Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [ANE-2] Urusalim vs. Jerusalem

Expand Messages
  • Ariel L. Szczupak
    ... I was so focused on trying to recall that I shorthanded somewhat too much :( And I gave no refs because my notes from the time are in storage and I won t
    Message 1 of 8 , Mar 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      At 20:30 01/03/2006, Ariel L. Szczupak wrote:
      >At 15:59 01/03/2006, walter mattfeld wrote:
      >>Can anyone explain how Urusalim came to obtain a "Ye" before "-urusalim"
      >>(Yerusalem/Jerusalem)? Does "Ye-" have some particular meaning ?
      >
      >[Who said no floods in the ANE? Some 90 messages since I last
      >checked, yesterday morning]

      I was so focused on trying to recall that I shorthanded somewhat too
      much :( And I gave no refs because my notes from the time are in
      storage and I won't have time to pull out all the books before the
      weekend or next week.

      >Some things I recall from several years ago when I checked in depth
      >along with other personal interests (Ariel, etc).

      Basically I checked everything remotely possible, including wild
      possibilities like e.g. the YR$ root. But anything that couldn't be
      supported by attestations was ruled out.

      We do have Akkadian /urusalim/ attested, which gave rise to several
      possibilities ...

      >Words in Akkadian that start with /y/ are relatively few, so it
      >could be the initial /y/ was dropped when transliterated into Akkadian.

      This cryptic sentence summed up too much :(

      The Akkadian /urusalim/ can be a transliteration, what the scribe
      felt expressed best the phonetic value of the name of the place.

      If so it could be that the Levant-Semitic name at the Amarna letters
      time was actually /urusalim/, without a /y/, but we have no
      Levant-Semitic attestations of that.

      It could be that the scribe dropped the /y/ because of some reason
      connected, or not, to there being relatively few y-words in Akkadian
      (I seem to recall /y/ being related to negation in Akkadian but I'm
      not certain), and that sends us to a Levant-Semitic interpretation
      (which is what I favored).

      And Akkadian /urusalim/ could be a semantic representation of the
      meaning of Levant-Semitic /yerushalem/, but there is no obvious
      correspondence between the semantic meanings, specifically between
      the Akkadian /uru/ and the Levant-Semitic /yeru/ because the semantic
      meaning of Levant-Semitic /yeru/ is not a given.

      So a dropping of the /y/ seemed the most probable possibility, but
      neither it nor the other possibilities could be supported by actual
      attestations.

      And checking the Akkadian angle gave rise to another possibility ...

      >On the other hand, there's an Akkadian /yeru/, can't recall the
      >exact "spelling", which means some kind of body of water.

      I.e. that Akkadian /yeru/ was imported into Levant-Semitic, or that
      it hints at some proto-Semitic word, giving rise to /yerushalem/ in
      Levant-Semitic and then to /urusalim/ in Akkadian by phonetic
      transliteration with the /y/ dropped.

      Again - nothing to attest that such a thing actually happened.

      >Personally I favored a "Levant Semitic" direction,

      ... i.e. that the entire word should be interpreted as a Levant Semitic one ...

      >because Shalem is a well attested deity in the Ugarit myths and
      >because of names like /yeruel/ (GN) and /yeruba'al/ (PN, spelling without a W).

      I.e. /yeru/-DN constructs.


      >This fits a pattern of a merger of pantheons, which, for once, is
      >actually attested outside the OT - e.g. YHWH/Asherah inscriptions.
      >And I'm not sure that the name changes in the biblical story reflect
      >only different traditions or a phonetic evolution. There are a lot
      >examples (I mentioned the El/YHWH "pact" in the patriarchs story in
      >my last ANE-1 message, Jerusalem gets called "kirya" only after the
      >ark is moved there, etc). I'm sure the real experts will have the
      >counter arguments ready ...
      >
      >But the problem with an LS approach is that on one hand a "YRW" can
      >potentially arise from a lot of roots, and on the other hand neither

      [should have been "none"]

      >is clearly attested as such a prefix for names in non-biblical texts
      >(if I recall correctly I couldn't find an Ugaritic GN that starts
      >with /yeru/). E.g. /yore/ is the word for the first rain in autumn
      >also in Ugaritic, another water motif, but it's not clear (or wasn't
      >several years ago) what exactly it's derived from and if it could
      >give rise to /yeru/ too.

      [I may have messed up my recall on /yore/ in Ugaritic - between
      someone (Rins?) trying to use biblical Hebrew to interpret an
      Ugaritic passage and an actually established meaning in Ugaritic.]

      So there were safer possibilities and wilder ones, but none could be
      supported by attestations :(

      [Let me know if have to pull out the books]


      Ariel.

      [100% bona fide dilettante ... delecto ergo sum!]

      ---
      Ariel L. Szczupak
      AMIS-JLM (Ricercar Ltd.)
      POB 4707, Jerusalem, Israel 91401
      Phone: +972-2-5619660 Fax: +972-2-5634203
      ane.als@...
    • Robert Whiting
      ... Ariel, I won t try to respond to this point by point because I don t have any reference material (dictionaries and grammars) with me right now,
      Message 2 of 8 , Mar 2, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Ariel L. Szczupak wrote:

        > At 20:30 01/03/2006, Ariel L. Szczupak wrote:
        > >At 15:59 01/03/2006, walter mattfeld wrote:
        > >>Can anyone explain how Urusalim came to obtain a "Ye" before "-urusalim"
        > >>(Yerusalem/Jerusalem)? Does "Ye-" have some particular meaning ?
        > >
        > >[Who said no floods in the ANE? Some 90 messages since I last
        > >checked, yesterday morning]
        <huge snip>

        Ariel, I won't try to respond to this point by point because I don't
        have any reference material (dictionaries and grammars) with me right
        now, but I'd like to make a couple of observations from memory that
        I can check on tomorrow. If anyone has better references (or a better
        memory) they can correct or revise the observations.

        On the contrast between Amarna Urusalim and later Yeru$alim, in Hebrew
        all common Semitic inital W- roots become initial Y- (WLD > YLD, W$B >
        Y$B, etc.). Thus the contrast of u- and ye- suggests -- at least to
        me -- that the search for a cognate to yeru- should be made among
        common Semitic roots with inital W-.

        Initial y- (usually rendered j- in deference to German lexical and
        grammatical scholarship) in Akkadian is rare, and outside of first
        person pronoun forms (ja:$i, etc.) occurs mostly in loan words of
        West Semitic origin.

        In fact, the IA sign is one of the very few Akkadian syllabic signs that
        was added to the syllabary after the cuneiform signary was closed early in
        the third millennium. It consists of a simple ligature of I and A and was
        added in the first century of the second millennium, primarily to record
        West Semitic (Amorite) words and names with which Akkadian was coming into
        increasing contact at the beginning of the second millennium. (An earlier
        rendering using I3+A is found in third millennium souces, but died out.)
        The IA sign is transcribed as ia, ie, ii, iu (i.e., it is indifferent to
        the vowel), but the i represents the semi-vowel y, not a vowel i.

        However, in West Semitic areas, particularly at Mari and later in the
        Amarna texts, the PI sign (also used for wa, we, wi, wu) was used to
        represent ya, ye, yi, yu, particularly in items of West Semitic origin.

        In the Amarna letters, one finds this usage often. The IA sign (which I
        will render as ja[/e/i/u] for the purposes of this discussion is used for
        Akkadian forms (ja-a-$i EA 287:12) and for the first person genitive
        pronominal suffix on Akkadian words (-ja, passim). The PI sign (which I
        will render with ya[/e/i/u]) is used in West Semitic items (la-ab-a-ya EA
        287:30) and also to "Canaanize" Akkadina verb forms with an initial
        ya/e/i/u prefix. This usage does not occur in EA 287 but in EA 286 (also
        from Abdi-heba) we find yi/à-qa-bi (EA 286:22).

        The inescapable conclusion is that if the scribe of EA 287 had wanted
        to express Yerusalim he would have written PI-ru-sa-lim and that
        therefore there is simply no /y/ explicit or implied in the writing
        ú-ru-sa-lim.

        The corollary to this is that the name in the mid-second millennium was
        Urusalim and this is confirmed by the NA writing Ursalimmu. Yeru$alim is
        simply later.


        Bob Whiting
        whiting@...
      • Albert Naccache
        ... And of probably restricted extend, as shown by the persistence of Ur$alim. Albert Naccache Beirut, Lebanon
        Message 3 of 8 , Mar 2, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          At 3/2/2006 12:03 PM, Bob Whiting wrote:

          >The corollary to this is that the name in the mid-second millennium was
          >Urusalim and this is confirmed by the NA writing Ursalimmu.  Yeru$alim is
          >simply later.

          And of probably restricted extend, as shown by the persistence of Ur$alim.

          Albert Naccache
          Beirut, Lebanon
        • Ariel L. Szczupak
          At 12:03 02/03/2006, Robert Whiting wrote: [...] ... Same here (besides not having worked on specific linguistic/philological problems for over a year). I ll
          Message 4 of 8 , Mar 2, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            At 12:03 02/03/2006, Robert Whiting wrote:
            [...]

            >Ariel, I won't try to respond to this point by point because I don't
            >have any reference material (dictionaries and grammars) with me right
            >now, ...

            Same here (besides not having worked on specific
            linguistic/philological problems for over a year). I'll try and get
            my act together in the weekend and reply then.

            But in the meantime ...

            >The corollary to this is that the name in the mid-second millennium was
            >Urusalim and this is confirmed by the NA writing Ursalimmu. Yeru$alim is
            >simply later.

            ... I'd like to try and establish the earliest evidence of YRW$LM.
            The Hebrew biblical encyclopedia mentions a seal from the early 2nd
            temple period and the Elephantine texts ["Jerusalem", v.3, p.792].

            Since the article is over 40 years old - are these indeed the
            earliest? Anyone with more specific details?

            More generally, is it safe to assume that the YRW$LM form is pre-Hellenistic?


            Ariel.

            [100% bona fide dilettante ... delecto ergo sum!]

            ---
            Ariel L. Szczupak
            AMIS-JLM (Ricercar Ltd.)
            POB 4707, Jerusalem, Israel 91401
            Phone: +972-2-5619660 Fax: +972-2-5634203
            ane.als@...
          • Ariel L. Szczupak
            ... Well, I got the books out (probably forgot some), and then got bogged down in Rainey s CAT, which was the obvious first choice :( That s Anson
            Message 5 of 8 , Mar 4, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              At 12:03 02/03/2006, Robert Whiting wrote:
              >On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Ariel L. Szczupak wrote:
              >
              > > At 20:30 01/03/2006, Ariel L. Szczupak wrote:
              > > >At 15:59 01/03/2006, walter mattfeld wrote:
              > > >>Can anyone explain how Urusalim came to obtain a "Ye" before "-urusalim"
              > > >>(Yerusalem/Jerusalem)? Does "Ye-" have some particular meaning ?
              > > >
              > > >[Who said no floods in the ANE? Some 90 messages since I last
              > > >checked, yesterday morning]
              ><huge snip>
              >
              >Ariel, I won't try to respond to this point by point because I don't
              >have any reference material (dictionaries and grammars) with me right
              >now, but I'd like to make a couple of observations from memory that
              >I can check on tomorrow. If anyone has better references (or a better
              >memory) they can correct or revise the observations.

              Well, I got the books out (probably forgot some), and then got bogged
              down in Rainey's CAT, which was the obvious first choice :(

              <start rant>

              That's Anson F. Rainey, "Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A
              Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect used by Scribes from
              Canaan", 1995. Publisher? Brill :(

              See http://www.brill.nl/product.asp?ID=2709

              That's 4 volumes weighing 2.6kg, and listing at 736$. That's 283
              $/kg. For comparison, the current price of silver is ~325 $/kg :( [I
              was "lucky" to get them at a "bargain" price of ~500$]

              But that's not really new, and not what drove me mad now. There are 3
              "content" volumes and the fourth is the references and index of
              passages cited.

              There is no topical index and no combined table of contents for the
              three "content" volumes.

              How the @#$% do they think people should use these books? Open them
              at random and expect pearls of wisdom to jump out, like the
              Lubavitcher's letters?

              <end rant>

              I plan on writing a long message which I hope will help people here
              with web research, and that will take the rest of my free time today.
              But I'm going to continue checking (the books are already out ...).
              And since the relevant messages will be spread in time, I'll use a
              common "YR$LM:" prefix in message subjects, and I urge everyone to do
              the same - it will help finding them later.

              >On the contrast between Amarna Urusalim and later Yeru$alim, in Hebrew
              >all common Semitic inital W- roots become initial Y- (WLD > YLD, W$B >
              >Y$B, etc.). Thus the contrast of u- and ye- suggests -- at least to
              >me -- that the search for a cognate to yeru- should be made among
              >common Semitic roots with inital W-.

              That would mean a W*R or a WR* root. I recall seeing something in
              Rin. Will check and post. But there's no trivial candidate.


              >Initial y- (usually rendered j- in deference to German lexical and
              >grammatical scholarship) in Akkadian is rare, and outside of first
              >person pronoun forms (ja:$i, etc.) occurs mostly in loan words of
              >West Semitic origin.
              >
              >In fact, the IA sign is one of the very few Akkadian syllabic signs that
              >was added to the syllabary after the cuneiform signary was closed early in
              >the third millennium. It consists of a simple ligature of I and A and was
              >added in the first century of the second millennium, primarily to record
              >West Semitic (Amorite) words and names with which Akkadian was coming into
              >increasing contact at the beginning of the second millennium. (An earlier
              >rendering using I3+A is found in third millennium souces, but died out.)
              >The IA sign is transcribed as ia, ie, ii, iu (i.e., it is indifferent to
              >the vowel), but the i represents the semi-vowel y, not a vowel i.
              >
              >However, in West Semitic areas, particularly at Mari and later in the
              >Amarna texts, the PI sign (also used for wa, we, wi, wu) was used to
              >represent ya, ye, yi, yu, particularly in items of West Semitic origin.
              >
              >In the Amarna letters, one finds this usage often. The IA sign (which I
              >will render as ja[/e/i/u] for the purposes of this discussion is used for
              >Akkadian forms (ja-a-$i EA 287:12) and for the first person genitive
              >pronominal suffix on Akkadian words (-ja, passim). The PI sign (which I
              >will render with ya[/e/i/u]) is used in West Semitic items (la-ab-a-ya EA
              >287:30) and also to "Canaanize" Akkadina verb forms with an initial
              >ya/e/i/u prefix. This usage does not occur in EA 287 but in EA 286 (also
              >from Abdi-heba) we find yi/à-qa-bi (EA 286:22).

              CAT I, pp. 23-24 deals with glides, ending with ...

              "PI(383) almost never serves as an Akkadian element, e.g. ka-ar-$i-ya
              (EA 286:6). There are a limited number of instances where PI
              expresses the 3rd m.s. verbal prefix with a- vowel, at least in
              accordance with clear instances of a following aC sign, ya-am-lik (EA
              114:20), detI-Ya-an-h_a-mu (EA 270:11), ya-ar-h_i-$a (EA 137:97),
              possibly [ya]-[a$]-[me/] (EA 90:44) of we follow Schrorder's copy
              rather that [sic, ALS] Yungblood's suggestion, (1961:346) to read
              yi-[i$!]-[me/]. The vast majority of 3rd m.s. prefixes did not have
              an a- vowel, e.g. yi-i$-me (EA 136:6), yi-im-lu-uk (EA 136:36),
              yu-us.-s.i/ (EA 232:16) et passim. There are four examples of PI = a\
              [a3] in the Jerusalem letters (Moran 1975b:151): u/-$a-a\-ru (EA
              286:21, 24), a\-qa-bi (EA 286:22), an-ni-a\ (EA 289:9)"

              [I hope my plain ascii transliteration is clear enough, e.g. a\ for a3, etc)]

              >The inescapable conclusion is that if the scribe of EA 287 had wanted
              >to express Yerusalim he would have written PI-ru-sa-lim and that
              >therefore there is simply no /y/ explicit or implied in the writing
              >ú-ru-sa-lim.

              Given Rainey's reading of EA 186:22 (PI-qa-bi as /aqabi/, not
              /yaqabi/), wouldn't PI-ru-sa-lim result in /arusalim/?

              [I have no idea at this point why he reads it this way. Simply no
              time to check further today]

              But I agree that if the scribe really wanted to emphasize /yeru/
              instead of /uru/, he'd find a way.

              >The corollary to this is that the name in the mid-second millennium was
              >Urusalim and this is confirmed by the NA writing Ursalimmu. Yeru$alim is
              >simply later.

              Since there's no mid 2nd mbc /yeru/ evidence, that's the simplest choice.

              But the linguistic situation is not simple - a scribe writing a
              Canaanite letter in Akkadian for Egyptian readers, a scribe whose L1
              could be Akkadian or Canaanite.

              [I tried to find what Rainey thinks about the scribes' L1, but the
              lack of a topical index makes it difficult. The only somewhat
              relevant thing I found so far [CAT I:36] is "The scribes in Canaan
              maintained an independent tradition from the Khurro-Akkadian scribal
              milieu even though they were interacting with scribes from the later
              "school" and sometimes fell under its influence". Not much help :(]

              Enough for today.


              Ariel.

              [100% bona fide dilettante ... delecto ergo sum!]

              ---
              Ariel L. Szczupak
              AMIS-JLM (Ricercar Ltd.)
              POB 4707, Jerusalem, Israel 91401
              Phone: +972-2-5619660 Fax: +972-2-5634203
              ane.als@...
            • Peter T. Daniels
              ... I have seen at least two, and I think three, 20-page review articles of that opus, each of which contains an entirely different list of mistakes. I recall
              Message 6 of 8 , Mar 4, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Ariel L. Szczupak wrote:

                > Well, I got the books out (probably forgot some), and then got bogged
                > down in Rainey's CAT, which was the obvious first choice :(
                >
                > <start rant>
                >
                > That's Anson F. Rainey, "Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A
                > Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect used by Scribes from
                > Canaan", 1995. Publisher? Brill :(
                >
                > See http://www.brill.nl/product.asp?ID=2709
                >
                > That's 4 volumes weighing 2.6kg, and listing at 736$. That's 283
                > $/kg. For comparison, the current price of silver is ~325 $/kg :( [I
                > was "lucky" to get them at a "bargain" price of ~500$]
                >
                > But that's not really new, and not what drove me mad now. There are 3
                > "content" volumes and the fourth is the references and index of
                > passages cited.
                >
                > There is no topical index and no combined table of contents for the
                > three "content" volumes.
                >
                > How the @#$% do they think people should use these books? Open them
                > at random and expect pearls of wisdom to jump out, like the
                > Lubavitcher's letters?
                >
                > <end rant>

                I have seen at least two, and I think three, 20-page review articles of
                that opus, each of which contains an entirely different list of
                mistakes. I recall the ones by Eva von Dassow and John Huehnergard.
                --
                Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.