Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

Dear Jim,

It is surprising that you bring in Victor Hurowitz into all this.  Victor
recommended Held's article, and I'm sure you know that since it is
flat out in the comment of mine that you yourself quoted at first.
It is Moshe Held who makes various statements concerning the
word xbr/ubburu, not (in this case) Victor Hurowitz.  Victor Hurowitz
probably agrees -- after all, he recommended Held's article -- but
Held is the one to be held responsible for his opinion.  Also, if you
want to bring Victor Hurowitz into this, I really suggest you make
the statement on the original list where my post and Victor's
response was placed, since Victor is on that list and he can
respond.

Putting all that aside, Moshe Held does not link abaru to xbr; in fact,
he considers and refutes the possibility: "It shouldn't be denied that
the etymology of ubburu is not sufficiently clear; however, von Soden's
opinion that ubburu is not but a denominative from aba:ru, which
means power and strength.  Also, contra von Soden's opinion,
there is no Qal inflection of the verb ubburu."  Since Hurowitz
probably agrees with Held, we must find he also agrees with this
analysis.  The only thing that leads you to state that Hurowitz
thinks otherwise is probably not having read what Held said,
which leaves you free to make up statements about his
position.  I don't want to come off too sharp here, but really, if you
don't know what someone else thinks, me included, just don't
put words in their mouths.

As to when heth dropped, it is not important whether it dropped
before or after Hebrew is attested.  Languages develop each their
own paths.  A cognate means that in the parent language -- in this
case, Semitic -- there was a particular word.  That word developed
in different paths in West Semitic (where Hebrew comes from)
and East Semitic (where Akkadian comes from).  In Akkadian, one
particular type of heth that happens to be in the word xbr dropped,
while in West Semitic it remained.   Just because Akkadian may
be attested earlier, does not mean that Hebrew did not have a
cognate word all this long.  That's what "cognate" really means.

Finally, since I see this coming, don't take the above quote that
I translated from Held's article as a starting point to make
overreaching conclusions.  Read the Hebrew original -- it is 2
pages with 2 additional pages of notes -- first.

Yitzhak Sapir