Comparative Semitic Philology in the Middle Ages: From Saʿadiah Gaon to Ibn Barūn (10th-12th C.) 9004136207, 9789004136205

Citation preview

COMPARATIVE SEMITIC PHILOLOGY IN THE MIDDLE AGES

STUDIES IN SEMITIC LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS EDITED BY

T. MURAOKA AND C.H.M. VERSTEEGH

VOLUME XL COMPARATIVE SEMITIC PHILOLOGY IN THE MIDDLE AGES

COMPARATIVE SEMITIC PHILOLOGY IN THE MIDDLE AGES From Sa#adiah Gaon to Ibn Barån (10th-12th C.) BY

AHARON MAMAN TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH BY DAVID LYONS

BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON 2004

The publication of this work has been made possible by the Authority for Research and Development, the Charles Wolfson Fund, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Mamam, Aaron. Comparative Semitic philology in the Middle Ages : from Sa’adiah Gaon to Ibn Barån (10th-12th c.) / by Aharon Maman ; translated into English by David Lyons. p. cm. — (Studies in Semitic languages and linguistics ; 40) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 90-04-13620-7 1. Hebrew language—Grammar, Comparative—Arabic—History. 2. Hebrew language—Grammar, Comparative—Aramaic—History. I. Title. II. Series. PJ4527.M34 2004 492.4’5’09021—dc22 2004050577

ISSN 0081-8461 ISBN 90 04 13620 7

© Copyright 2004 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill Academic Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers , MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

In memory of my beloved sisters Óannah (1946–64) and Dinah (1951–67) z”l

CONTENTS

Abbreviations .............................................................................. Introductory Notes .................................................................... Foreword .................................................................................... Introduction ................................................................................ The present study and previous studies .............................. Delimitation of the subject ....................................................

xiii xv xvii 1 1 4

Chapter One The motives of the comparative philology .... 1.1 Linguistic motives .............................................................. 1.2 Literary motives ................................................................

8 8 10

Chapter Two The fundaments of comparison and the restrictions imposed ................................................................ 2.1 The permissible extent of comparative philology .......... 2.2 The measure of affinity between the three languages .... 2.3 The problem of loan words: Were loans from Aramaic and Arabic reckoned with by the Hebrew grammarians? .................................................................... 2.4 The theory of substitutions .............................................. 2.5 The theory of the root and its effect on comparative philology ............................................................................ 2.6 The semantic equivalence factor .................................... Chapter Three Explicit comparisons .................................... 3.1 The nomenclature of the languages and the terminology for comparison ............................................ 3.2 Explicit comparison identifiable on tauto-etymological grounds .............................................................................. 3.3 Explicit comparison on the strength of the Arabic model ................................................................................ 3.4 Implicit comparisons holding the rank of explicit comparisons ...................................................................... 3.5 Comparison formulae ...................................................... 3.6 Explicit comparisons of Hebrew with Aramaic .............. 3.7 The three-way comparison: Heb./Aram./Arab. ............

13 13 18

21 32 39 40 50 50 60 61 61 62 63 74

viii

contents

3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11

The Heb./Arab. comparison ........................................ The Aram./Arab. comparison ...................................... Appendix .......................................................................... Conclusion ......................................................................

76 76 76 78

Chapter Four The implicit comparison ................................ 4.1 “Zero” term .................................................................... 4.2 Integrated comparisons with explicit and implicit components ...................................................................... 4.3 Implicit comparison in one place converted elsewhere into explicit ...................................................................... 4.4 Implicit comparison by one scholar converted into explicit by a subsequent one .......................................... 4.5 Sequence of several words translated by their Arabic cognates .............................................................. 4.6 Hebrew synonyms and their Arabic synonym equivalents ........................................................................ 4.7 Entries translated by both cognates and non-cognates .................................................................... 4.8 The location of the cognate when accompanied by synonyms .......................................................................... 4.9 The choice between a cognate and a non-cognate .... 4.10 Entries translated only by cognates .............................. 4.11 Summary .......................................................................... 4.12 Appendix to 4.7 ..............................................................

80 83

Chapter Five The aims of language comparison ................ 5.1 Typology of the linguistic works .................................... 5.2 The aims of comparison as promulgated by the authors ............................................................................ 5.3 Aims of comparison according to the comparison formulae .......................................................................... 5.4 Synopsis and conclusion ................................................

100 100

Chapter Six Language comparison in treatises translated into Hebrew ............................................................................ 6.1 Omissions of explicit comparisons ................................ 6.2 “Zero” in "Ußùl > “comparison” in Shorashim .............. 6.3 Aram./Arab. comparisons in Shorashim ........................ 6.4 Ibn Tibbon retention of comparisons in "Ußùl ............

83 84 85 86 86 90 93 94 95 97 98

102 104 133

138 140 148 157 158

contents 6.5

ix

Ibn Tibbon’s method of adducing Arabic materials in comparisons and in inner-Arabic specimens .......... Summary ........................................................................

160 161

Chapter Seven Rav Sa'adiah Ga"on ...................................... 7.1 Grammatical comparisons ............................................ 7.2 Hebrew/Arabic stylistic comparisons ............................ 7.3.1 Lexical comparisons of Hebrew/Arabic cognates ...... 7.3.2 Hebrew/Arabic semantic comparisons ........................ 7.3.3 Hebrew/Aramaic etymological comparisons ................ 7.3.4 Implicit comparisons ...................................................... 7.3.5 Translation by cognates ................................................ 7.4 Nomenclature and comparative terms ........................

162 163 165 165 166 166 169 172 178

Chapter Eight R. Judah ibn Quraysh (in remark Dunash b. Tamìm) ..............................................................................

180

6.6

Chapter Nine David b. Abraham Alfàsi’s comparative philology .................................................................................. 9.1 Alfàsi’s theory of language comparisons ...................... 9.2 Comparisons in areas of syntax and style .................. 9.3 Letter substitutions in the comparison theory ............ 9.4 The Hebrew/Aramaic comparisons ............................ 9.5 Explicit comparisons: Hebrew/Arabic .......................... 9.6 Hebrew/Aramaic/Arabic .............................................. 9.7 Cognate Aram./Arab. comparisons .............................. 9.8 Full listing of Heb./Arab. implicit comparisons .......... 9.9 Uncertain comparisons .................................................. 9.10 The comparisons as reflected in the texts of the copyists and compendia editors of Alfàsi’s lexicon .... 9.11 The comparison terminology ........................................ 9.12 The sources used by David b. Abraham Alfàsi .......... Chapter Ten Mena˙em B. Saruq .......................................... 10.1 Mena˙em b. Saruq and his opinion on Hebrew comparison with Arabic ................................................ 10.2 Hebrew/Aramaic comparison as recorded by Mena˙em ........................................................................ 10.3 The nomenclature for the languages and the comparison terminology ................................................

182 182 186 188 196 213 224 228 228 232 234 236 250 276 276 283 287

x 10.4 10.5

contents Comparisons recorded by Mena˙em’s disciples ........ Comparative terms ........................................................

288 288

Chapter Eleven Dunash ben Labrat ...................................... 11.1 Comparisons with Arabic ............................................ 11.2 Letter interchanges ........................................................ 11.3 Hebrew/Aramaic comparisons .................................... 11.4 Grammatical comparisons ............................................ 11.5 The comparative terms ................................................

289 289 292 293 294 295

Chapter Twelve Rabbi Judah Óayyùj .................................. 12.1 Comparisons in the grammatical treatises .................. 12.2 The comparisons in Kitàb al-Nutaf .............................. 12.3 Nomenclature for the languages and the comparative terminology ....................................................................

296 296 297

Chapter Thirteen R. Jonah Ibn Janà˙ .................................. 13.1 Ibn Janà˙’s comparative philology and the text versions of the Rouen manuscript .............................. 13.2 The theory of letter interchange as used by Ibn Janà˙ ...................................................................... 13.3 The condition necessary for comparison record: A comparison established only in instances of specificity ........................................................................ 13.4 Comparison methods .................................................... 13.5 Comparison with Aramaic cognates ............................ 13.6 On formula Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram./Arab. .................................................................. 13.7 Listing of comparisons on formula Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (non-cognate) ...................................................... 13.8 Comparison of Hebrew with Arabic .......................... 13.9 Explicit comparisons in "Ußùl/“zero” in Shorashim (Heb./Arab. cognates) .................................................. 13.10 Implicit comparison—cognate in "Ußùl/“zero” comparison in Shorashim ................................................ 13.11 Implicit comparison—cognate "Ußùl/explicit comparison in Shorashim ................................................ 13.12 Explicit comparison—non-cognate translation synonym 13.13 Explicit “semantic” comparisons at entries which are non-cognates both in "Ußùl and in Shorashim ..............

299

298

300 316

324 326 330 337 339 341 343 345 347 347 348

contents

xi

Heb./Arab. explicit semantic comparisons in "Ußùl/ “zero” in Shorashim ........................................................ Comparisons in Ibn Janà˙’s Opuscules ........................ Comparative philology in Sefer haRiqmah .................... Uncertain comparisons ................................................ Rejected comparisons .................................................... Nomenclature for languages and comparative terminology .................................................................... Ibn Janà˙’s sources ...................................................... The unique nature of Ibn Janà˙’s comparisons ........

357 367 368

Chapter Fourteen Hai Ga"on, Abù-l-Faraj, Samuel HaNagid and Abraham HaBavli ............................ 14.1 R. Hai Ga"on ................................................................ 14.2 Abù-l-Faraj Hàrùn Ibn Al-Faraj .................................. 14.3 R. Shemuel HaNagid .................................................. 14.4 Abraham HaBavli ........................................................

371 371 375 380 382

Chapter Fifteen Mosheh HaKohen ibn Gikatilla, Judah b. Bal'am and Isaac b. Barùn .................................. 15.1 Mosheh HaKohen ibn Gikatilla .................................. 15.2 Judah ibn Bal'am .......................................................... 15.3 Isaac ibn Barùn ............................................................

384 384 385 392

Synopsis and conclusion ............................................................

403

Chapter Sixteen

The chart of comparisons ..........................

413

Abbreviations and Bibliographical References ........................ General Index ............................................................................

479 491

13.14 13.15 13.16 13.17 13.18 13.19 13.20 13.21

350 352 353 355 355

ABBREVIATIONS

Arab. Aram. Bib. Aram. Bib. Heb. ed. etym. exp. comp Heb. imp. comp prim. rad. Rab. Heb. Sa'adiah’s Tafsìr TJ Talm. Aram. Targ. Aram. v. var. lect.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Arabic, Arabic entry Aramaic, Aramaic entry biblical Aramaic biblical Hebrew edition etymological explicit comparison(s) Hebrew, Hebrew entry implied comparison first radical of a trilateral root Rabbinic Hebrew Rav Sa'adiah’s Arabic translation of the Bible Targum Yonatan (b. Uzziel) Talmudic Aramaic Targumic Aramaic versus variant reading

INTRODUCTORY NOTES

1. All emphases in quotations from the works of philologists are my emphases, unless it is explicitly stated that the emphasis was in the source text. 2. If one letter of a weak verbal root is printed in parentheses, it is implied that in the opinion of the scholar under discussion, the parenthesized letter is non-radical; in his lexicon, the root is to be located disregarding the aforementioned letter. For Example, [d(y) means, according to David b. Abraham, that the yod is not part of the root; in his lexicon, the root can be found within the letter daleth entries. 3. Regarding the numeral appearing in parentheses after a comparison of excerpts from the works of David b. Abraham, it is not regularly indicated whether this numeral relates to vol. 1 or vol. 2 of Jàmi' al-"AlfàΩ; this can be easily ascertained from the root of the entry word itself, as based on the grammatical approach of David b. Abraham. 4. A reference to an entry in R. Jonah ibn Janà˙’s lexicon is comprised of two numerals set apart by a diagonal. The numeral to the left of the diagonal refers to "Ußùl and that to the right to Shorashim. If no numeral is noted the entry can be located by the root. 5. Two or three entries set apart from one another by diagonal(s) are interrelated qua tr. syn, whether cognate or non-cognate. The entry to the extreme left of the expression is a Hebrew entry; the second (to the left) is an Aramaic one; the third (i.e. that on the extreme right) is an Arabic one (unless otherwise indicated). If the expression contains only two entry words, the second (viz. the one on the right) can be identified as Aram. by the paragraph rubric or by a special symbol. 6. Wherever the term “etymology/etymological” appears, it refers to the meaning of the given entry (word) according to ancient linguistic scholarship and not according to modern scientific linguistics. For instance, J. Marouzeau, 1961, p. 90, distinguishes between the meaning of “etymology” in early linguistics and its meaning in modern linguistics. He defines its ancient sense as “Science de la filiation des mots, ç.a.d. . . . recherche de leur sense propre (gr. etymon)” (= “the

xvi

introductory notes

science of the stemmatization of words from each other,” i.e. the investigation of their true meaning. In contrast, etymology in modern linguistics incorporates, additionally, the study of the diachronic links between words. See, in addition, F. de Saussure, 1983, p. 259, which also enumerates several senses for the term “etymology”: the fourth sense listed relates to the intralinguistic non-diachronic connection between different entry words.1 7. When I speak of “semantic transparency,” I imply the sense used by D. Téné, 1983, p. 269 (= the transparency of an unexplained Hebrew word by an Arab. or Aram. cognate) and not its standard sense in Hebrew semantics (as e.g. used by G.B. Sarfatti, Hebrew Semantics, Jerusalem 1978, ch. 4, especially pp. 60–61; bibliography, ibid., p. 18. See also R. Nir, Semantics of Modern Hebrew, Tel Aviv 1978, pp. 9, 11–14, 240. 8. Chapters 1–6 of the present study are introductory; they deal with general problems of language comparison and with matters relating to linguistic scholars of the given epoch in general. Chapters 7–15 set out the comparison data culled from the works of each grammarian who flourished in the given epoch, together with the specific problems regarding each one. Each of chapters 7–13 is devoted to one grammarian, in chronological order; the chapters on Judah ibn Quraysh (ch. 8) and Óayyùj (ch. 12) are extremely short (for the system and theory of Ibn Quraysh has been exhaustively discussed by D. Becker, The Risàla of Judah b. Quraysh, A Critical Edition, Tel Aviv 1984, while very few comparisons are recorded by Óayyùj). The special rank occupied by these two scholars in the history of comparative philology justifies in my opinion the decision to allocate separate chapters to them. Chapter 14 comprises a discussion of four grammarians from whose works little data for comparison survive; the chronological arrangement of Hebrew grammarians is to some extent disturbed in this chapter (the material is too sparse to justify a division into separate chapters). Finally, one chapter (ch. 15) is devoted to a discussion of the three grammarians who lived at the very end of the period to which this study relates.

1 See also B. Pottier (ed.) 1973, p. 125: “Etymology was a non-diachronic concept until the 19th century . . .”; Larousse, in the Dictionary of Linguistics, Paris 1973, s.v.

FOREWORD

The encounter of medieval Jewish scholars with Arabic linguistic literature during the last decades of the tenth century CE produced one of the most important branches of Hebrew linguistics, namely, that of comparative Semitic philology. This branch not only changed the nature of Hebrew philology but influenced considerably the philological exegesis of the Bible as well. The purpose of the present study is to give a detailed overview of the medieval theoretical framework in which fourteen Hebrew philologists practised comparative Semitic philology during the tenth and eleventh centuries, from R. Sa'adiah Ga"on at the beginning of this period until R. Isaac ibn Barùn at its end. This literary activity spread in the Arabic-speaking area from Iraq in the east, through the Land of Israel, Egypt and North Africa, to Andalusia in the west. This study also describes the contribution of each of these philologists, focusing on his specific characteristics. The study presents a full-scale description of the lexical comparisons of Hebrew with Aramaic and Arabic and resorts to comparative grammar only when necessary for the purposes of the study. Certainly, medieval comparative Semitic grammar as reflected in the works of these scholars as well as the comparative philology of the successors of Ibn Barùn are worth a comprehensive study but such a descriptions is beyond the scope of the present volume. At any rate, as regards a comparative lexicon, it seems that the general principles revealed here did not undergo significant change after Ibn Barùn. This study has its origins in a dissertation written at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in the years 1980–84, under the joint supervision of Professor Moshé Bar-Asher and the late Professor David Téné. In the last two decades, several works touching upon medieval grammatical thought in general and on comparative philology in particular have been published, both by myself and by others, especially in the light of new materials from the Cairo Genizah and other manuscripts that were then either inaccessible or unknown. The time has come for the publication of an updated study, for the benefit of scholars interested in medieval Hebrew philology, comparative Semitic philology and even general comparative philology.

xviii

foreword

I would like to express here my deep gratitude to the esteemed advisers of my dissertation. It was a privilege to study under them. It is also a pleasant duty to thank Dr. Dovid Lyons for his translation of the Hebrew original into English. A special debt of gratitude is owed to Mrs. Evelyn Katrak for her excellent editing of the English style and to Professor T. Muraoka for his invaluable comments to the final draft.

INTRODUCTION

The present study and previous studies1 Hebrew philologists of the tenth and eleventh centuries C.E. set out explicit and systematic comparisons of Hebrew with Arabic and Aramaic in the areas of vocabulary and grammar. Certain scholars even wrote works devoted entirely to comparison between these languages. At the commencement of this period, R. Judah ibn Quraysh compiled the Risàla; Dunash ibn Tamìm, almost contemporary with Ibn Quraysh (according to R. Abraham ibn Ezra in the preface to Sefer Moznayim) “wrote a work compounded of the Languages of Eber and Arabia,” a work that has survived merely in some quotations; at the termination of our period, R. Isaac Ibn Barùn compiled the Kitàb al-Muwàzana bayn al-Lugha al-'Ibràniyya wal-'Arabiyya. The other Hebrew grammarians incorporated a considerable number of comparisons between these languages in their grammatical treatises and/or lexicons; this was the practice of R. Saadiah Gaon, David b. Abraham Alfàsi, Mena˙em b. Saruq, R. Hai b. Sherira (Gaon), R. Jonah ibn Janà˙, R. Moses HaKohen b. Gikatilla and R. Judah ibn Bal'am. Comparisons are also included in the critiques and polemical works of Dunash b. Labrat, Ibn Saruq’s Disciples and Yehudi b. Sheshet as well as in Bible commentaries such as those of R. Sa'adiah, Salmon b. Yeru˙im and other Karaites, Ibn Bal'am etc. European scholars of the late nineteenth century showed a keen interest in the language comparisons between the three Semitic languages per se, several of them considered these to be the beginnings of comparative Semitic linguistics. They published scholarly reviews comprising a considerable quantity of the comparison data culled from the source texts known to them and on the basis of the methodology they adopted: S. Pinsker, Liqqutei Qadmoniot (1860) set down a list of lexical comparisons, selected from the material in David b. 1 For a concise review of scholarly achievements in the study of language comparison during the tenth-twelfth centuries, see Poznanski 1926, pp. 237–45; D. Téné 1983, p. 244 (n. 20), outlines in a brief bibliographical survey, the recent developments on this issue in the scholarly world, as of 1982–83.

2

introduction

Abraham Alfàsi’s Kitàb Jàmi' al-"AlfàΩ; and W. Bacher (1882) surveyed briefly R. Abraham ibn Ezra’s Hebrew comparisons with Arabic; Bacher also published two synopses (1884, 1885) of the language comparisons occurring in the works of R. Jonah b. Janà˙. P.K. Kokowtzow (1890, 1916) edited R. Isaac ibn Barùn’s Kitàb al-Muwàzana and (1893) appended a translation and notes in Russian. S. Eppenstein (1900) issued a study of the language comparisons with Arabic, taken up by R. Judah ibn. Quraysh. S. Poznanski (1916) published a selection of Hebrew-Arabic comparison data documented in Ibn Bal'am’s grammatical treatises and Bible commentaries. These surveys and their like are no more than incomplete monographs based on a selection of the works; they fall short of a thorough discussion of the comparison literature in its entirety. Furthermore, the above-mentioned studies, despite their use of MS copies as a basis and granted that several detailed comparison data were thereby made available to serious students who hitherto had no access to the relevant source material, have meantime become outdated. Several of these studies are now useless for research, first, since text “sources” that were known at the end of the nineteenth century cannot objectively be considered sufficient nowadays; second, because the theory of language adopted by the nineteenth and early twentieth century scholars for evaluating the materials is unacceptable in present times. Take as an example Bacher’s surveys: when he reviewed Ibn Janà˙’s language comparisons, there had been issued neither the original Arabic text of Kitàb al-Luma' nor the Hebrew translation of Sefer HaShorashim and he used Sefer Ha-Riqma in its inaccurate version as edited by Goldberg (1856). Subsequently, Kitàb al-Luma' (1886) and Sefer HaShorashim (1896) were published; likewise, a critical edition of Sefer HaRiqma (ed. Wilensky, 1929–31 and ed. Wilensky-Téné, 1964). Kitàb al-"Ußùl, which had originally been published in 1875, had now undergone textual improvement2 with further text emendations by Razhabi, 1966, pp. 273–95. Bacher, in the introduction to his edition of Shorashim, p. xxiv, held that his 1884 and 1885 works had exhaustively collated “everything appearing in R. Jonah’s treatises concerning views, arguments and suppositions as to the similarity between cognate Semitic languages 2 W. Bacher, “Berichtungen zur Neubauer’schen Aufgabe des Kitàb al-"Ußùl ”, ZDMG 1884, pp. 620–29; ibid., “Weitere Berichtungen zur Neubauer’schen Ausgabe des Kitàb al-Ußùl,” ZDMG 42, 1888, pp. 307–10.

introduction

3

and Hebrew,” whereas in fact he had failed to enter a considerable quantity of the materials; he did not record the “tenets” and “arguments” in their entirety. As remarked by P.K. Kokowtzow (1916b, p. 76): “There has yet to be produced a thorough review and evaluation of the contributions of the author of Kitàb al-Tanqì˙ to Hebrew linguistics.” The latter judgment does not apply only to the works of R. Jonah Ibn Janà˙; the 1856–57 Bargès-Goldberg edition of R. Judah ibn Quraysh’s Risàla also contained several errors, as is clearly demonstrated by the critical edition of the work issued by D. Becker (originally in 1977 and more recently in 1984). David b. Abraham Alfàsi’s important lexicon was then known merely from fragments published by S. Pinsker in 1860, while scholars can now use the edition by S.L. Skoss (1936; 1945). In the area of the scientific theory of language, in the period subsequent to the issue of the above-mentioned surveys, a new branch in linguistic studies evolved, namely semantics, while the fields of lexicology and lexicography had each further developed, as also the theory of “languages in contact” and “translation theory”; thus current scholarship now possesses new linguistic tools for the investigation of the comparative philology adopted by Jewish grammarians. Furthermore, subjective critical judgments of the comparison theory of the Hebrew grammarians, made by several nineteenth century scholars, such as those of Steinschneider (1901, pp. 131–32) concerning R. Hai B. Sherira Ga"on and by Kokowtzow (1893: p. 80, n. 168; p. 88, n. 175) concerning R. Jonah ibn Janà˙ and Ibn Barùn, were founded on the premise of identifying the comparison method of the Hebrew grammarians with the modern approach of comparative linguistics (see e.g. A. Dotan, 1977, p. 135); such an identification is nowadays unacceptable to several scholars (D. Téné, 1980 and 1982–83); the nineteenth and early twentieth century research has thus left open wide areas and extensive scope for contemporary scholars to fill in. Several important and fundamental problems in the comparison methods of Hebrew grammarians, in their wider context of reference, have yet to be discussed. For the first time since the survey written by Pinsker in 1860, D. Téné (in 1982–83) raised the question of how it was that the Hebrew grammarians reached the field of language comparisons. Only recently (Dotan, 1977; Téné, 1980) has the attention of the scholarly milieu been once again engaged by the problem of the demarcation between language comparison adopted by the Hebrew grammarians and modern comparative linguistic science. Several other problems in this

4

introduction

subject are still presently being debated, while the discussion of yet other questions remains to be opened. Now that the scope of base texts has expanded and scholarly tools having improved, the time is ripe for a definitive analysis of this topic. Indeed, the subject, which has been termed by D. Téné (1982–83, p. 269) “one of the most notable characteristics of Jewish medieval linguistic scholarship,” is in need of a renewed, exhaustive and updated study. The present study proposes a discussion of the general problems in linguistic comparison made by Hebrew grammarians as well as of their principles and methodology, so that the theories of linguistic comparison of the various grammarians, most of which were to date only partially described, will be set out fully in this work.

Delimitation of the subject The period The literature of Hebrew philology composed by the Hebrew grammarians, including the records of comparative philology, commences, indeed, with the writings of R. Sa'adiah Gaon (who is described by R. Abraham ibn Ezra [Moznayim, p. 1b]), as foremost in the register of “the sages of the Hebrew language”; however, the very initial steps in this field remain lost “in the depths of obscurity” (Téné, 1982–83, p. 239). But this literature does not terminate with Ibn Barùn; it continues into the subsequent period, with R. Abraham Ibn Ezra’s Bible commentary,3 in the late thirteenth century Tan˙um Yerushalmi’s Al-Murshid al-Kàfi (ed. Shy, 1974–75, pp. 80–86), etc. In principle, the latter should also be included in the discussion; however, the literature produced in the tenth and eleventh centuries alone constitutes in itself “a chapter” in the history of the comparative philology of the Hebrew grammarians—a “chapter” possessing

3 Eppenstein (1900–01), p. 233 declares that “Ibn Ezra marks the commencement of the deterioration of Hebrew linguistics.” This statement warrants validation; if it can be verified, it would constitute a further reason for delimiting the period of this study—i.e. to the peak of dynamic linguistic productivity, marked by Ibn Barùn and prior to the subsequent regression, marked by Ibn Ezra. I plan to deal elsewhere with language comparison after the time of Ibn Barùn.

introduction

5

clear, unambiguous features. This “chapter” has a beginning, a middle and an end. This two-hundred-year period saw the composition of the outstanding writings in comparative philology: the Risàla by R. Judah ibn Quraysh, at its beginning and Kitàb al-Muwàzana by R. Isaac ibn Barùn, at its end. (The third magnum opus, written close to Ibn Quraysh’s time, i.e. the work of Dunash ibn Tamìm, has been transmitted to us by merely some few quotations). The two aforementioned major works enable scholars to observe the stages of development of comparative philology during the two centuries. Furthermore, precisely at the mid-point of this defined period, Hebrew linguistic science underwent a drastic change: R. Judah b. David Óayyùj founded the novel conception of the Hebrew language root; this new approach additionally created a change in the direction taken by, and the theory of, comparative philology. Ibn Barùn’s achievement is to a certain extent treated as the peak in language comparative study as reached by the Hebrew grammarians; and this serves as the essential reason for my decision to set Ibn Barùn as the termination point of the period of this investigation and not simply as an arbitrary delimitation mark. The sources An additional limitation adopted in this research project relates to the literary sources serving my collation of comparison data. My intention is to present a systematic discussion of the comparison data appearing in works devoted entirely to this topic as well as those data recorded in the grammatical treatises and the lexicons, thus excluding those comparison data that are embedded in exegetical literature. This rule of collation has not been applied with regard to comparison data previously collated (from Bible commentaries) in the framework of certain monographs, such as that of Poznanski (1916), nor, to some extent, to the materials I myself have collected from commentaries adjoining R. Sa'adiah Gaon’s Bible translation. It must also be borne in mind that the present study has, in the main, adopted printed editions; only when necessary has it used manuscript materials as basic text sources; and it must be emphasized that in this respect the various linguistic works are anything but uniform (textually). Some works are available in excellent editions, e.g., Jàmi' al-AlfàΩ (ed. Skoss 1936; 1945); Mena˙em b. Saruq’s Ma˙beret and the Teshubot de Dunash b. Labrat (= Objections of Dunash to the

6

introduction

Ma˙beret of Mena˙em; eds. A. Sáenz-Badillos, 1980); R. Judah ibn Quraysh’s Risàla (ed. Becker, 1984). Others appear in editions that were satisfactory at the time but that presently await updating, such as R. Jonah ibn Janà˙’s Kitàb al-"Ußùl 4 (ed. Neubauer, 1873–75). Yet others are available only in editions presenting an unsatisfactory version of the text. In any case, in all cases in which I had reason to suspect the printed text version as possibly corrupt, I consulted the manuscripts.5 The above limitations, both historical and philological, may well result in a restriction in the scope of the comparisons but in my opinion they do no injustice to this analysis of the fundamental problems in comparison theory. It should be further noted that the comparison theory in the various treatises is far from being homogeneous; this activity comprises several subtypes and incorporates an assortment of trends in comparative philology. The upshot is that it is very unlikely that an investigation of comparison data in the later literary documents, whether in the biblical exegetical texts or in other text sources pertaining to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries (and possibly later as well), would reveal additional aspects of comparison theory. To sum up, the comparison models that can be abstracted from the text sources relating to the periods taken up in this study can be assumed to serve as a reliable typological “spectrum” for the materials pertaining to the later periods, too. The problems The topics dealt with in the present study are of two kinds: methodological problems and essential questions. Methodological analysis aims at defining objectively whether a datum of comparison is present or not and whether translation by an Arabic cognate is to be

4 Certain problems in methodology, which are subsequently discussed in the present work (see below, ch. 6, “Language Comparison in Treatises translated into Hebrew”; ch. 13.1, “Comparative philology by Ibn Janà˙ and the Text Version of the Rouen MS”) are likely to provide philological criteria for the determination of the correct text version of Ibn Janà˙’s Kitàb al-"Ußùl. 5 I express my deepest appreciation to the Israel National and University Library’s Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew MSS for giving me access to microfilms and enlargements (enumerated below); I am also greatly indebted to the late Prof. D. Téné for making available for my use several copies of the manuscripts of Kitàb al-"Ußùl in his possession.

introduction

7

regarded as a comparison datum (implicit comparison) or not; whether the Hebrew grammarians additionally conceived of interlingual loans between two of the three relevant languages; which of the different text variants in a given treatise most likely records accurately the form penned by the author. The latter question crops up chiefly in the comparisons used by R. Jonah ibn Janà˙, as these appear to be formulated in the version of Oxford MS of the al-"Ußùl, in the Rouen MS and in the (translated) Hebrew work Sefer HaShorashim produced by R. Judah ibn Tibbon. But the question further pertains to the several text forms, whether original Arabic or Hebrew translation, of the grammatical treatises of Ibn Bal'am. Similar is the question whether an additional criterion can be applied in attempting a resolution of a central issue under dispute, i.e. whether Mena˙em b. Saruq resorted to comparisons with Arabic or not. The term “essential questions” refers to the description of the comparison theory of each grammarian separately as well as the ideological and technical conditions within which comparison of languages is in fact applied. All the comparison data deriving from the treatises inspected in the historical and textual scopes previously detailed, whether explicit or implicit comparisons, has been assembled for this study. These materials have been classified by models and subtypes, thus resolutions to the above-mentioned problems have been established. In each and every case, the aims of the comparative philology with its terminology have also been evaluated, thereby abstracting general principles from the disparate details.

CHAPTER ONE

THE MOTIVES OF THE COMPARATIVE PHILOLOGY

The basic question in the topic dealt with in the present work, namely when and where Semitic comparative philology originated as well as what the circumstances were of its evolution, is the subject of a recent publication of D. Téné (1982–83). That extensive article contains a thorough survey, so there is no need to dwell on it at length. However, for the sake of setting a complete picture, I shall summarize Téné’s study, with a certain emphasis on some data and criticism of others and with a concise classification of the several kinds of motivations for comparative philology. The circumstances that served as soil for the growth and development of comparison between Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic comprise motives of several types and forms:

1.1 1.1.1

Linguistic motives

The speech motive

The linguistic conditions with which tenth to eleventh century Jews lived, termed by Téné (ibid. §2) “a multi-language diglossia” were an invitation to “associative interlingual links” (ibid. §§3–4). Téné (ibid.) interrelated medieval comparative philology with the acquaintance to the languages, which were subject to that comparative theory. That is, the fact that the Jews in the epoch under discussion spoke Arabic for their daily life and studied Hebrew and Aramaic for cultural purposes, enabled them to engage in a comparative philology. Basically this thesis holds true. However, one aspect has to be reexamined. Had comparative philology been only dependent on knowing another cognate (Semitic) language, one would expect it to have emerged much earlier. For similar linguistic conditions must be assumed to have prevailed at a considerably earlier period, extending from the last decades of the Second Temple until the Arab conquests in the seventh century. Aramaic was then a living

the motives of the comparative philology

9

language; the Jews dwelled in a diglossia of Hebrew and Aramaic. This state of affairs induced thought associations linking the two languages. However, the time was not yet ripe for the production of a Hebrew/Aramaic comparative lexicon or grammar. Only a few testimonies of such interlingual links are embedded in rabbinic literature. The total number of Hebrew-Aramaic comparisons in the Babylonian Talmud is few and does not surpass the comparisons with Greek or with Arabic recorded there.1 It follows, therefore, that comparative philology, including its Hebrew-Aramaic part, along with Hebrew grammar itself, began only with the knowledge of Arabic and possibly only with the study of Arabic linguistic literature. 1.1.2

The graphic factor

The fact that the Jews generally wrote Arabic with Hebrew characters “made a considerable impression on the student of the extent of similarity between the sequence of written symbols in the Hebrew on the one hand and the Arabic which it proposed to translate on the other” (ibid., p. 249, referring to Kokowtzow, ibid., p. 268). This motive can be deduced also from the definition given by Ibn Barùn (in his Kitàb al-Muwàzana, ch. 23) for the maximal correspondence between a given Hebrew entry and its Arabic cognate. In this category, in Ibn Barùn’s opinion, the cognate matches the entry in writing, too (. . . fùklab qaptala yp [qw brùx). Such a correspondence can be understood solely on the basis of Arabic transcribed with Hebrew characters. It goes without saying that between Hebrew and Aramaic such correspondence is obviously present, as early as the Bible itself. This kind of correspondence clearly served as an important function in comparative philology.

1 See, for example, BT Sanhedrin 26a, where the word alwflf (hlflf ˚lflfm Isa. 22:17) is compared with its cognate Talm. Aram./Bib. Heb.; ibid. 107a, the word ammz (compared, similarly, with the word ytwmz; Ps. 17:3); BT Gittin 68a, comparing the Aramaic expressions ˆytdyçw hdyç (Babylonian dialect) and atdyç (Palestinian dialect) on the basis of the cognate Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram., twdçw hdç (Eccles. 2:8).

10

chapter one 1.2

1.2.1

Literary motives

The theoretical framework of the grammatical treatises

Becker (1998) has recently uncovered the Arabic grammatical works that served as the sources for the grammatical treatises of Ibn Janà˙ and Ibn Barùn. The same was done by N. Basal (1998, 1999) for the works of Abù-l-Faraj Harùn. Becker has shown that Ibn Janà˙ not only cast his Kitàb al-Luma' in the mold of Arabic grammars of his time but also copied from them a great many rules and definitions. All he had to do was change the Arabic examples into their Hebrew counterparts (whenever they existed). Scholars of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries who investigated medieval Hebrew linguistic literature postulated that Ibn Janà˙ and other Hebrew medieval philologists were influenced by Arabic grammatical thought; yet Becker was the first to point out specific Arabic grammars and to decipher the text processing of Ibn Janà˙. He compared paragraphs and chapters from Ibn Janà˙ to their Arabic sources. This has an important implication, namely, that the systematic Hebrew grammar was initially formulated as a comparative and contrastive grammar, regardless of whether the comparison was made explicitly or implicitly. That is to say, comparative philology emerged concomitantly and interrelated with Hebrew grammar. Now, since Hebrew grammar emerged while Arabic grammatical theory prevailed in the cultural world of the Jews, they could not prevent it unless they could suggest an alternative theory. Once they decided to cast their own treatises in the framework of the already existing theory, it was only natural for them to use intensively any readymade rule, definition or paradigm. This characteristic is not peculiar to medieval Hebrew philologists or to that epoch alone; rather it is universal in theoretical sciences. However, it should be emphasized here that Becker’s approach is applicable only to syntax and to some parts of phonology and morphology, certainly not to lexicon, which is the subject matter of our study. Needless to say, the comparison with Aramaic was entirely deliberate and independent. I shall therefore, in what follows, point out other literary motives for the lexical interlingual comparison:

the motives of the comparative philology 1.2.2

11

Biblical Aramaic

The fact that Aramaic texts exist in the Bible side by side with Hebrew texts (in some cases these even provide “on-the-spot” original + translation: see d[elig"/at;Wdh}c; rg"y“ (Gen. 31:47). 1.2.3

The existence of Aramaic Bible translations

With the exception of Dunash b. Tamìm and Ibn Barùn, in the works of whom no systematic comparison data between Hebrew and Aramaic was included, all the Jewish philologists in the period in question who practised language comparisons record comparisons of Hebrew with Targumic Aramaic. In other words, the Aramaic Bible translation was used by them as a bilingual “lexicon” for comparative purposes (albeit not in an alphabetical or topical arrangement but in the order of the biblical text). 1.2.4

The existence of Arabic Bible translations

The fact that there existed Arabic translations of the Bible: These indeed played a part in the emergence of Arab./Heb. comparative philology, especially if it can be posited that the initial ground for comparative philology was the necessity felt for deciphering obscure words and phrases as well as rare expressions and hapax legomena in the biblical text. It can be shown that the Hebrew grammarians drew freely and directly on the Bible translations or made reference to them. Alfàsi, for example, borrowed material form R. Sa'adiah Gaon’s Tafsìr as well as from Karaite translations (i.e. Salmon b. Yeru˙im; see below 9.12). Furthermore, Ibn Barùn proposed more suitable translations for several biblical words (below, 5.3.4). It can further be assumed that R. Judah ibn Quraysh is also by no means free of the shackles that had bound the biblical language materials with the Arabic Bible translations and this assumption applies to Part C1 of the Risàla, too, for in this part he refrains from incorporating unconnected or abstract entries; included are only lemmatized entries presented exactly as they appear in the Bible. It is not easy to evaluate which of the above-mentioned motives had the greater influence on the formative stage of comparative philology in the tenth century. It is even more difficult to conjecture what might have been the fate of comparative philology if not

12

chapter one

for Aramaic and Arabic Bible translations. At any rate, it is not improbable that these translations hastened the arrival of comparative linguistics, at least of the more sophisticated aspects of this science; for a parallel can clearly be discerned between the seven correspondence levels set down by Ibn Barùn in the preface to his Kitàb al-Muwàzana (Téné, ibid. §5) on the one hand and the several stages in the evolution of comparative philology on the other. In that it constitutes the simplest and “most natural” level, the First Level defined as those language comparisons that show a maximal correspondence between the translation synonym entries, i.e. in writing, in pronunciation and in sense (yn[mlaw f ¤ pllaw f¤klab), was discerned with ease by the readers and speakers. The subsequent correspondence types, as their equivalence level diminishes, demand of the reader-cum-speaker a higher level of abstraction and reflection on the language data to grasp, orally or from the literary source texts, the linguistic parallels, that he compared.2

2

This argument is elaborated in Maman (1998).

CHAPTER TWO

THE FUNDAMENTS OF COMPARISON AND THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED

2.1 The permissible extent of comparative philology Certain Hebrew grammarians occasionally apologize in their treatises for comparing Hebrew with Arabic; behind these apologies can be discerned the traces of a dispute that raged between differing factions, a fundamental dispute concerning the very issue of comparing Hebrew with Arabic. Some Hebrew grammarians are silent on this issue. This silence cannot, however, be taken as proof that there was no opposition to language comparison in their times. A good example can be found in the treatise of Ibn Barùn. The materials surviving from this treatise, which constitute a considerable quantity textually, contain no statement of apology, not even a veiled statement of such, for language comparison. This might well lead to the assumption that in his generation opposition to language comparison had subsided and that comparison of Hebrew with other languages had become a widespread and conventional practice. But information from external sources rules out this assumption. R. Moshe b. Ezra wrote in one of his poems in praise of al-Muwàzana that language comparison with Arabic is “like sweet honey for the pureminded and like wormwood for the deceitful (the hypocrites)”1 (see R. Moshe ibn Ezra, Diwan, ed. Brody, p. 17, line 31; Wechter (1941), p. 5; p. 133, n. 53). Scholars have concluded from this allusion that in Ibn Barùn’s time the opposition to language comparison with Arabic continued. It is possible that Ibn Barùn did apologize somewhere in his work, in which case it can be assumed that this apology appeared in the part of the treatise that was lost (it should be noted that most of the introduction has not survived). Another possibility is that the author simply ignored the objections of his contemporaries, bypassing them entirely. In the survey below, the Hebrew

1

μypnjl çwrw μypwxk μyrbl

14

chapter two

grammarians are not discussed in chronological order but rather in accordance with the relative measure(s) of their opposition to language comparison: Commencing with those grammarians who voiced outspoken and unequivocal opposition; next, those who voiced a more moderate opposition and finally, those who expressly justified the practice of language comparison. Mena˙em b. Saruq expresses no clear opinion on this matter; however, his failure to incorporate any comparison with Arabic (below, 10.1) can serve as a solid basis for our deduction that he did not favor language comparison with Arabic. Such a conclusion finds support in unambiguous statements of B. Saruq’s disciples.2 Mena˙em’s disciples were even opposed to comparisons with Aramaic.3 On this issue, at any rate, the disciples do not reflect the stand taken by Mena˙em himself; Mena˙em did indeed compare Hebrew with Aramaic (below, 10.2). Furthermore, despite their theoretical opposition to such, the disciples actually recorded comparisons with Aram.; it was Dunash’s pupil Yehudi b. Sheshet (see Stern II, p. 24) who showed the disciples the error they had made regarding the standpoint they had imputed to Mena˙em. Paradoxical though it be, it is hard to reconcile “fundamental,” axiomatic, pronouncements that tend to assume a rather stringent tone, on the one hand, with actual linguistic habits in all their details, on the other; these latter tend perforce to compromise with the needs of dynamic lexicographic activity. It is clearly “applied lexico-linguistics” rather than pure theoretical affidavits that determine the true conviction and attitude of the grammarian; for linguistic comparative activity is always conducted unconsciously. The frequently used reason for opposition to language comparison of Hebrew with Arabic is either that the one is “sacred” and the other “secular” or that the one is the “mistress” and the other the “maidservant” (see Becker, p. 19). The reasoning given by Mena˙em’s disciples is, however, different: “If we are to state that any word lacking a parallel word of similar nature in Hebrew can be analogized by a similar word in Aramaic or Arabic, we thereby imply that the languages are “equal” and “indistinguishable”: The remaining parts of Hebrew that became “missing” could thus be 2 See Teshubot Talmidey Mena˙em pp. 95–96; Yellin, Toledot Hitpatte˙ut Ha-Diqduq Ha-'Ibri, 1945, p. 97; N. Netzer, Leshon Hakhamim Be-Khitbey HaMedaqdeqim Ha-'Ibriyyim Biymey HaBenayim, 1983, p. 161; pp. 163–64; Becker, 1984, p. 19 and n. 7. 3 See Teshubot Talmidey Mena˙em, p. 15; p. 98 stanza 77; p. 96, etc.

the fundaments of comparison and the restrictions

15

retrieved from the other two languages and such an assumption is unacceptable.”4 They are concerned about possible “breaches in the bounds” of the sacred Hebrew language, a concern stemming from the presumption that the several languages subject to comparison are all on an equal footing. Recording an interlingual comparison on such an assumption is tantamount to assessing the three languages, Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic as having the same status, “and such . . . is unacceptable.” Furthermore, the linguistic setting of the three languages that stood out as a clear fact was one of non-identity, for which reason the opponents rejected language comparison. However, as noted above, Mena˙em as well as his disciples did not refrain from comparing Heb. with Aram. Dunash and his pupil Yehudi b. Sheshet, the disputants of Mena˙em and his pupils, viewed language comparison with Aramaic and Arabic positively; although no trace of apology can be detected in the writings of the former, a restrictive principle can be noted, namely, linguistic comparison must not be used whenever it is “theoretically” possible (i.e. in every case in which the conventional technical requirements for such are fulfilled); it should be used only on a limited scale. “You should know that Hebrew should not be likened to Aramaic, nor to Arabic, unless no intra-Hebrew parallel at all can be found . . .” (retort 26 to R. Sa'adiah Gaon, ed. Schröter, p. 8); “. . . and Hebrew is comparable with Aramaic and Arabic in exigency only” (Schröter, p. 18). According to this approach, language comparison constitutes not a matter of discretion but rather a necessity.5 My impression is that the latter approach was also adopted by R. Jonah ibn Janà˙, for he states (Riqma, p. 18): Comparison should be made “regarding words, for which Hebrew evidence is lacking.” However, he records comparison even in instances in which no exigency can be felt (below, 5.3.5.3). The fact that Ibn Janà˙ does not 4 waxmn br[w tymra ˆwçlb hmwd hl çy yk wnrma ˆwymd (!) ˚l ˆya rça hlym lk wlyaw ˆkty al ˆk twyhlw ,rsjnhw μl[nh tyrb[h ˆwçl raç wndmlw hldbh ylbm twwç twnwçlh

(Teshubot Talmidey Mena˙em, p. 96). It is noteworthy that Ben-Yehuda’s policy on the coinage of new Hebrew words, at the time of the revival of the language, accorded precisely with the approach of Mena˙em’s disciples. See Ben-Yehuda, Lexicon, Introduction with Addenda, Jerusalem, 1939–40, p. 13. 5 This standpoint is to be noted in R. Abraham ibn Ezra’s sefat yeter, also; see ibid., p. 61: tymral ˚rwx wnl ˆya qùùhlb rbh wl wnaxmç rjaw (“now that a counterpart has been found in Hebrew, there is no further need for [comparison with] Aramaic”). In comparison with the extreme viewpoint of Ibn Barùn, Ibn Ezra’s words are truly a step backward. See Eppenstein, 1900–01, p. 233.

16

chapter two

record a comparison whenever such is theoretically possible does not relate to ideology but rather to technique; just as he does not trouble to express definitions for those entries termed “well-known,” so likewise he is not exhaustive in recording comparisons. But it is in Ibn Janà˙’s works, more than in those of other contemporary linguists, that traces are noticeable of the vigorous dispute that was raging, between the “party” of the grammarians who were “procomparison” and the “party” of the “opponents to comparison,” in his lifetime. Ibn Janà˙ calls the opponents “those of our contemporaries whose knowledge is frail and whose erudition is meager.”6 He furthermore rejects their main claim that “language comparison implies that sacred words have need of secular words,”7 stating that Hebrew does not stand in need of Arabic; language comparison was designed merely to show that “what is fitting in the Hebrew language befits other languages, too” (Riqma, pp. 235–36). This reasoning recurs many times in his works.8 Ibn Janà˙ also falls back on R. Sa'adiah Gaon in approving language comparison (ibid.). In the opinion of Perez (1978, pp. 442–49; ibid. 1981, pp. 214–15), Ibn Bal'am, too, apologized for recording comparisons of Hebrew with Arabic, merely echoing Ibn Janà˙’s statements, although Ibn Bal'am does not draw openly on R. Jonah but falls back only on R. Sa'adiah Gaon and R. Hai Gaon. In the remnants of the works of R. Moses ibn Gikatilla, no apologetic statement has survived, nor is there any discussion whatsoever on the question of permissibility of language comparison. However, in Ibn Gikatilla’s preface to his Hebrew translation of Óayyùj’s works (Nutt, 1870) an allusion appears: “Hebrew language is concealed, while Arabic, revealed and explicit and the Holy Tongue is obscure and it is befitting to explain the concealed by means of the intelligible and to interpret the obscure by means of the explicit” (emphasis added). This is meant to imply that for a Hebrew word whose meaning is obscure and “concealed,” the sense can be derived from the Arabic etymological cognate, provided that the latter possesses a well-known meaning. (ˆwky is used here in the sense of “befitting, feasible and permissible.”) This statement is not meant as an apology but rather as a way of

6 7 8

Riqma, p. 17, Kitàb al-Luma' p. 6; Bacher, Shorashim, p. XXIII. Bacher, ibidem. Mustal˙aq, pp. 140–141; "Ußùl, p. 122 lbg, p. 130 çwg a.e.; see seq., below, 5.2.

the fundaments of comparison and the restrictions

17

explaining infrequent words in the Bible. In the comparison data within the fragmentary remnants of the works of R. Sa'adiah Gaon and R. Hai Gaon, no apologetics appear. Also, the philologists who drew on them, e.g. R. Jonah b. Janà˙ and Ibn Bal'am did not, to the best of my knowledge, quote from them any note of apology. Further to the above, R. Judah ibn Quraysh’s Risàla also, in the surviving text at least, presents no apologetic statement. Becker (1984, p. 19) states categorically: “If in R. Jonah b. Janà˙’s lifetime there were still opponents to comparison of Hebrew with Arabic, a fortiori must there have been such in the time of R. Judah ibn Quraysh. It is therefore very surprising that in the introduction to Risàla and in the copious materials that survive from it, the opposition to comparison is nowhere expressly spelled out. It is very far-fetched to suggest the argument that R. Judah ibn Quraysh fought shy of issuing an express “headline” regarding comparison of Hebrew with Arabic (ibid.). It cannot be stated of a scholar who compared with Arabic hundreds of Hebrew entries, including a large number of not-so-rare biblical words, that he conducts language comparison activity in an unobtrusive manner. On the contrary, he goes to the extreme of incorporating the chapters containing comparison of biblical Hebrew with Aramaic and with Rabbinic Hebrew in the section devoted to Hebrew/Arabic comparison. From the set-up of his book it can be inferred that he opines the status of Arabic to be equivalent to the status of Aramaic and of rabbinic Hebrew (the latter two being indubitably sacred languages), as regards the right of a linguist to resort to Arabic for purposes of Bible interpretation. The work of Alfàsi, despite its extensive scope, does not contain even a single expression that might point to the author’s standpoint on the matter under discussion.9 His silence on this matter might perhaps be interpreted as an implied acquiescence to the viewpoints that had been widespread before his time and continued also in his time, i.e. the opinions of R. Sa'adiah Gaon and of R. Judah ibn

9 Becker (1984, p. 19, n. 7) quotes the following from Alfàsi (vol. 1, p. 510): “Aramaic can serve no proof for Hebrew”; he includes this formula among the expressions listed as apologetic statements made by the other grammarians regarding comparison of Hebrew with Arabic and with Aramaic. In my opinion, however, Becker is mistaken. The above-mentioned quote contains no trace of apology; it is simply meant as a factual explanation, ad loc., restricted specifically to a single issue, that the Hebrew root (h)yj is not to be determined on the basis of the Aramaic root (a)j(m).

chapter two

18

Quraysh, as to whether these opinions had reached him directly or indirectly. At any rate, the comparisons themselves as well as the undertones of the comparative terminology, which set side by side the three components Heb./Aram./Arab., are conducive to the conception that the three languages are close to one another and constitute entities deserving of comparison. As for the aims of the language comparison, it is crystal clear that comparison is legitimate per se and not merely as a tool for the correct understanding of the Bible. No tone of apologetics can be detected in Alfàsi’s words regarding his having to resort to Arabic for the elucidation of the biblical text. To sum up:10 Comparison of Hebrew with Aramaic was a conventional and customary matter, according to the school and theory of the Hebrew grammarians. This was so even for Mena˙em b. Saruq, who neither posed ideological obstacles to, nor formulated any apologies for such comparison. The opposition that arose was only to comparison with Arabic; it was apparently only in Spain that the tendency was to refrain from comparing Hebrew with Arabic, whereas in the Orient there is no record of apologetic statements; here language comparison was practised to the maximal extent, probably in the wake of R. Sa'adiah Gaon’s stand on the matter. The extent to which the Arabic language is resorted to differs from scholar to scholar. The extremists in dissension to such comparison are Mena˙em and his disciples. At the opposite extreme stand R. Judah ibn Quraysh, Alfàsi, R. Jonah b. Janà˙, Ibn Bal'am and Ibn Barùn, who conduct comparison with Arabic indiscriminately, as apparently do R. Sa'adiah Gaon and R. Hai Gaon. Dunash b. Labrat stands somewhat midway between the camps; he permits the practice of Hebrew/Arabic comparison restrictively and on a limited scale, specifically when “under compulsion,” i.e. failing any other option.

2.2

The measure of affinity between the three languages

R. Jonah b. Janà˙ is the only scholar in the period under discussion to record an explicit opinion regarding the affinity between Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic. He discusses this matter at length in 10 Regarding Dunash ibn. Tamim and R. Samuel Ha-Nagid there is virtually nothing to note on this issue on account of the paucity of textual materials surviving from their treatises.

the fundaments of comparison and the restrictions

19

Mustal˙aq (pp. 131–36). The substance of R. Jonah’s view can be stated as follows: Hebrew and Aramaic are closer to each other than either of the two languages are to Arabic. They are so close that they can justly be termed twins. The special affinity existing between Hebrew and Aramaic, in the opinion of Ibn Janà˙, stems from the following phenomena: 1. In terms of grammar the two languages possess common features, these being absent from Arabic: the same vocalization signs, the common influence effected by the four laryngeals [ ,j ,h ,a on the vowels; their similarity regarding the vocalic entities twjtpw twxmq (= vocalization signs in general), most of which are lacking in Arabic; the declension of the Hebrew hitpa''el conjugation for roots commencing with a sibilant, like Aramaic itpe'el l[tpa, etc. 2. The Masora treats the two as one language-entity; Hebrew and Aramaic words (= word occurrences) that are identical are listed and enumerated indiscriminately. 3. Our ancestors were familiar with Hebrew and Aramaic equally, on account of their affinity. 4. The proof that the two languages were equally “known” is that in two biblical books, Daniel and Ezra, the two languages are utilized alternately. R. Jonah b. Janà˙ himself does not treat items 3 and 4 separately but records them as a single “factor.” The only “factor” that can be considered a genuinely linguistic one is item 1, for here a structural affinity is pointed up between the two languages; this is of course stated in an exemplary fashion. The others are either historical (2, 3) or literary (2, 4). R. Judah ibn Quraysh (Risàla, p. 19) links the linguistic affinity between Hebrew and the other two Semitic languages with the “genealogical” affinity between the Hebrew-speaking, Arabic-speaking and Aramaic-speaking nations as well as with their geographical closeness. However, R. Jonah b. Janà˙ refers, in his comparative discussion, to the typological aspect common to these languages, and no more than that. In several other places in his works (e.g. introduction to Riqma, p. 18) R. Jonah b. Janà˙ reiterates his claim that Aramaic and Hebrew show a greater reciprocal affinity than the respective affinity of each with Arabic; occasionally he treats of language features relating to the two languages jointly, as though treating of one language. A case in point is his discussion of the partial assimilation of taw

20

chapter two

characterizing the hitpa''el conjugation with the following letter zayin (= first radical) to daleth (in the Aramaic ˆwtnmdzh (Dan. 2:9): Riqma, p. 107). The remaining Hebrew grammarians make no express statement regarding the measure of affinity between these three languages. Their opinion can be deduced solely from comparison practice or from several indirect allusions: Mena˙em sometimes relates to Hebrew + Aramaic as if to one language. An example is in his discussion of the he bearing a mappiq (p. 51). Likewise, Alfàsi: In the framework of his discursus on the interchange of letters (ynxylh pp. 439–445) Alfàsi treats of intra-Hebrew switches, intra-Aramaic switches and interlingual Heb./Aram. switches but does not treat of intra-Arabic switches nor of switches of the pattern Heb./Arab., Aram./Arab. He most likely views Hebrew-cumAramaic as needing to be treated as one entity, versus Arabic, which is “distant” from them. The lexicons produced by Alfàsi and by Mena˙em deal at random with Hebrew and/or Aramaic entries. The amalgamation of entries may well originate from the simple fact that the compiler intended to exhaust the elucidation of all biblical word entries. However, the raison d’être of “cause-and-effect” proceeded further: the linguistic comparison pointing up the joint occurrence of the two languages in the Bible served as evidence for the specific affinity between the two. In contrast to Alfàsi, R. Jonah b. Janà˙ did not register the Aramaic entries in his lexicon; he included Hebrew entries only. Theoretically, these two grammarians could have set aside the Aramaic entries in a separate section, as R. David Qim˙i did centuries later. That both Alfàsi and Mena˙em merged the Hebrew entries with the Aramaic ones is clear evidence of their opinion regarding the affinity between Hebrew and Aramaic. (Clearly no such conflation of lexical materials, i.e. Hebrew side by side with Arabic entries, would have been postulated if an equivalent Arabic lexicon had been produced.) In the several introductions to their Lexicons, or in their commentaries, the Hebrew grammarians outline a methodology for explicating words in the Bible for which no intra-biblical match can be found. They employ a graded method of preference, which can hardly be seen to be arbitrary: (a) evidence for the “support” of rabbinic Hebrew (via a comparison therewith) can be enlisted; (b) if the use of the word in question cannot be documented in rabbinic

the fundaments of comparison and the restrictions

21

Hebrew, the “support” of Aramaic (via a comparison therewith) is feasible; (c) if neither (a) nor (b) is relevant, the “support” of Arabic, (via a comparison therewith) can be postulated. A graded system of this kind is posited by Alfàsi in the introduction to his Kitàb Jàmi' al-AlfàΩ (p. 12), as also R. Judah Ibn Bal'am in the introduction to his Bible Commentary (Perez, 1981, p. 214). In all likelihood, the facts enumerated by R. Jonah b. Janà˙ (above) were not unknown to the other Hebrew grammarians; such data clearly directed them in their molding of an approach of this nature, namely, that Aramaic possesses a higher grade of affinity with Hebrew, with Arabic ranking third in this respect. The opinion(s) of Dunash ibn Tamìm and of Ibn Barùn on the above issue remain(s) unknown, for these two grammarians compiled works dealing with Hebrew/Arabic comparison only. Can it be assumed that they thought the equivalence of grammar-cum-lexicon of Heb.+Aram. to be more restricted than the corresponding one of Heb.+Arab.? Is it possible that they concluded therefrom that Arabic’s affinity with Hebrew is of a higher grade? At any rate, a few isolated comparisons of Hebrew with Aramaic are recorded in Ibn Barùn’s work, showing that this grammarian did not neglect the Aramaic language entirely.

2.3

The problem of loan words: Were loans from Aramaic and Arabic reckoned with by the Hebrew grammarians?

Alfàsi says in entry brz (p. 506): wtmxn wbrzy t[b ( Job 6:17): tqw yp

ahl sylw ljnt μhyl[ smçla ˆùkst am dn[ ùgwlùtla yn[y w[mqna wbrzy ù≈jm ybr[ wh lb ynarb[la yp qaqtça i.e. since this word is a hapax and “has no Hebrew etymology” it should be regarded as “pure Arabic.” Similarly in entry fj (532), Alfàsi regards hnfja (Gen. 31:39) as “rare in the Bible, from Arabic . . .” In these instances as well as in many others an ambiguous statement appears in the texts of the Hebrew grammarians. On the one hand, it is implied (a) that the origin of a given biblical Hebrew word is in Aramaic or in Arabic, i.e. no language comparison is applicable, it is merely the source language of the word in question that is to be ascertained. On the other hand, a contradictory implication is to be noticed simultaneously, (b) that the matter at stake is indeed language comparison, as between the Hebrew word

chapter two

22

and its equivalent in Aramaic or in Arabic. If (a) suggests the correct intent, then we can conclude that the Hebrew grammarians determined that Arabic and Aramaic loan words do exist in biblical Hebrew. If however, (b) is correct, how are we to accommodate such an express formulation regarding “foreign” words imported, so to speak, into biblical Hebrew? The clarification of this matter is important (1) per se, as one essential element of the totality of problems involved in the issue of the Hebrew grammarians’ ideology concerning language theory and comparison method; and (2) for practical purposes of material classification i.e. for weeding out the loan entries (if such are postulated) from the register of instances of language comparison. Bacher, for example (1884, Appendix II, p. 72), takes for granted that Alfàsi determined several biblical words, e.g. hnfja, lxpyw, μrqyw, to be loan words from Arabic. Skoss held the same opinion in his introduction to the edition of Alfàsi’s work (p. xl). As for R. Judah ibn Quraysh, Becker discussed this question (1984, pp. 25–30); his conclusion (ibid., p. 29) is that Ibn Quraysh postulated loan words from Aramaic only and not from Arabic. This conclusion will be further discussed below (2.3.4). Let us attempt to clarify this issue as reflected in the theories of Alfàsi, Mena˙em, R. Jonah b. Janà˙ and other grammarians. 2.3.1

Formulae

Formulae in the same vein as those quoted above are adopted by David b. Abraham in the following root entries: bwz (506); (532); fj (561); rmj; rkn (272); (287); bxn abs (302); μt[ (439); lxp (532 fj); rpx (524); μrq (576); qpr (622); [qr (628); açç (710). The same impression, namely that Alfàsi postulated loan words in Hebrew from Arabic, is obtained vis-à-vis the existence of loan words from Aramaic. The terms and expressions seem to relate unambiguously to lexical loan: The root of the Hebrew word under discussion is borrowed from Aramaic, although it is dressed-up, grammatically and contextually, in Hebrew garb.11 Mena˙em b. Saruq also uses

11 This view would clearly not be held of the several Aramaic phrases appearing in the midst of a continuous Hebrew text, as, for example, atwdhç rgy (Gen. 31:47) or the well-known completely Aramaic verse ( Jer. 10:11) and of course vis-à-vis the Aramaic sections in Daniel and Ezra. The Aramaic character of these excerpts is unmistakable; these texts were ostensibly viewed as “texts in a language

the fundaments of comparison and the restrictions

23

expressions that could imply word borrowing from Aramaic, for example: awh tymra ˆwçl yk μyrmwa rça μyrtwphm çyw . . . ask (= Several expositors state that this word is Aramaic—p. 107); twyhl ˆkty . . . qpç tymra ˆwçl taz hlm (= It is befitting that this word is Aramaic,— p. 179); awh tymraw . . . qnpm (= this is Aramaic, p. 143); ta-hkk-μaw yl hçw[- (Num. 11:15) ˚nbrbrw tnaw tymra ˆwçlb hrwbd hlmh tyarn (= this word is apparently an Aramaic expression, as in the verse tnaw ˚nbrbrw (Dan. 5:23; p. 38). R. Jonah b. Janà˙, likewise,12 when he deals with the formation of the word dj (Ezek. 33:30), states (Riqma, p. 275): dj hyhyç rçpaw μyymrah μylmh ˆm (= The word may perhaps be one of the Aramaic loan words); and so, in relation to the dagesh in the taw of lwmT]aime (1 Sam. 10:11), R. Jonah adopts a phraseology with a fairly clear “borrowing” import: ymrah rwbdh ghnm wb wghn (= in marking the dagesh they adopted the practice current in Aramaic speech, i.e. language); regarding rjs he remarks ("Ußùl, p. 479): ynayrsla ˆm qtçm. If we are to take these phrases literally, as terms denoting loan words from Arabic and Aramaic, we are faced with the following problems: Did the Hebrew grammarians presuppose that as early as Mosaic times, the historical and geographic linguistic setting allowed for the influence of the Arabic and Aramaic languages on Hebrew? This question arises, because loan terms of this type occur even with regard to several words in the Pentateuch, such as hnfja (Gen. 31:39), lxpyw (ibid. 30:37), rmj (Deut. 32:14), rkntyw (Gen. 42:7), etc. Moreover, it can be supposed that the orthodox beliefs of the Hebrew grammarians could accommodate the notion that within the Holy Scriptures there are to be found words borrowed from Arabic. If this were the case, the unique issue would certainly not have been left unmentioned! It is also worth asking why, when David b. Abraham determines that rmj is ybr[la hgl ˆm, he chose Arabic as its source rather than Aramaic; the same word rmj is regularly and frequently used so in Aramaic, (including biblical Aramaic armj, Dan. 5:1). In Aramaic it

distinct from the usual biblical language”; for these passages, the concept of “loan” would not have been postulated even theoretically by the Hebrew grammarians. Regarding the issue of loan words in Indo-European languages, see, for example, A. Meillet (1937), ch. 8, pp. 378ff. 12 Perez (1981, p. 223) remarks that in the "Ußùl, he did not encounter any “terms of etymology” (ˆwrzg lç μyjnwm), implying that R. Jonah b. Janà˙ refrained from the use of any phraseology reserved for word loans. However, Perez curtailed any further discussion on this issue.

24

chapter two

is even more commonly used than the word rmùk is in Arabic!13 Considering, then, that there is a greater affinity between Hebrew and Aramaic, in that historically, within the time frame of the Hebrew grammarians, both are Jewish languages and these languages, and no other, are employed in the Bible, would it not be more probable that Hebrew borrowed a word (if indeed this is a matter of loan) from its closer “sister,” Aramaic, rather than from its distant “sister,” Arabic? Furthermore, on what basis did Alfàsi state categorically that this word is a loan word in Hebrew only; why should it not also be considered a loan in Aramaic? Why is Aramaic given preference, on the assumption that in that language the word is not a loan? For he remarks: ynayrslabw (= also in Aramaic). We must thus infer the following assumption: the aforesaid expressions and phraseologies despite their plain sense implying word borrowing are not to be taken at face value; the Hebrew grammarians did not mean to imply that the lexical entries employing such expressions are in fact loans from Arabic. This assumption finds additional support as follows: 1. The Arabic expressions ybr[la hgl ˆm ,ù≈jm ybr[ (= from the Arabic language, pure Arabic)14 are most likely not to be taken literally; they are intended to point up the total similarity between the Hebrew entry and the Arabic one, a similarity in all the linguistic aspects, phonetic, phonological, etymological, semantic and perhaps even textual. Were it not for the Arabic, we would be unable to ascertain its precise Hebrew meaning, on account of the rarity of the word (which is sometimes even hapax legomenon) in the Bible. 2. In the case of several of the words regarding which the grammarians applied the phraseology the plain sense of which indicates word loan, an additional etymological discussion is recorded elsewhere in the treatise(s); where the formulation adopted is a clear expression of comparison with Arabic, not borrowing from that language. For example, in the lexical entry çt(n) in Alfàsi’s Lexicon (p. 754), the entries abs ,bxn ,fj ,brz appear merely within the formula brq ˆm (br[la hgl), that is, as entries for language comparison, although the

13 In several Arabic dialects the words barçw ybn are more usual; furthermore, Alfàsi himself (ˆyy, 51) uses bn[la barç as a rendering for ˆyy. 14 When this expression occurs in the Risàla, Becker (1984, pp. 27–28) translates “precisely as in Arabic” (tybr[b wmk çmm).

the fundaments of comparison and the restrictions

25

four specified words had previously been described as loans. Further, in the same lexicon, the entries rmj/rmùk are listed in an excursus on j/ùk switches in the entry ljb (p. 208), and there also merely for the purpose of language comparison. The same phenomenon occurs in R. Jonah b. Janà˙’s works. The word dj, which had originally (Riqma p. 275) been treated under the head “word-borrowing” (i.e. governed by the term literally referring to such), recurs in the "Ußùl (p. 211) under the unambiguous heading of language comparison: ynayrsll snaùgm whw; likewise the word lwmja is again discussed in Riqma (p. 407), where the term used is specifically one of language comparison: ymrah çwmçl hmwd awh. Also when the word rjs reappears under the entry rwç, R. Jonah adopts the usual term for language comparison of the subtype Bib.-Heb./Targ.Aram. i.e. μwgrt ˆm The non-literal implication of the loan phraseologies is almost certainly the case in Mena˙em’s works, too. In his Ma˙beret he neither records any express discussion nor any clear-cut expression implying that he is dealing with “word loan.” Since no statement or justification of loans vis-à-vis those specific entries in which the term appears, we are entitled to assume that in these entries Mena˙em’s intended sense is that of language comparison, not of word borrowing. Even more remarkable is that in the lexicons of Alfàsi and of R. Jonah b. Janà˙, the two alternative phraseologies for indicating the connection of the Hebrew entry word with the Arabic one sometimes appear together in the same entry. In the entry fj (p. 532), Alfàsi first states that this word is ybr[la hgl ˆm; but at the end of the entry, he states: hnfja ynarb[law ybr[la yp qpta amk (Gen. 31:39). What had initially seemed to be a loan from Arabic is not such but merely a comparison with Arabic, i.e. very similar to the Arabic or entirely equivalent to it. If we interpret at face value the expression at the close of the entry and presume that the phraseology earlier on in the entry is to be thereby interpreted, the conclusion reached is that the phrase ybr[la hgl ˆm is not meant to indicate word loan. In the same light is to be treated the phrase hybr[ hùfpl yhw, occurring in the entry abs. Prima facie this is a term for word loan; however, the correct understanding of the expression ensues from the phrase br[la ˆwlwqy amk occurring subsequently in the entry text; this phrase proves more or less explicitly that the lexicographer’s intent was language comparison and no more.

26 2.3.2

chapter two Aramaic word-loan terminology

With regard to Aramaic, too, the use of the word-loan terminology may be followed up in the same vicinity by substitute expressions, conveying the true meaning, namely that of comparison. For example, in discussing the sense of the word rtk ( Job 36:2), Alfàsi states that rtk is “derived from Aramaic” (μwgrtla ˆm qtçm whw), serving as the Targum translation for ljy (Mic. 5:6); but in the immediate sequel, he adds that the sentence containing the word rtk comprises four words, including the word rtk, all of which are “shared with Aramaic” (ynayrsla hgl [m hkrtçm). If rtk belongs to both Hebrew and Aramaic, the implication is that this word is an integral part of both, i.e. it is not a loan word. Further examples of the phenomenon of dual terminology are proffered by the entries rf[ and qls. In entry rf[ (p. 387) he states ynayrsla ˆm lb ynarb[la ˆm hùfpllla hùdh sylw (= this word is not from Hebrew but from Aramaic), and in entry q(l)s (p. 347) he states: ynayrsla ˆm hnkl ryùfn ynarb[la yp hl sylw (= It has no equivalent in Hebrew but is from Aramaic), i.e. borrowing terminology. The substance of these two entries is reiterated in an excursus appearing under the entry πqt (p. 750), recorded under the heading ryùtkw ynayrsla [m ˚rtçy ynarb[la yp (= many [words] in Hebrew are shared with Aramaic), implying that the word pertains to both languages.15 R. Jonah b. Janà˙ in entry drf (p. 267) states that drf is hùfpl hynayrs (a case of word borrowing); but then continues aùxya hybr[w, which addition totally changes the import; it is quite out of the question to posit that the same word is borrowed simultaneously from two different sources, Arabic and Aramaic. In a Bib. Heb./Tal. Aram. comparison ˆmk/ˆmk (p. 322), Ibn Janà˙ similarly adopts in the same dictum two expressions that are apparently contradictory: (a) snaùgm ynayrsll and (b) hnm qtçm. It is very probable that ˆm qtçm is nothing other than an abstract phrase indicating “semantically derived from” (see below, the terms of R. Jonah b. Janà˙, in sub-section 2.3.3) The common feature shared by the entries for which the Hebrew

15 It is noteworthy that the copyists and the compilers of the work Jàmi' al-AlfàΩ made a frequent practice of interchanging these terms. An example is the entry μùgrtmla hyp laq ˆ[f yùdkw (ibid., p. 18), where a varia lectio in MS E reads hgl ˆm ynayrsla; The same holds for the entry πç (p. 696; also πqt, p. 749) where the body of the text has merely μwgrtw, while in MS I the text reads ryùfn hl sylw ynayrs hnklw ynarb[la yp. These redactor-transmitters, then, did not take literally the very borrowing terms they themselves used.

the fundaments of comparison and the restrictions

27

grammarians tend to adopt the phraseologies implying prima facie word borrowing is their recording of rare biblical words, including hapax legomena. Absolute consistency, however, is not maintained for all the infrequent words. A certain number are entered with the borrowing terminology, although in the main, the comparison terminology stands. The following examples are from the lexicon of Alfàsi: in the case of brs (p. 353), jtm (p. 238) and tksh (p. 326) he remarks: (ynarb[la yp) ryùfn hl sylw, i.e. the entries recorded are biblically unique; for tksh, he uses on the one hand, a borrowing expression, μwgrt ˆm, while for the others he makes do with the expression of concurrence: for brs, ynayrsla yp hnklw for jtm, μwgrtw. 2.3.3 Besides the terminological inferences, the following inferences can be adduced David b. Abraham Alfàsi: If Alfàsi indeed believed that the Hebrew language contains loans from Aramaic and Arabic, how can it be explained that he nowhere uses the specific loan-word terminology, for example, ù≈artqa, or, at least, hra[tsa?16 R. Jonah b. Janà˙: True, R. Jonah b. Janà˙ resorts in one instance to the unambiguous loan word terminology: . . . hdydjla yh ˆbrdh hlyùkd yh lb hybr[ hùfpl tsylw qrçmla lha dn[ açrap amstw (= dorban is a peace of iron . . . called farisha in the Orient and it is not an Arabic word but rather a borrowed one), although the matter here is one of a Hebrew loan word in Arabic.17 But at any rate, Ibn Janà˙ is fully aware of the concept of word borrowing from one language to another; had he thought that Arabic and/or Aramaic 16 Two non-Hebrew words appearing in the Book of Esther regarding which explicit loan word expressions are used cannot invalidate the inference. I am referring to rwp and ˆrtçja. In the entries rwp (p. 452), ˆrtçja (p. 69) and çkr (p. 610) these are defined explicitly by the grammarian as Persian words, for the simple reason that the biblical text itself records them as such ad loc together with their Hebrew translational synonyms. This could easily have served Alfàsi as a clear indication that a colloquial dialect was here recorded in Scripture itself for the purpose of providing a vivid description of the actions and events narrated in the Esther Scroll. This is no different from the phenomenon, highlighted by Alfàsi in entry rwp (p. 452), that the Bible itself sets the name d[lg alongside with its Aramaic parallel atwdhç rgy. The exclusive term hra[tsa in its special connotation of metaphor occurs in entry [xq (p. 568). The same term, in the sense of borrowing from one language to another, appears in the preface to the Risàla of R. Judah ibn Quraysh (pp. 118–19; for some reason, this reference was omitted from Becker’s index). 17 This is not the only instance of the assumption of a Hebrew loan word in Arabic: Bacher (1884, p. 33) remarks that in Ibn Janà˙’s opinion, the Arabic word ˆzrk is a loan from the Hebrew ˆzrg.

chapter two

28

loan words existed in biblical Hebrew, he certainly could have used the above-mentioned exclusive term(s) in dealing with them. Assume for a moment that the Hebrew grammarians did affirm the existence of word loans in Hebrew; how would such an assumption be compatible with the fact that their linguistic approach was of a descriptive rather than historical nature? For a detailed examination of their theory proves this quite conclusively.18 The fundamental pronouncements set out in the several introductions to the works of the Hebrew grammarians proclaim that unique or infrequent words in the Bible can be interpreted by rabbinic Hebrew, Aramaic or Arabic, whereas no indication is given, with regard to the phenomenon of word borrowing from Arabic or Aramaic. The context proves beyond all doubt that the grounds for resorting to these two Semitic languages is the concurrence they share with biblical Hebrew. It is therefore highly likely, if not certain, that the terms superficially implying word borrowing are in fact about interlingual comparison terms; thus the entries treating of lexical entities by such terms are indeed an integral part of the inventory of lexical comparisons. Ibn Bal'am: Perez (1981, p. 223) states that Ibn Bal'am does not interpret a biblical word under discussion on the basis of an Arabic etymology but rather by mere comparison with Arabic.19 The contrast between “etymology” (ˆwrzg) and “comparison” (hawwçh) in this context is tantamount to contrasting “word loan” with “language comparison.” Ibn Barùn: With regard to Ibn Barùn, I have been unable to detect in the Kitàb al-Muwàzana even a single expression that might be interpreted as implying word loan; and this is indeed to be expected, considering that the title of Ibn Barùn’s opus stipulates language comparison, not word borrowing. 2.3.4

R. Judah ibn Quraysh

The above arguments have the same validity with regard to R. Judah ibn Quraysh, too. Yet Becker (1984, p. 29), having thoroughly 18 The term diachronic is out of the question here, since no diachronic approach existed prior to the end of the 18th century. 19

hawwçh yùùp[ ala tybr[h ˆm ˆwrzg yùùp[ hnwdnh tyarqmh hlmh ta rabm awh ˆya taz ˆwçll

the fundaments of comparison and the restrictions

29

inspected ibn Quraysh’s theory, asserts that R. Judah postulates word borrowings into (biblical) Hebrew from Aramaic but not from Arabic. However, it would seem very probable that in the work of Ibn Quraysh also, the word loans are only seemingly so. This is evident from various remarks in lexical entries recorded by Ibn Quraysh; for example: In Risàla (A3, pp. 122–23), the biblical word wypnk is termed ˆwçl ù≈jmla çdwqh (“pure holy language” or “pure Hebrew”) (Becker, 1984, p. 28), in contrast to its synonym wypga. Becker (p. 29) concludes therefrom that in Ibn Quraysh’s opinion wypga is a loan word from Aramaic. The upshot of Becker’s discussion (ibid., pp. 28–29) is that the expression ù≈jmla çdwqh ˆwçl is decisive proof for this. But as Becker himself assumed (ibid., p. 27) regarding several prima-facie Arabic word loans, this expression, too, can be interpreted metaphorically. It is thus quite feasible that R. Judah maintained wypnk to be indeed a “pure Hebrew” word, for the reason that of the two synonyms wypnk and wypga, the former is the Hebrew word par excellence whereas the latter is rarer as Hebrew and is properly an Aramaic word. A survey of all the 94 entries contained in part 1 of the Risàla, i.e. Hebrew-Aramaic comparisons, reveals that in the opinion of Ibn Quraysh, 91 entry words are spelled with the same root letters as those of the Aramaic words with which they are compared. These comparisons are generally of the pattern Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb2/Targ. Aram. In Becker’s opinion, the picture evolving is such that the entry words are Aramaic borrowed into Hebrew, the pattern being Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (below, 3.6.7). It seems likely that this entry setup served as the grounds for Becker’s conclusion that Ibn Quraysh postulated Aramaic loans into Hebrew. However, three of the entries involve letter substitution, rendering the foregoing conclusion, somewhat problematic. Details are as follows: Ibn Quraysh states definitively that ytljz (entry A53) corresponds with tyljd. This being the Targum translation for ytary, the oneto-one relationship of these two words is exactly the same as that of the pairs, abhd/bhz, a[wrd/[wrz, anqd/ˆqz, i.e. the pairs are characterized by the consonantal interchange20 d/z. This letter switch is interlingual: it operates between Hebrew and Aramaic and is neither

20

I have avoided the use of modern terms such as “shift” which emerged in the nineteenth century as part of the diachronic approach.

30

chapter two

an intra-Aramaic nor an intra-Hebrew switch. Hence, ytljz also is a Hebrew word, for if it were a loan from Aramaic, it would have to be ytljd, i.e. spelled with a daleth. The assumption that R. Judah envisaged the said interchange as having taken place after or before the time of the loan must be ruled out; for if such were the case it would deserve explicit mention. A similar situation occurs in the pairs rpa/arp[m (A19) and ≈mwg/axmwk (A37). These are thus clear indications that no word loan is involved but rather language comparison: the three specific entries in question serve as a basis for deriving the general principle that comparisons and comparisons only, are perceived by Ibn Quraysh. Furthermore, we have the right to ask, regarding Ibn Quraysh: what is the criterion for his determining a word loan? If the criterion is (biblical) infrequency, this can be refuted by the fact that in part C1 of the Risàla, too, 28 percent of the entries consist of rarely occurring words (Becker, p. 50) and yet R. Judah does not state that these are loans from Arabic! Becker (p. 120) entitles the first part of the Risàla μylmh r[ç arqmb twywxmh twymrah (= The Chapter of Aramaic Words Occurring in the Bible). On p. 29 he explains that to all intents and purposes these are tymram twlwaç μylm (= words borrowed from Aramaic). Discussion of several of these words, however, recurs in part C1, i.e. a section whose heading makes unmistakable mention of Hebrew words being compared with Arabic (Becker, p. 221). For instance, rmj (C1 495) is entered as Hebrew, whereas previously (A71) it was recorded as Aramaic. Likewise, rfj is entered twice (C1 501; A73) once under each. True, in part C1 he includes a few Aramaic words culled from the Aramaic biblical texts, e.g. rjp yd πçj (C1 512). But this is a genuine exception, for the majority of the words recorded in this connection (part C1) are unequivocally Hebrew items, whereas the “pure” Aramaic words that are sporadically recorded there can be clearly discerned as such by the text from which they have been culled; any remark concerning their Aramaic nature would be superfluous. This is not the case regarding a word that is “Aramaic loaned into Hebrew” (tyrb[h ˚wtb hlwaç tymra). Such an instance certainly calls for an express remark by Ibn Quraysh and failing such a remark the word must surely be classified in its proper perspective as a Hebrew word, for the very reason that it is recorded in the midst of a series of Hebrew entries. The claim that an Aramaic

the fundaments of comparison and the restrictions

31

word is to be treated as a loan merely on account of its being incorporated into part A of the Risàla is thus refuted. However, another difficulty arises: the reasoning serving Ibn Quraysh as grounds for the assumption of an affinity between the three languages Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic is set out as twofold, “genealogical affinity and environmental affinity” (twnkçh tbrqw çjyh tnrq; Becker, 1984, pp. 25; 116–19); “environmental affinity” for our purposes implies interlingual word borrowing. Ibn Quraysh is thus fully aware of the borrowing concept. But it is one thing to state that there exists a linguistic law, and quite another to show how it actually works in the language concerned. At any rate, if there were such an “environmental affinity” between Hebrew and Arabic (Becker maintains that R. Judah did not posit any word borrowing between these two), or between Aramaic and Hebrew, Ibn Quraysh failed to explain the implications. One wonders whether the opinion of J. Derenbourg (1895, p. 156) can be borne out, namely that Ibn Quraysh’s purpose in comparing Hebrew with Arabic, Aramaic and even Berber was to reveal Hebrew elements within these languages. According to such an assumption, the word borrowing is in the opposite direction: i.e. from Hebrew into Arabic and Aramaic. Even as a conjecture, however, Derenburg’s stand fails to find any support from the actual expressions used by Ibn Quraysh in his lexicon. It must therefore be concluded that in the eyes of the Hebrew grammarians the loaning concept was vague and unclear, because neither Ibn Quraysh, nor his successors, ever formulated clear principles enabling a clear-cut determination as to whether a certain word is a loan word and if so from which language it was borrowed. This indistinct perception of the matter of word loan stands behind the stereotyped comparison applied by R. Jonah b. Janà˙ regarding the word(s) μyt[rt/[rt/[rt (pp. 549, 700). It does not occur to this grammarian to query why Hebrew needs to resort to two signifiants, yt[rt and r[wç for the same referent signifié, whereas Aramaic makes do with [rt alone; also what the real connection is between [rt and r[ç. It stands to reason that the language comparison system conventionally operated by the Hebrew grammarians (see below) was not conducive to developing a theory of any substance on loaning between the several languages under discussion. It is furthermore quite probable that a fundamental demurrer can be discerned in linguistic literature, which obviated entirely any assumption of borrowings

chapter two

32

from foreign languages within Hebrew. An unmistakable expression of such a demurrer is contained in a statement by R. Abraham Ibn Ezra in Safah Berurah referring to rçp: “Many people opine that this word is [of ] Aramaic [origin]; God forbid; this is a “Holy Language” (= Hebrew) [expression] and both languages are equal.”21

2.4

The theory of substitutions

Lexical-etymological comparison can be defined as the comparison of a Hebrew root (realized in the form of an entry, according to the Hebrew grammarians’ methods) with an Arabic or Aramaic root. The letters constituting the corresponding radices are matched respectively and in the same order, according to a conventional chart of correspondences, as is enumerated below. For instance, the radices dlg/dlùg match each other letter-wise (d/d ,l/l ,ùg/g) and in the same order (3d 2l 1g/3d 2l 1ùg). Some corresponding radices consist of matching radical letters, which, however, do not appear respectively in the same order. In these cases, the comparison operates by metathesis (as Alfàsi puts it: swk[la qyrf ˆm; or, as other Hebrew grammarians write: blqlab). Comparisons of the latter type are attested in the works of all the Hebrew grammarians but their scope is considerably restricted. For example, Alfàsi records a comparison of the two entries rpx/πrx (p. 524) between which there exists a metathesis of the second and third radicals. Further examples of comparisons involving metathesis appear in the works of R. Judah ibn Quraysh (Becker 1984, p. 40), Mena˙em (below, 10.2.1.8), Dunash b. Labrat (below, 11.3. 5), R. Jonah b. Janà˙ (Bacher 1884, pp. 34–35) and Ibn Barùn (Wechter 1964, n. 310). At the base of the etymological comparison of Hebrew/Arabic entries lies a chart of correspondence setting out the correlation of each Hebrew letter with the corresponding Arabic letter bearing a similar name to its Hebrew counterpart (Téné, 1983, p. 262). The same definition clearly applies also to Hebrew comparisons with Aramaic. As regards Arabic, the equivalences are true graphically as well as regard the Hebrew accepted transcription system of Judeo-

21 ytçw çdwqh ˆwçl awh qr ,hlylj hlylj ,tymra hrzgm taz yk wbçj μybrw (1 g) twwç twnwçlh

the fundaments of comparison and the restrictions

33

Arabic. If some minor differences in the sounds of certain phones are set aside, such as those of the letters b and k, which in Hebrew and in Aramaic have two phonetic values they are sometimes pronounced with dagesh and other times aspirated, whereas in Arabic these are monophones, i.e. with dagesh, it can be said that the congruences hold true phonologically, too. Thus the basic chart of correspondences reads: a, b, g, d (nowadays termed 1d) h, w, z (= 1z), j (= 1j), f (= 1f), y, k, l, m, n, s, [ (= 1[), p, x (= 1x), q (= 1q), r, ç (= 1ç), t. For example, in the threefold comparison of bt;K/ ] bt…K/] BatæKi the letter k is identical in all three languages; likewise the two letters t and b. This chart of equivalents was acceptable to all Hebrew grammarians in medieval times (nowadays, also). Those who opposed comparison with Arabic adopted the chart only insofar as the Hebrew-Aramaic correspondences are concerned. The above chart is, however, only part of a largerscale Table of Comparison. The element complementing the abovementioned basic chart and thereby completing the table comprises Hebrew letters matched by Aramaic and/or Arabic parallel letters by a system of substitution; the substitutions may be phonetic or graphic in nature. The exhaustive Correspondence Table, which is really an abstraction, was not accepted in its entirety by all the Hebrew grammarians. Some adopted the greater part while others made use of only a small part. Mena˙em practises the substitution system for the letters yùùwha alone and postulates comparisons with Aramaic only, whereas Ibn Barùn extends the scope to the utmost, incorporating 49 Heb./Arab. letter substitutions.22 The remaining grammarians stand midway between the two extremes. We set out herewith a Comparative Table of Correspondences by Letter Substitutions for six Hebrew grammarians, whose respective methods and theories in this field are known fairly well in the scholarly world.

22 Téné, (1983, §5.2) enumerates 43 substitutions used by Ibn Barùn; three further substitutions, namely g-ùg, a-h and t-y (see below, table and note) are to be included as well as an additional three substitutions, listed by Téné, in the paragraph dealing with taß˙ìf (= erroneous graphic interchanges in Arabic), i.e. z-r, jùg and g-[ (ibid., §5.4).

chapter two

34

2.4.1 Table of Hebrew-Arabic letter substitution according to several Hebrew grammarians23 Substitution Heb./Arab. a-[ a-h a-w a-y b-p b-m g-ùg g-ùk g-k g-[25 g-g d-t d-ùt d-ùd d-x d-ùx w-a w-y z-ùd26 z-r z-x27

23

Ibn Quraysh

Alfàsi

Dunash

Ibn Janà˙

Ibn Bal'am

= =24 = =

(=) = =

= =

=

(=) = = =

=

= =

= =

= =

= = = = = = = = =

=

=

Ibn Barùn

=

= = =

=

=

= = =

The data in this table have been partially culled from the listings of Téné (1983, n. 69 regarding Alfàsi and §5.2 regarding Ibn Barùn) as well as those of Becker, 1984, pp. 37–38. 24 Téné (1983, 5.2) failed to mention the substitution g-ùg in the list of Ibn Barùn’s substitutions; but this substitution is implicit in his comparisons çrg/çyrùg, hççgn/sùg, μçg/μsùg (p. 167). The substitution a-h also is clearly implied in the comparisons hahn, an-yhn (ibid., p. 169) 25 Bacher (1884, pp. 33–34) enumerated g-h as one of Ibn Janà˙’s substitutions; cf also Becker (1984, p. 39, n. 27) but see below, 13.2.1. 26 (Téné, 1983, n. 69) entered z-d as an additional substitution, for Alfàsi. The proof adduced is not from an explicit comparison; therefore the comparison and thus the substitution cannot be considered certain. As for f-ùf, it should be noted that the relevant comparison is non-explicit. On the other hand, in Téné ibid., the following substitutions should be added: g-ùk, d-ùx, z-d, j-ùk, [-g; the Heb.-Aram. substitutions are also to be added. 27 Téné (ibid., n. 61) ascribes this substitution for Ibn Quraysh also; but this remains a matter of uncertainty, for the reason that the pair of words jrzak/jyrxlak

the fundaments of comparison and the restrictions

35

(cont.) Substitution

j-a j-ùg j-ùk j-[ j-k j-h f-t f-ùd f-ùf y-a y-h y-w k-ùg29 k-ùk k-q l-r30 l-n n-l n-m z-s ç-s x-s [-ùk [-g p-b

Ibn Quraysh

=

Alfàsi

=

Dunash

=

Ibn Janà˙

= (=)

Ibn Bal'am

=

(=) 28

(=) =

(=) =

=

=

Ibn Barùn = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

= = = = = =

= =

= =

= =

= =

=

= =

=

were adduced solely for an illustration of grammatical comparison (k/k as a prefix of similarity). Becker (1984, pp. 37–38) excludes this substitution pair from the list of Ibn Quraysh; cf also p. 343, n. 1 (ibid.) 28 This substitution is applied by Ibn Janà˙ in Aram.-Arab. comparisons. 29 Téné (ibid., n. 62) records the substitution k/ùg for Ibn Quraysh on the basis of the comparison tyçk/twsùg; Becker, on the other hand (ibid., pp. 37–38) excludes it. We opine that its inclusion is justified, for Ibn Quraysh compares twçk with Rab. Heb. entry hsg. The existence of the two aforementioned comparisons provides ground for carrying over the intra-Hebrew comparison k-g into the realm of Heb.-Arab. substitutions as k/ùg. 30 Téné (ibid., n. 63) ascribes the substitution l-m to Ibn Quraysh, his grounds being the comparison wtlglg/htmùgmùg. However, these translation synonyms are adduced (Risàla, C1, p. 546), rather than for their own sake (and certainly not for the sake of the aforementioned substitution), as part of one section of a verse, which itself is cited for the discussion of another word, i.e. (wtlglg ta) ≈rtw ( Judg. 9:53) and as illustration of the substitution ùx/x. Becker (ibid., pp. 37–38) indeed excludes this substitution (l-m) from those of Ibn Quraysh.

chapter two

36 (cont.) Substitution

x-s x-ùx x-ùf q-k r-l ç-t ç-ùt ç-z ç-s ç-x ç-f c-ç t-ùt t-f t-y32

Ibn Quraysh

Alfàsi

Dunash

= = =

= =

= =

=

=

=

=

=

=

= = =

= =

=

Ibn Janà˙

Ibn Bal'am

Ibn Barùn

= = =

= =

= = = = = =

31

= = =

= =

= =

= =

=

= = = =

2.4.1.1 Classified summary of data in figures The following 9 substitutions were approved and used by all Hebrew grammarians: g-ùg, z-ùd, j-ùk, [-g, x-ùx, x-ùf, ç-t, ç-s, c-ç 18 substitutions are used jointly by several of the Heb. grammarians; out of these, the following 13 are used by two grammarians only: a-h, b-p, g-ùk, g-k, g-[, g-g, w-y, j-[, f-ùf, k-ùg, k-ùk, p-b, q-k; one by three grammarians: s-ç; 4 by four grammarians: d-ùd, y-w, sx, t-ùt. 35 substitutions in our table are known each to have been used by only one Hebrew grammarian; in detail: 2 substitutions are uniquely used by R. Judah b. Quraysh: ç-f, n-m. 2 substitutions are uniquely used by Alfàsi: d-ùx, [-ùk.

31

Used as a substitution in Aram./Arab. comparison. Ibn Barùn compares ttr with hytr (Kitàb al-Muwàzana p. 95). This comparison would seem to posit two substitutions: (a) t-ùt (as regard the first t in ttr); (b) t-y (as to the second t of (ttr by a taß˙ìf switch: t and y in Arabic differ from each other, as to their diacritical points only, otherwise these two letters are graphically identical. 32

the fundaments of comparison and the restrictions

37

4 substitutions are uniquely used by R. Jonah ibn Janà˙: a-h, f-

t, x-s, ç-z. 27 substitutions, representing almost one half of the total number, are used by Ibn Barùn alone. A certain number of these may well have been adopted owing to the phonetic affinity between the two sounds (clearly, this affinity has to be defined in accord with the categories and terms current in the works of the Hebrew grammarians, such as Riqma, p. 36): laryngeals: a-[, j-a, j-h; labials: b-m; linguals: d-t, d-ùt, f-ùd, l-r (?), l-n, n-l, r-l (?), t-f; dentals: z-x, s-z, ç-x; palatals; k-q. Several letters constituting letter substitution pertain to the special group yùùwha a-w, a-y, w-a, y-a, y-h. Certain substitutions Ibn Barùn himself explained on grounds of taß˙ìf (Arabic graphic interchange): d-x, z-r, j-ùg (Téné, 1983, pp. 266–267), likewise t-y. Finally, two substitutions defy classification according to the above categories: j-k, ç-t. Thus the sum total of substitutions in the Table is 61. Only 12 of this total are unattested by Ibn Barùn, in all probability because his work did not survive in its entirety. For each of the other grammarians there can be abstracted, in descending order, smaller totals of substitutions: For Ibn Janà˙, 23 substitutions; for Ibn Quraysh, 19; for Alfàsi, 17; for Dunash, 14; and for Ibn Bal'am, 11. It is probable that in the case of some grammarians the fairly low totals of substitutions are due to the incomplete surviving documentation of their works. As already noted, the comparison data encountered in the writings of Dunash b. Labrat as a whole are not truly representative, in that the character of Dunash’s opus is essentially selective in nature. For Ibn Bal'am, the comparison data have yet to be exhaustively culled from his biblical commentary. At any rate, I have incorporated in the table only those substitutions, whose employment can be quite definitely determined, whether from absolutely explicit application or from more or less explicit instances, as for the working hypotheses of the Hebrew grammarians in toto. The disparity between the total substitutions used by Ibn Barùn, 49, and the totals abstracted from the works of the other grammarians is certainly remarkable; 27 switches are unique to Ibn Barùn alone! A rationale for this phenomenon has already been put forward by P. Kokowtzow (1893, pp. 84–89) and more recently by Téné, (1983, p. 267ff.). Let this suffice for the moment.

chapter two

38 2.4.2

Table of letter substitutions: Hebrew-Aramaic

Substitution Heb.-Aram. a-[ b-p g-k g-q d-z h-a w-y z-d f-t s-ç x-f ç-t

2.4.3

Ibn Quraysh

Alfàsi

Ibn Janà˙

=

= = =

Ibn Bal'am

Habavli

= =

= = = =

= =

= = = = =

=

Table of letter substitutions: Aramaic-Arabic

Substitution Aram.-Arab. g-ùg z-ùd j-ùk f-ùf s-ç [-g q-ùg q-k ç-s t-ùt

Ibn Quraysh

=

Alfàsi

Ibn Janà˙

Ibn Bal'am

= = = =

=

=

= =33

= =

= = = = = =

The data in the above two Tables also is not to be considered exhaustive on account of the incomplete documentation. The nonexhaustivity is specifically predominant as for Ibn Bal'am; as for Dunash, not a single Heb./Aram. or Aram./Arab. substitution has been encountered, while Ibn Barùn very seldom recorded comparisons with Aramaic.

33

See Téné, 1983, n. 55.

the fundaments of comparison and the restrictions

39

Three-way language substitutions were hardly treated by the Hebrew grammarians. Only Alfàsi dealt with the three-way switch x-f-ùf (in comparison of the entries ybx/ybf/ybùf, (p. 143, entry wqa) and ç-ts in comparing the entries çy/ytya/sya (ibid., p. 79). The switch of the type x/[/ùx was not traced by the Hebrew grammarians.

2.5

The theory of the root and its effect on comparative philology

The theory of Óayyùj regarding the triliterality of the Hebrew root (see, recently, Goldenberg, 1980) did not affect the comparison of radices belonging to the regular verb; in certain cases such comparisons were rejected by later Hebrew grammarians but on different grounds. Several comparisons of weak radices as well as of geminate radices also remained unaffected; however, in the latter the concept of the root and thus the nature of the comparisons underwent a change. For example, the three comparisons πa/πna, ˚j/˚nh, lgm/lùgnm (as e.g. in R. Judah ibn Quraysh’s lexicon, p. 234, entry C1 37): before the time of Óayyùj, it was assumed that the n in the Aramaic or the Arabic was supplementary to the root, while the root was represented by the Hebrew forms. From Óayyùj’s time onward it became clear that the n belongs to the root: in Hebrew it is dropped (in forms without affixes) or is assimilated (in forms with affixes); (see e.g. R. Jonah b. Janà˙, "Ußùl, entries lgm p. 363; lgn, p. 405). As for the weak verbs, the comparisons of the root types subsequently termed yùùp and yùùl (or hùùl) can serve as a good illustration. When Alfàsi (vol. 2, p. 50) and R. Judah ibn Quraysh (C1, 177) compared the Hebrew root πjy with the Arabic cognate ypj, the assumption was that there existed full etymological concurrence between the two radices, i.e. pùùj(y)/(y)ù pj. But after Óayyùj’s time, the Hebrew grammarians (such as Ibn Barùn, Muwàzana p. 61) felt the need to posit an etymological stipulation for such a comparison, namely (a) the interchange of pùùhp (= the first radical) with pùùhl (= the third radical) or (b) the alternation of radical patterns (= yùùp-yùùl). Ibn Quraysh also compared abg with bùg on the assumption that the root is identical, namely, (a)bg/(b)bùg, whereas after the time of Óayyùj, such comparison remained valid solely on the understanding that there root pattern alternation existed between aùùl and [ùù[. In fact R. Jonah ibn Janà˙ compared abg with hybaùg, which clearly matches the root abg more suitably.

chapter two

40

Another example: R. Judah ibn Quraysh established a comparison wmh/wmah (C1 132, p. 254), assuming that the two verbs were cognate (of the same root); however, Ibn Barùn (Muwàzana, p. 168b) posited a qualification for the comparison, stating that its validity depends on pattern alternation. Yet there are cases in which later Hebrew grammarians ruled out comparisons established by earlier Hebrew grammarians, on account of more novel conceptions in Hebrew grammar, such as were introduced by Óayyùj. For instance, Alfàsi compares dwdg with (ˆyymd) ˆydgn (p. 301), jgn with (abrq) yjygm (p. 316), yzm (b[r) with (anwtal) hzml (ibid. root ùz, p. 469) and rwçm with rwsa (I, p. 129); his grammatical theory treated these pairs as identical radices in Hebrew and Aramaic respectively, i.e.: dùùg, jùùg, ùz, rùùs. From Óayyùj’s time onward, however, these comparisons were rejected, either e silentio (by their not being recorded at all) or in some cases explicitly (see Ibn Janàh, below, 13.18).

2.6

The semantic equivalence factor

A characteristic feature of the comparison theory of the Hebrew grammarians is that entries in two or more of the three relevant languages are compared on the grounds of common etymology only if the respective meanings of the entries are alike in the two languages. But grammarians do not make explicit mention of this issue, with the possible exception of two allusive statements. (1) Yehudi b. Sheshet (Stern p. 24; Varela Moreno, pp. *18, 36) states in one of his rejoinders that “the words of the Jewish language are not to be likened to those of the Arabic on the basis of phonological affinity (lit: “when the two are close in pronunciation”) but differing semantically (lit: “in their elucidation(s),” as, for example, ˚mjra (Ps. 18:2).” (2) Ibn Janà˙ ("Ußùl, entry ˆwrç, p. 749) brackets together hqbafm yn[mla (= semantic congruence) with ùfplla hsnaùgm (= phonological/ etymological similarity). The proximity of the terms points to the restriction under discussion. Actually the stand of the Hebrew grammarians can be ascertained only from their applied language comparison practice. Evidence for such conditioning is of two types: (a) positive indication (on the basis of comparisons actually adopted in many entries) and (b) negative evidence (absence of comparisons) in instances where comparison would be predictable, or on the basis

the fundaments of comparison and the restrictions

41

of an express or implied rejection of language comparison, as adduced by other grammarians. There is no need to deal at length with proofs of type (a). Suffice it to say that language comparisons that the Hebrew grammarians adopted conform to this principle. Such, for example, is the case in Heb./Aram. comparisons of the pattern Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram. (see below, 3.6.4 and 5.3.2.1). Negative evidence (b) is pertinent regarding the exhaustive biblical lexicons of Alfàsi and R. Jonah b. Janà˙ and to a limited extent regarding the comparative treatises of R. Judah ibn Quraysh and of Ibn Barùn; but it is inapplicable for the Egron of R. Sa'adiah Gaon and for the Ma˙beret of Mena˙em b. Saruq, the reason being the paucity of comparison materials in these lexicons. 2.6.1

Evidence from rejection of comparisons

In Risàla (C1, entry 278), Ibn Quraysh compares wrkny (Deut. 32:27) and hrkntmw (1 Kings 14:6) with the Arabic cognates wrkny (= they deny) and hrkntmw (= disguising herself, masquerading [fem. sing.]); he states bluntly, however, that these words should neither be correlated with rkn (1 Sam. 23:7) nor with rkn ynb (2 Sam. 22:45), etc. The implication is that despite the existence of a semantic link with the former entries, the latter entries are not to be compared with their Hebrew “counterparts”; and naturally not with the adduced Arabic cognate, for their meanings are non-concurrent. The same reservation can be detected, when the grammarian rejects the comparison μyalj/ylj (ibid., B22, p. 190): μyalj refers to the referent “a specific ornament,” whereas the cognate ylj in Arabic refers to the referent “ornaments in general,” since these two referents possess semantic affinity. But lacking an absolute semantic equivalence, they, too, are barred from serving as etymological synonyms. Dunash records a well-known instance of comparison rejection. In the entry ynjfw (Sáenz-Badillos, 1980 p. 113, ibid. 1981, p. 367) Dunash challenges Mena˙em b. Saruq: “You elucidated jmq, w[mçmk (= according to the meaning of its Arabic cognate);34 its correct elucidation is

34 jmqhw hfjh ayh tybr[b w[mçmk jmqh yk ,w[mçmk wnwrtp ˆyaw ,w[mçmk jmq trtpw .qbak qdh ˆwjfh awh tyrb[b On w[mçmk as used by Mena˙em, see below, ch. 10.1, devoted to Mena˙em’s comparisons.

42

chapter two

not w[mçmk; for the plain meaning of jmq in Arabic is wheat, whereas jmq in Hebrew means wheat ground fine like dust!” The modern-day linguist would summarize the above principle more or less as follows: Etymological parallels are not to be compared unless they are real synonyms. This proviso can be adduced additionally from a further objection raised by Dunash against Mena˙em, for his having compared ty[ra (Dan. 6:25) with [ra (= the Targum translation for ≈ra) (see Sáenz-Badillos 1980, p. 30; see also the retort to the latter by R. Tam, ed. Philipowski, p. 17). In "Ußùl 281/402, R. Jonah b. Janà˙ remarks that the word hlbn stems from the root lbn, in the sense of lpn (= fall); a carcass is so called because it is hlwpnw h[wrç (= outstretched and fallen); this is evident also from the word hlpm (hyrah tlpm, Judg. 14:8) which there connotes hlbn (= carcass). He further states explicitly that the word hlybn in Arabic, despite its phonetic and semantic similarity with the Heb. hlbn, has no connection with it; for the Arabic hlybn derives from a different semanteme, a metaphorical sense, i.e. lybn in the sense of açn ,μr ,lyxa (= noble, aristocrat, exalted); this term is used in Arabic for “carcass” on account of its being hhwbg ,taçn twjypnm (= elevated, high owing to swelling). Thus the “comparison” hlbn/hlybn is negative; it is cited merely to obviate an erroneous notion. In other words, a comparison cannot be maintained on the basis of mere external affinity, even in a case where the two entries undergoing treatment refer to the same referent, at least from the descriptive and applied perspective (for when all is said and done, the two words hlbn/hlybn are translation synonyms); a cognizance of the semantic background of the two translation synonyms as well as their respective relevance to the meanings of their respective radices, leads to the conclusion that no semantic concurrence exists between them; an etymological comparison between them is thus also ruled out. Furthermore, mere etymological equivalence between a Hebrew entry and an Arabic (or Aramaic) one cannot serve as a guarantee that the two entries possess semantic equivalence. For this reason, Ibn Janà˙ does not consider it sufficient to check the etymological equivalence but wherever possible sets up other restricting factors, too; it is not at all surprising that in his explanations he often resorts to a comparison with rabbinic Hebrew entries as well as to comparison with Arabic or Aramaic. A factor of decisive importance, which is checked out, is the semantic criterion. When a Hebrew

the fundaments of comparison and the restrictions

43

entry is etymologically congruent with an Arabic one, both entries being closely similar in their meaning but the semantic factor hampers the assumption that the two entries indeed refer to the same referent, then the etymological equivalence is considered valueless. For example, some authorities identified rpk (Cant. 1:14) with the Arabic rwpak (p. 329), most likely on the basis of etymological equivalence; however, R. Jonah b. Janà˙’s semantic parameter nullifies this identity for the reason that rp,K has a raceme (rpkh lkça ibid.), while the rwpak is without a raceme, though both are fragrant plants (see below, 13.18). 2.6.2

Evidence based on the avoidance of application of semantic connection

Alfàsi occasionally records, in the framework of one main entry, a number of subentries; this grammarian does not highlight any etymological liaison between the subentries, for the reason that in linguistic usage these are heterosemic. An example is çab in Hebrew versus atçyab in Aramaic; Alfàsi considers each of these an independent entry. Likewise Mena˙em b. Saruq; in root bx(y) (p. 148). In the third subsection of this root he records Hebrew entries from this root, in the sense of “standing,” such as bxytyw (1 Sam. 3:10), while in the fourth subsection, he places co-radical Aramaic entries, the sense of which is “truth” (hmh fçq ˆyyn[), such as byxy (Dan. 2:45); he sees no common feature bridging between the notion of “standing,” “firmness” and the notion of “truth.” Thus, failing semantic equivalence, the etymological connection is disregarded. 2.6.3

Evidence from a polysemic entry

2.6.3.1 Examples Example: The entry μwy is a polyseme. Alfàsi (II, p. 44) records therein two distinct senses: (1) rahn (= day as opposed to night); (2) μwy (= a complete 24–hour unit). It cannot be coincidental that in references for sense (1), no note is made of the cognate μwy; all the instances are translated, uniquely, by the term rahn. It is evident from this that in the case of what is a biblical polysemic entry (such as μwy), the Hebrew grammarians are giving expression to the various senses by means of differing Arabic translation synonyms (such

44

chapter two

as, in our case, rahn, μwy); but for one of the senses and for one only do they adopt an Arabic definition that is also a cognate, namely for that sense in which the entry and its definition are semantically equivalent (in our case: μwy in the sense 24 hours). In principle, this Arabic etymological cognate is one quite suitable for the entry word in all its senses; however, the Hebrew grammarians consistently avoid such a generalized indication. They do not view the etymological comparison as an entity distinct from the semantic linkage. A further example: Alfàsi translates the entry jyç (p. 317) initially tabnla ryasw . . . rùgç; only subsequently does this grammarian remark: jyç anlw . . . jyç . Prima facie, the etymological connection could have been mentioned with regard to the first of the senses discussed. Further examples: Entry hpç (II, p. 342) is defined by its Arabic cognate hpç only for the first sense (lip) but no further mention is made of the connection between these two etymological synonyms with regard to the other senses, i.e. hpç in the sense hgl (language), hpç in the sense hyçaj (edge), etc., although these senses are nowadays regarded as metonymic developments from the basic meaning “edge.” Likewise for jfç (p. 663) he defines/compares jfs but for jfç (μyypk) the definition is (ˆyypkla) fsb; for alm (p. 209) he defines/compares lamk, following which comes the definition “ample” (alm/wlm); for bçj (p. 593) he defines/compares bsj but twbçjm is defined tarybdt; afj (p. 533) is defined/compared afùk, while tafj is defined jùxn; [qr (p. 628) is defined/compared [qr, while for the senses listed earlier ([qr in the sense fsb and [qr in the sense qqr), the definition in each case is indicated without comparison. For πtk (p. 136) he defines/compares πtk while in the subsequent enumeration of senses, πtk is merely defined as bnaùg; πrj (p. 587) is defined as atç, in contrast with the expression yprj-ymy ( Job 29:4) for which he defines/compares ypyrùk μaya; μjl (p. 159) is first defined zbùk and only subsequently is μjl defined/compared with μjl; tm (p. 237) is first defined/compared with tam, tyam but in the causal sense tymh (= put to death, kill) the word is merely translated ltq. 2.6.3.2 The "Ußùl of R. Jonah ibn Janà˙ The same picture can be demonstrated in the "Ußùl of R. Jonah ibn Janà˙. In entry bçj (p. 253) he fails to link bçj defined as and compared with bsj with bçj defined as rkp, yar, ˆùf; nor (p. 219) does he link afj defined/compared yfùk with other senses of afj, i.e. defined rpgtsa, etc. Likewise (p. 335) with πtk: Its primary

the fundaments of comparison and the restrictions

45

definition is πwr[m (= well-known); he creates no connection between that sense of the root and between its second and third senses, hhùg hyjanw and ˆabyùg respectively; similarly with the entry μwy (p. 279): Its primary translation is rahn; only later in the entry is the word μwy defined/compared μaya; likewise (p. 738) no connection is drawn between hpç defined/compared hpç and hpç defined hyçaj or hpç defined hgl. Regarding the entry alm (pp. 374–76), Ibn Janà˙ takes the trouble to remark explicitly that this verb ought not to be translated mechanically, in each instance, as its etym. synonym cognate alm, since in some cases semantic concurrence is lacking; the translation should be either lmk or μt, according to the context. In the entry μjl (p. 351) an etymological link with the Arabic μjl is established only for the sense “meat,” this despite the fact that he provides a descriptive classification for the meanings of μj,l, and states explicitly that the primary sense of the word is lkay rça lkam lk (= any foodstuff) and in the great majority of occurrences, refers to hrw[çhm wa hfjhm hpam (= what is baked from wheat or from barley); no description is presented of the semantic narrowing of usage that occurred in Hebrew and it goes without saying that no mention or allusion is made regarding the narrowing of the sense of this word in Arabic, or in comparison therewith. The entry ≈pq (p. 640) in its basic sense is implicitly compared by R. Jonah with the Arabic cognate zpq but in positing a translation of ≈pq in the rabbinic Hebrew metaphorical usage ybwjb hnbgaç ydk wnwlaw ≈pqa (BT Gittin, 49b) he does not mechanically adopt the definition zpq, for the reason that with Arabic zpq the semantic development noted with ≈pq did not occur; he translates the expression: yçla yl[ bwùtww hrdabm. Of all the entries stemming from the root rbg, i.e. rybig,“ hr;Wbg“, rb'g,: etc. Ibn Janà˙ records comparison only for the entry showing semantic equivalence, i.e. rwbg (p. 122) defined/compared rabùg. Of the entries bkç (p. 719) Ibn Janà˙ records a comparison with bks only for those possessing semantic concurrence with the Arabic such as lfh tbkç (Exod. 16:14); the same applies to the several senses of entry lqçm (p. 746); each sense is translated by means of the translation synonym that matches it semantically: 1lqçm is translated ˆzw, while 2lqçm is translated/compared laqùtm; he does not establish an etymological link between these two entries and thus of course does not spell out a semantic development.35

35

It should be conceded that on this score the several grammarians very likely

46

chapter two

2.6.3.3 Works devoted to language comparison The same phenomenon can be traced in works devoted specifically to language comparison, i.e. works that are not necessarily complete lexicons. Ibn Quraysh in entry πtk (C1, p. 211) records merely a reference pertaining to the comparison of πtk with Arabic πtk, whereas references pertaining to other senses of the root are omitted. Likewise for entry root afj (C1, p. 493), the grammarian records only the words af]je and μyaiFj ; ', which match the sense applicable to the Arabic cognate yfùk but, for instance, he refrains from recording tafj, since the cognate does not concur semantically with this word. The situation is similar with μjl (C1, p. 219): the comparison refers only to the sense μjl (= meat), whereas for other senses of this entry no reference is made. 2.6.3.4 Ibn Barùn Ibn Barùn follows suit. In entry bçj, he records several references for the verb bçj, μtbçj (Gen. 50:20); bv'j;w (2 Sam. 14:13); wbC]jy' “ (2 Kings 12:16) comparing them with the Arabic cognate bsja; however, twbçjm is excluded. The root qry (Gen. 9:3; Exod. 10:15) he compares with qrw, defining its meaning as μyl[ (= leaves) but, for instance, he omits a reference to qrqry (Lev. 12:49). For [qr he adduces [yqr and compares it with the Arabic cognate but he omits any other word pertaining to this root. As regards afj compared with afùk, he fails to record, among other things, the form tafh, for the reason that this word would not be suitably translated by afùk. Even when Ibn Barùn posits comparisons not recorded by his predecessors, the validity of the comparison does not hold for all the senses of the Arabic cognate, while a diachronic description of the semantic links between the translation synonyms fails to appear; the comparison is always restricted to the concurrent meanings of the entry and to these alone. In Kitàb al-Muwàzana, p. 64, for example,

had differences of view. For instance: Alfàsi (p. 663) rather than rendering jfç (μyypk+) by means of an Arabic cognate syn., prefers the tr. syn (non-cognate) fsb; R. Jonah ibn Janà˙, in contrast ("Ußùl, p. 716) mentions both of these options. Similarly, in the case of entry [qr (see Ibn Janà˙, p. 689 and Alfàsi, above). However, the dispute (if such exists) is restricted to the question as to whether semantic congruence is to be assumed between homophonic Heb. and Arab. entries— not that one grammarian assumes historical semantic links while the other rejects them. A further instance can be noted: Ibn Quraysh, in contrast to Alfàsi and Ibn Barùn, adduces twbçjm (C1, p. 393) in his comparisons with Arabic bsj.

the fundaments of comparison and the restrictions

47

when comparing bçy with bùtw, the scope of reference is restricted to d[q yn[mb bùtw, as used by the residents of Óimyar; no reference is made to the other sense of bùtw (= jump). The same exclusion occurs in entry rma (ibid., p. 38): he compares with the Arabic rma only those instances of the Hebrew rma that have the meaning “command” but not the frequent Hebrew verb rma (in the sense of “say, speak”). Comparisons of the type hmda with Arabic hmda (such as are to be found in Alfàsi’s lexicon and elsewhere) are to be viewed in the same light. This comparison and others like it is not intended as a comparison of Hebrew hmda as to its diachronic connection with Arabic hmda (= outer shell, skin) but rather as setting an affinity semantically between the Arabic hmda and the Hebrew; Ibn Barùn makes an effort to find the Hebrew sense within an etymologically parallel Arabic usage, even if such can be found solely in a remote usage and a rare textual documentation of the word. 2.6.3.5 Omission of cognate translation synonyms In all the instances enumerated above as well as in many others it goes without saying that the Hebrew grammarians have no interest in tracing diachronic semantic connections between a Bib. Heb. entry with its several senses on the one hand and the Arabic translation synonym with its various senses on the other; but that is not all: within the Hebrew entry itself, no priority is given, in the arrangement of the several meanings of the entry word, to that specific meaning for which the Bib. Heb. entry is translated/compared with the Arabic cognate; the meaning for which the comparison is recorded appears in a random place within the several subsections of the entry. In the general Bible lexicons written by Alfàsi and by R. Jonah ibn Janà˙ further evidence is forthcoming for the above thesis. In these lexicons several entries appear for which the authors did not resort to cognate translation synonyms, although prima facie it would have been appropriate to record such cognates; the omission of such materials can only be explained on the grounds that these grammarians were concerned solely about etymological comparison if and when it can be associated with semantic concordance. For example, in the entry rmt (palm-tree) Alfàsi (p. 738) records the translation lùkn, while R. Jonah ibn Janà˙ (p. 764) states first πwr[m (well-known) and then second hlùkn; neither of the two grammarians make note of any historical semantic connection of the entry word with the

48

chapter two

Arabic cognate rmt. Likewise, the entry çbk: Alfàsi (p. 85) translates it ˆaùxw πwrùk, while Ibn Janà˙ (p. 307) renders it hùg[nw lmj; neither makes reference to the cognate çbk. Similarly with the entry blj: Alfàsi (p. 551) and R. Jonah (p. 226) both translate it ˆbl; and both grammarians refrain from setting up a link for this entry word with the Arabic cognate bylj; and so on. Only in the works of R. Jonah b. Janà˙ and Ibn Barùn have I found a small number of cases, constituting a breach of this principle. Below, I enumerate the instances that run counter to the norm. 1. The entry qza (20/31) is defined by R. Jonah b. Janà˙: [mawùg lalgaw (Ibn Tibbon translates: μyl[w twrswm); he posits a comparison with etymological parallels that are not translation synonyms, namely qza-qzam, in the sense of hmjlmb hqwxm (military predicament) and hkr[mh hdç (battlefield). The grammarian determines that the connection between the Hebrew qza and the Arabic qza is limited to what present-day linguistics refers to as “a single feature,” in this case qyùx (rendered by Ibn Tibbon: wqwx rwb[b (= on account of his straits). 2. A further instance of comparing of entries between which affinity of meaning exists, though without absolute equivalence: In comparing [wxqm/lymza/lymza (453/642), Ibn Janà˙ notes that lymza in Aramaic signifies wawlmb ylkh (the utensil as a whole) (its non-etym. synonym in Hebrew being [wxqm). In Arabic on the other hand, lymza has a more restricted signification, namely “merely the blade of such an implement.” Indeed, the phraseology adopted (ibid.) i.e.: hrpçll hùfplla hùdh br[la tra[tsaw may well imply that the original signification was the one current in Aramaic, whereas the specialization of meaning occurred within Arabic (this of course is not meant to imply that this word is a loan word in Arabic!). 3. A similar picture appears with regard the comparison μrg/μrg/mùf[ (99/144). The Hebrew μrg and the Arabic μùf[ have equivalent meanings, their basic (a) and metaphorical (b) meanings respectively: (1) the basic signification, “organ of the body”; (2) the metaphorical sense, “the substance of something, the essence.” The Aramaic word μrg, however, is used only in sense (1). Despite this, the grammarian had no qualms about setting up a semantic comparison in which the metaphorical signification (2) appears. 4. Several such cases can be found in the work of Ibn Barùn, too. For the comparison rsb/rsb (p. 165) he posits a restriction of the semantic congruence, namely that in Hebrew the entry word can

the fundaments of comparison and the restrictions

49

signify any fruit that is unripe, whereas in Arabic the sense is restricted to “the unripe fruit of the palm-tree.” 5. A similar case in which Ibn Barùn sets a restriction regarding a semantic equivalence can be found in the comparison of rab (a well of running water) with Arab. ryb as against the comparison of rwb (a pit that must be dug and does not contain water) with ryb. For additional cases of etymological congruences in which the relatedness is characterized by a plain sense of the entry word for one member versus a metaphorical sense for the other, see qrz/qrz, πnj/πnj. Even in these instances, the grammarians do not trace a development in the Hebrew signification vis-à-vis the etymologically parallel Arabic signification, or vice versa. What is shown by these instances is a restriction of the semantic congruence of the translation synonym or a statement of the semantic affinity between the two parallel entities, in other words, an indication of partial equivalence, namely an equivalence in respect of a single semantic feature common to the two etymological parallels irrespective of the question as to whether the two are indeed translation synonyms, or ever served as such.

CHAPTER THREE

EXPLICIT COMPARISONS

Two characteristic features are present in explicit lexical comparison: (1) The grammarian recording a comparison juxtaposes two lexical entries, pertaining to two distinct languages. (2) A special expression is used to indicate that there exists a linkage, whether etymological, or semantic, or of whatever kind, between the two entries.

3.1

The nomenclature of the languages and the terminology for comparison

The stock of expressions serving in this context is fairly well defined and virtually unambiguous. By and large the nomenclature and term recur for each and every language comparison, with very few changes or variations. The repeated application and occurrence of each expression and/or term led to a professional technicalization of these usages in comparative language science. It is reasonably probable that terms consisting of one word and embodying the nucleus of the term are an outcome of a reduction of the basic expansive expressions that can be seen to be structured on the same nucleus. However, the opposite development may also have occurred, i.e. concise expressions that were originally customary underwent an expansion, thus bringing about more lengthy phraseology. The range of terms must be considered an essential element in the comparison methodology (of each and every grammarian, lexicographer and exegete) and corresponds with each respective “system” of concepts. The terminology adopted by the grammarians is highly instructive for an appreciation of the character of their theories of language comparison, whether individual theories or those held in common by one or other of the schools of the medieval linguists. Terms can further serve us in tracing whether or not one lexicographer relied on another.1 For these reasons a study of the terminological 1

For instance, judging from the comparison terms adopted respectively by R. Judah

explicit comparisons

51

system is important for its own sake. Certain terms can serve as excellent examples. For instance, it became necessary (below, 10.1) to determine whether the term w[mçmk as used by Mena˙em in his Ma˙beret, although this expression in itself shows no evidence of its being a comparison term, belongs in fact to the “term system” or not. Were it indubitably clear that this expression implies language comparison, Mena˙em’s inventory of comparisons would expand considerably, for it would then also incorporate those instances in which the term w[mçmk is utilized (below, 10.1). What is more, it is subsequently shown that the range of terms also includes zero term. In other words, comparisons can be discerned in which no external indicator shows a motive of comparison. The adoption of the term “zero” in itself has far-reaching implications for determining the complete inventory of language comparisons used by the Hebrew grammarians. For instance, several Heb./Aram. explicit comparisons on which no doubt can be cast were recorded with a zero comparative term. Such an assumption is also very probable in the case of many non-explicit Heb./Arab. comparisons. Furthermore, an elucidation of the precise meaning of several expressions that may be, at least potentially, terms for lexical borrowing, implying Aramaic or Arabic borrowings in Hebrew, is of prime importance for deciding what is to be reckoned as part of the comparison inventory and what is to be excluded from it. Apart from the significance of terminological definition for determining the scope of the corpus of comparisons, this aspect is essential for resolving debatable and problematic issues as regards the nature of certain comparisons, and their aims. For example, in entry rM'ai (p. 118) Alfàsi compares the entries consisting of the translation synonyms çbk/rma (Exod. 29:35) and subjoining two Hebrew nominals belonging to the semantic field twrwhfh twmhbh (= pure beasts) with their Aramaic counterparts: μyrp/ˆyrwt (Exod. 24:5) and μylyaw/ˆyrkd (Exod. 25:5). It is very likely that this apparent digression from the “topical” lexicon entry word under consideration in fact characterizes a common practice of this grammarian to provide a full explication of the source text cited for lexical purposes, together with its wider context, in this case the phrase ˆyrwt ˆyrma ˆyrkd (Ezra 7:17). This is not an exceptional instance but a clear example of Alfàsi’s habit of expanding his lexical definition by setting out an elucidation of the biblical source phrase in its entirety. b. Quraysh and Alfàsi, it is doubtful if interdependence between the two can be definitively determined (Becker, 1984, pp. 74–77).

52

chapter three

As a rule this tendency is noticeable in cases of extensive exegetical discussion or instances about which differences of opinion prevail as to their interpretation; in contrast, setting out a Hebrew translation for a series of consecutive Aramaic words cannot be considered as exegesis of any specific note. It would therefore seem preferable to treat the above-mentioned excerpt as a discussion on a minor detail and of to the semantic field concerned. Here the terminology adopted is indeed instructive. As we have discovered, the inventory of terms denoting semantic comparison is essentially and linguistically different from such colorless expressions as μwgrtw, that cannot be reckoned as a specific comparison term; the latter is indeed the standard term for translational comparisons in instances that present no semantic discussion. Furthermore, a scrutiny of the terminological system reveals not only the concepts expressly contained in it but also what is lacking in it of its prima facie components or of what constitutes other systems of terminology. For example, the non-appearance of a clear-cut term for word loan (that might have signified the borrowing of an entry in one language from that in another) such as ù≈artqa or hra[tsa in the discipline of language comparison of the Hebrew grammarians, as well as the absence of an explicit expression testifying to a language apparatus of this kind in the set of the non-specific terms, lends support to the conclusion that the Hebrew grammarians did not literally imply the existence of word borrowing in Hebrew from Arabic or Aramaic, despite that at first sight the terms adopted might seem to convey the impression of word loan. The range of terms may also serve as a philological criterion for ascertaining the authenticity of texts attributed to certain authors. For instance, in the textual variants glossed in later copies and abridgments of Kitàb Jàmi' al-"AlfàΩ, certain terms alien to the set of terms indubitably used by David b. Abraham himself can be noted. One example: in the comparison μyç/μyç according to MSS X and Z (pp. 331–32) the term ynadskla is used. This expression, unknown elsewhere in the scope of language comparison, is adopted (albeit only twice) by Alfàsi ( Jàmi' al-"AlfàΩ I, pp. 3, 153) but not as a term of comparison. The abnormality in such usage serves as grounds for suspicion regarding the authentic attribution to Alfàsi of the glossed variants in these MSS; on these grounds it is likely that these lectiones are copyists’ later additions.2 2

The nomenclature for the several languages and the comparison terms used by

explicit comparisons

53

For the terminologies of R. Judah b. Quraysh and Ibn Barùn, references are merely made to earlier studies. In the present section, a rather generalized and concise statement is set out and no more. Those terms for which no specific source is referenced can be assumed to be general terms, utilized by all the Hebrew grammarians or most of them. 3.1.1

The nomenclature for the languages

The three languages that were systematically treated by the Hebrew grammarians are Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic. These languages are referred to sometimes, each by its respective name (below) and sometimes collectively, by the name tagl ùtalùtla (= the three languages) (so Ibn Bal'am) or by the more elaborate expression ùtalùtla ahanml[ ytla tagl (= the three languages with which we are familiar) (so Alfàsi). The specific language nomenclature, however, is far more frequent. 3.1.1.1 Nomenclature for Hebrew The names for Hebrew are ynarb[la, yrb[ ˆwçl (so Dunash and R. Judah ibn Tibbon), çdwq(h) ˆwçl (so R. Judah ibn Quraysh, p. 119) and lyarsa ynb hgl (so R. Sa'adiah Gaon). Occasionally the given term denotes the speaker of the language rather than the language itself; for Hebrew speakers the regular term is ˆwynarb[la (so R. Sa'adiah and Ibn Janà˙); once only R. Sa'adiah uses the term lyarsa ynb. These terms, it goes without saying, relate to Hebrew speakers of the biblical and Mishnaic epochs, not to Hebrew readers or writers contemporary with the Hebrew grammarians themselves. 3.1.1.2 Nomenclature for Aramaic The most characteristic name for the Aramaic language with its various dialects is ynayrs (Syriac or Syrian). This name is a transformation, first in Greek, and subsequently in Arabic, of the Hebrew term tyrwça. The latter of course was originally the name for another

each grammarian are dealt with in detail in separate sections, below (for R. Sa'adiah, see section 4.7; for Alfàsi, 9.11; for Mena˙em b. Saruq, 10.3; for Mena˙em’s disciples, 10.5; for Dunash b. Labrat, 11.5.1; for R. Hai Gaon, 14.1.3; for Abu alFaraj, 14.2.5; for Judah Óayyùj, 12.3; for R. Jonah b. Janà˙ and R. Judah b. Tibbon, 13.19; for Ibn Bal'am, 15.2.4; for Abraham HaBavli, 14.4.

54

chapter three

Semitic language nowadays termed Akkadian but at some point in early history, subsequent to the extinction of Akkadian as a spoken language and to its widespread oblivion, it was generally thought that “Assyrian” equals “Aramaic” (tyrwça equals tyrws).3 For example, Alfàsi’s Arabic rendering for the name tymra in the biblical verse (2 Kings 18:26) tymra ˚ydb[ la an-rbd is lwqy ahypw ynayrsla hgl yh and for the name μydçk ˆwçl (another biblical term for Aramaic) his rendering of Dan. 1:4 μydçk ˆwçlw rps μdmllw (root mwa, p. 153; introduction p. 3) is: ynadskla hgl ˆm adz[w laynd yp am. This term ynayrs is commonly used by most of the Hebrew grammarians,4 and is applied also to post-biblical Aramaic (Poznanski 1896, p. 16; 1909, p. 256, n. 2). Apart from ynayrs, the following three designations appear for Aramaic: (h)ynadskla (R. Sa'adiah, the transmitters of Alfàsi’s work, and R. Hai Gaon); ydçk ˆwçl (Dunash b. Labrat); (la) yfbn (R. Sa'adiah, Ibn Bal'am [once], R. Hai [4 times, within a fairly short extract of text]). H. Lammens (1890, p. 177) quotes in the name of Palgrave a conjectural etymology for the term yfbnla: “an appellation used by the Arabs for the non-Arab population resident in Aram Naharayim.” In fact, this term is in the main used by the Babylonian grammarians. The common designation for this language in the works of the grammarians who wrote Hebrew is (t)ymra or (t)ymra ˆwçl (so Mena˙em b. Saruq, Dunash, HaBavli, and R. Judah ibn Tibbon). Terms used to designate the Aramaic speakers of the ancient past are: ˆyynadskla (hgl) (R. Sa'adiah; see Bacher 1895, p. 249, n. 1), tymra yl[b (Mena˙em), ˆylwala (lwq) (for talmudic Aramaic and so for Aramaic generally, Ibn Bal'am), and lyawala (lwq) (so R. Jonah b. Janà˙). Several terms that eventually came to designate Aramaic are literally designations for Aramaic literary texts: (hgl), μwgrt, μwgrt ˆwçl

3 The events set out in 2 Kings 18:17–28 may well have served to strengthen the identification of the two, for Ravshaqeh, an “Assyrian,” spoke Aramaic. See also Oßar Ha-Ge"onim to Tractate Gittin, § 28, p. 13: wçk[ awhç ysrws btkw ysrws ˆwçlw arqn awh μwqm wtwa μç-l[ ynayrws wtwa ˆyarwqw lbbb μyyrxn ydyb (the Sursian Language and the Sursian script which at present is in the hands of the Nazeriyyim in Babylon and which people call Suryane, it is named after that location, namely Syria). D. Rubens (1881) in his introduction discusses the origins of the two names tyrws and tymra; see also Epstein, 1982, p. 49, n. 183, and the bibliography ibid. pp. 51–53. 4 Clearly this term is absent from the works of those grammarians who wrote in Hebrew or from those whose writings little has survived.

explicit comparisons

55

μwgrt la (R. Sa'adiah Gaon, Dunash, R. Judah b. Tibbon); laynd; swlqnwa; layzw[ ˆb ˆtnwy (so R. Sa'adiah, Alfàsi, Mena˙em and his disciples). The term μwgrt serves mainly to designate Targumic Aramaic and in this connotation the term occurs as early as the Mishnah (Megillah, I, 1); however, the term was used for biblical Aramaic also, as in Mishnah Yadayim IV, 5; Bavli, Shabbat 115a.5 Talmudic Aramaic is termed dwmlt (so R. Hai Gaon and R. Jonah b. Janà˙), dwmlt ˆyçl (so R. Judah b. Tibbon); this dialect is sometimes even called hnçm ˆwçl or hnçm (see Abramson 1974, p. 175; Becker 1984, p. 33 and n. 12; Epstein 1982, pp. 31, 38, 52). 3.1.1.3 Nomenclature for the Arabic language The name most extensively used for the Arabic language is ybr[, with several variations: (h)ybr[la, br[la μalk (so Ibn Janà˙, Ibn Bal'am), br[la ˆasl (ibid.). In Hebrew writing the language is designated (y)la[mçy ˆwçl (so Dunash, Ibn Bal'am), ybr[ ˆwçl (ibid., R. Judah b. Tibbon), yrgh ˆwçl (so Dunash). The nomenclature for Arabic occasionally refers to a certain aspect of the language only, rather than to the language as a whole; the aspect implied might be, for example, phonology or etymology, under the term ybr[la ùfplla. Various terms are used for Arabic speakers. The most frequent is br[la—in Hebrew br[h (so Ibn Tibbon); other terms: μyla[mçyh (Ibn Bal'am). The latter by and large designates the ancient Arabs as well as their mother tongue as reflected in the grammar books and lexicons; however, the reference in the Hebrew grammarians is sometimes to contemporary Arabic-speakers or even to their compatriots (specifically). For this restricted usage the following are used: sanla (R. Sa'adiah); μwqla (ibid.); andn[, qar[la yp, ˆmyla lha, hma[la, (the latter four terms are used by Ibn Janà˙). Occasionally Ibn Janà˙ quotes the Arab linguists or their works, in a general way, rather than by their individual names; the expressions used are dn[ br[la aml[; br[la batk yp.

5 See Encyclopaedia Judaica, Vol. 15, col. 811, entry “Targum”. See also Epstein 1982, p. 65.

56 3.1.2

chapter three Terms used for comparison

3.1.2.1 Heb./Arab. and Heb./Aram. comparisons As a rule, terms commonly used in comparing Hebrew with Arabic are customary for Hebrew/Aramaic comparison also. There are, however, several terms whose application is specifically for comparison with one or other of the two languages (the special usages are indicated below, in each case) and not for both. The terms for comparison are often extremely condensed, as, for example, when the term is concerned with a single letter or a single short particle attached to a word or phrase designating one of the languages. In such cases, a particle is not itself an indicator of a comparison; this is identified by the phraseology as a whole. An abstraction of the phraseology would read: “(Hebrew) entry word A (is) in Aramaic (or: in Arabic) B.” From this expression one is to deduce that equivalence exists between the Hebrew entry and its counterpart in the other language, or that the two are in fact identical. The particles used are b, yp, dn[ together with a name of one of the languages, as br[la μalk yp, ynayrsla hglb. At times the particle is accompanied by a verb with the meaning of “being” or of “knowing,” thus: ynayrsla yp . . . rwhçm ,. . . yp ùfplla aùdh ˆwky ,(ynayrsla) yp dùgn dqw (these examples are from entries of Ibn Janà˙). The particle may at times be a personal pronoun such as awh or ayh functioning as a copula that links (or identifies) the word in question with its counterpart in the other language. Examples: ymra ˆwçl awhw (HaBavli); . . . μwgrt awh (Dunash); . . . . hybr[w hynayrs hùfpl yhw (R. Jonah ibn Janà˙); μwgrtla hglb wh (R. Sa'adiah); μgrtmla lwq whw (Alfàsi). 3.1.2.2 Words with the sense of “alternative” or “substitute” Sometimes the term of comparison is a word with the sense of “alternative” or “substitute,” from which follows, as an extension, the word “translation” (μwgrt). The sense then is the “substitute” in Arabic or Aramaic for the Hebrew entry word X is Y; thus ynarb[la yp hmaqm (R. Sa'adiah); wmk μaqm πk (R. Judah ibn Quraysh, B67, p. 7); . . . μaqm yhw (Alfàsi). For the latter implication, as might be expected, the term frequently used is “translation” (μwgrt), in Hebrew or in Arabic, thus wmwgrtw (Mena˙em); hmwgrtw or htmùgrtw. This expression may sometimes be preceded by a causal conjunction, as: μwgrt yk (Ibn Bal'am); μwgrt hnal (R. Sa'adiah, Alfàsi et al.). Another commonly used particle is ˆm. When this particle is adjoined to one or

explicit comparisons

57

other of the names for Aramaic or Arabic it serves to indicate, prima facie, the “source” of the entry word; however, the true import is merely that of comparison (see 2.3 on word loans). Examples: /hgl ˆm ynayrsla lwq (Ibn Janà˙); tymrah yrbdm (R. Judah ibn Tibbon); ˆm μwgrt (Alfàsi); μwgrt ˆwçl ˆm (R. Sa'adiah); ˆwlwala lwq ˆm (Ibn Bal'am); la[mçy ˆwçl ˆm/ˆwçlm (Dunash, (Ibn Bal'am). At times there is a directional reversal of the source phrase(ology): μùgrtmla lwqy hnmw (Ibn Bal'am). For an extension of the source particle, the following verbs/ verbals can be added: ˆm qtçm (Alfàsi, Ibn Janà˙) qaqtça ˆm (Alfàsi); ˆm ùdwùkam (Abu Al-Faraj, Ibn Janà˙). 3.1.2.3 Translation by means of certain verbs At times the Hebrew grammarians designate the translation synonym in the other language by means of certain verbs. It is then that the general context determines the application of comparison; for these verbs in particular are not generally used to imply language comparison. The verbs used are semantemes of lwq (saying, calling); hymst (appellation); qalfa (appellation; R. Sa'adiah); lam[tsa (use, sense; R. Sa'adiah, Alfàsi, Ibn Janà˙) with its Hebrew parallel çwmyç (Dunash); hmùgrt (translation); jalfxa (terminology; R. Sa'adiah); [wqw (correspondence, overlapping; Alfàsi, Ibn Janà˙); anb (structuring on a formula; Alfàsi). These verbs are used at times to delineate a limited linguistic action whether of grammatical, semantic or other nature. Examples: ùda yla ˆyj ˆwpyùxyw (R. Hai); ynayrsla yp ˆwmùkpy dq (R. Sa'adiah); . . . πxt br[law (Ibn Janà˙); Hebrew parallels: . . . wrps tymra yl[bw (Mena˙em); . . . ˆyyn[h hzm wprx al μyla[mçyhw (Ibn Bal'am); ˚lùdkw, br[la tra[tsaw, lùtmla hb brùxt br[la, br[la [stt (all three, Ibn Janà˙); μwgrtla hgl yp za¤g am yl[ (R. Sa'adiah). 3.1.2.4 Word or verbs in the usage of comparison The following terms are founded on, or derived from, a word or verb in the general service or usage of comparison; as a result they became fit for use as comparison terms. They are: . . . hlwq ryùfn, lùtm, (Alfàsi); tymra ˆwçlb wnwymdw (Ibn Tibbon); wmk, ˆkw (Mena˙em, Ibn Tibbon, Ibn Bal'am); hlkç ˆmw ˚lùdkw, aùdkhw, amk (. . . lwq)k, (Alfàsi); . . . hqyrf yl[ (transmitters of Alfàsi’s work). The following verbs, whose general connotation is that of similarity, equivalence, identity, congruence, concurrence, affinity or interrelation between diverse entities, were commonly earmarked for language comparison; the prominent examples: hbç in its various forms, as ùfplla yp htbaçm

58

chapter three

(Ibn Quraysh, p. 343, according to Becker’s index of terms, p. 382), ˚rtça (Ibn Quraysh; Alfàsi), ˆytglla hyp tkrtça (Alfàsi); hsnaùgm (mainly from the time of Ibn Janà˙ and onward. Regarding the term synùgt as used by Ibn Bal'am, see Kokowtzow, 1916, III 202, n. 4; on its use by Ibn Barùn, see Wechter, n. 318); hglla yp hbsanm (only Ibn Quraysh, ib); hbraqm (frequently used by most Hebrew grammarians); dy[b in the sense of “contrast,” as the opposite of hbraqm: as hglla yp dy[b yç . . . ˆyb sylw (Alfàsi); . . . twast (Ibn Quraysh, p. 335; Ibn Janà˙); hqpawm or qapta6 (most Hebrew grammarians); hnzawm (once in Ibn Quraysh, p. 299. This term serves also as the title for Ibn Barùn’s work) (see Eppenstein 1900–01, p. 236); t[mùg or t[mtùga (Alfàsi); yrùgm . . . yrùg (Óayyùj; Ibn Janà˙); hlkaçm (Ibn Janà˙); also the parallels in Hebrew: hmd (Dunash, Ibn Tibbon); hwç (Ibn Tibbon). 3.1.2.5 Other expressions for language comparison Other expressions indicative of language comparison: ùfplla yl[ (ynayrsla) (Óayyùj); . . . ùgrùkm yl[ (Óayyùj); h[wmsm yl[ (unique to the style of Alfàsi); hrha¤f yl[ (Ibn Janà˙, twice only); also, the Hebrew equivalents: w[mçmk ybr[ (used by transmitters of the work of Alfàsi); w[mçmk (Dunash). Regarding the adoption of the term w[mçmk, it is plausible that some connection existed, between Alfàsi’s transmitters and Dunash (or one of Dunash’s disciples). 3.1.2.6 The term “zero” An examination of the lexicons of the Hebrew grammarians reveals an occasional biblical quote containing an Aramaic entry word adjacent to one containing a Hebrew entry word, without any term of comparison; in some instances, the entry caption is Hebrew, in others it is Aramaic. The lexicographer was no doubt aware of the source of his Aramaic Bible quote (e.g. from Daniel, etc.) and was quite aware of its being in the Aramaic language. This is clearly evi-

6

The term qapta is found additionally in the exceptional sense of “random,” “unintended and extraordinary correlation;” R. Moshe b. Ezra adopted the term in this connotation in discussing Ibn Barùn’s comparison of Hebrew with Latin and with Berber (A. Halkin, 1975, p. 40). For the use of the term with the same meaning in medieval philosophy, see Moreh Nevukhim, e.g. part 3, ch. 17 (ed. Schwarz, p. 474, n. 2 and the reference).

explicit comparisons

59

dent; for in several other cases, quotes from the same text sources appear with express indication of the Aramaic nature of the entry word and with an explicit statement of comparison. It must further be presumed that the compiler relied on the reader of the lexicon himself recognizing the Aramaic language of the entry word, though this was not explicitly stated. Moreover, if the reader resorted to the lexicon on perusing an Aramaic text source (bearing in mind that this was precisely the aim and purpose of the lexicon!), there was all the more reason to assume that he could identify the word in question as Aramaic. The conclusion is that in such cases the comparison between the Hebrew and the Aramaic entry words is presented with no comparative term, or, in other words, by the term “zero.” Zero term can be assumed also for non-explicit comparisons of Hebrew with Arabic (below, 4.1). 3.1.2.7 Terms for “contrast” Occasionally a grammarian may posit a contrast between entries set out for comparison. In some cases, this may be in order to guide a reader who might erroneously established a comparison, owing to the phonetic-phonological similarity between the two. Phraseologies indicating contrast are . . . yp amaw; . . . l πlaùkm; yl[ lyld (ynayrsla) sylw (ynarb[la), these examples, being all from Alfàsi’s lexicon. 3.1.2.8 Conclusion The above classification of the terminology relates predominantly to form and style; substantially, all the terms were meant to denote the same content, namely, to mark the etymological or semantic connection (or, rarely, the absence of such link) between entry words pertaining to two or all three of the languages under discussion. In fact the contexts calling for the occurrence of the terms are fairly uniform; the conditioning for the occurrence of any given term is quite restricted. Moreover, late grammarians quote several comparisons from their predecessors; while they meticulously quote the entry words, they show no concern to record the comparative term verbatim. For instance, Ibn Janà˙ set a comparison of the pair of entries rwnk/rank, using the term br[la dn[. Ibn Barùn recorded the same comparison, more or less word for word, which he had indubitably quoted from Ibn Janà˙; the term he used, however, was different: l snaùgm (Muwàzana, p. 68). It is thus clear that for Ibn Barùn the two expressions were

chapter three

60

identical in substance and meaning. Such was also the practice of those who transmitted abridged versions of Alfàsi’s lexicon (below, 9.11.3.3). There are, however, a good number of explicit comparisons, whose nature is determinable not by a specific term but by other means. Such labels of language comparison now follow.

3.2

Explicit comparison identifiable on tauto-etymological grounds

In some instances, explicit comparison is established, not directly by a given term of comparison but indirectly, on what might be termed “tauto-etymological grounds.” An example is a case where an exegete, for the sake of illustrating the sense of a word X of some obscurity, resorts to a word Y—Y being co-radical with X, thus rendering the meaning of X more transparent semantically; it thus transpires that X and Y pertain to the same radix. The structure of the reasoning (grounds) is as follows: Let Y equal A1; X equal A2. A2, as a meaningful word, is consequent on A1, or: A2 conveys the general sense/idea of A1, in that A1 is (so to speak) contained within A2 (A1 and A2 are homo-radical.) The reasoning is etymological, because we are to interpret A2 on the basis of A1, the two being co-radical; it is tautological, because the second member is largely a reiteration of the first. It is somewhat like presenting an identical equation A = A (when verbalized, the equals sign is replaced by the copulae awh, ayh or by ˆwçlm and the like). If, for example, it is proposed that tqrb (= one of the precious stones of the breastplate; Exod. 28:17) is thus named on account of its qrb, we would have a proposition, whose part is expressed as a tauto-etymological cause. Formulations of this nature are quite clearly frequent and widespread in Hebrew literature, from the Bible right up to contemporary literature, especially in the literatures of hermeneutics, exegesis, and linguistics. However, in the “primary” form the interlingual comparison has yet to appear. Such comparison commences the moment the defining word (= the [Hebrew] word standing as basis for the definition) in the second part of the proposition is replaced by its cognate, entry word, equivalent, in Arabic. After this change the proposition reads tqrb, thus named on account of its barq. This formulation implies an etymological equation of head and adjunct, tqrb/qrb. It follows that tautoetymological reasoning conceals a latent etymological semantic

explicit comparisons

61

comparison between Hebrew and Arabic. Such language comparison has the same weight as explicit comparison. Tauto-etymological reasoning occurs in 16 entries in Alfàsi’s lexicon and three in Ibn Janà˙’s.

3.3

Explicit comparison on the strength of the Arabic model

"Ußùl contains several comparisons, whose explicit nature can be determined from the setting of the lexicological discussion itself, rather than from any specific comparison term. For example, in the comparison twlypa/hlpa (p. 44; Shorashim, p. 64) Ibn Janà˙ adduces the expressions ù≈rala tjt bag aùda μnùgla lpaw ,bag aùda yçla lpa tbg ˆya ya an[ tlpa ˆya laqyw ,smçla (tlpa) ˚lùdkw, all of which are unique to Arabic. There can be no doubt that these are presented expressly for the purpose of illustrating the sense of lpa in Arabic and at the same time to point up the etymological and semantic connection between the two cognates lpa/lpa. Although Ibn Janà˙ makes no overt statement phrased in the set terminology to the effect that a comparison is being made, it is manifest from his lexicological procedure that the Arabic data are recorded for purposes of comparison. The characteristic features of the discussion in this and other similar instances can be summed up as follows: the grammarian is making note of a linguistic usage current in Arabic. This remark has no direct relevance to the entry word. The linguistic usage does not serve as a rendering of a Hebrew quote/reference; it is adduced for its own sake and to clarify something. The fact that no comparison term occurs, as is customary for explicit comparisons, can in no way extenuate the explicit nature of the comparison. In such cases the word laqy is mostly used, a word that has no meaningful interpretation other than ybr[lab laqy.

3.4

Implicit comparisons holding the rank of explicit comparisons

The Hebrew grammarians record instances of comparison in which appear neither a comparison term nor an indication in one of the aforementioned ways that a comparison is intended. Non-explicit comparisons possessing the weight of explicit comparisons are of the following types:

chapter three

62

If their documentation is in a grammatical treatise devoted uniquely to language comparison, a comparison is “explicit” even if the comparison term is absent; one clear statement of intent in the introduction to the treatise covers all the comparisons in the work, rendering them explicit comparison; an expression of intent, for each comparison would be redundant. In excursuses devoted specifically to language comparison and incorporated within comprehensive treatises, such as those contained within Alfàsi’s Jàmi' al-AlfaΩ, the same applies as in the case of treatises dwelling specifically on comparison: one general proposition is sufficient to cover all the comparisons listed in the excursus. Comparisons with Aramaic (with the exception of inevitable comparisons—see below, 3.6.1) are always explicit comparisons, because neither are they part of the body of the discussion on the entry words nor do they belong to the substance of the exposition; they are invariably adduced for the specific purpose of comparison. Likewise, a comparison occurring once in a given treatise as a non-explicit comparison but reiterated elsewhere in the same treatise as an explicit one is reckoned as an explicit comparison as in Alfàsi’s work (below, 9.5.5) and in that of R. Jonah ibn Janà˙ (below, 13.4.3) (Hebrew/Arabic non-explicit comparisons are given special treatment, below, in chap. 4).

3.5

Comparison formulae

The comparisons recorded by the Hebrew grammarians are set out below, in accordance with various formulae, which were in fact adopted in the treatises themselves. The grammarians failed to spell out clearly the formulae on which the comparisons are arranged; it is quite feasible that the formulae were adopted intuitively; or perhaps the formulae were at least partly an imitation of the methods of their precursors. An attempt will be made to uncover the pattern underlying the comparisons and set them out in the form of a formulaic presentation. The latter should not be taken as a merely ornamental or symbolic expedient; rather it is intended to convey thereby the essential basis of the comparison, the vessel that shapes the substance poured into it. Further, the formula is an objective instrument, aiding and assisting the scholar to sift the materials: to distinguish comparisons from non-comparisons; to detect which comparisons are

explicit comparisons

63

deliberate and consciously built, as opposed to those that are forced or involuntary; to distinguish comparisons recorded in the true interest of language comparison from those adduced for other objectives. Within these subtypes, the thematic treatment serves to point up the finer colorings and features of the comparison; for not all comparisons that superficially appear identical prove to be so in fact. Moreover, several language strata set out for comparison are intrinsic to the formulae themselves. From the thematic setting the comparison can be readily analyzed into its primary and secondary element. This is notably the case with compound formulae, each comprising more than two elements for comparison. The thematic arrangement can occasionally be decisive for doubtful cases, such as to determine whether the comparison is etymological or merely semantic in nature. For instance: on the grounds of Alfàsi comparing the Aramaic [a with Hebrew ≈[ (p. 129), it might be inferred that he was making an etymological comparison and a knowledge of the historical sound shift involved in [/x as well as the dissimilating shift [ > a, [[ > [a, might thereby be attributed to Alfàsi, which is an unfounded imputation. The formula to which the given comparison pertains proves clearly that the grammarian was aiming merely at semantic comparison. In thematic presentation, the entry before the diagonal line designates the entry referred to, while the entry/ies to the right of the diagonal indicate the languages with which the given entry word is compared.

3.6 3.6.1

Explicit comparisons of Hebrew with Aramaic

Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. inevitable comparison (Alfàsi and Mena˙em)

The lexicons of Alfàsi and Mena˙em (also that of R. Hai Ga"on) do not allocate separate sections to biblical Hebrew and biblical Aramaic; the entries pertaining to the two languages are amalgamated and assembled together, whether in alternate consecutive units or as parts of one, overarching entry, as though the two languages were one. This lexicological method provides for a single entry comprising biblical Hebrew and biblical Aramaic side by side. When the radical consonants of the given entry word are etymologically and phonologically equal in Hebrew and Aramaic, without any sound shift, these lexicographers find it necessary to enter the technically

64

chapter three

identical entry caption twice, once as Hebrew and once as Aramaic, under the same arch-entry. Juxtaposing the identical entries consecutively as two subentries invites language comparison, whether explicit or implicit. (Were two separate divisions allocated to the two languages, one for the Hebrew and one for the Aramaic, a comparison would not be automatically established.) Such an editing arrangement would prevent the assumption of a deliberate Hebrew/Aramaic comparison by David b. Abraham and Mena˙em. It is quite feasible that in such cases the grammarian had no intention of setting up a comparison but merely purposed to set forth the lexicographical data; the impression of a language comparison derives from the external editorial method. For example, in the entry rb (p. 271), Alfàsi states: twyj lk hlùtmw ( Job 39:4) rbb wbry μhynb wmljy arjxla rb rb anlw • .ynayrsla yp (Dan. 2:28) arb In the given entry, the Hebrew rb and the Aramaic rb appear under the same archentry rùùb, thus inducing almost imperceptibly a reciprocal language comparison. A comparison of this type is what I have termed an inevitable comparison; for the other Hebrew grammarians such a comparison is deliberate. 3.6.2 Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. deliberate comparisons even for Alfàsi The formula referred to here is that of pairs of Heb./Aram. entries in which the respective members are etymologically and semantically equivalent but possess non-identical phonological realizations. This inequality of realization may at times be manifest (1) by the substitution of radical letters, for instance, Heb. z versus Aram. d in pairs such as rbzg/rbdg (as Alfàsi puts it, p. 301: ˆyzla lydbtb) or bhzw/abhd (ibid., ynxylh, p. 442) or (2) by the addition of one letter in one of the entries vis-à-vis its cognate counterpart in the other parallel language, as for example, the addition of the dissimilating n, in Aramaic, to the entry hdm, hdnm (Alfàsi does not use the given terms but states simply hdayzb ˆwnla; entry dm, p. 189). He thus does not deem it necessary, in the light of his lexical system, for the two to be recorded under one archentry. The two subentries are in fact edited separately, each ad loc. as for its salient phonological feature: hdm on p. 189, hdnm on p. 216. The comparison established by the grammarian is in no way forced upon him; it is quite definitely deliberate. For Mena˙em, such translation synonyms are non-cognate, for he refrains from adopting

explicit comparisons

65

the letter substitution system (with the exception of yùùwha); he therefore fails to establish any comparison for hdm/hdnm. The rest of the Hebrew grammarians employ the present formula in several ways. For example, R. Sa'adiah Ga"on adduces the comparison ˆyfj/ˆyfnj in his discussion on μlnm ( Job 15:29) (see Bacher 1895, Nitzanei hadiqduq p. 61, n. 3). 3.6.3

Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.

In several entries, the Hebrew grammarians compare a Biblical Hebrew entry word under discussion with its cognate in Targumic Aramaic; the Aramaic translation synonym, however, is not always the direct rendering (= equivalent) of the biblical Hebrew word in the relevant quote/reference. For example, in the comparison jg(n)/j(w)g: (Exod. 21:28) abrq yjygm brjla laùgr μùgrtmla ymsy ˚lùd ˆmw . . . rwç jgy ykw (Alfàsi, p. 316), where the Targ. Aram. word is not a rendering of the Bib. Heb. under discussion. Such cases should be clearly distinguished from those in which the Targ. Aram. adduced indeed serves to translate the relevant Bib. Heb., e.g. laq yùdkw . . . μkry[b ta wn[f . . . ˆwkry[b ty wnw[f μùgrmla hyp (Gen. 45:17, ˆ[f, p. 18). An example recorded by R. Jonah ibn Janà˙ for a Targ. Aram. not ad loc. is the comparison qpç/qps ("Ußùl, p. 741). An instance given by R. Sa'adiah Ga"on relates to the Bib. Heb. ˚[, l O B] (Prov. 23:2) in his commentary to his biblical translation (ibid.). There are even cases in which the Targ. Aram. that is adduced for comparison is not a rendering of any actual Bib. Heb. word but rather a part of the exegetical augmentation of the Targum translation. For instance, the Aramaic word adgn occurs in the augmentation of the translation of the verse μym yljn ≈ra (Deut. 8:7), which is rendered ˆyymd ˆyljn adgn, the word serves merely for elucidation. This word (adgn) is adduced by Alfàsi ( Jàmi' al-AlfàΩ, entry dg, p. 301) for comparison with the word dwdg in the verse hydwdg tjn (Ps. 65:11). 3.6.4

Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram.7

In the group of entries presenting comparisons according to this formula, the Hebrew grammarians highlight the etymological equivalence

7 A rudimentary demonstration of this formula has been set out by Becker regarding Ibn Quraysh (1984, p. 31, p. 32, n. 8). Becker remarks that this formula was

chapter three

66

between the Bib. Heb. entry word under discussion (= Bib. Heb.1) and the etymologically parallel Targ. Aram. word, which, however, is an ad loc. rendering not of that Bib. Heb. word but of another synonymous or semantically related Bib./Heb. word (= Bib. Heb.2). The three-way comparison aids the grammarian in two aspects—or perhaps in a single determination comprised of two connected arguments—(1) regarding the aim: to determine the etymological equivalence of Bib. Heb.1 and Targ. Aram.; and (2) incidentally: to determine the semantic equivalence of Bib. Heb.1 and Bib. Heb.2. In some of such comparisons the etymological equivalence is transparent, in others it is less so. Three cases in point are I ≈mwg/≈mwk, II hrg/arga, and III wnyhtw/ynhta, despite their relatively different degrees of transparency, these all belong to the same formula. For a full understanding of the present formula, it is worth studying two of the abovementioned entries as entered by several grammarians. Example I: Recorded by R. Judah ibn Quraysh (A, p. 37), by Alfàsi (p. 331) and by R. Jonah ibn Janà˙ (p. 139). The entry is recorded as follows by Alfàsi and similarly by the other grammarians: (Isa. 24:17) tjpw djp ynayrslab ˚lùd ˆmw ,hybz (Eccles. 10:8) ≈mwg rpj •

lmygla μaqm μwqt πklaw axmwkw aljd The ultimate aim is to give a sense for the Bib. Heb.1 ≈mwg. With this in mind, the Hebrew grammarians adduce Bib. Heb.2 tjp, with the Targ. Aram. ad loc. translation axmwk. On account of the phonetic non-equivalence of Bib. Heb.1 and Targ. Aram., the comparison includes an explanation, i.e. that the substitution g/k occurred. A schematic presentation of the comparisons might be as follows To be Shown: ≈mwg Data: 1) tjp 2) ≈mwg Conclusion: tjp

= = = =

? (sense) axmwk (non-cognate tr. syn) axmwk (cognates) ≈mwg (sense)

adopted by the rest of the grammarians, too. If, however, Ibn Quraysh indeed allowed for word borrowing from Aramaic (ibid., p. 29), it must be said that he adopted a different formula, i.e. Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (see below, 3.6.7, and above, 2.3).

explicit comparisons Abstraction: To be Shown: Data: 1) 2) Conclusion:

Bib. Bib. Bib. Bib.

Heb.1 Heb.2 Heb.1 Heb.1

= = = =

67

? (sense) Targ. Aram. (non-cognate tr. syn) Targ. Aram. (cognates) Bib. Heb.2 (sense)

Example II: The comparison is recorded as follows, by Alfàsi (entry

ˆyh, p. 434): [xb hm μwgrtw μt[mf hryspt (Deut. 1:41) hrhh twl[l wnyhtw • .anl ynhtn ˆwmm hm (Gen. 37:26) The entry requiring definition is wnyhtw. These are the data: the word is identical etymologically (according to the grammatical opinion on the radix, of this grammarian) with the Targ. Aram. ynhtn; since the latter is itself a translation synonym for [xb, the conclusion is that wnyhtw and [xb are semantically equal. In both Examples I and II, more than one argument serves in determining the second datum, namely the equivalence between Bib. Heb.1 and Targ.-Aram., owing to the need to resort to a secondary datum, whether a substitution of letters as in Ex. I, or the determination of the number of radical letters—ˆh or ˆyh for wnyhtw and ˆh or ynh for ynhtn—as in Ex. II. However, in the large majority of comparisons pertaining to this formula, the etymological equations can be established with virtually no difficulty. E.g. ˆwfa/ˆwfa, wla/wla, ˆma/ˆma, l[y/al[y, [xb/[xb etc. Nonetheless, even in the straightforward instances, the second datum should not be omitted when tabulating the comparison. Underlying the present formula a presumption exists that Bib. Heb.2, which is adduced as that which sets the definition and so does not act merely as an intermediary between Bib. Heb.1 and Targ.Aram., is more clearly understood than what it comes to define, namely Bib. Heb.1. We are thus provided with a clue for classifying Biblical Hebrew entries according to two kinds, those whose meaning the Hebrew grammarians saw as obvious (self-explanatory) and those whose meaning was less obvious to them. It would seem that such an estimation by the Hebrew grammarians conceals a solution to the question as to when and under what circumstances the Hebrew grammarians altogether resorted to language comparison by noncognate translation synonyms.

68

chapter three

Sub-formulae that are “alternates” of the above arch-formula, which differ from it neither in essence nor by objective but merely set the order of the entry components differently from the standard formula arrangement, are recorded in comparisons of Alfàsi, ˆwçydb/ amyr/μyr (p. 379); ˚rd/jra/tra (p. 405). In these comparisons, Bib. Heb.1 appears third in the formula arrangement and not first; thus the formula reads: Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram./Bib. Heb.1. Yet a different arrangement is salient in the comparisons wqa/l[y/al[y (p. 144), ˆwçyd/μar/amyr (ibid.), and rmj/rk/rwk (ibid., p. 561). In the latter arrangement, Bib. Heb.1 intervenes between Bib. Heb.2 and Targ. Aram. 3.6.5

Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./(Targ. Aram.)

This formula is basically the same as the previous one. The difference is that whereas in the previous formula Targ. Aram. is expressly indicated, in the present formula it is to be understood implicitly. But considering that Targ. Aram. is cognate with Bib. Heb.1, its inclusion can be dispensed with. A suitable example: R. Sa'adiah Gaon translates μypkw ( Job 30:6) as rwùkxlaw. But in a marginal gloss he comments: μy[ls μwgrt μypkw. This gloss is in fact a condensed form of a more expansive statement, one that incorporates the Targ. Aram. too, namely: aypyk/ˆypk μy[ls μwgrt :μypkw (reconstruction). Thus here two elements in the arch-formula are lacking: (1) an actual quote/reference from the Bible text for Bib. Heb.2 and for its Targ. Aram., and (2) an explicit dictum asserting the etymological equivalence of Bib. Heb.1 and Targ. Aram. But as stated earlier, this equivalence is self-evident. 3.6.6

Rab. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.

This formula is structured similarly to Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram. (above, 3.6.4) except that here the entry word is attested in rabbinic Hebrew and not in the Bible. The formula is used in lexicons or in commentaries discussing on Rab. Heb. entries, when such are in need of definition, as in R. Hai Gaon’s lexicon Kitàb al-Óàwi (below, ch. 14).

explicit comparisons 3.6.7

69

Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.

This formula occurs for Aramaic/Hebrew comparisons only, i.e. in instances where the relevant entry is from Bib. Aram. The formula consists of two elements: (1) comparison of entry word with noncognate translation synonym in Bib. Heb. and Targ. Aram.; (2) comparison of cognate in Bib. Aram. and Targ. Aram. However, it may well be that the second datum should not be treated as a comparison, considering that the matter at issue here is that of two manifestations (for the Hebrew grammarians perhaps two dialects) of one and the same language, one being from Biblical Aramaic and the other from the targumic dialect. It is hardly reasonable to reckon as a comparison a case in which equivalence, in fact identity, is proposed between a datum from Bib. Aram. and its counterpart in Targ. Aram. For all intents and purposes, this would be comparison of an entity with itself. Thus when tabulated schematically the present formula can be said to parallel the above formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. as follows: To be shown: rma = ? (sense) Data: 1) arma = çbk (non-cognate tr. syn) 2) arma = rma (identity) Conclusion: rma = çbk (non-cognate tr. syn) Generalized: To be shown: Bib. Aram. = ? (sense) Data: 1) Targ. Aram. = Bib. Heb. (non-cognate translation synonym) 2) Bib. Aram. = Targ. Aram. (identity) Conclusion: Bib. Aram. = Bib. Heb. (non cognate translation synonym) The condensed tabulation formulaically generalized, omitting datum (2) will appear as follows: To be shown: Bib. Aram. = ? (sense) Datum: Bib. Heb. = Targ. Aram. (= Bib. Aram.) (non cognate translation synonym) Conclusion: Bib. Aram. = Bib. Heb. (non cognate translation synonym) Further, it can be incidentally deduced from this formula that the Hebrew grammarians thought that a Bib. Heb. entry word adduced to assist in the definition is more intelligible than its counterpart in

70

chapter three

Bib. Aram. It thus follows that for the contemporary student in the era of the Hebrew grammarians, Aramaic was less intelligible than Hebrew and perhaps less known, too. The aforementioned formula occurs regularly and systematically when the Hebrew grammarians discuss Bib. Aram. For instance, when biblical exegetes wrote their commentaries also on the Bible chapters in Aramaic, or when lexicologists discussed entry words occurring in the Aramaic sections (Alfàsi, Mena˙em, and R. Hai Gaon). An example from Rav Sa'adiah’s Bible translation (Tafsìr) of Dan. 7:25: (Exod. 23:17) μym[p çlç μwgrt ˆynmz tlt laq amk . . . ˆynmz •

3.6.8

Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./(Targ. Aram.)

This formula is practically identical with the previous one. The only difference is that in the present formula no specific quote is adduced by the Hebrew grammarians for the Bib. Heb. and for its Targ. Aram. counterpart; they find it sufficient to state that the Bib. Aram. entry word is the same word recorded by the Targ. Aram. for the Bib. Heb. with which the entry is compared: as e.g. (Dan. 2:28) μrb ˚a μwgrt . . . (Alfàsi, p. 277). In this sub-formula, the Hebrew grammarians dispense with two elements that were present in the previous formula: (1) actual quotes/references from the Bible text and from the targumic Aramaic text, to illustrate Bib. Heb. and Targ. Aram.; (2) an explicit statement of the etymological equivalence of Bib. Aram. and Targ. Aram. The omission of these two elements can most probably be attributed to their being palpably obvious and not requiring any corroboration. 3.6.9

Talm. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.

This formula is similar to the previous; its specific character is noticeable from the text source of the entry word. In the present formula the source is talmudic Aramaic (whereas in the previous formulae it is Biblical Aramaic). This formula occurs occasionally in R. Hai Gaon’s Kitàb al-Óàwi (below, ch. 14), where Talmudic Aramaic entry words in a status of definiendum are systematically discussed.

explicit comparisons 3.6.10

71

Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram.

At times, the Hebrew grammarians merge comparisons pertaining to different formulae. The present formula combines Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. with one of the two formulae Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.; Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. The first segment, the comparison Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram., can be either inevitable (as in the works of Alfàsi and of Mena˙em) or deliberate. In neither case is the comparison a sufficient basis for turning Bib. Heb. into a semantically transparent entry word; for this reason, the lexicologist resorts to the formula latent in the second segment. Here is an example from Alfàsi’s work (p. 213): ybl ˚lmyw (Neh. 5:7) ynayrsla yp hlùjmw .yblq raça ˚nyklma hmwgrt ˚x[ya .˚dn[ ˆsjt ytrwçm (Dan. 4:24) ˚l[ rpçy yklm (Exod. 18:19). 3.6.11

Bib. Aram./Rab. Heb.

At times, for the definition of a Bib. Aram. entry word, a Hebrew grammarian may resort to a rabbinical Hebrew entry of more common occurrence and having greater semantic transparency. The present formula is encountered, in particular (as one might expect), in the works of those Hebrew grammarians who systematically discussed biblical Aramaic. This is exemplified in an extract from R. Sa'adiah’s Bible translation of Dan. 3:27: μyjsp) μhlwqk hpylùk ˆgsw . . . ayngs . . . μynhkh ˆgs hynnj ùr (w ,a. 3.6.12

Bib. Heb./Talm. Aram.

In a certain sense this formula has greater affinity with the formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. than with Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram., because a Targ. Aram. synonym, whether cognate or non-cognate, is immediately available for the author, as a direct translation corresponding with Bib. Heb. (in the Aramaic biblical Targums). Comparison with Bib. Aram. (not inevitable) and with Talm. Aram., however, emanates from the grammarian’s own efforts or his knowledge; he has the laborious task of locating the Aramaic entry he seeks, unless something happens to bring it to mind. An example of this formula appears in "Ußùl, p. 137, where R. Jonah records, in the name of certain authorities—perhaps the opinion referred to is that of R. Sa'adiah Gaon (Alfàsi records the same comparison and he, too, “quotes” it, in the

72

chapter three

name of “certain authorities”), the word ymwlg (Ez. 27:24) with amylg, a word of common occurrence in the Talmud (see TB Shabbat 77b; see also hùfpl ˆy[bs, p. 34).8 3.6.13

Rab. Heb./Talm. Aram.

This formula is basically similar to the previous, its distinctive feature being in the source of the entry word that in the present formula is Rab. Heb. The formula is encountered in lexicons and commentaries that regularly discuss entries from Rab. Heb. bearing

8 A Bib. Heb./Syriac comparison? Ibn Janà˙ compares the entry ˚ça (Lev. 21:20) with the Aramaic al[t ykça (48/70). The same comparison is encountered in an entry written by R. Judah b, Quraysh in Risàla B, 5. An identification of the likely source used by Ibn Quraysh as a basis for this comparison was made by Epstein (1982, p. 73); in the introduction to his Pèrush HaGe"onìm le-Seder Teharot (also by Becker, 1984, p. 33). The source suggested is the Works of Medicine (twawpr yrps) in Syriac. The question remains whether R. Jonah b. Janà˙ borrowed the comparison from the Risàla or gleaned it directly from the Works of Medicine. Bacher (1885, p. 36; see Becker 1983, p. 171, n. 5) argues that Ibn Janà˙ utilized Ibn Quraysh. Although this stand is reasonably probable, the possibility cannot be ruled out that Ibn Janà˙ himself cited those Works of Medicine directly, since medicine was indeed his profession (see Bacher, introduction to HaShorashim, p. 12) and it is not far-fetched to suppose that he possessed a copy of these works. Moreover the phraseology used by Ibn Janà˙ in the entry under discussion, rather than indicative of secondary quotation, shows evidence of direct citation, for the comparison text runs as follows:

ykça amsy bl[ùtla axùkb πwr[mla ryq[ll ynayrslab laqyw ˆyyùtnala jwsmm ˚ça jwrm al[t. Had he quoted secondarily from Risàla, it would have been more appropriate to phrase it: al[t ykça amsy bl[ùtla axùkb πwr[mla ryq[la ˆa laqyw. Furthermore, whether he intended to confirm this rendition or proposed to dispute it, one would expect that Ibn Janà˙ would at least cite R. Judah b. Quraysh’s definition (= translation) for ˚ça jwrm i.e. hyxùkla ù˚wpnm. In fact, instead of doing so, he phrased his own translation differently, as ˆyyùtnala jwsmm. The initial question clearly bears on a more important and fundamental problem, namely: whether Ibn Janà˙ knew that he was positing a comparison with a non-Jewish dialect of Aramaic and if so whether he was aware of the nature of this dialect and how it was related to Jewish Aramaic. Had he cited the Works of Medicine directly, it would have followed that he knew the language of these to be Syriac. If, however, his source was secondary, in a quotation from Ibn Quraysh, he might well have thought the source text to be in Jewish Aramaic. Epstein (1982, p. 72) conjectures that the Works of Medicine utilized by Pèrush HaGe"onìm “had been transcribed from Syriac script into Hebrew square script and thus had been made available for the use of Jewish scholars.” It is probable that such was also the case with the text of Works of Medicine used by Ibn Quraysh (and Ibn Janà˙). However, Epstein notes that R. Sherira Ga"on himself never saw the Works, rather it was the author of Pèrush HaGe"onìm who had discovered it and that R. Sherira Ga"on had taken it over secondarily from that author. This may have been the case with Ibn Quraysh and Ibn Janà˙, too.

explicit comparisons

73

the status of an entity requiring definition, such as in the work of R. Hai Ga"on (below, ch. 14). 3.6.14

Bib. Heb.1/Targ. Aram./Bib. Heb.2 (non-cognate)

This formula is seldom encountered in comparisons of the type cognate translation synonym; the need to define and classify it is twofold: (1) because it can serve in setting up cognate comparisons and (2) because it serves as basis for the next formula (3.6.15), which indeed sets up cognate comparisons. The present formula is not meant to represent one three-way comparison but two separate comparisons possessing in common an equivalent Targ. Aram. entry word. The two separate comparisons might be represented schematically as Bib. Heb.1/Targ. Aram. + Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram. This scheme, however, does not point up the Targ. Aram. equivalence in the two comparisons. For example, in the entry word [rk, Ibn Janà˙ records the comparison of the structure Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (non-cognate translation synonym) μy[rk/ˆylwsrq. This comparison in no way differs from the regular comparisons of the structure Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (non-cognate translation synonym). The difference is that whereas in those comparisons the ultimate aim of comparison is to adduce a Targ. Aram. entry word, the sense thereof being plainer than the caption entry (Bib. Heb.), in the present formula, the Aram. word is less transparent. In the example under discussion, the word ˆylwsrq seemed to Ibn Janà˙ insufficiently intelligible, so he adduces a second comparison, of the structure Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (non-cognate translation synonym), comprising a Targ. Aram. identical with that appearing in the first comparison, in this instance, twnwhb/ˆylwsrq. In effect, this is merely a means of establishing the semantic equivalence of the two Biblical Hebrew words: μy[rk and twnwhb. The measure of intelligibility of the Targ. Aram. is of no import; its weight is no more than that it serves as a third entity to which two other entities are equivalent. The fact that these are equal in value to the third entity (= the Targ. Aram. entry word) proves that the two are themselves equivalent. Thus Targ. Aram. here is not an end but a means. This is what Ibn Janà˙ is referring to when summing up the comparisons twgw[/ˆxyrg and twlj/ˆxyrg as follows (p. 507): hgw[la aws hljlaw; Ibn Tibbon’s rendering is (p. 357): hljhw hgw[h ˆk μaw twwç, “thus hgw[ and hlj are equivalent.”

chapter three

74

A schematic representation of the purpose of this formula is as follows: [rk/lwsrq + ˆhwb/lwsrq = [rk/ˆhwb: or, as an abstraction: Bib. Heb.1/Targ. Aram.1 + Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram.1 = Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2.

In the present formula, it is not essential that etymological equivalence exist between the three entry words constituting the two comparisons, namely between the Bib. Heb.1, Bib. Heb.2 and the Targ. Aram. entry word.9 This indeed distinguishes the present formula from Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. 3.6.15

Bib. Heb.1/Targ. Aram.—Rab. Heb./Bib. Heb.2

This formula is on the same lines as the previous one, with the reservation that the Bib. Heb.2 entry word instead of being compared with Targ. Aram. is compared to a Rab. Heb. entry word, cognate to the Targ. Aram. rendering of Bib. Heb.1 The formula is encountered only once, in a comparison recorded by Ibn Janà˙: ˆbg/trfj l[b/tçbd (l[b)10 (Kitàb al-Ußùl, p. 122).

3.7

The three-way comparison: Heb./Aram./Arab.

The three-way comparison between Heb./Aram./Arab. entries can be divided into five types, according to the nature of the link existing between the several components, whether etymological or nonetymological; this aside from the textual typology of sources for the entries, i.e. biblical or post biblical as to the Heb. or the Aram.; targumic or talmudic Aramaic, when the entry word is Aramaic etc.:

9 An exception is the comparison wyçwbm/htthb tyb in which according to current concepts, Bib. Heb. and Targ. Aram. are cognate synonyms, although the comparison term used by Ibn Janà˙ shows clearly that the grammarian did not treat these words as such. 10 Actually, the second comparison represented here by this formula is tçbd/trfj; to combine this comparison with the first one, we subjoin the word l[b to the second comparison. The comparison established is thus tçbd l[b/trfj l[b, this being a suitable match for the first comparison, ˆbg/trfj l[b.

explicit comparisons

75

1. Etymological equivalence of all three entries, e.g. dlg/dlg/dlùg 2. Etymological ambivalence of all three entries, e.g. rwçat/[wrkça/ ˆybrç (Ibn Janà˙ 51/74) 3. Etymological equivalence between two of the three entries, i.e. between Heb. and Arab., e.g. rdg/ltwk/rydùg; (ibid., 86/125) 4. Ditto between Aram. and Arab., e.g. hla/amfwb/μfb (ibid., 30/47) 5. Ditto between Heb. and Aram., e.g. πga/πg/janùg (ibid., 12/20) (Note: Regarding type 5, failing an explicit comparison with Arabic, the three-way feature of the comparison is insignificant, such a comparison is therefore presented as merely two-way: Heb./Aram.) The great majority of three-way comparisons Heb./Aram./Arab. are those of cognates in all three languages; the minority are comparisons between non-cognate translation synonym. The aspect of comparison between the Heb. and the Aram. entries has been dealt with above in the context of Heb./Aram. comparisons and their subtypes. Because this aspect, according to its formulae, terms and aims, is essentially no different from the express two-way Heb./Aram. comparisons in which no third comparative element with Arab. is present. (The comparison with Arabic in these three-way comparisons is at times explicit comparison and at times implicit comparison). Thus the comparison formulae for the threeway comparison are basically structured on the same pattern as the two-way Heb./Aram. formulae (enumerated above), except that the third, Arab. element is to be appended to them. For example, according to the formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram., the Arabic element may be subjoined, thus resulting in the expanded formula: Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram./Arab.; and the latter, in turn, may be (a) an Arabic explicit comparison or an implicit comp. and/or (b) an Arabic non-cognate translation synonym comparison or a cognate comparison. No need was felt to reiterate the several aforementioned formulae of two-way comparisons merely for the sake of subjoining to them the third Arabic element. Here it seems sufficient to note the principal element in these compound structures. In the formulaic listings, however, the pattern for each formula will be spelled out in full (in the captions to the listings).

chapter three

76 3.8

The Heb./Arab. comparison

Heb./Arab. comparison formulae can be divided into two main types, according to the explicit/implicit nature of the comparison. As for explicit comparisons, the relevant question is merely whether the comparison is Heb./Arab. (cognate) or Heb./Arab. (non-cognate translation synonym). Comparison of non-cognates is the so-called semantic comparison. In implicit comparisons, it is of importance to note whether a non-cognate synonym appears alongside the cognate, Heb./Arab. (cognate + non cognate), or whether there is an iteration of the cognate. A lengthy discussion of these formulae is included in the chapter on the implicit comparisons (below, 4.7–4.10).

3.9 The Aram./Arab. comparison In the records of those grammarians who systematically discuss the Aramaic portions in the Bible and whose works are in Arabic (with the exception of Mena˙em), Aram./Arab. comparisons are liable to occur. An example is rjp/raùkp from the work of Alfàsi (p. 457). However, even in the works of the Hebrew grammarians who incorporate no special discussion on biblical Aram., such comparisons are occasionally encountered; the above instance of comparison is itself to be found in the lexicon of R. Judah b. Quraysh (C1, p. 512).

3.10

Appendix

In the two subsections, following, two further formulae are set out peripherally that, rather than representing cognate syn. comparisons, are of general significance, with especial reference to sundry problems discussed in the present work. 3.10.1 Bib. Heb.1 = Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram. (non-cognate translation synonym) The present formula is encountered only twice, in Ibn Janà˙’s (noncognate) comparisons πwn = hpn/˚lp (Ußùl, p. 418); twb[ = twb[/(ˆ)lydg (ibid., p. 501). The importance of this formula is manifold: (a) It well illustrates the procedure of intra-Hebrew etymological identification

explicit comparisons

77

in Hebrew lexicology and in particular how the linguistic materials are set out. The grammarian first presents a Bib. Heb. entry word (πwn, twb[) appearing as an integral part of a biblical verse (πwn hpy: Ps. 48:3; wmytwb[ wnmm hkylçnw: ibid., 2:3). He then adduces as exegetical evidence11 the Aramaic Targ. translation of a (cognate) counterpart of the entry, in another biblical occurrence of the entry word, (twpn: Josh. 11:2/ˆyklp; μytwb[: Judg. 15:13/ˆlydg). (b) The main import: by setting out the material according to this formula, it becomes evident that no Aramaic Targ. was available to the grammarian for the first biblical verse in each entry (the verse incorporating the respective entry words).12 For if the reverse were the case, why resort to a remote Targ. translation? Had he possessed an immediate Aram. translation for Bib. Heb.1, he could have recorded the comparison as a normal non-cognate translation synonym comparison formula: Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. The unambiguous conclusion is that the Aramaic Targum to the Book of Psalms—the text source for the verses cited and containing the relevant entry words—was not available to him. This, then, is an additional piece of evidence for what is in fact known from elsewhere to be the case, that R. Jonah Ibn Janà˙ did not know of the Aramaic Targum to Psalms.13 A further similar formula, Rab. Heb. = Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram., is employed in Pèrush HaGe"onìm (see Epstein, 1982, p. 75). 3.10.2

Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2 = Arab.

Bib. Heb.2 and Arab. are cognates. This formula is predictable, in principle, when Bib. Heb.1 requires definition; the only clue to its meaning by other linguistic/exegetical means is its being synonymous with Bib. Heb.2, while Bib. Heb.2 tself is a cognate synonym with Arabic. In actuality, this comparison formula occurs only once, in

11 The phraseology adopted by Ibn Janà˙ himself, μytwb[ yp μwgrtla laq ˚lùdkw μyçdj, leaves no room for doubt that the adduction of the second Bible quote with

its Aram. translation was meant as semantic evidence and not merely as an additional example. 12 In Miqra"ot Gedolot—Psalms, ed. Warsaw, 5622–26, photographic reprint Etz Chayyim. Jerusalem 1974 (in which this translation is attributed to “Jonathan” [μwgrt ˆtnwy]), this phrase is rendered: ˆwhtwlçlç annm qwlsnw. If Ibn Janà˙ had had an objection to such a rendering and preferred ˆlydg, it is fair to assume that he would have remarked on the matter. 13 For Alfàsi’s text sources see below, 9.12.1.2

78

chapter three

an apparently casual manner, in R. Judah ibn Tibbon’s translation of (= Sefer Hashorashim). Ibn Tibbon renders Ibn Janà˙’s definition ryda = sap, ˆyzrk ("Ußùl, p. 13) ryda = ˆzrg; he appends a further comparison ˆzrg/ˆzrk (that is itself contingent on an explicit comp. recorded by Ibn Janà˙ himself in entry ˆzrg; p. 148). Thus transpired the definition/comparison ryda/ˆzrg = ˆzrk.

3.11

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of comparison formulae, mention should be made of the salient difference between the Aramaic and Arabic formulae. In comparisons with Aramaic, diverse formulae occur, of which many are compound. This is not the case in comparisons with Arabic. For example, there exists no Arab. comparison formula *Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2/Arab. corresponding to the formula Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram. To grasp why that formula is nonexistent for Arab., let us examine the hypothetical comparison *≈ra/hmda/ù≈ra. Externally this would seem to be built on the lines of the comparison formula Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram., since (1) we have Bib. Heb.1 (≈ra) + Bib. Heb.2 (hmda), these two being (partial) Hebrew synonyms; (2) is a cognate to the Arab., i.e. ≈ra/ù≈ra; (3) ù≈ra is a frequent non-cognate synonym for hmda in the Arabic translation of the Bible. However, this formula differs from Bib. Heb. 1/Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram. in two significant aspects: (1) In the former the Bib. Heb.1 is frequent and not in need of definition: (2) in order to arrive at the Arab. cognate ù≈ra and ipso facto to determine the sense of the entry word, the intermediary Bib. Heb.2 is redundant, for the Arab. Bible translation provides an on-the-spot comparison ≈ra/ù≈ra. Likewise in the hypothetical comparison *ˆçy/μwn/ˆsw the intermediary μwn is unnecessary. Another theoretical pattern, of the type hm;d:a}/≈r,a/ , hmda, is absolutely ruled out, for the Arab. cognate is a rare word and would never show up as the Bible tr. of the Heb. entry word ≈r,a, (= Bib. Heb.2). There is a further reason for the paucity of Arab. comparison formulae: Aramaic text sources are clearly classified and mutually distinct. Thus in accord with the several Aram. types alone, the arch-formula Heb./Aram. yields three sub-formulae (a) Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram.,(b) Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram., and (c) Bib. Heb./Tal. Aram. By contrast, the literary sources of Arabic used by the Hebrew grammarians in

explicit comparisons

79

their comparisons, though variegated, were lacking a corresponding dialectal status of the sort applying in Aramaic. In principle, the Arab. comparisons could be likewise subdivided into sub-formulae, something like: *Heb./Arab. (Qur"àn), Heb./Arab. (poetry), Heb./Arab. (Bible translation), Heb./Arab. (dialects). But there is no evidence that Hebrew grammarian implied such subcategories except in a few rare cases. In many instances, it cannot be ascertained which of the text sources had served them for the Arabic entry word; it is also very doubtful whether the grammarians indeed significantly distinguished the several aforementioned Arabic language strata.14 Another factor highlighting the difference between Heb./Aram. and Heb./Arab. is quite clearly reflected in comparison formulae: it is never an Arabic word that occupies the status of the entity requiring definition; whereas Aramaic entry words quite regularly occupy such a status, precisely as Hebrew entries do.

14

See Becker 2001.

CHAPTER FOUR

THE IMPLICIT COMPARISON

The explicit comparison, as demonstrated above, involves the juxtaposition of a lexical entry word from one language with a lexical entry word from a second language, accompanied by an explicit remark as to the similarity between them; the remark is identifiable by being phrased as a specific term or by being an intentional turn of phrase, a clearly defined statement of the affinity between the mutual entry words, whether that affinity is etymological, semantic or whatever. In contrast to some frequently encountered lexicons and Bible commentaries the juxtaposition of two cognate entries with the use of no specific comparison term, prima facie juxtaposition of such could be treated as no more than a translational definition of the biblical entry word. However, it is feasible that such records include language comparison also and may well be based upon such comparison. For example, in the entry lf ( Jàmi' al-"AlfàΩ, p. 12), Alfàsi states: ˚lf twrwa lf yk (Isa. 26:19) μlf wnty (Zach. 8:12) adnw lf hlk. By setting the definition of Bib. Heb. lf by the Arab. cognate lf, the grammarian may possibly be employing language comparison, whereas it might be merely an unintentional translator’s definition in which case there is no distinction between the cognate tr. syn and the comparison lf/adn, for then it could be assumed that the intention is to posit a plain translation synonym. To obtain a correct concept of the term “unsophisticated translator/translating,” it is worthwhile to compare Ibn Barùn’s translation for the word qj, (Kitàb al-Muwàzana p. 47): qj wplj (Isa. 24:5) μsrla awplùk, while in the entry itself, (ibid., p. 52) the definition/rendering is: qjla awplaùk/qj wplj. This is to be explained as follows: At the entry itself, where the translation was adduced for the purposes of (explicit) comparison, the grammarian took care to render it with a cognate, while in the record external to the entry he used an unsophisticated translation, a noncognate translation synonym. Theoretically, a cognate can serve as an unsophisticated rendering also, when recorded casually. It is hardly possible to set criteria of preference between these two options of

the implicit comparison

81

analysis. A methodological investigation of the issue in itself is indeed important, while also having direct and significant bearing on the question of the scope of the inventory of comparisons of the Hebrew grammarians. Furthermore, this has relevance for other fundamental questions, too: the extent to which comparisons were practised by the Hebrew grammarians in lexicology (and in exegesis), and the measure of their consistency in recording etymological comparisons. Scholars who took an interest in language comparison as practised by grammarians in the period under discussion did not question the non-explicit comparisons. Some scholars treated cognate tr-syns. as a clear sign of language comparison, e.g. Pinsker (p. 157), Shay (1975, pp. 82, 84–85), and Perez (1978, p. 437); others disregarded implicit comparisons in their discussions, as though these were not to be considered comparisons, e.g. Bacher (1884) and Poznanski (1916). Becker (1984, p. 115) leaves open the question of whether an implicit comparison is indeed a comparison or not.1 Téné (1983, pp. 258, 261) makes a clear delineation of implicit comparison as an independent category. He also states his intention to resume the discussion of this issue elsewhere. A correct judgment on the issue is not easy because we are liable to fall into the trap of imposing our own knowledge on the grammarians’ text and thus presenting an anachronistic distortion of the facts. To illustrate a hypothetical misjudgment of such a kind, consider the entry rmj in "Ußùl (p. 235), which reads: rmj rmùkla yms yn[mla aùdh ˆmw . . . rmja hryspt . . . (Ps. 75:9) rmj ˆyyw • yl[ ahnal (Deut. 32:14) rmj htçt (Isa. 27:2) hl wn[ rmj μrk lyq amk rmj htçt bn[ μdw hlwq yp μdlab ahhbç hart ala armj rùtkala . . . (ibid.) 1 Becker (1984, p. 36, n. 20) remarks on the use of implicit comparison by certain grammarians. It is worthwhile following up the development of his footnotes and how they are phrased, from the time his doctoral dissertation was written in 1977, right up to the year his printed edition of the Risàla appeared (1984). The general impression is that Becker was initially inclined to treat a translation by an Arabic cognate as an implicit comparison, while later he retracted and left the matter undecided. For example, with the comparison h[md/h[md (C1, p. 123) he remarked in his earlier version that “R. Saadiah Ga"on and Alfàsi render it thus;” but in the later edition he omitted this footnote, leaving in his text merely: “R. Jonah b. Janà˙ compares this entry word with Arabic” and making no mention of the aforementioned two grammarians. The upshot is that he does not now reckon cognate tr. syn alone as comparison. Likewise in several entries in his 1977 work Becker remarked: “Explicit comparison with Arabic is made only by R. Judah b. Quraysh” (Part C1, entries 121, 131, 133, 139, 140, 162, 195, 217, etc.). This phrasing implies

82

chapter four

Had R. Jonah not expanded his discussion in this entry, elaborating his etymological reasoning, that is, had he merely set a definition, namely the definition underlying his phrasing, i.e. rmj/rmùk, we would be quite liable to attribute to him the etymological comparison rmj/rmùk, exactly as recorded by Ibn Quraysh (Risàla, C1, p. 495) and precisely as is currently adopted by Semitists. But once the grammarian set out the etymological link of rmj with rmja (= red), the etymological connection rmj/rmùk is ruled out, though the substitution j (Heb.)/ùk (Arab.) is recognized in principle. Thus it is the expressly stated opinion of the grammarian and that alone, that has spared us from making an error of judgment. I now proceed to set out data that can satisfactorily prove that translational definitions consisting of juxtaposition of a cognate Arabic with the Hebrew entry word are really comparisons, even though no term or phraseology of comparison appears, thus corroborating the existence of the category I have termed as “non-explicit comparisons.” I shall attempt to back up this conclusion: (a) on grounds of logic2 but not on these grounds alone, for the weakness of such is in their “subjectivity,” and in that they involve a risk of anachronistic ramifications; but also (b) basing my determination on sound evidence. In the discussion, I take as basis the inventory in Jàmi' al"AlfàΩ and in the "Ußùl, these being complete, exhaustive lexicons; the outcome of the discussion can be applied to implicit comparisons in the other works, too.3

that the other grammarians compared but non-explicitly. In the 1984 edition, this remark was generally removed and was only sporadically retained (as in C1, 212, 213). 2 Becker (1984, p. 35) makes a claim in favor of the existence of implicit comparisons in the Risàla, as follows: “In a work in which one of the main topics dealt with is the comparison of Hebrew words with Arabic, it would be far-fetched to postulate that the author was unaware that these entry words also constitute a parallel to their Arabic counterparts.” This claim is certainly acceptable; but while our categorization requires no further proof in respect of a work devoted entirely to language comparison, proof must be adduced for it as for the general lexicological works, which are not devoted exclusively to language comparison. 3 These works are in the main fragmentary (e.g. the works of R. Hai Ga"on and Abù l-Faraj) or are dependent on the work of Ibn Janà˙; thus their comparisons, e.g., the grammatical treatises of Ibn Bal'am, or even works on exegesis, a subject outside our scope of reference, are to be treated with caution. In contrast are those treatises devoted to language comparison and no more, i.e. Risàla and Kitàb alMuwàzana. These contain, almost exclusively, explicit comparisons (see previous note). Bible translations form a literary category of their own. In them, Arabic cog-

the implicit comparison 4.1

83

“Zero” term

The entity that might be designated “zero term” in comparisons, denoting the absence of any feature identifying it as comparison, was an intrinsic component in the comparative science of the Hebrew grammarians and was an integral part of the array of technical terms employed by them. In comparisons with Aramaic, the term “zero” definitely implies a comparison. For example, in entry lhm, David b. Abraham states: amlab htwq [afqna yn[y amlab [wfqm ˚barç (Isa. 1:22) μymb lwhm ˚absùù • .ù (see Targum to Exod. 4: 25) ajlwhm ˆatùkla amsy ˚ld ˆmw On the surface, the term used by the grammarians to denote comparison of Hebrew with Aramaic seems redundant and its inclusion would seem to be nothing more than a stereotyped expression; for example the term ynayrslabw turns the comparison into an explicit comparison, whereas if this term were dispensed with, the nature of the comparison would in no way be impaired and such a record would retain its status as an explicit comparison, because the text following wnayrslabw, even disregarding the term, cannot be read as anything except Aramaic. Why then should a corresponding Heb./ Arab. comparison record be denied the standing of an implicit comparison merely because it lacks the technical term ybr[lab or the like? Is it not self-explanatory that what is involved is Arabic?!

4.2 Integrated comparisons with explicit and implicit components R. Jonah b. Janà˙ records three-way comparisons of cognates according to the Heb./Aram./Arab. formula, in which the Heb./Arab. element of comparison is non-explicit but in which the phraseology of the Heb./Aram. comparison element, which is itself explicit, serves as grounds for determining that the former element also possesses the status of explicit comparison. A formulation of this nature is

nates are particularly problematic, in that there is always the possibility that the translator produced the rendering in an unsophisticated manner; in any case, they cannot be granted the status of implicit comparisons encountered in lexicons and Bible commentaries.

chapter four

84

found in the comparison -lbq/-lbql/hlabq (624/439); the grammarian first compares with Arab. as an implicit comparison and then, compares with Aram. as follows: ynayrsll aùxya snaùgm ùfplla aùdhw. It is probable that the word aùxya is intended to imply the inclusion of the Aram. element in the comparison, apart from the aforementioned Arab. comparison element, in which case the phrasing adopted in the second clause throws light on the ambiguous non-explicit phrasing in the first clause.

4.3

Implicit comparison in one place converted elsewhere into explicit

The Hebrew grammarians who compiled lexicons or Bible commentaries generally adduced comparisons in accord with the needs of each respective entry. Alfàsi, however, compiled excursuses of comparison lists, including those having no direct relevance to the entry at hand (see Téné, 1983, p. 240 and n. 8). The comparison records in the several lists were intended to serve as evidence for several aspects of comparison theory as well as for illustration (below, 5.3.5.2). This form of collection is thus representative of merely a minute part of the totality of comparisons scattered in the lexical entries. An investigation of the relationship between the scattered comparisons on the one hand and those in the above-mentioned lists on the other is extremely instructive for dealing with the question presently under discussion. In Jàmi' al-"AlfàΩ I noted thirty instances of comparison (enumerated below, 9.5.5), each of which is an implicit comparison in its respective entry but recorded by Alfàsi in the excursuses, thus giving them the status of explicit comparisons. It might be concluded that what holds for one portion of the implicit comparisons (for the said 30 cases) holds for all the implicit comparisons. R. Jonah ibn Janà˙ does not record excursuses of comparison lists in any of his works (the majority of the Hebrew grammarians likewise). For this reason, it was not possible to check out Ibn Janà˙’s implicit comparisons in the way possible for Alfàsi’s. Nevertheless there are a few comparisons in "Ußùl, that, as separate entries, are implicit comparisons but that when mentioned incidentally elsewhere (i.e. outside the framework of their entries) are labeled as explicit comparisons. For example, hyj (2 Sam. 23:11)/yj is recorded in its own entry in "Ußùl (p. 221) merely as an implicit comparison, whereas

the implicit comparison

85

in the entry hwj (p. 214) it is labeled as an explicit comparison; and in the entry ≈xm (p. 386) Ibn Janà˙ recorded the comparison ≈m/≈m merely as an implicit comparison4 whereas in the entry ≈ym (p. 373) the same comparison with the same biblical quotation is recorded as an explicit comparison.

4.4

Implicit comparison by one scholar converted into explicit by a subsequent one

On occasion, the Hebrew grammarians relate to implicit comparisons of their forebears as real comparisons. For example, the copyists of Jàmi' al-"AlfàΩ (as well as those who abridged this work), who may in part have been Alfàsi’s disciples or disciples of his disciples, converted some of Alfàsi’s implicit comparisons into explicit ones (below, 9.10.2). It is not impossible that these copyists relied on some oral teachings they had received, directly or indirectly, from their mentor. Ibn Bal'am also (Poznanski 1916, p. 468) converted a few implicit comparisons of Ibn Janà˙ into explicit ones, e.g., hçqm (p. 650) and twkbç (p. 698). The practice of R. Sa'adiah’s commentators and critics is a different and problematic matter. In a case where a commentator or critic comments on R. Sa'adiah Ga"on’s adoption of a given comparison, it is a moot point whether this is to be taken as an individual interpretation of the plain data in Sa'adiah’s Tafsìr or a reaction to the original argumentation of Sa'adiah, which was in fact stated in his commentary but has failed to survive for our perusal. The textual condition of Sa'adiah’s Tafsìr and of the appended commentary in particular, of which only a meager quantity has survived, does not suffice to resolve this problem. The Retorts to R. Sa'adiah Ga"on, which are generally attributed to Dunash, are by and large based on explicit dicta of Sa'adiah in his commentary. For example, Retorts ## 26, 27, 48, 55 are founded on Sa'adiah’s commentary appended to his translation of the respective passages, while Retort # 45 is founded on Sa'adiah’s Kitàb al-Sab'ìn LafΩa al-Mufrada (ed. Allony, entry 90). But meantime it cannot be ascertained whether Ibn Bal'am’s critical remarks on Sa'adiah’s Tafsìr in his commentary

4

The text as based on the emendation of Bacher, ZDMG 1884, p. 621.

chapter four

86

to Num. 7:84; 11:8, 31; 14:44 etc. (see Fuchs 1893) relate to express statements of Sa'adiah in his commentary or whether they are Ibn Bal'am’s own interpretation of Sa'adiah’s Tafsìr.5

4.5

Sequence of several words translated by their Arabic cognates

In certain cases the Hebrew grammarians render two or three (or more) consecutive words of a given quotation by means of their own Arabic cognates. For example, Alfàsi translates drwf πld (Prov. 27:15) drfm πld,6 and ayh μdb rçbh çpn (Lev. 17:11) he translates spn yh μdlab rçbla (entry μd, p. 386) and likewise in many other instances. For renderings of this type it would indeed seem far-fetched to postulate that the translations here, too, are merely unintentional and the translator was totally unaware that the Arabic wording adopted in his translation is linguistically cognate with the phrase in the source text (it being irrelevant whether the rendering is his own or borrowed from others). If it were merely an isolated word rendered by a cognate, this indeed might be a coincidence but for a phrase of two words, and it goes without saying for a phrase of three, four or more words, a rendering by means of a cognate could not have been produced coincidentally or casually. In these cases, despite the non-appearance of a comparison term, we have no right to set them aside; we are obliged to affirm that they indeed constitute language comparison.

4.6

Hebrew synonyms and their Arabic synonym equivalents

In the biblical lexicon, many words can be found that share close semantic affinity, i.e. possess jointly several common semantic features, thus showing partial synonymity. The method adopted by the Hebrew grammarians for biblical synonyms is extremely instructive for the issue under discussion here. Out of several synonymic entry

5 Dunash’s interpretation of the expression w[mçmk as used by Mena˙em, as supposedly, signifying a Heb./Arab. comparison, is here irrelevant. See below, ch. 10.1. 6 See Téné, 1983, n. 35 and below, 9.12.2.3, concerning the rendering of Salmon b.Yeru˙im for Ps. 65:5.

the implicit comparison

87

words, R. Jonah b. Janà˙ and Alfàsi choose a cognate for only one Hebrew entry that entry whose cognate is precisely suitable; they fail to record it for any other entry, even where the same translation synonym would serve very satisfactorily as a non-cognate. I shall now exemplify this practice as applied in entries that those two Hebrew grammarians, each according to his methods, would view as synonym entities. 4.6.1

David b. Abraham Alfàsi 7

The entry word ata (p. 168) is rendered three times by Arab. yta. At the end of the entry Alfàsi records the non-cognate aùg, too; however, at entry word ab (pp. 178–84) it is remarkable that this entry word is rendered seven times by aùg and not even once by yta. In other words, a cognate rendering is resorted to when and only when, a comparison is relevant; and though this is no more than an implicit comparison, the use of a cognate where it is most suitable cannot be treated as a fluke. For the entry word t[ two, different translation synonyms apply and are used: tqw and ˆamz; but at entry ˆmz (p. 490), ˆamz alone is used, as an explicit comparison, whereas tqw, though applicable as a non-cognate translation synonyms, does not appear. Alfàsi, then, clearly gave prominence to etymological equivalence. In the entry wg (p. 309), three words appear as definition: the cognate synonym awùg and the two non-cognates fsw and πwùg; at entry ˚wt (p. 728), awùg is not recorded, the only definiendum being fsw. At rdg (p. 304) Alfàsi states explicitly that the entry is synonymous with ltwk and ryq; it is indeed remarkable that he employs radùg as a cognate translation for rdg, alongside the non-cognate fyaj. For ryq, however, he employs the renderings fyaj and rws only (ibid., p. 551) but not radùg (the word ltwk he omits entirely, at its appropriate position in the lexicon). At çby he records the cognate sby as well as the non-cognate πpùg; at the entry of the synonym brj (p. 582), however, he registers πpùg alone. At hma (p. 113) he adduces the cognate hma, while at hjpç; (p. 696) he records hyraùg alone.

7

On questions related to this topic, see also Maman 1992.

chapter four

88

hmda (p. 34) is rendered by the cognate hmda as well as by the non-cognate ù≈ra; at its synonym ≈ra (p. 154), however, ù≈ra alone is used and no mention of hmda is made. At rfn (p. 267) he employs the cognate tr. rfn, whereas at rmç (p. 684) he records the non-cognates ùfpj, srj, lbq and zrtja, excluding rfn. ˆçy is rendered with the cognate ˆsw as well as with the non-cognate μan; however, at μwn (p. 275) μan alone appears (twice). At (μyypk+) qps (p. 344) only the cognate qpx is employed; at the entry of the synonym (πk+) ajm (p. 197), however, he records brùx only and not qps. At ˚ry (p. 71) the rendering is by the cognate ˚rw as well as by the non-cognate ù≈ùkùp,8 whereas at djp (p. 456) only ùdùkùp is employed and not ˚rw. Many additional illustrative examples9 could be provided for this grammarian’s practice but the examples cited above are sufficient for setting a fairly clear picture. 4.6.2

R. Jonah ibn Janà˙

The scope for examining the rendering of each and every synonym entered in "Ußùl is far more restricted than in Jàmi' al-"AlfàΩ, because a synonym pertaining to one of the weak word patterns is left undefined by Ibn Janà˙, who finds it sufficient merely to provide a reference to his minor treatises or to the works of Óayyùj. Likewise, a synonym labeled by Ibn Janà˙ πwr[m (= well-known) or left without any definition prevents us from systematically checking how Ibn Janà˙ rendered sundry Hebrew synonyms. For example, in the case of (πk) qps (p. 491) Ibn Janà˙ employed qpx (cognate) together with brùx, whereas at ajm (p. 370) there appears merely a reference to the works of Óayyùj. At qz[ (p. 516) he uses the renderings qz[ as well as rpj, while at the synonymous rpj (p. 241), he merely notes πwr[m and at yet another synonym, hrk (p. 331) he simply refers to Óayyùj’s Kitàb al-Af 'àl Dhawàt Óurùf al-Lìn. He renders the entry ˆwra (p. 68) as ˆara and twbat, whereas hbyt (p. 758) is left undefined. 8 See the footnote of Skoss, ad loc.; Skoss fails to remark that this is merely a vernacular form corresponding to the classical form ùdùkùp. 9 See e.g., the translations for the following synonyms πa/μfj; ≈wb/db/çç/μytçp; rzb/rzp; dwd/bha; zg/rb[/πlj; z[/jk/μx[/hrwbg.

the implicit comparison

89

Nonetheless, at the entries in which the synonyms are in fact rendered, it is evident that his method is no different from that of Alfàsi. For example, the entry llgb (p. 135) is rendered with the cognate lalùg ˆm and with the non-cognate lùga ˆm; at the entry of the synonym ˆ[ml (p. 385), however, he records lùga ˆm alone (as well as amyk, for another sense). At the entry trdjh (p. 212) he proposes the rendering hnmkla ya hrdaùkla whereas at the synonym bra (p. 67) he records merely ˆmk. In hmj he adduces hymj as well as bùxg, whereas at s[k he records only bùxg together with another (non-cognate) translation synonym but makes no mention of hymj. 4.6.3

“Group A” and “Group B”

In each of the above-mentioned examples we observe synonymous Hebrew entry words (denoted “Group A”) versus their Arabic translation synonyms, these also being respectively synonyms (denoted “Group B”). Prima facie, each and every definiens of Group B is suitable and applicable for each and every definitum in Group A. Take for example the cluster of synonymous definita qps and ajm. Versus these, we observe the cluster of synonymous definientes qpx and brùx. How can we be sure that the lexicographer viewed the entry words in each cluster as synonyms? Surely from the practice he adopts in his definitions. If he adduces one definiens only, for two definita, it is clear that he treated the two definita as synonyms (e.g. in the given example, for both definita qps and ajm, the one definiens ùbrùxù is used). Likewise, if he adduces two different definientes for one definitum, we can conclude with certainty that the two definientes are synonyms in the eyes of the grammarian (for example both Ibn Janà˙ and Alfàsi defined qps by qpx as well as by brùx). In instances in which the lexicographer had a choice of several definientes, he may have made the choice casually or intentionally. It is only by discerning some regularity amid the array of definientes versus the definita that an indication can be found regarding the method of choice and its motives. Definitions of the type qps-brùx and ajm-qpx express no sign of regularity. But the array qps-qpx and ajm-brùx leads us to deduce that preference was given to a cognate definiens (for the definitum) when such was feasible.10 This criterion

10

When, however, only one Arabic definiens was available for the grammarian,

chapter four

90

clearly applies to the definitions hmda/hmda, hma/hma, rfn/rfn, ˚ry/˚rw rdg/radùg, çby/sby, and the like. They all have in common that the definiens with its difinitum are cognate translation synonyms. For the rest of the definita in each cluster, these of course being synonyms, the lexicographer could find no cognate and therefore resorted to a non-cognate. But here also he had the option of choosing one definiens from a cluster of non-cognates; the question remains what criterion directed him in his preference of one non-cognate over another. For instance, for the definitum ajm (synonymous with qps) two possible definientes were available, qpx and brùx; Alfàsi used brùx. He likewise preferred to establish ryq/fyaj rather than ryq/radùg; hjpç/hyraùg rather than hjpç/hma; ≈ra/ù≈ra rather than ≈ra/hmda, etc. It is probable that the definientes actually chosen (i.e. brùx, fyaj, hyraùg, ù≈ra) were viewed as words of common occurrence and thus more lucid for purposes of definition than their respective synonyms (qpx, radùg, hma, hmda) which were regarded as rare and thus less intelligible words (see 4.7).

4.7

Entries translated by both cognates and non-cognates

The definitions for entry words in Jàmi' al-"AlfàΩ and "Ußùl include a group of entries each showing two or more definientes for a given entry word; one of these, generally the first recorded, is a cognate for the definitum, whereas the second is a non-cognate; of the two or more syns. the cognate is liable to be less frequent, in the wider context of linguistic usage,11 than the non-cognate. It seems probable that the definiens that is also a cognate is less intelligible (being a rarer word) than the non-cognate. Therefore an additional definiens is resorted to, i.e. a non-cognate. It is thus quite clear that the adduction of the cognate is not to be seen as a purely lexicographical

he had perforce to record it at each and every Hebrew synonymous entry. For example, in Alfàsi’s lexicon the entry words rfm (p. 202) and μçg (p. 353) are each defined by rfm. Also hhg (p. 306) and hap (p. 443) are both defined by hhùg. It stands to reason that what are to be taken into account are those definientes that are actually encountered in the lexicon of each respective grammarian, not the total inventory of all possible definentes obtainable from the Arabic lexicons. 11 See lists of implicit comparisons, below, in paragraphs on the formulae Bib. Heb./cognate + non-cognate translation synonym (9.8.1; 13.10.1); also appendix to the present chapter (4.12).

the implicit comparison

91

requirement; because, as demonstrated, the lexicographer could have been content well with the non-cognate. In other words, the use of the cognate is neither coincidental nor an unsophisticated practice of the translator; rather it appears in order to demonstrate the etymological equivalence of the Hebrew definitum and its Arabic definiens, although no express statement of such an intention appears. (It is indeed quite irrelevant whether the cognate was produced at the initiative of the lexicographer or he borrowed it from a Bible translation available to him.) Thus, in instances of this category a “non-explicit comparison” is indeed a genuine explicit language comparison! I shall proceed to demonstrate this postulate. The entry word hmda is rendered by the cognate hmda and also by the non-cognate ùxra in Jàmi' al-"AlfàΩ, (p. 34). It is possible that the choice of hmda as definens for hmda was not founded on a genuine meaning of the Arabic entry word but on an artificial sense attributed to this Arabic word by the Hebrew lexicographer (or by the translator).12 What is beyond all doubt is that according to early Arabic lexicons, the word hmda possesses no more than an approximate affinity of meaning with that of the Hebrew entry word, its meaning is posited as (1) “the crust of the ground,” but generally the word pertains to the semantic field of (2) “outer shell,” “skin.” Ibn Barùn also (Muwàzana, p. 28), when comparing hmda with hmda, states a restriction in the sense of the latter: ahhùgw yhw ù≈rala hmdal snaùgm. (The sequel to this comment tends to indicate that this was meant as objective etymological argumentation, not as etymological comparison of entries possessing total or partial semantic correspondence.) The decisive datum is as follows: A comparison of the total numbers of instances recorded by the early Arabic lexicons for the two entry words hmda and ù≈ra respectively, and on the basis of their relative frequency in the ÓadìΔ (according to Wensinck’s Concordance, Leiden 1936–39), proves indubitably that ù≈ra is more frequent than hmda (see below 4.12). On the status of a cognate adjacent to which a non-cognate appears within the same entry, it is of interest to follow up a certain definition formula adopted by Ibn Janà˙ in his lexicon. In the entry rqn (p. 454) he states: (Isa. 51:1) μtrqn rwx tbqm law . . . (1 Sam. 11:2) ˆymy ˆy[ lk μkl rwqnb • .[fqlaw rpjla wh rqnlaw

12

See below 9.12.1.3; Ben-Shammai, 1978, p. 296.

chapter four

92

By opening his definition with the phrase rqnlaw and omitting the prefatory phraseology that might have been expected (see below), the grammarian implies that the comparative identification of rqn/rqn is so obvious that its explicit mention would be redundant. This comparative equivalence is axiomatic for his statement of definition; for the thought of the author is: What must be expressed further, after considering the self-explanatory equation of rqn (Heb.) and rqn (Arab.), is merely reasoning and grounds for the said etymological equation. The formula, in full, applicable to this type of definition is as follows: Bib. Heb. equals Arab. cognate and this cognate equals non-cognate translation synonyms.

This formula is encountered in several entries, among them f[b (p. 100): . . . lhùgla yp wlgla wh fa[balaw f[bap ˆms f[byw ˆrwçy ˆmçyw •

likewise in lçm (p. 395): . . . jspn ùtydjla wh lùtmlaw lùtm . . . hxylmw lçm •

at [wbm (p. 402): . . . ˆy[la wh [wbnylaw [wbnyla yl[ [wbmh l[ •

etc. Now, both aforementioned formulae, the unabridged and the abridged, are to be found in cases of definition associated with explicit comparison. It cannot be assumed that the use of the very same formula did not imply that the grammarian had in mind the same aims in the case in point, the aim of comparison, no matter whether this be explicit or implicit. A similar case is to be noted at entry rwbk (p. 325) at which Ibn Janà˙ records two Bible quotations and, immediately, leaving no indication of his omitting the definiens, deals with the implied definiens. Hence the statement . . . dw[la laqyw πdla laqyw, rwbnfla br[la dn[ ranklaw •

Thus in R. Jonah’s eyes the use of an Arabic cognate13 as the definiens, for defining the given entry word (considering it a term of

13

For the instance ad loc. at issue, Arabic language traditions show disagreement

the implicit comparison

93

realia) was quite natural. The phrasing . . . ranklaw . . . rwnk makes sense only on the assumption that Ibn Janà˙ presents the self-explanatory equation as a citation from some existing Bible translation, or that he opines the simplest way of defining a biblical term to be by an Arabic cognate (that is, of course, if he has available a suitable equivalent and the conditions stipulated in the previous chapters are met). The possibility of this being a citation finds next to no support from the surviving fragments of Sa'adiah’s Tafsìr, since Sa'adiah renders the entry word rwbnf (4 times), ratyq (5 times), ùgnx (once), dw[ (twice) (according to Alloni, HaEgron, p. 241), whereas the rendering rank is undocumented. (My own check of the translations of the Karaites Salmon b. Yeru˙im and Japhet for the 13 occurrences of rwnk in the Book of Psalms revealed not even one case of rank). It is therefore probable that the second assumption is the correct one: a cognate is used as definiens, just because it shows etymological equivalence with its definitum, this, then, being an implicit comparison.

4.8

The location of the cognate when accompanied by synonyms

An examination of the location of the cognate when accompanied by synonyms leads to the following results:14 The Arabic cognate stands out as initial definiens, whereas the synonyms of that cognate (that are themselves non-cognates qua the Hebrew entry word) are placed following it in second, third, etc positions. This very practice of placing the cognate translation synonym in direct juxtaposition to the Heb. entry word gives prominence to as to the sense of the given cognate, three different equivalents being suggested (see e.g. al-munjid lexicon). Despite this, Ibn Janà˙ had no qualms about recording it for determining the sense of the Hebrew expression. 14 Sometimes R. Jonah records several consecutive quotes to illustrate different entry words pertaining to the same root; but instead of writing their respective definitions adjacently, he sets out at the end a series of several consecutive definientes, without stating which definiens relates to which quotation. For example, at root db[ (p. 497) he records various entry words (within quotations) with no statement of definition, while at the end he sums up: hjalpw hdab[w μadùktsaw hmdùk [ymùgla yn[m. Prima facie, the additional three definientes would appear to be synonyms of hdab[, which is itself a cognate for db[. But in fact there is no synonymity at all; rather each definiens relates to one specific quote and thus to one specific sense, e.g. hdab[ pertains to the verse l[bh ta db[ (2 Kings 10:18), hjalp to hmda db[ (Gen. 4:2), and so on. Similarly, only after enumerating his entry quotes for hpç does Ibn Janà˙ set out their definitions: hyçajw hpç, which are clearly not synonyms!

chapter four

94

the etymological affinity between the definitum and its (first) definiens as well as the motive of fixing that meaning for the entry word that finds expression in the subsequent definientes, which are non-cognates. At any rate, the systematic placement of a cognate in direct adjacency to the definitum is certainly indicative of real language comparison. It is quite rare that the cognate is located second in position to the entry word. Examples (in "Ußùl ): At ˆqz (p. 201), a non-cognate hyjl was recorded as first definiens, being merely followed by the cognate ˆqùd. (However, the latter is a textual addition, appearing only in MS O (Neubauer places it in parentheses); it is probable that here Ibn Janà˙ did not resort to a cognate at all. At ddwmth (p. 364), lwaft appears first and only after it the cognate dtma. At bq[ (p. 543) b[x and r[w are registered first and only after them, the cognate hbq[. At dqpth (p. 580) dh[t appears first and only after it the cognate dqpt. At lhx (p. 600) tawxla [pr precedes the cognate lyhx. At μydqh (p. 625) adtba and hylza precede μdqt. At dxq (p. 643) qyùx is given precedence over rxq, most probably because verbs in the sense of qyùx were also entered first (e.g. [xmh rxq; Isa. 28:3); in this sense, these may not have been considered real synonyms. At brq (p. 647) wnd is placed before cognate brq. At μyçar (p. 658) rabk rahna is placed before cognate swar. At ç[r (p. 684) barfùxa is given precedence over ça[tra. These exceptions, however, are a tiny minority. Of the total of 113 comparisons in this category in "Ußùl, a cognate is placed in initial position in 103 of them (i.e. 92 percent). Furthermore, even in the 10 exceptional instances in which a non-cognate is placed initially, it is quite clear that the ensuing cognate is recorded for comparison purposes. Is it not reasonable to posit that the grammarian, having already registered the frequent definiens, that is a non-cognate, and thus fulfilled his lexicographic duty, appended a cognate also (which by and large is a rarer word) for purposes of etymological comparison?

4.9

The choice between a cognate and a non-cognate

It can be postulated that when a lexicographer or a translator/exegete was about to render a Bib. Heb. entry, he had a translational choice. With regard to the issue presently being dealt with, his choice was between a cognate and a non-cognate. When the works of Alfàsi and Ibn Janà˙ are investigated with regard to the translation sources available to them (below, 9.12; 13.20), it transpires that occasionally

the implicit comparison

95

they preferred a cognate to a non-cognate. For example, R. Jonah rendered ry[ (arp; Job 11:12) by the cognate ry[ (p. 521), in spite of the fact that in Sa'adiah’s Tafsìr this entry word is translated by the non-cognate çjùg and likewise in the case of rwnk/rank as mentioned above (4.7).

4.10

Entries translated only by cognates

In the list of Heb./Arab. implicit comparisons, there are a certain number of items for which the lexicographers record one Arabic definiens only, no matter whether it appears only once in the entry or is of repeated occurrence. Some 50 percent of the definientes in this group are items in the list of “basic vocabulary items” of the Hebrew and Arabic languages. Here follow several examples, culled from Jàmi' al-"AlfàΩ: • Words pertaining to the area of natural phenomena: μymç/ams; drb/drb; rfm/rfm; μwy/μwy; br[/brg; ç[/hyyç[; rjç/rjs. • Words pertaining to the area of realia—animal: lY:a'/lya; rçn/rsn; of realia—vegetable: zra,/zra; jyç/jyç; ˚wç/˚wç; awçq/aùtq; ˆwmr/hnamr; jwpt/hjapt; ˆçwç/ˆasws. • Words pertaining to parts of the body: μfj/μfùk; crk/çrk; ˆwçl/ˆasl; y[m/a[m; ˆy[/ˆy[; μx[/μùf[; djp/ùdùkùp; çar/sar; lgr/lùgr; μjr/μjr. • Words pertaining to names of family relatives: ba/ba; μyçn/asn; μymwat/μwt. • Words pertaining to terms for material culture and nomenclature for basic foodstuffs: hxyb/hùxyb; çrg/çyrùg; rb/rb. • Words denoting clothing: l[n/l[n. • Words denoting substances and names of occupations connected with livelihood: rab/ryb; hkreb/hkrb; rq b O /raqb; h[ Or/y[ar; [rz/ [rz; çrj/ùtrj; ˆjf/ˆjf; fql/fql; rd[/rd[; dyx/dax; hqç/yqs; lyk/lyk; ddm/dm; lqç/lqùt; rfn/rfn; μwn/μan; μjl/μjl (in sense of “war”); hbç/ybs. • Words pertaining to the areas of humanities and spiritual culture, denoting faith, religion and worship: hnwma/hnama; çdq/sdq. • The numeral substantives: πla/πla; çmj/smùk; ˆwrç[/rç[; ty[ybr/ [br; yçylç/ùtlaùt; hnmç/hynamùt. To sum up: Of the 191 items belonging to the category “implicit comparisons recorded twice or more” in the work of Alfàsi, roughly 90 are basic lexical items, about 48 percent. The list of “implicit

96

chapter four

comparisons of single occurrence” is no different in nature. The common factor in the two lists is the non-appearance of synonyms for the definientes in their entries. This is not surprising, for basic lexical Items and especially terms for realia possess the most restricted and meticulous sense content attainable in language. From the standpoint of language comparison, how are we to relate to the recording of these translation synonyms? On the one hand it is only natural and even essential to record them; considering that it was the concern of the grammarian to record some definiens to serve as translation synonyms for the given entry, in the above-mentioned cases this was bound to be a cognate, no alternative definiens was available. The question remaining, is whether these definientes (that are cognate) have a unique standing, in that they possess a special quality absent from non-cognates (as, for instance, bytn/hks; qyrf (p. 295); jtn/wùx[ (ibid.); and similar comparisons). In both these categories, the cognate as well as the non-cognate, their use is merely as translation synonyms, whose adduction is the prime purpose of the lexicon. The conclusion is that if the two categories are, for the given sector of entries, considered of equal standing, there is no basis for the claim that the adduction of cognate rather than non-cognate translation synonyms constitutes language comparison; indeed, this may be no more than simply a technique of translation. On the other hand, granted that the cognate recorded is natural or essential, such as to exclude any other synonym and further considering that this translation synonym is a basic vocabulary item, it would be far-fetched to postulate that the author was not aware of the phenomenon of basic vocabulary equivalence between the two languages. If the Hebrew grammarians could regularly establish comparisons between cognate Hebrew and Arabic synonyms in the case of words of rare occurrence in the Bible, how can it be postulated that for the frequent, basic vocabulary items so common in both languages, he did not think of registering such linguistic comparison, as for example ba/ba; ˆy[/ˆy[, and the like (these being even graphically identical, according to their spelling in Hebrew characters!)? How much more so, when the definiens is reiterated time and again in the text of the entry: the very fact that the definiendum and the definiens, cognate as they are, recur several times in one entry (when several examples of the Bib. Heb. are under discussion) precludes the likelihood that the phenomenon is random, that the

the implicit comparison

97

author did not pay attention to what he had written. A good illustration: the parallel placement of the entry words ˚pç/˚ps appears seven times consecutively, in instances adduced in entry ˚pç (p. 698). Is it feasible that the translator did not pay attention to the phonetic similarity, echoing in his ears throughout the sevenfold iteration of the pair and thus to the etymological aspect of the bond between the Hebrew and Arabic words? The reiteration of the Bib. Heb. itself, with its cognate placed adjacently, is indicative of language comparison. This is also the case in the work of Ibn Janà˙ (in implicit comparisons reiterated).

4.11

Summary

The upshot of the above-mentioned arguments is that it is probable, even very likely, that what I have termed “non-explicit comparisons” are indeed real comparisons and cannot be dismissed as though they are not instances of language comparison. But as for their formal presentation, they are not to be amalgamated within the same framework as of “explicit comparisons;” such a step would in effect disallow the option reserved for the assumption of an occasional or isolated non-explicit comparison, in which the grammarian had no inkling of a comparison or was not concerned to recognize such.15 In such an occasional instance, it seems reasonable to presume that the grammarian recorded the Arabic entry word, seen by us as etymologically cognate and semantically equivalent to the given Hebrew entry word, merely as a matter of unintentional translation, his intention being to render the entry by the most suitable translation synonym, rather than by its etymological equivalence to the Bib. Heb. and its translation synonym. The pitfall of anachronism, the imposition of present knowledge on the science of the Hebrew grammarians, regarding some comparisons, should also be avoided. It is therefore imperative that a clear-cut boundary be drawn between comparisons expressly named as such by the grammarians and those that are not spelled out verbatim but emerge from an allusion or

15 For example, in entry ˆmç Alfàsi five times renders by hmwsd and only once, by the cognate ˆms.

chapter four

98

some other external parameter. Provided all the necessary precautions are followed, the above-mentioned arguments favor the treatment of non-explicit comparisons as real linguistic comparisons.

4.12

Appendix to 4.7 (above)

An attempt was made to ascertain the credibility of the claim that in a category in which appear two or more definientes, of which one is a cognate, in Classical Arabic itself the frequency of the given cognate is lower than that of the corresponding non-cognate. Despite consultation with specialist scholars, it has not yet been possible to locate suitable studies on lexical frequency in classical Arabic and certainly no such study on lexical frequency in Judeo-Arabic of the epoch under discussion.16 Furthermore, there is an insufficiency of concordances to texts pertaining to sundry fields current in the period applicable to the stock of vocabulary encountered in lexicographical definitions of Alfàsi.17 Meanwhile, I have perforce resorted to a single method, although indirect, of seeking a solution to this problem, through the Concordance to ÓadìΔ.18 Although the lexical stock in ÓadìΔ is generally too restricted for our issue, it does contain a fairly general scope of vocabulary, although partial, used in ordinary prose.

16 Even in modern Arabic, there exists only one study on this topic and it describes word frequency in journalese. I refer to M. Brill’s scholarly monograph twlm rxwa tybr[h tymwyh twnwt[b dwsyh (= the inventory of basic vocabulary in the Arabic daily press), Tarbiz, XI, pp. 176–87. This study has of course no relevance to the present problem. 17 An inspection based on G. Troupeau (Paris 1976) has shown clearly that Lexique Index du Kitàb de Sibawayhi is of no use in this matter, because the lexical stock in this work comprises mainly grammatical terms or words used to exemplify grammatical phenomena. The major part of the inventory of words of that category in non-cognate tr. syns occurring as definitions as used by Alfàsi, as well as practically all the the inventory of cognates is undocumented in Troupeau’s concordance. The Concordance to the Qur"àn is also unsuitable for our purposes, the vocabulary of the Qur"àn being far too specific, apart from its language not being that of ordinary prose. 18 Wensinck, Concordance de la Tradition Musulmane, 1936–39. Even in works on the inventory of rare words in Arabic, such as kitàb al-nawàdir li-"abi mas˙al al-"i'ràbiy no solution to our problem is forthcoming, because the latter works are concerned primarily with rare morphological types for frequent and well-known words, rather than with issues and problems such as those with which we are here concerned.

the implicit comparison

99

An inspection of the Concordance to ÓadìΔ led to the following results: In approximately one-half of the pairs of synonymous definientes (of mutual synonymity), the frequency ratio accords with what has been postulated, namely, that a cognate entry word appearing in Alfàsi’s definitions is rare or not encountered at all in ÓadìΔ, whereas its non-cognate counterpart is common in ÓadìΔ. In a total of 33 pairs of definientes pertaining to the relevant category, the cognate member is entirely undocumented in ÓadìΔ, whereas each respective counterpart, that is a non-cognate for Alfàsi, appears dozens of times. The following are examples of the type that are for Alfàsi cognates: hmda, r[ba, drùg, frùk, lbs, zwl, ysamt, hrt[, the frequently occurring non-cognate counterparts being: ù≈ra, byys, Kj, fùk, smg, lwz, baùd, ˆaùkd. But the remaining half of the material does not bear out the postulation. The cognate/non-cognate frequency ratio is about equal in ÓadìΔ; about 6 percent of the entry words of both members in the category are entirely absent from ÓadìΔ. For this sector it is very likely that the second definiens, the non-cognate, was adduced by Alfàsi not on account of the Arabic lexical rarity of the cognate initially adduced but on the basis of some other pattern of entry structure that did not take into account the linguistic frequency of a definiens but merely adopted the lexicographic habit of recording several alternative definientes for the convenience of the reader.

CHAPTER FIVE

THE AIMS OF LANGUAGE COMPARISON

5.1

Typology of the linguistic works

5.1.1 The aims of comparison in works devoted specifically to comparative philology The comparison aims in the Risàla have already been discussed (Becker, 1984, pp. 18–20). Therefore in the present context, I shall relate only to a collation of Ibn Quraysh’s comparison aims with those of Ibn Barùn in his Kitàb al-Muwàzana. Beginning with the assumption that no work typologically comparable to Risàla preceded this work, it is possible to claim that R. Judah ibn Quraysh succeeded in two respects: (1) in summing up comparative philology theory to the extent that this had taken shape by his time and according to the degree of its inclusion in the biblical exegetical literature or as transmitted orally; (2) in forging a new path in Hebrew language science, namely to determine the general principles of Heb./Aram./ Arab. comparative philology and to test them, this in itself being a novel contribution to scholarship. Thus the comparison materials ought to be considered illustrative rather than exhaustive. The Kitàb al-Muwàzana, however, was produced after 200 years’ pursuit of comparison of these languages, its main concern being an exhaustive assembly of language comparison materials as well as a survey of the theory of comparison of Hebrew with Arabic (Ibn Barùn entered comparisons with Aramaic only in rare cases). While there are several novel contributions to be found in the work, it is essentially a compendium. The same typology is applicable in determining the nature of the excursuses in Dunash’s Retorts against Mena˙em as well as those in Alfàsi’s lexicon. These latter, which are each a miniature work within a major work, are of the same type as the Risàla, in that they are only illustrative: they discuss the fundamental aspects of language comparison in a general manner, without purporting to exhaust the theory and methodology of the subject.

the aims of language comparison 5.1.2

101

The aim of language comparison in the lexicons

The Bible lexicons produced by Alfàsi, Mena˙em, and R. Jonah Ibn Janà˙ are not works devoted specifically to the subject of language comparison. Thus it cannot be posited that these were initially written for the purpose of comparative philology whether with the aim of establishing some theory in the area of language comparison or providing evidence for the efficacy of comparisons for Bible exegesis or for the study of the Hebrew language in general. Moreover, considering that these lexicons were not written for the sake of language comparison, it is quite tenable to argue that all the comparisons provided by their authors in the respective lexicon entries are subject to one single purpose, the elucidation of the inventory of the biblical vocabulary. In point of fact, however, in the lexicons, at least in Jàmi' al-"AlfàΩ and Kitàb al-"Ußùl, there definitely can be found several comparisons recorded for their own sake, so that within this limited scope, a similarity can be noted between Jàmi' and "Ußùl on the one hand and the Risàla on the other. The Risàla was initially planned with the aim of language comparison. Nonetheless, as Becker (1984, p. 29) has shown, some of its chapters are structured like a lexicon and thus incorporate some comparisons recorded with other objectives. In contrast, the situation in the aforementioned lexicons is reversed: their primary objective was to produce a lexicon to the Bible. Nevertheless, comparisons established for their own sake can occasionally be encountered within them. 5.1.3

The aim of comparative philology as reflected in polemical writings

In one respect the polemical writings of Dunash, Dunash’s disciple, and Mena˙em’s disciples are similar to the Risàla. These works, like the latter, tend to discuss fundamental matters bearing upon language comparison. The essentials of the issue are: (1) Is language comparison permissible? and (2) under circumstances where it is permissible, within what restrictions can it be practised (see above 2.1)? 5.1.4

The aim of comparative philology in Bible commentaries

Language comparison in biblical exegetical works, as portrayed in the materials assembled by Fuchs (1893), Poznanski (1895, 1916), and Perez (1978), culled as it is from the commentaries of Ibn Bal'am

chapter five

102

and Ibn Gikatilla, is merely an activity subordinated to exegesis; its objective is merely to clarify the sense of the biblical entry word at its given occurrence. The comparisons encountered in the explanatory comments appended to R. Sa'adiah Ga"on’s Bible translation are largely aimed at providing grounds for the translation he is undertaking, for a single biblical word or a word combination. The comparisons to be found in Abù al-Faraj’s Bible translation also belong to this category (see Poznanski, 1896).

5.2

The aims of comparison as promulgated by the authors

Certain Hebrew grammarians living in the tenth and eleventh centuries propagated their intention to compare Hebrew with Arabic or Aramaic and even provided a rationale, usually in the prefaces to their works, for their decision to practise language comparison. The essentials of these preliminary announcements have been discussed above, in the chapter devoted to the fundamental of comparison (above, 2.1; 2.2). We are here concerned with an analysis of one of R. Jonah ibn Janà˙’s proclamatory statements, reiterated time and again in sundry locations in his works. An example follows: the proclamation as stated in Riqmah, pp. 235–36: wtlwzbw hz yrpsb μtwnwçlb μtw[dw br[h yrbd aybm yna yk yl[ bwçjt law • μytwph twarhl ˚a ,μhyghnmw μyrb[h tw[db yrbd μhb qyzjhl ˆm μymwr[ μhw μy[dwy μh yk μmx[b μyrwbs μh rça ,μymkjtmh ˆm μtlwzw .twnwçlh ˆm htlwzb μg ˆkty tyrb[h ˆwçlb ˆktyç rmwa rça hz yk ,t[dh (= . . . But do not accuse me (lit: attribute to, think of me) that my adducing, in this work and in other works of mine, [of ] the Arabs’ wording as well as [of] their thoughts concerning their languages is [meant] for the corroboration of my stated opinions of the Hebrew conceptions and practices. [This is certainly not the case,] rather [my aim is] to put right ignoramuses and such like, as well as individuals who make out that they are wise, indeed are convinced that they know but [as I show,] are verily lacking any knowledge: let me enunciate my position unambiguously: [By employing language comparison] I wish to imply that what is feasible in the Hebrew language is indeed feasible in other languages.) The gist of the above is additionally enunciated elsewhere, by Ibn Janà˙ (Kitàb al-Mustal˙aq, pp. 140–41, pp. 181–82; "Ußùl, entries lbg,

the aims of language comparison

103

p. 122 and çwg, pp. 129–30; Riqmah p. 24). Ibn Janà˙ would hereby convey that Hebrew, as a language, is not imperfect, either qualitatively or quantitatively; it is independent and capable of being elucidated internally. Language comparisons were intended to do no more than demonstrate that the characteristics of the Hebrew language, rather than existing in isolation, are paralleled in other languages. The upshot is clearly that in his eyes language comparison is for its own sake and not merely for the purpose of explicating lexicographical entries or rationalizing sundry grammatical features. As it happens, other enunciations and comparison practice encountered in Ibn Janà˙’s works draw a totally different picture. In the first place, the above quoted statement may at most be applicable to comparisons of general grammatical traits but is inapplicable to lexicological comparisons. For example, regarding the entry word ynypwt (p. 768) R. Jonah states: batkla ˆm ,hùfplla yn[m yl[ anl lyld alw (in Ibn Tibbon’s translation: arqmh ˆm hlmh ˆyn[ l[ hyar wnl ˆyaw (= we possess no evidence of the meaning of the word, from the Bible itself ). This is doubtless the rationale for etymological and semantic extra-biblical research resorted to, specifically in rabbinic source texts and through comparison with Arabic. Here, as in the greater part of the lexical comparisons, the statement that “the comparison was intended merely to demonstrate that what is feasible in Hebrew is feasible outside Hebrew also” cannot be borne out; for in this instance nothing at all is feasible/applicable (i.e. no interpretation for the entry word is possible) without resorting to Arabic. Thus comparison is here an essential procedure, not a secondary or trivial matter. In cases of grammatical comparisons, too, there are some instances where a comparison is of a functional nature, serving to establish norms for Hebrew, and not merely to provide a raison-d’être for Hebrew usage. A prominent category of such is the kind of comparison with Arabic applied by Ibn Janà˙ for a conclusive determination of the Hebrew root of several entry words. An example is the verb wttwht (Ps. 62:4), which is a hapax legomenon. Óayyùj had been uncertain as to its grammatical parsing and had proposed one of two alternative roots: (1) tùùwh, i.e. of the medial yod pattern, whose conjugation is in the manner of the [ùù[ category (as ttwml from tùùwm) or (2) tùùth of the [ùù[ pattern. Óayyùj had not come to a conclusion on the matter, but R. Jonah decides in favor of second alternative, arguing that this reflects the correct parsing; his reasoning is: ynal th ybr[la ùfpllab hhbça (= for I compare it with the Arabic root

chapter five

104

h-t; p. 181). Were it not for the fact that Arabic serves as evidence for Hebrew, no decision could be arrived at regarding the two alternatives set by Óayyùj. Furthermore, the above-quoted claim is tenable with regard to Hebrew-versus-Arabic comparison of existing data that are equivalent or parallel in the two languages. However, a comparison in one language versus “zero” comparison in the other runs counter to the said enunciation. For example, on p. 344 the grammarian states that whereas the Hebrew language possesses the substantive hnbel as well as the denominative verb ˆbll, in Arabic a cognate exists only for the noun, i.e. hnbl, whereas no such cognate exists for the verb. When set out schematically, the comparison thus reads: hnbel/ˆbll//hnbl/ø. Here the axiomatic statement ˆktyç hm htlwzb μg ˆkty tyrb[h ˆwçlb is untenable, because the comparison demonstrates that an element present in Hebrew is lacking in the other language. It is therefore more or less certain that enunciations of the type al ybr[h ˆwçlh ˆm d[ wyl[ axmaw ytrkzç hm d[ wyl[ axma alç hmw . . . . . . wb ywlgh ˆm d[ aybhl [nma (= when I cannot find any [internal, intra-Hebrew] evidence for what I have recorded but am able to adduce evidence from Arabic, I shall not refrain from recording such proof, inasmuch as it is manifest) (Riqmah, p. 16) and the like, are to be treated as decisive, whereas statements of the former type are very restricted in their applicability; they were probably voiced for tactical purposes only, i.e. to appease the opinions of skeptical people or those unequivocably opposed to comparison with Arabic.

5.3 5.3.1

Aims of comparison according to the comparison formulae

Inevitable comparisons

In the lexicons of Alfàsi and Mena˙em, are to be found language comparisons that, rather than having been produced at the instigation of the author, are inevitable products of the lexicographical method. Because the system adopted makes for homophonic entries deriving from Hebrew and from biblical Aramaic within one common archentry. For this reason, it cannot be claimed that comparisons pertaining to this type were recorded at the outset with a particular objective; although it cannot be ruled out that here and there some objective may be discernible. As far as we are concerned, these are largely an

the aims of language comparison

105

automatic end-product of the lexicographical method and insofar as they contain no additional linguistic comparative information, there seems no reason to search for any hidden specific aims within them. In comparisons with Arabic occurring in other lexicons, too, a certain type can be discerned as inevitable, as also emanating from the lexicographical system; the lexicons of Alfàsi and R. Jonah b. Janà˙ are each structured as a bilingual lexicon, setting out for each entry word its Arabic translation synonym. The definitions appearing in them comprise many entries, that are rendered by a cognate Arabic only, appending neither a non cognate translation synonym nor a description for the entry. For these entries, it may well be that lexicographers could find no additional definiens (in the form of a non-cognate). The comparison transpiring from the presentation of the entry word side by side with its cognate is therefore inevitable. In several instances this fact can be deduced from the lexicographers’ method itself. For example, the entry word hrwga is translated by Alfàsi hrùga (p. 345); the entry word fwj by fyùk (p. 526) and the entry word jçp by ù˚sp (p. 487) etc. It is probable that Alfàsi had no alternative definiens available for these entry words, evident from the tr. synonyms he proposes for their respective Hebrew synonyms: rkç (p. 325) is rendered by hrùga (rkç in Alfàsi’s opinion is a synonym for hrwga); lytp (p. 491) is fyùk and πfç (p. 690) is rendered ù˚sp. Similarly, both rçp (p. 488) and rtp (p. 492) are rendered by rsp; both ryx (p. 508) and dy (p. 41) by (babla) ryx; and rwç (p. 658) as well as hmwj (p. 527) by rws. It can therefore be posited, for these instances at least and for the category “hapax legomena implicit comparisons or comparisons that seldom occur,” that the comparison must be inevitable, considering that the lexicographical method compelled the authors to adduce the cognate as a definiens, even if their conscious intention was to maintain a linguistic comparison between the cognate and the Hebrew (or Aramaic) entry word, or they merely wished to elucidate the entry word. This fact can be borne out for the three-way comparisons, too: the Heb./Aram./Arab. comparisons such as [bxa/[bxa/[bxa (Alfàsi, p. 141), μçg/μçg/μçùg (ibid. p. 353), rkz/rkd/rkùd (ibid. p. 381), ˆwgra/ˆawùgra/ˆmgra (p. 150), [wrz/[rd/[arùd ([rd, p. 407), and the like. To sum up: Because the comparison in the above-mentioned types is inevitable, no effort is made to observe any specific objective unless an unambiguous wording of a redundant nature can be noted, that would allow for a conscious objective in the comparison.

106

chapter five

5.3.2 Comparison for determination of the meaning of the entry under discussion Language comparison as an instrument for determining the meaning of biblical entries, whether Hebrew or Aramaic, is quite clearly the primary and supreme objective of comparative linguistics in the epoch under discussion. This has been explicitly stated (a) by medieval Hebrew grammarians who practised language comparison and (b) by scholars of recent times who have studied and examined their theories and methods. Examples of relevant documented statements within the last century and a half are among others: Munk, 1851, p. 2; Hirschfeld, 1926, p. 7; Skoss, introduction to his edition of Jàmi' al-AlfàΩ, p. 36; Wechter, 1941, p. 172; Malter, 1942, p. 141; Kopf 1954, p. 72; Tur-Sinai (introduction to HaRiqmah, 1964, p. 9); Téné, 1983, p. 243; Becker, 1984, p. 50. This aim of linguistic comparison seems to be so highly acclaimed as not to be in need of any proof, for which reason we could spare ourselves the trouble of further discussing it. Nevertheless, this determination is worthy of systematic corroboration, notwithstanding the widespread consensus it has gained, the latter being grounded merely on a general impression. What is more, by setting out the appropriate tools for putting comparisons to the test with this aim in mind, i.e. that of semantic determination of entry words, we are well-equipped for the task of substantiating the other objectives of comparison; I shall therefore proceed to investigate the (correct) application of this axiomatic statement, through the comparison types according to their several formulae. The formulae will be set out according to their frequency of occurrence and according to their relative importance, rather than being based on their formal structure. The conclusions set out below stem from a meticulous inspection of each and every comparison adopted by the Hebrew grammarians in their several works. In this chapter, only summaries and selected instances are presented. 5.3.2.1 The aim as reflected in comparisons of Hebrew with Aramaic In formula Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram. The procedure of comparison used in this formula was noted above (3.6.4). The lexicographer or exegete here simultaneously compares Bib. Heb.1 with Targ. Aram., the latter being etymologically equivalent to the former. Since this has the identical sense as Bib. Heb.2, serving as the Heb. rendering in a given Aramaic Bible translation,

the aims of language comparison

107

the implication is that Bib. Heb.1 and Bib. Heb.2 are themselves semantically equivalent. Prima facie, the aim of the comparison in this formula is straightforward and obvious; there would seem to be no room for any doubt that the objective is the semantic determination of the entry word. Nevertheless, the complex fabric of the formula allows for an interpretation of a different nature and therefore warrants further investigation. Take for example the comparison ba/yrp/aba (Alfàsi, p. 22; Mena˙em, p. 11). This comparison in effect comprises two interlingual comparisons and an intra-Heb. comparison. The interlingual comparisons are: (a) a cognate comparison: Bib. Heb.1/Targ. Aram. (ba/aba); (b) a non-cognate translation synonym comparison: Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram. (yrp/aba). The intra-Heb. comparison is (c): Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2 (ba/yrp). It is therefore indeed an open question: the three-way comparison: Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram. may equally have been recorded having in mind comparison (a) (Bib. Heb.1/Targ. Aram. as the main aim, just as it might have been adduced with the comparison (b) being its main objective; in either case it cannot be assumed for certain that comparison (c) (Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2) was the unique objective. The following arguments will establish that the comparison aimed at by the lexicographer is the intra-Hebrew comparison (c). (1) If comparison Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram. were the principal one, it would be fair to assume that the comparison was recorded, in the lexicon or in the commentary, at a location in which Bib. Heb.2 constituted the entry word. One would expect the comparison to be recorded either at that location alone or at that location as the main record together with an additional location constituting a secondary record of the comparison (c). For example, from the comparison ba/yrp/ba we would expect to encounter at entry yrp (Alfàsi, p. 481; Mena˙em, p. 145) a Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. comparison: yrp/aba. Similarly, the entry rtym (Alfàsi, p. 75; Mena˙em, p. 101; Ibn Janà˙, p. 302) would have been the natural location for the comparison rtym/ˆzfa (out of the comparison ˆwfa/rtym/ˆwfa) but in fact is absent there. A systematic inspection of all the entry words pertaining to the formula under discussion, as slot Bib. Heb.2 in their natural locations in the lexicons of Alfàsi, Mena˙em and R. Jonah ibn. Janà˙, shows that in 106 instances of a Bib. Heb.2 in Jàmi' al-"AlfàΩ, the comparison is recorded in only 5 cases; out of 148 instances of a Bib. Heb.2 in the al-"Ußùl, the comparison is recorded in only two cases, whereas in the 24

108

chapter five

instances in the Ma˙beret, no express reiteration of the comparison appears at all (in two cases a trace of a comparison can be noticed but no more than that). Even in the isolated instances the reiteration can in each case be rationalized.1 If such a comparison was important, it should certainly have been recorded within all Bib. Heb.2 entries or at least within a considerable number of them. But it is not surprising that these Bib. Heb.2 entry words do not systematically call for comparisons, since they are much more intelligible than the corresponding Bib. Heb.1 entry words. A check of the frequency of occurrence of the latter versus the Bib. Heb.2 entry words bears this out. The outcome is that almost all Bib. Heb.1 entry words are hapax legomena or very rare, whereas the Bib. Heb.2 entry words are quite common and frequent. For example, ba appears only twice in the Bible, whereas yrp occurs 76 times with its basis signification, with a further 42 occurrences in a metaphorical sense; hrwga is hapax legomenon, whereas rkç occurs 28 times; ˆwfa is hapax, whereas rtym appears 9 times; ˆkbw twice only, za 141 times and so on. Therefore, in conjunction with Bib. Heb.2, at the latter’s entry location, no comparison appears with its Aramaic translation synonym; in fact, it has no need of such comparison for semantic purposes; the Bib. Heb.1 entry words, on the other hand, are extremely rare, so their sense is less transparent and needs external corroboration (in the manner described above). In certain entries, the Hebrew

1 Alfàsi recorded the comparison dj/dja/dj at entry dja (p. 62) as well as at entry dj (p. 521). At the latter entry the comparison appears as an essential Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. comparison, this being its logical location, whereas at the former entry it is employed for the refutation of an alternative etymological analysis (i.e. that dj is simply an abbreviation for dja). In contrast, however, the comparison wqa/al[y/l[y is reiterated, at l[y (p. 60) and at wqa (p. 144), the reason being that both entry words are of rare occurrence. This is the case for yj/an/yj; jçp/πsç/jçp, too; the comparison yj/an is reiterated at Bib. Heb.2 (an), probably because Alfàsi intended to reject the sense given by the Targum together with the comparison implied within it. In the work of Ibn Janà˙, at πwn (p. 418) we find a reiteration of the comparison entered at ˚lp/hpn/˚lp (p. 574); whereas at çrj (p. 253) there is a repetition of the comparison entered at hkwç/çrj/hkws (p. 709). At rhg, however, (p. 126), he refrains from reiterating a comparison; instead, a cross reference is given to ˆjg (p. 132). In the Ma˙beret, it seems that the definition djp (jwpn) for ˚ça (p. 35) alludes to the comparison established at ent djp (p. 141); the comparison wnllfyw/lx/llf occurs at lx (p. 149) specifically, rather than at llf, that is merely given a general definition lx ˆwçl; as a matter of fact, it seems that the comparison here is incorrectly located.

the aims of language comparison

109

grammarians themselves take note of the fact that a (Bib. Heb.1) entry word is a hapax or of extremely rare occurrence; this is expressed ryùfn hl sylw or by some similar expression. With these formulae, a comparison will appear, in juxtaposition, as for instance in Alfàsi’s work where the standard formula is . . . μwgrtw ‚ryfn hl sylw, as in entries ˆmk (p. 110), tks (p. 326), brs (p. 353), çjr (p. 606), ttr (p. 633) or (y)pç (p. 696). In Mena˙em’s Ma˙beret we find hlml ˆya . . . ˆwfa whwmk tymra ˆwçlb lba . . . ˆwymd wz (p. 22); likewise at wpygy (p. 58), etc. Let us now weigh up the former alternative, that the three-way comparison established by the Hebrew grammarians was geared to highlighting the etymological equivalence between Bib. Heb.1 and Targ. Aram. (= the translation of Bib. Heb.2), as ba/aba, ˆwfa/ˆwfa, and the like so that Bib. Heb.2 is adduced as merely subservient to this aim. The following data and arguments tend to refute such a possibility: Many entries in the Hebrew grammarians’ lexicons present no comparison between Heb. and Aram. to uphold the etymological link between the two, as μylydg (Alfàsi, p. 302, Ibn Janà˙, p. 124) and πrg (Alfàsi p. 350, Ibn Janà˙, p. 146), even though a three-way comparison of the given formula, Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. could have been recorded, such as: *μylydg (Deut. 22:12)/twb[ (Exod. 28:14)/wlydg (Targ. Onkelos ib); *πrg/h[y (Exod. 23:17)/typwrgm (Targ. ibid.);2

If the Hebrew grammarians were concerned with etymological comparisons for their own sake, they would surely have recorded these comparisons and many similar ones. Furthermore, they could have adopted a good many comparisons pertaining to formula Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (cognate available from local translation), such as: ˆbg (Lev. 21:20)/ˆybg; lag/lyag (Num. 35:25); çydg/çydg (Exod. 22:5); rdg/rdg (Num. 22:24); zzg/zzg (Gen. 31:19); lglg/lglg (Isa. 17:13) πgn/πgn (Exod. 21:35) and many others, whereas

2 This theoretical argument must not be adduced regarding potential comparisons in which etymological equivalence between the Bib. Heb.1 and Targ. Aram. components is determinable solely by testimony for such a Targ. Aram. entity in the Aramaic Targum(s) of Job, Psalms and other books of the Ketuvim, because these Targums were not yet available at the time of Alfàsi and Ibn Janà˙ (see below, 9.12.12; 13.20, also above, 3.10.1).

110

chapter five

these comparisons were all left unrecorded. What is more, in several such entries, comparison was indeed registered with non-cognate translation synonyms, so if they were concerned with cognate translation synonyms, such were immediately available. For example R. Jonah compares ˆbg with trwfyj (p. 122) whereas with the cognate ˆybg he established no comparison. If indeed the intermedium Bib. Heb.2 served merely to create the said etymological link between Bib. Heb.1 and Targ. Aram., whereas Bib. Heb.2 in itself is secondary in the comparison, it could have simply been omitted; the Hebrew grammarians could have maintained the comparison as per the formula Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (cognate from a distant location). Moreover, in the following instances the grammarians placed several Bib. Heb.2 entities to intermediate between Bib. Heb.1 and Targ. Aram. for comparisons of this type, one entity being insufficient for this purpose. Examples: ≈wb/db, çç, μytçp/≈wb (Alfàsi, p. 191; Ibn Janà˙, p. 87) (db alone or çç alone would, prima facie, have sufficed); twryç/jj, dymx, hd[xa/ryç (Ibn Janà˙, p. 718); bwj/(t)afj, ˆw[, μça/ hbwj (Alfàsi, p. 512); hd[/çwm, rws, rb[/hd[ (ibid. p. 371). Were the intermediation in itself insignificant, one example would surely have been enough. The upshot is that it is not Bib. Heb.2 that serves to mediate between Bib. Heb.1 and Targ. Aram.; rather Targ. Aram. serves as intervenior between Bib. Heb.1 and Bib. Heb.2, its function being to determine the semantic synonymity between the two; the more synonymic entities adduced to illustrate this, the better. A further argument: the present formula is but one of an array of inductions for determining the sense of an entry word. For example, for fixing the definition of the entry word πrf (Gen. 8:11), R. Jonah sets down three sources of arguments, one of which pertains to the present formula (p. 269). Also, in Alfàsi’s lexicon there is a case of almost direct evidence for determining the real aim of the comparison in Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. when recording comparison rypx/ry[ç/rypx (entry ry[ç, p. 337; the comparison appears at rypx, p. 525, too). The grammarian states: rypxhw hlwql djaw wh ry[çw rypxw ˆwy ˚lm ry[çh (Dan. 8:21), i.e. what has already been proven from the Targum is again demonstrated by the synonymity between Bib. Heb.1 and Bib. Heb.2. Ibn Janà˙, likewise (p. 495), following his comparison, concludes: djaw hxnw rdms yn[mp.

the aims of language comparison

111

The data and reasoning set out above all point to the conclusion that it is not the etymological comparison between Bib. Heb.1 and Targ. Aram. that constitutes the main aim neither is it the translational non-etymological comparison between Bib. Heb.2 and Targ. Aram. The objective of comparison is the result of the combination of these two comparisons, i.e. the sense equivalence between Bib. Heb.1 and Bib. Heb.2. Indeed this is to be seen as the ultimate aim. 5.3.2.2 Formulae Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. and Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./(Targ. Aram.) Comparisons pertaining to this formula were also adopted with the aim of determining the sense of the Aramaic entry word under discussion (see analysis of this formula, above 3.6.7). Support for this contention is to be found in the similarity existing between this formula and formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.; the single aspect differentiating between these two formulae is the source of the entry word, that in one case is biblical Aramaic and in the other biblical Hebrew. Further, the very same phenomena identified in Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. are to be noticed in the present formula, too: the majority of Aramaic entry words dealt with are infrequent biblical words, very often, even hapax legomena. For this reason these are in need of language comparison; their Hebrew counterparts, in contrast, are generally of very common occurrence. Examples (from Alfàsi): çab, t(w)b, wkz, (y)dj, ≈rj, ≈jr, çmç, ayxyç are all unique words in Aramaic, whereas their Hebrew counterparts are frequently occurring words: [r occurs 438 times (as noun or verb), ˆùùwl 40 times, qùùdx 317 times (as verb or noun), hzj 13 times, μyntm 47 times, jfb 162 times, trç 62 times, trk 285 times. Furthermore, on perusal of the Hebrew entry words, each in its appropriate place in the lexicons appearing as an entry caption,3 it transpires that there is not a single instance presenting a comparison with Aramaic. It is also impossible to postulate that the aim of the comparison here is the etymological equivalence of Bib. Aram. and Targ. Aram., for these two are co-lingual and it is very improbable that Alfàsi and

3 See for example, çbk (p. 85), [r (p. 615), ˆl (p. 170), ary is entirely out of place (pp. 70, 582), appearing only at hr (p. 537) but not as an entry caption; lya (p. 76), jtn (p. 295), qdx (p. 501), etc.

112

chapter five

Mena˙em treated the two strata of Aramaic as representing two different languages. It it thus conclusive that comparison serves to determine the sense of an entry word under discussion. 5.3.2.3 In formula Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram. Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. is here an inevitable comparison in the lexicons of Alfàsi and Mena˙em (in contradistinction to Ibn Janà˙, who treats this comparison as deliberate). It is therefore likely that the additional portion of the complex comparison, structured as it is on Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (or on Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.) aims at providing greater intelligibility to Bib. Heb.1 and Bib. Aram. (respectively); for these latter, despite their mutual comparison, remain somewhat insufficiently lucid, for which reason they require comparison with a translation synonym. Indeed, both Bib. Heb.1 and Bib. Aram. have low frequency, for example rmg (in the sense under discussion) appears only once in biblical Aramaic and twice in biblical Hebrew; contrast lylk, which appears 15 times; rbdh 4 times in biblical Aramaic (plus once only (in the opinion of Alfàsi] in biblical Hebrew); contrast root ghn‚ which appears 30 times as a verb, apart from all its occurrences as a noun; llf is a hapax in biblical Hebrew and also in biblical Aramaic, in contrast with lx, which occurs 53 times as a noun and twice more as a verb; ˚lm (in the sense of “counsel,” “advise”) is a hapax both in biblical Aramaic and in biblical Hebrew, as against ≈[y 65 times as a verb (apart from the several nominal occurrences of same); dhc, is also a hapax both in biblical Aramaic and in biblical Hebrew, whereas the substantive d[e, appears 69 times, and the verb dùùw[, a further 40 times. 5.3.2.4 In Formula Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. In this category, the comparison is between two entries, whose etymological equivalence is crystal clear. It would seem at first that the comparison plays no significant part in determining the sense of the relevant Bib. Heb. For instance, if it is stated that biblical Heb. jtm is equivalent to jtm in Targ. Aram., it would seem, superficially, that such comparison contributes nothing on the semantic plane; it might be assumed that this comparison is merely for its own sake. As shown below (5.3.5), the number of comparisons recorded by the Hebrew grammarians, according to this formula is relatively low. Occasionally R. Jonah b. Janà˙ adopts this formula of comparison (as aylya/μylya, p. 39; yla/yla, p. 46; wzgn/ˆwzygyw, p. 130, etc.). But

the aims of language comparison

113

because he perceives that the elucidation of meaning of the entry word is not aided by the comparison, he resorts to comparison by another formula, lya/hma/lya; yla/ˆnwq/yla; wzgn/jlx/zwg and these appear subsequently in the text of the respective entries. This perception is on occasion even expressed in words. For instance, when, having compared (Ezek. 24:26) hla with its Targ. Aram. cognate, he determines: hyp hbhùdm yrda amw (= I do not know his opinion on this), implying that translation by a cognate can be worthless for semantics. If the Hebrew grammarians held as their main objective to established cognate Heb./Aram. comparisons for their own sake, it would have been quite than simple to utilize the Aramaic Targum systematically, no matter whether the Targ. Aram. provided corroboration for the sense suggested for the entry word or was of no import. For this reason, Ibn Janà˙, at the entry tkwç ( Judg. 9:49) makes no mention of the on the spot Targ. Aram. hkws but prefers to resort to a comparison tkwç/çrj-πy[s/hkws (p. 709). Likewise at entry ry[b (p. 103), R. Jonah could have adopted the comparison formula as used by Alfàsi, who established the comparison: ta wn[f μkry[b (Gen. 45:17) with the ad loc. Targ. Aram. ˆwkry[b ty wnw[f. Instead, he chose to record a comparison of the formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram., namely ry[b/hmhb/ry[b. Nonetheless, in the few cases in which the comparison was recorded merely as Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram., it would seem that the Targ. Aram. entities were more intelligible, either on account of their extreme frequency of occurrence or due to a traditional interpretation existing for these entry words. The aim of this comparison is quite certain for those instances that closely suit the formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (see below) but lack the intermediary element, Bib. Heb.2. The grammarian indeed omits it, apparently on the presumption that the reader himself can locate the Bib. Heb.2 by the Targ. Aram. One comparison of this type, i.e. yhl/yhlç (p. 153), is recorded initially as Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. alone but further on in the entry Alfàsi spells out expressly the Bib. Heb.2 entity that had earlier been passed over: yhl/πy[/yhlç. 5.3.2.5 In formula Bib. Heb./Talm. Aram. For comparisons pertaining to the formula Bib. Heb./Talm. Aram. also, the Aramaic component, here Talm. Aram., is more intelligible. For example, the entry word amylg occurs about 80 times in the Babylonian Talmud; for this reason it can serve to support the

114

chapter five

grammarian’s decision (al-"Ußùl, p. 137) on the sense of ymwlg (Ezek. 27:24) which is a hapax legomenon in the Bible; this is also the case with rdh (an extremely frequent word in the Talmud) versus μyrwdh (Isa. 45:2) (ibid. p. 171). Occasionally it is the context of the word in the Talmud, that proves the sense as determined, e.g. twlypab ("Ußùl, p. 64), which is compared with ˆsynm ˆywhd atlpab (BT Rosh HaShanah, 8a) and likewise trwxb (p. 105). It can happen that the definition of a Talm. Aram. entity appears ad loc. in the Talmud. This was cited by Ibn Janà˙, for example in entry πçn (p. 464): aùdhw πçn, ammy ata, aylyl πçn ,wwh ypçn yrt yça br rma . . . lyawala bhùdm aylyl ata ammy (BT, Berakhot, 3b). Further, in some cases Talm. Aram. is transparent owing to a tradition of exegesis deriving from the school of the Ge"onim. For example, the sense of Talm. Aram. arma (recorded from tbç tksm ˆm rz[yla ùr qrp in "Ußùl, p. 57) is that which accords with R. Sherira Ga"on’s interpretation; and likewise the Talm. Aram. çwg (BT, Bava Mezia 101a) whose meaning is adduced as follows: arp[ ˆwag aryrç br wb çryp ˆkw ("Ußùl, p. 129), and so on. 5.3.2.6 In formula Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (non-cognate) In this category no evidence exists, even a priori, that the aim of the comparison is to secure an etymological link between the entry word and its Aramaic translation synonym, for indeed they possess no etymological equivalence. Failing any further express linguistic comparison of a grammatical or semantic nature, we would have no reason to deal with this formula at all. But in its background, one may detect a hidden comparison, adducing a cognate between the Targ. Aram. that is in fact recorded and an additional Bib. Heb. entity that holds the same status as Bib. Heb.1 in the broad formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. For example, in the comparisons rhg/ˆjg‚ hdwmlg/hadyjy, fa/çrj, hç[m/rxwa, ˆwlqx/çwbl, μyqwmx/ ˆwçby ˆybn[, hnq/hyynzam, rwrx/ˆba, twnp/yçyr, etc. (Ibn Janà˙, below, 13.7), the Targ. Aram. element is a cognate of another Bib. Heb. entity, as çrj/çrj, ˆjg/ˆjg, hdyjy/hadyjy, etc. Thus for practical purposes the comparison is three-way: hdyjy/hdwmlg/hadyjy, ˆjg/rhg/ˆjg, etc. The difference between the standard formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. and the present one is merely that one of the two Bib. Heb. entities, Bib. Heb.1 or Bib. Heb.2, is rarer and thus more obscure. In any case, in the instances indicated, the lexicographer/exegete requires of the reader no erudition in Aramaic, for

the aims of language comparison

115

the Targ. Aram. adduced in the comparison has a cognate Hebrew counterpart that occurs frequently and whose sense is well known. In certain other comparisons, the Targ. Aram. element that is non-cognate with the Bib. Heb. element is a cognate with a Rab. Heb. entry. Thus the comparisons rçç/ˆmms, zgra/atwbyt, rzmm/ˆyarkwn, and the like can be considered to contain a Rab. Heb./Targ. Aram. (cognate) comparison, too: ˆmms/ˆmms, ˆyarkwn/yrkn, hbyt/atwbyt, and so on. This assumption finds corroboration in R. Jonah’s practice when recording several comparisons of this type. Alongside the comparison dga/rsa he also records rsa/rsa: ˆwçll hmwd awhw abwza trsa hb μwgrth rmaw . . . (Exod. 12:22) bwza tdga • (Num. 30:11) rsa hrsaw μyyrb[h (= . . . the Targum renders thereto abwza trsa and this resembles the expression in the language of the Hebrews rsa hrsaw) (Shorashim, p. 11). The second comparison aimes to demonstrate that the sense of rsya Aramaic non-cognate for dga is known from biblical Hebrew itself. In fact, according to this conclusion the formula might be: Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. = Bib. Heb. by this inter-connected comparison the grammarian actualized precisely what I earlier postulated as regards the other comparisons. Similarly the instance of hçrjm/πwç[, where Ibn Janà˙ notes that πçw[ in rabbinic Hebrew (Mishna, Kelim XIII, 8) means such and such according to R. Hai Ga"on proves conclusively that the comparison with Targ. Aram. would have been of no value were it not for its cognate Rab. Heb. bearing a similar familiar connotation. 5.3.2.7 In formula Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb. (in Alfàsi’s lexicon only) In the formula Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb. (cognate heterophonic entities), the comparison is intended to further clarify the etymology of Bib. Aram., thus determining its meaning. The non-transparency of the Bib. Aram. etymology is due to either mutual switches of radical letters between Heb. and Aram. or to a redundant letter in one of the two compared entities versus the other. Thus a vital comparison arises in entries hdnm (p. 216), af[ (p. 386) rbdg (p. 301), baf (p. 2), ˆyda (p. 34), and the like.4 4

See below, 9.4.2, full lists of Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. comparisons (deliberate).

116

chapter five

To verify that the aforementioned is indeed the aim of this comparison type, the following test can be applied. For the respective Hebrew components of the pairs of entities in this category, with the exception of hdm, no reiteration of the comparison occurs. For example, the comparison ba/bna occurs at bna (p. 122) only, not at the entry word bae. If this comparison were of importance per se, with no connection to the etymological transparency of the entry word, then this comparison ought to have appeared additionally or exclusively at entry ba. It is likely that bna and similarly the Aramaic entities of parallel status in this category are less transparent than their Hebrew counterparts. This is because, in general, Aramaic was less known than Hebrew in the period under discussion and because those words in Aramaic in which, as against Hebrew, an additional letter/consonant is incorporated, by phonetic dissimilation or for rendering the root triliteral (as e.g. baf, that is compared with Heb. bwf, that in Alfàsi’s opinion is a biliteral root, precisely parallel with Aram. fhr v. Heb. ≈wr), are obscure relative to Heb. on account of the additional letter. But the main corroboration of the stand taken here derives from the fact that Alfàsi himself provides a certain parameter enabling us to objectively determine which element of the respective entry pair is the more intelligible. This transpires from a chain of translation synonyms emanating from the sum-total of definitions of co-semic entries, entry for entry. For example, bna is defined by ba, whereas ba, at its own entry (p. 22) is defined by yrp in the framework of the comparison ba/yrp/ba, whereas yrp in its own entry (p. 481), is defined merely by the Arabic translation synonym rmùt. Perhaps if Alfàsi had adopted zero definiens of the “well-known” type such as Ibn Janà˙ uses in his lexicon, he would have left yrp undefined, relying on its being a commonly known entity not needing definition, given its frequent occurrence in the Bible. A clue to this is that the definition of the latter appears merely at the transition point intersecting the secondary entries of rp; there the grammarian says: rmùtll sa rp anlw, implying that Alfàsi is not defining yrp itself but the root from which that entity as well as the verb hrp derive; and this definition is recorded solely for the sake of distinguishing this word from its homonyms: rp 1 (= cattle) and rp 2 (= nullification, cancellation). Thus yrp is very intelligible, ba is less intelligible, and bna least intelligible. A similar gradation, from the obscure to the most lucid is to be found in the category of Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. ljd-ljz-ary. ljz (p. 481) is defined by comparing

the aims of language comparison

117

it with Aramaic ljd, whereas ljd itself (at its entry, p. 376) is not compared with ljz (as is the case at entry ljz itself ) but with ary, by the formula Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (ljd/ary/ljd). On the other hand, ary is nowhere to be found at any likely location in the lexicon: at ry (pp. 69–70) it is lacking, for according to Alfàsi’s grammatical thesis the yod is non-radical in this verb. At ùr as well as at ar (pp. 582–85), it is also excluded. We encounter it coincidentally at the entry hhr (p. 597 hr), indeed not as a definitum (!) but as a unique definiens (!) for hr, as follows: trkùd rqw (Gen. 43:23) waryt la lùtm (Isa. 44:8) whrt law wdjpt la • ˚yhw ˚ya ywh ywa lùtm ladbala πwrj yp hlaùtma Thus there is no further verbalized definition; in other words, ary itself is in no need of any definition, being sufficiently intelligible, presumably on account of its high frequency in the Bible. This entry is thus that of the greatest lucidity, in the graded series of inter-lingual translation synonyms and intra-lingual sense synonyms ljz-ljd-ary. Of less lucidity is the Aramaic ljd and even less so the Hebrew ljz— indeed a rare word. It is plausible that we have here one of the clues for Alfàsi’s system of entry definition in his lexicology: one defines the most obscure entry word by the entity that is one stage more lucid than itself; and the latter in turn is defined by an even more lucid entity and so on until one reaches the most intelligible entry word in the series. But this entire process is conditioned on the type of synonymity existing between the definientes and the definita, whether cognates or non-cognates (in their respective formulae). For our purposes, the given gradation is of significance, because it demonstrates that the relevant comparison is recorded at the location at which it is necessary for the explication of the entry word. The gradation series is especially noticeable in those cases in which the series of translation synonyms consists of more than two entries; but the system is indeed tenable in instances of series comprising only two components, if they pertain to the type discussed earlier, appearing as it does according to formula Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb. (if the Arabic translation synonym is appended, the series becomes one containing three units), for example (from obscure to lucid): • rbdg (Aram.; p. 301)—rbzg (Heb. and Aram.; p. 314)—lma[ (Arab. ibid.) • baf (Aram.; p. 2)—bwf (Heb.; p. 3)—dwùg, ryùk (Arab.; ibid.) • af[ (Aram.; p. 386)—≈[(y) (Heb.; p. 421)—hrwçm (Arab.; ibid.)

118

chapter five

The addition of the third unit, the Arabic component, is noteworthy, because owing to the historical and socio-linguistic conditions of that medieval period the language possessing the highest measure of intelligibility of the three languages with which the lexicons are concerned is in fact Arabic, Arabic being the vernacular, the language having a living, unbroken tradition, and therefore used for grammatical and linguistic discussion and for formulating definitions. Hebrew and Aramaic, in contrast, had ceased to be spoken languages, causing many expressions in those languages to lose their intelligibility (see for instance the statements of Ibn Janà˙ in Kitàb al-Mustal˙aq pp. 131 et seq.). The restoration of this intelligibility could be achieved (a) by tradition, of interpretation, rendering, and the like; (b) by internal investigation (parallelism, context, etc.); or (c) by etymological comparison with other more intelligible, languages. It is probable that an entry requiring external comparison has a lower limpidity level than one that does not call for such comparison. In all the aforementioned comparisons then, the Aramaic entries are all less limpid than their Hebrew translation synonyms, for which reason, in each case, the comparison is recorded at the Aramaic entry rather than at the Hebrew one. Had the opposite been the case, had the comparison been recorded at the more limpid entry word and not at the obscure entry, this would have been quite surprising as regards the aim under discussion (albeit not as regards other aims). Moreover, even exceptions to this rule, such as hdm/hdnm, in which a comparison appears at both entries, do not refute the rule, since the comparison appears at the more obscure of the two entry words, at hdnm, as well. It was noted above that a comparison reiterated at the limpid entry is merely a matter of repetitiveness, apparently connected with Alfàsi’s tendency to occasionally practise language comparison for its own sake.5

5 Entries [wrz and lzrb fail to appear in Alfàsi’s lexicon at their predictable locations, despite their being recorded in the context of their Aramaic counterparts [rd and lzrp. [wrz occurs neither between brz and ryzrz (p. 507) nor in the archentry [rz (p. 507). True, in the list of entries appearing in the preface to entries rùùz (p. 502) he notes [wrz immediately following [rz and adduces three quotes Isa. 44:12; Job, 31:22; ibid., 38:15. But as an entity in itself, it does not appear anywhere among the enumerated entries. If this is not a simple aberration of the author or copyist’s omission, there may be reason to cast doubt on the authenticity of these prefaces. lzrb also is missing. in the preface to rb (p. 268) as well as in its predictable place (p. 272). Skoss made no mention of these omissions.

the aims of language comparison

119

5.3.2.8 In Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb. (non-cognate translation synonym) What has been mentioned in the previous paragraph holds for this category (9.4.4) as well. The comparison is used in Aramaic entries solely with the aim of rendering them more limpid; comparisons of this formula are neither encountered nor reiterated in the respective Hebrew entries, e.g. at çy (p. 72); ab (pp. 178–84), hnh (p. 448), lg (p. 321), d[ (p. 372), hp (p. 449), çglyp (p. 459). At yj the comparison was not recorded at the Aram. entry, because at entry ùj also the comparison is a negative one, i.e. a comparison was mentioned merely to be rejected. In Mena˙em’s work, three comparisons pertaining to this formula are encountered; the conclusions related to Alfàsi (above) are applicable also to Mena˙em. 5.3.2.9 In Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. It has already been stated that the nature of the comparison pertaining to this formula in the lexicons of Alfàsi and Mena˙em is an inevitable one, on account of their lexicographical method. However, comparison of this type in Ibn Janà˙’s lexicon, far from being inevitable is deliberate, as are the rest of his comparisons with Aramaic. Analysis of the materials in this category, by the comparisons recorded by R. Jonah, casts considerable light on the problem of frequency/limpidity comparison. As against 13 Bib. Heb. hapax legomena (such as lfb, rwd, qsn, zr) Bib. Aram. entries are fairly frequent (lfb 6 occurrences, rwd 10, qsn 8, zr 9). This reflects a fairly typical state of affairs for entering a comparison of a unique entity with one more frequent than itself. But there are instances where not only the Bib. Heb. is rare but also the Bib. Aram. with which it is compared, e.g. in the pairs lçj/lçj, lbrk/lbrk, sna/sna, rbzg/rbzg, ryg/ryg, ˚rj/˚rj and so on, in which both components of the comparison are hapax legomena. In what way does the comparison aid in clarifying the sense of the entry word? Two solutions to this enigma may be proposed. At times the comparison with Bib. Aram. is not isolated but is associated with a comparison with rabbinic Hebrew, so that through a combination of the two comparisons the sense of the entry word is ascertained; such is the case with sna. A second solution is that the Bib. Aram. entity, despite its infrequent, even unique, occurrence, appears in a biblical context that renders its meaning clear and lucid, much more so than the corresponding biblical context with regard to the Bib. Heb. entry. For example, the sense of the word ˚rjth (Dan. 3:27) (= was burnt) is

120

chapter five

transparent from the context ˆwhmçgb arwn flç al yd ˚la ayrbgl ˆyzj ˚rjth al ˆwhçar r[çw, whereas this is not the case in the corresponding Heb. context of the Bib. Heb. component ˚rj, hymr ˚rjy al ≈wrj rqy μda ˆwhw wdyx (Prov. 12:27). Thus the rarity of an entry word is likely to be but not necessarily a reason for its semantic obscurity. This further gives the grounds for comparisons of the given formula in which the Bib. Heb. entry is even more frequent than the Bib. Aram. For example, πga 7/πg 3; ypal 4/πna 2; μyskn 5/ˆyskn 2; jxn 6 (excluding the words jxnml and jxn)/jxnta 1. These examples demonstrate clearly that a high degree of frequency does not in itself guarantee limpidity, especially if the frequency is of a technical nature, i.e. a reiteration of the same expression, either without any variation or with changes of phraseology so minute as to be of no avail for its limpidity. Such is the case for the Heb. entry jxnl (Ezra 3:8–9) and similar words: the Bib. Aram. counterpart is more limpid, despite its infrequency. Several other comparisons of this type have a different objective, for example hfj 32/hfnj 2, which is recorded for determination of the root. 5.3.2.10 In Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (non cognate)/ Arab. (cognate for Targ. Aram.) This formula is adopted primarily for Bib. Heb. entries that are terms of realia. As is well-known, the correct identification of the signifiés of such terms had become problematical ever since Hebrew ceased to be a spoken language in the earliest centuries CE and was so until recently with the revival of spoken Hebrew at the end of the nineteenth century. Ibn Janà˙ expended considerable effort to identify the meaning of such terms; he spared neither the time nor the exertion required to locate artisans, and to inspect their professional utensils, convinced as he was that these tools, with the tasks that they achieved, reflected the true picture of realia in biblical times. A good example is his attempt to identify the meaning of the term μyInb" a] ; (p. 18). Ibn Bal'am, likewise, encountered difficulty in elucidating terms of realia; at times he refused to adopt identifications proffered by other scholars even when he had no alternative identification to suggest, deeming it preferable to leave the term unidentified rather than adopt what he considered an unfounded identification. Following are examples for such difficulties: μylha} (Num. 24:6; Fuchs 1893); μysybç (Isa. 3:18; Perez 1981, pp. 27, 218). Given that 22 entries

the aims of language comparison

121

pertain to this formula in Ibn Janà˙’s lexicon as against only four such in Alfàsi’s, it seems that Ibn Janà˙ found the present comparison formula an ideal, even sophisticated apparatus for overcoming the aforementioned difficulties. To reach the correct definition for the Bib. Heb. entry, he exploits the non-cognate translation synonym for that entry occurring in the parallel Targum text continuum. This Targ. Aram. (non-cognate) has dual utility. First, it stands as a translation synonym for rendering the Bib. Heb. (which already in Ibn Janà˙’s lifetime was obscure), enjoying such status since the earlier epochs when the Bib. Heb. was limpid, rendering the mutual identity of the two, according to targumic tradition, as good as certain. Second, this Targ. Aram. entry is a cognate to the Arabic entry word, providing further proof for the identification. Now the advantage of adducing the Arabic component is that in the linguistic identification in Arabic the tradition is boosted by an uninterrupted span of that vernacular over many centuries, further enhancing the limpidity of the term.6 This approach is reflected in several choices of expression. An example is laq amk hwskla hyp yùdla a[wll amsa ˆak ambrw . . . (2R 10:22) hjtlmh • twbatla br[la ˆasl yp rfmqlaw ayrfmq l[ μwgrtla The grammarian does not even take the trouble to remark that

ayrfmq and Arab. rfmq are cognate. This is taken for granted. 5.3.2.11 In Bib. Heb./Talm. Aram. (non-cognate)/ Arab. (cognate with Talm. Aram.) The statement of opinion in the previous formula on the aim of comparison is equally applicable in the present formula. The only difference is that here the Aramaic elucidation of the Bib. Heb. entry is not based on a tradition of Aramaic Targums to the Bible, since the latter offer no corroboration (e.g. when no Arabic cognate exists for the Targ. Aram. or when the Targ. Aram. itself is a cognate for the Bib. Heb. entry) but on the tradition of interpretation to be found in the Talmud. For example, rwçat (Isa. 41:19) is identified in the Talmud with anbyrwç (TB, Rosh HaShanah, 23a). Ibn Janà˙

6 It cannot be stated for certain whether Ibn Janà˙ took into account the possibility, and if so to what extent he postulated such a possibility, that even in the course of an uninterrupted span of a spoken vernacular, fluctuations can be expected to have taken place in the sense of the terms.

122

chapter five

("Ußùl, p. 74) exploits the phonetic similarity of anbyrwç (Talm. Aram.) and ˆybrç (Arab.) for identifying the signifié of the Bib. Heb. Incidentally, if Ibn Janà˙ had been concerned merely to enrich his lexicon with entries defined/identified by Bib. Heb./Talm. Aram. for their own sake, whether the Talm. Aram. was transparent or non-transparent, he might have adduced, from the same text source as that of /anbyrwç rwçat (Rosh HaShanah, ibid.), all the remaining nine names for cedar tree types in Hebrew and Aramaic as documented there; whereas in fact he adduced from the aforementioned source only those names for which he could establish no reliable identification on the basis of Targ. Aram. and, side by side, of the Talm. Aram., for which cognate Arabic existed. 5.3.2.12 In Comparisons with Arabic As stated earlier, any ordinary comparison, provided it cannot be proven that it was recorded for its own sake or for any other specific objective, can be assumed to have as its aim the semantic definition of its entry word. To warrant placing such an ordinary comparison outside this category would require solid, well-grounded evidence. For this reason I have set aside the comparisons contained within the special collective lists as well as the grammatical comparisons and allocated for them a separate class, on the basis of their comparison aim. All the remaining comparisons are treated as possessing the principal aim of language comparison. Corroboration for this aim can be obtained from the general pronouncements set out by the Hebrew grammarians in the introductions to their several lexicons (above, 2.1, 2.2, 5.2). In comparisons with Aramaic, proof was available from the comparison formulae themselves; these were found to indicate that comparison is the aim in the great majority of instances. As regards Arabic, this aim can be said to be attributable to the formula, in the case of the formula Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (non-cognate translation synonym)/Arab. (cognate) and for that formula alone. As for other comparisons, the formula cannot be said to demonstrate this aim. However, a process of analogy enables us to deduce the comparison aim for Arabic, from the corresponding comparison aim determinable for Aramaic. The argument runs as follows: in the same way that comparison with Aram. is employed because the entry word under discussion is rare or unique and thus non-limpid, so, likewise, a comparison with Arab. is likely to be employed. Furthermore, in the same way that the Heb./Aram. com-

the aims of language comparison

123

parison serves to make up for the lack of limpidity, due to the low frequency of the compared entry, so, likewise and with the same aim, a Heb./Arab. comparison is employed in those cases in which the biblical frequency of occurrence of an entry word is low. A concordance check shows that a good number of entry words incorporated in Hebrew-Arabic comparisons are indeed biblical hapax legomena. 5.3.3 Comparison aimed at the determination of the lack of an etymological connection between homonymic Hebrew roots This aim is a more or less systematic principle for each entry in Part One of Risàla, whereas in Part Three, sec. 1, also, this aim of comparison is occasionally encountered. In the works of the other Heb. grammarians this phenomenon is met with less than in the works of Ibn Quraysh but is indeed present. In the archentry ˆps (p. 344), Alfàsi sets out two Hebrew entries: ˆwps (1 Kings 7:3) and hnyps ( Jon. 1:5). In his semantic etymological discussion of these entries, he initially suggests the possibility that the latter stems from the former, namely that a boat is called hnyps on account of its being hnwps = roofed, decked. But he raises a further possibility, namely that the noun hnyps is not to be derived etymologically from ˆwps and thus also has no semantic connection with that word but is simply a “noun in its own right” (htaùdb μsa) as can be proven from the Arabic word hnyps. This comparison is to be explained as follows: in Arabic the noun hnyps is an independent entry, as regards its etymological liaison, considering that no verb ˆps* in Arabic exists from which it could have been derived. Thus correspondingly, in Heb. also it can be postulated that the noun hnyps is independent, having no etymological connection with ˆps. The object of the comparison, therefore, proves to be the determination of “non-linkage” between these two given Heb. entry words. A similar aim is noticeable in entry μhn (p. 258): in the second part of his discussion, Alfàsi concludes that no connection exists between that word and the root (h)mh; this analysis finds support from comparison with the Arabic root μhn. The phraseology here is very similar to that employed with ˆps (above), i.e. ahsarb hgl μhn zwùgyw, i.e. μhn is an independent root. The comparison jwj/ù˚wùk also, (p. 526) aims at obviating an etymological link between jwj and jj. In this vein, too, we should understand Ibn Janà˙’s explication of hjl sn

124

chapter five

(Deut. 34:7). The latter can be interpreted as deriving from swn in its usual sense of “fleeing” (jrb) or as a metaphorical extension of that sense. Therefore, in order to exclude such a hypothesis, the grammarian compares that entry word with the Arabic sn (= “dry”) ("Ußùl, p. 417). 5.3.4

The aim of comparison: Bible translation

In the special treatises of language comparison, it is to be expected that comparison will be recorded, in the first place, for its own sake, namely with the aim of determining the principle that an affinity exists between the languages discussed, for discussing comparison methodology and with an emphasis on pointing up the scope of similarity or equivalence between those languages, both in the grammatical and in the lexicographical contexts. However, Becker (1984, p. 29) has demonstrated that in Part One (and Two) of the Risàla, compiled by R. Judah ibn Quraysh, a different objective can be discerned, i.e. the elucidation of the difficult words in the Bible. In the work of Ibn Barùn also, being as it is exclusively for language comparison and clearly presenting comparisons “for their own sake,” the other objective of comparison can be discerned as well, albeit with a somewhat different emphasis. “Between the lines” of the remarks appearing in the comparative lexicon within Kitàb alMuwàzana, it can be inferred that Ibn Barùn had intended to provide Bible translators with an apparatus comprising all possible Heb./ Arab. cognate entries (i.e. those he held to be so). He may have held the opinion that the ideal Bible translator, when setting down an Arabic rendering, should strive to translate every biblical expression, according to his capacity, by a cognate Arabic or at least by a homophonic translation synonym even if such is not a cognate. One finds, accordingly that in entry dydy (Muwàzana, p. 59) the grammarian not only discusses the comparison with the Arab. dydw; he remarks, additionally: yna—ròka lxa ˆm ˆak ˆaw—( Job. 40:14) ˚dwa yna μgw μùgrty ˆa ˆsjyw • . . . ˚dwa Ibn Barùn thus explicitly informs us that ˚dwa is not from the root ddy; nevertheless he recommends that the rendering be by a similar homophonic translation synonym—i.e. the Arabic expression ˚dwa (this rendering clearly suiting the context well, in his opinion). Likewise

the aims of language comparison

125

at the termination of other entries: after the comparative discussion, it is noticeable that he is especially concerned about the rendering of several phrases or expressions in the Bible. For example, at entry ˆyb (p. 163), aside from noting that μynybh çya (1S. 17:4) pertains to that root, the grammarian takes the trouble to propose that this expression be translated by the cognate . . . ˆynybla-wùd. So, after recording the comparison ˆjb/ˆjm, he elucidates the expression ˆjb ˆba (Isa. 28:16) and finally remarks hnjmla rùgj μùgrtyp. It is probable that Ibn Barùn rejected R. Saadiah Ga"on’s rendition for this expression, i.e. μanx rùgj; further, he states in the context of his explanation that this expression is qdmlab πwr[mla. This being so, it is surprising that he did not propose this very Arabic expression as a rendering for ˆjb ˆba! It is quite likely that his endeavors to render by a cognate wherever possible determined his choice of one of two alternative translation synonyms. Renditions, with subsequent “suggestions” of this type, are to be found further, in entries [gr (Ps. 30:6; p. 89); çab (p. 160); bda, ˆtj, (Exod. 18:1); dw[ (p. 77), etc. The terms employed in such remarks allude clearly to such an objective; these are μùgrtyp (above, ˆjb); μùgrty ˆa ˆsjyw (above, dydy); and in particular: ˆa ygbnyw μùgrty (entry p. qbd, 168) and so on. It goes without saying that the very fact that the discussion often involves full-scale biblical phrases, together with their contexts, constitutes an additional aspect of the efforts exerted to achieve the aforementioned objective. 5.3.5

The comparison for its own sake

In the previous section a definition of the characteristic elements of “comparison for its own sake” was set out. It was noted also, that even in treatises devoted specifically to language comparison, this aim of comparison can be assumed to be present, despite the fact that in certain individual comparisons or in specific sections within treatises, other salient aims of comparison can be noticed. Moreover, in other types of linguistic works, too, examples of comparison for its own sake are encountered here and there. Henceforth guidelines for determining such comparisons are set out. The definition of “comparison for its own sake” will be: any interlingual comparison, that (a) is not inevitable and (b) is not absolutely necessary for the elucidation of the lexical entry under discussion. If the context containing the given entry word gives the sense of the entry word clearly, or alternatively if the sense can be clearly inferred

126

chapter five

by intra-Hebrew material (that is actually adduced by the lexicographer), such as local or remote parallelism, the further adduction of information regarding Arabic or Aramaic is redundant for demonstrating the sense as determined. In other words whenever the comparison of an entry word with a cognate Arabic or Aramaic is adduced even though the meaning can be determined by the abovementioned alternative procedures, it is reasonable to posit that the sole purpose of recording the comparison is to highlight the similarity, the equivalence, or the difference existing between the languages related to the given entry. If the comparison as recorded has no direct relevance for the sense of the entry word under discussion but merely points up some analogous aspect of consequence for linguistic comparative study, with bearing on the given entry, the comparison can definitely be classified as “comparison for its own sake.” We now proceed to enumerate typologically the instances in which comparison is employed for its own sake. 5.3.5.1 Comparison propositions of a general nature Propositions of the type ynayrslaw ybr[law ynarb[la ˚lùd t[mùg dqw (Alfàsi, p. 327, dlg) were designed to posit a generalized comparison of translation synonyms in the three languages Heb./Aram./Arab. Such propositions were recorded for the sake of “pure” comparative science; they do not serve the purposes of specific comparison of an entry word with its parallels, i.e. its translation entries in other languages, because for the latter purposes one encounters, apart from the general propositions, appropriate terms of comparison. Let us inspect, for example, one entry pertaining to this category: ,ynayrslaw ynarb[la ˚lùd t[mùg dqw ydlùg yl[ ( Job 6:15) .ydlg yl[ ytrpt qç (Targ. to Ezek. 23:24) ˆydlg ynayrslabw ydlùg ybr[labw ydlg yl[ ynarb[lap (Alfàsi, p. 327)

Alfàsi first defines the entry word dlg by the cognate Arabic dlùg. Next, he makes a general comparative proposition, that there exists equivalence between the three languages Heb./Aram./Arab. in their use of this entry word—namely, the given entry, sense-wise, is employed similarly in the three languages but subject to the usual morpho-phonemic differences between them. Finally he proceeds to set out the details, adopting, as he does so, the style of comparison customary in ordinary explicit comparisons that contain no comparison phraseology of a generic character. That part of the propo-

the aims of language comparison

127

sition that constitutes a “detailed” comparison is designed to ascertain the meaning of the entry word and thus has nothing to do with “comparison for comparison’s sake.” However, the generic reiteration of the comparison is clearly redundant, and this portion of the proposition would seem quite definitely to be nothing but “comparison for comparison’s sake.” 5.3.5.2 Comparisons in the excursuses (Alfàsi and Dunash) Comparisons that occur outside of their natural entry location in the lexicon and that are collated rather in classified lists in several lexical entries possess no intrinsic lexicological objective; they are recorded merely for the corroboration of some general linguistic principle in the area of comparative philology. These comparisons do not aim at substantiating the “semantics” of any one particular entry word, as would be the case in an instance of a comparison having pertinence to a given entry; rather, they are indeed a part of comparative linguistic science. For instance, the Heb./Arab. comparisons πrj/πyrùk, rmj/rmùk, brj/brùk, etc., compared as they were in the entry ljb (+lùkb; Alfàsi, p. 208), were not designed to corroborate or to establish the sense of the entry words rmj, brj, πrj, and it goes without saying that they were not designed to determining the sense of the entry at hand—i.e. ljb. These comparisons were adduced in order to demonstrate the substitution between Hebrew ùj and Arabic ùk, as is clear from the fact that the ad loc. comparison of entry word ljb with its Arabic counterpart lùkb is founded upon this substitution. Of a similar nature are the compendia of comparisons recorded in the following entries in Jàmi' al-"AlfàΩ: μhz (p. 478), rtk (p. 137), z[l (p. 172), rwp (p. 452), πqt (p. 749), çt (p. 754) as well as in a certain number of the entries appearing in ynxylh (p. 439–45), such as bwt/bwç, rbt/rbç, and so on. In this connection, one comparison, i.e. jçq/jsq, is of special interest. This comparison fails to appear at its appropriate entry in the lexicon but is encountered twice, in the two collative comparison lists, recorded respectively at μhz and çt (p. 754). At the entry itself, the entry word is rendered merely by means of a non-cognate translation synonym ysq (this of course does not constitute a comparison); had the comparison been indispensable for establishing the meaning, it would surely have been more suitably recorded at the location that calls for its appearance, namely at its appropriate entry in the lexicon. Its non-appearance at the “home” entry implies that the

128

chapter five

lexicographer held the comparison to be inessential. It thus follows that the inclusion of such a comparison in the generic compendia implies no intrinsic lexicological aim of comparison but merely serves to provide further evidence regarding the similarity and general affinity existing between the languages subject to comparison. It would furthermore be redundant to state that in cases where comparisons are reiterated in the lexicon, appearing once at their “home” location and once again in some collative list, the record in the list has the status of “comparison for its own sake.” As a matter of fact, the captions of these collative compendia shed considerable light on the objective of the lists. For example, prefatory to the list at entry πqt (p. 749), it is stated: ynayrsla [m ˚rtçy ynarb[la yp ryùtkw. This implies that the aim of the collative list is to corroborate the general relationship between Hebrew and Aramaic and further to explicitly legitimize particular comparisons adopted in his lexicon at various entries. The excursus contained in The Retorts of Dunash against Mena˙em, too (Sáenz-Badillos 1981, pp. 32–33, entry jsm), had in view to prove the tenet that for many Hebrew entry words there exist corresponding Aramaic cognate translation synonyms. Moreover, the excursus at yn[fm (ibid., pp. 88ff.) had as its aim to evidence the fact that Heb./Arab. language comparison is indeed of significance for the correct interpretation of a good number of biblical Hebrew words. 5.3.5.3 Comparisons essentially of linguistic nature and not for exegetical purposes This class comprises several comparison types: (1) grammatical comparisons having no direct import for ascertaining the meaning of the entry word; (2) comparisons of general “semantics” or of “use of language” (these comparisons constitute digressions from the entry discussion or at times serve to clarify several linguistic processes); (3) specific comparisons that are liable, additionally, to point to the determination of the sense but that, considering their contextual location, are plainly aimed at demonstrating some linguistic phenomenon— in other words, “comparisons for their own sake.” Several examples follow: In the area of grammatical comparisons, for example, Alfàsi’s adduction of the comparison of the plural form of rhn in Hebrew with the corresponding form in Aramaic, i.e. twrhn/ayrhn (p. 258) or the comparison of the use of the numeral dja with a following noun

the aims of language comparison

129

in the plural, in Hebrew and in Arabic (dja p. 61): Neither of these comparisons have any bearing on the sense of the entry word; they are nothing but “comparisons for comparison’s sake.” An example from the work of Dunash (see Sáenz-Badillos, p. 100): the comparison ˆksm/ˆyksm is recorded merely to demonstrate that the radical letter in Hebrew is samekh, “as it is . . . in Arabic.” In Ibn Janà˙’s works, such comparisons are very frequent; as a matter of fact, comparisons of this type in Riqmah, especially those of the formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram., are veritably “comparisons for their own sake.” Instances in point are: the comparisons rb'g“/rb'G“ (Riqmah, p. 241), dj/dj (ibid., p. 275), bdnth/bdnth (ibid., p. 192), lwmta/lwmta (ibid., pp. 154, 257), etc. In "Ußùl, also, there are several comparisons on grammatical topics, that are far from indispensable for determining the meaning of the entry word. Thus the comparison hfj (32 times in the Bible) /ˆyfnj (twice in the Bible) ("Ußùl, p. 238) serves merely to establish whether the root is fj or fnj. Likewise, hw:g/ E hw:gE (p. 127) is recorded simply to prove that hwg is indeed a root in its own right, rather than a reduced form of hwag, as posited by earlier grammarians. In the same way there are classified comparisons ypal/yhwpna (p. 63), rq/ryrq (p. 645) as well as the Heb./Arab. comparisons /ˆzrk ˆzrg (p. 148), ddyh/dyh (p. 170), shyw-sh/hxhx-hx (p. 179; also in Risàlat al-Tanbìh, p. 262), wttwht/th (p. 181), hmj/hmj (p. 233), hdwxmdxm/daxm (p. 390), lgm/lùgnm (p. 405), ˆwyx/hwx (p. 607), twhma-μa/ tahma (p. 55), and others. Examples of comparisons whose sole function is to illuminate a broad language process, found to be active in several languages, with no particular pertinence to the exact sense of the entry word, are as follows: dbz > laydbz/ˆybz > anybz/πrf > πyrf (Alfàsi, entry dbz, p. 474). The comparison in the following pairs of Heb./Arab. synonyms i.e. dd=dç/ydùt=dhn (ibid. p. 370) can likewise only be seen as “comparison for its own sake,” since for the purpose of defining the sense of the Hebrew entry word dd there was no need to adduce a pair of translation synonyms from Arabic. Belonging to the present type are also those specific or general typological comparisons in which a distinct entity or phenomenon in Hebrew is paralleled by “zero” in Arabic. An example of such a comparison is Alfàsi’s record at entry dgn (p. 253) in which he states that from this preposition Hebrew derived the noun dygn, whereas Arabic failed to develop a similar entry from its corresponding preposition: layj, lbaqm. It is, of course, feasible that Alfàsi merely intended

130

chapter five

to provide the student with logical grounds for his having failed to render μydygn (ibid.) with an exactly parallel expression in Arabic, i.e. by a concrete noun in the plural, whereas he found himself forced to render it in a “roundabout” way, namely by a singular abstract maßdar. Whichever way one views it, this comparison belongs to the category “comparison for its own sake,” and to no other. Ibn Janà˙ also records such comparisons. At entry ˆbl ("Ußùl, p. 344) Ibn Janà˙ renders the expression hnbl hnbln (Gen. 11:3) anbl ùdùktn; he states explicitly why he does not translate it anbl ˆbln, i.e. by an expression containing two translation synonyms: his argument is that whereas for the Heb. hnbl there exists an Arabic translation synonym hnbl, the denominative Heb. verb ˆbl has no equivalent Arabic translation synonym to match it. Regarding several specific comparisons, it is quite evident that the aim of the comparison was for its own sake and neither to determine nor to corroborate the sense of the entry word concerned. Such is often the case on account of the circumstances that conduced the comparison. For example, entry word hnyps ("Ußùl p. 491), though hapax legomenon in the Bible, is nevertheless quite limpid, owing to (a) its salient synonymity in the Hebrew Bible text with hyna ( Jon. 1:3–4); (b) its use as a translation synonym for hyna in targumic Aramaic; and (c) its frequent occurrence in Rab. Heb. Ibn Janà˙ himself does not even trouble to remark on any of these three grounds but suffices to simply state: “the word is well known.” Now, despite all, he adds the rider aùxya hybr[ yhw; thus the comparison exhibits the form of “comparison for its own sake.” It also goes without saying that in the case of many entry words of very common biblical occurrence, comparisons with Arabic were established by the Hebrew grammarians. Take for example Ibn Janà˙’s comparisons flp/tlp ("Ußùl, p. 573), [yqr/[yqr (p. 689), ˆma/ˆyma (p. 56), arb/arb (p. 107), [dg/[dg (p. 124), and btkm btk/batk (p. 334, also Riqmah p. 239), among many others. In a number of instances the meaning of an entry word shows up clearly; prima facie, from its manifold biblical contexts. Such words are in no need of comparison with an Aramaic translation synonym to establish their proven sense. Indeed it is possible that if a comparison is recorded, it was adduced merely “for comparison’s sake.” However, another possibility exists, namely that the Hebrew grammarians found it convenient, even suitable, to found the sense by the process of language comparison. If the latter is indeed the

the aims of language comparison

131

case, it could be posited that the Hebrew grammarians made language comparison the primary device for determining the sense of biblical entry words, whenever and wherever support from comparison was available. Several exemplary instances, structured on the formulae Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.; Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./ Targ. Aram.; or Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. culled from Jàmi' al-"AlfàΩ follow: çr[ (p. 433) appears ten times in the Bible and its meaning is quite salient there from; nevertheless Alfàsi adduced the comparison çr[/hfm/sr[. Aramaic hnd occurs 42 times, ˆ[k 13 times, ˆm 10 times, jlp 10 times, tjn 6 times, rwt 7 times, bwt 8 times, qpn 11 times, lza 7 times, rbg 21 times, yd 335 times, bc 5 times. For all these entry words, the sense shows up clearly from their several contexts, despite which Alfàsi did not fail to compare them with their respective Hebrew translation synonyms, using the Targ. Aram. entries as intermedia, as built on the given formulae. Thus all these comparisons can be viewed as cases of “comparison for its own sake.” Many entry words were rendered by the Hebrew grammarians by both cognate and non-cognate translation synonyms; the two latter sorts of translation synonyms are, in their opinion, synonymous (9.8.1; 13.10.1). It was noted above (4.7; 4.12) that in a large proportion of instances, the cognate is rarer, in contrast with the frequent noncognate, for which reason the cognate is less limpid. It is fair, therefore, to argue that from a purely lexicographical standpoint there was no need to adduce the cognate for definition of the entry word: the non-cognate would have well sufficed. Perhaps the Hebrew grammarians simply wished to maintain propinquity with the source texts serving them for adoption of their renderings/definitions of the several entries under discussion and for this reason also entered the cognate translation synonyms. But it cannot be ruled out that perhaps the grammarians had intended to set down not only the definition of the entry word (by the non-cognate) but also the modus operandi adopted in order to reach such definitions—namely, (1) the etymological equivalence of Hebrew entry word and cognate Arabic translation synonym, (2) the synonymity in meaning of cognate and non-cognate, and (3) the logical result ensuing from the coalescence of (1) and (2)—i.e. the equivalent sense of entry word and non-cognate translation synonym. Whichever position is taken, the aforesaid assumption remains unchanged, namely that the aim of the Hebrew grammarians was to record “comparison for comparison’s sake” at least in those

132

chapter five

instances in which the frequency of the entry word in the Bible was sufficient to provide limpidity. 5.3.5.4 Comparison with the aim of providing an etymological rationale Regarding some comparisons, it is saliently clear that their purpose was not for determining the sense of an entry word but for setting out an etymological background; in these cases the comparison provides a response to the question: Why is the referee of the entry word “called” such and such? This aspect is not identical with the usual “sense, meaning,” for the determination of the latter is something basic; it can be derived and/or deduced from the context(s) in which the entry word occurs, irrespective of etymological comparison. Etymological reasoning, on the other hand, is by definition not restricted to substantiating the meaning of the entry word but is rather aimed at a wider investigation of the etymological sense of the word. A clear sign of this objective is the relatively great frequency of occurrence of the entry word. For example, the word ˆwlj appears 31 times in the Bible and Alfàsi nonetheless records a comparison of that word with Aramaic lylj—indeed built upon the formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram., although this formula is designed primarily for the determination of meaning rather than for etymological reasons: the comparison (p. 549) runs hljm-ˆwlj/bwbn/lylj. This modus operandi is in fact clearly discernible from the form of Alfàsi’s expression (ibid.) ahjtpw ahpywùgtl: the làm serves to explain the meaning, not to determine it (he had already stated earlier that the meaning of this root is bqùt). What is more, the very word that had been hereby adduced in the status of Bib. Heb.1, this being the entry in need of definition, i.e. ˆwlj, this word itself is used as intermedium in entry ˚rj (p. 585; in comparison ˚rj/ˆwlj/˚rj); this implies that in Alfàsi’s view the given word ˆwlj is common and quite transparent. It is thus probable that the comparison of that word with Aramaic lylj, established at its “home” entry, was meant not as a corroboration of the meaning of ˆwlj but with the aim of etymological reasoning: a “window” is termed ˆwlj because of its being lwlj. This is borne out by the fact that bwbn in Exodus is rendered by the Aramaic Targum lylj. Similar reasoning appears with the comparison bgn/bgn (p. 252): this comparison is superfluous for the determination of meaning, since bgn occurs 110 times in the Bible. Its comparison with Aramaic (with the intermedium brj, according to formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ.) was only adduced on ety-

the aims of language comparison

133

mological grounds, this being also evident from Alfàsi’s own words, at the “home” entry (ibid.): hùfpl ahna ˚lùdw . . . amla μd[w çf[law πapùgla ˆm bgn μsa hyl[ [qy zwùgy • aym wbwgn μymh wbrj μwgrtw ynayrslab πapùg yùxtqt In Ibn Janà˙’s lexicon, also, one encounters instances of this comparison type, such as: Aramaic ybx/abx (p. 598), awpsm/hps (p. 488), and ˆyjç/μmj/ˆyjç (p. 714), as well as the Heb./Arab. comparisons ˆg/hnùg (p. 140), gj/ùgj (p. 210), ù≈mj/≈mj (p. 234), hjnm/jnm (p. 381), and jçm/jsm (p. 394). 5.3.6

Adducing comparisons in order to repudiate them

In the polemical work attributed to Dunash b. Labrat, The Retorts of Dunash on R. Sa'adiah, Dunash records comparisons in the name of Sa'adiah Ga"on and then discards them. Examples are the comparisons appearing at entries ˆysj (Retort # 26) and wgrjyw (# 27), etc. Other authors also record, at several entries, comparisons adduced by predecessors and/or contemporaries, comparisons to which they themselves would dissent. Cases in point can be noted: (a) in Mena˙em’s Ma˙beret (ask, p. 107; jlx, p. 149); (b) in Alfàsi’s Jàmi' al-"AlfàΩ (dja, p. 62), and so on.

5.4

Synopsis and conclusion

One main objective can be seen to be present, consistently and uniformly, throughout all the works in our study, whether biblical commentaries, lexicons, polemical works, or even those works devoted specifically to language comparison. The majority of comparisons appearing in these treatises are such that the aim of the comparison was substantiation of the meaning of the home entry word. The latter word is, by and large, a word of rare occurrence in the Bible, one that could hardly be explicated by its context or from remote parallelisms. This was the reason for the need felt by the Hebrew grammarians for comparing Hebrew words with Aramaic or Arabic, so long as a translation synonym from one of these languages would assist in the elucidation. Arabic is a language possessing long-standing continuous speech tradition, for which reason it was taken for granted by Heb. grammarians that Arabic entry words were well

134

chapter five

known and limpid. Thus the meaning of a Hebrew entry word that had been forgotten since Hebrew had ceased to be spoken might once again be resuscitated by its cognate in Arabic; and likewise with Aramaic, with the reservation that the latter was not spoken by the Hebrew grammarians in the Arabic speech area in the tenth and eleventh centuries. Comparison with Aramaic, therefore, would be of much less avail for the direct resolution of non-limpid Hebrew entries than would a corresponding comparison with Arabic. Nevertheless, the grammarians resorted to roundabout routes to engage Aramaic for purposes of lexicological support, especially by comparison with the Aramaic in the biblical Targums (as well as by employing comparison with biblical Aramaic and the talmudic dialect). One encounters sophisticated combinations of Hebrew and Aramaic entries, with cognate and non-cognate translation synonyms from the biblical source text as well as from the Targum; these, together, were effectively harnessed for the aim of elucidating the home entry. The most prominent of these combinations is the comparison of Bib. Heb.1 with an Aram. cognate, the latter being itself non-cognate with another Bib. Heb. entry, i.e. Bib. Heb.2 (i.e. the formula Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram.). This formula, like other complex formulae, is built on the basic, major principle that two entries each of which is identical with a third entry are themselves identical. Thus here, too, the etymological equivalence of the Hebrew entry word (Bib. Heb.1) and the Aramaic entry word (Targ. Aram.) enabled the determination of the meaning of the Bib. Hebrew entry word (Bib. Heb.2). In other comparison combinations, the “unknown quantity” was even the meaning of the Aramaic entry word (in some instances Targ. Aram., in others, Talm. Aram.); its etymological equivalence with an Arabic entry word was decisive for both the Aramaic and the Hebrew entries under discussion. The Hebrew grammarians’ comparisons also comprise several comparisons designed to corroborate the principle of mutual affinity of the three languages subject to study or, alternatively, to establish a rule for the scientific study of Semitic comparative philology, whether in the area of grammar or in that of syntax, the latter objective being termed “comparison for comparison’s sake.” With this aim in mind the following works devoted to language comparison were compiled: the Risàla of Ibn Quraysh, and the Kitàb al-Muwàzana of Ibn Barùn; also, apparently, the lost treatise of Dunash ibn Tamìm and, on a limited scale, the excursuses contained within David b. Abraham

the aims of language comparison

135

Alfàsi’s Jàmi' al-"AlfàΩ and within Dunash’s Retorts on Mena˙em. Nonetheless, one additionally comes across “comparisons for their own sake” here and there in other treatises and works that were not devoted solely to language comparison. Ibn Barùn exhibits an additional aim in language comparison: he compiles a Heb.-Arab. comparative lexicon for the benefit of the Bible translator. Apparently Ibn Barùn held that an ideal Bible translator should render the biblical text words by an Arabic cognate expression wherever this was feasible. The upshot is that the great majority of the comparisons serve a practical objective, namely the elucidation of the pertinent biblical entry words. In other words, the Hebrew grammarian’s comparative linguistic science was exploited primarily in the service of the lexicographical and philological needs of biblical study. In this matter the Hebrew grammarians resemble those modern lexicologists who attempt to utilize comparative linguistics for this purpose itself, i.e. biblical philology. However, the resemblance is solely in the aspect of aim; furthermore, even within this resemblance, a basic distinction can be noticed between the medieval and the modern scholars: the latter are concerned with ascertaining the primeval meaning of the root as well as the semantic shifts that it underwent, in all its detailed aspects, in the given language itself as well as in other cognate languages. The Hebrew grammarians, in contrast, are interested merely in the particular meaning of the actual entry words within the given language (or in the compared languages). They establish interlingual comparison between two entry words if, and only if, there is a distinct correspondence between the two according to the sense of the entry word(s) in actual practice in the several language strata. For the Bible, with its translations, it would be more appropriate to adopt the expression “corpuses” rather than language strata to denote the entry from which the grammarians cite, this being what is here referred to as translation synonyms. It goes without saying that in modern times, tools for comparison have increased considerably and, moreover, are much more mature professionally. Further elaboration would be appropriate outside of this framework, but let me very briefly allude to certain isolated matters, in a general way: (a) the diachronic approach in linguistics, as a rule; (b) critical research in all spheres of science; (c) the employment of several newly discovered Semitic languages that only recent generations have had cognizance of and that have indeed profited

136

chapter five

comparative scholarship considerably. Only the minority of comparisons of the Hebrew grammarians serves a “purely linguistic” objective (above, 5.3.5). True, the scholarly writings of the Hebrew grammarians are instructive for an evaluation of their respective standpoints on the similarity and/or affinity between the three languages known by them. But, and this deserves emphasis, nowhere in the writings of the Hebrew grammarians can be found, either as an express statement or even as an allusion, any trace of those additional aims posed by modern linguists for comparative linguistics. Examples of such aims are: exposing the historical “identity” of the Semitic languages or reconstructing of the proto-Semitic tongue by a synthesis of the concurrent aspects found in the several Semitic languages—in other words, putting together the totality of Semitic grammatical and lexicological data that are known to be original, i.e. excluding those data that owe their origin to the influence of extraneous non-Semitic languages.7 Indeed, in contrast to the latter, the Hebrew grammarians exhibit no conception of diachronic development in their comparative premises (Téné 1983, §1.3). For them, Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic are merely kindred languages and no more than that. The expression most applicable as representative of their approach is br[la hgl brq ˆm: no intimation exists of a fullscale equivalence and certainly not of identity of the languages subjected to comparison. A further clue to the intentions of the Hebrew grammarians in their practice of language comparison, with the exception of Ibn Barùn, can be obtained from the comparisons they record and, in fact, from their habitual avoidance of comparison activity in the area of grammar. It can be argued insofar as Alfàsi is concerned that, considering that he had never proposed to compile a work on grammar but merely a lexicon, it could not be expected a priori that his treatise would contain comparative grammar as well. In fact, however, his work does comprise a plethora of grammatical materials, so much so that Skoss (introduction to Jàmi' al-"AlfàΩ, p. 79) expressed his opinion that a thorough collation and arrangement of the materials was indeed a desideratum.8 It is probable that, given the quantity of grammatical discussion, some essays on comparative grammar

7

See, for example, Brockelmann, 1908, § 6; 1910, § 6; Moscati, 1980, § 1.8. We intend to implement this undertaking in a suitable framework, some time in the future PG. 8

the aims of language comparison

137

would be encountered; yet paradoxically, only a very meager quantity can be culled.9 The same, a fortiore, applies to Ibn Janà˙, who devoted to biblical Hebrew grammar a treatise of enormous size and exceptional quality, Sefer ha-Riqmah; the disparity, however, between the number of comparisons in this treatise (or, to be more precise, in the portion of the treatise known as Kitàb al-Tanqìh) and the total number of such comparisons appearing in his biblical lexicon Sefer HaShorashim, is indeed very considerable. A clear change of direction in this respect occurs only in the work of Ibn Barùn, this being one of the principal factors affording that grammarian his unique standing, among all the philologists of that time engaged in language comparison. This is not meant to imply that Alfàsi, Ibn Janà˙, and other grammarians lacked the capacity for abstraction required for grammatical comparisons. (It is obvious that the level of abstract analysis in grammatical comparisons is infinitely higher than the corresponding level of abstraction associated with lexical comparisons.)10 Comparisons of this type can be found, at least in limited number in their treatises, too. The inevitable conclusion is that these Hebrew grammarians devoted the cream of their scholarly endeavors to the aim that struck them as being of a concrete and practical nature, namely the explication of biblical entry words by means of language comparison. Their avoidance of recording comparisons for entry words that are etymologically equivalent but of no absolute semantic equivalence is probably due to their finding no value in theoretical linguistic discussions, insofar as these contributed little to their ultimate objective. This assumption could well provide good grounds for the style of the treatise now recognized as the pioneering work on the subject of comparative Semitic philology, namely the Risàla of Ibn Quraysh, i.e. that this work contains only a scant measure of grammatical comparisons, whereas its main contents comprise lexical comparisons only. Here is indeed further confirmation of Becker’s conclusion regarding the aim of the earlier portions of Risàla, which quantitatively constitute the substance of this treatise.

9 In the introduction to Alfàsi’s Language Comparison Theory (below, 9.1), a more or less exhaustive survey of these materials is presented. 10 See Maman, 1998.

CHAPTER SIX

LANGUAGE COMPARISON IN TREATISES TRANSLATED INTO HEBREW

The works dealt with in the present study that were initially compiled in Arabic were, in part, subsequently translated into Hebrew: The two major works of R. Jonah Ibn Janà˙, Kitàb al-Luma' and Kitàb al-"Ußùl (in practice, there are two parts of one large treatise called Kitàb al-Tanqì˙) were translated into Hebrew by R. Judah Ibn Tibbon. The Hebrew names of the two translations are, respectively, Sefer ha-Riqmah and Sefer ha-Shorashim. The minor works of Ibn Janà˙ were translated by several scholars: Kitàb al-Mustal˙aq was translated, as Sefer ha-Hassagah, by Obadiah ha-Sepharadi but has yet to be published.1 The several other translations, too, have also not yet been published.2 The grammatical treatises of R. Judah Ibn Bal'am, were likewise rendered into Hebrew, and the parts that survived have been published (Abramson 1975). The discussion that follows is principally founded on materials in Kitàb al-"Ußùl compared with the Hebrew rendering in Sefer haShorashim. In addition I used materials based on a comparison of Sefer HaHassagah with the original Mustal˙aq, together with the corresponding collation of versions in Ibn Bal'am’s works, original and translation, to check my findings. The issue to be discussed, then, might be formulated as follows: What was the fate of the comparisons in Kitàb al-"Ußùl when converted into Hebrew as Shorashim? In other words, how do the comparisons, relate to each other in the two forms of this work: the original and the Hebrew translation? Prima facie, a translation should reflect only what is contained in the original, no more and no less. In fact, however, this is not the case. There are occasional instances in which Ibn Tibbon adduces the comparison in the original verbatim but omits the Arabic example

1 The translation was edited by the late D. Téné and is now in press. See Bacher’s introduction to Shorashim, p. xxx; Téné, 1972, p. 1386, §4. 2 Téné, ibid. §§14.2; 14.4; 14.5; 56.1; 56.2.

language comparison in treatises translated into hebrew 139 either totally or partially. Sometimes he turns an implicit comparison into an explicit comparison, and sometimes he is liable to even add “comparisons” of his own solely on the basis of a non-cognate translation synonym (comparison category Ø > explicit comparison, below, 6.2). In yet other cases he fails to express an implicit comparison in the original because of his rendering the Arabic word by a Hebrew word cognate with the entry word (implicit comparison > Ø; below, 13.10). Rather than proceeding to enumerate the various alterations in detail, the motivation for intentional omissions and/or additions in relative to the Arabic source texts should first be ascertained. At first sight, intentional omission would appear to be the most applicable phenomenon. R. Judah Ibn Tibbon declared clearly and explicitly his reasons for translating Ibn Janà˙’s work: “. . . the exiled Jewish People in the Diaspora of France and of Greater Italy have no knowledge of the Arabic language; therefore, these works have become for them like “a sealed book”; their access to these works will be possible only after their having been rendered into the Holy Tongue” (Riqmah, p. 4). Furthermore, in his conclusion to Sefer HaShorashim (p. 550), he states that from the outset he omitted from the translation those occasional Arabic idiomatic phrases that the author had employed in certain places to illustrate some usage he was discussing, because the Jews of these local provinces could not appreciate them and their inclusion would thus be of no value. R. Judah implies that the French Jews, as also the Italian (lit: those of the Land of Edom), do not know Arabic, from which it follows that the language comparisons would be superfluous for them. But this explanation, by itself, falls short of explaining the plethora of changes in Ibn Tibbon’s rendering; for it cannot be said that he systematically and entirely omitted the language comparisons. On the contrary, he often leaves the comparison untouched. What is more, in not a few instances Ibn Tibbon himself includes a comparison where Ibn Janà˙ had not recorded any! How are we to accommodate such an unsystematic approach, one that allows sometimes for omissions and sometimes for additions? Several scholars have drawn attention to this phenomenon but have failed to treat it exhaustively; they have neither explained this matter thoroughly nor added any essential rationale beyond Ibn Tibbon’s own express argumentations. Kokowtzow (1916, Part 3, pp. 204–15) dwelled on the omission of Arabic material in the Hebrew rendering of R. Judah Ibn Bal'am’s grammatical treatises, without, however, taking note of how the language comparisons had

chapter six

140

thereby been especially affected. Kokowtzow (ibid., p. 209) even attributed the omissions to “insufficient care and attention of the translator”; but the example put forward by Kokowtzow to substantiate his case, the entry lglg from the Tajnìs, belongs in fact to a well-defined class of omissions, namely “non-explicit comparison > Ø,” for which other grounds exist. Abramson (1975) in his footnotes made mention of the translator’s omissions in the wider frame, not specifically those omissions of phrases, constituting language comparison. An example of such is entry πrj (p. 41), defined by Ibn Bal'am as atçla, this definition/comparison having been omitted by the translator. Abramson remarks: “In the original there appears an Arabic interpretation of the word.” At entry hrwbd (p. 37, n. 2) Abramson refers the reader to the textual discrepancies between "Ußùl and Shorashim, suggesting tentatively that this “might be an addition in "Ußùl.” In fact, however, this discrepancy represents nothing but an omission in the Shorashim.. Becker, too, (1984, p. 36, n. 20), pointed out some implicit comparisons in the "Ußùl that Ibn Tibbon himself had reverted to explicit comparisons but failed to elaborate on the issue. In contrast, Bacher’s categorical statement (introduction to Shorashim, p. xxxviii): “However, the explication of the Arabic words appearing in Shorashim was entirely omitted by Ibn Tibbon . . .” is exaggerated and untenable.

6.1

Omissions of explicit comparisons

Ibn Tibbon ignores inner Arabic discussions on grammatical or semantic topics, due to these having no direct relevance for the meaning of the Hebrew entry word. For example, Ibn Janà˙ draws a parallel between hydwdg (Ps. 65:11) and hymlt (ibid.) on the basis of an explicit comparison with the Arabic cognate dyadùg. He states, additionally, that the given sense of μydwdg is metaphorical, its fundamental sense being çwmùkw çwdùk (scratches; incisions). This is followed by a lengthy discourse on the inner Arabic morphology of çwmùk and on the metaphorical usages of the Arabic expressions adduced. This inner Arabic discussion was entirely ignored by Ibn Tibbon. Similarly, at dyt[ (p. 555), Ibn Janà˙ renders μydwt[ by ˆad[; he goes on to explain why he adopted that specific Arabic form rather than ˆadt[ (he preferred the form in which assimilation of t to d occurred, this being the form that Arab grammarians

language comparison in treatises translated into hebrew 141 treated as the normative one). This discussion thus relates to the inner Arabic technicality regarding translation of a word and has virtually no bearing on the interpretation of the form or the substance of the entry word. Ibn Tibbon therefore passed over this in his translation. Moreover, Ibn Tibbon, could well have grounded his decision to omit it on Ibn Janà˙’s own didactic comment: txùkl amnaw yl μzal ryg ˆak ˆaw aùdh lk (I elucidated all this, although I was not under any obligation to do so). Apparently, Ibn Janà˙ was referring to simple Hebrew lexicographical needs. It can also be shown that in those places where Ibn Janà˙ recorded a comparison with Rab. Heb. apart from the comparison with Arabic, Ibn Tibbon felt justified in ignoring the Arabic comparison. “Double comparisons” of this type are to be found in the following entries: zwga (p. 19/p. 12), twrwkbμyrwkb (p. 92/p. 64), ddg-dwg (p. 127/p. 87), lglg-llg (p. 134/p. 92), πrg (p. 146/p. 100), (˚çar-)tld (p. 159/p. 109), tywz (p. 189/p. 128), μtbnzw (p. 198/p. 134), çwbj (p. 210/p. 142), ≈yljy (p. 230/p. 157), ˆnj (p. 237/p. 162), lgrj (p. 258/p. 176), bçj (p. 253/p. 173), rzmm (p. 369/p. 257), rwçm (p. 748/p. 534), hgws (p. 476/p. 334), whqz[yw (p. 516/p. 363), wytwçyf[ (p. 518/p. 365), htmxp (p. 579/p. 407), lytp-ltltp (p. 594/p. 418), [bx (p. 599/p. 422), lylx (p. 609/ p. 429), twlybqm (p. 624/p. 439), ≈pq (p. 640/p. 450), harm (p. 655/p. 462), μysysr (p. 682/p. 482), ttr (p. 690/p. 488), htylç (p. 724/p. 516), hymlt (p. 762/p. 543). Examples of entries from which Ibn Tibbon omitted the larger part of the discussion concerning (a) the definiens and/or (b) the Arabic instances adduced by Ibn Janà˙. In his translation of the entry tjn (p. 429/p. 301) Ibn Tibbon passes over the following paragraph, leaving it untranslated: rùtk aùda hrùgçla tlzna laqyw .hwmnw htdayz ya [rzy am [yr wh . . . lznlaw yp ˆatglla tqpta dqw alkla hrytùkla hlznla ù≈ralaw ahrmùt ya ahlzn .lwznla yp ˆyn[mla ˆyùdh [amtùga Here, we are faced not merely with the oversight of one isolated word or a single phrase; this is an intentional passing-over of a full-length paragraph, a conspicuous and prominent omission. What is even more interesting, this is an omission practice characteristic of Ibn Tibbon’s translation method. For in fact Ibn Janà˙ in this paragraph defines the signifié of lzn, this being a non-cognate translation synonym set in one-to-one correspondence with the entry word, following

142

chapter six

which, he illustrates the inner Arabic usage of this non-cognate. These are the two aspects (each of which involves pure inner Arabic analysis) generally omitted in Ibn Tibbon’s rendering. In the example cited here, the translator also omitted the comparative semantic remark made by Ibn Janà˙. All these elements were considered by Ibn Tibbon non-essential for the Hebrew reader. Omissions and abridgments of this nature are encountered in the rendering of the following entries: [dg (p. 124/p. 85), rçj (p. 255/p. 174), lf (p. 263/ p. 180), jql (p. 357/p. 249), çql (p. 359/p. 250), ddm (p. 364/p. 254), rxm (p. 390/p. 272), ljn (p. 424/p. 297), tjn (p. 429/p. 301), tw[ (p. 514/p. 362), rap-hrap (p. 560/p. 394), axax (p. 621/p. 438), ˆwyx (p. 607/p. 428), [rq (p. 649/p. 457), ˆgr (p. 665/p. 469), ç[r (p. 684/p. 483), rkç (p. 701/p. 496), rwç (p. 711/p. 505), rkç (p. 723/p. 515), llç (p. 724/p. 515), ˆpç (p. 740/p. 529). The comparison type most affected by translation omissions was the implicit comparison category, from which Ibn Tibbon excluded 258 comparisons, no matter whether the Arab. cognate was the sole definiens or a definiens jointly with one or more non-cognate translation synonyms. In each entry of this category Ibn Tibbon, when he did not curtail the translation entirely,3 translated the synonyms that were non-cognate either entirely or partially, while omitting the translation of the cognate synonyms. Here Bacher is mistaken when he states (introduction to Shorashim, p. 39, n. 1) that Ibn Tibbon translated all the definientia, as including the cognate translation synonyms, through one Heb. definiens. This is saliently clear at those entries where Ibn Tibbon introduces the definition with the Heb. rmwlk, this being the rendering for (Arab.) ya (= the word employed in the original for commencing the explication for the cognate, not 3 On occasion, of course, Ibn Tibbon does translate the cognate by a synonym for the entry word, thus fulfilling his translation duty in toto; this however does not prevent the elimination of the implicit comparison that existed for the cognate, for example, . . . ahn[ ùtjbw . . . rwmala ˆzw ,rqjw ˆza (p. 31) that Ibn Tibbbon, in Shorashim (p. 19), renders: . . . μhyl[ rqjw μynyyn[h lqç. For further instances see also dja (p. 33/p. 21), ddwmth (p. 364/p. 254), and jxp (p. 579/p. 407). At times, the translator omitted to translate the definition in its entirety, e.g.: rskb ˆrala yp l[ùgw ˆwrab μçyyw . . . hyp ˆpdy twbat whw hzmhla ("Ußùl, p. 68). Of all this text, Ibn Tibbon here retains merely ˆwrab μçyyw and omits all the rest (Shorashim, p. 47). See similarly [lb (p. 96/ p. 66), ˆpg (p. 143/p. 98), μ[f (p. 265/p. 182) as well as some other entries at which, instead of translating the definition, Ibn Tibbon states simply [wdy (wellknown), e.g., ˚jl (p. 351/p. 244), sm (p. 382/p. 266), and jxm (p. 390/p. 272). R. Nathan b. Je˙iel, too, omitted the Arabic from his quotations from Perush haGe"onim (see Epstein, 1982, p. 13).

language comparison in treatises translated into hebrew 143 for directly linking the entry word with the non-cognate). Ibn Tibbon retained this word, though he omitted the rendering of the cognate. Examples follow: Original: qlùkla [ymùg ya rçbla [ymùg—rçb (p. 116) Translation: rxwn lk rmwlk— rçb (p. 80) Original: μklùga ˆm ya μklalùg ˆm—μkllgb (p. 135) Translation: μkrwb[b rmwlk— μkllgb (p. 93) Original: ˆyrskt ya ˆymrùgt—ymrgt (p. 145) Translation: yrbçt rmwlk— ymrgt (p. 100)

Likewise at entries πrg (p. 146/p. 100), μhdn (p. 153/p. 106), bnz (p. 198/p. 134), rdj (p. 212/p. 144), and many others. But the omission is evident even when ya does not appear between cognate and non-cognate, e.g.: Original dargla ˆm πnx whw lùgrjla—lgrjh (p. 258) Translation: hbra ˆm ˆym— lgrjh (p. 176)

and especially at those entries where the definition is set up in a way such that the non-cognate precedes the cognate, as: Original: hbq[law r[wla b[xla—rwçtnk bq[h (p. 543) Translation: —wb twl[l hçqh—rwçyml bq[h (p. 382)

and likewise μyçar (p. 658/p. 464) , etc. Ibn Tibbon’s “omission policy” at times even went to the extreme of dispensing entirely with the definiens and merely entering, the remark [wdy (well-known) (this being equivalent to the remark πwr[m used by Ibn Janà˙ himself at some entries), e.g.: Original: [arùd—hywfn [wrzb (p. 203) Translation: [wdy—hywfn [wrzb (p. 138) Original: rmnla—rmn (p. 437) Translation: [wdy—rmn (p. 306)

Likewise the entries ˚ry (p. 297/p. 205), ˆpç (p. 740/p. 529), and ˚jl (p. 351/p. 244) (at the latter entries no cognate translation synonym appears as definiens). This translator’s practice of elimination is adopted even at such entries as ˆxj (p. 244/p. 166), where it is extremely doubtful that the sense of the entry word could reasonably be called [wdy: in this instance, this word appears altogether only 3 times in the Bible and Ibn Janà˙ took the trouble to define it clearly through its cognate equivalent in Arabic. In the translations

144

chapter six

of Ibn Bal'am’s treatises also (Abramson, 1975, p. 109) one encounters [wdy in lieu of the definiens occurring in the Arabic original (e.g.: [wdy . . . awh/hraçala πrj . . . awh). In 28 entries Ibn Tibbon dispensed with the definiens, this being the only translation synonym, indeed a cognate, proposed by Ibn Janà˙; he records no substitute for what he has eliminated and thus leaves the entry word without any definition. The entries are: zwga, ˆwra, ≈ra, rab, qwb, [lb, lxb, rb, hkreb, hnbg, ldgm, ˆpg, brg, yld, baz, bwbz, [wrz, ˚j, ˆxj, ˚ry, syk, hjm, jwlm, ˆwmr, [wbç, [bç, lkç, hqç.4 As far as some of these entries are concerned, it can be argued that the entry words are indeed “well known” and in no need of definition. This, however, cannot be maintained for such rare entry words as qwb, hnbg, brg, and ˆxj. To ascertain the reason for the omission of these four, let us attempt to determine the several possibilities that were open to Ibn Tibbon when faced with the task of translating these and similar definitions. In theory, he could have (a) reverted the implicit comparisons to explicit comparisons or (b) disregarded the cognate translation synonym entirely and ipso facto the implicit comparison (in a similar fashion to that of the above-mentioned instances) or (c) chosen to be meticulously faithful to his original, such that the result would be a tautological definition. To illustrate: in a good many entries in the "Ußùl, no description or definition is given for the referent of the entry word; an Arabic translation appears and nothing more. When Ibn Tibbon set about providing a Hebrew rendering for the given Arabic definiens, he was faced with a dilemma that might be defined as either a technical problem or an essential quandary. If he rendered in accord with the “equation” appearing in the original, namely by the translation synonymity of definitum and definiens, he would find he had arrived back at the entry word itself and was therefore recording a tautological and thus lexicographically worthless definition. For example, in "Ußùl, Ibn Janà˙ defines the entry word hpna: agbbla-hpnahw (p. 59). This definition implies that hpna and agbb are one and the same, because the

4 Entries that for some reason were ignored entirely in Shorashim have been excluded from this list, such as hrf (p. 183), llj (p. 154; the section relating to al wrbd ljy; Num. 30:3), rçb (sense hrwçb, p. 80), twynj (hnj, p. 162), bbl (p. 238). Regarding the omission of entire entries in the Rome MS of Shorashim versus the el-Escorial MS, see Bacher’s introduction to Shorashim, p. 37 and n. 7.

language comparison in treatises translated into hebrew 145 definition proposed by the author (or by the source from which he had drawn) presupposes identity of the referents designated by these two signifiants, the former being in fact translated by the latter. On the principle of reversibility of an equation, the latter signifiant could likewise be translated by the former. In other words: if hpna equals agbb, then agbb equals hpna. Hence, when Ibn Tibbon set about rendering this definiens, he had, technically, the option of translating such that Ibn Janà˙’s text quote would appear in Hebrew hpnahw hpnah ayh: the first hpna standing for the entry word and the second as the translation word for agbb. If he were to leave this tautological rendering as it stood, he would have achieved nothing; even though he would have fulfilled his duty as translator, for the reader, at any rate, he would certainly have achieved nothing. This very option of tautological definition is indeed adopted by Ibn Tibbon, but not surprisingly, for only on extremely rare occasions. From the viewpoint of the lexicologist, the absurdity of such a formulation is quite obvious. One such instance is entry [qp ("Ußùl, p. 583)/Shorashim (p. 409): Original: rfpla yn[a [qpla yh . . . hdç tw[wqp (2 Kings 4:39) Transl. tw[wqph μh hdç tw[wqp

Further instances: ˆafls . . . ˆwflç (p. 727)/twnflç ˆwflç (p. 518); jtpùù ù jtphw hjytp lkh ˆyn[w . . . (p. 594/p. 418); likewise, at entries rdg (p. 125/p. 86), r[r[ (p. 557/p. 392), rqb (p. 106/p. 73), μae (p. 37), drb (p. 77), tywz (p. 128), dy (p. 188), ≈m (p. 260), y[m (p. 267), hçn (p. 325), awçq (p. 458), yçm (p. 275), μylbç (p. 494), rkç (p. 514). At the following entries, the tautology is somewhat “attenuated” by the fact that, together with the tautological definiens, an additional (non-cognate) definiens is encountered: μtpfjw (p. 221/p. 150), (wyny[w) hmq (p. 630/p. 444), [wn (p. 417/p. 293), πljw (≈yxy) (p. 229/p. 156). Thus we see the employment of two of the three possibilities. The third option, reversion of implicit comparison to explicit comparison, is also fairly frequent; it is adopted in a total of 34 instances (for details, see below 13.11, “Implicit comparisons—cognates in "Ußùl, /explicit comparisons in Shorashim”). An example is in p. 66/p. 45: tarqnh ayh . . . ’wkw h[pa/a[pala yh . . . (Isa. 30:6) πpw[m πrçw h[pa • a[pa ybr[b Ibn Tibbon’s treatment of implicit comparisons leads one to conclude that he omitted the large majority of instances in this category.

146

chapter six

It is worthwhile comparing Ibn Tibbon’s practice with that of Obadiah the Spaniard in his rendering of Kitàb al-Mustal˙aq (Sefer haHassagah) in the isolated instances where Ibn Janà˙ had adopted the choice of the implicit comparison. 6.1.1

Implicit comparisons—cognates in R. Jonah Ibn Janà˙’s Opuscules

All the following comparisons appear in Mustal˙aq; of these one comparison alone appears also in Kitàb al-Taswi"a. • (lly) llwt/lyla (Mustal˙aq, p. 240), πk/πk (ibid., p. 149), jx/jùx = smç (ibid., p. 210), lyla/ˆynf-lylx (ibid., p. 211; Kitàb al-Taswi"a, p. 377), llx/ˆ[ smçla tlaz lùf (Mustal˙aq, p. 213). The translator of Mustal˙aq into Hebrew (as Sefer haHassagah),5 namely Obadiah ha-Sepharadi, in the above sporadic instances of implicit comparison, cognate translation synonym—proceeded according to the same method as that used by Ibn Tibbon in the vast majority of comparisons of this type in "Ußùl, i.e. the omission of the comparison. The student reading Sefer haHassagah could have no inkling of the fact that Ibn Janà˙ employed implicit comparison in these instances. If numerous additional implicit comparisons were encountered in the Mustal˙aq, the Hebrew translation might perhaps have revealed a variety of additional solutions for the problem of comparisons with Arabic, of a similar nature to those attested in the renderings of Ibn Tibbon. Moreover, it is probable that the solution resorted to in Hassagah is, practically, the most “natural” one in the socio-linguistic environment in which the translation was undertaken (i.e. the requirements of the Hebrew reader, the potential options available to the translator, the text materials standing to be translated, etc.). It is therefore not at all surprising that the above-mentioned resolution is indeed the one most frequently employed by Ibn Tibbon in the Shorashim for the category implicit comparison—cognate translation synonym An instance of original text v. translation. (Mustal˙aq v. Hassagah) follows:

5 The relevant material has been checked against MS Rome, Casanatenza 3132 (202,2), a photograph of which is available at the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew MSS at the National and University Library in Jerusalem; the reel number is F 80, P 3350. The page numbers designate the numbering in the MS itself. In F 80 Sefer HaHassagah commences on page 101 (= p. 182).

language comparison in treatises translated into hebrew 147 Original: lylx hnhw [wnla aùdh ˆmw . . . llx ( Judg. 7:13) ˆynf whw lylx hryμptw (Mustal˙aq, p. 211) Translation: . . . ˆwaç lwq wçwrypw μyrw[ç μjl lylx ˆyyn[hw ˆymh hzmw . . . llx (Hassagah, p. 165, col. ii)

The implicit comparison lylx/lylx in the original has been entirely lost in the translation lylx/ˆwaç lwq. This was also the fate of the comparisons in the rest of the entries, similarly rendered by Obadiah.6 These are anlyla/wntyykbw wntlly, πk/πk (Hassagah, p. 146, col. i), lùfa/lxh hç[n (Hassagah, p. 165, col. ii et seq.). It has been demonstrated, then, that in a minority of cases of implicit comparison: cognate translation synonym, i.e. in about 20 instances, Ibn Tibbon adopts a rendition of the cognate translation synonym, thus reaching a tautological definition. In a total of 34 cases, these constituting a group of notable size, Ibn Tibbon changes the implicit comparison into an explicit one. However, in a clear majority of cases, amounting to 258, he omits entirely the cognate translation synonym as well as the implicit comparison. In fact in certain instances of explicit comparison: cognate translation synonym, too, he practises omission. The latter method at least can be said to faithfully reflect the approach he outlined in the epilogue to his translation of "Ußùl. These data give rise to the following baffling question: if the omission method of cognate translation synonym was adopted in so many instances of implicit comparison—cognate translation synonym, for what reason did the translator leave intact non-cognate Arabic translation synonyms and in some cases even provide these with a semblance of comparison (such as the common comparison terminology)? Bacher discusses those comparisons not omitted by Ibn Tibbon and proposes the following argument: “There still remained several members of the Jewish community in southern France for whom Shorashim was prepared (lit: translated), who had an understanding of the Arabic language and who appreciated its linguistic elegance. For this reason, R. Judah Ibn Tibbon left intact the majority of the materials by which R. Jonah had demonstrated the similarity of Biblical language and Arabic” (introduction to Shorashim, p. 38). However, this argument,

6 In the translation of entry jx (Hassagah, p. 165, col. i) it is probable that the copyist committed an unintentional omission due to homoioteleuton, between l[ and yl[; the text reads: . . . wjwxjxw wtwnblw wtwryhb μç (l[ . . . y)l[ jx μtk wnmmw. Thus the rendering of the word jx in the original has been overlooked.

chapter six

148

apart from its insufficiency, does not mitigate the aforementioned problem. Whichever way one analyzes the issue, the problem remains: If Ibn Tibbon had in mind the interests of those “who had an understanding of Arabic,” why did he not leave intact in Shorashim the Arabic materials pertinent to language comparison (including the inner Arabic discussions)? On the other hand, if what is correct is the admission that “he had omitted the Arabic materials, since the local residents of this country do not understand it and thus the materials would serve no purpose for them” (Shorashim, p. 550), why did he retain a number of comparisons with Arabic and even subjoin several “comparisons” (non-cognate translation synonym) that Ibn Janà˙ never intended to adduce?! An inspection of the “comparisons” (non-cognate translation synonym) initiated by Ibn Tibbon shows that these comprise terms of realia: A classified enumeration of all the instances, according to their semantic fields, follows.

6.2

“Zero” in "Ußùl > “comparison” in Shorashim

Below are recorded all the places in Shorashim where Ibn Tibbon on his own initiative subjoined a gloss ybr[ ˆwçlb (= in the Arabic language) or some similar phrase, though Ibn Janà˙ in "Ußùl 7 had merely rendered the entry word by a non-cognate translation synonym. The list of locations is classified according to the pertinence of the respective entry to one of several semantic fields (all location references in parentheses are to the Shorashim):

7 In his introduction to Shorashim (p. xxxix, n. 4), Bacher made note of a certain number of these subjoined notations; nevertheless, in Index 10 (ibid., pp. 566–67), a good number of appropriate entries have been unintentionally omitted e.g. p. 3716, p. 409, p. 5117, p. 15528, p. 16022, p. 1612, p. 2164,5, p. 22521, p. 2396, p. 2408,10, p. 2417, p. 26026, etc. On the other hand, some references are redundant, e.g., p. 349, p. 6932, p. 15930, p. 21611, etc. Even more surprisingly, Bacher further recorded in his Index certain materials that are in fact nothing but his own “addenda and corrigenda” in Shorashim according to "Ußùl (I am referring to notations/statements that Ibn Tibbon had himself passed over, such as, p. 4011, p. 1171, etc. For this reason, I was not able to rely on Bacher’s Index; I assembled and collated the materials on the basis of a systematic comparison of "Ußùl and Shorashim.

language comparison in treatises translated into hebrew 149 Semantic Area: Fauna • hpna (Deut. 14:18)/agbb (p. 40); hn[y tb (Lev. 11:16)/μa[n (hnb, p. 68); rmz (Deut. 14:8)/hparz (p. 134); bgj (Lev. 11:22)/bdnùg (p. 142); fmj (Lev. 11:30)/abrj (p. 159); smjt (Lev. 11:16)/πafùk (p. 160); hdysj (Lev. 11:19)/rqx (p. 163); jk (ibid. ib. 30)/ˆwdrj (p. 214); swk (ibid., 17)/μwb (p. 215); ˆtywl (Isa. 27:1)/rhzwùg (p. 242); hafl (Lev. 11:30)/hyaùf[ (p. 245); tmçnt (ibid. 11:18)/ˆyhaç, ;qynadws tmçnt (ibid., 11:30)/≈rba μas (p. 325); rwg[ ( Jer. 8:7)/πafùk (p. 354); πlf[ (ibid., 11:19)/çapùk (p. 391); çybk[ (Isa. 59:5)/bkn[ (p. 392); bwçk[ (Ps. 140:4)/hlytr (p. 392); h[pa (Isa. 30:6)/ˆww[pa (p. 405); srp (Lev. 11:13)/baq[ (p. 413; πwq (1 Kings 10:22)/drq (p. 444); bfq (Deut. 32:24)/πtj (p. 446); zwpq (Isa. 34:15)/çapùk, πafùk 8(p. 451); arwq ( Jer. 17:11)/lùgj (p. 455); har (Deut. 14:13)/jraùg (p. 463); lwlbç (Ps. 58:9)/ˆwzlj (p. 494); πjç/πas (p. 507); ˚lç/ùgmwz (p. 516); tymmç (Prov. 30:28)/πafùk (p. 521: Ibn Tibbon overlooked the additional rendering recorded by Ibn Janà˙, i.e. hwnwns); μynç (Isa. 1:18)/zmrq (p. 734/p. 524); çjt (Num. 4:10)/çrad (p. 542); ynç t[lwt (Exod. 28:10)/zmrq (p. 544). Semantic Area: Flora • byba (Lev. 2:14)/˚yrp (p. 9); μylha (Num. 24:6)/ldnx (p. 15); bwza (Exod. 12:22)/rt[x p. 19); dfa (Gen. 50:10)/ùgsw[ (p. 23); μymwgla (2 Chron. 9:10)/ˆaùgrm; μqb (p. 240); çwab (Isa. 5:2)/ˆawz (p. 55); amg (Exod. 2,3)/ydrb (p. 95); rpg (Gen. 6:14)/raçmç (p. 98); μyadwd (Cant. 7:14)/japl (p. 106); hnblj (Exod. 30:34)/ynbl (p. 277/p. 154); lwrj/πçrj (Append., p. 344); μkrk (Cant. 4:10)/ˆarp[z (p. 234); lmrk (Lev. 23:14)/˚yrp (p. 234); zwl (Gen. 30:37)/rwj (p. 243); fl (Gen. 43:11)/fwlb haç, rbwnx (p. 243); hn[l ( Jer, 9:14)/μql[ (p. 247); μylwlhn (Isa. 7:19)/twbny (p. 289); dprs (Isa. 55:13)/saws (p. 348); tw[wqp (hdç: 2R 4:39)/lùfnj (p. 409); ˆwyqyq ( Jon. 4:6)/[wrùk (p. 447); çwmq (Isa. 34:13)/ù≈yrq (p. 449); jxq (Isa. 28:25)/zynwç (p. 453); tyç (Isa. 5:6)/μwxyq (p. 510); rymç (Isa. 32:13)/˚sj (p. 524); hmqç (Am. 7:14)/zymùg (p. 533); hzrt (Isa. 44:14)/rbwnx (p. 549).

8 In the Arabic original as well as in the Hebrew rendering according to Cod. Vatican, the reading is çapùk; the version πafùk appears only as the Hebrew rendering in Cod. El-Escorial. See the remarks of Neubauer ("Ußùl, p. 640) and Bacher (Shorashim, p. 451).

150

chapter six

Names of Gems and Colors • μda (Exod. 28:17)/rmja twqay (p. 21/p. 13); fhb (Esther 1:7)/fnlb (p. 84/p. 58); jldb (Num. 11:7)/wlwl (p. 118/p. 81): μlhy (Exod. 28:18)/ùgzwryp (p. 176/p. 120); hmlja (ibid., 28:19/ˆamrhb 9(p. 228/ p. 155); qrqry/rpxa (p. 298/p. 205); dkdk (Isa. 54:14)/dnkrk (p. 336/ p. 234 (?)); μçl (Exod. 28:19)/[zùg (p. 359/p. 250); ˚pn (ibid., 28:18)/twqay rwjç (p. 443/p. 311); trjs (Esther 1:6)/aspysp (p. 479/p. 337); ryps (Exod. 28:19)/ahm (p. 492/p. 346); hdfp (ibid. 17)/drmz (p. 570/ p. 400); μynynp (Prov. 20:15)/twqay (p. 575/p. 404); twmar (Ezek. 27:16)/ˆaùgrm (p. 672/p. 474); wbç (Exod. 28:19)/ùgbs (p. 697/p. 493); rymç (Ez. 3:9)/sam (p. 733/p. 524). Names of Items of Clothing and Ornaments • twxljm (Zach 3:4)/llj (p. 230/p. 156); μyxlj (Num. 31:3)/μyzayj (p. 230/p. 156); yrj/hyqbyd (p. 217/p. 147); μyfyrj (Isa. 3:22)/ldanm (p. 247/p. 169); bçj (Exod. 28:8)/ùgçpç (p. 253/p. 173); ˆçj (Exod. 25:7)/hndb (p. 254/p. 174); t[bf (ibid., 28:12)/hqlj (p. 259/p. 177); twptk (Exod. 28:7)/bwyùg (p. 335/p. 233); μyçjl (Isa. 3:20)/ùglamd (p. 352/p. 245); ly[m (Exod. 28:4)/rfmm (p. 385/p. 268); tkrp (Exod. 26:33)/πùgs (p. 587/p. 412); lygytp (Isa. 3:24)/hlalyg (p. 596/p. 420); ≈yx (Exod. 39:30)/hbax[ (p. 608/p. 428); πy[x (Gen. 38:14)/[anq (p. 615/p. 434); sybç (Isa. 3:18)/lyùkalùk (p. 699/p. 494); drç (Exod. 31:10)/yçw (p. 749/p. 535). Names of Personal Washing Requisites and Perfumes • tyr Ob ( Jer. 2:22)/ˆançwa (p. 107/p. 74); rwm (Exod. 30:23)/˚sm (p. 368/p. 256); πfn (Exod. 30:16)/yktsm—qytçm (p. 431/p. 302); πfn/˚rwfsa (ibid.); rtn ( Jer. 2:22)/ˆwrfn—bç—lpf (p. 470/p. 330); ˚wp (2 Kings 9:30)/dmùta (p. 565/p. 397); tljç/ˆdal (Exod. 30:34; μs, p. 485/p. 340); (μçb) hnq/hryrùdla bxq (Exod. 30:23; p. 678/ p. 450); h[yxq/rbn[ (p. 642/p. 453). Names of Sundry Substances • rmje (Exod. 2:3)/rpq (p. 235/p. 160); rwpk (Ps. 147:16)/qmd (p. 330/p. 228); ˆç (1R 10:18)/ùga[ (p. 734/p. 524).

9

In Shorashim, the reading is ˆmhrb; this needs to be emended accordingly.

language comparison in treatises translated into hebrew 151 Names of Vessels and Utensils • lfrga (Ezra 1:9)/lfs, lyk (p. 78/p. 53); ja ( Jer. 36:22)/ˆwnak (p. 32/ p. 20); hpya (Deut. 25:14)/hbyw (p. 40/p. 25); lBeji (Prov. 23:34)/hyms (p. 207/p. 140); hkj (Isa. 19:8)/hranx (p. 224/p. 152); rwk (Deut. 4:26)/ hfwb (p. 312/p. 216); rwyk/ù≈wj (p. 319/p. 221); bwlk/≈pq (p. 320/ p. 222); sypk (Hab. 2:11)/rùga (p. 329/p. 228); bkrk (Exod. 27:5)/ bùgrç10 (p. 337/p. 234); bhl (1 Sam. 17:7)/ˆans (p. 346/p. 240); has/lyk (2 Kings 4:1; p. 471/p. 331); hrjs (Ps. 91:4)/aqrd (p. 479/p. 337); dx[m/sap (p. 541/p. 380); ˚lp (Prov. 31:19)/lzgm (p. 574/p. 403); slp (Isa. 40:12)/ˆapq (ibid.); bx (Isa. 66:20)/lmjm (p. 597/p. 421); [wx[x (2 Chron. 3:10)/frùk (p. 621/p. 438); (˚)tp;x] (≈ra) (Ezek. 32:6)/hma[ (p. 617/p. 435); fhr (Gen. 30:38)/ù≈wj (p. 669/p. 471); trçm (2 Sam. 13:19)/ˆùgaf (p. 752/p. 537). Names of Musical Instruments • lylj (Isa. 5:12)/yan (p. 224/p. 153); bgw[ (Ps. 150:4)/ratyq (p. 502/ p. 353); μyxlx (ibid. ib. 5)/ˆytqpxm (p. 609/p. 429). Names of Illnesses • hpkn (BT Pesachim, 112b)/[wrxm (p. 329/p. 228); μyrwjf (Deut. 28:27)/rysawb (p. 262/p. 179); tlby (Lev. 22:22)/lylawùt (lwlaùt) (p. 273/p. 187); tply (ibid.)/abwq (p. 284/p. 196). Names of Zodiacal Signs • hmyk ( Job 9:9)/ayyrwùt (p. 319/p. 221); lysk (ibid.)/lyhs (p. 327/ p. 226). Miscellaneous Words • rj'a' (Gen. 15:1)/μùt (p. 35/p. 22); tyrja (Eccles. 7:8)/rùka (ibid.); yai (Isa. 11:11)/hryzùg (p. 37/p. 24); qna (Ezek. 24:17)/qyhç (p. 59/ p. 40); lb/al, am (p. 93/p. 64); tçbd/μans (p. 152/p. 105); ywjfm (Gen. 21:16)/hwlg (p. 262/p. 179); ˆwwy (Ps. 69:3)/bljf (p. 279/ p. 192); [yxy/ˆçwr (p. 291/p. 201); alh ( Job 4:6)/ala (alh) (p. 347/ p. 241); çfl (Gen. 4:22)/lqyx (p. 352/p. 245); twndgm (Gen. 24:53)/

10 In these entries another comparison occurs; this comparison, however, has no relevance here, because in the original text of Ibn Janà˙ it appears explicitly by a term spelling out dialectological differences in Arabic despite the absence of the word ybr[ itself.

152

chapter six

πyarf (p. 362/p. 253); lbn (Prov. 36:32)/fjna, ˆwh (p. 402/p. 281); çjn/rùgz (p. 428/p. 300); hx,[; (Lev. 3:9)/≈[x[ (p. 541/p. 380); h[x/gùxgùx11 (p. 615/p. 434); tyjypx (Exod. 16:31)/πyafq (p. 617/ p. 436); gçgç (Isa. 17:11)/[s[s12 (p. 754/p. 539); lwkça (Cant. 7:9)/dwqn[ (p. 720/p. 512); hmx (Cant. 4:1)/baqn (p. 612/p. 431); ˆwmra ( Jer. 30:18)/rxq (p. 672/p. 474); twpç (rqb-; 2S 17:29)/abl (p. 738/ p. 527). At one specific entry, rçç, which also pertains to the semantic area of colors, Ibn Janà˙ considered it sufficient to define by the Targ. Aram. non-cognate translation synonym of the entry word, i.e. ˆmms, whereas Ibn Tibbon further subjoined an Arabic non-cognate definiens, namely rypùgnz (p. 693/p. 490). For the above-mentioned additional comparisons of Ibn Tibbon several explanations can be proposed: (1) Ibn Tibbon desired in these instances to adhere faithfully to the original text, for on the one hand an exclusion of material would certainly do an injustice to the original, whereas on the other hand a straightforward translation would create tautology. It is tenable to suppose that the translator was thus forced to retain the Arabic word occurring in the original and serving as an “inevitable” definiens. The dilemma facing Ibn Tibbon is a general problem faced by any scholar proposing to translate a bilingual lexicon into a unilingual lexicon written in the same language as that of the entry words of the original, bilingual, lexicon. The production of any such translation would necessarily be hampered by the same problem as that faced by Ibn Tibbon. (2) With regard to a restricted sector of words, it may be plausible to posit that considering that these are terms of realia, they were well known to the ( Jewish) readers or speakers of medieval Provençal, French, Spanish, or Italian, referred to by Ibn Tibbon as twlg ynb μwda ≈ra lwbg lkbw tprxb rça hzh ljh (the exiled Jewish people in the diaspora of France and of Greater Italy [lit: Edom]). It is well known that certain Arabic terms—those for fragrant spices, for gems and charms, for musical instruments—as well as nomenclature in the

11 In the Hebrew edition of Shorashim, there appears in this entry a fairly extensive insertion; no note of such was made by Bacher nor by Neubauer. 12 At entry gyç (p. 717/p. 510), Ibn Tibbon, additionally, subjoins an extensive note.

language comparison in treatises translated into hebrew 153 area of astronomy penetrated these languages in the Middle Ages due to the contact with Arabic culture, whether the mundane culture of voyagers and merchants or the humanitarian culture of scientific literature (alchemy, medicine, philosophy, mathematics, etc.) A certain proportion of these Arabic words corresponds to Arabic or “foreign words” (la'az glosses) encountered in R. David Qim˙i’s Sefer Shorashim. Qim˙i’s la'az glosses fit Provençal well, this being also the language intended by Ibn Tibbon in his la'az glosses. It remains an open question what provoked Qim˙i to provide the Arabic name for sundry concepts in his lexicon.13 At any rate, several words in the aforementioned listings denoted by Ibn Tibbon as Arabic words are recorded by Qim˙i as la'az glosses, e.g. rwm/çùùwqçwm; ynç t[lwtw μynç/zymrq; fmwj/abrj (see editors’ notes). It follows that these words were indeed loan words in Provençal. Elsewhere Qim˙i adduces the word as Arabic, however, his phraseology implies that the word was intelligible to non-Arabic speakers, e.g. μkrk/ˆarp[z; rmz/hparwz; μylha/ldnx. As for such words as jwk/ˆwdrj; srp/baq[; fhb/fnlb; hdfp/drmz, etc., it cannot be ascertained whether Qim˙i intended to imply that the words were borrowed into Provençal or merely that they were Arabic words intelligible to Provençal speakers. It is thus very plausible that the given words, entered alike by R. Judah ibn Tibbon and by R. David Qim˙i in the body of their Hebrew texts, were known to speakers of Provençal, owing to the intercultural contact mentioned earlier. If it is permissible to suppose that words well known to Provençal speakers might very likely have been intelligible to the residents of the neighboring country further north, i.e. to French speakers, we would have available an additional parameter for proposing a resolution of the present issue. P. Guiraud (1971, pp. 9–23), in his work on foreign words in French, enumerates some 270 Arabic words that had permeated into French between 1100 and 1850 C.E.; two-thirds of these had already been absorbed by the sixteenth century. Guiraud

13 The entire issue of the Arabic words adduced by Qim˙i in his lexicon as well as how they relate to la'az glosses is in need of analysis. Be this as it may, one can clearly isolate a group of words for which Qim˙i records the Arabic word, together with its la'az translation: it is quite evident therefrom that such a word was not borrowed into Provençal; it is even very doubtful that the word was comprehensible to Provençal speakers. Some instances in point: rwg[/πafùk/anwdnwra; tymmç/πafùk/nwra; alwd ;bwza/rt[x/ynygyrywa; μçl/[zùg/wxpwf; fwlb/fwlbhaç/≈fnlg, etc.

154

chapter six

classifies these words according to the several time spans of their penetration into French or, to be more precise, according to the several dating of the French literary documents within which the words are attested. (It must be taken into account that a certain time elapses, during which a loan word is absorbed into the spoken language only, before its total integration in written documents of the language.) Subsequently, he arranges the words in accordance with their several semantic fields. A large segment of them pertain to terms of realia, bearing considerable affinity with the semantic areas listed above. I attempted to ascertain on the basis of Guiraud’s list, whether any words in my listing were documented in the French of the twelfth century. For this investigation I further made use of lists recorded by T.E. Hope (1971), who had examined French loan words in Italian, and vice versa, in the twelfth to nineteenth centuries; taking into account that some Arabic words had “migrated” to French via Italian. I also checked out the lists of H. Lammens (1890), although it seems, prima facie, that Guiraud would have entered in his work all materials that Lammens had already collated. The fact is, however, that Guiraud does not refer to Lammens but merely states as a broad generalization (p. 5) that lexicographers show no unanimity of opinion on the question of the number of loan words on which his collection is structured; he thus warns that the compendium compiled by him is far from exhaustive. It is not surprising that Guiraud’s list shows a correspondence with Ibn Tibbon’s in isolated entries only, as e.g., agbb ( papegai for hpna); ˆarp[z (safran for μkrk); ksm (musc for rwm) in the eleventh-thirteenth centuries; and ratyq (guitare; for bgw[), fourteenth cent. An inspection of Lammens’ lists reveals correspondence in the following entries, too: hma[n (ema for hn[y tb; p. 58); hparz (girafe for rmz; p. 127: according to Guiraud, the word penetrated French in the fifteenth century from Italian; it is likely that Italian had absorbed it somewhat earlier; indeed, according to Hope, vol. I, p. 40, the word is already attested in Italian at the close of the thirteenth century); rqx (sacre for hdysj—according to Guiraud in the fourteenth century but according to Lammens, p. 210, the word itself is a loan word from Latin, from which it would seem that Guiraud’s documentation is somewhat late); twbkn[ (alancabuth for çybk[, p. 4); zymrq (cramoisi for ynç t[lwt, p. 19); ldnx (sandal, Santal for μylha, p. 213); ˆaùgrm (almargen for μymwgla, p. 18): ydrb (alvarde for amg, p. 21); raçmç (cimterre for rpg, p. 88; see also

language comparison in treatises translated into hebrew 155 Hope, p. 34); ˆyhaç (sahin for tmçnt; see introduction, p. 34, n. 1); fwlb haç (only Ballote for f lO ; Lammens, p. 261); lùfnj (alhandal; for hdç tw[wqp, p. 259); lydnm (mandille for μyfyrj, p. 284); ˆwrfn (natron for rtn, p. 180; Guiraud remarks that this word was adopted as late as the seventeenth cent.; however, he states that the source of the word is in Latin and it was therefore probably in use in early French); dmùta (bismuth for ˚wp, p. 52); aqrd (Targ. for hrjs, p. 236); πyafq (kadif or kataif for tyjypx). Thus clear evidence exists for a sizeable list of Arabic words that were imported into French in a period fairly close to that of R. Judah ibn Tibbon; this rationalizes the above-mentioned phenomenon wherein Ibn Tibbon leaves untouched, Arabic words within his Hebrew, translated text: this could be justified by the “Edomite” reader possessing a certain knowledge of Arabic, acquired by his European vernacular. It is not an improbable assumption that many other words appearing in Ibn Tibbon’s list were incorporated into European languages in the twelfth century despite the absence of any literary documentation. Indeed, Ibn Tibbon’s list might itself constitute an element filling out the picture. Ibn Tibbon himself, twice in entry πfn (p. 302), uses the phrase ybr[bw z[lb, by which he would imply that the given Arabic translation synonyms ykfxm (mastic) and krfxa (storax; Ben-Yehudah, p. 3638, n. 3) were in use at that time, both in Arabic and in European languages. Neither of these words appears in any of the lists of Lammens, Giraud or Hope.14 Less frequently, Ibn Tibbon further appended a la'az translation (apart from the Arabic term) to aid readers whose vernacular was a Rumanian language. This might reflect the shortcomings of the translator vis-à-vis the specific term or the category to which it pertained, namely realia. Alternatively, he may have had a suspicion that in each of these instances, the Arabic term was not sufficiently intelligible, or was even incomprehensible, to the reader, on the assumption 14 In principle, one might postulate that Ibn Tibbon had taken these expressions from some Latin translation of the Bible. Apart from such a conjecture finding no corroboration in Ibn Tibbon’s system of translation, offers no resolution but instead raises the following questions: Why is it that in this category alone of all the categories he retains the Arabic la'az terms? What benefit would accrue from an Arabic term for a medieval reader with no knowledge of Arabic, unless the term had been absorbed in Latin vernaculars of the twelfth century?

156

chapter six

that the student’s knowledge of Arabic was restricted to the words that had been borrowed into European Languages.15 In the entry arwq (p. 455) to the Arabic translation synonym lùgj, Ibn Tibbon appended the la'az term zydrp,.16 For the term μymwgla (p. 240), side by side with the Arabic translation synonym ˆaùgrm, Ibn Tibbon subjoined the la'az larwq (bois de corail ); likewise at lça (p. 48), in addition to Arabic lùta he subjoined zyrmf. In a limited number of entries, Ibn Tibbon recorded the Arabic translation synonym for the respective entry, following which, he subjoined, on his own initiative, some Hebrew synonym or definition for the referent: ˚smw rts awhw πùgsla ybr[ ˆwçlb, tkrph (Shorashim, p. 412), in contradistinction to simply πùgsla tkrph in the Arabic original ("Ußùl, p. 587). Likewise, at πy[x (p. 434), after recording the translation synonym [anq, as in the original (p. 615), Ibn Tibbon glossed the following definition: μhynp μyçnh wb ˆypf[mç πwf[ (a wrap with which women cover their faces). Other instances of such are to be found at sybç (p. 494), ywjfm (p. 179), μyrwjf (ibid.), hmyk (p. 221), lysk (p. 226), bx (p. 421), hmx (p. 431). Similar to the entries discussed here, zero in "Ußùl/“comparison” in Shorashim, is a group “implicit comparison in "Ußùl/explicit comparison in Shorashim.” It would be feasible to check, for each entry in this category, whether a reason can be noted for the retention of the comparison in the body of the Hebrew rendering. There are, however, good grounds to postulate that Ibn Tibbon treated these as real comparisons, rather than simply as translation synonyms, this not being the case for those entries that lacked all basis for etymological comparison. Be this as it may, for illustration of the principle discussed here, I simply adduced the category “zero” in "Ußùl/“explicit comparison” in Shorashim, considering that this latter type quite satisfactorily typifies the problematic of Ibn Tibbon’s methodology in dealing with Arabic translation synonyms.

15 Enumeration of the subjoined la'az glosses appears in Bacher’s Shorashim, index 11, p. 567; however Bacher overlooked the Arabic words that Ibn Tibbon had retained, on account of their having been borrowed into Latin languages. 16 Ben-Yehudah, at the relevant entry (pp. 6137ff.) remarks that the Septuagint, ad loc. ( Jer. 17:11) rendered arwq “perdix,” and he further states that this word appears in French also, as perdix, and in English, as “partridge.”

language comparison in treatises translated into hebrew 157 6.3

Aram./Arab. comparisons in Shorashim

The comparison formula Bib. Heb./Aram. (non-cognate)/Arabic (cognate with Aram.) contains a comparison of an entry of targumic or talmudic Aramaic with a cognate Arabic translation synonym. For example, in the three-way comparison h[wxqm/lymza/lymza (p. 642/ p. 453), is a sub-comparison Aram./Arab., i.e. lymza/lymza. This is the only category containing regular etymological comparisons between Aramaic and Arabic without adducing a Hebrew cognate translation synonym. I have presented these etymological sub-comparisons for separate discussion, to determine how Ibn Tibbon treated them in the Shorashim. Of the total of 24 comparisons, only four are explicit comparisons, and one of these was omitted by Ibn Tibbon. The rest are implicit comparisons. Ibn Tibbon disregarded most of them (13 of the 20), whereas the remainder he reverted to explicit comparisons. In this respect, his method is exactly the same as that used by him for Heb./Arab. comparisons. The comparisons, classified into four types: 1. Explicit comparisons in both Kitàb al-"Ußùl and Shorashim: • lymza/lymza ([xq: p. 642/p. 453); anybrwç/ˆybrç (rça: p. 74/ p. 51); açrp/açrap (ˆbrd: p. 163/p. 112). 2. Explicit comparison in "Ußùl/“zero” in Shorashim: • rfmq/rfmq (jtl: p. 360/p. 250) 3. Implicit comparisons in "Ußùl/explicit comparison in Shorashim: • amfwb/μfb (hla, p. 47/p. 30); jwlm/jalm (lrj, p. 248/p. 169); syqrn/sùgrn (p. 257/p. 176); rp[/rpgm (rpa, p. 66/p. 45); akwryp/˚yrp (p. 338/p. 234; lqx, p. 619/p. 436); atrx[m/hrx[m (p. 567/p. 398). 4. Implicit comparisons in "Ußùl/“zero” in Shorashim: • fwlb/fwlb (ˆwla, p. 51/p. 33); swwf/swwaf (ykt, p. 761/p. 543); arpwf/rpùf (tljç, p. 714/p. 506); aykrwk/ykrk (sws, p. 477/ p. 335); grwm/ùgrwm (≈wrj, p. 250/p. 171); ls/hls (p. 154/ p. 106); atpwqs/hpksa (ˆtpm, p. 595/p. 419; b[, p. 497/p. 350); jlp/jlp (rd[, p. 507/p. 357); jmwr/jmr (ˆwdyk, p. 318/p. 220); agaç/ùgas (rhdt, p. 153/p. 106); qwç/qws (≈wj, p. 216/p. 147); flç/flst (bjr, p. 668/p. 471).

chapter six

158 6.3.1

Ibn Tibbon’s omissions of comparisons with Aramaic

Ibn Tibbon only rarely disregards Ibn Janà˙’s comparisons with Aramaic in the "Ußùl. One example is at entry qry (p. 298), in which Ibn Janà˙ compares the Hebrew entry word qry (Exod. 10:15) with its own Aramaic rendering qwry; however, Ibn Tibbon in the Shorashim omitted this comparison (see qry, p. 205). This may well have been because the translator had already recorded the word qwry as a Hebrew word, mentioning the definiens hrùxùk adduced by Ibn Janà˙, for which reason, he thought it unnecessary to record the Aramaic form as well. He similarly omitted the Heb./Aram. comparison rqy/rqy (p. 295/p. 204). Generally he left the comparisons with Aramaic untouched, probably presuming that the student “from the Edomite land” was sufficiently versed in Aramaic by virtue of his study of the Talmud as well as his browsing in the Aramaic biblical Targums. This was likewise the practice of Ge"onim and early exegetes in their use of the Aramaic materials. (Rashi, for instance in his commentary at Gen. 12:20, s.v. wjlçyw; 14:14, s.v. qryw; 37:3, s.v. μynqz-ˆb; 37:7, s.v. μymla μymlam, etc., merely remarks wmwgrtk without elucidating the Aramaic rendering; elsewhere (e.g. Gen. 6:14), he simply states ymra ˆwçl, and so on.

6.4

Ibn Tibbon retention of comparisons in "Ußùl

I have shown that as far as Aramaic was concerned, Ibn Tibbon was in no quandary: he retained the material verbatim and even adduced further Aramaic material that had no textual basis in the Arabic original. As for the Heb./Arab. implicit comparison category, he reverted in many instances to explicit comparisons, whether constrained by his duty as translator or because in each instance he regarded the case as one of real, explicit comparison. As for the Heb./Arab. explicit comparisons contained in "Ußùl, it cannot be said that Ibn Tibbon made a habit of either omission or retention. Rather, he used a variety of practical solutions: (i) retaining the discussion in full; (ii) condensing it; (iii) discarding it entirely. For instance, at entry za (p. 19), he retains the inner Arabic grammatical analysis of ùda and ùdnm; likewise, at qlb (p. 67), he preserves the example itself, together with the Arabic usages of the Arabic cognate

language comparison in treatises translated into hebrew 159 translation synonym qlb. At hyla (p. 30) and at rwnk (p. 225), he even preserves the inner Arabic dialectological discussion. Ibn Tibbon may retain the Arabic explicit comparison even in cases where Ibn Janà˙ adduced support from Rab. Heb. (twhma, p. 37; dlg, p. 93; jjz, p. 129; glp, p. 402; hwçq, p. 459) as well as when, apart from the cognate, a non-cognate translation synonym appears for a Bib. Heb. entry word (as ˚na/˚na (p. 39), although he had already rendered by lydb). Even in instances where prima facie the entry word is “well known,” being a frequent word in the Bible, Ibn Tibbon often did not fail to adduce the comparison appearing in the original (e.g.: ˆg, p. 96; ˆtj, p. 175; μy, p. 196, (where Ibn Janà˙ states definitively πwr[m, [well] known; rwnk, p. 225; btk, p. 232; hjnm, p. 266; çjn, p. 330; hnyps p. 345 [Ibn Janà˙: πwr[m]; rfp, p. 400; glp, p. 402; flp, p. 403; [yqr, p. 487). In contrast, cases in which comparisons with an Arabic cognate translation synonym were discarded have been noted, when the cognate was a unique definiens and in these cases the translator suggested no substitute for what he had omitted. Certain comparisons can be shown to highlight Ibn Tibbon’s method in retaining intact explicit comparisons, as in his source. I shall cite one example for a noncognate translation synonym comparison (A) and one for a cognate comparison (B): A. The entry word ryda (p. 22) is rendered by Ibn Janà˙ as ˆyzrk; ˆyzrk itself is phonetically similar to its Hebrew cognate ˆzrg. Ibn Tibbon alluded to this comparison, for he retains ˆyzrk, considering that in this case the Arabic might be instructive, even for a reader unfamiliar with Arabic, by virtue of its corroboration of the tenability of his explanation for the Bib. Heb. entry. B. At rks (p. 482/p. 338), Ibn Janà˙ records two comparisons: rks/rks and rks/rgs. Ibn Tibbon discards the first one and retains the second. One might have expected him to retain specifically the comparison that was of particular interest (namely, the one containing the switch k/ùg), rather than a comparison lacking any letter switch. But it seems likely that his choice was based on the following logic, if that Heb./Aram. fluctuation g-k‚ exists for a pair of inner Hebrew entries, it enables the rendering of the Arabic entry word by the alternative Hebrew entry word, as, in our instance, rùgs/rgs. The logical consequence is that the comparison rks/rùgs can itself be translated into the inner Hebrew comparison rks/rgs. Indeed, this letter fluctuation is applicable to Hebrew, too, as is evident from Ibn

160

chapter six

Janà˙’s own words, expanded as they are to some extent, by Ibn Tibbon.

6.5

Ibn Tibbon’s method of adducing Arabic materials in comparisons and in inner-Arabic specimens

When Ibn Tibbon sets out Arabic materials for the purpose of comparison with the Hebrew entry word he generally leaves it untouched, and where the relevant cognate is embedded in an Arabic expression, he tends to cite the Arabic expression in full.17 There are, however, instances in which Ibn Tibbon translates several elements of the expression, aside of course from the cognate concerned, that can be read as an Arabic word (precisely as in "Ußùl) but that could also be interpreted as an Arabicized Hebrew word. This format of “editing” the material in the body of the running Hebrew text is liable to mislead readers who might mistakenly suppose that they see a Hebrew expression rather than an Arabic one; or they might be misled into thinking that a Hebrew language practice exists equivalent to that customary in Arabic. For example, in the expression ˆya tbg ˆya ya an[ tlpa ("Ußùl, lpa, p. 64), Ibn Tibbon’s rendering is as follows: trtsn rmwlk wnmm tlpa hna :μyrmwaw. The words ˆya and an[ are rendered by hna and wnmm, whereas the word tlpa is quote probably Arabicized Hebrew, in that the reader (of Shorashim, p. 44) may well interpret it as Hebrew on account of its occurrence in the midst of a Hebrew sequence. There are cases in which Ibn Tibbon translates the Arabic expression adduced for illustration in its entirety, though he proceeds immediately to elucidate it by a Hebrew paraphrase. For example, at entry rja (p. 35/p. 22), Ibn Janà˙’s text reads: ynjqt dwbk rjaw (Ps. 73:24) arw ˆm ˆjnw br[la lwqt hm yl[ aùdh ˚l dçla. Ibn Tibbon renders the Arabic illustration as follows: br[h μyrmwaç hml hmwd hz yrwjam wnjna ˚trz[ and he further adduces independently a reasoned argument for the given example, as if he had retained the Arabic phrase verbatim and was still awaiting its Hebrew rendering and elucidation, as follows: ˚l μyrzw[ wnjna ,rmwlk.

17 For example, μynwp rça μwqmh rmwlk μhhwùgw hmhm br[ ˆwçlb μhynp tmgm ùyp hyhyw wyla (amg, p. 95); . . . πakça ˆma lkl br[h ˆyrwqç wmk (çrj, p. 172).

language comparison in treatises translated into hebrew 161 At πrj (p. 170) Ibn Tibbon translates the Arabic example in full, offering no explanation of his own: çahw çmçh hrj :μrmam wtwa μyrzwgw ,wpa hrj ynwlp :br[h myrmwa ˆkw • .μmwj qzjyçk • (in the original: smçla tymj :lwq ˆm hl μhqaqtça amna πnala ymj lwùgr :br[la lwqw ahrj dtça ùda ,ranlaw ("Ußùl, p. 249)) Likewise, at entry rb[ (p. 500/p. 352), Ibn Janà˙ states: yl[ aùdh ˆwkyp ˆm rygb ù adk lùgaùùw ˆm hdayzb ù aùdk lùga ˆmùù br[la lam[tsa laùtm which is rendered by Ibn Tibbon as follows: μyrmwaç br[h ghnmk hz hyhy ˆm ytlbm ù ˚kw ˚k ynpùù μyrmwaw ù ˚kw ˚k ynpmùù. It is worth noting that the expression ˚kw ˚k ynp (corresponding to adk lùga) is artificial Hebrew, for this phrase is never used without ˆm.

6.6

Summary

To sum up, a lexicon that is essentially similar to the bilingual type of lexicon (in our case Hebrew-Arabic), when undergoing a translation into the language of its entry words generates very specific problems. Sometimes the rendering for the definiens is nothing but a reiteration of the definitum itself, so that a tautological definition is arrived at, a definition valueless for a lexicologist. Owing to the constraints of this problem, Ibn Tibbon was impelled to adopt several alternative solutions as for example, the omission of definitions and/or of comparisons or, vice versa, the reversion of ordinary translations into comparisons. This issue has important repercussions vis-à-vis the fixation of the text form of the original work. For establishing the text of the original work ("Ußùl), no reliance should be placed on the readings of Ibn Tibbon the translator; any claim that the readings in the Hebrew rendering are of greater “authenticity,” having been “overlooked by copyists,” must be ruled out. It is far more probable that all the comparisons, whether those that are beyond all doubt real comparisons, or those that may well be regarded as such that constitute additions in Shorashim, were indeed merely Ibn Tibbon’s original creation, whereas all the textual omissions of such are Ibn Tibbon’s intentional omissions; for the purpose of language comparisons the original text is indeed that in "Ußùl.

CHAPTER SEVEN

RAV SA'ADIAH GA"ON

R. Sa'adiah Ga"on is, in the opinion of R. Abraham ibn Ezra (Moznayim, p. I), to be assigned a place at the head of the list of “the elders of the Hebrew language”;1 it is conventionally held that said “list” is in chronological order. Poznanski (1926, p. 237) was of the opinion that R. Sa'adiah was the first to compile specific works on the subject of Hebrew linguistics. Others thought that the Karaites anteceded R. Sa'adiah in the production of literature on grammar (see Munk, 1851, p. 4; Hirschfeld 1926, pp. 7–8; n. 1). At any rate, as far as can be ascertained, R. Sa'adiah did not compile any work devoted specifically to language comparison. Nonetheless, in R. Sa'adiah’s “general” treatises on grammar, lexicon, and biblical exegesis are embedded comparisons of many Hebrew entry words with Aramaic and with Arabic. These comparisons can be graded into three levels according to their explicity: (1) Absolutely explicit comparisons; (2) implicit comparisons; and (3) translation of a Hebrew word by its Arabic cognate translation synonym, in the framework of R. Sa'adiah’s Arabic Bible translation. The limitations fixed for the present study are such that discussion of types (1) and (2) only (i.e. explicit and implicit comparisons) is required to the extent that these are encountered in this grammarian’s works and in his lexicon. But owing to the meager quantity of material appearing in these two works and considering the important rating of R. Sa'adiah’s translation, which served as a source text for scholars in subsequent times, our attention will be focused on the third level, too, namely his elucidations of his biblical translation. The material embedded in the translation text itself, on which no remark or annotation was made by R. Sa'adiah, warrants a separate study. Here these materials are resorted to merely for determining its essential value and status vis-à-vis the material pertaining to the first two classes or as a possible basis for explicit comparisons proposed by scholars who came after R. Sa'adiah Ga"on. 1

In Ibn Ezra’s own words: çdwqh ˆwçl ynqz.

rav sa'adiah ga"on 7.1 7.1.1

163

Grammatical comparisons

Comparative Hebrew-Arabic conjugation chart

The First Hebrew Table of Conjugation (Skoss 1942; Goldenberg 1979; Dotan 1997, pp. 338–95), being as it is a synopsis of the chapter on conjugation of R. Sa'adiah’s Sefer Zahot, is in effect a comparative Hebrew-Arabic conjugation chart (Téné 1983, p. 240; Dotan 1993, p. 55). The comparison method in this table is basically structural. It is clear that the choice of the Arabic verb [ms as a counterpart for the conjugated forms of the parallel Hebrew verb [mç is not an arbitrary one. The two verbs are cognates, and this choice in itself is sufficient evidence for us to determine the intention of the comparisons. Indeed, R. Sa'adiah speaks expressly of language comparison when he states: ˚tml[ br[la hgl ypw ,˚ytrkzh ˚yt[mçh ˚lwqk ˚trbka (Skoss, ibid., p. 192). Moreover, in his introduction to the table he poses the argument that the patterns that he is about to discuss are suitable for all tongues of which he has knowledge (aùdh ˆynawqw

[ymùg yp lb fqp ˆwynarb[la hgl yp lm[tst amna syl hd[awqw zùgla ahanpr[ ytla taglla, Skoss, ibid, p. 174).2 “All tongues” was clearly intended to include Aramaic as well, and this being the case, the table, potentially at least, implies the comparison of at least three languages. R. Sa'adiah does not adopt a comparison term for each and every item in the table; nonetheless, comparison is a systematic element in the table. This consistency is especially noticeable from a remark made in the margins of the table concerning a “negative” comparison: yntl[p/ynytyç[. R. Sa'adiah determines that the Hebrew verb form (in Ezek. 29:3) that incorporates the subject and object pronoun for the first person singular is illogical and for this reason should not be included in the table (lajm hmlk μhdn[ ahnap; Skoss, ib., p. 190), despite the fact that the equivalent Arabic form is considered by the Arab grammarians, fit for linguistic analogy.3

2 This and similar expressions have led Dotan (1993, p. 54; 1997, pp. 105–10) to infer that Sa'adiah not only established comparative philology but also thought in terms of general linguistics. 3 Discussion on the respective contrast between these two forms in Hebrew v. in Arabic came into the limelight for the first time in the Retort of Dunash on R. Sa'adiah Ga"on (Schroeter, 1866, retort 102). It was on this that Bacher (Nitzanei, 1894, p. 58 and n. 2; p. 64, n. 3) placed reliance for his deduction that R. Sa'adiah made a general habit of “grammatical” comparisons of Hebrew with Arabic. The original

164

chapter seven

R. Sa'adiah sets up structural grammatical comparisons in his commentary to his Bible translation, too. I shall herewith enumerate these (the grammatical terminology in current use is adopted here, though Sa'adiah himself used other classifications and terms): The Hebrew hif 'il conjugation as well as its Arabic counterpart fa''ala may be used in a “declarative”4 sense,5 e.g. ≈yly (Prov. 3:34) “he proclaimed that so and so was ≈l (scoffer) or was in the position of ≈l; wqydxhw (Deut. 21:1) [the judges] shall determine that he [= the accused] is qydx. Likewise in Arabic: μlùf [= determined/ declared] that so and so was μlaùf, and so on” (Sa'adiah’s Tafsìr to Prov. 3:34).6 ˆh and hnh before the Hebrew imperfect verbal forms have an equivalent function to that of sin prefixing imperfect forms in Arabic: h[yba hnh/ywras (Sa'adiah’s Tafsìr, Prov. 1:23; Qàfi˙, 1976, p. 35). Comparison of sentence syntax and of general logic A complete idea in a sentence cannot be established if one bypasses a fundamental element within the sentence, even when the parallel sentence arrived at after the omission seems structurally correct. R. Sa'adiah demonstrates this axiom, with two pairs of sentences, one Hebrew, one Arabic. The Hebrew pair is jqy hylwtbb hça awhw, in contrast with the condensed sentence hv;ai awhw; he parallels these with the Arabic pair hlla ala hala al as against hala al. In Hebrew and Arabic, the apocopation distorts the meaning of the complete sentence (Sa'adiah’s Tafsìr to Prov. 18:13).7 excerpt from R. Sa'adiah’s kutub al-lughah that treats these forms was first published by Harkavy (1898, p. 90). Yellin (1945, p. 34) used the latter as his basis, whereas Skoss (1942) published the above-quoted passage in the larger frame of the fragments of hyyfnh r[ç. Skoss himself discussed these verb forms again (1955, p. 57), this being the one and only language comparison noted by him in his concluding summary as a sign of the influence of Arabic grammar on R. Sa'adiah’s work. 4 For this term, cf Gesenius, p. 144, § 53, sec. 2. 5 The concept binyan (conjugation) was unknown to Sa'adiah, as has been demonstrated by Irene Garbell. See Goldenberg, 1979, p. 87. 6 ˚lùd [ymùgb ˆwdyry . . . ˆalp lwq bùdkw ˆalp batk rwwzw ˆalp μlùf br[la lwqk whw ˆymlaùfla hlznm analp lzn μkajla ˆa; See Maman 1992a, pp. 33–34, for a broader discussion. 7 To a different category belong the sweeping comparisons of the features of one language versus those of another—of the wealth of their vocabularies and expressions, their mannerisms, and the like. R. Sa'adiah resorts to such comparisons of Hebrew with Arabic through ideological and socio-linguistic settings. Harkavy (1900, pp. 85–86) adduces a passage from R. Sa'adiah’s commentary to Exodus, on the words hk-d[ (Exod. 7:16); in this comment, he states that the Hebrew expression hk-d[ has six synonyms including that phrase: ht[ d[, ˆd[, ˆya d[, ˆyda, and d[

rav sa'adiah ga"on 7.1.2

165

Hebrew Aramaic grammatical comparisons

The word μlnm ( Job 15:29) was interpreted by R. Sa'adiah as an expanded form (hmùkpm) of the word μL;mi, with the addition of a nun. This mode of expansion, he states to be comparable with the expansion noted in the Aramaic form ˆyfnj as against ˆyfj (attention was drawn to this comparison by Bacher, 1894, ynxn, p. 61, n. 3).8 • tlht ( Jer. 49:25) and tljn (Ps. 16:6) are modeled on Aramaic (Bacher, ibid., p. 60 and n. 3).9

7.2

Hebrew/Arabic stylistic comparisons

Neither in Hebrew nor in Arabic may one ascribe to the deity the concept of hjkç (= forgetting, etc.); in other words, it is improper to combine any form of the verb jkç with one or other of the names of God. However, it is allowable in both languages to combine a negated form of the verb rkz with God’s name, as: wylgr μwdh rkz alw wpa μwyb (Lam. 2:1). Mevasser HaLevi raised an objection against R. Sa'adiah on this matter (Zucker, 1955, pp. 26, 79). 7.3.1 Lexical comparisons of Hebrew/Arabic cognates I recorded only a few instances of comparisons of this nature: hylb fsw yp hna ya ,hfrw yp ˆalp sanla ˆwlwqy .ynfrwy . . . ynfry (Sa'adiah’s Tafsìr to Job 16:11). The phrase/term sanla ˆwlwqy, together with the example illustrating Arabic usage, i.e. hfrw yp ˆalp, determine the explicitness of the comparison At Prov. 18:16 R. Sa'adiah renders byjry by bjry, adding the remark: djaw yn[m yl[ br[la hgl yp h[slaw bjrlaw. wyçk[. In Arabic, maintains R. Sa'adiah, there exists only a single translation synonym for all six, this being anh. This proves that Hebrew is a richer language than Arabic and thus a “preferable” one. R. Sa'adiah’s passage continues as follows: ˆa ˆùft alp ùypw ,br[la hgl yp hdjaw hùfpl *ˆya ˚lùdkw .μalkla lk yp ynarb[la ˆm [swa ybr[la awh ˆkyh hnçmla hgl yp [baslaw . . . hpya . . . hna . . . ˆa; . . . hya ,ya :ùz aùxya ùynarb[la. All these words are rendered by R. Sa'adiah by the single Arabic word ˆya. * This is the correct reading. Harkavy maintained the reading ˆa, his Hebrew rendering being: . . . hlm dw[ axmt ˆkw. 8 It would be of interest to ascertain, if feasible, whether R. Sa'adiah parsed the form μL;mi as a declined form from ll,m,, i.e. with 3rd pl. possessive pronoun suffix or, rather, as from lme by reduction (Goldenberg, 1974, p. 200), i.e. from the root llm or hlm. See Maman 1992a, p. 32. 9 On other grammatical comparisons with Arabic see Dotan (1993), pp. 54–60.

chapter seven

166

At Job 37:15, he renders ˆn[ by hnan[ and notes: ymst br[la ˆan[la bajsla (Ecker, 1962, p. 215). One comparison is discernible by tauto-etymological reasoning (above, 3.2): sdqla yp μhl ˆak μyywlla ˆa yl[ anldy tynymçh l[ hlwq . . . ˆajla hynamùt (Sa'adiah’s Tafsìr to Ps. 6:1). 7.3.2

Hebrew/Arabic semantic comparisons

This category of comparisons is more widespread than the previous one. Sa'adiah compares lyg with its Arabic translation synonym, brf. Both these words connote “ecstasy of joy” as well as “an intense feeling of sadness.” This very instance was adduced by R. Jonah ibn Janà˙ in his lexicon ("Ußùl, p. 128) and was subsequently recorded by Ibn Barùn (Muwàzana, p. 24) as an example of the category termed “semantic concord” (ùfpllab al yn[mlab hb qaptala aùg brùx).10 Neither of the latter two grammarians made reference to Sa'adiah (i.e. his introduction to Psalms, ed. R. Yosef Qàfi˙, p. 46). The expression blw blb, in the sense of “being two-faced, hypocritical,” is compared by R. Sa'adiah with the Arabic expressions: ˆyyblq, ˆyyhùgw, ˆyynasl. (Sa'adiah’s Tafsìr to Ps. 12:3). Sa'adiah recorded further semantic comparisons in the commentary to his translation at Isa. 63:7 (Derenbourg, p. 143) as well as at Ps. 80:3, Prov. 15:32, and Job 9:4, and 24:20. 7.3.3

Hebrew/Aramaic etymological comparisons

In his commentary to his Bible translation Sa'adiah states very frequently that the entry word under discussion should be elucidated according to the Aramaic Targum, e.g. at Ps. 89:9 and 139:17: μwgrtla hgl ˆmw; Prov. 31:2: μwgrtla hglb, etc. Ecker (1962, p. 10 and § 1 passim) recorded a long list of words from the Book of Job, that were rendered by Sa'adiah according to their connection with their Aramaic parallels. Below I list the Heb./Aram. comparisons adduced from the commentaries of Sa'adiah to his Tafsìr to the Books of Isaiah, Psalms, Proverbs, Job, and Daniel as well as from his treatise Kitàb al-Sab'ìn LafΩa al-Mufrada.

10

See Téné, 1983, n. 84.

rav sa'adiah ga"on

167

Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. ˆwy[bt/a[by (Sa'adiah’s Tafsìr to Isa. 21:12); twjml/(tjmw) (ibid., Prov. 31:3); hd[m/ad[hm (ibid. 25:2); abx/abxy (ibid. Dan. 10:1); çwdq/çydq (ibid. Dan. 8:13); twbrb/atwbr (ibid., Prov. 29:2;16); μ[wrt/[[rm (ibid., introduction to Tr. Ps., ed Qàfi˙, p. 46; and Prov. 11,15); μmwtça/μmwtça (Sa'adiah’s Tafsìr to Isa. 63:5). Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. ˚[lb/(˚[wlb) (Prov. 23:2); ˚mjra/(μjr) (Ps. 18:2). Bib. Heb./Talm. Aram.

hytafafw (Isa. 14:23)/ afafw (Sab'ìn LafΩa, p. 34); ymwlgb (Ezek. 27:24)/amylg (ibid.). Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram. yrb/ˆb/rb (Sa'adiah’s Tafsìr, to Prov. 31:2); ˆwzj/harm/ˆwzj (ibid. Dan. 8:13); ˆysj/çry/ˆysj (ibid., Ps. 89:9); wgrjyw/hmya/. . . tgrj (ibid., Ps, 18:46); wnymfn/μwmts/ˆynwmf (ibid. Job 18:3); ask/jbz/atskn (ibid., Ps. 81:4); ˆyklm-˚lmyw/twx[/ˆyklm (ibid., Prov. 31:3); tjn/drwh/tjna (ibid., Ps. 65:11); htmxp/[rq/μyxp (Sab'ìn LafΩa, p. 37). Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./(Targ. Aram.)

μypkw/μy[ls/(aypk) (Sa'adiah’s Tafsìr to Job 30, 6); lfUy/[sn/(lfn) (ibid. 41:1); (twm)yçy/tkçy/(yçn) (ibid., Ps. 55:16); glp/hljn/(glp) (ibid. 65:10); hd[/rs/(ad[) (ibid. Job 28:8); ˚y[r-y[r/(ˆwxr)/(aw[r) (ibid., Ps. 139:2); tml¨ç/i μt/(μylç) (ibid. 91:8). Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb.

td/μhytdw-td (Sa'adiah’s Tafsìr Dan. 7:25); lçjw/μylçjnh (ibid. 2:40) Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.

ˆynmz/μym[p/ˆynmz (Sa'adiah’s Tafsìr Dan. 7:25); yhwdj/hzj/aydj (ibid. 2:32); atçrbn/twrn/ataçrbn (ibid. 5:5; 12); rbsyw/ytllp/tyrbs (ibid. 7:25); rw[k/≈wmk/(rw[) (ibid. 2:35); [[rm/≈wxr/([[rm) (ibid. 2:40); hpyqtw/hqzj/(hpyqt) (ibid. 3:7); yntmya/arwn, μwya/(yntmya) (ibid. 7:7). Bib. Aram./Rab. Heb. azwrkw/zyrkhl (Sab'ìn LafΩa, p. 18); qyzn/μyqyzn (ibid.); ayngs/ˆgs (Sa'adiah’s Tafsìr Dan. 3:27).

168

chapter seven

Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram./Arab. rT'yIw/wrT'a/' rùttnt (Sa'adiah’s Tafsìr Job 37:1). All of the above are a part of the explicit language comparisons of R. Sa'adiah Ga"on. The Heb./Arab. comparisons are in the main structural, in the areas of grammar and semantics, whereas the comparisons with Aram. are in the areas of lexicon and of etymology. These comparisons are established according to the prominent themes highlighted earlier (3.6.2; 3.6.3; 3.6.4, etc.) The number of explicit comparisons encountered in the works of R. Sa'adiah is certainly not insignificant when one takes into account that the Kutub al-lugha as well as the commentaries to Sa'adiah’s Tafsìr have survived only partially. As a matter of principle, comparison is practised by R. Sa'adiah as a tool for grasping the lexicon and the grammar of Hebrew. It can be surmised that he held no ideological reservations regarding language comparison, nor did he stipulate any precondition as a sine qua non for this practice, as did Mena˙em, Dunash, and others (see above, 2.1). For it is reasonably likely that if this were the case, it would have expressed itself somewhere among the surviving recorded comparisons. What is more, R. Jonah ibn Janà˙ (Riqmah, p. 17 and elsewhere) as well as Ibn Bal'am have recourse to R. Sa'adiah in their sanctioning of comparisons with Arabic; had they come across any reservation in his writings, it is fair to assume they would not have refrained from relating to it. To sum up the data as culled from R. Sa'adiah: in the Heb./Arab. explicit comparisons, I encountered 4 lexical comparisons of cognates, 6 semantic comparisons, and 3 grammatical comparisons; in the Heb./Aram. explicit comparisons, I recorded 3 grammatical comparisons and 41 lexicological comparisons of cognates. Despite these data, the lack of sufficient information leaves us in a state of indeterminacy as regards several significant elements that would serve to complete the panorama of R. Sa'adiah’s language comparison system. On the theory of letter/sound substitutions of Heb. v. Arabic and v. Aramaic, no express mention by R. Sa'adiah has survived.11 Nevertheless, it might not be thought farfetched, if

11 If a deduction regarding Heb.-Arab. substitutions may be drawn from letter substitutions within Hebrew, the following intra-Hebrew fluctuations are recognized by R. Sa'adiah: a/h (Sa'adiah’s Tafsìr to Isa. 63; ibid., Prov. 10:3); k/q (Sab'ìn LafΩa, Allony 1958, p. 25); l/n (Sa'adiah’s Tafsìr to Isa. 21:15); n/l (ibid., Ps. 58:7); p/b

rav sa'adiah ga"on

169

one attributed to him the cognizance of at least those substitutions that were reckoned with by Hebrew grammarians in general (including Dunash, who was R Sa'adiah’s disciple and from whom he may well have gained the knowledge of this theory), such as the Heb./Arab. substitutions: g/ùg; z/ùd; j/ùk; ç/ùt, etc. (above, 2.4.1). Moreover, it is fair to impute to him the notion that semantic equivalence was a prerequisite for comparison (above, 2.6). For instance, in the Egron, p. 274, he renders blj by ˆbl and not by bylj. 7.3.4

Implicit comparisons

Implicit comparisons are encountered in the Egron (Alloni, 1969, Goldenberg, 1973–74, Dotan, 1981). Implicit comparisons of the type discussed above (ch. 4), are noticeable mainly in the lexicons. The Egron, although a lexicon of a unique category, belonging as it does to the proto-lexicographical stage “has the basic shaping, embryonically at least for subsequent lexicographic work” (Téné, 1972, p. 549). Thus, in so far as what concerns potential comparisons embodied in cognate synonym translations appearing in the lexicons, the status of the Egron for Sa'adiah, is parallel to that of the Jàmi' al-"AlfàΩ for Alfàsi, or that of the Kitàb al-"Ußùl for Ibn Janà˙.12 It goes without saying that the Egron was not specifically intended for language comparison as such. Indeed, one can even discern that in Egron the scope of language comparisons is more restricted than that in the commentary of Sa'adiah to his biblical translation, perhaps owing to the condensed structure of the former’s entry. Take for example the entry word ask. In the Egron (p. 242) Sa'adiah renders it in Arabic by ajùxa with nothing else added. However, for the same entry word at Sa'adiah’s Tafsìr at Ps. 81:4 he added a reasoning embodying a comparison with Aramaic: atskn jbz μwgrt ˆal hyjùx yl[ askn trspw. Thus R. Sa'adiah discusses briefly in one location and elaborates in

(ibid. 112:9); ç/x (ibid. 71:4). Heb./Aram. fluctuations are implied: a/h; x/z (ibid. Dan. 3:14). 12 Abramson (1954) has demonstrated that the “lexicon of the Mishna (the socalled "AlfàΩ al-Mishna) that Allony (1953) had attributed to Sa'adiah (on the basis of its title) is in fact not Sa'adiah’s at all.” Abramson’s reasoning seems valid as regards the fragment published by Allony (1954) too. That fragment does not even bear the name of any known author and it was merely by a process of analogy with the aforementioned fragmentary work (1953) that Allony attributed to Sa'adiah.

170

chapter seven

another. Could it be that he chose to be brief in the Egron because he relied on the amplification adopted in his Bible commentary? In fact, a trace of the reasoning (recorded in Ps., ibid.) can be detected underlying the rendering hyjùx. There are, however, also instances in which R. Sa'adiah in his Tafsìr rendered by a cognate, whereas in the Egron he recorded only a non-cognate. For example, the entry word μga in his Tafsìr is rendered by the cognate hmùga and/or μaùga eight times (for their enumeration, see Allony, HaEgron, p. 179; cf. also, ibid., p. 54, n. 207), whereas in the Egron itself, this word was rendered merely by the non-cognate ùgylùk; this can have no explanation other than that the grammarian had unintentionally overlooked the comparison. As noted above (4.0), it can happen that a translator adopts an unsophisticated rendering, without conscious intention of language comparison, and this can be so even in a case where a rendering by a cognate is used. This contingency is, of course, applicable vis-à-vis the implicit comparisons occurring in the Egron, too. 7.3.4.1

List of implicit comparisons in the Egron

Bib. Heb./Arab. • ˆga/hnaùga (p. 180); ˚rymah/˚rmay (p. 195); rb/hyrb (Dotan 1981, pp. 173, 187); μymwrb/hmwrbm (ibid., pp. 173, 188); abg/bùg (ibid., pp. 175, 190); hnybg ˆbg/ˆbùg (ibid., pp. 175, 193); hrwbg/hywrbùg (ibid.); çybg/sbùg (twqay ˆm; ib., p. 175); rwg/rwùg (ibid., p. 177); μywzm/dwaùdm (p. 289); afh/hyfùk (p. 217); bfj/baftja (p. 218); ˚yj/˚nj (p. 221); dlj/dlùk (p. 225); hdl/hdalw (p. 264); μyrtym/ratwa (p. 317); hmk/μk (p. 237); ˆwmk/ˆwmk (p. 238); sk/ysrk (p. 242); jsk/jwskm (p. 243); πk/πk (p. 246); trpkw/rypqt (p. 248); bwrk/bwrk (p. 250); hrk/yrk (p. 251); wçrk/çrk (p. 253); μrk/μrk (p. 254); μy[rk/ˆy[ark (p. 255); btk/batk (p. 257); πtk/πtk (p. 258); al/al (p. 261); aybl/wbl (p. 262); fbl/fblt (ibid.) hn πna) or the apparent reduction (πna > πa). It is therefore feasible that Alfàsi intended to record etymological comparison. Considering the dubiety as to a clear conclusion, the relevant examples are separated and treated as an independent category.17 The comparisons comprised in this category are: za/ˆyda(b) (p. 34), [wrz/[rda (pp. 36, 407), πa/πna (p. 123), çy/ytya (ytya, p. 79), lzrb/lzrp (p. 482). 9.4.4 Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. non-cognate translation synonym On this formula, Alfàsi presents a Bib. Heb. in contrast with a noncognate Bib. Aramaic translation synonym. From a practical standpoint, this is not a real comparison, considering that what is referred to is a non-cognate lacking further any semantic equivalence with its Hebrew “counterpart.” Nevertheless, as shown above (5.3.2.6), even non-cognate “comparisons” have some significance. Entry words bearing comparison in this category are available biblically in juxtaposition, in one solitary instance only—namely, in the instance of d[lg/atwdhç rgy (Gen. 31:47) (This comparison incorporates two pairs of entry words: lg/rgy; d[/wdhç). The remaining cases are such that their respective components appear in remote parallelism, in similar passage contexts. Alfàsi himself initiates a discussion about them. The potential resource serving as stock for such comparisons on this formula is as expansive as the stock of biblical

17 Further on, we shall see that instances exist of Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. (noncognate), too.

202

chapter nine

Aramaic words itself, when corresponding cognate translation synonyms in biblical Hebrew are unavailable. As a matter of fact, however, Alfàsi draws on this stock for comparison purposes in only seven entries: a(w)b/(l)[ (l[, p. 398), lg/rgy (rgy, p. 39), hnh/wla (wla, p. 103), (h)yj/(hy)j (p. 510), d[(lg)/atwdhç (rgy, p. 39, rwp, p. 452), hp/μp (p. 466), çglp/hnjl (p. 160). Quite surprising is the comparison (h)yj/(hy)j, according to which the y, which by current concepts is the medial radical, is indeed radical in Hebrew but not in Aramaic. Alfàsi provides the following corroboration for this: ynarb[la yl[ lyld ynayrsla sylw (Aramaic cannot serve as proof for Hebrew). The upshot is that Alfàsi is not of the opinion that the two roots, the Heb. (h)yj and the Aram. h(y)j, are identical! 9.4.5 Concluding summary of the Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. category In comparisons pertaining to the type Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. (with its several aforementioned subtypes) Alfàsi falls short of an exhaustive record of all the potential comparisons i.e. all those that modern scholars set up for comparison. An inspection of the quantity of comparisons recorded by Alfàsi, as against the total quantity of same entered in the Aramaic lexicon of Baumgartner, in the etymological section of each entry, shows that Alfàsi recorded for comparison only about one-half of the total possible—i.e. 208 out of a possible 435. Moreover, 18 of the comparisons he recorded would be unacceptable to modern linguistic theory, for several reasons: (1) because of their grammatical approach (e.g. rwsa/rwçm, the root of both being, in Alfàsi’s opinion, merely rù s; ytya/μtya; [b[r] hzm/, [anwta]) hzm (2) on account of the historical connection of the entry words with other languages beyond the scope of Alfàsi’s knowledge, as for example, Old Persian (in the instance rbdh, derived by Alfàsi from the root and the sense of twrbd, meaning “leadership, office”); (3) on account of a specific exegetical or linguistic attitude (as in the case of hbhdm/bhd). The great majority of the comparisons that were left unrealized, totaling some 170 potential comparisons, can only be explained on the assumption of the absence of some entry (generally the Aramaic one) that had escaped Alfàsi’s mind when he compiled his lexicon. In a good many instances, this may have occurred because of the infrequent appearance of the entry word in the Bible, e.g. rhz, q[z, dyt[, çpr, fpç, etc. A corroboration of the assump-

david b. abraham alfàsi’s comparative philology

203

tion that these omissions were due to oversight can be seen in Alfàsi at times overlooking even the Hebrew entry.18 For example, he overlooked wnjna, ˆwT]çn, hfj, ltk, μynzam, hnydm, ˆwy[r. On occasion he even discusses an Aramaic entry word without noting that the very same entry is in use in Hebrew, too, as in the cases of lfb, ˆm;, μçr. The assumption gains further support from those instances in which Alfàsi compares the Bib. Heb. with the Targ. Aram. (cognate)19 without remarking on its use also in Bib. Aram.—e.g.: ry[z, hdj/hzj μgtp, zmr, çgr dja/zja/dja for had he been aware at the time that a corresponding Aramaic entry word existed, he would most likely have adduced it as well, thus expanding the scope of the comparison and thereby producing a case of the formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (9.4.13). The characteristic of the group of Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. instances left unrecorded, then is that they pertain to the category of inevitable comparisons, i.e. the Hebrew and Aramaic entry words are in each case equi-radical objectively and equi-phonetic, so the very fact that they are juxtaposed spontaneously produces a comparison.20 The fact is, simply, that one of the two component entry words failed to appear in the lexicon, thus preventing the actual recording of the comparison. The situation is different in the comparison category made up of entries that show equivalent etymology but are hetero-phonic. There are several grounds for that comparisons in this category having been omitted: 18

The statistics are as follows: approximately 40 percent of the Aramaic entries were overlooked, whereas he omitted only 4 percent of the Hebrew potential entries. These data are derived from an inspection of all the entries in letters g and p in Koehler-Baumgartner’s lexicon (excluding proper names), as collated with the corresponding inventory for those two letters in Alfàsi’s lexicon. It is noteworthy that in the area of proper names, about 50 percent are missing! Despite these data, it should not be inferred that Alfàsi’s lexicon was, so to speak, not designed for biblical Aramaic: He does incorporate about 60 percent of the biblical Aram. material. What is more, in a good many roots he adduces only an Aramaic entry (without recording a Hebrew one!). Moreover, in the introduction to his lexicon, he makes explicit note of his intention to include the Aramaic biblical materials andxq ˆjnw)

hgl ˆm arz[w laynd yp am arqmla ùfapla aws taglla ryas ˆm aùdh anbatk yp jrçn .(ynadskla Skoss was remarkably imprecise in that he failed to indicate that the dictionary also encompassed biblical Aramaic (see its present title [Skoss 1936–45], in bibliographic listings, although in his “introduction” (p. ix) he terms it “the comprehensive dictionary of the Bible.” 19 As, for instance, on formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram., below, 9.4.9. 20 This category, of course, does not purport to include entries that lack mutual semantic equivalence, such as jxn/jxn.

204

chapter nine

• Alfàsi may fail to record a separate entry that Baumgartner does include, e.g. ˆwtna/μta. Alfàsi probably considered that the comparison implied in the framework of the comparison ta'/ta to be sufficient. • Certain entry words are adduced by Alfàsi, each at its appropriate location according to his lexicographical system; however, he admits to no “cross connection” between several similar words for purposes of comparison. Either he was unaware of their etymological affinity or he simply disregarded it. Examples are rzp-rzb, ˆb/rb, /bz[ wllkç/llk, afm/axm, rfn/rxn, r[/rx; [ra/≈ra, qra/≈ra, rdb/ ajm/≈jm, ≈rj/≈lj, rwf/rwx, axyç/axy, bzyç, for several pairs pertaining to this type, Alfàsi does set up a translational comparison but not an etymological one: e.g. [l[/[lx, hnd/hz, ˆ[k/t[, [a/≈[. • At times, Alfàsi refrains from creating a comparison in instances such where it would be necessary to posit the phenomenon of consonantal metathesis (although in Heb./Arab. comparisons this category is considered legitimate), e.g. hbkra/˚rb, [rt/r[ç. • For some potential comparison pairs Alfàsi recorded no comparison, because he did not recognize any semantic equivalence, between the two elements—e.g. rta/rça, rda/μyrda, çab/çab, hwf/hwf. • However, there are also several instances where the omission was due to oversight, as is evident from the fact that the Aramaic entry is not to be found at its appropriate location(s) in the lexicon, examples being jbd, hfnj, ty, bdk, asrk, ˆam, rm[}, fyq, wre. A prominent pair in this category is the pair ˆgçrp/ˆgçtp, which, at first sight would seem to have been compared by Alfàsi, although by an intraHeb. comparison and not interlingually. The instance he adduces for ˆgçrp is from Hebrew, but he fails to state that this word is an Aramaic one, too. • In some isolated instances, it remains unclear whether Alfàsi recorded a comparison or not: on the one hand, he employs no comparison term and adduces no citation from Aramaic; on the other, he opens the discussion with a generic sentence that could be applied at one’s discretion to biblical Aramaic also. For example, at entry rqy he states: hylxa hyp dwyla rqy lkw; likewise, at entry awh he states: ùtynatll ayhi lkw rykùdtll aWh lk; and at μ[ he notes . . . [m hnm ù≈aptsmla μ[ lk. It is probable that the particle lk used at the opening of each generic statement—if it can be assumed not to be a meaningless expression—includes the Aramaic Bible text, too, all the more so when he expounds further on the generic expression, applying it to the whole biblical corpus as he puts it:

david b. abraham alfàsi’s comparative philology

205

ˆarqla yp—as e.g., at entry ˆyb (p. 219)—or alternatively in instances in which no quotation appears from either Hebrew or Aramaic in following to the general statement, as at entry jwjyn. 9.4.6 Bib. Aram./Rab. Heb. In only one instance does Alfàsi set up a comparison of a rabbinic Hebrew entry with a biblical Aramaic cognate: hrts hnd htybw (Ezra 5:12) hz yrbd ta rtws hz ˆwlwqy hnçmla ypw ynayrsla hgl ˆm yhw hùxqn (see BT, Shabbat, 30 a; rts, p. 358). 9.4.7 Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. Following is a list of the entry words based on this formula: /j(g)n ,(301) dg(n)/(dn)dg ,(299) dg/dg ,(219) ˆyb/ˆyb ,(106) πl(a)/πl(a) • ,(583) grj/grj ,(340) π(w)g/π(w)g ,(μç) μlg/μlg ,(327) dlg/dlg ,(316) j(w)g /(t)rm ,(191) lhm/lhm ,(153) yhlç/(h)hl ,(20) çpf/çpf ,(18) ˆ[f/ˆ[f .(740) hwt/hwt ,(659) rzç/rzç ,(238) jtm/jtm ,(230) (tw)rm

9.4.8 Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (non-cognate translation synonym) I have attempted (above, 5.3.2.6) to show that “comparisons” based on this formula are liable to include latent cognate translation synonym comparisons, too. In principle, the stock of comparisons in this category is extremely large. Its extent equals that of the totality of entities of the potential bilingual lexicon founded on biblical Hebrew and on translation synonyms, culled from the (biblical) Aramaic translations (at least those that were known to Alfàsi, see below, 9.12.1.2.1). For every Bib. Heb. entry spontaneously calls for its Targ. Aram. counterpart, to be recorded adjacent to it. The question is: For what reason did the grammarian resort to only a small percentage of that stock? It may possibly be suggested that since as a rule he did not commit himself a priori to undertake systematic comparison for each and every entry word; it is unreasonable to expect, that the entire stock should have been recorded. But see above, 5.3.2.6) Following is a list of comparisons, pertaining to this category: srh ,(99 yk) akh/hnh ,(351) lqt/çrg ,(48 rwa) yny[ lglg wzyj/hrwam • /≈yrj ,(454 srh) çmç/srj ,(527) rb/≈wj ,(144 wqa) axyd/rmz ,(454) brj/

206

chapter nine raç) hwxa rtwm/traçm ,(58 ja) db[/hç[ ,(14) [wqr/awlf ,(587) μwlf ,(690) jçp/πsç ,(277 qrb) ˆyrt dj l[/hnç ,(661) arpwf/ tljç ,(640 .(270) μyr/˚wnt ,(164 rça) [wrkça/rwçat ,(337) dç/ry[ç

9.4.9 The list of comparisons on formula Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram. ,(62) dj/dja/dj ,(345 rg ,32) arga/rkç/hrwga ,(22) ba/yrp/ba • /wl/wla ,(99) hla/hnyq/(h)la ,(71) ˆwfa/rtym/ˆwfa ,(61) dja/zja/dja ayrwa/swba/hwra ,(115) ˆma/çrj/ˆma ,(173) πla/ˆyksh/πl(a) ,(102) wla ˆkb/za/ˆkb ,(158) rça/˚pç/rça ,(405 ˚rd) 21jra/˚rd/jra ,(24 swba) /[xb ,(191 db) ≈wb/μytçp ,çç ,db/≈wb ,(251) ry[b/hmhb/ry[b ,(225) lka/rmg ,(331) axmwk/tjp/≈mwg ,(328) çlg/jrq/çlg ,(258) [xb/ttp /f[m ,ˆfq/r[z ,(434) (h)nh/[xb/ˆyh ,(369) rwgd/rmj/rgd ,(332) rmg/ bwj/μça ,ˆw[ ,afj/b(w)j ,(153 ùb jpsn) rwz/rws/r(w)z ,(137 rtk ,499) ry[z ,(540) yj/an/yj ,(192 db) arfwj/hfm/rfj ,(526) fwj/lytp/fwj ,(512) adsj/hprj/dsj ,(552) ˆyfwljl/twtymxl/flj ,(549) llj/bbn/(l)lj lflf/[gn/lflf ,(585) akrj/ˆwlj/˚rj ,(568) atnsja/hljn/ˆsj ,(567) /wqa/l[y ,(37 bby ,18) bby/h[wrt/bb(y) ,(23) aprf/hl[/πrf ,(13 lf) ,(123) apyk/[ls/πk ,(111) rmk/ˆhk/rmk ,(110) ˆmk/bra/ˆmk ,(60) al[y ,(153) yhltça/πy[/(h)hl ,(137) rtk/ljy/rtk ,(125) anpk/b[r/ˆpk /tsm ,(219) rsm/ˆm/rsm ,(538 j) ajm/hkh/hjm ,(187) algm/çmrj/lgm rjs/bbs/rjs ,(310) rhs/jry/rhs ,(252) bgn/brj/bgn ,(220) tsm/ydù /afj/jrs ,(355) brs/hrm/brs ,(326 yks) yktsa/πyqçh/tksh ,(315) d[/μrf/al d[ ,(365) arwby[/lka/rwb[ ,(358) awts/πrj/wts ,(354) jrs /(μ)μ[ ,(387) rf[/rws/rf[ ,(371) hd[/çwm ,rws ,rb[/(h)d[ ,(22 μrf) al ˆdp/hdç/ˆdp ,(434) qr[/swn/qr[ ,(433) sr[/hfm/çr[ ,(403) am[/hhk ,(483) jrpd/πnk/jrp ,(475) μxp/[rq/μxp ,(468) qnp/gn[/qnp ,(448) μgtp ,(487) jçp/πsç/jçp ,(487 çyp) ç(w)p/hrp/ç(w)p ,(485) qrp/[çy/qrp /ryx ,(500) hdx/μmç/(h)dx ,(498) tbx/μyjqlm/tbx ,(490) μgtp/rbd/ /ry[ç/rypx ,(525) arpx/rqb/rpx ,(511) jlx/[qb/jlx ,(508) ryx/dy /h[yxq ,(564) ≈pq/rtn/≈pq ,(527) ≈yx/rypns/≈yx ,(337 ry[ç ,525) rypx

21 At entry jra, defined here as Targ. Aram. for ˚rd on the basis of the citation adduced by Alfàsi: ˆyd hytjraw/fpçm wykrd lk yk (Deut. 32:4), Skoss in contra distinction records an independent reference for Aramaic jra, namely, from the Aramaic biblical text of Daniel (4:30). The comparison is thus interpreted as one of Bib. Heb. with Bib. Aram. and not with Targ. Aram., probably because Skoss saw the Targ. Onkelos reading anyd hytjraw. This construction, however, carries no weight, for it is evident from the context as well as from the comparison formula that, had there been any need to adduce Bib. Aram., the comparison would be with Targ. Aram. and the appropriate location for referring to it would have been at entry jra (p. 150) as a Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. (inevitable cognate translation synonym). In fact, at that entry, he fails to record it, apparently due to oversight; moreover, whenever he adduces Bib. Aram. together with Targ. Aram., he subjoins it to Targ. Aram., rather than adducing it in its stead.

david b. abraham alfàsi’s comparative philology

207

/μar ,(578) atrq/ry[/trq ,(577) lwsrq/[rk/lsrq ,(568) at[yxq/hdyq /μhn/çgr ,(591) azgr/hmj/zgr ,(589) [br/≈br/[br ,(144 wqa) μyr/ˆçyd bfr/jl/bfr ,(606) açjyr/çmr/çjr ,(604) μjr/bha/μjr ,(594) çgr /μynba/rbçm ,(633) atytr/d[r/ttr ,(ibid.) atytr/d[r/ffr ,(607) ,(369 rds) ards/rwf/hrdç ,(582 brj ;652) 22dç/dx/dç ,(648) arbtm ,(666 ryç) ˆyryç/jj/twryç ,(314) yjs/≈jr/hjç ,(658) arwç/hmwj/rwç ,(159 ùb jpsn) brç/brj/brç ,(696) (h)pç/ˆjf/(h)pç ,(673) jlç/fyçph/jlç .(219 rsm) atrsm/trbjm/trçm ,(356) twqyrs/h[r/qrç The sum-total of comparisons in this category is 99. 9.4.9.1 List of comparisons Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. appearing in the excursus (πqt pp. 740–50) Ten comparisons based on this formula appear as a separate list recorded for the purpose of demonstrating the special affinity between Hebrew and Aramaic. Eight of these had already been recorded in the Lexicon at their predictable locations; see in previous list: dça, ˆpk, tsm, (h)dx, rf[, qr[, jfç, (h)pç. These are reiterated in the aforementioned excursus. However, two comparisons are entirely new: hsk/gj/ask; lfq/jxr/lfq. They do not appear at their regular lexicon entries. hsk appears at that entry (p. 117), but with no comparison with Aramaic, whereas lfq is recorded, at its entry, with a comparison based on the formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. (cognate translation synonym inevitable). This list is placed under a separate head, distinct from the previous one, because it appears separately in the lexicon itself, but especially because the aim of the comparison in the comparisons

22 Skoss remarks that Onqelos, Targum Jonathan, and Peshitta render dx by yrfys (or, in Jonathan, yrfyx; see brj p. 583). This remark probably indicates that Skoss could not comprehend the rendering adopted by Alfàsi for dx, a rendering

that appears twice, at separate locations, in the lexicon. Indeed, in Onqelos to the Pentateuch and in T. Jonathan to Earlier Prophets (according to Sperber and Rieder to Pseudo Jonathan to the Pentateuch), I noted, as a rendering for dx, nothing other than rfs (with var. lect. rfx) and certainly not dç. (The occurrence in juxtaposition of dx/ydç at 1 Sam. 20:20, text/T. Jonathan, is irrelevant: ydç is there a rendering for hrwa). It would seem that Alfàsi mistakenly switched the renderings of the two expressions ˆkçmh ydx (Exod. 26:13) and ˆkçmh ˚ry (Exod. 40:22), for at the latter expression, Onqelos indeed rendered ankçmd adç. But the possibility remains that Alfàsi possessed a version, one that failed to reach us, in which adç indeed appeared as a rendering for dx, this version itself perhaps being the outcome of a subconscious analogy/parallel, stemming from the rendering of ˚ry (ytkry is also rendered adç; see Meturgeman, entry adç, p. 150 b).

208

chapter nine

comprising it is different from that of the previously listed category (above, 5.3.2.1). 9.4.10 Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram./Bib. Aram. This formula is employed in two instances only: . . . arhn rhn μwgrtw (Targ. Exod. 8:1) ayrhn . . . ynayrslabw ( Jer. 2:18) rhn • (Dan. 7:10; p. 258) qpnw dgn rwn-yd rhn hlùtmw

ayrhn is apparently adduced for the sake of “grammatical” comparison of plural forms in the respective Hebrew and Aramaic of this entry. Since this form is cited from Targumic Aramaic, the additional phrase arhn rhn μwgrtw would seem redundant, both lexically and from the standpoint of comparison. Regarding the reference from biblical Aramaic, its significance is not merely in its documentation in the literary corpus, taken up for inspection in Alfàsi’s lexicon, but also on account of the sense of that word in Daniel, ibid.—a sense more metaphorical than that of the earlier occurrences—namely, rwn yd rhn. (In biblical Aramaic, the “basic” sense of rhn is attested solely as a place name, i.e. hrhn-rb[ (Ezra 4:10). Nonetheless, Alfàsi fails to record this name in the current entry.) • arb yd hatdb . . . laynd yp laqw hatd açd μwgrt (Dan. 4:12; açd, p. 411) Alfàsi fails to state clearly, whether the comparison recorded is etymological. It is feasible that that was his implication, for he is well cognizant of the Heb./Aram. substitution ç/t; indeed, he discusses it elsewhere (ynxylh, p. 445). Nevertheless, it is possible that he had in mind merely a translational comparison and no more. 9.4.11 List of comparisons based on formula Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.

ljd ,(282) twb/ˆyl/t(w)b ,(186) açyb/[r/çab ,(118) rma/çbk/rma • /hqdx/wkz ,(424) μdh/jtn/μdh ,(381) rkd/lya/rkd ,(376) ljd/ary/ ,(589) ≈rj/ˆtm/≈rj ,(577) πyxj/z[/πxj ,(522) ydj/hzj/ydj ,(485) atwkz /axyç ,(ibid.) arpwf/tljç/rpf ,(20) arpwf/ˆrwpx/rpf ,(9) ywf/ylx/twf qpn ,477) qpn/axy/qp(n), (69 tja) tjn/dry/tj(n) ,(700) ayxyç/trk /qbç ,(605) ≈jr/jfb/≈jr ,(498) [bx/sbk/[bx ,(470) sp/πk/sp ,(285 /byth ,(725) rydt/dymt/rydt ,(687) çmç/trç/çmç ,(647) qbç/bz[ .(752) rwt/rp/rwt ,(727) hwt/drj/hwt ,(456) byta/hn[

david b. abraham alfàsi’s comparative philology

209

9.4.11.1 Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb. (cognate)/Targ. Aram. Three comparisons are recorded on this formula: ta/twa/ta (p. 169); b(w)t/bwç/bwt (p. 722); rbt/rbç/rbt (p. 724). These comparisons are structured on the lines of the previous formula, except that in the present one the three comparisons here under discussion—Bib. Heb., Bib. Aram. (and perforce Targ. Aram.)—are synonym entries. The first of the three is even an inevitable comparison, the other two are founded on the rule of substitution v—(Heb.)/t (Aram.), a rule explicitly dealt with by Alfàsi in his list of interchangeable letters (ynxylh, p. 445). Note further that the entry words taken up here for comparison are compared in that referenced location also, as demonstration for the rule of substitution. It remains an open question what caused him, for the present comparisons, at their respective entries, to adopt the formula Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb. (cognate)/Targ. Aram., rather than the formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram., which would have seemed more natural. The only explanation is that in the entry context, Alfàsi clearly focused his attention on the meaning of the entry word—i.e. his aim was to prove explicitly that the sense he had set down for the entry word had good corroboration. In the special excursuses, on the other hand, his aim was to emphasize the etymological equivalence of the two entry words juxtaposed for comparison. The point is that the present formula, Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram., is geared principally for comparison of Bib. Aram. and Bib. Heb. which are non-equivalent etymologically, i.e. non-cognate. But for the fact that Alfàsi himself made plain elsewhere that he recognizes, for the entries here discussed, their etymological equivalence, it could never have been independently concluded that his opinion was indeed such. 9.4.12 Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./(Targ. Aram.) In this formula no distinction is made between comparisons of cognate and non-cognate translation synonyms, because in Alfàsi’s eyes none of the entries in this group possessed equivalence in etymology. However, an asterisk will mark each of the pairs that modern linguistics determines to be mutually etymologically equivalent. It it is clear that Alfàsi was not aware of this etymological equivalence for these pairs: (1) The formula he employs for their comparison is the usual one, for the comparison of non-cognate translation synonym pairs; (2) for several of these pairs, the cognizance of etym. equivalence

210

chapter nine

would necessitate a familiarity with disguised phonological/morphological interchanges, which are relatively complex. Had Alfàsi had these interchanges in mind, he would have made express mention of them. For example, the interchange x (Heb.)/x (Aram.) is not explicitly remarked upon anywhere in Alfàsi’s treatise. Moreover, in one pair, additional letter shifts are encountered. For instance, in the case of [a/≈[, apart from the [/x switch, a further interchange operates—namely, the [ (of ≈[) with the a; this can be expressed ≈[/[[ > [a. Likewise, there are two additional variations, regarding the pair ad:-taOz, apart from the basic switch, i.e. z/d: (1) the variation of ˙olem (in taz) with/qameß (in ad:); (2) the non-appearance of t in the Aramaic form Øad:/its appearance in the Hebrew taz. Similarly with the comparison ˆ[k/ht[: the assimilation of n plus the addition of the h in Hebrew hT;[' versus the affixed k at the head of ˆ[+k in Aramaic ˆ[k; (3) the location of the entry in the lexicon, which serves to identify the root from which Alfàsi derives the word, thus “automatically” revealing the comparison type he intended to employ. For example, the entry word ˆ[k appears in letter k (after entry πsk and before entry s[k, pp. 120–21), the implication being that the word’s root is ˆ-[-k; since this entry word does not appear again under root ˆ[ (pp. 407–10), it cannot be argued that it was “accidentally” adduced under ˆ[k and that in practice he held the letter k to be an affix/prefix.23 Given, further, that at ht[ (p. 439) no comparison with Aramaic is adduced, it is obvious that Alfàsi conceived of no equivalence of etymology between ˆ[k and ht[. List of entries recorded on this formula: • *[a/≈[/([a) (p. 129); μrb/˚a (p. 277); rtb/rja (p. 283); llg/tyzg (p. 325); *ad/taz (p. 358); *rkd/rkz (p. 381); *hnd/hz (p. 392); atd/açd (p. 413); rwf/rh (p. 9); *ˆ[k, tn[k/ht[ (p. 121); ˆm/ym (p. 215); *[l[/[lx (p. 401); jlp/db[ (p. 463); *lqt/lqç (p. 748).

9.4.13 Formula Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram. The Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Aram. component of this comparison is inevitable. The latter component is apparently subjoined, because the sense of 23 In several cases Alfàsi records an entry twice in his lexicon: once according to its root and a second time, according to the initial letter of the entry word, this to facilitate use of the lexicon, especially by readers not very expert in either grammar or Semitic philology.

david b. abraham alfàsi’s comparative philology

211

Bib. Heb.1 is insufficiently limpid and therefore requires a synonym. List of entries pertaining to this category: / rymg/ rmg ,(295) rbg/ çya/ rbg/ rbg ,(488 ;53) lza/ ˚lh/ lza/ lz( a) • /yd ,(367) rbd/ghn/rbd/rbd ,(346) μrg/μx[/μrg/μrg ,(332) rymg/llk /rwj ,(526) hwj/dygh/hwj/hwj ,(521) dj/dja/dj/dj ,(377) yd/rça/yd ,(208) llm/rbd/llm/(l)lm ,(12) lf/llx/llf/(l)lf ,(528) rwj/ˆbl/rwj db[/db[ /hç[/db[ ,(598) tjn/dry/tjn/tj(n) ,(213) ˚lm/≈[y/˚lm/˚lm /hwç ,(303) 24bç/ˆqz/bç/bç ,(63 tpy ,490) ytp/bjr/htp/(h)tp ,(361) .(668) jkç/axm/jkç/jkç ,(654) hwç/μyç/hwç

The comparison db[/hç[ (and others like it) belongs to this category, even though its Bib. Aram. component appears fourth and not second; moreover its Bib. Heb.1 is not explicitly mentioned. Possibly the lexicographer had in mind db[ (Eccles. 9, 1), the only Hebrew biblical occurrence in the sense of hç[m (= do, make)25 At any rate it cannot be maintained that the db[ in general connotes the existence of the same root in Aramaic, for in such cases the practice is to introduce the discussion with the phrase ynayrs anlw. 9.4.14 Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. in the excursus The comparison dhç/dhç/twd[/atwdhç is absent at its predictable location in the lexicon; it does appear in the excursus πqt (p. 749). The comparison aim being of a different nature from the previously adduced comparisons, it is here treated separately. Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./(Targ. Aram.) Two comparisons are attested on this formula: dwr[/dr[/arp/(dr[) (p. 432); fçq/fçq/qdx/(fçq) (p. 579). Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram./Bib. Aram. In this formula one encounters a single comparison: /atçynk/çnk snk/hd[ (p. 114). This comparison is again classified separately from

24 Either here or in formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram., Alfàsi, due to an oversight, omitted to record in the lexicon Bib. Aram. çgr and made mention only of its Targ. Aram. documentation: see çgr/μhn/çgr (p. 594). He likewise overlooked Bib. Aram. μgtp, noting merely its Targ. Aram. occurrence (p. 490)—and omission made good by MS G. See also, above, concluding summary of Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. 25 See Even Shoshan, Concordance, at the given entry.

chapter nine

212

the others, not on account of the differing order of its constituent elements but because the Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. element in the comparison is not inevitable, given the switch s (Heb.)/ç (Aram.). In fact, çnk appears independently (for editorial reasons or to aid those insufficiently versed in grammar), as a separate entry (p. 116), but with no comparison. To justify this comparison, Alfàsi, was obliged to provide, from the start, proof of etymological equivalence between snk and çnk by means of the intermediate Targ. Aram. hd[. One is thus compelled to set down the comparison snk/çnk as a cognate one; for the formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. is ultimately structured on the etymological equivalence of Bib. Heb.1 and the Targ. Aram. of Bib. Heb.2 9.4.15 Bib. Heb./Talm. Aram. (cognate) On only one occasion, did Alfàsi compare a Hebrew biblical entry word with one from talmudic Aramaic: ykh/ykh (k, p. 99). This is in no way surprising. The Karaite affiliation of Alfàsi is quite clearly reflected in the meager quantity of material he records from Rab. Heb. in general and from the Talmud in particular.26 9.4.16 Rejected comparisons There are cases where Alfàsi begs to differ with his predecessors on a matter of exegesis; sometimes he expressly identifies opponents by name, at other times he does not. Similarly, he occasionally records differences of opinion on grammar or on other topics. The matter concerning us here is the Heb./Aram. comparisons of which he expressly disapproves. From a practical standpoint, his disagreement with the Aramaic translator is tantamount to saying: “This Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. comparison is, in my view, inapt.” For example, at entry trz (p. 508), Alfàsi states: (Exod. 2:5) htma ta jlçtw hlwq yp μùgrtmla rgh swlqnwa flg dqw • alw [wrz lùtm hma l[ùg hna djawla ah[arùd tdm yn[y ,htma ty tfyçwaw

26 See above, 3.6.13, and below, 13.7, on R. Jonah ibn Janà˙. A full enumeration of all citations from Rab. Heb. adduced by Alfàsi appears in Netzer (1983, pp. 84–124). Given the sparsity of Alfàsi’s rabbinic citations, it is surprising that Skoss and Ginzburg viewed it as quite natural to attribute a Talmudic citation to Alfàsi. See above, p. 194 note 16.

david b. abraham alfàsi’s comparative philology

213

. . . hma lùtm ypr wh yùdla htma rsp hna ynaùtlaw ,anjrç amk ˚lùd zwùgy .hglla yp zwùgy al aùdhw çwgdmla

Here he is implicitly rejecting the comparison Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. hma/hma (however, this does not mean that he refrains from the comparison hma/hma elsewhere). Further cases of such rejected comparison are: hwg/hgh (wg, p. 309); lp,T (proper name)/lpt (p. 746); also the Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (non cog. translation synonym) comparison μyjyr/ ˆyfwçm ( jyrb, p. 273). He likewise rejects a Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. comparison that would necessitate the letter switch s/ç: jps (= jpç)/db[ç (p. 343) as well as a comparison founded on letter metathesis: sk[ (= s[k)/zgr (p. 394). For semantic Heb./Aram. comparisons see below, 9.5.4.

9.5 Explicit comparisons: Hebrew/Arabic 9.5.1 h[wmsm yl[/k Téné (1983, p. 258) has shown clearly that the term h[wmsm yl[/k applies to comparisons with Arabic. Here I shall merely add a few remarks on how this technical term relates to other terms and on the precise sense of the term.27 It is possible that this term possesses a certain distinctive aspect not found in other comparison terms, in that it signifies a relatively greater measure of phonetic affinity of the Hebrew translation synonym with its Arabic counterpart. Nonetheless, the term does not additionally incorporate a correspondence of vowels of the two translation synonyms, as is evident from the fact that for the translation synonym pairs gzm/ùgazm, μlnm/μhlanm aybl/wbl, tpz/tpz, ççj/çyçj, and so on, equivalence of vocalic entities is partly or entirely lacking. Nor could it be posited that h[wmsm yl[/k denotes a greater measure of morphological correspondence between the translation

27

For certain comparisons, the copyists of Jàmi' al-"AlfàΩ employed the term

h[wmsm yl[ in lieu of another term used by Alfàsi himself. For example, for the comparison μhn/μhn, the term Alfàsi used was ybr[lab laqy amk but in MS X Yg the term appearing is h[wmsm yl[ (p. 258). Conversely, in the instance ˆ[f/ˆ[f (p. 18), Alfàsi established the comparison with the term h[wmsm yl[, whereas MS K in copying same, altered the term to ybr[la hgl brq ˆm. (Appendix II, p. 160); likewise at comparison rwk/rwk (ibid.). Note that at entry hbqu/hbq (p. 535), MS Y rendered the phrase h[wmsm yl[ in the original text, into Hebrew, as w[mçmk ybr[.

214

chapter nine

synonyms, because as can be seen, in the comparison μg[/μtga, there is no equivalence, either in the conjugation or in gemination. Moreover, in the comparison πk/πk the second consonant is geminated in Arabic in the absolute state but not so in Hebrew. Thus the element of equivalence signified by h[wmsm yl[/k must be restricted to the consonantal skeleton of the translation synonyms. The most that may be stated is that, according to Alfàsi’s conception, h[wmsm yl[/k is best applicable to translation synonym comparisons involving no letter substitution—i.e. translation synonyms that possess the greatest measure of phonetic equivalence. Indeed, a collation of the Heb./Arab. list of comparisons fully bears out this conception.28 What difference can be discerned between h[wmsm in its use as a comparison term and in its use in areas other than language comparison?29 Let us examine the following extract: At entry ya (p. 72), Alfàsi states: ˆmw lyw[la ˆm yrbla tlpy hlla ˆa ( Job. 22:30) yqn ya flmy hlùtmw • lywla ˆm hxalùk hyp ù≈rgla ˆap yrbla lyw tlpy h[wmsm ˆak ˆaw hdçla .˚ypk rbb flmnw laq amk What is the difference between the interpretation of the given combination (yqn ya flmy) appearing after yrbla lyw tlpy h[wmsm and that appearing earlier, i.e. as a direct continuation of the lemma of the verse? The interpretation given after h[wmsm is a literal rendering or a literal elucidation for the given combination. It matches the word order of the Hebrew, rigidly and punctiliously, word for word, with no exegetical additions. Thus the term h[wmsm yl[/k, when applied to a word combination signifies “a literal rendering of the given combination,” and when applied to a single word, it denotes “a literal rendering for that single word, geared to its basic meaning.” Thence can be derived the subtle implication of h[wmsm in the area of language comparison. Just as the term is meant to apply to the individual components of the combination, original versus translation, word for word, as above, so it is in language comparison. For the individual word, h[wmsm focuses on the individual components of the words estab28 It would be of interest to establish whether the term h[wmsm yl[ might have been eligible for use in comparisons with Aramaic; at any rate, no such phrasing as ynayrslab h[wmsm yl[* has as yet been encountered. 29 I am grateful to Prof. Z. Ben-Hayyim, for kindly drawing my attention to Alfàsi’s broader usage of h[wmsm.

david b. abraham alfàsi’s comparative philology

215

lished for comparison, consonant for consonant, constituting phonetic (= etymological) correspondence. One instance exists in which h[wmsm yl[ is used for a similar but non-identical, purpose. When Alfàsi discusses the combination μyrwça-tb (Ezek. 27:6), he proposes (entry bf, p. 5) two possible ways of analysis: viewing the combination (1) as a prepositional phrase combination—namely, μyrwçat + ùb (this, in the name of one of his predecessors); (2) as a construct state combination μyrwça + tb (in accordance with traditional biblical vocalization and word division). The second analysis is connoted by him: h[wmsm yl[, its signification here being apparently an interpretation founded on the text as traditionally uttered or as based on “the plain sense of the scriptural text,” without any adjustment, whether by a switch of vowels or by a morphological or any other alteration. It thus seems that h[wmsm yl[, in its various applications, corroborates the sense attributed to it, in the context of language comparison. As regards the links existing between the several comparison terms with their respective aims, no unique purposive feature can be found for this term. In this respect, h[wmsm yl[ is similar in nature to the other comparison terms. 9.5.2 Cognate Heb./Arab. comparisons Téné (1983, pp. 274–81) recorded a full list of the entry words that Alfàsi explicitly compared with Arabic. To complete that list, the following comparisons should be included: ja/ù˚a; dja/djaw; (dja/dja); wla/wla; dg/dùg; μlh/μlh; gj/ùgj; πçj/πçùk; tj/ùtj, tpl/ltp; ˚lm/˚lm; ˆm/ˆm; rhn/rhn; (h[wmsm yl[); ˆy[/ˆy[; μxp/μxp; dyç/dyç. It should be noted that Téné incorporated in his list a number of comparisons that derive not from the body of the text of Jàmi' al"AlfàΩ but from variant readings stemming from copyists and secondary “editors” who abridged the work. Considering that it cannot be said with certainty that the latter comparisons were penned by David b. Abraham Alfàsi, they are set apart from the ordinary comparisons and allocated a separate subsection in the present study (below, 9.10).

216

chapter nine

9.5.3 Explicit Heb./Arab. comparisons, non-cognate translation synonym Definition: Explicit comparisons of non-cognates = explicit comparison of translation synonyms showing no etymological equivalence, the two translation synonyms merely possessing the same semantic content. In his lexicon, Alfàsi sets up five Hebrew/Arabic comparisons of the above type: hjna/dyhnt (djy, p. 48); htjm/hrmùgm (tj, p. 598); (h)[pç/ùgawpa, ùgawma, bkawm, rafq (p. 699); hrpç/hnsj (ibid.); htpt/hywah (tp, p. 490). I shall elaborate on two of these instances: (1) In the context of çpn, Alfàsi delineates the referent twjnayh (dejection, sighing) (similar to spnt, a word discussed there, on account of its affinity with çpn) and sums up, as follows: hjna tyrb[bw dhnt ybr[lab amsyw. Now, the two entry words hjna and dhnt have nothing in common except for their equivalence of signifié: the pretext for their mutual comparison is not a common feature of phonetics or etymology. In fact, it is indicated here that the two entry words stand merely as translation synonyms and no more than that. (2) The second example, in contrast, contains an allusion to semantic comparison or to comparison of proper name structure in Hebrew v. Arabic but fails to be explicit on the matter. It reads: ybr[lab hnsj yhw (Exod. 1:15) hrpç tdlymla tymsa hnmw . . . rpç • .(p. 699)

It would seem that the mere translation synonymity of the two entry words in the respective languages provides no basis for language comparison theory. Even for lexicographical purposes, there is no real need for the grammarian to specify, in each and every entry, “In Arabic one denotes it ‘so and so’ ” or “it is called ‘so and so’.” The lexicographer needs to record merely the translation word itself and no more. It is no wonder, then, that the grammarian recorded a veritable minimum of comparisons of the above-mentioned type, although the potential stock of such is vast, comprising as it does the entire range of lexicon entries whose translation synonyms are non-etymological. In this category, it would be out of the question to posit the documentation of a comparison, even an implicit comparison, were it not for the term ybr[lab. In fact, even with the employment of this term, the comparison is tenuous and virtually worthless.

david b. abraham alfàsi’s comparative philology

217

9.5.4 Semantic comparisons Alfàsi also records non-cognate translation synonym comparisons “flavored” with an additional characteristic feature pertaining to semantics. For example, at entry jlç (p. 672) he states: dqw . . . (Gen. 32:4) μykalm bq[y jlçyw lùtm lasra yùxtqt hjylç hgl • qalfalaw lasrala ˆyb sylw (Gen. 45:22) wyja ta jlçyw qalfa ˆwkt br[la hgl yp dy[b yç The “technical” comparison of the translation synonyms jlç/lsra, qlfa would have been insignificant but for the semantic comment accompanying it. The gist is: Although Arabic does employ two distinct (hetero-radical) verbs, to match the two referees of jlç, “sending” and “releasing,” these two referents are very close in meaning and possess several common semantic features. In fact, they are so close that in Hebrew two separate roots are not required as they are in Arabic; one root suffices for both referees. We have here a real comparison. It could be justifiably stated that this comparison touches on the crucial issue of interlingual comparison of the interrelationship of signifiants and signifiés within a given semantic field. Another example: Alfàsi compares the non-cognate translation synonyms qna/qhç with regard to some semantic topic as follows: br[la hgl yp qyhçla ˆak ˆaw swbjmla hqhç (Ps. 102:21) rysa tqna • ù˚raxw dhntm lkl ynarb[la ahlm[tsy ryùtkw ˆawyjla ˆm hryg ˆwd rymjll .(p. 123)

Here, too, the comparison pertains to the reference areas of the two translation synonyms: qhç is used specifically in the sense of “the braying of the ass,” whereas its non-cognate counterpart, qna, has a wider range of meaning. It may well be that the comparison of the semantic field of qna as against qhç was taken up merely to account for the fact that in the Arabic translations of the Bible available to Alfàsi the rendering he found for rysa tqna was swbjmla hqhç. Had this not been the case, he could have rendered the word tqna with a word that raised no problems of incomplete semantic correspondence—a word such as dhnt, which in fact he subsequently adduced.30 Be that as it may, the significance of these comparisons lies in the semantic remarks that accompany them, rather than in the

30

See below, 9.12.1.3.12. Indeed, R. Sa'adiah Ga"on renders tqna by qyhç.

218

chapter nine

determination of their respective entry words as translation synonyms The semantic topics constituting subject matter for comparison to which Alfàsi applied Hebrew versus Aramaic and/or Arabic are multifarious. They generally deal with the measure of correspondence existing for one or more signifiants of the three languages with their respective signifiés, or with the measure of correspondence of the semantic relationship present in several signifiants in the given languages. Only in a few instances did Alfàsi relate to the comparison of equivalent sectors within the semantic fields of these respective languages. The extracts pertaining to these issues follow: • Full scale correspondence of signifiants and their signifiés.: • Semantic equivalence of two pairs of synonyms: dç = dd/dhn = ydùt (dd, p. 370) In both Hebrew and Arabic the meaning of all these synonyms, the intra-linguistic syns. as well as the translation synonyms is “the breasts of a woman, whether of a virgin or of a married woman” (the semantic differentiation of the two states as maintained by certain exegetes, is here rejected). The equivalence here resides in both languages employing two signifiants for one and the same signifié. • Semantic equivalence of signifiant and its own signifié, in Hebrew and in Arabic: trz/rbç (p. 508): trz and rbç share a semantic corresponding feature, by virtue of the fact that each refers to the signifié that equals “a unit of measure,” and not “a part of the body” (used for measuring, etc.). The implication intended by Alfàsi is something like this: “Granted the current meaning of each is ‘a measure,’ it is likely that this sense developed, by metonymy, from the original sense—i.e. “a limb of the body”—and took its place in the language.” • Semantic equivalence of adverbs derived from a Hebrew noun and an Arabic noun; equivalence of the sense correlation of a noun with an adverb, in the two languages (dam, p. 183): • dam/dùg (= noun, in the sense “determined effort, earnestness, resoluteness”); dam dam/adùg adùg (= adv.) • d Oam] (noun)/dam (adv.)//dùg (noun)/adùg (adv.); i.e. the noun dam and the adverb dam possess the same mutual semantic relationship as do the Arabic dùg and adùg • Semantic equivalence of a pair of verbs v. a pair of nouns derived therefrom, with their respective semantic correlation: çm/jrb.

david b. abraham alfàsi’s comparative philology

219

• çm and jrb are two verbs possessing equivalent meanings. In the opinion of Alfàsi, the noun pair çma/hjrabla were developed from them: The latter, too, are tr. syns—thus pinpointing an equivalence in the semantic relation between çm/çma and jrb/hjrabla. • Partial correspondence of signifiants and their signifiés. • Partial correspondence between two similar forms of the same word: A comparison of the Heb. pair wdjy-djy with the Arab. pair a[ymùg [ymùg shows that (a) in Hebrew the two forms are identical in sense; each of the pair may be used equally for dual or for plural; (b) in Arabic in contrast a[ymùg is employed for the dual, but [ymùg for the plural (djy, p. 47). • Correspondence of reference areas but not of the total number of signifiants: jlç/lsra, qlfa (see above). • Partial correspondence of reference areas: I. qna/qhç (see above); II. blj/μjç (p. 551); III. hma/[arùd (trz, p. 508).

In II, blj is used in the broader, generative sense, incorporating “the physical organs [of the animal] or the fat enclosing it, the tail, the innards and the protrusion of the liver,” whereas in Arabic, μjç denotes some of same but not all. In III, in contrast, the opposite is the case. The sense of Arabic [arùd is broader and includes (a) “limb of the body” as well as (b) the metonymical sense of “a measure equal to the length of the said bodily limb,” whereas the meaning of hma in Hebrew is more restricted and relates only to the “measure of the length of the arm.” • Heb./Aram. semantic comparison: Similarity in the form of semantic liaison of two pairs of homonyms: • rmz i (animal)—rmz ii (music, melody)/axyd (Targ. Aram. for rmz i), hxyd ( joy) (wqa, p. 144). • Comparison of sectors of semantic fields • Heb./Aram./Arab.: At entry μrf (p. 22), Alfàsi remarks that the particles ,μrf, μrfb, μdq, ynpl ,μynpl and al d[ are all used in the sense of “before”; these are paralleled in Arabic by the translation synonyms lbq, μdq, and μl d[b and in Aramaic, by al d[. He does not make it clear whether a specific sense exists for each one of these temporal particles

220

chapter nine

and if so, what it is. It further remains unstated how these expressions relate to one another, according to the scope of their meaning, and which of the expressions is a matching counterpart to which, in the respective languages. Alfàsi merely states that μrf would seem to match most suitably μl d[b in Arabic and al d[ in Aramaic. Thus he records a comparison, in the three languages, of a small sector of the semantic field defined as “the relative time sequence of events.” This cannot be regarded as a description of a semantic field in modern terms; moreover, there is no concept/term reflecting the cognizance of the notion semantic field. But it cannot be doubted that this is something beyond an ordinary comparison of a pair or two pairs of translation synonyms in the several languages; it is indeed an incipient stage in the development of the concept. At entry wqa (p. 143), Alfàsi records seven names of fauna. He remarks that three of them—lya/lya/lya; ybx/ybf/ybùx; rwmjy/rwmjy/ rwmjy—are “identical” in Hebrew, Arabic and Aramaic, i.e. cognate. Two names have “partial equivalence” in Hebrew/Aramaic. In Hebrew, for each of the two, there are two synonyms, for which only one translation synonym exists in Aramaic, and this latter is cognate with one of the two Heb. synonyms [ls-l[y-wqa/al[y, μar-ˆçyd/ amyr. The remaining two names have merely a non-cognate in both Aramaic and Arabic: wat/albrwt, rmz/axyd/hparz. At ˆdn (p. 255). Alfàsi enumerates the names for the concept “gift” in Hebrew, in contrast with the Arabic and Aramaic names but without defining their precise meanings and without setting them in mutual opposition: In Hebrew the names are yç, rkça, hjnm, ˆtm, ttm, hnta, ˆnta, hdn, ˆdn, djç, hjwra, taçm, hrk; in Arabic (plural forms) ayadh, πyafl, πrf, l[ùg, πjt, talx, tabh, ayazùg, lyfrb; in Aramaic ˆntm ,hjnm, rqy, hbzbn, ˆyjjyn. • Heb./Arab. At ≈jç (p. 661), Alfàsi compares the names for “lion” in Hebrew and in Arabic: In Hebrew the names are yra, hyra, rypk, ljç, ≈jç, çyl, aybl as well as the feminine haybl; in Arabic, the names are dsa, μagrùx, [bs, rbzh, wbl, ùtyl, and the feminine hwbl.

The last two items in each list are cognates: çyl/ùtyl; haybl/wbl; moreover, the one and only feminine nominal adduced matches the last cognate in the list of the several nouns: haybl/hwbl.

david b. abraham alfàsi’s comparative philology

221

Thus with the above-mentioned reservations, these comparative lists can be viewed as a foundation for the subsequent concept “semantic fields.” While his main aim was to set out the elements that were equivalent in the three languages under discussion (or in two of the three), one perceives that Alfàsi did not ignore the aspects of nonequivalence between them. This is especially noticeable at entry wqa (p. 143). As for the areas represented in the lists, it is of significance that two of the large-scale groupings—wqa and ≈jç—pertain to the area fauna, and the other groupings come near to the area of realia. 9.5.5 Implicit comparison > explicit comparison The group treated next comprises entry words that at their respective entries, are adduced by Alfàsi merely in the form of implicit comparisons, whereas in other lexical contexts, in particular in the excursuses lists encountered here and there in the Lexicon,31 they are presented in the form of explicit comparisons. For example, the comparison flm/falm is established at its entry in the lexicon (p. 212) merely as an implicit comparison: ˆblmb flmb μtn[fw ( Jer. 43:9) falmla yp, whereas at entry çt(n) (p. 754), flm is recorded in a list of Hebrew words that are ybr[la hgl brq ˆm, i.e. “which bear phonetic and semantic affinity with Arabic translation synonyms” Likewise the comparison ln/lan, at its entry (ln, p. 273; ˚tlnk, Isa. 33,1) appears as no more than an implicit comparison. However, at another occurrence of the same root, i.e. at the word μlnm ( Job 15:29), recorded in letter m (although the mem is non-radical, p. 217), this root is compared with Arabic in the form of an explicit comparison (h[wmsm yl[); and likewise the comparison is recorded explicitly in a list at entry çt(n). Occasionally one can even encounter an entry word for which no comparison is given ad loc., whereas in the body of collocated lists, it shows up as an explicit comparison. The entry word jçq is ad loc. defined merely by a non-cognate translation synonym—namely, ysq—whereas in the lists embodied in entries μhz (p. 478) and çt(n) (p. 754) the same word is adduced in the form of an explicit comparison cognate jçq/jsq. What is more, some entry words are entirely absent from their “predictable” locations in

31

At entries ljb (p. 208), μhz (p. 478), z[l (p. 172), çt(n) (p. 754).

222

chapter nine

the lexicon and appear only in the excursuses, such as byn/bwn (see μhz and çt(n) ibid.) Following is a list of entry words of this category (32 comparisons in all):32 arb/(a)rb ;(çt ,122) ˚na/˚na ;(çt ,106) πwla/πwla ;(ljb) ,(58) ù˚a/ja • ,512) abùk/bj ;(μhz ,353) μsùg/μçg ;(çt ,271) rb/rb ;(çt ,μhz ,270) ;(ljb ,587) πyrùk/πrj ;(çtw ljb ,583) brùk/brj ;(çt ,550)/lj/lj ;(ljb lan/ln ;(çt ,212) falm/flm ;(çt ,159) μjl/μjl 33;(çt ,134) batk/btk /çpn ;(μhz ,çt) bwn/byn ;(μhz ,çt ,220) raçnm/rwçm ;(çt ,217 μlnm ,273) ;(μhz ,çt ,384) qz[/qz[ ;(320 ryg ,309) dyç/dyç 34;(48 djy ,285) spn ,433) hmr[/hmr[ ;(z[l ,369 μg[ ,403) μg/μ[ ;(μhz ,çt ,386) sf[/çf[ ,612) ˚mr/˚mr ;(çt ,μhz ,579) jsq/jçq ;(çt ,498) rbx/rbx ;(çt ,μhz ;(çt ,667) bks/bkç ;(çt ,632) μsr/μçr ;(çt ,624) dxr/dxr ;(çt ,μhz (çt ,689) hns/hnç ;(çt ,μhz ;673) ù˚ls/jlç ;(çt ,673) jals /jlç 9.5.6 Comparisons founded on a tauto-etymological rationale (Exod. 28:17) tqrbw hdfp μda rhawùgla ù≈[b tymsa ˚lùd lkç ˆmw • (p. 277) ah[mlw ahqyrbl (Exod. 29:14) tafj ˆabrqla amsy hyfùkla bbs ˆbrq tafj anlw (p. 533) hmj smçla amst ˚lùd ˆmw . . . yblq ymj (Ps. 39:4) ybrqb ybl μj (p. 557–58) ahwmjl . . . tamamjla hbçt ahnal . . . (Isa. 17:8) μynmj tasynktla amst ˚lùd ˆmw (ibid.) μhlm[ ˆal bçj ùgabdla amsy ˚lùd ˆmw . . . basj yùxtqy bçj anlw (p. 593) basjb (p. 17) μym[fm hm[fala amst ˚lùd ˆmw . . . qawùd yùxtqt μ[f hùfpl sbkt ahnal çbk ahamsp . . . sbk (2 Chron. 9:18) . . . çbkw hlwqw (p. 86) hmyaqla [fq ùtalùtla ˆyyrjbla wymsa ˚lùd lkç ˆmw . . . jlmlab (Lev. 2:13) jlmt jlmb

32 In parentheses will be noted: (1) the page number in the lexicon on which the implicit comparison appears; (2) a reference to its appearance as an explicit comparison. In cases where the latter reference is in one of the excursuses, the page number will not be repeated for each subsequent entry. For references of the relevant excursuses, see preceding footnote. 33 This entry item holds good as presented on the assumption that the adduction of the verse tma btkb μwçrh ta (Dan. 10:21) has this comparison—btk/batk— in mind; if, however, the verse was cited for the purpose of μwçr, the entry item/comparison btk/batk should be excluded from this category and μwçr/μsr should be entered. The possibility exists, however, that the verse was cited with both comparisons in mind. 34 On this entry word, see the subsection on tauto-etymological rationale, below.

david b. abraham alfàsi’s comparative philology

223

(p. 211) amyad jlamla amla yp μhnal μyjlm djy) ahnm rxjny am [pdy yùdla spntla hl[l çpn ahams ynaùtlaw (p. 48 ayùxla μsab amst hla yhw ùgrs hlk . . . (Exod. 27:28) . . . rnE (p. 291) rwnlaw awhla μysn yla ahtùgajl hmçn μsa ahyl[ [qwa ùtlaùtlaw (p. 49 djy) . . . wdy rty ˆm rt hùfplla saw . . . (Lev. 11:21) ≈rah l[ ˆhb rtnl (p. 295) yçmy wh aùda ù≈rala yl[ rtwtla 35yn[ml ( Job 6:9) μwhtmw ylpsla rwmgla yp lyqw . . . ù≈bar (Exod. 23:5) waçm tjt ≈bOr (Deut. 33:13) tjt txbOr ù≈brk ahyl[ hlwmjm ù≈ralaw ù≈rala tjt hùxbar yh haymla ˆal (p. 590) lmjll hbadla (ibid.) [bç rab ry[h μç ˆk l[ (Gen. 26:33) . . . μsa h[bç anlw w[bçn μç yk h[wbç ˆm yh sylw ùga[n [bsla bbsb ˚lùdk tymsw (p. 646) μwq μhwk (ibid. 21:31) twnbrqla ù≈[b yms ˚lùd ˆmw . . . μlas (Gen. 33:18) μlç bq[y abyw (p. 676) bnùd yl[ al hmals yl[ baùgt ahnal (Exod. 24:5) μymlç ˜s ahnal ˚ç ùga[la amsy ˚lùd ˆmw . . . ˜s (Exod. 21:24) ˜ç tjt ˜ç (p. 687) lypla In one instance a comparison is set up by h[wmsm yl[, but a tautoetymological rationale follows, too. This proves that these two methods of comparison overlap (πtk, p. 136). An instance of especial interest, falling “on the borderline” between implicit comparison and comparison founded on tauto-etymological rationale, is the following: rçb lk μd (Lev. 13:14), μkmd ta ˚aw (Gen. 9:5), yqyqj μd hlk (p. 386). It is probable that in the deep structure of this definition lies a tautological interlingual definition: μd (blood) equals μd. The word yqyqj (really, literally) is indicative of this, for which reason this comparison takes on the appearance of an explicit comparison, if it be not indeed such!

35 If indeed yn[ml is used as a “rationale” term, in the same sense as lç,B,] which is quite plausible.

224

chapter nine 9.6 Hebrew/Aramaic/Arabic

9.6.1 Generic explicit comparisons In four comparisons, Alfàsi adopts double terminology: the term is used (1) in standard comparisons, e.g. ynayrslabw, ybr[labw and the like (below, 9.11), interposing between the two entry words set for comparison; and (2) in a generic comparison formula (below, 9.11.1.1). Two of these comparisons are structured on formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram./Arab.: drf/drf/drf (p. 22) and dgs/dgs/dùgs (p. 306), and a further two on the formula Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram./Arab.: dlg/dlg/dlùg (p. 327) and hnt/hnt/ynùt (p. 740). 9.6.2 Explicit comparisons in the excursuses At wqa (p. 143) are recorded the following three-way comparisons: lya/lya/lya, rwmjy/rwmjy/rwmjy, ybx/ybf/ybùx. There is also an allusion to two further three-way comparisons: l[y/l[y/l[w, μar/μar/μyr, if we adduce the data of comparison at entries l[y (p. 60), μar (p. 585) and ˆçyd (p. 379).36 The Aramaic element in these comparisons is from Targ. Aram. 9.6.3 Explicit comparisons of individual items The following comparisons are recorded with their standard terms and with no generic formula appended. Each of the comparisons appears at its appropriate entry location in the lexicon. Nine comparisons are structured on the formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram./Arab.: (299) dùg/dg rmj ,(490) ˆamz/ˆmz/ˆmz ,(417) ah/ah/ah ,(320) ryùg/ryg/ryg/dg ,(561) ;(390) ˆy[/ˆy[/ˆy[ ,(258) rhn/rhn/rhn ,(214) ˆm/ˆm/ˆm ,(190) rmùk/rmj/ am/hm/hm Three comparisons are built on the formula Bib. Heb. (Bib. Heb.)/Targ. Aram./Arab.: • wla/wla (wl)/wla (p. 102), μxp/μxp ([rq)/μxp (p. 475), jlç/jlç (fyçph)/ù˚ls (p. 673, μhz, p. 478, πqt, p. 749, çt, p. 754). The last of these is an implicit comparison at its entry and explicit in the excursuses. 36 l[y (p. 60) is rendered l[w by the intermediary al[y-wqa; and μar (p. 585) ˆdkrk; so is rendered ˆçyd (p. 379) which is also compared with Aram. amyr and with Heb. μyr.

david b. abraham alfàsi’s comparative philology

225

One triad belongs in this context but remains unrecorded at its predictable lexicon location, i.e. dhs, p. 310; in the comparative excursuses, too, it is entered merely in the form of two separate pair units: At πqt (p. 749) the Heb. Aram. constituent is recorded as a comparison, whereas at çt (p. 754), the Heb. Arab. constituent is separately recorded. If we combine the two elements of comparison, a three-way comparison dhç/dhç/dhç is produced, on the formula Bib. Heb./Aram./Arab.37 In the case of two other comparisons, the explicit comparison with Arabic stems from a tauto-etymological rationale: jlm/jlm/jlm (p. 211) and çmç/çmç/smç (p. 686). 9.6.4 Explicit comparison Heb./Aram./implicit comparison Arab. In the listing of three-way comparisons that follows, the comparison with Arabic is of the category implicit comparison. Sub-classification of this comparison element follows the lines of classification set out for implicit comparisons, above, 4.7ff. 9.6.4.1 Explicit comparison Heb./Aram./implicit comparison Arab. + Arabic synonym rb/rb/rb ;(168) aùg + ata/ata/ata ;(106) μl[ ,πr[+πla/πla/πla • [(w)z ;(309) fsw + wùg/wg/wg ;(301) jrùg ,[fq + dùg/(d)dg/(d)dg ;(271) arjx + ymj/(a)mj (h)μj ;(485) ypx + ykùd/(h)kz/(˚)kz ;(497) [zùg ,qlq + [z[z/[wz/ ˆç(y) ;(79 ytya) dùgw+sya/ytya/çy ;(38) 38pg + sby/çby/çby ;(558) fùks + yd[/(h)d[/(h)d[ ;(272 rta) rùdb + rùtn/rt(n)/rt(n) ;(688) μwn + ˆs(w)/ˆç(y) .(565) yùxq/(≈)xq/(≈)xq ;(511) jùgn + jlx/jlx/jlx ;(371) laz + The Aramaic element in this category derives from Bib. Aram., with the exception of the first comparison (πla), whose derivation is Targ. Aram.

37 In fact, Bib. Heb./Aram. in this comparison points to the formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. See above, 9.4.13. 38 In this comparison, the Aramaic entry word is not expressly stated nor is any unambiguous comparison term adduced. But given that the statement of the definendum is formulated by the generic phrasing hlk tçbyw tçbyw çby hgl, it is fair to assume that the Bib. Aram. atçby is also included (Gen. 2:10). Regarding the comparison term itself, it may well be that the term ynarb[la that immediately follows (dwyla μaqm wywla ynarb[la hyp lm[tsy dqw) is intended to rule out the Heb. or Aram. practice (as held by Alfàsi but not borne out in language usage as we know it), and thus the comparison proves to be even more explicit. Concerning the term ynarb[la, see below, 9.11.2.5.

226

chapter nine

9.6.4.2 Explicit comparison Heb./Aram./reiterated implicit comparison Arab. ,(219) ˆyb/ˆyb/ˆyb ,(141) [bxa/[bxa/[bxa ,(61) ùdùka/dja (zja)/dja • /rkz ,(400) qd/(q)qd/(q)qd ,(353) μsùg/μçg/μçg ,(274) ˚rb/˚rb/˚rb ,(113) ynk/tn:k/(h)nk ,(103) lk/lk/lk ,(65) dqy/dqy/dqy ,(381) rkùd/rkd /μlw[ ,(398) l[/(l)l[/(l)l[ ,(212) ˚lm/˚lm/˚lm ,(129) rk/rwk/rk /(aw)br ,(548) ltq/lfq/lfq ,(535) lbq/lbq/lbq ,(400) μla[/μl[ /rbç ,(612) ymr/(a)mr/(h)mr ,(607) bfr/bfr/bfr ,(588) hwbr/wbr .(674) fls/flç/flç ,(669) ˆks/ˆkç/ˆkç ,(648) rbùt/rbt The Aramaic element in this category derives from Bib. Aram., with the exception of the first and third comparisons (ˆyb ,dja) whose source is Targ. Aram. 9.6.4.3 Explicit comparison Heb./Aram./implicit comparison Arab., solitary record /hla/hwla ,(96) ylwah/la/hla(h), (345 rg) hrùga/arga/hrg-hrwga • /ˆwgra/ˆwgra ,(124) ˆasna/çna/çwna ,(113) hma/(h)ma/(h)ma ,(97) hala /wmh/μh ,(290) bùg/bg/bg ,(191 db) ù≈ayb/≈wb (db)/≈wb ,(150) ˆawùgra /μlj ,(526) fyùk/fwj (lytp)/fwj ,(36 ;407) [arùd/[rd/[wrz ,(445) μh /hlyl ,(60) l[w/l[y (wqa)/l[y ,(599) μtùk/μtj/μtj ,(553) μlj/μlj (hw)r[ ,(358) atç/wts/πrj/wts ,(751) rùtn/rt(n)/rt(n) ,(163) lyl/aylyl /ryx ,(488) rsp/rçp/rçp ,(487) ù˚sp/jçp/jçp ,(429) hwr[/hwr[/ /rwç ,(148) [bra/[bra/[bra ,(535) lbq/lbq/lbq ,(508) ryx/ryx (dy) ,(679) μsa/μç/μç ,(666) raws/ryç (jwj)/hryç ,(658) rws/rwç (hmwj) .(707) bars/brç/brç The Aramaic element in this group derives from Bib. Aram., with the exception of comparisons ≈wb, fwj, l[y, wts, jçp, ryx, rwç, hryç, whose source is Targ. Aram. 9.6.5 Doubtful trilingual comparisons 39 In the case of the three comparisons lgm/lgm/lùgnm (p. 187), ≈pq/≈pq/zpq (p. 564), trq/trq/hyrq (p. 578), it cannot be said with certainty

39

In several instances, the reader may receive an initial impression of a three-way comparison, but on careful inspection it becomes clear that what he is viewing is simply two separate, independent comparisons, one Heb./Aram. and one Heb./Arab. or Aram./Arab. For example, at rpç (p. 699) there are two comparisons: rpç/rpç and hrpç/hnsj; at jm (p. 197), what appears to be a three-way comparison is not such but rather two separate comparisons: (a)jm/(a)jm (Heb./Aram.), followed by

david b. abraham alfàsi’s comparative philology

227

that Alfàsi intended to incorporate the Arabic entry word in the comparison, as well. The uncertainty derives from the fact that the radical consonants are not fully equivalent/identical or from some peculiarity in the formations of the Heb. and Arab. words. ≈pq and zpq differ with respect to the x (Heb.)/z (Arab.) interchange and it stands to reason that this would be expressly indicated. True, in the listing of intra-Hebrew letter switches (ynxylh pp. 439–45) Alfàsi mentions the x/z switch, but nowhere does he expressly state that the said switch can apply to the interlingual Heb./Arab. comparison(s). Although such an analogy might be postulated on the basis of the intra-Hebrew letter switch x/z and by the adduction and application of certain data emerging from Alfàsi’s comparison theory, such an assumption remains doubtful. The same argument applies to lgm/lùgnm: Had Alfàsi intended to relate consciously to the omission of the n in Heb. or to its “redundancy” in Arabic, the comparison would be of a definite nature. This applies also to the morphological difference between trq and hyrq. 9.6.6 Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (non-cognate)/Arab. (cognate translation synonym) In Alfàsi’s lexicon, four comparisons based on this formula are attested: ≈rj/μwlf/μlùf (p. 587), awlf/[wqr/[qr (p. 14), tljç/arpwf/rapùfa (p. 661), πsç/jçp/ù˚sp (p. 690). In all four comparisons, it is patently clear that the comparison of the Aram./Arab. translation synonyms was intended to make the Aramaic entry word more limpid and, in turn, to elucidate more plainly the Hebrew entry word for which the Targ. Aram. stands as translation synonym.40 In the first of the above comparisons, two explicit comparisons appear, whereas in the remaining comparisons, the Heb./Aram. element is an explicit comparison but the Aram./Arab. element is an implicit comparison.

(a)jm/ajm (Aram./Arab.). This is evident because the matter at issue is two different senses of the root (a)jm. Similarly, at jm (p. 196), there are two distinct comparisons: (h)jm/wjm (erase) and (h)jm/(a)jm (wipe, dry). 40 See also, above, 5.3.2.10.

chapter nine

228

9.7 Cognate Aram./Arab. comparisons 9.7.1 Explicit comparisons In certain entries, Alfàsi compares a Bib. Aram. entry word with its Arabic definiens. An example is hla awh ˜m'w . . . (Dan. 3:15) yp hlùtmw ydk laq ˜m ybr[la (p. 214). Such comparisons are essentially no different from Heb./Arab. comparisons, except that, as noted above, the source of the Aram. entry word is the Bible. In contrast, no independent Targ. Aram./Arab. comparisons have been encountered; they are always linked up with some Bib. Heb. entity. An enumeration of the Aram./Arab. comparisons follows: ,(p. 214) ˆm/ˆm ,(p. 9) ywaf/tw:f ,(p. 532) fwj/fwj41 ,(p. 353) μsùg/μçg • .(p. 466) μp/μpu ,(p. 457) raùkp/rjp ,(p. 288) jxn/jxn

9.7.2 Implicit comparisons ,(215) lfb/lfb ,(282) tab/t(w)b ,(197) rùdb/rdb ,(169) ˆwta/ˆwta • ,(153) hbkr/hbkra ,(577) ù≈rq/≈rq ,(511) ylx/(y)lx ,(285) hqpn/hqpn .(736) ùtlùt/tlt ,(712) (ˆy)ts/(ˆy)tç ,(692) h[as/h[ç ,(631) 42μsr/μçr The comparison (a)jm (Dan. 4:32)/wjm (p. 197), as it stands, is an implicit comparison, but considering that it was adduced to suggest an alternative interpretation (i.e. for (a)jm/brùx), it is probably founded on etymological equivalence, for which reason it approximates more to being an explicit comparison.

9.8 Full listing of Heb./Arab. implicit comparisons 9.8.1 Implicit comparison Bib. Heb./Arab. cognate + non-cognate translation synonym ;(90) jalp ,raka/rka ;(34) ù≈ra ,hmda/hmda ;(23) πlt ,dab/dba • /ˆmça ;(134) hmlùf ,hmhd ,lpa/lpa ;(434 ˆmyh) qqj ,tbùt ,ˆma/ˆma

41 At its relevant entry, this is an implicit comparison but in the excursus contained in μhz it is an explicit comparison, where, however, its Aramaic identity is not indicated. 42 This, however, at çt (p. 754), appears to be an explicit comparison.

david b. abraham alfàsi’s comparative philology

229

,lblb/(l)lb ;(215) skn ,jfb/jfb ;(206) db ,rùdb/rzb; (162) μùkùx ,ˆyms ,[dùg/[dg ;(295) hmùx[ ,hrwbùg/hrwbg ;(254) bys ,r[ba/r[b ;(229) ttçt ;(312) brg ,raùg/rwg ;(309) fsw ,wùg/wg ;(304) fyaj ,radùg/rdg ;(304) rsk /lkyh ;(373) [ùgw ,ywad/ywd ;(346) ˚j ,drùg/drg ;(342) ˆkas ,rwaùgm/rg ,μgz/μ[z ;(481) fsb ,ljz/ljz ;(480) ˆkr ,hywaz/tywz ;(434) rxq ,lkyh aynd ,dlùk/dlj ;(530) dj ,zwj/hzj ;(513) ˚d ,fbùk/fbj ;(499) fùks ;(563) ùfj ,ˆj/ˆj ;(560) rmùk ,ù≈mj/≈mj ;(554) arft ,πlùk/πlj ;(552) ;(586) πpùg ,qç ,μrùk/μrj ;(585) fùk ,frùk/frj ;(582) wmj ,rj/(w)rj /rhf ;(7) μtaùk ,[baf/t[bf ;(6) smg ,lbf/lbf ;(599) [fq ,μtùk/μtj ,frw/fr(y) ;(279 çb ;38) πpùg ,μby/çby ;(12) adn ,lf/lf ;(8) πùfn ,rhf /hwsk ;(688 ˆç ;74) μwn ,ˆsw/ˆçy ;(71) ù≈ùkp ,krw/˚ry ;(607) klh ,[qw ,ùgwm/g(w)m ;(158) lwz ,zwl/z(w)l ;(148) hbwf ,hnbl/hnbl ;(118) afg ,hwsk ,ùgrm ,k[m/˚[m ;(218) bwùd ,ysm/(s)sm ;(196) ˆyms ,lybn ,ù˚m/jm ;(186) ùg[z ,(254 dn ,366 ùd) rp ,lwùg ,dwn/dwn ;(343) yrùg ;bùdùg ,rùg/rg(n) ;(222) srm ,lys ,jùxn/jxn ;(280) dl ,μ[n/μ[n ;(270) [ùxawtm ,-rwskm ,-ykan/hkn ;(341) [fq ,ù≈rq ,πws/(h)ps ;(572) [lq ,rqn/rq(n) ;(287) 43μd ,dydx ;(406) lpstm ,qymg/qm[ ;(396) d[x ,[pr ,wl[/(h)l[ ;(358) ˆwx ,rts/rts /rt[ (435) ˆp[ ,ùt[/ç[ ;(431) hmlùf ,aç[/ç[ ;(428) πçk ,yr[/(h)r[ ,lùf/(l)lx ;(484) rsk ,qrp/qrp ;(467) πlt ,ynp/(h)np ;(441) ˆaùkd ,hrt[ ,μwq/(μw)q ;(538) lbqtsa ,μdqt/μdq ;(514) çf[ ,amx/(a)mx ;(510) apyp /(h)nq ;(557) fbr ,πlt ,fmq/fmq ;(227) [ùxwm ,μaqm/μwqm ;(555) wl[ ;(569) [yrs ,ryxq/rxq ;(566) [fq ,≈q/(≈)xq ;(228 hnqm) bsk ,ynq /bhr ;(591) qlq ,zùgr/zgr ;(583) rùfn ,yar/har ;(577) [fq ,ù≈rq/≈rq ,ù≈r/(≈)xr ;(608) ˆdkrk ,μyr/μyr ;(603) ˆwjaf ,ajr/μyj'r ;(597) [zp ,bhr da[a ,ynùt/(h)nç ;(639) rùftna ,πwç/πaç ;(627) lzh ,qr/(q)qr ;(623) qd .(456 μth) ynp ;(737) lmk ,μt/(μ)mt ;(562) [xq ,r[q/r[q(ç) ;(688) 9.8.2 Implicit comparisons reiterated twice or more /lya ;(74) ˆya (ˆm)/ˆya(m) ;(68) rùka/rja ;(31) μaùga/μga ;(21) ba/ba • /h[pa ;(113) hnama/hnwma ;(105) πla/πla ;(87 lka)/lka ;(77) lya ;(184) ryb/rab ;(158) ssa/(ç)ça ;(150) zra/zra ;(471 [p ;136) a[pa /(h)lb ;(ibid.) hrkb/hrkb ;(225) rkb/rwkb ;(223) akb/ykb ;(203) ≈wb/≈wb hùxyb/hxyb ;(246) rçb/rçb ;(233) [lb/[lb ;(229) ylb/(l)lb ;(228) ylb

43 In fact, jùxntsa, in the rendering, does not really stand for jxn but for zy: ydgb l[ μjxn zyw (Isa. 63:3)/μhmdw μhdydx jùxntsy lysy. However, the semantic latent affinity of jùxntsa with jxn as well as their mutual proximity in the wording, makes

it very likely that Alfàsi intended to compare the two.

230

chapter nine

;(272) drb/drb ;(270) rb/rb ;(265) raqb/rqb ;(264) [yqb/h[qb ;(256) lylùg/lg ;(323) wlùg/(h)lg ;(314) zwùg/z(w)g ;(306) hhùg/hhg-hg ;(276) hkrb/hkrb ;(375) yjd/hjd ;(370) ddwt/dd ;(348) çyrùg/çrg ;(345) rartùga/hrg ;(324) Appendix 495) ynz/(h)nz ;(487) rkùd/ˆwrkz ;(485) rkùd/rkz ;(483) ˆwtyz/tyz dj/dj ;(507) [rz/[rz ;(506) wrùd/(h)rz ;(505) rrùd/r(w)z ;(p. 153 ,b ;(535) yj/yj ;(534) μfùk/μfj ;(538) bfùk/bfj ;(154 ùb Appendix ,522) /ˆxj ;(565) qnùk/qnj ;(564) fnj/fnj ;(561) smùk/çmj ;(544) μykj/μkj ;(15) amf/amf ;(10) ˆjf/ˆjf ;(599) ˆtùk/ˆtj ;(589) ùtrj/çrj ;(577) ˆxj μjwt/μjy ;(48) dyjw/dyjy ;(44) μwy/μwy ;(40) dy/dy ;(157 ça ;35) sya/ça(y) /bx(y) ;(373) d[w/d[(y) ;(53) lwlw/(l)ly ;(151) dlw/dl(y) ;(50) ypj/πjy ;(50) ywk/(y)wk ;(75) rtw/rty ;(630) ùtrw/çr(y) ;(538) dqw/dq(y) ;(496) bxn /çrk ;(113) ynk/(h)nk ;(86 bzka 93) bùdk/bzk ;(106) lyk/l(w)k ;(90) wl/wl ;(154) bhl/bhl ;(153) whl/(hl)hl ;(149) sbl/çbl ;(131) çrk /(d)dm ;(178) ˆasl/ˆwçl ;(176) fql/fql ;(159) (war) μjl/μjl ;(156) y[m/y[m ;(209) alm/alm ;(202) rfm/rfm ;(237) twm/t(w)m ;(188) dm sm/(ç)çm ;(229) rm/(r)rm ;(223) yn[m/hn[m ;(223) hyn[m/tyn[m ;(221) ;(275) μwn/μ(w)n ;(258) qhn/qhn ;(250) ybn/(a)bn ;(236) lùtm/lçm ;(234) /jp(n) ;(280) l[n/l[n ;(267) rfn/rfn ;(266) rùkn/rhn ;(263) hljn/hljn ;(294 ;292) asn/(μy)çn-(h)çn ;(289) yqn/yqn ;(498) bxn/bx(n) ;(455) ù˚pn ;(ibid.) rsn/rçn ;(696) πwç/πç(n) ;(293) μysn ,hmsn/hmçn ;(671) ls/lç(n) /lg[ ;(344) qps/qps ;(305) ùgys/g(w)s ;(303) kabç/˚bs ;(302) bbs/(b)bs l[ ;(381) z[/(z)z[ ;(376) rd[m-rd[/rd[m-rd[ ;(371) dy[w/d[ ;(368) lùg[ ;(415) rç[/ˆwrç[ ;(410) yn[/(h)n[ ;(402) hql[(m)/hqwl[ ;(396) yl[/(y) /ç[ ;(430) brg/br[ ;(425) bq[/bq[ ;(ibid.) μùf[/μx[ ;(422) μùf[/μx[ ;(455) ù˚pn/j(w)p ;(447) ydp/hdp ;(446) ùgp/gp ;(373) d[/d(t)[ ;(435) hyç[ /çrp ;(485) trp/çrp ;(484) [rp/[rp ;(472) l[p/l[p ;(456) ùdùkp/djp /[bx ;(496) bxn/(h/a)bx ;(491) ltp/ltp ;(490) jtp/jtp ;(485) srap /ry[x ;(528) qyùx/q(w)x ;(513) μwx/μ(w)x ;(500) dyx/d(w)x ;(498) gbx sdq/çdq ;(538) μdq/μdq ;(530) hrarx/(rw)rx ;(530) rùx/(r)rx ;(520) rygx ;(579) aùtq/açq ;(576) ˆrq/ˆrq ;(ibid.) [lq/[lq ;(553) ylq/(h)lq ;(540) -lùgr/ylgr-lgr ;(589) [br/[br ;(585) sar/çar ;(584) yarm/harm-yar ;(599) jawr/jwr ;(ibid.) jwr/jwr ;(598) ywr/hwr ;(593) μùgr/μgr ;(592) lùgar bkr/bkr ;(602) hjyar/j(y)r ;(604) hmjr/μymjr-μjr ;(603) μjr/μjr ;(618) d[r/d[r ;(616) y[r/(h)[r ;(614) çr/(s)sr ;(613) hnamr/ˆwmr ;(609) /[wbç ;(643) ybs/(h)bç ;(639) ps/πaç ;(638) las/laç ;(628) μqr/μqr kwç/˚(w)ç ;(654) yws/hwç ;(651) ydùt/dç ;(648) tbs/tbç ;(646) [wbsa rjs/rjç ;(661) qjs/qjç ;(658) ˆasws/ˆçwç ;(657) qws/qwç ;(322) ;(668) lkùt/lkç ;(317) jyç/jyç ;(664) ryfst/(bwj-) rfç ,rfçm ;(ibid.) /çlç ;(676) μls/μlç ;(672) ylas/wlç ;(671) ls/(l)lç ;(669) rks/rkç [ms/[mç ;(683) hynamùt/hnmç ;(681) ams/μymç ;(680) μùt/μç ;(677) ùtlùt

david b. abraham alfàsi’s comparative philology

231

kps/˚pç ;(696) pwç/(y)pç ;(ibid.) r[ç/r[ç ;(340) r[ç/r[ç ;(ibid.) ;(354) frç/frç ;(704) lqùt/lqç ;(703) yqs/(h)qç ;(ibid.) lps/lpç ;(698) .(745) hjapt/jwpt ;(720) μawt/μat-μwat ;(355) krç/˚rç 9.8.3 Implicit comparisons of single occurrence

ˆùda/ˆza ;(42) wa/wa ;(34) ymda/μda ;(ibid.) ˆyùgaùga/twnga ;(31) zwùg/zwga • ;(64) hzaja/hzja ;(63) ùdùka/dja ;(60) djaw/dja ;(ibid.) rzym/rwza ;(54) /jrpa ;(119) anh/hnh-hna ;(113) hma/hma ;(112) μa/μa ;(94) yla/la /μça ;(161) lùta/lça ;(154) ù≈ra/≈ra ;(150) zwra/μyzra ;(139) ù˚rp tyb/tyb ;(215) ˆfb/ˆfb ;(200) hmyhb/hmhb ;(79) yta/hta ;(ibid.) μùta ydùg/ydg ;(246) yrçb/rçb ;(244 ,241) ynb/(h)nb ;(225) rkawb/μyrwkb ;(220) hnpùg/ˆpg ;(333) ˆanùg/ˆg ;(331) lmùg/lmg ;(313) zùg/zg ;(312) wrùg/rwg ;(301) ;(ibid.) rbd/hrwbd ;(361) bd/bd ;(354) ssùg/ççg ;(345) brùga/brg ;(340) /baz ;(417) ja/jah ;(402) ùgrd/hgrdm ;(390) [md/[md ;(408) swd/ç(w)d jzjz/jz ;(478) bhùd/bhz ;(ibid.) jbùd/jbz ;(475) babùd/bwbz ;(470) baùd ;(536) ˆawyj/hyj ;(534) πfùk/πfj ;(501) ˆqùd/ˆqz ;(496) bnùd/bnz ;(481) /twynj ;(561) rmj/rmj ;(559) wmj/μj ;(555) ≈lùk/≈lj ;(552) dlùk/dlj /zwrj ;(581) (hy)rj/(hy)rj ;(ibid.) rpj/rpj ;(571) ˆpj/ˆpj ;(564) ayanj (559) μj(y) ;(591) trj/trj ;(586) μrj/μrj ;(ibid.) fyrùk/frj ;(584) zrùk ;(72) sya/çy ;(it is a repeated implicit comparison μùùjy but in) sbk/çbk ;(84) rbka/rybk ;(85) lbk/lbk ;(75) μyty/μwty ;(75) dtw/dty ;(ibid.) ˆwmk/ˆmk ;(110) μk/hmk ;(108) blk/blk ;(91) sak/swk ;(86) /hnwbl ;(143) al/al ;(131) [ark/[rk ;(130) μrk/μrk ;(125) rpk/rpk hyam/ham ;(163) ùtyl/çyl ;(157) jwl/jwl ;(ibid.) anbl/hnbl ;(149) ˆabl ;(225) ≈m/(h)xm ;(217) [nm/[nm ;(204) am/μym ;(194) ùgrwm/grwm ;(184) /[b(n) ;(251) jbn/jbn ;(238) ytm/ytm ;(236) lùtm/lçm ;(235) jsm/jçm sajn/tçjn ;(266) sjnt/çjn ;(402) rdn/rd(n) ;(343) yrùg/rg(n) ;(249) [bn (635) ysn/(h)ç(n) ;(292) ysna/hçn ;(556) μqtna/μq(n) ;(275) rmn/rmn ;(ibid.) ;(329) hlsm/hlls ;(308) rwgas/rgs ;(ibid.) (forget) ysn/(h)ç(n) ;(debt) ;(222) ˆy[m/ˆy[m ;(376) sd[/çd[ ;(369) hlùg[/hlg[ ;(334) ramsm/rms(m) bn[/bn[ ;(410) hyn[m/tyn[m-hn[m-hnw[ ;(406) rmg/rm[ ;(400) μalg/μl[ barg/brw[ ;(431) brg/hbr[ ;(426) brq[/brq[ ;(426) rqa[/rq[ ;(411) ;(454) ù˚p/jp ;(477) qpw/q(w)p ;(452) lwp/lwp ;(439) dyt[/dwt[ ;(ibid.) ;(477) dqpa/dqp ;(463) jlp/jlp ;(458) syfp/çyfp ;(457) μjp/μjp ;(502) bhxa/bhx ;(483) frp/frp ;(ibid.) ù˚rp/jrpa ;(482) swdrp/sdrp ;(507) arjx/rjx ;(530 ,504) hrwx/hrwx ;(503) jax/jwx ;(ibid.) lhx/lhx ;(531) ù˚rx/jrx ;(530) hrùx/hrx ;(ibid.) [lùx/[lx ;(512) tamlùf/twmlx ;(549) πfq/πfq ;(556) μyaq/μ(w)q(y) ;(538) jdq/jdq ;(536) rbq/rbq /brq ;(575) hbarq/(hbyrq)-bwrq ;(574) ˆabrq/ˆbrq ;(558) ytnqa/(h)nq

232

chapter nine

;(ibid.) ybr/(h)br ;(588) abr/tybrm-tybrt ;(578) çq/çq ;(ibid.) brq /qr(wt) ;(600) hjar/jwr ;(599) jyr/jwr ;(48 djy) jwr/jwr ;(596) adr/dydr ;(603) hbjr/ bwjr ;?(273 jyrb)- hyjyr ( bkarm)/ μyjyr ;(626) qywrt /ˆsr ;(613) ˆr/ˆr ;(612) jmr/jmr ;(608) hjyar/jyr ;(605) ù≈jr/≈jr jbs/jbç ;(633) μtr/μtr ;(625) πyxr/hpxr ;(623) yùxr/(h)xr ;(614) ˆsr ;(ibid.) μwùt/μwç ;(656) fws/fwç ;(304) [bç/[bç ;(303) hkbç/hkbç ;(644) /rfç ;(664) πfç/πfç ;(663) jfs/jfç ;(658) rwùt/rwç ;(657) qas/qwç /hbj ;(720) ˆyt/hnat ;(712) ltç/ltç ;(672) ùglùt/glç ;(ibid.) rfys ;(733) lt/lt ;(731) syt/çyt ;(730) tjt/tjt ;(724) ˆbt/ˆbt ;(721) twbat .(741) ˆynt/ˆynt ;(735) μlt/μlt

9.9 Uncertain comparisons In the listing that follows, Hebrew entry words are set out about which one cannot be certain of Alfàsi’s intention to compare them with Arabic. This uncertainty exists, both regarding comparisons that these days are considered authentic (but cannot be definitely attributed to Alfàsi), as well as comparisons that these days are unacceptable (though they match Alfàsi’s method of language comparison). The uncertainty emanates (a) from the non-coincidental fact that Alfàsi in each instance refrains from expressing any clear statement of comparison and (b) from the fact that these uncertain comparisons, in contrast with standard implicit comparisons, comprise several phenomena that call for an express reference, and their absence casts doubt on the grammarian’s intention to record a comparison. Cases in point are instances in which (1) the comparison implies letter metathesis, such as tpk/πtk, fqn/fnq, μx[/ù≈mg, hwx/yxw, etc.; (2) there is an interchange/substitution of letters: b/p (as ç[rp/twgrb, qçp/(qçb; g/k (as tyrpg/tyrbk, çydg/(sydk; l/r (as hnmla/hlmra); m/n (as ˆçd/hmwsd), etc. and especially, (3) there is an assumption of unusual interchanges of letters: b/m ([bq/[mq); d/ùx (as rdj/arùxùk, dd[/(dùx[; g/g (as μylg/lwg); [/ùk (μx[/μxùk); or (4) the comparison would necessitate that one or other of the potentially compared entries contains an additional letter absent from the other entry, such as ˆa/ˆya, πa/πna, ryzj/ryznùk, ˚j/knj, çymlj/swbmlj, πf/lpf, ask/ysrk, etc. The doubt is even greater in those uncertain instances necessitating several such switches simultaneously, such as: g/b + p/b in the pair tyrpg/tyrbk; p/b + [/g + ç/t in the comparison ç[rp/twgrb; l/r + n/l in hnmla/hlmra; x/ùx and metathesis in the comparison

david b. abraham alfàsi’s comparative philology

233

μx[/ù≈mg; x/ùx + an extra n in the Arabic + reduplication of the radix in the Hebrew, in ≈pxp/ù≈pn; x/ùx + q/k in the comparison qjx/jùx. In sum, the common feature of all those instances is that their etymological equivalence is not sufficiently limpid and requires to be openly asserted, whereas in the comparisons that would be unacceptable today, no etymological equivalence can be objectively determined, merely a phonetic similarity (e.g. dd[/dùx[).44 A list of the uncertain comparisons follows: (132) πna πa ,(119) ˆya/ˆa ,(108) ˆa/μa ,(104) 45hlmra/hnmla ,(52) ùdnyj/za • ,(216) μfb/ˆfb ,(200) μahb/ˆhb ,(165) hyras/hrça ,(159) 46ˆks/˚kç-˚ça lwg/μylg ,(302) sydk/çydg ,(282) qtp/qtb ,(281) hnba/tb ,(220) rab/ryb (-≈ra) ,(485) ùgaùgz/tykwkz ,(411) hmwsd/ˆçd 47,(340) tyrbk/tyrpg ,(324) ,(551) bljm/hnblj ,(544) knj/˚j ,(531) ryznùk/ryzj ,(523) arùxùk/rdj ,(125) rpgtsa/rpk ,(117) ysrk/ask ,(19) lpf/πf ,(553) swbmlj/çymlj /≈p(n) ,(254) hmgn/hnygn ,(187) ˆkm/ˆgm ,(185) [wbny/[wbm ,(126) πtk/tpk rfn/rtn ,(548) fnq/fq(n) ,(290) fqn/dqn ,(535) bqùt/bq(n) ,(475) ù≈pn yng/hn[ 48,(399) lylay[/twl[ ,(374) dùx[/dd[ ,(367 g[) hnùg[/gw[m ,(295) 44 It could hardly be posited, for these and similar instances, that Alfàsi held that the one-to-one correspondence of two letters out of three (in those patterns now termed “strong verb patterns”) in the respective Hebrew/Arabic entry words suffices for establishing an etymological comparison. This can be illustrated by the following example. The entry word jçq is rendered by Alfàsi, at its own entry, as ysq, i.e. by a translation synonym corresponding to the Heb. entry as regards two consecutive letters çq/sq but differing in their third letter, j/y; in the comparison lists embodied in entries μhz and çt, however, he does indeed adduce the comparison jçq/jsq in the comparison context. Now had Alfàsi believed that the translation synonyms jçq/ysq that he had already adduced at entry jçq was indeed mutually cognate, he would certainly have adduced them as etymological explicit comparisons in the aforesaid lists as well, and he would have had no need to resort to a pair of translation synonyms showing correspondence in all three of their letters. 45 Subsequently in this entry, Alfàsi makes note of the intra-Hebrew interchange l/r in the pair ˆwmra-ˆwmla; but he makes no mention, of the word hnmla. Moreover there are two distinct interchanges here, l/r and n/l, both being interlingual switches. 46 Could Alfàsi have meant to imply that the n in Arabic ˆks is not part of the root? Nowhere does he treat the Arabic root in the same manner as the Hebrew one as regards the weak letters, which are sometimes lacking! 47 Two interchanges underlie this comparison. The intra-Hebrew p/b switch he discussed at entry πg (p. 340), whereas the Heb./Aram. g/k switch he discussed at ≈mwg. But ad loc., he said nothing about letter switches and, furthermore, he expressed no Heb./Arab. comparison. 48 Skoss remarks that at this entry several MSS present the text version lylaw[, Skoss himself conjectures the reading lylay[, which is very likely correct: Alfàsi immediately afterwards interprets the entry word by dalwa tawùd; it seems quite probable that lylaw[, identical as it is in sense with dalwa tawùd, is indeed to be derived etymologically from hlya[-lw[.

234

chapter nine

,(ibid.) ù≈mg/μx[ ,(423) μxùk/μx[ ,(421) ≈[x[/hx[ ,(419) rpg/rp[ ;(409) /ç[rp ,(475) ù≈pn/≈pxp ,(474) ù≈p/hxp ,(471) qçb/qçp ,(463) tlp/flp ,(536) [mq/[bq ,(506) ˚jùx/qjx ,(506) jùxaw/jx ,(503) yxw/hwx ,(484) twgrb ,(580) swq/tçq ,(577) ù≈rq/≈rq = srq ,(563) dpnq/dpq 49,(560) ≈q/ssq ,(708) hlsls/trçrç ,(356) rqç/qrç ,(333) hynwns/tymmç ,(663) fns/hfç .(524) rpùf/ˆrpx ,(382) zn[/z[ ,(709) sds/tyççi

9.10 The comparisons as reflected in the texts of the copyists and compendia editors of Alfàsi’s lexicon Among the variant readings appearing in his edition of Alfàsi’s lexicon, Skoss records textual readings culled from several copyists and compendia compilers of Jàmi' al-"AlfàΩ. The variants that concern us here are those, which have bearing on language comparison. I have collocated these variants under the heading “Uncertain Comparisons” because one cannot be sure they were in fact penned by Alfàsi himself. Several of these data seem to contradict Alfàsi’s comparison system, leading to the suspicion that these comparisons (or the specific formulae of comparison by which they have been transmitted), rather than emanating from Alfàsi himself, may merely be the product of the transmitters of his work. 9.10.1 Comparisons by h[wmsm yl[ 258) μhn/μhn ,(X 176) ql/(q)ql ,(Abs 154) ùghl/ghl ,(F129) rk/rk • ,329) μls/μls ,(X 328) als/ˆwls ,(Abs, G, Z 324) ˆùks/ˆks ,(X Yg Z 353) dyrç/dyrç ,(Z Abs, X 344) lps/lps ,(Abs, X, Z w[mçmk ybr[ /tpr ,(A, B, Abs, Ha I 535) hbq/hbq ,(Abs 434) qr[/qr[ ,(Abs, X, (G, Hb, X, 622) tpr These are 12 comparisons in all, of which 2 appear in Alfàsi’s text under a different term: qr[, μhn. 49 At that entry, he states that samekh interchanges with sadhe as an intra-Hebrew switch. On these grounds, ssq is equivalent with ≈xq; yet he does not expressly established the Heb./Arab. comparison sq/≈q. By our classification system, however, were the definitum ≈xq and the definiens ≈q, we would be required to reckon this as an implicit comparison. Can it be claimed that once the grammarian had recorded an intra-Hebrew comparison ≈xq-ssq, as though he had made the same Heb./Arab. comparison? Otherwise, might it not be more fair to Alfàsi to expect that he would have recorded such a comparison expressly and unambiguously?

david b. abraham alfàsi’s comparative philology

235

9.10.2 Alfàsi: implicit comparisons > copyists: explicit comparisons ibid. and 383) πld/πld ,(K 201 and Appendix II, 160) qhb/qhb • Z, 154) ùghl/ghl ,(App. ibid. 129) rk/rk ,(E 584) zrùk/zwrj ,(App. [bn/[b(n) ,(App. ibid. ,192) rhm/rhm ,(X, Z 191 ùra) lhm/lhm ,(Abs ,323) ˆyks/ˆykç-μykç ,(App. ibid. ,219) ˆyksm/ˆksm ,(App. ibid. ,249) ss ,(Abs, X, Z ,329) μls/μls ,(Abs, G, Z ,324) ˆùks/ˆks ,(App. ibid. Z 353) dyrç/dyrç ,(Abs, X, Z 344) lps/lps ,(App. ibid. ,336) sws/ /lx(n) ,(App. ibid., 425) dq[/dq[ ,(App. ibid. ,425) bq[/bq[ ,(Abs, X) hjar/tjr ,(A, B, Abs, Ha, I 535) hbq/hbq ,(App. ibid. ,510) lxnt .(App ibid. ,731) syt/çyt ,(App. ibid. ,621) spr/çpr ,(G 606 9.10.3 Alfàsi: no comparison > copyists: explicit comparison

ˆmk/ˆmk ,(App. ibid. 176) bhùd/bhd ,(K 340, App. ibid. 160) πùg/pg • ùra) ˆwn/ˆwn ,(App. ibid. ,258) 50lhn/lhn ,(X 176) ql/(q)ql ,(X 110) trq/trq ,hyrq ,(G 394) sk[/sk[ ,(X 328) als/ˆwls ,(Abs, X ,275 (G, Hb, I, X, 622) tpr/tpr ,((G 576) ùra) 9.10.4 Alfàsi: no comparison > copyists: implicit comparison

/hrypx ,(A, B, Abs, Y, 225) yxm/(y)xm ,(Abs, X ,217) hrwanm/rwnm • (I 654) yws/ywç ,(Ha 525 rpx) hrypùf 9.10.5 Alfàsi: entry lacking > copyists: implicit comparison (Abs, X 322) rdnms/rdms • 9.10.6 Alfàsi: entry lacking > copyists: explicit comparison (160 Appendix II K) rprp/rprp •

50 In this instance, MS K presents a novel turn of meaning in relation to what Alfàsi himself had remarked in the original work. At the appropriate entry, Alfàsi recorded the sense qwsw ˆarys . . . μhryys, i.e. in the sense of gwhyn (= guiding, leading), whereas MS K compared/defined the entry word as lhn i.e. in the sense of “quenching the thirst of.”

236

chapter nine 9.11 The comparison terminology

In this section, the comparison terms are surveyed and classified by the scope of comparison51 to which they apply. These fields can be categorized as follows: (a) Comparison of entry words in two of the languages or in all three (b) Comparison of entry words according to how they pertain to generic comparisons or specific comparisons (c) The unique nature of each and every term and the comparison formulae to which it is suitably applied; in other words, whether a regularity exists in the use of a given term, say, with regard to its appearance in certain comparison categories only,52 etc. 9.11.1 Heb./Aram./Arab. comparison The comparison expressions employed are modeled from (a) an Arabic verb denoting “concurrence” ([mùg) or “unison” (qapta); (b) the term tagl ùtalùt, signifying the three languages treated, i.e. Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic; (c) the names for these languages (this component may be omitted and incorporated instead in the general term tagl ùtalùt) (d) words/particles linking the aforesaid terms. Thus these technical phrases, which include the components as enumerated, are the most lucid and unambiguous expressions of the mutual equivalence of the three languages at a given lexicographical entry. Indeed, these terms deserved to be adduced as terms of introduction or terms of conclusion for all the three-way comparisons of the pattern Heb./Aram./ Arab.; but in fact they are encountered in only five instances as follows:

51 In assembling these data—in deciding whether to list the terminologies or the comparisons themselves, I made no use of the indices in Skoss (1936–45). The reasons are as follows: (a) they fail to exhaust the materials; (b) one of the terms I employ for comparison is zero term, an entity that essentially could not have been entered in those indices; (c) in certain matters, those indices can mislead the student (see, e.g. below, 9.12.1.2.1); (d) they are not arranged in accordance with my methodology. 52 Certain terms might superficially appear to be comparison terms but on careful inspection prove to be merely general modes of expression. They serve only to direct the reader’s attention to some matter; an example is ynayrsla yp in the context ùtynatl yhp ynayrsla yp ad lkw (entry ad, p. 358).

david b. abraham alfàsi’s comparative philology

237

9.11.1.1 All-embracing technical expressions used in explicit trilingual comparisons (p. 327 ,dlg) ynayrslaw ybr[law ynarb[la ˚lùd t[mùg dqw •

ybr[law ynarb[la yn[a ahnml[ ytla tagl ùtalùtla hyp t[mtùga dqw (p. 22 drf) ynayrslaw (p. 306 dgs) ybr[law ynayrslaw ynarb[la hgl hùfplla hùrh t[mùg dqw (p. 740 hnt) ynayrslaw ynarb[law ybr[la tagl ùtalùtla ˚lùd yp qpta dqw (p. 144 wqa) ynayrslaw ybr[law ynarb[lab ahamsa qptt ytla hùtlùtla ama For the remaining three-way comparisons of the languages Heb./ Aram./Arab. pertaining to this type, the expressions occurring are those regularly employed for bilingual comparisons—in other words, those employed in independent Heb./Aram., or Heb./Arab. comparisons or in Aram./Arab. comparisons. For example, at the comparison μxp/μxp/μxp (p. 475), (1) the standard comparison expression for Heb./Aram. comparison is unaccompanied by a comparison with Arab. i.e. μùgrtmla laq ˚lùd ˆmw and (2) the standard comparison term for Heb./Arab. comparison is unaccompanied by a comparison with Aram., i.e. ybr[labw. Thus these expressions, per se, possess no special aspect indicative of their use for trilingual comparisons. It also goes without saying that when those comparisons at which the Arabic entry word is adduced and compared merely in the “implicit comparison” status, in other words with zero term comparison, they certainly have no such unique property. These latter usages are thus recorded only under the category bilingual comparison terms; the expressions listed above (at the beginning of the present paragraph) are only the comparison phrases that have application specifically for trilingual comparison. 9.11.1.2 All-embracing expressions in bilingual explicit comparisons

ybr[la yp qpta amk ybr[law ynayrsla yn[a ˆytglla yp tqpta dqw • (p. 532 fj) . . . ynarb[law (p. 288 jxn) ybr[la ˆm ynayrsla hgl brq ˆm (p. 722 bt) . . . lm[t ynayrslaw ynarb[la yp hgllaw hùfplla hùdhw (p. 251 dy[b) . . . μwgrt ynayrsla ypw . . . ynarb[la ˆytglla hyp tkrtça dqw (p. 137 rtk) . . . ynayrsla hgl [m hkrtçm yh (p. 749 πqt) ynayrsla [m ˚rtçy ynarb[la yp ryùtkw The latter two expressions each incorporate extensive lists of comparisons and not just a single comparison. What has been stated with regard to the all-embracing comparison expressions used in the three

238

chapter nine

languages is equally applicable to the group of comparison expressions embracing two languages only. These broader expressions could have been entered to preface each and every bilingual Heb./Aram. and/or Aram./Arab. comparison; but if they had been, this would have constituted an artificial and to a great extent superfluous repetitiveness, because these wider expressions do not render the specific terms redundant (see below). 9.11.2 The Hebrew/Aramaic comparative terms 9.11.2.1 laynd (Daniel) The following expressions are structured on the name laynd and relate to specific entry words pertaining to biblical Aramaic as encountered in the Book of Daniel: (p. 367 rbd) hglla hùdh laynd yp lm[tsy dqw • (p. 411) laynd yp laqw

although in this instance, a comparison with Targ. Aram., too (expressed by the term μwgrt), subsequently occurs: .(p. 526 hwj) laynd yp ynayrslab hlùtmw •

9.11.2.2 ynayrsla To designate biblical Aramaic, Alfàsi recognizes the term ynadskla (entry μra, p. 153 and introduction to Jàmi' al-"AlfàΩ, p. 3) as well as the term μwgrtla hgl (9.11.2.4). In the routine of the lexicographic work, he is accustomed to adopt the designation ynayrs specifically, this indeed being the term that is applied regularly in contrastive opposition to the “parallel” terms ynarb[la (see llg, p. 325; rwp, p. 452) and ybr[la. In principle, this term is distinct from the term μwgrt, used by Alfàsi to denote the Aramaic Targum to the Bible (or the targumic dialect of Aramaic). This distinction is especially notable in those formulae that bracket together Bib. Aram. and Targ. Aram. The comparison with Bib. Aram. is set up using the term ynayrs, the comparison with Targ. Aram. using μwgrt and the like. This differentiation is, by and large, kept consistently; however, here and there one encounters a sporadic use of the term μwgrt and of course of μwgrtla hgl (lza, p. 53) as a name designating the Aramaic language in toto, thus also including biblical Aramaic. The term ynayrs is the nucleus of the series of comparison terms that follows.

david b. abraham alfàsi’s comparative philology

239

The various expanded forms of this term come about by the incorporation of one or other (or even all) of the following additional elements (some of these additions are of course interchangeable): (a) definiteness + the appending of the particle affixes b, yp, ˆm before the definite article, as in ynayrslab, etc.; (b) the nominal hgl inserted between the components of that prepositional phrase, as in hglb ynayrsla, etc.; (c) the verbs laq or yms in their various forms, passive or 3rd person neutral as in lyq, lwqy, yms, ymsy, etc.; (d) the verb ˆm ùgrùk; (e) lùtm, ˚lùdk, or lkç ˆm ˚lùd. These terms are as follows:

anh/hnh :ynayrsla hgl ˆm ùgrùky ;(168) ta :ynayrsla ˆm ahùgyrùktw • .(99 ùr) ;(347) qs(n) ,(353) μçg :Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. :ynayrsla ˆm • ;(522) ydj ,(498) [bx :Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. ;(230) twrm/hrm ,(340) πg :Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. :(521 ry[b) ˆ[f :Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. dj ,(488) lz ,(310) hwg Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. :ynayrsla hgl ˆm • :Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. ,(358) rts :Bib. Aram./Rab. Heb. ;(521) (583) grj ,(327) μlg (271) rb :ynayrsla lwqy yùdk ;(124) çna :aùxya ynayrsla lwqy dqw • (78 hmya) yntmya :ynayrslab lyq hglla hùdh ˆmw • :ynayrsla yp lyq ˚lùd ˆmw ;(152) hkra :ynayrslab lyq hlkç ˆmw • (113 ˆk) ˆwhtwnk ,(374 rwd) hyrwdm ,(301) wdg (229 lb) lbyh :ynayrslab lyq hnmw • hùdh ˆmw ;(310) rhs :ynayrslab ymsa ;(68) rja :ymsy ynayrslabw • (77 lya) ˆlya :ynayrsla ymsy hglla ;(275) hkrb ,(97) hla (97) hla (89) lka :ynayrsla hgl yp/b • (102) wla :Bib Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. ,(113) twma ,(53) lza :Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. :ynayrsla yp/b hlùtmw • ,(417) ah ,(412) td ,(314) rbzg ,(290) bg ,(271) (son) rb ,(123) sna (advise) ˚lm ,(211) jlm ,(190) hm ,(22) drf ,(494) ˆ(w)zm ,(470) (h)z(m) μlx ,(418) ap[ ,(304) lbs ,(313) js(n) ,(290) çqn ,(216) (h)nm ,(213) (535) lbq ,(512) :Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. ;(301) dg :Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. • (53) lza ,(213) ˚lm ;(173) πl(a) (ˆyla) hla ,(97) hla ,(99) lza :Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. :ynayrsla yp/b • ˆwgra ,(141) [bxa ,(ibid.) rsa ,(128) rsa ,(124) çwna ,(121) yna ,(91) ,(274) ˚rb ,(271) rb ,(220) hryb ,(169) ata ,(156) ça ,(151) hyra ,(150)

240

chapter nine

hwh ,(400) (q)qd ,(377) yd ,(346) μrg ,(332) rmg ,(320) ryg ,(295) rbg lbj ,(501) πqz ,(497) [z ,(491) rmz ,(490) ˆmz ,(485) (w)kz ,(427) μ[f ,(6) jbf ,(568) ˆsj ,(561) rmj ,(558) hmj ,(553) (x2) μlj ,(514) ,(163) hlyl ,(120) πsk ,(688) ˆç(y) ,(70) jry ,(418) bh(y) ,(393) [d(y) ,(17) lf(n) ,(258) rhn ,(258) ˆd(n) ,(214) ˆm ,(212) ˚lm ,(196) (h)jm ,(197) (a)jm ,(403) μ[ ,(400) μlw[ ,(398) (l)l[ ,(390) ˆy[ ,(346) rps ,(313) js(n) ,(13) ,(430) br[ ,(ibid.) (hw)r[ ,(429) r[ ,(426) rq[ ,(421) bx[ ,(410) (y)n[ ,(579) fçq ,(548) lfq ,(524) rwpx ,(483) srp ,(457) hjp ,(437) tç[ ,(304) rbç ,(644) bybç ,(ibid.) ˆn[r ,(618) ([)[r ,(612) (h)mr ,(588) (aw)br ,(686) çmç ,(679) μçe ,(674) flç ,(669) ˆkç ,(331) μyç ,(305) aygç (748) ˆqt ,(707) (y)rç ,(699) rpç ynxylh) rt[/rç[ ,(122) bna/ba :Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram (inevitable) • (ibid.) bwt/bwç ,(ibid.) rbt/rbç ,(445 d[lg/atwdhç rgy ,(79) çy/ytya :Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram (non cognate) • (466) hp/μp ,(452 ,39) ;(238) jtm ,(106) πla :Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram • :Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram/Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram ,(258) rhn ,(12) (l)lf ,(377) yd ,(346) μrg ,(332) rmg ,(295) rbg (654) hwç ,(579) fçq ,(432) dwr[ 9.11.2.3 ynayrsla + μgrt/μwgrt (p. 99) yla :μwgrt yùdla ynayrsla ˆm • (p. 328) çlg :μùgrty yùdla ynayrsla ˆm (p. 62) dj(a) :μùgrty ˆal ynayrsla hgl ˆm ala wh sylw (p. 37) bby :μwgrt ˆm ynayrs hnkl (p. 561) rmj :ynayrsla μùgrty amk (p. 252) bgn :μwgrtw ynayrslab (p. 331) ≈mwg :ynayrslab μùgrty ˚ld ˆmw (p. 219) rsm :μwgrt ynayrsla ˆm All the above expressions appear in comparisons of the formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.; they are instructive, in that they pinpoint a clearly defined divergence of usage: μwgrt and μgrt (and its variants) are employed for comparisons with targumic Aramaic, whereas ynayrs stands as a hyper-term denoting the Aramaic language with all its various types, notably the biblical but also the post-biblical.

david b. abraham alfàsi’s comparative philology

241

9.11.2.4 μwgrt/μùgrt The nucleus of the following series of expressions is the substantive μwgrt or the Arabic verb μùgrt. This nuclear term expands into several slightly differing expressions in the same way that ynayrs can expand. The term (in its various “shades”) is employed, as stated ealier, for comparisons of Bib. Heb. and Targ. Aram., whether the comparison consists of one Bib. Heb. only, together with a Targ. Aram. or comprises additional components—i.e. an additional Bib. Heb. or Bib. Aram. component. Heb. ;(14) [wqr/awlf ,(527) rb/≈wj Bib. Heb.:/Targ. Aram. :μwgrtw • :Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram./Bib. Heb. ;(153) (h) hl :(cognates) Targ. Aram./Bib ,(434 ˆyh) wnyhtw ,(2 X ,332) rmg ,(225) ˆkb ,(158) dça ,(71) ˆwfa ,(538 yj) hyjm ,(192 db) rfj ,(526) fwj ,(512) bwj ,(2 X ;499) r[z ,(187) lgm ,(750 πqt) hsk ,(110) ˆmk ,(23) πrf ,(13) lflf ,(585) ˚rj çr[ ,(371) (h)d[ ,(22 μrf) al d[ ,(365) rwb[ ,(353) brs ,(315) rjs ,(498) tbx ,(ibid.) jçp ,(487) ç(w)p ,(485) qrp ,(468) qnp ,(434) qr[ ,(433) ,(577) srq ,(525) rypx ,(527) ≈yx ,(511) jlx ,(508) ryx ,(500) (h)dx ffr ,(607) bfr ,(606) çjr ,(604) μjr ,(594) çgr ,(591) zgr ,(578) trq ,(749 πqt) dhç ,(309) hrdç ,(652) dç ,(648) rbç ,(673) ttr ,(ibid.) (696) πç ,(673) jlç ,(666) ryç ,(658) rwç And another 9 times in the list at the entry πqt: ,(169) ta ,(3 X ;118) rma :Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. • ≈rj ,(522) (y)dj ,(485) ˚z ,(381) rkd ,(376) lyjd ,(282) tb ,(186) çab ,(687) çmç ,(647) qbç ,(498) [bx ,(470) sp ,(477) qp(n) ,(2 X ,20) rpf ,(589) (752) rwt ,(727) hwj ,(725) rydt ,(722) b(w)t ,(700) ayxç (413) atd ,(381) rkd ,(277) μrb :Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./(Targ. Aram.) • rmg ,(488) lz(a) :Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram • ,(114) snk ,(528) rwj ,(526) hnj ,(521) dj ,(377) yd ,(346) μrg ,(332) ,(303) bç ,(668) jkç ,(654) hwç ,(63) (y)tp(y) ,(598) tj(n) ,(208) (l)lm (749 πqt) dhç Bib.Heb./Bib.Heb./Targ.;(285) qpn :Bib.Aram./Bib.Heb./Targ. Aram.:μwgrtwhw • ,(283) rtb ,(129) [a :Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. ;(490) μgtp (358) wts :Aram. Bib. Heb./Bib. ;(748) lqt ,(463) jlp ,(401) [l[ ,(214) ˆm ,(9) rwf ,(392) hnd ,(358) ad (579) fçq ,(432) dwr[ :Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. ,(577) πxj ,(568) ˆsj :Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. :μwgrt ˆm • (605) ≈jr ,(69) tj(n) ,(9) twf ,(115) ˆma ,(63–61) (seize) dja :Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. •

242

chapter nine

,(123) πk ,(187) bb(y) ,(567) dsj ,(137 rtk) r[z ,(945) hrg ,(32) hrwga ;371) (h)d[ ,(354) jrs ,(326) tks ,(220)-tsm ,(153) (h)hl ,(125) ˆpk (314) (h)jç ,(582 brj) dç ,(483) jrp ,(2 X And in the excursus in πqt (749): (568) ˆsj ,(12) (l)lf ,(367) rbd :Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. • (498) ˆdp :μwgrt yùdkw • .(490) (y)tp :μwgrt hnal ;(524) rpx ,(403) (a)m[ ;(456) byt(h) :μwgrt ˆal • ,(512) bwj ,(ibid.) rmz ,(ibid.) rmz ,(ibid.) ˆçyd (144) wqa :(a)hmwgrtw • Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. ,(468) qnp ,(312) ˚lm ,(552) flj Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (cognates) ,(659) rzç :hmwgrt aùdkw • Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (137) rtb :μwgrt ˆm qtçm whw • Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (121) ˆ[k :ynarb[lab . . . μwgrt whw • :Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. :μwgrtla hgl ˆm • (53) lza Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. and μgrtmla hyp lwq(y)/laq (yùdk/˚lùd ˆm)w ,(191) db ,(24 swba) hwra ,(48) rwa Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. ,(540) yj ,(379) ˆçyd ,(258) [xb ry[ç) rypx ,(475) μxp ,(58 ja) db[/hç[ ,(18) ˆ[f ,(587) amlwf/≈rj .(270) μwr/˚wnt ,(640) hwxa rtwm/traçm ,(589) [br ,(337 (273 jyrb) ˆyfwçm/μyjyr :μùgrtmla lwq whw • :Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (non cognate) :(hyp) laq (p) μùgrtmlaw • .(690) jçp/≈pç ,(568) ,h[yxq (454) srh ,(661) arpwf/tljç ,(277) qrb :ˆyrt dj l[/hnç :hlwqb μùgrtmla . . . • .(164 rça) [wrkça/rwçat ˚lùd ˆmw ;(219) rçm (III) rmk) :μùgrty yùdkw ;(153 Appendix II) r(w)z :μùgrty • μlwk ,(549) (l)lj ,(369) rgd ,(158) dça ,(22) ba :μùgrt(y) Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. ;(60) l[y :Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. μùgrtmla hmùgrtw • .(424) μdh Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. μùgrtmla μùgrty ˚lùdkw -rtlaw ,(317) jg :Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. μùgrtmla ymsy ˚lùd ˆmw • .(337) dç/ry[ç :hams μwg .(356) qrs :layzw[ ˆb ˆtnwy laq amk • (p. 299) dg/dg :hnçmla hgl ˆm • It seems likely that hnçmla, as one of Alfàsi’s technical terms could cover both talmudic literature and the Midrashim, including their Aramaic components, since the expression adg is to be found in this wider corpus. Such an assumption does not overly stretch the plain sense of hnçmla. But if we assume that Alfàsi does treat the cited

david b. abraham alfàsi’s comparative philology

243

expression abf adg as an entity in itself, as pertaining to hnçmla, then the inevitable consequence would seem to be that the term hnçmla is meant to denote the targumic Aramaic; for, (as far as can be deduced from the lexicons) the given expression is encountered only in the Targum (Pseudo-Jonathan to Gen. 30:11) and nowhere else. 9.11.2.5 ynarb[la yp The term ynarb[la yp occurs in several of Alfàsi’s discussions in an unconnected manner, i.e. in the absence of any complementary contrastive expression of the kind ynayrsla yp ama or ybr[la ypw. Prima facie, one could claim that such a complement can be “reconstructed” on a contextual base, and thus could assume that ynarb[la yp was never used simply in a neutral status, without intending to exclude some linguistic practice in Aramaic or Arabic. If that were the case, wherever the phrase appeared, it would have to be treated as an elliptical expression and so, automatically, as a term of comparison of Hebrew with Aramaic (or with Arabic). However, this assumption can be conclusively refuted. At entry çby, for instance, Alfàsi writes: dwyla μaqm wywla ynarb[la hyp lm[tsy dqw .πapùgw sby hlk . . . çby hgl çybwh rça lùtm ( Josh. 2:10). Here it cannot be maintained that ynarb[la is adduced in oppositional contrast with ynayrsla yp or with ybr[la yp; because the very same grammatical rule laid down for Hebrew (dwyla μaqm wywla) applies equally in Arabic and in Aramaic. The upshot is that ynarb[la yp can indeed appear in a general, nontechnical sense. A further example: The very grammatical formula mentioned earlier (dwyla . . . lm[tsy dqw) is stated to apply to the verb [gy (p. 38) although no comparison, either explicit or implied is set up at that entry. The indisputable outcome is that the term ynarb[la yp is non-technical, not a specific comparison expression. For this reason, I did not exhaustively collocate every occurrence of ynarb[la yp: I recorded only those occurrences in whose vicinity an unambiguous comparison must be determined by virtue of the linguistic materials adduced. In fact, at all these locations one would clearly discern the comparison even setting aside the term ynarb[la yp. However, considering that the expression in the given context allows for the sense that was initially presumed—i.e. the sense of a comparison term—it is assigned the status of a term of comparison. Below is the inventory of its occurrence, as defined:

244

chapter nine

(1) ynarb[labw: Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb.: rbdg/rbzg (p. 301) (2) ynarb[lab . . . hgl ˜m: baf (p. 2) (3) ynarb[lab hlùtmw: rta (p. 172) (4) whw/-b lùtm/ynarb[la yp: Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb.: ˆyda/za (p. 34), wlaw/hnhw (p. 103), hnjl/çglp (p. 160), lzrp/lzrb (p. 482); in Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.: llg (p. 325) (5) ynarb[lab ˚lwqk: in Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb.: [rd/[wrz (p. 407); in Heb./Arab.: dja (p. 61) (6) ynarb[lab hlwqp ˚aùdw: in Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.: çab (p. 186) (7) ynarb[la yp hlwq ryùfn: in Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb.: πna/πa (8) ynarb[la yp lm[tsy dqw: çby (p. 38). Here there is no specific citation from biblical Aramaic; but having employed, the generic phrasing tçbyw çby ˆwçl lk, at the opening of the entry, it would seem that Bib. Aram. is also to be included. 9.11.2.6 ˜ynwbrla ˜wmsy ˚lùd ˜mw: çpf (p. 20). It is quite likely that here, too, talmudic Aramaic is referred to, but this cannot be stated definitively. 9.11.2.7 . . . μaqm yhw: ll[/aby (p. 398); ˆba . . . yùgy . . .ù≈w[w (p. 28) 9.11.2.8 qaqtça ˜m: μçg (ˆya, p. 153) The latter three expressions stand on the borderline of the zero term. Indeed, only their essence intimates that these are comparison terms; as they stand, they possess no property applicable to language comparison. 9.11.2.9 Contrastive terms

ynayrsla (yp/-b) amaw: This expression is employed in entry word comparisons Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. when the two components share something in common lexicologically but each exhibits some distinctive aspect, such as a vocalization difference, e.g. rma (p. 118), μh/wmh (p. 445), lk (p. 103), ˆm (p. 214).

ynarb[la yl[ lyld ynayrsla sylw: This expression is used to determine the root of two hetero-lingual words that are apparently similar to each other: (hy)h/(h)yj (p. 510). ynarb[la wjnl πlaùkm ynayrslab hglla hùdh wjnw: [dy (p. 393).

david b. abraham alfàsi’s comparative philology

245

9.11.2.10 Terms for rejected comparisons (in Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.) (508) trz :hlwq yp μùgrtmla rgh swlqnwa flg dqw • (309) wg : . . . hl[ùgw μùgrtmla flg dqw (746) lpt :μùgrtmla lwqk sylw (273 jyrb) ˆyfwçm/μyjyr :hglla yp byrg ˆa yrm[l . . . μùgrtmla lwq whw (343) jpç :dy[b whw . . . laq μùgrtmlaw (581 rj) yryr[/rrj :μùgrtmla laq am zwùgy alw (394) sk[ . . . ˆm hl[ùg μùgrtmlaw (219) ˆyb . . . μùgrtmla ˆùf dqw 9.11.2.11 Instances of zero term In formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. πça ,(128) πsa ,(79) μtya/ytya ,(494) ˆz(a) ,(340) πg(a) ,(28) ˆba • hbhdm ,(365) hrbd ,(322) (y)lg ,(315) rzg ,(290) bg ,(264) h[qb ,(162) μfrj ,(137 rtk) hwj ,(480) wyz ,(476) d(w)z ,(425) rdh ,(383) qld ,(372) ,(208 ,137 rtk ) ( l ) lm ,(129) lbrk ,(65) dqy ,(599) μtj ,(585) ,(307) ˆgs ,(751) rt(n) ,(21) rf(n) ,(598) tj(n) ,(357) dd(n) ,(250) (ay)bn ,(440) qyt[ ,(415) bç[ ,(412) πn[ ,(ibid.) rpws ,(345) rps ,(ibid.) rgs rfq ,(535) lbq ,(511) jlx ,(500) dx ,(490) (y)tp ,(488) rçp ,(485) çrp ,(672) wlç ,(749 πqt) dhç ,(600) zr ,(577) ≈rq ,(565) ≈q ,(549) (749) πqt ,(708) çrç ,(707) qrç ,(680) (μ)mç In formula Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (191) lhm/lhm Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (405 ˚rd) jra Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. ,(749 πqt) dhç ,(114) çnk ,(490 ,63) ytp ,(598) tj(n) ,(208) (l)lm • (303) b(y)ç In instances in which data of grammatical (or other) nature is recorded data that might be construed as nothing other than a Heb./Aram. comparison, as in . . . laùdlab ldbnt yazla (ynxylh, p. 442); also: ljz (p. 481), hdm/hdnm (pp. 189, 216), ≈[y/f[y (ynxylh, p. 442; af[, p. 386), (ˆy)rt/μynç (p. 752), [rt/r[ç (p. 752) or, in cases of Aram./Arab. as: rjp/raùkp: aùklab ajla lydbtb (p. 457)

chapter nine

246

It happens occasionally that a grammatical proposition is lacking that would serve to posit an abstract principle for the issue under comparison. In such case, Alfàsi may adduce an additional instance of the same type as in the following example, which demonstrates clearly that the grammarian’s intention was to apply the formula lydbtb ˆyglab ˆy[la, namely, to set up an explicit comparison: • hm[rh rwb[b μgr μ[r anlw (1 Sam. 1:6) wjwr μy[b lùtm (Isa. 51:15) .(p. 618) μ[r) hjayr μygb

lùtm The use of this term is broader than that of a term restricted specifically to language comparison; in this respect, it is equivalent to zero term. Nonetheless, those comparisons for which lùtm was employed have been collocated, considering that though it approximates to zero, it is not identical with it. The comparisons are: [rda/[wrz (p. 36), ˆmyh (p. 434), ˆh (p. 448), lçj (p. 594), (h)d[ (p. 371). The two comparisons (h)[b/a[b and q(l)s occurring in the comparison list at entry πqt (p. 750) seem prima facie to be compared by lùtm, but on close inspection the comparisons set up are in fact sustained by the incorporative comparison expression with which the list commences.

˜wlwqyw An elliptical expression, occurring where the text content shows that the term stands for ynayrsla yp/hnçmla hgl yp/dwmltla yp ˆwlwqyw and such like. It appears in comparisons Bib. Heb./Talm. Aram. such as: ykhd at[da (BT Nedarim 22b)/ykh (yk, p. 99).

˜wmsy Its use is similar to that of the previous term, in Heb./Aram./Arab. comparisons: dbz (p. 474).

laqy: in Heb./Arab. comparison, such as lpa (p. 134) .amsy: çql (p. 176). ˚lwqk: ynlp (p. 464); [rq (p. 577). Zero term is in use consistently, for obvious reasons, in comparisons of the types (a) implicit comparison Heb./Arab. and (b) explicit comparison Heb./Arab. by virtue of tauto-etymological rationale.

david b. abraham alfàsi’s comparative philology

247

9.11.3 Terms for comparison with Arabic In explicit comparisons with Arabic, the terms most frequently employed are those structured on the nuclear terms ybr[ or hybr[ with the insertion of several alternative linking particles as well as phraseologies expanding on that nucleus. Similar phrases are adopted in explicit comparisons with Aramaic (see above). An enumeration of these expressions follows: 9.11.3.1 ;(799) hnsj/hrpç ,(577) [rq :hybr[lab whw (622) qpr :hybr[ yhw • ;(490) hywah/htp(t) ,(217) hrnm ,(351) zwj ,(490) ˆmz ,(327) dlg :ybr[lab(w) ;(for Aram./Arab. Comparison 2x ;214) ˆm ,(403) μwrd :ybr[la yp/-b hlùtmw hùfpl (yhw) ;(576) μrq :hybr[ ahna zwùgy ;(320) ryg :ybr[lab ˚lùdkw ;(272) rkn hgl yh ;(710) açç ,(628) [qr ,(524) rpx ,(302) abs :hybr[ (172) z[l :br[la hgl yp . . .

lùtm ;(561) rmj ,(532) fj :ybr[la hgl ˆm ;(438) μlh :br[la hglbw • . . . ynarb[lab ;(506) brz : ù≈jm ybr[ wh ;(475) lxp : aws ybr[la laqy (amk) ;(475) μxp ,(299) dg :laqy ybr[labw ,(569) πçj : . . . ybr[labw zwùgyw ;(102) wla :br[la lwqt amk ;(258) μhn ,(390) ˆy[ :ybr[la yp/-b (190) hm :ybr[lab laqy znf[ç ,(344) ˆps :ybr[lab amst amk/w ;(474) dbz :br[la ˆwmsy amkw • (692)

dyg :wmsy yùdla br[la hgl ˆm hna zwùgy ;(569) πçj :br[la wmsy ydkw • (319) (287) bxn :ybr[ μsa wh ;(48 djy) hjna :ybr[lab amsyw • (598 tj) htjm :l ybr[lab μsalaw • ,(526) jwj ,(488) (l)lz ,(294) hnbg ,(272) μrb :ybr[la hgl brq ˆm • 39 comparisons (754) çt( n) ;(434) qr[ ,(754) çt( n) ,(397) [d( y) ,lbj ,brz ,μhz ,dlg ,πyg ,dyg ,hnbg ,μrb ,arb ,rb ˚na ,πwla :including ,bxn ,rwçm ,byn ,μlnm ,flm ,b[l ,μjl ,bjk ,ljk ,ˆymy ,brj ,l(w)j ,fj ,μçr ,dxr ,˚mr ,jçq ,rbx ,lxp ,qr[ ,hmr[ ,çyf[ ,qz[ ,çd[ ,abs .jlç ,jlç ,bkç ,dhç This term applies also to comparisons that are non-cognate in the view of modern linguistics: (313) çkw/çwg ;(362) fbk/fb[ • çb[ :ybr[la brq ˆm ;(645) lbç : . . . hglla ˆm brqt . . . hòfpl • (518) gj :hglla μyrqtl ;(365)

248

chapter nine

including all the other (478) μhz :ybr[lab hbçt (hbyrg) hòfpl • .comparisons there (439) μt[ ;hybr[la hglla yl[ ynbm whw •

rafq ,bkawm ,ùgawma ,ùgawpa/(h)([pç :ybr[lab hb qylt hùfplb ùgrky • (699) for a grammatical comparison, that follows ybr[la yp [qy dqw • the lexical comparison (490) ˆmz :Heb./Aram./Ar. (9.5.1) see above h[wmsm yl[ • ,rtwj ,(a)bj ,ja ,(208) ljb :hybr[la hgl yp a[lab tyjla balqna ˆm • jrm ,πçj ,πrj ,brj ,rj Terms that do not contain ybr[ There are instances in which the explicit comparison can be recognized from the text content, despite the fact that not one of the aforementioned terms actually appears ;(ibid.) μ[r ,μm[ ,μy[b ,(172) z[l :˜yglab ùgrky ˜y[ ynarb[la yp ryùtk • qyrf ˜m ;(369) μg[ :˜ygla μaqm ˜y[ ;(488) lz :laùdlab yzla lydbtb (174) ltp/tpl :swk[la 9.11.3.2 Terms used for semantic comparisons

[qy μsa whw ;(370 dx) yl[ [qt yh a[ymùg ˆytùfpllaw ybr[la yp amkw • (508 trz) . . . ybr[lab alw . . . ynarb[lab laqy zwùgy alw . . . yl[ al . . . yla lkw . . . hpltùkm ùfapla ynarb[ll ;(id.) . . . yl[ [qt . . . hùfpl hltmw yl[ bkry jlxyp ;(23–22 μrf) ahb qylt hùfplb ùgrkt ahnm hdjaw .(ibid. for; Heb./Aram. Comparison) μwgrtw (ibid.) . . . hùfpl Terms used to denote semantic affinity (672 jlç) br[la hgl yp dy[b yç . . . . . . ˆyb sylw • .(144 wqa in a Heb./Aram. comparison) yn[mla yp byrq wh . . . hmwgrtw • Terms used to denote (merely) partial equivalence + partial contrast

laqy . . . br[la hglb amaw ;(508 trz) . . . laqy zwùgyp ybr[lab amaw . . . • (47 djy) . . . (551 blj) ybr[lab amsy al am ahnm ˆak ˆaw . . . ynarb[lab amsw • (ibid.) . . . ahymsy ynarb[lab ˆak aùda anmzly sylp •

david b. abraham alfàsi’s comparative philology

249

ahlm[tsy ryùtkw . . . ˆm hryg ˆwd . . . l br[la hgl yp . . . ˆak ˆaw • hdayzb ala br[la hglb . . . ryspt jxy alw (123 qna) . . . l ynarb[la (420 lbh) . . . μalk Terms for comparison: plus in one language, as against minus in the other (61 dja) br[la hgl yp lwqy ˆa ≈at[y • (253 dgn) ybr[lab anl μty μl ˆak ˆaw • (417 ah) br[la rxtùky amk • 9.11.3.3 Comparison terms in copies and late compendia of Jàmi' al-"AlfàΩ These expressions, as a rule, match the array of terms used by Alfàsi himself, especially with regard to comparisons with Arabic. The sporadic exceptions to this systematic correspondence are instructive: they may well serve as a philological parameter for evaluating which comparison materials were penned by Alfàsi himself and which were appended at later periods. The expressions ynayrslabw (lhm, XZ 191), ynayrsla yp hlùtmw (μgtp, 2x G 490), μwgrt ˆm (trq, hyrq G 576), ynayrs hnkl (πç, I 696) appearing in the addenda to these MSS, frequently appear in Alfàsi’s own writing; they can be viewed simply as an imitation of the array of terms employed widely in the original work. Even in those cases where the comparison itself was recorded by Alfàsi (i.e. it does not refer to a comparison that was “reconstructed” or “filled in” by a late copyist) but the comparison term was changed by the copyist, it is manifest that the “new” expression is one also in common use by Alfàsi in other contexts. Following are exemplary instances: At dç(l) (p. 652) Alfàsi used the term μwgrtw, i.e. ankçm ydç l[ ˆkçmh ydx l[ μwgrtw; in Ms I, however, the expression is μwgrt ˜m hnkl ynarb[la yp ryùfn hl sylw. This alteration is thus not excessive. But in the case of the expressions μwgrtla ˆm qtçy (ˆwn/ˆwn, p. 275, Ab5, X), ynayrsla hqyrf yl[ (sm, p. 218, Abs), and especially ynadskla (μyç, p. 331, X–Z), these cannot be traced in Alfàsi’s own writing. It is thus quite clear that the comparisons adduced under these terms and expressions are nothing but glosses/additions by the copyists and/or compilers. In the array of terms for comparison with Arabic there is hardly any innovation vis-à-vis the terms in general use by Alfàsi. One exception is w[mçmk ybr[ appearing in the comparison μlsu/μls (Z, p. 329). Nevertheless, since it can be shown that these MSS made sporadic alterations and coined comparisons and terms in the area of language comparison with Aramaic, one may have good reason to

250

chapter nine

suspect that they did indeed interpolate comparison material, although without creating new terms, in the area of comparison with Arabic. Enumeration of the expressions follows: ybr[: μhn (Yg 258), ghl (Z 154), dyrç (Z 353) hybr[ hùfpl: tjr/hjar (G 606) ybr[la hglb: sk[/sk[ ( G 394) hybr[ ahna hbçalaw: ˆmk/ˆmk (X 110) w[mçmk ybr[: μls (Z 329) ybr[la hgl brq ˜m: at the commencement of a lengthy list of comparisons, in Appendix II of MS K (p. 160). The following list contains only comparisons culled from the above-mentioned list that fail to appear (a) as explicit comparisons at their appropriate entries in the lexicon or (b) in special lists collocated by Alfàsi: /ˆksm, rhm/rhm, rk/rk, drf/drf ,(E) zrùk/zrj, πld/πld, qhb/qhb • dq[/dq[e, bq[/bq[;, sws/ss, ˆyks/ˆykç-μykç, lxnt/lx(n), lhn/lhn, ˆyksm .spr/yçpr, rprp/rprp,

h[wmsm yl[ • rk/rk (F, p. 129), rwk/rwk (K Appendix II, p. 160), ghl/ghl (Abs, p. 154), (q)ql/ql (X, p. 136), ˆks/ˆùks (Abs, G, Z, p. 324), ˆwlsi/als (X, p. 328), μlsu/μls (Abs X, 329), lpse/lps (Abs, X, Z, p. 344), dyrç/dyrç (Abs X, p. 353), hbqe/hbq (A, B, Abs, Ha, I, p. 535), qr [O /qr[ (Abs, p. 434), μhn/μhn (X Yg, p. 258), tpr/tpr (G, Hb, X, p. 622). Abs and X record a maximal number of occurrences of this term, each using h[wmsm yl[ 7 times. Three of the instances are common to both MSS, but Alfàsi himself adopted a different comparison term—for instance, at qr[b/qr[, where Alfàsi set up the comparison by the expression ybr[la hgl brq ˆm. Zero term • rwnm/hrwanm (Abs, p. 217), hyxmtla ˆm . . . ≈m (A, B, Abs, Y 225), rdms/rdnms (Abs Z, p. 332), hrypx/hrypùf (Ha, p. 524).

9.12 The sources used by David b. Abraham Alfàsi Delineation of the topic When proceeding to deal with the issue of Alfàsi’s sources, it is of the essence, to take good note well, of the heterogeneous facets of

david b. abraham alfàsi’s comparative philology

251

the issue: the scholastic sources for the languages he discusses, the linguistic usages adopted in his literary style and the language materials and tools that serviced him in building up the lexicon, with all its variegated contents. Sources of several defined types are excluded from the present study and will therefore not be discussed here. This applies especially to Alfàsi’s sources on topics of grammar as recorded in his lexicon, since the issue of grammatical comparisons falls outside the scope of this project. Neither will the nature of the Arabic dialect employed by Alfàsi nor its sources be dealt with.53 It goes without saying that Alfàsi’s own language of dissertation is exclusively Arabic, with some very isolated and exceptional cases in which he employs Hebrew.54 On the other hand, there are in the magnum opus contexts in which Arabic, side by side with Hebrew and Aramaic, plays a role in the linguistic setup. I refer to the Arabic inventory of words adduced for the definition of Hebrew and Aramaic entry words or for rendering the numerous sections of biblical verses recorded for illustration purposes as well as the vast thesaurus of Arabic vocabulary resorted to for explicit Heb./Arab. or Aram./Arab. comparisons. Attention will be subsequently devoted to the source of all these language materials, as well as of the comparisons per se, insofar as this issue can be suitably treated. 9.12.1 Alfàsi’s sources for the languages dealt with 9.12.1.1 Hebrew The Hebrew dialect treated by Alfàsi, and generally presented in the context of the definienda, is biblical Hebrew, his lexicon being devoted specifically to biblical Hebrew; the citations from post-biblical Hebrew55 are adduced merely for corroboration of the meanings determined for the entry words. There are only a few instances in which a rabbinical Hebrew entry word itself becomes the object of discussion.56 In isolated cases, Hebrew serves as a definiens for an Aramaic entry word 53 This important subject which also has a bearing on other issues—e.g. the language of “culture” at a given epoch, the knowledge of languages, etc.—is worthy of examination in an independent framework. 54 See, for example, entry db (p. 193); also Skoss, introduction, p. 52, where Alfàsi prefers to adopt Hebrew, this being a precautionary measure, for his criticism of and severe defamatory essay on the Muslims. 55 See Netzer (1983, pp. 84–124). 56 See formula Bib. Aram./Rab. Heb. (above, 9.4.6).

252

chapter nine

under discussion or as a cognate translation synonym for it—for instance, when the word çbk is adduced as a definiens-rendering of the Aramaic entry word rma (p. 118), with no Arabic word in the vicinity. 9.12.1.2 Aramaic The Aramaic entry words appearing in Alfàsi’s lexicon as definienda/ definita are all from the Bible, because biblical Aramaic constitutes the essential component of the vocabulary treated by him. A certain number of biblical Aramaic entry words are employed in language comparison Heb./Aram. as cognate or non-cognate translation synonyns for the Hebrew entry word. 9.12.1.2.1 Targumic Aramaic Additional Aramaic materials incorporated by Alfàsi in his linguistic discussions have their origin in the Jewish Bible Targums, i.e. Onqelos, Pseudo-Jonathan, the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, and Targum Jonathan to the Prophets. Can it be said that in addition to the above Alfàsi incorporated, Aramaic materials from the Targum/s to the Ketuvim and to Chronicles? To put it in another way: did Alfàsi know of an Aramaic Targum to Hagiographa and to Chronicles? According to the index in the edition of Skoss (p. 84), which reflects solely the references as determined by Skoss himself for Alfàsi’s citations in the body of the lexicon (in the apparatus), it seems at first glance that Alfàsi did in fact adduce citations from a Targum to Ketuvim. However, on inspecting each citation individually, against the background of the lexicon itself and not with reference to the index, it becomes apparent that this is not the case. For example, as the index intimates, Alfàsi records two citations from the Targum to Psalms: the renderings for Ps. 19:8 and 76:4 (vol. 1, pp. 13, 317 and vol. 2, pp. 40, 749). The very meagerness of occurrences should, in itself, arouse our suspicion. For the statistics show that the two instances in which it is supposed that Alfàsi quotes from the Psalms Targum stand in contrast to a total of approximately 500 words/portions of verses recorded by Alfàsi from Psalms, some of them being verses to which he has need to resort two or more times.57 If we were to collate these figures with the almost equal number of quotes from Genesis, a stark numerical disproportion becomes apparent.

57

See the index cited, p. 60 col. b, p. 66, col. a.

david b. abraham alfàsi’s comparative philology

253

Whereas the Aramaic Targum to Genesis is recorded in about 60 citations, the Targum to Psalms is cited in only two instances!58 This could hardly be attributable to the supposed greater quantity of linguistic difficulties present in Genesis as against those existing in the Book of Psalms! In actuality, it was an unwitting error on the part of the editor that created such an impression: the Bible cum “Targum” reference Ps. 19:8 is linked by the editor to a single Hebrew word twd[, adduced by Alfàsi (this Hebrew word cannot be definitely identified as an unambiguous verse portion i.e. “quotation”) as well as, to its Aramaic translation synonym atwdhs.59 This Hebrew word is very common in the Pentateuch; its Targum rendering in Onkelos is also frequent. If Skoss had been more precise in his references, he would have avoided entering a reference to Psalms. Had Alfàsi had in mind some biblical phrase with its actual Targum rendering, rather than merely a Hebrew word “as such,” with its translation synonym, probably would have been a word occurrence in the Pentateuch, rather than in Psalms. The situation is similar regarding the second citation. In the discussion on the root jg (p. 317), Alfàsi adduces the Aramaic expression brjla laùgr μùgrtmla ymsy ˚lùd ˆmw abrq yjygm) (abrq yjygm as one adopted by the Aramaic Targum in general, without having in mind any one specific citation. Skoss chose to adduce, for this expression, a reference from “the Targum” to Psalms, specifically, Ps. 76:4, whereas in fact, he could well have provided a reference to it from the Pentateuch (for instance, Exod. 17:8: μjlyw/abrq jgaw). It is almost a matter of certainty that the Psalms Aramaic Targum was completely unknown to Alfàsi, just as it was unknown to many other Jewish scholars almost contemporaneous with Alfàsi, as has been demonstrated by Weiss.60 The conclusion with regard to the Psalms Targum holds true for the Aramaic Targum of Job, Proverbs, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Chronicles. From Targum to Proverbs, he apparently adduces only a single citation,61 7:20. In fact, Skoss himself (ch. 2, p. 750), in his apparatus, merely enters a cross-reference

58

See index (ibid.) pp. 21–26; p. 81. See Alfàsi, vol. 2, p. 749, line 40; apparatus to this line. 60 See Weiss (1979), ch. 2 and especially, p. 41, n. 1, pp. 57–58 and n. 109; even more specifically: pp. 67–69 and notes 174–78. 61 See Skoss, index, p. 84. 59

254

chapter nine

note regarding the phrase ask gj μwgrtw, referring the reader to the Targum at Prov. 7:20 (ady[d amwylw), not implying that that phrase itself is cited from the Proverbs Targum. He likewise attributes the expression ayrhn twrhn, recorded by Alfàsi (p. 258) to the Targum to Job, 28:11; but Skoss himself marks (via the + sign) that this rendering is attested further at other locations, presumably meaning locations outside the book of Job. Considering that this word does not appear in a context in which its identification with the Job reference is so to speak inevitable, it is far preferable to reference it to some other biblical book. In the same way the reference for the phrase atçqb jtm (p. 238), “Targum Lam. 2:4,” is quite arbitrary; supposedly, it would constitute the single adduction of the Lamentations “Targum”! Such is the case, too, regarding the reference to Eccles. 2:25 entered by Skoss for rb ≈wj μwgrtw (entry ≈wj, p. 527) as well as the index reference to 2 Chron. 20:33.62 To sum up, Skoss’s implicit determination that Alfàsi cited the Aramaic Targum to Ketuvim and to Chronicles has no basis. It is far more likely that no copy of an Aramaic Targum to those biblical books was within Alfàsi’s reach. His source texts for targumic Aramaic comprise the Pentateuch Targums, including “Pseudo Jonathan,” the Palestinian Targum,63 the Targum to the Prophets—and no more. The Aramaic materials recorded from targumic Aramaic, whether as cognate or as non-cognate translation synonyms, are enumerated above (9.4.7–9.4.14). 9.12.1.2.2 Talmudic Aramaic Talmudic Aramaic is very sparsely recorded in Jàmi' al-"AlfàΩ, (see above, 9.4.15). It is not surprising that the use made by a Karaite of such a specifically rabbinic work as the Talmud is far more restricted than its use, by rabbinic philologists such as Ibn Janà˙ and others. 9.12.1.3 Alfàsi’s text sources for Arabic I referred earlier to the Arabic employed in lexicographical definitions of Hebrew or Aramaic entry words. Of special concern to us are

62

See vol. 2, p. 750, apparatus to line 50. This Targum is cited as renderings for Gen. 30:1 (Alfàsi vol. 1, p. 299, line 36); Deut. 15:17 (ibid., p. 361, line 31); Deut. 28:50 (ibid., p. 577, line 199). 63

david b. abraham alfàsi’s comparative philology

255

(1) those Arabic entry words standing as translation synonyms (cognate or non-cognate), these being the substance of the definitions and (2) the renderings for biblical verses or sections of verses. The question requiring clarification is (a) whether these definitions were created and initiated by Alfàsi himself—i.e. it was he himself who initiated the translation synonyms for the Hebrew and Aramaic entries or (b) whether these were culled from the Arabic translations and commentaries to the Bible, current in his lifetime. This question can be only partially resolved: Alfàsi does not stipulate in a consistent manner who his mentor was according a particular theory or a particular rendering; nor does he intimate whether he is recording it as his own opinion or that of another: Even on those rare occasions where he attributes some statement to others, the attribution is to an anonymous authority.64 It is only in exceptional instances that Alfàsi indicates the name of the scholar holding the opinion adduced by him, this being invariably R. Sa'adiah Ga"on. This has been taken note of by Pinsker and by others.65 What is more, the Karaite translations and commentaries to the Bible, that antecede Alfàsi— those extant before the second half of the tenth century66—have mostly been lost; these include the commentaries and translations of B. Nahawendi, Daniel Qumisi and J. Qirqisani, as well as the major portion of the translation and commentary by Salmon b. Yeru˙im.67 At any rate, one can state confidently that Alfàsi made use of translations and commentaries produced by his predecessors, this fact being obvious from his numerous citations, even though he failed to indicate their respective sources. Despite the considerable quantity of quotations from other scholars and works, these are but a tiny minority of the total number of 64

See, for example, Skoss (1936–45), index, p. 120, col. b et seq., entry μwq and its sub-entries, ibid., such as μwq laq ,wl[ùg μwqw, and the like. On the phenomenon that the medieval student had no interest in knowing the originator of an opinion but was satisfied with knowing the opinion itself, giving rise to the recording of citations with no indication of their sources, see Birnbaum (1942–43), p. xxiv, bibliography, ibid., n. 68: Goldziher, Studien über Tanchum Jeruschalmi (Leipzig, 1870), p. 3. 65 Pinsker (1860), pp. fkq, 108; Poznanski (1971), p. 148. 66 On the epoch of Alfàsi and on his scholarly activity, see Poznanski (1971), p. 147 and n. 4; the opinions of Pinsker and Neubauer are adduced, in ibid. See also R. M. Bland (1966) with bibliography; Z. Ankori (1959), p. 206, note at p. 66; p. 69. These brief passages constitute all that Ankori wrote regarding Alfàsi! See especially Skoss (introduction), pp. 35ff. 67 See Bland (1966), introduction, p. 8.

256

chapter nine

comments, opinions and definitions that, as set down, purport to be “originals.” It cannot be doubted that a very considerable percentage of these are in fact Alfàsi’s innovations, encompassing not only those instances where Alfàsi puts forward his own express opinion in stated contrast to that of another scholar, but also in many places where no indication is given of the originator of the notion. But the precise scope of the original portion—i.e. of Alfàsi’s own production cannot at present be determined. This is due in particular to the fact that medieval scholars by and large were not in the habit of specifying their sources. And again it should be noted that “potential” source texts in the form of translations and commentaries to the Bible had largely perished without trace. However, from the surviving fragments of translations produced before Alfàsi’s time—namely, those of Sa'adiah and of Salmon b. Yeru˙im—it can be ascertained with fair probability in which entries, contexts, etc., Alfàsi followed in the footsteps of those earlier renderings or, at least, whether the renderings adduced in his lexicon were documented in the works of his antecedents. Investigation of this issue was not limited to research for the topic of the present study. It was checked out whether a given comparison of a Hebrew entry word and its Arabic cognate recorded by Alfàsi had already been established by the earlier writers or could be said to have been founded on renderings of those scholars. In addition, the question of the extent to which Alfàsi relied on the earlier scholars has been investigated in the widest context. Analysis of this issue has, therefore, been undertaken by means of two clearly defined samples: First, all the entries from Psalms, for each of which Alfàsi adduces an Arabic cognate have been checked out, and these amount to a total of 141 entry words. Second, all those entries from Psalms encompassed by Ps. ch. 42, 72 only, which were elucidated by Alfàsi in his lexicon by non-cognate translation synonyms, have been checked out, amounting to a total of 86. Alfàsi’s renderings for these entries, 227 in all, were checked against the corresponding renderings of his antecedents—in this case, Sa'adiah’s and Salmon b. Yeru˙im’s translation to Psalms.68

68 The Salmon translations are all from Psalms because approximately two-thirds of the text of Salmon’s translation of Psalms is extant. MSS details are as follows:

david b. abraham alfàsi’s comparative philology

257

Alfàsi’s affinity with Judah b. Quraysh, has been discussed by Becker (1984, pp. 74–77). The first sample reflects a full-scale investigation of the comparison materials included in Alfàsi’s work (no matter whether the comparisons are explicit or implicit): it strives to determine whether the cognate (and not the comparison itself ) could objectively be identified in the antecedent translations. It should be borne in mind that whereas these translations are far from enjoying the status of lexicons, and were certainly not comparative lexicons, they nonetheless could easily have constituted an infrastructure for comparisons or, as it were, a source for Alfàsi’s comparison records. The second sample provides merely something of a “double check,” a ratification of the findings of the first. The second sample does not ascertain the specific source for each comparison, since, for noncognate translation synonyms the issue is one of comparison only if and when Alfàsi expressly says so by unambiguous comparison terminology. The second sample merely checks out the feasibility that Alfàsi, for his definitions and renderings of the entry words under discussion,69 adopted expressions and phraseologies attested in antecedent Bible translations into Arabic. These samples are, to a great extent, random in nature. The text choice, at least in the case of the second sample, was arbitrary: From Ps. 1–89, in MS Firkowitch I 1555, microfilm reel 10584 in the Institute for Microfilmed Hebrew MSS, at the HUNL in Jerusalem. Of these, Ps. 42–72 were edited by L. Marwick (1956), who used MS Firkowitch II 1345. (A collation of the material in ed. Marwick with MS, I 1555 reveals no textual differences between the two.) Further, Sa'adiah’s entire translation of Psalms has survived in its entirety, in the following editions: Margulies (1884), the translation of Ps. 1–20; Lehmann (1901) of Ps. 21–41; Hofmann (1891) of Ps. 42–49, etc.; Baron (1900) of Ps. 50–72; Galliner (1903) of Ps. 73–89; Eisen (1934) of Ps. 90–106; Lauterbach (1903) of Ps. 107–24; and Schreier (1904) of Ps. 124–50, as well as R. Yosef Qàfi˙’s edition (1966) of Sa'adiah’s Tafsìr of the whole Book of Psalms and the complete translation of Yaphet b. Ali, ed. Bargès (1861), although later than Alfàsi (but see below). Within the scope of the sample investigation are some instances in which Alfàsi, instead of adducing a specific verse from Psalms, adduces a general proposition (of the type h[yùx hyrq lk). This means to say that wherever the entry word under discussion happens to occur in the Bible, its rendering is “such and such.” Though Alfàsi fails in these cases to record an express quote from Psalms, they have been treated as if he intended to refer to the Psalms verse. 69 Clearly, it would be worth checking whether we must rule out the likelihood that Alfàsi drew on the ancient Midrashim to the Bible when recording his commentary and renderings. The linguistic criterion is here unavailable. Such an investigation would be of interest primarily in the context of linguistics, rather than in that of text substance but the two contexts are to a great extent intertwined.

258

chapter nine

the range of Psalms 1–89, this being the text range surviving from Salmon b. Yeru˙im’s translation of that Book, the section Ps. 42–72 has been selected. This choice was inevitable, since, of all the Karaite translations, Salmon’s was the sole survivor, and Ps. 42–72 is itself the portion that has principally survived out of his total translation of the Bible. Nevertheless, the compulsory element relates only to the restricted range of the text, not to the nature of the materials selected for the sample. There was no reason to aspire to exhaust the sources in their entirety or to investigate the total range of what could be examined in the context of writings of Alfàsi’s antecedents. The aim was simply to demonstrate, with the aid of the samples, that Alfàsi cannot be said to have practised in a vacuum, nor was he an absolute innovator. A sample of 227 entries would seem a fairly reasonable number on which to base a conclusive resolution of this issue. Before enumerating the findings and summarizing them synoptically, a number of typical instances that are of special interest will be presented. In his elucidation of the word μtya (Ps. 19:14), Alfàsi states: ùdynyj yl[ wflsy al wlaq μwqp .μtya za yb wlçmy la yp sanla πltùka dqw • al laq ù≈[bw . . . dwy hyp syl hks wh yùdla ta ˆal yçmy al aùdhw . . . μhtksb ˜tya ˆm μhtbalxb laq rùkaw . . . (Deut. 33:21) atyw ˆm μhnayta dn[ yl[ wflsy . . . yç sylp aùdhw hdjw μt;w hdjw yae l[ùgw hmlkla μsq rùkaw . . . (Num. 24:21) (Dan. 3:12) ˆyrbwg ytya ˆm μhdwùgw dn[ yn[a μhtysya dn[ rspy ˆa brqalaw .(p. 79 ytya) . . .

We thus have here no fewer than five alternative linguistic interpretations and analyses for this word. It is notable that the first interpretation to be rejected, μhtksb, is the rendering of Salmon b. Yeru˙im. The second interpretation, μhnayta, is encountered as that of Yefet b. Ali,70 in his commentary but not in his translation.71 The interpretation preferred by Alfàsi, however, corresponds with the rendering as reflected in Yefet’s translation, arousing the conjecture, that Alfàsi and Yefet b. Ali might both have drawn their interpretation(s) from the same earlier source, one that remains unknown to us.

70 On the expediency of making a collation with Yefet b. Ali, who postdated Alfàsi, see below (9.12.1.3.1). 71 See Bargès (1861), p. 34, n. 21.

david b. abraham alfàsi’s comparative philology

259

His parsing of the form ˆwny, in the verse wmç ˆwny çmç ynpl (Ps. 72:17), as a verb derived from the noun ˆyn (ˆn, p. 275), with the meaning: “May he have great-grandchildren and offspring for all generations,” is based on Sa'adiah’s rendering lstny and on Salmon’s construing of that biblical verse. The analysis of the verb hnmsrky (Ps. 80:14) as a contamination of the substantive srk as well as, possibly, of the denominative verb srk that evolved from that noun, with the particle ˆm, in the sense hnmm wsrk almy (ahnm hçrk alm) (p. 131), is to be found already in Salmon’s commentary (and, somewhat later, in Yefet’s commentary).72 Alfàsi’s rendering of çy (p. 72) as sya is not his own innovation: this is documented by Salmon (Ps. 58:12; 7:4) and later in Yefet’s commentary. Moreover, Alfàsi was not the one who initiated the parsing of lwlbç (Ps. 58:9) as a grafting of the subordinate letter ç onto the adjective lwlb (lwlbm yç), (p. 645): this analysis appears already in Salmon’s work. Alfàsi occasionally adduces two different but “synonymous” renderings for certain entry words in his lexicon. For example, for twnygn, he has two renderings: ˆajla and tamgn (in the captions of Psalms 4, 6, 54, and 76) (ˆgn p. 254); for πws (Ps. 73:19; p. 341) he records both πas and ù≈rqna; for μaer“ (Ps. 52:22; 29:15; p. 608) he records both μyr and ˆdkrk. It is tempting to speculate that these doublets constitute nothing but a combination of the respective renderings of Sa'adiah and Salmon for the same entry word. Inevitably one gets the impression that Alfàsi is chiefly a transmitter, rather than an author, of an intra-Karaite exegetical tradition. The remarkable correspondence in the above instances, as well as in many others, of Alfàsi’s rendering with that of his antecedents is not to be viewed as a “stylistic” imitation, the truth is that Alfàsi simply adopted their several renderings and exegetical comments, embedding them in his lexicon. 9.12.1.3.1 A comparison of Alfàsi’s biblical renderings with those of Yefet b. Ali The Bible translation of Yefet b. Ali as well as his commentary to the Bible, the greater portion of which are to date still in manuscript 72

See Maman (2000a), p. 270.

260

chapter nine

form, are presumed by scholars to have been written later than the works of Alfàsi, probably very shortly after. Thus on such a presumption these cannot be treated as potential source materials for Alfàsi. Nevertheless, since this work is generally considered to be an eclectic commentary,73 it stands to reason that it reflects (Karaite) sources that Alfàsi might well have resorted to. This premise, however, should be posited with the greatest caution; for the opposite is just as likely to be true—that Alfàsi himself was Yefet’s source for his commentary.74 The upshot is: wherever equivalence is encountered between Alfàsi and Yefet in the rendering of a biblical word, it is feasible that both grammarians drew on a common source that preceded both of them. At the same time the possibility remains that the rendering originated with Alfàsi and Yefet adopted it. Given that these two possibilities are equally likely, it would seem, prima facie, that an examination of Yefet’s works yields no prospect of determining the identity of Alfàsi’s sources, unless Yefet expressly identified the author of his citation and this author is known also to have anteceded Alfàsi. Notwithstanding the first possibility, several findings will be adduced that can be inferred from a comparison of Alfàsi’s renderings of several Bible verses with those verses as interpreted by Yefet in his commentary.75 When all is said and done, a decisive inference can be made only by a comparison with Sa'adiah’s Tafsìr and Salmon’s translation.76

73

See Ben-Shammai (1978). This possibility might even obtain some corroboration from the fact that it was Yefet’s son who set down a compendium of Alfàsi’s lexicon, and it is not at all unlikely he did so in the lifetime of his father. 75 Yefet would probably have preferred to use systematic and unbroken translations of and commentaries to the Bible, verse by verse in “biblical order,” rather than resorting to a biblical lexicon. But clearly, it is not impossible that the grammarian might seek at times to ascertain, with the aid of the lexicon the rendering for some isolated Heb. word. 76 But it should be borne in mind that interpolations have very likely penetrated into Salmon’s translation in the course of its transmission. This is clearly evidenced through the following phenomenon: several words occurring in the commentary as glosses have crept into the main text of the translation, creating thereby an apparent contradiction between the translation as we have received it and the translation that Salmon himself relates to in the context of the commentary. For an illustration of this point, see the comments below on wgsp (Ps. 48:14) and htmxp (Ps. 60:4). This phenomenon is especially noticeable in the rendering and elucidation of the verse: whwrxny ˆm tmaw dsj (Ps. 61:8): in the translation he adduces ˆm/lkw, whereas in the commentary he remarks that he finds such a rendering unaccept74

david b. abraham alfàsi’s comparative philology

261

9.12.1.3.2 Entries in which Alfàsi’s renderings are not his own, these being recorded already in the works of Sa'adiah and Salmon (also, subsequently, of Yefet) (54 cognates):77 ,11) lpa/lpa ,(106 ;55:14) 79πyla ,πwla/πla 78,(77 ;42:5) lya/lya • [dùg/[dg ,(Alfàsi adduces from Amos 8:5, 270 ;65:14) rb/rb ,(134 ;2 hnwrùgy/whwrygy ,(342 ;61:5) rwaùg/rg ,(304 ;62:4) radùg/rdg ,(304 ;75:11) lkyh ,(411 ;36:9) hmwsd ,μsd/ˆçd ,(373 ;41:4) 80awd/ywd ,(344 ;63:11) πrj ,(557 ;39:4) ymj/μj ;(522 ;57:5) (h) daj/(h)dj ,(434 ;68:30) lkyh/ /rty ,(50 ;51:7) μjw/μjy ,(48 ;25:16) dyjw/dyjy ,(208 ljb ;74:17) πyrùk/ ,(159 ;23:7 ;24:8) 81hmjlm/hmjlm ,(154 ;29:7) byhl/hbhl ,(75 ;11:2) rtw 4:19, 221 ;22:15) a[m/y[m ,(196 ;69:29) wjm/hjm ,(186 ;46:7) ùgwm/gwm Gen. ;65:2) rùdn/rdn ,(236 ;49:13) lùtm/lçm ,(225 ;75:9) ≈m/hxm ,( Jer rts ,(289 ;73:13 ;26:6) aqn/ˆwyqn ,(263 ;78:55) hljn/hljn ,(402 rd 28:20; ˆwydp ,(381 ;68:35) z[/z[ ,(374 ;etc 20:9) dùx[/dd[ ,(358 ;32:7) rts/

able and he would prefer to derive ˆm' from the Aramaic aynm (“vessels”). Is it possible that the renderings attributed to him were not in fact adduced by him but in general represent some canonical, “received” translation version into which he refrains from introducing any alterations, with the rare exception of such deviations as are incorporated in the context of his commentary. This matter requires further investigation. 77 In those instances in which there is disparity among the four translators, numerous alternative possibilities of mutual non-consonance exist. The renderings could reflect two, three or four opinions; and combinations of opinions, can be switched around and subdivided: When there are two opinions, it may be that the first opinion is held by three and the second by only one; or the opinions may be equally divided. When there are three opinions, the combinations are more complex. The sum-total of possible permutations is thirteen. There seems no reason to classify the translators according to their renderings, whether representing equivalence or disparity, the main reason being that Yefet’s opinion/rendering is adduced merely for certain instances, largely when Salmon’s rendering is unavailable and even then only as a supplementary datum. Furthermore (and this is the primary argumentation), we are here concerned more with ascertaining the extent to which Alfàsi fell back on his antecedents and conversely how much he was an independent lexicologist in his own right, rather than with a comparison and classification of the methods of renderings, of the translators as a whole. 78 In parentheses appears, first, the verse ref. from Psalms, which constitutes the source for the entry word and then the page number of the relevant entry in Alfàsi’s lexicon. 79 Alfàsi records the word as ypyla; likewise Sa'adiah (according to Baron, 1900). But according to Qàfi˙ (1966), the correct reading in Sa'adiah is ypwla, precisely as Yefet enters it. Salmon records it as yml[m but it is possible that ypwla, recorded before yml[m, is meant to be not the Hebrew entry word but the Arabic one in which case he records two Arabic translation entries. At any rate, the text of Sa'adiah’s Tafsìr is certain whereas that of Alfàsi here is not original. 80 Here Yefet translates: μqs/ywd. 81 The rendering brj is also attested; but all the translators, in one verse or another, record μjl, too.

262

chapter nine /brq ,(536 ;5:10) rbq/rbq ,(475 ;60:4 82μxp/μxp ,(447 ;49:9) adp) ù≈jr /≈jr ,(598 ;65:11) ywr/hwr ,(591 ;4:5) zùgr/zgr ,(575 ,73:28) brq 614 ;32:9) ˆsr/ˆsr ,(511 jlx ;45:5) bkr/bkr ,(Lev. 1:9, 605 ;26:6) yùxr/hxr ,(616 ;78:71) y[r/h[r ,(618 ;48:7) hd[r /hd[r ,( Job 41:5, wdh/jbç ,(628 ;45:15) μqr/μqr ,(623 ;74:14) ù≈ùxr/≈xr ,(623 ;40:14) rkç ,(661 ,30:36 ;18:43) qjs/qjç ,(658 ;45,1) ˆsws/ˆçwç ,(644 ;65:8) ;55:21 ,htmals ywd :tpy) hymlasm/wymwlç ,(Lev. 10:9, 669 ;69:13) rksm/ ˚ps/˚pç ;(687 ;35:16) ˆs/ˆç ,(Prov. 25:18; 689 ;45:6) ˆwnsm/ˆwnç ,(675 .(741 ;74:13) ˆynt/ˆynt ,(712 ;1:3) 83lwtçm/lwtç .(698 ;79:3)

For practical purposes, there is no need to resort to Yefet’s testimony. Nonetheless, it has been presented to demonstrate the continuity of the respective dependence of later scholars on the works and opinions of their predecessors. The focus here is on the equivalence or disparity of philologists and translators in their rendering not of a verse as a whole, but of the single word; for there are cases in which the translators represent lexical unanimity (i.e. unanimity on each biblical word) but differ in aspects of syntax, style, or exegesis of the text, and the latter issues being irrelevant to the present survey. The general picture that emerges is as follows: there is generally much more consonance among the three Karaite translators (the later ones clearly taking after the earlier) than there is between each of these and Sa'adiah Ga"on. Furthermore, their renderings are far more atomistic and literal than those of R. Sa'adiah. 9.12.1.3.3 Entries for which Alfàsi’s rendering is already recorded in Sa'adiah’s writings (and subsequently by Yefet) (30 cognates): ;144:11) taplwm ;πwla ,πala ryxt/twpylam ,(31 ;114:8) μaùga/μga • ;102:27) ylb/hlb ,(150 ;92:13) zra/zra ,(124 ;103:15) ˆasna/çwna ,(105 /qrb ,(272 ;141:8) drb/drb ,(264; Isa. 63:14, ;104:8) h[qb/h[qb ,(228 ;(Isa. 49:22 ,577 ;129:7) ˆùxj/ˆxj ,(538 ;10:9) πfùk/πfj ,(277 ;144:6) qrb ;149:8) lbk/lbk ,(25 ;146:9) μyty/μwty ;(538 ;102:4) dqwtsm ,dqwm/dqwm ysamt/(s)sm ,(202 ;147:8) rfm/rfm ,(531 zwj ;107:30) zwjam/zwjm ,(85 /qwp ,(275 ;121:4) μwn/μwn ,(Lev. 8:12, 235 ;89:21) jsm/jçm ,(218 ;58:9) ,(Deut 22:6; 482 ;84:4) ù˚rp/jrpa (454 ;71:3) ù˚p/jp ,(477 ;146:9) qpw

82 However, Qàfi˙ (1966), in the body of the text, has aht[rx. At any rate in other MSS of Sa'adiah’s Tafsìr the reading is [dx. For our purposes, this is already attested in Salmon’s work. 83 Qàfi˙ (1966) records this reading from MS a (Munich Cod.) only and in this loc. alone and, nota bene, in juxtaposition with the word swrgm; in the other Psalms passages, however, i.e. 92, 14; 128:3, Sa'adiah renders by srg only, whereas Yefet renders ltç.

david b. abraham alfàsi’s comparative philology

263

/lfq ,(555 ;17:7) μwaq(t)m/μmwqtm ,( Judg. 9:36, 510 ;121:5) lùf/lx 5:12; 578 ;73:14) çq/çq ,(569 ;89:46) rxq/rxq (548, 139:19) ltq ;120:4) μtr/μtr ,(Alfàsi: Zach 8:5, 603 ;144:14) hbjr/bwjr ,(Exod. (698 ,147:6) lps/lpç ,(644 ;117:1) jbs/jbç ,(633

The list encompasses those chapters of Psalms for which Salmon’s rendition has not survived; thus Yefet’s translation is here very significant, in that it is quite possible that Salmon’s translations may be reflected by Yefet and thus could be reconstructed from Yefet’s renditions. 9.12.1.3.4 Entries rendered by Alfàsi by a cognate attested in Sa'adiah but in which both Alfàsi and Sa'adiah differ from Salmon’s rendition (as non-cognate)84 (7 entries): ,yqn/yqn ,(344 ;75:9) bx ,bòn/rg(n) ,(59 ja ;35:21) 85ynmt ,yùkat/jah • 87 lxp ,qrp/qrp ,(381 ;24:8) 86 ywq ,zyz[/zwz[ ,(289 ,24:4) πyùfn ,yrb ,ysj(t) ,πwç(t)/πaç ,(612 ,78:9) (swq+) amr jlst ,ymr/hmr ,(484 ,7:4) (639 ;57:4 ;56:2,3 ;119:131) μql

9.12.1.3.5 Entries in which Alfàsi’s rendering is identical with that of Sa'adiah but differs from that of Yefet (Salmon’s rendition is not extant),88 (2 entries): (589 ;139:3) [ybrt ,ù≈br/[br ;(375 ;118:13) [pd ,wjd/hjd •

9.12.1.3.6 Entries in which Alfàsi combines Sa'adiah’s tafsir with Salmon’s translation (cognate + non-cognate translation synonym) when the two renderings are distinct (8 entries): ;(379 ;38:9 ;74:21) ù˚dùkdm ,(and Galliner ;w ,m ,k Qàfih MSS) πy[ùx/˚d • tamgn ,ˆajla/tnygn ;(74 ;78:65) ˆsw ,μyan/ˆçy ,(38 ;74:15) 89πpùg ,sby/çby 84 At hmr Yefet’s rendering equals that of Alfàsi and of Sa'adiah; at yqn his rendering differs from all three; at rty, the rendering equals that of Salmon. 85 The rendering immediately following the slash (right to left) is that of Alfàsi and Sa'adiah; the one following it is that of Salmon and Yefet. 86 But see also above z[, rendered by z[ by Salmon as well. 87 But Salmon in his commentary subjoins qrp, too. 88 The rendering immediately following the slash is that of Alfàsi and Sa'adiah; the one following is of Yefet. 89 The rendering immediately following the slash is that of Sa'adiah; the one folowing is of Salmon. Alfàsi, of course, records both renderings. In two instances (çby ,rjç), Yefet’s rendering equals that of Sa'adiah; in four instances (ˆçy, ˚d, πws, μar), his rendering equals that of Salmon; in one instance (tnygn), it equals that of Alfàsi; in one instance (≈q), Yefet records an independent rendering that differs from all the others.

264

chapter nine :Yefet ;aùxqna ,lùga/≈q ;(341 ;73:19) ù≈rqna ,πas/πws ,(254 ;4 ,6 ,54 ,76) rjs ,rùgp/rjç ,(608 ;29:15 ;22:22) ˆdkrk μyr/μar ,(565 ;39:5) dj 90 (661 ,22:1)

9.12.1.3.7 Entries in which Alfàsi’s rendering is identical with that of Salmon and of Yefet but differs from Sa'adiah’s (8 entries):91 ;7:4 ;58:12) sya ,dwùgwm-Ø/çy ,(499 38:14 ;7:12) 92μgz ,fùks-μad/μ[z • dwnt-dan ,ˆztja/dwn ,(131 ;80:14) 93ahnm hçrk alm ,ù≈rq/hnmsrky ,(72 ,(431 ;31:11) 94ùt[ ,swst/çç[ ,(254 54 ,356 ùd ,Gen. 4:12; :Yefet ;69:21) ,hmals/wlç ;(228 hnqm ;78:54) yntqa ,˚lm/hnq ,(469 ;56:8) tlp ,≈hw/flp (672 ;73:12) ylas

In these entries, the divergence of the translational and exegetical traditions of the Karaite versus the Rabbanite rendering is especially salient. 9.12.1.3.8 Entries in which Alfàsi’s rendering is identical with that of Salmon but differs from Sa'adiah and Yefet: ,fbtga/hrjth ,(552 ;39:6) dlùkt ,rm[/dlj ,(314 ;71:6) 95zwùg ,[fq/zwg • 96 ,lwlbm yç ,hlbns/lwlbç ,(430 ;55:18) bwrg ,asm/br[ ,(582 ;37:1) rtja (645 ;58:9) bfr wh yùdla

9.12.1.3.9 This subcategory is divided into two sub-groupings Entries in which Alfàsi’s rendering differs from that/those of Salmon and Sa'adiah but is identical with that of Yefet (a total of 5 entries): /μtya ,(34 ;4 ,146:4 ,137 ,49:12) 97hmda ,h[yùx ,bart-dlb-ù≈ra/hmda • ù≈mj(t) ,rkpt ,rmtùka/≈mjth ,(79 ;19:14) μhtysya ,ahtks ,ahtjlsa 90 In this grouping, Sa'adiah three times employs a cognate, in the remaining instances a non-cognate; in contrast, Salmon employs cognates in 5 instances. 91 Here, Salmon employs cognates throughout; Sa'adiah, non-cognates only. 92 The rendering immediately following the slash is Sa'adiah’s; the one following is that of Alfàsi = Salmon = Yefet. 93 Salmon adduces this rendering merely in his commentary, attributing it to his predecessors (“It is said”); in the body of his translation, he renders ahmxqy. 94 The text of Salmon reads: w[t[tt; this is in all likelihood a scribal error. 95 The rendering immediately following the slash is that of Sa'adiah = Yefet; the one following it is that of Salmon = Alfàsi. In the last entry, the third rendering is that of Yefet. 96 Both Salmon and Alfàsi record lwlbm yç in the name of others, this being preceded in each case by their own individual renderings, i.e. hùgrmla, ˆwzljla. 97 The entry (or the hyphenated cluster of entries) adjacent to the stroke is/are from Sa'adiah; next appears Salmon’s rendering that is again followed by the ren-

david b. abraham alfàsi’s comparative philology

265

qyùx ,hdç ,qya[/hq[ ,(196 ;66:15) ù˚yùkm ,˚krm ,jas/jm ,(560 ;73:21) (424 ;55:4)

If Yefet’s rendering reflects a tradition antecedent to that of Alfàsi, then clearly Alfàsi’s rendering cannot be considered original; if, however, Yefet took over the rendering from Alfàsi, then Alfàsi’s rendition may have been the original. Be that as it may, Alfàsi employs cognates for 4 entries, Sa'adiah a cognate for one entry only, Salmon non-cognates throughout. Entries in which Alfàsi’s srendition differs from that of Sa'adiah but is identical with that of Yefet (Salmon’s translation not extant) (7 entries): ;(Lam. 3:16, 348 ;119:20) çrùg ,jlk/srg ,(229 ;82:11) llb ,smg/llb • ,104:28) fql ,qztra/fql ,(533 ,114:8) swbnlj-swbmlj ,dlxla rùgjla/çymlj 98 dxr ,[qwt/dxr ,(548 ,75:6) fnq ,rgxtsa/fwq ,(Exod. 16:22, 176 (654 ,18:34) yws ,[rsm . . . l[ùg/hwç ,(624 ;68:17)

In all these entries, Alfàsi and Yefet rendered by cognates whereas Sa'adiah used non-cognates throughout. 9.12.1.3.10 Entries for which Alfàsi adopts an independent stand in his rendition and apparently shows originality (there are four alternative groupings, as for the several renditions of the lexicographers): (a) Alfàsi versus the three others, each records his own rendering (3 entries): ,d[awxla ,rwùgla [awna/twlw[ ;(206 ;68:31) 99ddb ,rùdb ,qrp ,zyawùg/rzb • πypùk 100,alqna ,rpk ,ˆwaht/hlqn ;(398 l[ ;64:7) rfawùkla ,ll[la (553 38:8)

(b) Alfàsi versus the three others: the latter show partial equivalence (4 entries): aynd ,dlùk ,dlb ,aynd/dlj ,(215 ;22:10) jfba :Alfàsi ;lkw/jyfbh • ;23:4) (X1) hmlùf ,(X2) twm lùf ,tamlùf ,twmlùf ,sbg/twmlx ,(552 ;49:2) (172 z[l ;81:8) d[r ,μgr ,b[r ,hwwqw b[r/μ[r ;(512 ;10:14 ,107 dering of Alfàsi = Yefet. At entry hmda, Salmon’s rendition relates to Ps. 49:12: the renderings for the instances in the other Psalm chapters are not extant. 98 In the MS of Salmon’s translation there is here a lacuna. 99 The entries renderings are arranged in the following order: (1) Sa'adiah, (2) Salmon, (3) Alfàsi, (4) Yefet. 100 However, Alfàsi adduces an opinion other than his own, i.e.: πapùktsa laqyw ˆwlq ˆm whw.

266

chapter nine

Here Alfàsi employs cognates throughout; Salmon and Yefet cognates in one entry only; Sa'adiah non-cognates throughout. (c) Alfàsi versus Sa'adiah and Yefet: the latter disagree in their renderings (Salmon’s rendering not extant) (4 entries): ,zgal ,fgl/z[l ;(480 tywz ;144:13) 101anarha ,anayawz ,andwaùdm/wnywzm • rsknm ,ykan ,byak/hakn ;(530 ;139:5) qyùx ,rwx ,ùfpj/rwx ,(172 ;114:1) jyqw (270 hkn ;109:16)

In all the above instances, Alfàsi used cognate; Sa'adiah and Yefet invariably non-cognates. (d) Alfàsi versus Sa'adiah and Yefet: the latter record identical renderings (4 entries): wùx ,ùgars/rn ,(267 ;103:9) rfn/dqj/rfn ,(554 70:5) 102πlùk ,yùxm/πlj • (467 ;70:9) πltw ynp ,ylw/hnp ,(291 ;119:105) rwnw In all these instances, Alfàsi used cognates, in contradistinction with Sa'adiah and Yefet, who invariably used non-cognates. 9.12.1.3.11 Synopsis and conclusion The grand total of all Alfàsi’s translation synonyms for Psalms entries, incorporated in the above listings is 141. A statistical analysis follows: • The sum total of all the translation synonyms from Psalms definitely attested in works of his antecedents: Sa'adiah, Salmon (and Yefet) Sa'adiah and Yefet (Salmon not extant) Sa'adiah Only (v. Salmon) Sa'adiah (v. Yefet; Salmon not extant) Amalgamates Sa'adiah with Salmon Salmon and Yefet (v. Sa'adiah) Salmon (v. Sa'adiah+Yefet)

54 30 7 2 8 8 5

Total 114 = 81.5% • Entries for which some doubt exists as to whether Alfàsi’s rendering was original:

101

The order of renderings is: Sa'adiah, Alfàsi, Yefet. The order of translation synonyms is: Sa'adiah followed by Alfàsi. The translation synonym of Yefet is included in (i.e. identical with) that of Sa'adiah. 102

david b. abraham alfàsi’s comparative philology Alfàsi identical with Yefet’s rendition (v. Sa'adiah+Salmon) Alfàsi identical with Yefet’s rendition (v. Sa'adiah; Salmon not extant)

267

: 5 : 7 Total 12 = 8.5%

• Entries for which Alfàsi very probably uses his own original cognate translation synonym: Versus Versus Versus Versus

all the others, each the others: three of Sa'adiah and Yefet Sa'adiah and Yefet

rendering differently them–partially equivalent (Salmon not extant) (Sa'adiah = Yefet) Total

3 4 4 4 15 = 10%

• In 84 entries all the above-mentioned translators employ cognates. • In 57 entries Alfàsi prefers to render by a cognate (with no concern for identifying an equivalent antecedent rendition); these can be divided as follows: • In 30 entries a cognate rendition is attested in at least one of the antecedents. • In 12 entries a cognate rendition may have existed and been used by one of the antecedents. • In 15 entries it is very likely that Alfàsi himself made an original choice of a translation synonym. • In 9 instances Alfàsi gives preference to Sa'adiah (a Rabbanite!) over a Karaite rendering. • In 13 instances Alfàsi prefers a Karaite rendition (that of Salmon— in 8 instances Yefet likewise) over that of Sa'adiah.

To sum up, Alfàsi gives preference to a cognate over a non-cognate translation synonym in cases where a cognate is either (1) feasible (= potential) or (2) actually recorded; it is noteworthy that Alfàsi made a deliberate choice of his cognates from the range of renderings available to him. On account of this tendency, and only on this account, can it be explained why Alfàsi, Karaite as he was, did not consistently and exclusively follow in the footsteps of the Karaite renderings, although, he does show some preference for such renditions as against those of the Rabbanites (i.e. Sa'adiah Ga"on). Even in those instances, however, the decisive criterion for his choice may have been the etymological equivalence of definiens and definiendum that he discerned.

268

chapter nine

9.12.1.3.12 Entries from Psalms 42–72 for which Alfàsi used noncognate translation synonyms compared with the parallel renderings of Sa'adiah, and Salmon (and Yefet), of eight types: (1) Those in which Alfàsi’s renderings are already attested in the translations of Sa'adiah and of Salmon (a total of 30 entries): 16) qbf/rfa ,(70 ;58:10) ùgsw[) dfa ,(Yefet: janùg .28 ;55:7) çyr/rba • :47) rdq ,radtqa/ˆwag ,(470 ,gsp ;48:14) rxq/ˆwmra ,(Yefet: 64 ;71 ;69: /r(w)z ,(470 gsp ;48:14) lyùg/rwd ,(371 dd ;42:5) μhydja/μdda ,(286 ;5 ,(571 ;64:7) çtp/çpj ,(215 ˆm ;61:8) lùxp/dsj ,(503 ;58:4) bntga ,bngt ˆyn ˆm hna zwùgyw/ˆwny ,(568 tw[yxq ;45:9) ˚sm/rm ,(179 58:7) bayna/tw[tlm ,(72:17) lstny :Sa'adiah ;lsn . . . ˆyn ˆm hwqtça μwqw :Salmon ;(57 ˆy) dfa ;58:10) ˚wç/hrys ;(371 dd ;42:5) lalf/˚s ,(337 ;55:9) (h)ljar/h[s xq/rps ,(ˆwd :Yefet ;357 ùd ;56:9) yxja/rps ,(337 ;55:9) πxa[/r[s ,(70 /gsp ;(385 ;55:2) μlq/f[ ,(385 45:2) btak/rpws ,(470 gsp :48:14) /hlwxm ,475 ;60:4) 105[dx/μxp ,([pr :tpy 470 ;48:14) 104[alq 103,[lq rd/π[r ,(ibid.) rkm/hmrm ,(515 ;50;19) ùgwaz/dymxh ,(45 ˆwy ;69:3) r[q :tpy ;154 fhl ;5 ,57) [ùgùxna/bkç ;(284 πwn ;48:3) rwrs/çwçm ;(619 ;55:12) .(699 ,16:6) ˆsj/rpç ,(161 ;72:10) hpjt/rkça ,(μan

(2) Those in which Alfàsi’s rendering is identical with Salmon’s but differs from Sa'adiah’s (16 entries): dxq ,ˆùf/hmd ,(46:7 ;446 mh) bzj ,hma/ywg ,(323 ;43:4) 106brf ,rwrs/lyg • ,(ùgah:M ,K MSS) μah/hmh ,(399 ;62:2) htks ,rbx/hymwd ,(389 ;48:10) djùg ,[ùxùk/çjk ,(10 jf ;51:8) tanyfm ,blq-dx/twjf(b) ,(446 ,46:7) ùgah ,(215 ;61:8) 107lkw ,hpyùfw/ˆm ,(154 ;57:5) [mal ,[fas/fhl ,(96 ;66:3); 57 ˆy ;72:17) . . . hmsa aùdh wlaq μwq hsarb μsa . . . ; lstny / ˆwny ,(365 rbd ;51:6) ld[/qdx/qdx ,(!Sa'adiah adduces one meaning only ,(539 ;42:10) μklfm ,hsbag/rdq ,(511 ;45:5) (bt :Yefet) jùgn ,jlx/jlx ,yqsa/qqwç ,(665 ;57:7) hybz ,htwh/hjyç ,(172 ;44:14) wzh-znf ,hywçt/slq (703 ;65:10) yùfl

103 In his commentary, Salmon states: wprç wgsp μwq laq. The original rendering would therefore seem to have been merely w[lq, this annotation being a gloss that had crept into the main text; in the translation text of the verse a dual rendering appears for wgsp, i.e. w[lq wprç. 104 Sa'adiah renders: ah[alqw ahlyxp yp μklab wdraw: thus all three derive gsp from hgsp. 105 Salmon records two renderings for this word: aht[dx ahtqqç; but the note in his commentary would seem to indicate that it is specifically ahtqqç that constituted the original rendering, whereas aht[dx, as a gloss, had penetrated the translation text. 106 The rendering immediately following the slash is that of Sa'adiah; the one following that of Salmon = Alfàsi. 107 Salmon’s annotation in his commentary, however, implies non-equivalence of his rendering and Alfàsi’s.

david b. abraham alfàsi’s comparative philology

269

Yefet’s rendering is identical with Salmon’s in 12 entries; in two entries, it is identical with Sa'adiah’s; in the remaining two entries (i.e. jlx and fhl) it differs from both. (3) Those rendered by Alfàsi precisely as rendered by Sa'adiah but differs from Salmon’s translation (7 entries): ;(110 hmk ;63:2) rçb ,ˆdb/rçb ,(568 tw[yxq ;55:9) ldanx ,rbn[/twlha • tabwbjm , . . . hbyyfm/tw[yxq ;(387 ;65:14) πf[t ,(πjtla+) lmtça/πf[ μql ,ljz/πaç ,(475 μxp ;60:4) d[ra ,lzlz/çy[rh ,(568 ;45:9) tafwçqm.(ibid. 56:3) sj ,πjz/πaç ,(639 ;56:2)

Yefet rendered two entries precisely like Sa'adiah (i.e. çy[rh, πf[); for two he recorded originals (tw[yxq/tadrùgm; πaç I/sj); the remaining three he rendered like Salmon. (4) Entry for which Alfàsi sets out two renderings, one of which corresponds with that of Sa'adiah and with that of Salmon’s translation (+ of Yefet) (647) tany[m ˆm . . . μwq wrsp dqw bhùdla talqùtm ˆm ,(45:14) twxbçmm •

(5) Those that Alfàsi rendered differently from both Sa'adiah and from Salmon but in accord with a rendering antecedent to Salmon and adduced in (the latter’s) commentary in the name of some other source (5 entries): wlaqw . . . qawrla :Salmon ;(104 ;58:2) hsrùkla ,(103 ;56:1) syrùkt/μla • wlaqw . . . wdh :Salmon ;(389) hhbç/(55:2) hymwd ;[mùg :Sa'adiah sùrk μla wlaqw . . . çwç :Salmon ;(430) thb/(62:4) ttwh ;qlt :Sa'adiah ;hbçy . . . aùxya ydwnt :Salmon, (357 ùd) twlgla adùh yp ytlwùg/(56:9) ydOn ;blw :Sa‘adiah ;thb . . . .ybwrhw yrwpn :Sa'adiah ;ytwlùg hdm yn[y ydrçt wlaq μwqw . . . Yefet renders like Alfàsi throughout. (6) Entry in which Alfàsi amalgamates Salmon’s rendering with that of Sa'adiah: :Sa'adiah ;(tpy so) wrk[ty :Salmon ;(561 rmj) wrk[tyw wrdkty/(46:4) wrmjy •

wkrtw (7) Entries for which Alfàsi renders contrary to Sa'adiah and to Salmon’s translation, the latter two being identical (5 entries): ;(123) πk[a/(57:7) πpk

108

;˚lwq yp ;(365 rbd) ˚d[w yp/(51:6) ˚rbdb •

108 The entries are arranged, following the slash as follows: Alfàsi, followed by Sa'adiah=Salmon.

270

chapter nine μybybr ;twmla asny ;(9 hmdqmla) hçjwlaw hwlùkla/(55:16) twmyçy ;skn μjr ;(503 wrz) ˆfb/(58:4) μjr ;(çy)çf ;(507 πyzrz) çaçr/(72:6)

Yefet adopts his own independent rendering for ˚rbdb/˚bfaùktb and for πpk/ynja for the others, his rendering is identical with that of Salmon = Sa'adiah. (8) Those rendered by Alfàsi contrary to the renderings of Sa'adiah and of Salmon, the latter two recording differing renderings (a total of 22 entries): ,μhp/ˆyb ;(215 ˆm ;61:8) (hnama :Yefet) ˆasja 110,πwr[m 109,qj/tma • tj ;65:11) (fç :Yefet) fùk ,swdrk ,am/dwdg ;(70 dfa ;58:10) 111Ø ,zym ras ,yùxm ,˚ls/˚lh ,(332 ;57:3) ˆsja ,lùxpb μmt ,lùxp lmk/rmg ;(598 ,πrùkzy/πyzrz ;(482 ;50:10) çjw ,y[s ,ˆawyj/zyz ;(539 rdq ;42:10) (yçm :Yefet) μhrdq yl[ ,bfr yj ,yrf bfr/yj ;(507 ;72:6) (ywry :Yefet) ,rùgpy ,bfry bt ;71:4) ˆyak ,μlaùf ,spnla rmrmm/≈mwj ;(70 dfa ;58:10) (yrfla :Yefet) . . . bh ;55:23) (˚darm ˚yf[y :tpy) ˚lqùt ,˚yf[y ,˚ùxarga-˚bwlfm/˚bhy ;(723 /πwn hpy ;(45 ;69:3) (ljw :Yefet) bljf ,˚ùtl ,amj/ˆwy ;(675 ˚lç ;420 a[ptrala ˆysj :Yefet) lamùgla lmùga ,πwn ˆm . . . ˆsja ,jùgar ˆsj ay 1966: ,rmùk :40:5 yyùùk ;dmùk :MS:K) dmk ,rmùx ,πçq/hmk ;(284 ;48:3) ;(560 ≈mj ;68:24) ≈wùk ,ˆhw ,bùxùk/≈jm ;(110 ;63:2) according to Qàfi˙ :Yefet) . . . yl[ tygla lzn ,rys ,lzna/tjn ;(215 ;61:8) hpyùfw 112,hla ,lkw/ˆm (dadtsa ryhm :Yefet) rham ,ùdatsa ,˚açm/ryhm rpws ;(598 tj ;65:11) (fj (rb-) jsp ;(619 π[r ;65:12) ˆlsm ,hùgjm ,hfars/lg[m ;(385 f[ ;55:2) hljnm ,tadrùgm ,ta[faq tadaj/tjytp ;(469 ,72:16) bùxùkm ,πk ,raçtna/ 44:11) μlfùxa 113,dabtsa ,jabtsa/hsç (491 ;22 55) (hlwlsm πwys :Yefet) /wnr[çy ;(482 zyz ;50:10) (ar[ç :Yefet) yrarbla ,lqjla ,(y)çjw/ydç ;(690 (70 dfa ;58:10) ˆw[lq(n)y ˆwlqny ,hlla h[bwzy ,πxaw[la hpx[t 109

The Entries are arranged as follows: Alfàsi, Salmon, Sa'adiah. This rendering is preferable, according to Salmon’s opinion as he expressed it in the note to his commentary; in the translation text, however, his rendering is identical with that of Alfàsi. 111 Sa'adiah by-passes this word, without translating it: . . . μkkawça ryxt ˆa lbq. Might it have fallen out of the text of the translation? We could certainly not posit a rendering wnyby/ryxt. It is feasible that Sa'adiah himself omitted the translation of wnyby simply because he subjoined ryxt, which is of prime importance for comprehension of the plain sense of the Bible text (although, Sa'adiah is not entirely consistent in his numerical correlation i.e. of the total of words in the translation text v. that of the original. 112 This rendering is preferable, according to Salmon’s opinion as he expressed it in the note to his commentary; in the translation text, however, his rendering is identical with that of Alfàsi. 113 Alfàsi includes here the phrase ytyçwç μhytdyt[w (Isa. 10:13), too, but records neither a rendering nor an exegetical remark; at entry dt[, however, (p. 439), he interprets twdt[, hnzaùkmla lawmala. At any rate, jabtsa which means “to abandon the blood of,” and which can also mean “to disown money,” shows partial equivalence with Salmon’s dabtsa. However, the possibility can be reckoned with 110

david b. abraham alfàsi’s comparative philology

271

Yefet is independent in his rendering in 11 instances (these are indicated above by parentheses); in 6 instances his rendering equals that of Salmon (ˆyb, rmg, rmg, ≈mwj, ≈jm, tsp, lg[m), in 3 instances it equals that of Alfàsi (r[ç, hsç, ˆm) and in two instances it equals that of Sa'adiah (hmk, ydç). It is on the basis of this category that Alfàsi’s originality can be most effectively estimated, given that his renderings follow neither Sa'adiah nor Salmon. This determination, however, is not unequivocal; it must be qualified by the following considerations: It is feasible that Alfàsi in these cases is simply perpetuating an early translational or exegetical tradition, a tradition remaining unreflected in the translations of both Sa'adiah and Salmon. Moreover, the distinction between the rendition entry word employed by Alfàsi and that adopted by Sa'adiah is on occasions not an exegetical difference but a matter of style—as, for example, zym-μhp as a rendering for ˆyb; μmt-lùxp lmk, ˆsja-lùxpb as renderings for l[ rmg. Even in instances in which the difference is of an exegetical nature, the very same entry word adopted by Alfàsi can be encountered in the records of his antecedents as a rendition for a Hebrew entry, although in a different context and in a different location. For example, the word tma at Ps. 61:8 was rendered by Alfàsi as qj, as opposed to πwr[m and ˆasja employed by Salmon and Sa'adiah; however, the rendering qj for tma is very frequent in Sa'adiah, at other occurrences (such as Ps. 15:2; 19:10; 146:6, etc.).114 In other words, Alfàsi’s apparent originality and freedom in certain entries is largely to be attributed to the high semantic transparency of these entry words and to the availability of several alternative definientes of relatively frequent occurrence. (9) A summary of entries from Ps. 42–72 in which the renditions employed by Alfàsi are already documented by Sa'adiah and/or by Salmon, reveals a total of 59 entries (out of 86), namely, 68.2 percent. The remaining entries, in which their non-cognate translation synonyms would appear to be Alfàsi’s own original renderings (paragraphs 7 and 8) amount to 27 in number, namely, 31.8 percent. If

that a corruption of text occurred in one of the recensions, i.e. the letter ,ùj assuming the graphic text was in Arabic characters, had turned into ùd or vice versa. Be this as it may, Yefet records the version wjabtsa, too. 114 For full enumeration for Psalms, see index in ed. Qàfi˙, (1966), p. 308.

272

chapter nine

we deduct from this total,(a) three entries for which Alfàsi and Yefet have identical renditions as well as (b) two further entries attested in Salmon’s commentary but not in his rendition, the percentage of Alfàsi’s own original renderings is reduced to a mere 26 percent. This is the maximal number of translation synonyms that we can assume to be indubitably originated by Alfàsi. But as noted above, one cannot be certain that even this number is indeed all to be attributed to Alfàsi’s own initiative. Be this as it may, the percentage is relatively low, though it exceeds the corresponding percentage noted for entries rendered by cognates. What is of significance here is that for his translation synonyms. Alfàsi can be seen to fall back upon the renditions of his antecedents to a considerable extent: 70 percent for non-cognates and 84 percent for cognates. 9.12.2 Alfàsi’s sources for language comparisons 9.12.2.1 While the previous section dealt with the assumption that the language materials used for comparisons comprise materials loaned from Arabic and Aramaic translations to the Bible, the emphasis here is on ascertaining whether the comparisons as such or the comparison formulae used by Alfàsi were established by his predecessors. Skoss (introduction to Jàmi' al-AlfàΩ, pp. 59–60) and more recently Becker (1984, pp. 74–77) claim that Alfàsi was acquainted with the Risàla, the magnum opus of Ibn Quraish, although he never mentions it by name. So it can be postulated that Alfàsi took over his comparisons, at least in part, from Ibn Quraish. Indeed, it is not Alfàsi’s practice to refer to the authors of his sources by name; nevertheless, it remains quite surprising that he found no opportunity to indicate even once the name of that founder or, at least that scholar who had molded the theory that served as Alfàsi’s constant guide for the comparisons in his lexicon. It is also very remarkable that the many comparisons appearing in Risàla are nowhere mentioned by Alfàsi (Skoss, ibid.). Had Alfàsi consciously omitted them, on account of purposefully refuting them, he could have explicitly stated so, as he indeed did, with regard to several other instances of comparison.115

115 To resolve this difficulty, we might assume that the Risàla in its original recension had not yet included the comparisons undocumented by Alfàsi, the assump-

david b. abraham alfàsi’s comparative philology

273

Be that as it may, we are entitled to categorically state that it was not Alfàsi who invented the Theory of Language Comparisons, since its fundaments as well as a good many actual comparisons are embedded in the commentaries to the Bible of Sa'adiah and Salmon, and the latter clearly lay within Alfàsi’s cognizance: those of Sa'adiah in the form of firsthand express citations and those of Salmon in a less direct fashion. 9.12.2.2 Comparisons in the records of Salmon b. Yeru˙im In the surviving fragments of Salmon b. Yeru˙im’s commentary to Psalms,116 one encounters several comparisons of Hebrew with Arabic and with Aramaic, established on the patterns of certain comparison formulae used by Alfàsi in his lexicon. Following is a classification according to the above-mentioned comparison formulae, of all the comparisons occurring in Salmon’s commentary to Psalms 42–72: 117 (143) (Ezra 7:26) çrç/(52:7) çrç :Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. • (Alfàsi 708 =) but Alfàsi 606 =) (12) çjr/(45:2) çjr :Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. • .(in formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (78) 118hmk/(Ps 107:5) amx/(63:2) hmk :Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram • ;(lacking in Alfàsi, 110) ;(missing in Alfàsi, 424) (47) hq[/(1 Sam. 26:24) hrx/(55:4) hq[ • (Alfàsi 470 but he does not apply it to this specific verse =) (119) • (ady-) sp/πk/(72:16) – tsp (475 Alfàsi =) (67) μxp/( Jer. 22:14) [rq/(60:4) μxp •

tion being that these comparison materials were glossed in by copyists of the Risàla in the course of time (this did in fact occur, for example, in the case of Ibn Janà˙’s Kitàb al-"Ußùl, in the Rouen MS). However, this assumption finds no corroboration. 116 On the basis of ed. L. Marwick (1956). 117 Following the Bib. Heb. entry (before the slash) appears in parenthesis a reference from Ps.; the numeral in parenthesis appearing next to the final component of the comparison designates the page number in Marwick’s ed. (1956). 118 In the meantime, this is an isolated text variant, for which I find no support in the Aramaic Targum according to Sperber’s ed.; this applies to all the instances in the Bible at which the root amx occurs (excluding Psalms and Job, for which Sperber’s ed. of the Aramaic does not exist: these latter I inspected in the printed rabbinic Bible ed. (Miqra "ot Gedolot). For that matter, support was not found in Sa'adiah’s commentary to the word hmk, or in the lexicons Arukh, Meturgeman and of Jastrow. Finally, this comparison is nowhere to be found in the records of Alfàsi.

274

chapter nine

(brq)/hmjlm/(68:31) brq :Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./(Targ. Aram.) • (575 missing in Alfàsi,) (96) /μylk/(61:8) ˆm :Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram • (74) (Ezra 7:9) aynm/aynm this comparison is missing in Alfàsi, 215; however, he adduces the first explanation,) already attested in Salmon. Does it mean that he refutes the explanation based upon this comparison? 9.12.2.3 Comparisons with Arabic In Salmon’s commentary to Psalms 42–72, only two explicit comparisons with Arabic appear; in one case, a cognate is compared on “tauto-etymological grounds,” i.e. dlj/dlùkt (Ps. 49:2, pp. 24–25); in the second, a non-cognate translation synonym is compared: rça/πxw, yrça laq (Ps. 72:17, p. 120). The first rendering, πxw, is encountered in Alfàsi’s records but in contexts other than the present verse; the second rendering is entirely lacking (p. 164). However, the comparison dlj/dlùkt is unattested in the records of Alfàsi (p. 552). These comparisons serve merely as examples, constituting, as they do, a minute portion of materials extant from Salmon’s commentary. However, they suffice to permit the assumption that the total number of comparisons incorporated in his commentary to the Bible amounted to at least several dozen and possibly to several hundred. All the comparisons appear in the commentary that followed from the translation, their pragmatic purpose being to explain why one or other biblical word was rendered by a specific Arabic expression or, as in some cases, to provide an additional rendering or an alternative interpretation, to the rendition initially posited for the given biblical phrase. These comparisons are by their very nature explicit: eight comparisons are here encountered with Aramaic and only two with Arabic! The scant comparison with Arabic might be attributable to the fact that his renditions by cognates were viewed as filling the role of implicit language comparison; indeed it would be very far-fetched to conceive the possibility that such an enormous quantity of rendition by cognates was produced merely co-incidentally. A very clear example of the phenomenon of an extensive rendition by cognate translation synonyms in one biblical verse can be found in the following ˜kçy brqtw rjbt yrça ˚lkyh çdq ˚tyb bwfb h[bçn ˚yrxj/ ˜ksy brqtw ratùkt yùdla abwf ˚lkyh çdq ˚tyb ryùk yp [bçn ˚ryaùxj (Ps. 65:5).

david b. abraham alfàsi’s comparative philology

275

In this verse, 7 (!) of its 10 words—namely, all except the first, second and seventh—were rendered by cognates. But an exhaustive enumeration of the cognate translation synonyms occurring in Salmon’s commentary is not intended; the present interest is to study the explicit comparisons in particular, the comparison methodology, the terminology and the aims of the comparison. The aim of Salmon b. Yeru˙im’s comparisons is clear: it invariably serves to provide good reasoning for the renderings of a given biblical word; the scholar will search for explicit comparison. The widely used term for comparison with Aramaic is hgl ˆm μwgrtla (çjr, hq[, μxp, ˆm). Other terms, however, are attested: μwgrt (entries hmk, sp), μwgrt whw (entry brq); ˆm qtçyw (entry çrç)—whereas the term for comparison with Arabic is br[la hgl yp (see entry rça). Some of these comparisons are encountered more or less verbatim in Alfàsi’s records, i.e. the entry words specified for comparison are lemmata from the same verses and their comparison formulae are the same (so çrç, μxp), or their comparison is by a different comparison formula (such as dlj, çjr). Yet one other instance appears with co-formulaic comparison but citing the entry word from a different verse (-tsp). Some comparison instances are unattested as such by Alfàsi, but the formula serving for their comparison is encountered in other comparisons (as with hmk, ˆm, rça, hq[, brq). The omission of one or other specific comparison can be explained by the assumption that Alfàsi disagreed with it; for which reason he preferred not to adduce it: he may well have thought that the given verse could be satisfactorily elucidated even without the comparison, or he had some other unknown reason for omitting it.

CHAPTER TEN

MENAÓEM B. SARUQ

10.1 Mena˙em b. Saruq and his opinion on Hebrew comparison with Arabic Did Mena˙em, in his ma˙beret, use comparisons with Arabic for the elucidation of biblical entry words? Discussion of this question has continued incessantly ever since the ma˙beret was compiled (around 950 CE). Dunash b. Labrat, his rival and critic, interpreted the term w[mçmk, which occurred frequently in the ma˙beret, as a technical term intimating comparison with Arabic. At the entry ynjfw (Sáenz-Badillos, p. 113; ibid. 1981, p. 367) Dunash responds: w[mçmk jmq . . . trtpw . . . hfjh ayh tybr[b w[mçmk jmqh yk w[mçmk wnwrtp ˆyaw. Dunash reiterates this claim, in his preface to the Hebrew/Arabic comparison excursus appearing in Dunash’s response to the entry word yn[wfm (ibid., pp. 88ff .) which reads: twmdl wnl hm rmat μaw

òçlb μ[mçmk μyrbd trtp hta μg hnh ˚byça ùr[h ˆwçll tyrb[h ˆwçlh (“And if you argue: “What right have we to compare the Hebrew language with the Arabic language?” I respond as follows: “But you yourself have interpreted several words μ[mçmk (= in their literal meaning, as they sound in Arabic!).” In his footsteps followed his disciple Yehudi b. Sheshet (p. 43) who also imputed to Mena˙em comparison of Hebrew with Arabic on the basis of the expression w[mçmk. Superficially, this seems irrefutable proof that Mena˙em used the comparison. But Mena˙em’s disciples very soon took up the cudgels for their master, proposing to rebut the criticisms that Dunash had aimed at Mena˙em, they set out to bolster their opposition to the comparison of Hebrew with Arabic: they were thus forced to take up the issue of the term w[mçmk. Their reply is as follows: tymd harm hlml çy yk ybr[h ˆwçlb tymd rçak wnnyaw . . . br[ ˆwçlb w[mçmk yk rta (the word harm here signifies “sense”) (talmidei Mena˙em, p. 103). In contra-distinction to the entry words that Dunash and B. Sheshet had singled out as evidence that Mena˙em compared Bib. Heb. with an Arabic cognate, Mena˙em’s disciples adduced other entry words, for which Mena˙em employed the term w[mçmk and concerning which there was no possibility of adducing the existence of an Arabic

mena˙em b. saruq

277

cognate—as for instance, hd[xa and dgb (talmidei Mena˙em, p. 103). Although, prima facie, Mena˙em’s disciples may be presumed to have reliably represented their master’s opinion and doctrine with regard also to this issue of language comparison, the dispute did not abate. On the contrary, in the nineteenth century the controversy came to life again: Pinsker (note at pp. 143–44) remarked that the term w[mçmk could be interpreted in one of two ways: (a) as interpreted by Dunash; (b) tlgrwm hnbwmw ˆwmhh lxa ayh h[wdy rbk tyrb[h hlymhç çwrypl wa μwgrtl hkyrx hnyaç d[ wlxa “That the Hebrew word is well known by common folk and its sense is familiar to them, so that they have no need for a rendering or an explanation.” Thus b corresponds with what Mena˙em’s disciples maintained, i.e. w[mçmk means wfwçpk. Pinsker probably viewed Mena˙em’s disciple’s explanation as a mere excuse and held that Mena˙em also practised comparisons of Hebrew with Arabic. S. Gross, too (1872, p. 65), maintains that when Mena˙em was compelled by force of circumstances to relinquish his tenet of refraining from (explicit) comparison with Arabic, he adopted the term w[mçmk implying veiled comparison. It was apparently S. Gross who first located the expression in the commentary of Rashi to hqwl[ (Prov. 30:15): w[mçmk hqwl[l rtp μjnm ybr[ awhç wndml, (“Mena˙em interpreted hqwl[l ‘literally,’ thus showing us that it is an Arabic word”) (ibid., n. 5). Bacher (1894, Appendix I, pp. 68–71) also took up this topic: in fact he adopted a stance very similar to that of Pinsker, presenting nothing new toward a resolution of the controversy; his conclusion, that Mena˙em had indeed compared Hebrew with Arabic, remains a matter of mere speculation. True, Mena˙em’s laconic definitions, as well as the fact that he fails to pinpoint his sources, leave room for the claim made by Bacher; but on what basis is that scholar certain that the interpretation of wtmhzw as çab was arrived at by Mena˙em through comparison with Arabic!? Surely it is equally feasible that this derivation was made through a comparison with rabbinic Hebrew! Bacher took the trouble to count all the occurrences of w[mçmk in Mena˙em’s work and found that they totaled about 200. Kaufmann (1886) was brisk in putting forward the argument that the textual condition of the ma˙beret (ed. Filipowski) was totally unsatisfactory, so that no reliance could be placed on it even regarding the total number of occurrences of w[mçmk. Kaufmann even suggested several improved textual readings, from MS Bern 200. Kaufmann thought that according to the latter MS, the total number of appearances of w[mçmk is

278

chapter ten

considerably less than the total posited by Bacher, and he thereby claims to have undermined the main basis of Bacher’s argument. However, the statistical situation as outlined in Kaufmann’s article suggests no alteration in the essential problem discussed above, for which reason Bacher (1895, p. 74, n. 5) did not retract his original stand, remarking that in at least a considerable number of instances of the use of w[mçmk, Mena˙em had indeed connoted a comparison with Arabic. Wechter (1947, p. 382), too, held that Mena˙em employed comparisons with Arabic, in disguise. Perez (1978, p. 423) adopts Bacher’s standpoint but only hesitantly. Most recently, Téné (1983, n. 65) has also adopted Bacher’s opinion, whereas Becker (1984, p. 75) did not commit himself.1 The question thus remained unresolved. The present study attempts to resolve this question from a newly defined viewpoint and thereby to come to a clear conclusion. It stands to reason that to ascertain the true connotation of this term, only its actual occurrences are to be taken into account. However, it can be shown that its occurrence is somewhat random, rather than systematic. Take e.g., entry bhlç (p. 174/380*):2 ad loc. some manuscripts use the term w[mçmk while others do not. But at entry bhl (p. 112/229*) he fails to use this term; he merely adduces biblical citations, with no definition adjoining them. In an excursus on monoliteral, bi-literal and expanded roots (at the beginning of Section bet of the ma˙beret (pp. 39–40/79*)—incorporated “incidentally” to the entry arprpçb (Dan. 6:4), a word commencing with the “servile,” letter 'b)—Mena˙em makes a note of the radical link existing between tbhl and tbhlç within the context work hnwçarbml twa ypwd[ μylmh

1 Becker (1984, p. 321, in note to entry rpa [C1, p. 516] states that Mena˙em may possibly have established comparisons with Arabic; he makes a cross-reference to the note of the editor of the ma˙beret. It is instructive to compare Becker’s notes in his 1977 edition of the Risàla with the corresponding notes in his 1984 publication, regarding the point at issue. In the 1977 edition, at several entries, he noted cross-references to various entries to which Mena˙em had applied w[mçmk, as e.g. C1, pp. 141, 176, 194, 202, 208, 229, 240. He intended thereby to allude to the possibility that Mena˙em had endorsed comparison with Arabic. If this were not the case, why did Becker classify Mena˙em within the same grouping as other various grammarians who practised comparison with Arabic? On the other hand, in the 1984 work Becker omitted these cross-references. Did he thereby imply that he was then inclined to disallow the feasibility that Mena˙em had indeed recorded comparisons with Arabic? At any rate, at entry rpa, as noted earlier, he did not absolutely rule out this notion. 2 The number with the asterisk refers to Sáenz-Badillos edition.

mena˙em b. saruq

279

(“words possessing an initial ‘redundant’ letter”) (p. 45). Prima facie, at tbhl, too, the meaning should have been defined by the term w[mçmk but in fact this is not the case. Incidentally, it should be noted that the term w[mçmk is marked specifically at root bhlç, which possesses no Arabic “expanded” cognate counterpart and not at bhl, which does possess such. Therefore, the dispute between Kaufmann and Bacher as to how many times the term w[mçmk is used by Mena˙em in the edition of the lexicon issued by him personally has little bearing on the issue under discussion If Mena˙em did indeed used comparison with Arabic, although in a veiled manner, his comparisons should be evaluated with respect to the general texture of his comparative and lexicological theory. It would be inappropriate to determine the meaning of the term w[mçmk per se, detached from that theory. If, for example, we examine his comparison from the standpoint of the aims of comparison, it will become clearly evident that Mena˙em’s comparison is undertaken within clearly defined aims. Because, by and large, comparison is adopted by the Hebrew grammarians in the age of Mena˙em and proximate epochs for the purpose of ascertaining the sense of the entry word under discussion, especially if that word is a rare or hapax legomenon entry in the Bible. However, at junctures where comparison with Arabic would have been anticipated, the records of Mena˙em contain no indication of comparison. For example, at entry lb (Dan. 6:9), had Mena˙em considered language comparison, he would obviously have compared the entry word with the Arabic cognate lab, a word possessing precisely the same meaning. Instead, he preferred a forced comparison, by the system of metathesis: bl ˆm hkwph hbyt tyarn (“this appears to be a word, reversed in spelling, from bl”): this, despite Mena˙em generally fighting shy of the principle of metathesis. At entry drgthl ( Job 2:8; p. 59), Mena˙em himself states that “this word has no counterpart in the Bible” (ˆya hrwtb ˆwymd wz hlml), i.e. it is a hapax (so also Gross, 1872, p. 49, n. 1), for which reason he determines its sense from its context (hnyyn[ ypk hnwrtpw). In this instance, of all such, the “masked expression of comparison” w[mçmk would surely have been expected! Likewise, at wrb[ ( Joel 1:17), about which Mena˙em states ˆyyn[h ypl wnwrtp: “its signification is determined from the general context” and not from the obvious comparison with Arabic. The same applies to ˚lg (p. 56/106*) and many further instances. In contrast to this, at entry words of frequent appearance at which prima facie no comparison with

280

chapter ten

Arabic would seem necessary for ascertaining the sense, such as the word hkb, the designation w[mçmk is indeed encountered. Generally speaking, a correlation is noticeable between the “intraHebrew” language theory of the Hebrew grammarians and their theory of language comparison (Téné 1983, 6–8). Téné applied this supposed correlation to their principle of letter substitutions as well (ibid. §7). It would seem fair to proceed further and assume that the aforementioned correlation is applicable to the various facets of the theory of letter switches. The conclusion reached by Téné, (ibid., p. 273) might be tenable as a negative proposition, too—namely, that a rule which is not an integral element of the “one-dimensional” language study practised by the Hebrew grammarians cannot be assumed to be in effect in their interlingual “multi-dimensional” area of investigation. Mena˙em took an extremely moderate stand on this point: he restricted letter substitution to the group y''wha and no more. The resulting conclusion is: Heb./Arab. comparisons built upon any other letter switches3 (such as j/'k) cannot be attributed to Mena˙em. The Hebrew grammarians and later scholars who resorted to comparison of Hebrew with Arabic failed to take note of the fact that the tag w[mçmk is to be found at a good many entries that yield Arabic cognate translation synonyms but necessitate the assumption of a Heb./Arab. letter switch. For instance, w[mçmk bhz (p. 78/151*) necessarily implies the switch z/'d whereas according to those manuscripts in which w[mçmk is used—e.g. ryxj (p. 93/186*)—if the “literal meaning” is meant to relate to r'x'ka, then two switches would be necessitated: j/'k and x/'x (perhaps semantic flexibility as well). Also in the case of wgrjyw (p. 94), if the implied comparison is with 'gr'k, two letter switches would necessarily be involved—i.e. j/'k and g/'g— (as well as a metathesis, following his definition (ibid.) hrwgj ˆwypr

3

See Mena˙em‘s own words in the ma˙beret at entries tjba (p. 12), bg (p. 50). On this issue, see also Bacher (1895, p. 85), Yellin (1945, p. 64), Perez (1978, pp. 334–47). Thus even the word ˆwmra defined (p. 34) by Mena˙em by ˆwmla, does not emanate from the letter switch l/r but simply from the semantic affinity of the two. Note, also, that at entry lzrp (p. 145), no comparison with lzrb is established (lzrb itself was omitted at its suitable location in the lexicon, on p. 48). Even more, Mena˙em did not show an awareness of the Heb./Aram. switch ç/t for which reason, he posited no etymological link between the Heb. çç and the Aram. ˆytç-tç (pp. 182–83) nor between bç(y) (p. 169) and bt(y) (p. 184). This conclusion can be inferred, further, from the need he had to resort to formula Bib. Aram.*/Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. in his comparison glt/glç/glt (p. 184).

mena˙em b. saruq

281

(“slackening of the belt”). Likewise for ˆn[/μamg (p. 135/285*), ˆax/ˆa'x (p. 148/314*). By positing that Mena˙em established comparison with Arabic only in those few instances for which no substitution is necessary, the scope of his comparison would be reduced to the point that its utility was virtually nil, considering that from the context of comparison would be eliminated all those Arabic words containing one of the following letters: 't, 'g, 'j, 'd, ç (i.e. both shin and sin, in most of the instances) —these being a part of those letters bearing a diacritical point, excepting only such switches as q/k ( qjx/˚j'x). Even according to Filipowski’s edition—which in Kaufmann’s estimation is replete with this expression—in only 80 instances of the occurrence of w[mçmk can a comparison with a cognate Arabic translation synonym be posited, and of these 80 in only 37 of them, can a comparison be maintained without letter switches;4 moreover, most of the cases are of such frequent occurrence that their meaning is well-known and thus necessitate no comparison with Arabic. In fact, when one takes as text version the critical edition issued by A. SáenzBadillos the total is reduced to 30.5 It can therefore be concluded that w[mçmk does not imply comparison with Arabic. Bacher (1895), Rabinovitsch, p. 74, n. 1, and Gross (1872, p. 65, n. 5) see their conclusion that w[mçmk refers to Arabic cognate comparison as corroborated by Rashi’s remark on hqwl[l (Prov. 30:15). This assumed corroboration can be refuted by postulating that Rashi, in the above comment, very likely reflects Dunash’s construing of w[mçmk and not Mena˙em’s own opinion on the matter.6 What, then, is the true sense of this expression?

4

At entries: [bxa, [bra, zra, lxb, rwb, yrb, twlwtb, tyb, μwrd, wtmhzw, tpz, dy, μwy, dbk, blk, ˆmk, rpk, μrk, hnbl, dly, lyl, wlyly, ham, rhm, hjm, ˚lm, twm, hlbn, rmn, ˆy[m, hrq[, lwp, lytp, hpxpx, ˆsr, tqprtm, bwfr. 5 An examination of the ma˙beret in A. Sáenz-Badillos’ ed. shows that in seven of the entries enumerated in the previous note—rwb, twlwtb, μwrd, wtmhzw, wlyly, lwp, tqprtm—the designation w[mçmk does not appear. 6 Dunash of course uses w[mçmk in the sense of tybr[b w[mçmk (“according to the sense in Arabic”), and this is not surprising. However, the connotation “in its simple sense, according to the spelling and pronunciation customarily applicable to the word, without bringing any changes into operation” can also occasionally be found, as, for example, in Retort # 4 against Sa'adiah Ga"on (Schröter, p. 2), in which he criticizes Sa'adiah for interpreting ba…K] ( Job 31:18) in the sense of ba´K.] and states categorically: w[mçmk bak ytlb ˆk wnyaw (it does not mean so but according to its usual meaning).

282

chapter ten

The disciples (talmidei Mena˙em, p. 103) provide the following authentic definition for Mena˙em’s w[mçmk: μy[wdyh μylmb [wdy awh rçak (“as the word is well-known, as one of the familiar words”). This definition is of a general nature and fails to identify the finer secondary senses that are sometimes contained within expression: • w[mçmk = the most common meaning (out of the various meanings) of the word under discussion For example, at entry rça (p. 36/64*), Mena˙em enumerates several senses: as a relative word, in the sense of one of the three particles yk, μa, ˆ[ml the latter two comprise only a small minority of all the instances, whereas the first sense, for which he assigns w[mçmk, is the main sense of rça. • w[mçmk = the “basic” or “simple” sense (in contrast to the “metaphorical” sense)7 For example, at entry bhz (p. 78/151*), he states that bhz (Zach. 4:2): w[mçmk bhz wnnyaw rwhfw jxw ˚z wnwrtp. In other words, w[mçmk bhz denotes “the regular sense,” i.e. the metal entity called bhz, whereas the metaphorical sense of bhz is rwhfw ˚z (i.e. “refined/clean and pure”). This connotation of w[mçmk is evident, further, from Mena˙em’s remarks on μwyAytbng (Gen. 31:39; p. 57) and μkj-bl (Eccles. 10:2), in contrast with μymy bblb ( Jon. 2:4). • w[mçmk = the “meaning salient from the context” Bacher (1884, p. 70) mentions entries at whose lexicon locations the term w[mçmk is used, whereas in the excursus at entry blg (p. 56/106*) on the topic of unique words, the same entries are classified under the category defined as follows: hwjmb μtzyja alwlw μhyl[ hrwy μnyyn[ .μnwrtp [dwn al ˆyyn[m μtyyltw. (“words whose subject matter delimits their sense, and were it not for their being embodied in a context and governed by a defined topic, it would be impossible to determine their meaning).”8

7 Incidentally, R. Hai Ga"on in his Kitàb al-Óàwi (Abramson, 1977, p. 110) uses the term [wmsm (in the simple sense) in contrast with ra[tsm (in the metaphorical sense) as follows: ra[tsmla ˆmw ˜y[wmsm ˆyan[mlaw lw'kdla ˆ[ laqyw y'gmla ˆ[ laqy ab Abramson (p. 114) rendered: hlaçhh ˆmw μy[mçn, whereas a more precise rendering would be hlaçhkw μfwçpk. 8 Note that this very expression implies that Mena˙em did not engage comparison

mena˙em b. saruq

283

10.1.1 Concerning the isolated explicit comparison rpa/rpgm At entry rpab (1 Kings 20:38) (ed. Filipowski, p. 31), it is stated: . . . la ybr[ ˆwçlbw The editor remarks (ibid.): ybr[h μçh rman alw hzl hmwdk wa [qrbla awh ylwaw awh hm (“the Arabic noun intended, is not specified: perhaps [qrbla or some similar word was intended”). Pinsker (p. 173) suggests the reconstruction rpgmla, probably on the basis of what Ibn Quraish adopted for comparison in his Risàla. Perez (1978, p. 422), also, maintains that this is the noun to be reconstructed; although he doubts the likelihood that this comparison was penned by Mena˙em himself, he does not utterly rule it out. Becker (1984, p. 321 in n. to entry C1, p. 516) is of the same opinion but Kaufmann (1887, p. 298) had long before remarked that this “comparison” is nothing but a secondary gloss that penetrated into the Hamburg Codex and of which no trace at all appears in the Bern MS.9 Further proof that no comparison with Arabic exists in the ma˙beret, that if so explicit a comparison had been set down by Mena˙em, it would hardly have failed to elicit some reaction from Dunash and his disciple!10

10.2 Hebrew/Aramaic comparison as recorded by Mena˙em Mena˙em practises comparison with Aramaic only:11 moreover, in this context his comparisons are, in the main, inevitable comparisons (pertaining to formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram., above, 3.6.1). However, with Arabic to determine the meaning; for he states outright that out of context, the sense could not be established. Prima facie, there remains also the option of comparison with cognate languages, but with such an approach he is clearly unconcerned. 9 In the Sáenz-Badillos ed., this text version is attested in only 3 MSS of the ma˙beret, whereas in the majority of the witnesses the ”comparison” is unattested. 10 Dotan (1993, p. 52, n. 14; 1997, p. 106, n. 4), upon reading the first version of the present study, wrote that my excluding any kind of comparison with Arabic from the content of w[mçmk was not convincing. However, Dotan did not adduce any new evidence to support his claim nor did he attempt refute any of my arguments. This calls to mind Bacher’s reply rejecting Kaufmann’s claim. I believe that the new evidence supplied here leaves no doubt that w[mçmk was never meant in Mena˙em’s ma˙beret to be an allusion to Arabic. 11 Yellin (1945, p. 105) held that Mena˙em disapproved of comparison, even comparison with Aramaic, whereas according to Wechter (1957, p. 382), Mena˙em pledged (so to speak) in his discussion at entry jba (p. 12) that he would refrain from comparisons with Aramaic but did not fulfill his word.

284

chapter ten

there exists a group of noticeable size, of deliberate comparisons (above, 3.6.2). Mena˙em’s comparisons are subject to his grammatical approach to the notion of the Hebrew root, as discussed by him in the ma˙beret, (pp. 39, 43), i.e. that there exist radices possessing less than three letters (= the theory current in Hebrew grammar, before the time of Óayyùj; see Téné (1972), p. 1369, §2.7.2) This theory maintains that comparison is permissible on the condition that the radical letters be identical in the two compared languages and with no switches, excepting the interchanges of y''wha. Only in one instance does Mena˙em compare by the use of metathesis, i.e. lb/bl (p. 45). Nonetheless the stringent reservations for comparison that he set did not prevent him from being systematic in his comparison practice, as he states, at entry twf (Dan. 6:19): tyrb[ ˆwçlb ˆwyμd taz hlml ˆya. (“This word possesses no counterpart lit: comparable entity in the Hebrew language”). 10.2.1 A listing of the Heb./Aram. comparisons in the ma˙beret of Mena˙em 10.2.1.1 Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. inevitable but explicit comparisons .(21) ˆdyja/twdyj ‚(80) πyqz/πqz ,(29) yhwpna/μypa

12

,(15) πg πga •

10.2.1.2 Inevitable Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. comparisons with zero term ,(25) ˆyhla/μyhla ,(25) anlya/μylya ,(86) dj/dja ,(19) aynzam/μynzam • çyça ,(29) rysa/rsa ,(28) sna/sna ,(26) hma/twma-μyma ,(24) la/(h)la rb/rb ,(47) rqb/rqb ,(46) yab/y[b ,(45) lfb/lfb ,(35) ayça-yhwça/hytwyça ,(54) hwg/hwn ,(53) ddg/ddwgth ,(51) abg/μybg ,(48) arb/rb ,(47 ,son) ,(61) trbd/trbd-rbd ,(58) πg/πg, (55) llg/llg ,(59) aryg/ryg ,(54) ˆyrzg/rzg hwh/hyh-hwh ,(68) ah/ah ,(67) qqd/qqd ,(67) rz/rwz ,(67) ˆwhrdm/rwd rmz/rmz ,(79) ˆmz/ˆmz ,(80) [wz/[wz ,(73) rhrh/hrh ,(72) wmh/μh ,(70) ,(87) wfyjy/fwj ,(21) ˆdyja/hdyj ,(86 21 ,tell) ywj/hwj ,(84) lbj/lbj ,(79) 13 ˆyfj/ˆyfnj ,(91) armj/rmj ,(89) πlj/πlj ,(87) hwyj/hyj ,(87) hyj/hyj 12 The reference here is to Filipowski’s ed. However, one can easily find the counterparts in Sáenz-Badillos edition. 13 Filipowski (1854) did not record any Bible reference to ˆyfj, and it is feasible that he believed Mena˙em had in mind the intra-Aramaic interchange ˆyfj/ˆyfnj But in fact the form ˆyfj, without nun, is unattested in biblical Aramaic, whereas when Mena˙em compares with post-biblical Aramaic, he makes this explicit by a term or by an express location reference. For this reason, it is most probable that the comparison intended is with the Hebrew ˆyfj and that the biblical reference is thus to be drawn on, i.e. Ezek. 4:9.

mena˙em b. saruq

285

,(98) llfa/llf ,(96) lçj/lçj ,(94) ˚rjta/˚rj ,(92) ˆsj/ˆsj ,(91) hlbrk/lbrk ,(110) rwk/rk ,(68) bhy/bhy ,(99) drf/ drf ,(99) μ[f/μ[f ,(117 ,destruction) jlm/jlm ,(116) ajmta/ajm ,(111) ltk/ltk ,(110) ,(66) ddn/hndn ,(118) ynm/hnm ,(118) anm/hnm ,(117 ,advise) ˚lm/˚lmn /rtn ,(182) açn/açn ,(149) lxn/lxn ,(80) qzn/qzn ,(122) ryhn ,ryhn/hrhn /rps ,(ibid.) jsn/hjs ,(ibid.) rgs/rgs ,(ibid.) ˆgs/ˆgs ,(125) dgs/dgs ,(38) rtn ,(135) yp[/ap[ ,(133) ll[/ll[ ,(132) f[y/hf[ ,(131) hd[/hd[ ,(188) rps br[ta/br[th ,(ibid. ,enemy) r[/r[ ,(137) rq[ta/rq[ ,(136) byx[/bx[ hwjp/hhp ,(144) qpn/qwp ,(139) tyç[/tç[ ,(ibid.) dr[/dwr[ ,(138) ,(146) rçp/rçp ,(143) sp/hsp ,(142) glp/glp ,(143) μp/hmyp ,(141) ,(ibid.) dx/dx ,(148) abx/ybx ,(ibid.) μgtp/μgtp ,(147) htp/hpy-htpt ,(ibid.) μwq/μwq ,(155) lq/lwq ,(ibid.) lbql/twlybqm ,(153) lbq/lbq ,(161) hbbr/hbbr ,(160) fçq/fçq ,(ibid.) ˆrq/ˆrq ,(159) brq/brq sprth ,(ibid.) [[r/[[r ,(165) ˆwy[r/ˆwy[r ,(164) ymr/hmr ,(162) çgrh/çgr qç/qwç ,(171) ywç/hwç ,(170) hlgç/lgç ,(169) bybç/bybç ,(ibid.) spr rpç/rpç ,(176) çmç/˚ytçmç ,(174) wlç/hlç ,(181) rwç//ryç ,(179) .(185) ˆqt/ˆqt ,(36 ,182) yçrç/çrç ,(181) tyqwrçm/ qrç ,(179) 10.2.1.3 Comparisons on formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. /rwj ,(61) rbd/ghn/rbd ,(58) hpwgm/dymx/πygh ,(22) ˆwfa/rtym/ˆwfa • skn/fjç/ask ,(100) πrf/hl[/πrf ,(149) llf/lx/llf ,(86) rwj/bl /rzn ,(121) bygn/brj/bgn ,(109) ˆpk/b[r/ˆpk ,(108) apyk/[ls/πk ,(107) qr[/swn/qr[ ,(131) d[/llç/d[ ,(125) dhs/jdy/ˆrhç-ths ,(81) dwz/rws ,(ibid.) jçp/πsç/jçp ,(146) qrp/[çy/qrp ,(190) djp/˚ça/djp ,(139) ,(157) h[yxq/hdq/h[yxq ,(151) arpx/rqb/rpx ,(149) jlx/[qb/tlx / trçm , ( 1 8 0 ) ryç / μzn / twrç , ( 1 7 7 ) y[tça / rps / h[ç - h[tçh .(121) bat/çby/bat ,(181) tyrsm/tbjm 10.2.1.4 Bib. Heb./(Bib. Heb.)/Targ. Aram. /wdxn ,(143) qwnpt/ˆd[m/qnp ,(141) djp/˚ça/djp ,(79) ˆyz/ylt/twnz-ˆza .(148) aydx/wht 10.2.1.5 Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./(Targ. Aram.) .(161) ([br)/≈br/[br • 10.2.1.6 Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. ,(54) wg/˚wt/(a)wg/wg ,(19) lza/˚lh/lza/lza ,(11) ba/yrp/hybna/ba • qls/hl[/qls/qls ,(93) rwj/ˆbl/rwj/rwj ,(59) μrg/μx[/μrg/μrg .(155) lfq/grh/lfq/lfq ,(188 ,128)

286

chapter ten

10.2.1.7 Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. 14

(179) qps/qpç •

10.2.1.8 Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. by metathesis .(45) bl/lb • 10.2.1.9 Rab. Heb./Bib. Aram. .rq[/rq[ • Non-Cognate Heb./Aram. translation synonyms in Ma˙beret Mena˙em 10.2.1.10 Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. .(97) anyf/fyf ,(89) awk/ˆwlj. • 10.2.1.11 Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. .(98) dgym/ywjfm ,(83) rx[/rwz ,(82) alqt/arz-rwzm ,(23) apqwt/ˆtya • 10.2.1.12 Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb. (146) ˆgçtp/ˆgçrp ,(23) çy/ytya ,(15) za/ˆyda • 10.2.1.13 Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. /μrb ,(34) [ra/≈ra/ty[ra-[ra ,(23) ˆyxrwq lka/lykr ˚lh/ˆyxrq lka • / [wrza / [rda ,(64) rkd / rkz / rkd ,(64) yd / rça / yd ,(48) μrb / ˚a ,(92) πsj/srh/πsj ,(86) ydj/hzj/ydj ,(80) hnz/ˆym/hnz ,(17) [rda/ /hl[/qls ,(109) tpk/lmg tpk ,(99) arpwf/ˆrwpx/rpf ,(97) ywf/ylx/twf fyq/≈yq/fyq ,(108) ˆ[k/ht[/ˆ[k ,(171) (bzyç)/lyxh/bzyç ,(188) qls .(184) glt/glç/glt ,(170) qbç/jls ,bz[/qbç ,(154) The comparisons in the latter two groups, according to Mena˙em’s conception, are not of etymological nature, (a) as is evident from his attitude to the issue of letter interchanges (above, 10.1) and (b) as is salient from the very formula represented in the last category (above, 3.6.7). 14 But the statement made by Mena˙em on ˆh (p. 72) is not a Heb./Aram. comparison with μa but a simple definition, this being clear, since the comparison would necessitate the switch m/n that is unacceptable. It goes without saying that the remark subjoined by Filipowski, in entry rdç (p. 171) in the name of Meturgeman, i.e. ç''yrl 'lh πwlyjb twldtçh ˆwçl does not match Mena˙em’s system and thus there was no reason in adducing it.

mena˙em b. saruq

287

10.3 The nomenclature for the languages and the comparison terminology “Zero term” is the designation employed in Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. inevitable comparisons, in a comparison by metathesis (lb/bl) and in the Rab. Heb./Bib. Aram. comparison (rq[/rq[). In the remaining comparisons of formulae Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. and Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram., the comparison term is tymra ˆwçlb. This term recurs in 38 comparisons; in two of these the phrasing is ymra ˆwçlb (d[, rhs), in one awh tymraw (qnp), and in one other, wrps tymra yl[bw (ba). In contiguity with the term ˆwçlb tymra, the comparison word wmk or whwmk (preceding or following it) is generally appended, with, in some cases the addition of the existential expressions çy or axmn, as tymra ˆwçlb whwmk axmnw (“and there exists likewise, in the Aramaic language”) (ˆza, p. 79); in one instance the phrasing tymra ˆwçlb wnwymdw appears (djp, p. 141). In several comparisons the Targum component—i.e. Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram., within the formula Bib. Heb./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.—is phrased in a generic way (i.e. as a “generalization/rule,”) e.g. lkw rwj tymra ˆwçlb ˜bl (p. 86) and likewise at entries, πrf, ˆpk, d[, qr[ rpx, h[tçn, h[br. In cognate translation synonym comparisons, Mena˙em just once uses a term from the root μgrt: yhwpab μa yk μgrwtm wnya wypa lkw (p. 29). In non-cognate translation synonym comparisons (formulae Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. and Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.) the term most commonly used (i.e. 16 times) is tymra ˆwçlb, whereas in only four instances does a term from μgrt appear: wmwgrtw (rzn, p. 83), μgrwtm (˚çm; ywjfm, p. 98), μwgrtb (fyq, p. 154), ˆnymgrtm (ˆyxrq lka, p. 23). In three instances the phrase swlqnwa rtp occurs: entries, ywjfm ˆtya, rwzm. In two cases, “zero term” + wmk: za wmk ˆyda (p. 15), likewise at ˆgçrp (p. 146); in three cases the term is ˆwçl: çy ˆwçl ytya (p. 23), also ˆwlj (p. 89), fyf (p. 97). To sum up: Mena˙em’s comparative terminology matches well his lexicographical method in general; just as his definitions are laconic and his lexicographical terminology uniform, so, likewise, are his comparison terms.

chapter ten

288

10.4 Comparisons recorded by Mena˙em’s disciples 10.4.1 Heb./Bib. Aram./Targ. Aram. .(Stern 1870, p. 65) ˆysysn/μyp[wz = snb • .(ibid. 61–62) rqby/atryqb/trqb-arqbl/rqbl • .(ibid. 96) rgp/srh = rgp ,(ibid. 73) jskt/rmzt = μyjwsk • 10.4.2 Bib.Heb. ≠ Arab. .(62) jzn=jzy ,(ibid. 96) πlk=twplk ,(ibid. 99) ˚na/˚na• 10.4.3 Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (non-cognate translation synonyms) .(ibid. 100) atdx/μyjwj • /qt[yw ,(ibid. 73) ˚(a)myw/hn[y ,(ibid. 77) ryjb rmya/πwla çbk • .(76) ˚ytwbat/˚ytqwçt ,(ibid. 91) çynktaw/q[xyw ,(33) qyltsaw 10.4.4 Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram./Bib. Heb. .(ibid. 75) wsmh/wrbta/wgmn •

10.5 Comparative terms • layzw[ ˆb ˆtnwhy rtpw (rqb); laynd rpsb wnaxmw (ibid.) In non-cognate translation synonym comparisons, of formula Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.: πyswy layzw[ ˆb ˆtnwyw (hn[w), layzw[ ˆb rtp ˆkw (πwla çbk) μwgrt ˆkw wrmwab ≈mwa πyswy layzw[ ˆbw (μyjwwj), wrmab ˆwrtpl πqwt dw[ ˆtnwy rtp ˆkw (q[xyw), swlqnwa μgrtm (wgmn), layzw[ ˆb ˆtnwy rçpw (ibid.), .sylqnwa (qt[yw), swlqnwa rtp ˆkw (˚tqwçt),

CHAPTER ELEVEN

DUNASH BEN LABRAT

Dunash b. Labrat did not compile any work specifically on language comparison. Nor did he write any systematic grammar book or lexicon. His “generic” productions, i.e. the retorts on R. Sa'adiah Ga"on (attributed to Dunash) as well as the retorts against Mena˙em are of a polemical nature. In these works, he does no more than record his rejoinders on various issues of a grammatical or exegetical nature, raised in the works of other Hebrew grammarians. His retorts (alongside various issues) have a bearing on the comparative philology of Heb./Aram./Arab. Certain retorts relate to some specific comparison by either his mentor Sa'adiah Ga"on or his rival Mena˙em b. Saruq. In some cases he rejects the comparison, whereas in others, in lieu of the sense proposed by them (Sa'adiah and/or Mena˙em), he suggests a sense for the word founded on comparison with Arabic or with Aramaic. For example, he utterly rejects Sa'adiah’s comparison ˚rymah/ryma (˚aç[) (Schröter, p. 16, retort 50). Elsewhere, (ibid., p. 15, retort 45), he proposes the comparison z[l/z[l, in disagreement with Sa'adiah’s exegesis for the Bib. Heb. z[l. There are, however, some retorts that discuss the fundamental aspects of language comparison. These materials have been dwelled on above (2.1; 2.2; 2.4, 5; 5.1.3). This chapter deals with the remaining comparison topics pertaining to Dunash, to the extent that this is possible via what is embedded in those retorts. Here a certain change in the usual sequence of discussion has been made, comparisons with Arabic coming first on account of a certain methodological problem observed therein. Only after a wellfounded list of his comparisons has been established will it be possible to draw conclusions on Dunash’s method vis-à-vis this issue.

11.1

Comparisons with Arabic

Dunash sets up 181 comparisons with Arabic (as well as two further citations of comparisons by other grammarians that he adduces, only

290

chapter eleven

to reject them. Fourteen comparisons are sparsely scattered among various retorts, whereas 167 (all the others) are recorded together in a special collative list, included in entry yn[fm (Sáenz-Badillos, pp. 88ff.). For three comparisons, and for these three alone, Dunash spells out the Arabic cognate with which he compares the Bib. Heb.; they are ryma, z[l, jmq (see below, list of comparisons). In all the rest he found it sufficient to record a general formulation, such as tybr[b w[mçmk (“like its plain sense in Arabic”), without expressly opining which Arabic cognate should be established as counterpart to the Bib. Heb. word under discussion. Gross (1872, pp. 105–12) “filled in” (reconstructed, as it were) the appropriate cognate translation synonyms for the items in the above-mentioned concentrated list but failed to state in each case whether he had based his “reconstructions” on some specific authority or text source, or had “filled them out” by merely using his own discretion. The majority of his proposed reconstructions seem plausible; only in the case of a few of his postulated tr. syns, can one cast doubt on the validity of his determination. For instance, for the entry z[l (Ps. 114:1), Gross (p. 108) settled on the Arabic cognate zgl—which, according to the Latin rendering (ibid.), has the sense of “unclear, meaningless matters”); however, Dunash himself had stated expressly (Schröter, p. 15, retort 45) that the Arabic cognate translation synonym for z[l is z[l, (in the sense of πan, “commit adultery”), and had Gross done his homework properly, he would have been aware of the comparison actually intended by Dunash. Some other judgments of Gross are indeed questionable. Two methodological errors are apparent in his treatment of the comparison μhdn/μ'kd, there are: (a) he attributes to Dunash the Heb./Arab. interchange h/'k, which has no corroboration; (b) he overlooks μhd, an absolutely equivalent cognate current in the comparative philology of Dunash’s contemporaries (see below, ch. 16). Gross likewise postulates the cognate translation synonym πçk to counterpart πcj (Isa. 52:10); and in fact Ibn Barùn (about 200 years after Dunash) adopted this very comparison in his Kitàb al-Muwàzana (p. 55). But Ibn Barùn’s comparisons should not be applied to ascertain Dunash’s meaning. It is quite possible that Dunash had in mind the Arabic cognate πs'k (or even πz'k) (= “tear linen material; in this context: lbç”) or πsjt (= “peel,” in a metaphorical sense). The comparison of twplyk with balk is also far-fetched. More likely, would be the comparison with πlk or πwlk. Further, the comparison ˚pç

dunash ben labrat

291

(Num. 35:33)/˚ps is preferable to the comparison with jps postulated by Gross. For a comparison with lk (Isa. 40:12), he would have done better to postulate lak, rather than lk. In attributing to Dunash the comparison ˆks…y (Eccles. 10:9)/ˆ'gç, Gross went to an extreme. Such an assumption is extremely improbable, for three reasons: (a) the meaning inherent in that cognate (i.e. “becoming sad”) does not suit the context; (b) the interchange k/'g is not to be found in any other of Dunashs’s comparisons; (c) he assigns to Dunash a comparison involving two switches within one word, i.e. s/ç and k/'g. It is more probable that Dunash simply had in mind the translation synonym encountered in the works of Alfàsi and other grammarians—namely, the comparison ˆksy/ˆ'ks. Certain other comparisons posited by Gross, feasible as they may be, each appear to be only one of two or more possible comparisons. Instead of [nky (Lev. 26:41)/[nk, rpk (Deut. 21:8)/rpk, wsmyw ( Judg. 15:14)/çm, μ[z (Num. 23:8)/μ[z, μlx (Ps. 39:7)/μnx, μlx one might postulate, the following alternatives respectively, taking as basis the comparisons established by Dunash’s contemporaries: [nky/[n'ky, rpk/rpg, sm/ysamt‚ μ[z/μgz, μlx/μal'f.1 The last two alternative comparisons involve the assumption of a different sense for the entry word under discussion. The rest of Gross’s proposed comparisons are reasonable; counterparts for them can be located in the records of the contemporary Hebrew grammarians. In what follows are presented only those comparisons with Arabic that Dunash adopted here and there in his retorts, they are comparisons that were omitted by Gross from his listing. • ryma/˚rymah-ryma (Schröter 50),2 ˚ba/˚na (Sáenz-Badillos 24), ylb/hlb (ibid. 29), (dbz)/dbz (Schröter 21), fnj/wfnjyw (Sáenz-Badillos 86), ˆymy/ˆymy (“oath”; Schröter 12, #37), (πlk)/twplk (Sáenz-Badillos 56), z[l/z[l (Schröter 45), (yn)/an (Sáenz-Badillos 36), (˚rm)/jrm (ibid.

1 In several of the comparisons proposed by Gross there are some technical errors. In the case of three comparisons— ≈r (1 Sam. 12:3)/≈r, ˆa[ ( Jer. 50:6)/ ˆax, μyaxax (Isa. 48:19)/axax—the diacritical mark of the letter 'x has apparently been dropped. At comparison htmxp (Ps. 60:4) the word adduced should probably be μxp not μsp; also, instead of μta'k, one should probably read μl(a)j at comparison for μwlj (Gen. 41:15). 2 The interpretation attributed by Dunash to Sa'adiah Ga"on—namely, ryma rtpw (Isa. 17:6) w[mçmk is not compatible with the text in Sa'adiah’s Tafsìr as we have it, in which the rendering is ˆxg. See Alloni, HaEgron, p. 195, comments to ryma.

292

chapter eleven

98), (qrm)/qrwk (ibid.), (jjz ,jzn)/twy (ibid. 82), (ˆykam)/ˆksm (ibid. 100), (qr[)/qrw[ (ibid. 106), (μjp/μjp) (ibid. 53), jmq ≠ jmq (ibid. 113). Of the comparisons in the above list, nine—dbz, twplk, z[l, jrm, qrm, an, qrw[, μjp—are reiterated in the excursus (yn[fm, SáenzBadillos, pp. 88ff.). Two—ryma, jmq—are recorded only to be rejected. Five comparisons are “new” (do not appear in the excursus): ˚na, hlb, wfnjyw, ˆymy, ˆksm.

11.2 Letter interchanges The theory of Heb./Arab. letter substitution held by Dunash can be derived from his express statements at the opening of the excursus and further from the various comparisons that one can be sure are his (namely, those for which there exists only one possible cognate translation synonym). However, the interchanges postulated by Gross as his own reconstructions for Dunash’s comparisons have been excluded here, because they have no corroboration. For example, the switch h (Heb.)/'k (Arab.) cannot be identified in even a single comparison or unambiguous proposition recorded by Dunash. Furthermore, this interchange is attested by not even a single philologist in the period under discussion. Despite this, Gross assigns it to Dunash, although indirectly, by postulating the reconstruction of the Arabic cognate μ'kd as a counterpart to μhdn. Moreover, the Heb./Arab. interchanges j/k, k/j, k/'g, ensue merely from those “comparisons,” i.e. πçj/πçk, ˚pç/jps, ˆksy/ˆ'gç attributed to Dunash by Gross: these pseudo-comparisons of Dunash indeed have already been ruled out, above. The interchanges noted specifically by Dunash are as follows: z/'d, j/'k, s/ç, [/g, ç/'t (yn[fm, Sáenz-Badillos, p. 88): the j/'k switch is reiterated at entry jwm (Sáenz-Badillos, p. 98) and its application is demonstrated in the list of Heb./Arab. words. The remaining interchanges ensue from the comparisons as such; they are as follows): 'g/g (in comparisons ˆpg, çrg‚ rdg, dg, lbg, zg, ryg and many more) 'd/d (in comparison dymlt) x/s (in comparison qps) b/p (in comparison r'db/rzp) 'x/x (in comparison ≈br) 'f/x (in comparison amx, rhx) s/ç (in comparison jlç, ybç, tnç, jçq, çrp, çyfp etc.)

dunash ben labrat

293

Bib. Heb./Arab. comparisons necessitating two interchanges are found in two instances only, i.e. çrg (g/'g + c/ç) and rzp (b/p + 'd/z). Dunash made no specific mention of letter interchanges between Hebrew and Aramaic, nor were any such interchanges embodied in his comparisons.3

11.3 Hebrew/Aramaic comparisons In this sub-section are incorporated also the comparisons rejected by Dunash, to point up the polemical character of his “retorts.” 11.3.1 Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram.

ˆmz/ˆmz ,(83) ˚rwdm, ˆyryyd/yrwd ,(51 Schöter) ayçwa/yçyça ,wççathw • ˆybrsm ≠ μybrs (35 ibid.) ˆm/ˆm ,(47 ibid.), ajm ≠ yj ,(21 Sáenz-Badillos) hl[/hnn[y ,(ibid. 31) hf[ ≠ fy[ ,(ibid. 100), hf[ ≠ hfw[m (ibid. 99), (ibid. 59) arçm/˚ytyrç ,(ibid. 58), μwp ≠ hmyp (ibid. 100) 11.3.2 Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram. ,(32 Sáenz-Badillos) arygj/jsp/wrgjyw (16 Schröter), rbdy/gjny/rbdy • wgrtyw ,(27 ibid.) tgrj/hmya ≠ wgrjyw ,(26 Schröter) ˆysj/ljl ≠ ˆysj ,(83) /rmzt/μyjwsk ;(96 Sáenz-Badillos) çbkw/qçjw/çwbk ,(ibid.) arygj/jsp/ yjm/hkm ≠ twjml ,(ibid. 56) ˆylyçk/twmwdrq/lyçk ,(ibid. 93) jskt Sáenz-Badillos) aklm/hx[/˚lmyw ,(ibid.) aklm/hx[ ≠ ˆyklm ,(48 Schröter) had[/llç/d[ ,(ibid. 23) ˆysysn/myp[wz/sn(b) ,(ibid.) tsm/ydm/tsm ,(32 ,(ibid. 106) qr[/swn/μyqrw[j ,(ibid. 104) (l)l[/ab/ytllw[w ,(ibid. 33) μjrw/bhayw/˚mjra ,(33 ibid.) ytpy/byjry/tpy ,(ibid. 108) argp/srh/wrgp ,(64 ,ibid.) yjsyw/≈jrw/hjça ,(55 Schröter) aw[r/ˆwxr ≠ ˚y[r ,(ibid. 32) hbyat/hçby/ytbat ,(116 ,33 Sáenz-Badillos) tw[y[ç/tqlj/ y[çml .(29 Sáenz-Badillos) atlykm/hdm/lkw ,(96 Schröter)

3 It is worth noting that in the Chart of Letter Equivalences in Hebrew/Arabic, as recorded by Dunash, the equivalence ç/ç is also included, on the basis of the comparisons rzç/rzç and πfç/πfç (Gross, 1872, p. 112).

294

chapter eleven

11.3.3 Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb.

μyrkz ≠ ˆyrkd ,(ibid.) hnqt/anqt ,(59 Sáenz-Badillos) ˆqt ≠ anqt • .(ibid. 60) 11.3.4 Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. .(ibid.) yhwnzl/wbyml/ynz ,(60 Sáenz-Badillos) ˆyrkd/μylya/ˆyrkd • 11.3.5 Comparison by letter metathesis Dunash records one solitary instance of comparison established by metathesis of letters: wgrjyw/arygj (see above Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2/ Targ. Aram., 11.3.2).

11.4 Grammatical comparisons In his retorts, Dunash records five grammatical comparisons between Hebrew and Aramaic or Arabic. Despite this meager total, these comparisons are proof that Dunash did not restrict himself to lexical comparisons but delved also into an analytical comparison of the structure of these languages. An enumeration of these comparisons follows: (a) In both Hebrew and Aramaic, d stands in place of t in the hitpa''el conjugation when the prim. rad. is a sibilant—e.g. ˆwtnmdzh (Dan. 2:9, Qeré)/ˆyrhdzm/ˆyqqdzm (Schröter, p. 2, retort 5). With regard to Arabic, also, he noted that ùf stands in lieu of t (of the "ifta'ala form) when the prim. rad. is x. (b) The ending t : in the words tL;ht ( Jer. 49:25, Qeré) and tl;jn (Ps. 16:6) is a plural morpheme μwgrth ˚rd ypl (“according to the way of the Targum”), as it is in Aramaic. This comparison was adduced in the name of Sa'adiah (Schröter, p. 23, retort 89). (c) In both Hebrew and Arabic, proper names can be declined with possessive pronoun affixes as well as with gentilic yod; this is so also in the plural form: ˆw[mç, ˚nw[mç, ynw[mç, μynw[mç (ibid., p. 29, retort 104). (d) In retort 47 (Schröter, p. 15) he discusses ym with its equivalent in Arabic.

dunash ben labrat

295

(e) At the entry μynmjh (Isa. 17:8) he compares the derivation path of the singular form ˆmj from hmj, with elision of the h with the parallel derivation of ˆzj from hzj. He seems that the morpheme ˆ … is Aramaic (Schröter, p. 56, retort 170).

11.5 The comparative terms 11.5.1 The nomenclature (5 ,2 Schröter) yrb[ ˆwçl :Hebrew (5 ,2 Schröter) ydçk :Aramaic ;26 retort ibid. ) tymra ˆwçl ,(96 ,83 ,20 ,16 ,Schröter) ymra ˆwçl .(106 Sáenz-Badillos, (20 Schröter) μwgrt ˆwçl (21 ;5 Schröter) yrgh ˆwçl :Arabic (21 ;5 Schröter) yla[mçy ˆwçl .(Sáenz-Badillos, p. 98) br[h ˆwçlb ,(45 ibid.) ybr[ ˆwçl

• • •• •• • •• ••

11.5.2 The terminology .(5 Schröter) yrghh ˆwçlb çmçt ˆk ,ydçkh yrb[h ˆwçlb (ibid. 55) (μwgrth) ˆm ;(96, 48 ,64 ,27 ,26 ,83 ibid.); ˆwçlm ˆwçl ˆm (ibid. 48) (μwgrt) awh (ibid. 16) (ymrah) ˆwçll hmdy awh (ibid. 50 ,37) ((y)la[mçy) ˆwçlb (awh) ˆk(w) Sáenz-Bandillos, p. ;45 ,21) (yrgh/ybr[) ˆwçl ˆm/-b h[mçmk (hbwrtpw) (106 ,98 ,88 ,86 ,82 ,53 ,36 ,24

• • • • • •

It is not surprising that Dunash adopts the term w[mçmk (Schröter, retort 50; Sáenz-Badillos, pp. 29, 98) to connote comparison with Arabic (it is encountered also in comparison with Aramaic, see SáenzBadillos, p. 106), considering that he was convinced this was indeed the connotation of the expression in its use by Mena˙em, too (see above, 10.1).

CHAPTER TWELVE

RABBI JUDAH ÓAYYÙJ

12.1 Comparisons in the grammatical treatises The three grammatical treatises of Óayyùj,1 as well as the extant portion of his grammatical commentary to the Prophets, namely, Kitàb al-Nutaf (“The Book of Plucked Feathers,” i.e. selected exegetical notes)2 contain virtually no treatment of language comparison. Only one single comparison has been located in the grammatical works of Óayyùj3—his comparison of the morphological formation of the words awklhh ( Josh. 10:24) and awba (Isa. 28:12)4 with the 3rd person plural perfect verb form in Arabic, awl[p5. In each, the vocalic “orthographic” w is followed by a quiescent a (see Kitàb al-Af 'àl Dhawàt Óurùf al-Lìn, p. 20). In fact, Óayyùj, citing the other grammarians,

1 See Óayyùj—in the Bibliographical References. For recent systematic analyses of Óayyùj’s theory see Goldenberg 1980, Basal 1992, Watad 1994. See also Maman (2000a), pp. 263–67. 2 On the name “Nutaf ” see Maman (2000a), note 3. The extant parts of Nutaf have been published in Harkavy (1895a); Harkavy (1901); Kodowtzow (1916); Allony 1963, 1970, pp. w-a; Abramson, 1978–79, pp. 203ff.; Eldar (1979). Basal (2001) republished all that material, along with new remnants from the ENA and Firkowitch collections. 3 See Bacher, 1884, p. 5; P.K. Kokowtzow, 1916, p. 64, n. 1; Wechter, 1964, n. 28. 4 This grammatical comparison is not reiterated in the grammatical comment to the word awba itself in Kitàb al-Nutaf to Isa. 28:12 (Allony, 1970, p. 25; Basal, 2001, p. 176 and n. 180). There he describes the additional a as a matter of eloquence of the language (˚yr[ awçl awçn lùtm hjaxpll hdyaz awba yp, πlala hùdh Ps. 139:20); but he does not mention awklhh. It cannot be assumed that Óayyùj withdrew his original opinion. In such cases the grammarian would be expected to state expressly his revision regarding grammatical elucidation. It is more probable that Óayyùj intended to provide additional data—namely that the Arabic form is primary ( lxa) and that, therefore, linguistic habit or inflection in accord with the primary form is considered a linguistic eloquence (hjaxp). Ibn Janah, however, opposed this comparison; see Becker 1998, §119. 5 Wechter (1947, p. 384) maintains that Óayyùj avoided the use of comparison with Arabic; Wechter himself remarks on the comparison awklhh/awl[p recorded by Óayyùj, without offering an explanation of the paradox of a scholar who opposed comparison with Arabic nonetheless allowing himself to establish this comparison!

rabbi judah ˙ayyùj

297

notes two further comparisons in said treatise (ibid., p. 187), both being grammatical in nature but constituting comparison with Aramaic. He compares the suffix morpheme 3rd person pl. appearing in the word wysim]hi ( Josh. 14:8) with an identical morpheme used in the Aramaic word wyTç]ai (Dan. 5:4) ('gr'km yl[ t'gr'k hmlkla h'dh wytça l'tμ ynayrsla 'fplla). Likewise, he compares the possessive pronoun affix in the word yhwlwmgt (Ps. 116:14) with the Aramaic suffix as in yhwdy, yhwl[. It is no wonder that Óayyùj failed to record lexical comparisons in his grammatical treatises, for, rather than defining his entries by lexical definitions, his methodology tends to define them “grammatically” (although within the entries, he arranges the several forms according to their meanings). As a rule, as Kokowtzow (1916, p. 72) observed, Óayyùj restricted his activity to one very clearly defined area in language science and treated it with virtually no digressions.

12.2 The comparisons in Kitàb al-Nutaf In Kitàb al-Nutaf a commentary to the Bible, too, Óayyùj centers solely on grammatical issues and refrains entirely from expansive annotations to the verses (see Abramson, 1978–79, p. 229; p. 47, §3); only on rare occasions does he subjoin an Arabic rendition. In one instance he employs a comparison phraseology: wnrbdn (Mal. 3:13)/hybr[la yp hmlakm (Eldar, 1979, p. 256; Basal, 2001, p. 277). This comparison relates to a grammatical issue, i.e. that the Heb. nif 'al and Arab. fà'ala possess reciprocal functions. The entry word renderings into Arabic comprise some cognate tr. syns, as well, as follows: μfja (Isa. 48:9)/μft'ka (Abramson, ibid., p. 227; Basal, ibid., p. 185); μygrwm-hrgm (2 Sam. 12:31)/'grawm (Abramson, p. 30; Basal, ibid., p. 109); tdmxUm (2 Sam. 20:8)/hdm'xm (Kokowtzow 1916 [= Allony, 1970], p. 193; Basal, ibid., p. 119); jyr ( Jer. 48:11)/hjyar (Abramson, p. 36, ibid., p. 209; Basal, ibid., p. 203). These are all implicit comparisons. The comparisons hrgm/'grawm and tdmxm/hdm'xm are uniquely Óayyùj’s own initiative: they are not attested in the records of any other Hebrew grammarians in the period under investigation The comparison hrgm/'grawm is established by letter metathesis.6 6 It is possibile that Kitàb al-Nutaf to Ezek. 8:6 (Kokowtzow 1916 = Allony 1970, p. 46) contains an allusion to an additional grammatical comparison Heb./Arab.

298

chapter twelve

The letter interchanges ensuing from the above implicit comparisons are as follows: g/'g (hrgm), j/'k (μfja), x/'x (hrmxm).

12.3 Nomenclature for the languages and the comparative terminology In comparisons with Aramaic: (yhwlwmgt/yhwl[); ynayrsla 'fplla 'gr'km yl[ (wysmh/wytça) ynayrsla 'fplla yl[ In comparisons with Arabic: br[la hgl yr'gm ˚l'd yr'gy (awl[pw . . . awba); hybr[la yp (wnrbdn/hmlakm). Thus the significant contribution of Óayyùj is not to be seen in the comparisons as he “happened” to record, for these are very meager in quantity and of next to no value for scholarship: his important contribution is rather in the theory of the Hebrew root established by him. This theory had direct influence on language comparison as it was subsequently practised (see above, 2.5). Kokowtzow (1916, p. 73 and n. 2) even claims that Óayyùj‘s theory left its impression, indirectly at least, on the development of modern-day Semitic comparative linguistics.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

R. JONAH IBN JANÀÓ

R. Jonah ibn Janà˙ did not compile any work devoted uniquely to comparative philology but many comparisons are embedded in his treatises on grammar and lexicology. (Concerning the comparisons in the “minor” works, see below, 13.15.)1 Kitàb al-Luma' (= Sefer HaRiqmah), apart from having been written in the context work of the Arab grammarians’ theory (as shown by Becker 1998, see above, 1.2.1), comprises, in the main, grammatical comparisons (which are outside the scope of the present study),2 whereas Kitàb al-"Ußùl (= Sefer HaShorashim) is replete with lexical comparisons. The latter are clear proof that Ibn Janà˙’s practice of language comparison was a methodical system. Various scholars have discussed certain parts and/or sectors of this comparison system. Bacher (1884, 1885) issued synopses on Ibn Janà˙’s comparisons with Aramaic and rabbinic Hebrew, as well as on his comparisons with Arabic. But these surveys did not handle the issue thoroughly and did not even approach being a complete coverage of the materials. The quality of the printed editions and/or transcriptions of MSS on which Bacher based his publications was less than satisfactory (above, 0.1). Furthermore, ever since the publication of Ibn Barùn’s Kitàb al-Muwàzana, there have been always some scholars who viewed Ibn Janà˙’s methodology, as mirrored by Ibn Barùn’s doctrines. In the present study, an attempt has been made to arrive at a new evaluation of the comparison methods of Ibn Janà˙, based on the entire range of his lexical comparisons as encountered in his several works. The better printed editions have been used as source texts but whenever necessary, the MSS themselves of the four works— i.e. "Ußùl, Shorashim, Kitàb al-Mustal˙aq and Sefer HaHassagah were resorted to. The present study aims to present the lexical comparisons

1

On Ibn Janà˙’s comparisons in general, see Maman (2000a), pp. 271–75. With regard to Ibn Janà˙, comparative grammar has now been comprehensively treated in Becker 1998. 2

300

chapter thirteen

exhaustively and to evaluate them with the aid of new scientific tools. Certain fundamental problems having a bearing on Ibn Janà˙’s methodology have been discussed in earlier chapters, alongside discussion of the comparison methods of other scholars (see, for example, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, also ch. 6 in its entirety). Here the treatment is restricted to those issues that specifically characterize the comparisons of Ibn Janà˙.

13.1 Ibn Janà˙’s comparative philology and the text versions of the Rouen manuscript 13.1.1 Ibn Janà˙’s Lexicon Ibn Janà˙’s Lexicon was transmitted not in a single, recognized recension but in three distinct recensions: (1) the version represented in the Oxford Codex of Kitàb al-"Ußùl (broadly speaking, the body text appearing in Neubauer’s edition); (2) the version of MS Rouen, its distinctive aspect being the glosses recorded therein (in the apparatus of the aforementioned ed. of Neubauer; below, it is referred to by the mark MS-R); (3) the Hebrew translation penned by R. Judah ibn Tibbon of the Kitàb al-"Ußùl (i.e. the Bacher edition of Sefer HaShorashim). The three recensions are non-equivalent with regard to the total number of lexical comparisons established by Ibn Janà˙ in his work.3 In some cases, the Oxford MS + MS-R together stand in opposition to the Shorashim; in others, the Oxford MS + Shorashim differ jointly from MS-R. The two may have an addition whereas the one—an omission or vice versa. Do we have the means to determine, in every case, whether a given entry is an original comparison or a secondary addition? Further, is it possible for us to ascertain the identity of the redactor who subjoined the additions in the original version? How this was done and with what aim in mind? An analysis and/or resolution of these problems will enable us to inventorize the original comparisons, those established by Ibn Janà˙ himself, 3 Comparisons that do not appear in the lexicon of Ibn Janà˙, are not counted here, though it could theoretically be proven that Ibn Janà˙ endorsed them. Only the fact that he did not record them in his lexicon is decisive, regardless of whether or not there is a reason for their omission.

r. jonah ibn janà˙

301

and to deduce his method from these alone. The problem regarding comparisons in the Shorashim versus the two other recensions have been bracketed together with a problem of a more general nature— the matter of what became of language comparison in those treatises that underwent translation into Hebrew, an issue to which a detailed discussion has already been devoted (above, ch. 6). In the present chapter the aspect of the question that relates to the text variants appearing in MS-R is discussed. In the MS catalogued under n° 5 in the Rouen Municipal Library and comprising Kitàb al-"Ußùl,4 glosses and annotations appear as additions between the lines of the main text of the MS and in the margins. These annotations are absent from the Oxford MS, which served as basis for the main text of Neubauer’s edition (1875), these being incorporated in the note apparatus of that edition. The editor, however, failed to treat them thoroughly in his introduction. Nor did he relate to the complex dilemma (a) whether or not the additions/annotations are an integral part of the original work and (b) who had penned these notes, the original author or a subsequent reader/student. Bacher claims, in his preface to Shorashim (p. 40) that “there are some additions that R. Jonah himself had subjoined to his Book, when the latter had already been publicly distributed: these additions are in MS-R.”5 The fact that R. Judah ibn Tibbon’s translation fails to include any of the MS-R gloss annotations, not even one of them (!), was rationalized by Bacher, in his argument: “R. Judah b. Tibbon copied Sefer HaShorashim from the First Edition of his work, for which reason the additions included in MS-R are missing from the translation (= Shorashim)”6 (ibid., p. 41). This argument has no foundation, as will be shortly demonstrated.7 Poznanski (1916, p. 468, entry hççgn) treats the comparative materials in the MS-R

4 A photographic reproduction of this MS, in microfilm and photostat, is housed in the Institute for Microfilmed Hebrew MSS, the Jerusalem National and University Library. Its catalogue numbers are F6652, F7336 and P881–884. For a good description of the MS, see Neubauer’s introduction to his Kitàb al-"Ußùl pp. 6–8. 5 .ˆawr yùùk awhw μyçnah ydyb wrps hyh rça yrja hnwy ùr rbjmh ˆsynkh rça twpswh çy 6 wtqt[hm wrd[n ˚kl ,μyçrçh rps ta qyt[h hnwçarh arwdhmhm ˆwbyt ˆb yùùr (MS-R =) ùr[b waxmn rça twpswhh. 7 Ibn Janà˙ did revise his book but did not make any changes once it was released to the public. This can be learned from his remark in entry πf, where he explains that the reason he does not correct a mistake that occurred in the first edition—i.e. he does not move tpff to root πf—is that the book “has been already spread in the cities.”

302

chapter thirteen

glosses as the authentic composition of R. Jonah, and in this approach he apparently follows Bacher. Allony (1944, pp. 198–201) inspected these MS-R glosses from the standpoint of their relevance to Ibn Janà˙’s treatises in general and with special reference to the Bible translation: Allony located in them some express citations from R. Abraham ibn Ezra (ibid., p. 201). He entirely ignored the Bacher’s determination and he was unequivocal about the conclusions that can be tacitly drawn from his discovery of the Ibn Ezra quotations, i.e. that the glosses cannot have been penned by Ibn Janà˙ but must have been the work of some glossarist who flourished after the time of R. Abraham ibn Ezra. The MS-R glosses deserve a more exhaustive study that investigates all the annotations (and not merely a part of them, as was done above) and discusses all their aspects. In the present study, only about 300 of the annotations have been treated, i.e. those possessing some aspect of language comparison. They are scrutinized from the viewpoint of the present research project and an attempt is made to put forward a solution to the fundamental problem as delineated earlier. 13.1.2 πwr[m/MS-R The lexicographical method of Ibn Janà˙ is selective in the definitions given for entry words. An entry word that is “so well-known that it requires no definition,” is not provided with any definition, and on occasion he notes alongside such a word, πwr[m (“[well] known”). One unambiguous conclusion ensuing from Ibn Janà˙’s system of language comparison is that the fundamental aim of the comparisons is to afford support for the given definition of the entry word, i.e. to determine it precisely or to corroborate it. For this reason it is not surprising that the entries marked with πwr[m contain no language comparison, either in the Oxford recension of the "Ußùl or in Ibn Tibbon’s translation (Shorashim). The argument, clearly, is: if the entry is not in need of definition, to what purpose might language comparison be employed? In MS-R, many cognate translation synonyms have been subjoined to entry words, even in cases where the original entries lack definition and are simply marked πwr[m or are even devoid of this mark.8 The subjoining of this cognate serves as

8

In entry qqd (163/112) Ibn Janà˙ broaden the “definition” to πwr[m han[m

r. jonah ibn janà˙

303

a “filler” for the missing definition as well as for language comparison, almost invariably only Heb./Arab. comparison. Comparisons with Aramaic in MS-R are indeed few and far between. As they stand, the subjoined definitions, with the comparisons they embody, almost never stand in contradiction to the sense assigned by Ibn Janà˙ with his expression πwr[m, especially in those instances in which the entry word possesses only one sense or to which only one potential Arabic definiens can be assigned (e.g. ˆfb/ˆfb; lmg/lmùg‚ etc.). However, the juxtaposition of πwr[m and the definition/comparison as subjoined is contradictory: whichever way one interprets it, an illogicality remains: (a) if Ibn Janà˙ retracted his basic assumption that a certain given entry word is πwr[m and he now sets out to correct (fill in) what was previously lacking, we would expect him to delete the πwr[m; and (b) if he did not revise his judgment, the additum has no place. It is probable that the additum was penned by a glossarist, who stepped short of taking the liberty to delete Ibn Janà˙’s initial “definition”, i.e. πwr[m—and yet felt free to gloss at his own discretion. The list of entries in this category that follows comprises only those instances in which the definiens glossed in by MS-R is a cognate translation synonym; those cases in which the glossarist appended a non-cognate translation synonym to the entry word are ignored. Of special interest in the context of the entries “defined” by πwr[m,9 are those entry words that were initially marked by him πwr[m but for which a rendering of a complete verse containing the entry word was subsequently recorded a translation that clearly incorporates a rendering for the entry word itself. (Such a rendering is very often the upshot of an exegetical discussion or of a syntactical analysis of

(Ibn Tibbon: [wdy wnyyn[w), hence he specifically relates to the meaning of the entry word and not to other aspects that might have relevance to it. See also çrk (p. 332), where he says: rwhçm whw πwr[m lyawala μalk yp. On the use of πwr[m as a “definition” in medieval Arabic dictionaries see Kopf, p. bs, par. 1j. 9 An entry included in this category is one, defined by Ibn Janà˙ as a “partial definition” while leaving the rest categorized as πwr[m, whereas MS-R glossed in a cognate translation synonym ˆn[r tyz ( Jer. 11:15 ,rùgçla dyry . . . tyz ˚rdt hta (Mic. 6:15) rmùtla dyry . . . (p. 193). When defining the entry word tyz, Ibn Janà˙ feels no urge to define the signifié (i.e. the type of fruit, together with its identifying feature) by a specific rendering, for these are virtually “well-known.” But he does deem it necessary to record a differentiation between subtle senses of the signifiant: at times this word denotes the signifié “the olive tree,” and at other times, rather the fruit of this tree. Ibn Janà˙ himself does not spell out and identify “this fruit ” or “this tree,” whereas MS-R fills in this information by means of the cognate ˆwtyz.

304

chapter thirteen

the entry word.) A rendering of this type does not directly serve the purpose of the entry word but clarifies the general context of the verse under discussion. In such a case, if MS-R subjoined to πwr[m the Arabic cognate, the instance is included in the listing, for it cannot be posited in such a case that Ibn Janà˙ rescinded his original “definition” of πwr[m. At entry ˆwçl (359/250), Ibn Janà˙ indicates πwr[m, whereas further along he discusses the expression wnwçll çya (Gen. 10:5), rendering it htgl yl[ ya hnasl yl[. The rendering wnwçl/hnasl incorporated in the translation of the phrase is not meant to vitiate the “axiomatic fact” that the entry word is indeed “well-known” and in no need of definition: the rendering is recorded not for the purpose of the entry word ˆwçl but for the expression as a whole. It stands to reason that in the rendering of the phrase, the emphasis was placed specifically on the syntax (the prepositional affix l was rendered by Arabic yl[ rather than by l); however, it is feasible that the emphasis is semantic (i.e.: that ˆasl is intended not in its basic connotation—namely, “the speech organ,” “the tongue”—but in its secondary, metaphorical connotation, “language”). Either way, the MS-R additum is redundant, not only because it stands in contradiction to πwr[m but also because of its being incorporated in the rendering of the verse adduced by Ibn Janà˙, which follows. 13.1.2.1 The entry words that Ibn Janà˙ expressly categorized as πwr[m and for which MS-R subjoined an Arabic cognate ,(123) ydùg/yrg ,(114) qrb/qrb ,(89) ˆfb/ˆfb ,(68 lwxa) zra/zra • ,(163) qaqdna/qdh-qd ,(162) [md/h[md ,(160) μd/μd ,(139) lmùg/lmg /blk ,(305) dbk/dbk ,(235) ramj/rwmj ,(201) tpz/tpz ,(188) bhùd/bhz ,(335) πtk/πtk ,(332) çrk/çrk ,(328) πk/πk ,(322) ˆwmk/ˆwmk ,(320) blk /hlmn ,(377) jlm/jlm ,(359) ˆasl/ˆwçl ,(353) lyl/lyl ,(346) byhl/hbhl hlùg[/hlg[ ,(502) lùg[/lg[ ,(483) ls/ls ,(465) rsn/rçn ,(437) hlmn ,(542) μùf[/μx[ ,(ibid.) (amla) ˆy[/ˆy[m ,(519) (ròfnla) ˆy[/ˆy[ ,(ibid.) ,(658) sar/çar ,(599) [bxa/[bxa ,(547) barg/brw[ ,(557) brq[/brq[ ,(734) smç/çmç ,(722) ˆyks/ˆykç ,(711) rwùt/rwç* ,(675) hparw hmjr/μjr ,(749) dyrç/dyrç ,(ibid.) ry[ç/hrw[ç ,(738) r[ç/r[ç ,(734) ˆs/ˆç .(710) μwùt/μwç*

r. jonah ibn janà˙

305

13.1.2.2 The entry words for which Ibn Janà˙ recorded no deflnition (leaving them classed as πwr[m) and for which MS-R subjoined an Arabic cognate hùxyb/hxyb ,(88) rùdb/rzb ,(78) ˆata/ˆta (78) yta/hta ,(68) ≈ra/≈ra ,(57) rma/rma • μmh) μah/μwh ,(167) hmwsd/ˆçd ,(157) ˆjd/ˆjd ,(ibid.) rab/ryb ,(91) ,(194) rkùd/rkz ,(193) ˆwtyz/tyz ,(187) babùd/bybz ,(173) lkyh/lkyh ,(177) /hfj ,(219) ryznùk/ryzj ,(206) fbùk/fbj ,(205) abùk/abj ,(197) ˆamz/ˆmz ylj/ylj ,(224) μkj/μkj ,(ibid.) μfòk/μfj ,(220) bfj/bfj ,(ibid.) hfnj ,(278) dwht/dhyth ,(241) ˆpj/ˆpj ,(238) qnùk/qnj ,(233) wmj/μj ,(227) /lbk ,(ibid.) bkwk/bkwk ,(303) bak/bak ,(ibid.) μyty/μwty ,(300) dty/dty (346) ùghl/ghl ,(344) sbl/çbl ,(332) μrk/μrk ,(313) bùdk/bzk ,(305)lbk rfm/rfm ,(367) ù˚m/jwm ,(361) ham/ham ,(353) ùtyl/çyl,(349) jwl/jwl, /μqn ,(424) ljn/ljn ,(412) rùdn/rdn ,(382) [nm/[nm ,(378) ˚lm/˚lm ,(372) bn[/bn[ ,(507) sr[/çd[ ,(486) ramsm/rmsm ,(484) μls/μls ,(452) μqn ,(598) ybùf/ybx ,(565) lwp/lwp ,(551) bç[/bç[ ,(550) hmr[/hmr[ ,(536) /lwq ,(627) sdq/çydqh ,(ibid.) jdq/jdq ,(625) rbq/rbq ,(602) jax,/jwx /arq ,(634) πfq/πfq ,(633) ltq/lfq ,(630) hmaq/hmwq ,(444) lwq /μyjyr ,(675) hlùkr/ljr ,(663) ù≈br/≈br ,(647) hyrq/hyrq 10,(646) arq /d[r ,(682) bnra/tbnra ,(681) ˚mr/˚mr ,(ibid.) bfr/bfr ,(677) ajr ydùt/dç ,(697) jbs/jbç ,(689) μqr/μqr ,(686) dxr/dxr ,(482) d[r ,(709) fws/fwç ,(708) yws/hwç ,(500/705) dhaç/dhç ,(705) haç/hc, ,(703) lamç ,(730) ams/μymç ,(724) glùt/glç ,(ibid.) qas/qwç ,(711) qws/qwç anç ,(ibid.) [ms/[mç ,(ibid.) hynamùt/hnmç ,(ibid.) ˆms/ˆmç ,(732) lamç/ .(750) fwç/frç ,(740) lps/lpç ,(734) anç/ 13.1.3 rkùd dq/MS-R Ibn Janà˙ states in his introduction to Kitàb al-Ußùl (p. 5, Shorashim, p. 2, Bacher’s preface, p. xxii) that his lexicon is not to be treated as an absolutely “independent” work. The student will find using the lexicon alone insufficient for obtaining a complete picture of the lexico-grammatical data required; he should also consult Ibn Janà˙’s earlier works as well as those of R. Judah Óayyùj. In all likelihood,

10

Ibn Janà˙ enumerates all the connotations of arq but sees no need to single out the sense “reading a book.” Nonetheless, MS-R reiterates, all the connotations and specifies that one, too, the one ignored by Ibn Janà˙, namely: haarqla [barlaw . . . tazh hrwth ta arqt lùtm. It is further noteworthy that even MS-R fails to adduce this connotation, with the etymological comparison arq/arq reflected therein, as the basic signification or at least the first connotation to be entered.

306

chapter thirteen

the reason he refers the reader to those works is in order to have grounds for reducing the scope of the treatise he was currently compiling. In "Ußùl one encounters some 500 cross-references to or citations from the works of R. Judah Óayyùj (see Shorashim, pp. 554–55, index ii), this in addition to all the references to works of Ibn Janà˙ himself (ibid., pp. 556–57, index iv). Many of these cross-references stand in lieu of lexicographical definition and explication; in other words, an entry in which appears a note such as “This has already been mentioned in the Treatise on Letters of Weakness [i.e. by R. Judah Óayyùj]”11 neither supplies a definition nor employs any language comparison. In such cases the writer also refrains from any redundant elaboration except in instances for which some information should be added to that of Óayyùj or where he decides to cancel some part of it. This is especially applicable when Ibn Janà˙ clearly implies that he proposes to rescind an opinion he expressed in one of his earlier works. For example, the entries hkb (92/63) and hlb (95/66) each incorporate citations of certain verses only, with a crossreference to Kitàb al-Af 'àl Dhawàt Óurùf al-Lìn, whereas they present no definition at all; nor do they record any elucidation or language comparison. On the other hand, the entry llb (93/64) includes several original elements beyond what Óayyùj had already set down in his own entry in the work Kitàb al-Af 'àl Dhawàt al-Mithlayn and beyond what Ibn Janà˙ himself stated in his Kitàb al-Mustal˙aq. This structure is characteristic of the entries constituting weak verbs, these being the topics (a) of the grammatical treatises of R. Judah Óayyùj and (b) of the treatise that constituting the greatest of all Ibn Janà˙’s “minor” works, Kitàb al-Mustal˙aq. And it is nothing other than the implementation of the objective that Ibn Janà˙ had formulated in the introduction to "Ußùl. A consistent loyalty to this structure is to be found in the Oxford MS of "Ußùl as well as in the Rome and Escurial MSS of Sefer HaShorashim, whereas the Rouen MS deviates from it by virtue of its subjoining exegetical annotations and language comparisons even at those locations at which the original work made do with a cross-reference to earlier treatises. Such insertions run quite counter to the original plan set by Ibn Janà˙, as expressed unambiguously in his introduction and as implemented in the entries as transmitted according to the Oxford MS of "Ußùl.

11

ˆylla πwrj batk yp rkùd dq (Ibn Tibbon renders: ˆywprh twytwa rpsb rkzn rbk).

r. jonah ibn janà˙

307

Had Ibn Janà˙ himself wished to revise his initial statements, it stands to reason that he would have made changes in the form and style of the entry; for instance, instead of simply . . . rkùd dqw he would probably have stated, more elaborately, something like anh hyp πyùxn/rkùdn ˆjnw. At any rate, he would certainly have been more elaborate in his phrasing. It is quite evident that a late browser annotated the MS with glosses; he limited himself to the context of addita and correcta but made no physical alteration, either in the body of the text or in the gist of the treatise. 13.1.3.1 Entry words for which Ibn Janà˙ gave no definition but was content with a cross-reference to his earlier treatises or to those of R. Judah Óayyùj, whereas MS-R subjoined to them an Arabic cognate ,(143) rùg/rg ,(140) ˆùg/ˆng ,(95) ylb/hlb ,(94) llb/llb ,(92) ykb/hkb • /hgh ,(163) qd/qdh-qd ,(157) yjd/hjd ,(156) swd/çwd ,(147) ssùg/ççg ,(202) yrùd/hrz ,(193) wkùd/hkz ,(194) rkùd/rkz ,(189) bwùd/bwz ,(169) ùgh tay ,(255) ytj/htj ,(228) μlj/μlj ,(221) hayj/μyyj ,(205) bbj/bbj ,(293) dqw/dqy ,(285) ˆymy/ˆymy ,(281) μjw/μjy ,(273) μby/çby ,(272) taw/ ark/hrk ,(310) yk/hwk ,(300) hns/ˆçy ,(298) ùtrw/çry ,(297) frw/fry z[/z[ ,(376) alm/(alm =) hlm ,(372) am/-ymym-μym ,(368) twm/twm ,(331) 12 jwp/jwp ,(551) yùt[/ç[ ,(548) yr[/hr[ ,(536) ang/hn[ ,(522) l[/l[ ,(514) ,(604) rwx/rwx ,(ibid.) qyùx/qwx ,(602) μwx/μwx ,(590) açp/hçp ,(565) ylq/hlq ,(631) ùfyq/≈yq ,(630) μwq/μwq ,(629) yq/ayq ,(619) rrùx/rrx /hbr ,(660) ybr/hbr ,(650) sq/çq ,(640) ≈q/≈xq ,(638) ynq/hnq ,(635) ,(683) y[r/h[r ,(682) ˆr/hnr ,(681) ymw/hmr ,(680) hmr/hmr ,(ibid.) abr .(757) μat/μat ,(748) hrs/rrç ,(697) ybs/hbç ,(688) qr/qqr 13.1.4 Entry words rendered by Ibn Janà˙ by a cognate translation synonym and for which MS-R records redundant retranslations when they recur several times within the entry In his entries, Ibn Janà˙ makes a practice of adducing divers biblical citations. In some instances, he does not take the trouble to translate or define the entry word under discussion either before the citations or after the first in the series of citations. He does so only subsequently, after several of the citations have been recorded—in fact, in the very midst of the discussion on connotations and finer

12

This comparison is recorded in the name of R. Abraham ibn Ezra.

308

chapter thirteen

nuances in the sense of the entry word at its several occurrences. In some cases MS-R redundantly subjoins such defenientes (= renderings) for the initial occurrences of the entry word, reiterating them time and again for each and every citation. Here a tendency can be discerned in MS-R, to record “in advance” what Ibn Janà˙ sets out later. For example, at entry jbz (p. 187) Ibn Janà˙ adduces several portions of verses without rendering them, whereas MS-R subjoins cognate translation synonyms for some of them: the text there reads: jbùdm ( Josh 22:10) harml lwdg jbzm . . . jbùdbw (Exod 8:23) ùhl wnjbzw. But clearly the additions jbùdbw and jbùdm in MS-R are superfluous; for, when Ibn Janà˙ subsequently considers it necessary to record a specific lexicographical annotation trwfq rfqm jbzm tyç[w lyq amnaw) (. . . jbùdmla hpx yl[ ˆak hnal typ hjybùdla brqt μl ˆaw), he himself resorts to a cognate translation synonym (i.e. hjybùd) as a link with the rendering of jbzm. Here are set out only those instances in which one may see a real reiteration of the Arabic cognate pertaining to the entry word (without indicating any non-cognate that may have been systematically subjoined by MS-R):13 ùgj/gj ,(198) anz/hnz ,(198) bnùd/bnz, (187) jbùd/jbz ,(146) çyrùg/çrg • /lf ,(262) ˆhf/ˆhf ,(260) rhf/rhf ,(237) ˆj/ˆnj ,(235) ramj/rwmj ,(210) ,tlp/flp ,(557) bkn[/çybk[ ,(366) rhm/rhm ,(267) yrf/hrf 14,(263) lf dwx ,(600) qdx/qdx ,(590) ù˚sp/jçp ,(577) y[pa/h[pa ,(573) flp brq/brq ,(631) ùfyq/≈yq ,(608) lùf/lx ,(605) jùxjùx/jyjx ,(601) dyx/ ,(669) ywr/hwr ,(661) hwbr/awbr ,(655) yarm/harm ,(650) aùtq/açq ,(647) rwùt/rwç ,(694) las/laç ,(681) ˆr/ˆnr ,(681) ˆamr/ˆwmr ,(678) bkr/bkr (743) yqs/hqç ,(730) μsa/μç ,(727) fls/flç ,(722) ˆks/ˆkç ,(711) It goes without saying that this phenomenon is additionally to be found in MS-R, in the form of subjoining a non-cognate translation synonym to the entry word, a translation synonym adduced much later in the discussion by Ibn Janà˙ himself. For example, adjoining the first connotation recorded at entry hjtlm (p. 360)—i.e. hwsk (garment, raiment)—MS-R hastily subjoins a statement implying that some believe the word to be explained as hnazùk (a receptacle for storage of clothing); this addition, however, is superfluous, because

13 An example is the rendering of hrwp by hrx[m, as recorded by Ibn Janà˙ in his entry, this being repeatedly recorded by MS-R in his glosses. And again, at entry ˆam, MS-R redundantly records a fivefold repetition of the rendering for the subsequently entered occurrences of this verb. 14 For the grammatical aspect of this comparison see Becker 1998, § 61.

r. jonah ibn janà˙

309

Ibn Janà˙ himself mentions this opinion in the sequel to this discussion. MS-R continues this practice at entry apq (p. 640) and elsewhere. The long citation from Sefer he-'Anaq of R. Moses ibn Ezra concerning the various connotations of entry rwt is also entirely redundant, for Ibn Janà˙ had fully enumerated these significations earlier. 13.1.5 Annotations in MS-R that contradict statements of Ibn Janà˙ The deviations from Ibn Janà˙’s method and from his fundamental structural plan for the treatise Kitàb al-"Ußùl, as these transpire from MS-R’s annotations, lead to the inevitable conclusion that the notations were the work of a late glossarist. If some decisive piece of evidence were needed for this fact, then there may be adduced the striking contradictions noticeable between certain annotations in MSR and the elucidations and grammatical analyses of Ibn Janà˙ as set out by him ad loc. or elsewhere in his lexicon. Given these contradictions the evidence is irrefutable. The instances of contradiction are as follows: At root dhy (p. 280) MS-R subjoins an example, explaining it as follows: tahùgla ˆm hhùgb ydjta ya hnm (Ezek 21:21) ynmyh ydjath. This implies that “The word ydjath is from the root djy and its meaning is “congregate at one of the corners.” The grammatical treatment together with the interpretation supplied by MS-R stand in contradiction to Ibn Janà˙’s clear statement at root dja (p. 33) viz.: ydjab ydrpna ya ydjatsa hryspt ynymyh ydjath, which means: “to . . . tahùgla be alone (= isolated) or secluded in one of the corners.” The semantic difference in the two senses here is subtle but absolutely limpid. For Ibn Janà˙ adopts a definiens ( djatsa) that differs from the one employed by MS-R (= djta); indeed, these pertain to two different roots. Again, Ibn Janà˙ interpreted the form ydjath as deriving from the root dja whereas MS-R recorded it amid the entries of dù jy. It is tempting to surmise that the MS-R glossarist was under the influence of the grammatical system of a lexicographer belonging to the pre-Óayyùj, school, which had failed to distinguish between the two roots, classing them under the one biliteral root dù j. At root dwz (p. 190) MS-R glosses as follows: h[pa [qbt hrwzhw (Isa. 59:5) . . . hrùdmla hùxyblaw hyp rsp. Ibn Janà˙ himself fails to record this quotation ad loc. nor, for that matter, does he record it at any other potential entry. However, he does record the given

310

chapter thirteen

Arabic definiens hròdm ù≈yb at root rzm (p. 369) in his elucidation of the entry rzmm. It is, therefore, improbable that Ibn Janà˙ assigned the same definiens to entry hrwz, which has no radical mem.15 At root ddj (p. 211), MS-R subjoins the verse djy lzrbb lzrb (Prov. 27:17), whereas Ibn Janà˙ himself, in immediate proximity (!), regarding a different root—namely hdj—states that he classifies this occurrence of djy with the tertiae yod verbs and not under the geminates. Regarding the form tll in the expression tll hrh (1 Sam. 4:19), MS-R states (p. 345): tdll laq hnak hyp lyq, whereas Ibn Janà˙ himself, in his Mustal˙aq (p. 153), had long before ruled out that grammatical parsing of the form. In its place, he proposed one of three other grammatical, cum semantic resolutions—namely, (a) the root hll, (b) the root ttl, (c) the prefixed particle l combined with the word tl. At root fwp (p. 367), MS-R states: yhw hfm lxala aùdh ˆm ˆa lyqw brqala whw hfm μhlxa ˆa lyqw fbs hfm ax[ hfm ,dyrsla Ibn Janà˙, on the other hand, records the entries hF…mi and hF,m,æ under the root hù fn, without mentioning the possibility of any other grammatical parsing—either in his own name or in the name of other philologists—either as a conjecture or in a definitive manner. The entry wnjna is recorded by Ibn Janà˙ under the root jna (p. 58), whereas MS-R speaks of the rendering ˆjn. If MS-R had a cognate translation synonym in mind, then this did not accord with Ibn Janà˙’s opinion. At root μù my Ibn Janà˙ discusses the entry μymy in the sense “year” (p. 285). Quite surprisingly, MS-R subjoins here the combination μymy t[bç (“seven days”) and renders it μaya h[bs. This annotation of MS-R is out of place here, for the root and entry recorded here are totally different: the word μwy had already been treated in its appropriate place by Ibn Janà˙. The analysis of the verbal form hn rfq (by assimilation of the emphasis component with that component in the q).

r. jonah ibn janà˙

339

/ˆwrd[y ,hynwns/tynwsns/rwg[ ,ykrk/aykrwk/sys-sws ,(619 lqx) ˚yrp/arwryp/ /asnrwq/μ[p ,hrx[m/atrx[m/hrwp ,bwk[/atybwk[/r[r[ ,jlp/jlpta /μyykt ,rpùf/arpwf/tlhç ,glst/flç/bhr ,hpqsa/atpwqs/ltpm ,sanrq .swwaf/swwf

In the following comparisons the comparison with Arab. is explicit: .lymza/lymza/[wxqm

55

,rfmq/ayrfmq/hjtlm ,μwn/μwn/μyzh •

On formula Bib. Heb./Talm. Aram. (non-cognate)/Arab. (cognate with Talm. Aram.): /tlxbj and probably (153) ùgas/agaç/rhdt ,ˆybrç/anybrwç/rwçat • 56 hsgrg/syqrn as well.

On formula Bib. Heb./Talm. Aram. (cognate)/Arab. (non-cognate): 57

.anj/rpwk/rpk •

On formula Bib. Heb./Aram. (cognate)/Arab. (non-cognate): .μùf[/μrg/μrg •

13.7 Listing of comparisons on formula Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (non-cognate) ,μyts/μymwfa ,çrj/μfa ,ybwf/ylja ,ˆynwqry/twrwa ,h[m/hrg-hrwga • ,tya/(çy=) çah ,(564 wp) ˆwdk/awpya ,(47 too) rçym/ˆwla-lya ,ˆylwtj/μyya ,πqt/yçyçal ,jbdm/larh-layra ,μfq/μyxma ,rtb/μa ,a[yxm/ˆwtyah /rhgyw ,ˆyd/hg ,amlç/hkrb ,πw[/rwbrb ,ˆlya/akb ,lylj/bwb(n) ,swjs/ldb /μynwybd ,rbt/μprg ,grd/μrg ,hadyjy/hdwmlg ,μwjt/twlylg ;tyhla ,ˆjg 55

For a detailed discussion of this comparison, see Maman (2000a), p. 272. Ibn Janà˙ built this comparison by combining the comment of R. Yehuda"i Ga"on (in Halakhot Gedolot, p. 70, sic Bacher, Shorashim, ibid.) on tlxbj (Cant. 2:1), i.e. syqrn, with the interpretation given by R. Hai Ga"on for syqrn at BT Berakhot 43b, sùgrn/tlxbj. We classify his comparison within the context of “comparisons with Talm. Aram.,” and not “with Targ. Aram.,” despite the fact that, according to Jastrow, the text rendering syqrn exists in Canticles for the Heb. tlxbj. Sperber records only the reading μygern" (in Bab. pointing), (and no var. lec. at all are registered for Canticles). It is quite feasible that this reading evolved from syqrg (= Greek narkissos). However, considering the late dating of the Targum to Ketuvim, which clearly implies its reliance on the Midrashim and the Talmudim and, in particular, since this Targum was unknown to Ibn Janà˙, the documentation of the given Aram. cannot be excluded from pertaining to the talmudic stratum, as so clearly indicated by Ibn Janà˙’s own citations. 57 This is based on the commentary of R. Sherira Ga"on to BT Gittin, 69b. 56

340

chapter thirteen

,ˆyswf/μynbh ,tçyçwd/ykrdt ,çnk/rgd ,arwfyj/tçbd 58,albyzd-albwyd /twyj ,jwr/zyzj ,atdxm/jwj ,atyqdnwp/hnwz ,hx[/hmz ,rbt/(μmh =) μhyw ,πfj/wfljyw ,hwt/hlj ,bak/hljn ,amwhyz/htalj ,(Mustal˙aq 142) .ˆmykj /twçrjm ,(anyd) gwlp/≈wrj ,ˆynbwg/(blj-) yxyrj ,rqy/çpj ,zng ,rxa/ˆsjy /twjpf ,(a[rad) apqwt/(≈rah) rwbf ,(flock) rzg/ypyçj ,hkws çrj 59,hypçw[ /hykwh ,ˆyxrj/[zy ,alqjb jlpm/μybgwy ,aba al/lawyw ,rybt/πrf ,aykçwp ,ˆmz/d[wm ,[r[/dy[wh ,zyz/[yxy ,qpnta/wrmytn ,(ayrbg)/μymy ,swmyn/ydlybw ,ˆmz /hnwkm-ˆk ,fwçqb/ˆwkn(-la) ,rbd/dry ,blx/μwn[qwhw ,(açbwdd) anyq/r[y ,a[rt jwtyp/rwtpk ;amyfp tyb ,ˆam/bwlk ,rymg/lylk ,ˆkb/yk ,sysb /trjml ,ˆyarkwn/rzmm ,πyk/ˆwçl ,tyma/μyqla wta jql ,ˆyskn/hkalm yçwbl/ yçm , apyf/ rm , [z[dza/ wd[m , ˆyrwryp/ wytw[mk , yhwrtbw amwyd whwna ,hyrwmfm/twrhnmh ,(see bibliography above) lylj/bwbn ,ˆynw[bx , rbt / tjnw , çjnd ˆyqz - ˆlçlç / μytçjn , wlyhbb / ≈wjn , açdqm ynb / ,lflfyad/r[n ,qyr[w rybt/ssn ,ˆyzng (tyb)/tkn (tyb) ,ayskn yryt[/ylyfn hnrdsmh , ˆwlfqyw / wkçnw , dqwa / taçm - açn , rgp / ( hyrah ) tlpm /ˆwfb[y ,anql/lps ˆflç/[ls ,˚lm/whtystw ,hjçmd anam/˚ysa ,ardska/ /wçw[ ,rbrbw rb/hnw[w ry[ ,jrp/πw[ ,çdqm tyb/ˆw[m ,ˆyqwnpt/μynd[ ,bk[ ,ybr/tyl[ ,dbw[/μkll[m ,ˆmk/ˆyw[ lg/ (zy[) z[h ,atwydx/hbwz[ ,çnkta /hr[m ,aybrbr/twbr[t ,(171 rdh) alpk/μyçq[m-bq[h ,anyxt/dx[m ;(342 ˚al) ˆyskn/hç[m ,rxwa/hç[m ,alwj(-ymy)/hç[mh (-ymy) ,gwz/˚r[ ,rçym /jn[p ,agz/ˆwm[p ,(69 çça)-yçyr/(μ[h lk-) twnp ,abwf (abhd) /zpwm (bhz) ,jyr/hnjx ,˚ypç/alkwa/hndçrp ,ˆy[yb trwx/μy[yqp ,anypwç/hryxph ;ylg ,ˆwflç/ry[x ,ˆyçby ˆybn[/μyqwmyx ,(Riqmah 112) μyqa/qyxh ,anybk/rjx ,hajndm/ynwmdq ,ˆba/rwrx ,çwbl/ˆwlqx ,aynb ynb/tw[ypx ,anam/tjpx /wxqyw ,aynzam/hnq ,ardq/tjlq ,drm/≈qyw ,afyq ypwys ,atlybd ,dxj/≈yq ,çnkta/wççqth ,hbwkr/ylwsrq ,afyq tyb (tyl[)/hrqmh (tyl[) ,hzb /twjqr ,aw[r/jwrh ,rbt/dry ,atwbyt/zgra ,tyrj/[q[q ,tyyxm(d), 60bçq /πyjç ,çrp/qwç ,ljn/twmdçb ,(branch) hkws/˚bwç ,yrsn/μybbç ,ˆçmç ,bljd ˆykbwg/twpç ,jçp/πsçyw ,(522/732) rbq/μynmça ,brbr/hyrykç 61,ˆpj(d)

The reading albwyd in "Ußùl is documented also in one of the MSS recorded by Sperber in his apparatus, whereas the reading lbzd, as in Shorashim, is the version adopted by Sperber in his main text (at 2 Kings 6:25). 59 Sperber, at Targum Jonathan to I Sam. 13:20, records (in the main text) hypç[ and in the following verse, aypç[l; however, in MSS T and MS b, at the second occurrence, the registered reading is hypçw[, aypçw[, as in Ibn Janà˙’s version. 60 Wilensky remarks in Riqmah (p.127 n. 11),that this vocalization—i.e. bveq with tzere—differs from the vocalization in accepted Bible editions and MSS in which the ç is with segol. He states: ly[lm ayh twqyywdmh twajswnh lkbç rmwa qùùdr ù hnwy ybr wyl[ ˚ms rça ymlçwry rpsùùm ≈wj. 61 But in Sperber’s ed. of Targum Jonathan ad loc. (Ezek. 41:16), the reading is 58

r. jonah ibn janà˙

341

,ˆjtp/tyrwr[qç ,lyp ˆç/μybhnç ,hytp μypwqç ,μfp/hqçm ,lza/wqypçy çwpt 62,rwry-dwry-rwdy/ˆt ,wydç/arjt 63,albrwt-arb rwt (rwd)/wat ,ˆmms/rçç .(abhd) ypjm/(bhz) On formula Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram./Bib. Heb. /dgnta/˚çm ,twnhb/ˆylwsrq/μy[rk ,rwf/˚bdn/hryf ;qm[/rçym/lba • atpwqs/μyb[ ,twlyl[/ypwqst-πqtsa/lpnth ,wyçwbm/tthb/tçwjn ,fwçp .jtp/πlg/t[lqm ,lpn/ˆkr/jnx ,bxy/≈[n/jnx ,hlj/hxyrg/hgw[ ,ˆtpm/ On formula Bib. Heb./Talm. Aram. (non-cognate) .arwç rb/l(y)j64 ,arb lgnrt/tpykwd •

13.8 Comparison of Hebrew with Arabic The comparisons in this major category are classified in accordance with the standard comparison typology, i.e. explicit comparisons, implicit comparisons, cognate and non-cognate translation synonyms. However, an additional factor has been taken into account—namely, the practice of R. Judah ibn Tibbon in his production of the translation Kitàb al-Tanqìh (see above ch. 6).

ypjd with no var. lec. registered. Incidentally, the word, rdan, which in Ibn Janà˙’s record in "Ußùl follows ≈[ πyjç, was transliterated by Neubauer in Hebrew characters, giving the impression that it pertains to the verse quotation, but in fact this is an Arabic word that, according to Neubauer’s editing method, should have been transliterated into Arabic characters. 62 It seems that the "Ußùl reading (arb) rwd, is mistaken; for in Shorashim the text reads instead (arb) rwt. In Sperber’s edition of Onqelos, likewise, no variant with d appears, from any MS, the unanimous version being with t. Sperber registers no var. lec. arb with r; the reading is unanimously albrwt or alb rwt with a l. In fact, Ibn Janà˙’s version arb rwt, is more transparent etymologically; a l/r switch may well have occurred subsequently. 63 In Shorashim the reading is ˆydwry, in "Ußùl: ˆyrwdy; in the Sperber ed.: ˆyrwry (MSS s l Z), ˆyrwdy (MSS b g) and ˆydwry (MS o). 64 Ibn Janà˙ adduces this comparison in the name of R. Sherira Ga"on in his Glossary to Tractate Shabbat (78a); this in itself is sufficient indication that the comparison is meant to be with Talm. Aram. and not as a hypothetical comparison with Targ. Aram., such as to the Targum at Ps. 50:11 (ydç zyz); Job 3:7 lwgnrtd hnnr) (wb hnnr awbt la/. . . arb. This Aramaic entry word appears twice further in the Targum to Job as well as twice in the “Second Targum” to Esther, both these Targums were almost certainly unknown to Ibn Janà˙. (The above examples have been culled from the Levita’s Meturgeman, at entry arb lwgnrt.)

342

chapter thirteen

13.8.1 Heb./Arab. explicit comparisons that lack "ishtiqàq i.e. are not derived from a real inflectional root in the language. In the work Risàlat al-Tanbìh, (Dérenbourg 1880, pp. 261–63),65 Ibn Janà˙ discusses at length the forms sh (Zach. 2:17), wsh (Neh. 8:11) and shyw (Num. 13:30). He there investigated the possibility of assigning these forms to the regular verb patterns, according to their several inflections. But, having found no regularity in their inflection, he reached the conclusion that these verb forms cannot be taken as derived from a “normal” root (one that can be inflected in a regular fashion) but are rather part of the inflection of a “word with no root,” which is sh (i.e. a sort of onomatopoeia). Thus the meaning of shyw is “He said sh.” The Arabic counterpart is hx (with the same connotation as the Heb. sh, i.e. a call or signal for all present to be silent), where, likewise, the word has no root and the verb derived therefrom, hxhx, also means “to say hx”. Comparisons for words that lack "ishtiqàq are established by Ibn Janà˙ also at entries hha/hha (p. 169/p. 116); ywa/wa (p. 26/p. 16), ay/ahya/-h ( p. 41/p. 26), ddyh/dh, dyh, (p. 170/p. 116). These words are employed, both in Hebrew and in Arabic, for invocation, a loud cry, cheering, or lament. 13.8.2 Heb./Arab. explicit comparisons, cognate translation synonym, in "Ußùl and Shorashim Only the entry headings are recorded below; for the comparisons in full, the reader should refer, in each case, to the source itself or to the chart of comparisons (below, ch. 16). Source references are indicated only for those instances in which the comparison appears outside of its logical location or outside "Ußùl and Shorashim. Riqmah) ˆa/μa ,hyla ,lyla ,μyfah ,μyqz-μyqza ,zam-za ,ryah-rwa ,μymga • (˚ph=) ˚pa ,˚na ,whnan ,ˆman ,twhma ,(˚rdh-) μa ,(ibid.) ˆa/μa ,(101 (hmjlm-) tyb ,yçyçal ,μymçaw ,lça ,hytwyça ,hnwpa ,twlypa ,(Riqmah 22) ,lzwg ,[dg ,˚wqtbw ,rçb ,arb ,[xb ,ytl[b ,hqlwbm ,hrkb ,(Riqmah 311) ,˚[mdw ,rbdtw ,ˆzrg ,μrg ,ˆg ,ydrg 66,hrzg (≈ra) ,(Riqmah 147) wzgn-tyzg

Translated into Hebrew by Solomon b. Joseph b. 'Iyyob, as Sefer Ha-Ma'aneh. In "Ußùl the comparison is hrzg/hrwzùgm; however, Neubauer, in his apparatus, recorded from MS 0 the reading hzwrùgm. Bacher (ZDMG 1884 = “Berichtungen . . .,” p. 38; ZDMG 1884, p. 624) emended the text of "Ußùl on the basis of MS 0. From 65 66

r. jonah ibn janà˙

343

,μylzh ,wtmhzw ,yndbz ,wttwht ,twrmhmb ,wlht ,wrkht ,sdh ,ybhbh ,μwqpdw ,wnlsjy ,tmj ,rwmjy ,wrmrmj ,≈mjty ,≈ymj ,≈mj ,wgwjy ,ytljz ,jzy ,˚y[z[zm ,(621) yaxax ,yl[y ,μy ,tmj ,ryhy ,dydy ,lbwyh ,drf ,ytjpf ,ˆtj ,μhyrwçjw ,trçj ,(also Riqmah 239) ,btkb ,μyrpkb ,hjwsk 67,hskb ,rwnk ,tljk ,h[ry ,thqy ,twrzm ,ddwmyw ,samy ,(704) ydçl ,tmjlw ,μymhltmk ,μynbl ,fbly ,twbwalt ,hdwxm-dxm ,hjnm ,hfylmhw ,(Riqmah 139) jwlm ,jlmm ,alm ,μhytwrkm ,(369–422) twrzm ,jzy ,≈anyw ,sn ,fwnt ,lgm ,tbnl ,μyntm ,y[çml ,frmy ,μyrxmh ,ytyjsw ,rhsh ,ˆas ,μçtyw ,qwtnw ,wpqny ,dqn ,wr[n ,≈wx[n ,ryn ,hrfwn ,twpyfn (during the lifetime of ynp-) l[ ,tw[l ,μyyd[ yd[b-hd[ ,wçb[ ,hnyps ,rksy ,πjs ,çr[ ,hkr[m ,wmx[ ,tmx[ ,(2 times) hn[t ,wll[tyw ,(Riqmah 313) ,hbqh ,glp ,hglpn ,rfp ,hnwpa ,(Risàlat al-Taqrìb 323) wjypy ,μhyapa ,hywrl ,wngrtw ,ytlgrt ,tkbrm ,wytwçqw ,sswqy ,ynfmqtw ,trfqm ,wrfq ,hbqhw ,(twice) wlçt ,jlçh rkç ,rzçm ,yrwçtw ,rbçaw ,qtry ,[yqr ,tpxr ,ç[ry ,çjr .μyt[rt ,wnyllwtw ,qrwç ,wqçy ,˚pç ,˚pçy 13.9 Explicit comparisons in "Ußùl/“zero” in Shorashim (Heb./Arab. cognates) ,llwjtm-lwjy ,wz ,hmyhaw ,ˆpg ,hydwdg ,(wife) ˚tybw ,hqwb ,ydjath 68,μynba • ,wnbjsw 70,hçn 69,hfqn ,(twmçb) wbqn ,grwm ,πnky ,yk ,hyrf ,ˆxjb ,rmj ,ljy

a semantic viewpoint, the concord of hrzg with hzwrùgm is greater, in that both words are used in the sense of “soil that lacks vegetation and cannot enable anything to grow.” This reading finds corroboration in the term of comparison used by Ibn Janà˙: ybr[la ùfpll hhbaçmlaw hsnaùgmla ù≈[b ahyp ˆwkyw; in other words, what is being discussed is a partial similarity with regard to the ùfpl, i.e. the etymology. The partial nature of the similarity is due to the roots of the words being compared by metathesis. If Ibn Janà˙ had had in mind the comparison rzg/rzùg, we would have a “complete” comparison. Bacher in his Shorashim (ed. 1896) did not grasp the subtlety of the distinction and thus failed to emend the reading hrwzùgm. It would thus appear that Ibn Tibbon used an Arabic recension in which the error had already occurred. The likelihood of the occurrence of such a corruption is greater in a text written in Arabic characters (in which the letters r and z are similar, their distinction residing merely in the marking/non-marking of a diacritical dot that may be easily switched from one to the other) than in a text written in Hebrew transliteration. 67 According to Bacher’s emendation (ZDMG 1884, ibid., p. 621), the comparison is with ask and not with sk. 68 The comparison is here established according to tauto-etymological reasoning. 69 Ibn Janà˙ records this verb both at root fqn and at root ffq; it is noteworthy that the comparison by metathesis is recorded at ffq specifically! This implies that he treats the grammatical analyses for hfqn ( Job 10:1) and for wfqn (Ezek. 6:9) as of equal validity; for, if the comparison with Arabic were the decisive factor in determining the root, he would have recorded the verb at root fqn only. 70 This is based on an addendum registered by Razhabi (1966, p. 286).

344

chapter thirteen

,whw[xw ,μynwyx ,twjxjxb 71,ylwtpn ,qnpm ,μydt[h ,yl[b ,wzwl[y ,qptsyw ,rksy ,(master) rwç ,[çh ,rgç ,rbwç ,rbçm ,μqyra ,(also p. 192) ˆwzgry .ˆwrç ,h[qçw ,jlçml ,wlç ,wjfçyw Uncertain cognate translation synonyms in this category ypùt / tpç ,(503/709) ˚wçla ( [ùxw )/ ˚wc ,(384/547) hprg / twbr[ • .(504/710) [çw/[wç (530/742) The uncertainty in the case of t/br:[ stems from Ibn Janà˙ relating to hymstla yp hbraqm (affinity with respect to name); and it is not entirely clear whether he is referring (a) to affinity of the signifié (that in both Heb. and Arab. the seventh sphere is denoted by a name connoting the semantic area of “glory and exaltation,” in which case, the pair twbr[ and hprg are merely non-cognates; or (b) to the affinity of the signifiants (that the two nouns are cognates). If b were the case, some remark regarding the interchange b (Heb.) /p (Arab.) could have been expected. The ˚wç/˚wç comparison is uncertain, because the word ˚wç is cited as a part of the phrase ˚wçla [ùxw and not as a unique definiens; moreover, the phrase itself serves as a secondary synonym of the principal definiens of ˚wç—namely, zrùk. Thus the comparison in fact is ˚wçla [ùxw ,zrùk/˚wç. The uncertainty in the case of tpç/ypùt, on the other hand, is rooted (a) in the comparison not being established by the unambiguous comparison term/s as well as; and (b) in Ibn Janà˙ failing to deal with the discrepancy in the third root letters of the respective entry words being compared. The typology of the [wç/[çw comparison is likewise uncertain, on account of Ibn Janà˙ neglecting to relate to the metathesis of the w and the ç (the first and second radicals) in the Arabic versus the Hebrew; here, too, the comparison term used is not an unambiguous one.

71 This accords with Bacher’s proposed emendation (ZDMG 1884, p. 627), whereas in the opinion of Neubauer, who reads lwtqm, no comparison occurs here at all.

r. jonah ibn janà˙

345

13.10 Implicit comparison—cognate in "Ußùl/“zero” comparison in Shorashim 13.10.1 Implicit comparisons, cognates, accompanied also by a non-cognate translation synonym ;yxqtsa ,ˆzw/ˆza ,(68 too) dwaùdm ,πla[m ,yrawwa/twra ;hsaf ,hnaùga/ˆga • /ˆwra ,hqùt ,hnwma/ˆwma ;drpna ,djatsa/ydjath ;μa[ ,hdjtm/μydja ;μdqt ,hyrwkb ,rwkab/twrwkb-μyrwkb ;rgx ,μrb ,l[b/hljb ;twbat ,ˆwra /73hrbw ;ld[ ,rb/rb 72,rqb bjax/rqb ;ùgwz ,l[b/l[b ;drdza ,[lb/yn[lb ,bnaùg ,hdùg/wytwdg ;ù≈wj ,bawg-hybaùg/abgm ;san ,qlùk ,rçb/rçb ;[fq ,yrb ˆm ,lalùg ˆm/llgb ;r[b ,hlùg/μyllgk ;˚rj ,lùglùg/wllgl ;qlga ,rdùg/rdg ;yçgm ,μwhdm/μhdn ;ljn ,rbd/μyrwbd ;-b rm ,πrùg/μprg ;rsk ,μrùg/ymrgt ;lùga ,ˆqùd/ˆqz ;bùxgt ,μgzt/μ[z ;[wzn ,anz/hzw ;πyslab . . . [bt ,bnùdtsa/μtbnzw /hY:jl æ ;bltsa ,πfùk/μtpfjw ;ˆmk ,rùdk/trdjh ;ˆwùgsm ,swbjm/çwbj ;hyjl ;yf[a ,μjr ,ˆnj/ˆnjy ;bùxg ,hymj/hmj ,ddùgt ,πlùk/πljy ;h[mtùgm twyb, yj /bçjy ;[wfqm ,μrùka/μwrj ;darùgla ˆm πnx ,lùgrj/lgrj ;rqn ,rpj/hrph ,μ[f/ytm[f ;πqs ,llùf/wnllfyw ;μmt ,lmk ,μtùk/μtj ;-b lab ,bsjta ;dya/byxy ;rùdq ,spf/çpf ;ù≈pn/afaf/hytafafw ;ùgw[bm ,ˆw[fm/yn[fm ;lka ;lwaft ,dtma/ddwmtj ;ywl ,tpl/tplyw ;b[kla ˆwd ,ˆa[ark/μy[rk ;hwq walm ;ˆams ,hzntkm ,hùkmm ˆaprùk/μyjim´ ;dspy ,rùdm/rzmm ;ùgwzt ,rhm/rhm ;ˆyf ,falm/flm ;ytwn ,halm/μhyjlmw ;rwaçt ,rmat rma . . . alm/(wbl) ;ùtydj ,lùtm/lçm ;[zn ,jsm/jçm ;˚rjt ,rmrmt/rmrmtyw ;˚ld ,˚[m/˚w[m ,μyhn/μhnyw ;˚ls ,ùghntsa/(hmkjb) ghnyw ;ˆy[ ,[wbny/y[wbm ;dm ,jtm/μjtmyw ;las ,yrùg ,rfq ,πfn/wpfn ;barfùxa ,[n[nt/μy[n[nm-[rnt ;ryazla qwp twx ,b[çt ,˚abtsa/˚bç ˚bsb ;lxatsa ;yqn/hqnw ;jartsa ,spnt/çpnyw whqz[yw ;hblx ≈ra ,zaz[/lzaz[ ;brùx ,qpx/qpsyw ;yds ,ùgays/hgws ;bçat /wytwçyf[ ;lam ,πf[/πf[y ;ùtagtsa ,μjrtsa ,πf[tsa/πf[ ;rpj ,qz[/ ,hbq[/bq[h ;bùgj ,yfg μmg/˚wmm[ ;ytp ,μalg/μl[ ;rùknm ,saf[m-saf[ ;laz ,brg/br[ :hzaùgm ,hbqa[m/bq[ raùta ,bq[/twbq[-bq[b ;r[w ,b[x ; rhça hrç[ , arwç[ / rwç[ ; πlga / lrga , lr[ ; πaxpx , brg / ybe r [

72 This accords with Bacher’s proposed emendation (ZDMG 1888, p. 307), whereas in the opinion of Neubauer, who took the word rqb following bjax to be a Hebrew word, this is not an instance of a comparison. 73 The spelling with h is in conflict with the Masoretic spelling (at Ezek. 23:47). In the glosses of MS-R to "Ußùl as well as in Shorashim, the spelling is with a. The truth is that Ibn Janà˙ most probably had in mind the spelling with a, since the location of this scriptural citation is at root arb, in which case the spelling with h may be just a copyist’s error.

346

chapter thirteen

; qrp , adp / twdp ; μlùfa / μt[a / μt[n ; rùxja , d[a 74 , dt[ / hdt[w ;rsk ,ù˚ùxp/wjxp, ˆl[a ,hxpa/yjxp ;jtp ,rgp/hr[pw ;[nx ,l[p/tl[p ,[qp/tw[wqp ;dh[t ,dqpth ;ˆaxqn ,dqp/wdqpyw ;rsk ,qqç ,μxp/htmxp ;μzal ,yl[ tbùt ,ltpna,/ltltp-lytp ;qrtpa ,lz[na ,drpna/drpn ;rfp ;-b lqtna ,ˆ[ùf/ˆ[xy ;ˆynf ,lylx/lylx ;ajrp twxla [pr ,ajrm lhx/wlhxy /twlybqm ;ùdùka ,lbqt/wlbqw ;jax ,ù˚rx/jrx ;ˆsla ùtydj ,rygx/ry[x ;adtba ,μdqt/ynmydqh ;hrùxjb ,hlabq/(μ[-) lbq ;hyqaltm ,hlbaqtm ,ryxq/rxq ;bùtw ,zpq/≈pqm ;˚rj ,lqlq/lqlq ;rxbla bhùd ,μwq/hmq ,qbr/qbrm ;rybk rhn ,sar/μyçar ;μl[ ,yar/har ;wnd ,brq/brq ;qyùx ;h[wmgm hraùgj ,hmùgr/hmgrm-μgr ;rbq ,ydawla ˆfb ,hbùgr/ybgr ;lbj ˆakm ;hbjr/hbjrb ;twx ,jyzrm/jzrm ;spn ,jwr/jwr ;ryùtk am ,ywr/hwr , ç[tra / ç[rtw ; dqpt , rkp , y[r / ˆwy[r ; dydç twx , ˆr/ wnynrh ; [saw ,hlyls/hlyç ;qyrf ,lybs/ylybç 75,πwçt/πaç ;dns ,dpr/ynwdpr ;brfùxa .μkja ,ˆqta/ˆqt ;glba ,μmt/μmtk ;hmyçm ,yls/htylçbw ;hdly 13.10.2 Entries, for which an implicit comparison was reiterated ,baz ,hrg ,rçkty ,ˆyb ,πa, πla-twpylam ,hwla ,(hz) ya ,ˆwrja 76,ja • ,jpyw ,rjn ,ytrrm ,alm ,˚ry ,çayl ,wnjfw ,çrjy ,wfnjyw ,çmj ,lbj ,[rz ,jtp ,jp ,wxwpy ,rwç[ ,rç[ ,ˆyyn[ ,hqwm[h ,ry[ ,hmçn ,bqny ,hbxm-byxn , lgr - tlwlgrm , awbr , çar , harm hmwq , twmlx , dwx , wqdx , μy[bxh ,μylçy ,rkçw ,rwç ,twbç ,[wbç ,tlbç ,hkbç ,hxr ,ˆwmrw ,bkr ,ylgr .μltb ,hqçy ,hnçm ,tçlçw

74 Neubauer, in "Ußùl, marked a shaddah (doubling mark), above the d in dt[a; in this case, the t is the taw of the VIII-conjugation, the root being dd[. According to this reading, there is no implicit comparison to be registered. However, an inspection of the MSS of "Ußùl (i.e. MS Oxford, which Neubauer himself used in preparing his edition) it emerges that there is no shaddah in this word, which is to be interpreted ahdt[aw, i.e. the IV-conjugation of the root dt[. This reading reveals an implicit comparison, as registered in the text, i.e. dt[/dt[. This reading is also the more likely one because, the non-cognate ahd[aw follows the cognate and it is very unlikely that a root would be given an elucidation, by that same root, ya ahdt[aw ahd[aw. It ensues that we should here identify two distinct roots. Incidentally, this MS is consistent in marking the shaddah and as noted earlier, the word referred to is not marked with any shaddah. In MS-R, the reading is ahdh[aw, which is most probably corrupt. 75 According to the Addenda of Razhabi (1966, p. 290, addendum 45). 76 For the grammatical aspect of the comparison of this entry see Becker 1998, § 67.

r. jonah ibn janà˙

347

13.10.3 Entries, for which an implicit comparison is encountered once only ,rab] ,μç…a… çwna ,μae ,ˆ"a/ æ μa ,ˆ"a/i μa ˆ:a/i μa ,πwla ,ˆyaæm ,za ,μda ,zwga • ,hnhe ,yld“mi ,tl"d" ,çrg ,br…g ,ldgm ,rwbg ,hnbig ,hkreb ,drb ,μylxbh ,qhb ,twynUjh ,ynxlj ,dlj ,(?) ˚j ,hyjh ,afj ,[wrz ,rk;Z:Ti ,rykzm ,twywiz:k] ,hz ,lyl ,bbly al ,μyrmkh ,syk ,swk ,rybk ,rty ,dly ,μwy ,dy ,jbfæh ,ççj ,μyfyrj ,ss ,rçn ,rmn ,≈meh ,y[æm ˆmi ,(342) ]limU/hkalm, jwlm ,hqjm ,hjmw ,gzmh/ ,çyfp ,r/ç[ ,yqr[w ,r[r[ ,hrq[ ,ˆy:[m ,πyf[hbw ,twpf[mh ,wdb[i ,wtsh ,μymmwqtmm ,jlxt ,lxlx ,Hr…yx ,μyrhx ,μy[bx μyçr…p ,[rp ,μyjrpa ,srl ,thrb ,jawr-jwr/jwr ,jyr/jwr ,[wbr tC…qæ jyçqt ,açqm-μyawçqh ,twryrç ,lqçm ,hpç ,μç ,μymwlçlw ,ˆwflç ,hlkçm ,tbkçw ,tqjçw ,t[bçw .tjt ,tjtma-rwçm 13.11 Implicit comparison—cognate in "Ußùl/explicit comparison in Shorashim ,μWj ,twrmzm ,μynbh… ,wçlgç ,rdg ,wyl[b ,f[yw ,ˆwgra ,y[pa/h[pa ,rjea • ,rwqnb ,ˆblm ryhm ,(also in Riqmah 138) hn handshake [as commitment, pledge]; metonymic grounds). Enumeration of occurrences: ˆyn[b . . . hrzgh/djaw . . . qaqtçalaw ;(ˆma) hrzgh wmk/qaqtça . . . lùtm • rzgn/yn[m ˆm . . . qaqtça ;(bfj) . . . trzgw ;(ˆkç) 0/qaqtça ;(çrp) rja

89 One of the connotations of qpta is “volitional and intentional consent or agreement.” For the comparison terms built on this root, this connotation is incompatible. In the comparison terms the use of this root, is in the sense “co-incidental congruence” existing between two phenomena within the two languages under discussion. Ibn Janà˙ is greatly enthused by a certain qapta between Hebrew and Arabic regarding sh> shyw/hx > hxhx: hyybr[la hgllaw hyynarb[la hglla yp qaptala aùdh bùg[a amp); Risàlat al-Tanbìh, p. 262). Had there been a conscious mutual language concord, so to speak, between the users of the two languages, his enthusiasm would be out of place. The expressions μyksm and wmyksh employed by Ibn Tibbon, in his rendition of the above-mentioned term, also refer to coincidental consonance only.

362

chapter thirteen

;([qt ,rf[) 0/tqtça am ;(rf[) wtwa rwzga/hqtça ;(hlbn) 0; (ˆg) ˆyn[hm . . . ;(hbhdm) 0 ;(6 times + sp) rzgn/. . . qtçm ;(tls) ˆm wtwa ˆyrzwg/ˆm qtçt .(ˆmk) wnmm rzgnw . . . l hmwd/hnm qtçmw . . . l snaùgm .(rbç) 0 ;(llf ,ˆza) . . . m jqln/. . . ˆm ùdwùkam • 0/hbç ;(μym) μyrmwa br[h ;(μx[ ,çql ,μça ,tyrja) . . . hmwd/hybç • 0 ;(hryb) hmwd/hbçm ;(wttwht) wtwa hmdm yna/hhbça ;(db) hmwd/hbçy ;(ˆkç) ù≈[b ;( ryzrz) ˆwymd txq/ hhbaçmla ù≈[b ;( rtk) hmwd/ hbaçm ( tam) .(hrzg) ˆwymd txq/hhbaçmlaw hsnaùgmla .(ˆrq ,rfq ,hjnm) -l hwç/ -l wasm • .(ˆwrç) 0/òfplla hsnaùgmw yn[mla hqbafm • .(πxr) -l hmwd/ˆyb hsnaùgmw hlkaçm • hbraqm ;(fmq) ˆyn[ç . . . ˆwçll bwrq/yn[m braq ;(ybx) -l bwrq/braqy • .(dçl ,rgç) 0/ˆabraqtm (ˆaòfplla) ;(twbr[) 0/hymstla yp .(laç) . . . axmn/ùgròkm . . . ùgaròka • .(μx[) ghnm wb μyghwn/yrùgm . . . hyp yrùg • ghnm awh . . . ghnmw ;(jql) ≈pjk . . . wb ≈pjhw/. . . bhùdm . . . hyp bhùdmlaw • zmr ;(jçm :ˆwgk X 10) ˆwwk ;(wat) hfn / bhd (bhùdmla aùdh yla), (ˆwçl) t[dw ;(X 3 + r[n) ˚rd ayhw ;(lylk) çryp ˆkw/bhùdm (whw) ;(πwn) 0 ;([q[q) .(rqy) 0 ;(rdms :ˆwgk X 5) t[dh l[/bhùdm yl[-yp ;(lçn ,ssn ,μymy) .(rkz) t[d awhw/yn[m whw • .(-b qjx) 0/ù≈rgk • ;(ç[r) 0/. . . πyrxt ;(rmkn) çmtçm rçak . . . çmçm/πyrxtk . . . hprxtm • .(rybk) 0/πrxtt Particles of comparison 14 times e.g.) 0 ;(about 60 times e.g. [yqr) ˆkw/aùdkhw ,˚lùdk • .(ryn ,hrwam 0 ;(12 times e.g. ˆbl) rçak ;(17 times e.g. çrj) (-ç) wmk/amk • .(hla) ˆkw ;(7 times e.g. ˚lh) .(hyrf) 0 ;(tljç) wmk ;(2 times) rçak / -k • lùtm ypw ;(hmj) -ç rwb[b ;(ggj) rçak ;(9 times e.g. [z[z) wmk/lùtm • .(hd[) 0 ;(dgnk) hzkb/adh .(2 times) rçak ;(rja) . . . hml hmwd hz/. . . am yl[ • .(lgç) ttyma l[/hqyqj yl[ • Other particles (above, 3.1.2.1) .(ddg) -bw/yp dùgw • .(fybrç) -b hyhyç çyw/yp ˆwwky • times, e.g. hnyps) -b awh ˆkw ;(46 times, e.g. hyla) -b/(aòxya) yp ,-b yhw • lxa ;(ynjçpyw) -l hmwd awhw ;(rwmjy) -b wl μyarwq ˆk ;(lgm) ˆwçlbw ;(2

r. jonah ibn janà˙

363

.(e.g. 17 times μwht) 0 ;(μç) l[ lpwn . . . hzh ˆwçlhw ;(wrkht) . . . ˆwçlbw ;(tmj ,rpk) ˆyrwq br[hw ;(13 times, e.g. yaxax) lxa/dn[ • .(4 times, e.g. çql) 0 ;(llh ,[dg) . . . ˆwçll hmwd ;(dqdq ,rwnk) -b ,(l[y) .(lyçk) ˆkw ,(6 times) awhw ,ayhw/whw ,yhw • ,(2 times + jx) -l hmwd ;(flp ,sh) -b ;(14 times, e.g. μjr) -m ,ˆm/ˆm • .(1 time ytdmj) 0 .(çwqlm) yk ,([rt) -ç ynpm/ˆal • .(tbhlç ,çwqlm) yk/ˆap • .(yk) 0/yn[m yp • Other connecting verbs (above, 3.1.2.3) :(about 270 times in a comparative context and twice as lùùwq • a comparative term or its substitute) /-yp lwqy ;(dwd ,rpa ˆwla ;(about 100 times, e.g. hqç) rma/hyp laq • rmay/(yp) laqy ;(3 times, e.g. [wç) μgrtm ;(9 times e.g. μybbç) -b rma 0 ;( jlç , rdrd ) arqnw ;(twice + rwçat ) ˆyryq ;( twlypa ) ˆyrmaw ;( hyla ) /ˆwlwqy ;(rhdt) 0;(6 times, e.g. rbd) -b rman/ . . . yp . . . lyq ;(8 times e.g. -b lpn) l[ hzh ˆwçlh μylypm ,(20 times + hp) μyrmwa/(br[la lwqt) ;(lj) warq ˆwçlb ;(rbx) ˆwçll hmwd awh ;(μhyapa ,μrg) (ˆk) μyçw[ ,(˚pç) μyaybm ,(dqn) ,ljz) warq ,(rmkn) lxa ;(31 times, e.g. dbr ,rypns) 0 ;(lwz) ˆwçlm (πwn) .([rt ,ryn) ˆyarwq ;(ddg ;(5 times + μçr ,çgr) yrbd ;(jxn) rmam ;(wngrtw) lxa/(br[la) lwq • ,rhn) 0 ;(6 times, e.g. hwg) ˆwçl ;(12 times, e.g. hd[) rma rça ,rmaç hm ;(17 times, e.g. hqn ,lay) μrmab ,wrmab-ˆm/(μ)hlwq yp-ˆm ;(6 times, e.g. ˚rj .(tljç) rmanç ;(bwbn ,hryb) μgrtç wmk/(μgrtmla) lwq ;(μtkm ,yd[) μyrmwa ;(8 times, e.g. μylax) -l ˆyrwq ,μyarwq/ymst ,ymsy • .(çql) 0/hymst ;(dwdg) 0 ;(çrp) whwarq/tms ,(ˆyryç ,çr[) arqn ;(rfq ,hylpam) 0;(rwb[b) ghnmk ;(sna) ghwn ;(çql) çwmyç/lam[tsa • /lm[tst ;(ynypwt 0 ;(jpf) ˆwçl wlyph ;(rfn) μyrmwa ;(ˆbl) wçmç/tlm[tsa μyaybm ;(lfb) -b çmçm ,(tyb) ,çmtçm/lm[tsm ;(ykh–yk) 0;(ˆma) μyçmtçm .(μwtkyw) wtwa .(μy[lwtm) 0/zùgya .(lzwg) wbyjrh/[stt .(πpf) 0/πxt .ùq 0/hb tmlkt μwgrt ;(fçq ,r[r[ ,hryf) μgrt/μgrt ;wb μyçrpm/(ˆwrspmla hmgrtw

• • • • •

364

chapter thirteen

.(see above pp. 358–59) .(ttç) 0/ra[tsm ;(h[wxqm) l[ . . . hlmh tlpm/tra[tsaw • .(ˆwmh) 0/yn[mla hb dary • .(μyzh) wb μlçm μyaçwn/ . . . lùtmla hb brùxt • .(ldg) 0/zaùga • .l[ . . . lpn/yl[ [qy • .([zy ,rwbf) -b zmwr/yla . . . raça • .(rzmm) çwryph hz wb çryp/jrçla adhb hb μkj • hrhaùf yl[ ;(tljk) . . . awhç wmk/(ybr[la ùfplla ˆm) hrhaùf yl[ • .(see Bacher 1884, 71) (rwmj) wfwçpk/ Comparison terms used by R. Judah ibn Tibbon in the category of implicit comparisons> explicit comparisons (above, 13.11) .(21 times, e.g. arp ,jlp ,çlg ,l[b) br[h ˆwçlb ,ˆm • .(tpjç ,sdrp ,rgws ,hnbl) ybr[ ˆwçlb ;(rpa) ybr[ ˆwçlw • .(12 times, e.g. bx ,ˆwgra) ybr[bw ,(tqprtm ,qrj ,ayça) br[h ˆwçll hmwd • ,rdg) br[ ˆwçlb μy-arqn-h μhw ,awhw ;(h[pa) ybr[b arqnh awhw • .(wlç ,lça) br[-ybr[b wl ˆyrwqç ;(twrmzm çwrp ˆwçl br[h μylypm ˆkç ;(3 times, e.g. f[b) br[h lxa • .(çjr) l[ hlmh .(tlbç) l[ . . . br[h ˆwçlb lpwn • Comparison terms used by R. Judah ibn Tibbon in the category “Zero” > “Comparison” (above ,6.2) ;(39 times, e.g. ybr[-h ˆwçlb-w ;(62 times, e.g. bgj ,rpg ,tyrb) ybr[b(ùw) • ,μkrk ,tlby) br[b ;(14 times e.g. fhb ,jldb) br[ ˆwçlb lfrga ,byba) ;(6 times, e.g. hpna ,lbj ,rwk) ybr[ (ˆwçl)b . . . ˆyrwq ;(6 times, e.g. lmk arqn ;(21 times, e.g. μyfyrj ,μyçat ,hpya ,hdysj) (y)br[ (ˆwçl)b arqn ,(rx[) br[h μyrmwa ˆk wmkw ;(lbn) br[h rmwa rçak ;(hnblj) ybr[b wmç .(ˆtywl ,dprs) 0 Comparison terms in marginal glosses of the MS-R μwgrtla laqw ;(hf[ ,lyawh ,ˆyh) μwgrt w/whw/˚ldkw . . . μwgrtla hyp laq • ,(brs) μwgrtw ,(lyfm) μwgrt ùda ;(hrqh ,hr[ ,ˆxh) μwgrtla yar whw ;([bçn) . . . br[la lwqt am hbç aùdhw ;(ˆgd) ybr[la ùfpll snaùgm ;(fam) μwgrt amaw ;(dba) hybr[la lwq lxala aùdh ˆm bwlqm ;(qtn) ybr[la ˆm byrq ;(πy[s) .(bwrk) ybr[lab whw

r. jonah ibn janà˙

365

The remaining comparisons in MS-R are all implicit comparisons. The terms registered above correspond well with Ibn Janà˙’s scheme of terminology; however, they are acceptable to other grammarians, too. Nonetheless, it is discernible that the term μwgrtla yar whw occurring three times in MS-R is nowhere to be found in Ibn Janà˙’s records. Further, the term hùfplk (Bacher, 1884, p. 71) is not encountered in the original comparisons of Ibn Janà˙. Conclusion The names for the several languages in Ibn Janà˙’s records are more or less systematic and firmly established. Aramaic is designated ynayrs, whereas targumic Aramaic is termed also μwgrtla hgl. (R. Sa'adiah, for example, likewise gave it a “special” additional designation, hgl yfbnlaw ˆyynadskla). The name for Arabic, likewise, is (h)ybr[ (combined with hgl, ˆasl, etc. or not combined). On just one isolated occasion, he deviates from this nomenclature and refers to Arabic as la[mçy ˆyçl, but the instance concerned is a citation, from the works of R. Sherira Ga"on. The terms most prevalent in comparisons are hsnaùgm (occurs about 150 times); μwgrtw, in various combinations (about 400 times); -b/yp (about 70 times). The remaining terms are of rarer occurrence, several of them being encountered once only (e.g., hlkaçm, hqbafm, . . . ùgarùka ,yrùg yrùgm). Of main interest is that no essential difference exists between the several terms and they all are meant to denote the same thing. Even the term -l ywasm does not have a stronger connotation of equivalence of compared entry words than snaùgm and the like. Connecting verbs are used systematically, too: there are about 270 instances, the large majority constituting forms of lùùwq, in contrast with only 2 instances of yla . . . raça as well as an isolated usage of hb dary and some similar expressions. In contrast with Ibn Janà˙, R. Judah ibn Tibbon was more flexible in his use of terms. For example, the verb lm[tsa in its various forms is rendered by ibn Tibbon by no less than five different verbs: çmyç, çmtçh, ghn, rma, . . . l[ ˆwçl wlyph, l[ . . . ta μyaybm); further alterations occur, but these generally do not distort the original connotation intended by Ibn Janà˙. At times, however, Ibn Tibbon’s term fails to accurately reflect the wording in the original. The rendering tymrah ˆwçlh of Ibn Tibbon does not unambiguously reveal which of the following appears in the original: (a) . . . hglla hynayrsla —i.e. a general epithet of language, (b) ùfpl ynayrs, relating

366

chapter thirteen

to a certain Aramaic expression, or (c) ynayrsla lwq, denoting a citation from an Aramaic corpus: the same expression of Ibn Tibbon translates all three, alike. (See, for example, the terminology in the original and in the translation, for entries rpç, ˆrq, hwg). The terms are used in comparisons of cognate and non-cognate translation synonyms, indiscriminately. Even the terms hsnaùgm and qaqtça, whose use is primarily for etymological comparison, are used also for semantic, non-etymological comparisons. A study of Ibn Janà˙’s terminology further enables one to ascertain his sources for the linguistic text materials he discusses. The term μwgrt by and large signifies the Aramaic of the Targum. In contrast, however, no Arabic term exists to denote “one specific Arabic literary corpus”: the few terms of this type have generic application, to br[la btk, ˆwrspm, and the like. On the other hand, certain terms indicate quite clearly that Ibn Janà˙ made use of various dialects of the Arabic language; I refer to such terms as hglla, μhtagl ù≈[b hyma[la and, in some further respect, ˆmyla lha, andn[ (i.e. the Andalusian vernacular), etc. The extent of etymological or semantic concord between the entry words compared is reflected in some way in the terminology, too. As an example, hsnaùgmla ù≈[b expresses merely partial or incomplete equivalence. Other expressions, outside of the array of comparison terms, to some extent reflect the resoluteness of the comparison. An expression such as adùg byùg[ (entry rts, dxm), which conveys enthusiasm, implies an assertive determination of concord. An expression such as hynayrslaw hybr[la hgll hsnaùgm hglla hùdhw (entry hbn), on the other hand, is no more than a colorless term of comparison, implying no appraisal. Hundreds of comparisons were established by Ibn Janà˙ by objective terms, but they would all seem to contain a resolute determination of comparison. These should all be distinguished from another group of terms that, expressly or allusively, point to several alternative paths of comparison or of elucidation, of which one path is to be preferred. To this group belong: ,lgç ,μybbç) qylaw ,(hrzg ,hywr ,≈anyw) hyp ylwalaw ;(wla) yyla amhbjaw • ,hqn ,lyfn ,lay ,dwg ,lba :and similarly) ˆsjalaw ,(μybbç) lùxpa ,(ˆwrç .(hhn) brqalaw .(hdr ,hxq ,hbwz[ Several comparisons are openly recorded as a matter of feasibility only ,μhyapa ,hn[ tjn ,ddwmyw ,sam ,çpj ,ljz ,ybhbh ,μrg lyla) zaùgw ,zwùgyw • ,ddyh ,πa) ambr ,(jpf ,brz) ˆkmy ,(wnyllwtw ,qqç ,wlçt ,dç ,twtp ,jyph

r. jonah ibn janà˙

367

,[ry) aòxya lmtjt yhw ,(fmq ,μyd[ ,rks ,twpyfn ,lsj ,twrwmhm ,wrkht .(fbly One seems to be the least assertive of all: .(ç[r ,ççq ,≈wq ,hkr[m ,çbk ,μrg ,hnwpa ,μyfa) ˆa d[by amw •

It goes without saying that some expressions imply reservations about or actual rejection of a comparison: (and others ,zng) yna ala ,(hla) amaw.

13.20 Ibn Janà˙’s sources Bacher (Shorashim, indices 1–3, 5–7, pp. 553–59; ibid., p. xl), WilenskyTéné (Riqmah, indices b-h; z-j, pp. 489–93, 670–71; also Riqmah, p. 17 n. 2) enumerated all the locations at which Ibn Janà˙ adduced statements and materials in the name of his predecessors, including R. Sa'adiah Ga"on, R. Judah ibn Quraysh, Mena˙em, Dunash, and R. Hai Ga"on, or which he recorded without indicating his source. True, this does not necessarily imply that Ibn Janà˙ had actually seen the works of all the above-mentioned writers. Of R. Sa'adiah’s works, for example, he certainly did not know of Kutub al-Lugha (Skoss, 1955, p. 34, n. 88; 66; Téné, 1972, p. 552 and n. 17); of R. Hai’s works, he did not know of the comprehensive lexicon to the Bible and to rabbinic literature, Kitàb al-Óàwi (Dérenbourg, 1880, introduction, p. 106 and n.).90 Moreover, scholars have long noted that the Aramaic Targum to Ketuvim was unavailable to Ibn Janà˙.91 Dérenbourg (1880, p. 105 and n. 3) further assumed that Ibn Janà˙ was not acquainted with the Karaites’ treatises; indeed, it seems that Ibn Janà˙ knew of neither Jàmi' al-"AlfàΩ of David b. Abraham Alfàsi nor Kitàb al-Mushtamil 'ala al-ußùl wa-l-Fußùl fì, l-Lugha l-'Ibràniyya of Abù-l-Faraj Hàrùn Ibn Al-Faraj. This is salient from the fact that certain comparisons in Ibn Janà˙’s records that are attested earlier in Alfàsi’s work or in the work of Abù Faraj Hàrùn are set out as his own, by the expression ydn[ zyaùgw or ana hqtça yùdla

90 It is noticeable that a unique citation from this lexicon appears in the Rouen MS of Ußùl (p. 15). However, since it is missing both from the Oxford MS and from the Hebrew version (Shorashim, p. 9 and note b), is obviously a later addition. 91 Bacher, REJ 1882, p. 273; Wilensky, Riqmah, p. 503, n. 12. See also above, 3.10.1; 9.12.1.2.

368

chapter thirteen

or some similar phrase. This is the case, for example, at entries rf[ ("Ußùl, p. 518) and hjç (ibid., p. 713). At entry drp Ibn Janà˙ even boasts that nobody before him had reached the elucidation of the biblical verse . . . twdrp wçb[ ( Joel 1:17), as he had explicated it, i.e., on the basis of the comparison çb[/sb[. Yet this very comparison is already attested in Alfàsi’s lexicon (rb[, p. 365; çt, p. 754). True, the explication of the verse in its entirety as interpreted by Ibn Janà˙ does not accord completely with Alfàsi’s explication, but, at least as to the comparison çb[/sb[ they have the same opinion. Clearly, if Ibn Janà˙ had known of the Jàmi' al-"AlfàΩ, he would not have accorded himself the credit of pioneering these comparisons. Likewise, Ibn Janà˙ (Kitàb al-Luma', p. 33; Riqmah, p. 44) treats the analysis [wdm = hm+ [wd as his own interpretation. But just this analysis can be found before him in Kitàb al-Mushtamil.92

13.21 The unique nature of Ibn Janà˙’s comparisons By the language comparisons he adopted, Ibn Janà˙ made practical application, of the great discovery that Óayyùj had revealed in the theory of the Hebrew root. Herein lies Ibn Janà˙’s unique, fundamental, and distinctive contribution to Hebrew lexicology, etc. It was solely by means of Óayyùj’s novel discovery that Ibn Janà˙ was able to check out the comparisons of his predecessors and exclude those that were not compatible with the “tri-literal root” system. Ibn Janà˙ rejected such comparisons as (Heb./Aram.) yzm/azml (above, 13.18), a comparison recorded by Alfàsi as well as trwgal/arga (recorded also by Ibn Quraysh). Some other comparisons, founded on the pre-Óayyùj root theory, were not explicitly ruled out by Ibn Janà˙. However, an inspection of his comparison listings demonstrates that no mention at all was made of comparisons pertaining to that category, which can only mean that Ibn Janà˙ treated them as rejected comparisons without even feeling the need to state this fact, and treating their rejection as self-understood. Very probably, this can be safely assumed for the following comparisons from Alfàsi’s records /hd[y ,hlwlw/tll ,aùxj/≈xj ,ùtj/çwjy ,lj/wlwjy ,pùg/wpygy ,ˆwks/˚ça • ,rtwt/rtnl ,πwçt/πçn ,yrùg/μyrgnh ,jwra/jwrm,ù˚aùkm/twjml ,r[tsa /wxqh ,ˆybxtnm/hyb,xø ,çytpt/çpb ,hyç[/ç[ ,aç[/hçç[ ,ayar[/μypyr[ 92

Bacher, 1895, p. 233 and n. 6; Abramson 1975, pp. 127–28 and notes 1–6.

r. jonah ibn janà˙

369

/jgy ,tlyfnw/lfyw ,ynhtn/wnyhtw (and Heb./Arab.) ˚çwça/˚ytaççw ,y≈qn wkd (:and from Ibn Quraysh) ;aytnp/htpt ,wçwp /μtçpw ,(abrq) yjygm Riqmah 184, treats this verb as a hollow) rrùdt/wrz ,wmah/wmh ,qd/ /jypy ,ù≈g/μx [øw ,μhlanm /μlnm ,hhwna/whwnaw ,rùg/μrgIhw ,(Ibn Janà˙, and) yktsa/tksh (and Heb./Aram.) aùxqna,/yxnq ,ù≈p/hxpy ,awjpty .qpn/qpyw ,af[/fy[ ,af[/hfw[m ,td[/μyd[ ,jsnty/ytyjsw (from Mena˙em Other comparisons Ibn Janà˙ rejected on account of their lacking semantic concord such as: jpfw/˚hw/ytjpf ,ˆwl[yt/ ytllw[w ,ˆçqn/çqn etc. (above, 2.6) and Heb./Ar. ,rb/rb (Gen. 45:23) ,ˆawyk/ˆwyk, hlybn/hlbn It was noted earlier (13.3) that Ibn Janà˙ maintained comparisons only if they contained some element of particularity; thus he saw no reason to establish comparisons for extremely frequent entry words such as wa, la, and the like. However, Ibn Janà˙’s originality and specialty are noticeable above all in the 342 comparisons he himself devised. For these were born of his own profound research and not some rule of thumb formulated by another scholar nor a critique he had launched against some rival philologist. These comparisons reveal the facts that his predecessors had overlooked and that he undertook to reveal to scholarship. To substantiate this statement, I have selected one category from this plethora of comparisons—namely, those entry words for which Ibn Janà˙ revealed subtle differences within what can be broadly called “components of a field of similarity,” in other words: unique connotations of frequent lexemes. His predecessors had compared, with Arabic or with Aramaic, (a) entry words of very common occurrence or (b) entry words pertaining to a unique or rare root, the later being notably infrequent. Apart from applying himself to comparisons of roots of rare occurrence, Ibn Janà˙ also highlighted unique significations issuing from frequent entry words, illustrated in what follows: The entry word yk appears in the Bible 4,475 times. The connotations of the word were well known; they had been crystallized in talmudic times and transmitted in the name of the Amora Resh Laqish: ahd ,ala ,amld ,ya :twnwçl h[brab çmçm yk (“ky is used in four senses: if, lest but, because”) (BT, Rosh HaShana, 3a). Ibn Janà˙ discovered two verses in the Bible in which yk is used with the connotation of Arabic kay (for, in order to).93 d[ appears in the Bible

93

For a detailed discussion on this comparison, see Maman (2000a), p. 273.

370

chapter thirteen

1,269 times as a conjunctive. In one of these instances, as detected by Ibn Janà˙ the particle serves the same sense as the word l[ in biblical Aramaic. μa occurs 1,071 times in the Bible and Ibn Janà˙ discovered the single instance in which this particle is used with the connotation of Arabic "an or "inna (R. Judah ibn Quraysh had earlier noticed the use of Heb. μai/Arab. "am). dy appears in the Bible about 1,617 times (plus 17 times in biblical Aramaic); among these, Ibn Janà˙ discovered the specific connotation μydy/dya (strength). The root jlç is encountered 846 times in the Bible (plus 14 times in biblical Aramaic) in its usual connotation (not including jl'ç,, etc.); of all these occurrences, Ibn Janà˙ identified the “special” connotation by the comparison jlç/ù˚lùt. μça appears in the Bible about 100 times as a verb or as a noun with the ordinary connotation of “sin”; it was Ibn Janà˙ who identified the specific occurrence aymçaw in the sense of μùtat, meaning “atonement” (these being dadùxa, according to our linguistic approach). The root rùùsy occurs in the Bible about 40 times as a verb and a further 50 times as a noun (rswm). Ibn Janà˙ located one occurrence, ytrsyy, with the connotation of Aramaic rsyy (girds, fastens the belt). ˚ùùçj appears about 110 times in the Bible, and among all these, Ibn Janà˙ detected the semantically unique occurrences ykçjm/aykyçj (the impoverished, the miserable). sùùwn appears in the Bible about 160 times in the sense “flee.” Ibn Janà˙’s predecessors had interpreted hjle sn: alw (Deut. 34:7) as a metaphorical use of that same sense, but it was Ibn Janà˙ who decided conclusively that that occurrence constitutes a once only instance of the connotation in Arabic nassa (dry). Similar semantically unique word occurrences were detected by Ibn Janà˙ for radices hùùzj, dùùdm, hùùn[, μùùwq, rùùbç, aùùlm and many more. From these roots, he pinpointed, as semantically unique, the following words: hzjy, (≈ra), ddwmyw, hn[t, hmq wyny[w, rbçaw (rbùt/), etc. (The full details of these comparisons are set out in the chart (ch. 16) and, of course, can be referred to in the source text, i.e. Kitàb al-Ußùl, each according to its relevant root.) The above represents a succinct summary Ibn Janà˙’s unique acumen in the area of lexical comparison.

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

HAI GA"ON, ABÙ-L-FARAJ, SAMUEL HANAGID, AND ABRAHAM HABAVLI

14.1 R. Hai Ga"on R. Hai Ga"on lived and flourished in Babylon in the years 939–1038 C.E. and compiled a comprehensive lexicon of Hebrew and Aramaic, entitled Kitàb al-Óàwi. The greater part of this lexicon has not survived, and of the surviving remnants only about a third have appeared in print (Harkavy 1895, 1896; Abramson 1977; Maman 2000).1 In addition, certain citations from al-Óàwi, recorded by several scholars, were assembled by M. Steinschneider (1901) and S. Poznanski (1901). Abramson (1977, p. 108) collected other quotations from the lexicon that had been unknown to Steinschneider and Poznanski but never published them. On this scanty basis the aforementioned scholars have attempted to evaluate the true nature of al-Óàwi. R. Hai Ga"on culled his entry words from the Bible, the Mishna, the Tosefta, the Midrashim, and the Talmuds. His lexicon is edited according to the alphabetical order of the root, but its arrangement is anagrammatic (see, e.g., Abramson, 1977)—according to a system adopted in several Arabic lexicons that had been composed about 200 years before the time of R. Hai (see Kopf 1976, pp. 117–18). By this system, the arch-entry for any given bi-literal or tri-literal root incorporates not only the entry words pertaining to that specific root but also the several entry words arrived at by a permutation of the letters of that root. For example, at root flj (in letter t in al-Óàwi ), entry words from the following roots are dealt with: flj, lfj, ljf, jlf, fjl, jfl.2 Included in the lexicon are also roots that have no linguistic actuality (in Hebrew or Aramaic), these being accompanied by a marginal note lmhm (unused) to that effect. Henceforth R. Hai’s language comparisons are discussed on the basis of those portions of the Kitàb al-Óàwi that have been published. 1 2

I am preparing all those remnants for publication. On a detailed presentation of this system see Maman 1999, pp. 235–39.

372

chapter fourteen

Steinschneider (p. 131) and Poznanski (p. 597) have already shown cognizance of the fact that R. Hai had embedded a good number of comparisons of Hebrew with Arabic and with Aramaic in his lexicon; however, in discussing Kitàb al-Óàwi, they failed to dwell on this aspect in a detailed manner. R. Hai Ga"on flourished in the generation of Óayyùj and the one following it. Nevertheless, the method reflected in his lexicon is none other than that root theory that had predominated in Hebrew grammar before the time of Óayyùj. The geographical distance between Spain and Babylon was apparently the reason Óayyùj’s theory did not reach R. Hai—at any rate, not before he compiled al-Óàwi. The root theory influenced the comparisons and their “nature”, as demonstrated above (2.5), and this probably was true of R. Hai Gaon’s comparisons, too. In the materials I inspected, 45 comparisons were encountered, the majority, 39 in number, being comparisons of cognates. Of this, 14 are Heb./Aram., 29 Heb./Arab., and 2 Aram./Arab. Of the comparisons with Arabic, only 9 are explicit, the remainder implicit. Notwithstanding the paucity of comparisons, 17 (about 38 percent) are attested for the first time in R. Hai’s record, the reason being that his lexicon discusses rabbinical Hebrew entry words, too. This indeed is the distinctive characteristic of R. Hai as compared with other Hebrew linguists of that epoch. In al-Óàwi, the Hebrew and Aramaic entries and discussions are pooled together indiscriminately. This “unclassified” arrangement is conducive to what is termed “inevitable comparisons” (above, 3.6.1). Yet, for all these comparisons, R. Hai adopted terms or formulae that converted all the comparisons into deliberate explicit comparisons. On one occasion, R. Hai Ga"on illustrates a linguistic phenomenon in Hebrew and Aramaic, failing to distinguish the one from the other. From this it follows that he postulated a greater affinity between those two languages than between either of them and Arabic (see above, 2.2): μwgrtla yp andùgw ˆaw ,ylxa πla lbq (w)aw hglla yp andùg(w amw) ylxa wawla sylp hawx mymkj ˆwçl ypw hawç hawh (we have not found in the language a radical waw preceding an aleph, though we found in Aramaic hawç hawh and in Rab. Heb. hawx, yet the waw is not radical).3 In one case he opposes a Heb./Arab. comparison (ˆazym/μyyn-

3

Harkavy 1855–56, p. 4 = 1970, p. 112. Harkavy’s Hebrew translation is as follows:

rav hai, abù-l-faraj, hanagid and habavli

373

zam) on etymological grounds; in two cases he identifies two different forms of the same Aramaic word appearing in different Aramaic corpuses; and once he identifies a Hebrew word as a Greek borrowing. 14.1.1 The theory of letter interchanges In the comparisons discussed here, only the following letter interchanges are encountered: g/ùg (rgws), z/ùd (za), these in explicit comparisons; in implicit comparisons, there are five instances of j/ùk. (Additionally, the intra-Heb. interchange f/t is encountered, in the comparison of words jtm/ywjfm (T-S, 5a). One Heb./Aram. comparison is established by letter metathesis: wrgjyw/tgrj. 14.1.2 Listing of the comparisons

fyaj-hfaja/wfyjy/hnfja :Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram./Arab. • .(Maman, 2000, 352) (bwa)/twbwa :Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram./Talm. Aram. • .(Poznanski 600 ,1901) ˆyjg/ˆwjg ,(Abramson 110, 1977) ,(Maman, ibid.) lzaw/˚lyw/wlza :Bib. Heb. 1/Bib. Heb. 2/Targ. Aram. • hfm/rfwj ,(Poznanski 602) tgrj/hmya/wrgjyw ,(ibid.) ˚nyz/ylk/ˆyz-˚ynza .(ibid. 353) 4ˆyfwljl/twtymxl/hwfljyw ,(Maman, ibid.) arfwj/ (Harkavy 95) aymç [yqr rywa/μymçb/rywa :Rab. Heb./Targ. Aram. • (Maman, ibid.) fj/fjfjm-ffjm-ˆyffwj :Rab. Heb./Talm. Aram • .(ibid.) πfwjm/πfjm , aòda/yza ,(Harkavy 96) òdynyj ,òda/za :Bib. Heb./Arab. (explicit) • ≠ μynzam ,(ibid.) ˆùda/ˆzaw-hnzah ,(Maman 2000, 352) ˆza/˚ynza ,(ibid.) (Poznanski 598) rwùgas/rgws ,(ibid.) thth/wttwht ,(ibid.) fa/fa ,(ibid.) ˆazym

hawx μymkj ˆwçlbw hawç hawh μwgrtb axmn μaw tyçrç ùa μdwq ùw twa qùùhlb wnaxm alw tyçrwç hnya ùwh. After ùwh, Harkavy adds, in parenthesis: ù ùah lùùxù . This remark is incorrect. Harkavy took the first occurrence of ylxa (radical) to be an epithet to πla but as the second occurrence of πla shows clearly, it should rather be attributed to waw. 4 It is not clear whether R. Hai intended to establish an etymological semantic link between the entry word ˆyfwljl, i.e. the rendering for twtyμxl and the adjoining entries = entry citations: 1) wl flwj ahyç . . . ˆmfn hyh hnwçarb; 2) ta çmçmh ty[xmah ˆwxyjh ˆm tja tamfnw μyryk ynç ˆaç[ç ty[xmah hflj hrwhf hlfn, rwhf rwhfh ta çmçmhw amf amfh ùwkw hamwfl; 3) μyçnahw lyq dq[law qyqjtla lybs yl[ sanla μalk ˆm ùdùka amw

wnmm hwfljyw wrhmyw wçjny.

374

chapter fourteen

hala/hwla ,(Maman, ibid.) rùù ka/rùùja :Bib. Heb./Arab. (implicit) • hfj ,(ibid., 353) μfùka/μfja ,(Maman, ibid.) fyùk/ fwj ,(Harkavy, ibid.) ,(ibid.) frùk/frj ,(ibid.) πfùk/μtpfjw ,(ibid.) fnj/wfnjyw ,(ibid.) hfnj/ .(ibid.) ˆjf/ˆjf ,(ibid.) ˆyjawfla/twnjwfh ,(ibid.) fyarùk/μyfyrj twice in different meanings) bwbna/bwba :Rab. Heb./Arab. (implicit) • ,fyùkm/fjm ,(Maman, ibid. 353) hrarj/rrwj-rjwa ;(Abramson, 110, ,(ibid.) fùkma/ ˆyfjwm ,(ibid. 353) μafùk/ μfj ,(ibid. 352) fayùk/ fyj .(ibid.) jfn/jyfh-jyfm .(ibid. 352) fafj/ˆyffj :Rab. Heb./Arab. (explicit) • .(Harkavy 95) ran/rwa :Rab. Heb./Arab. (not cognate explicit) • ,(Abramson 112) afçwqb/lba :Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (non cognate) • (ibid. 402) (atçqb) dgymb/ywjfm ,(Maman, ibid., 388) ˆylwtj/jwj (Maman, ibid., 408) hfnjla/ˆyfnj :Bib. Aram./Arab. • ,(ibid., 400) atfylj/μyçjlh :Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (non cognate) • .(ibid., 396) (rymf) fjy/b[tn rxn (ibid., 353) fmòkt/afmjyl :Talm. Aram./Arab. • The following are identifications rather than comparisons, the third case being a borrowing: .(Harkavy 96) ˆza/qçm/hza :Bib. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram • 112) hylwba/jyswbam/lwba :Talm. Aram./Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram • .(Abramson .(Maman, ibid., 353) wfmh/ˆyfmyj :Talm. Aram./Greek • 14.1.3 Terms of comparison5 :Talm. Aram. =) hyfbnla laùtmala yp ,(ˆyfjwm ,ˆyfmj ,bwa) (h)yfbnla yp • ,(according to Epstein 1982, ydçk ;(ˆyfnj :Bib. Aram. =) ynarsk la yp ,(hfyfj ,(comparisons listed in 14.1.2 in most of the) μwgrtla hyp laqp p. 51) (lwba) dwmtla yp ;(hza ,fhy ,atfylj ,jwj ,lba) μwgrt(w) ;(rywa) μwgrtla yp lwqk whw ;(za) ˆwpyxy . . . ˆylwqyw . . . (hyb)r[(labw) ,(ˆyffj) hymst br[law .(rwa) hybr[lab ,(yza) hybr[lab lyaqla

rav hai, abù-l-faraj, hanagid and habavli

375

14.2 Abù-l-Faraj Hàrùn Ibn Al-Faraj Abù-l-Faraj Hàrùn, “The Jerusalemite grammarian,” is reckoned by R. Abraham ibn Ezra (Moznayim, p. 2a) to be one of the “Elder Scholars of the Holy Tongue” immediately following the time of R. Sa'adiah Ga"on;6 Ibn Ezra even praises him highly: “He compiled eight works on the grammar of the (Hebrew) language, (solid) as precious sapphires.7 R. Abraham ibn Ezra is referring here to the vast, comprehensive work, containing eight parts composed by Abùl-Faraj, i.e. the treatise known as Kitàb al-Mushtamil 'alà al-ußùl wa alFußùl fì al-Lugha al-'Ibràniyya. The composition of this work ended before the year 1026 (Bacher, REJ, 1895, p. 253); it has been preserved in several manuscripts, one of which comprises 579 pages and is housed in the St. Petersburg Library. The treatise was abridged several times. One condensed version is commonly known as Al-Kitàb al-Kàfì fì al-Lugha al-'Ibràniyya published recently by G. Khan et al.; a further, condensed synopsis of the latter bears the name Kitàb al'uqùd fi Taßàrìf al-Lugha al-'Ibràniyya. However, only portions of these works have been published.8 Apart from his grammatical treatises, Abù-l-Faraj composed an Arabic translation of part of the Bible, accompanied by explanatory annotations. Sample portions were published in Poznanski, 1908. In these treatises, Abù-l-Faraj showed a keen fondness for language comparison (Poznanski 1896, p. 16, n. 2, quoting Harkavy). So much so that Poznanski (1908, p. 50) concluded that “even for the sake of the linguistic comparisons in this work (= Kitàb alMushtamil ), for these alone, the treatise is worthy of full publication.” Indeed Abù-l-Faraj incorporated a large quantity of comparative treatments in his treatises, constituting explicit and implicit comparisons as well as renderings by cognate translation synonyms.9 Almost all of the comparisons incorporated in Mushtamil are grammatical due to the nature of the work. Even the seventh part of Mushtamil,

5

On the nomenclature see Maman 2000, pp. 353–54. For a precise chronology, see Bacher (1835, p. 253) and Poznanski (1908, p. 54). According to their reckoning, Abù-l-Faraj flourished in a period partially overlapping, (a) that of R. Hai Ga"on in Babylonia and (b) that of R. Judah Óayyùj and R. Jonah ibn Janà˙ in Spain. 7 μyrqy μyrypsk μyrps hnwmç ˆwçlh qwdqdb ˆqt. See Bacher, REJ, 1895, p. 232. 8 For details, see Téné 1972, p. 1381. I am preparing a critical ed. of Mushtamil. 6

376

chapter fourteen

which is lexical in nature, is meant to prove a grammatical characteristic of the Hebrew root.10 As Basal (1998, 1999, and elsewhere) has shown, Abù-l-Faraj followed in the footsteps of Ibn al-Sarràj and other Arab grammarians. This means that already at the outset, Abù-l-Faraj wrote his book as a comparative and contrastive grammar (see above, 1.2). A clear example of this method is his adoption of the 'amal concept from Arab grammarians (see Maman 1997) or the Arabic perspective in general (see Maman 2001, §9). However, even in the framework of the adopted theory he was subtle enough to prove originality, such as in the case of the comparison of the Hebrew infinitive and verbal noun with the Arabic maßdar (see Maman 1996, esp. §§14–16). The linguistic theory of Abù-l-Faraj and, necessarily, his comparison method,11 are founded on the theory of the bi-literal root (Bacher, ibid., p. 256; Poznanski, 1896, p. 7), although he flourished in Óayyùj’s time as well as somewhat afterwards. Though he had heard of (or probably read about) the new development of Óayyùj in the theoretical studies of the Hebrew root—as one can learn from his straightforward reply to Óayyùj’s theory—he was unable to adopt it,12 for this meant renouncing the traditional Karaite method, including his own development of that theory. 14.2.1 Grammatical comparisons13 A good many comparisons established by Abù-l-Faraj treat of the three languages with their respective grammars. Part 8 of Mushtamil is set aside for biblical Aramaic grammar; there one encounters contrastive comparison of the Heb. v. Aram. grammar. Hirschfeld (1892, pp. 54–60) published a portion of this chapter. Elsewhere in Abùl-Faraj’s works, several structural comparisons of Hebrew with Arabic appear. A list of these comparisons follows:

9

The renderings are similar to those of R. Sa'adiah Ga"on, see above, 7.0. See Maman 1999, pp. 240–48, and Maman 2002. 11 The present discussion of this issue is only partial and remains provisional, pending the future publication of the Kitàb al-Mushtamil in its entirety, which I hope to accomplish in the near future. 12 See Maman 1995, p. 95. 13 The grammatical comparisons mentioned in the previous paragraph are not 10

rav hai, abù-l-faraj, hanagid and habavli

377

Comparisons of Hebrew and Aramaic The two languages are equivalent in the inflection of the regular verb, in the 3rd pers. masc. sing., in the future tense, qal form, as: flçy/flçy; jlçy/jlçy; also in suffixing the ùn for the 2nd pers. and 3rd pers. pl. forms in the future tense, as: ˆi w[mçt/ˆw[mçt, etc., except that in Aramaic this additional ˆ is invariable. They are also equivalent in the 3rd pers. sing. past tense qal forms μç/μç and the participial forms ˚Lehm' ]/˚lhm as well as in the past tense inflection of verbs of the type tmmwrth/tnnwbth. On the other hand, certain verbal forms in the two languages are homonymic: the form l['P,] in Hebrew, denotes the 2nd person Imperative,14 whereas in Aramaic, it signifies the 3rd person sing. past tense form, as jlç/jlç, etc. (see above 9.1.2 on Alfàsi). Also, the form l['P; in Heb. signifies the 3rd pers. masc. sing. past tense, whereas in Aramaic the same form denotes the masc. sing. participle form, e.g. [d'y:/[d"y;: rm'a/; rm'a; (this, of course, only when the 3rd radical letter is a guttural). The 3rd person pl. masc v./and fem. forms of the past tense, in Heb. share the same form (Wl[;); in contrast. in Aram. these possess two distinct forms: wqyls wq;yls (= hq;yls).15 Comparisons of Hebrew with Arabic Due to the lexical nature of the present study only few examples of comparative grammar will be presented here: In both Hebrew and Arabic exist intransitive verbs (verbs without an object), e.g. dm[, bçy/μaq, da[ (Zislin, 1962, p. 181). There exists, in both languages, an “imperative” for the 1st pers. (in Heb. only, sometimes paraphrastically): ˚ynp hara al* (expressed as ynp ta hart al) (2 Sam. 3:13) /˚hùgw yra al (ibid., p. 182). The uninflected conjunction rça is used in Hebrew, irrespective of gender and number of the governing noun, whereas in Arabic the parallel conjunctive yùdla is inflected according to gender and number (ytla, etc.); it is omitted in Arabic asyndetic relative clauses (Poznanski, 1896, p. 29; 1908, p. 62). Arabic kilà is treated as a singular form, although its connotation is dual (= two); thus in Heb., the accusative pronoun suffix in the repeated here. 14 Abù-l-Faraj did not know of or did not adopt the concept of binyan (conjugation) but used different morphological patterns for the classification of the verbal forms. See Maman 1995, pp. 87–95. For this reason the post-Óayyùj terms such as qal and pi''el are avoided here. 15 One of the feminine forms represents the Masoretic Qere the other the Ketib.

378

chapter fourteen

form wOnpxtw ( Josh. 2:4) is, morphologically, singular but signifies the dual (for μnEpxtw [. . . and she concealed the two of them]; ibid., p. 63). 14.2.2 Semantic comparisons Abù-l-Faraj sets up an etymological semantic comparison between the Heb. [g"r, and [gEwOr (μyh) and the Arabic non-cognate translation synonyms ùfjl-hùfjl as follows: [gr/hprf-hùfjl = “an instant, a small moment of time”; [g"r/ ; ùfjl are, in his view, denominative verbs from the above-mentioned nouns, having the connotation: “he looked for an instant, ‘in a flash’ of time (lit: in the twinkling of an eye).” In part 5, §16 of Mushtamil, Abù-l-Faraj sets out parallel series of homonyms in Hebrew and Arabic respectively. Bacher (ibid., p. 246) adduces, as an illustration of the materials of this paragraph, the series: çpj-rqb-rqj-çqyb-çrd-laç/çtp-≈jp-blf-smtla-las. Abù-lFaraj even notes the finer differences of connotation between the several items within the series. 14.2.3 Listing of the lexical comparisons Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. ,(Poznanski 1896, 8) ˆybr[tm/wbr[tyw ;(Hirschfeld 1892, 57) tyzj/htyzj • .(Hirschfeld 1892, 56) jbçy/jbçm And in the framework of grammatical comparisons: /laç ,db[/db[ ,rgs/rgs ,[dy/[dy ,˚lhm/˚lhm ,rma/rma ,lza/lza • ˆw[mçt / ˆw[mçt , flçy / flçy , jfç / jfç , μyç / μyç , rbsy / rbwç , laç .(Bacher 1895, 250 ;Hirschfeld 1892, 54–56) Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram. .(Poznanski 1896, 10) a[ybr/txbr/y[br • Bib. Heb./Arab. (explicit)

˚pnk ,(Bacher 1895, 245) sby/çby ,(Poznanski 1908, 49) dlùg/ydlg • .(Poznanski 1908, 47) hlùg[/hlg[ ,(ibid. 249) πnk/ Bib., Heb./Arab. (implicit)

ldùg/μylydg ,(ibid., 9) r[bt/r[bl ,(Poznanski 1896, 30) ˆya ˆm/ˆyam • hragm/hr[m ,(Poznanski 1896, 7) rwb[/rwb[ ,(Poznanski 1908, 49) 11) rpg/rp[ ,(ibid., 12) rmg/rm[ ,(ibid., 14) πylgt/tpl[m ,(ibid., 12)

rav hai, abù-l-faraj, hanagid and habavli

379

,(ibid., 9) barg/brw[ ,(ibid., 8) bwrg/br[ ,(ibid., 7) brg/hbr[ ,(ibid., l[p/l[p ,(ibid. 13) ryç[t ,rç[/ . . . ˆyrç[ ,rç[ ,(ibid., 12) hmr[/hmr[ . . . h[bra ,[ybrt/ . . . [wbr ,[bra ,(ibid., 15) gbx/μy[bx ,(ibid. 14) .(ibid.) r[ç/r[ç ,(13 ibid.,) ry[ç/μyrw[ç ,(ibid., 10) y[brt/y[ibr ] i ,(ibid., 10) 14.2.4 Arabic cognates in Abù-l-Faraj’s translation of the Bible In Abù-l-Faraj’s translation of the Bible, a tendency can be discerned to render the text by cognate Arabic translation synonyms. In his explanatory annotations, he occasionally makes a remark corroborating that this tendency was consciously present. For example, for rendering the biblical phrase μdl μd ˆyb (Deut. 17:8), one encounters μdw μd ˆyb. Regarding this rendering, he remarks: hùdh yp ytla tamalla hòdh amsala (the lams in these nouns, i.e. the other nouns in the verse from which this example is taken) yp ˆsjy al ùda ,wwla yn[mb yh aùdkw aùdk ˆyb lb yùdkl yùdk ˆyb laqy ˆa ybr[la (Poznanski, 1908, p. 59). The upshot is that this grammarian aspires to translate as literally as possible, i.e. by cognate translation synonyms. Were it not for the rules of the Arabic language, he would have rendered by a maximal amount of cognate translation synonyms (μdl* μd ˆyb/μdl μd ˆyb) (for further examples, see ibid., p. 58, to Deut. 9:7; p. 60, to Deut. 28:11). Further signs of this tendency are noticeable from the occurrence of a succession of cognates in a single rendition unit. In the verse segment rkzh ˚naxbw ˚rqbb ˚lwy rça rwkbh lk (Deut. 15:19), 5 of the 7 words are rendered by cognate translation synonyms, namely, lk, rkbla, dlwy, ˚rqb, arkùd. This tendency is especially noticeable in his usage of artificial Arabic words, such as hfms for rendering Heb. hfmç (Deut. 15:2) (R. Sa'adiah Ga"on, for example, renders it byystla) (see the same phenomenon in Sa'adiah’s Tafsìr, above, 7.3.5). Listing of renderings by Arab. cognates (according to materials recorded by Poznanski, 1908, pp. 57–61): ahrùka/tyrja ,(59) ˚yòka/˚yja ,(58) hya/twa ,(57) ˚aba/˚ytwba • hrça ,(ibid.) ù≈ra/≈ra ,(57) halala/μyhlah ,(ibid.) lka/lkal ,(58) qyrb/qrb ,(ibid.) ˚rqb yp/˚rqbb ,(58) rkb/rwkb ,(59) ˆyb/ˆyb ,(58) hyras/ μlwj ,(57) [arùd/[wrz ,(59) [rzt/[rzh ,(58) arkùd/rkzh ,(59) μd/μd ,(61) dlwy/dlwy ,(58) μaya/μymy ,(57) dy/dy ,(ibid.) μkhyfùk μktafj ,(58) μlaj/ ˚ajda/˚jydhl ,(58) lk/lk ,(60) hsya/wOnç]y< ,(58) aùtra . . . ùtr/tçrl . . . çr ,(ibid.) μymwx[ ,(59) all[/tløyl[ ,(ibid.) μknwy[/μkyny[ ,(ibid.) ˚spn/˚çpn ,(ibid.)

380

chapter fourteen

sdqt/çdqt ,(59) ahrapùxa/hynrpx ,(61) ltpnm/ ltltpw ,(58) μùf[a/ ,(ibid.) rwùt/rwç ,(59) haç/wyç ,(58) h[bs/t[bç ,(61) ˆwmwqy/ˆwmwqy ,(ibid.) yns (dn[)/ytwnç ,(58) hns/hnçh ,(57) ams/μymç ,(58) hfmsla/hfmçh .(57) tjt ˆm /tjtm ,(61) (ypys) 14.2.5 Nomenclature for the languages and comparative terminology 1892, 54) ynarb[la hqyrf qpawy . . . ynadskla hgl yp μalkla • 58 twice, 59) ynadskla ypw ;(ibid. 57) ˆytglla yp qpty ;(Hirschfeld 16 .(y[br) μwgrt ˆm dwùkam ;(ibid. 54) πlaùky ahnm amw ;(ibid. 55 twice, .(˚pnk) ybr[la yp . . . μùgrty ,(ydlg) ybr[la ˆm byrq •

14.3 R. Shemuel HaNagid 17 According to R. Abraham ibn Ezra (Moznayim, 2b) HaNagid compiled a scientific treatise on the Hebrew language, known as rç[h rps (Book of Amplitude), “this being greater than all the works mentioned elsewhere and surpassed by none other.”18 But this treatise (whose original was called Kitàb al-"Istighnà") has been almost entirely lost; only a meager fragment of it has survived and was published by P.K. Kokowtzow (1916, pp. 205–24). In his introduction (in Russian),19 Kokowtzow even assessed the linguistic achievement of HaNagid in the area of language comparison as well. As a broad and general appraisal, Kokowtzow maintains (ibid., p. 178) that HaNagid surpassed Ibn Janà˙ in the profundity of his linguistic analysis. We have no way of ratifying this evaluation or of refuting it, on account of the insufficiency of extant materials of HaNagid’s work. However, it is evident, from the nature of the remnants of the al"Istighnà" that it was an enormous concordance-style lexicon: for each and every entry, it had comprised not only a plethora of biblical examples but also a survey of the exegetical chain of tradition, from rabbinic literature up to his contemporary writings including refer-

16

The term ynayrs does not appear and this might serve as a stylistic mark. On the lifetime and (scholarly) achievement of HaNagid, see Munk (1851) pp. 86–109; Kokowtzow (1916b), pp. 100–106. 17

18 19

wnmm hl[ml ˆyaw μyrkznh μyrpsh lkm lwdg awhw

This introduction indeed deserves to be translated into Hebrew, together with all Kokowtzow’s introductions (ibid., p. 1893).

rav hai, abù-l-faraj, hanagid and habavli

381

ences to the treatises of R. Judah ibn Quraysh and Dunash b. Tamìm on comparative linguistics (ibid., p. 217).20 In the entry ˆma, which is extant, one encounters Heb./Arab. implicit comparisons ˆma/ˆma seven times, in several meanings (ibid. pp. 213–14, pp. 216–17); one cognate translation synonym explicit comparison as well as two non-cognate explicit comparisons ˆma/qdx (pp. 215–16) as well as four instances in which he resorted to the Aramaic Targums (pp. 216–17). All this points to a plenteous usage of language comparison, yet a comprehensive outline of HaNagid’s comparison system cannot be drawn. Perhaps it can merely be stated, in the wake of Ibn Barùn’s citation in HaNagid’s name (Muwàzana, p. 18), that HaNagid and following him Gikatilla were profuse in setting comparisons, between Hebrew and Arabic grammar; they even endeavored to locate common grammatical features in the two languages, whenever this was possible. This approach led them, in the wake of Arabic, to search for a case in Hebrew of a verb taking no less than three direct objects (ibid. pp. 162, 165). To date no other fragments of Kitàb al-"Istighnà" have been found among Genizah fragments. Yet two works aspiring to reconstruct some of HaNagid’s lost linguistic materials have been published recently; Perez (2000) found over sixty quotes from Kitàb al-"Istighnà" in an early twelfth century commentary to Psalms and 'Ukashi (1999) partially described the use of Hebrew in HaNagid’s poetry, assuming a link between HaNagid’s philological exegesis of the Bible and his usage of the same Hebrew for his poetry. The latter is too indirect to serve as evidence for HaNagid’s comparative philology. However, the former does contribute thirteen statements either for or against specific etymological Heb./Arab. comparisons, part of them being of a grammatical nature.21 Listing of lexical comparisons (all from the citations in the anonymous commentary to Psalms; every other reference is to Perez 2000): hmalx (73:20)/μmlx ;(254) amk (73:15)/wmk ;(251) ttç (73:9)/wtç • ;n. 43) açn ;(74:3)/twaV¨m ;(251) hùxmaj spn (73:21)/ybbl ≈mjty ;(255)

20 On the structure of entries in HaNagid’s lexicon, see Poznanski (REJ 1909, pp. 255–57). 21 Eldar (1996), though dealing with HaNagid’s new grammatical material, does not include anything related to comparative philology.

chapter fourteen

382

/˚yxxj22 ;(266) ≈axj (77:18) ≠ ˚yxxj ;(258) πlùk (74:6) ≠ twplk ;(257, hnapa ≠ :16) 88 (hnwpa ;(267) asnm (88:13)/hyçn ;(ibid.) ≈axùk (ibid.) .(ibid) hnyp (ibid.) ≠ hnwpa ;(268) Heb./Arab. grammatical comparisons:

μnyn (74:8)/μa[fla (259): in both cases the verb preceding the object is missing, the fuller expressions would be μnyn dymçn/μa[fla awm[fa; ynwttmx (88:17) < twtymx (Lev. 25:23)/ˆkmt (88:17) < ˆakm (269): both verbs are denominative. Further grammatical comparisons, as recorded by Kokowtzow (on the basis of citations in HaNagid’s name, by authors who succeeded him): • The syntactical status of the maßdar as this relates to the Hebrew infinitive absolute (ibid. pp. 131–47) • Imperfect forms of the type wT'y¨ and the parallel l['p]y¨ forms in Arabic • The usages of the l[pna and the l[pn conjugations; the respective correspondence of the applications of Arabic l[tpa-l[pna and Hebrew l[pth-l[pn conjugations • The forms ˆn[r and ˆnaç relate to quadriliteral radices, just like Arabic ˆamf • The assumed etymological comparison tj't'/tjt is nothing but a conjecture of Kokowtzow To sum up, it can only be assumed that if HaNagid was so subtle in comparing the structure and grammar of the two languages, he would have been even more systematic in comparing their lexicon and semantics; but unfortunately, the latter part has been almost entirely lost.

14.4 Abraham HaBavli Of all the Hebrew philologists of the epoch under present discussion, Abraham HaBavli is the least documented scholar of all. Practically nothing is known about his life; nor is it known exactly

22

This was Dunash b. Tamìm’s suggestion. See Perez, ibid.

rav hai, abù-l-faraj, hanagid and habavli

383

when he flourished. A single grammatical work by him is known, whose meager extant portion was published by Neubauer (1863). His grammatical method, or as much of it as can be recovered from the remnants of the treatise, pertains to the pre-Óayyùj school. (It should, however, be borne in mind that a definitive determination of the dating of any philologist cannot be made merely on the basis of his grammatical method, as noticed in the cases of R. Hai Ga"on (14.1.0) and Abù-l-Faraj (14.2.0). Neubauer (1863, pp. 195–96) identified Abraham with David b. Abraham Alfàsi,23 owing to the close affinity of the body of the fragmentary work and the Jàmi' al-"AlfàΩ: at any rate the matter concerning us is that he established a close similarity between those two treatises. Moreover, this was the basis upon which, Neubauer set the earliest possible dating for the grammarian Abraham HaBavli. In HaBavli’s treatise one encounters very few comparisons. All of a grammatical nature and all Heb./Aram., these comparisons are incorporated in the discussion of letter interchanges within Hebrew; they therefore further allude to certain lexical comparisons. Listing of comparisons Bib.Heb./Bib.Aram. .(210) alzrp/lzrb ,(213) wxljyw/hwfljyw ,(ibid., 214) lçjw/μylçjn • Bib.Heb./Targ.Aram. .atytr/ttr-ffr ,dpwq/zwpyq ,dypwq/dwpyq ,(211) axmwk/≈mwg • Bib.Aram./Bib.Heb. .(213) hx[/yhwf[y-wf[yta-af[ • The Heb. /Aram. interchangeable letters., according to these comparisons, are b/p (lzrb); g/k (≈mwg); d/z (rwpq) ;f/t (ffr); x/f (af[). Comparative terms

ˆtnwyw ,( ffr) tymra ˆwçl awhw ,( af[) tymrabw ,( ≈mwg) ymra ˆwçlb • .(ˆydpwq zwpyq-dwpyq) dja μwgrt . . . hç[ 23 Due to the difference in the names, it would make more sense to identify him with Alfàsi’s father but by now Neubauer’s suggestion can not be definitively approved.

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

MOSHEH HAKOHEN IBN GIKATILLA, JUDAH B. BAL'AM, AND ISAAC B. BARÙN

15.1 Mosheh HaKohen ibn Gikatilla Ibn Gikatilla lived and worked in the third quarter of the eleventh century C.E.1 He translated into Hebrew the grammatical treatises of Óayyùj and compiled his own grammatical work called Kitàb alTadhkìr wa-l-Ta"nìth (Treatise on masculine and feminine genders). Most of this treatise has been lost; about 10 percent of it has been published (Téné, 1972, p. 1383), initially by Kokowtzow (1916, pp. 59–66) and subsequently by Allony (1949). Ibn Gikatilla composed a commentary to the Bible, too: this also was almost entirely lost. Poznanski (1895) collected all that is known of the content of this commentary, by means of citations adduced by scholars in Ibn Gikatilla’s name. Bacher (1909) discovered an Arabic translation, with an appended commentary, on the Book of Job; relying on certain indications, he ascribed this work to Ibn Gikatilla and issued it as a part of the Harkavy Memorial Volume (St. Petersburg 1909/Jerusalem 1969, vol. 1, pp. 221–72). Kitàb al-Tadhkìr wa-l-Ta"nìth is a selective grammatical lexicon: it deals with (a) biblical substantives showing two plural forms, one of the masculine pattern and one of the feminine or (b) such as have a plural form that seems to be discordant with its grammatical gender (i.e., a “feminine” plural form for a noun of a “masculine” pattern (= having no morpheme suffix of the feminine) or a “masculine” plural form for a noun of a feminine pattern. The character of this lexicon is such that it is not meant to provide lexical definitions, not even (Arabic) renderings for its entries: such, in fact, is the situation: for 28 of the 40 surviving entries, neither a definition nor a translation appears, for the entry concerned. It follows that no language comparison is to be expected in this lexicon. Nonetheless, one explicit comparison of Heb. with Arabic is encountered, namely, μyytpç/hypùta-ypaùta (Allony, p. 59). The 1

For a general overview of Ibn Gikatilla see Maman, 2000a, pp. 275–77.

ibn gikatilla, judah b. bal'am, and isaac b. barÙn

385

Hebrew entry word and its translation synonym, are cognate; however, whereas the Hebrew uses the dual form only, the Arabic counterpart uses singular and plural forms as well. The remaining entries are defined by an Arabic translation synonym, in 10 instances a cognate (several present a cognate and a non-cognate). These can all be viewed as implicit comparisons. They are: ,hm;a/ ; hma, μ/a/hma, ˆma/hnama, çmç/smç, hnç/hns, hyçwt/sya, ˆza/ˆùda, μynzam/ˆazym, ja/ù˚a, μae/μa. No comparisons with Aramaic are to found in the remnants of this work (Allony, ibid., p. 37). In his introduction to the translation of Óayyùj’s works into Hebrew, Ibn Gikatilla discusses the relationship of the state of Hebrew with that of Arabic in his time (see above, 1.2). The comparisons incorporated by Ibn Gikatilla in his translation of Job have not yet been exhaustively inspected. Of the total, Poznanski (1916, p. 451, n. 1) made mention merely of the following: arp qhnyh/arpla qhny lhp ( Job 6:5); ç[/hùt[ (4, 19); wrkht/rhq (19:3); sl[/sl[ (20:18). In contrast, in citations culled by Poznanski from secondary sources in Ibn Gikatilla’s name, only one single comparison cropped up: dg/dùg (Poznanski 1895, p. 39). According to Poznanski, Ibn Gikatilla’s method of word elucidation is very broadly dependent on Ibn Janà˙. Allony, too, pointed to this being the main source for Ibn Gikatilla. But Allony adds the following rider: “However, there are occasions where he disagrees with Ibn Janà˙ and adopts an independent stand, as e.g., hla, tyç, hpç, twpça, hyçwt. Ibn Gikatilla makes express mention of Ibn Janà˙ only at entry hnat: yçb hplaùk ˆm sylw qjltsmla bjax ˚lùdk laq (ibid., p. 62). It is fair to assume that, as in linguistic inquiry in general, Ibn Gikatilla proceeded on the same lines of language comparison as Ibn Janà˙ (and perhaps, likewise, of HaNagid). If any new initiative is discerned, it must be treated as restricted to secondary details (as e.g. sya/hyçwt) and not taken to be a “novel” element in the main fundaments of comparison method.

15.2 Judah ibn Bal'am Judah ibn Bal'am2 compiled three grammatical treatises; these are basically selective grammatical dictionaries, their entries taken over 2

For a general overview of Ibn Bal'am see Maman, ibid., pp. 277–81.

386

chapter fifteen

from biblical Hebrew: 1) Kitàb al-Tajnìs (The book of homonyms) deals with homonyms and generally speaking indicates the different connotations of same; 2) Kitàb Óurùf al-Ma'ànì (Sefer Otiyyot ha-'Inyanim: “Book of particles”) enumerates the Hebrew particles and explains them; 3) Kitàb al-Af 'àl al-Mushtaqqa min al-"Asmà" discusses denominative verbs in the Bible. Surviving portions of these treatises have been published by Kokowzow (1916), by Abramson (1963), and by Allony (Beit Miqra" 1964). Abramson (1975) collocated all the remnants of these works in one volume. Judah ibn Bal'am also composed a Bible commentary, some parts of which have been published, while others remain as yet in manuscript (for details, see Abramson, 1963, pp. 54, 56). These have now been issued in new editions (Perez, 1981, n. 6; Goshen 1992;3 Perez 2000). In his grammatical works as well as in his Bible commentary, Ibn Bal'am adopted comparisons with Arabic, grammatical as well as lexical in nature. Poznanski (1916) and Perez (1978) collated a certain number of these comparisons. Poznanski dealt only with explicit comparisons with Arabic4 (ignoring the implicit ones and the comparisons with Aramaic), mainly in the grammatical works; Perez, on the other hand, dwelled only on hapax legemena in the Book of Isaiah. The latter scholar furthermore (p. 445, n. 225 and 1981, n. 26) referred to Ibn Bal'am’s treatments of Aramaic. Thus the collation and analysis of these materials has yet to be completed. All the material presented here is of partial nature and provisional, pending compilation of the comparison materials embedded in Ibn Bal'am’s Bible commentary in their entirety. 15.2.1 Grammatical comparisons Judah ibn Bal'am established structural grammatical comparisons (Poznanski ibid., pp. 453–59) as well as lexical comparisons both etymological and semantic in nature. A list follows of some additional comparisons that Ibn Bal'am established in the sphere of derivation

3

This edition was reviewed by Maman, 1996a. For instance, Poznanski failed to record comparisons from the fragments of a commentary published by S. Fuchs, 1893, such as the comparisons wççwqth/ayçyçq (Heb./Aram.), fry/frwt (implicit), twwj/yj as well as Ibn Bal'am’s demurral to R. Sa'adiah’s rendering: wlç]/ywls. Moreover, Poznanski overlooked the semantic comparison μ[h ta wkçnyw-μwtkyw/brjla μhtùx[ (Fuchs, ch. 6), etc. 4

ibn gikatilla, judah b. bal'am, and isaac b. barÙn

387

and inflection patterns, in Hebrew and in Arabic, in his work on denominative verbs: The Hebrew verb wnlsjy derives from the noun lysj, just as μr¨yw derives from hmrI, and in Arabic, drùg derives from darùg (Abramson, 1975, p. 163). The Heb./Arab. translation synonyms lha > lhayw/hmyùk > μyùk evolved in the same way (ibid., p. 147). Ibn Bal'am draws a parallel between hap > μhyapa and the Arabic pairs rsn > rsntsa (became mighty as an eagle) and qpa > qpa ("ufq > "àfaqa “is present in the distant horizons”) (ibid., p. 145). The denominative verbs ˆçedi O (from ˆç,d,) and bùxq (from byùxq) are used in the privative sense (“removal” of the entity signified by the substantive) (ibid., p. 156). In the form πa'h' there is a conflation of particles: h+ πa (having the same notation) just as in Arabic "ahal is a conflation of a + lh (ibid., p. 102). 15.2.2 The letter substitutions The letter substitutions ensuing from the comparisons collated to date, do not present any departure from the interchange theory of Ibn Janà˙. Following is a full enumeration. (Samples of entries in which the respective interchanges occur are given in parentheses): w/y ,(μrj ,wjxp) ùk/j ,(baz ,zam) d/z ,(μhytwwj) y/w ,(llgb ,dg ,ryg) ùg/gù t/ç ,(μlx ,w[xy) ùf/x ,(μyaxax ,μ[xbw) ùx/x ,(h[d) g/[ ,(fry ,μynwyx) (˚pçy ,rkç) s/ç ,(qrç ,twkbç) c/v ,(twpç ,hçqym). One Heb./Aram. interchange: (ˆh) a/h and one Aram./Ar. interchange: (ryùg/aryg) ùg/g. It is noticeable that Ibn Bal'am tends to prefer comparisons that do not necessitate any interchange, as ≈yljy ≠ lùxùk (Poznanski, 1916, p. 461). Also, he intimates that preference is to be given to the comparison tw[/ta[ over Ibn Janà˙’s comparison tw[/tg. Ibn Bal'am has no objection, in principle, to letter interchanges; however, his proviso is that these be operated in essential instances only, i.e. if/when the semantic concurrence is greater on the basis of the comparison with the interchange than without it. There can be cases in which the situation is reversed, e.g. the comparison tpxr/tapùxr, with the letter interchange he prefers, without operating any interchange, rather than the comparison established by Ibn Janà˙.

388

chapter fifteen

For comparisons involving metathesis, too, the decisive factor for Ibn Bal'am is the semantic concord. In one instance he rejects a comparison established by Ibn Janà˙ on the basis of metathesis— namely, abs/bas—and he proposes instead, a comparison without metathesis: abs/abs.5 Elsewhere, he records comparisons employing metathesis: ynrs/ˆyrsn (Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram.), in certain cases even those necessitating root pattern interchange, e.g. μyrwrmt/μara (Poznanski, ibid., p. 464), μyzh/zhzh (ibid., p. 446). Ibn Bal'am’s sources Kokowzow (1916, III pp. 195, 201, and elsewhere) determined, that as a rule, Ibn Bal'am, just like R. Mosheh HaKohen ibn Gikatilla, was an epigone of Ibn Janà˙, his innovative contributions constituting partial supplements of what Ibn Janà˙ had omitted but presenting no novelties in the principles of methodology. This evaluation would seem to be valid for language comparison, too. Other scholars also noted Ibn Bal'am’s reliance on Ibn Janà˙ (Poznanski, 1916, pp. 453, 459; Abramson, 1963, p. 63). In this connection a particular remark by Ibn Bal'am is especially instructive. In his Kitàb Óurùf al-Ma'anì (p. 111), he states: dylwla wba hrkùdy μl amm aùdhw. The implication is that he checked out the records of Ibn Janà˙ systematically and exhaustively so that he could confidently criticize him for what he had failed to say. Ibn Bal'am discusses other source texts, too. For example, Eppenstein (1900–1901, p. 237, n. 1) noted that Ibn Bal'am (in his commentary to Deut. 28:27) recorded a citation from Dunash b. Tamìm; Abramson (ibid., p. 11, entry lba, end of n. 7) remarked that Ibn Bal'am had quoted Ibn Quraysh. Fuchs (1893, in his note to Ibn Bal'am’s exegetical remark to Deut. 14:1), noted that Ibn Bal'am had even used a Christian translation of the Bible, as well. Nonetheless, in several matters, Ibn Bal'am took an independent stand, as noted by Perez (1981, pp. 230–31). Ibn Bal'am undoubtedly imbibed the fundaments of the system from his predecessors; however, he rechecked their recorded statements, for each and every comparison, setting aside whatever comparison he held to be unacceptable. (Ibn Bal'am voiced his criticism of R. Sa'adiah Ga"on, for example, regarding the latter’s elucidation of Num. 22:30, 14:44, Deut. 1:14; see details, noted by Fuchs, ibid.).

5

For other rejections, see e.g., Maman, 1996a, p. 474.

ibn gikatilla, judah b. bal'am, and isaac b. barÙn

389

15.2.3 Listing of comparisons Bib. Heb./Aram./Arab. ;(464 Abramson 65, ryn/ryn/l[/ryn ;(Perez 1978, 443; 1981, 215) ryg/aryg/ryg • .(Perez 2000, 122) spr/spr Poznanski) Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. lglg/lglg ,(ibid. 26) ˚rb/˚rb ,(Abramson 14, 98) (hla =) la/la • .(ibid. 77) abx/abx ,(ibid. 113), ah/ah ,(ibid.) ˆypgw/wypga ;(ibid. 33) Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram. ,(ibid., 25) (rb)/ˆb/rb ,(ibid., 29) [xb/twtp/[xb ,(ibid., 107) wla/wl/wla • / bhz / hbhdm ,(ibid., 154) amrg / μx[ / μrg ,(ibid.) arb / ≈wj / rb ,(Abramson, 159) lylj/bwbn/μylyljb ,(Perez, 1978, 445; 1981, 222) abhd ( abby )/ h[wrt / bbytw ,(ibid., 50; Perez, 2000, 54) πrf / hl[ / πrf (wdygn)/wkçm/dygn ,(Abramson 108) ˆkbw/za/ˆkbw ,(Perez, 1978, 445) (byrsw)/ˆamyw/μybrs ,(Fuchs, 1893, 6) wtykn/wkçnyw/μwtkyw ,(ibid. 129) arb[/jyrb/(1 Kings 6:21) rb[yw ,(Perez, 1981, 222; ibid. 2000, 23) ,(ibid., 77, 78) ryx/dy/ryx ,(ibid. 78, 171) ≈yx/rypns/≈yx ,(Abramson 176) ,(Perez, 1981, 229) (ttr)/d[r/ttr ,(Perez, 2000, 153) trfqw/rçqtw/twrwfq .(ibid., 104) tryyç/tjra/˚ytwrç ,(Perez, 2000, 53) fçw/zbyw/twfaçh Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (by metathesis) .(Abramson, 69) ˆyrsn/ynrs • Bib.Heb./Talm.Aram. /wççwqth ,(Poznanski, 472, ibid., 163) lysj/lysj ,(ibid., 115) ˆya/ˆh • .(Fuchs, ibid., 8) açyçq Bib. Heb./Ar. (explicit) ,(hplwm/twpylam ,(ibid., 93) (ùrnm)/zam ,(Abramson 10) ba = ba • ,(Poznanski 452) ˚na/˚na ,(Abramson, 20) πna/πa Poznanski, 468 ibid. 148) ,(Perez, 2000, 57 ,Poznanski, 469) rsb/rsb ,(ibid. 465) tqlba/hqlwbm ,(Perez, yrb/arb ,(ibid., 465) [ùxb/μ[xbw ,(Poznanski 463) tl[b/ytl[b/dg ,(Poznanski 469 ,Abramson 152) qrb/qrb 2000, 84; ibid. 468) ,(Poznanski 468) ssùgn/hççgn ,(Abramson 113) lalùgb/llgb ,(463 ibid.) (dùg)/dn ,( Poznanski 461) ybhbh / ybhbh ,( Perez, 1978, 445) μhd / μhdn ,(ibid. 469) lalha/μylwlh ,(ibid., 463) dyh/ddyh ,(Poznanski 466) bhzh/μyzwh ,(Fuchs, 13) yj / μhytwwj ,(ibid.) [z[z / [z[z ,(ibid., 463) ljz / yljz tyçpj ,(ibid., 463) trmj/wrmrmj ,(Poznanski 461) lùxùkù ≠ ≈yljy

390

chapter fifteen

,(Poznanski 464) tljk/tljk ,(ibid., 464) hyrf/hyrf ,(ibid., 461) çpj/ ,(Poznanski bal/twbwalt ,(Abramson 51) rpk/rpk ,(ibid. 468) lpk/μylpk tpl/tplyw ,(Abramson 168) hnbl/hnbl ,(ibid.) fbtly ,fbly/fbly 466) ,(Perez, 2000, 48) daxm/dxm,(ibid. 462) (rxbla+) dm/ddwmyw ,(464 Poznanski) jtm/μjtmyw ,(Perez, 2000, 50) [çm/y[çml ,(Poznanski 464) μara/μyrwrmt ,(Poznanski 469) rknt/hrkntm ,(Perez, 1978, 445) jbn/jbnl ,(ibid.) ,(ibid., 467) πqn/πqn ,(ibid., 426) dqan/dqn ,(ibid. 464) r[n/rw[n ,(Perez, wjs/yjs-hjws ,(ibid., 467) abs/abs ,(ibid., 461) ˆaç ≠ ˆas ,(ibid. 464) sb[/wçb[ ,(ibid., 467) πjs/πjsn 2000, 94; ibid., 464) :Abramson 177 ? ˆn[)/ ˆn[ ,(ibid., 473) ˆy[/ ˆy[ ,(ibid., 461) ta[/ tw[l r[r[ ,(Poznanski 473) bq[/wbq[ ,(Abramson 179) bx[/bx[ ,(μamg ,μyg wjxp ,(ibid., 464) ùglp/μyglp ,(ibid.) μt[a ≠ μt[n ,(ibid., 462) r[r[ ≠ μyaxax ,(Perez, 2000, 73; ibid. 472) jtp/hjwtp ,(ibid., 465) ù˚xp/ ,(ibid.) hwx/μynwyx-ˆwyx ,(ibid.) jùxajùx/twjxjx ,(Poznanski 465) yaùxaùx/ ,(ibid., 467) ˆ[ùf/ˆ[xy ,(ibid., 465) gxgx-gax/h[x ,(ibid., 467) lylx/lylx hwùtqm/hçqm ,(ibid., 473) hmyaq/hmq (wyny[) ,(ibid., 468) jrx/jyrx jzr/jzrm ,(ibid., 465) qbr/qbrm ,(ibid. 469) babr/μybybr ,(ibid. 468) hkbç/twkbç ,(ibid., 468) tapùxr/tpxr ,(ibid., 465) ˆynr/hnr ,(ibid.) ≠ wlç ,(ibid., 465) rks/rkç ,(ibid., 470) jas-hjays/jwçl-μyjyç ,(ibid.) ypùt/μytpç-twpç ,(Poznanski 470) ˚aps/(wjyç) ˚pçy (Fuchs, 5) ywls .(ibid., 452) qyrç-qyrs/qrç ,(ibid., 470) bars/brç ,(ibid., 465) hypùtaBib. Heb./Arab. (implicit)

sws/ss ,(Fuchs, 10) tfrwt/fry ;(Perez, 2000, 103) hmrbm/μymwrb • ,(Perez 2000, 122) ˚tmr/˚twmr ,(Perez, 1981, 223) whqz[yw ,(Perez, 1978, 445) .(Fuchs, 13) ˚wç/μykçl Bib. Heb./Arab. (implicit) > “zero” in the Heb. translation ,(ibid., 40) baùd/baz ,(ibid., 37) rbd/hrwbd ,(Abramson, 32) μsùg/μçg • .(ibid., 79) hmlùf/μlx ,(ibid., 48) ˆabsj/ˆwbçj ,(ibid., 46) μarùka/μrj Bib. Heb./Targ. Aram. (non-cognate)/Arab. (cognate to Targ. Aram.) .(Poznanski, 470) thl/tyhlaw/rhgyw • Semantic comparisons

jybq ,ˆsb ˆsj/fq f[mk ;(Abramson 92) (same in Arab.)/ylwl = ylwa • .(ibid., 103) rj/çpj ;(Perez, 2000, 53) [rqa [mùga ,jyqç For the rest of comparisons, see Poznanski 1916, pp. 470–76

ibn gikatilla, judah b. bal'am, and isaac b. barÙn

391

15.2.4 Comparative terms Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram. .(abx ,ah ,˚rb) 0 ,(πg) yfbnla ypw ,(lglg ,la) ynayrsla ypw • Bib.Heb. 1/Bib.Heb. 2/Targ. Aram.

lqy hnmw ;(ttr) μwgrt whw ;(ryx ,≈yx ,ˆkbw ,πrf ,rb ,yrb ,wla) μwgrt(w) • μwgrt ˆm ,(dygn) μwgrt yk ,μwgrt ˆwçlm ;(ryn) μwgrt ˆal ,(lylj) μwgrtla .(μrg) μwgrt ˆm ,(rb[yw) Bib. Heb./Talm. Aram. .(ˆh) lùùz wnytwbr yrbdbw ;(wççwqth) ˆylwala lwq ˆm •. Bib. Heb./Aram./Arab. .(ryg) yrt amk hyp tagl ùtalùtla tbraqt dqp • Bib. Heb./Arab.

byùg[ ˆm aùdhp ,(μyzwh) ˆytglla ˆyytah yp hbraqmla yp byrg aùdhw • ˆm arhw . . . br[la lwqt ˚lùdkw ,(ˆwqx) ˆytglla ˆytah ˆyb qaptala . . . l br[la hymstl asnaùgm ˆak ambrw ,(twpylam) ˆytglla hsnaùgm ybr[la ùfpll snaùgm ,(≈yljy) yn[mlaw ùfplla yp dy[b synùgt whw ,(μhytwwj) ,(hçqm) br[la lwqt aùdkhw ,(hjws ,abs ,llgb) br[la lwqtw ,(twkbç) ,(areb) ybr[la ˆasl yp ,(yjs) br[la μalk ypw ,(μhdn) br[la lwq hbçy ,(rsb) br[la dn[ ,(wlç]) br[la ˆasl ˆm hmùgrtla aùdh (rspmla) dmtsa ù≈[b yp hmsa ˚lùdkw ,(qrec) hyrùxj hbr[m hùfpl ,(qrb) hybr[la ypw .(˚na) taglla The term “zero” and comparison on the strength of the Arabic example: .ˆ[xy ,lylx ,r[r[ ,tw[l The following terms appear as the usage by the translator of the grammatical treatises of Ibn Bal'am: μyla[mçyhw ,(twpç ,μyjyç ,txjk ,dg ,zam) (μy)la[mçy ˆwçlb awh ˆkw • ,(ˆn[) μyla[mçy ˆwçlb rmay hzm bwrqw ,(hnbel) l[wp ˆyn[h hzm wprx al la[mçy ˆwçlm awhç rmwa çy ,(twpylam) μnwçlb μyla[mçyh wrmay ˆkw .(rpk) arqy tybr[ ˆwçlb yk ,(ylwa) μyla[mçyh wç[y ˆkw ,(ynwbx[)

392

chapter fifteen 15.3 Isaac ibn Barùn

Isaac ibn Barùn, the last Hebrew grammarian in the epoch under discussion, compiled the Kitàb al-Muwàzana bayn al-Lugha al-'Ibràniyya wa-l-'Arabiyya, which contains fully detailed comparison of Hebrew with Arabic in the spheres of lexicon and of grammar. Kokowtzow published the surviving parts of al-Muwàzana in 1890 as well as additional fragments in 1916. In 1893 he published a synopsis (in Russian) of the contents of that treatise and of the comparison theory emanating from it. The substantial contents of the Muwàzana, included in the two groups of fragmentary remnants, were translated into English by Wechter (1964) and redacted in the form of one consecutive list (arranged in alphabetical order of the root of each entry word). In his annotations to the text, Wechter also incorporated the gist of Kokowtzow’s synoptic survey. Wechter added further independent notations; but according to Téné (1983, notes 16, 20, 82, 86, 96, 98, 104), Wechter’s main contribution was to make Kokowtzow’s survey available to English readers. Téné (§§ 2.2.4; 5) again reviewed Ibn Barùn’s comparison method (in his general treatment of language comparison of several other tenth and eleventh century scholars). Various other issues and problems not dealt with by the aforementioned scholars have been discussed in the present work (above, 2.2; 2.33 at end; §§ 2.4; 2.6.3.4; 2.6.3.5; 5.1.1; 5.3.4; 5.3.5; see also p. 33, n. 22 and p. 34, n. 24). 15.3.1 Listing of comparisons Kitàb al-Muwàzana, as noted earlier, has only partially survived. For this reason, scholars have endeavored to reconstruct (= complete) the lacunae on the basis of several sources. Wechter (15–22) filled in certain portions such as (philological) reconstructions from fragmentary quotations by grammarians who succeeded Ibn Barùn. Becker (1980) also restored materials, by citing Abraham b. Shelomo in his Bible commentary as well as by additional citations recorded by an anonymous scholar. In fact, the list of his lexicographical comparisons can also be restored from the text of Kitàb al-Muwàzana. In the introduction to his comparative lexicon (ibid., pp. 23–25), Ibn Barùn recorded several lexical comparisons to exemplify certain substitution rules in comparison method. For example, the interchanges ç/s and c/v are illustrated by the two words r[c and çar (ibid., p. 23).

ibn gikatilla, judah b. bal'am, and isaac b. barÙn

393

These two entry words are not to be found in the remnants of al-Muwàzana (pp. 87, 98, 171). However, since they are encountered in the introduction, where they are unambiguously presented as explicit comparisons, there are no grounds for not subjoining them to the general listing of Ibn Barùn’s comparisons. Some comparisons appearing in the introduction have also survived in the body of the work—e.g. the comparison ˆzrg/ˆyzrk appears in the introduction (p. 23) and is reiterated in the body of the lexicon (p. 167), likewise, ˆhb (pp. 24, 161), μynfb (pp. 24, 163), and others. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the remaining words now appearing only in the introduction, in fact also occurred in the lost portions of the work. In what follows, no mention is made of those words that have survived in the body of the lexicon, merely those that now appear in the introduction: qd/hkdmb wkd ,lmùg/lmg ,sydk/çydg ,hbkr/μykrb ,hrkb/rqb • ,wrgp/wr[p ,ˆy[/ˆy[ ,ù˚m/jwm ,rkùd/rkz ,jbùd/jbz ,μsd/ˆçd ,qdmlab .r[ç/r[ç ,ùglùt/glç ,rwùt/rwç ,sar/çar ,yar/har ,arq/arq Some further comparisons can be restored on the basis of allusions made by Ibn Barùn at entries that show a similarity, in their grammatical pattern, to the relevant presumed entry words. The numerals from 3 to 10, with their various forms and combinations, masc. and fem. gender, etc., whole integers and fractions and so on, can be restored on the basis of Ibn Barùn comments, in the grammatical section, on the close similarity of Hebrew and Arabic in the morphology of the numerals (p. 7) as well as by parallel statements within entries [br and çmj. There, Ibn Barùn states that the Hebrew form for a fraction ty[ybr, (side by side with [br), used in Arabic as well (= [ybr), is proper for ˆymùt and ryç[ as well, corresponding with tynymç and tyryç[, hlaùtmaw. The word hlaùtmaw alludes to the comparison ty[ybç/[ybs and the like. Other lexical comparisons can be restored by the sample instances adduced by Ibn Barùn in the grammatical section, as illustration of several grammatical rules (pp. 8–9): ,[lx/[lx ,[bxa/[bxa ,πtk/πtk ,πk/πk ,ramj/rwmj ,hma/hma .ˆs/ˆç ,smç/çmç ,qas/qwç ,swq/tçq In the latter instances, cognate translation synonyms were largely adduced as renderings for the word illustrating the rule in question, these perforce leading to at least implicit comparisons. The comparisons μai/ˆa'; μai/ˆai can be restored from Ibn Barùn’s statement at entry la (p. 36).

394

chapter fifteen

Wechter reconstructed only one instance of this category: jnztw/jnz, which comparison survived in the introduction but nowhere in the substance of the lexicon (pp. 41, 168). He might well have reconstructed all the rest if the single reconstruction he made was indeed founded on that principle. 15.3.2 Comparisons with Aramaic The title of the treatise and its salient purpose intimate that this work was aimed at a comparison of Hebrew with Arabic only; Aramaic is not mentioned in the title. Indeed, in the majority of his comparisons Ibn Barùn avoids any treatment of Aramaic. Nevertheless, certain isolated comparisons with Aramaic are to be found therein. Wechter (nn. 179–80) noted only the comparisons at entries afj, jba, zwj. But in fact, one encounters several additional comparisons with Aramaic in Muwàzana: πa/πna (ynayrsla yp ˆwnla trhùf dqw). Ibn Barùn quotes from Jamharat al-lughah that the expression rwhas exists in Hebrew as well as in Aramaic. A semantic comparison: Ibn Barùn interprets the expression yrbh μymç (Isa. 47:13) in the sense ˚tj ,[fq (cleave, cut off ) by comparing with Arabic rbh, on the grounds, that the concept “cutting, cleaving” is encountered in Aramaic, too, in the linguistic context of “fortune telling, astrology”: see ˆyrzg ˆymfrj (Dan. 2:27); ayrzgw (Dan. 4:4). In entry rma, the Aram./Arab. comparison rM'ai/rma (çbk μwgrt) occurs. Ibn Barùn even calls this comparison qaptala byrg ˆm (one of the most wonderful concurrences).6 In some cases Ibn Barùn rejects comparisons that his predecessors established with Aramaic. Ibn Gikatilla explained rbdy (Ps. 47:4) in the sense of ghny; a comparison with Aramaic being the most likely background of this interpretation. Ibn Barùn refuses to adopt that explanation, apparently because in his opinion it does not suit the context. He likewise rejects Ibn Janà˙’s comparison at wypga and at dryw. But the few comparisons that he does maintain are enough to indicate that in principle he acquiesces to setting up comparisons

6 The gist of the passage would seem to intimate that the entry word is to be identified as the Arabic, whereas the Aramaic is adduced for elucidation of the Arabic. In that case, this would be the only instance in which an Arabic word has the status of definitum. However, it is possible, although as a forced suggestion, to interprete the Aramaic word rM'ai as the entry word.

ibn gikatilla, judah b. bal'am, and isaac b. barÙn

395

with Aramaic. Yet at several entries he purposely ignored an obvious comparison with Aramaic. For the comparisons wnlsjy/sjl; wnllfyw/lùfa, f[byw/f[b; Ibn Barùn adduced Ibn Janà˙’s statements (but without acknowledging their source) almost verbatim, but only with regard to the section of the comparison relating to the Arabic; he entirely ignored the section of the comparison established by Ibn Janà˙ with Aramaic. In other locations, where it can be reasonably postulated that comparison with Aramaic would be appropriate, no mention of it appears. For example, at the comparison hqlj/lqj a comparison with Aramaic alqj is suggestive; likewise at lylk/lylk ( ùgat), at ˆmla, at ˆfb etc. Why then did he see fit to compare with Aram., only in the instances mentioned above? Possibly in those instances there was some unique or specific feature, such as for instance, that the Aramaic served as real corroboration for the Arabic or for the connotation he had determined on the basis of the Arabic: At tjba he resorted to the Targ. Aram. non-cognate translation synonym abrj ylwfq as a corroboration of his comparison with hjabtsa (= laxatsa); likewise at hnfja. At wzj (Ps. 46:9), he took up comparison with Aramaic, merely to justify rejection of the elucidation offered by other grammarians, i.e. in the sense of wymy wzj al ( Job 24:1). Apparently for this entry word he could not find an Arabic cognate bearing precisely the same connotation. Indeed, he had explained the phrase μyzwjh ta in the sense yzaj = ryfla rùgaz, i.e. pigeon gamesters (in the astrological sense of “divination” or “fortune telling,” not in the sense of “plain seeing”). The comparison rhs/arhys has a unique feature, in that it was discovered in an Arabic dictionary. At rM'ai/rma, Ibn Barùn himself expressed his wonderment, by the expression qaptala byrg ˆm. Likewise, the semantic comparison rbh/rzg contains an element that is lacking in the Heb./Arab. comparison rbh/rbh. 15.3.3 Terminology Wechter (n. 318) recorded the comparison terms of Ibn Barùn in a general way. It should be noted that the “zero” and “zero”-like terms as well as μwl[m are used in Ibn Barùn’s comparisons. For example, at entry yna, Ibn Barùn states μwl[m and by this he means to imply the comparison yna/ana, likewise at entries ayh, awh, hçmj. In some cases, there is no term at all: for example, at entry ˆsj (p. 51), he says:

396

chapter fifteen

tazh ry[h ˆsj lk ta ( Jer. 20:5) rqyw ˆsj hnmw ahlamùgw ahnsj (Ezek. 22:25), this being the whole text of the entry. Also in entries rrj, trj, hpj, llf, hrf, etc., no term appears. Nevertheless, the comparison is still an explicit one. The basic term used by Ibn Barùn is snaùgm or snaùgy;7 it is of such frequent occurrence, that one might wonder why he entitled his treatise Kitàb al-Muwàzana and not Kitàb al-Mujànasa! But apparently, Muwàzana is a term of a more general nature, whereas hsnaùgm, as used by Ibn Barùn following the practice of R. Jonah Ibn Janà˙, is a more “specific” technical term. 15.3.4 The sources of Ibn Barùn The sources used by Ibn Barùn were long ago dealt with: by Kokowtzow (in his Hebrew introduction to Kitàb al-Muwàzana, 1893, p. ii, w), by Bacher (1896, introduction to the Shorashim, p. XXIV, n. 3), by Eppenstein (1900–1901), and by Wechter (1964, pp. 7–22). Broadly and typically, these scholars pointed out Ibn Barùn’s affinity with R. Sa'adiah Ga"on (e.g. Eppenstein, p. 241), with R. Hai Ga"on (pp. 243–44), and with R. Judah ibn Quraysh (ibid., pp. 242–43). The general consensus is that Ibn Barùn’s main inspiration was R. Jonah Ibn Janà˙ (see Bacher, ibid.; Eppenstein, ibid., p. 237, p. 245). Kokowtzow, in his introduction to the Kitàb al-Muwàzana listed 43 verbatim citations from Ibn Janà˙’s works, not necessarily in matters of language comparison. From the Comparative Table (below, ch. 16) it can be deduced that out of the total of 71 comparisons surviving in Muwàzana and already encountered in Ibn Janà˙’s works but untraceable to any earlier source, eleven are recorded as implicit comparisons by Ibn Janà˙ as well as a further three that he rules out. He does not cite Ibn Janà˙ in each and every comparison, but by and large the citations are verbatim, thus removing any doubt as to their source. 290 of Ibn Barùn’s comparisons are already encountered in the records of R. Sa'adiah, whether in his Bible

7

Becker (1980, p. 296 and n. 39) remarks that snaùgm, the most recurrent term in Ibn Barùn’s work, is encountered tmw[l lfwbm fw[ymb ˚a μyrja μyrbjm lxa μg ˆwrb ˆb lxa ywxmh (“in works of other authors, but its frequency in those works is extremely meager relative to its frequency in the work of Ibn Barùn”). It was noted above (13.19) that in R. Jonah ibn Janà˙’s works, the term is very prominent and is encountered in a fair number of comparisons.

ibn gikatilla, judah b. bal'am, and isaac b. barÙn

397

translation or elsewhere as part of his inventory of explicit comparisons. However, it is absolutely clear that R. Sa'adiah did not view as comparison entities each and every entity viewed as such by Ibn Barùn. For example, wkd R. Sa'adiah renders qd; wjbf, he renders jbùd; and πf, he translates lpf. But there is no certainty that R. Sa'adiah took these three to be cognates. One way or the other, the rendering itself is already there in Sa'adiah’s Tafsìr. It is feasible that Ibn Barùn took over many comparisons attested indirectly in R. Sa'adiah’s translation, i.e. by Ibn Janà˙’s Ußùl. For, considering that Ibn Barùn made very thorough use of Ußùl, it is quite possible that that work served him as a source for comparisons recorded there secondarily, as well. But it is not impossible that Ibn Barùn established several comparisons on his own accord, without resorting to any documented source, and this is especially plausible regarding such common words as μwy, dylwy, ˆymy, çryy, lg[, çar, laç, rwç, and the like. Despite all this, I treat as most decisive the documentation of a primary nature, the important matter being not what could theoretically have been borrowed from R. Sa'adiah, but what is known to have been one borrowed from him. Of the comparisons whose first documentation is in a record of R. Judah ibn Quraysh, 90 are attested in the records of Ibn Barùn. Eppenstein (ibid., pp. 242–43) illustrated Ibn Barùn’s affinity with Ibn Quraysh by the comparisons wykynjw/hyknjm; πtjb πtj; rz[y/rz[y etc. Indeed, the feature unique to these as well as other comparisons (see, for example, also wnaw, qbdl, lhy, μtbyyjw, ˆw[m, wndpa) is that Ibn Barùn could not have cited them from any other grammarians, for only he and Ibn Quraysh are known to have recorded them (at least according to our present knowledge). One further encounters 49 of Ibn Barùn’s comparisons whose first attestation is in a record of Alfàsi, but a good percentage of these might well have been adduced by Ibn Barùn from a source subsequent to Alfàsi. For example, the comparisons μçtyw/çtn; rgws/rwùgas; μydydr/hydra, and others are encountered in Ußùl, too. Furthermore, the Heb./Aram. comparison yla/ayla is adduced by Ibn Barùn explicitly in the name of R. Jonah ibn Janà˙, even though it is recorded also by Alfàsi. On the other hand some comparisons characteristic of the Karaites are to be found in the records of Ibn Barùn. One such, the comparison çya/sya, happens to appear in the records of Alfàsi (but is also encountered in the writings of other Karaites) and is reiterated in the work of Ibn Barùn. Moreover, additional comparisons recorded “jointly” by Alfàsi

398

chapter fifteen

and Ibn Barùn are not known in any other source—as, for example, ˆçlt/ˆslt and ˚wrç/˚arç, and it is feasible that this unambiguously indicates Ibn Barùn’s source. Be that as it may, Kokowtzow (1893, p. 120, n. 280; p. 145, n. 377) and Wechter (n. 115) remarked that Ibn Barùn made use, additionally, of Bible translations apart from that of R. Sa'adiah, and it cannot be ruled out that some of these were Karaite translations. The name Dunash b. Labrat is nowhere encountered in what remains of Muwàzana. What is more, the aforementioned scholars failed to note any link between him and Ibn Barùn. However, the comparison listing reveals that eleven of Ibn Barùn’s comparisons are attested for the first time as a record of Dunash. A certain number of these, such as μy/μy and twplyk/πwlk, could possibly have been taken over by Ibn Barùn directly from a record of R. Jonah ibn Janà˙. But at any rate, five comparisons unknown from another source were recorded “jointly” by Ibn Barùn and Dunash; these are: μtr/μtr, ynwkms/˚ms, hypy[s/hpy[s, rr/rar, qr/qyr, and it is fair to assume that they were in fact taken over by Ibn Barùn directly from the records of Dunash b. Labrat himself. But the above does not mean to imply that Ibn Barùn was entirely dependent on his predecessors. In many cases, he rejects their comparisons and even proposes alternative ones (see 15.3.6 below). 15.3.5 The taß˙ìf The taß˙ìf is an original concept of Ibn Barùn (Kokowtzow, 1893, p. 168, n. 80). Earlier (13.2.1) I attempted to demonstrate that Ibn Barùn could not have taken over this concept from the comparison theory of R. Jonah ibn Janà˙ because Ibn Janà˙ himself did not practise taß˙ìf. It is possible that Ibn Barùn interpreted various renderings in "Ußùl as cases of taß˙ìf.8 For example, Ibn Janà˙ rendered rjb as ryùkt and hxr as yùxr: Ibn Janà˙ views the first pair as noncognate and the second as cognate translation synonym; Ibn Barùn, however, treated both as cognate translation synonyms, by taß˙ìf. In the opinion of Ibn Janà˙, ttr/hyùtr is no more than a partial comparison, whereas Ibn Barùn views it as a full etymological compar8 This also applies to those cases, in which Ibn Barùn established a comparison on the lines of rwa[t and in which R. Jonah ibn Janà˙ intended to render merely by non-cognates, such as ˆjb/ˆjm; jrza/jyrx; ytnjt/ytljm; tjbf/tjbùd.

ibn gikatilla, judah b. bal'am, and isaac b. barÙn

399

ison, by taß˙ìf. Scholars have investigated the essence of taß˙ìf. Téné (1983, p. 266, with bibliography in n. 96) defines it as “an error in the placing of the diacritical dots, i.e.: if one writes down qzb in Arabic characters and does not mark the diacritical dot of the zay(n), the word matches its Arabic translational synonoym qrb.”9 But this definition fails to relate to either the circumstances in which the aberration occurred or to the problem of whether the error occurred within an Arabic text or within a Hebrew one. The possibility of Hebrew is very far-fetched, since no diacritical mark exists in cases of the interchange z/r. That the error occurred with regard to switches owing to the formal similarity of two “alternative” letters is again, hardly applicable in Hebrew, for Hebrew letters z and r have no close similarity. It must, therefore be concluded that the error occurred within Arabic, where, in the given example and in other cases as well, the interchanging letters are almost identical and are distinguished merely by the diacritical point placed on one member of the pair. But the problems are still not entirely settled: What relevance does the distinction between qrb and qzb in Arabic have to the Hebrew counterparts? In the context of what socio-linguistic process and in what (historical) circumstances did the erroneous switch pass from Arabic to Hebrew? Did Ibn Barùn imagine the distortion in historical grounds? By its very nature, an aberration must be linked with a historical process. Insufficient data are available for ascertaining the entire substance of Ibn Barùn’s concept of taß˙ìf, but it is quite possible that he viewed this concept “technically” and no more. In other words, it might well be that he did not perceive taß˙ìf to be a profound linguistic approach nor think of it on a historical level but merely through speculative comparison of Arabic word pairs with their Hebrew counterparts, such as qzb-qrb (Arab.)/qzb-qr;B; (Heb.). The Arab philologists viewed the entry word qzb as a case of taß˙ìf; so Ibn Barùn applied the same concept vis-à-vis the Hebrew qzb. The next stage was to extend the field of this concept to entry words in which no counterpart pair exists in Hebrew, such as ˆçwj/ˆçwùg, and even further with regard to interchanges that his predecessors had simply treated as normal switches, such as x/ùx (see ˆwxr/ˆawùxr).10 In sum, we have here another 9

10

ta μynmsm ˆyaw twybr[ twytwab qzb μybtwk μa :rmal ,ˆjbhh tdwqn ˆwmysb çwbyç (qrb) tybr[l hlç tùùhnl qzb tyrb[h hlmh tywwtçm, yaz lç ˆjbhh tdwqn In the comparison rjb/ryùkt, in the opinion of Téné (1983, n. 97), the three

400

chapter fifteen

concept/term that made its way from the unilingual context (in this case, the starting point being specifically Arabic) into the HebrewArabic interlingual context (see Téné, 1983, §7). 15.3.6 The unique characteristics of Ibn Barùn Ibn Barùn was the first Hebrew grammarian to have conducted a systematic and exhaustive comparison of Hebrew with Arabic, his comparisons being established, of course, according to his own theoretical system. His systematization is salient in several aspects: (1) Ibn Barùn recorded comparisons of even extremely frequent words, such as lk / lk , πla / πla , hta / tna , ≈ra / ≈ra , waòwa , ba /ba, ayh/ayh, dy/dy, and the like. (2) Ibn Barùn made every attempt to reach the maximal number of cognates in Hebrew and Arabic as well as to discover alternate comparisons within the same entry. In the entry rwnk, Ibn Barùn rejects Ibn Janà˙’s comparison (rank) and remarks that he had checked out the entry in Kitàb al'ayn (of Al-Khalìl), in letter k (rank) and in letter ùk (rwnùk), and failed to find in either the meaning Ibn Janà˙ had assigned to the word rank. Thus Ibn Barùn described, almost unintentionally, his method of search: to check out all hypothetical possibilities. It is thus no coincidence, when he proposes two cognate translation synonyms for hbky: wbùk and hybak; and similarly for lça: lùta and lsa; for according to his substitution chart, Hebrew k is liable to interchange with Arabic ùk, whereas Hebrew ç interchanges with Arabic ùt or s. On the same lines, for hnwpa, in addition to the two suggestions of Ibn Janà˙ (ˆapa, hnyp), he subjoins a third comparison possibility, tynp. (3) Ibn Barùn would compare a Hebrew entry (root) with an Arabic entry (root) as to all their respective equivalent connotations (e.g. πlj/πlùk), whereas Alfàsi and Ibn Janà˙ for example, established comparison of such roots only with respect to the rarer signification of the entry. (4) Ibn Barùn established a systematic and structural comparison in the grammatical context, too (Bacher, ZAW 1894, p. 283). pairs of letters b/ùk, j/y and r/r are the corresponding ones. But if, for this comparison, we graft a metathesis as well, we obtain the pair rjb/rùky, resulting in the respective correspondences: b/y, j/ùk, and r/r. The two latter pairs are usual and well known. The pair b/y in the Arabic script differ merely in the number of diacritical points (for the b, a single dot; for the y, two dots: in both letters the dots are sublinear). Construing the switch in this way well fits taß˙ìf.

ibn gikatilla, judah b. bal'am, and isaac b. barÙn

401

(5) Ibn Barùn systematically inspected each and every entry in Ibn Janà˙’s lexicon and made a search to determine the occurrence or absence of specific comparisons. At ˆzy (Muwàzana, p. 60), he remarked: ayç dylwla wba hyp rkùdy μl. The criticism launched by Ibn Barùn against the comparisons of his predecessors is clear evidence of his feeling of independence. Regarding an etymological reasoning proposed by Ibn Janà˙ for deriving hlybn from lbn, Ibn Barùn made the following comment: alw ˚lùd ra μlp yb rm. It is also worthwhile comparing his annotations at ≈lj, at hha, etc. (see Wechter, 1964, pp. 8ff.). Téné (1983, 4.2.2) remarked that a classification of comparisons by various types of similarity is unique to Ibn Barùn. The implication is that Ibn Barùn, aside from setting up and creating explicit language comparisons, practised meta-comparison as well. Ibn Barùn regularly subjoins arguments for the corroboration of the sense of an Arabic word adopted by him in his comparison work: these he adduces from usages in Arabic poetry, from the Qur"àn, and from the Óadìth, as well as from his own consultation of Arabic lexicons. Taß˙ìf, as previously discussed, is a “created” element in Ibn Barùn’s theory. This is an additional expression of the lenience and flexibility so conspicuous in Ibn Barùn’s theory of language comparison. Further evidence of this can be seen in the 33 comparisons founded on metathesis (including inflection interchanges) adopted by Ibn Barùn that are unattested in the records of former grammarians. Comparisons with Berber and with Latin (in Bacher’s opinion, ZAW 1894, p. 245, these come in the wake of R. Judah b. Quraysh) constitute further proof of Ibn Barùn’s level of flexibility in comparison, for Ibn Janà˙ (as an example) did not practise comparison with those languages. Indeed, Ibn Barùn suffered criticism for such flexibility from his contemporary R. Moshe b. Ezra (see Halkin, p. 40). Ibn Barùn’s comparisons (as these have survived in al-Muwàzana) total 271 of which his record is the first known documentation; these include one comparison by dadùxa (the semantic comparison hba/yba), 19 comparisons built on substitutions and interchanges (whether by taß˙ìf or by ta'àwur, by alphabetical juxtaposition of the mutual letters, and the like) that were disqualified by former scholars, as well as 33 comparisons established by metathesis (see previous par.).

402

chapter fifteen

15.3.7 Summary “Kokowtzow (1893, pp. 48–49) thought that Ibn Barùn’s comparisons were immeasurably superior to those of his predecessors, Ibn Janà˙ included” (Téné, 1983, p. 267); Wechter (1941, pp. 173–74) assigned relatively little importance to pre-Ibn Barùn comparison. Having taking into consideration that the contributions of Ibn Barùn’s predecessors in full detail, it can be affirmed that the evaluations of Kokowtzow and Wechter are correct as regards the systematic nature of Ibn Barùn’s comparison, especially in the field of grammar. In the area of lexical comparisons, however, while his contribution is noteworthy it cannot be said to stand out over and above those of the earlier Hebrew philologists. What is more, according to Kokowtzow’s own view, the employment of taß˙ìf reveals a regression vis-à-vis his predecessors. But it goes without saying, that Ibn Barùn’s primacy is in his systematic comparisons practised in the area of grammar: in this sphere, he clearly stands above his predecessors. Since this sub-topic, however, is not treated in the present study, it may well be that Ibn Barùn’s status as reflected here appears to be reduced in the macro-field of language comparison.

SYNOPSIS AND CONCLUSION

Hebrew philologists in the epoch scanned and treated in the present study compiled many books and treatises devoted to grammar, lexicography, Bible exegesis, and Bible translation, as well as treatises devoted specifically to language comparison. All these works are replete with comparisons between Hebrew, Arabic and Aramaic. These comparisons have as their rootstock a fully fledged comparative philology theory; nevertheless, only rarely does this theory surface in the works themselves in the form of a planned discussion; and even when such a discussion is encountered, it comprises no more than certain specific aspects of language comparison. Comparative philology as a theory and practice of medieval Hebrew philologists, in the form the present study has attempted to mold it, has evolved from the comparison activity itself, as recorded in the works of these scholars. The fourteen philologists whose works have been examined here flourished in a variety of geographical areas and eras. They lived in many places, from Babylon in the Orient, through the land of Israel in the Middle East and as far West as North Africa and Spain. These were giants, starting from R. Sa'adiah Ga"on in the early tenth century, right up to Ibn Barùn at the beginning of the twelfth century. Topographical as well as temporal factors proved decisive in molding the thesis of each and every grammarian; and to some extent those two factors played a part in shaping the several schools of thought. But the several conceptions were indubitably nurtured, additionally, by the fundaments of Jewish faith or by singular disciplines. The general picture that emerges is that in the Orient, the grammarians who recorded comparisons set no ideological restrictions on the subject, whether the comparison was with Aramaic or with Arabic. In Spain, however, certain circles in Jewry were entirely opposed to comparison practice throughout the period. There were some parties who endorsed the activity, but with certain reservations (above, 2.1). Mena˙em b. Saruq restricted himself to comparison with Aramaic and then only, with stringent reservations—i.e. disallowing letter interchanges, with the single exception of the yùùwha interchange (above, 2.4), and hardly ever postulating metathesis. Yet

404

chapter fifteen

it was in the Occident, that language comparison gained a solid foothold and was systematized. Ibn Quraysh, whose home was Tahort in North Africa, at the early dawn of the epoch, composed the first treatise pertaining specifically to comparative philology. Essentially, this work is a comparative lexicon; whereas, in Spain, Ibn Barùn, at the close of this period, compiled an exhaustive comparative lexicon as well as a systematic comparative grammar for biblical Hebrew. He even succeeded in demolishing not only the ideological reservations that had been placed on comparison but also the scholastic limitations set by earlier authorities. This gave the green light for language comparison without any restriction; many comparisons previously ruled out were now validated, including many that the earlier scholars had never conceived of. This lenience was reflected (a) in that Ibn Barùn approved at least 49 letter interchanges (above, 2.4.1.1), about half of which (27 in all) were practically applied by him and by no one else; and (b) in that he initiated the taß˙ìf concept (above, 15.3.5). Thus at the ideological poles of language comparison stand the two linguists of comparison: Mena˙em and Ibn Barùn. A group of scholars who, aside from their unity by socio-political factors were also united by a common code of doctrine, were the Karaites. They, it appears, evolved their own particular school of thought, in whose framework they adopted the language comparisons that suited their own tendencies. The comparison çy/sya, for example, is a common heritage of the Karaites—namely, Salmon b. Yeru˙im, Alfàsi (9.12.1.3.7), Abù-l-Faraj Hàrùn (14.2.4), and Yefet b. Ali. Moreover, the Hebraisms of Alfàsi and of Abù-l-Faraj: hfmiç, /hfms ,znf[ç/zwnfaç have more the appearance of some system than of being merely accidental. But if some line of demarcation can be pinpointed among the various schools of thought and comparison systems, it must be drawn at and from the works of Óayyùj. Once Óayyùj had determined the doctrine of the tri-literality of the root, comparative philology took a new turn (chap. 12). All the pre-Óayyùj comparisons, which had been founded on the equivalence of one or two radical letters [e.g. (b[r) hzm/(anwtal) azml], were altogether invalidated by Óayyùj’s doctrine. R. Jonah ibn Janà˙ was the first grammarian to apply the law of tri-literality of the root to the area of comparative philology (13.21). The heirs to his scholarship continued in his footsteps. Yet not all his contemporaries were aware of or adopted Óayyùj’s theory, either

synopsis and conclusion

405

for their general philology or for their language comparison method. The Babylonian scholar R. Hai Ga"on did not apply the tri-literal theory of the root in his dictionary, probably because this dictionary was compiled earlier to diffusion of Hayyùj’s theory, and the Jerusalemite scholar Abù-l-Faraj, though aware of Hayyùj’s theory, was unable to abandon the linguistic Karaite tradition in favor of Óayyùj. Each and every one of the fourteen Hebrew philologists provided a quantitative or qualitative contribution to language comparison and its method. Clearly, the totality of the description herein provided is based on what has remained of the works of the Hebrew grammarians as well as on reliable testimonies of their original writings. It cannot be known to what extent the picture would appear differently, had additional materials survived. Nonetheless, the general depiction of the comparative method as well as the singular characteristics of the several grammarians separately would seem to have been satisfactorily represented. The most precise way of evaluating the contribution made by each separate philologist is to take a count of the lexical comparisons for which his documentation is the first—in other words, those that are unattested in the records of his predecessors. An enumeration along these lines reveals the following statistics: R. Sa'adiah Ga"on: 692; R. Judah ibn Quraysh: 366; Alfàsi: 437; Alfàsi’s Transmitter Copyists: 6; Mena˙em: 47; Dunash: 51; Óayyùj: 2; R. Hai Ga"on: 25; Abù-l-Faraj Hàrùn: 7; R. Jonah ibn Janà˙: 342; Rouen MS: 25; R. Judah ibn Bal'am: 17; Ibn Gikatilla: 2; HaBavli: 3; Ibn Barùn: 271: anonymous disqualified comparisons: 6; total: 2299. However, the numerical data in themselves are insufficient for providing an accurate picture; in some cases, they are even likely to mislead. For instance, if we were to measure Óayyùj’s contribution to the history of language comparison on this score alone, his status would be seriously impaired, since the chart testifies that he established only two new lexical comparisons (even if we subjoin his grammatical comparisons, the total of his novel contributions amounts to only four!). The quantitative datum then constitutes merely one aspect of the general picture. The other aspect can be deduced only through an item-by-item inspection of every total comparison inventory, analyzing the relationship between each of the several grammarians and the others, and evaluating the standing of each, in the diachronic chain of transmission. One might then, say, for example,

406

chapter fifteen

that one comparison of grammarian A is worth a hundred comparisons of grammarian B. Indeed, it cannot be denied that it is far easier to compare two basic vocabulary items, such as ba;/ba or μae/μa, than to propose a complex comparison of the type hrzEg (≈ra)/hzwrùgm, (ù≈ra) which necessitates (a) a letter substitution (g/ùg) and (b) metathesis ([ùùlp-lùù[p). Comparisons of the former type are readily available for any grammarian, from the stock of very frequent entry words that can be “spontaneously” compared in the two or three languages with which he is familiar. The latter type, in contrast, belongs to a category of comparisons that are totally and plainly the product of profound language study. Therefore, the comparison total of 692 for R. Sa'adiah, foremost in the line of grammarians of that epoch, quite naturally includes a comparison of many basic vocabulary items; the 342 comparisons recorded for R. Jonah ibn Janà˙, in contrast, include no basic vocabulary items at all. The following analysis is intended to append summarily various characteristic aspects to supplement the above statistics. The singularity of R. Sa'adiah is his position as the earliest authority (μyrbdmh çar), in the sphere of language comparison as well as in other spheres. R. Judah ibn Quraysh stands out for originating a scholarly treatise specifically geared to comparative philology. As regards the establishment of this academic science, in general, for both R. Sa'adiah and Ibn Quraysh, the comparison of basic vocabulary, was of prime importance. For these philologists, quantity implies quality. Alfàsi was the first lexicographer to make large-scale, systematic use of language comparison in the field of Bible lexicon. Mena˙em, and Dunash, and their respective disciples, enhanced the field of comparison, by stimulating discussion on matters of basic principle, e.g. if it is permissible to compare Hebrew with Arabic at all, and if so, to what extent. Óayyùj, despite the paucity of his comparisons, made a significant contribution to the field; his novel theory of the tri-literality of the Hebrew root implanted a principle for language comparison, too. Ibn Janà˙ made the most immense contribution to the evolvement of comparative philology: it is not surprising that scholars such as Poznanski (1916, p. 250) were so enthusiastic by his comparisons that they viewed Ibn Janà˙ as the “forerunner of modern comparative linguistics.” We have, in our time, the means to make a more precise evaluation of Ibn Janà˙’s contribution to the subject. Ibn Janà˙ made a practical and systematic application of Óayyùj’s theory in the area of comparative

synopsis and conclusion

407

philology and thereby determined which of the comparisons of former scholars were valid and which were null and void. Even more Ibn Janà˙’s keen acumen not only revealed new semantic aspects in “radically” unique words, but even pinpointed the unique semantemes. For example, of all the 4,475 occurrences of yk in the Bible, he located two where the connotation of yk is identical with that of Arabic kay (above 13.21).11 The prominent feature of R. Hai Ga"on is that in his lexicon he systematically compared Rabbinic Hebrew entries, too, with Aramaic and with Arabic. The contribution of Abù-l-Faraj has yet to be fully evaluated. Research on the grammatical thought in his treatises, Kitàb al-Mushtamil and Kitàb al-Kàfi, is under way. From what has been published to date, it appears that the Abù-l-Faraj’s singular contribution in language comparison lies in his extensive comparisons of grammatical topics. Part 8 of the al-Mushtamil deals with the grammar of biblical Aramaic and, concomitantly, his contrastive comparison of Aramaic versus Hebrew grammar. The contributions of HaNagid, HaBavli and Ibn Gikatilla, once again, are hard to evaluate, because the remnants of their treatises are so scanty. As regards Ibn Gikatilla, R. Judah ibn Bal'am and R. Isaac Ibn Barùn, at any rate, it can be confidently stated that, (a) they proceeded further in the ways of comparison paved earlier by Ibn Janà˙, while simultaneously re-checking his comparisons one by one and even expressing their objections to his views wherever they saw fit to do so. Further, Ibn Barùn strove to fill in each and every comparison that Ibn Janà˙ had omitted. The extent, to which each grammarian was dependent on his predecessors, has been examined by a number of modern scholars. Becker (1984, pp. 74–77) discusses Ibn Quraysh’s reliance on Alfàsi, but his viewpoint is without foundation. Nor could he reach a clear conclusion on the link between Ibn Quraysh and R. Sa'adiah Ga"on! Undeniably, communication between contemporary scholars residing in far-flung countries was arduous and slow, at least insofar as the linguistic discipline was concerned. It would seem that exegetical works and Bible translations traveled much more readily and smoothly than did scholarly philological treatises. For example, R. Jonah ibn Janà˙ was acquainted with R. Sa'adiah’s Tafsìr as well as with R. Sa'adiah’s and R. Hai Ga"on’s commentaries on rabbinic literature, 11 See Becker 1998, §218. For a detailed discussion on this comparison, see Maman 1992a, pp. 27–31; 2000a, p. 273.

408

chapter fifteen

whereas R. Sa'adiah’s treatises on linguistics12 and R. Hai’s lexicon Kitàb al-Óàwi13 were unknown to him. It is quite possible, then, that Ibn Quraysh had not heard of R. Sa'adiah, just as, in a later epoch, R. Hai had not heard of the theory of Óayyùj, who lived in his lifetime but in a distant land. However, from the explicit citations one can infer that all the relevant grammarians, with the possible exception of R. Judah ibn Quraysh, at least knew of R. Sa'adiah’s Bible translation. Mena˙em and Dunash also knew of the Risàla. Pinsker (p. 172) found evidence, at first sight, that Mena˙em knew of Alfàsi’s lexicon (as is evident, for example, from their similar interpretations of hnmsrky).14 But he did not conclude definitively on the matter on account of the possibility that Mena˙em gleaned his information from Alfàsi’s sources (in Bible exegesis) rather than from Alfàsi’s lexicon itself (as noted above 9.12.1.3.0, the very same interpretation for hnmsrky is encountered in the records of Salmon b. Yeru˙im, too); R. Jonah ibn Janà˙ was familiar with most of his predecessors’ works, yet surprisingly he did not know of Óayyùj’s Kitàb al-Nutaf (see Abramson, 1978–79, p. 229, ibid., p. 47). The whole issue of the demarcation between primary and secondary documentation of comparisons is complex and quite perplexing: even when one finds one philologist citing from an earlier scholar, in connection with a particular comparison, one cannot conclude therefrom that whenever the texts of their comparison statements are identical, the matter is indeed one of citation. Excepted from this reservation are only Ibn Bal'am and Ibn Barùn and also, possibly, Ibn Gikatilla, who are known to have thoroughly and systematically cross-checked every record of Ibn Janà˙. Thus a much more objective parameter for weighing up the records of any grammarian and determining his “novelties” in comparative philology, is the relative dating of the several grammarians, in other words: the historical criterion. Logic demands that the originality of a comparison encountered in the records of two or more grammarians be attributed only to the grammarian who anteceded the others chronologically, even if it can be definitely established that the later grammarian did not know of the 12

See Allony, 1970, p. 23. See Steinschneider, 1901, p. 130; against him: Bacher 1885, p. 88; Poznanski, 1901, p. 597. 14 On this word see Maman 2003, pp. 280–82, 286 and the literature quoted there. 13

synopsis and conclusion

409

former. The “origination” of a given comparison can be attributed to only one grammarian. Nevertheless, one speaks here in relative rather than absolute terms; for the totality of documentation is far from being complete. Regarding the quantitative statistics recorded above, the scope of language comparison of a scholar depends on the structure and purpose of his work. Because R. Judah ibn Quraysh in his treatise adduced comparisons for purposes of exemplification only; he did not endeavor to be exhaustive. Likewise Dunash, in his excursus (yn[fm: Sáenz-Badillos, pp. 88ff.), recorded comparisons merely as samples. In all the rest of his entries, he set out merely to criticize the comparisons of R. Sa'adiah and of Mena˙em, in accordance with the polemical character of his treatises. In Bible commentaries, comparison is used only for selected words and for certain specific expressions. Prima facie, the lexicons might have been expected to incorporate systematic language comparison, yet Ibn Janà˙ consciously disregarded a good many comparisons at entries that he thought to be “well known,” or at locations where he found it sufficient to give a cross-reference to the works of Óayyùj or to other of his own treatises. As to comparison doctrines, the philologists investigated here reveal a considerable measure of common ground. They all believed that Aramaic has a greater affinity with Hebrew than does Arabic (above, 2.2). These languages did not borrow words from each other (2.3). Even Ibn Quraysh, who emphasized “geographical proximity” as a factor in language comparison, apparently did not go so far as to postulate word loan in Hebrew from Aramaic and/or Arabic (2.3.4). Though the philologists had some inkling of the concept of loan from one language to another, they failed to define the conditions and circumstances in which this phenomenon would take place. The grammarians established comparisons of two cognate translation synonyms if and only if these had basically equivalent meanings (nowadays termed “on the synchronic plane”; 2.6). They would not compare heterosemic cognates on the grounds of some equivalent connotation, as it were, on the “diachronic plane.” Their aims of comparison are fairly well defined. One aim that can be traced, as an uninterrupted “dynamic” through all the works is the use of comparison for determining the connotation of unique or very rare biblical entry words and, in Ibn Janà˙’s comparisons, for isolating unique semantemes. Other traceable aims include: clarification of a grammatical

410

chapter fifteen

issue (5.3.5.2) or of an etymological question (5.3.5.4) or to illustrate a matter of principle in comparison theory (this is the case in works and excursuses geared specifically to language comparison; 5.1.1). These all incorporate many comparisons “for comparison’s sake” (5.3.5), in contrast, to “inevitable comparisons” (5.3.1). Ibn Barùn would even seem to have endeavored to provide the Bible translator with a handy comparative Hebrew/Arabic lexicon (5.3.4). Comparison was carried out by means of various “formulae” (3.5). Biblical entry words were compared sometimes with their Aramaic cognates and sometimes with their Arabic cognates. Some were placed in “direct” comparison (e.g. Bib. Heb./Bib. Aram.; 3.6.1), others were compared by an additional intermediary (e.g. Bib. Heb.1/Bib. Heb.2/Targ. Aram.: 3.6.4). Formulae classification makes for efficiency in the arrangement of entry words vis-à-vis the text sources, pertaining to several linguistic strata, from which they are taken over (i.e., Hebrew or Aramaic; biblical or post-biblical, etc.). It is useful also for the purpose of summing up the quantity of entry words, under one comparison unit and for determining the aim of the comparison, as well as its nature, as perceived by the grammarian adducing it—namely, whether etymological or other (3.5). The philologists, furthermore, used a variety of terms for comparison. In earlier times, the terms are multifarious (3.1.2.4); toward the latter end of the epoch, a consolidated, uniform character can generally be discerned in the terminology. The climax is reached when Ibn Barùn denotes almost all his comparisons by the single term hsnaùgm (15.3.3). Many comparisons were recorded with no comparison term (3.1.2.6); some can be identified only by the discussion itself (3.2; 3.3) or when the grammarian is known to have discussed the issue elsewhere as an explicit comparison. (3.4). In chapter 4 I attempted to demonstrate that the rendition of a Bib. Heb. by an Arab. cognate when no comparison term is used implies an “implicit comparison.” This category necessitates an expansion of the range of language comparison far beyond the limits set by earlier philologists, for they assumed explicit comparisons only. Apart from general issues, I have also treated questions of specific pertinence as relating to one or other of the philologists. Of the treatises examined, some were originally composed in Arabic (e.g. the Kitàb al-Ußùl by R. Jonah Ibn Janà˙ and the grammatical treatises of Judah ibn Bal'am) and subsequently translated into Hebrew. The substance of the comparison in the “original” and in the “transla-

synopsis and conclusion

411

tion” proves to be non-identical. The question is then: Which of the two more objectively represents the comparisons penned by the grammarian, those appearing in the Arabic original or those contained in the Hebrew translation? If the former, what caused the Hebrew rendering to be no longer a true reflection of the original documentation? I reached the conclusion that the comparisons in the “original” are to be taken as authentic, and only these are to be treated as the text substance penned by the author himself, whereas the translator made many alterations and omissions on account of the constraints of tautological expression. For example, if the translator wished to literally translate into Hebrew the implicit comparison zwga/zwùg, he would arrive at the rendition zwga/zwga. Two shortcomings present themselves in this sort of rendering: (a) the comparison itself is lost; and (b) what results is a tautological definition, worthless for the lexicographer. Thus the translator felt compelled to make changes in the “structure” from its form in the original. In principle, he had available three different options (and instances of all three are, in fact, encountered): to convert the implicit comparison into an explicit one; to entirely omit the definiens or to leave the tautological rendering/definition as it stood. In chapters 7–15, I discussed the comparison method of each grammarian and treated the problems associated with each; I collated the list of comparisons emanating from his various works and dwelled on his various sources and terminological usage. To highlight the specific issues pertaining to some philologists I shall now note down a few comments. For R. Sa'adiah Ga"on (chap. 7) and for Abù-l-Faraj (chap. 14), I attempted to prove that a rendering by a cognate translation synonym, in the context of an uninterrupted Bible translation, can definitely reflect real language comparison. As for Mena˙em, I have shown that the term w[mçmk does not intend or imply a comparison with Arabic. In the chapter on Dunash (chap. 11), I rechecked the listing of Arabic cognates proposed by Gross (1872, pp. 105–12), collating them in contrast with the entry words recorded by Dunash at entry yn[fm. Most of those proposed translation synonyms are probable, but a few are definitely far-fetched and I put forward alternative cognates, in their stead. In the chapter on Ibn Janà˙, I attempted to demonstrate conclusively that the comparisons embedded in the Rouen MS were not produced by Ibn Janà˙ and proved, tentatively, contrary to the opinion of other recent scholars, that Ibn Janà˙ did not reckon with taß˙ìf.

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

THE CHART OF COMPARISONS

In the following chart, I have assembled and set out all the comparisons presently known to occur in the works examined in the present study. In the right-hand column, the comparison itself appears, in a condensed form, as necessitated by the format of this chart and in the columns to the left, I have allocated one column for each grammarian, in chronological order. The grammarians from whose works little has survived, or who recorded relatively few comparisons ab initio, are placed together in one column—col. 8: Various Hebrew Grammarians. In these columns, some symbol appears for each comparison encountered in the records of that grammarian: the symbols used are: +, =, or some other mark. These markings enable the reader to obtain a bird’s-eye view of the materials recorded anew by that grammarian vis-à-vis his predecessors (as well as what he failed to record), which of the comparisons he endorsed or objected to, etc. But perusal of the chart is not to be taken by the reader as a dispensation from referring in detail to the study of the Hebrew grammarians itself; in the chart, I could include neither the connotation emanating from the comparison nor (in most cases) the noncognate adduced by the grammarian together with the cognate. It also goes without saying that the chart cannot reflect, the comparison method of the grammarian. Sigla used in the chart: * before the comparison signifies comparison with Aramaic. x before the comparison signifies that the entry word treated (i.e., to the right of the comparison diagonal) derives from rabbinic Hebrew. = in the columns for the grammarians signifies that the comparison entered in col. 1 is recorded by the respective grammarian, verbatim. + in the columns for the grammarians signifies that the comparison entered in col. 1 is recorded by that grammarian with a formulaic alteration or a variant citation. ? in the columns for the grammarians signifies that the comparison entered in col. 1 is an “uncertain comparison.”

414

chapter sixteen

≠ in the columns for the grammarians signifies that the comparison entered in col. 1 is disapproved of by that grammarian. ≠ in col. 6, signifies that the “Rouen MS” conflicts with the opinion of R. Jonah ibn Janà˙. + in col. 1, after a cognate translation synonym, signifies that the (respective) Hebrew grammarian adduced, additionally, one or more non-cognate translation synonym(s). (+) or (=) signifies that the comparison is an implicit one. (=) in col. 3 signifies that Ibn Quraysh does not expressly spell out the cognate translation synonym with which he sets up the comparison. (=) in col. 2 signifies an implicit comparison in the Egron. T in col. 2 signifies that the comparison (or the rendering) appears as a cognate in Sa'adiah’s Tafsìr. B in col. 8 signifies Abraham HaBavli. D in col. 8 signifies Dunash. F in col. 8 signifies Abù-l-Faraj Hàrùn. FT in col. 8 signifies Abù-l-Faraj, Bible translation. G in col. 8 signifies Ibn Gikatilla. H in col. 8 signifies R. Hai Ga"on. J in col. 8 signifies R. Judah Óayyùj. L in col. 8 signifies R. Judah ibn Bal'am. M in col. 8 signifies Mena˙em b. Saruq. N in col. 8 signifies Samuel Ha-Nagid. TD in col. 8 signifies Disciple of Dunash. TM in col. 8 signifies Disciples of Mena˙em. X, Y, etc. in col. 4 signifies Alfàsi’s transmitters/copyists and abridgment redactors. B in last col. signifies Ben-Yehudah. K in last col. signifies the lexicon of Koehler-Baumgartner (3rd edition). = in last col. signifies Brown, Driver, and Briggs’ lexicon (BDB). One column is allocated to the Rouen MS (= MS-R), the main aim being to try to identify the sources of that glossator. I did not trouble to enter in this column the mark signifying that the comparison is an implicit one. The few comparisons recorded by Rouen MS as explicit have been enumerated above, 13.19, under the rubric “Comparison terms in marginal glosses of the MS-R.” In order to collate the comparisons for all Hebrew grammarians, including those who compared only with Aramaic or only with Arabic,

the chart of comparisons

415

I have listed comparisons with Aramaic or with Arabic respectively, as distinct and separate entries in the chart, even in those cases where the relevant philologist adopts both Aramaic and Arabic comparisons within one record. Every separate comparison is given a serial number, from 1 to 2299, this being the total number in the works discussed here. An entry word that is found to be a component of several different comparisons, each comparison assigning it a different connotation, is allocated chart entries in accordance with the total number of connotations. A few isolated comparisons appear without a serial number; these are listed merely for some specific aspect of significance that they seem to show, but they do not represent a totally new meaning. The biblical or rabbinic literature source references are given for the entry words treated in the comparisons, but references to the source(s) in the grammatical treatises, etc., are not provided. Comparisons recorded by Ibn Quraysh and by Ibn Barùn can be located in their respective works by the root of the relevant entry word. For Ibn Quraysh these can be obtained from the index in Becker’s ed. (1984, pp. 363–79); for R. Sa'adiah Ga"on, by the Bible verse, if the source is in his Bible translation; for the remaining grammarians, the source can be located by the materials assembled in the chapters of this study, allocated respectively to those grammarians (chaps. 7–15). The order of comparisons is alphabetical, by the root of each entry word treated, the arrangement according with that adopted in modern lexicons (generally this accords with the BDB lexicon). (But I have not arranged v and c separately; third yod verbs are arranged accordingly, i.e. as yùùl and not as hùùl). When two or more roots appear in a comparison, the first of these as set out in our comparison “formulation” is what determines the alphabetical arrangement. Explicit comparisons and implicit comparisons are presented in the chart unclassified, because what is an implicit comparison for one philologist may be an explicit comparison for another. The philologists elucidated the entry words incorporated in this chart, by comparison with Aramaic and/or Arabic but also additionally by other means of interpretation. It has not been possible to extend the scope of the footnotes to set out the wealth of connotations recorded for this or that entry word; the annotations are restricted to remarks on connotations stemming directly from the comparison, and this will have to suffice.

416

chapter sixteen

When the philologists bring together various entry words bearing the same connotation and pertaining to the same root and set them up for comparison with Arabic, I have listed only one entry word in the chart, and this will generally be the verbal form. For example, from root abj/ybùk, R. Judah ibn Quraysh (C1, p. 489) records 6 entry words, 5 of them verbs and one a noun. In the chart, only the instance jabjn (Gen. 31:27) is listed. On the other hand, when a specific form is of special interest, as e.g., when its connotation was subject to dispute, it is listed separately as well. For example, ybj (Isa. 26:27) is listed, because both Alfàsi and Ibn Barùn assign it to the same sense as tabjn, comparing it with ybtùka. This presentation serves to stress that R. Jonah ibn Janà˙ omitted to record this comparison; in fact, Ibn Janà˙ derives the form from another root and assigned it a different connotation (these data naturally could not be incorporated in the chart and not even in the footnote apparatus, for lack of suitable space). For certain comparisons, secondary numberings are marked (1) and (2) standing for different parts of a comparison. If a given grammarian recorded only “part 2” of the comparison, the digit 2 is marked in the pertinent column opposite the relevant comparison and so on. If the grammarian recorded all parts, no digit is entered at all: the siglum used is merely the = sign or the + sign. Certain data in this chart, i.e. the positive data, are unchangeable. As for the data missing from the chart (i.e. in the “empty slots”)— some data, for instance what relates to the materials lacking in the records of Mena˙em and Dunash, are not subject to any future change, whereas some data, for instance what pertains to R. Hai Ga"on and R. Judah ibn Bal'am, are liable to be eventually supplied. It is obvious that if and when the remaining parts of Kitàb alÓàwi or of Kitàb al-Mushtamil are published or, if the epoch of investigation is extended so as to reach the thirteenth or fourteenth centuries, very many more comparisons will have to be subjoined and, further columns would then have to be added to the chart, especially with reference to all the entry words from rabbinic Hebrew and from Aramaic. The column for R. Sa'adiah Ga"on only serves to determine the sources for the other grammarians; it must not be deduced from that column that R. Sa'adiah in fact established comparisons at each and every instance, even when he can be assumed to have been the source for the comparisons of others. For example, R. Sa'adiah rendered hkdmb (Num. 11:8)/qdm; and çydg (Exod. 22:5)/

the chart of comparisons

417

sydk. See also ˚rb, πf, wjbf, but it was Ibn Barùn, who converted these renderings into explicit comparisons. In some other cases, it is extremely doubtful if R. Sa'adiah postulated a comparison at all, e.g. hydd/ydùt, rjb/ryùkt, bgn‚/bwnùg, gwsn/gyz, wdqrw/txqr. All these are, for Ibn Barùn at least, etymological comparisons. I have listed these in the column of R. Sa'adiah merely to allude to a possible source for Ibn Barùn. Thus in the various calculations that one might work up from the chart and its data, the aforementioned instances for R. Sa'adiah should be excluded from the count. In the last column (moderns), I have recorded data from the BDB lexicon, from Koehler-Baumgartner (3rd ed.), and from Ben-Yehudah’s thesaurus, as regards entry words documented in Rabbinic Hebrew. The aim of this column is chiefly to ascertain whether the comparisons customarily applied in the works of the Hebrew grammarians are reckoned with by modern linguists or rejected by them. In these data I have ignored the aspect of interlingual loans, for obvious reasons. The main point of interest here is the etymological identification of an entry word in two or three of the given languages. For example, if the grammarians compared lkyhe/lkyh, and if this identification is admissible in present-day linguistics, this is considered sufficient for marking and I did not consider it necessary to take into account that modern grammarians determine, for these words, a chain of word loan from one language another, reaching back to the Sumerian e-gal, the Akkadian ekallu, and from these to Aramaic and to Arabic (see, e.g., Kaufmann 1974, pp. 27, 40, 155). The data in the chart of comparisons can be subjected to several forms of statistical processing. The most important of these forms have been set out above (in the “Synopsis and Conclusion”)—namely, the total number of initially documented comparisons for each grammarian. In what follows I merely subjoin a few further data. Of the 2,299 comparisons, 569 are comparisons with Aramaic, representing about 25 percent of the total. The rest are comparisons with Arabic. Various reasons can be suggested for the small quantity of comparisons with Aramaic: (a) the corpuses are relatively restricted; (b) some of these corpuses were viewed by certain scholars or scholarly circles, as “extraneous to the literary source field” for one reason or another. For instance, talmudic Aramaic was not resorted to by the Karaites; in the relevant period, Aramaic had ceased to be a spoken language, for which reason, many of its entry words were by that time probably not semantically transparent. For

418

chapter sixteen

Arabic in contrast, many lexicons existed apart from the fact that Arabic was a living language with an uninterrupted speech tradition. As a general rule, comparison with Aramaic was extremely selective. Of R. Sa'adiah Ga"on’s comparisons, 19 are specifically his own, several of these because the entry words treated in them derive from rabbinic Hebrew (sbgn rgn, hqn, lyjn, rçn, hkws, πys) and the remaining ones being comparisons with Aramaic. To the list of comparisons documented initially in the records of Ibn Quraysh (see Becker 1984, pp. 77–80), comparisons for the following entry words should be added: (Heb./Aram.): bwd, twgrdm, [wrz, ˆqz, w[l (occurs in the framework of Bib. Heb./Rab. Heb. comparisons), hpwqt, μtpqhw (to be added to whpqtt); Heb./Arab.: gwrta, htrhzhw, hrzm, ˆyglwm, çjn, hbq¨h, ˆymçmç. The entry ytjpf should be marked with an asterisk to signify it is a comparison unique to Ibn Quraysh. The comparison hdn/atynwdn should be shifted from section Bib. Heb./Rab. Heb. to the Heb./Aram. section. In my listing, 11 fewer comparisons for Ibn Quraysh appear than in Becker’s list. The reason for this is that Becker supplied a separate serial number for each comparison, as it occurs in the Risàla; even when the same comparison is reiterated several times in various locations, it is given several numbers, in accord with the total of its occurrences. On the other hand, in some instances only one number appears, although several Hebrew entry words were compared with, one Arabic word or one Aramaic word. My system of charting requires that each Hebrew entry word be given a separate number, as a separate comparison., for example, Becker’s entry C1, 91 incorporates, according to my numbering system, the comparisons zg/zùg, zgyw/zaùga, whereas in my listing of what corresponds with Becker’s list entry C1 393, I reckon two comparisons, i.e.: bçj/(hbçjm) bsj, twnwbçj/tanabsj (μyxj), the grand total for Ibn Quraysh in my reckoning, being 698 comparisons. For David b. Abraham Alfàsi, the grand total of comparisons in my chart is 1092, approaching one half (48 percent) of all the comparisons charted. (As noted earlier, of this total, 437 were comparisons of Alfàsi’s own initiation). For R. Jonah ibn Janà˙ I have counted a total of 902 comparisons, these amounting to about 40 percent of all the comparisons charted. Each of these 342 is a primary documentation of comparison. The comparisons recorded by Ibn Barùn that are part of the stock of his predecessors can be classified as follows: 290 are identical with comparisons of R. Sa'adiah Ga"on; 90 with “original” com-

the chart of comparisons

419

parisons of R. Judah ibn Quraysh (i.e. the initial documentation is in the records of Ibn Quraysh); 49 with comparisons of Alfàsi; 11 with comparisons of Dunash; 1 with a comparison of R. Hai Ga"on; 71 with comparisons of R. Jonah ibn Janà˙; and 7 with comparisons of the Rouen MS. (As noted above, it may well be that Ibn Barùn himself served as a documentary source for the Rouen glossator.) As noted above 271 of Ibn Barùn’s comparisons exhibit the first documentation of comparison. The grand total of Ibn Barùn’s comparisons is 790.

N

M

=

M,H

= B B

H L (H) (H)

B

F

= K

G

F

Q

S

= = = =

= = =

R

+ = = = =

= = (+)

(=) = (+)

= = =

T T

= =

K =

= =

(=)

=

=

= = =

= = (=)

(=)

=

+T

(=)

=

(=)

(≠) =

=

= = =

D

B =

ML

(=)

+ =

≠

= =

= =

= = =

;(Cant 6:11) aba/yrp/hbna/ybab* (Dan 4:9; Deut 26:2) (ùyrpù=) ba/(Cant ibid.) ybab (y[rm+) ba/ybab x (+) bwbna/(Arak 2, 3) bwba x (+) bwbna (Kelim 2,3) bwba x (+) hdaba (Deut 12:2) dba aba/( Job 9:26) hba* ba/(Isa 8:4) yba (dadùxa) yba/(Deut 25:7) hba +hjabtsa/(Ezek 21:20) tjba (ˆzjt+) lbat/(Gen 37:34) lbatyw + lb/(2Kings 4:14) lb;a /(1Sam 6:18) anba/ˆba (=lba)* (son) ˆwnb ,ˆba/(Exod 1:16) μynba; rbw/(Ezek 17:3) rba zwùg/(Cant 6:11) zwga (≈wj+) lùgam ( Job 38:28) ylga hmùga/(Ps 114:8) μga 1 (μyrxbm=) μaùga/( Jer 51:32) μymgah (Exod 24:6) twngab, (Cant 7:3) ˆga hnaùga/ ≈aùga/ˆysga x 2 (Dan 7:4) ˆypgw/(Ezek 12:14) ˆypga* (h[amòg+) h^pùg (ibid.)/wypga arga/rkç (1Sam 2:36) trwgal* (Deut 15:18) hrùga/(1Sam ibid.) trwgal (h[amg+) rag/(Prov 6:8) hrga hùgara/(Esth 9:29) trga hbaùda/(1Sam 2:33) bydalw

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 Ibn Quraysh includes this entry in the meaning “place where reeds and papyrus grow.” 2 Ibn Barùn refutes the meaning stemming from the comparison to Aramaic and it seems that he refutes the comparison itself.

chapter sixteen

420 (cont.) N

M

B

+ = +

= = =

= (=) = =

1,3= = =

R

2=

G

F

Q

S

(=)

(=) (=)

= =

(y)mda/(Gen 1:26) μda 3 h⁄md⁄a⁄ (Gen 4:2) hmda qwp+) μda (1Sam 16:12) ynwmda (. . . rmsa 4 hh:3 hha ,h^ha:2 ha (2Kings 6:5) hha lalha lha/( Job 25:5) lyhay 5 T wa/(Lev 5:22) wa (Deut 4:17) μymçb/(Ahal 4, 1) rywa x* . . . [yqr rywa/ (bwa) “fbn” (Tos. Ber. 2, 15) twbwa x* (˚lh+) ydw ;yùda/( Job 53:31) dya 6 ywa ˆba/(Deut 14:13) hy:a wywy/(Deut ibid.) hy:a hwa:2 ;wa⁄:1/(Num 21:29) ywa (da[+) ù≈yay ù≈a/( Josh 10:13) ≈a 7 rawa/(Isa 50:11) rWab] (Dan 3:32) ayta/twa* T hya/(ibid.) ayta-(Deut 13:2) twa htawm/(Gen 34:22) wtway T ùda/za T a» +ùdaì/(Ps 124:3) y+z"a ùd+n(m/(Exod 5:23) za;+me (rt[x+) bza/(Exod 12:22) bwzae 8 (=) lza/˚lh/(1Sam 9:7) lza* laz/(ibid.) lza ^lz/(Deut 32:36) tlza T ˆùda/(Prov 15:31) ˆza ([mtsa+) ˆùda/ˆyzah (Isa 40:15, Dan 5:27) aynzam/μynzam* T ˆazym/(ibid.) μynzam (+) ˆzw/(Eccl 2:9)/ˆza ˚nyz/˚ylk/(Deut 23:14) ˚ynza* 9 (Gen 23:3) (Dan 3:5) ynz/(Deut ibid.)/˚ynza* ˆza/(id.) ˚ynza 10 razym ,raza/( Jer 13:1) rwza

2=

1= =

=

H H = + = 2= = =

= = = =

FT

=

= = =

H H L

= = =

=

H,M,F

? 1= = = ? = (+) ? = =

= K = = = +

(G) H M H≠

+ = = = = = =

M,H

=

(=)

(=) =

= =

H =

=

3

(=)

=

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Ibn Barùn alone adds a restriction to the meaning, saying “and it is its face”. Ibn Janà˙ at this entry, MS-R in hha as well. 5 Ibn Barùn includes [nky za wa (Lev 26:41) in this meaning, which Ibn Janà˙ translates as if it were [nky zaw. 6 Ibn Barùn adduces it at entry ya, where he refers to μyyal (Isa 34:14). 7 For twrwEa cf. hra. 8 Alfàsi and Mena˙em add a Biblical Aramaic reference from Ezr 4:23. 9 In fact Alfàsi compares μynzw (2Chron 16:14) with ynzw (Dan 3:5) and generally equates it to μylk (‘ustensils’) while he includes ˚ynza with μynz. Cf. Becker 1984, p. 124, n. 5. Mena˙em juxtaposes ˚ynza with twnzhw (1Kings 22:38) and defines them ‘war and charriots’ instruments’ and it is not clear whether he has in mind two different comparisons and meanings or only one. 10 qza cf. qqz. 4

the chart of comparisons

421

(cont.) N

M

B

R

G

F

= K

2= =

=

2=

3+

2= ≠

= + + = =

(=)

= (=)

= (=) = (=) (=) (=) = =

= =

=

Q

= (=) (=) = = = = + = = =

G,FT

(=)

FTx (H) (H) = = M = = = D(+F) =

= (=)

= (=) (=)

K K =

11

1= = =

= =

S

1=

T T1 T T T T

T

=

= =

T

= = = +M

=

=

= = =

=

= = K + = =

=

= = = (+FT) = = = =

T T

(=) (=)

(=)

= = =

T T

(ˆya[:2 ;ddç 1+) rza/( Jer 1:17) rzat 12 ja/(Ps 35:21) ja(h) yù^kat/(ibid.) jah dj^ta:3 djaw:2 ;dja 1 (Deut 6:4) dja ˆwnydja/wmzjay/(Gen 3:22) dhak* (Exod 15:15) 13 ù˚a/ja ùdùka (Exod 15:14) zja hzaja ,zwj/(Gen 48:4) tzj¨a rù^kat/(Gen 34:19) rjae ryùka/(Exod 4:8) ˆwrja rùka/(Eccl 7:8) tyrja ˆrj’a/(2Sam 18:26) rj'a*' rùka/(2Sam ibid.) rja hrarj/rrwj-rjwa x (ù≈pùk+) ayfaftm/(2Kings 21:27) fa' fyfa/(Isa 19:3) μyfiaih ˆwhynwfya/μhyrtym/(Prov 7:16) ˆwfa* (Exod 35:18) rafa ,rfat (Ps 69:16) rfat (tsbtja ya) trfat/( Judg 3:15) rfeai 14 ya/yae ˆya ˆm/(Gen 29:4) ˆyame anh/(1Kings 5:25) hnaw hna ana/(Deut 1:28) hna apw/(1Sam 1:24) hp;ya lya(kym), lya/lah ˆlya/≈[ ,jyç/(Isa 1:29) μylyam* twlya/twma/(Ezek 40:10) μylyal* (Isa 6:3) 15 l^ya/(Deut 14:5) ly:a' alya/(Deut ibid.) lya* (Dan 7:7) yntmya/(Gen 15:12) hmya* ˆasna/çya (ˆy[la) ˆasna/(Deut 32:10) ˆwçya (qyafla) h^ysya/(Prov 30:1) (la) ytya μlkay/(Gen 49:27) lkay (ranla) tlka/(Deut 4:24) hlkwa (ça) alykm/(1Kings 5:25) tl OKm' ^πùk/(Prov 16:26) πka ra^ka ( Jer 51:23) rkai

61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96

11 Ibn Barùn refers to the metaphorical meaning only from ynrztw : rza (2Sam 22:40). 12 ja cf. hja. 13 ytwja cf. hwj; ydjath cf. djy. 14 At entry ya Ibn Barùn adduces ˚l ya (Ecc 10:16)/˚lyw and it is unclear whether yw/ya is an intentioned or incidental Heb./Ar. comparison. For hy:a cf. hwa. 15 Alfàsi adduces this comparison at entry wqa (p. 143).

chapter sixteen

422 (cont.) N

M

B

=

M,H, FT H M,L

=

= + = =

L

= = +

R

G

F

(=)

=

=

T

= =

=

= =

T

=

=

+T T

=

= =

+ =

= = = = =

=

L

= = = 1,3=

(=) 3=

+

(=) (=) 3= =

= = = =

= =

(+)

=

= =

(G) (G)

= = +

M (G)

=

(G)

= = =

F

(=)

(=) (=)

= + = = =

hl;a/( Job 12:4) hwlal*

(=) + = (=) =

97

hala/( Job ibid.) hwlal 98 (h)la/(h)lae(h)* 99 yalwh/hlah 100 wla/Wl/(Esth 7:4) Wlaiw* 101 (Isa 48:18; Num 22:29) yla/( Job 15:22) ylea‘ yla/lae 17 ayla/hnyq/( Joel 1:8) ylia*‘ /(1Sam 14:24) la OYw" ;(Lev 5:1) hl;a;

ala hyla/(Lev 3:9) hyl]a' (pain) lyla/( Job 13:4) lyla (pain) lyla/(Mic 7:1) ylla 18 atlia/' ( Josh 24:26) hl;a*' ,^μl/(Gen 37:7) μymla μymlam (h[amùg) hml (=) T hlmra/(Exod 22:21) hnmla T πla/(1Chron 21:5) πl,a, T hplwm ,πala ryxt/(Ps 147:14) twpylam 1,2= πlawm:2 πla:1/( Jer 3:4+) πyla πyla:3 + /( Job 35:11) wnplm/(Prov 22:25) πlat* (Num 22:35) πlymh/ˆkshh πlat/(ibid.) πlat T ˆ(a/i (Exod 21:3) μai = T μa'/(Num 11:12+) μai ˆ(a/' (Gen 24:33) μai ^ˆai (Prov 24:11) μai = T hma/(Gen 21:13) hm;a; , = T ^μ a/(Gen 28:5) μae (qrfla) μa/(Ezek 21:26) (˚rdh) μa (Dan 3:4) ayma¨/(Num ,25:15) twma¨* +T μm⁄ a (ibid.) twma¨ = ˆmwa/çr:t/; (Cant 7:2) ˆm;a*; T

=

+

16

=

=

=

S

=

=

=

Q

102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125

(Deut 27:15) =

(+) =

= =

=

= =

+T T

ˆama ,ˆamya/+(2Sam 7:16) ˆman ˆyma/(Num 5:22) ˆmea; (Dan 2:4) rma/rma* r⁄m⁄a⁄ (1Kings 11:18) rma 2= 19 ˚r^ma:2 ˚rmaÉ:1/(Deut 26:18) ˚rymah

126 127 128 129 130

Ibn Quraysh notes the Arabic form "alùh as well. The Muwàzana manuscript is damaged here and from the remnants we can only learn that Ibn Barùn quotes Ibn Janà˙ and opposes Óayyùj’s view, though he supports his grammatical analysis. 18 Ibn Janà˙ notes that he does not unterstand the Targum’s view. 19 The second meaning Ibn Barùn proposes fits with Sa'adiah’s view. However, Ibn Barùn does not adduce Sa'adiah’s definer ryma (‘high branch’) but rather jrma (‘hill’). 16 17

the chart of comparisons

423

(cont.) N

M

B

R

G

F

Q

D≠

S 20

=

=

ryma/(Isa 17:6) ryma 131 arma/(ibid.) ˚rymah* 132

=

(TB Shabbat 105a) = = =

= = = =

T =

= = =

T T

=

=

= ≠TM,D = L

=

=

= =

= = =

M

=

=

= =

=

= =

(+)

= =

=

(=)

= =

ˆwrmatt/(Isa 61:6) wrmytt (Gen 19:34) sma/çma jna (Isa 24:17) wjnan ˆjn/wnjna ˆjn/(Num 32:32) wnjn (Dan 7:28) hna/yna ˆyna . . . wnay/(Isa 19:8) wnaw ˚na/(Amos 7:7) ˚na

= = L M

= =

+ = =

= = K = K

(+) =

=

= = = =

= +M (=) (=) (=) (=)

+

= = =

= = =

= (=) K

= = = N≠ N≠

= =

(=) =

= = =

=

=

ˆ^naty/(Lam 3:39) ˆnwaty (Dan 4:6) sna/(Esth 1:8) snwa* πnay/(Ps 2:12) πnay (ytymjw) ytpna/(Exod 22:23) ypa (hrjw) (Dan 3:19) yhwpna/(Prov 11:22) πa* T πna/(Prov ibid.) πa (ibid.) yhwpna/(e.g. 2Sam 18:28) ypeal* (Dan 2:46) yhwpna/(1Sam 1:5) μypa* T san ,ˆasna/(Ps 103:15) çwna (Dan 4:14) çna/(ibid.) çwna* hnasna/(Gen 2:23) hç;ai T anasn/(Num 14:3) wnyçen: ta/(Num 11:15) T]a*' +T tna/(ibid.) hta-ta' (hbqn) tna/(Gen 12:11) ta' πasa/+( Jer 8:13) πwsa πasps/(Num 11:4) πwspsa (Dan 6:13,14) rsa/(Num 30:3) rsa* (Ezra 7:26) ˆyrwsalw/(Gen 40:3) rwsa* T rwsam/(ibid.) rwsa T rysa/(Ps 79:11) rysa rsa/(Num 30:4) rS;ai 22 ˚p^tm, ˚pa/˚pa +T lpa/(Amos 5:20) lpea; T talpa/(Exod 9:32) t Olypa atlpa/(ibid.) twlypa* (TB RoshHash 8a) ˆa^pa/(Ps 88:16) hnwpa hnyp/(ibid.) hnwpa ynp/(ibid.) hnwpa tnpa ,tynp (ibid.) hnwpa 21

133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167

20 Dunash attributes this comparison to Sa'adiah. See, however, Allony’s remark in HaEgron, p. 195. 21 Ibn Quraysh adduces this comparison in a reversed order in part B, entry 4, and in different formula in part A, entry 14. 22 The comparison appears in Riqmah p. 22. For wndpa cf. ˆdp below.

chapter sixteen

424 (cont.) N

M

+ K

B

R

= =

=

G

F

Q

=

= = = =

= = =

= =

= = =

+ = = = = = + = =

=

=

=

(=) =

(=) =

= =

(=) (=)

=

= = = =

= = (+) +

=

= =

= =

= D FT

K

= = =

(=) =

(=)

= = =

= =

+ =

=

= =

=

= = =

=

= =

= (=)

+ =

= = + +

=

=

(=)

= =

(=) =

(=)

=

= FT M,D

23 24 25

(=) =

= (=)

= =

S 23 (Dan 5:5) sp/(Ezek 47:3) μyspa* (dlùgt+) hqapa/(Ezek 31:12) yqypa qywapa/(Ps 126:4) μyqypak (am [mtùgm+) (dlùgt+) hqapa/(Esth 5:10) qpatyw arp[m (1Kings 20:41) rpah rpgm/(ibid.) rpah lyxa/(Exod 24:11) ylyxa (fabala) lwxa/( Jer 38:12) twlyxa hbrawm/( Josh 8:2) brwa /(Exod 26:1; 2Chron 2:6) ˆwgra-ˆmgra* (Dan 5:7) anwgra T ˆawùgra/(ibid.) ˆwgra ayrwa/swba/(1Kings 5:6) twwrwa* (Isa 1:3) yrawa/(ibid.) twwrwa yrawa/(2Chron 32:28) twrwEa} (Dan 6:8) atwyra-ayra/hyra* +T zra/(1Kings 6:18) zra≤ jrwa/˚rd/(Gen 18:11) jra* 24 (ibid. 31:35) (Dan 4:24) hkra/(Prov 25:15) ˚rab ˆara/(Gen 50:26) ˆwra T bnra/(Lev 11:6) tbnra T ù≈ra/(Gen 1:10) ≈ra tyl/lkwt al/(Ps 21:3) tçraw* (Deut 17:15) wçr ˚l sr[a/(Deut 20:7) çra (ibid.) tyah/(Mic 6:10) çaih* (Dan 7:11) aça/(Deut 4:36) wçai* dçym/˚pç/(Num 21:15) dçaw* (Lev 4:12) /(Ezra 4:2) ayçaw/( Jer 50:15) hytwyça* (Ezek 13:14) ahçwa/wdwsy hysa/(ibid.) hytwyça (Syriac ,al[t) ykça/(Lev 21:20) ˚ça* ˆwks/(ibid.) ˚ça lwkùta/(Mic 7:1) l OKça lùta/(Gen 21:33) lça lsa/(ibid.) lça T μùta/(Gen 26:10) μça 25 (pardon) μù^tat/(Ezra 10:19) μymçaw (ibid. 4:4) aypça/(Dan 2:2) μypç;alw* T hyras/(Deut 16:21) hrçea (Ezra 4:12) ayçaw/(Isa 16:7) yçyça*

For h[pa cf. h[p below. For jyra cf. hra Alfàsi adduces the comparison at entry ˚rd. For ˆmça cf. ˆmç.

168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205

the chart of comparisons

425

(cont.) N

M

B

R

≠ = = = =

D

= =

G

F

Q

=

= = =

= + +

(=) =

S

+T T

=

= = = = =

= = = = =

= +

(=) =

(=) (x)

= = =

T T T

= = = =

=

=

=

tasasa/(Isa ibid.) yçyça (Ezra 5:16) ata/(Isa 21:12) hta* yta/(Isa ibid.) hta ˆata/(Num 22:33) ˆwta ^ùgrta/(Bikkur 2:6) gwrta x b yb/+(Gen 31:7) yb ryb/(Gen 26:19) rab ryb/( Jer 6:7) ryIb' ryb/(Exod 21:33) rwb sab/(1Sam 27:12) çyabh +) çwb/(Isa 5:2) μyçwab (sanla falùka+) wbwb/(Zech 2:12) (wny[) tbb ydba/(1Kings 12:33) adb [dtba ,[db/(ibid.) adb dadbtsa/(Lev 13:46) ddb ˆydb/twbah/( Jer 50:36) μydbh*

206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221

(1Sam 20:3) = = = = = =

D D

= = = = = =

(=) (=)

(=) (=) K(=) =

T T T

= = = = =

hlwdbm/( Josh 16:9) twldbmh hhwb/(Gen 1:2) whbw hmyhb/(Gen 1:24) hmhb μahb(a)/(Lev 8:23) ˆhb qhb/(Lev 13:39) qhb rhb/( Job 37:21) ryhb hrhb/(Lev 13:2) trhb (smçla) tbay/(ibid. 22:7) abw (htrùgab) ab/(Exod 22:14) (wrkçb) ab llb/(1Kings 6:38) lwb (jry) y[wp[p/(Exod 9:10) tw[wb[ba*

222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232

(TB Shabbat 109a) = = = = +

= + = = = =

= = =

(=) = ?

= =

= (=) (=)

= =

= = = =

T T

axwb/μytçp ,çç ,db/(Esth 8:15) ≈wb* ≈wb/(ibid. 1:6) ≈wb ù≈wb/(Deut 22:6) μyxyb hqyab/(Nah 2:11) hqwb ^ztby/(Ezek 29:19) zzbw qrb/(Ezek 1:14) qzbh rùdb/(Ps 68:31) rzb tlùkb/(Zech 11:8) hljb tl[b/(ibid.) hljb 26 ˆjtma ,ˆjm/( Jer 11:20) ˆjb μytnjbw/(Isa 48:10) ˚ytrjb* 27 (Zech 13:9) ˆwbyrjba/

233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243

26 Ibn Janà˙ uses ˆjm to render ˆjb. However, there is no indication whatsoever of a comparison. 27 Ibn Janà˙ renders this entry ˚trbtùka and hypothetically one could assume a comparison by a metathesis. However, one would expect such a comparison which involves both a metathesis and letter interchange ùk/j to be expressed explicitly.

chapter sixteen

426 (cont.) N

M

B

R

G

F

Q

= = = =

S T

(=) =

T

M

= = =

= = = =

=

FT

= =

= = (=)

= = =

(=) (+) 2=

=

=

= = (=)

FT

= +

=

= (=) (=) = (=)

= = =

T

1= (=) = (+) (=)

+T =

(+) (+) (=)

= = =

(=2)

(=) = =

+ = =

+K = +D = = =

= = + = = = = + =

(=) = ?

+T T 1T T T T

+

(=)

=

=

(+) (=) (+)

=

(=) =

T T

=

T T

+T

ratùka ,r^yùkt/(Exod 17:9) rjb (+) jfbnm/( Jer 12:5) jfwb ù˚yfb/(Num 1:5) μyjyfbah (Ezra 4:24) hlfb/(Eccl 12:3) wlfbw* (Exod 12:15) ˆwlfbt/wtybçt/ lfbt/(ibid.) wlfbw ˆfb/(Gen 30:2) ˆfb μfb/(Gen 43:11) μynfb (ibid. 26:28) ˆyb/(Gen 1:4) ˆybe* ˆyb/ˆyb ˆynybla (wùd) (1Sam 17:4) μynybh (çya) 28 ˆ^ybt ,ˆayb/(Prov 23:1) ˆybt ˆyb (Ezra 6:2) atrybb:1/(Est 2, 3) hrybh* ( Jer 9:20) anatynrbb/wnytwnwmrab:2 tyb/(Gen 17:12) tyb (wife) tyb/(Deut 14:26) ˚tybw akb/(Lam 1:2) hkb rkb/(Deut 15:19) rwkb (Gen 27:36) ytrwkb hyrwkb:2 ,hrwkb:1 rkby/(Lev 27:26) rkby rykawb/(Lev 2:14) μyrWKBi hrkb/( Jer 2:23) hrk]Bi yrbk/(Gen 19:31) hrykbh gwlb/(Ps 39:14) hgylbaw (r^yjt+) h^lbt/(Isa 17:14) hhlb yalb/(Gen 18:12) yt OlB] ([fq+) μhtlb/(Isa 10:25) μtylbt ad[ am/(Gen 14:24) yd[lb tllb/(Ps 92:11) yt OLB' (t^tç+) lblb/(Gen 11:9) llb (+) yn[lb/( Jer 51:34) yn[lb qlba ,hqwlb/(Nach 2:10) hqlbumw

244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258

259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269

(close, destroy) L

qlba/(ibid.) hqlbmw 270

=

= = =

= = = =

+ =

L 2+M

= =

= =

28 29

(=) =

=

T

(+)

= =

T T

2+

=

2=

(cause for troubles) ([fq+) tlb/( Job 14:12) ytlb ˆba/(Gen 4:25) ˆb 29 (alùg-)ˆba/(1Sam 14:52) (lyj-) ˆb tnb/(Gen 34:3) tb anb/(Deut 20:5) hnb rsb/(Ezek 18:2) rsb ,a[b/çqb/:1 (Isa 21:12) ˆwy[bt* (Dan 6:8) a[b/:2 ygtba ,ygb (ibid.) ˆwy[bt (+) f[ba/(Deut 32:15) f[byw fy[btmd/ytkrd/(ibid.) f[byw* (Isa 63:3)

For ryb cf. rab and for hxyb cf. ≈wb. I.e. in a metaphorical meaning of ˆb in several phrases.

271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279

the chart of comparisons

427

(cont.) N

M

= = =

L

B

R

= = = =

G (=) (=) =

F = = =

= (=) =

+L

= K =

F

(=) = = =

Q

S

=

T

= = =

T

L = =

K

=

= K K = + K =

=

(+) = (2=) (=)

+FT M,TM = 2+M 1L +D L

= = = =

=

=

T

=

T

1=

2=

= 2=

+ (=) (+) (=)

= (=)

= = =

1=

B

= + = = =

(+) (+) L

= = = = = =

= =

L+M

= = =

≠ (=) +

= = (+) =

= =

30

=

T

= =

= =

(L) L,+FT D

(=) + = (+)

? = = (+)

T (=) +T T

= =

+

=

=

=

(=)

(=) (+)

= = = =

T +T

(ùgwz+) l[b/(Exod 21:22) l['b' (bjax ,br+) l[b/(Exod 22:14) wyl[b (-b qaùx+) l[b/( Jer 31:31) ytl[b (μnx+) l[b/(1Kings 18:26) l[bh (hjaba+) ra[ba/(Isa 5:5) r[bl ry[b/hmhb/(Gen 45:17) μkry[b* lxb/(Num 11:5) μylxbh [xb/twtp/(Amos 9:1) μ[xbw* (Lev 2:10) ([fq+) [ùxb/μ[xbw (^qç+) [xb/( Judg 5:10) [xb htaxyb/(Ezek 47:11) wyta Oxbi* ˆyxb/(Isa 14:23) ymgaw/(TB BB 73a) atrwxb/( Jer 17:8) trxb (TB Ketub 97a) h[qb/(Gen 11:2) h[qb (Dan 3:1) t[qbb/(Isa 63:14) h[qbb* rqb bjax:2 ,ra^qb/(Amos 7:14) rqwb rqb/(Gen 26:14) rq;b; (Ezra 4:15) rqby/(Ps 27:4) rqblw* hrkb/(Gen 1:5) rq bO ,rb/ˆb:1/(Prov 31:2) yrb* (Dan 3:13) rbk/:2 arb/(Gen 1:1) arb ([fq+) μhyrby/(Ezek 23:47) arebw drb/(Exod 9:24) drb drw/(Zech 6:3) μydrub alzrp/lzrb* hyjyr (bkarm)/(Isa 43:14) μyjyrb hkrb/(Gen 12:2) hkr;b (Dan 4:31) tkrb/(Ps 103:3) wkrb hkrb/(2Sam 2:13) hkreb ˚rba/(Gen 24:11) ˚rby"w" yhwkrb l[ ˚rb;/(Isa 45:23) ˚r