Biblical Hebrew Forum

[jimstinehart AT aol.com]

If we could get back now to initial consonant clusters, that may be one of 
the most important differences  between Indo-European languages and Semitic 
languages.  Names in Kassite and Hurrian, which are often based on Sanskrit, 
and the languages of Sanskrit, Tibetan, English, and all other Indo-European 
languages, have true consonant clusters on a ubiquitous basis.  By sharp 
contrast, true consonant clusters are rare in Semitic languages.  So $ra is 
easy in a Kassite name or in an Indo-European language, while being a 
tongue-twister in any Semitic language. 
 
1.  We know that the Kassite names of gods and kings are often based on 
Sanskrit words from India.  One of the most common syllables in Sanskit is 
sra.  [Depending on how the sibilant is pronounced, that’s the equivalent of 
$ra.]
 
(a)  In a September 15, 2008 post on Yahoo! Answers, it was noted:  “The 
primary sounds of Sanskrit such as DRA, BRA, SRA, GRA, TRA, RA are commonly 
found in European languages and in English like GRapes…”
 


(b)  In a more scholarly vein:  “Indo-European Lexicon.  Sanskrit Reflex 
Index.  Below we list 905 unique Sanskrit reflex spellings (words and 
affixes) in an alphabetic order suitable for the language family.”
sra;  srad-dha-;  sravas- 






http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ielex/R/Skt.html



 
2.  Although $ra or sra was virtually impossible as a single syllable in any 
Semitic language (including Hebrew and Akkadian, which have no Sanskrit 
influence whatsoever), $ra or sra is commonplace in non-Semitic languages 
such as Sanskrit, Tibetan, English, Hittite, Hurrian and Kassite.
 
(a)  Tibetan has both sra and $ra.  
http://www.himalayanart.org/books/romanization.pdf    
 
(b)  English has $ra [that is, $R + vowel at the beginning of what is a 
single syllable]:  shrill, shrimp, shroud, shred, shrewd, shrew, etc., etc.
 
(c)  Hittite has:  sro, or sra, or sa-ra-a = “upwards” [S may be $ in 
Hittite.]
“Towards a Hittite Historical Grammar” at p. 89
https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/1887/11996/6/01.pdf
 
(d)  Hittite and Hurrian often have sra or $ra.  Let me take examples from an 
old scholarly site [which itself is devoted to showing the influence of 
Hittite and Hurrian names on Assyrian names], which mentions many such names. 
http://www.archive.org/stream/assyrianpersonal00talluoft/assyrianpersonal00talluoft_djvu.txt
  Note that the discrete syllable sra or $ra is commonplace.
 
(i)  “Hittite-Mitannian names…DiTuSratta”;  (ii)  Bel-ippa$ra;  (iii)  
Tu(i}sratta;  (iv)  Bel-ippaSra;  (v)  tsra;  (vi)  SRam-ti;  (vii)  
*Dusratta (prob. Iran., cf. SCHEFTELOWITZ, KZ 38);  (vii)  Esraia, or 
Um-eSraia "Born on the twentieth day";  (viii)  TuSratta; (ix)  *Ra-hi-ma-a 
(cf. SRahima;  (x)  Ram-ti-i (hypocor., cf. SRamtu];  (xi)  *lu(i}$ratta, 
DuSratta (Aryan tuvis "strong, big" + ratha "chariot");  (xii)  “Finally, a 
few Hittite consonant sounds should be briefly touched upon. The correctness 
of the observation 3 that fortis and lenis are interchangeable in Mitannian 
is confirmed in every way by Hittite names (cf. Ta$su-Da$a, DITuSratta…”;  
(xiii)  SRam-ti
 
3.  Most exciting of all are items #ix and #x in #2above.  It appears that in 
some ancient languages, SRahima was simplified by dropping the initial S/$, 
to become Ra-hi-ma-a.  Likewise, SRamtu was sometimes simplified by dropping 
the sibilant to become Ram-ti-i.  As to #x, the author explicitly states that 
Ram-ti-i is a shortened form of, or “hypocor.” of, SRamtu.
 
That fits my theory perfectly that Ka-ra in Akkadian was a shortened form of 
Ka-$ra in Kassite.
 
4.  The fact that the Kassites could pronounce Ka-$a-ra [revered 7th mountain 
in the Rig Veda] as two syllables is indirectly confirmed by the fact that in 
Sanskrit, it appears that all three of those consonants could be pronounced 
as a single initial consonant cluster!  Ksra is a well-known word in 
Sanskrit.  “The Sanskrit scholars, for example, tried to Sanskritise the name 
of the river Paalaaru as Ksra Nati.”  
http://tamilelibrary.org/teli/tamil7.html  [In a prior post, I unfortunately 
mistyped the Sanskrit word K$ra as Kr$a.]
 
5.  My theory of the case is based on the foregoing objective linguistic 
facts.  On my theory of the case, (i) the Kassite original was Ka-$ra [which 
was an easy consonant cluster to pronounce in Kassite, though extraordinarily 
difficult to pronounce in any Semitic language], (ii) the Akkadian shortened 
form became Ka-ra, and (iii) the Biblical Hebrew version at Genesis 11: 28, 
31 is closer to the Kassite original, but is still a simplification, being 
Ka-$a.  As to the Kassite original, this post has shown that in non-Semitic 
ancient languages, the syllable $ra was commonplace.  Everyone on the 
b-hebrew list knows that such a syllable would be very rare, if not virtually 
impossible, in Biblical Hebrew, and the same holds true for Akkadian.  Over a 
long period of time, the hard-to-pronounce Ka-$ra in Akkadian simplified to 
Ka-ra, just as Ram-ti-i above is the shortened form of SRamtu historically.  
The Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives changed things around a bit, 
in order for his Hebrew audience to have a chance of understanding what was 
going on.  Since some Hebrews knew the Kassites as Ka$-$u, the Hebrew author 
of Genesis 11: 28, 31 decided to use a slight variant of Ka$-$u, rather than 
Akkadian Ka-ra, as the first two syllables of the Hebrew version of the 
Kassite name of Kassite Babylonia.  So the first two letters are K-$.
 
That explains why the Hebrew version of the name of Kassite Babylonia in the 
Patriarchal narratives starts out as K-$, even though the Akkadian version, 
per the Amarna Letters, starts out Ka-ra.  There is no mistake, and no 
historical anachronism, at Genesis 11: 28, 31.  Pinpoint historical accuracy 
in a Late Bronze Age context -- thy name is the Patriarchal narratives.  
Sometimes we need to take a quick glance at Sanskrit and Kassite [but 
n-e-v-e-r  at the post-exilic Book of Daniel!!!] to verify the pinpoint 
historical accuracy of the Patriarchal narratives in a Late Bronze context, 
that’s all.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois