Amurru Akkadian: A Linguistic Study. [1] 9789004369627, 9004369627

Citation preview

AMURRU AKKADIAN: A LINGUISTIC STUDY VOLUME I

Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

HAR,VAR,D SEMITIC MUSEUM

HARVARD SEMITIC STUDIES Frank Moore Cross, editor Syriac Manuscripts: A Catalogue

Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein

Introduction to Classical Ethiopic

Thomas O. Lambdin

Dictionary of Old South Arabic The Poet and the Historian: Essays in Literary and Historical Biblical Criticism

Joan C. Biella Richard Elliot Friedman, Editor

The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice Non-Canonical Psalms from Qumran: A Pseudepigraphic Collection The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls

Carol Newsom Eileen M. Schuller Elisha Qimron

An Exodus Scroll from Qumran

Judith E. Sanderson

You Shall Have No Other Gods

Jeffrey H. Tigay

Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription The Scholarship of William Foxwell Albright The Akkadian of Ugarit Features of the Eschatology of IV Ezra Studies in Neo-Aramaic

John Huehnergard Gus Van Beek John Huehnergard Michael E. Stone Wolfhart Heinrichs, Editor

Lingering over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran Tzvi Abusch, John Huehnergard, Piotr Steinkeller, Editors

A Grammar of the Palestinian Targum Fragments from the Cairo Genizah

Steven E. Fassberg

The Origins and Development of the Waw-Consecutive: Northwest Semitic Evidence from Ugaritic to Qumran

Mark S. Smith

Amurru Akkadian: A Linguistic Study, Volume I

Shlomo Izre'el

Amurru Akkadian: A Linguistic Study, Volume II

Shlomo Izre'el

Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

AMURRU AKKADIAN: A LINGUISTIC STUDY by

Shlomo Izre'el

With an Appendix on the History of Amurru by

Itamar Singer

VOLUME I

Scholars Press Atlanta, Georgia

Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

AMURRU AKKADIAN: A LINGUISTIC STUDY by

Shlomo Izre'el

©1991 The President and Fellows of Harvard University

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Izre'el, Shlomo. Amurru Akkadian : a linguistic study / by Shlomo Izre'el ; with an appendix on the history of Amurru by Itamar Singer. p. cm. - (Harvard Semitic studies ; no. 40-41) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1-55540-633-5 (acid-free paper : v. 1). - ISBN 1-55540-634-3 (acid-free paper : v. 2) 1. Akkadian language-Dialects-Amurru (Ancient kingdom) 2. Amurru (Ancient kingdom)-History. I. Simzer. Itamar. II. Title. III. Series. PJ3595.A48I98 1991 492'.1-dc20 91-28525 CIP

Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper

§ Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

,nn, 1:>N'.:I ilJ.ilN J:11 N'.:I -Y,1),n'., n)lll'\/J n,1:>N'.:1 ilJ.ilN Ol N'.:IN

Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

:rr:-ie .,~ v'~~i 1~; C"'11. ny; The tongue has power of life and death; make friends with it and enjoy its fruit. (Proverbs 18: 21)

Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

PREFACE The study presented here is a revised version of a dissertation submitted to Tel Aviv University in 1985. Needless to say, many of the interpretations offered here could now be presented in a different theoretical framework. However, I have chosen to adhere to the basic theoretical premises I used while preparing my dissertation, since I feel that they still provide the simplest framework for handling the data. Moreover, this theoretical framework may make the book more accessible for practical purposes, as is probably expected by most of its potential readers. Nevertheless, much of the data has been reanalyzed and adapted in conformance with what I have since learned in both linguistics and Assyriology. I began work on the dissertation as early as 1976, and during these past fifteen years I have benefitted from interaction with many people: teachers, colleagues and students. Anson F. Rainey, who was the supervisor of my dissertation, has taught me methodologies and nourished me with his own knowledge in the study of Akkadian, and of Peripheral Akkadian in particular. From Gideon Goldenberg I have learned much about linguistic methodologies. William L. Moran has spent many hours with me reviewing the Amarna letters from Amurru; he has been the source of many insights in the interpretation of both these and other texts from Amurru. He has also granted me permission to use his collations of the Amarna tablets (made in 1973/4). John Huebnergard read a previous version of the manuscript, offering many insightful comments. He also helped in assuring that the texts be presented in decent English.

David Owen and Joan Goodnick Westenholz also participated in this endeavor. (S)he who reads my comments in the introduction to the text edition will, I am sure, appreciate their work, and should not be tempted to blame them for Akkadianized

Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

English, for improper renderings or for mistakes which have wtlntentionally remained or which may have been (re)introduced into the translations in later stages of my preparing the manuscript for print, and especially not for (Israeli) Hebrew interferences. Joan Westenholz was the chief editor for this book, and thanks to her, many discussions have assumed a more comprehensible form. She also saved me from numerous errors and provided many clever insights which I most willingly adopted. Itan1ar Singer has helped with matters concerning Hittite and with historical aspects. He also agreed to take upon himself what has turned out to be a difficult challenge, namely to write a concise history of Amurru, presented herewith as Appendix III to this book. The pleasure of working with him on this topic has already resulted in the publication of a joint study of the General's Letter from Ugarit. The late Hans Martin Kilmmel provided me with his copies of the cuneiform texts of the Amurru letters from Boghazkoy long before their publication. MuhaDlmad Muhsen from the Cairo Museum has sent me, through Anson Rainey, some photographs of Amurru Amarna tablets. Moshe Anbar and Jacob Klein have helped with comments and suggestions. Edmund Meltzer has helped me with matters concerning Egyptian, Naphtali Kinberg and Dorit Markowicz with Arabic. Piotr Steinkeller has reviewed my work on the inventory tablet RS 16.146+161. Ruth Berman and Jun Ikeda commented on the Glossary of Selected Linguistic Terms. Jun Ikeda has further assisted with the tedious technical work of preparing the index and the layout of the book. To all these friends - and many others from whom I have been privileged to learn my sincere thanks are conveyed. Thanks are due also to Frank M. Cross, the editor of the Harvard Semitic Studies series, for accepting this book for publication, and to the Lucius N. Littauer Foundation for their financial support in its publication. Tel Aviv, April 1991

Shlomo Izre'el

2 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUMEI

0 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 9 0.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................ 9 0.2 The corpus. ......................................................................................................... 15 1 Orthography; Phonetic and Phonological Aspects. .................................................. 26 1.1 Notes on plurality designation and on the use of the plural detemtlnatives .................................................................................................... 29 1.2 Glosses, foreign words and the Glossenkeil ....................................................... 30 1.2.1 Glosses and foreign words ........................................................................... 30 1.2.2 The Glossenkeil ............................................................................................ 31 1.3 The syllabic signs - a general overview ............................................................. 32 1.4 Morphographem.ic spellings ............................................................................... 36 1.5 Denotation of aleph, laryngeals and hiatus........................................................ 38 1.6 Consonantal w and y ........................................................................................... 41 1.7 Mimation ............................................................................................................ 43 1.8 Representation of stop consonants. ..................................................................... 46 1.9 The spelling of the sibilants z-s-~ ....................................................................... 53 1.10 Notes on the usage of the s and s signs............................................................. 55 1.11 The s>I shift ..................................................................................................... 60 1.12 Consonant doubling.......................................................................................... 61 1.13 Nasalization. ..................................................................................................... 66 1.14 Plene writing and spelling conventions for the designation of vocalic length ................................................................................................................. 66 1.15 The vowels e and i............................................................................................ 71 1.16 Notes on m.inor phonetic features of the surface structure ............................... 91 1.17 A note on vocalic endings of proper names...................................................... 93 2 Morphology ............................................................................................................. 95 2.1 Pronouns. ............................................................................................................ 95 2.1.1 Personal pronouns ........................................................................................ 95 2.1.1.1 Independent personal pronouns.............................................................. 95 2.1.1.2 Suffixed personal pronouns. ................................................................... 97 2.1.2 Demonstrative pronouns............................................................................. 102 2.1.3 Interrogative pronouns ............................................................................... 103 2.1.4 Indefinite pronouns .................................................................................... 103

3 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Table of Contents

2.1.5 gabbu .......................................................................................................... 105 2.1.6 Reflexive pronouns .................................................................................... 105 2.2 Numerals .......................................................................................................... 105 2.2.1 Cardinal numbers. ....................................................................................... 105 2.2.2 Ordinal numbers ......................................................................................... 106 2.2.3 Multiplicative numbers.......................... ,. ................................................... 106 2.3 The noun........................................................................................................... l 07 2.3.1 Gender........................................................................................................ 107 2.3.1.1 Gender in substantives. ......................................................................... 107 2.3.1.1.1 Masculine substantives................................................................... 107 2.3.1.1.2 Feminine substantives .................................................................... 110 2.3.1.2 Gender in Adjectives ............................................................................ 111 2.3.2 Number....................................................................................................... 112 2.3.2.1 Number marking in substantives .......................................................... 112 2.3.2.2 Number marking in adjectives.............................................................. 121 2.3.3 Patterning and formation ............................................................................ 121 2.3.3.1 Notes on the formation and patterning of certain substantives ............. 121 2.3.3.2 The participle. ....................................................................................... 125 2.3.3.3 The stative ............................................................................................ 125 2.3.3.3.1 Person morphemes ......................................................................... 127 2.3.3.3.2 Stem formation ............................................................................... 129 2.3.3.4 Infinitives or nomina actionis............................................................... 131 2.4 The verb............................................................................................................ 131 2.4.1 Person morphemes ..................................................................................... 131 2.4.1.1 The prefix conjugation of the indicative verb....................................... 131 2.4.1.2 Imperative ............................................................................................ 142 2.4.1.3 Precative............................................................................................... 143 2.4.2 Stem patterning .......................................................................................... 145 2.4.2.1 The G stem ........................................................................................... 147 2.4.2.1.1 iparras......................................................................................... :.. 147 2.4.2.1.2 iprus ............................................................................................... 151 2.4.2.1.3 iptaras ............................................................................................ l 53 2.4.2.1.4 Imperative ...................................................................................... 154 2.4.2.2 Gt ......................................................................................................... 155 2.4.2.3 Gtn ....................................................................................................... 156 2.4.2.3.1 iparras............................................................................................ 156 2.4.2.3.2 iprus ............................................................................................... 157 2.4.2.4 The D Stem .......................................................................................... 157 2.4.2.4.1 iparras............................................................................................ 151 2.4.2.4.2 iprus ............................................................................................... 159 2.4.2.4.3 iptaras ............................................................................................ l 60 2.4.2.4.4 Imperative ...................................................................................... 160

4 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Table of Contents

2.4.2.5 Dt ......................................................................................................... 160 2.4.2.6 Dtn ....................................................................................................... 161 2.4.2.7 The S Stem........................................................................................... 162 2.4.2. 7 .1 iparras ........................................................................................... 162 2.4.2.7.2 iprus ............................................................................................... 163 2.4.2.7.3 iptaras ............................................................................................ 163 2.4.2.7.4 lmperative ...................................................................................... 164 2.4.2.8 St .......................................................................................................... 164 2.4.2.9 The N stem........................................................................................... 164 2.4.2.10 Ntn ..................................................................................................... 165 2.4.2.11 The precative formation ..................................................................... 165 2.4.3 The ventive morpheme ............................................................................... 166 2.4.4 Subjunctive. ................................................................................................ 166 3 The Syntax and Semantics of Declined and Inflected Forms ................................ 167 3.1 Pronouns. .......................................................................................................... 167 3.1.1 Personal pronouns...................................................................................... 167 3.1.1.1 Independent personal pronouns............................................................ 167 3.1.1.2 Pronominal suffixes ............................................................................. 169 3.1.1.2.l 1 sg genitive ................................................................................... 169 3.1.1.2.2 The paradigm of the pronominal suffixes ...................................... 170 3 .1.2 Demonstrative pronouns............................................................................. 171 3.1.3 Interrogative pronouns ............................................................................... 172 3 .1.4 Indefinite pronouns .................................................................................... 172 3.1.5 gabbu. ......................................................................................................... 173 3.2 Nunierals .......................................................................................................... 174 3 .2.1 Cardinal numbers ....................................................................................... 17 4 3.2.2 Ordinal numbers......................................................................................... 177 3.2.3 Multiplicative numbers .............................................................................. 177 3.3 The noun .......................................................................................................... 177 3.3.1 States .......................................................................................................... 177 3.3.1.l Status rectus ......................................................................................... 177 3.3.1.1.1 The threefold relational substantive declension ............................. 178 3.3 .1.1.2 The casus pendens ......................................................................... 185 3.3.1.l .3 The adjectival declension............................................................... 186 3.3.1.2 Status constructus ................................................................................ 188 3.3.1.2.1 In genitive constructions ................................................................ 188 3.3.1.2.2 With pronominal suffixes............................................................... 190 3.3.1.2.3 With syntactic adverbial translatives. ............................................. 192 3.3.1.3 Status absolutus ................................................................................... 192 3.3.lAPropernouns ........................................................................................ 193 3.3.l.4.l Personal names. .............................................................................. 193 3.3.1.4.2 Divine names ................................................................................. 195

5 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Table of Contents

3.3.l.4.3 Tribal nrunes................................................................................... 196 3.3.1.4.4 Geographical nrunes ....................................................................... 196 3.3.1.5 Locative adverbial ................................................................................ 199 3.3.1.6 Terminative adverbial .......................................................................... 200 3.3.l.7 The ending-i ........................................................................................ 202 3.3.2 Col1ective nouns and mass words ............................................................... 203 3.3.2.1 Collective nouns ................................................................................... 203 3.3.2.2 Mass words. .......................................................................................... 204 3.3.3 Attributive relations between nominal elements ......................................... 205 3.3.3.1 Genitive constructions.......................................................................... 205 3.3.3.2 Genitive constructions between substantives and adjectives ................ 209 3.3.3.3 Apposition ............................................................................................ 210 3.4 The stative ........................................................................................................ 21 l 3.5 The TMA system.............................................................................................. 220 3.6 The verbal categories........................................................................................ 223 3.6.1 iparras ........................................................................................................ 223 3.6.2 iprus ........................................................................................................... 23 l 3.6.3 iptaras. ........................................................................................................ 236 3.6.4 Imperative. .................................................................................................. 247 3.6.5 Precative ..................................................................................................... 249 3.7 The TMA system in EA 60 and EA 371... ........................................................ 260 3.8 Comments on the expression of subjects .......................................................... 263 3.8.1 The status of the person morpheme of the stative and of the verb .............. 263 3.8.2 Tautological subjects .................................................................................. 266 3.9 Infinitives or nomina actionis ........................................................................... 268 3.10 Comments on the function and distribution of the verbal stems ..................... 270 3.11 Ventive ........................................................................................................... 275 4 Particles ................................................................................................................. 280 4.1 Adverbs ............................................................................................................ 280 4.1.1 Various adverbs.......................................................................................... 28 l 4.1.2 The temporal and presentational adverbs anumma; anu(m); inanna; inuma; annu ............................................................................................... 284 4.1.3 Direct speech presentation particles ........................................................... 288 4.2 Negative particles ............................................................................................. 289 4.2.1 ld ................................................................................................................ 289 4.2.2 ul ................................................................................................................ 289 4.2.3 ulu .............................................................................................................. 290 4.2.4 balu. ............................................................................................................ 290 4.2.5 ydnu ............................................................................................................ 291 4.3 Modal particles ................................................................................................. 291 4.4 The nominalizing translative sa ........................................................................ 291 4.5 Syntactic adverbial translatives ........................................................................ 294

6 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Table of Contents

4.6 Conjunctions .................................................................................................... 320 4.6.1 u ................................................................................................................. 320 4.6.2 ii ................................................................................................................. 323 4.6.3 -ma ..............•.............................................................................................. 323 4.7 Enclitic particles. ..................................................................•.......•................... 323 4.7.1 -ma ............................................................................................................. 323 4.7.1.1 As a conjunctive particle ...................................................................... 323 4.7 .1.2 Introducing an explanation or a particularization ................................. 325 4. 7 .1.3 As a focussing particle ......................................................................... 325 4.7 .1.4 As an indefinite particle ....................................................................... 329 4.7.2 -mi .............................................................................................................. 329 4.7.2.1 As a direct speech marker .................................................................... 329 4.7.2.2 Introducing an explanation .................................................................. 330 4.7 .2.3 For emphasis ........................................................................................ 330 4.7.3 -me ............................................................................................................. 333 Excursus: On the origin of the PA enclitic particle -me ................................... 337 5 Sentence Structure................................................................................................. 338 5.1 Substitutes ........................................................................................................ 338 5.1.1 Syntactic substitutes for basic parts of speech. ........................................... 338 5.1.2 Syntactical substitutes to predicatives ........................................................ 343 5.1.3 Morphological substitutes to predicative constructions ............................. 346 5.2 Order of sentence constituents ......................................................................... 347 5.2.1 The unmarked constituent order................................................................. 347 5 .2.2 Extrapositions ............................................................................................ 350 5.2.2.1 Topicalization ...................................................................................... 350 5.2.2.2 Incidental extrapositions ...................................................................... 351 5.2.2.3 Unmarked extrapositions. ..................................................................... 352 6 General Overview ................................................................................................. 355 6.1 The position of Amurru Akkadian among the Akkadian dialects..................... 355 6.2 Substrata .......................................................................................................... 369 6.3 Subdialects and chronological aspects ............................................................. 379 VOLUME II

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 Texts ............................................................................................................................. 7 EA60 ......................................................................................................................... 7 EA61 ......................................................................................................................... 9 EA62 ....................................................................................................................... 10 EA 156 ..................................................................................................................... 15 EA 157 ..................................................................................................................... 17 EA 158 ..................................................................................................................... 20

7 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Table of Contents

EA 159...................................................................................................................... 24 EA 160...................................................................................................................... 28 EA 161. ...................................................................................................................... 31 EA 164 ..................................................................................................................... 36 EA 165...................................................................................................................... 40 EA 166...................................................................................................................... 43 EA 167...................................................................................................................... 46 EA 168...................................................................................................................... 49 EA 169 ..................................................................................................................... 51 EA 170...................................................................................................................... 55 EA 171 ...................................................................................................................... 59 EA 371 ...................................................................................................................... 62 RS !5.24+50............................................................................................................. 64 RS 16.111 ................................................................................................................. 66 RS 16.146+161 ......................................................................................................... 68 RS 17.116 ................................................................................................................. 72 RS 17.152 ................................................................................................................. 75 OA 23 ....................................................................................................................... 77 RS 17.228 ................................................................................................................. 78 RS 17.286................................................................................................. :............... 81 RS l7.318+349A ...................................................................................................... 83 RS 17.372A+360A ................................................................................................... 86 RS 19.68................................................................................................................... 88 RS 20.33 ................................................................................................................... 92 RS 20.162 ................................................................................................................. 98 Bo 65a+282a .......................................................................................................... 100 Bo 141m ................................................................................................................. l03 Bo 151a .................................................................................................................. 104 Bo 1024u ................................................................................................................ 105 Bo 1179v ................................................................................................................ 107 Bo 1772c ................................................................................................................ 108 Appendices ................................................................................................................ 109 Appendix I: Signlist .............................................................................................. 111 Appendix II: Rare and Unnumbered Values........................................................... 133 Appendix III: A Concise History of Amurru (by Hamar Singer) ............................ 135 Appendix IV: Glossary of Selected Linguistic Terms ............................................ 197 Abbreviations ............................................................................................................ 203 Sigla .......................................................................................................................... 211 Bibliography .............................................................................................................. 213 Index of Texts Cited .................................................................................................. 239

8

Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

0 INTRODUCTION

0.1 METHODOLOGY In order to understand the Akk:adian language it is necessary to study its dialects one

by one. The most suitable procedure for the investigation of the language of an Akk:adian dialect is to divide its entire text inventory into several smaller reference groups. Out of these subcorpora the common traits and aspects should be gathered, in order to be later compiled into a complete and comprehensive grammar. These reference groups ought to be compiled and organized on the grounds of geographical, as well as chronological bases. A division of subcorpora based upon their genre should also prove to be constructive. This is especially true when one deals with P(eripheral) A(kkadian). This offshoot of the Akk:adian language, used as the lingua franca of the Near East during the second millennium B.C., consisted of many dialects and subdialects. Most, or even all of these subdialects were used by just a small group of speakers. These were scribes of a certain school or of a specific scholarly tradition. (In various cases it is also possible that Akkadian was used by diplomats, administrators, and other kinds of officials as well.) The diversity of the scholarly traditions attested in the dialectal continuum of the peripheral areas of Mesopotamia seems at times to be very wide. Thus, the task of compiling one comprehensive homogeneous grammar of PA seems to be almost an impossible mission. A comprehensive collection of the common linguistic traits of this linguistic continuum is to be made only after having described one by one its dialects and subdialects, namely the reduced, and sometimes very small and scanty, corpora of texts belonging essentially to the same or closely related genres, originating from the

9 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

0.1

same area, and written by one or several scribes of a specific family or school within a limited span of time. Grammars and other works dealing with PA had tended to handle corpora of texts defined according to their place of discovery rather than according to their place of origin. However, in recent years this approach has been slowly replaced by methodologies similar to the one described above. Thus we have gained some accurate grammatical studies of several genuine PA dialects. A thorough and detailed investigation of any of these corpora is required for the understanding of the intrinsic system of its language, as well as for adducing the linguistic traits it shares with other PA dialects. It should also prove useful for the study of the historical development of the various dialects and subdialects of the periphery, and for the search after the historical background of the Akkadian lingua franca of the western periphery. Such a study would focus on the discovery of the common origin of the PA dialects, and would strive to understand the formation of dialects throughout the periphery. Being a language written by non-native-speakers of that language, this lingua franca is permeated with diverse elements borrowed from other linguistic systems. Such foreign features had been penetrating into this language throughout its many generations of usage. That is why research into each of the PA dialects tends to focus not only on describing the synchronic linguistic system, but also on penetrating into the inner layers of the system, which had been infiltrated many times by extraneous influences. Research into deviations from the contemporary Akkadian norm to be revealed in such a linguistic system must take into account not only the possibility of ad hoc influences, but also deal with earlier foreign influences, i.e., features of foreign languages which have already been absorbed into the system, and have caused general changes in the linguistic basic structure. Changes in the system of PA dialects are not only the outcome of interference of foreign linguistic systems or elements with Akkadian, but also of the interference of various Akkadian systems within each other, either contemporary (e.g., the contemporary Assyrian and Babylonian dialects) or of different periods.

10 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

0.1

The present study deals with an important offshoot of the western dialectal continuum of PA. The corpus chosen for research is the corpus of texts written by scribes of the Amurru kingdom during the 14th and 13th centuries B.C. This corpus is neither too broad as to fall into the trap of a heterogeneous corpus, nor is it too narrow as to prevent its being separated into several subcorpora. It enables us to search after the origins of the various subcorpora, as well as to follow the course of linguistic changes throughout that period, their impact upon the language and their linguistic and extralinguistic meaning. The geographical location of the Amurrite kingdom and its political vicissitudes during the relevant period, especially under Aziru, is of crucial importance to the investigation into the PA dialects of this specific state. Amurru, located between the great powers of the 14th century B.C., changed its allegiance under Aziru from Egypt to Hatti (see Appendix III, vol. II, pp. 134-195). This major change in the political situation of the Amurrite state had a significant impact on the linguistic usages of its Akkadian scribes. Thus, the conclusions of this investigation will, I hope, justify this choice. Furthermore, the ensuing chapters not only present a description of the linguistic structures of Amurru Akkadian, but may also open some new possibilities for the study of the various dialects of that region. This study may also serve as an impetus to the study of the mixed language of the El-Amama letters sent from Canaan. In the following chapters the interested reader will find two levels of analysis: a

synchronic and a diachronic one. On the synchronic level, one may find a minute description of the linguistic features evidenced in each of the subdialectal systems as well as the various traits which distinguish these dialects from each other. On the diachronic level, I have tried to trace the origins and development of both the linguistic forms and other features of these written documents. This was done in order to achieve a better understanding of the emergence and evolution of the Akkadian lingua franca of the western periphery at that time. At this juncture a note on linguistic variation is in order. Variation is an inherent characteristic of any language. It especially characterizes contact languages such as PA. One aspect of this insight is the understanding of the relationship between synchrony and diachrony, which is reflected in linguistic variation. In effect, one may

11 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

0.1

regard synchronic variation as a two-dimentional reflection of diachronic development. With regard to PA, one may interpret the differing linguistic systems which are reflected in different corpora as reflecting systems of different phases of diachronic development retained by scribes in their respective PA schools. Further, each scribe may have had his own idiolect, which may have varied considerably from the language of some of his colleagues. Moreover, a single scribe may end in producing texts in which the differences in language will be quite large. l shall use the term "lect" to refer to a single linguistic system, whether of a single scribe or of a single text reflecting a unique linguistic system of its own, even from among a choice of texts written by one and the same scribe. While trying to achieve the twofold goal of this study, i.e., to give a synchronic description of the structure of Amurru Akkadian, and to delve into its origins, l have not diverged from the most common way of grammatical description. I. e., each linguistic component and its systemic status is described in an ad hoc synchrouic description within its respective appropriate chapter. However, in order to achieve the goal of conceiving the analyzed language in both its synchronic and diachronic settings, comparative notes are introduced whenever necessary. These comparative notes refer to the Akkadian languages and dialects of the core, namely, contemporary MB and MA, non-contemporary dialects, especially the older ones, and in particular to classical (OB) Akkadian. Occasionally, comparative data from other PA dialects are also provided, especially in order to clarify a particularly distinct feature of the dialectal continuum of Amurru Akkadian. Typological comparisons and evidence for linguistic borrowings from non-Akkadian languages may also be used for clarification. Note the term "core Akkadian", which is used in this study as an antonym of the term "Peripheral Ak.kadian", yet does not refer to any particular native dialect of Akkadian. The title of this book, "Amurru Akkadian: a Linguistic Study", emphasizes the linguistic approach taken in describing the Akkadian language of Amurru. While the general perspective of this grammatical study seems to follow the regular conservative patterning of grammatical description, some changes have nevertheless been introduced. These changes represent more accurately the structure of the studied language (better: dialects, or linguistic continuum}, and follow some methodological notions hitherto unrecognized in the study of Akkadian in particular, and in the study of Semitic languages in general. These changes, as well as other methodological notes,

12 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

0.1

have been introduced not just as an unavoidable outcome of the need to clarify my methodology, but also in order to convey my belief that new ideas and methodologies should be introduced into the study of Semitic languages, especially the ancient ones. Methodological comments may hence be found scattered throughout this book, and especially in the introductory paragraphs to each of the sections where such comments were felt indispensable for understanding my way of portraying the systemic structure of the respective features (e.g., 3.4-3.6; 4.5; 5.1.l). A glossary of selected linguistic terms is offered in Appendix IV (vol. II, pp. 197-201). Mainly, the description of Amurru Akkadian presented in this book is ordered according to formal rather than semantic categories. This is the result of the theory underlying the grammatical description presented here, which conceives any of the dialects and subdialects of Amurru Akkadian as a (once-)living language with a definable coherent structure, where, like any other linguistic entity, its components, either the spoken or the written ones, are formal symbols for units of meaning. The order of grammatical description which this book follows should be clear from the detailed synopsis above (Table of Contents, pp. 3-8). The grammatical analysis starts with the smallest grammatical components, i.e., the phones and their representation in script (ch. 1). (The sign catalog of this corpus is given as an appendix to this study [Appendix IJ, vol. II, pp. 111-132.) Then follows a description of morphemes, words and lexemes, and this is organized according to the paradigmatic relationships between them (ch. 2). Next comes a treatment of the morphological components of the language in their relation to their respective syntactic and semantic subsystems within a sentence, within a discourse, or within the linguistic system as a whole (chs. 3 and 4). Within the latter two chapters, some deviations from the common norm of grammatical description will be encountered. These deviations from the descriptive norm reflect my perception of the essence and linguistic status of the respective grammatical components. The grammatical description of the corpus ends with a general survey of the relationships between the various components which comprise the sentence as a unit (ch. 5). The last chapter (ch. 6) surveys the position of Amurru Akkadian within the Akkadian languages and dialects, and concludes with a discussion of its origins and development. More details and methodological clarifications may be found at the beginning of each of the respective sections, whenever they are in order. Since the dialectal continuum of Amurru Akkadian is conceived as describable in terms of a coherent structure, in my synchronic description of the respective features I

13 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

0.1

have not presupposed an underlying linguistic system based on deviations from a standard. Thus, forms are cited even if they are similar, even identical to their cognates in any of the core Akkadian dialects, like OB, MB or MA. In other words, I have not taken the liberty of assuming knowledge of standard Akkadian and cite only the forms deviating from that standard. I have tried to bring as many examples to each of the discussed traits as needed. Apart from several morphological sections, not all attested forms are listed, only those which are relevant for a comprehensive qualitative assessment, and especially where such examples would account for an irregular systemic element. Also, references to occurrences of the forms cited are not necessarily comprehensive, unless, again, an especially important form is scrutinized. The translation of the forms cited derives in many instances from their actual context in the tablets. Sometimes, however, a different translation is given, in order to reflect its common or out-of-context meaning. The bibliography (see list in vol. Il, pp. 213-238) covers, for the most part, works to which I had access before 1989. References to later publications are mostly to those studies I had access in pre-publication form, courtesy of their authors. Bibliographical references to material discussed within each section, as well as bibliographical notes, are in the majority of cases placed at the end of that section. In rare cases, however, these are given at the end of entries or other paragraphs within a section. Cross references to section numbers in this book are given without the section sign ("§") preceding them. Bi bli ogr aphical notes: A general assessment of Akkadian as a lingua franca is presented in Labat 1962; Nougayrol 1962; 1975. Some account of the spoken a~pect~ of PA (in effect. specifically for the EI-Amarna letters) is given in lzre'el forthcoming b. Grammars of PA dialects dealing with texts according to their place of discovery are Labat 1932; Swaim 1962; Giacumakis 1970. Cf. aL~o von Soden's AS. Jucquois (1966) presented an accurate methodology, which, however, has not been applied systematically throughout his work (cf. also Buccellali's review, 1971: 80). Other works, dealing with PA texts on the basis of their place of origin, are: Adler 1976; Durham 1976; Finley 1979; Huehnergard 1979; van Soldt 1986; CochaviRainey 1988; Huehnergard 1989. For the study of the distinctive language of the EI-Amarna letters, see Izre'el 1978 (with other reference.~); also Hayes 1984; Gianto 1990. For a different approach for the study of the Amarna language, see Izre'el forthcoming b. Some attention to the development of the Amarna language is given in lzre'el 1984: forthcoming b. Special attention to the importance of variation with regard to that language is given in the latter study, where references to general theoretical studies of this topic is also given. The term "lect" is discussed there with regard to the different subsystems of the language encountered in Amarna letters. For a more general study of this term one may consult, e.g., Berrendonner, Guem and Puech 1983: ch. 1.

14 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

0.2

0.2 THE CORPUS The texts included in our corpus were unearthed in three different archaeological sites: Tell El-Amarna in Egypt, Boghazkoy in Anatolia, and Ugarit in Northwest Syria. The corpus includes three genres of texts: letters, accords, and one inventory. Chronologically, the texts extend over a span of time of more than a century and a half. The corpus includes four major reference groups: letters of Abdiasirta, chief of Amurru; texts from the time of his son, Aziru; letters of Pendisenni, king of Amurru, to Hatti; texts from the time of his son, Sauskamuwa. The additional texts either originate from other periods or are still indeterminable as to their exact chronological setting. More details on the relative chronology of the texts, comments and conclusions, wi!l be found in 6.3. Note the folJowing terminological conventions: The phrase "earlier texts" wilJ be used to refer to the letters found at Tell El-Amarna, as well as the Aziru-Niqmaddu accord RS 19.68 and the General's Letter (RS 20.33) unearthed at Ugarit. The phrase "later texts" will be used to refer to all the other texts found at Ugarit, as well as the texts from Boghazkoy. The phrase "earlier subcorpora" will thus refer to the groups of texts forming more or less unified linguistic entities from the Amarna period. The phrase "later subcorpora" will refer to the linguistic subcorpora of the post Amarna period. In general, the contrast earlier:later usually refers to the Amarna:post-An1arna chronological dichotomy. An annotated list of the texts analyzed in this study is presented below. Only texts of which I couid ascertain that they had actually been written by scribes of the Amurrite state have been admitted into the corpus. Thus, texts from several sites in the land of Amurru or in its close vicinity which were not written by scribes of the An1urrite state (such as EA 100, from Irqata), have not been included. Indeed, EA 100 is written in a dialect very closely related to that of the Canaanite Amama letters. Moreover, although several texts from city-states in the vicinity of Amurru (e.g., EA 59 from Tnnip, later conquered by Azim) show similarity in their linguistic structure to that discerned in Amurru Akkadian, these were not included in the corpus. The logic

15 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

0.2

behlnd this exclusion is that the forming of a corpus should first and foremost be based upon extra-linguistic considerations, which would then result in the creation of a basic corpus with a more or less coherent structure. 1n this case, the main criterion for the inclusion of texts in the corpus was whether or not they were written by scribes of official authorities of the Amurrite state. Also, several texts which were formerly attributed to scribes of Amurru, have been eliminated after the linguistic research. Apart from these texts, there are others which might, for various reasons, be attributed to scribes of Amurru, with no sound reasons or with no strong and decisive evidence. An annotated list of these texts is also given below. Since the aim of this study is to provide a sound description of the linguistic structure of Amurru Ak.kadian, a solid basis for this study demanded elimination of uncertain material from the corpus. Any text, newly discovered or previously known, which, at some later date, will be suspected of having an Amurrite origin, can thus be evaluated in the light of this study. 1n fact, this precisely was the case with the socalled General's Letter (RS 20.33, see below), which now constitutes part of the Amurru Akk.adian corpus. This corpus could later serve as a basis for comparison with other texts and dialects, whether closely related or more remote in their linguistic structure to that of the Akkadian used by scribes of a single political entity. Museum numbers and primary publications of each of the texts included in this corpus are listed in the text edition, in a subtitle to each of the respective texts. TEXTS FROM THE EL-AMARNA ARCHIVE:

EA 60: Letter of Abdiasirta (written: 1iR-das-ra-tum, i.e., abdiasratu) to the (Egyptian) king. Rainey (p. c.) bas suggested that this exceptional spelling of the DN component is influenced by its official form in god-lists. This suggestion may be corroborated by the fact that the case ending used is the nominative, as against the usual genitive ending of PN's and nouns in the same context (3.3.1.l.l; 3.3.1.4.1). Similar spellings of this PN are found for the genitive also in a letter from Byblos (EA 138: 134) and in two of the Tyre texts (EA 147: 68; EA 149: 36). Note that the most common spelling for this PN in EA is IJR-a-si-ir-ta, where the final -a vowel is attested in all syntactic positions. Official forms of the DN As(i)ratu in Ugarit are listed and discussed by Huehnergard (1987a: 111 s.v. 'SR). Further notes on the variation in the spelling of the name Abdiasirta in EA are given in Hess 1984: 139-141; Moran 1987: 234 n. 1.

EA 61: Letter of Abdiasirta to the (Egyptian) king.

16 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

0.2

EA 62: Letter of Abdiasirta to the (Egyptian commissioner) Pabannate. EA 156: Letter of Aziru to the (Egyptian) king. EA 157: Letter of Aziru to the (Egyptian) king. EA 158: Letter of Aziru to the (Egyptian official) Tutu. EA 159: Letter of Aziru to the (Egyptian) king. EA 160: Letter of Aziru to the (Egyptian) king. EA 161: Letter of Aziru to the (Egyptian) king. EA 164: Letter of Aziru to the (Egyptian official) Tutu. EA 165: Letter of [Aziru] to the (Egyptian) k[ing]. EA 166: Letter of Aziru to the (Egyptian official) ija'ay. EA 167: Letter of LAziruJ to the [(Egyptian official) Tutu]. It is probably Tutu (rather than ija'ay) who is the addressee of this letter. Note that following the opening address, the salutation formula probably contained the phrase Iii apa{!ar "I shall not depart" twice (ll. 6, 7), which should heuce be directed to both the king and Tutu. Cf.:

is-tu a-ma-te.MES l5 EN-ia DINGIR-ia rd UTUx-ia' 16 u is-tu a-ma-te.'MES' ltu-u-tu 17 EN-ia la a-pa-of-far I shall not depart from the words of my lord, my god, my Sun-God, and from the words of Tutu, my lord. (EA 164: 14-17) ija'ay is addressed by Azim as his "brother" (EA 166: 1), and a prostration formula addressed to him is rather unexpected. According to EA 164, and especially according to EA 158: 20-21 and thereinafter, Tutu is staying with the Pharaoh, and Aziru asks him to recommend him before the

17 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

0.2

king. The new rendering of ll. 28-34 here offered support this interpretation. The restoration offered for ll. 1-10 conforms with this understanding. The name of ija'ay has been suggested by Knudtzon (I: 668). On the other hand, Moran ( 1987: 407 n. 1) too has noted that the addressee of this letter is probably Tutu.

EA 168: Letter of Aziru to the (Egyptian) king. EA 169: Letter of [a son of Aziru (Beti'ilu?)] to [an (Egyptian) official (Tutu)]. It must have been Aziru's son who gave the order to send this letter, and probably also dictated most of its contents. Azim was staying in Egypt at that time (ll. 19-23; 32-34). According to EA 170, Ba'luya and Beti'ilu are presumably sharing the jurisdiction in Amurru during the absence of Aziru. According to EA 165: 8-9 [Aziru] and Ba'luya seem to be equal in rank with regard to the Pharaoh (even if fragmentary, the restoration seems certain). Ba'luya is mentioned as a ruler of Amurru in RS 19.68 (1. 8), and according to EA 161: 20 (SES.MES-ia u 1be-ti-DINGJR "my brothers and Beti'ilu"), it is unlikely that Beti'ilu was Aziru's brother, as Ba'luya must had been. Had Beti'ilu been another brother of Aziru, he would not have been mentioned separately. Also, even if most of EA 169 is written in the 1 sg, there are several pl forms in its opening: EN-ni "our lord" (IJ. 5, 15); LU.MESlR-su "his (i.e., the king's) servants" (l. 12); and perhaps also the verbal form n]P-dag-gal "we? look" (l. 6, see vol. II, p. 55). All this, as well as similarity in script and clay form between EA 169 and EA 170, may well point to Beti'ilu as the sender of this letter and as son of Azim. As for the addressee, it seems to me that at least the second part of this letter (from l. 16 on) is addressed to Tutu. For the prostration formula in ll. 7-8, cf. EA 238: 31-33, a letter of unknown provenience, yet addressed to an official, and not to the king. It may well be that EA 169 and EA 170 (sent to Aziru) were sent to Egypt together within a single mission. See further comments in 6.3. Weber (in KnudtT.Oo: II: 1270, 1273-4) identified both Ba'luya and Beti'ilu as brothers of Aziru. He was followed by Campbell (1964: 60 and n. 91), Altman (1973: 218 and n. 34), and others. Klengel (1964: 75 n. 102) has suggested that the sender of this letter was lr(i)tessub (DU-te.Uub; cf. below for RS 16.146+). He was followed by Moran (1987: 409 n.1). My rendering of the second part of the letter, as well as my suggestion that Tutu is the addressee, at least of that part, agrees with Winck.ler's tran.,lation (1896a: 125; also p. XVIll for no. 52). Winckler's opinion stands against that of Knudtzon (Il: 1272 n. 1). Knudtzon was right, though, in claiming that the Pharaoh could not have been the addressee, as sulmu "well being" (I. 2) is never used in the opening formulas of letters addressing the king. Waterhouse ( 1965: 106-107 and n. 73) commented upon the possibility that EA 169 and EA 170 were sent at the same time to Egypt, yet he, too, considered Beti'ilu to be Aziru's brother.

18 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

0.2

EA 170: A letter of Ba'luya and Beti'ilu to the king(= Azim). For the senders, see discussion on EA 169 above. Ba'luya (Aziru's brother) and Beti'ilu (Azim's son) were holding power in Amurru at the time Azim was staying in Egypt. For the identification of the addressee a~ Aziru, see already Weber in Knudtmn: II: 1273; also Altman 1973: 218-219; Moran 1987: 411 n. 1 with further references. Jucquois (1966: 36) has suggested that this letter was sent from Tunip.

EA 171: Letter of [Azim] to [the (Egyptian) king]. For the identification of the sender with A7lru, see Campbell 1%4: 90--91.

EA 371: Letter of [AbdiasirtaJ to [the (Egyptian) king(?)]. Fragmentary text, which resembles very much EA 62 in its contents. Its language is, however, similar, even identical, to that of EA 60 (see, e.g., 2.4. l.l end; 3.4 end; 3.7). TEXTS FROM AMARNA THAT HA VE NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THIS CORPUS:

EA 63. EA 64, and EA 65. which were attributed to Abdiasirta by Knudtzon. should be attributed to the Southern Canaanite subcorpus of the Amama correspondence. Other letters which were attributed to Amurru (such as EA 237 and EA 238) have also been eliminated on linguistic and especially on the lack of clues which could related them to the rulers of Amurru. Recall that in principle the compilation of our corpus was based upon extra-linguistic considerations, and that only texts of which I could ascertain that they had actually been written by scribes of the Amurrite state have been admitted into it. EA 172 is a small fragment. It attests the sign for 10,000 (SIG 1, Signlist no. 351/200), which occurs also in EA 170. EA 172 may hence be a part of the Amurru correspondence. However, nothing else can be learned from this letter, and hence it is irrelevant for our discussions. For EA 63-5 a~ part of the Abdia.Urta correspondence, see Knudtmn: I: 352-7; also Weber in Knudtzon: II: 1128-1132. For their detachment from the Amurru corpus, Na'aman 1979: 676-684: also Moran 1987: 238 n. 1. EA 237-8 has been related to Amurru by Moran (1975a: 150, but not in 1987: 577 s.v. Bayadi).

19 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

0.2

TEXTS FROM UGARff:

RS 15.24+50: Letter of Abusk[a] to the commissioner [of Ugarit]. Judging from both its form and its contents, this letter was sent from a person equal in rank with the addressee, i.e., another commissioner. From the fact that the gods of Amurru are mentioned beside the gods of U garit (ll. 5-6), and that the letter was found in Ugarit, we may surmise that the sender was an Amurrite, and the addressee an Ugaritian. The last sentence of this letter, confirming that the lord of the sender knows about that letter (u EN-ia lu-u i-de, "My lord indeed knows", 11. 21-22) stands against the possibility that the sender was the ruler of a small neighboring state. For the latter suggestion, see Nougayrol 1955: 18 n. 1.

RS 16.111: Letter of Ulmi to the queen of Ugarit. The mention of the gods of Amurru (l. 5) suggests that the provenience of this letter is indeed Amurru. Nougayrol 1955: 13 n. 1.

RS 16.146+161: An inventory of the belongings of the Ugaritic queen Ahatumalki. Sealed with a seal of lr(i)tessub (spelled IDU.d/SKUR, l. 44), son of Azim. The Amurrite origin of Queen Ahatumalki is confirmed by the seal. For this reading of the queen's name, cf. Huehnergard 1987a: 105 s.v. '!;I; 147 s.v. MLK. For its interpretation as "king's sister", see Grondahl 1967: 31. For this interpretation, cf. the title (or name?) bitta rabiti "the Daughter of the Great Lady" of the Amurrite wife of Sauskamuwa (Kuhne 1973b: 177--8). A different view is held by Singer, vol. II, p. 181 n. 71, with n. 71. For the ll'lllle lr(i)tessub, see Grondahl 1967: 211, 226, 264; further the remarks by Singer, vol. II, p. 159 n. 3?.. The Amurrite origin has also been discussed by Altman ( 1973: 274).

RS 17.116: Letter of [Sauskanmwa, king of Amurru] to [Ammistan1ru (II), king of Ugarit]. These identifications are clear from the contents. RS 17.152: Letter of the king of Amurru to the king of Ugarit.

OA 23 (unnumbered): Letter of the prefect of Amurru to the prefect of Ugarit. Duplicate letter to RS 17 .152. The citation "OA 23" refers to the volume of Oriens Antiquus in which this tablet was first published (Fales 1984).

20 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

0.2

RS 17 .228: Accord between Sauskamuwa, king of Amurm, and Ammistamru (II), king of Ugarit. Sealed with a seal of Sauskamuwa. Ugaritica Ill: ch.l, §10.

RS 17 .286: Letter of (Sauskamuwa), king of Amurm, and (Ammistamru ll), king of Ugarit. Pendisenni, Sauskamuwa's father, is mentioned as reigning by the time of the reign of addressee's father (ll. 7-9), which proves the identification of the correspondents. Nougayrol 1956: 180.

RS 17.318+349A: Accord between Sauskamuwa, king of Amurru, and Ammistamru (II), king of Ugarit. Sealed with a seal of Sauskamuwa (cf. RS 17 .228 above). RS 17 .372A+360A: Accord between Sauskamuwa, king of Amurm, and Ammistamru (II), king of Ugarit. Sealed with two seals: of Sauskamuwa and of Azim (cf. RS 17.228 above). RS 19.68: Accord between Niqmaddu (II), king of Ugarit, and Azim, king of Amurru. Sealed by a seal of Azim. ln spite of various phrases that might lead to the conclusion that it was Niqmaddu who had dictated the accord, it seems evident that it was an Amurrite scribe who actually wrote this accord not only from the fact that it bears a seal of Azim, but also by its language. The physical characteristics of this tablet also point to the same conclusion. Nougayrol 1956: 281; 285 n. I.

RS 20.33: Letter of Sumilt"l--J to the king. This large tablet was found in the Rap'anu archive, and had certainly been brought there as a library, rather than an archival item. The addressee might well have been the Hittite monarch or a king very closely related to the Hittites (6.1). The non-contemporary nature of the tablet bas been stress by Rainey ( 1975b: 22). A detailed examination of this text, its period, its attribution to an Amurrite scribe, the identity of its royal

21 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

0.2

addressee and its historical context is advanced in Izre'el 1988, and especially in Izre'el and Singer 1990.

N.B. A, Izre'el and Singer 1990 is the result of our research following the preparation of this book for publication, the edition of the General's Letter presented in vol. II of this book, is, in some respects, outdated. Also, some linguistic and orthographic features attested in this text (e.g., the sibilants and the usage of the sign .~/ for etymological /si/) have been reinterpreted and new insights have been introduced. Unfortunately, these novelties could not be incorporated into this study of Amurru Akkadian.

RS 20.162: Letter of Par~u to the king of Ugarit. The provenience of this letter is induced by the reference to the king of Amurru in I. 6. The sender, Par~u, could be either an Amurrite or an Ugaritian official situated in Amurru. Considering the tone of the letter and its usage of pronominal suffixes (e.g., II. 14. 25), it seems to me that the former possibility is preferable. That is why I have included this letter in the studied corpus. Its language, however, even if in various points similar to the rest of the Amurru material, is in general quite different (6.3). TEXTS FROM UGARff THAT HA VE NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THIS CORPUS:

RS 16.IJ6 (= PRU lll: 10) is a letter of Ri~ia[ .. (?) to the king of Ugarit. The scribe who wrote this letter may have been Amurrite, but this cannot be ascertained. However, it is assured that the sender of this letter was not Amurrite himself. This is inferred by the following: (1) Apparently only the gods of Ugarit are invoked in the salutation formula. (2) The "Sun", i.e., the king of Hatti, is referred on I. 6 in a context which indicates that the letter was sent from Hatti. In any case, the letter is most fragmentary, and practically unusable for linguistic analysis. The Amurrite provenience of the scribe has been suggested by Nougayrol ( 1955: 10 IL 2).

RS 16.270 (= PRU lll: 41-44; PRU W: 134-136) is a.Ii accord between Sau§kamuwa. king of Amurru, and Ammi§tamru (II), king of Ugarit. It is a parallel accord to RS 17.228, RS 17.318+, and RS 17.372A+, which were indeed written by scribe of Amurru and included in the studied corpus (see above). However, this tablet carries a seal of the Ugaritic king Ammi§tamru, as well as the Ugaritic dynastic seal. There are some orthographic and linguistic traits which occur in both this text and the other accords. For example, the use of the sign SA for the spelling of the 3 sg f pronominal suffix and a t- initial prefix for the 3 sg f verb. However, these traits are not unique to Amurru Akkadian, and are found in other subdialects of PA (see discussions in 1.10 and 2.4.1.1 respectively). Such features are likely to occur while Ugaritic and Amurrite scribes write similar texts on behalf of their rulers, especially when doing it simultaneously. Nevertheless, RS 16.270 makes use of various linguistic forms which would be exceptional in Amurru Akkadian. For example, um-te-se-er "he has sent" (L 4) as

22 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

0.2

against Amurru Akk:adian um-ta-sir,(-su-nu) "he sent (them)" (RS 17.286: 15; see 2.4.2.4.3). There are other features in the language of this text which may give us clues as to the extralinguistic setting in which this text was written, and which demonstrate that this text was actually written by a scribe of Ugarit, and not by a scribe of Amurru: on ll. 19-27 the scribe refers to the Ugaritic king as "our lord", and the king's wife is accused in committing adultery with "your (i.e., Sauskamuwa's) servants" (and) "your 'greats'" (ll. 22-25). It is quite possible that the Ugaritic 1 pl pronominal suffix -nd is attested here: LUGAL EN-na-a "the king, our lord" (ll. 19, 27). For the seal. see Ugaritica Ill: 78-79. The attestation of the pronominal Kiihne (1973b: 183 n. 79).

-na has been suggested by

RS 17 .82 (= PRU IV: 147-8): According to its contents, this text is most probably of Hittite origin. Doubts with regard to the provenience of this text were raised by Kiibne (1974a: 142 n. 30).

RS 19.06 (= PRU VI: no. 1, p. 2): A letter of Pendisenni (1ZAG.SES) to the king. This Pendisenni can hardly be identified with Pendisenni, king of Amurru. This is a short courteous letter, very brief in contents and relatively fragmentary. Note that the bi (NE) sign in the formulaic qibima "say" is attested very rarely in Amurru Akkadian. and only in the texts from the Amarna period (Signlist no. 172/122). In any case, this text is insignificant for linguistic analysis. Objection., to the possibility of such an identification have been justly raised by Rainey (1973b: 35) and Kiibne (1973c: 185-6). For the sign., bf and bi in opening addresses, cf. AS: no. 122. A different view on the identity of the sender is still held by Singer (lzre'el and Singer 1990: 173).

RS 20.252A' (= RS 17.450A; PRU IV: 144; cf. PRU VI: 129) is a very small fragment of another parallel accord between Sauskamuwa and Ammistamru. There is, however, no proof for its Amurrite provenience (cf. the discussion of RS 16.270 above). Also, it is practically unusable for linguistic analysis. RS 34.135 is a letter of rabikina (? spelled: GAL-GI-NA) to the king of Ugarit. The king of Amurru is referred to as the sender's master (1. 5). However, from both the contents and the spelling habits, it seems that the letter was written not by a scribe of Amurru, even if not in Ugarit itself. For the circumstantial evidence, note: 5 EN-ia a-nu-ma LUGAL KUR a-mur-ri EN-ia 6 il-tap-ra a-na mu!J-!Ji-ia ma-a a-na 1 mul,1-!Ji LUGAL KUR u-ga-ri-it su-pur 8 ma-a

My lord! Now, the king of Amurru, my lord, has written to me thus: "Write to the king of Ugarit thus: ... (ll. 5-8.) For the spelling tradition, note, e.g., ne-e-nu "we" (1. 26) as against the regular Amurru Akkadian ni-i-nu (e.g., RS 17.116: 23', 28'; RS 20.33: 22); the use of the sign

23 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

0.2

BA for pa in te-pa-as "you will do" (1. 21) (cf. Signlist no. 5/4; this value is rare in Ugarit too). A photograph of this text have been published in Ugaritica VII, pl. XVII (transliteration courtesy of W. van Soldt and J. Huehnergard). The scanty evidence for the I pl pronoun in Ugarit Akkadian is given in Huehnergard 1989: 123. For the sign value pd in Ugarit, see Huehnergard 1989: 352.

TExTS FROM BOGHAZKOY:

Among the texts mentioning Pendisenni or Amurru in KBo 28, the following are texts which were actually sent by this Amurrite king. Each text reference number is preceded in this book by the letters Bo (for Boghazkoy). Bo 65a+282a: Letter of Pendisenni (of Amurru) to the (Hittite) queen. Cf. Otten 1955: 33-34; Klengel 1965-1970: II: 218.

Bo 141m: Letter of Pendisenni (of Amurru) to the (Hittite) king. Cf. Otten 1955: 33; Klengel 1965-1970: II: 217-8.

Bo 151a: Beginning of a letter of Pendisenni (of Amurru) to the (Hittite) queen. Cf. Klengel 1965-1970: 11: 218 (referred to as no. 15le).

Bo 1024u: Letter of Pendisenni (of Amurru) to the (Hittite) king. Cf. Otten apud Neve 1965: 10-11; Klengel 1965-1970: II: 218.

Bo 1179v: Fragment of a letter of Pendisenni. Cf. Kiirnmel 1985: VI.

Bo 1772c: Fragment of a letter of Pendisenni (king of Amurru) to the (Hittite) king. Cf. Klengel 1965-1970: II: 218.

It is to be noted that these texts were sent from the Amurru region rather from the Hittite land proper, as shown by their contents. Thus, in Bo 65a+ Pendisenni informs the Hittite queen of the arrival of her messengers in Amurru (ll. 4-7). In Bo 141m there is probably a reference to the well-being of the Amurru region (ll. 4-7), and perhaps, also, a reference to the arrival of the Hittite messengers mentioned above (11. 6-9). For the reading Pendisenni in,tead of the common pronunciation of this name, Bentesina, see Grondahl 1967: 211, 244, 250; cf. further Singer's comment, vol. II, p. 164 n. 42. lbis PN is spelled throughout logographically as ZAG.SES.

24 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

0.2

Postscript: The Arnurru texts from Boghazkoy have now been published in transliteration with translation by Hagenbuchner (1989: II: 370-379, nos. 260-264). She included within the Amurru corpus two further texts which she considered to be letters of Pendi§enni (no. 265 = KUB Ill: 54 and no. 266 = KUB Ill: 55). On the other hand, Bo 1179v was excluded from the corpus. Unfortunately, I could not refer to any of the difference.~ in transliteration or translation between my edition and Hagenbuchner's, which in the majority of cases were insignificant, especially to linguistic analysis. As for The two KUB texts, the attribution of these texts to Amurru is oblique and still uncertain, so that, according to the methodology used in compiling the corpus for this study, I would still leave them out for further research. As for Bo 1179v, it was excluded from Hagenbuchner's Amurru subcorpus of the Boghazkoy texts since "Bentesina (Z. 2') bisher niemals zusammen mit einer anderen Person einen Brief verfa8t hat" (p. 467, for no. 365). It seems that Hagenbuchner read the la~t (broken) sign of that line a~ u. It is, however, possible to read it as q({ as well.

25 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

1 ORTHOGRAPHY; PHONETIC AND PHONOLOGICAL ASPECTS This chapter deals with issues of orthography which have implications for our understanding of the phonology of Amurru Akkadian. It is my belief that when dealing with this language, a written language with a deep-rooted scholarly tradition, this is how one should deal with phonological issues, i.e., it is better not to separate discussions of orthographical questions from discussions of explicitly linguistic problems. A short survey of the following sections may pinpoint the need for thorough research into the orthography and writing habits of each of the subcorpora, of yet smaller reference groups of texts, and even of each of the specific scribes, in order to understand the syllabary system of either a single text or of the whole corpus. A certain scribe may use different signs for the indication of a single value in a more or less unsystematic manner, as is the case with the scribe of the General's Letter (RS 20.33). However, we do fiud certain learned customary spellings which are subject to alternation in the writing of this and other scribes. In such cases, there can be no arbitrary use of signs. The use of a relatively rigid syllabary is, in general, the rule when trying to describe the writing systems of the scribes of Amurru, as we shall see in the following discussions. General Akkadian phonological rules, as well as dialect-specific rules of any of the core Akkadian languages, will not be discussed in this chapter, unless they are unequivocally related to the study of the phonological systems of our texts. Such features, whenever they occur in our texts, are to be regarded as basically morphophonemic rather than pure phonological traits. Due to this methodology, the reader will not find himself puzzled by blurring of data which are irrelevant for the study of features specifically related to Amurru Akkadian. Moreover, this concen-

26 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

tration in Amurru Akkadian features may help in preventing us from falling into the common trap of mixing synchronical and historical phonological data. The latter are, obviously, to be treated under the title of morphology or morphophonology rather than in the section of phonology per se. What is usually encountered in phonological discussions of grammatical studies of Akkadian dialects is, for the most part, a morphophonological study, which may not reflect pure phonological rules. It is premature to present a separate chapter concentrating on the morphophonology of our PA dialect, because of the lack of thorough investigations into the morphophonology of the various Akkadian languages (especially the older ones). Hence, all morphophonological alternations have been dealt with in the respective morphological sections, mainly those dealing with stems or patterns. This chapter deals only with those feature which are relevant for the study of the phonological traits in the language of our scribes. My methodology can be illustrated by the way in which the various stative formations from the etymon [wdii "glad" are treated in this study (for the notion "etymon", see 3.4). The following forms are attested: [ia-ad-ia-ku, [la-di-ia-k[u 7 1, [ra-da-ak-ku "I am glad"; [ia-di-ia-ta "you are glad"; [ia-du,-nim "they are glad". All these forms are dealt with in the section dealing with the morphological patterns of the stative. However, the form [la-da-ak-ku, which exhibits a specific phonological feature of this language, is dealt with also in 1.12 of this chapter (as well as referred to in another morphological treatment, namely that of the person morphemes, 2.3.3.3.1). Various spellings and phonological features of the other forms are dealt with in this chapter as well (l.8 and 1.5 respectively). As mentioned above, various formations of inner-word stem patterns should not be dealt with in orthographical-phonological discussions. This is true especially for this language, which was a second language for its speakers, even if one can attribute some of these alternations to actual contemporary phonological traits of any of the core Akkadian dialects. Thus, a form like aq-fix(DE)-bi "he has said" (RS 20.162: 8) are dealt with in the proper morphological section (2.4.2.1.3), where both the partial assimilation of t to emphatic q and vowel harmony are discussed. Both features are Assyrian. Note, that although these traits are phonological in Assyrian, they had been acquired at the morphophonological level by the scribe who used this form. This is proved by the vast variation of forms which may differ from each other merely by phonetic features, as well as by the possibility of non-occurrence of similar phonetic changes throughout all forms in even one and the same text. On the other hand, the spelling with the DE sign for fix, will be dealt with within the framework of spelling conventions and usages discussed in this chapter (1.15)

27 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

This chapter is organized as follows: After a few comments on certain writing features (plurality and gloss marking, 1.1-1.2), a synoptic table of the syllabic values is given (1.3). A short discussion of the phenomenon of morphophonemic vs. phonological spellings follows (1.4), and then come comments on what can be adduced from the syllabary concerning the phonological system of Amurru Akkadian texts (l.5-1.17). Appendix I (vol. 11, pp. 111-132) presents a comprehensive annotated signlist of this corpus. There has been no attempt to deal definitively with questions of orthography per se, since the corpus is too limited for such an analysis to be conclusive in any substantial aspect. A thorough investigation of the writing habits and the sign system used for writing this language can only be made after accurate descriptions of the various PA dialects have been produced, and should include all the periphery. Only then could we achieve a better understanding of the scribal traditions and their origins with regard to both syllabary systems and logographic writing. The Signlist included in this volume (see above), which is intended to serve as an indispensable reference tool for the present study, should also be of benefit for any comprehensive future research into the orthography and phonology of PA. There has been no attempt to deal with the forms of the signs, since that would have involved an overall paleographic study and an inspection of the tablets themselves. Unfortunately, such a study I could not undertake at present. In specific cases there is reference to sign forms, especially where I could collate the respective tablet. Bi bli o graphical notes: The analyses of the syllabary system5 used by the Amurru scribes presented hereafter (see especially 1.3) makes me hesitant in accepting - even as a working hypothesis - Amand's suggestion (1975, esp. p. 102) that each sign should be regarded a5 potentially capable to be randomly a5cribed one value among an a5signed group of values. One of the exceptioIL5 to what ha5 been said about the ways phonological descriptions of Akkadian are handled is Greenstein 1984, where a purely phonological treatment may be found. A large-scale study of all orthographical, phonological and morphophonological details of PA has been done by Jucquois (1966). However, he ha5 indiscriminately introduced discussions of historical standard Akkadian phonological rules into his description5, which is a great disadvantage of his otherwise thorough analyses ( cf. also Bnccellati's review, 1971: 80). For morphophonology in principle, see Twaddell 1938; Martinet 1965; Kenstowicz and Kisseberth 1977: ch. 2; Dressler 1985. See further the bibliographical notes to 1. 3 below.

28 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

l.l

1.1 NOTES ON PLURALITY DES lG NATION AND ON THE USE OF THE PLURAL DETERMINATIVES

The attested plural determinatives are ijt\, MES, and MES(= ME). The determinative ijA. occurs only in earlier texts, most commonly in the earliest. ijt\. is the main plural determinative in use in EA 60. The MES sign occurs only in

the spelling ERIN.MES(= $iibu) "troops" (ll. 12, 14), and may hence be regarded as a learned spelling. In other texts where ijt\. occurs, it is the other way round: MES is the common plural determinative, whereas ijA. is attached to fixed specific nouns. Thus: GIS.GIGIR.ljt\. "chariots" (EA 157: 31; EA 371: 26); URU.ljt\. "cities" (EA 161: 37; EA 170: 16x2); KUR.ijt\ "lands" (EA 171: 24); KU.BABBAR.ljt\. "silver" (EA 371: 32); IT/.5.ljt\ IT.9./jt\ "5/9 months" (RS 20.33: 15, 27, 29).

The determinative MES occurs as a free variant of MES in some of the later texts, but also in the Aziru-Niqmaddu accord (RS 19.68). This may imply an infiltration of northern influence. A plural determinative is not always attached to a plural noun, whether spelled syllabically or logographically. For syllabic spellings note the following: be-Ii [1i-![i-ka "your malefactors" (RS 17 .318+: 4', direct object); zi-i-nu "rains" (RS 20.33: 21, with a plural verb).

See further 2.3.2. l. For logograms note the following example: KASKAL-ni-fo-nu ni-ri-ba-te.MES-su-nu "their roads and their entrances" (RS 20.33: 17, direct objects).

There are additional cases where plurality is not indicated also in purely logographic spelling. Example:

u DUMU.MES-ia iR-kla

]

and my sons are your servants. (EA 156: 8)

29 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

1.2.1

Similarly EA 164: 42; further EA 164: 6, where a triptotic declension of the adjective is attested (cf. 3.3.1.1.3). 1n the inventory RS 16.146+ there is frequent variation between logograms denoting plural nouns written with and without indicating plurality explicitly (yet, a substantive following a number should be read in the singular, see 3.2.1). For collective nouns and mass words, see 3.3.2. For other discussions concerning plurality, see 2.3.2. The plural determinative MES may also denote the reading of a Sun1erogram as an abstract noun. Note the Following:

upa-ni-ia a-na LU.MES.JR-tum 12 sa LUGAL EN-ia i-na sul-mi My concern is with the service of the king, my lord, in peace. (EA 165: 11-12) AJso LU.MES.JR (EA 157: 10); LU.MES)R-du,-ti (EA 171: '4'. 12). For the spelling with a TUM sign, see 3.3.1.1.1. Such spellings may be explained on the grounds of sinlilarity in form between plural nouns and abstract substantives (cf. further 2.3.2.l for !Jazannutu). Bibliographical notes: Majestic plural in the verbal designation of "god" in RS 20.33 ha~ already been noted by Nougayrol (1968: 74 n. 4). Moran too (1984: 298-9) has seen that certain plural logograrns should be rendered a~ abstract nouns: Moran has suggested to read LUlR-TUM-ti in the occurrences of this complex in EA 171: see further CAD: A,: 251b.

1.2 GLOSSES, FOREIGN WORDS AND THE GLOSSENKEIL 1.2.1 GLOSSES AND FOREIGN WORDS Sometimes, we encounter words, usually marked by a Glossenkeil, which are inserted within the sequence of the text either in addition or instead of an Akkadian word or a Sumerian logogram. The limited corpus which we are dealing with here cannot add but a few attestations to the general phenomenon of the glosses in PA texts.

30 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

1.2.2

There are eight occurrences of six separate such lexemes in this corpus. Four are glosses: Akkadian words translating a Sumerogram; the others are Hurrian words. Of the four Akkadian glosses, only two are marked by a Glossenkeil: IZI :i-sa-ti "fire" (RS 16. l ll: 12). US.MES :da-mi "blood" (RS 17.318+: 23'). Note, in the second example, that the Akkadian word is spelled with the sign DA, which is very rare in this corpus (Signlist no. 335/ 191; also 1.8). UZU.KA p(-i "mouth" (EA 160: 12; cf. l. 17).

ERIN.MES !fa-bi "troops" (EA 166: 4). See 3.3.2.1; also 3.3.1.2.l. There are four Hurrian words in the corpus. One of them is a gloss, translating an Akkadian idiom: pa-ni-su-nu !fa-bat :Zu-Zi-la-ma-an "meet them" (EA 170: 11 ). See 5.1.2. The other three occurrences are of a single Hurrian lexeme. They are attested in two similar and related letters. Evidently the scribe used a Hurrian word in these cases since he lacked the proper Akkadian equivalent. The occurrences are the following: a-na :pa-ri-is-!Ji "for parnd!Je" (RS 17 .152: 8); :pa-ru-us-lia "parrus[1e" (RS 17.152: 9); as-sum :par,-ri-is-[1i "for parrus!Je" (OA 23: 9). For this word and its normalization, see l.8; 1.16; 2.3.3.l no. 6. Bibliographical notes: For detailed discussions of the topic, though limited in scope, see Artzi 1963; Kiihne 1974b: 1975: Huehnergard 1987a: 204-8; 1989: 91-5 with further references.

1.2.2 THE GLOSSENKEIL Glossenkeils are attested both for marking a gloss or a foreign word ( 1.2. l), and for indicating "hyphenation". As far as their form is concerned, all attested Glossenkeils are "double", i.e., the GAM sign.

31 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

1.3

There are six "hyphenation" occurrences in our corpus; they occur in only three tablets: u-se-ez-zi[-bcf/-sju-:11u "I saved them" (EA 62: 31-32). se-el1-la-:li[.Kjl "Sehlal" (EA 62: 46-47). t11-us-ma-ra-:~a-nim "(do not) torment (your heart)" (EA 170: 40-41 ). ta-sak-kan-:nu-nim "(do not) take (into your heart)" (EA 170: 41-42). GIS.GIGIR.:MES "chariots" (RS 19.68: 27-28). 114 -mi

:su-wa-ti "this day" (RS 19.68: 46-47).

Bibliographical notes: A synoptic table of Glossenkeil fonns in diverse PA texls is given in Artzi 1963: 34.

1.3 THE SYLLABIC SIGNS - A GENERAL OVERVIEW Until quite recently, there was no extensive study describing any of the PA syllabary systems in detail. The available studies offered either a few notes of the findings, or extensive comparisons of details. ln the latter case, we were lacking the notion of system in the description, which is an important factor in understanding linguistic data as a systemic unit. Three important exceptions to this trend are Durham's unpublished PhD dissertation on Boghazki:iy Akkadian, and both van Soldt's and Huehnergard's studies on the Akkadian of Ugarit. A comparative systemic investigation into the writing system(s) and the phonological data of the PA dialects is still ahead of us (cf. the remarks at the end of the introduction to this chapter). In treatments of PA syllabaries, their origins were understood as having a HurroAkkadian background. Further research into the topic must also wait until a comprehensive study of all syllabaries used for writing the various PA dialects is completed. As for Amurru Akkadian, a synoptic table of the syllabic signs and their respective values is given here. This table brings together visually the syllabaries used in the various subcorpora and by the different scribes of Anmrru. Detailed discussions and explanations of several important issues will be found in the following sections. A full

32 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

l.3

annotated list of the signs used in our corpus is given in Appendix I (vol. II, pp. 111132). The names of the signs are usually those appearing in the Signlist. However, for the sake of coherence with the Akkadian values, several signs were given different names here (e.g., JD rather than A; QA rather than SiLA; SJ rather than JGJ). The "eV(m)#" column include word-final evm syllables even though there may not be any retention of mimation (see 1.7). The extreme right hand column, namely "(eve)", attests only those signs that bear any significance for the study of chronological or other lectal distributional trends, mainly with regard to denotation of stop consonants. This table does not aim at giving a complete visual survey of the lectal distribution of the usage of eve vs. ev-ve signs. The interested reader should find an extensive list of all the attested eve signs in the Signlist (Appendix I). Abbreviations: Corp = attested throughout the whole Amurru corpus; Am = attested in texts from the Amama subcorpus; Aa = attested in letters of Abdiasirta; Az = attested in texts from the Aziru period, including EA 169 and EA 170 if not otherwise stated; Bo = attested in the Pendisenni letters from Boghazkoy; Ug = attested in. texts from the Ugarit subcorpus, excluding the Aziru-Niqmaddu accord (RS 19.68) and the General's Letter (RS 20.33); Gen= the General's Letter (RS 20.33). When the sign "-" (minus) appears to the left of an abbreviation or a tablet number, this indicates that that value is not attested in that specific subcorpus. For example, the notation "Az -EA 169, EA 170" means that the sign is used to denote a certain value in the Aziru letters, but not in EA 169 and EA 170, where an alternative sign is used for the same value. When no corpus sigla or any notes appears, this is to attest either a widespread use of that specific sign-value in Amurru Akkadian, or a common value for that sign even if not widely attested in the Amurru corpus.

33 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

aC

A

WJ

p

TAA:z.;Ug (DA) RS 20.33: 19',24'

GA

t kW

g

(QA) RS 20.162

TA corp TA-DA Gen (TAM)Az

TA Az; Ug; Gen (DA) EA 60: 30; RS 17.318+: 23'

(BA)

PA

eC

E

Ce

iC

I

IB

TEBo;Ug TIUg

TE (Tl) EA 169: 22

TE

IBE

IG

ID

ID

ID

IB

IB

Ci

UD

UB

UB

Aif

Tl EA 165: 40; Ug;Bo DE RS 20.162: 8 DIEA60

Tl UD (TE) RS 17.372A+: 3

Tl (DI) adi etc.

Bl

Bl Blqibima: EA 157; Gen

P/EA62: 33 Pl EA 60; EA 371

A' Aa; Az -EA 169, EA 170; UgXl A{{EA 169; EA 170; Gen if[ Aif corp-EA 371 ifE EA 170; Gen; A{{ RS 19.68 A'EA371 if[

P/Am;Ug:PN IA Pl RS 19.68 (PN); AO23 (PN) BA corp-Az; IB RS 19.68 PA Aa; Az; Gen; RS 16.111; Bo 65a+: 11 7

Ca

t kW

d W>

WJ

b

A'EA371

l, W,/ corp-EA 371 ifA

,

IJ

w i(y)

Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

uC

U,

Cu CV(m)#

(GU) RS 17.116 (PN)

~U EA 371; Az; Gen TUEA62; RS 19.68 TUMA:z. TUcorp (Az: tam iltu;EA 161: timAm tunip) TUM ~u Az; Gen; Bo TUM Az; Gen; Bo TU-DU Gen tam EA 157: 13 TUMA:z.

BU

BU

ifU

6, U, (U4)

galAz

par par,OA 23 pir, EA 60:25

(CVC)

Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

MA

NA

RA

n AN

r AR

LA

AM

Ill

I W,

SA EA 1691; EA 170;Gen; (Ug) SAOA23

SA

f

I ~

SAAz

ZA ZA RS 16.146+: 27; PN's

RS 19.68; Ug; Bo

QAEA60; EA 371;

lR

/NEA62:21

EN l-I change also in MB.

60 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

1.12

There is, however, one exception to this sharp distinction. In RS 19.68, a text of the Azim period, we find the form ul-ta-ab-ba-ru "they are cancelled" (✓sbr). This is the only form that reflects this phonological change in this text. Note that this text is a legal text, in fact the only text of the earlier period that is not a letter, and it seems that the form discussed is formulaic, learned by rote at school or copied from other treaties. As a matter of fact, this text exhibits other features that may suggest influence from a different scribal tradition (i.e., Ugarit Akkadian). Moreover, there are some clues that the text was written in the presence of an U garitic scribe, perhaps even in the presence of the Ugaritic king himself (cf. 0.2 for this text). The data with regard to this phonological shift has nothing surprising in it. Peripheral traditions are less apt to absorb newly introduced linguistic changes. Yet, even southern Amarna letters occasionally attest forms reflecting this middle Akkadian phonological shift. Bibliographical notes: For the shift of s>l before dentals, as well as for the conservativeness of iJtu. see, for MB, Aro 1955: 37-8; for MA, Mayer 1971: 25; for PA, Jucquois 1966: 121-122, 272; for Ugarit Akkadian, Iluehnergard 1989: 110-4; for EA, Izre'el 1978: 65 n. 195.

1.12 CONSONANT DOUBLING The scribes of Amurru, both in earlier and later periods, were consistent in their denotation of consonant doubling (except ' and w, obviously; cf. 1.5, l.6). They regularly marked consonant doubling in their writing, and exceptions are quite few. Exceptions are usually connected with forms which are recognizable and nonhomographic, such as forms of the iparras ("present-future") verb, or other common words. Examples:

ta-na-din-mi "you will give" (RS 15.24+: 21) for tanaddinmi; a-nu-ma "now, here" (common in the later texts, but a-nu-um-ma in most instances of the earlier texts) for anumma; lra-mut-is "promptly" (EA 157: 34) for {,amuttis. Note the morphographemic spelling for the last component in {iamuttis ( 1.4 ). It also seems that there was a tendency to avoid more than one denotation of

doubling within a single word. Examples:

61 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

1.12

iz-za-zu-nim "they were standing" (EA 161: 20) for izzazzuni; in-ni-ri-ir "I came to help" (EA 62: 21) for innirrir (i.e., core Akkadian ennerrir, see 1.15 under ni-ne).

There are, however, various occurrences in which there is an apparently superfluous denotation of consonant doubling. These occurrences can be classified according to the following categories: (1) Purely graphic.

(2) Phonological. Besides these two major categories, a special case of morphophonological consonant doubling can be discerned in Gtn forms of sapiiru "to send", "to write". See discussion in 3.10. Graphic doubling is a spelling tendency found elsewhere in Akkadian which is, in effect, a type of morphographemic spelling (cf. 1.4). According to this spelling habit, stems are spelled as if they were separate units, and then a sort of "phonetic complement" is added. This type of morphographemic writing is usually found in specific verbal forms, and as a rule the last sign of the stem is a eve sign. In the Amurru corpus the following forms are attested: Verbal forms: [iJ-k[aJl-lu-u-nim "they eat" (EA 160: 31); i-ma-/ik-ku "they will take counsel"(? EA 168: Rl3; see vol. U, p. 51); i-din-nu-nim "they gave" (EA 161: 22); i-din-nu (EA 171: 9); a-na-din-na-ak-ku (RS 15.24+: 17); i$-bat-tu-nim "they captured" (RS 20.33: IO'); ta-sak-kan-nu-nim "you (pl) will put" (EA 170: 41 ); li-is-pur-ra-am "may he send here" (EA 160: 34); tja-sap-par-ra "may you write me" (RS 17.116: 26');

A non-verbal form: as-sum-mi-ka-ma"! "for your sake" (RS 17.116: 13').

62 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

l.12

Similar spellings of the latter form are attested in OB. Phonological consonant doubling is attested in all periods of Amurru Akkadian, in both letters and legal documents, and should be considered as a reflection of a feature of the spoken language, whether Akkadian or the substrate dialects. It is found in various formations replacing of an expected vocalic lengthening: In nouns: I.Ji-if-fam "sin" (EA 157: 13); lii-if-fa (RS 17.372A+: 7, 12); l1i-if-!i-ka (same text, I. IO); for bifa/ika. Spellings with no denotation of doubling for this substantive occur in RS 17.228: 6, 8,22andRS 17.318+:4', 15'. i-re-e~-~u-ti-ia "my aid" (EA 157: 32); for (ir)re~utiya. Similar spellings are attested in Boghazkoy Akkadian (for the initial i, see 2.3.3.1 no. 3). sa-ar-ru "breath" (EA 164: 13); for siiru. I tii-ut-tu (EA 169: 16 ); for tutu.

Cf.1t11-11-tii (e.g., EA 158: 11 ); 1ti,-u-tii (e.g., EA 164: 10). SES-ut-ta "brotherhood" (RS l7.372A+: 6') for al1buta. This spelling reflects the usual Assyrian formation of abstract nouns. RS l 7.372A+ reflects several other Assyrianisms (6.1). In verbs: se-ez-zi-ba-an-na-si-mi "save us" (EA 62: 30); 11-se-ez-zi[-ba'Lsju-nu (EA 62: 31 ); for sezibannasimi and rdezibassunu respectively. u-ut-ta-na-ab-bal-ni "he takes care of me" (EA 161: 28); for 1Uanabbalni. Note spellings without doubling on ll. 19, 48, 50. !Ja-da-ak-ku "I am glad" (RS 17 .116: 7'); for badiiku. as-ba-ak-ku "I sit" (RS l 7.372A+: 8); for asbiiku.

I cannot explain e-te-er-ri-is "he requested repeatedly" (EA 156: 5) as containing a phonological doubling. Hence I regard this doubling of the r as morphological, and translate this form as a Gtn form, i.e., iterative (cf. 3.10).

63 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

1.12

In addition to the forms listed above, the General's Letter (RS 20.33) attests many

other similar spellings. which should be listed separately since they are not attested sporadically but rather systematically: an-nu-ut-ti "these" (I. 3); < anniiti. dan-nu-ut-ti-ma "fortress" (I. 9'); < danniitima.

Cf. the abstract noun SE.~-ut-ta discussed above. Note 11-nu-te.MES "implements" (1. 14'+) and other similar forms spelled with no indication of consonant doubling (nor of vocalic length). e-mu-uq-qa-am "by force" (I. 14+ ); < en111qa.

This adverb is attested in Assyrian with a long ii (3 .3.1.1.l) na-a$-$i-rn-te.MES "guards" (I. 23'); < nii$iriite. mll-ll$-$U-ia "my way out" (I. 26); < mii$iiya. pi-if-!al-]at-te.ME.~-ma "the pi/i is also possible_ Two sandhi occurrences are attested in the corpus. The first one occurs in the following passage:

u mi-nu-um-me e-ri-is-ti

121tu-u-tu

a-bi-ia su-pur

and whatever the request of Tutu, my father, may be, write (EA 158: 11-12) I take the form mi-nu-um-me as reflecting an underlying norm minumma rather than minumme (cf. 2.1.4; 4.7.3), since in this very text we find two occurrences of m'inumma (11- 7, 17)_ Moreover, m'inummi is written plene elsewhere in Amurru Akkadian. It may, hence, be surmised that the finale in this form is short, being a result of assimilation to the first vowel of the following word. Another form which may reflect sandhi occurs in the following passage: l6' II Mi-tum sa-a-si l7' i-na sa-nu-ti-si i-na as-ra-nu IS' 19' SES.ME.~-si al-ta-kan-su 20 · u .~E.~-ia lu-11 i-de.

la-a 11-ta-er-si it-ti

I did not return her there again. I have put her! with her brothers. My brother should know.

(RS 17-116: 16'-20')

-su

which is annexed to the verb a/takan (I 19') has Note that the pronominal suffix an underlying feminine meaning, since it is preceded by two normative (in Amurru Akkadian) feminine pronominal suffixes. Coming just before the conjunction u, it is possible that the last vowel of this pronominal suffix reflects a sandhi phenomenon.

92 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

1.17

While the two phonetic features hitherto discussed could have been just isolated idiosyncrasies, the following, it seems, exhibits a more general tendency. Epenthesis occurs in the following forms:

10-si-'1P1 -'su 1 "tenfold" (RS l 7.372A+: 2'); for esrfsu; URU'.u-si-na-[tJ;?.K[IJ (RS 19.68: 34); for the GN usnati. In both cases the phonetic environment is similar, and it consists of a

s and a

sonorant. This reminds us of a general tendency found in contact languages where clusters of similar kinds are apt to attract epenthesis. Note, that in both cases the epenthetic vowels are of similar qual.ity (unless the first form should be normalized

eserisu, to conform with the normative type of this stem). An i epenthesis following a J or another sibilant is common in some contact languages as a result of their sharing

the phonetic feature of palatalization. Note, however, that epenthesis of various kinds occurs elsewhere in PA, and our data is too meager to draw any solid conclusions with regard to this issue. Bibliographical notes: Alternation between u and i signs in Hurrian orthography has been interpreted as designating au underlying phonetic high central rounded vowel by Thiel (tLd: 106). For the ending -(u)Jt,e. see Bush 1964: 112. For the behavior of clusters of the type Jn in contact languages, see Hall 1966: 32; methodological questimLs involved in epcnthesis, as well as similar phenomena described here are dealt with in Pawley 1975; sec further Weinreich 1953: 23; Miihlhiiusler 1986: 150. For epenthesis in Ugaril Akkadian, see Huchnergard 1989: 115-118. For URu'.u-si-na-(t)i 7.K[l], sec Kiihue 1971: 370; van Soldt 1983b: 694.

1.17 A NOTE ON VOCALIC ENDINGS OF PROPER NAMES We shall discuss below (3.3.l.4) the declension or non-declension of proper names in Amurru Akkadian texts. The conclusion to be deduced from the data in our hand is that either during the Amarna period or slightly earlier, case endings on proper nan1es had been either dropped or drastically shortened. Many names are not declined at all, and many end in either a consonant or with a vowel, which is mostly i. Cf., e.g., the spelling of the GN ~umur once with a¢ ending, once with an i in the same text:

93 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

1.17

~u-mur; ~u-mu-ri (EA 60: 27, 23 respectively). This inconsistent system may indicate an occasional reconstruction of old spellings of names with genitive endings. Io such cases, it may be assumed that the vocalic ending is either a traditional spelling reflecting a historical genitive, or an artificial addition of.a case ending (cf. 3.3.1.4.4). Another theory may suggest that spellings with vocalic endings (notably with the vowel i) indicate an (occasional?) pronunciation with a very short (central?) vowel. For the last observation note especially the spelling with final e of the PN 1fR-a-si-ir-te "Abdiasirta" (EA 62: 2); perhaps for rabdi'asirta.

94 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2 MORPHOLOGY

2.1 PRONOUNS 2.1.1 PERSONAL PRONOUNS

2.1.1.1 INDEPENDENT PERSONAL PRONOUNS The independent personal pronouns in Amurru Ak.kadian can be divided into three groups according to their form:

l 2

sg 3

aniiku

pl

yasi - (ayasi)

m

atta

f

atti

m

sut - (si,)

f

fit

sasi

lllllll

nasi

Sllllll

SGSUIIU

l 2

yati

kasa - ~dlJTU be-lf-ia

u

la 1,-wa-as-si-ra-an-ni

98 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.1.1.2

I.have entered into the service of the king, the Sun-God, my lord, but Yanbamu (still) does not pemut me. (EA 171: 12-13) Cf. la tu-wa-as-sar-su-nu "do not pernut them" (EA 158: 26), with no ventive ending. There is one occurrence of the accusative suffix in the form -ninni following a plural verb, as is common in core Akkadian:

u-wa-as-fa-ru-ni-ni "they do not pemut me" (EA 157: 12). The form -ni occurs twice: once annexed to a hybrid verbal form in the mixed dialect of EA 60, and once in standard early Amurru Ak.kadian:

yi-ip-(qj-id-ni "may he assign me" (I. 31) 1,-ut-ta-na-ab-bal-ni "he takes care of me" (EA 161: 28), For the first form, cf. yi-da-an-ni "may he know me" (EA 60: 30); the occurrence of EA 161 also occurs side by side with forms with the more common variant -anni. Note that the shorter form is identical with the WS form of this morpheme. 1 sg dative: For the dependent 1 sg dative marker I assume the morpheme -¢. This may be proved by counter-positing I sg forms of 1 sg dative suffix, against the remaining persons. Note the following passage:

ma-an-nu-me-e 25 ' $f-bu-te-ka a-na nmb-bi-ia 26 ' [sa tja-.fop-par-ra a-na-di-na-ak-ku 27' Ir, a ]t-ta $f-bu-ti-ia lu-u ta-na-di-na Any desires you may have of me (and you] write me (about it), I will give you, [and y]ou, may you give me my desires. (RS 17 .116: 24'-27')

Note that tanaddin+a+¢ "you give me" is the paradigmatic counterpart of anaddin+ak+ku "l give you", where -a and -ak (both < -am) are the ventive allomorphs, and -¢ and -ku are the dative markers of the 1 sg and the 2 sg m respectively. When compared to other passages where the dative is expressed by syntactical rather than by morphological means, the distinction in both form and function is explicitly and overtly marked:

99 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.1.1.2

,, a-bu-ka il-tap-ra 9 a-na mut,-[1i 1ZAG.SES 10 ma-a le-qa-su-nu a-na mut,-[,i-ia 11 '' sul-ma it-ti-su-nu-ma 12 tu-u i-pa-as '' 1ZAG .•~ES l3 il-te-qe-su-nu 14 ii a-na mulz-bi a'(ZA)-bi-ka l5 um-ta-sir,-su-nu l6 sul-ma it-ti-su-n[uJ 17 'i'-[tJe-pu-us Your father had sent to Pendisenni thus: "Bring them to me, so that with them I shall make peace". So Pendisenni took them and sent them to your father; he made peace with them. (RS l 7 .286: 8-17) I.e., leqassunu marks the verbal base, the ventive and the accusative pronoun which denotes the direct object; the dative complement is marked by the composite ana mut,[liya. I wish to stress that by suggesting this analysis for the l sg dative pronominal suffix, I do not take into consideration the historical development or generation of either the ventive or the dative morphemes. The description given above accounts only for the structural synchronic state of the language. Similar arguments may perhaps be raised in a reevaluation of the fom1 and function of the ending -a(m) in other dialects of Akkadian, of the periphery and of the core. Note, however, that in normative Akkadian the ventive morpheme is obligatory for the I sg: for the 2 sg ispurkum "he sent to you" may occur, but not *ispur for "he sent to me". 3 sg f genitive and accusative: The genitive pronominal suffix of the 3 sg f is originally the accusative suffix. It is attested in this corpus both in one of the earliest texts (EA 62: 10+) and in one tablet from Ugarit (RS 17.ll6: 17', 19'). The accusative 3 sg f pronominal suffix occurs as -fa is two texts (RS 17 .228 and RS 17.318+), while in the parallel text, RS l7.372A+, its form is

-.si. In the latter case,

and most probably in the dialect reflected by the first two texts, only one form for the 3 sg f pronominal suffix is used, and this can be either -si or -fa (there are no occurrences of genitive 3 sg f suffixes in the first two texts mentioned). In all tl1ese cases we are introduced to allomorphic reduction, as is the case with the 1 sg genitive allomorphs (see above). In these cases, however, in contrast to what has been said for the 1 sg genitive pronoun, an influence of the substrate may also be regarded as a

100 I

Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.1.1.2

possibility, since in the WS dialects there was no distinction between the genitive and the accusative suffixes of the 3 sg f. There is one occurrence of the 3 sg f genitive pronominal suffix written with the sign

SE. For a possible interpretation, see 1.15.

-su occurs twice for the 3 sg f. 1n one of these occurrences we may assume plain scribal error:

ba-na-i-su sa UR U.~u-mur "the building of ~umur" (EA 161: 35). Cf, the correct f form on ll. 39, 40 of the san1e text (alu is feminine in these texts, see 2.3.1.1.2). The second occurrence of -su for the f is

al-ta-kan-su "l have put her" (RS 17 .116: 19'). 1n this case it is possible that the last vowel of this pronominal suffix reflects a sandhi feature, as it occurs just before the conjunction u ( 1.16).

1 pl accusative: The use of -n/isi for the accusative conforms to the practice used in the independent personal pronouns paradigm. Cf. 3.1.1.1. 2 pl m genitive:

-kunu occurs for the singular, as a general way of addressing the correspondent, in EA 166: 15, 19. The same procedure is attested, in a verbal form, in RS 17.318+: 29' (cf. 2.4.l.l; 3.8.1). 3 pl m accusative: The usage of the form -sunu for the accusative, although found in Assyrian, may preferably be regarded as another feature of systemic sinlplification (cf. above, 1 sg and 3 sg f). Bibliographical notes: I sg genitive: For discussions of similar and related phenomena in other PA dialects, see Wilhelm 1970: 27; Pfeiffer and Speiser 1936: ll0; Gordon 1938: §2.8; Labat 1932: 57 and n. 55; Huehnergard 1989: 125-7: Youngblood 1961: 19-20; fare'el 1978: §2.12. l sg accusative: For this pronominal suffix in various Ak:kadian dialects, where the same structural problems a~ in Amurru Akkadian are sometimes present, see GAG: §84d; Aro 1955: 55; Finet 1956: §17a: Mayer 1971: 32; Hecker 1968: 75. A

101 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.1.2

penetrating analysis of this issue is given in Jacobsen 1960. I sg dative: For the common opinion on the structural status and form of this suffu, see Land~berger 1929: §§3, 6; GAG: §82a; Ungnad -- Matous 1969: §58a; further Gelb 1955: 109; 1969: 136; cf. Jacobsen 1963: 25-26. For the relationship between the directional and the indirect object in general, see Lyons 1968: 302. 3 pl m: For the Assyrian pronominal suffues, see Hecker 1968: §§49b, 119b; Mayer 1971: 34; also GAG: §§42g-k.

2. l.2 DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS The following pronouns are attested: sg pl

m a11m2; a1111fm

f

a1111fti

m

a111111tu; ammtti; a1111iJta; a11-11i-11a

f

sg m genitive: an11fm occurs in the formulaic opening of treaties (cf. 1.7).

plm: For the doubling of the consonant in annutti, see 1.12. For the case in anmtta, see 3.1.2.

An interpretation as a demonstrative pronoun is suggested as a possible interpretation for the occurrence of the fom1 an-ni-na in the following passage: 1DUMU-a-ma-a-ia 46 (

47 (

iJt'1-ti-(stu .MES URU.se-el1-la-:li(.KJI

-lnim a-11a :fa-ha-at 48 [URU.:fu-muJ-ri.'K/' rl il-te-q(el 1 .ME.~ mar-:fa-a a11-11i-na 49 (LlJ?.MES? a'!_,za? (:fa-bat URU-'la'-ma 50 1

LU

51 as'-ku-un i-na URU.:fu-mu-[riJ 52 a-na na-:fa-ri-si

Bin'ammaya [took°IJ s of Se~lal [wJith him, (and tJhey[ went"!( to capture [~um]ur. So I have taken men in order to capture the city, but the men are sick. Those (men) I stationed in ~umu[r] to guard it. (EA 62: 45-52) This suggestion is based on a similar form of demonstrative pronouns in the inscription of Idrimi from Alalakh. The form in question is a11-ni-na-ti (also spelled an-ni-na-ti) on 11. 92, 99. In the ldrimi inscription it comes in apposition with the

102 I Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.1.4

substantive ALAM "statue", where the problem of its apparent disagreement in number and gender between the substantive and the demonstrative pronow1 is still unsolved. I tend to see the form attested in EA 62 an absorption into the Ak.kadian system of the Hurrian form of the plural demonstrative pronoun, which occurs, among other occurrences, in the Mitanni letter with the spelling a-ni-e-na (EA 24: IV: 20). The Idrimi occurrences would then be a feminine formation of the same form. The similarity in form between the Hurrian demonstrative (in the singular: anni) and the Akkadian one (annu) would explain the easiness of such borrowing. Such borrowing, it must be stated, does not necessarily imply direct influence of Hurrian, especially when one recalls the Semitic form attested in the Idrimi stele. Taking into account the lack of other Hurriaoisms in EA 62 and the rest of Abdiasirta material (6.2), this borrowing is best interpreted as the result of an older contact between the two languages. Bibliographic al notes: Toe ldrimi forms are discussed in Smith 1949: 32-3; Greenstein and Marcus 1976: 93, 95; Dietrich and Loretz 1981: 226; CAD: A,: 133a; Allw: 52a. For the Hurrian demonstrative pronoun~. see Laroche 1976: 50; Wilhelm 1984.

2.1.3 INTERROGATIVE PRONOUNS mannu "who". mfnu "what". For occurrences, see 3.l.3.

2.1.4 INDEFINITE PRONOUNS mannumme "whoever"; "whatever". minumma - minumme "whatever". mimma - minmui - mimmamma - mimman "something, anything". mannumme: mannumme is derived from the interrogative pronoun mannu "who". Most of its occurrences in Amurru Ak.kadian are in fragmentary contexts. It may bear the meaning

103 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.1.4

"whoever" in RS 19.68: 43. However, in the only non-fragmentary context in our corpus that attests this pronoun, it has the meaning "whatever":

ma-an-nu-me-e 25 ' #-bu-te-ka a-na mul1-!Ji-ia 26 ' [sa t]a-sap-par-ra a-na-dl-na-ak-ku Any desires you may have of me [and yciu] write me (about it), I will give you. (RS 17.116: 24'-26') It is possible that this confusion is a result of an interference of a WS dialect, where the interrogative mannu means both "what" and "who". See further 3.1.4.

minumma - minumme: minumma and minumme "whatever" are lect-dependent variants. The first fom1, which presents the genuine core Ak.kadian formation for this indefinite pronoun, occurs in EA 158 and in EA 171. The second one, which is typical of PA texts, occurs in EA 157 and in the Amurru texts discovered in Ugarit.

minumme is always spelled plene in its last syllable. The spelling mi-nu-um-me (EA 158: 13) should be interpreted as reflecting a sandhi phenomenon (1.16), i.e., as a phonetic (rather than morphemic) variant of minumma. For the morphemic structure of this pronoun, see 4.7.1.4; 4.7.3.

mimma etc.: The forms mimma - mimmd -mimmam(ma)- mimman "something, anything" occur in similar environments and without any apparent difference in meaning. They should be regarded as variants. The forms mimmd (EA 165: 28) and mimmam(ma) (EA 170: 7; cf. EA 167: 16) reflect an additional mimation, whether contemporary or historic (cf. 1.8; also 4.7.1.3 no. 6). The form mimman is extremely rare in Akkadian literature. As far as l know. it only occurs - except for its occurrence in Amurru Akkadian (EA 157: 14)-in one OB text.

104 I Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.2.1

Bibliographical notes: For the possibility of WS influence on the meaning of mannumme, cf. lzre'el 1978: 26, §2.4. Fm mimman, see Riftin 1937: no. 38 line 14; CAD: M,: 80a. For other n-ending pronouns, cf. CAD: M,: 198-201 etc.

2.l.5 gabbu gabbu is the middle Akkadian counterpart of older kalu. For attestations, see 3.1.5. Bibliographic al notes: Aro 1955: 63-64; Mayer 1971: §44.

2.1.6 REFLEXIVE PRONOUNS One occurrence: BAR GIS.GIGIR.MES-ia i-na a-!Ji A.AB.BA sa-kill l9 ,, BAR GI[S.GIGIR.MES-Jia i-na i-ir-ti ij[UJR.SAG /i-ib-la-ni sa-kfn-ma 20 ,, a-na-ku i-na ra-ma-ni-ia-ma u[l-lja-'nu' i-na tu-sa,.-ri as-ba-ku

Half of my chariots are stationed at the coast, and half of my c[hariotsJ are stationed in front of the Lebanon Mountain, and l, personally, am settled there, on the plain. (RS 20.33: 18-20)

2.2 NUMERALS

2.2. l CARDINAL NUMBERS Most occurrences of cardinal numbers in our corpus are spelled with logograms, See Signlist nos. 351/200; 411/242; 471/274; 472/275; 473/-; 475/-; 476/-; 480/276; 532/287; 570/308a; 593/-; 597/323; 598a/324; 598/325; 598c/-; 598d/-; 598e/-. Note the inventory list of Queen Abatumalki (RS 16.146+), where most of the numerals of our corpus occur. The numbers 100 and 1000 are always written syllabically, namely me-at and li-im respectively (but cf. Signlist no. 532/287).

105 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.2.3

Of the fractions only "1/2" is attested, spelled BAR (EA 161: 42; RS 20.33: 18, 19). In both occurrences, this spelling is a logogram for mis/um "half", rather than an ideogram of a mathematical number (3.2.1 ).

2.2.2 ORDINAL NUMBERS The only attested form is sanu "second", usually with the meaning "other". Cf. also the derived adverbial phrases sanitam "furthermore"; ina sanfsu, ina sanutisi "again" (3.3.1.1.1; 3.3.1.7).

2.2.3 MULTlPLICATIVE NUMBERS Most of the attestations of multiplicative numerals in our corpus occur in opening formulas of letters. Examples:

a-na GiR.JJA LUGAL EN-ia 5 1-su

u1-su am-qut

At the feet of the king, my lord, 7 times and 7 times I fall. (EA 60: 4-5)

a-na GiR.MES GASAN-ia 2-su 1-s[u am-qutJ At the feet of my lady twice seven ti[mes I fall.J (Bo 6Sa+: 3) Further:

10-sf-'ri?,_rsu' "tenfold" (RS l 7.372A+: 2') Note i as a connective vowel (3.3.1.7). For the form of the stem, see 1.16. Bibliographic al notes:

GAG (§7la, 113k) terms this connective vowel "adverbial".

106 I Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.3.1.l.l

2.3 THE NOUN 2.3.1 GENDER

2.3.1.1 GENDER IN SUBSTANTIVES In the following I shall list all the substantives for which any proof for their gender

is attested within our corpus, as well as attested genuine animate substantives. Special attention will be given to those substantives which exhibit different gender than their core Akkadian counterparts.

2.3.1.1.1 Masculine substantives abu "father" (EA 169: 19). a!Ju "brother" (RS 15.24+: 12). amilu "man" (RS 15.24+: 10). ardu "servant" (EA 158: 32). awatu - amatu "thing, word" iiw/matu "thing, word", is treated as feminine, as in standard Akkadian. only in one text (RS 19.68: 45). Elsewhere in this corpus this substantive is treated as masculine (e.g., EA 164: 45; RS 17.116: 5'; RS 17.318+: 11; etc.). This is most probably an interference of a WS substratum. For the form, see the bibliographical section of 2.3.2.l. Cf. Izre'el 1978: §4.1.1.

belu "lord" (RS 17.286: 6). bitu "house", "place" (EA 62: 17). dinu "claim" (RS 19.68: 5).

107 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.3.1.1.l

ersu "bed" (RS 16.146+: 14). In core Akk.adian ersu is feminine. CAD (E: 314b) lists two other occurrences of this substantive as masculine, both in texts suspicious of having absorbed WS influence (EA 34: 20; ADD: 865: 16a, a NA text).

e~edu "harvest" (EA 60: 26).

[iazalnu "mayor" (EA 62: 40). [1ilfu "sin" (RS 17.228: 6). !}urii~u "gold" (RS 17.372A+: 10'). i~u "tree" (EA 160: 15). kannu "jug" (RS 16.146+: 29). kariipnu or karpu "(wine1) jar" (RS 16.146+: 28). Attested in a logographic spelling: DUG. This sign usually stands for karpatu "earthen container", "pot" in Akkadian, which is feminine in gender. Since our occurrence has a resumptive masculine pronoun following, I would suggest either the reading karpu (same meaning), as in OA, or, better, karpiinu, on the basis of Ugaritic krpn "wine(?) cup, goblet". Note that this vessel is made of bronze rather than clay. See Salonen 1966: 65. For OA, see CAD: K: 221a; for Ugaritic, Gordon 1965: §19.1312.

kaspu "silver" (RS 19.68: 17). kiisu "cup" (RS 16.146+: 9). kiniinu "brazier" (RS 16.146+: 40). kuppu "pond" (RS 20.33: 21). kussu "chair" (RS 16.146+: 20).

108 I Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.3.1.l.l

kussu is treated for the most part as feminine in Akkadian; it is rarely treated as masculine. In Ugaritic it is feminine; in Hebrew masculine; in the Byblos dialect of Phoenician feminine; in Aramaic usually masculine, but also feminine. CAD: K: 587h; AHw: 515a (for core Akkadian); Gordon 1965: §19.1277 (Ugaritic); BDB: 490b (BH); KAI 1: 2. pace Tomhack 1978: 146 (Phoenician); Jean and Hoftij7..er 1965: 124 (Aramaic).

ku~~u "cold" (RS 20.33: 27). libbu "heart", "will" (EA 371: 18). mart,usu "chlorite1 vessel" (RS 16.146+: 41). miiru "son" (RS 17.318+: 32'). mar sipri "messenger" (EA 171: I 0). miitu "land" (EA 60: 8; EA 161: 51; RS 20.162: 18). · miitu is feminine both in Akkadian and in the known WS languages. In Mari miitu is feminine, yet the gender agreement to country names is in the masculine. It has been suggested that this phenomenon is the result of analogy to the agreement to city names (recall that iilu "city" is masculine in both core Akkadian and in the Mari OB dialect). A similar explanation cannot hold for the Amurru dialects, however, since iilu is treated as feminine here (2.3.l.l .2). This feature is a peculiarity of Amurru Akkadian. For core Akkadian, see CAD: M,: 414a. For WS, cf. BIi 'ere~ "'land"" (BDB 75b). For the Mari occurrences, see Pinet 1956: 54.

nal#ru "guard" (RS 20.33: 23).

piinii "face" (EA 165: 13). ruqqu "cauldron" (RS 16.146+: 26). saplu "bowl" (RS 16.146+: 27). sisu "horse" (RS 20.33: 28).

~abu "troops" (RS 20.33: 28).

109 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.3.1.l.2

sarru "king" (EA 60: 21). salru "breath" (EA 164: 13).

suqullalu "pendant" (RS 16.146+: 2). tallu "juglet(?)" (RS 16.146+: 30). fuppu "tablet" (RS 17.228: 41).

iimu "day" (RS 19.68: l). um1tu "object" (EA 161: 42).

1n core Akkadian unutu is feminine. See discussion 2.3.2.l. zilnu "rain" (RS 20.33: 21).

2.3. l. I .2 Feminine substantives a{ui.tu "sister" (RS 17.318+: 24'). dlu "city" (EA 160: 27). dlu is mostly treated as masculine in Akkadian. When treated as feminine, this feature should be assigned to WS influence in all occurrences. For EA 161: 35, see 2.1.1.2 (3 sg f). There is no indication of gender for this substantive in the later subcorpora. CAD: A,: 379a; Moran 1950a: 129 n. 149; Kiihne 1973a: 7, end of n. 34.

assatu "wife" (RS 17.116: 8'). dwatu - dmatu "thing, word". iiw/matu "thing, word", is treated as feminine, as it is in standard Akkadian, only in one text (RS 19.68: 45). Elsewhere in the corpus this substantive is masculine. See 2.3.1.1.1 s.v. For the form, see the bibliographical section of2.3.2.1. beltu "lady" (RS 17.318+: 15').

110 I Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.3.1.2

mdmitu "treaty" (RS 19.68: 11 ). mdrtu "daughter" (RS 16.111: 10). narkabtu "chariot" (RS 20.33: 5). Cf. 2.3.3.3.1 (3 pl f).

pisannu "case" (RS 16.146+: 39). rabitu "great (lady)" (RS 17.228: passim).

A substantivized adjective. sinnis/ltu "woman" (RS 17.116: 9'). sa masisu[te] "polishing tool'' (RS 16.146+: 32).

Feminine agreement to this fo-phrase (2.3.3.1 no. 7) may be explained by an alleged feminine gender of the corresponding term in the scribe's mother tongue. There is no indication of gender for any other attested fo-phrase (note that the ending of the second component, if its reconstruction is correct, is formally a masculine formation). samsu "sun" (RS 19.68: 13). sarratu "queen" (RS 16.146+: 1). ummu "mother" (EA 161: 29).

2.3.l.2 GENDER IN ADJECTIVES

In contrast to substantives, adjectives are always marked for gender in Akkadian, as they do in the Semitic languages in general. The feminine is marked by /(a)t/ following the stem, while the masculine will be marked by a /0/ morpheme (in contrast to it). Apart from the substantivized adjective rabitu "great (lady)" (RS 17 .228: passim; see above 2.3.l.l.2), there is only one feminine adjective attested in this corpus, namely

111 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.3.2.1

za-ka-ti "pure" (RS 19.68: 13).

The attested feminine fonnations from zakli in standard Akkadian are either zakit- or zakiit-. The form zakdti is attested only in Akk.adian texts from Ugarit. and there too only in texts which originate in Ugarit itself. Hence it seems that WS (Ugaritic?) interference is responsible for this distinctive formation. Note that RS 19.68 is a treaty between Ugarit and Amurru, and was probably written in the presence of Ugaritic speaking people, or at least was influenced by similar fommlas used by Ug_aritic scribes (cf. 0.2). Bibliographic al notes: For the various attested feminine forms from zala2 in A.kkadian, see CAD: Z: 23a. For Ugarit A.kkadian. cf. CAD: Z: 23b; AHw: 1505b. Van Soldt 1983b: 694 suggested to read za-ki-ti. However, both the copy 1111d the photograph do not support this emendation. For another suggestion concerning the development of zakati see Huehnergard 1989: 165-6.

2.3.2 NUMBER For the ~arious ways of spelling the plural noun, see l.l, and the Signlist (Appendix I, vol. II, pp. 111-132). 2.3.2. l NUMBER MARKING IN SUBSTANTIVES Spellings habits usually prevent us from ascertaining the quantity and quality of the final vowel (cf. 1.15). That is why we are unable, in the majority of cases, to study the morphological or phonological differences between the singular and plural forms of a substantive unmarked for gender (normally the masculine substantive). A single clue for the quality as well as for the quantity of the plural marker in our corpus is given by the fragmentarily written form

S[EJS.M[ES?pe 1 • "brothers" (RS 17.116: 22'). We shall return to this form later. lo the written language plurality can be discerned through various means, of which

the most important are: ( 1) Plural detenninative. (2) Syntactic agreement.

112 I Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.3.2.1

(3) The context. (4) Case endings in status rectus: the final vowel of the direct object is written with a Ca(m) sign when the noun is in the singular, yet with a Ci(m) or a Ce sign

when in the plural. (5) Case endings in status constructus: a vocalic ending of a substantive when in

the construct state (but cf. 3.3.1.2.1). Examples of traditional usage of signs without any distinction of either the quantity (in all cases) or the quality (in the oblique case) of the final vowel, are the following: be-tu.MES LU.KUR "enemies" (lit. "owners of enmity" (RS 17.286: 7); be-Ii [1i-([i-ka "your malefactors" (lit. "owners of your sin") (RS 17.318+: 4', direct object); US.ME,~ :da-mi "blood" (RS 17.318+: 23', direct object); pa-ni LUGAL "the king's face" (EA 166: 7, direct object); /JAR.MES GiR.MES It sa SU-ti "anklets and bracelets" (RS 16.146+: 5), where both "legs" (GiR.MES) and "hands" (SU-ti) are in the plural.

Nouns ending with the complex ending -anv are attested for two substantives in our corpus: DINGIR.MES-nu-ka for ilanii.ka "your gods" (EA 161: 32); ze-ra-ni-ia for zeraniya "my enemies" (RS 20.33: 30, 32').

Two substantives are modeled according to the adjectival inflection with the plural ending -ii.tv. These are ardii.tii. "servants" and !Jazalniitii. "mayors". Note the following: 6 a-na-ku LU.iR-ka u DUMU.MES-ia 1 1t SES.MES-ia LU.ME.5-iR-tum 8 fa LUGAL-ri EN-ia a-di da-ri-ti

I am your servant, and my sons and my brothers are servants of the king, my lord, forever

(EA 160: 6-8) LU.MES !Ja-za-an-nu-u-tum (EA 157: 3); LU.MES J!Ja-za-nu-te.MES (EA 62: 40); etc.

Note that these two substantives denote functions or status of people, to be compared with constructs like

113 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.3.2.1

LU.MES sa-ru-t,:i "treacherous people" (EA 158: 22); LU.MES GAL-bu-te.MES "the 'greats"' (lit. "men-of greats") (EA 157: 11 etc.) respectively (3.3.1.1.l; 3.3.3.2).

Formations, such as awilu !Jazannute "mayors", are based on analogy with constructions of the type awilu rab11te "greats". A further development would be the usage of the adjectival plural morpheme also in cases where the construct "people-of' is absent or nonexistent. See further 3.3.3.3. There are a few other masculine plural substantives which have apparently the same or similar endings, and they will be discussed below. The common core Ak.kadian feminine plural ending is -iitv. The formation of this ending differs in the studied corpus. Distinction between singular and plural forms of nouns ending in t (which may be either masculine or feminine) is not necessarily denoted by a (long) d vowel inserted between the stem and the consonant t. The assemblage of forms in the nominative case is not conclusive, since only one syllabically spelled form is attested: a-ma-tum.MES "words" (RS 17.228: 16 etc.).

The number of examples of oblique case forms is larger, and enables us to obtain some clue as for their structural nature. The difference between singular and plural of fom1s with t is usually expressed by the case vowel which follows. Plural forms have e, while singular forms in sinillar contexts have either -i (genitive), -a (accusative), or

-'1J (construct state). Thus: li]s-tu a-ma-te.MES EN-ia "lfJrom the words of my lord" (EA 166: 17)

vs. UGU a-ma-ti su-wa-ti "for this matter" (EA 166: 28).

Also a-na a-ma-te LU.'KUR 1 DUR.MES "about (lit. on matters-of) the alien enemies" (RS 20.162: 15).

That the latter form is in the plural is proved by comparing the construct singular form of this noun, which is a-ma-at (e.g., Bo 141m: 7').

114 I Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.3.2.l

There bas been a long and unsolved debate concerning the length of the second a vowel of this substantive. As for Amurru Akkadian, neither view may bear important formative implications for the structural formation of this word. Even if this vowel is short in the singular, and long in the plural, this distinction would be redundant in this language, as we shall see later that it is the ending which makes the phonemic distinction between singular and plural substantives rather than the length of the vowel preceding the t. Whereas it is uncertain whether the second vowel was originally short in the singular form of tlw/matu in Akkadian, this is not so with regard to other nouns in the corpus. where it is the final vowel which marks the distinction between their singular and plural genitive or accusative counterparts. These are:

(IZl'-te.ME.~ "fire" (EA 62: 19) in the plural, vs. /Z/ :i-sa-ti (RS 16. ll l: 12) in the singular. Both the singular and the plural forms of this noun have a long a. Hence, the distinction between the singular and plural forms of istltu "fire" is marked in the written form by the final vowel, which is i in the singular, e in the plural.

ERIN.MES p(-if-fa-te.MES "the pgt troops" (RS 20.33: 24' etc.). For this word, see 1.12.

mi-ri-is-te.MES "requests" (EA 160: 9) vs. mi-'ri'-is-ta-s(u) "his request" (EA 157: 18), or e-ri-is-ti "the request of' (EA 158: 11, nominative). These latter forms are most instructive for our study. mi-ri-is-te.MES occurs as a plural noun without any vowel preceding the t. Upon comparing with the singular forms mi-'ri'-is-ta-s(u) or e-ri-is-ti, one may safely conclude that the only difference between the plural and the singular forms of this noun is denoted by the final vowel. A hypothesis may hence be forwarded, that Amurru Akkadian marks the distinction between plural and singular forms in the final vowel not only in masculine substantives, but also elsewhere, even in the feminine. A long a preceding the t in the plural is attested in the following two forms:

ni-ri-ba-te.MES-su-nu "their entrances' (RS 20.33: 17); !Ji-]ta-te "sins" (RS 17.318+: 2'). The first form is to be compared with the core Akkadian singular form nerebtu; the second may be compared with the singular [1if11 (cf. bi-fi-ka on l. 15' of the same text;

115 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.3.2.1

also 1. 4'). As for the latter form it should be noted, however, that the base form could have been !ii{itu, hence feminine in gender. The attested form fiifu, or, rather, !Jilfu (2.3. 1.1.1 s.v.), occurs as part of the compound bel l1ifi "malefactor". Hence, the form !Jilfu, which is its second component, could have theoretically been preserved only as part this compound, while elsewhere the singular noun in use would be the feminine one.

In both cases, as in the case of iiw/matu discussed above, these forms resemble the standard Akk.adian formations learned at schools and integrated as such to the system. Note that in all cases the final vowel is marked in script as e rather than i. We shall return to the significance of this spelling later below. More interesting, and with great relevance to our discussion, are the plural formations of the substantive unutu ".object, implement, equipment". In the core Akk.adian dialects this substantive is feminine, and hence forms its plural as unotu. The PA attested plurals for uniitu are, however, uniitu; its gender, at least in the Amurru corpus, is masculine (2.3.1.l.1 s.v.). Thus we have, in the oblique case: u-nu-te.MES (EA 161: 42; RS 16.146+: l; etc.).

As for the length of the final vowel of this and similar formations, we do not have any direct proof in the Amurru corpus. We may, however, compare our data to a plene spelling of this plural noun attested in a text from Emar, namely, [11]-nu-te-e (RA 77: 4: 22). This further supports the suggestion concerning the ending

-e of the plural oblique

case in the form S[E]S.M[£s'l]-'e? "brothers" (RS 17.116: 22') dealt with above. A 1

long

e may hence be surmised as the final vowel of plural substantives in the oblique

case. Several other t-ending substantives show the same tendency. Thus: dan-nu-te.MES "fortresses" (Bo 1024u: 13'), in the plural, vs. dan-nu-ut-ti-ma (RS 20.33: 9') in the singular. ~{-bu-te-ka "your desires" (RS 17.116: 25'), oblique case as direct object, vs. ~£-bu-ti-ka (RS 15.24+: 15, genitive), probably in the singular.

Note that in core Akk.adian the plural of this substantive is $ibatu. As is the case with unutu above, this substantive shows a tendency to have an unchanged ending -iit-

116 I Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.3.2.1

attached to the (historical) stem in PA dialects. It is to this final consonant of the (innovated) stem, namely t, that the case and plural morphemes would be attached. An instructive illustration for this change is attested in plural forms of the substantive dinu in an Akkadian text from Siyannu found at Ugarit, where the scribe had first written the PA form, than the "correct" normative core Akkadian feminine plural: an-ni-i-im 2 di-nu-tum A.SA.MES URU.su-uk-si 3 ,, di-na-tum A.,~A.MES URU.lia-ar-ma-na 4 i-da-i-nu a-na pa-ni dlJTU-Ji From this day: The lawsuits of the fields of Suksi and the lawsuits of the fields of ijarmana have been litigated before the 'Sun'. (RS 17.123: 1-4) 1 B-tu 114 -mi

In the Amurru corpus we have no syllabic spellings for this tem1. Note, though, that all three occurrences of this plural substantive in our corpus are spelled with the sign Tl rather than TE, a tendency attested also in Ugarit Akkadian texts. All three occurrences are found in treaties between Amurru and Ugarit.

In other forms it is the TE sign which attests to plurality. Apart from the substantives ending with -iit-, we have seen that the sign TE is used also in spellings of plural feminine nouns in the oblique case. The same has been shown for spellings of plural masculine adjective-like substantives. We shall later see that the sign TE is further used for spelling of oblique case substantivized adjectives as well (3.3. l.l. l ). In contrast, triptotic plural adjectives are spelled with the sign Tl when in the genitive case (2.3.2.2; 3.3.1.l.3). Taking the difference in spelling between singular genitive forms and their oblique plural counterparts as a decisive criterion, we should perhaps note two other interesting cases in our corpus. First, compare the following two spellings of the GN Ugarit occurring in one and the same text: KUR.MES u-ga-ri-te "the lands of Ugarit" (RS 20.162: 18), vs. KUR-ti u-gaJ-Lr]i-ti "the land of Ugarit" (l. 1).

Note that the first form comes in a genitive construction with the plural noun KUR.MES "lands", while the second occurs with the singular noun. The scribe who

wrote this letter tried to add a case inflection to a GN which is usually not declined

117 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.3.2.l

(3.3.1.4.2). This may well explain the use of the sign TE in KUR.MES u-ga-ri-te to denote plurality. The second case to be discussed here is an application of this spelling rule to serve as an aid in textual interpretation. We have noticed (1.1) that apparent plural logograms (i.e., logograms with plural determinatives) may be used to denote abstract nouns. This may also be the case with syllabically spelled forms with plural determinatives. In such cases, the last sign would perhaps serve as sign of correct interpretation of the form at hand. Consider the following: 5l u an-nu-u KUR EN-ia

u LUGAL-ru

5 2 EN-ia is-ku-na-an-ni 5 3 'i'-na

LU.MES.[lll-za-nu-ti

This is the land of my lord, and the king, my lord, has appointed me mayor. (EA 161: 51-53) The last word, spelJed with a final Tl, rather than TE sign, has been reinterpreted here as an abstract noun, rather than as a plural human title or occupational term. In this case, the last clause should be rendered literally "he put me in mayoralty", rather than the hitherto accepted translation "he put me among the mayors". Most instructive in this connection is another Amarna text, EA 162, a letter from the Pharaoh to Azim. Compare the following two passages: 1 (u-uJI at-ta ta-fo-pa-ar a-na LUGAL EN-ka S [um-mla-a iR-ka ll-llll-ku ki-i gab-bi LU.MES lw-za[-n]u-te.MES ha-nu-ti Sll i-na lib-bi URU.Kl-su !Was it n)ot you who kept writing to the king, your lord, [tb]us: "I am your servant like the other loyal (or: former, pa-nu-ti) mayors who were in bis city"? (EA 162: 7-9) 12 u i-na URU.$f-du-na a-si-ib u ta-at-ta-di-in-su l3 a-na LU.MES.!Ja-za-1111-11-ti fe ,-e-mi-i-ka He was staying in ~idon, and you have appointed him mayor (lit. you have given him to mayoralty) at your initiative.

(EA 162: 12-13) In the second passage, the accepted rendering takes LU.MES [10-za-nu-11-ti as denoting "the mayors". However, having a final Tl sign, this spelling should be compared to the spelling with a TE sign in the phrase gab-bi LU.ME.~ [U1-za[-nju-te.ME.~ of the first passage, which occurs within a quotation of Aziru's words, where it undoubtedly denotes "all the mayors". If this is correct, then we have gained a major historical insight by this interpretation. Azim is accused by the

118 I Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.3.2.1

Pharaoh as actually having appointed somebody as mayor. This accusation demonstrates the authoritative power of Aziru, acknowledged by the Pharaoh himself. As noted by Moran, "EA 162 ne res.semble pas du tout aux lettres du Pharaon a un inferieur". The data discussed above attest to a simplified system used for denoting the plural of either feminine substantives or of any other noun which has t as its fmal consonant. In the nominative the difference between the singular and plural of such nouns is expressed by the difference -tu vs. -tu; in the accusative and genitive cases the singular ends in either -ta or -ti respectively, while in the oblique case of the plural, the final syllable will appear mostly spelled with the TE sign, to denote the syllable

te.

Historically, this simplification is a result of an analogical process in the direction of levelling towards a single morphological system to denote plurality. The OB oblique case masculine plural ending had been /e/; the same applies to the oblique masculine plural ending in Assyrian. ln Assyrian, the

e

vowel appears in both the plural. and the

genitive singular forms of the noun, at the same time as the disappearance of mimation. Nouns ending in t would be traditionally spelled with a TE sign in that language. This feature has been transmitted from various Akkadian schools to PA scribal traditions as well. Synchronically, a structural description of the morphological system of Amnrru Akkadian may start with the postulate that the plural marker of the oblique case substantive is /e/, contrasted with either /a/ of the singular accusative or /i/ of the singular genitive. This distinction applies to both masculine and feminine substantives. ln other words: there is no difference in marking of plurality between substantives in

the masculine and substantives in the feminine. This postulate should serve as a working hypothesis for a morphological analysis. Let us return for a while to phonology. We have discussed at length the phonemic status of the vowel e in Amurru Akkadian, and arrived at the conclusion that the vowels i and e had allophonic distribution in this PA dialect. The analysis of this feature showed that there had been one phoneme /i/, that was pronounced Ii] when it was short, [i:) when it was long and bearing the word accent, and [e:] when it was long and unaccented (1.15).

119 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.3.2.1

Implications of this phonological trait for the morphological analysis of number marking in the substantive in Amurru Akkadian are now at band. As far as the difference between the genitive singular and the oblique plural is concerned, it is not the change in vocalic timbre that marks that difference, but rather the length element that is added to the final vowel. Also, it is the length of the final vowel that marks the difference between singular and plural in the nominative case. To conclude: The morpheme marking plurality of the substantive in the Akkadian dialect of Amurru is a (vocalic) length segment. Any other apparent difference between singular or plural substantives, either in the masculine or in the feminine, must be regarded as redundant. Note that the difference between Amurru Akkadian and standard Akkadian is not expressed by the nature of the plural marker, but by its location within the word. In standard Akkadian the length segment, i.e., the plural morpheme, is attached to the final (i.e., the case) vowel of a masculine substantive, while in the feminine it is attached vowel a of the feminine marker /at/. In contrast, in Amurru Akkadian the plural marker, i.e., the length segment, is throughout attached to the final vowel. Bibliographical notes: For former discussion5 of PA plural markers or related subjects, see especially Moran 1975a: 163 n. 54; Adler 1976: §22. For Assyrian. see Mayer 1971: 48. §49: also Hecker 1968: §§ 17fg, 60b, 61a, etc. For the OB masculine plural oblique ca~ ending, see, e.g .. Green~tein 1984: 40. For discussion5 of the vowel length in iiw/matu, see Goetze 1947a; Green5tein 1984: 37: Edzard 1982: 82-3; Knud5en 1986: 727-8. I follow Goetze and others who interpret the second ll a5 short and the first one a~ long, which would prevent the rule of vowel deletion from applying here. For data from PA dialects which may attest to a distinction in length of the second vowel between the singular and the plural forms, see Adler 1976: 258; for core Akkadian. cf. Allw: 89. Both. however, normalize awiitu for the singular form. CAD: A, s. v. amatu A attests to a distinction between singular and plural forms, and normali7.es the second vowel accordingly. References for other specific entries and discussed topics: -iinv: Goet7--C 1946b; Gelb 1955: 107; GAG: §61c, with Ergiinzungsheft, p. 11 *; Reiner 1966: §5.3.4.3.1; Buccellati 1976. -1itii: Landsberger 1954: 58 n. 118; Giacumakis 1970: §6.8; Huehnergard 1989: 146-7. nerebtu: AHw: 780a; CAD: N,: 174-5; for the reading with i vowels, see 1.15 under ni-ne. ~i/itu: Allw: 350a. umitu: for PA, see AHw: 1422. and the discussion by Huehnergard (1989: 147); for the attestation from Emar, see Huehnergard 1983: 36. ~ibiitu: CAD: S: 167b. For -iii- ending substantives in Ugarit Akkadian, see the discussion in Huehnergard 1989: 147. For EA 162, cf. Moran 1987:401 o. I, and especially McCarter 1973. My analysis of the standard Akkadian plural marker as a length segment is ba5ed upon the a5sumption that the feminine morpheme can be analyzed unequivocally as /at/ (see Greenstein 1984: 43-54).

120 I Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.3.3.1

2.3.2.2 NUMBER MARKING IN ADJECTIVES Plural adjectives are designated by the morpheme /iit/ located between the nominal stem and the case ending, as in standard Akkadian. Amurru Akkadian adjectives are triptotic also in the plural, and the question of vocalic length and an [eJ timbre for the case ending has no relevance here. Data for masculine plural adjectives, together with discussions, may be found in 3.3.1.1.3; also 3.3.1.1.1. There are no attestations of feminine plural adjectives in the corpus.

2.3.3 PATTERNING AND FORMATION 2.3.3.l NOTES ON Tiffi FORMATION AND PATfERNING OF CERTAIN SUBSTANTIVES (l) The abstract noun formative is -iit-.

A text where several Assyrianisms occur attests also the ending -utt-:

SE.~-ut-ta (for a[1lzutta) "brotherhood" (RS 17.372A+: 6'). Cf. 1.12. (2) Several substantives which include a long vowel in their stem interchange with stems with a doubling of the following consonant instead. For some of these patterns, this change seems to be phonological (1.12). The following substantives are to be noticed:

t,azalnu "mayor"; lzilfu "sin"; (ir)rel.~iitu "help"; mu1$U "outlet"; salrn "breath". The denotation VIC stands for the interchange of V:C with VCC. For the phonological aspect of this interchange, see 1.12. (3) irre$$iitu "help" is a hapax legomenon in Akkadian literature. It is attested in the spelling

i-re-eNu-ti-ia (EA 157: 32). The common, original form re1$iitu is attested in our corpus in RS 19.68: 32.

121 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.3.3.1

It is possible that this is a borrowing of an originally adverbial phrase irri!#Uim (< in+ri!~ii.tim), with the assimilation of the n to the initial liquid, understood as a

substantive. For the interchange between ri!~ii.t- and re~$iit- see above, no. 2. (4) The semantic distinction which exists in core Akkadian between sulmu "peace,

well-being" and sulmiinu "gift" is not always maintained in PA. The same applies to Amurru Akkadian, where one can even find the two forms with the same meaning side by side, although in different formulas: 4 tu-u sul-mu a-na mu{1-{1i-ka 5 DINGIR.MES .fo KUR a-nmr-ri 6 DINGIR.MES u DINGIR.MES sa-a LUGAL EN-ka 8 a-na sul-ma-ni

.fo KUR 11-ga-ri-it 7

PAB-ru-ka

May it be weU with you. May the gods of Amurru, the gods of Ugarit and the gods of the king, your lord, guard you safely. (RS 15.24+: 4-8) (5) mis-qu (for miJqll) "drinking vessel" (RS 16.146+: 7) is a WS substantive. Its pattern is miqtal, corresponding to the Arabic pattern of nouns denoting vessels. Its root is ✓sqy, and the surface form is a result of (historical) monophthongizatiou of the final triphthong -ayu. Cf. in Ugaritic sa-du-u (for .fod11 < *sadayu) "field" (Ugaritica V: 137: II: 35'; 130: Ill: 11 '). Note further Canaanite sa-de,-e in an Amarna letter from Jerusalem (EA 287: 56). The Akkadian cognate pattern for the substantive is maprvs; hence masqu. (6) Two substantives with Hurrian formations are attested: parruJbe and urutyu. parrusbe "(an object, perhaps a vessel)" occurs foUowing a Glossenkeil and is

declined according to the Semitic nominal declension: pa-ru-uJ-t,a; pa-ri-is-{li; par,-ri-is-bi (RS 17.152: 9, 8; OA 23: 9 respectively).

For the change u__.i, see 1.16. For the initial stop, see 1.8.

This substantive seems to have been formed from an original adjective, as its endings seems to have as its underlying base the Hurrian adjectival ending -[le. The combination of the suffixes -s{le is commonly used to denote objects, particularly vessels, in Nuzi and Alalak.h. Cf. the next entry. 122 I Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.3.3.1

urut!Ju "(a tool or a vessel)" is commonly taken to be derived from URUDU

"copper". However, its root may well be /uru/ rather than */urud/, since this noun seems to be a Hurrian derivation with the suffix -t!Ji. In our text this tool or vessel is made of bronze. It occurs in a list among implements relating to fire- and coal-work: 3 4 7 qu-uf-ma-i-su UD.KA.BAR KI.L[AJ-su-•nu' 5 me-at 35 1 nam-lw-rum UD.KA.BAR TUR qa-du 2 GAL.MES K[l.LA. J6 me-at 36 5 u-ru-ut-!Ju

UD.KA.BAR KI.LA 6 me-at 37 7 IZI.GAR UD.KA.BAR KI.LA 1 me-at 70 38 2 so la-qe IZI.MES UD.KA.BAR KI.LA. 2 me-at 60 7 bronze containers for ashes, weight: 500. 1 small bronze jar with 2 cups,

we(ight: ]600. 5 bronze urnt[ms, weight: 600. 7 bronze lamps, weight: 170. 2 bronze coal-tongs, weight: 260. lO large bronze cases, 6 small bronze cases. 2 of them gold-plated, 4 silver-plated. 3 bronze braziers, their weight: 2 talents 1600. (RS 16.146+: 34-38) Like parrus[1e, this word seems to have been declined according to the Semitic nominal declension. Its occurrence in other Akkadian dialects suggests that this word was an accepted borrowed term, which may explain why this term, unlike parrus[,e, has not been marked as foreign by a Glossenkeil. (7) The inventory text RS 16.146+ attests several fa-phrases functioning as substantives. Using this technique, a scribe could produce a term to fill an actual lack in the lexicon, or to compensate for his own ignorance of existing Akkadian terms. In contrast to the way of handling similar deficiencies by using foreign material, i.e., loan words (cf. no. 6 above), the raw material in this case is genuine Akkadian. Note the following phrases:

sa qab-li "buckle" (1. 8). qablu means both "middle" and "belt". Hence, so qabli may mean either "belt" or "buckle" (lit. "of middle" or "of belt" respectively). Being made of gold in this case (all other fa qabli hitherto attested in Akkadian are made of cloth), the meaning "buckle" may seem preferable. This phrase is attested also in MA and in NB. Note that the scribe treated this phrase as one syntactic (or perhaps even morphological) unit. This is proved by its occurrence as the second component in a genitive construction in the following nominal phrase:

2 ta-pal sa qab-li KU.GI "2 pairs of gold buckles" (RS 16.146+: 8). 123 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.3.3.1

Cf. 4 ta-pal su-qul-la-li.MES KU.GI "4 pairs of gold pendants" (1. 2).

sa qu-ut-r[i-ni] "censer" (1. 31). Lit. "of incense". Note that in core Ak:k:adian qutrinu may mean both "incense" and "censer". Obviously, this scribe did not recognize its second meaning.

sa ma-si-su[-te "polishing tools(?)" (1. 32). Lit. "of the polishers(?)". For this translation, see vol. II, p. 72.

sa la-qe /Zl.MES "coal-tongs" (1. 38). Lit. "of taking coals". Note that WS did have a one-word term for "tongs", attested in syllabic cuneiform from Ugarit: ma-qa-1.Ja (for maqqalui). For laqe, see 2.3.3.4; for /Zl.MES "coals", see Signlist no. l 72/122.

sa MUN "saltceUar" (I. 42). Lit. "of salt". Note that some of the attested fa-phrases in Amurru Akkadian are not ad hoc formations, as they are attested elsewhere in Akkadian literature. (8) Several compounds are attested: LU.MES.be-el ar-ni(-s11'll "[his?] malefactors" (EA 157: 16).

Note that the plural morpheme comes at the end of the compound rather than attached to its first component (bet). This compound is attested in Ak:k:adian literature from the OAk:k: period onwards. EN l1i-!i-ka "your malefactor" (RS 17 .228: 8, 9); be-el [1i-i!-!i-ka "your malefactress (sic)" (RS 17.372A+: 10); be-el-tum [1i-!i-ka "your malefactress" (RS 17.318+: 15'); be-Ii bi-!li-ka "your malefactors" (RS 17.318+: 4'). miirsipri "messenger"(EA 157: 35 and passim). q11-uf-ma-i-su "container for ashes" (RS 16.146+: 34), for qufma'is(s)u.

This is most probably a borrowed (WS) compound. Note the morpheme -a on the first component, which reminds us of the construct morpheme in Etbiopic. As I suspect that this morpheme was frozen in this compound, I take it (along with my predecessors) as a two-component word rather than as a common WS genitive construction. Note that the second component 'is(s)- is closer to the WS (Hebrew) formation of the word for "fire" (viz., 'es, cf. 'issiim "their fire", Isaiah 66: 24) than to that of Ak:k:adian isiitu. For the first component, cf. further Aramaic qifmii "ashes"; Arabic qutma "blackishness", qatiim "dust"; also Akkadian qutmu, which relates to

124 I Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.3.3.3

blackness. I have preferred to transliterate with two emphatics, in correlation with the Aramaic root. Bibliographic al notes: (2) lbe denotation VIC is adopted from the scheme offered hy Reiner ( 1966: §4.1.2.5). Reiner marked this alternation hy adding a macron on the affected consonant. "lbe denotation offered here seems to represent better the phonological locus of the length segment. (3) irrq~1Uu: Rainey (1974b: 304) regarded this form as reflecting "barbaric spelling". (5) mifq,,: For this substantive, see Sivan 1984: 248; a different interpretation than the above is given by Boyd (1977: 226-229). For the pattern. cf. Wright 1896-8: I: §248; Barth 1894: §§161-3. For the Akkadian. see Allw: 629a: CAD: M,: 384b. Ugaritic final triphtl10ngs are dealt with in lluehnergard 1987a: 288-292, with further references there. (6) F~r the Hurrian suffix -IJe. see Speiser 1941: §158; Bush 1964: §6.5; for the ending -(u)JIJe, see Bush 1964: 112. For urutiJu and the llurrian suffix -t~i. see Mayer 1981 (Mayer has suggested that the llurrian morpheme is /tlJu/, yet in llurrian texts its forrn is /tlJi/ or /tlJe/. as mentioned by Mayer him5clf: according to Bush 1964: 165, the sequence /tlJi/is combined of /1/+/IJe/}; for urutiJu, cf. also Nougayrol 1955: 186; Allw: 1437a; Laroche 1977: 286. (7) fa-phrases: For all these phrases. see Nougayrol 1955: 183 (who added fa qiiti "of the hand", which does not belong to the same category); further CAD: Q: 12a (fa qabli); CAD: Q: 323-6 (.fo qutr,ni); Nougayrol 1955: 186 (fa laqe peniite). For Ugaritic maqqalJii, see Huehnergard 1987a: .143. (8) be/ arni: CAD: A,: 299; Allw: 70a; cf. GAG: §641. m,ir Jipri: CAD: M,: 260-265; Allw: 616. For discussion5 and suggestion5 concerning qu/ma'is(.f)u, see Nougayrol 1955: 185; Salonen 1966: 265 n. I; Allw: 518b; CAD: K: 610. For the Ethiopic -a morpheme, see Dillmann 1899: 289. For WS forms of the word for "fire", see Baumgartner 1967ff: I: 89a. For the WS cognates of qupn(a), see Jastrow 1903: 1350a; Bava 1970: 588a; Lisiin al-'Arab s.v. qtm. For Akkadian qitmu, see CAD: Q: 281b-282a.

2.3.3.2 THE PARTICIPLE The only participle attested in the corpus is the G participle of na$iirll "to guard", namely nii$ir-:

na-${-ir "guard" (RS l7.372A+: 10); na-a$-$i-ru-te "guards" (RS 20.33: 23). For these forms, see 3.3.l.l.1; 1.12. 2.3.3.3 THE STATIVE The stative category in Akkadian is treated here as a nominal category rather than a verbal one. This perception of the stative, suggested more than twenty years ago by Buccellati, has only most recently started to gain recognition, notably following a detailed description of the OB nominal predicates by Kraus. Buccellati claimed, that "the stative is actually not a verbal tense but rather a nominal sentence". Kraus has

125 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.3.3.3

done a major task in advancing the research empirically and in analyzing the various types of nominal sentences in OB letters. Huehnergard furthered the case by showing most convincingly and decisively that the stative is indeed an inflected noun rather than a verb. Buccellati took again the effort in a new and challenging theoretical discussion, yet it seems that the last word has not been said on this issue. This is not the place to discuss in detail my own views on the Akkadian stative. Nevertheless, the relative place in this book where each individual topic is discussed, and its section number, is in itself a statement of its author's perception of that issue. The number being 2.3, where nominal categories are dealt with, it is clear that I accept the general notion of the stative as nominal. The case is not that simple, however. We shall see later (3.4; 3.5; 3.6.l) that the stative, being an inflected predicative form just like the verbal forms, plays part in the TMA (= Tense-Mood-Aspect) system of Amurru Akkadian (as it is in other Akkadian dialects). Now, if the stative plays a role in the TMA system it does not necessarily imply that it is a verb. Other nouns can take part in a TM.A system as well, as do participles or infinitive forms in Biblical Hebrew, of which the most conspicuous example I have in mind is the usage of the infinitive absolute as a modal form, notably in orders. The stative, however, has several other features that are "verbal", or rather verb-like, so that the categorization of this formation as a noun is not made as neatly as the categorization of, say, a substantive as a noun. The distinction between nouns and verbs, if it is to be made by binary oppositions, should be made by a series of distinctive features, and this bears implications for our understanding of the status of the stative when taking part in the TMA system (3.4-3.6). To our needs here it would be enough, I suppose, to pay attention to one important morphological distinction between statives and verbs in Akkadian, namely that the stative has its inflectional person morphemes as suffixes, while the Akkadian verb has them prefixed. (This is not the case in WS languages, of course, where both prefix conjugated and suffix conjugated forms are regarded justly as verbs.) Thus, the variant patterns of the stative are to be regarded as nominal rather than verbal forms. In Akkadian, being a Semitic language, it is the patterns which play the major part in the grammar rather than the stems, which are combinations of roots and patterns.

126 I Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.3.3.3.1

Adjectival patterns to which case endings are added are not distinct from patterns to which person morphemes are suffixed. Patterns which have suffixed inflectional morphemes are not necessarily to be interpreted as verbal patterns, even if this derivation is routine or rule-ordered. Hence, stative forn1ations of mediae geminatae roots which show morphological differentiation (C,aC2iC2 vs. C,aC,) are better regarded as two variant nominal patterns, rather than verbal vs. nominal ones. Their difference will be better explained as constrained by lexical rather than by categorical factors. We shall later (3.4) see similar lexical constraints on the usages of stative forms in Amurru Akkadian. Further discussions on this matter may be found in 3.4. Bibliographic al notes: Buccellati 1968; Kraus 1984; lluehnergard 1986: 1987h: Buccellati 1988. For the stative inflection and its importance in our perception of categorical distinction, cf. also lzre'el forthcoming a: thus also Buccellati 1988. For BH infinitive absolute, cf., e.g., Gesenius 1909: 346. For a different understanding of the distinction ~a/ii - diin, see Reiner 1970: 292. Stative forms of mediae geminatae roots are discussed in GAG: §!Old: Reiner 1966: §4.1.1.2; 1970: 232: an analysis which is closer to the one suggested here has been proposed by I luehnergard ( 1987h: 230-1 n. 59 ).

2.3.3.3.1 Person morphemes

Against the view regarding the person endings of the stative as dependent personal pronouns, l would rather regard them as person morphemes. My main argument for this is that they are attached to a bare stem, without any agreement in either gender or number. Thus the personal markers are not dependent (or enclitic) nominative pronouns (as is the case with a very similar formation in Syriac, for example) but real inflectional morphemes. Thus, the stative inflectional paradigm is essentially similar to the inflectional paradigm of the verb. The following intlectional person morphemes are attested:

I 2 sg 3 l 2

pl 3

m f m f m f m f

--iiku - -akku -Jta -¢

-at -ani

-ii - -iini - (-J) (-ii)

127 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.3.3.3.l

Data: l sg:

-iiku:

as-ba-ku "I sit" (EA 62: 16); ba-ad-ia-ku "I am glad" (EA 164: 7).

-akku:

as-ba-ak-ku "I sit" (RS l 7.372A+: 8); !}a-da-ak-ku "I am glad" (RS 17.116: 16').

The l sg person suffix is usually spelled with the syllabic sign string -Ca-ku; it is interpreted here as reflecting the core Akkadian morpheme -iiku. This fom1 occurs twice written with the string -ak-ku, which reflects consonantal doubling instead of the expected original vocalic length. It is impossible to ascertain, however, whether the syllabic string -Ca-ku should be interpreted as having an underlying consonantal length as well. Cf. the discussion in 1.12. 2 sg m: -iita:

as-ha-ta "you sit" (EA 158: 21); !}a-di-ia-ta "you are glad" (EA 167: 32).

3 sgm; -~:

a-si-ib "he sits" (EA 158: 21).

3 sg f:

-at:

sa-ak-na-at "she is established" (RS 19.68: 11 ).

1 pl:

-iini:

DUG.GA-ni "we are (in) good (relationships)" (RS 17.116: 24').

The person morpheme -iini is the Assyrian 1 pl person morpheme of the stative. 3 pl m: -ii:

as-bu "they sit" (EA 62: 24); na-ak-ru "they are at war" (EA 161: 37).

-uni:

as-bu-nim "they sit" (EA 62: 25); mi-tu,-nim "they are dead" (RS 20.33: 28).

-ii:

ma-ar-~a-a "they are sick" (EA 62: 50).

For the alternation between the person morphemes -ii and -uni of the 3 pl, see 2.4.1.1.

It is very difficult to account for the ending -ii of the stative mar~ii attested in our corpus. Nevertheless, it should be noted that ending with the vowel a is somehow connected with the root marii~u "to be sick" in 14th century PA. The form mar-~a occurs in Mitanni (EA 29: 139) and in Byblos (EA 103: 49). The latter occurrence is attested within a very similar context to that which is attested in EA 62. Note further, in our own corpus, the verbal form tu-us-ma-ra-:~a-nim, which attests to the rare

128 I Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.3.3.3.2

ending -iini, although it comes in close v1c101ty to the more regular fomiation ta-sak-kan-nu-nim "you shall put" (EA 170: 40-41). It is also interesting to note that in Arabic the broken plural for denoting the sick, wounded and the like, is formed by a very similar stem, nan1ely CaCCii (spelled with finaly); e.g., marr!ii "sick";jarbii "wounded"; wagrii "in pain". 3 pl f:

-uni:

'se-eb'-ru-nim "they are broken" (RS 20.33: 28).

I take this form to be in gentler and number agreement with the reconstructed substantive narkabiitu "chariots". hence in the feminine. See further 2.4.2.6 (for liktaninnii). If this is indeed a pl f stative form, then it reflects simplification of the system, where both m and ffom1s have the same ending (cf. BH). Bibliographical notes: 'lbe person endings of the stative are treated a~ pronouns by Buccellati (1968); also Huehnergard 1987b; cf. Whiting 1987: 9. For the I pl person morpheme in OA, see GAG: §75b; Uecker 1968: §72a. Mayer ( 1971: §61) does not list any attestation for this person in MA. For various suggestions to solve the -a ending stative forms of mara~r,. see Ebeling 1910: 52; also in K11udtzo11: II: 1463; Adler 1976: 62; Rainey 1978: 81; Moran 1950a: 62; 1987: 190 n. 39, 298 11. 3, cf. 318 n. 5. For the Arabic formation, see Wright 1896-8: I: 220.

2.3.3.3.2 Stem formation The stem formation of the stative as it is attested in the Amurru corpus reflects in the most part regular Akkadian stem-patterning and allomorphic alternations. Most occurrences of the stative in the corpus are G statives. Their allomorphic patterning shows alternation between the forms CaCiC# - CaCC. For example:

ka-si-id "he has arrived" (EA 161: 13) vs. ka-as-dci-ku "l arrive" (EA 166: 16); sa-k{n "it (m) is stationed" (RS 20.33: 18) vs. sa-ak-na-at "it (f) is installed" (RS 19.68: 11 ). Note the correspondence with morphophonological rules of standard Akkadian dialects in:

~e-[1e-er(-ma) "it is small" (RS 17.228: 39); 'se'-eb-ru-nim "they are broken" (RS 20.33: 29). Of the mediae geminatae roots, the corpus attests the standard Akkadian formation

dci-a-an "it is strong" (RS 20.33: 23).

129 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.3.3.3.2

Of the tertiae infirmae roots, the following examples should be noted: ba-ni; ba-nu "he is/we are devoted" (EA 165: 27 and EA 164: 42 respectively); ma-lu-u "they are filled" (RS 16.146+: 41 ); za-ki(-ma) "he is pure" (RS 19.68: 13, 19); IJa-ad-ia-ku; lia-di-ia-k[u?; lia-da-ak-ku "lam glad" (EA 164: 7; Bo 141m: 5'; RS 17.116: 7' respectively); lia-di-ia-ta "you are glad" (EA 167: 32); lw-du.-nim "they are glad" (EA 164: 11 ). The alternation bani - banli corresponds to the Babylonian phonological alternation; the same applies to malu. zaki (for contemporary core Akkadian zaku) is a regular PA stative formation from this root, a result of the simplification of the system towards the common stative pattern CaCiC (a similar simplification is attested in late periods of core Akk:adian as well). The uncontracted forms of ✓lulv remind us of the Assyrian formation of tertiae infirmae statives. The form lwdtmi, which occurs side by side with lwdiiiku in EA 164, shows that - at least for the texts from the Amama period - it is not the Assyrian formation that is reflected here, but an old Babylonian tradition. Recall that in OB contraction between i and a occurred later than contraction between i and u. In a later text of our corpus we find the form liadakku, which certainly reflects

a later tradition where the vowels i and a had already been contracted (for the consonant doubling, see 1.12). Of the mediae infirmae verbs note ni-ifJ "it is calm" (EA 62: 17). The spelling suggests a reading with long i, viz. n"i/J (cf. 1.15). Of the D and S stems the corpus attests two forms: GAR.RA (for ufJIJuzu/ii) "it/they is/are plated (with)" (passim in RS 16.146+); .fo-su-ru-nim "they are ready" (RS 20.33: 6). Bibliographic al notes: Stative fonns of mediae geminatae roots are discussed in GAG: § !Old; Reiner 1966: §4.1.1.2; 1970: 232; Huehnergard 1987b: 230-1 n. 59. For zaki, zaku, see CAD: Z: 25; Allw: 1506-7. For the contraction rules reflected in the forms of tertiae infirmae roots, cf. GAG: §§16k, I05i. For ubbuzu (GAR.RA). see Nougayrol 1955: 184; Salonen 1%3: 287-288; cf. Adler 1976: 256 s.v. abazu; CAD: A,: 179b-180a, s.v. abazu Sal'.

130 I Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.4.l.1

2.3.3.4 lNFINITIVES OR NOMINA ACTIONIS Only infinitive forms of the G stem are attested in the corpus. Some forms need special attention. Note the following:

i-re-bi "to enter" (EA 171: 3). This spelling reflects the reading with an initial short i rather than the standard Akkadian e (note the standard Akkadian spelling e-re-bi in a letter from Boghazkoy (Bo 65a+: 16); this feature was interpreted above (1.15) to be the result of a phonological rule. I am unable to tell how the second vowel was pronounced, and the transliteration with re (rather than ri) reflects the standard Akkadian norm.

bd-na-i-su "its building" (EA 161: 35); a-!ja-i "going out; departure" (Bo 65a+: 11, 15); la-qe "to take" (RS 16.146+: 38; cf. also RS 16.111: 25). These forms of tertiae infirmae roots are noteworthy. As far as the second form is concerned, we may credit its occurrence to Assyrian influence, since it is attested in a letter from Boghazkoy. However, the first form, banliisu, is best understood as an independent innovation, a form derived according to the G infinitival pattern of the strong verb. The Babylonian form is attested in a-!ji-i-su "its departures" (RS 20.33: 29'). laqe "to take", with an a vowel, is the Assyrian pattern, but it also occurs in Babylonian. Another possibility, even if less probable, would take this spelling as signifying a participle, i.e., lliqe "he who takes", in RS 16.146+. Bibliographic al notes: For the patterning of the corresponding G infinitives in core Akkadian dialects, see GAG: paradigm 32; Mayer 1971: 83; A//w: 544b-545a (for laqe).

2.4 THE VERB 2.4. l PERSON MORPHEMES 2.4.1.1 THE PREFIX CONJUGATION OF THE INDICATIVE VERB The attested forms of the person morphemes of the verb are as follows:

I 2

m

3

m

f

sg

f

a- - ita- - (ti-) t*a-*i i- - eti- - i-

131 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.4.1.1

1 2

pl 3

m f m f

nit*a-ii - t*a-iini - t*a-ani i-ii - e-ii - i-iini (liktanninii)

*An asterisk marks reconstruction of the following vowel, unattested overtly in forms belonging to these categories in our corpus. Not e : This presentation of the paradigm of the verbal person morphemes is based on a new analysis of the Akkadian verbal components. The above set is the only set of person morphemes needed for any description of the Akkadian verb. in that it underlies any verb in the language. Any change in the vowel of the first syllable of the surface form will be explained according to the specific kind of verbal stem to which the discussed person morpheme is attached. This analysis involves a chauge in our perception of the various verbal stem patterns. The G and N stem groups have a consonant (or a vocalic radical) as their initial phoneme; the D and S stem groups always have the vowel u initially. A final methodological note is concerned with the so-called weak verbs. It is my belief that there is no need whatsoever to dissociate the description of the weak verbs from that of the strong verbs. It is phonological or morphophonological rules that account for the various surface variants of verbal patterns. Hence, all variants of a single pattern will be discussed together under one and the same morphological category. Note that the characters A, E, /, U serve to designate the (vocalic) radicals of the root (see the abbreviation list, vol. II, pp. 203-209). See further 2.4.2. The above set of person morphemes is distinct from the core Akkadian paradigms in three major points: ( l) The variation between a- and i- in the l sg vs. general standard Akkadian a-. (2) The 3 sg f morpheme ti- vs. i- (Babylonian) or ta- (mainly Assyrian). (3) The suffix of the 2 pl m and the 3 pl m -fmi vs. standard Akkadian -ii (2 pl c) and -ii respectively. Another comment which is in order before dealing in detail with the data is that this system is valid for most of the Amurru Akkadian Iects except for the lect attested in two of the oldest texts, namely EA 61 and EA 371. The forms attested in these two letters will be discussed at the end of this paragraph.

132 I Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.4.l.l

Data: l sg:

a-:

a-kas-sa-ad "I shall overpower" (RS 20.33: 20'); u-ba-'-i (- a+uba"'i) "I seek" (EA 166: 7); e-te-pu-u.f (- a+Etapu.f) "I have done" (EA 157: 15); e-te-el-li (- a+Etalli) "I went up" (EA 161: 15).

i-:

i-de 4 "I knew" (EA 161: 13); i-le-'-e "I can" (EA 164: 23); i-se-em-mi "I beard" (EA 161: 14); i-te-ru-ub "I have entered" (EA 171: 12); i-pa-as "I shall make" (RS 17.286: 12); in-ni-ri-ir, in,-ni-ri-ir "I came to help" (EA 62: 21 and EA 371: 25 respectively); il-te-qle] "I have taken" (EA 62: 48). i-il-la-ak (- a+illak) "I will go" (EA 164: 25); i-il-la-ka-am "I shall come" (EA 166: 30); iz-za-az (- a+izzaz) "I stay" (EA 165: 22; EA 166: 29); Ji-ra-am (- a+iram) "I desire" (EA 17l: 3); 'i'-din (- a+iddin) "I shall give" (EA 158: 13).

The vowel i stands for the expected e in most cases of I sg verbal forms of primae

aleph verbs of the e-class. This is the result of interference from the substrata! phonemic system, in which the phoneme /ii was pronounced - and thus symbolized in script in most cases - as (i] whenever it was short (1.15). By way of analogy to 3 sg verbal forms, other weak verbs would be formed with an initial i instead of the expected a, as is the case with the verbs listed in the last group, and the verb i-te-ru-ub in EA 171. The tendency to replace a vowels by i in verbs from roots other than primae E is exhibited only in the earlier subcorpora; the later subcorpora contains only one form of an e-predominant verb, namely ippas in RS 17.286. There are attestations of verbal forms with initial a throughout the whole corpus, and also side by side with 1 sg verbs with initial i-; e.g., a-la-ka-ak-ku "l would come to you" (EA 164: 44); a-na-a$-$l1-ur "l guard" (EA 165: IO); ad-din "I shall give" (EA 158: 19). This distribution demands that a structural synchronic analysis regard the underlying 1 sg person prefix throughout the whole Amurru corpus as a-; conditions of various types (i.e., phonological or morphological) may fommlate the constraints under which the I sg prefix may result in a surface form i-. This concept is exemplified by the formulas in parentheses brought in the third section of data.

133 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.4.1.1

2 sg m:ta-:

tal-te-me "you have beard" (RS 20.162: 13+ ); te-se-em-mi "you listen" (EA 160: 32); te-le-e'-e-mi "you can" (EA 170: 10); ti-i-de4 ( +- ta+ide) "you know" (EA 164: 43); ti,-wa-alJ-IJi-ir-su (+- ta+uwa[11Jir+su) "you delay him" (EA 169: 13). (+- ta+samme)

ti-:

ti-ir-ta-qf-i-mi ( +- ti+rtaqi+mi) "you have been hiding" (EA 161: 32).

While the first form cited, namely talteme, corresponds to the Assyrian fonnation, the following forms under the ta- prefix entry conform to the Babylonian routine of verbal inflection. The prefix vowel of tirtaqf(mi) is an analogical formation after the 3rd person and some 1st person prefixes. as found in some I sg forms (above), and also sporadically in 2 sg m forms in the Amarna letters from Byblos (e.g., EA 117: 8). 2 sg f:

ti-i-de4 "you know" (RS 16.111: 10).

3 sg mi-:

i-ra-am-an-ni "be loves me" (EA 158: 36); 1i-11$-$a-am ( +- a+U$$llnl) "he will come" (RS 20.33: 20'); i-le-eq-qe "he has taken" (EA 161: 45); 'i'-(tje-pu-us (+- i+Etepus) "he made" (RS 17 .286: 17).

e-:

e-ta-pa-as "he did" (RS 17 .318+: 31 '); e-pa-as "he will make" (RS 19.68: 21); e-te-er-ri-is "be repeatedly requested" (EA 156: 5).

Most of the forms with e- are Assyrian-like formations, and they are rather scarce in this corpus. They occur mainly in later texts, but also, idiosyncratically, in one of the earlier texts. The [e] timbre in the form eterris may be the result of substrate interference (1.15). A special problem is posed by the letter RS 20.162, presumably the latest text of our corpus. There are four 3 sg m forms in this text, three of them reflect the vowel a- for the prefix of the 3 sg m verb: aq-fix(DE)-bi "he has said" (I. 8); la-a al-tap-ra "he has not written" (I. 13); /11-u a/-tap-ra "he should write" (11. 22-23); lu-u i-de(.J "May he know" (I. 27).

While the last form is formulaic, all other three 3 sg m verbs in this text have an initial a- vowel instead of the expected i-. I do not have any explanation for this. An initial a vowel for a 3 sg m verb occurs also in an Amarna letter from Byblos: aq-bi "he said" (EA 75: 28). 3 sg f: ti-:

ti-id-I b ]u-ba "she spoke" (RS 17 .116: 12'); ti-i[,-ta-(i "she sinned" (RS 17 .116: 10'); ti-i[He-fi (RS 17 .372A+: 7);

134 I Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.4.1.1

te-ta-pa-as (iis cf., in the same text, i-'dab 1 -bu-'ba'l 1 -a-su "(he) will speak to him", l. ul2'; see 1.14). Similar stem formations are rarely attested in OB; they are co0101on in the latest periods of Akkadian. CaCCuC: i-bal-]lu-f11-nim "they will live" (RS 20.33: 13); i-ma-gur "agrees" (RS 16.111: 25); i-dab-bu-'ba?'-a-su "he will speak to him" (Bo 1024u: 12'); i-mar-rn-ur "he will go forth" (RS 20.33: 29'); i-nam-mu-su-nim "they will be moving" (RS 20.33: 13'). iballufilnim follows the Babylonian patterning. imaggur conforn1s to the late dialects of core Akkadian (in the early dialects the patterning is CaCCaC, with an a vowel). imarrur is an Ak.kadian-like formation for a WS root, probably a back-formation of a putative iprus form, and hence with the vowel u (cf. further for ina~~ur below). CaCCaC - CaCCuC: Alternation between these two patterns occurs in two verbs in the Amurru corpus. One is epesu, where this alternation reflects the Babylonian and the respective Assyrian traditions. The Babylonian patterning for this verb has an u vowel: te-pu-.fo "you will do" (RS 17.116: 29'); ip-pu-.f:[a? "he 7 will do" (EA 168: R2); ni-ilpl-pu-us "we shall make" (EA 169: 34; RS 20.33: 22'); li-ip-pu-sl1/ "let them do" (EA 156: 11; see 2.4.2.11). i-ilp-pu-su-nim (RS 20.33: 7') is a iprus form (2.4.2.1.2). Assyrian-like patterning, i.e., with an a vowel, is attested in the following forms: i-pa-as "I will make" (RS 17.286: 12; for the person, see 2.4.1.1); e-pa-as "he will make" (RS 19.68: 21); e-pu-su "they wiJI do" (RS 17.318+: 32'). Note the Assyrian vowel harmony in eppusi'i (- eppasii). That this is the Assyrian rather than the Babylonian formation is proved by the initial e vowel for the 3 sg m person prefix (2.4.1.1 ). The second verb which shows alternation between these two patterns is na~iiru. The more co0101only attested form is constructed after the standard Akkadian ina~~ar pattern. For exan1ple:

148 I Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.4.2.1.1

a-na-~a-ar-su "I guard him" (EA 60: 9). The pattern CaCCuC is attested in the following:

a]-na-~ur "I guard" (RS l7.3J 8+: 4'); li-na-a~-~ur "he may guard" (EA 169: 15); a-na-a~-~u-ur "l guard" (EA 165: 10). The latter form proves the correct reading of the former two. rather than al/li-na-$ar ( for the precative form, cf. further 2.4. 2.11 ). It is possible that this patterning was created on the basis of the iprus pattern iH'""· very common in PA in the precative fi$~ur(ii) (cf. the comments on imarrur, above). This pattern for na~iiru is attested, however, in OB too (PBS 8/2: 246: 12).

CaCCiC: i-ma-lik-ku "they will take counsel" (? EA 168: RJ3; see vol. II. p. 51); i-na-'ki'ir "he will become an enemy" (RS 19.68: 36); a-na-din "l will give" (RS 17.152: 17); ni-ra-a!J-!Ji-i$ "we shall smash" (RS 20.33: 31'). anaddin is formed according to the Babylonian patterning. and is so strongly integrated in this language, that it appears even in texts with strong Assyrian influence, as in RS 17.372A+ (1. 4'). Three verbs are inflected in the CaCCiC pattern, even if their patterning is different in core Akkadian dialects. These are:

i-za-an-ni-nu "they are raining" (RS 20.33: 21); i-~am-me-ru-nim "they will annihilate" (RS 20.33: 32'); i-ka-az-zi-ib "he lies", 'i'-[kja-[ajz-zi-bu-nim "they lie" (EA 62: 43, 39 respectively). These forms are inflected in this pattern most probably due to the influence from the WS D patterning of the prefix conjugation verb. For the latter forms, note that the meaning of their root is also borrowed from WS. Core Akkadian kazdbu occurs only in the D stem (with the meaning "to fawn"). For the form as a whole, cf. Hebrew yfs,azzil} "he ]jes". As for thee vowel in igammeriini, note core Akkadian D preterite ugammer.

i-ze-i-ra-an-ni "he hates me" (EA 158: 37). Note the vowel i even before r. in contrast with Babylonian izer. Assyrian ize''ar. A similar form is attested in OA. However, it is better to correlate this patterning with the other irregular CaCCiC formations discussed above. For the transliteration with an e vowel, reflecting the normalization ize"ir or the like, see discussion in 1.15. It has been suggested above that it is the WS D patterning that has influenced the formation of G iparras patterning of some verbs in Amurru Akkadian. It should be

149 Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.4.2.1.l

noted that these forms are attested in the earlier subcorpora, which tends to reflect more strongly than the later texts WS interference. A most significant case to illustrate the possibility of such an interference in the domain of the D and G patterning is the verbal forms of banu attested in our corpus. These forms are - again - attested in the earlier period, and, more specifically, in the Aziru letters. Note the following passages: 35 sa-ni-tam as-sum ba-na-i-su sa URU.~u-nrnr 36 LUGAL-ru EN-ia iq-ta-hi LUGAL.MES KUR nu-lJa-as-se 3 7 na-ak-ru it-ti-ia 11 URU./j.4-ia 38 i-le-eq-qu-nim i-na UZU.p{-i 1ba-ti-ip 39 u la ru'-bti-an-ni-si i-na-an-na 40 i-na ba-mut-is u-ba-an-ni-se

Furthermore, the k.ing, my lord, has spok.en about the building of $umur. The kings of Nu~asse were at war with me, and they have taken my cities by order of ijatip, so I have not built it. Now I will build it quickly. (EA 161: 35-40) 2 6 ,, la u-ba-an-ni-si

L?J

27 URU.~u-mu-ri i-na MU.K[AJM-ma 2 8 a-ba-an-ni

URU.~11-mu-ri ... so I could not build ((?)) $umur. Within a year (now) l shall build $mnur. (EA 160: 26-28) Cf. further t)a 1-ha'!-an-n((! "you build" (EA 160: 22), where the reading lfi1-ha1-an-n[;? is also possible. EA 159 attests forms exclusi.vely of the O stem (ll. I I. 44, 46). D forms of banu do not occur elsewhere in Akkadian. WS tongues have D forms of ✓bny with the meaning "reconstruct, rebuild". The apparent indiscrintlnate usage of

both D and G forms of hanil in the passages cited above should hence be taken as originating in the substratum of the scribes, undoubtedly a WS tongue. For further discussion of these forms, see 2.4.2.4. l.

Tertiae infirmae verbs usually inflect in the pattern CaCCiC (as in core Akkadiim). Some illustrations for this inflectional pattern are:

'11•-u~-#-mi "he is leaving" (EA 169: 27); i-ba-as-si "there is" (RS 19.68: 20); i-qab-bi "he says" (EA 156: 12). i-qa'(BA)-bi-11 "they will say" (RS 17.318+: 23'); i-qab-bu-ni (.._ i+qabbi+il+ni) "they will say" (RS 17 .286: 20). Note that the uncontracted form iqabbirl is sintllar to the corresponding Assyriim formation. However, the Babylonian-like formation is most often found, as is exemplified in the cited form iqab/Juni.

150 I Shlomo Izre'el - 978-90-04-36962-7 Downloaded from Brill.com01/16/2021 01:21:54PM via Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2.4.2.1.2

Tertiae infirmae verbs with final E are regularly formed according to the Babylonian pattern, i.e., with the a-->e harmony within the word boundary. Thus: i-le-eq-qe "he has taken" (EA 161: 43); te-se-em-me-e "you listen" (EA 161: 9); i-se-em-mi "l heard" (EA 161: 14). For the difference in the last vowels, see 1.15. Note, however, the following variation in forms of le'11: i-le-"-e "I can" (EA 164: 23); i-la-e-.fo "he will overcome him" (RS 17.228: 41). ile"e is formed according to the Babylonian pattern, ila"esu conforms to the Assyrian patterning. The latter is a formulaic fom1 used in treaties. Bibliographical notes: GAG (§104g) tried to explain OB spellings such as i-tll-ar-ru as reflecting the reading itorra. For ibllllu/iini, cf. Allw: 99a. For inul/U?tll", cf. Allw: 575a. For numiru as a WS borrowing, see CAD: M,: 268b.s.v. mtlriim C: Allw: 609a s.v. m,miru Ill: also Berger 1970: 286; Rainey 1971: 141: cf. Yonngblood 1961: 186-8: Pardee 1978: 252, 257, 274, 284: pace Nougayrol (1968: 74 with n. 3): Cazelles 1970-1: 35. Assyrian and Babylonian forrns of epe.fo are listed in Hecker 1968: §90; Mayer 1971: §73: CAD: E: 192a. Several scholars rendered .yar irLstead of .yur for the sign AMAR(= ZUR) in ipllmi.< forms of na.yiiru spelled with this sign: thus Rainey 1975a: 417: Nougayrol 1956: 145, 267: cf. Buccellati 1963: 223-4; AS: no. 255. Alternation between G iptlrras patterning and D forms in the heavily WS influenced language of the EI-Arnarna letters from Canaan is dealt with in Rainey 1975a. Alternation between the G and D stems in Ugarit Akkadian is discussed in Huehnergard 1989: 173-4. For the various iparra.r forms of zeru, see AHw: 1522; GAG: paradigm 19, with Ergiinzunvheft, p. 34••. For WS ✓bny in the D stem, cf. Payne-Smith 1903: 48: Jastrow 1903: 176-7. See further Priebatsch 1977: 258; cf. CAD: B: 89h: Allw: 103b. Ebeling (in Knudtzon: II: 1389) cites another form from the Amarna letters which he takes as a D of btln{i, viz. ti-btl-an-lnil (EA 20: 37); however, this occurrence is to be taken as a derivative of bunntl "to take good care of' (Adler 1976: 265).

2.4.2.1.2 iprus The basic form of this inflectional pattern is CCvC. As is the case with the iparras inflectional pattern, all possible variants for the second vowel are attested. CCuC:

ta-ad-bu-ba-su-nu "you said them" (RS 17.116: 6'); li-ig-mu-ru-nim "may they a+n!flll") "l may guard" (EA 157: 33); annihilate" (RS 20.33: 30); O!i-!fUT i-tu-ur (- i+tur) "he will return" (RS 17.318+: 17'); ap-lu-ub "I was afraid" (EA 371: 35).

d