Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>]

On 21/05/2006 23:19, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:

> ... 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. ...

I really think you are wasting your time looking for the doubled N in a 
Semitic language. The Greek form KANH was very probably the original 
form borrowed from Semitic, cf. also KANWN. The change from KANH to 
KANNA can be explained by processes internal to Greek.

> ... An example like
> this would still
> show that Cannabis is not to be derived from qneh bo&em. ...

In case there is any misunderstanding, I am agreeing with you here. In 
fact I think a Greek derivation from KANNA is more probable. But from 
this distance in time we can only speculate on the origin of the -BIS 
part of the word, except to note that the -S is clearly the Greek 
nominative ending and not a root letter: the genitive (with -OS ending) 
is KANNABIOS or KANNABEWS, suggesting a root KANNABI- or KANNABE-.

> ... answers.com
> includes information from a variety of sources, including wikipedia. ...
>   

Indeed, but the data which I quoted from answers.com was from the 
American Heritage Dictionary. I suspect you will find the same etymology 
in most good English dictionaries, as it has clearly been around at 
least since BDB.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/