A Comparative Lexicon of Ugaritic and Canaanite

501 Pages·25.565 MB·English

by  Issam K. H. Halayqa

Alter Orient und Altes Testament
VerOffentlichungen zur Kultur und Geschichte des Alten Orients
und des Alten Testaments
Band 340
Herausgeber
Manfried Dietrich • Oswald Loretz
Beratergremium
R. Albertz • 1. Bretschneider • St. Maul
K.A. Metzler· H. Neumann· U. Riitersw6rden
W. Sallaberger· G. Selz· W. Zwickel
2008
Ugarit-Verlag
Munster
A Comparative Lexicon
ofUgaritic and Canaanite
Issam K. H. HALAY QA
2008
Ugarit-Verlag
MUnster
Issam K. H. Halayqa
A Comparative Lexicon ofUgaritic and Canaanite
Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Band 340
© 2008 Ugarit-Verlag, MLinstcr
AIle Kechle vorbehalten
All rights preserved. No pati of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any f0l111 or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photo-copying, recording. or otherwise,
without the prior permission of the publisher.
Hersteliung: Druckhaus Folberth, Pfungstadt
Printed in Gennany
ISBN 978-3-934628-95-3
Printed on acid-free paper
Contents
Introduction .............................................................................................. . 9
Lexicon ..................................................................................................... . 32
'(AJIJU) .............................................................................................. . 32
72
B ....................................................................................................... . 101
f) ....................................................................................................... . 119
I) ....................................................................................................... . 128
G ....................................................................................................... . 133
G ........................................................................................................ 141
H ........................................................................................................ 145
l:l ........................................................................................................ 152
Ij ........................................................................................................ 168
K ........................................................................................................ 179
L ........................................................................................................ 197
1\1 ....................................................................................................... 209
N ........................................................................................................ 228
P ........................................................................................................ 249
Q ........................................................................................................ 262
R ........................................................................................................ 278
SIS ................................................................................................... 293
S ........................................................................................................ 302
S ....................................................................................................... 310
8 Contents
s ........................................................................................................
316
T ........................................................................................................ 335
T ........................................................................................................ 341
T ........................................................................................................ 342
w ....................................................................................................... 355
y ........................................................................................................ 356
z ........................................................................................................
377
~ ........................................................................................................ 379
Certain lexical correspondences of Ugaritic and Canaanite ...................... 382
Conclusions ............ ............................ ...... ........... .......... ...... ... ..... ....... ....... 466
Selected lists of un shared lexemes in Ugaritic and Canaanite ................... 477
Ugaritic lexemes without cognates in epigraphic Canaanite
according to DUL................................................................................ 477
Epigraphic Canaanite lexemes from DNSI not attested in Ugaritic.. 500
Further Ugaritic lexemes ........................................................................... 514
Unexplained Ugaritic lexemes according to DUL ............................. 514
Uncertain Ugaritic lexemes not included in this lexicon ................... 518
Abbreviations ............................................................................................ 519
List of tables ....... ........................ ......... ..... ...... ................. .......................... 537
Bibliography .... .... ..... ................... ... ........ .......................... ... ..... ........... ...... 538
List of English translations of Ugaritic and Canaanite lexemes .............. 550
Introduction
The lexical study of the Ugaritic and Canaanite languages offers one of the most
reliable criteria for determining the origins and the meanings of the words. It
('nables us to determine whether a given lexeme is of Ugaritic, Canaanite, or of
other Semitic origins on the one hand, while making a significant contribution to
(he etymology and lexicon of Canaanite on the other. A comparative lexical and
etymological study of Ugaritic lexemes (entries, words or items) and their
counterparts in the Canaanite languages can also improve the understanding of
(hose languages and the linguistic relationship between them. This comparison
is possible due to the material available from Ugaritic and Canaanite, in which
relatively rich entries can be found, and to the fact that both share a common
ancestor.
Ugaritic (Ug) was a spoken and written language in an area adjacent to various
Canaanite dialects, such as the language of the EI-Amarna letters from the city
states in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine and Phoenician in Lebanon. Ugaritic was
still a spoken language in the EI-Amarna period, to which Old Canaanite
(OldCan) belongs. Therefore the generic relationship between Ugaritic and
Canaanite cannot be dispensed. It therefore seems appropriate to compare
etymologically all the Ugaritic lexemes to those of the Northwest Semitic
languages. in particular with the Canaanite branch (supposedly the nearest).
The position of the Ugaritic language among the Northwest Semitic languages
remains a question of lively debate. Ugaritic has been grouped with Amorite
(Amor). Canaanite (Can), Arabic (Ar) and Old South Arabic (OSA). It has even
been considered early Hebrew' or early Phoenician2 (Ph) or has been seen as a
separate Northwest Semitic language distinct from Canaanite and Aramaic
(Aram). Nevertheless, neither general acceptance nor satisfactory classification
has been firmly established. The attempts made by Semitic scholars to place
Ugaritic among the Northwest Semitic languages had been based on either
phonological or morphological criteria. The opinions of scholars regarding this
issue can be divided into four categories. I will discuss the two strongest theories
(the Canaanite and the Northwest Semitic) that pertain to the present day and
mention briefly the Amorite and the Arabic hypotheses.
I. The Canaanite hypothesis: The first group of scholars impressed by
numerous similarities between Ugaritic linguistic peculiarities, poetry and
lexicon and that of Canaanite (Biblical Hebrew in particular) ar§ued for a clear
relationship between Canaanite and Ugaritic. j. Tropper identified 5
phonological and 6morphological features shared by the two languages. This is
I Th. H. Gaster, "the Combat of Death and the Most High. A Proto-Hebrew Epic from
Ras Shamra" j RAS Part IV-October f 1932). 857ff.; see A. Montgomery. the Ras Shamra
MYlhological Texis (1935). 16fr.
1 J. Virolleaud, "Le dechiffrement des tableltes aJphabetiques de Ras Shamra" Syria 12
[1931], l5fr.
3 "Js Ugaritic a Canaanite Language?" UBL } } (1994), 343-353.
10 Introduction
supported by a seemingly high percentage of lexical proximity (around 70%), as
well as clear similarities in the basic vocabulary of both languages. Tropper
concluded, however, that Ugaritic is only a remnant language of a North
Canaanite language4 which developed from Canaanite (Proto Canaanite), while
the Old Canaanite of El-Amarna, Phoenician, Punic, Hebrew, Ammonite,
s
Moabite and Edomite are subsumed within South Canaanite. B. Isaksson also
argues that there is a close connection to Canaanite based on 10 common
innovations or shared features between the two. His opinion is also based on the
archaeological record which attests a certain cultural and linguistic unity
between Syria and Palestine in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. Z. HarrisS
admits the presence of some differentiations, which he calls dialectal
developments between Canaanite and Ugaritic, but he classifies Ugaritic clearly
as Canaanite. This theory is based on the diagnostic and common phonological
and morphological features of the two.
The phonological features
1. Ugaritic and Canaanite drop the first radical of the verb h1k in the prefix
conjugation (imperfect h1k> y1k and imperative h1k> 1k).7
2. Both languages display monophthongization of the diphthongs aw > 6,
and ay> e.B
3. The consonant nun is always assimilated to any following consonant in
both languages.
4. Five of the primae aleph verbs 'bel, 'hb, ,!;d, 'k1 and :"P can be formed in
the prefix conjugation in yu(q)tal(y-u-C2-C3) form.
5. Ugaritic and Canaanite lack the lateral sounds §and j.
6. The formation of the imperative of verbs primae w/y verbs can be made
by dropping the w/y like Ugaritic!b Canaanite sb < y!lsb and Ugaritic $'
n:
< but the w/v appears again in the imperfect forms, such as
ya!l.5i/i... u), ya$i( u).g
4 See W. F. Albright "Recent Progress in North-Canaanite Research" BASOR 70 [1938],
21, who also considers Ugaritic North Canaanite; see also St. Seger!, A Basic Grammar
of the Ugaritic Language with Selected Texts and Glossary. Berkeley / Los Angeles:
University of California Press (1984), 14.
5 "The Position of Ugaritic Among the Semitic Languages" OrSue 38/39 [1989/90], 54-
70.
U Development of the Canaanite Dialect. An Investigation in Linguistic History
(American Oriental Society 16). New Haven (1939), 10-11; H. Goeseke, "Die Sprache
der semitischen Texte Ugarits und ihr SteHung innerhalb des Semitischen" WZUH 7/3
[1958], 648.
7 J Tropper, "Is Ugaritic a Canaanite Language?" UBL II (1994). 349; B. Isaksson,
OrSue 38/39 [1989/90], 58.
8 C. Gordon, Ugaritic Manual!, Grammar (AnOr 35). Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute
(1955), 121; J Tropper, UBL 11 (1994),348; B. Isaksson, OrSue 38/39 [1989/90], 58.
9 A. Goetze, "Is Ugarilic A Canaanite Dialect?" Language Journal 0/ the Linguistic
Saciery a/America 17 [1941], 129, 132.
Introduction 11
The morphological features
1. The personal interrogative pronoun is miya in Ugaritic and Canaanite as
opposed to man(nu) in other Semitic languages.
2. Both Ugaritic and Canaanite possess the local ending -ah to express
direction.
3. The prefix conjugation of the 3'd feminine singular in Ugaritic as well
as in Canaanite is marked by the morpheme t-, as opposed toy- in other
Semitic languages. Furthermore, the taquit1(na) form prefixed by t- for
the 3'd plural masculine is attested in both Ugaritic and Old Canaanite.
The preterite and jussive of the 3'd plural feminine in Ugaritic and Old
Canaanite are characterized by the ending -iJ (tiqtuiJ) as opposed to n:1
in Hebrew (tiqtoinaj and Arabic (yaqtuinaj.
4. Ugaritic and Canaanite - particularly Phoenician - possess two forms
(short and long) of the first person singular pronoun: these are (Ugaritic
an and ank, Phoenician 'n and 'nk).IO
S. Ugaritic and Canaanite (except Moabite) are distinguished by the
mirna/ion in the dual and plural of the noun and by the absence of
mimalion and nunation in the singular. II
6. Ugaritic and Old Canaanite have case endin~s, which were dropped
later due to the disuse of the final short vowels. 2
7. The infinitive absolute qatalu functions as a narrative verb, either as
imperative or past in Ugaritic, Phoenician and Biblical Hebrew.
13
8. Both Ug aritic and Canaanite use the polei stem instead of U to form the
intensive stem of media waw verbs, e. g. Ugaritic ykwnn and Biblical
Hebrew ykwnn < .k wn, Ugaritic 17l1m and Biblical Hebrew rwmm <
H
rWIll.
9. The two languages present change from yaqtal to yiqtal
(Barth/Ginsberg-law) .15
lO. The following pronouns appear in Ugaritic. Phoenician and Biblical
Hebrew in short forms: hwy, hy, hm; and in long forms hwt, hyt, hmt.IG
III Ibid 58.
II 1. 'hopper, UHL 11 (1994), 349.
I! B. Isaksson, OrSue 38/39 [l989/90), 60.
1:1 C. Gordon, Ugarilic Textbuok 1. Grammar (AnOr 38). Rome: Pontifical Biblical
InSlilute (1965),13:57.
[bid 58. .
11
::; Cf. J. Huehnergard, "Remarks on the Classillcation of the Northwest Semitic
i ,anguagcs" in: 1. Hoflijzer -C. Van der KooU, eds. Ihe Belaal7l Text/rom Dier ~/fl/a re
<':!uluoted. Proceedings uf the lnrel'l1(}liol1ul Svmposiul/1 held (It LcidetJ 2/-·24 !Iugusr
/,)8,). Leiden: Brill (1991).284.
H. Goeseke, "Die Sprache der semitiscliell Tcxt.e Ugarits lInd ihr Stellung innerhalb
16
des Semitischen" WZUH 7/3 [1958j, 647.
12 Introduction
II. The Northwest Semitic hypothesis: Many scholars hold the view that
Ugaritic is a distinct and separate Semitic language17 and should be placed
somewhere in the Northwest branch of Semitic languages lB. but not in
Canaanite.19 This theory is based on what are seen to be different phonological
and morphological features. which differentiate Ugaritic from Canaanite. The
2o
most recent advocate of this theory is D. Sivan. who lists many grammatical
and phonological differences between Ugaritic and Canaanite:
The phonological features
1. The shift from ? to t e. g. ip:r > J;/I. i?pn > ifpn and m?ii > m{lJ, ?hrm >
{hrm.
2. The shift of the long /i> a which is widely attested in El-Amama Canaanite.
This change did not take place in Ugaritic. where the long ii is commonly
attested in syllabic traditions e. g. lJa-mi-ti, a-na-ku.21 and in alphabetic
traditions e. g. g'an, 'ar, m 'at and mostly in words with final wilu (III ') e. g.
ks 'at, with one exception: fut plural of fat in genitive / accusative ends byin
at < /it.22 This criterion has been extensively used extensively as an
argument against classifying Ugaritic as Canaanite.23
3. The shift of q > d in Ugaritic e. g. dqn, dbJ; against compared to the
merging of qwith z in Phoenician zqn, zbJ;.24
s-
4. Ugaritic does possess the causative stem with prefix (Shaph'ei > Saph'e/)
as opposed to the Canaanite h-Iy- (hiph'ei in Biblical Hebrew and yiph'el in
Phoenician) .
5. The preservation of all of the proto-Semitic consonants in Ugaritic except $
(c;f) (20 letters). while Canaanite kept only (22 letters). The loss of some of
the proto-Semitic consonants was caused by either mer?ing or assimilation
with each other. J;, IJ > J;, f, S > S,?, 9> $ and q > Z.2
The Canaanite phonological system has been reduced as follows:
17 C. Gordon. Ugaritic Handbook I. Grammar (AnOr 25). Rome (1947), 116: Ugaritic
Manual I. Grammar (AnOr 35). Rome (1955). 123. in which he deSignates Ugaritic as an
independent West Semitic language.
18 J. Huehnergard. "Remarks on the Classification of the Northwest Semitic Languages"
in: the Be/aam Text from Dier 'Alla re-evaluated (1991). 286: A. Haldar. "The Position
of Ugaritic Among the Semitic Languages" BiOr 21 [1964], 276: M. Dietrich - O.
Loretz. KAU (ALASP 1). Miinster (1988). 311.
19 A. F. Rainey. "Syntax. Hermeneutics and History" JEJ 48 [1998], 244.
20 A Grammar of the Ugarilic Language (HdO 1128). Leiden: Brill (2001). 3f.: "The
Status of Ugaritic among the Northwest Semitic Languages in the Wake of New
Research" UF 32 [2000], 531-541.
21 D. Sivan. A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language (HdO I128). Leiden: Brill (2001). 47-
48.
22 B. lsaksson. OrSue 38/39 [1989/90], 59.
23 A. Haldar. BiOr 21 [1964]. 271.
24 B. lsaksson. OrSue 38/39 [1989/90]. 61; D. Sivan. A Grammar of the Ugaritic
Language (2001). 3.
25 B. Isaksson. OrSue 38/39 [1989/90]. 58.
Introduction 13
Proto Semitic Canaanite
b 9 > b
J S > S
? c;f > ,~ 6. Ugaritic possesses
if > z graphemes for the
velars g > 9 and g, and for
gutturals band :
while Canaanite uses one sign to express two different sounds: b stands for
band g, for rand g.
r
The morphological features
I. Ugaritic possesses more forms for the masculine suffix of the dual than
Canaanite. In Canaanite it is -ayma (Hebrew -ayim); in Ugaritic it is:
absolute construct
nominative amj a
e
genitive/accusative ema
2. The non-existence of the relative pronoun ,.,~ sin Ugaritic.
:{. The presence of independent pronouns for the oblique (accusative and the
genitive) in Ugaritic. 3.sg.m. hw[ "him, his, of him", 3.sg.f. hy[ "her, hers,
of her", 3.pl.m. hmt "their, theirs, of them", and hm[ 3.c.du. "the two of
them (m. and f.)26
II. The absence of the definite article in Ugaritic,27 and its existence in
Canaanite h.7-affixed to the word.
0. Sivan28 sharply criticizes Tropper's 1994 article and rejects any connection
between Ugaritic and Phoenician or Hebrew (Canaanite). His argument is based
the chronological gap between Phoenician, Hebrew (Canaanite) and Ugaritic.
011
III his book, however, A Grammar a/the Ugaritic Language, 2001, he attempts
10 make a similar comparison to Biblical Hebrew, thereby disregarding a
chronological gap of nearly 500 years between the last documentation of
Ugaritic and the emergence of the Hebrew Bible. In Sivan's opinion, a positive
comparison can be made only if both languages e~oy contemporaneous
presence And he thus chooses to compare Ugaritic with the material of the El
i\marna letters. However, this material (Jexemes, personal and place names) is
hardly sufficient to sustain such a comparison. For this reason, cognates of the
l jgaritic lexemes within the Canaanite languages must be searched for from
different periods.
I'urther support of this theory appears in the form of ethnic textual evidence in
reference to a Canaanite merchant: y? knflY "y7 (PN) the / a Canaanite" UT
D. Sivan, A Grammar a/ the Ugarilic Language (2001), 3, 50-5l.
'I;
'( B. Jsaksson, OrSu<! [1989/90], 58.
o "The Status of Ugaritic among the Northwest Semitic Languages in the Wake of the
N('w Research" UF 32 [2000], 531-542.