Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr>]

Jim wrote:
David Kolinsky is asking whether Anir/Aner/(NR in the unpointed Masoretic 
text of chapter 14 of Genesis is a “mistake”, since it makes no sense in 
west Semitic.  Since I have been asked to “desist”, could you complete the 
Hurrian analysis of this name?
***
In all cases, (1) Hurrian names generally do not end with consonants, -n 
and -l being attested acceptions  (2) Ayin is not a Hurrian phoneme.
So I would conclude that this (NR is not a possible Hurrian name.
A.
****


Start with your website, which says:  “*[Øinarγa] (Essive) ‘looking or 
acting like a god’[;]  CA <e-na-ar-xa>.”  That attested Hurrian common word 
is the root ena + two suffixes, R + xa, which looks like (NR plus an 
additional suffix.
***
It's unclear what the suffix -arha is.
In all cases, nothing supports the idea that we are allowed to cut it into 
two suffixes.
The language accepts some complex suffixes like -uhli "to look after; to be 
in charge of; professional names".
A.
***


Then go to the exciting attested Hurrian name at Nuzi:  Anir$e.  That’s Anir 
+ $e, likely being the same as the entry on your website, except a different 
second suffix is used:  root ena + R + $e.  [Here’s the cite for Anir$e at 
Nuzi:  468 SMN 2071, at p. 131 of “Nuzi and the Hurrians”, by David I. Owen 
and Ernest Rene Lacheman (1995).]
***
This name has a <?> in Nuzi Person Names. Possibly rightly so.
It could also be analyzed as being anir-Se: from verb #an- to rejoice with 
preterite ending -ir, and -Se "brother".
Hurrian is very consistent with the word "god" having e/i not a.
Akkadian Anu contrasts with Hurrian eni "god", even though both may 
originate in Sumerian AN "sky" (and possibly also "god" in the first place).
It seems there is not a single instance of "god" being written with #a- in 
Hurrian even once.

In addition I would say that I'm still wondering why Sumerian ideogram AN 
"god" should ever be read dingir(????). What is the philological and 
phonetic basis for that "reading"?
And I also wonder how Sumerian EN "lord" and AN "sky > [in my opinion also] 
god" are related.

A.
***


Then go back to your website (p. 34), and explain that -$e [like -R] is a 
standard Hurrian suffix, and that Hurrian words and names sometimes have two 
suffixes:  “-š(š)e-/-š(š)i-: used to create abstract nouns: šarrašši- 
‘kingship, royalty’ (cf. šarri- ‘king’[of Semitic origin]). Note ewri-šši-xi 
‘royal’ with two suffixes.  In Proto-Indo-European, *-s was an extremely 
common suffix and had various usages.”

A simplified version of that attested Hurrian word and that attested Hurrian 
name would be to leave off the second suffix, and only have one Hurrian 
suffix:  -R.  That would give us ena + R, or Anir or Aner, which in Hebrew 
is what we see in the received Masoretic text of Genesis 14: 13, 24:  (N-R. 
That’s no “mistake”.  No, it’s bona fide Hurrian.
***
Ayin is not an attested Hurrian phoneme. And I think it is just not a 
possible phoneme at all.
In addition one would expect consonantal YN [or )N] to stand for Hurrian 
eni. Cf. Ugaritic consonantal script  <I n> = eni. This writing shows how 
Semitic speakers reacted to Hurrian phonetics.
A.
***


If David Kolinsky may be wondering whether a Hebrew ayin could be used to 
represent a Hurrian vowel, please mention the key example of (LM at Genesis 
14: 1 (the original version of Chedorlaomer’s kingly title) being a dead 
ringer for Hurrian Elami, where Hebrew ayin represents a Hurrian vowel.
***
Elami is clearly a foreign word, directly traceable to (an Akkadianism) 
Elam.

In my opinion, it's just unthinkable that Ayin could ever stand for a vowel 
in Semitic script, especially early Semitic script.

Apart from that historical point relative to alphabetic internal evolution, 
from a sheer phonological point, Ayin is [+ grave] while i/y is [+ acute] in 
Yakobson's descriptive acoustico-phonetic wording, and therefore this 
recycling of Ayin to write i/y is strikingly improbable. And you'd better 
read Roman Yakobson several times before you conclude he might have been 
wrong.

Arnaud Fournet
***