Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Initial Consonant Clusters in Biblical Hebrew

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: jimstinehart AT aol.com
  • To: jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com, robertsumner0110 AT wmconnect.com
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Initial Consonant Clusters in Biblical Hebrew
  • Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:30:02 -0400




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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page