Late Bronze Phonology and Loanwords II

Koot van Wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)

Visiting Professor

Kyungpook National University

Sangju Campus

South Korea

Conjoint Lecturer of Avondale College

Australia

12 January 2011

The helpful book of 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) is used here once again to look at other examples of lengthening or shortening of words. Sivan indicated that there was a shortening of the word water at Aphek in one of the cuneiform tablets found near the steps of the governor's residence dating to 1220 BCE or the Late Bronze Period and the West-Semitic reading in cuneiform was mu-mi instead of the long form as we find it in the Hebrew Masoretic text. So what did Sivan do? He argued that the long form did not exist that early so that the connection of long forms with cuneiform examples that early could not have been. Anaptysix of the diphthong has not taken place yet, he argued but we are saying that examples of lenghtening and shortening of Kassite monthnames can be seen co-existing in the same geographical area so that the issue of which came first and second is irrelevant. In fact, we will look at more examples showing that Sivan's methodology of a one way evolution from short to long, does not uphold.

At Alalakh VII, which is dating to the 16th to 15th centuries and also at Mari dating even earlier to the time of Zimrilim 1740 BCE, we have examples of the name ni-iq-mi-a-du (see D. Wiseman, Alalakh Texts, 143 with text 98d line 5; see Sivan 1984: 15 at footnote 18 for the example). This is a long form since one can see anaptysix clearly for the i+a appears together but separately. However, later at Ugarit of 1350-1220 BCE, we have nîq-ma-^dIM (PRU VI 45,2 and 47,2). Now there is a contraction here in 1280-1220 BCE with the diphthong not visible. So if the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Old Testament canon with books of Moses uses a long form with the diphthong visible, it is not appropriate to argue that it cannot be used that early since anaptysix only took place later. As we said in the previous article, linguistic phenomena is like participants in a rollercoaster experience, up and down and again up and down, thus appearing and disappearing just to appear again. Moses wrote Genesis in 1460 BCE in Midian while hiding from Thutmosis III, thus it is no problem for him to use the long form or anaptysix in Midian when Ugarit in 1280-1220 BCE is using a short form. We are complaining here about the methodology of Sivan that dump all data on the same level for consideration without distinguishing the glotto-chronology of the linguistic data.

A number of examples are given by Sivan that also falls into the category: from Ugarit (1280-1220 BCE) is also the example of the shortening of ia-ab-na-na (= *yani+ãna > yabnãna) (see Sivan 1984: 15 at 2.1.4. The example is from Ug5 12,9).

Sivan also pointed out that there is a contraction at Ugarit of /iy>ī/ in the word ina:ṣī-ṣú-ma which is actually the long form ṣiyṣūma which became ṣīṣūma in 1280-1220 BCE of Ugarit. There are a couple of principles that we have to keep in mind here when we compare cuneiform examples with biblical material. Both have chronological limits that should be honored. The biblical text has also internal markers to allocate when it was originally written. Those markers must be respected and not bulldozed out of the way by modern literature criticism based on subjective speculations due to suspicion. The second principle, is that one should guard against oversimplification or generalization. In the Pentateuch of Moses (Numbers 17:23; Exodus 28:36; 39:30; Leviticus 8:9; Numbers 17:23) and the book of Job that was written in 1460 BCE in Midian (Job 14:2) and in Psalm 90 of Moses (Psalm 90:6) one finds this root also been used but in the long form or with existing anaptysix in the diphthong. The yod is visible. Psalm 103:15 is also using it but there is a possibility that David is using old sources of a hymn dating to the time of Moses in 1450 BCE since he mentions Moses by name in Psalm 103:7. The meaning is not certain by modern Hebrew dictionaries such as BDB 847. Moses lived in Egypt and it is possible that Egyptian meanings to a similar root can help us understand the usage in the Bible. The Late Egyptian word sswt means metal inlays or bolt. It is thus metal inlays on the crown or mitre of the High Priest as Leviticus 8:9 indicates. Akkadian or Northeast-Semitic used the short form ṣūṣû. Hebrew is a Northwest Semitic language and Moses used the long form in 1460-1415 BCE. Moses studied at the University of Egypt in the court and protection of Hatshepsut herself, who was his adoption mother since 1518-1490 BCE. Egyptian language and linguistics must have had a strong impact on the meanings and expressions of Moses. At least the meaning from Egypt is very useful for us. We must remember that at times Egypt borrowed terms and words from Mesopotamia and vice versa. Words were simulated which is a common phenomenon in modern languages all over the world. The South African 2010 Soccer Fifa Worldcup trumpet vuvuzella is pronounced or transcribed in South Korea as bubujello or bubuzella or vuvujello. All three the transcriptions are by native Koreans.

The root ksh for cover is used by Moses many times in his literature. We mention Moses since he is the earliest writer in the Hebrew Bible and wrote between 1460-1415 BCE. Although Moses used this form in adding suffixes in Job 31:33 he used the long form by employing a yod in the place of the he. The waw is used for the same function in Exodus 28:42 and the short form (without the waw) in Numbers 4:15. Moses used two forms for the same word, long and short. We do not know if Moses was using a scribe and that he dictated to the person to write down what he said and that at other times, scribes switched or Moses himself wrote, thus explaining the different forms by the same books attributed to the same author. The other word with the same meaning is ktm. Scholars are thinking that it is a later loanword in Hebrew but that is not the case. Moses used the same word in Job 28:19. The Akkadian word for cover is katãmu. Most scholars translate the word in Job 28:19 with gold. The dictionary of BDB is making the same error as Sivan. They dump all similar consonants together, even in the Old Testament, brushed aside that Proverbs was written by Solomon in 970-950 BCE while Job was written by Moses in 1460 BCE. Roots can change their meaning over a period of half a millennium. What about the English words: I want you to be happy and gay. From a positive past to a negative present we definitely do not see gay in the same light as a century before. It indicates two different aspects in contrast to each other. It is true that the Late Egyptian word for gold is also kṯmt. The word for covering in Late Egyptian is kṯt. This is a noun and the /m/ could have fallen out in pronunciation. The Middle Egyptian word from the time of Moses is k3pwt for covers. In 1280-1220 BCE at Ugarit the form for cover was ku-u]s(?)-sú (see Ug5 137 I,21" as cited by Sivan 1984: 17 at footnote 14). In this case the triphthong changed into a composite vowel due to contraction, thus ksy changed to ksú. The iyu>ú. The case ending vowel u turned into a composite vowel (Sivan 1984: 17). Again we have a case or example of shortening here at the cosmopolitan city of Ugarit. The reason why Moses has a shortening form of the same word and why Ugarit shortened the word is not related due to time difference of nearly 250 years and furthermore, two different geographical areas and the scribes came from two different backgrounds (one Egyptian, Hebrew, Akkadian background = Moses) and the other (Hurrian, Hittite, Akkadian, Hebrew? background = habiru(?) scribe at Ugarit). It just illustrate to us how careful we should be to make statements about Biblical linguistics, phonology, since so many aspects needs to be taken into consideration. Sweeping generalizations that a pericope or word or phrase is "late" should be viewed as simplistic and too easily shelved.