Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: jimstinehart AT aol.com
To: fournet.arnaud AT wanadoo.fr ; leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il ; 
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 1:41 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] words with the same root letters: XCC-N TMR


Dr. Fournet:

You wrote:  “[Samekh] was a voiceless affricate /ts/.”

Scholars are split as to the early pronunciation of samekh in Semitic 
languages.  Perhaps samekh had been an affricate prior to the Late Bronze 
Age, but was no longer an affricate in the Amarna Age.  In “Semitic 
Linguistics” (2002), Shlomo Izre’el comments:

“The original sound value of the Semitic sibilant that is realized in Hebrew 
as samekh has been assumed to be [s]; [but there are] arguments for assuming 
an original sound value [ts], at least until the second millennium BC….”
***
Yes
I would tend to agree on that.
Keep in mind that the letter x [ks] is derived from Samekh, while s is from 
shin.
So the second millenium extends to the transfer of Phenician alphabet to the 
northern shores of the Mediterranean sea.
A.
***


Even if samekh may arguably have been an affricate in Proto Semitic, prior 
to the Late Bronze Age, for our purposes the only relevant time period is 
the Amarna Age, because that is the only time when Hurrian lords interacted 
with Hebrews in Canaan.  Several scholars who have focused on the Amarna 
Letters have specifically concluded that at that time, samekh was  n-o-t  “a 
voiceless affricate /ts/”:

“[I]n the Amarna Letters samekh is always ‘z’ (Albright 1943a: 32).  Thus, 
for example, zu-u-zi-ma is Hebrew SuSim, ‘horses’.  Thus while sin and shin 
were classed together, samekh was perhaps felt to be closer to the voiced 
fricative zayin.”  Ian Young, “Diversity in Pre-Exilic Hebrew” (1993), at 
pp. 189-190.  [That’s SWSYM/‘horses’ at Genesis 47: 17.]
***
Again we bump into graphic issues.
Is this <zu> in graphic contrast with <su> in those Armana letters ? or does 
it stand for dzu, tsu and tsadé-u as well ?
It's nonsense that the word "horse" would suddenly lose voiced z.
So there's a problem with reading <zu-u-zi-ma>, obviously that graphics 
stands for phonetic [tsu:tsima].
You don't seem to understand that these conventional readings do not 
necessarily stand for what they look like.
That's a major problem in your reasonings.
A.
***




Dr. Fournet, since it is a mainstream scholarly view [though scholars 
admittedly are split on this issue], please  c-o-n-s-i-d-e-r  that in the 
Amarna Age, samekh in early Biblical Hebrew may not have been a fricative 
TS;  rather, already at that time, tsade may have been the sole fricative TS 
sibilant.  If so, then in a mid-14th century BCE historical context:
***
There are excellent reasons to think this PoV is false, see above.
A.
***


(1)  The root Cuxar in the Hurrian name Cuxur + tiya at Nuzi is a dead 
ringer for CXR at Genesis 23: 8.  He’s the Hurrian father of the Hurrian 
lord, ‘PRWN, who imperiously charges Abraham a king’s ransom for a gravesite 
for Sarah, and whose own name is Hurrian, E-pi-ri-e-ne, meaning [in Hurrian] 
“(Hurrian) lord”.  [“Pir” is the form of the Hurrian word “lord” that is 
found in Amarna Letters EA 27 and 28 in the Hurrian name Pi-ri-iz-zi, and at 
Amarna Letter EA 17: 12 for the Hurrian name Pir-xi.]  This Hurrian lord’s 
city’s name, ’RB‘, is Hurrian as well, ir-bi, meaning [in Hurrian] city of 
the “(Hurrian) lords”.  [Note the metathesis (reversal) of the consonants, 
which was not only commonplace at Nuzi, but it’s attested at Jerusalem as 
well;  in Amarna Letter EA 289: 38, Hurrian princeling IR-Heba uses the word 
irpi (presumably pronounced ir-bi, as you would agree) regarding an Egyptian 
official.]  In the Amarna Age, if one was to buy a plot of land near a city 
for a gravesite, one would likely have to buy that land from a “Hurrian 
lord”, hence the Biblical names ‘PRWN/E-pi-ri-e-ne/“(Hurrian) lord”, and 
city of ’RB‘/ir-bi/“(Hurrian) lords”.  E-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g  makes perfect 
sense on a Hurrian analysis.  [The west Semitic meanings would have “Mr. 
Fawn” operating in the “City of Four”, but those west Semitic meanings make 
no sense in context.]
***
We have alreadly discussed and rejected that several times.
A.
***


(2)  XCC-N TMR at Genesis 14: 7 is a dead ringer for Hurrian xa-tsi-tsi-ni 
tam-ri, meaning [in Hurrian] “Wisdom-the Nine”.  [Only the Hurrians had a 
mystical appreciation of the number “nine”.]  The short-form version of that 
name is xa-si/Hasi, where we know from Amarna Letter EA 175 there was an 
Amorite enclave in the Hurrian-dominated Beqa Valley that was attacked by 
coalition forces, just exactly as Genesis 14: 7 says.  Once again, 
e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g   makes perfect sense on a Hurrian analysis.
***
No
You have a quite incredible capacity to be in denial of everything...
A.
***


Dr. Fournet, if you would consider the possibility that in the mid-14th 
century BCE [regardless of how Proto Semitic may have operated, in an 
earlier time period], tsade may have been the sole fricative TS sibilant in 
early Biblical Hebrew, then we’ve got Hurrian names by the dozens in the 
Patriarchal narratives!  [Wherever HALOT says “no linguistic analysis 
possible”, think Hurrian.]  Maybe we could even convince Prof. Yigal Levin 
to stop teaching his students that the Patriarchal narratives are late 
fiction.  [Well, I can dream, can’t I?]  Hurrian is not “late”, that’s for 
sure.  The more Hurrian names we find in the Patriarchal narratives, the 
better, because that is showing the great antiquity of this incomparable 
Biblical text.
***
So far I've not seen a single plausibly Hurrian name in what you keep 
foraging.

Arnaud Fournet