I. London. Joannès, F. *Iggurki = Suse. NABU 1988/1. Kent, R. G. Old Persian Grammar. Second edition, revised. New Haven. Kilmer, A. The First Tablet of malku = šarru Together with its Explicit Version. JAOS 83:421–446. Koch, H. Theology and Worship in Elam and Achaemenid Iran. Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Vol. III. New York. Pp. 1959–1969. Krebernik, M. Die Texte aus Fāra und Tell Abū Ôalābī¶. Mesopotamien. Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastische Zeit (OBO 160/1). Fribourg–Göttingen. Pp. 235–427. Krebernik, M. Drachenmutter und Himmelsrebe? Zur Frühgeschichte Dumuzi-Ama’ušumgalanas. Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien. Festschrift für Claus Wilcke (OBCh 14). Wiesbaden. Pp. 151–180. Labat, R. Elamismes dans la syntaxe babylonienne de textes susiens bilingues. JA 258:237–241. Lafont, B. A propos de la ville de Suse et d’un fragment d’enveloppe. RA 80:75–76. Lambert, W. G. Manzi’at/Mazzi’at/Mazzât/Mazzêt. RlA 7/5–6:344–346. Lambert, W. G. The Akkadianization of Susiana under the Sukkalma¶s. Mésopotamie et Elam (MHEO 1 = CRRAI 36). Leuven. Pp. 53–57. Lambert, W. G. The Fall of the Cassite Dynasty to the Elamites. An historical epic. Cinquante-deux reflexions sur le Proche-Orient Ancien offerts à Léon De Meyer (MHEO 2). Leuven. Pp. 67–30.

M. Krebernik, Aspekte elamisch-mesopotamischer Beziehungen… Lambert 1995 Leemans 1960 Leibovici 1957 Litke 1998

Livingstone 1989 McAlpin 1981 Malbran-Labat 1995 Malbran-Labat 1996

Mander 1986 Mayrhofer 1989

Meillet–Benveniste 1931 Neu 1995–6 Nougayrol 1968 Oppenheim 1969 Parpola 1970 Poebel 1931–2 Potts 1999 Quintana 1996 Quintana 1997 Reiner 1958 Reiner 1973 Sallaberger–Civil 1993

97

Lambert, W. G. A Sumerian-Speaking King of Elam? NABU 1995/10. Leemans, W. F. Foreign Trade of the Old Babylonian Period as Revealed by Texts from Southern Mesopotamia. Leiden. Leibovici, M. Un texte astrologique d’Uruk. RA 51:21–27. Litke, R. L. A Reconstruction of the Assyro-Babylonian GodLists, An : dA-nu-um and An : Anu ša amēli (Texts from the Babylonian Collection 3). New Haven. Livingstone, A. Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea (SAA 3). Helsinki. McAlpin, D. Proto-Elamo-Dravidian: The Evidence and its Implications. Philadelphia. Malbran-Labat, F. Les inscriptions royales de Suse. Paris. Malbran-Labat, F. Akkadien, bilingues et bilinguisme en Élam et à Ougarit. Mosaïque de langues. Mosaïque culturelle (Antiquités sémitiques I). Paris. Pp. 33–61. Mander, P. Il pantheon di Abu-Ôalābīkh. Contributo allo studio del pantheon sumerico arcaico. Napoli. Mayrhofer, M. Vorgeschichte der iranischen Sprachen; Uriranisch. Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum. Wiesbaden. Pp. 4–24. Meillet, A.; Benveniste, É. Grammaire du Vieux-Perse. Deuxième édition. Paris. Neu, E. Zur Herkunft des Inselnamens Kypros. Glotta 73:1–7. Nougayrol, J. Textes suméro-accadiens des archives et bibliothèques privées d’Ugarit. Ugaritica 5:1–446. Oppenheim, A. L. Note brèves. 6. ARM 10, 78:23. RA 63:95. Parpola, S. Neo-Assyrian Toponyms (AOAT 6). Kevelaer– Neukirchen-Vluyn. Poebel, A. The Name of Elam in Sumerian, Akkadian, and Hebrew. AJSL 48:20–26. Potts, D. T. The Archaeology of Elam. Cambridge. Quintana, E. ELAM = haltamti = high land. NABU 1996/50. Quintana, E. Haltamti y la escritura elamica. NABU 1997/33. Reiner, E. Šurpu. A Collection of Sumerian and Accadian Incantations (AfO Beiheft 11). Graz. Reiner, E. Inscription from a Royal Elamite Tomb. AfO 24:87–102. Sallaberger, W. Der babylonische Töpfer und seine Gefäße nach Urkunden altsumerischer bis altbabylonischer Zeit sowie lexikalischen und literarischen Zeugnissen. Civil, M. HAR-ra = hubullu: Tablet X dug = karpatu (MHE II/3). Ghent.

98 Salonen 1962

Salonen 1967 Salvini 1997 Schaudig 2001 Scheil 1911 Schmitt 2003

Selz 1989 Selz 1991

Sollberger 1956 Steiner 1991 Steinkeller 1984 Steinkeller 1988 Stève 1992 Stève 2001 Stève–Gasche 1996

Stolper 1978 Vallat 1980 Vallat 1986 Vallat 1996 Vallat 1997 van Dijk 1986 von Soden 1972 Waetzoldt 2005

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies Salonen, E. Untersuchungen zur Schrift und Sprache des Altbabylonischen von Susa mit Berücksichtigung der MâlamirTexte (StOr 27). Helsinki. Salonen, E. Glossar zu den altbabylonischen aus Susa (StOr 36). Helsinki. Salvini, M. Linear Elamite. Encyclopaedia Iranica. Vol. 8. Costa Meza. Pp. 330–332. Schaudig, Hp. Die Inschriften Nabonids von Babylon und Kyros des Grossen (AOAT 256). Münster. Scheil, V. Texte dit “de Narâm Sin”. MDP 11:1–11. Schmitt, R. Menologium Bagistano-Persepolitanum. Studien zu den altpersischen Monatsnamen und ihren elamischen Wiedergaben. Wien. Selz, G. Die altsumerischen Wirtschaftsurkunden der Eremitage zu Leningrad (FAOS 15/1). Stuttgart. Selz, G. “Elam” und “Sumer” – Skizze einer Nachbarschaft nach inschriftlichen Quellen der vorsargonischen Zeit. Mésopotamie et Elam (MHEO 1 = CRRAI 36). Leuven. Pp. 27–43. Sollberger, E. Selected Texts from American Collections. JCS 10:11–31. Steiner, G. Sumerisch und Elamisch: Typologische Parallelen. ASJ 12:143–176. Steinkeller, P. Sumerian Miscellanea. AuOr 2:137–142. Steinkeller, P. On the Identity of the Toponym LÚ.SU(.A). JAOS 108:197–202. Stève, M.-J. Syllabaire élamite: Histoire et paléographie. Neuchâtel–Paris. Stève, M.-J. La tablette sumérienne de Šūštar (T. MK 203). Akkadica 121:5–21. Stève, M.-J.; Gasche, H. L’accès à l’au-delà à Suse. Collectanea Orientalia. Histoire, arts de l’espace et industrie de la terre. Etudes offertes en hommage à Agnès Spycket. Neuchâtel–Paris. Pp. 329–348. Stolper, M. W. šarnuppu. ZA 68:261–269. Vallat, F. Suse et l’Élam. Paris. Vallat, F. The Most Ancient Scripts of Iran. The Current Situation. World Archaeology 17/3:335–347. Vallat, F. ELAM: haltamti / Elamtu. NABU 1996/89. Vallat, F. Elamite Religion. Encyclopaedia Iranica. Vol. 8. Costa Meza. Pp. 335–342. van Dijk, J. Die dynastischen Heiraten zwischen Kassiten und Elamern. Or NS 55:159–170. von Soden, W. Der neubabylonische Funktionär Simmagir. ZA 62:82–90. Waetzoldt, H. Tempelterrassen und Ziqqurrate. “An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing”. Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein. Bethesda. Pp. 322–342.

M. Krebernik, Aspekte elamisch-mesopotamischer Beziehungen… Wiggermann 1999 Zadok 1984 Zadok 1990 Zadok 1994

99

Wiggermann, F. Nin-azu. RlA 9/2:329–335. Zadok, R. The Elamite Onomasticon (AION Sup 40 agli Annali. Vol. 44, fasc. 3). Napoli. Zadok, R. Some Elamite Names in Mesopotamian Sources. NABU 1990/39. Zadok, R. Elamites and Other Peoples from Iran and the Persian Gulf Region in Early Mesopotamian Sources. Iran 32:31–51.

Marginalia on the Akkadian Ventive* Sergey Loesov Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow

0. Introduction In this paper I set forth my observations on the functions of the ventive in OB and OA letters and some other prosaic texts. The present study builds on the results achieved in Kouwenberg 2002, now the most comprehensive description of the ventive in OB. I will discuss K.’s contribution, yet otherwise I will do without a literature review, since to the best of my knowledge nothing of essence (except for Kouwenberg 2002) can be added to the history of research available in the monograph of H. Hirsch (Hirsch 2002). As A. R. George observes in his review of Hirsch 2002, ‘[t]he book opens with a detailed and commendably forthright critical history of philological and linguistic scholarship on the Akkadian ventive, and finds that little progress has been made since Landsberger’s pioneering study of 1923’ (BSOAS 67/2, 2004:227). I agree with George’s general evaluation of Hirsch 2002: ‘It … does emphatically remind linguists and philologists that there is a question’ (ibid.). In addition to the literature listed in the introductory chapter of Hirsch 2002, I can mention only three items. Hirsch 2001 is a collection of ventive tokens from the OA texts published in Michel 1991, without much analysis. Macelaru 2003 is a general survey of the methods by which OB Akkadian codes spatial relations. The Akkadian evidence for this study is drawn primarily from Huehnergard’s textbook (Huehnergard 1997); this paper does not offer anything that might be new for the students of Akkadian (except perhaps for its terminology). Edzard 2003: 175 restates in apodictic form the theory according to which the Ak-

* I am grateful to N. J. C. Kouwenberg (Leiden), who discussed with me a whole range of relevant problems in a very stimulating email correspondence. My thanks are also due to L. Kogan (Moscow) for his questioning some of my ideas about the ventive. My gratitude goes to RFH/РГНФ for its financial support for the project 06-04-00397a within which the present article has been compiled.

102

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

kadian ventive is the continuation of the ‘Common Semitic affirmative [an],’ its new function being due to the Sumerian influence. In text editions, CAD and elsewhere one often comes across more or less explicitly stated questions regarding the meaning of the ventive morpheme in a given text or on a certain verb. The present study attempts to couch some of these questions in terms of grammar and seeks to answer them. Due to the notorious difficulties in understanding letters, exegetical discussions of certain passages turned out to be indispensable. 1. An Overview of Kouwenberg 2002 N. J. C. Kouwenberg reduces “meaningful” uses of the ventive (i. e. the -am / -m / -nim morpheme in all its senses) in letters and other OB prosaic texts to three functions: allative, dative, and benefactive. Dropping whatever is not essential for my study, I will restate K.’s conclusions as follows. The allative ventive is obligatory on motion verbs when they code movement towards the speaker1 or the addressee(s), if the speaker chooses to express the goal of motion at all: illik-am may mean either ‘he arrived here (= at where I am/we are)’ or ‘he arrived at where you are,’ but this sentence cannot express motion towards a third party. By the same token, in the sentences PN ana ma¶ri-ya ¢urd-amvent lit. ‘send PN to me hithervent’ or PN ana ma¶ri-ka a¢¢ard-amvent lit. ‘I have sent PN to you to where you arevent’ the goal is encoded by the prepositional phrases and the ventive,2 while the sentence *ana ma¶ri-ya illik (– vent), *PN ana ma¶ri-ka a¢¢arad (– vent) etc. are unacceptable. The dative ventive apud K. is another word for the 1st p. sg. pronoun bound to “dative” verbs with obligatory indirect object, such as nadānum ‘to give something to somebody’ or qabûm ‘to tell something to somebody’: iddin-am can only mean ‘he gave me’, iqbi-am is ‘he told me’; the respective sentences cannot mean ‘he gave / told us.’ The benefactive ventive encodes a non-core personal participant ‘for whom something is done or to whom something happens,’ it is ‘compatible with almost any verb’ (p. 202), and, as in the case of the “dative ven1 Or to what K. for the sake of brevity terms ‘speakers’, i. e. the “we” used by the author of the respective message; this “we” in most cases will be exclusive, i. e. it does not include the addressee(s). 2 K. posits a fine-tuned semantic distinction between ana ma¶ri-ya / ma¶ri-ka (or ana ´ēri-ya / ´ēri-ka) and the ventive: these prepositional phrases with bound personal pronouns express the personal goal, while the ventive on motion verbs codes the location of the speaker or the addressee.

S. Loesov, Marginalia on the Akkadian Ventive

103

tive,” its referent is always the speaker: tepte-am sikkūrī dalāt šamê ‘you have opened the locks of the gates of heaven for me’ (K.’s example on p. 218). Thus for K. all the “meaningful” ventive tokens that are not allatives or datives (i. e. core arguments) belong, ipso facto, to this third species, i. e. to 1st person singular benefactives.3 K. observes that ‘[f]or nominal constituents the preposition ana is the basic means of expression for allative, dative and benefactive alike’ (p. 202). In other words, the three kinds of arguments can be encoded by the prepositional phrase ana + noungen. K. finds that the prepositions ana ´ēr- / ana ma¶ar- do not introduce the indirect object, but only the personal goal of motion as a locative argument of motion verbs.4 These findings lead K. to the conclusion that in OB there are two distinctions between the allative ventive and the dative ventive: (1) only the former is compatible with prepositional phrases headed by ana ´ēr- / ana ma¶ar-; (2) only the former may refer to the addressee. To my mind, a consistent contradistinction between motion verbs and “dative” verbs as hosts of the ventive morpheme is the major achievement of Kouwenberg’s study. Important differences in the use of the ventive morpheme with these two semantic classes of verbs were not properly recognized in Landsberger 1924 and went unmentioned in GAG. Following Landsberger 1924 and much of the subsequent scholarship, Kouwenberg considers the ventive to be an inflectional morpheme: ‘the ventive is a verbal ending on a par with other endings such as those of number, gender, person and subordination’ (p. 222, cf. also p. 237ff.).5 3

The ventives that are not “meaningful” (this is my word) include anticipated ventives before the sequencing conjunction -ma (GAG § 82c) and ventives as mere linking elements between the verb and the bound pronoun. Both kinds are exhaustively described in Kouwenberg 2002 and not treated in this paper. 4 This means that *ana ´ēr / ana ma¶ar PN addin / aqbi are no correct OB sentences. 5 K. extends this view to the ventive morpheme as the exponent of the st 1 p. sg. dative bound pronoun (p. 237). Though the shape and morphophonological behaviour of this bound pronoun are not different from those of the lative ventive, semantically -am ‘(for) me’ and e. g. -šum ‘(for) him’ belong together within the paradigm of bound personal pronouns (as acknowledged by K. on p. 238), so it is strange to assign the morphological status of a ‘verbal ending’ (i. e. an inflectional morpheme) only to one member of the paradigm because of phenomena such as iqīas-sum ‘he will bestow on him’ vs. iqišš-am ‘he will bestow on me’ ~ iqišš-ū ‘they will bestow,’ and ša iddin-u-šum ‘the one who gave him’ vs. ša iddinam ‘the one who gave me.’

104

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

Yet, semantically the lative ventive is not directly comparable to any of the inflectional affixes mentioned by K., because the latter express syntactic inflectional values,6 while the primary function of the ventive on motion verbs is to code the goal of motion. This means that under certain conditions (described by K.) the ventive fills the obligatory goal valence within the argument structure of motion verbs, such as šapārum ‘to send to’, alākum ‘to move (to a reference point),’ or sanāqum ‘to arrive (at a locality), reach (a mark).’ Therefore in structural terms the OB ventive in isniq-am ‘she arrived here’ is quite similar to the bound pronoun in iddinšum ‘she gave him’: both elements are external to the (rest of the) word form and both fill the slots of compulsory core arguments. K. sums up his thoughts on the history of the ventive morpheme by saying that it ‘shows a grammaticalization from verbal ending to pronoun (or at least pronoun-like)’7 (p. 239, italics added), yet both the starting point and the path of this evolution (as defined by K.) look extremely questionable. An inflectional affix becoming a pronoun is no case of grammaticalization; this could be more aptly called “lexicalization,” but its path is anyway typologically almost unbelievable. I feel that the morphological status of the lative ventive needs to be thought through afresh. 2. “Problematical ventives” The reading experience shows that the number of ventive tokens that are not taken care of in Kouwenberg 20028 is not negligible, so his description might not be the whole story about the ventive morpheme in OB and OA letters.9 A study of certain “problematical ventives” might enhance our understanding of texts: a glance at the available translations shows that in non-trivial cases the ventive in letters is often rendered 6

Thus, the finite verb is the target of agreement for person, gender and number, while the subjunctive morpheme signals that the respective verb stands in a subordinate clause. 7 I. e. to the 1st p. sg. dative bound pronoun. 8 K. calls them “problematical ventives.” 9 K. does not explore systematically the ventive in OA, yet he believes (I think, correctly) that there exist no drastic differences between the functions of this morpheme in OB and OA. This granted, it may be appropriate to draw on the Kültepe material, especially because of certain OA lexical items that are poorly represented in OB sources or absent from them (cf. Kogan 2006). Yet my study has no claim on exhaustiveness as far as the ventive in OA goes. This would be a work for the future.

S. Loesov, Marginalia on the Akkadian Ventive

105

more or less ad hoc or simply disregarded, depending on the intuition and predilections of the respective editors.10 Therefore in the rest of this paper I will try to identify more functions of the ventive in both “classical” dialects. These functions can be classified as follows. 2.1. The lative ventive for the third party goal K. forbids the ventive on motion verbs to express movement towards a non-deictic spatial reference point, i. e. towards a landmark which is not somehow associated with either the speaker or the addressee. Yet there are many good OB texts for which an association of the ventive on motion verbs with either the speaker or the addressee does not look plausible, as e. g. the following ones:11 (1) PN UGULA MAR.TU [ša] GN wa-aš-bu [q]á-du-um ERIM-šu -na ´ibu-tim ip-ta-a¢-ru-nimvent ‘PN the general, who is stationed in Rapiqum, has leftvent with his troops on an assignment’ (AbB 13, 25:3–7, a letter of Hammurapi, van Soldt’s translation). The verb pa¢ārum in the sense ‘to depart, withdraw, desert, leave’ (CAD P 296ff.) is clearly a motion verb, and in this case its ventive most probably points to a non-deictic goal, i. e. it is coreferential with ana ´ibûtim.12 (2) a-na ´e-e-er ša-pí-ri-ia [a]t-tu-ra-amvent ‘I had returnedvent to my superior’ (AbB 14, 29:8f., Veenhof ’s translation). The ‘superior’ is not the addressee of the letter. 10

Cf. a sober remark of F. R. Kraus (AbB 5, 231:19 p. 123 fn. b) ‘Der Vorschlag, den Ventiv bei ezēbum in der Bedeutung “zurückbehalten” … als dativus ethicus oder incommodi aufzufassen, bleibt ein unsicherer Versuch, solange eine diesbezügliche systematische Untersuchung noch aussteht.’ The text commented upon is i-na pa-ni-ka la te-zi-ba-a[m]; Kraus translates ‘halte mir nicht bei dir zurück’ (italics in the Edition). Yet the same scholar reads in AbB 7, 23:8f. the following text 5 MA.NA SÍG ú-ki-il-[l]-[am] and translates ‘fünf Minen Wolle habe ich ihm angeboten.’ The restoration rests on an unproven assumption that the ventive can fill the slot of a non-1st p. sg. recipient. 11 This type of usage is quite frequent in OB, although the conditions that favour it are still to be established. K. mentions some other “problematical instances” of this kind (p. 216, fn. 30). Yet partly because of the origin of the ventive he advances, partly perhaps in order to keep from multiplying entities beyond necessity K. tends to play down the grammatical value of this evidence (see below). 12 Another possible case of this usage of the ventive with pa¢ārum is ARM 1, 4:19.

106

Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies (3) še-a-am ša GN a-na a-a¶ na-ri-im ra-bi-tim ú-še-e´-´í-a-amvent ‘The barley of the town of Širimtum I intend to move outvent to the bank of the main canal’ (AbB 14, 56:32–35, Veenhof ’s translation). The ventive once more points to a non-deictic landmark. (4)

GU4.ÚI.A a-na me-e ša-te-em lu u´-´i ul-li-iš a-bu-ul-lam ú-ul u´-´iamvent-mi ‘The cattle now truly leaves (the town only) to drink water and does not get outvent of the city-gate any further’ (AbB 14, 132:12f., Veenhof’s translation).

(5) ul-[l]a-nu-uk-ka a-na ma-an-nim a-ša-ap-pa-ra-amvent ‘Except for you, to whom else shall I writevent?’ (AbB 14, 145:26f., Veenhof ’s translation). (6) a-pu-tum i¶-da-ma KÙ.BABBAR lu ru-ba-tim lu ša GAL ´é-riim ša-áš-qí-lá lá a-kà-ša-damvent ‘S’il vous plait, veillez à faire payer l’argent, que ce soit celui de la princesse, ou celui du rabi ´ērim afin que je n’aie pas à les contactervent’ (BIN 4, 93:5ff., translation as in LAPO 19 No. 104). The verb kašādum ‘to reach, to arrive’ behaves here as a motion verb (cf. Kouwenberg 2002:225f. on kašādum). The content of the letter hardly permits the ventive of akaššad-am to refer to the addressees: the author asks the addressees to recover his debts from a princess and a palace official; otherwise he himself will have to “reach” the debtors, not the addressees. Therefore the ventive of akaššad-am is in a sense anaphoric: it points to the location of rubātum and rabi ´ērim.

I think that the simplest way to deal with this kind of usage is to keep the original insight of Landsberger, according to which the ventive may be analogically (and optionally) used to point to a third party as the goal of motion (see Landsberger 1924:114f.). K. rejects this solution in favour of his own ‘location of the speech event’ as the etymologically original deictic meaning of the ventive morpheme. This ingenious idea elegantly explains the obligatory use of the ventive for the 2nd p. goals (see § 1 above),13 yet it has three drawbacks: 13 In the canonical situation-of-utterance the speaker and the addressee in their face-to-face communication share locality (to which the ventive points according to K.), while in the course of written epistolary communication they are at different localities. Since in the latter situation the ventive still points to both the speaker and the addressee, one may surmise that it fictitiously restores the broken ‘unity of space’ (i. e., if we accept K.’s etymology). I suggest a different explanation for the obligatory use of the ventive for the 2nd p. goals in § 3 below.

S. Loesov, Marginalia on the Akkadian Ventive

107

(1) it does not allow for an equally elegant or at least plausible explanation of the rather common third party lative ventive on the motion verbs treated in this section;14 (2) deixis to the location of the speech event is hardly attested as a meaning of the ventive in extant Akkadian texts; while we have no records of actual oral exchanges, this function will remain purely hypothetical; (3) this kind of deictic category (location of the speech event to the detriment of its participants, i. e. I and Thou) seems to lack parallels in the languages of the world.15 2.2. The “dative” ventive with a 3rd p. referent In OB and OA texts we come across ventives that incorporate the obligatory 3rd p. indirect object of “dative” verbs16 into the verb form. Consider the following examples: (7) A.ŠÀ-um šu-ú a-na ERIM GI.ÍL.MEŠ es-¶a-amvent ‘That field is allocatedvent to the reed-carriers’ (AbB 7, 110:16f.). The verb esē¶um ‘to assign, allocate’ requires a recipient as its core argument, and the ventive of es¶-am copies the recipient prepositional phrase ana ERIM GI.ÍL.MEŠ. (8) 2×600 Úx 10 GÍN ši- GÚ ZA. BA. L[ UM] 10 MA. NA ši-im.

  • -ti LÚ. MEŠ li-qí--ni-im-ma [i]d-na-ni-imvent-ma [li]-i¶-mu¢ú-nim ‘[T]ake for me 1200 … plants, 10 shekels of purified juniper oil, 10 pounds of juniper (grains) together with the men, hand it

    14

    K. rules that in this case a non-deictic goal has to be somehow associated with the speaker or the addressee: a speaker who uses a third-party ventive ‘implies that he himself and / or his interlocutor is / are or will be at the location of the goal, if not physically, than at least in his imagination’ (p. 206), yet K. admits that ‘it does not seem possible to bring all instances we find into line with the general rule’ (p. 216). K.’s approach can of course be retained for transparent cases. Thus, if an author writes ‘bring it (+ vent) to GN!’ clearly meaning ‘bring it here!’ the ventive he uses is most probably deictic, as e. g. in Hammurapi letters, where the author’s locality is supposed to be Babylon: ana Bābilim šūbil-amvent ‘have (barley) brought to Babylon!’ (AbB 2, 37:13f.); ar¶iš ana Bābilim lisniqānimvent ‘let themf quickly arrive at Babylon!’ (AbB 2, 34:27). 15 See Loesov 2004 for more detailed critique of ‘location of the speech event’ as the primary meaning of the ventive. 16 I will call the corresponding semantic role “recipient”: it is an animate participant who gets something, and for the sake of simplicity I will subsume under the label recipient indirect objects of verbs of telling.

    108

    Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies overvent (to them) and let them come here quickly’ (AbB 14, 211:7–17, Veenhof ’s translation).17 The ventive of idnā-nim ‘give to them!’ provides a filling for the obligatory “dative” valence slot of the verb nadānum18 and refers back to LÚ.MEŠ in the previous clause. (9) ù a-ta a-ma-nim [KÙ.BABBAR ta-]ša-qá-lamvent ‘und du, wem zahlstvent [du das Silber]? (Prag I 431:32f.). The context of the letter makes the Edition’s restoration quite certain, the ventive copies the recipient am-mannim ‘to whom?’ (10) KÙ.BABBAR lá ta-ša-ká-na-amvent ta-ša-ká-namvent-ma i-´a-bu-tù-ma ‘Stelle kein Silber bereitvent! Stellst du bereitvent, werden sie (es) packen!’ (Prag I 428:19ff.). Although the text is somewhat obscure, it is clear that the -am of tašakkan-am can hardly mean “on my behalf,” because the letter is authored by two persons and the general sense seems to require “for them.” Thus tašakkan-am may mean literally ‘do not offer thither’, the ventive referring to the recipients, i. e. to the subject of i´abbutū. (11) ši-ta-at ŠE ša ¶a-an-du-ti i-na qa-ti-šu-ma ip-qí-du-nimvent i-na muši-im ip-te-e-ma iš-ri-iq-šu ‘They entrusted himvent the rest of … barley,19 (yet) he opened (sacks?) and stole it at night’ (JCS 8, 10 No. 119:8–14; OB Alala¶). ‘They entrusted on my behalf ’ hardly makes sense for ipqidū-nim, because the text looks like a legal document with no 1st p. speaker (cf. Wiseman 1953:61). (12) PN1 a-na PN2 pí-iq-da-amvent-ma it-ti-šu li-il-li-[i]k-ma me-¶i-ir ¢uppí-ia šu-bi-la[m] ‘Übergibvent die Ilša-¶egal dem Ilšu-bāni und mit ihm soll sie gehen! Und schicke mir Antwort auf meinen Brief!’ (AbB 1, 6:31–34).

    17

    The letter is addressed to two persons, hence the plural imperative forms liqí- and [i]d-na. 18 Therefore this ventive can hardly be accounted for by the ventive anticipation (cf. the next clause [li]-i¶-mu-¢ú-nim). Kouwenberg 2002:220 brings the following as a typical example of the anticipated ventive on the verb nadānum: kaspam ana PNF id-nam-ma li-ib-lam ‘give the silver to PNF so that she can bring it to me’ (AbB 9, 240:16ff.). In this text, unlike in the above one, the slot of indirect object is filled by the prepositional phrase ana PNF within the same clause. 19 Lit. ‘they entrusted himvent in his hand.’ See CAD Ú 79b for ¶a-an-du-ti.

    S. Loesov, Marginalia on the Akkadian Ventive

    109

    The ventive of piqd-am-ma, if it is not due to the presence of -ma,20 may point to the recipient. Yet a 1st p. sg. benefactive reading ‘hand PN1 over to PN2 on my behalf’ cannot be excluded. (13) GIŠ.IG.ÚI.A a-na qa-ti-šu pí-iq-da-amvent ‘Confie-luivent les portes’ (ARM 1, 127:16f.). (14) ´a-b[a-am x] x x x [ … ] uš-ta-a´-bi-tam-ma a-na A-bi-x-[x x] ap-qídamvent ‘Des hommes […] j’ai fait équiper et à Abi-[…] je (les) ai confiésvent’ (ARM 6, 46:1′ff.). (15) A.ŠÀ GN1 ša i-nu-ma be-el-ka iš-tu GN2 i-tu-ra-am-ma id-di-na-kum i-ki-mu-nimvent-ma a-na PN id-di-nu-nivent-šu ù A.ŠÀ ša i-na at-luki-ka be-el-ka iq-bi-kum ú-ul id-di-nu-nimvent ‘The field of Dūr-Ya¶dunlîm that your lord gave you when he returned from Andarig, they took away from youvent and gave it tovent PN. And the field that your lord promised you at your departure—they did not give (it) to youvent’ (ARM 2, 32:6–11).21 This example is especially curious: what is formally the ventive morpheme is attached to all six finite verb forms of the quoted text. “They took away from you” is the most natural rendering of īkimū-nim: in my opinion this ventive is coreferential with the 2nd p. sg. pronoun of iddin-akkum22 and fills the slot of the source participant (which is semantically opposite to the recipient). The ventive of iddinū-nim is also anaphoric and codes the recipient (“to you”). The ventive of iddinū-niš-šu is most probably coreferential with the ana PN prepositional phrase, literally ‘they gave it to himvent’;23 the only alternative is to interpret it as K.’s “linking morpheme,” i. e. part of the bound pronoun: iddinū-niššu ‘they gave it’ or perhaps ‘they gave him’ (with the loss of mimation), but the evidence for the use of the ventive 20

    Kouwenberg 2002:221f. hypothesizes that ‘[t]he particle -ma by itself—without the support of a following ventive—may also cause the insertion of a ventive, but completely unambiguous instances are hard to find, because it is often impossible to exclude the chance that the ventive in question is a 1st p. benefactive.’ He adduces only three instances which he deems plausible, so one’s impression is that this provision may have been made in order to reduce the number of “problematical ventives,” i. e. those left unexplained within the framework of Kouwenberg’s study. 21 The translations in ARM 2, Finet 1956:260, and LAPO 17 No. 768 differ from each other and from my translation as far as the interpretation of the ventives is concerned. 22 See Kouwenberg 2002:228f. on this kind of form and on iqbêkkum. 23 eqlum is used as a masculine noun in OB Mari.

    110

    Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies as a “linking morpheme” in OB presented in Kouwenberg 2002 does not support this option. Note that this is the only text in which we seem to come across a “dative” ventive with a 2nd p. referent.

    More instances of the “dative” ventive with a 3rd p. referent are doubtless present among the ventives on nadānum and qabûm that are referred to in Kouwenberg 2002:217 fn. 32 and, according to K., ‘must remain unexplained for the time being’ (ibid.). This usage is marginal, yet in my view it shows the versatile nature of the ventive morpheme, i. e. its potential for polysemy. 2.3. The ventive as a non-core argument 2.3.1. Reflexive-benefactive (RB) ventive is used with agentive nonmotion verbs a¶āzum ‘to seize,’ leqûm ‘to take,’ nepûm ‘to distrain, to take as pledge,’ ´abātum ‘to take hold,’ šarāqum ‘to steal,’ and perhaps kalûm ‘to hold, to detain.’24 All of them are transitive dynamic “taking-hold-of ” verbs. The RB ventive can refer to the speaker, addressee, and “third person(s),” i. e. non-participant(s) in the speech event. I will start with the verb leqûm as perhaps the most frequent one in text and the one whose collocation with the ventive often presents difficulties for interpretation. K. observes correctly that in the context of the deictic directional ventive the verb leqûm may be used as an allative motion verb ‘to bring along’: ‘The original meaning of leqûm is “to take, receive, acquire”; the meaning (+ vent) “to bring along” doubtless arose secondarily from its frequent use in hendiadys with a motion verb, such as liqeamma alkam “take and come here,” i. e. “bring here” (passim in OB letters). But also without support of a motion verb it may mean to “bring along,” e. g., AbB 1, 60:18 (two good sacks) ša-ma-am-ma li-qí-a-am “buy and bring here/to me” (not “nimm sie an dich”, as Kraus translates), and similarly in 6, 78:18′ (Kouwenberg 2002:203 fn. 3).

    This allative use of leqûm is indeed quite well attested in OB letters; I will adduce an example wherein the allative ventive is accompanied by the ana ´ēr- prepositional phrase: 24

    For the purposes of the present study, I will define “reflexive-benefactive” as a non-core participant of a transitive agentive (and therefore purposive) situation; this participant is coreferential with the agent, as e. g. ‘he built this house for himself ’ or ‘he built himself a house.’

    S. Loesov, Marginalia on the Akkadian Ventive

    111

    (16) a-wi-lu-ú bi-tam ip-lu-šu-ma i-na še-im za-ba-li-im a-lum ú-ki-in-šunu-ti ù a-na ´e-ri-ia il-qú-nimvent ‘Die Männer sind in ein Haus eingebrochen, denn die Stadt hat ihnen nachgewiesen, daß sie Gerste trugen. Auch hat man sie zu mir gebrachtvent’ (AbB 3, 70:8–11).

    Besides, leqûm without the ventive can be freely used as an ablative motion verb, i. e. it can express the motion towards a non-deictic goal.25 The following examples illustrate: (17) a. a-na GN li-qí-a-an-ni ‘Take me to GN!’ (AbB 14, 49:15f.). b. iš-tu da-ba-bu šu-ú i-na pu-ú¶-ri ub-ti-ir-ru a-na É dia-ab-li-ia a-na buúr-ri il-qú-šu-nu-ti ‘After this statement had been corroborated in the assembly they took them to the temple of Jablija for (further) corroboration’ (AbB 13, 60:21f., van Soldt’s translation). c. iš-tu ´ú-u¶-ri-ia a-na GN il-qú-ni-in-ni-ma i-na GN ÌR É.GAL a-na-ku ‘Schon in meiner Jugend hat man mich nach Babylon genommen; in Babylon bin ich Palastbeamter’ (AbB 4, 118:7f.).

    What concerns us at this point is the rather frequent RB use of the ventive in the context of leqûm as non-motion verb. Grammatical descriptions permit it only for the 1st p. sg. forms, e. g. alqe-am ‘I took (it) for myself ’. Yet the RB ventive is well attested with other finite forms of leqûm, as the following examples illustrate: (18) aš-šum ¢e4-em 3[0 ERIM.ME]Š ša iš-t[u x] x-ri-BIKI ta-al-qí-a-amvent PN1 ù PN2 8′ [……..] x 9′ il-li-ku-ma um-ma šu-nu-ma 30 ERIM.MEŠ il-qí-a-amvent ‘Was die Angelegenheit der dreißig Mann betrifft, welche du dirvent aus ……-ribi genommen hast, (so) sind Narām-Adad und Marduk-nā´ir 8′……… 9′ weggegangen und (haben) folgendermaßen (erklärt): “Er hat sichvent dreißig Mann genommen’ (AbB 5, 242: 3′–11′, italics as in the Edition’s translation)’. In this text, 30 ERIM.MEŠ il-qí-a-am cannot have an allative sense ‘he brought to me / to us’ or a 1st p. benefactive sense ‘he took for me,’ thus we get (with Kraus) talqe-am = ‘youm.s. took

    25

    “Take”-verbs tend to develop this kind of polysemy. Cf. e. g. the English “take to,” as in ‘he takes (≈ drives) the child to school’ or the Biblical Hebrew lāqaµ l3-: qaµ-nā l3-!aµê−ā ‘takeimv ms your brothers (this ephah of roasted grain)’ (1 Sam 17:17, JB). In both instances the basic directive preposition suffices to convert “take”-verbs into motion verbs.

    112

    Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies for yourself’ vs. ilqe-am = ‘he took for himself’ as the only viable solution. (19) il[-l]i[-k]a-[a]m ú-ša-na-ma il-qí-a-amvent ¢e4-ma-am šu-up-ra-nim ‘… he came and received (lit. ‘took for himself’) [barley] for the second time. Sendpl me a report’26 (AbB 6, 173:14ff.). The -am of il-qí-a-am is hardly attracted from šu-up-ra-nim, as the sequencing -ma lacks here, which is due to a caesura after il-qí-a-am: the author switches from reporting events to an imperative. (20) a-wi-le-e šu-nu-ti il-qí-a-ašvent-šu-nu-ti-ma a-na GN it-ta-al-ku ‘Er hat besagte Männer zu sich genommenvent und sie sind nach Babylon abgereist’ (AbB 10, 24:7′f.) The ventive within ilqe-aš-šunūti is a clear-cut RB one, as correctly reflected in the translation of Kraus. Note that Kouwenberg 2002:222–231 offers no evidence showing that the ventive was ever used in OB letters as a linking element before 3rd p. accusative pronouns. (21) ¢up-pá-am ša ¶u-bu-li-kà ni-il5-qí-amvent ‘Die Tafel über deine Schuld haben wir erhaltenvent’ (TCL 2, 14:34f., text and translation as in GKT § 78f).27 Again, nilqe-am can hardly mean anything but ‘we took for ourselves.’ (22) 5 SILA3 Ì.GIŠ ša it-ti-ia il-qú-nimvent SAG.GEME2 it-ta-ba-ak ‘The slave girl has just spilled the 5 liters of oil which they have receivedvent from me’ (AbB 12, 44:5ff., van Soldt’s translation). The source of receiving is coded by ittīya ‘from me,’ while ilqû-nim most probably means ‘they received for themselves,’ if we are to take this ventive seriously.28

    26

    R. Frankena translates in the Edition (most probably, correctly): ‘ist gekommen und hat abermals empfangen,’ i. e. the person in question received barley twice for the same service. The context excludes a reading ‘he took for me’ or ‘he took along to me.’ 27 Hecker (GKT 133) believes that the ventive in this and similar instances quoted ibid. is not “meaningful” and belongs ‘zu einer unkontrollierten, kaum noch einen Sinn erkennen lassenden Verwendungsweise,’ yet the evidence presented here makes me think that Hecker’s judgement is premature and somewhat dogmatic. 28 K. (p. 261 fn. 31) suggests that the ventive might sometimes have been used ‘vicariously for a subjunctive.’ I believe that this interesting (if unprovable) idea should not be applied to cases for which other explanations may be found.

    S. Loesov, Marginalia on the Akkadian Ventive

    113

    (23) ¢up-pí a-na Nu-un-na-tum aš-šum SÍG uq-ni-a-ti ta-ak-la-tim ša 1 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR ša-mi-im-ma šu-bu-li[m] uš-ta-bi-la-aš-šu SÍG uq-nia-ti ta-ak-la-tim ša 1 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR li-ša-ma-ak-kum-ma li-qí-aamvent ù aš-šum 2 a-za-mi-il-la-tim i-na KÁ KI.LAM ša-mi-im-ma leqé-e-em ú-na-¶i-i-id-ka 2 a-za-mi-il-la-tim dam-qá-tim ša-ma-am-ma li-qí-a-amvent ‘I have sent Nunnatum a letter regarding buying and sending one shekel worth of sturdy blue wool. Let him buy you one shekel silver worth of sturdy blue wool, and take (it) for yourselfvent. And I (hereby) suggest you to buy at the market gate and take 2 sacks: buy and take for yourselfvent 2 sacks!’ (AbB 1, 60:7–18, the letter is quoted in its entirety, save for the head). The text does not say explicitly that the addressee has to ‘take the wool along’ to the author; on the contrary, the author writes that the third party has to buy it for the addressee (li-ša-ma-ak-kum). (24) ¢e4-mu-um šu-ú a-[n]a […] ú-ul i-sa-ni-qá-am-ma na-áz-qá-ku a-na PN ¢ú-ru-ud-ma ¢e4-ma-am šu-a-ti ga-am-ra-am li-il-qí-a-amvent-ma la a-na-zi-iq ‘If this (= the aforementioned) information does not reach […], I will be worried. Send to Marduk-nā´ir so that he getsvent all this information and I shall not worry’ (AbB 3, 53:25–30). The Edition has ‘zu Marduk-nā´ir schicke, damit er den definitiven Bescheid darüber für michvent erlange und ich mich nicht sorge.’ Yet, the speaker most likely has only one piece of information in view, i. e. ¢ēmum šū = ¢ēmum šuāti: if the ¢ēmum (known to the author) reaches […] and Marduk-nā´ir gets it, the author will not worry / will be out of trouble. Thus the ventive of lilqeam refers to Marduk-nā´ir as a RB (lit. ‘let him take it for himself ’) rather than to the author.

    In AbB there are several attestations of the verb phrase kīma panī-ka leqe-am ‘take according to your wish’ (as translated in CAD P 92a), whose ventive is clearly a RB marker, provided the general interpretation of this phrase is correct. Consider the following example: (25) šum-ma ta-la-ka-am ki-ma pa-ni-ka-ma li-qí-a-amvent ‘Wenn du kommst, nimm dirvent, wie (es) deine Absicht war!’ (AbB 5, 237:15′f.).29

    Yet, as we know, only the context of the respective letters can lift the inherent ambiguity of liqe-am: in itself this phrase may equally well mean 29

    Other instances in AbB include 2, 100:24f.; 2, 104:12; 13, 171:10; 14, 143: 13f. and 26, most of them referred to in CAD P 92a.

    114

    Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

    ‘take for me’ (1st p. sg. benefactive), ‘take to where I am’ (allative), or ‘take for yourself’ (RB). If the context does not provide a good clue, the ambiguity remains unresolved. The Edition’s translation of AbB 5, 237:15′f. does not seem quite certain to the present writer;30 and as regards AbB 14, 143:13f. and 26, Veenhof translates both instances of ki-ma pa-ni-kama li-qí-a-am as ‘get me/take me as soon as you can’ (sic!), probably correctly (contra CAD P 92a). All the assumed RB tokens of the ventive on leqûm are bound to the forms of the Preterite, Imperative or Precative. The absence of the Present with the future-time reference looks peculiar. Anyway, in AbB 1–14 the Present of leqûm + ventive is only scarcely attested also for the deictic meanings of the ventive. This is hardly incidental, but an explanation of this fact remains to be found. The Perfect of leqûm appears in AbB 1–14 some 20 times, no (+ vent) forms are available. From the above it follows that leqûm in the Preterite and in the volitive mood (Precative / Imperative) builds a complete RB paradigm with the ventive: 1 cs 2 ms 2 fs 3 cs 1 cp 2 cp 3 mp 3 fp

    Preterite alqe-am talqe-am *talqî-m ilqe-am nilqe-am telqeā-nim ilqû-nim *ilqeā-nim

    Precative / Imperative lulqe-am liqe-am *liqî-m lilqe-am nilqe-am liqeā-nim lilqû-nim *ilqeā-nim

    The RB forms not present in the exx. (18)–(24) are attested in the following texts: alqe-am AbB 14, 205:10; telqeā-nim AbB 4, 22:17; lulqe-am AbB 2, 152:10; liqeā-nim AbB 4, 32:14. Some of the RB ventives in these prooftexts can be interpreted as attracted, but this does not change the general picture.31 The feminine forms (marked by *) have not been found in the OB sources for obvious reasons. One can safely assume they could 30

    A reading ‘if you come, get me (an understood something) according to your wish’ is also a possibility. 31 One has to keep in mind that the “trivial” ventive anticipation is not obligatory in letters: cf. anumma … aknuk-am-ma uštābil-am ‘I herewith send you (a document) under seal’ (AbB 13, 23:4–10) vs. aknuk-ma ana ma¶ri-ka uštābil-am ‘I herewith send you (some silver) under seal’ (AbB 13, 68:6ff.). This is to remind that we posit ventive anticipation only if there is no other way to explain a given ventive token.

    S. Loesov, Marginalia on the Akkadian Ventive

    115

    be freely built upon necessity. The verb forms in the paradigm mean ‘I took for / to myself,’ ‘you took for yourself,’ ‘take for yourself,’ etc. In what follows I quote the few tokens of the reflexive-benefactive ventive bound to the non-1st p. sg. forms of nepûm ‘to distrain, take as pledge,’ šarāqum ‘to steal,’ a¶āzum ‘to seize’ I have found in the OB documents. An example for nepûm comes from an OB legal text: (26) aš-šum

    gu-sa-nu-um ša PN1 ma-¶a-ar PN2 i-zi-ba-am ù SAG. ip-pí-a-amvent PN2 KUŠ gu-sa-na-am ub-la-am-ma SAG.GEME2 it-ba-al a-wi-lum a-na a-wi-lim ú-ul i-ra-ga-am ‘Concerning the leather sack which PN1 lent to PN2 and took a slave-girl as pledgevent, PN2 brought the leather sack and carried off the slave girl. One will not bring a claim against the other’ (CT 33, 49b:1–12). If the ventive of ip-pí-a-am has a meaning, it is doubtless the RB: ‘he distrained a slave-girl for himself.’32 KUŠ

    GEME2

    The view of space and motion, as expressed in this text via lative ventives, is also worth notice. As the 1st person speaker is not available, the role of the spatial deictic center is assigned to the respective receiver, and this is the mirror image of the canonical situation-of-utterance: PN1 ma¶ar PN2 īzib-amvent lit. ‘PN1 leftvent [a slave-girl] with PN2’ (if we are not to take this ventive as a “dative” one with a 3rd p. referent, cf. 2.2 above); PN2 gusānam ubl-amvent ‘PN2 broughtvent the leather sack (to PN1)’. There are two examples for šarāqum: (27) um-ma a-na-ku-ma i-na ma-a-at I-da-m[a-r]a-[a]z sa-li-ma-tim ša belí-ia SAG.ÌR.MEŠ ù ANŠE.ÚI.A a-na mi-nim ta-aš-ri-qa-amvent um-ma šu-ú-ma ú-ul a-na-ku aš-ri-iq ‘I asked him, “Why did you stealvent slaves and donkeys from the land of Idamaraz, which is allied to my lord?”—He replied, “It was not me who stole them” ’ (ARM 14, 51:11–14). In the question ana mīnim tašriq-am a reflexive-benefactive semantic element, allegedly encoded here by the ventive, looks

    32

    In AbB 1–14 there seems to be attested only one example of the 1st p. sg. RB ventive on nepûm: i-na mu-u¶-¶i A.ŠÀ GÚ.UN-šu-ma 2 GEME2-šu at-ta-pí-a-am ‘Darauf habe ich wegen eben seines abgabe(pflichtigen) Feldes zwei Sklavinnen von ihm als Schuldhäftlinge weggeführt’ (AbB 10, 5:10f.).

    116

    Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies appropriate, while it would perhaps be less so in the answer (ul anāku ašriq).33 (28) ù a-na-ku ÌR-ka ú-ul x [...] [i]š-ri-qá-amvent ku-nu-uk PN a-na-a´´a-ar ‘And I, your servant, not … he has stolenvent. I will keep the tablet sealed by PN in my custody’ (AbB 12, 172:4′–7′, van Soldt’s translation). The text is slightly damaged, yet an interpretation ‘he stole on my behalf ’ is hardly a viable alternative to the RB reading of išriq-am.

    The only example for a¶āzum comes from ‘archaic OB’: (29) PN 2 li-im A-mu-ra-am i-¶u-za-amvent-ma a-na qá-qá-dì-kà-ma šuúr-du ‘PN has takenvent two thousands Amorites and they are marching against you’ (AS 22, 7:3–8, Whiting’s translation).

    In OB the verb ´abātum ‘to take hold’ with the object panī X lit. ‘face of X’ means (in an idiomatic phrase) ‘to lead, conduct, to take command of, to march in front of (persons, troops, animals, boats, etc.).’34 All the OB tokens of this phrase display the ventive on the finite forms of ´abātum, while post-OB tokens have for the most part “empty” forms of this verb.35 Consider the following examples: (30) a. PN1 ù PN2 pa-ni DUMU.MEŠ PN3 … ù ERIM a¶-la-mi-i i´ba-tu-nimvent-ma ma-tam uš-ta-ad-du-ú ‘PN1 and PN2 took commandvent over the sons of PN3 … and the Ahlamite troops, and they devastated the land’ (AbB 13, 60:30ff.). b. pa-ni ERIM.DUŠU šu-a-ti 1 DUMU.É.DUB.BA-ka li-i´-ba-tamvent ‘Einer deiner Militärschreiber soll die Führung dieser Fronarbeiter übernehmenvent’ (AbB 2, 27:8f.).

    An attempt to render these ventives with a 1st p. sg. benefactive pronoun (“on my behalf ”) would be artificial, so they will have to be construed as RB ones. Since the collocation of finite forms of ´abātum with the RB ventive and direct object panī X created a new non-motion lexical meaning, the ventive functions here as a derivational morpheme.

    33

    Incidentally, no ašriq-am seems to be attested in OB letters. Cf. CAD Ô 28f. 35 “Empty” (“leer”) is Hirsch’s term for a (– vent) finite form, while his term for a (+ vent) form is “full” (“voll”). I will sometimes use these convenient labels. 34

    S. Loesov, Marginalia on the Akkadian Ventive

    117

    The verb kalûm ‘hold, detain’ is quite often used with the ventive in OB letters. Unlike the (+ vent) leqûm in its non-motion meaning, only the Present-based Prohibitive of kalûm is compatible with the ventive.36 The attested forms are 2 m. sg. lā takallâm,37 3 c. sg. lā ikallâm,38 3 m. pl. lā ikallû-nim.39 The interpretation problem here is of course whether the ventive on the Prohibitive of kalûm is reflexive benefactive, 1st p. sg. benefactive (= dativus incommodi), or either of them as the case may be. Editors of AbB either understand the ventive of lā takallâm literally (e. g. Frankena in 2, 94:19 ‘sollst du von mir nicht fernhalten’) or leave it untranslated (e. g. Veenhof in 14, 143:24 has la ta-ka-al-la-a-am as ‘you must not detain’). The comparison of “full” and “empty” forms of this Prohibitive, undertaken by the present writer, has led to no dramatic results. The Prohibitive of kalûm can be freely used with the 3rd person dative pronouns, as e. g. la ta-ka-al-la-šum ‘do not prevent2cp him (from bringing it to me)’ (AbB 2, 182:10); la ta-ka-la-ši-im ‘do not withhold2ms (it) from her’ (AbB 9, 130:27). Thus nothing stands in the way of interpreting lā takallâm as ‘do not withhold (it) from me.’ Yet see presently a speculative argument in favour of the RB understanding of this ventive. The RB ventive may be used with certain verbs that are “taking-holdof ” verbs in certain contexts or in particular meanings only. In OB letters the most salient example of this kind is perhaps ezēbum, whose basic meaning is ‘to leave.’ Consider the following examples: (31) a. ka-ni-kam te-zi-ba-amvent ‘You made outvent a sealed document’ (AbB 11, 129:3, Stol’s translation). The content of the letter suggests that the addressee had the document in his possession at the speech time. b. ku-nu-uk 1 MA.NA ù ku-nu-uk 11 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR i-na pa-ni-ka la te-zi-ba-amvent ‘The receipt for 1 mina of silver and the receipt for eleven shekels of silver do not keep for yourselfvent’ (ABIM 23:44ff.; the Edition’s translation is different but hardly acceptable). 36

    I have found no other “full” finite forms of this verb in OB letters. Written la ta-ka-al-la-a-am (AbB 11, 185:23); la ta-ka-la-a-am (AbB 13, 155: 28); la ta-ka-la-am (e. g. AbB 2, 94:19; Goetze 1958, 11:18; ARM 10, 109:19); la ta-ka-al-la-am (e. g. AbB 5, 1:14; 6, 53:15; Goetze 1958, 47:21). 38 Written la i-ka-la-am (AbB 6, 84:6′); la i-ka-al-la-a-am (ABIM 16:14; ARM 10, 92:25). 39 Written la-a i-ka-al-lu-nim (ARM 10, 105:15); la i-ka-lu-nim (AbB 8, 96:16). 37

    118

    Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies c. i-[n]a MÁ.LAÚ5.MEŠ ep-pé-ši an-nu-tim 1 [L]Ú la te-ez-zi-baamvent ‘Don’t let even one single of these expert boatmen stay behindvent!’ (AbB 14, 225:32f., Veenhof ’s translation). d. i-na pa-ni-ka la te-zi-ba-a[m] ‘Do not keep (aforementioned goods) for yourselfvent!’ (AbB 5, 231:19, in a partly damaged context, and cf. fn. 11 above).

    To exclude arbitrary “intuitive” judgements one would have to maintain the 1st p. benefactive as the only reading for the (+ vent) Prohibitive of kalûm and perhaps for the four non-1st p. sg. (+ vent) forms of ezēbum just quoted.40 On the other hand, we have seen that “taking-hold-of ” verbs are compatible with the RB ventive, and one of them (leqûm) was shown to build a complete RB paradigm with the ventive for its Preterite and volitive forms. Thus, if we consistently understand lā takallâm as ‘sollst du von mir nicht fernhalten’ (Frankena in AbB 2, 94:19), and lā tezzib-am in a similar way as ‘do not keep from me,’ we will espouse a rigid context-independent interpretation (a 1st p. dativus incommodi), which is syntactically very demanding: it invariably makes the speaker a participant in the situations of “holding” (kalûm) or “keeping / setting aside” (ezēbum in one of its meanings). The only compelling grammatical reason in favour of this interpretation is the fixed semantics of the ventive morpheme in the traditional grammar of Akkadian.41 Yet, as the evidence collected in this section shows, there are independent grounds to believe that the ventive may have an all-persons reflexive-benefactive reading on verbs with certain lexical meanings. This granted, in certain contexts a RB reading will make more modest semantic and syntactic claims than the 1st p. benefactive, because the RB ventive allows not to increase the number of participants. Therefore I would opt for the inherent semantic ambiguity of the ventive tokens discussed in the last paragraphs.42 An additional reason of this option will be proposed at the end of this section.

    40

    Thus one can construe lā tezzib-am as ‘do not keep from me!’ This kind of option is almost always available in texts with a 1st p. speaker. 41 As we have seen above, Kouwenberg narrows down the functional scope of this morpheme by forbidding it to point to a third party goal, thus canceling a function suggested by Landsberger. 42 The position taken here has nothing to do with I. J. Gelb’s obscure remarks on the ventive in his review of GAG (Gelb 1955:109). See § 3 below on the suggested inner-Akkadian semantic development of the ventive morpheme.

    S. Loesov, Marginalia on the Akkadian Ventive

    119

    In OA the verb lapātum in the ‘taking-hold-of ’ meaning ‘to write down, record’ (CAD L 86f.)43 is compatible with the RB ventive, as the following examples show: (32) [… ri]-ik-sá-am ša 15 [ma-na] AN.NA ša i-pá-ni šu-uq-lim ša-ak-nu [i-na] na-áš-pè-er-tim I-na-a ša ki-ma DÀM.GAR ri-ik-sá-am lá il5-pu-ta-amvent ‘Concernant le riksum de 15 [mines] d’étain qui a été placé au sommet d’une caisse; Innāya, représentant du tamkārum, n’a pas enrigestrévent le riksum sur la notice’ (BIN 6, 252:1′–6′, translation as in Michel 1991 No. 124). This is a court testimony in which the speaker is much in the background. The ventive of ilput-am must refer to the culprit Innāya: he did not record this tin for himself, i. e. on his own behalf.44 (33) DUMU PN1 a-a-um šu-um-šu i-na ¢up-pì-im lu-up-támvent ù ší-be-e ša i-na ma-a¶-ri-šu-nu [K]Ù.BABBAR a-na PN2 ta-áš-qú-lu x x šu-nu-tí lu-up-támvent ‘Entervent into the tablet the son of PN1 (what is his name?), and as for the witnesses in whose presence you paid the silver to PN2—recordvent their [names?] (ATHE 60:31–38). (34) té-er-ta-kà li-li-kam ù ší-bi-kà šu-mì-šu-nu i-na ¢up-pí-im lu-uptámvent ‘Let your instruction come here, and entervent the names of your witnesses into the tablet’ (AKT 1, 12:11–15). (35) ki-ma ša-bu-a-ku-ni mì-šu-um i-¢up-pì-kà lá ta-al-pu-támvent ‘Why did not you entervent into your tablet that I had been fully paid?’ (CCT 2, 3:12f.).

    From the above it becomes increasingly clear that the appearance of the RB ventive is determined lexically: it looks more like an idiosyncratic

    43

    The (+ vent) forms of this verb usually have the meaning ‘to enter certain data into a document,’ i. e. a “grasping” semantic element is doubtless perceptible in this usage. 44 The only alternative would be to regard [ina] našpertim PN … riksam lā ilputam as a motion situation wherein [ina] našpertim is a non-deictic endpoint of movement (see 2.1 above), but this is hardly tenable. The OA lapātum ‘to write down, record’ is synonymous with the OB ša¢ārum (a non-motion verb) rather than with šapārum.

    120

    Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

    property of individual “taking-hold-of ” verbs than a common feature of this semantic class of verbs as a whole.45 This trend is taken to an extreme in the case of the OA verb ši!ātum ‘eine(n)’ Rest(forderung) behalten’ (as glossed in GKT 132). ši!ātum is a “ventive tantum” finite verb in OA (with GKT ibid.), and this fact again reveals the propensity of the ventive to behave in the way of a derivational morpheme. Consider the following example, which is quite representative: (36) [ni]-kà-sí i-ší-ú-ma 1½ ma-na 3 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR i-na li-bi4 PN1 PN2 i-ší-támvent ‘They settled accounts, and PN2 retained a claim of x silver against PN1’ (BIN 4, 226:1–6, translation as in CAD Š2 342b).46

    The all-persons RB usage of the ventive is probably due to the fact that Akkadian dative pronouns bound to the finite verb do not have the indirect reflexive / reflexive-benefactive reading (unlike pronouns bound to the “dative” preposition l- in Biblical Hebrew or in different premodern Aramaic idioms). E. g., Akkadian cannot use ilqe-šum and *telqekum / *telqe-akkum for ‘he took for himself ’ and ‘you took for yourself ’ respectively, ippe-šum is not used for ‘he distrained for himself,’ lā *takallakum / *takallâkkum is not ‘do not keep back for yourself,’ etc. Akkadian has no specialized reflexive markers which could be easily used in most situations wherein the reflexive sense is called for. The “long” lexical reflexive words ramanum “self,” napištum and pagrum “body, self ” are used mostly as direct reflexives (cf. pagar-ka u´ur ‘take care,’ napištī ana kâši apqid ‘I gave myself over to you,’ ara¶¶i ramanī ara¶¶i pagrī ‘I inseminate myself, I inseminate my body’), and we do not come across them on every page of letters editions, whereas an argument coreferential with the subject is expected to be often invoked in any language. The valence-decreasing verbal stems (i. e. the N-stem and especially T-stems) can of course be helpful in expressing direct (and indirect?) reflexive, yet they are—like the re-

    45

    W. von Soden believes that the function(s) of the ventive on non-motion verbs ‘kann nur durch lexikalische Untersuchungen ermittelt werden’ (GAG § 82a), and this turns out to be partially true. 46 Note that this is no letter. According to the classification of EL, this document (= EL 173) belongs to “Teilzahlungen und Anerkennung von Restverbindlichkeiten”. For more tokens of this legal technical term, see CAD Š2 342b, cf. also Prag I 539:8. ši!ātum in OA has also an intransitive sense ‘to remain, to be left over’, see CAD Š2 342 a. All the intransitive tokens of ši!ātum known to me also have the ventive. In the contexts, its meaning may be either 1st p. sg. benefactive or “antitransitive” (see 2.3.2 below).

    S. Loesov, Marginalia on the Akkadian Ventive

    121

    flexive nouns—lexical rather than grammatical devices. It is probably for want of a readily available marker of reflexivity that Akkadian was sometimes able to press the ventive into the service of an oblique reflexive pronoun. 2.3.2. “Antitransitive” (AT) ventive is used with intransitive verbs to optionally mark their intransitive value and to emphasize the perfective nature of a situation.47 The verbs with the AT ventive, unlike those with the RB ventive, may have both animate and inanimate subjects. The following examples will convey the flavour of the AT construction: (37) aš-šum GEME2.ÚI.A ša um-mi-a-ni šum-ma-mi i¶-li-qámvent a-na É.GAL i-ru-ub-ma šar-ra-am lu-um-mi-id ‘Was die Sklavinnen der Handwerker betrifft, wenn eine entlaufen istvent, ist sie in den ‘Palast’ eingetreten. Dann benachrichtige den König’ (AbB 10, 57:21–24).48 In this context the ventive of i¶liq-am cannot refer to the speaker. I believe it renders the notion ‘she definitively fled’ / ‘she fled all by herself.’49 (38) iš-tu èš-nun-naKI i-ru-ba-am-ma a-wa-at É.GAL-lim e-li-i-šu im-qúUD50-ma a-na dÍD il-li-ik-ma iš-ta-al-ma-amvent ‘He returned from Ešnunna,51 and a charge of the Palace was brought against him. He went to the divine River Ordeal and survivedvent’ (AbB 8, 102:15–18).

    The ištalm-am of this text has a well-known counterpart in CH § 2: (39) š[u]m-ma a-wi-lam šu-a-ti (CH 5:46–49).

    47

    d

    ÍD

    ú-te-eb-bi-ba-aš-šu-ma iš-ta-al-ma-am

    The label “antitransitive” for this kind of sense is (for lack of a better choice) of my own coinage; it is designed on a purely surface analogy with such wellknown terms from the domain of voice and transitivity as anticausative and antipassive. Regarding the perfectivizing force of the ventive cf. already Finet 1955:259. A. Finet suggests that the ventive is a “mood” that ‘indique l’aboutissement de l’action, une sorte de «terminative»,’ while the allative is its individual meaning. 48 I wonder whether ‘if one of them escaped and entered the Palace’ would be a better interpretation. 49 Note that ¶alāqum can govern the accusative of the source, which is a noncore argument of this verb, e. g. i¶talq-anni ‘she has escaped from me’ (AbB 11, 55: 21). For the sake of the present discussion, verbs whose “accusative” arguments are no semantic objects are considered intransitive. 50 L. Cagni has tam/ut in his transliteration. 51 On the ventive of ištu X īrub-am see below in this section.

    122

    Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

    Kouwenberg proposes that the ventive of ištalm-am in CH § 2 ‘indicates unspecified motion towards the implicit observer,’52 which latter as a reference point is functionally equivalent to the speaker, hence K.’s translation: ‘If the River (ordeal) has purified that man and he has come out safe.’ K.’s ‘implicit observer’ approach looks quite plausible for the laws of CH and for omina,53 less so for a letter with an outspoken 1st p. deictic centre. For this reason I suggest that ištalm-am (with an antitransitive ventive) might have been a legal technical term for ‘he survived (the Ordeal).’54 Same kind of reinterpretation (AT ventive with the perfective sense rather than motion towards the implicit observer) seems appropriate for K.’s example (06) on p. 206: iš-tu ar-bi-a-amvent ‘when I had grown upvent’ (UM 5, 100:I 11). (40)

    DUB-pa-ka

    a-na a-a¶-¶i-ka šu-up-ra-am-ma ni-di a-¶i-im la i-ra-šunimvent ‘Send a letter of yours to your brothers, that they must not get carelessvent’ (AbB 14, 141:43ff., Veenhof ’s translation).

    (41) la-ma i-na-wi-ra-amvent lu-mu-ur-ka ‘I want to see you before it gets lightvent’ (Goetze 1958 No. 14:15f.).

    The antitransitive ventive can be used with intransitive motion verbs. The ventive on these verbs is AT if (1) it does not point to the location of the speaker or addressee and (2) it is not accompanied by a directional prepositional phrase that encodes a non-deictic goal, i. e. if this ventive is no core argument of the motion verb in question. The following texts fulfill both of the above conditions: (42) ki-ma iš-tu ma-a¶-ri-ki ú-´í-a-amvent a-¶i a-wi-lim mi-it-ma a-na GN uš-te-er-di

    52

    Kouwenberg 2002:204, cf. ex. (07) on p. 206. One has to keep in mind that in motion contexts šalāmum can indeed be freely used as a motion verb (with K.): išlim = ‘he arrived safely’, išlim-am = ‘he arrived here safely’ (see the dictionaries for references). Same is true of the verbs that can render the manner of movement, e. g. i¶mu¢ ‘he arrived in haste’ vs. i¶mu¢-am ‘he arrived here in haste.’ 53 This is because in the laws of CH and in most omina there is no 1st p. speaker. Cf. Metzler 2002:41–50 on the “Rezeptionszeit” in CH. 54 Other possible examples of AT ventive in CH are dÍD išalli-am-ma ‘he will submit (lit. ‘submerge himself ’) to the divine River Ordeal,’ ša dÍD išli-am ‘the one who submitted to the divine River Ordeal’ (CH 5:41, 53f.), as against an “empty” form ana mutiša dÍD išalli ‘she shall submit to the divine River Ordeal for her husband’ (CH 29:4ff.).

    S. Loesov, Marginalia on the Akkadian Ventive

    123

    ‘When I left you (lit. ‘went outvent from your presence’), the brother of the gentleman was dead, and I proceeded to GN’ (AbB 6, 2:5–8). (43) iš-tu u4-mi-im ša [š]a-[pí-r]i iš-tu gi-ir-ri-im i-r[u-b]a-amvent um-ma a-na-ku-ma lu-l[i]-ma it-ti ša-pí-ri-ia lu-u[n]-na-mi-ir la-ma ša-pí-ri iš-tu gi-ir-ri-im i-ru-ba-amvent mu-ur-´um i´-ba-ta-an-ni-ma a-na ma-¶ar ša-pí-ri-ia ú-ul al-li-kam ‘After the day that my superior came backvent from the campaign, I thought: “I will go up and meet with my superior.” (However,) (even) before my superior had come backvent from the campaign, an illness overcame me and I did not come into the presence of my superior’ (AbB 9, 42:5–11, Stol’s translation). The “full” verb form īrub-am denotes the movement (admittedly, the ‘coming back’) of “the superior”, who is the addressee of this letter. Hence the addressee, being the participant in motion, is not the reference point of the ventive on erēbum.55

    Editors of OB and OA letters often interpret certain “full” forms of atlukum ‘depart, set off’56 in the way of my antitransitive ventive, as in the following examples:57 (44) a. ú-ul at-ta-al-kam ‘I did not go away’ and at-ta-la-kam ‘I ..will depart’ (AbB 12, 53:22, 31); b..la-a-ma PN it-ta-al-kam ‘before PN has left’ (AbB 9, 144: ..8′f.);58 .

    c. [it]-ta-al-ka-a[m] ‘he has gone off ’ (AbB 12, 178:2′);

    55 Note that the “trivial” ventive of allik-am in line 11 points to the location of the “superior.” 56 For a new interpretation of the semantics of the Gt-stem in this verb see Kouwenberg 2005. 57 The number of such examples can be easily multiplied. I have chosen these particular ones because here the assumed AT meaning looks plausible, so in these cases my judgement does not depend on whether the respective translators just happened to ignore the presence of the ventive morpheme. 58 According to GAG § 173i–l, future-time temporal clauses introduced by lāma “before” have predicates in the Preterite and (more rarely) Present, while the Perfect in these clauses is attested rather exceptionally. Hence ittalk-am in this case should be a Gt Preterite. There might be syntactic reasons to believe that some of the relevant forms discussed below are Perfects of alākum, yet this ambiguity does not really affect our inquiry into the assumed non-directional meaning of the ventive on motion verbs.

    124

    Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies d. [ki-m]a EREN2 NA.KAD šum-šu it-ta-al-ku-ni ù ša-am-mu i-na A.ŠÀ-lim ú-ul i-ba-aš-šu-ú ‘… the herdsmen, every single one of them, have left and there is no herbage on the fields’ (AbB 14, 92:7–10, italics in the Edition); e. šu-ma um-ma a-ta-ma tí-ib-a-ma a-tal-kam ¢up-pè-e ša ki-ma ášpu-ra-ku-ni lá-al-qí-a-ma lá-ta-al-kam ‘si tu (dis) ceci; “Mets-toi en route!” alors, je prendrai toutes les tablettes, comme celles que je t’avais écrites, et je partirai’ (CCT 3, 50b:14–19 as translated in Michel 1991 No. 45 and LAPO 19 No. 279). Same is true for alākum, e. g. i-lá-kam-ma a-ma-kam IGI kà-ri-im i-da-ku-šu-nu ‘il se mettra en route et là-bas, devant le kārum, on les annulera (i. e. the tablets, SL)’ (MAH 16373: 24 = RA 60:98).

    These translations are probably due to the fact that the respective letters provide no clues (except for the ventive on atlukum/alākum) that the goal of motion is the author or the addressee. Excursus: iddiam-ma ittalk-am In this Excursus I discuss controversial pieces of evidence for a possible OB idiomatic phrase with the AT ventive. Consider the following examples as translated by Kraus in AbB: (45) a. a-nu-um-ma i-di-a-am-ma it-ta-al-kamvent ‘Jetzt hat er mich sitzen lassen und ist auf- und davongegangenvent’ (4, 144:11ff.; in the preceding text no understood direct object of nadûm is available). b. ´[ú-b]a-ta-am ú-ša-al-bi-šu-ma i-di-a-am-ma it-ta-al-kamvent-mi ‘Ich habe ihn neu eingekleidet und (dann) hat er mich sitzen lassen und es heißt: «er ist auf- und davongegangenvent»’ (4, 144:21ff.).

    The bulk of AbB 4, 144 consists of a complaint about the disappearance of a certain ´u¶ārum (translated as “Bursche”); except for the ventive of ittalk-am, nothing in this letter suggests that ´u¶ārum’s flight was directed towards the addressee (e. g., the author does not ask the addressee to return the runaway servant); thus the translation “auf- und davongegangen” might be correct. On the contrary, Kraus’s understanding of iddi-am as ‘he failed me’ is not convincing. The ventive of iddi-am might be attracted, but what is peculiar here is the absence of an explicit or understood direct object of

    S. Loesov, Marginalia on the Akkadian Ventive

    125

    nadûm: contra Kraus, this slot can hardly be filled by the ventive / 1st p. sg. dative pronoun. In OB contracts of hire a similar linguistic expression appears at least twice and with no ventives: (46) a. i-na-ad-di it-ta-la-ak-ma i-na i-di-šu i-te-li ‘if he is lazy or runs away, he shall forfeit his wages’ (JCS 13:107 No. 9:14f., Simmons’s translation).59 b. i-na-ad-di it-ta-al-la-ak i-na Á.BI i-te-el-li ‘Should he abandon and go away, he will loose his wages’ (PBS 8/2 196:18, Chiera’s translation).

    An analogous stipulation with bare nadûm (without atlukum) is attested in contracts of hire at least twice: (47) i-na-ad-di-ma60 i-na i-di-šu i-te-el-li (UCP 10:131 No. 58:13f.) and i-na-di-ma i-na i-di-šu-ma i-te-el-li ‘if he is idle, he shall forfeit his wages’ (JCS 14:32 No. 65:7ff., Simmons’s translation).

    Thus in contracts of hire we come across a free combination of verbs nadûm ‘be(come) idle?’61 and atlukum ‘go away.’62 On the contrary, in OB letters (e. g. in AbB 4, 144 quoted as No. 45 above) there seems to appear an idiomatic phrase with the (near) obligatory ventives on its both verbal components.63 Its precise import is difficult to grasp, it could be something like ‘go away for good.’ If the verb nadûm has an intransitive meaning within this idiom (as the evidence seems to show), both ventives in question are AT ones. Consider the following example, which is perhaps the most transparent of all: (48) um-ma a-na-ku-ma iš-tu an-ni-a-am te-le-qí-a ú-ul a-´a-ba-at ad-daamvent-ma at-ta-al-kavent

    59

    CAD N1 78b has ‘if he stops working and leaves, he looses his wages’. Both translations doubtless connect this usage with the idiomatic phrase a¶am nadûm ‘be careless, negligent.’ 60 The text as in CAD N1 78b (collation); the Edition has i-na-ad-di-šu. 61 It turns out that in OB (and perhaps in the whole of Akkadian) the prefixed forms of nadûm appear without an object only in the texts discussed here (cf. CAD N1 78b 5′ ‘to stop working,’ where most of the available examples are collected). 62 In AbB 3, 3:21f. there occurs a combination of nadûm and ¶alāqum that expresses the same idea: i-na-ad-di-ma i-¶a-al-li-iq ‘wird er nachlässig und macht sich davon.’ 63 Though the grammatical subject of this verb phrase in AbB 4, 144 is ´u¶ārum ‘servant’, the overall content of the letter makes it unlikely that the author’s complaint is about ´u¶ārum’s becoming lazy.

    126

    Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies ‘Folgendermaßen (habe) ich (erwidert): “Da ihr euch dieses nehmt, nehme ich es nicht in Besitz”. Ich habe (es) aufgegebenvent und bin weggegangenvent’ (4, 150:15–19). The letter’s content makes it clear that the ventive of attalk-a does not point to the location of the addressee; hence this ventive is not an allative one. The actual meaning of this phrase is here probably ‘I made a complete break and went away.’ (49) ´ú-¶a-ra-am ma-ra-ka ta-aš-pu-ra-am-ma 5 MA.NA SÍG ú-ki-il-[l]a[am] ú-ul im-¶u-ra-an-ni ´ú-¶a-ru-um id-di-a-amvent-ma it-ta-alkamvent ´ú-¶a-ra-am ¢ú-ur-dam ‘Den Burschen, deinen Sohn, hast du hergeschickt und fünf Minen Wolle habe ich ihm angeboten. Er hat sie nicht von mir angenommen. Der Bursch hat (es) aufgegeben und ist dorthin abgereist. Schicke mir einen Burschen!’ (7, 23:5ff., 11–14). The verb ¢arādum (rather than e. g. turrum) in the last sentence ascertains that the ´u¶ārum mentioned in it is ‘another ´u¶ārum,’ not just the one who iddi-am-ma ittalk-am. So it is probable (but impossible to prove) that the ventive of ittalk-am in this text does not point to the location of the addressee, though it seems that ‘dorthin’ in the translation of Kraus purports to convey the sense ‘to where you are.’ The translation ‘Der Bursch hat (es) aufgegeben’ (with 5 MA.NA SÍG as an understood direct object) is hardly correct anyway. The “becoming-lazy” sense of iddi-am is again unlikely here (with Kraus). The sequence [id]-di-a-am-ma [i]t-ta-al-kam appears once more in AbB 5, 86:17f. in a badly damaged context. In AbB 14, 49:18f. there is an id-di-ma it-ta-la-ak without ventives ‘she gave up and left’ in a difficult context (see the commentary in the Edition ad loc).64

    The evidence presented in this Excursus is somewhat ambiguous, yet there is a good chance that in the epistolary passages discussed above we come across an idiomatic expression with the AT ventive on most of its tokens. *** The AT ventive can appear on predicates of passive clauses with both animate and inanimate subjects. This is not surprising (at least après coup), 64

    Cf. also a-wa-ti-ia ù te-er-t[i] id-di-a-a[m] it-ta-al-ka-am ‘(PN) has neglected my words and my order; he has gone’ (AbB 9, 206:5–8, Stol’s translation). In this text iddi-am governs an explicit direct object, therefore this example probably does not belong here.

    S. Loesov, Marginalia on the Akkadian Ventive

    127

    because in the prototypical case subjects of intransitive and passive clauses share the property of being the single overt arguments of their predicates. Consider the following examples: (50) A.ŠÀ ša-qí-a-amvent ù la ša-qí-a-amvent šu-up-ra-am A.ŠÀ ša ra-bi-im e-ri-iš ù na-di-i šu-up-ra-am ‘Whether the field has been irrigatedvent or not irrigatedvent let me know. Whether the field of the chief has been ploughed or left uncultivated let me know’ (Goetze 1958 10:3–7). These statives are predicates of asyndetic object clauses. A reading of šaqi-am as ‘irrigated on my behalf / for me’ looks artificial: had the field in question belonged to the author (an official in the kingdom of Ešnunna), he would probably had referred to it as eqlī.

    This analysis is corroborated by another example: (51) A.ŠÀ.ŠUKU-šu-nu ša i-na la me-e na-di-avent a-mu-ur ‘Check their subsistence field that has been left uncultivatedvent because of lack of water’ (AbB 3, 74:30f.). (52) i-na-an-na aš-šum GÚ.UN u¶-¶u-ra-at an-ni-iš at-ta-an-sa-ka-amvent ‘Now I have been blamedvent here, because the tribute was not paid on time’ (Goetze 1958 1:35f.).65 (53) a-ma me-e¶-ra-at ma-mì-tim ša [ú-bi]-lu-ni-a-tí-ni a-na kà-ri-im lápu-ta-nimvent ‘Voici les copies du serment que l’on nous a apportées, (elles) ont été écritesvent pour le kārum’ (CCT 4, 30a:8ff., translation as in Michel 1991 No. 47).

    The amount of examples for the passive variety of the AT ventive is not particularly impressive (note that attansak-am is a 1st p. sg. form), yet it seems wiser to keep these examples together rather than to discard them, because they suggest a pattern for interpreting some of the “problematical ventives” across which readers may come in their work. In OA the verb zakā!um in its intransitive meaning ‘to become free from specific claims or obligations’ (CAD Z 27) is very often (but not compulsorily) used with the AT ventive in both the Present and the Preterite. Consider the following example: 65

    attansak-am is N perf. of masāku (CAD N1 322). CAD glosses this N-verb as ‘to become bad, to receive blame.’ A second N perf. of masāku adduced in CAD also shows partial assimilation of [m]: at-ta-an-sa-ak ‘I have been blamed’ (TCL 18, 151:12).

    128

    Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies (54) ší-tí TÚG.ÚI.ti-kà 26 TÚG.ÚI.A iz-ku-ú-nimvent ‘Der Rest deiner Stoffe, 26 Stoffe, wurde verfügbarvent’ (Prag I 426:26).

    I assume that zakā!um in this sense is not a motion verb.66 Prag I 426 has three names of senders in its head, therefore an understanding of izkû-nim as ‘(the cloths) became available for us’ is difficult. The cloths belong to the addressee (šitti ´ubātī-ka), yet ‘(the cloths) became available for you’ most probably would be izkû-nikkum,67 as the following example shows: (55) i-za-kà KÙ.BABBAR ú lu-qú-tim i-pá-ni-im-ma a-li-ki-im ma-lá ´ú-batù ù AN.NA i-za-ku-a-ku-ni té-er-tí i-lá-kà-kum ‘With the next messenger a message of mine will come to you about how many garments and how much tin will be at your disposition at the time the silver and the merchandise are released’ (CCT 3, 13: 32–36, translation as in CAD Z 27b).68

    Thus the AT reading of the ventive in Prag I 426:26 is the only cogent solution. For more tokens of philologically reliable AT ventives on the finite forms of zakā!um, see e. g. AKT 3, 61:12; BIN 4, 29:20; CCT 2, 24:8; CCT 3, 26b:12, and cf. CAD Z 27b. The AT ventive on zakā!um in this meaning appears quite frequently, yet (as RB and AT ventives on most verbs) it is not obligatory. Consider the following example: (56) ší-ti ´ú-ba-ti-kà 92 TÚG … iz-ku-ú-ma i-ba-ší-ú ‘Le reste de tes étoffes, soit 92 étoffes … ont été dégagées et elles sont disponibles’ (ATHE 62:25ff., translation as in LAPO 19 No. 207).

    For the time being, it is of course best to posit the 1st p. sg. benefactive reading of the ventive on zakā!um if it cannot be excluded on independent grounds. This may be the case in the documents of personal bookkeeping, as in the following example: 66

    Dr. Kouwenberg informs me in a p. c. that ‘zakā!um in OA, when it means “to become available”, belongs to the “unspecified goal” cases,’ i. e. in his view the intransitive (+ vent) zakā!um is a motion verb whose ventive points to an implicit observer (cf. Kouwenberg 2002:204–206). I feel this is a very strong claim. 67 I posit a “full” form because in Kültepe texts ‘[d]ie Suff. der 2. Person werden fast immer mit dem Ventiv verbunden’ (GKT 131). 68 The boldfaced form is izakku-ak-kun-ni, 3 ms Pres. + -akkum + subj. Both grammatical subjects of this sentence are masculine nouns, the predicate in the singular may appear in such cases according to GKT § 116 b.

    S. Loesov, Marginalia on the Akkadian Ventive

    129

    (57) x KÙ.BABBAR iz-ku-am ‘x silver became available to me’ (BIN 4, 148:16f.).

    3. Discussion In this paper I suggest that the ventive may – – – –

    express the motion towards a “third person” goal on motion verbs (2.1);69 represent the non-1st p. sg. indirect object of “dative” verbs (2.2); function as a reflexive benefactive pronoun on transitive “takinghold-of ” verbs (2.3.1); be used as a marker of intransitivity and perfectivity on intransitive verbs (2.3.2).

    It is easy to see that the “canonical” functions of the ventive (allative marker pointing to the location of the speaker or addressee + the 1st p. sg. dative bound pronoun) are deictic, while all the functions of the ventive proposed in this paper are anaphoric. Under certain conditions (described in Kouwenberg 2002) the deictic ventive is the only (or the strongly preferred)70 filling of the respective obligatory valence slots. Thus the grammatical value of the deictic ventive is much higher than that of the anaphoric ventive, whose use (unless lexicalized) is optional in all its individual functions. The present writer has no fresh ideas on the diachronic source of the ventive morpheme and emergence of its allative—1st p. sg. dative polysemy in Akkadian. The only thing one can claim with confidence is that the -m showing up in all the allomorphs of the ventive has the same “nature” as the final -m of all the OB dative pronouns (and the OA sg. dative bound pronouns).71 This means that the -m of the dative sg. bound pronouns -kum / -kim and -šum / -šim arose independently of the ventive72 and has the same morphophonological status and historical origin as the ventive’s -m. This is proven by such OA forms as izakku-ak-kum vs. izakku69

    Following Landsberger and contra Kouwenberg. This reservation is introduced because a verb phrase (ana) yâšim iddin-Ø ‘he gave me’ is also acceptable. 71 Cf. von Soden 1988. 72 Contra Landsberger 1924:117: ‘Die «Dativsuffixe» der übrigen Personen entstehen durch Anfügung des Ventivexponenten an das pron. suff, also šu + m = šūm > šum, šī + m = šīm > šim’. 70

    130

    Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

    ak-kun-ni which exhibit the same unusual assimilation pattern of [m] as išpur-am vs. išpur-ak-kum, etc. The functions of the ventive discussed in this paper emerged in the following way. At a certain stage of linguistic evolution, the -am / -m / -nim morpheme had two meanings only: ‘hither’ (= ‘to where I am’) and ‘(to / for) me’ (= 1st p. sg. bound dative pronoun). Typologically, the evolution ‘hither’ > ‘(to / for) medat’ is trivial (cf. Plungian 2002:93). Yet both the early Semitic (or Sumero-Akkadian Sprachbund) life of what became the am / -m / -nim morpheme and the history of the dative pronouns in Akkadian are completely unknown to us, so we are better off if we do not manipulate with the two unknowns. At a later stage the allative ventive acquired the force of pointing to the location of the addressee of a speech event: thus, allak-am means ‘I will arrive at your place / at where you are.’ I believe that this obligatory spatial deictic projection developed in the milieu of written communication and hence is similar to the deictic projection of a tense value known as the epistolary Perfect (Loesov 2004): the variously translated form aštapram73 combines the two “projected” morphological values.74 Interestingly, the epistolary Perfect is used only with motion verbs (Loesov 2004a) and thus to some extent shares compatibility with the 2nd p. lative ventive.75 Note that the epistolary Perfect also seems to be obligatory in certain contexts, though this problem requires further study. At a further step in its semantic evolution, the ventive acquired the force of optionally pointing to a non-deictic landmark. In this function it copies an explicit goal argument: ana GN īrub-am ‘he enteredvent GN’ (§ 2.1). This is where the present study actually starts. The other three functions of the ventive described in this paper are semantic derivates of this anaphoric third-party goal ventive. The anaphoric ventive as the 3rd p. indirect object of “dative” verbs (x ana PNi ipqidū-nimi ‘they entrusted x to PN’) developed via the well-known directional → dative shift, which is similar to the universal semantic evolution of directive prepositions (cf. Akkadian ana or Aramaic l-). An intermediate diachronic link between the directional/“dative” usages of the ventive and its all-persons reflexive-benefactive function on transitive verbs (ilqe-am ‘hei took [it] for himselfi’) seems to be missing: a 73

    ‘I have sent you,’ ‘I will send you,’ ‘I herewith send you.’ Here we can see how writing influenced the Akkadian morphosyntax. 75 The epistolary Perfect is compatible mostly with the verbs of sending, while the 2nd p. ventive can be used with any motion verb. 74

    S. Loesov, Marginalia on the Akkadian Ventive

    131

    shift from the compulsory indirect object to the oblique non-core beneficiary is self-explaining,76 while the coreferentiality of the agent and beneficiary in the RB construction is a semantic feature not directly derivable from this construction’s precursors. The emergence of the “antitransitive” ventive on intransitive verbs (i¶liq-am ‘she fled,’ izku-am ‘it became available’) is also difficult to explain directly from the data gathered in this paper.77 The most likely diachronic source of i¶liq-am ‘she fled’ is ilqe-am ‘he took [it] for himself ’. Still, the RB construction is both transitive and volitional, while the AT construction is intransitive and may embrace inanimate or semantically passive subjects: eqlum šaqi-am ‘the field has been irrigated,’ lāma inawwir-am ‘before it gets light,’ izku-am ‘(x silver) became available.’ To explain this shift from the RB construction to AT construction, I propose the following speculative hypothesis. The ventive within the RB construction had been understood as an indirect reflexive marker on its own. As such it received a new function of an optional exponent of intransitivity on certain semantic classes of intransitive verbs, because reflexivity and intransitivity are semantically related (cf. Kouwenberg 2005 and the typological literature referred to in this study). This diachronic path may show partial parallels with the developments that led to the emergence of Spanish and Syriac intransitive constructions mentioned in the fn. 77. Yet a comparative analysis of the pedigrees of these constructions is beyond the scope of this article. Summing up, I propose the following route of semantic development for the Akkadian ventive in those of its functions that are not restricted to the 1st sg. personal deixis: ALLATIVE1 (‘hither’) → ALLATIVE2 (‘to where you are’) → NON-DEICTIC GOAL (→ NON-DEICTIC DATIVE) → RB → AT.

    Thus the function of the 1st sg. personal deixis ([‘for] medat’) stands quite by itself, it develops no further senses. References Edzard 2003 Finet 1956 76

    Edzard, D. O. Sumerian Grammar. Leiden–Boston. Finet, A. L’accadien des lettres de Mari. Gembloux.

    Cf. the syntactic functions of the ventive as an exponent of the 1st p. sg. bound pronoun (§ 1 above). 77 A weakened reflexive sense of this construction calls to mind perfective constructions of Spanish or Syriac intransitive verbs with reflexively used pronouns (me fui ‘I went away,’ sleq lrh ‘he ascended’).

    132 Gelb 1955 Goetze 1958 Hirsch 2001

    Hirsch 2002 Huehnergard 1997 Kogan 2006

    Kouwenberg 2002 Kouwenberg 2005 Landsberger 1924 Loesov 2004

    Loesov 2004a Macelaru 2003

    Metzler 2002 Michel 1991 Plungian 2002

    von Soden 1988

    Wiseman 1953

    Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies Gelb, I. J. Review of GAG1. BiOr 12:93–111. Goetze, A. Fifty Old Babylonian Letters from Harmal. Reprinted from Sumer XIV. Hirsch, H. “Ich schrieb mir doch”. W. H. van Soldt; J. G. Dercksen; T. J. H. Krispijn; N. J. C. Kouwenberg (eds.). Veenhof Anniversary Volume. Leuven. Pp. 181–191. Hirsch, H. Gilgamesch-Epos und Erra-Lied: zu einem Aspekt des Verbalsystems. Wien. Huehnergard, J. A Grammar of Akkadian. Atlanta. Kogan, L. Old Assyrian vs. Old Babylonian: The Lexical Dimension. G. Deutscher; N. J. C. Kouwenberg (eds.). The Akkadian Language in Its Semitic Context. Leiden. Pp. 177–214. Kouwenberg, N. J. C. Ventive, Dative and Allative in Old Babylonian. ZA 92:200–240. Kouwenberg, N. J. C. Reflections on the Gt-stem in Akkadian. ZA 95:77–103. Landsberger, B. Der «Ventiv» des Akkadischen. ZA 35: 113–123. Loesov, S. A Note on the Allative Ventive in Connection with N. J. C. Kouwenberg’s Contribution. B&B 1:349– 353. Loesov, S. T-Perfect in Old Babylonian: The Debate and a Thesis. B&B 1:83–181. Macelaru, A. Coding Location, Motion and Direction in Old Babylonian Akkadian. E. Shay; U. Seibert (eds.). Motion, Direction and Location in Languages. In Honor of Zigmund Frajzyngier. Amsterdam–Philadelphia. Pp. 189– 210. Metzler, K. A. Tempora in altbabylonischen literarischen Texten. Münster. Michel, C. Innāya dans les tablettes paléo-assyriennes. Paris. Плунгян, В. А. O specifike vyraženija imennyh prostranstvennyh harakteristik v glagole: kategorija glagol’noj orientacii. Issledovanija po teorii grammatiki. Vyp. 2. Grammatikalizacija prostranstvennyh značenij v jazykah mira. Moscow. Pp. 57–98 (The Category of Verb’s Spatial Orientation in the Languages of the World). von Soden, W. Sonderfälle bei der regressiven Assimilation. G. Mauer; U. Magen (eds.). Ad bene et fideliter seminandum. Festgabe für Karlheinz Deller zum 21. Februar 1987. Neukirchen-Vluyn. Pp. 271–277. Wiseman, D. J. The Alalakh Tablets. London.

    Akkadian Sentences about the Present Time (II/1)* Sergey Loesov Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow

    0. Introduction In the first part of this study (Loesov 2005) I have discussed sentences about the Present Time with finite predicates whose basic lexical meanings fall within the first three of the four traditional actionality classes, i. e. telic processes, atelic processes, and states. Logically, what remains to be considered is the fourth Vendlerian class, punctual verbs, i. e. the question is “What do verbs denoting punctual events contribute to coding the present-time semantic domain?” I mentioned in Loesov 2005:109 that punctual events, by definition, ‘do not cross the SpT (= speech time), they always happen before it or after it,’ yet they ‘can bring about stative situations continuing into the SpT and beyond it.’ Now, the traditional grammar of Akkadian pays attention mostly to resultative states in the technical “assyriological” sense of the term, cf. the examples in GAG 126: paris “ist entschieden,” tebi “ist aufgestanden = ist auf,” with appropriate comments, e. g. ‘[b]ei den transitiv-fientischen Verben … bezeichnet der St. den sich aus den Verbalhandlung ergebenden Zustand’ (ibid., italics added). These trivial resultatives are coded by the SC; the resultative states expressed by the SC of transitive verbs are believed to get typically (though not necessarily) a passive orientation (GAG ibid.).1 A closer look at the evidence shows that the genuinely resultative and passive meaning of the SC of punctual verbs is perhaps not that pervasive: the SC of a punctual verb does usually express a state, but not necessarily ‘den sich aus den Verbalhandlung ergebenden’ one, in case of * I thank N. J. C. Kouwenberg (Leiden University) for his stimulating discussion of the first part of this study. I am also grateful to I. Arkhipoff (Collège de France, Chaire d’Assyriologie), who has provided me with some research materials unavailable in Moscow. My thanks go to RFH for its financial support (project No. 06-04-00397). 1 Cf. a very radical conclusion in Cohen 1984: 265: ‘C’est à cela que se réduit l’exercice de la diathèse dans le stative: la valeur moyenne occasionnelle émanant d’un certain nombre de verbes par opposition à la valeur passive normale.’

    134

    Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

    transitive verbs probably not typically a “passive” (i. e. patient-oriented) state. The ways in which the SC of different semantic types of verbs can contribute to the Present Time sense are not usually discussed in any detail, yet the translation practice makes it clear that in certain cases this semantic option is simply taken for granted.2 Sure enough, the SC does not have a morphologically inbuilt temporal meaning,3 yet in the deictic discourse (i. e. especially in letters, legal documents, and divination texts) the SC often denotes situations contemporaneous with the speech time. I do accept (perhaps with minor reservations) the scholarly opinion succinctly expressed by Kouwenberg (1997:14) in his criticism of Goetze 1942: ‘[T]he distinction which Goetze makes between three types of statives reflects a semantic distinction between different types of verbs which has no grammatical relevance for Akkadian. From the point of view of Akkadian, the stative has a completely uniform grammatical function, namely, to denote a state, i. e., the absence of any action or change. All differences between individual statives … are determined by the lexical meaning of the verb and by the context.’4 A similar theoretical position is taken by D. Cohen, who claims that ‘[l]a voix dans le statif est un pur fait de context’ (Cohen 1984:257). Thus, morphologically the SC bases express only the stative sense (as opposed to dynamic), while, as I will try to show, the values of voice, tense, and aspect are expressed via different kinds of interplay between the morphological meaning of the SC, lexical semantics of verbs, and their syntactic properties; so Kouwenberg’s claim about “no grammatical relevance” of semantic distinctions might be too strong. 2

    Cf. also Cohen 1984:265: ‘Le statif en tant que tel implique la durée; il représent le procès dans l’état qui en résulte’. Metzler 2002 discusses in much detail the use of the SC to code the Present Time meaning in divination texts. 3 It is a good question whether the other finite forms do, as the history of research shows. 4 Goetze 1942:5 singles out ‘three sub-groups of Akkadian statives’: ‘(1) the durative stative. It denotes an inherent quality of a person or a thing’. A prototypical example is ¢āb “is good.” ‘(2) The perfect stative. It denotes a condition which results from the subject’s own action with reference to a person or a thing.’ A prototypical example is ´abit “possesses,” i. e. a transitive active token of the SC. ‘(3) The passive stative. It denotes a state of affairs which results from another person’s action’. A prototypical example is ´abit “(is) held.”

    S. Loesov, Akkadian Sentences about the Present Time (II/1)

    135

    Consider the following two sets of paradigmatic relationships involving the selfsame verb nadûm (OB) / nadā’um (OA), whose most basic meaning is a punctual one ‘to throw (down)’: (1) . a. a¶am ul addiPret ‘I did not get careless’/ ‘I was not careless’ b. a¶am ul nadiākuSC ‘I am not careless’ c. a¶am ul anaddiPres ‘I will not get careless’ / ‘I will not be careless.’5

    The sentence a¶am ul nadiāku is semantically stative, but it is neither passive nor resultative, because its predicate is intransitive, although it has a surface direct object. Within the deictic discourse, the paradigm (1) codes pure temporal values of absolute past/present/future, while in (1a) and (1c) no information of aspectual nature is provided. (2) . a. kaspam addiPret ‘I deposited silver’ b. kaspam attidiPf ‘I have deposited silver’ c. kaspam nad’ākuSC ‘I have the silver deposited’ d. kaspam anaddiPres ‘I will deposit silver.’6

    All four members of (2) are transitive and active, while (2c) is also perfect-resultative, i. e. in a sense definitely less transitive than (2a) and (2d). The important thing is that the morphological differences between predicates of (2a), (2b), and (2c) do not have much to do with the coding of temporal meanings—unlike in (1) —because all three sentences can refer to the same real-life fact lying in the speaker’s past, although they interpret this fact differently. The choice of form in (2a–c) is most probably guided by pragmatic concerns of the respective speakers, although it may be difficult for us to grasp with certainty the exact message of this morphological variation.

    5

    For textual references in OB, see CAD N1 92. This paradigm is based primarily on the OA evidence: see CAD N1 84f., AHw. 707a. An additional token of the Pres. is in Hecker 1966 No. 29:21: qātam ša abika a-na-dí ‘I will deposit your father’s share’; the examples of the Pf. (which I miss in the entry nadû of the dictionaries) are 2 TÚG šu-ri-in ša a-ni-kà-sí té-zi-ba-ni lá a-tí-dí-i ‘I have not deposited the two šūru-textiles which you left me for the accounting’ (BIN 4, 51:26f.) and i-na na x x a-na-ku-ma i-na ra-mì-ni-a a-tí-dí ‘Au …, j’ai déposé de mon (proper) compte’ (ATHE 61:24f., translation according to Ichisar 1981:264). A very similar expression (but without an overt semantic object) is attested in OB: kīma ana nikkassim lā na-di-a-ak-kum ina ¢uppika-ma annîm amur ‘Look in this tablet of yourself to see that I have charged nothing to your account’ (AbB 14, 139:6ff., Veenhof ’s translation); another possible OB example is (with CAD N1 85b) x kaspam it-ta-di-i (AbB 6, 200:9). 6

    136

    Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

    Thus, a¶am ul nadiākuSC has a present-time reading in the way kaspam nad’ākuSC does not. Against what the essentially resultative definition of the SC of transitive verbs would predict, the SC of high transitivity verbs is not the most common variety of the SC in text. Therefore, for the purposes of the present study, it is important to get an overview of (both resultative and nonresultative) states contemporaneous with the speech time, whatever the semantic type of the verb and its morphological form, i. e. the Pres. or SC as the case may be.7 I will first present data on the SC of a few frequent high transitivity verbs in OB and OA. The data are drawn from the dictionaries and searchable corpora of OB and OA texts.8 It turns out that the higher is the transitivity degree of a verb (or, more precisely, of an individual meaning of a verb), the rarer is this verb’s SC. Consider the following examples, arranged alphabetically: (3) dâkum ‘to kill; beat’: the SC is attested once in OB letters outside of Mari, AbB 13, 181:31f. ina mit¶uri 1 DUMU nu-kárki di-i-ik ‘one man from Nukar has been killed in the clash’; CAD D 36b (1959) has a few examples from early ARM volumes. (4) ekēmum ‘to take away (by force)’. Within the corpus, the SC was found only as a technical term of OB extispicy ‘is stunted’ (see CAD E 67–68). (5) ¶epûm ‘to smash, destroy (an object),’ ‘to break (a tablet),’ ‘to invalidate (a document)’. I have found only one OB token of the SC with a clear-cut “physical” sense: ermum ša ¢uppi ¶i-pí-ma ¢uppaša išrumū ‘the case of the tablet was (already) broken/had broken down, so they pulled her tablet off’ (RA 9 22:22f.).9 All the remaining OB examples have the legal sense ‘is invalid,’ as the following texts illustrate: umma šū-ma ištu-ma ´ibtū i-ša-ás-su-ú ¢uppa-šu ¶i-pí ‘Und dann hat er folgendermaßen gesagt “Da

    7 The traditional grammar of Akkadian uses the clumsy notion of “prefixing statives,” e. g. izzaz ‘stands’ and ukâl ‘holds.’ The very existence of this notion betrays a not thought-through awareness that lexical semantics may override morphology. By the same token, the “prefixing statives” show that the Pres. can be (or sometimes looks) no less “stative” than the SC. 8 I do not discuss the evidence of later dialects available in the dictionaries. They would have to be studied on their own. One has especially to beware of using SB data along with OB ones, since SB is an artificial literary language not immediately based on a contemporary vernacular. 9 Note that in this example the broken envelope is physically present at the moment of observation.

    S. Loesov, Akkadian Sentences about the Present Time (II/1)

    137

    man doch «Zinsen» liest, ist seine Urkunde ungültig” ’ (AbB 2, 173:10–13); aššum šarrum mīš[aram] ana mātim iškunu ¢uppašu ¶i-pí ‘Since the king has promulgated the redress for the land, his10 tablet is void’ (Kraus 1958 § 2′:13′ff.). (6) ma¶ā´um ‘to hit, to wound, to kill, to strike’: In OB and OA the SC of this verb is not used for those of its senses that imply destruction of the object, loss of its identity. The following ones are the most “destructive” contexts for the SC of this verb found in OB: atānu u imēru ša e´em´ēršu ma-a¶-´ú uštazziqū-ninni ‘Die Eselin und der Esel, dessen Rückgrat verletzt ist, verursachen mir Sorgen’ (AbB 2, 177:8f.); u eleppum ša bēlum kīma m[a-a]¶-´a-at-ma immerī ul ušarkib ‘Since my lord’s boat is damaged, I did not load the sheep aboard’ (AbB 12, 96:18f.).11 On the contrary, the SC of mahā´um is quite frequent in a number of specialized “milder” meanings. Thus, it is attested within the legal expression sikkatam ma¶ā´um ‘to drive in a (marking) peg,’12 e. g. bītum annûm ibbaqqar-ma ina ālišu u ´ērišu sikkatum (GIŠ.KAK) ma¶-´a-at ‘should this house be claimed, there is a peg (which serves as guarantee) driven (into his property) in his town and country’ (MDP 23, 236:12, text according to CAD S 250b, cf. M1 76b and Salonen 1962:56). The SC of ma¶ā´um is used as a technical term in OB extispicy reports: šumēl ubānim šuqqu-ma ma-¶i-i´ ‘the left of the finger is high but flat’ (YOS 10 7:15 and 27, text and translation according to CAD M1 77b). In OA šīmum ma¶i´ means ‘the price is reduced (lit. ‘cut’),’ while ma¶´āku is ‘I have suffered a financial loss’ (cf. CAD M1 78b, 3 d ‘to cut prices, give a discount’). The SC is attested within the expression (eqlam) mayyārī/mayyāram ma¶ā´um ‘to plough (a field),’ e. g. (a field) mayyārī ma-¶i-i´ ‘has been ploughed’ (AbB 3, 50:28), cf. AbB 9, 243:8; 10, 93:7′. (7) mašā’um ‘to take away by force, to rob a person.’ The SC is to the best of my knowledge not attested in OB; I have found three tokens of maš’āku ‘I am/was robbed’ in OA (TCL 4, 13:24; Oxf. 1933, 1050:31, for which see CAD M1 361b; Prag I 431:7). Prag I 431:7 is quoted as (54b) in Loesov 2005: maš’ākuSC-ma allik-am ‘I was robbedSC, and then I came here.’ This usage of the SC in the syntactic slot of a Pret. is rather exceptional (Loesov 2005:133) and requires a special study. 10

    I. e. the owner’s. Van Soldt translates ‘was smashed,’ but in view of my observations on the SC of mahā´um this interpretation is perhaps too “strong.” 12 Cf. CAD M1 76b: the phrase is well known in OB, the SC is amply attested in OB Susa. 11

    138

    Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies (8) naqārum ‘to tear down, destroy’: the SC is not attested. (9) nêrum ‘to strike, kill’: the SC is not attested. (10) šagāšum ‘to kill, slaughter’: only one token of the SC is recorded in CAD (Š1 68a): ina šazzuztim ina qātišu ša-ak-ša-ku ‘for lack of a representative I am (financially) ruined by his action’ (unpubl. OA letter). Note that the verb is used here in a non-literal sense.

    The SC of certain frequent one-place verbs with highly dynamic meanings is also underrepresented, as the following example illustrates: (11) maqātum ‘to fall down, collapse.’ The prefixed tenses of this verb are amply attested in OB in OA letters, as well as in OB laws, omina, and epic texts, yet the patient-oriented SC is not eagerly built for its admittedly basic meaning used above as a gloss. The only example I was able to find comes from OA: ašamme-ma urkat bētim ma-qí-it ‘Ich höre, daß die Rückseite des Hauses eingestürzt ist’ (Prag I 577:4f.). Yet the SC (along with the prefixed forms) is productive for the derived meanings ‘to fall into somebody’s hands,’ ‘to fall to one’s share,’ ‘to arrive’ (CAD M1 245ff.), with the “moving” participant as the syntactic subject. This usage is well known in Kültepe (cf. the references in CAD M1 247a, and see additionally Prag I 739:9; 843:2″; AKT 3, 114:18; CCT 3, 16b:16). I have found only one token of the SC of maqātum in OB letters, again in a derived meaning: ša … ma-aq-tu ‘those who … have arrived’ (AbB 6, 109: 9f.). The SC of maqātum is attested in OB extispicy texts in the meaning ‘hangs down, descends’ (see CAD M1 244).

    Trying to make sense of this kind of evidence, I suggest that patientoriented tokens of the SC are really common only if the referent of the patient is somehow available (or “observable”) at the reference time, which in letters usually coincides with the speech time. It is for this reason that e. g. the SC of šakākum ‘to harrow’ is much more frequent in text than that of dâkum ‘to kill,’ not because in real life harrowing is more common or salient than killing. This hypothesis would explain why the SC of the verbs which are highest on the ‘cline’ of Transitivity (in the sense of Hopper–Thompson 1980) is relatively rare. In OB and OA there is a group of intransitive telic and punctual motion verbs13 whose SC is not well attested or not attested at all. This group

    13 The distinction between the telic and punctual may of course be a matter of a language-specific conceptualization, cf. the discussion of OA muātum ‘to die’ in Loesov 2005.

    S. Loesov, Akkadian Sentences about the Present Time (II/1)

    139

    includes inter alia such common verbs as tebûm ‘to get up,’ wa´ûm ‘to go out,’ târum ‘to return,’ erēbum ‘to enter.’ This fact also requires explanation. In what follows I will briefly review the evidence: (12) In OB the SC of tebûm seems to appear only once, in an epic narrative: U4 u 7 mušiātim den-[ki-du10 t]e-bi-i-ma ša-[am-kata]m ir¶i ‘For seven days and seven nights Enkidu was erectSC and coupled with Šamkatum’ (Gilg. P 48ff., George 2003: 174f.). (13) The SC of wa´ûm is attested twice in AbB 1–14: ¢uppāt šīmātim ša A.ŠÀ É u GIŠ.SAR išmū-ma ša ina mīšari wa-´i-a u¶eppû ‘(The judges) ließen sich die Kaufurkunden betreffend Felder, Häuser und Gärten vorlesen und zerbrachen diejenigen, welche infolge der “gerechten Ordnung” annulliert warensc’ (AbB 7, 153:8f.);14 awīlû ul wa-´ú-ú lā tušadda-šunūti ‘The men are not (yet) gone. Do not prevent them (from leaving)!’ (AbB 8, 87:10f.). The SC forms wa-´í and wa-´í-a-at in CH (§ 142 30:70; § 143 31:7) are doubtless denominative from the pāris- base: u mussa wā´i-ma ‘and (if) her husband is a wayward person,’ šumma … wā´iat ‘if she is a wayward (wife)’.15 More interesting for our study are the relatively numerous SC tokens of wa´ûm in OB omina. Consider the following example: ištu libbi pīšu qaqqassu šanûm wa-´i ‘a second head protrudes from its (the anomaly’s) mouth’ (YOS 10, 56 I 36, translation according to CAD A2 367b).16 The meaning of wa´i in extispicy texts is more stative or “descriptive” than strictly speaking resultative. This follows from the fact that a very similar sense can be expressed by the Pres. of the same verb: É.DÙ.A … ana ribīt DN u´-´í ‘a house with an exit to the DN street’ (TCL 1 196:3, translation according to CAD R 318a); bīt sēbîm u bīt ma¶īrātim ša ina ribītim ša Sippar u´-´a ‘an inn and market-stalls which exit on the main street of Sippar’ (Scheil 1902, 10:20, text and translation according to CAD R 318a, and see more examples of the same usage of the Pres. ibid.). In extispicy 14

    According to the Edition’s commentary to this non-literal rendering, wa´iā actually has to refer to the realty items mentioned in this text: they ‘were gone out,’ i. e. returned to their former owners as a result of mīšarum. 15 Cf. AHw. 1475a s. v. (w)ā´ītum: “6) aB Bez. einer (aushäusigen?) Frau: mílútílla = wa-´i-i-tum MSL 12, 158, 26 || 177, 29 nach wā´ûm 1c”; AHw. 1480b s. v. (w)ā´ûm: “1c) aushäusig? aB LL: lú-tílla = wa-´ú-ú/um MSL 12, 158, 25 || 177, 28 vor wā´ītum 6”. CAD A2 360a considers the possibility of the parris- base, but this is orthographically less likely. 16 Cf. also YOS 10, 56 I 34; III 25. See CAD A2 367–368 and AHw. 1477b for examples in other OB omina compendia.

    140

    Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies omina, the last predicate of the protases written ú-´i/ZI may stand for the Pres. or the Pret.: šumma sippi šumēl bāb [ekallum šīlum iplušma ana ….] ú-´i ‘If [a rent pierces] the wing on the left side of the [palace] gate and comes out (it is an omen of Būr-Sîn)’ (YOS 10, 26 II 52, text and translation according to Goetze 1947:261, where the restoration is justified); šumma martum (EŠ) šīrum appam im-ši-ma rēssa ipluš-ma ú-´í ‘Wenn Gewebe die Spitze der Gallenblase verbirgt (?), ihr “Kopf ” sich aber hindurchbohrt und heraustritt (Leberomen Šarrukīn’s)’ (Riemschneider 1965, 130:16).17 (14) erēbum ‘to enter, to return, to arrive’: the SC does not seem to be attested in the corpus, though the verb is definitely telic and perhaps punctual in some of its readings. It is well known that târum ‘to return’ has no SC.18

    The reason why these motion verbs make no or little use of the SC may be that the respective situations of movement (even târum ‘to return’ with its inbuilt endpoint) form no pragmatically salient (or “visible”) resultative phases. Inspection of the liver of sacrificial animals and similar still objects is an exceptional case in which a visually observed “picture” is all that matters; therefore a present-time wa´i is used in these texts to code situations simultaneous with the moment of observation. 1. An analysis of an OB verbs list In view of these facts, it is important to get exact data on what kinds of verbs build the SC most and least often and to look at the grammatical sensitivity of the SC tokens belonging to different semantic fields. It was difficult to take care at once of all the verbs attested in OB and OA, therefore I decided to limit the study lexically to some 130 common OB verbs which I selected from the glossary of Huehnergard 1997 according to the criterion of their frequency; I chose AbB 1–14, minor published OB collections (e. g. AS 22, ABIM and Goetze 1958), and part of the OB Mari letters (mostly ARM 1–6 and 10) as the main corpus, using other data (both OB and OA) only if they look important in one way or another. The rationale of this choice is an attempt to concentrate (as much as our sources allow) on everyday verbs and meanings, excluding (or singling 17

    Metzler 2002 provides examples of extispicy protases wherein both the Pret. and the Pres. appear as the last predicates preceded by Preterites (cf. p. 66ff., 162). 18 The motion verb wârum does not build the SC either, yet its basic meaning may be an atelic one ‘to advance.’ This question will be discussed in due course below. Note that according to GAG 126f. alākum is also basically atelic.

    S. Loesov, Akkadian Sentences about the Present Time (II/1)

    141

    out as such) technical usages of law, administration, commerce, divination, and other practices that are associated with special lexical and in certain cases grammatical features. This decision led to the exclusion of certain well-known verbs that are hardly quotidian in OB letters, as e. g. banûm ‘to form,’ re¶ûm ‘to copulate,’ and sapā¶um ‘to scatter.’ Verbs that are suspected to picture the respective situations as atelic processes (cf. GAG 126 f and Loesov 2005:136–142) are included in the list mostly if they do build the SC, i. e. deviate from the assumed rule of thumb. Thus, amārum ‘to see,’ alākum ‘to go, move along, walk,’ kullum ‘to hold’ are not considered, since it is well known that their SC is either unattested or shows up very rarely and in non-trivial senses. “Prefixing statives,” among which there are basic lexical items ibašši, izzaz, īšu, and īde, are of course not included. The entries are arranged alphabetically by roots, the glosses serve only for orientation. P stands for “contextually passive meaning,” A stands for “contextually active meaning,” trans. = “transitive use.” Frequency evaluations are common-sense and somewhat impressionistic: “rare” usually means ‘one to five tokens’ if the verb in question is very common in OB,19 “frequent” means ‘ten tokens or more,’ “common” stands for a higher frequency than “frequent.” Wherever textual references are easily supplied from the dictionaries, they may be adduced very selectively. I record the availability and basic meanings of deverbal nomina that display the morphological pattern of the “verbal adjective” (VA). The symbol ↓ introduces occasional comments that anticipate the analysis of the entire evidence in the discussion chapter, to be published in a future issue of B&B along with the second part of this list. (1) agārum ‘to hire.’ No SC; VA subst. agrum ‘hireling.’ (2) a¶āzum ‘to seize.’ SC A trans. is rare, only within the phrase ‘to have wife’ AbB 3, 2:11; 9, 15:21; CH § 166:67. No VA. (3) šū¶uzum ‘to make hold.’ SC is attested only within two idiomatic expressions: P PN šū¶uz ‘PN is liable’ OB Susa s. CAD A1 182 f; A ‘PN has a claim’ ana/ina AbB 1, 74:12, 16; s. CAD A1 182 g; with acc. AS 22 No. 26:10.20 No VA.

    19 Informally, “common” usually means that CAD has a sub-entry (or subentries) for OB letters and documents with dozens of attestations. 20 Whiting offers a different interpretation, which is perhaps less cogent.

    142

    Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies (4) akālum ‘to eat; to have usufruct of.’ SC A ‘receives victuals’ is rare in OB: [in]a mimma annîm [a]k-la-ku ‘I am entitled to the use of all this’ (AS 22 No. 26:5); frequent in OA: [u]šbat ak-lá-at u paššat ‘she shall live, eat and be anointed’ (Albayrak 2004, 12:14f.);21 emārū (lū) ak-lu ‘(let) the donkeys get fodder’ Prag I 718:25; BIN 6, 71:13′; 121:17; ATHE 46:18, 23. VA aklum ‘eaten, consumed.’ ↓ In OB letters and legal documents, the common vehicle of this sense is the Pres., e. g. eqlam … i-ik-ka-al ‘he supports himself with this field’ (AbB 4, 79:19, and passim in Hammurapi-letters). (5) apālum ‘to answer; to pay.’ SC is rare. P kaspam a-pí-il ‘he was paid the money’ (JCS 11 106 No. 1:12); a-pil he has been paid (Wiseman 1953 No. 8:17); A šumma 2 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR lā a-pí-il ‘if … 2 shekels silver do not constitute a satisfactory payment’ (AbB 10, 122:18f.); ina mimma ša īšû … PN a-pi-il ‘he is liable to PN (the creditor) with everything he owns’ (MDP 24, 345:6–10, OB Susa); s. CAD A2 157b. VA aplum ‘late.’ (6) b/wabālu ‘to bring, to carry.’ No SC, no VA. (7) balā¢um ‘to live.’ SC ‘is/will be alive,’ frequent and productive for all three persons. VA bal¢um ‘living, alive.’ ↓ SC is probably semantically deadjectival. (8) baqārum ‘to claim.’ SC is rare. P kunukkātkunu ba-aq-ra kunuk mannim-mi imma¶¶ar ‘(if) your seals are contested, whose seals can be acceptable?’ (AbB 11, 90:28f.); ba-aq-ra-ku ‘je suis l’objet d’accusations’ (ARM 28, 63:33). A ba-aq-ra-ta ‘You claim (a garden)’ (ABIM 8:4); ša PN ba-aq-ru-šu ‘(a field) that PN claims’ (AbB 8, 3:6), cf. AbB 4, 60:6; VA baqrum subst. ‘claim.’ ↓ Note A.ŠÀ PN la ba-aq-ra-ku-ma ‘I do not claim the field of PN!’ (cited from a manuscript in CAD P 131a, no translation): this sentence looks like a legally binding “performative” statement. (9) burrum ‘to prove.’ SC P ‘has been convicted/established’ is frequent in OB, cf. e. g. YOS 8, 159:6; TCL 11, 245:34; PBS 5, 100 IV 11; AbB 2, 172:4; 14, 34:3′; 74:22. (10) batāqum ‘to cut off.’ SC P is rare in OB, cf. AbB 5, 273:3′. VA batqum ‘poor’; ‘low’ (said of price).

    21

    I thank Dr. Kouwenberg for alerting me about this example.

    S. Loesov, Akkadian Sentences about the Present Time (II/1) ↓ VA is often used “in the Stative” in OA, e. g. šumma šīmum ammakam ba-tí-iq ‘if prices are low there’ (BIN 4, 12:23), cf. also the adverbial use of the VA in the “absolute form” within the OA idiom batiq wattur ‘at any price’ (CAD B 166b) (11) damāqum ‘to be good.’ SC is semantically deadjectival; a quasi-adverbial damiq ‘is good/OK’ is attested in AbB some 15 times, cf. e. g. da-mi-iq ša ana PN tašpurī ‘What you wrote to PN is just fine!’ (AbB 12, 87: 6f.). Other 3rd person forms, agreeing with their nominal subjects in number and gender, are very rare; cf. šunātūya madiš da-am-qáSC 3fp ‘my dreams are very good’ (AbB 11, 17:24f.). The forms of the 1st and 2nd persons are not attested. ↓ Note a syntactically unusual OA token da-am-qá-ni-ku-um ‘les choses vont bien pour toi!’ (CCT 3, 8b:26; translation after LAPO 19, 260). (12) danānum ‘to be strong.’ The semantically deadjectival SC is attested no less than ten times in AbB, it is also frequent in Mari. Only 3rd person forms are used, they mostly have a lexicalized meaning ‘is/are hard,’ cf. e. g. awâtum da-an-na ‘the situation is serious’ (AbB 9, 83:26). (13) egûm ‘to be careless.’ No SC. VA subst. egû ‘negligent person’ in SB lex. (14) ekēmum ‘to take away.’ SC is used as a technical term ‘is stunted, atrophied’ in OB extispicy (see No. 4 in the Introduction); VA SB eqmu ‘taken away,’ rare. (15) elûm ‘to go up.’ No SC. VA elûm ‘high’; from OAkk on. ↓ In OB ext. protases the prefixing tenses rather than the SC are used in the descriptive sense (s. CAD E 120 2′), same in math. texts (s. CAD E 120 6′). Kouwenberg 1998:183 suggests that elûm ‘is both a stative verb with the meaning “to be/become high” …, and a fientive verb “to go up”.’ Why then no SC? (16) emēdum ‘to lean against; impose.’ SC P is rare: DUMU.MEŠ PN ša elišu īšû anāku-ma e-em-de-e-ku ‘I have been charged with the debt which he owes to the sons of PN’ (AbB 6, 70:19ff.). VA emdu ‘auferlegt’ jB (AHw. 221a). (17) epēšum ‘to do.’ Resultative SC P is rare in OB letters: awātum šī kī ep-še-et ‘(send a word) on how it has been done’ (AbB 13, 122:2′), cf. AbB 8, 112:22; 3, 65:3; VA epšum ‘made, built.’

    143

    144

    Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies ↓ For OB lemniš epšēku / OA lamniš epšāku ‘I am treated badly’ as denoting a present-time habitual situation s. Loesov 2005:138. (18) erēbum ‘enter.’ SC is not attested. VA subst. erbum ‘income.’ (19) erēšum ‘to cultivate (a field).’ SC P: šumma A.ŠÀ šaddagdam lā e-ri-iš-ma nadi ‘Wenn das Feld im vorigen Jahre nicht bestellt worden ist und brachliegt’ (AbB 2, 92:15f.); A.ŠÀ ša rabîm e-ri-iš ū nadi ‘(send me word, whether) the field of the noble is cultivated or lies fallow’ (Goetze 1958 No. 10:6f.); cf. also AbB 13, 64:24; 6, 114:24. SC A: PN MU 5.KAM e-ri-iš ‘PN had cultivated (the field) for five years (and then PN2 took it by force)’ (AbB 4, 160:27′); [išt]u MU 10.KAM PN eqlam šuāti e-ri-iš ‘PN has cultivated this field for ten years’ (AbB 3, 93:11′–14′); VA eršum ‘drilled’; subst. ‘drilled field.’ ↓ P tokens are frequent, unlike the A ones. (20) esē¶um ‘to assign.’ SC P: ERÍN.ÚI.A ša es-¶a-am ‘the workers that have been assigned to me’ (AbB 14, 167:7); cf. also AbB 4, 11:17; 35:7, 13; 5, 136:6; 6, 6:10; 7, 110:17; ARM 2, 39:48. All the attestations known to the present author are referred to. VA? subst. is¶u ‘allocation’ post-OB. (21) etēqum ‘to pass along.’ No SC in OB letters. OB ext. texts use the prefixing tenses (s. CAD E 289 d); an exception is perhaps kunukkum imittam ete-eq ‘processus? extends to the right’ (YOS 10, 8:20, s. CAD ibid.). No VA. (22) ezēbum ‘to leave.’ SC P is rare: ša ana šiprūtim iz-bu-ni-ki-im ‘(as to the bronze utensils) which have been left to you as a pledge’ (AbB 2, 93: 7); ¶īšam ša ana šītat kaspim iz-bu-ši īrišūšima ‘they asked her (to produce) the binding agreement which had been made in her favor for the remainder of the money’ (TCL 1, 157:34, a legal doc. quoted according to CAD E 422b); cf. also MHET 2/6, 882:17. No VA in OB, unless izbum ‘misbirth’ is counted as a subst. VA. (23) gamārum ‘to bring/come to an end.’ SC P (or anticausative) is frequent in letters, e. g. ¢ēm eqlim ša awâtūšu lā ga-am-ra ‘news concerning the field over which the negotiations have not been concluded’ (AbB 12, 18:13); and often with awâtum as subject, e. g. awâtum ga-am-ra ‘der Prozeß ist beendet’ (AbB 5, 213:29). SC A is frequent within the legal phrase zīzū gamrū ‘they have divided everything,’ e. g.

    S. Loesov, Akkadian Sentences about the Present Time (II/1)

    145

    TCL 1, 196:7, and passim in MHET 2, parts 2 and 3, often with a direct object whose referent is a piece of real estate (e. g. MHET 2/2, 226:1–5). (24) ¶abālum ‘to harm, wrong.’ SC P is frequent in letters, e. g. A.ŠÀ-šu ù GIŠ.SAR-šu ¶a-bi-il ‘he has been unjustly deprived of his field and orchard’ (AbB 13, 43:20); ¶a-ab-la-a-ku (AbB 10, 181:14f.). SC A: ¶a-ab-la-anni-a-ti ‘(PN) has wronged us’ (AbB 2, 74:12); É ¶a-ab-la-an-ni ‘he has unlawfully deprived me of my house’ (AbB 2, 111:13). A is also frequent. VA adj. and subst. ‘wronged (person).’ (25) ¶abātum ‘to rob.’ SC P is frequent in letters, e. g. ¶a-ab-ta-a-ku ‘I have been robbed’ (AbB 10, 81:6′); ¶a-ab-ta-ku issi ‘She cried: “I am being stolen!” ’ (AbB 1, 27:17);22 ana mīnim ¶a-bi-it ‘Why is he being robbed?’ (AS 22, 24:12f.). (26) ¶alāqum ‘to disappear.’ SC intrans. ‘has disappeared’ is well attested in letters, Laws of Ešnunna and CH. There are no less than ten tokens in AbB 1–14, e. g. PN ¶a-li-iq-ma ina GN … wašib ‘PN has left (the ranks) and stays … in GN’ (AbB 6, 171:6–10). VA ¶alqum ‘lost; fugitive.’ (27) ¶ašā¶um ‘to desire, need.’ SC A trans. ‘Xpers needs Yacc’ is common in letters; there are no less than 15 tokens in AbB 1–14, e. g. ¶a-aš-¶a-ku ‘I need (baked bricks)’ (AbB 12, 23:5). VA ¶aš¶um ‘one who needs, needy.’ ↓ See further Loesov 2005:137f. for some examples and discussion of the relationship between the present-time SC and the Pres. of this verb. Note that no P token ‘is needed’ seems to be attested. (28) ¶epûm ‘to smash, destroy.’ SC P is rare, ¶epi usually appears with a technical legal meaning ‘(a document) is invalid,’ see discussion under No. 5 in the Introduction. VA ¶epûm ‘broken.’ (29) ¶erûm ‘to dig.’ SC P is rare: itte¶ri … ul ¶i-ri-a-at ‘(one canal) has been dug, (the other canal) has not been dug’ (AbB 2, 5:4f). VA ¶erûm ‘excavated.’ 22

    The comparison of the ways the direct speech is introduced in these two passages shows that the “active-voice” translation of Kraus in AbB 1, 27 ‘(die Sklavin) habe ich mit Gewalt bemeistert’ is wrong. It is the slave-girl who speaks. There is some chance that here the SC ¶abtāku renders the ongoing present: in Loesov 2005 I tried to show that in certain cases the SC may express this meaning.

    146

    Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies (30) kabātum ‘to be heavy, important.’ SC is semantically deadjectival; in OB letters it appears mostly within the phrase qaqqad-ī/-ka kabit ‘I am honoured / you are honoured’ (e. g. AbB 3, 22:31; 7, 138:19); cf. also še’um ina bītim ka-bi-it ‘there is enough barley in the house’ (AbB 8: 148, 10); maru´ ka-bi-it ‘he is seriously ill’ (Goetze 1958 No. 43:16). VA kabtum ‘heavy; important.’ (31) kalûm ‘to hold, detain.’ SC with P, A and intr. readings is common in letters, e. g. ¢uppam ana PN šūbilam-ma anāku annikīam lā ka-li-a-[ku] ‘send a letter to PN so that I am not detained here (anymore)!’ (AbB 7, 4:18); ana šītātim nipūssu ka-li-a-at ‘there is a person kept as his pledge for the rest (of the barley)’ (AbB 6, 208:7f.); ištu U4 5.KAM LÚ. MEŠ ka-li-ku ‘I have been detaining (these) men for five days (here)’ (ARM 2, 133:9f.); inūma anāku ina dannatim ša bēliya ka-li-a-ku redû bītī imašša’ū ‘While I stay (or ‘am detained’) in the fortress of my lord, soldiers pillage my household’ (AbB 8, 18:7); ištu annikīam ka-li-a-ku 3 GÍN KÙ. BABBAR … leqeāku ‘since I stay here, I have received … three shekels silver’ (Goetze 1958 No. 13:21–25; the context of the letter and the archive unambiguously suggests the intr. reading). VA kalû ‘held back, detained’ M/NB. ↓ The Pres. is used along with the SC to render the A sense, see Loesov 2005:141. (32) kamāsum ‘to gather, bring in, complete, collect, assemble.’ SC P is attested some ten times in AbB, mostly in agricultural contexts, e. g. ina erēšim ka-mi-is ‘(das Feld ist) fertig bestellt’ (AbB 5, 212:9); ina zarêm ka-mi-is ‘the winnowing (of the barley of PN) is finished’ (AbB 12, 31:4). Note also a descriptive usage in ext.: šumma izbum qaqqassu ana ¶allišu ka-mi-is (YOS 10, 56 II 31). No VA. (33) kanākum ‘to seal.’ SC P is attested some ten times in AbB and well represented in other OB epistolary corpora. Its meaning is either literal ‘is/was sealed’ (e. g. AbB 7, 161:4) or bureaucratic ‘(a field) is/was assigned (to s. o.)’ (e. g. AbB 4, 79:17). VA kankum ‘sealed.’ (34) kunnukum ≈ kanākum. SC P found once: ša ku-un-nu-ku ‘(das Haus), das versiegelt ist’ (AbB 4, 146:7). No VA. (35) kânum ‘to be firm, true.’ Deadjectival SC is rare in OB letters: awâtūšunu ki-na ū sarrā mannum lū īde ‘who knows whether their words are true or false?’ (Eidem–Læssøe 2001, No. 920:16), cf. also AS 22, 31:

    S. Loesov, Akkadian Sentences about the Present Time (II/1)

    147

    11; ARM 10, 156:25; it is well attested in OB literary texts and most probably belongs to the elevated style, as can be felt also in the epistolary passages referred to in this entry. VA kīnum ‘true; reliable.’ (36) kunnum ‘to establish as true, confirm, convict.’ SC P is rare in OB letters, cf. i-ppīšu ku-un ‘it is confirmed with his own words’ (AbB 5, 156:14). No VA. (37) kašādum ‘to reach; suffice.’ SC P is rare: ul ina pilši ka-aš-da-a-ku ‘Ich bin nicht bei einem Einbruch gefaßt worden’ (AbB 2, 83:32), and possibly AbB 8, 155:16′. A is common in letters and has two well attested lexical meanings: (a) A non-motion meaning ‘to be sufficient’ (cf. CAD K 275), e. g. ana mīnim ka-ši-id ‘what (this amount of barley) is sufficient for?’ (AbB 1, 72:17); awīlum … ul ka-ši-id ‘this man is not adequate (for the task)’ (3, 73:9ff.); eqlum … ul ka-ši-id ‘the field … is not ready (or ‘large enough’)’ (12, 16:7f.); same kind of meaning is attested also in 14, 179:19; 3, 22:11; 10, 17:16; 12, 91:23. This is a present-time stative (or “descriptive”) usage. (b) A motion meaning ‘to come’ (usually to the addressee), the addressee as the goal of motion being always referred to by the acc. bound pronouns -ka/-ki.23 This one is a future-time usage: coming is anterior (in the way of a futurum exactum) to some reference point in the speaker’s future, as in the following example: ana U4 2.KAM ka-aš-da-ka ‘within two days I will reach you’ (AbB 12, 42:14), cf. also ana U4 10.KAM ka-aš-da-ki (2, 135:4), and see 8, 90:12; 13, 87:9′; 12, 129:20; in AbB 3, 48:33 awâtum É.GAL ka-aš-da ‘the news will have reached the palace’ the endpoint (presumably, the location of the writer) is expressed by a noun in the acc. The SC of this verb has also a third (relatively rarer) meaning in OB letters, ‘to arrive’ (of a moment in time), as in ebūru ka-ši-id-na-ti ‘die Ernte(zeit) ist für uns angebrochen’ (AbB 3, 49:12), and note šumma … ka-ši-id ‘if … it has happened’ (AbB 3, 2:20f.). VA kašdum ‘successful; sufficient.’

    23 Note that Kouwenberg 2002:225f. correctly observes that kašādum as a motion verb with a 2nd person goal usually takes accusative bound pronouns in AbB, while in ARM it takes the ventive (or the ventive + a 2nd person dative pronoun).

    148

    Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

    References Albayrak 2004

    Cohen 1984 Eidem–Læssøe 2001 George 2003 Goetze 1942 Goetze 1947 Goetze 1958 Hecker 1966 Hopper–Thompson 1980 Huehnergard 1997 Ichisar 1981 Kouwenberg 1997 Kouwenberg 1998

    Kouwenberg 2002 Kraus 1958 Loesov 2005 Metzler 2002 Riemschneider 1965 Salonen 1962 Scheil 1902 Wiseman 1953

    Albayrak, I. ‘She Will Live, Eat and Be Anointed Together with Them’ ušbat aklat u paššat ištīšunu. Dercksen, J. G. (ed.). Assyria and Beyond. Studies Presented to Mogens Trolle Larsen. Leiden. Pp. 9–20. Cohen, D. La phrase nominale et l’évolution du systéme verbal en sémitique. Etudes de syntaxe historique. Leuven–Paris. Eidem, J.; Læssøe, J. The Shemshara Archives 1. Copenhagen. George, A. R. The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic. Oxford. Goetze, A. The So-called Intensive of the Semitic Languages. JAOS 62:1–8. Goetze, A. Historical Allusions in Old Babylonian Omen Texts. JCS 1:253–265. Goetze, A. Fifty OB Letters from Harmal. Reprinted from Sumer XIV. Hecker, K. Die Keilschrifttexte der Universitätsbibliothek Giessen. Giessen. Hopper, P. J.; Thompson, S. A. Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language 56:251–299. Huehnergard, J. A Grammar of Akkadian (HSS 45). Atlanta. Ichisar, M. Les archives cappadociennes du marchand Imdilum. Paris. Kouwenberg, N. J. C. Gemination in the Akkadian Verb (SSN 32). Assen. Kouwenberg, N. J. C. Review of G. Buccellati, A Structural Grammar of Babylonian (Wiesbaden, 1996). BiOr 55:172–185. Kouwenberg, N. J. C. Ventive, Dative and Allative in Old Babylonian. ZA 92:200–240. Kraus, F. R. Ein Edikt des Königs Ammi-Ôaduqa von Babylon. Leiden. Loesov, S. Akkadian Sentences about the Present Time (I). B&B 2:101–148. Metzler, K. A. Tempora in altbabylonischen literarischen Texten. (AOAT 279). Münster. Riemschneider, K. K. Ein altbabylonischer Gallenomentext. ZA 52:125–145. Salonen, E. Untersuchungen zur Schrift und Sprache des Altbabylonischen von Susa (StOr 27/1). Helsinki. Scheil, V. Une saison de fouilles à Sippar (Abou Habba), janvier–avril 1894. Cairo. Wiseman, D. J. The Alalakh Tablets. London.

    Eine Sammeltafel der Akkade-Zeit aus der St. Petersburger Eremitage über die Ausgabe von Waffen* Walter Sommerfeld Universität Marburg

    Vorbemerkung In der St. Petersburger Eremitage befindet sich ein ungewöhnlicher Text mit Auflistungen von Waffen und Ausrüstungsgegenständen, deren Ausgabe anscheinend durch eine klimatisch bedingte Notsituation veranlaßt war. Diese zweikolumnige Sammeltafel (Erm. 14380), deren Herkunft aus Girsu wegen der prosopographischen und inhaltlichen Zusammenhänge sicher ist, gehört zu der Gruppe von insgesamt 21 Texten in der Kollektion der Eremitage, die aus der Akkade-Zeit stammen und die hiermit jetzt vollständig publiziert sind.1 Die Tafel wurde ohne vollständige Reinigung gebrannt, die Schrift ist oft fest mit Schmutzresten verklebt, die sich nicht mehr entfernen lassen. Nur in wenigen Einzelfällen konnte durch nachträgliche Reinigung eine verbesserte Lesung gewonnen werden. Aus diesem Grunde und wegen der vielen Beschädigungen und einer insgesamt zum großen Teil stark abgeriebenen Oberfläche ist die Tafel sehr schwer zu lesen, und eine Reihe von Einzelheiten läßt sich nicht mehr eindeutig bestimmen. Die fotographische Dokumentation, die den Zustand vor der Reinigung wiedergibt, ist in der Digital Library von CDLI zu finden (cdli.ucla.edu, Nr. P214931). Die beigegebene Kopie hat Katja Markina angefertigt. Der Text ist in einem äußerst sorgfältig ausgeführten, kalligraphischen Duktus geschrieben (“Duktus III”2). Die neun Abschnitte, in denen die Ausgabe von Waffen und diverser anderer Ausrüstungsgegenstände an “Aufseher” (ugula) verzeichnet wird, sind in der folgenden Edition mit A – I markiert. Der anschließende Kommentar konzentriert sich darauf, den Text dieser interessanten, aber epigraphisch auch sehr schwierigen Tafel zu bestimmen, während * Die Abkürzungen in den Beiträgen von W. Sommerfeld und I. Schrakamp folgen http://cdli.ucla.edu/wiki/index.php/Abbreviations_for_Assyriology. 1 Zur Veröffentlichung dieser Sammlung s. Sommerfeld–Markina–Roudik 2005. 2 Zur Definition s. Sommerfeld 1999:7ff.

    150

    Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

    Ausführungen zu lexikalischen, realienkundlichen und prosopographischen Einzelfragen in dem Beitrag von Ingo Schrakamp zu finden sind. Transliteration Vorderseite A

    I

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

    [x giš-gí]d-[da uru]duzabar (?) [x gú-b]i [x igi-b]i 16 zab[ar] 20 lá 1 zi-s[a] 2 -ú[b] 2 da-si ugula Ur-dNin-ma-d[a]

    9 10 11 12 13 1 2 3

    [10 lá] 3 giš-gíd- 10 gú- 6 igi- s[agš]u urudu [x] zi-sa 3 1 da-si Si4-sa6

    C

    4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

    2 giš-gíd-da [10 lá] +1 (?) -bi [10] 3 urudu 12 20+ 3 [(1)]+ da-si ugula Ur-

    D

    13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4

    6 giš--da gú-bi 3 igi-bi urudu [sagš]u 20 lá 3 -s[a] -úb



    B

    II

    III

    E

    5 6

    giš-[g]íd-da 2 gú-bi

    W. Sommerfeld, Eine Sammeltafel der Akkade-Zeit…

    F

    7 8 9 10

    2 igi-bi

    x x z[i-sa]

    11 12

    x -[si] x [x (x x)]

    13 14 15 16 17 18

    x -[da] -[bi] -[bi] x l[u-úb] (?) [x ....] [(....)] (unterer Rand zerstört)

    Rückseite IV

    (oberer Rand und 1–2 Zeilen zerstört) [x giš-gíd-da] (?) [gú-bi] (?) 10 lá 1 [igi-bi] (?) l[á x] sagš[u urudu] lá 2 zi-[sa] x lu-[úb] 1 da-s[i] ugula -z[i]

    G

    1′ 2′ 3′ 4′ 5′ 6′ 7′ 8′

    H

    9′ 10′ 11′ 12′ 13′ 14′

    4 giš-gíd-d[a] 10 lá 1 sagšu urudu 10 2 zi-sa 2 -úb da-si ugula Lú-

    I

    15′ 16′ 17′ 1 2 3 4 5

    giš-gíd- 3 gú-bi igi-bi 20++[x sagšu urudu] 20++[x zi-sa] 3 -úb [x] -ba

    V

    6 7

    1 nu-ru-um túg-du8 1 ma-KIL?-tum (Raum von 2–3 Zeilen unbeschrieben)

    151

    152

    Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

    VI

    8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

    šu+nígin 30+3 giš-gíd- šu+nígin 40+ [x] šu+nígin 30++x šu+nígin 60+40+1 sagšu urudu [šu+nígin 60]++30+2 zi-sa šu+ [(x)] 20+2 lu-úb [10]+ lá 3 d[a-si] +[x? urudu] [šu+nígin 1? nu-ru-um] túg- [1? ma-KIL?-t]um (?) x [x] x-si?

    8 9 10 11 12 13 14

    giš sàg- bàd-ta nígin- -gidru-ka [ba]-gíd [nu-bàn]da -si4 [(....)]

    Einzelbemerkungen II 3: Der Name Si4-sa6 ist anscheinend sonst nicht belegt; die Anhaltspunkte für diese Transliteration ergeben Namen mit struktureller Ähnlichkeit. Präsargonisch ist in Girsu ein Si4-kù belegt (Nik 1, 310 VIII 5). Die Elemente kù und sa6 alternieren häufig, z. B. in folgenden Paaren aus der Akkade-Zeit, wobei vorzugsweise Beispiele aus Girsu aufgeführt werden (soweit nicht anders angegeben, sind entsprechende Belege in STTI, Index of Personal Names, S. 9–15, zu finden): É-kù (ITT 5, 9200 II 1) – É-sa6 (PPAC 1 S. 434) En-kù – En-sa6 KA-kù – KA-sa6 (ITT 2, 4351, 4) Lú-kù (MC 4, 39, 5) – Lú-sa6 Lugal-kù (PPAC 1 S. 437) – Lugal-sa6 (RTC 133, 6′) Šeš-kù (Fs. Hallo 80 B V 14) – Šeš-sa6 Ur-kù – Ur-sa6. IV 14′: Es wird wohl nicht der häufige Name Lú- genannt; wahrscheinlich sind noch die Reste einiger zusätzlicher Winkelhaken erhalten, die eher eine Lesung als Lú- nahelegen. Dieser seltene Name ist z. B. präsargonisch in Girsu belegt (DP 634 IV 1; AWAS 4 II 12; VS 25, 58 II 5).

    W. Sommerfeld, Eine Sammeltafel der Akkade-Zeit…

    153

    V 7: Es liegt wohl ein Hapax legomenon ma-KIL-tum vor. Bei dem mittleren Zeichen handelt sich am ehesten um LAGAB (ohne eingeschriebene Waagerechte wie in TÚG). Davor befinden sich zwei kleine Eindrücke, die wohl als Kratzer zu deuten sind; sie passen nicht zur Struktur des breiteren Zeichens URU. In altakkadischem Kontext ist für LAGAB als einziger Lautwert kil zu sichern (vgl. AkkS4 Nr. 280). Ohne eine bessere Beleglage mit aufschlußreichen Kontexten muß offen bleiben, ob eine Ableitung von kullum “(fest)halten” oder akālum “essen” vorliegen kann. Zur Nominalform maprist vgl. GAG³ § 56c; Streck 2002:243f. VI 7: Der letzte Eintrag in der Summierung bleibt unklar. Die Reste am Anfang passen zu , für eine sichere Identifizierung ist aber zu wenig erhalten. Es müßte dann ein Gegenstand genannt sein, der in den erhaltenen Passagen nicht erscheint, also am ehesten in der Bruchstelle III 16 – IV 3′ zu erwarten wäre. Gegen diese Rekonstruktion spricht der Umstand, daß keines der üblichen Zahlzeichen identifiziert werden kann; vielleicht ist in dieser Zeile auch eine zusätzliche Notierung festgehalten worden, deren Inhalt und Bezug unklar bleiben. Die Zahlangaben Die Gruppe von Gegenständen, die regelmäßig aufgeführt wird, ist in folgender Tabelle zusammengestellt, wobei Zahlen, die eindeutig zu ermitteln sind, mit Fettdruck hervorgehoben werden: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

    Gegenstand giš-gíd-da gú-bi igi-bi sagšu urudu zi-sa lu-úb da-si

    Summe 33 50–[x] 40+[x] 101 [60]+92 22 17

    A [x] [x] [x] 16 19 2 2

    B 7 10 6 13 [x] 3 1

    C 2 7 x 12 26 3 1 (2)

    D 6 5? 3 6? 17 2 1

    E 2 2 2 8? (7?) x x x

    F x 3? 6 [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

    G [x] 10? 9? < 20 18 x 1

    I H 5 4 3 – 3 – 9 20±[x] > 20 8 3 2 [x] 2

    Der Versuch, die Zahlangaben zu sichern und mit der Gesamtsumme in Kongruenz zu bringen, stößt allerdings auf eine Reihe von Schwierigkeiten. 1: giš-gíd-da “Lanze, Speer” Diese Waffe steht am Beginn eines jeden Abschnitts. In A sind nur noch geringe Reste erhalten; dennoch ist diese Ergänzung sehr wahrscheinlich, da das unmittelbar folgende Zubehör (gú und igi), das stets mit dem Pronominalsuffix -bi angeschlossen wird, sonst immer Bezug

    154

    Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

    auf giš-gíd-da nimmt. In A folgt dann noch der Zusatz [uru]duzabar “(mit) Bronze”. Die keineswegs sichere Ergänzung im Abschnitt G erfolgt auf Grund der parallelen Struktur. Bei der Rekonstruktion der Zahlangaben bleiben Unsicherheiten und Lücken. Die Summierung (V 8) nennt insgesamt 33 dieser Waffen. Nur in den Abschnitten C, E, H, I sind die Zahlen unzweifelhaft (zusammen 13), in den Abschnitten A und G sind sie zerstört, und in F erlauben die minimalen Reste keine Bestimmung. In B ist nach der Bruchstelle die Zahl 3 sicher; der Raum davor paßt gut zur vorgeschlagenen Ergänzung [10 lá] 3 (eher als [3]+3), möglicherweise ist auch noch ein kleiner Rest von lá erhalten. In D sind 5 Zahleindrücke sicher zu identifizieren und 6 wahrscheinlich. Daraus ergibt sich: Von den Zahlnotierungen sind insgesamt 13 sicher erhalten und 13 weitere wahrscheinlich, als Subtraktion von der Gesamtsumme 33 fehlen in A, F, G zusammen folglich 7. Da keine regelmäßige Mengenrelation zwischen giš-gíd-da und dem Zubehör gú bzw. igi festzustellen ist, fehlen Anhaltspunkte für entsprechende Ergänzungen in diesen drei Abschnitten. 2 und 3: gú “Seite, Rand” und igi “Auge, Spitze” Diese als Teile oder Zubehör zu giš-gíd-da genannten Gegenstände fehlen nur im Abschnitt H; die Reihenfolge kann auch umgekehrt sein (in C, nicht ermittelbar in A und G). In der Summierung von gú-bi ist die Zahl 50 sicher; sehr wahrscheinlich folgt lá; im Bruch muß dann mindestens 1, kann höchstens 3 gestanden haben. Somit ergibt sich eine Summe von 47 bis 49. Die deutlich lesbaren Einzelangaben in B, E und I belaufen sich auf 15. In C erlaubt der Platz im Bruch kaum eine andere Ergänzung als [10] 3 = 7. Die Zahl in D ist stark beschädigt, Platz und Umrisse passen eher zu 5 als zu 4. In F ist auf Grund der Raumverhältnisse eher 3 als 2 anzusetzen. In G ist die Reihenfolge von [gú] und [igi] nicht gesichert; die Zahl liegt in der Größenordnung 10–[3] und 10+[x]. Die Differenz zwischen der Gesamtsumme 47(+2) und den Einzelangaben, also wohl mindestens 15+7+5+3+7 = 37, wäre dann in A zu ergänzen. In der Summe von igi-bi, den Lanzenspitzen, ist 40 gesichert; die danach folgende Zahl, die zu addieren oder subtrahieren ist, läßt sich nicht ermitteln. Wegen des Systems der Zahlzeichen kann die Summe nicht größer als 50+6 gewesen sein. Insgesamt sind bei den identifizierbaren Einzelangaben weniger als 30 sicher erhalten. Da in B für 7 die Darstellung als 10 lá 3 zu erwarten wäre, liegt wohl die Zahl 6 vor.

    W. Sommerfeld, Eine Sammeltafel der Akkade-Zeit…

    155

    4: sagšu “Helm” Die Angabe des Materials lautet in A uruduzabar “Bronze”, anschließend (abgekürzt?) nur noch urudu “Kupfer”. In der Summierung ist die Zahl 101 eindeutig. In den Abschnitten A, C, H sind die Zahlen eindeutig zu ermitteln: 16+12+9 = 37. Auf Grund der erhaltenen Eindrücke und der Raumverhältnisse sind folgende Rekonstruktionen sehr wahrscheinlich: in B 13, in D 6 (3 und 3 übereinander gesetzt). Geringe Reste in E sind mit 10 lá 2 oder 3 vereinbar. In G sind 20 sicher, gefolgt von lá; im Bruch können höchstens 3 gestanden haben. In I ist am Anfang 20 erhalten; im zerstörten Teil können – falls statt der Zahl 1? eher lá zu lesen sein sollte – höchstens 3 subtrahiert sein. Damit ergeben sich mindestens: 37+13+6+7+17+17 = 97. Die geringe Differenz zur Gesamtsumme legt den Schluß nahe, daß in F kein entsprechender Eintrag über sagšu zu ergänzen ist. 5: zi-sa Bei der Summe des zi-sa genannten Ausrüstungsgegenstands sind nach dem Bruch 60+30+2 = 92 eindeutig, davor können (Vielfache von) 60 zu ergänzen sein. Die in 6 Abschnitten erhaltenen Zahlen ergeben 19 (A)+26 (C)+17(D)+18 (G)+8 (H)+20+[x] (I) = 108+[x]. Die Zahlen fehlen in mindestens zwei Abschnitten (B, E, vielleicht auch in F); wenn sie sich in derselben Größenordnung bewegen, ist die Ergänzung von [60] in der Gesamtsumme am plausibelsten. 6: lu-úb In der Summenangabe dieses Behälters wäre vor der erhaltenen Zahl 22 noch Platz für [10+10]. Da jedoch in den fünf Abschnitten, in denen die betreffenden Zahlen erhalten sind, diese immer 2 oder 3 betragen und in drei weiteren (D, E, G; F ist unbestimmbar) die Raumverhältnisse eine entsprechende Ergänzung nahelegen, beträgt folglich mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit die Gesamtsumme nicht mehr als 22. 7: da-si Die Abgleichung der Zahlen für diesen Gegenstand bereitet Probleme. In der Summe finden wir [x] lá 3. Da in acht Abschnitten dieser Gegenstand aufgeführt ist (in F ist dies möglich, aber nicht mehr zu ermitteln) – darunter mehrfach ein (B, D, G) und mindestens einmal (in A) zwei Stück –, kann die Gesamtsumme nur [20] lá 3 betragen haben. In den vier oder fünf Abschnitten, in denen die Angaben nicht (vollständig) erhalten sind, ist folglich von einer Gesamtzahl von 12 auszugehen, deren Verteilung unklar bleibt.

    156

    Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

    In der Summierung werden noch 2+[x?] urudukak “Spieße” addiert, von denen jeweils mindestens einer in den Abschnitten C und D erscheint. Die Gesamtzahl läßt sich auf Grund des schlechten Erhaltungszustands von Abschnitt D und der Lücken in F nicht mehr ermitteln. Unter der – nicht definitiv beweisbaren – Annahme, daß die nach den strukturell parallel gegliederten Abschnitten A–I genannten Gegenstände nu-ru-um túg-du8 und ma-KIL?-tum (V 6–7) nur hier erscheinen, wurden die Angaben in der Gesamtsumme ergänzt. Der Schlußvermerk Die abschließende Feststellung (VI 8–13) über den Anlaß dieser Ausgabe scheint singulär zu sein. Der folgende Versuch, diesen schlecht erhaltenen Schlußvermerk zu rekonstruieren, kann deshalb einige Unsicherheiten nicht überwinden. á-mè “Kampfausrüstung” ist sachlich plausibel und mit den erhaltenen Zeichenresten kongruent; vgl. PSD A2 85 “arm of battle” (lit. term for a weapon). Bei dem danach folgenden Eintrag GIŠ-PA-x läßt sich das beschädigte letzte Zeichen nicht eindeutig identifizieren. Falls GA vorliegt, wäre als Parallele das Lexem giš sàg-ga “(Holz) schneiden” heranzuziehen, s. zum Beispiel SANTAG 6 S. 383 (sìg) zu Nr. 123 Rs. 3; zu weiteren Belegen vgl. den Wortindex von CDLI zu sàg-ga. In den Texten des 3. Jahrtausends war keine lexikalische Alternative zu diesem Interpretationsvorschlag aufzufinden. Die sachliche Implikation wäre dann wohl, daß die Lanzen oder Speere (giš-gíd-da) im Rohzustand mit Zubehör, aber noch nicht fertig montiert übergeben wurden. Zu ama-ga könnte ein Memorandum aus Adab möglicherweise eine interessante Parallele bieten. In A 988 – s. PPAC 1 S. 136f. (Edition) und Appendix II (Kopie); CDLI Nr. P217606 (Foto) – ist von einem einwöchigen extremen Kälteeinbruch die Rede, bei dem das Getreide erfror. In diesem Zusammenhang heißt es: ama-ga bàd ka íb-kéš-àm (Z. 6). Yang Zhi deutet in der Edition ama-ga als syllabische Schreibung für amagi “Eis” und übersetzt diese Stelle dementsprechend: “Ice formed on the city walls.” In Erm. 14380 sind die geringen Zeichenreste am Anfang von VI 10 gut mit URU zu vereinbaren, so daß hier die Interpretation vorgeschlagen wird, daß das Eis von der Mauer aus die ganze Stadt umgeben hat. Damit war anscheinend die Mobilität der Bewohner so stark eingeschränkt, daß die Waffenausrüstung disloziert werden mußte und aus dem Zentralmagazin an neun Gruppen verteilt wurde.

    W. Sommerfeld, Eine Sammeltafel der Akkade-Zeit…

    157

    Die erhaltenen Reste des ersten Zeichens in VI 9 passen gut zu ama. Eine epigraphisch kompatible alternative Deutung – etwa der Hinweis auf eine äußere Bedrohung oder eine andere Notlage, die zum Handeln zwangen – ist nicht zu ermitteln. Am Anfang von VI 12 ist nur Platz für ein kurzes Zeichen, zur Ergänzung [ba]-gíd gibt es kaum eine Alternative. Zu Parallelen vgl. zum Beispiel Alberti–Pomponio 1986:86f. usw.; Steinkeller–Postgate 1992:46. Aus diesen Überlegungen ergibt sich folgende tentative Übersetzung des Schlußvermerks: “(Diese) Kampfausrüstung (und) geschnittenes Holz: Als das Eis von der Mauer aus die Stadt umgeben hatte, wurden (sie) im É-gidru ausgegeben. Inspektor war Amar-si4.” Bibliographie Alberti–Pomponio 1986 Sommerfeld 1999 Sommerfeld– Markina–Roudik 2005 Steinkeller–Postgate 1992

    Streck 2002

    Alberti, A.; Pomponio, F. Pre-Sargonic and Sargonic Texts from Ur Edited in UET 2, Supplement (StP SM 13). Roma. Sommerfeld, W. Die Texte der Akkade-Zeit. 1. Das DijalaGebiet: Tutub (IMGULA 3/1). Münster.

    Sommerfeld, W.; Markina, K.; Roudik, N. Altakkadische Texte der St. Petersburger Eremitage. B&B 2:185–231. Steinkeller, P.; Postgate, J. N. Third-Millennium Legal and Administrative Texts in the Iraq Museum, Baghdad (MC 4). Winona Lake. Streck, M. P. Die Nominalformen maPRaS(t), maPRāS und maPRiS(t) im Akkadischen. Neue Beiträge zur Semitistik. Wiesbaden. S. 223–257.

    158

    Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

    Erm. 14380 (Vs.)

    Kommentar zu der altakkadischen “Rüstkammerurkunde” Erm. 14380 Ingo Schrakamp Universität Marburg

    1. Einführung W. Sommerfeld hat in diesem Band eine Edition der altakkadischen Urkunde Erm. 14380 vorgelegt. Da der Text für die Kenntnis des akkadischen Militärs von großer Bedeutung ist, werden im vorliegenden Beitrag als Ergänzung Prosopographie, Archivzusammenhang und die genannten Realien kommentiert. Dabei sind die folgenden Ausführungen bewußt knapp gehalten, da ein detaillierter Kommentar an anderer Stelle erscheint.1 2. Herkunft und Prosopographie Die aus dem Kunsthandel stammende Tafel Erm. 14380 kann anhand der im Text genannten Personen, Realien und der im Schlußvermerk erwähnten Institution zweifelsfrei dem sargonischen énsi-Archiv von Øirsu zugeordnet und in einen größeren, militärischen Zusammenhang eingebettet werden. Vorab einige Worte zur Gliederung der in Erm. 14380 ausgerüsteten Abteilung. Die Textstruktur zeigt, daß die Abschnitte A–I nach der Gliederung von W. Sommerfeld die Zuteilung von Ausrüstung an jeweils einen Zug unter einem “Zugführer” (ugula) dokumentieren. Die ganze Einheit besteht aus neun solcher Züge und wird von dem “Hauptmann” (nu-bànda) Amar-si4 angeführt.2 Amar-si4 und einer seiner Untergebenen, der Zugführer (ugula) Ba-zi (Erm. 14380 Rs. I 8′), werden in einer Urkunde über die Inspektion 1 Erm. 14380 und weitere hier nur zitierte Verwaltungsurkunden sind Gegenstand meiner in Kürze abgeschlossenen Dissertation “Militär und Kriegführung in präsargonischer und sargonischer Zeit”. Belegstellen zu Personen oder Realien werden aufgrund der gebotenen Kürze des vorliegenden Beitrages nur in Auswahl angeführt. Für ausführliche Diskussionen sei auf diese Arbeit verwiesen. 2 Zu nu-bànda als militärischer Rangbezeichnung in der Akkade-Zeit siehe Westenholz 1999:68 Anm. 309.

    162

    Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

    (gúrum aka) von Personen als Kommandant bzw. einer der Zugführer der ersten von drei Abteilungen genannt (ITT 1, 1449 Vs. I 4, II 3).3 Die zweite und dritte Abteilung unterstehen zwei Hauptleuten namens En-uru-na und Lú-ba. Ihre Kontingente sind wie die Truppe des Amar-si4 in neun Züge unter je einem Zugführer untergliedert. Amar-si4 führt 172 Mann (×uruš), den beiden anderen Hauptleuten sind 159 bzw. 149 Mann unterstellt. Die Hauptleute Amar-si4 und Lú-ba werden neben einem dritten Kommandanten namens EREN.DA in einer Urkunde über die Zuteilung von Wolle an “Truppen” (érin) erwähnt, die aufgrund des Rubrums “Wachen des Nanše-Tempels sind sie” (en-nu é dNanše-ka-me) einen eindeutig militärischen Hintergrund aufweist (ITT 1, 1065).4 Als Ort der Wollausgabe wird das é ×idru genannt, in dem nach dem Schlußvermerk von Erm. 14380 Wehrgerät magaziniert wurde (Rs. III 8–12 … ×idru-ka [ba]-gíd). Die Hauptleute Amar-si4, EREN.DA und ein weiterer gleichrangiger Offizier namens Nì×in werden in einer Liste von Personen genannt, die in der Unterschrift des Textes durch den Vermerk “Wachtruppen von Lagaš sind sie” (en-nu Lagaški-me) rubriziert werden (CT 50, 99).5 Vier der bisher erwähnten Hauptleute, nämlich Amar-si4, En-uru-na, EREN.DA und Lú-ba, treten in einer ohne Unterschrift gebliebenen Liste von Hauptleuten und Zugführern aus Øirsu auf (ITT 1, 1448).6 Außer ihnen werden noch zwei Hauptleute erfaßt. Auch dieser Text zeigt die übliche Gliederung, nach der jedem der sechs Hauptleute 7–9 Zugführer unterstehen. Insgesamt werden 49 Zugführer summiert. Eine Übersicht der prosopographischen Verknüpfungen bietet Tabelle 1.7 3

    Zum Text Visicato 2000:127 Anm. 108, 129 Anm. 114; Sommerfeld 2004: 288 Anm. 14. Aufgrund dieser prosopographischen Übereinstimmungen wäre es verlockend, den in Erm. 14380 Rs. I 14′ genannten Zugführer Lú- in der Lesung Lú- mit dem gleichnamigen Zugführer zu identifizieren, der in ITT 1, 1448 Vs. I 6 und ITT 1, 1449 Vs. I 7 dem Hauptmann Amar-si4 unterstellt ist. Eine Lesung Lú- ist aber nach Sommerfelds Kollation mit den am Anfang des beschädigten zweiten Zeichens erkennbaren Spuren mehreren Winkelhaken nur schwer zu vereinbaren. 4 Zum Text Falkenstein 1966:132 mit Anm. 6; Gelb 1965:235; Edzard 1968:119; Glassner 1986:21 Anm. 121; Foster 1993:26 Anm. 8; Visicato 2000:129 Anm. 114. 5 Zum Text Foster 1993:26 Anm. 11; Oberhuber 1977:577; Powell 1973:105. 6 Zum Text Visicato 2000:127 Anm. 108, 129–130 Anm. 114; Kienast–Volk 1995:83. 7 Auf die Darstellung weiterer prosopographischer Verknüpfungen wird aus den in Anm. 1 dargelegten Gründen hier verzichtet.

    I. Schrakamp, Kommentar zu Erm. 14380…

    163

    Aus diesem Befund läßt sich folgern, daß die in Erm. 14380 ausgerüstete Einheit unter Führung des Amar-si4 offenbar nur eine von mehreren Kompanien war, die die akkadische Administration in Øirsu ausheben konnte. Durch Informationen zur Mannstärke der einzelnen Abteilungen (ITT 1, 1449) und der Anzahl der Hauptleute und Zugführer (ITT 1, 1448) bietet diese Textgruppe den Ausgangspunkt für weiterreichende Überlegungen zur Zahlenstärke8 und sozialen Zusammensetzung dieser Truppen. Aufgrund der gebotenen Kürze des vorliegenden Beitrages müssen weitere Ausführungen dazu jedoch unterbleiben. Deutlich wird aber schon jetzt, daß die akkadische Administration von Øirsu Truppen in erheblicher Mannstärke mobilisieren konnte. Tabelle 1: Verknüpfungen zwischen Erm. 14380 und Texten des énsi-Archivs von Øirsu Text Name nu-bànda Amar-si4 nu-bànda EREN.DA nu-bànda En-uru-na nu-bànda Lú-ba nu-bànda Nì×in nu-bànda Ur-ní× nu-bànda Ur-d.šèŠer7-da ugula Ba-zi é ×idru

    Erm. 14380 x

    ITT 1, 1449 x x x

    ITT 1, 1065 x x

    CT 50, 99 x x

    x

    ITT 1, 1448 x x x x

    x x x x x

    x x

    3. Die Ausrüstungsgegenstände Die meisten in Erm. 14380 genannten Gegenstände sind in unterschiedlicher Kombination und Anzahl auch in den Øirsu-Urkunden ITT 2, 4386;9 ITT 2, 4430;10 ITT 2, 572311 und STTI 712 bezeugt. Verteilung und Stückzahlen sind Tabelle 2 zu entnehmen. Nachfolgend werden die genannten Bezeichnungen in alphabetischer Reihenfolge kommentiert,

    8

    Vgl. auch die Überlegungen von Visicato 2000:129–130 Anm. 114. Zum Text Foster 1982:38; Römer 1993–94:24. 10 Zum Text W. Sommerfeld apud Deller–Mayer–Sommerfeld 1987:210; CAD N2 350 s.v. nūru; Civil 2003:51, 53. 11 Zum Text Wilcke 1972–75:312; Limet 1972:12; Civil 2003:51, 53. 12 Zum Text F. Thureau-Dangin, ITT 1, S. 7; Wilcke 1972–75:312; V. Donbaz–Foster 1982:5; PSD A2 97 s. v. á-si 4.; Römer 1993–94:24; Civil 2003:51, 53. 9

    164

    Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

    wobei die genaue sachliche Bestimmung einiger Begriffe erhebliche Schwierigkeiten bereitet. Tabelle 2: Realien in Erm. 14380 und anderen Verwaltungsurkunden aus Øirsu Text Gegenstand àga urudu ×eš-gíd-da igi-bi gú-bi urudu gag saךu urudu saךu ninni5 zi-sa lu-úb da-si nu-ru-um ma-KIL-tum

    Erm. 14380 33 40+[x] 50–[x] 2+[x?] 101 [60].+.92 22 17 1 1

    STTI 7

    ITT 2, 4430

    [x] 30+[x]

    30 120 70

    ITT 2, 5723

    ITT 2, 4386

    [x] 13

    14

    5 109

    6

    40 20

    á mè Im Schlußvermerk von Erm. 14380 werden die im Listenteil der Urkunde genannten Gegenstände als á mè “Kampfausrüstung” (eigentlich “Arm der Schlacht”) ausgewiesen. á mè ist in literarischen Texten als allgemeine, unspezifische Bezeichnung für Götter- und Menschenwaffen aller Art häufig bezeugt.15 In sargonischen Urkunden ist á mè nur in einem Text aus Adab in der Bezeichnung é á memè-ka “Haus der Kampfausrüstung” (PPAC 1 A.745 Rs. 6)16 belegt, was nach dem vorliegenden Zusammenhang als “Waffenlager” oder “Zeughaus” zu deuten ist. Erm. 14380 bietet damit den ersten Beleg für einfaches á mè in Verwaltungstexten.

    13

    Hier urudugú ×eš-gíd-da; dazu s. u. Hier eme ×eš-gíd-da “Lanzen-/Speerklinge”. 15 Als Bezeichnung für Götterwaffen z. B. in Gudea Cyl B XIV 8; Lugalbanda Epic II 406; Angim 29, 100; im Zusammenhang mit Menschenwaffen z. B. in LSU 383; Nannakiag to Lipit-eštar 14 bezeugt. Zur Bezeichnung siehe Römer 1965:161–162; PSD A2, 85 s.v. á-mè. 16 Zum Text siehe Yang Zhi, PPAC 1:265–266; PSD A2 85 s. v. á-mè; Visicato 2000:180 Anm. 333. 14

    I. Schrakamp, Kommentar zu Erm. 14380…

    165

    da-si da-si gehört nach dem Schlußvermerk von Erm. 14380 zusammen mit anderen Waffen und Ausrüstungsgegenständen zur “Kampfausrüstung” (á mè). Da die Bezeichnung auch in der sargonischen Urkunde STTI 7 Vs. 3, Rs. 217 zusammen mit weiteren Ausrüstungsteilen auftritt, ist da-si sicher als Teil der Standardausrüstung von Soldaten aufzufassen. In Erm. 14380 ist die Bezeichnung stets als Begriffspaar mit lu-úb genannt, so daß eine Identifikation mit dem in Urnamma A 92–93 genannten Wortpaar kušlu-úb dag-si naheliegt. Dort sind beide Gegenstände Teil eines Waffenensembles, das der Herrscher Urnamma bei seinem Eintritt in die Unterwelt den dortigen Göttern als Geschenk darreicht.18 Als Symbol für die Kraft des Helden bzw. Kriegers und damit wieder in militärischer Konnotation tritt das Begriffspaar in Curse Agade 245–246 auf.19 Nach lexikalischen Belegen bezeichnet (×eš)dag/da-ag-si20 ein Zubehör für den ledernen Wasserschlauch, das üblicherweise als eine Art Gestell oder Halterung gedeutet wird.21 Die gleiche Bedeutung geht auch aus literarischen Kontextbelegen hervor, nach denen kušlu-úb bzw. kušùmmu22 und ×ešdag-si/da-ag-si der Aufbewahrung von Trinkwasser dienten (GEN).23 Als Teile der Begräbnisausstattung werden kušùmmu und ×ešdag17

    STTI 7 Vs. 3. Rs. 2 ist gegen PSD A2, 97 s. v. á-si 4 sicher da-si zu lesen. Zur Textstelle siehe zuletzt die Edition von Flückiger-Hawker 1999:117, 173 und ferner Katz 2003:335; Sallaberger 1997:18 mit Anm. 17; Kramer 1991: 202; Civil 1987a:47. 19 Vgl. die Bemerkungen und Übersetzungen von Civil 1976:91 Anm. 32; Cooper 1983:255; Attinger 1984:106–107 und Civil 1987a:47, der übersetzt “ ‘Agade, may your strong man (= warrior) be deprived of his strength, may he carry no saddlebags,’ i.e. may he be deprived of both strength and supplies.” 20 Zur Bezeichnung siehe MAD 3:296 s. v. TKŠ?; CAD D 35 s. v. dakšiu; Civil 1976:91 Anm. 32; AHw. 1308 s. v. takšum; Cooper 1983:255; Civil 1987a:47; Durand 1988:197b; Sallaberger 1997:20 mit Anm. 37; Sallaberger 1999:246; Veldhuis 2000:77; Veldhuis 1997:186; CDA 349 s. v. šakšum (Mari); CDA 395 s. v. takšium; Katz a. a. O. 335–336. 21 Gleichungen in lexikalischen Listen bieten Ú¶ VIIa 145–147 = MSL 6, 96: ×eš dagda-si = dak-[šu-u], ×ešdag-si kušùmmu = šá na-a-a-du; ×ešdag-si é-pa-na = par ta-pa-li; Úg B II 89 = MSL 6, 110 ×ešdag-si = ŠU = par-zik-kum. Siehe dazu Salonen 1965:175–176; Civil 1987a:47; AHw. 847 s. v. parzikk/qqu; CAD P 212 s. v. parzikku. Siehe ferner Veldhuis 2000:77; Veldhuis 1997:186 für weitere Belege in lexikalischen Quellen. 22 Vgl. Hh VIIa 146 ×ešdag-si kušùmmu = šá na-a-a-du. 23 GEN 260 lauten nach Civil 1987a:47: kušùmmu dag-si-(ke4) a al-nag-nag “he drinks water from the saddle water bag.” 18

    166

    Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

    si in einer Isin I-zeitlichen Urkunde als Wasserschlauch und zugehörige Halterung gedeutet, die für die Libation von Wasser vorgesehen waren (BIN 9, 435).24 In Urkunden aus dem Schatzarchiv von Drehem, in denen Dajjānummīšar insbesondere für die Verwaltung von Waffen verantwortlich zeichnet,25 wird ×ešda-ag-si mehrfach zusammen mit Waffen erwähnt (z. B. TIM 6, 3726 und AUCT 2, 17827). Aufgrund der genannten Belege, die (×eš)dag/da-ag-si als Wortpaar mit kuš lu-úb / kušùmmu bzw. im Zusammenhang mit Waffen erwähnen, ist dasi als defektive Schreibung zu späterem (×eš)da-ag-si / dag-si, akk. takšium, takšû aufzufassen.28 Daher bezeichnet das Begriffspaar lu-úb da-si in Erm. 14380 wohl Ausrüstungsgegenstände, die von den Soldaten zur Aufbewahrung von Trinkwasser mitgeführt wurden. ×eš-gíd-da ×eš-gíd-da wurde aufgrund administrativer, lexikalischer und literarischer Textquellen zweifellos zutreffend als Bezeichnung für “Lanze”, “Speer” bestimmt.29 Dabei meint die deutsche Übersetzung “Lanze” die schwerere, zum Stoß verwendete Nahkampfwaffe, während “Speer” die leichtere Ausführung bezeichnet, die über mittlere Entfernung geworfen wird.30 Mit Belegen in rund 30 präsargonischen und sargonischen Texten unterschiedlicher Herkunft ist ×eš-gíd-da das in dieser Zeit am häufigsten bezeugte Wehrgerät. Der Vergleich der gelegentlich angegebenen Gewichte der Metallteile31 mit denjenigen etwa gleichzeitiger archäo-

    24

    Zum Text Sallaberger 1997:20. Sallaberger 1999:245–246. 26 Zum Text Civil 2003:53 Anm. 19; Civil 1987a:47; Sigrist 1979:30–31, 47, 51. 27 Zum Text Wilcke 1992:318 Anm. 15; Sallaberger 1993(2):3 Tab. 1; Sallaberger 1999:246; Civil 2003:53 Anm. 19. 28 Möglicherweise gehört hierzu auch die in MEE 3:45–46 Vs. I 14 bezeugte Schreibung DA.SI zà:gín; vgl. Civil 1987b:142, 146. 29 Z. B. Römer 1993–94:24–28; Flückiger-Hawker 1999:318; Bauer 1998:528; Bauer 1989–90:90; Selz 1989:508; Westenholz 1975:76. Für Belege in lexikalischen Listen siehe Römer a. a. O.; Civil 1987c:187. 30 Zur Definition beider Waffentypen siehe Yadin 1963:10; Müller-Karpe 1995:287–290; Rehm 2003:11; Novák 2005:286–287. Im einzelnen mag mit fließenden Übergängen zwischen beiden Waffenkategorien zu rechnen sein. 31 Z. B. Nik 1, 298 Vs. II 4–III 4 und ECTJ 151 Vs. 1–2 (siehe Anm. 37 und 38); MDP 14, 86 Rs. II 9′–11′; zum Text z. B. V. Scheil 1913; Limet 1972:7–8, 12; Wilcke 1972–75:312–313; Westenholz 1999:68. 25

    I. Schrakamp, Kommentar zu Erm. 14380…

    167

    logischer Funde von Lanzen- und Speerspitzen32 zeigt, daß eine lexikalische Unterscheidung zwischen beiden Waffenkategorien nicht vorliegt, wie sie z. B. in Texten aus Ebla und aB Texten aus Mari bezeugt ist.33 Die genaue Bedeutung muß daher aufgrund des Kontextes ermittelt werden. Neben den freilich seltenen Gewichtsangaben bietet die Anzahl der pro Waffenträger ausgegebenen Exemplare ein Kriterium für die sachliche Bestimmung. So ist zu erwarten, daß von den im Nahkampf verwendeten Lanzen jeder Kämpfer nur ein Exemplar mitführte, während man Wurfspeere sicher in mehrfacher Ausführung bei sich trug, so daß der Soldat nach dem Fortschleudern des Speeres nicht unbewaffnet blieb.34 Ginge man nun davon aus, daß Erm. 14380 die Wiederauffüllung der Bewaffnung einer bereits ausgehobenen Truppe dokumentiert, so würden die Zahlenverhältnisse der Ausrüstungsgegenstände auf eine Deutung als Lanze hinweisen: Während 101 Helme verzeichnet werden, ist die Anzahl der ×eš-gíd-da mit 33 so gering, daß eine Deutung als Wurfspeer nicht plausibel erscheint. igi-bi, gú-bi Die als igi-bi und gú-bi “seine Spitze” (eigentlich “Auge”) und “sein Nacken” bezeichneten Objekte sind zunächst nicht zu bestimmen. Da Erm. 14380 beide Begriffe aber immer in Paarung und zudem stets nach ×eš-gíd-da aufführt, liegt es nahe, igi-bi und gú-bi über das Suffix -bi auf das zuvor genannte ×eš-gíd-da zu beziehen. Daher ist ein sachlicher Zusammenhang mit den Bezeichnungen igi ×eš-gíd-da35 und gú ×eš-gíd32

    Vgl. dazu etwa die Ausführungen von Müller-Karpe 1995:286–290, 336 zu Abb. 26, 2 (Vierkantspeerspitze, Königsfriedhof von Ur, ED IIIa, 36 g) und 333 Abb. 22, 1 (Vierkantlanzenspitze, Königsfriedhof von Ur, ED IIIb, 846 g); 23, 1 (Vierkantlanzenspitze, Königsfriedhof von Ur, 487 g). Die Unterscheidung zwischen Lanze und Speer ergibt sich aus den Fundumständen ferner dadurch, daß die Speerspitzen in Gräbern zum Kopf des Bestatteten wiesen, während die schweren Exemplare die entgegengesetzte Ausrichtung zeigten. Bei inskribierten Stücken deutet auch die Schriftrichtung auf diese Unterscheidung hin (MüllerKarpe a. a. O. 287–290). 33 Für die entsprechenden Bezeichnungen in Texten aus Ebla siehe Waetzoldt 1990:2 und Durand 1998:388 für den Befund in aB Texten aus Mari. 34 Vgl. z. B. die von den Kriegern im oberen Register der Geierstele beidhändig getragenen Lanzen und die in großer Stückzahl im Köcher an der Wagenfront mitgeführten Wurfspeere auf einem frühdynastischen Weihplattenfragment aus Ur (Boese 1971:189, Taf. XXI 1; Photo: Bauer 1998:526). Siehe auch die Ausführungen von Waetzoldt 1990:5. 35 Römer 1993–94:24; Selz 1989:527; Bauer 1989–90:91; Foster 1982:38.

    168

    Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

    da36 wahrscheinlich. Beide Begriffe sind in präsargonischen und sargonischen Urkunden relativ gut bezeugt und werden nicht zuletzt aufgrund von Gewichtsangaben üblicherweise als “Lanzen-/Speerspitze” gedeutet. igi ×eš-gíd-da wurden in großer Zahl von Schmieden gefertigt; ihr Gewicht konnte in präsargonischer Zeit rund 125 Gramm betragen (Nik 1, 298 Vs. II 4–III 4).37 Metallene gú ×eš-gíd-da konnten rund eine halbe Mine schwer sein (ECTJ 151 Vs. 1–2)38 und wurden “auf dem Holz aufgerichtet” (×eš-a … dù), d. h. geschäftet (ECTJ 181 Vs. 1–6).39 Da Lanzenschuhe – am unteren Ende des hölzernen Schaftes angebrachte Metallspitzen, die es erlauben, die Waffe ohne Aussplittern des Schaftes in den Boden stecken zu können40 – in Frühdynastischer und Akkade-Zeit archäologisch nicht nachzuweisen sind,41 kann es sich aufgrund der Kontexte, der Material- und der Gewichtsangaben bei beiden Begriffen eigentlich nur um (synonyme?) Bezeichnungen für die Spitze bzw. Klinge von Lanzen oder Speeren handeln.42 Die Sachlage wird dadurch erschwert, daß beide Bezeichnungen bislang in keinem Text gemeinsam bezeugt sind. Bezieht man nun die in Erm. 14380 genannten igi-bi und 36

    Limet 1972:11; Westenholz 1975:76; Foster 1982:38; Römer 1993–94:24 Anm. 4. 37 Zum Text Selz 1989:526; Bauer 1989–90:91; Selz 1994:225. 38 Zum Text z. B. Limet 1972:11; Foster 1982:38; Römer 1993–94:24 Anm. 4; Westenholz 1999:63 Anm. 271. 39 Zum Text z. B. Römer 1993–94:24; Westenholz 1999:63 Anm. 271. 40 Bonnet 1926:107. 41 Zur Frage, ob man zu dieser Zeit bereits Lanzenschuhe kannte, vgl. die Ausführungen von Müller-Karpe 1995:87–290. Danach ist nicht auszuschließen, daß die von Frühdynastisch III–Ur III reichlich bezeugten schwereren “Vierkantspitzen” die Funktion von Lanzenschuhen hatten. Müller-Karpe verweist dafür auf einen Eintrag des Grabungstagebuches von A. Haller zum Assur-Grab 10, das einen Speer und in diesem Zusammenhang eine “obere und untere Spitze” (vgl. auch Haller 1954:9) erwähnt. Da die Zusammengehörigkeit beider Spitzen aus den Grabungsunterlagen jedoch nicht zu ermitteln ist, ist eine Deutung als Lanzenschuh unwahrscheinlich. 42 Limet 1972:11 und Westenholz 1975:76 deuten die Bezeichnung als Lanzen- bzw. Speerspitze bzw. Klinge. Foster 1982:38 übersetzt ohne realienkundliche Deutung “neck (of spear)”; Römer 1993–94:24 Anm. 4 weist auf die Schwierigkeiten hin, den sachlichen Unterschied zwischen igi ×eš-gíd-da und gú ×ešgíd-da zu bestimmen. igi-bi “sein Auge” bezeichnet in der Ur III-zeitlichen Urkunde OrSP 47–49:144 einen Teil von Standarten (šu-nir). Zum Text siehe Sallaberger 1999:244; Sallaberger 1993:182; Waetzoldt 1978:41; Limet 1960:147–148. Sallaberger 1993:182 übersetzt igi-bi mit “seine Vorderseite?”; Limet 1960:147 übersetzt “le devant”.

    I. Schrakamp, Kommentar zu Erm. 14380…

    169

    gú-bi auf igi- und gú ×eš-gíd-da “Lanzen-/Speerspitze”, so bleibt der Unterschied zwischen beiden Bezeichnungen unklar.43 Das Auftreten von Waffenteilen wäre in einer Waffenausgabe an Truppen verwunderlich, doch nach der von W. Sommerfeld gebotenen Interpretation von Erm. 14380 dokumentiert die Urkunde die durch eine Notlage bedingte Ausgabe von Waffen und -teilen. Durch diese Interpretation lassen sich sowohl die Schwankungen in den Stückzahlen der einzelnen Objekte als auch das Auftreten von nicht montierten Lanzenspitzen plausibel begründen.44 Zugleich folgt aus dem gemeinsamen Auftreten von igi-bi und gú-bi, daß beide Begriffe unterschiedliche Arten von Lanzenspitzen bezeichnen. lu-úb lu-úb = luppum, später kušlu-úb, bezeichnet einen “Lederbeutel”, der an der Hüfte getragen wurde und zur Aufnahme fester oder flüssiger Substanzen diente.45 Als Zubehör der Bewaffnung ist lu-úb in Urnamma A 88–89 Teil eines Geschenkes an Nergal, das außerdem Bogen, Köcher, Pfeile, eine Keule und einen Dolch enthält.46 In Erm. 14380 wird lu-úb stets in Paarung mit da-si genannt. ma-KIL-tum ma-KIL-tum ist ein hapax legomenon, so daß eine sachliche Bestimmung nur aufgrund des Kontextes und nur vorbehaltlich erfolgen kann. Da ma-KIL-tum in den Abschnitten A–I nicht vorkommt, sondern nur am Ende des Textes die Ausgabe von einem Exemplar verzeichnet wird, handelt es sich vermutlich nicht um einen Teil der Standardausrüstung. Stattdessen könnte es einen Gegenstand bezeichnen, der vom Kommandanten der Einheit verwendet oder getragen wurde. Aufgrund fehlender Parallelen kann behelfsweise nur auf das in einer sargonischen Urkunde aus Gasur bezeugte ma-ki-lum verwiesen werden, das nach dem Kontext

    43

    Vgl. Anm. 42 zu Römer 1993–94:24 Anm. 4. Ein weiteres Beispiel für die gemeinsame Buchung von einsatzbereiten Waffen und Waffenteilen (×eš-gíd-da “Lanzen” und igi ×eš-gíd-da “Lanzenspitzen”) bietet mit HUCA 49:54 Nr. 19 eine Lugalzagesi-zeitliche Urkunde aus Zabalam über Außenstände von Wehrgerät. Zum Text siehe Powell 1978:17–18 IV; Westenholz 1999:65 Anm. 290; Visicato 2000:83; Sallaberger 2004:201. 45 AHw. 564 s. v. luppum; CAD L 252 s. v. luppu; Stol 1980–83:538; Civil 1976: 91 Anm. 32; Civil 1987a:47. 46 Siehe zur Stelle die Angaben in Anm. 18. 44

    170

    Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

    vielleicht eine Art Behälter bezeichnet.47 Ein Zusammenhang mit der in einer jB Synonymenliste bezeugten Waffenbezeichnung ma-ki-lum ist aufgrund der geringen Verläßlichkeit der Kompilation unwahrscheinlich. 48 Ebenso unwahrscheinlich ist ein Zusammenhang mit der in einer jB lexikalischen Liste als Variante zu dem Baumnamen makištum bezeugten Schreibung ma-kil-tum.49 Die genaue Bedeutung bleibt deshalb unklar. Für die Möglichkeit einer Ableitung von kullum bzw. einer Nominalform maprist siehe den Kommentar zu V 7 im Beitrag von W. Sommerfeld. nu-ru-um túg-du8 W. Sommerfeld50 hat nūrum unter Verweis auf AOAT 3/1 Nr. 7351 (Vs. I 2 1 túgnu-ru-um) und JCS 26:72 Nr. 3 (Vs. I 4 2 nu-ru siki) als aAkk. Bezeichnung für ein Kleidungsstück bestimmt52. Seine Vermutung, daß das Lexem auch in ITT 2, 4430 (Vs. 1–2 20 nu-ru-um ŠU, 109 zi-sa) vorliegt, wird durch das gemeinsame Auftreten der Bezeichnung mit dem Ausrüstungsgegenstand zi-sa in ITT 2, 4430 und Erm. 14380 bestätigt. Da zwei von vier sargonischen Belegen für diese Textilie eindeutig in militärischem Zusammenhang stehen, wurde nūrum offenbar auch von Soldaten getragen. In Erm. 14380 wird nūrum anders als die übrigen Objekte jedoch nur einmal ausgegeben, so daß es vielleicht zur Ausstattung des Kommandanten gehörte. Nach ITT 2, 4430 wurde nūrum aber auch in Mengen von 20 Stück hergestellt bzw. verwendet.

    47

    AHw. 589 s. v. makilum “eine Waffe”; CAD M1 129 s. v. makilu; nach Salonen 1966:139 Synonym zu pat(AR)-rum, in einer sargonischen Urkunde aus Gasur (HSS 10:170 Vs. 8) aber nach Kontext ein Behälter. 48 Von Soden (Matouš–von Soden 1933:4) betont, daß die Gleichungen der Synonymenliste malku = šarru für die Auswertung des akkadischen Lexikons nur begrenzten Wert besitzen, insbesondere bei Begriffen, die nur in derartigen Listen bezeugt sind. 49 Zum Begriff AHw. 589 s. v. makištu / makiltu; CAD M1 129 s. v. makiltu; CAD M1 130 s. v. makištu; MAD 3, 170 s. v. MGL?. Zur Stelle Hh III 81 siehe MSL 5, 99, 81. Die Deutung der im Schlußvermerk von Erm. 14380 bezeugten Wendung ×eš sàg- als “geschnittenes Holz” würde freilich gut zur Identifikation mit makištum / makiltum passen. Da aber in sargonischem Kontext unbedingt die primäre Wortgestalt makištum, nicht makiltum zu erwarten wäre, kann dies nicht das Richtige treffen. 50 Deller–Mayer–Sommerfeld 1987:210. 51 Jetzt bearbeitet durch Bonechi–Eidem–Finkel 2001:107 Nr. 15. 52 Das so bezeichnete Kleidungsstück ist in AHw. und CAD nicht erfaßt, doch in CDA 258 s. v. nūru(m) II “a garment” als selbständiges Lemma aufgenommen.

    I. Schrakamp, Kommentar zu Erm. 14380…

    171

    saךu urudu saךu53 ist in rund 10 präsargonischen bzw. sargonischen Texten als Bezeichnung für den “Helm” nachzuweisen. Erm. 14380 nennt mit 101 Metallhelmen die bisher größte Stückzahl. Daher ist trotz der geringen Anzahl archäologischer Fundstücke54 anzunehmen, daß metallene Helme neben solchen aus Leder55 durchaus zur üblichen Ausrüstung von Soldaten gehörten. urudu

    gag gag ist im vorliegenden Zusammenhang vielleicht als Stangenwaffe mit metallener Spitze / Klinge deuten. Ausgehend von der dem Bildzeichen zugrundeliegenden Bedeutung “Spitze” kann gag im Kontext mit Waffen eine Art “Spieß” oder den “Pfeil”56 bezeichnen. Eine Entscheidung zugunsten der einen oder anderen Bedeutung muß aufgrund von Kontextinformationen getroffen werden (gemeinsame Nennung mit Bogen oder Köcher und entsprechend hohe Stückzahlen, Auftreten mit Nahkampfwaffen, Gewicht, entsprechend niedrigere Stückzahlen).57 In der Bedeutung “Pfeil” wird gag z. B. in den sargonischen Urkunden A.2736 = JCS 55, 5458 passim; RTC 22259 Vs. II 7–9 verwendet (jeweils mit ×ešba-na bzw. ×ešpana “Bogen” und é-mar-ru10 “Köcher”). Die Bedeutung “Spieß” liegt möglicherweise auch in der Ur III-zeitlichen Urkunde ITT 5, 678960 Vs. 3 vor, wo die Bezeichnung mit ×eš-gíd-da “Lanze” und urudu¶a-zi-in “Axt” genannt wird und als Gewicht eine Mine pro urudugag angegeben wird. Nach dem Kontext bezeichnet urudugag in RTC 222 Vs. IV 11 eine Art Spieß, da die Waffe über eine Spitze verfügte und in geringer Stückzahl zusammen mit weiteren Waffen verzeichnet urudu

    53

    Zur Bezeichnung siehe z. B. Wilcke 1972–75:312; Limet 1972:8 und zuletzt Sjöberg 1999:515. 54 Borchardt 1972:89–95; Calmeyer 1972–75:313–314; Rehm 2003:12, 25, 30. 55 Wilcke 1972–75:312. 56 Zu gag in der Bedeutung “Pfeil” siehe z. B. Civil 2003:50; Hilgert 2003:67 Anm. 213; Westenholz 1999:68 Anm. 305; Römer 1993–94:29 Anm. 50 und vgl. auch Proto-Aa (MSL 9, 130) 313 mit der Gleichung gag = ū´um. 57 Die Bemerkung von Postgate 2003–05:456–457: “… with some words there can be doubt as to whether an arrow or a light javelin is meant” trifft zweifellos auch hier zu. 58 Zum Text Civil 2003:49–54; Hilgert 2003:67 Anm. 213; Westenholz 1999: 68 Anm. 305. 59 Vgl. zur Stelle z. B. Foster 1980:34. 60 Zur Stelle Limet 1960:205; Englund 1990:75 Anm. 247.

    172

    Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

    wird.61 Die Bedeutung “Spieß” paßt auch zu Gudea Statue B V 39–40. Nin×irsus Götterwaffe šár-gaz, der “Tausendtöter”, wird dort als urudugag igi imin, wörtlich “Nagel mit sieben Augen” bezeichnet, was als “siebenspitziger Spieß” zu deuten ist.62 In Erm. 14380 kann demnach aufgrund des Fehlens von Begriffen aus dem Bogenwesen und der geringen Stückzahl nicht von der Bedeutung “Pfeil” ausgegangen werden. Für die Deutung “Spieß” spricht zudem die Gliederung des Textes, denn urudugag tritt nach den Lanzen (×eš-gíd-da), aber vor den Rüstungsteilen (saךu, zi-sa) auf. Unklar bleibt, warum urudugag in Erm. 14380 in so geringer Stückzahl genannt wird. Wurde diese Waffe etwa von den Zugführern (ugula) getragen? zi-sa Civil63 hat den sargonisch in STTI 7 Vs. 4, Rs. 3, 6; ITT 5723 Vs. 3; ITT 2, 4430 Vs. 2 zi-sa geschriebenen Gegenstand64 mit dem Objekt identifiziert, das in archaischen Vorläufern zu Ú¶ im Abschnitt “Waffen” (Archaic ÚAR-ra A 284; Archaic ÚAR-ra B XII 9)65 in den Schreibungen ziiš-sa und zi-eš vorliegt. Aufgrund des Kontextes hat Civil den Begriff als Bezeichnung für ein Rüstungsteil gedeutet. Für die Deutung spricht vielleicht auch die Beobachtung, daß zi-sa in Erm. 14380 üblicherweise nach saךu “Helm” genannt wird. 4. Zusammenfassung Erm. 14380 zeigt eine strikte Gliederung; die Abschnitte A–I sind in Kombination und Reihenfolge der Gegenstände fast identisch. Die Ausrüstung der Truppen muß daher hochgradig standardisiert gewesen 61

    RTC 222 Vs. IV 11 14 urudugag sa×-ba zabar ×ar-ra “14 ‘Kupferspieße’ mit bronzebesetzter Spitze” (eigentlich: “Kopf ”), ähnlich auch RTC 229 Vs. II 5′–6′. 62 Zur Stelle Edzard 1997:33; Steible 1991:164. Vergleichbare Bildungen für Bezeichnungen von Götterwaffen, deren unmittelbar wirksamer Teil gleichsam als Ausdruck göttlicher Potenz vervielfältigt ist, bieten etwa die “siebenköpfige Keule” (šíta sa× imin) in Gudea Cyl B VII 12 oder Ninurtas “fünfzigköpfige Keule” (šíta sa× ninnu) in Angim 141 (Cooper 1978:80). Eine ikonographische Entsprechung finden derartige Waffen in der als “Mehrfachkeule” bezeichneten Götterwaffe (Rehm 2003:27 Anm. 251). 63 Civil 2003:51. 64 Nach der Kopie von ITT 2, 4430 liegt mit É anstelle von sa ein Kopieroder Schreibfehler vor. 65 Zu den Textvertretern siehe die Angaben bei Civil 2003:51 Anm. 11; Civil 1987b:133–134.

    I. Schrakamp, Kommentar zu Erm. 14380…

    173

    sein. Auch der innere Aufbau der Abschnitte folgt anscheinend einer sachlichen Ordnung, denn zuerst werden die Kampfwaffen (×eš-gíd-da, urudugag), dann die Schutzwaffen (saךu, zi-sa) und zuletzt das Zubehör (da-si, lu-úb) genannt. Die strenge Gliederung wird lediglich durch die schwankenden Stückzahlen der Gegenstände durchbrochen. Aufgrund dieser Diskrepanzen – 101 Helme (saךu urudu) stehen 33 Lanzen (×eš-gíd-da) gegenüber – ist eine Deutung der Urkunde als reguläre Ausgabe von Kriegsgerät zur Bewaffnung einer Truppenabteilung kaum plausibel, da man schließlich Helme und Lanzen in gleichmäßiger Stückzahl erwarten würde. Denkbar wäre lediglich die Interpretation als Ausgabe von Ausrüstungsgegenständen zum Zwecke der Wiederherstellung einer einheitlichen Bewaffnung bei einer bereits ausgehobenen Einheit. Vielleicht wird diese Annahme durch die Beobachtung gestützt, daß dem Offizier Amar-si4 nach ITT 1, 1449 eine Truppe von rund 170 Mann unterstellt war, während in Erm. 14380 Helme für nur 101 Mann ausgegeben werden. In diesen Zusammenhang paßt die von W. Sommerfeld vorgeschlagene Interpretation, daß Erm. 14380 die durch eine klimatische Notlage bedingte Ausgabe von Wehrgerät dokumentiert. Sowohl die Schwankungen der Stückzahlen zwischen den einzelnen Posten als auch das Auftreten von Waffenteilen – den als igi-bi und gú-bi bezeichneten Lanzenspitzen – lassen sich durch diese Interpretation begründen. Über eine etwaige militärische Bedrohung, die Anlaß der Waffenausgabe war, enthält der Text keine Informationen. Die Betrachtung der Urkunde in einem größeren Zusammenhang würde hier sicherlich weitere Erkenntnisse liefern. Bibliographie Attinger 1984 Bauer 1989–90 Bauer 1998

    Boese 1971 Bonechi–Eidem– Finkel 2001

    Attinger, P. Remarques à propos de la “Malédiction d’Accad”. RA 78:99–121. Bauer, J. Altsumerische Wirtschaftsurkunden in Leningrad. AfO 36–37:76–91. Bauer, J. Der vorsargonische Abschnitt der mesopotamischen Geschichte. Bauer, J.; Englund, R. K.; Krebernik, M. Mesopotamien. Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastische Zeit. Annäherungen 1 (OBO 160/1). Fribourg–Göttingen. S. 431–585. Boese, J. Altmesopotamische Weihplatten. Eine sumerische Denkmalsgattung des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr (UAVA 6). Berlin–New York. Bonechi, M; Eidem, J.; Finkel, I. The Third-millennium Inscriptions. Oates, D.; Oates, J.; MacDonald, H. (Hg.).

    174

    Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies

    Bonnet 1926 Borchardt 1972 Calmeyer 1972–75 Civil 1976 Civil 1987a

    Civil 1987b Civil 1987c Civil 2003 Cooper 1978 Cooper 1983 Deller–Mayer– Sommerfeld 1987 Donbaz–Foster 1982 Durand 1988 Durand 1998 Edzard 1968 Edzard 1997 Englund 1990 Falkenstein 1966 Flückiger-Hawker 1999 Foster 1980 Foster 1982

    Nagar in the Third Millennium BC. Excavations at Tell Brak. Vol. 2. London. S. 99–120. Bonnet, H. Die Waffen der Völker des Alten Orients. Leipzig. Borchardt, J. Homerische Helme. Helmformen der Ägäis in ihren Beziehungen zu europäischen und orientalischen Helmen der Bronze- und frühen Eisenzeit. Mainz. Calmeyer, P. Helm. B. Archäologisch. RlA 4:313–317. Civil, M. The Song of the Plowing Oxen. Kramer Anniversary Volume. Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noah Kramer (AOAT 25). Neukirchen-Vluyn. S. 83–95. Civil, M. Feeding Dumuzi’s Sheep: The Lexicon as a Source of Literary Inspiration. Language, Literature, and History: Philological and Historical Studies Presented to Erica Reiner (AOS 67). New Haven. S. 37–55. Civil, M. The Early History of ÚAR-ra: The Ebla Link. Ebla 1975–1985. Napoli. S. 131–158. Civil, M. Ú¶ VI dans Nuzi SMN 2559 et Emar VI/2 540 et 730. RA 81:187–188. Civil, M. Of Bows and Arrows. JCS 55:49–54. Cooper, J. S. The Return of Ninurta to Nippur (AnOr 52). Roma. Cooper, J. S. The Curse of Agade. Baltimore–London. Deller, K.; Mayer, W. R.; Sommerfeld, W. Akkadische Lexikographie: CAD N. Or NS 56:176–218. Donbaz, V.; Foster, B. R. Sargonic Texts from Telloh in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum (OPSNKF 5). Philadephia. Durand, J.-M. Archives Épistolaires de Mari I/1 (= ARM 26/1). Paris. Durand, J.-M. Les documents épistolaires du palais de Mari. T. II. Paris. Edzard, D. O. Sumerische Rechtsurkunden des III. Jahrtausends aus der Zeit vor der III. Dynastie von Ur (ABAW 67). München. Edzard, D. O. Gudea and His Dynasty (RIME 3/1). Toronto–Buffalo–London. Englund, R. K. Organisation und Verwaltung der Ur III-Fischerei (BBVO 10). Berlin. Falkenstein, A. Die Inschriften Gudeas von Lagas. Teil I: Einleitung (AnOr 30/I). Roma. Flückiger-Hawker, E. Urnamma of Ur in Sumerian Literary Tradition (OBO 166). Fribourg–Göttingen. Foster, B. R. Notes on Sargonic Royal Progress. JANES 12:29–42. Foster, B. R. Umma in the Sargonic Period (Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 20). Hamden.

    I. Schrakamp, Kommentar zu Erm. 14380… Foster 1993 Gelb 1965 Glassner 1986 Haller 1954 Hilgert 2003 Katz 2003 Kienast–Volk 1995 Kramer 1991

    Limet 1960 Limet 1972 Matouš–von Soden 1933 Müller-Karpe 1995

    Oberhuber 1977 Postgate 2003–05 Powell 1973 Powell 1978 Rehm 2003 Römer 1965

    175

    Foster, B. R. Management and Administration in the Sargonic Period. Akkad, the First World Empire. Structure, Ideology, Traditions (HANE/S 5). Padua. S. 25–39. Gelb, I. J. The Ancient Mesopotamian Ration System. JNES 24:230–243. Glassner, J.-J. La chute d’Akkadé: L’événement et sa mémoire (BBVO 5). Berlin. Haller, A. Die Gräber und Grüfte von Assur (WVDOG 65). Berlin. Hilgert, M. Cuneiform Texts from the Ur III Period in the Oriental Institute. 2. Drehem Administrative Documents from the Reign of Amar-Suena (OIP 121). Chicago. Katz, D. The Image of the Nether World in the Sumerian Sources. Bethesda. Kienast, B.; Volk, K. Die sumerischen und akkadischen Briefe des III. Jahrtausends aus der Zeit vor der III. Dynastie von Ur (FAOS 19). Stuttgart. Kramer, S. N. The Death of Ur-Nammu. Near Eastern Studies Dedicated to H. I. H. Prince Takahito Mikasa on the Occasion of his Seventy-Fifth Birthday (BMECCJ 5). Wiesbaden. S. 193–214. Limet, H. Le travail du métal au pays de Sumer au temps de la IIIe dynastie d’Ur. Paris. Limet, H. Les métaux à l’époque d’Agadé. JESHO 15:3–34. Matouš, L.; von Soden, W. Die lexikalischen Tafelserien der Babylonier und Assyrer. Berlin. Müller-Karpe, M. Zu den Erdgräbern 18, 20 und 21 von Assur. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis mesopotamischer Metallgefäße und -waffen von der Wende des 3. zum 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz, 42). Mainz. Oberhuber, K. Rezension zu Sollberger, E. Presargonic and Sargonic Economic Texts (CT 50). OLZ 72:571–583. Postgate, J. N. Pfeil und Bogen. A. I. Nach schriftlichen Quellen. In Mesopotamien. RlA 10:456–458. Powell, M. A. Rezension zu Sollberger, E. Presargonic and Sargonic Economic Texts (CT 50). ZA 63:99–106. Powell, M. A. Texts from the Time of Lugalzagesi: Problems and Perspectives in their Interpretation. HUCA 49: 1–58. Rehm, E. Waffengräber im Alten Orient. Zum Problem der Wertung von Waffen in Gräbern des 3. und frühen 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr. in Mesopotamien und Syrien. Oxford. Römer, W. H. Ph. Sumerische ‘Königshymnen’ der Isin-Zeit. Leiden.

    176 Römer 1993–94 Sallaberger 1993 Sallaberger 1997 Sallaberger 1999

    Sallaberger 2004 Salonen 1965 Salonen 1966 Scheil 1913 Selz 1989 Selz 1994 Sigrist 1979 Sjöberg 1999

    Sommerfeld 2004

    Steible 1991 Stol 1980–83 Veldhuis 1997 Veldhuis 2000 Visicato 2000 Waetzold 1978

    Articles: Ancient Near Eastern Studies Römer, W. H. Ph. Beiträge zum Lexikon des Sumerischen (5). AfO 40–41:24–38. Sallaberger, W. Der kultische Kalender der Ur III-Zeit. (UAVA 7/1–2). Berlin–New York. Sallaberger, W. Eine reiche Bestattung im neusumerischen Ur. JCS 47:15–21. Sallaberger, W. Ur III-Zeit. Sallaberger, W.; Westenholz, A. Mesopotamien: Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit. Annäherungen 3 (OBO 160/3). Fribourg–Göttingen. S. 119– 390. Sallaberger, W. Palast. A. I. Mesopotamien im III. Jahrtausend. RlA 10:200–204. Salonen, A. Die Hausgeräte der alten Mesopotamier nach sumerisch-akkadischen Quellen. Eine lexikalische und kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Teil I. Helsinki. Salonen, E. Die Waffen der alten Mesopotamier. Eine lexikalische und kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchung (StOr 33). Helsinki. Scheil, V. L’armure au temps de Narâm–Sin. RT 35:26– 35. Selz, G. Die altsumerischen Wirtschaftsurkunden der Ermitage zu Leningrad (FAOS 15/1). Wiesbaden–Stuttgart. Selz, G. Verwaltungsurkunden in der Eremitage St. Petersburg. ASJ 16:207–230. Sigrist, M. Le trésor de Drehem. Or NS 48:26–53. Sjöberg, Å. W. Notes on Selected Entries from the Ebla Vocabulary. eš3-bar-kin5 (II). Munuscula Mesopotamica. Festschrift für Johannes Renger (AOAT 267). Münster. S. 513–552. Sommerfeld, W. Die inschriftliche Überlieferung des 3. Jahrtausends aus Tutub. Von Sumer nach Ebla und zurück. Festschrift Giovanni Pettinato (HSAO 9). Heidelberg. S. 285–292. Steible, H. Die neusumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften. Teil I: Inschriften der II. Dynastie von Lagas (FAOS 9/1). Stuttgart. Stol, M. Leder(industrie). RlA 6:527–543. Veldhuis, N. Elementary Education at Nippur. The Lists of Trees and Wooden Objects. Groningen. Veldhuis, N. Kassite Exercises: Literary and Lexical Extracts. JCS 52:67–94. Visicato, G. The Power and the Writing. The Early Scribes of Mesopotamia. Bethesda. Waetzoldt, H. Miscellanea neo-sumerica, VII. Kollationen zu N. Schneider, Die Geschäftsurkunden aus Drehem und Djoha in den staatlichen Museen (VAT) zu Berlin OrSP 47–49, Roma, 1930. OA 17:35–59.

    I. Schrakamp, Kommentar zu Erm. 14380… Waetzold 1990 Westenholz 1975 Westenholz 1999

    Wilcke 1972–75 Wilcke 1992 Yadin 1963

    177

    Waetzoldt, H. Zur Bewaffnung des Heeres von Ebla. OA 29:1–38. Westenholz, A. Early Cuneiform Texts in Jena. Jena. Westenholz, A. The Old Akkadian Period: History and Culture. Sallaberger, W.; Westenholz, A. Mesopotamien: Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit. Annäherungen 3 (OBO 160/3). Fribourg–Göttingen. S. 15–117. Wilcke, C. Helm. A. Philologisch. RlA 4:311–313. Wilcke, C. E2-sag-da-na Nibruki: An Early Administrative Center of the Ur III Empire. Nippur at the Centennial (CRRAI 35 = OPSNKF 14). Philadelphia. S. 311–324. Yadin, Y. The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archeological Discovery. London.

    Basic Color Terms of Biblical Hebrew in Diachronic Aspect* Maria Bulakh Hamburg University

    The aim of this paper is to provide a full etymological description of the basic color terms (BCTs)1 of Biblical Hebrew. Although color terms (CTs) of Biblical Hebrew have received attention in both diachronic (Gradwohl 1963) and synchronic (Guillaumont 1957, Fronzarolli 1969, Brenner 1979) perspective, the present investigation is justified by the fact that Gradwohl’s study, the only description of CTs in Biblical Hebrew that gives their etymological analysis, is outdated in several respects and needs to be revised.

    * The present paper is based on a chapter of my Ph.D. thesis, Cvetooboznačenie semitskih jazykov v etimologičeskom aspekte (Color Naming of Semitic Languages in Etymological Aspect), Russian State University for the Humanities 2005. My warm thanks go to L. Kogan, who read and improved the draft version, and to A. Lyavdansky and S. Loesov, with whom I discussed some questions concerning the Aramaic cognates. I am grateful to International Association for the Promotion of Co-operation with Scientists from the New Independent States (INTAS) for the financial support (grant 05-1000008-7917). 1 The definition of “basic color term” was suggested by Berlin and Kay (1969: 5ff.) and subsequently underwent a number of revisions. For the purposes of the present study, the elaborations by Brenner (1979:55f.) and Kerttula (forthcoming) were most profitable. According to Brenner, BCT is characterized by 1. “morphological simplicity” (in the Semitic languages this criterion brings together lexemes that consist either of a consonantal-vocalic root only (primary nouns), or of a consonantal root and a vocalic transfix); 2. hyperonymity; 3. unrestricted applicability. In case of lack of information, several additional criteria can be applied, such as frequency, number of derivates. Besides, I found it necessary to use also the additional criteria of formal—morphological and syntactical— similarity between the members of a BCT system. Biblical Hebrew employs the morphological pattern С1āС2ōС3, going back to *С1aС2uС3С3 (see Fischer 1965: 15; Fronzaroli 1969:388f.; Fox 2003:284–5) for the majority of its BCTs (an obvious exception is lābān ‘white’). In dubious cases (e. g., in the case of the hapax legomenon yārō£) the morphological pattern of the lexeme can be a decisive argument for regarding it as a BCT.

    182

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    In my attempt to establish the BCTs of Biblical Hebrew I mostly relied on the interpretations suggested by Brenner, not ignoring, however, the results of Gradwohl’s investigation.2 One should also take into consideration the results of the linguistic analysis of Biblical Hebrew CTs undertaken by P. Fronzaroli (1969), who used the strictest criteria for BCTs and reconstructed for Biblical Hebrew a three-member BCT system. Such a reconstruction, however, turns out to be unsatisfactory when one attempts to integrate it into the general reconstruction of BCT systems in Semitic. Fronzaroli’s work, based on consistent methodological principles, demonstrates that, taken in isolation, the Biblical text allows one to establish only three BCTs for Hebrew: lābān ‘white’, šāµōr ‘black’, !ādōm ‘red’. The status of two other potential BCTs (yārō£ ‘green’ and ´āhōb ‘yellow’) is doubtful. Nevertheless, the diachronic perspective (left out of consideration by Fronzaroli) provides sufficient arguments for their inclusion into the BCT system of Biblical Hebrew. A. Brenner established the following chronological distribution of the BCTs attested in the Old Testament (Brenner 1979:77): – pre-exilic period — !ādōm ‘red’, lābān ‘white’; – exilic and post-exilic periods — three well-attested BCTs (!ādōm ‘red’, lābān ‘white’, šāµōr ‘black’) + two terms that had just begun to penetrate into the system of BCTs (yārō£ ‘green’ and ´āhōb ‘yellow’). A question naturally emerges, whether the attested sets of terms reflect accurately the actual BCT systems of the corresponding periods of Biblical Hebrew. Indeed, for each period we are faced with an extensive corpus of texts which are, however, very peculiar in respect of their genres and subjects. Consequently, absence of a term for this or that concept can be merely accidental and should not be used as an argument in the

    2

    I found it impossible to use the eccentric model of Hebrew CTs suggested by Massey-Gillespie (1994). The author criticizes Brenner’s approach, at the same time offering his own methods that apparently consist of using the morphological criterion alone. Only roots that allow reduplication of one or two final consonants are considered capable of producing BCTs. Applying this criterion, Massey-Gillespie builds the following system: šāµōr ‘black’, ´aµ ‘white’, !ādōm ‘red’, ra"ănān ‘green’, yere£ ‘yellow’ (ibid. 7ff.). This study is marked by a most loose usage of both diachronic approach (cf., e. g., tracing the roots lbn ‘to be white’ and µlb ‘milk’ to a biradical root *lb ‘milk’, ibid. 7) and synchronic analysis (e. g., defining the noun yere£ ‘greenery, vegetation’ as a CT with the meaning ‘yellow’, ibid. 9).

    M. Bulakh, Basic Color Terms of Biblical Hebrew…

    183

    discussion of any stratum of the lexical stock of Biblical Hebrew of this or that period. A serious argument against considering the textually attested BCT system of the pre-exilic period to be exhaustive is provided by the typology of BCT system, which has been thoroughly investigated in recent decades (see, e. g., MacLaury 2001). The fact that only definitions of white and red colors are present in the pre-exilic BCT system of Biblical Hebrew does not comply with Berlin and Kay’s scheme, since distinguishing of lightness should precede distinguishing of hue (in other words, the terms for white and black should appear on the first stage of the development of a BCT system, and the CT ‘red’ should enter it later). Brenner is aware of this principle and does reconstruct a third member (‘black’) for the BCT system of pre-exilic Hebrew, suggesting that its absence in the texts of this period is purely accidental. The most likely candidate for BCT ‘black’ in the pre-exilic period is šāµōr; less probably one of CTs ‘dark’ (µūm or the derivatives of the roots £dr, µšk), later ousted by the lexeme šāµōr.3 As a matter of fact, the apparent incompatibility of the BCT system “red–white” with the Berlin and Kay’s scheme can be theoretically solved if more wide-ranged semantics of the CT !ādōm, including both black and red hues, is reconstructed for the earliest period of the history of Hebrew. This possibility is, however, merely theoretic. If we accept it, we are forced to suggest a typologically unexplainable shift from the Proto-Semitic BCT system with its at least four terms system (*lbn ‘to be white’, *Îlm ‘to be dark, (blue-with-?)black’, *!dm ‘to be red’, *wr£ ‘to be shiny yellow-with-green’) to a two-term system of Biblical Hebrew. The presence of a fourth term, *wr£ ‘to be shiny yellow-with-green’, in Proto-Semitic makes it highly implausible that the reflex of this root lost its function as a BCT in Biblical Hebrew but regained it in the post-Biblical language. “Shrinking” of a BCT system from four members to three members is highly unlikely from a typological point of view. Therefore, we are forced to surmise that the reflex of *wr£ in Hebrew (yārō£) was in-

    3 Let us add still another possibility, namely a reflex of the Proto-Semitic basic term for black, *Îlm ‘to be dark, (blue-with-?)black’ (cf. Bulakh 2003:5–7), unattested in Hebrew as a CT, but likely represented by the abstract noun ´almāwet ‘gloom, pitch, darkness’ (HALOT 1029). According to the traditional point of view, the morphological structure of the Hebrew term is to be explained by a popular etymology that re-interpreted an abstract noun *´almūt as a compound of two nouns, ´ēl ‘shadow’ and māwet ‘death’.

    184

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    deed used as a BCT for “yellow-with-green” throughout the history of Hebrew. Thus, the external reconstruction makes us postulate a four-member BCT system for the early stages of Biblical Hebrew. The system consisted of terms for white, red, black and yellow-with-green, although the latter two terms are not attested in the texts of the pre-exilic period (and the status of the only candidate for “yellow-with-green”, yārō£, is far from clear even in the post-exilic period). Besides, one should not forget the possibility of another term entering the Hebrew BCT system, namely ´āhōb ‘yellow’, which is included by Brenner, with some reservations, into the BCT system of exilic and postexiliс periods (Brenner 1979:155), and which might have emerged in Biblical Hebrew as a shade of the “yellow-with-green” category, eventually developing into a BCT (an alternative version, suggested by Fronzaroli, treats ´āhōb as a shade of !ādōm ‘red’, since his reconstruction does not have a BCT ‘yellow-with-green’, see Fronzaroli 1969:387). Thus, the Hebrew BCT system reconstructed on the base of the data collected by Brenner consists of a four-member core—lābān ‘white’, šāµōr ‘black’, !ādōm ‘red’, yārō£ ‘yellow-with-green’—and a more recent term for yellow, ´āhōb, possibly still functioning as a shade of CT yārō£. This system can be viewed as transitional from one reconstructed by the present author for Proto-Semitic4 towards MacLaury’s stage IV (MacLaury 2001). All Biblical Hebrew BCTs have more or less reliable Semitic etymology.5

    4

    My Proto-Semitic system is typologically rare and does not correspond exactly to any of the stages proposed by MacLaury or elsewhere in studies dealing with the typology of color terms systems. All BCT systems with a yellow-with-green category on which reliable data are available represent later stages of evolution and include at least five BCTs (MacLaury 2001:1240 mentions systems in Chukchi of Siberia and Nuba of Sudan, which have yellow-with-green and probably are earlier stages of evolution, but lack of a special research on CTs in these languages prevents their usage in typologies of BCT systems). In any case, a structurally (although not materially) identical system seems to be actually attested in Akkadian (pe´û ‘white’, ´almu ‘black’, sāmu ‘red’ and (w)ar£u ‘yellow-with-green’, see Bulakh 2003). 5 The present discussion necessarily overlaps with the analysis proposed in my previously published studies on color term systems of various Semitic languages: Akkadian (Bulakh 2003), MSA (Bulakh 2004) and Geez (Bulakh forthcoming). Nevertheless, I found it necessary to include etymologies (although sometimes in a very compact form) of all Hebrew BCTs into the present paper, firstly, for the convenience of the reader, and secondly, because this offered me an opportunity to update and sometimes revise the etymological discussion.

    M. Bulakh, Basic Color Terms of Biblical Hebrew…

    185

    1. lābān ‘white’ (HALOT 517), pB. lābān id. (Ja. 690). This term is doubtlessly a basic designation of the white color in Hebrew. It is well attested in the Bible, qualifying the following objects: cattle (Gen 30:35), peeled branches of trees (Gen 30:37), manna (Ex 16:31), skin, hair, spots, swelling (on the skin) (Lev 13:3ff.), horse (Zech 1:6, 6:3, 6), garments (as a sign of joy) (Eccl 9:8: b3-kol "ēt yihyū b3gādekā l3bānīm ‘let your garment be white at all times’), teeth, compared with milk (Gen 49:12: … µaklīlī "ēnayim mi-yyāyin ū-l3ben šinnayim mē-µālāb ‘… more dark in respect of eyes than wine and more white in respect of teeth than milk’).6 Besides, this term is used as part of composite CTs: lābān !ădamdām ‘reddish-white’ (of the spots on the skin) (Lev 13:19, 42), kēhe lābān ‘dull white (colorless)’ (of the spots on the skin) (Lev 13:39). The verbs derived from this root are also well-attested in the Bible: lbn (hif"il) ‘to become white’ (Isa 1:18: !im-yihyū µă¢ā!ēkem ka-ššānīm kaššeleg yalbīnū !im-ya!dīmū ka-ttōlā" ka-´´emer yihyū ‘if your sins be as crimson they will be white as snow; if they be red as (crimson) worm, they will be as wool’; Joel 1:7—of the branches of a (ruined) fig-tree, Ps 51:9—of a repenting sinner, see also Dan 11:35). lbn (hitpa""el) ‘to be cleansed’ (Dan 12:10: yitbārărū wj-yitlabbjnū ‘they will be cleansed and whitened’). An obvious derivative from this root is the substantivized adjective l3bānā ‘full moon’ (lit. ‘the white one’)—always accompanied by a similarly constructed designation of sun, µammā (lit. ‘the hot one’, from µmm ‘to be hot’) in Isa 30:26 (w3-hāyā !ōr-hall3bānā k3-!ōr haµammā w3-!ōr haµammā yihye šib"ātayim ‘and the light of the moon will be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun will be seven times brighter’), Isa 24:23 (w3-µāp3rā hall3bānā ū-bōšā haµammā ‘and the moon will be abashed, and the sun will be ashamed’), Song 6:10 (mī zō(!)t hanniš£āpā k3mō šāµar yāpā ka-ll3bānā bārā ka-µammā !ăyummā ka-nnidgālōt ‘who is this that appears as dawn, fair as the moon, pure as the sun, majestic as an army with banners’). Thus, the term is used to characterize objects with a constant white color (teeth), is compared to such prototype objects as milk and snow, is included into a subsystem of horse colors, possesses connotations of purity, innocence (Isa 1:18, Ps 51:9, Dan 11:35, 12:10) and joy (Eccl 9:8). For a detailed discussion of the synchronic usage see Brenner 1979:118–41.

    6 Although the passage allows for various interpretations (see, e. g., Westermann 1982:247, Scharbert 1986:293), the meaning of the CT in question remains undisputable.

    186

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    Hbr. lābān goes back to the Proto-Semitic BCT *lbn with the same meaning. One should note that Gradwohl’s speculation on the term’s derivation from the prototype object name, milk (Gradwohl 1963:4), is not supported by the etymological data, since the color meaning, unlike the meaning ‘milk’, can be traced toward the Proto-Semitic level:7 [3] Ugr. lbn ‘white’ (DUL 490).8 # The term is attested only once; however, the context clearly demonstrates its color meaning, since it is used among other CTs describing various colors of garments (lbš): […]h.lbš.allm.lbnm 5 […lbš].all.šmt 6 [...lbš]. all.i£ni ‘white all-garments, … all[-garments] (of) carnelian red, ... all[-garments] (of) violet purple’ (4.182:4–6; see further DUL 831). Note, however, that according to van Soldt 1990:338 šmt and i£nu in this text are no color terms but rather designations of sorts of wool. [4] Pho., Pun. lbn id. (T 155; DNWSI 564). # To be vocalized as *lābōn, cf. Punic botanical terms quoted by Dioscurides (III 122; IV 190): abiblabón ‘lily’ < *!ābīb lābōn ‘white flower’, asouméslabon ‘dog’s cabbage’ (Wellmann 1906:133, 337; see Müller 1974: 54f.). Hbr. lābān id. (HALOT 517), lbnyn (pl. abs.) id. (DNWSI 564), pB. lābān id. (Ja. 690). [5] Jud. lābān id. (ibid.; likely a Hebraism). Mnd. lbina ‘white, gleaming’ (DM 229). [6] Arb. laban- ‘lait; lait aigre’ (BK 2 962). # The semantic shift ‘white’ > ‘white liquid, milk’ is unproblematic, cf., e. g., a reverse derivation in English milk-white. [9] Common MSA *lbn ‘white’: Mhr. 3wbōn (f. 3wb3nīt, pl. lēb3n) ‘white’ (JM 251). Hrs. elbōn (f. elbenáyt, pl. lében) id. (JH 83). Jib. lūn (f. līn4t, pl. lén3ti) id. (JJ 159). 7

    The etymology of this CT was discussed by the present author elsewhere (Bulakh 2004). However, at that time several important contributions on the topic were not accessible to me; therefore, I would like to use this opportunity to correct the deficiencies of the above-mentioned study. 8 The etymological material is organized according to the following subdivisions of Semitic: [1] Akkadian, [2] Ebla, [3] Ugaritic, [4] Canaanite, [5] Aramaic, [6] Arabic, [7] ESA, [8] Ethio-Semitic, [9] MSA. Linguistic and philological notes to the cognates are marked with #.

    M. Bulakh, Basic Color Terms of Biblical Hebrew…

    187

    Soq. líbehon id. (LS 228). # All the MSA terms are basic CTs for ‘white’ in the respective languages and it is only in Soqotri that a competing CT ¥á"bab is attested (Nakano 1986:126 = ´á"bab in LS 354). A few other Hebrew lexemes with the same set of root-consonants might be considered as derived from the CT ‘to be white’: l3bēnā ‘sun-baked brick’ (HALOT 517), l3bōnā ‘frankincense’ (ibid.) and libne ‘storax-tree’ (ibid. 897). 1a. Hbr. l3bēnā ‘sun-baked brick’ (HALOT 517). Cognates with identical meaning are present in a number of Semitic languages (Akk., Ugr., Arm., Arb., v. Bulakh 2004:272),9 which renders impossible an immediate derivation of this term from the CT lābān within Hebrew. As concluded in Bulakh 2004:272, on the Proto-Semitic level, too, such a derivation is rather unlikely. 1b. Hbr. l3bōnā ‘frankincense’ (HALOT 517). Frankincense is a resin of the Boswellia trees, such as Boswellia Sacra, Boswellia Carterii and Boswellia Frereana, growing in Southern Arabia and in Northern Somalia (see Löw 1881:235, No. 174). Several detailed studies by W. W. Müller (1974, 1978, 1992) dealt extensively with the history of names for frankincense in Semitic and Greek. However, derivation of these terms from the CT ‘white’, suggested by Müller (1974:59; 1978:705; 1997:194) needs to be reconsidered. Due to the cultural importance of the terms for frankincense, the phonetic similarity of terms denoting this substance is a priori likely to be due to a chain of borrowing rather than to a common source-form. In this case, the most probable source of irradiation would be Southern Arabia, known as the region where frankincense-producing plants grew and as an incense trade centre during many centuries (see Müller 1978: 703f.; 1992:854).10 However, it is difficult to establish the source of this borrowing since the root lbn is hardly attested in either ESA or MSA. 9

    To the forms discussed in my 2004 article add Hadr. lbn šmm ‘briques séchées au soleil’ (RÉS 2687:5, vol. V, p. 42). 10 One should keep in mind that the root lbn is found not only in terms denoting frankincense as such, but also in quite a number of designations for types of aromatic resins (myrrh, storax, rosemarine) as well as trees which yield these resins. In addition, such terms may function as general designations of incense. Incense is a general term for substances producing good smell when burnt, or, more specifically, for aromatic gums and resins (sometimes this word is used to

    188

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    According to Müller (e. g., 1974, 1978), this original form is to be reconstructed as *libān-. The clearest continuant of this reconstructed form is Gr. líbanos ‘frankincense’, ‘frankincense-tree’, libanōtós ‘frankincense’, evidently borrowed from a Semitic source (Müller 1974, also 1978:703; 1992:854; Masson 1967:53). The form libanōtós is explained by Müller 1974:57 as based on a form with the Mehri plural ending -ōt, a rather audacious hypothesis implying, on the one hand, that the Mehri plural suffix remained unchanged during the last two millennia and, on the other hand, that it were speakers of Mehri rather than Sabaeans (or speakers of other Ancient South Arabian languages) who had the most intensive contact to Greek sailors and merchants. Arb. lubān- ‘résine qui sert d’encens’ (BK 2 962), ‘frankincense-tree’ (Lane 3007), ‘a kind of gum; frankincense’ (LA XIII 377; TA IX 329)11 does not immediately correspond to the above reconstruction but according to Müller (1974:58; 1978:705; 1997:194) it may have developed from *libān- via labialization of the first vowel under the influence of b. Müller adduces some evidence in favor of an original form with -i- in Arabic: the form libān attested as the name of frankincense in the Arabic dialect of Óofar, a region of frankincense production (Rhodokanakis 1911:5312). The Arabic borrowings in Tigre (l3bān) and Harari (libānät), as well as

    refer to some sorts of frankincense, see above). Rosemarine (Rosmarinus officinalis) was used as a substitute of frankincense (cf. Löw 1924 II 102). Storax is an aromatic resin of the tree Liquidambar orientalis Miller. Sima (2000:272) argues that this term cannot be associated with the tree Styrax officinalis, since the latter yields no resin, but provides no explanation for the frequent confusion of the two terms. Nielsen (1986:62, with note 384) remarks that there can be “reasons for trees stopping production of sap or resin, like pollution or excessive tapping by man”. Myrrh is a resin of some species of Commiphora trees, such as Commiphora abyssinica, Commiphora schimperi and Commiphora myrrha (ibid. 282). To what degree these various meanings correlate with concrete morphological patterns is discussed below. 11 Obvious borrowings from Arb. lubān- are Mnd. lubana ‘frankincense’ (DM 232), Amh. luban ‘white incense’ (K 82), Saho lub#n ‘der weihrauch’ (Reinisch 1890:244), Somali lubaan ‘incense, frankincense, resin’ (Zorc–Osman 1993:262), ‘incenso’ (Agostini et al. 1985:393). 12 Müller (1978:704) also quotes Niebuhr (1772:143, 286), who gives libân as the Arabic name for frankincense. However, this form is given by Niebuhr alongside with olibân, which is difficult to explain in an Arabic context and is probably derived from the Latin olibanum (possibly < oleum libanum, see Müller 1974:59; 1978:706), which renders this piece of evidence less reliable.

    M. Bulakh, Basic Color Terms of Biblical Hebrew…

    189

    loanwords in Beja lib#n (Reinisch 1895:155), Oromo libana-ta/nni (Borello 1995:279) and Somali libānād (not attested either in Zorc–Osman 1993 nor in Agostini et al. 1985) are traced by Müller to the same source. According to Müller (1978:704), Mehri and Harsusi libān ‘frankincense’ mentioned in Thomas 1937:72f. also go back to a hypothetic Arabic source-word with -i-. According to Müller (e. g., 1978:705), the same prototype (with an extension *-at-) underlies Hbr. l3bōnā ‘frankincense’ (HALOT 517), pB. l3bōnā ‘(white) frankincense’ (Ja. 688). A few related Aramaic terms can be also traced back to *libān-at-, with a vowel shift ā > ō (on this development in the neighborhood of n, l or r in Aramaic see Beyer 1984:137), and a further shift ō > u in a closed stressed syllable (v. ibid. 139f.): Off. lbwnh/lbwnt ‘frankincense’ (DNWSI 564),13 Jud. l3buntā ‘frankincense’ (Ja. 688), lbwnh id. (Sok. 276), Syr. l3buttā ‘tus’ (Brock. 357), Sam. lbwnh ‘frankincense’ (Tal 425).14 Admittedly, Akk. labānatu ‘frankincense’ SB (CAD L 8), ‘Weihrauch’ (AHw. 522), which must be an Aramaic loanword, does not fit exactly this reconstruction because of the -a- in the first syllable.15 Besides, the root lbn is used in Semitic to derive several other terms with various morphological patterns but semantically related to the above-mentioned terms for frankincense. The form *lVbn-, although scantily attested in Semitic, can be tentatively reconstructed as a designation of storax tree: Gez. l3bn, interpreted as ‘storax tree’ (LGz. 305; LLA 42f.),16 is sometimes used to translate Gr. stakt$ ‘aromatic resin’ (often myrrh, but also other kinds of resins, balsams and gums, see Löw 1924 III 389); in this function the expression māya l3bn, lit. ‘water of l.’, is even more widely

    13

    The term seems to be used as a general term for incense, opposed to designations of other types of sacrifice (meal offering and holocaust), see Porten– Yardeni 1986, A4–7, line 21, A4–8, line 24, A4–9, line 9, A4–10, line 11 (Cowley 1923, Nos. 30–33). 14 Phoenician and Punic lbnt ‘frankincense’ (T 156; DNWSI 564) is obviously related but provides no evidence for the vocalic structure. Edom. lbnt is usually interpreted not as a term for frankincense but as its derivation with the meaning ‘incense altar’ (DNWSI 565). 15 Still another Akkadian term for incense with this root, lubbunû ‘incense’ NB (CAD L 231), ‘Weihrauch’ (AHw. 560), can hardly be derived from *libān- and must have a different WS prototype. 16 Amh. l3b3n ‘myrrh’ (K 82) is a loanword, perhaps from Geez with a meaning shift.

    190

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    used.17 There is only one clear attestation of its reference to storax: in Gen 30:37 it is attested as batr za-l3bn, ‘twig of l.’, rendering Gr. rábdos sturakínēs ‘storax rod’ (see LLA 42). Sima (2000:272 n. 52) considers the Geez term to be a reduction of l3bne (see below). However, structurally similar terms can be detected in Arabic and Akkadian (as an Aramaic borrowing). Arb. lubn- is attested only in Lisān, alongside with the well-attested lubn# (LA XII 377: wa-l-lubn# wa-l-lubn-u: ša³arat-un). The pertinent Akkadian word is puru¶libnu ‘an aromatic’ SB, NB (CAD P 529, AHw. 882; see most recently Finkel 2000:152–3). As long ago recognized by Ebeling (1952–53) and von Soden (1968:263; 1977:193), the Akkadian term goes back to a combination of two Aramaic words whose first part (puru¶) is to be identified with Hebrew and Aramaic terms for blossom such as Hbr. peraµ (HALOT 966), pB. (Ja. 1223), Jud. p3raµ, pirµā(!) (ibid. 1224), Syr. parµā(!) (Brock. 594). As for the second part (libnu), it was compared by Ebeling to both Hebrew l3bōnā and libne (for him, apparently, synonymous designations of frankincense), and to Gr. líbanos with the same meaning. The whole combination was translated by him as ‘Blüte des Weihrauch(strauch[?])es’, with an observation that the word for ‘Blüte’ must be interpreted here as ‘Aroma’. Von Soden (1968:263; 1977:192), however, compares the element libnu to the Judaic Aramaic term for poplar (see below), reconstructing the hypothetic Aramaic prototype as *proµ libnā ‘Weisspappelblüte’ (von Soden’s rendering of puru¶libnu as a whole is ‘eine aromatische Essenz’). All in all, in view of Arabic lubn- and Geez l3bn there is hardly any obstacle to suppose that the Aramaic term goes back to *libn-, denoting some kind of incense tree.18 One can suggest that from the same stem a better preserved form *l3bn-ay was derived with the extension -ay: Arb. lubn# ‘arbrisseau qui donne le styrax’ (BK 2 962; LA XIII 377); Sab. lbny ‘storax? perfume’ (SD 81);

    17

    Sima (2000:272, n. 52) suggests that both māya l3bn and māya l3bne denoted storax resin solved in water; alternatively, one can suggest that māy in this phrase refers to the sap or resin of the tree (especially in case of māya l3bne, explained with a general term for incense, "3¢ān; it is difficult to imagine a water solution to function as incense, i. e., combustible substance). 18 As already observed by Ebeling, a comparable combination is actually attested in post-Biblical Hebrew as prµlbn, prµlbyn (‘White Blossom (obviously a folk etymology), name of an aromatic shrub’, Ja. 1223, ‘eine aromatische Pflanze’, Löw 1881:319, No. 262). Sam. pr"lbn ‘a spice’ (Tal 702) must also be related although " instead of the expected µ is disturbing.

    M. Bulakh, Basic Color Terms of Biblical Hebrew…

    191

    Qat. lbny ‘storax’ (Ricks 91), ‘das Storax genannte Harz von Liquidambar orientalis Miller (Hamamelidaceae)’ (Sima 2000:271); Gez. l3bne ‘kind of tree’ (LGz. 305), ‘Liquidambar orientalis’ (Sima 2000: 272). The Hebrew term libne, traditionally interpreted as ‘storax-tree’ and compared to the above-mentioned terms (see, e. g., HALOT 897), in fact hardly belongs here (see section 1c in the present contribution). The interpretation of the above-mentioned ESA terms is based solely on the comparison with Arabic (see, e. g., Müller 1997:207). As for the Geez term, there is at least one passage (mentioned in Sima 2000:272) where this word doubtlessly refers to a kind of incense or to an incense-producing tree (most probably identical with l3bn), namely, a passage in Vita of Lalibala (Perruchon 1892:27, 92):19 y3śayy3¢anna la-māya l3bne za-w3!3tu "3¢āna beta kr3stiyān ‘he will sell us the water of l., which is the incense of the church.’ At the same time, in Job 40:22 it most likely denotes not an aromatic-producing tree but rather a poplar or willow (see section 1c). Finally, the meaning ‘aromatic resin’ is attested in Arb. laban- ‘résine qui coule d’un arbre et qui sert d’encens’ (BK 2 962; LA XIII 373; TA IX 328), which is clearly a development of the meaning ‘milk’ (comparisons between milk and tree resin are not infrequent, see, e. g., Strelcyn 1973: 88, 197, No. 88). Since most of the above mentioned resins are characterized by white or yellowish hue, it was more than once suggested that these terms are related to the CT ‘white’. Thus, W. W. Müller reconstructs a semantic shift ‘white’ > ‘milk-colored (resin)’ (Müller 1974:59; 1978:705; 1997: 194); the derivation of the aromata terms in question from the CT is also supported by Banti–Contini (1997:172–73). However, one cannot claim that white hue is the most characteristic, or the necessary feature of frankincense, or of an aromatic resin in general. Frankincense is usually described as having a yellowish or even reddish hue (see, e. g. Müller 1978:702, 720). Of course there are instances when yellow is denoted by CTs for white, e. g., when the yellow hue is opposed to a darker color (cf. the opposition white wine vs. red wine, where the CT white refers as a rule to a yellowish hue). Indeed, the best sorts of frankincense are called white, being opposed to the sorts of lower quality and of darker color. Müller (1978:705; 1997:194) quotes Plinius, Natural History XII 60 (cf., e. g., Ernout 1949:38), according to whom the white (candidum) frankin19

    Perruchon renders this as “eau de myrrhe ou de styrax, aqua styracina”, the translation ‘myrrh’ probably coming from Amharic.

    192

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    cense, collected in autumn, was of highest value (opposed to the spring frankincense, of lower quality and of reddish color, rufum); cf. also modern classification of frankincense into white (näÌÌ), black (¢3£w3r) and red (£äyy) used by merchants in Addis Ababa (Göttsch 1986:83). Perhaps one can imagine that color-derived terms first applied to the purest sorts of frankincense, then widened their range of reference and eventually became basic terms for frankincense (such a development could well have accompanied the borrowing of the term, since only the best sorts of frankincense were usually exported). However, there is no evidence that the words in question were ever used to denote a particular sort of frankincense. The same refers to the terms for storax, which can be of yellowish, whitish, reddish or dark color (see Löw 1924 III 388). Although Zohary (1995:118) quotes Arb. !abhar- ‘storax; white, light-colored’ as a semantic development parallel to Hbr. libne < lbn ‘to be white’, in fact the Arabic term for storax is given by Löw (1924 III 388) and Dozy (II 92) with initial " ("abhar-), which renders its derivation from bhr ‘to be lightcolored, shiny’ rather problematic. Besides, the Arabic term is not attested with this meaning in the standard dictionaries of Classical Arabic (BK, Lane, LA, TA). Another possibility to explain the hypothetical derivation ‘to be white’ > ‘aromatic resin’ is the employment of a BCT for white as a cover term including yellow hues; however, this is a relatively rare situation in the color systems of the languages of the world, and no evidence supports existence of such a system in the languages of South Arabia (virtually no data on color systems of ESA languages are available; in the MSA languages, yellow hues are either included into a “yellow-with-green” category, or expressed by a separate root ‘to be yellow’, see Bulakh 2004:269). One can suggest another way of deriving the terms for resins from the CT, namely, via an intermediary meaning ‘milk’: ‘white hue’ > ‘milk’ > ‘milk, thick sap or resin of a plant, a tree’ > ‘aromatic resin, incense’. The latter term derives, on the one hand, names for specific kinds of incense, and, on the other hand, names for trees which provide the resins from which the incense is made. Two stages of this development—‘milk’ and ‘aromatic resin’—are represented in Arabic in a polysemic lexeme: laban‘lait; lait aigre; résine qui coule d’un arbre et qui sert d’encens’ (BK 2 962; cf. LA XIII 373). Interestingly, an etymology connecting a term for a sort of frankincense with milk is suggested by Banti–Contini (1997:184– 185) for the Somali term canâad, relating it to East Cushitic *"a(a)n- ‘milk’, Somali caan-ó.

    M. Bulakh, Basic Color Terms of Biblical Hebrew…

    193

    1c. Hbr. libne is traditionally translated as ‘storax-tree’ (HALOT 518), based on the comparison with the above-mentioned terms for storax. However, both passages where it is attested (Gen 30:37 and Hos 4:13) do not favor the association of this term with aromatic resins. The expression ma££al libne (Gen 30:37) is indeed rendered as rábdos sturakínēs ‘storax rod’ in LXX. However, as Zohary remarks, in this passage the term can hardly refer to Styrax officinalis, since this tree does not grow in the area in question. He considers the interpretation ‘poplar’, which can be found in the region even to date, more plausible (see Zohary 1995: 132). In the same passage it is rendered by Jud. l3bān and Sam. lbn, both terms being interpreted as ‘poplar’ in the corresponding dictionaries. This interpretation is supported by Hos 4:13, where Hbr. libne is rendered in LXX by leúkē ‘poplar’. Löw (1924 III 338) tends to accept the translation ‘poplar’ for both passages. The interpretation of Zohary (1995:118), who sees in Hos 4:13 (but not in Gen 30:37) a reference to Styrax officinalis (which he holds to be unconnected with the production of resin), does not seem to find support in the ancient translations, but is based on contextual information: in Hos 4:13 the tree in question should grow on a mountain or a hill, whereas both Populus alba and Populus euphratica are found in the vicinities of rivers or springs. There are several botanic terms in Semitic that can be compared to Hebrew libne on formal and/or semantic grounds: Jud. l3bān, Sam. lbn, Gez. l3bne, all of which seem to be unconnected with the terms for aromatic resins discussed under 1b. The meaning of Gez. l3bne is problematic. For its usage as a term for a kind of incense, see above. However, A. Dillmann (who does not quote the above-mentioned usage of the term) observes that l3bne in the passage Job 40:22 denotes a sort of tree different from l3bn and suggests for the former the translation ‘poplar’ (LLA 43). This interpretation, however, is not obvious: LXX uses in this passage the term ágnos (in other passages, e. g., in Lev 23:40, it is rendered in Geez by kw3µā, kw3µā ‘willow’, see LLA 823), which can denote either a kind of willow or chaste tree (Vitex Agnus cactus L.); the Biblical Hebrew word "ărābā, employed in the corresponding verse of the Hebrew Bible, allows both interpretations, ‘willow’ and ‘poplar’ (see HALOT 897). These two botanical terms—poplar, Populus euphratica, and willow, Salix alba—are frequently confused due to the similarity in the structure of their leaves or to their distribution, both growing near water (see Zohary 1995:130f.). In LXX the term "ărābā is consistently understood as a term for willow, being rendered either with ágnos

    194

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    or with itéa ‘willow’. The translation of the term in Job 40:22 with a word for poplar would, thus, either suggest a translation (or revision) making use of the Hebrew text, or the interpretation of the Greek text based on the contextual information. A. Sima suggests the semantics ‘white poplar’ both for Hbr. libne and for Gez. l3bne, but supposes that the latter was employed in two meanings, ‘poplar’ and ‘storax-tree’ (Sima 2000:272, n. 52). W. Leslau gives for Gez. l3bne the general meaning ‘kind of tree’ (LGz. 305). Müller 1978:705 quotes Hbr. libne (but not Gez. l3bne) among the terms for storax, remarking, however, that the meaning of the Hebrew word is not quite clear. Formally, the Hebrew and Geez terms are very similar to the above-mentioned terms for storax (see 1b) and can be reduced to the pattern *lVbn-ay-. However, the semantic correspondence is far from evident: LXX obviously regards Hbr. libne as a term with two meanings, ‘storax’ and ‘poplar’, whereas Targum Onkelos renders it in both passages with the same word, l3bān. Both Jud. l3bān (‘white poplar’ according to Ja. 690) and Sam. lbn (‘poplar’ according to Tal 425) are attested only as equivalents of Hbr. libne. As we have seen, the meaning of the Hebrew term is not clear; therefore, the meaning ‘poplar’ for the Aramaic terms can also be doubted. However, in view of absence of the element *-ay-, it is difficult to treat them as further terms for ‘storax’. One strong argument in favor of the interpretation ‘poplar’ is, of course, the association of the species Populus alba L., spread in the Near East region, with the white color. Its foliage is perceived in many languages as having whitish, silver color, which results in such botanical terms as Syr. µawrā ‘populus alba’ < µ3war ‘albus fuit’ (Brock. 223; see also Löw 1881:153, No. 107), Gr. leúkē id. < leukós ‘white’. In Semitic, as we have seen, white was most probably denoted by the root *lbn already in the protolanguage. However, CTs with this meaning derived from *lbn are absent in Geez and poorly attested in Aramaic (non-basic terms in Judaic Aramaic, perhaps a Hebraism, and in Mandaic). This makes one suppose that the terms for poplar—if they are interpreted as such—in these languages are either borrowed from Hebrew or inherited from ProtoSemitic. Whereas the Aramaic terms can well he Hebraisms or coinages after Hebrew libne, the latter conjecture seems to be more plausible in case of Geez, where one can hardly suppose a Hebrew loanword (cf. Müller 1978:705; since Geez l3bne and Hebrew libne are employed in different Biblical passages, the Geez term cannot belong to Hebrew transcriptions that emerged during revisions of the Ethiopic Bible that made usage of the Hebrew text).

    M. Bulakh, Basic Color Terms of Biblical Hebrew…

    195

    To sum up, for the derivates of the root *lbn with the extension -ay we have doubtless attestations of two meanings: (1) ‘poplar’ or ‘willow’, attested in Hebrew and Geez (the meaning of both lexemes is not uncontestable but seems to be supported by their formal identity; no possibility of borrowing exists); (2) ‘a kind of aromatic resin; a resin-producing tree’ (judging from the evidence of Arabic, most likely storax and storax-tree respectively), attested in Arabic, Sabaic and Geez. One can suggest reconstruction of a Proto-Semitic botanical term either with the meaning ‘poplar’ or ‘willow’ (with subsequent re-interpretation of the term in South Arabia and Ethiopia due to contamination with the terms for frankincense), or with both meanings—‘poplar’/‘willow’ and ‘aromatic resin; resin-producing tree’. The first meaning should be regarded as a direct formation from the CT ‘white’, whereas the other could be derived from the root for ‘white’ via the meaning ‘milk’, similar to the term for frankincense. It is difficult to explain the form of the terms for ‘poplar’ in Jud. l3bān ‘white poplar’ (Ja. 690) and Sam. lbn ‘poplar’ (Tal 425), which are formally more resembling the terms for frankincense than any of the above-mentioned terms for storax and poplar, and which cannot be treated as direct derivations from a CT in these languages, since lbn is poorly attested as a CT in Aramaic. One can, however, imagine that these terms were coined after Hebrew libne which was seen as a derivation from lābān ‘white’. 2. šāµōr ‘black’ (HALOT 1466), pB. šāµōr ‘charred, black; charred or black thing’ (Ja. 1546). The term is used in the Bible as an attribute of the following objects: hair on the sore spots (Lev 13:31, 37), horse (Zech 6:2, 6), complexion (Song 1:5: š3µōrā !ănī w3-nā(!)wā ‘I am black and/but beautiful’), hair (Song 5:11: £3wū´´ōtāw … š3µōrōt kā-"ōrēb ‘his locks … are black as a raven’). A number of derived lexemes with the root šµr are also attested in the Old Testament: š3µarµōr ‘blackish’ (Song 1:6: !al-tir!ūnī še-!ănī š3µarµōret šeššĕzāpatnī haššāmeš ‘do not look at me that I am dark (lit. blackish), for the sun has parched me’), šµr (qal) ‘to be black’ (of skin—Job 30:30: "ōrī šāµar mē"ālāy w3-"a´mī µārā minnī µōreb ‘my skin has become black upon me, and my bones have become white because of dryness’; of appearance—Lam 4:8: šāµar mi-šš3µōr to!ŏrām ‘their appearance has become more black than coal’), š3µōr ‘coal, blackness, soot’ (Lam 4:8, see above; one should mention, however, another possible interpretation of the term, namely, an abstract noun ‘blackness’, see Brenner 1979:148). Another probably re-

    196

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    lated term is šaµărūt—a hapax legomenon that can be interpreted as ‘blackness (of hair)’, and is possibly paradigmatically opposed to the noun śēbā ‘the grey hair; advanced age’ (HALOT 1318): Eccl 11:10 (… kī hayyaldūt w3-haššaµărūt hābel ‘… since the youth and š. are vanity’, see also Brenner 1979:143). Thus, šāµōr is well attested in the Bible, possesses a large number of derivatives, has a wide range of reference and a non-restricted applicability (in particular, it is a member of the subsystem of horse colors); it is compared with raven—an object characterized by constant black color. For a detailed discussion, see Brenner 1979:142–49. The etymology of the Hebrew term has been discussed in Bulakh 2003:13–14, where it is compared, first of all, to obvious Aramaic cognates (Jud. š3µar ‘to be charred, black’, Ja. 1551, šµyr ‘black’, Sok. 544; Syr. š3µar ‘niger fuit’, Brock. 770; Mnd. ŠHR ‘to be(come) black’, DM 451), and, secondly, to Akk. šūru (šu¶ru, šur!u, fem. šur!itu), attested in OA, Nuzi, SB and as an Akkadogram in Hittite, with uncertain meaning but allowing for an interpretation ‘dark’ (CAD Š3 367; AHw. 1287).20 In addition, one can mention Tna. šaµrärä ‘to be completely burned up, charred’ (KT 810), but since parallels in other Ethiosemitic languages are lacking, this comparison is to be taken with due caution. In Arabic, no reflexes of the root are attested apart from obvious borrowings from Aramaic: a verb šµr ‘souiller de suie’ (Dozy I 732) and a term for blackbird (šaµrūr, šuµrūr, šaµāÐīr, šaµīr ‘merle’, BK 1 1197, LA IV 398, TA III 303; cf., e. g., Syr. šaµrūrā ‘turdus Merula’, Brock. 771), where the name of the bird is obviously derived from the CT for black. See further HALOT 1465 (Hbr., Hbr. pB., Jud., Syr., Mnd., Arb. šµr), AHw. 1287 (Akk., Hbr., Arm.), Brock. 770 (Hbr., Syr.), DM 451 (Hbr., Syr., Mnd.). 3. !ādōm ‘red’ (HALOT 15). This term is used to characterize the following objects: water, compared with blood (2 Kings 3:22), garments (Isa 63:2), horse (Zech 1:8; 6:2), cow (Num 19:2), man (Song 5:10: … dōdī ´aµ w3-!ādōm ‘… my beloved is bright (/white) and ruddy’; cf. the usage of a derived CT !admōnī, see below). Besides, a substantivized form of this term is attested with the meaning ‘lentil stew’ (Gen 25:30). BCT !ādōm forms a lot of derived terms, among them a few non-basic CTs: !ădamdām ‘reddish’ (of spots on the skin, see Lev 13:49; 14:37; also 20

    For the possibility of comparing these terms with the MSA *µwr ‘to be white’ see Bulakh 2003:13–15.

    M. Bulakh, Basic Color Terms of Biblical Hebrew…

    197

    as a part of composite CT lābān !ădamdām ‘reddish-white’, of spots on the skin, Lev 13:19; 24.42), !admōnī ‘light-red’ (characterizing a new-born baby, Gen 25:25; a young man, 1 Sam 16:12; 17:42; both contexts imply positive connotations). Besides, the verbal root !dm qal ‘to be red’ is attested: !ād3mū "e´em mi-pp3nīnīm ‘they were more red than coral in respect of their bodies’ (Lam 4:7; for this somewhat problematic expression v., e. g., Renkema 1998:513), pu""al ‘to be dyed red’ (attested only as passive participle: Ex 25:5; 26:14; 35:7, 23; 36:19, 34—of sheep skins; Nah 2:4: māgēn gibbōrēhū m3!oddām !anšē-µayil m3tullā"īm ‘the shield of his soldiers is dyed red, his warriors are dyed crimson’), hif"il ‘to be, become red’ (Isa 1:18: !im-yihyū µă¢ā!ēkem ka-ššānīm ka-ššeleg yalbīnū !im-ya!dīmū ka-ttōlā" ka-´´emer yihyū ‘if your sins be as crimson they will be white as snow; if they be red as worm, they will be as wool’), hitpa""al ‘to sparkle red’ (Prov 23:31: !al-tēre yayin kī yit!addām kī yittēn ba-kkōs "ēnō ‘do not look at the wine, how it is red, how it looks out of the chalice’, lit. ‘how it shows in the chalice its eye’). For the possibility of this BCT being connected to the term !ădāmā ‘blood’ see below. Summing up, this CT is marked with a relatively high frequency of usage, has a wide range of reference and a non-restricted applicability, enters the subsystems of cattle colors (horse colors, cow colors), is compared to blood (a universal prototype object for red), as well as to another object with a constant red color, namely the coral. The BCT has positive connotations, above all, when it describes the color of human skin (Song 5:10 and perhaps Lam 4:7; cf. also !admōnī). For a detailed discussion of the synchronic usage of this term see Brenner 1979:80–117. The present Hebrew root goes back to PS *!dm but it is only in Hebrew that the reflex of this root functions as BCT (the evidence for the usage of its reflexes in ESA is too scanty to provide evidence for its inclusion into the BCT systems of these languages). Nevertheless, the root is characterized by more or less stable semantics throughout Semitic and is attested widely enough (passim except MSA) to be reconstructed as a BCT on the Proto-Semitic level. [1] Akk. adamu (CAD А1 95, AHw. 10). # The lexeme adamu, treated as a term for red color in AHw. 10 (‘rot’: 1. rotes Blut; 2. ein Kleidungstück; 3. eine Person), is split into three homonymous lexemes in CAD A1 95: adamu A ‘blood’ (lex., Akkadogram in Hittite); adamu B (also adumu) ‘a red garment’ (lex., OAkk.);21 adamu C 21

    While the lexical evidence appears quite reliable (e. g., a-da-mu = lu-ba-ru sa-a-mu ‘red garment’ in An VII 164f., ¶uš-šu-ú, a-du-mu = lu-ba-šú sa-a-mu ‘red

    198

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    ‘an important, noble person’ (lex.). The meaning ‘a noble person’ is hardly related to the red color (potentially more plausible would be to connect it with Hbr. !ādām ‘mankind; individual man’, HALOT 14). As for the two other meanings of the word adamu—‘blood’ and ‘a red garment’—the well-known association between red color and blood renders it possible to unite both meanings into one lexical entry, treating both of them as substantivized forms of a hypothetical adjective ‘red’. Nevertheless, it seems more justified to keep them separately, connecting adamu ‘blood’ with PS *(!a)-dam- ‘blood’ and adamu ‘red garment’ with *!dm ‘to be red’. In CAD А1 94f. an Old Babylonian lexeme adamātum ‘dark red earth (used as a dye)’ is adduced. However, according to von Soden (AHw. 10) it is a plural form of the noun adamatu (a plant) SB (CAD А1 94), ‘eine (rotblütige?) Pflanze’ (AHw. 10). The only reliable example for its usage is šīm 3 MA.NA adamātim ana šī¶im ša TÚG DN ‘the purchase price of three minas of adamātum for the … of the garment of Nergal’ (CAD А1 94). The interpretation ‘dye’ proposed in CAD (also reproduced in a more recent volume Š2 419) is quite natural in connection with garments. An additional argument in favor of this interpretation can be found in a lexical list which equates this term with the lexeme ¶ur-¶[u-ra-tum], known to denote a red dye (MB, Nuzi, CAD Ú 250). At the same time, it must be stressed that even if the lexeme adamātu does denote a kind of red dye as the editors of the CAD assume, there seem to be no grounds for postulating a rather specific meaning ‘dark red earth’—except for the etymological ones (an assumed connection to PS *!adamat- ‘earth’, notably Hebrew !ădāmā, which is, however, hardly justified in this case). One should also mention the lexeme da!mu (dāmu, fem. da!matu) ‘darkcolored, dark red (said of blood, parts of body, dark red earth used as a dye, flame, light of the sun or moon)’ SB (CAD D 74), ‘dunkel’ (AHw. 158), da!āmu v. ‘to become dark (said of sun, sky, day)’ OB (CAD D 1), ‘dunkelfarbig sein’ (AHw. 146), which could also be related to the root in question. It is probably a result of contamination of the reflexes of PS *!dm ‘to be red’ and *dhm ‘to be dark.’22 garment’ in Malku VI 73f.), it is highly unlikely that (túg)!à-dam-mu(-um) in Sargonic documents may belong to this Semitic root (!à = É is not expected to correspond to *!a in the Sargonic syllabary, Hasselbach 2005:134–5). 22 The reconstruction of the latter root is based on the comparison between Akkadian da!mu and Arb. !adham- ‘noir; d’un vert très-foncé, qui paraît noir’ (BK 1 744). Possibly, the reflexes of the root *dhm are also to be found in MSA terms

    M. Bulakh, Basic Color Terms of Biblical Hebrew…

    199

    [3] Ugr. !dm ‘to become red, turn the color red; to put on red make up’ (DUL 17). # This root clearly refers to a color or dye, although it is not attested as a CT proper. DUL quotes two passages where this verb is used: KTU 1.19 IV 42 (¬km tidm b γlp ym[...] 43 d alp šd Àuh b ym ‘up to her shoulders she rouged herself with sea snails whose exhalation is (noticeable) at a thousand acres in the sea’) and KTU 1.14 II 9 (trtµ´ w tadm ‘wash yourself and put on make up’). The connection with red color, postulated in view of the etymological data, is supported by the fact that the former passage (b γlp ym) suggests a reference to purple snail (de Moor 1968). [4] Hbr. !ādōm ‘reddish(-brown)’ (HALOT 15), pB. !ādōm id. (Ja. 15). [5] Jud. !ădimmā ‘red, full of sap, fresh’ (Ja. 16; possibly a Hebraism). [6] Arb. !dm ‘être rouge, avoir la peau brunie’, !ādam- ‘bruni, fauve, tirant sur le rouge’ (BK 1 19). # In ancient Arabic poetry this CT is attested only in the subsystems of the colors of camels and horses, and, when so used, it demonstrates a semantical component ‘light-colored’ and is not infrequently opposed to !aµmar- ‘red’ in the degree of lightness. Thus, Fischer reconstructs a subsystem of camel skin colors with three basic terms: sawdā!- ‘schwarze’, µamrā!- ‘braune’, !admā!- ‘hellfarbige’ (Fischer 1965:341). Nevertheless, Fischer determines the CT in question as ‘rötlich bzw. bräunlich getönt’ (ibid. 339), i. e. a (light-colored) shade of the BCT !aµmar-. In Lane’s dictionary there are two meanings established for the CT !ādam-. When used as a member of the subsystem of camel and gazelle skin colors, it is translated as ‘of a color intermixed, or tinged, with blackness, or with whiteness; or of a clear white, or intensely white’ (said of camels; also of gazelles: ‘of a color intermixed, or tinged with whiteness, white, having upon them streaks in which is a dust color’). Besides, it can function as a combinatorially restricted CT characterizing human skin (‘tawny, darkcomplexioned’, Lane 37). One can suggest that in Classical Arabic the semantic component of light-coloredness began to dominate over the color meaning in the subsystem of camel and gazelle skin colors, whereas the indication of hue (‘red, brown, tawny’) was preserved in one application only, namely, to characterize a tanned, brown-skinned person.

    that are connected with darkness, night: Mhr. d3hōm ‘heat-haze, shimmer’, h3dhōm ‘to have sexual intercourse with o’s wife at night’ (JM 66); Jib. dóhúm ‘heat-haze, shimmer, morning mist’, edóhum ‘to come on so. unexpectedly at night’ (JJ 36).

    200

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    Fischer derives the Arabic CT from the meaning ‘skin, hide’, reconstructing the primary meaning of this CT as ‘(human-)skin-colored’ (in Fischer’s terminology, ‘in bezug auf die Farbe durch die (menschliche) Haut besonders charakterisiert’, Fischer 1965:340).23 This reconstruction is of little plausibility, since the color meaning of this root is attested throughout Semitic much more widely than the semantics ‘skin, hide’ (see below). Obviously, one should suppose a reverse meaning shift ‘red’ > ‘red-dyed, dyed, tanned hide’, which took place, most probably, only in Arabic. [8] Gez. !addāmāwi ‘red’ (LGz. 8). # To the best of my knowledge, there is only one reliable attestation of this term as a CT in Geez. This is a quotation from Revelation in a text published by Iob Ludolf (Rev 12:3): !i-y3nsakkomu !arwe ¥awwāg !addāmāwi ‘ne mordeat eos Draco foedus, rufus’ (“De Anonymi cujusdam epistola ad Regem Susneum, pro Sabbati feriatione contra Patres Societatis scripta”, Ludolf 1691:495, n. 8). In the corresponding passage of the Ethiopic Bible, the Geez BCT for red is employed: !arwe "abiy (wa-)£ayy3µ (Hofmann 1967:85). No color meaning is given for the root !dm in the standard Sabaic dictionaries (Biella, SD). Nevertheless, one cannot exclude the possibility of this meaning being attested for the term !dmhy in the Sabaic texts from Ethiopia. In a number of the Ethiopian Sabaic inscriptions (RIÉ 5:3, RIÉ 6:1, RIÉ 9:5, RIÉ 10:10–11) two terms are opposed, !dmhy and ´lmhy. In the inscriptions RIÉ 5, RIÉ 9, RIÉ 10 they are paralleled by the oppositions s1b!hy and "brhy, ms2r£hy and m"rbhy.24 The meaning of the pair ms2r£hy and m"rbhy is obvious: they are derived from the nouns ms2r£ ‘east’ (SD 134) and m"rb ‘west’ (ibid. 18). The term s1b!hy may be interpreted as a derivation from s1b!y ‘warrior?; Sabaean?’ (SD 122) whereas the term 23 Fischer adduces a “position of neutralization”: !udm-u l-marākil-i ‘(Streitrosse) die an den Flanken hautfarbig sind’. In his opinion, this passage gives opportunity for both meanings to be expressed simultaneously: ‘with rubbed off flanks, on which bare skin is seen’ and ‘with skin-colored flanks’, which can be regarded as an argument in favor of deriving the second meaning from the first one. However, even if the passage in question does imply a reference to skin, it can be explained as a mere word play. 24 One cannot fail to recognize in these formations the element -hy (we will refrain from attempts to establish its semantics; as a plausible interpretation one may quote the opinion of Schneider, according to whom this is a possessive suffix of 3 sg. fem., see Schneider 1973:386).

    M. Bulakh, Basic Color Terms of Biblical Hebrew…

    201

    "brhy may be another designation of ethnic or social status, opposed to s1b!hy. As for !dmhy and ´lmhy, the etymological data suggest that this is a color opposition: the former lexeme can be traced back to PS *!dm ‘to be red’, whereas the second term can be regarded as a designation of black color and a reflex of PS *Îlm (see Bulakh 2003:5–7), with an irregular reflex of *Î as ´ usually explained through a Geez influence (although some examples of confusion between À and ´ are attested in Sabaic, see Stein 2003:28–9). This interpretation is the most widely accepted one (cf. Müller 1983:285; Schneider 1961:61f.; Schneider 1973:385f.; Drewes 1962:98; cf., however, an alternative interpretation suggested in Jamme 1964:347f.) and is supported by similar oppositions of CTs for black and red attested in Geez and Sabaic inscriptions (Sab. RÉS 3945:15, Gez. RIÉ 189 = DAE 11:9–10). The expression ‘the red Noba’ found in RIÉ 189: 37 evokes a hypothesis that in the above-mentioned Ethiopian Sabaic inscriptions the CTs ´lmhy ‘black’ and !dmhy ‘red’ are also used as epithets of ethnic groups or tribes (cf., e. g., Schneider 1961:62). A question emerges, whether this meaning is originally Sabaic, for some reasons not found in the Sabaic texts from the Arabian mainland, or we are faced with a phenomenon characteristic of Ethiopian Sabaic and developed under the influence of the local Ethiosemitic languages. The latter hypothesis seems to be more likely: firstly, as one may infer from the South-Arabian Sabaic inscription RÉS 3945:15, the true Sabaic root for the CT ‘red’ was µmr (the text reads "¯b Ïlm w"¯b µmrt, exact meaning remains somewhat obscure); secondly, the phonetic form of the term ´lmhy, used in parallelism to !dmhy, may also be explained through the influence of Geez (cf. Ïlm in the above mentioned non-Ethiopian Sabaic inscription RÉS 3945:15). In this case, Ethiopian Sabaic provides important evidence in favor of an intensive employment of the root !dm ‘to be red’ in Ethiosemitic languages at the early stage of their development. It must have co-existed with the Proto-Ethiosemitic BCT £yµ ‘red’ (cf. Bulakh forthcoming:741f.) but was eventually ousted by the latter to the degree that its reflexes are totally absent from the modern Ethiosemitic languages and attested in Geez only as a non-basic and rarely used designation of the red color (!addāmāwi, see above). An indirect evidence in favor of a once wider usage of reflexes of PS *!dm in Ethiosemitic can also be seen in a possible Ethiosemitic loanword in Bilin (!adam ‘rot sein’, Reinisch 1887b:14). The comparison of PS *!dm ‘to be red’ with a number of Ethiosemitic CTs with the same meaning but with the first laryngeal (or any traces of

    202

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    it) missing (Muh. Eža Č³ah. dämyät, Msq. dämyä, Gyt. däÁyät, Enm. däÁ3yTd, End. däm3yäd ‘red, reddish’, Muh. Č³ah. Gyt. dämwät, Eža dämmwät ‘greyish (cattle)’, LGur. 206), suggested by A. Militarev (2002:54), seems unconvincing in view of the fact that a plausible Cushitic etymology can be suggested for these terms: cf. Burji duwwaa ‘red’ (Hudson 1989:187), duww-aa ‘red’ (Sasse 1982:59), Gedeo diimmo ‘lean meat, red’ (Hudson 1989:237), Sidamo daama ‘red’ (ibid. 357), duumo, duu’mo ‘red’ (ibid. 360; cf. Hudson’s reconstruction of PHEC *duuma ‘red’, ibid. 408), Afar dum ‘finster, dunkel werden’ (Reinisch 1887a:46), Oromo diimaa ‘red, redbrown; raw’ (Gragg 1982:104). Apart from the color meaning, the consonantal sequence !dm in Semitic exhibit a number of meanings that easily contaminate with each other as well as with the color meaning described above. Possible interrelations between these meanings on the Proto-Semitic level have been extensively discussed in Militarev 2002:53f. Nevertheless, it seems necessary to give a brief comment on some issues relevant for the present investigation. The well-known PS noun *dam- ‘blood’ (SED I No. 50) denotes the most widely employed prototype object for the red color and therefore is a likely candidate for a term historically related to the CT. For the possibility of connection between *!dm ‘to be red’ and *dam- ‘blood’ on the Proto-Afrasian level see Militarev 2002:54. One can also surmise that the extension *!a- attested in the terms for blood in a few Semitic languages was derived from the biconsonantal *dam- under the influence of the BCT *!dm ‘to be red’ and is to be explained through the contamination of the two roots. Thus, Hebrew *!ădāmā ‘red blood’ (HALOT 15f.), is a hapax legomenon attested in the form !admāto in Deut 32:43. This word can be analyzed as the fem. of the substantivized adjective *!ādām ‘red’.25 However, since the existence of an adjective *!ādām (alongside with !ādōm) in Hebrew is not confirmed by the text evidence (although theoretically possible, cf. such doublets as £ā¢ān and £ā¢ōn ‘small’), it is more plausible to suspect that *!ădāmā goes back to PS *dam- influenced by !ādōm. The semantic merger of ‘blood’ and ‘red’ in the Akkadian lexeme adamu has been already mentioned above. Note, in addition, adamatu (also adanatu, presumably with assimilation of m > n before d) ‘black blood’ SB (CAD A1 94, AHw. 10), which is opposed to the neutral designation of blood, damu. The distinctive feature is a special color hue (‘dark’), perhaps due to contamination with da!mu ‘dark-colored’. 25

    For similar substantivized adjectives in Hebrew v. l3bānā ‘full moon’ < lābān ‘white’ (HALOT 518, 517), µammā ‘sun’ < µām ‘hot’ (HALOT 326, 325).

    M. Bulakh, Basic Color Terms of Biblical Hebrew…

    203

    One more PS noun with the root consonants *!dm is *!adamat- ‘earth’ (DRS 9). The connection between the object name ‘earth’ and the red color can be justified cross-linguistically (Bulakh 2004:274–76). However, both *!adamat- ‘earth’ and *!dm ‘to be red’ can be traced to the Proto-Semitic (and, possibly, to the Proto-Afrasian) level (Militarev 2002:49, 54; HSED 5, No. 158), and, thus, it is not to be proved whether one of these terms was derived from the other. For the rather unreliable meaning ‘red earth’ for Akk. adamātu see above. Nominal lexemes denoting (tanned) hide, leather with the root !dm are attested in Arabic (!adīm- ‘peau du visage; peau d’un animal, surtout grande, large’, BK 1 20; ‘tanned skin, or hide’, Lane 36) and, possibly, in Hebrew (!ādām ‘leather’, HALOT 14). The interpretation of Hbr. !ādām depends on one’s understanding of Hos 11:4 (b3-µeblē !ādām !emš3kēm ba"ăbōtōt !ahăbā). According to HALOT 14, !ādām in this passage means ‘leather’ (the whole verse is then to be rendered as ‘I drew them with the ropes of leather, with bands of love’). Within an alternative approach, !ādām is to be rendered as ‘mankind’ (e. g., “mit menschlichen Seilen zog ich sie, mit Stricken der Liebe” in Wolff 1961:246, 258). It is the second version which is accepted by A. Militarev, who mentions the term for ‘hide’ as isolated in Arabic. In this case, Arb. !adīm- should be interpreted as a specifically Arabic derivation from the CT ‘red’ (the semantic development can be reconstructed as ‘red’ > ‘(hide) dyed red’ > ‘tanned hide’; for the association between the process of tanning and of dying red cf. Bulakh 2003:11f.). If the meaning ‘leather’ for Hbr. !ādām is maintained, this derivation must be traced to common Central Semitic.26 Finally, Gez. !addama ‘be agreeable, be pleasing’ (LGz. 7) is traditionally regarded as a derivation from ‘red’. Hypothetically, the shift ‘red’ > ‘agreeable’ can be explained by the positive connotations of the red color (for a reverse semantic shift ‘beautiful’ > ‘red’ in Russian see Vasmer 1 657). See further HALOT 14 (Akk., Ugr., Hbr., Hbr. pB., Arb., Gez.), LGz. 8 (Akk., Hbr., Arb., Gez.), DUL 17 (Akk., Ugr., Hbr., Arb., Gez.), DRS 9 (Akk., Ugr., Hbr., Arb., Gez.). 26

    The term for tanned or red-dyed hide has been borrowed from Arabic into several Ethiosemitic languages: Gez. !adim ‘skin, hide, leather (of reddish color), red’ (LGz. 8), Tgr. !adim ‘skin, leather’ (LH 384), Tna. !adim ‘kind of red Moroccan leather or hide; cord worn around the neck by Christians’ (KT 1530), Amh. adim ‘red leather, shoelaces (made of red leather strips)’ (K 1300), Har. adīm ‘tanned hide (mostly red)’ (LHar. 19); see Leslau 1990:74, 133, 203.

    204

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    4. ‘Yellow-with-green’: yārō£ ‘greenery’ (HALOT 437). This term is a hapax legomenon attested in Job 39:8 as a substantivized adjective denoting vegetation, greenery: w3-!aµar kol-yārō£ yidrōš ‘and he chases after every greenery’. A derived CT y3ra£ra£ ‘greenish, yellowish’ is used to describe a leprosy spot (Lev 13:49; 14:37) and gold (*y3ra£ra£ µārū´) to which a dove’s wing is compared (Ps 68:14). Whereas in the passage from Leviticus y3ra£ra£ can designate either the green or one of yellow hues or, perhaps, a degree of lightness (‘light-colored’), its employment in a description of gold doubtlessly speaks for the yellow hue as a component of its semantics. Although some translations presume a meaning ‘greenish’ in this context (e. g., Kraus 1960:465), it seems unnecessary to suspect here a deviation from the constant color of gold, namely, yellow, especially since the CT in question is likely to have been a standard epithet of gold already in Proto-Semitic (cf. below for the employment of the root to describe gold and for its derivatives with the meaning ‘gold’). Other derivatives of this root are also widely attested: yārā£ ‘greens, vegetables’, yere£ ‘grass’, yērā£ōn ‘disease of grain, rust or mildew; paleness (of the face)’ (HALOT 440; the latter meaning is attested only once, in Jer 30:6, and is probably metaphoric; however, this usage is one more piece of evidence of the employment of the Semitic CT *wr£ to describe a pale, discolored face, especially from strong emotion, fear).27 These terms have structural and semantic parallels in other Semitic languages and thus are to be treated as reflexes of Proto-Semitic derivatives of the CT. From the point of view of morphology, the term yārō£ is the most likely candidate for a member of BCT system, since its morphological pattern is employed to form most BCTs of Hebrew (cf. šāµōr, !ādōm, ´āhōb). The criterion of frequency of usage speaks against this term being included into the BCT system, since the term is hapax legomenon (Job 39: 8) and is attested in a substantivized form only. At the same time, the term y3ra£ra£ is built after a pattern widely used to form non-basic CTs with a modified degree of lightness or shininess (see Brenner 1979:161– 66), which makes us view this term as non-basic. In Brenner’s opinion, among the color names derived from this root, alongside with yārō£ and y3ra£ra£, one should count also the lexeme yere£ 27

    According to Fronzaroli, the core of the derivational nest is the lexeme yere£ ‘greenery’ which derives the rest of the terms, so that CT y3ra£ra£ is interpreted as non-basic, derived from the name of a prototype object (Fronzaroli 1969:386); this version, however, is contradicted by the etymological evidence.

    M. Bulakh, Basic Color Terms of Biblical Hebrew…

    205

    (Brenner 1979:150). The term yere£, treated by Brenner as BCT ‘green’, is used as early as in the pre-exilic period, but is traditionally interpreted as a noun with the meaning ‘greenery’ (HALOT 440, BDB 438). According to Brenner, such constructions as yere£ "eśeb ‘the greenery of grass’ are to be interpreted as qualifier + qualified, ‘green grass’, so that the second component of the collocation plays the role of its head “logically (if not syntactically)” (Brenner 1979:151f.). Doubtlessly, the substantivized usage of CTs is possible, cf. a construction *y3ra£ra£ µārū´ (Ps 68:14) where semantically the first word is the qualifier of the second one, although syntactically it is a head of a genitive construction and governs the word µārū´. Nevertheless, whereas the term y3ra£ra£ is attested as an adjective in Lev 13:49 and 14:37, the lexeme yere£ is used in the Bible solely in the syntactic position of a noun. Since syntactic criteria play no less important role than semantic ones in the issue of establishing a BCT, the interpretation of this term as a CT is hardly plausible, and the possibility of its being a member of BCT system should be entirely excluded. Thus, the only acceptable hypothesis views the term yārō£ as a member of BCT system of Hebrew. Following Brenner, we reconstruct its original meaning as ‘light yellow-with-green’, based on the semantics of its derivatives—a non-basic CT y3ra£ra£ and the nouns yārā£ ‘greens, vegetables’, yere£ ‘grass’, yērā£ōn ‘disease of grain, rust or mildew; paleness (of the face)’ (Brenner 1979:153f.). This root goes back to a Proto-Semitic BCT *wr£ ‘to be shiny yellowwith-green’28, widely attested in all branches of Semitic family except for MSA and demonstrating the following components of meaning: ‘yellow’ and ‘green’ (‘yellow-with-green’ in Akk., Hbr., Hbr. pB., Jud., Syr., Mnd., Har.?; ‘yellow’ in Ugr.; ‘green’ in Sam. and MSyr.); ‘shiny’ in Syr., Gez., Tna., Amh.; ‘light-colored’, ‘pale’ (especially of complexion) in Akk., Hbr., Jud., Syr., Mnd., MSyr. (cf. also ‘gray’ in Arb.); ‘spotted’ in Amh., Gur. The meanings ‘green’ (vegetation), ‘yellow’, ‘shiny’ (gold), ‘yellow’, ‘pale’ (jaundice, mildew) are also characteristic of the nominal derivatives of this root throughout Semitic (some of them likely traceable to the PS level). One has to note that in a number of languages the CT is used to 28

    2003.

    What follows is an extended version of the discussion presented in Bulakh

    206

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    describe a kind of complexion—light-colored, pale, of unnatural color caused by a disease or a strong emotion. In Ugaritic and Judaic Aramaic the reflexes of this root are employed to describe the color of moon; probably, the dominating component of meaning in this case is ‘yellow’, but at the same time this usage can be seen as an argument in favor of reconstruction of the semantic component ‘shiny’. The possibility of reconstructing the component ‘shiny’ as dominating in the Proto-Semitic root was considered in Bulakh forthcoming. Nevertheless, this hypothesis becomes less convincing if one takes into account the material of the BCT systems in MSA, where the category “yellow-withgreen” is attested, although denoted by other terms than reflexes of *wr£. It is thus more plausible to suppose the existence of the same category on the Proto-Semitic level, surmising that its Proto-Semitic designation, *wr£, was ousted in MSA by another CT, *š¹r (see Bulakh 2004:276f.). [1] Akk. (w)ar£u ‘yellow, green (as a natural color); greenish, yellow, sallow’ from OA, OB on (CAD A2 300), ‘gelb-grün’ (AHw. 1471). [3] Ugr. yr£ ‘greenish-yellow (a metal/gold)’ (DUL 982). # Although Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín interprete this CT as ‘yellow-with-green’, it seems that the reconstruction of the semantic component ‘green’ is based on the etymological data only. The attested usages favor the interpretation of the term as a designation of yellow color. In 1.163 14 ([hm] yr¶ b "lyh yr£ ‘if the moon in its ascension is greenishyellow’, translation from DUL 982) this CT is opposed to pµm ‘red’ and, according to traditional view, refers to a greenish hue. One has to admit, however, that yellow, as a more natural coloration of moon, is a more plausible translation for yr£ in this passage. Yellow can also be opposed by red, at the same time both colors can be perceived as deviations from white, the constant color of moon (see Pardee 1997:290). [4] Hbr. y3ra£ra£ ‘yellowish-green, pale’ (HALOT 441), yārō£ ‘greenery’ (ibid. 437), pB. yārō£ ‘light-colored, yellow or greenish’ (Ja. 595). [5] Arm. *yr£ ‘to be yellow-with-green’: Jud. yārō£, yārō£ā ‘light-colored, yellow or greenish; green, foliage, grass’ (Ja. 595), yr£ ‘green, yellow’ (Sok. 245). Syr. yūrā£ā ‘viridis, lividus; herbae, olera; luteum ovi’ (Brock. 309). Mnd. yura£a ‘yellow, green(ish), pallid (face, complexion)’ (DM 191). Sam. yr£ ‘green’ (Tal 361). NArm. yûrâqâ ‘green; livid, pale’ (Maclean 118).

    M. Bulakh, Basic Color Terms of Biblical Hebrew…

    207

    [6] Arb. !awra£- ‘gris cendré (se dit du pelage des chameaux lorsqu’il est naturel et non pas contracté par la fatigue)’ (BK 2 1523). [7] Gez. wara£ri£ ‘of golden color’ (LGz. 618). # Contra Leslau, this CT is not a derivative from war£ ‘gold’, but rather should be treated as a direct reflex of the Proto-Semitic CT *wr£. The Geez term is non-basic and of rare employment; nevertheless, it is attested as early as in the Aksumite period (“Physiologus”) in a description of the dove, alongside with the BCTs for black, white and red colors (Hommel 1877:28). The Geez text is reminiscent of Ps 68:14, where the wings of a dove are compared to yellow (or shiny) gold—Hbr. *y3ra£ra£ µārū´ (see above).29 Interestingly, the Hebrew term y3ra£ra£ exactly corresponds to the Geez CT not only phonetically, but also in the morphological pattern (reduplication of the last two consonants, v. Hommel 1877:XXVI). This correspondence can hardly be discarded as coincidental and leads us to surmise that the Ethiopian translator of the Greek text was aware of the dove’s description in the Bible. This brings about the question of semantic identity between the Hebrew and Geez CTs. However, the meaning of the Hebrew term is not quite clear and thus cannot provide solid evidence as to whether the Geez CT is employed here to designate hue or shininess. The Greek version of “Physiologus” employs the word poikílai ‘spotted, variegated, multicolored’ (ibid. 80). The meanings ‘shiny’ and ‘spotted’ are related in many languages of the world (cf., e. g., Cotton 1950). The cognates in other Ethiosemitic languages demonstrate both the semantics ‘to shine, to be shiny’ (Tna., Amh.), and ‘to be spotted, variegated’ (Amh., Gur.), see below. The fact that the reflexes with the meaning ‘to shine, to be shiny’ demonstrate morphological similarity of these terms with the Geez CT (reduplication of the last two consonants) makes the interpretation of Gez. wara£ri£ as ‘shiny; spotted’ more preferable. Tna. w3r3£r3£ bälä ‘to shine, sparkle, glitter’ (KT 1729). Amh. täwrä£ärrä£ä ‘to be dazzling, to shine, gleam, sparkle’, war£a ‘coat of bovines which is spotted with red and white’ (K 1506). Har. warī£ ‘green’ (LHar. 161; E. Cerulli explains this term as ‘giallo’—‘yellow’ and considers it to be derived from PS war£ ‘gold’, Cerulli 1936:278; it is not to be excluded that the Harari term denoted 29

    It is worth noting that the reflexes of PS *wr£ are used to denote constant color of dove not only in Hebrew and Geez, but also in Arabic: war£ā!-, fem. of !awra£- ‘colombe’ (BK 2 1523). One wonders whether this usage goes back to Proto-Semitic.

    208

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    both green and yellow hues, thus preserving the Proto-Semitic semantics). Muh. Eža Č³ah. Gyt. Enm. arä£wät, Muh. Gyt. arä£wä ‘spotted color (black and white)’ (LGur. 90; Leslau considers these terms to be Cushitic loanwords, comparing Kambatta hara£e; however, the Amharic cognate war£a, demonstrating both phonetic and semantic similarity, suggests that these terms are genuine Semitic; note, however, the initial a in Gurage terms, instead of the expected wä > o, u, see LGur. XXXV; possibly, a metathesis resulting in labialization of £ is involved). 4a. The usage of PS *wr£ to indicate the green hue is confirmed by the presence, probably as early as in Proto-Semitic, of a derived noun *war(a)£- ‘green vegetation, grass, foliage’: [1] Akk. ar£u ‘greenery; vegetables’ from OB on (CAD A2 301).30 [4] Hbr. yārā£ ‘greens, vegetables’, yere£ ‘greenery’ (ibid. 440), pB. yere£ ‘green, herb’ (Ja. 597).31 [5] Anc. yr£ ‘verdure’, Off. yr£ ‘vegetables’ (DNWSI 471). # The wide usage of the term yr£ in early Aramaic is confirmed by an Aramaism in NB Akkadian: jar£ānu ‘(a garden plant)’ (CAD I/J 326), ‘eine Gartenpflanze’ (AHw. 412), see von Soden 1977:188, n. 59. At the same time, it may be observed that the translation ‘yellowness’, suggested in DNWSI 471 for the hypothetic Aramaic source-word yr£n, is not wellfounded; rather, one could suggest for the source of the Akkadian botanic term the meaning ‘green’ or ‘vegetation’. Jud. yar£ā ‘green, herb’ (Ja. 598). Syr. yar£ā ‘olera’, yūrā£ā ‘herbae, olera’ (Brock. 309). Mnd. yaru£a ‘herbs, green-stuff ’ (DM 187). MSyr. yerqâ ‘a herb, grass; greens, vegetables’ (Maclean 122). [6] Arb. wara£- ‘feuilles, feuillage (d’arbre)’ (BK 2 1522). According to the traditional point of view, Sab. wr£ ‘vegetable crops; vegetable plot’ (SD 162) also belongs here; however, this meaning is re-

    30

    Since substantivation of the adjective war£u cannot be excluded, it is uncertain whether the above meanings are to be attributed to a separate nominal lexeme continuing the PS derived substantive *war(a)£-. 31 For Hbr. yārō£ ‘greenery’ (HALOT 437), clearly resulting from substantivation of the adjective yārō£ ‘green’, v. above.

    M. Bulakh, Basic Color Terms of Biblical Hebrew…

    209

    jected in Kogan–Korotayev 2004:112 where a number of pertinent passages have been reinterpreted. 4b. Another well-known derivation from this root is the term for ‘gold’ (DRS 634), in some languages with a further development into ‘money’ (and, finally, ‘silver’). Terms illustrating this meaning are found in Ugaritic, Arabic, ESA and Ethiosemitic languages: [3] Ugr. yr£ ‘greenish yellow (a metal/gold)’ (DUL 982). # In KTU 1.19 II 5 the root yr£ doubtlessly means ‘gold’: dt yr£ n£by ‘my caparisons (those) of gold’ (DUL 982). Another passage where yr£ is attested (£µ ksp w yr£ ¶r´ yd m£mh in KTU 1.14 III 22) has been variously interpreted by specialists: whereas Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín (ibid.) interpret the lexemes yr£ and ¶r´ as synonyms with the meaning ‘gold’, other scholars treat yr£ ¶r´ as a genitive construction (paralleled by Hbr. *y3ra£ra£ µārū´) and translate it as ‘the yellowness of gold’ (Dietrich–Loretz 1978:427; Vervenne 1987:366f.).32 [6] Arb. war£- ‘argent monnayé’ (BK 2 1522). # Probably borrowed into Tgr. war£ ‘silver’ (LH 434). [7] Sab. wr£ ‘gold’ (SD 162), Qat. wr£m ‘(piece of) gold’ (Ricks 56). # For a detailed discussion of the ESA evidence see Kogan–Korotayev 2004:112f. (the meanings ‘money’, ‘gold’, ‘silver’ are proposed as possible interpretations of the Sabaic lexeme whereas the Qatabanic term is interpreted as a designation of gold or silver). [8] Gez. war£ ‘gold, gold coin’ (LGz. 618). Tna. wär£i ‘gold, wealth, money’ (KT 1728). Amh. wär£ ‘gold’ (K 1504). Arg. wär£ ‘gold’ (LArg. 226). Gur. wär£ ‘gold’ (LGur. 664). Derivation of a term for gold from a CT ‘yellow’ or ‘yellow-with-green’ is unproblematic. The most probable path of semantic development can be outlined as follows: substantivized adjectives ‘yellow’ or ‘yellow-with-green’ start to designate gold (cf. Arb. ´afrā!- ‘l’or’, morphologically a feminine form of the adjective !a´far- ‘jaune’, BK 1 1347), gradually becoming the basic terms for this metal in some languages. This hypothesis is confirmed 32 According to the most wide-spread point of view, yr£ in this case cannot be regarded as a simple qualifier, since the order “qualified–qualifier” is the normal one for Ugaritic (see Tropper 2000:840, § 91.2).

    210

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    by the employment of the reflexes of the Proto-Semitic CT *wr£ to characterize gold in Akkadian, Hebrew and, possibly, Ugaritic. Besides, in Akkadian a substantivized form of the CT ar£u is attested in lexical lists as a substitute for the lexeme ‘gold’ (ar£u = ¶urā´u, CAD A2 300, AHw. 1471). In a number of Semitic languages, terms for a human disease (jaundice) and for a disease of grain (mildew) are derived from this root with the help of suffix -ān. 4c. Reflexes with the meaning ‘jaundice’: [1] Akk. aw/murri£ānu ‘jaundice’ OB, Boğ., SB (CAD A2 91), ‘Gelbsucht’ (AHw. 92). [5] Jud. yar£ōnā ‘jaundice’ (Ja. 598). Syr. yar£ānā ‘livor, icterus’ (Brock. 309).33 Mnd. yar£ana ‘jaundice’ (DM 187). 4d. Terms with the meaning ‘disease of grain’ (‘mildew’): [4] Hbr. yērā£ōn ‘disease of grain’ (HALOT 440). [5] Jud. yar£ōnā, yar£ānā ‘mildew’ (Ja. 598), yr£n ‘a blight affecting grain’ (Sok. 246). Syr. yar£ānā ‘chlorosis (plantarum)’ (Brock. 309). Sam. yr£n ‘a disease’ (Tal 361). Mnd. yar£ana ‘blight, mildew (on grain)’ (DM 187). MSyr. yerqânâ ‘mildew’ (Maclean 122). From Aramaic the term has been borrowed into Arb. yar£ān- ‘nielle, rouille des blés; sorte d’insecte qui ronge le blé; jaunisse’ (BK 2 1626). The semantic shift from ‘to be yellow, to grow yellow’ may be reconstructed via an intermediate meaning ‘to wither (said of plants)’ (cf. an independent development in Amh. wärrä£ä ‘to be like or to resemble gold, to be yellow, golden, to turn gold (grain—also said of grain blighted by rust)’, K 1504). A great deal of semantic and structural similarity between the above terms is unquestionable. While potentially explainable as reflecting a Proto-Semitic term *wVrV£ān-, this similarity is more likely to be due to interborrowing and/or diffusion (possibly from Akkadian to Aramaic).

    33

    Syr. mr£n! ‘morbus regius’ (Brock. 310) is obviously borrowed from Akk. amurri£ānu (Kaufman 1974:34).

    M. Bulakh, Basic Color Terms of Biblical Hebrew…

    211

    See further HALOT 440 (Akk., Ugr., Hbr., Anc., Jud., Syr., Mnd., Arb., ESA, Gez., Tgr.), Brock. 309 (Akk., Jud., Syr., Arb., Gez.), DUL 982 (Akk., Ugr., Arb., ESA, Gez.), LGz. 618 (Akk., Ugr., Hbr., Jud., Syr., Mnd., Arb., ESA, Gez., Eth.), DRS 643ff. (Akk., Ugr., Hbr., Anc., Syr., Mnd., Arb., ESA, Gez., Tgr., Tna.). 5. ´āhōb ‘bright red (hair)’ (HALOT 1007), ‘rotglänzend’/‘gelb’ (Gradwohl 1963:23) The translation accepted by the editors of HALOT is far from obvious. A thorough consideration of the contexts and the etymological material rather favor a meaning ‘light shiny yellow’ (this interpretation is similar to that of Brenner 1979:155–7). This CT is used in the Book of Leviticus as an attribute applied to the hair growing on a swelling on the skin of a man suffering from a skin disease (Lev 13:30, 32, 36); it is opposed to black (šāµōr) hair (Lev 13:31, 37). Another CT that is used to characterize the hair on a swelling is lābān ‘white’ (Lev 13:3, 4, 10, 20, 21, 25, 26). The Old Testament also makes use of a hof"al participle from this root that characterizes copper of high quality: ū-k3lē n3µōšet mu´hāb ¢ōbā š3nayim µămūdōt ka-zzāhāb ‘and two vessels … of good copper, precious as gold’ (Ezra 8:27). As one can see, the comparison with gold is based on a parameter other than color (preciousness), so that Gradwohl’s inclusion of the component ‘shininess’ into the semantics of this root requires more solid arguments. Brenner accepts Gradwohl’s reconstruction, supporting her decision by the translations of this term in the Targums and by the existence of phonetically similar roots ´hl, ´hr ‘to shine’ (Brenner 1979: 157). Brenner’s arguments are to be taken into consideration; however, the association with shininess, if indeed present in the term in question, should be viewed as secondary, resulting from contamination with the above mentioned Hebrew roots. Thus, the context usage does not provide any reliable evidence in favor of the meaning ‘bright-red’ for ´āhōb and it may be equally justified to propose an interpretation ‘light shiny yellow’ (i. e. a shade of !ādōm with additional components ‘light, shiny, with yellowish hue’; possibly already in Biblical Hebrew gradually transforming into a BCT ‘yellow’). The component ‘light’ is suggested by the opposition between this term and the CT šāµōr ‘black’ in the Book of Leviticus, as well as by its application to high-quality (probably, purified, cleansed) copper. The meaning ‘yellow’ is based on the etymological evidence.

    212

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    The CT ´āhōb goes back to the PS non-basic CT *´hb ‘to be light, yellow, light brown’.34 [4] Hbr. ´āhōb ‘bright red (hair)’ (HALOT 1007), pB. ´āhōb ‘yellow’, ´āhab ‘to be bright, shine (face); be defiant’, hif"il ‘to become shining (feathers of doves); metal’ (Ja. 1264), ´ihūb ‘becoming shining’ (ibid. 1275). [5] Jud. ´3hab ‘to be bright, shine’ (ibid. 1264). [6] Arb. !a´hab- ‘alezan (cheval); roux, fauve (chameau); blond, aux cheveux blonds’ (BK 1 1379). In case of reconstruction of the Proto-MSA root *´hb ‘to be light-colored yellow’ (Mhr. ´3hwēw ‘cream-colored’, Jib. ´ahbCb ‘light-brown’, Soq. ´á"bab ‘white’, see Bulakh 2004:278f.), this root is doubtlessly to be compared to the Proto-Semitic CT in question. Probably, a reflex of PS *´hb is also a source for the Judaic Aramaic quadriliteral verb ´alhēb ‘to redden; to glow, heat, consume’, m3´alhab ‘burnished, red or yellow’ (Ja. 1282). Cf. also the employment of this root as an epithet of “evil eye” in a Hebrew-Aramaic text quoted by J. N. Ford (1998:241): “A late HebrewAramaic amulet (AMB, 133) … contains such a list, together with a lengthy enumeration of evil eyes according to their physical characteristics: … "yn! !wkm! "yn! ´hwb! "yn tklt! "yn! yrw£! … ‘black eye, brownish/tawny (lit. ‘yellow’) eye, blue eye, green eye’.” Ford interprets this term as a CT indicating a brown hue: “Ôhb!, literally ‘yellow’, is understood as corresponding to Arabic !ašhal ‘brownish, tawny’ ” (ibid. 242). The comparison of the Proto-Semitic root in question and Sab. ´hbn ‘shining?’, suggested in HALOT 1007, is unreliable: the Sabaic term is only attested in a fragmentary text (Biella 418, absent from SD), and its meaning is obscure. See further LS 354 (Hbr., Arb., Soq.), HALOT 1007 (Hbr., Jud., Arb., ESA). Abbreviations of languages and language periods Akk. – Akkadian; Amh. – Amharic; Anc. – Ancient Aramaic; Arb. – Arabic; Arg. – Argobba; Boğ. – Boğazköy; Č³ah. – Č³aha; Edom. – Edomite; Enm. – Ennemor; ESA – Epigraphic South Arabian; Gez. – Geez; Gr. – Greek; Gyt. – Gyeto; Hadr. – Hadramitic; Har. – Harari; Hbr. – Biblical Hebrew; Hrs. – Harsusi; Jib. – Jibbali; Jud. – Judaic Aramaic; lex. – lexical list; Mhr. – Mehri; Mnd. – Mandaic; MSA – 34

    The following material is drawn from Bulakh 2004:278f.

    M. Bulakh, Basic Color Terms of Biblical Hebrew…

    213

    Modern South Arabian; Muh. – Muher; MSyr. – Modern Syriac; NA – Neo-Assyrian; NArm. – Neo-Aramaic; NB – Neo-Babylonian; OA – Old Assyrian; OAkk. – Old Akkadian; OB – Old Babylonian; Off. – Official Aramaic; pB. – post-Biblical Hebrew; PHEC – Proto Highland East Cushitic; Pho. – Phoenician; Pun. – Punic; Qat. – Qatabanic; Sab. – Sabaic; Sam. – Samaritan Aramaic; SB – Standard Babylonian; Soq. – Soqotri; Syr. – Syriac; Tgr. – Tigre; Tna. – Tigrinya; Ugr. – Ugaritic.

    References Agostini et al. 1985 Banti–Contini 1997 Berlin–Kay 1969 Beyer 1984 Borello 1995 Brenner 1979 Bulakh 2003 Bulakh 2004 Bulakh forthcoming Cerulli 1936 Cotton 1950 Cowley 1923 de Moor 1968 Dietrich–Loretz 1978

    Drewes 1962 Ebeling 1952–53 Ernout 1949 Finkel 2000

    Fischer 1965 Ford 1998

    Agostini, F., et al. Dizionario somalo-italiano. Roma. Banti, G.; Contini, R. Names of Aromata in Semitic and Cushitic Languages. Profumi d’Arabia. Roma. Pp. 169–192. Berlin, B.; Kay, P. Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley. Beyer, K. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer. Göttingen. Borello, M. Dizionario oromo-italiano. Hamburg. Brenner, A. Color terms in the Old Testament. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Manchester. Bulakh, M. Etymological Notes on the Akkadian Color Terms. Studia Semitica (Fs. A. Militarev). Moscow. Pp. 3–17. Bulakh, M. Color Terms of Modern South Arabian Languages: a Diachronic Approach. B&B 1:269–82. Bulakh, M. Basic Color Terms from Proto-Semitic to Old Ethiopic. Anthropology of Color. Amsterdam. Cerulli, E. Studi etiopici. I. La lingua e la storia di Harar. Roma. Cotton, G. Une équation sémantique ‘mouvement rapide’ = ‘lueur, éclat’. Les Études Classiques 18:436–441. Cowley, A. Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. Oxford. de Moor, J. C. Murices in Ugaritic Mythology. Or 37: 212–215. Dietrich, M.; Loretz, O. YRQ ÚRÔ “Gelb vom Gold” im KRT-Epos und seine Hurritischen Entsprchungen. UF 10:427–28. Drewes, A. J. Inscriptions de l’Éthiopie Antique. Leiden. Ebeling, E. Akkadisch puru¶libnu = späthebräisch prµlbn. AfO 16:215. Ernout, A. (ed., tr.). Pline L’Ancien. Histoire Naturelle, Livre XII. Paris. Finkel, I. On Late Babylonian Medical Training. Wisdom, Gods and Literature. Studies in Assyriology in Honour of W. G. Lambert. Winona Lake. Fischer, W. Farb- und Formbezeichnungen in der Sprache der altarabischen Dichtung. Wiesbaden. Ford, J. N. Ninety-Nine by the Evil Eye and One from Natural Causes. UF 30:201–278.

    214

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    Fox 2003 Fronzaroli 1969

    Fox, J. Semitic Noun Patterns. Winona Lake. Fronzaroli, P. Sulla struttura dei colori in ebraico biblico. Studi linguistici in onore di Vittore Pisani. Vol. I. Brescia. Pp. 377–389. Göttsch, E. Traditional Aromatic and Perfume Plants in Central Ethiopia. Journal of Ethiopian Studies 19:81–90. Gradwohl, R. Die Farben im Alten Testament. Berlin. Gragg, G. B. Oromo Dictionary. East Lansing. Guillaumont, A. La désignation des couleurs en hébreu et en arameén. Problèmes de la couleur. Paris. Pp. 339– 348. Hasselbach, R. Sargonic Akkadian. A Historical and Comparative Study of the Syllabic Texts. Wiesbaden. Hoffmann, J. (ed.). Die Äthiopische Übersetzung der Johannes-Apokalypse. Louvain. Hommel, F. (ed., tr.). Die Aethiopische Uebersetzung des Physiologus nach je einer Londoner, Pariser und Wiener Handschrift. Leipzig. Hudson, G. Highland East Cushitic Dictionary. Hamburg. Jamme, A. Review of Annales d’Ethiopie, t. IV. BiOr 21: 346–349. Kaufman, S. A. The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic. Chicago–London. Kerttula, S. Relative Basicness of Color Terms: Modelling and Measurement. Anthropology of Color. Amsterdam. Kogan, L.; Korotayev, A. Animals and Beyond. A New Work on Epigraphic South Arabian Realia (a review article of Alexander Sima. Tiere, Pflanzen, Steine und Metalle in den altsüdarabischen Inschriften. Wiesbaden, 2000). WZKM 94:95–118. Kraus, H.-J. Psalmen. I. Neukirchen-Vluyn. Leslau, W. Arabic Loanwords in Ethiopian Semitic. Wiesbaden. Löw, I. Aramäische Pflanzennamen. Leipzig. Löw, I. Die Flora der Juden. II–III. Wien–Leipzig. Ludolf, I. Iobi Ludolfi alias Leutholf dicti ad suam Historiam Aethiopicam antehac editam Commentarius. Francofurti ad Moenum. Massey-Gillespie, K. A New Approach to Basic Hebrew Color Terms. JNSL 20:1–11. MacLaury, R. E. Color terms. Language Typology and Language Universals (Sprachtypologie und sprachliche Universalien). Berlin–New York. Pp. 1227–1251. Masson, É. Recherches sur les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques en grec. Paris.

    Göttsch 1986 Gradwohl 1963 Gragg 1982 Guillaumont 1957

    Hasselbach 2005 Hoffmann 1967 Hommel 1877

    Hudson 1989 Jamme 1964 Kaufman 1974 Kerttula forthcoming

    Kogan–Korotayev 2004

    Kraus 1960 Leslau 1990 Löw 1881 Löw 1924 Ludolf 1691

    Massey-Gillespie 1994 MacLaury 2001

    Masson 1967

    M. Bulakh, Basic Color Terms of Biblical Hebrew… Militarev 2002

    Müller 1974 Müller 1978 Müller 1983

    Müller 1992 Müller 1997 Nakano 1986 Niebuhr 1772 Nielsen 1986 Pardee 1997

    Perruchon 1892 Porten–Yardeni 1986 Reinisch 1887a Reinisch 1887b Reinisch 1890 Reinisch 1895 Renkema 1998 Rhodokanakis 1911 Rhodokanakis 1917 Sasse 1982 Scharbert 1986 Schneider 1961 Schneider 1973 Sima 2000

    215

    Militarev, A. Yu. Etimologija i interpretacija drevnepis’mennyh pamjatnikov: biblejskie terminy ‘sem’ja’, ‘potomstvo’, ‘plemja’, ‘narod’, ‘čelovečeskij rod’. Vestnik Evrejskogo Universiteta 7:7–58 (Etymology and Interpretation of Ancient Documents: Biblical Terms for ‘Family’, ‘Progeny’, ‘Tribe’, ‘People’, ‘Human kind’). Müller, W. W. Zur Herkunft von l…banoj und libanwtÒj. Glotta 52:53–59. Müller, W. W. Weihrauch. Ein arabisches Produkt und seine Bedeutung in der Antike. München. Müller, W. W. Äthiopische Marginalglossen zum Sabäischen Wörterbuch. Ethiopian Studies dedicated to Wolf Leslau on the occasion of his 75 birthday November 14, 1981. Wiesbaden. Pp. 275–285. Müller, W. W. Frankincense. ABD 2:854. Müller, W.W. Namen von Aromata im antiken Südarabien. Profumi d’Arabia. Roma. Pp. 169–192. Nakano, A. Comparative Vocabulary of Southern Arabic. Tokyo. Niebuhr, C. Beschreibung von Arabien. Kopenhagen. Nielsen, K. Incense in Ancient Israel. Leiden. Pardee, D. Ugaritic Lunar Omens. The Context of Scripture. Vol. 1. Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World. Leiden–New York–Köln. Pp. 290–291. Perruchon, J. Vie de Lalibala Roi d’Éthiopie. Paris. Porten, B.; Yardeni, A. Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt. Vol. 1. Letters. Jerusalem–Winona Lake. Reinisch, L. Die "Afar-Sprache. II. Wien. Reinisch, L. Die Bilin-Sprache. Zweiter Band: Wörterbuch der Bilin-Sprache. Wien. Reinisch, L. Die Saho-Sprache. Zweiter Band: Wörterbuch der Saho-Sprache. Wien. Reinisch, L. Wörterbuch der Bed³auye-Sprache. Wien. Renkema, J. Lamentations. Leuven. Rhodokanakis, N. Der vulgärarabische Dialekt im D³ofâr (Z³ofâr). II. Einleitung, Glossar und Grammatik. Wien. Rhodokanakis, N. Studien zur Lexikographie und Grammatik des Altsüdarabischen. II. Wien. Sasse, H.-J. An Etymological Dictionary of Burji. Hamburg. Scharbert, J. Genesis 12–50. Würzburg. Schneider, R. Inscriptions d’Enda Č³erqos. Annales d’Éthiopie 4:61–66. Schneider, R. Deux inscriptions Sudarabiques du Tigré. BiOr 30:385–389. Sima, A. Tiere, Pflanzen, Steine und Metalle in den altsüdarabischen Inschriften. Wiesbaden.

    216

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    Stein 2003

    Stein, P. Untersuchungen zur Phonologie und Morphologie des Sabäischen. Rahden. Strelcyn, S. Médecine et plantes d’Éthiopie. II. Enquête sur les noms et l’emploi des plantes en Éthiopie. Napoli. Thomas, B. Four Strange Tongues from Central South Arabia—the Hadara Group. PBA 23:231–331. Tropper, J. Ugaritische Grammatik. Münster. van Soldt, W. H. Fabrics and Dyes at Ugarit. UF 22: 321–357. Vervenne, M. Hebrew ŠĀLΊ—Ugaritic T_LT_. UF 19: 355–373. von Soden, W. Aramäische Wörter in neuassyrischen und neu- und spätbabylonischen Texten. Ein Vorbericht. II (n–z und Nachträge). Or 37:261–271. von Soden, W. Aramäische Wörter in neuassyrischen und neu- und spätbabylonischen Texten. Ein Vorbericht. III. Or 46:183–197. von Wissmann, H. Über die frühe Geschichte Arabiens und das Entstehen des Sabäerreiches. Die Geschichte von Saba’ I. Wien. Wellmann M. (ed.). Pedanii Dioscuridis Anazarbei, De Materia Medica. Libri Quinque. Vol. II, quo continentur libri III et IV. Berolini. Westermann C. Genesis. 3. Genesis 37–50 (BKAT I/3). Neukirchen-Vluyn. Wolff, H. W. Dodekapropheton. 1. Hosea. Wageningen. Zohary, M. Pflanzen der Bibel. Stuttgart. Zorc, R. D.; Osman M. M. Somali-English Dictionary with English Index. Kensington.

    Strelcyn 1973 Thomas 1937 Tropper 2000 van Soldt 1990 Vervenne 1987 von Soden 1968

    von Soden 1977

    von Wissmann 1975

    Wellmann 1906

    Westermann 1982 Wolff 1961 Zohary 1995 Zorc–Osman 1993

    Two Notes on Song 4:12 Yakov Eidelkind Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow

    I. The meaning of lG:

    `~Wt)x' !y"[ï .m; lW[ßn" lG:ï hL'k_ ; ytixä ao ] lW[ßn" Ÿ!G: The word lG: gal in this verse is difficult. Two renderings of it are usually found in modern commentaries and translations: ‘spring’ and ‘garden’. Cf., for example: KJV .A garden inclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed. RSV A garden locked is my sister, my bride, a garden locked, a fountain sealed.

    The lexica are similarly divided in their treatment of lG:. Gesenius– Tregelles s. v. lG: gives two meanings: “(1) a heap of stones… (2) fountain, spring, scaturigo, Engl. a well, Song 4:12…; Pl. waves, Wellen”. BDB differs only in that ‘spring’ and ‘waves’ are counted as two meanings: 1) ‘heap of stones’; 2) ‘waves’ (only pl.); 3) ‘spring’. Finally, in DCH each of the three meanings belongs to a separate lexeme: lG: I, lG: II and lG: III. In any case, Song 4:12 is cited as the only instance of lG: ‘spring’. Other lexica,1 however, do not accept the hapax legomenon lG: ‘spring’ and read !G: ‘garden’ instead of lG: in Song 4:12b. After reviewing these and other solutions, I shall call attention to a medieval Jewish interpretation unduly neglected by modern scholarship. 1. ‘Spring’ The translation ‘spring’ for lG: in Song 4:122 goes back to the medieval Jewish exegetes. Ibn Ezra comments on this verse:

    1

    GB, KB, HALOT, TDOT s. v. lG:. Accepted, among others, by Carr 1984:123–124; Gordis 1954:86; Haupt 1902:202; Hitzig 1855:61; Meek 1956:124. 2

    218

    Articles: Old Testament Studies tvytxt tvlgv tvyl( tvlg vhvmkv ]uq avhv ajvy rhn

    A river flows out, and it is small. And similar are ‘the Upper gullō¬ ’ and ‘the Lower gullō¬ ’.

    Rashi gives two alternative interpretations. According to the first, lG: is “a term for ‘spring’ like ‘the Upper gullō¬ ’ ” (for Rashi’s second explanation, see below). Both Ibn Ezra and Rashi allude to a story told in Josh 15:16–19 and Judg 1:12–15, in which a place-name is explained with reference to some sort of water-supply: ~yIm"+ tL{G.U The form gullō¬ is plural of gullā. Apart from Josh 15:19 and Judg 1:15, gullā is used in the Bible for at least two kinds of bowl-shaped objects: capitals of the columns in the Solomonic temple (1 Kings 7:41–42, 2 Chr 4:12–13) and an oil-receptacle of a m3nōrā (Zech 4:3). Finally, it occurs in Eccl 12:6: tvyl( tvlvg vmk ]y(m ]v>l

    bh'_Zh" ; tL;Gä U #rutÞ w' > @s,Kh,ê ; lb,x,ä Îqere ‘qtery' ÐE qxry-al{) rv , and also because of the parallelism with ~ynIbå a ' ] tyBe.Þ 9 Oettli 1889:184. Cf. also Reymond: lG: I: tas, lG: II: vagues: – 1. ~Y"h; yLeG: Es 48:18; – 2. métaph.: a) punition Ps 42,8; b) armée Ez 26,3; – 3. source Ct 4,12 (txt.! cf. comm.). 8

    220

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    This interpretation is at times combined with the theory that gal is a by-form of gullā.10 M. Malul, having cited the evidence for the word gullā discussed above, then suddenly asks in a footnote: “Could gal be the singular form of gallīm, referring to a type of brook, where the water rolls?”. I think the answer must be no, because (1) gallīm always refers to waves of the sea, not of a brook; and (2) in any case the singular of ‘waves’ is ‘a wave’, not ‘a brook’ or ‘a spring’. 4. ‘Heap of stones’ To be sure, this is the normal meaning of the word gal in Biblical Hebrew. Nevertheless, it would be so obviously out of place in Song 4:12, that until recently it was not considered in discussions of this verse. As far as I know, M. D. Goulder was the first to suggest ‘a cairn’ as a translation for lG: in Song 4:12, interpreting it as a reference to mons Veneris. The rest of the verse is given by Goulder an anatomical interpretation as well: !G: ‘garden’ becomes ‘womb’, and lW[n" ‘shut up, locked’ refers to the blocking of the vagina by the hymen.11 In the course of the last century a remarkably large number of passages in the Song of Songs have been interpreted in a similar vein, i. e. as veiled descriptions of female and male genitalia and their functions. The contrived logic of such interpretations (some of them put forward by eminent scholars) paradoxically reminds one of medieval allegorism. The following remarks of M. V. Fox are entirely to the point: Interpreting too many things as penises and vaginas imposes upon the poems a genital focus that is foreign to the Egyptian love songs and certainly to the Song of Songs. The painstaking scholarly search for genitalia in effect slights the breadth and variety of the lovers’ sexual interests and pleasures.12 As well as the breadth and variety of erotic poetry, I would add, and of the readers’ interests and pleasures. 5. ‘Garden’ (reading !G:) Some fifty Mss of Song 4:12 have a second !G: instead of lG:. On this reading, lW[n" !G: ‘a garden locked’ is simply repeated from the first part of the verse. Such a repetition could well be genuine—cf., for example, 1:15: 10

    Cf. already F. Delitzsch: “lG: (elsewhere hL'G)U , the fountain (synon. [;WBm;), the waves bubbling forth…” (Delitzsch 1975:83). 11 Goulder 1986:38. 12 Fox 1985:299.

    Y. Eidelkind, Two Notes on Song 4:12

    221

    `~ynI)Ay %yIny:ï [e hp'yÞ " %N"hï i ytiyê [" .r; ‘hp'y" %N"hÜ i The reading !G: instead of lG: is corroborated by the LXX (kÁpoj), Vulgate (hortus) and Peshitta (gnt’). It is accepted by many modern commentators.13 Reading !G: would be the most obvious solution, if lG: could be demonstrated to be meaningless. However, I do not think that it is impossible to make sense of lG: (see below). 6. ‘Garden’ (reading lG:) M. Malul takes Song 4:12 to be a case of “Janus parallelism”. According to him, lG: at the centre of the verse simultaneously means ‘garden’ (|| !G:) and ‘fountain’ (|| !y"[ ï .m;). In contrast to other scholars, Malul arrives at the meaning ‘garden’ without resorting to the reading !G:. He assumes that lG: itself could mean ‘garden’, being a phonetic variant of !G:. Malul argues that “/l/ could be a variant phonetic reading of /n/, for which compare liškāh (e. g., Neh 13,5) and niškāh (e. g. Neh 13,7), and lāµa´ (e. g., 2 Kgs 12,4.22) and nāµa´ (1 Sam 21,9)”.14 However, in a footnote Malul admits “that in the two examples cited the assumed shift /l/ < /n/ (or /l/ > /n/) occurs at the beginning of the word (as in Akkadian, see GAG § 34b), whereas in gal / gan it is at the end”. Malul’s vague wording “/l/ < /n/ (or /l/ > /n/)” also conceals a discrepancy. In at least one of his examples (liškā / niškā) it is the rare form with /n/ which must be secondary (/l/ > /n/): the word is probably an early borrowing from Greek15, cf. lšsch ‘lounging place, hall, tomb’ < lšcomai ‘lie down’. The hypothetical gal ‘garden’, on the other hand, would require /l/ < /n/. Perhaps it would be more to the point for Malul to cite the enigmatic haššūlammī¬ (Song 7:1), which, according to some scholars, is equivalent to haššūnammī¬ ‘(the girl) of Shunem’ (1 Kings 1:3 etc.). However, this interpretation of haššūlammī¬ is by no means certain.16 13 E. g., Bergant 2001:54; Budde 1898:23; Fox 1985:137; Gerleman 1981:157; Keel 1992:156; Müller 1992:49; Murphy 1990:156. Cf. also the lexica cited in n. 1. 14 Malul 1997:249. 15 Brown 1969:151; TDOT s. v. 16 The theory claims support from Eusebius’ Onomasticon, who identified Shunem with a contemporary village called Sulem (kaˆ nàn ™sti kèmh Soul¾m). It was once popular among the adherents of the dramatic school, who imagined Solomon falling in love with a rustic beauty (e. g. Hitzig 1855:83; Oettli 1889: 191; cf. also Dornseiff 1936:595, who directly identifies the girl with David’s concubine Abishag of Shunem). Budde and Haupt accept the ‘Shunamite’ hypothesis, though for them ‘Shunamite’ means simply ‘most beautiful lady’; cf. the ap-

    222

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    All in all, Malul’s proposal, which involves creating yet another homonym lG: ‘garden’ (in addition to ‘heap of stones’, ‘wave’ and ‘spring’), is unconvincing. In fact, neither of the two meanings required by his Janus parallelism ‘fountain’ / ‘garden’, can be established for Hebrew lG:. 7. ‘Door’ I have said above that Rashi has two explanations for lG:, but so far only the first has been cited. Now I will quote Rashi’s note in full: tvyl( tvlvg vmk ]y(m ]v>l v>rpl >y ylg vqvru dvmltb ymra ]v>l avhv r(> ]v>l v>rpl >yv

    It is possible to explain this as a term for ‘spring’ like ‘the Upper gullō¬ ’. It is also possible to explain this as a term for ‘gate’, which is an Aramaic word; in Talmud: ‘lock the doors’.

    The Talmud passage is from Berakot 28a, where R. Aqiba orders: ]nbrl vr(jlv laylmg ]brd ydb( vtyl ald ylg vqvru

    Lock the doors, lest the servants of Rabban Gamliel should come and trouble the rabbis.

    The Aramaic aL'G: ‘door’ is found with the same verb qru ‘to lock’ also in B. Qam. 112a, "Abod. Zar. 58a and Šabb. 113a. Moreover, lG: ‘door’ is attested in Rabbinic Hebrew as well. In Šabb. 81a, a distinction is made, in the matter of susceptibility to uncleanness, between a lock lg l> ‘of a door’ and other types of locks (presumably of chests etc.). As far as I know, the possibility of understanding lG: in Song 4:12 as a reference to a door is not even mentioned in the modern commentaries. However, this option deserves at least to be seriously considered. The fact that gal ‘door’ is attested only post-biblically is not really a problem. The close affinity of the language of the Song of Songs to Rabbinic Hebrew is well-known, as well the presence in the book of a large number of Aramapellative use of ‘Hercules’, ‘Don Juan’, ‘Don Quixote’ etc. (Budde 1898:36; Haupt 1902:216). Alternative suggestions concerning haššūlammī¬ are: (1) ‘one from Shalem’, i. e. Jerusalem (Ibn Ezra); (2) ‘the Solomoness’ (Rowley 1939:84–91, with references to many previous scholars from the XII century on; Müller 1992:74); (3) ‘the peaceful / pacified one’ or ‘the perfect one’, a derivate from the root šlm (Rashi; Pope 1977:600; Gerleman 1981:192–193; Fox 1985:157–158); (4) Shulmanitu, the name of a Mesopotamian goddess (Meek 1922:7; Albright 1963:5). Many modern commentators are either sceptical about all these hypotheses (e. g. Keel 1992:210–212; Würthwein 1969:63) or combine several (Longman 2001: 192–193; Bergant 2001:81).

    Y. Eidelkind, Two Notes on Song 4:12

    223

    isms.17 There are many words in the book which are biblical hapaxes, being at the same time quite usual in Rabbinic Hebrew and / or Aramaic. Without giving a complete list, which would be very long, let me cite only a few examples: qippē´ ‘to gambol’, kō¬el ‘wall’, hē´ī´ ‘to gaze’, µārā− ‘lattice’ (all from Song 2:8–9). To evaluate the merits of the translation ‘door’, let us compare it with the two now prevailing renderings of lG:. 1. lG: ‘door’ or *lG: ‘pool’? First, while ‘door’ is an attested meaning, ‘pool’ is only conjectured on the basis of gullā ‘bowl, reservoir’. Second, the lG: in Song 4:12 is ‘locked’—and how are we to imagine a ‘pool locked’?18 Perhaps one can argue that lG: is not a large swimmingpool, but only a small reservoir which can be easily covered up (compare Gen 29:8–10, where a stone must be removed from the ‘mouth of the well’ in order to water the sheep); then one can propose that lW[n" should be understood as a loose poetic way of saying ‘covered up’ (cf. ~Wt)x' !y"[ ï .m; ‘a fountain sealed’ in the same verse). It is much easier, however, to render lW[n" lG: ‘a door locked’. In cases of homonymy it is the immediate context that guides our choice. Now let us suppose, for the sake of the argument, that lG: could equally well mean ‘brook’, ‘door’, ‘heap’, ‘pool’, ‘spring’, and ‘wave’. I think a hearer or a reader would normally choose ‘a locked door’ over ‘a locked pool’, ‘a locked brook’, ‘a locked heap’ etc. 2. lG: ‘door’ or !G: ‘garden’? Those who favour !G: ‘garden’ usually argue that lG: here is meaningless and impossible.19 However, taking into account the meaning ‘door’ for lG:, both readings are meaningful and possible. One of them results in a simple repetition of the phrase lW[n" !G:; the other gives a repetition with variation and pun: lW[n" !G: — lW[n" lG:. This, I think, is too good to be a slip of the pen. More probably, it is the simpler variant !G: that is secondary. Repetition of words, images, similes, refrains etc. is frequently considered to be one of the principal means by which the poems in the Song of Songs are held together. Not unexpectedly, we find a second reference to the girl as a door in 8:9. Here, however, the word for ‘door’ is dele¬, which, unlike gal, is quite common in Biblical Hebrew. 17

    For a systematic treatment of late linguistic features in the Song of Songs see now Dobbs-Allsopp 2005:27–77. 18 Bergant 2001:54. 19 Cf. Gerleman 1981:159: “statt des unmöglichen lG:”.

    224

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    @s,K'_ tr;yjiä h'yl,[Þ ' hn ANëgl: . ‘ydIAd aboyÜ ." Others would include the whole of 4:16 (Ibn Ezra; Budde 1898:24–25; Würthwein 1969: 54–55; Segal 1962:475; Gerleman 1981:157; Fox 1985:138; Goulder 1986:36; Müller 1992:49–50; Longman 2001:153, 158) or even 4:15–16 (Haller 1940:34– 35; Gordis 1954:86; Ringgren 1981:273). 32

    Y. Eidelkind, Two Notes on Song 4:12

    227

    “owner”, then his monologue really needs no answer from her; and the answer he gets in any case is not about modesty or inaccessibility to other men. This leads me to conclude that the poem is more coherent on Keel’s reading. 3. The poem as a serenade The problem can be also approached as a question about the genre of the poem. Usually it is called a Bewunderungslied,34 a song of praise, which may seem sufficient only as long as we understand the speaker to be assured and content. But once we realize that the lover is standing at the door of an inaccessible girl and seeking admission, it becomes clear that his address to the girl is not only a praise, but also a complaint35 and a supplication. Then it is hard not to recognize in him a stock figure of ancient love literature, the so called exclusus amator,36 “a lover locked-out”. His song, a kind of serenade, in modern scholarly literature is usually referred to as paraklaus…quron (a hapax found in Plutarch, Amatorius 753 B37 and most often supposed to come from parakla…w ‘to weep beside’ + qÚra ‘door’; hence the German Türklage).38 The Greeks themselves most often called it kîmoj, literally: ‘revel, carousal’; and still other designations apparently existed. Tryphon, a grammarian quoted by Athenaeus (XIV 618c), lists different types of aÜlhsij ‘flute-playing’, one of them being qurokopikÒn 34 Fox 1985:133, 271; Murphy 1990:61, 158. The term is F. Horst’s, although Horst’s position regarding 4:12–5:1 is more complicated, as noted above. 35 As noted by R. Gordis (Gordis 1954:86). F. Hitzig’s interpretation, though formulated within the framework of the largely discredited dramatic theory, is basically close to that of Gordis and Keel: “Er [Salomo] hat sich Freiheiten herausnehmen gewollt, und sie sich sträubend ihm solche verwehrt. Darob beklagt er sich V. 12 verdrossen...” (Hitzig 1855:61). 36 The expression, used as a terminus technicus by modern scholarship, is taken from Lucretius 4.1177ff.: at lacrimans exclusus amator limina saepe / floribus et sertis operit postisque superbos / unguit amaracino et foribus miser oscula figit… “But the lover shut out, weeping, often covers the threshold with flowers and wreaths, anoints the proud doorposts with oil of majoram, presses his lovesick kisses upon the door” (tr. Rouse–Smith 1928:369). 37 t…j oân Ð kwlÚwn ™stˆ kwm£zein ™pˆ qÚraj, °dein tÕ paraklaus…quron… “Who, then, prevents her from making revel-rout to his house, from singing the Complaint Before the Closed Door” (tr. W. C. Helmbold, in: Minar–Sandbach– Helmbold 1969:331). 38 For an alternative derivation from parakle…w ‘to shut out’ + qÚra; cf. Canter 1920, n. 11.

    228

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    (tÕ d' aÙtÕ kaˆ krous…quron). Both terms mean literally ‘knocking-at-thedoor’ and presumably also refer to the serenade. The genre is widely attested in Greek and Roman literature; and a few examples have been identified in Egyptian love lyrics of the Ramesside period.39 Moreover, two passages in the Song of Songs are frequently viewed as paraclausithyra: 2:10–14 and 5:2.40 I think we must add to them, as a third instance, Song 4:12ff. It may be objected that in certain aspects Song 4:12ff. does not conform to the most common pattern of a paraclausithyron. There is no explicit begging for pity, no description of the speaker’s woeful condition (e. g., bad weather, lying on a cold threshold etc.). Untypically for a paraclausithyron, the lover receives an answer (and even a favourable one!) from his beloved. This undermines a convention characteristic of most paraclausithyra—namely, that the girl is cruel and haughty. Song 2:10–14 also omits begging for pity; it is, moreover, rather optimistic in tone. Nevertheless, Gerleman and other scholars41 rightly recognized it as a paraclausithyron. Keel, however, denies it the name of a Türklage: “in 2,8–9 und 2,10–13 klagt der Liebhaber nicht”.42 Murphy finds even 5:2 insufficiently mournful: Nowhere does the lover lament in 5:2–7. He is an “excluded lover”; he fails to gain entrance, undoubtedly a frequent experience among human beings. But the essence of the paraclausithyron is complaint, and this is totally absent.43

    What is a “complaint” and what is not, perhaps is a matter of subjective opinion. To my mind, the words “my head is filled with dew, my locks with the drops of the night” (5:2) amount to a lamentation. But in any case, it would be more fruitful to define the paraclausithyron in a simple and formal way—as any poem in which the speaker is a locked-out lover.44 His mood may differ even within a given poem, if it is sufficiently 39

    Fox 1985:282–283. For Song 5:2 as a paraclausithyron: Pope 1977:522–524; Keel 1992:177; Hagedorn 2005:210–211; for Song 2:10–14 as well as 5:2: Gerleman 1981:123, 164; Fox 1985:283; Müller 1992:30, 55. 41 See the previous note. 42 Keel 1992:177. 43 Murphy 1990:169. 44 This allows for a certain flexibility of the genre pattern. “In many short komoi… the komastic situation and therefore the genre of the poems are indicated only by hints, and some of the ordinary elements are left out… This is what we 40

    Y. Eidelkind, Two Notes on Song 4:12

    229

    long (Theocritus Idyll 3, Tibullus 1.2). It is true that very often he is complaining; but at times he may be angry and vengeful, or dreamy, or enthusiastic. As for the presence of the girl’s favourable answer, both Song 2:10–14 and 5:2 are paraclausithyra which are answered by the girl. The dialogue form of Song 4:12ff. and the girl’s favourable reaction find an interesting parallel in Aristophanes’ Ecclesiazusae: 952–975.45 Here the girl’s invitation (deàro d», deàro d», / f…lon ™mÒn, deàrÒ moi / prÒselqe kaˆ xÚneunš moi ktl. “Here, here to me, my love, and spend the night in my bed etc.”)46 even anticipates the boy’s serenade. The reasons for the deviation from the usual pattern of the genre are broadly similar in Ecclesiazusae and in the Song of Songs: on a purely formal level, it is the dramatic (Ecclesiazusae) or semi-dramatic (Song of Songs) quality of the text; on the level of contents, the prominence of female character(s) and voice(s) in both works. To call Song 4:12ff. a Bewunderungslied is not wrong, it is only insufficient. The element of Bewunderung, of course, plays an important part in the poem. From a practical point of view, such flattery serves the speaker’s aim to persuade the girl to open. However, the description of the exotic garden is not only a praise, it is also a fantasy. Filled with exotic plants from different parts of the world, this garden looks like a nowhere-land; in G. Gerleman’s words: “Es wird ein utopischer Phantasiegarten beschrieben, der mit der Wirklichkeit sehr wenig zu tun hat”.47 It also has strong associations with the mythological ‘garden of God’, frequently placed in Lebanon (note !An*bl ' .-!mi ~ylizÞ n> O ‘streams from Lebanon’ in 4:15).48 This element of fantasizing is characteristic of the praclausithyron as a genre. After all, what else can the locked-out lover do, while he waits at would expect in view of the commonness of the genre, which made its contents very familiar to an ancient audience and inspired poets writing komoi to many innovations, including omission” (Cairns 1972:88, 89). 45 R. Hunter notes that “the song-exchange (a form of paraclausithyron familiar also from Cant) between this girl and her ‘suitor’ brings us as close to Hebrew traditions, albeit in a genuinely dramatic mode, as Greek poetry allows” (Hunter 2005:237). Cf. also Burton 2005:201, on the presence of “love duet” both in Ecclesiazusae: 952–975 and in the Song of Songs. However, Burton and Hunter do not refer specifically to Song 4:12ff. 46 Tr. Hunter 2005:238. 47 Gerleman 1981:159. Cf. Good 1970:97: “a place of fantasy-quiet”. 48 Keel 1992:158–162; for the God’s garden on Lebanon cf. e. g. Ezek 31; Ps 104:16; the cedar-mountain is “the dwelling-place of the gods” in the Gilgamesh Epic, V.I.6; and see Stolz 1972:141–156.

    230

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    the door? Fantasies can be very different, sometimes simple and feasible,49 but frequently bizarre and unrealistic. One lover imagines how the beloved, opening the door in the morning, will be immediately showered by the tears of the lover, pouring down from the garlands on the door-posts (Asclepiades, Anth. Pal. 5.145).50 Another dreams of escaping across the sea to a far-away land, where beauties are not so haughty (Strato, Anth. Pal. 12.252.2–4).51 A goatherd in Theocritus’ Idyll 3.12–14 wishes to become a bee in order to enter the cave, where his beloved is hiding.52 In this poem, moreover, the very presence of a girl (or even a nymph? cf. 3.9: nÚmfa) in the cave may be a fancy, as well as the goatherd’s inability to enter (a cave could not have a locked door!).53 The element of fantasy in this paraclausithyron is more pervasive than in the examples cited above; the boundary between the real and the imaginary here becomes vague. Similar in this respect is Tibullus’ poem 1.2. Its opening lines suggest a convivial setting (Adde merum vinoque novos conpesce dolores, occupet ut fessi lumina victa sopor “Fetch me more neat wine and quench the new pains with wine, so that I, exhausted, may be seized by a deep sleep overcoming my eyes”), but in line 7 a paraclausithyron begins: the speaker addresses Delia’ door (on this, see below). Is the speaker really standing before Delia’ door? Or is he only dreaming of it, his eyes being already overcome by the sopor? In the course of his paraclausithyron, the lover imagines Delia and himself leading a life of poor farmers (1.2.71ff.): 49

    For instance, in Aristophanes’ Ecclesiazusae, 964–965 ¢ll' ™n tù sù boÚlomai kÒlpJ / plhkt…zesqai met¦ tÁj sÁj pugÁj “I would lie in your lap and engage with your bum” (tr. Hunter 2005:238). 50 AÙtoà moi, stšfanoi, par¦ dikl…si ta‹sde kremastoˆ / m…mnete, m¾ propetîj fÚlla tinassÒmenoi, / oÞj dakrÚoij katšbrexa· k£tombra g¦r Ômmat' ™rèntwn. / ¢ll' Ótan o„gomšnhj aÙtÕn ‡dhte qÚrhj, / st£xaq' Øpr kefalÁj ™mÕn ØetÒn, æj ¨n ¥meinon / ¹ xanq» ge kÒmh t¢m¦ p…V d£krua. “Abide here, my garlands, where I hang ye by the door, nor shake off your leaves in haste, for I have watered you with my tears—rainy are the eyes of the lovers. But when the door opens and ye see him, shed my rain on his head, that at least his fair hair may drink my tears” (tr. Paton 1980, vol. 1:197). 51 ¥peimi fug£j, / kaˆ plèsaj 'AdrianÕn ™p' o‡nopa pÒnton ¢l»thj / fwl»sw ge qÚraij nuktÕj ¢noigomšnaij “I will straight depart a fugitive, and sailing over the purple Adriatic, shall, in my wanderings, at least lie in ambush at doors that open at night” (tr. Paton 1980, vol. 5:409). 52 a‡qe geno…man / ¡ bombeàsa mšlissa kaˆ ™j teÕn ¥ntron ƒko…man, / tÕn kissÕn diadÝj kaˆ t¦n ptšrin ¤ tu puk£sdei “If only I would become a humming bee and enter into your cave, slipping through the ivy and the male fern that covers you”. 53 Hunter 1999:109.

    Y. Eidelkind, Two Notes on Song 4:12

    231

    ipse boves mea si tecum modo Delia possim iungere et in solito pascere monte pecus … if only I could myself yoke the oxen with you, my Delia, and pasture the cattle in the accustomed mountain…

    Very disparate settings (the lover’s vigil at the girl’s door, a banquet, a bucolic landscape) are present in Tibullus’ poem. The relations of each of them to the others and to reality are complicated and problematic.54 We see that, while in some paraclausithyra the exclusus amator’s fantasizing is no more than a humorous detail, in others, as in Theocritus and Tibullus, it is a way for the poet to juxtapose, and paradoxically intertwine, the real with the imaginary. This applies to Song 4:12ff. as well, where the lover, in his dreams, is transported to a fantasy garden, metaphorically identical with his beloved. (Incidentally, here we touch on an important feature of the Song of Songs as well as of Tibullus’ poems: both literary works have been frequently described by critics as ‘dream texts’.55 One may observe an intriguing parallelism of methods and concerns between the two ancient poets; this topic, however, lies beyond the scope of the present article.) 4. The door represents the girl The closed door is not only an essential part of the conventional scenery of the paraclausithyron. Very often in Greek and Roman paraclausithyra it becomes an object of adoration, being decorated with garlands56 and kissed.57 In Roman (but, remarkably, not in Greek58) poems the exclusus amator fre54

    “From a logical point of view, both cannot obtain. He must be either in the bar or at the door. Consequently, the partisans of each view line up the reasons why their opponents’ reading could not be true and why the imagery either of the symposium or the paraclausithyron must be an illusion” (Miller 1999:187–188). 55 For Tibullus’ poems as a ‘dream text’ see especially Miller 1999:181–224. For Canticles as a ‘dream-sequence’ see Freehof 1949:397–402; Fisch 1988:88–90. 56 Anth. Pal. 5.145 (Aclepiades), 5.191.5–6 (Meleager), 5.92.3 (Rufinus), 5.281.2 (Paulus Silentiarius). Cf. Plutarch, De cohibenda ira, 5: ™rwtikaˆ pr£xeij, oŒon ™pikwm£sai kaˆ ¶sai kaˆ stefanîsai qÚran “lovers’ practices, such as performing a komos, singing and crowning the door with garlands”. 57 Callimachus, Anth. Pal. 12.118.5–6; [Theocritus] Idyll 23.18; and cf. for both practices the Lucretian passage quoted in n. 37. 58 The only Greek example, a poem by Strato (Anth. Pal. 12.252), opening with the words: 'Empr»sw sš, qÚrh “I will set you on fire, door”, is rather late (second century C.E.) and in any case isolated. The Roman innovation was early noted by scholars and gave rise to an extensive debate about its possible origins.

    232

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    quently speaks to a personified door, entreating or threatening it. So the paraclausithyron in Tibullus 1.2.7ff. begins with an address to Delia’s door: ianua difficilis domini, te verberet imber, te Iovis imperio fulmina missa petant. ianua, iam pateas uni mihi, victa querellis etc. Door of an intractable master, may the rain lash you, may the thunderbolts sent by Jove’s order strike you. Door, open at last for me, and only for me, overcome with my complaints… (1.2.7–9).

    In Propertius 1.16.17–44 we also hear a lover complaining to a “door more cruel than even the mistress inside” (ianua vel domina penitus crudelior ipsa, l.16.17). In both poems the speaker goes on to remind the door of his past services: te meminisse decet, quae plurima voce peregi supplice, cum posti florida serta darem. You should remember my many words which I spoke in a suppliant voice, giving garlands of flowers to the jamb (Tibullus 1.2.13–14). at tibi saepe novo deduxi carmina versu, osculaque impressis nixa dedi gradibus. And for you I frequently composed subtle poetry of a new style and, kneeling down, kissed your stairs (Propertius 1.16.41–42).

    In an Egyptian poem the door is quite similarly addressed by the lover: Bolt, I will open (you)! Door, you are my fate! You are my (very) spirit. Our ox will be slaughtered inside. O Door, exert not your strength, so that oxen may be sacrificed to (your) bolt, fatlings to your threshold, a stout goose to (your) jambs, and an oriole to (your) lintel (?).59

    As far as I can see, little attention has been paid to the presence of the personified door in an Egyptian paraclausithyron (see below). It may also be of interest that in a Babylonian poem, published by J. A. Black, Ishtar says to Dumuzi: “When you enter, may the bolts rejoice over you, May the door open of its own accord”, and then apostrophizes the bolt and the door: “You, bolt, and wood—what do you [know?]” etc. (Black 1983:30–31). This episode, as Black rightly notes, “recalls the genre of Classical love poetry paraklaus…quron” (ibid., 32), though here, of course, the speaker is the lady inside the house, not the male lover outside. 59 Tr. Fox 1985:75.

    Y. Eidelkind, Two Notes on Song 4:12

    233

    To sum up: the locked door, in some branches of the genre, tends to be personified, joining or even replacing the beloved in the mind of the speaker and thus becoming a “substitute addressee” (Cairns)60 of his song. This underscores the role of the door as the beloved’s functional equivalent. Its unwillingness to open corresponds to the beloved’s inaccessibility;61 it accepts presents from the lover and is even kissed by him; both the door and the girl are apostrophized with the same mixture of supplications, complaints, threats and flattery. It is significant that in Ovid’s Ars amatoria the essence of the paraclausithyron is summarized in an advice: postibus et durae supplex blandire puellae “humbly flatter the doorposts and the unyielding girl” (2.527). The adjective durus ‘hard, unyielding’ is frequently used of the girl behind the door as well as of the door itself: cf., for instance, Tibullus 1.1.56: et sedeo duras ianitor ante fores “and I sit as a doorman before the unyielding doors”, Ovidius, Amores 2.1.22: mollierunt duras lenia verba fores “gentle words placated the unyielding doors”. This remarkable identification of the door with the girl is tersely expressed in Song 4:12: “A garden locked is my sister, my bride, a door locked, a fountain sealed”. The expression lW[n" lG:, rendered ‘a door locked’, is an important genre-marker, helping to recognize the poem as a paraclausithyron. Conclusion I have proposed that we should (1) understand the word lG: in Song 4:12 as a reference to a ‘door’ and (2) interpret the poem containing this verse as a paraclausithyron. Note that these two proposals can be made independently of each other. It is possible to translate lW[n" lG: as ‘a door locked’ even within the framework of a more traditional understanding of Song 4:12ff. as a Bewunderungslied. And vice versa, even preferring to read lW[n" !G: ‘a garden locked’ instead of lW[n" lG:, one may accept this poem as an instance of paraclausithyron, because the notion of being locked out is anyway present in the poem. For me it is tempting to link both ideas, viewing lG: in Song 4:12 as a keyword of the ancient serenade.62

    60

    Cf. e. g. Cairns 1972:216, 230. In Fox’s words, “the door that excludes the lover embodies the girl’s will” (Fox 1985:283). 62 I wish to thank my friend and colleague Mikhail Seleznev for his great help in procuring scholarly literature for my research as well as for reading an early draft of this paper and making many helpful comments. I’m very much indebted 61

    234

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    References Albright 1963

    Alter 1985 Bergant 2001 Black 1983 Brown 1969 Budde 1898 Burton 2005

    Cairns 1972 Canter 1920 Carr 1984 Clines 1989 Delitzsch 1975

    Dobbs-Allsopp 2005

    Dornseiff 1936 Dorsey 1990 Exum 1973 Fisch 1988 Fox 1985

    Albright, W. F. Archaic Survivals in the Text of Canticles. D. W. Thomas; W. D. McHardy (eds.). Hebrew and Semitic Studies Presented to G. R. Driver. Oxford. Pp. 1–7. Alter, R. The Art of the Biblical Poetry. New York. Bergant, D. The Song of Songs (Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry). Collegeville (MN). Black, J. A. Babylonian Ballads: A New Genre. JAOS 103:25–34. Brown, J. P. The Mediterranean Vocabulary of the Vine. VT 19:146–170. Budde, K. Das Hohelied erklärt. Die Fünf Megillot (KHC 17). Freiburg i. B. Pp. IX–48. Burton, J. B. Themes of Female Desire and Self-Assertion in the Song of Songs and Hellenistic Poetry. A. C. Hagedorn (ed.). Perspectives on the Song of Songs / Perspective der Hoheliedsauslegung (BZAW 346). Berlin–New York. Pp. 180–205. Cairns, F. Generic Composition in Greek and Roman Poetry. Edinburgh. Canter, H. V. The Paraclausithyron as a Literary Theme. AJP 41:355–368. Carr, G. L. The Song of Solomon (TOTC). Leicesteer– Downers Grove. Clines, D. J. A. Job 1–20 (WBC 17). Delitzsch, F. Commentary on the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes (tr. M. G. Easton). Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes (C. F. Keil, F. Delitzsch), vol. VI. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. Late Linguistic Features in the Song of Songs. A. C. Hagedorn (ed.). Perspectives on the Song of Songs / Perspective der Hoheliedsauslegung (BZAW 346). Berlin–New York. Pp. 27–77. Dornseiff, F. Ägyptische Liebeslieder, Hoheslied, Sappho, Theokrit. ZDPV 90:589–601. Dorsey, D. A. Literary Structuring in the Song of Songs. JSOT 46:81–96. Exum, J. C. A Literary and Structural Analysis of the Songs of Songs. ZAW 85:47–79. Fisch, H. Poetry with a Purpose: Biblical Poetics and Interpretation. Bloomington–Indianopolis. Fox, M. V. The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs. Madison.

    to Deliya Meylanova for improving my English style. Thanks are also due to Alexey Lyavdansky who read the text and corrected some errors.

    Y. Eidelkind, Two Notes on Song 4:12 Freehof 1949 Fritz 1994 Gerleman 1981 Good 1970 Gordis 1954 Goulder 1986 Hagedorn 2005

    Haller 1940 Haupt 1902 Hitzig 1855 Horst 1961 Hunter 1999 Hunter 2005

    Keel 1992 Landsberger 1954 Landy 1980

    Longman 2001 Malul 1997 Meek 1922 Meek 1956 Miller 1999 Minar–Sandbach– Helbold 1969

    235

    Freehof, S. B. The Song of Songs: A General Suggestion. JQR 39:397–402. Fritz, V. Das Buch Josua (HAT 7.1). Tübingen. Gerleman, G. Ruth. Das Hohelied (BKAT 18). 2. Aufl. Neukirchen-Vluyn. Good, E. M. Ezekiel’s Ship: Some Extended Metaphors in the Old Testament. Semitics 1:79–103. Gordis, R. The Song of Songs: A Study, Modern Translation and Commentary. New York. Goulder, M. D. The Song of Fourteen Songs (JSOT Sup 36). Sheffield. Hagedorn, A. C. Jealousy and Desire at Night. Fragmentum Grenfellianum and Song of Songs. A. C. Hagedorn (ed.) Perspectives on the Song of Songs / Perspective der Hoheliedsauslegung (BZAW 346). Berlin–New York. Pp. 206–227. Haller, M. Hoheslied. Die Fünf Megilloth (HAT 18.1). Tübingen. Pp. 21–46. Haupt, P. The Book of Canticles. AJSL 18:193–245. Hitzig, F. Das Hohe Lied (KEHAT 16). Leipzig. Pp. V– 105. Horst, F. Formen des althebräischen Liebesliedes. Gottes Recht. Munich. Pp. 176–187. Hunter, R. Theocritus: A Selection. Cambridge. Hunter, R. ‘Sweet Talk’: Song of Songs and the Traditions of Greek Poetry. A. C. Hagedorn (ed.) Perspectives on the Song of Songs / Perspective der Hoheliedsauslegung (BZAW 346). Berlin–New York. Pp. 228–244. Keel, O. Das Hohelied (ZBAT 18). 2. Aufl. Zürich. Landsberger, F. Poetic Units within the Song of Songs. JBL 73:203–216. Landy, F. Beauty and the Enigma: An Inquiry into Some Interrelated Episodes of the Song of Songs. JSOT 17:55–106. Longman III, T. Song of Songs (NICOT). Grand Rapids (MI)–Cambridge (UK). Malul, M. Janus Parallelism in Biblical Hebrew: Two More Cases (Canticles 4,9.12). BZ 41:246–249. Meek, T. J. Canticles and the Tammuz Cult. AJSL 39:1–14. Meek, T. J. The Song of Songs: Introduction and Exegesis. IB V:98–148. Nashville. Miller, P. A. The Tibullan Dream Text. TAPA 129:181– 224. Minar, E. L.; Sandbach, F. H.; Helbold, W. C. (eds.). Plutarch’s Moralia, vol. IX (LCL). Cambridge (MA)–London.

    236

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    Müller 1992

    Müller, H.-P. Das Hohelied. H.-P. Müller; O. Kaiser; J. A. Loader. Das Hohelied, Klagelieder, Das Buch Ester (ATD 16/2). 4. Aufl. Göttingen. Pp. 1–90. Murphy, R. E. The Song of Songs. Minneapolis. Oettli, S. Das Hohelied. W. Volck; S. Oettli (Hg.). Die poetischen Hagiographen (KK). Nördlingen. Pp. 155–198. Paton, W. R. (ed). The Greek Anthology (LCL). Cambridge (MA)–London. Pope, M. H. Song of Songs. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 7c). New York. Ringgren, H. Das Hohe Lied. H. Ringgren; O. Kaiser. Das Hohe Lied. Klagelieder. Das Buch Esther (ATD 16/2). Göttingen. Pp. 253–290. Rouse, W. H. D.; Smith, M. F. (eds.). Lucretius. De rerum natura (LCL). Cambridge (MA)–London. Rowley, H. H. The Meaning of The Shulammite. AJSL 56:84–91. Segal, M. H. The Song of Songs. VT 12:470–490. Seow, C.-L. Ecclesiastes: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 18c). New York. Stolz, F. Die Bäume des Gottesgartens auf dem Libanon. ZAW 84:141–156. Wendland, E. R. Seeking the Path through a Forest of Symbols: A Figurative and Structural Survey of the Song of Songs. JTT 7:13–59. Würthwein, E. Das Hohelied. E. Würthwein; K. Galling; O. Plöger. Die fünf Megilloth (HAT 18.2). Tübingen. Pp. 25–71.

    Murphy 1990 Oettli 1889 Paton 1980 Pope 1977 Ringgren 1981

    Rouse–Smith 1928 Rowley 1939 Segal 1962 Seow 1997 Stolz 1972 Wendland 1995

    Würthwein 1969

    The Etymology of Israel (with an Appendix on Non-Hebrew Semitic Names among Hebrews in the Old Testament)* Leonid Kogan Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow

    Etymological analysis of the personal name Israel (yiŝrā!ēl) has a long history whose natural starting point is the etiological interpretation provided by the Biblical text itself. As is well known, a fully developed etiology of yiŝrā!ēl is found in Gen 32:28–29: wayyō(!)mer !ēlāw ma-šš3mäkā wayyō(!)mer ya"ă£ōb wayyō(!)mer lō(!) ya"ă£ōb yē!āmēr "ōd šim−ā kī !im yiŝrā!ēl kī ŝārītā "im !:lōhīm w3"im !ănāšīm wattūkāl ‘Then he asked him: What is your name? He answered: Jacob. He said: You are no longer to be called Jacob but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have prevailed’ (translation from Westermann 1984:513). This etiology is repeated in the poetic passage Hos 12:4–5 (translation from Stuart 1987:185): babbä¢än "ā£ab !ät-!āµīw wayyāŝar !äl-mal!āk wayyūkāl ‘In the womb he grasped his brother’s heel; He struggled with an angel and endured…’

    ūb3!ōnō ŝārā !ät-!:lōhīm When he was powerful, he struggled with God,

    The Biblical etiology is evidently based on the analysis of yiŝrā!ēl as the prefix conjugation of a third weak verb *ŝry1 combined with !ēl ‘god’. The

    * This article was written in the framework of the project 06-06-80537-ю supported by RFBR / РФФИ. I am grateful to this foundation for its financial assistance. 1 The element yiŝrā- is not identical to the regular form of the prefix conjugation for this verbal class, which would be *yiŝr7-. As observed already by Sachsse (1914:5), the same irregularity is systematically observed in imperfect-names of roots IIIy when the verbal form is not followed by a theophoric element (yišwā, yimnā etc.). When the theophoric element is present, the vowel after the second radical of the verbal form is either 3 or ī (yabn3!ēl, ya"ăŝī!ēl). The structure of the name yiŝrā!ēl is, therefore, to a certain degree unique (Albright 1927:161) but the

    238

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    latter is understood as the object of the verb but, as long ago recognized by modern scholarship, this reading can only be possible within an etiological meta-analysis: all that we know of the typology of Semitic theophoric names suggests that !ēl is the subject rather than the object of yiŝrā-.2 With this modification, the biblical interpretation has to a certain degree retained its popularity up to the present day (v. references in Zobel 1990:400), although its weak points have long ago become evident. Independent evidence for the very existence of the verb ŝry in the Old Testament Hebrew is entirely missing and even more so for the hypothetic meaning ‘to strive, to contend’. True, this meaning is well compatible with the context of ŝārā / ŝārītā / wayyāŝar in both etiological passages,3 but this is by no means surprising given the fact that these passages were

    presence of the cluster -ŝr- practically excludes all other classes of weak verbs. Noth’s observation “wird man an einen Stamm śr! denken mussen; dann ist grammatisch alles in Ordnung; es ist nun zu bemerken, dass im Hebräischen bekanntlich Stämme tertiae j/w und tertiae ! in einzelnen Formen gern in einander übergehen” (1928:208) is not very helpful: no suitable root III! seems to be attested either in Hebrew or in other Semitic languages whereas yirp3!ēl, by far the best known two-member theophoric name with a III! verbal form, exhibits 3 rather than ā after the second radical. A IIIy root is also suggested by the widely attested personal names ŝ3rāyā, ŝ3rāyāhū (HALOT 1356–7). The evidence from the etiological passages is not unanimous: ŝārītā in Gen 32:29 and ŝārā in Hos 12:5 are transparent IIIy forms but wayyāŝar in Hos 12:4 is unlikely to be regularly derived from this type of root, the expected form being *wayyiŝär (cf. wayyi£är < £ārā in Ruth 2:3, wayyizär < zārā in Ex 32:20). To interpret the verbal forms in Hos 12:4, 5 as reflecting different roots (ŝry ‘to strive’ and ŝrr ‘to prove oneself lord’) as suggested in Wolff 1989:206 is, in my opinion, a rather strained solution. 2 “Verbal sentence names in Hebrew are those consisting of a nominal subject, which is usually a theophoric element, and a verbal predicate” (Fowler 1988:84), “Kann es gar keinem Zweifel unterliegen, dass wir es mit einer Bildung Imperfekt + Nomen zu tun haben, in der das letztere Subjekt zu der Verbalform ist. Also die Auffassung von !ēl als Objekt … fällt von vornherein ausser Betracht” (Noth 1928:207–9). 3 However, as pointed out by Joüon (1925:42), ancient translations rather prefer the meaning ‘to be strong’: LXX hoti enischusas meta theou, Vulg. contra Deum fortis fuisti for Gen 32:29, LXX enischuse pros theon … enischuse meta aggelou, Vulg. directus est cum angelo … et invaluit ad angelum for Hos 12:4–5. In his translation of the second passage, Jerome opts for rendering differently ŝārā and wayyāŝar. The background of directus est is not entirely clear for me. It is tempting to suppose an underlying form of yšr but this is not easily compatible with ŠRH in the consonantal Hebrew text.

    L. Kogan, The Etymology of Israel

    239

    specifically designed for this explanation.4 External etymological support for ŝry ‘to strive, contend’ is restricted to Arabic šry, attested with the meaning ‘to persist in contention, litigation’ in the third stem (Lane 1545). However, already Nöldeke (1910:75) suspected that the meaning ‘streiten, widersprechen’ of šry III is derived from one of the basic meanings of this root in the basic stem, namely ‘aufgeregt, munter, schlimm sein’ (‘he was, or became angry; he was, or became, flurried by reason of anger’, Lane 1544). Finally, ‘to strive, contend’ is not among the favorite verbal concepts of the Old Testament theophoric onomasticon: the only clear parallel is represented by a few ryb-names (Stamm 1980:190–192).5 As a reaction to the vulnerability of the traditional interpretation, a wealth of alternative proposals have been advanced during the past 150 years: at least five hypotheses are mentioned in HALOT 442 and even more suggestions are critically analyzed in Zobel 1990:399–401 (with a convenient bibliographic summary). Unfortunately, most of these suggestions range from unconvincing to merely fantastic and Zobel 1990:400 is certainly correct to conclude that only one alternative proposal (‘to reign, to hold sway’) can be seriously considered. However, even this alternative is rather weak in my opinion: postulating an ad hoc variant ŝry for the rather poorly attested verb ŝrr ‘to rule’ (< ŝar ‘prince, ruler’) is hardly warranted.6 In this context, a new search for alternative interpretations was found justified. As a result, a hitherto unrecognized possibility of interpreting 4

    “Doch geben diese Stellen, da sie künstlichen Zwecken dienen, keine sichere Grundlage für die Ermittlung der wirklichen Bedeutung des hier gebrauchten hebräischen ŝrh. Auch scheint mir auf diese Weise kein einleuchtender Sinn für den fraglichen Namen sich zu ergeben” (Noth 1928:191–2). 5 Albright’s observation “… it is impossible to translate the name ‘God contends (in rivalry),’ since God has no rivals with whom to contend. Such a name is unparalleled, and, so far as the writer can see, almost unthinkable” is, therefore, hypercritical: while the meaning “to contend with somebody” may indeed be rather unsuitable for a theophoric personal name, “to strive for somebody” is quite conceivable. 6 The validity of the form miŝrā (Isa 9:5, 6), often adduced in support of such a root variant (e. g. Noth 1928:191–2), is doubtful. Apart from the fact that the meaning ‘dominion’ does not immediately follow from the context, the Qumran reading mšwrh precludes its derivation from a root IIIy (v. BHS 688). On the other hand, the root ŝrr is obviously denominative (< *ŝar ‘prince’) and, as Isa 32:1 and Prov 8:16 show, its link to the source-word ŝar was apparently still living. It is inherently unlikely for such a verb to produce a root-variant with a different consonantal composition.

    240

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    yiŝrā!ēl as ‘God protected’ has emerged. Within this approach, the element yiŝrā- is identified with Sabaic s2ry ‘to save, to protect’ and Arabic šry ‘to protect, to fight for somebody’. In my opinion, this interpretation has several advantages which make one consider it as a serious alternative to those suggested previously. 1. The underlying etymology is based on reliable evidence from several Semitic languages. Arb. šry is explained as šaraytu bi-nafsī li-l-£awmi !i¯ā ta£addamtu bayna !aydīhim !ilā "aduwwihim fa-£ātaltahum (sic!) !aw !ilā s-sul¢āni fatakallamtu "anhum wa-£ad šarā bi-nafsihi !i¯ā ³a"ala nafsahu ³unnatan lahum in LA 8 71, from which ‘proteger et combattre pour qn., en lui faisant un bouclier, un rempart de sa personne’ (BK 1 1223) and ‘he advanced before the people to their enemy and fought in defense of them’ (Lane 1544) derive. Sabaic s2ry ‘to save, to protect’ (SD 135) is most clearly attested in the causative stem, preceded by two verbs with similar meanings in C 313:3 (h"n wmt"n whs2ryn bn hwt !ns1m ‘helped, saved and protected from that man’). In NNAG 12:13 a form of the reflexive stem (ts2ryw) is attested, interpreted as ‘to seek protection from a deity’ in SD 135.7 Importantly, s2ry seems also to be attested in the Ancient South Arabian onomastic tradition: a personal name ys2r!l “exactly corresponding to the famous Yiśrā!ēl” has been recently detected in a Hadramitic inscription by S. Frantsouzoff (2005:13). W. W. Müller (1962: 536) has reasonably compared Sabaic s2ry to Geez ŝaraya ‘(1) sanare, mederi; (2) veneficius inficere, incantare’ (LLA 245; note also the nominal derivate ŝ3rāy ‘(1) medicamentum, medicina, pharmacum, malagma; (2) venenum, veneficium, pharmacum, incantamentum’). 8 If this comparison is ac7

    This text is re-edited in a forthcoming article by P. Stein (kindly sent to me by the author) where the pertinent passage (w-ts2ryw !lm£h b-ms1!l-hw w-wkbw ml!-m) is rendered as ‘da flehten sie !LMQH in seinem Orakel an und erhielten einen Bescheid’. As Ms. A. Multhoff points out to me in personal communication, there is no substantial disagreement between this translation and the general meaning ‘to protect’ for Sab. s2ry. I am deeply grateful to Peter Stein and Anne Multhoff for their generous help. 8 Dillmann adduces two unambiguous attestations of the meaning ‘to heal’ for ŝaraya (w3!3tu !a£wsalana way3ŝerr3yanna ‘he has wounded us and he will heal us’ in Hos 6:1 and ŝ3ray lanafs3ya ‘heal my soul’ in Ps 40:4 [41:5]) as well as numerous examples of ŝ3rāy ‘medicine’. Leslau’s treatment of ŝaraya and ŝ3rāy in LGz. 536 is somewhat distorted: the meanings ‘to bewitch, cast spells, poison’ and ‘incantation, magic, charm, witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment, spell, poison’ are given unjustified priority over ‘to heal, cure’ and ‘healing, cure, medicine’. Leslau’s approach to the semantics of ŝaraya is probably influenced by his contradictory etymological analysis of this root within which ŝaraya is simultaneously compared to

    L. Kogan, The Etymology of Israel

    241

    cepted, my interpretation of yiŝrā becomes compatible with the meaning ‘God heals’ long ago suggested for yiŝrā!ēl by W. F. Albright (1927).9 2. In agreement with Noth’s reasonable dictum (“Jede Veränderung der überlieferten Aussprache ist abzulehnen”, 1928:207), this interpretation does not presuppose any changes in the masoretic punctuation. Geez ŝ, Arabic š, ESA s2 are regular etymological correlates of Hebrew ŝ whereas the third weak root *ŝry remains, in spite of some difficulties, the only reasonable possibility for interpreting the morphological structure of yiŝrā- (v. above, fn. 1). 3. Both ‘to protect’ and ‘to heal’ are well known as verbal elements of theophoric personal names throughout Semitic.10 An interpretation ‘God Protected’ or ‘God Healed’ for yiŝrā!ēl is, therefore, in agreement with Semitic onomastic typology. 4. Within the present interpretation, the meaning of yiŝrā!ēl becomes strikingly similar to that of the original name of the Hebrews’ forefather.11 As is well known, Gen 25:26 connects the name Jacob (ya"ă£ōb)

    Sabaic s2ry ‘to protect’ (after Müller 1962:536) on the one hand and Aramaic s3rī ‘to have a bad odor’, Arabic šary- ‘colocynth’ (“which has a bitter taste”), Hebrew sōriyyā ‘stinking, putrid’ (“the bad odor comes from the poison”) on the other. The meaning ‘medicine, cure’ can be derived from either ‘protection’ or ‘drug, poison’ but not from both sources at once. Note that the meaning ‘to heal’ is prominent also in Tigre: sara ‘to cure, to treat medically’, mäsar3yay ‘physician’, s3ray ‘remedy, (poisonous) medicine’, s3re ‘cure, relief’ (LH 178–9). 9 Albright’s hypothesis gained little popularity in spite of his many insightful observations on the problem under discussion. This is likely due to Albright’s rather infelicitous application of the etymological evidence. Geez ŝaraya—reliably attested and structurally well compatible with yiŝrā- —is only marginally mentioned in Albright’s study (pp. 157 and 168). Instead, he recurs to a non-existent (!) Arabic root *wšr ‘to heal’, reconstructed by him from the actually attested nšr ‘to revive, resuscitate (a sick man), provide (a patient) with amulets’. It is on this reconstructed *wšr that Albright’s vocalization *Yaśir-!el (deviating from the Masoretic punctuation but in full agreement with the rules of Arabic morphology) is partly based. HALOT 442, where Albright’s interpretation is mentioned without comment, further distorts the picture by adducing “Arb. wšr ‘to heal’ ” as a real verb with no asterisk (carefully provided by Albright whenever he mentions this form). 10 That protection is among the most typical concepts reflected in theophoric names needs no illustration (v., e. g., Fowler 1988:75, 105). For healing v., e. g., Sivan 1984:265 (under rp!), BDB 951 (r3pā!ēl and similar), CAD A2 347 (ì-lí-a-sí-i and similar), Nöldeke 1904:100, Streck 1999:667–8. 11 That yiŝrā!ēl and ya"ă£ōb may have similar or identical meanings was felt already by Naor (1931). However, the etymological background of his suggestion—

    242

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    with the anatomic term "ā£ēb ‘heel’: w3!aµărē kēn yā´ā(!) !āµīw w3yādō !ōµäzät ba"ă£ēb "ēŝāw wayyi£rā(!) !ät-š3mō ya"ă£ōb ‘Then his brother came out, his hand grasping Esau’s heel and they called him Jacob’ (translation from Westermann 1985:411). There is little doubt, however, that this is a popular reinterpretation of a name which meant originally something like ‘(God) Protected’ or ‘May (God) Protect’ (so already Noth 1928:177).12 A more comprehensive comparative analysis suggests a slightly different etymological background for Noth’s interpretation,13 but in its essence this analysis has all chances to be correct and is now generally accepted not only in connection with Biblical ya"ă£ōb but also with respect to the West Semitic onomastic element ya-a¶-£ú-ub (and similar) in the Old Babylonian cuneiform sources (v., e. g., Huffmon 1965:203–4). Appendix: Non-Hebrew Semitic names among Hebrews in the Old Testament The names yiŝrā!ēl and ya"ă£ōb are by no means the only ones for which the Hebrew language as attested in the Old Testament does not suggest any reasonable interpretation. Among the theophoric names (which are the primary concern of the present investigation) I can mention, without pretending to be exhaustive, the following additional examples:14 *!ŝr ‘to delight’ in !ăŝar!ēl, !aŝrī!ēl (HALOT 92; Num, Josh, 1 Chr) — Arabic !šr ‘être très-vif et très-gai’ (BK 1 35), ‘he exulted’ (Lane 61). Noth the semantic identity between the alleged source-words *"a£ib- ‘heel’ and *!a¬ar‘trace’ (!)—deprives it of all credibility. 12 “Mir scheint das Südarabische, das ja auch mit "£b zusammengesetzte Namen kennt, mit "£b = bewachen (auch = Schutzmauer) den rechten Weg zu weisen; der hier vorliegende Stamm "£b = schützen kehrt dann wohl im Nordarabischen in dem Wort mi"£abun = Schleier der Frau wieder. Also: die Gottheit hat beschützt.” 13 Thus, the most unambiguous evidence for the meaning ‘to guard, to protect’ can be obtained from Ethiopian Semitic rather than from Arabic or Sabaic, cf. Geez "a£aba ‘to guard, watch, keep safe, safeguard, preserve, take care, protect’ (LGz. 66, with cognates with similar meanings in Neo-Ethiopian). The Arabic evidence is, as already seen by Noth, rather meager (mi"£ab- ‘sorte de voile de femme’, BK 2 310). As for Sabaic, "£b ‘schützen’ finds scarce support in modern lexica: "£bt ‘fortress, stronghold’ (SD 18) is no immediate witness of this meaning whereas m"£bt ‘guards’ is adduced with a question mark ibid. 18 (Hapax Legomenon in R 5085.10). 14 Treated as theophoric are two-member names comprising the elements !ēl, yāhū (and similar) or their widespread replacements such as !āµ and !āb. Also included are one-member nouns consisting of a verbal form of the prefix or suffix conjugation, presumably abbreviations of two-member theophoric names.

    L. Kogan, The Etymology of Israel

    243

    1928:183 (“dabei steht das Kal wohl wieder im Sinne des Kausativums, also: Gott hat mit Freude erfüllt”), Barr 1968:181. *!wm ‘to rule’ in !ăµī!ām (HALOT 33; 2 Sam, 1 Chr) — Arabic !wm ‘marcher en tête; gouverner, régir’ (BK 1 71).15 Noth 1928:192, Fowler 1988:85. *!wš ‘to grant, to reward’ in yō!āš, y3hō!āš (HALOT 393, 398; Judg, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, Hos, Am, 1 Chr, 2 Chr) — Arabic !ws ‘donner, faire un présent, payer, rétribuer’ (BK 1 68) and, possibly, Ugr. !ušn ‘present, gift’ (DUL 118). Noth 1926:171, 213, Barr 1968:181, Fowler 1988:85. *"rš ‘to plant’ in ya"ăräšyā (HALOT 423; 1 Chr) — Arabic γrs ‘planter (un arbre)’ (BK 2 455), ‘he planted it, fixed it in the ground’ (Lane 2247). Noth 1926:203, Barr 1968:182, Fowler 1988:86.16 *"tl ‘to be princely, exalted’ in "atlāy, "ătalyā, "ătalyāhū (HALOT 903– 4; 2 Kings, Ezra, 1 Chr, 2 Chr) — Akkadian etellu ‘prince, lord’ (CAD E 381, AHw. 260). Noth 1926:191, Barr 1968:182, Stamm 1980:335. *"tn ‘to be hard, harsh? ’ in "otnī!ēl, "otnī (HALOT 904; Josh, Judg, 1 Chr). The only known (and, certainly, not very satisfactory) etymology for "otnī(-) is Arabic "tn ‘pousser, précipiter, jetter qn. avec violence’, IV ‘etre dûr, sans pitié’ (BK 2 168).17 *"tw ‘to be pre-eminent’ in "ătāyā, "attay, possibly also "ūtay (HALOT 903, 804; Ezra, Neh, 1 Chr, 2 Chr) — Arabic "tw ‘dépasser les limites dans quelque chose, être fier et insolent’ (BK 2 169). Noth 1926:191, Fowler 1988:86.18 15

    Unless a specific phonetic development from *!ăµiyyām (cf. HALOT 33 and 5, under !ăbiyyām). 16 Noth mistakenly identified this root with Akkadian erēšu which, allegedly, “kommt in akkadischen Namen ausserordentlich häufig vor”. On the one hand, Akkadian erēšu ‘to cultivate (fields)’ is not related to Arabic γrs but rather to Arabic µr¬ ‘to plow’ (the true Akkadian cognate of Arb. γrs is likely ¶arāšu ‘to plant trees’, Kogan 2001:272). On the other hand, it is not erēšu ‘to cultivate’ but rather its homonym with the meaning ‘to ask, request; to crave, desire’ that is common in theophoric personal names (CAD E 284). Noth’s identification is uncritically repeated by Barr and Fowler. 17 The editors of HALOT believe that this interpretation is inferior to the comparison with Akk. ¶atānu ‘to protect’ “because of the closer philological compatibility”. It is not clear to me how " in the Hebrew form can be compatible with ¶ in the Akkadian verb: the latter, as rightly recognized in Huffmon 1965:206, is most probably derived from ¶atanu ‘male relative by marriage’ which has clear cognates with ¶ / µ in West Semitic. 18 This derivation has been put to doubt in HALOT 903 where the negative connotations of the Arabic root are rightly emphasized.

    244

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    *"wš ‘to help’ in yō"āš, y3"ūš (HALOT 403, 420; Gen, 1 Chr, 2 Chr) — Arabic γw¬ ‘secourir, venir au secours’ (BK 2 514), ‘he aided or succoured him’ (Lane 2306), Minaean γw¬ ‘améliorer’ (LM 38).19 Noth 1926:176, 196, Barr 1968:182. *"zy ‘to nourish’ in ya"ăzī!ēl, ya"ăziyyāhū (HALOT 420; 1 Chr) — Arabic γ¯w ‘nourrir qn., l’entretenir’ (BK 2 444), ‘I fed, or nourished him’ (Lane 2236). Noth 1926:203 (“Ein solcher Stamm existiert nun freilich im Hebräischen nicht, dagegen wird das arabische Verbum Ða¯ā herangezogen werden dürfen, das ernähren bedeutet. ‘Gott möge ernähren’, das ist ein durchaus ansprechender Inhalt für einen Personennamen, und zwar einen Wunschnamen”), Fowler 1988:86. *hdy ‘to lead, guide’ in yāhday20 (HALOT 393; 1 Chr) — Syriac hdy (pa.) ‘duxit’ (Brock. 171), Arabic hdy ‘guider qn. tout droit, le bien guider’ (BK 2 1404), Sabaic hdy ‘caravan-leader, guide’ (SD 55). Noth 1926:196, Barr 1968:182. *µmy ‘to protect’ in yaµmay (HALOT 407; 1 Chr) — Arabic µmy ‘défendre, protéger’ (BK 1 497), ‘he protected, defended it’ (Lane 651), Sabaic µmy ‘to protect’ (SD 69), Qatabanian µmy id. (Ricks 63), Harsusi µemō id. (JH 60), Mehri µōmi id. (JM 182), Jibbali aµmí ‘to defend’ (JJ 112). Noth 1926:196, Barr 1968:182.21 *µwd ‘to grant’ in !ăµīµūd (HALOT 33; 1 Chr) — Sabaic ¶wd ‘to grant, bestow’ (SD 64). *£wš ‘to grant, bestow’ in £ūšāyāhū (HALOT 1091; 1 Chr) — Akkadian £âšu, £iāšu ‘to make a donation’ (CAD Q 156).22 *£wt ‘to nourish’ in y3£ūtī!ēl (HALOT 430; 1 Chr) — Arabic £wt ‘nourir qn., pourvoir à son existence’ (BK 2 830), ‘he fed, nourished, or sustained’ (Lane 2571). Noth 1926:203, Barr 1968:182, Fowler 1988:86. *rml ‘to adorn’ in r3malyāhū (HALOT 1244; 2 Kings, Isa, 2 Chr) — Arabic rml ‘enrichir un tissu de perles, de pierres précieuses, brocher de

    19

    The verb "wš seems to be attested in Joel 4:11 but its interpretation is debated (v. HALOT 804, Barr 1968:182). 20 Qame´ in the first syllable is strange. Read yahday or yahdī (cf. HALOT 393, BHS 1463)? 21 In Aramaic (mostly in Western dialects, v. Sok. 205) *µmy is likely preserved with the meaning ‘to see’. As recognized in many previous studies, this root is probably reflected in the Canaanite terms for wall such as Ugaritic µmt, pl. µmyt (DUL 364– 5), Phoenician and Moabite µmt (DNWSI 381), Hebrew µōmā (HALOT 298). 22 The non-theophoric name £īš (HALOT 1100; 1 Sam, 2 Sam, 1 Chr, 2 Chr, Esth) possibly belongs to the same root, cf. Noth 1928:171 (‘Geschenk’).

    L. Kogan, The Etymology of Israel

    245

    perles’ (BK 1 928), ‘he ornamented the couch, the mat with jewels, precious stones, gems’ (Lane 1159).23 Fowler 1988:86. *šbn ‘to come near’ in š3banyā(hū) (HALOT 1396; Neh, 1 Chr). In HALOT 1396 compared to Arabic šbn ‘être près, s’approcher de…’ (BK 2 1187), with a phonological irregularity. *špn ‘to prevail, to dominate’ in yišpān (HALOT 449; 1 Chr) — Geez safana ‘to prevail, dominate, to be master, rule, to become powerful, exercise control’ (LGz. 488, with cognates in other Ethiopian).24 *w"y ‘to collect, assemble’ in y3"ū!ēl, y3"ī!ēl (HALOT 419–20; Ezra, 1 Chr, 2 Chr) — Arabic w"y ‘rassembler, ramasser, réunir sur un seul point’ (BK 2 1570), wa"iyy- ‘fort, robuste’ (ibid.), wā"in ‘qui serre, qui cache, qui conserve, touteur’ (ibid.).25 *ydy ‘to care, to help’ in y3dāyā (HALOT 390; Neh, 1 Chr) — Arabic ydy ‘faire du bien à qn., lui render un service, vernir à son secours par quelque bienfait’ (BK 2 1624). Noth 1928:182 (“ich wüsste ihn nichts anders zu erklären, als dass das erste Element mit dem Arabischen jdj = eine Wohltat erweisen identisch ist”). *zbd ‘to grant, bestow’ in !älzābād, y3hōzābād and a wide variety of other names (for a complete list see Wagner 1966:46–7; Josh, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, Ezra, Neh, 1 Chr, 2 Chr) — Arb. zbd ‘donner à qn. une petite partie de ce qu’on a’, zabad- ‘présent, don, cadeau’ (BK 1 969), ‘he gave him a gift’ (Lane 1209), Sab. zbd ‘gift? ’ (SD 170).26 In addition, one has to mention a few theophoric names which, although looking Semitic, cannot be convincingly interpreted either within Hebrew or with the help of cognate languages: !ăµīma"a´, ma"a´ (HALOT

    23

    Unless to be revocalized as *rām-l3-yāhū or *rūm-l3-yāhū (v. HALOT 1244). Cf. Noth 1928:257 (“für das 1. Element weiss ich keine plausibele Erklärung”). 24 Whether this name is related to yišpā as tenatively suggested in HALOT 499 is uncertain. That both names are abbreviations of šp¢-names (Noth 1928:248) is rather hard to prove. 25 Hbr. yā"ā ‘to sweep away’ (HALOT 419, Hapax Legomenon in Isa 28:17), although probably related to the Arabic root, can hardly be a source-verb for this name for semantic reasons. 26 Contrary to the widespread conviction, the root zbd is quite rare in Aramaic (thus, Syr. z3bad and zebdā do not appear in the Biblical corpus outside Gen 30:20 and are quite rare otherwise, v. Brock. 186–7). For a balanced evaluation of this problem see Wagner 1966:47.

    246

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    33; 1 Sam, 2 Sam, 1 Chr),27 !ăbīšag (HALOT 6; 1 Kings), !ăµīlūd (HALOT 33; 2 Sam, 1 Kings, 1 Chr), pū¢ī!ēl (HALOT 917; Ex). As far as non-theophoric names are concerned, an even greater variety of names involving elements otherwise unattested in Biblical Hebrew but identifiable with appellatives of other Semitic languages are attested. A representative selection of such names (mostly based on Noth 1928:221–32) includes the following terms:28 !ib´ān (HALOT 9; Judg) — Arabic !b´ ‘être agile, vif et rapide à la course (se dit d’un cheval)’ (BK 1 4), Noth 1928:226; !āpīaµ (HALOT 78; 1 Sam) — Arabic ya!fū¶- ‘sommet de la tête’ (BK 1 39), ‘the top, vertex or crown, of the head’ (Lane 68), Noth 1928:227; !ō´äm (HALOT 82; 1 Chr) — Arabic !¥m ‘être en colère contre qn.’ (BK 1 38), Noth 1928:229; "adlay (HALOT 792; 1 Chr) — Arabic "dl ‘être juste, juger, prononcer avec justice dans une cause’ (BK 2 190), ‘he acted equitably, justly, or rightly’ (Lane 1972), Noth 1928:231; "ākān (HALOT 825; Josh), ya"kān (HALOT 420; 1 Chr) — Arabic "uknat‘pli formé par la peau du ventre chez un homme très-replet’, "ikān- ‘cou’ (BK 2 333), ‘a crease, or wrinkle, in the belly, originating from fatness’, ‘the neck’ (Lane 2123); "omrī (HALOT 850; 1 Kings, 2 Kings, Mi, 1 Chr, 2 Chr) — Arabic "umr- ‘vie, espace de vie’ (BK 2 365), ‘life’ (Lane 2155), Noth 1926:63;29 "ašwāt, var. "aŝwāt (HALOT 896; 1 Chr) — Arb. "ašwat‘vue faible; imprudence, étourderie’ (BK 2 265), Noth 1928:228; bō"az (HALOT 142; Ruth, 1 Chr) — Arabic baγz- ‘vivacité dans les mouvements, tempérament vif, agilité à la course’ (BK 1 146), Noth 1928:228; b3rī"ā (HALOT 157; Gen, Num, 1 Chr) — Arabic br" ‘surpasser ses compagnons; être homme accompli, plein de mérite et doué de qualités phy27 “Für das 2. Element ergibt weder das arab. ma"i´a = gekrümmt sein noch ma"i¥a = zornig sein einen annehmbaren sinn” (Noth 1928:235). 28 As in the case of theophoric names, a few non-theophoric names, although looking a priori Semitic, cannot be interpreted either within Hebrew or with the help of the cognate languages. Here belong µa¢¢ūš (HALOT 307; Neh, Ezra, 1 Chr) and rib£ā (HALOT 1182; Gen). In the latter case, neither comparison with Arb. rib£at- ‘nœud coulant, tour d’un lacet’ (BK 1 812; cf. Noth 1928:10), nor metathesis from *ba£ar-at- ‘cow’ are convincing (cf. Stamm 1980:335). 29 V. Noth 1928:63 (“vielleicht arabischen Ursprungs”), Barr 1968:182. It is not clear to me why HALOT 850 considers “the Amorite ¶amr-, an element in the personal names Úamrurapi, Úamru, Úumrum” to be a preferable alternative. Huffmon 1965:198 to which HALOT refers treats this element as “unclear” but eventually compares it to the same Arabic root "mr. As for Akk. ¶amru ‘heiliger Bezirk (des Adad)’ (AHw. 318) to which both HALOT and Huffman refer, its ¶ is not compatible with " in the Hebrew name.

    L. Kogan, The Etymology of Israel

    247

    siques et morales’ (BK 1 112), ‘he was superior to his companion’ (Lane 189), Noth 1928:224, Barr 1968:181; dar£ōn (HALOT 232; Ezra, Neh) — Arabic dar£- ‘dur’ (BK 1 690), Noth 1928:225, Barr 1968:181; gaµar (HALOT 188; Ezra, Neh) — Arabic ³a¶ir- ‘lâche, poltron; laid, vilain; imbécile’ (BK 1 259), Noth 1928:229; µoglā (HALOT 291; Num, Josh) — comparable to terms for partridge in Syriac, Arabic and Tigre (SED II No. 97); µă£ūpā (HALOT 347; Ezra, Neh) — Arabic µ£f ‘être couché sur le côté, le corps cambré, les pieds se touchant (se dit de certains animaux)’ (BK 1 467), ‘he was, or become curved, bet or winding’ (Lane 612), Jibbali µC£Cf ‘to go round a corner; to bend’, µa£fún ‘bent (person, thing)’ (JJ 108), with further possible cognates in LGz. 239 (under Geez µa£afa ‘to hug, embrace, fold (hands)’), Noth 1928:227; µarµūr (HALOT 353; Ezra, Neh) — Akkadian ¶a¶¶uru ‘raven’ (CAD Ú 29), Noth 1928:230; µāšūm (HALOT 362; Ezra, Neh) — Arabic ¶¬m ‘avoir le nez aplati’ (BK 1 541), Noth 1928:227; µa¢¢īl (HALOT 307; Ezra, Neh) — Arabic ¶¢l ‘parler beaucoup, et ne dire que de futilités’ (BK 1 595), ‘he was foul and obscene, in his speech, we was corrupt in his speech, and loquacious’ (Lane 767), Noth 1928:595;30 lē!ā (HALOT 513; Gen, Ruth) — usually compared to Akkadian littu ‘cow’, Arabic la!āt- ‘gazelle, antelope’ (SED II No. 142); la"dā, la"dān (HALOT 533; 1 Chr) — Arabic luγd-, luγdūd-, liγdīd- ‘lobe d’oreille, le bas de l’oreille; chair entre le palais et le canal de la déglution’ (BK 2 1005), Noth 1928:227; lāhad (HALOT 520; 1 Chr) — Arabic lhd ‘accabler qn., se faire sentir péniblement à qn.’, lahd‘homme lâche, paresseux’ (BK 2 1031), Noth 1928:227; nābōt (HALOT 660; 1 Kings, 2 Kings) — Arabic nbt ‘pousser, germer, croitre’, nabāt‘plante’ (BK 2 1180), Tigre näbtä ‘to grow’ (LH 330), Soqotri nébot ‘planter, porter des plantes, féconder’ (LS 255), Noth 1928:221; nimšī (HALOT 701; 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 2 Chr) — Arabic nims- ‘ichneumon’ (BK 2 1347), Noth 1928:230; näpäg (HALOT 708; Ex, 2 Sam, 1 Chr) — Arabic nufu³- (pl.) ‘lourds, lents à se movoir’ (BK 2 1304), Noth 1928:227;31 r3!ūmā (HALOT 1162; Gen) — Akkadian ra!āmu ‘to love’ (CAD R 137), Arabic r!m ‘s’habituer à qch., aimer qch.; aimer avec une tendresse excessive’ (BK 1 795), ‘she (a camel) loved, or affected, or inclined to, and kept to, or clave to her young one’ (Lane 997), Soqotri ró!om ‘désirer’ (LS 30

    Alternatively, the Hebrew name can be explained through a variety of anatomic meanings attested for Arb. ¶¢l such as ‘the ear was flaccid, flabby or pendulous’ (Lane 767). 31 A few other meanings of Arb. nf³ would also be suitable, notably naffā³- arrogant, présomtueux’ (BK 2 1305).

    248

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    391);32 räpaµ (HALOT 1278; 1 Chr) — Arabic rāfi¶- ‘commodus, bonis abundans’ (Fr. II 171), Syriac r3paµ ‘tumuit’ (Brock. 741), possibly also Mehri r3f¶áyt ‘animal whose milk comes easily’ (JM 317), Jibbali réfe¶ ‘(udder) to be easy to milk’ (JJ 205), Noth 1928:231; ŝäraµ (HALOT 1355; Gen, Num, 1 Chr) — Arabic šrµ ‘élargir, dilater’ (BK 1 1212), ‘he widened, dilated’, Sabaic s2rµ ‘deliver, preserve’ (SD 134), Minaean s1-s2rµ ‘délivrer, préserver’ (LM 87), Qatabanian s2rµ-m ‘safety, prosperity’ (Ricks 171), Geez ŝarr3µa ‘to prosper, make prosper, bring success, make successful’ (LGz. 533), Noth 1928:180;33 šōbē£ (HALOT 1436; Neh)34 — Sabaic s1b£ ‘success?’ (SD 123), Arabic sb£ ‘devancer qn. et arriver avant qqn à un endroit’, !asba£- ‘supérieur, excellent’ (BK 1 1047), ‘he preceded, outwent, outstripped him’ (Lane 1299); yā£7 (HALOT 430; Prov) — Arabic w£y ‘garder, conserver’ (BK 2 1593), Geez wa£aya ‘to console, give comfort’ (LGz. 616, with reference to other Ethiopian), Noth 1928:228; y3mīmā (HALOT 414; Job) — Arabic yamāmat- ‘un pigeon, un ramier’ (BK 21636), Noth 1928:230; yārōaµ (HALOT 437; 1 Chr) — Arabic wr¶ ‘être mou’ (BK 2 1517), Noth 1928:228; zilpā (HALOT 272; Gen) — either to Arabic ¯lf ‘avoir un nez petit, fin’ (BK 1 779), ‘it was short and small (said of a nose)’ (Lane 9074) or to Arabic zlf ‘s’avancer, passer en avant’, zulfat- ‘degré, rang que l’on occupe’ (BK 1 1006), ‘he did it previously, or beforehead’, ‘station, rank, grade or degree’ (Lane 1245), Noth 1928:10, Stamm 1980:120. In such a context, it is nearly compelling to conclude that the names yiŝrā!ēl and ya"ă£ōb do not pose any special problem by themselves, but rather form part of a more widely attested phenomenon. Some of the scholars who dealt with this phenomenon firmly believe that the names in question are not foreign to the Hebrew language but employ genuinely Hebrew lexical elements which, for this or that reason, are not attested in the Biblical corpus. A statement fairly representative of this trend can be found on p. 63 of E. Y. Kutscher’s History of the Hebrew Language (1982): “In most cases, the root is Hebrew although it does not appear in BH either because there was no occasion to use it…, or because it had already died out during BH times but managed to survive in the other Semitic languages.” A similar approach is characteristic of Fowler 1988:86: “That verbal names compounded with such roots bear the 32

    For ‘beloved’, ‘object of love’ in Hebrew personal names v. Noth 1928:223. Alternative suggestions in Stamm 1980:335 are less convincing in my opinion. 33 Alternatively to be compared to Akk. šarā¶u ‘to become laden with glory, pride’ (CAD Š2 36). See further Stamm 1980:336. 34 Note also yišbā£ as a name of a non-Israelite (HALOT 445; Gen, 1 Chr).

    L. Kogan, The Etymology of Israel

    249

    stamp of foreign influence is not a necessary conclusion to be drawn… Rather, it is probable that these roots occurring only in names indicate a survival of elements in Hebrew which are now either no longer attested, or no longer attested with such nuances of interpretation.” In my opinion, the very statement “the root is Hebrew although it does not appear in BH” is inherently contradictory. Our knowledge of Ancient Hebrew being predominantly based on the corpus of the Old Testament, how can one be so confident that a given root “is Hebrew” if it is absent from this very corpus? The first possibility suggested by Kutscher, namely that “there was no occasion to use it”, can of course be valid for some rare concepts: we do empirically know that a few (very few, as far as I see) Proto-Semitic basic terms are accidentally absent from the Bibilical corpus but reappear in post-Biblical language (parade examples are ¢3µōl ‘spleen’ and rē!ā ‘lung’, v. SED I Nos. 224 and 278 respectively). However, it is hardly realistic to suppose that the same was the case of a root like *"£b ‘to protect’. Differently from languages like Phoenician, Ugaritic or Sabaic, Hebrew possesses an extraordinary large and varied corpus encompassing different speech registers and textual genres, consisting of documents from different chronological periods, both in poetry and prose. A verbal root with a meaning like ‘to protect’ has dozens of chances to be used and re-used in the Biblical corpus and its virtual absence from it is unlikely to be accidental.35 Kutscher’s second alternative (“it had already died out during BH times”) is hardly more appealing. If a root had died during (or, better to say, before) BH times, it simply does not belong to the lexicon of the language that we customarily denote as Hebrew. Such a root can be qualified as “Pre-Hebrew”, “Proto-Hebrew”, “Proto-Canaanite” or “ProtoNorth-West Semitic”—everything but not “Hebrew”! According to Kutscher, “every language contains proper names built from roots that did not survive in everyday speech” (1982:63). His example—English Herbert 36 —is, however, rather infelicitous. In a modern language like English, all personal names are more or less meaningless and, consequently, foreign to the respective linguistic system independently of their 35

    Cf. Barr 1968:183 where the importance of poetic parallelism is rightly emphasized in this connection: “Thus, ‘give’ is very common in poetry, yet there is no adequate common parallel for ntn. It is surprising that zbd was not used with some frequency to provide such a parallel. The same can be said of "mr ‘live’, which would give an excellent parallel for the heavily-worked µyh.” 36 From Proto-Germanic *Harja-berhtaz ‘bright in army’ (Toporova 1996:51).

    250

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    origin, be it foreign or autochthonous. The situation in the ancient Semitic world was obviously quite different: personal names (and, above all, the theophoric ones) are generally recognized to be highly meaningful (this is, evidently, the primary raison d’être of studies like Noth 1928 or Fowler 1988). If we compare the Hebrew onomastic corpus with the Akkadian one—and this is, as far as the breadth and variety of the textual corpus is concerned, probably the only justified comparandum—the results are quite instructive. As repeatedly observed by students of Akkadian personal names, these names almost never involve elements otherwise unattested in written sources of the Akkadian language. As D. O. Edzard (1998b:107) observes, “lässt sich beobachten, dass die akk. PN teils der Umgangssprache ihrer Zeit, auf jeden Fall aber der Literatursprache sehr nahe stehen, so dass sie zu einem beträchtlichen Teil, wenn nicht überhaupt ganz überwiegend, als lebendiges Sprachgut zu verstehen sind.” This trend is especially pronounced in the lexical domain: “the words used in personal names are normal Akkadian” (Stol 1991:195).37 The same conclusion was made with respect to two other Ancient Near Eastern onomastica: the Sumerian38 and the Hittite.39 It seems legitimate to wonder, why the Hebrew picture should be so radically different. 37 Stol alludes to “a literary flavour” sometimes detected in the lexical elements of Akkadian personal names but gives no examples (for a similar observation see also Streck 2002:118: “stellt man die Sprache der Namen mit der der überlieferten akkadischen Texte, so stellt man eine relative Ferne zu den der Umgangsprache nahestehenden Briefen, dagegen zu allen Zeiten eine besondere Nähe zur Literatur im engeren Sinne fest”). All in all, the only widely recognized example of a root entirely missing from the Akkadian texts but widely used in proper names is ip£u, presumably ‘hug, embrace’ (Edzard 1998b:107, Streck 2002: 113). A few other examples are mentioned in Stol 1991:195 but at least some of them involve “new derivates” (gumlum, nu´rum) rather than “new roots”. Two interesting examples not adduced by Stol are ennu ‘grace, mercy’ (CAD E 170; the basic stem of enēnum < *µnn is also very rare outside personal names, v. ibid. 162–4) and pālilu ‘vanguard, front-runner’ (CAD P 66), the hypothetic source-verb palālu being also common in personal names but very rare otherwise (pll-names are not attested in Old Babylonian and, therefore, fall outside Stol’s corpus). For a few other lexical oddities in Akkadian onomastica of various periods see further Streck 2002:111, 113, 115. 38 “Ähnlich wie bei den Akkadischen PN … fällt auf, dass sich ein sum. Name sehr oft problemlos übersetzen lässt; d. h. er stellt sich uns dar wie ein Teil der uns mehr oder weniger vertrauten sum. literarischen Sprache” (Edzard 1998a:96). 39 “Ein grosser Teil der im hetithischen Schrifttum belegten Personennamen ist aus dem bekannten hethitisch-luwischen Wortschatz erklärbar” (Tischler 2002:76).

    L. Kogan, The Etymology of Israel

    251

    A more sound approach to the problem under scrutiny can be found in Barr 1968:181–4. After examining a list of roots which are attested in personal names only but have more or less reliable cognates in other Semitic languages, Barr reasonably doubts that such roots did really belong to the standard lexical stock of Biblical Hebrew. He cautiously avoids explicitly labeling such roots as foreign but his analogy—“the ‘Amorite’ names … which notably diverge from the standard Accadian of the running texts in which they are found; … the names are ‘Amorite’ though the general language is not”—is more than telling.40 If one dares to suppose that at least some of the aforementioned Biblical names are indeed Semitic but not Hebrew (and I wonder why this possibility should be so emphatically denied),41 such a hypothesis obviously entails some cultural-historical implications which remain to be studied by better qualified specialists. At present, I will cautiously restrict myself to a couple of possibilities which immediately suggest themselves. As far as early names like yiŝrā!ēl and ya"ă£ōb are concerned, their nonHebrew origin would agree with the well-known concept according to which the Israelite tribes originally spoke a Semitic language different from the manifestly Canaanite dialect reflected in the Old Testament. This concept, extremely popular in the early decades of the twentieth century, was seriously discredited by its famous by-product, the Mischsprache theory of the Hebrew language (in the classic exposition of Bauer–Leander 1922:12–25 the two concepts are presented as an inseparable unity).42 Bauer and Leander did not adduce personal names as 40

    Barr’s reference to the fact that “possibly social and linguistic history might provide some explanation” is a bit vague, but the corresponding footnote on p. 184 of his study is quite explicit: after a reference to Noth 1928:43–7, he observes that “one might speculate that such a common Aramaean background in Israel’s prehistory has left behind in personal nomenclature some words which ceased to be general in other usage”. His example is, peculiarly, nothing else but ya"ă£ōb! 41 Thus, it is not clear to me why a scholar who easily accepts the fact that Hebrews could bear Egyptian names like pīn3µās (Kutscher 1982:63) is so reluctant to suppose that onomastica of the neighboring Semitic peoples were also to a certain degree familiar to them. 42 The Mischsprache theory attracted a lot of criticism from various sides (for a summary of debate and a generally negative evaluation v. Sáenz-Badillos 1996: 53–56). It may be parenthetically observed that lexical evidence—a domain a priori favorable for a study in language contact—was extremely rarely used in the discussion in spite of the fact that the Mischsprache pattern could provide an explanation for a few striking “non-Canaanite” features of the Hebrew lexicon

    252

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    their evidence but this was done by M. Noth (1928:42–7) for whom the importance of the linguistic stratification of Biblical proper names for the study of the ethnic history was quite evident.43 On p. 44–5 of his study, Noth introduces the concept of a “Proto-Aramaic stratum” in order to designate that segment of the Israelite onomasticon which, in his opinion, represents its most archaic level and markedly differs from the later, more standard, strata: “Die ältesten israelitischen Namen, die sich der Form nach so stark von den phönizischen, aber ebenso auch von den seit der Richterzeit in Israel üblich werdenden Namen unterschieden, zeigen deutich, dass der Kern des israelitischen Volkes, das in Kanaan selbst dann viele kanaanäische Elemente in sich aufgenommen hat, nicht Kaaanäsch war, sondern eben (proto)aramäisch, und diese rein aus den Peronenamen gewonnene Erkentniss vereinigt sich auf das beste mit dem, was sonst schon an Argumenten für die aramäische Herkunft des Keres von Israel herangezogen worden ist.” In his definition of the “Proto-Aramaic” stratum, Noth is reluctant to deal with concrete lexical elements44 and prefers to recur to structural phenomena only (“Imperfektbildungen … waren charakteristisch für die allerältesten israelitischen Namen”). Noth’s attention to structural considerations is valuable45 but there is hardly any reason to desist from complementing the structural

    which became especially apparent after the discovery of Ugaritic. I mean such Ugaritic-Phonician isoglosses not shared by Hebrew as Pho. p"m, Ugr. p"n ‘foot’ vs. Hbr. rägäl; Pho., Ugr. kn vs. Hbr. hyy ‘to be’; Pho., Ugr. n"m ‘good’ vs. Hbr. ¢ōb; Pho. µr´, Ugr. ¶r´ vs. Hbr. zāhāb ‘gold’. In each case, the Hebrew term is paralleled by Aramaic. 43 Noth briefly mentions the Mischsprache hypothesis on p. 42 of his study but does not express his own attitude towards it. 44 “Diese Methode hat zweifellos ihr Recht, ist aber doch gefährlich, weil sie zu sehr mit Einzelheiten arbeiten muss, die sich auf den uns zufällig bekannten Ausschnitt aus den einzelnen semitischen Namengebungen gründen.” 45 It is interesting to observe that an essentially similar approach to the Sabaic onomasticon has been recently endorsed by A. Sima (2002:196), according to whom “Bei den altsabäischen Namen des Typs yf"l-!l handelt es sich offenbar um eine ererbte, westsemitische Bildungsweise, deren Entstehung lange vor dem Beginn der altsüdarabischen Texüberlieferung, spätestens in der ersten Hälfte des 2. Jt. v. Chr. im syrisch-palästinischen Raum anzusetzen ist…” In Sima’s view, the archaic nature of this onomastic stratum yields support to N. Nebes’ Einwanderung-Modell of the Sabaean history (2001): “Mit der Einwanderung der Sabäer ist diese Gruppe von Personennamen nach Südarabien gelangt, wo sie als besonders altertuümliche Schicht in die früheste historische Phase hineinragt.” The similarity to Noth’s hypothesis is striking.

    L. Kogan, The Etymology of Israel

    253

    analysis with a lexical discussion. In the framework of such a discussion, there is nothing extraordinary in supposing that the lexicon of Noth’s “Proto-Arameans”46 comprised a few elements not attested in Canaanite but common in what later became Arabic or Sabaic.47 As far as names connected with later periods are concerned, an explanation for the presence of so many Arabic and Sabaic lexical elements can be sought in the increasing contact with Arabian nomads penetrating into Mesopotamia and Syria-Palestine in the course of the first millennium BC.48 In this connection, distribution of “non-Hebrew” onomastic elements over Biblical books is of some interest. As far as theophoric names are concerned, 13 examples out of 20 are concentrated in Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah (ya"ăräšyā; "ătāyā, "attay, "ūtay; yō"āš, y3"ūš;49 ya"ăzī!ēl, ya"ăziyyāhū; yāhday; yaµmay; !ăµīµūd; £ūšāyāhū; y3£ūtī!ēl; š3banyā(hū); yišpān; y3"ū!ēl, y3"ī!ēl; y3dāyā). Among non-theophoric names, “non-Hebrew” onomastic elements concentrated in Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah are 13 out of 29 (!ō´äm; "adlay; "ašwāt, "aŝwāt; dar£ōn; gaµar; µă£ūpā; µarµūr; µāšūm; µa¢¢īl; la"dā, la"dān; lāhad; räpaµ; šōbē£; yārōaµ). A few other such names are also found in manifestly late sources (bō"az, yā£7, y3mīmā) whereas some of them are “pre-Israelite” (lē!ā, r3!ūmā, zilpā).50

    46

    Noth’s definition is used here as a purely conventional label for early nonCanaanite West Semitic peoples and their languages. For a summary of opinions concerning the hypothetic continuity between Old Babylonian “Amorite” and “(Proto-)Arameans” v. Streck 2000:80–2. 47 A perusal of lexical elements in West Semitic personal names in Old Babylonian sources (Gelb 1980:13–35) demonstrate that this is a real possibility, cf. !asdum ‘lion’ (Gelb 1980:13) — Arabic !asad- id. (BK 1 31), possibly also Sabaic !s1d ‘men, soldiers, warriors’ (SD 7); dašurum, dušurum ‘old’ (Gelb 1980:17) — Arabic d¬r ‘être déjà ancien, être effacé’ (BK 2 669); mt" ‘to protect’ (Gelb 1980:25) — Sabaic mt", h-mt" ‘to save, to deliver’ (SD 88), probably also Arabic mt" (II) ‘laisser quelqu’un jouir de la vie’, (IV) ‘conserver quelqu’un et le laisser jouir de la vie’ (BK 2 1057); namašum ‘ichneumon’ (Gelb 1980:26) — Arabic nims- id. (BK 2 1347). 48 For this phenomenon in general see the well-known monograph by I. Eph‘al (1984) as well as more linguistically oriented observations by R. Zadok (1977:192ff.). As far as personal names are concerned, cf. already Noth 1928:222 (“ist doch ganz in Israels Nähe ein Gebiet des Arabertums und speziell arabischer Namengebung in Edom nachweisbar”). 49 Also in Gen 36.5:14 as a name of a non-Israelite. 50 Note also b3rī"ā and ŝäraµ, names of a son and a daughter of Asher in Gen and Num (the former name reappears, for different various individuals, in 1 Chr).

    254

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    References Albright 1927

    Barr 1968 Bauer–Leander 1922 Edzard 1998a Edzard 1998b Eph‘al 1994 Fowler 1988 Frantsouzoff 2005

    Gelb 1980 Huffmon 1965 Joüon 1925 Kogan 2001 Kutscher 1982 Müller 1962 Naor 1931 Nebes 2001

    Noth 1928 Nöldeke 1904 Nöldeke 1910 Sachsse 1914 Sáenz-Badillos 1996 Sima 2002

    Albright, W. F. The Names ‘Israel’ and ‘Judah’ with an Excursus on the Etymology of Tôdâh and Tôrâh. JBL 46:151–185. Barr, J. Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament. Oxford. Bauer, H.; Leander, P. Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache. Halle. Edzard, D. O. Namengebung. A. Sumerisch. RlA 9:94– 103. Edzard, D. O. Namengebung. B. Akkadisch. RlA 9:103– 16. Eph‘al, I. The Ancient Arabs. Jerusalem. Fowler, J. Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew. Sheffield. Frantsouzoff, S. A. Ancient Ña¥ramawt and the Rise of South Arabian Civilization: Formulating a Problem. VDI 2005/4:3–23. Gelb, I. J. Computer-Aided Analysis of Amorite. Chicago. Huffmon, H. B. Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts. Baltimore. Joüon, P. Notes de lexicographie hébraïque. Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph 10:1–47. Kogan, L. *ġ in Akkadian. UF 33:263–98. Kutscher, E. I. A History of the Hebrew Language. Jerusalem. Müller, W. W. Die Wurzeln mediae und tertiae w/y im Altsüdarabischen. Tübingen. Naor, M. ya"ă£ōb und yiŝrā!ēl. ZAW 49:317–21. Nebes, N. Zur Genese der altsüdarabischen Kultur: Eine Arbeitshypothese. Migration und Kulturtransfer: der Wandel vorder- und zentralasiatischer Kulturen im Umbruch vom 2. zum 1. vorchristlichen Jahrtausend. Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums Berlin, 23. bis 26. November 1999. Bonn. Noth, M. Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung. Stuttgart. Nöldeke, T. Beiträge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft. Strassburg. Nöldeke, T. Neue Beiträge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft. Strassburg. Sachsse, E. Die Etymologie und älteste Aussprache des Namens yiŝrā!ēl. ZAW 34:1–14. Sáenz-Badillos, Á. A History of the Hebrew Language. Cambridge. Sima, A. Neue Möglichkeiten der altsüdarabischen Namenforschung. Altorientalische und semitische Onomastik. Münster. Pp. 195–207.

    L. Kogan, The Etymology of Israel Sivan 1984

    Stamm 1980 Stol 1991 Streck 1999 Streck 2000 Streck 2002

    Stuart 1987 Tischler 2002

    Toporova 1996

    Wagner 1966 Westermann 1984 Westermann 1985 Wolff 1989 Zadok 1977

    Zobel 1990

    255

    Sivan, D. Grammatical Analysis and Glossary of the Northwest Semitic Vocables in Akkadian Texts of the 15th–13th C.B.C. from Canaan and Syria. Neukirchen-Vluyn. Stamm, J. J. Beiträge zur hebräischen und altorientalischen Namenkunde. Freiburg–Göttingen. Stol, M. Old Babylonian Personal Names. SEL 8:190–212. Streck, M. P. Hammurabi oder Hammurapi? ArOr 67: 655–69. Streck, M. P. Das amurritische Onomastikon der albabylonischen Zeit. Bd. 1. Münster. Streck, M. P. Sprachliche Innovationen und Archaismen in den akkadischen Personennamen. Altorientalische und semitische Onomastik. Münster. Pp. 109–22. Stuart, D. Hosea-Jonah. Waco. Tischler, J. Zur Morphologie und Semantik der hethitischen Personen- und Götternamen. Altorientalische und semitische Onomastik. Münster. Pp. 75–84. Toporova, T. V. Kul’tura v zerkale jazyka: drevnegermanskie dvuchlennye imena sobstvennye. Moscow (Culture in the Mirror of Language: the Old Germanic Compound Proper Names). Wagner, M. Die lexikalischen und grammatikalischen Aramäismen im alttestamentlichen Hebräisch. Berlin. Westermann, C. Genesis 1–11. Minneapolis. Westermann, C. Genesis 12–36. Minneapolis. Wolff, H. W. Hosea. Philadelphia. Zadok, R. On West Semites in Babylonia during the Chaldaean and Achaemenian Periods. An Onomastic Study. Jerusalem. Zobel, H.-J. yiŝrā!ēl. TDOT VI:397–420.

    Animal Names in Biblical Hebrew: An Etymological Overview* Leonid Kogan Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow

    0. Introduction In spite of the fact that the lexicon of Biblical Hebrew has always been in the focus of the Old Testament research, monographic descriptions of particular semantic groups of the Hebrew vocabulary are surprisingly few. Animal names (no doubt, one of the most important fields of the basic lexicon) are no exception. In sharp contrast with most other branches of Semitic philology, where special studies dealing with faunal terms have been produced since the end of the 19th century at least,1 no comparable lexical study has been ever produced within the Old Testament scholarship. A wealth of articles dealing with concrete animal names or species (v. Firmage 1992:1160–7 for a convenient bibliographic summary) scarcely mitigates the obvious dearth in up-to-date general overviews. The comparative-etymological aspect has always been among the weakest points of the description of the animal world of the Old Testament, which is not unexpected in view of the general situation in comparative Semitic lexicography and etymology, whose serious deficiencies relative to the sister branches of comparative linguistics (notably, IndoEuropean studies) are abundantly well known. E. Firmage’s extensive encyclopedic overview of Biblical zoology (1992) faithfully mirrors the state of the art in the comparative-linguistic study of the Hebrew animal names. This remarkable article provides the reader with detailed and re* The present article is part of the final report of the project “Nature in the Old Testament” (MK-2822.2005.6) supported by the Ministry of Science and Education of Russia. I have to express my gratitude to this institution for its financial assistance. 1 Landsberger 1934, Salonen 1955, 1970, 1973, 1976 for Akkadian; Löw 1969 for Aramaic and post-Biblical Hebrew; Hommel 1879 for Arabic and Geez; Naumkin– Porkhomovsky 1981 for Soqotri. A recent study by the lamented Alexander Sima (2000), dealing with animal names in Epigraphic South Arabian, deserves to be singled out because of an extraordinary successful application of a modern interdisciplinary approach combined with an impressive breadth of textual erudition.

    258

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    liable summaries of the pertinent zoological, ethnological and archeological information, yet only rarely concentrates on linguistic or textual matters. However, in the “Appendix 1” the author presents (in tabular form with many notes) what he defines as “a comprehensive list of biblical animal names and their Semitic cognates” (pp. 1151–59). As a perusal of this list shows, it scarcely corresponds to what one could expect from the above definition. The list of Semitic cognates is very often incomplete in spite of the fact that most of the etymologies in question are well known from standard dictionaries.2 Evidence from Modern South Arabian is missing entirely—in spite of the fact that these in many respects very archaic languages often yield obvious cognates to Hebrew animal names unparalleled by other languages of the South Semitic area (Ethiopian and ESA).3 In a few cases, cognates are inadequately translated,4 whereas 2

    This type of lacunae can be illustrated by Akk. perdum, Ugr. prd, JBA pirdā (SED II No. 177) under ‘mule?’; Arb. "ard-, Common Aramaic "ărādā (SED II No. 37) under ‘onager?’; Sab. fr! (SED II No. 176) under ‘onager?’; Sab., Min. and Hdr. b£r (SED II No. 59) under ‘cattle’; Sab. "nz (SED II No. 35) under ‘goat’; Min. tys1 and Tgr. tes (SED II No. 231) under ‘he-goat’; Akk. alu (elu), Ugr. !al, !il, Min. !yl (SED II No. 24) under ‘ram’; Akk. kirru and Ugr. kr (SED II No. 118) under ‘he-lamb’; Sab., Min. ¥!n (SED II No. 219) under ‘sheep/goats’; Sab., Hdr. ´by (SED II No. 242) under ‘gazelle’; Arb. γafr-, γufr- (SED II No. 88) under ‘stag’ (better: ‘young stag’); Arb. !ibnu !āwan, Syr. b3nāt !away (SED II No. 21) under ‘jackal’; Ugr. !arw (SED II No. 17) under ‘lion’; Sab. lb! (SED II No. 144) under ‘lion’; Common Aramaic *µuld- (SED II No. 108) under ‘rodent’; Arb. "akābir(SED II No. 30) under ‘mouse’; Gez. !arnab, Har. µarbañño (SED II No. 14) under ‘hare’; Ugr. "p (SED II No. 48) under ‘all birds (and insects)’; Arb. £āriyat- (SED II No. 134) under ‘partridge’; Sab. !rby (SED II No. 11) under ‘locust’; Akk. irgilu (SED II No. 103) under ‘locust’; Amh. t3l (SED II No. 230) under ‘Kermes insect’; Akk. rimmatum, Arb. rimmat- (SED II No. 191) under ‘maggot’; Ugr. !ap", Gez. !af"ot (SED II No. 10) under ‘viper’; Akk. ¶ulmi¢¢u, Arb. µamā¢ī¢- (SED II No. 99) under ‘lizard?’. 3 Consider Common MSA *"ayr- (SED II No. 50) under ‘ass (young male)’; Soq. !alf (SED II No. 4) under ‘cattle’; Soq. réµloh (SED II No. 188) under ‘ewe’; Common MSA *¬V"īl- (SED II No. 237) under ‘fox’; Common MSA *¬apan- (SED II No. 240) under ‘hyrax’; Hrs. Íeferot, Soq. ´afiroh (SED II No. 212) under ‘domestic and commensal birds (general term)’; Common MSA *γVrīb- (SED II No. 89) under ‘raven/crow’; Common MSA *ra¶amat- (SED II No. 189) under ‘osprey?’; Common MSA *nVmVl- (SED II No. 163) under ‘ant’; Soq. !ídbeher (SED II No. 66) under ‘bee’; Common MSA *!VrbVy- (SED II No. 11) under ‘locust’; Common MSA *kVnVm- (SED II No. 116) under ‘gnat?’ or ‘lice?’. 4 Akk. parûm means only ‘mule’, the translation ‘Onager; Maultier’ in AHw. 837 is misleading (cf. ‘mule, hinny’ in CAD P 206); Akk. agalu denotes an equid rather than calf (CAD A1 141); the meaning ‘wild boar’ (instead of ‘(wild) sheep’)

    L. Kogan, Animal Names in Biblical Hebrew…

    259

    wrong transcriptions are truly abundant (most surprisingly, quite often in Hebrew words which are the primary subject of this encyclopedic article).5 A few other miscellaneous deficiencies can be discovered.6 Last but not least, the list is far from comprehensive: missing are pārāš ‘horse’, ´ābūa" ‘hyena’, ´ī ‘wild cat?’, gūr ‘whelp’, t3!ō ‘kind of ungulate’, !äprōaµ ‘chick’, r3nānā ‘ostrich?’, rā!ā ‘kind of bird of prey’, ´āb ‘monitor lizard’, ´äpa", ´ip"ōnī ‘kind of snake’, ŝ3māmīt ‘gecko’, zarzīr ‘starling?’, tannīn ‘(mythical) snake’, bēkär, bikrā ‘young camel’, zämär ‘kind of antelope’, kōaµ ‘kind of lizard’, l3¢ā!ā ‘kind of lizard’, yälä£ ‘kind of locust’, sol"ām ‘kind of locust’, "ārōb ‘kind of insect or worm’.7 In such a context, the urgent necessity of a comprehensive philological treatment of Hebrew animal names becomes self-evident. It does not seem realistic, however, that all aspects of such an interdisciplinary investigation could be successfully carried out by one individual scholar. What is necessary, perhaps, is rather a combination of detailed up-to-date surveys treating in depth—both descriptively and comparatively—particular

    for Akk. atūdu and related forms is highly problematic (cf. SED II No. 44); Ugr. ¶nzr is not attested with the meaning ‘swine’ (DUL 399); Gez. z3!b means ‘hyena’ (LGz. 630); there is no clear evidence for the meaning ‘hyena’ for Hbr. !ōaµ. 5 Akk. sisûm > sīsûm under ‘horse’; Hbr. parâ > pārâ under ‘small bovine or caprovine’; Hbr. "egel > "ēgel and Arm. "îglā! > "iglā! under ‘calf ’; Hbr. "āttûd > "attûd under ‘he-goat’; Hbr. "aqqô > !aqqô under ‘wild goat?’; Arm. "anā! > "ānā! under ‘sheep/goats’; Gez. wĕ!ĕla > wĕ"ĕlā under ‘ibex’; Akk. sahû > ša¶û under ‘swine’; Hbr. šu"al > šū"āl under ‘fox’; Hbr. ze!eb > zĕ!ēb under ‘wolf ’; Hbr. µăparparâ > µăparpārâ under ‘rodent’; Arb. huldun > ¶uldun under ‘rodent’; Hbr. "ă¢alēp > "ă¢allēp under ‘bat’; Arm./Syr. "āpā! > "awpā!, "ōpā! under ‘all birds (and insects)’; Arb. rahamun > ra¶amun under ‘osprey?’; Arb. dabburun > dabbūrun under ‘bee’; Akk. erbūm > erbum under ‘locust’; Arb. harjalun > µarjalun under ‘locust’; Akk. tultum > tūltum under ‘Kermes insect’; Hbr. "ākkabîš > "akkābîš under ‘spider’; Hbr. dag, dagâ > dāg, dāgâ under ‘fish’; Hbr. šablûl > šabb3lûl under ‘snail’. 6 “ESA/Ethiopic” "r ‘ass’ is a ghost-word. Egyptian "r is no “collective term for both goats and asses” (something a priori unlikely): whereas Hebrew "ayir ‘ass’ is paralleled by Egyptian "± with the same meaning (EG I 164), Egyptian "r ‘goat’ (EG I 208) has nothing to do with this term (for a possible Semitic etymology v. SED II No. 248). Arb. ba¬an- ‘snake’ cannot be borrowed from Aramaic pitnā for phonetic reasons whereas the virtual identity between the Arabic term and Ugr. b¬n leaves no doubt about the genuine status of the former. The etymology “black one” for "ōrēb ‘raven’ is conceivable as a popular rather than a scientific one and, in any case, has no implications for the meaning of this term. 7 This means that nearly every seventh term is missing (20 out of ca. 145).

    260

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    aspects of the subject. The present article is intended as one such survey, dealing with the author’s primary field of study—Semitic etymology. Two principal objectives of the present article are to be mentioned. On the one hand, it is expected to provide a modern and comprehensive etymological guide to animal names attested in the Old Testament. In this sense, it heavily relies on the etymological evidence collected by Alexander Militarev and the present author in the second volume of their Semitic Etymological Dictionary (SED II). The bulk of etymological evidence adduced in the present article is excerpted from SED II (sometimes verbatim but usually in a seriously abridged form).8 It is supplemented by the discussion of those Hebrew faunal terms which cannot be traced back to more or less obvious Semitic prototypes (and, therefore, are absent from the corpus of SED II) as well as by non-Semitic loanwords (relatively few in this segment of Biblical vocabulary). The other, less practical, goal is to describe the historical evolution of the Hebrew faunal lexicon as a system. Several thousands of years separate this system from its eventual prototype—the corpus of animal names of the Proto-Semitic language. To what degree the main elements of this earliest corpus are preserved in Biblical Hebrew? Which terms belong to the common heritage shared by Hebrew with lower genealogical subdivisions of Semitic to which it belongs (Proto-Central Semitic, Proto-NorthWest-Semitic, Proto-Canaanite)? Are there any features that can be described as specifically Hebrew? These are some of the questions which the present investigation is expected to outline, if not to answer definitively. In the framework of the present study, “etymology” will usually amount to “cognates from other Semitic languages” for genuine lexemes and “source of borrowing” for loanwords. Hypothetic derivations from verbal roots within Hebrew will be only rarely dealt with. This is due to 8

    Thus, it was decided to skip extensive references to lexicographic and textual sources and most of philological discussion, not to speak of non-Semitic Afroasiatic cognates. The interested reader will easily locate this information under the respective entries of SED II. In view of space limitations, it was also impossible to include the attested cognates from all Semitic languages. Rather, a meaningful selection of terms representative of the principal minor subdivisions of Semitic was attempted (thus, Old Aramaic and Syriac may alone represent the Aramaic branch even if cognate terms are attested also in JPA or Mandaic, etc.). Definitions of cognates are specified only when a more or less serious difference with respect to those postulated for the PS reconstructions is observable. It goes without saying that the present author is greatly indebted to Prof. Militarev for many years of intensive common work on Semitic animal names.

    L. Kogan, Animal Names in Biblical Hebrew…

    261

    two basic reasons. On the one hand, it was precisely this approach—to interpret animal names as derived from roots with non-faunal meaning within (or outside!) Hebrew—that heavily dominated most earlier studies in the animal names of the Old Testament. Consequently, a wealth of interpretations of this type can be easily located on the pages of standard reference tools like HALOT or TDOT and hardly need repetition. On the other hand, most of such interpretations are methodologically and factually problematic and, therefore, rarely convincing. Both types of problems can be conveniently illustrated by an analysis of Riede 2002: 165–212, a study in which a critical mass of all kinds of methodological derailments connected with Hebrew etymology was accumulated. As revealed already by the title of this article (“Denn wie der Mensch jedes Tier nennen würde, so sollte es heißen”), its basic premise consists in a somewhat naïve belief that, due to a particular closeness of the ancient man to the animal world (both domestic and wild), most of animal names of ancient languages (in our case, Biblical Hebrew) can be analyzed as descriptive terms derived from synchronically attested non-faunal lexemes. This is only rarely the case, however. Most of the animal names attested in the Old Testament are also known from other Semitic languages and, therefore, are many thousands years older than the Biblical text. Accordingly, even if one supposes that animals were once “nominated” by man according to their external characteristics (color, size, behavior etc.), this man was an early Semite of ca. 4.500 years BC rather than an Old Testament Israelite. Accordingly, the characteristic “das rote Tier” can potentially be applied to PS *µimār‘ass’,9 not to Biblical Hebrew µămōr.10 The same is true of such practically pan-Semitic faunal terms as PS *£unpu¯- — Hbr. £ippōd ‘hedgehog’, PS *wa"il- — Hbr. yā"ēl ‘ibex’, PS *!Vrbay- — Hbr. !arb7 ‘locust’, supposed to be derived from *£p¯ ‘to roll up, to gather together’, *"ly ‘to go up’, *rby 9

    In fact, most unlikely (v. SED II No. 98, discussion section). It may be argued that the association with the original source-root was at least perceived by the speakers of daughter languages. Even this is quite unlikely in most cases, however. Thus, it is not clear to me how the speakers of Biblical Hebrew could perceive µămōr as “das rote Tier” if there is no verbal root µmr ‘to be red’ in Hebrew (the same applies to alternative, no less problematic derivations mentioned by Riede, namely µmr ‘aufladen’ and µmr ‘wütend sein’). It is of course possible that the speakers of Biblical Hebrew “perceived” hyena as colored (´ābūa" < ´b" < *´bγ ‘to dye’) but this perception has nothing to do with real “nomination” but rather represents a popular distortion of an original, quite different etymology (v. below, 2.1.3). 10

    262

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    ‘to be numerous’ and many others. It is not that such derivations are a priori unlikely—they simply do not belong to the sphere of Hebrew etymology but rather to the internal reconstruction of Proto-Semitic, a fascinating but highly adventurous field whose methodology (notably, crosslinguistic probability of semantic shifts, proper application of non-Semitic Afroasiatic evidence) still remains to be elaborated. A somewhat different picture is observed when animal names with no good Semitic etymology are dealt with. In such cases, looking for an internal Hebrew derivation is of course more natural and some examples (like ŝā"īr ‘goat’ < ŝē"ār ‘hair’) are indeed quite transparent. The majority of cases are by no means so convincing, however. Most of such etymologically opaque terms turn out to be rare and obscure words whose more or less exact zoological identification cannot be obtained from the context. Then, the hypothetic etymology becomes the main guide for zoological identification and vice versa—a typical example of a vicious circle. Thus, Driver’s attempts to identify the bird name šālāk (attested solely in the dietary prohibitions of Lev 11:17 and Deut 14:17) are heavily dominated by his assumption that “the root11 seems to indicate some kind of bird that darts on to its prey” (Driver 1955:15). The bird named taµmās is thought to be an owl because its name means “robber”12 which is “appropriate to the owl, which lives by preying on small rodents and birds” (ibid. 13; also Aharoni 1936:471), šaµap is likely the long-eared owl (said to be “a very thin owl”) because “the root13 … implies something thin” (ibid.; also Aharoni 1936:470) etc. etc. In my opinion, such quasi-etymological speculations represent little progress with respect to the Rabbinic authority who believed that the bird named rāµām is so called because “when it comes, mercy comes upon the world” (quoted from Ja. 1467).14 The evidence below is organized by semantic groups. I tried to keep with modern zoological systematic although no full exactitude was intended in view of the obvious difficulties with zoological identification of faunal terms of ancient languages.15 The nine principal subdivisions are

    11

    I. e., Hbr. šlk ‘to throw’. I. e., Hbr. µms ‘to treat violently, to abuse’. 13 What is meant is, peculiarly, Arb. s¶f, unattested in Hebrew with this meaning! 14 Successfully disproved by modern scientific etymology (Arb. ra¶am- ‘Egyptian vulture’, with ¶ rather than µ). 15 It must be emphasized from the very beginning that etymology is no primary guide for zoological identification but a secondary auxiliary tool at best. 12

    L. Kogan, Animal Names in Biblical Hebrew…

    263

    household mammals (1), wild mammals (2), birds (3), amphibians and reptiles (4), fishes (5), insects (6), spiders (7), worms (8) and mollusks (9). 1. Household mammals 1.1. G e n e r a l t e r m s The most general term for a household animal in the Old Testament is b3hēmā ‘animals, beasts, cattle’ (HALOT 111–12, TDOT II 6–20) as opposed to µayyā ‘all kinds of animals, wild animals, beasts of prey’ (HALOT 310, TDOT IV 342–3; especially in the combinations µayyat hā!ārä´ and µayyat haŝŝād7).16 From the etymological point of view, Hbr. b3hēmā likely belongs to a Common CS derivation from the verbal root *bhm ‘to be mute, dumb’ attested in Arabic and Ethiopian Semitic (SED I No. 6v). Comparable terms are known from Ugaritic (bhmt, DUL 219; scarcely attested in omen apodoses only), Mandaic (bahima, bahimta, DM 46), Arabic bahm- ‘lamb’ (Lane 268).17 Hbr. mi£n7 ‘livestock as property’ (HALOT 628) is obviously derived from £ānā ‘to buy, to acquire’ (HALOT 1112). It is noteworthy that semantically similar derivates from this widely attested PS root are attested in a few other Semitic languages: Pho. m£nt ‘cattle’ (DNWSI 681), JBA £inyānā ‘livestock’ (Sok. B 1029), Syr. £enyānā ‘pecus; jumentum’ (Brock. 674), Arb. £inyat-, £inwat- ‘sheep, or goats, taken for one-self’ (Lane 2994), Sab. £ny ‘cattle, livestock’ (SD 106), Soq. £énhoh ‘bétail’ (LS 378), v. Sima 2000:134. Hbr. b3"īr ‘livestock, cattle’ (HALOT 142) is a rare term attested in the Pentateuch (Gen 45:17; Ex 22:4; Num 20:4, 8, 11) and in Ps 78:48. In Gen 45:17 b3"īr denotes beasts of burden (¢a"ănū !ät-b3"īr3käm ‘load your beasts’), in the remaining passages it is likely used as a general term for household animals. The agreement in meaning between Akkadian bīru ‘bull; young cattle’, būru (pūru) ‘young calf ’ on the one hand and Geez b3"3r, b3"(3)rāy, b3"(3)rāwi ‘ox, bull, horned cattle’ and related Ethiopian forms on the other suggests that the meaning of PS *bV"Vr- (SED II With this circumstance in mind, I will generally refrain from discussing problems of zoological identification. 16 As is well known, this opposition is not exclusive: b3hēmā can be applied to wild predators (as in Deut 32:24: w3šän b3hēmā !ăšallaµ bām ‘I will direct the wild animal’s tooth against them’) whereas µayyā can be used about cattle and beasts of burden (Num 35:3: libhämtām w3lirkūšām ūl3kōl µayyātām ‘for their beasts, their possessions and all of their (household) animals’). 17 Arb. bahīmat- is most probably a Hebraism (Jeffery 1938:84–5).

    264

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    No. 53), to which the Hebrew term goes back, was probably ‘bull, large cattle’. The meaning ‘camel’, attested in the languages of the Arabian peninsula (Arb. ba"īr-, Sab. Min. Hdr. b"r, Mhr. h3-bcr), may be an areal innovation.18 1.2. L a r g e c a t t l e The only Hebrew term for large cattle that can be traced to the deepest level of PS is šōr ‘one single beast, bovid’ (HALOT 1451, TDOT XIV 546– 52) < *¬awr-19 (SED II No. 241: Akk. šūru, Ugr. ¬r, Sml. šwrh, Syr. tawrā, Arb. ¬awr-, Sab. ¬wr, Qat. ¬wr, Min. ¬wr, Gez. sor, Tgr. sor, possibly Mhr. ¬awr20). PS *!alp- ‘bull’ (SED II No. 4: Akk. alpu, Ugr. !alp, Pho. !lp, Dem. !lp, Soq. !alf), a very ancient term as its presence in both Akkadian and Soqotri clearly suggests, is only marginally attested as !äläp ‘cattle’ (HALOT 59).21 Common CS heritage is represented by bā£ār ‘cattle’ (HALOT 157, TDOT II 209–16) < *ba£ar- (SED II No. 59: Pho. b£r, Syr. ba£rā, Arb. ba£ar-, Sab. b£r, Min. b£r, Hdr. b£r)22 and "ēgäl ‘young bull, ox’, "äglā ‘heifer, young cow’ (HALOT 784, TDOT X 445–51) < *"igl- (SED II No. 28: Ugr. "gl, Pho. "gl, Old Arm. "gl, Syr. "eglā, Arb. "i³l-)23. Hbr. par ‘bull, steer’ (HALOT 960, TDOT XII 66–72), pārā ‘cow’ (HALOT 964, TDOT XII 66–72) have exact formal and, presumably, semantic coun18

    Outside Hebrew, the general meaning ‘household animals’ for b"r is well attested in ESA (Sima 2000:33–40). According to Sima, this may even be the only meaning of b"r in these languages (the traditional translation ‘camel’ thus abandoned), but see reservations against this approach in SED II No. 53. 19 For a possible relationship between this PS term and Indo-European *tawro(Greek tauros, Latin taurus) v. Gamkrelidze–Ivanov 1984:519–20, 872, 967. 20 Possibly an Arabism. 21 A rare and mostly poetic word (Deut 7:13; 28:4, 18, 51; Isa 30:24; Ps 8:8; Prov 14:4). Hbr. !allūp ‘household animals’ (HALOT 54), also very scarcely attested, is likely related. 22 Since *ba£ar- is virtually absent from Akkadian (bu£āru and ba£ru in Mari and Emar are obvious West Semitisms, v. Streck 2000:87), I am inclined to attribute ba-£á-lum = áb.udu in the Ebla lexical list (VE 1101) to a Central Semitic import. The absence of *ba£ar- from Ugaritic is remarkable. Mhr. b3£3rēt and Hrs. be£erét ‘cow’ are almost certainly Arabisms (v. Sima 2000:47). 23 The form ù-gi-l[um] = al[im?] (VE 1192) probably belongs to the West Semitic stratum of the Ebla lexical evidence. Hrs. !áyyel ‘calf ‘ is almost certainly an Arabism. If Gez. !3gw3l ("3gwal, "3gwl) ‘the young of any animal or fowl’, !3gwalt, !3gw3lt ‘heifer’ are related to this root (in spite of ! instead of the expected ", confirmed by Tgr. !3gal ‘calf ’), it is to be qualified as Common WS rather than Common CS.

    L. Kogan, Animal Names in Biblical Hebrew…

    265

    terparts in Ugaritic pr ‘young bull’, prt ‘heifer’ but other Central Semitic cognates rather denote young of small cattle (SED II No. 181: Syr. parrā, partā, Arb. furār-, farūr-, farīr-).24 A specifically Hebrew term is m3rī(!) ‘fatted steer’ (HALOT 635; a rare word mostly used about sacrificial animals), presumably derived from *mr! ‘to be fat, to fatten’ (Akk. marû, Ugr. and Hbr. pB. mr!).25 Two important and, no doubt, very old PS terms for large cattle do not appear in Hebrew: *la!ay-at-, *lay!-at- ‘cow’ (SED II No. 142: Akk. lītu, littu, Arb. la!an and la!āt-,26 Mhr. l3hát3n, Jib. lé!, Soq. !élheh) and *!ar¶‘cow, heifer’ (SED II No. 12: Akk. ar¶u, Ugr. !ar¶, Amn. !rµ, Dem. !r¶, Arb. !ir¶-, Tna. !arµi, Soq. !ar¶).27 Two less widely attested terms left no trace either: *yapan- ‘young bull’ (SED II No. 250: Ugr. ypt, Arb. yafan-, Gez. tayfan, täfin, wäyfän, Sel. mōfän) and *¢aγ- ‘calf (SED II No. 234: Arb. ¢aγγ-, Gez. ¢ā"3wā, Tna. ¢ā"wā). ‘

    1.3. S m a l l c a t t l e The general term for small cattle in Hebrew is ´ō(!)n ‘flocks (sheep and goats)’ (HALOT 993, TDOT XII 197–207) < PS *¹a!n- (SED II No. 219), 24

    The same meaning is typical of Akk. parru, parratu whose predominantly late attestation suggests an Aramaism (however, its presence in the OB letter AbB 9 161:18 advises caution). If Common MSA *pa"r- ‘young bull’ (with -"- of uncertain origin) is further related, the present root is to be ascribed to the Common WS stratum (this comparison assures, incidentally, the priority of the meaning ‘young of large cattle’). At any rate, it can hardly be questioned that the meaning ‘young (of small or large cattle)’ is very prominent throughout Semitic. This fact is not easily compatible with the conclusion of Péter 1975 according to whom par and pārā denote sexually mature (rather than young) bulls and cows (cf. Beyse 2003:67). 25 See further SED II No. 153. In spite of some difficulties connected with the deverbal derivation mentioned above, I am very reluctant to accept A. Militarev’s PS reconstruction *mir(V!)-, mostly based on comparison with non-Semitic Afroasiatic data. 26 Mostly with a semantic shift from domestic cattle to “wild bull/cow”, although the meaning ‘domestic cow, bull’ is also preserved in traditional lexicography (cf. ‘gazelle, antelope, neat’ in WKAS L 74). As recently emphasized in Sima 2000:7 and 50, the use of “wild cow” in our translations of Arabic literature is misleading since ba£ar- waµšiyy- and ba£arat- waµšiyyat- normally designate the oryx antelope (Oryx leucoryx). Traditionally, the meaning “wild cow” is ascribed to the Hebrew proper name lē!ā (HALOT 513). 27 The Arabic, Tigrinya and Soqotri terms denote specifically a heifer and it is tempting to extrapolate this semantic nuance to PS (cf. Stol 1995:176 where the meaning ‘young cow’ is tentatively ascribed to Akk. ar¶u).

    266

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    attested in Akkadian (´ēnu) and throughout Central Semitic (Ugr. ´!in, Pho. ´!n, Syr. "ānā, Arb. ¥a!n-, Sab. ¹!n, Min. ¹!n) but with no trace in Ethiopian Semitic and MSA. The designation of an individual head of small cattle is ŝ7 ‘small livestock beast’ (HALOT 1310, TDOT XIV 46–9), going back to Common CS *ŝaw/y- (SED II No. 217: Ugr. š, Pho. š, Arb. šā!-, possibly Sab. s2h).28 Among the designations of individual ovines, the rare term rāµēl ‘ewe’ (HALOT 1216; Gen 31:38; 32:15; Isa 53:7; Song 6:6) represents the deepest stratum of the Semitic faunal inventory, going back to *ra¶il(SED II No. 188), which is attested everywhere except Ethiopian Semitic (Akk. la¶ru, JPA räµlā, Arb. ra¶il-, Soq. réµloh). Common WS background can be detected for käbäŝ ‘young ram’, kibŝā ‘young ewe-lamb’ (HALOT 460, TDOT VII 43–52)29 < *kabŝ- (SED II No. 114: Arb. kabš-, Common MSA *kabŝ-)30 and the rare ¢āl7 ‘lamb’ (HALOT 375; 1 Sam 7:9; Isa 40:11; 65:25) < *¢alay- (SED II No. 232: Jud. ¢alyā,31 Arb. ¢alan, Sab. Qat. Min. ¢ly, Gez. ¢ali, also in other Eth.). Hbr. !ayil ‘ram’ (HALOT 40) has a reliable parallel in Ugaritic (!al, !il), but other possible cognates adduced and discussed in SED II No. 24 (Akk. alu, elu ‘a fine breed of sheep’, Min. !yl ‘ram’, Tna. !ilä ‘long tailed sheep’) are all more or less problematic.32 The relatively infrequent kar ‘(young) ram’ (HALOT 496) is clearly related to Ugr. kr ‘ram’ but further parallels mentioned in SED II No. 118 (notably, Akk. kirru ‘a breed of sheep’ in Ur III, early Mari and OA) are rather doubtful. Hbr. yōbēl ‘ram’ (HALOT 398) is not synchronically attested as an animal name but comparative evidence strongly suggests that the 28

    Sab. s2h is translated as ‘sheep’ in SD 132 but this interpretation is questioned in Sima 2000:142–3. I tend to believe that Аkk. šu!u (šû) ‘sheep’ belongs to PS *¬a!(w)-at- (see below) rather than to the present root, although no full certainty can be possible. 29 With rare and etymologically secondary variants käŝäb and kiŝbā, kaŝbā (HALOT 501). 30 Akk. kabsu ‘young (male) sheep’ is phonologically irregular (s instead of the expected š) and, because of its predominantly late (NA) attestation, has been often considered an Aramaism. This assumption becomes less likely in view of its presence the OB letter AbB 9 162.12. It is also worth nothing that its is precisely in Aramaic that this root is very scarcely reflected (Syr. kebšā and Mnd. kabiš are almost certainly Arabisms). 31 Throughout Aramaic, the old meaning ‘lamb’ is only exceptionally attested for the reflexes of this root, being usually ousted by the meaning ‘boy’ (with a transparent semantic shift). 32 Contra Firmage 1992:27, there is no reason to believe that *!ayl- ‘ram’ and *!ayyal- ‘deer’ are “based on the same root” (v. Sima 2000:27).

    L. Kogan, Animal Names in Biblical Hebrew…

    267

    combinations £ärän/šōp3rōt hayyōbēl/yōb3līm in Josh 6 and Ex 19:13 are to be understood as ‘horn(s) of the ram(s)’. Reliable parallels are restricted to NWS (Pho. ybl, Dem. !ybl, JPA ywblh, SED II No. 245).33 Finally, Hbr. !immēr ‘lamb’ (HALOT 67) is a Hapax Legomenon in the difficult passage Gen 49:21 (naptālī !ayyālā š3lūµā hannōtēn !imrē šāpär) which allows for different interpretations not necessarily involving animal terminology.34 Hebrew did not preserve PS *¬a!(w)-at- ‘ewe’ (SED II No. 236), probably one of the most ancient Semitic designations of an individual ovine as one can judge from its wide distribution (Ugr. ¬!at, Sam. š!h, Old Arm. š!t, s!wn, Off. Arm. t!t!, Mnd. tata, Arb. ¬a!wat-, Mhr. ¬iwīt, Jib. ¬ēt, Soq té!e).35 Also unattested in Hebrew is PS *¶VrVp- ‘lamb’ (SED II No. 113: Akk. ¶urāpu, Ugr. ¶prt, Syr. µurpā, Arb. ¶arūf-, Qat. ¶rwf, Min. ¶rf).36 The most prominent term for an individual caprine in Hebrew is "ēz ‘goat’ (HALOT 804, TDOT X 577–83), going back to *"a/inz- (SED II No. 35)37 which, with certain reservations, can be reconstructed for the deepest stage of PS (based on Akk. enzu,38 Ugr. "z, Pho. "z, Syr. "ezzā, Arb. "anz-, Sab. "nz, Mhr. wōz, Jib. !Bz, Soq. !oz,39 Cha. anž40). The most deeply rooted PS term for a male goat is *tayš- (SED II No. 231: Syr. tayšā, Arb. tays-, Min. tys1, Tgr. tes, Mhr. táyh, Jib. tuš, Soq. teš, possibly also Akk. daššu, taššu). It is preserved in Hebrew as tayiš ‘billy goat’ (HALOT 1592) but this rare word is relegated to just a few passages (Gen 30:35; 32:15;

    33

    Akk. ya-bi-li ‘rams’ (= Sum. UDU.NITÁ.MEŠ) in a NA lexical list is clearly borrowed from Aramaic. Other parallels tentatively adduced in SED II No. 245 (Arb. wābilat- ‘young of small cattle or camels’; Akk. būlu ‘herd of cattle’; Enm. Gyt. we®äna, End. we®äna ‘the young (male) of a goat or sheep’) are considerably less reliable. 34 Related terms (Akk. immeru, Ugr. !imr, Pho. !mr, Syr. !emrā, Arb. !a/immar-) are united under PS *!immar- in SED II No. 5, but according to a widespread opinion they represent a chain of borrowings rather than a reliable PS reconstruction (v. ibid. for a survey of opinions). 35 Akk. šu!u probably belongs to this root rather than to *ŝaw/y-, v. above. 36 For a critical analysis of the ESA forms v. Sima 2000:101. An interesting meaning shift to ‘young hare’ is observed in MSA (Hrs. ¶erefōt, Jib. ¶arfót). The whole root may be related to PS *¶Vr(V)p- ‘autumn, year’ (Rundgren 1970). 37 It is uncertain whether the terms united under *mV"(V)z- ‘goat’ in SED II No. 148 (Arb. ma"z-, Min. m"zy, probably also JBA mē"azzē, mē"azz3yā, m3"izzē, m3"izzayyā ‘from goats, goats-hair, horn etc.’) are eventually related to this root. 38 For a variety of WS forms representing this root in cuneiform sources v. Streck 2000:96, Zadok 1993:320, Krebernik 2001:46, 234. 39 With an unexplained evolution of *" into !. 40 Also in other Gurage, with a peculiar semantic shift to ‘heifer, calf ’.

    268

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    Prov 30:31; 2 Chr 17:11). Other designations are used instead: "attūd ‘male goat or sheep’ (HALOT 902, TDOT XI 452–55)41 < PS *"at(t)ūd(SED II No. 44: Akk. atūdu, etūdu ‘(wild) sheep’42 and Arb. "atūd- ‘young strong goat’); ´āpīr ‘billy goat’ (HALOT 1048; attested in late Biblical books only, this term is rightly qualified as an Aramaism in Wagner 1966:9943 and represents a rare example of a transparent loanword in the Hebrew inventory of faunal terms); Hbr. ŝā"īr ‘a goat (buck)’ (HALOT 1341) is a specifically Hebrew innovation (< ŝē"ār ‘hair’). The only44 Hebrew term for kid is g3dī, g3diyyā (HALOT 178, TDOT II 384), shared by all Central Semitic languages (SED II No. 76: Ugr. gd(y), Pho. gd!, gade, Old Arm. gdh, Syr. gadyā, Arb. ³ady-) but absent from Akkadian,45 Ethiopian and MSA. At the same time, at least three alternative (and, with all probability, more ancient) designations of kid are not reflected in Hebrew: *"urīÎ- ‘male kid’ (SED II No. 39: Akk. urī´um, urā´um, Mhr. "arīÏ, !ārīÏ), *"VnV£- ‘female kid’ (SED II No. 34: Аkk. unī£u, Arb. "anā£-), *lV(!)lV(!)- ‘kid, lamb’ (SED II No. 143: Akk. lalû, lali!u, lala!u, Ugr. ll!u, Soq. lúloh). Note also *"ayp-, *pa(y)"- ‘kid’ (SED II No. 49: Arb. fa"fa"-, Min. fy", Soq. "éyfif),46 presumably an areal South Semitic term.

    41

    The author of the TDOT’s article (P. Maiberger) believes that this word “refers only to the male domestic goat … not … a male sheep or ram”. 42 The Akkadian term has a certain peripheral flavor, its early attestations being restricted to Old Assyrian, Mari and Tuttul (Kogan 2006:193). I wonder whether it may be an early West Semitism. 43 References to particular Aramaic dialects v. in HALOT 1964 under Biblical Aramaic ´3pīrē. No further etymology for the Aramaic term is at hand: neither Ugr. ´pr, nor Pho. ´pr can be reliably interpreted as ‘goat’ (v. extensively SED II No. 212 under *´Vp(p)Vr- ‘(kind of small) bird’) whereas Akk. (OA) ´upru, understood as ‘a domestic animal (Angora goat)’ in CAD Ô 253, was interpreted in quite a different way in Veenhof 1972:391 (cf. most recently Michel 2001:131). It is tempting to suppose that Arm. ´3pīrā is a derived rather than a primary noun. As a possible source of derivation, Arb. ¥afr- ‘tresse, large natte des cheveux’ (BK 2 31) comes to mind (for the semantic shift cf. Hbr. ŝā"īr above). That Arb. ¥ corresponds to ´ rather than to " in Aramaic is probably no obstacle for this derivation since it is precisely in the neighborhood of r that this type of reflexation is attested (Steiner 1977:149–54). 44 The hypothetic ya"ărā ‘kid’ (HALOT 423) is doubtfully attested in Ps 29:9 only (for its possible cognates v. SED II No. 248). 45 Late Babylonian gadû ‘male kid’ is obviously borrowed from Aramaic. 46 The Minaean form is not fully reliable (v. Sima 2000:88–9). In Arabic cf. also "afw-, "ifw-, "ufw- ‘donkey foal’.

    L. Kogan, Animal Names in Biblical Hebrew…

    269

    1.4. D o n k e y There is no truly pan-Semitic term for donkey. Hbr. µămōr ‘he-ass’ (HALOT 327) goes back to *µimār- (SED II No. 98), well attested in Akkadian (imēru) and throughout Central Semitic (Ugr. µmr, Syr. µmārā, Arb. µimār-, Sab. µmr, Min. µmr), but much less so in the South Semitic area47 Hbr. "ayir ‘male donkey’ (HALOT 822; rarely used: Gen 32:16; 49:11; Judg 10:4; 12:14; Isa 30:6, 24; Zech 9:9; Job 11:12) can be traced back to PS *"ayr- (SED II No. 50) represented by Ugr. "r, Arb. "ayr-, Tgr. "ayro,48 Mhr. µayr, Jib. aµy6r. Hbr. !ātōn ‘she-ass’ (HALOT 102) derives from *!atān- (SED II No. 19: Akk. atānu, Ugr. !atnt (pl.), Syr. !attānā, Arb.!itān-; not in Eth. and MSA). 1.5. C a m e l The only widely attested term for camel in the Old Testament is gāmāl (HALOT 197). Clearly related terms are attested more or less throughout Semitic (SED II No. 79: Akk. gammalu, gamlu, Syr. gamlā, Arb. ³amal-, Sab. gml, Gez. gamal, also in most other Eth., Jib. gũl, Soq. gimál) but it is rather hard to believe that they can be reduced to a reliable PS prototype (borrowing and diffusion from a North Arabian source seems more likely, cf. Sima 2000:92–3). Other, much rarer terms are bēkär ‘young male camel’, bikrā ‘young she-camel’ (HALOT 131; Isa 60:6; Jer 2:23), clearly related to the widespread designations of young camel in the South Semitic area (SED II No. 56: Arb. bakr-, Sab. bkr, Tgr. bäkrät, Mhr. bōk3r, Hrs. bōker, Jib. bBkrút, Soq. mibkéroh) and possibly borrowed from one of them (the same is evidently the case of Akk. bakru and, possibly, of Syr. b3kūrē).49 The Hapax Legomenon kirkārōt, presumably denoting shecamels in Isa 66:20 (HALOT 498), has no etymology whatsoever. Three other terms for camel, well attested in the Arabian area and, to a certain degree, also outside it (presumably via borrowing), are not present in Biblical Hebrew: Syr. !ebbāl3tā, hbāl3tā ‘camel herd’, Arb. !ibil‘camels’, Sab. and Qat. !bl, fem. !blt ‘camel’, Mhr. µ3-ybīl ‘she-camel’, Jib. y3t id. (under *!ibil- ‘camel’, SED II No. 2),50 Arb. µuwār-, µiwār-, Tgr. 47 Gurage forms like Sod. ämar, Wol. and Zwy. umar, Sel. umār are borrowed from Arabic according to LGur. 51. In MSA cf. perhaps verbal forms with the meaning ‘to tame, break (a horse)’ (Mhr. µ3mūr, Jib. µõr). 48 With a meaning shift to ‘young camel three years old’. 49 The South Semitic terms ultimately go back to the PS verbal root *bkr ‘to be early’. 50 Akk. ibilu (SB) is an obvious Arabian loanword.

    270

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    µ3war, Mhr. µ3wōr (under *µVwār- ‘young camel’, SED II No. 106) and Аkk. (NB) na-£a-ti, (NA) a-na-£a-a-te, Hbr. pB. n3£ā!ā, nā£ā, !ănā£ā, Jud. nā(!)£3tā, nā£ā, Arb. nā£-at-, Sab. n£t, Gez. nā£at, nā£āt (under *nā£-at‘she-camel, SED II No. 161). 1.6. H o r s e The main Hebrew term for horse is sūs, fem. sūsā (HALOT 746, TDOT X 178–87). Obviously related terms are well attested in Akkadian and throughout NWS (Akk. sīsû, Ugr. ssw, s's'w, Pho. ss, Old Arm. ssyh, Syr. sūs3yā, SED II No. 199)51 but this is hardly sufficient for a reliable PS reconstruction.52 According to a widely acknowledged opinion, these terms represent a borrowing from PIE *ek{wo- (Gamkrelidze–Ivanov 1984:560, 914, Tropper 2000:45, with a special emphasis on Luvian azzuwa-) but this hypothesis is faced with difficulties (the morphological structure of the Semitic forms is rather remote from that of the hypothetic PIE sourceword).53 Hbr. pārāš ‘team of horses, horses for a chariot; horseman’ (HALOT 977) has reliable parallels throughout West Semitic (Old Arm. prš, Syr. parrāšā, Arb. faras-, Sab. frs1, Gez. faras, Mhr. f3rháyn)54 so that a proto-WS reconstruction *paraš- (SED II No. 182) appears justified in spite of the obvious cultural-historical complications. Hbr. räkäš ‘baggage horses; relay horses’ (HALOT 1238; 1 Kings 5:8; Mic 1:13; Esth 8:10, 14) is identical to Common Aramaic *rakš- ‘horse(s)’ (represented by Off. rkš, JPA rykšh, JBA rikšā, Syr. rakšā, Mnd. rakša, v. DNWSI 1077, Sok. 525, Sok. B 51

    The earliest attestation of this Semitic term is usually thought to be found in the Ur-III Sumerian documents (anše.zi.zi, Civil 1966; see further SED II No. 199, notes to Akk. sīsû). It is uncertain whether sú-ú-[x x] in EA 263:25 (a Canaanite gloss to ANŠE..MEŠ) represents a biconsonantal form structurally close to Hbr. sūs. 52 The origin of sīsī ‘pony’ in Egyptian Arabic is unclear to me but it is very unlikely to be a genuine Arabic word. 53 Gamkrelidze’s and Ivanov’s attempts to explain this discrepancy are not entirely convincing. Reduplication of PIE *ek{wo- — even if “with an already assibilated k{”— is unlikely to produce *sV(w)sVw- which underlies most of the pertinent Semitic forms. As for the alternative reconstruction *ŝek{wo-, it does match the Semitc forms with great exactitude but the hypothetic “palatalized sibilant phoneme *ŝ” in IE (expected, inter alia, to explain the irregular h- in Greek hippos, v. already Goetze 1962:35) does not seem to be well-founded. I am grateful to A. Kassian for discussing with me this question. 54 A chain of borrowings cannot be completely ruled out but does not appear very likely, especially in the case of the Mehri form (note, in particular, that the correspondence of Mehri h to PS *š is otherwise attested in a limited number of lexemes belonging to the most basic layers of the vocabulary).

    L. Kogan, Animal Names in Biblical Hebrew…

    271

    1076, Brock. 732, DM 420 respectively) and could be borrowed from Aramaic. The origin of the Aramaic terms is unclear.55 Hebrew does not preserve one important element of PS equine terminology, namely *muhr- ‘foal’ (SED II No. 149).56 Two less widespread terms for foal, young household animal are also missing: *"VwVl- (SED II No. 47: Old Arm. "l, Syr. "īlā, Gez. "3wāl, Tgr. "3lu, Tna. "illu)57 and *pVlw/y- (SED II No. 174: Arb. filw-, Tgr. f3lit, Soq. fólhi). 1.7. M u l e The only Hebrew term for mule is päräd (HALOT 963, TDOT XII 79– 81), with a fem. formation pirdā (HALOT 963) whose reliable cognates are restricted to Ugaritic prd and Akkadian (mostly OA) perdum (further parallels mentioned in SED II No. 177 are all doubtful). The ultimate origin of päräd and perdum is uncertain but it is in any case unlikely that these terms can be traced back to PS. Other areal terms for mule discussed in SED II Nos. 55 and 124 (under *baγ/£l-58 and *kawdan-59 respectively) are not reflected in Biblical Hebrew. 1.8. P i g Hbr. µăzīr ‘swine, boar’ (HALOT 302, TDOT IV 291–300) continues the only Common Semitic designation of this animal,60 namely *¶V(n)zīr55

    Contra Kaufman 1974:87, I would not exlude the possibility of an ultimate relationship to—or borrowing from?—one of the nominal derivatives of Akk. rakāsu (cf. perhaps NA raksu ‘a type of professional soldier serving in the cavalry or chariotry’ in CAD R 109). 56 This term is attested widely enough to make certain its PS status (Akk. mūru, Syr. muhrā, Arb. muhr-, Sab. mhrt, Tna. m3hir). This is obviously in contradiction with the fact that no PS term for horse can be reconstructed with any degree of reliability. Could *muhr- originally denote a donkey foal with a subsequent shift of meaning into ‘horse foal’? At any rate, the association of *muhr- with equids is so strong that one is reluctant to agree with Fronzaroli 1968:292 who reconstructs this term with a very general meaning ‘animale giovane’. 57 Several related terms are attested in Hebrew (and a few other Canaanite and Aramaic languages) with no faunal connotations ("ūl ‘suckling’, "ăwīl ‘boy’ etc., v. SED II No. 47, discussion section). 58 Arb. baγl-, Sab. bγl, Gez. ba£l, Tgr. bä£äl, Amh. bä£lo, Hrs. beγelēt. 59 Akk. kūdanu (note ku17-da-núm = anše.eden already in the lexical list VE 038 from Ebla), Ugr. kdnt, Off. Arm. kwdn, Syr. kūdanyā, kūd3nā, Arb. kawdan-. 60 *¶VnnV´- ‘piglet’ (SED II No. 110) is based on an interesting isogloss between Ugr. ¶e-en-ni-´u, Deir Alla µny´, Syr. µannū´ā and Arb. ¶innaw´- but hardly represents a reliable PS reconstruction.

    272

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    (SED II No. 111). This term is attested throughout Semitic: Akk. (mostly OA) ¶uzīru, Ugr. ¶u-zi-rù, Syr. µzīrā, Arb. ¶inzīr-, Gez. ¶anzir, Mhr. ¶3nzīr, Jib. ¶anzīr. Its spread by borrowing, likely in some cases (e. g., Arabisms in Ethiopian and MSA) remains to be proved by convincing arguments as far as other contact areas (Akkadian-Hebrew, Aramaic-Arabic) are concerned. 1.9. D o g Hbr. käläb ‘dog’ (HALOT 476, TDOT VII 146–57) goes back to the virtually pan-Semitic *kalb- (SED II No. 115: Akk. kalbu, Ugr. klb, Pho. klb, Syr. kalbā, Arb. kalb-, Sab. klb, Hdr. klb, Gez. kalb, Tgr. käl3b, Tna. kälbi, Mhr. kawb, Jib. kBb, Soq. kalb).61 2. Wild mammals 2.1. Carnivores 2.1.1. Felines The main Hebrew term for lion is !aryē, !ărī (HALOT 87, TDOT I 374– 88) whose immediate parallels are restricted to NWS (SED II No. 17): Ugr. !arw (Hapax Legomenon in KTU 6.62.2), Pho. !rw (Hapax Legomenon in KAI 32.3), Old Arm. !ryh, Syr. !aryā.62 According to a wide consensus, Gez. !arwe ‘animal, wild animal, beast’ and related Ethiopian forms belong to the same root, reflecting a wider (and, presumably, more original) meaning ‘wild beast’. It is uncertain whether terms denoting wild hoofed animals in Akkadian (arwû), Arabic (!urwiyyat-) and Sabaic (!rwyn) represent the same root with a different semantic evolution.63 Hbr. lābī(!) 61 A characteristic feature of the MSA forms is that they denote not only dog but also wolf. 62 Wagner (1966:29–30) regards Hbr. !aryē as an early Aramaism, which is highly unlikely. 63 So Fronzaroli 1968:292 and many other scholars (v. references in SED II No. 17). This comparison may be supported by three arguments: similar semantic shifts are well known from Indo-European (e. g., German Tier—English deer, Buck 1949:187); the meanings ‘lion, wild beast’ and ‘deer, wild goat’ occur in complementary distribution (were we faced with two homonymous PS roots, both would be expected to be present simultaneously at least in one language, which is not the case); the highly peculiar quadriradical structure is unlikely to occur twice with different meanings in the PS lexical stock. At the same time, it is somewhat suspicious that the rather specific meaning shift ‘wild beast’ > ‘deer’ took place in two Semitic languages with no special geographic and genealogical proximity (Akkadian and Arabic). This obstacle can be overcome if one supposes that Akk. arwû is

    L. Kogan, Animal Names in Biblical Hebrew…

    273

    ‘lioness’ (HALOT 515–17),64 attested exclusively in poetry, goes back to PS *labV!- ‘lion, lioness’ (SED II No. 144: Akk. labbu, lab!u, lābu ‘lion’ and labbatu, lābatu ‘lioness’,65 Ugr. lb!u ‘lion’, Arb. luba!at-, labu!at- ‘lioness’, Sab. lb! ‘lion, lioness’).66 A few other, mostly or exclusively poetic, designations of lion are known from the Old Testament. Here belong layiš (HALOT 529; Isa 30:6; Job 4:11; Prov 30:30), going back to Common CS *lay¬- (SED II No. 147: Jud. lētā, laytā, Arb. lay¬-)67 as well as two terms with no Semitic etymology, namely šaµal (HALOT 1461; Hos 5:14; 13:7; Ps 91:13; Job 4:10; 10:16; 28:8; Prov 26:13)68 and k3pīr (HALOT 493). A special term for lion’s cub (gūr, gōr) is attested in poetry (HALOT 185; Gen 49:9; Deut 33:22; Jer 51:38; Ezek 19:2, 3, 5; Nah 2:12, 13; Lam 4:3), going back to PS *gūr-, *gury/w- ‘young of carnivores’ (SED II No. 82: Pho. gr, Jud. gūrā, guryā, Syr. guryā, Arb. ³arw-, ³irw-, ³urw-, Tgr. g3r³3n, pl. gärägg3n).69 an early WS loanword, which is not impossible (v. 2.2 below). At any rate, Akk. erû ‘eagle’ is certainly unrelated to both sets of terms (contra von Soden 1957–58 and many other studies where this comparison is accepted, cf. SED II No. 40). Note that within von Soden’s approach PS *!VrwVy- ‘wild beast’ must have two simultaneously coexisting reflexes in Akkadian (arwû ‘gazelle’ and erû ‘eagle’). 64 With a number of morphological variants such as l3biyyā, lib!ā, läbä!. It has often been doubted that lābī(!) is a specific term for lioness rather than just a poetic synonym for lion (BDB 522, most recently also Sima 2000:111). Most contexts where lābī(!) occurs are indifferent in this respect but in such passages as Ezek 19:2 (Ketib); Nah 2:13 and Job 38:39 the meaning ‘lioness’ is highly likely. The post-Biblical picture is apparently different: here lābī(!) and l3bī!ā, l3bīyā are explicitly opposed as ‘lion’ and ‘lioness’ (Ja. 689; cf. also Ezek 19:2 Qere). 65 Similarly to Hbr. lābī(!), the Akkadian terms labbu, labbatu are exclusively poetic. 66 For a possible relationship between this term and a few Indo-European designations of lion v. Masson 1967:85. 67 Contra Landsberger 1934:76 and many others, Akk. nēšu can hardly belong to this root (neither n-, nor -ē- are compatible with the Hebrew and Arabic forms). For an alternative etymology v. below, section 4.2. Possible relationship between the Semitic forms and Greek lĩs is discussed in Masson 1967:86. 68 With the exception of Jud. šaµălā ‘lion’ (Ja. 1548; most probably, a Hebraism), all etymological comparisons mentioned in HALOT are unconvincing. This is especially true of Kopf 1958:179 where šaµal is compared to Arb. sa¶lat- ‘a lamb, or kid, when just born’ (Lane 1325). The rendering ‘snake, lizard’ suggested for Ps 91:13 and Job 28:8 in Mowinckel 1963 also lacks etymological support. 69 Given the fact that in Lam 4:3 gūr denotes a jackal’s cub, it is possible that the wider meaning ‘young of predators’ was typical of the Hebrew term, too. In a few Semitic languages, phonetically comparable terms are more divergent from the semantic point of view. On the one hand, cf. Akk. girru ‘lion’ and, possibly,

    274

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    Hbr. nāmēr ‘leopard, panther’ (HALOT 701, TDOT IX 432–7; a relatively infrequent poetic term attested in Isa 11:6; Jer 5:6; 13:23; Hos 13:7; Hab 1:8; Song 4:8) represents PS *namir- ‘leopard’ (SED II No. 164), going back to the deepest layers of the PS animal vocabulary (Akk. nimru, Syr. nemrā, Arb. nimr-, namir-, Sab. nmr, Hdr. nmr, Gez. namr, Amh. näb3r). It is uncertain whether Hbr. ´ī, translated as ‘animals of the desert’ in HALOT 1020, denotes a wild cat (in the stereotype descriptions of ruined cities Isa 13:21; 23:13; 34:14; Jer 50:39; less certain in Ps 72:9; 74:14). If this identification is correct (which is hard to prove, cf. TDOT XII 328), it may be compared to Arb. ¥aywan- ‘cat’ (SED II No. 224). A few other designations of felines more or less reliably reconstructible to PS are not reflected in Hebrew: *mV(n)dīn- (SED II No. 151: Akk. mindinu, Arb. !al-madīn-), *"Vrw/y- (SED II No. 41: Arb. "urwat-, Tna. wa"ro, Mhr. !áyri, Jib. "éri), *pahd- (SED II No. 171: Syr. pahdā, Arb. fahd-, Hdr. fhd, Mhr. f3h3dēt, Jib. fh3d6t),70 *!a(n)z/¯ar- (SED II No. 9: Akk. azaru, azzaru, Gez. !anzar), *dVm(m)- (SED II No. 70: Akk. dumāmu, Arb. dimm-at-, 71 Gez. d3mmat, Tgr. d3mmu), *šVn(n)ār-, *šurān- (SED II No. 206: Akk. šurānu, Old Arm. šrn, Syr. šūr3nā, šūnārā, Arb. sunnār-, sinnawr-, šunārā, Mhr. s3nnáwr3t).72 2.1.2. Canines Two terms for wild canines can be reconstructed for the earliest levels of PS, both of them well preserved in Hebrew. Hbr. z3!ēb ‘wolf (HALOT 260, TDOT IV 1–7) goes back to *¯i!b- (SED II No. 72: Akk. zību, Syr. dēbā, Arb. ¯i!b-, Gez. z3!b, Amh. ³3b, Soq. díb).73 Two mutually related PS ‘

    Har. gärgōra, gängōra ‘leopard’, which denote large felines but not their cubs (“Nichts spricht allerdings dafür, dass girru das Löwenjunge bezeichnete”, Landsberger 1934:77). On the other hand, Tgr. and Amh. goro ‘young elephant’ denote a young of a non-carnivore animal. 70 The Syr. term may be an Arabism. The MSA terms do not denote a real animal but rather ‘a bogy about the seize of a cow’ (JJ 54). 71 Possibly an Ethiopian loanword, v. Dozy I 459 (“… un mot éthiopien. Vers la fin du XVIe siècle, il était en usage dans le Yémen…”). 72 The possibility of interborrowing is high (cf. Hommel 1879:314, Kaufman 1974:154). Absence of any term for the domestic cat in the Biblical corpus is peculiar. 73 PS *¯i!b- is usually reconstructed with the meaning ‘wolf’, although one should bear in mind that this meaning is prominent in Central Semitic only. Ethiopian reflexes of *¯i!b- denote hyena whereas the meaning of Akk. zību is not easy to ascertain (certainly ‘kind of bird of prey’, probably also ‘jackal’).

    L. Kogan, Animal Names in Biblical Hebrew…

    275

    designations of fox are *¬V"Vl- (SED II No. 237: Old Arm. š"l, Syr. ta"lā, Arb. ¬u"āl-, Mhr. y3¬áyl, Jib. i¬"él) and *¬a"lab- (ibid.: Akk. šēlebu, Arb. ¬a"lab-).74 The former has developed into the main Hebrew term for fox (šū"āl, HALOT 1445; Judg 15:4; Ezek 13:4; Ps 63:11; Song 2:15; Lam 5:18; Neh 3:35) whereas the latter is thought to be preserved in the toponym ša"albīm (ibid. 1611–12). Three Hebrew words are often thought to designate a jackal: !ōaµ (HALOT 29; Isa 13.21), !ī (HALOT 38; Isa 13:22; 34:14; Jer 50:39) and tan (HALOT 1759; Isa 13:22; 34:13; 35:7; 43:20; Jer 9:10; 10:22; 14:6; 49:33; 51:37; Mic 1:8; Ps 44:20; Job 30:29; Lam 4:3, possibly Mal 1:3). Contextual information for this interpretation is weak in each of the three cases since most of the pertinent passages are stereotype descriptions of animals frequenting ruins.75 The first and the third terms are totally obscure from the etymological point of view whereas possible parallels to !ī are restricted to Arabic and Syriac (SED II No. 21: Syr. b3nāt !away, Arb. !ibnu !āwan, pl. banātu !āwan). 2.1.3. Other carnivores Hbr. ´ābūa" ‘hyena’ (HALOT 997) is most reliably attested outside of the Hebrew Bible, namely in Sir 13:18 (m!yš! šlwm ´bw" !l klb ‘can there be peace between hyena and dog?’).76 It goes back to PS *¹VbV"- (SED II No. 220: Deir Alla £b", Arb. ¥abu"-, Gez. ¥3b", Soq. ¥áb"ah).77 These cog74 Some scholars believe that *-ab- in the latter form represents a fossilized class-marker of harmful animals (on this problem v. extensively SED II, pp. LXXXII–LXXXIV). 75 To a certain degree exceptional is tan in Lam 4.3 (gam tannīn µāl3´ū šād hēnī£ū gūrēhän): this passage clearly suggests that the animal in question is a mammal and his small ones are designated as gūrīm ‘whelps’ (gūr is otherwise applied only to lions). Jer 14:6 and Mi 1:8 suggest that the animal can howl and snuff up wind respectively. 76 The only possibly relevant passage in the Old Testament (ha"ayi¢ ´ābūa" naµălātī lī ha"ayi¢ sābīb "āl7hā in Jer 12:9) is highly problematic and requires further study (cf. Barr 1968:128, 235). The term is also thought to be attested in some toponyms (HALOT 999). 77 A few other, less transparent reflexes of this root can be detected. Here belong Akk. bū´u ‘hyena’ (with a complex metathesis *¹abu"- > *bu¹a"- > *bu¹"- > bū´- or *¹abu"- > *bu"a¹- > *bu"¹- > bū´-) and Common Aramaic *!ap"- ‘hyena’ (Jud. !ap"ā, !āpā, Syr. !ap"ā, Mnd. apa), presumably < *"ab"- < *¹ab"- (while dissimilation of " < *¹ into ! in the presence of another " in the root is common in Aramaic, devoicing of b into p is rather unexpected). If all these parallels are accepted, *¹abu"- must be traced to the deepest strata of the PS faunal lexicon.

    276

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    nates invalidate completely the widely accepted interpretation of ´ābūa" as a passive participle of ´b" < *´bγ ‘to dye’ (“really the coloured one, with coloured strips” in HALOT 999) which can be taken into consideration only as a popular etymology. Hbr. dōb ‘bear’ (HALOT 208, TDOT III 70–1) reflects PS *dubb- with the same meaning (SED II No. 65: Akk. dabû, Syr. debbā, Arb. dubb-, Gez. d3bb). The dialectal distribution of *dubb- allows tracing it back to the most ancient levels of PS but the possibility of interborrowing cannot be ruled out (thus, the genuine viz. borrowed nature of Arb. dubb- has been often discussed, v. different opinions in Hommel 1879:302 and Nöldeke 1879:302). The structural difference between Akk. dabû and Common WS *dubb- remains, as is well known, unexplained. Outside *¹VbV"- ‘hyena’ and *dubb- ‘bear’, very few PS terms denoting predators other than felines and canines can be reconstructed. Two of such terms—none reflected in Hebrew—deserve to be mentioned: *!Vnar-, *!Vran- ‘a small predator (viverra?)’ (SED II No. 8: Akk. mīrānu, mūrānu ‘young dog, puppy; cub of a wild animal’, Ugr. !inr ‘dog, cub’, !irn ‘puppy’, Amh. anär ‘wildcat (Viverra genotta)’)78 and *!a(n)ya´-, *!an´aw/y‘weasel’ (SED II No. 26: Akk. ayā´u ‘weasel’, Gez. !an´awā, !an´ewā, !an´owā ‘mouse; weasel’). 2.2. R u m i n a n t s Hebrew preserves each of the three most widespread Semitic terms for ruminants other than bovines: ´3bī ‘gazelle’, ´3biyyā ‘female gazelle’ (HALOT 998, TDOT XII 232–6) < *Îaby(-at)- (SED II No. 242: Akk. ´abītu, Ugr. Îby, Old Arm. ´by, Syr. ¢abyā, Arb. Ïaby-, Sab. ´by, Hdr. ´by); !ayyāl ‘fallow deer’, !ayyālā (!ayyälät) ‘doe of a fallow deer’ (HALOT 40) < *!ayyal- (SED II No. 25: Akk. ayalu, Ugr. !ayl, Syr. !aylā, Arb. !iyyal-, !ayyal-, Sab. !yl, Jib. ayyól);79 Hbr. yā"ēl ‘ibex, mountain goat’, ya"ălā ‘female mountain goat’ (HALOT 420; Ps 104:18; Job 39:1; Prov 5:19) < *wa"il- (Ugr. y"l, Syr. ya"lā, Arb. wa"l-, wa"il-, Sab. w"l, Qat. w"l, Hdr. !-w"l (pl.), Gez. w3"3lā, Amh. waliya, Mhr. wcl, Jib. εb"ó¼). Although each of the these terms is sufficiently well attested, only *!ayyal- seems to be truly

    78

    In Arabic cf. !irān-, mi!rān- ‘a wild animal’s den’ and !rn ‘to bite’. The whole set of comparisons is extensively discussed in Aartun 1983. 79 Gez. hayyal, Tna. µayäl are likely related, although the origin of h/µ in the Anlaut of this forms is obscure.

    L. Kogan, Animal Names in Biblical Hebrew…

    277

    pan-Semitic and traceable back to the earliest levels of PS reconstruction80 (*Îaby(-at)- is missing from the South Semitic area, *wa"il- is not reflected in Akkadian). Two other Hebrew terms from this semantic group belong to the Common CS heritage: "ōpär ‘a young fallow deer’ (HALOT 862; a few attestations in Song only) < *γupr- (SED II No. 88: Off. Arm. "pr, Arb. γafr-, γufr-)81 and Hbr. yaµmūr ‘roebuck’ (HALOT 407; in the dietary law of Deut 14:5, as part of Solomon’s diet in 1 Kings 5:3) < *yaµmūr- (SED II No. 249: Jud. yaµmūrā, Syr. yaµmūrā, Arb. yaµmūr-).82 Finally, a few terms have only scarce and unreliable parallels or are etymologically obscure: Hbr. zämär ‘kind of gazelle’ (HALOT 274; in the dietary law of Deut 14:5),83 Hbr. t3!ō ‘antelope’ (HALOT 1673; in the dietary law of Deut 14:5 and in Isa 51:20 as tō(!) mikmār ‘like an antelope (caught) in a snare’),84 Hbr. !a££ō ‘wild goat’ (HALOT 82; in the dietary law of Deut 14:5).85 A few PS terms for ruminants other than bovines are not reflected in Hebrew: *bVb(b)- (SED II No. 54: Akk. bibbu ‘wild sheep’, Tgr. buba ‘koodoo’), *!arwiy- (SED II No. 18: Akk. arwû ‘gazelle’, Arb. !urwiyyat- ‘wild goat’, Sab. !rwy-n (pl.) ‘(female) mountain goat, ibex’,86 Mhr. !ar%t ‘goat’),87 *!arn/m- (SED II No. 13: Akk. armu ‘buck (of gazelle or mountain goat)’, Off. Arm. !rn ‘ram’, Syr. !arnā ‘wild goat’, Arb. !irān- ‘male of oryx’, Gez. !ornā ‘kind of antelope’, Gog. Muh. 3rr3ññä ‘ram, small male sheep’, Mhr. µā-ráwn ‘goats’, Jib. !εrún id., Soq. !érehon ‘sheep, goats’), *γVzāl- ‘gazelle’

    80

    There is no sufficient reason to agree with Landbserger 1934:99, where a chain of borrowings eventually going back to a non-Semitic source is postulated. 81 In Arabic note also by-forms with " (ya"fūr-, yu"fūr- ‘gazelle; young of gazelle’; cf. also "ifr-, "ufr- ‘piglet’). 82 Ugr. yµmr (DUL 960) is based on a reconstruction in KTU 1.6 I 28 ([t¢b¶ šb"m y]µmrm). 83 Cf. SED II No. 253: Ugr. zmr (implying an emendation of gmrm into z!mrm in KTU 1.6 VI 16); Arb. zmr ‘to flee (about gazelles)’; Akk. (OB Mari) U8 za-mu-ratum/zu-mu-ra-tum (Zadok 1992); Akk. (pre-OB Tuttul) U8 zamrum/ zamratum (Krebernik 2003:306–12). 84 Cf. perhaps Tgr. tay ‘young of gazelle’ (SED II No. 225). 85 No cognates with a possible exception of Jud. !ī£ā ‘stallion-goat, buck’. Akk. unī£u ‘young she-goat’ is hardly relatated (rather to be compared to Arb. "anā£with the same meaning, v. above, 1.3). 86 The Sab. term is not entirely reliable (Sima 2000:25). 87 For the possible relationship between these terms and Hbr. !aryē ‘lion’, Gez. !arwe ‘wild animal’ v. above, 2.1.1.

    278

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    (SED II No. 92: Akk. uzālu, ¶uzālu,88 JPA "wzl,89 Syr. "ūzaylā, Arb. γazāl-), *na(ya)l- (SED II No. 169: Akk. nayalu ‘roe deer’, Tgr. nälät, Amh. niyala ‘mountain antelope’). It is possible that Hbr. šōpār ‘horn (used as a wind instrument)’ (HALOT 1447) and similar Aramaic terms (Jud. and Syr. šīpōrā, Mnd. šipura, šupra) originally denoted some kind of horned animal, being related to Akk. sappāru (šappāru, sabbāru) ‘a bovid’,90 Sab. s1frt ‘small cattle’,91 Gez. sappirā ‘rhinoceros’ (v. SED II No. 208). An etymological relationship between Hbr. šōpār and Akk. sappāru was acknowledged already by Landsberger (1934:97), who treats the Hebrew term is as an Akkadism. One’s evaluation of this loan hypothesis largely depends on whether Sum. šeg9.bar is thought to be an Akkadism or vice versa (v. fn. 90). In any case, Sima’s skepticism about the semantic evolution ‘ram’ > ‘ram’s horn’ > ‘horn as a musical instrument’ (2000:142) is hardly warranted (cf. Hbr. yōbēl above, 1.3). Hbr. r3!ēm ‘wild bull (Bos primigenius boianus)’ (HALOT 1163, TDOT XIII 243–7) faithfully reflects *ri!m- (SED II No. 186), the only reliable PS term for a wild bovine, which is attested everywhere outside the South Semitic area92 (Akk. rīmu, Ugr. r!um, Jud. r3!ēmā, rēmā, Syr. raymā, Arb. ri!m-). Due to the gradual extermination of Bos primigenius in the Middle East, the image of this animal and its linguistic designations often shifted to the mythical sphere, which explains why the respective Hebrew, Akkadian and Ugaritic terms mostly appear in literary texts (notably, in comparisons). The cognate Arabic ri!m- underwent a seman-

    88

    CAD Ú 265 lists only ¶-forms attested as personal names in OB (which may be West Semitic rather than Akkadian, v. Streck 2000:328, 332). However, a few examples of uzālu as an appellative in Akkadian texts of the first millennium are mentioned in AHw. 1447. The possibility of a WS influence cannot be excluded in these cases, too. 89 In JBA note also !urzēlā, "urzīlā, !uzzēlā (the origin of ! instead of " and the inserted -r- is unclear). 90 The term appears as šè-bar-ru12 already in the monolingual list of animals from Ebla (VE 004), v. Sjöberg 1996a:10. If the Akkadian term is Semitic, its Sumerian lexical equivalent šeg9.bar must be an Akkadism, thus against Landsberger 1934:96, CAD S 166 and AHw. 1027 (cf. Salonen 1976:260–2 where both Sumerian and Akkadian terms are thought to be borrowed from a “Late Neolitic” substrate word *säppar). 91 Hapax Legomenon in R 3945.3, the traditional interpretation ‘small cattle, goats’ (SD 125, Biella 342) is questioned in Sima 2000:142. 92 Gez. r3!im, r3!em ‘wild bull, rhinoceros, unicorn’ is a Hebraism.

    L. Kogan, Animal Names in Biblical Hebrew…

    279

    tic shift and came to denote a kind of antelope93 (it is tempting to suppose that this shift was conditioned by the absence of Bos primigenius in Arabia in historical times but recent research invites to a more cautious approach to this question, v. Sima 2000:48).94 Another Hebrew term presumably denoting a large wild bull is dīšōn ‘aurochs’ (HALOT 221; in the dietary law of Deut 14:5),95 very complicated from the etymological point of view.96 As already observed above, *ri!m- is the only reliable PS term for a wild bovine. Another possible reconstruction belonging to this category is by far less certain: *tVrbal-, *bVrtal- ‘a large hoofed animal’ (SED II No. 228: JBA turbālā, torb3lā ‘aurochs’, Tgr. bärtäl ‘bull (of rhinoceros)’).

    93

    The present author is unable to provide an exact zoological identification of Arb. ri!m-. LA 6 62 defines it as !al-¶āli´u mina Ï-Ïibā!i which is interpreted as ‘an antelope that is purely white’ in Lane 998. This is in agreement with E. Glaser’s report according to which “Ende des 19. Jhd. noch Gazellen in der Gegend von Mārib gab, von denen eine weisse Species rîm und eine braune Àabî genannt werde” (as rendered in Sima 2000:171). However, as Sima observes, “eine Differenzierung von Arten anhand der Fellfärbung ist aber generell problematisch, so dass die diesbezüglichen Angaben Glasers mit Vorsicht zu bewerten sind”. 94 In Hebrew, specific association of r3!ēm with bovines (rather than antelopes or other kinds of ruminants) was apparently preserved as one learns from Job 39:9–12 (especially v. 10: hăti£šōr-rēm b3täläm "ăbōtō !im y3šaddēd "ămā£īm !aµăr7kā ‘can you hold him in the furrow with rope, will he harrow the valley after you?’, translation from Pope 1973:304) where rēm appears as a wild pendant of šōr ‘bull, ox’—in the same way as pärä(!) ‘onager’ is opposed to the (unmentioned) domesticated ass just several lines below in the same chapter of Job. 95 Exact meaning cannot be established since the term is Hapax Legomenon in Deut 14:5 (among other wild ruminants allowed for food). 96 Akk. ditānu (didānu) ‘aurochs’ must be somehow related but the Akkadian term is rare and the correspondence between Akk. -t- (-d-) and Hbr. -š- is completely irregular. A borrowing from a non-Semitic source is, therefore, likely in both cases whereas a derivation from PS *tayš- ‘he-goat’ seems to be less probable (cf. SED II No. 231, notably in connection with Akk. daššu, taššu ‘buck’). A variety of other comparable terms are known from cuneiform sources: ti-ša-nu-uš in the Hittite column of a trilingual lexical list (= Akk. ku-sa-ri-i¶-¶u, Sum. ALIM), UDU.ÚÁ ti-ša-né in lists of exotic animals from OB Mari, ti-ša-nim in an OB sapiential text (for these three forms v. Durand 1988 who does not hesitate to identify dīšōn, ditānu and tišānu in spite of the phonological and semantic difficulties), MA and NA tušēnu, tešēnu (Lion 1991), ti-sa-na as a name of a (presumably zoomorphic) jewel in Ebla (Bonechi–Conti 1992).

    280

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    2.3. E q u i d s Hbr. pärä(!) ‘wild ass’97 (HALOT 961, TDOT XII 72–6) goes back to *par(a)!- (SED II No. 176: Akk. parû,98 Arb. fara!-, Sab. (pl.) !-fr!), the only widely attested Semitic term for a wild equid (missing from Ethiopian Semitic and MSA). An alternative designation of wild ass is "ārōd (HALOT 882; Hapax Legomenon in Job 39:5), belonging to the Common CS heritage (SED II No. 37: Bib. Arm. "ărādayyā (pl. det.), Syr. "rādā, Arb. "ard-).99 No other terms for wild equids seem to be reconstructible for PS. 2.4. P r o b o s c i d e a n s No term for the elephant is attested in the Old Testament in spite of the fact that ancient Hebrews must have been to a certain degree familiar with this animal.100 It is only in post-Biblical times that pīl ‘elephant’ is first attested, obviously related to similar designations in other Semitic languages (SED II No. 173: Akk. pīru, pīlu, Syr. pīlā, Arb. fīl-). The nature of their relationship remains to be established. According to a widespread conviction, we are faced with a chain of interborrowings eventually going back to a nonSemitic source (v., e. g., Salonen 1955:91, Hommel 1879:324, LGz. 159). Not unlikely a priori, this approach is difficult to justify since no convincing non-Semitic etymology has been suggested so far (contra LGz. 159, “Iranian 97

    As one learns from Sima 2000:60–2, both “onager” (Equus hemionus hemippus) and “wild ass” (Equus africanus) were likely present in the Syro-Palestinian area in antiquity. The present author does not feel competent to judge about the exact zoological identification of the pertinent Hebrew terms. 98 With a meaning shift to ‘mule’ (the meaning ‘Onager’ ascribed to this term in AHw. 837 lacks textual support, v. above in the introduction to the present article). 99 The widespread opinion according to which the Hebrew term is an Aramaism is rightly put to doubt in Wagner 1966:93. Akk. ¶arādu and arādu are not attested outside the lexical list Malku (and similar) and must be WS loanwords, whereas arantu, arandu are rather to be identified with armatu ‘wild goat’ (Salonen 1976:201). The meaning ‘siege engine’ attested for related terms in Aramaic and Arabic (Plm. "rdyn (pl.), Syr. "rādā, Mnd. arada, Arb. "arrādat-) is noteworthy. According to DNWSI 887, this is a calque from Greek onagros/Latin onager but note that already Akk. imēru ‘ass’ was used to denote a part of battering ram (CAD I 111). 100 Possibly, not only as an exotic being and the source of ivory, since “a subspecies of the Asian elephant appears to have survived well into historical times in the marshes of the Middle Euphrates and Habur rivers… As a result of overhunting elephants were exterminated from W Asia by the 9th century B.C.E.” (Firmage 1992:1140). See further Barnett 1982:5–7, Lion 1992:358 but also more skeptical remarks in Collon 1977.

    L. Kogan, Animal Names in Biblical Hebrew…

    281

    origin coming through Aramaic” can hardly be applied to Akk. pīru, pīlu which is attested already in Old Babylonian sources). Most interesting in this connection is Gez. falfal ‘water buffalo; elephant’ which, in view of its morphological shape (reduplication and a-vocalism) can hardly be borrowed from a form of the pīl-type. One has to admit that the r/l variation in Akkadian is unusual and does not favor a genuine origin for this term (note especially that it is the r-variant that is both ancient and common). 2.5. R o d e n t s PS was poor in terms for rodents and this dearth is well reflected in the corresponding segment of the Hebrew faunal lexicon. Hbr. "akbār ‘mouse’ (HALOT 823; prohibited for food in the dietary law of Lev 11:29, eatable according to Isa 66:17, statuettes of mice several times in 1 Sam 6) is immediately comparable to Akk. akbaru ‘jerboa’, JBA "akb3rā ‘mouse’, Arb. "akābir- (pl.) ‘males of jerboa’ and, unless the Akkadian term is an early West Semitism, the corresponding reconstruction *"akbar(SED II No. 30) must be traced back to a relatively early level of PS.101 The only other Hebrew designation of a rodent is µōläd ‘mole’ (HALOT 316; in the dietary law of Lev 11:29), belonging to the Common CS heritage (SED II No. 108: Syr. µuldā, Arb. ¶uld-).102 PS names of rodents unattested in Hebrew are few. The most prominent of such terms is *pa!r- ‘mouse’ (SED II No. 170: Akk. pērūrūtu,103 Arb. fa!r-, Gaf. ũfw3rä, Har. fūr, End. fu!ur).104 The reconstruction of PS 101

    Such a deep reconstruction becomes even more justified in view of the fact that this term clearly underwent a number of irregular phonological and/or semantic shifts in many Semitic languages other than those mentioned above. If such terms are accepted as cognates, *"akbar- becomes virtually pan-Semitic. The relevant terms include Tgr. "ekrib ‘badger’ (metathesis, semantic shift); Akk. arkabu, irkabu, argabu ‘bat’ (metathesis, voicing *k > g, semantic shift); Common MSA *"ar£īb- ‘mouse’ (metathesis, emphatisation *k > £, contamination with PS *"ar£ūb- ‘Achilles’ tendon’); Syr. "u£b3rā, "u£bartā ‘mouse’ (emphatisation *k > £). An extensive discussion of these and a few other related terms can be found in SED II No. 30 (to a certain extent based on Steiner 1982:195). 102 Gez. ¶3ld ‘mole, rat’ is “transcription of Hbr. µōläd” according to LGz. 260 whereas Tgr. hul3d ‘mole’ is likely an Arabism (Leslau 1990:165). 103 A presumably more archaic form of this term is attested as pá-ra-tum in lexical lists from Ebla (VE 0927, = nin.péš; also in the monolingual list of animals VE 0020), v, Sjöberg 1996a:14. 104 There is a slender chance to detect this root also in Hebrew. The difficult passage Isa 2:20 reads bayyōm hahū(!) yašlīk hā!ādām !ēt !ălīlē kaspō w3!ēt !ălīlē z3hābō !ăšär "āŝū-lō lištaµăwōt laµpōr pērōt w3lā"ă¢allēpīm. The translation ‘on that day peo-

    282

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    *yarbV"- ‘jerboa’ (SED II No. 251) is based on the comparison between Akk. arrabu, arrabû105 and Arb. yarbū"- (some kind of relationship between these terms can hardly be avoided even if exact phonological and structural details of this comparison are rather obscure).106 It is uncertain whether Akk. garīdu ‘beaver’, Syr. gār3dā id., Arb. ³ura¯- ‘kind of field rat’, ³ir¯awn‘rat’, Mhr. g3r¯īn id. and Hrs. ger¯īn ‘rat, mouse’ represent a PS *gVrV¯‘rat’ (SED II No. 84), or we are faced with several interborrowings. 2.6. L a g o m o r p h s Hbr. !arnäbät ‘hare’ (HALOT 90; in the dietary law of Lev 11:6; Deut 14:7) goes back to the virtually pan-Semitic *!arnab(-at)- (SED II No. 14: Akk. arnabu, Old Arm. !rnb, Syr. !arn3bā, Arb. !arnab-, Gez. !arnab, Har. µarbāñño, End. arbäññä,107 Mhr. µarnáyb, Jib. !εrní). 2.7. I n s e c t i v o r e s Hbr. £ippōd ‘hedgehog’ (HALOT 1117)108 goes back to PS *£unpu¯-, well attested in Central Semitic and Ethiopian (SED II No. 133: Syr. £upp3dā,

    ple will throw out their silver and gold idols that they made as their own objects of worship to the shrews and the bats’ (Blenkinsopp 2000a:8) presupposes an emendation of laµpōr pērōt (Codex Leningradensis) to laµăparpārōt (cf. lµprprym in the Qumran Isaiah scroll), implying a hypothetic *µăparpārā ‘shrew’ (HALOT 341). The only external support for this interpretation comes from JPA µprpr ‘a type of bat’ (Sok. 212; translation of Hbr. "ă¢allēp ‘bat’ in Deut 14:18). The MT reading laµpōr pērōt (‘to dig (out) mice?’, ‘to be dug by mice?’) is, however, very hard to reconcile with the context and is probably to be abandoned. 105 Attested as a-ra-bù-um, ar-ra-bù = ni.péš already in Ebla lexical lists (VE 873). 106 Syr. yarbū"ā is possibly (but not necessarily) an Arabism. 107 All Ethiopian forms are thought to be Arabisms in LGz. 38, which is far from evident, especially with respect to the Harari and Gurage terms with their highly specific phonological shape. Ugr. !anhb, often identified with this root in scholarly literature (e. g., LGz. 38), is an obscure word unlikely to denote a hare (cf. the translation ‘sea snail’ in DUL 78). 108 One should be aware that this translation entirely depends on the etymological evidence: the pertinent passages (Isa 14:23 and 34:11; Zeph 2:14) are stereotype descriptions of ruined cities inhabited by the animals of the desert. In the two latter passages, all the remaining animals mentioned are birds and it was suggested that at least in these two texts £ippōd also denotes a bird (‘short eared owl?’, ‘ruffed bustard?’, ‘bittern?’). This is especially likely in the case of Zeph 2:4 where £ippōd is said to dwell on its (the ruined city’s) capitals (b3kaptōr7hā).

    L. Kogan, Animal Names in Biblical Hebrew…

    283

    Arb. £unfu¯-, Gez. £w3nf3z, Tgr. £3nf3z, Tna. £3nf3z).109 Word-final -d instead of the expected -z in the Hebrew form is irregular and may suggest an Aramaism (cf. Wagner 1966:102). 2.8. C h e i r o p t e r a Hbr. "ă¢allēp is traditionally rendered as ‘bat’ (HALOT 814) but textual support for this interpretation is scarce (outside Lev 11:19 and Deut 14:18 where it is mentioned among unclean birds, "ă¢allēp is only used in the difficult passage Isa 2:20 mentioned above, fn. 104). No etymology whatsoever. 2.9. H y r a c i d a e Hbr. šāpān ‘rock badger, hyrax, dassie’ (HALOT 1633) was compared to the corresponding Modern South Arabian terms (Mhr. ¬ōf3n, Jib. ¬Cfun) already in the pioneering description of these languages by Fulgence Fresnel110 but the importance of Fresnel’s discovery has rarely been recognized.111 Biblical references to šāpān admirably correspond to the zoo109

    The form £ì-pá-šum/šúm (= péš) in VE 872 may suggest that originally this term was present also in East Semitic. The Eblaite form is important for elucidating the background of the vocalic shape of Hbr. £ippōd: it suggests that i in the first syllable need not go back to *u but may be original (important observations on this problem v. in Huehnergard 1992:221ff.) whereas ō in the second syllable may go back to *ā rather than to *u. Cf also Hrs. £e¯ewī!, £e¯ewīb ‘hedgehog’, likely belonging to the same root in spite of the phonological difficulties (b instead of the expected f and its final rather than middle position, not to speak of the absence of -n-). 110 Fresnel’s most interesting observations deserve to be quoted in full in the present context: “Voici un example du parti que l’on peut tirer de la langue ehhkili pour l’intelligence de la Bible. Gesenius croit que l’animal appelé en hébreu ‫ ָשפָן‬schafan est le ªÌIjÍ yarboû ou la gerboise d’Egypte. Pourtant ce mot hébreu est rendu par celui de jæIäË wabr dans la version arabe. Or le wabr est l’animal que les naturalistes appellent daman; onl le rencontre dans la presqu’île du mont Sinaï, dans les montagnes du Hhidjâz et du Yaman, et partout il est connu des Arabes sous le nom de wabr. La question était de savoir si l’auteur de la version arabe ne s’était pas trompé en rendant schafan par wabr. Elle est résolue: le daman se nomme en ehhkili Åå°åQ thoufoun, mot dans lequel le schîn de l’hébreu est remplacé par un T, comme le shcîn de l’arabe dans le mot ehhkili PBäQ thêt, brebis, qui correspond à ÑBq” (quoted from Lonnet 1991:30). Admittedly, Fresnel’s last observation is incorrect: Jib. ¬ēt and Arb. šāt- belong to different roots (v. above, 1.3). 111 Compare the rather vague reference in HALOT 1633 (“the creature was known as ¬afan by the South Arabians”).

    284

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    logical situation of Procavia syriaca (the rocky habitat in Ps 104:18 and Prov 30:26, ruminant but not hoofed in the dietary prohibitions of Lev 11:5; Deut 14:7).112 The possibility of tracing *¬apan- back to the protoWS level (at least) is important for establishing the original homeland of the Semites: the animal is common in Arabia, Canaan and the Sinai but absent from Syria and Mesopotamia. 2.10. P r i m a t e s Hbr. £ōp ‘monkey’ (HALOT 1089), attested in 1 Kings 10:22 (|| 2 Chr 9:21) among the exotic goods imported from Tarshish by Solomon, has immediate parallels in Akkadian (u£ūpu, SB and LB) and Aramaic (JPA £wp, Syr. £ōpā). The Akkadian term can hardly be separated from Sumerian ugubi, attested since the Ur III period. A very detailed study of both Sumerian and Akkadian terms is Klein 1979 (especially pp. 156–160). Klein puts to doubt the widespread assumption according to which Akk. u£ūpu is borrowed from Sum. ugubi but rather prefers to derive both terms (as well as the Hebrew and Aramaic forms mentioned above) from a common foreign source, most likely Egyptian gjf (from the Old Kingdom on). Klein also refers to the possibility of borrowing from an Indian language for which see more recently Powels 1992:196.113 3. Birds 3.1. G e n e r a l t e r m s Biblical Hebrew has two general terms for bird. Hbr. ´ippōr ‘bird, winged creature’ (HALOT 1047, TDOT XII 443–9) goes back to *´Vp(p)Vr(SED II No. 212), reliably attested in Phoenician (´pr), Aramaic (Bib. ´ipp3rīn (pl.), JBA ´ipp3rā, Syr. ´epp3rā), Arabic (´āfir-) and MSA (Hrs. Íeferot, Jib. (e)´ferót, ´efirót, Soq. ´afiróte) and, therefore, safely traceable to

    112

    As pointed out in Milgrom 1991:648, the former characteristic was established by external observation only: the animal is no true ruminant. As far as the dietary prohibitions are concerned, T. M. Johnstone’s remark in JM 416 is curious (“it is eaten by all but a few women; it is believed to chew the cud”). Also peculiar is the Arabic definition of hyraxes as γanamu banī !isrā!īla ‘the sheep of Sons of Israel’ reported in Hommel 1879:322. 113 A more common—and also somewhat similar—Akkadian word for monkey (pagû) is also discussed by Klein (p. 160, fn. 59) who does not exclude its ultimate metathetic relationship to u£ūpu, ugubi.

    L. Kogan, Animal Names in Biblical Hebrew…

    285

    the Proto-WS level. 114 At the same time, the exact meaning of PS *´Vp(p)Vr- is not entirely clear: did it function as the general term for bird (as in Hebrew, Aramaic and, apparently, some of the MSA) or did it denote specifically a small bird like sparrow (as in Arabic)? Hbr. "ōp is rendered as ‘everything that flies’ in HALOT 801 (cf. also TDOT X 564) because of the few passages where this term is applied to flying insects (šärä´ hā"ōp) but there is little doubt that the primary function of this term is to designage birds. This conclusion is strongly supported by etymological evidence since comparable terms can be reduced to a Proto-WS *"awp- (SED II No. 48) for which the meaning ‘bird’ can be safely postulated on the base of Ugr. "p, Bib. Arm. "ōp, JBA "ōpā, Syr. "awpā, Arb. "awf- (with a narrowed meaning ‘cock’)115 and especially Gez. "of ‘bird’ and related terms with the same meaning throughout Ethiopian.116 One more general term denotes young of a bird, chick, namely !äprōaµ (HALOT 80; Deut 22:6; Ps 84:4; Job 39:30).117 It goes back to *par¶- attested througout WS (SED II No. 179: Deir Alla !prµ, JPA !prµ, JBA pāraµtā, Syr. pāraµtā, Arb. far¶-, Gez. far¶).118

    114

    A few other parallels are less certain. Ugr. ´pr is translated as ‘bird’ in DUL 788 but the expression klb ´pr where it is attested (KTU 1.14 III 19) allows for different interpretations. Akk. ´ibāru ‘a bird, probably the sparrow’ is likely related but -b- instead of the expected -p- is disturbing. Whether Akk. i´´ūru and Ugr. "´r are ultimately related to ´ippōr and its immediate cognates is a hotly debated question (contrast AHw. 390 and B. Landsberger in MSL 8/2 145). In SED II the Akkadian and Ugaritic terms are united under a separate root (No. 43) whereas Arb. "u´fūr- and Jib. "ε´férCt are explained by contamination of these two (essentially unrelated) roots. 115 In Arabic the roots "wp/"wp are also attested in connection with divination from birds. 116 Obviously related is the widely attested verbal root *"wp ‘to fly’ (Ugr. "p, Hbr. "wp, Arb. "wf, Gez. "ofa, Soq. "ef( f )). It is hard to say whether we are faced with an old deverbal noun, or rather the verb was produced from a primary nominal form (either in particular languages or already in Proto-WS). 117 A variant form pirµaµ ‘brood’ (HALOT 967), supposed to be attested in Job 30:12, is rather uncertain. The origin of !V-prefixation in Hebrew and Aramaic is unclear to me. 118 The meaning ‘young bird, chick’ is prominent everywhere except JBA and Syriac where the respective terms function as general designations of bird (the same is true of many varieties of Neo-Aramaic). Likely related with metathesis is Tna. faµro, faµru ‘sparrow’. It is tempting to compare the MSA terms with the meaning ‘bastard’ (Mhr. far¶, Jib. fεr¶ and Soq. fórµ) even if the underlying semantic shift is not entirely clear (but cf. the pejorative connotations of pirµaµ in Job 30:12). The verbal root prµ with the meaning ‘to fly’ in Hebrew and Aramaic is probably denominative.

    286

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    3.2. B i r d s o f p r e y It is uncertain whether birds of prey were designated by a special general term in Hebrew but "ayi¢ ‘bird of prey’ (HALOT 816) is a likely candidate (Firmage 1992:1154) because of its relatively wide use (Gen 15:11; Isa 18:6; 46:11; Jer 12:9; Ezek 39:4; Job 28:7) and in view of the fact that it is not mentioned in the dietary prohibitions where concrete species of unclean birds are supposed to be listed. The etymology of "ayi¢ is uncertain and at any rate does not go beyond NWS.119 Hbr. näšär ‘eagle, vulture’ (HALOT 731, TDOT X 77–85), by far the commonest Biblical term for a bird of prey, goes back to *našr-, well attested throughout WS (SED II No. 166: Ugr. nšr, Bib. Arm. n3šar, Syr. nešrā, Arb. nasr-, Hdr. ns1r, Gez. n3sr, Tgr. n3s3r, Tna. n3sri, Mhr. nōh3r, Jib. núšer, nuser, Soq. nóyhir). 120 Among other Hebrew terms belonging to this semantic group, only rāµām, rāµāmā ‘vulture’ (HALOT 1217; in the dietary laws of Lev 11:18; Deut 14:17) goes back to a relatively reliable Common WS prototype *ra¶am- (SED II No. 189: Deir Alla rµm, Arb. ra¶am-, Mhr. r3¶3mūt, Jib. εr¶õt, pl. er¶ūhm).121 Hbr. dā!ā ‘red kite’ (HALOT 207; in the dietary law of Lev 11:14), dayyā ‘unclean bird of prey’ (ibid. 220; in the dietary law of Deut 14:13 as well as in Isa 34:15, frequenting ruins) have immediate cognates in NWS only (Ugr. d!iy, JBA daytā, Syr. daytā, Mnd. dita), although Arb. da!yat- (in the combination !ibnu da!yat attested as a designation of raven) compared in SED II No. 64 is not without interest.122 Hbr. nē´ ‘fal-

    119

    JPA "yy¢ ‘vulture’ (Sok. 403) may be a Hebraism. Ugr. "¢, often compared to the Hebrew term (e. g., Firmage 1992:1154), is semantically obscure: DUL 192 translates this term as ‘kind of fish’ (with references to earlier studies where this interpretation is defended) whereas Bordreuil and Pardee (2001:349–50) prefer to interpret it as a designation of a kind of sacrificial bird. In Baldacci 1994:64 Hbr. "aiy¢ was compared to a-a-tum (= buru4.mušen) in the Ebla lexical lists VE 1370′ and 049 (for an alternative comparison to Hbr. !ayyā v. below). The verb "y¢ ‘to dart greedily’ in 1 Sam 14.32, 15.19 must be denominative. 120 Akk. našru, Hapax Legomenon in a lexical list, is almost certainly a WS borrowing (von Soden 1957–58:393). As far as one can judge from JM 290 and LS 260, the MSA terms can apparently be applied to every big bird. 121 The Arabic and MSA terms denote Egyptian vulture. 122 Note in particular that structurally similar combinations are known from post-Biblical Hebrew and JPA (bän-hădāyā ‘a bird of the hawk species’, br hwdyy ‘an unclean bird’). The verbs with the meaning ‘to fly’ in Ugaritic (d!y) and Hebrew (dā!ā) are probably denominative (in Ugr. cf. also d!iy ‘wing’).

    L. Kogan, Animal Names in Biblical Hebrew…

    287

    con’123 (HALOT 714–5; in the dietary laws of Lev 11:16; Deut 14:15 as well as in Job 39:26) is clearly related to Ugr. n´,124 Jud. na´´ā, nā´ā, n3´ā´ā, ni´3´ā and Syr. ne´´ā whereas other parallels mentioned in SED II No. 168 are somewhat less reliable (Akk. na´na´u ‘a bird’, Arb. na´´at- ‘female sparrow’). Hbr. !ayyā ‘black kite’ (HALOT 39; in the dietary laws of Lev 11:14; Deut 14:13 as well as in Job 28:7) is comparable to Akk. a-IA-úMUŠEN = a-a-[ú] (v. Salonen 1950:407), Ebl. a-a-tum (VE 1370′, 049, = buru4.mušen; Lambert 1989:31),125 Tgr. "aya ‘falcon’, End. ayä ‘kind of bird of prey’ and Arb. yu!yu!‘merlin’ but none of these comparisons is fully reliable (cf. SED II No. 23). A few other terms presumably denoting various kinds of birds of prey have scarce and unreliable cognates or no etymology at all: kōs ‘small owl’ (HALOT 466),126 päräs ‘an unclean bird (a type of vulture)’ (HALOT 969),127 rā!ā ‘red kite’ (HALOT 1161),128 "ozniyyā ‘an unclean bird: sea eagle?; osprey?; black vulture?; bearded vulture?’ (HALOT 810).129 All of 123

    In HALOT 715 a by-form nō´ā ‘falcon’ is postulated for Job 39:13 but this is hardly warranted (nō´ā I ‘feathers’ seems to be a better alternative but every interpretation of this extremely difficult verse is of necessity conjectural). 124 The Ugaritic term is well attested in food-lists where a bird of prey is not expected to be mentioned. In DUL 646 it is supposed that n´ functioned as a general term for wild birds, presumably opposed to "´r ‘poultry’. The denominative verb n´´ ‘to fly’ (!´´ k n´ in KTU 1.117.10) is noteworthy. 125 Cf. also Fronzaroli 2003:103 where the divine attribute LÚ a-a-ti-mi in the Ebla incantation ARET 5 4.10 is interpreted as “he of the hawks”. 126 No reliable etymology (Jud. kōsā ‘night-bird, owl’ is likely a Hebraism). In SED II No. 121 tentatively compared to Akk. kasūsu ‘falcon’. 127 No etymology. Often derived from the verbal root prs ‘to cut, tear’ (e. g., Milgrom 1991:662). In this connection, cf. such Arabic designations of lion as !al-fāris-, !al-farrās-, !al-farūs- (BK 2 569–70) as well as Hrs. ferōs ‘to eat carrion (wolf, hyena)’ (JH 34). Identification with bar-su-um in the Ebla lexical list suggested in Baldacci 1994:64 is impossible. The Eblaite form does not occur alone but rather in combination with šu-ga-ga-bù-um (VE 095, = gír.mušen) or la-ma-núm (VE 0398, = šeg9). As demonstrated in Krebernik 1983:39 and Civil 1984:90, these terms denote “flying scorpion” (Akk. zu£a£īpum muttaprišum) and “flying ant” respectively. 128 This term occurs in Deut 14.13 and, being absent from the corresponding passage of Lev (11.14), is often thought to be a ghost-word (graphic distortion of dā!ā, cf. Milgrom 1991:662). No convincing etymology, for some very tentative comparisons (such as Tna. rawya ‘kind of vulture, falcon, sparrow hawk, kite’) v. SED II No. 187. 129 Possible parallels to this term are extensively discussed in SED II No. 51. On the one hand, there are several semantically comparable terms comprising the element "Vz- but no nasal after or before z: Hbr. pB. "ōz ‘name of a bird, prob. black eagle’, Jud. "uzzā and "uzyā id., Syr. "izyā ‘heron’, Arb. "azīzat- ‘eagle’. On the other hand, cf. Syr. "zn! ‘kind of bird of prey’ (probably a Hebraism) and Arb. "anz- ‘female eagle or vulture’. Finally, it is hard to omit from the present context

    288

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    them are attested exclusively in the dietary prohibitions of Lev 11 and Deut 14 (exceptional is kōs in Ps 102:7, as a desert-dweller). PS designations of birds of prey not reflected in Hebrew are few and mostly not very reliable: *"arw/y-, *"awr- (SED II No. 40: Akk. erû ‘eagle’,130 Jud. "ar, "aryā ‘a bird of prey, perhaps Lammergeyer’, possibly Arb. !a"war-, "uwayr- ‘raven’), *!an(V)£- (SED II No. 6: Arb. !anū£-, Gez. !an£e, !an£et, Amh. anÌ3t), *gVz- (SED II No. 87: Hbr. pB. gaz, Jud. gazzā, Gez. gw3zā, guzā, Amh. gw3za), *γVrVn- (SED II No. 90: Akk. urinnu, Arb. γaran-).131 3.3. R a v e n s Hbr. "ōrēb ‘raven’ (HALOT 879) goes back to PS *γārib-, *γur]b(SED II No. 89: Akk. āribu, ēribu,132 Syr. "ūr3bā, Arb. γurāb-, Mhr. y3γ3ráyb, Jib. !aγ3réb, Soq. !á"reb), one of the most deeply rooted Semitic animal names. It is uncertain whether Syr. £ā"ā and Gez. £wā", Tgr. £3wa" should be traced back to a PS *£ā"- ‘raven’ (SED II No. 127) or we are faced with independent (presumably, onomatopoetic) formations. 3.4. W a d e r s Hbr. µăsīdā, traditionally interpreted as ‘heron, stork’ (HALOT 337; in the dietary prohibitions of Lev 11:19 and Deut 14:18 as well as in Jer 8:7; Zech 5:9; Ps 104:17), has no etymology. Hbr. yanšūp ‘ibis’ (HALOT 417; in the dietary laws of Lev 11:17 and Deut 14:16 as well as in Isa 34:11, inhabiting

    Akk. anzû ‘a mythological creature resembling an eagle’. The Akkadian word is usually regarded as a Sumerism but a more cautious approach to its origin can be found in a few recent studies such as Durand 1987:612–3 and Lambert 1980:81. 130 As already mentioned above, the widely accepted identification of Akk. erû with Hbr. !aryē ‘lion’ and related terms (von Soden 1957–58:393: “der Adler ist der ‘Löwe’ der Luft”) is hardly convincing and should be abandoned in favor of its comparison to Jud. "ar, "aryā, proposed already in Zimmern 1917:51 (cf. Landsberger 1961:15). 131 For a number of alternative etymological interpretations of Akk. urinnu v. Landsberger 1961:15. 132 With an early precedent in Ebla: ¶a-ri-bù, [¶]a-ri-bù-um, g[a-r]í-bù = uga.mušen (VE 295).

    L. Kogan, Animal Names in Biblical Hebrew…

    289

    ruins) is likely related to Akk. enšūpu133 (both are further comparable to Arb. nussāf- ‘kind of long-beaked swallow-like bird’).134 Hebrew does not preserve PS *la£la£- ‘stork’ (SED II No. 146) based on the formal and semantic identity between Akk. la£la££u135 and Arb. la£la£-, la£lā£- (independent onomatopoetic formations supposed already in Zimmern 1917:52 are possible but hard to prove whereas a borrowing from Akkadian into Arabic is precluded by the virtual lack of Aramaic intermediary). PS *kurkiy- (SED II No. 117) is reflected with the meaning ‘crane’ in most of the WS (Jud. kurk3yā, Syr. kurk3yā, Arb. kurkiyy-, Gez. kwarāki, korki) wheras Akk. kurkû apparently denotes a goose (Landsberger 1966). These terms are usually thought to represent a chain of borrowings but the semantic shift from ‘crane’ to ‘goose’ would be rather unusual in this case. Another PS term for crane is *γVrnī£- (SED II No. 91), represented by Akk. urnī£u (¶urnī£u) and Arb. γirnī£-.136 3.5. F o w l s Hbr. £ōrē(!) ‘partridge’ (HALOT 1132; in 1 Sam 26:20 and Jer 17:11) goes back to PS *£āri!- (SED II No. 134: Jud. £ōrē!ā ‘partridge’, Arb. £āriyat- ‘a short-legged bird’, Amh. £w3r3yye, £uriyyä ‘migrating crane’). Hbr. ŝ3lāw ‘quail’ (HALOT 1331, TDOT XIV 135–7) is clearly related to Jud. s3lāw, Syr. salway, Arb. salwā, Soq. šílhi (SED II No. 195) but the correspondences between Hbr. ŝ and Arb. s / Soq. š are irregular and await an explanation. Two relatively widely attested terms for wild fowls are not present in Hebrew: *µagl- (SED II No. 97: Syr. µaglā, Arb. µa³al-, Tgr. µagäl) and *parg- (Hbr. pB. pargīt, Jud. p3rīgā, Syr. parrūgā, Arb. far³-, farrū³-, Tgr. f3rn3g, f3nr3g).

    133

    Hapax Legomenon in a lexical list, identification uncertain. In both AHw. 220 and CAD E 172 enšūpu is tentatively identified with another, better attested bird-name eššebu. Comparison with wa-zi-bù-um (= buru4.til.mušen) in the Ebla lexical list (VE 1369′) suggested in Baldacci 1994:65 is not convincing as ZI in the Ebla syllabary cannot correspond to Hbr. and Akk. š. 134 HALOT 417 also mentions naššāf- ‘bee-eater’, absent from the available dictionaries of Classical Arabic. See further SED II No. 165. 135 Possibly with an early precedent in Ebla: la-a£-la-£ùm in VE 0303 (Sumerian broken) and in the monolingual list (VE 0018). 136 An Akkadism in Arabic suggested in Zimmern 1917:51 does not seem probable in view of the total lack of an Aramaic intermediary. Noteworthy are a few similar Indo-European terms such as Armenian £Ðunk and Ossetic zyrnæg.

    290

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    3.6. D o v e s Hbr. yōnā ‘dove’ (HALOT 402) has immediate cognages in NWS (Ugr. ynt,137 Deir Alla ywn, JPA yawnā, Syr. yawnā, Mnd. iuna) but Amh. wane ‘turtledove’138 can hardly be separated from these terms in spite of its rather divergent shape (for a tentative PS reconstruction *yawn(-at)-, *wānay- v. SED II No. 252). Hbr. tōr ‘turtle-dove’ (HALOT 1710) has no reliable etymology outside Ugr. tr with the same meaning (for a few verу tentative proposals v. SED II No. 229). Hbr. gōzāl ‘turtledove’ (HALOT 182)139 can be traced back to Common CS *gawzal- ‘young dove’ (SED II No. 86: JBA gōzālā, Syr. zūgallā, Arb. ³awzal-). Common CS *´Vl´Vl- ‘(wild) dove’ (SED II No. 211: Hbr. pB. ´ō´āl, JBA ´u´´3lā, Syr. ´ū´3lā, Mnd. ´i´lia, Arb. ´ul´ul-) is not present in Hebrew. 3.7. M i s c e l l a n e o u s A number of Hebrew bird names cannot be attributed to any of the above categories, most often because of their uncertain zoological identification. In most of such cases, the etymological evidence is also scarce and unreliable, or altogether absent. Hbr. sūs ‘swift’ (HALOT 752) has no certain etymology140 (no reflex of PS *sVnūn(Vw)-at- ‘swallow’, reconstructed in SED II No. 197 on the basis of Akk. sinuntu, šinūnūtu, Ugr. snnt,141 Hbr. pB. s3nūnīt, Jud. s3nūnītā, Syr. snūnītā and Arb. sunūnuw-142, is present in the Old Testament). Hbr. d3rōr ‘a kind of bird (swallow?, dove?)’ (HALOT 230; Ps 84:4; Prov 26:2), probably identical to Deir Alla drr, may be further related to Arb. durr-at‘parrot’ (SED II No. 71). Hbr. £ā!āt (£ā!at) ‘an unclean species of bird frequenting ruins and the desert; a type of owl?; scops owl or jackdaw’ 137

    Another early NWS form was detected in a lexical list from Emar (PI-at-tu /yattu/ 555.71′), v. Pentiuc 2001:139. 138 Gez. wānos ‘dove’, Amh. wanos, wanäs ‘pigeon’ must be somehow related but the origin of -s is obscure. 139 In Deut 32:11 this term is applied to a young eagle. As for Gen 15:9, it is hard to deduce from the context whether a young bird is specifically meant. 140 Attested in Isa 38:14; Jer 8:7 (Qere sīs) in combination with "āgūr (v. below). On the very tentative possibility of connecting it with PS *sVnVn(Vw)- ‘swallow’ v. SED II No. 197 (*sVn- > *sVnsVn- > *sVns- > sīs/sūs). 141 The meaning ‘swallow’, universally recognized for the Ugaritic term (DUL 764), is conjectural since snnt occurs only as a divine designation in KTU 1.17 II 27. 142 All WS forms are treated as Akkadisms in Zimmern 1917:51 which is possible but rather hard to prove.

    L. Kogan, Animal Names in Biblical Hebrew…

    291

    (HALOT 1059; in the dietary laws of Lev 11:18 and Deut 14:17 as well as in Isa 34:11; Zeph 2:14 and Ps 102:7, as a desert dweller and inhabiting ruins) is compable to a wide variety of terms tentatively united under *£a!(£a!)- (SED II No. 126). The meaning of Hbr. zarzīr attested in Prov 30.31 is highly uncertain (for a variety of opinions v. HALOT 281) but if it is thought to be a bird designation, it may be compared to Common CS *zVrzVr- ‘starling’ (SED II No. 254: Syr. zarzīrā, zarzūrā, Arb. zurzur-, zurzūr-). Hbr. šālāk ‘an unclean bird’ (HALOT 1530; in the dietary law of Lev 11:17; Deut 14:17) has no clear etymology (cf. SED II No. 203 where it is tentatively compared to Arb. silkānat- ‘chick of partridge’). Hbr. !ănāpā ‘kind of bird (plover or cormorant)’ (HALOT 72; in the dietary law of Lev 11:19; Deut 14:18) is comparable to Akk. anpatu (according to Salonen 1973:120, possibly ‘flamingo’), Deir Alla !nph, Syr. !anpā (SED II No. 7). Hbr. "āgūr ‘short-footed thrush?, swift?, wryneck?’ (HALOT 784), ‘crane?’ (BDB 723, after Saadiah) has no clear etymology.143 No etymology for tinšämät ‘kind of owl?’ (HALOT 1765; in the dietary law of Lev 11:18; Deut 14:16), taµmās ‘an unclean bird’ (HALOT 1717; in the dietary law of Lev 11:16; Deut 14:15), dūkīpat ‘hoopoe’ (HALOT 216; in the dietary law of Lev 11:19; Deut 14:18), Hbr. šaµap ‘a forbidden bird’ (HALOT 1463; in the dietary law of Lev 11:16; Deut 14:15).144 Hbr. tūkī ‘peacock?’ (HALOT 1731) is attested in 1 Kings 10:22 (|| 2 Chr 9:21) among the exotic goods imported by Solomon from Tarshish. No certain etymology, for an attempt to trace it to an Indian source v. Powels 1992:196. A great variety of other, mostly not very reliable, terms for undetermined kinds of birds can be tentatively traced back to different layers of PS reconstruction. Here belong, for example, *sa£āt- (SED II No. 194: Akk. sa£ātu, Tna. šä£wat), *gVmgVm- (SED II No. 78: Akk. gamgammu,

    143 This semantically unclear term is attested twice in the Bible (Isa 38:14; Jer 8:7), each time in combination with sūs/sīs. A similar combination was discovered in the Deir Alla text (I.7: ky ss"gr µrpt nšr, Hackett 1980:47). Both Hebrew and Deir Alla forms were aptly compared by G. Rendsburg (2002) to the bird-name sa-su-ga-lum (= nam.dar.mušen) in the Ebla lexical list (VE 1097). This comparison is most probably correct in spite of the phonological irregularity (SA and SU in Ebla are not expected to correspond to Hebrew s). Comparison between Hbr. "āgūr and Akk. igirû ‘heron’ (Masson 1967:73) mentioned in SED II No. 29 is not very convincing. 144 Jud. šaµpā is most probably a Hebraism. Note išx-a-bù in the lexical list from Ebla (VE 622, = a.gìd.mušen) compared in Baldacci 1994:64.

    292

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    Gez. gumgumā, Tgr. gumguma),145 *sVmVm(-at)- (SED II No. 196: Akk. summu, summatu, Arb. samāmat-). See further the section “Birds” of the semantic index to to SED II on pp. 413–4 of that volume. 3.8. O s t r i c h Traditionally, Hbr. bat-ya"ănā and yā"ēn (HALOT 421) are identified with ostrich although textual support for this interpretation is rather meager (v. Firmage 1992:1158 for a survey of opinions).146 The same identification is often proposed for r3nānīm (‘female ostrich, ostrich-hen’ according to HALOT 1249), Hapax Legomenon in the difficult passage Job 39:13. No etymological parallels for any of the two terms. Peculiarly enough, there is no deeply rooted PS term for ostrich: reflexes of *nV"Vm- (SED II No. 155) do not go beyond Central Semitic (Hbr. pB. no"ŏmīt, JBA na"āmītā, Syr. na"āmā, Arb. na"ām-). 3.9. D o m e s t i c b i r d s ? The only word in the Old Testament traditionally interpreted as a designation of domestic birds is barbūr ‘a bird fattened to be eaten by king Solomon (cuckoo?, goose?, young chicken?)’ (HALOT 154). This term is Hapax Legomenon in 1 Kings 5:3 where “additional” elements of Solomon’s diet are described as !ayyāl ū´3bī w3yaµmūr ūbarbūrīm !ăbūsīm ‘deer, gazelles, roebucks and fattened b.’. This passage does not provide any evidence for the above identification and etymological support for the meaning ‘kind of bird’ is very meager.147 Curiously enough, Biblical Hebrew does not show any trace of the most widely attested Semitic term for a household bird, namely *!Vw(a)z-, *wVz‘goose’ (SED II No. 22: Ugr. !uz, Hbr. pB. !āwāz, JBA !ăwazzā, Syr. wazzā,

    145 Not fully reliable: whereas the Akk. form is thought to be borrowed from Sum. gàm.gàm.mušen (Salonen 1973:166), the Ethiopian terms are treated as Cushitisms in Brockelmann 1950:26. 146 Unclean according to Lev 11:16; Deut 14:15; desert dweller and inhabiting ruins according to Isa 13:21; 34:13; 43:20; Jer 50:39; Job 30:29; “howling” in a simile of mourning in Mic 1:8; cruel to her chicks in Lam 4:3. 147 Cf. SED II No. 61 where Tna. bareto ‘turtledove’ and Amh. baret, bareto ‘pigeon, dove’ are tentatively compared. The Arabic forms !abū burbur ‘cuckoo’ and birbir ‘chick’ mentioned in HALOT are not found in the available dictionaries of Classical Arabic (for their post-classical attestations v. DRS 81, Baranov 1989:63, Badawi–Hinds 1986:60).

    L. Kogan, Animal Names in Biblical Hebrew…

    293

    Arb. !iwazz-, wazz-).148 It does not seem very likely that these terms represent a proto-WS root. A culturally determined chain of borrowings appears more attractive but its eventual source remains unknown.149 4. Amphibians and reptiles 4.1. A m p h i b i a n s Hbr. ´3pardēa" ‘frogs’ (HALOT 1050; as a plague in Ex 7–8 an in the allusions to this event in Ps 78:45; 105:30) has a complicated etymological history extensively treated in SED II No. 1050. Two sets of comparable forms are attested in West Semitic: Common Aramaic *"Vrd"- (< *¹VrdV"-) represented by Jud. !urd3"ā, "urd3"ān, Sam. "rd"n and Syr. !urd3"ā (forms with ! are obviously due to dissimilation) is opposed to *¹VpdV"- which is behind Arb. ¥ifdi"- and Mhr. Í3fdēt.150 It is hard to say whether the Hebrew form represents an original quinqueconsonantal structure (with different reducing strategies in other languages) or contamination of two independent quadriradical roots. Akk. mu´a!!irānu ‘frog’, usually compared to the above terms in scholarly literature (e. g., HALOT 1050), cannot be easily reduced to any of the above prototypes. Two alternative Semitic terms for frog are not reflected in Hebrew: *£Vr- (SED II No. 137: Syr. ya£rūrā, Arb. £irr-, Gez. £ā£er)151 and *£a"£a"(SED II No. 128: Eža £wäÌä, Cha. £wänÌä, Mhr. £ā£āt, Jib. £"á£"át, "a£"á£3t). None of the two reconstructions is very convincing, independent onomatopoetic formations cannot be ruled out.

    148

    A few other terms are phonologically comparable but unclear from the semantic point of view: Akk. wazwazu (Black–al-Rawi 1987:122), Cha. wizänä (also in other Gurage). Akk. ūsu ‘duck’ is usually supposed to be borrowed from Sum. uz but as pointed out already in Landsberger 1966:257, the Sumerian term itself is likely an early Semitism. 149 In this connection, a few other terms for goose, somewhat similar to *!Vw(a)z-, *wVz- but not directly reducible to it, deserve attention: Gez. z3y, Amh. z3yy, Egyptian z.t (cf. also the Akkadian bird name za-a-ú-um in Black–al-Rawi 1987:124). 150 For several types of phonetically deviating forms in MSA as well as in Classical and dialectal Arabic see most recently Frolova 2005:445–6. 151 Cf. also a number of probably related forms augmented with ", prefixed (Syr. "a£rū£ā) or suffixed (Tgr. £or3", Tna. £w3r"o). Also of some interest are modern Ethiopian forms in which prefixed "- is combined with the element -an(prefixed or suffixed): Tgr. !an£or3", Har. an£urāraµti, Sel. 3n£urarit; Gez. £warnana"āt, Amh. £3rnanot.

    294

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    4.2. S n a k e s The main Hebrew term for snake is nāµāš (HALOT 690, TDOT IX 356– 69), immediately comparable to Ugr. nµš (DUL 628).152 There is no scholarly consensus about further etymology of these terms. In my opinion, the most convincing path of diachronic interpretation of nāµāš was suggested by S. Mowinckel, who already in 1963 supposed that the Hebrew term for snake may be related to Akkadian nēšu, the main term for lion in this language (cf. also Pope 1973:179–180). As is well known, the snake is described as nēšu ša £a££ari ‘lion of the Earth’153 in the Gilgamesh epic (XI 314). At first sight, this expression looks like a poetic occasionalism but this is hardly the case in view of a strikingly similar parallel in the Ebla lexical list (na-iš £àr-£á-rí-im in the monolingual list of animals VE 0049).154 Now, the Akk. and Ebl. nominal phrases are almost exact structural counterparts of the principal designation of snake in Geez (!arwe m3dr, literally ‘beast of the earth’),155 whereas in Tigre it is !arwe alone that designates the snake. In view of these facts, the semantic relationship between Akk. nēšu and Hbr. nāµāš can be illustrated by the following table:156 ‘wild beast’ (‘lion?’) *!arway- (Hbr. !aryē, Gez. !arwe) *naµaš- (Akk. nēšu)

    > >

    “beast/lion of the earth” (= ‘snake’) Gez. !arwe m3dr Akk. nēšu ša £a££ari

    ‘snake’ >

    Tgr. !arwe

    >

    Hbr. nāµāš

    Much less convincing is, in my opinion, the widespread equation between Hbr. nāµāš and Arb. µanaš- ‘snake’ (v., e. g., Firmage 1992:1156), implying metathesis and an irregular sibilant correspondence. Similarly unconvincing is the comparison between nāµāš and the Mesopotamian

    152

    The Ugaritic term is attested in the incantations KTU 1.100 and KTU 1.107 and in the divination text 1.103+ but not in other textual types where b¬n is preferred. 153 As convincingly argued in Roudik 2003, £a££aru (and its synonyms in similar nominal phrases) is likely to be understood as ‘the Netherworld’ rather than simply ‘soil, earth’. 154 The same combination must underline na-iš--[ ] (= nin.ki) in VE 0294, v. Sjöberg 1996a:20–1. 155 For a different, though likely related, tradition of applying the wordcombination ‘lion of the earth’ to the chamaeleon v. Sjöberg 1984:222. 156 It must be emphasized that from the phonological point of view Akk. nēšu and Hbr. nāµāš are perfect cognates, which is not the case of the widespread comparison between Akk. nēšu and PS *lay¬- ‘lion’ (v. above, 2.1.1).

    L. Kogan, Animal Names in Biblical Hebrew…

    295

    theonym Ša¶an suggested in Landsberger 1934:61 (cf. Krebernik 1984:330, 333 where Ša¶an’s connection with snakes is put to doubt). The Old Testament inventory of animal names is characterized by a surprisingly rich variety of terms presumably denoting concrete snake species. Among such terms, only !äp"7 ‘a snake’ (HALOT 79) can be traced back to a fully reliable Common WS prototype *!ap"ay/w- (SED II No. 10), which probably denoted a kind of viper (Ugr. !ap", Arb. !af"an, Gez. !af"ot, Tgr. !af"ot, Tna. !af"ut, Amh. 3ffuññ3t, Har. µiffiñ).157 Hbr. pätän ‘horned viper’ (HALOT 990; Deut 32:33; Isa 18:7; Ps 91:13; Job 20:14, 16, deaf according to Ps 58:5)158 may also eventually go back to a very old prototype whose reconstruction, however, is beset with difficulties and can be tentative at best. The obvious similarity between Ugr. b¬n, b¬nt and Arb. ba¬an-159 suggests *ba¬an- as the most ancient form of this root (SED II No. 63), which is supported by ba-ša-nu-um in the monolingual animal list (VE 0031) and an incantation (ARET 5:4) from Ebla160 as well as by the possibility of the reading ‘snake, dragon’ for Hbr. bāšān, otherwise a well-known toponym.161 Unfortunately, neither p- nor -tin Hbr. pätän are exact continuants of *b- and *-¬- of the aforementioned protoform. This irregularity is perhaps the main reason behind the widely accepted opinion according to which the Hebrew form is an Aramaism (cf. Jud. pitnā, Syr. patnā).162 Akk. bašmu ‘a horned serpent’ is cer-

    157

    The form í-pá-ù-um in the Ebla lexical list (= ama.muš, VE 034) may suggest that originally this term was present also in East Semitic. Conversely, Akk. uppūtu (upputtu) is almost certainly unrelated (cf. Farber 1985:215 for the reading uppu¢u ‘blind (snake)’). 158 The text reads pätän µērēš ya!¢ēm !oznō. 159 The Arabic term is conspicuously absent from the traditional lexicographic compendia but is reported by Forskål in his Descriptiones animalium (v. Landsberger 1934:58). 160 While ŠA does unambiguously point to *¬, BA of course can be read as ba or pá and is no witness of the priority of the voiced labial in this root. 161 The pertinent passages are Deut 33:22 and Ps 68:23. 162 See, e. g., Wagner 1966:97 whose arguments do not appear entirely convincing. While -t- in the Aramaic forms regularly continues PS *¬, the intial pmust be explained by a sporadic devoicing of *b in the vicinity of the second radical t. The Old Aramaic form btn ‘serpent’ postulated in Fitzmyer 1995:89 for KAI 222A 32 appears highly problematic already for phonological reasons: PS *¬ cannot yield t in Old Aramaic (for a variety of other interpretations v. DNWSI 1024).

    296

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    tainly related to *ba¬an-, presumably with a shift *n > m conditioned by the first radical b.163 Hbr. š3pīpōn ‘horned viper’ (HALOT 1628; Hapax Legomenon in Gen 49.17) is immediately comparable to Jud. š3pīpōnā ‘a species of serpents, adder’ (possibly a Hebraism), Syr. šappāpā ‘snake’, Arb. siff- id., Tgr. s3f ‘millepede’ (SED II No. 207). In addition, a number of semantically comparable forms with *-b- instead of *-p- are known, united under No. 200 in SED II (Akk. šibbu ‘a snake’, Gyt. sība ‘kind of worm’, Mhr. š3bšīb ‘red waterworm’, Hrs. šebšebēt ‘small red worm, centipede’). A few other designations of snakes are more or less obscure from the etymological point of view. Hbr. £ippōz ‘arrow-snake’ (HALOT 1118; Hapax Legomenon in Isa 34:15, the context does not explicitly suggest a snake designation) can be tentatively compared to Arb. £affāz- ‘kind of snake’164 (cf. SED II No. 133). Hbr. ŝārāp ‘Saraph serpent’ (HALOT 1360; Deut 8:15; Num 21:6, “flying” according to Isa 14:29 and 30:6)165 has been compared to Mhr. ŝrēf ‘millepede’ in Müller 1985:276 (not in JM or Jahn, cf. SED II No. 215). Hbr. ´äpa" ‘a poisonous snake’, ´ip"ōnī ‘a poisonous snake, viper’ (HALOT 1050; Isa 11:8; 14:29; 59:5; Jer 8:17; Prov 23:32) has no transparent etymology but a certain similarity to Arb. ¬a"bān-, ¬u"bat- ‘a large snake’ (BK 1 224) is noteworthy (could the underlying irregularities be explained by tabooizing or similar factors?). Hbr. "akšūb ‘horned viper (or adder)’ (HALOT 824; Hapax Legomenon in Ps 140:4) is etymologicall unclear, the only parallel may be Dem. "kšb ‘viper’ (DNWSI 1262).166 As a designation of mythical snake (dragon) Hebrew uses tannīn ‘seamonster, sea-dragon’ (HALOT 1764, TWAT VIII 715ff.)167 whose reli163

    A reverse process—dissimilation of an original *ba¬am- to ba¬an- cannot be excluded either (cf. Ugr. p"n, Akk. pēnu < PS *pa"m- ‘leg’ in SED I No. 207). Peculiarly enough, ba-ša-mu-um (= ma¶.muš, Fronzaroli 1984b:138) apparently coexists with ba-ša-nu-um (v. above) in Ebla. Sum. ušum must be borrowed from Akkadian (Wiggermann 1992:166), but cf. most recently Sommerfeld 2006:58. 164 Only in Dozy II 391 (for a variant £iffāz-at- v. references in BDB 891). Arb. !al-£awāfiz- ‘frogs’ (BK 2 788) is hardly comparable in view of the semantic difference. 165 The pl. ŝ3rāpīm, denoting some kind of flying divine beings in Isa 6:2 and 6, presumably represents the same lexeme. 166 Cf. Jud. "akš3bōnītā ‘name of a disease, prob. wound from a spider’s bite’ (Ja. 1080). 167 Similarly to Ugaritic b¬n, Hebrew tannīn could apparently be applied to both mythical and real snakes (as in µămat tannīnīm yēnām w3rō(!)š p3tānīm !akzār ‘their wine is the poison of snakes, and the cruel venom of aspids’, Deut 32:33). In Ezek 29:3–6 and 32:2–8 it is thought to denote a crocodile.

    L. Kogan, Animal Names in Biblical Hebrew…

    297

    able cognates are restricted to NWS: Ugr. tnn ‘dragon’,168 Off. Arm. tnyn ‘dragon’, Dem. tnn ‘serpent’, JBA tannīnā ‘sea-monster, crocodile; large snake’, Syr. tannīnā ‘sea monster; dragon, aspid’, Mnd. tanina ‘dragon’ (SED II No. 117). While Arb. tinnīn- ‘enormous snake, dragon’ is clearly an Aramaism, Gez. taman ‘snake, dragon’, Tna. tämän ‘snake’ may be related as cognates although the origin of -m- remains obscure. It does not seem that any snake designation reconstructible to PS was lost in Hebrew. At the same time, two terms for mythical reptiles may be tentatively traced back to PS without being reflected in Hebrew: *!a¬(h)al(SED II No. 20: Syr. !ātalyā ‘dragon’, Mnd. talia ‘fictive dragon causing eclipse’, Tgr. !ashalät ‘dragon’, Tna. !asälät, !ashalät ‘mythical creature of immense size, like a crocodile in appearance; python’)169 and *kVS- (SED II No. 120: Akk. kušû ‘an aquatic animal’,170 Gez. kaysi ‘serpent, dragon’, Tgr. käy3s id.).171 4.3. L i z a r d s Among the Hebrew terms for lizards, ´āb ‘thorn-tailed lizard’ (HALOT 994; in the dietary law of Lev 11:29) appears to be the most deeply rooted one from the etymological point of view, going back to a reliable Common WS prototype *¹abb- (SED II No. 221: Jud. ´abbā, ´ābā ‘a species of lizard’,172 Syr. "abbā ‘garum, lacerta caudiverbera’, Arb. ¥abb- ‘kind of lizard’, Mhr. ¼3bbīt ‘monitor lizard’, Jib. ¾Bb id.). Hbr. µōmä¢ ‘reptile’ (HALOT 328; in the dietary law of Lev 11:30) is comparable to Jud. µum¢ā ‘a lizard’ and Arb. µama¢ī¢- ‘snake’ (SED II No. 99).173 168

    This is a rare word denoting a kind of monster accompanying the sea-god Ym in KTU 1.3 III 40, 1.6 VI 51. Curiously enough, it is this term (rather than the more common b¬n or nµš) that is equated with the standard terms for snake in Akkadian (´ēru) and Sumerian (MUŠ) in the lexical list (where it is vocalized as tuun-na-nu, Huehnergard 1987:185–6). 169 V. SED II No. 20 (discussion section) for the complex problem of the relationship between the aforementioned terms and Akk. attalû ‘eclipse’. 170 According to Cohen 1973, a dangerous carnivore chelonia-turtle. 171 This comparison, proposed in Leslau 1944:56, is not unproblematic in view of the fact that the Akkadian term is usually regarded as borrowed from Sum. kušú. 172 A Hebraism in view of the irregular ´? 173 Akk. ¶ulmittu (¶ulmiddu, ¶ulmi¢¢u) ‘a snake or lizard’ may be ultimately related to these terms although the origin of -l- is obscure (one wonders whether it may be due to the presence of ¶ul in the Sumerian lexical equivalent of ¶ulmittu, which is muš.¶ul “bad snake”). Syr. µulmā¢ā ‘big lizard’ is clearly borrowed from Akkadian.

    298

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    Other Hebrew designations of lizards have only few and/or unreliable parallels: l3¢ā!ā ‘gecko’ (HALOT 528; in the dietary law of Lev 11:30) has no cognates outside Aramaic (Jud. hal¢ātā ‘a species of lizard’, hl¢! ‘young frog’; the origin of h- is obscure); ŝ3māmīt (var. š3māmīt) ‘gecko’ (HALOT 1338; Hapax Legomenon in the difficult passage Prov 30:28, no contextual information for the meaning ‘reptile’) has been tentatively compared in SED II No. 204 to Akk. šammānu ‘a snake’174 and Arb. sāmm- (attested in the combination sāmm- !abra´- ‘kind of large lizard’);175 tinšämät ‘chameleon?’ (HALOT 1765; in the dietary law of Lev 11:30) is usually compared to Akk. tašlamtu ‘kind of lizard’ (Landsberger 1934:118), with metathesis and variation of sonorants; !ănā£ā ‘gecko’ (HALOT 73; in the dietary law of Lev 11:30) is usually equated with Syr. !āma£tā ‘lizard’ but m instead of n in the Syriac form is disturbing; no etymology for kōaµ ‘a species of lizard’ (HALOT 469; in the dietary law of Lev 11:30).176 A few relatively widely attested Semitic terms for lizards are not reflected in Biblical Hebrew: *µVrb- ‘chameleon’ (SED II No. 101: Akk. ¶urbabillu, urbabillu, Arb. µirbā!-),177 *µVrd/¯ān- (SED II No. 102: Hbr. pB. µardōn ‘large Libian lizard’, Jud. µardōnā id., Syr. µardānā ‘agama stellatio’, Arb. µir¯awn-, µirdawn- ‘kind of lizard’, Amh. ar³ano ‘monitor lizard; an aquatic reptile resembling the crocodile, but smaller (Verenus niloticus)’, Har. ar³ūni ‘kind of crocodile’);178 *"VÎāy- (SED II No. 46: Akk. i´´û ‘gecko’, Arb. "iÏāyat-, "aÏā!at- ‘kind of lizard’); 179 *waran/l- (SED II No. 246: Akk. urnu ‘varan’, Syr. yarlā, yallā ‘lizard’,180 Arb. waral- ‘kind of

    174

    Hapax Legomenon in the OB incantation CBS 7005 r. 12, interpreted as ‘oily one, fatty one’ (i. e. < šamnu ‘fat, oil’) by the editor (Finkel 1999:225) 175 V. Aharoni 1938. Jud. s3māmītā ‘spotted lizard’ is likely a Hebraism. 176 JPA kµ ‘name of a lizard’ (Sok. 255) is almost certainly a Hebraism. 177 The striking semantic identity between the Akkadian and Arabic forms makes the corresponding PS reconstruction almost compelling in spite of the formal difficulties (Akk. ¶ vs. Arb. µ, the unclear extension -illu in Akkadian). According to Civil 1984:93 and Sjöberg 1996a:16, ¶ur-ba-um in the Ebla lexical list VE 0293 (= nin.¶ur.ba.um) is to be identified with Arb. µirbā!-. 178 According to Sjöberg 1996a:15–16, the earliest attestation of this root is ¶uda-um in the monolingual list of animals from Ebla (VE 0024). If correct (in spite of ¶ < *µ), this identification assures the priority of *d in the present root. 179 Cf. perhaps Gez. "3¹e ‘vermin, worm, moth, caterpillar’, Tna. "3´ä ‘nits, eggs of lice, larva of bees’, Amh. 3Ì ‘larva’, somewhat remote semantically but still much better compatible with the present root than with *"V¬(V)¬- ‘moth’ to which it is usually compared (v. below, section 6). 180 Also warnā and warrālā, most probably borrowed from Arabic.

    L. Kogan, Animal Names in Biblical Hebrew…

    299

    lizard’,181 Mhr. r3wōl ‘varan’), *pV´γ- ‘gecko’ (Akk. pi´allurru, Mhr. fē´3γ, Jib. f3´γ).182 4.4. T u r t l e No term for turtle is attested in Biblical Hebrew in spite of the fact that two alternative desigtations of this animal can be safely traced back to the relatively deep level of PS reconstruction: *ra££- (SED II No. 190: Akk. ra££u, Syr. ra££ā, Mnd. ri£a, Arb. ra££-) and *šalaµpaw/y-, *šalapµaw/y- (SED II No. 200: Akk. šeleppû,183 Arb. sulaµfā, sulµafā, sulaµfā!-). 5. Fishes As is well known, no general term for fish can be reconstructed for PS. The respective terms of particular Semitic languages are dissimilar and most often obscure from the etymological point of view.184 Hbr. dāg(ā) ‘fish’ (HALOT 213, TDOT III 132–9) is no exception: no cognate to this term is known outside the obviously related Ugr. dg (DUL 267). No designations of concrete species of fish are attested in the Old Testament, and it is most uncertain whether any such term can be traced back to PS. For a few very tentative PS reconstructions of fish names v. SED II No. 125 (JBA k3wārā ‘fish’, Mnd. kauara id., Soq. kúwerhor ‘kind of fish’), No. 27 (Akk. abūtu ‘a fish’, Soq. "āba ‘a carp-like fish’) and, perhaps, No. 145 (Akk. la¶mu ‘a mythical sea-monster’, Arb. lu¶m- ‘shark’, Hrs. lé¶em id., Jib. l¶um id., Soq. léµem id.).185

    181

    The form waran is post-classical (Dozy II 806). This comparison, suggested in Huehnergard 1991:695, is attractive in spite of the formal difficulty (the element -llur- in the Akkadian form remains unexplained). 183 Already in the Ebla lexical list (ša-la-pù-um, = níg.bàd.na), v. Conti 1990:67. 184 No etymology for Arb. samak- and Akk. nūnu (I am inclined to believe that Common Aramaic *nūn- is an early Akkadism). Gez. "āŝā and related Ethiopian terms are borrowed from Cushitic (LGz. 73). For a general discussion of this problem v. Rundgren 1972. 185 Comparison between Akk. la¶mu, Arb. lu¶m- and the MSA forms, suggested already in Fronzaroli 1971:615, went completely unnoticed in the recent debate about the identity of la¶mu which, according to some scholars, denoted a real rather than a mythical aquatic monster at least in the North Mesopotamian area (pro: Guichard 1993, Durand 1993, Durand 1997:344; contra: Cavigneaux 1993, Edzard 1994). 182

    300

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    6. Insects Proto-Semitic seems to possess an extraordinary wide variety of insect names some of wich proved to be remarkably persistent in all or most Semitic languages. Biblical Hebrew is no expection and faithfully preserve nearly all of the basic insect designations of PS. Hebrew insect names with the most solid etymological background include the following terms. Hbr. z3būb ‘flies’ (HALOT 261; “deadly flies” in Eccl 10:1, as a metaphor of Egyptian army in Isa 7:18) goes back to PS *¯Vb(V)b- (SED II No. 73), a virtually pan-Semitic term represented by Akk. zubbu (zumbu, zunbu),186 Jud. dībābā, Syr. dabbābā, debbābā,187 Arb. ¯ubāb-, Gez. z3nb, Tna. z3nbi, Amh. z3mb, Mhr. ¯3bbēt, Jib. ¯3bbCt, Soq. !edbíboh (it is uncertain whether Ugr. ¯bb ‘mythical female being defeated by Anat’ is to be connected with the present root, for a skeptical attitude towards this comparison v. van Soldt 1989:373). Hbr. par"ōš ‘flea’ (HALOT 971; as a token of insignificance in 1 Sam 24:15; 26:20) is immediately comparable to Akk. perša!u, per!āšu (and other variants),188 Syr. purta"nā, Mal. furt"nō, Jud. pur¢a"nā, Tur. fir¢a"no (the latter two forms with a secondary emphatization of t) but Arb. burγū¬- can hardly be separated from these forms in spite of the irregular b-189 (SED II No. 185). Hbr. sās ‘clothes moth’ (HALOT 761; Hapax Legomenon in Isa 51:8, eating wool) < PS *sā/ūs- (SED II No. 198: Akk. sāsu ‘moth’,190 Old Arm. ss id., Jud. sāsā ‘moth; worm’, Syr. sūs3tā ‘genus vermium vitibus infestium’ and sāsā ‘tinea’, Mnd. sasa ‘moth, maggot’, Arb. sūs- ‘moth; worm’, Amh. šuš(š) ‘threadworm, intestinal worm’, Har. sūs ‘moth that eats wood, kind of black ant’).191 186 Perhaps with an early precedent in Ebla (za-ba-bù-um = ninza-bux, VE 0296) as suggested in Civil 1984:85. ZA instead of the expected ŠA is disturbing, however. 187 A reduplicated prototype *¯V¯Vb- (< *¯Vb¯Vb-) is by far more widely attested in Aramaic, represented by such forms as JBA dēd3bā, Mnd. didbia, Tur. didwōno. 188 An early precedent in Ebla is pur-¶a-šúm in the monolingual list of animals VE 0042. 189 In Arabic cf. also barγaš- ‘mitge’. 190 With an early precedent in Ebla (sà-sú-um in the monolingual list of animals VE 0040). 191 Most of the aforementioned terms have been unconvincingly considered Akkadisms in Zimmern 1917:52 (this is especially unlikely in the case of the ū-forms such as Arb. sūs-). The Ethiopian forms are treated as Arabsims in the respective sources which is not easy to prove. For the possibility of interpreting Greek s$s

    L. Kogan, Animal Names in Biblical Hebrew…

    301

    Hbr. "āš ‘clothes moth’ (HALOT 895; Hos 5:12; Ps 39:12; Job 4:19; 27:10, eating cloth in Isa 50:9; 51:8; Job 13:28)192 < *"V¬(V)¬- (SED II No. 45: Akk. ašāšu ‘a moth’, Jud. "āšā ‘moth’, Syr. "aššā ‘flea’, Arb. "u¬¬at- ‘moth’).193 Hbr. n3mālā ‘ant’ (HALOT 701; in Prov 6:6; 30:25, as industrious) < PS *namal- (SED II No. 163: Akk. namalu,194 Syr. n3mālā, Arb. naml-, Mhr. nōmīl, Jib. nīźín, Soq. nímhil). Hbr. !arb7 ‘migratory locusts’ (HALOT 83) < PS *!arbay- (SED II No. 11: Akk. erbu, pl. erbû,195 Ugr. !irby, Old Arm. !rbh,196 Sab. !rby, Mhr. µarbyēt, Jib. !írbCt, Soq. !erbhíyoh).197 ‘moth’ as a Semitism v. Masson 1967:93–4 (skeptical). Gez. ¹ā¹e and related Ethiopian forms are often compared to the present root which is hardly acceptable for phonological reasons (rightly rejected in LGz. 148). 192 It is hardly warranted to postulate a homonymous lexeme "āš ‘pus’ (HALOT 895, Barr 1968:895) for passages like wa!ănī kā"āš l3!äprāyim w3kārā£āb l3bēt y3hūdā ‘I will be like ". for Ephraim and like decay for the house of Judah’ (Hos 5:12). In view of their obvious parallelism with passages like Job 13:28 (w3hū(!) k3rā£āb yibl7 k3bägäd !ăkālō "āš ‘he will disappear like a rotten (garment), like a garment which moth ate’), where the meaning ‘moth’ for "āš is not in doubt, a more traditional approach of BDB 799 seems preferable. 193 Ugr. "¬ mentioned in HALOT 895 is part of the combination t¶´"¬ in the scribal exercise KTU 5.23.7 for which no cogent interpretation can be possible (not listed as a separate lexeme in DUL). Comparison with Gez. "3¹e ‘vermin, worm, moth, caterpillar’, widely accepted in scholarly literature (e. g., HALOT 895), is phonologically problematic and should probably be abandoned. 194 CAD N1 208 is probably correct to treat this term as a West Semitism: while OB attestations are limited to personal names, the well-known passage EA 252:16 (kī namlu tum¶a´u lā ti£abbilu u tanšuku £āti amēli ša yima¶¶ašši ‘when an ant is smitten, does not it fight? and bite the hand of the man who smote it?’) seems to be written almost entirely in Canaanite. The form lamattu ‘ant’ is also considered to be borrowed from WS in both CAD L 67 and AHw. 533, presumably because of the fact that its single attestation is in the Malku lexical list (equated with kulbābu, the standard Akkadian term for ant). It is worth observing, however, that no structurally similar form is attested in any WS language whereas la-ma-núm and la-ma-an are known already from the Ebla lexical lists (the former term is equated to Sum. šeg9 in VE 0398, the latter is attested in the monolingual list VE 0065). 195 The singular form erbum (st. constr. ereb) is not easily compatible with the PS reconstruction with *-y as the fourth consonant. Conversely, consistent plenespellings of the plural form (er-bu-ú/er-bi-i) at least in the early periods do favor such a reconstruction (see further SED II No. 11). For a comprehensive survey of the use of this term in Mari documents v. Lion–Michel 1997. 196 Not in later Aramaic where it is replaced by reflexes of PS *£VmV´- (SED II No. 131), v. below in this section. Cf. also fn. 197. 197 Traditionally, this root is thought to be missing from Arabic and later Aramaic. Howerver, Syr. !arbītā ‘cancer maritimus’ (Brock. 45) and Arb. !irbiyān- ‘lo-

    302

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    Hbr. µargōl ‘kind of locust’ (HALOT 350; Hapax Legomenon in the dietary law of Lev 11:22) < PS *µargal- (SED II No. 103: Akk. ergilu,198 Jud. µargōlā, Syr. µargālā, Arb. µar³alat- ‘swarm of locust’, µar³al-, µar³ūl- ‘kind of locust’).199 A few other Biblical insect names, although somewhat less transparent from the etymological point of view, have enough cognates to make their Common Semitic status fairly certain. Hbr. d3bōrā ‘(wild) honey-bee’ (HALOT 208; Deut 1:44; Judg 14:8; Isa 7:18; Ps 118:12, no explicit evidence about domestication) has a complex etymological background (SED II No. 66). On the one hand, a number of form with *d- are immediately comparable: Jud. d3bōr3yā, dabbārē, Syr. debbōrā, debbortā, Arb. dabr-, dibr- ‘swarm of bees’, dabbūr- ‘bumble-bee’, daybarān- ‘wasp’, Soq. !ídbeher, perhaps Amh. dibwara ‘a yellow fly which afflicts cattle’ (in the combination dibwara z3mb). On the other hand, two other groups of possible cognates can be detected, those with *¯(Hrs. ¯ebēr ‘hornet, fly’)200 and *z- (JBA zibbūrā, Mnd. zimbura, Arb. zanbūr-, zinbār- ‘wasp’, Gez. zanbir).201 No definitive solution for this difficult problem has been proposed so far (cf. Blau 1970:46, Steiner 1982:14): either several alternative by-forms are to be postulated for PS, or one single proto-form (most probably, with *¯-) is supposed to have undergone irregular phonetic developments in a number of languages (for PS *¯ > Hbr. d v. Rabin 1970). custa marina, i. q. ³arādu l-baµri’ (Fr. I 24) can almost certainly be traced to it with a common meaning shift illustrated by Latin locusta and Akk. ereb nāri ‘a crustacean’ (CAD E 289), ereb tâmti ‘shrimp’ (ibid. 290) for which v. Lion–Michel–Noël 2000:55. It is uncertain whether this root is attested in Ethiopian Semitic, cf. perhaps Amh. arabo ‘tick afflicting cattle, small wood-eating worm, chicken louse’, Sod. woraba ‘kind of cockroach’. 198 With an early precedent in Ebla (ir-gi-lum = nam.kur.mušen, VE 1095). It is uncertain whether other somewhat similar Akkadian terms for locust (irgi´u, er¶izzu) are eventually related to this root. 199 For a skeptical attitude towards the Aramaic and Arabic forms v. Sima 2000:32 (but cf. SED II No. 103, discussion section). Sab. "rgl ‘crop scourge (locust swarm?)’ is perhaps related in spite of the phonological irregularity (v. Sima 2000:32 who further compares Arb. "ar³alat- ‘large group of people’). 200 This form is quoted from JH 28 where similar forms from other MSA are mentioned (Mhr. ¯3bēr, Jib. ε¯bir). Needless to say, the Aramaic and Soqotri forms in d- mentioned above can also be alternatively traced back to this prototype. 201 The Arabic form is regarded as an Iranism in Eilers 1971:585, 598 but cf. Steiner 1982:14. The Geez form is considered an Arabism in LGz. 640, perhaps correctly.

    L. Kogan, Animal Names in Biblical Hebrew…

    303

    Hbr. ´ir"ā ‘hornet, wasp’ (HALOT 1056; Ex 23:28; Deut 7.20; Josh 24:12, no contextual evidence for the meaning ‘kind of insect’) has no transparent cognates outside Aramaic (Jud. !ur"ītā, "ar"ītā) but Jib. ¾eré"(a)t ‘spider’ (Bittner 1917:26, not in JJ) likely confirms the underlying prototype *¹Vr"- (SED II No. 223). Hbr. £ärä´ ‘a disturbing insect’ (HALOT 1148; Hapax Legomenon in Jer 46:20, no contextual evidence for the meaning ‘kind of insect’) may go back to PS *£ar´- (SED II No. 138) represented by Jud. £ārō´ā ‘biting insect’, Arb. £āri´- ‘kind of biting insect’, Mhr. £3rō´ ‘mosquito; bug’, Jib. £érC´ ‘bugs; tiny nocturnal flying insects that fly in swarms and sting’. This root is perhaps related to the PS verbal root *£r´ ‘to sting, to nibble’ but independent formations in particular languages do not appear very likely. Hbr. kinnām ‘gnats’ (HALOT 484) has an exact phonological counterpart in the Common MSA term for louse represented by Mhr. k3n3mūt, Hrs. kenemōt, Jib. Äínít (pl. kúnúm), Soq. kónem (SED II No. 116).202 The presence of *-m in both Hebrew and MSA unambiguously suggests its very ancient origin (cf., incidentally, the form k3nimmā ‘vermin, moth’ in post-Biblical Hebrew) which makes one skeptical about the necessity of postulating for Biblical Hebrew the alternative forms kēn and kinnīm (HALOT 483–4).203 It is uncertain whether such terms for louse as Akk. kalmatu, Arb. £aml- and Syr. £almā are ultimately related to the Hebrew and MSA terms: on the one hand, the phonological difference is considerable and warns against such a comparison; on the other hand, it seems somewhat suspicious that the KNM and KLM/ÕLM/ÕML types appear in

    202

    The meaning of the MSA terms, fully agreeing with the evidence from post-Biblical Hebrew and Jewish Aramaic, arouses skepticism about the translation ‘gnat’ for the Biblical term (but note the meaning ‘gnat’ in some NeoAramaic dialects like Telkeppe cīna). 203 The form kēn ‘gnats’ postulated for Num 13:33 and Isa 51:6 (recently accepted in Blenkinsopp 2000b:324–5) does not seem to be truly compelling for any of the two passages. The plural kinnīm is attested in Ex 8:12–14 (where it seems to alternate freely with kinnām) and in Ps 105:31 (one defective spelling KNM in Ex 8:12 is noteworthy). It is tempting to suppose that kinnīm and kēn (if really exists) are secondary back-formations due to misunderstanding of -m as an original part of the stem (as suggested by the MSA evidence above). The same conclusion could be applied to Hbr. pB. kinnā ‘vermin, louse’ and JBA kinnā ‘louse’ but the form kà-na-tù-um (= u¶) in the Ebla lexical list VE 1022 (which can be plausibly normalized as /kannatum/) invites to more cautious approach.

    304

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    complementary distribution (no KLM/ÕLM/ÕML-forms in Hebrew and MSA and, vice versa, no KNM-forms outside these languages). Hbr. "ārōb ‘vermin in general, pests, noxious insects?; a particular type of fly, esp. a horse-fly?’ (HALOT 879; in Ex 8 as a plague as well as in Ps 78:45; 105:31 where this event is mentioned) is clearly related to Syr. "arrūbā ‘gnats’; cf. further Akk. urbatu ‘kind of worm’ (SED II No. 36). Hbr. µāsīl ‘certain stage in the life cycle of locust, or cockroach’ (HALOT 337; 1 Kings 8:37; Isa 33:4; Joel 1:4; 2:25; Ps 78:46; 2 Chr 6:28) has no transparent etymology. An immediate comparison to Ugr. µsn ‘grasshoppers, locusts’, Gez. µasen ‘butterfly’, Tna. µasen ‘winged ant-lion’, Amh. ašän, ašen ‘termites which have wings; small locusts’ (for these forms v. SED II No. 105), widely accepted in scholarly literature (e. g., HALOT 337, DUL 373), is difficult in view of the unexplained l ~ n variation. At the same time, one hesitates to accept the traditional derivation from the verbal root µsl ‘to devour, to destroy’ (attested in Deut 28:38, with hā!arb7 ‘the locust’ as subject).204 It is tempting to agree with Huehnergard 1999:90 who suggests that an original form with -n acquired -l through contamination with the verbal root. Comparison with Arb. µisl- ‘kind of small lizard’ suggested in Sjöberg 1999:537 is problematic from the semantic point of view. Note perhaps Akk. su¶silu compared to Hbr. µāsīl in CAD S 349. Hbr. gōbay ‘swarm of locust’ (HALOT 173; Am 7:1; Nah 3:17), gēbīm ‘swarm’ (ibid. 170; Isa 33:4) are obviously related to JPA gwb, gwbyy ‘locust’ and, almost certainly, also to Arb. ³ābi!- ‘locustae, quod natae properunt e terra’ (Fr. I 238), ³ābin ‘locusta’ (ibid. 242). Cf. perhaps Tna. gwäbib ‘chicken mite’ as well as Akk. [g]i-bu identified with the Hebrew and Arabic terms in Sjöberg 1996b:229 (“probably a locust”).205 See further SED II No. 75 where these forms are tenatively united under PS *gVb- ‘locust’. Hbr. zīz, if it indeed denotes ‘the small creatures that ruin the fields’ in Ps 50:11 and 80:14, as suggested in HALOT 268,206 may be compared 204

    For an early precedent v. ¶a-sí-lu ālānu bēlīya ‘the cities of my lord are destroyed’ in EA 263:13 (Held 1965:398–401). 205 In his studies on the Ebla lexical list, Å. Sjöberg further compared to this root gi-ba-um (= ama.ug9.ga, VE 1058; Sjöberg 1996a:23) and ga-bí-a-nú-um (= nam.ur, VE 1091; Sjöberg 2003:533). 206 This word is attested twice in the combination zīz ŝāday ‘z. of the field’ in Ps 50:11 (yāda"tī kol-"ōp hārīm w3zīz ŝāday "immādī ‘I know every mountain bird and z. of the field is with me’) and Ps 80:14 (y3kars3männā µăzīr miyya"ar w3zīz ŝāday yir"ännā ‘the boar from the forest eats it and z. of the field grazes on it’). The meaning ‘kind of worm, insect’ is hardly compelling for any of the two passages.

    L. Kogan, Animal Names in Biblical Hebrew…

    305

    to Akk. zizānu ‘a locust’, Jud. zīzā ‘name of a mite in lentils’, Arb. zīz‘dragon-fly’, Wol. zizo, Sel. zīzo ‘May bug’ (SED II No. 255). Finally, there is a group of insect names more or less obscure from the etymological point of view: yälä£ ‘locust’ (HALOT 413; Jer 51:14; Joel 1:4; 2:25; Nah 3:15, 16; Ps 105:34), 207 gāzām ‘locust?, caterpillar?’ (HALOT 187; Joel 1:4; 2:25; Am 4:9)208, µāgāb ‘kind of locust’ (HALOT 290; allowed for food according to Lev 11:22, as a token of smallness in Num 13:33 and Isa 40:22, as crops-devourer in 2 Chr 7:13 and Eccl 12:5),209 sol"ām ‘edible locust’ (HALOT 758; Hapax Legomenon in Lev 11:22, allowed for food)210, ´3lā´al ‘cricket’ (HALOT 1031; Hapax Legomenon in Deut 28:42, devouring vegetation).211 Reliable PS reconstructions not reflected in Biblical Hebrew have been notoriously few in all previous sections. Curiously enough, the situation with insect names is different: in spite of the fact that the Old Testament inventory of insect names is by no means a small one, there remain a considerable number of quite solid PS terms unrepresented in Hebrew—one more telling witness of the extraordinary richness of the PS corpus of insect designations. The most reliable reconstructions of this group comprise the following terms: *nūb(-at)- ‘bee’ (SED II No. 156: Akk. nūbtu, Arb. nūb-, Gez. n3hb, 207

    Compared to Akk. il£itu ‘an insect’ (CAD I 88) in Landsberger 1934:130. Comparison with Akk. kisimmu (e. g., HALOT 187) is rather misleading. The Akkadian word is translated as ‘soured milk, casein glue?’ (CAD K 421), ‘ein Kraut’ (AHw. 486) in modern dictionaries and is hardly comparable to the Hebrew word already on semantic grounds (not to speak of two phonological irregularities). What Landsberger 1934:125 really intended to compare was the reading ki-si-im for the Sumerian term DAG+KISIM5×Ú.GÍR, equated to the Akkadian insect name šī¶u in lexical lists (CAD Š2 419). According to Landsberger, ki-si-im may be borrowed from a non-attested Akkadian insect name, in its turn derived from the verb kasāmu ‘to cut’. All in all, it is doubtful that this obscure word may be of any use for the etymology of Hbr. gāzām. 209 Jud. µāgābā ‘hopper, locust’ is likely a Hebraism whereas the translation ‘locust’ for Ugr. µgb in DUL 357 is clearly based on the Hebrew etymology (the term is attested exclusively in the divine designation ršp µgb). 210 Cf. Arb. sil"at-, sila"at- ‘leech’ (Lane 1407)? For a possible relationship to Egyptian snµm v. Takács 1999:311–12. 211 The widely accepted comparison to r-forms like Akk. ´ar´aru (v. below) is difficult to accept for phonological reasons. Tgr. ´3l´3l ‘cricket’ compared to the Hebrew form in Leslau 1958:45 does not appear in LH. Comparison to zu-zu-lu (/´u´´ulu/?) in the monolingual lexical list from Ebla (VE 0043) suggested in Sjöberg 1996a:19 is not impossible in view of the preceding pur-¶a-šúm ‘flea’ and na-bù ‘nit’ but hard to prove conclusively. 208

    306

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    Tgr. n3h3b, Tna. n3hbi, Amh. n3b, Jib. nibbCt),212 *ba££- ‘gnat’ (SED II No. 58: Akk. ba££u, Syr. bā£ā, Arb. ba££-, Hrs. be££ét ‘bug’), *nāb-, *nib(b)‘louse, nit’ (SED II No. 157: Akk. nābu ‘a louse’,213 nēbu ‘eggs of a butterfly’, Jud. nibbā, nābā ‘eggs of lice’, Syr. nābā ‘louse, nit’, Soq. nib(b) ‘nit’), *£aml-, *£alm- ‘louse’ (SED II No. 130; this root is represented by two metathetic variants with an almost equally wide distribution, namely Old Arm. £ml, Arb. £aml-, Sab. £mlt ‘insect pests, locusts?’,214 Gez. £w3māl, Tgr. £ämlät, Tna. £umal, Amh. £3mal, Har. £umāy, Sod. £3mal vs. JBA £alm3tā, Syr. £almā, Sab. £lm, £lmt ‘insect pest, locusts?’, Qat. £lm),215 *´ar´a/ūr- ‘criket’ (SED II No. 213: Akk. ´ar´aru, ´ā´iru,216 Hbr. pB. ´ar´ūr, Jud. ´ar´3rā, Syr. ´ar´ūrā, ´ē´3rā, Arb. ´ar´ar-, ´ur´ur-, ´ur´ūr-), *£V´Vm-, *£VmV´- ‘kind of harmful insect’ (SED II Nos. 131 and 139; similarly to *£aml-, *£alm-, two almost equally well attested metathetic variants for this root are known, represented by Ugr. £´m ‘grasshoppers’, Arb. £a´am- ‘eggs of locust’, £a´ām- ‘locust’, Amh. £3Ìam ‘nit, louse’ on the one hand and Off. Arm. £m´ ‘grasshopper’, JBA £am´ā, £um´ā ‘locust’, Syr. £am´ā id., Arb. £ama´- ‘small insects swarming on the surface of stagnant water; small locusts’, Jib. £ĩ6´ ‘kind of camel bug’).217 212

    This undoubtedly very ancient term has lost its faunal meaning in Canaanite and Ugaritic where it came to denote honey: Ugr. nbt, Hbr. nōpät (*nupt < *nubt), Pho. npt (not fully reliable). 213 With an early precedent in the monolingual list of animals from Ebla (nabù, VE 0041). 214 On the Sab. term see most recently Sima 2000:129–131 (also about £lm, £lmt). 215 Both variants produced verbal roots with the meaning ‘to be infested, putrid’. For *£ml v. Syr. £3mal, Arb. £ml and perhaps Hbr. £ml (HALOT 1108–9, attested in Isa 19:6 and 33:9; the editors of HALOT prefer the translation ‘to become black, blacken’). For *£lm v. Sab. h£lm ‘to be ravaged (land) by insect pests’. It is uncertain whether forms with non-emphatic k in Akkadian (kalmatu) and Aramaic (Jud. kalmā, kalm3tā; perhaps already in the Old Aramaic inscription KAI 222A 31, v. Tawil 1977:60–2) belong to this root; for a skeptical attitude towards this comparison v., e. g., Sima 2000:131. The form GA-ma-tum (= u¶) in the Ebla lexical list (VE 1022) was normalized as /£almatum/ in Fronzaroli 1984a:177, 1984b:141 but as Fronzaroli himself rightly points out, a normalization /kalmatum/ in agreement with the standard Akkadian form is equally possible. 216 The number of early attestations of this term increased considerably due to the new evidence from OB Mari (Lion–Michel 1977). For a possible early precedent in Ebla v. Sjöberg 1996a:22 (´a-´a-ru10-um in the monolingual list of animals VE 0056). 217 Perhaps related to this root are Ethiopian forms for flea with -n- instead of -m- like Gez. £w3n´, Tna. £win´i, Amh. £w3nÌÌa.

    L. Kogan, Animal Names in Biblical Hebrew…

    307

    Many other, somewhat less reliable and/or areal reconstructions belonging to this semantic group can be found in the section “Insects” of the semantic index to SED II (pp. 414–15). Here belong, e. g., *pVl- ‘kind of harmful insect’ (SED II No. 175: Akk. uplu ‘louse’, Jud. palyā ‘name of a locust on palm-trees’, Arb. fāliyat- ‘kind of beetle’),218 *nVµl- ‘swarm of bees’ (SED II No. 160: Hbr. pB. nāµīl ‘bee-hive, the bees of a hive, swarm’, Jud. n3µīl id., Arb. naµl- ‘bees’, Qat. mnµl ‘bee shed, apiary’),219 *nV´Vr- ‘cricket’ (SED II No. 167: Hbr. pB. nē´är, Syr. nā´orā, Tgr. !3n´3rar, Tna. "3nÌ3rar, Amh. 3nÌ3rar, 3nÌ3rarit), 220 *£V¢Vn- ‘kind of harmful insect’ (SED II No. 141: Syr. £e¢¢ōnā ‘bug’, Gez. £w3¢ni ‘louse’, Amh. £ä¢¢3nit ‘kind of insect (praying mantis)’), *dim- ‘kind of insect’ (SED II No. 69: Akk. dimītu ‘a locust’, dimānu ‘an insect’, Arb. dimm-at- ‘louse, ant’), *¶Vnz(Vz)- ‘kind of insect’ (SED II No. 1112: Akk. ¶anzizītu ‘a green winged insect’, Arb. ¶unzuwānat- ‘a fly attacking camels’, Tna. µ3n³i³ ‘kind of beetle’, Amh. 3nz3z, 3nziz ‘beetle’, Sod. 3nzizza ‘May bug’), *sVµ/¶V¢- ‘kind of insect’ (SED II No. 192: Akk. sa¶¢u ‘a locust’, Gez. s3hi¢, s3µi¢ ‘fly’, perhaps Amh. su¢i, šu¢i ‘tapeworm’), *mVšV¢- ‘kind of insect’ (SED II No. 154: Syr. māšo¢ā ‘nonwinged locust; tick’, Gez. m3ŝ3¢ ‘termite, white ant’, Amh. mis¢, m3s¢ id.),221 *mV£- ‘kind of insect’ (SED II No. 150: Akk. mi££ānu, me£i£ānu ‘a louse affecting cloth, animals and people’, Jud. m3£ā£ d-sypwry ‘a book-worm’, Arb. mū£- ‘kind of winged ant’), *mVn(Vn)- ‘kind of insect’ (SED II No. 152: Akk. mūnu ‘caterpillar’,222 Syr. m3nīnā ‘curculio; cynips, musca’, Arb. minanat-, manūnat- ‘spider’),223 *£Vn£Vn- ‘kind of insect or worm’ (SED II No. 132: Akk. £ū£ānu ‘an insect’, JBA £ū£ānā ‘parasitic worm’, Arb. £aw£an‘snail’, Gez. £w3n£w3ne ‘woodworm, moth’, Tgr. £3n£3n ‘wood-fretter, weevil’, Amh. Ì3ÌÌan, Har. £3ñ£iñ ‘earwig’). 218 Clearly related to this term is the verbal root *ply ‘to search (garments), to delouse’: Hbr. pB. pālā, Jud. pallē, Syr. p3lā, Arb. fly, Mhr. f3lō, Jib. félé. 219 This meaning for the Qat. term is put to doubt in Sima 2000:244. 220 The origin of !3-/"3- in the Ethiopian form is unclear. Perhaps to be connected with *´ar´ar- discussed above. 221 Jud. šāmō¢ā, šāmū¢ā ‘name of a species of locusts’ likely belongs to this root with metathesis. 222 For a possible early precedent in Ebla v. mu-núm in the monolingual list of animals (VE 0050), compared in Sjöberg 1996a:22. 223 Cf. perhaps Gez. tomni ‘bedbug’ (prefixation of tV- in an animal name is highly unusual, however). For the possibility of identifying with the present root the Old Aramaic form mn in KAI 222A 30 v. Tawil 1977:60 (note the translation ‘caterpillar’ in DNWSI 647). Cf. also Amh. ammuññ3t ‘earthworm’. In Zimmern 1917:53 Akk. mūnu is thought to borrowed into Syriac as !āmōnā ‘lizard’ which does not look very convincing for both formal and semantic reasons.

    308

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    7. Spiders Hbr. "akkābīš ‘spider’ (HALOT 823; Isa 59:5; Job 8:14; 27:18, every time with reference to spider’s web) has a complex etymological background (SED II No. 33). Jud. "akkōbītā ("akkābītā) suggests *"akkabī¬- as the immediate prototype of the Hebrew word. In view of Arb. "ankab-, Mhr. !ānšct and Jib. "3nÄy6t (pl. "onókub), it is tempting to suppose that *-ī¬- in Hebrew and Aramaic is an extension of a more original quadriconsonantal prototype *"ankab-.224 It is possible (although by no means certain) that an even more primitive form of this root, namely *"a(n)k-, is preserved in Ethiopian Semitic (Tgr. "ako ‘spider’, Tna. "3kkwät ‘a kind of very poisonous wasp’, Gez. "akot ‘small locust, dog-fly, wasp’). Arb. "ukkāš- ‘spider’ is conspicuously similar (can it be analysed as *"unk-āŝ-, with an unclear *-āŝsomehow similar to *-ī¬- in Hebrew and Aramaic)? Conversely, any relationship with Akk. ettūtu is completely excluded for phonological reasons (contra Landsberger 1934:137).225 Reliable cognates to Hbr. "a£rāb ‘scorpion’ (HALOT 875; as a desertdweller in Deut 8:15, personifying enemies Ezek 2:6, designating a kind of scourge in 1 Kings 12:11, 13 || 2 Chr 10:11, 14) are attested in Central Semitic and Ethiopian (SED II No. 31: Ugr. "£rb,226 Old Arm. "£rb, JBA "a£rabbā, Syr. "e££arbā, Arb. "a£rab-, Gez. "a£rab, Tgr. "ar£äb, Tna. "3n£3rbit). Akk. a£rabu, equated to the standard Akkadian term for scorpion (zu£a£īpu) in Malku V 54, must be borrowed from WS (von Soden 1957– 58:393). It is uncertain whether *"a£rab- is reflected in MSA: Jib. "a£réb mentioned in Bittner 1917:16 does not appear in JJ and may be an Arabism whereas Common MSA *£ibīn- (represented by Mhr. £3báyn, Jib. iÅīn) is only remotely similar.227 The only alternative PS designation of spider is reconstructed as *hatatVw/y-at- in SED II No. 94 on the base of Akk. ettūtu (ettītu, uttūtu, atuttu) and Tgr. hatatit (this comparison is not fully reliable since the Tgr. 224

    The well-known Arabic form "ankabūt- is usually thought to be borrowed from Aramaic (Jeffery 1938:217–8), which is not self-evident given the fact that the above-mentioned Jewish Aramaic form has no -n- and is different in vocalism. Mnd. "ankabut and Tgr. "ankäbot are likely Arabisms. 225 Even if a “Spielform” *"ankūt- is postulated, the development *-nk- > -tt- is virtually unconceivable. 226 In the newly published incantation RS 92.2014.5–7 (Pardee 2000:829–33), v. especially Ford 2001. Previously, only the plant name "£rbn, obviously derived from the animal name, was known (DUL 177). 227 So is also Soq. £a"nínhin with respect to both *"a£rab- and *£ibīn-.

    L. Kogan, Animal Names in Biblical Hebrew…

    309

    form is perhaps to be analysed as a descriptive term (“a female spinner”) in view of Arb. htt ‘to spin’ (so DRS 466). 8. Worms Two Hebrew terms for worms have reliable cognates throughout Semitic and likely go back to very ancient PS prototypes: tōlē"ā, tōla"at ‘worm’ (HALOT 1701–2)228 < *tawli"-at- (SED II No. 230: Akk. tūltu,229 Old Arm. twl"h, JBA tōla"tā, Syr. tawl3"ā, Amh. t3l, Har. tulu!, Sod. t3lä, Zwy. tul, Mhr. t3wālōt, Jib. t3b"ClCt, Soq ta"áleh)230 and "ălū£ā ‘leech’ (HALOT 831; Hapax Legomenon in the difficult passage Prov 30:15) < *"ala£-at- (SED II No. 32: Akk. il£u, JPA "al£ā, Syr. "ela£tā, Arb. "ala£at-, Gez. "ala£t, Tgr. "alä£, Tna. "alä£ti, Amh. al£3t, Har. ē£ti, Sod. alä£3t, Mhr. !āw£áyt, Jib. "o£ót). Cognates of Hbr. rimmā ‘maggot’ (HALOT 1241) are somewhat less widespread but still can be reduced to a fairly reliable PS *rimm-at- (SED II No. 191) represented by Akk. rimmatum,231 Deir Alla rmh ‘vermin’, JBA

    228 The obviously related form tōlā" denotes crimson and crimson-dyed materials (tōla"at can also be used with this meaning). 229 A number of non-contracted forms which come especially close to the reconstructed proto-from are known. Here belongs, on the one hand, tu-li-a-tum (< *tawli"at-) in the OB incantation YOS 11 5:10. On the other hand, note tu-il-tum (with orthographic variants) as a designation of a worm-shaped? golden object in the inventories from OB Qatna as well as tu-es-su in the vassal treaties of Asarhaddon (both plausibly identified in Watanabe 1987:201). The latter two forms must go back to a metathetic prototype *taw"ilat- known from Modern South Arabian. The form tú-lá-tum (= nin.lú.u¶) in the Ebla lexical list (VE 0295) has been identified with Akk. tūltu in Sjöberg 2003:561. 230 The term is conspicuously absent from Arabic. It is uncertain whether it is attested in Ugaritic: tl"m in KTU 1.2 IV 4 is interpreted as ‘worms’ by some specialists (de Moor 1971:133) but the reading ‘neck, chest, thorax’ is more popular in recent literature (cf. DUL 869). 231 It was translated as ‘Made?’ in AHw. 986 on the basis of the only passage available to von Soden, namely the OB omen YOS 10 24:37 (šumma … šīrum kīma ri-im-ma-tim šakin ‘if … the flesh looks like r.’) which obviously does not allow for an unambiguous interpretation. According to J.-M. Durand, ri-im-ma-tim in the OB Mari letter A.3080 is to be compared to Arb. rimmat- and translated as ‘ant, termit’ (Durand 1990:106–7). Durand’s interpretation is not accepted in CAD R 358 where rimmatu is translated as ‘an ornament or bead’ and identified with erimmatu ‘eggshaped bead; necklace (of such beads)’ (CAD E 294).

    310

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    rimm3tā ‘maggots, worms’, Syr. remtā id., Arb. rimmat- ‘winged ant’ and ‘old and decayed bones, a used rope’.232 9. Molluscs Hbr. šabb3lūl ‘snail’ (HALOT 1394) is Hapax Legomenon in the highly problematic passage Ps 58:9 (k3mō šabb3lūl tämäs yahălōk ‘like a snail? making its way in the slime?’), the widely accepted translation seems to be based on the evidence of post-Biblical Hebrew and Jewish Aramaic (šablūlā ‘snail without the shell’, tiblālā id.). The latter form suggests *¬ in the prototype but there is hardly any external support for this reconstruction (cf. SED II No. 238 where Akk. šu-ub-la-tum in OB Mari233 and Tgr. šäbläl wäda ‘to walk slowly, by measured steps’ are tentatively compared). 10. Conclusion: Hebrew animal names in their Semitic setting The most general conclusion which can be drawn from the above analysis is that the main structural and material features of the Hebrew faunal vocabulary are in agreement with those reconstructed for PS. This conclusion is not unexpected given the generally conservative nature of the Hebrew lexicon as a whole.234 At the same time, several thousands of years separating Biblical Hebrew (BH) from its PS ancestor brought about some changes. A few very ancient PS/PWS terms have been lost or heavily marginalized, being replaced by other, innovative designations on various stages of the development from PS/PWS to Hebrew (CS, NWS, proto-

    232

    The Ugr. form mrm in KTU 1.12 I 11 has been often interpreted as ‘worms’ (kbdn k!iš t!ikln ¬dn km mrm t£r´n ‘they devour our entrails like fire, they gnaw our chest like worms’ (e. g., Gibson 1977:152). This interpretation is not accepted in DUL 570 where mr ‘young of an animal, cub’ is postulated (presumably borrowed from Akk. mūru, which is not very convincing). Obviously related is the verbal root *rmm ‘to be putrid, in decay’: Hbr. rmm, Arb. rmm, Mhr. r3m, Jib. rimm (Ugr. !irtm in KTU 1.2 IV 3-4 is sometimes interpreted as ‘he was infested with maggot’ but the translation ‘chest’ is more widely accepted, DUL 110). Amh. ram(m)o ‘worm’, rima id. must be borrowed from Cushitic (Dolgopolsky 1973:172; the Cushitic terms, in their turn, are related to the present Semitic root). 233 Probably an insect name (Guichard 1997:320). 234 This question is extensively treated in my article “Lexical Evidence and the Genealogical Position of Ugaritic” in the present volume.

    L. Kogan, Animal Names in Biblical Hebrew…

    311

    Canaanite, proto-Hebrew).235 Concrete aspects of this balance between retention and innovation differ from one semantic group to another. Ho u s e ho ld ma m m als. BH terminology for la rg e ca tt le is rather innovative. PS *la!ay-at-, *lay!-at- ‘cow’, PS *!ar¶- ‘cow, heifer’ are lost, PS *!alp- ‘bull’ is only marginally preserved.236 The only term traceable to the deepest level of PS is thus šōr ‘bull, ox’ < PS *¬awr- (note also b3"īr ‘livestock, cattle’, going back to PS *bV"Vr- for which a narrower meaning ‘bull, large cattle’ should perhaps be postulated). Other terms likely belong to Common CS heritage (bā£ār ‘cattle’ < *ba£ar-, "ēgäl ‘young bull, ox’ < *"igl-, probably also par ‘bull, steer’).237 A specifically Hebrew innovation is m3rī(!) ‘fatted steer’ < PS *mr! ‘to be fat, to fatten’. A wide variety of s ma ll c at tl e designations (no doubt an ancient Semitic feature), is well preserved in BH although its concrete manifestations differ considerably from the earliest PS picture. A few ancient terms left no trace (PS *¬a!(w)-at- ‘ewe’, PWS *¶VrVp- ‘lamb’, PS *"urīÎ- ‘male kid’, PS *"VnV£‘female kid’, PS *lV(!)lV(!)- ‘kid, lamb’) whereas a few others are only rarely attested (rāµēl ‘ewe’ < PS *ra¶il-, ¢āl7 ‘lamb’ < PWS *¢alay-, tayiš ‘he-goat’ < PS *tayš-). Widely used terms with certain or likely ancient background (PS, PWS) are not many: "ēz ‘goat’ < PS *"a/inz-, ´ō(!)n ‘small cattle’ < PS *¹a!n-, käbäŝ ‘young ram’ < PWS *kabŝ-, perhaps "attūd ‘male goat or sheep’ < PS *"at(t)ūd-. PCS heritage is represented by ŝ7 ‘small livestock beast’ < *ŝaw/y-, g3dī ‘kid’ < *gady-. Two terms shared by Ugaritic and, possibly, Akkadian may be of areal nature (!ayil ‘ram’, kar ‘(young) ram’). Hbr. ŝā"īr ‘a goat (buck)’ is a specifically Hebrew innovation (< ŝē"ār ‘hair’). Hbr. ´āpīr ‘billy goat’, attested in late Biblical books only, is an Aramaism. Each of the three Common Semitic terms for do n235 My tentative evaluation of the ancient viz. recent nature of this or that Common Semitic term can be explained by the following, admittedly somewhat impressionistic, considerations. Terms present in Akkadian, more or less widespread in Central Semitic (Canaanite, Aramaic, Arabic, ESA) and attested in Ethiopian and/or MSA are attributed to the earliest levels of PS without much hesitation. The same is true of bilateral Akkadian-Ethiopian and Akkadian-MSA isoglosses, since borrowing and diffusion are practically excluded in such cases. Finally, I attribute to this level—not without hesitation—also those terms which are attested in Akkadian, ubiquitous (or almost so) in Central Semitic but missing from Ethiopian and MSA. Conversely, exclusive Akkadian-Canaanite, AkkadianAramaic and Akkadian-Aramaic-Canaanite isoglosses are usually not treated as PS because of the high risk of areal diffusion. Proto-West Semitic and Proto-Central Semitic lexical strata hardly require special comment. 236 Note that the latter two terms are well attested in Ugaritic. 237 Exact prototype is hard to establish, v. section 1.2 above.

    312

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    k e y (µămōr < PS *µimār-, "ayir ‘male donkey’ < PWS *"ayr-, !ātōn ‘sheass’ < PS *!atān-) are preserved in BH. The main term for ca m el (gāmāl) has clear parallels elsewhere in Semitic but they are unlikely to go back to PS (rather, a spread from an Arabian source is likely). The same is true of bikrā ‘young she-camel’. Three other Semitic designations of camel, also presumably of Arabian origin (*!ibil-, *µVwār-, *nā£-at-), are not attested in BH. The main term for ho r se (sūs), together with the obviously related terms in Akkadian, Ugaritic and Aramaic, is usually thought to go back to an Indo-European source. Conversely, Hbr. pārāš ‘team of horses’ has good chances to be traced to PWS. PS *muhr- ‘foal’ is not preserved in Hebrew. The only Hebrew term for mu le is päräd, probably an areal word shared by Akkadian and Ugaritic. Two other Semitic designations of mule (*baγ/£l- and *kawdan-) are missing from BH. The terms for pig (µăzīr) and do g (käläb) can be traced to PS *¶V(n)zīrand *kalb-, although the reliability of the former reconstruction has often been questioned. Wil d ma m mal s . Reliable PS reconstructions from this semantic group are relatively few. Most of them are well preserved in BH: lābī(!) ‘lioness’ < PS *labV!-, nāmēr ‘leopard’ < PS *namir-, z3!ēb ‘wolf < PS *¯i!b-, šū"āl ‘fox’ < PS *¬V"Vl-, *¬a"lab-, ´ābūa" ‘hyena’ < PS *¹VbV"-, dōb ‘bear’ < PS *dubb-, ´3bī ‘gazelle’ < PS *Îaby(-at)-, !ayyāl ‘deer’ < PS *!ayyal-, yā"ēl ‘ibex’ < PWS *wa"il-, r3!ēm ‘wild bull’ < PS *ri!m-, pärä(!) ‘wild ass’ < PS *par(a)!-, "akbār ‘mouse’ < PS *"akbar-, !arnäbät ‘hare’ < PS *!arnab(-t)-, £ippōd ‘hedgehog’ < PWS *£unpu¯, šāpān ‘hyrax’ < PWS *¬apan-. Only a handful of more or less reliable PS and PWS reconstructions went unrepresented in BH: PS *pa!r- ‘mouse’, PS *yarbV"- ‘jerboa’, PS *bVb(b)- ‘a wild hoofed animal’, PS *na(ya)l- id., PS *!Vnar-, *!Vran‘a small predator (viverra?)’, PS *!a(n)ya´-, *!an´aw/y- ‘weasel’. The main Hebrew term for lion (!aryē, !ărī) goes back to PS *!VrwVy- for which a more general meaning ‘wild animal’ can possibly be reconstructed (the same meaning shift is observed in Aramaic and may therefore be traced to proto-NWS). PCS heritage is represented by layiš ‘lion’ < *lay¬-, gūr, gōr ‘whelp, lion’s cub’ < *gūr-, *gury/w-,238 !ī ‘jackal’ < *!VwVy-, "ōpär ‘young of deer’ *γupr-, yaµmūr ‘roebuck’ < *yaµmūr-, "ārōd ‘wild ass’ < *"ar(ā)d-, µōläd ‘mole’ < *¶uld-. Terms with no certain etymology include designations of lion (šaµal, k3pīr), jackal (!ōaµ, tan), wild cat (´ī), a few wild hoofed animals (zämär ‘kind of gazelle’, t3!ō ‘antelope’, !a££ō ‘wildgoat’, ‘

    238

    A wider distribution of this term (Akk., Ethiopian Semitic) cannot be excluded.

    L. Kogan, Animal Names in Biblical Hebrew…

    313

    dīšōn ‘aurochs’) and bat ("ă¢allēp). Hbr. £ōp ‘monkey’ must be a loanword but its exact source remains somewhat uncertain. Bi r ds . Truly reliable PS/PWS reconstructions of bird names are not many. Most of them are preserved in BH: two general terms for bird (´ippōr < PWS *´Vp(p)Vr-,239 "ōp < PWS *"awp-), the term for chick, brood (!äprōaµ < PWS *par¶-), as well as such special designations as "ōrēb ‘raven’ < PS *γārib-, *γur]b- (perphaps the only bird name safely traceable to the deepest level of Semitic reconstruction), näšär ‘eagle, vulture’ < PWS *našr-, rāµām ‘vulture’ < PWS *ra¶am-. With some hesitation this group can be supplemented by £ōrē(!) ‘partridge’ < PWS *£āri!-, ŝ3lāw ‘quail’ < PWS *SVlw-, yōnā ‘dove’ < PWS *yawn(-at)-, *wānay-, £ā!āt ‘an unclean bird’ < PWS *£a!(£a!)-. More or less reliable PS and PWS bird names lost in Hebrew are very few (PS *la£la£- ‘stork’, PS *γVrnī£‘crane’, PS *sVnūn(Vw)-at- ‘swallow’).240 PCS background can be postulated for gōzāl ‘turtledove’ < *gawzal- ‘young dove’, zarzīr ‘starling?’ < *zVrzVr-, perhaps dā!ā, dayyā ‘unclean bird of prey’. A substantial number of Hebrew bird names have few and/or unreliable parallels or no Semitic etymology at all: kōs ‘small owl’, päräs ‘an unclean bird (a type of vulture)’, rā!ā ‘red kite’, "ozniyyā ‘an unclean bird’, "ayi¢ ‘bird of prey’, µăsīdā ‘heron, stork’, sūs ‘swift’, d3rōr ‘a kind of bird’, "āgūr id., tinšämät ‘kind of owl?’, taµmās ‘an unclean bird’, dūkīpat ‘hoopoe’, šaµap ‘a forbidden bird’, batya"ănā ‘ostrich’, r3nānā id., šālāk ‘an unclean bird’, !ănāpā ‘kind of bird’, yanšūp ‘ibis’, tōr ‘turtle-dove’. Hbr. tūkī ‘peacock?’ is thought to be a borrowing from an Indian source. Am p hi b ia ns a n d re p t il es. This segment of the faunal vocabulary seems to have been poorly represented in PS. Accordingly, very few Hebrew terms from this semantic group go back to reliable and deeply rooted PS/PWS prototypes: ´3pardēa" ‘frog’ < PWS *¹VpVrdV"-, !äp"7 ‘a snake’ < PWS *!ap"ay/w-, pätän ‘horned viper’ < PWS *ba¬(a)n-,241 š3pīpōn id. < PWS *šVpp-, ´āb ‘thorn-tailed lizard’ < PWS *¹abb-, µōmä¢ ‘reptile’ < PWS *µVmV¢-.242 The most transparent losses with respect to PS are two terms for turtle (*ra££- and *šalaµpaw/y-) as well as a few designations of lizards (*µVrb-, *"VÎāy-, *waran/l-). The main Hebrew term 239

    The Akkadian evidence for this reconstruction is not entirely reliable. The absence of *!Vw(a)z-, *wVz- ‘goose’ and *kurkiy- ‘crane?’ is noteworthy (in both cases we are most probably faced with chains of borrowings rather than with reliable PS reconstructions). 241 Comparison with Akk. bašmu suggests a more deeply rooted prototype. 242 PS if Akk. ¶ulmittu is related. 240

    314

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    for snake (nāµāš) is likely a result of an interesting semantic development of PS *naµaš- ‘wild animal, lion’ (shared by Ugaritic). Most of the snake and lizard designations are obscure from the etymological point of view: £ippōz ‘arrow-snake’, ŝārāp ‘Saraph serpent’, ´äpa", ´ip"ōnī ‘a poisonous snake, viper’, "akšūb ‘horned viper (or adder)’, l3¢ā!ā ‘gecko’, ŝ3māmīt (var. š3māmīt) ‘gecko’, tinšämät ‘chameleon?’, !ănā£ā ‘gecko’, kōaµ ‘a species of lizard’. Fis h es . There is virtually no Common Semitic term for fish. The etymological background of Hebrew dāg is totally obscure. I ns e ct s . The wide variety of well-defined insect designations of PS is inherited by BH almost in its entirety: z3būb ‘fly’ < PS *¯Vb(V)b-, par"ōš ‘flea’ < PS *pVrγV¬-, sās ‘clothes moth’ < PS *sā/ūs-, "āš id. < PS *"V¬(V)¬-, n3mālā ‘ant’ < PWS *namal-,243 !arb7 ‘migratory locusts’ < PS *!arbay-, µargōl ‘kind of locust’ < PS *µargal-. The most transparent losses with respect to PS and PWS are PS *nūb(-at)- ‘bee’,244 PS *ba££- ‘gnat’, PS *nāb-, *nib(b)- ‘louse, nit’, PWS *£aml-, *£alm- ‘louse’, PS *´ar´a/ūr- ‘criket’, PWS *£V´Vm-, *£VmV´- ‘kind of harmful insect’. For some of the Hebrew insect names, WS (more rarely, Akkadian) cognates are somewhat sparse but still reliable enough to trace these terms, too, to relatively deep PS/PWS prototypes: d3bōrā ‘bee’ < PWS *dVb(V)r-, ´ir"ā ‘hornet, wasp’ < PWS *¹Vr"-, £ärä´ ‘a disturbing insect’ < PWS *£ar´-, kinnām ‘gnats’ < PWS *kVnVm-, "ārōb ‘vermin, noxious insects’ < PS *"Vr(V)b-, µāsīl ‘kind of locust’ < PWS *µVsVn-, gōbay, gēbīm ‘swarm of locusts’ < PS *gVb-, zīz ‘an insect pest?’ < PS *zīz-. Finally, there is a group of insect names more or less obscure from the etymological point of view: yälä£ ‘locust’, gāzām ‘locust?, caterpillar?’, µāgāb ‘kind of locust’, sol"ām ‘edible locust’, ´3lā´al ‘cricket’. S pi d e rs . Hbr. "akkābīš ‘spider’ and "a£rāb ‘scorpion’ go back to PWS *"ankab- and *"a£rab- respectively. Wo r ms a n d mo l l us cs. Two Hebrew terms for worms go back to very ancient PS prototypes: tōlē"ā, tōla"at ‘worm’ < *tawli"-at- and "ălū£ā ‘leech’ < *"ala£-at-. Hbr. rimmā ‘maggot’ can also be traced back to a fairly reliable PS *rimm-at-. It is uncertain whether Hbr. šabb3lūl actually means ‘snail’ but if it does, the etymoloigcal background for this translation is meager.

    243 It is uncertain whether this root is present as a genuine lexeme in Akkadian. 244 Preserved as nōpät ‘honey’.

    L. Kogan, Animal Names in Biblical Hebrew…

    315

    Abbreviations of languages and dialects Akk. – Akkadian, Amh. – Amharic, Amn. – Ammonite, Arb. – Arabic, Arm. – Aramaic, Bib. – Biblical Aramaic, Cha. – Chaha, CS – Central Semitic, Dem. – Demotic Aramaic, End. – Endegeñ, Enm. – Ennemor, ESA – Epigraphic South Arabian, Eth. – Ethiopian Semitic, Gaf. – Gafat, Gez. – Geez, Gog. – Gogot, Gyt. – Gyeto, Har. – Harari, Hbr. – Hebrew (pB – post-Biblical), Hdr. – Hadramitic, Hrs. – Harsusi, JBA – Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, Jib. – Jibbali, JPA – Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, Jud. – Judaic Aramaic, Mal. – Neo-Aramaic of Ma"lula, MA – Middle Assyrian, Mhr. – Mehri, Mnd. – Mandaic, Min. – Minaean, MSA – Modern South Arabian, Muh. – Muher, NA – Neo-Assyrian, NWS – North West Semitic, OA – Old Assyrian, OB – Old Babylonian, Off. – Official Aramaic, Pho. – Phoenician, Plm. – Palmyrean, PS – Proto-Semitic, Qat. – Qatabanian, Sab. – Sabaic, SB – Standard Babylonian, Sel. – Selti, Sml. – Samalian, Sod. – Soddo, Soq. – Soqotri, Syr. – Syriac, Tgr. – Tigre, Tna. – Tigrinya, Tur. – Neo-Aramaic of Turoyo, Ugr. – Ugaritic, Wol. – Wolane, WS – West Semitic, Zwy. – Zway.

    References Aartun 1983 Aharoni 1936 Aharoni 1938 Badawi–Hinds 1986 Baldacci 1994 Baranov 1989 Barnett 1982 Barr 1968 Beyse 2003 Bittner 1917 Black–al-Rawi 1987 Blau 1970 Blenkinsopp 2000a Blenkinsopp 2000b Bonechi–Conti 1992 Bordreuil–Pardee 2001

    Aartun, K. Zur Erklärung des ugaritischen Ausdrucks !inr. UF 15:1–5. Aharoni, I. On Some Animals Mentioned in the Bible. Osiris 5:461–78. Aharoni, I. Note de zoologie biblique. RB 48:554–6. Badawi, E.; Hinds, M. E. A Dictionary of Egyptian Arabic. Beirut. Baldacci, M. Some Eblaite Bird Names and Biblical Hebrew. WO 25:57–65. Baranov, H. K. Arabsko-russkij slovar’. Moscow (An ArabicRussian Dictionary). Barnett, R. Ancient Ivories in the Middle East and Adjacent Countries. Jerusalem. Barr, J. Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament. Oxford. Beyse, K.-M. par, pārâ. TDOT XII:66–72. Bittner, M. Studien zur Š¶auri-Sprache. IV. Wien. Black, J.; al-Rawi, F. A Contribution to the Study of Akkadian Bird Names. ZA 77:117–126. Blau, J. On Pseudo-Corrections in Some Semitic Languages. Jerusalem. Blenkinsopp, J. Isaaiah 1–39. New York. Blenkinsopp, J. Isaiah 40–55. New York. Bonechi, M.; Conti, G. tīšānum éblaite = akkadien de Mari tīšānum. NABU 1992/11. Bordreuil, P.; Pardee, D. Textes alphabétiques en ougaritique. Études ougaritiques. I. Travaux 1985–1995 (RSOu XIV). Paris. Pp. 341–92, 411–14.

    316

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    Brockelmann 1950 Buck 1949

    Brockelmann, C. Abessinische Studien. Berlin. Buck, C. D. A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages. Chicago. Cavigneaux, A. Des crocodiles dans l’Euphrate. NABU 1993/101. Civil, M. Notes on Sumerian Lexicography, I. JCS 20: 119–24. Civil, M. Bilingualism in Logographically Written Languages: Sumerian in Ebla. Il bilinguismo a Ebla. Napoli. Pp. 75–97. Cohen, M. The Identification of the Kušu. JCS 25:203– 210. Collon, D. Ivory. Iraq 39:219–22. Conti, G. Il sillabario della quarta fonte della lista lessicale bilingue eblaita. Firenze. de Moor, J. The Seasonal Pattern in the Ugaritic Myth of Ba"lu. Neukirchen-Vluyn. Dolgopolsky, A. B. Sravnitel’no-istoričeskaja fonetika kušitskih jazykov. Moscow (Comparative-Historical Phonology of Cushitic). Driver, G. R. Birds in the Old Testament. I. Birds in Law. PEQ 87:5–20. Durand, J.-M. Differents questions à propos de la religion. MARI 5:611–15. Durand, J.-M. “Hittite” tišanuš = mariote tišânum. NABU 1988/15. Durand, J.-M. Fourmis blanches et fourmis noires. Contribution à l’étude de l’Iran. (Fs. J. Perrot). Paris. Pp. 101–8. Durand, J.-M. Alas, Poor Lorelei! NABU 1993/117. Durand, J.-M. Les documents épistolaires du palais de Mari. T. I. Paris. Edzard, D. O. Encore sur le la¶mu. NABU 1994/7. Eilers, W. Iranisches Lehngut im Arabischen. Actas do IV Congresso de Estudos Árabes e Islâmicos (Coimbra–Lisboa, 1 a 8 de setembro de 1968). Leiden. Pp. 581–659. Farber, W. Akkadisch “Blind”. ZA 75:210–233. Finkel, I. On Some Dog, Snake and Scorpion Incantations. Mesopotamian Magic. Textual, Historical and Interpretative Perspectives. Groningen. Pp. 213–50. Firmage, E. Zoology. ABD VI:1109–67. Fitzmyer, J. A. The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire. Rome. Ford, J. N. The Verb t£nn in RS 1992.2014. UF 33:201–12. Frolova, T. Glottalized Sibilant Í in Modern South Arabian Languages and Its Etymological Perspective. B&B 2:429–55. Fronzaroli, P. Studi sul lessico commune semitico. V. La natura selvatica. ANLR VIII/XXIII/7–12:287–303.

    Cavigneaux 1993 Civil 1966 Civil 1984 Cohen 1973 Collon 1977 Conti 1990 de Moor 1971 Dolgopolsky 1973 Driver 1955 Durand 1987 Durand 1988 Durand 1990 Durand 1993 Durand 1997 Edzard 1994 Eilers 1971 Farber 1985 Finkel 1999 Firmage 1992 Fitzmyer 1995 Ford 2001 Frolova 2005 Fronzaroli 1968

    L. Kogan, Animal Names in Biblical Hebrew… Fronzaroli 1971 Fronzaroli 1984a Fronzaroli 1984b Fronzaroli 2003 Gamkrelidze–Ivanov 1984 Gibson 1977 Goetze 1962 Guichard 1993 Guichard 1997 Hackett 1980 Held 1965 Hommel 1879 Huehnergard 1987 Huehnergard 1991 Huehnergard 1992 Huehnergard 1999 Jahn 1902 Jeffery 1938 Kaufman 1974 Klein 1979 Kogan 2006 Kopf 1958 Krebernik 1983

    317

    Fronzaroli, P. Studi sul lessico commune semitico. VII. L’alimentazione. ANLR VIII/XXVI/7–12:603–43. Fronzaroli, P. Materiali per il lessico eblaita, 1. StEb 7: 145–90. Fronzaroli, P. The Eblaic Lexicon: Problems and Appraisal. QuSem 13:117–57. Fronzaroli, P. The Hail Incantation (ARET 5, 4). Festschrift für Burkhart Kienast (AOAT 274). Münster. Pp. 89–107. Gamkrelidze, T.; Ivanov, V. Indoevropejskij jazyk i indoevropejcy. Tbilisi (Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans). Gibson, J. Canaanite Myths and Legends. Edinburgh. Goetze, A. Review of A. Kammenhuber, Hippologia Hethitica (Wiesbaden, 1961). JCS 16:30–35. Guichard, M. Les “lahmû” de Mari. NABU 1993/118. Guichard, M. Présages fortuites à Mari. MARI 8:305–28. Hackett, J. A. The Balaam Text from Deir "Allā. Chico. Held, M. Studies in Comparative Semitic Lexicography. Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger. Chicago. Pp. 395–406. Hommel, F. Die Namen der Säugethiere bei der südsemitischen Völkern. Leipzig. Huehnergard, J. Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription. Atlanta. Huehnergard, J. Further South Semitic Cognates to the Akkadian Lexicon. Semitic Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau, on the Occasion of his 85th Birthday. Wiesbaden. Pp. 690–713. Huehnergard, J. Historical Phonology and the Hebrew Piel. Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew. Winona Lake. Pp. 209–29. Huehnergard, J. On the Etymology and Meaning of Hebrew nābî!. EI 26:88–93. Jahn, A. Die Mehri-Sprache in Südarabien. Texte und Wörterbuch. Wien. Jeffery, A. The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur!ān. Baroda. Kaufman, S. The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic. Chicago–London. Klein, J. The Reading and Pronunciation of the Sumerian Word for “Monkey”. JCS 31:149–60. Kogan, L. Old Assyrian vs. Old Babylonian: the Lexical Dimension. The Akkadian Language in Its Semitic Context. Leiden. Pp. 177–214. Kopf, L. Arabische Etymologien und Parallelen zum Bibelwörterbuch. VT 8:133–187. Krebernik, M. Zu Syllabar und Orthographie der lexikalischen Texte aus Ebla. T. 2 (Glossar). ZA 73:1–47.

    318

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    Krebernik 1984

    Krebernik, M. Die Beschwörungen aus Fara und Ebla: Untersuchungen zur ältesten keilschriftlichen Beschwörungsliteratur. Hildesheim–Zürich–New York. Krebernik, M. Tall Bi"a/Tuttul. II. Die altorientalische Schriftfunde. Saarbrücken. Krebernik, M. Lexikalisches aus Tuttul. Semitic und Assyriological Studies Presented to P. Fronzaroli by Pupils and Colleagues. Wiesbaden. Pp. 301–19. Lambert, W. G. New Fragments of Babylonian Epics. AfO 27:71–82. Lambert, W. G. Notes on a Work of the Most Ancient Semitic Literature. JCS 41:1–33. Landsberger, B. Die Fauna des Alten Mesopotamien. Leipzig. Landsberger, B. Einige unerkannt gebliebene oder verkannte Nomina des Akkadischen. Anzû = “(mythischer) Riesenvogel (Adler)”. WZKM 57:1–23. Landsberger, B. Einige unerkannt gebliebene oder verkannte Nomina des Akkadischen. Kurkû “Gans”. WO 3:246–68. Leslau, W. Vocabulary Common to Akkadian and SouthEast Semitic (Ethiopic and South-Arabic). JAOS 89:18–22. Leslau, W. Ethiopic and South Arabic Contributions to the Hebrew Lexicon. Berkeley–Los Angeles. Leslau, W. Arabic Loanwords in Ethiopian Semitic. Wiesbaden. Lion, B. Bêtes rares. NABU 1991/60. Lion, B. La circulation des animaux exotiques au ProcheOrient antique. La circulaiton des biens, des personnes et des ideées dans le Proche-Orient ancien (CRRAI 38). Paris. Pp. 357–65. Lion, B.; Michel, C. Criquets et autres insectes à Mari. MARI 8:707–724.

    Krebernik 2001 Krebernik 2003 Lambert 1980 Lambert 1989 Landsberger 1934 Landsberger 1961 Landsberger 1966 Leslau 1944 Leslau 1958 Leslau 1990 Lion 1991 Lion 1992

    Lion–Michel 1997 Lion–Michel–Noël 2000 Lonnet 1991 Löw 1969 Masson 1967 Michel 2001 Milgrom 1991 Mowinckel 1963 Müller 1985

    Lion, B.; Michel, C.; Noël, P. Les crevettes dans la documentation du Proche-Orient ancien. JCS 52:55–60. Lonnet, A. La découverte du sudarabique moderne: le eµkili de Fresnel (1838). Matériaux Arabes et Sudarabiques (nouvelle série) 3:15–89. Löw, I. Fauna und Mineralien der Juden. Hildesheim. Masson, E. Recherches sur les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques en grec. Paris. Michel, C. Correspondance des marchands de Kanish. Paris. Milgrom, J. Leviticus 1–16. New York. Mowinckel, S. šaµal. Hebrew and Semitic Studies presented to G. R. Driver. Oxford. Pp. 94–103. Müller, W. W. Beitrage aus dem Mehri zum etymologischer Teil des hebräischer Lexikon. Mélanges linguistiques offerts à Maxime Rodinson. Paris. Pp. 267–78.

    L. Kogan, Animal Names in Biblical Hebrew… Naumkin– Porkhomovsky 1981 Nöldeke 1879 Pardee 2000 Pentiuc 2001 Péter 1975 Pope 1973 Powels 1992 Rabin 1970 Rendsburg 2002 Riede 2002 Roudik 2003 Rundgren 1970 Rundgren 1972 Salonen 1950 Salonen 1955 Salonen 1970 Salonen 1973 Salonen 1976 Sima 2000 Sjöberg 1984 Sjöberg 1996a Sjöberg 1996b Sjöberg 1999

    319

    Naumkin, V.; Porkhomovsky, V. Očerki po etnolingvistike Sokotry. Moscow (Essays in Ethnolinguistics of Soqotra). Nöldeke, T. Review of F. Hommel, Die Namen der Säugethiere bei der südsemitischen Völkern (Leipzig, 1879). Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen 1879. Pp. 1254–74. Pardee, D. Les textes rituels (RSOu XII). Paris. Pentiuc, E. West Semitic Vocabulary in the Akkadian Texts from Emar. Winona Lake. Péter, R. Par et šōr. Note de lexicographie hébraique. VT 25:486–496. Pope, M. Job. New York. Powels, S. Indische Lehnwörter in der Bibel. ZAH 31: 186–200. Rabin, H. La correspondance d hébreu — ¯ arabe. Mélanges Marcel Cohen. The Hague–Paris. Pp. 290–97. Rendsburg, G. Eblaite sa-su-ga-lum = Hebrew ss"gr. Eblaitica 4:151–53. Riede, P. Im Spiegel der Tiere. Freiburg–Göttingen. Roudik, N. alap er´etim and nēšu ša £a££ari: Animals of the Ground or Beasts of the Netherworld? Studia Semitica (Fs. A. Militarev). Moscow. Pp. 378–88. Rundgren, F. Arabisches xarīf- “Herbst” und xarūf“Lamm”. OrSu 18:137–41. Rundgren, F. Der Fisch im Semitischen. Ex orbe religionum. Studia Geo Widengren XXIV mense apr. MCMLXXII oblata ab collegis, discipulis, amicis. Leiden. Pp. 72–80. Salonen, A. Akkadian Lexicography. Or 19:404–7. Salonen, A. Hippologica Accadica. Helsinki. Salonen, A. Die Fischerei im Alten Mesopotamien. Helsinki. Salonen, A. Vögel und Vögelfang im Alten Mesopotamien. Helsinki. Salonen, A. Jagd und Jagdtiere im Alten Mesopotamien. Helsinki. Sima, A. Tiere, Pflanzen, Steine und Metalle in den altsüdarabischen Inschriften. Wiesbaden. Sjöberg, Å. Eve and the Chamaeleon. In the Shelter of Elyon. Fs. G. Ahlström. Sheffield. Pp. 217–25. Sjöberg, Å. The Ebla List of Animals MEE 4, no. 116. WO 27:9–24. Sjöberg, Å. UET 7 no. 93. A Lexical List or a Commentary? ZA 86:220–37. Sjöberg, Å. Notes on Selected Entries from the Ebla Vocabulary eš2-bar-kin5 (II). Minuscula Mesopotamica. (Fs. J. Renger). Münster. Pp. 513–52.

    320

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    Sjöberg 2003

    Sjöberg, Å. Notes on Selected Entries from the Ebla Vocabulary eš2-bar-kin5 (I). Festschrift für Burkhart Kienast (AOAT 274). Münster. Pp. 527–68. Sommerfeld, W. Die Ältesten Semitischen Sprachzeugnisse – eine Kritische Bestandsaufname. The Akkadian Language in Its Semitic Context. Leiden. Pp. 30–75. Steiner, R. The Case for Fricative-Laterals in Proto-Semitic. New Haven. Steiner, R. Review of T. M. Johnstone, Ñarsūsi Lexicon (London, 1977). AAL 8:9–20. Stol, M. Old Babylonian Cattle. BSA 8:173–213. Streck, M. P. Das amurritische Onomastikon der altbabylonischen Zeit. Band 1. Münster. Takács, G. Etymological Dictionary of Egyptian. Vol. One. A Philological Introduction. Leiden–Boston–Köln. Tawil, H. A Curse Concerning Crop-Consuming Insects in the Sefire Treaty and in Akkadian: A New Interpretation. BASOR 225:59–62. Tropper, J. Ugaritische Grammatik. Münster. van Soldt, W. H. The Ugaritic Word for ‘fly’. UF 21: 369–73. Veenhof, K. Aspects of Old Assyrian Trade and Its Terminology. Leiden. von Soden, W. Aqrabu und našru. AfO 18:393. Wagner, M. Die Lexikalischen und grammaticalischen Aramäismen im alttestamentlichen Hebräisch. Berlin. Watanabe, K. Die adê-Vereidigung anläßlich der Thronfolgeregelung Asarhaddons. Berlin. Wiggermann, F. A. M. Mesopotamian Protective Spirits. The Ritual Texts. Groningen. Zadok, R. On the Names of Two Animals. NABU 1992/58. Zadok, R. On the Amorite Material from Mesopotamia. The Tablet and the Scroll (Fs. W. Hallo). Bethesda. Pp. 315–33. Zimmern, H. Akkadische Fremdwörter als Beweis für babylonischen Kultureinfluss. Leipzig.

    Sommerfeld 2006 Steiner 1977 Steiner 1982 Stol 1995 Streck 2000 Takács 1999 Tawil 1977 Tropper 2000 van Soldt 1989 Veenhof 1972 von Soden 1957–58 Wagner 1966 Watanabe 1987 Wiggermann 1992 Zadok 1992 Zadok 1993 Zimmern 1917

    Son of God as Son of David: Luke’s Attempt to Biblicize a Problematic Notion* Serge Ruzer The Hebrew University, Jerusalem

    This study addresses New Testament material against the backdrop of the “son of God” title appearing in biblical and Second Temple Jewish traditions; the first section represents a brief review of those early patterns. Although the influence of contemporaneous Greco-Roman usages of the “son of God” appellation on some New Testament authors and their audience cannot be excluded, the chosen direction of investigation is justified by a number of scholars having demonstrated that the roots of the early Christian notion of Jesus’ divine sonship should not be looked for outside first-century Judaism. It will be seen that this general appraisal concerning early Christian usage of “son of God” is especially valid in the case of Luke and Acts, which constitute the focus of the present discussion. Biblical and Second Temple background Biblical evidence may be conveniently divided into plural and singular usages of the title; a few representative examples will suffice here. “Sons of God” (plural) is found in Gen 6:1–4, as well as in Job 1:6–12;1 the supposed background of these and related examples in Near Eastern mythology have been thoroughly discussed in the research.2 Unlike the * Earlier version of this paper was presented at the Symposium on Scripture as Interpretative and Interpreted Text: Hebrew Bible, New Testament and Beyond, held at Centrum Orbis Orientalis, Göttingen (June 29–July 2, 2006). 1 See also Job 38:7; Ps 29:1; 89:7; Deut 32:8 (according to 4QDeutj , cf. LXX; I am grateful to S. Tishchenko who drew my attention to this important instance). Cf. Ps 82:1 where the appellation is simply “gods”. 2 E. g., Hittite (Hurrian) and Ugaritic as well as more distant Greek and Phoenician parallels have been mentioned in relation to Gen 6:1–4 (Speiser 1964:44–46). The imagery used here was additionally defined as connected to the “class of divine beings common in religious texts of Canaan” (Clifford–Murphy 1997:14). See also De Boer 1973:188–191. For Ugaritic parallels to Job 1:6–12, see Pope 1965/73:9.

    322

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    much later tradition of Job, it is usually supposed that in the case of the Genesis (J) account its author was extremely uncomfortable with the subject matter.3 It is little wonder, then, that the exact nature of the term “sons of God” remains somewhat obscure—the tension between the mythological background and the “demythologizing effort” seems to have contributed to this lack of clarity. Yet it may be suggested that what is meant in both Genesis 6 and Job 1 is a kind of divine heavenly creatures that under other circumstances might have been called angels.4 How much the “demythologizing effort” succeeded, in other words, to what extent the mythological past of the angels as independent deities lost its relevancy in Israeli religion—and for how long—is still a debated issue.5 Within the same category of plural usage, the people of Israel as a whole are repeatedly called sons of God in various layers of biblical tradition—for example, Exod 4:22; Deut 14:1; Isa 1:2; Jer 3:14, 22; Hos 11:1; Ps 103:13.6 Even if the appellation supposes a measure of divinization, a demythologizing strategy parallel to the one applied with regard to angels is employed here too: the people of Israel retain the “sons of God” title only insofar as their will is united with that of their God.7 An illuminating case of transition that the understanding of the biblical “son of God” verses might have undergone is provided by Ps 82:6 (yna íklk ïuylc ynbu íta íyhla ytrma “I say, ‘You are gods, sons of the Most

    3

    See Speiser 1964:46; Childs 1968:53–54. The “sons of God/sons of the gods” have been depicted as “lesser members of the ancient pagan pantheon who are retained in later monotheistic theology as angels” (Pope 1965/73:9). McKenzie, who in the mid-1940s published a whole series of studies on the issue, rejected completely the idea that the divine “sons of God” could be a residue of the independent old Semitic deities. Instead, he emphasized their “angelic nature”—namely, their being ministers of God’s will; it is the “union of will” with the Creator rather than heavenly abode that defines their divine sonship (McKenzie 1943:293–300). 5 Suffice it to say that not only McKenzie but other scholars as well highlighted the difference between the “background myth” and its reworking in the biblical tradition. See note 3 above. 6 Cf. Mal 2:10–11; Dan 3:25; Wis 18:13. 7 See McKenzie 1946:320–331; 1945a:32–47; Basser 2002:24. It is worth noting—as regards both angels and the people of Israel—that Aramaic Targums generally try to avoid the “son of God” terminology (Huntress 1935:118–119). Cf. De Boer 1973:195–200, where he showed that the notion of a close son-father relationship with the deity—entailing strong objections to intermarriage (marriage to “daughters of a foreign god”)—was characteristic of the clan-god conception found among Israel’s ancient neighbors. 4

    S. Ruzer, Son of God as Son of David…

    323

    High, all of you’ ”). It seems that in its initial setting this saying, as well as the rest of the psalm, related to angelic powers/lesser gods responsible for other nations.8 Yet íyhla (gods) here was eventually reinterpeted as referring to Israel at the time of the Sinai revelation. When exactly such an interpretation first came into being is an open question.9 According to both readings, however, retaining the divine-like status is conditioned by the addressees’ just behavior—otherwise “you shall die like Adam/men, and fall like any prince” (Ps 82:7). Unlike the above examples, the title “son of God” is attested also as a personal appellation, most characteristically as marking kingly descent.10 Two instances particularly relevant for this investigation are 2 Sam 7:12– 1611 and Ps 2:712—the latter appearing in what is usually perceived as an .

    8

    See Dahood 1968:268–271; Kraus 1993:153–158. See also note 1 above. It is attested already in, inter alia, Mek. R. Ishmael Ithro 9; Sifre Deut. 306, 320; Lev. R. 4.1, 11.3, 18.2 and then in b. Ab. Zarah 5a. In a later compendium, Midrash Tehillim (ed. Buber, 368–369), íyhla is interpreted—relying on analogies in Exod 22:8 and Deut 1:17—as designating the judges in Israel. All these traditions discern in Ps 82:7 a clear indication that Israel/judges faced a predicament similar to that of Adam, who was given the (one) commandment but failed to comply. 10 Cf. Mal 1:6, where a son-father relationship is pre-supposed between God and the priests of Jerusalem. 11 2 Sam 7:12–16: “When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. When he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men; 15 but I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before me; your throne shall be established for ever.” Biblical quotations throughout this paper are from the Revised Standard Version. 12 Ps 2:1–9: “Why do the nations conspire, and the peoples plot in vain? 2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and his anointed, saying, 3 ‘Let us burst their bonds asunder, and cast their cords from us.’ 4 He who sits in the heavens laughs; the LORD has them in derision. 5 Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying, 6 ‘I have set my king on Zion, my holy hill.’ 7 I will tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to me, ‘You are my son, today I have begotten you. 8 Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. 9 You shall break them with a rod of iron, and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.’ ” 9

    324

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    ancient royal enthronement hymn.13 Again, the Near Eastern (e. g., Egyptian, Canaanite, Sumerian or Babylonian) roots of this notion have been traced in the research,14 and the peculiarity of the divine kingly sonship as found in the Bible has been outlined. Unlike the background mythological traditions, where the king had been emphatically presented as actually begotten—and not only taken under fatherly patronage—by a god, such a claim is never to be found in the surviving sources from Israel’s biblical past. Hence sonship in the Bible, indicating the divinely chosen anointed king, presents itself as close to the “adoptionist” pattern.15 All possible Egyptian influences on Israel’s perception of its kingship in the days of Solomon and later on notwithstanding, the above distinction seems to have been retained.16 It should be added that in a number of biblical traditions God himself is referred to as king; there is also an explicit reluctance to appoint a human monarch and thus transfer to the latter the elevated quasi-divine status.17 In view of these indications, Israel’s notion of its kings’ divine sonship—as expressed, e. g., in Psalm 2— has been mostly explained in the research in terms of either adoption or a suzerain-vassal pattern, or a fusion of the two.18 Again, one should not exclude the possibility of infiltration of certain mythologizing notions connected with the adoption pattern—e. g., pharaoh’s coronation as entailing a kind of a new birth/divinization.19 These tendencies, however,

    13

    See, for example, Dahood 1965:11. McKenzie (1945b:335–336) differentiates between Ps 2:7 and 2 Sam 7:14; in the latter, Solomon is called “son of God” “not because of his being a divinely appointed king but because of David his father.” 14 See Dahood 1965:11–12; Cooke 1961:202–25; Hoffmeier 1997:44–49; Basser 2002:24–27, 46; Koch 2002:1–32. See also Jocz 1957:129–142. 15 See McKenzie 1945b:326–339; De Boer 1973:191–195. In other words, the “son of God” appellation in the Old Testament does not imply a participation of the person—be he a king or a righteous one—in the divine, but rather indicates God’s promise of patronage and protection (Boismard 1991:442–445). In Wis 3:1–4 a further development of the theme is attested: even physical death does not annul the promise since the righteous one (the son) is destined for (spiritual?) immortality. Cf. 2 Mac 7:6. 16 See Hoffmeier 1997:45–48. 17 See Hoffmeier 1997:46. 18 See De Vaux 1961:112; Fensham 1971:121–135; De Boer 1973:191–195. 19 See Craigie 1983:67. It has also been suggested, however, that the perception of the king of Israel as a superhuman/divine being was closer to the Mesopotamian mythic expression of the idea of election, and hence close relationship with the deity, than to the Egyptian notion entailing metaphysical aspects of the divine sonship (Yarbro Collins 1999:394–395).

    S. Ruzer, Son of God as Son of David…

    325

    even if they exercised some influence on Israel, seem to have remained marginal.20 It also deserves notice that in Ps 89:27–28 the “adoption” is portrayed as conditioned on the king’s trust in God compared to a son’s trust in his father: “He shall cry to me,—‘Thou art my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation.’ And I will make him the first-born, the highest of the kings of the earth.” Though the passage is highly reminiscent of some Egyptian precedents containing the adoption pattern, the covenantal aspect of the sonship seems to have been absent in the latter.21 *** A number of Second Temple period traditions indicate either new developments or a revival—mutatis mutandis—of the older patterns. Thus angels are defined as “sons of God” in Philo, for whom the meaning is that they are incorporeal spirits not fathered by a man.22 However, far from limiting the appellation to heavenly beings, Philo suggests, appealing to Deut 14:1 and 32:18, that all those who have knowledge of the uniqueness of God are called “sons of the one God.”23 The Dead Sea Scrolls bear witness to the persistence of the “son of God” appellation being applied to the Davidic dynasty and, more specifically, to the Davidic Messiah.24 On the other hand, also attested there is the double emphasis on the motif of the angelic host as “sons of gods” and the latter’s closeness to/unity with the community of the sons of light, the true Israel. A telling example of the latter tendency is found in the closing column of the Rule of the Community (1QS 11:5–8):

    20

    Clear indication of that may be discerned in the fact that prophets never reprimanded kings of Israel on this account (Dahood 1965:12); cf. De Boer 1973:203– 204. Horbury, however, argues that the mythical aspects of the son of God notion not only were present in the ancient perception of the Davidic but survived and infiltrated later Jewish messianic expectations (Horbury 1998:23, 113). 21 See discussion in Hoffmeier 1997:44–49. 22 See Philo, Quaest. Gen., 1.92. 23 Whereas those “who are yet unfit to be called a son of God, should submit themselves to the Logos, to God’s first-born, who holds the eldership among the angels” (Philo, De Confusione linguarum 145ff.). It should be emphasized, however, that statistically there is a clear preference in Philo for the appellation “man of God (¥nqrwpoj qeoà)” over “son of God.” 24 As in 4QFlorilegium 1:10–13 where 2 Sam 7:14 is related to. Cf. 1QSa (1Q28a) 2:11–12 where a reference to Ps 2:7 may be discerned (Verseput 1987:537–538).

    326

    Articles: Old Testament Studies 5 …My eyes have observed what always is, 6 wisdom that has been hidden from mankind, knowledge and understanding (hidden) from the sons of man, fount of justice and well of strength 7 and spring of glory (hidden) from the assembly of flesh. To those whom God has selected he has given them as everlasting possession; until they inherit them in the lot of the holy ones (íywudq). 8 He unites their assembly to the sons of the heavens (íymw ynb) in order (to form) the council of the Community and a foundation of the building of holiness to be an everlasting plantation throughout all future ages.25

    It seems that in a quite different Jewish context, that of Galilean proto-rabbinic piety, those who were seen as close to God, more specifically miracle workers, were also called God’s sons. Thus according to Tannaitic sources the appellation “God’s son” was applied to such early figures as Abba Hilkia (m. Ber. 5:5) and Honi the “circle-drawer” (m. Ta’an. 3:8). In the Amoraic layer of tradition, Hanina ben Dosa is also mentioned (b. Ber. 34b). According to b. Ta’an. 23b, those hasidic characters also appealed to God as “Abba” (Father).26 One may note that within this perception, not unlike in Philo’s preferences mentioned above, “son of God” stands for a man of God or even a godly man. We are thus dealing with a kind of “democratic widening” of the divine sonship as compared to the biblical kingship pattern—seemingly part of a more general tendency attested already in the Wisdom of Solomon, where the equation of son of God with righteous man was employed.27 “Democratic widening” here means the introduction of commoners into the realm of divine sonship. The latter, however, is still clearly restricted to a few electi, thus differing substantially from both the collective appellation addressed to Israel and, even more so, the tendency, potentially present already in the Genesis account of the creation, to view the divine sonship of Adam as “inherited” by humanity as a whole.28 25 Cf. 1Q22 (1QDM) 4:1: “in the assembly of gods (íyla tdcb), in the council of the holy ones (íywudq dusb).” 26 This phenomenon was discusses in, inter alia, Flusser 2001:113–123; Safrai 1990:147–186; 1996:413–436; Vermes 1972:28–50; 1973:51–64. 27 Wis 2:17–18: “Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man is God’s son, He will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.” 28 The identical wording employed in Gen 1:26 (unmlxb ída hecn íyhla rmayu untmdk) and 5:3 (tw umw\ta arqyu umlxk utumdb dluyu hnw hamu íywlw ída yçyu) seems to indicate such an interpretation, and its possible links to Canaanite-Babylonian anthropomorphic notions of God were highlighted in the research already half-a-

    S. Ruzer, Son of God as Son of David…

    327

    Still debated is the meaning of “son of God” in the Aramaic Apocalypse from Qumran (4Q246), dated to the last third of the first century BCE. Many scholars are inclined to see in him a kingly or messianic or even angelic—like the son of man from Dan 7—figure;29 an attempt has also been made to present the “son of God” in connection with the kingly pattern of 2 Sam 7.30 Flusser, however, has suggested that the appellation denotes here an anti-hero—an anti-Christ, to use a later Christian terminology:31 Col. I 4 […mi]ghty ones, oppression will come upon the earth 5 […] and great slaughter in the provinces 6 […] king of Assyria [and E]gypt 7 […] and he will be great over the earth 8 […] they [will d]o, and all will serve 9 […gr]eat will be he called and he will be designated by his name. Col. II 1 He will be called son of God (rmaty la yd hrb) and they will call him son of the Most High (hnurqy ïuylc rbu)… a people will crush another people, and a province another provi[n]ce. 4 [Blank] Until the people of God arises and makes everyone rest from the sword.

    It has been noted that the recurrent usage of “to call,” “to be called” in this passage in connection with the notion of divine sonship may indicate a restrictive titular meaning of the latter and thus an adoptionoriented perception;32 this feature of the Qumranic evidence will prove particularly relevant for the discussion that follows. *** century ago (Loewenstamm 1957:1–2). It is still to be seen to what extent this outlook found expression in early Jewish sources outside the New Testament (esp. Lk 3:23–38). A mishnaic saying ascribed to R. Akiva (m. Abot 3.14) clearly goes in that direction, establishing the parallelism between being “in God’s image and likeness” and divine sonship; but it stops short of explicitly calling Adam the “son of God”: íuqml íynb uarqnw larey ynb íybybç … ílxb arbnw ída bybç (Beloved is Adam/man in that he was created in the image [of God] … Beloved are Israel in that they were called children/sons of the All-present). I am grateful to David Kopeliovich, who drew my attention to this entire issue, for his important remarks. 29 See Fitzmyer 1993:153–174; Collins 1993:65–82; 1995:12, 176; Puech 1994:553–558. 30 See Dunn 1997:198–210. 31 See Flusser 1988:207–213; cf. Knohl 1998/99:13–37, where he agrees that the “son of God” title is used here sarcastically, but suggests that it is the historical figure of the Roman emperor Augustus that was meant. Possible links here to the Roman imperial cult have been observed by a number of other scholars too (Kim 1998:221–241; Mowery 2002:100–110). 32 See Fitzmyer 1995:573.

    328

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    Pre-Christian Judaism, then, was characterized by a variety of usages of the “son of God” appellation. As a matter of fact, a number of other usages may be added to those reviewed above, among them traditions speaking of preexistent Wisdom, Philo’s presentation of the logos as “son of God” and Enochic mysticism presupposing a belief in the apotheosis/divinization of humans. The meaning of the title could, thus, vary considerably, from emphasis on the human features of the sonship (covenant-conditioned election, closeness to God, kingly anointment) to divinization or even preexistence-centered notions. To quote Martin Hengel, “The Old Testament and Jewish (here Second Temple—S. R.) statements about the Son of God are, as we saw, both confusingly varied and very obscure: in contemporary Judaism in particular (i. e., at the beginning of Christianity—S. R.), ‘Son of God’ is not really used as a title for the Messiah.”33 While the last part of Hengel’s statement (that the title was not applied to the expected Messiah) may be and has been refuted on the ground of the Qumranic evidence addressed above;34 the rest of it, concerning the confusing obscurity of the “son of God” usage within the Jewish setting of nascent Christianity, seems to retain its full validity. “Son of God” in the New Testament: general remarks The fluctuation between a plural and a singular “son of God” title attested in earlier traditions was clearly inherited by the New Testament. Moreover, a tension may be discerned when the same appellation is used to designate, on the one hand, the community of the recipients of God’s revelation through Jesus and, on the other, Jesus himself as the individual Messiah, the elected one.35 The main focus of the research, however, has been the individual “son of God” appellation as applied to Jesus. Its appearances in Paul’s epistles was thoroughly analyzed by Martin Hengel, who argued for a developed Christology behind the apostle’s usage of the title—namely, the collation of the motifs of the Messiah’s preexistence, mediation at creation and 33

    Hengel 1976:63. Cf. George 1965:206. See Yarbro Collins 1999:403–404, 408. Huntress (1935:119–122) strikes a middle course, arguing that the use of “son of God” for the Messiah was “not customary” in late Second Temple Jewry; but its non-existence cannot be proved, and its use might in fact have been “natural enough.” 35 As, for example, in Jn 1:9–14, 17–18; 10:22–30. This dialectic tension has been addressed in recent research (Boismard 1991:448–450; Ruzer 2007b). The issue, however, warrants further investigation. 34

    S. Ruzer, Son of God as Son of David…

    329

    “being sent into the world.”36 According to Hengel, one should look for the roots of such an outlook in neither pagan nor Gnostic notions, but rather in Jewish traditions of preexistent Wisdom and/or divinization. He convincingly demonstrates the existence of an internal Jewish tradition of apotheosis-oriented divine sonship, core elements of which were listed at the end of the previous section.37 Unlike Hengel, Joseph Fitzmyer is inclined to interpret pre-Christian Jewish “son of God” traditions as the figurative expression of the idea of “divine sponsorship” and as completely devoid of the deification aspect. He thus agrees with the scholars who see a “long way” separating the “simple usage” in ancient biblical and Second Temple sources from the “solemn and lofty one” in the New Testament. Yet Fitzmyer also rejects the suggestion of the Hellenistic output, arguing instead that the Christian “quantum leap” sprung from a definitely Jewish pattern (more exactly, a pattern characteristic of the Land of Israel) pattern.38 Even if one agrees with Hengel that pre-Christian Jewish deification tendencies were at the back of Paul’s mind, one should possibly ascribe greater weight to the fact that in the surviving writings of the “apostle to the Gentiles” this tendency, far from being highlighted, is actually rather subdued. It is instructive, for example, that Hengel has to glean the notion of Christ’s preexistence from such expressions as “sent forth his

    36

    See Hengel 1976:57–84. Hengel is ready to read preexistence into “sending into the world”; to my mind, however, biblical precedents speaking of prophets being sent by God (e. g. Exod 3:10; 4:13; 5:22; 2 Chr 36:16) prescribe greater caution here. See discussion below. 37 See also Dunn 1980:12–64. Hoffmeier (1997:49) not only argues that the New Testament notion of Jesus’ divine sonship was rooted in “Hebrew concepts of kingship rather than in Hellenistic religious ideas imported from the Greek world,” but suggests also that it was only following Christianity’s (early) arrival in Egypt that the mythologically flavored perception of Jesus as the incarnate Son of God took hold. Others, however, perceive Paul’s Christology—Jesus as divine Son of God—as rooted mainly in the Easter experience but also obliged to the historical Jesus’ own exceptionally high self-awareness (with reference to Mt 11:27) (Jocz 1957:129–142). Within a similar appraisal, Jesus’ messianic consciousness was described as “sonship in the ethical and religious”—not theocratic or apocalyptic (supernatural deliverer)—sense (Bacon 1911:1–33). See also Edwards 1978. On Jesus’ high selfawareness compared with that of Hillel, see Flusser 1974:31–36. 38 The pattern in question is identified by Fitzmyer as the one attested in the Aramaic Apocalypse from Qumran, with its “son of God”/“son of the Most High” appellations, which he interprets—rejecting any ties here with the imperial cult—as titular nominations of the future Jewish ruler (although not necessarily the Messiah) at the time of the restoration of Davidic kingship (Fitzmyer 1995:568–574).

    330

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    son,”39 where “sending the Messiah” may in fact be reasonably interpreted as similar to the biblical precedents of “sending the prophets” unto Israel—with no notion of preexistence involved.40 It would seem that this relative lack of emphasis—especially vis-à-vis existing preChristian Jewish divinization trends—should inform our appraisal of Paul’s agenda. Indeed, some recent studies have questioned the “highly Christologized” interpretation of the early Christian “son of God” usage with regard to Jesus, suggesting instead models of election, God’s patronage and protection.41 Hengel focused on Paul, who was for him evidently the earliest witness to developments in Christian thought. There have also been a number of studies analyzing correspondingly the “son of God” usage in the various Gospels and Acts;42 it may be observed that with regard to each of these texts, including the Gospel of John, scholars have recently been inclined to understand the use of the “son of God” appellation as pointing to an elevated filial relationship of election and closeness rather then to metaphysical connotations of a heavenly being. Yet not all the important aspects of the problem have received due attention. The discussion that follows focuses on one of those aspects—namely, the peculiar stance of the author of Luke and Acts,43 as expressed, inter alia, in his editing of the 39

    Gal 4:4–5: “But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.” Cf. Rom 1:3f. 40 See note 36 above. Schweitzer (1967:5–11), however, perceives the biblical “sending a prophet” pattern as differing substantially from the New Testament sending the son. 41 This interpretation, devoid of deifying overtones, was suggested in some recent studies (Boismard 1991:446–450; Basser 2002:24–27, 46). It should be remembered that such an appraisal of the nascent Christian belief (“son of God” = God’s elected/beloved) was propagated already by Hermann Samuel Reimarus, who perceived it as coinciding with the one current “among the Hebrews” (Yarbro Collins 1999:395–396). 42 For Mark, see Yarbro Collins 1999:393–408; 2000:85–100. For Matthew, see Verseput 1987:532–556; Mowery 1990:193–200. For Luke, see George 1965:185–209. For an illuminating discussion of the son of God usage in the fourth Gospel, see Boismard 1991:448–450. Quite unexpectedly, John in Boismard’s analysis turns out no to be essentially different from my reading of Luke. See previous note and discussion there. For Acts, see Schweitzer 1968:186–193. 43 In this paper I subscribe to the perception of Luke and Acts as composed by the same author (Conzelmann 1982:9; 1987:xxxi–xlii). However, my analysis does not necessarily point to the “double treatise” (Luke–Acts) model; rather, it strengthens the possibility of two separate compositions—by the same hand but

    S. Ruzer, Son of God as Son of David…

    331

    common Synoptic tradition, with other New Testament witnesses used mostly as a backdrop.44 This choice seems useful for a number of reasons.45 First, this New Testament author is often more explicit than others in spelling out both his agenda and his notion of the problems faced by the Jesus movement. Second, the single-author hypothesis makes it possible to relate his treatment/editing of the common Synoptic tradition (in the Gospel of Luke) to his more independent approach in Acts; a comparison of his suggestions regarding the meaning of the “son of God” title in these two different literary settings definitely holds promise.46 In discussing Luke’s interpretation of the “son of God,” the programmatic Pauline statement from Rom 1:3–4 provides an important point of comparison: …the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh (™k spšrmatoj Dauˆd kat¦ s£rka) and designated Son of God (toà Ðrisqšntoj uƒoà qeoà) in power according to the Spirit of holiness (™n dun£mei kat¦ pneàma ¡giwsÚnhj) by his resurrection from the dead (™c ¢nast£sewj nekrîn), Jesus Christ our Lord.47

    I believe, with some others, that one can discern here a polemical tension, or otherwise an antithetical parallelism, between the two appella-

    under different literary circumstances (thus Luke and Acts). For a discussion of the latter model, see Parsons–Pervo 1993. 44 As the backdrop, I will mostly relate to other Synoptics and Pauline epistles. 45 On this see also Ruzer 2007a. 46 A third reason may be added. If really a sequel, Luke–Acts is the only New Testament narrative dealing explicitly with the transition from the initial eschatological hope, through its debacle in Jesus’ death, to a modified post-Easter eschatology. This narrative can thus be expected to account not only for the postponement of salvation but also for the changes in the understanding of Jesus’ divine sonship in light of that postponement. Cf. Conzelmann 1982:123. 47 The passage has been generally seen as reflecting a traditional pre-Pauline creed with a few dissenting voices in favor of Paul’s own authorship. For the former opinion, see Schweitzer 1967:1–2; for the latter, see discussion in Scott 1992:29–236. It should be noted that while David is mentioned two additional times in Romans (Rom 4:6, 11:9), there is no mention of the king in any other Pauline epistle. In both those instances, however, the verses Paul quotes from Psalms provide a proof text for the apostle’s insights on the “human condition”— the author of the Psalms represents here the predicament of the religious individual. Neither the quotations themselves nor Paul’s interpretation of them have anything to do with the Davidic dynasty.

    332

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    tions—“son of David” and “son of God.”48 This is, however, a disputed issue—not all scholars have been ready to recognize here a sign of Paul’s discomfort with the notion of Davidic messianship.49 Yet what cannot be denied—and what will be highly relevant to the discussion that follows— is that the apostle here presents Jesus’ Davidic lineage and his status as the “son of God” as two separate notions independent of each another. One final observation seems called for here. As highlighted by existing research, the title “son of God” had acquired a wide variety of possible interpretations by the time it was adopted by the nascent Jesus tradition. It thus stands to reason that not only are we today puzzled by its intended meaning, but also Jews and non-Jews from both within and outside the early Jesus movement might also have been. It is reasonable, then, to expect that the author of Luke and Acts, distinguished by his inclination to clarify “vague points” of the inherited tradition, would address this difficulty by means of his editorial strategies. These strategies from here on will be the focus of this discussion. It will be argued that these strategies were of an exegetical nature and consciously aimed at “re-biblicizing” the “son of God” appellation as standing, first and foremost, for Jesus’ kingly (Davidic) lineage, and thus at subduing its other possible meanings. “Son of God” in Luke Most of the “son of God” occurrences in Luke belong to the common Synoptic tradition and follow it more or less faithfully.50 In some of these, as well as in certain instances peculiar to Luke, divine sonship seemingly expresses an attitude characteristic of the general Jewish piety rather than the distinctive position of Jesus.51 The focus here, however, will be on Luke’s efforts to clarify the meaning of the “son of God” title as denoting Jesus’ exceptional calling/status. These efforts at clarification signal a prob48

    See Van Iersel 1962:113–132, esp. 115, 123–127 and 130 n. 2; Schneider 1967:359–387, esp. 361. See also Ruzer 2003:241–242. 49 See, for example, De Jonge 1991:141–144; Scott 1992:227, 233, 236, 239– 244. Scott allows for the possibility—the lack of explicit evidence notwithstanding—that Davidic sonship did play a significant role in Paul’s thinking. He thinks that what he defines as the “climactic parallelism” of Rom 1:3–4 is in fact based on 2 Sam 7:12, 14 combined with Ps 2:7, relating to Paul’s experience of the glorified Christ on the way to Damascus, rather than to a king’s coronation. 50 The variety and statistics of such occurences were reviewed in George 1965:185–186. 51 I see Lk 2:49 (to be at my Father’s house) as well as Lk 11:2 (Pater noster) as belonging to this category.

    S. Ruzer, Son of God as Son of David…

    333

    lem our author saw in the use of “son of God” as found in the Gospel tradition he had inherited. As suggested, the vagueness and ambiguity of the term should be singled out as the probable source of the problem. From Luke’s point of view, however, there could have been other, more specific, pitfalls as well—such as unsought repercussions from the use of the “son of God” appellation in a Gentile environment. Some scholars have thus attributed Luke’s famous omission of “son of God” from the centurion’s exclamation at the cross (Lk 23:47, cf. par. in Mt 27:54 and Mk 15:39, where the appellation features prominently) to the author’s unwillingness to have a Gentile—possibly adhering to pagan beliefs in demigods—invoking the title. 52 The omission acquires even greater importance if one perceives the episode as constituting the climax of the “son of God” theme in Mark, which started with the heavenly proclamation at Jesus’ baptism.53 Additional evidence for Luke’s uneasiness with the title may be seen in the author’s clear reluctance to use it when he has a free hand to create an independent narrative. Thus the “son of God” appellation features in neither the programmatic statements on Jesus’ messianic status ascribed to resurrected Jesus himself in Lk 24, nor in Peter’s kerygmatic speeches

    52

    See George 1965:194–195 and n. 22. It was also argued, however, that Luke’s substitution of the “righteous man” for the “son of God” faithfully represents an existing tradition in which such an equation was invoked; he thus— outside of any polemical considerations—simply understood correctly the intention of the common Synoptic tradition (Boismard 1991:447–448; Basser 2002:46). See Wis 2:17–18: “Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man is God’s son, He will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.” Cf. Huntress 1935:122– 123, who argued that it is exactly within the Wis 2:17–18 pattern, collated with the one of the Suffering Servant from Isa 53, that the first Jewish Christians could have called Jesus the son of God in a “purely Jewish sense.” Kim (1998:221–241) and Mowery (2002:100–110) have discussed the possible impact of the centurion’s exclamatory words in Mark and Matthew upon readers acquainted with equivalent formulas applied to such figures as Augustus, Tiberias, Nero, Titus and Domitian. The possibility of different understandings of the “son of God” title by Jewish and Gentile readers of/listeners to the Gospel was also duly highlighted: “Although the title has a Jewish origin and at first expressed the conviction that Jesus was the Messiah, ‘Gentile Christians’ in Asia Minor, Rome, and Alexandria must have understood the expression in terms of their own cultural contexts and traditions” (Yarbro Collins 2000:100). 53 See Yarbro Collins 1999:406.

    334

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    of Acts 2. As a matter of fact, in the whole of Acts it surfaces only once (Acts 9:20–22):54 20

    And in the synagogues immediately he proclaimed Jesus, saying, “He is the Son of God.” 21 And all who heard him were amazed, and said, “Is not this the man who made havoc in Jerusalem of those who called on this name? And he has come here for this purpose, to bring them bound before the chief priests.” 22 But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Christ.

    It should be noted (1) that this single occurrence of the “son of God” appellation is ascribed to Paul, in whose epistles it features prominently;55 and (2) that the meaning of the title there seems to be restricted to (synonymous with) the basic belief in Jesus’ election as the Messiah—without further clarification and in a manner similar to its usage in the opening verse of Mark (see below). Luke is further distinguished by his preference for alternative, more straightforward titles, such as the “Messiah/Christ of God” (Lk 9:20)—where Matthew (16:16) has “Christ, the Son of the living God.” Such sensitivity may be perceived as well befitting an author striving to reach a proper balance between Jewish—e. g., what is traditionally called the Jerusalem Church—and non-Jewish segments of the early Jesus movement.56 Informed by these preliminary indications of the problematic character of the “son of God” title, let us now turn to Luke’s treatment of the foundational scene of Jesus’ baptism, an episode that in the common Synoptic tradition establishes the claim for Jesus’ divine sonship. It stands to reason that it is first and foremost here, at the beginning of the inherited gospel narrative, where the “son of God” appellation makes its first programmatic entrance, that one should look for clues regarding Luke’s peculiar approach.57

    54

    Of course, this does not mean that Luke did not subscribe to some kind of sonship concept with regard to the Messiah; see the discussion in Schweitzer 1968:186–193. 55 See note 36 above and discussion there. 56 See, for example, Conzelmann 1987:xlvi, 115–117. 57 It would be preposterous to expect Luke’s “clarifying efforts” to be applied with the same intensity to all “son of God” occurrences throughout the inherited Gospel narrative. Cf. Basser 2002:26, who singles out three episodes crucial for the Synoptic tradition understanding of the “son of God” appellation: Jesus’ birth, his baptism and his transfiguration.

    S. Ruzer, Son of God as Son of David…

    335

    Jesus’ baptism as establishing his divine sonship in the Synoptic tradition: Mark Regarding the baptism episode, one may reasonably follow the consensual view that it is the Markan version (Mk 1:1–11) and its problematic aspects that Matthew and Luke are reacting to58—without necessarily subscribing to the encompassing theory of Markan priority. These problematic aspects—most prominently, Jesus’ subordination to John the Baptist and the distinctly “adoptionist” flavor of the story (Jesus becomes/“is born as” the son of God when he is granted the gift of the Spirit)—have long been recognized both by the research and by Christian tradition itself.59 What is particularly relevant for the present discussion is that Mk 1:1–11 opens and closes by presenting Jesus the Messiah as the “son of God”—clearly an individual title applied to Jesus as distinct from other characters of the Gospel narrative: 1

    The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God… 9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove; 11 and a voice came from heaven, “Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased.”

    As for the possible meaning of the “son of God” appellation in this particular setting, the opening statement as it now stands60 seems to create an equation between Jesus’ messianic status and him being the “son of God.” Mk 1:1 should probably be perceived as evidence for the early Christian usage rather than as an idiosyncratic notion of the Gospel writer,61 since an identical equation is independently suggested by Luke in Acts 9:20–22—the passage already mentioned and to which I shall return below. Yet, given the well-recognized variety of messianic notions current in the late Second Temple period,62 the statement in Mk 1:1 leaves space for wondering what kind of messianship/anointment is 58

    On this, see, for example, Viviano 1997:637–638; Karris 1997:685–687. See Viviano 1997:637–638. 60 It has been argued that the words “son of God” were not part of the earliest form of the proclamation (Yarbro Collins 1995:111–127). 61 Whether or not we accept Hengel’s opinion, quoted above, that in late Second Temple Judaism the designation “son of God,” though widely employed, was not “really used as a title for the Messiah.” 62 See, for example, Flusser 1983:103–134; Schiffman 1992:116–129; Collins 1995:75–77; Schäfer 1998:15–35. 59

    336

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    meant here. The rest of the pericope may therefore be considered as an attempt at clarification; its concluding proclamation by the heavenly voice, “You are my beloved son,” seems then to indicate that Jesus’ anointment was one of the Spirit, i. e., of the prophetic type.63 This in turn invites further clarification, provided in both the continuation of Mark’s narrative and the reaction to Mark’s version in other Synoptics. It should be emphasized, however, that the supposed kingly aspect of Jesus’ calling is not thematized in Mark until quite a late stage (Pilate’s question in Mk 15:6–15)—and then primarily in order to highlight that Jesus’ messianship is in no way that of a Davidic warrior but rather that of a heavenly Son of Man.64 Jesus’ baptism as establishing his divine sonship in the Synoptic tradition: (Matthew and) Luke Both Matthew (4:1–11) and Luke (4:1–13) have expanded versions of the temptation by Satan (cf. Mk 1:12–13), which makes it possible to establish a link between the prophetic gift of the Spirit and knowledge of the Scripture, the latter including the command of scriptural exegesis.65 Luke is recognized as being particularly keen on portraying Jesus as a prophet 63

    As Yarbro Collins (1999:396–397) observes, this endowment with the Spirit establishes that “son of God” in relation to Jesus means more “than simply a righteous man favored by God”—with reference to such traditions as Isa 42:1; 61:1–11, rather than Wis 2:17–18. For the uniqueness of Jesus’ divine sonship as portrayed in Matthew—vis-à-vis the Jewish pattern of the righteous or charismatic man, faithful to God—see Verseput 1987:538–541. Yet the connection of the gift of the Spirit to the prophetic David is nowhere fully expressed in Mark (it seems, however, to be suggested in 12:35–37) (De Jonge 1991:140). Many scholars share the opinion that in the original account the heavenly announcement was in fact a quote from Isa 42:1: “Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him, he will bring forth justice to the nations.” See, for example, Flusser 2001:40–41. 64 See Yarbro Collins 1999:405, 407; cf. De Jonge 1991:144. 65 Cf. George 1965:191–192. Boismard (1991:447) also links this episode to (clarification of) the meaning of the “son of God” appellation; according to him, however, the temptation narrative is tailored to demonstrate that God protects Jesus—God’s protection being the essence of the sonship status!—even vis-à-vis the ultimate adversary. The editing of the baptism episode itself, undertaken in Matthew and Luke, respectively, has been thoroughly discussed in the research; see, for example, Viviano 1997:637–638; Karris 1997:685–687. I focus here on those elements of the editing that pertain to the function of the episode in the broader context of the Gospel narrative.

    S. Ruzer, Son of God as Son of David…

    337

    (a feature that in Acts is emphatically transmitted to Jesus’ followers)66 engaged, inter alia—in a manner similar to that ascribed to the Teacher of Righteousness in the Qumranic pesher67—in a prophetic exegesis of the traditional Scripture as applied to his own life and time. The Nazareth synagogue episode in Lk 4 is a prime example of the specifically Lukan contribution to that way of understanding Jesus’ anointment by the Spirit.68 This emphasis on prophetic anointment, however, proves to be insufficient, as both Matthew and Luke preface the baptism episode with their respective versions of Jesus’ birth (and in Luke only his early years), thus establishing links to other types of anointment, such as the priestly (again, only in Luke)69 and, most prominently, the kingly one. Matthew reaches the latter objective through a marked emphasis on Jesus’ Davidic lineage, in the genealogy as well as in the description of the angel’s address to Joseph, Herod’s anxiety and the visit of the Magi.70 It should be noted, however, that the title “son of God” is never presented, either here or elsewhere in Matthew’s Gospel, as derived from the miraculous circumstances of Mary’s conception!71 Moreover, the “son of God” appellation is not invoked at all in the Matthean birth narrative, and thus no attempt is made here to connect the two messianic “crowns”—that of the Davidic kingdom and that of the prophetic calling, the latter represent-

    66

    See Brawley 1987:28–50; De Jonge 1991:137 and n. 16 there. See 1QpHab 2, 7. 68 Lk 4:14–21: 14 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee, and a report concerning him went out through all the surrounding country. 15 And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified by all. 16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and he went to the synagogue, as his custom was, on the sabbath day. And he stood up to read; 17 and there was given to him the book of the prophet Isaiah. He opened the book and found the place where it was written, 18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, 19 to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.” 20 And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. 21 And he began to say to them, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” 69 See Lk 1:5–23, 34–36 (cf. 2:49). 70 Preoccupation with Jesus’ Davidic connection characterizes the author of Matthew also further on in the Gospel (Verseput 1987:533–537). 71 See Nolland 1996:3–12; Verseput 1987:532–533, 537. 67

    338

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    ing, as noted, the divine sonship in the baptism scene.72 It has been suggested, moreover, that further on in Matthew, in a series of “conflict scenes,” Jesus is repeatedly presented as “too gentle” a Messiah to be recognized by Israel as the son of David but vindicated by God as his own son. The relation between the two appellations remains, then, similar to the situation in Mark, a relation of problematic tension.73 Unlike Matthew, Luke, in the birth narrative with which he prefaces the baptism episode makes an explicit effort to connect between the Davidic lineage and the divine sonship proclaimed after Jesus received the anointment of the Spirit. He achieves this, first, by means of reference to 2 Sam 7:12–16,74 the core biblical proof text establishing the elevated status of the Davidic dynasty. Luke is the only New Testament author to highlight the intrinsic link between the two motifs present in the 2 Sam 7 passage—the Davidic lineage (7:12, 16) and the divine sonship (7:14):75

    72

    The “son of God” appellation is employed—somewhat elliptically—only in the story of the flight to Egypt (Mt 2:15), where the quote from Hos 11:1 presents Jesus as the representative of Israel’s collective divine sonship (Basser 2002:27). Mark’s view of the link between Jesus’ divine sonship and Davidic lineage has been treated—within a harmonizing attempt vis-à-vis Rom 1:3–4—in De Jonge (1991:135–144). An attempt was also made to discover the claim for Jesus’ Davidic sonship in Markan exorcism/healing stories—with an appeal to a possible Solomon-centered tradition (Chilton 1982:101–105). Verseput’s (1987:533, 548– 549) explanation, which I do not find especially convincing, is the following: “Son of David” belonged to the realm of shared patterns of belief and so was a matter of controversy with the Jewish opponents—hence the attention it received in Matthew. On the other hand, “son of God” was an internal Christian category not current (sic!) in contemporaneous Judaism; no need, therefore, to go forward with a “detailed defense.” This explanation is derived from Verseput’s opinion— unsubstantiated, as far as I can see—that the linkage between the “son of David” and “son of God” notions lacks parallels in Judaism. 73 Mt 22:41–46 is clearly one such key “conflict scene” (Verseput 1987:542– 547). Cf. De Jonge 1991:136–139. 74 2 Sam 7:12–16: “When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. When he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men; 15 but I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before me; your throne shall be established for ever.” 75 Cf. Heb 1:5, where 2 Sam 7:14 and Ps 2:7 are collated for that end.

    S. Ruzer, Son of God as Son of David…

    339

    30 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name (kalšseij tÕ Ônoma aÙtoà) Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called (klhq»setai) the Son of the Most High (uƒÕj Øy…stou); and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.” (Lk 1:30–33)

    The repetitive appearance in this context of the verb “to call (him/his name)” is especially telling—far from indicating a “substantial Christology” it seems rather to reflect usages found in, on the one hand, 4Q24676 and, on the other, 1 Enoch 48.77 “Son of the Most High” also invites comparison with the similar usage in 4Q246—the importance of this Qumranic text for better understanding Lk 1:32 was highlighted by Joseph Fitzmyer.78 Again, unlike Matthew, where the coming (gift) of the Spirit to Mary is not presented as linked to her son’s “son of God” status,79 Luke—in accordance with his tendency to highlight Jesus’ prophetic anointment80— takes care to emphasize the link (Lk 1:35): And the angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.”81

    Thus the gift of the Spirit, which engenders the designation of Jesus as the “son of God” after his baptism, is also transferred to the birth narrative being now connected to Mary’s impregnation.82 However, the crucial indication is provided by the reworking of the baptism episode itself, attested in the so-called Western text of the Gospel as retained in Codex Bezae, a number of patristic sources and, seemingly,

    76 See studies mentioned in notes 29–31 above. For further discussion, see Cook 1995:43–66; Puech 1999:143–152; Fitzmyer 2000:41–61. 77 1 Enoch 48. Cf. Ber. R. 1.4. 78 See Fitzmyer 1993:174. 79 See Nolland 1996:8. 80 See Sabourin 1981:29–30. 81 The attempts to read into this passage a developed Christological concept are not particularly convincing. See discussion in Nolland 1996:4–5. 82 This is accomplished in parallel to Luke’s much better recognized strategy of creating a parallel between the two stories of birth and early years—Jesus’ and John the Baptist’s. See Lk 1–2.

    340

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    the Gospel of Ebionites.83 According to this variant reading, the voice from heaven, instead of the simple proclamation “You are my beloved son,” quotes Ps 2:7: Now when all people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, 22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove, and a voice came from heaven: “You are my son, today I have begotten you (uioj mou ei su egw shmeron gegennhka se)” (Lk 3:21–22)

    Some scholars who in recent decades have dealt with this Codex Bezae variant see in it a remnant of the original tradition expressing the thought of the Gospel writer himself, one of the arguments being the variant’s uncomfortably adoptionist flavor. Others have attributed it to an early (second-century) redactor.84 Whatever the case, I interpret this tradition as one more attempt to deal with the vagueness of the “son of God” proclamation in the foundational baptism episode—by means of presenting Jesus’ divine sonship as being of a Davidic nature.85 Thus the “adoption” of Jesus at baptism is explained (away) as identical/similar to that of David’s “adoption” by God at the king’s enthronement. It is no coincidence that the proclamation of Jesus’ divine sonship at the end of the baptism episode is immediately followed in Luke by Jesus’ genealogy:86 22

    and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove, and a voice came from heaven, “Thou art my beloved Son; 83

    See George 1965:186–187; Rice 1979:204–207. As distinguished from another peculiarity of Codex Bezae—namely, trading part of the Lukan Jesus’ genealogy (from Joseph to David) for the explicitly kingly lineage taken from Matthew—seen as reflecting a later alteration. For a discussion of the variety of suggestions raised in the research, see Rice 1979:203– 208, who himself views Codex Bezae as here representing an original tradition. See also George 1965:186–188; Benoit–Boismard 1971–72:82. 85 In continuation of the tendency present already in Lk 1:30–33. Cf. Hoffmeier 1997:49; Yarbro Collins 1999:394, who are ready to discern an allusion to Ps 2:7 (via Isa 42:1) and hence to a royal anointment ceremony, even in the common Synoptic version of the heavenly call at Jesus’ baptism. So also Boismard 1991:446–447, according to whom Luke of the Western text in fact correctly understood the intention of the inherited tradition attested in Mk 1:10–11, giving it fitting expression (“Luc l’a bien compris puisque, dans le passage parallèle, il donne le texte sous la forme complete”). The scene of the baptism thus acquires characteristics of a royal (Davidic) coronation. 86 The issue of the unity of this passage was discussed in Rius-Camps 1984:189–209. 84

    S. Ruzer, Son of God as Son of David…

    341

    with thee I am well pleased.” 23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi… 38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. (Lk 3:22–38)

    Much has been written on the Lukan version of Jesus’ genealogy, most prominently its universalistic agenda and its relation to that presented in Mt 1.87 I wish to suggest, however, that the immediate link between Lk 3:22 and Lk 3:33 provides a clear indication that the genealogy, in its turn, also constitutes an attempt to cope with the vagueness of the divine sonship notion as found at the end of the baptism episode in the inherited Synoptic tradition. It may be further argued that the variety of the suggested solutions itself indicates the acuteness of the problem.88 Admittedly, the solution via the genealogy differs from the one entailed in the appeal to Ps 2:7. The variety of possible meanings of the former— and, especially, the possible Jewish background to this Adam-centered strategy—warrants separate investigation.89 Suffice it to say here that instead of linkage to David, it highlights the linkage to Adam; but the same mechanism of “devaluation” seems to be at work: Jesus is a “son of God” in a manner similar to Adam and as his descendant.90 Crucifixion and resurrection of the “son of God”: Luke’s version Having dealt with Luke’s treatment of the foundational episode of Jesus’ biography in the shared Synoptic tradition, let us turn now to the closing episode, that of the crucifixion. Here (Lk 23:46) Luke’s Jesus, dying on the cross, quotes a Davidic psalm (Ps 31:6) expressing complete trust in God91—in contrast to Markan and Matthean parallels (Mk 15:34; Mt 27:46) with the citation from Ps 22:2: “My God, my God, why hast thou 87

    One may consult Karris 1997:686. Cf. Ruzer 2004:196–200. I am, of course, far from suggesting that clarifying the meaning of the “son of God” appellation constitutes the only objective of the genealogy composed by Luke. 89 See note 28 above and discussion there. 90 Most theologically inclined authors, however, deny the possibility that Jesus is presented here as son of God because he was the son of Adam. See, for example, Sabourin 1981:30–31. 91 See, for example, Jeremias 1926:126 and n. 3 there, who sees here an expression indicating a trust in the heavenly Father comparable to the trust one expresses before going to sleep. Cf. Plymale 1991:66–68. See also Abramowsky– Goodman 1966/67:290–291. 88

    342

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    forsaken me?” The meaning of Luke’s choice of biblical passage here against the background of contemporaneous Jewish usages of Ps 31 has been addressed in the research.92 Particularly relevant for our discussion is the insertion of the appellation “Father” before the quote: “Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, ‘Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!’ (Ps 31:6). And having said this he breathed his last” (Lk 23:46).93 Luke thus chooses to both open and close the story of Jesus’ life with a reference to the father-son relationship between God and his Messiah, both times explained through emphatic reference to the father-son relationship between God and David. Since Jesus’ resurrection lies at the very core of the claim for Jesus’ messianship, our author also characteristically strives to establish the link between resurrection and the biblical David, a link that is admittedly less than obvious. The opening section of Acts provides ample opportunity for such a move. The passage in question (Acts 2:22–36) begins and ends with Peter’s proclaiming Jesus “a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders and signs … [whom] God raised … up, having freed him from death,” (22, 24) and “lord and Messiah” (kÚrioj kaˆ cristÒj, 36). In between, these kerygmatic statements are backed by biblical exegesis,94 with the proof texts taken from Psalms and the authorship of David strongly emphasized (“For David says concerning him,” 25; “he [David] himself says,” 34). All this clearly indicates that the messianship of Jesus is a Davidic one.95 However, the compiler of Acts, writing several decades after the events, must have been well aware that the salvation of Israel, a seemingly indispensable feature of the Davidic Messiah’s mission, had not arrived;96 in fact, the author clearly showed that awareness at the very be92

    See, for example, George 1965:205; Bons 1994:93–101. Luke’s depiction of the scene has been shown to be independent of Matthew’s (Patella 1999:107–142). For a suggestion concerning the nature of Luke’s possible editing activity here, see Powell 1989:95–96. 93 According to Patella (1999:176–177), “p£ter” here establishes Jesus’ divine sonship while linking “together the agony, crucifixion, and death.” 94 It was shown to be characterized by certain midrashic features (Doeve 1954:168–176). 95 For a discussion of this emphasis on the Davidic covenant (in contrast to the Mosaic Sinai covenant), see O’Toole (1983:245–258). 96 This awareness becomes even more obvious if we accept a later—after the destruction of the Temple—dating of the tradition (Conzelmann 1987:xxviii; Taylor 1990:504–524. Cf. the suggestion in Ruzer 2007a.

    S. Ruzer, Son of God as Son of David…

    343

    ginning of his composition.97 The choice of proof texts—as well as the exegetic emphases employed here—seems, then, to be tailored to alleviating the tension between the author’s basic allegiance (and that of his milieu) to the notion of Jesus’ Davidic messianship and alternative, nonkingly, aspects that, in fact, form the core of Jesus’ “good tidings.” First, David, explicitly named as the author of the oracle, is here called patri£rcoj and, in agreement with an existing Jewish tradition, prof»thj (“ancestor/forefather” and “prophet”)—not “king.”98 The exegesis is presented by the speaker, Peter, as a previously hidden interpretation (hidden even from David himself.?) that is—like the Qumranic pesher—revealed only now, in the last days. According to Peter’s pesher, the Davidic oracle quoted (Ps 16:8–11) hints at the resurrection of Jesus.99 Thus although the Davidic motif is indisputably preserved by the author of Acts, it undergoes a drastic transformation: it is no longer kingship over Israel, victory over nations or building the ideal sanctuary, as in Qumranic 4QFlorilegium,100 that are the signs of Davidic messianship but the resurrection of David’s offspring prophesied by the prophet-king.101 97

    Acts 1:6–8: “So when they had come together, they asked him, ‘Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?’ 7 He said to them, ‘It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority. 8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth.’ ” 98 Acts 2:29–30. It is the passage that immediately follows Acts 2:25–28, where Ps 16:8–11 is quoted. This first-century CE emphasis on the prophetic (and not royal) character of David’s calling, also attested in later Jewish sources, may be corroborated by the evidence from Qumran, i. e., 11QPs (Fitzmyer 1972:332– 339). In his study Fitzmyer focuses on Acts 2 as witness to an early stage in the development of the David-as-prophet tradition; he does not discuss the Acts 2 exegetical agenda, which prompted the author to adopt that tradition. See also Le Roux 1991:29–32; Von Wahlde 1995:265–267. 99 Acts 2:29–32: 29 “Brethren, I may say to you confidently of the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants upon his throne, 31 he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah [RSV: Christ], that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. 32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.” 100 See 4QFlor 1:10–12. 101 Acts 2:30–31: “God had sworn with an oath to him that he would put one of his descendants on his throne. Foreseeing this, David spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah…” See discussion in Ruzer 2003:244–248.

    344

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    The same—with resurrection replaced by ascension—is true with regard to Acts 2:34–35, where Ps 110:1 is referred to. Thus, unlike the 4QFlorilegium, in both exegetical references to Psalms in Acts 2 David’s role, paradigmatic for his messianic offspring, is one not of a king but of a prophet.102 In other words, the shift of emphasis from Davidic kingdom to gift of the Spirit proclaimed at the beginning of Acts103 is complemented/backed up here by means of exegesis. Exegetic emphasis on resurrection as the key feature of Jesus’ Davidic messianship is also promoted further on in Acts—namely, in Paul’s programmatic sermon, which the author, following Peter’s precedent in Acts 2, makes Paul deliver in the synagogue of Antioch on a Sabbath.104 The Davidic descent of Jesus is again properly highlighted; but characteristically a claim is made that it is the resurrection—and not the messianic kingdom!—that constitutes “the sure mercies of David” promised by God.105 Apart from the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is a case in itself,106 Luke is the only New Testament author who explicitly appeals to Ps 2:7: in addition to the Western text of Lk 3:22 the verse is invoked again in Paul’s speech in Antioch: And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, “Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee.” (Acts 13:32–33)

    102

    Dupont (1973:226–240) sees in Acts 2 a midrashic pesher, which alludes also to Ps 68:19, thus emphasizing a parallel with Moses’ ascension to Mount Sinai and bringing down of the Torah (rather than the Davidic covenant). See also Gourgues 1975:327; 1978:163–169; Mainville 1999:313–327. In the latter study Jesus’ messianship as presented in Luke–Acts is unequivocally seen as one of the pneumatic type, with reception of the Spirit and giving of it to the community as its core characteristics. 103 See note 97 above. 104 Acts 13:14–34. In Paul’s speech a reference is made to the same verse from Ps 16:10 as in Acts 2:27. It has moreover been suggested that 2 Sam 7:6–16—the passage 4QFlorilegium relates to—is also alluded to in Paul’s speech (Ellis 1978:198–208). 105 Acts 13:30–34 (with possible reference to Isa 55:3). 106 Heb 1:5; 5:5. At least in the second instance, Ps 2:7 is also invoked in connection with Christ’s “enthronement”; this time, however, it is appointment by God to be the high priest “after the order of Melchizedek” rather than the king “after the order of David.”

    S. Ruzer, Son of God as Son of David…

    345

    Jesus’ sonship is here clearly conditioned on his resurrection; in other words, it is resurrection that marks his divine birth.107 Our author in fact takes apart the dual criteria for Jesus’ divine sonship put forward in the programmatic formulation of Rom 1:4 (“designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead”). Whereas in the Gospel he singled out reception of the Spirit at baptism to be the moment of Jesus’ divine birth/adoption/coronation as the “son of God,” now in Acts he defines the divine sonship as occurring through resurrection, in both cases using as biblical proof text—according to Codex Bezae—the same Davidic psalm (Ps 2:7).108 Conclusion We have seen that according to Rom 1:3–4—as well as, even if less explicitly, to the general Synoptic tendency observed in Mark and Matthew— the Messiah’s being the son of David and him being the “designated son of God” are two separate and maybe even conflicting notions. Clearly distinct to this tendency, at the two crucial points marking the beginning and end of the narrative of Jesus’ mission, the latter is presented by Luke as the “son of God” because he is the true son of David, because both David and his son Solomon were, each in his time, proclaimed “sons of God.” Luke achieves his exegetic objective by means of a twofold strategy: In the Gospel he explains Jesus’ divine sonship as established in the gift of the Spirit, through appeal to David’s (and Solomon’s) divine sonship proclaimed in the Bible, whereas in Acts he reinterprets David’s calling in prophetic terms—more specifically, as the herald of resurrection. Admittedly, Luke’s reworking of Jesus’ sonship may be, and has been, also interpreted as aiming to glorify the Messiah as the son of David. My approach was different: I highlighted instead what I perceive to be Luke’s exegetic effort at building a strong biblical case for the notoriously vague and problematic “son of God” notion and thus subduing other possible meanings that might have come to the fore in the Second Temple period and with which our author seems not to have been completely comfortable. As noted, Martin Hengel has argued convincingly that apotheotic/deifying patterns of belief, far from being an aberration, were widely 107

    See discussion in Schweitzer 1968:186–193. Cf. Schweitzer (1967:3), who perceives the statements in Rom 1:4 and Acts 13:33 as identical in meaning: he seemingly thinks that it is exclusively Easter that was meant in Rom 1:4 as marking the commencement of Jesus’ divine sonship. 108

    346

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    attested in Second Temple Judaism. Yet it does not automatically follow that throughout the New Testament we will necessarily find an “elevated Christology.” At least the author of Luke and Acts seems to be distinguished by a tendency to play down the divine sonship motif.109 Somewhat paradoxically this “Christian” author turns out to be rather conservative in portraying his Messiah, as if refusing to use the “ammunition” provided by those non-Christian (and pre-Christian) Jewish sources of which Hengel speaks. Whether Luke’s strategy mainly bears witness to a version of the primitive Christian tradition or reflects a later apologetic effort remains for now an open question. Of course, we may in fact be dealing with a combination of the two factors. Whatever the case, it seems plausible that Luke’s biblicizing effort relates to the polemical/apologetic setting of his Gospel-Acts sequel; and here the author’s well-recognized preoccupation with the proper balance between Jewish and non-Jewish components—and their religious positions—of the early Jesus movement may prove to be particularly relevant. Postscript In this context, apologetic Demonstrations of the mid-fourth-century Syriac Christian author Aphrahat may be invoked. In a forthcoming study, Aryeh Kofsky and I discuss at length Aphrahat’s interpretation of Jesus’ divine sonship,110 and I have relied here on some results of our investigation. Far from claiming any immediate link between the two cases, one may discern a number of typological similarities that can prove instructive for further discussion on Luke’s stance. In Demonstration 17, Aphrahat focuses on the “son of God” appellation; unlike Luke, however, Aphrahat in this Demonstration is explicit and very specific about the polemical setting of his argument, stating at its very inception: (17.1) This apology is against the Jews who blaspheme concerning the people which is of the peoples (Christians of Gentile origin— 109

    Cf. Basser (2002:26–27, 46–47), who, on linguistic grounds (“son of God” in a manner similar to that of “son of Torah” indicates sharing the attributes, not being of “divine seed”), arrives at a thoroughly human interpretation of the “son of God” title as applied to Jesus. According to him, the following understanding is shared by the Synoptic tradition as a whole: God appointed Jesus to be his son (= the elect one) to play a crucial role at a crucial point in the history of God’s salvation. 110 Kofsky–Ruzer (forthcoming).

    S. Ruzer, Son of God as Son of David…

    347

    S. R.), for thus they say: You worship and serve a man who was born, a son of man who was crucified… Although God has no son, you say about this crucified Jesus that he is the son of God… (17.2) Now concerning these matters, my beloved, as best as I am able to comprehend in my insignificance, I shall expound for you.111

    Aphrahat’s refutation strategy outlined further on in the Demonstration includes his readiness to agree with the Jews that Jesus indeed “was a man” and his emphasis on the titular nature of the “son of God” appellation; it is nothing but a name the Messiah is called—in the same fashion as he is called “shepherd,” “lamp,” “pearl,” etc. Aphrahat’s main intention, however, is to demonstrate that the “son of God” title have been traditionally applied by the Jews in the Bible to outstanding characters in their history.112 Two main lines of argument may be singled out. First, in the Bible God himself called Israel “my son”; as for application of this appellation to individuals, it may be traced to David (with reference to Ps 2:7) and Solomon (with reference to 2 Sam 7:14). Aphrahat suggests an analogy between the Messiah and the people of Israel on the one hand, and between the Messiah and David (and Solomon) on the other. Second, Aphrahat refers to Adam’s divine sonship, which according to our author had surprisingly less to do with Adam lacking human parents but more with the following understanding of Adam’s “noetic conception”: though the last of the created beings, he was the first to be “conceived in God’s thought.” Again, an analogy between the biblical precedent and the Messiah is indicated—the latter appeared only at the end of the history of salvation113 but had been present from the very beginning in God’s plan (“noetic preexistence”). Both analogies are clearly tailored to playing down the “son of God” notion through biblicizing it and thus alleviating the worries of those within the community influenced by “Jewish criticism.”

    111

    Cf. Dem. 17.9: “Now tell me, O wise man, teacher of Israel…” In fact, Aphrahat applies a similar stratagem for demonstrating the legitimate Jewish character of the title “god” as applied to humans, e. g., Jesus. 113 Aphrahat takes great care to emphasize that Christ did not play any role in creation. Moreover, some of his statements have been interpreted as indicating that the same appraisal should be applied to the whole Old Testament phase of the sacred history. 112

    348

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    Bibliography Abramowsky– Goodman 1966/67

    Bacon 1911 Basser 2002 Benoit–Boismard 1971–72 Boismard 1991 Bons 1994 Brawley 1987

    Childs 1968 Chilton 1982 Clifford–Murphy 1997 Collins 1993

    Collins 1995 Conzelmann 1982 Conzelmann 1987 Cook 1995 Cooke 1961 Craigie 1983 Dahood 1965 Dahood 1968 De Boer 1973

    De Jonge 1991

    Abramowsky, L.; Goodman, A. E. Luke XXIII. 46 PARATIQEMAI in a Rare Syriac Rendering. NTS 13:290– 291. Bacon, B. W. Jesus the Son of God or Primitive Christology: Three Essays and a Discussion. New Haven. Basser, H. W. Sharing the Divine: What It Means to Be God’s Son. BRev 18.2:24–27, 46. Benoit, P.; Boismard, M.-E. Synopse des quatre évangiles en français avec parallèles des apocryphes et des pères. Vol. 2. Paris. Boismard, M.-E. Le titre de ‘fils de Dieu’ dans les évangiles. Sa portée salvifique. Biblica 72:442–450. Bons, E. Das Sterbewort Jesu nach Lk 23,46 und sein alttestamentlicher Hintergrund. BZ 38:93–101. Brawley, R. L. The Identity of Jesus in Luke 4:16–30 and the Program of Acts. Luke–Acts and the Jews: Conflict, Apology and Conciliation. Atlanta. Pp. 28–50. Childs, B. S. Myth and Reality in the Old Testament (SBT 27). London. Chilton, B. Jesus ben David: Reflections on the Davidssohnfrage. JSNT 14:101–105. Clifford, R. J.; Murphy, R. E. Genesis. NJBC. Pp. 8–43. Collins, J. J. The “Son of God” Text from Qumran. M. de Boer (ed.). From Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and Christology in Honour of Marinus de Jonge (JSNT Sup 84). Sheffield. Pp. 65–82. The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dear Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature. New York. Conzelmann, H. The Theology of St. Luke. Philadelphia. Conzelmann, H. Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. Philadelphia. Cook, E. M. 4Q246. Bulletin for Biblical Research 5:43–66. Cooke, G. The Israelite King as Son of God. ZAW 73:202–25. Craigie, P. Psalms 1–50 (WBC 19). Waco. Dahood, M. Psalms I. 1–50 (AB 16). New York. Dahood, M. Psalms II. 51–100 (AB 17). New York. De Boer, P. A. H. The Son of God in the Old Testament. J. Labuschage et al. (eds.). Syntax and Meaning: Studies in Hebrew Syntax and Biblical Exegesis (OTS 18). Leiden. Pp. 188–207. De Jonge, M. Jesus Son of David and Son of God. Jewish Eschatology, Early Christian Christology and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (NovT Sup 63). Leiden. Pp. 135–144.

    S. Ruzer, Son of God as Son of David… De Vaux 1961 Doeve 1954 Dunn 1980 Dunn 1997

    Dupont 1973

    Edwards 1978

    Ellis 1978 Fensham 1971

    Fitzmyer 1972 Fitzmyer 1993 Fitzmyer 1995

    Fitzmyer 2000

    Flusser 1974

    Flusser 1983

    Flusser 1988

    Flusser 2001 George 1965 Gourgues 1975

    349

    De Vaux, R. Ancient Israel. Vol. 1. New York. Doeve, J. W. Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts. Assen. Dunn, J. D. G. Christology in the Making. Philadelphia. Dunn, J. D. G. “Son of God” as “Son of Man” in the Dead Sea Scrolls? A Response to John Collins on 4Q246. S. E. Ported; C. A. Evans (eds.). The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran after Fifty Years. Sheffield. Pp. 198–210. Dupont, J. Ascension du Christ et don de l’Esprit d’après Actes 2:33. B. Lindars; S. S. Smalley (eds.). Christ and Spirit in the New Testament. Cambridge. Pp. 226–240. Edwards, J. R. The “Son of God”: Its Antecedents in Judaism and Hellenism and Its Use in the Earliest Gospel. Doctoral dissertation, Fuller Theological Seminary. Ellis, E. E. Prophecy and Hermeneutics in Early Christianity. Tübingen. Fensham, F. C. Father and Son as Terminology of Treaty and Covenant. H. Goedicke (ed.). Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright. Baltimore. Pp. 121–135. Fitzmyer, J. A. David “Being Therefore a Prophet…” (Acts 2:33). CBQ 34:332–39. Fitzmyer, J. A. 4Q246: The “Son of God” Document from Qumran. Biblica 74:153–174. Fitzmyer, J. A. The Palestinian Background of “Son of God” as a Title for Jesus. T. Fornberg; D. Hellholm (eds.). Texts and Contexts: Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts. Oslo. Pp. 567–577. Fitzmyer, J. A. The Aramaic “Son of God” Text from Qumran Cave 4 (4Q246). Idem. The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins. Grand Rapids. Pp. 41–61. Flusser, D. Hillel’s Self-Awareness and Jesus. Immanuel 4: 31–36 (reprinted as pp. 509–514 in Judaism and the Origins of Christianity. Jerusalem, 1988). Flusser, D. Reflection of Jewish Messianic Beliefs in Earliest Christianity. Z. Baras (ed.). Messianism and Eschatology. Jerusalem. Pp. 103–134 (in Hebrew) (reprinted as pp. 246–277 in Judaism in the Second Temple Period: Sages and Literature. Jerusalem, 2002). Flusser, D. The Hubris of the Antichrist in Fragment from Qumran. Idem. Judaism and the Origins of Christianity. Jerusalem. Pp. 207–213. Flusser, D. Jesus. Jerusalem. George, A. Jésus Fils de Dieu dans l’évangile selon saint Luc. RB 72:185–209. Gourgues, M. “Exalté à la droite du Père” (Actes 2.33). ScEs 27:303–327.

    350

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    Gourgues 1978

    Gourgues, M. A la droite de Dieu: Résurrection de Jésus et actualisation du Psaume 110:1 dans le Nouveau Testament. Paris. Hengel, M. The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Doctrine. London. (German original: Der Sohn Gottes. Die Enstehung der Christologie und die jüdisch-hellenistische Religionsgeschichte. Tübingen, 1975). Hoffmeier, J. K. Son of God: From Pharaoh to Israel’s Kings to Jesus. BRev 13.1–3:44–49. Horbury, W. Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ. London. Huntress, E. ‘Son of God’ in Jewish Writings Prior to the Christian Era. JBL 54:117–123. Jeremias, J. Das Gebetsleben Jesu. ZNW 25:123–140. Jocz, J. The Son of God. Judaica 13:129–142. Karris, R. J. The Gospel According to Luke. NJBC. Pp. 675–721. Kim, T. H. The Anathrouj uioj qeou in Mark 15,39 and the Roman Imperial Cult. Biblica 79:221–241. Knohl, I. On the “Son of God,” Armilus and Messiah Son of Joseph. Tarbiz 68:13–37 (in Hebrew). Koch, K. Der König als Sohn Gottes in Ägypten und Israel. E. Otto; E. Zenger (eds.). “Mein Sohn bist du” (Ps 2,7): Studien zu den Königspsalmen. Stuttgart. Pp. 1–32.

    Hengel 1976

    Hoffmeier 1997 Horbury 1998 Huntress 1935 Jeremias 1926 Jocz 1957 Karris 1997 Kim 1998 Knohl 1998/99 Koch 2002

    Kofsky–Ruzer forthcoming Kraus 1993 Le Roux 1991 Loewenstamm 1957 Mainville 1999

    McKenzie 1943 McKenzie 1945a McKenzie 1945b McKenzie 1946 Mowery 1990 Mowery 2002

    Kofsky, A.; Ruzer, S. Logos, Holy Spirit and Messiah: Aspects of Aphrahat’s Theology Reconstructed. Kraus, H.-J. Psalms 60–150: A Continental Commentary. Minneapolis. Le Roux, L. V. Style and Text of Acts 4:25(a). Neot 25:29–32. Loewenstamm, S. E. Man as Image and Son of God. Tarbiz 27:1–2. Mainville, O. Le messianisme de Jésus: le rapport / annonce / accomplissement entre Lc 1,35 et Ac 2,33. J. Verheyden (ed.). The Unity of Luke–Acts. Leuven. Pp. 313– 327. McKenzie, J. L. The Divine Sonship of the Angels. CBQ 5:293–300. McKenzie, J. L. Divine Sonship and Individual Religion. CBQ 7:32–47. McKenzie, J. L. The Divine Sonship of Men in the Old Testament. CBQ 7:326–339. McKenzie, J. L. The Divine Sonship of Israel and the Covenant. CBQ 8:320–331. Mowery, R. L. Subtle Difference: The Matthean “Son of God” References. NovT 32:193–200. Mowery, R. L. Son of God in Roman Imperial Titles and Matthew. Biblica 83:100–110.

    S. Ruzer, Son of God as Son of David… Nolland 1996 O’Toole 1983 Parsons–Pervo 1993 Patella 1999 Plymale 1991 Pope 1965/73 Powell 1989 Puech 1994 Puech 1999 Rice 1979 Rius-Camps 1984

    Ruzer 2003

    Ruzer 2004

    Ruzer 2007a

    Ruzer 2007b Sabourin 1981 Safrai 1990

    Safrai 1996

    Schäfer 1998

    Schiffman 1992

    351

    Nolland, J. L. No Son-of-God Christology in Matthew 1: 18–25. JSNT 62:3–12. O’Toole, R. F. Acts 2:30 and the Davidic Covenant of Pentecost. JBL 102:245–258. Parsons, M. C.; Pervo, R. I. Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts. Minneapolis. Patella, M. The Death of Jesus: The Diabolical Force and the Ministering Angel (CRB 43). Paris. Plymale, S. F. The Prayer Texts of Luke–Acts. Bern. Pope, M. H. Job (AB 15). New York. Powell, J. E. “Father, into thy hands…”. JTS 40:95–96. Puech, É. Notes sur le fragment d’apocalypse 4Q246— “le Fils de Dieu”. RB 101.4:553–558. Puech, É. Le “Fils de Dieu” en 4Q246. EI 26 (Frank Moore Cross Volume):143–152. Rice, G. E. Luke 3:22–28 in Codex Bezae: The Messianic King. AUSS 17:203–208. Rius-Camps, J. ¿Constituye Lc 3,22–38 un solo período?: Propuesta de un cambio de punctuación. Biblica 65:189– 209. Ruzer, S. Who Is Unhappy with the Davidic Messiah? Notes on Biblical Exegesis in 4Q161, 4Q174, and the Book of Acts. Cristianesimo nella storia 24:229–255. Ruzer, S. “Love Your Enemy” Precept in the Sermon on the Mount in the Context of Early Jewish Exegesis: A New Perspective. RB 111:193–208. Ruzer, S. Crucifixion—The Search for a Meaning vis-àvis Biblical Prophecy: From Luke to Acts. Mapping the New Testament: Early Christian Writings as a Witness for Jewish Biblical Exegesis. Leiden. Ruzer, S. New Covenant, Reinterpretation of Scripture and Collective Messianship. Ibid. Sabourin, L. Two Lukan Texts (1:35, 3:22). Religious Studies Bulletin 1:29–33. Safrai, S. The Jewish Cultural Nature of Galilee. Immanuel 24/25 (The New Testament and Christian-Jewish Dialogue Volume):147–186. Safrai, S. Jesus and the Hassidic Movement. Y. Gafni; A. Oppenheimer; D. W. Schwartz (eds.). The Jews in the Hellenistic-Roman World. Jerusalem (in Hebrew). Pp. 413– 436. Schäfer, P. Diversity and Interactions: Messiahs in Early Judaism. P. Schäfer; M. Cohen (eds.). Toward the Millennium. Leiden. Pp. 15–35. Schiffman, L. Messianic Figures and Ideas in the Qumran Scrolls. J. Charlesworth (ed.). The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Minneapolis. Pp. 116–129.

    352

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    Schneider 1967

    Schneider, B. “kat¦ pneàma ¡giwsÚnhj”. CBQ 48:359– 387. Schweitzer, E. Variety and Unity in the New Testament Proclamation of Jesus as the Son of God. ABR 15:1–12. Schweitzer, E. The Concept of the Davidic “Son of God” in Acts and Its Old Testament Background. L. E. Keck; J. L. Martyn (eds.). Studies in Luke–Acts. London. Pp. 186–193. Scott, J. M. Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation into the Background of in the Pauline Corpus (WUNT 48). Tübingen. Speiser, E. A. Genesis (AB 1). New York. Taylor, J. The Making of Acts: A New Account. RB 97: 504–524. Van Iersel, B. M. F. Fils de David et fils de Dieu. E. Massaux et al. (eds.). La venue du Messie: Messianisme et Eschatologie. Bruges. Pp. 113–132. Vermes, G. Hanina ben Dosa. JJS 23:28–50. Vermes, G. Hanina ben Dosa. JJS 24:51–64. Verseput, D. J. The Role and Meaning of the “Son of God” Title in Matthew’s Gospel. NTS 33:532–556. Viviano, B. T. The Gospel According to Matthew. NJBC. Pp. 630–674. Von Wahlde, U. C. The Problems of Acts 4:25a: A New Proposal. ZNW 86:265–267. Yarbro Collins, A. Establishing the Text: Mark 1:1. T. Fornberg; D. Hellholm (eds.). Texts and Contexts: Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts. Oslo. Pp. 111– 127. Yarbro Collins, A. Mark and His Readers: The Son of God among Jews. HTR 92:393–408. Yarbro Collins, A. Mark and His Readers: The Son of God among Greeks and Romans. HTR 93:85–100.

    Schweitzer 1967 Schweitzer 1968

    Scott 1992

    Speiser 1964 Taylor 1990 Van Iersel 1962

    Vermes 1972 Vermes 1973 Verseput 1987 Viviano 1997 Von Wahlde 1995 Yarbro Collins 1995

    Yarbro Collins 1999 Yarbro Collins 2000

    Syntactic Parsing behind the Masoretic Accentuation (I) Michael Seleznev The Bible Society of Russia, Moscow

    Every word in the Hebrew Bible (except those that have lost their stress by becoming procliticae) is marked with a so-called cantillation sign, or accent. People working with the Hebrew Bible as scholars, translators or exegetes constantly meet with them… and ignore them. In spite of many scholarly contributions,1 the accents remain to all but a few a mysterious topic. It is widely held by Masoretic scholars that the cantillation encodes the syntactic parsing of the Hebrew text, as conceived by the Masoretes. To make the supposed Masoretic parsing easily understandable to nonspecialists (and to test the hypothesis at the same time), we need a kind of edition of the Hebrew Bible, printed or electronic, with this supposed parsing made explicit.2 To achieve this goal, we must carry out three tasks on different levels. 1) On the scholarly level: to study how the Masoretic accentuation encodes the syntactic parsing of the Hebrew text. 2) On the artistic level: to develop a means of representing visually the syntactic parsing of the Hebrew text as encoded by the Masoretic accents. 3) On the computational level: to develop software for making visible the syntactic information contained in the Masoretic accents (processing the enormous corpus of texts of the Hebrew Bible without a computer seems to be impossible). This paper is a report on what has been done by the present author in this area.

    1

    The most important works in the field still remain Wickes 1881 and Wickes 1887. Among recent studies one may mention Cohen 1969, Dotan 1972, Yeivin 1980, Aronoff 1985, Price 1990, Dresher 1994. 2 There have been published two complete concordances of the Hebrew Bible accents (Weil–Riviere–Serfaty 1978–83 and Price 1996), but no Bible edition like the one proposed.

    354

    Articles: Old Testament Studies

    Disjunctive accents Marking the end of the verse Silluq + Sop̄ Pasuq Marking the middle of the verse ʼAṯnaḥ 1st rank dividers Seḡolta Šalšeleṯ + Paseq Zaqep̄ Qaṭon (Zaqep̄ Parvum) Zaqep̄ Gaḏol (Zaqep̄ Magnum) Ṭip̄ḥa 2nd rank dividers Zarqa Pašṭa Jeṯiḇ (only on the 1st syllable) Teḇir Reḇiaʽ 3rd rank dividers Gereš Garšajim 4th rank dividers Pazer Pazer Gaḏol (Pazer Magnum) Teliša Geḏola (Teliša Magnum) Conjunctive accents

    Sign

    Example

     

    ‫ֱהים‬ ִ ‫א‬



    ‫ֱה ים‬ ִ ‫א‬

    ‫ֱהים‬ ִ ‫א‬

    ‫ֹאמר‬ ַ  ‫וַּי‬ ‫ֱהים‬ ִ ‫א‬ ‫ֱהים‬ ִ ‫א‬ ‫ֱהים‬ ִ ‫א‬

           

    !

     ‫ֱהים‬ ִ ‫א‬  ‫ֱהים‬ ִ ‫א‬ ‫לֶ חֶ ם‬ ‫ֱהים‬ ִ ‫א‬ ‫ֱהים‬ ִ ‫א‬

    "

    ‫ֱהים‬ !ִ ‫א‬ ‫ֱהים‬ "ִ ‫א‬ #

    $

    ‫ֱהים‬ #ִ ‫א‬ ‫ּול‬$‫ׁשָ א‬ ‫הים‬ ִ ‫א‬ ֱ(

    ( Sign

    Example )

    ‫ֱה )ים‬ ִ ‫א‬

    Munaḥ 

    ‫הים‬ ִ ‫א‬ ֱ

    Mahpaḵ

    *

    ‫ֱה*ים‬ ִ ‫א‬

    Mereḵa +

    ‫ה‬+‫תַ ע ֲֶׂש‬

    Mereḵa Kep̄ula

    0

    0ִ ‫א‬ ‫ֱהים‬

    Darga ʼAzla

    1

    ‫ֱהים‬ 1ִ ‫א‬

    Teliša Qeṭanna (Teliša Parvum)

    2

    2 ‫ֱהים‬ ִ ‫א‬

    Galgal

    3

    ‫יִ ם‬3‫אַ ְל ַּפ‬

    M. Seleznev, Syntactic Parsing behind the Masoretic Accentuation (I)

    355

    1. Conjunctive and disjunctive accents The Masoretic accents are divided into two major classes: the disjunctives and the conjunctives. This distinction is closely related to the rhythmic structure of the verse.3 A verse in the Hebrew Bible consists of a number of elementary prosodic units, each of them containing one or more words. The last word of an elementary prosodic unit is marked with a disjunctive accent, and other words are either marked with conjunctive accents or treated as procliticae (connected with the following word by maqqep̄). The last word of the verse is always marked with the combination of Sop̄ Pasuq with the most important disjunctive accent, Silluq. If the verse is divided into two half-verses (which is by far the most common case), the last word of the first half-verse is marked with the disjunctive accent ʼAṯnaḥ. We may visualise (i. e. graphically represent) the structure of a Biblical verse in the following way (Gen 1:2): The earth was without form and void and darkness upon the face of the deep and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters

    ‫וְ הָ אָ ֶרץ‬  ‫תהּו‬1ֹ ‫תה‬ * ָ ְ‫הָ י‬ ‫ָו ֹבהּו‬ 8 ֶ‫חׁש‬ ֹ  ְ‫ו‬ (ʼAṯnaḥ) ‫ם‬9 ‫ל Som qoy “to make wet, wet, dampen, moisten, soak” (Lulling); Arbore £uyyá “wet” (Hy); Konso -qoyi “wet” (Be); Om: (N) She £ai “wet” (Be). Could also CCu *!aqw- “water” (Appleyard 1984:53) be related? tt kwu(u)l, pl. kwuuleh “spitzer Kegel in der Ebene” (Hs). Ar dial. ("Abâbde) kûle, pl. kuwal “spitzkegelförmige Hügel”, (Yemen & Ñadramaut) kaula, pl. kiyâl “Basalthegel”, cf. Class. Ar !akwal “Erhöhung im Gelände wie ein Berg” (Hess 1919:215). kwaan m., pl. kwan “torrent, flood” (Hudson 1964) = kwaan m., pl. kwan “spate”, cf. kwaan v. 2 “to spate (khor)” (Rp) = tt kwaan, pl. rr kwan “Regenflut, Wasser des Wâdī, sêl” (Hs) = kwaan, pl. kwan m. “Fluss, Giess-, Regenbach” (Re) = kwaan m., pl. kwăn “Strom, Giessbach, Regenbach” (Al) = o’kuann, pl. e’kuenn “Strom” (Mu) = o couan “torrent” (Li) = [o]kwân “Regenbach” (Se). Cu: ?(C) Awngi kaan “altura; ciglio d’un torrente o d’un fiume” (CR) = kaun “erto” (Waldmeier) || ?(E) Boni *kòón “pond, lake”, cf. also SOr: Waata kóónó “lake” (He); ?Om: (N) Gamo, Dorze, Tsancha kan-Ìe “river” (Alemayehu 1993); Ch: (E) Tumak & Ndam kwan “rivière” (GD 1907:299), but cf. TedaDaza kwan “rivière” (le Cœur 1955:372). Is it a Chadic borrowing penetrating into Saharan or vice versa? kwiir5mir’aá m. “weather, climate” (Rp).

    Articles: Semitic and Afroasiatic Studies

    405

    kaiyait “clay” (Tl) = kayay f. “mud, clay”, esp. for pottery (Rp) = Am kaiyait “red or grey clay for making pottery” (Star). Cf. Hausa (WCh) koya “red earth” (Skinner 1996:149). l’a adj. “cold, cool; useless”, f. “cold, coolness” (Rp) = la’ v. 2 “to cold”, n. act. la f., adj. la’ab “cold, fresh” (= l’aabi “cold” by Tl), cf. la’annay f. “cold in the head; dew” (Hudson 1964) = la’ v. 2 “kalt, kühl sein”, partic. l’a, cf. laa’ f. “Kälte” (Re) = la’, le’a f. “Kälte”, lé’ v. 2 “kalt sein / werden”, caus. lé’as “kalt machen” (Al) = la “kalt, Kälte”, liiye “kalt werden”, caus. lasie “kalt machen” (Mu) = [to]la “hot”! (Bu). ?Cu: (E) Afar lee (PaHy) = lay (Re), Saho lay (Be) = lae (We) “water”; Gedeo lola!a “flood, torrent” (HG); Yaaku leei m., pl. leeimô’, leeinin “water, rain, dew” (He); ?Om: (S) Banna, Hamer liile “cloud” (Be & Lydall), Ari & Ubamer lila id. (Be & Fl); Ch: (W) Karekare leilei “cold” (Jg); Ngizim láyí id. (Schuh) || (C) Margi ’lilil “cold”; Gisiga leleŋ id. (Mukarovsky 1987:129: Beja + Ch), Kola lìl6ε'ŋ id. (Schubert)—see JgIb2 78–81 || (E)? Mokilko réèlé “kalt” (Lk) and / or Gulei lel “wind” (Lk). lo’o(o) f., acc. lo’ot “course of stream”, cf. adj. lo’ob “rained on, satisfied (thirst)” (Hudson 1964). Probably a l-variant of ro’o “tributary khor” (Hudson 1964). Cf. also Gedeo (HECu) lola!a “torrent, flood” (HG). lob “Bachrinne” (Mu). It is tempting to connect it with Bayso (ECu) lábu “river” (Hy) and Sid lawó id. (HG), if the latter form is not a variant of lagá, lagga id. borrowed from Oromo laga id. (see Beja lagi). But it was already Almkvist (1885:43) who saw in -b the accusative (object) marker of masculines; in that case it is compatible with lo’o(o) “course of stream” (Hudson 1964), the l-variant (diminutive?) of ro’o (see below), cf. the adj. lo’ob “rained on” (Hudson 1964). An alternative etymology can perhaps be based on the adj. la’ab “cold, fresh” (Hudson 1964). labassoy5ga m. “Jupiter” (Rp) = Am labusaweega “Eastern star” (Star). Derived from libas “to travel by night” (Rp). lagi f., pl. -a “path, pathway, beaten track” (Rp) = leggi f., pl. leggiyq “road, path”, cf. luglug “to wander” (Hudson 1964) = lagi f., pl. lágya

    406

    V. Blažek, Fragment of an Etymological Beja Dictionary (II)

    “Weg” (Re) = télegi m. (!), pl. télegya “kleiner, schmaler Pfad” (Al) = te’legi, pl. te’legia(d) “Weg” (Mu). ?ECu: Som laag “water-channel” (Lulling), Bayso lága “river-bank” (Hy); Oromo Macha laga “river”, lage “valley” (LVS) > PHECu *laga “river” (Hudson, G. 1989:124); Konso lak-a “plain, outside”, D’irayta lak “place, vacancy, room, space” (Bl), cf. Sasse 1982:131; SCu: Qwadza lagalako “path, road” (Eh); CCh: Wamdiu làgu, Margi lagù, WMargi lakù, Kilba laakù “road” (Kr). Ehret (1987:#316) compared Beja & Asa with CCu *längat- translating it “path, road”. But this reconstruction is based on the words with different meanings: Bilin längar “Handelsreisen machen”, Awngi langad “?” (Re) = lingidí “foreigner” (Ht); their hopeful cognate in Beja can be lengwi m. “messenger”, lenguum “to send” (Hudson 1964). ligwoi (~ lingoi) m. “inlet of sea, secondry branch of tree, pastern of camel’s hind leg”. Perhaps derived from liig m. “main branch of tree” (Hudson 1964). Am lihis “small quantity of liquid” (Star). laÅhayt “tomorrow”, l. baakay “day after tomorrow”, l. aÅkwiit “tomorrow night” (Hudson 1964) = lăh6it, l3h6it, laahíit adv. “tomorrow” (Rp) = léeha m. “Morgen”, leháa-y(-t) “am Morgen” (Re) = l(e)híit, lahiit, elhíit “morgen” (Al) = lehéit “morgen, demain” (Mu) = laheit id. (Se). It suggestively resembles Afar (ECu) laa"o “east”, laa"yta “early morning after sunrise” (PaHy). The unexpected h instead of ’ in Beja could perhaps be explained by influence of semantically close meha·“morning; East” (Rp) etc. lOk m., pl. lO;ka “Ton, Lehm” (Re) = luk m. “weiches Ton” (Al) = lugg “Kot” (Mu). SBe: Tuareg of Taitoq i-luk “boue” and / or te-laq “argile” (Masqueray), Ayr tălaq “argile, boue” (Alojaly); Ch: (W) Hausa laaka “mud” (Skinner 1996:184: Beja + Hausa). Almkvist (1881–85:43) compared Beja luk with Ti leqleqe “enduire de boue”, p.p. lūqlūq = laqlaqa “to clean the threshing-floor and to smear water and cow-dung over it” (LH 36). Regarding the isolated position within Semitic, the Tigre word can be borrowed from Beja rather than vice versa. Cf. Beja allak f. “muddy water” (Hudson 1964).

    Articles: Semitic and Afroasiatic Studies

    407

    liil-’awe m. “granit, esp. where it outcrops into a smooth pillar, boulder or platform” (Rp) = tt liilaaw, pl. i liilow “Steinblock” (Hs). It represents an apparent compound of ’awe “stone” and *liil- which is compatible with: (1) liilii “eye” (Rp); (2) liil “to be liquid” (Rp); (3) HECu: Sidamo ilaala “mountain, above” ||| Om: (N) Bench niyeel; Maji nialu, Nao nyelu || (S) Dime laalo “stone” (Be) ||| Eg (OK) xnr & xn (Wb. I, 97), Demotic xny, Coptic Sahidic  “stone” (Vycichl 1983:249–50). Cf. also Akk alallu(m), elallu “ein Stein” < Sumerian e-le-el-e or vice versa (AHw. 34)? u lambät “ganz feiner Sand” (Hs). lendaÅ “shade from sun” (Hudson 1964) = Am landab “shadow” (Star) = lénda “Schatten” (Re) = élenda id. (Mu); the deviated enindall id. (Se) was analyzed as a compound of Bi iin “Sonne” & Ar Àill “shadow” (Almkvist 1881–85:18). CCu: Kemant lämda (CR) = l3mdá “shadow” (Sa), Qwara lemda (Re) = lambda (Floh) “Schatten”, Dembea lemda id. (Re); HECu: Burji lemm-óo “shadow (of man)” (Sa) < *lemn- < *lemd-? Reinisch (1895:159): Beja + Qwara; Sasse (1982:134): Beja + Kemant + Burji. lingoi m. “inlet of sea, secondary branch of tree, pastern of camel’s hind leg” (Hudson 1964)—see ligwoi (Hudson 1964). lasso m. “thundercloud” (Hudson 1964) = lasaa “cloud” (Be) = léeso m. “Wolke” (Re) = o’lesso, acc. lessob, pl. é’lesso id. (Mu). ?Om: (S) Galila leeca “storm” (Fl). [o]ma “Süden” (Bu). There are two alternatives: (1) The word is identical with mah “Morgen; Osten” (Al); (2) It is shortened from mhakwal “Süd” (Hs). mi, mi’ m. (acc. mεb) “hailstone(s)”, f. (acc. mεt) “stone of fruit” (HuB) = mee, mii m. “Hagel(korn)” (Re) = mi m. “Hagel” (Al) = [e]méh id. (Se) = eembi id. (Mu) = Bi êbĭ “hail” (Tl).

    408

    V. Blažek, Fragment of an Etymological Beja Dictionary (II)

    Apparently connected with mi’ v. 2 “to be / become damp” (Rp). It is in agreement with external parallels, too: Ch: (C) Kotoko: Logone muu “Tau” (Nachtigal), Affade mo id. (Se)— see Sölken 1967:191. maadaÅ f. “deep water (sea)” (HuB). Am mudaat & middat “time” (Star). Borrowed from Ar muddat, pl. mudad “space of time” (Sg 974). máadna f. “Turm, Minaret” (Re) = temmâ dna “Turm” (Mu). Borrowed from Ar ma!¯anat “Turm, Minaret” (Wahrmund 1898 I.2:670). madíina f. “Stadt” (Re). Borrowed from Ar madīnat “town” (Sg 978). Am mog “wave” (Star). Borrowed from Ar mawg= “wave” (Sg 1087). mágwa f. “Wolke, Regenwolke” (Re) = magwaÅ (~ mokwaÅ) m. “shelter from the rain” (HuB). ?Om: (N) Wolayta, Kullo meg-uwa, Gofa, Gamo, Dirze, C’ancha meego “cool, cold” (Alemayehu 1993), Oyda meego, Dache mee´go (Be), Malo me·go id. (Fl). Reinisch (1895:164) compared it with Bilin b3kwána “cloud” (see Beja bayúk “Schnee”). mugwil f., pl. -a “shallow well in khor”, cf. maÅgwaÅl & makwaÅl f. “pool made by scratching in ground” (HuB) = Am magwal “waterhole”, mugwel “small well” (Star) = u magwel, pl. i magwelä “spärliches Wasser in sandigem Gelände des Wâdī , das durch Graben gewonnen wird” (Hs) = mágwal m., pl. magwála “hole excavated for collection of rain” (Rp) = máagwel m., pl. máagula “die Tränke, Wasserbasin für Viehtränke” (Re). Reinisch (1895:164) connected it with Ar ma!g=al “stagnum, piscina” while Hess (1919:215) found a source in Ar dial. ("Abâbde) maqal, pl. měqûl “Brunnen, resp. Wasserloch im Mittellauf, resp. dem Sande des Wâdī”, Class. Ar. maql “bottom of a well, descending into the water, making water” (Sg 1043).

    Articles: Semitic and Afroasiatic Studies

    409

    măhaÅ m. “dawn, time of morning prayer, east” (HuB) = meha· m. “morning; East”, cf. meh “in the morning to be or to do” (Rp) = tt mäh “Osten, Morgen”, mähiyaab “östlich” (Hs) = Bishari o-mhón “east” (Th) = mah & máha m. “der Morgen; Sonnenaufgang, Osten” (Re) = mah “Morgen; Osten”, mahóon “im Osten” (Al) = o’mhi “der Morgen”, mehiya “Morgen werden” (Mu) = [u]ma “Morgen” (Km) = o mah-oc “est” (-oc is the 2sg. poss. suff.) (Li). Cu: (E) Afar maàµa “early morning” (PaHy), Saho maµ- “to dawn”, máaµã “time before dawn” (We); Yaaku im5h5í “tomorrow” (He); ?Eg (OK) mµw.t, (MK) mµy.t “Nordwind, als kühlender, erquickender Wind”, mµ.t-j “nördlich; Norden” (Wb. II:125), Coptic of Lycopolis h “souffle”, Sahidic & Bohairic h “Nord” > Arabic maµwat “vent du Nord; pluie” (Vycichl 1983:130). măhagay m. “summer” (HuB) = m3hagay m. “the hot season in May and June”, imhagay “in summer” (Rp)—see hagáay m. “Sommer, heisste und trockene Jahreszeit” (Re) etc.; cf. also Am maghib “summer” (Star). mhakwal “Süd; oben, höher gelegen”, -iih “südlich von ihm”, -aab “südlich” (Hs) = meháakwel & emháakwel m. “die weite ebene südlich von Suakin; der Süden” (Re) = muhakwalóon “im Süden” (Al) = mo acouweg “Sud” (Li); cf. also mehaakwal, imhaakwal (2) “to be/go upwards, upstream” < Ar maµqalah “Saatfeld” (Reinisch 1895:215; Hess 1919:215). mehiin m. “place” (HuB). ee-mhay “constellation of Orion” (HuB) = Suakin e-mhai “Orion” (Th). Lit. “The Three [Stars]”, cf. mehay “three” (HuB). makwaÅ f. “double star in tail of constellation of the Plough” (HuB). Is it identical with nakwaÅt “double star in handle of Plough” (HuB)? malhi “the middle one”, malmalhu “middle one” (HuB) = u malhah “die Mitte”, malhtty “in der Mitte befindlich” (Hs) = malhé m. “centre; midst” (Rp), prep. malh “amongst, amidst” (Rp) = málho 1. “Zweiheit, Paar”, 2. “Mitte, Zwischen” (Re) = malh “zwischen”, lit. “Mitte” (Al) = to malhoy “moyen” (Li). Re (1895:168) compared it with Khamir (CCu) mäxil “Mitte” (& Amh mākhal) but the medial -x- undoubtedly continues some pCCu velar stop, cf. Kemant mälqi “milieu” (CR). On the other hand, there is a suggestive

    410

    V. Blažek, Fragment of an Etymological Beja Dictionary (II)

    etymological solution based on the numeral “2”, cf. the form mahlŏ (Hudson 1964) or mhaloo- (Hudson, R. 1976). The semantic developmant is quite natural, cf. English between or German zwischen. malh m. “salt” (HuB). Borrowed from Ar milµ, pl. milaµ, milāµ, milµat “salt” (Sg 1054). miilak m. “salt” (HuB) = Am milak id. (Star) = miilák m. “salt” (Rp) = miláak m., pl. milák “salz” (Re). See malh id. malal m. “wilderness, desert, khor and surroundings” (HuB) = maláal m., pl. malăl “khor, country on either side of banks of khor; town” (Rp) = u malaal, pl. i malel “das Wâdī und seine Ungebung, Wâdīglände” (Hs) = maláal m., pl. malál “die Wüste, Steppe” (Re) = maláal m., pl. malál “Wüstental” (Al) = melál “Wüste” (Mu). Reinisch (1895:169) and Hess (1919:215) connected it with Ty marōr or mōrōr “brousse, terrain en friche garrenne; essart” (Coulbeaux–Schreiber 1915). melauwlaa “constellation of the Great Bear” (HuB). mamuudaÅ “muddy and slippery place” (HuB). miimhaÅ m. “direction of Mecca” (HuB) = Suakin e-mimha “east” (Th), cf. maÅhă m. “dawn, time of morning prayer, east” (HuB). mingay m. “place without people” (HuB) = mangai & mingai m., pl. mangεi “khala, isolation” (Rp) = u mingaay, pl. i mingey “Einöde, menschlichenleere Gegend” (= Ar ¶alā)” (Hs) = mánga & mínga m. “die Wüste, Steppe” (Re) = min®gai m. “Wüste” (Al) = mká “Wüste” (Km). Reinisch (1895:171) connected it with Ar mang=a(n) “place, esp. on high, where one can escape; rising of the ground” (Sg 1065). murdim m. “star near Orion’s belt” (HuB) = Am mirdam “middle star of Orion’s belt; after this appears, rainy season begins” (Star). Could it be adapted from Ar mirdan “spindle” (Sg 985)?

    Articles: Semitic and Afroasiatic Studies

    411

    Am te-marafa “Milky Way” (Star). Could it be adapted from Ar marfa! “anchorage” (Sg 988)? morgaan m. “coral” (HuB) = murjáan m., pl. -a “Koralle” (Re) = mürgjân id. (Se). Borrowed from Ar murg=ān “coral, pearl” (Sg 983), cf. Ti m3r ān “chain of read beads” (LH 116). .

    meréer, merár m., pl. -a “Röte am Hinmmel”, oo-súbhu meréer “Morgenröte”, óo-ngrebi meréer “Abendröte” (Re). Eg (D 18) m±w.t “die Strahlen der Sonne, ihr Glanz”, m±wy “bestrahlen, erleuchten” (Wb. II:28), Coptic Bohayric ,   “lumière, clarté” (Vycichl 1983:108). mus m. “salt”, masiib “salty, bitter (not used water)” (HuB) = mos f. “salt water used as condiment” (Rp) = moos “Salz” (Re) = moos f. “Salz”, móosi “salzig” (Al) = omoss id. (Km) = [o]mous id. (Bu). Reinisch (1895:173) connected it with Ar µama/i/u¥a “to be sour” (Sg 297) and further with non-AA counterparts: Nubian (NS): Mahas imíid “salt” || Kenzi & Dongola um(b)ud id. (Murray 1923:73) and Tegele (Kordofanian) múude id. But the Ar word was apparently borrowed into Beja hamid “sauer” (Re) = hamíid id. (Al). Murray (l. c.) compared it with Coptic (Sahidic) hj “devenir aigre”, itself of Semitic origin (Vycichl 1983:303), and Eg (MK) µm±.t “Salt” (Wb. III:93), continuing in Coptic (Sahidic & Bohayric) h id. (Vycichl 1983: 299), evidently unconnected with Beja mos & mus. mase f. “year” (HuB) = Am masset id. (Star) = masse f. “year”, mási adv. “yet, ever, still”, with neg. “never, not yet” (Rp) = máase, másse f. 1. “Vergangenheit”; 2. “Jahr”, máasi “einst, jemals”, with neg. “niemals” (Re) = maszét “Jahr” (Se). Reinisch (1895:173) connected it with Ar mā¥ī “passed, past (n.)” (Sg 938), cf. also Gz ma¥aw “season of flowers, spring, season after rains”, ma¥awa & ma´awa “to pass the season of ma¥aw”, Ty mä´äw “season of flowers” etc. (LGz.:331). měsi f. “act of producing fire by means of twirling stick” (HuB). Be “fire”: (E) Siwa tamisih (Bricchetti–Robecchi) = temsa (Cailliaud)— see Basset 1890:56; Ghadames timsi (C.-Motylinski) || (N) Kabyl times(s) /

    412

    V. Blažek, Fragment of an Etymological Beja Dictionary (II)

    tim(es)si (Dallet) || (W) Zenaga tsmši id. (Nicolas)—further see Laoust 1920:50. Am misgas “small canals” (Star). mišad m. “shallow surface well” (HuB). Is it identical with mašel “trockener Wâdī-Arm” (Hs)? miša¥¥awt f., pl. miša¥¥awa “oasis” (Vh). (u) mašel, indet. mašalaab, pl. i mašeleh “trockener Wâdī-Arm” (Hs). mătir f. “lateral boundaries of a valley” (HuB). mitway m. “rains coming before regular winter rain” (HuB) = Am mitwai “summer rain” (Star) = mitway m., pl. mitwεy “light spring rains” (Rp). ttt mtty, indet. mttyt, pl. ti mttyeh “kleiner Berg” (Hs), probably identical with moi m. “top of head” (HuB) = moi m., pl. moi(y)a “crown of head, top” (Re) = Am o-moi “top” (Star). Cu: (E) Afar moyya “brain, head, skull” (PaHy); ?Om: (N) Nao mai “mountain” (Be); Ch: (C) Bachama mwεy, Wamdiu m3w, Kilba mâ’ “mountain” (Kr). maiyyam m. “ground sloping downwards or low lying” (HuB). Derived from mtty f. “kleiner Berg” (Hs) or from ayam “low” (HuB)? n’aÅ & n’e] f. (acc. neet) “fire”, na’a “hot” (HuB) = n’e ~ n’ie “fuoco” (Ci) = n’e f. id. (Rp) = n’a & n’e f. “Feuer, hitziges Fieber” (Re) = na, ne f. “Feuer” (Al) = Am nait “fire” (Star) = [to]ney[t] id. (Bu) = tona id. (Km) = [tô]n-ih id. (Se). ?ECu: Afar ni"na “fever, heat”, ni"nà-le “to be hot”, ni"innoowe “to become hot” (with variants in la°) (PaHy); SOm: Hamer nu(’), Kara no, Dime nuun, Ari nóhá & nBB, Galila no£a & lo£a “fire” (Bender 1994). Bi nê’ed-dôl “ash” (Th). The compound consisting of the acc. of n’e “fire” & ¥ăhálay “glowing ember” (Rp).

    Articles: Semitic and Afroasiatic Studies

    413

    na’aal f. “part of constellation of great Bear” (HuB). n’eet-haaš m. “ash(es)” (Rp) = ne’éet-haaš m. “Asche” (Re) = neet haš “ash, cinders” (HuB) = netháaš m. “Asche” (A) = Am naitaš id. (Star) = net hasch id. (Mu) = netásch id. (Se). Lit. “fire-dust”. Only Thompson (1910:165) recorded a deviated form, viz. Bi nê’ed-dôl “ash”. Am nabahowb “midday” (Star). náda m. “dew”, minda “raindrop” (Rp) = náda “Tau” (Re) = enédda “(der) Tau” (Se). Borrowed from Ar nadā “dew” or Ti näda id. (LH 340) = TiBA nada “drop” (Nakano–Tsuge). nageeb m. “deserted (place)” (HuB) = Am nagib “desert”, nageb “oasis” (Star) = nagε m. (acc. nagεb), pl. nagia “desert, district void of wells”, nagεti re “oasis” (Rp). Perhaps borrowed from Ar naqb “hole in the earth or in a wall; tunnel; digging, tilling, cultivation of the ground” (Sg 1140). Am nagari “day after day” (Star). nagaaraÅ “large drum of copper” (HuB) = niggara f. “Kupfer” besides nakáara f. “Trompette, Horn” (Re) = nakkáara “Pauke, Paukchen” (Se). Borrowed from Ti naggārat “big drum of the chieftain” (LH 341), cf. Gz nagārit “trumpet, drum” (LGz.:392), besides Ar nāqūr “Trompette” (Wehr 1958:881)—see Almkvist 1881–85:50. nĭki f. “ground cracked and dry” (HuB). nakwaÅt f. “double star in handle of Plough” (HuB)—see makwaÅ id. (HuB). Bi o-nôn “summer” (Th). nóora f. “Kalk” (Re) = tennaúwará id. (Se). Borrowed from Ar nawrat, nūrat, pl. nūr “lime, chalk” (Sg 1155) or some EtSe source, cf. Gz norā “chalk, lime”, Ti norät, Ty, Amh, Gurage nora id. (LGur.:460; LGz.:401).

    414

    V. Blažek, Fragment of an Etymological Beja Dictionary (II)

    nuur m., pl. -a “Licht” (Re) = nuur m. id. (Al) = Am o-nur “light” (Star). Borrowed from Ar nūr “(ray of) light, brightness” (Sg 1155). tu näsäl, pl. ti näsäläh “Felskuppe ohne Blöcke und Steine” (Hs). Borrowed from Ar na´l “Kopf, Kuppe des Hinterkopfes” (Hess 1919: 216). Am natila “top tributary of a wadi” (Star). re f., pl. rĭ “well” (HuB) = re, ri f., pl. reet “well” (Rp) = ttt reh, indet. rrrt, pl. trr reh “Brunnen” (Hs) = re, rare ra m. & f. “Wassersammlung, Zisterne”, merwi adj. in buur mérwi “wasserbetränktes Land” (Re) = Am to-ri, acc. red “well”, further perhaps ret “khor”, cf. also to-rě “oasis”? (Star) = re m. (or f.?) “Brunnen” (Al) = tore “Brunnen” (Mu) = [to]ry “spring or source” (Bu) = [to]réh (Se). Reinisch (1895:188) connected it with Se *r-w-y (LGz.:478): Gz raw(a)ya “to drink one’s fill; be watered”, Ar rawiya “drink one’s fill”, marwiyy “abundantly watered”, Gz m3rwāy “place of refreshment” = Beja merwi. ro’o (lo’o) f., pl. rŭ “tributary khor” (HuB) = r’e f. “small subsidiary khor”, indef. r’oot; m. “id., somewhat larger” (Rp). Cu: (E) ?Elmolo ráa “cave” (He); Dullay: Harso-Dobase rá""-e f. “Tal, Schlucht” (AMS). rěbaÅ m. “mountain” (HuB) = rěba & rĭba m. “mountain; large group of hills”; f. “id., smaller group of hills” (Rp) = tt rbeh, indet. ribaab, pl. rr rbeh “Berg” (Hs) = réeba & ríba m. “Berg, Hügel” (Re) = r(é)ba m., with article úurba “(der) Berg” (Al) = Am reba “hill”, rebab “mountain”, ?rebart “small bank of rock”, mirbaay “high place” (Star) = órba (Kc, Km) = o’orba, pl. e’eerba (Mu) = [o]rbay (Bu) = [o]rba (Se). Reinisch (1895:188) and Hess (1919:216) derived it from Ar rabw(at), ribwat, rubwat, pl. rubā “hill” (Sg 400), cf. dial. (Yemen) rabwe “Hügel”, (Tripolis) rabbä “collina” (Hess l. c.), probably derived from the verbal root √r-b-w “to increase, grow”. Is it also connected with Eg (MK) w±b.t “Anhöhe, hochgelegenes Ackerstück” (Wb. I:251) and Som rabaal “Hügel, kleiner Berg” (Reinisch 1902:318)? Lit.: EDE I:104: Eg + Ar + (or >) Beja.

    Articles: Semitic and Afroasiatic Studies

    415

    Riif m. “Egypten”, Rífya c.g. “Egypter” (Re). Borrowed from Ar !ar-Rīf “Unterägypten” where rīf means “fruchtbares, bebautes Land; flaches Land” (Wehr 1958:337). raagw m., pl. răgw “artificial reservoir” (Suakin / Sinkat dial.) (Rp). ?Be: (S) Tuareg of Ahaggar ăruġ pl. iruġġän < *ā-rahūg “vallée” (Prasse 1972–74:75). tt rhaab, pl. rr rhäb “breites Wâdī in der Ebene, das nur durch den grünen Pflanzenwuchs ("öšb) kenntlich ist, ohne Holzpflanzen” (Hs). ráka m. “weite, freie Luft” (Re). Perhaps borrowed from Ar ru¶ā! “breeze” (Reinisch 1895:191; Sg 407). rěkwia m. “depression in ground” (HuB). rimiab “on heat” (HuB). Cu: (E) Afar rama “hot ashes remaining from a fire” (PaHy)—if it is not borrowed from Ar ramād “ashes”; Arbore rómm (Hy), Elmolo rôm “ashes” (He); Yaaku hroon, pl. hroómê’ “ashes” (He); Mashile & D’irayta room- “red” (Bl) can also be related (“color of glowing ashes”—cf. Ar ramādiyy “ash-colored” vs ramād “ashes; potash”—see Sg 433). Oromo ramači “ashes” (Tu) = ramaci “cenera calda” (Borello) is an Amh lw., cf. Amh rämä¢ “hot ashes, cinder” (Ls); Se: Aram rim´å “ashes”; Ar rama¥a “to roast on stones, heat in the fire”; Gz rämä¥ “hot ashes, cinders”, Ty rämä´, Ti rämäÌ , Amh rämä¢ id. (LGur.: 526). Ar ramād with the diferent third radical implies the biradical root *r-m. In Chadic a possible cognate could be found in “black”: (W) Kariya rimína, Miya rînní || (E) Jegu ráámân, Mubi rám id. (JgIb2 28–29). ror m., pl. -a “potholes in khor” (Rp). ?Cu: (E) Oromo raaree “pool” (Gg); Sid rirriwá “marsh, swamp” (HG). Am o-rs-eet “south” (Star). Eg (Pyr) rsw, later rsj “südlich”, rsw.t “Süden” (Wb. II:452–53).

    416

    V. Blažek, Fragment of an Etymological Beja Dictionary (II)

    rasáas m. “bullets, cartriges” (Rp) = resáas m. coll. “Blei”, tuu-resáas “ein Bleistück, (Blei- / Schiess)kugel” (Re) = rasáas m. “Blei”, n. unit. tu-rasáas “Bleistück” (Al) = orszâs (Se). Borrowed from Ar ra´ā´ “lead, tin” (Sg 416). riša f. “crest, summit” (HuB) = ríiša f. “Berggipfel, -spitze” (Re) = te’risha “der Berggipfel” (Mu) Borrowed from EtSe: Gz r3!s “head, top, summit”, Ti rä!as, Ti r3!si “head”, cf. Ar ra!s and Soqotri reš id. (LGz.:458). Am ruša “rain after bad flood” (Star). rošáan m., pl. rošán “Haus, Palast aus Steinen, Burg, Festung” (Re) = rošáan “Haus von Steinen” (Se). Perhaps borrowed from Ar (< Pers) raušan & rauzan “window” (Wahrmund 1898 I.1:808–09; Sg 442). This word is widespread in Cushitic, cf. Saho rosan (Re) and Som rosaan (Reinisch 1902:326). Am to-rtu “thunder” (Star). saa’, saa’a f. “hour” (Rp) = sáa’a f. “Zeit, Stunde” (Re) = Am sa “time” (Star) = tossa “Stunde” (Se). Borrowed from Ar sā"at “hour, moment, short time” (Sg 474), cf. also Gz sa"āt & sā"at “hour, time, moment, season”, Ti, Ty tä"at etc. (LGz.:481). saa’aÅ m. “dew” (HuB) = o’sa “Tau” (Mu)—probably identical with the following entry. s’ai “mist” (HuB) = s’ay, s3’ay m. “mist, fog” (Rp) = sa’ m., pl. sá’a “Nebelwolke” (Re). Ch: (C) Zime-Batna só!ó “cold” || (E) Sokoro ósso id.; Jegu !és “cold wind” (JgIb2 80–81). saboo f. “desert, waterless place” (HuB) = sabbi f., acc. sabbot “desert” (Rp). Perhaps connected (lw.?) with Ar sabsab, pl. sabāsib “vast plain, desert” or sabtā! “desert” (Sg 478, 477). sibdiaÅ f. “basin” (HuB).

    Articles: Semitic and Afroasiatic Studies

    417

    sěbuh m. “morning” (HuB) = sebú_h m. “Morgen”, oo-súbh-i meréer “Morgenröte” (Re) = sbuh m. “Morgen” (beginnt eine Vierstunde vor dem Sonnenaufgang, cf. kruum) (Al). Borrowed from Ar ´ubµ “dawn, light of the morning” (Sg 578). sabt f. “Saturday” (HuB) = sab f. id. (Rp) = saab & sabb f. “Samstag” (Re) = Am subt “Saturday” (Star). Borrowed from Ar sabt “Saturday” (Sg 477). sĭd m. “south” (HuB) = siid m. “Süd” (Re, Al) = o’sĭd “der Süd” (Mu). Reinisch (1895:195) derived it from Ar ´a"īd “ascensio”. Sodáan m. “Sudan” (Re). Borrowed from !as-Sūdān “der Sudan” where sūdān represents a plural of !aswad “schwarz” (Wehr 1958:401). siif m. “fine misty rain, drizzle” (Rp). Derived from saf v. 2 “to sprinkle” (Rp, HuB). siifa f. “coral rock” (Rp). Suakin o-sáfil “north” (Th) = sáafit (-t instead of -l ?) m. “der Norden” (Al). Thompson (1910:181) assumed a borrowing of Ar sāfil “lower part, further down” (Sg 474). soguud m., pl. sagud “firebrand” (HuB) = sug(w)uudÅ m., pl. sugwídÅ “brand” (Rp; d is “an occlusive final consonant”) = sågŭd m., pl. -a “Hitze, Brand” (Re) = sogúd m. “Feuerbrand” (Mu). sugúm, segúm m. “Frühling, Zeit nach den periodischen Regen” (Re). Reinisch (1895:196) connected it with Ti (& Ty) s3gm (“the ascending”, cf. sāgama “to ascend, move into highland”—see LH 198) and added Saho sugúm “Frühling (Mai–Juni)” (Re), Afar sugum “rain which doesn’t amount to much” (PaHy) and Bilin sagem “vom Meere, vom Tiefland aus nach dem Hochland ziehen” (cf. Reinisch 1887:297). This areal isogloss represents a typical example of the Northeast African Sprachbund connecting Beja, Bilin, Saho-Afar and Tigre-Tigray. sigwonni m. “hard white stone, often found in ostriches’ crops” (HuB).

    418

    V. Blažek, Fragment of an Etymological Beja Dictionary (II)

    Am to-sgunfoy “hail” (Star) Perhaps a compound with the first component identical with sigwonni m. “hard white stone, often found in ostriches’ crops” (HuB). săhaab, saab m. “cloud (cirrus or stratus)” (Rp) = saháab m., pl. saháb “Wolke” (Re) = saháab “Wolke” (Se). Borrowed from Ar saµābat, pl. saµāb “cloud” (Sg 482). tu saahah, indet. saahaat “ebenes Gelände vor und um den duwwār” (Hs). Borrowed from Ar sāµah “weiter Platz vor einem Hause oder um die Wohnungen eines Stammes” (Hs) = sāµat, pl. sāµ “open place between tents, houses etc.” (Sg 473). s3heel “Stern Canopus & Carinae”, cf. sheelit hidadt “(in oder nach der) Richtung des Canopus” (Hs) = Am sihala “star to which indicate rains esp. in summer” (Star). Borrowed from Ar dial. (Central Arabia) sěhēl, Class. Ar suhayl id. (Hs; Sg 516). sikwi f. “quartz” (HuB) = sikuauneb “Quarzit” (Mu). Reinisch (1893:9–10; 1895:36) analyzed the latter form as the acc. *siku awn-eeb “*bright (?) stone”, identifying the first component with Gz ´3µwa & ´3¶wa “to be bright (sky)”. The second component is discussed apud auwi “stone” (HuB). seel m. “star” (which?) (HuB) = sail “star in Orion’s belt visible in the end of autumn” (Star). Identical with s3heel “Stern Canopus & Carinae” (Hs)? sil f. “boundary” (HuB). sallal m., pl. saÅllaÅ “way, road”, salool v. 2 “to lead” (HuB) = salal m., pl. sál(ă) “way, path”, salol v. 2 “to guide, lead camel” (Rp) = sálla, pl. salóol m. “Weg”, cf. salool v. 2 “führen, leiten” (Re) = [o]sala “route” (Li). Borrowed from EtSe or from Ar, cf. Ti s3lal “winding road, muletrack”, Ar salla “to withdraw, pull out” (LH 167; LGz.:516). som’a m. “hillock formed by white ants” (Rp).

    Articles: Semitic and Afroasiatic Studies

    419

    san m., pl. sinaÅ “basin” (HuB) = sánay f., pl. sanεi “stream of running water” (Rp). Cu: (E) SOromo sona “bank of a river, riverside” (Stroomer 1987:386) || Dahalo sòòni “river” || (S) Mbugu sondá “valley” (Ehret 1980:182); ?Ch: (C) Misme of Zime sina “river” (Kr). Note: SOromo & Dahalo are neighbors; it means that the similarity of the compared words could be caused by their mutual contact. saanha f. “col, pass” (Rp) = tu säänäh, indet. säänäht “Pass” (Hs). simha “the day that comes after an interval of three days” (Rp) = Am sinhab “after three days” (Star). Derived from the numeral m3hεi (Rp) = maháy, meháy, emháy “three” (Re). senáy “Frühherbst, September & Oktober” (Re) = senéei id. (Mu). Reinisch (1895:203) connected it with EtSe: Gz śane, s3ne “tenth Ethiopian month (8 June—7 Juli), Ty s3ne; Amh säne (LGz.:531 adds HECu forms: Kamb, Tambaro sanaa). Afar (ECu) saaniyya “cold dampness, saaniyyu “cold west wind” and the fact that the EtSe words have no cognates outside Ethiopia, can witness to a common Cushitic origin of both Beja and Afar words and a borrowed character of their EtSe counterparts. suuraÅ f. “watering place” (HuB) = suura f. “well, watering-place” (Rp) = súura f. “die Tränke, Becken aus Lehm, vor der Zisterne errichtet, zum Tränken der Herden” (Re) = to’sura, pl. te’sura “die Tränke” (Mu). ?Cu: (E) SOromo sora (~ ś-) “season of rains” (Stroomer); ?Ch: (W) Diri súwàrú, Tsagu zááwa¾; Wangday shar, Tule, Zaar zhà etc. “water” (JgIb2 340); Be: (N) Beni Snus essuur “tränken” (Zyhlarz 1932–33:99, #45:Be + Eg); Eg (Pyr) zwr, (MK) swj (Wb. III:428), Demotic swr, Copt Bohairic & Sahidic “to drink” (Vycichl 1983:183; Zyhlarz 1932–33:170, #69: Eg + Beja). sirma “the day that comes after an interval of two days” (Rp) = Am sirmabi “after two days” (Star). Derived from the numeral “two” attested in asaráama “seven”, lit. “growing two [plus five]” (Re). suwan m. “flint” (HuB).

    420

    V. Blažek, Fragment of an Etymological Beja Dictionary (II)

    šaab m. “reef, shoal (submerged rock)” (HuB). Borrowed from Ar ša"b “split, cleft” (Sg 543) > Som ša"ab “Koralenriff, Klippe” (Reinisch 1902:353). u šabaay, pl. i šäbey “schwierige, unebene Strasse im gebirgen Gelände” (Hs). Perhaps connected (lw. ?) with Ar ši"b, pl. ši"āb “mountain path, narrow pass, water-course” (Sg 543). šafåk m. “dusk” (HuB). šuugaÅ m. “khor between high mountains” (HuB). šagiil m. “hill” (HuB). šake m. “precipice” (Rp). ?EtSe: Ti šīkā “field, meadow, valley”, Ty šak_ī “frische Weide, Wiese” (LH 222). šelhatani f. “precipice, steep place” (Hudson 1964) = u šelhät, indet. šelhätaab, pl. i šelhätäh “glatter Felsboden, eben oder abschüssig, auf dem man ausgleitet” (Hs) = šelhúutani m. “schlüpfriges Terrain—Weg, steiler Abhang, Abgrund” (Re) = šelhúutani m., pl. -a “schlüpfrige Stelle” (Al) = shelhotenéb “Abgrund, Rain” (Mu). Reinisch (1894:11, § 294; 1895:213) analyzed it as the derivative (nomen agentis) of the verb šehaat “ausgleiten, glitschen” and connected it with Bilin (CCu) Ü alha¢, Ty (!an)dälµa´ä & däµa´ä “to s/glide” etc. (LGz.: 128). .

    šallag m. “beach” (HuB) = e-šalág “la costa” (Ci) = u šelek, indet. šelekaab, i šelekeh “Meeresstrand, Ebene, die sich an dem Meere entlang zieht” (Hs). tu šellaaläh, indet. šellaalaat, pl. šellaaläh “blinder Wâdī-Arm, abgetrennter Wâdī-Arm mit Wasser” (Hs). Borrowed from Ar, cf. dial. ("Õtebic, Sinai, Nubia, Sudan) šellāl, šellāle “Katarakt, Wasserfall, Stromschnelle” (Dozy). šam m. “cave or crack in the earth” (HuB).

    Articles: Semitic and Afroasiatic Studies

    421

    šamburaÅ f. “mist, cloud” (HuB). Could it be a compound of šaay “Wolke” / šay v. 2 “to float” & ambúur “Flügel” (Re)? Let us mention that Afar "amburre (PaHy) and Saho amburre (We) mean “cloud”. Apparently the same word occurs in Qifr, the Arabic dial. of the Upper Egypt, viz. šabbūra “fog, mist” (Nishio 1994:199) and in Mahas–Kenzi (Nile Nubian) ša/ebuur “Nebel” (Lepsius). Are they borrowed from Beja or vice versa? šan m. “precipice, flood” (HuB). šanki “edge”, acc. šankeb (Rp) = šankib “seashore” (Hudson 1964) = Am šank “bank of a river, side”, šankabe “edge” (Star). šanti f. “flat stone for throwing something wrong or out of place” (HuB). širig m. “khala” (= country as opposed to town; open solitary spaces), cf. širgíiay & šírgitak “hillman”; tak means “man” (Rp). šarik m. “east”, šarikbεt(i) “eastwards” (Rp) = šarík m. “Ost, Sonnenaufgang”, pl. šárka “östlich gelegene Ortschaften oder Länder” (Re) = osherk “Ost” (Bu), but šerk m. “west”! (HuB). Borrowed from Ar šarīq “rising sun, east”, šarq “east, sun-rise”, šarqiyy “eastern, oriental”, šariqat “rising sun” (Sg 540, 538). šeráar & seraar m., pl. -a “Funke” (Re). Borrowed from Ar šarār, širār “spark” (Sg 534), cf. also Ti š3rarit id. (LH 211). šŏwŏw m. “cloud” (HuB). šiaÅ f. “well that is very shallow, water-hole dug in khor” (HuB) = Am šiha “shallow small well” (Star) = ttt šyäh, indet. šyäht, pl. ti šsshäh “reichliches Wasser, das im Rande des Wâdī-gegraben wird, kann wohl dreissig Kamele im Tage tränken” (Hs). ?Cu: (C) Awngi soγen “wet” (Hetzron), Kunfäl sekhwan id. (Cowley) || ?Cu: (S) Mbugu -síwa “to be wet”, -sí “to rain” (Ehret 1980:175); Om: (W) She so “acqua” (Montadon) = She-Bench so’ “water” (Be);

    422

    V. Blažek, Fragment of an Etymological Beja Dictionary (II)

    Ch: (E) Kujarke (Mubi group) šia “water” (Doornbos) and / or PCh *sa/i’- “to drink” (Stolbova 1996:58; cf. ead. 1987:180, #326): (W) Hausa sháá; Sura shwaa; Daffo shoh; Kirfi shé:-wò; Siri sáwá; Guruntum sai; Ngizim sá || (C) Margi sàh; Higi Nkafa sεxwì; Gudu sa; Laamang s(u)-; Wandala shá; Sukur skván; Gisiga she; Daba sa; Gidar sa³; Logone sé; ZimeBatna cé / sé || Kera s6; Kabalai sùw3; Sumrai shΛ'; Sokoro sa; ?Mokilko síɓ è; Birgid sáyà, Mubi súwà & sìyá etc. (JgIb2 110–11); Be “to drink”: (E) Siwa su, Ghadames 3suw || (S) Tuareg of Ahaggar 3su || (W) Zenaga ešbi < *iswi || (N) Mzab, Wargla su etc. (Militarev 1991: 256, #19.1). .

    šaay m., pl. šay “Wolke” (Re). Probably derived from šay v. 2 “to float” (Hudson 1964). Dolgopolsky (1973:193) compared it with NOm counterparts: Wolayta šara “cloud”, Kullo šariya, Male šaari, Yemsa šaaru id., She šaar “smoke” (Be), etc. Their more apparent cognates occur in ECu: Rendille seréí “sky”; Elmolo séér “rain cloud” (He). A common origin with Beja is in principle also possible, cf. Beja boy “blood” (Rp), if related to CCu *b3r- id. ||| Ch *bar- id., but the internal etymology within Beja looks as more convincing. t’ungua “south” (Th). taba “Torrent”, taba enfeeris “Torrentmündung” (Mu). Probably aba “Fluss, Bach” (Re) with the feminine article. til m. “stream” (HuB). Cf. til v. 2 “to drop” (HuB) = til v. 2 “to drip, dribble” (Rp). Perhaps the same root forms the phytonym til f. “Urostigma abutifolium” (Schw). It could be connected with Gz ¢al(a)a “to be moist, humid, wet, covered with dew”, ¢allāt “drops of dew, fatness”, Ti ¢älla “to be wet” etc. (LH 606; LGz.:591). Am teli “charcoal before it is burnt” (Star). Cf. talaw “blitzen” (Re)? Am telij “snow” (Star). Borrowed from Ar ¬alg= “snow”, ¬alig= “icy cold” (Sg 208).

    Articles: Semitic and Afroasiatic Studies

    423

    taláata f. “Tuesday” (Rp) = taláata f. “Dienstag” (Re) = tetalláte id. (Se). Borrowed from Ar ¬alā¬ā! “Tuesday” (Sg 207). talaw m. “lightning” (HuB) = tálaw, pl. taláawa m. “lightning, flash”, f. “blaze”, e. g. of fire, talaw v. 2 “to glimpse, appear”, cf. yíint-talaw “sunrise” (Rp) = taláaw f., pl. taláw “Blitz”, talaw v. 2 “blitzen” (Re) = tálau m. “Blitz” = te’telau id. (Mu) = ittaláu id. (Se) = Am italau & talub “lightning” (Star). Reinisch (1895:227) connected it with Ti talawa bela “to flash”, cf. tawl3µ id. (LH 303, 318) > Bilin talwah y id. (Re). In respect to the idiom yíint-talaw “sunrise” (Rp), it is tempting to compare tálaw with SBauchi (WCh) “sun”: Boghom taal, Kir tàl, Tule càlí (JgIb2 312). tirig, pl. tirga, m. “month”, f. “moon” (Hudson 1964) = teríg & terík c., pl. tírga, m. “Monat”, f. Mond” (Re) = térig, tírig m., pl. térga “month; moon in the first quarter, crescent moon”, εtérig f. “moon from seventh day onwards” (Rp) = terig, eterig, pl. tírga 1. “Mond”, 2. “Monat” (Al) = Am terig, pl. tirga “month”, ter’igt & to-trik “moon” (Star) = [o]tryk “heaven” (Bu) = o’edrik “der Mond” (Mu) = [e]trig “Monat” vs. [to]trig “Mond” (Se). Reinisch (1895:231) proposed a connection with Ar ¢arqa “to come at night time”, ¢arq “turn, time, once”, ¢āriq “night-traveler, morning-star” (Sg 633, 622) and SEtSe forms: a) Amh, Argobba, Harari Ìäräqa “moon” (> Qwara zärkaa), Gafat ´äräqa id.; b) Gurage: Zway, ¢3rqa, Goggot ¢ärraqqa, Soddo därraqqa, Chaha, Gyeto ¢änaqa id. (LGur.:632; he follows Cerulli 1936:243 considering a Cushitic origin of the Gurage “moon”, but Cushitic family is represented only by Beja). Appleyard (1977:77) also mentioned remarkable parallels in various NS languages of Ethiopia: Kunama & Ilit teera ||| Ingassana turia’ ||| Surma: Mursi tàagì, Kwegu tìgε'š etc. (all after Bender 1975). On the other hand, there are suggestive parallels almost in all Chadic and Berber languages meaning “moon” and “star” respectively: Ch: (W) Sura tár; Bokkos túré; Karakare taré; Jimbin tírà; Guruntum tarri; Ngizim tıra || (C) Tera tera; Higi-Nkafa tırrε; Laamang trí; Wandala tırrε; Sukur tea; Muktele tèlá; Kola trá; Gidar t4ra; Logone tèè¥k; Musgu tle; Zime-Batna tér || (E) Kera kí-tír; Lele gì-dìrì; Sumray dúrù; Sokoro dáála; Mokilko térè; Mubi tírí (JgIb2 238–39); Be: (E) Siwa iri (Basset 1890) || (S) Tuareg of Ahaggar atri, pl. itran (Foucauld) || (W) Zenaga 3¯3ri (Nicolas) || (N) Kabyle itri (Dallet).

    424

    V. Blažek, Fragment of an Etymological Beja Dictionary (II)

    Accepting a common AA origin of this Beja–Chadic–Berber isogloss, there is a tempting etymology proposed by Cohen (1947:#323) and Hodge (1968:24): ?Cu: (C) Bilin tarī “die bestimmte Zeit, Reihenfolge”, cf. tart “in Reihen stehen”, borrowed in (or from ?) Ti tart & tartara id. (Reinisch 1887: 342) || (E) Som tiri “to count”, tiro “number”, Boni tére / téría “to count” (Heine 1978:96); Eg (Pyr) tr “Zeit”, cf. the old form of plural xtr.w “Jahreszeit”, Copt Sahidic  “temps” (Wb. V:313–16; Vycichl 1983:208); Se: Hb tōr “to turn”; Ar tāra (t-w-r) “to go around”; Amh tära “turn, row” (concerning semantics, Cohen l. c. quoted Akk dāru & dūru “era; eternity” vs. Ar d-w-r “tourner”). tarhaguad “north; left-hand” (Th) = tarha & talha “left” & gw’ad “side” (Rp). torni “charcoal ashes” (Star). teruus “earth bank in qash” (Star). Am ti-teeta “Little Bear” (Star) = te’ēdíte (constellation) “der grosse Bär” (Mu). Derived from tiita “twin” (Rp) = Am ti-teet “twins” (Star). Apparently a calque for Am tayman “Little Bear” (Star). Am tayman “Little Bear” (Star). Borowed from Ar at-taymā! “constellation of the Twins” (Sg 197). ¢eláay f., pl. ¢eláy “Regenbogen” (Re). Reinisch (1895:235) connected it with Ar ¢a/i/ulāwat “fairness, beauty, elegance, charm”, ¢alwat “brightness of dawn” (Sg 640, 642). ¢iin m. “mud, clay, morass” (Rp) = tt ¢iin “Erde, Lehm” (Hs) = ¢iin ~ tiin “Ton, Lehm, Schlammerde” (Re) = ¢iin m. “Ton” (Al) = Am ¬in “clay, mud” (Star) = tiin “mud” (Tl) = tîn “Lehm, Ton” (Se). Borrowed from Ar ¢īn “clay, mud, puddle, sealing-earth, red chalk” (Sg 653).

     iir “swamp” (Tl). .

    Articles: Semitic and Afroasiatic Studies

    425

    wi’i m. & ye m. “winter” (HuB) = Am wiya id. (Star) = wiya m. “winter (Nov–Feb), winter rain(s)”, ówiiyay “in winter” (Rp) = wíya m. “Regenzeit, Winter” (Re) = wíya m. “Winter” (Al) = owiha “hiver” (Li) = owie “Winter” (Kr) = [o]wiyáh “Regenzeit” (Se). Cu: (E) *wa"- / *wi"- (Sasse 1982:186) > Saho-Afar we" “flowing water” (Sa); HECu *wa!a “water” (Hudson, G. 1989:164–65) > Burji waa, gen. way-i-n- (-y- is epenthetic glide), Gedeo wada!a (with puzzling -d-), Had wo!o, Kamb wa!a & wi!a, Sid waa, Amh w3ha “water” is apparently of Cushitic origin; ?Om: (N) Kafa yoyo “Regenzeit, Winter” (Re). The semantic difference between “Winter” = “Regenzeit” and “(flowing) water” is neglectable. wagh “in direction of ” (HuB). Perhaps borrowed from Ar wag=h “front, face” (Sg 1201). wúha m. “Niederung, Tiefe”, wuháay “in der Tiefe; unten, unterhalb, unter” (Re) = wihi “down, bellow, under” (Hudson 1964) = (w)uuhii prep. & adv. “underneath”, adj. “lower, under” (Rp) = úhi, wáhi, yúih “unten, unter” (Al) = uhi (Km) = wuhih “unten” (Se). Reinisch (1890:73; 1895:237) compared it with Saho baah-aa, pl. baah-it “niedrig gelegene Örtlichkeit, Tiefe”, baahaaraa “Tieffläche” and Afar baahaa “niedrig gelegener Ort, Tiefe; Elend, Not, Armut”, baahaaraa “Tiefebene am Meere”, from baah “niedrig sein” (Re), cf. baaµat “a deep place in the sea; high seas, middle of ocean”, baµàri “flat wide plain” (PaHy). It is in principle possible, accepting the following development in Beja: *u baha > *uwaha > *waha (cf. wáhi by Almkvist). wåkte m. 1. “Zeit”; 2. “Mal, vices” (Re). Borrowed from Ar waqt “time”, cf. also Gz waqāt and Ti wäqt “time, season” (LH 438; LGz.:616). wonno (?) “this morning” (HuB) = Am wana “morning” (Star) = wána adv. “at dawn, early morning”, wana· n6 adv. “since morning”, wana· ni adj. “matinal, belonging to the early morning” (Rp). Reinisch (1895:20) saw in w- the article before the noun ana m. “Tageslicht, der Morgen”, woo-án-i (deháay) “am Morgen”. Zyhlarz (1932–33:166) compared Beja wána with Eg (OK) wbn “aufgehen (zumeist von der Sonne), glänzen, scheinen”, wbn.t “erste Ta-

    426

    V. Blažek, Fragment of an Etymological Beja Dictionary (II)

    gesstunde” (Wb. I:292f.). It is in principle possible, accepting the same development as in the case of wúha “Niederung”, wáhi “unten” < *u-wah< *u-bah-, hence *u-wan- < *u-ban-. But in this case the form ana attested by Reinisch would represent a secondary decomposition. Finally, there is a possibility that w- belongs to the root, if the Beja “morning” is related to Koyra (NOm) wont- “to dawn, become light” (Hy apud Sasse 1982:190). Skinner (1996:292) also finds promising parallels in Chadic: (W) Hausa wuni “daytime; to pass the day” (but the variant yini is compatible with Beja yiin “sun; day”—see below); Tangale wuni “day of 24 hours; to spend night”; Ngizim w3na id. || (E) Mokilko ’onny- “passer la nuit, jour, journée”; maybe (C) Gude wan3 “this year”. And what is the position the Gurage forms: Ennemor, Gyeto wa!ana, Endegeň wa!anä, Eža, Muher wanna, Chaha wana “day (in daylight)” (LGur.:640)? A direct Beja-Gurage contact at least in recent time is excluded. oh-wer “Fluss” (Kc; Almkvist 1881–85:68 reconstructed *wer) = ?Am orab “stream” (Star). Cu: (C) Bilin wäräbá, pl. wärGf “river”, Khamir wirba, pl. wirib “Fluss” (Re), Khamta wirva “fiume” (CR); cf. Amh wayb and Som webbi “grosser Fluss, breiter Strom” (Reinisch 1902:372) and further Oromo waraab- “to pour, dip, fetch” (Reinisch 1887:360) < PECu *waraab- “to draw water” || (E) *war- > Som war “pool, pond”, Rendille wor “well” (Pillinger & Galboran) or “river” (Fl); Dasanech wár, pl. warram “river” (To), Arbore wor (Sasse 1979:42); Burji wara “marsh, swamp” (HG); Om: (N) Male uor “fiume” (da Trento 1941:204). yam m. “water”, cf. ayam “low” (HuB) = yém “acqua” (Ci) = yam “water” (Be) = Am yum id. (Star) = yam m. pl. “water” (Rp) = rr yäm, indet. yämeh “Wasser” (Hs) = yam m. pl. “Wasser” (Re) = yem “water” (Wt) = yoom m. pl. tantum “Wasser” (Al) = e yam (Li) = en-àm (Kc) = o’yem (Mu) = éyam (Km) = ayam (Bu) = o yum (Salt) = êyem id. (Se). ??Cu: (S) Iraqw yamu “under, below; floor”, Gorowa yamu “places; country”, Burunge yamu “place; district; under, below”; Qwadza hamuko “under, below” (Ehret 1980:315; Kiessling–Mous 2003:329); cf. the isolated Jiddu (ECu) yan “earth” (Nuux–Ehret 1984); Ch “water”: (W) Sura àm; Fyer ham, Kulere !aàm; Tangale am, Kirfi amma; Pa’a ambi, Jimbin ìmbí; ?Boghom, Kir yip; Ngizim âm || (?) Tera !yim; Margi !ímí; Fali-Kiria jiami; Nzangi mbii; Laamang íimí; Wandala jàwè; Su-

    Articles: Semitic and Afroasiatic Studies

    427

    kur yâm; Gisiga yam; Daba yım; Buduma āmái; Musgu yim; Zime-Batna b ì || (E) Kwang káam; Kabalai kaamk; Sumray pl. nímī; Sokoro mbo; Migama àmmì; Mubi !àm (JgIb2 340–41); Be “water” (Vycichl, WZKM 52 [1955]:314; Mémorial Basset [1957]: 143, reconstructed an unattested sg. as *im or *ymi resp., while the plural should reflect *i-imē-ěn or *i-ymi(yu)n resp.): (E) Siwa aman pl. (Laoust), Ghadames āman m. pl. (Lanfry) || (S) Ayr & Iulemidden amùan m. pl. (Alojaly) || (W) Zenaga aman (Basset 1890) || (N) Shilh of Tazerwalt aman pl. tantum (Stumme) ||| Guanche a(h)emon “water” (Woelfel 1965:513); Se *yamm- “sea” > Ug ym, Hb yām, pl. yammīm “sea, lake; reservoir, large basin”, Aram yammā, Ar yamm “sea” (WUS 129; Klein 1987:259). A Semitic source is evident for Eg (18th Dyn) ym “Meer” (Wb. I:78), Demotic ym id., Copt Sahidic , Bohairic , Ahminic & Fayyumic  “mer; pressoir”, pl. Bohairic  < *yammīy-u (Vycichl 1983:63). yiin f. “sun”, yin-ti-dib “sunset”, yiin-talaw “sunrise” (HuB) = Am yint “sun; day”, yindib “west” (Star) = yiin f., pl. -a “sun, sunlight, heat, day”, tó-yiin-ton “today”, yiindibs m. “sunrise”, yiinttálaw m. “sunrise” (Rp) = y’en¥ib “west” (Vh) = (y)iin f., pl. -a “Sonne, Tag”, too-yíin “am Tag, heute”, too-yíin-dib & yíiÛ-¥ib “Sonnenuntergang, West” (Re) = yen, yin, iin f., pl. yéena “Sonne, Tag”, tó-iin “heute”, íin-¥eb m. “Sonnenuntergang, West” (Al) = êin “Sonne”, te’ein dübb “Sonnenuntergang, West” (Mu) = to hi “soleil”, o hi “jour” (Li) = toin “heute” (Km) = do-ï “Tag”, do-î “Sonne”, mallo gina “zwei Tage”, sarama gina “heute” (Kc) = iîndêp “Westen” (Se). Reinisch (1895:241) analyzed it as a derivative of yi’ v. 2 “licht, hell sein, glänzen, leuchten” (cf. Id. 1893, § 351). Behnk (1928:138) compared yiin with Eg (Pyr) xwnw “Heliopolis”, Copt , cf. xwnw (NK) “Beiname des Sonnengottes” (Wb. I:52). Vycichl (1934:83) found cognates in Eg (BD) xn “heute” (Wb. I:92) and Hausa (WCh) yini, with variants wuni & ’uni “period of day, from sunrise to sunset” (Bargery 1934:1116, 1093; Skinner 1996:292). An inner Cushitic etymology cannot also be excluded, cf. ECu: Gedeo & Sid yanna “time” (HG; Skinner 1996, l. c.: HECu + Beja); Yaaku in f. id. (He).

    428

    V. Blažek, Fragment of an Etymological Beja Dictionary (II)

    Bibliographic additions Alemayehu 1993

    Bargery 1934

    Basset 1890 Behnk 1928 Bender 1994 le Cœur 1955 Coulbeaux–Schreiber 1915 Farah–Heck 1993 Hodge 1968 Hudson 1964 Korhonen 1986

    Nuux–Ehret 1984

    da Trento 1941 Vergote 1965

    Weibegué–Palayer 1982 Zyhlarz 1932–3

    Alemayehu, A. Ometo Dialect Survey—A Pilot Survey Report. Survey of Little-Known Languages of Ethiopia, Reports 4:1–10. Bargery, G. P. Hausa-English Dictionary and English-Hausa Vocabulary compiled for the Government of Nigeria. London: Oxford University Press. Basset, R. Le dialecte de Syouah. Paris: Leroux. Behnk, F. Über die Beziehungen des Ägyptischen zu den hamitischen Sprachen. ZDMG 82:136–141. Bender, M. L. Aroid (South Omotic) Lexicon. Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere 38:133–162. le Cœur, Ch. et M. Grammaire et textes teda-daza (Mémoires de l’Institut Français d’Afrique Noire 46). Dakar. Coulbeaux, P. S.; Schreiber, J. Dictionnaire de la langue Tigraï. Wien: Hölder. Farah, M. A.; Heck, D. Somali Wörterbuch. Hamburg: Buske. Hodge, C. T. Some Afroasiatic Etymologies. Anthropological Linguistics 10/3:19–29. Hudson, R. A Grammatical Study of Beja. London: PhD. Diss. Korhonen, E. A Dialect Study of Kambaata-Hadiyya (Ethiopia), Part 2: Appendixes. Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere 6:71–121. Nuux, A. M.; Ehret, Ch. Soomali Classification. Th. Labahn (ed.). Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Somali Studies (Hamburg 1983). Hamburg: Buske. Pp. 201–269. da Trento, G. Vocaboli in lingua dell’Etiopia meridionale. Rassegna di studi etiopici 1:203–207. Vergote, J. Le rapport de l’égyptien avec les langues sémitiques. Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, klasse der letteren 27/4:71–107. Weibegué, Ch.; Palayer, P. Lexique lele-français. Sarh (Tchad): Centre d’Études Linguistiques. Zyhlarz, E. Ursprung und Sprachcharakter des Altägyptischen. Zeitschrift für Eingeborenen-Sprachen 23:25–45, 81–110, 161–194, 241–280.

    A Gregorio del Olmo Lete y Joaquín Sanmartín cuya obra lexicográfica ha hecho posible este estudio

    Lexical Evidence and the Genealogical Position of Ugaritic (I)* Leonid Kogan Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow

    0. Introduction Genealogical position of Ugaritic has been discussed ever since its discovery. The history of research and the variety of opinions are extensive, but two trends are generally prevailing today: Ugaritic is thought to be either a representative of an independent branch of North-West Semitic, or a member of its Canaanite branch. The two approaches are represented by such influential studies as Huehnergard 1991 and Tropper 1994. In his 1994 study, J. Tropper attempts to justify the Canaanite affiliation of Ugaritic using the following criteria:1 1. Loss of the emphatic lateral *¹;2 2. Contraction of the sequences *aw and *ay; 3. Mimation in the dual and masculine plural; 4. Validity of Barth’s law; 5. The forms y!ubd, y!uhb, y!u¶d, y!ukl and y!usp in the prefix conjugation of the verbs ‘to perish’, ‘to love’, ‘to take’, ‘to eat’ and ‘to collect’, comparable to Hbr. yō(!)bad etc.; 6. Loss of h in the prefix conjugation of hlk ‘to go’; 7. The form *miya of the interrogative pronoun ‘who?’; 8. Preservation of the terminative-adverbial marker -Vh; * The present investigation forms part of the research carried out in the framework of the projects 04-04-00324а (РГНФ/RFH) and 06-06-80537а (РФФИ/ RFBR). I am deeply grateful to both institutions for their financial support. 1 For Tropper’s criteria 1–3, 6 and 8 see also Isaksson 1989–90, for Tropper’s criteria 6 and 9 see also Ginsberg 1970. 2 Loss of the non-emphatic lateral *ŝ (at least in Ugaritic and Phoenician) is also relevant in Tropper’s opinion.

    430

    Articles: Semitic and Afroasiatic Studies

    9. t-prefix in the 3 pl. f. of the prefix conjugation; 10. “Emphatic” a-extended forms of the prefix conjugation (mostly in 1 sg. and pl.) and the imperative; 11. Use of the infinitive absolute as the narrative form. In his turn, J. Huehnergard (1991:286ff.) adduces two arguments against the Canaanite affiliation of Ugaritic: – Ugaritic does not participate in the shift a > i in the first syllable of the base of the suffix conjugation of the intensive and causative stems, a shift which is typical of Canaanite languages of the first millennium (Hebrew £i¢¢ēl, hi£¢īl) but first attested already in the Amarna Canaanite; – the Auslaut of the 1 sg. personal pronoun did not change from *-a to -_ in Ugaritic (a-na-ku vs. Hbr. !ānōkī).3 In my opinion, both of Huehnergard’s arguments are cogent. I find problematic many of Tropper’s arguments4 but some of them (mimation in the dual and masculine plural, the form y!ubd, a-extended imperatives)

    3 Huehnergard emphasizes that this criterion is not identical to the generally recognized fact that Ugaritic does not participate in the Canaanite shift. Still, the eventual relationship between the two phenomena is hardly in doubt. Personally, I tend to believe that the Canaanite shift by itself is quite a strong isogloss separating Canaanite from Ugaritic (cf. Isaksson 1989–90:59). 4 The merger of *¹ and *´ is not a truly specific feature (it took place also in Akkadian and Modern Ethiopian); contraction of *aw and *ay is a very trivial phenomenon (Sivan 2003:537), which, nevertheless, has not fully developed in such an obviously Canaanite language as Hebrew; Barth’s law is at least a common Central Semitic phenomenon (Sivan 2003:538) but there are good chances to trace it also to PS (Testen 1992, 1994, 2000); Canaanite is not the only branch of Semitic where the verb *hlk ‘to go’ exhibits peculiar features (cf. Akk. illik / illak, Blau 1978:37) whereas at least in one Canaanite language (Moabite) the prefix conjugation of *hlk does preserve h (w!hlk ‘I went’); the *m_ya / *m]ha system of interrogative pronouns is not found in any Semitic language outside Canaanite and Ugaritic but does occur in a few Afroasiatic languages such as Berber (Prasse 1972:216–17), and may, therefore, be archaic rather than innovative; preservation of the terminative-adverbial is an archaism; t-prefix in the 3 pl. f. of the prefix conjugation is characteristic not only of Canaanite but, as pointed out in Blau 1978:37 and Huehnergard 2005:169–70, also of MSA (Johnstone 1975: 108) and ESA (Nebes–Stein 2004:464); the narrative use of the infinitive absolute is very rare in Hebrew whereas in Phoenician it is restricted to the 1 sg. personal pronoun as subject (Friedrich–Röllig 1999:192–3).

    L. Kogan, Lexical Evidence … of Ugaritic (I)

    431

    look quite promising. Moreover, a few other Canaanite features (most probably innovative) can be adduced:5 – the pōlēl allmorph of the D-stem for roots IIw/y (Ginsberg 1970:103, Blau 1978:37, Isaksson 1989–90:58); – biconsonantal structure of the basic stem active participle from roots IIw/y, namely Ugr. £m, Hbr. £ām ‘standing’ as opposed to Arb. £ā!im-, Arm. £ā!ēm, Akk. šā!imu (Ginsberg 1970:104);6 – the N-stem participle with nV- prefixed, namely Pho. nktbt ‘written’, Hbr. ni£¢āl as opposed to Arb. mu-n£atil-, Akk. mu-pparsu (Ginsberg 1970:104; for this criterion applied to those few pertinent Ugr. forms that are available—all somewhat problematic—see further Tropper 2000: 540–1). Clearly, Ugaritic does share some of the specifically Canaanite innovative isoglosses but does not share a few others. It may be observed that such a contradictory picture is everything but new in studies dealing with genealogical subgrouping of Semitic. The best known (although by far not the only) example is the attribution of Arabic to the Central Semitic branch—plainly suggested by the nature of its verbal system (v., e. g., Hetzron 1977:11–15) but problematic in view of other diagnostic features uniting it with Ethiopian Semitic and MSA, such as a widely developed system of broken plurals with many concrete patterns in common, stems with ā after the first radical in strong roots, a rather than i in the second syllable of the suffix conjugation in the intensive and causative stems.7 In the case of Arabic, conflicting pieces of morphological evidence are, in my opinion, very hard to reconcile.8 The situation with Ugaritic is, it seems,

    5

    3 plural masculine forms in t- in the prefix conjugation of course represent another very peculiar isogloss between Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite (Ginsberg 1970:103, Blau 1978:38). Their disappearance from later Canaanite dialects is, as well known, enigmatic. 6 It is difficult to agree with the negative evaluation of this criterion in Blau 1978:37. 7 See Zaborski 1991, Blau 1978:29–36, Goldenberg 1998:473–5, Diem 1980, Corriente 2003. 8 Thus, differently from Hetzron 1974:183 and Huehnergard 2005:159–60 (and with Blau 1978:30, Diem 1980:70–1, Ratcliffe 1998), I am convinced that aapophony in such NWS plural forms as Hebrew mäläk ~ m3lākīm on the one hand and the widely developed system of broken plural patterns in Arabic, Ethiopian Semitic and MSA on the other are to be evaluated differently as far as the subgrouping procedure is concerned.

    432

    Articles: Semitic and Afroasiatic Studies

    by far less dramatic. A promising reconciliatory solution is to suppose that Ugaritic represents a special branch of Canaanite which underwent some of the specific changes proper of this subgroup but separated from it too early to take part in a few other innovations (in other words, it forms a separate branch of NWS which is closer to Canaanite than to Aramaic).9 If this way of thinking is accepted as a starting point, positive and negative criteria advanced by Huehnergard, Tropper and other scholars are to be evaluated hierarchically, an intriguing but difficult task which remains to be performed. It is easy to notice that arguments put forward by both Huehnergard and Tropper (and, indeed, by most scholars before them) are almost entirely of phonological and morphological nature. This is in agreement with a widespread conviction according to which lexical evidence is of no relevance for genetic classification.10 This claim is rarely supported by concrete arguments but when it is, the two most prominent ones are the following:11

    9

    For a lucid exposition of such a possibility v. Tropper 2000:4–5. Cf. also Blau 1978:36, 40. 10 Studies which used concrete lexical evidence in order to establish the genealogical position of Ugaritic have been few and the evidence presented there notoriously unsystematic. Thus, Ginsberg (1970:103) even opens his case for the Canaanite affiliation of Ugaritic with lexical evidence but mentions only six pertinent lexical features (gg ‘roof’, ¬lµn ‘table’, µln ‘window’, y¬n ‘old (of things)’, d£n ‘old age’, grš ‘to drive away’). The former three terms, although not without importance, scarcely belong to the basic layers of the vocabulary whereas the semantic innovation *¯a£an- ‘beard’ > *¯£n ‘to be old’ seems to be shared by Old Aramaic and is, therefore, Common NWS at least (cf. also Arabic ¯i£n- ‘a decrepit, old and weak, or extremely aged, man’, Lane 967). Haldar (1964:274) made important observations about exclusive lexical isoglosses between Ugaritic and Akkadian but his concrete examples are not particularly impressive (v. extensively below as well as in the forthcoming Part II of the present contribution). For a recent sceptical evaluation of the lexical evidence as a tool of genealogical classification v. Huehnergard 2005:189–91 (using both types of negative arguments mentioned presently). I have to confess that, in my opinion, Huehnergard’s skepticism did not prevent him from formulating extremely interesting methodological and practical suggestions about the use of lexical isoglosses in the subrouping procedure, some of them fully exploited in a few simultaneously published studies by the present author (v. next footnote). 11 At this point, my arguments are largely identical to those expounded in Kogan 2005a and 2005b where the same methodology has been applied to common Aramaic and common Ethiopian lexical stocks respectively. I apologize for

    L. Kogan, Lexical Evidence … of Ugaritic (I)

    433

    – lexicon is open to borrowing whereas morphological (especially inflectional) features can seldom be borrowed; – classificatory value of individual lexical isoglosses is difficult to assess. Besides, the chronological difference between languages under comparison (in our case, Ugaritic vs. Hebrew and Aramaic) is often emphasized (Renfroe 1992:7).12 Each of the three arguments deserves serious attention but none of them, in my opinion, should compel us to desist from using lexical evidence in genetic classification. The problem of borrowing becomes much less serious if comparison is restricted to the most basic lexical layers. That loanwords in such layers are only rarely attested is a well-known empirical fact. Thus, no Sumerism has penetrated into Swadesh wordlist of Akkadian in spite of the fact that we know of several hundreds of Sumerisms already in Old Babylonian, many of them deeply integrated phonologically, morphologically and semantically. A very strong influence of Cushitic languages on Ethiopian Semitic is universally recognized but the number of proven Cushitisms in Swadesh wordlists hardly exceeds a dozen even in a modern South-Ethiopian language like Harari. The chronological difference is certainly not to be disregarded but it is clearly erroneous to consider it as a crucial factor. Needless to say, languages undergo changes in the course of their development but direct identification of early textual attestation with linguistic archaism is an elementary error intolerable in modern linguistic discussion. A statement like “comparison between contemporary languages is more reliable than comparison from languages from diverse periods” (Sivan 2003:534) makes little sense: the basic methodology of comparative linguistics presupposes (and is built on) comparing languages attested in periods chronologically distant from each other—Sanskrit and Lithuanian, Old Akkadian and Mehri and so on. More popular (and, in my view, even more surprising) is the assumption that it is precisely the lexicon that changes most rapidly and unpredictably. This is scarcely correct. The importance of the basic lexicon for the communication process is at least this repetition which was found indispensable for a coherent exposition of the present contribution. 12 This objection, however, is not bound to lexical isoglosses but pretends to get rid of the classificatory procedure altogether (Sivan 2003:533 and elsewhere in that review article).

    434

    Articles: Semitic and Afroasiatic Studies

    not inferior to that of inflectional morphology and, therefore, any quick and massive changes in this segment of the vocabulary are, to say the least, unexpected: they would threaten the very existence of the language in question. The evidence of Aramaic—a Semitic subbranch with the longest attested history of almost three thousand years—plainly demonstrates that several dozens of characteristically Aramaic lexical features are present in both the earliest and the most recent documents of this language, from Tell-Fakhariyye and Sefire up to neo-Aramaic dialects otherwise most divergent from both Common Semitic and Common Aramaic linguistic type (Kogan 2005a). An examination of the Ethiopian evidence from Geez to Harari and Gurage (i. e., some 1500 years at least) points in the same direction even more clearly (Kogan 2005b). A proper assessment of the lexical evidence is indeed a problem but, upon a careful examination, only slightly more difficult one than a correct evaluation of morphological isoglosses. It has long be recognized that shared morphological innovations are of paramount importance for classification whereas the value of shared morphological retentions ranges from relatively high to zero, depending on their specificity. In my opinion, the same gradation can be successfully applied to the lexicon. Every lexical isogloss can be attributed to one of the following categories: – trivial retentions; – non-trivial retentions; – semantic or formal innovations; – loanwords; – words of unclear origin. Trivial retentions are exact phonological and semantic descendants of their Proto-Semitic ancestors which were the only basic terms for the respective notions already in the proto-language. Thus, ‘dog’ was obviously *kalb- in Proto-Semitic and it would be pointless to argue that if a given pair of Semitic languages preserve the reflexes of *kalb- as their main terms for dog, there is a particularly close genealogical relationship between them. In short, trivial retentions are not helpful for the genetic subgrouping.13 13

    PS *kalb- ‘dog’, although certainly not unique, is of course a parade example. Many other cases are not so straightforward. An appropriate methodology is thus to be developed in order to establish, which reconstructions did function as the main (or basic) terms for the respective concepts already in the protolanguage. It is only in such a context that the very notion of “trivial retention”

    L. Kogan, Lexical Evidence … of Ugaritic (I)

    435

    For many concepts no single basic term is reconstructible for PS. In such cases, daughter languages had a more or less wide pool of options from which their own basic terms could evolve. Thus, PS certainly possessed several verbal roots with a relatively diffused meaning ‘to come, to reach, to arrive’ (the principal ones being *bw!, *!tw, *mÎ!). The classificatory value of such non-trivial retentions is not zero but depends on the degree of specificity of each particular case. Combinations of several nontrivial retentions may turn out especially suggestive: thus, a language combining *"awp- for ‘bird’, *Îlm for ‘to be black’, *whb for ‘to give’, *mÎ! for ‘to come’ and *ŝVbµ- for ‘fat’ is almost certainly an Ethiopian Semitic language and so on. Formal and semantic innovations need no special comment: either the form, or the meaning of a PS term may undergo a non-trivial modification specific of one particular group of languages (Common Ethiopian *bl" for ‘to eat’ < ‘to swallow’, replacing PS *!kl; Common Aramaic *ma!nay- ‘vessel’ with an obligatory prefixation of ma-). Their relevance for the purposes of classification is very high. Some terms may be highly specific of a group of languages but have no reliable etymology. They are either inherited terms completely lost in other languages, or borrowings from an unknown source, or innovations with some unusual phonological and/or semantic shifts. Their relevance for genetic classification may vary substantially from case to case. In view of the above considerations, there is every reason to suspect that the widespread reluctance to deal with lexical material in the evaluation of genealogical proximity between Semitic languages is unwarranted. Moreover, when morphological isoglosses are few and to a certain degree contradictory, the origin of the suggested morphological innovations is far from transparent and the available morphological information as such is drastically reduced by the consonantal nature of the script (all these obstacles are plainly obvious in the case of the Canaanite–Ugaritic controversy), a proper assessment of the lexical evidence becomes not just desirable but practically mandatory. To offer such an assessment to the readers’ judgment is the principal goal of the present article.

    can become meaningful. I have to admit that I did not fully realize such a necessity when the pertinent sections of Kogan 2005a and 2005b were written. For an attempt to improve this situation v. the Appendix to the present contribution.

    436

    Articles: Semitic and Afroasiatic Studies

    1. Basic vocabulary of Ugaritic: Swadesh wordlist 1.1. Swadesh wordlist: the evidence The method outlined above is not identical to the glottochronological method: it does not operate with time depth calculations and is not bound to any fixed list of basic concepts. Nevertheless, it seems convenient to begin our presentation with an analysis of the Swadesh wordlist which provides a fairly representative selection of concepts belonging to the most important spheres of the basic lexicon. Ugaritic is a dead language with a relatively restricted (and, quite often, poorly understood) textual corpus. In these conditions, the very procedure of establishing the main terms for several dozens of basic concepts turns out to be a complex philological task which, to the best of my knowledge, has never been carried out consistently. Three versions of the Swadesh list for Ugaritic are known to me (Rabin 1975, Hayes 1991, Militarev 200414). Although I tend to rely on Militarev’s list as the most balanced one, each entry has been checked anew upon the most recent textual and lexicographic evidence. The results of this inquiry are as follows.15 A . C e r t a i n (62) This section includes 62 positions of the list that can be filled with confidence (of course, within the limits imposed by the very delicate nature of the Ugaritic textual evidence). Here and elsewhere below the headings of such entries are printed in bold. 14

    Militarev’s Ugaritic list in its published form covers the first 45 positions

    only. 15 The present author is well aware of the fact that linguistic evidence available from the extant Ugaritic texts is not homogeneous (v., e. g., Held 1959:169 and Tropper 1993, especially p. 393). Texts from different periods and genres exhibit various peculiarities and it is in the lexical domain that these specific features are expected to be especially well pronounced (a nice example is provided by Ugaritic terms for ass, donkey: literary texts practically do not use µmr and prefer "r and pµl which, in their turn, are absent from economic and administrative documents). However, as far as the Swadesh wordlist is concerned, this problem does not appear particularly acute. A great majority of positions are filled with terms attested in myths and epics and it may be stated with confidence that it is this stratum of the Ugaritic lexicon that the present list represents. Terms included into the list but absent from the corpus of myths and epics are very few (kbd ‘liver’, dr" ‘seed’, hnd ‘this’, š"r ‘seed’, hnk ‘that’, lbn ‘white’) and it is only in one case (mt vs. bnš ‘person’) that there are reasons to suspect that a given concept was indeed expressed differently in texts of different genres.

    L. Kogan, Lexical Evidence … of Ugaritic (I)

    437

    1. ‘all’: kl (DUL 436). Passim (e. g. 2.81.9: kl d !i¬ [l špš m]lk rb ‘all that belongs to the Sun, the great king’). 6. ‘bird’: "´r (DUL 187). Widely attested, v. especially 1.23.38 (yr b šmm "´r ‘he shot a bird in the sky’) and 1.23.62 ("´r šmm w dg b ym ‘birds of the sky and fishes from the sea’). For the lexical evidence v. Huehnergard 1987:162. 7. ‘bite’: n¬k (DUL 653). Reliably attested in 1.6 VI 19: yn¬kn k b¬nm ‘they bite themselves like snakes’. 9. ‘blood’: dm (DUL 272). Widely attested (e. g., 1.18 IV 24: špk km š!iy dm ‘spill (his) blood like an assassin’). 10. ‘bone’: "Îm (DUL 197). Reliably attested in 1.12 I 24 (kry !amt "pr "Îm yd !ugrm ‘drive your elbow into the dust, the bone of your hand into the ground’) and 1.19 III 11 (yb£" kbdthm w [yµd] !in šmt !in "Îm ‘he opened their entrails and saw: there was no fat, there was no bone’). 11. ‘breast’: !irt (DUL 110). Reliably attested in 101.17 (t!i¶d knrh b ydh [tšt] r!imt l !irth ‘she took the harp in her hands, placed the zither? to her breast’) and 1.6 III 19 (w tn¶ b !irty npš ‘and my soul will rest in my breast’). For the lexical evidence (not fully reliable) v. Huehnergard 1987:109. 12. ‘burn’ (trans.): šrp (DUL 844). Reliably attested with the basic meaning ‘to burn’ = ‘to destroy by fire’ in 1.6 II 33 (b µrb tb£"nn b ¶¬r tdrynn b !išt tšrpnn b rµm t¢µnn b šd tdr"nn ‘with a knife she split him, with a sieve? she winnowed him, with fire she burned him, with a hand-mill she ground him, in the field she scattered him’) and 1.6 V 14 ("lk pht šrp b !išt ‘because of you I saw burning by fire’, parallelled by other destructive actions). The verb µrr adduced as one of the two synonyms for this position in Militarev 2004:298 is widely attested but apparently not with the basic meaning ‘to destroy by fire’ (translated as ‘to dry up, shrivel, burn up, catch fire’ in DUL 368): 1.5 II 5 (b ph yrd k µrr zt ‘he will descend to his mouth like a roasted olive’, cf. Tropper 2000:584 for this interpretation), 1.23.41 ("´r tµrr l !išt ‘a bird you roasted on fire’), 1.12 II 37 (!an pnm yµr[r ... ] b mtnm yš¶n ‘the vigour? of the face? burned u[p … ] in the loins [it?] became hot’). Similarly, b"r ‘to

    438

    Articles: Semitic and Afroasiatic Studies

    ignite, to burn; scorch the earth’ (DUL 212) does not appear in contexts immediately connected with fire. 14. ‘cloud’: "rpt (DUL 184). Widely attested, v., e. g., yr "rpt tm¢r ‘let the clouds bring rain!’ (1.19 I 40). In Rabin 1975:87 γrpl is adduced as an alternative but this is hardly warranted (Hapax Legomenon in 1.107.34, context partly broken). 17. ‘die’: mt (DUL 596). Widely attested, v., e. g., 6.30.1 (yµ w l ymt ‘may he live and not die’). 18. ‘dog’: klb (DUL 439). Widely attested, v., e. g., 1.14 III 19 (zγt klb ´pr ‘barking of the hunting dogs’, parallelled by ¬!igt !ibrh ‘neighing of his stallions’, nh£t µmrh ‘braying of his donkeys’ and g"t !alp µr¬ ‘bellowing of the plowing oxen’). 19. ‘drink’: šty (DUL 853). Widely attested, v., e. g., 1.23.6 (w šty b ¶mr yn !ay ‘and drink every kind of fermented wine’). 21. ‘ear’: !udn (DUL 20). Widely attested, v., e. g., 1.16 VI 42 (!ištm" w t£γ !udn ‘listen and let [your] ear be alert’). 22. ‘earth’: !ar´ (DUL 107). Widely attested, v., e. g., 1.23.62 (špt l !ar´ špt l šmm ‘one lip to the earth, one lip to the heaven’). For the lexical evidence v. Huehnergard 1987:110. 23. ‘eat’: lµm (DUL 495). Widely attested, v., e. g., 1.22 I 23 (tlµm rp!um tštyn ‘the r. ate [and] drank’). PS *!kl is also preserved in Ugaritic but its attestations are so infrequent in comparison to those of lµm that it can hardly be treated as a real alternative to the latter (contra Militarev 2004:307 and especially Rabin 1975:87 and Hayes 1991:615 where only !kl is taken into consideration). Ugr. !kl may have had a more restricted meaning such as ‘to devour, to consume’, applied to animals (1.6 II 35) and fire (1.4 VI 24, possibly also 1.88.3). 25. ‘eye’: "n (DUL 168). Widely attested, v., e. g., 1.4 II 12 (b nš!i "nh w tphn ‘on lifting her eyes she saw her?’). 26. ‘fat’: šmn (DUL 827), šmt (ibid.; [šamattu] < *šaman-t-u). The meaning ‘animal fat, grease’ is clear in šmn !uz ‘goose fat’ (4.247. 22) and 1.19 III 11 (yb£" kbdthm w [yµd] !in šmt !in "Îm ‘he opened their entrails and saw: there was no fat, there was no bone’).

    L. Kogan, Lexical Evidence … of Ugaritic (I)

    439

    28. ‘fire’: !išt (DUL 119). Widely attested, v., e. g., 1.6 II 33 (b !išt tšrpnn ‘in the fire she burnted him’). For the lexical evidence v. Huehnergard 1987:110. 29. ‘fish’: dg (DUL 267). Well attested, the meaning is clear from 1.23.63 ("´r šmm w dg b ym ‘the birds of the sky and the fish of the sea’). 31. ‘foot’: p"n (DUL 660). Widely attested, the basic meaning ‘the lower extremity of the human body’ is clear from 1.6 I 59 (p"nh l tmγyn hdm r!išh l ymγy !apsh ‘his feet do not reach the footstool, his head does not reach its [that of the throne] edge’). It is uncertain whether ri-i[g]-lu in the lexical list (alphabetically unattested) represents another synonym for ‘foot’ (its equation with Sum. ÚR, Akk. pè-nu may rather suggest a meaning ‘hip’), cf. Huehnergard 1987:72, 176. 32. ‘full’: ml! (DUL 545). Reliably attested as a verbal root only (e. g., yml!u lbh b šm¶t ‘her heart is filled with joy’, 1.3 II 25). It is uncertain whether ml!u in 1.87.20 and 1.39.10 is a nominal form (substanivation of the non-attested adjective *malV!-?) as assumed in DUL. 33. ‘give’: ytn (DUL 990). Very widely attested, v., e. g., 3.2.5 (PN mlk !ugrt ytn bt PN … [l P]N ‘PN, the king of Ugarit, gives the house of PN … [to P]N’). 37. ‘hand’: yd (DUL 952). Very widely attested, v., e. g., 1.14 III 53 (yrµ´ ydh !amth ‘he washed his hands up to the elbow’). 38. ‘head’: r!iš (DUL 724). Widely attested, v., e. g., 1.6 I 60 (p"nh l tmγyn hdm r!išh l ymγy !apsh ‘his feet do not reach the footstool, his head does not reach its [that of the throne] edge’). 39. ‘hear’: šm" (DUL 823). Widely attested, v., e. g., 2.4.18 (ht yšm" !u¶y l gy ‘now, may my brother listen to my voice’). 40. ‘heart’: lb (DUL 489). Widely attested but mostly in passages dealing with heart as receptacle of thoughts and emotions. A strictly anatomic meaning is probable in 1.39.8 (lb rm´t, ‘a burnt heart (an offering)’ according to DUL).

    440

    Articles: Semitic and Afroasiatic Studies

    41. ‘horn’: £rn (DUL 710). Widely attested, v., e. g., 1.12 I 30 (bhm £rnm km ¬rm ‘they have horns like bulls’). 42. ‘I’: !an, !ank (DUL 76). Both forms are well attested, the former being much less common and restricted to the poetic corpus (cf. Tropper 2000:208). For the lexical evidence (a-na-ku) v. Huehnergard 1987:108. 44. ‘knee’: brk (DUL 237). Well attested, v., e. g., 1.2 I 27 (š!u !ilm r!aštkm l Îr brktkm ‘lift, oh gods, your heads from your knees’). For the lexical evidence (not fully reliable) v. Huehnergard 1987:115. 45. ‘know’: yd" (DUL 954). Very widely attested, v., e. g., 2.16.7 (!umy td" ky "rbt l pn špš ‘let my mother know that I entered the presence of the Sun’). 47. ‘lie’: škb (DUL 814). Well attested, v., e. g., 1.14 I 34 (šnt tl!u!an w yškb nhmmt w y£m´ ‘sleep overcame him and he lay down, the drowsiness, and he curled up’). 48. ‘liver’: kbd (DUL 424). Attested several times in connection with sacrifices (e. g., 1.119.21: w kbd w ššrt l b"l !ugrt ‘and liver and viscera? for b"l !ugrt’) and extispicine (kbd PN ‘the liver [= the omen] of PN’, 1.143.1 and possibly kbdm tb£rn ‘two livers are to be inspected’, 1.78.5). For the lexical evidence (not fully reliable) v. Huehnergard 1987:135, 62. 49. ‘long’: !rk (DUL 102). Only the verbal root !rk ‘to be long’ (DUL 102) is attested: !ark yd !il k ym ‘!il’s hand was as long as the sea’ (1.23.34). It is possible that !arkt in 1.3 V 23 represents a substantivized adjective *!arVk-at- ‘long’ with the meaning ‘arm’ (‘(I can reach them) with the power of my long arm’ according to DUL). 53. ‘meat’: bšr (DUL 243). Only bšr seems to be clearly attested for “flesh as food, meat” (Buck 1949:201): yd b ´" tšlµ µrb b bšr tštn ‘they stretched the hand to the plate, put the knife in the meat’ (1.15 IV 25). As for š!ir (DUL 797), it is always attested in contexts dealing with consuming one’s body and can be appropriately translated as ‘flesh’ (e. g., 1.96.3: tsp!i š!irh l bl µrb tšt dmh l bl ks ‘she ate his flesh without knife, drank his blood without cup’). The lexical equation between Akk. šīru and Ugr. ši-i-ru (Huehnergard 1987:180) is not relevant for this problem as the Akk. term conveys both meanings.

    L. Kogan, Lexical Evidence … of Ugaritic (I)

    441

    54. ‘moon’: yr¶ (DUL 979). Widely attested, note especially the moon omina of 1.163 (e. g., l. 14: [hm] yr¶ b "lyh yr£ ‘if the moon in its ascension is yellow?’) and the combination špš w yr¶ ‘sun and moon’ (e. g., 1.108.26). 55. ‘mountain’: γr (DUL 324). Widely attested, v., e. g. 1.10 III 31: w t"l bkm b !arr bm !arr w b ´pn b n"m b γr tl!iyt ‘thus she climbed up !arr, !arr and ´pn, the beautiful one, the mountain of victory’. 56. ‘mouth’: p (DUL 657). Well attested: b ph rgm l y´!a ‘no word has gone out of his mouth’ (1.19 II 26), !al y"dbkm k !imr b ph ‘let him not put you in his mouth like a lamb’ (1.4 VIII 18). 57. ‘name’: šm (DUL 822). Well attested, e. g. 1.2 IV 11: w yp"r šmthm šmk !at ygrš ‘and proclaimed their names: as for you, your name is ygrš’. 58. ‘new’: µd¬ (DUL 355). Attested in the expression tr¶ µd¬ ‘the newly-wed’ (1.14 II 48) as well as in several economic texts such as 4.205.19 (kdwt µd¬ ‘a new kdwt-garment’). 60. ‘night’: ll (DUL 497). Reliably attested in 1.132.25 (pn ll tn"r "rš "rb špš w µl mlk ‘… before the nightfall (and) the bed is unmade. At sunset, the king (remains) desacralized’ according to del Olmo Lete 2004:210). 61. ‘nose’: !ap (DUL 88). Reliably attested in 1.18 IV 26 (t´!i km rµ npšh … km £¢r b !aph ‘may his soul go out like wind … like smoke from his nose’); cf. also its frequent use in hippiatric texts (Pardee 1985:50). For the lexical evidence v. Huehnergard 1987:108. 62. ‘not’: l (DUL 482). Passim. 63. ‘one’: !aµd (DUL 32). Passim (v. extensively Tropper 2000:388–9). For the lexical evidence v. Huehnergard 1987:105. 68. ‘root’: šrš (DUL 845). Reliably attested in 1.19 III 53: šršk b !ar´ !al yp" r!iš γly bd ns"k ‘may your root not grow in the earth, may [your] crown wither in the hands of those who uproot you’.

    442

    Articles: Semitic and Afroasiatic Studies

    71. ‘say’: rgm (DUL 733). Very widely attested, e. g., rgm !i¬ ly w !argmk ‘I have a matter that I am going to say to you’ (1.3 III 21). 73. ‘seed’: dr", ¯r" (DUL 280). Well attested, notably in 4.243 and 4.636, records of quantities of seed, grain (dr") and chaff (drt). Cf. also dr" in 1.72.29 (hippiatric) where the context is broken but with all likelihood seed of some medical plant is intended (Pardee 1985:66). 74. ‘sit’: y¬b (DUL 994). Well attested, e. g. y¬b l ks!i mlk ‘he sat on the royal throne’ (1.16 VI 23). 76. ‘sleep’: yšn (DUL 988). Reliably attested in 1.14 I 31 (bm bkyh w yšn b dm"h nhmmt šnt tl!u!an w yškb nhmmt w y£m´ ‘in his weeping he fell asleep, in shedding his tears, drowsiness [came]; sleep overcame him and he lay down, drowsiness— and he curled up’) and 1.14 III 15 (l yšn pbl mlk l £r ¬!igt !ibrh ‘pbl the king will not be able to sleep because of the noise of neighing of his horses’). 79. ‘stand’: £m (DUL 702). The meaning ‘to stand up’ is most clearly seen in 1.2 I 31 (l p"n !il l tpl l tštµwy p¶r m"d £mm !a¬r !amr ‘they fell down to !il’s feed, prostrated themselves in the plenary assembly, [and then] standing transmitted their demand’; cf. also b"l £m "l !il ‘b"l was standing near !il’ in 1.2 I 21). 80. ‘star’: kbkb (DUL 427). Well attested, cf. ¢l šmm šmn !ar´ ¢l šm[m tskh] rbb nskh kbkbm ‘… dew of the heaven, oil of the earth; dew which heaven poured on her, drizzle which stars poured on her’ (1.3 IV 44), hm kbkb y£l b ¬l¬m ym ‘if a star falls on the thirtieth day’ (1.163.7), £dš y!u¶dm šb"r !amrr k kbkb ‘£dš began to shine, !amrr—like a star’ (1.4 IV 17). 81. ‘stone’: !abn (DUL 9). Well attested, cf. rgm "´ w l¶št !abn ‘a matter of wood and a chatter of stone’ (1.3 III 23), !abn yd ‘stone projectiles’ (1.14 III 13), !abn mznm ‘weights’ (1.24.36–7). 82. ‘sun’: špš (DUL 836). Widely attested, cf. ´!at špš ‘sunrise’ (1.3 II 8), "rb špš ‘sunset’ (1.15 V 18), ymt špš w yr¶ ‘days of the sun an the moon’ (1.108.26). 86. ‘this’: hnd (DUL 344). Pertinent examples are extensively treated in Tropper 2000:229.

    L. Kogan, Lexical Evidence … of Ugaritic (I)

    443

    87. ‘thou’: !at (DUL 120). Widely attested, cf. Tropper 2000:209. For the lexical evidence v. Huehnergard 1987:108. 88. ‘tongue’: lšn (DUL 506). Reliably attested in 1.69.12 (!al tl"g lšnk ‘may your tongue not confuse’) and 1.83.5 (lšnm tlµk šmm ‘with its tongue it licked the skies’). For the lexical evidence v. Huehnergard 1987:143. 89. ‘tooth’: šn (DUL 832). Reliably attested in 1.19 I 9 (k µr´ !abn ph t!i¶d šnth w !akl b £mm tšt ‘mordiendo, sí, sus colmillos, hacían presa sus dientes y el alimento en las entrañas metían’ according to del Olmo Lete 1981:387). 90. ‘tree’: "´ (DUL 186). Reliably attested in 1.5 II 6 (ybl !ar´ w pr "´m ‘yield of the earth and fruit of the trees’), hn [l]bnn w "´h šryn mµmd !arzh ‘here is lbnn and its trees, šryn praised for its cedars’ (1.4 VI 20), rgm "´ w l¶št !abn ‘a matter of wood an a chatter of stone’ (1.3 III 23). For the lexical evidence v. Huehnergard 1987:161. 91. ‘two’: ¬n (DUL 918). Passim, cf. Tropper 2000:345. 92. ‘walk’: hlk (DUL 337). Widely attested, e. g. km dlt tlk ‘like a poor woman you shall walk’ (1.82.24), mlk ylk l£µ !ilm !a¬r !ilm ylk p"nm ‘the king shall walk to welcome the gods; after the gods he shall walk on foot’ (1.43.23–5). 94. ‘water’: my (DUL 535). Reliably attested in 1.3 II 38 (tµspn mh w trµ´ ‘they drew water for her and washed her’). 96. ‘what?’: mh (DUL 534). Well attested, v., e. g. 1.6 II 13 (mh t!aršn ‘what do you wish of me?’). For possible examples of mn ‘what?’ v. Tropper 2000:240–1 (this meaning does not seem to be compelling in any of the passages adduced). 98. ‘who?’: my (DUL 607). Reliably attested in 1.16 V 14 (my b !ilm ‘who among the gods?’), RS 92.2016:14′ (my k £dš ‘who is like £dš’). The form mn apparently means ‘which?’ (v. extensively Tropper 2000:238–9). 99. ‘woman’: !a¬t (DUL 129). Widely attested, cf. 1.19 IV 46 (tlbš np´ !a¬t ‘she put on the clothes of a woman’), 1.23.39 (!il !a¬tm k ypt ‘!il indeed tried to seduce the two women’).

    444

    Articles: Semitic and Afroasiatic Studies

    B . P r o b a b l e (18) What follows is a list of positions for which the basic Ugaritic term was established with less certainty than in the previous section. They are obviously of less value for the comparative procedure but I thought it unwise to drop them entirely from the discussion. 2. ‘ashes’: "mr (DUL 165). Hapax Legomenon in 1.5 VI 14 (description of mourning): y´£ "mr !un l r!išh "pr pl¬t l £d£dh ‘he poured the ashes of grief on his head, dust of humiliation? on his skull’. The general context and the parallelism with "pr (cf. Hbr. "āpār wā!ēpär) favor the identification of "mr with the meaning ‘ashes’ (so both Rabin 1975:87 and Militarev 2004:289) but no certainty is possible (cf. a number of alternative—though generally less attractive— proposals in DUL 165). 5. ‘big’: rb (DUL 727). The meaning ‘big’ “with strict reference to size” (Buck 1949:879)16 is probably present in 1.5 III 3: rbt ¬bt ‘the seat is big’ (likely paralleled by rµbt ‘is wide’ but the context is broken). All other attestations seem rather to convey the idea of greatness as importance, weight: mlk rb ‘the great king’ (3.1.26 etc.); !ilm rbm ‘the great gods’ (1.124.2; cf. 1.3 III 39); rbm ym¶´ b ktp dkym ym¶´ b ´md ´γrm ym´¶ l !ar´ ‘the big ones he struck with a scimitar?, the humble? ones—with a mace, the small ones he pulled to the ground’ (1.6 V 2). For possible syllabic attestations with the meaning ‘large, great’ v. Huehnergard 1987:176. The adjective gdl ‘broad, wide’ (DUL 294) is attested only once: kdw¬m gdlm ‘large k. garments’ (4.152.6) which is clearly insufficient to treat it as one of the basic terms for ‘big’ (so Hayes 1991:614 and Rabin 1975:87; Rabin also adduces m!id which is not justified either). 16. ‘come’: mγy (DUL 533). According to Hayes 1991:616 and Militarev 2004:302, !tw (DUL 123) is the only representative of this position, reliably attested in such passages as 1.4 IV 33 (!ik !atwt £nyt !i[lm] ‘how is that the progenitress of the gods came?’) and 1.15 III 18 (t!ity !ilm l !ahlhm ‘gods came to their tents’). However, there are reasons to believe that the basic term for ‘to come’ in Ugaritic is rather mγy (listed as one of the alternatives in Rabin 1975:87): – the number of attestations of mγy is by far superior (more than 50 examples as opposed to some 10 according to a rough count of examples 16

    I. e. = ‘large’ (cf. ibid. 878 where ‘big’ is said to be a “more colloquial and expressive equivalent” of ‘large’).

    L. Kogan, Lexical Evidence … of Ugaritic (I)

    445

    listed in DUL). Were !tw the main term for such a basic notion as ‘to come’ (mγy having a less fundamental meaning like ‘to reach, to arrive’), this statistical distribution would be unexpected; – the use of !tw is restricted to the epic corpus whereas mγy is more or less evenly distributed among various literary and non-literary genres; – that !tw and mγy are virtually synonymous (so that mγy does not convey any specialized meaning such as ‘to reach, to arrive’) is clear from such structurally identical passages as 1.4 II 21–3 (!ik mγy !al!iyn b"l !ik mγyt b[t]lt "nt ‘how is it that b"l the Victorious came, how is it that the Virgin "nt came?’), 1.3 III 36 (!ik mγy gpn w !ugr ‘how is it that gpn and !ugr came?’) and 1.4 IV 32–3 (!ik mγyt rbt !a¬r[t y]m !ik !atwt £nyt !i[lm] ‘how is it that the Lady !a¬rt came, how is it that the progenitress of the gods came?’). The verb bw! listed as one of the alternatives in Rabin 1975:87 is rather infrequent and apparently means ‘to enter’ rather than ‘to come’ in all of its attestations. 30. ‘fly’: "p (DUL 173). Attested with this meaning in 1.19 III 44 (knp nšrm b"l y¬br … hm t"pn "l £br bny ‘may b"l break the wings of the eagles … if they fly over the grave of my son’) and, probably, also in 1.10 II 11 (tš!u knp w tr b "p ‘she lifts the wing and moves? flying’). Less transparent is 1.10 II 23 (b"l ymšµ hm b "p, interpreted as ‘b"l will anoint them with (the power) to fly’ in DUL, about horns!). The context of w "p in 1.13.8 is partly broken but the meaning ‘to fly’ for "p is supported by the presence of nšrk ‘your eagles’ in the same line. Other candidates include d!y ‘to fly’ (DUL 259) in 1.19 III 14 (nšrm tpr w d!u ‘may the eagles begin to fly’) and 1.108.8 ("nt d!i d!it ‘may "nt fly off ’ according to DUL), adduced as the only representative of this position in Hayes 1991:616; npr ‘to fly, start to fly’ (DUL 635) in 1.19 III 14 (nšrm tpr w d!u ‘may the eagles begin to fly’); n´´ ‘to take flight, fly’ (DUL 648) in 1.117.10 (!a´´ k n´ ‘I shall take flight like a bird’). That "p was the main term for ‘to fly’ is likely in view of its statistical preponderance but no certainty is possible. 34. ‘good’: n"m (DUL 613). Both Rabin 1975:88 and Militarev 2004:317 opt for ¢b as the main representative of this position but in fact ¢b is a relatively infrequent term mostly attested in fixed expressions ksp ¢b ‘sterling silver’, šmn ¢b ‘perfumed oil’, yn ¢b ‘generous wine’ (DUL 886). Conversely, n"m is attested in a wide variety of combinations (s's'wm n"mm ‘good horses’ in 2.45.17, rgmk n"m ‘your good word’ in RS 92.2010.19, £n n"m ‘good quality cane’ in 4.247.29 etc.). A strong proof of the basic status of n"m is the wide range of derivatives from this root (n"m ‘grace’, n"mn ‘handsome’, n"my and n"mt ‘delight’) as opposed

    446

    Articles: Semitic and Afroasiatic Studies

    to their virtual absence in the case of ¢b. The prominence of n"m in Ugaritic no doubt correlates with its high frequency in Phoenician (v. DNWSI 738) where ¢b is conspicuously absent. Admittedly, it is ¢a-bu that corresponds to Sum. DÙG, Akk. ¢ābu in the lexical list (v. Huehnergard 1987:60, 131). In Rabin 1975:88 dm£ and mlµ are adduced as alternatives to ¢b, both fully unwarranted (cf. DUL 274 and 548 respectively). 36. ‘hair’: š"r, š"rt (DUL 798–9). Very widely attested but nearly always about wool as material (thus corresponding more to šīpātu than to šārtu in Akkadian). The only exception seems to be š"r klb ‘hair(s) of a dog’ in 1.114.29 (as materia medica), rightly compared to Akk. šārat kalbi (for which v. CAD Š2 128–9, written with the logogram SÍG) in DUL. 43. ‘kill’: m¶´ (DUL 540). The basic meaning ‘to kill’ is probable in such passages as 1.19 IV 34 (!im¶´ m¶´ !a¶y ‘I will kill those who killed my brother’), 1.19 III 52 ("lk m¶´ !a£ht γzr ‘killing !a£ht the hero is upon you’), 1.4 II 24 (m¶´y hm [m]¶´ bny ‘they are those who are killing me, those who are killing my sons’). The same choice has been made in Hayes 1991:616. Ugr. m¶´ is not equivalent semantically to Akk. ma¶ā´u which basically means ‘to hit, strike’ (the meaning ‘to kill’ ascribed to ma¶ā´u in CAD M1 71 is rarely compelling; interestingly, the most convincing passages come from the Canaanite Amarna letters, likely reflecting the local usage).17 The same is true of Hbr. mµ´, a rare poetic verb which also means ‘to hit’ rather than ‘to kill’. That hrg ‘to kill’ (DUL 346) was the main Ugr. term for ‘to kill’ (so Rabin 1975:88, Militarev 2004:325) is unlikely in view of its scarce attestation (Hapax Legomenon in the fragmentary context 1.13.5: hrg ar[b"] ymm ‘kill during four days’). 52. ‘many’: m!ad, m!ud (DUL 511–2). No expression fully corresponding to Hbr. !ănāšīm rabbīm ‘many people’ or similar seems to be attested in Ugaritic. The closest approximation is perhaps ´b!uk !ul m!ad ‘your army is a numerous force’ (1.14 II 35). Cf. also m!ud ´!in ‘great number of ewes’ in 1.5 III 22–3 (context broken) and šgr m!ud ‘numerous offsprings’ in 1.5 III 16–7 (context broken). 64. ‘person’: bnš (DUL 230), mt (DUL 598). In Rabin 1975:88 bnš is adduced as the only representative of this position which may be justified in view of such passages as hm mt y"l bnš ‘if death threatens a man’ (1.127.30) and the reliable lexical evidence for bu17

    Note especially EA 245:14 where ma-a¶-´ú-ú appears as a gloss to da-ku-šu ‘they killed him’.

    L. Kogan, Lexical Evidence … of Ugaritic (I)

    447

    nu-šu (= Akk. amīlu, v. Huenhergard 1987:114). Note, however, that bnš is conspicuously absent from the epic corpus where mt is attested in a context rather similar to 1.127.30 (mt !u¶ryt mh y£µ mh y£µ mt !a¬ryt ‘a man, as (his) final destiny, what can he attain, what can a man attain as the final outcome?’, 1.17 VI 35–6). Finally, !adm in l !adm ‘oh man’ (1.169.14) and pi!t !adm ‘temples of a man’ (1.107.3) is also noteworthy. 65. ‘rain’: m¢r (DUL 603). The meaning ‘rain’ for m¢r is suitable in all of its three attestations (1.16 III 7–8: n"m l !ar´ m¢r b"l ‘b"l’s rain is good for the earth’; 1.4 V 6: "dn m¢rh b"l ‘b"l will be able to store his rain’; 1.5 V 8: £µ "rptk rµk mdlk m¢rtk ‘take your clouds, your wind, your watering device?, your rains’). However, at least two other terms with comparable meanings ( ¢l, rbb) are no less frequent: ¢l šmm ‘dew of the skies’ (1.3 II 39), ¢l y¢ll l γnbm ‘may the dew drop upon the grapes’ (1.19 I 41), bl ¢l bl rbb ‘there was neither dew nor drizzle’ (1.19 I 44); rbb nskh kbkbm ‘drizzle that the stars poured on her’ (1.3 IV 44), rbb [r]kb "rpt ‘drizzle of the Charioteer of the clouds’ (1.3 II 39). In addition, several less common synonyms are known: gšm ‘rain, downpour’ (DUL 310), ¶¯¯ ‘downpour, sqall’ (DUL 387), yr ‘early rain’ (DUL 977). In this context, a meaningful selection of one basic term is difficult. 67. ‘road’: ntb(t) (DUL 651). This is the only Ugr. term with comparable meaning, reliably attested in 1.119.33 (ntbt b[t b"l] ntlk ‘we shall tread the path of the temple of b"l’) and 1.82.37 (w !a¬b l ntbtk ‘I will return to your path’). It is hardly possible to ascertain whether ntb(t) was the main Ugr. term for ‘road, way’ (functionally equivalent to Hbr. däräk) or just a synonym (‘path’) of the elevated style (like Hbr. nātīb, n3tībā). The former possibility seems to be supported by the fact that ntbt appears outside the literary corpus (according to DUL, with the meaning ‘toll, right of way’). 72. ‘see’: phy (DUL 667), "n (DUL 167), µdy (DUL 356). A reasonable choice between the three synonyms is difficult though it may be observed that µdy is the least frequent one (cf. Hayes 1991:615 where it is adduced alone to represent this position) whereas only phy is attested outside the literary corpus. Contra Rabin 1975:89, there is no reason to treat !mr as one of the basic terms with this meaning (cf. DUL 71–2). 75. ‘skin’: γr (DUL 325). Likely attested in 1.19 IV 11 (pÎγm γr ‘those who gash their skin’) and 1.5 VI 17 (γr b !abn ydy ‘he ripped [his] skin with a stone [knife]’). Both passages most probably refer to the well-known practice of gashing one’s skin in mourning but no full certainty is possible. As pointed out in

    448

    Articles: Semitic and Afroasiatic Studies

    Huehnergard 1987:47, Ugr. ú?-ru equated to Sum. SU and Akk. mašku is not easily compatible with the alphabetic evidence as γ is expected to be rendered with Ú-signs in the syllabic cuneiform. 78. ‘smoke’: £¢r (DUL 720). This is the most probable meaning of Ugr. £¢r in 1.169.3 (t´!u … k £¢r !urbtm ‘let them go out … like smoke from a window’). In 1.17 I 27 (l !ar´ mš´!u £¢rh) the meaning of £¢r is disputed (‘que de la “tierra” libere su “espíritu” ’ in del Olmo Lete 1981:369 vs. ‘to send up from the earth his incense’ in Pardee 1997b:344). In 1.18 IV 26 £¢r is usually rendered as ‘smoke’ (t´!i km rµ npšh … km £¢r b !aph ‘may his soul go out like wind … like smoke from his nose’) but the meaning ‘spirit, wind’ seems to be equally possible. 84. ‘tail’: ¯nb (DUL 288). Likely attested in 1.114.20 (b"l £rnm w ¯nb ‘he of two horns and a tail’) and t"rp ym ¯nbtm ‘it covered? the sea with its tails’ in 1.83.7. 85. ‘that’: hnk, hnkt (DUL 344). Presumably attested in such passages as 1.33.22–4 (w mlk b"ly lm škn hnk l "bdh ‘why did the king my lord impose that on his servant?’). Cf. Tropper 2000:229 (“… ist damit zu rechnen, dass einige oder gar alle Belege von hndt, hnk und hnkt als Adverbien und nicht als DemPrr fungieren”). 97. ‘white’: lbn (DUL 490). Probably attested in 4.182.4 (lbš !allm lbnm ‘white !all-garments’), opposed to !all šmt and !all !i£n!i (cf. Bulakh 2005:31). It is likely that la-ba-nu in the lexical list represents the adjective ‘white’ (Huehnergard 1987:142). 100. ‘yellow’: yr£ (DUL 982). Translated as ‘greenish yellow’ in DUL but according to Bulakh 2005:35, ‘greenish’ largely depends on the etymological data. Bulakh follows Pardee 1997a:290 in assuming that yr£ in 1.163.14 ([hm] yr¶ b "lyh yr£) denotes yellow color of the moon which (together with the reddish colour, pµm) is opposed to the moon’s normal color (presumably white). C . N o t e s t a b l i s h e d (20) For twenty positions it was impossible to establish the basic Ugaritic term with any degree of certainty. These positions are listed below in the alphabetic order. Proposals made in previous studies but found unconvincing presently are mentioned and briefly analyzed in footnotes.

    L. Kogan, Lexical Evidence … of Ugaritic (I)

    449

    3. ‘bark’, 4. ‘belly’,18 8. ‘black’, 13. ‘claw, nail’, 15. ‘cold’,19 20. ‘dry’,20 24. ‘egg’, 27. ‘feather’, 35. ‘green’, 46. ‘leaf ’, 50. ‘louse’, 51. ‘man’,21 58. ‘neck’,22 66. ‘red’,23 69. ‘round’, 70. ‘sand’, 77. ‘small’,24 83. ‘swim’, 93. ‘warm’,25 95. ‘we’. 18

    That µm¬ in 1.82.7 is etymologically identical with PS *µam¬- (and therefore denotes the lower part of the abdomen) is possible (so DUL 365) but this difficult context (cf. del Olmo Lete 2004:375) certainly does not suggest that µm¬ is the main Ugr. term for belly. Another, perhaps more likely candidate, is kbd which, besides the original meaning ‘liver’, certainly denote innards, entrails, womb. As pointed out in Rabin 1975:89, the meaning ‘external belly, abdomen’ is conceivable for 1.19 III 24 (yb£" kbdh wyµd !in šmt !in "Îm ‘he opened his belly and saw: there was no fat, there was no bone’). If this conjecture is correct, the semantic evolution of PS *kabid- would be similar to that observed in most Ethiopian languages (cf. Gez. kabd ‘liver, stomach, belly’, LGz. 273). It would also provide an areal context for the Amarna Canaanite expression kabattumma ‘on the belly’ (*kabid- does not appear with this meaning either in Akkadian or in NWS). As for krs adduced in Hayes 1991:615, it probably does not exist at all (cf. DUL 457). 19 brd adduced for this position in Hayes 1991:616 does not seem to be attested with this meaning (cf. DUL 236). 20 The verbal root ¶rb adduced in this position in Rabin 1975:87 is Hapax Legomenon (b grn y¶rb in 1.19 I 30, context broken). It is highly uncertain whether it functioned as the main verbal root for ‘to be dry’ in Ugaritic. 21 The only potentially pertinent passage is 1.23.40 (!a¬tm t´µn y mt mt ‘both women shouted: o man, man!’) but the general context and the parallelism with !ad ‘father’ strongly suggest the meaning ‘husband’. 22 That µl£ means ‘neck, throat’ (Rabin 1975:88, Hayes 1991:615) is possible but rather difficult to prove (cf. DUL 361 for a number of alternative suggestions). 23 Several competing terms for ‘red’ suggest themselves but since in no case certainty is possible, it was decided to drop this entry entirely (contrast Rabin 1975:88). In 1.163.12 pµm (< PS *paµm- ‘coal, ember’) likely denotes the reddish color of the moon (hm yr¶ b "l[yh] w pµm n"mn yk[n] ‘if the moon, when it rises, is reddish, it will be favorable’; otherwise pµm is used to denote a kind of fabric, presumably dyed with red purple). The term šmt (presumably, originally a designation of a precious stone, carnelian) is used as a genitive attribute of !all in 1.182:4 (!all šmt) as opposed to !allm lbnm and !all !i£n!i (v. further ¶pn d !i£n!i w šmt in 4.168.1, ¶mšm šmt in 4.341.7 etc.). Finally, the verbal root !dm is usually interpreted as ‘to become red, turn the color red; to put on red make up’ (DUL 17), attested in 1.19 IV 42 (t!i!dm b γlp ym ‘she rouged herself with the sea snails’) and 1.14 II 9 (trtµ´ w t!adm ‘wash yourself and put on make up’). As for µmr ‘red, reddish’ (DUL 364), it is not attested outside hippiatric texts (e. g. 1.85.17) where it appears as an attribute of !arγn/!irγn denoting some kind of materia medica; its interpretation as ‘red’ (e. g., Cohen–Sivan 1983:31–2) is arbitrary. See further Bulakh 2005:32ff. 24 None of the two synonyms adduced in Rabin 1975:89 is a satisfactory representative of this meaning: in all passages where ´γr is attested it means ‘young, youngster’ rather than ‘small’ (“with strict reference to size”) whereas d£ is mostly

    450

    Articles: Semitic and Afroasiatic Studies

    In sum, it was possible to reveal fully reliable basic terms for 62 positions and 18 candidates which are likely or probable. Only 20 positions are vacant, a surprisingly small number for a language like Ugaritic. 1.2. Swadesh wordlist: analysis Within the framework of the standard glottochronological procedure, the above list would have been immediately submitted to statistical comparison with those of cognate languages. The present investigation requires a different approach. First of all, an internal analysis of the Ugaritic list is necessary: trivial retentions must be separated from more specific terms which alone are potentially valuable for the subgrouping procedure. This internal analysis reveals that trivial retentions amount to 44 (42 + 2) cases out of 83,26 or 53%: 1. ‘all’: kl < *kull- (LGz. 281);27 7. ‘bite’: n¬k < *n¬k (LGz. 402); 9. ‘blood’: dm < *dam- (SED I No. 50); 10. ‘bone’: "Îm < *"aÎm- (SED I No. 25); 17. ‘die’: mt < *mwt (SED I No. 43v); 18. ‘dog’: klb < *kalb- (SED II No. 115); 19. ‘drink’: šty < *šty (LGz. 518); 21. ‘ear’: !udn < *!u¯n(SED I No. 4); 22. ‘earth’: !ar´ < *!ar¹- (HALOT 90); 25. ‘eye’: "n < *"ayn(SED I No. 28); 28. ‘fire’: !išt < *!iš- (LGz. 44); 32. ‘full’: ml! < *ml! (LGz. 342); 36. ‘hair’: š"r, š"rt < *ŝa"r- (SED I No. 260); 37. ‘hand’: yd < *yad(SED I No. 291); 38. ‘head’: r!iš < *ra!š- (SED I No. 225); 39. ‘hear’: šm" < *šm" (LGz. 501); 40. ‘heart’: lb < *libb- (SED I No. 174); 41. ‘horn’: £rn < *£arn- (SED I No. 168); 42. ‘I’: !an, !ank < *!anV, !anāku (LGz. 26); 44. ‘knee’: brk < *birk- (SED I No. 39); 45. ‘know’: yd" < *wd" (LGz. 626); 48. ‘liver’: kbd < *kabid- (SED I No. 141); 54. ‘moon’: yr¶ < *war¶- (LGz. 617); 56. ‘mouth’: p < *pay- (SED I No. 223); 57. ‘name’: šm < *šim- (LGz. 504); 58. ‘new’: µd¬ < *µd¬ (LGz. 225); 60. ‘night’: ll < *layl(iy)- (LGz. applied to garments where it can potentially express a wide variety of meanings such as ‘fine’, ‘thin’ (the lexical evidence discussed in Huehnergard 1987:79, 119 is not fully reliable). 25 µm adduced in Rabin 1975:87 is not used as an adjective and there is no compelling reason to believe that µmm was the main verbal root with the meaning ‘to be hot’ in Ugaritic. 26 As already observed above, the available textual evidence of Ugaritic allows one to fill 80 positions of the list. However, since for two positions (‘person’ and ‘see’) possible synonyms were included, the total number of terms under scrutiny is 83. 27 Here and elsewhere below PS reconstructions are adduced with a reference to one of the basic tools of Semitic etymology where most of the relevant cognate terms can be located (usually, LGz., HALOT, SED I and II).

    L. Kogan, Lexical Evidence … of Ugaritic (I)

    451

    314); 61. ‘nose’: !ap < *!anp- (SED I No. 8); 62. ‘not’: l < *lā (HALOT 511); 63. ‘one’: !aµd < *!aµad- (LGz. 12); 68. ‘root’: šrš < *ŝurš- (LGz. 535); 73. ‘seed’: dr", ¯r" < *¯ar"- (LGz. 642); 80. ‘star’: kbkb < *kabkab(LGz. 280); 81. ‘stone’: !abn < *!abn- (LGz. 4); 82. ‘sun’: špš < *ŝamš(HALOT 1589); 84. ‘tail’: ¯nb < *¯anab- (SED I No. 64); 86. ‘this’: hnd < *hannV + *¯V (LGz. 629); 87. ‘thou’: !at < *!anta (LGz. 32); 88. ‘tongue’: lšn < *lišān- (SED I No. 181); 89. ‘tooth’: šn < *šinn- (SED I No. 249); 90. ‘tree’: "´ < *"i¹- (LGz. 57); 91. ‘two’: ¬n < *¬in- (HALOT 1605); 94. ‘water’: my < *may- (LGz. 376); 99. ‘woman’: !a¬t < *!an¬at- (LGz. 32). The remaining examples (40 = 20 + 20) fall in two categories. Examples of the first category (12 = 9 + 3) can be described as “more specific”. They include Ugaritic terms which cannot be traced back to the most trivial PS prototypes but are, nevertheless, paralleled by cognates in so many languages (notably, Hebrew, Aramaic and Akkadian) that their value for genealogical subgrouping of Ugaritic practically amounts to zero: 5. ‘big’: rb — Akk. rabû (CAD R 26, AHw. 936), Syr. rabbā (Brock. 706). The roots *rbb, *rby are reflected in several other Semitic languages but nowhere they appear as the basic exponents of the meaning ‘(to be) big, large’. Thus, Hbr. rab means ‘numerous, many’ (HALOT 1170), the meaning ‘great’ being only marginally attested (the main term for ‘big, large’ is ovbiously gādōl, HALOT 177–8). The meaning ‘to be much, numerous’ is prominent in Arabic (rbb ‘augmenter, accroître, multiplie; réunir, ramasser’, BK 1 798; rbw ‘augmenter, s’accroître’, ibid. 813) where the meaning ‘to be big’ is also marginally preserved in such forms as rbb I, II, V, VIII ‘élever (un garçon, un jeune homme’, ibid. 798), rbw ‘grandir, être élevé’ (ibid. 813).28 Contra Leslau, it is tempting to identify with this root Gez. rbb ‘to stretch out, expand, extend’ (LGz. 460, with cognates in other Ethiopian). 12. ‘burn’: šrp — Akk. šarāpu (CAD Š2 50, AHw. 1185), Hbr. ŝrp (HALOT 1358). Also in some varieties of early Aramaic (DNWSI 1194). Paralleled by Mhr. ŝ3rūf ‘to build up sticks for a fire’ (JM 383), Hrs. ŝerōf

    28

    Arb. rabb- ‘maître, seigneur; posseseur, propriétaire d’une chose’ (BK 1 799) is usually treated as an Aramaism (Jeffery 1938:136–7). The verb rbb ‘avoir, posséder, être propriétaire d’une chose’ (ibid.) would then be denominative. Note that a verb with the same meaning is attested in Sabaic (rb ‘to own, possess’, SD 114) where an Aramaism would be somewhat less expected.

    452

    Articles: Semitic and Afroasiatic Studies

    ‘to roast meat with hot stones’ (JH 121), Jib. ŝérCf ‘to build a fire to heat milk-heating stones; to put milk-heating stones one the fire’ (JJ 254). 33. ‘give’: ytn — Akk. nadānu (CAD N1 42, AHw. 701), Hbr. ntn (HALOT 733), Syr. nettel (Brock. 298). Further etymology unknown. 47. ‘lie’: škb — Hbr. škb (HALOT 1486), Syr. š3keb (Brock. 775), Gez. sakaba (LGz. 496, with cognates in other Ethiopian). Akk. sakāpu ‘to lay down’ (CAD S 74, AHw. 1011) must be related in spite of two phonological irregularities, but this rare verb is clearly not the main term for ‘to lie’ in Akkadian. No cognates in Arabic and MSA. 49. ‘long’: !rk — Akk. arku (CAD A2 283, AHw. 69), Hbr. !ārōk (HALOT 88), Syr. !arrīk (Brock. 49). Further cognates are sparse and not fully reliable: Arb. !rk ‘s’arrêter longtemps quelque part’ (BK 1 26), Sab. !rk ‘duration of time’ (SD 7, uncertain). 53. ‘meat’: bšr < *baŝar-. Hbr. bāŝār (HALOT 164), Syr. besrā (Brock. 82), Har. bäsär (LHar. 47), Gur. bäsär (LGur. 159). For PS *baŝar- see further SED I No. 41. 65. ‘rain’: m¢r — Syr. me¢rā (Brock. 382), Arb. ma¢ar- (BK 2 1122). Hbr. mā¢ār (HALOT 574) is well attested but apparently not as the main term for rain, which is gäšäm (ibid. 205). PS *ma¢ar- is also reflected in ESA: Sab. m¢r ‘rain-watered field’ (SD 88), Min. m¢r ‘champ arrosé par la pluie’ (LM 63). Whether Akk. mi¢irtu ‘a type of field or orchard, characterized by a special irrigation system; a type of canal or ditch’ (CAD M2 144, AHw. 663) is uncertain. No cognates in Ethiopian and MSA.29 75. ‘sit’: y¬b — Akk. wašābu (CAD A2 386, AHw. 1480), Hbr. yšb (HALOT 444), Syr. yīteb (Brock. 311). Also in ESA: Sab. w¬b ‘to sit; to reside, settle, occupy’ (SD 165), Min. w¬b ‘être assis’ (LM 106), Qat. w¬b ‘sanctum, seat, shrine’ (Ricks 58). Gez. !awsaba ‘to take a wife, marry’ (LGz. 619) is usually connected with this root. PS *w¬b left no trace in Arabic30 and MSA. 79. ‘stand’: £m — Syr. £ām (Brock. 652), Arb. £wm (BK 2 837), Gez. £oma (LGz. 455; also throughout Neo-Ethiopian, v. references ibid.). Also in ESA: Sab. £wm ‘to stand (crops), to be planted’ (SD 110), Min. £wm 29

    Cf. perhaps Soq. mé¢reh ‘aube’ (LS 242) as ‘time when dew appears’? Leslau suggests a different etymology. 30 Arb. w¬b ‘être assis, s’asseoir’ (BK 2 1482) is considered a Himyarite word in the traditional lexicography. The same applies to wi¬āb- ‘siége, chaise; lit de repos’ (ibid.), v. extensively al-Selwi 1987:216–7. The normal meaning of Arb. w¬b is of course ‘to jump’ which cannot be easily reconciled with that of the PS root.

    L. Kogan, Lexical Evidence … of Ugaritic (I)

    453

    ‘dresser’ (LM 73), Qat. h-£m ‘to set up’ (Ricks 144). In Hebrew £wm is well attested but mostly with the meaning ‘to rise, get up’ (HALOT 1068) rather than simply ‘to stand’ (for which "md is used, ibid. 840). There is no trace of *£wm in Akkadian and MSA. 92. ‘walk’: hlk — Akk. alāku (CAD A1 300, AHw. 31), Hbr. hlk (HALOT 246), Syr. hlk (pa.) (Brock. 177). In Arabic hlk is preserved with the meaning ‘périr’ (BK 2 1439), clearly a semantic development from ‘to go away’. A variety of terms with the root hlk is attested in Qatabanian (Ricks 45–6) but their exact meanings and relationship to PS *hlk require further study. No trace of *hlk in Ethiopian and MSA.31 96. ‘what?’: mh — Hbr. mā (HALOT 550), Syr. mā (Brock. 372), Arb. mā (BK 2 1051). The form *ma(ha) for ‘what?’ is typical of Central Semitic languages as opposed to *mīn(u) attested in Akkadian and Ethiopian (Huehnergard 2005:189). 97. ‘white’: lbn — Hbr. lābān (HALOT 517), Mhr. 3wbōn (JM 251; also in other MSA, v. concrete forms ibid.). All further possible cognates to this root are extensively discussed in Bulakh 2004:270–3 (none of them functions as the basic term for ‘white’). 100. ‘yellow’: yr£ — Akk. war£u (CAD A2 300, AHw. 1470), Syr. yar£ānā (Brock. 309). According to Bulakh 2005:170, PS *wr£ is to be reconstructed with a non-differentiated meaning ‘(bright) green-yellow’. For a general etymological discussion of this root v. Appendix. It is only the second group (26 cases or 31% out of the 83 terms included into the Ugaritic list) which is truly pertinent for our purpose. These 26 cases fall into three major groups. The largest one (12 = 3 + 9) comprises Ugaritic terms which have no cognates which would function as basic terms in the respective languages: 16. ‘to come’: mγy. According to a widely accepted consensus (DUL 533 and, with certain reservations, Tropper 2000:95), Ugr. mγy represents a peculiar evolution of PS *mÎ! ‘to reach, to come’. This etymology, although not unattractive, is faced with two obstacles: PS *mÎ! is already attested in Ugaritic as its regular continuant mÎ! (in 1.12 I 36–7 the two roots are even attested in parallel cola: wn ymγy !aklm || wym!Î!a "££m ‘now he is coming to the devourers || and reaches the destructors’); the shift *! > y has no

    31

    Such verbs as Tgr. halkä ‘to exert oneself; to die’ (LH 4), Tna. haläkä ‘to toil, to get tired’ (KT 5) and Soq. h-t-lk ‘périr’ (LS 143) may be borrowed from Arabic.

    454

    Articles: Semitic and Afroasiatic Studies

    precedent in Ugaritic. While the first obstacle is probably not crucial,32 the second one is serious enough to make one look for an alternative etymology of mγy which, admittedly, has not yet been discovered. 23. ‘to eat’: lµm. The verbal root *lµm with the meaning ‘to eat’ is also attested in Hebrew (lµm ‘to eat, to taste’, HALOT 526) and Akkadian (lêmu ‘to take food or drink’, CAD L 126) but both are very marginal. It is hard to say whether the verbal root is derived from the noun *laµm‘bread, food’33 or vice versa. 26. ‘fat’: šmn. The prototype of the Ugaritic term is widely attested (SED I No. 248) but, it seems, mostly denotes fat as foodstuff rather than an anatomic category (“indica le sostanze grasse animali e vegetali, quindi l’olio, il grasso e in alcune lingue anche il burro”, Fronzaroli 1964:28). Thus, Hbr. šämän is only exceptionally used as an anatomic term.34 Similarly, passages referring to animal fat occupy a small minority of attestations of Akk. šamnu (CAD Š2 329) and even these mostly describe a product rather than a part of body. The true anatomic terms are Hbr. µēläb (HALOT 315) and Akk. lipû (CAD L 202, AHw. 555) respectively. 34. ‘good’: n"m. From a well-attested Central Semitic root *n"m ‘to be nice, pleasant, prosperous’: Hbr. n"m ‘to be lovely, pleasant’ (HALOT 705), Arb. n"m ‘être bon, excellent’ (BK 2 1297), Sab. n"m ‘to be favourable, prosperous’ (SD 90), Min. n"m ‘prospérité, succès’ (LM 65), Qat. n"m ‘to be favorable, auspicous’ (Ricks 107). It is only in Ugaritic (and Phoenician, DNWSI 7389) that this root acquired the basic status with the meaning ‘(to be) good’, possibly at the expense of *¢yb (to certain degree preserved in Ugaritic but conspicuously absent from Phoenician). 43. ‘to kill’: m¶´. A semantic evolution of PS *m¶¹ ‘to strike, beat’: Akk. ma¶ā´u ‘to hit, to wound, to strike’ (CAD M1 71, AHw. 580), Hbr. mµ´ ‘to smash’ (HALOT 571), Common Aramaic *mµ! (v. HALOT 1913 for the pertinent forms), Sab. m¶¥ ‘to smite, defeat’ (SD 84), Qat. m¶¥ ‘defeat’ 32

    At least one more similar pair of etymological doublets is attested in Ugaritic, namely PS *Îm! ‘to be thirsty’ yielding Îm! (1.15 I 2) and γm! (1.4 I 34). PS *Îlm ‘to be dark’ probably underwent a similar development, with two etymological doublets again found within one bicolon: bn γlmt "mm ym || bn Îlm[t] rmt pr"t (1.8 7–8; interpretation of the whole passage is problematic but the translation ‘darkness’ is likely for both Îlmt and γlmt). 33 Attested in Central Semitic only: Hbr. läµäm ‘bread’ (HALOT 526), Syr. laµmā ‘panis’ (Brock. 364), Arb. laµm- ‘viande, chair’ (BK 2 978). 34 The only pertinent passage listed in BDB 1032 is probably b3ŝārī kāµaš miššāmän ‘my flesh has become emaciated’ (Ps 109.24).

    L. Kogan, Lexical Evidence … of Ugaritic (I)

    455

    (Ricks 95), Gez. maµa´a ‘to smite, cut, destroy’ (LGz. 337), Tna. mäµa´ä ‘to break, split’ (KT 353), Arg. mäha¢a ‘to hit’ (LArg. 211), Har. mäµa¢a ‘to hit, beat, strike’ (LHar. 105), Gaf. ma´ä ‘frapper’ (LGaf. 218), Zwy. mā¢ä ‘to hit, beat, strike’ (LGur. 437).35 64a. ‘person’: bnš. Origin uncertain, derivation from *binu (!V)nāši ‘son of man/men’, quite appealing a priori, is faced with formidable difficulties as rightly pointed out in Huehnergard 1987:47. 64b. ‘person’: mt. To PS *mut- whose original meaning was probably ‘husband’, as suggested by the cumulative evidence of Akkadian (mutu, CAD M2 313), Ugaritic (DUL 598) and Geez (m3t, LGz. 371).36 The more general meaning ‘man’ is peripheral in Akkadian (CAD M2 316). It is the only one attested in Hebrew where m3tīm is, however, a rare word used in the plural only (HALOT 653). 67. ‘road’: ntb(t). No parallel outside Hbr. nātīb, n3tībā ‘path’ (HALOT 732), both rare poetic words. Cf. perhaps Arb. ntb ‘enfler, se gonfler et former une bosse, une protuberance’ (BK 2 1191); for the meaning shift ‘to be high, protruded’ > ‘way, road’ cf. Hbr. m3sillā < sll (HALOT 606). 71. ‘to say’: rgm. Semantic generalization of PS *rgm ‘to speak affectively, to shout’ represented by Akk. ragāmu ‘to call; to prophesy; to summon; to lodge a claim, to sue’ (CAD R 62, AHw. 941), Arb. r³m ‘éclater en injures’ (BK 1 832), Gez. ragama ‘to curse, insult’ (LGz. 465, with cognates in other Eth.). As widely acknowledged, a further semantic development into ‘to stone’ took place in Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic (HALOT 1187, Brock. 712, BK 1 832). 72a. ‘to see’: phy. No etymology.

    35

    In addition, the root *m¶¹ is reflected with three collateral meanings, namely ‘to suffer from labor pains’ (SED I No. 40v, cf. SED II p. 346); ‘to weave’ (Akk. ma¶ā´u, CAD M1 78; JPA mµy, Sok. 300 with references to other Arm.; Soq. méµa¥, LS 240); ‘to make butter’ (Arb. m¶¥ ‘écrêmer le lait; baratter le lait, l’agiter dans une outre; agiter, secouer violemment’, BK 2 1073; Tgr. mäµa´ä ‘to shake (milk), to make butter’, LH 111). Each of them must be somehow connected with the basic meaning ‘to strike’ even if the semantic shifts implied are not yet properly understood. Note that whereas the meanings ‘to travail’ and ‘to make butter’ look like South Semitic areal isoglosses, the distribution of the meaning ‘to weave’ suggests a more deeply rooted semantic connotation. 36 In this connection, Arb. mtt ‘rechercher une alliance avec qn., chercher à s’allier dans la famille de qn’, matāt- ‘lien par lequel on tient à la famille de qn’ (BK 2 1055) is of interest.

    456

    Articles: Semitic and Afroasiatic Studies

    72b. ‘to see’: "n. Denominative from PS *"ayn- ‘eye’ (SED I No. 28). Similar formations are found in a few other Semitic languages (v. HALOT 817) but they are always peripheral and never threaten the main verbs for ‘to see’ such as *r!y, *µzy etc. 85. ‘that’: hnk(t). While both *hanni- and *-ka are well attested as deictic elements throughout Semitic (Tropper 2000:229, 835–6), their combination functioning as the main term for ‘that’ in Ugaritic is apparently unique. The remaining two groups represent exclusive isoglosses between Ugaritic and Hebrew (5, only 3 fully reliable from the Ugaritological point of view) and Ugaritic and Akkadian (6, again with only 3 cases fully reliable). Ugaritic–Hebrew: 5 (3 + 2) 29. ‘fish’: dg — Hbr. dāg (HALOT 213). Further etymology uncertain. 30. ‘to fly’: "p — Hbr. "wp (HALOT 800). Probably derived from PS *"awp- ‘bird’ (SED II No. 48). Similar derived verbs are known from other Semitic languages (v. concrete forms ibid.) but it is only in Hebrew and Ugaritic that the verbal root "wp came to function as the main one with the meaning ‘to fly’. 75. ‘skin’: γr — Hbr. "ōr (HALOT 803). Also in Phoenician (pl. "r-t, DNWSI 887) and, possibly, in the Old Assyrian dialect of Akkadian (Kogan 2006:181, with references). Further etymology uncertain, v. some tentative—mostly not very convincing—proposals in SED I No. 106. 76. ‘to sleep’: yšn — Hbr. yšn (HALOT 447). Possibly a denominal verb derived from the widely attested *šin-at- ‘sleep’ (SED I No. 82). A similar derivation is attested in Arabic (wsn ‘être endormi d’un profond someil; être dans son premier somme; sommeiller’, BK 2 1538) but clearly with no basic status. 98. ‘who?’: my — Hbr. mī (HALOT 575). The form *m_ya is typical of Ugaritic and Canaanite as opposed to *man(nu) attested in the remaining Semitic languages (Gez. mi may be related but it means ‘what?’ and is rarely used, LGz. 323). Ugaritic–Akkadian: 6 (3 + 3) 2. ‘ashes’: "mr — Akk. tumru (AHw. 1370). This comparison, suggested by A. Militarev (e. g., 2004:289), appears to be the only way to provide some etymological context for both the Akkadian and the Ugaritic forms, each of them with virtually no cognates otherwise. Prefixation of tV- in a

    L. Kogan, Lexical Evidence … of Ugaritic (I)

    457

    primary noun in Akkadian would be a rarity but it is noteworthy that another Akkadian word with very similar meaning apparently exhibits the same type of prefixation: tarbu!u, tarbu!tu, turbu!u, turbuttu, tur(u)bu, turba!u ‘Staub(wirbel)’ (AHw. 1328) is usually identified with Hbr. rōba" ‘dust’ (HALOT 1181) and, with metathesis, Arb. γabarat- ‘poussière’ (BK 2 430).37 6. ‘bird’: "´r — Akk. i´´Nru (CAD I 210, AHw. 390). Etymologically unclear, v. SED II No. 43 (cf. also ibid. No. 212). 11. ‘breast’: !irt — Akk. irtu (CAD I 183, AHw. 386). Most probably related with metathesis to PS *ri!-at- ‘lung’ (see SED I Nos. 10, 224; separation into two different roots probably unwarranted). 14. ‘cloud’: "rpt — Akk. erpetu (CAD E 302, AHw. 243). The Ugaritic and Akkadian forms are likely related with metathesis to *"apar- ‘cloud’ common in continental MSA: Mhr. !āfōr (JM 15), Hrs. !āfōr (JH 6), Jib. "áfCr (JJ 8). Comparison with Hbr. "ărāpäl ‘thick darkness’ (HALOT 888) and Syr. "arpellā ‘vapor, nubes’ (Brock. 549) suggested, e. g., in HALOT 887 is marred by the fact that the obviously related Ugr. γrpl ‘cloud, large storm cloud’ (DUL 326) exhibits γ rather than ". 52. ‘many’: m!d — Akk. mādu (CAD M1 20, AHw. 573). Hbr. m3!ōd is widely used as an adverb ‘very’ (HALOT 538). Also related are Arb. m!d ‘commencer à être en sève et grandir (se dit des plantes)’ (BK 2 1052), Min. m!d ‘ajouter’ (LM 59). 78. ‘smoke’: £¢r — Akk. £utru (CAD Q 326, AHw. 931). The root *£¢r / *£tr ‘to fumigate’ is well attested in various Semitic languages (v. concrete forms in LGz. 452) but nowhere outside Akkadian and Ugaritic is the main term for smoke derived from it. Exclusive isoglosses with other languages are either statistically insignificant (Ugaritic–Aramaic, Ugaritic–MSA) or altogether absent (Ugaritic– Arabic, Ugaritic–Ethiopian). Ugaritic–Syriac: 2 (1 + 1) 55. ‘mountain’: γr — Syr. ¢ūrā (Brock. 272). The form *Îūr- has been correctly interpreted by P. Fronzaroli (1969:287) as a speficially NWS for-

    37

    It is of course impossible to omit from the present context Arb. turāb- ‘terre, poussière’ (BK 1 195) but comparison between tarbu!u and turāb- entails another, no less serious deficiency: the stable -!- in the Akkadian form becomes unexplained.

    458

    Articles: Semitic and Afroasiatic Studies

    mation38 ultimately connected with PS *ÎVrr- ‘flint’: Akk. ´urru MA, MB on (CAD Ô 257, AHw. 1114), Hbr. ´ōr (HALOT 1052), Syr. ¢arrānā (Brock. 286), Arb. Ïirr- (BK 2 132). Hbr. ´ūr (HALOT 1016) cleary goes back to the same prototype as the Common Aramaic and Ugaritic terms but is semantically marginalized (‘rock, boulder, rocky hill’) in favor of har, the standard Hebrew term for mountain whose origin remains uncertain. 72c. ‘to see’: µdy — Syr. µ3zā (Brock. 224). For the distribution of PS *µ¯y/*µzy ‘to see’ v. Kogan 2005a:531. Ugaritic–Mehri: 1 31. ‘foot’: p"n — Mhr. fcm (JM 87). PS *pa"m- (SED I No. 207) functions as the main term for foot throughout continental MSA (v. concrete forms ibid.). In Hebrew pa"am is only marginally attested with the meaning ‘foot’ (HALOT 952) whereas Akk. pēmu means ‘thigh’ (CAD P 231). It is possible that *pa"mbecame the main term for ‘foot’ also in Phoenician where it is well attested (DNWSI 928; note that *rigl- is conspicuously absent from Phoenician). The principal results of the internal analysis of the Ugaritic list can be summarized as follows. 1. As far as the preservation of the Proto-Semitic basic lexicon is concerned, Ugaritic is a highly conservative language. With its 44 trivial retentions from PS (out of 83, or 53%), the Ugaritic list is superior even to the Hebrew one where 50 trivial retentions (out of 100, or 50%) can be discovered (compare 44% in Geez, 38% in Arabic, 30% in Mehri).39 2. Almost one third of the remaining positions is covered by terms which, although somewhat more specific than trivial retentions, are shared by too many other languages to be useful for classification.40 Accordingly, it is only the remaining 31% of the list that is potentially valuable for this purpose. 38

    Actually, a Central Semitic one as Sab. Îwr ‘rock’ (SD 173) shows. At first sight, these numbers suggest a transparent chronological tendency: the older is a language’s textual attestation, the more trivial retentions appear in the list. The importance of the chronological factor is not to be underestimated but it is clear that this is not the only factor at work. Thus, the OB Akkadian texts on which the Akkadian list is based are at least 1500 years older than the Geez ones but the percentage of trivial retentions in the list is the same (44%). Mehri and Tigre are contermporary living languages but 39 trivial retentions are preserved in Tigre (more than in the many centuries older Qur’anic Arabic!) vs. only 30 preserved in Mehri. 40 In the framework of the typology of lexical correspondences outlined above, all of them can be qualified as non-trivial (or, better, less trivial) retentions 39

    L. Kogan, Lexical Evidence … of Ugaritic (I)

    459

    3. Among the positions belonging to the latter category, three groups are the most prominent: exclusively Ugaritic terms, Ugaritic–Hebrew and Ugaritic–Akkadian isoglosses. Only the first one is relatively important numerically. It is upon this difficult background that comparison between the Ugaritic list and those of other Semitic languages should be undertaken.41 1.3. Swadesh wordlist: comparison A. Ugaritic–Hebrew: 58 (53 + 5) T r i v i a l r e t e n t i o n s : 4 4 (42 + 2) 1. ‘all’: kl — kōl (HALOT 474); 7. ‘bite’: n¬k — nšk (HALOT 729); 9. ‘blood’: dm — dām (HALOT 224); 10. ‘bone’: "Îm — "ä´äm (HALOT 869); 17. ‘die’: mt — mwt (HALOT 562); 18. ‘dog’: klb — käläb (HALOT 476); 19. ‘drink’: šty — šātā (HALOT 1667); 21. ‘ear’: !udn — !ōzän (HALOT 27); 22. ‘earth’: !ar´ — !ärä´ (HALOT 90); 25. ‘eye’: "n — "ayin (HALOT 817); 28. ‘fire’: !išt — !ēš (HALOT 92); 32. ‘full’: ml! — mālē(!) (HALOT 584); 36. ‘hair’: š"r, š"rt — ŝē"ār (HALOT 1344); 37. ‘hand’: yd — yād (HALOT 386); 38. ‘head’: r!iš — rō(!)š (HALOT 1164); 39. ‘hear’: šm" — šm" (HALOT 1570); 40. ‘heart’: lb — lēb (HALOT 513); 41. ‘horn’: £rn — £ärän (HALOT 1144); 42. ‘I’: !an, !ank — !ănī, !ānōkī (HALOT 71–2); 44. ‘knee’: brk — bäräk (HALOT 160); 45. ‘know’: yd" — yd" (HALOT 390); 48. ‘liver’: kbd — kābēd (HALOT 456); 54. ‘moon’: yr¶ — yārēaµ (HALOT 438); 56. ‘mouth’: p — p7 (HALOT 914) 57. ‘name’: šm — šēm (HALOT 1548); 58. ‘new’: µd¬ — µādāš (HALOT 294); 60. ‘night’: ll — layil (HALOT 528); 61. ‘nose’: !ap — !ap (HALOT 76); 62. ‘not’: l — lō(!) (HALOT 511); 63. ‘one’: !aµd — !äµād (HALOT 29); 68. ‘root’: šrš — šōräš (HALOT 1659); 73. ‘seed’: dr", ¯r" — zära" (HALOT 282); 80. ‘star’: kbkb — kōkāb (HALOT 463); 81. ‘stone’: !abn — !äbän (HALOT 7); 82. ‘sun’: špš — šämäš (HALOT 1589); 84. ‘tail’: ¯nb — zānāb (HALOT 274); 86. ‘this’: hnd — z7 from Proto-Semitic. A root like *w¬b almost certainly belongs to the PS heritage and one can even suspect that it did function there as the main term for ‘to sit’. There is simply not enough evidence which would make one sure about it. 41 One more disturbing circumstance is to be emphasized: entries fully reliable from the philological point of view predominate in the classificatory least relevant segments of the list but are in virtual minority in its most important sections. Thus, there are only two philologically less reliable terms among the trivial retentions. Similarly, fully reliable terms are in clear majority (9 out of 12) among the “more specific” positions. Conversely, there are only 11 fully reliable entries among those 26 which have been found potentially valuable for the subgrouping procedure.

    460

    Articles: Semitic and Afroasiatic Studies

    (HALOT 263) 87. ‘thou’: !at — !attā (HALOT 102); 88. ‘tongue’: lšn — lāšōn (HALOT 536); 89. ‘tooth’: šn — šēn (HALOT 1593); 90. ‘tree’: "´ — "ē´ (HALOT 863); 91. ‘two’: ¬n — š3nayim (HALOT 1605); 94. ‘water’: my — mayim (HALOT 576); 99. ‘woman’: !a¬t — !iššā (HALOT 93). O th e r: 14 (11 + 3) a. More specific: 9 (8 + 1) 12. ‘burn’: šrp — ŝrp (HALOT 1358); 33. ‘give’: ytn — ntn 733); 47. ‘lie’: škb — škb (HALOT 1486); 49. ‘long’: !rk — !ārōk 88); 53. ‘meat’: bšr — bāŝār (HALOT 164); 75. ‘sit’: y¬b — yšb 444); 92. ‘walk’: hlk — hlk (HALOT 246); 96. ‘what?’: mh — mā 550); 97. ‘white’: lbn — lābān (HALOT 517).

    (HALOT (HALOT (HALOT (HALOT

    b. Exclusive: 5 (3 + 2) 29. ‘fish’: dg — dāg (HALOT 213); 30. ‘to fly’: "p — "wp (HALOT 801); 75. ‘skin’: γr — "ōr (HALOT 803); 76. ‘to sleep’: yšn — yšn (HALOT 447); 98. ‘who?’: my — mī (HALOT 575). Coincidences between Ugaritic and Hebrew are 58, which yields a very high percentage (70%).42 No less striking is, however, that in 44 cases (or 76%!) of these coincidences we are faced with most trivial retentions from PS whereas only 5 positions are represented by highly specific isoglosses (none of these can be safely regarded as shared innovation). In other words: the evidence of the Swadesh list plainly shows that Ugaritic and Hebrew are languages highly conservative from the lexical point of view but does not suggest any special genetic relationship between them. B. Ugaritic–Akkadian: 50 (43 + 7) T r i v i a l r e t e n t i o n s : 37 (35 + 2) 1. ‘all’: kl — kalû (AHw. 427); 7. ‘bite’: n¬k — našāku (AHw. 758); 9. ‘blood’: dm — damu (AHw. 158); 10. ‘bone’: "Îm — e´emtu (AHw. 251); 17. ‘die’: mt — mâtu (AHw. 634); 18. ‘dog’: klb — kalbu (AHw. 424); 19. ‘drink’: šty — šatû (AHw. 1202); 21. ‘ear’: !udn — !uznu (AHw. 1447); 22. ‘earth’: !ar´ — er´etu (AHw. 245); 25. ‘eye’: "n — īnu (AHw. 383); 28. ‘fire’: !išt — išātu (AHw. 392); 42

    In remarkable agreement with Tropper 1994:351: “it is an indisputable fact, that the great majority of the Ugaritic lexicon (about 70%) and especially the basic vocabulary of Ugaritic is attested in the Canaanite dialects with the same or at least similar meaning”. Tropper does not specify on what kind of statistics his conclusion is based.

    L. Kogan, Lexical Evidence … of Ugaritic (I)

    461

    32. ‘full’: ml! — malû (AHw. 596); 36. ‘hair’: š"r, š"rt — šārtu (AHw. 1191); 39. ‘hear’: šm" — šemû (AHw. 1211); 40. ‘heart’: lb — libbu (AHw. 549); 41. ‘horn’: £rn — £arnu (AHw. 904); 42. ‘I’: !ank — anāku (AHw. 49); 44. ‘knee’: brk — birku (AHw. 129); 45. ‘know’: yd" — idû (AHw. 187); 54. ‘moon’: yr¶ — war¶u (AHw. 1466); 56. ‘mouth’: p — pû (AHw. 872); 57. ‘name’: šm — šumu (AHw. 1274); 58. ‘new’: µd¬ — eššu (AHw. 258); 61. ‘nose’: !ap — appu (AHw. 60); 62. ‘not’: l — lā (AHw. 520); 68. ‘root’: šrš — šuršu (AHw. 1286); 73. ‘seed’: dr", ¯r" — zēru (AHw. 1521); 80. ‘star’: kbkb — kakkabu (AHw. 421); 81. ‘stone’: !abn — abnu (AHw. 6); 82. ‘sun’: špš — šamšu (AHw. 1158); 84. ‘tail’: ¯nb — zibbatu (AHw. 1523); 87. ‘thou’: !at — atta (AHw. 87); 88. ‘tongue’: lšn — lišānu (AHw. 556); 89. ‘tooth’: šn — šinnu (AHw. 1243); 90. ‘tree’: "´ — i´u (AHw. 390); 91. ‘two’: ¬n — šinā (AHw. 1241); 94. ‘water’: my — mû (AHw. 664). O th e r: 13 (8 + 5) a. More specific: 7 (5 + 2) 5. ‘big’: rb — rabû (AHw. 936); 12. ‘burn’: šrp — šarāpu (AHw. 1185); 33. ‘give’: ytn — nadānu (AHw. 701); 49. ‘long’: !rk — arku (AHw. 69); 75. ‘to sit’: y¬b — wašābu (AHw. 1480); 92. ‘walk’: hlk — alāku (AHw. 31); 100. ‘yellow’: yr£ — war£u (AHw. 1470). b. Exclusive: 6 (3 + 3) 2. ‘ashes’: "mr — tumru (AHw. 1370); 6. ‘bird’: "´r — i´´Nru (AHw. 390); 11. ‘breast’: !irt — irtu (AHw. 386); 14. ‘cloud’: "rpt — erpetu (AHw. 243); 52. ‘many’: m!d — mādu (AHw. 573); 78. ‘smoke’: £¢r — £u¢ru (AHw. 931). The high number of Ugaritic–Akkadian isoglosses (50, or 60%) is among the most surprising results of the present investigation. Shared trivial retentions are a bit less prominent here (37, or 74% of the whole number of coincidences) which is to be explained by the fact that a number of transparent losses in this lexical stratum took place in Akkadian.43 The number of more specific and exlusive isoglosses between Ugaritic and Akkadian is only slightly inferior to that observed in the case of Ugaritic and Hebrew.

    43

    Note such clear cases as idu > £ātu, rēšu > £a££adu, kabattu > amūtu, līlâtu > mūšu, aššatu > sinništu.

    462

    Articles: Semitic and Afroasiatic Studies

    С. Ugaritic–Syriac: 49 (43 + 6) T r i v i a l r e t e n t i o n s : 37 (35 + 2) 1. ‘all’: kl — kul (Brock. 326); 7. ‘bite’: n¬k — n3kat (Brock. 430); 9. ‘blood’: dm — d3mā (Brock. 156); 17. ‘die’: mt — mēt (Brock. 378); 18. ‘dog’: klb — kalbā (Brock. 328); 19. ‘drink’: šty — !eštē (Brock. 811); 21. ‘ear’: !udn — !ednā (Brock. 6); 22. ‘earth’: !ar´ — !ar"ā (Brock. 51); 25. ‘eye’: "n — "aynā (Brock. 522); 32. ‘full’: ml! — m3le (Brock. 388); 36. ‘hair’: š"r, š"rt — s3"ār3tā (Brock. 488); 37. ‘hand’: yd — !ī¯a (Brock. 295); 38. ‘head’: r!iš — rēšā (Brock. 728); 39. ‘hear’: šm" — š3ma" (Brock. 786); 40. ‘heart’: lb — lebbā (Brock. 354); 41. ‘horn’: £rn — £arnā (Brock. 697); 42. ‘I’: !an — !enā (Brock. 27); 44. ‘knee’: brk — burkā (Brock. 96); 45. ‘know’: yd" — yīda" (Brock. 296); 48. ‘liver’: kbd — kabdā (Brock. 315); 56. ‘mouth’: p — pūmā (Brock. 577); 57. ‘name’: šm — š3mā (Brock. 784); 58. ‘new’: µd¬— µattā (Brock. 217); 60. ‘night’: ll — lēl3yā (Brock. 366); 62. ‘not’: l — lā (Brock. 354); 63. ‘one’: !aµd — µad (Brock. 215); 73. ‘seed’: dr", ¯r" — zar"ā (Brock. 207); 80. ‘star’: kbkb — kawk3bā (Brock. 320); 82. ‘sun’: špš — šemšā (Brock. 788); 84. ‘tail’: ¯nb — dunbā (Brock. 159); 86. ‘this’: hnd — hānā (Brock. 178);44 87. ‘thou’: !at — !at (Brock. 31); 88. ‘tongue’: lšn — leššānā (Brock. 371); 89. ‘tooth’: šn — šennā (Brock. 789); 91. ‘two’: ¬n — t3ren (Brock. 834); 94. ‘water’: my — mayyā (Brock. 383); 99. ‘woman’: !a¬t — !att3tā (Brock. 31). O th e r: 12 (8 + 4) a. More specific: 10 (7 + 3) 5. ‘big’: rb — rabbā (Brock. 706); 33. ‘give’: ytn — nettel (Brock. 298); 47. ‘lie’: škb — š3keb (Brock. 775); 49. ‘long’: !rk — !arrīk (Brock. 49); 53. ‘meat’: bšr — besrā (Brock. 82); 65. ‘rain’: m¢r — me¢rā (Brock. 382); 75. ‘sit’: y¬b — yīteb (Brock. 311); 79. ‘stand’: £m — £ām (Brock. 652); 92. ‘walk’: hlk — hlk (pa.) (Brock. 177); 100. ‘yellow’: yr£ — Syr. yar£ānā (Brock. 309).

    44

    Nöldeke’s observation (“Unusual is … the falling out (of d.—L. K.) in hānā from hāδĕnā”, 1904:21) fully preserves its validity. As far as the absence of d is concerned, this form is to certain degree reminiscent of JBA !unnā ‘ear’ (Sok. B 91; obviously < !udnā) but -n- in the latter form is geminated so that we are faced with assimilation (even if a rather unusual one) rather than with simple loss, which is very difficult to explain.

    L. Kogan, Lexical Evidence … of Ugaritic (I)

    463

    b. Exclusive: 2 (1 + 1) 55. ‘mountain’: γr — ¢ūrā (Brock. 272); 72c. ‘see’: µdy — µ3zā (Brock. 224). Ugaritic–Syriac isolglosses are approximately the same in number as those between Ugaritic and Akkadian (49, or 59%). This is surprising given the fact that, differently from Akkadian, Syriac is not only a West Semitic language but is supposed to belong to the same smaller genealogical unit (NWS). Reduction of trivial retentions is identical to that observable in Akkadian (thus, considerably stronger than in Hebrew) whereas the number of exclusive Ugaritic–Syriac isoglosses is small with respect to both Hebrew–Ugaritic and Akkadian–Ugaritic ones. D. Other languages The number of coincidences between Ugaritic and other Semitic languages is well beneath 50: 41 between Ugaritic and Geez, 35 between Ugaritic and Arabic, 28 between Ugaritic and Mehri. Any special genealogical proximity between these languages and Ugaritic is therefore unlikely. 1.4. Swadesh wordlist: conclusions The comparative analysis suggests the following preliminary conclusions: 1. 70% of coincidences between Ugaritic and Hebrew is statistically remarkable (contrast approximately 60% between Syriac and Hebrew on the one hand and between Syriac and Ugaritic on the other) but the evidence of this percentage for the hypothetic Canaanite affiliation of Ugariitic is seriously undermined by the extraordinary high number of trivial retentions shared by the two languages. If there is something in the Swadesh list on which the Canaanite affiliation of Ugaritic could repose, that is the rather meager combination of five exclusive Ugaritic– Hebrew lexical coincidences, most of which are, in addition, far from transparent in their origin. Reliable semantic and formal innovations similar to pan-Ethiopian and pan-Aramaic lexical isoglossed discussed in Kogan 2005a and 2005b are practically lacking. The origin of *dag‘fish’ and *γār-, *γurr- ‘skin’ is totally obscure; *wšn ‘to sleep’ and *"wp ‘to fly’ are possibly derived from the nominal roots *šin-at- ‘sleep’ and *"awp- ‘bird’ respectively but this is rather hard to prove; *m_ya ‘who?’ may be innovative with respect to PS *man(nu) but the exact path of this innovation has never been suggested. Summing up, the first part of the

    464

    Articles: Semitic and Afroasiatic Studies

    present investigation yields scarce support for the assumption that Ugaritic is a Canaanite language. 2. A relatively high number of positions occupied by specifically Ugaritic terms speaks for its relatively independent status within NWS. 3. 60% of coincidences between Ugaritic and Akkadian is without precedent in WS (contrast some 50% between Akkadian and both Hebrew and Syriac). Even more remarkable are the six exclusive isoglosses (note, for example, that no exclusive Hebrew–Akkadian isogloss is known).45 These peculiar facts require an explanation. Two possibilities suggest themselves. According to the first hypothesis, these terms are PS archaisms preserved in Akkadian but lost everywhere in WS except Ugaritic. Such a possibility is not unlikely and the basic factor would then be the chronological one: as is well known, Ugaritic is by far the earliest attested WS language. An alternative possibility, namely borrowing and diffusion, is not to be discarded a priori. True, in historical times Ugaritic is not expected to borrow from Akkadian such basic terms as ‘breast’, ‘cloud’ or ‘bird’—the strongest proof thereof is the rather meager number of proven Akkadisms in more culture-bound layers of Ugaritic lexicon. The situation in earlier periods may have been quite different, however, as shown by the Ebla texts and lexical lists which reveal an intensive and complex interplay between Eastern and Western Semitic features precisely in the lexical domain (interesting observations in this sense may be found in Krecher 1984:164–5 and Lambert 1989:28–32). I wonder whether the exclusive lexical isoglosses between Ugaritic and Akkadian may be late and marginal reflexes of a wider Eastern Semitic linguistic presence in Syria at some earlier period. As I tried to explain in the introduction, Swadesh list is only a provisional tool for the present investigation. The same methodology can and should be applied to the basic lexicon of Ugaritic as a whole. Such a comprehensive study may yield results somewhat different from those achieved presently. To provide a comprehensive list of possible Canaanite-Ugaritic isoglosses in the basic lexicon is the principal goal of the second part of the present contribution, now in an advanced stage of preparation.

    45

    Amittedly, three exclusive isoglosses between Akkadian and Syriac can be detected: ur¶u — !urµā ‘road’, nūnu — nūnā ‘fish’, mašku — meškā ‘skin’. Throughout Semitic, all the three concepts belong to the least stable layers of Swadesh list so that a borrowing (or some kind of influence) from Akkadian is conceivable, but of course hard to prove.

    L. Kogan, Lexical Evidence … of Ugaritic (I)

    465

    Appendix: Proto-Semitic basic lexicon in Swadesh wordlist46 As already mentioned above, the validity of the concept of trivial retention in the lexicon of this or that Semitic language—a concept which played such a crucial role in the foregoing discussion—becomes meaningful only with respect to the corresponding Proto-Semitic reconstructions. When we speak about a Ugaritic (or Aramaic, or Geez) terms which, to repeat the definition suggested in the introductory section of the present article, “are exact phonological and semantic descendants of their Proto-Semitic ancestors which were the only basic terms for the respective notions already in the proto-language”, how can we be sure that this indeed was the case? In other words, is it possible to demonstrate with a reasonable degree of certainty that this or that root not only can be reconstructed as Proto-Semitic but also functioned there as the main term for this or that notion? In my opinion, the answer is generally positive: for quite a number of basic nominal and verbal notions a single Proto-Semitic reconstruction can be postulated without much hesitation. Two principal cases when such a reconstruction is probable are the following. I. If a PS root functions with the same basic meaning in all Semitic languages, there is hardly any reason to doubt that it did so also in the protolanguage. Thus, *"ayn- with the meaning ‘eye’ is preserved in all Semitic languages without exception and undoubtedly functioned as the basic term for this concept already in PS. The same conclusion can be safely achieved if the root in question lost its basic function in a limited number of languages or minor subdivisions (usually one, rarely two). Quite often in such cases, this root does not disappear entirely but is preserved with a related peripheral meaning. Thus, PS *dam- ceased to mean ‘blood’ in MSA (replaced by *¯Vr- of uncertain origin) but is preserved with the meaning ‘pus’ (SED I No. 50). Finally, if a term is lost in some languages of a minor subdivision but persists in others, its archaic status is strengthened. Applying this criterion, one can fill the following positions in Swadesh wordlist for Proto-Semitic:47 46

    Based on Kogan 2005c, dedicated to the 50th anniversary of the late Prof. S. Starostin. Starostin’s pioneering ideas on the reconstruction of the basic lexicon of proto-languages exerted considerable influence on my understanding of this problem. 47 The entries below usually comprise the following information: the PS reconstruction; languages in which it preserves the basic status and those where it does not; description of its peripheral preservation (if there is any); description of its replacement.

    466

    Articles: Semitic and Afroasiatic Studies

    1. ‘all’ — *kal-/*kull- (LGz. 381). Passim except Soq. where kol, kal is preserved with the meaning ‘chacun, chaque’ (LS 219; note both meanings in Mhr. kāl ‘all; whoever, everyone’, JM 110). The Soq. term for ‘all’ is fáµere (LS 335) whose cognates in other MSA mean ‘together’ (Mhr. fá¶r3h, JM 110; Jib. fá¶r3h, JJ 67) which is likely original in view of Akk. pa¶āru ‘to assemble, to congregate; to gather, collect’ (CAD P 23, AHw. 810), the only reliable Sem. cognate to the MSA forms.48 7. ‘bite’ — *n¬k/*nk¬ (LGz. 402). Passim except Arb., Jib and Soq. In Arabic, nk¬ is preserved with the meaning ‘détordre, défaire (une corde); rompre, violer (un engagement)’ (BK 2 1338) whereas the main term for ‘to bite’ is "¥¥ (BK 2 276) with no clear parallel.49 In MSA *n¬k/*nk¬ ‘to bite’ is preserved in Mehri (n3¬k, JM 305) and Harsusi (ne¬ōk, JH 99) but lost in Jibbali (nkB¬ ‘to make a false oath’ in JJ 189 is likely an Arabism in view of its specific meaning)50 and Soqotri. Jib. ¾a"ár ‘to bite’ (JJ 322) has no reliable cognate,51 the same is sure of Soq. ¥á"ab ‘manger, mordre, sortir la langue’ (LS 363), £ár¥eb ‘mordre’ (ibid. 387),52 £¥f id. (ibid. 384). 9. ‘blood’ — *dam- (SED I No. 50). Passim except MSA where the reflexes of *dam- mean ‘pus’ rather than ‘blood’ (ibid.). The latter concept is expressed by *¯Vry- of unclear origin.53 10. ‘bone’ — *"aÎm- (SED I No. 25). Passim except Syriac and MSA. In Syriac (as in most other Aramaic dialects) *"aÎm- acquired the meaning ‘thigh, side, flank’ (SED I No. 25),54 whereas *garm- (ibid. No. 94) is used for ‘bone’. In continental MSA *"aÎm- is preserved either with the meaning ‘back’ (Mehri, Harsusi) or as a verbal root meaning ‘to turn into scar 48

    See further Qat. f-t-¶r ‘to enter into partnership, associate with’ (Ricks 129) and Pho. mp¶rt ‘assemply’ (DNWSI 673), both Hapax Legomena. 49 Gez. "a¥¥a ‘to deprive, cause harm, to rob, to take away by force’ has more convincing cognates in Arabic, cf. LGz. 58. 50 Note the same meaning in Min. mnk¬t ‘abrogation’ (LM 68), Sab. nk¬ ‘to remove smth. from its place’ (SD 96), Qat. mnk¬ ‘one who violates; violation’ (Ricks 106)—an Arabian areal semantic isogloss? 51 Cf. perhaps Gez. ´a"ara ‘to cause pain, torment, torture, opress, vex’ (LGz. 544), with cognates in other Ethiopian. 52 Comparable to Arb. £r¥b ‘couper; consumer tout, manger’ (BK 2 714). 53 As A. Militarev kindly pointed out to me in personal communication, I was mistaken to adhere to W. Leslau’s comparison of these terms to Arb. dirrat‘blood’, drr ‘to flow’ (Kogan 2004:196) since this etymology is not compatible with ¯- (rather than d-) in Mehri and Jibbali. 54 For a marginal preservation of ¢m ‘bone’ in a Jewish Aramaic curse formula v. Sok. 226.

    L. Kogan, Lexical Evidence … of Ugaritic (I)

    467

    tissue (skin over wound, badly set bone)’ (SED I No. 25). ‘Bone’ is derived from *"V¹ī¹- in continental MSA (v. ibid. No. 24 for possible cognates—very sparse if at all acceptable). The etymology of Soq. ´éµloh ‘os’ (LS 347) remains obscure. 13. ‘claw’ — *Îipr- (SED I No. 285). Passim. 17. ‘die’ — *mwt (SED I No. 43v). Passim except Jibbali and Soqotri. The root *mwt preserves its basic status in Mehri and Harsusi (JM 275, JH 92) whereas in Jibbali and Soqotri only derived stems and nominal derivatives are attested (JJ 176, LS 237). The main Jib. term is ¶árBg (JJ 304), clearly related (with a common euphemisitic shift of meaning) to Hrs. ¶erōg ‘to go out, depart’ (JH 142), Mhr. ¶rūg ‘to take out, drive out’ (JM 447) as well as Arb. ¶r³ ‘sortir, quitter un endroit’ (BK 1 554) and Min. ¶rg ‘sortir, déplacer’ (LM 44).55 No cognates outside the Arabian area have been discovered so far.56 Soq. ´áme ‘mourir’ (LS 353) has been compared to Arb. ´my ‘tomber roide mort, être tué sur place’ (BK 1 1373) to which nothing else can be added.57 18. ‘dog’ — *kalb- (SED II No. 115). Passim except South Ethiopian (replaced by Cushitic loanwords like Amh. w3šša, Har. buči, v. LHar. 39). In continental MSA, *kalb- has acquired the meaning ‘wolf’ but continues to mean ‘dog’ side by side with *ma-b"al-.58 In Mehri and Jibbali *ma-b"alis not used as an independent faunal term but only as a modifier of *kalb(which, if used alone, can mean both ‘dog’ and ‘wolf’): Mhr. kawb m#bayl (JM 208), Jib. kób b3"él / m3b"él (JJ 22). In Harsusi m#bayl ‘dog’ (JH 14) can be used also independently, presumably as a synonym to kawb ‘wolf; dog’ (ibid. 68). In Soqotri *ma-b"al- is not used with the meaning ‘dog’ whereas kalb ‘chien, loup’ is often regarded as an Arabism. 19. ‘drink’ — *šty (LGz. 518). Passim except Amharic, Arabic and MSA. While in Arabic and MSA *šty left no trace, its absence from Amharic (replaced by ¢ä¢¢a, K 2185 of uncertain origin) is more or less accidental in view of its overall presence in other Ethiopian Semitic (including the closely related Argobba, LGz. 518). Replaced by *ŝrb ‘to sip, suck up, absorb’ (LGz. 533) in Arabic (šrb, BK 1 120), *š£y ‘to irrigate, to quench one’s thirst’ 55

    Presumably also Sab. ¶rg ‘to bring a lawsuit against so. before judge’ (SD 62). Jud. µargā ‘dying agony’ (Ja. 498) is too isolated and too scarcely attested to be seriously considered. 57 Cf. perhaps Gez. ´āmawa ‘to toil, labor, endure hardship, be wearied, tormented, vexed’ (LGz. 558, with cognates in other Eth.). 58 Originally, ‘something owned, domestic’? Cf. Mhr. mābáyl ‘owned’ (JM 41), Soq. mébeµel ‘esclave’ (LS 91). 56

    468

    Articles: Semitic and Afroasiatic Studies

    (HALOT 1639) in Mehri (t3£, JM 155) and Jibbali (šúÅi, JJ 262) and *rwy ‘to be abundant (water), to drink one’s fill’ (LGz. 478) in Soqotri (re, LS 395). 21. ‘ear’ — *!u¯n- (SED I No. 4). Passim except Amharic where it is replaced by žoro, ³oro (K 1858), of uncertain origin (a Cushitism according to Appleyard 1977:14). Amharic is the only Eth. language where *!u¯n- is lost: even in the closely related Argobba izin is preserved (LArg. 194) although žoro is also attested (ibid. 227). 22. ‘earth’ — *!ar¹- (HALOT 90). Passim except Ethiopian, Mehri and Soqotri. In Ethiopian *!ar¹- left no trace and was replaced by *mVdr-, *maray-t- and *!/"apar- (LGz. 330, 361, 10 respectively).59 In MSA *!ar¹- is preserved in Jibbali (!εr¾, JJ 4) but replaced by £ā in Mehri (JM 246) and Harsusi (JH 80) and by µóhi in Soqotri (LS 166). Soq. µóhi is related to Jib. µáši ‘soil’ (JJ 118) and Hrs. µōhi ‘earth, land, soil, dust’ (JH 57), to be further connected with Arb. µisan ‘sol dur recouvert de sable, où l’eau des pluies s’infiltre’ (BK 1 429), Tna. µašäwa ‘sand, strand, sandbank’ (KT 212), Amh. ašäwa, ašawa ‘sand’ (K 1182), Cha. Eža Enm. Gyt. Muh. Sod. Sel. Wol. ašawa, End. ašawä, Msq. Gog. ašäwa ‘sand’ (LGur. 102). As for £ā in Mhr. and Hrs., it is obviously related to Arb. £ā"- ‘plaine, terrain plat’ (BK 2 835) and may be borrowed from it (for its wide use in in the South Arabian dialectal area v. GD 2540, Piamenta 417). 23. ‘eat’ — *!kl (HALOT 46). Passim except Ethiopian and MSA. In Ethiopian *!kl as the main term for ‘to eat’ is replaced by reflexes of *bl" ‘to swallow’ (LGz. 94) but is preserved in the derived noun *!ukl- / *!ikl‘food, bread, grain’ (LGz. 15). In MSA *!kl left no trace, the basic term for ‘to eat’ going back to the well-known Afroasiatic root *twy (Soq. té, LS 440; Mhr. t3wū, JM 404; Jib. té, JJ 273), otherwise scarcely reflected in Semitic60 but widely present in other branches of Afroasiatic, notably Chadic (Diakonoff et al. 1982:31). 25. ‘eye’ — *"ayn- (SED I No. 28). Passim. 32. ‘full’ — *ml! (LGz. 342). Passim. 36. ‘hair’ — *ŝa"r- (SED I No. 260). Passim except Modern Ethiopian and MSA. In Geez, ŝ3"3rt (LGz. 525) is still one of the main terms for this 59

    In most languages reflexes of all the three terms are attested and to certain degree synonymous. Establishing one or two “main” terms for each Ethiopian language is a complex linguistic and philological task clearly beyond the scope of the present article. 60 Akk. ta!û ‘essen; weiden’ OB, SB (AHw. 1340, very scarcely attested), tîtum ‘Nahrung’ OB, SB (ibid. 1363), te!ûtu ‘Verpflegung, Versorgung’ MB, SB (ibid.).

    L. Kogan, Lexical Evidence … of Ugaritic (I)

    469

    notion but already there it is threatened by the Cushitism ´agwr (ibid. 550) which ousted *ŝa"r- completely in all modern languages. In MSA *ŝa"r- is preserved in Harsusi (ŝōr ‘hair, wool’, JH 117) and Soqotri (ŝá"ihor, LS 432) but the main term in both languages (as in the remaining MSA) goes back to *ŝVp-, comparable to Akk. šīpātu ‘wool’ (SED I No. 259). 37. ‘hand’ — *yad- (SED I No. 291). Passim except Akkadian where it is replaced by £ātu (CAD Q 183, AHw. 908) of uncertain origin (idu is widely attesed in a number of idiomatic meanings and expressions, CAD I 10, AHw. 365). 38. ‘head’ — *ra!š- (SED I No. 225). Passim except Akkadian where it is replaced by £a££adu (CAD Q 100, AHw. 899) < PS *£Vd£Vd- ‘skull’ (SED I No. 159). PS *ra!š- is well preserved as rēšu (CAD R 277, AHw. 973), mostly (although not exclusively) in idiomatic meanings and expressions. 39. ‘hear’ — *šm" (LGz. 501). Passim. 40. ‘heart’ — *libb- (SED I No. 174). Passim except Arabic (replaced by £alb-, probably related to Akk. £ablu ‘middle’, SED I No. 161) where PS *libb- is preserved as lubb- ‘cœur, milieu, noyeau; esprit, intelligence’ (BK 2 955). 41. ‘horn’ — *£arn- (SED I No. 168). Passim. 42. ‘I’ — *!anā(ku) (LGz. 26). Passim if the MSA forms like Mehri hoh, Jibbali he are thought to be somehow derivable from *!anā(ku), which is far from transparent (cf. Zaborski 1994:256). 44. ‘knee’ — *birk- (SED I No. 39). Passim except most South Ethiopian where it is replaced by Cushitisms (v. references in LGur. 272; preserved as b3rk in Selti and Wolane, ibid. 153). Arb. rukbat- (BK 1 914) is clearly related with metathesis (v. SED I No. 232). 48. ‘liver’ — *kabid- (SED I No. 141). Passim except Akkadian, Amharic and some of Gurage. In Akkadian *kabid(-at)- is preserved as kabattu (kabtatu, kabittu) with the transferred meaning ‘emotions, thought, mind, spirit’ (CAD K 11, AHw. 416),61 the main term for liver being amūtu (CAD A2 96, AHw. 46) < PS *mV"ay- ‘intestines, entrails’ (SED I No. 185).62 In Amharic and Gurage *kabid- is preserved with the meaning ‘belly’ (Amh. hod, K 29; see further SED I No. 141). The origin of Amh. gubbät ‘liver’ 61

    To what degree kabattu is at all attested as an anatomic term is not entirely clear but such examples are in any case extremely rare (CAD, discussion section). 62 Admittedly, amūtu is not attested in purely anatomic contexts but always denotes the liver as an object of extispicine.

    470

    Articles: Semitic and Afroasiatic Studies

    (K 1981) and related Gurage forms (LGur. 258) is uncertain (cf. discussion ibid. and Appleyard 1977:13). 56. ‘mouth’ — *pay- (SED I No. 223). Passim except MSA where it is completely ousted by *¶aw- (Mhr. ¶ā, JM 454;63 Jib. ¶Bh, JJ 310; Soq. µe, LS 158), likely a semantic evolution from ‘opening, hole’ (v. LGz. 260 under Gez. ¶o¶3t ‘door, gate’). 57. ‘name’ — *šVm- (LGz. 504). Passim. 59. ‘new’ — *µd¬ (LGz. 225). Passim except Arabic and MSA. In the Qur!anic corpus (on which Militarev’s list is based) ³adīd- (BK 1 261) rather than µadī¬- is used with the meaning ‘new’ (elsewhere in Classical Arabic µadī¬- ‘new’ is of course well attested, BK 1 391). The origin of ³adīd- is uncertain, the only more or less direct parallels being Syr. gaddūdā ‘adolescens, juvenis’ (Brock. 104) and Sab. h-gdd ‘to enforce, validate a decree’ (SD 49), Qat. s1-gdd ‘to renew, to validate’ (Ricks 35). An ultimate derivation from PS *gdd ‘to cut, to make an incision’64 is probably to be considered. In MSA *µd¬ left no trace, the main terms for ‘new’ going back to *ydn (Mhr. y3dīn, JM 461; Hrs. µe-ydīn, JH 146; Jib. ódín ‘new’, JJ 287), of uncertain origin.65 60. ‘night’ — *layliy- (LGz. 314). Passim except Akkadian and Jibbali. In Akkadian *layliy- is preserved as līlâtu ‘evening’ (CAD L 184, AHw. 552), the main term for night being mūšu (CAD M2 291, AHw. 687) < PS *mušy- ‘evening’ (v. LGz. 368 for cognates). In Jibbali *layliy- is completely lost, ‘night’ being denoted by "á´3r (JJ 17), probably borrowed from Arb. 63

    Also ‘entrance, opening’. Akk. gadādu ‘to chop’ LL (CAD G 8, AHw. 273), Hbr. gdd ‘to make incisions upon oneself ’ (HALOT 177), Jud. g3dad ‘to cut off’ (Ja. 210), Syr. gad ‘abscidit, amputavit’ (Brock. 103), Mnd. gdd ‘to cut off’ (DM 80), Arb. ³dd ‘couper (se dit d’un fabri