Journal of Semitic Studies LI/1 Spring 2006 doi:10.1093/jss/fgi081 THE University Press on behalf The author.

Published by Oxford NERAB INSCRIPTIONSof the University of Manchester. All rights reserved.

A CASE OF LINGUISTIC TRANSITION: THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS1

ILSUNG ANDREW YUN
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Jewish National and University on December 31, 2012

Abstract
Since the publication of the editio princeps by C. Clermont-Ganneau in 1897, two funerary inscriptions from Nerab have received the attention of relatively few scholars. It has been acknowledged that the Nerab inscriptions stand at a major juncture for the development of the Aramaic language, as well reflected in the divided scholarly opinions on the classification of the language of the Nerab inscriptions, either as Old Aramaic (OA) or as Official Aramaic (OfA). This paper explores the possible contribution of the Nerab inscriptions to the discussion of the phases of the Aramaic language by putting the Nerab inscriptions in the wider perspective of developing Aramaic, with special focus on comparison between OA and OfA. It is argued that the Nerab inscriptions are rare examples of the inscriptions that clearly represent the transition from OA to OfA, though they still categorically belong to OA.

The complexity involved in the discussion of the phases of the Aramaic language is well reflected by the fact that there is still no consensus on the chronological and dialectal boundary between Old Aramaic (OA) and Official Aramaic (OfA), let alone the terminologies for them. Thus, for the linguistic phase represented by OA, various other terms such as Ancient Aramaic or Early Aramaic are also used, and instead of OfA, some scholars use Imperial Aramaic or Standard Aramaic. Even the term Old Aramaic is used by scholars in various senses. To the surveys of the many different scholarly opinions already made by Degen (1969: 13) and Fitzmyer
This paper grew out of my study of Old Aramaic with Professor Paul-Eugne Dion to whom I am deeply grateful for warm memories of him as an exemplary scholar and benevolent teacher. List of abbreviations: Fek (Fekherye), Zk (Zakkur), Sf (Sefire), H (Hadad), P (Panammu), Barr (Barrakkib), Nrb (Nerab), Herm (Hermopolis papyri), OA (Old Aramaic), OfA (Official Aramaic), EA (Elephantine Aramaic), BH (Biblical Hebrew), BA (Biblical Aramaic), OSA (Old South Arabian).
19
1

THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

(1979: 5760),2 further opinions can be added as follows. Kaufman puts the partition of OA and Imperial Aramaic at the end of the eighth century BCE, while utilizing another terminology, Mesopotamian Aramaic, to include all the Aramaic texts from Mesopotamia up until the cuneiform Aramaic incantation from Uruk, probably of the early Seleucid period (1974: 711). In his later works, Kaufman adopts Fitzmyers fivefold division, but with a different chronological delimitation, i.e. OA (c. 850 c. 612 BCE) and OfA (c. 612 c. 200 BCE) (1992: 1734; 1997: 11415). Gibson separates OA from OfA, and the earliest examples of OfA are the Barrakkib inscriptions and the Nerab inscriptions (1975: 88, 94). Greenfields fourfold division, i.e. Early Aramaic which includes both OA and OfA, Middle Aramaic, Late Aramaic, and Modern Aramaic (1976: 39), emphasizes the similarity between OA and OfA. According to him, OfA is attested as early as in the Barrakkib and Nerab inscriptions (1976: 40). But in his subsequent article, he connects the Barrakkib inscriptions and the Nerab inscriptions to Mesopotamian Aramaic which emerged in the area of Aram-Naharaim along the banks of the Habur and Balikh rivers, and naturally spread into Assyria proper and into Aram proper with the Assyrian conquests (1978: 95). Beyer uses the term Old Aramaic to cover Ancient Aramaic, Imperial Aramaic, Old Eastern Aramaic and Old Western Aramaic, and Ancient Aramaic is divided into early Ancient Aramaic (tentheighth centuries BCE) and late Ancient Aramaic (seventhsixth centuries BCE) (1986: 1014). Hoftijzer and Jongeling take c. 700 BCE as the point of demarcation between OA and OfA (DNWSI: xii). The Barrakkib inscriptions belong to the latest phase of OA and the Nerab inscriptions to the earliest phase of OfA (DNWSI: 113 and passim, where lexical items from the Nerab inscriptions are listed under OfA).
2 When Fitzmyer devised the fivefold division of the Aramaic language, i.e. OA (925700 BCE), OfA (700200 BCE), Middle Aramaic (200 BCE200 CE), Late Aramaic (200700 CE), Modern Aramaic (700 CE ) (1979: 5784), he sought primarily a purely chronological division (Italics his), within which one could make further local or geographical subdivisions accounting for dialectal differences (1979: 60). Thus, the primarily chronological division is supplemented with dialectal linguistic features. The following are the linguistic characteristics of the OA phase, as presented by Fitzmyer: the widespread preservation of the Proto-Semitic phonemes, the development of orthographic habits from the initial Phoenician starting-point, the use of nh, the Peal infinitive without preformative m-, the Peal passive forms in yuqtal, the prefixed negative la-; the 3rd sg. masc. suffix on plural nouns in wh, the use of the intensifying infinitive, the use of the waw-consecutive, the post-positive article (1979: 656).

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Jewish National and University on December 31, 2012

20

THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

Though the list could be much longer, enough has been said to illustrate the diversity of scholarly opinions concerning the terminologies and the classification of epigraphic materials with regard to the historical-linguistic phases of the Aramaic language of the first millennium BCE. One point of contention among scholars is the issue of the classification of the language of the Nerab inscriptions. Even after Fitzmyer rightly deplored Degens exclusion of the Nerab inscriptions from OA on the basis of certain forms in them, i.e. nr (I:1213), qdmwh (II:2), the prefixed negative l- (II:4, 6, 8), the intensifying infinitive (II:6) (1979: 667), scholarly opinions have been divided. Thus, it is important to investigate the linguistic characteristics of the Nerab inscriptions in detail. The Texts of the Nerab Inscriptions with Epigraphic Notes The funerary inscriptions of Sinzeribni (Nrb I) and Sigabbar (Nrb II), priests of the moon-god at ancient Nerab, are incised on two basalt stelae (respectively 0.93m x 0.35m and 0.95m x 0.45m), which were found accidentally at a small tumulus at Nerab, approximately 7km south-east of Aleppo. They were acquired by Clermont-Ganneau and brought to the Louvre in Paris. Each stele has, besides its inscription, a priestly figure in relief who is to be identified with the priest in each of the inscriptions, respectively Sinzeribni and Sigabbar for the pictures and facsimiles of the stelae, see KAI I pl. 24, 25; ANEP nos 280, 636; Naveh 1982: fig. 76. The Inscription of Sinzeribni
Transcription 1.snzrbn kmr 2.shr bnrb mt 3.wznh lmh 4.wrth 5.mn t 6.thns lm 7.znh wrt 8.mn srh 9.shr wsms wnkl wnsk ysw 10.smk wsrk mn yn wmwt lh 11.yklwk wyhbdw zrk whn 12.tnr lm wrt z 13.rh ynr 14.zy lk Vocalization 1.sinzeribni kumr 2.sahr banerab mat 3.waan almih 4.waeritih 5.man att(a) 6.tihanis alma 7.an waerita 8.min aqrih 9.sahr wasamas wanikkal wanusk yissa 10.sumak waaqrak min ayyin wamawt la 11.yik.ulk wayihabid zarak wahin 12.tinqur alma waerita a 13.aar yunqar 14. lik
21

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Jewish National and University on December 31, 2012

THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

Translation 1.Sinzeribni, priest 2.of Sahr at Nerab, died. 3.And this is his image 4.and his remains. 5.Whoever you are, 6.who remove this image 7.and these (lit. this) remains 8.from their (lit. its) place, 9.may Sahr and Shamash and Nikkal and Nusk tear away 10.your name and your vestige from the living, and with evil death 11.may they kill you, and may they cause your offspring to perish. But if 12.you guard these (lit. this) image and these remains 13.in the future may yours be guarded.

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Jewish National and University on December 31, 2012

The Inscription of Sigabbar

Transcription 1.sgbr kmr shr bnrb 2.znh lmh bdqty qdmwh 3.smny sm b whrk ywmy 4.bywm mtt pmy ltz mn mln 5.wbyny mzh nh bny rb bkwn 6.y whwm thmw wlsmw my mn 7.ksp wns m lbsy smwny lmn 8.lrh lthns rty mn t tsq 9.wthnsny shr wnkl wnsk yhbsw 10.mmtth wrth tbd Vocalization 1.sigabbar kumr sahr banerab 2.an almih baidqat qudmawih 3.samn sum ab waharik yawm 4.bayawm matit pum laitaiz min milan 5.wabaayn miz an binay rabi bakn 6.wahm itham walasam imm man 7.kasp wanuas im lubus samn liman 8.liaar latihunas erit man att(a) tisuq 9.watihanisn sahr wanikkal wanusk yihabis 10.mamotatih waaratih tibud

Translation 1.Sigabbar (is) a priest of Sahr at Nerab, 2.This is his image. Because of my righteousness before him, 3.he established a good name for me and prolonged my days. 4.On the day I died, my mouth was not closed from (speaking) words, 5.and with my eyes I was looking at children of the fourth generation. They wept for 6.me and were greatly disturbed. And they did not place with me any vessel 7.of silver or bronze. With my garment they placed me, so that 8.in the future my remains would not be taken away. Whoever you are who do wrong 9.and take me away, may Sahr and Nikkal and Nusk make his death odious, 10.and may his posterity perish.

First, I will briefly discuss a few perennial cruxes of the texts that still remain without any satisfactory solutions.
22

THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

rth (I:4): the most common translation for this word is sarcophagus in connection with BH eres, Ugaritic rs, Akkadian ersu (NSI: 1878; Torrey 1912: 90; Gevirtz 1961: 184; Koopmans 1962: 92; KAI 2: 275; Segert 1975: 527; DNWSI: 113; Gropp 1997: 128; etc.). It fits well both in the textual and archaeological contexts.3 The obvious problem with this interpretation is the insurmountable phonological difficulty in deriving the Aramaic rt from the proto-Semitic form *rs. As for the phonetic change // > //, OA and by and large OfA retained the independent articulation of the pharyngeals (// and //) and glottals (// and /h/), and only by the time of Middle Aramaic, did the two phonemes begin to be confused, as evidenced by the fact that two graphemes aleph and ayin were interchanged frequently or dropped altogether (cf. Moscati 1964: 8. 56). More problematic is the change from s to . Another main difficulty with this view is that none of the proposed cognates of thert of our text is attested with the meaning of sarcophagus, and the regular term for sarcophagus is aranu in Akkadian, arn in BH (1x in Gen. 50:26), rn and lt in Phoenician, and rn in OfA and later Aramaic (cf. Marcus 1975: 8591). The second interpretation of rt is to relate it to Akkadian eretu the earth, the nether world, used here in the restricted sense of grave (Driver 1935: 49; Kutscher 1965: 42; Gibson 1975: 96; etc.). This explanation creates no phonological problem. Though one could contend that in OA orthography rq is expected here as a cognate of Akkadian eretu, it can be resolved by the argument that rt in the Nerab inscriptions represents a direct loan from Akkadian eretu due to its special meaning, since r /q in Northwest Semitic is not used in the sense of underworld, let alone grave. Meanwhile, in Akkadian, eretu, together with qeberu, occurs with the concrete sense of burial ground (CAD E: 313). However, the plausibility of this view is seriously undermined by the fact that rt in the Nerab inscriptions is nothing like a plot of land used for burial as in Akkadian, but something that can be removed from its burial site.
The image of the priest incised on the stele must be referred to by the lmh of the inscription. Thus, it is tempting to identify rth (I:4) and rty (II:8) with the sarcophagus containing two skeletons found at the same location. Besides the sarcophagus, a golden cylinder, a bronze figurine of a male deity and a female deity, etc. were also found. For the circumstantial account of their findings, see Clermont-Ganneau 1897: 1837. The systematic excavation of the site was carried out by a French team in 1926 and 1927, and produced 27 neo-Babylonian tablets inter alia. For the archaeological report of these excavations, see Barrois and Carrire 1926; Barrois and Abel 1928.
3

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Jewish National and University on December 31, 2012

23

THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

According to the third solution, proposed by Kaufman (1974: 50), the cuneiform parallel to Nerab rt is eittu bone, skeleton which appears in the phrase a-na kimai u e-i-it-ti s-a-ti against that sarcophagus and (those) remains (?) in the mortuary inscription of Shamash-ibni, an Aramaean tribal chief in the time of the Assyrian king Ashur-etil-ilni (62618 BCE) (Clay 1915: 601). This translation agrees well with the context as well as with the ancient Semitic preoccupation with the preservation of the remains of the dead.4 Furthermore, eittu (also eemtu) with the meaning of bone, remains is well attested in Akkadian (CAD E: 341 3). One obvious problem of this interpretation, as pointed out by Kaufman himself, is that, the r of the Aramaic form is disturbing but not impossible to account for (1974: 50). However, on this insertion of r he does not offer an explanation. Meanwhile, P.-E. Dion sees the insertion of r in rt in the light of krs throne (Barr I:7; also khs in Sf III:17 which is probably an error for krs), which is compared to Akkadian kussu (cf. another Akkadian form kurse), though he also recognizes that the gemination of s in kussu (also reflected in BH kisse) makes a difference from the non-gemination of in eittu (personal communication, 1998).5 The cumulative evidence from philology, textual and archaeological context, and ancient Near Eastern mortuary customs, seems to indicate that Kaufmans interpretation should be regarded as superior at least provisionally. thns (I:6): Clermont-Ganneau, assuming that the t and h of thns are prefixes, has already raised the possibility of such etymologies as Hebrew nss or nws to flee, Aramaic ns to demolish, rob, compel, and the common Semitic ns to lift (1897: 197 8). Since then, the third of these options has been followed by most subsequent scholars. The first suggestion, a C-stem (or G) imperfect of ns (NSI: 188; Gibson 1975: 16; etc.), has a serious problem in that it cannot explain the disappearance of aleph, because etymological aleph was regularly represented orthographically even in a syllable-closing position in OA, probably still retaining its consonantal value (see infra the discussion under yhbd).6 The second interpretation of thns takes it as G-stem (or D?) imperfect of a so far unattested root hns (DNWSI: 290). However, the complete absence in other Semitic lanIt is especially well reflected in the Phoenician funerary inscriptions such as the inscriptions of Airam, Tabnit, and Eshmunazar. 5 Or one can imagine a complex development, eemtu > eertu > rt. 6 Cooke notes that in the Targums, h is written for the aleph of ns, as hyk for yk, hlw for ly (NSI: 188). But this cannot be applied to OA, since confusion among the pharyngeals and the glottals became common only after the Middle Aramaic phase.
24
4

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Jewish National and University on December 31, 2012

THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

guages and extreme rarity in Aramaic of such a root makes this option less attractive.7 The third and best option, a C-stem imperfect of nws (Degen 1969: 76; KAI 2: 275; Hug 1993: 85; etc.), causes no serious linguistic problem. Some reluctance to accept nws as the root behind thns comes from the fact that the basic meaning of nws is intransitive to flee, to escape, while thns of the Nerab inscriptions is contextually transitive to remove (something). But BH has the G-stem of nws used figuratively in the sense of to be gone, to disappear,8 and in the C-stem it is used for a concrete object with the sense of to cause to disappear, to hide, i.e. lhans in Judg. 6:10 to hide (wheat from the Midianites). sr-k (I:10): the majority of scholars have translated this word as (your) place (Clermont-Ganneau 1897: 193; NSI: 186; KAI 2: 275; Segert 1975: 527; Gibson 1975: 96; Hug 1993: 142; Gropp 1997: 128; etc.), which is the most common meaning of the ProtoSemitic root *tr in West Semitic, and is an obvious meaning of sr-h of line eight. The translation your happiness (cf. BH oser/asr happiness and Neo-Punic sr in KAI 145:11) also seems possible. But the best contextual meaning of sr-k is (your) vestige or achievement (DNWSI: 127). This interpretation is further supported by the meaning of sr in the Zakkur inscription, since the curse formula of Zakkur B shows a striking similarity with that of Nerab I. In Zakkur, sr also appears with two different meanings: wk[tbt. b]h. yt[.] sr. ydy [. wkl.] mn. yhg. [sr. ydy]. zkr. mlk. m[t. wl]s. mn. nb. znh[.] wm[n. y]hg. nb. znh. mn. q[d]m. lwr. wyhnsnh. m[n.] [s]rh (B:14 21) I wrote on it the achievement of my hands. And whoever removes the achievement of the hands of Zakkur, king of Hamath and Luuth, from this stele, and whoever removes this stele from before Ilu-wer and takes away from its place The meaning of sr as achievement, vestige, legacy depends on Arabic atr trace, vestige, tradition, etc. or atara remainder, remnant, faint trace, vestige which should be a further semantic development of BH asar to advance, proceed or asur (foot)step, going. Such a meaning of sr is further supported by a comparison with a recurrent warning against altering, erasing or destroying the list of the accomplishments of the king in Akkadian royal inscriptions. For example, sr ydy of Zakkur is the functional equivalent of the common Akkadian expression epes
7 Outside of the Nerab inscriptions (also lthns in Nrb II:8, wthnsny in Nrb II:9), this root is attested once in OA (yhnsnh in Zk B:20) and once in OfA (mns in Herm ii:3). 8 With such subjects as vigour (Deut. 34:7), shadows (Song 2:17), and sorrow (Isa. 35:10; 51:11).

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Jewish National and University on December 31, 2012

25

THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

(epset) / lipit (liptat) qati accomplishments of my (the kings) hands (Tawil 1974: 52, no. 93). mzh (II:5): this form has been interpreted by some as a G-stem masculine singular participle of zh with a prefixed shortened form of the interrogative pronoun mh, thus translating (with my own eyes) what do I see? (NSI: 190; KAI 2: 276; Gropp 1997: 128; etc.). Apart from its awkward syntax, this view is not satisfactory because it creates a morphological problem. In OA and OfA mh as an interrogative pronoun or an indefinite relative pronoun stands alone (Sf I B:26; III:3; H 12; Herm iv:5; etc.), and as an indefinite relative pronoun or adverb, it can be prefixed only to zy in orthography (e.g. mz whatever in H 3, 4, 22), though even then not always (e.g. mh zy in whatever way in Sf III:16). Thus, the orthography of mzh, if it is interrogative, is otherwise unattested. The second interpretation of mzh is a D-stem participle, with the translation (with my eyes) I was beholding (Gibson 1975: 98; Degen 1969: 78, no. 82; Hug 1993: 86; DNWSI: 360; etc.). Even though it is syntactically superior, this view also cannot be accepted because of one fatal morphological problem, the fact that zh never occurs in the D-stem for the transitive verb to behold, to see in any of the West Semitic languages. Confronted with the difficulties of the previous explanations, I propose as an alternative to read mzh as a G-stem infinitive absolute used as a substitute for the finite verb of the past tense. This proposal eliminates all morphological problems. It appeared to be established fact that in OA, including Samalian, the G-stem infinitive of a strong verb is always spelled without the preformative m-,9 in contrast to later Aramaic mqtl. The consensus on this changed dramatically, however, with the discovery of the Fekherye inscription, where all G-stem infinitives are written with the preformative m-: lmrk (7), lmld (9), lmsm (9), lmlq (10). Meanwhile, at the early stage of OfA, both forms of the G-stem infinitive, with and without m-, are attested lmsl (Adon Papyrus 7) vs. qrq (Ashur Ostracon 9). However, already in Egyptian Aramaic, and in later OfA and also in BA, miqtal became a dominant form, and the infinitive without m- survived only in the fossilized quotation formula lmr lmbd (Xanthos 7), lmsl (TAD A 1.1:7), lmbnyh (TAD A 4.7:23, 25; A 4.9:8), lmsbq (TAD C 1.1:92), lmmr (TAD C 1.1:163), mns (TAD C 1.1:170), etc. vs. lmr (Ashur ostracon 8, 10, 17; Herm i:6; about 50x in EA)
9 Fitzmyers reading lmsl in Sf I B:34, which is interpreted as a G-stem infinitive (1995: 112), has been corrected to lysl (Degen 1969: 15; Kaufman 1982: 151).

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Jewish National and University on December 31, 2012

26

THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

(cf. Muraoka and Porten 1998: 106). Therefore, it seems plausible that mzh in our text represents the transitional period when the Gstem infinitive mqtl which was once a dialectal feature of Gozan Aramaic was becoming a more dominant form in OfA as against qtl which was the dominant form in OA. The use of the infinitive absolute as a substitute for a finite verb can be traced back to the earliest stage of West Semitic, and it is found in Ugaritic, the Canaanite of the Amarna letters, Phoenician, BH and Syriac (cf. Moran 1950; Rubinstein 1952; Huesman 1956a, 1956b).10 Even though its origin and distinctive syntatic nuance in comparison to a finite verb (purely stylistic or semantic?) still remain obscure, the infinitive absolute as a legitimate variant of a finite verb persisted in use in West and South Semitic. In this light, it should not be a surprise that we encounter in the Nerab inscription the first example of the infinitive absolute replacing a finite verb in OA.11 OA, OfA and the Nerab Inscriptions We turn to the specific linguistic features of the Nerab inscriptions relevant to the discussion of the linguistic phases of OA and OfA. Phonology and Orthography 1.znh (I:3, 7; II:2), z (I:12), zy (I:14), ltz (II:4): the protoSemitic interdental voiced fricative *// is represented by the grapheme z in OA, and by d or less often by z in OfA. The regular form for the masculine singular demonstrative pronoun in OA is znh (Zk A:17, Barr I:20, Sf I A:36, P:22, etc.), but zn with a defective spelling in Samalian (H 1, 14, 16; P 1, 20). Two concurrent spellings znh/ and dnh/ in OfA and predominantly dnh/ with rare exceptions of the archaic spelling znh in later Aramaic show that the transition in the orthographic representation of the proto-Semitic *// took place during the OfA phase. Likewise, the feminine singular demonstrative pronoun z in OA (Sf I A:35, 37; III: 9) becomes z and dh in OfA, and thenceforth d/h with rare exceptions of the archaic z/h. 2.sr (I:8, 10): the proto-Semitic interdental voiceless fricative */q/ is represented by the grapheme s in OA, and usually by t or occasionally by s in OfA.
Outside of West Semitic, it is also attested in Old South Arabian, Ethiopic and Arabic (Moran 1950: 1712), but there is no firm evidence for it in Akkadian. 11 One can even wonder whether some qtl finite verbs in OA might be in fact infinitives.
27
10

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Jewish National and University on December 31, 2012

THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

3.tnr (I:12), ynr (I:13): the proto-Semitic interdental emphatic fricative */q/ is represented by the grapheme in OA, and predominantly by or rarely by in OfA.
PS *d/ [] *t/q [q] * [t] * q [q] BH z s OA z s q OfA z/d s/t q / / MA/LA d t Ug d/d t / g(?) q/g Akk z s CA d t
Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Jewish National and University on December 31, 2012

Fig. 1. Graphemic Correspondences of the Semitic Sibilants

4.mwt (I:10), ywmy (II:3), bywm (II:4), byny (II:5): the diphthongs in qatl type nouns with the second weak radical w/y did not contract in the Nerab inscriptions, with one possible, though uncertain, exception mmtth (II:10). Since both in OA and OfA, the situation involving the diphthongs is similar, they have no merit for comparative purposes. That is, the diphthongs in general did not contract, though the supposedly exceptional examples of monothongization have been increasing both in OA and OfA (cf. Folmer 1995: 17383; Muraoka and Porten 1998: 368). So far, in OA, at least, three words with contracted diphthongs, often alongside uncontracted ones, have been found i.e. bt (Fek 17) and bty (Zk B:9) vs. byth (Fek 8) and byt (Zk B:12), lh to it (Sf I A:32) vs.lyh (Sf III:9), and bnyhm among them (Sf III:18 bis, 19).12 In
The editors of the editio princeps of the Fekherye inscription note diphthongs, ay in lyy (7), lhwy (12), ywh (14), tytb (15), mny (16), yrwy (21bis), and aw in dmwt (1, 15), wh (4), tlwth (5, 9), the second w of ywmwh (7), snwh (8), nswh (9, 14), ywh (14), mwh (17, 18) (1982: 401). However, further delineation seems necessary. First, lyy (7) is a D-stem infinitive construct of the root yy, pronounced either laayyay or laayy which is not subject to the diphthongal reduction. Second, y in lhwy (12) and yrwy (21 bis) is morphographemic for the so-called Kurzimperfekt in contrast to Langimperfekt, and its phonetic value is uncertain. While Degen makes an assertion that -y of the Kurzimperfekt indicates /ay/ in contrast to // for -h of the Langimperfekt (1969: 289, 38), Dion argues that the final -y of ybny, a Kurzimperfekt in Samalian represents /i/ (1974: 1878, 220), and Muraoka, while he rightly points out that /i/ is only one of the possible values that one can assign to the final y, maintains, on the basis of another Kurzimperfekt wynny (Zk A:11), that the y in question in OA does not indicate the diphthong (19834: 85). Third, y in tyb (15), a D-stem prefixed conjugation, is part of a trithong and is not supposed to contract. Fourth, in the case of mny (16), vocalized manayya, y
28
12

THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

Samalian, examples of monophthongization are ample ymy (H 9, 10, 12; but ywmyh in P 9, ywmy in P 10, 18), msb throne (H 8, 15, 20, 25; but hwsbt I made (gods) dwell in H 19, hwsbny in P 19), lbn to build (H 13, 14; but lbny in H10, bnyt in H 14), tgltplsr (P 13, 15, 16; cf. also Ashur 15; but tgltplysr in Barr I:3, 6). After all, these supposedly exceptional attestations of monophthongization in OA are frequent enough to invalidate Cross and Freedmans thesis that there is no evidence for the contraction of the diphthongs, ay and aw, in OA under any circumstances (EHO: 24, no. 4).13 In light of the preceding observation, the common acknowledgment that monophthongization originated from Phoenician and spread to other Semitic languages can be challenged. It seems equally possible, if not more likely, that monophthongization was a shared innovation among the Northwest Semitic languages, but with different degrees of consistency. The forms of the word for day deserve a comment. It is now widely accepted that there were two PS forms for the word day, i.e. *yamu (BH plural yamim, Ugaritic ya-mu in Ugaritica V 138: 2, Arabic plural ayyam) and *yawmu (BH singular ym, Arabic singular yawm and its derivative muyawama day labor, OA ywm). As a rule, in the Canaanite languages, the short form ym is employed (Ugaritic ym, Phoenician ym, Moabite ym, Epigraphic Hebrew ym, BH ym), with one rare execption, ywmt in the Ammonite Tell Siran Bottle inscription. The short form ym in West Semitic could have derived historically either from the contraction of the diphthong or from the PS *yamu. In OA, the situation is exactly opposite, as we find the consonantal element of the diphthong aw uncontracted ywm (Sf I A:12, I B:31, I C:20, II B:12; Nrb II:4), ywmh (Sf I C:15f ); ywmwh (Fek 7); ywmyhm (Sf II C:17) with exceptions only in the Samalian dialect, in which both the contracted forms, ymy (H 9, 10, 12), and the uncontracted forms, ywmy (P 10, 18) and ywmyh (P 9), were employed. In OfA, the contracted form ym is attested increasingly more
which is the ending of the masculine plural noun in the emphatic state, is not a kind of diphthong that should contract. Fifth, w in dmwt (1, 15) and tlwth (5, 9) is more likely an internal mater lectionis for damta and talteh. Sixth, w in wh (4)ywmwh (7) snwh (8) nswh (9, 14), ywh (14), mwh (17, 18), is part of the third masculine singular pronominal suffix on plural nouns -wy, and therefore is not supposed to contract. 13 Similarly, Degen does not offer any example of the contraction of aw and ay, except ay > //, which is indicated by the vowel letter h, in the long imperfect of the III-y verbs (1969: 39). Also about the preposition in bnyhm (Sf. III:18 bis, 19), he states, Vielleicht liegt im Aa. eine andere Nominalform vor (1969: 62, no. 39a).
29

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Jewish National and University on December 31, 2012

THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

often, though ywm is still more frequent than ym (e.g. kymn in Ashur Ostracon 16 vs. kywmy Adon Papyrus 3). 5.hwm (II:6), cf. yklwk (I:11), bkwny (II:56), smwny (II:7):14 the strictly consonantal Phoenician orthography underwent a major modification, i.e. the orthographic representation of the final long vowels, when the Phoenician alphabet was adopted by the Aramaeans. This principle of the consistent representation of the final long vowels in OA was in time extended to the sporadic use of internal vowel letters for medial long vowels in OA, though the medial /a/ was never indicated by vowel letters. In the past, the apparent paucity of the internal vowel letters was well recognized (cf. Degen 1969: 27, Dion 1974: 717). For example, Cross and Freedman find only one certain example, swr (Barr I:9), in the entire corpus that they deem OA (EHO: 30). However, the examples of internal vowel letters are not in insignificant number mnwt armies (Zk A:9), swr rampart (Zk A:17), ymwt he dies (Sf I A:36), byr well (Sf I B:34), kym like (Sf III:1), rw breath (Sf III:2), sybt return/ turnabout (Sf III:16), slyn cresson (watercress) (Sf III: 24), tgltplysr (Barr I:3; II:12), swr (Barr I:9) even after excluding contested forms such as qwh Que (Zk I:7), twm Tuim? (Sf I A:34), ywdn he will bear witness? (Sf II B:4). Furthermore, the situation surrounding the internal matres lectionis in OA drastically changed with the discovery of the Fekherye inscription, which exhibits the extraordinarily frequent use of the internal matres lectionis, compared to other OA inscriptions w for /u/ or /o/15: dmwt (1), gwgl (2, 4), dqwr (3), tlwth (5, 9), gwzn (6, 7, 13), ssnwry (7), bwr (16 ), tnwr (22); y for // or //: lhyn (4), smym (11), ysym (12), sryn (19), prys (19), nyrgl (23).16 This situation seems to indicate a further development from what Fitzmyer, writing before the discovery of the Fekherye inscription, calls the inceptive use of the internal vowel
yklwk (I:11), bkwny (II:56), and smwny (II:7) have internal vowel letters that are in actuality final vowels, with the pronominal suffixes attached to them. 15 The precise quality of this medial vowel letter w is uncertain sometimes. Andersen and Freedmans assumption that the medial mater lectionis w always represents // seems to be precarious (1992: 1667). According to Muraoka, /u/, /u/ or /o/ is represented by the medial w for example, probably adaqur, gugal, sasnur and certainly gozan, abor (19834: 856). 16 This orthographic difference of Gozan Aramaic should be attributed to the Akkadian-Aramaic bilingual environment of the region. The plethora of Akkadian personal names and Akkadian loan words among these early examples of the internal vowel letters provides compelling evidence for Muraokas contention that foreign words and names may have served as a major catalyst for the development of matres lectionis, whether medial or final (19834: 86).
14

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Jewish National and University on December 31, 2012

30

THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

letters (Fitzmyer 1979: 80, no. 50). However, Muraokas thesis that in our inscription the use of word-medial matres lectionis is the norm rather than the exception seems a bit overstated (19834: 87). The absence of the expected internal vowel letters, i.e. w, in yld he removes (11) (cf. ysym he puts in line 12) and y in plural forms such as lhn gods (14), nsn men (14), srn barley (22) (cf. lhyn in line 4, sryn in line 19), shows the inconsistent use of the internal vowel letters even in the Fekherye inscription. That is, even in the Gozan dialect of OA, the internal vowel letters, at least y, are only optional. The use of internal vowel letters in the Nerab inscriptions still conforms to the general rule of the earlier OA inscriptions, except the Fekherye inscription, in that the internal vowel letters are often absent, as in the C-stem of the II w/y verb (thns in I:6, lthns in II:8, wthnsny in II:9) and at the place of the contracted diphthong (mmtth in II:10). However, the orthography of hwm (II:6) exhibits one marked departure from OA. In OA, the conjugations, especially the C-stem, of the II-w/y verbs of the /u/ or /i/ theme vowels have an extremely rare orthographic representation of the internal long vowels that rise from the historical spelling of originally contracted diphthongs only two or three examples, ymwt he dies (Sf III:16), ysym he puts (Fek 12) and possibly ywdn he will bear witness (Sf II B:4) and the vowel letters are never used in the infinitive and imperative. But, such orthographic representation began to appear much more frequently, almost as a regular feature, in OfA (e.g. qwm Arise in TAD D 7.24:5, sym Put in TAD A 4.3:10, htyb he returned TAD B 2.9:7; etc.). 6.ysw (I:9), t (I:5, II:8), but tnr (I:12), ynr (I:13): in OA, as a rule, within a word, etymological n, not immediately followed by a vowel, was assimilated to the following consonant. Though a few exceptions to this n-assimilation in OA have been suggested,17 there is only one unequivocal example, mhnt bestower (Fek 2), besides two in the Nerab inscription (cf. yrw in Sf I C:15, lyr in Sf I C:17). From OfA, the orthographic representation of n in I-n and III-n verbs and in nouns with etymological n (e.g. np, nth, nt, etc.) became much more frequent than the forms with assimilated n e.g. ysw (Nrb I:9) vs. ynswhy they will remove him (Teima A:14), t (Nrb I:5, II:8) vs. nt in OfA, etc. The frequent assimilation of n in the Hermopolis papyri should be seen as a feature of colloquial
Fitzmyer thinks tnt (Sf I B:29) is the only exception to the n-assimilation in the Sefire inscriptions, but division of the word is contested (1995: 110). Certainly lnb (H 10) cannot be an example of this exception, since the form is clearly an infinitive construct of either G- or D-stem, which requires a vowel after n.
31
17

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Jewish National and University on December 31, 2012

THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

Egyptian Aramaic, by contrast with the more literary Elephantine Aramaic (EA) where n normally does not assimilate tnnh I would give it (Herm iv:5; viii:12) and ntnhy we shall give it (Herm iv:7) vs. ntnnh I shall give it (TAD B 4.6:5, cf. also ntn I shall give in TAD B 2.1:7, passim) and nntn we shall give (TAD B 2.11:10, passim), mpqn bringing (C-stem participle) (Herm v:3) and pqny he brought me out (C-stem perfect) (Herm vi:4) vs. mnpqh bringing out (C-stem participle) (TAD C Ev1:15; C Ev2:6) and hnpqh (the broken one) brought it out (C-stem perfect) (TAD C 1.1:93), pyk(y) your face (Herm i:2, ii:2, iii:2, iv:2, vi:2) vs. npwhy his face (TAD C 1.1: 115, passim, but rarely pyky your face in TAD D 7.16:12), lmth to bring down (C-stem infinitive) (Herm v:6) vs. lmnt to bring down (TAD C 3.16:1) or lmntwth to bring it down (TAD C 1.1:171), mdm anything, something (Herm i:10, iv:10, v:2, but mndm in Herm v:4) vs. mndm (TAD C 1.1:85, passim, but also less frequently mdm in TAD B 4.1:3, 4), mpy Memphis (Herm ii:3) vs. mnpy (TAD A 4.2:11, passim). Under the influence of common orthographic representation of etymological n in OfA, a new analogous development of spelling of non-etymological n took place, as a result of the dissimilation of gemination replaced by nasalization. Thus, yl ( ll to go up) (Sf I B:35) became ynl in OfA (cf. Beyer 1984: 901; Folmer 1995: 7494). 7.yklwk (I:11): the dissimilation of the emphatic q to voiceless k, followed by another emphatic or within the same word, takes place inconsistently in OA i.e. two dissimilated forms ky (Barr I:19) and yklwk (Nrb I:11), but undissimilated llqw (Fek 22)18 and the direction of the dissimilation q > k is always regressive, as no dissimilation occurs in dqty (Nrb II:2), dq (Barr I:4, 45; II:5), (*rq >) qrq to flee (Sf III:4). The same situation continued in OfA, as we find that the only unquestionable examples of the dissimilation of emphatic consonants are regressive q > k before or e.g. kph his anger (TAD C 1.1:85, 101), hkr harvest (TAD C 1.1:127), kyr harvest (TAD C 1.1:127), ksy upright (TAD C 1.1:158), bkt in part (TAD C 3.11:9), kry slander (Carpentra 2), etc. alongside undissimilated forms such as ql to kill (i.e. no kl is attested in
For the problem of the inconsistent dissimilation of q > k in OA, Garr proposes a solution that dissimilation was restricted only to word-initial q (1985: 45). Though it is true that Garrs theory is supported by the examples in the corpus of his study, specimens investigated seem to be too few for such a generalization. Furthermore, it is hard to find any reason for such a phonological difference between word-initial q followed by and non-word-initial q followed by . It also needs to be noted that from OfA on, even word-initial q is not always dissimilated.
32
18

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Jewish National and University on December 31, 2012

THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

OfA), qth its part (TAD A 2.2:7) (cf. Folmer 1995: 946, Muraoka and Porten 1998: 18). The spelling kl in Nerab is preceded by OA qtl e.g. qtl (Tell Dan 6), yqtlnh (Sf I B:27), yqtl (Sf II B:8), qtlw (Sf III:21), qtylt (P 8) and followed by OfA ql. The same variety is also attested in the other Semitic languages, i.e. qtl in OA, Akkadian, Arabic, and Ethiophic; kl in Nerab; ql in OfA and Hebrew.19 Among the three proposed proto-Semitic forms, *qtl, *kl and *ql (cf. Dion 1974: 11114), *qtl is accepted by most scholars (Brockelmann 1983: 54h; Bauer and Leander 1927: 33; Moscati 1969: 9.3; Degen 1969: 41; Garr 1985: 72, no. 168; etc.). According to this view, *qtl became, by the assimilation of t to the emphatic q, *ql, which in turn became kl by the dissimilation of q before another emphatic consonant. This diachronic development raises more questions than it solves problems. First, the so-called emphaticization of t in the environ of another emphatic consonant is alien in Aramaic and other West Semitic languages. Such assimilation of t is attested in Akkadian and Arabic, but only in a very specific circumstance, i.e. the infixed t immediately following an emphatic sound (i.e., without vocalic interception) in the verbal conjugation e.g. Akkadian aqtirib I approached > aqirib; Arabic itabaga it was dyed iabaga (cf. Moscati, 1969: 9.3; Huehnergard, 1997: 589). Meanwhile, in Akkadian, both progressive and regressive dissimilation of to t in words that also contain q or is a well-established rule, the socalled Geers's Law (cf. von Soden 1952: 51e; Huehnergard 1997: 588). Thus, the change *ql > *qtl seems more probable than *qtl > *ql. Second, the proposed order of the subsequent diachronic development from *qtl is chronologically reversed, as kl in Nerab is anterior to ql in later Aramaic. The second PS form *ql was first suggested by Kutscher.20 According to him, the PS *ql became, by dissimilation, either kl of Nerab or qtl of OA. This suggestion also has its own difficulties. First, the incompatibility of two emphatic consonants was not a norm in West Semitic as it was in Akkadian. Second, even if dissimilation occurred in *ql, the expected change in Aramaic would be q > k in comparison to > t in Akkadian, and thus the expected Aramaic form is not qtl of OA but kl of Nerab. Third, it does not explain why this dissimilation was restricted only to the OA phase and not operative any more in OfA.
ql in Hebrew (Job 24:14, 13:15; Ps. 139:19) could be an Aramaism. He has been quoted by many scholars, but I could not find his article in Asian and African Studies 2 (1966).
20 19

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Jewish National and University on December 31, 2012

33

THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

To account for all these difficulties, I propose a trifurcated diachronic development of the original form *ql. First, Hebrew retained the original form *ql. Second, the original *ql became qtl (Geers's Law), and this qtl was used in Akkadian and persisted into Arabic and Ethiopic. Third, reflecting its susceptibility to cross-linguistic influence and dialectal diversity, Aramaic had diverse forms. In the OA phase, possibly under Akkadian influence, qtl was used. Probably from the second half of the eighth century, a new Aramaic innovation of the dissimilation q > k began to be adopted, but only selectively (in the Barrakkib, Nerab, Ahiqar, etc.), depending on dialects and time (extensive in Mandaic, but totally absent in BA), which indicates that the dissimilation of q > k was just one of the many orthographic options. The rare form kl, which is extant only in the Nerab inscription, was soon superseded by another competing form ql in the subsequent phase of OfA.21 8.yhbdw (I:11), tbd (II:10): in OA, as a rule an etymological aleph, even in a syllable-closing position, was orthographically represented, probably still retaining its consonantal value, and no example of aleph functioning as a mater lectionis has been found so far.22 Though several forms have been proposed as possible examples of elision of aleph in OA, only one, byr well, pit (Sf I B:34), can be accepted with a reasonable degree of certainty, seeing that comparative evidence overwhelmingly points to *bir (Ugaritic bir, BH ber, Arabic bir > bir, OSA br, Syriac (*bir >) bira, Mandaic (*bir >) byr, etc.). Moabite br (Mesha 24, 25) also, though not certain, seems more likely to have derived from *bir, since in Moabite the syllable-closing aleph was usually lost (cf. rs chief in Mesha 20, ryt spectacle? in Mesha
21 The same can be observed for *qr smoke. First, the PS form *qr represented by Ugaritic qr, persisted into BH qoret smoke, odour (of burning sacrifice). Second, Akkadian qutru smoke, fume succumbed to dissimilation and was followed by Arabic qutar odour (of esp. roasted meat) and Ethiopic qtare incense. Third, Targumic Aramaic qra or qra smoke represents one of three forms that could have been available throughout several phases of Aramaic, though the other two forms are not extant. 22 Thus, one can still defend Cross and Freedmans thesis that in Old Aramaic, aleph regularly is consonantal, and is not used as a mater lectionis, exactly as in early Moabite and Hebrew (EHO: 33). For a summary of the subsequent criticisms on Cross and Freedmans thesis and Fitzmyers defence of it, refer to Fitzmyer 1979: 64 5. Note the further significant support of their thesis offered by Fitzmyer that is, the prefixed negative la is never written in these (OA) texts with an aleph; it is difficult to explain such a form if aleph were a real vowel letter in this phase, especially in light of the subsequent development in Aramaic, where it is almost always written separately and with final aleph, which has by this time become a vowel-letter (1997: 65).

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Jewish National and University on December 31, 2012

34

THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

12). Though it has been suggested that byr of OA is related to BH br (< *bwr) (Folmer 1995: 121, no. 554), BH br itself could have derived from *bur (cf. a variant spelling bor in 2 Sam. 23:15, 16, 20; Akk bur) rather than *bwr which was a by-form of *br. However, hbd I will destroy of the Sefire inscription (II C: 5) seems more likely a simple scribal error, in light of hbd (Sf II C: 4) of the previous line (Degen 1969: 71, no. 64; Fitzmyer 1995: 132; Garr 1985: 49; etc.), though some scholars see here the loss of aleph through quiescence as in later Aramaic (KAI 2: 263; DupontSommer 1958: 1201; Segert 1964: 120; etc.). Likewise, mlkh (Hamath graffito 1) is not necessarily the emphatic state with (- >) -h (Beyer 1984: 104), but could be a form with the third masculine pronominal suffix (Fitzmyer 1979: 80, no. 56; Folmer 1995: 121, no. 554). After all, Beyers argument that schwandt silbenschliessendes in der 2. Hlfte des 9. Jh.s v.Chr (1984: 105) remains to be further substantiated. In the Samalian dialect of OA, the use of aleph evinces its transition to become a vowel letter. Though, as in OA, the etymological aleph is normally retained in spelling, a few words have been proposed as instances of the elision of aleph. For example, Tropper offers three examples of the loss of aleph, i.e. z I grasp (H 3) and ytmr it was commanded (H 10) in syllable-closing position, and qrny he called me (H 13) in intervocalic position (1993: 183). The first two examples are not certain, but still remain possible. First, the syncope of aleph in z should be ascribed to its special circumstance, as Trooper himself notes, i.e. z > z as a result of the dissimilation of double alephs (also Dion 1974: 120f). Second, ytmr should be explained as tG-stem imperfect with a progressive assimilation of aleph to t: /yitamVr/ > /yittamVr/ (Dion 1974: 108f ). Troppers other explanation of this form as Gt-stem imperfect with the loss of the syllable-closing aleph (i.e. /yitamVr/ > /ytamVr/) is unlikely, since aleph in the syllable-closing position of the prefixed conjugation is mostly retained in Samalian. But the third example, qrny, if it is taken as a verb from qr instead of a noun my strength, is a plausible incidence of the loss of the etymological aleph, which is probably the result of the contraction of non-consonantal aleph, and thus anticipates the interchangeability between III-aleph verbs and III-y verbs in later Aramaic. In fact, already in Samalian, aleph and w/y were interchangeable in certain cases e.g. lbny (H 10) vs. lbn (H 13);23
23 But the sounds represented by them might be different, i.e. the diphthongal sound /-ay/ in lbny is contracted to /-/ which is represented by aleph in lbn.

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Jewish National and University on December 31, 2012

35

THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

spelling of the nota accusativi wt (H 28), like w/yt in later Aramaic, in contrast to yt in OA (cf. Dion 1974: 1645). Furthermore, there are some unambiguous instances of aleph functioning as a vowel letter, as in p and (then) (H 17, 33; P 11, 22), w and (H 13; P 5, 6, 12), r burning anger (H 20), m anger (H 23), lyl night (H 24), etc. (cf. Dion 1974: 5562; Tropper 1993: 172). The elision of etymologically consonantal aleph becomes much more frequent in OfA, though the forms with aleph preserved still count the majority. It first occurs extensively in the Hermopolis papyri, where the quiescence of aleph contributes to fluidity in orthography and higher frequency of defective spelling than in Elephantine Aramaic. The C-stem of ty to send/bring is mostly spelled without aleph: htty (iv:6), ytwnh (vi:10), thytn (5:5), ytw (iii:12; iv:7; v:5), yhtw (v:4), lmtyh (iii:11), lmytyt (iii:11). Another example is m to reach: mtny (iv:4), tmh (vi:56), but mth (iii:4), mtk (iii:6). Also, in the Hermopolis papyri, h and aleph are often interchangible: lh vs. l (i:8), klh entirely (iv:4), tmh (vi:5/6), the emphatic particle -h in ksph (ii:4, vi:6), sprh (i:12, ii:17, iii:13, iv:12, v:9, vi:10) vs. spr (vii:4), etc.24 9.thns (I:6), yhbdw (I:11), lthns (II:8), thnsny (II:9), yhbsw (II:9): in OA, with the exception of Samalian,25 the syncope of the intervocalic h in the prefixed conjugation of the C-stem and the transition from Haphel to Aphel had not yet taken place. A couple of forms that have been identified as Aphel with syncopated intervocalic h are still disputed. First, yskr (Sf III:3) has been proposed either as the earliest Aphel form (Fitzmyer 1995: 145) or as a simple scribal mistake. Seeing that all four other verbal forms of the root skr in Sefire inscription III (i.e., thskrhm in III:2, hskr in III:2, yhskr III:3, yhskrn III:3) retain h, yskr in Sf III 3 seems more likely a scribal error (Segert 1964: 121; Degen 1969: 19, no. 79; Greenfield 1965: 9, no. 24; etc.). Second, ybrnh (Sf III:17) also has been identified as an Aphel by the majority of scholars (Fitzmyer 1995: 156; Gibson 1975: 55; DNWSI: 821; etc). However, it also has been interpreted as a G-stem imperfect from the Arabic verbal root gibru to hate (Rosenthal 1960: 30; Degen 1969: 68, 80). Whatever explanation might be correct for these forms, it is from the OfA phase, first conspicuously in the Hermopolis papyri, that the frequency of syncope of the intervocalic h exceeds the possibility of being a scribal error: 'skth (iv:4), skt (iv:9), trtn (iv:5), yzny (i:2; ii:2; iii:2; v:2),
24 For the examples of the elision of aleph in Elephantine Aramaic, refer to Folmer 1995: 1069; Muraoka and Porten 1998: 22.

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Jewish National and University on December 31, 2012

36

THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

ysk (ii:15), tsq (iii:10), sk (ii:12), mns (ii:3), mlbs (iv:6), mpqn (v:3), lmth (v:6). At this point, it seems worthwhile to discuss briefly the history of the transition of Haphel to Aphel. The idea that Haphel and Aphel are two historically distinct verbal stems (Bauer and Leander 1927: 62) should be rejected. The so-called Aphel form, i.e. the suffixed conjugation of the C-stem with the prosthetic aleph, developed by analogy with the prefixed conjugation of the same stem without h after the syncope of the intervocalic h. That is, the paradigmatic pressure for pattern levelling in accordance with the h-syncopated forms of the prefixed conjugation caused the elision of h in the suffixed conjugation, and in its place, the prosthetic aleph as an indicator of zerosound was instated, and in this process, Akkadian influence, i.e. zerosound aleph for the proto-Semitic *h, might be present. This view is supported by the following observations. First, long before the first Aphel forms of the suffixed conjugation appeared first in the Hermopolis papyri, the Aphel imperfect forms with the syncopated h are amply attested, i.e. besides two contested forms in the Sefire inscriptions, all the C-stem prefixed conjugations in the Zinjirli inscriptions, yrm (Caquot 34), etc. Second, even in the Elephantine texts, the suffixed conjugation without h, i.e. the true Aphel form, is extremely rare in comparison to the prefixed conjugation without h (cf. Folmer 1995: 1267). However, the Hermopolis papyri, reflecting colloquial Aramaic linguistically more advanced than contemporary literary Elephantine Aramaic, exhibit a high proportion of the C-stem conjugations without h over those with h (25 vs. 8) and the unusually frequent attestation of the C-stem suffixed conjugation without h in comparison to the C-stem prefixed conjugation with h (6 vs. 10). In BA, the suffixed conjugation without h is still extremely rare, with only one clear example qymh (Dan. 3:1). Only gradually, the ratio of the suffixed conjugation without h to the prefixed conjugation without h increased, as both forms became more frequent, and the transition from Haphel Aphel was completed by and large by the time of the Roman period, though a few archaic Haphel forms in the suffixed conjugation persisted even in Mandaic.26
25 One of many dialectal peculiarities of Samalian Aramaic is the consistent syncope of the intervocalic h in all the forms of the C-stem prefixed conjugation: ywq (P 21), yzkr (H 16, 17), lytkh (H 23), yrsy (H 27, 28), yqm (H 28). 26 This brief survey of the transition of Haphel to Aphel makes it clear that to call the C-stem conjugation without h in the Samalian inscriptions and also possibly in the Sefire inscriptions Aphel is an anachronism, though often used for the sake of convenience, because no true Aphel form in the suffixed conjugation has yet appeared in Samalian or in OA.

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Jewish National and University on December 31, 2012

37

THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

Morphology 10.qdmwh (II:2): the third masculine singular pronominal suffix on plural nouns and plural prepositions is always -wh in OA and yh/-wh in Samalian, in contrast to the usual OfA form -why, e.g. qdmwhy before him (TAD A 6.3:6).27 11.ynr (I:13): the so-called internal passive conjugation (i.e. the verbal forms with the apophonic passive marker) of the G-stem prefixed conjugation yuqtal is found only in OA of all the phases of the Aramaic language yr will be blinded (Sf I A:39 bis), ygzr (this calf ) will be cut off and (Matiel) will be cut off (Sf I A:40 bis), tsbr (Sf I A:38), tgzr (Sf I A:43), ygzrn (Sf I A:40), y[r]smn they are written (Sf II C:3), tmr (Sf I A:33, 36). The tG-stem (and Gt ygtzr once in Fk 23) which was an alternative passive conjugation in OA, became the sole means of expressing the passive for the G-stem prefixed conjugation in OfA, though the internal passive of the suffixed conjugation (Gp qtl) is found both in OA (ntnh in H 11, ntn in H 24, yhb in H 12, etc.) and in OfA (e.g. BA qtil). In the Hermopolis papyri, ybl (i:14, ii:18, iii:13) and ywbl (vii:5) have been interpreted as a yuqtal form, but it is more likely a C-stem internal passive (Cp yqtl, i.e. =O/Uphal), which is a regular feature in OfA, along with the Dp-stem. 12.mzh (II:5): the new understanding of mzh (Nrb II:5), as argued above, as the G-stem infinitive and the discovery of the G-stem mqtl infinitives in the Fekherye inscription affirm the antiquity of the Aramaic form mqtl, which in turn seems to strengthen Fitzmyers contention that the Peal infinitive without the preformative m- (i.e. qtl) in OA is not a genuine component of the Aramaic language, but a Canaanitism (1979: 67). According to him, the very reason that the qtl form is a Canaanitism is its absence in the later phases of Aramaic, and its occasional attestation after OA (e.g. lbn in Ez. 5:3, 13; lmr alongside lmmr in the Elephantine texts; etc.) is a case of a linguistic phenomenon that a feature borrowed at an early period persists in isolated forms in the language or in isolated areas (1979: 678). However, the infinitive forms of the weak verbs and lq to take in OA show a marked difference from their Canaanite counterparts, in that they never have the compensatory afformative -t (e.g. lyy in Fek 7, lbn in H 13, 14, lbny in H 10, mlq in Fek 10). Meanwhile, the G- (and D-) stem infinitive construct of the I-y/w or III-y/
27 But also note the concurrent use of different forms, e.g. lwh to him (Sheh Hamad iii:4; iv:3), syh[y] his favoured ones (Carpentra 4), grwh its walls (TAD B 3.4:4), mnhy his vessels (TAD D 7.24:7), etc.

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Jewish National and University on December 31, 2012

38

THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

w verbs, hlk and lq of the Canaanite languages consistently has the -t ending.28 This morphological variation makes a direct borrowing from the Canaanite languages less likely. Though coming from the common West Semitic stock, the OA qtl infinitive underwent its own independent development, eventually superseded by the Gozan Aramaic innovation, the mqtl infinitive. 13.l- (II:4, 8): in OA, the negative particle of indicative verbs is prefixed to the following verbs, while the OfA form, l as a separate word, appears as early as in the Caquot inscription (c. 600 BCE).
Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Jewish National and University on December 31, 2012

Syntax 14.mzh (II:5): the infinitive functions as a substitute for a finite verb (see supra). 15.hwm thmw (II:6):29 The emphatic use of the infinitive absolute is amply attested in the Sefire inscriptions (Sf II C:8; III:2, 6, 1213, 13, 18), though there infinitive absolutes and modified finite verbs are always of the same stem. The only appearance of the emphatic use of the infinitive absolute in OfA comes from the Ashur ostracon (c. 650), q[r]q qrqw they indeed fled (9). 16.zy lk (I:14): the construction, the relative pronoun + the preposition l- + the pronominal suffixes, which is not attested in OA,
28 Phoenician ldt (Ahirom Graf 1), lsbtnm (Karatepe A i:17), ltty by his giving (Karatepe A iii:4), lbnt (Karatepe A ii:11), lqtnm Eshmunazar 9/10), llkt (Karatepe A ii:4), lqt (Punic inscription from Carthage, KAI 76 B:5); Hebrew kty (Arad xvi:3), lqrt (Siloam 4), lst (Arad i:8), lsnth (Horvat Uza iii:23,3), lqt (Lachish iii:18), BH lkt (rarely hlk e.g. in Exod. 3:19; Eccl. 6:9), BH qt, lrpt (Lach vi:6); Ammonite: lsbt (El Mazar Ostracon iii:3); Moabite: lspt (Mesha 21). Also note that ldt to know in Deir Alla II:17 is a Canaanite form, which has been neglected in the discussion of the classification of the language of the Deir Alla texts. 29 Clermont-Ganneaus original reading bkw ywhw mt hmw and the problematic translation de telle sorte quils atteignaient la centaine (1897: 1934) were corrected by Lidzbarski who reads hwm thmw and takes hwm as an abstract noun used as an infinitive absolute of hwm, literally to murmur, discomfit figuratively to be distracted, followed by the Ethpael third plural perfect of the same root (19002: 193). This explanation has been followed by some scholars (NSI: 191; Gibson 1975: 96; etc.), while others read hwm as the Qal infinitive absolute (KAI 2: 276; Hug 1993: 77; etc). The latter interpretation can be supported by the observation that in BH, as a rule, the Qal infinitive absolute as the simplest and most general representative of the verbal idea may come before a finite verb of other derived conjugations in the socalled emphatic infinitive absolute construction (cf. GK 113w; Joon and Muraoka 1996: 123p). Considering the fact that the infinitive absolute may equally well be represented by a substantive of kindred stem (GK 113w), we can safely conclude that hwm thmw is the intensifying infinitive construction, whether hwm is a Qal infinitive absolute or just an abstract noun.

39

THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

became a popular means of expressing possession in OfA, e.g. zly my (servants) (Ashur 13), etc. Conclusions The Nerab inscriptions exhibit sufficient OA linguistic features to remain in the category of OA, i.e. the phonology of the interdental fricatives, znh (I:3, 7; II:2), ltz (II:4), sr (I:8, 10), tnr (I:12), ynr (I:13); the preservation of the diphthongs, ywmy (II:3) and bywm (II: 4); the assimilation of n: ysw (I:9), t (I:5, II:8); the dissimilation of the emphatic sound q, yklwk (I:11); the orthographic representation of aleph in a syllable-closing position, yhbdw (I:11), tbd (II:10); the non-syncopation of the intervocalic h, thns (I:6), yhbdw (I:11), lthns (II:8), thnsny (II:9), yhbsw (II:9); the third masculine pronominal suffix on plural nouns and plural prepositions, qdmwh (II:2); the internal passive of the G-stem prefixed conjugation, ynr (I:13); the negative particle l- (II:4, 8); the emphatic use of the infinitive absolute, hwm thmw (II:6). At the same time, some linguistic developments which later became standard features of OfA, such as the non-assimilation of n (tnr in I:12), the medial mater lectionis in II-weak verbs (hwm in II:6), the G-stem infinitive with prefixed m- (mzh in II:5) and the expression of possession zy lk (I:14), also appear in the Nerab inscriptions. Thus, the Nerab inscriptions clearly represent the transitional period from OA to OfA. OfA, probably originating from an Aramaic dialect of northern Mesopotamia, possessed a basically uniform linguistic character and represented mostly a conventional form of speech standardized for use in writing and employed often by people whose native tongue was not Aramaic (Rosenthal 1978: 85). This OfA is best represented by the Aramaic documents from Egypt during the Achaemenid period. Meanwhile, the seventh and sixth century Aramaic inscriptions, including the Nerab inscriptions, collected and studied by V. Hug, show a gradual transition from OA to OfA, thus making it difficult to identify the exact point of demarcation between them. If one decides on the basis of linguistic proximity to the standard features of OA and OfA, the Nerab inscriptions stand at the ultimate juncture of OA. Therefore, the proposed dating of the Nerab inscriptions, c. 700 BCE,30 can serve, at least for heuristic purposes, as the chronological boundary between OA and OfA.
30 The paleography of the Nerab inscriptions does not allow Naveh to date them more precisely than the seventh century BCE (1970:156). However, with reason-

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Jewish National and University on December 31, 2012

40

THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

REFERENCES Abou-Assaf, A. et al. 1982. La Statue de Tell Fekherye et son inscription bilingue assyro-aramenne. (Paris) ANEP = Pritchard, J.B. (ed.). 1969. The Ancient Near East in Pictures. (Princeton) Albright, W.F. 1944. The Natural Force of Moses in the Light of Ugaritic. BASOR 94, 325 Andersen, F.I. and D.N. Freedman. 1992. The Spelling of the Aramaic Portion of the Tell Fekherye Bilingual, in David N. Freedman et al. (eds), Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Orthography (Winona Lake, IN). 13770 Barrois, A. and B. Carrire. 1927. Fouilles de lcole archologique franaise de Jrusalem effectues Neirab du 24 septembre au 5 novembre 1926, Syria 8, 12442 and 20112 Barrois, A. and M. Abel. 1928. Fouilles de lcole archologique franaise de Jrusalem effectues Neirab du 12 septembre au 6 novembre 1927, Syria 9, 187206 and 30119. Bauer, H. and P. Leander. 1927. Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramischen. (Halle) Beyer, K. 1984. Die aramischen Texte vom Toten Meer samt den Inschriften aus Palstina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten. (Gttingen) 1986. The Aramaic Language: Its Distribution and Subdivisions, trans. J. Healey (Gttingen) Brockelmann, C. 1983. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen. (Berlin, reprint of the 1908 edition) Clay, A.T. 1915. Miscellaneous Inschriptions in the Yale Babylonian Collection. (YOS 1, New Haven) Clermont-Ganneau, C. 1897. Les Stles aramennes de Nerab, tudes darchologie orientale 2, 182223 Degen, R. 1969. Altaramische Grammatik der Inschriften des 10. 8. Jh. v. Chr. (Abhandlungen fr die Kunde des Morgenlandes 38/3, Wiesbaden) Dion, P.-E. 1974. La Langue de Yaudi: Description et Classement de lancien parler de Zencirli dans le cadre des langues smitiques du nord-ouest. (Waterloo, ON) DNWSI = Hoftijzer, J. and K. Jongeling. 1995. Dictionary of the Northwest Semitic Inscriptions. 2 vols, (Leuven) Driver, G.R. 1935. Problems in Aramaic and Hebrew Texts, in Miscellanea Orientalia: Dedicata Antonio Deimel (Analecta Orientalia 12, Roma). 4670 EHO = Cross, F.M. and D.N. Freedman. 1952. Early Hebrew Orthography. (Baltimore) Fitzmyer, J.A. 1979. The Phases of the Aramaic Language, in A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (SBL Monograph Series 25, Missoula, MT). 5784 1995. The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefre. rev. edn (Biblica et Orientalia 19/A, Rome)

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Jewish National and University on December 31, 2012

able confidence, Sigabbar of Nerab II can be identified with mse-e-ga-ba-ri a priest of Nerab in royal correspondence to Sargon II sent by Nab-pasir governor of Harran (SAA I 189) (Parpola 1985: 275) which makes the erection of the funerary stele c. 700 most reasonable.
41

THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

Folmer, M.L. 1995. The Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period: A Study in Linguistic Variation. (Leuven) Garr, W.R. 1985. Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine: 1000-568 BCE. (Philadelphia) Gervitz, S. 1961. West-Semitic Curses and the Problem of the Origins of Hebrew Law, VT 11, 13758 Gibson, J.C.L. 1975. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions: Volume II, Aramaic Inscriptions Including Inscriptions in the Dialect of Zenjirli. (Oxford) GK = Gesenius, W., et al. 1910. Gesenius= Hebrew Grammar. 2nd edn (Oxford) Greenfield, J.C. 1965. Studies in West Semitic Inscriptions, I: Stylistic Aspects of the Sefire Treaty Inscriptions, Acta Orientalia 29, 118 1976. Aramaic, in G.A. Buttrick (ed.), The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible. Sup. Vol (Nashville), 3944 1978. The Dialects of Early Aramaic, JNES 37, 939 Gropp, D.M. 1997. Nerab Inscriptions, in E.M. Meyers (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. vol. IV (New York). 1279 Huehnergard, J. 1997. A Grammar of Akkadian. (Atlanta) Huesman, J. 1956a. Finite Use of the Infinitive Absolute, Biblica 37, 27195 1956b. The Infinitive Absolute and the Waw + Perfect Problem, Biblica 37, 41034 Hug, V. 1993. Altaramische Grammatik der Texte des 7. und 6. Jh.s v. Chr. (Heidelberg) Joon, P.S.J. and T. Muraoka. 1996. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 2 vols, (Rome) KAI = Donner, H. and W. Rllig. 1971. Kanaanische und Aramische Inschriften. 3rd edn, 3 vols. (Wiesbaden) Kaufman, S.A. 1974. The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic. (Chicago) 1992. Aramaic, in D.N. Freedman, et al. (eds), Anchor Bible Dictionary. vol. IV (Nashville). 1738 1997. Aramaic, in R. Hetzron (ed.), The Semitic Languages (London). 114 30 Koopmans, J.J. 1962. Aramische Chrestomathie: Ausgewhlte Texte (Inschriften Ostraka und Papyri) bis zum 3. Jahrhundert n. Chr. fr das Studium der aramischen Sprache gesammelt. 2 vols. (Leiden) Kutscher, E.Y. 1965. Contemporary Studies in North-Western Semitic, JSS 10, 2151 Lidzbarski, M. 190002. Ephemeris fr Semitische Epigraphik. vol. I (Giessen) Marcus, D. 1975. The Term Coffin in the Semitic Languages, JANES 7, 8594 Moran, W.L. 1950. The Use of the Canaanite Infinitive Absolute as a Finite Verb in the Amarna Letters from Byblos, JCS 4, 16972 Moscati, S. (ed.). 1964. An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages: Phonology and Morphology. (Wiesbaden) Muraoka, T. 19834. The Tell-Fekherye Bilingual Inscriptions and Early Aramaic, Abr-Nahrain 25, 79117 Muraoka, T. and B. Porten. 1998. A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic. (New York) Naveh, J. 1970. The Development of the Aramaic Script. (Jerusalem) 1982. Early History of the Alphabet. (Jerusalem) NSI = Cooke, G.A. 1903. A Text-Book of North-Semitic Inscriptions. (Oxford) Rosenthal, F. 1960. Notes on the Third Inscription from Sefre-Sjn, BASOR 158, 2831 1978. Aramaic Studies during the Past Thirty Years, JNES 37, 8191
42

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Jewish National and University on December 31, 2012

THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

Rubinstein, A. 1952. A Finite Verb Continued by an Infinitive Absolute in Biblical Hebrew, VT 2, 3627 SAA 1 = Parpola, S. 1987. The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part I: Letters from Assyria and the West. (State Archives of Assyria 1, Helsinki) Segert, S. 1964. Zur Schrift und Orthographie der altarmischen Stelen von Sfire, Orientalia 32, 11026 1975. Altaramische Grammatik mit Bibliographie, Chrestomathie und Glossar. (Leipzig) TAD = Porten, B. and A. Yardeni. 1986. Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt. 4 vols, (Winona Lake, IN) Tawil, H. 1974. Some Literary Elements in the Opening Sections of the Hadad, Zakir, and the Nerab II Inscriptions in the Light of East and West Semitic Royal Inscriptions, Orientalia 43, 4065 Torrey, C.C. 1912. New Notes on some Old Inscriptions, ZA 26, 7792 Tropper, J. 1993. Die Inschriften von Zincirli. (Mnster) Von Soden, W. 1952. Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik. (Rome)

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Jewish National and University on December 31, 2012

43