Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On 5/21/06, Peter Kirk wrote:
> >> How about Greek KANNA and KANWN (W = omega; cf English "cane" and
> >> "canon") from Hebrew QANEH, or at least from its Semitic cognates? ...
> >
> [Yitzhak:] The word qaneh and its cognates has only one /n/ in the word. ...
>
> I know. But Greek loans from Semitic languages do not always preserve
> single and double consonants, as is clear for example from Hebrew names
> in LXX. An example that comes to mind immediately is Hebrew RIBQAH >
> Greek REBEKKA. Anyway, the Greek word appears as KANH (h=eta) as well as
> KANNA, and in the apparent derivative KANWN in which the second N is
> probably a suffix, and so the doubling of the N is probably a change
> within Greek. Also, this etymological link is not something speculative
> and certainly not something which derives from cannabis lovers, but is
> clearly stated in reputable dictionaries, e.g. American Heritage, see
> http://www.answers.com/cane&r=67, cf. also the Online Etymology
> Dictionary at
> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=cane&searchmode=none, also
> BDB s.v. QANEH. If you want to disprove this etymology, you will need to
> find a convincing reason why the same thing was called QANEH in Hebrew
> and KANH in Greek if there was no etymological link.

The word Rebekka shows a doubling of the third root letter.  This is unusual 
in
Semitic languages, but it occurs sometimes in Hebrew, ie, words like Hanukkah
or xami$$ah.  It is hard for me to think of examples but I wonder if
it is related to
a guttural in the first letter of the word.  The word Rebekkah fills
these conditions
(ie, third root letter, r sometimes acts like a guttural letter such
as that it does not
take a strong dagesh).  This probably has to be understood as a phonetic
development in Hebrew and perhaps very closely related languages such as
Phoenician.  However, qaneh fills neither of these conditions: ie, q is not a
guttural, and n is not the third root letter.  The Greek word KANH
forms a better
phonetic match for qaneh, and this is so clear that in your last sentence of 
the
above paragraph, you abandon the word KANNA in challenging me to show a
link.  As such, the word KANH fulfills various conditions that would
be necessary
to show an etymological "borrowing" link: 1) almost exact phonetic
correspondence.
2) almost exact meaning. 3) plausibility of such a word existing at
time of contact.
The word Cannabis fulfills none of these conditions.  In fact, as Jack
showed, the
verse primarily used to suggest the Cannabis = qnh b&m link is speaking of a
usage that makes no sense for Cannabis.  So what you are left with is two 
words
that have some similar consonants, are used in a way that makes no sense for
Cannabis at all (annointing oil), and for which the attested use of
Cannabis at this
time (use for other than rope) is unclear.  There is no reason to see an
etymological link between the two.  The words KANH/qaneh fulfill the 
conditions
sufficiently that scholars probably conclude that they are probable 
borrowings.
Perhaps KANNA is to be explained as borrowed from an Assyrian/Babylonian
plural.  According to Fox, the "broken plural" for "fathers" was Bab. abbu, 
Ass.
abba:u (from 'abum), for "brothers" axxu: from axum (a reflex of which
may exist
in Hebrew), for "trees" iccu: from icum.  So, it is possible that by 
comparison,
(Akk developed the word into qanu) the Akkadian plural for "reed" was qannu or
qanna'u.  But the easiest thing is to just check.  An example like
this would still
show that Cannabis is not to be derived from qneh bo&em.  answers.com
includes information from a variety of sources, including wikipedia.
etymologyonline is at least signed.

Yitzhak Sapir
http://toldot.blogspot.com