Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Vav Nun Suffix

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr>
  • To: <if AT math.bu.edu>, <jimstinehart AT aol.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Vav Nun Suffix
  • Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 15:28:43 +0100


From: jimstinehart AT aol.com


1. You wrote: “For the time being, you have just claimed it was derogatory. I let you explain why gold statues offered by Mitanni kings to Pharaohs were shown all around Egypt at that time.”

It was derogatory for Egyptians to call greater Canaan X3RW, referencing exclusively non-Semitic princeling rulers in Canaan in the mid-14th century BCE, because over 90% of the human beings in Canaan at the time were indigenous west Semitic speakers, like the Hebrews. Such name was not derogatory to non-Semitic Mitanni, but rather was derogatory to the people of Canaan like the Hebrews.
***
You have nothing to substantiate that claim.
This is your fairytale.
Egyptian geographical lists clearly indicate Kharu (=Syria) would never apply to the area where Hebrews can be expected.
A.
***


2. You wrote: “[Y]ou're trying to prove that CBYWN is not Semitic. In all cases Hurrian did not have emphatics and Zi-pa-ya cannot be rendered in Hebrew as CBYWN.
Logically it should be tsamekh -b- y- “

Hebrew ssade at the time may have been an emphatic sin. Gelb and Purves compare Zipaya to Akkadian Sippaya, and Zippe/Zi-ib-be-e to Akkadian Sippe. It’s hard to tell at this remove whether ssade/C, samekh/S, or sin/% would be the expected sibilant in early Biblical Hebrew. As against your suggestion of samekh, in the 25 non-Semitic proper names set forth in the Patriarchal narratives, not one has a samekh. In my view, all 25 have letter-for-letter accuracy in the spellings of these non-Semitic names.
***
Hurrian initial z was a voiceless affricate, it should therefore be rendered as tsamekh which was also a voiceless affricate at that time.
In all cases neither tsade (for sure) nor sin can be expected.
That none of these non-Semitic names has a tsamekh just shows the affricate ts was rare in these names.
A.
***


3. In response to my statement that “in writing or when speaking, those Nuzi names would have had added to them a very long string of suffixes, which very often included, shortly after the basic name, -we-ni- [Biblical -WN], as an integral part of the long non-Semitic suffix sequence (per pp. 23-24 of your website)”, you wrote: “This is not an attested word formation in Hurrian.”

Anyone can check out p. 23 of your website and verify what I say. The most interesting word on that page to people on the b-hebrew list is the non-Semitic word for “Egypt”:
“KUR [country] Mi-zi- ir- ri- e- wə-ni-eš”. Look at the key suffix element that comes after the base word for Egypt. It’s -we-ni-. That’s -WN in early Biblical Hebrew. The best way to represent the incredibly long non-Semitic suffix sequences by using just two letters in early Biblical Hebrew is precisely what we see in the received text of the Patriarchal narratives: -WN. If that doesn’t “sound non-Semitic”, what does?
***
“KUR [country] Mi-zi- ir- ri- e- wə-ni-eš”
This is the ergative case (eS) of the syntagm "the one (-ni-) of (-wə-) Egypt (Mi-zi- ir- ri- e-)", obviously referring to the Egyptian Ruler.
This is not a geographic name, not even an ethnonym as it would be Mi-zi- ir- ri- e- hi- "Egyptian".
Is not obvious that this name has a connection with מצר ?
A.
***


4. To my assertion that Biblical XTY represents the expected early Biblical Hebrew defective spelling of the classic, very popular non-Semitic name XuT-iYa, you wrote: “It should have a -d- not a -t-.”

Per Gelb and Purves at p. 64b regarding this non-Semitic name: “Xu-ti-…, var. (2) Xu-di-…” Thus either tav/T or dalet/D would work in Biblical Hebrew here, and Gelb/Purves give T as the first choice.
***
The phonetic reality between simple graphemes -t- and -d- is [d].
Which is what real speakers would hear and render as -d-
A
***


5. Once one realizes that in 25 out of 25 cases there is apparent letter-for-letter spelling accuracy of non-Semitic names in the Patriarchal narratives, one realizes that this text is based on a written record from the mid-14th century BCE, and then one starts to give a bit of deference to the spelling choices that the early Hebrew author made. Samekh or ssade, dalet or tav. Yes, those are legitimate questions for you to raise. But I see the non-biblical evidence as being essentially neutral as to the two above cases you raise, and if so, then the Biblical evidence should be decisive.

From where I sit, you have not undercut the pinpoint historical accuracy of
a single letter in the 25 non-Semitic names set forth in the Patriarchal narratives. The incredible accuracy as to these non-Semitic names from the Late Bronze Age confirms both the antiquity, and historical accuracy, of this Biblical text. Once people start looking at your website, they will gain a whole new appreciation for the antiquity and accuracy of the Patriarchal narratives in a mid-14th century BCE historical time period.
***
What are the *philological* reasons to think or to doubt that Abraham should be born in this period rather than before?

How many generations are there between David and Abraham in the texts?

Your chronology divides the standard chronology by 2.

Arnaud Fournet






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page