Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>]

I agree totally. This discussion of Hurrian origins of anything in Hebrew is
closed for the time being.

The discussion of the Dagesh, of course, may continue.

Yigal Levin

Co-moderator,

B-Hebrew

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Arnaud Fournet

Anyway the list is constantly going off track with "Hurrian". None of this 
makes any sense. I suppose most of you are aware of that.

Hurrian was spoken in the mountains and hills of Northern Mesopotamia. It's 
obvious from all the Sumero-Akkadianisms that the cultural influence is 
unilaterally from the south to the north.
It happens that Hurrian people have exerted a short-lived power thanks to 
the temporary military superiority brought in by Indo-Iranians, who had 
domesticated horses and trained them for war.

It just does not make any sense that Hurrian could ever have had any 
influence on Semitic languages, spoken in areas where there probably never 
lived any Hurrian speakers and even fewer Hurro-Semitic bilinguals. The idea

suggested by Bush of a Hurrian influence on Hebrew is nothing but an 
idiosyncratic and unsupported fancy, which does not even fit the reality of 
Hurrian in the first place. This fancy seems to have been proposed in order 
to justify a number of unsupported claims about Hurrian. In my opinion it's 
nothing but a smoke screen.

Would it be possible to get rid of all this absurd and constant 
Hurrianesquery and let Hurrian rest in peace?

Arnaud Fournet
***




_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew