Late Bronze Phonology and Loanwords

Koot van Wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)

Visiting Professor

Kyungpook National University

Sangju Campus

South Korea

Conjoint Lecturer of Avondale College

Australia

9 January 2011

One of the best helps for an understanding of the phonology of the Late Bronze period is the book by Daniel Sivan listed below. The big problem as we can see it, is that Sivan does not put the texts into a historical-chronological frame and thus all texts are stacked in mixed order. Geographical area and time are two important factors since the issue of migration and colonialism is important to see whether the cosmopolitan texts are different in phonological aspects than the rural area texts. In this study we are trying to keep these aspects clear from each other.

Alternations of vowels at Ugarit

At Ugarit we have evidence of an alteration between /i/ vowel and /e/ vowel in the name I-ḫi-ia-nu (PRU III, 192 [12.34,28]) as opposed to E-ḫé-ia-nu (PRU III, 54 [15.90,5] as listed by Daniel Sivan, Grammatical Analysis and Glossary of Northwest Semitic Vocables in Akkadian Texts of the 15th-13th C.B.C. from Canaan and Syria [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchen Verlag, 1984], 11). This is of prime importance to phonology of the time of the Judges in Israel and especially the period of 1350-1220 BCE. This is the time Ramesses II was active in Egypt although he seemed to have avoided the territory of Israel proper, the highlands. It was a time of stability in Israel dating between 1346-1266 BCE during the time of Ehud the judge. In 1266 BCE Jabin of Hazor gave problems to Israel (Judges 4:3). During 1284-1246 BCE, the Hittite king was Hattushilish III. At Ugarit of that time it is reported that the amel apiri gave problems (RS 17.238 line 7) and also in RS 17.341. Hattushilish interfered with Ugarit and he had a bad character since he ursurped the throne from his nephew Uri-Teshup. The topic of the Habiru is fascinating and the work of Oswald Loretz is only helpful in as much as he provides the data for consideration of the topic. The correct view of the Habiru is actually hidden in conclusions of the people Loretz critiqued in his footnotes. There were two kinds of Habiru, the secular and religious Habiru and Israel was part of the religious Habiru but they suffered also from hybrid situations where the two groups were together. When one say that it is only a matter of orthography, what does that mean? The fact of the matter is, that the scribe used a different sign to write this sound and although someone said in all probability the correct sound, a slip of the ear happened and it was perceived as something else (acoustic misperception). These changes are also found in contemporary texts at Nuzi as well as in earlier texts from Amarna (1410-1360 BCE). Moscati and Ebeling sees it as neutral vowels that can be used interchangeably but other scholars like Gelb and Loewenstamm sees it as orthographical only. Daniel Sivan also admitted that it can be orthographical. But, somewhere something went wrong if it is orthographical and a lack of distinction, if it is phonological.

El and Il

The theophoric element attached to Canaanite names can be sometimes el and at other times il. At Taanach cuneiform texts, dating to the time of Amenophis II (1450-1430 BCE), the son of Thutmosis III, we find E-lu-ra-ḫé-ba (Taanach 4 line 9, see Sivan 1984: 11 at footnote 8). In the cuneiform text Taanach 7 on the reverse in line 3 we find the name E-lu-ra-ma. At Alalakh of the 13th century BCE, the time of the Judges, we also find A-bi-el.DINGIR.MEŠ (D. Wiseman, Alalakh Texts, 125 [129,5]). At Amarna text 256 we find bi-in-E-li-ma dating to the time of Joshua (EA 256, 15, see Sivan 1984: 11 at footnote 6). In our analysis of the Amarna corpus we separate the earlier Amarna texts from the later texts. The earlier Amarna texts, of which EA 256 is one, deals with Egyptian colonialism and situations before 1409 BCE when the 1st year of the hostility at Samura started. That was the first year of the opposition of Rib-Addi. The Samura problems lasted for five years which coincide with the invasion of the Habiru or Israelites in Canaan under Joshua. It is possible that EA 256 dates earlier than 1410 BCE when the actual invasion at Jericho started. Mut-Balu wrote about some cities that are hostile and others which are conquered.

At Ugarit at this time, there were Habiru and other nations. That there will be differences in the way they heard the same language system clashing, colliding, refining with their own mother tongue will cause different perceptions in the acoustic ability of the brain. How to represent what they think they heard will be different depending on the bilingualism represented.

Daniel Sivan is thinking only of one of two options, namely, the orthography or the actual case of a neutral vowel. This third option is not considered by him in 1984. The slips due to bilingualism, or age restraints or physical defects are normal in every environment and especially higher in a cosmopolitan setting.

Water in the Late Bronze Period

Dating from the end of the thirteenth century BCE (1220 BCE), is a lexical text from Aphek (Aphek no. 8151) found in 1975 and published by A. F. Rainey. It is a tri-lingual cuneiform fragment with Sumerian, Akkadian and Palestine West-Semitic. The term for water is the Sumerian one of [a.]mesh : ma-wu : mu-mi. Moses used the form mayim in 1460 BCE when he wrote Genesis and also subsequently, so one wonders where this form mu-mi comes from?

What Daniel Sivan is suggesting is that there is a /ay/ > /é/ contraction or in some cases a /ay/ > /i/ contraction. The problem with the methodology of Sivan is that he is trying to make the textual case in the cuneiform a status quo and the textual case in the Masoretic Text a derivative later development. There is no reason to ignore the possibility that the fluidity of language could result in phenomena going both ways like a roller coaster. There is then no on line evolutionary development upwards and upwards only. It can degenerate and it can progress just to degenerate again and progress again. It can surface and disappear just to surface again. It can abbreviate and lengthen just to abbreviate and lengthen again in that order. When Astour tried to say that ^Uruza-i-ti at Alalakh (see D. Wiseman Alalakh Texts 157 text 146.1) is the Masoretic Hebrew text form zayit, Sivan cancelled the option by suggesting that it is too early for anaptysix of diphtongs to be found in Hebrew (Sivan 1984: 14). Who is Sivan to ignore the dating of the Hebrew text on its own grounds internally and moreover, the earliest Hebrew text of Genesis dates to 1460 BCE which is preceding the Alalakh text by nearly 200 years. It is again a case of the chicken or the egg, which came first? Thus, to come back to the form of mu-mi in the Palestine West Semitic rendering on the 1220 BCE text of the burnt steps of the villa at Aphek, Sivan suggest that it is *mayu + enclitic mi = *mûmi because the contraction of the diphtong took place.

The anaptysix of diphtongs can be early and the contraction of diphtongs is not necessarily only early. It may come and go. It is not only the word for water that is contracted in the Aphek cuneiform text but also the word for wine, instead of yayin of the Masoretic Hebrew it is a shorter form ye-nu in the Aphek text. This should not disturb us at all, this shortening phenomenon in the Aphek text. And it is not suddenly the blueprint of phonology so that if the book of Genesis by Moses is using a longer form therefore Genesis should be regarded as later since it has to be short since a cuneiform evidence shows it to be shorter and not longer. If one compares the Ugarit texts and Ras ibn Hani texts, they are dating to the same period but at Ras ibn Hani, the Kassite month names that are used is abbreviated but most of the texts at Ugarit is a longer full form. Common terms can be abbreviated or in the full form and that does not mean short is first and long is later as artificial hegelianism or evolutionary thought-analysis patterns are trying to assert.