Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

From: JimStinehart AT aol.com

Dr. Fournet:

Your entire argument against my view of XCC-N TMR at Genesis 14: 7 as being 
Hurrian boils down to this:
“If the word is originally Hurrian, then it cannot contain any emphatics 
[such as tsade/C], as stated before several times.  Period.”
***
It's one of the arguments.
This one is about as compellingly negative as the others.
A.
***



Not true.  You are confusing the fact that Hurrian did not overtly denote 
emphatics in writing with the very different question of whether Hurrian had 
emphatic consonants such as emphatic tsade.
***
Hurrian as attested in non-ambiguous Ugaritic script does not have a single 
instance of emphatic letters, but for one word of Semitic origin, which 
scribes recognized and wrote in a Semitic way.
A.
***


Consider the following evidence that Hurrian had emphatic phonemes, 
including emphatic tsade:
1.  Gelb and Purves in “Nuzi Personal Names” show 18 Hurrian names beginning 
with emphatic tsade, at pp. 175-182.
2.  Gelb and Purves show a whopping 71 names that begin with qof (the 
emphatic side of kaf), at pp. 77-89.
***
These pages do not correspond to the Hurrian et al section.
A.
***



3.  At the advice of the #1 Hittite linguist in the world, I showed the #1 
Hurrian scholar in the world, Gernot Wilhelm,
***
::))
#1...
Lol.
Howls.
A.
***


30 Biblical names in the Patriarchal narratives that I consider to be 
Hurrian.  Some of those names have tsade, qof, ayin and aleph (but never 
samekh).  Prof. Wilhelm raised a series of technical issues concerning my 
analysis [such as the need for me to distinguish -nni from -ni in my 
explanations of Hurrian meanings (a point you recently made)], but he never 
said anything along the lines that a Biblical name containing an emphatic 
consonant like tsade or qof, or containing ayin or aleph, could not be a 
Hurrian name.  Indeed, in his published work, Prof. Wilhelm resists the 
temptation to say exactly how the various Hurrian phonemes were pronounced:

“Since Hurrian was written with scripts that were designed for other 
languages, it is difficult – to a degree, even impossible – to establish the 
phonemic vocabulary of Hurrian.”  Gernot Wilhelm, “Hurrian”, Chapter 9 in 
“The Ancient Languages of Asia Minor” (2008), ed. Roger D. Woodard, at p. 
84.
***
To be frank, that paper is close to junk and it's no wonder it's available 
on the net for free.
They can't sell it.
A.
***


In your post you said:  “You keep confusing graphic issues with phonetic 
issues.”  But you’re the one who’s doing that.  The fact that Hurrian did 
not overtly record emphatics in writing does not mean that Hurrian did not 
have emphatic consonants like tsade.  Per the analysis of Gelb and Purves, 
and per Gernot Wilhelm never raising the issue, the better view would appear 
to be that Hurrian had emphatic tsade, though Hurrian did not overtly denote 
any emphatics in writing.
***
Nonsense.
A.
***


With everything else matching perfectly (ignoring the medieval pointing of 
vowels done by the Masoretes in the Middle Ages, which is totally irrelevant 
to a Hurrian analysis of names in the Patriarchal narratives, and which is 
another issue that no one but you has raised), to me it makes sense to see 
tsade as the early Hebrew author’s choice to record the Hurrian affricate 
[whether emphatic or not] in xa-tsi-tsi.  If so, then the expected Hebrew 
spelling of Hurrian xa-tsi-tsi-ni tam-ri/“Wisdom-the Nine” is the XCC-N TMR 
that we see at Genesis 14: 7.
***
How long will you keep inventing non-existing phonemes and deny against all 
possible evidence that this word is not Hurrian in the first place and would 
never be written with tsade.
In addition the Akkadian word hasisi is a Semitic word from a Semitic root.
I suppose it has reflexes in Hebrew and related NWS languages (Heth + 
Samekh).
Semitic speakers would recognize the word and write it with the adequate 
consonants.

Arnaud Fournet