Bēl Lišāni: Current Research in Akkadian Linguistics 9781646021598

Citation preview

Bēl Lišāni

Explorations in Ancient Near Eastern Civilizations Series Editors

Grant Frame, University of ​Pennsylvania Brent A. Strawn, Duke University Niek Veldhuis, University of California, Berkeley 1. Of Courtiers and Kings: The Biblical Daniel Narratives and Ancient Story-​ Collections, by Tawny L. Holm 2. The Sacrificial Economy: Assessors, Contractors, and Thieves in the Management of Sacrificial Sheep at the Eanna Temple of Uruk (ca. 625–520 b.c.), by Michael Kozuh 3. Children in the Ancient Near Eastern Household, by Kristine Henriksen Garroway 4. Fishers of ​Fish and Fishers of ​Men: Fishing Imagery in the Hebrew Bible and in the Ancient Near East, by Tyler R. Yoder 5. Child Sacrifice in Ancient Israel, by Heath D. Dewrell 6. The Dragon, the Mountain, and the Nations: An Old Testament Myth, Its Origins, and Its Afterlives, by Robert D. Miller II 7. Life and Mortality in Ugaritic: A Lexical and Literary Study, by Matthew McAffee 8. Bēl Lišāni: Current Research in Akkadian Linguistics, edited by Rebecca Hasselbach-​ Andee and Na‘ama Pat-​El

Bēl Lišāni Current Research in Akkadian Linguistics

Rebecca Hasselbach-​Andee and Na‘ama Pat-​E l

Eisenbrauns   |  University Park, Pennsylvania

The office of the Dean of the College of ​Liberal Arts at The University of ​Texas, Austin, made this volume possible by generously supporting the conference and its participants. Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data Names: Historical Linguistics of Akkadian Conference (2018 : Austin, Tex.), author. | Hasselbach-​Andee, Rebecca, editor. | Pat-​El, Na’ama, editor. | Huehnergard, John, honouree. Title: Bēl lišāni : current research in Akkadian linguistics / [edited by] Rebecca Hasselbach-​Andee and Na’ama Pat-​El. Other titles: Explorations in ancient Near Eastern civilizations ; 8. Description: University Park, Pennsylvania : Eisenbrauns, [2021] | Series: Explorations in ancient Near Eastern civilizations ; 8 | “This volume contains papers delivered at the conference on Akkadian Historical Linguistics held at the University of ​Texas at Austin on April 21–22, 2018 in honor of John Huehnergard’s retirement”—Introduction. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Summary: “A collection of essays on Akkadian linguistics honoring the career of scholar John Huehnergard and covering topics including lexicon, morphology, word order, syntax, verbal semantics, and subgrouping”—Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2021014745 | ISBN 9781646021352 (hardback) Subjects: LCSH: Akkadian language—Congresses. | LCGFT: Conference papers and proceedings. | Festschriften. Classification: LCC PJ3121 .H57 2018 | DDC 492​/.​1—dc23 LC record available at https://​lccn​.loc​.gov​/2021014745 Copyright © 2021 The Pennsylvania State University All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Published by The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA 16802–1003 Eisenbrauns is an imprint of ​The Pennsylvania State University Press. The Pennsylvania State University Press is a member of the Association of University Presses. It is the policy of ​The Pennsylvania State University Press to use acid-​free paper. Publications on uncoated stock satisfy the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of ​Paper for Printed Library Material, ansi z39.48–1992.

To John Huehnergard, whose pioneering work on Akkadian linguistics inspired the present volume, with the hope that his many contributions to the field will continue to encourage young Assyriologists to engage in linguistic work in Akkadian and Akkadian dialectology for decades to come.

Contents

List of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Rebecca Hasselbach-​Andee and Na‘ama Pat-​El

Chapter 1.  Remarks on Word Order and the Syntax of ša-Clauses in Late Hellenistic Babylonian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Paul-​Alain Beaulieu

Chapter 2.  The Indicative Markers in West Semitic and Their Relationship to the East Semitic Subordinative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Øyvind Bjøru and Na‘ama Pat-​El

Chapter 3.  Eblaite and Akkadian: A Look at the Pronominal System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Rebecca Hasselbach-​Andee

Chapter 4.  How the Neo-​Assyrian Verb Works: Tense and Voice . . . . 96 Maksim Kalinin and Sergey Loesov

Chapter 5.  Cognate Objects in Akkadian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 N. J. C. Kouwenberg

Chapter 6.  “All Is Number”: Verbs and Nouns Derived from the Cardinal Numbers in Akkadian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 Jacob J. de Ridder

Chapter 7.  Notes on the Use of the Subordinative in Oaths in Akkadian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 Ambjörn Sjörs

viii

Contents

Chapter 8.  Akkadian Lexicography: New Discoveries . . . . . . . . . 219 Michael P. Streck

Chapter 9.  The Akkadian of the King of ​Beirut in the Late Bronze Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 Juan-​Pablo Vita List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

Abbreviations

Periods, Languages, and Dialects AE Arsacid Era Akk Akkadian Ass Assyrian Bab Babylonian Ebl Eblaite LB Late Babylonian LHB Late Hellenistic Babylonian MA Middle Assyrian MB Middle Babylonian NA Neo-​Assyrian NB Neo-​Babylonian OA Old Assyrian OAkk Old Akkadian OB Old Babylonian SAkk Sargonic Akkadian SB Standard Babylonian SE Seleucid Era WPA Western Peripheral Akkadian Grammatical Abbreviations ACC accusative C consonant CO cognate object COC cognate object construction CSC cognate subject construction CVC consonant-​vowel-​consonant DAT dative ix

x

DN DO FPN GN lit. MVM OBJ obv​.​/o. PC PN PPV rev​.​/r. SC SOV SVO V VPP VSO

Abbreviations

divine name direct object female personal name geographic name literary main verb marker object obverse prefix conjugation personal name prepositional phrase–verb reverse suffix conjugation subject-​object-​verb subject-​verb-​object vowel verb–prepositional phrase verb-​subject-​object

Bibliographical Abbreviations AbB Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und Übersetzung ACC Orlin, Louis L. Assyrian Colonies in Cappadocia. The Hague: de Gruyter, 1970. AD Astronomical Diaries AD II Sachs, Abraham J., and Hermann Hunger. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia. Vol. 2, Diaries from 261 B.C. to 165 B.C. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1989. AD III Sachs, Abraham J., and Hermann Hunger. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia. Vol. 3, Diaries from 164 B.C. to 61 B.C. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1996. AfK Archiv für Keilschriftforschung AfO Archiv für Orientforschung AHw von Soden, Wolfram. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1959–1981. AKT Ankara Kültepe Tabletleri AMS Ancient Magic and Divination AnOr Analecta Orientalia AnSt Anatolian Studies AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament

Abbreviations

AOATS AoF ARET ARM ArOr AS ATHE

Atr. AuOr AuOr Suppl BaghM BAM BATSH BE BiMes BIN BiOr BRM BSOAS CAD

CCT CH CM CT CUSAS Dar. DGMA EA EL FAOS FM

xi

Alter Orient und Altes Testament Sonderreihe Altorientalische Forschungen Archivi reali di Ebla. Testi Archives royales de Mari Archiv Orientalni Assyriological Studies Kienast, Burkhart. Die altassyrischen Texte des orientalischen Seminars der Universität Heidelberg und der Sammlung Erlenmayer-​Basel. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1960. Atrahasis Aula Orientalis Aula Orientalis Supplements Baghdader Mitteilungen Köcher, Franz. Die babylonisch-​assyrische Medizin in Texten und Untersuchungen. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963–. Berichte der Ausgrabung Tall Šēh Hamad/Dūr katlimmu The Babylonian Expedition of the University of ​Pennsylvania Bibliotheca Mesopotamica Babylonian lnscriptions in the Collection of J. B. Nies Bibliotheca Orientalis Babylonian Records in the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1956–2010. Cuneiform Texts from Cappadocian Tablets in the British Museum Codex Hammurabi Cuneiform Monographs Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology Strassmeier, J. N. Inschriften von Darius, König von Babylon, 521–485 v. Chr. Leipzig: Pfeiffer. de Ridder, Jacob J. A Descriptive Grammar of ​Middle Assyrian. LAOS 8. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2018. El-​Amarna texts Eisser, Georg, and Julius Lewy. Die altassyrischen Rechtsurkunden von Kültepe, 2 vols. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1930–1935. Freiburger altorientalische Studien Florilegium Marianum

xii

GAG

GAV Gilg. GKT GLECS GOA GvG

HALOT HdO HOAM

HS HSAO HSS ICK JAOS JCS JEOL JNES JSS KAJ KAR KAV Kt

Abbreviations

von Soden, Wolfram. Grundriss der Akkadischen Grammatik, 3., ergänzte Auflage. AnOr 33. Rome: Pontifico Istituto Biblico, 1995. Kouwenberg, N. J. C. Gemination in the Akkadian Verb. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 32. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1997. Gilgamesh Hecker, Karl. Grammatik der Kültepe Texte. AnOr 44. Rome: Pontifico Istituto Biblico, 1968. Comptes Rendus du Groupe Linguistique d’Études ChamitoSémitiques Kouwenberg, N. J. C. A Grammar of Old Assyrian. HdO 1/118. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Brockelmann, Carl. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen. Berlin: von Reuther & Reichard, 1908–1913. Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Handbuch der Orientalistik Arkhipov, Ilya, Maksim Kalinin, and Sergey Loesov. “A Historical Overview of Akkadian Morphosyntax.” In A History of the Akkadian Language. Edited by Juan-​Pablo Vita Barra. HdO 1​/152​.1. Leiden: Brill, 2021. Hilprecht Collection, tablet Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient Harvard Semitic Series Inscriptions cunéiformes de Kültepe Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Cuneiform Studies Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-​Egyptisch Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux Journal of ​Near Eastern Studies Journal of Semitic Studies Ebeling, Erich. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur juristischen Inhalts. WVDOG 50. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1927 Ebeling, Erich. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts I/II. WVDOG 28/34. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1919–1923. Schroeder, Otto. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur verschiedenen Inhalts. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1920. Texts from Kültepe. Season indicated by a/k to z/k for 1948– 1972 and 73/k to 08/k for 1973–2008.

Abbreviations

KTB KTS KTU

LANE Langdon BL LAOS LAPO LBAT

Lie Sar. MAD MAPD MARI MC MDP MHET MLC MSL NCBT NSGU OAA OAIC

OECT OIP OLA Or ORA ORACC OSP

xiii

Lewy, Julius. Die Kültepetexte der Sammlung Rudolf ​Blanckertz, Berlin. Berlin: Heintze und Blanckertz, 1929. Keilschrifttexte in den Antiken Museen zu Istanbul Dietrich, Manfried, Oswald Loretz, and Joaquín Sanmartín. The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places. 3rd enl. ed. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag, 2013. Languages of the Ancient Near East Langdon, Stephen. Babylonian Liturgies. Paris: Geuthner, 1913. Leipziger altorientalische Studien Littératures anciennes du Proche-​Orient Pinches, Theophilus G, Johann N. Strassmaier, and Abraham J. Sachs. Late Babylonian Astronomical and Related Texts. Providence: Brown University Press, 1955. Lie, Arthur Gotfred. The Inscriptions of Sargon II, King of Assyria: Part I, The Annals. Paris: Geuthner, 1929. Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary Middle Assyrian Palace Decrees Mari, Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires Mesopotamian Civilizations Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse Mesopotamian History and Environment: Texts Morgan Library Collection Materialien zum sumerischen Lexikon The Newell Collection of ​Babylonian Tablets Falkenstein, Adam. Die neusumerischen Gerichtsurkunden, 3 vols. Munich, 1956–1957 Old Assyrian Archives Gelb, Ignace J. Old Akkadian Inscriptions in Chicago Natural History Museum. Chicago: Chicago Natural History Museum, 1955. Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts Oriental Institute Publications Orientalia Lovanensia Analecta Orientalia Orientalische Religionen in der Antike Open Richly Annotated Cuneiform Corpus Westenholz, Aage. Old Sumerian and Old Akkadian Texts in Philadelphia Chiefly from Nippur. Malibu: Undena, 1975 (part 1), Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen, 1987 (part 2).

xiv

Abbreviations

PBS PIHANS PNA POAT Prag I

PRU RA RES RI RIMA RIME RINAP RlA RS RSO SAA SAAB SAAS SAD SBH SCCNH SED 1

SED 2

Semitica 58

SMEA

University of ​Pennsylvania, Publications of the Babylonian Section Publications de l’Institut historique-archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul The Prosopography of the Neo-​Assyrian Empire Gwaltney Jr, W. C. The Pennsylvania Old Assyrian Texts. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1983. Hecker, Karl, Guido Kryszat, and Lubor Matouš. Kappadokische Keilschrifttafeln aus den Sammlungen der Karlsuniversität Prag. Prag: Filozofická Fakulta Univerzity Karlovy, 1998. Le Palais royal d’Ugarit Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale Répertoire d’Epigraphie Sémitique royal inscription The Royal Inscriptions of ​Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods The Royal Inscriptions of ​Mesopotamia The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-​Assyrian Period Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie Ras Shamra excavation number Publications de la Mission Française Archéologique de Ras Shamra-​Ougarit State Archives of Assyria State Archives of Assyria. Bulletin State Archives of Assyria Studies Supplement to the Akkadian Dictionaries Reisner, George A. Sumerisch-​babylonische Hymnen nach Thontafeln griechischer Zeit. Berlin: W. Spemann, 1896. Studies on the Civilization and Culture of ​Nuzi and the Hurrians Militarav, Alexander, and Leonid Kogan. Semitic Etymological Dictionary. Vol. 1, Anatomy of ​Man and Animals. AOAT 272/1. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag, 2000. Militarav, Alexander, and Leonid Kogan. Semitic Etymological Dictionary. Vol. 2, Animal Names. AOAT 272/2. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag, 2005. Guichard, Michaël. “Guerre et diplomatie: Lettres d’Iluni roi d’Esnunna d’une collection privée.” Semitica 58 (2016): 17–59. DOI: 10​.2143​/SE​.58​.0​.3170080 Studi Micenei ed Egeo-​Anatolici

Abbreviations

SNAG Speleers, Recueil

StAT St. Geller

StOr Streck Asb.

TC TCL TDP TIM TMB TMH UCP UET UGM

VAB VAS VDI WVDOG YBC YOS ZA ZAW ZDMG

xv

Hämeen-​Anttila, Jaakko. A Sketch of Neo-​Assyrian Grammar. SAAS 13. Helsinki: Neo-​Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2000. Speleers, Louis. Recueil des inscriptions de l’Asie antérieure des Musées royaux du Cinquantenaire à Bruxelles: Textes sumériens, babyloniens et assyriens. Brussels: Musées royaux d’art et d’histoire, 1925. Studien zu den Assur-​Texten Strahil V. Panayotov, and Luděk Vaçín, eds. Mesopotamian Medicine and Magic: Studies in Honor of ​Markham J. Geller. AMS 14. Leiden: Brill, 2018. Studia Orientalia Streck, Maximilian. Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige bis zum Untergange Ninivehs. VAB 7. Leipzig: Zentralantiquariat der Dt. Demokrat. Republik, 1916. Tablettes cappadociennes du Louvre Textes cunéiformes du Louvre Labat, René. Traité Akkadien de Diagnostics et Pronostics Médicaux. Leiden: Brill, 1951. Texts in the Iraq Museum Fr. Thureau-​Dangin, Textes mathematiques babyloniens (Leiden 1938) Texte und Materialien der Frau Professor Hilprecht Collection University of California Publications in Semitic Philology Ur Excavations. Texts Mayer, Walter. Untersuchungen zur Grammatik des Mittelassyrischen. AOATS 2. Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Verlag Butzon & Bercker Kevelaer, 1971. Vorderasiatische Bibliothek Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der staatlichen Museen zu Berlin Vestnik drevnej istorii Wissenschaftlichen Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-​Gesellschaft Yale Babylonian Collection, tablets Yale Oriental Series, Babylonian Texts Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft

Introduction Rebecca Hasselbach-​Andee and Na‘ama Pat-​El

This volume contains papers delivered at the conference on Akkadian Historical Linguistics held at the University of ​Texas at Austin on April 21–22, 2018, in honor of John Huehnergard’s retirement.1 The concentration on Akkadian linguistics is intended to highlight John’s contributions to the field since the early days of ​his academic career. Akkadian, which is continuously attested in writing until the first century CE, is one of the longest-​attested languages known. It therefore holds important contributions for our understanding of processes of ​language change in all categories of grammar, that is, phonology, morphology, syntax, and lexicon. Linguistic evidence is extensive not only in the chronological depth of Akkadian but also in its dialect variation. At any given period, several Akkadian dialects are attested in writing. These varieties consist both of dialects that are spoken in the Mesopotamian heartland, usually considered the “core” dialects, such as Babylonian and Assyrian, and dialects from areas where Akkadian was not usually the native but a learned language, commonly referred to as “peripheral” dialects, such as the Akkadian from Emar, Ugarit, Egypt, Anatolia, and the Levant. In addition, Akkadian has been in contact with numerous languages throughout its history, sometimes over prolonged periods of time, as in the case of Sumerian, and sometimes over shorter periods, as in the case of ​Kassite.2 These instances of ​language contact offer important insights into processes of contact-​induced changes and their impact on the history of the language in general. Speakers of Akkadian eventually shifted to Aramaic, giving us a window into the process of ​language shift.3 Akkadian thus offers a unique depth and wealth of sources and evidence for historical and comparative study. 1.  Participants in the workshop were Sergey Loesov, Leonid Kogan, Paul-​Alain Beaulieu, Jacob Jan de Ridder, Kathryn Slanski, Øyvind Bjøru, Ambjörn Sjörs, Michael Streck, Martin Worthington, Na‘ama Pat-​El, and John Huehnergard, who acted as a respondent. Loesov and Kogan joined the group via Skype. 2.  Both Sumerian and Kassite are language isolates. 3.  Beaulieu 2013.

1

2

Bēl Lišāni

The study of the Akkadian language from different, primarily synchronic, linguistic approaches has a long history in Assyriology and has resulted in numerous studies over the last few decades. Approaches used include discourse analysis,4 structuralist grammar,5 sociolinguistics,6 and the incorporation of other (contemporary) linguistic approaches.7 In addition, recent decades have seen the publication of grammars of various dialects, which treat different manifestations of Akkadian in detail,8 as well as a number of new textbooks, some of which are dedicated to less-​studied dialects.9 Many of these publications would not have been possible without the steady stream of texts made accessible through traditional publications,10 as well as in a number of online searchable databanks.11 These studies have greatly advanced our knowledge and understanding of Akkadian dialectology and grammar. Despite this overall productivity, however, studies dealing with Akkadian from a comparative and historical linguistic perspective are relatively rare. Although Wolfram von Soden already noted certain chronological developments and changes in the phonology, morphology, and syntax of Akkadian in his grammar,12 these have seldom been studied in greater detail from a historical and comparative perspective.13 There is, for example, no comprehensive comparative or diachronic study of Akkadian and its various manifestations over its more than 2,500 years of attestation, nor do we have a clear idea of what Proto-​Akkadian may have looked like. A more thorough study of Akkadian from a historical and comparative perspective is thus a great desideratum in order to fully understand the development and history of the language. One of the leading scholars who engages in such a historical and comparative study of Akkadian is John Huehnergard, to whom this volume is dedicated. He is widely known for his A Grammar of Akkadian, possibly the most popular textbook of Akkadian in the English-​speaking world, now in its third edition (Eisenbrauns, 2011). Throughout his career, John has worked assiduously on the linguistic profile of ​both “core,” or Mesopotamian, Akkadian and the peripheral varieties, ever since the very beginning of ​his career. His (partially unpublished) dissertation dealt with the peripheral Akkadian dialects of Carchemish 4.  E.g., Khan 1988. 5.  E.g., Cohen 2005, 2012. 6.  E.g., Haayer 1986; Crisostomo 2015; Vita 2015. 7.  E.g., Johnson 2005; Kouwenberg 2010; Schilling 2019. 8.  See, e.g., Hämeen-​Anttila 2000; Hilgert 2002; Hasselbach 2005; Müller 2010; Kouwenberg 2017; de Ridder 2018. 9.  Tropper and Vita 2010; Streck 2014; Kouwenberg 2019. 10.  For example, the Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology (CUSAS). 11.  For example, Open Richly Annotated Cuneiform Corpus (ORACC). 12.  Von Soden 1995. 13.  Some exceptions are Deutscher 2000; Cohen 2000.

Introduction

3

and Ugarit, with the portion on the Akkadian of Ugarit published under the title The Akkadian of Ugarit (Eisenbrauns, 1989). In subsequent years, he devoted many studies to Akkadian phonology, morphology, and syntax. These works, which are too numerous to list in their entirety, include an article on the origin of the Akkadian precative marker l(V)-,14 which is still an important contribution to the function and origin of precative and jussive morphemes in Semitic. Another “classic” is John’s treatment of the structure and basic principles of the formation of verbless clauses in Akkadian, with special focus on word order.15 John’s interest in verbless predicates also led him to investigate the status of the stative or predicative verbal adjective of Akkadian. It is debated whether or not this construction constitutes a fully grammaticalized verbal form or a nominal clause. John argues that the form should be treated as a nominal rather than a verbal category,16 a conclusion that stirred an animated scholarly debate among notable linguists and Assyriologists and that is yet to be resolved.17 Although John’s interest has mainly been directed at morphology and phonology, he has made some important contributions to Akkadian lexicography. John has, for example, proposed South Semitic cognates to Akkadian words.18 His work on Semitic lexicography more generally was heavily informed by his work on Akkadian core and peripheral dialects.19 John is a unique figure among Assyriologists, a scholar who can comfortably draw on first-​hand familiarity with many other languages to inform his linguistic discussion. His contribution to Hebrew linguistics is a case in point; primarily his understanding of the early Canaanite verbal system, which stems directly from his work on Akkadian.20 John’s most pioneering work is his attempt, rare in the field of Akkadian linguistics, to identify Proto-​Akkadian features, namely, features that are linguistic innovations in Akkadian, thus providing a clear linguistic rationale for the hypothesis that East Semitic is a distinct sub-​branch of Semitic.21 The significance of this work cannot be overstated. Without a thorough reconstruction of ​East Semitic, work on Proto-​Semitic is bound to remain tenuous, as John himself ​has noted.22 This important work, which has influenced and shaped our own research, is the impetus for the conference and this collection on the 14.  Huehnergard 1983. 15.  Huehnergard 1986. 16.  Huehnergard 1987. 17.  For example, Kouwenberg 2000; Loesov 2012; and Maksim Kalinin and Sergey Loesov in this volume. 18.  Huehnergard 1991. 19.  E.g., Huehnergard 1999, 2014. 20.  Huehnergard 1988. 21.  Huehnergard 2006. 22.  Huehnergard 2002.

4

Bēl Lišāni

occasion of John’s retirement from teaching (though, we are assured, not from research!). The present volume represents a sample of the research on Akkadian historical linguistics that is currently being done in the field. The papers included, which go beyond those originally presented at the conference, are from renowned scholars in the field from the United States, Canada, Europe, and Russia who work on various aspects of Akkadian from a historical and comparative perspective. They cover a wide range of topics, including lexicon, morphology, word order, syntax, verbal semantics, and subgrouping. We are hopeful that beyond the sign of our deep appreciation for the “Master of ​Language,” this volume will serve as an encouragement for young Assyriologists to engage in more linguistic work in Akkadian and Akkadian dialectology. The volume is organized alphabetically. Paul-​Alain Beaulieu investigates the word order of ša-clauses in Late Babylonian during the Seleucid period, which marks the last-​attested stage in the history of the Akkadian language. The sources for Akkadian at this time are primarily found in archival texts: legal transactions, administrative texts, letters, and letter-​orders. The purpose of the study is to trace word order change from the traditional Akkadian SOV order to an Aramaic-​influenced VSO order and to determine whether the Akkadian of this period could still reflect a spoken idiom. Beaulieu concludes that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that this dialect was a spoken natural language. Øyvind Bjøru and Na‘ama Pat-​El reinvestigate the verbal endings marking subordination in Akkadian, particularly the Assyrian dialect, and the indicative in West Semitic (*–u and *–ni/–na). It has traditionally been assumed that the East and West Semitic morphemes are related, although the transition from subordinating morpheme to indicative marker remains problematic. Bjøru and Pat-​ El argue that the morpheme –u is indeed a shared morpheme of ​East and West Semitic that originally marked subordination, but that –ni (East Semitic) and –na (West Semitic) are not related and represent independent morphemes with separate functions. Rebecca Hasselbach-​Andee revisits the question of whether Eblaite, the only other member of ​East Semitic besides Akkadian, is to be considered an Akkadian dialect or an independent language of ​East Semitic, a question that is still unresolved despite decades of debate. In her article, she proposes a more nuanced approach to the question that considers the presence of innovations and retentions throughout the grammar of ​Eblaite. As a test case, she investigates the forms of the pronominal system in order to determine which features of ​Eblaite are common East Semitic, which are shared innovations with Akkadian, and which represent unique Eblaite features—the latter being either retentions or innovations.

Introduction

5

Bert Kouwenberg looks at cognate objects in Akkadian, namely, constructions in which the verb and its direct object are derived from the same root (as in English “to sing a song” and similar constructions). Kouwenberg catalogues different constructions based on the derivational pattern of the object and the syntax of the entire construction. He further identifies different types of functions for cognate object constructions, such as empty verb cognate objects, modifying cognate objects, periphrastic cognate objects, and cognate objects that express indefinite or generic constituents. Empty verb cognate objects are the most frequent type and form a purely lexical category since they have no identifiable semantic or syntactic function, contrary to the other three types. Maksin Kalinin and Sergey Loesov’s contribution studies the expression of tense and voice in Neo-​Assyrian, based on a model they developed. The authors argue that the grammatical reading of a given verb form results from the interaction of the lexical meaning of individual verbs with the grammatical semantics of the morphological form used. They analyze all the relevant verbs in a set corpus and consequently identify five verbal classes related to the values of dynamicity and transitivity in Neo-​Assyrian. Jacob Jan de Ridder investigates the morphology and distribution of nominal patterns underlying numerals as they appear in Akkadian and/or might be reconstructed to Proto-​Semitic. Importantly, cardinal numerals can be regarded as a special type of primary noun, since they are not derived from any other, more basic substantive or verbal root. For this reason, it is clear that their patterns do not carry any associated function or semantics. Other types of numerals, however, have patterns that reflect their function. De Ridder examines the formation of cardinals, ordinals, fractions, collective numbers, distributives, and adverbs, such as multiplicatives. Some of the conclusions of the paper have relevance to the dialectal divide in Akkadian. Ambjörn Sjörs examines the use of the subordinate marker in Akkadian oaths. Nonnegative oath constructions in Akkadian show a great deal of variation where the predicate may or may not take lū and may or may not be marked by the subordinate marker –u. Sjörs argues that oaths marked with the subordinate marker are independent content clauses and that the independent use of content clauses in oaths is the result of interference with nominalized clauses in Sumerian. He concludes that the use of the subordinate marker in Akkadian oaths is not original but rather a calque of similar constructions with /-ʾa/ in Sumerian. Michael P. Streck presents new results of ​his project Supplement to the Akkadian Dictionaries, which aims to update the two existing dictionaries, the Akkadisches Handwörterbuch by Wolfram von Soden and the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary. During the last decades, countless new Akkadian texts from all periods, regions and genres have been published. These texts provide an abundance of

6

Bēl Lišāni

entirely new words and important new references for words already known. They further expand our knowledge of Akkadian lexicography and, in some cases, of morphology. The article presents examples of these new lexemes and references. Juan-Pablo Vita provides a detailed grammatical description of the Akkadian used by the king(dom) of ​Beirut during the Amarna period (fourteenth century BCE), as reflected in the letters sent from this kingdom to the pharaoh of ​Egypt, and letters found at the city of Ugarit from the thirteenth century BCE. He investigates the orthography, phonology, morphology, and syntax of this corpus, with special focus on diachronic changes. Vita notes that the Akkadian from Beirut as attested at Ugarit underwent a major evolution from the Canaano-​Akkadian of the fourteenth century BCE as evidenced in the letters from el-​Amarna. Vita notes that a detailed study of other coastal localities will allow a broader analysis that will help to contextualize the Akkadian used in the Levant during this period. We take this opportunity to thank the participants of the workshop and the contributors to this volume for their patience and kind engagement with us and each other. We are grateful for the opportunity to work with them. We also thank the office of the Dean of the College of ​Liberal Arts at the University of ​ Texas, Austin, for their generous support. Oda Myran Winsnes provided much-​ appreciated editorial support. Finally, we are grateful for Jim Eisenbraun and the editors of ​Explorations in Ancient Near Eastern Civilizations for accepting this volume for publication and for editorial assistance.

Bibliography Beaulieu, Paul-​Alain. 2013. “Aspects of Aramaic and Babylonian Linguistic Interaction in First Millennium BC Iraq.” Journal of ​Language Contact 6:358–78. Cohen, Eran. 2000. “Akkadian ma in Diachronic Perspective.” ZA 90:207–26. ———. 2005. The Modal System of Old Babylonian. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. ———. 2012. Conditional Structures in Mesopotamian Old Babylonian. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Crisostomo, C. Jay. 2015. “Language, Writing, and Ideologies in Contact: Sumerian and Akkadian in the Early Second Millennium BCE.” Pages 158–80 in Semitic Languages in Contact. Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 82. Edited by Aaron M. Butts. Leiden: Brill. Deutscher, Guy. 2000. Syntactic Change in Akkadian: The Evolution of Sentential Complementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haayer, G. 1986. “Languages in Contact: The Case of Akkadian and Sumerian.” Pages 77–84 in Scripta, Signa, Vocis: Studies About Scripts, Scriptures, Scribes and Languages in the Near East, Presented to J. H. Hospers by His Pupils, Colleagues and Friends. Edited by H. L. J Vanstiphout et al. Groningen: Forsten.

Introduction

7

Hämeen-​Anttila, Jaakko 2000. A Sketch of Neo-​Assyrian Grammar. Helsinki: The Neo-​Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Hasselbach, Rebecca. 2005. Sargonic Akkadian: A Historical and Comparative Study of the Syllabic Texts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Hilgert, Markus. 2002. Akkadisch in der Ur III-​Zeit. IMGULA 5. Münster: Rhema. Huehnergard, John. 1983. “Asseverative *la and Hypothetical *lū/law in Semitic.” JAOS 103:569–93. ———. 1986. On Verbless Clauses in Akkadian.” ZA 76:218–49. ———. 1987. “Stative, Predicative, Pseudo-​Verb.” JNES 46:215–32. ———. 1988. “The Early Hebrew Prefix-​Conjugations.” Hebrew Studies 29:19–23. ———. 1991. “Further South Semitic Cognates to the Akkadian Lexicon.” Pages 690– 713 in vol. 1 of Semitic Studies in Honor of ​Wolf ​Leslau on the Occasion of ​His Eighty-​Fifth Birthday November 14th, 1991. Edited by A. S. Kaye. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. 1999. “On the Etymology and Meaning of ​Hebrew nābîʔ.” Eretz Israel 26:88–93. ———. 2002. “Comparative Semitic Linguistics.” Pages 119–50 in Semitic Linguistics: The State of the Art at the Turn of the Twenty-​First Century. Israel Oriental Studies 20. Edited by Shlomo Izre’el. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. ———. 2006. “Proto-​Semitic and Proto-​Akkadian.” Pages 1–18 in The Akkadian Language and Its Semitic Context: Studies in the Akkadian of the Third and Second Millennium B.C. Edited by G. Deutscher and N. J. C. Kouwenberg. PIHANS 106. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. ———. 2014. “The Semitic Background of Arabic faqīr ‘Poor’.” Pages 243–54 in No Tapping around Philology: Festschrift in Honor of ​Wheeler McIntosh Thackston’s 70th Birthday. Edited by Alireza Korangy and Daniel Sheffield. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Johnson, J. Cale. 2005. “Internally Headed Relative Clauses in Akkadian: Identifying Weak Quantification in the Construct State.” JCS 57:85–98. Khan, Geoffrey. 1988. Studies in Semitic Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kouwenberg, N. J. C. 2000. “Nouns as Verbs: The Verbal Nature of the Akkadian Stative.” Or 69:21–71. ———. 2010. The Akkadian Verb and Its Semitic Background. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. ———. 2017. A Grammar of Old Assyrian. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2019. Introduction to Old Assyrian. Münster: Zaphon. Loesov, Sergey. 2012. “The Suffixing Conjugation of Akkadian: In Search of ​Its Meaning.” Babel und Bibel 6:75–147. Müller, Matthias. 2010. Akkadisch in Keilschrifttexten aus Ägypten. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag. Ridder, Jacob Jan de. 2018. Descriptive Grammar of ​Middle Assyrian. Leipziger altorientalische Studien 8. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Schilling, Guido W. G. 2019. Aspekt und Aktionsart: Grundriss und Fallstudie an altassyrischen Texten. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Soden, Wolfram von. 1995. Grundriss der Akkadischen Grammatik. 3., ergänzte Auflage. AnOr 33. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico. Streck, Michael P. 2014. Altbabylonisches Lehrbuch. 2nd rev. ed. Porta linguarum orientalium 23. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

8

Bēl Lišāni

Tropper, Josef, and Juan-​Pablo Vita. 2010. Das Kanaano-​Akkadische der Amarnazeit. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag. Vita, Juan-Pablo. 2015. “Language Contact Between Akkadian and Northwest Semitic Languages in Syria-​Palestine in the Late Bronze Age.” Pages 375–404 in Semitic Languages in Contact. Edited by Aaron M. Butts. Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 82. Leiden: Brill.

Chapter 1

Remarks on Word Order and the Syntax of ša-Clauses in Late Hellenistic Babylonian Paul-​Alain Beaulieu

The corpus of clay tablets written in Late Babylonian (LB) during the Hellenistic period records the last stage in the history of the Akkadian language. LB was used mostly to write archival texts, that is, legal transactions, administrative texts, letters, and letter-​orders. LB forms also appear in the Babylonian Chronicles of the Hellenistic period and the narrative passages of the Astronomical Diaries (AD). Traditional texts in Standard Babylonian (SB) were still copied in that period. They also exhibit influence from LB, most conspicuously in the realm of phonology.1 A recent estimate of cuneiform sources from the Seleucid and Arsacid eras includes more than five thousand archival texts, of which half are unpublished.2 Many of them record formulaic transactions and for that reason they have not been given due consideration in the study of Akkadian. Wolfram von Soden distinguished two stages in the development of ​Babylonian in the first millennium: a phase he called Neo-​Babylonian (NB) until ca. 626, and a second phase he called LB from 626 until the demise of cuneiform. In his view NB was still a living language, while LB was essentially a grapholect (Schriftsprache), a written form of NB with increasingly faulty orthography and admixture of Aramaic (Mischsprache). The sharp two-​fold division advocated by von Soden seems rigid considering the difficulties of studying language death exclusively from the products of a scribal culture. Recently Johannes Hackl (2018) has questioned von Soden’s classification. He views the transition from NB to LB as a smooth one reflecting normal language evolution, with various developments that were either purely internal or 1.  The Graeco-​Babyloniaca, traditional Babylonian texts transcribed into the Greek alphabet, indicate that the pronunciation of these texts adhered to the phonological developments of LB (Knudsen 1989–90, 1990, 1995). 2.  A description of archival sources from Babylon is provided by Boiy (2004, 13–21). More texts from Babylon are treated in Hackl 2013 and will be published in the future. The total count of five thousand texts is based on the rough evaluation by Monerie (2018, 5–17), with description and geographic distribution of the documentation. Jursa (2005) details the various archives to which these texts can be assigned.

9

10

Bēl Lišāni

caused by contact with Aramaic.3 He posits that LB was still a spoken language since letters dating to the sixth century show consistent linguistic innovations without evidence of the language being ossified. For him the significant shift occurred only during the Hellenistic period, mainly after the middle of the third century, when LB begins to exhibit changes in its traditional word order. He also claims that even in this final stage, which extended until the beginning of the first century BCE, LB was still a living language, albeit spoken by few (Sprachinseln). He proposes to name that final stage Late Hellenistic Babylonian (LHB). The two classifications may be schematized as follows: Traditional classification (von Soden) NB: ca. 1000–626 (living language) LB: ca. 626–50 (dead language) New classification (Hackl) NB and LB: ca. 1000–250 (living language) LHB: ca. 250–50 (Sprachinseln) One of the diagnostic features of LHB is variation in word order. To be sure, relatively free word order occurs long before that period, for example, in poetry, personal names (e.g., Iddin-​Nabû), and SB prose (especially Assyrian royal inscriptions). However, in the language of everyday documents, Akkadian (both Assyrian and Babylonian dialects) consistently adheres to the traditional orders subject-​object-​verb (SOV) and prepositional-​phrase-​and-​verb (PPV) until the Hellenistic period. During the third century, however, a change takes place. The order verb-​subject-​object (VSO) now occurs alongside SOV. In accordance with this we find the sequence verb-​and-​prepositional-​phrase (VPP) alongside the traditional PPV. Hackl’s argument may be schematized as follows (Hackl 2018, 213–14): NB and LB (until ca. 250) Main clause: SOV Relative clause: SOV Prepositional phrase: PPV LHB (after ca. 250) Main clause: SOV, VSO Relative clause: SOV, VSO Prepositional phrase: PPV, VPP 3.  The extent and nature of the interaction between Aramaic and Akkadian during the first millennium is subject to debate. A review of the evidence and references to previous works is available in Beaulieu 2013.

Word Order and the Syntax of ša-Clauses

11

Hackl bases his argumentation mainly on letters, which he believes are the closest to the spoken language. However, apart from letter orders that are extremely formulaic and in fact always adhere to the SOV word order of NB and LB, we have only a handful of actual letters from the Hellenistic period. Therefore, I will concentrate here on legal and administrative documents, which number several hundred and have not been considered for their linguistic content. These texts fall mostly within a restricted typology of transactions, mostly sales of temple prebends, slaves and real estate, divisions of property, quitclaims and also some dialogue documents. I will also consider some examples from letters and other genres such as the AD. This by no means constitutes a systematic investigation. Its purpose is to point to certain phenomena relating to word order and the syntax of clauses introduced by the particle ša in LHB. I am delighted to present this contribution in a volume dedicated to John Huehner­ gard on the occasion of ​his retirement since we were colleagues for several years in the Department of ​Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Harvard University.4

1.1. The Particle ša as Calque of Aramaic ʾedayīn Some legal and administrative documents from the Seleucid period display an unconventional format. They begin with the date, followed by the opening clause of the transaction in VSO word order.5 In some cases the opening clause is preceded by ša, which appears to function as conjunction binding the date with the opening statement. Aramaic legal papyri from Egypt present a similar format, with the date in initial position, followed by the opening statement in typical VSO order. In many cases the conjunction ʾedayīn (“then, when, as”) binds the opening statement with the date. The following example illustrates this point (Kraeling 1953, 236–37, no. 9). The date is followed by the conjunction (ʾdyn) and then by the verb (ʾmr) and the subject (ʿnny):

4.  Quotations from cuneiform texts are numbered as examples (1) to (97b). Each example includes a normalized text and a translation. The normalization of words spelled syllabically generally adheres to the writing, even if this departs from the expected form; logograms are normalized in Akkadian according to their NB/LB forms. Thus, some degree of inconsistency must be expected. Each example ends with the textual reference and the year of the document in the Seleucid or Arsacid eras (or both in cases of double dating). In the quotations each grammatical segment is separated by a vertical trait in both the normalization and the translation. For the sake of ​brevity, the names, genealogies and titles of individuals are not reproduced except when necessary; individuals all appear as PN, followed by a number in subscript if more than one individual is mentioned. 5.  The texts are quoted here as examples (1) to (7), to which must be added BRM 1: 88, quoted below as examples (97a) and (97b).

12

Bēl Lišāni

b 24 lmrḫšwn hw ywm 29 lmswrʿ šnt 1 ʾrtḫšs[š] mlkʾ ʾdyn ʾmr ʿnny br ʿzryh “On the 24th day of the month Marḫešwan, which is the 29th day of the month Mesore, in the first year of the reign of Artaxerxes, then said Anani son of Azariah . . .” It seems highly probable that the appearance of that same format in the Hellenistic cuneiform corpus reflects the influence of Aramaic. Since Akkadian has no equivalent for ʾedayīn, its function as temporal conjunction was transfered to ša, which became in this context a calque of ʾedayīn.6 It must be noted that ʾedayīn is optional in Aramaic documents.7 The use of ša as conjunction also seems optional in the cuneiform documents. In the examples below it is present in (1), (2), (3), (4), (6), and (7) but absent in (5). In examples (3), (6), and (7) the particle ša could be also interpreted as an anticipatory relative pronoun. However, the number of parallels where this is clearly not the case strongly indicates that ša functions, in all these instances, as conjunction. The texts that follow the Aramaic incipit format display VSO word order more frequently than other documents. This feature may reflect in some cases translations from Aramaic originals.8 Only example (1) has an initial clause with traditional SOV order (ending with īmurū). This could be due to the linguistic conservatism of the scribe, since the text was written early in the Seleucid era. (1) arah Arahsamnu ū[m o ša]nat 27 Seluku u Ant[iukus]u šarrū | ša PN1 šatammu Esagil u kiništu ša Esagil nindabû ina bābāni ša Esagil īmurū | u PN2 nuhatimmu nindabû ša iškun maṣhatu alla burāšu atri alla simātu iltakan “In the month Arahsamnu on the xth d[ay in the ye]ar 27 during the reigns of Seleucus (I) and Antiochus (I), | then PN1, high-​priest of ​ Esagil and the assembly of ​Esagil inspected the offerings at the gates of ​Esagil | and (decreed that) PN2, the baker, used more flour than juniper, much more beyond the prescribed quantity, for the offerings he prepared” (Jursa 2002: 5 obv. 1–9; SE 27)9

6.  The conjunction ʾedayīn does not typically function as subordinating conjunction like ša. Therefore, it seems that the choice of ša to translate ʾedayīn in this very specific context was somewhat arbitrary and motivated by the absence of a functional equivalent in the target language. 7.  For example, if we look at the Brooklyn Aramaic Papyri from fifth century Egypt (Kraeling 1953), the conjunction ʾedayīn occurs in nos. 5 to 12, but not in nos. 1 to 4 (nos. 13 to 17 are fragmentary). Since the papyri are organized chronologically, it seems that the use of ʾedayīn in this context became normative during the last quarter of the fifth century. 8.  The text OECT 9: 24 (example 5) states that it was translated from an original on parchment (Clancier 2005). 9.  The text is BM 79028 and it is also translated by Monerie (2018, 363).

Word Order and the Syntax of ša-Clauses

13

(2) [ūm 22] ša arah Simānu ša šanat 67 Seluku šarru | ša izizi ina? birīt? itinnī ša bīt ilī | u iqbû ana epuš ša dullu ina bīt ilī arad-​ekallī | ša ippušma ultu ūm 22 ša arah Simānu adi ūm 22 ša arah Dûzu “[On the 22nd day] of the month Simānu in the 67th year during the reign of Seleucus (II), | then the builders of the temple of the gods were present | and they spoke about performing the work in the temple of the gods, (and) the arad-​ekallis | who will perform the work from the 22nd day of Simānu until the 22nd day of ​Dûzu, are: (PNs)” (BRM 2: 17 obv. 1–4; SE 67)10 (3) ūm 22 ša arah Ṭebētu šanat 71 Se šarru | ša ihīṭū kutimmū gamrī . . . ūmu šû | ša ihīṭū PN1 u ahhūšu aplū ša PN2 “On the 22nd day of the month Ṭebētu in the 71st year during the reign of Seleucus (II), | then all the goldsmiths weighed out (the following) . . . on that (same) day | then PN1 and his brothers, sons of PN2, weighed out (the following)” (YOS 20: 35 obv. 1–2, rev. 1–2; SE 71)11 (4) arah Simānu ū[m 25 šanat 7]3 Seluku šarru | ša innērebi PN1 ana PN2 ahīšu ana muhhi mišil mala zittīšu ina isiq sirāšûtu ṭābih[ūtu] u nuhatimmūtu | ša ana PN3 abīšu [ik]kaššidu | ša iressen ipallaha [a]di muh ešerta šanāti “In the month of Simānu, on the [25th day in the 7]3rd year during the reign of Seleucus (II), | then PN1 entered into an agreement with PN2 his brother, concerning (the) half ​(that is) as much of ​his share in the prebend of ​brewer, butcher and cook | that pertains to Nidintu-​Anu, his father, | who will perform the prebend service for ten years” (OECT 9: 16 obv. 1–8; SE 73)12

10.  Example (2) presents some difficulties. The preposition ina birīt is partly damaged and its reading is uncertain, especially as it does not seem to govern a noun. However, one possibility is to understand arad-​ekallī as the subject of ​both izizzi and iqbû, and ina birīt as governing itinnī, in which case the translation would be: “[On the 22nd day] of the month Simānu in the 67th year, during the reign of Seleucus (II) | then there stood among the builders of the temple of the gods | and spoke about performing the work in the temple of the gods, the arad-​ekallīs | who will perform the work from the 22nd day of Simānu until the 22nd day of ​Dûzu, (and they) are: (PNs).” The translation adopted here more or less follows the editions by Baker 2005, 41–43, and in ORACC (http://​ oracc​.museum​.upenn​.edu​/hbtin​/corpus). 11.  The same formulary appears in NCBT 1244 (Beaulieu 1989, 69–74) but the text is quite damaged. Previously ša has been interpreted as anticipatory relative pronoun in both texts. 12.  Line 2 begins with the sequence GAR-in né-​re-​bi, which was interpreted by Doty (1977, 234–36) as šakin nērebi “he granted access,” where šakin would be an active stative or a calque of the Aramaic perfective conjugation Peal; this reading was later adopted by Funck (1984, 175–76). The reading šá in-​né-​re-​bi was proposed by McEwan (1981a, 108–9), even though he recognized that

14

Bēl Lišāni

(5) ina arah Simānu šanat 84 Seluku šarru | iselim PN1 u qubbulu ina qāti PN2 u PN3 PN4 u PN5 šīmu “In the month Simānu of the 84th year during the reign of Seleucus (II), | PN1 came to an agreement and received from PN2, PN3, PN4, and PN5 the sale price (of the prebend)” (OECT 9: 24 obv. 1–3; SE 84)13 (6) arah Dûzu ūm 30 šanat 86 Seluku šarru | ša ubiʾʾû PN1 ina qāti PN2 umma | binamma ina amartū ša bīt iltāni ša bīti attûka erṣeti Emihallake ša qereb Uruk | qanû u gušūru ina libbi luṣabbit ana ūmu ṣâtu “In the month Dûzu on the 30th day in the 86th year during the reign of Seleucus (III), | then PN1 made a request from PN2 as follows: | “Give me the use of the partition walls of the north-​facing suite of your house in the Emihallake district of Uruk | and reeds and beams I will affix to it in perpetuity” (VAS 15: 35 obv. 1–5; SE 86) In example (6) the first two clauses follow the VSO word order. In the third clause, however, the verb luṣabbit is preceded by its direct object and followed by its adverbial complement. (7) [ša]nat 130 arah Ṭebētu ūm 29 | ša itammû PN1 a[na muhh]i ša isqī annûtu umma | īdû | ša PN2 [abi] abīk[a i]mhuršunūtu ina qāti PN3 | u iltakannū nīš ilī PN1 agâ libbū mimma | ša ušuzzu “[Ye]ar 130, month of Ṭebētu, day 29, | then PN1 swore co[ncernin]g those prebends as follows: | ‘They know | that PN2 your [grand]father received them from PN3’; | and they made that PN1 swear the oath in accordance with everything | that he testified about.” (McEwan 1986b, rev. 14–18; SE 143)14 The translation of example (7) must be considered provisional as the text contains several difficulties. In addition to the attestation of ša as binding conjunction after the date, it seems that the particle has another function after īdû, the introduction of the sentential complement, which is a well-​attested feature of ša the N-​stem of erēbu is not attested elsewhere. It is adopted by Corò (2005, 362–63). The meaning of the N-​stem of erēbu in this context is uncertain, possibly “to enter into an agreement.” 13.  The verb qubbulu is a loanword from Aramaic that appears in a few texts from the Seleucid period (CAD Q, 292 s.v. qubbulu A). It assumes the form of a D stative and it is probably a calque of the Aramaic Pa’’el conjugation. The verb written i-​se-​lim could be normalized isselim as G Perfect of the verb selēmu “to become amicable.” 14.  On line 15 we have an-​nu-​tú-​ma. It is probable that annûtu is in Sandhi with umma (Hackl 2018, 216–17). Also, it is uncertain how the oath should be interpreted (positive or negative), leaving the translation open.

Word Order and the Syntax of ša-Clauses

15

after verbs of cognition (“to hear, to know, to say”) in NB and LB. This brings us to the question of the broadening of the functions of the particle ša in the later stages of ​Babylonian.

1.2. The Evolving Functions of the Particle ša In the earlier stages of Akkadian ša has two basic functions: one as determinative pronoun binding two substantives in a genitive relationship, and the other one as relative pronoun introducing subordinate clauses. In NB and LB, however, ša is assigned new functions. It is already used in the seventh century to introduce sentential complements after the verbs idû “to know” and amāru “to see.” In LB letters of the sixth century ša is used after other verbs, especially šemû “to hear,” and becomes the most important conjunction introducing sentential complements, with usual translation “that.”15 A further development occurs at the same time: now ša also introduces indirect sentential complements, “so that” (example 12). Thus, the particle ša becomes general coordinator and subordinator. Original functions 1. Determinative pronoun binding nomen regens and nomen rectum 2. Relative pronoun introducing the subordinate clause Expanded functions 3. Conjunction introducing sentential complement 4. Conjunction, calque of Aramaic ʾedayīn The extension of the functions of ša appears to have had an impact on word order, specifically the placement of the verb. If we look at texts from the third and second centuries that exhibit LHB features, it appears that the scribes tend to make a difference in the word order of the clause that depends on ša on the basis of its function. If ša introduces a sentential complement, then the verb adheres to the traditional word order and is at, or near the end, of the clause. If ša is a relative pronoun and is immediately preceded by its referent, then the verb is usually topicalized, it moves to the beginning of the clause. These patterns are not consistent, however, and exceptions occur. The following discussion provides many examples of these developments. 15.  Several examples are provided by Deutscher (2000, 102–23), with discussion of the diachronic evolution of sentential complementation in Babylonian.

16

Bēl Lišāni

1.3. The Particle ša Introducing Sentential Complement There are few examples where the particle ša introduces a sentential complement. In all such cases the word order of the sentential complement is SOV. The examples are culled mostly from the AD with the exceptions of examples (7), already discussed above, and (12), one of the few letters from the Seleucid period. The AD contain many additional examples of ša introducing sentential complementation after the verb šemû “to hear.” Unfortunately, they are often poorly preserved, and most occurrences of sentences introduced by ša after alteme or ittešme are too damaged to yield continuous sense. Examples (10) and (11) illustrate sentential complementation after the verb šemû, example (8) after qabû, and example (9) after the conjunction akkāʾi. (8) [arhu] šû 27 iltēn ultu ṣābē šarri | ša iqabbû | ša rab ūqi ša An apli ša Aliksandar [o o o o o ana] Babili īrumma “On the 27th of that [month], one of the royal troops | who said | that the general of Antiochus, son of Alexander [o o o o o] entered Babylon” (AD III: 152 rev. 36′–37′; SE 171)16 (9) [arhu] šû ūm 15 šipištū ša Aršakâ šar[ri ana] pāhāt Bābili u puliṭān ša ina Bābili šaṭrū | ina bīt tāmarti šasû akkāʾi | ša ummānātu gapšātu iphurūma | u ana ṣalti illikū ana muhhi mār šarri u ummānātīšu ša alāni [o o o o u G]utî | ša ana Artabanâ ahīya idūkū | u asdir ana tarṣīšunu | u ṣaltu ēpušu ittīšunu | dīktu rabītu ina libbīšunu aškun “That [month], on the 15th day, leather documents from king Arsaces that were written to the governor of ​Babylon and the citizens who were in Babylon, | were read in the theater, according to which | mighty troops gathered | and went to war against the son of the king, and his troops which are in the cities [o o o and the G]utians | who killed my brother Artaban, | and I proceeded against them | and fought with them and made a vast slaughter among them” (AD III: 326 A 18′– 20′; SE 193) In example (9) there is a switch from third to first person in the course of the report and at this point the verb moves at the beginning of the clauses before the syntax reverts to SOV at the end. The switch may be explained by pragmatics: 16.  The translation of this passage in Sachs and Hunger (1996, 326) runs as follows: “That [month], the 27th, one from the troops of the king, as they say, whom the general of An(tiochus), son of Alexander [. . .].” Del Monte (1997, 107–8) also understands the first ša as governing an impersonal construction, but the second one as introducing sentential complementation (“che si dice que il generale di Antioco”). Admittedly the passage is difficult due to its poor state of preservation.

Word Order and the Syntax of ša-Clauses

17

in the letters to the Babylonians the king is now describing his own actions in the first person and the verbs are topicalized (asdir ana tarṣīšunu u ṣāltu ēpušu ittīšunu “I proceeded against them and fought with them”). One notes also that the relative clause ša ana Artabanâ ahīya idūkū follows the traditional SOV order. (10) arhu šû alteme | ša Arbā[yu o o] ana limīt Siluki’a ša ana muhhi Puratti ipṭurū “That month I heard | that the Ara[bs o o ] departed for the city of Seleukia which is on the Euphrates” (AD III: 390 rev. 22′–23′; SE 206) (11) [a]lteme | ša Aršakâ šar šarrī madinat ša māt Madāya kīma mahrû ipṭur “[I] heard | that Arsaces, the king of ​kings, moved like the previous time the province of the country of ​Media” (AD III: 430 rev. 23; SE 218) (12) attunu enna agâ qerbā ana muhhi abīšu | ša anīni asûssu nippuš “As for you now, come to his father | so that we can perform his medical treatment” (BaghM Beiheft 2: 113 rev. 23–25; undated)

1.4. Subordinate Clauses Introduced by the Relative Pronoun ša In LHB, relative clauses introduced by ša often follow the VSO (or VPP) word order when ša is immediately preceded by its referent. In fact, this construction makes up the largest number of cases of adoption of VSO (or VPP) word order in LHB. Both transitive and intransitive verbs are attested in such constructions. 1.4.1. ša ikkaššidu / takkaššidu The most frequent verb in such constructions is kašādu in the N durative ikkaššidu (with stem vowel-i in the durative; 3fs takkaššidu) with the specialized meaning “to pertain” (CAD K, 283b). This intransitive verb is very common in legal transactions from the Seleucid period. It always occurs in ša relative clauses and in the majority of cases it is placed at the end of the clause (PPV). However, there are a number of cases where it occurs at the beginning (VPP): (13) (prebend) | ša ikkaššidu ana ištētu qaltu “(prebend) | that pertains to one bow field” (TCL 13: 242 obv. 6; SE 99)

18

Bēl Lišāni

(14) [u] šanâmma gabbi | ša ikkaššidu ana pāni! PN “and all the others | that pertain to PN” (YOS 20: 47 obv. 4–5; SE 100)17 (15) u mimma gabbi | ša ikkaššidu ana atûtu šuāti “and everything | that pertains to that prebend of doorkeeper” (BRM 2: 34 obv. 2–3; SE 124) (16) ultu bilāti | ša ikkaššidū ana muhhīka “from the rental payments | that pertain to you” (YOS 20: 64 obv. 4; SE 126?)18 (17) elat bītu ruggubu ša elīšunu | ša ikkaššidu ana PN ahīšu . . . elat bītu ruggubūšu | ša ikkaššidu ana PN ahīšu “apart from the upper roofed suite | that pertains to PN his brother . . . apart from the roofed suite | which pertains to PN his brother” (BRM 2: 39 obv. 3–4, rev. 20–21; SE 149) (18) ṭēh kišubbâ mūṣû | ša ikkaššidu ana bīti šuāti “alongside the undeveloped land (and) exit passage | that pertains to that house” (BRM 2: 42 obv. 4–5; SE 151) (19) ṭēh bīti ša iltāni | ša ikkaššidu ana PN ahīšu “alongside the north facing suite | that pertains to PN his brother” (BRM 2: 41 obv. 16–17; SE 152) (20) ṭēh bīt qāti | ša takkaššidu ana FPN . . . bītu ša iltāni | ša ikkaššidu ana PN “alongside the storehouse | that pertains to FPN . . . the north facing suite | that pertains to PN” (BiMes 24: 35 obv. 11′, obv. 15′; SE 152) (21) ṭēh kišubbâ makkūr Anu | ša ikkaššidu ana bīti šuāti “alongside the undeveloped land, property of Anu, | that pertains to that house” (BRM 2: 45 obv. 15–16; SE 154) (22) ṭēh mešhat šanītu | ša ikkaššidu ana PN1 | u ṭēh zitti ša tarbaṣi | ša ikkaššidu ana PN2 šuāti “alongside the second measured land lot | that pertains to PN1 | and alongside the share of the animal pen | which pertains to that PN2” (VAS 15: 24 obv. 11–13; SE 160) 17.  The copy has SI, which I emend tentatively to IGI. 18.  The word bilātu (GÚ.UN.MEŠ) is treated by the scribe as masculine plural.

Word Order and the Syntax of ša-Clauses

19

(23) mešhat šanītu | ša takkaššidu ana zitti šu[āti] . . . [o o] | ša ikkaššidū ana PN “the second measured land lot | that pertains to th[at] share . . . [o o] | which pertain to PN” (OECT 9: 63 obv. 25, rev. 8; SE 163) (24) (prebend) u mimma | ša ikkaššidūka ina ṣidītu ilī “(the prebend) and everything | that pertains to you from the provisions of the gods” (Sarkisian, VDI 1955.4: 8 obv. 14; SE 165) (25) (meat cuts) | ša ikkaššidū ana kutimmūtu “(meat cuts) | that pertain to the prebend of goldsmith” (OECT 9: 68 obv. 7′; SE xx) (26) ṭēh kišubbâ mūṣû | ša ikkaššidū ana bīti šuāti “alongside the undeveloped land (and) exit passage | that pertain to that house” (YOS 20: 80 obv. 4–5; SE xx) (27) ṭēh amaštu | ša takkaššidu ana PN . . . elat bītu rugub ša ina muhhi mūṣû šuāti | ša ikkaššidu ana PN “alongside the partition wall | that pertains to PN . . . apart from the roofed suite by that exit passage | which pertains to PN” (YOS 20: 83 obv. 5, obv. 9; SE xx) (28) ṭēh kišubbâ mim[ma | ša i]kkaššidu ana PN nādin bīti šuāti “alongside the undeveloped land [o | that p]ertains to PN, the seller of that house” (Corò 2018: 105 obv. 8′–9′; SE xx) In spite of the relatively high number of VSO constructions with the verb kašādu, in most cases subordinate clauses introduced by ša that have ikkaššidu as predicate still follow the SOV order. This may be due to the conservatism of the scribes, who learned these legal formulas by rote. In some cases, the SOV and VSO orders are attested in the same text, with no apparent reason for the variation. In the following two examples, however, the SOV order might be caused by the presence of mimma gabbi as referent of ša: (29) (prebend) | ša ikkaššidu ana iltēt qaštu ina ūm 13 ša arhussu kal šatti guqqânē eššēšī | u mimma gabbi | ša ana isqi šuāti ikkaššidu “(prebend) | that pertains to one bow-​field, on the thirteenth day of each month through the entire year, (including) the occasional offerings, the eššēšu festivals, | and everything | that pertains to that prebend” (BRM 2: 29 obv. 5–7; SE 96?)

20

Bēl Lišāni

(30) [is]iqšu | ša ikkaššidūšu ina rebû [zitti] . . . u mimma gabbi | ša ana isqī šuāti ikkaššidu “his prebend | which pertains to this one-​fourth of a share . . . and everything else | that pertains to those prebends” (Jursa 1997: 38 obv. 2, 13; SE 162) 1.4.2. ša ipallah One case is recorded with this verb in example (87) below, and another one in example (4) above in the hendiadys ša iressen ipallaha. In the latter case, however, the pronoun ša is not immediately preceded by its referent. 1.4.3. ša iqbû The expression ša iqbû “which they call” (i.e., “which is called”) became a fixed formula in scholastic texts and commentaries well before the Seleucid period, functioning like quotation marks (CAD Q, 29–30). In the following examples, however, the verb qabû is the actual predicate of the subordinate clause. It occurs mostly in contexts where an alternative name is specified for a geographic location. All occurrences follow the VSO word order:19 (31) bīssu epšu tarbaṣu u mūṣûšu erṣeti bāb mahīri | ša iqbû erṣeti bīt Ereškigal ša qereb Uruk “his built house with animal pen and its exit in the district of the Market Gate, | which is called the district of the temple of ​Ereškigal in Uruk” (BRM 2: 54 obv. 2–3; SE 150?) (32) bīt rittīšu ša ina erṣeti Irigal | ša iqabbû kapri ša bīt! ilī ša Uruk “his tenured property in the Irigal district, | which is called the village of the temples of Uruk” (VAS 15: 27 obv. 3–4; SE 156) (33) ina bīti epšu ina dūri ša Anu | ša iqbû kapri erṣeti bīt Irigal ina libbi dūri ša Uruk “in a built house by the wall of Anu, | which is called the village of the district of the Irigal temple by the wall of Uruk” (YOS 20: 77 obv. 3–4; SE 159) (34) [ki]šubbâšu bīt rittīšu ina dūri ša Anu | ša iqbû kapri ša qereb Uruk “his undeveloped plot and tenured property by the wall of Anu, | which is called the village, within Uruk” (Corò 2018: 104 obv. 2; SE 160) 19.  Since there is no overt subject in these examples one could argue that the order is (S)VO.

Word Order and the Syntax of ša-Clauses

21

(35) bīt rittīšu ina dūri ša Anu | [ša] iqbû kapri ša bīt ilī erṣeti Bīt Rēš ina libbi dūri ša Uruk “his tenured property by the wall of Anu, | [which] is called the village of the temple (in) the district of the Rēš temple by the wall of Uruk” (YOS 15: 9 obv. 4–6; SE xx) (36) PN1 | ša iqbû aplu ša PN2 “PN1 who is said to be the heir of PN2” (Sarkisian, VDI 1955.4: 3 obv. 2; SE xx) 1.4.4. ša iškunu Two examples of this verb at the beginning of a ša clause have recently surfaced in the same text. The other one is detailed in example (74). (37) šina šaṭārī ša isiq kutimmūtu u ērib-​bīt-​pirištūtu | ša iškunū māš ili mārū u mār-​mārī ša PN ina arah Kislīmu ūm 8 šanat 139 kūm 8 ½ “two contracts and one receipt of the prebend of goldsmith and entrant of the sacristy, | which the sons and grandsons of PN placed in front of the god in the month Kislīmu, on the 8th day, in the year 139, instead of 8 ½ (days?)” (Corò 2018: 119 obv. 9–14; SE 142)20 1.4.5. ša iṭṭarridu The CAD considers this verb as distinct from ṭarādu A “to send away, to dispatch,” and lists it as ṭarādu B “to name, to call,” only attested in the Seleucid period in the N durative with stem vowel-i (like ikkaššidu). Thus, ša iṭṭarridu seems functionally identical to ša iqbû and this is supported by example (38). This intransitive verb occurs mostly in Arsacid date formulas in which Parthian kings bear two names, their dynastic name Arsaces and their personal name (Gotarzes or Orodes), in which cases we have the formula Arsakâ ša iṭtarridu Gutarzâ / Urudâ “Arsaces who is called Gotarzes / Orodes.” This translation is supported by AD III: 454 rev. 31′: Aršakâ šarru ša šumšu Gutarzâ “Arsaces the king, whose name is Gotarzes” (no.-87 = 88 BCE = SE 224).21 20.  The writing is DUMU.MEŠ u DUMU.MEŠ.MEŠ, and the interpretation mārī u mār-​marī “sons and grandsons” seems the most plausible. The first two lines of this administrative text specify that the šaṭārū in question are placed in baskets (hallatū). These baskets contained prebendal contracts and records of turns of duties and were probably placed before the divine statues in the temple. On this basis one may infer that the expression māš ili (ma-​áš DINGIR) means “before the god,” but this is solely on the basis of context since the alleged preposition māš is a hapax. 21.  The meaning “to call, to name” for iṭṭarridu was first established by McEwan 1986a, 92; it is further documented by Del Monte (1996) with the evidence from this passage.

22

Bēl Lišāni

(38) [mišil] zittīšu gabbi ša ina bīti epšu makkūr Anu bīt ritti ša PN abīšu ša ina kapri | ša iṭṭarridu kapri ša Anu ša ina erṣeti abul Ištar ša qereb Uruk “[half] of all his share in the built house, the property of Anu, the tenured property of PN, his father, in the village | that is called the village of Anu in the district of the Ištar Gate in Uruk” (BiMes 24: 22 obv. 1–3; dupl. YOS 20: 67+91; SE 131)22 (39) u mimma | ša ultu bīt ilī iṭṭarridu [an]a muhhi bīti šuāti ina karê bītāti makkūr Anu | apallah “and whatever (service) | which originates from the temple regarding this house (insofar as) it belongs to the houses owned in common by the property of Anu, | I will perform” (Corò 2018: 97 obv. 13–14; SE 144) (40) Aršakâ | [ša iṭṭa]rridu Gutarzâ šarru “Arsaces | who is called Gotarzes, being king” (AD III: 442 lo.e. 1; SE 221) (41) Aršakâ šarru | ša ṭarridu [Gut]arzâ “Arsaces the king | who is called [Got]arzes” (SBH 93: 51 rev. 10′–11′; SE 221)23 (42) [Aršakâ | ša iṭṭ]arridu Gutarzâ šarru “[Arsaces | who is ca]lled Gotarzes, being king” (AD III: 444 u.e. 2; SE 223) (43) Aršakâ | ša iṭṭarridu Guṭarzâ šarru “Arsaces | who is called Gotarzes, being king” (LBAT 1295 rev. 15–16; SE 225)24 (44) Aršakam | ša iṭṭarrid[u o o] “Arsaces | who is calle[d o o]” (AD III: 484 rev. 10′; SE 232)

22.  This text is cited in CAD Ṭ, 61 s.v. ṭarādu B but with the reading šik-​tar-​ri for kap-​ri; this was corrected by Del Monte (1996). 23.  The copy indicates that the passage is heavily damaged, and the text must be partly restored. 24.  Discussion of the tablet in Epping and Strassmaier 1891, with copy of the passage on p. 222. The tablet is given the number no. 9, 21–7–88 in the Shemtob Collection, now CBS 17 in the University Museum, University of ​Pennsylvania. See also Del Monte 1997, 254.

Word Order and the Syntax of ša-Clauses

23

(45) Aršakam šar šarrāni | ša iṭṭarridu Urudâ šarru “Arsaces, king of ​kings, who is called Orodes, being king” (LBAT 1445 obv. 2–3; SE 232)25 (46) [Aršak]â | ša iṭṭarridu [Ur]udâ šarru “[Arsac]es, | who is called [Or]odes, being king” (LBAT 1446 obv. 2–3; SE 232/233) 1.4.6. ša iturru / taturru Judging from context, the phrase ša iturru / taturru should mean “who/which is.” Since Akkadian has no verb “to be” this function was assigned to the verb târu “to return,” which also means “to turn into, to become,” a very plausible semantic shift.26 This use of the verb târu is a development of the Seleucid period. Examples are provided by CAD T, 262a, which lists the usage as “meaning unknown.” The spellings are quite consistent as a durative with subordinate marker. This intransitive verb occurs always in initial position in ša clauses. (47) [FPN] | ša taturru mārat [x šanāti] “[FPN], | who is [x years] old” (OECT 9: 58 obv. 17–18; SE 143) (48) napharu | ša iturru ana iltēn! ūmu ina ūmū šuāti “(fractions of prebends), the total of | which comes to one day among those days” (OECT 9: 61 obv. 4; SE 153) (49) ṭuppi mahīri | ša iturru ina šumu ša PN1 šuāti “the tablet of sale | which is in the name of that PN1” (BRM 2: 44 obv. 11–12; SE 154) (50) napharu | ša iturru ina iltēn kurri iltēn pāni erbe sâti isqi šuāti “(fractions of prebends), the total of | which comes to one kurru, one pānu (and) four sâtu of that prebend” (OECT 9: 62 obv. 5–6; SE 157)

25.  The copy of LBAT 1445 is published in Strassmaier 1888, 147, no. 9, line 3 has LUGAL LUGAL.MEŠ after Arsaces; this is omitted by Del Monte 1997, 254. 26.  McEwan 1981b puts forward another explanation that can no longer be sustained in light of the evidence now available. He viewed it as a loan-​translation from either Greek or Aramaic, but an internal development seems more plausible.

24

Bēl Lišāni

(51) FPN | ša tatur alti PN “FPN, | who is the wife of PN” (BIN 2: 136 obv. 1; SE 163)27 (52) FPN | ša taturru alti PN “FPN, | who is the wife of PN” (Speleers, Recueil 2: 295 obv. 10–11; SE 165)28 (53) FPN | ša taturru [al]ti PN “FPN, | who is the wife of PN” (BRM 2: 50 obv. 10–11; SE 165) (54) FPN1 | ša taturru mārtu ša 44! [šanā]ti | u FPN2 mārassu | ša taturru mārtu ša [1]5 šanāti “FPN1 | who is 44 years old | and FPN2 her daughter | who is 15 years old” (BiMes 24: 44 obv. 2–5; AE 115) (55) FPN | ša taturru mārtu ša šatti 5 šanāti “FPN | who is five years old” (BRM 2: 53 obv. 2; SE 180?)29 (56) PN1 arassu | ša iturru mār 10 šanāti | u PN2 ahūšu | ša iturru mār 6 šanāti “PN1 his slave | who is ten years old | and PN2 his brother | who is six years old” (BiMes 24: 43 obv. 2–3; AE 120) (57) hanza ša ūmu ina iltēn ūmu | ša itur ana pāni! isqi [ṭābih]ūtu “one-​fifth of a day in one day | that belongs to the prebend of ​ [butch]er” (Kessler 1984, obv. 4–5; AE 139 = SE 203)30 1.4.7. ša kullu This is a D stative of kullu with active meaning “to hold, to own.” Such usage is already attested in LB (CAD K, 515a).

27.  The restoration ta-​tur proposed by McEwan 1981b is supported by the copy; it is also adopted by CAD T, 262a. 28.  The following text, example (53), is a duplicate of this text. 29.  The text has DUMU.MUNUS šá MU 5 MU.MEŠ. I presume that the scribe repeated the logogram for “years” by mistake, although we could understand MU.MEŠ as a phonogram for šuāti, but this seems much less likely. 30.  The text bears the excavation number W. 18568. It is remarkable that this very late document otherwise follows the SOV word order, including for ikkaššidu on obv. 6–7 in a relative clause. Kessler reads DIŠ PI GIŠ.ŠUB.BA on line 3, but I prefer to emend PI to IGI since the two signs can look alike in the late script.

Word Order and the Syntax of ša-Clauses

25

(58) ṭēh bīti | ša kullu PN “alongside the house | that PN holds” (OECT 9: 58 obv. 7–8; SE 143) (59) ṭēh kišubbâ | ša kullu PN1 “alongside the undeveloped land | that PN1 holds” (Wallenfels 2015, 77, obv. 3–4; SE 149)31 1.4.8. ša šaṭru The stative of this verb occurs in several slave sales in subordinate clauses referring to the inscribed hand of the slave (e.g., PN1 ša qāt imittīšu ana PN2 šaṭrat “PN1 whose right hand is inscribed to PN2”; CAD Š/II, 231). These clauses always follow the traditional word order. In the three examples listed here the stative occurs in initial position after ša. (60) mimma | ša šaṭṭar ina šaṭāri agâ “everything | that is written in this document” (OECT 9: 24 rev. 20; SE 84) (61) ana allu zaqāpu gišimmarī libbū | ša šaṭṭar ina di’agiram [o o] . . . libb[ū] | ša šaṭṭar ina di’agiram | ana[ndin a]na bīt ilī “for (plowing with) the hoe and planting of date palms, in accordance with | what is written in the royal regulation . . . in accordance with | what is written in the royal regulation, | I will gi[ve] to the temple” (Sarkisian 1974: 1 rev. 33, rev. 36–37; SE 91)32 1.4.9. ša uba’’û This verb with the meaning “to seek, to request” (with prepositions ina qāti, ultu, lapāni “from”) is attested four times in ša relative clauses, all with the verb in initial position. (62) PN šuāti išmûšūma kišubbâ ina ašar šuāti libbū [mim]ma | ša uba’’û ina qātīšu | iddaššu “PN heard him, and the undeveloped land in that location, in accordance with [th]at | which he had requested from him, | he gave to him” (Corò 2018: 97 obv. 15–16; SE 144) 31.  Wallenfels (2015, 58) leaves kul-​lum untranslated, but given the parallel in example (58) and the context of the document, it seems almost assured that the verb kullu “to hold” is meant. 32.  The text is difficult and poorly preserved; edition by van der Spek (1995, 227–34), with discussion of the Greek loanword diagramma.

26

Bēl Lišāni

(63) ūmu šû PN1 šuāti išmēšu isqu šuāti libbū mimma | ša uba’’û ina qātīšu | iddaššu “on that day PN1 heard him (and) that prebend, in accordance with that | which he had requested from him, | he gave to him” (Sarkisian, VDI 1955.4: 8 obv. 15–16; SE 165) (64) [mim]ma | ša uba’’û lāpānīšu[nu] “everything | that he requested from them” (CT 49: 160 rev. 23–24; SE 219) (65) [mim]ma | ša uba’’i ultu bīt ilī “[every]thing | that he requested from the temple” (Sarkisian 1974: 8 obv. 5; SE xx) 1.4.10. ša umannû This verb occurs only once in a ša relative clause. (66) PN1 ina hūd libbīšu ana PN2 | ša umannû ina šipirtu PN3 ana nadānu ša kišubbâ makkūr Anu iqbi um[ma] “PN1 spoke of ​his own free will as follows to PN2, | whom PN3 appointed in a parchment letter to sell the undeveloped land of the god Anu” (Corò 2018: 97 obv. 1–5; SE 144)33 1.4.11. ša ušēpišu This verb occurs a few times in ša relative clauses. It is always at the beginning of the clause with one possible exception (example 68). The verb means “to perform (a function) instead of someone” (followed by ina šumi, kūm, or by ana kummī- with pronominal suffix).34 (67) atû | ša ušēpišū ina šumi ša PN “the doorkeepers | who are acting in the name of PN” (Corò 2018: 119 obv. 21–22; SE 142)35 33.  The word šipirtu is preceded by the determinative KUŠ, hence I presume it refers to a document on parchment. 34.  For the expression ša ušēpišu, see Sciandra and van der Spek (2019), who cite two additional examples from the AD where kūm is omitted and the verb is followed by the military title rab ūqu (AD III: 256, rev. 2′ and 270, rev. 19′) but the context is poorly preserved. 35.  The verb ušēpišu is simply written DÙ, as is the case in example (74) from the same text.

Word Order and the Syntax of ša-Clauses

27

(68) arhu šû ūm 6 iltēn mār Bābili kabšarru ahu ša šatammu Esagil | ša ana kummīšu šatammūtu u[šēpišu] | ina šipištu ša šarri ina zazakkūtu peqdu “that month, on the sixth day, one inhabitant from Babylon, a jeweler, the brother of the high priest of ​Esagil, | who p[erformed] the high priesthood in his stead, | was appointed by royal decree to the office of zazakku” (AD II 476, A 12′–13′; SE 143)36 (69) ūm 17 ina qībi ša iltēn mār Nippūri | ša ušēpiš kūm [o o o] “on the 17th day, on the order of a citizen of ​Nippur | who performed instead of ​[o o o]” (AD III: 118 obv. 11′; SE 170) (70) [arhu] šû ūm 16 iltēn šubarrû | ša ušēpiš kūm PN rab kumarri ša bītāt il[ī] “in that [month], on the 16th day, one freeman37 | who performed instead of PN, the chief . . . of the temples” (AD III: 370, rev. 16′; SE 204)38 (71) PN1 kurgarra ana PN2 | ša ušēpiš kūm PN3 ahīšu šatammu Esagil | u Bablāyū kiništu ša Esagil iqbi umma “PN1, the kurgarrû priest, spoke as follows to PN2, | who performed the duty of PN3, his brother, the high-​priest of ​Esagil, | and (to) the Babylonians of the assembly of the Esagil temple, as follows” (CT 49: 160 obv. 1–3; AE 155 = SE 219) 1.4.12. ša ušetteq Only one case is recorded with this verb in example (85) below.

1.5. Sequences of ša Relative Clauses with Identical Referent Complex sentences can include more than one ša relative clause subordinated to the same referent. In some cases, the word order in the clause that is the more 36.  This shows that the verb ušēpiš (restored) is placed at the end when the referent is distant from ša (the referent is iltēn mār Bābili, not šatammu Esagil). This feature of LHB is discussed below in section 1.5. 37.  I am assuming that LÚ su-bar-​ru-​ú, in spite of the grapheme , is a writing for šubarrû “freeman” rather than “man from Subartu,” as translated in AD III: 370. Del Monte (1997, 157–58) also translates “Subarean.” 38.  This diary has a substantial historical entry that is fairly well preserved (lines 15′–21′); the rest of the text has normal SOV word order, and the entry quoted here is the only one with relative ša.

28

Bēl Lišāni

distant from the referent can revert to the SOV word order, while VSO is adopted in the first clause. (72) šūšu’û ina isiq ērib-​bīt-​pirištūtu u kutimmūtu ša ina immerī ša hitpī ša ina ūmī lubūšāti | ša ana Anu Antu u ilī rabûti inneppušū | šūšu’û zittīšu gabbi ina immerī šanûtu | ša inneppušū ina eššeššī šatti | ša ana paššuri ša Enlil Ištar u Bēltu-​ša-​Rēš elû “one sixtieth of the prebend of entrant of the sacristy and of goldsmith from the sheep of the hitpu sacrifice during the days of the clothing ceremony | that are offered to Anu, Antu and the great gods, | (and) one sixtieth of ​his entire share from the second sheep | that are offered for the eššeššu festivals during the year (and) | that are brought to the offering table of ​Enlil, Ištar and Bēltu-​ša-​Rēš” (OECT 9: 60 obv. 6–10; SE 153) Example (72) has three ša relative clauses. The second relative ša occurs just after its referent immerī šanûtu and therefore the verb begins the clause. The first and third ones, however, do not occur immediately after their referents and the traditional SOV word order is followed, probably to avoid confusion. Thus, it seems that word order here is governed by pragmatics. The following text displays the same structure: (73) ana muhhi bīti ša amurri bīt asuppūšu u tarbaṣūšu epuš erṣeti abul Ištar ša qereb Uruk | ša pānam | ša mahir ina qāti PN2 dayyālu ša rē’i alpī ša bīt ilī ša Uruk | ša ina arah Ulūlu šanû ūm 10 šanat 146 ina šumu ša PN1 šuāti mahir “concerning a suite facing east, with its annex and animal pen built, in the district of the gate of ​Ištar in Uruk, | which previously | was received from PN2, the inspector of the oxherds of the temples of Uruk, | which was received in the month of Ulūlu intercalary, on the tenth day in the year 146 in the name of that PN1” (YOS 20: 76 obv. 2–7; SE 156) In example (73) the scribe has repeated the relative pronoun ša (ša pānam ša mahir), possibly for the sake of clarity. However, with the third iteration of ša, the referent has become more distant. This may explain the return to a traditional word order with the predicate at the end of the clause. The result is the repetition of the stative mahir in two consecutive subordinate clauses with same referent, one where mahir is at the beginning, and the other one, more distant from the referent, where it is at the end of the clause. The change of word order is not a hard and fast rule, however, as examples (74) and (75) show. In both

Word Order and the Syntax of ša-Clauses

29

cases the second ša clause does not immediately follow its referent, although it adheres to the VSO order of the first ša clause: (74) šina šattārī u iltēn giṭṭu ša šiššu kul ūmu sirāšê | ša ušēpišū ina šumi ša PN1 | ša iškunu māš ili PN2 kūm 58 ½ arah Nisannu ūm 21 šanat 142 “two contracts and one receipt of one-​sixth of an entire day for the brewers | who performed in the name of PN1 (and) | that PN2 placed in front of the god; instead of 58 ½ (days?). Month of ​Nisannu, day 21, year 142” (Corò 2018: 119 obv. 3–8; SE 142) (75) ana tarṣi ša ṭuppi mahīri | ša iturru ina šumu ša PN1 šuāti | ša īpuš PN2 ina qāti PN3 u PN4 ahhīšu ina arah Kislīmu ūm 18 šanat 153 “concerning the tablet of sale | that is in the name of that PN1 (and) | that PN2 put in the hand of PN3 and PN4, his brothers, on the 18th day of ​Kislimu in the year 153” (BRM 2: 44 obv. 11–14; SE 154) The relative pronoun ša can also introduce a subordinate clause without an antecedent. This is the case in example (76) where the Aramaic preposition la precedes the subordinate clause. The compound la ša means “concerning that which” and could be a semi-​Aramaicized version of ana ša. One notes that the following clause that is introduced by ša is a sentential complement to šaṭar and therefore follows the traditional word order, with verbal predicate mahir at the end. (76) u kī PN1 u ṣābīšu harāra ušabšû itti PN2 agâ ana muhhīšu | la ša šaṭar ina šaṭāri agâ | ša isqu u bītu šuāti mahir | ša PN1 u ṣābīšu rūqutānu litūrū “and if PN1 and his associates raise a lawsuit against that PN2 | concerning that which is written in that document, (namely) | that said prebend and house are purchased, | as for PN1 and his associates, let them return empty-(handed)” (OECT 9: 24 rev. 2–5; SE 84)39

1.6. The Verb in Consecutive Clauses In strings of two or more consecutive clauses, the verb in the last clause, describing the culminating event in the narration, can be topicalized, in which case that 39.  This difficult text is edited by Corò (2005, 374–75), and also by Clancier (2005) with extensive discussion. The text claims that it was translated from an Aramaic original. This may account for its several irregularities and obscurities. The scribe of the document replaced the standard clause ša iharruru rūqutānu litūrū “whoever shall raise a claim, let them (or him) return empty-​handed,” with ša Ubār u ṣābīšu rūqutānu litūrū, specifically naming the potential claimants.

30

Bēl Lišāni

clause adopts the VSO order. The phenomenon is already attested during the late Achaemenid period in example (77), a text from Ur dated 351 BCE (year 8 of Artaxerxes III).40 Here the verb lullik occurs just after binamma and is placed at the beginning of a new clause. (77) PN1 ana PN2 iqbi umma | kaspu ṣidītu u simmanû gamri libbū allākī ša ūqu ša Uri binamma | lullikma ina andēsu ša šarri ina šanat 8 Ardahšassu šarri | ašar ša šarru ṭēmu išakkanu ana muhhīka lūtiq | u ṣubûtu ša šarri ašar ša šarru ṭēmu išakkanu ana muhhīka “PN1 spoke to PN2 as follows: | ‘Give me the silver, travel provisions and full equipment befitting the marching troops of Ur and | I will go on your behalf for the royal review in the eighth year of ​king Arta­ xerxes (III) | at the place ordered by the king | and the wish of the king on your behalf at the place ordered by the king.’ ” (UET 4: 109 obv. 1–7)41 Example (78) is similar with the exception that two verbs follow the imperative binamma. The first one (lūpuš) follows the SOV word order but the second one (luddakka), expressing the culminating event, begins a VSO clause. Example (79) is also similar but with different verbs (lūpuš u lušib). (78) binamma | rēsinūtūka lūpuš | u luddakka šitta ṭābihūtu šitta qaqqadu ša šitta laštu maṭû ša arhussu | u ana zitti eššēšī | ša ikkaššidu ana isqi šuāti | erbet mišil ultu ṭābihūtu ana šatti ša immerī gabbi u ina iltēn mišil ṣudû luddakka ana isqi šuāti “give me (said prebend) and | I will perform your work | and I will give you monthly two butcher’s (cuts and) two heads which are lacking two laštus, | and concerning the share of the eššēšu offerings | that pertains to that prebend, | four and a half from all sheep (offered) yearly in connection with the butcher’s prebend and one-​half ṣudû from one (sheep) I will give you for that prebend” (OECT 9: 36 obv. 7–12; SE 97)42 40.  Edition by Popova (2018, 556–58). 41.  The scribe may have been confused by the syntax of this long sentence and therefore forgot the final verb lūpuš. The rest of the document has only SOV clauses. 42.  This text presents some difficulties. Previous editions include Doty 1977, 102–7, and Corò 2005, 307–9. OECT 9: 37 has an almost identical formulary and dates only two weeks later; it is also a lease of shares in a butcher’s prebend (edition by Corò [2005, 309–11]). Interestingly it has the verb luddakka at the end of the clause. This is all the more remarkable because the scribe is the same (Ištar-​šumu-​ēreš).

Word Order and the Syntax of ša-Clauses

31

(79) kišubbâ šuāti ana bīt rittūtu ana ūmu ṣâtu binamma | bītu ina libbi lūpuš | u lušib [ina] libbi ana ūmu ṣâtu “give me that undeveloped land in tenure in perpetuity | and I will build a house on it | and live there in perpetuity” (Corò 2018: 97 obv. 11–13; SE 144)43 Topicalization of the verb is attested a few times in the final provisions of contracts where the last clause adopts the VSO order in contrast with SOV in the previous clauses. In example (80) the verb inamdin concludes the penalty clause at the end of the contract and occurs in a VSO clause. This is also the case in examples (81) to (84). (80) ša iharruru rūqutānu litūru | u inamdin ša lā dīni u lā harāra ešret mana kaspu ša Antiukusu babbanû ana FPN u mārīšu “he who raises an objection, let him return empty-(handed) | and pay without lawsuit or objection ten minas of high-​quality silver (in coins) of Antiochus to FPN and her sons” (OECT 9: 38 rev. 20–22; SE 99) (81) kī ittannu ul ušuzzu | u inamdin ša lā dīni u lā harāra ana PN u ahhīšu iltēn mana kaspu “if ​he sells it, it will not stand, | and he will give without lawsuit or objection one mina of silver to PN and his brothers” (OECT 9: 54 rev. 22–23; SE 126) (82) u kī PN1 šuāti ana nadān ša isqi šuāti baṭal ištakan | ušallam | inamdin ana PN2 šuāti ina arhīšu iltēn šiqil kaspu “and if that PN1 provokes an interruption (of the cult) by giving that prebend (to anyone else), | he shall make restitution | (and) pay to that PN2 on that same month one shekel of silver” (Sarkisian VDI 1955.4: 8 rev. 23–24; SE 165) (83) u kī ittannu ul ušuzzu | u ušallam | inamdin ša lā dīni u lā harāra iltēn mana kaspu “and if ​he sells it, it will not stand, | and he will make restitution | (and) pay without lawsuit or objection one mina of silver” (Speleers, Recueil 2: 295, rev. 18–20; SE 165)

43.  The verb lušib is spelled lu-​uš-​bi.

32

Bēl Lišāni

(84) u kī ittannu a[na] manam šanâm ul ušuzzu | u inamdin ša lā dīni u lā ha[rā]ra iltēn mana hurāṣu ana bīt ilī ša Uruk “and if ​he sells it to anyone else it will not stand | and he will give without lawsuit or objection one mina of gold to the temple(s) of Uruk” (BRM 2: 53 obv. 13–16; SE 180?)44 In example (85) the sequence ul ušuzzu u ušallam u inamdin is broken because ušallam is followed by a prepositional phrase governing a subordinate clause (ana iltēn ūmu ša ušetteq ina qāti PN1 šuāti), and this is probably why the last clause places the verb at the end. (85) kī ittannu ul ušuzzu | u ušallam ana iltēn ūmu | ša ušetteq ina qāti PN1 šuāti | ša lā dīni u lā harāra ešeret šiqil kaspu qalû PN2 šuāti ana PN1 šuāti inamdin “if ​he sells it, it will not stand, | and he will make restitution for each day | that he causes it to be transferred illegally from the hands of that PN1, | without lawsuit or objection, that PN2 will pay ten shekels of pure silver to that PN1” (OECT 9: 62 rev. 21–24; SE 157) Example (86) is more complex. The penalty section begins with the usual statement culminating with the inamdin clause in VSO order. However, there is a further penalty in case of ​breach of contract or interruption of temple service. The conditions for the penalty are detailed by four verbs subordinated to kī, of which only the second one is placed at the beginning of the clause (u lā inamdin). Then the first clause describing the penalty expectedly begins with inamdin and follows the VSO order. The second one reverts to SOV (ending with izabbil) probably because a subordinate clause is embedded in it (mimma paqdu . . . immidūšu izabbil). Here again word order is probably determined by pragmatics. (86) u kī ušētiq ul ušuzzu | u inamdin ša lā dīni u lā harāra ana PN1 iltēn mana kaspu | u kī PN1 isqī šuāti lā išû | u lā inamdin ana PN2 | u baṭal ištakan | u simannu ultētiq | inamdin ša la dīni u la harāra ana PN2 šuāti iltēn mana kaspu | u mimma paqdu ša bīt ilī u kiništu ša Uruk immidūšu izabbil “and if ​he transfers it will not stand | and he will pay without lawsuit or objection one mina of silver to PN1, | and if PN1 does not own this prebend | or does not give it to PN2 | and causes an interruption | (and) 44.  The same sequence seems to occur in BiMes 24: 43 obv. 12–14 (SE 184; AE 120), and in BiMes 24: 44 obv. 14–16 (AE 115), but both passages must be heavily restored.

Word Order and the Syntax of ša-Clauses

33

lets the right time pass | he will pay without lawsuit or objection to PN2 one mina of silver | and whatever the administrator of the temple and the assembly of Uruk will impose upon him he will bear” (Corò 2018: 98 rev. 24–29; SE 146)45 An interesting case is example (87). The culminating event is expressed by the verb ittannū, but the long clause that precedes it and ends with maṣû is in fact the direct object of ittannū, even though the two sellers are the subject of ​both verbs. This is because maṣû is in fact subordinated to mala palāhu. (87) ana tarṣi PN1 u PN2 | mala palāhu ana muhhi pāni kurummāti šuāti ina bīt ilī ša Uruk lā maṣû | ittannū ana PN3 ahīšunu | ša ipallah ana muhhi pāni ša kurummāti šuāti “concerning PN1 and PN2, | as much of the service concerning those rations in the temple of the gods of Uruk as they are not able to perform, | they sold to PN3 their brother, | who will perform the service concerning those rations” (BRM 2: 33 obv. 7–11; SE 124)

1.7. Other Cases of VSO Word Order Some cases of VSO word order occur outside of ša subordinate clauses. Example (88) includes a quotation introduced by umma and beginning with the verb ibaš, which functions here as the West Semitic particle of existence (Aramaic ʾītay).46 Therefore the word order could be influenced by Aramaic syntax. (88) PNs iqbû umma | ibaš rašûtu ša nišī ana muhhīn | u mala [pa]ṭāri ul maṣânu “PNs said as follows: | ‘There is a credit of the people against us | and we are not able to pay.’ ” (OECT 9: 2 obv. 4–5; SE 11) In example (89) the verb qubbul is a loanword from Aramaic, and the adoption of the D stative for a finite verb is a calque of the Aramaic Pa’’el conju­ gation. Therefore, the VSO word order could reflect an Aramaic original for this document. 45.  The verb išû is unusually written i-​ši-​ú. 46.  One could argue that ibašši functions here as an adverb with the meaning “certainly.” This is one of the functions of that verbal form in Neo-​Babylonian letters from Nineveh, in which case ibašši can begin the clause (CAD B, 155). In the present context it seems that ibašši is more likely to be a calque of the West Semitic particle of existence “there is.”

34

Bēl Lišāni

(89) u qubbul PN1 šalšu zittīšu ša amēlutti šuāti šaluš mana hamšat šiqil kaspu babbanû ina qāt PN3 agâ “and PN1 received one third of ​his share in those slaves, (namely) one-​third mina and five shekels of fine-​quality silver from that PN3” (OECT 9: 22 rev. 26–28; SE 84) Examples (90) and (91) are from texts recording divisions of ​land. The verbs iškunū and ištakkanū occur at the beginning of sections that are separated by rulings from what precedes. The VSO order in these cases is therefore probably also a calque of Aramaic syntax. (90) iškunū PN1 u PN2 ana zitti ša PN3 ahīšunu bītu epšu ša ina abul Ištar ša qereb Uruk “PN1 and PN2 allocated as the share of PN3 their brother the built house in the Ištar Gate district in Uruk” (OECT 9: 41 obv. 5–6; SE 103) (91) ištakkanū PNs ana zitti ša PN (follows description of property) “PNs allocated as the share of PN (said property)” (VAS 15: 39 obv. 16–17, obv. 26–27, rev. 40–41; SE 132) Examples (92) to (96) illustrate two patterns of word order with the verb qabû, with the verb in initial position in (92), and the subject initial position in (93) to (96).47 (92) ina ūmu gabbi ša PN1 ahūšunu ṣebû | illakū u iqabbū PN2 u PN3 ina pāni manam gabbi | ša PN1 ahūšunu ṣebû umma | ṭuppāt! kurummāti šuāti ina šumi ša PN1 “on any day that PN1, their brother, wishes, | PN2 and PN3 will go and declare in the presence of whomever | PN1, their brother, wishes, as follows: | ‘The tablets of those rations are in the name of PN1.’ ” (BRM 2: 33 obv. 13–17; SE 124) (93) ūmu mala PN1 šuāti ṣebû | PN2 iqabbi ina pāni ahšadarabannu umma | kurummātu šuāti ša PN1 šuāti [iššûnu] “whenever that PN1 wishes, | PN2 shall say in the presence of the satrap as follows: | ‘Those provisions [are] the property of that PN1.’ ” (YOS 20: 71, rev. 18–20; + duplicate BRM 2 56, rev. 18–20; SE 144) 47.  In examples (94) to (96), pragmatics may play a role in the change of word order because the addressee has a long genealogy and titles, which would strand iqbi at the end of a long introduction if SOV was adopted. One notes that examples (94) and (95) were written by the same scribe (Anu-​uballit/Ina-​qibīt-​Anu/Ekur-​zakir).

Word Order and the Syntax of ša-Clauses

35

(94) PN1 iqbi ana PN2 umma “PN1 said to PN2 as follows” (BRM 2: 47 obv. 1–4; SE 157) (95) PN1 ina hūd libbīšu iqbi ana PN2 umma “PN1 said to PN2 of ​his own free will as follows” (OECT 9: 62 obv. 1–3; SE 157) (96) PN1 iqbi ana PN2 ummu “PN1 said to PN2 as follows” (VAS 15: 31 obv. 1–3; SE xx)

1.8. The Text BRM 1: 88 The text BRM 1: 88 merits separate consideration. It is one of the handful of texts that borrow the incipit format of Aramaic legal papyri (examples 1 to 7).48 The text claims to reproduce the contents of a letter on a clay tablet (IM ši-​piš-​ tu4) sent by the collegium of the exorcists of the Emeslam temple in Kutha to the high priest and priestly collegium of that temple.49 The operative part of the text is divided here into two segments. The text is normalized with all personal names and titles. (97) a. ūm 11 ša arah Dûzu šanat 125 Seluku šarru | libbū šipištu | ša kiništu ša āšipī ša Emeslam | ša išṭurū ana muhhi Bēl-​bullissu šatammu Emeslam apli ša Nergal-​aplu-​uṣur u kiništu ša Emeslam ana muhhi zitti ša zēri zaqpi u pī šulpu nidintu šarri ša ina kišād nār Puratti ša ina gizzatu ša Bēl-​aplu-​uṣur āšipu apli ša Bēl-​ balāssu-​iqbi kinattašunu | ša šīmtu tubillūš u māru u mārtu la iršû (obv. 1–6) “On the 11th day of the month Dûzu in the 125th year during the reign of Seleucus (IV), | in accordance with the letter | of the collegium of exorcists of ​Emeslam | that they wrote to Bēl-​bullissu, the high priest of ​Emeslam, son of Nergal-​aplu-​uṣur, and to the priestly collegium of ​Emeslam, concerning the piece of arable land planted with trees and grain, a royal donation, located on the bank of the Euphrates, in the royal domain (granted) to Bēl-​ aplu-​uṣur, the exorcist, son of Bēl-​balāssu-​iqbi, their colleague, | who died and had neither son nor daughter.” 48.  The text was edited by McEwan (1981a, 21–23) and van der Spek (1986, 236–41) and translated by Monerie (2018, 203). I collated the original in the early 1990s. 49.  The term šipirtu is often preceded with KUŠ in that period and the use of IM in this case could be a slip of the scribe for KUŠ.

36

Bēl Lišāni

The syntax of the opening sentence in example (97a) is slightly confused. The relative clause ša išṭurū has two possible antecedents, the “letter” (šipištu) as direct object, and the “collegium of the exorcists of ​Emeslam” (kiništu ša āšipī ša Emeslam) as subject. However, the first ša is not analyzed here as relative but as determinative pronoun binding šipištu with kiništu in a genitive chain.50 At the end of example (97a), the adoption of the SOV word order in the first relative clause may have been motivated by emphasis on the subject šīmtu and the fact that the verb carries a suffixed pronoun (tubillūš); the second relative clause is more distant from the referent and the SOV order is therefore expected. (97) b. u enna agâ Nabû-​uṣuršu āšipu aplu ša Nergal-​uballiṭ īriš ana Lâbâši āšipi mārīšu kinattašunu ana ūmu ṣâtu | aššutu ša arki šuṣbuttu ša zēri aldu | u išturū ana muhhinnu | [ša pard]eksu ša zitti ša zēri šuāti teppušāniššu ittīni ana ūmu ṣâtu | aninnīnāma nittadin zittu ša zēri šuāti | u pardeksu nītepšaššu ana Lâbâši āšipi apli ša Nabû-​uṣuršu kinattašunu ittīšunu ana ūmu ṣâtu | iltēnâ ilteqû (obv. 6–14) “And now, Nabû-​uṣuršu, the exorcist, son of Nergal-​uballiṭ, requests (it) for Lâbâši, the exorcist, his son, their colleague, in perpetuity, | because he was born after the allocation of arable land, | and they wrote to us | [that]: ‘You should make an [assig]nment for him with us for that piece of arable land in perpetuity.’ | Therefore, we have given that piece of arable land | and made an assignment for Lâbâši, the exorcist, the son of Nabû-​uṣuršu, their colleague, with them in perpetuity. | Each one took (a copy).”

Example (97b) displays remarkably free word order, with a combination of SVO and VSO clauses, and also the placement of the verb between its direct and indirect object. There is a possibility that the word order was influenced by the language of the original letter, which may have been Aramaic or perhaps even Greek if that letter was on parchment. However, the original may also have been written in LHB on a clay tablet. If this is the case the free word order was probably motivated largely by pragmatics, specifically the need to emphasize certain components of clauses.51 50.  One could argue that the first ša is in fact a relative pronoun governing išṭurū and that the second ša is redundant. In this view the passage would translate as follows: “in accordance with the letter that the collegium of ​Emeslam wrote to Bēl-​bullissu.” A similar construction with redundant relative ša occurs in example (73) with ša pānam ša mahir “which previously was received.” The question must remain open. 51.  Similar constructions occur in the Achaemenid Akkadian version of the Behistun Inscription, which is a form of LB influenced by the original language of the inscription.

Word Order and the Syntax of ša-Clauses

37

1.9. Conclusions This investigation has confirmed that LHB exhibits unique features that support its classification as distinctive stage in the history of Akkadian. However, the question of the nature of LHB is far more difficult to answer. Was it only a written language, or does it represent the last phase of vernacular Akkadian? Writing anything in cuneiform by that time implied membership in the urban elite that controlled the temples. The texts were produced mostly by learned scribes who spent years studying the cuneiform script and the Akkadian language in its SB and LB forms. The care with which legal documents from Uruk were written confirms their status as elite and display objects. The LHB corpus is made up mostly of ​legal and administrative records. These texts adhere to preestablished models and they repeat formulas that could be learned fairly easily by the scribes. Therefore, it is conceivable that well-​educated scribes could write legal texts in LB and reproduce the formulas with competence. On the other hand, the corpus shows significant variation in that level of competence and it is clear that some scribes did not master LB very well. Two explanations seem possible: Scenario 1: the scribes spoke LHB but strove to write a correct form of LB. Therefore the texts (the vast majority in fact) that still adhere largely to LB and traditional SOV word order were probably written by the more competent scribes, while the ones that depart from the norm and exhibit LHB features were authored by scribes who sometimes reverted to their vernacular while trying to write in LB, a dialect they no longer mastered well. In this view the corpus would testify to the dialectal transition from LB to LHB and to the interference of the latter as spoken dialect with the essentially written nature of the former. Scenario 2: the scribes spoke Aramaic but studied Akkadian in its SB and LB forms. The more-​competent scribes could easily reproduce formulas while making an occasional slip, but this was not the case for their less adept peers who peppered their documents with barbarisms and solecisms. Thus, LHB would not be a separate vernacular dialect of ​Babylonian, but a written form of LB practiced at various levels of competence by the scribes. In this view LHB should be classified as interlanguage. Some of the evidence speaks in favor of Scenario 2: the fairly high degree of variation in the corpus, the frequency of aberrant spellings, and the presence of calques from Aramaic. However, the present survey has also shown that patterns of variation are not arbitrary. The texts that depart from LB display some syntactic constraints that support the notion that LHB was a spoken, natural language. This is particularly evident in the treatment of clauses introduced by the particle ša. The adoption of the VSO word order is quite consistent in ša relative clauses when ša is immediately preceded by its referent. When it is not, the clause tends to revert to SOV order. Other types of ša clauses are

38

Bēl Lišāni

syntactically consistent: when ša introduces sentential complementation the SOV order it adopted; however, when ša functions as conjunction in the incipit of documents that follow the Aramaic legal format, the clause is in VSO order in accordance with Aramaic syntax. Among LHB innovative features we may also add the adoption of the VSO order for the clause describing the culminating event in a string of clauses. Therefore, variation in LHB would not necessarily reflect the inconsistency of a language poorly written by scribes who no longer spoke it but on the contrary would testify to the dynamic evolution of spoken Babylonian. In this view Scenario 1 would be more plausible. The evidence needs to be investigated more systematically, perhaps with a focus on the language of specific scribes and scribal families.52 But we can now at least affirm without hesitation that LHB constitutes a rich and intriguing closing chapter in the long history of the Akkadian language. Bibliography Baker, Heather D. 2005. “The Property Portfolio of a Family of ​Builders from Hellenistic Uruk.” Pages 7–43 in Approaching the Babylonian Economy: Proceedings of the START Project Symposium Held in Vienna, 1–3 July 2004. Edited by Heather D. Baker and Michael Jursa. AOAT 330. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag. Beaulieu, Paul-​Alain. 1989. “Textes administratifs inédits d’époque hellénistique provenant des archives du Bīt Rēš.” RA 83:53–87. ———. 2013. “Aspects of Aramaic and Babylonian Linguistic Interaction in First Millennium BC Iraq.” Journal of ​Language Contact 6:358–78. Boiy, Tom. 2004. Late Achaemenid and Hellenistic Babylon. OLA 136. Leuven: Peeters. Clancier, Philippe. 2005. “Les scribes sur parchemin du temple d’Anu.” RA 99:85–104. Corò, Paola. 2005. Prebende templari in età seleucide. History of the Ancient Near East Monographs 8. Padova: S.A.R.G.O.N. ———. 2018. Seleucid Tablets from Uruk in the British Museum: Text Editions and Commentary. Antichistica 16. Venice: Edizione Ca’Foscari. Del Monte, Giuseppe. 1996. “Ad BibMes 24 22.” NABU 1996/3. ———. 1997. Testi dalla Babilonia ellenistica 1: Testi cronografici. Pisa and Rome: Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici Internationali. Deutscher, Guy. 2000. Syntactic Change in Akkadian: The Evolution of Sentential Complementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Doty, L. Timothy. 1977. “Cuneiform Archives from Hellenistic Uruk.” PhD diss., Yale University. Epping, Joseph, and Johann N. Strassmaier. 1891. “Neue babylonische Planeten-​Tafeln III–IV.” ZA 6:217–44. Funck, Bernd. 1984. Uruk zur Seleukidenzeit. Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des Alten Orients 16. Berlin: de Gruyter. 52.  This was the approach favored by Goossens (1942).

Word Order and the Syntax of ša-Clauses

39

Goossens, Godefroy. 1942. “L’accadien des clercs d’Uruk sous les Séleucides.” Le Muséon 55:61–86. Hackl, Johannes. 2013. “Materialien zur Urkundenlehre und Archivkunde der spätzeitlichen Texte aus Nordbabylonien.” PhD diss., University of ​Vienna. ———. 2018. “Zur Sprachsituation im Babylonien des ersten Jahrtausends v. Chr.: Ein Beitrag zur Sprachgeschichte des jüngeren Akkadischen.” Pages 209–38 in Mehrsprachigkeit: Vom Alten Orient bis zum Esperanto. Edited by Sebastian Fink, Martin Lang, and Manfred Schretter. Dubsar 2. Münster: Zaphon. Jursa, Michael. 1997. “Neu- und spätbabylonische Texte aus den Sammlungen der Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery.” Iraq 59:97–174. ———. 2002. “Florilegium babyloniacum: Neue Texte aus hellenistischer und spätachämenidischer Zeit.” Pages 107–30 in Mining the Archives: Festschrift for Christopher Walker on the Occasion of ​His 60th Birthday. Edited by Cornelia Wunsch. Dresden: ISLET. ———. 2005. Neo-​Babylonian Legal and Administrative Documents: Typology, Contents and Archives. Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record 2. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag. Kessler, Karlheinz. 1984. “Eine arsakidenzeitliche Urkunde aus Warka (W 18568).” BaghM 15:273–81. Knudsen, Ebbe. 1989–90. “Akkadian in Greek Orthography: Evidence of Sound Change in an Ancient Traditional Pronunciation.” Orientalia Suecana 38–39:71–80. ———. 1990. “On Akkadian Texts in Greek Orthography.” Pages 147–61 in Living Waters: Scandinavian Orientalistic Studies Presented to Professor Dr. Frede Løkkegaard on His Seventy-​Fifth Birthday. Edited by Egon Keck, Svend Søndergaard, and Ellen Wulff. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. ———. 1995. “The Ashmolean Museum Incantation in Greek Orthography.” Pages 135–40 in Vom Alten Orient zum Alten Testament: Festschrift für Wolfram Freiherrn von Soden zum 85. Geburtstag am 19. Juni 1993. Edited by Manfred Dietrich and Oswald Loretz. AOAT 240. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker. Kraeling, Emil G. 1953. The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri: New Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. from the Jewish Colony at Elephantine. New Haven: Yale University Press. McEwan, Gilbert, J. P. 1981a. Priest and Temple in Hellenistic Babylonia. FAOS 4. Wiesbaden: Steiner. ———. 1981b. “ša taturru.” RA 75:91–92. ———. 1986a. “A Parthian Campaign against Elymais in 77 B.C.” Iran 24:91–94. ———. 1986b “A Seleucid Tablet in the Redpath Museum.” Annual Review of the Royal Inscriptions of ​Mesopotamia 4:35–36. Monerie, Julien. 2018. L’économie de la Babylonie à l’époque hellénistique. Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records 14. Berlin: de Gruyter. Popova, Olga. 2018. “Étude d’une archive d’une famille de notables de la ville d’Ur du VIe au IVe siècle av. J.-C.: L’archive des Gallābu.” PhD diss., Université de Paris I Panthéon-​Sorbonne. Sachs, Abraham J., and Hermann Hunger. 1989. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia. Vol. 2, Diaries from 261 B.C. to 165 B.C. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. ———. 1996. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia. Vol. 3, Diaries from 164 B.C. to 61 B.C. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

40

Bēl Lišāni

Sarkisian, George K. 1955. “Častnye klinopinsye kontrakty selevkidskogo vremeny iz sobranija Gosudarstvennogo Ermitaža,” VDI 136–70. ———. 1974. “New Cuneiform Texts from Uruk of the Seleucid Period in the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin.” Forschungen und Berichte 16:15–76. Sciandra, Roberto, and R. J. van der Spek. 2019. “A Greek Substitute šatammu (Temple Dean) in Babylon in 125 BC.” NABU 2019/35. Spek, R. J. van der. 1986. Grondbezit in het Seleucidische rijk. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam. ———. 1995. “Land Ownership in Babylonian Cuneiform Documents.” Pages 173–245 in Legal Documents of the Hellenistic World. Edited by Markham J. Geller, Herwig Maehler, and Andrew D. E. Lewis. London: The Warburg Institute, University of ​ London. Speleers, Louis. 1925. Recueil des inscriptions de l’Asie antérieure des Musées royaux du Cinquantenaire à Bruxelles. Textes sumériens, babyloniens et assyriens. Brussels: Musées royaux d’art et d’histoire. Strassmaier, Johannes N. 1888. “Arsaciden-​Inschriften.” Zeistchrift für Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete 3:129–58. Wallenfels, Ronald. 2015. “Seleucid Babylonian ‘Official’ and ‘Private’ Seals Reconsidered: A Seleucid Archival Tablet in the Collection of the Mackenzie Art Gallery, Regina.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History 2:55–89.

Chapter 2

The Indicative Markers in West Semitic and Their Relationship to the East Semitic Subordinative Øyvind Bjøru and Na‘ama Pat-​El Most Semitists assume a historical relationship between the Assyrian subordinative -u/-ni and the Central Semitic indicative -u/-na.1 In both branches, verbs without gender-​number suffixes take -u, while verbs with such suffixes take -ni/na.2 The morphological similarity as well as the alleged conditioned distribution seem compelling reasons to assume that there is some relationship. Nevertheless, the function and distribution of the suffixes in the two branches are different: in East Semitic they mark subordination while in West Semitic they mark mood. Scholars have debated how to explain these differences. There is, however, an implicit assumption in the literature that these morphemes are reconstructible to Proto-​East Semitic and Proto-​West Semitic, even though, as we shall show below, this is not clear from the evidence in West Semitic, where one cannot independently reconstruct it to the protonode, as well as East Semitic, where at least -ni has not yet been fully grammaticalized in the earliest sources. In this article, we therefore explore whether the indicative marker in Central Semitic is related to the Assyrian subordinative marker as is currently the common opinion, and if so, which function is more original. In order to do so, we look at the evidence without any a priori assumption of relatedness between the morphemes and ask whether the morphemes and their function can be reconstructed to the respective protonodes independently. Section 2.1 below reviews the evidence in East and West Semitic. Section 2.2 lists and discusses a number of problems that we argue complicate the assumption of a relationship between these morphemes. On the basis of this discussion, we claim that, in terms of attestation and syntax, the indicative marker -na does not seem to be related to the Assyrian subordinative -ni, while -u is likely a shared feature and should be We wish to thank Aren Wilson Wright, John Huehnergard, and Rebecca Hasselbach-​Andee for comments on an earlier draft. 1.  For example, Driver 1892, §183; Zewi 1999; Huehnergard 1988; 2005, 165 n. 23; Rubin 2005, 147 n. 68; Hasselbach 2007, 38 n. 46; 2012; Zaborski 2009; Kogan 2015, 159. 2.  This is allegedly the original distribution in Akkadian. In fact, -ni can co-​occur with -u in all attested forms of Assyrian and Old Akkadian. See more below.

41

42

Bēl Lišāni

reconstructed to Proto-​Semitic. In section 2.3, we review the arguments for and against the subordinative being the original function and propose a somewhat different scenario to explain how the subordinative -u became an indicative marker in West Semitic. Section 2.4 summarizes and concludes the paper.

2.1. Review of the Evidence 2.1.1. East Semitic The morpheme -u is attested in both dialects of Akkadian, as well as in Eblaite, with identical function, namely, as a marker of nonmain verb forms. OAkk3

ŠE θū ana ḥiprī asīt-u ana zaʿrim lisaʾmidma let him allocate the grain I left over as seed grain (FAOS 19: Ga 3 4–7)

OA

ašar kaspam ištēn šiqil addin-u wherever I give one shekel of silver (POAT 7 39)

OB

ṭēm Ibni-​Marduk ša ana Bābilim ašpur-u the report about Ibni-​Marduk that I sent to Babylon (AbB 10: 79 10–12)

Ebl4

ti-ʾà-​ba-​nu /tiḥabban-​u/ that she is irritated (ARET XI: 1 rev. 5 10)

The morpheme is not used with nonverbal predicates anywhere in East Semitic, nor with any verbal form that has gender-​number or ventive suffixes (Catagnoti 2012, 136–37; Hasselbach 2005, 204–5; GAG §83a; Kouwenberg 2017, table 16.11). The morpheme -ni is attested in OAkk and Assyrian. It is almost completely absent from Babylonian5 and is not attested in Eblaite. In Old Assyrian, verbs with no gender-​number suffixes take -u and may additionally add -ni. Forms with gender-​number suffixes, which all end in a long vowel, most often take -ni, while in Babylonian and Eblaite they remain unmarked; see the examples below. 3.  We follow Hasselbach’s (2005) phonological transcription for Old Akkadian. 4.  We follow Catagnoti’s (2012) transcription for Eblaite but mark historically long vowels. Whether Eblaite is a separate language or a dialect of Akkadian is irrelevant to the issues discussed in this paper. See Hasselbach-​Andee this volume. 5.  For a rare example, see inūmi kittam ina māt Šumerîm u Akkadîm aškun-​ū-ni “when I established justice in the land of Sumer and Akkad” (RIME E4.1.5.3). For -na, see below.

Indicative Markers in West Semitic and the East Semitic Subordinative

OAkk

lā tapaθθaḥī-ni you (f.sg.) shall find no peace6 (MAD 5: 8 38, Kiš)

OA

iššamši ṭuppini tašammeʾā-ni As soon as you (pl.) hear our letter . . . (AKT 5: 2 7)

OB

immerātī-​šunu ša ina Lasqim ikkalā Their sheep who eat in Lasqum (ARM 2: 102 11–12)

Ebl

il-​da-​zu /yiltatsū/ that they cried out (ARET XVI: 10 obv. 5 5)

43

The Old Akkadian corpus presents us with very few verbs with gender-​number suffixes in subordinate clauses. In addition to the 2fs form tapaθθaḥī-ni from Kiš cited above, we find the following examples from Girsu and from the the Mé-​sag archive, which probably come from the Umma-​Lagaš region:7 OAkk

yu’uḫḫirū-n they delayed (FAOS 19: Gir 3 8, Girsu)

OAkk

kī eṭlūtum uwakkamū when the troops attack (FAOS 19: Gir 19 16, Girsu)8

OAkk

yillikā-ni the two of them came (BIN 8: 265 8, Umma-​Lagaš)

The evidence is admittedly meager, but from these forms it would seem that -ni is used on gender-​number suffixes (2fs -ī-, 3cd -ā-, 3mp -ū-), which all end in a long vowel, but not consistently—for example, uwakkamū and yu’uḫḫirū-​ni, both from Girsu. In Old Akkadian texts from the Diyala region, however, the -ni is consistently missing, for example:9 OAkk Diyala

θūt sībūtim siddātim yīmurū (list of 6 people) who bore witness to the measuring (MAD 1: 336 13–20)

6.  The subordinative is also used in oaths. See Sjörs in this volume. 7.  The Me-​ság archive that this text is a part of was excavated in illicit digs, so the provenance can only be estimated based on textual features and prosopography. For the proposal that the texts originate around Umma or Lagaš, see Foster 1982, 52. 8.  The word “troops” is written GURUŠ.GURUŠ and is clearly plural. 9.  See Hasselbach 2005, 207.

44

Bēl Lišāni

OAkk Diyala reflects the same system as in Old Babylonian, and Hasselbach has shown that the Old Akkadian in the Diyala region is indeed likely to have been the predecessor of ​Babylonian (2005, 232–33; 2007), while the other Old Akkadian dialect strains died out at the end of the third millennium BCE. Where the morpheme -ni is attested—that is, in Old Akkadian outside of ​ Diyala—it behaves somewhat differently than in Old Assyrian. While in Old Assyrian -ni typically co-​occurs with the ventive, in Old Akkadian it is largely incompatible with the ventive suffixes, with only one exception (see below). There are five examples where, if Old Akkadian were to behave like Old Assyrian, the -ni is expected to occur on the ventive, yet it does not (OSP 2: 16 iv 8; BIN 8: 146 16; FAOS 19: Ad 12 14; RIME 2: 1.4.10 18; MAD 5: 76 3). OAkk

u adi lā tagrus-​am in kussîm lā tussabu and until you come to me, you will not (even) sit down in a chair! (FAOS 19: Ad 12 14–16)

Only once is -ni added onto the ventive. OAkk

inu sarru yurd-an-ni when the king came down here (BIN 8: 134 8–9)

For comparison, in Old Assyrian, -ni and the ventive suffixes co-​occur; for example: OA

lāma Ilabrat-​bāni Ennum-​Aššur u Abu-​šalim ištu Kaneš illikū-nin-​ni before Ilabrat-​bāni Ennum-​Aššur and Abu-​šalim came from Kaneš . . . (CCT 5: 3a 13–17)

We are therefore left with three systems for marking subordinate clauses in the earliest stages of ​East Semitic. The morpheme -u behaves the same in all three systems, appearing on verbs with no gender-​number or ventive suffixes, but the behavior of -ni is different in each of these systems. 1. Diyala Old Akkadian, Babylonian, and Eblaite:10 No -ni 2. Non-​Diyala Old Akkadian: -ni on gender-​number suffixes ending in long vowel not on the ventive 10.  Ur III Akkadian also follows this system. The combined -ūni is found in the curse formula in two royal inscriptions from Susa, but the remaining royal inscriptions only use -u. A single instance of the Babylonian -na (discussed below) is also found in a royal inscription (Hilgert 2002, 163–64).

Indicative Markers in West Semitic and the East Semitic Subordinative

45

3. Old Assyrian: -ni on gender-​number suffixes ending in long vowel -ni on the ventive The two morphemes can co-​occur in non-​Diyala Old Akkadian and in Old Assyrian. In the former, the combination of the two morphemes in succession, -ū-​ni, is used in the very common cursing formula in royal inscriptions. OAkk

θa ṭuppam suʾa yusatstsak-ū-ni whoever removes this inscription (RIME 2: 1.1.1 102–4)11

Except for this formula, the combination -ū-​ni occurs in three other examples: the first is another standard expression in royal inscriptions only used in the early reigns of Sargon and Rīmuš, but not by later kings; the second is a somewhat dubious attestation in a letter found in Diyala; and the third occurs in a letter of uncertain provenance:12 OAkk

šībūt [x x] enma Dada ana Ili-​bāni Ša-​ki-​tu-​ib puṭur iqbiʾ-ūni (five names) are the witnesses to (the fact that) Dada said ‘Release Ša-​ki-​tu-​ib’ to Ili-​bāni. (CUSAS 13: 194 7–13)

These passages suggest that -u and -ni were not strictly in complementary distribution in all registers of Old Akkadian.13 Two other rare subordinative markers in the Diyala Old Akkadian and in the Old Babylonian dialect also deserve mention here. First, -a occurs instead of -u

11.  The same curse clause is copied into inscriptions from all the rulers of the Akkadian Empire and appears in original inscriptions as well as on the OB Sammeltafeln from Nippur. 12.  Beyer (2014, 51) tentatively dismisses the -ū-​ni ending on consonantal bases by pointing out that the verbs outside the curse formula are either partially logographically written, i.e., SAG.GIŠ. RA-ni for /yinērūni/ ‘he conquered’ (RIME 2: 1.2.13 10, etc.), or of uncertain etymology, i.e., a-​tu-​ mu-​ni for /ʾadummūni/ ‘I will take care’ (FAOS 19: Di 2 15). As for yusatstsak-​ū-​ni in the set curse formula, he believes it could be construed as plural ad sensum, but this is unlikely given the singular pronominal referent -šu in the same clause (51). Hasselbach also points out that the final NI sign in a-​tu-​mu-​ni was inserted on the edge of the tablet later than the rest of the word (2005, 207). 13.  Hasselbach points out that, together with the subordinative -ūni on consonantal bases, these literary texts also use the accusative relative marker ša where we expect the nominative šu (2005, 207–8). To this we may add the peculiar formation of the personal indefinite pronoun as mannāma/ mammanna, which might be derived from *mann-​a-​ma int.pers-​a cc-​foc and *man-​man-​a int. pers-​i nt.pers-​a cc, that is to say, the interrogative in the accusative with the focus particle and the reduplicated interrogative in the accusative respectively, even in contexts where the accusative is not expected (see Kogan 2008a, 24–25). This little cluster of features could be part of a particular literary register adequate for royal inscriptions but not used in correspondence or economic and legal texts.

46

Bēl Lišāni

five times in Diyala Old Akkadian.14 Secondly, subordinate verbs are marked with -na twelve times in Old Babylonian: once in Ur III Akkadian,15 ten times in Archaic Old Babylonian of the Isin and Larsa periods,16 and once in classical OB at Mari (Whiting 1987, 43). These twelve instances of -na can be categorized as follows: Two on gender-​number suffixes ending in long vowel. OB ana agrī ša âm ublū-na Archaic for the hired hand that carried the grain (TIM 7: 116 8) Four on ventive suffixes ending in consonant. OB adi awātka illak-an-na Archaic until your word comes (AbB 11: 1 8–9) Six on verbs without gender-​number suffixes, used together with-u. OB ašar lā udannin-ū-na Archaic where I had not strengthened (it) (AS 22: 6 12) It is hard to detect a system for when -na would be used instead of the more regular system in Old Babylonian. But -na clearly does not behave like -ni in Old Akkadian, where -ni does not co-​occur with the ventive, and almost exclusively combines with -u in fixed phrases in the royal inscriptions. If -na is to be incorporated into the regular systems of early Akkadian described above, it will constitute a fourth type more akin to Old Assyrian than Babylonian. Furthermore, it is not clear on the basis of what sound change -na should be regarded as a phonological variant of -ni that can support a reconstruction of -nV to Proto-​East Semitic mirroring -na in West Semitic. In short, we cannot positively connect Old Babylonian -na to Old Akkadian or Old Assyrian for phonological or syntactic reasons. In Old and Middle Assyrian, the morphemes -u and -ni can be separated by a pronominal suffix. The -u is suffixed directly onto the verbal base, while -ni is

14.  It is not the main subordinate marker in this dialect; -u also occurs. Rebutting attempts to connect this iprus-​a form to the West Semitic subjunctive yaqtul-​a on semantic as well as formal grounds, Hasselbach (2012, 131–33) has shown that the functional range of -a is purely syntactic, i.e., to mark the verb as subordinate, and it does not interfere with our discussion of -u and -ni here. 15.  The morpheme is marginal and Hilgert (2002, 163–64) claims that -u is the standard subordinate marker for Ur III Akkadian. 16.  In Whiting’s archaic OB letter corpus from Tell Asmar (Diyala), -na occurs only twice, while -u is more common (Whiting 1987, 13; Hasselbach 2005, 205).

Indicative Markers in West Semitic and the East Semitic Subordinative

47

attached to the whole verbal phrase after the ventive and pronominal suffixes if such occur, e.g., tukaʾʾilā-​šun-ni offer.prt.2ms-dat.3ms-subord:17 OA

ištu ūmem ša tukaʾʾilā-​šun-ni taḫsistam idʾā Note on a memorandum from which day you (pl.) offered it to him. (AKT 6c: 597 12–14)

OA

ištu allik-an-ni illikakkum after I came, he came to you (CCT 5: 49e 11′–12′)

If there are no object suffixes on the verb, the -ni would attach directly to the -u as -ū-​ni. This holds for all stages of Assyrian. The -ni is optional, albeit frequent, in such cases in Old Assyrian but is regularized in the later dialects. OA

ezib saḫertam ša ip-​pānītem aq-​qātīšunu addin-ū-ni apart from the goods I previously gave them (AKT 6e: 1071 14–16)

MA

mimma ša ana dabābīka illuk-ū-ni whatever will work for your case (KAV 168 17–18)

NA

issēn ūmu ēṣê ša šarru ikkušu ukarrûni kusāpu lā ekkul-ū-ni Is one day of the king being down and not eating anything too little? (SAA 10: 43 obv. 9–11)

Since the two morphemes co-​occur on many forms in Old Assyrian—similarly to six instances of -ū-​na in Archaic Old Babylonian—and the particular literary register exhibited in early Akkadian royal inscriptions allows for -ū-​ ni, the claims of a complementary distribution cannot be adequately sustained by the evidence in early Akkadian. From the data presented here, there is no clear case to be made for a complementary distribution on either phonological or morphological grounds. The distribution of the subordinative -ni in Assyrian is only established as a regular marker of the category in Middle Assyrian. Even if it was used in OAkk, both on long vowels and in the combined suffix -ūni, and fairly commonly in OA, the evidence does not reflect a single coherent system, which leads us to believe that the form must have been incipient in the earliest stages of Akkadian. The subordinative function of -ni cannot, therefore, be reconstructed to Proto-​ Akkadian, as it was not yet grammaticalized in the earliest phases of either 17.  Note that there are no examples of a pronominal suffix on a subordinate verb in Old Akkadian or in the set of instances of -na in Old Babylonian.

48

Bēl Lišāni Table 2.1.  Arabic Indicative Imperfect

1 2m 2f 3m 3f

singular

plural

ʾašrab-​u tašrab-​u tašrab-​ī-​na yašrab-​u tašrab-​u

našrab-​u tašrab-​ū-​na tašrab-​na yašrab-​ū-​na yašrab-​na

dialect. It seems reasonable to assume, therefore, that the subordinate marker -u is Proto-​Akkadian, while -ni is not.18 2.1.2. West Semitic The evidence for the West Semitic indicative markers -u/-na comes primarily from Central Semitic. Classical Arabic shows the most-​consistent system, but similar, albeit residual, systems are also attested in other Central Semitic languages. A possible attestation outside Central Semitic may be found in Northern Gurage. In this section, we will briefly review the evidence in each of the languages. In Classical Arabic there are two allomorphs, the distribution of which is phonologically conditioned: verbal forms ending in a consonant in the prefix conjugation are suffixed with -u, while verbal forms with gender-​number suffixes, which end in long vowels (2fs, 2/3pl), are suffixed with -na. The nasal suffix may be eliminated in pause, but otherwise these morphemes remain attached to the verb in all contexts. These suffixes are attached to the prefix conjugation and function as indicative markers, in opposition to subjunctive (yašrab-​a) and jussive (yašrab-0) (table 2.1). Final short vowels in most Arabic dialects were reduced to zero, so they are not expected to show evidence of -u, but several dialects still exhibit a reflex of *-na on the expected imperfect indicative forms. Such a system is attested primarily in Eastern Arabic dialects (Johnstone 1967, 43). For example, the Tanūma dialect in Saudi Arabia: 2fs tuktubīn, 2cp tuktubūn, 3cp yuktubūn (Prochazka 1988, 32); some Najdi dialects show a similar suffix distribution: 2fs taktibīn, 2mp taktibūn, 2fp taktibin, 3mp yaktibūn, 3fp taktibin (Ingham 1994, 23). In Hebrew, final short vowels have been lost, and consequently *yaqtul-​u effectively merged morphologically with *yaqtul for most verbal forms, with 18.  For a similar opinion, see Streck 2011, 355: “Hasselbach . . . thinks that /-ni/ after a vocalic ending was lost in Sargonic Akkadian of the Diyāla region and in Babylonian so that unmarked verbal forms in subordinative clauses would be a shared innovation. To my mind, the situation is just the other way around: the Assyrian subordinative in /-ni/ is an Assyrian innovation and the subordinative in /-u/ a shared retention.” For more on the independence of -u/-ni, see Bjøru and Pat-El 2020.

Indicative Markers in West Semitic and the East Semitic Subordinative

49

Table 2.2.  Hebrew Indicative Imperfect

1 2m 2f 3m 3f

singular

plural

ʾeqtōl tiqtōl tiqtəlî-(n) yiqtōl tiqtōl

niqtōl tiqtəlû-(n) tiqtōl-​nā yiqtəlû-(n) tiqtōl-​nā

the exception of II- and III-​weak roots, geminates, and the C-​stem. The allomorph -n is still attested hundreds of times in the expected contexts with 2fs and 2/3pl of the indicative *yaqtul-​u. For example: 2fs

2mp 3mp

wə-kô tidbāqîn ʿim naʿǎrōtāy you should stay around here, close to my female employees (Ruth 2:8) lak-​keleb tašlīkûn ʾotô you shall cast it to the dogs (Exod 22:30) ha-​yrūṣûn bas-​selaʿ sûsîm can horses gallop on rock? (Amos 6:12)

While the original system has collapsed, some argue that it is still synchronically meaningful (e.g., Hoftijzer 1985). These indicative markers tend to disappear in Late Biblical Hebrew and are thus considered archaic features (Zewi 1999, 115). Table 2.2 gives the full paradigm of the imperfect indicative. The language of El-​Amarna largely reflects the Central Semitic system (Moran 1950, 38). Forms with no gender-​number suffixes typically show -u (e.g.,  u lā yišm-​u EA 320 obv. 23), and forms with gender-​number suffixes show -na (e.g.,  tašpurū-​na EA 138 rev. 122).19 There are some examples of -u-​na in unexpected places, which are interpreted as energic (mi-​na a-​qa-​bu-​na ap-​pu-​na-​ma “what more can I say?” EA 119 rev. 53–54).20 In Aramaic, a reflex of *-na is regularly attached to 2p and 3p verbs in the prefix conjugation. In the Sefire Inscription, these are contrasted with the jussive 19.  As 2fs is not attested, this applies to 2/3mp. For additional discussion, see Rainey 1996, 2:227–34. 20.  Baranowski points out that in the apparently mixed forms in the Amarna letters from Canaan, the -u could in some cases be read as either the Akkadian subordinate marker or the Central Semitic indicative yaqtulu used in circumstantial contexts (Baranowski 2016, 44). The more economical explanation would be to read all such forms as attesting to the Northwest Semitic system. Moreover, Baranowski’s interpretation would create an asymmetrical system where only the singular is marked.

50

Bēl Lišāni

without the nasal;21 however, the jussive and imperfect fell together fairly early in the attested material (Muraoka 1983–84, 96), and the forms with a final nasal spread to all positions. In all dialects that preserve the imperfect, the 2/3p show a reflex of the nasal allomorph. 2mp

kidnā teʾmrûn lə-hôm thus you will say to them (Biblical Aramaic; Jer 10:11)

3mp

kn ygzr Mtʿʾl w-​ygzr-​n rb-​wh thus Matiel will be cut off and also his nobles will be cut off ​(Old Aramaic; Sefire IA 40).

3fp

kn yʿrr-​n nšy Mtʿʾl thus the wives of ​Matiel will be stripped naked (Old Aramaic; Sefire IA 41)

In Ugaritic, the prefix conjugation takes three forms, namely, the indicative yaqtulu (with -u and -na), jussive yaqtul, and volitive yaqtula. Josef ​Tropper also includes a short indicative with the same form as the jussive yaqtul (Tropper 2012, 454). In that case, yaqtulu would be restricted to imperfective indicative use. The yaqtulu conforms morphologically to the other Central Semitic languages. 3mp

b-ḥwt Ngṯ tʿtqn (/taʿtiqūna/) they pass through the land of ​Nuḫašše (KTU 2.36:17)

III-​aleph verbs also indicate a final vowel, so we can observe the -u on the forms without gender-​number suffixes: 3ms

[w lb]h b-​ph yṣủ (/yaṣiʾ-u/) if its heart protrudes through its mouth (KTU 1.103 51)

3fs

tqrủ l-​Špš ủmh (/tiqraʾ-u/) she calls to Špš, her mother (KTU 1.100:8)

There is a lively debate over the 2/3 fp ending in Ugaritic. Tropper asserts that in both the yaqtul and yaqtul-​u paradigms, the 2/3 fp forms are taqtul-​na:

21.  The 2fs is not attested with a nasal in Old Aramaic, but since such a nasal regularly appears in later dialect, we should assume that it existed in earlier dialects as well.

Indicative Markers in West Semitic and the East Semitic Subordinative

51

Table 2.3.  Ugaritic Indicative Imperfect

1 2m 2f 3m 3f

singular

plural

ảqtl /’aqtulu/ tqtl /taqtulu/ tqln /taqtulīna/ yqtl /yaqtulu/ tqtl /taqtulu/

nqtl /naqtulu/ tqtln /taqtulūna/ tqtln /taqtulna/ tqtln /taqtulūna/ tqtln /taqtulna/

2fp

ủ tḫṭỉn l-​dbḥm w-​l-ṯʿ (/tiḫṭaʾ-na/) or whether you have sinned regarding the sacrifices and the offerings (KTU 1.40:23)

3fp

mrḥy mlk tdlln (/yvdallil-​na/) the spears of the king will subdue (it) (KTU 1.103:7)

Dennis Pardee, however, points out that we do not know whether a long vowel -ā, similar to the Akkadian and Ethiopic 2/3 fp forms, might be used in Ugaritic, and the distinction would then be between the yaqtulu- form, taqtulā-​na, and the yaqtul- form, taqtulā. But for comparative reasons we find this unlikely, as a 2/3 fp form with both *-ā and *-na is unattested. Semitic languages use one of these morphemes in the prefix conjugation, but not both (see Pardee 2003–4, 223). The reconstructed paradigm for the Ugaritic imperfect indicative would look like table 2.3. The evidence in ancient South Arabian is scant. Because vowels are not indicated in the orthography, only the nasal variant is evident. In Sabaic, 2fs may show a final nasal (tf ʿl-​n), although it is unclear if this form is the indicative or energic (Stein 2013, 80). Plural forms seem to show a lack of the indicative marker:22 3mp does not take such a morpheme (yf ʿl-​w), while 3fp shows a final -n, which likely represents a reflex of the gender-​number marker *-na, as is the case with most West Semitic languages. If the 3mp does not show final nasalization, it is unlikely that the 2fs does. In Qatabanic, on the other hand, the indicative plural consistently takes a final -n, distinguishing it from the singular. Both are also marked with the innovative indicative prefix b-. 3ms

w-ḏm b-​yʿd mrṯdn bḏl nfs1-s1 he who removes the goods in the shop has to give his life (RES 4337B 16–18)

22.  2p forms are not attested.

52

Bēl Lišāni Table 2.4.  Soddo MVM Paradigm

1 2m 2f 3m 3f

singular

plural

äläbs-​u təläbs-​u təlebsi-​n yəläbs-​u təläbs-​ia

nəläbs-​u təläbsəmu-​n təläbsəma-​n yəläbsəmu-​n yəläbsəmu-​n

Hetzron (1968, 164) explains the unexpected vowel -i on the 3fs as a secondary development, after speakers reanalyzed -i as a sign of feminine vs. -u as a sign of masculine. a

3mp

mlk Qtbn w- ʿhr S2mr ʾl b-​y ʿdw-n n ʿmt b-​zwrtm the king of Qatabān and the overseer of S2mr will not remove the ‘seeds-​privilege’ (RES 4337B 1–3)

Ancient South Arabian, therefore, seems to reflect a system similar to those of Arabic and Hebrew, with Sabaic having lost the *-na, but Qatabanic preserving it as an indicative marker. Moreover, Alfred Beeston (1984, 60) suggests that the few forms with final -n in Minaic—which have to be read as plural, although the gender-​number marker -w is rarely indicated in these inscriptions—could also be the indicative marker on plural forms. Outside Central Semitic, some Northern Gurage languages have a phonologically similar feature, which Wolf ​Leslau (1967) and Robert Hetzron (1968, 1972b) considered related to the Central Semitic indicative morpheme.23 In Soddo/ Kistane, a Northern Gurage language, any main verb is marked with a clitic with two allomorphs: -n after vowels and -u or -i after consonants (table 2.4). Hetzron’s term MVM (= main verb marker) to describe this morpheme is widely used in the literature; Sharon Rose (1996, 219), on the other hand, argues that these markers are in fact present tense markers and not MVM.24 The morpheme retains its final phrasal position in all contexts, thus pronominal objects are positioned before either allomorph, directly on the verbal base or the gender-​ number suffixes. Not all Gurage languages use this set of morphemes; Muher, for example, uses a different set that includes the suffix-u/i but instead of the 23.  Leslau (1967, 125) aptly titles his article a “Hypothesis on a Proto-​Semitic Marker of the Imperfect in Gurage,” and stresses that he is open to other explanations of this -u in Gurage. 24.  This analysis accounts for most of the evidence in North Gurage, but in Muher, the alleged present tense marker -u combines with the nonpresent auxiliary bänna, making Rose’s proposal unlikely (Meyer 2014, 243).

Indicative Markers in West Semitic and the East Semitic Subordinative

53

Table 2.5.  Muher MVM Paradigm

1 2m 2f 3m 3f

singular

plural

äsäbr-​u tɨsäbr-​u tɨsäbrɨ-tt yɨsäbr-​u tɨsäbr-​i

näsäbrɨn-​o < -nä-​u tɨsäbrɨm[w]ɨ-tt tɨsäbrɨma-​tt yɨsäbrɨm[w]ɨ-tt yɨsäbrɨma-​tt

Table 2.6.  Jibbali Indicative Imperfect Paradigm (“Be Able”)

1 2m 2f 3m 3f

Singular

Plural

ʾəḳɔdər təḳɔdər təḳudər yəḳɔdər təḳɔdər

nəḳɔdər təḳɔdər təḳɔdər-ən yəḳɔdər təḳɔdər-ən

nasal, uses -tt (table 2.5; Hetzron 1968; Meyer 2019). The -tt/-n variant is such a distinctive feature that it is commonly used as a diagnostic feature to distinguish between Gafat, Kistane, and Dobbi as the -n group and Muher and Western Gurage as the -tt group (Hetzron 1972b, 119). Neither morpheme appears in the modern South Arabian languages, but there are reflexes of the 2/3fp ending -na.25 The 2/3fp suffixes are distinct from the 2/3mp indicative -na. In West Semitic languages, with the exception of ​Ethiopic, the 2/3fp forms of the imperfect, both indicative and jussive, show a consistent nasal, which is typically reconstructed to Proto-​Semitic as *-na (Huehnergard 1987, s2005): 2fp *tVqtVl-​na, 3fp *yVqtVl-​na.26 Under this analysis, the 2/3 fp suffix of the prefix conjugation *-na has a different origin than the indicative marker on long vowels -na (Huehnergard 1987, 272 n. 24). The fact that the modern South Arabian languages retained the 2/3fp nasal suffix but show no reflex of the 2/3mp and 2fs nasal suffix (see table 2.6) indicates that the indicative marker *-na is absent in this node. 25.  Soqotri 2mp tedɛ́ker ‘you remember’, 3mp yedɛ́ker, 2/3fp tedɛkór-​en (Kogan and Bulakh 2019, 295). Mehri and Harsusi mark the 2/3 mp with -m, while Jibbali does not (Dufour 2016). For the relevant morphology, see Rubin 2014, 141. 26.  The 2/3 fp suffix-ā in Ethiopic and Akkadian is generally accepted as a secondary development, in analogy with the gender-​number ending of the stative/suffix conjugation (Huehnergard 2005, 169–70).

54

Bēl Lišāni

2.2. Problems with the Communis Opinio There are a number of discrepancies between the West Semitic and the East Semitic morphemes, which, we argue, make a shared origin highly unlikely. Most scholars concentrate on the difference between the function of these morphemes in East and West Semitic, namely, whether the indicative or the subordinative function is original and how one function allegedly developed out of another.27 While this is indeed a quandary, there are a number of additional morphosyntactic differences that require explanation. In the following we point to several issues with the assumption of common origin and conclude that a relationship, at least between -ni and -na, is not likely. 2.2.1. Attestation The subordinative -ni is only regularized in Assyrian. The Old Akkadian evidence does not reflect the same system, and the -na in early Old Babylonian is not clearly related to -ni, since they behave differently and are, of course, not morphologically identical. Otherwise, -ni is never attested in Babylonian, the Old Akkadian of ​Diyala, or Eblaite. Even within Assyrian, it seems to not be fully consistent in the oldest layers of the dialect: it is not strictly obligatory in Old Assyrian (Hecker 1968, 133–35; Kouwenberg 2017, §16.9.10.3–4) and only firmly settles into its known distribution in Middle Assyrian.28 See the following example from OA, where the same verb in a single sentence occurs once with -ni and once without it, which indicates that the -ni is optional even if it is fairly frequent (Kouwenberg 2017, 331). OA

inūmi annākam tuṣû-ni . . . ištu annākam tuṣû when you left (from) here . . . after you left from here (AKT 3: 92 3–6)

Arguments in favor of reconstructing -ni to Proto-​Akkadian have relied on the assumption that -ni was lost in Babylonian and Eblaite due to the same changes that also eliminated the final syllable -nV on sound masculine plural nouns, allegedly *sarr-​ū-​na > Akk šarrū.29 This explanation is unsatisfactory because 27.  E.g., Hamori 1973; Hetzron 1974, 188; 1976, 105; Zaborski 2009; 2013, 267–68; Kouwenberg 2010, §9.3.3; Hasselbach 2012, 124–25, to name just a few. 28.  Kouwenberg (2017, 331) refers to -ni on verbal forms with -u as “optional.” Regarding the position of -ni on forms with suffixes, he notes that “the number of exceptions seems too high to justify the claim that -ni is obligatory after a suffix pronoun in forms which also have -u” (2017, 332). 29.  See, e.g., Hasselbach (2007, 38 n. 47): “The loss of subordinate -ni can be compared to the loss of -na on plural nouns in Akkadian, as in *śarrū-​na > šarrū.” Huehnergard (2006, 10) also

Indicative Markers in West Semitic and the East Semitic Subordinative

55

Assyrian, where -ni is used on verbs, has no nasal on the masculine plural, much like Babylonian and Eblaite. If there were a regular change eliminating final *-nV it should have affected Assyrian subordinative -ni and possibly the dual forms *-āni as well, the latter is attached in the same environment as the subordinative -ni. We would instead have to posit a morphologically conditioned loss that affected verbs and nouns in Babylonian and Eblaite, but only nouns in Assyrian.30 Granted, the verbal and nominal paradigms do not always behave in the same way, but the consensus in the field seems to be that the same pressures affected the posited nasal in both paradigms.31 The evidence cannot support a reconstruction of -ni for Proto-​Akkadian, given the absence of -ni in Babylonian and Eblaite and its nonobligatory status in Old Assyrian. It is more in line with the data to assume that -ni was a clitic that started spreading in some strains of Akkadian. Previous studies have argued that the indicative markers are a shared feature of Central Semitic (e.g., Hetzron 1976). While the indicative function is a diagnostic feature of Central Semitic, the morphemes themselves are assumed to be Proto-​Semitic (Huehnergard 2005, 165; Huehnergard and Rubin 2011, 270); however, positive evidence for the existence of these morphemes within West Semitic is only found in Central Semitic. In Modern South Arabian, for example, there is no trace of this morpheme (Rubin 2008, 93). As we have seen, Hetzron and others have suggested that some North Gurage languages exhibit a reflex of the indicative markers. The question of whether the Central Semitic indicative -u/-na is related to North Gurage is therefore crucial to determine whether these markers can be reconstructed to Proto-West Semitic. Hetzron (1968, 1972b) and Leslau (1968) argue that they are. There are, however, a number of significant inconsistencies in the distribution and syntax the Central Semitic indicative marker and the North Gurage main verb marker. First, a reconstructing of *-u/*-na for Proto-​Gurage is doubtful. Not all Gurage languages reflect the nasal variant. Muher has -(t)t, while Soddo/Kistane and Goggot/Dobi have -n. Hetzron (1968, 168–69; 1972a, 38), Gideon Goldenberg (1977, 479–80), and Shlomo Raz (1991, 1257) connect both to copular verbs in Gurage more generally. Hetzron further suggests that the same reconstructed copulas, *wt and *nt, are behind the indicative markers in Arabic. According assumes that the West Semitic nominal plural -na and the West Semitic indicative marker -na are related. Note that both Dolgopolsky (1991) and Voigt (1999) assume that the nasal on the plural masculine was *-m originally. This seems unlikely to us. 30.  In addition, it is not clear at all that East Semitic ever had a nasal on its masculine plural forms since this morpheme is absent from all East Semitic languages both on substantives and adjectives (including participles); if it did, the loss of the morpheme must be dated to a very early stage, and a morphologically conditioned exception must be made for -ni if it is thought to have been used that early. 31.  See n. 26.

56

Bēl Lišāni

to Hetzron, the Muher variant reflects an assimilation *nt > tt, while the Soddo variant reflects a simplification *nt > n (Hetzron 1968). There is, however, no evidence for these copulae outside Ethiosemitic. There are also other MVMs in use in Gurage, that is, -i and -m. In Chaha and Inor, -m only occurs on past-​ tense verbs and is probably related to the converb marker -m used in Gunnän Gurage and Zay (Meyer 2014, 243). The 3fs -i (e.g., təsäbr-​i) is attested in both Muher and Soddo and has no equivalence in Central Semitic or East Semitic. The range of markers and their origin suggest that the Gurage system is innovative, not retentive.32 Second, the function and distribution of MVMs and the Central Semitic indicative marker differ significantly. MVMs occur on all main verbs in North Gurage: affirmative imperfective, affirmative copulas (e.g., Muher jinä- and bannä-), the negated past imperfective, and the prohibitive (Meyer 2019, 244). In Soddo, it occurs also on the perfect (Hetzron 1968, 167; Leslau 1967). The Gurage forms can only occur on main verbs but are otherwise unrestricted. The Central Semitic forms are not restricted to that environment and can occur in subordinate clauses as well but are restricted only to the prefix conjugation. Third, short-u is reduced (*u > ə) across Ethiosemitic, so the marker -u in Soddo would have to be from an original long final vowel (*ū), which does not correspond to the Central Semitic indicative marker -u. Alternatively and preferably, it is a secondary development in Soddo. Fourth, MVMs are clitics and are positioned at the right-​most edge of the verbal phrase. When pronominal object suffixes are attached to the verb, all MVM allomorphs will be positioned after the object. For example, Soddo älägd-​xä-u ‘I touched you (ms)’, təlägd-​e-w ‘you (ms) touch me’; Muher yəsäbər-​ra-t ( West Semitic path on typological grounds are not particularly strong. For some, the debate regarding the original function of the morpheme is closely tied to the reconstruction of the Proto-​Semitic verbal system, more specifically whether *yaqattal or *yaqtul(u) is the original Proto-​Semitic imperfect(ive). Since the use of subordination markers is redundant because subordinate clauses in Semitic are syntactically marked,45 Zaborski and Kouwenberg argue that it is preferable to assume that *yaqtul-​u is an old imperfect indicative, a category that is not otherwise marked. Kouwenberg suggests that the form was lost in nonsubordinate contexts and in these contexts, it was fully replaced in Akkadian by an innovative *yaqattal. Zaborski conversely assumes that the final short vowel in the yaqtul-u was lost in pausal position to produce *yaqtul. Both scholars assume, therefore, that *yaqtul-​u is Proto-​Semitic, not an innovation of Central Semitic, as is currently accepted by most scholars (e.g., Hetzron 1976; Huehnergard 2005), and that *yaqattal is an innovation of ​East Semitic. We find this position untenable since *yaqattal is attested in Ethiosemitic and quite possibly in Modern South Arabian and is therefore likely to be Proto-​ Semitic and not an innovation in East Semitic (see also Kogan 2008b; 2015, 158). Furthermore, in Kouwenberg’s scenario the perfect/stative is an old morphological form, which comes to be a part of the verbal system early on, but only as a final step of acquiring verbal morphology is it marked with -u in East Semitic (Kouwenberg 2010, 176–89). Kouwenberg does not, however, commit to when exactly the stative became a part of the verbal system.46 If ​West Semitic had a modal system (-u for indicative and -Ø for nonindicative), we would expect 45.  Either the antecedent is in construct or the clause is introduced with an explicit marker. 46.  Kouwenberg (2010, 585) notes that the predicative deverbal adjectives were combined with pronominal suffix but that it “remains to be determined” if such a process happened in Proto-Semitic; however, on p. 587 (table 18.1), the stative with subject suffixes is listed with other Proto-​Semitic finite verbs.

Indicative Markers in West Semitic and the East Semitic Subordinative

65

all inflected verbal forms to be marked for it, including the emerging perfect. Assuming both that the stative/perfect is Proto-​Semitic and that the indicative is the original function are problematic given that the perfect is unmarked for mood in West Semitic. While any argument on this issue will be hypothetical, we would like to point out a few factors that lead us to suspect that the East Semitic function is more original. As we noted earlier, the typological arguments for the priority of the indicative function are inconclusive and cannot serve as firm grounds for reconstruction. A more positive piece of evidence in favor of the consensus opinion is that, by and large, modal verbs cannot occur in subordinate clauses in Akkadian.47 The imperative is blocked, as it is in most Semitic languages, but also the precative and vetitive, as well as generally lū with any predicate (Buccellati 1972, 2; Cohen 2005, §4.2.2.2). Subordinate predicates are typically negated with lā, while main clause predication is negated with ulā. Both negations, however, are likely the same original form, and they differ only with respect to sequentiality (Sjörs 2018).48 Thus, since -u is never attested on modal forms, subordinate verbal predicates marked with -u could be interpreted secondarily as indicative forms secondarily. If this hypothetical reanalysis took place before the stative was completely grammaticalized as the new perfect, it could account for the lack of modal marking on the perfect, since -u is not possible on nonverbal predicates. We therefore suggest the following development took place in West-​Semitic: Subordinative θv̄ yaqtul-​u > nonmodal > Indicative yaqtul-​u. When exactly this happened is difficult to say, since it is attested in the oldest languages in either branch; however, since the process took place as the stative was starting to grammaticalize into the perfect, we assume it happened at the Proto-West Semitic stage. Some support for this scenario comes from Mari, where we might be observing the process unfolding. The possibility that the Mari scribes spoke a West Semitic language while writing in Old Babylonian Akkadian, could underlie such forms. In such examples, -u appears on main clause verbal predicates. Mari

bēlī immar-ū-šu my lord shall see it (ARM 6: 13 12–13)

Assuming that -u was originally a marker of subordinate clauses and was reanalyzed later as an indicative marker is therefore consistent with the East and Central Semitic evidence, as well as typological evidence. 47.  This does not mean that modality is absent from subordinate clauses (for which, see Cohen 2005); rather that the morphological verbal category is. 48.  Pat-​El (2012) argues for a slightly different position, namely, that *lā was originally a nonmain predicate negation.

66

Bēl Lišāni

2.4. Summary and Conclusion The assumption that the East Semitic subordinative and the Central Semitic indicative are related is widely accepted among Semitists. In this paper we challenged the relationship between the nasal variant of these categories on the basis of several arguments. We specifically argued that these sets cannot be reconstructed to Proto-​West Semitic or Proto-​East Semitic and that the relationship between their members is not identical (East Semitic -u and -ni are distinct morphemes, while Central Semitic -u/-na are allomorphs). Additionally, we suggested that -u is a shared feature and that its function was originally subordinative, as it is in East Semitic. We pointed to a possible process that may have changed its function to an indicative, as it is used in Central Semitic. It follows from what we have argued here that we regard -ni in Assyrian and -na in Central Semitic as separate innovations, the triggers for which must be sought within each branch without recourse to a posited relationship between them. Bibliography Aartun, Kjell. 1993. “Über den altsemitischen Adverbialkasus auf –u.” Pages 230–37 in Language—A Doorway Between Human Cultures: Tributes to Dr. Otto Chr. Dahl on His Ninetieth Birthday. Oslo: Novus. Appleyard, David. 2002. “New Finds in the 20th Century: The South Semitic Languages.” Israel Oriental Studies 20:401–30. Baranowski, Krzysztof J. 2016. The Verbs in the Amarna Letters from Canaan. LANE 6. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Beeston, Alfred F. L. 1984. Sabaic Grammar. Manchester: University of ​Manchester. Beyer, Francis. 2014. Altakkadisches Elementarbuch. Subsidia et Instrumenta Linguarum Orientis 3. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz. Bjøru, Øyvind and Na‘ama Pat-El. 2020. “The Historical Syntax of the Subordinative Morphemes in Assyrian Akkadian.” ZA 110/1: 71–83. Buccellati, Giorgio. 1972. “On the Use of the Akkadian Infinitive After “ša” or Construct State.” JSS 17:1–29. Catagnoti, Amalia. 2012. La grammatica della lingua di Ebla. Quaderni di semitistica 29. Florence: Università di Firenze, Dipartimento di Linguistica, Medioevo e Rinascimiento e Linguistica. Cohen, Eran. 2005. The Modal System of Old Babylonian. HSS 56. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Dolgopolsky, Aaron. 1991. “Two Problems of Semitic Historical Linguistics.” Pages 328–39 in Semitic Studies in Honor of ​Wolf ​Leslau on the Occasion of ​His Eighty-​ Fifth Birthday. Edited by Alan S. Kaye. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Doyle, Aidan. 2002. “Yesterday’s Affixes as Today’s Clitics: A Case-​Study in Degrammaticalization.” Pages 67–81 in New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Edited by Ilse Wischer and Gabriele Diewald. Typological Studies in Language 49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Indicative Markers in West Semitic and the East Semitic Subordinative

67

Dufour, Julien. 2016. “The Development of Non-​cumulative Exponence for Number in the Jibbali / Śḥrí (Modern South Arabian) Verbal Morphology.” Paper delivered at Quatrième journée d’études sur les langues sudarabiques modernes, Nantes. Evans, Nicholas. 2007. “Insubordination and Its Uses.” Pages 366–431 in Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations. Edited by Irina Nikolaeva. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Evans, Nicholas, and Honoré Watanabe, eds. 2016. Insubordination. Typological Studies in Language 115. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Foster, Benjamin R. 1982. Administration and Use of ​Institutional Land in Sargonic Sumer. Mesopotamia 9. Copenhagen: Akademisk. Goldenberg, Gideon. 1977. “The Semitic Languages of ​Ethiopia and Their Classification.” BSOAS 40:461–507. Hamori, Andras. 1973. “A Note on yaqtulu in East and West Semitic.” ArOr 41:319–24. Hasselbach, Rebecca. 2004. “The Markers of ​Person, Gender, and Number in the Prefixes of G-​Preformative Conjugations in Semitic.” JAOS 124:23–35. ———. 2005. Sargonic Akkadian: A Historical and Comparative Study of the Syllabic Texts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. 2007. “The Affiliation of Sargonic Akkadian with Babylonian and Assyrian: New Insights Concerning the Internal Sub-​Grouping of Akkadian.” JSS 52:21–43. ———. 2012. The Verbal Endings -u and -a: A Note on Their Functional Derivation.” Pages 119–36 in Language and Nature: Papers Presented to John Huehnergard on the Occasion of ​His 60th Birthday. Edited by Rebecca Hasselbach and Na‘ama Pat-​El. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. ———. 2013. Case in Semitic: Roles, Relations, and Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heggie, Lorie, and Francisco Ordóñez. 2005. “Clitic Ordering Phenomena: The Path to Generalization.” Pages 1–29 in Clitic and Affix Combinations: Theoretical Perspectives. Edited by Lorie Heggie and Francisco Ordóñez. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hetzron, Robert. 1968. “Main Verb-​Markers in Northern Gurage.” Africa 38:156–72. ———. 1972a. Ethiopian Semitic: Studies in Classification. Journal of Semitic Studies Monograph 2. Manchester: Manchester University Press. ———. 1972b. “The Shape of a Rule and Diachrony.” BSOAS 35:451–75. ———. 1974. “La Division des langues sémitiques.” Pages 181–94 in Actes du premier congrès international de linguistique sémitique et chamito-​sémitique. Janua Linguarum. Series Practica 159. Edited by André Caquot and David Cohen. Paris: Mouton. ———. 1976. “Two Principles of Genetic Reconstruction.” Lingua 38:89–198. Hilgert, Markus. 2002. Akkadisch in der Ur III-​Zeit. IMGULA 5. Münster: Rhema. Hoftijzer, Jacob. 1985. The Function and Use of the Imperfect Forms with Nun Paragogicum in Classical Hebrew. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 21. Assen: Van Gorcum. Huehnergard, John. 1987. “The Feminine Plural Jussive in Old Aramaic.” ZDMG 137:266–77. ———. 1988. “The Early Hebrew Prefix-​Conjugations.” Hebrew Studies 29:19–23. ———. 2005. “Features of Central Semitic.” Pages 155–203 in Biblical and Oriental Essays in Memory of ​William L. Moran. Edited by Agustinus Gianto. Biblica et Orientalia 48. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. ———. 2006. “Proto-​Semitic and Proto-​Akkadian.” Pages 1–18 in The Akkadian Language in Its Semitic Context: Studies in the Akkadian of the Third and Second

68

Bēl Lišāni

Millennium BC. Edited by Guy Deutscher and N. J. C. Kouwenberg. PIHANS 106. Leiden: Nederlandse Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Huehnergard, John, and Aaron Rubin. 2011. “Phyla and Waves: Models of Classification of the Semitic Languages.” Pages 259–78 in The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook. Edited by Stefan Weninger et al. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. Ingham, Bruce. 1994. Najdi Arabic. Central Arabian. London Oriental and African Language Library 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Johnstone, Thomas. M. 1967. Eastern Arabian Dialect Studies. London Oriental Series 17. London: Oxford. Kogan, Leonid. 2008a. “Accusative as Casus Pendens? A Hitherto Unrecognized Emphatic Construction in Early Akkadian Royal Inscriptions.” RA 102:17–26. ———. 2008b. “On a-​Ablaut in the Nominal and Verbal Paradigms in Semitic.” Pages 161–68 in Semito-​Hamitic Festschrift for A. B. Dolgopolsky and H. Jungraithmayr. Edited by Gábor Takács. Berlin: Reimer. ———. 2015. Genealogical Classification of Semitic: The Lexical Isoglosses. Berlin: de Gruyter. Kouwenberg, N. J. C. 2010. The Akkadian Verb and Its Semitic Background. LANE 2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. ———. 2017. A Grammar of Old Assyrian. Leiden: Brill. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1972. Studies in Semitic Grammar and Metrics. Kraków: Polska Akademia Nauk. Leslau, Wolf. 1967. “Hypothesis on a Proto-​Semitic Marker of the Imperfect in Gurage.” JNES 26:121–25. McMahon, April, and Robert McMahon. 2005. Language Classification by Numbers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Meyer, Ronny. 2014. “Finiteness in the Gurage Languages.” Pages 225–58 in Explorations in Ethiopian Linguistics: Complex Predicates, Finiteness and Interrogativity. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 91. Edited by Ronny Meyer, Yvonne Treis, and Azeb Amha. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. 2019. “Muher.” Pages 227–56 in The Semitic Languages. Edited by John Huehnergard and Na‘ama Pat-​El. 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge. Mithun, Marianne. 2000. “The Reordering of ​Morphemes.” Pages 231–58 in Reconstructing Grammar: Comparative Linguistics and Grammaticalization. Edited by Spike Gildea. Typological Studies in Language 43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Moran, William L. 1950. “A Syntactical Study of the Dialect of ​Byblos as Reflected in the Amarna Tablets.” PhD diss., Johns Hopkins University. Muraoka, Takamitsu. 1983–84. “The Tell-​Fekherye Bilingual Inscription and Early Aramaic.” Abr-​Nahrain 22:79–117. Pardee, Dennis. 2003–4. Review of Ugaritische Grammatik, by Josef ​Tropper. AfO 50:1–404. Pat-​El, Na‘ama. 2012. “On Verbal Negation in Semitic.” ZDMG 162:17–45. Prochazka, Theodore, Jr. 1988. Saudi Arabian Dialects. Library of Arabic Linguistics 8. London: Routledge. Rainey, Anson F. 1996. Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect used by Scribes from Canaan. HdO 1.25. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill. Raz, Shlomo. 1991. “Semitic South Ethiopic: The Definite Future Revisited.” Pages 1248–64 in Semitic Studies in Honor of ​Wolf ​Leslau on the Occasion of ​His Eighty-​ Fifth Birthday. Edited by Alan S. Kaye. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Indicative Markers in West Semitic and the East Semitic Subordinative

69

Rose, Sharon. 1996. “Allomorphy and Morphological Categories in Muher.” Pages 205–27 in Essays on Gurage Language and Culture Dedicated to Wolf ​Leslau on the Occasion of ​His 90th Birthday. Edited by Grover Hudson. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Rubin, Aaron D. 2005. Studies in Semitic Grammaticalization. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. ———. 2008. “The Subgrouping of the Semitic Languages.” Language and Linguistics Compass 2:79–102. ———. 2014. The Jibbali (Shaḥri) Language of Oman: Grammar and Texts. Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 72. Leiden: Brill. Sjörs, Ambjörn. 2018. Historical Aspects of Standard Negation in Semitic. Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 91. Leiden: Brill. Spencer, Andrew, and Ana R. Luís. 2012. Clitics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stein, Peter. 2013. Lehrbuch der sabäischen Sprache. 1. Teil, Grammatik. Subsidia et Instrumenta Linguarum Orientis 4.1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Streck, Michael. 2011. “Eblaite and Old Akkadian.” Pages 340–59 in The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook. Edited by Stefan Weninger et al. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. Tropper, Josef. 2012. Ugaritische Grammatik: Zweite, stark überarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. AOAT 273. Münster: Ugarit. Voigt, Rainer M. 1999. “Nominal (and Verbal) Nasalization and the Nominal Plural Morphemes in Semitohamitic.” Pages 11–22 in Afroasiatica Tergestina: Papers from the 9th Italian Meeting of Afro-​Asiatic (Hamito-​Semitic) Linguistics, Trieste, April 23–24, 1998. Edited by Marcello Lamberti and Livia Tonelli. Padova: Unipress. Whiting, Robert M. 1987. Old Babylonian Letters from Tell Asmar. AS 22. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Zaborski, Andrzej. 2009. “Akkadian ‘Subjunctive’ iprus-​a, Old Imperfect iprus-​u and Energici -am, -anni.” Pages 379–86 in Language, Science and Culture: Essays in Honor of ​Professor Jerzy Bańczerowski. Edited by Piotra Łobacz, Piotr Nowak, and Władyslaw Zabrocki. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza. ———. 2013. “Big and Small Problems of the Biggest Panorama of the Semitic Languages.” Brill’s Annual of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 5:253–304. Zewi, Tamar. 1999. A Syntactical Study of ​Verbal Forms Affixed by -n (n) Endings. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Zwicky, Arnold M., and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 1983. “Cliticization vs. Inflection: English N’T.” Language 59:502–13.

Chapter 3

Eblaite and Akkadian: A Look at the Pronominal System Rebecca Hasselbach-​Andee

The position of ​E blaite within the Semitic language family has not yet been fully established. More specifically, despite the fact that Eblaite has been fairly firmly established as a member of ​East Semitic, its exact relationship to the other member of this branch of Semitic, Akkadian, is still unclear. Various propositions regarding the position of ​Eblaite within East Semitic and its relationship to Akkadian have been made over the years, but none of them has gained wider acceptance since there are numerous issues that make the exact classification of ​ Eblaite difficult. These issues include language-​internal ones such as the difficulties faced when dealing with the writing system, which was not yet adapted to reflect Eblaite phonology and morphology faithfully, to external ones, such as the diverse contexts in which Eblaite was used, and, more importantly, the issue of potential language contact. In this article I would like to suggest some preliminary considerations of ​ how the problem of ​Eblaite subgrouping might be addressed in a comprehensive manner and present an initial case study of such an approach based on an investigation of the Eblaite pronominal system. This article is thus not so much about presenting concrete results or solutions for the general issue of ​Eblaite subgrouping but rather about suggesting a new approach to the problem.

3.1. Eblaite Eblaite was discovered in written material in excavations during the mid-1970s at the northern Syrian site of ​Tell Mardikh, which lies about 60 km southwest of Aleppo. Among other remains, the excavation team found about four thousand texts written in a type of cuneiform that resembles the one found in contemporary Mesopotamian sources.1 These texts mostly come from the context of a 1.  There are about seventeen thousand tablets and fragments, which are thought to amount to roughly four thousand complete texts (Catagnoti 2012, 1).

70

Eblaite and Akkadian

71

single archive, found in the royal palace, and date to a short period in the third millennium BCE—more precisely, it is assumed that the archive covers roughly fifty years, from about 2370 to 2320 BCE.2 Based on this time range, the Ebla archive is contemporary to the late Pre-​Sargonic (ca. 2400–2350 BCE) and early Sargonic (ca. 2350–2112 BCE) periods in Mesopotamia.3 Together with Akkadian, Eblaite thus constitutes one of the earliest-​known Semitic languages and is of significant importance for understanding early developments within the Semitic language family. The texts found at Ebla cover various genres. The bulk of the material constitutes administrative texts, written mostly logographically. Another significant subcorpus includes chancellery texts and letters. These texts document the diplomatic relationships between the king of ​Ebla and other rulers, and provide most of the data for Eblaite since they include a larger quantity of syllabic spellings than the administrative texts. In addition, there is a small group of incantations that seem to have originated in Syrian scribal schools.4 Lastly, a bilingual Sumerian–Eblaite lexical list has been found, which is attested in various versions: this lexical list constitutes the earliest bilingual lexical list known so far. The diplomatic and administrative texts that were discovered at Ebla show that the kingdom of ​Ebla, and seemingly also its language, commonly referred to as “Eblaite,” covered a significantly larger territory than simply the city itself. At the peak of its existence in the twenty-​fourth century BCE, Ebla’s territory included cities such as Alalakh, Karkemish, Hamath, and Tunip, in addition to hundreds of villages.5 It is likewise known that Ebla had extensive trade and political contacts beyond its own territory, reaching to Egypt in the west and Mesopotamia in the east.6 It seems to have had particularly close ties to Mari and also to northern Mesopotamian Kish, since the exchange of people and goods with these cities is well attested.7 Ebla was thus not an isolated city-​state but incorporated into a much larger economic and political network. This network also included cultural exchange. It is undisputed that Eblaite borrowed its writing system from Mesopotamia. Certain text genres, such as lexical lists and a number of ​literary texts that have been found at Ebla, have clear parallels 2.  Archi 2006, 100. 3.  See Hasselbach 2005, 1. 4.  Catagnoti 2012, 3. 5.  Archi 2006, 99. 6.  For the connections with Egypt see, e.g., Pettinato 1986, 40; Feldman 2018, 421. 7.  For trade and cultural connections between Mari and Ebla, see, e.g., Butterlin 2018. The importance of ​Kish in Pre-​Sargonic times has been established by Gelb, especially in his articles from 1977 and 1981. Despite the fact that Gelb was most likely overly optimistic about his presumed “Kish-​civilization,” the data he presents nevertheless show that cultural connections between Mesopotamian cities such as Kish and Abu Salabikh and Syrian sites such as Mari and Ebla existed. As an example, a scribe from Kish is mentioned in texts from Ebla (Gelb 1981, 61).

72

Bēl Lišāni

in Mesopotamian texts, especially in those found at Abu Salabikh.8 Another indicator of the close cultural connection between Ebla and Mesopotamia is the fact that many texts at Ebla, including many lexical lists, are, in fact, written in Sumerian, a language that was undoubtedly not used natively in Syria. The importance of this close cultural and economic contact to Mesopotamia must not be overlooked in a proper evaluation of ​Eblaite.

3.2. Previous Subgroupings of ​Eblaite As mentioned in the introduction, the most-​widely accepted subgrouping for Eblaite is that it is an East Semitic language or dialect. East Semitic constitutes one of the two main branches of Semitic after the split from Proto-​Semitic, the other branch being West Semitic. East Semitic prior to the discovery of ​ Eblaite contained only one language, Akkadian, while all other Semitic languages are members of the various subbranches of ​West Semitic, for which see the family tree given in figure 3.1. The classification of ​Eblaite as East Semitic was not the first suggestion made in the attempt to determine its place in Semitic, however. When Eblaite was discovered in 1974–75, many scholars started working on the textual material immediately and came up with various assessments as to what this newly discovered language supposedly represents. Already in 1975, based on a small sample of texts that were still poorly understood, Giovanni Pettinato, the epigrapher of the excavation, claimed that Eblaite was different from both Old Akkadian and Amorite, the two Semitic “languages” known from the third millennium BCE up to that point, with Old Akkadian being an archaic stage of Akkadian, and Amorite a dialect cluster of early Northwest Semitic. He further asserted that it should be classified as Northwest Semitic, or, more specifically as “Old-​Canaanite.”9 Although this analysis was initially followed by some scholars, with the publication of more textual material and a better understanding of the writing system and language underlying the texts it has subsequently been abandoned.10 After Pettinato’s unsuccessful attempt to classify Eblaite as Northwest Semitic/Canaanite, no further attempts to associate it with West Semitic have been made of which I am aware. 8.  For a more detailed description of the similarities between the written sources of ​Ebla and Abu Salabikh, see Biggs 1981. Some duplicate texts found at both Ebla and Abu Salabikh are so similar they share the same number of columns and even lines per column (Biggs 1981, 123–24). In addition, these texts use the same month names and the same system of designating regnal years (Biggs 1981, 123–24). 9.  Pettinato 1975, 368, 373. 10.  For one of the scholars who followed Pettinato’s claim that Eblaite is an early form of Canaanite, see, e.g., Dahood 1981, 177.

73

Eblaite and Akkadian PROTO-SEMITIC

WEST SEMITIC

EAST SEMITIC Eblaite

CENTRAL SEMITIC ETHIOPIAN

Assyrian

NORTHWEST SEMITIC Old South Arabian Languages

NORTHERN

Canaanite

Akkadian Babylonian

SOUTHERN

Ugaritic Phoenician Arabic

Aramaic

Hebrew Geʾez Tigrinya Amharic

Gurage

Modern South Arabian Languages

Figure 3.1.  The Semitic family tree. Source: American Heritage Dictionary, 4th ed.

This might suggest that Eblaite should be considered an East Semitic language, but the classification of ​Eblaite as a member of ​East Semitic was not as straight forward as it might seem from our current perspective. The vocabulary, in particular, seems to undermine a classification of the language as East Semitic since it exhibits many lexical items that are known from West Semitic languages but not from Akkadian—although it also shares a significant number of ​lexical isoglosses with Akkadian. Its phonology and morphology, on the other hand, seem to be closer to Akkadian, that is, East Semitic. Because of this seemingly mixed character of the language, some scholars, such as Richard Caplice and Wolfram von Soden, suggested that Eblaite might represent an independent branch of Semitic, that is, an additional third branch besides the two traditional East and West Semitic ones.11 This approach, again, did not attract many supporters, despite the fact that it was one of the few that tried to address the seemingly contradicting features of ​Eblaite. This only left an affiliation of ​Eblaite with East Semitic, and, in fact, ever since Manfred Krebernik’s work on the language, in particular his article from 1996, the subgrouping of ​Eblaite as East Semitic has been fairly firmly established.12 Krebernik was not the first to suggest this classification, but he was one of the first to provide sufficient and convincing evidence in its favor, based primarily on Eblaite morphology.13 11.  Caplice 1981, 161–63. Von Soden considered Eblaite as “North Semitic” as opposed to Northwest Semitic and Northeast Semitic (= Akkadian), with Eblaite constituting an independent branch within what he called “Old Semitic” (von Soden 1981, 358–60). 12.  See, e.g., Huehnergard 2006, 2; Huehnergard states that most scholars today agree that Eblaite is in fact East Semitic. 13.  Features Krebernik cites in favor of subgrouping Eblaite as East Semitic include the masculine plural of attributive adjectives in -ūtum, the form of quadriliterals that follow the Akkadian paradigm of nabalkutum, and G and D/Š-​stem verbal nouns that have the same form in Eblaite and

74

Bēl Lišāni

With Eblaite accepted as East Semitic, the question of its exact relationship with Akkadian remains. In effect, there are two main possibilities. Eblaite can be understood either as an independent language of ​East Semitic or as a dialect of Akkadian. Both approaches are found in the literature, and it is precisely this part of the classification of ​Eblaite that has not yet been settled. Proponents of the idea that Eblaite is a dialect of Akkadian include scholars such as Bruno Dombrowski (1988), Dietz O. Edzard (2006), Simo Parpola (1988), and Krebernik (1996). Dombrowski, for example, states that the Eblaite material reflects the earliest dialect or group of closely related Akkadian dialects, with the specification that Eblaite and Old Akkadian form one group versus Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian, which form another.14 Parpola, although also assuming a close relationship between Eblaite and Akkadian, proposes that, based on Ignace J. Gelb, there existed an early form of Semitic that centered around the city of ​Kish, called “Kishite” or “Kishic,” that developed different variations. In the northwest this Kishite underwent significant influence from West-​Semitic languages and eventually became what we know as “Eblaite,” while in the south, this language was exposed to contact with Sumerian and developed into Old Akkadian.15 Parpola further states that Eblaite and Old Akkadian were mutually intelligible and no further removed than Babylonian and Assyrian.16 Krebernik, based on an investigation of several linguistic features in the aforementioned article from 1996, likewise considers Eblaite an early Akkadian dialect, although he stresses that this dialect was not simply imported from Mesopotamia but presumably shows that Akkadian was spoken in a much larger territory in the third millennium BCE than usually assumed.17 In an article that appeared ten years later, however, Krebernik is a bit more cautious in how he phrases his assumption of the underlying relationship between Eblaite and Akkadian by stating that the question of whether Eblaite should be called an Akkadian dialect or not is a “matter of terminology,” depending on how we define “language” and “dialect.”18 He nevertheless prefers to understand it as a dialect of Akkadian. There is a group of scholars among the proponents of analyzing Eblaite as an Akkadian dialect who suggest that what we are dealing with in this case are not so much separate dialects but rather a dialect continuum. This idea ultimately goes back to Giovanni Garbini, who formulated it in more general terms of Akkadian (Krebernik 1996, 238–39). He further cites the prepositions in ‘in, by’ and ana ‘to, for’ as important lexical isoglosses between Akkadian and Eblaite (Krebernik 1996, 245). 14.  Dombrowski 1991, 185, 194. 15.  Parpola 1988, 295. According to Parpola, Assyrian is a descendent of the local form of ​ Eblaite or “Kishic.” 16.  Parpola 1988, 295. 17.  Krebernik 1996, 249. 18.  Krebernik 2006, 84.

Eblaite and Akkadian

75

a “paleo-​Syrian” dialect continuum, of which Akkadian is a (geographically) peripheral variety, which also includes Eblaite.19 More recently, Gonzalo Rubio has expressed support for a modified version of the idea of an overall dialect continuum that reached from Mesopotamia to northern Syria by proposing that during the Pre-​Sargonic period, Akkadian constituted a dialect continuum from Babylonia, via Assyria, all the way to Ebla.20 Rubio even proposes that the term “Akkadian” is anachronistic for this early period and that it would be better to speak of ​“Early East Semitic.” This “Early East Semitic” presumably comprised Eblaite, Early Dynastic texts from Mari and Tell Beydar, and Pre-​ Sargonic “Semitic” from Babylonia.21 Lastly, there are those scholars who think that Eblaite constitutes an independent branch of ​East Semitic. These scholars include, for example, John Huehnergard and Josef ​Tropper. Tropper assumes that most differences between Akkadian and Eblaite go back to innovations in Akkadian. In other words, Eblaite is a more-​archaic language than what we know as Akkadian, while Huehnergard, based on several innovative features, suggests that “Eblaite constitutes an innovative branch within East Semitic.”22 Thus, although Tropper and Huehnergard agree in their general assessment that Eblaite and Akkadian are distinct languages, one sees Akkadian as the more innovative one, while the other assumes that Eblaite is more innovative. From this overview of competing theories we can see that there is no consensus with regard to the status of ​Eblaite within East Semitic.23 Even scholars who agree in their overall classification can differ significantly in the details. Some of the previous proposals, such as its classification as Canaanite or as an independent branch of Semitic, can, as mentioned above, easily be dismissed since they were based on insufficient data or a selection of a few specific features. In the early years after the discovery of the Eblaite material, it was, of course, impossible to have a more comprehensive picture of ​Eblaite because of the lack of sufficient textual material that would allow us to extract more than just a few forms. The difficult writing system was, and still is, another major hurdle for the understanding of the language. What data should be used for the classification 19.  Garbini 1981, 81. Garbini assumed that Amorite is a modernizing descendent of this archaic “Eblaite-​type” (1981, 82). 20.  Rubio 2006, 112. 21.  Rubio 2006, 112. 22.  Tropper 2003, 654; Huehnergard 2006, 5. Tropper does not cite specific features in order to support his claim but simply refers to both Eblaite phonology and morphology in general (Tropper 2003, 654). Huehnergard mentions the innovative form of the 2mp independent pronoun antanu (for which, see further below), and the unique forms of verbal nouns for t-stems with both prefixed and infixed /t/, as in the Gt taptaris, Dt tuptarris, etc. (2006, 4–5). 23.  The hypothesis that Eblaite is a dialect of Akkadian is sometimes cited as default categorization, however. See, for example, Streck 2011, 340.

76

Bēl Lišāni

of ​Eblaite is yet another issue. Especially in the earlier publications, attempts to classify Eblaite were often based on personal names, not texts. The biggest problem was that there was no comprehensive treatment of ​Eblaite writing and grammar: the first comprehensive grammar of ​Eblaite was published by Amalia Catagnoti in 2012. All these factors hampered a clear understanding of what Eblaite might be. Before I describe some of the steps that I am taking in order to clarify the position of ​Eblaite in East Semitic, there are still a few issues that need to be pointed out. Krebernik, also in his 1996 article, formulated three questions that he thought had to be answered regarding Eblaite. The first question is whether the linguistic material commonly subsumed under the term “Eblaite” is homogeneous or whether it reflects different sources, that is, different dialects or even languages. Second, we need to determine the relationship between this language and other Semitic languages, which is, of course, what has been discussed so far. Third, it is important to clarify whether any language identified within the Eblaite textual material can be understood as the genuine language of ​Ebla.24 The first and third questions in particular still need to be addressed since they are of great significance for a more general categorization of ​Eblaite. As regards the first point, whether or not we are actually dealing with a uniform linguistic entity, it is well known that texts in more than one language were discovered at Ebla. Besides the texts classified as “Eblaite,” there is a significant corpus of Sumerian texts, and also a few texts that are written in a form of Semitic that closely resembles the Akkadian or Semitic used in contemporary Mesopotamia. The latter primarily comprise two hymns, one to Nisaba (ARET V: 7) and one to Šamaš of Sippar (ARET V: 6).25 Personal names likewise attest to various traditions, including some names that look more West Semitic, versus numerous others that conform to common contemporary Mesopotamian names.26 It is obvious that this type of material, that is, personal names and non-​Eblaite Semitic texts, should not be included in an investigation of the “local” writing tradition and presumably local language, and Catagnoti (2012) rightfully excludes this material from her grammar. The important question, however, is whether the rest of the material truly reflects the same language. Catagnoti answers this question in the affirmative and consequently counts all forms she cites as reflecting “Eblaite.”27 Her assessment of the material is based on previous studies conducted by Fronzaroli and Krebernik. Krebernik (1996), for example, suggests that the bulk of the material represents the same language, a dialect of Akkadian 24.  Krebernik 1996, 234. 25.  Catagnoti 2012, 1. 26.  For personal names at Ebla, see Gelb 1981, 44–45; Hecker 1981; Rubio 2006, 112; and especially Krebernik 1988. 27.  Catagnoti 2012, 2.

Eblaite and Akkadian

77

as mentioned above, despite the fact that he acknowledges the presence of some features that could be interpreted as early Northwest Semitic.28 One of the issues that make an evaluation of the underlying language more difficult is that we are dealing with very different and sometimes competing types of sources. Besides locally composed letters, chancellery, and administrative texts, there are, as mentioned above, also a few rituals and incantations that seem to be of ​local origin but that use a slightly different linguistic code than the letters and administrative texts. Lastly, the bilingual lexical list exhibits a rather great variety of competing forms in individual copies. The Babylonian form of the D-​stem verbal adjective and infinitive purrus, for example, is only found in late copies of this lexical list, while earlier versions use the Assyrian form parrus.29 What we see in this one text is a mix of different forms. This could indicate a diachronic development within Eblaite, but that is rather unlikely since the whole corpus only covers a period of about fifty years. Furthermore, the lexical list is clearly influenced by Mesopotamian sources. The difference between copies with purrus and parrus thus most likely goes back to different Mesopotamian sources, not to differences between Eblaite strata. What this example also illustrates is the issue of what genuinely counts as “Eblaite” and what might go back to contact with Akkadian.30 This is an important factor that has so far not been treated exhaustively. As mentioned earlier, the contact between Ebla and Mesopotamia is well documented, both on a socioeconomic and on a cultural level. After all, Eblaite borrowed its writing system from Mesopotamia. To what degree speakers of ​Eblaite also took over Mesopotamian Semitic is an important question that still requires further study. One of the main questions we have to ask with regard to the Eblaite material is thus the question of ​linguistic unity.31 The other question posed by Krebernik is whether or not it is possible to identify any linguistic entity found at Ebla with the local language, meaning, does “Eblaite” truly originate in or somewhere around the city of ​Ebla, or is it simply an adaptation of a form of ​Mesopotamian Semitic. Borrowing a language together with its writing system is, of course, a process that is well documented. 28.  Krebernik 1996, 233, 246. Isoglosses with NWS include, for example, the conjunction /ʾap/ ‘then’ (ibid.). Krebernik further states that the extent and role of these NWS features are still a matter of debate (1996, 233). 29.  The form parrus is the only form of the D-​stem infinitive that occurs outside the bilingual lexical list (e.g., ARET XVI: 16 obv. iii; XVI: 17 obv. iii and two other occurrences), purrus is not attested outside the list. 30.  See, e.g., Huehnergard 2006, 4, who likewise states that it is not always clear what constitutes Eblaite and what Akkadian substrate influence. 31.  Lambert (1981, 160) likewise stated that we must expect to find more than one Semitic language or dialect at Ebla, similar to the situation found in the Mari archives, since Ebla was dependent on Mesopotamia for its writing tradition. Hecker (1984, 205) takes this idea a bit further in claiming that there was bilingualism at Ebla.

78

Bēl Lišāni

Within Semitic, we only have to look at Nabatean writing, or evidence of early Semitic scribes writing Sumerian, for example. Krebernik, however, assumes that it is unlikely that we are simply dealing with a borrowed form of Akkadian that was taken over as a literary language because Eblaite exhibits certain non-​Akkadian features. These Eblaite peculiarities, according to Krebernik, show that the language most likely has non-​Mesopotamian origins.32 Krebernik is certainly correct in stating that Eblaite has a number of non-​Mesopotamian features—for which see further below with regard to the pronominal system. What exactly this means—that is, whether these features form a linguistic unit with the linguistically Mesopotamian traits—is still uncertain in my opinion. The last point to consider is simple geography. If ​Eblaite constitutes an Akkadian dialect that is not imported from Mesopotamia, as claimed by Krebernik, we need to account for why a town that is located in western Syria and at a significant distance from Mesopotamia would have natively acquired an Akkadian dialect, especially in the light of the fact that the area in which Ebla is located never belongs to the “East Semitic” language area during any other period. Some scholars have tried to solve this issue with the idea of a dialect continuum, as mentioned above, but this approach still does not truly explain the extent of the use of ​East Semitic. Others, such as Burkhart Kienast and Tropper (based on Kienast), have suggested that there might have been early migrations that can account for the existence of ​East Semitic in western Syria, but this idea cannot be corroborated with the evidence at our disposal.33 We are thus facing some rather significant issues when trying to classify Eblaite. Before it is possible to say anything about the relationship of ​Eblaite with any other Semitic language, it is necessary to understand what Eblaite actually is, that is, whether it truly represents a linguistically uniform entity as claimed by Krebernik and others, and whether whatever Eblaite turns out to be can be identified as local or imported, or both—the latter in case we are not dealing with a uniform linguistic source. Only when we have a better understanding of these two issues are we in a position to say something more general about the classification of ​Eblaite as a whole.

3.3. Eblaite and Akkadian: A Case Study In order to answer the aforementioned questions, it is important to look at the linguistic material that is commonly identified as Eblaite as a whole. One of 32.  Krebernik 1996, 248. Krebernik also briefly mentions the possibility that we are dealing with a mixed koine similar to the situation attested in the Amarna letters (Krebernik 1996, 235). 33.  See Tropper 2003, 655.

Eblaite and Akkadian

79

the issues of many previous studies is that they use only a few select features. Of course, a comprehensive treatment of the grammar has only become possible in recent years, especially with the publication of Catagnoti’s grammar in 2012. What I wish to present in the remainder of this article is a preliminary case study that attempts to implement such a comprehensive approach to the issue of ​Eblaite classification. As a first step in my investigation, all morphological features listed in Catagnoti’s grammar have been mapped and compared to the respective forms attested in Old Akkadian (OAkk), Old Assyrian (OA), and Old Babylonian (OB). In cases in which Eblaite differs from all three Akkadian dialects, it is important to determine whether we are dealing with an archaism, that is, a retention from an earlier stage of Semitic, or whether the divergences constitute innovations. Finally, I have looked at where in the textual material the different forms are attested, that is, whether they occur in letters, chancellery, and administrative versus literary texts and lexical lists. It was also important to see whether certain types of features cluster—that is, whether, for example, features that are uniquely Eblaite occur in texts that also exhibit innovative Babylonian-​ type forms—in the hope that this type of investigation can provide a clearer understanding of ​how the different features are distributed and whether or not we can distinguish different language registers or sources. The following examples from the pronominal system provide a general overview of this type of investigation, which will also be conducted for the remainder of ​Eblaite grammar in a larger project. 3.3.1. Unique Eblaite Features In the pronominal system, Eblaite exhibits the following unique features, that is, features not shared with any Akkadian dialect. In the independent pronouns we find the forms listed in table 3.1. The form of the independent pronoun of the 1cs, written an-n​ a, is problematic because of the double indication of /n/, but most scholars assume that it reflects an underlying form /ʾanʾa/.34 This form contrasts with Akkadian anāku. Both the Eblaite and the Akkadian forms go back to forms of the pronoun that can be reconstructed to Proto-​Semitic, which had the biforms *ʾana (< *ʾanʾa) and *ʾanāku as far as it is possible to tell.35 Eblaite would thus reflect an archaism, although a different one than Akkadian. The 2mp /ʾantanu/ is a rather unusual form since it has no 34.  See Catagnoti 2012, 69–70. 35.  For the reconstruction of these biforms for the 1cs independent pronoun in Proto-​Semitic, see Huehnergard 2004, 150. Huehnergard gives the form *ʾana/ā for the 1cs, but it is widely accepted that this form derives from original *ʾanʾa.

80

Bēl Lišāni

Table 3.1.  Eblaite Independent Pronouns Independent pronouns

Eblaite

OAkk

OA

OB

1cs 2mp

an-​na /ʾanʾa/a an-​da-​nu /ʾantanu/b

a-​na-​gu /ʾanāku/ —

anāku attunu

anāku attune

1cd possessive pronoun

ni-​a-​a /niāʾān/ (dual)c

—

—

—

Variously attested in ARET XIII and ARET XVI. E.g., ARET XIII: 13, XVI: 2, XVIII: 8. c ARET XIII: 1. a

b

parallels in any classical Semitic language. It is commonly assumed that this form is the result of an analogy with the first person pronoun, which had the original form *niḥ-nu (1cp) in East Semitic. The Eblaite form can be explained as a combination of the 2ms independent pronoun *ʾanta that was “pluralized” by adding the same final syllable as attested in the 1cp, resulting in ʾanta-​nu.36 Since this form has no parallels in Akkadian or West Semitic, it is clearly an Eblaite innovation. The last form cited is the independent possessive pronoun of the 1cd. In general, independent possessive pronouns in Eblaite conform to the forms attested in Akkadian, the only feature that makes this specific form unique is that Akkadian does not have first-​person dual forms.37 It is unclear whether the Eblaite attestations of first person duals are innovations or retentions.38 Another issue with this particular form is that it occurs in a text that is commonly assumed to have originated at Mari, not Ebla. It is thus possible that this sole attestation of the 1cd possessive pronoun is not really a feature of ​ Eblaite. Because of the aforementioned issues, the 1cd possessive pronoun is 36.  See Huehnergard 2006, 4. Huehnergard suggests an underlying analogy with the third person form sunu. It is more likely, however, that the input for the analogy is the first person *niḥnu from a general point of view because first- and second-​person pronouns tend to pattern together while third-​person pronouns often stand apart from first- and second-​person ones, especially when they are derived from anaphoric pronouns (see, e.g., Siewierska 2010, 324–27), which is also the case in Semitic. It is furthermore likely that Eblaite, at least the stratum that differs from Akkadian, had third-​person pronouns in /m/, not /n/, that is, something like *sum(u). For this hypothesis, see section 3.4 below. 37.  This statement is true for most of Akkadian. Old Assyrian has a rare 1cd on the durative and preterite of the forms aparrasā and aprusā (Kouwenberg 2017, 485). 38.  First-​person duals are unusual in Semitic languages. The only other ancient Semitic language that attests to first-​person dual forms to my knowledge is Ugaritic, which has 1cd possessive and accusative suffixes of the form -ny (Tropper 2000, 214). It is uncertain though, whether these suffixes reflect archaisms or innovations. Given the similarity between the Eblaite (see this section further below) and Ugaritic dual suffixes, it is possible that these forms indeed reflect archaisms, although why first person forms were lost in other Semitic languages would be difficult to explain. Note, however, that Ugaritic does not seem to have a 1cd independent pronoun, only 1cd dual suffixes (Tropper 2000, 207).

Eblaite and Akkadian

81

not considered indicative in our context. The other two forms, that is, the 1cs and 2mp independent pronouns, are attested in chancellery texts and letters that originate at Ebla. They are not attested in any of the known literary texts, although this is probably due to the nature of the literary texts, which hardly exhibit first- and second-​person forms in general. Pronominal suffixes also exhibit numerous forms in which Eblaite deviates from Akkadian (tables 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4). Most of the divergences between Akkadian and Eblaite pronominal suffixes occur in the dual. Eblaite, again, has a 1cd form where Akkadian attests to none. As mentioned above, it is uncertain whether this feature reflects an archaism or innovation. But even some of the dual suffixes that have correspondences in Akkadian differ in form from their Akkadian counterparts. The 2cd and 3cd, for example, no matter which function, have an /m/ where Akkadian regularly has /n/, that is, Eblaite has -kumayn, Table 3.2.  Possessive Suffixes

1cd 2cd 3cd 1cp

Eblaite

OAkk

OA

OB

-nay(n)/-ney(n)/-nē(n)a -kumaynb -sumay(n)c -nud

— -kunē — —

— — — -ni

— — — -ni

a This suffix occurs about 24 times throughout the corpus; e.g., ARET XIII: 1; XIII: 9; XVI: 10; etc. b ARET XVI: 2; XVI: 11. c ARET XI: 1; XI: 3; XVI 5; XIII: 17. d ARET XVI: 2; XVI: 4; XVIII: 17.

Table 3.3.  Accusative Suffixes Eblaite 3cd 1cp

-sumay(n) -nub

a

OAkk

OA

OB

-sunēti/-sunē —

— -niāti

— -niāti

OAkk

OA

OB

—

—

—

ARET XIII: 16; XVIII: 4. ARET XVI: 16; XVIII: 7; XVI: 3.

a

b

Table 3.4.  Dative Suffixes Eblaite 2cd

-kumay(n)a ARET XVI: 26; XVI: 26.

a

82

Bēl Lišāni

-sumay(n) etc., where Akkadian has -kunē. These forms with /m/, which are a Proto-​Semitic retention—Akkadian being the one that innovated the /n/ by leveling with the corresponding feminine plural forms—are only attested in the dual.39 Plural suffixes of the corresponding persons have /n/ in Eblaite, corresponding to Akkadian, as in 2mp possessive -kunu and 3mp possessive -sunu. It is unusual to have a Semitic language that diverges in the forms of these pronominal suffixes, as they usually correspond. One possible explanation could be that the dual suffixes were unproductive in Akkadian but productive in Eblaite, and thus the Eblaite scribes adopted the dual suffixes from their own language and inserted them into the pronominal paradigm. The problem with this explanation is that dual pronominal forms are still fully productive in Akkadian at this time as well. The issue of the dual forms in /m/ will be discussed further in section 3.5 below. For now, suffice to say that the forms in /m/, as already mentioned, constitute retentions, not innovations. Another form that is unique to Eblaite is the form of the 1cp possessive and accusative suffixes -nu. Akkadian has -ni for the former and -niāti for the latter. The Akkadian accusative -niāti is an innovation.40 It is more difficult to evaluate the 1cp possessive suffixes. Huehnergard suggests that the 1cp originally had distinct vowels for distinct syntactic functions, namely, *-ni for the possessive suffix, *-nu for the nominative (as attested in the independent pronouns and the suffixes of the suffix conjugation/stative), and *-na for the accusative.41 Eblaite, according to this reconstruction, would not correspond to any of these in the genitive and accusative but would have leveled the form of the nominative throughout the paradigm of 1cp suffixes. Even if we do not follow Huehnergard’s reconstruction to its full extent—it is equally likely that both the nominative and the possessive suffixes had the form *-nu originally—some form of ​leveling of *-nu to at least the accusative would nevertheless have taken place in Eblaite. Consequently, at least the accusative in *-nu represents an Eblaite innovation. All of the unique forms attested in the pronominal suffixes come from chancellery texts and letters, as well as, sporadically, the royal rituals—the latter source only contains attestations of dual forms—all of which are attributed to Ebla. They thus seem to represent genuine Eblaite forms. 3.3.2. Akkadian Forms with Eblaite Innovations Eblaite further exhibits forms that clearly go back to a base morpheme shared with Akkadian but that underwent certain minor innovations in its phonology. 39.  For the reconstruction of mp forms with /m/ (as in 3mp *sum) and fp forms with /n/ (as in 3fp *sin) in Proto Semitic, see Huehnergard 2004, 150. 40.  See, e.g., Hasselbach-​Andee forthcoming. 41.  Huehnergard 2004, 150.

Eblaite and Akkadian

83

For example, most attested forms of the 3ms independent pronoun, independent of case, have the labial /w/ where Akkadian has either a glottal stop or no consonantal phoneme (table 3.5).42 Note that forms without labialization are equally attested, although spellings with labialization are much more common.43 The original form in all these cases did not have a glide but a glottal stop, as in *suʾa (3ms anaphoric pronoun), *suʾāti (3ms accusative pronoun and remote demonstrative). The labialization of / ʾ/ is not a problematic development. It also happened in Arabic, for example, where the 3ms independent pronoun is huwa < *huʾa < *suʾa. This labialization did not happen in Akkadian, however, and thus reflects an Eblaite innovation. Second-​person forms show the same feature—that is, they underwent the same process of ​labialization (table 3.6). As for the provenance of the texts exhibiting these forms, all except the text containing the 2ms possessive pronoun originate at Ebla as far as it is possible to tell—the one exception coming from Manuwat—and constitute letters and chancellery texts. The only form found in an incantation is the 2ms accusative pronoun kuwāti. 3.3.3. Babylonian-​Type Innovation There are numerous features in the Eblaite pronominal system that constitute East Semitic innovations. These innovations, however, simply confirm what has been established already, namely, that Eblaite is a member of ​East Semitic.44 It is more important to look at forms that constitute either Babylonian- or Assyrian-​type innovations. In terms of Babylonian-​type innovations, Eblaite shares the presence of dative independent pronouns marked by /s/ (table 3.7). The corresponding forms in Assyrian, which constitute more archaic forms, have /t/.45 All of the attestations of independent dative pronouns except one occur in letters and chancellery texts that originate at Ebla. The form that does not is one of two attestations of 2ms /kuwāsi/, which comes from Mari. In this case, a text from Ebla (ARET XVIII: 9) attests to the same form, however. There is one more form in which Eblaite corresponds to Babylonian and not Assyrian, and that is the sole attestation of a 3fp accusative suffix, which ends in /t/ as in Babylonian, where Assyrian has an unmarked form (table 3.8). Note 42.  OA has biforms for the oblique 3ms and 2ms with labialization as well, as in šu-​wa-​tí/ku-​ wa-​tí (Kouwenberg 2017, 302). The difference to Eblaite is that the labialized forms are the norm in Eblaite but seem to constitute rarer biforms in OA. 43.  The form su-​ú for the 3ms independent pronoun, for example, is only attested once and in a text that originates at Mari, versus three attestations of su-​wa that all come from texts that originate at Ebla. The form su-ʾa5-ti is equally only attested once. 44.  For a list of such features, see section 3.4 below. 45.  For the individual steps in the reconstruction of the Akkadian-​type innovations in these forms, see Hasselbach-​Andee forthcoming.

su-​wa /suwa/a su-​ú /suʾu/b su /sū/c (?) su-​wa-​ti /suwāti/d su-​wa-​ad /suwāt/e su-ʾa5-ti /suāti/f su-​wa-​si /suwāsi(m)/h su-​wa-​a /suwāʾa(m)/i su-​wa-​ti /suwāti/j su-​wa-​ad /suwāt/k su-​wa-​du (nom.)l šuāti šuāti šuāʾum/ šuāt(t)um/ šuāʾūt(t)um šuāti

— — su4-a /su’a/ (acc.)

šūt

OA

su4-a /su’a/g

su4 /sū/

OAkk

b

a

ARET XIII: 20; variously in ARET XVI. ARET XIII: 1. c ARET XVI: 11. d ARET XVI: 7; XI: 3; XVI: 2; XVIII: 4. e ARET XVI: 1. f ARET XVI: 17. g It is possible that this form does not represent a 3ms independent accusative pronoun but an independent possessive pronoun instead. The form /suʾa/ only occurs in the curse formula of royal inscriptions and is highly idiosyncratic because all other Akkadian dialects have corresponding forms with -ti, as in šuāti. If the interpretation of the Old Akkadian form as possessive pronoun is correct, the translation of the curse formula would be “whoever removes his inscription” instead of ​“this/the inscription.” h ARET XVI: 21. i ARET XIII: 1. j ARET XI: 3; XVI: 2. k ARET XVI: 9. l ARET XIII: 1; XIII: 15.

3ms dative pronoun 3ms possessive pronoun ms remote demonstrative

3ms accusative pronoun

3ms independent pronoun

Eblaite

Table 3.5.  Third Person Independent Pronouns and Remote Demonstratives

šuāšim, šâšim, šâšum šûm/ šattu(m)/ šûttu(m) šū/ šuāti etc.

šuāti, šuātu

šū

OB

84 Bēl Lišāni

Eblaite and Akkadian

85

Table 3.6.  Second Person Independent Pronouns Eblaite 2ms accusative pronoun 2ms dative pronoun 2ms possessive pronoun

gú-​wa-​ti  /kuwāti/a gú-​wa-​si  /kuwāsi(m)/b gú-​wa-​du  /kuwātu(m)/c

OAkk

OA

OB

—

kuāti

kâta (kâti)

—

kuāti

kâšim, kâšum

—

kuāʾum/ kuāt(t)um/ kuāʾūt(t)um

kûm/ kattu(m)/ kûttu(m)

ARET V: 4. ARET XIII: 19; XVIII: 9. c ARET XIII: 10. a

b

Table 3.7.  Independent Dative Pronouns Eblaite

OAkk

OA

OB

1cs 2ms 2fs 3ms 3fs

— gú-​wa-​si /kuwāsi(m)/a — su-​wa-​si /suwāsi(m)/b —

— — — — —

yâti kuāti kuāti šuāti šiāti

yâšim kâšim, kâšum kâšim šuāšim, šâšim, šâšum šuāšim, šâšim, (šiāšim)

1cp 2mp 2fp 3mp 3fp

ne-​a-​si /niāsi(m)/c — — — —

— — — — —

niāti kunūti kināti šunūti šināti

niāšim kunūšim (kināšim) šunūšim (šināšim)

ARET XIII: 19; XVIII: 9. ARET XVI: 21. c ARET XVIII: 17. a

b

that the 3mp accusative suffix, given in the table as well, on the other hand, corresponds to the unmarked forms used in Assyrian, not Babylonian. In terms of pronominal system, these are the only competing forms in the corpus used by Catagnoti, “competing” forms meaning attestations of two different variants of the same morpheme that are not simply variants based on basic sound changes such as the labialization of / ʾ/ mentioned above. Attestations such as those of the accusative plural suffixes could suggest that what we are considering as “Eblaite” is indeed a mix of different linguistic sources. In this particular case, the issue is easy to resolve though since the text that exhibits the 3fp accusative suffix -sināt does not originate at Ebla but at Mari, while the 3mp suffix comes from a text that, as far as it is possible to tell, comes from Ebla itself ​(ARET

86

Bēl Lišāni Table 3.8.  Accusative Suffixes Accusative suffixes

Eblaite

OAkk

OA

OB

3mp 3fp

-sunua -sinātb

-sunu (OB copies) —

-šunu -šina

-šunūti -šināti

ARET XVI: 27. ARET XIII: 4.

a

b

XVI: 27). The forms that can more or less safely be interpreted as “Eblaite” in the sense that they originate in texts written at Ebla and that Eblaite shares with Babylonian are thus only those of the independent dative pronouns. 3.3.4. Assyrian-​Type Innovations In terms of Assyrian forms in the pronominal system, Eblaite has a 1cp dative suffix of the form -niāti, where Babylonian would have -niāšim (table 3.9). The 1cp dative suffix -niāti is an archaic form and thus does not reflect any specific Assyrian influence on Eblaite. There is also a single attestation of the Assyrian remote demonstrative pronoun ammium (table 3.10). Note, however, that this attestation of the remote demonstrative is partially reconstructed. Because of that I am hesitant to put too much weight on this one occurrence. 3.3.5. Summary of ​Evidence The Eblaite pronominal system, when considering the evidence from texts that originate at Ebla and excluding forms that come from texts that were written at other sites such as Mari and Manuwat, consists of ​both innovative and archaic features. We can identify two major innovations that are unique to Eblaite, the 2ms independent pronoun /ʾantanu/ and the 1cp accusative (and perhaps also possessive) suffix -nu. Other forms that are unique to Eblaite constitute archaisms, such as the 1cs independent pronoun /ʾanʾa/ and the dual pronominal suffixes containing /m/. It is uncertain whether the 1cd suffixes constitute archaisms or innovations. At least in East Semitic, these forms are limited to the Eblaite material—although note that these forms also occur in a text attributed to Mari.46 Eblaite further exhibits certain phonological innovations, such as the 46.  The text in question is in ARET XIII: 1, which has two occurrences of the dual suffixes and also contains the one attestation of the 1cd possessive pronoun mentioned above.

87

Eblaite and Akkadian Table 3.9.  Dative Suffixes Eblaite 1cp dative suffix

OAkk —

-niātia

OA

OB

-niāti

-niāšim

ARET XIII: 9.

a

Table 3.10.  The Remote Demonstrative Pronoun Remote demonstrative pronoun

Eblaite

ms 

[am]-mi-​am /ʾammiyam/ (1x) a

OAkk

OA

OB

—

ammium

ullûm

ARET XVI: 1.

a

labialization of / ʾ/ after the vowel /u/ in various forms of third- and second-​ person pronouns. In terms of Babylonian-​type innovations, Eblaite shares the innovative forms of independent dative pronouns marked by /s/. No such innovative forms marked by /s/ are found in pronominal suffixes, however. There are no clear attestations of Assyrian-​type innovations, the only possibility being one attestation of the remote demonstrative ammium, which is partially reconstructed. The evidence is summarized in table 3.11.

3.4. Evaluation of the Evidence As shown in the previous section, the Eblaite pronominal system reflects a mixed system of archaisms and innovations. Despite the unique forms mentioned in the sections above, it nevertheless conforms to the pronominal system found in Akkadian in most of its forms, including innovations that Akkadian or East Semitic underwent after it split off from Proto-​Semitic, such as the formation of dative pronominal suffixes marked by -m in the singular (e.g., 2ms DAT -kum, 3ms DAT -sum etc.), the extension of oblique independent pronouns marked by /t/ to second and first person forms (e.g., 2ms ACC kuwāti, 1cp ACC niāti), the leveling of /m/ to /n/ in masculine plural forms (-sunu etc. < *-sumu), and the change of the 3fs ACC pronominal suffix from *-sa > -si.47 All these

47.  For the suggestion that this form reflects an innovation, see Hasselbach 2006.

2mp independent pronoun /ʾantanu/ 1cp accusative suffix -nu

Eblaite innovation

Table 3.11.  Summary

Labialization of / ʾ/ after  /u/-vowel suwa etc.

East Semitic/ Akkadian form with Eblaite innovation 1cs independent pronoun /ʾanʾa/ Dual suffixes with /m/ -kumayn etc.

Archaism

Dative independent pronouns with /s/ /suwāsi(m)/ etc.

Babylonian-​type innovation

Remote demonstrative ammium?

Assyrian-​type innovation

88 Bēl Lišāni

Eblaite and Akkadian

89

innovations clearly mark Eblaite as an East Semitic language and as closely related to Akkadian. The Akkadian-​type forms reflected in the Eblaite material are commonly more archaic and thus often overlap with those of Assyrian (e.g., the Eblaite 3mp pronominal ACC suffix -sunu versus Babylonian -šunūti). This does not mean that the forms are influenced by Assyrian; they simply reflect a more archaic stage of Akkadian or East Semitic, as is the case with Assyrian. There are some noteworthy exceptions though. One of the most striking ones is the occurrence of independent dative pronouns with /s/, which, as far as we know, constitute Babylonian innovations. These forms only occur in the independent pronouns though. The corresponding dative suffixes exhibit a more archaic system.48 In another article, I have suggested that the innovation of dative forms marked by /s/ started in the independent pronouns and spread from there to pronominal suffixes.49 If this scenario is correct, Eblaite would not reflect contradicting evidence, that is, independent dative forms with /s/ but no corresponding dative pronominal suffixes with /s/. Rather, it would represent an intermediate stage in the development of the dative forms, in which they were already present in the independent pronouns but had not yet spread to pronominal suffixes. If this is indeed correct, Eblaite would constitute an interesting link, in the sense of a linguistic development, not a genealogical relationship, between forms of Akkadian/East Semitic that did not innovate dative forms with /s/ and those that have these forms throughout their pronominal system. Innovations such as the labialization of / ʾ/ > w / u_ do not pose any contradiction to the assessment given so far that the basis of the Eblaite pronominal system is in essence an early form of Akkadian or East Semitic. Sound changes such as these are common cross-​linguistically and are also attested elsewhere in Semitic, as mentioned in section 3.3.2 above. The base forms of the pronouns that exhibit this change nevertheless correspond to the ones in Akkadian (e.g., 2ms ACC /kuwāti/, 2ms DAT /kuwāsi(m)/ etc.). This sound change is innovative compared to Akkadian, but it is minor enough not to challenge a potential subgrouping of ​Eblaite with Akkadian. There are forms that are more problematic for such an assessment though. The innovative forms of the 2mp independent pronoun /ʾantanu/ and the 1cp pronominal suffix -nu cannot be reconciled with the corresponding forms of Akkadian. These forms reflect unique Eblaite innovations that have no parallels in Akkadian. How these can be integrated into the pronominal system of ​Eblaite 48.  Admittedly, only one dative suffix in the plural is attested, the 1cp, which has the form –niāti (ARET XIII: 9 obv. v 25–vi 1) and thus conforms to Assyrian. This form reflects an archaism in comparison with Babylonian -niāšim. 49.  See Hasselbach-​Andee forthcoming.

90

Bēl Lišāni

in general is an important but as of yet unanswered question, to which I will return below. Any other forms that diverge from Akkadian reflect archaisms, that is, forms where Eblaite did not follow innovations attested in Akkadian. The most notable of these are the forms of the possessive and accusative suffixes of the dual that have an unexpected /m/ instead of Akkadian /n/, as in -kumayn, -sumay(n) (possessive), etc., where Akkadian has -kunē and -sunē(ti). As mentioned before, these dual forms are particularly puzzling since they do not fit the corresponding plural forms attested in the Eblaite material, which have the expected /n/, for example, 3mp possessive and accusative -sunu, as well as 3mp independent pronoun sunu. All of the forms containing /m/ or /n/ are attested in chancellery texts and letters that are assumed to have been produced at Ebla. Interestingly enough, there are no competing forms in this case, that is, no mix up between forms with /m/ or /n/—duals always have /m/ and plurals /n/; there is never any confusion between the two. This is true in general. None of the morphemes discussed are attested in contradicting variants once we disregard the forms that most likely did not originate at Ebla. This might indicate that the pronominal system as attested in the Eblaite material does indeed constitute a coherent system. This does not mean, though, that we are also dealing with a uniform linguistic system, meaning one coming from a single linguistic source. One way to determine if we are dealing with a uniform linguistic system is to look at whether features such as unique Eblaite forms occur in the same texts as, for example, Babylonian-​type innovations. If we assume that Eblaite is a composite of different linguistic sources, then there is a possibility that separate texts reflect different sources, that is, forms that do not belong to the same linguistic register might not occur in the same texts. The “Babylonian”-type dative pronouns with /s/, however, occur in texts that also exhibit features that are unique to Eblaite, such as the 1cp possessive suffix -nu.50 This co-​occurrence of linguistic features such as these in the same text means that there is no evidence that they are based on different linguistic sources. The bilingual lexical list is an exception since it does contain competing forms, but those are not pronominal. The co-​occurrence of Babylonian-​type pronominal innovations with unique Eblaite forms in the same texts outside the lexical lists seems to indicate that we are indeed dealing with a uniform linguistic entity.

50.  The independent dative pronouns with /s/ also co-​occur with non-​Akkadian features such as the particle paw ‘here’ (ARET XIII: 19), the Dtn infinitive with both prefixed and infixed /t/ tuptarrisum (ARET XVIII: 17), the already mentioned 1cp suffix -nu (ARET XVIII: 17), and the 1cd suffix -nay(n) (ARET XVIII: 17).

Eblaite and Akkadian

91

There are problems with this kind of analysis though. Despite the fact that we do not have competing forms or a clear division between certain features and source texts, we have forms that do not fit the same system. One such feature are the archaic dual suffixes with /m/ versus corresponding plural forms with /n/. I am not aware of any Semitic language that shows a discrepancy in the way it leveled the Proto Semitic forms as we see in the Eblaite textual material. To clarify, it is usually assumed that Proto-​Semitic had plural independent pronouns and possessive/accusative suffixes that had a twofold contrast, a consonantal and a vocalic one:51 Proto Semitic 2mp independent pronoun 2fp independent pronoun 2cd independent pronoun 3mp independent pronoun 3fp independent pronoun 3cd independent pronoun

*ʾantum(±ū) *ʾantin(±na/ā) *ʾantumā *sum(±ū) *sin(±na/ā) *sumā

Individual languages leveled one of these contrasts. Akkadian, for example, leveled the /n/ and retained the vocalic contrast (as in 3mp sunu and 3fp sina). Hebrew leveled the vowel to /i/ and retained the consonantal contrast (as in 3mp hēm < *hin and 3fp hēn < *hin). Arabic leveled the vowel as well, although to /u/ and again retained the consonantal contrast (3mp hum, 3fp hunna). No language, however, leveled one contrast in the plural and another in the dual or shows any other type of split in the leveling. From a cross-​Semitic point of view, the Eblaite situation is thus rather idiosyncratic. The plural forms suggest that leveling had taken place, so it is very difficult to account for the dual forms if we are truly dealing with a uniform system. In this case it would be easier to account for the data by assuming the merging of two independent systems, one having forms with /n/ and another that has forms with /m/. Another set of features that might not fit into the same system are the forms of the 1cp possessive and accusative suffix -nu versus the 1cp independent accusative and dative pronouns niāti and niāsi(m) and others that likewise have /i/. The issue in these forms is that Akkadian niāti etc. is based on the 1cp possessive suffix -ni, which forms the basis for the analogical extension of the longer independent and suffix forms. Eblaite, however, does not have a 1cp possessive suffix -ni, meaning the basis for the analogical extension is not present if the -nu suffixes reflect a common Eblaite innovation. One could argue that the leveling of -nu occurred after the initial creation of the independent pronouns based on 51.  See, e.g., Huehnergard 2004, 150.

92

Bēl Lišāni

-ni; the absence of 1cp -ni is thus not as indicative as the situation in the dual suffixes. It nevertheless represents an interesting situation and possible indication that Eblaite might not be as uniform as suggested previously.

3.5. Conclusion The investigation presented in this article, of course, only treats a small part of the overall system of ​Eblaite grammar. Based on what we have seen regarding the pronominal system, however, we can tentatively conclude that Eblaite as written in chancellery texts and letters that originate at Ebla seems more or less to reflect one system, at least in the sense that there are no competing forms. The underlying language exhibits both archaic and innovative features. It is interesting that there are unique features that clearly contrast corresponding features in Akkadian among the archaic features, such as the 1cs independent pronoun and dual suffixes containing /m/, while, at the same time, Eblaite as attested in these texts also shares numerous features with a more archaic form of Akkadian. It further exhibits innovations that, again, set it apart from Akkadian, such as the 2cp independent pronoun /ʾantanu/ and the 1cp pronominal suffix -nu, and innovations that suggest a close connection to the innovative Akkadian branch that ultimately developed into Babylonian (e.g., the independent dative pronouns with /s/). All this shows that the linguistic situation of what we commonly label as “Eblaite” is rather complex, which is one of the reasons why it is so difficult to classify the material. It is, of course, possible for a language to have both archaic and innovative features: Akkadian is a prime example to illustrate the point. In the case of the Eblaite pronominal system, however, there are indications that, unlike in Akkadian, there might be different linguistic sources that underlie some of the features observed, such as the contrast between second- and third-​person plural pronouns and suffixes with /n/ versus corresponding dual suffixes with /m/, and, perhaps, the innovative form of the 1cp suffix -nu that is difficult to reconcile with innovative forms such as 1cp niāti etc. In other words, it is possible that “Eblaite” does not consist of a single but of multiple sources. This is of course a hypothesis that needs to be corroborated with the remainder of the Eblaite material. How these sources relate to each other equally needs to be investigated more fully. One possibility would be that there is an Akkadian superstratum that exhibits traces of a local substratum. So far, however, this remains speculative. What the present investigation does show is that the situation regarding the uniformity of the Eblaite linguistic material is more complex than previously proposed.

Eblaite and Akkadian

93

Bibliography Archi, Alfonso. 2006. “Eblaite in Its Geographical and Historical Context.” Pages 96–109 in The Akkadian Language in Its Semitic Context. Edited by Guy Deutscher and N. J. C. Kouwenberg. PIHANS 106. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Biggs, Robert D. 1981. “Ebla and Abu Salabikh: The Linguistic and Literary Aspects.” Pages 121–33 in La lingua di Ebla: Atti del convegno internazionale (Napoli, 21–23 aprile 1980). Edited by Luigi Cagni. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale. Butterlin, Pascal. 2018. “From Mari to Ebla, Designs of ​Interculturality?” Pages 141–67 in Ebla and Beyond: Ancient Near Eastern Studies after Fifty Years of ​Discoveries at Tell Mardikh; Proceedings of the International Congress Held in Rome, 15th–17th December 2014. Edited by Paolo Matthiae and Frances Pinnock. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Caplice, Richard. 1981. “Eblaite and Akkadian.” Pages 161–64 in La lingua di Ebla: Atti del convegno internazionale (Napoli, 21–23 aprile 1980). Edited by Luigi Cagni. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale. Catagnoti, Amalia. 2012. La Grammatica della lingua di Ebla. Quaderni di semitistica 29. Florence: Dipartimento di Scienza dell’Antichità, Università di Firenze. Dahood, Mitchell. 1981. “The Linguistic Classification of ​Eblaite.” Pages 177–89 in La lingua di Ebla: Atti del convegno internazionale (Napoli, 21–23 aprile 1980). Edited by Luigi Cagni. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale. Dombrowski, Bruno W. W. 1988. “Eblaitic = The Earliest Known Dialect of Akkadian.” ZDMG 138:211–35. ———. 1991. “The Creation of ​Verbal Forms in Eblaitic and Its Significance for the History of the Semitic and Hamitic Language Family.” Proceedings of the Fifth International Hamito-​Semitic Congress 2: 185–208 Edzard, D. O. 2006. “Das Ebla-​akkadische als Teil des altakkadischen Dialektkontinuums.” Pages 76–83 in The Akkadian Language in Its Semitic Context. Edited by Guy Deutscher and N. J. C. Kouwenberg. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Feldman, Marian H. 2018. “Tracing Northern Networks Among the Arts of Syria in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages.” Pages 421–38 in Ebla and Beyond: Ancient Near Eastern Studies after Fifty Years of ​Discoveries at Tell Mardikh; Proceedings of the International Congress Held in Rome, 15th–17th December 2014. Edited by Paolo Matthiae and Frances Pinnock. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Garbini, Giovanni. 1981. “Considerations on the Language of ​Ebla.” Pages 75–82 in La lingua di Ebla: Atti del convegno internazionale (Napoli, 21–23 aprile 1980). Edited by Luigi Cagni. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale. Gelb, Ignace J. 1977. “Thoughts About Ibla: A Preliminary Evaluation, March 1977.” Syro-​Mesopotamian Studies 1:3–29. ———. 1981. “Ebla and the Kish Civilization.” Pages 9–73 in La lingua di Ebla: Atti del convegno internazionale (Napoli, 21–23 aprile 1980). Edited by Luigi Cagni. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale. Hasselbach, Rebecca. 2005. Sargonic Akkadian: A Historical and Comparative Study of the Syllabic Texts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. 2006. “Interpreting Early Akkadian Orthography: A Note on Pronominal Suffixes in Sargonic Akkadian.” ZA 96:161–77.

94

Bēl Lišāni

———. Forthcoming. “Archaism Versus Innovation: The Hybrid Nature of Akkadian.” In Proceedings of the International Association of Comparative Semitics. LANE. University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns. Hecker, Karl. 1981. “Eigennamen und die Sprache von Ebla.” Pages 165–75 in La lingua di Ebla: Atti del convegno internazionale (Napoli, 21–23 aprile 1980). Edited by Luigi Cagni Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale. ———. 1984. “Doppelt T-​erweiterte Formen oder: Der eblaitische Infinitiv.” Pages 205–23 in Il bilinguismo a Ebla: Atti del convegno internazionale (Napoli, 19–22 aprile 1982). Edited by Luigi Cagni. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale. Huehnergard, John. 2004. “Afro-​Asiatic.” Pages 138–59 in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages. Edited by Roger D. Woodard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2006. “Proto-​Semitic and Proto-​Akkadian.” Pages 1–18 in The Akkadian Language in Its Semitic Context: Studies in the Akkadian of the Third and Second Millennium BC. Edited by Guy Deutscher and N. J. C. Kouwenberg. PIHANS 106. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Krebernik, Manfred. 1988. Die Personennamen der Ebla-​Texte: Eine Zwischenbilanz. Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 7. Berlin: Reimer. ———. 1996. “The Linguistic Classification of ​Eblaite: Methods, Problems, and Results.” Pages 233–49 in The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-​First Century: The William Fox Albright Centennial Conference. Edited by Jerrold S. Cooper and Glenn M. Schwartz. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. ———. 2006. “Some Questions Concerning Word Formation in Akkadian.” Pages 84–95 in The Akkadian Language in Its Semitic Context: Studies in the Akkadian of the Third and Second Millennium BC. Edited by Guy Deutscher and N. J. C. Kouwenberg. PIHANS 106. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Lambert, Wilfred G. 1981. “The Language of ​Ebla.” Pages 155–60 in La lingua di Ebla: Atti del convegno internazionale (Napoli, 21–23 aprile 1980). Edited by Luigi Cagni. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale. Parpola, Simo. 1988. “Proto-​Assyrian.” Pages 293–98 in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft von Ebla: Akten der internationalen Tagung Heidelberg 4.–7. November 1986. Edited by Hartmut Waetzoldt and Harald Hauptmann. Heidelberger Studien zum alten Orient 2. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag. Pettinato, Giovanni. 1975. “Testi cuneiformi del 3. Millennio in paleo-​cananeo rinvenuti nella campagna 1974 a Tell Mardikh = Ebla.” Or 44:361–74. ———. 1986. Ebla: A New Look at History. Translated by C. Faith Richardson. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Rubio, Gonzalo. 2006. “Eblaite, Akkadian, and East Semitic.” Pages 110–39 in The Akkadian Language in Its Semitic Context: Studies in the Akkadian of the Third and Second Millennium BC. Edited by Guy Deutscher and N. J. C. Kouwenberg. PIHANS 106. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Siewierska, Anna. 2010. “Person Marking.” Pages 322–45 in The Oxford Handbook of ​ Linguistic Typology. Edited by Jae Jung Song. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Soden, Wolfram von. 1981. “Das Nordsemitische in Babylonien und in Syrien.” Pages 355–61 in La lingua di Ebla: Atti del convegno internazionale (Napoli, 21–23 aprile 1980). Edited by Luigi Cagni. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale.

Eblaite and Akkadian

95

Streck, Michael P. 2011. “Eblaite and Old Akkadian.” Pages 340–59 in The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook. Edited by Stefan Weninger. Berlin: de Gruyter. Tropper, Josef. 2000. Ugaritische Grammatik. AOAT 273. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag. ———. 2003. “Eblaitisch und die Klassifikation der semitischen Sprachen.” Pages 647–57 in Festschrift für Burkhart Kienast zu seinem 70. Geburtstag dargebracht von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen. Edited by Gebhard J. Selz. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag.

Chapter 4

How the Neo-​Assyrian Verb Works: Tense and Voice Maksim Kalinin and Sergey Loesov

4.1. The Method, the Corpus, and Previous Research The present paper is part of our “A History of the Akkadian Verb” endeavor. In our research, we start from the observation that the grammatical reading of a given verb form results from an interaction of the lexical meaning of the verb in question with the grammatical semantics of the morphological form used. Our method demands that the research be carried out upon a rigidly delineated synchronic corpus. Given the synchronicity requirement, the corpus must not be selective but rather as large as possible. Within the corpus, all the finite verb forms have to be parsed for their morphology and grammatical meanings. The frequency of a feature1 in the corpus is decisive for an attempt to describe its contribution to the shaping of grammar. Therefore, an exact number of tokens has to be established for each relevant feature.2 For the present study, we have parsed all verbs of those letters written in the Neo-​Assyrian language for which up-​to-​date editions are available, that, the letters published by the SAA project in SAA 1, 5, 13, 15, 16, 19, 21 (fifteen thousand letters, eighty thousand words).3 Among the genres of the Neo-​Assyrian (NA) corpus, letters are linguistically closest to the spoken Neo-​Assyrian vernacular of the epoch, and this is the reason for our selection of this corpus.4 In the course

The authors are grateful to Ilya Arkhipov and Bert Kouwenberg, who have read various drafts of the article and made useful suggestions. The research was financed by RFBR grant 19-012-00526. 1.  In this study, “a feature” is a certain inflectional form (within a given verbal stem) possessing a certain grammatical meaning. 2.  Methodologically, this article is related to the study of ​Ilya Arkhipov, Maksim Kalinin, and Sergey Loesov (2021) referred to as HOAM in the following discussions and the list of ​literature. 3.  We refer to SAA by volume and text numbers, omitting the siglum “SAA.” 4.  We have not included in this study SAA 10 “Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars.” The NA letters of this collection exhibit numerous morphosyntactic traits not common (or not attested at all) in the rest of the NA letter corpus of SAA. These features must be due to the influence of Standard Babylonian. The language of SAA 10, therefore, merits a special study.

96

How the Neo-Assyrian Verb Works

97

of the study, we have used the research tools available at http://​oracc​.museum​ .upenn​.edu​/saao​/corpus. For the history of research into the Neo-​Assyrian language, an up-​to-​date description of the whole corpus and other introductory matters, see Mario Fales 2021. Note that the current reference grammars of NA, Jaakko Hämeen-​Anttila 2000 and Mikko Luukko 2004, do not investigate the morphological semantics of the NA verb in depth, so this article is the first attempt of its kind.

4.2. The NA Verbal Morphology Relevant for Our Study and the Five Verbal Classes of NA We shall now provide an overview of the morphological repertoire of the NA verb employed in our corpus to encode tense and voice, that is, the relevant derivational and inflectional morphology of the NA verb:5 • G-​stem: iparras, iprus, iptaras, paris (ca. 550 roots according to Parpola 2007). 6 Starting from MB and MA, Akkadian iptaras lost its present perfect sense and was used in independent affirmative clauses as the basic past tense, with whatever contextual grammatical readings, for example, perfect or narrative tense.7 In other clauses with past-​time reference, iprus was used as long as vernacular varieties of Akkadian kept being committed to writing. As a result of this shift, iptaras and iprus became allo-​forms appearing in complementary distribution, depending on the syntactic context. The same is true of the former “perfect” and “preterit” forms of the derived stems, that is, uparris versus uptarris and ušapris versus ussapris. • N-​stem of transitive roots: ipparras (7 roots, 15 tokens), ippiris (4 roots, 7 tokens), ittapras (9 roots, 13 tokens). 5.  We use capitalized nouns (Present, Perfect, Passive, Injunctive, etc.) for linguistic universals, i.e., for meanings encoded by finite verb forms, while for derivational and inflectional shapes of the Akkadian verb we employ semantically nonsuggestive labels such as iprus, iparras, iptaras, paris, uparras, etc. Note that in this article, the “Stative” of the traditional grammar of Akkadian is referred to as Suffix Conjugation (= SC). Thus, SC is the umbrella term for paris (G-​stem), parrus (D-​stem), and šaprus (Š-​stem). 6.  The NA corpus of ​Parpola 2007 is larger than ours; it also includes NA genres other than letters. These are ritual texts, epic poetry, contracts, royal inscriptions, and more. The grammar of these texts is influenced by SB. 7.  In MB, unlike in OB and OA, iptaras can be used in nonfinal links of narrative ma-chains. In MA and NA, unlike in OA, the clause-​linking -ma is not attested.

98

Bēl Lišāni

• D-​stem: uparras, uparris, uptarris, parrus (ca. 200 roots according to Parpola 2007). • Dtt-​stem: uptatarras, (6 roots, 7 tokens) uptatarris (2 roots, 5 tokens). • Š-​stem: ušapras, ušapris, ussapris, šaprus (ca. 90 roots according to Parpola 2007). • (no Št-​stem, no Štt-​stem in the corpus).8 In this study, we exclude the Gtn-​stem from consideration because it has no part in shaping tense and voice. As for the erstwhile Gt-​stem, it is attested only in atluku ‘depart’. Unlike in earlier varieties of Akkadian, the only morphological criterion for a classification of the NA verb in terms of its grammatical behavior is the availability and meaning of SC,9 because the productivity and grammatical readings of SC in NA is nontrivially dependent on the lexical meaning of the verb.10 In particular, SC of dynamic transitive verbs encodes past passive, while SC of static verbs encodes respective states in the present, and sometimes in the past and future. According to our findings, the (non)availability of SC and its various grammatical meanings allow one to single out five verbal “classes” in NA: I.

SC is the basic form to express the present for verbs encoding properties and states. II. SC is a past-​time form of intransitive dynamic verbs. III. SC is a past-​time passive form of dynamic transitive verbs. IV. SC is a past-​time form of našû ‘bring’ (e.g., naṣṣa ‘he brought’). V. Intransitive verbs whose SC is not attested. Thus, our classification takes into account the morphological paradigm of the NA verbs (the availability and meaning of SC) and the semantic type of each verb, that is, its actionality and actancy. Actionality is related to the temporal element within the lexical semantics of a verb, for example, static or dynamic nature of a verbal concept. Actancy is a term describing relations between a verb predicate and its arguments. Our actancy is an umbrella notion for diathesis and agentivity. Since in this article we focus on transitivity and passive, we need a working definition of the latter. The passive is a syntactic transformation that promotes 8.  A form lu-​u-​sa-​te-​li in SAA 16: 207 9′ in a damaged context can be interpreted as the Štt precative of the verb elû ‘go up’. 9.  We treat SC as a part of the verbal paradigm, with Kouwenberg 2000. For an alternative interpretation, see in particular Huehnergard 2011, chaps. 22.1 and 33.2. 10.  As is demonstrated in HOAM, in OB and OA one more classification criterion is at play: whether a given verb has the iptaras form, which, in these varieties, has the meaning of ​Present Perfect. Note that atelic verbs (as well as some frequent static verbs) of OB and OA do not form iptaras. The loss of iptaras’s sensitivity to the verb’s lexical meaning is due to its becoming Simple Past (see above).

How the Neo-Assyrian Verb Works

99

an object of the active verb to the subject of a sentence, thereby demoting the agent, and typically deleting it from the surface of the sentence as well. Yet this transformation neither increases nor reduces the number of semantic roles—that is, for a sentence to be passive, it has to have an implicit or explicit semantic participant (usually an agent, but also an experiencer) that would be the grammatical subject in the corresponding active construction.

4.3. Verbal Classes of NA 4.3.1. A Static 4.3.1.1. Class I Class I verbs are those verbs for which SC is the default expression of the present. In terms of ​lexical semantics, these verbs encode properties and states, including mental states. The SC of Class I verbs can also refer to static situations in the past and future. iparras of Class I verbs describes dynamic situations in the present and future—that is, it has an inchoative reading; iptaras/ iprus forms of these verbs also have the inchoative sense, they express the coming about of respective properties and states in the past.11 A complete list of the NA Class I verbs in our corpus is as follows: balāṭu ‘live’, biādu ‘stay overnight’, daʾānu ‘be strong’, damāqu ‘be good’, enāšu ‘be weak’, etāku ‘be alert’, ḫadû ‘be glad’, ḫarādu1 ‘wake up’, ḫasāsu ‘remember’, kuānu ‘be firm’, labû ‘surround’, magāru ‘agree’, maṣû ‘be able’, maṭû ‘be few’, marāṣu ‘be ill’, miādu ‘be many, numerous’, nabalkutu ‘be in revolt’, nakāru ‘be hostile’, namāru ‘shine’, nuāḫu ‘be quiet’, ḫadû ‘be glad’, palāḫu1 ‘be afraid’,12 parāku ‘lie across’, qarābu ‘be close’, raḫāṣu ‘trust’, raṭābu ‘be damp’, riāḫu ‘to remain’, riāqu ‘be without work’, salāmu ‘be in peace’, ṣaḫātu ‘desire’, šalāṭu ‘be in authority’, tarāṣu ‘be in order, correct’, ṭiābu ‘be good’, zakû ‘be free (from work)’.13 Consider the following selected examples of SC encoding properties and states in the present and past: 11.  Cf. HOAM 1.1.7. As in OB, the contexts do not always allow us to distinguish between static and inchoative reading of PC forms for Class I verbs, which means that our interpretations are sometimes determined by the PC form itself rather than by the respective contexts. 12.  The stimulus participant of palāhu1 is introduced via the preposition issu pan, unlike palāḫu2 ‘revere, serve’, which is transitive and belongs into Class III. 13.  This list does not include SC tokens denoting properties and states that were formed from dynamic verbs and do not have PC counterparts with the same lexical meaning. On these, see Excursus I below.

100

Bēl Lišāni

(1) atta issu pan mīne pal-ḫa-​a-​ka What are you afraid of ? (19: 152 r. 1) [static, present]14 (2) ina timāli šalšiūme issu pan muskāye pal-ḫa-​a-​ka Earlier (lit. ‘yesterday and the day before’), you were afraid of the Phrygian (19: 152 36–37) [static, past]15 Static situations in the future are expressed by SC, while dynamic situations are rendered by iparras. The following are all the relevant examples available in the corpus: (3) maṣṣartu dan-​na-​at adi bēl pāḫete illakanni The guard will be strong until the governor comes (5: 210 r. 16–18) [static, future] (4) zunnu maʾda addanniš ittalak ebūru de-​e-​qe libbi ša šarre bēlīya lu-​u ṭāb It has rained abundantly, so the harvest will be good. May the king my lord be glad (15: 4 r. 7–11) [static, future] A future reading follows from the context and the general common sense: it has recently rained, so the harvest of crops is going to be good. (5) šarru bēlī udda kī GN1 ina libbi ispillurte kariruni. Mardītu issu GN1 adi GN2 ana umāme ta-​da-​in The king my lord knows that GN1 is situated at a crossroads. The road stretch from GN1 to GN2 will prove difficult for the animals (5: 227 r. 4–10). [dynamic, future] A future reading looks like the weakest claim here, indeed the only available one. An alternative would be a present-​ time modal reading, ‘the road may be difficult for the animals’. 14.  Further evidence for paris as the static Present is as follows. Balāṭu ‘live’: 1: 11 2–8; 5: 91 r. 1–3; 16: 16 4′; 19: 39 14–15. Daʾānu ‘be strong’: 15: 60 11–12. Damāqu ‘be good’: 1: 77 5–7; 5: 152 r. 6–7; 16: 3 r. 2–3. Kuānu ‘be firm’: 1: 179 r. 10–12; 16: 126 10–16. Labû ‘surround’: 21: 20 11′. Marāṣu ‘be ill’: 5: 35 r. 7–8; 5: 52 14, r. 9; 5: 200 8–12; 5: 217 r. 14–e. 1; 16: 26 8–10; 16: 82 6–8; 19: 119 5–7. Miādu ‘be many’: 1: 101 r. 4′–6′; 15: 156 r. 18–20. Nuāḫu ‘be quiet’: 1: 31 22–27; 15: 100 5–7; 15: 85 5; 15: 210 r. 7–8; 19: 78 r. 4′–6′. Ḫadû ‘be glad’: 15: 136 8–12; Palāḫu ‘be afraid’: 1: 32 13 = 19: 157 13; 5: 33 r. 14′–15′; 16: 127 r. 5–6; 19: 1 r. 8. Salāmu ‘be in peace’: 1: 55 2′–5′; 5: 2 12–15. Biādu ‘stay overnight’: 15: 223 r. 9–11. 15.  Further evidence for paris as static Past is as follows. Marāṣu ‘be ill’: 19: 174 r. 11–18 = 1: 175 r. 34–37. Miādu ‘be many’: 1: 62 4–8. Ḫadāʾu ‘be glad’: 5: 294 1′–8′. Palāḫu ‘be afraid’: 16: 15 10. Biādu ‘stay overnight’: 1: 54 4–5.

How the Neo-Assyrian Verb Works

101

(6) asseme r⸢iksāte⸣ ammar ša paṭrūni isaḫḫurū i-​ku-​u-​nu I have heard that all the decrees that were annulled will become valid again (16: 99 2′–4′) [dynamic, future] (7) anāku issi PN ni-​sa-​al-​lam I and PN will make peace (16: 17 r. 10′–11′) [dynamic, future] (8) eršu ina muḫḫi nārim-​ma mūšu anniu ina libbi eleppe ta-​bi-​ad. Anēnu ina muḫḫi nārim-​ma ni-​bi-​ad maṣṣartiša ninaṣṣar Tonight, the bed will stay on the river in the ship. We shall also spend the night on the river and keep watch over it16 (1: 54 r. 12–15) [dynamic, future] (9) ūmu 15 ina bēt-​ile ni-​bi-​ad We shall spend the night in the temple on the 15th (1: 134 r. 4) [dynamic, future] iptaras of class I verbs has an inchoative meaning in the Past: (10) ina muḫḫi abete annīte ap-​ta-​la-​aḫ attalka I got scared by this message and came (1: 84 r. 9–11) [dynamic, past]17 Two verbs seem to exhibit a competition between paris and iparras as static predicates: quālu ‘be silent, pay attention’ and daʾānu ‘be strong’. Quālu appears seven times in the paris form, as in the following examples: (11) atā idukkanni attunu qa-​la-​ku-​nu Why do you keep silent while he is trying to destroy me? (1: 29 r. 13–14) (12) bēl-​piqittāte qa-​a-​lu izzazzū la illukū dullašunu eppušu lā ṭēmu nišakkanšunu The officials are passive, they keep where they are, they do not go to do their work, nor can we give them orders (1: 220 r. 1–3) 16.  I.e., over the ship. 17.  Further evidence is as follows. Balāṭu ‘to live’: 15: 165 2′–5′. Daʾānu ‘to be(come) strong’: 19: 190 10, 16–17. Damāqu ‘to be good’: 1: 219 11. Marāṣu ‘be(come) ill’: 1: 179 r. 13–18. Miādu ‘be(come) many’: 1: 64 r. 15′–e. 2. Nuāḫu ‘be(come) quiet’: 5: 249 12′–15′. Ḫadû ‘be(come) glad’: 19: 152 19–21; 15: 103 r. 6′–8′. Palāḫu ‘be(come) afraid’: 1: 160 14–r. 3; 1: 84 r. 9–10; 5: 53 8–9; 5: 5: 202 r. 11′–16′; 5: 249 8′–13′; 15: 181 r. 7–12; 16: 71 r. 8′–10′; 16: 95 r. 6′–11′.

102

Bēl Lišāni

Once, quālu is attested with the same meaning in the iparras form:18 (13) issu pan šarre bēlīya palḫū addanniš . . . [a]kī issāte irubbū i-​qúl-​lu They are very much afraid of the king, my lord. They tremble and keep silent like women (19: 157 13–14). In the following text, idaʾʾin, the iparras form of daʾānu ‘be strong’, is used rather than the expected dan: (14) šarru bēlu udda kī kuppû qarḫāte anna[ka] i-​da-ʾi-​nu-​ni laš[šu] epertu la tarî[ḫ] tašaḫḫuḫ The king the lord knows that winters (lit. ‘snow and ice’) are severe here. Baked brickwork will not survive, it will collapse (15: 41 8′–12′). The reading of i-​da-ʾi-​nu-​ni may be habitual. Note that in OB iparras of static verbs can render this sense, cf. HOAM 1.1.7. Excursus I: SC Forms with Derived Present-​Time Meanings The below SC forms encode present-​time properties and states, yet unlike semantically predictable Class I SC forms, these were derived from dynamic roots and thereby developed new meanings vis-​à-​vis the PC forms of respective roots and the expected SC meanings. Thus, they can be considered Class I SC-​ tantum verbs, unless they develop, secondarily, PC counterparts. The following forms are derived from passive SC forms, while their synchronic meaning in NA is not passive: Gammur ‘he is loyal’: libbašunu ga-​mur-​ak-​ka ‘they are loyal to you’ (16: 60 e. 4). Gammuru means ‘bring to an end, complete’.19 Ḫabbul means ‘he owes’, while ḫabbulu means ‘to lend something to somebody (2 acc.)’: abūya maʾda ḫabullē ša PN1 ša PN2 ša PN3 ḫab-​bu-[ul] . . . ūmā marʾēšunu iba[šši] mā ḫabullē ša abī[ka] ana abbēni ḫab-​ba-​lu-[u-​ ni] šallimannâ[ši] ‘my father was much in debt to PN1, PN2, and PN3 . . . Now their sons say: “Pay us the debts that [your] father owes to our fathers!”’ (1: 159 o. 19–r. 8); DN1, DN2 u DN3 . . . šummu . . . šiqlē maṭi ana šeššet manê20 ṣarpe qaqqudu la ḫab-​bu-​la-​ku-​u-​ni ‘I swear by DN1, DN2, 18.  Note that the OB qâlum uses paris for the Present. 19.  Another example is 16: 36 r. 6. 20.  Lit.: ‘six minas with the deduction of ​(some) sheqels’.

How the Neo-Assyrian Verb Works

103

and DN3, that . . . I have incurred a debt of almost six minas of silver, plus the interest’ (10: 294 r. 26, 29). Kammus is a locative predicate ‘he is seated, he stays; it is situated’: ina muḫḫi nāre kam-​mu-​sa-​ku maṣṣartu anaṣṣar adi libbi ūme ša unammašuni ‘I will be staying on the river and keeping watch till the day I depart’ (1: 55 10′–11′). In the corpus, there are around one hundred instances of the SC forms of kammusu, all of them with these kinds of meaning. The PC forms of kammusu mean ‘collect; assemble (persons)’.21 Karik is a locative predicate ‘he stays’: ilāne ša šarre bēle šumma ina GN lā ka-​ra-​ku-​u-​ni ‘By the gods of the king my lord (I swear) I am staying in GN!’ (1: 179 r. 3–4). NA karāku means, in particular, ‘block’. In the corpus, its SC is attested with a passive meaning ‘(the water) is blocked (by mountains)’ (5: 200 10). Karir is a locative predicate ‘it is situated’: šarru bēlī udda kī GN1 ina libbi ispillurte ka-​ri-​ru-​u-​ni ‘the king my lord knows that GN1 is situated at a crossroads’ (5: 227 r. 4–7).22 Karāru means ‘to put, lay down’. The corresponding SC has a trivial past passive meaning ‘it was placed, laid down’. Mazzuʾ means ‘(river, road) is difficult (for proceeding)’: issu GN1 adi GN2 nāru ma-​zu-ʾ ‘from GN1 to GN2 the river is difficult for navigation’ (1: 063 12′–13′).23 Mazzû means ‘to squeeze.’24 šakin is the head of various verb phrases, while the verb šakānu ‘to place’ has SC with a trivial past passive meaning ‘it was placed’. Madaktu šakin is ‘he encamped’: ammar ūmē ša ina taḫūmē ša GN madaktu šá-​ak-​na-​ku-​u-​ ni mār almatte ippūtūya madaktu ina muḫḫi taḫūmēšu šá-​ki-​in ‘While I was camping on the border of GN, the son of the widow was camping opposite me on his side of the border’ (5: 217 r. 6–10).25 Cf. also gabbišunu issaḫēʾiš šaknū ‘they are all of the same opinion’ (13: 138 r. 9), where šaknū functions in the way of a copula. Ina muḫḫi PN panēšu šaknū means ‘he is devoted (to PN)’: ina muḫḫi PN panēni šak-​nu ‘We are devoted to PN’ (16: 63 r. 5). Ina/ana muḫḫi PN takkul ‘he trusts (somebody)’: anāku ana muḫḫi šarri bēlīya tak-​ku-​lak ‘I trust the king, my lord’ (16: 127 r. 11).26 Takkulu means ‘encourage’.27 21.  See CAD K, 116–17. 22.  See also 16: 29 15. 23.  Another example is 1: 97 10; see also 15: 352 4′, damaged. 24.  See 19: 152 r. 12. 25.  Further examples are 1: 179 6; 1: 180 13′; 5: 69 7; 5: 145 13; 5: 168 r. 7; 5: 226 10; 15: 24 16; 15: 218 r. 7. 26.  Other examples are 10: 354 r. 18; 13: 45 r. 8, 10; 16: 128 r. 9′–10′; see also 16: 60 r. 11 and 21: 157 4′, damaged. 27.  See further examples in 9: 1 ii 8′, iv 1; 10: 316 r. 11: 333 r. 2; 21: 80 r. 8.

104

Bēl Lišāni

Etymologically nonpassive SC forms with derived lexical meanings are also attested: Amir: ina muḫḫi PN amir means ‘he is loyal to PN’: ina libbi niksāne PN1 adi ṣābāne mala ina muḫḫīšu am-​ru-​u-​ni ina libbi āle nušerrab . . . ṣābāne ammar ina muḫḫi PN1 la am-​ru-​u-​ni ša ina bēte ša PN2 iqabbi mā laššu PN3 ana ayālīšunu lā illak ‘we shall bring PN1 and whatever men are loyal to him into the city by means of tunnels . . . Men who are not loyal to PN1 in the house of PN2—he says that PN3 will most surely not come to their help’ (15: 199 o. 7, r. 15).28 Amāru means ‘see; look at’. Amir ‘he is loyal to’ is a semantic derivation of the verb’s meaning ‘look at’. Compare a lexicalized SC form amir ‘he is knowledgeable’ in OB Mari.29 Maḫir: ina pan PN/ pan PN / ina ēnē PN maḫir means ‘it is acceptable for X’, while maḫāru means, in particular, ‘accept’: kī ina pan šarre ma-ḫi-​ir lašpur ana GN ‘if it is agreeable to the king, let me write to GN’ (21: 155 r. 1–2). Note that in other first-​millennium Akkadian varieties the SC of panam maḫāru with the meaning ‘it is acceptable’ has PC counterparts (CAD M1, 64–65), so the lack of PC forms with the same meaning in our NA corpus may be a matter of chance. Were these PC forms available in NA, ina pan PN (etc.) maḫāru would be a regular Class I verb.30 Naši: the verb našû ‘bear, bring, carry’ has a lexicalized SC naši31 forming the nucleus of compound verbs that semantically build on the notion of ​ ‘bearing’.32 Pūtuḫḫu naši means ‘he bears responsibility’: adi eleppāte annâte agammaruni pu-​tu-ḫu aladlammê annûte [ša ina] GN na-ṣa-​ku ‘Until I have these boats ready, I will bear the responsibility for the stone colossi in GN (1: 56 r. 10–13).’33 Ilku naši means ‘he performs his service obligations’. This SC verb phrase developed a PC derivation: annûte alāne ilakšunu ittaṣṣū . . . šumma alāne ilakšunu na-ṣu ‘These cities have taken their service obligation upon themselves . . . The cities perform their service obligation’ (19: 193 r. 13′–15′).

28.  Other examples: 15: 131 14–15; see also 15: 230 17, damaged. 29.  E.g., ARM 2: 91 4′; ARM 3: 69 14′; ARM 5: 49 15; ARM 26: 298 33, 39. 30.  Note also dullu ša ina pan bēlīya maḫ-ḫur-​u-​ni šūtu ‘is it a deed that is acceptable to my lord?’ (16: 53 r. 8). 31.  See also below on našû as a Class IV verb. 32.  In SAA 10 we have come across a Babylonian-​like token of naši (see HOAM 1.3.5): ṣalbatānu šarūri na-​a-​ši ‘Mars has brilliance’ (10: 48 8–11). In a NA ritual text, there is another example of the kind: šangû ša DN zīqtu ša buṣṣinē ina qātīšu na-​ši ‘The priest of DN holds a torch of wicks in his hand’ (20: 9 ii 19–20). 33.  Other examples are 5: 106 16′; 15: 199 4.

How the Neo-Assyrian Verb Works

105

Raši: rašû is a punctual verb ‘to acquire’, while the SC form raši means ‘he has’: dibbē lā dibbē iddubub naquttu ra-​áš-​ši ‘He spoke nonsense, because he was afraid (lit. ‘had anxiety’)’ (1: 190 r. 7′–9′)34 Here raši renders a state in the past. 4.3.2. Dynamic Classes 4.3.2.1. An Introduction In Classes II–V, iparras encodes present, future, as well as past habitual and background situations simultaneous to a past-​time reference point: (15) eleppu ša bēl pāhete ša GN1 ina libbi GN2 nēburu tú-​pa-​áš The boat of the governor of GN1 performs ferry service at GN2 (1: 94 11–13) [Class III, present habitual] (16) amēlu issēka a-​šá-​pa-​ar mā il-​lak šipšāte e-​mar i-​ba-​ta-​qa I shall send a man with you, he will go (and) select the trunks and cut (them) (1: 229 7–10) [Classes III, V, III and III respectively; future] (17) atā ni-ḫal-​liq Why should we run away? (15: 1 16–17) [Class IV, future] (18) atta atā ta-​na-​áš-​ši . . . maʾad issu libbīšunu ana imitte šumēle memmēni ana šipirte tassapar Why are you appropriating (the people)? . . . You have sent many of them to the south and to the north or wherever on (various) errands (1: 11 o. 8, r. 1–3) [Class III; present habitual] (19) kayyamānu karṣē ša arrapḫāye ina panī[ka] e-​kal marʾē GN ina pī patre i-​sa-​na-​kan iddāte issu GN attasaḫšu ina GN2 aptiqissu He perpetually slandered Arrapheans in your presence and kept putting inhabitants of GN1 to the sword. Afterwards I removed him from GN1 and appointed him to GN2 (1: 12 o. 9–r. 1). [Class III, past habitual] 34.  Another example is 19: 21 r. 5′.

106

Bēl Lišāni

(20) ittimāli ina bēt iddāt šarre al-​la-​kan-​ni ina qabsi GN ētarba Yesterday, following the king, I entered the center of GN (16: 25 6–8).35 [Class V, a background situation simultaneous to a past-​time reference point] (21) u[rāsē ša] aḫēšunu ina muḫḫi dulle iškun[ūni a]na šanê ūme i-​da-​ab-​ bu-​bu [m]ā dullu anniu ina pan DN maḫir addanniš mā ūmē ša šarre irrikū ḫa-​di-​u addanniš The br[ick masons who] start[ed] working were gossiping on the following day, saying: ‘This work is most acceptable to DN!’ The king is going to live long!’—(and) they were very glad (5: 294 1′–6′) In this example, two continuous past-​time situations are described: ‘they were gossiping (all day long)’ and ‘they were glad (all day long)’. The former situation is expressed by a Class V verb dabābu and is rendered by iparras, while the latter situation is expressed by a Class I verb ḫadû and is rendered by paris. iptaras is the Past in assertive main clauses and yes/no questions. iprus is its counterpart in embedded clauses and wh-​questions. paris is the Passive Past in both main and embedded clauses. The following examples illustrate: (22) alāku ša illikūni PN i-​se-​me i-​sap-​ra aḫḫēšu gabbu it-​tu-​ub-​lu issešunu id-​du-​bu-​ub PN heard about his coming, he sent a message, they brought all his brothers (to him), he spoke to them (15: 1 11–14; reported speech follows). (23) kī . . . emūqēya . . . áš-​pur-​u-​ni . . . ḫubtu ni-​iḫ-tab-​ta šamnu ina muḫḫi damē la ni-​id-​di-​bu-​ú-​ku (/nidbuk/ from tabāku) When I sent my army, did we take spoils of war? Did we not pour oil on blood? (21: 65 10–12, 16–17.) (24) ūmu samānēšeret ina Libbi āle aq-ṭí-​rib kī annîm-​ma libbialāyē e-tap-​šú paššurāte rak-​sa niqiāte it-​ta-​as-ḫu ina nāre ina pan bāb Aššur eleppāte iṣ-ṣab-​tu maškinī ina libbi ma-ḫi-ṣi I arrived at the Inner City on the 18th. The inhabitants of the Inner City acted in the same way (as before): offering tables were set up, and they made sacrifices. They anchored the boats on the river before the Gate of Aššur. My canopy was set up aboard (1: 55 6′–9′). 35.  Lit., ‘Yesterday, when I was coming behind the king (to where the king is now), I entered the center of GN (where the king is now)’.

How the Neo-Assyrian Verb Works

107

iptaras is the vehicle of the performative pragmatics: (25) urdu ša marṣaššunni bēlēšu imaḫḫar anāku marṣa šarru bēlī a-​ta-ḫar A servant who is in trouble appeals to his masters. I am in trouble and appeal to the king my lord (16: 82 6–8). (26) ina libbi ilānēya at-​ta-​ma šumma anāku ušagallûkanuni . . . as-​sap-​ rak-​ku-​nu lā tapallaḫā I swear by my gods that I shall not deport you . . . I am writing to you: do not be afraid (21: 50 r. 2–4, 8–9). The epistolary Past, borrowed from the Middle Babylonian into Middle Assyrian, keeps being used in NA: (27) annûrig ana šarre bēlīya as-​sap-​ra Now, I am writing to the king, my lord (the request concerning the person mentioned in the letter follows) (16: 39 o. 13–r. 4). For six verbs, paris is attested with the sense of a nonpassive Past: ḥalāqu ‘flee, escape’, ḫanāšu ‘obey, submit (intr.)’, muātu ‘die’, namarkû ‘tarry’, paḫāru ‘gather’ (intr.) (all belong to Class II), and našû ‘bring’ (with the ventive), ‘take away’ (without the ventive) (Class IV). 4.3.2.2. Class II Class II includes intransitive verbs that have past-​time dynamic paris. The Class II verbs in the searchable corpus are as follows: ḫalāqu ‘flee, escape’, ḫanāšu ‘obey, submit (intr.)’, muātu ‘die’, namarkû ‘tarry’, and paḫāru ‘gather’ (intr.). In Сlass II, the relationship between paris and iptaras as past-​ time dynamic verb forms has to be described individually for each of the four verbs. Ḫalāqu has two meanings in NA:36 (1) ‘flee, escape’, an agentive sense; (2) ‘be lost, disappear, perish’, and this is a nonagentive sense. For meaning (1), both ḫalaq and iḫtiliq are used. In the sample, there are three tokens of ḫalaq; two of them occur in main clauses, and one is in an imbedded clause. We have found twenty-​eight tokens of iḫtiliq, and six tokens of iḫliq-(ūni) in embedded clauses. Consider the evidence for ḫalaq: 36.  The same is true of other Akkadian varieties; see CAD Ḫ, 37–38.

108

Bēl Lišāni

(28) ša petḫallāte . . . ḫal-​qu il-​lu-​ku The cavalrymen have fled . . . and are on the run (1: 30 r. 3–5). (29) ḫalziatbarāyē gabbišunu maʾda ḫal-​qu ina libbi mātāte gabbu šunu All Halziatbareans have fled in great numbers, and all of them are (now dispersed) throughout countries (5: 79 9–12). (30) atā ana ḫalqūte ša Urarṭāye ša ina GN ḫa-​la-​qu-​ni-​ni37 tuṣabbat Why do you seize deserters from (the army) of the Urarṭian (king) that have fled to GN? (5: 35 18–20). In all three examples the reference point of ḫalaq happens to be the speech time, so the three tokens have perfect readings, but this may be due to chance. Consider an example of iptaras: (31) kī PN ana gizze illikuni šūtu iškāršu uptaʾʾiṣ ana gizze lā ērub iḫ-ti-​liq ina libbi ekurre ittitzi38 After PN went to shear (sheep), he (another man) took away his (=PN’s) due (amount of wool). He did not come to shear, he fled and stayed in a temple (1: 235 12–15). For meaning (2), ‘be lost, disappear, perish’, two paris tokens appear in the corpus, while other forms of ḫalāqu are not attested in this sense: (32) ūmā šummu taqabbī mā mārūya liblaṭ mašennu adi nišēšu u šipirti epēš ardūte ša GN arḫiš ina pan šarre lū takšuda ulā ḫal-​qa-​ak issu qātēki ēteli Now if you say: “May my son live,” let the treasurer along with his people and a message of the servitude of GN quickly reach the king’s presence, or I have perished and slipped from your hands (21: 155 r. 12–19). (33) anāku ša duāke ḫal-​qa-​ku . . . šarru lušēzibanni I am about to be killed; I have perished! . . . May the king save me! (16: 30 r. 3–4, 6) Ḫanāšu is a by-​form of kanāšu ‘to bow down, submit’; it is a punctual verb. The SC of ḫanāšu is attested in the corpus once: 37.  To be interpreted as ḫalqūninni; see Hämeen-​Anttila 2000, 34. 38.  For the form, see Hämeen-​Anttila 2000, 99.

How the Neo-Assyrian Verb Works

109

(34) ušḫāyē qudāyē ša šarru bēlī ina muḫḫišunu išpuranni ina muḫḫi pê ša šarre bēlīya iḫ-ta-​an-​šú ālāne ša ūmē ša PN la ḫa-​an-​šu-​ni ūmā annurig ša qurbūte uptaḫḫir ina muḫḫīya naṣṣa ussallimšunu The Ušhaeans and Qudaeans about whom the king my lord wrote to me have submitted to the king my lord’s command; (these) towns which were not submissive/did not submit in the days of PN, the royal bodyguard has now assembled and brought over to me. I have made peace with them (5: 78 4–16) In this text, the SC form lā ḫanšū is used alongside the PC form iḫtanšū. The reference point of iḫtanšū is the speech time. This form expresses a present perfect meaning ‘they have submitted’. Lā ḫanšū has a past-​time reference. Whether the situation is punctual (‘did not submit’) or static (‘were not submissive’) we do not dare to judge.39 For muātu, no past-​time PC forms are attested in the corpus.40 The idea ‘he died / has dead’ is expressed by the SC form mēte: (35) PN nuḫatimmu anniu ana ḫanše ūmēšu ḫasi ina ḫisiʾāte mé-​e-​te This cook, PN, was beaten after five days, he died because of ​ beating (13: 157 r. 5–8) For namarkû ‘delay’, two paris tokens and two iptaras tokens are attested (36) mešli ṣābāni naṣṣa mešlu-​ma la na[ṣṣa] pilkašunu na-​mar-​ku He brought half of the men but did not bring the other half, so their work assignment got out of schedule (1: 235 19–20). (37) rab-​bētīya na-​mar-​ku rēḫte emūqi ubbala My major-​domo is delayed but will later bring the rest of the troops (19: 189 r. 3–6) (38) ṣābāni issēya la[ššu] ina māte i-​ta-​mar-​ku-​u maṣṣartin nina[ṣṣar] [There are] n[o] men with me. They have been delayed in the country. We ke[ep] our watch (15: 294 r. 14–16). (39) it-​ta-​mar-​ku (15: 51 8′, damaged context) 39.  Note that kanšu “submissive” in well attested in SB sources of the NA period (CAD K, 158). 40.  In 5: 106 2′, a spelling in-​tu-​a- . . . is attested in a broken context.

110

Bēl Lišāni

For paḫāru ‘gather’ (intr.), the distribution of iptaras and paris is not transparent either. In the corpus, there are four tokens of paḫir. Three of them possess perfect readings: (40) emūqēšu issišu pu-​uḫ-ru ina GN maṣṣartu inaṣṣar His troops are assembled with him; he is keeping watch in GN (5: 2 r. 5–8). (41) šalāšat bēlē pāḫete ina GN1 šalāšat bēlē pāḫete ina GN2 ina pūtunni isse aṣappe pu-​uḫ-ru anēnu maṣṣartu ina pūtuššunu ninaṣṣar Three governors in GN1 and another three in GN2 are gathered with pack animals opposite us. We are keeping watch opposite them (5: 21 11–16) (42) emūqē pu-​uḫ-ra allak elli ana GN The troops are assembled, and I am going up to GN (5: 200 14–16) One token of paḫir is attested with a simple past reading: (43) ittalka šarru bēlī ittaḫar. Rabûte ša šarre pu-​uḫ-ru, ina mašenne nuktīni He came and petitioned the king my lord. The king’s magnates were assembled, we settled (the case) in the presence of the Treasurer (1: 236 r. 10–12). Iptuḫur occurs both in narrative contexts and as a deictic perfect with a speech time reference point. Consider the following selected examples: (44) ḫurāṣu ibašši ina bēt ilāne ip-​tu-ḫur u batqu ša ṣabāti ibašši There is some gold, it has accumulated in the temples, and there is redecoration work to be done (10: 349 7–8). (45) ūmā rab urdāne ša abūka ipqiduni ina muḫḫišunu ip-​tu-ḫur gabbišunu uptattiūšu Now the chief of servants, whom your father appointed over them— they gathered and unanimously dismissed him (13: 143 r. 1–9).41

41.  Other examples are 19: 70 13; 19: 80 4.

How the Neo-Assyrian Verb Works

111

Table 4.1.  Paradigm of NA Transitive Verbs G

D

Š

Active

Past Present / Future

ētapaš / lā ēpuš eppaš

ugdammer / lā ugammer ugammar

ussēli / lā ušēli ušella

Passive

Past Present / Future

epiš inneppaš

gammur no evidence

šēlu no evidence

4.3.2.3. Class III Class III includes transitive verbs whose passive is attested in the corpus.42 This is a productive class. Table 4.1 is the paradigm for epāšu ‘do, make’, gammuru ‘finish’, and sēlû ‘uplift.’ As indicated in the table, the passive past of the three stems is expressed by the SC forms of the respective stems (paris, parrus, and šaprus), while the passive present and future of the G-​stem is encoded, in a suppletive way, by the N-​stem form ipparras. In the corpus, there are no data on the passive present and future of the D- and Š-​stems. For the D-​stem, one expects uptatarras in this semantic slot. Nonetheless, uptatarras does not have passive readings in the corpus; see below. Consider a few selected examples: (46) ina muḫḫi mīne kī annî māt Aššur te-​ep-​pa-​áš-​an-​na-​ši lā tuddā-​ma ina muḫḫi mīne ša kī ḫannî ep-​šá-​a-​ka-​nu-​ni ‘Why does Assyria treat us like this?’—don’t you know perfectly well why you have been treated in this way? (21: 65 4–6) (47) ina muḫḫi niqiāte ša iš-​pur-​u-​ni-​ni mā ina pan manni e-​pu-​šu gab-​ bu ina pan DN in-​né-​pa-​áš Concerning the offerings about which they wrote to me, saying: ‘Before whom do they make (them)?’—All (of them) are being made before DN (13: 77 7–10) (48) šalāš mē zarʾē ša GN a-​ri-​iš rēḫtu a-​ra-​áš 300 (acres) of the cornfields of GN has been cultivated and I am cultivating the rest (19: 67 r. 3′–7′) There follows a list of Class III verbs in our searchable corpus. It includes all the verbs that are attested in the corpus more than three times. 42.  On the transitive verbs of the corpus with no passive forms, see below pp. 25.

112

Bēl Lišāni

G-​stem verbs for which past-​time passive paris is attested are as follows:43 Arāšu ‘to cultivate (a field)’ (6); ašāru ‘muster, review (1); dakû ‘to mobilize’ (1); dalāḫu ‘disturb’ (1); duāku ‘to kill’ (19); emādu ‘impose’ (1); epāšu ‘do’ (16); esāpu ‘gather up’ (1); esāru ‘enclose’ (1); eṣāru ‘draw, design’ (1); gamāru ‘finish’ (5); ḫabātu ‘rob, take away by force’ (2); ḫarādu2 ‘guard’ (2); ḫasû ‘batter’ (1); kabāsu ‘tread’ (1); kapāru ‘coat’ (1); karāku ‘block (water)’ (1); karāmu ‘restrain’ (5), ‘stock up’ (3); karāru ‘throw, cast’ (10); karṣē akālu ‘slander’ (1); kasāpu ‘break (trans.)’ (1); laqû ‘take, purchase’ (3); maḫāṣu ‘hit, wound’ (5); masû ‘wash’ (1); matāḫu ‘lift’ (1); nakāsu ‘cut’ (1); paqādu ‘entrust; appoint’ (11); pašāšu ‘smear’ (1); patû ‘open’ (2); puāgu ‘deprive’ (1); qabû ‘say’ (3); qalû ‘to refine’ (1); rakāsu ‘tie; arrange in order’ (1); raḫāṣu ‘flood’ (1); raṣāpu ‘pile up’ (5); sadāru ‘do regularly’ (3); siāru ‘plaster’ (2); ṣabātu ‘seize’ (7); šahāṭu ‘form’ (1); šakānu ‘put, place’ (11); šapāru ‘send’ (1); šarāqu ‘steal’ (1); šaṭāru ‘write, record’ (5); tadānu ‘give’ (8); ṭabāḫu ‘slaughter’ (1); zaqāpu ‘erect’ (1). As expected, cross-​linguistically,44 passive past is more frequent than passive present and future. Thus, only four verbs of the above list have passive ipparras in the corpus (we adduce the number of tokens in brackets): emādu (1), epāšu (7), esāpu (1), šakānu (2). For paṭāru ‘loosen, release’, only ipparras is attested as a passive form in the corpus, the only token being 13: 134 r. 2. Passive paris of this verb shows up in 10: 294 r. 9 and in Assyrian ritual texts published in SAA 20.45 We have also found a SC form of the transitive verb maḫāṣu ‘strike’ with a reciprocal meaning: (49) ūmā ina muḫḫi taḫūmē ša šarre issaḫēʾiš maḫ-ṣa-​a-​ni Now, we have clashed together on the king’s border (1 250:6′–8′) D-​stem transitive verbs for which passive parrus is attested are as follows: gammuru ‘bring to an end’ (10 tokens);46 paḫḫuru ‘assemble, gather’ (1 token);47 baddudu ‘to  waist, squander’ (1); ḫallupu ‘armour’ (2); 43.  In brackets, we indicate the number of past-​time passive paris tokens. 44.  See, in particular, Comrie 1981. 45.  1 14–15; 2 i 19′–20′; 32 r. 22; 34 r. 18–19; 37 12 (bis); 38 r. v 12, 15. 46.  1: 66 r. 10, 15; 1: 70 r. 4′; 1: 80 16; 13: 127 6; 15: 74 15; 15: 152 r. 8; 19: 60 4; 19: 83 7; 19: 161 15. 47.  15: 1 19.

How the Neo-Assyrian Verb Works

113

ḫarrudu ‘place on guard’ (1); kannušu ‘gather’ (1); kassupu ‘break off’ (1); kaššudu ‘chase away’ (1); labbušu ‘coat’ (2); lammudu ‘teach’ (1); maḫḫuṣu ‘wound’ (3); paqqudu ‘entrust, appoint’ (2); passuku ‘clear away’ (1); pattû ‘dismiss (from post)’ (4); paṭṭuru ‘dissolve’ (1); rammû ‘forsake, abandon, desert’ (6); ṣabbutu ‘detain (people)’ (3); ‘enclose (with metal)’ (1); ṣallulu ‘roof over’ (1); tallulu ‘equip’ (1); uššuru ‘let go, loosen, release’ (5); zakkû ‘free, exempt (from obligation)’ (1);48 zaqquru ‘build high’ (1). As we mentioned above, uptatarras does not have passive readings in the corpus.49 Thus, uptataršam means ‘he will reach an old age’ (13: 56 r. 16), ussatammuḫū means ‘they will join each other’ (19: 125 9′), ussatappulū means ‘they are going downstream’ (1: 82 r. 5), uptatḫurū means ‘they are assembling’ (5: 227 e. 1).50 Ugdadammar can be used as a phase verb: (50) madaktu lušēbirū adi madaktu-​ma ug-​da-​da-​mar-​u-​ni issurri gišru nugammar They should bring the camp over; we may finish the bridge by the time they are done with (bringing over) the camp (1: 47 r. 12–15)51 To render the idea ‘it will be finished’, the 3 pl. impersonal uparras form was used: (51) šalāš eleppāte ina ūme issēn ša MN1 ú-​ga-​mur . . . rebūtu ina ūme issēn ša MN2 ú-​ga-​mur. Ūmā annû[rig] [x] eleppāte ga-​mu-⸢ra⸣ ‘They will finish three boats by the 1st of MN1, the fourth will be ready by the 1st of MN2.’—Now [x] boats have been finished (1: 80 12–16). Note that in the same text a past-​time meaning ‘they (f.) have been finished’ is rendered by a parrus form gammurā. Š-​stem verbs for which passive šaprus is attested are as follows:

48.  In most cases, the orthography does not allow one to distinguish zaku ‘he is free (from obligation)’ (a Class I verb form, the G-​stem) from zakku ‘he has been exempted (from obligation)’ (a Class III passive verb form, the D-​stem). In our list of parrus forms, we took into account only the spelling zak-​ku in 19: 70 r. 20. 49.  Contra Kouwenberg 2010, 389. The uptatarras tokens from our corpus cited there are all better understood as nonpassive. 50.  On the morphonology of the form, see Hämeen-​Anttila 2004, 89. 51.  Consider a similar example from outside our corpus: Agru irabbi ug-​da-​ad-​am-​mar il-​lak ‘The constellation Aries is setting down and will (soon) be completely gone’ (10: 74 r. 20–21)

114

Bēl Lišāni

šamruṣu ‘to cause trouble, difficulty’ (1); šanṣuru ‘appoint a guard over’ (1); šašluṭu ‘give authority over’ (1); šēlû ‘make ascend’ (1); šaklû ‘make hold back’ (1); šatbû ‘to remove’ (1). For a number of frequent transitive verbs, passive forms are not attested in the corpus. In the lists below, these verbs are organized by their token frequency in the corpus, in the order of diminishing frequency: More than one hundred tokens: amāru ‘see’, dabābu ‘tell, recite’, karābu ‘bless, pray’, šamû ‘hear’, šaʾālu ‘ask’, šēbulu ‘send’, šēṣû ‘bring out; redeem’, ubālu ‘bring.’ One hundred to fifty tokens: akālu ‘eat’, etāqu ‘proceed along, cross over’, kašādu ‘reach’, maḫāru ‘receive’, naṣāru ‘guard’, šērubu ‘bring in.’ Fifty to twenty tokens: dagālu ‘look’, kalû ‘hold back’, birti ēnē maddudu ‘make clear’,52 qarrubu ‘bring’, šērudu ‘bring down’, šēšubu ‘settle, install’, taʾʾuru ‘return’. Twenty to ten tokens: abāku ‘lead away’, ebāru ‘cross over’, erāšu ‘request’, eṣādu ‘harvest’, batqu/ṭēmu ḫarāṣu ‘provide clear report, information’, kallumu ‘show’, kanāku ‘seal’, nakāsu ‘cut’, palāḫu2 ‘serve’,53 parāsu / purrusu ‘cut off’, šadādu ‘drag’, šaglû ‘deport’, šatû ‘drink’, šētuqu ‘bring over; let go by’, uṣṣuṣu ‘interrogate.’ We include these verbs in Class III, since the absence of passive forms from the corpus may be due to chance, while the NA past-​time Passive paris is an inflectional value, and therefore speakers could produce the respective forms at will. Note that for the Class III verb matāḫu ‘lift’, which occurs about one hundred times in the corpus, only one passive paris form is attested (19: 88 8). For three verbs listed above, we have found passive SC forms outside our corpus: (52) šuttušu deʾiqtu am-​rat A good dream concerning this was seen (10: 305 r. 1). (53) bēt takarribīni ka-​ri-​ib bēt tanazzirīni nazir What you (f.) bless, is blessed; what you (f.) curse, is cursed (10: 17 r. 2–5). (54) ilānēšā pal-ḫu Her (the dead queen’s) gods have been revered (20: 34 r. 19). 52.  Maddudu ‘measure’ is not attested in the corpus. 53.  To be distinguished from palāḫu ‘fear’.

How the Neo-Assyrian Verb Works

115

Excursus II: uptatarris and ittapras/ ippiris Forms in NA The six uptatarris tokens formed from three roots and mentioned in the introduction are all nonpassive:54 (55) kīma ētabra ug-​da-​da-​me-​er nunammaša We will set out as soon as he has completely crossed over the river (19: 103 8–9). (56) ūmā PN adi emūqēšu gabbu ug-​da-​ta-​me-​ru iddātuššu ētabrū Now PN and his whole army have finished crossing over (the bridge) after him (19: 82 9–12) (57) ētebir ug-​da-​ta-​mir I have completely crossed over (the river with my men) (19: 175 r. 10–11).55 (58) ūmā arḫē gabbu ug-​da-​ad-​me-​ru . . . annûrig eleppāte ga-​mu-⸢ra⸣ Today all the months have elapsed56 . . . Now the boats have been finished (1: 80 9). Note that the Dtt past-​time form describes a nonagentive situation, while the SC form (parrus) is outspokenly passive. (59) ūmu 21 ša Elūle rību irtūbu . . . bēt ile gabbu . . . up-​ta-​ta-ṣi-​di There was an earthquake on the 21st of ​Elul . . . The temple in its entirety . . . collapsed (16: 100 6–16). This one is clearly a nonagentive situation. (60) mār PN ina libbi šalāš mē anāqāte ú-​za-​ta-​ki The son of PN got ready with the help of three hundred she-​camels (1: 175 4–6) The following ittapras and ippiris tokens are also nonpassive:57 54.  A form nu-​sa-​ta-​me-​eḫ in a damaged context (19: 187 r. 6) may be added to the evidence on uptatarris in our corpus. 55.  See also 16: 150 r. 2, broken. 56.  I.e., the deadline for the boat construction has come. 57.  Note that intransitive N-​verbs nabšû ‘emerge’, nābutu ‘flee’, and namguru ‘agree’ belong in Class V.

116

Bēl Lišāni

(61) maškanāte gabbu meḫû ibašši utassiḫ. Nišē iptalḫu adanniš. Sissê ina libbi aḫāʾiš it-​ta-​ad-​bu-​ku The storm tore off all the tents. People got very much afraid. Horses piled up together (5: 249 8′–12′) (62) ina maṣṣarti šarre libittāte šaknā. magarru? ša narkabte issēniš [it] taḫaṣ it-​tak-​sap (Yesterday, when I was coming after the king, I entered the centre of ​ Nineveh.) There were bricks at the king’s guard. At the same time, [the whe]el of the chariot hit (them and) broke (16: 25 9–11) (63) ūmu 21 ša Elūle rību irtūbu ṣēri āli gabbišu i-​ta-​am-​ri-ṭi dūru ša ṣēri āli gabbu ēteṭira 30 1/2 ammete issu libbi i-​ta-​am-​la-​aḫ ina qabassi āli ittuqut bēt ile gabbu it-​ta-[am]-riṭ uptataṣṣid There was an earthquake on the 21st of ​Elul. The outer town in its entirety was damaged (lit. “scratched”) but the whole wall of the outer city was saved; (only a stretch of ) 30.5 cubits was torn out of it and fell into the centre of the city. The temple in its entirety was dam[ag]ed and collapsed (16: 100 6–16) All these tokens of ittapras and ippiris refer to nonagentive situations. As for the rest of the N-​stem past-​time forms in the corpus, the context does not allow one to decide between a passive or a detransitive interpretation: (64) kī PN1 illikanni šēpēya iṣbatuni u emūqēa issēšu ašpuruni illikūni ina libbi PN2 im-​maḫ-ṣu-​ú-​ni qātinni ina libbi ekurrāte ina libbi ālāne lū ina libbi mēmmēni nittūbil? When PN1 came to grasp my feet and I sent my army with him, and (when) they went and for this reason PN2 was defeated / suffered a defeat, did we lay our hands on the temples, cities or anything? (21: 65 10–15) (65) [miḫ]ṣu-​ma anniu [gab]bišu ša in-​né-​piš-​u-​ni [ina] GN šū ilu [ina] qassīšu issakan akī šumī ina muḫḫīka-​ni All this [fig]hting that has been made / has happened in GN―this is (nothing but) God (himself ) has intervened [with] his bow, [beca]use my name is upon you. (21: 64 r. 6–10; cf. the nonpassive use of in-​né-​piš-​u-​ni in 10: 100 r. 2; the context is cited above.) (66) kī ṭaʾtu ta-​né-​pi-​šu-​u-​ni [un]qāte issu labiānīšunu ubtattiqū ikterrū When a bribe was made / took place, they cut off the [stam]p seals from their necks (and) threw them away. (16: 63 18–19)

How the Neo-Assyrian Verb Works

117

(67) annūrig DN1 DN2 DN3 u DN4 ilānēya ētapšū māt ḫannītu ina šapal šēpēka ta-​at-​tak-​ba-​as Thanks to my gods DN1 DN2 DN3, and DN4, this land has now been trodden / subjugated itself under your feet! (19: 152 r. 13–15).58 (68) anāku ina ḫūle at-​ta-​an-ḫa-​aṣ adanniš marṣāku On the way, I was wounded / was afflicted (by illness) and am very ill (19: 119 5–6) 4.3.2.4. Class IV Class IV consists of one single verb, našû ‘bring’. It has a transitive paris with a past-​tense meaning, and this feature singles it out as a class of its own.59 In the third person, the verb is augmented with the ventive and has the form naṣṣa60 in the singular, and naṣṣūni in the plural. For našû meaning ‘to take (with oneself )’, the past tense is ittiši, it is a Class III verb. Consider the examples for both verbs: (69) mār šipre ša Mannāye ina muḫḫīya ittalka, sissû nāmurtu ina muḫḫīa na-ṣa . . . maddattu ša Sadudāye ana GN na-ṣu-​ú-​ni attaḫar aktanak A messenger of the Mannean came to me and brought a horse as an audience gift . . . They brought the tribute of the Ashdodite to GN; I have received and sealed it (1: 29 r. 18–19, 22–23). (70) ana PN adi ṣeḫrānēšu iddūkū šalāšat manê ḫurāṣe šinā bilāt ṣarpe erbet kudinnē ešret imārē it-​ta-ṣu They killed PN and his attendants and took away three minas of gold, two talents of silver, four mules and ten donkeys (1: 244 11–14). The SC of našû with the active meaning ‘bring’ is attested in the corpus about one hundred times. Once naši is attested with a passive meaning:

58.  Cf. a NB example: mātu kī taḫḫisa ta-​at-​tak-​ba-​as u panīša ana muḫḫīya tuttīr-​ma ‘The land has retreated, subjugated itself and turned its face towards me’ (21: 18 7–9) Here the verbal chain describes an agentive situation, so the passive interpretation of tattakbas is unlikely. 59.  In 13: 154 r. 11 there occurs a SC form maḫ-ra-​ak ‘I received’, and in 13: 127 8 there occurs a SC form ka-​ši-​di ‘it has reached (here)’. This is an archaizing usage, since the meaning in question is otherwise expressed by the PC forms (attaḫar/amḫur and iktašad/ikšud). 60.  On the shape naṣṣa, see Kouwenberg 2003.

118

Bēl Lišāni Table 4.2.  Paradigm of NA Verbs with no paris Past Present Future

ittuṣi / (lā, atā) uṣi, ša uṣûni uṣṣi uṣṣi

ittalak / (lā, atā) illik, ša illikuni illak illak

(71) attunu eqlēte ša PN tapuggā.—Ayyu šu eqelšu ša PN ša ina pan šarre iqbûni mā eqlu na-​ši? ‘You are taking away the fields of PN.’—What is the field of PN about which he has said to the king, my lord: ‘The field has been taken?’ (19: 89 7–11) 4.3.2.5. Class V Class V includes intransitive verbs that do not have paris. Frequent verbs uṣû ‘to go out’ and alāku ‘to go’ illustrate Class V paradigm (table 4.2). This is a productive class. In the corpus, frequent Class V verbs are alāku ‘go’, atluku ‘go away’, galû ‘be deported’, garāru ‘writhe, grovel’, nabšû ‘emerge, appear, happen’, elû ‘ascend’, lasāmu ‘run’, maqātu ‘fall’, nabalkutu ‘cross over’, naḫrudu ‘be on one’s guard’, namguru ‘agree’, nammušu ‘to depart’, paršumu ‘grow old, outlive’, pazzuru ‘hide oneself’, raʾābu ‘shake’, raʾāmu ‘love’, rabû ‘set’ (about a celestial body), raqādu ‘dance’, ruābu ‘quake’, saḫāru ‘go around, turn’, sarruru ‘pray’, tabû ‘arise’, tamû ‘swear’, tuāru ‘turn’, urādu ‘go down’, ušābu ‘sit down’, zanānu ‘rain’, uṣû ‘to go out’. Here is an example with a few Class V verbs: (72) šalāšat līmē ṣābāne šēpē, šaknūte, rab kallāpe ša PN1 bēl pāḫete ša pūtuyya ana GN1 ú-​ta-​me-​šu RN ētabrū . . . Ša PN2 bēl pāḫete ša pūt GN2 ṣābānēšu ú-​ta-​mi-​šu-ma ana GN1. Asseme mā šarru ina libbi GN3 il-​lak udīna lā ú-​nam-​maš Three thousand foot soldiers, their prefects, and the commanders of the kallāpu troops of PN1, the governor opposite me, set out towards GN1 and crossed RN . . . The troops of PN2, the governor opposite GN2, also set out towards GN1. I have heard that the king is in GN3; he is going to go but has not yet departed (5: 88 o. 4–9, 12–r. 8). In our corpus, there are no tokens of the SC of ušābu ‘sit down, settle (intr.)’. Unlike OA with its SC forms wašab ‘he is seated, he stays’, NA exploits the SC form kammus to render this meaning.61 The earliest token of kammus with this meaning we have found appears in a MA ritual text: 61.  See above p. 103, on Class I.

How the Neo-Assyrian Verb Works

119

(73) šarra adi muḫḫi ina kussīe ina labâne naṣṣū [ina ku]sīe ša šarrutte ú-​še-​šu-​bu-​šu . . . rabiūte, ša reš šarrānu [ina pan] šarre ultanaknanū šēpē ša šarre unaššuqū [adi idal]lulūni-​ma ina muḫḫi kussīe ka-​mu-​ús They take the king there on their neck in a chair and seat him on the royal throne . . . The magnates and the royal eunuchs prostrate themselves before the king and kiss the king’s feet. [While] they [glor]ify (him), he is seated on the throne (20: 7 o. ii 48–r. iii 4). The context makes it clear that kammus means ‘he is seated’. Note that in the text there occurs a causative counterpart of kammus, ušeššubūšu ‘they make him sit down’. Thus, the verb ušābu belongs to the NA verbal class V, along with verbs of intransitive motion.

4.4. Conclusions Among the five classes of NA verbs we have singled out and described, three are productive: Class I (the basic sense of the respective verbs is static, most members of the class are intransitive, the default present is rendered by SC), Class III (transitive verbs; their past-​time passive is encoded by the respective forms of SC), Class V (intransitive verbs with a “simple” paradigm, comprising PC forms only). Classes II and IV, whose members possess dynamic nonpassive past-​time SC, are nonproductive. These two classes include fossilized relics of earlier stages of the Assyrian language. One can even label the verbs of these two classes as “irregular verbs.” We speak here of ​“relics” because in OA, an older variety of the Assyrian language, there still existed a robust group of transitive verbs with active SC tokens that possessed both cursive and past-​time (perfective) readings. The most salient examples are as follows:62 PNf aḫiz ‘he married PNf’ (AKT 8: 180 29), aklū ‘they receive fodder’ (Prag I: 718 25), darik ‘he (has) packed’ (AKT 7a: 249 30), kankat ‘she (has) sealed’ (AKT 5: 13 21), lā kašid ‘he has not received’ (CTT 4: 9a 5), nadi ‘he (has) deposited’ (AKT 6d: 871 9), qabi ‘he has promised’ (AKT 3: 64 19), šapik ‘he has deposited’ (ICK 1: 20b 4), tadnū ‘they have sold’ (OAA 1: 136 30), našʾam ‘he has brought (to where you are)’ (CCT IV: 33b 17).63 62.  For the sake of clarity, we adduce textual examples with references rather than 3ms shapes. All the SC forms of the list are not hapax legomena in the OA corpus, each of them is represented by a number of tokens. 63.  In the Kültepe correspondence, našʾam/našʾakkum is the functional equivalent of the OB “epistolary perfect.”

120

Bēl Lišāni

Thus, the NA naṣṣa ‘he brought’, the SC form of the only Class IV verb of NA, is a continuation of the OA našʾam, while the rest of the Assyrian SC active transitive SC forms did not survive into NA. Bibliography Arkhipov, Ilya, Maksim Kalinin, and Sergey Loesov. 2021. “A Historical Overview of Akkadian Morphosyntax.” Pages 228–365 in A History of the Akkadian Language. Edited by Juan-​Pablo Vita Barra. HdO I​/152​.1. Leiden: Brill. Comrie, Bernard. 1981. “Aspect and Voice: Some Reflections on Perfect and Passive.” Pages 65–78 in Tense and Aspect. Edited by Philip J. Tedeschi and Annie Zaenen. Syntax and Semantics 14. New York: Academic Press. Fales, Mario. 2021. “Neo-​Assyrian.” Pages 1347–95 in A History of the Akkadian Language. Edited by Juan-​Pablo Vita Barra. HdO I​/152​.1. Leiden: Brill. Hämeen-​Anttila, Jaakko. 2000. A Sketch of Neo-​Assyrian Grammar. SAAS 13. Helsinki: Neo-​Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Huehnergard, John. 2011. A Grammar of Akkadian. 3rd ed. HSS 45. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Kouwenberg, N. J. C. 2000. “Nouns as Verbs: The Verbal Nature of the Akkadian Stative.” Or 69:21–71. ———. 2003. “Evidence for Post-​Glottalized Consonants in Assyrian.” JCS 55:75–86. ———. 2010. The Akkadian Verb and Its Semitic Background. LANE 2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Luukko, Mikko. 2004. Grammatical Variation in Neo-​Assyrian. SAAS 16. Helsinki: Neo-​Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Parpola, Simo, ed. 2007. Assyrian-​English-​Assyrian Dictionary. Helsinki: Neo-​ Assyrian Text Corpus Project.

Chapter 5

Cognate Objects in Akkadian N. J. C. Kouwenberg

Akkadian has a number of expressions and grammatical constructions that consist of a juxtaposition of different words of the same root in a clause.1 Instances that readily come to mind are the so-​called paronomastic infinitive (alākumma īllak ‘he will definitely go’); other infinitive constructions such as ša/mala nadānim nadānum ‘to give what can/should be given, to give as much as possible’; cognate objects such as dīnam diānum ‘to pass judgment, to render a verdict’; and the combination of a participle or a verbal adjective with a verb of the same root to express an indefinite subject, mentioned at the end of section 5.5.3. In this paper I will focus on only one of these, the cognate object construction (henceforth COC), which is the most common, most varied and in some respects also most interesting one.

5.1. Cognate Object Constructions In a COC, the cognate constituents are the verb and the direct object (DO). English examples of COCs are to sing a song and to live the life. Cognate objects (CO) are a widespread phenomenon in Akkadian: at least 374 different instances 1.  In modern linguistic literature, several names have been given to this phenomenon, with some conflicting definitions as a result. The term “figura etymologica” is common, but some use this term also for the co-​occurrence of words that are in some respect similar (e.g., in shape or meaning) without being etymologically related (Clary 2009, 1–7, with discussion and earlier literature). Conversely, it has also been restricted to combinations of a verb with an abstract noun as direct object, what is here called a “cognate object construction.” The term “paronomastic,” which is traditionally applied to the Akkadian paronomastic infinitive construction (see section 5.6) is the adjectival derivation of the noun paronomasia (from Greek παρονομασία; see Clary 2009, 12–14). This would be a perfect term for referring to all kinds of cognate constructions but for the fact that in English usage it has been contaminated by the secondary meaning of word play and punning. Most dictionaries, if they include the word paronomasia at all, define it in this way, e.g., New Oxford Dictionary of ​English (1998), 1350: “a play on words, a pun.” In this meaning, it is, for instance, used by George (2016, 148b).

121

122

Bēl Lišāni

of COCs are attested—that is, if we include not just strict cases of verb plus DO (he sang a song, singing a song) but also regular syntactic transformations of a DO construction, such as the corresponding passive (a song is sung), an agent noun with a genitive (the singer of a song), an abstract noun with a genitive (the singing of a song), a relative clause of which the verb is cognate with the antecedent (the song he sang), and a noun with a cognate verbal adjective (the song sung). In recent linguistic literature, the main focus in the debate on COCs is how to account for the remarkable fact that intransitive verbs, too, can have a CO.2 Although this is also the case in Akkadian, as we will show, we will not deal with this question but attempt a general description of the use of COCs in Akkadian, which is far wider and more diverse than in most West European languages, and their main semantic and syntactic aspects.

5.2. Noun Patterns of Cognate Objects Since verb and noun in a COC derive from the same root, the nouns featuring in COCs are—almost by definition—deverbal nouns. In Semitic languages, deverbal nouns are characterized by certain vowel patterns (Fox 2003; von Soden 1995, 66–89). Most of the vowel patterns current in Akkadian include nouns that feature in COCs, but there are large differences in frequency. Table 5.1 shows the frequency of individual vowel patterns of the nouns that occur in COCs and may also give an idea of the variation and the richness of COCs in Akkadian.3 The relatively high numbers of patterns with i in the first syllable (172 in total) is doubtless related to the fact that the patterns PiRS and PiRiSt and their variants tend to be more closely associated with the verb and to denote abstract concepts more often than the patterns with a and u in the first syllable, which are generally more lexicalized and more often denote concrete objects. However, there is one pattern that clearly contradicts the correlation between the degree of abstractness and the frequency in COCs: the infinitival pattern PaRāS with its surprisingly low number of 17. Yet as the regular infinitive of the G-​stem, it is obviously more closely connected with the verb than any other pattern. We will return to PaRāS in section 5.6 and in the first instance restrict ourselves to deverbal nouns other than infinitives. 2.  See, e.g., Pereltsvaig 2001; Real Puigdollers 2008; Sailer 2010. 3.  The numbers refer to the type frequency of each individual COC and correspond to the list of COCs in the appendix (and section 5.6 as far as the infinitive is concerned). The token frequency of COCs also varies strongly but is generally very low, which is related to the fact that most of them refer to highly technical activities; see section 5.5.1.

123

Cognate Objects in Akkadian Table 5.1.  Number of COCs per Vowel Pattern as Listed in the Appendix and Section 5.6 a in 1st syll.

i in 1st syll.

u in 1st syll.

PaRS 10 PaRāS (Inf ) 17 PaRă/āSt 4 PaRSat 2 PaRīS 6 PaRiSt 10 PaRuSt 1 PāRiSt 1

PiRS 98 PiRiSS 1 iPRiS 3 PiRiSt 68 PiRSat 2

PuRS 16 PuRūS 5 PuRuSS 5 PuRuSt 13 PuRāS 11 PuRuSSāʾ 8

Extended maPRa/iS(t) taPRvS(t) Pu/aRRuS(t) šu/aPRuS(t) Other Total

44 17 8 3 23 377

Number of COCs per vowel pattern as listed in the Appendix and Section 5.6

5.3. Syntactic Aspects of COCs In Akkadian, COs do not differ syntactically from ordinary DOs. They show the usual range of syntactic transformations such as passivization (1), nominalization (2), relativization (3), “adjectivization” (4), and the possibility for the DO to take various types of modification (5), for example: (1) Passivization by means of a derived verbal stem or the stative: šumma (. . .) ina kārīšu pītum ippette if in his embankment a breach occurs (CH §53 14 and 18, OB, lit. ‘an opening is opened’, from petûm ‘to open’) butuqtum ibbattaq a breach will be made (in a dam or dyke) (YOS 10: 16 5, OB, from batāqum ‘to cut’) ší-​mu-​um ša-​im purchases have been made (CCT 3: 13 4, OA, from šaʾāmum ‘to buy’). (2) Nominalization as an infinitive or a participle, with the DO as a genitive: kīma ana miksi makāsi taprikāma that you (Pl) prevented the collection of the miksum-tax (AbB 11: 89 7–8, OB) from miksam makāsum ‘to collect the miksum-tax’

124

Bēl Lišāni

mušīm šīmātim the determiner of destinies (passim as a divine epithet, see CAD Š/1, 362b s.v. šâmu B v. 2c) from šiāmum ‘to fix, to decree’ (3) Relativization with a relative marker or the antecedent in the construct state: ana kīma gullulātīya ša ana bēlīya ugallilu for all the sins that I have committed to my lord (MARI 7, p. 188: 10 4–5, OB) from gullulum ‘to sin’ in riʾmati DN tarʾamūsu through the love which DN felt for him (RIME 2: 1.4.10 10–12, SAkk) from raʾāmum ‘to love’ ina kibis takbusu on the path you have taken (Maqlû III 93, SB) from kabāsu ‘to step upon’ (4) “Adjectivization,” in which the original DO appears as the head of an attributive verbal adjective with passive meaning: pitiqtam patiqtam a ready-​built clay wall (YOS 12: 281 16, OB) from pitiqtam patāqum ‘to build a clay wall’ kiṣrīki kuṣṣurūti your (fem) well-​tied knots (Maqlû VII: 112, SB) from kiṣra kaṣāru ‘to tie a knot’ (5) Modification by means of an adjective, a demonstrative, a numeral, and a genitive construction: [k]irṣī 14 uktarri[ṣ] she made (pinched off ?) 14 lumps of clay (Atr., p. 60 256, SB) from karāṣu D ‘to pinch off’ šipṭam annêm bēlī išpiṭ this (is the) decree (which) my lord promulgated (ARM 14: 48 10, OB) from šapāṭum ‘to issue an order’ niqī šarrūtīšu rabiam iqqi he made a large sacrifice (worthy) of ​his kingship (RIME 4: 606 48–49, OB) from naqûm ‘to sacrifice’ šūma ilikšu īllak he will perform his ilkum-duty himself (CH §27 28, OB) from ilkam alākum, see section 5.5.1

Cognate Objects in Akkadian

125

b itqēia ibtataq he has made accusations against me (KAV 201 8, MA) from bitqē batāqu Unlike most modern West European languages, 4 then, Akkadian does not impose any restrictions on the syntactic behavior of COCs. In one respect, however, there is a fundamental difference between ordinary DOs and COs: intransitive verbs can also take a CO. There are two types of intransitive verbs with a CO, which will be discussed in Sections 5.5.1 and 5.5.2. There are two additional syntactic aspects of COCs that should be mentioned here. First, some COCs can take an ordinary DO in addition to the CO, apparently as a kind of specification of the meaning of the verb:5 ušallāte ša GN mikru umakker I irrigated the flatlands of the Tigris (Iraq 14: 33 38, SB) from makāru ‘to irrigate’ eqel tamirti (. . .) pilku upallik I subdivided the meadowland (. . .) into plots (RINAP 3/1, p. 39 88, SB) from palāku ‘to demarcate’6 Second, in addition to passivization, several COCs can be made intransitive by means of a “cognate subject construction” (CSC), in which the DO accusative is replaced by a subject nominative without changing the verb into a passive. From bitqam batāqum ‘to make/cause a breach’, for instance, we find a passive/ intransitive COC bitqum ibbattaq ‘a breach is forming/will be formed’ with the regular passive/intransitive N-​stem, but also bitqum ibtuq ‘a breach has formed’, where the G-​stem is maintained but used intransitively:

4.  On the nature and use of COCs in these languages, see, e.g., the literature mentioned in n. 2. 5.  When such COCs are passivized, the CO keeps its accusative in some cases and becomes nominative in others. In passive instances of OA šīmam šaʾāmum, šīmum is always nominative: lu-​qú-​tám ša tamkārem ší-​mu-​um šaʾim ‘the merchandise of the tamkārum has been purchased’ (kt n/k 1334 21–23), where the actual DO luqūtam is accusative (if we may trust that DAM has its usual value of rather than the rarer value ), and mimma a-​NIM ší-​mu-​um šaʾim ‘all this has been bought’ (TC 1: 28 12–13), where the case of mimma is invisible; see GOA §21.2.1. In inūmīšu ši-​iḫ-ṭà-​am gal iš-​ša-ḫi-ṭú ‘that same day they will be raided (in) a big raid’ (ARM 1: 83 38–39, OB), the actual DO becomes the subject but the CO keeps its accusative. Conversely, the CO keeps the nominative in: (a field) ša pí-​tum ip-​pé-​et-​tu-​ú ‘that will be opened (for cultivation)’ (RA 85: 19 no. 8 15, OB), perhaps because of the relative construction. The issue merits a further investigation. 6.  In texts from this period, the nominative may also serve as DO case (GAG §63e), hence mikru and pilku.

126

Bēl Lišāni

bi-​it-[qum] ib-​ba-​at-​ta-​aq (ARM 14: 13 52–53, see CAD B, 278a s.v. bitqu 2, OB) ištu ud.6.kam ša bi-​it-​qum annûm ib-​tu-​qú it is six days ago that this breach has formed (FM 16, p. 322 no. 7 5–6, OB) Similar cases are šiḫṭum išḫiṭ ‘a raid took place’ from šaḫāṭum ‘to raid, to  attack’: šeḫṭum ša Sutî ina libbu mātim išḫiṭ a raid of the Sutaeans took place in the middle of the country (Semitica 58, p. 47 PM 203 4–6, OB) alongside the passive instance quoted in note 5, and pilšum ipluš a hole has broken through (YOS 10: 26 ii 35, OB) from pilšam palāšum ‘to drill a hole’ An instance with an (originally) intransitive verb comes from maqātu ‘to fall’: the COC muquttâ maqātu ‘to lodge a claim’ can be made intransitive by means of a CVC muquttû imaqqut: PN1 ina muḫḫi PN2 muquttâ imqut PN1 lodged a claim against PN2 (UET 7: 15 5–6, MB) muquttû eli amēli imaqqut a claim will come upon a man (KAR 153 15, SB) In other cases, a COC with a transitive D-​stem corresponds to an intransitive counterpart with the G-​stem: takšītum ikašši ‘there will be profit’ (Kraus, Texte 2a r. 41 and 5:1, see CAD K, 294b s.v. kašû B 1, SB) versus takšītam kuššûm ‘to make a profit’ and qutru iqattur ‘smoke is rising’ (CAD Q, 166b s.v. qatāru 1, SB) versus qutra qutturu ‘to send up smoke’; see the appendix for references for the COCs.

Cognate Objects in Akkadian

127

5.4. Semantic Aspects of COCs According to the definition of COCs given above, the only criterion for a COC is root identity of verb and DO. However, for a meaningful description of COCs and a proper understanding of their distinctive characteristics (and interesting aspects), this purely formal criterion is to be supplemented with a semantic one: the CO of a typical COC must be an event noun, that is, a noun that is the substantival expression of the meaning of the verb, such as English (a) laugh, (a) fight. Thus it must have abstract rather than concrete meaning. The difference between such COCs and those with a concrete noun as DO may best be illustrated by comparing two actual COCs: ak(a)lam akālum ‘to eat bread’ and šurqam šarāqum ‘to steal, to commit a theft’. ak(a)lum ‘bread’ is a concrete noun and denotes a concrete individuated entity that exists independently of the verbal predicate of which it is part.7 In ak(a)lam akālum, the link between ak(a)lum and akālum is accidental: each of them can be substituted by parallel concepts without affecting the meaning of the other, for example, ak(a)lam by šīram ‘meat’ and akālum by epûm ‘to bake’. Grammatically, this link is no more relevant than the etymological background of a word in general.8 šurqam šarāqum, on the other hand, is a typical COC. First, šurqum is an abstract noun and therefore different from the concrete nouns that are the usual DOs of šarāqum.9 Second, the combination of šurqum with šarāqum expresses the absolute concept of stealing without specifying a direct object: ‘to steal’ or ‘to commit a theft’. Thus noun and verb have been welded together into a new unified concept that affects the meaning of ​both parts. Therefore, the link between verb and DO is not only etymological but also actual in that it cements the connection and fills the syntactic slot of the (in principle obligatory) direct object.

7.  Even though it may once have been an internal object, if ak(a)lum is originally an abstract derivation of akālum ‘to eat’, before the lexicalization process that restricted its meaning to a specific type of food. (It is also conceivable that akālum is a denominal verb derived from ak(a)lum.) See on this phenomenon Clary 2009, 52–54. 8.  Other instances include šipram šapārum ‘to send an envoy’, agram agārum ‘to hire a worker’ and luqūtam laqāʾum ‘to receive/obtain merchandise’ (all OA). In a similar way, Horrocks and Stavrou (2010, 285–87) exclude transitive verbs with direct objects “that happen to be morphologically cognate” from his discussion of COs in ancient and modern Greek, since they show no special properties distinct from noncognate DOs. 9.  šurqum may have the concrete meaning of ​‘stolen object, stolen goods’ besides ‘theft’, but ‘to steal something stolen’ will hardly ever be the intended meaning of šurqam šarāqum, just as šāgišum išaggissu will hardly ever mean ‘a murderer will murder him’; see the end of section 5.5.3.

128

Bēl Lišāni

Another term often employed in this context is that of ​“inner” (or “internal”) object. Goldenberg (1998, 186) defines an inner object as “nothing but a substantival actualization of the bare verbal lexeme,” and argues that it is only formally an accusative object rather than a real complement or argument of the predicate (2013, 167).10 There is some inconsistency in the ways the terms “inner object” and “cognate object” are used in general linguistics. In particular, the term “cognate object” is also applied to inner objects that are not morphologically cognate. Mittwoch (1998, 312–33), for instance, states that in a COC “an event nominal occurs together with a lexical verb to which it is semantically and in most cases also morphologically related” (italics mine).11 It seems that, at least for Akkadian (or Semitic in general), this confusion can easily be avoided by classifying COs as a subcategory of inner objects on the basis of root identity. For instance, awātum ‘word’ is an inner object in awātam qabûm ‘to speak a word’ but a CO in awātam atwûm (with the same meaning). However, it is doubtless a privileged subcategory in that the link between verb and DO is underlined and strengthened by the fact that they are cognate.

5.5. Types and Functions of COCs From a functional point of view, we can broadly distinguish the following types of COCs in Akkadian, which we will discuss one by one: 1. 2. 3. 4.

empty verb COCs (Section 5.5.1) modifying COCs (Section 5.5.2) COCs that express indefinite or generic constituents (Section 5.5.3) periphrastic COCs (Section 5.5.4)

The empty verb COCs are by far the most common type and contrast with the other three types in that they form a purely lexical category in which the COC does not have a clear semantic or syntactic function. The boundaries between the functions are fuzzy and there is a large degree of overlap. In particular, a given COC can have different functions depending on whether the cognate object is modified or unmodified. 10.  See also Clary 2009, 14. 11.  Mittwoch (1998, 312) admits that “the term cognate object is actually a bit of a misnomer,” since “morphological cognateness between the verb and the object noun is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition” for COCs, since it includes morphologically cognate verb-​noun combinations that are not “good” COCs (build a tall building, i.e., COCs with concrete nouns) and excludes morphologically noncognate verb-​noun combinations such as strike a blow and fight a battle, which show at least part of the features of genuine COCs (i.e., which are “inner objects” according to Goldenberg’s definition).

Cognate Objects in Akkadian

129

A second important distinction that cross-​cuts the functional one is that between modified and unmodified COCs, for example: niqī šarrūtīšu rabiam iqqi ‘he made a large sacrifice (worthy) of ​his kingship’ quoted in section 5.3 sub (5) versus ana 4 šārī at-​ta-​qi ni-​qa-​a ‘I sacrificed to the four corners of the world’ (Gilg., p. 712 157, tr. A. R. George). Both types are common (see, e.g., the instances quoted in section 5.3), but unmodified COCs mainly belong to the empty verb COCs of section 5.5.1 and the COCs for indefinite or generic constituents of section 5.5.3.12 5.5.1. Empty Verb COCs The most common type of COC in Akkadian is represented by cognate verb/ noun combinations that denote the performance of an activity that is basically expressed by a noun.13 The cognate verb here denotes the performance of this activity and is equivalent to an empty verb with little meaning of its own, like epēšum ‘to make, to do’. A typical and well-​known instance is the expression ilkam alākum ‘to perform the ilkum-duty’. ilkum is doubtless a PiRS derivation of alākum ‘to go, to come’ but has developed a very specific technical meaning in a way that is not easy to retrieve.14 In order to express the performance of this duty, the source verb alākum was pressed into service, which degraded it to an empty verb deprived of its own meaning (‘to go, to come’) and valency (intransitive): alākum ‘to go, to come’ → ilkum ‘act of going, course’ or the like → ilkum ‘ilkum-duty’ → ilkam alākum ‘to perform the ilkum-duty’.15 The DO of an empty verb COC is often unmodified, but if required it has all the semantic and syntactic options of normal DOs. Additionally, empty verbs 12.  This forms a striking contrast with the unmodified COCs studied by Shachmon and Marmorstein (2018) in a Rural Palestinian dialect. Here, “the core function of all UCCs [= unmodified COCs, NJCK] is to lay focus on a semantic feature of the verbal event and to exhaust its semantic potential, thus indicating that the event is carried out to its utmost effectiveness.” (pp. 58–59, emphasis original). Accordingly, they typically occur “in all types of discourse in which speakers wish to communicate their highly emotional and agitated stance” (56). For Akkadian, there are no indications that unmodified COCs are ever used for this purpose. 13.  For parallel phenomena in Hebrew, see Mittwoch 1998, 316; Goldenberg 2013, 169. For a discussion of ancient Greek parallels, see Clary 2009, 26–29, 65–71. 14.  For attempts to explain the semantic relationship between alākum and ilkum, see CAD I/J, 80 s.v. ilku A, disc. sect. and Lafont 1998, esp. pp. 539–41. 15.  There is a certain overlap between the use of a COC and that of epēšum ‘to make, to do’, as demonstrated by the alternation of, e.g., niqiam naqûm and niqiam epēšum ‘to perform a sacrifice’ (CAD N/2, 252–59 s.v. niqû and E 214b s.v. epēšu 2c niqê), šīmam šâmum and šīmam epēšum ‘to make purchases’ in OB (CAD Š/3, 3 s.v. šīmātu b and c), and minūta manû and minūta epēšu ‘to count’ in SB (CAD M/2, 99b s.v. minûtu 2b). Generally speaking, however, there seems to be a division of tasks between the use of epēšum and that of COC: a cursory survey of the list of direct objects of epēšu in CAD E, 201–25 shows very little overlap with COCs. A clear instance of semantic differentiation is awātam epēšum ‘to perform an act’ vs. awātam atawwum ‘to speak a word’ in OA.

130

Bēl Lišāni

that are originally intransitive do not require an obligatory modification, unlike the intransitive verbs with a COC listed in section 5.5.2. Empty verb COCs differ fundamentally from the other types of COCs in the nature of the relationship between noun and verb: whereas in the latter it is the verb that selects a cognate noun to form a COC, in the empty verb COCs it is the noun that selects the cognate verb. It is essentially a lexical category in which the COC does not have a semantic or syntactic function. The mechanism that gave rise to empty verb COCs is shown most clearly by instances like ilkam alākum, where the difference in meaning and valency between the empty verb and the source verb is manifest. Similar cases are:16 • awītam awāʾum ‘to calculate the value of a shipment’ (OA, cf. awāʾum ‘to become’)17 (5) • kispam kasāpum ‘to perform the kispum-rite, to present a funerary offering’ (cf. kasāpum ‘to break into bits’) (1C) • liqtam laqātum ‘to  impose a liqtum-tax’ (cf.  laqātum ‘to  gather up, to glean’) (2) • miḫram maḫārum ‘to build a weir’ (cf. maḫārum ‘to receive, to appeal to, to confront’)18 (3) • kinšu kanāšu ‘to build an incline for shedding rain water’ (cf. kanāšu ‘to bow down, to submit’, intrans.) (4) • kubussê kabāsu ‘to set up regulations’ (cf. kabāsum ‘to step on, to trample’) (5) • merdīta redû ‘to make a merdītu-offering’ (cf. redûm ‘to follow, to accompany’) (1A) • muquttâ maqātu ‘to lodge a claim’ (cf. maqātum ‘to fall’, intrans.) (5) • ridūtam redûm ‘to take possession of sb’s inheritance’ (cf. redûm ‘to follow, to accompany’) (5) • kupram kapārum ‘to smear with bitumen’ (cf. kapārum ‘to rub, to wipe off, to purify’) (4) • ḫuṣṣa ḫaṣāṣu ‘to erect a reed hut’ (cf. ḫaṣāṣu ‘to snap off, to break’) (4) • bitqē batāqu G and D ‘to make an accusation’ (cf. batāqu ‘to cut off’) (5). In these cases, the relationship between the source verb and its use as an empty verb is problematic: we may hesitate as to whether the empty verb is derived

16.  For references, see the appendix and, more generally, the dictionaries. The numbers in brackets refer to the semantic fields distinguished in the list at the end of this section. 17.  See Kouwenberg 2008, 171–73. 18.  The meaning ‘weir, barrage’ for miḫrum (or meḫrum) doubtless goes back to the basic meaning ‘front’ of the root MḪR, hence ‘what is in front’.

Cognate Objects in Akkadian

131

from the cognate object noun and thus denominal, or whether it is still the source verb invested with an idiomatic meaning.19 In most other cases, the difference in meaning between the source verb and the empty verb is more subtle. In the COC bīra barû ‘to perform divination’, for instance, barû may seem to have its usual meaning ‘to see, to inspect’ at first glance. However, what the performer of a divination inspects is not the bīrum, the (act of ) divination, itself ​but the entrails of the sacrificial animal. Thus barû is an empty verb that enables bīru ‘divination’ to be used as the DO of a clause. A more complex case is tebûm ‘to rise, to stand up’ in tibūtam tebûm ‘to set out, to launch an attack’: it may be a COC with an empty verb based on tibūtum ‘departure, attack’, but since tebûm by itself can mean ‘to attack’ as well, it may also belong to one of the other types.20 Since the identification of empty verb COCs depends on this kind of considerations, it is difficult to distinguish them clearly from other types of COCs. Generally speaking, the likeliness that we have to do with an empty verb COC is greater as the meaning of the source verb is more divergent from that of the source verbs in meaning and in the kind of DO it takes. However, it seems plausible that many COCs that do not clearly have one of the other functions to be discussed in the next sections do actually belong to this type. At the other end of the scale we find COCs whose verb preserves its own meaning and is modified or specified in one respect or another by the CO, such as dīnam diānum ‘to pass judgment, to give a decision’, niqiam naqûm ‘to perform a sacrifice’, milkam malākum ‘to give advice; to make a decision’, and countless others. They tend to show one of the three functions to be discussed in the next sections. Most instances of empty verb COCs are technical terms, especially from the semantic fields of religion (prayers, sacrifices, and rituals), administration (especially taxes, payments, and duties), engineering (building and water works), military activities, law and social customs, and agriculture. In addition to the ones already mentioned above, the following is a selection arranged according to the semantic field: religion and ritual (1), taxes and social obligations (2), water management and agriculture (3), building (4), trade, economy, and law (5):21 19.  Since the degree of difference is a gradual scale in which no cutting-​off point is easy to discern, for all practical purposes it seems preferable to regard these empty verbs as special uses of the source verb rather than classifying them as separate verbs. This is actually what Akkadian dictionaries tend to do. 20.  For tebû ‘to attack’, see CAD T, 313–14 s.v. tebû v. 4a. tibūtam tebû is quoted in CAD T, 391a s.v. tibûtu 1a–1′: bēlī ti-​bu-​tam ana GN i-​te-​eb-​bé-​em ‘my lord will set out for GN’ (a “periphrastic” COC) and also occurs in ARM 26/2: 203 no. 385 15′: balum ilim ti-​bu-​tam an-⸢ni⸣-[tam] ul et-​bé-​ e-​em ‘I have not carried out this attack without (the consent of ) the god’ (a modificatory COC). 21.  For a full list (but not arranged according to semantic field) and references, see the appendix.

132

Bēl Lišāni

(1) Religion and ritual: A. Expressions for offering prayers and sacrifices: • nīša našû in nīš qāti našû ‘to recite a prayer’ (SB) • muḫra and muḫḫura muḫḫuru and šumḫuru ‘to offer a special kind of prayer’ (SB) • qutra and qutrīna qutturu and šuqturu ‘to send up smoke’ (MB, SB, NA) B. Ritual activities: • bikītam bakûm ‘to hold a mourning ceremony’ (SB) • ḫupê ḫuppû ‘to prepare wood shavings’ (SB) • nissata nasāsu ‘to perform a lament’ (SB) • tirṣa tarāṣu ‘to prepare a ritual’ (CAD T, 428b s.v. tirṣu 3a, SB) C. Other religious activities: • ḫu/amūsam ḫamāsum ‘to erect a ḫu/amūsum-stele’ (OB) • piširta pašāru ‘to perform an exorcism’ (SB) • taklimta kullumu ‘to display the body (as a funeral ceremony)’ (NA) (2) Taxes and social obligations:22 • ilkam alākum ‘to perform the ilkum-duty’ (passim) • nusāḫe nasāḫu ‘to levy the nusāḫu-tax’ (SB, NA) • miksam makāsum ‘to collect the miksum-tax’ (OB, MB, NA, NB) • šibšam šabāšum ‘to levy the šibšum-tax’ (passim) • šaddūʾatam nadāʾum ‘to pay the šadduʾătum-tax’ and š. šadduʾum ‘to levy the š.-tax’ (OA) • nisḫātim nasāḫum ‘to levy import tax’ (OA) • nūpta nâpu ‘to make an additional payment’ (NB) (3) COCs referring to water management and agriculture: • bitqam and butuqtam batāqum ‘to cause a breach’ (OB, SB) • kisirta kesēru ‘to build or reinforce a dam or embankment’ (SB) • kudurra kadāru ‘to draw a boundary, to set up a boundary stone’ (MB, SB) • mišiḫta mašāḫu ‘to measure; to survey (an area)’ (SB) • pītam petûm ‘to make an opening’ (OB, MB) • šukunnâm šakānum ‘to estimate the yield of the date harvest’ (OB) • taptâ puttû ‘to prepare land for cultivation’ (NB) (4) COCs referring to building: • libittam labānum ‘to make bricks’ (passim) • pitiqtam patāqum ‘to construct or maintain a wall’ (OB, SB) 22.  The large number of different cognate verbs for the imposing of taxes and other obligations, so that almost every tax has its own concomitant verb, suggests that these verbs are chosen on the basis of the noun, although this is hard to prove for each individual case.

Cognate Objects in Akkadian

133

• uṣurtam eṣērum and uṣṣurum ‘to draw a line, to lay out a plan’ (OB, SB) • tamliam mullûm ‘to make a landfill, to build a terrace (by filling up earth)’ (OB, SB) (5) COCs referring to activities related to trade, economy and law: • ridûtam redûm ‘to take possession of sb’s inheritance’ (OB, SB) • tēlītu elû and šūlû ‘to disburse’ (NB) • iṣurtam eṣārum ‘to draw up an iṣurtum-document’ (OA) • iʾilta eʾēlu ‘to put an obligation upon’ (SB) • takšītam kuššûm ‘to make a profit’ (OA, OB) • šipṭam šapāṭum ‘to issue a decree’ (OB) (6) COCs referring to military activities: • šiḫṭam šaḫāṭum A ‘to carry out an attack, a razzia’ (OB) • dîkta dâku ‘to inflict a defeat’ (SB, NB) • kišitta kašādu ‘to make a conquest’ (SB) • tamlītam mullûm ‘to replace (troops)’ (OB) 5.5.2. Modifying COCs In a modifying COC, the CO has the function of serving as a prop to attach an adjective or a genitive, which actually modifies the verb or the predicate as a whole in the same way as an adverb or an adverbial phrase. This is similar to the English expression to live a happy life as an alternative to to live happily and virtually the only function that is attributed to the rare COCs in West European languages. In this type, the presence of a modification is essential: it is the raison d’être of the COC, in contrast to the other three types, where a modification is optional. In Akkadian (as in other Semitic languages),23 it is not uncommon but is far less common than empty verb COCs. It is attested with a few transitive verbs (where it leads to a double accusative) but is more common with intransitive verbs. (1) Transitive verbs with this type of COC are: • izzera nazāru ‘to curse’, e.g., luzzurki izzera rabâ I will curse you (Fem) with a great curse (Gilg., p. 298 12, MB) • erretam arārum ‘to curse’, e.g., errētim anniātim DN (. . .) līruršu may DN curse him with these curses (CH LI 84–89, OB) 23.  See, for instance, Pereltsvaig 2001; Mittwoch 1998; Reckendorf 1909, 100–126.

134

Bēl Lišāni

• miḫṣa maḫāṣu ‘to hit’, e.g., ina uṣṣi šiltaḫi miḫiṣ lā nablaṭi amḫassū(ma) with the shot of an arrow I hit him with a hit from which there is no recovery (RINAP 4, p. 185 40–41, SB) • dabābta dabābu ‘to speak word(s)’ in dabābti surrāti idbubū they spoke words of deceit (Streck Asb. 12 i 120, SB) more often dabāba dabābu, see section 5.6 below • ṣibtētu ṣabātu ‘to imprison’ in gabbi nâši ṣibtētu bīšētu ṣabtāni we have all been held in grievous imprisonment (BIN 1: 36 29–30, NB) (2) COCs of this type with intransitive verbs are: • mūtam mâtum ‘to die’ in mūt šîmtim mâtum ‘to die a natural death’, lit. ‘a death of destiny’, e.g., mūt šīmtīšu imât he will die a natural death (MDP 57: 4 17, OB Susa) mūt ilīšu imât he will die ‘the death of ​his god’ (CUSAS 18: 12 69, OB)24 • ṣūḫa ṣâḫu ‘to laugh’ in ṣūḫ lā pakki iṣṣenīḫ he laughs all the time without reason (TDP 178 6, SB) • murṣam marāṣum ‘to be(come) ill, to contract a certain illness’, e.g., rubûm murṣam dannam imarraṣ the prince will contract a serious illness (CT 44: 37 r. 15, OB) muruṣ râmi maruṣ he is love-​sick (TDP, p. 178 7, SB) • zībtam zuābum ‘to sweat, to toil’ in the meaning ‘to be very worried’, e.g., zībtakna azūab I am very worried about you (Fem Pl) (AKT 6D: 788 19–20, OA, lit. ‘I exude sweat for your sake’) 24.  See George’s comments (2013, 65–66) about the meaning of this phrase.

Cognate Objects in Akkadian

135

• tallakta alāku ‘to go’ in tallakti kušīri īllak he will experience good fortune (CCT 38: 38 50, SB’) also with la kušīri ‘bad fortune’ ibid. 51, and with alakti (lā) kušīri ibid. 37–38 with the same meaning;25 also in alkakāte attanallak ša šarrūtu I constantly behave like a king (Streck, Asb. 256–58 i 26, lit. ‘I constantly walk along the paths of ​ kingship’) • manzāzam and muzzāzam uzuzzum ‘to stand in a certain position’ in (two bison) mu-​za-​az!(sign IM) šadu uqnîm izzazzū are standing on a mountain of ​lapis lazuli (CUSAS 18: 2 r. 14′, OB) (the moon) manzāza kīni izzāz stands in a stable position (SAA 8: 330 r. 6, NA) • šazzuztam izizzum ‘to act as someone’s agent’ (OA) from izizzum ‘to stand’, e.g., abūkunu šazzuzti abīa izzīz your (Pl) father acted as my father’s agent (CCT 1: 45 5–6 [= EL 245], OA)26 Other intransitive verbs in a COC belong to the empty verbs discussed in section 5.5.1. 5.5.3. COCs to Express Indefinite and Generic Constituents A function shared by many COCs is that of expressing the absolute use of a transitive verb (i.e., there is no explicit direct object) or an indefinite direct object (‘someone, something, things’).27 The cognate object takes the place of the unexpressed direct object. Unlike the modifying COCs, in such cases, the CO is often unmodified. Here belong instances such as: 25.  Note, however, that alākum may take an accusative of the road along which one goes. 26.  šazzuztum is the verbal noun belonging to the Š-​stem. Its combination with the G-​stem izizzum ‘to stand (up)’ is due to the fact that šazzuztam izizzum is secondarily derived from šazzuztam šazzuzum ‘to appoint sb as one’s agent’. A similar case may be šadduʾatam nadāʾum ‘to pay the šadduʾătum-tax’ as compared to šadduʾatam šadduʾum ‘to impose the šadduʾătum-tax’; see GOA §21.2.5 with n. 9. 27.  So already Buccellati 1996, 365. Here, too, the difference from COCs with concrete objects (see section 5.4) is telling: šurqam šarāqum is ‘to steal something’ but ak(a)lam akālum is not ‘to eat something’ but ‘to eat bread’.

136

Bēl Lišāni

• šurqam šarāqum ‘to commit a theft’, e.g., kīma šurqam ina GN išriqūma ikšudūšu because he had committed a theft in GN and they had caught him (UCP 10: 159 no. 91 15–16, OB) • nêrtam nêrum ‘to commit a murder’, e.g., nêrtam ana nâri ina maḫri illakū they go in front in order to murder (CT 16, 19:47, SB) • ḫīṭam ḫaṭûm ‘to make a fault, to sin’, e.g., ḫīṭu ḫeṭi an error has been made (CT 22: 200 29, NB) • ḫubtam ḫabātum ‘to commit a robbery, to plunder’, e.g., nakru ḫubtam iḫabbat the enemy will take booty (CT 28: 37 K. 798 8, SB) • iḫzam aḫāzum ‘to be trained, educated’, e.g., iḫzam īḫḫazū they are being trained (as scribes or the like) (FM 1, p. 53 23, OB) • Š ‘to train’, e.g., bēlī ṣuḫārê šunūti iḫzam lišāḫiz let my lord give these youngsters a training (FM 1, p. 54 29) • šīmam šaʾāmum ‘to make purchases’, see section 5.3 sub (1). Here one might also include COCs such as niqiam naqûm ‘to perform a sacrifice’ (cf. ‘to sacrifice something’), dīnam diānum ‘to pass judgment, to give a decision’, gamram gamārum ‘to incur expenses’ (OA), tablu tabālu (also D) ‘to take away stolen goods, to steal things’, when their cognate object is unmodified and nonreferential. If a CO in this type of COC has a modification (mostly an adjective or a genitive), it becomes a modifying COC: ḫīṭu dannu (. . .) aḫtiṭi I committed a serious crime (SAA 16: 36 3′, NA) šumma nêrta[m] rabīta[m] la enêr(ma) if ​I have not committed a grievous murder (AbB 14: 208 32–34, OB)

Cognate Objects in Akkadian

137

šallat lā nībi išlulam it (the army) carried off a spoil without number (Lie Sar. p. 62 5, SB) nakru ḫubutka iḫabbat the enemy will steal loot from you (CUSAS 18: 36 ii 11′, tr. George, MB) The use of a COC to express an indefinite DO is a manifestation of a wider use of cognate constructions in Akkadian, such as the generalizing use of the infinitive after ša and mala mentioned above, and the combination of a participle or a verbal adjective with a verb of the same root to express an indefinite subject, as in šāgišu išaggissu ‘someone will murder him’ (KAR 395 r. ii 24, SB), šālium iṣṣēr bēt abīa la išalla ‘let nobody do harm to my father’s house/firm’ (OA), and—with a verbal adjective—mītu imât ‘someone will die’ (Or. 32, p. 384 15, OB); see Mayer 1989, 146 n. 1. 5.5.4. COCs as a Periphrasis of ​Transitive Predicates In some verbs, a cognate object + gen. serves as a periphrasis of an ordinary DO. Sometimes the COC has a specialized meaning (as in dîkta dâku), but in other cases (such as da/ilīlī dalālu) the reason is not obvious but is perhaps stylistic: • da/ilīlī (always Pl.) dalālu ‘to praise, to glorify’, e.g., dalīlī ša šarri bēlīya ladlul I will sing the praise of the king, my lord (SAA 16: 31 r. 2′–3′, NA), which seems equivalent to dalālum + DO • dîkta dâku ‘to inflict a defeat’, e.g., dîktušu lā tadukkāni you (Pl) will not inflict a defeat on him (SAA 2: 6 [p. 41] 314, oath, NA); cf. dâku ‘to beat, to kill’ • ša/illatam šalālum ‘to sack, to plunder, to take captives/booty’, e.g., šal-​la-​su-​nu ana lā mīna lu áš-​lu-​ul I took booty from them without number (RIMA 2: 43 48, Royal Inscription of Tiglath-​pileser I), cf. without the cognate object: nišē (. . .) alpē u ṣēnī ana la mīnam áš-​lu-​lam(-ma) people, oxen and sheep without number I carried off (RINAP 3/1, p. 174 21, SB) • esiktam esēkum ‘to assign, to make planning’, e.g., e-​si-​ik-​ti dêšim nēsik

138

Bēl Lišāni

we have made the work plan for threshing (ARM 6: 23 8, see FM 2, p. 36, OB), cf. esēkum ‘to assign’ • šipka šapāku ‘to heap up earth’, e.g., (the temple on which) šipik baṣṣi rabûti elīšu iš-​šap-​ku(-ma) big heaps of sand had been heaped (CT 34: 27 i 44–45, SB), cf. without šipku: (the temple in which) baṣṣa iš-​šá-​ap-​ku(-ma) sand had been heaped up (VAB 4: 96 i 15, SB)

5.6. Infinitives in COCs and the “Paronomastic Infinitive” As already pointed out in section 5.2, COCs with an infinitive as DO are uncommon in Akkadian.28 This is remarkable since its close association with the verb and its partly verbal syntax would seem to make the infinitive the first candidate to be used in a COC. I have only found seventeen instances of infinitives of G-​ stem (pattern PaRāS) and one of the D-​stem (ḫalluqum, see below). However, most of these are infinitives that are strongly nominalized and have actually developed to fully fledged nouns. They can be recognized, for instance, from the fact that—unlike real infinitives—they can be modified by an attributive adjective, a demonstrative pronoun or a relative clause, or that they can have a plural. Most of them are listed as substantives separately from the verb in the dictionaries. The following COCs belong to this type:29 • apālum ‘to answer’ → ‘answer’: a-​pa-​lam annêm PN āpul ‘I gave PN that answer’ (but with regard to content more accurately ‘that is the answer I gave . . .’) (ARM 33: 54–55 no. 14 22–23, OB) • balāṭum ‘to live’ → ‘life’: balāṭ bītīka lu balṭāta may you share in the prosperity of your household (AbB 14: 141 47–48, tr. K. R. Veenhof, OB) • dabābum ‘to speak’ → ‘talk, speech, complaint’: dabābšu anniam ša ina ūmīšu idbubu 28.  In practice, this always concerns the infinitive of the G-​stem PaRāS, with the exception of the D infinitive ḫalluqum quoted below in this section. 29.  For the sake of ​brevity, each infinitive is followed by only one example, preferably from OB.

Cognate Objects in Akkadian

this word of ​his which he spoke in his days (CT 4: 1 13, OB) • epēšum ‘to make, to do’ → ‘action, deed’: e-​pé-​šum ša tēpušannī the deed that you did to me (AbB 9: 239 5, OB) • eṣēdum ‘to harvest’ → ‘harvest’: eṣēdam ul īṣṣid (if ) he does not harvest (JCS 13: 107 no. 7 5, OB) • karābu ‘to pray’ → ‘prayer’: karābī kīma maḫrimma ana DN ikarrab he pronounces the same prayers to DN as before (BRM 4, 7:19, SB) • nadānum ‘to give’ → ‘gift’ (pl. nadānātum): libbū nadān ša (. . .) innandinu according to the deliveries that are to be made (PBS 2/1: 111 7, NB) • qabûm ‘to speak’ → ‘word, utterance’: qabâm anummiam ula iqbi he did not speak that word (IPLA no. 9 (IM 49534) 14–15, OB) • râmum ‘to love’ → ‘love’: râm ayyāli 7-šú râm make love (to me) 7 times with the love of a stag (Šà.zi.ga, p. 26 5, SB) • šapārum ‘to send, to write’ → ‘message’: bēlī šapāram annêm išpuram my lord sent this message to me (ARM 2: 55 9, OB) • šaṭārum ‘to write’ → ‘copy, text’: šaṭāru šanâ ina šapal šaṭāri maḫrâ šaṭir a second text is written beneath the earlier text (RA 67: 150 25–26, NB) • zamārum ‘to sing’ → ‘song’: zamār dBēlet-​ilī azammar let me sing a song about Bēlet-​ilī (CT 15: 1 i 1, OB) With the exception of eṣēdum, they are all modifying.

139

140

Bēl Lišāni

The number of ​“genuine” infinitives in COCs is very small: I have found the following instances, mainly in CAD: • alākum ‘to go, to come’: alāk naḫrārim ana GN ittalak he went to GN to bring help (Archi, Pomponio, and Stol 1999, p. 80 Ao 8 9–11; sim. AbB 6: 93 16 and 25, both OB) and KAR 62 7 quoted below sub erēbu • erēbum ‘to come in, to enter’: erēb būlim i-​ru-​ab it (the disease) comes in the coming in of cattle, i.e., ‘when the cattle come in’ (Farber 2018, p. 193 A. 633 12, see Farber 2018, 193–95, OB, cf. waṣûm; āllakka alāk ilūti ērrabakka erēb šarrūti I will come to you like (lit. ‘(with) the coming of’) a god, I will enter with you like a king (KAR 62 7, SB, see Aro 1961, 108) • erēšu ‘to cultivate’: erēša maḫrâ kī īrišū when they cultivated (the field) for the first time (BE 17: 11 4, MB) • ṣalālu ‘to sleep’: ša ṣalāl sarrāti ṣallu ‘he who sleeps a sleep of falsehood’ (Langdon, BL no. 208 18, SB), i.e., ‘who feigns sleep’ • waṣûm ‘to go/come out’ wa-ṣú būlim IṢ-ṣí it (the disease) goes out when the cattle go out (Farber 2018, 193 A. 633 12, see Farber 2018, 193–95, OB, cf. erēbum) • ḫalāqum D ‘to ruin’: ḫalluqam rabiam tuḫallaqannī you are ruining me completely (Prag I: 680 20–21, OA, lit. ‘a great ruining’) All of these are modifying. The final instance is truly remarkable: it is the only non-​G infinitive I have found in a COC, and although a “genuine” infinitive (there is no semantic or syntactic trace of its use other than as an infinitive), it is modified by an attributive adjective. An (at least partial) explanation for the rarity of infinitives in COCs may be the fact that cognate infinitives usually have a quite different function, even though this primarily concerns the nominative. I am referring to the so-​called

Cognate Objects in Akkadian

141

paronomastic infinitive: an infinitive in the nominative with or without -ma directly preceding a finite form of the same verb; only a negation can come between them; see GAG §150a and especially Cohen 2003–4.30 It serves to add emphasis to the predicate or to topicalize it: it emphatically expresses the occurrence or nonoccurrence of a situation, in particular in cases where this is (implicitly or explicitly) questioned or denied, as in: sanāqumma ul isniqam he has definitely not arrived (AbB 13: 114 18–19, OB, tr. W. van Soldt) awīlû (. . .) damāqumma damqū the men (. . .) are very good indeed! (ARM 4: 34 12–14, OB) Therefore, it is fundamentally different in function from the COC discussed here, which does not have anything to do with topicalization or emphasis. However, the accusative of the infinitive behaves in a particularly interesting way. It can be part of a COC, as in the instances quoted above, but it can also have (albeit rarely) the emphasizing or topicalizing function of the “paronomastic infinitive” in the nominative.31 The following infinitives in the accusative correspond in function to the paronomastic infinitive: 30.  Traditionally, the ending -um of the paronomastic infinitive is taken to be a “locative-​ adverbial” rather than a nominative, see, for instance, GAG §66b and 150a; Huehnergard 2011, 313 and 341; Cohen 2003–4, 110–11. However, the very existence of a locative case with -um in the declension of the noun is highly questionable. The only thing we can be certain about is that there is an adverbial suffix -um, which sometimes has a locative function. This is a very weak basis for explaining a construction in which no locative meaning is involved at all. It is simpler to assume that the paronomastic construction is an idiomatic use of the nominative. The nominative is the usual case when a constituent is topicalized by means of fronting. This makes it likely that the paronomastic infinitive is originally what Goldenberg (1971) calls a “tautological infinitive”: a fronted infinitive in the nominative that is picked up in the same clause by a finite verb. For this phenomenon he adduces parallels from various languages, including Semitic ones. We only have to assume that in the course of its development the infinitive migrated to a position immediately before the verb. This may have started from cases in which the verb was the only constituent (as in sanāqumma ul isniqam quoted in the text, apart from the negation), so that the fronted infinitive came directly before the verb. This caused infinitive and finite verb to become closely associated and to remain juxtaposed also in more complex clauses. 31.  Previously discussed by Aro (1961, 107–8), George (2003, 259) and E. Cohen (2003–4); see also GAG §150a. However, two passages that play an important role in Cohen’s argument are analyzed incorrectly: a-​li-​a[m] ⸢ú⸣-ul a-​li-​a-​a[k]-k[i] ‘I cannot come up to you’ (AbB 9: 160 10–11) and a-​la-​ka-​am ú-​ul a-​la-​a-​ku-​um ‘I cannot come to you’ (AbB 11: 108 35–36). The finite verbs in these phrases do not come from elûm and alākum, respectively, as Cohen’s argument implies, but they come from leʾûm ‘to be able’ and show the a vowel that is characteristic in OB e-verbs that have an ending or suffix that contains an a vowel (Kouwenberg 2001): a-​li-​a-​a[k]-k[i] represents aleʾʾâkki šitta). The affixless form šin is attested, mostly in the status constructus in OB.6 The addition of this dual-ā is not insignificant, as kilallān, as reflection of the second cardinal base for ‘two’ (*kilʾ) in Semitic, also has a dual ending (see below). Moreover, it causes the original PS base *ṯin to become a three-​radical root √šny in the ordinal šanīu and its denominal nouns. The only cardinal that does not have a normal triradical pattern is ištēn (< *ʿašt-​ān) ‘one’ as all denominal forms are built through affixes rather than applying a root to 6.  See Lipiński 2001, 292 §35.4. Cf. AHw, 1241a, CAD Š3, 32b.

“All Is Number”

163

different patterns.7 Often these affixes are added directly to the cardinal form, for example, ištīššu ‘once, firstly’, ištēnā ‘one each’, ištātan ‘each one’, ištēniš ‘together’, ištēnūtu ‘once’. In other cases, they are added to the base without the suffix -ān, for example, ištiyu ‘first’. The function of the suffix -ān in this form is unclear.8 The numbers 11‒19 are essentially compounds of the cardinal numbers 1‒9 and the number 10. Aphesis took place with the number 10 losing the primary vowel following the cardinal numbers ending in a consonant: ešer(et) > šer(et). Both masculine and feminine marked forms are attested and only in the status absolutus.9 Syllabic spellings are very rare and essentially hapaxes. Except for the round numbers, no numbers higher than nineteen are found.10 *ištēnšer (f. ištēnšeret) ‘eleven’ from ištēn-​ešer; OB/SB *šinšer (f. šinšeret) ‘twelve’ from šin(a)-ešer; OB lit. and ep.11 šalāššer (f. *šalāššeret) ‘thirteen’ from šalāš-​ešer; OB math. hapax12 *erbēšer (f. *erbēšeret) ‘fourteen’ from erbē-​ešer; ‒ *ḫamiššer (f. ḫamiššeret) ‘fifteen’ from ḫamiš-​ešer; lex. hapax13 *šeššer (f. *šeššeret) ‘sixteen’ from šešš-​ešer; ‒ sebēšer (f. sebēšeret) ‘seventeen’ from sebe-​ešer; OB math. hapax14 7.  That said, Lipiński (2001, 289) reconstructs the original form as a QiTL pattern. Alternatively, QaTL following Fox (2003, 75). A strong case for QaTL is also made in Wilson-​Wright 2014, where the possibility that ʿašt is the original Semitic cardinal number ‘one’ is discussed in great detail. 8.  See Streck 2018, 47 §135. 9.  In LB these follow the pattern N-ta, with representing only the final /t/ rather than an accusative; see Streck 1995, 40 §32. 10.  One may present a tentative attestation in MB literary šu-​ši-​šin ‘sixty-​two(?)’ TMH 12: 4 6. This form occurs instead of an expected *šina-​šūšā or the like, with the single digit preceding the decade number in line with the numbers eleven to nineteen. Two possible explanations may be given, assuming the attestation is the correct reading. Akkadian can build numbers according to the sexagesimal system; thus it has numbers such as šina-​šūši ‘120 (two sixty)’; see GAG, 114 §69f. Our spelling may have sought to avoid confusion. Secondly, it is quite common in Semitic to have the single digits follow the decade numbers, e.g., the following examples from Ethiopian languages: Geʻez ʿəśrā wa-​kəlettu ’22 (twenty and two)’, Amharic sälasa hulätt ’32 (thirty two)’, Tigre ʿəšer wa-ʾarbʿ ’14 (ten and four)’. In Northwest Semitic languages it is quite common for both orders to occur, e.g., Ugaritic šbʿm šbʿ ’77 (seventy-​seven)’, or more common ṯn l-ʿšrm ’22 (two to twenty)’; see Tropper 2012, 354‒57 §62.4. Apparently, the same variation between the two sequences occurs in some forms of Neo-​Aramaic; see Lipiński 2001, 299 §35.19. In general, the sequence where the single digit precedes the decade numbers is mostly used in Semitic outside Ethiopian. 11.  See ši-​in-​ši-​ri-​it TIM 9: 48 i 10 (Sargon in Foreign Lands); see AHw, 1243b; CAD Š3, 54a; Westenholz 1997, 82‒83. There are two more attestations in the OB letters from Larsa. These forms preserve the /a/ of the original *ʿašar-. The second form is more unusual for its unexplained added -ri sign: ši-​in-​ša-​ar CUSAS 36: 27 14; ši-​iš-​šar-​ri CUSAS 36: 97 10. 12.  See Al-​Rawi and Roaf 1984, 190 ii 3: ša-​la-​aš-​ši-​ri-​iš, which for some reason is regarded by the CAD Š1, 236a as a fraction. 13.  See UR5-RA = ḫubullu IV:359 (MSL 5, 180) ḫa-​miš-​še-​rit; see CAD Ḫ, 67a; AHw, 317b. 14.  See MLC 1731 33: se-​bé-​še-​er; see Sachs 1946, 204‒5; AHw, 1033b; CAD S, 204a.

164

Bēl Lišāni

samānēšer (f. samānēšeret) ‘eighteen’ from samān(i)-ešer; OB hapax15 tišēšer (f. tišēšeret) ‘nineteen’ from tiše-​ešer; MB royal hapax, LB16 The numbers twenty to ninety are only rarely attested, with syllabic spelling only occurring for the numbers twenty to sixty.17 These are formed by attaching the affix -ā, resembling the dual -ān, to the base of the cardinal numbers three to ten, starting with the number ten ešr+ā ‘two times ten > twenty’. The succeeding decade numbers are formed by analogy, thus from ‘three’ > šalāšā ‘thirty’, etc.18 Streck (1995, 43‒45 §33‒34; cf. von Dassow 2002, 238) argues for masculine and feminine congruence in NB, in which the feminine forms have a plural morpheme -āt (e.g., ešrāt, šalšāt, etc.). He based his argument on spellings of the type N -ta for decade numbers in congruence with feminine nouns. Furthermore, the absence (save one) of ​(semi)syllabic spellings of the decade numbers in congruence with feminine nouns, allowed for the possibility of similar constructions using the -āt morpheme in the other dialects of Akkadian.19 Among the decade numbers, ‘sixty’ diverges morphologically from the other forms. It is usually transliterated šūši (e.g., CAD Š3, 380b), but šušši (< *šudšu) is more logical in line with its etymology (pace Streck 1995, 45 §34).20 The numeral occurs in Greek transcription as σῶσσος more or less confirming the gemination of /š/ due to the assimilation of /d/ (see Goetze 1946, 194). It thus appears that šušši follows the CuCC pattern, which is also used for the fractions (see below). Variations of šušši occur, but these are found only in the lexical texts, otherwise we find the spelling šu-​ši (also simplified šu or DIŠ-ši/šu). It only rarely has the ending -ā typical for the decade numbers, perhaps only occurring by analogy. Otherwise we find an endingless form (šu-​uš). This suggests that the situation of the final vowel was not clear to the scribes. Albrecht Goetze (1946, 194) made a valid point when he suggested that šušši occurs in the status absolutus with an epenthetic vowel, which is perhaps only orthographic (cf. GAG, 114 §69f ). This would be a case of the dissolution of the root, while 15.  In VAT 8522 r. 1: sa-​ma-​ni-​i[š-​ru]. See von Soden 1937, 200; Friberg and Al-​Rawi 2016, 473; cf. GAG 113‒14 §69d n. 4. 16.  The editors of the CAD (T, 432b) quote a very broken MB royal inscription: ti-​šit-​e-​še-⸢ret⸣ Sm 699:11′†; see Brinkman 1985, 250; cf. Streck 1997‒8, 312b. A late Babylonian attestation is also found: ⸢te⸣-še-​eš-​ri YBC 8057 9 (Jursa 2004). 17.  Pace GAG, 114 §69e, the purported syllabic spelling for ‘ninety’ can be erased. See Streck 1995, 44 n. 104; Streck 1997‒8, 312b; Mayer 2015, 194. 18.  The construction of decades by the addition of dual endings is especially common in the Ethio-​Semitic languages, whereas in Northwest and Central Semitic the masculine plural ending is usually found. See Lipiński 2001, 298‒99 §35.18. 19.  The only case of syllabic spelling in congruence with a feminine noun is ša-​la-​šu ‘thirty’ (referring to ammatu ‘cubit’) in an OB mathematical text, with probable long ending -ū. See Streck 1995, 44; 2014, 62. Cf. CAD Š1, 234a. 20.  Following the attestations listed in the CAD, plene spellings of the gemination of /š/ are attested, e.g., UR5-RA = ḫubullu IV 354 (MSL 5: 180) šu-​uš-​še.

“All Is Number”

165

in the status absolutus the geminated /šš/ cannot be taken apart into *šuduš and instead an additional vowel is added (see Ullendorff 1958, 71‒72). ēšrā (ešrû) ‘twenty’ from ešru ‘ten’; Bab, Ass šalāšā (šalāšu) ‘thirty’ from šalāš ‘three’; OB/LB erbā (arbā) ‘forty’ from erba ‘four’; lex ḫamšā* (ḫanšā, ḫaššā) ‘fifty’ from ḫamiš ‘five’; NB, Ur III, lex.21 šušši (šūš, šūšā, šūši, šuššu) ‘sixty’ from šeššu ‘six’; Akk (except OAkk and OA) 6.1.2. Alternative Roots For the cardinal numbers one and two, Semitic has two alternative roots: wēdu ‘one’ The Semitic base *ʾaḥad- ‘one’ occurs in Akkadian in various denominal forms of a base (w)ēdu (< *waḥd), transmitted through an extended root √wḥd.22 Base form: (w)ēdu (< *waḥdu) ‘alone, single’; Bab, Ass Adverbial forms: ēdiš ‘alone’; SB (w)ēdiššu ‘solitude’; lex (w)ēdišši- (+ pronominal suffix) ‘alone’; OB/SB23 ēdēnû ‘isolated’; NB/SB, Am, Nuzi ēdumānu ‘single’; NA udē- (+ pronominal suffix) ‘alone, single’; MA‒NA24 Compounds: ašarēdu ‘first and foremost’ from ašru ‘place, site’ and wēdu ‘alone, single’; Akk 21.  Occurs as ḫanšā in an Ur-​III PN following Gelb 1957, 129; AHw, 318a. 22.  The base *ʾaḥad- is the common source for most cardinal numbers ‘one’ in Semitic, though only Arabic shares the initial /w/, in wāḥid ‘one’ and its further denominal forms. Whereas Aramaic has a monosyllabic base ḥad, we find a prefixed aleph for instance in Geʻez ʾaḥadu and Hebrew ʾeḥaḏ. Note that Fox (2003, 82 n. 58) regards the reflections of cardinal ‘one’ going back to a triradical pattern ʾ/waḥad. The root *ʿis1t- from Akkadian ištēn, occurs only sporadically in other Semitic languages. See Lipiński 2001, 289 §35.3; Wilson-​Wright 2011, 3. 23.  This adverbial formation is followed by pronominal suffixes, e.g., wēdiššīka ‘you alone’. See von Soden 1933, 115‒16; CAD E, 37‒38, AHw, 1494; GAG, 111 §67f. 24.  Occurs following SNAG, 57 with pronominal(?) suffixes.

166

Bēl Lišāni

ašarēdūtu ‘status of ​highest rank, leadership’ from ašarēdu ‘first and foremost’; SB OA: GKT, 117 §71c, 119 §72b, 165 §96d (wēdu); MA: DGMA, 330 §488 (udē); NA: SNAG, 56 (ēdānu), 57 (udē) Ur III: Hilgert 2002, 360 n. 43, 439 n. 154; MB: Aro 1955, 69; SB: von Soden 1933, 115‒16 ((w)ēdišši-) Amarna: Rainey 1996, 195‒96 (edēnu); Amorite: Golinets 2018, 465 (√yḥd) kilallān ‘both’ Semitic *kilʾ(-ā)- ‘two’ occurs frequently in Babylonian and Assyrian as the quantifying pronoun kilallān (f. kilattān, OA kilaltēn) ‘both, two pairs.’25 This shows a strong departure in both pattern and root from the reconstructed PS form *kilʾ (PiRS) > kilall (PiRaRR). The adverb uses a dual ending-ān, productive in OA and OB (including Mari), but already takes hybrid case ending in some dialects of OB with nominative -ūn and oblique -īn being found.26 In later Akkadian (MB onward, but not in MA), the nunation of this case ending drops off, resulting in an -ē. Other denominal nouns of kilallān do not occur in Akkadian. OA: GKT, 117 §71d; GOA, 295 §8.7.2; MA: DGMA, 276 §397; NA: SNAG, 53 §3.1.4.6 OB: Streck 2018, 50 §143c; MB: Aro 1955, 70; LB: Streck 1995, 74 §72 Alalaḫ: Giacumakis 1970, 48 §7.8; Dušratta: Adler 1976, 39 §29; Egypt: Müller 2010, 498; Cochavi-​Rainey 2011, 66 §2.2.6; Emar: Seminara 1998, 446; Mari: Finet 1956, 107 §43i

6.2. Ordinal Numbers Akkadian has no real ordinal form for the number one. Following GAG (115 §70a), either the cardinal number is used, or one of the adjectives maḫrû or pānû is. Both adjectives refer to the front or face. In this regard one may compare the form with similar forms in the Semitic languages, for example, Hebrew rīšōn (< rōš ‘head’); Syriac qaḏmāyā/qaḏmā ‘front’; Geʻez qadāmi/qadāmāwi/ 25.  For the PS form *kilʾ, see Lipiński 2001, 293 §35.4; Fox 2003, 80 and n. 42. Reconstructed as *kilʾ-ā- in Kogan 2011, 245. As a cardinal number, *kilʾ- is only found in Ethio-​Semitic languages, e.g., Geʻez kәlʾe (ክልኤ) Tigrinya kәlәtta (ክልተ); Amharic hulätt (ሁለት) among other Ethiopian languages. Outside Ethiopia, it usually occurs in contexts similar to those in Akkadian meaning ‘both’, e.g., Arabic kilā, Hebrew kilʾayim ‘of two kinds’. See Leslau 1987, 282a. 26. Note that the dual ending is also attested in the Hebrew cognate kilʾayim (‫‘ )ּכִ לְ אַ יִ ם‬of two kinds’; see HALOT, 475‒76.

“All Is Number”

167

Table 6.2.  Ordinal Numbers in Akkadian Babylonian

Assyrian

m 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

šanû, šaniu šalšu rebû ḫamšu šeššu sebû samnu tišû, Ass. *tašʾu ešru

Babylonian

Assyrian

f šaniu šalšu rab’u ḫamšu *šeššu *sabʾu *šamnu *tašʾu ešru

šanītu šaluštu rebūtu ḫamuštu šeduštu sebūtu samuntu tišūtua *ešertu(?)b

šanītu šalištu rebītu ḫamištu šedištu *sebītu *šamintu *tišītu ešartuc

a The ordinal number slightly deviates from expected *tešû/tešūtu. It is possible that this unexpected sound change /e/ > /i/ after /a/ > /i/ was caused by e-​coloring of ​R3/ayin. More likely is that the ordinal developed into tišû/tišūtu through analogy with the /i/ in the cardinal number tiše. b The feminine is not attested, see GAG, 115 §70a. The occurrence of a collective ešertu in Babylonian, makes it more likely that it follows a PaRaSt pattern similar to Assyrian (see next footnote). c The feminine is not attested, see GAG, 115 §70a. The occurrence of a collective ešartu in OA, with CaCaCt pattern, makes it very likely that the ordinal was ešartu rather than the expected eširtu.

qadāmay ‘first’. There is one hapax, ištiyu ‘first’ from ištēn ‘one’, occurring in a SB hymn.27 This is one of the few cases, where the suffix -ān is removed. Instead a gentilic ending -ī is added to the base išti. We can compare this with Amharic, in which the cardinal number one (and) receives the gentilic ending-äňňa, leading to the ordinal number one andäňňa (Leslau 2000, 52 §46.1).28 The table of the ordinal numbers 2‒9 (table 6.2) contains the theoretically correct forms as far as they are attested or reconstructable in the case of those for which we have no evidence. Other deviating forms will be discussed below. The ordinal patterns are important for their transformation of the various patterns of the cardinals into clear triradical roots on which the many denominal numbers are formed. Thus for instance, biradical cardinal šin-​ā (with dual) > ordinal šanīu (√ṯny); cardinal erba > ordinal rebû (√rby); cardinal simāni > ordinal samnu (√smn). The ordinal numbers 2‒10 in Akkadian are built with a pattern PaRvS, 27.  See Langdon 1923, 12 ii 2. Read iš-​ti-​ia-​um-​ma šú-​uš-​ša ‘her first name’; see CAD I and J, 284a; AHw, 401. Also von Soden 1933, 284a; GAG, 115 §70a. 28.  The same feature also occurs in other modern South Ethio-​Semitic languages, e.g., Argobba hand ‘one’ > handäňňa (Leslau 1997, 34 §37.4); Zway had ‘one’ > hadäňňa (Leslau 1999, 54 §54.1). In addition, Akkadian uses a gentilic ending in ištēniūtu (ištēn+ī+ūt) to indicate sets and pairs; see below.

168

Bēl Lišāni

the second vowel being /u/ or /i/. The distribution is dialectal: Babylonian has PaRuS and Assyrian—PaRiS.29 The notable exception to this is šanû, which, judging by the feminine šanītu, has /i/ in both dialects. It should be pointed out that the evidence for PaRiS otherwise is derived exclusively from OA, with no attestations found in MA or NA. However, even in OA there is much conflicting evidence, as I will discuss. The ordinal forms are also used for variations of fractions and of collective numbers. For these denominative nouns, both patterns are found. The syllabic spelling of the ordinals in Assyrian is most commonly attested in OA (GOA, 281‒83 §8.4.1) and only rarely appears in MA (DGMA, 236‒38 §337‒39) or NA (SNAG, 85‒86 §3.11.12). There is only one attestation in OAkk (šalištu ‘third’), which nonetheless suggests that it follows Assyrian (GAG, 115 §70c). The question remains, whether ordinals are denominal forms of the cardinals or deverbal from the verbal stems. Edward Lipiński (2001, 300‒301 §35.23; cf. GAG, 115 §70c) claims that Semitic languages normally follow the pattern QāTiL for the ordinals, which are denominal forms of the cardinals. However, the Babylonian PaRuS form is a normal, if ​less common, adjectival pattern in Babylonian for primary adjectives (see Kouwenberg 2010, 60).30 Babylonian PaRuS may either have a different derivation from the verbal root or have changed over time from PaRiS > PaRuS to become more similar to adjectives derived from adjectival verbs. Here the issue remains whether šanītu is a remnant of an older stage or a more recent introduction to the paradigm of ​ Babylonian. As for the origins of the PaRuS-​ordinals in Akkadian, N. J. C. Kouwenberg (2010, 58) claimed that the adjectival pattern PaRuS is used for derivatives from (u/u)-class verbs. Indeed, there is some evidence that the verbs rebû and ḫamāšu are of the (u/u) class (Kouwenberg 2010, 76 n. 106). However, the verb šanû appears invariably as (i/i). For the verb šalāšu the evidence is inconsistent. As with the ordinal numbers, it is (i/i) class in OA and in one PN in OB (see Kouwenberg 2010, 75 n. 103). In OB letters as well as SB literary texts we find a number of attestations of /u/ in the preterit and one of /a/ in the 29.  As suggested to me by John Huehnergard, there is an interesting parallel with Geʻez were QaTuL is used as the pattern of ordinal numbers, but only in the days of the week and other indications of dates. The numbers 1‒10 are attested, e.g., sanuy (ሰኑይ) “Monday’, śalus (ሠሉስ) “Tuesday.” Cf. Dillmann and Bezold 1907, 370–73; Lambdin 1978, 98; Tropper 2002, 84 §43.24; Procházka 2004, 80. Note that QaTuL is otherwise not a productive pattern in Geʻez (see Tropper 2002, 56 no. 7); these are not included in Fox 2003, 174. Some of these QaTuL forms are still found with small alterations in modern Amharic for the days of the week, no doubt as loans from Geʻez: ʾəhud (እሑድ) “Sunday,” säňňo (ሰኞ) “Monday,” räbuʾ (ረቡዕ) “Wednesday.” The same can be said for Tigrinya, e.g., sänuy (ሰኑይ) “Sunday,” ḥamus (ኀሙስ) “Thursday.” 30.  Huehnergard suggested to the present writer that the /u/ vowel in the ordinals may be influenced by the inclusion of a labial as R2 or R3. This is possible, but I am not convinced, as labials are frequently used for roots and occur almost as frequently in patterns with an /i/ vowel. A more statistical approach may eventually provide definite answers. For a change PiRS > PuRS caused by labials, see Krebernik 2006, 93‒95.

“All Is Number”

169

present. The latter form is problematic but occurs in a passage in which šalāšu is used transitively: ina ūmi ebūri eqla išakkak išebbir išallaš ‘at harvest time he will harrow the field, break up (the clods), and go over it a third time’ MSL 1: 53 35‒38 (CAD Š1, 236b). Normally, primary adjectives are not known to have a corresponding verb with (a/u) theme vowels. Kouwenberg (2010, 76 n. 106) suggests that this transitive use may have caused a change in vocalic pattern. This makes good sense; however, in this case we would need to distinguish between a main intransitive šalāšu I (u/u) and a transitive šalāšu II (a/a). If we look at the difference between the Assyrian and Babylonian primary adjectives, we should observe that while PaRuS is usually PaRiS in Assyrian there is no convincing evidence to suggest that there is an additional difference between the theme vowel in the two dialects.31 On the other hand, Kouwenberg (2010, 62, 78) mentions that the original (u/u) theme vowels are vulnerable to change to (i/i). The fact that we find the (i/i) pattern for šalāšu in OA as well as in an OB PN, which would be archaic, suggests that the (u/u) theme vowels are a Babylonian innovation possibly intended to make the ordinal numbers mirror the denominal verb more closely. It is assumed by some that the original ordinal pattern in Akkadian was PāRiS (Gelb 1935, 60; GAG, 115 §70c). In addition, Josef ​Tropper (2012, 364 §63.11;) claims there may be evidence in OAkk and OA for an original form PāRiS.32 In fact, a variant of šalšu ‘third’ is found in šālišu ‘third’ occurring once in an OB text from Susa.33 On the other hand, there is also some evidence for PaRuS in OA. This has led Kouwenberg to believe that PaRuS is the original pattern for ordinals in Akkadian and that PaRiS is an Assyrian innovation (GOA, 283 §8.4.1; cf. 248 n. 7 §7.2 pace Kouwenberg 2010, 65).34 For the ordinal ‘fourth’ we find rabūtu (ra-​bu-​té-​em kt c/k 594 10; ra-​bu-​tam AKT 9a: 68 27), but only once do we 31.  In fact, the list in Kouwenberg 2010, 64 has two opposing examples šaqī/išaqqī ~ šaqū/ išaqqû and šarī/išarrū ~ šarū/išarrū. 32.  The evidence given is rather weak. The OAkk attestation of śaliśtum ‘third’, discussed above, follows OA PaRiS and contains no evidence for a long vowel. The OA example šādištum ‘sixth’ is likely quoted erroneously by Tropper. He seems to have referred to ša-​li-​ší-​im in TMH 1: 27b 3. A form ša-​da-​ší-​im TMH 1: 27b 6 follows a few lines later. The form ša-​li-​ší-​im may have very well been realized as šālišim; however, in line with the morphologically not unambiguous ša-​ da-​ší-​im TMH 1: 27b 6 (see also below), it can hardly function as solid evidence for an archaism. More likely, it is a type of plene spelling; see Sommerfeld 2006. See also the discussion of said passage in GOA, 283 §8.4.1. 33.  For the OA attestation (TMH 1: 27b 3), see the discussion GOA, 283 §8.4.1. A connection with the Middle Assyrian ordinals of the type PaRāSī is possible. For the Susa text, see CAD Š1, 247a. 34.  In addition, Kouwenberg (GOA, 283) claims that Assyrian replaces the Babylonian adjectival pattern PaRuS with PaRiS, but this statement may be somewhat inaccurate since the evidence for a PaRuS adjectival pattern is very limited. It chiefly depends upon some attestations of zakūtu ‘clear’ as well as the denominal forms lamuttu ‘evil’ and zakūtu ‘clarity’; see de Ridder 2019, 128.

170

Bēl Lišāni

find the expected rebītu (⸢re⸣-bi4-tim VAT 4537 12); see GOA, 282 §8.4.1. There is some evidence for PaRuS in the status constructus of the masculine forms in PN ra-​bu-​ni ‘PN was our fourth man’ AKT 8: 225 25 as well as PN ḫa-​mu-​uš-​ni ‘PN was our fifth man’ AKT 8: 220 22.35 We find ordinal ḫamištum once in ḫa-​mì-​ iš-​tim LB 1268 11, as well as in the function of a collective number. On the other hand, lexicalized ḫamuštu ‘week eponym’ (§5) is passim attested (see Dercksen 2011).36 It is rather unfortunate that no syllabic spellings PaRiS(t) are known for the ordinals from MA and NA except for šanītu ‘second’. We do find the fractions rabuttu (< rabūtu) ‘1⁄4’ and ḫamussu (< ḫamuštu) ‘1⁄5’ a number of times in OA/NA (§4). We also find šaluš ‘third’ in the compound šaluššani ‘the year before last.’37 On the other hand, PaRiS forms used for fractions or collectives are present in Babylonian mathematical texts. Therefore, there is no clear-​cut differentiation between PaRuS and PaRiS patterns in the Babylonian and Assyrian dialects other than their core ordinal use. It seems, however, that PaRiS is slightly more frequent in fractions and collectives. Alongside PaRiS and PaRuS ordinals, there appears to be a third pattern in OA. Following Kouwenberg, the feminine ordinal for ‘tenth’ is ešartu. While it is not attested in its function as ordinal, the form is nonetheless found as a collective number ‘tithe’ (see also below; GOA, 285‒86 §8.4.4). This would be a case of a PaRaS pattern, which is the third and least used adjectival form in Akkadian. It is nonetheless attested in both Babylonian and Assyrian (Kouwenberg 2010, 63; GOA, 249 §7.2.2). One may of course attempt to reconstruct the Babylonian ordinal ešertu as deriving from ešartu, with /a/ being influenced by /r/ (cf. GAG, 12‒13 §9b), rather than accepting eširtu > ešertu (cf. GAG, 13 §9h). Both options seem equally possible and only the occurrence of a clear variant of either *eširtu or *ešartu would be able to decide the issue. An additional case of ​PaRaS attested in OA may be suggested. Previously, one derived form of the number six (ša-​da-​ší-​im TMH 1: 27b 6) has been suggested to be an early form of the MA adjectival pattern PaRāSi (§3.3, see de Ridder 2015, 19; GOA, 283 §8.4.1). While this remains a possibility, semantically the occurrence of the pattern in the function of a normal ordinal cannot be explained satisfactorily. It would make more sense to suggest a PaRaS > PaRāS pattern, like that found in ešartu.38 35.  These forms are also notable for their occurrence with a pronominal suffix; see GOA, 267 §7.6.3. 36.  Kouwenberg also mentions the uncertain attestation of šaduštum in a-​ša-​du-​uš-​tim AKT 2: 52 15. Due to its uncertain meaning (perhaps a committee), other readings are offered. See GOA, 286 §8.5.1. 37.  E.g., ša-​lu-​še-​ni SAA 1: 204 r. 1. See CAD Š1, 285b. Cf. MA variant šalšeni in šal!-še-​ni ‘the year before last’ BATSH 42: 6 6′ (DGMA, 162 §248 n. 4). 38.  Note that in Akkadian grammatical studies it is common to shorten a penultimate long vowel when a feminine marker -t is added. E.g., infinitive alāku ‘to go’ with -t > alaktu ‘way,

“All Is Number”

171

Table 6.3.  Ordinal Numbers in the Semitic Languages Language

‘second’

‘third’

‘fourth’

Pattern

*Base

Arabic Hebrew Syriac Geʻez Amharic Tigrinya Tigre Mehri

ṯāni šēnī tenyānā kāləʾ hulattaňňā kālʾāy kāləʾ/kālʾāy ṯōnī

ṯāliṯ šlīšī tlīṯāyā śāləs sostaňňā sālsāy sāləs, sālsāy śōlaṯ

rābiʿ rḇīʿī rḇīʿāyā rābəʿ ārāttaňňā rābʿāy rābəʿ rōbaʿ

QāTiL QTīL-​ī QTīL-​āyā QāTəL cardinal+aňňā QāTL-​āy QāTəL/QāTL-​āy QōTaL

QāTiL QaTiL QaTiL QāTiL cardinal QāTiL QāTiL QāTiL

a Note that for languages written in the Ethiopic fidäl script, I have transliterated the so-​ called 4th order with long vowel /ā/ as it stands in opposition to the short vowel /a/ from the first order. Nonetheless, many grammatical studies of ​Ethiopian languages transliterate them with /a/ and /ä/ respectively.

Returning to the proposition that QāTiL was the original form used for Semitic ordinal formation, one may easily observe that while ordinals in their most basic meaning resemble adjectives, QāTiL in Common Semitic was mostly applied to participle formations of the base verbal stem. Previous claims that QāTiL was the original adjectival construction may very well have been correct. This argument is supported by Arabic, Geʻez, Tigrinya, Tigre, and Mehri, though opposed by Hebrew and Syriac, which derive their ordinals from the QaTiL pattern.39 Many of the Northwest and Ethiopian Semitic languages further reconstruct their ordinals with an additional gentilic suffix.40 After scrutiny of the evidence, it seems that OAkk and OA used the PaRiS pattern (see Kienast 2001, 184 §166.2). One can speculate whether the OAkk and OA PaRiS form replaced an original PaRuS pattern or not, but at any rate the PaRiS pattern agrees with the patterns of the primary adjectives in Assyrian. In my opinion, it is most likely that PaRiS is the original pattern for ordinals in Akkadian, due to its presence in OAkk and due to the fact that the ordinal šanû ‘second’ is always PaRiS (table 6.3). Ordinals of the higher numbers appear to take a gentilic ending (GAG, 116 §70d). Lipiński (2001, 302 §35.29) analyzed them as having a long plural ending -ū (nominative) and -ī (oblique). This is based course’. It is also possible, though speculative, that the MA adjectival pattern PaRāSi derives from these ordinals by simply adding an adjectival gentilic morpheme to the base in a way that is similar to the ordinal formation used in Hebrew and Syriac. 39.  Amharic provides no information, since the ordinal numbers are simply cardinal constructions with gentilic endings. 40.  In this regard, note the Akkadian adjective šalšāya ‘third in age’ attested in NA Ashurbanipal royal inscriptions and a NB kudurru (CAD Š1, 262). It basically functions as an ordinal number, but with an additional NA gentilic -āya added to the ordinal base. See SNAG, 84 §3.10.

172

Bēl Lišāni

on the plene spelling of the endings (e.g., er-​bé-​še-​ri-​šu-​ú). Plene spellings for plural endings are unusual in Akkadian but common for long vowels caused by contraction of the gentilic (-īu > -û,-īi > -î/ê). Moreover, the occurrence of the gentilic ending would turn a cardinal number into an adjective.41 Both elements make von Soden’s analysis preferable to Lipiński’s. The higher ordinal numbers are only rarely written syllabically, with five forms found only in the Amarna text EA 357 “Nergal and Eriskigal” (see Izre’el 1997, 52 lines 71‒73). As these examples occur in a literary text, and as, in general, Semitic languages do not have special forms for the ordinals above ten, the possibility remains that these forms are literary innovations. The numbers ešrû ‘twentieth’ and šalāšû ‘thirtieth’ may go back to decimals with added case endings leading to contraction. ešrû ‘tenth’ from ešer ‘ten’; Amarna hapax42 ištēňšerû ‘eleventh’ from ištēnšer ‘eleven’; Amarna hapax (il-​te-​en-​še-​e-​ri-​i EA 357 72) šinšerû ‘twelfth’ from šinšer ‘twelve’; Amarna hapax (ši-​i-​in-​še-​e-​ri-​i EA 357 72) šalāššerû ‘thirteenth’ from šalāššeru ‘thirteen’; Amarna hapax (ša-​la-​še-​e-​ ri-​i EA 357 73) erbēšerû ‘fourteenth’ from erbēšer ‘fourteen’; Amarna hapax (er-​bi-​še-​e-​ri-​i EA 357 73) ešrû ‘twentieth’ from ešrā ‘twenty’; SB hapax43 šalāšû (šelāšû) ‘thirtieth (referring to the day of the month)’ from šalāšā ‘thirty’; SB

6.3. Various Adjectives 6.3.1. Day of ​Birth There is a rather uncertain group of PNs in NA (along with one attestation in MA and NB), allegedly based on numbers and referring to the day a child was born. For the spellings see the footnotes, but most attestations are of the type 41.  We may draw parallels with Geʻez, where the ordinals of the round decade numbers have a gentilic ending -āwi added; see Dillmann and Bezold 1907, 370 §159; Lipiński 2001, 302 §35.29; Tropper 2002, 84 §43.25. 42.  Found in eš-​ri-​i EA 357 71 (Nergal and Eriskigal), which occurs in a list of gates numbered ordinally from three to fourteen. Other attestations listed in the CAD (E, 369b) are semilogographic and may be interpreted as reflections of normal ordinal ešru. 43.  See GAG, 116 §70d. Von Soden refers to a list with designations of days: UD.20.KÁM eš-​ ru-⸢ú⸣ UR5-RA = ḫubullu I 190 (MSL 5: 23). K 6012+10684 15.

“All Is Number”

173

UD.n.KAM-a-​a. It is clear that all forms have a gentilic ending attached to the base number, which in Neo Assyrian is masculine -āya (written -a-​a) and feminine -īt (cf. SNAG, 84). The base of the number is the cardinal as shown in the rare instances of syllabic spellings. This type of PN is discussed in Parpola (2008, 62) and the present section follows his readings for NA, though his early Old and Middle Assyrian attestations appear to be incorrect. *erbāya (or rabāʾāya) ‘Born-​on-​the-​fourth-​day’ from erba ‘four’; NA hapax44 arbītu ‘Born-​on-​the-​fourth-​day (fPN)’ from erba ‘four’; NA hapax45 ḫanšāyu ‘Born-​on-​the-​fifth-​day’ from ḫamiš ‘five’; NA46 ḫanšû ‘The-​one-​who-​is-​fifth-​born’ from ḫamšu ‘fifth’; NA hapax47 *šeššāya (or šadāšāya) ‘Born-​on-​the-​sixth-​day’ from šeššu ‘six’; NA hapax48 sebʾītu ‘Born-​on-​the-​seventh-​day’ from šebe ‘seven’; MA‒NA49 samānāya ‘Born-​on-​the-​eight-​day’; from samāni ‘eight’; NA hapax50 šamānītu ‘Born-​on-​the-​eight-​day (fPN)’; from samāni (Ass. šamāni) ‘eight’; NA hapax51 tišāya? ‘Born-​on-​the-​ninth-​day’ from tiše ‘nine’; NA hapax52 ešērāʾāya (NB ešrūʾāya) ‘Born-​on-​the-​twentieth-​day’ from ešer ‘ten’; NB, NA53 *samānēšrāya ‘Born on the eighteenth day (PN)’ from samānēšer ‘eighteen’; NA hapax54 44.  Semisyllabic: UD.4.KAM-a-​a. Alternatively read as Rabbāiu; see PNA R, 1027a. Realized as Rebāju in the CAD (R, 221), probably under the influence of PNs such as mRi-​ba-​a-​a SAA 6 158 r. 1 (see Thureau-​Dangin 1934, 193). This PN, however, is probably not related; see PNA R, 1050b. Lipiński (1997, 93) claimed that the common PN Arbāyu means ‘Born-​on-​the-​fourth-​day’. More likely is the suggestion that it refers to Arabs instead (e.g., PNA A, 127b). 45.  In fAr-​bi-​tu ND 2687 5 (Parker 1961, 43). The translation is uncertain but follows Parpola 2008, 62. Cf. “gazelle” from arwiu, in PNA A, 128b. 46.  Often logographically written, e.g., mUD.5.KÁM-⸢a⸣-a StAT 3: 104:41, but also syllabically, e.g., mḪa-​an-​ša-​ia BATSH 6: 7 r. 9. See PNA Ḫ, 455‒56. 47.  In mḪa-​an-​ši-​i = 3680:3. See PNA Ḫ, 456. 48.  Semisyllabic: UD.6.KÁM-a-​a SAA 14: 421 r. 4. See PNA Š, 1265a. 49.  In Se-​eb-​i-​tú K 8434 iv 11 (Fales 1979, 57). Translation follows Parpola 2008, 62. Alternatively, see Fales 1979, 69; PNA S, 1098b. MA as fUD.7.KÁM-tu KAM 11: 58 11′. 50.  Syllabic: mSa-​ma-​na-​a-​a SAA 14: 81 11. It must be regarded as a gentilic form of either a GN (city) or the numeral eight; see Jas 1996, 64; PNA S, 1082a. In relation to the feminine variant with expected Assyrian R1/š, the assumption that this proper name does refer to a city is more likely. Cf. ⸢uru⸣Sa-​ma-​na-​a-​a SAA 14: 397 r. 8′. 51.  See PNA Š, 1188a; Attested as fŠá-​ma-​ni-​ti (Parpola 2008 no. 9:4, see p. 62). 52.  See under Tišâ in the PNA (T, 1327a). No meaning is given, Attested as mTi?-ša?-a BAM 24: 13 r. 10. 53.  See PNA E, 407a. Usually spelt UD.20.KÁM-a-a​ , except for the syllabic spelling of the name of a witness in a legal text from Nineveh [m]E-​še-​ra-[a-a​ ] SAA 14: 285 r. 1. Outside NA, there is one syllabic spelling on a kudurru: mEš-​ru-​ú-​a; see Paulus 2014, 619 r. 14′ (SŠ 1). 54.  Written as [m]UD.18.KÁM-[a-​a] StAT 2: 264 1; see PNA S, 1082a.

174

Bēl Lišāni

6.3.2. Referring to Age Akkadian uses the pattern PuRūSī as an inflected adjective to indicate the age of the noun to which it is attributive (von Soden 1987, 409; GAG, 118 §71e).55 These adjectives derive from the ordinal patterns, as is clear from rubuʾû ‘four-​ year-​old’. A few deviating examples may occur with different patterns in šiniānu (f. šiniāntu); šalšāya. The pattern PuRūSi is used exclusively for livestock such as cows and donkeys. As such it occurs in a commentary (Rm 307 r. 9‒10) of the omen series šumma ālu for the numbers two (šu-​nu-ʾu-​u r. 10) and three (šu-​lu-​ šu-​u r. 9).56 Likewise, it is found in a reconstructed passage referring to oxen in the lexical list UR5-RA = ḫubullu XIII (MSL 8/1: 47 329‒332).57 The PuRūS (and PuRūSī) pattern has no clear semantic function in Akkadian, safe for the collective numbers (see Fox 2003, 209). We may compare PuRūSī adjectives to the collective numbers, for example, ḫumūšu ‘team of five’; cf. the distributive numbers, for example, šulūšā ‘three each’. Alternatively, it is possible that what we have understood as a PuRūSī form is in fact a PuRRuSī form instead, as there is some evidence in Nuzi for gemination (šu-​ul-​lu-​ši-​ú HSS 19: 133 9 ‘three-​year-​old’). As can be seen in the list of attested forms, with the notable exception of šunūʾû ‘two-​year-​old’, this type of adjective is most commonly found in Nuzi. Here we find a number of forms with the -īu ending without contraction, for example, šu-​lu-​ši-​ú HSS 13: 245 5; ru-​bu-​i-​ú HSS 19: 110 8. The Nuzi attestations are often problematic: in the first place, Nuzi texts often seem not to inflect the adjective.58 Moreover, one Nuzi text has a locative ending -āʾu or possibly even an Assyrian gentilic -āy instead of the expected nominative -īu on two adjectives:59 HSS 9: 104 11‒12: 1 gudÁB ša ḫu-​mu-​ša-​a-​ú 1 gudÁB ša ti-​ša-​a-​ú ‘one cow that is five-​years-​old and one cow that is nine-​years-​old’ (see CAD T, 433b)60 The adjective for nine (tišāʾu), clearly deviates from the pattern PuRūSī. Instead it appears to be derived directly from the cardinal tiše. Also note two unusual 55.  These numbers are commonly realized as PuRuSī in grammars and dictionaries. This is not very likely, as in this case the second short /u/ would be expected to elide. Secondly, this would make them a variant with attached gentilic of ​PuRS, which refer to fractions. It is difficult to see a semantic connection between the two. 56.  See Freedman 1998, 45. Already mentioned by Landsberger in MSL 8/1 47 lines 329‒331. 57.  Note that the form for one *ištenû remains reconstructed. 58.  Exceptions to this lack of inflection occur: ru-​b[u]-i-​tum HSS 19: 42 7 and passim in this text. See CAD R, 402a. 59.  Assyrian gentilic endings are attested in Nuzi; see Gordon 1938, 50 §4.10. 60.  Cf. ḫu-​mu-​šá-​a-​ú HSS 9: 149 4 (Nuzi).

“All Is Number”

175

spellings with -a-​an: šu-​lu-​ša-​TA.AN ‘three-​year-​old’ HSS 9: 36 18 and ru-​bu-​ a-​TA.AN ‘four-​year-​old’ HSS 9: 36 19, which are clearly not dual endings as the two adjectives refer to three horses (CAD Š3, 264a). In addition to the Akkadian numerals, Nuzi texts frequently use Hurrian loan words (listed below).61 MA: DGMA, 244 §347; Nuzi: Gordon 1938, 46 §3.12 (no. 3), 3.16 (no. 4), 3.17 (no. 5), 3.19 (no. 9) PuRūSī: šunūʾû (f. šunuʾītu) ‘two-​year old’ from šina ‘two’; NB, MA šulūšû (šullušīu, f. šulušītu) ‘three-​year-​old’ from šalāš ‘three’; OB‒NB, (MA), Nuzi62 rubūʾû (rubuʾīu, f. rubuʾītu) ‘four-​year-​old’ from erba ‘four’; NB, Nuzi ḫumūšû (ḫumušīu, Nuzi also ḫumušāʾu; NB: 5-ú) ‘five-​year-​old’ from ḫamiš ‘five’; NB, Nuzi šudūšû (šudūšīu) ‘six-​year-​old’ from šeššu ‘six’; NB, Nuzi subūʾû (subūʾīu) ‘seven-​year-​old’ from sebe ‘seven’; Nuzi sumūnû (in 8-ú) ‘eight-​year-​old’ from samāni ‘eight’; LB hapax63 Cardinal + āʾu: tišâʾu ‘nine-​year-​old’ from tiše ‘nine’; Nuzi hapax64 Hurrian loans: šinarpu ‘two-​year-​old’ from šin(a) ‘two’; Nuzi65 kikarpu ‘three-​year-​old’ from kig(a) ‘five’; Nuzi66 tumnarpe ‘four-​year-​old’ from Hurrian tumn- ‘four’; Nuzi67 nariyarpu ‘five-​year-​old’ from nariy(a) ‘five’; Nuzi hapax68 šintarpu ‘seven-​year-​old’ from šind(i) ‘seven’; Nuzi69 kirarbu ‘eight-​year-​old’ from kir(i/a) ‘eight’; Nuzi hapax70 tišanni ‘nine-​years-​old’ from Akk. tiše ‘nine’; Ekalte hapax71 61.  For an overview of the numerals and this adjectival pattern in Akkadian, see Wegner 2007, 81 §2.3. 62.  The middle Assyrian attestations are logographic: 3.MU, e.g., KAJ 289 2, 311 7. 63.  In 8-ú Strassmaier 1890 1:1. See AHw, 1058b; CAD S, 383b. 64.  In ti-​ša-​a-​ú HSS 9: 104 12. See CAD T, 432b; cf. AHw, 1362a (other attestations are false per CAD T). 65.  See Richter 2012, 381‒82. 66.  See Richter 2012, 201b. 67.  See Richter 2012, 469a. 68.  See Richter 2012, 267b. 69.  See Richter 2012, 54b. 70.  See Wilhelm 1996; Richter 2012, 2012b. 71.  Attested as i+na MU.KÁM ti-​ša-​an-​ni ‘in (his) ninth year’ Ekalte 28 4. Explained as an Akkadian cardinal base with Hurrian suffix -a/enni; see Mayer 2001, 100‒101.

176

Bēl Lišāni

Other: šiniānu f. šiniāntu ‘two-​year-​old’ from šina ‘two’; OB72 šalšāya ‘(son or brother) third in age’ from šalšu ‘third’; NB, NA royal73 6.3.3. Middle Assyrian Ordinals Attestations of this group are limited to a small number of adjectives describing lower level qualities or ranks. With one possible OA exception, all attestations derive from the MA corpus. As such they are inflected basically as normal adjectives but with some MA peculiarities, for example, fs šanāyīttu; mp šanāyuttu, fp šanāyīyātu.74 The base of the adjectives seems to consist of ​PaRāS with a gentilic ending -ī. They derive from the ordinal numbers as can been in the prefix-​less form rābāyīyu ‘fourth rank’. Ordinal numbers in Semitic languages are frequently formed by adding the gentilic ending to the base of the cardinal numbers.75 Note, however, that in case of these adjectives the base differs significantly from the cardinal numbers, with the exception of šalāšu ‘three’ and samānû ‘eight’: šanāyīyu ‘secondary’ from šina ‘two’; MA šalāšīyu ‘third rank’ from šalāšu ‘three’; MA rābāyīyu ‘fourth rank’ from erba ‘four’; MA ḫamāšīyu (5-ši-​ú) ‘fifth rank’ from ḫamiš ‘five’; MA hapax šadāšīyu ‘sixth? rank’ from šeššu ‘six’; OA hapax76 sabāyīyu (7-ú) ‘seventh rank’ from sebe ‘seven’; MA hapax tašāˀīyu (9-i-​ú) ‘ninth rank’ from tiše ‘nine’; MA hapax 6.3.4. Referring to Sets/Pairs A variant from ištēn with gentilic ending is used to indicate sets and pairs in Assyrian as well as Western Peripheral Akkadian, for example, ištēniātu šuḫḫupātu 72.  Refers to a sheep and its skin. Translation follows von Soden in AHw, 1242a; GAG, 118 §71e. Otherwise, dictionaries leave it untranslated, CDA, 374b. Following the CAD Š3 (43a) it may refer to the number of times a sheep is sheared. 73.  Only one attestation in NB, a kudurru of Nabû-​mukīn-​apli. See Paulus 2014, 628 NMA 1 v 20. Otherwise attested in Ashurbanipal royal inscriptions, e.g., šal-​šá-​a-​a RINAP 5: 3 vi 1, cf. nos. 4 vi 3; 6 vii 2; 7 vi 12′; 8 vii 1′; 9 ii 70; 11 iii 48; 12 v 1; 23:96. 74.  See for this pattern de Ridder 2015; DGMA, 239‒42 §340‒43. Note the Middle Assyrian sound changes -ūt >-utt and -īt >-itt in de Ridder 2019, 127. 75. See Lipiński 2001, 302 §35.27; de Ridder 2015, 16 n. 2. For example, the words for ‘third’ in various languages: Biblical Hebrew: šlīš-​ī (‫יׁשי‬ ִ ִ‫)ׁשל‬, ְ see Joüon and Muraoka 1993, 328 §101; Syriac: ܺ ܳ ‫)ܬܠ‬, tlīṯ-āyā (‫ܝܬ ܳܝܐ‬ see Nöldeke 1904, 98 §153. Geʻez has three variations: śāləs-​Ø (ሣልስ), with gentilic endings śāləs-​āwi (ሣልሳዊ) or śāləs-​āy (ሣልሳይ), see Dillmann and Bezold 1907, 370; Tropper 2002, 83 §43.22; Amharic has a gentilic ending-äňňa in sost-​äňňa (ሦስተኛ). 76.  In ša-​da-​ší-​im TMH 1: 27b 6. See GOA, 283 §8.4.1.

“All Is Number”

177

‘a pair of shoes’ (Goetze 1931, 79‒80; GAG, 118 §71c). Unlike other verbal adjectives, the number precedes the noun it qualifies, at the same time the adjective is in congruence with the gender of the noun it precedes. We find the adjective attested only in nonsingular form: dual ištēnitān (only OA), masculine plural ištēniūtu, feminine plural ištēniātu.77 For higher numbers of pairs and sets the multiplicative of the type šalāšīšu is used, for example., ana arbēšu ukāpū ‘four sets of saddle cloths’ (see §6.1; GOA, 288 §8.5.2; DGMA, 243‒44 §346). MB: Aro 1957, 41 OA: GOA, 273 §8.2.1; MA: Postgate 1988, 87‒88; DGMA, 243 §345 Nuzi: Gordon 1938, 44 §3.3; WPA: Reiner 1999. ištēniūtu (mp), išteniātu (fp) ‘unity, single set’ from ištēn ‘one’; OA‒MA, Am, Bo, Nuzi, Ug

6.4. Fractions Following Edward Lipiński (2001, 302‒3 §35.30; cf. Moscati 1980, 119 §14.10), Semitic languages generally use two different patterns to indicate the fractions (cf. GAG, 116‒17 §70f‒m). The first is the feminine of the ordinal number, thus Babylonian PaRuSt ~ Assyrian PaRiSt. The pattern PaRuSt is usually used to form concrete adjectives, for primary adjectives with /u/ vowel between R2 and R3, for example, lemuttu ‘wickedness, misfortune’ < lemnu (f. lemuttu) ‘bad, evil’. The Assyrian forms are built differently due to the PaRiS patterns of the ordinals in this dialect. Frequently, these fractions occur in the plural or in an endingless state (construct/absolute), thus leading to PaRSat or plural PaRSāt. These plural forms occur for instance in more complex fractions, for example, šalašta (3-ta) ušrēti ‘3⁄10’ Dar 351 7. We also find the masculine pattern frequently, especially for šalšu ‘a third’ and rebû ‘a fourth’. The second frequent pattern for fractions in Semitic is QuTL. Although in Akkadian both occur, it is clear that PuRS is mostly limited to first millennium Babylonian. It may also be found with feminine marker, thus PuRuSt. This process is rather similar to other Semitic languages, where a QuTL pattern is found likewise for the fractions, but it is not used consistently and in variation with other patterns. Only Arabic has, over time, replaced the complete paradigm of fractions with the QuTL pattern (Fox 2003, 151‒52). The pattern PuRS is used for the abstract of an adjective (GAG, 72 §55d), which is a function otherwise difficult to apply for the fractions. Note that QuTL fractions are also found in Hurrian loanword number: tumni ‘4’ > tummu ‘1⁄4.’ 77.  See also AHw, 401a; GAG, 118 §71c.

178

Bēl Lišāni

A number of other patterns are used that may or may not be variants of ​ PuRS. We find the patterns PuRRuS and PaRRuS and their feminine marked variants. We may explain PaRRuS as the Assyrian counterpart of ​PuRRuS, as it is attested for šalluštu (Bab. šulluštu) in NA. It is possible that as the occurrences of ​PuRRuS with a feminine marker may simply be variants of ​ PuRuSt, with secondary gemination of ​R2. It is possible that fractions became associated with the D-​stem, in the sense that a denominal D-​stem of numbers is used to express ‘to turn one in to x’ (e.g., to double, triple etc.). This is the essence of fractions; it turns a whole into multiple smaller parts. This would make the PuRRuS(t) fraction a D-​stem adjective form, functioning as the object of the verbal content. We may also mention šinipu (f. šinipiat) ‘2⁄3’, which has been suggested to be a compound of šina ‘two’ and perhaps pû ‘mouth’ (Goetze 1946, 202 n. 81; AHw, 1242b; Ungnad 1992, 59 §49; GAG, 116 §70i). Rather similar is šittān ‘2⁄3’, a dual form derived from cardinal šina (f. šitta) ‘two’ (see AHw, 1252a). OB: Streck 2018, 66‒67 §170; NB: Woodington 1983, 75; LB: Streck 1995, 62‒68 §51‒60 OA: GKT, 116 §70; GOA, 283‒85 §8.4.2‒3; MA: UGM, 54 §56; DGMA, 327 §485; NA: SNAG, 86 §3.11.3 PaRuSt: šaluštu ‘1⁄3’ from šalšu ‘third’; Bab, (NA)78 šaluštam adv. ‘a third time’ from šalšu ‘third’; OB hapax rebūtu (rabuttu) ‘1⁄4’ from rebû ‘fourth’; MB‒NB/SB, NA, Nuzi79 ḫamuštu ‘1⁄5’ from ḫamšu ‘fifth’: OB, OA, NA80 šaduštu ‘1⁄6’ from šeššu ‘sixth’; NA81

78.  According to the editors of the CAD (Š1, 288a) the spellings of the type 3ta.àm-a-​te referring to triple(?) compensation in the Middle Assyrian laws (KAV 2) belong here. As no similar spellings are known to the present writer outside of the laws, it is difficult to be certain about the form underlying these semisyllabic spellings; see DGMA, 327 §485. Note also a suggested NA form salussusic., which is based on spellings of the type 3-su KAV 115 31; StAT 2: 41 4; 253 7; 3-su-šú StAT 2: 68 r. 1. The underlying melody cannot be decided in NA based on this spelling pace CAD Š1, 286b. 79.  Several NA spellings of the fraction show evidence of a PaRuSt pattern rather than expected PaRiSt, e.g., 4-ut-​ti-​šu SAA 6: 189 4. 80.  Only once attested in the status rectus in OA; see GOA, 282 §8.4.1 (ḫa-​mu-​uš-​tí OAA 1: 3 6). Cf. under *ḫamuštu CAD Ḫ, 73‒74. It occurs with a secondary meaning for a type of vessel in OB in status rectus form ḫamuštu; see AHw, 319b. Likewise as ḫamuštu it refers to a type of ​‘one-​fifth’ tax in NA in SAA 13: 31 5, 9: 13 r. 5 (see AHw, 319b). It is found as ḫamussu (ḫa-​mu-​su < ḫamuštu) in this stage of the Assyrian language. Note also some semisyllabic attestations when referring to the actual fraction: 5-u-​si-šú StAT 2: 216 7; 5-su StAT 2: 252 2′. 81.  See 6-si-šu (šadissīšu) StAT 2: 214 r. 1; 6-su-šú StAT 2: 77 r. 2.

“All Is Number”

179

PaRiSt: šalištu ‘1⁄3’ from šalšu ‘third’; OAkk,82 OA, OB83 sebītu (sebiat, sebât, sabât, sebiātu) ‘1⁄7’ from sebe ‘seven’; OB *eširtu (only ešrat/pl. ešrātu) ‘1⁄10’ from ešer ‘ten’; OB, OA‒NA PaRS: šalšu (abs​.​/constr. šaluš) ‘1⁄3’ from šalšu ‘third’; Bab, Ass rebû ‘1⁄4’ from rebû ‘fourth’; NB ḫamšu ‘1⁄5’ from ḫamšu ‘fifth’; OB/SB šiššat ‘1⁄6’ from šeššu ‘sixth’; OB84 sebû ‘1⁄7’ from sebû ‘seventh’; NB‒LB samnat ‘1⁄8’ from samnu ‘eighth’; OB85 tišât ‘1⁄9’ from tiše ‘nine’; OB PuRS: šulšu ‘1⁄3’ from šalšu ‘third’; LB, lex. šuššān (once erroneously šulšān) ‘2⁄6’ from šuššu ‘one sixth’; lex.86 *ḫumšu (ḫunzu) ‘1⁄5’ from ḫamšu ‘fifth’; NB hapax87 suddû (< *sudsû) (lex. šuššu) ‘1⁄6’ from šeššu ‘sixth’; NB88 sumnu ‘1⁄8’ from samnu ‘eighth’; SB hapax89 tušû ‘1⁄9’ from tišû ‘ninth’; SB tušu’a (tušu’u) adv. ‘ninefold’ from tišû ‘ninth’; OB/SB PuRuSt: šuluštu ‘1⁄3’ from šalāš ‘three’; SB sumuttu ‘(payment of ) 1⁄8 (of dates)’ from samāni ‘eight’; NB 82.  The phonology of the OAkk hapax (sa-​li-​ís-​tim TA 7 9′) is not clear. Hasselbach (2005, 70, 141‒42 realized it as ṯaliṯum, which would be a rare case of SA used for /ṯ/. Streck (2008, 250) prefers śaliśtu, which would be equivalent to Bab and Ass šalištu. Cf. Gelb 1957, 273. Another OAkk spelling is perhaps found in the uncertain attestation sa-​al-​sa-​tim CT 50: 81 3 (CAD Š1, 287b). 83.  E.g, ša-​li-​iš-​ti al-​Rawi and Roaf 1984, 190 ii 3 (math.); IM 52685 19′ (Baqir 1951). See CAD Š1, 285‒88. 84.  No form of the status rectus is attested. Cf. CAD Š3, 126. 85.  No form of the status rectus is attested. Cf. under *samuntu CAD S, 132b. 86.  See Brockelmann 1908, 491; Goetze 1946, 202 n. 183; Kraus 1970, 142; AHw, 1289b; CAD Š3, 384b. 87.  See Streck 1995, 66. 88.  See Streck 1995, 67. Note that the CAD (Š3, 385a) has šuššu ‘one sixth’, attested in a lexical list: šu-​uš U MIN šu-​uš-​šu A II/4, 71 (MSL 14: 282). Note also that šuššu is morphologically identical to the cardinal number ‘sixty’, which may very well have been derived from it as its pattern is unusual for a decade number. Because of the more-​frequent attestations of šuššu (< *šudšu) ‘sixty’, we may expect the same development for the fraction ‘one sixth’. Instead, we find the development *sudsû > suddû at least in NB. 89.  In su-​um-​nu Ì ḫal-ṣa BM 78963 37. See Stadhouders and Johnson 2018, 595.

180

Bēl Lišāni

Hurrian loanwords tummu ‘1⁄4 shekel’ from tumni ‘four’; Nuzi Forms with gemination: PuRRuS: šullul ‘1⁄3’ from šalšu ‘third’; NB ḫummušu ‘1⁄5’ from ḫamšu ‘fifth’; NB summunu ‘1⁄8’ from samnu ‘eighth’; LB90 PuRRuSt (var. PaRRuSt): šullultu (NA šallultu) ‘1⁄3’ from šalšu ‘third’; NB/SB, NA91 šullultātu pl tant. ‘1⁄3 shares’ from šalšu ‘third’; NB ḫammušu (NB ḫammulu) ‘1⁄5’ from ḫamšu ‘fifth’; NB hapax92 Other fractions use the base of cardinal numbers with the gentilic ending (-īu > -û), in particular for numbers higher than ten. The evidence is mostly limited to NB/LB texts where this long vowel is written with an aleph sign and an additional vowel sign, for example, 12-ʾa-​ú. It has been demonstrated that this spelling simply indicates a long vowel /û/ rather than a glottal stop (Streck 1995, 65 with further literature). Syllabic evidence from OB texts suggests that a gentilic ending -ī caused this long vowel, for example, ši-​in-​ša-​ri-​am ‘1⁄12’ TCL 17: 23 11. It should be noted that suddû ‘1⁄6’ also uses a long vowel, perhaps in analogy. samānû ‘1⁄8’ from samāni ‘eight’; NB šešš(u) from šeššu ‘six’; MB‒NB/SB ešrû ‘1⁄10, tithe, tithe land’ from ešer ‘ten’; NB‒LB ušrû ‘1⁄10, tithe’ from ešer ‘ten’; NB šinšerû (šinzirû) ‘1⁄12’ from *šinšer ‘twelve’; Bab šalāššerītu ‘1⁄13’ from šalāššer ‘thirteen’; OB ḫamiššerû (15-ʾu-​ú) ‘1⁄15’ from *ḫamiššer ‘fifteen’; LB hapax93 šeššerû (16-ʾu-​ú) ‘1⁄16’ from *šeššer ‘sixteen’; LB hapax94 samānā-​ešrû (samāššerû, samāššurû, 18-ʾu-​ú: samāššerāwû) ‘1⁄18’ from samānēšer ‘eighteen’; LB 90.  See AHw, 1058b. Note that the CAD (S, 381) translates the lemma erroneously as a foodstuff, as pointed out in Stadhouders and Johnson 2018, 595. 91.  There is one attestation where šullultu does not refer to a shekel; in Gilgamesh XI it used to describe the one third human part of the protagonist. See CAD Š3, 241b. 92.  Only once attested in NB; see Streck 1995, 67. Semisyllabic spellings are found in NA: 5-u-​ši-​šú SAA 2: 216 7; 5-ši-​šu SAA 2: 98 7. 93.  See Streck 1995, 65. 94.  See Streck 1995, 65.

“All Is Number”

181

ešrû (20-ʾu-​ú) ‘1⁄20’ from ešrā ‘twenty’; NB95 šalāšû ‘1⁄30’ from šalāšā ‘thirty’; NB šūšû (60-ʾu-​ú) ‘1⁄60’ from šūši ‘sixty’; LB96

6.5. Collective Numbers The collective numerals in Akkadian usually derive from the ordinal patterns with an attached feminine marker (GOA, 285‒86 §8.4.4). In general, this means that we expect to find Babylonian and Assyrian differentiated patterns PaRuS ~ PaRiS. In practice, this is only partly attested due to the limited corpus in which collective numbers are written syllabically. Most attestations are limited to the OA corpus, where an Assyrian form ḫamištu ‘group of five’ is used next to a seemingly Babylonian loan ḫamuštu ‘a week(!)’. The other known Babylonian form šaluštu, occurs in a first-​millennium lexical text. Rather unexpectedly, a PaRaSt pattern is used for the collective ešartu ‘group of ten’ in OA (Larsen 1976, 269‒73; GOA, 285‒86 §8.4.4). The dictionaries mention a form ḫumušû ‘(group) consisting of five’, but it should possibly be deleted.97 Many of the collective nouns are found in the UR5-RA = ḫubullu lexical lists, tablet V 129‒132 (MSL 6: 17, see Kraus 1970, 142‒45), with some additional forms found in one copy of said tablet (Meissner 1917, 24, 71 iii 19‒23). A number of patterns in this lexical list are used in the Akkadian translations of Sumerian terms related to ox ploughs with variously sized teams of oxen. We find one case of ​PaRuSt (šaluštu), several of ​PuRūSt (e.g., šunūʾtu) and two cases of a cardinal (erbettu ‘group of four’ line 131, šiššat ‘group of six’ line 130). We find one variant of šunūʾtu with gemination of the second radical (šu-​ un-​nu-[. . .] Meissner 1917, 71 iii 4). This spelling may represent šunnû, which is also attested in other SB texts and has a meaning ‘double’, that is, ‘a double span of oxen’. There are no plene spellings for PuRūS except for tušūʾu (tu-​šu-​ú-​um AbB 1: 51 19), where because of the aleph, a plene spelling does not necessarily indicate vowel length. The only reason to maintain this lengthened vowel is Akkadian incompatibility with two succeeding short open syllables. There are no cognates in other Semitic languages for these collective numbers, but compare semantically related Arabic ṯulāṯī ‘group of three’, rubāʿī ‘consisting of four’; cf. Geʻez śәllus ‘that consist of three.’ Note that we find two cardinal numbers with -(a)t marker: erbettu ‘group of four’ (line 131) šiššat ‘group of six’ (line 130). erbettu is also found written 95.  Included as ešruʾu in AHw, 258a. 96.  Included as šūšuʾû in AHw, 1290b; CAD Š3, 388b. 97.  One hapax is listed in CAD Ḫ, 237a; AHw, 356a; however, see new edition of said text in Paulus 2014, 667 Vs. I18 which has 5 šu-​ú ‘they are five.’

182

Bēl Lišāni

syllabically in other texts, as is sebettu ‘group of seven’. Morphologically, this group of collective nouns is not very interesting, apart from its assimilation (?) of ayin to the feminine marker (*erbeʿtu > erbettu; *sebeʿtu > sebettu > sibittu). Following Edzard (1985, 128) this may have been due to analogy with the feminine cardinal šitta (< *šintu) ‘two’. Edzard (1985, 128) further suggested that these forms use the pattern PaRiSt, but this is unlikely for two reasons. First of all, PaRiSt is to be expected only in the Assyrian dialect as the pattern for the ordinals (see above). Secondly, erbettu is very clearly the cardinal number plus the feminine marker (see Streck 1995, 22 n. 69). The collective sebettu is usually attested with a fixed pronominal -šunu suffix. OA: GOA, 285‒86 §8.4.4; MA: DGMA, 238 §339 6.5.1. Group 1: Collectives Derived from Ordinals PaRiSt: šalištu ‘group of three’ from šalšu ‘third’; OA ḫamištu ‘a group of five’ from ḫamšu ‘fifth’; OA98 šedištu ‘group of six’ of šeššu ‘sixth’; OA ešertu ‘group of ten’ from ešru ‘tenth’; OB, (NB)99 PaRuSt: šaluštu ‘group of three’ from šalšu ‘third’; SB and lex100 ḫamuštu ‘a week (lit. committee of five people)’ from ḫamšu ‘fifth’; OA PaRaSt: ešartu ‘group of ten’ from ešru ‘tenth’; OA, (MA?)101 6.5.2. Group 2: Collectives Derived from PuRūS PuRūS: ḫumūšu ‘team of five’ from ḫamiš ‘five’; OB hapax102 šudūšu ‘group of six’ from šeššet ‘six’; OB hapax tušūʾu ‘group of nine’ from tiše ‘nine’; OB 98.  All attestations outside OA presented in the dictionaries are written logographically; see CAD Ḫ, 67; AHw, 317b. One syllabic entry from a lexical list (Diri VI A2 5, formerly D 5) should be deleted; see MSL 15: 184. 99.  Morphology is based on one OB spelling e-​še-​er-​t[i] TLB 1: 76 8. See CAD E, 365a. 100.  For the lexical attestation, see UR5-RA = ḫubullu V 132 (MSL 6, 17). A new attestation is found in Ceremony at the Ekur: ša-​lu-​uš-​tum TMH 12: 3 6′ (HS 1902). 101.  See also Freydank 1999. 102.  Attested in the AbB 5: 27 19′ ḫu-​mu-​uš. See also Kraus 1970, 144. The attestation in the CAD (Ḫ, 237a) is logographic (5-ta) and not considered.

“All Is Number”

183

PuRūSt: šunūʾtu ‘team of two’ from šanû ‘second’; lex.103 rubūʾtu ‘team of four’ from erba ‘four’; lex.104 sudūštu (su-​d[u-​uš-​tu]) ‘team of six’ from šeššu ‘six’; lex.105 sumūntu ‘team of eight’ from samāni ‘eight’; lex.106 ušūrtu ‘unit of ten’ from ešir ‘ten’; OB 6.5.3. Group 3: Feminine Cardinal Numbers erbettu ‘a group of four’ from erba ‘four’; Bab šiššatu ‘team of six’ from šeššu ‘six’; lex.107 sibittu (or sebettu, usually sebettīšunu) ‘group of seven’ from sebe ‘seven’; Bab108 *samānūtu ‘group of eight’ from samāni ‘eighth’; SB109 6.5.4. Cardinal Compound erbenītu ‘team of four’ from erba ‘four’ and inītu ‘team of plough oxen’; OB We should also briefly mention the Hurrian loans in WPA, many of which are hapaxes (Giacumakis 1970, 48 §7.11‒12) tumnatala ‘four-​legged’ from Hurrian tumni ‘four’; MB Alalaḫ hapax110 tumnātu ‘four-​spoked’ from Hurrian tumni ‘four’; Nuzi111 tumunsallu ‘four-​spoked’ from Hurrian tumni ‘four’; Amarna hapax112 tumušše adj. ‘qualifying a cup’ from Hurrian tumni ‘four’; Qatna113 103.  See UR5-RA = ḫubullu V 133 (MSL 6, 17). 104.  See UR5-RA = ḫubullu V, Meissner 1917, 71 iii 3 (MSL 6, 17 131). 105.  See UR5-RA = ḫubullu V, Meissner 1917, 71 iii 2 (MSL 6, 17 130). 106.  See UR5-RA = ḫubullu V 129 (MSL 6, 17). 107.  See UR5-RA = ḫubullu V 130 (MSL 6, 17). 108.  See Borger 1987, 283 n. 4. 109.  See CAD S, 113. Attested in the incantation-​series bīt mēseri: sa-​ma-​nu-​tú a-ḫat-​su-​nu d Na-​ru-​di ‘the eighth, their sister Narunde’ Meier 1941‒44, 144 76. For this reason, this attestation is listed under the lemma of the ordinal samnu in AHw, 1019a. Note that in the preceding line, we find Sebittu as Se-​bit-​ti (l. 75). It therefore is clear that Narunde in this context acts as the eighth member of the Sebittu ‘The (divine) seven’. The morphologically unusual samānūtu must therefore be regarded as an ordinal. In this regard, note the second attestation: k i. b al. a. š è im. 8 . àm mu . u n . u 5 : ana KUR nu-​kúr-​tú šá-​a-​ri sa-​ma-​nu-​tú ra-​kib “he rides the eight winds to the enemy country” LUGAL UD ME-​LÁM-bi NIR-​ĞÁL 77 (van Dijk 1983, 61). This attestation is listed under the cardinals in AHw, 1017b. 110.  See Richter 2012, 469a. 111.  See Richter 2012, 469a. 112.  See Richter 2012, 469a. 113.  See Richter 2012, 469a.

184

Bēl Lišāni

6.6. Adverbs 6.6.1. Multiplicatives Multiplicatives are formed by adding a suffix -īšu to the base of the cardinal number. For the origin of this suffix three solutions have been offered. Lipiński (2001, 303 §35.31) suggests that it goes back to *-ʾiṯu, which is also attested in various other Semitic languages as well as in Berber.114 In his discussion, Kouwenberg separates -īšu into -ī and -šu (GOA, 286 §8.5.1 n. 20). However, most straightforward is the idea that it derives from an adverbial ending -ī and a fossilized pronominal suffix -šu.115 The adverbial ending -ī goes back to -āy, which explains the Assyrian spellings with e-​signs (Ass. /ay/ > /ē/).116 Phonology and morphology: Many of the spellings of these forms are syllabic, especially in the literary corpus, so we have a fair idea of their morphology. Note that in many administrative documents of the various dialects, spellings are semilogographic of the type N-šu, and actual syllabic spellings are therefore not attested in MA and NB. A number of plene spellings indicate that the final vowel is lengthened to 114. Sabaic, e.g., šlṯt-ʾḏ ‘three times’, see Stein 2003, 241. Ugaritic, e.g., ṯlṯ-id ‘three times’, see Tropper 2012, 377 §65.14. Possibly connected to Syriac tlīṯ-āʾīṯ (‫ܐܝܬ‬ ܴ ‫‘ )ܬ ܻܠ‬in the third place’ ܻ ‫ܝܬ‬ following Tropper 2012; see Nöldeke 1904, 98 §154. The particle may be related to Common Semitic yad ‘hand’ (Tropper 2012). However, not all etymological connections can be correct, because of the incompatibility between the dentals in all languages. Ugaritic and Sabaic are quite possibly related, though the occurrence of /ḏ/ in Sabaic refutes the connection to yad ‘hand’. If /ḏ/ was the original dental, we would expect /z/ in Akkadian (GAG, 36 §30a and even Lipiński 2001, 125 §13.2). This simple phonological observation undermines Lipiński’s connection of the Akkadian multiplicatives with other Semitic and Hamitic languages. Granted, Lipiński reconstructs the Proto-​Semitic morpheme as -iṯu, but this cannot explain the development of /ṯ/ > /d/ and /ḏ/ in Ugaritic and Sabaic, nor the consistent spellings in these languages with aleph. Moreover, the Syriac adverb appears to have developed out of a feminine gentilic ending (Butts 2010). 115.  See von Soden 1987, 409; GAG, 117 §71a; Rainey 1996, 193; Kienast 2001, 186 §168.3; Izre’el and Cohen 2004, 46 §3.3.3.3; Streck 2018, 67 §171; GOA, 286 §8.5.1 n. 20. See in particular also Huehnergard and Pat-​El (2012, 31) who compare the multiplicatives with other Semitic languages where the pronominal suffixes can be added to nouns. In particular, a comparison is made with the definite state in Amharic, where the pronominal suffix of the third person developed into a definite article (2012, 26), e.g., bäre (በሬ) “ox” > bärew (በሬው) “the ox/his ox” (see Leslau 2000, 34–36 §37). If correct, we must also add adverbs of the type šalšūtīšu, where pronominal suffixes of the first and second person are attached (not discussed in Huehnergard and Pat-​El 2012). Note that this explanation does not account for the plene spelling of the suffix-īšu (-šu-​ú). 116.  The ending -ī (< -āy, Ass. -ē) is an adverbial ending with locative function also found in question words such as ali ‘where?’, adverb ammi ‘there’ and preposition išti ‘with, from’ (GOA, 393 §13.3; cf. Gelb 1981, 25; GAG, 203 §113k; Kienast 2001, 175 §158.8; Hasselbach 2005, 166 §4.3.1). Note that the few MA spellings also show -ē rather than Bab -ī; see DGMA, 328 §486.

“All Is Number”

185

-īšū: iš-​ti-​šu-​ú RA 29 pl. 4 iv 1, pl. 3 iii 38; ši-​ni-​šu-​ú AbB 5: 92 28; ḫa-​am-​ši-​šu-​ ú ASJL 32: 283 5, TMB 141 13; ḫa-​am-​ši-​šu-​ú-​ma-​an BIN 7: 53 24. The vowel -ī- is probably /ē/ in Assyrian following spellings with E-​signs in OA and MA. Note that the adverb ištīššu ‘once, firstly’ derives from ištēn+šu rather than -īšu, with /n/ assimilating to -šu. In analogy with forms with the -īšu suffix the preceding vowel changes from /ē/ > /ī/: ištēššu > ištīššu. This sound change is confirmed by syllabic spellings with the syllabic sign rather than , for example, iš-​ti-​iš-​šu TCL 7: 58 6. Note the various semisyllabic spellings of the type 1-en-​šu (ištēnšu), which represent the base of the number plus the affix (CAD I and J, 284b). In Amarna, a variant occurs with an apparent feminine suffix -t, for example, 7-it-​šu EA 84 5 (Rainey 1996, 193). Two more deviating morphological forms of the multiplicatives occur; in OA we find cardinal ēšrā ‘twenty’ unchanged, perhaps to avoid confusion with ešrīšu ‘ten times’. Likewise, we find mītā ‘hundred times’ from mīt rather than *mītīšu (see GOA, 286‒87 §8.5.1). OA: GKT, 116‒17 §71a‒b; GOA, 286‒89 §8.5; MA: UGM, 54‒55 §57; DGMA, 327‒28 §486; NA: Ylvisaker 1912, 28 §23; SNAG, 86‒87: §3.11.13. OB: Streck 2018, 66 §171; MB: Aro 1955, 71; NB: Woodington 1983, 76; LB: Streck 1995, 73. Alalaḫ: Giacumakis 1970, 50 §7.22; Amurru: Izre’el 1991, 106 §2.2.3; Amarna: Rainey 1996, 192‒94; Dušratta: Adler 1976, 39‒40 §30; Egypt: Müller 2010, 267 §13.1.6; Cochavi-​Rainey 2011, 66‒67 §2.2.4; Emar: Seminara 1998, 447 §4 Multiplicatives with-(ī)šu: ištiššu ‘once, firstly’ from ištēn ‘one’; Bab šinīšu ‘twice, a second time’ from šina ‘two’; Bab, Ass šalāšīšu (šelāšīšu) ‘three times’ from šalāš ‘three’; Bab, Ass erbīšu (a/erbīšu) ‘four times’ form erba ‘four’; Bab, Ass ḫamšīšu ‘five times’ from ḫamiš ‘five’; Bab, Ass šeššīšu ‘six times’ from šeššu ‘six’; Bab, Ass sebîšu (šibišu, šabišu; usually 7-šu) ‘seven times’ from sebe ‘seven’; Bab, Ass117 samānîšu (only 8-šu) ‘eight times’ from samāni ‘eight’; SB, MA‒NA118 tišîšu ‘nine times’ from tiše ‘nine’; OB ešrīšu ‘ten times’ from ešer ‘ten’; Bab, Ass

117.  New OB attestation in ana se-​bi-​šu CUSAS 32: 56 14 (Wasserman/Zomer 2021, no. 127) 118.  MA in 8-[n]i?-​šu Subartu 14: 5 11.

186

Bēl Lišāni

Above 10: šalšerīšu ‘thirteen times’ from šalāššer ‘thirteen’; OB hapax119 šūšīšu ‘sixty times’ from šūši ‘sixty’; OB, Mari li’mīšu ‘thousandfold’ from līmu ‘thousand’; NA hapax120 (SAA 10 198:18) Deviating forms, without-īšu: ešrā ‘twenty times’ from ešrā ‘twenty’; OA mītā ‘hundred times’ from meʾat ‘hundred’; OA hapax 6.6.2. Adverbs of the Type šalšiānu Following Wolfram von Soden (1987, 409, cf. GAG, 118 §71b; Kienast 2001, 186 §169.3; Lipiński 2001, 304 §35.32; Nuzi in Gordon 1938, 45‒46 §3.6bis, §3.11) a second method of indicating multiplicatives was introduced in the late second millennium. Pace earlier studies, this method does not occur in Middle Assyrian and is found only in NA royal inscriptions (see šalšiānu §6.2 n. 126). The adverbial ending -ī (< *-ay) with additional suffix -ān is added to the base of the ordinal number (see Streck 2005). In this respect, it differs significantly from the multiplicative type šalāšīšu, which is based on the cardinal numbers. All attestations are spelt syllabically so we can be certain about the morphology. It is furthermore notable that most of the attestations occur in royal inscriptions and Nuzi texts. Only šaniānu occurs elsewhere, being found in a number of NB epistolary texts and once in an Amarna letter. The range of attestations is limited, with examples of only the numbers two through four being known. šaniānu (SB šanênu) ‘secondly, for the second time’ from šanû ‘second’; NB/SB, Am, Nuzi šalšiānu (Ass. šalšiāni; Nuzi šaššiāna) ‘for the third time’ from šalšu ‘third’; NA royal, Nuzi121 rabiāna ‘fourthly’ from rabû ‘fourth’; Nuzi hapax122 6.6.3. Adverbs of the Type šalšūtīšu This adverb of number is used to indicate how many times something has happened, that is, for the second, third, etc. time. This adverb of number is built 119.  In ša-​al-​ši-​ri-​šu-​ú MKT 2 pl. 38 iv 12; see CAD Š1, 262; cf. AHw, 1146b (as šala(š)šerûsic.). 120.  In li-​iʾ-mi-​šu SAA 10: 198 18. 121.  Two broken attestations from a Middle Assyrian letter in the CAD (Š1, 261‒62) must be deleted (KAJ 5 2′, 9′), as a PN is to be restored in both instances (Freydank and Saporetti 1989, 85‒86). 122.  In ra-​bi-​a-​na HSS 5: 49 11. See CAD R, 17b; AHw, 934b.

“All Is Number”

187

with the base of the masculine ordinal, the abstract morpheme -ūt (Ass. -utt) and generally speaking, a suffix -īšu (Ass. -ēšu). Most attestations are found in MA‒NA texts, though šanūtīšu ‘for the second time’ and šalšūtīšu ‘for the third time’ also occur in Babylonian and several forms of ​Western Peripheral Akkadian. We should probably add ištēnūtu ‘once’ here as well, which occurs once in Nuzi and once in a letter written by an Egyptian scribe at Amarna, even though it has no suffix -īšu (see also below). While the individual elements are not always immediately clear, this form is probably to be analyzed as an ordinal number with the abstract-​suffix -ūt, locative -u(m), and pronominal suffix -šu, as will now be explained below. It is generally understood that the -šu in these forms is a pronominal suffix, which refers to the subject of a clause.123 All evidence for this assumption derives from MA and MB/SB. In NA we always -šu regardless of the subject. There is just one OB attestation in a letter from Susa, and this does not have any suffix whatsoever (CAD Š1, 411b). More suffixless forms of šanūti are known. One attestation (EA 1 74) occurs in the same Amarna letter in which suffixless ištēnūtu (l. 72) is found. Congruence between pronoun and subject only occurs for šanūtīšu and šalšūtīšu, for example, šalšūtīya ‘(I) first time’ PBS 1/2 59:5, šanūtēka ‘(you) second time’ Oppenheim Glass 48 §18 12′. These numbers are by a large margin the most attested, whereas for the other adverbs only -šu is found. The evidence from MA is fairly limited; we find one full passage (quoted below) as well as a broken one.124 Nonetheless, the attestations without suffix show that it is indeed likely that the addition of -šu should be regarded as a pronominal suffix, perhaps in superficial analogy with the adverbs of the type šinīšu. By this analogy, we can explain how limited congruence took place between the subject of the clause and the pronominal suffix. Already in the MA period we find cases where this congruence is already forgotten and -šu has become fossilized. ša-​nu-​ut-​te-​ka (. . .) tak[appar] ‘a second time you will clean’ KAR 140 r. 9‒10 ša-​nu-​ut-[te-​š]u (. . .) iddunūš ‘they will give him a second time’ MAPD §8:50‒51 It has been suggested that a locative -u(m) is the original source of the -ī- infix, as confusion between /i/ and /u/ in the locative occurs in Akkadian: šanūtumšu > šanūtuššu > šanūtīššu (GAG, 109 §66e; cf. BATSH 4, 138). This idea is somewhat supported by the plene spelling of the alleged assimilated pronoun in a 123.  Cf. GAG, 118 §71b; MB Aro 1955, 71; NA SNAG, 87 §3.11.3. 124.  BATSH 4: 8 53†, BATSH 4: 4 11 may be read as ša-​nu-​te-​š[u]! instead of -i[a].

188

Bēl Lišāni

MB letter: ša-​nu-​ti-​ik-​ka AfO 10 3:13. The issue remains, however, that only one attestation so far supports this claim, and no example survives in which the original locative spelling is retained. Spellings of these adverbs are mostly syllabic, but partly logographic ones occur as well. These semilogographic spellings are usually long (of the type 2-te-​šu) but sometimes short (2-šu). In the case of the latter, they are indistinguishable from the adverbs of the type šinīšu, for example, 18-šu and 20-šu KAR 140 r. 1). MB: Aro 1955, 71 MA: UGM, 55 §58.2; DGMA, 328‒29 §487; NA: SNAG, 87 §3.11.3 Amarna (Egypt): Cochavi-​Rainey 2011, 130, 133; Dušratta: Adler 1976, 39‒40 §30; Nuzi: Gordon 1938, 44 §3.2 ištēnūtu ‘for the first time, once’ from ištēn ‘one’; Am, Nuzi šanūti- (šanūta-) ‘for a second time’ from šanû ‘second’; Bab, MA‒NA, WPA125 šalšūtī- (MA šaššūtī-) ‘for the third time’ from šalšu ‘third’; MB‒NB/SB, MA126 rabūtešu ‘for the fourth time’ from rebû ‘fourth’; MA ḫamšūtēšu ‘for the fifth time’ from ḫamšu ‘fifth’; NA šeššūtēšu (6-te-​šú) ‘for the sixth time’ from šeššu ‘sixth’; NA hapax 6.6.4. Terminative Adverbial All cases of the terminative adverbial -iš are added to the base of the ordinal number (cf. GAG, 118 §71b). As usual, the base for ‘one’ is the cardinal number. The forms are used in the temporal sense of ​‘firstly’, ‘secondly’, ‘thirdly’. In this regard they are similar in meaning to adverbs such as šinīšu ‘twice’ and šaniānu ‘for the second time’. Note that there is an additional hapax attestation of a D-stem adjective with a terminative adverbial (cf. GAG, 118 §71c). OB: Streck 2018, 135 §306c; MB: Aro 1955, 71 OA: GOA, 404 §13.5.5; MA: DGMA, 329‒30 §488; NA: Ylvisaker 1912, 28 §23 Mari: Finet 1956, 127‒28 §52a; Nuzi: Gordon 1938, 45‒46 §3.6bis, §3.11

125.  New attestation in ša-​nu-​te!-šu KAM 11: 63 7 (MA). 126.  New attestation in ša-​áš-​šu-​te-šu KAM 11: 63 9 (MA).

“All Is Number”

189

Cardinal base: ištēniš ‘together, jointly, at the same time’ from ištēn ‘one’; Akk127 šanîš ‘second time, again, otherwise’ from šanû ‘second’; OB/SB, MA, Bo, Mari *šanāʾiš ‘second time’ from šanû ‘second’; Ug hapax128 šalšiš ‘thirdly’ from šalāš ‘three’; Bab rebîš ‘fourthly, fourfold’ from rebû ‘fourth’; SB *ḫamšiš (ḫaššiš) ‘fifthly’ from ḫamšu ‘fifth’; SB129 šeššiš ‘sixfold’ from šeššu ‘sixth’; OB PuRRuS D-​stem base: šullušiš ‘in three parts’ from šullušu ‘threefold’; SB hapax 6.6.5. Distributive Distributive numbers are usually realized in Akkadian with the suffix -ā (GAG, 118 §71d). The adverbial ending -ā is not limited to the numerals but is also attached to various other nouns that indicate quantities. This mostly concerns the various nouns indicating half ​(bāmā, mišlā, muttā) though also includes others such as ammā (< ammatu) ‘one cubit each’, and bilā (< biltu) ‘one talent each’; see Powell 1982, 98‒100 §4.1; GOA 8.6.3. This shows that the adverbial ending was productive and not limited to one pattern. For this reason, we find -ā attached to the base of the cardinal numbers in ištēnā ‘one each’ and possibly šinnû ‘two each’ if one assumes contraction of -āʾu(m) > -û. For distributive numbers higher than one, the PuRūS form of the collectives is most common (see Powell 1982, 98‒100 §4.1). Alternatively, one may regard these as PuRuSSā forms (Kienast 2001, 186 §168.1; cf. GOA, 128 §4.2.2.12). This is not very likely because PuRuSSā is mostly used for deverbal nouns with juridical or commercial concepts. There are no direct cognates for PuRūSā in other Semitic languages (Lipiński 2001, 304 §35.33). One may, however, compare the distributive for two (šunāyā) with the Arabic pattern fuʿāl (ṯunāʾ ‘two each’, see SNAG, 87), assuming this is not a variant of QuTuLā. An additional deviating form of šinnû ‘two each’ is found in MB/SB, which again seems to be based on the cardinal number (šina). Note that OA has yet another construction for two: šanā. Syllabic spellings for all presented forms are found, though Akkadian also frequently used logographic spellings of the type N-TA.ÀM or N-ÀM or in NA 127.  Attestations include OAkk (ís-​ti-​ni-​ís); see Hasselbach 2005, 272; cf. Gelb 1957, 80‒81; 1961, 143. 128.  Listed in AHw, 1161a; CAD Š1, 365‒66. A ghostword, following Huehnergard 1986. 129.  See AHw, 1559a (Nachträge), CDA, 104b.

190

Bēl Lišāni

semilogographic spellings of the type 2-a-​a (see Powell 1982, 101 §4.2). Some variation exists for the adverbial ending -ā, especially in the list of attestations gathered for NB ištēnā in Streck (1995, 69‒70 §61), where we find a number of ​ broken spellings. These show that both ištēnā and ištēnû occur. An analysis of the adverbial ending -ā (tentative transcription), remains problematic. It has been suggested by Hecker and von Soden that it is an adverbial accusative without mimation (GKT, 99 §61g; GAG, 202 §113c; cf. 118 §71d). While this reasoning holds for OA (though with some notable exceptions), the myriad of plene spellings of this vowel, especially in NB, makes this assumption very unlikely. An alternative explanation given by von Soden (GAG, 202 §113d) assumes that -ā derives from contraction between the gentilic ending -ī and the accusative ending -a. This idea must be rejected outright as one would expect at least some uncontracted forms, particularly in Assyrian. Moreover, von Soden recognizes that in order for both of ​his suggested etymologies to be correct, some of the distributive nouns on which his arguments are based must end with a long -ā and others with a short -a. There is no basis for this, and we must therefore assume that all cases presented here contain the same affix. Landsberger in Kraus (1970, 144) prefers -â. However, this suggests contraction, for which they give no further explanation. In Old Assyrian we find a secondary pattern PuRūSāʾu(m), in which a locative ending is added to the previously discussed PuRūSā form. The pattern is not attested in OA without a locative ending. Instead we find the cardinal with suffixed -ā: ištēnā, šanā, as opposed to PuRūSā: šanāʾu, šulūšāʾu, rubūāʾu. As can be seen, overlap is limited to šanā ~ šanāʾu. Following Kouwenberg, the extended form is an innovation in analogy with the use of the nominative in forms such as manāʾu ‘per mina’ and biltu ‘per talent’. This pattern therefore has the meaning ‘at a rate (of exchange) of n to one’ (GOA, 291‒92 §8.6.2). OA: GOA, 290‒93 §8.6; NA: Postgate 1976, 64 §6.1.4; SNAG 89 §3.11.3 MB: Aro 1955, 71; LB: Streck 1995, 69‒71 §61‒66 Emar: Seminara 1998, 447; Nuzi: Speiser 1935, 435 PuRūSā: ištēnā (ištēnû) ‘one each, one by one’, from ištēn ‘one’; Bab, Ass130 šunāyā ‘two each, two apiece’ from *šunû ‘a team of two’; NA131

130.  One may add literary NA iš-​te-​né-​eʾ-ú KAL 9: 10 13. 131.  Syllabic spellings vary with semisyllabic 2-a-a​ , note also šu-​un-​na Iraq 25: 52 18 (NA royal), which suggests a biform šunnā.

“All Is Number”

191

šanā ‘two each’; OB, OA132 šinnû ‘two each’; OB‒NB/SB šulūšā ‘three each’ from *šulūšu ‘a team of three’; OB/SB, OA rubūʾā ‘four each’ from *rubû ‘a team of four’; OB, Nuzi ḫumūšā ‘five each’ from ḫumūšu ‘a team of five’; OB133 subūʾā ‘seven each’ from *subû ‘a team of seven’; SB hapax134 ušūrā (ušūrû) ‘ten each’ from *ušuru ‘a team of ten’; NA, Nuzi135 Old Assyrian: šanāʾu ‘at a rate of two’ from šunāyā ‘two each’; OA šulūšāʾu ‘at a rate of three’ from šulūšā ‘three each’; OA rubūʾā ‘at a rate of four’ from rubū’ā ‘four each’; OA Nuzi: ištātan ‘each one’ from ištēn ‘one’; Nuzi hapax136

6.7. Denominal Verbs 6.7.1. Verbal Roots The denominal character of the various semantic classes that refer to numbers is well illustrated by the fact that verbs can be created out of the nominal roots of the ordinals (e.g., Kouwenberg 1997, 306; Lipiński 2001, 304‒5; cf. von Soden 1987, 411‒12). As pointed out by von Soden, it is clear that the verbs are derived from the ordinals and not the other way around as the use of the verbal roots is very limited except for the number two (von Soden 1987, 404). The G-​stem is used in the meaning ‘to do something n-times’. In general, the D-​stem is used to make the intransitive verb transitive (GAV, 255). These roots are frequently used in hendiadys in either the G-​stem or the D-​stem, that is, ‘to do something twice/again’. Note that there is no noticeable difference between šanû

132.  An OB attestation is reported by Finkel (2014, 365) for the Flood Tablet line 52: ⸢ša-​na⸣ ‘two by two’ (referring to animals entering the Ark). 133.  Only mentioned with distributive meaning in CDA, 120b. 134.  See Krebernik 2001. There is some inconsistency in Krebernik’s transliteration of this numeral. Following his copy, su-​bu-​a-​am (HS 1512 8) should be read. 135.  Only two attestations are known, both of which are given in the CAD (U and W, 332): a syllabic written variant ušurû (Nuzi) and a semilogographic spelling 10-a-​a (NA). Cf. GAG, 118 §71d. 136.  iš-​ta-​ta-​an in JEN 348=653 47 (38), see CAD I and J, 275a; AHw, 400a. The formation is not discussed in GAG.

192

Bēl Lišāni

and šalāšu in the G and D-​stems (see Kraus 1987, 13; CAD Š1, 236‒37, 398–403, GAV, 255, 259, 263; Kouwenberg 2010, 273). šanû ‘G: to do twice, a second time (i/i), D: to repeat, to remeasure, Dtn: to repeat (a request) again, Dt: to be remeasured (pass.), Št: to duplicate’, from šina ‘two’; Akk šalāšu ‘G: to do for a third time, three times (i/i, a/u, u/u), D: to make threefold, Š: to triple’ from šalāš ‘three’; Akk rebû ‘G: to do for a fourth time (u/u), D: stat. to be quadrupled’ from erba ‘four’; OB137 ḫamāšu ‘G: to do as a fifth action (u/u)’ from ḫamiš ‘five’; OB/SB138 6.7.2. Adjective šullušu Two adjectives derived from the D-​stem are attested in Akkadian. These follow the expected PuRRuS pattern (cf. von Soden 1987, 412). šulluš D-​stem adjective: šunnû ‘double’ from ‘G: to do twice, a second time, D: to repeat’; SB hapax šullušu ‘threefold, tripled’ from ‘G: to do for a third time, three times’, D: to make threefold’; NB/SB 6.7.3. Adjective šušlušu Similar to the adjective šullušu of the D-​stem, Akkadian has a dedicated nominal pattern for the Š-​stem, šušlušu ‘to make triple’, which is used for the infinitive and adjective/stative (cf. GAG, 118 §71c).139 A Št-​pattern is found in šutašnû adj. ‘doubled’, only attested in lexical texts. Morphologically, the occurrence of OA šušalšu (or šūšalšu) ‘threefold’ is unexpected and the only case where we find šūPRaS instead of šuPRuS. It may be that this form does not derive directly from the verbal root šušlušu ‘to make triple’, but rather the connection is made by association through means of the addition of a causative prefix šuadded to a base, perhaps šalšu ‘third’ or a similar form. In this regard, we may 137.  For attestations of this verb in the G-​stem and D-​stem, see GAV, 255; see also. Kouwenberg 2010, 76 n. 106. 138.  See CAD Ḫ, 61; GAV, 306; Kouwenberg 2010, 76 n. 106. Following GAV, there is no D-stem, pace AHw, 316a; CDA, 103b. 139.  We should delete OA šurbuītu ‘fourfold’ pace CAD Š3, 342b; CDA, 387b, discussed as šurb/puʾium in Veenhof 1972, 190‒91; AHw, 1283a. It is clear that the gentilic does not belong in a normal Š-​stem adjective, which makes it more likely to refer to a GN, as suggested by Dercksen 2004, 16 n3; Michel and Veenhof 2010, 221; GOA, 257‒58 §7.4.5 n. 26.

“All Is Number”

193

point to two other nomina with šu- prefixes that are nonetheless not deverbal. šudādu ‘lover’ perhaps from mūdadu ‘darling’ and šutāpu ‘partner’ from Sumerian tab.ba. Furthermore, it must be pointed out that šušalšum is not usually declined, with only two instances of an accusative ending -am occurring (TC 3: 263 12, 22). Following Kouwenberg it is most convenient to regard this noun as multiplicative numeral (GOA, 289 §8.5.3). See also Lewy 1960, 42; GTK, 87 §55d, 118 §71e.140 šuPRuS: šušlušu ‘triple’ from šalāšu ‘to do three times, Š: to make triple’; SB šuPRāS: šušalšum (šušalšam) adv. ‘threefold’ from šalāšu ‘to  do three times, Š: to make triple’; OA141 šutaPRuS: šutašnû ‘doubled’ from šanû ‘to do twice, Št2: to duplicate’; lex. 6.7.4. Type tašlīšu Two nouns of the taprīš pattern are attested in Akkadian. For tašnû we find two adverbial variants: tašnâ(m) with adverbial ending -am and in Susa an endingless form tašni (de Meyer 1962, 112; Salonen 1962, 142). While von Soden qualified the pattern as Zahladjektiv (GAG, 118 §71c; see von Soden 1987, 412), none of the attestations are used as adjectives. Moreover, taprīs is not generally used in this function but rather as a deverbal noun of a verbal root, most often related to the D-​stem, but also to the Gt-​stem. tašnû ‘second term/turn’ from šanû ‘G: to  do twice, a  second time, D: to repeat’; SB tašnâ(m) (Susa tasni) adv. ‘twofold, twice’ from tašnû ‘second term/turn’; OB, Mari, Susa tašlīšu ‘third man (of a chariot crew)’ from šalāšu ‘G: to do three times, D: to make threefold’; NB/SB, NA 140.  We should delete a variant šušaltu in TMH 1: 4b 4, pace CAD Š3, 378b. Instead we should read TÚG.ḪItí[-a]. 141.  Alternatively, Kouwenberg (GOA, 289 §8.5.3 n. 22) attempts to explain šušalšu as a compound built from pronoun and ordinal: šū šalšu ‘it is the third time’. However, as he admits, Assyrian has a pronoun šūt, which would lead to a form *šussalšu. Neither the present analysis as a Š-​stem nominal form nor Kouwenberg’s understanding of a pronominal compound offers a perfect solution. The variant šušaltu quoted in the CAD Š3, 378b is based on an erroneous reading.

194

Bēl Lišāni

6.8. Conclusions In this study the morphology of the Akkadian cardinals was discussed as well as the numerals derived from them. Despite Akkadian mostly using logographic writings for the numerals, a rich vocabulary of denominal constructions can be observed. The most-​basic derived numeral is the ordinal, with the PaRvS pattern. Whereas usually a dialectal difference PaRuS ~ PaRiS is assumed for Babylonian and Assyrian, a review of the material shows minimal evidence for restricting PaRuS and PaRiS to respectively Babylonian and Assyrian. Moreover, a few unusual constructions suggest a third pattern PaRaS, which would build a direct parallel with the patterns for the primary adjectives (also being PaRiS, PaRuS, PaRaS). Other numerals and the rare finite form are derived from the ordinals. The most-​basic derived forms are augmented by the feminine marker, for example, the collective ḫamuštu ‘a week’. However, we find different patterns in PuRS, generally regarded to build abstracts from adjectives, but also with a secondary function of ​building fractions. Extended patterns are found in PaRāSī, for example, šanāyīyu ‘secondary’; PuRūSi, for example, rubūʾû (rubuʾīu) ‘four-​year-​old’. The deciding factor that these are not derived directly from cardinals is the loss of affixes visible in the numbers ‘four’ and ‘eight’, that is, erba ‘four’ > rebû ‘fourth’ > rubūʾû (not *urbuʾīu) ‘four-​year-​old’. Denominal constructions are still found in a few instances, such as the multiplicative, for example, erbīšu ‘four times.’

Appendix: List of Compounds Botanical (folk etymologies): imḫur-​ešrā (imḫur-​ašru, imḫur-​ašra, imḫur-​ašnan, imḫur-​ašla, anḫurašru) ‘a climbing plant, lit. ‘it withstands twenty (ailments)’; from maḫāru + ešrā SB, Bo imḫur-​līm(i/e) (anḫullīme) ‘a medicinal plant, lit. ‘it withstands a thousand (ailments)’; from maḫāru + līmu MB/SB, Bo Adverbs of time: rabūšeni ‘three years ago (i.e., in the fourth previous year)’ from erba ‘four’ and šattu ‘year’; NA šalšūmi (šalušmu, Amos šalšāmi) ‘the day before yesterday’ from šalāš ‘three’ and ūmu ‘day’; OB, NA, Nuzi142 šaluššani (šalušeni, šalušini, šalšeni) ‘the year before last (i.e., in the third previous year)’ from šalāš ‘three’ and šattu ‘year’; OB, NA, Nuzi 142.  See Streck 2016, 11.

“All Is Number”

195

Bibliography Adler, Hans-​Peter. 1976. Das Akkadische des Königs Tušratta von Mitanni. AOAT 201. Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Al-​Rawi, Farouk N. H., and Michael Roaf. 1984. “Ten Old Babylonian Mathematical Problems from Tell Haddad, Himrin.” Sumer 43:175‒218. Aro, Jussi. 1955. Studien zur Mittelbabylonischen Grammatik. StOr 20. Helsinki: Suomalaisen. ———.1957. Glossar zu den Mittelbabylonischen Briefen. StOr 22. Helsinki: Suomalaisen. Baqir, Taha. 1951. “More Mathematical Texts from Harmal and Comments on the Babylonian Mathematics.” Sumer 7:129‒69. Barth, Jakob. 1891. Die Nominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Blažek, Václav. 2001. “Etymologizing the Semitic Cardinal Numbers of the First Decade.” Pages 13–37 in New Data and New Methods in Afroasiatic Linguistics: Robert Hetzron in Memoriam. Edited by Andrzej Zaborski. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Borger, Rykle. 1987. “Das Comma Johanneum in der Peschitta.” Novum Testamentum 29:280‒84. Brinkman, John. A. 1985. “Texts and Fragments.” JCS 37:249‒52. Brockelmann, Carl. 1908. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen. Vol. 1, Laut- und Formenlehre. Berlin: von Reuther & Reichard. Butts, Aaron. Michael. 2010. “The Etymology and Derivation of the Syriac Adverbial Ending-ɔʾiθ*.” JNES 69:79‒86. Cochavi-​Rainey, Zipora. 2011. The Akkadian Dialect of ​Egyptian Scribes in the 14th and 13th Centuries BCE. AOAT 374. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag. Dassow, Eva von. 2002. Review of Zahl und Zeit: Grammatik der Numeralia und des Verbalsystems im Spätbabylonischen, by Michael P. Streck. JAOS 122:535‒41. Dercksen, Jan Gerrit. 2004. Old Assyrian Institutions. PIHANS 98. Istanbul: Nino. ———. 2011. “Weeks, Months and Years in Old Assyrian Chronology.” BiOr 68.3–4:233‒43. Dijk, Johannes van. 1983. LUGAL UD ME-​LÁM-​bi NIR-​ĞÁL: Le récit épique et didactique des Travaux de Ninurta, du Déluge et de la Nouvelle Création. Leiden: Brill. Dillmann, August, and Carl Bezold. 1907. Ethiopic Grammar. Translated by James A. Crichton. London: Williams & Norgate. Fales, Frederick Mario. 1979. “A List of Assyrian and West Semitic Women’s Names.” Iraq 41:55‒73. Finet, André. 1956. L’Accadien des lettres de Mari. Brussels: Koninklijke Académie Royale de Belgique. Finkel, Irving L. 2014. The Ark Before Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Fox, Joshua. 2003. Semitic Noun Patterns. HSS 52. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Freedman, Sally. M. 1998. If a City Is Set on a Height: The Akkadian Omen Series Šumma Alu ina Mēlê Šakin. Vol. 1, Tablets 1–21. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 17. Philadelphia: Samuel Noah Kramer Fund. Freydank, Helmut. 1999. “Zur Interpretation einer mittelassyrischen Urkunde aus Tell Chuēra.” AoF 26:207‒9.

196

Bēl Lišāni

Freydank, Helmut, and Claudio Saporetti. 1989. Bābu-​aḫa-​iddina, die Texte. Corpus Medio-​Assiro. Rome: Denicola. Friberg, Jöran, and Farouk Al-​Rawi, N. H. 2016. New Mathematical Cuneiform Texts. Berlin: Springer. Gelb, Ignace. J. 1935. Inscriptions from Alishar and Vicinity. OIP 27. Chicago: University of Chicago. ———. 1955. Review of Grundriss der Akkadischen Grammatik, by Wolfram von Soden. BiOr 12.3–4:93‒111. ———. 1957. Glossary of Old Akkadian. Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary 3. Chicago: University of Chicago. ———. 1961. Old Akkadian Writing and Grammar. 2nd ed. Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary 2. Chicago: University of Chicago. ———. 1981. “Ebla and the Kish Civilization.” Pages 9–73 in La Lingua di Ebla: Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Napoli, 21‒23 Aprile 1980). Edited by Luigi Cagni. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale. Giacumakis, George. 1970. The Akkadian of Alalaḫ. Janua linguarum. Series practica 59. Paris: Mouton. Goetze, Albrecht. 1931. “Entsprechung der neuassyrischen Zeichen PÍŠ und KA+ ŠU in der Boghazköi-​Schrift.” ZA 40:65‒80. ———. 1946. “Number Idioms in Old Babylonian.” JNES 5:185‒202. Golinets, Viktor. 2018. Das amurritische Onomastikon der altbabylonischen Zeit. Band 2, Verbalmorphologie des Amurritischen und Glossar der Verbalwurzeln. AOAT 271/2. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Gordon, Cyrus. H. 1934. “Numerals in the Nuzi Tablets.” RA 31.2:53‒60. ———. 1938. “The Dialect of the Nuzi Tablets.” Or 7:32‒63, 215‒32. Hämeen-​Anttila, Jaakko. 2000. A Sketch of Neo-​Assyrian Grammar. SAAS 13. Helsinki: Neo-​Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Hasselbach, Rebecca. 2005. Sargonic Akkadian: A Historical and Comparative Study of the Syllabic Texts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Hecker, Karl. 1968. Grammatik der Kültepe Texte. AnOr 44. Rome: Pontifico Istituto Biblico. Hilgert, Markus. 2002. Akkadisch in der Ur III-​Zeit. IMGULA 5. Münster: Rhema. Huehnergard, John. 1986. “**šanā’iš ‘zweitens, wieder’ um (AHw 1161 a).” RA 80.2:191. Huehnergard, John, and Naʿama Pat-​El. 2012. “Third-​Person Possessive Suffixes as Definite Articles in Semitic.” Journal of ​Historical Linguistics 2:25‒51. Izre’el, Shlomo. 1991. Amurru Akkadian: A Linguistic Study. Vol. 1. HSS 40. Atlanta: Scholars Press. ———. 1997. The Amarna Scholarly Tablets. CM 9. Groningen: Styx. Izre’el, Shlomo, and Eran Cohen. 2004. Literary Old Babylonian. Languages of the World/Materials 81. Munich: Lincom. Jas, Remko 1996. Neo-​Assyrian Judicial Procedures. SAAS 5. Helsinki: Neo-​Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Joüon, Paul, and Muraoka, Takamitsu. 1993. A Grammar of ​Biblical Hebrew. Reprint of ​First Edition, with Corrections. Subsidia Biblica 27. Rome: Pontificio Instituto Biblico. Jursa, Michael. 2004. “Neunzehn, syllabisch.” NABU 1994/56. Kienast, Burkhart. 2001. Historische Semitische Sprachwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

“All Is Number”

197

Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. 2001. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden: Brill. Kogan, Leonid. 2011. “Proto-​Semitic Lexicon.” Pages 179–258 in The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook. Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 36. Edited by Stefan Weninger. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. Kouwenberg, N. J. C. 1997. Gemination in the Akkadian Verb. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 32. Assen: Van Gorcum. ———. 2010. The Akkadian Verb and Its Semitic Background. LANE 2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. ———. 2017. A Grammar of Old Assyrian. HdO 118. Leiden: Brill. Kraus, Fritz. Rudolf. 1970. “Akkadische Wörter und Ausdrücke, I‒III.” RA 64.1:53‒61. Krebernik, Manfred. 2001. “Ein ki-​dutu-​Gebet aus der Hilprecht Sammlung.” ZA 91:238‒52. ———. 2006. “Some Questions Concerning Word Formation in Akkadian.” Pages 84–95 in The Akkadian Language in Its Semitic Context. Studies in the Akkadian of the Third and Second Millenium BC. Edited by Guy Deutscher and N. J. C. Kouwenberg. PIHANS 106. Leiden: NINO. Lambdin, Thomas. O. 1978. Introduction to Classical Ethiopic. HSS 24. Ann Arbor: Scholars Press. Langdon, S. 1923. “Hymn in Paragraphs to Ishtar as the Belit of ​Nippur.” AfK 1:12‒18. Larsen, Mogens Trolle. 1976. The Old Assyrian City-​State and Its Colonies. Mesopotamia, Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag. Leslau, Wolf. 1987. Comparative Dictionary of Ge’ez (Classical Ethiopic). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. 1997. Ethiopic Documents: Argobba, Grammar and Dictionary. Aethiopische Forschungen 47. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. 1999. Zway Ethiopic Documents, Grammar and Dictionary. Aethiopische Forschungen 51. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. 2000. Introductionary Grammar of Amharic. Porta Linguarum Orientalium NS 21. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Lewy, Julius. 1960. “Grammatical and Lexicographical Studies.” Or 29:20‒45. Lipiński, Edward. 1997. “The Personal Names Handî, Harrānay and Kurillay in Neo Assyrian Sources.” Pages 89–95 in Assyrien im Wandel der Zeiten. Edited by Hartmut Waetzoldt and Harald Hauptmann. HSAO 6. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag. ———. 2001. Semitic Languages, Outline of a Comparative Grammar. 2nd ed. OLA 80. Leuven: Peeters. Mayer, Walter. 1971. Untersuchungen zur Grammatik des Mittelassyrischen. AOATS 2. Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Verlag Butzon & Bercker Kevelaer. ———. 2001. Tall-​Munbāqa-​Ekalte II: Die Texte. WVDOG 102. Saarbrücken. Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag. ———. 2015. “Nachlese II: Zu Wolfram von Soden, Grundriß der akkadischen Grammatik (31995).” Or 84:177‒216. Meier, Gerhard. 1941‒44. “Die zweite Tafel der Serie bīt mēseri.” AoF 14:139‒52. Meissner, Bruno. 1917. “Assyriologische Forschungen I.” Altorientalistische Texte und Untersuchungen 1:1‒72. Meyer, Leon de. 1962. L’Accadien des Contrats de Suse. Leiden: Brill. Michel, Cécile, and Klaas R. Veenhof. 2010. “The Textiles Traded by the Assyrians in Anatolia (19th–18th Centuries BC).” Pages 210–71 in Textile Terminologies in the

198

Bēl Lišāni

Ancient Near East and Mediterranean from the Third to the First Millennia BC. Edited by Cécile Michel and Marie-​Louise Nosch. Ancient Textile Series 8. Oxford: Oxbow. Militarav, Alexander, and Leonid Kogan. 2000. Semitic Etymological Dictionary. Vol. 1, Anatomy of ​Man and Animals. AOAT 272/1. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. ———. 2005. Semitic Etymological Dictionary. Vol. 2, Animal Names. AOAT 272/2. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Moscati, Sabatino. 1980. An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages. 3rd ed. Porta Linguarum Orientalium NS 6. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Müller, Matthias. 2010. Akkadisch in Keilschrifttexten aus Ägypten: Deskriptive Grammatik einer Interlanguage des späten zweiten vorchristlichen Jahrtausends anhand der Ramses-​Briefe. AOAT 373. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Nöldeke, Theodor. 1904. Compendious Syriac Grammar. Translated by James A. Crichton. London: Williams & Norgate. Parker, Barbara. 1961. “Administrative Tablets from the North-​West Palace, Nimrud.” Iraq 23:15‒67. Parpola, Simon. 2008. “Cuneiform Texts from Ziyaret Tepe (Tušḫan), 2002–2003.” SAAB 17:1‒137. Paulus, Susanne. 2014. Die Babylonische Kudurru-​Inschriften von der kassitischen bis zur frühneubabylonischen Zeit. AOAT 51. Munster: Ugarit Verlag. Postgate, John. Nicholas. 1976. Fifty Neo-​Assyrian Legal Documents. London: Aris & Phillips. ———. 1988. The Archive of Urad-​Šerūa and His Family, a Middle Assyrian Household in Government Service. Corpus Medio-​Assiro. Rome: Denicola. Powell, Marvin. A. 1982. “The Adverbial Suffix-a and the Morphology of the Multiples of ​Ten in Akkadian.” ZA 72:89‒105. Procházka, Stephan. 2004. Altäthiopische Studiengrammatik. OBO Subsidia Linguistica 2. Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg. Rainey, Anson. F. 1996. Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect Used by the Scribes from Canaan. Vol. 1, Orthography, Phonology: Morphosyntactic Analysis of the Pronouns, Nouns, Numerals. HdO 25/1. Leiden: Brill. Reiner, Erica. 1999. “One Potato, Two Potato.” Pages 381–84 in Munuscula Mesopotamica: Festschrift für Johannes Renger. Edited by Barbara Böck et al. AOAT 267. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Richter, Thomas. 2012. Bibliographisches Glossar des Hurritischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Ridder, Jacob Jan de. 2015. “Ordinal Numbers in Middle Assyrian.” ZDMG 165:5‒26. ———. 2018. A Descriptive Grammar of ​Middle Assyrian. LAOS 8. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. 2019. Review of A Grammar of Old Assyrian, by N. J. C. Kouwenberg. BiOr 76.1–2:124‒39. Sachs, Abraham. 1946. “Notes on Fractional Expressions in Old Babylonian Mathematical Texts.” JNES 5:203‒14. Salonen, Errki. 1962. Untersuchungen zur Schrift und Sprache des Altbabylonischen von Susa: Mit Berücksichtigung der Mâlamir—Texte. StOr 27. Helsinki: Suomalaisen.

“All Is Number”

199

Seminara, Stefano. 1998. L’Accadico di Emar. Münchener Vorderasiatische Studien 8. Rome: Università degli Studi di Roma. Soden, Wolfram von. 1933. “Der hymnisch-​epische Dialekt des Akkadischen.” ZA 41:90‒183. ———. 1987. “Ableitungen von Zahlwörtern im Semitischen.” Pages 403–14 in Language, Literature, and Histroy: Philological and Historical Studies Presented to Erica Reiner. AOS 67. Edited by Francesca Rochberg-​Halton. New Haven: American Oriental Society. ———. 1995. Grundriss der Akkadischen Grammatik. 3., ergänzte Auflage. AnOr 33. Rome: Pontifico Istituto Biblico. Sommerfeld, Walter. 2006. “Varianten in der Keilschrift-​Orthographie und die historische Phonologie des Akkadischen.” Pages 359–76 in Šapal tibnim mû illakū: Studies Presented to Juaquín Sanmartín on the Occasion of ​His 65th Birthday. Edited by Gregorio del Olmo Lete, Lluís Feliu, and Adelina Millet Albà. AuOrSup 22. Barcelona: Sabadell. Speiser, Ephraim. A. 1935. “Notes to Recently Published Nuzi Texts.” JAOS 55:432‒43. Stadhouders, Henry, and Cale Johnson. 2018. “A Time to Extract and a Time to Compile: The Therapeutic Compendium Tablet BM 78963.” Pages 556–622 in Mesopotamian Medicine and Magic: Studies in Honor of ​Markham J. Geller. Edited by Strahil V. Panayotov, Luděk Vacín, and Gene Trabich. AMS 14. Leiden: Brill. Stein, Peter. 2003. Untersuchungen zur Phonologie und Morphologie des Sabäischen. Epigraphische Forschungen auf der Arabischen Halbinsel 3. Rahden/Westfalen: Leidorf. Strassmaier, Johann Nepomuk. 1890. Inschriften von Cambyses, König von Babylon. BT 9. Leipzig: Verlag von Eduard Pfeiffer. Streck, Michael P. 1995. Zahl und Zeit: Grammatik der Numeralia und des Verbalsystems im Spätbabylonischen. CM 5. Groningen: Styx. ———. 1997‒98. Review of Grundriss der Akkadischen Grammatik, 3., ergänzte Auflage, by Wolfram von Soden. AfO 44‒45:310‒14. ———. 2005. “Simply a Seller, Nothing but Gods: The Nominal Suffix -ān in Old Babylonian.” Babel und Bibel 2:233‒43. ———. 2008. “Die Kardinalzahl ‘sechs’ im Altbabylonischen und der analogische Ausgleich der Kardinahlzahlen ‘sech’-‘acht.’ ” AoF 35:246‒53. ———. 2016. “Temporal Adverbs in Akkadian.” Pages 9–21 in The Morpho-​Syntactic and Lexical Encoding of ​Tense and Aspect in Semitic: Proceedings of the Erlangen Workshop on April 26, 2014. Edited by Lutz Edzard. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 104. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. 2018. Altbabylonisches Lehrbuch. 3rd rev. ed. Porta Linguarum Orientalium NS 23. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Thureau-​Dangin, François. 1934. “La notation du quantième.” RA 31.4:192‒93. Tropper, Josef. 2002. Altäthiopisch Grammatik des Geʻez mit Übungstexten und Glossar. Elementa Linguarum Orientis 2. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. ———. 2012. Ugaritische Grammatik. AOAT 273. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Ullendorff, Edward. 1958. “What Is a Semitic Language? (A Problem of ​Linguistic Identification).” Or 27:66‒75. Veenhof, Klaas. R. Aspects of Old Assyrian Trade and Its Terminology. Studia et documenta ad iura Orientis antiqui pertinentia 10. Leiden: Brill.

200

Bēl Lišāni

Wasserman, Nathan, and Elyze Zomer. 2021. Akkadian Magic Literature: Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian Incantations: Corpus—Context—Praxis. LAOS 12. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Wegner, Ilse. 2007. Hurritisch eine Einführung. 2nd rev. ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowiz. Weninger, Stefan. 2011. “Reconstructive Morphology.” Pages 151–78 in The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook. Edited by Stefan Weninger. Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 36. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. Westenholz, Joan Goodnick. 1997. Legends of the Kings of Akkade: The Texts. MC 7. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Wilhelm, Gernot. 1996. “A New World in -arbu: kirarbu.” SCCNH 8:347‒48. Wilson-​Wright, Aren. 2014. “The Word for “One” in Proto-​Semitic.” JSS 59:1−13. Woodington, Nancy. Ruth. 1983. A Grammar of the Neo-​Babylonian Letters of the Kuyunjik Collection. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms. Ylvisaker, Sigurd. Christian. 1912. Zur Babylonischen und Assyrischen Grammatik: Eine Untersuchung auf Grund der Briefe aus der Sargonzeit. Leipziger semitistische Studien 5.6. Leipzig: Hinrichs.

Chapter 7

Notes on the Use of the Subordinative in Oaths in Akkadian Ambjörn Sjörs

The survey in von Soden’s (GAG §185) grammar of asyndetic oath constructions in the older periods of Akkadian can be summarized as follows.1 The predicate in positive oaths in Old Akkadian and Old Assyrian is usually marked by lū and the subordinative morpheme -u(/-ni). In Old Babylonian, the predicate is usually marked by lū but not by the subordinative morpheme, and sometimes by the subordinative morpheme without lū.2 The predicate in negative oath clauses, in turn, is usually in the subordinative and negated by lā in all three dialects.3 At the same time, N. J. C. Kouwenberg (GOA 734–37) cites several examples of negative clauses in “oath-​like assurances” without the subordinative in Old Assyrian. Since such oath-​like assurances also attest to the use of subordinative morphology, they are difficult to separate from ordinary oaths:4

1.  In addition to asyndetic oath constructions, one also finds oaths introduced by šumma ‘if’, e.g., AbB 13: 60 10–11 umma šū-​ma [š]umma aḫī Purattim gulgullātim lā umalli ‘He said: I will (certainly) fill the banks of the Euphrates with skulls’. This kind of construction presumably results from insubordination characterized by the conventionalized ellipsis of the matrix clause for reasons of ​linguistic taboo (superstition), i.e., ‘If ​I do not fill the banks of the Euphrates with skulls . . . I will be cursed/I am a villain’; see most recently L. E. Edzard 2012. The construction is not attested in Old Assyrian (GKT 221 n. 1; GOA 731 n. 29) and is rare in Old Babylonian (Malbran-​Labat 1979–84). It is therefore likely to represent a later development. 2.  While von Soden (GAG §185d) only mentions the possibility of combining lū with the subordinative for Old Akkadian and Old Assyrian, it is also attested in Mari Old Babylonian; see Eidem (2011, 323 n. 11). Since the combination of lū with a subordinative verb form occurs in Mari Old Babylonian, Old Assyrian, and Old Akkadian, the use in Old Babylonian oaths of lū and a nonsubordinative verb form is probably a later development; see E. Cohen 2005, 20. Actually, lū should presumably also be reconstructed to the verb forms in YOS 8: 51 from Larsa (see below), which von Soden (GAG §185d) quotes as examples of the bare subordinative. For the reconstruction of lū to YOS 8: 51, see the editions by Greengus (1966, 59 n. 20), Westbrook (1982, 1:309), Locher (1986, 217), and Dombradi (1996, 2:157 n. 1083). 3.  For the use of ulā with the subordinative in oaths in Old Assyrian, see GAG §185c, GKT §132b, and GOA 732, e.g., TC 3: 271 36–39 (ed. Ichisar 1981, 154) lá-at-​ma-​a-​kum mì-ma i-​na a-ší-ikà a-​na-​ku! ú-lá al-qé-ú ú a-​lik-​ma a-ší-a-kà šé-e ‘Je te jure que je n’ai pas pris de ton fer pour moimême et va chercher ton fer’ (transl. Ichisar), but cf. ACC 148 n. 51 a-​na-​ku ú-lá al-qé ú? a-​lik-​ma. 4.  See also Veenhof ​(2018, 63–64) for such invocations to the gods.

201

202

(1)

Bēl Lišāni

a. TC 3: 87 16–18 (ed. OAA 1: 41): 40 manāʾem DN liṭṭul ṣibtam lā agammilūka As to the 40 minas, may DN be a witness, (to the oath) that I shall not do you a favor regarding the interest. b. AKT 3: 71 35–37: šumma lā tublam DN1 u DN2 liṭṭulā ši’āmātem lā agammilka If you do not bring (it), may DN1 and DN2 be witnesses, I shall not do you a favor regarding the purchase. c. KTS 2: 35 3–5: 6 kutāne ša taddinanni DN liṭṭul ana 12 GÍN.TA KÙ.BABBAR lū a-dì-nu-​šu-​nu-​ni As to the six textiles that you gave me, may DN be a witness (to the oath) that I have indeed sold them for 12 shekels of silver each.

Admittedly, the oath is a legal, religious, or sociocultural term rather than a linguistic one.5 As such, it can loosely be defined as a statement of fact or a promise using language relating to something considered sacred as a sign of verity, rather than according to morphosyntactic principles. In its basic form, an oath consists of two elements: first, an authenticating formula that indicates the illocutionary force of the proposition, and second, the content of the oath, indicating the proposition.6 According to this definition, it is the combination of an authenticating formula and its content that makes the proposition an oath. Thus, oaths contrast with other forms of asseverative statements or promises, where the illocutionary force of the utterance can be sufficiently determined by context. At the same time, while the content of the oath describes some state of affairs, the authenticating formula primarily serves to indicate the illocutionary force. As such, it contrasts with other matrixes that contribute crucially to the expression of the propositional content, and in which both elements together describe a complex state of affairs (Diessel 2004, 80–89). With such a definition of oaths, the degree of morphosyntactic variation increases, but it also becomes possible to differentiate oaths that have the subordinative from oaths that do not. As is well known, the main function of the subordinative as marked by the verbal ending -u (and/or the enclitic particle -ni) is to mark the clause as subordinate: as a marker of subordination, it is 5.  For a general introduction to oaths in Akkadian, see San Nicolò (1938, 305–15). For a general discussion of oaths in Semitic, see also Pedersen 1914. 6.  Cf. Conklin’s (2011, 4) definition of oaths in Biblical Hebrew. The authenticating formula typically includes a verb of swearing and the reference to something sacred; however, the verb of swearing or the reference to something sacred may be omitted. In the following example, the verb of swearing is left out: CT 4: 26b 16–18 (ed. MHET 2/1; 35, tablet) ulā i-​ra-​ga-​mu MU DN1 DN2 u PN ‘They will not contest, by the life of DN1, DN2, and PN’. In this example, the no-​contest clause is immediately followed by a rule, a blank space, and a list of witnesses.

Notes on the Use of the Subordinative in Oaths in Akkadian

203

obligatory in relative and adverbial clauses introduced by a conjunction (except šumma ‘if’). Subordinative verbs in oaths, however, are not dependent on any conjunction or bound noun. Furthermore, since lū is not used in subordinate clauses in Old Assyrian (GOA 640) and Old Babylonian (E. Cohen 2005, 4), oaths that have both lū and a subordinative verb form appear to combine main and subordinate clause phenomena.7 Thus, whereas the subordinative marker in subordinate clauses is a syntactic rather than a semantic category, the subordinative verb forms in oaths are generally assumed to have meaning. In fact, Eran Cohen (2005, 23–26) has shown that the subordinative in positive oath clauses in Old Babylonian seem to function exactly like nonsubordinative verb forms after lū within the paradigm of asseverative constructions.8 The historical background of the subordinative in oaths, however, is a matter of speculation. Moreover, while there are various theories that aim at explaining its use from a historical point of view, for example, from ellipsis of a superordinate clause, they generally do not explain the significance of the subordinative synchronically as separate from oaths without it. Thus, the purpose of this investigation is to describe the historical background of the use of the subordinative in oaths as well as the rationale behind its use in historical Akkadian. The investigation is structured as follows: Section 7.1 provides an overview of previous research. Section 7.2 will demonstrate that the content of an oath is construed as a syntactic content clause that functions as a complement to the authenticating formula, and that the syntactic integration between the two elements is not very strong. It will also be suggested that the content clause depends on an implicit noun phrase that designates a speech event. Section 7.3 will show that oaths in Sumerian are also construed as content clauses that function as genitive complements and describe the process by which the use of content clauses in oaths in Akkadian can be explained as the result of contact-​induced change.

7.1. Previous Research The identification of subordinative verbs in oaths with subordinate clauses was initially made by François Thureau-​Dangin (1909, 596), who further compared 7.  As a matter of fact, the subordinative in a complement clause introduced by -ma exceptionally combines with lū in AKT 6C: 568 19–22 (GOA 642) miššu ša aštanammeū-​ma amtī adīni ina GN lu-áš-ba-​at-​ni-​ma atta taštappuʾu ‘Why is it that I constantly hear that (-ma) my amtum-wife is still indeed staying in GN and (that) you keep silent (about it)?’ 8.  E. Cohen (2005, 17–68) emphasized the separate function of the subordinative verb form in oaths and subsumed oath clauses within a paradigm of asseverative constructions. In Cohen’s view, asseverative constructions are marked for focus on the predicative link between the grammatical person and the verbal lexeme, corresponding to stressed do or not in positive and negative clauses in English. D. O. Edzard (1975) also recognizes that subordinative verb forms in oaths have a distinct meaning and calls them “Affirmativ.”

204

Bēl Lišāni

it to the use in Sumerian of nominalized clauses after nam-ERIM2 ‘oath’. It is not clear from Thureau-​Dangin’s presentation, however, if the comparison to Sumerian is meant to explain the construction in Akkadian from a historical point of view. The present section will present subsequent proposals that have been advanced to explain the use of subordinative morphology in oaths and eventually returns to an explicit suggestion that the construction is the result of ​ linguistic interference with Sumerian. Dietz O. Edzard (1973, 130) indicates that the formal identity of -u(/-ni) in oaths with the subordinative morpheme may be superficial only and that they may have been differentiated prosodically, as indicated by a number of plene-​spellings in oaths in TIM 4: 36, e.g., line 14 lā ad-​di-​i-​nu ‘(the oath) that I have not purchased’ (cf. line 32′ nīš DINGIR annûm ša PN1 u PN2 . . .íz-​ku-​ru ‘This is the oath that PN1 and PN2 . . . swore’). However, the fact that there is no difference anywhere else in the spelling of the ending in oaths from the spelling of the subordinative suggests that there was no difference in the quantity of the vowel and that we are dealing with one and the same morpheme. Furthermore, while it is possible that sentences uttered as solemn oaths may have received different prosodic stress, the use of phonemic stress is unknown to Akkadian. Rather, the concentration of abnormal plene-​writing in TIM 4: 36 presumably indicates a scribal idiosyncrasy. Indeed, plene-​spelling is used not only for verb forms in oaths in this text; see, for example, TIM 4: 36 10 bi-​ti-​i-šu ‘his house.’9 Giorgio Buccellati (1996, §89.8) assumes that oath clauses are historically complement clauses to verbs of speaking or swearing and that the subordinative was used after the complementizer kīma, which was elided; however, the use of kīma as a complementizer is quite late and can be directly traced to its function as an adverbial causal connective in Early Old Babylonian. In connection to a speech verb, for example, ‘He said/spoke to the governor because/that the barley was not collected’, the causal and the factive interpretation of the kīma-clause differ with regard to whether the focus is on the assertive verb or the propositional content: the causal interpretation emphasizes the reason for making the speech act, whereas the factive interpretation emphasizes the content of the speech act (Deutscher 2000, 41–43). Apart from the fact that the attestations of kīma as a complementizer is late, which make its introduction and subsequent deletion in oath constructions implausible, it seems unlikely that it was introduced in oath constructions in the first place, where the content rather than the matrix verb is the central part of the oath (not ‘He swore because etc.’). Karl Hecker (GKT §131b) assumes the ellipsis of a self-​curse formula to the effect of ​‘The god(s) should punish me’ and that the subordinative depends on a deleted ana ša ‘because’, ištu ‘since’, or ašar ‘whereat’: ‘(dafür, dass/sobald) 9.  For a partial edition of TIM 4: 36, see Wilcke (1992, 71 n. 39).

Notes on the Use of the Subordinative in Oaths in Akkadian

205

ich das und das tue (, soll Gn mich verwerfen).’10 This presupposes that the self-​curse formula and the subordinating particle at one point were elided, that the formulation of the content of the oath remained in the subordinative, and that, since oaths without an authenticating formula are very rare (GOA 731), an authenticating element was eventually added anew to the construction, for example, CT 48: 90 10–13 (Veenhof 1972, 380) lemun DN u PN aḫum ana aḫem eqlam iraggamu ‘The curse of DN and PN, (if ) a brother will contest the field against (another) brother’. While the ellipsis of the self-​curse formula can be explained from linguistic taboo, it is not clear why ana ša, ištu, or ašar should also be elided in the process. In the case of šumma-oaths, for example, which presumably result from the conventionalized ellipsis of the apodosis, the (historically) conditional particle remains. In Kouwenberg’s (2010, 231–32) view, the morpheme -u(/-ni) is historically the ending of the imperfective in Proto-​Semitic, yVqtVl-​u, yVqtVlū-​nV, and its use in oath content clauses is a residue of its original nonsubordinative function. However, while it may be argued that -u(/-ni) is not marking subordination in oath clauses, it is not the case that yVqtVl-​u, yVqtVlū-​nV are imperfective. On the contrary, the use of -u(/-ni) in oaths is identical to its use in subordinate clauses: iprus-​u (yVqtVl-​u), for example, is perfective rather than imperfective, and -ni is also used with nonverbal predicates. Thus, Kouwenberg (2010, 232) suggests that when yVqtVl-​u, yVqtVlū-​nV, were stranded in subordinate clauses, the morpheme -u(/-ni) was reanalyzed as a marker of subordination, and oaths with -u(/-ni) were also felt as a kind of subordinate clause. Therefore, as long as the use of -u(/-ni) in oath clauses can be directly related to its use in subordinate clauses, the derivation of the morpheme from the ending of the imperfective is not the most economical solution. According to Eva Dombradi (1996, 2:342–47), the combination of a subordinative verb form with a verb of swearing in legal documents is based on Sumerian. The formulation of no-​contest clauses or waiver clauses (Verzichtsklauseln) in sales documents, for example, has close parallels to a Sumerian

10.  Parts of such a construction are attested in Old Assyrian, e.g., AKT 6B: 347 5–7 DN u ila abīni lū i-dí-a-​ka ana ša irti abīya ana parāsīya tazzizzīni ‘DN and the god of our father have rejected you indeed (perhaps: may they reject you) because you have become intent on separating me from the breast of my father’. At the same time, there is also evidence for nadāʾum without ana ša and without the subordinative, e.g., BIN 6: 39 18–21 DN1 u DN2 ilka li-dí-a-​ni KÙ.BABBAR 1 GÍN ina kaspīka ana ši’āmātem lā ušēbila ‘May DN1 and DN2, your god, reject me (if ) I have not sent a single silver shekel of your silver to you for purchases’, i.e., ‘I have indeed sent your silver to you’ (GOA 736). Von Soden (GAG §185) also suggests that the oath is an abbreviated form of self-​curse in case one should violate the oath, and in his view, this explains the use of šumma as well as the use of the subordinative. While it is easy to explain the use of šumma from (the ellipsis of ) a self-​curse, it is not clear how the subordinative is to be explained within this framework.

206

Bēl Lišāni

formula (Dombradi 1996, 1:113–60); see the following random examples from Sippar and Nippur respectively:11 (2) a. MHET 2/1: 29 13–17: ana warkît ūmim aḫum ana aḫim lā i-​ra-​ga-​ mu MU DN1 DN2 u PN itmû They swore by the life of DN1, DN2, and PN (the oath) that in future days, a brother must not contest against (another) brother. b. PBS 8/2: 129 25–26: U4-KÚR-šè LÚ LÚ-ù-ra INIM nu-​un-ĝá-ĝá-a MU LUGAL TÉŠ-​ba in-PÀ-dè-eš /u4.d-kúr-še lú lú-ra inim nu-ʾi-​n-​ĝar~ĝar-ʾa-​ak mu lugal-​ak téšbé-ʾa ʾi-​n-pà.d-eš/ [day-​different-term man man-dat word neg-fin-3sg-claim~​r dpnr-gen name king-gen unity-​its-loc fin-3sg-find-3pl]12 They swore in unison by the name of the king: That on a different time, a man must not place a claim against (another) man. In Dombradi’s (1996, 2:342–47) view, the use of a subordinate verb form in Akkadian results from a literal translation of the construction in Sumerian, such as /nu-ʾi-​n-​ĝar~ĝar-ʾa-​ak/, which is marked by the nominalizing suffix /-ʾa/, literally ‘of-​that-​he-​will-​not-​place.’13 Dombradi (1996, 2:123 n. 720) parses the subordinate clause in Akkadian as a relative clause but admits that the syntax is quite unusual for Akkadian: the relative clause comes before its antecedent and the antecedent is not an argument in the relative clause.14 To be sure, one also finds a great deal of variation in the expression of waiver clauses, and certain constructions show a closer integration to ordinary Akkadian syntax. For example, the content of the oath is sometimes placed after the authenticating formula, as in MHET 2/1, 3:14–16 nīš DN u PN itmû awīlum ana awīlī lā iraggamu ‘They swore by the life of DN and PN, (the oath) that a man must not contest against men’. Other times, the oath construction is resolved into two main clauses, for example, CT 2: 28 14–17 aḫum ana aḫim ul iraggam MU DN1 DN2 MU DN3 u PN IN.PÀ.DÈ.MEŠ ‘A brother will not contest against (another) brother, they swore by the life of DN1, DN2, the life of DN3 and PN.’15 Still, 11.  For a typology of no-​contest clauses, see also San Nicolò 1974. 12.  For glosses of grammatical morphemes, see Croft 2003, xix–xxv. 13.  Von Soden (1961, 52–53) also entertains the possibility that the subordinative in oaths indicates subordination, noting that the use of /-ʾa/ in Sumerian oath formulas supports this interpretation but ultimately remains agnostic. 14.  See Dombradi 1996, 2:123 n. 720: ‘Syntaktisch sind die Varianten dieses Konstruktionstyps wohl als Relativsatz ohne einleitendes Relativpronomen zu deuten, welcher von dem Objekt (nīš GN​/KN​/usw.) des übergeordneten Satzes (= Eidvermerk) abhängig ist.’ 15.  The functional motivation behind the variation is not clear but it shows some dialectal and historical features: in Sippar, for example, parataxis is used already by the time of Sumu-​la-​El, while in Larsa and Kutalla, on the other hand, hypotaxis is still in use at the time of ​Hammurabi

Notes on the Use of the Subordinative in Oaths in Akkadian

207

more problematic than the position of the subordinate clause and the absence of endophora is that the subordinate verb is not dependent on any conjunction or nucleus in the construct state. The strictly adnominal nature of clauses marked by the subordinative makes its virtually independent use highly unlikely when viewed from ordinary Akkadian syntax.

7.2. Oath Clauses as Complements It is widely assumed that the function of -u(/-ni) in subordinate clauses in Akkadian is historically connected to its function in genitive constructions of the type awat iqbû ‘the word that he said’. In this type of construction, the subordinative verb form is syntactically equivalent to a noun phrase and constitutes a so-​called content clause (after Jespersen 1909–49, 3:23–24), also known as a substantive clause (E. Cohen 2008). Consequently, iqbû is not a relative clause but a content clause that functions as a genitive attribute rather than an adjective attribute to awat, that is, ‘word-​of the-​fact-​that-​he-​said(-it)’, ‘word attributed by the fact that he said (it)’ or ‘word of ​his having said.’16 The nonrelative function of the subordinated predicate is particularly clear when there is no element in the clause that is coreferential with the head noun. This use of the subordinative is common after nouns that designate time, for example, JCS 28, p. 230 rev. ii 8–12 (= M. E. Cohen 1976) in 1 MU PN . . . yilliku ‘in the year of ​(the fact) that PN . . . went’, as well as after the many conjunctions that are (derived from) nouns in the construct state, for example, aššumi ‘because’ ( r The above-​mentioned text Ištar Louvre refers to the activities of men acting as women and women acting as men in the cult of ​Ištar: (5) šanīʾat ar-​ka-​as-​su-​nu šipiršunu nukkur Ištar Louvre ii 17 different is their way, their activity is strange Based on the semantics of the text, arkassunu cannot derive from (w)arkatu ‘back’ but rather appears to represent a form of alkatu ‘way, behavior’ with a shift of *l > r. The same sound change is also attested in another line of the text: (6) ar-​ka-​at itpēštim tārītim! [. . . kûmma Ištar] Ištar Louvre i 54 the behavior of a capable nursemaid [. . . is yours, Ištar] The sound shift *l > r is also attested in an Old Babylonian literary text describing the construction of the flood hero’s ark:10 (7) 30 ṣe-​ri ina libbiša addī Finkel 2014, p. 360 13 I placed 30 ribs into it (the ship) 9.  It should be mentioned in passing that reference (3), cited above, offers two additional new words for the Akkadian dictionary, ešrūtu ‘justice’ and laʾšūtu ‘oppression’. 10.  Finkel 2014.

222

Bēl Lišāni

Because it does not make sense to read ṣēru ‘back’ here, Finkel correctly derives ṣe-​ri from ṣēlu ‘rib’ instead.11 The word occurs again in line 29 in a broken context: (8) illakū birīt ⸢ṣe-​e-​ri⸣-ša Finkel 2014, p. 362 29 going between her ribs The same sound shift is also attested in the Old Babylonian Atramhasīs epic: (9) ṣēru pa-​ar-​ku // pal-​ku-​ú malī idrāna Atr. 78 8 // 110 5812 the broad plain was full of sa[lt] parkû corresponds to palkû in the parallel versions of the epic. The three texts Ištar Louvre, the ark tablet, and Atramhasīs all seem to date from the late Old Babylonian or even early Middle Babylonian period. A personal name from the Sealand Dynasty Texts,13 which also shows the sound shift *l > r, corroborates this date: (10) Arad-​ur-​maš-​ši-​ti CUSAS 9: 447 9 a variant of Arad-dUL.MAŠ-tum CUSAS 9: 444 35 Slave of Ulmaššītu14 The Sealand Dynasty texts date to the very end of or even shortly after the Old Babylonian period. The final Old Babylonian reference for the sound shift *l > r is, however, older than the previous four. It stems from a Mari letter, which talks about certain Amorite tribes who unite against Elamite attackers: (11) ul kīma rimmātim ša kišādim ša ištēt peṣêt u ištēt ṣa-​ar-​ma-​at uštaparrasū Durand 1990: p. 102 17 ṣarmat < ṣalmat will they not distinguish like termites in a necklace, which one is white and which one is black? 11.  For the ribs of a ship, see AHw 1090, ṣēlu 3f. 12.  See also ṣēru pal-​ku-​ú lūlid idrāna 108 48. 13.  Dalley 2009. 14.  Ulmaššītu is Ištar of the temple E-​Ulmaš in Akkad.

Akkadian Lexicography

223

Following Durand, the most probable explanation of ṣarmat is that the word developed from ṣalmat ‘is black’.15

8.3. Light on the Etymology of ​‘Torch’: Akkadian dipāru = Hebrew lappîd? The shift *l > r brings us to the question of the etymology of Akkadian dipāru ‘torch’. Von Soden’s AHw does not offer any etymology of the word. According to him, the word, which is well attested from the Old Babylonian period onward, is of unknown origin.16 Its nominal pattern PiRāS is typical for primary nouns, for example, lišānu ‘tongue’, kišādu ‘neck’, or imēru ‘donkey’. But already in his 1917 book on “Akkadische Fremdwörter’,17 Zimmern connected dipāru with the Hebrew word lappîd ‘torch’, an idea also followed by Segert in a short note18 and by Salonen in his book on household utensils.19 The Hebrew dictionaries of ​Köhler and Baumgartner,20 and Gesenius21 do not accept this etymology and tentatively connect Hebrew lappîd with Greek lampás and Hittite lappija ‘torch’ instead. Zimmern’s etymology is worth a cautious revival, although it seems unnecessary to treat lappîd as an Akkadian loanword as Zimmern did, rather than assuming that lappîd and dipāru descend from a common ancestor. If this hypothesis proves correct, then we encounter a complete metathesis of the root consonants and, at the same time a shift, *r > l, both of which have parallels in the Semitic languages. Brockelmann22 and Edzard23 list many examples of metathesis in roots containing l or r; complete metathesis occurs, for example, in Mehri letoġ ‘to kill’ corresponding to Arabic etc. qatala, in Akkadian etc. birku ‘knee’ corresponding to Arabic rukba etc.,24 or in Akkadian laḫru ‘ewe’ corresponding to 15.  Heimpel 1997 has suggested that we should read ṣa-​ar-​pá(BA)-at ‘is red’, which seems less likely because the third cuneiform sign resembles a MA more than a BA (the photo shows that MA in this text is, as expected, broader than BA); the syllabic value pá, although rarely known from texts in Upper Mesopotamia, is rather unusual for texts from the Middle Euphrates area; and last but not least, the opposition ‘white’ : ‘black’ is more salient than the opposition ‘white’ : ‘red’. 16.  AHw 172. 17.  Zimmern 1917, 36. 18.  Segert 1962. Note, however, that scholars no longer interpret rpd in Lachish Ostracon 4 5 as a by-​form of ​Biblical Hebrew lappîd. Instead, Renz (1995, 421) treats this form as a component of the geographical name Bēt Har-​rapīd and derives it from the root RPD. 19.  Salonen 1965, 139. 20.  Köhler and Baumgartner 1974, 506. 21.  Gesenius 2005, 613. 22.  Brockelmann 1908, 267–78. 23.  Edzard 1998, 131–33. 24.  Militarev and Kogan 2000, 36–37 and 205.

224

Bēl Lišāni

Hebrew rāḥēl etc.25 Brocklemann26 also lists many examples of the shifts *l > r and *r > l, but most of them involve roots with two sonorants.

8.4. Cutting Penises and the Etymology of ​Babylonian qatû ‘to Come to an End’, Old Assyrian ‘to Chop?’ We only have a few literary texts from the Old Assyrian period.27 Therefore, the Old Assyrian Sargon legend has attracted much scholarly attention.28 In this text, Sargon acts cruelly toward his enemies, the Amorites: (12) OA ša Amurrê kīma appīšunu šamāṭim išaršunu aq-​tí-​i OA Sargon 57 the penis(es) of the Amorites I chopped(?) as if cutting their noses This is the first Old Assyrian—and indeed, the first Assyrian attestation— of the Akkadian verb qatû. In the Babylonian dialect of Akkadian, qatû means ‘to come to an end, to perish’ and is thus intransitive, but it is difficult to translate here ‘I came to an end with respect to their penis’, as Hecker29 does. In their edition of the text, Alster and Oshima follow Stol’s suggestion30 that qatû here has the same meaning as Aramaic QṬʿ ‘o cut’, which would fit the context very well.31 This suggestion implies that QṬʿ and qatû are related. Akkadian qatû is, however, a tertiae ī verb without any e-coloring. This factor, together with the difference in meaning, is almost certainly the reason why von Soden refrained from connecting it with Aramaic QṬʿ.32 Several Akkadian tertiae ī verbs go back to roots with a guttural, for example, waṣû ‘to go out’, nabû ‘to call’, našû ‘to carry’, etc.33 However, all known examples are roots etymologically tertiae ʾ and not tertiae ʿ. There are three verbs tertiae ū with etymological ʿ, namely, ṭebû ‘to sink’, egû ‘to become negligent’, and šegû ‘to become rabid’, but all of them 25.  Brockelmann 1908, 231; AHw 528. 26.  Brockelmann 1908, 221–31. 27.  The Sources of ​Early Akkadian Literature (SEAL) website (www​.seal​.huji​.ac​.il) only lists, besides the Sargon legend, eleven Old Assyrian incantations (texts nos. 7216–7226). 28.  First edition by Günbattı 1997. For the extensive scholarly literature on this text, see www​ .seal​.huji​.ac​.il, where the text has been edited under the number 1556 and the title “Archivum Anatolicum 3, 152f. (OA Sargon Legend).” 29.  Hecker 2001, 59. 30.  M. Stol apud Hecker 2001, 59; Alster and Oshima 2007, 15. 31.  Dercksen 2005, 109 translates ‘I destroyed’ and treats aq-​tí-​i as a “factitive G-​stem ‘to put an end to’ of the otherwise intransitive verb qatāʾum ‘to come to an end’.” 32.  AHw 911. 33.  Kouwenberg 2010, 498.

Akkadian Lexicography

225

show the expected e-coloring. Only a few nouns in Akkadian with etymological ʿ do not show e-coloring: šārtu ‘hair’, rādu ‘downpour’, and akbaru ‘jerboa’.34 Therefore, it remains uncertain whether Akkadian qatû and Aramaic QṬʿ are indeed etymologically related, and whether the transitive meaning ‘to cut’ has survived in Old Assyrian in contrast to the intransitive Babylonian meaning ‘to come to an end’.35

8.5. The Trickery (galammû) of the Enemies (erimmu): Two New Sumerian Loanwords in the Late Period Sumerian loanwords abound in the Akkadian lexicon. The CAD lists 1,157 of them,36 which comprise 7 percent of the entire Akkadian lexicon. Many of them only occur in lexical texts and were probably coined by learned scribes. Most Sumerian loanwords used in the language of everyday texts or in literary texts probably entered the Akkadian lexicon before the end of the Old Babylonian period. After Sumerian died out—in the first quarter of the second millennium at latest—new Sumerian loanwords in the Akkadian lexicon become rare. Most of them belong, not surprisingly, to the semantic fields of cult and writing, the two spheres in which Sumerian continued to play an important role in Mesopotamian culture after its death as a spoken language. In the Late Babylonian period, we encounter only a few new Sumerian loanwords, such as giṭṭu ‘receipt’, lit. ‘long tablet’ (< Sumerian gíd ‘long’), guqqû ‘a monthly offering’ (< Sumerian gug ‘cake’), and perhaps riqqu ‘oblate’ (< Sumerian rig7, saĝ–rig7 ‘to donate’). Therefore, it is remarkable that two Sumerian loanwords not listed in the dictionaries occur in the lament of Nabû-​šumu-​ukīn, one of ​Nebuchadnezzar II’s sons.37 Nabû-​šumu-​ukīn, confined in prison, complains about the trickery of ​his enemies. In doing so, he uses the well-​known Akkadian words nikiltu, niklu, and nakālu for ‘trick, cunning, deceit’ more than twenty times. But that is not all: he also employs, no fewer than seven times, a new word, galammû, derived from the usual Sumerian counterpart of nikiltu in lexical lists, galam: (13) SB ga-​la-​ma-​a-​šú eli pātiqu zārûʾa ORA 7: 322 66 his trickery lasts upon the creator, my begetter 34.  Militarev and Kogan 2000, LXXVI. 35.  Of course, we cannot use qāṭû ‘woodcutter’ (AHw 912 and CAD Q 201) and qettāʾu ‘cane cutter’ (AHw 918 and CAD Q 243) as evidence for a genetic relationship between Akkadian qatû and Aramaic QṬʿ since both of these nouns are Aramaic loanwords into Late Babylonian. 36.  Streck 2014, 105. 37.  Finkel 1999, republished by Oshima in 2011.

226

Bēl Lišāni

(14) ibnû ga-​la-[ma-​a] ORA 7: 322 65 they created trick[ery] cf. [bā]nû ga-​la-​ma-​a ORA 7: 322 75 ‘he who [crea]tes trickery’ (15) šime ga-​la-​ma-​a ša e-​ri-​mi-​iá ORA 7: 322 72 hear the trickery of my enemies! (16) š[u?-bil] šāru meḫû ga-​la-​ma-​a-​šú zaqīqū lipaṭṭirū riksīšu ORA 7: 322 73 [make(?)] the tempest, the storm, [carry away(?)] his trickery, may the winds loosen his fetters38 (17) galam-​me-​e ORA 7: 322 64 and ga-​la-​ma-​a ORA 7: 322 67 (contexts broken) The spelling galam in (16) is particularly noteworthy since it is the first instance of the word in the text and leaves no doubt as to the Sumerian origin of this word. Example (14) combines galammû with erimmu, a loan from Sumerian érim39 that does not appear in the dictionaries either.40 Bibliography Alster, Bend, and Takayoshi Oshima. 2007. “Sargonic Dinner at Kaneš: The Old Assyrian Sargon Legend.” Iraq 69:1–20. Brockelmann, Carl. 1908. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen. Vol. 1, Laut- und Formenlehre. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard. Dalley, Stephanie. 2009. Babylonian Tablets from the First Sealand Dynasty in the Schøyen Collection. CUSAS 9. Bethesda: CDL. Durand, Jean-​Marie. 1990. “Fourmis blanches et fourmis noires.” Pages 101–8 in Contribution à l’histoire de l’Iran, Mélanges offerts à Jean Perrot. Edited by François Vallat. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les civilisations. 38.  Cf. also galam-​me-​e ORA 7: 322 64 and ga-​la-​ma-​a ORA 7: 322 67, both references in broken and unclear context. 39.  The usual counterpart of érim in lexical lists, raggu ‘evil’, also occurs in lines 1 and 3 of the text. 40.  The lament of Nabû-​šumu-​ukīn also yields other interesting lexical fruits, including two new Akkadian words, ṣimû ‘thirst, desire’ in line 61 and ṣallātu ‘time of sleeping’ in line 19, both based on well-​known Akkadian roots.

Akkadian Lexicography

227

Edzard, Lutz E. 1998. Polygenesis, Convergence, and Entropy: An Alternative Model of ​Linguistic Evolution Applied to Semitic Linguistics. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Finkel, Irving. 1999. “The Lament of Nabû-​šuma-​ukīn.” Colloquien der deutschen Orient-​Gesellschaft 2:323–42. ———. 2014. The Ark Before Noah. London: Knopf ​Doubleday. Gesenius, Wilhelm. 2005. Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament. Edited by Herbert Donner. 18th ed. Berlin: Springer. Groneberg, Brigitte, R. M. 1997. Lob der Ištar. CM 8. Groningen: Styx. Günbattı, Cahit. 1997. “Kültepe’den Akadli Sargon’a Âit Bir Tablet.” Archivum Anatolicum 3:131–55. Hecker, Karl. 1984. “Doppelt T-​erweiterte Formen oder: Der eblaitische Infinitiv.” Pages 205–23 in Il bilinguismo a Ebla: Atti del convegno internazionale (Napoli, 19–22 aprile 1982). Edited by Luigi Cagni. Naples: Istituto universitario orientale. ———. 2001. “Akkadische Texte.” Pages 11–60 in Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, Ergänzungslieferung. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. Heimpel, Wolfgang. 1997. “A Case of BA = pá.” NABU 1997/5. Huehnergard, John. 2006. “Proto-​Semitic and Proto-​Akkadian.” Pages 1–18 in The Akkadian Language in Its Semitic Context: Studies in the Akkadian of the Third and Second Millennium BC. Edited by Guy Deutscher and N. J. C. Kouwenberg. PIHANS 106. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Kienast Burkhart. 1984. “Nomina mit t-​Präfix und t-​Infix in der Sprache von Ebla und ihre sumerischen Äquivalente.” Pages 224–55 in La lingua di Ebla: Atti del convegno internazionale (Napoli, 21–23 aprile 1980). Edited by Luigi Cagni. Naples: Istituto universitario orientale. Köhler, Ludwig, and Walther Baumgartner. 1974. Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament. Lieferung 2.3. Auflage. Leiden: Brill. Kouwenberg N. J. C. 2010: The Akkadian Verb and Its Semitic Background. LANE 2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Krebernik, Manfred. 1984. “Verbalnomina mit prä- und infigiertem t in Ebla.” Studi Eblaiti 7:191–211. Militarev, Alexander, Leonid Kogan, and Anna G. Belova. 2000. Semitic Etymological Dictionary. Vol. 1, Anatomy of ​Man and Animals. AOAT 278/1. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag. Oshima, Takayoshi. 2011. Babylonian Prayers to Marduk. Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 7. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Renz, Johannes. 1995. Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik. Vol. 1. Darmstadt: WBG. Salonen, Armas. 1965. Die Hausgeräte der alten Mesopotamier nach sumerisch-​ akkadischen Quellen: Eine lexikalische und kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica. Segert, Stanislav. 1962. “Zur Etymologie von Lappīd ‘Fackel.’ ” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 74:323–24. Streck, Michael P. 2012. “tartāmū ‘Mutual Love’: The Noun Pattern taPtaRS in Akkadian and the Classification of ​Eblaite. Pages 353–57 in Altorientalische Studien zu Ehren von Pascal Attinger. Edited by Catherine Mittermayer and Sabine Ecklin. OBO 256. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 2014. Review of CAD U/W. ZA 104:104–7.

228

Bēl Lišāni

———, with the collaboration of ​Nadezda Rudik. 2018. Supplement to the Akkadian Dictionaries. Vol. 1, B, P. Leipziger Altorientalistische Studien 7/1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———, with the collaboration of Janine Wende, N. J. C. Kouwenberg, Nadezda Rudik, Johannes Hackl, Frank Simons, and Elyze Zomer. 2019. Supplement to the Akkadian Dictionaries. Vol. 2, D, T, Ṭ. Leipziger Altorientalistische Studien 7/2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Streck Michael P., and Nathan Wasserman. 2018. “The Man Is Like a Woman, the Maiden Is a Young Man: A New Edition of Ištar-​Louvre.” Or 87:1–38 and Tab. I–II. Wasserman, Nathan. 2016. Akkadian Love Literature of the Third and Second Millennium BCE. LAOS 4. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Zimmern, Heinrich. 1917. Akkadische Fremdwörter als Beweis für babylonischen Kultureinfluss. Leipzig: Hinrichs.

Chapter 9

The Akkadian of the King of ​Beirut in the Late Bronze Age Juan-​Pablo Vita

9.1. The Corpus of ​Beirut in the Late Bronze Age: Certainties and Uncertainties Beirut in the Late Bronze Age yielded a small corpus of texts in Akkadian whose exact scope has yet to be established. All the texts that have been ascribed to the aforementioned corpus with varying degrees of certainty—definitely, probably, or possibly—consist of ​letters. The oldest letters belong in the so-​called “archive of el-​Amarna,” the main historical source for the study of international relations in the ancient Near East of the fourteenth century BCE.1 At that point, the kingdom of ​Beirut held minor political and economic significance compared to other coastal kingdoms, such as Byblos or Tyre. For some time, Beirut formed part of an alliance with Tyre and Sidon against Byblos, the most prosperous city in the Levant at the time.2 Nonetheless, when the ruler of ​Byblos (Rib-​Hadda) was expelled from the city by one of ​his brothers, he found shelter in Beirut during his exile. Three Amarna letters may be attributed with certainty to the Akkadian of ​Beirut: EA 141, 142, and 143.3 All of them were sent by ‘Ammunira, the king of ​Beirut; palaeography confirms they were written by the same scribe,4 and may be dated to early in the reign of Akhenaten,5 which had started toward 1353 BCE.6 In the letters, the ruler expresses his political and military loyalty to the pharaoh and announces 1.  See a general introduction to the el-​Amarna letters in Tropper and Vita 2010, 11–33. 2.  Klengel 1992, 176: “Economically, Beruta was certainly overshadowed by Gubla. This could have been the reason why Beruta participated in actions against Gubla (EA 101, 114, 118). The support asked for by Rib-​Adda was not granted immediately (cf. EA 92) but only when Gubla was already weakened. Rib-​Adda was given political asylum when he was forced to leave his city (EA 136, 137, 142).” 3.  In order to simplify citations, the habitual acronym “EA” (= El-​Amarna) will be omitted hereinafter. 4.  See in this respect Vita 2015, 54–55. 5.  Cf. Campbell 1964, 107, 134. 6.  See in this respect Hornung, Kraus, and Warburton 2006, 492.

229

230

Bēl Lišāni

the dispatch of some merchandise requested by the Egyptian sovereign. In letter 142 he states that “as to the ruler of ​Byblos who is with me, I am guarding him until the king takes counsel concerning his servant.”7 Another group of ​letters originating in Beirut was found in Ugarit (Ras Shamra) in the so-​called House of Urtēnu, a wealthy trader linked to the Queen of Ugarit.8 The house yielded a large archive (which is probably incomplete)9 with about 430 texts in various genres,10 among them about 103 letters from the Hittite world (Hatti, Karkemish, Kizzuwatna, Tarhuntassa), Alashiya, Egypt, and several kingdoms of Syria-​Palestine (Ushnatu, Amurru, Qadesh, Byblos, Beirut, Sidon, Tyre).11 The chronology of this archive may be dated only broadly to the second half of the thirteenth century BCE.12 Five letters whose senders and addressees are not specified, though their titles are, originate in Beirut. The king of ​Beirut addresses two letters to the king of Ugarit (RS 94.2187,13 RS 86.2212+14)15 and two to the prefect (LÚ.GAR.RA) of Ugarit (RS 34.137;16 RS 11.73017); lines 6´–8′ on the reverse of ​letter without heading RS 94.216718 state that it also originates 7.  Translation by Rainey 2015, 723. See also Liverani 1998, 162: “Il dossier di Ammu-​nira è del tutto integrato nella prassi amministrativa egiziana: invio di merci, assistenza ai convogli in transito. Solo l’accoglienza al profugo Rib-​Adda . . . collega esplicitamente Beirut alle vicende politiche locali.” 8.  Regarding this character, see Malbran-​Labat and Roche 2008a, 2008b; Lackenbacher and Malbran-​Labat 2016, 129. 9.  On this, see Bordreuil 2013, 370. 10.  Circa 113 alphabetic and 321 logo-​syllabic. On these numbers, see the catalogues by Bordreuil and Pardee 1999–2000 and Malbran-​Labat 2008. So far, the archive has been published in Bordreuil 1991; Yon and Arnaud 2001; Bordreuil, Pardee, and Hawley 2012; and Lackenbacher and Malbran-​Labat 2016. 11.  Lackenbacher and Malbran-​Labat 2016. 12.  At present several scholars have proposed placing the terminus post quem of the archives of Ugarit in the mid-​thirteenth century BCE, during the reign of ​‘Ammiṯtamru II (ca. 1260–1235; for the chronology of the kings of Ugarit, we accept the proposals made by Singer 1999); see the arguments and data provided by Roche-​Hawley and Hawley 2013, 261; Hawley, Pardee, and Sauvage 2013, 385–86; Hawley, Pardee, and Roche-​Hawley 2015, 234. Pardee (2010, 56 and 72) notes the possibility that the date should be slightly earlier, going back to the reign of ​Niqmepa‘ (ca. 1313–1260). The opposite chronological extreme would be marked by the destruction of the city and kingdom of Ugarit. A recent study by Knapp and Manning 2016, considers that the date of this destruction “is reasonably well established at some point between 1200 and 1175 BCE”; see also Matoïan and al-​Bahloul 2016, 286 (“around 1200 BCE”). 13.  RSO 23: 50. 14.  RSO 14: 264–265. 15.  Arnaud 1992, 184: “les en-​tête des lettres . . . le roi de Sidon, comme celui de Beyrouth, se citent avant celui d’Ougarit . . . Or le protocole ‘cunéiforme’ est strict: le plus important (de l’envoyeur ou du destinataire) est toujours mis en premier.” 16.  RSO 7: 37. This letter mentions a journey taken by the king of Ugarit beyond his realm; Singer 1999, 669, wonders “Could this trip refer to Niqmaddu III’s visit to Hatti implied from other documents?” 17.  PRU 3: 12; copy of the tablet also in Malbran-​Labat 1995, 95. 18.  RSO 23: 51.

The Akkadian of the King of Beirut in the Late Bronze Age

231

in Beirut. They deal with several matters regarding money, commerce, and the Beiruti population in Ugarit, revealing smooth and friendly relations between both countries at the highest level.19 Arnaud and Salvini (2000) edited a letter sent by a king of ​Beirut to a king of Ugarit (unspecified names). It is part of a private collection and is of unknown origin and archaeological context.20 Other letters, however, could add to the small corpus of nine texts mentioned above. I suggested that the Amarna letters 97, 98, 136, and 137 could also be part of the linguistic corpus of ​Beirut;21 the sender of the first two is Yapah-​Hadda, of disputed identity, the other two are from Rib-​Hadda, exiled in Beirut. According to their editors, other letters found in Ugarit could also be ascribed, with greater or lesser certainty, to the corpus of ​letters from Beirut: RS 17.390,22 RS 20.130,23 RS 92.2021,24 RS 94.2478,25 RIH 81/4,26 CK 7;27 letter RS 2000.3000.12 remains unedited.28 The exact extent and components of the Akkadian corpus of ​Beirut in the Late Bronze Age has yet to be outlined. 19.  On the political and commercial relations between Beirut and Ugarit see Vidal 2005. 20.  It is part of the private collection of Shlomo Moussaieff. The editors describe the peculiar physical features of the tablet, concluding that “ce n’est pas, en tout cas, un moulage, car l’argile intérieure montre des inclusions de petites pierres” (Arnaud and Salvini 2000, 5). 21.  See in detail Vita 2015, 54–57. 22.  According to Arnaud and Salvini 2000, 17 (no arguments provided). This is a letter for which the details of the sender and receiver are lost. It was found in the East Archive of the royal palace (Bordreuil and Pardee 1989, 145) and was edited in PRU 6: 10. 23.  According to Arnaud and Salvini 2000, 17 (no arguments provided). This is a fragment of a letter dealing with the purchase of fabric for a king. It was found in the “House of ​Rapanu” (Bordreuil and Pardee 1989, 232) and was edited in Ug 5: 46. 24.  RSO 14: 265: “Un dignitaire beyrouthin demande au roi d’Ougarit de faciliter la misión de son envoyé et de lui envoyer un scribe,” but RSO 14: 266: “La provenance de cette lettre pose problème.” 25.  RSO 23: 102: “il faut peut être y joindre [to the corpus of ​Beirut] RS 94.2478,” edited RSO 14: 138–139: “envoi d’un créancier avec son temoin pour le réglement d’un litige”; line 1: ⸢um-​ma⸣ LUGAL ⸢KUR PÚ? ⸣ [x] and translate “De la part du roi de Bey[routh], dis au roi d’Ugarit,” with the comment: “Cette lettre qui émane d’un roi qui se dit ‘frère’ du roi d’Ugarit et qui se nomme en tête pourrait être à ajouter au corpus provenant de Beyrouth (PÚ.MEŠ, cf. III–5).” 26.  The Akkadian letter RIH 81/4, found in the Northern Palace of ​Ras Ibn Hani (a town in Ugarit) and edited by Arnaud 1984, mentions the locality Bi-’i-ru-​ti, which the editor suggests might refer to Ras Ibn Hani itself. Arnaud (1984, 18 and 20 n. 18) concludes that the letter could originate in the region of Amqu. See the comment on this letter also in Bounni, Lagarce, and Lagarce 1998, 95–96. Conversely, Belmonte (2001, 57) includes Bi-’i-ru-​ti among the references to Beirut. The letter has been republished by Roche-Hawley (in Bordreuil, Pardee, and Roche-Hawley 2019, 287–89), who accepts the possibility that the letter came from Beirut or Ušnatu. See also in del Olmo and Sanmartín 2015, 201 the references in alphabetic texts from Ugarit to a toponym birt and a gentilic birty. 27.  Arnaud 1991b, 219: “Cette lettre . . . , sans doute dérobée à Ras Shamra, était arrive, dans l’antiquité, à Ougarit de Beyrouth; la couleur de l’argile, rouge brique, est caractéristique du scriptorium ou d’un scriptorium de cette ville; c’est celle de RS 34.137. Le nom de l’envoyeur, Ewri-​kili, de langue hourrite, est attesté plusieurs fois dans les textes alphabétiques d’Ougarit . . . S’agit-​il du même personnage?” 28.  Cf. Malbran-​Labat 2008, 29, a letter from the king of ​Beirut to the king of Ugarit.

232

Bēl Lišāni

This chapter intends to contribute to an improved understanding of the Akkadian used in Beirut in the Late Bronze Age and to its diachronic development. With the aim of stepping on solid ground, I shall focus on the texts whose origin in Beirut is certain, that is, on the letters whose sender is the king of ​Beirut.29 The outcome should serve as the basis for further analysis tackling the letters whose inclusion in the corpus of ​Beirut is dubious, in order to elucidate which ought to be incorporated into this corpus and which must be discarded. The sole exception is Amarna letter 136, whose sender is Rib-​Hadda, the ruler of ​Byblos exiled in Beirut. The reason is that the palaeography of the letter seems to be identical to that of ​letters 141–143, therefore all three of them could have been written by the same scribe.30 Consequently, the grammar used in 136 should be consistent with that of ​letters 141–143. The aim is to ascertain whether the palaeographic congruence of all four letters also applies to their orthography and grammar. This analysis of 136 in connection with 141–143 will therefore constitute an example of the research work that will be later conducted on the letters mentioned above that could also be part of the corpus of ​Beirut. This chapter does not intend to carry out a comprehensive grammatical analysis of all the elements and details of the examined letters but to provide an accurate notion of the grammar used in the texts in order to reach the final goals. The analysis will be structured as follows: §9.2. 141–143; §9.3. 136; §9.4. 136 vs. 141–143; §9.5. Letters from the king of ​Beirut found in Ugarit; §9.6. Letter Arnaud and Salvini 2000; §9.7. The Akkadian of the scribes of the king of ​Beirut from a diachronic viewpoint.

9.2. 141–143 9.2.1. Orthography Almost all the syllables are types V, VC, and CV, with some exceptions of the type CVC in ma-​gal ‘very’ (141 14, 23; 142 10, 11), gáb-​bi ‘all’ (141 27; 142 28), uš-​te9-⸢bil⸣!-⸢la⸣-[an-​n]i ‘(the words which the king) sent [to m]e’ (142 6), [i]n4-nam-​mu-​ru ‘(my eyes) brightened up’ (142:10), Gub-​la ‘Byblos’ (142 15, 20), a-​šar ‘wherever’ (143 13′) and lìb-​bi (143 34′, in [i-​n]a lìb-​bi ‘in the hold of’ ships).31 The use of ŠÁ in the particle šanītam ‘furthermore’ is shared by the scribes of ​Beirut, Byblos, and Sidon.32 29.  With the dubious inclusion of the letter without heading RS 94.2167. 30.  See in detail Vita 2015, 54–56. Rainey 1996c, 133: “written for Rib-​Haddi by a Scribe of ​ Beirut.” 31.  For el-​Amarna letters I will follow the transcription system used in the edition of ​Rainey 2015 and, save for a few exceptions, I will also reproduce his translations. 32.  Vita 2015, 116.

The Akkadian of the King of Beirut in the Late Bronze Age

233

The scribe uses a whole series of variations in the writing of terms and expressions: 1. the writing of some terms and suffixes: the conjunction u ‘and’ is written ù, but u when it is part of the formula 7 u 7 ta-​a-​an ‘[at the feet of the king] seven (times) and seven times [have I fallen]’; the suffix -ka is written KA = -ka (141 4, 5, 11, 34), but QA = -ka4 in 141 22; 2. determinatives in the toponym ‘Beirut’: URU PÚ.ḪI.A (141 4), but URU. KI PÚ.ḪI.A (142 12); 3. writing of the same term: TIL.LA(-ia) ‘(my) breath’ (141 2, 7, 13, 35), but ba-​la-ṭì(-ia) ‘(my) life’ (141 10, 43); 4. the syntactic structure of a same expression: pí-ṭá-​at ša LUGAL ‘the regular army of the king’ (141 22, 30; 142 30),33 but pí-ṭá-​ti ša LUGAL (142 14); 5. writing of glosses: SAḪAR.RA: a-​pa-​ru ‘dirt’ (141 4), but SAḪAR.RA: ḫa-​pa-​ru (143 11; in line 4 the gloss is omitted in SAḪAR.RA); 6. representation of i and e: iš-​te-​me ‘I have heard’ (141 8; 142 6), but iš-​ te-​mé (141 23); i15-ba-​aš-​ša ‘(who/that) is (with me)’ (142 15, 19, 29), i15-ba-​aš-​šu ‘(the sons of ​Rib Haddi who) were (with him)’ (142 22), i15-ba-​ša-​ku ‘am I (for the king)’ (143 29, but cf. i-​re-​bi in line 18: i-​na i-​re-​bi ‘with the arrival (of the ships)’), but i-​ba-​aš-​ša ‘(my possessions that) are (with the servant)’ (141 28), i-​ba-​ša-​at ‘(wherever he requisition) is located’ (143 13). The logogram LÚ ‘man, person’ conveys ‘ruler’ (EA 141 4), a use attested in other Amarna letters and in Old Babylonian Syrian archives, though in disuse in contemporary Mesopotamia.34 The writing TIL.LA for balāṭu ‘life’ (141 2, 7, 12, 35, 37;35 142 1; 143 2) is shared with other Amarna letters (and with Ugarit).36 For the toponym ‘Beirut’, URU PÚ.ḪI.A is used (141 4; 142 12; 143 21, 25), a writing only employed in these three letters.37 Determinatives are used both with logograms and with terms written syllabically, for example, lú.meša-​ia-​bi-​šu ‘his enemies’ (141 33), lúta-​a[ṣ-r]a-ḫi38 33.  CAD P, 448: piṭātu ‘archery corps’. 34.  Such as Mari or Alalaḫ; see CAD A/2, 57 sub d). 35.  Written ba-​la-ṭì(-ia) in 141 10, 43. 36.  Cf. CAD B, 46. 37.  Cf. Belmonte 2001, 56. 38.  According to the CAD T, 284, “an occupation dealing with horses,” a word only attested in this letter. Rainey (2015, 726) translates it as “the warmer (of the horses of the king),” very likely following the suggestion of CAD T, 285 of considering it “Probably derived from ṣarāḫu [‘to heat, to scorch’] D.”

234

Bēl Lišāni

(143 27). MEŠ and ḪI.A alternate as markers of plurality, also within the same text. The former is usually placed after the logogram, but also after syllabically written forms: a-​wa-​te.MEŠ ‘words’ (141 9; 142 6, 8). Whenever the word has a predeterminative, it is placed afterward: lú.meša-​ia-​bi-​šu ‘enemies’ (141 33). ḪI.A is placed after logograms and syllabically written forms: mi-​im-​mi-​ia.ḪI.A ‘my possession’ (141 27; 142 28). Both determinatives alternate with the same logogram, for example, ÉRIN.MEŠ (142 14, 30), but ÉRIN.ḪI.A ‘soldiers’ (141 22, 30, 31, 46), IGI.MEŠ-ia ‘my eyes’ (142 10), but IGI.ḪI.A (141 45). The gloss mark is used four times, always as a single wedge. It serves two functions: first, as a line connector,39 DINGIR.MEŠ : -ia ‘my deity’ (141 6); second, as an equivalent gloss:40 SAḪAR.RA : a-​pa-​ru ‘dirt’ (141 4), SAḪAR. RA : ḫa-​pa-​ru ‘dirt’ (143 11), BÀD-ši : ḫu-​mi-​tu ‘its wall : wall’ (141 44) (see later in this section).41 Several cases of ​haplography are noted, especially in the omission of the possessive suffix of 1p.sg: EN ‘ lord’ (141 30, 36, 39; 143 26), TIL. LA ‘ life’ (141 13), mi-​im-​mi ‘ possessions’ (142 28; cf. 141 27 mi-​im-​mi-​ia in an identical structure), but other signs are also omitted as well as full words: pí-ṭá-šu (141 31; cf. pí-ṭá-​at in lines 22 and 30), (141 36). Several cases of scribal pluses occur, for example, cases of dittography: DUMU.DUMU.MEŠ ‘the sons (of Rib-​Haddi)’ (142 21); >⸢ù⸣< ù qa-​du GIŠ.GIGIR.ḪI.A-ia ‘and with my chariots’ (142 26–27), but also other types such as: a->na l / _t shift is not attested, cf. uš-​te9-⸢bil⸣!-⸢la⸣-[an-n​ ] i (142 6–7, from wabālu). 9.2.3. Pronouns The independent form of 1cs, anāku ‘I’, is used twice (141 39; 143 27), once for emphasis in a verbal clause: a-​na-​ku ÌR ša LUGAL EN ‘I am the servant of the king, lord’ (141 39). 9.2.4. The Noun Noun declensions are mostly correct save for some exceptions, for example, gimillu ‘recompense’, in the genitive acting as a direct complement: ‘(may the regular army of the king) tu-t​ i-r​ u ⸢gi⸣-mi-​li bring recompense to his servant’ (141 38).45 The three Canaanite glosses used by the scribe are particularly noteworthy. Two of them gloss the logogram SAḪAR.RA ‘dirt’,46 yet, regardless of the case of the logogram in both letters (genitive), the glosses use the nominative: a-​pa-​ru ‘dirt’ (141 4), ḫa-​pa-​ru ‘dirt’ (143 11). The scribe replicates this structure in 141 44, where a logogram in the accusative case is glossed by a term in the nominative: BÀD-ši : ḫu-​mi-​tu ‘its wall’; it may also be noted that this gloss does not include the feminine singular suffix pronoun in the genitive (-ši), which comes after the logogram, hence the gloss acts independently—syntactically and morphologically—from the logogram it accompanies.47 All three glosses seem to use the nominative as a neutral base case in enumerations, a usage attested in Ugaritic48 which also acts as citation case in lexical lists;49 in this respect it should be recalled that at least some of the Amarna glosses could consist of elements extracted from lexical lists.50

45.  For similar cases in other archives and periods, see CAD G, 74 sub 2a. 46.  On the contrary, Rainey 1996c, 179, thinks that the logogram should be read SAḪAR-ra and that the -ra “may just as well be an error by the scribe who thought that it was part of the ideogram.” Note however that the logogram appears three times consistently written with -ra (141 4 and 143 4, 11) in a syntactic position that demands a genitive; accepting that the scribe was well aware of this case, a transcription SAḪAR.RA seems more plausible to us. 47.  Cf. Vita 2012, 280 n. 14. 48.  See Tropper 2012:308. 49.  Streck 2014, 54; concerning Ugarit, see Huehnergard 2008, Polyglot Sa Vocabulary: cf. Akkadian and Ugaritic columns. 50.  As I contended in Vita 2012. According to Baranowski (2016, 60), “rather than having a symbolic purpose, the glosses belonged to the mechanics of the script. The scribes who used to copy the lexical lists as part of their elementary education would drag the habit of writing the logogram with its Akkadian or Canaanite counterpart into epistolary practice.”

236

Bēl Lišāni

As for the bound forms, the scribe deploys a series of variants around the noun piṭātu: canonical pí-ṭá-​at LUGAL ‘regular army of the king’ (142 30–31), but also pí-ṭá-​ti LUGAL (142 14; cf. 143 14′: ši-​pi-​ir-​ti LUGAL ‘the requisition of the king’), pi-ṭá-​at ša LUGAL (141 22, 30). Finally, in the formula um-​ma Am-​mu-​ni-​ra ‘message of ​‘Ammunira’ (141 3; 142 2) the anthroponym ‘Ammunira always appears indeclinable in-a.51 9.2.5. The Verb Besides purely Akkadian forms used in standardized letter formulas,52 the verbal morphology of the letters matches that of most Canaanite letters from Amarna, which typically contain hybrid Canaano-​Akkadian forms. In this sense, the 1cs forms of the present G prefix conjugation show remarkable internal variety:53 i-⸢mu⸣-⸢ru⸣ ‘I see’ (141 45, from amāru) uses the preterite theme,54 as opposed to i-​na-ṣa-​ru(-šu) ‘I am guarding’ (142 16, to protect a person, from naṣāru) that uses the present-​future theme,55 a verb that also presents another form, uṣ-ṣú-​ru ‘I am guarding’, that seems to use the imperative theme (141 41; 142 12, to protect a city);56 see also later in this section. Similar internal variation may be noted in forms of the suffix conjugation, particularly in several hybrid forms created on the bases of the so-​called preformative stative ibašši (from bašû ‘to exist, to be’).57 Some of the forms use Akkadian suffixes: i15-ba-​ša-​ku ‘I am’ (143 29, 1ms Pres G; cf. also na-​aṣ-ra-​ku ‘I am guarding’, 142 11),58 others use Canaanite suffixes: i/i15-ba-​aš-​ša (141 28; 142 15, 19, 29; 3ms Pres G),59 whereas the suffix in i-​ba-​ša-​at (143 13, 3f.sg Pres G)60 and i15-ba-​aš-​šu (142 22, 3mp Pres. G)61 may be either Akkadian or Canaanite. Note also the following variation between prefix and suffix conjugation within 51.  As also happens with the writing of this anthroponym in the other Amarna letters, all of them originating in Byblos; see Hess 1993, 32. Rainey (1996c, 179) interprets it—wrongly in my opinion—as a breakdown of the rule whereby umma in Canaano-​Akkadian is treated as a noun: “Two letters from Beirut reflect what might be taken as a breakdown of the rule or an attempt to revert to the OB pattern. They certainly show that the scribe was confused.” 52.  am-​qú-​ut ‘have I fallen’ (141 8; 142 33); qí-​bí-​ma ‘speak’ (141 3). 53.  See most recently Baranowski 2016, 89: “The most salient feature of the verbal morphology in the Amarna letters from Canaan is the fact that the same grammatical form of a verb can take different shapes.” 54.  Rainey 1996b, 51. 55.  Rainey 1996b, 57. 56.  Rainey 1996b, 58. 57.  Using the terminology of ​Rainey 1996b, 284. 58.  Rainey 1996b, 321. 59.  Rainey 1996b, 288, 319. 60.  Rainey 1996b, 288, 320. 61.  Rainey 1996b, 288, 320.

The Akkadian of the King of Beirut in the Late Bronze Age

237

a similar formula: ⸢ù⸣ yi-​iḫ-di ŠÀ-ia ‘and my heart rejoiced’ (142 9, of ḫadû) vs. ù ḫa-​di ŠÀ ÌR-ka ‘and the heart of your servant rejoiced’ (141 11). The same alternation may be noted in the use of some volitive forms: yi-​il15ma-​ad ‘may (the king) be apprised’ (142 18, from lamādu ‘to be informed’),62 without the injunctive lū (unlike in other Amarna letters),63 vs. the precative forms lu-​ú ti-​ra-ḫa-​aṣ ‘may (the army of the king) smash (the head of ​his enemies)’ (141 31, from raḫāṣu ‘to trample’),64 lu-​ú ti-​mu-​ru ‘may (the eyes) behold (the life of the king)’ (141 34, from amāru ‘to see’).65 9.2.6. Prepositions Anson Rainey (1996c, 39) pointed out that “The usual preposition for expressing ‘with’ is either itti  . . . or qadu’, specifying next that “qadu generally means ‘together with’, while itti means, ‘with, in the company of’,” illustrating these nuances with an example taken from Byblos letter EA 74. 141 24–29 and 142 25–29 also yield good instances in this sense, for example, 141 24–29: ù a->na l / _t shift is not attested; see iš-​tu (136 26). 9.3.3. Pronouns The dative independent pronoun of 1cs has the hybrid form ia-​ši-​ia (136:10, in a-na ia-​ši-​ia ‘to me’): the corresponding suffix is added to the independent form, one of the few instances of this kind attested in Canaano-​Akkadian.81 Later, the canonical form ia-​ši (136 25) is used in the letter. Regarding anāku ‘I’ see below. 9.3.4. The Noun The declensions of the nouns are correct. Glosses are also declined according to their function in the sentences, thus revealing great dissimilarity with regard to 141 and 143, where the declension of the glosses follows a different criterion. In SAḪAR.RA : e-​pé-​ri ‘dirt’ (136 3) the gloss is in the genitive, as corresponds to a noun dependent on um-​ma ‘message’ (136 2). In LÚ.MEŠ UN : ma-ṣa-​ar-​ta ‘garrison’ (136 18), the Akkadian gloss is used in the correct accusative case. Both glosses are also Akkadian, another major difference from 141 and 143. Though 77.  Cf. Gianto 1995, 67; Vita 2012. 78.  Reading of UN in Rainey 1996a, 36 and 2015, 694; CAD M/1, 336. Regarding possible alternative reading and interpretation of this logogram, see also Moran 1992: 217 n. 3; Gianto 1995, 71. 79.  See Gianto 1995, 67. DÙG.GA is used again in 136 32, but without a gloss. 80.  Rainey 1996a, 162: “One is hard pressed to find an accusative with final -m,” being the instance of 136 41 one of the few cases. 81.  See Rainey 1996a, 54; the example supplied regarding ia-​ti-​ia (109 43; 365 19) may be complemented with that of 280 13.

The Akkadian of the King of Beirut in the Late Bronze Age

241

correctly declined in the accusative, the understanding of the pronunciation gloss in DÙG.GA : tu-​ka (136 28) seems harder, as its exact meaning is debated.82 In harmony with 141–142, anthroponyms ÌR-A-​ši-​ir-​ta (136 12, after preposition) and Am-​mu-​ni-​ra (136 29, after ša) appear indeclinable in -a. 9.3.5. The Verb The habitual Canaano-​Akkadian hybridism applies to verb morphology, for example, prefix conjugation yi-​im-​lu-​uk ‘may (the king) take counsel’ (136 36, 40, from malāku ‘to give advice’), ti7-iq-​bu-​na ‘(my wife) kept saying (to me)’ (136 10, from qabû ‘to say’), suffix conjugation al-​ka-​ti ‘I went’ (136 30, from alāku ‘to go’), šap-​ra-​ti ‘I wrote’ (136 16, from šapāru ‘to send word, to write’). The verb forms im-​lu-​uk ‘I thought (to myself )’ (136 26) and yi-​im-​lu-​uk (136 36, 40) share with the form yi-​im-​lu-​ku ‘may (the king) be apprised of’ in 142 17 an unusual combination of u theme and i prefix vowel.83 Two verb forms use the ventive: uš-​ši-​ra-​am ‘send me (garrison troops)’ (136 17, from (w)ašāru ‘to send’), and yu-ṣa-ḫi-​ra-​am ‘(when) the pressure got too tough (for me)’ (136 25, from ṣeḫēru).84 Unlike 141–143, 136 uses logograms (BA.UŠ) for a finite verbal form: ⸢UGU⸣ LUGAL EN-ia BA.UŠ a-​na-​ku ‘For the king, my lord, I would die!’ (136 42).85 9.3.6. Prepositions In conjunction with the verb mâtu ‘to die’, the preposition UGU / eli conveys in 136 42 the specific meaning ‘for’ (see previous paragraph), which is only used in two other letters of Rib-​Hadda (137 and 138) with the same combination and meaning.86 The preposition biri ‘between’ (136 13, 32) is also used without a preceding particle (for instance, combined with the prepositions ina or ana); in Canaano-​ Akkadian such independent use of biri is only attested in letters from Byblos.87 9.3.7. Conjunctions As seen above, in-​du-​um in 136 24 and en-​du-​um in 142 7 are the only two instances where undu ‘when’ is used in Amarna Canaanite letters. 82.  See Moran 1992, 217 n. 5; Gianto 1995, 67; Baranowski 2016, 52 n. 52. 83.  See Rainey 1996b, 56. 84.  Regarding yu-ṣa-ḫi-​ra-​am, see the discussion in Rainey 1996b, 154 (“the Akkadian D preterite provides the theme”); Baranowski (2016, 86) reads yi-ṣa-ḫi-​ra-​am. As for the meaning, see CAD Ṣ, 123 sub 1e). 85.  Gianto 1995, 68. 86.  Rainey 1996c, 28; Tropper and Vita 2010, 112. 87.  Rainey 1996c, 42–43; Tropper and Vita 2010, 113.

242

Bēl Lišāni

Rainey pointed out that in Canaano-​Akkadian “there are a few instances when šumma can only be rendered ‘because, since’, much in the manner as inūma.”88 The use of šumma in 136 41 could constitute a further instance to add to those presented by Rainey:89 šum-​ma i-​ia-​nu ŠÀ ša-​na-​am “because I have no other attitude.” 9.3.8. Syntax The order VSO prevails in most sentences except when an SVO order is observed to lay particular emphasis on the message, for example, 136 8–13: LÚ.MEŠ URU Gub-​la ù E-ia / ù MUNUS.DAM-ia / ti7-iq-​bu-​na a-​na ia-​ši-​ia / a-​li-​ik-​mi EGIR / IDUMU ÌR-​A-ši-​ir-​ta / ù ni-​pu-​uš šal-​ma bi-​ri-​nu ‘The men of the city of ​Byblos and my house and my wife kept saying to me: “Follow the son of ​‘Abdi-​Aširta so we can make peace between us”’. The verbal form ti7-iq-​bu-​na is placed after three linked subjects to add relevance to the series of people (from more general to more personal) who have been urging the sender to drop his loyalty to the pharaoh.90 Note also that this verbal form uses a feminine morphology despite having one masculine subject (‘The men of the city of ​Byblos’) and two feminine subjects; it would appear that in LÚ.MEŠ URU Gub-​la the concord is made with the feminine URU ‘city’.91 Rainey’s observation regarding 136 30–33 is also significant: “Note the following verbs of motion in past narration, the first in qtl, the second in yqtl preterite”:92 ù al-​ka-​ti / a-​na É-šu aš-​šum /e-​pu-​uš DÙG.GA bi-​ri-​ / ù  a-na-​ku a-​tu-​ur a-​na É-⸢i⸣a ‘So I went to his house in order that I could make a treaty between . Then I returned to my house’. Gianto pointed out the intensifying use of anāku ‘I’ in 136 27–28 and 33–35, ‘mainly to mark a higher degree of emotion’;93 in this sense see also 136 14–15: a-⸢na⸣-ku / la iš-​me a-​na ša-​šu-​nu ‘I did not listen to them’.

9.4. 136 vs. 141–143 As seen, 136 and 141–143 share a significant number of grammatical elements that are compatible with a written variant of Akkadian, but they also contain noteworthy differences. In my opinion, the greatest difference concerns the nature 88.  Rainey 1996c, 94; see also Tropper and Vita 2010, 114. 89.  Rainey 1996c, 95–96. 90.  The same emphatic purpose is sought in lines 136 44–46, also using the SVO order. 91.  In Canaano-​Akkadian, URU/ālu ‘city’ is feminine; see Rainey 1996a, 126. 92.  Rainey 1996b, 350. 93.  Gianto 1990, 81–83.

The Akkadian of the King of Beirut in the Late Bronze Age

243

and use of glosses: 136 uses Akkadian glosses correctly declined based on their syntactic function within sentences, while 141 and 143 use Canaanite glosses declined in the nominative regardless of their syntactic function and that seem to originate from lexical lists. These disparities are crucial inasmuch as they reflect a very different approach to the nature and use of glosses. This fact could indicate that 136 and 141–143 were written not by one,94 but by two different scribes who may have received similar training (as some grammatical elements analyzed above may confirm, as well as an almost identical palaeography) yet separate (as glosses and the abovementioned differences in terms of orthography and grammar could support). A more thorough analysis of the palaeography of these letters would be necessary. Should such an analysis confirm that all four texts were written by the same hand, the scribe would prove to be highly versatile both conceptually and technically in the use of glosses and with a taste for slight variations even greater than that already noted in the case of the letters 141–143.

9.5. Letters from the King of ​Beirut Found in Ugarit 9.5.1. Orthography In contrast to the earlier Amarna period, and as could be expected, the use of CVC type syllables increases, for example, šul-​mu ‘peace’ (RS 94.2187 4), al-​tap-​pár ‘I send’ (RS 94.2167 5′, 10′), i-​šak-​kán-​nu ‘they want to put’ (RS 94.2167 8′). Compared to the Amarna letters from Beirut, the number of phonetic complements in logograms is also higher: KASKAL-ni ‘(on the) road’ (RS 94.2187 17), UGU-ḫi ‘towards (you)’ (RS 94.2167 9′), LÚ.DUMU.KIN-ri ‘my messenger’ (RS 94.2167 9′), KUR PÚ.MEŠ-ti ‘the land of ​Beirut’ (RS 34.137 1; RS 11.730 1). The usual marker of plurality is MEŠ, but RS 86.2212+ uses ME: KUR PÚ.ME ‘the land of ​Beirut’ (line 1), DINGIR.ME ‘the gods’ (line 5). Determinatives may also be used with syllabically written terms, such as a-​ma-​te.MEŠ ‘words’ (RS 94.2167 6′). See below regarding the use of an Ḫ-sign to write a Canaanite suffix pronoun. 9.5.2. Phonology Mimation is not used. The forms muš-​ši-​ir (RS 94.2167 3′, in a broken context) and muš-​ši-​ir-​ra-​aš-​šu ‘release him to me’ (RS 94.2167 12′; from (w)ašāru ‘release’, D muššuru) show the evolution w > m as used for this verb in Middle Babylonian.95 a-​ma-​te.MEŠ ‘words’ (RS 94.2167 6′) reveals that medial w is 94.  As concluded in Vita 2015, 54, and 56. 95.  See GAG §20 3) 3; Aro 1955, 33.

244

Bēl Lišāni

represented using M-signs. The š > l / _t shift is partially attested: al-​tap-​pár ‘I send’ (RS 94.2167 5′, 10′; RS 86.2212+ 10; RS 11.730 10), il-​te-​mi ‘I have heard’ (RS 34.137 6), but iš-​tu ‘from’ (RS 94.2167 rev. 7′; RS 34.137 7, 11). 9.5.3. Pronouns The use in RS 94.2187 9 of the Canaanite suffix 3ms -hu written using an Ḫ-sign is noteworthy: ŠEŠ-ḫu ‘his brother’, instead of the usual Akkadian pronoun -šu used three times in this letter: DI.KUD-šu ‘his contention’ (line 7), it-​ti-​šu ‘with him’ (line 11), šu-​ku-​un-​šu ‘put him (on the road)’ (line 17). This is a pronoun whose writing using an Ḫ-sign is already attested in Canaano-​Akkadian in Amarna letter 284 (from Gimtu, biblical Gath),96 line 19: qa-​ti-ḫu ‘his strong hand’ (i.e., the pharaoh’s).97 In RS 94.2187 it appears between two anthroponyms: it-​ti  . . . DUMU I Lu-​bi-​ši ŠEŠ-ḫu IŠi-​e-​mì, literally ‘with . . . the son of ​Lubiši, his brother of Šiemi’, meaning ‘his brother, namely, Šiemi’s’;98 see in this sense the structure in 136 29: (let me make a treaty) it-​ti-​šu ša IAm-​mu-​ni-​ra ‘with him, namely, ‘Ammunira’. The pronoun atta ‘you’ is used emphatically (RS 94.2187 14; RS 11.730 10; RS 34.137 10).99 The pronoun 3pl šunūti ‘they’ acts as a copula in RS 94.2167 rev. 8′: a-​mur É-ti KUR PÚ.MEŠ ù / É-ti KUR u-​ga-​ri-​it iš-​tu pa-​nu-​um-​ma / 1-en É šu-​nu-​ti ‘See: the House of ​Beirut and the House of Ugarit have been one (sole) for a long time’.100 9.5.4. The Noun The declension of the nouns is mostly correct, with few exceptions, for example, na-​ma-​ši in il-​te-​mi na-​ma-​ši / ŠEŠ-ia (RS 34.137 6) ‘I have heard of my brother’s journey’. See also É-ti ‘the house’ in RS 94.2167 rev. 6′ and 7′ (see above). Unlike in 141–143 and 136, anthroponyms are declined in RS 94.2187 8: it-​ti  . . . DUMU ILu-​bi-​ši ŠEŠ-ḫu IŠi-​e-​mì (see above). 9.5.5. The Verb The verb morphology is Middle Babylonian, with a possible Assyrian exception.101 Some verb forms are peculiar, such as the optative of 3sg li-​pu-​ri-​us-​mì 96.  See bibliography in Vita 2015, 86 n. 262. 97.  Cf. Rainey 1996a, 76. 98.  Lackenbacher and Malbran-​Labat 2016, “avec . . . le fils de Lubiši—le frère de Šiemi—.” 99.  See Malbran-​Labat 1995, 95 regarding RS 34.137 10. 100.  Cf. Huehnergard 1989, 214: “The use of copula pronouns is encountered only rarely in Mesopotamian dialects (OB, MA), but is relatively common in WPA texts; since examples occur in texts from Ḫattusa and Mittanni, it is unlikely that we may ascribe the phenomenon to NWS influence.” 101.  Arnaud 2001b, 265 regarding ba-ʿ-e (RS 86.2212+ 8): “L’infinit II est une forme assyrienne.”

The Akkadian of the King of Beirut in the Late Bronze Age

245

(RS 94.2187 16), described as ‘bizarre’ by the editors,102 or the form i-[pa]ru-​uk ‘(no one) should block (him)’ (RS 86.2212+ 15, from parāku ‘to block, to oppose’) with u vocalism instead of the much more common form in i.103 Also in the case of il-​te-​mi (RS 34.137 6; see above), which starts a sentence, 1p.sg of the perfect of šemû ‘to hear’ with i vocalization instead of the more common e (< eštemē; cf. also ti-​ši-​am in line 6′);104 the editor links it to the verbal form iš-​te-​me in 141 8 (iš-​te-​me / a-⸢wa⸣-te.MEŠ ⸢DUB⸣ ša LUGAL-ri ‘I have heard the words of the tablet of the king’).105 9.5.6. Prepositions In contrast with 136 13, 32, biri ‘between’ is preceded by another preposition: i-​na be-​ri (RS 94.2167 8′ rev. 5′). 9.5.7. Adverbs Regarding the expression u4-ma ù mu-​ši ‘day and night’ in RS 34.137 9, see 136 37: U4.KAM ù mu-​ša ‘day and night’.106 9.5.8. Other Particles In RS 86.2212+ 14 the particle lū is used in conjunction with lā to strengthen a negative prohibition: LÚ mim-​ma [a-]na pa-​ni-​šu / lu-​ú la-​a i-[pa]-ru-​uk ‘No one should cause him difficulties’.107 9.5.9. Syntax The use of nominal phrases is frequent.108 As usual, an SOV order is employed to topicalize the subject or the object of the sentence, for example, ù at-​ta . . . ṭé-ma te-​er-​ra-​an-​ni ‘and you . . . send me a report’ (RS 34.137 10–13);109 LÚ-ia / an-​na-a . . . al-​tap-​pár-​šu ‘this man of mine . . . I send you’ (RS 86.2212+ 7–10). 102.  Lackenbacher and Malbran-​Labat 2016, 103: “cette forme bizarre est peut-​être due à une graphie ‘consonantique’: li-​p(u)-r(i)-us; they translate: “pour qu’il puisse régler ces contentieux.” 103.  Lackenbacher and Malbran-​Labat 2016, 265: “Ce verbe a plutôt le vocalisme en /i/, mais le vocalisme en /u/ est attesté ça et là.” 104.  See GAG §475 g, and paradigm 31; Streck 2014, 171. 105.  Arnaud 1991a: “est une première personne.” 106.  Regarding the reading UD (= u4) in the Amarna letters, see Rainey 1996c, 135. 107.  See Huehnergard 1989, 203 n. 439, regarding the dialectal distribution of the prohibitive lū lā. 108.  As Lackenbacher and Malbran-​Labat (2016, 105) point out regarding RS 94.2167. 109.  Correct reading of ṭé-​ma by Huehnergard 1997, 219.

246

Bēl Lišāni

More interesting is the use in some cases of a syntax of Canaanite tradition where the verb takes the initial or medial position,110 for example, ŠEŠ-ia la-​a ti-​ši-​am-​me a-​ma-​te.MEŠ ‘my brother, do not listen to the words’ (i.e., gossip),111 il-​te-​mi na-​ma-​ši / ŠEŠ-ia iš-​tu KUR u-​ga-​ri-​it ‘I have heard of my brother’s journey beyond the land of Ugarit’ (RS 34.137 6–7). See above sub “Pronouns” regarding the syntactic use of the pronouns. Malbran-​Labat (1995, 95–96) contributes a detailed analysis of the structure of the discourse in RS 11.730.

9.6. Letter Arnaud and Salvini 2000 The archaeological context of the letter edited by Arnaud and Salvini is unknown, though they propose it might originate in Beirut.112 After a detailed analysis, they also conclude that the language of the text indicates that it should be dated to the Amarna period.113 The verbal morphology and the syntax certainly point in that direction. On the one hand, for instance, two verbal forms use the PI sign for producing Canaanite Yv prefixes: yi-​-ta-​ri-​iq114 ‘he has stolen’ (line 9, from šarāqu ‘to steal’), and ⸢yi⸣-te-​li ‘he went’ (line 13, from elû ‘to go away’);115 on the other hand, those three verbs figure at the start of their respective sentence and are preceded by the conjunction ù, an habitual Canaano-​ Akkadian structure and syntax. The exception occurs when the scribe wants to emphasize some elements in the sentence, for instance in ù / [a]t-​ta ŠEŠ-ia LÚ šu-​ut116 / ṣí-​batat ‘and you, my brother, take over that man’ (lines 19–20). Also, in harmony with the Amarna letters from Beirut, most syllables are of the type V, VC, and CV. I believe, however, that such dating must be qualified. The editors do not refer, for instance, to the fact that the formulae used in the introduction of the message, um-​ma LUGAL KUR PÚ.MEŠ / a-​na LUGAL KUR u-​ga-​ri-​it / 110.  As pointed out by Lackenbacher and Malbran-​Labat 2016, 105, for the case of RS 94.2167: “La syntaxe est largement cananéenne.” 111.  An instance pointed out by Lackenbacher and Malbran-​Labat 2016, 105, who translate: “mon frère, n’écoute pas les on-​dit.” 112.  Arnaud and Salvini 2000, 16: “sous réserve d’une révision postérieure, on attribuera l’origine du document à Beyrouth, plutôt qu’Ougarit.” 113.  Arnaud and Salvini 2000, 13: “La langue date cette lettre de l’‘époque d’El-​Amarna’. On ne saurait en effet s’y tromper . . .”; 15: “La conclusión s’impose: c’est dans le lot le plus ancien que l’influence du canaanéen, la conjugaison et l’ordre des mots classent la nouvelle tablette.” 114.  If we admit the restitution proposed by the editors, Arnaud and Salvini 2000, 5 and 10. 115.  For a possible third form ⸢yi⸣-na!-ab-​di on line 11, see Arnaud and Salvini 2000, 5 (transliteration), 7 (copy) and 11 (comment). 116.  Arnaud and Salvini 2000, 12: “On attendrait l’accusatif: *šuāti / *šuātu.”

The Akkadian of the King of Beirut in the Late Bronze Age

247

ŠEŠ-ia DU10.GA qí-​bi-​ma / lu-​ú šul-​m[u] ⸢a⸣-na UGU-ḫi-​ka / DINGIR.MEŠ PAP-ru-​ka ‘Message from the king of the country of ​Beirut: tell the king of the country of Ugarit, my excellent brother: good health to you, may the gods protect you’, are practically identical to those used in letters RS 94.2187,117 RS 86.2212+,118 RS 34.137,119 and RS 11.730120 found in Ugarit, with the only addition of DU10.GA. Furthermore, the letter uses phonetic complements in several logograms: PAP-ru (line 5, see above), KAR-ri ‘harbor district’ (line 8), KUR-te ‘land’ (line 16), ŠU-ti ‘hand’ (line 21), a nonattested practice in 141–143, though it is used in the Beirut letters from Ugarit. The verbal form ṣí-​batat (see above) also uses a phonetic complement, though for a syllabic sign, a circumstance that rarely features in Canaano-​Akkadian.121 Finally, the verbal form u-​ma-​šìr ‘I release’ shows the w > m evolution of m used for this verb in the Middle Babylonian period and well attested for this verb also in the letter from Beirut RS 94.2167 found in Ugarit. Based on the considerations made above, I believe that the letter holds enough orthographic, phonetic, morphological, and syntactic elements to propose it may be dated after the Amarna period, but without it being included in the group of ​Beirut letters from Ugarit. It must have been written at an intermediate, yet unspecified moment between both groups of ​letters.

9.7. The Akkadian of the Scribes of the King of ​Beirut from a Diachronic Viewpoint Notwithstanding their specificities, the Amarna letters from Beirut feature well-​ known Canaano-​Akkadian orthographical and grammatical traits. As for the glosses in letters 141–143 and 136, differences in the choice of ​language and case are particularly noteworthy. The number of scribes palaeographically identified

117.  um-​ma ⸢LUGAL⸣ KUR PÚ.[MEŠ ŠEŠ-ka] / a-​na LUGAL KUR u-​g[a-​ri-​it] / ŠEŠ-ia qí-​bi-[ma] / lu-​ú šul-​mu a-​na [UGU-ka] / li-​im DINGIR.MEŠ PAP-r[u-​ka]. About li-​im, see the comment of ​Huehnergard (1997, 219): “Surely li-​im DINGIR.MEŠ is ‘the thousand gods’, referring to the pantheon of the Hittites, overlords of Ugarit, rather than Arnaud’s forced ‘the people of the gods.’ ” 118.  um-​ma LUGAL KUR PÚ.ME / a-​na LUGAL KUR u-​ga-​ri-​it / ŠEŠ-ia qí-​bi-​ma / lu-​ú [š]ul-[mu] a-​na UGU-ḫi ŠEŠ-ia / DINGIR.ME a-​na šul-​ma-​ni / ŠEŠ-ia PAP-ru. 119.  um-​ma LUGAL KUR PÚ.MEŠ-ti / a-​na ILÚ.GAR.RA KUR u-​ga-​ri-[i]t / qí-​bi-​ma / lu-​ú šul-​mu a-​na UGU-ḫi-​ka / li-​im [DIN]GIR.MEŠ PAP-ru-​ka. 120.  um-​ma LUGAL KUR PÚ.MEŠ-ti / a-​na LÚ.GAR.RA KUR u-​ga-​ri-​it / DUMU-ia qí-​bi-​ ma / lu-​ú šul-​mu a-​na UGU-ḫi-​ka / DINGIR.MEŠ a-​na šul-​ma-​ni / PAP-ru-​ka. 121.  Rainey 1996a, 32: “In rare instances, a phonetic complement is appended to what the scribe felt was a sign that might be misread.”

248

Bēl Lišāni

with respect to this corpus may possibly increase as well as the number of ​letters that may be attributed to it. The Beirut letters found in Ugarit are at least one century later than the Amarna letters, and linguistically they may be attributed to Middle Babylonian, with some peculiarities. Akkadian from Beirut therefore underwent a major evolution from Canaano-​Akkadian of the fourteenth century BCE. Nevertheless, some of the elements in the Beirut letters from the thirteenth century BCE reveal the local linguistic stratum, especially some syntactic structures of Canaanite tradition; the use of the Canaanite suffix pronoun -hu (letter RS 94.2187) even constitutes a direct link to Canaano-​Akkadian. Despite the obvious evolution of the Akkadian language and of the scribes’ training, the Akkadian used in Beirut in the thirteenth century BCE remains partially permeable to the local linguistic environment, as grammar elements already used in Canaano-​Akkadian show. The Beirut letter edited by Daniel Arnaud and Mirjo Salvini (2000) seems to link the group of Amarna letters to the group of Ugarit letters. Whereas its verbal morphology and syntax correspond to Canaano-​Akkadian, its heading as well as some orthographical and phonetic elements bring it closer to the letters found in Ugarit. This letter constitutes a unique instance, therefore isolated, which nevertheless may indicate the evolution that occurred in Beirut from Canaano-​ Akkadian to Middle Babylonian. As pointed out above, the next step will consist of analyzing other texts that could also correspond to the corpus of ​Beirut. The outcome of this work will allow us to integrate the Akkadian of ​Beirut into a broader analysis of the Akkadian used in other coastal localities in the Levant, especially Tyre, Sidon, and Byblos.122

Bibliography Arnaud, Daniel. 1984. “La Lettre Hani 84/1 et l’identification du site de Ras Ibn Hani (Syrie).” Syria 61:15–23. ———. 1991a. “Deux lettres de ‘Phénicie.’ ” Pages 79–81 in Une bibliothèque au sud de la ville. Edited by Pierre Bordreuil. Ras Shamra-​Ougarit 7. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations. ———. 1991b. Textes syriens de l’âge du Bronze récent. Barcelona: Ausa. ———. 1992. “Les ports de la ‘Phénicie’ à la fin de l’âge du Bronze Récent (XVI–XIII siècles) d’après les textes cunéiformes de Syrie.” SMEA 30:179–94. 122.  Regarding the Akkadian of the texts from Tyre and Sidon found in Ugarit, see respectively Arnaud 1999–2000 and 2001a. The analysis conducted by Arnaud on the Akkadian in Tyre was published about fifteen years before the editio princeps of several of the texts (edited by Lackenbacher and Malbran-​Labat 2016) and therefore ought to be thoroughly revised.

The Akkadian of the King of Beirut in the Late Bronze Age

249

———. 1999–2000. “Une béche-​de-​mer Antique: La langue des marchandes à Tyr à la fin du XIIIe siècle.” AuOr 17–18:143–66. ———. 2001a. “Le Jargon épistolaire de Sidon à la fin de l’âge du Bronze récent.” Pages 291–322 in Études ougaritiques I: Travaux 1985–1995. Edited by Marguerite Yon and Daniel Arnaud. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations. ———. 2001b. “Lettres.” Pages 257–90 in Études ougaritiques I: Travaux 1985–1995. Edited by Marguerite Yon and Daniel Arnaud. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations. Arnaud, Daniel, and Mirjo Salvini. 2000. “Une Lettre du roi de Beyrouth au roi d’Ougarit de l’époque dite ‘d’El-​Amarna.’ ” SMEA 42:5–17. Aro, Jussi. 1955. Studien zur mittelbabylonischen Grammatik. Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica. Baranowski, Krzysztof J. 2016. The Verb in the Amarna Letters from Canaan. LANE 6. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Belmonte, Juan A. 2001. Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der Texte aus Syrien im 2. Jt. v. Chr. Répertoire géographique des textes cunéiformes 2. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Bordreuil, Pierre, ed. 1991. Une bibliothèque au sud de la ville: Les textes de la 34e campagne (1973). Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations. ———. 2013. “Domaine privé et domaine public dans les tablettes cuneiformes alphabétiques de la maison d’Ourtenou.” Ugarit-​Forschungen 44:369–81. Bordreuil, Pierre, Robert Hawley, and Dennis Pardee. 2012. Une bibliothèque au sud de la ville: Textes 1994–2002 en cunéiforme alphabétique de la maison d’Ourtenou. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerrannee. Bordreuil, Pierre, and Dennis Pardee. 1989. La Trouvaille épigraphique de l’Ougarit. Vol. 1, Concordance. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations. ———. 1999–2000. “Catalogue raisonné des textes ougaritiques de la Maison d’Ourtenou.” Aula Orientalis 17–18:23–43. Bordreuil, Pierre, Dennis Pardee, and Carole Roche-Hawley. 2019. Ras Ibn Hani II. Les textes en écritures cunéiformes de l’âge du Bronze récent (fouilles 1977 à 2002). Beyrouth: Presses de l’Ifpo. Bounni, Adnan, Élisabeth Lagarce, and Jacques Lagarce. 1998. Ras Ibn Hani. Vol. 1, Le palais nord du Bronze récent: Fouilles 1979–1995, Synthèse préliminaire. Beyrouth: Institut français d’archéologie du Proche-​Orient. Campbell, Edward F. 1964. The Chronology of the Amarna Letters: With Special Reference to the Hypothetical Coregency of Amenophis III and Akhenaten. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Gianto, Agustinus. 1990. Word Order Variation in the Akkadian of ​Byblos. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico. ———. 1995. “Amarna Lexicography: The Glosses in the Byblos Letters.” Studi Epigrafici e Semitici 12:65–73. Hawley, Robert, Dennis Pardee, and Carole Roche. 2015. “The Scribal Culture of Ugarit.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History 2:229–67. Hawley, Robert, Dennis Pardee, and Caroline Sauvage. 2013. “The Scribe Ṯab’ilu as Attested in the Epigraphic Finds from the 5th Season of ​Excavations at Ras Shamra.” Ugarit-​Forschungen 44:383–411. Hess, Rischard S. 1993. Amarna Personal Names. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenberauns. Hornung, Erik, Rolf ​Kraus, and David A. Warburton, eds. 2006. Ancient Egyptian Chronology. HdO 1/83. Leiden: Brill.

250

Bēl Lišāni

Huehnergard, John. 1989. The Akkadian of Ugarit. HSS 34. Atlanta: Scholars Press. ———. 1997. “Notes on Ras Shamra-​Ougarit VII.” Syria 74:213–20. Izre’el, Shlomo. 2005. Canaano-​Akkadian. 2nd printing. Languages of the World/ Materials 82. Munich: LINCOM Europa. Originally published 1998. Klengel, Horst. 1992. Syria, 3000 to 300 B.C. Berlin: Akademie. Knapp, Bernard A., and Sturt W. Manning. 2016. “Crisis in Context: The End of the Late Bronze Age in the Eastern Mediterranean.” American Journal of Archaeology 120:99–149. Lackenbacher, Sylvie, and Florence Malbran-​Labat. 2016. Lettres en akkadien de la “maison d’Urtēnu”: Fouilles de 1994. Ras Shamra-​Ougarit 23. Leuven: Peeters. Liverani, Mario. 1998. Le Lettere di el-​Amarna. Vol. 1, Le Lettere dei “Piccoli Re.” Brescia: Paideia. Malbran-​Labat, Florence. 1995. “Éléments de la structure du discours dans l’akkadien d’Ugarit.” Comptes rendus du GLECS 31:87–106 and 83–85. ———. 2008. “Catalogue raisonné des textes akkadiens de la ‘Maison d’Urtēnu.’ ” Pages 21–38 in D’Ougarit à Jérusalem: Recueil d’études épigraphiques et archéologiques offert à Pierre Bordreuil. Edited by Carole Roche-​Hawley. Paris: de Boccard. Malbran-​Labat, Florence, and Carole Roche-​Hawley. 2008a. “Bordereaux de la ‘Maison d’Ourtenou (Urtēnu)’: À propos de la gestión des équidés et de la place de cette maison dans l’économie palatiale.” Pages 243–75 in Ougarit au Bronze moyen et au Bronze Recent. Edited by Yves Calvet and Marguerite Yon. Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient 47. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée. ———. 2008b. “Urtēnu Ur-​Tešub.” Pages 63–104 in Le royaume d’Ougarit de la Crète à l’Éuphrate: Nouveaux axes de recherche. Edited by Jean-​Marc Michaud. Sherbrooke: Éditions GGC. Matoïan, Valérie, and Khozama al-​Bahloul. 2016. “Ras Shamra/Ugarit (Lattakia).” Pages 282–86 in A History of Syria in One Hundred Sites. Edited by Youssef ​Kanjou and Akira Tsuneki. Oxford: Archaeopress. Moran, Willam L. 1992. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Mynářová, Jana. 2007. Language of Amarna—Language of ​Diplomacy: Perspectives on the Amarna Letters. Prague: Czech Institute of ​Egyptology. Olmo, Gregorio del, and Joaquín Sanmartín. 2015. A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition. 3rd ed. HdO 112. Leiden: Brill. Pardee, Dennis 2010. “RS 15.117 et l’origine de l’alphabet cunéiforme d’Ougarit: Rapport de collation.” Or 79:55–73. Rainey, Anson. F. 1996a. Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets. Vol. 1, Morphosyntactic Analysis of the Verbal System. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1996b. Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets. Vol. 2, Orthography, Phonology, Morphosyntactic Analysis of the Pronouns, Nouns, Numerals. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1996c. Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets. Vol. 3, Morphosyntactic Analysis of the Particles and Adverbs. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2015. The El-​Amarna Correspondence: A New Edition of the Cuneiform Letters from the Site of El-​Amarna Based on Collations of All Extant Tablets. HdO 1/110. Leiden: Brill. Roche-​Hawley, Carole, and Robert G. Hawley. 2013. “An Essay on Scribal Families, Tradition, and Innovation in Thirteenth-​Century Ugarit.” Pages 241–64 in Beyond

The Akkadian of the King of Beirut in the Late Bronze Age

251

Hatti: A Tribute to Gary Beckman. Edited by Billie J. Collins and Piotr Michalowski. Atlanta: Lockwood. Singer, Itamar. 1999. “A Political Histry of Ugarit.” Pages 603–733 in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies. Edited by Wilfred G. E. Watson and Nicolas Wyatt. Leiden: Brill. Reprinted in The Calm Before the Storm: Selected Writings of ​Itamar Singer on the Late Bronze Age in Anatolia and the Levant, pp. 19–146. Atlanta: Society of ​Biblical Literature, 2012. Soden, Wolfram von. 1995. Grundriss der Akkadischen Grammatik. 3., ergänzte Auflage. AnOr 33. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico. Streck, Michael P. 2014. Altbabylonisches Lehrbuch. Zweite, überarbeitete Auflage. Porta linguarum orientalium 23. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Tropper, Josef. 2012. Ugaritische Grammatik. 2nd ed. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag. Tropper, Josef, and Juan-​Pablo Vita. 2010. Das Kanaano-​Akkadische der Amarnazeit. Lehrbücher orientalischer Sprachen I/1. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag. Vidal, Jordi. 2005. “Beirut and Ugarit in the 13th Century BCE.” SMEA 47:291–98. Vita, Juan-​Pablo. 2012. “On the Lexical Background of the Amarna Glosses.” AoF 39:278–86. ———. 2013. “Interactions à Ougarit entre textes administratifs et textes d’un autre genre (lettres, textes juridiques, rituels, étiquettes).” Pages 403–16 in Études ougaritiques III. Edited by Valérie Matoïan and Michel Al-​Maqdissi. RSO XXI. Leuven: Peeters. ———. 2015. Canaanite Scribes in the Amarna Letters. AOAT 406. Münster: Ugarit-​Verlag. Yon, Marguerite, and Daniel Arnaud, eds. 2001. Études ougaritiques I. Travaux 1985– 1995. Ras Shamra-​Ougarit 14. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.

Contributors

Paul-​Alain Beaulieu is a professor of Assyriology in the University of ​Toronto and a fellow of the Royal Society of Canada. His research focuses on the history, culture, religion, and languages of ​Mesopotamia in the first millennium BCE. His recent publications include A History of ​Babylon (2200 BC–AD 75). Øyvind Bjøru holds a PhD in Hebrew Bible and the ancient Near East from the University of ​Texas at Austin. His research is focused on the historical syntax of Akkadian and comparative linguistics of Semitic. Rebecca Hasselbach-​Andee is an associate professor of comparative Semitics at the University of Chicago. Her research focuses on the reconstruction of the Semitic language family and individual Semitic languages, especially Akkadian, from a historical linguistic and typological perspective. In more recent work, she has also incorporated sociolinguistic approaches to Semitic languages. Maksim Kalinin is a research assistant at the Institute for Oriental and Classical Studies at HSE University in Moscow. His fields of research are the morphological semantics of the Neo-​Assyrian and Neo-​Babylonian dialects of Akkadian, the historical grammar of Aramaic languages, and East Syriac classical literature. He has recently contributed the historical description of the Akkadian morphosyntax (coauthored with Sergey Loesov and Ilya Arkhipov) to the volume History of the Akkadian Language. N. J. C. Kouwenberg held a research post at the University of ​Leiden until his retirement and has mainly worked on Akkadian language and comparative Semitics. His most recent publication is A Grammar of Old Assyrian.

253

254

Contributors

Sergey Loesov is a professor and a leading research fellow at the Faculty of ​ Humanities / Institute for Oriental and Classical Studies at HSE University in Moscow. He studies the morphological semantics of various Akkadian dialects, working, together with his colleagues and students, towards a comprehensive history of Akkadian. He is also engaged in fieldwork on Ṭuroyo, an unwritten contemporary Aramaic language still spoken in Upper Mesopotamia. In addition, he has published grammatical studies of Old and Middle Aramaic corpora. Na‘ama Pat-​El is a professor of Semitic languages and linguistics at the University of ​Texas, Austin. Her research is focused on historical linguistics, mostly syntactic change, and language contact. She has recently edited with John Huehnergard the second edition of The Semitic Languages. Jacob J. de Ridder is a research fellow at the Friedrich Schiller University, Jena. His main research focuses on Akkadian language and various aspects of ancient Assyrian society, such as slavery, letter writing, and inheritance. He is the author of two monographs: Descriptive Grammar of ​Middle Assyrian and Akkadian Nominal Patterns. Ambjörn Sjörs is a postdoctoral researcher in Semitic linguistics and philology. His research interests include comparative-​historical linguistics and the evolution of grammar. His postdoctoral research project is an investigation of the ventive and energic verb forms in Semitic. He is the author of Historical Aspects of Standard Negation in Semitic. Michael P. Streck is a professor of ancient Near Eastern studies at the University of ​Leipzig. His research is focused on Akkadian language and literature, Early Northwest Semitic, ancient nomadism, and man and nature in the ancient Near East. He has recently published two volumes of a Supplement to the Akkadian Dictionaries. Juan-Pablo Vita is a researcher at the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) in Madrid. He works on Northwest Semitic languages (especially Ugaritic) and Akkadian (in particular peripheral Akkadian dialects), language contact, and the social and economic history of Syria and Canaan in the Late Bronze Age. He is also epigraphist of the Mission Archéologique Syro-​Française de Ras Shamra-​Ugarit. His most recent monographs are Canaanite Scribes in the Amarna Letters and (in cooperation with Josef ​Tropper) Lehrbuch der ugaritischen Sprache. He is editor of History of the Akkadian Language.

Index of Authors

Arnaud, Daniel, 231–32, 246, 248 Beeston, Alfred, 52 Brockelmann, Carl, 223 Buccellati, Giorgio, 65, 204 Caplice, Richard, 73 Catagnoti, Amalia, 76 Dombradi, Eva, 205–6 Edzard, Dietz O., 74, 182, 204, 223 Evans, Nicholas, 64 Garbini, Giovanni, 74 Gelb, Ignace J., 74 Hackl, Johannes, 9–11 Hamori, Andras, 63 Hecker, Karl, 190, 204, 224 Hetzron, Robert, 52, 55–56 Huehnergard, John, 75, 82

Leslau, Wolf, 52, 55 Luukko, Mikko, 97 Pardee, Dennis, 51 Parpola, Simo, 74, 173 Pettinato, Giovanni, 72 Rose, Sharon, 52 Rubio, Gonzalo, 75 Salvini, Mirjo, 231, 246, 248 Soden, Wolfram von, 9–10, 73, 172, 186, 190–91, 193, 219, 224 Tropper, Josef, 50, 75, 78, 169 Zaborski, Andrzej, 63–64 Zimmern, Heinrich, 223

Kouwenberg, N.J.C., 59, 63–64, 168–70, 184, 190, 193, 201, 205 Krebernik, Manfred, 73–74, 76–78, 219

255

Subject index

Achaemenid period, 30 actancy, 98. See also agentivity adjectives, primary, 168–69, 171, 177, 194 affix, verbal and inflectional, 58, 60–61, 64, 161–64 agentivity, 98. See also actancy agentive, 107 nonagentive, 107, 115–16 Akkadian core dialects, 1–2 dialect from Beirut, 229, 231–32, 248 lexicography, 219 peripheral dialects, 1–2, 75, 176, 187 proto-​Akkadian, 2–3, 47–48, 54–55 Amarna letters, 172, 183, 185–87, 229, 231–33 236–39, 241, 244, 247–48 Amarna period, 6, 243, 246–47 Ancient South Arabian, 51–52 Arabic classical, 48, 55, 57, 59, 83, 91, 171, 177, 189, 223 dialects, 48 Aramaic, 9–12, 15, 29, 33–34, 36–38, 49–50, 224–25 Aramaic legal papyri, from Egypt, 35 Arsacid era, 9, 21 Assyrian, 1, 10, 41–42, 54–62, 66, 83, 85–86, 89, 119, 166–70, 174, 176–78, 181–85, 190, 194 Middle Assyrian, 46–47, 54, 62, 107, 176 Neo-​Assyrian, 96–97, 173

Old Assyrian, 42, 44–47, 54–55, 58, 74, 77, 190–91, 201, 203, 209–10, 215, 224–25 Babylonian, 9–10, 15, 38, 42, 44, 54–55, 62, 74, 77, 83, 86, 89, 92, 166–70, 177, 181, 187, 194, 224–25 Late Babylonian, 9 Late-​Hellenistic Babylonian, 10 Middle Babylonian, 107, 243–44, 248 Neo-​Babylonian, 9 Old Babylonian, 45–47, 54, 58, 65, 74, 201, 203–4, 212, 222 Canaanite, 72, 235–36, 239, 243–44, 246, 248 Canaano-​Akkadian, 236–38, 240–44, 246–48 classification, 9–10, 37, 70, 72–75, 78–79 clause complement, 204, 207–8, 210–12, 215 consecutive, 28–29 content, 203, 205, 207–8, 210–15 relative, 10, 16–17, 25–28, 36–37, 122, 138, 203, 206–7 subordinate, 15, 17, 19–20, 25, 28–29, 32–33, 43, 202–3, 205–7 clitic, 52, 55–56, 59–62 complement, sentential, 14–16, 29 conjunction, 11–12, 14–16, 38, 203, 207, 215, 233, 238–39, 241, 246

257

258

Subject index

denominal verb/noun, 131, 160–62, 165– 69, 178, 191, 194 determinative, in writing, 233–34, 239, 243 deverbal noun/adjective, 122, 168, 189, 193 dialect continuum, 74–75, 78 Eblaite, 42, 44, 54–55, 70–78, 220–21 Egypt, 11, 71, 166, 185, 188, 230 Emar, 166, 185, 190 Ethiosemitic, 56, 62, 64 genitive construction, 124, 207 gentilic ending, 167, 171–74, 176, 180, 190 gloss marker, 233–35, 239–41, 243, 247 Gurage, 48, 52–53, 55–56, 58, 60 Hebrew, 48–49, 52, 91, 143, 166, 171, 223–24 Hellenistic period, 9–11 indicative marker, 41–42, 48–49, 51–53, 55–58, 62, 65 infinitive, 77, 122, 137–38, 140–41, 192 paranomastic, 121, 138, 141, 143 interlanguage, 37 labialization, 83, 85, 87, 89 language contact, 10, 70, 74, 211, 215 lexical list, 71–72, 77, 79, 90, 174, 181, 225, 235, 243 linguistic transfer, 212–14 loanword, 33, 177, 180, 223, 225 Mari, 46, 65, 71, 75, 80, 85–86, 104, 186, 189, 222 Modern South Arabian, 53, 55, 62, 64 nominalization, 123, 212 noun, primary, 161, 223 numbers. See also numerals cardinal, 160–68, 172–76, 180–86, 189, 194 collective, 167–68, 170, 174, 181–82, 189, 194 distributive, 174, 189 fractions, 162, 164, 168, 170, 177–80, 194

multiplicatives, 177, 184–86, 193–94 ordinal, 162, 166–72, 174, 176–77, 181– 82, 186–88, 191, 194 numerals, 124, 161, 164, 175, 181, 189, 193– 94. See also numbers oath, 201–6, 209–13, 215 negative, 201 nonnegative constructions, 215 positive, 201, 203 object cognate, 121–22, 128, 131, 135, 137, 143. See also inner object inner, 128. See also cognate object Old Akkadian, 43–46, 54, 58, 72, 74, 201, 215 Diyala, 43–46, 54 personal name, 10, 21, 35, 76, 222, 239 pronoun determinative, 15, 36, 239 independent, 60, 79–87, 89–92, 235, 240 relative, 12, 15, 17, 28–29 Qatabanic, 51-52 register, linguistic, 45, 79, 90 relativization, 123–24 Sabaic, 51–52 Seleucid period, 9, 11–12, 16–17, 20 semantics, 57, 143 grammatical, 96–97 lexical, 98–99 Semitic Central Semitic, 41, 48–50, 52, 55–66 Early East Semitic, 75 East Semitic, 41–44, 54, 56–59, 62–66, 70, 72–76, 78, 80, 83, 87–89, 211 Northwest Semitic, 72, 77, 171 Proto-Semitic, 42, 53, 55, 57, 64–65, 72, 79, 82, 87, 91, 160–62, 205 West Semitic, 33, 41–42, 46, 48, 51, 53–57, 59, 62–65, 72–74, 76, 80, 160 subordinate/subordinative marker, 23, 41–42, 45, 47–48, 54–56, 59, 62, 66, 201–5, 207–11, 213–15 Sumerian, 72, 74, 76, 181, 193, 203–6, 211–15, 225–26

Subject index terminative adverbial, 188 topicalization, 31, 141 Ugaritic, 50–51, 235, 237 verb denominal, 169, 191. See also denominal dynamic, 100–2, 105, 107, 119 dynamic intransitive, 98, 107 dynamic transitive, 98 empty, 128–31, 133, 135, 143 intransitive, 17, 21, 23, 98, 118–19, 122, 125–26, 129–30, 133–35, 169, 191, 210, 224–25

259

passive, 98–99, 102–3, 106, 111–17, 119, 122, 124–25 static, 98–101, 109, 119 tense, 56, 97–98, 117, 239 transitive, 17, 97–98, 111–12, 114, 119– 20, 126, 133, 135, 137, 169, 191 voice, 97–98 word order, 10–12, 14–17, 20, 25, 28–30, 32–34, 36–37 change, 10, 28 free, 10, 36