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

Re: [ANE-2] Urusalim vs. Jerusalem

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.