Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
2 (2010): 173188
1. INTRODUCTION
* A version of this paper was read at the North American Conference on Afroasiatic
Linguistics (NACAL) annual meeting, which was held in Austin, TX, February 12, 2011.
We had been working on this paper for over a year, not aware of Anson Raineys grave
illness. Hackett presented a form of this paper in the spring of 2009, and Pat-El had been
in email contact with Rainey to discuss his ideas. We did not intend for this paper to be
published after his death; rather, we always assumed that he would have the opportunity
to respond to our objections. Unfortunately, that is not to be. Despite Ansons untimely
passing, we feel that it is beneficial to publish our response to his latest work since his
intellectual contribution is so influential.
1
A. Rainey, Redefining HebrewA Transjordanian Language, Maarav 14.2 (2007):
6781; idem, Whence Came the Israelites and Their Language, IEJ 57.1 (2007): 41
64; idem, The Northwest Semitic Literary Repertoire and its Acquaintance by Judean
Writers, Maarav 15.2 (2008): 193205.
2
See, for example, Rainey, Redefining Hebrew (n 1): 67: the present essay is an at-
tempt to present some preliminary observations that point to Hebrew as a language from the
eastern steppe lands in contrast to the Cis-Jordanan language employed by the Canaanites
(Phoenician) in the twelfth century b.c.e. and later. Or Rainey, Whence Came (n 1): 52:
. . . my study of North-west Semitic languages, especially more recent discoveries in the
late twelfth century, has led me to the conclusion that ancient Hebrew has more affinities
173
174 MAARAV 17.2 (2010)
with Aramaic and Moabite than with Phoenician (the real Canaanite of the Iron Age).
3
For the theoretical and methodological basis of our arguments in this section, we re-
fer the reader to L. Campbell, Historical Linguistics: An Introduction (Cambridge: MIT,
1998); H. H. Hock, Principles of Historical Linguistics (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,
1991); and P. Kiparsky, The Phonological Basis of Sound Change, in The Handbook
of Historical Linguistics (B. D. Joseph and R. D. Janda, eds.; Oxford: Blackwell, 2006);
313342, as representative examples.
HACKETT AND PAT-EL: REJOINDER TO RAINEY 175
4
J. Huehnergard, Features of Central Semitic, in Biblical and Oriental Essays in
Memory of William L. Moran (A. Gianto, ed.; Rome: PBI, 2005): 163.
5
G. Goldenberg, The Semitic Languages of Ethiopia and their Classification,
BSO(A)S 40 (1977): 477; Huehnergard, Central Semitic (n 4): 169170. For a clear
methodological discussion on shared innovations see R. Hetzron, Two Principles of
Genetic Reconstruction, Lingua 38 (1976): 89198. For more cases of shared reten-
tions and shared innovations see J. Huehnergard, What is Aramaic? Aram 7 (1995):
261282, and On the Etymology of the Hebrew Relative e-, in Biblical Hebrew in Its
Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives (A. Hurvitz and S.
Fassberg, eds.; Jerusalem: Hebrew Univ. Magnes, 2005): 103126, using shared innova-
tions to define Aramaic and East Semitic respectively; J. Fox, The Relationships of the
Eastern Neo-Aramaic Dialects, JAOS 114.2 (1994): 154162, using shared innovations
for the subgrouping of Neo-Aramaic (North Eastern Neo-Aramaic [NENA]); R. Radcliffe,
Morphological Isoglosses: The Broken Plural and Semitic Subclassification, JNES 57.2
176 MAARAV 17.2 (2010)
So far, it has been the consensus that Hebrew and Phoenician, along
with far less well-documented languages, such as Ammonite and Moabite,
belong to a group called Canaanite.8 Rainey argues that this subgroup-
ing is wrong, and that in fact Hebrew is far closer to Aramaic than to
Phoenician. In the following we will evaluate the arguments in favor of
the consensus (Canaanite) and Raineys arguments (Transjordanian)
according to the principles outlined above.
(1998): 81123 on broken plurals; N. Pat-El, On Verbal Negation in Semitic, ZDMG 162
(2012): ???? on verbal negation.
6
For a detailed discussion of Raineys lexical examples, see pp. 8588.
7
S. G. Thomason, Language Contact: An Introduction (Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ.,
2001): 70.
8
Hetzrons seminal 1976 paper (n 5) put to rest the matter of the subgrouping of the
Northwest Semitic languages. Many others have followed, but after Hetzron the subgroup-
ing of this node is no longer an issue in the field of Semitics. For more works see among oth-
ers the following: J. Huehnergard, Remarks on the Classification of the Northwest Semitic
Languages, in The Balaam Text from Deir Alla Re-Evaluated (J. Hoftijzer and G. van der
Kooij, eds.; Leiden: Brill, 1991): 282293; idem, Historical Phonology and the Hebrew
Piel, in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew (W. R. Bodine, ed.; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,
1992): 209229 and idem, Central Semitic (n 4); A. Faber, Genetic Subgrouping of the
Semitic Languages, in The Semitic Languages (R. Hetzron, ed.; New York: Routledge,
1997): 315; R. Hasselbach, Final Vowels of Pronominal Suffixes and Independent
Personal Pronouns in Semitic, JSS 49.1 (2004): 119; A. Rubin, The Subgrouping of the
Semitic Languages, in Language and Linguistics Compass 2.1 (2008): 79102.
HACKETT AND PAT-EL: REJOINDER TO RAINEY 177
The case for a close genetic relation between Canaanite and Hebrew
(as well as other less well attested languages) is one of the least contro-
versial in the Semitic languages and has been unchallenged since the
earliest attempts to subgroup the Semitic languages. The arguments in
favor of subgrouping Hebrew and Phoenician under Canaanite are the
following:9
9
See a very brief summary in Faber (n 8): 10.
10
Huehnergard, Historical Phonology (n 8).
11
This is reflected in Ugaritic in cuneiform; see J. Huehnergard, Ugaritic Vocabulary in
Syllabic Transcription: Revised Edition (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008): 321.
12
J. Blau, Studies in Hebrew Verb Formation, HUCA 42 (1971): 133153.
13
See J. Friedrich, W. Rllig, and M. G. Amadasi Guzzo, Phnizisch-Punische
Grammatik (Rome: PBI, 1999): 88 for D with Greek transliterations, and 93, for C with
Latin transliterations.
14
Huehnergard, Historical Phonology (n 8): 219 n. 43.
15
Huehnergard, Central Semitic (n 4): 167.
16
For the question of length here, see Hasselbach (n 8): 14.
17
A. Rainey, Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed
Dialect used by Scribes from Canaan (4 vols.; Leiden: Brill. 1996): 1.8588.
178 MAARAV 17.2 (2010)
18
Some cases of compensatory lengthening are dated later than the operation of the
shift and hence do not reflect the Canaanite shift (J. Fox, A Sequence of Vowel Shifts in
Phoenician and Other Languages, JNES 55 [1996]: 40).
19
Ibid.
20
See Hasselbach, Final Vowels (n 8) and more references there.
21
Friedrich et al. (n 13): 7576.
22
Rainey, Canaanite (n 17): 2.284 states that [o]ver eighty percent of 1st c.s. qtl forms
in the EA [el-Amarna] texts from Canaan have a personal suffix ti. There is even an
example where an Akkadian ku is glossed with a Canaanite form with ti (EA 127:25).
23
This pronoun is attested in Hebrew nok, Phoenician nky (KAI 49:6), Amarna
Canaanite a-nu-ki (EA 287:66), while in Ugaritic the pronoun is a-na-ku (Huehnergard,
Ugaritic Vocabulary [n 11]: 293.)
HACKETT AND PAT-EL: REJOINDER TO RAINEY 179
24
See for example, Rainey (Redefining Hebrew [n 1]: 68): Certain features that
distinguish Phoenician from Hebrew, Moabite and Aramaic have not been taken into ac-
count in the dialect geography of the Levant. These points lead me to conclude that an-
cient Hebrew has strong affinities with the languages of Trans-Jordan and Central Syria.
Regarding the prefix preterite, Rainey concludes, It is, in fact, a very strong argument for
classifying ancient Hebrew and Moabite not as Canaanite dialects, but as Trans-Jordanian
languages (81). Rainey (Whence Came [n 1]: 53): There are several features that make
it clear that ancient Hebrew has strong affinities with the languages of Transjordan and
Central Syria. Regarding the prefix preterite, Rainey concludes, It is, in fact, a very
strong argument for classifying ancient Hebrew and Moabite not as Canaanite dialects,
but as Transjordanian languages (55). Rainey further opens his 2008 paper (Northwest
Semitic Literary Repertoire [n 1]: 193) on the literary repertoire of Judean writers by stat-
ing: In previous studies evidence was presented indicating that ancient Hebrew had been
brought to Cis-Jordan by pastoralists immigrants/invaders from Trans-Jordan. Stress was
placed on the differences between ancient Hebrew and Canaanite/Phoenician alongside
affinities with Moabite and Aramaic. . . . [I]t is the contention of this present paper and
its predecessors that the language of the Early Iron Age settlers throughout the country
derived from Trans-Jordan.
25
Both names were suggested by Hetzron, Two Principles (n 5).
26
Rainey, Whence Came (n 1): 53.
180 MAARAV 17.2 (2010)
Phoenician was the prestige language of the area because of the high
degree of Phoenician literacy.27
One reason we find his discussion of the consonant repertoires of
Phoenician, Hebrew, and Aramaic curious is that it is inconsequential
to linguistic subgrouping. Rainey claims that the fact that both Hebrew
and Aramaic adopted the Phoenician alphabet for languages that had
more consonants than Phoenician means that Hebrew and Aramaic
share something. But of course that is not true. The vast use of the
Latin alphabet for all sorts of languages can serve as a simple rebuttal.
He further affirms that Hebrew and Aramaic had different numbers of
consonants so, using his own argument, that should suggest that they,
too, are not related. But the point of Raineys article is to prove not
only that Hebrew and Aramaic are unrelated to Phoenician, but also
to prove that they are related to each other. It seems to us that he has
misunderstood the relationship between languages and their writing
systems, as well as the meaning of lost or retained consonants in the
determination of genetic relationships between languages.
2. Phonology: Rainey is, of course, not the first to note that the pho-
nology of Old Aramaic is almost identical to that of Canaanite. Old
Aramaic inscriptions were at first argued to be a mix of Aramaic and
Canaanite, with Canaanite the prominent language because of the
consonant inventory of the inscriptions.28 In most, PS * was written
with z (later Aramaic d), PS * was written with (later Aramaic t),
PS * was written with (later Aramaic s), PS was written with
(later Aramaic ). These writings agree with Canaanite languages for
the most part, but not with later Aramaic, in which several mergers
took place. Let us summarize the resemblance between the phonology
of Hebrew and Aramaic:29
27
Ibid.
28
See M. Lidzbarski (Ephemeris fr semitische Epigraphik [3 vols.; Giessen:
Tpelmann, 19021915]: 3.3): In der neugefundenen Inschrift [Zakkur] sind es besonders
religise Wendungen, die einen kanaanischen, ja geradezu hebrischen Charakter tragen;
R. A. Bowman (Arameans, Aramaic, and the Bible, JNES 7 [1948]: 71): Syria has al-
ways been a melting-pot in which the diverse cultures, Semitic and non-Semitic, of the ad-
jacent areas have blended into curious mixtures. It is thus with the so-called Old Aramaic
of the region, which is almost completely Canaanite rather than Aramaic; F. M. Cross and
D. N. Freedman (Early Hebrew Orthography [New Haven: AOS, 1952]: 22): Because
of its affinities with contemporary Canaanite, and its considerable divergences from later
Aramaic, the language of these inscriptions [Old Aramaic] was regarded by most scholars
as an artificial mixture of some kind.
29
In the following chart, angle brackets note the letters with which the phoneme was
written, rather than the actual pronunciation of the phoneme.
HACKETT AND PAT-EL: REJOINDER TO RAINEY 181
Although the Hebrew and Old Aramaic systems seem similar, the
reflexes of PS * (Hebrew , Old Aramaic q, later Aramaic )30 con-
vinced linguists that despite the consonant inventory of Sefire and
Zakkur, the language they were written in was in fact an early form of
Aramaic.31 The representations of the PS consonants in these inscrip-
tions did not reflect mergers, but rather simply the closest the scribe
could come to the pronunciation of the phoneme at the time. They
were in flux, in other words, and had not truly merged with the sounds
represented by the letters used to write them. We know this is so be-
cause in later times they would truly merge with other phonemes, but
not the ones used in the Old Aramaic inscriptions. This is one obvious
example where the phonology of a language may have nothing to say
about its genetic relationship to other languages.
3. Vocabulary: A large part of Raineys discussion is his use of lexi-
cal similarities and differences among several languages in an at-
tempt to derive genetic subgrouping from these lexical relationships.
For instance, he discusses a number of doublets, where one lexical
item is common in Aramaic, Moabite, and Hebrew and the other in
Phoenician. But while etymology is used in historical linguistics, it
is used not for uncovering lexical content, but rather because of the
sound correspondences they reflect. As we noted above, lexical items
by themselves are not useful for subgrouping by scholars trained in
historical linguistics, primarily because lexicon is most susceptible to
30
For example, Hebrew ere land, Old Aramaic <RQ> , later Aramaic ar;
Hebrew emer wool, Old Aramaic <QMR>, later Aramaic amr.
31
See, for example, R. Degen, Altaramische Grammatik: Der Inschriften des 10.
8. Jh. v. Chr. (Wiesbaden: Deutsche Morgenlndische, 1969): 3031; S. E. Fassberg,
Aramaic, in The Semitic Languages (C. Rabin, ed.; Jerusalem: Bialik, 1993): 7980
[Hebr.]; S. Segert, Old Aramaic Phonology, in Phonologies of Asia and Africa (2 vols.;
A. S. Kaye and P. T. Daniels, eds.; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997): 1.118.
182 MAARAV 17.2 (2010)
32
Rainey, Redefining Hebrew (n 1): 4.
33
Rainey uses the word innovation quite often. But he is misusing the nomenclature,
rather like a Biblical Hebrew poet who uses what he sees as older forms in the language but
uses them incorrectly, so that we can say that the poems are archaizing, but not archaic.
34
Rainey, Whence Came (n 1): 53.
35
Rainey, Redefining Hebrew (n 1): 7173.
36
Ibid., 73.
HACKETT AND PAT-EL: REJOINDER TO RAINEY 183
the root occurs mostly in poetic texts.37 In order for Raineys point
that pl is not native to Hebrew to stand, he claims that the use of
pl in Hebrew reflect[s] the cultural and political contacts with the
Phoenicians, especially during the monarchy or later.38 Besides the
fact that Hebrew actually attests to both roots, these roots also appear
in other languages: pl appears in Arabic and the root y appears
in Old South Arabic (as both III- and III-y). Thus both roots are com-
mon Central Semitic and cannot be used for the internal subgrouping
of NWS. Again, they are simply shared retentions from the Central
Semitic node. Finally, Aramaic prefers a different root altogether
bdand only to a lesser extent pl.
c) Hebr. zhb/Ph. r: Rainey correctly notes that Hebrew zhb and
Aramaic ahab have the same etymon.39 But the root hb also ap-
pears in Sabean and Arabic, so its appearance in any NWS language
is an inheritance. The root r is an even worse choice. Since even
Rainey observes40 that it occurs in Ugaritic (r) and Akkadian, be-
sides the Phoenician that he is interested in, it is clearly a retention
from PS, which any language had access to. Whether or not a given
language actually used the root is immaterial in language subgroup-
ing.
d) Hebr. er / Ph. : Rainey dismisses the connection between the
Hebrew relative particle er and the Phoenician relative particle ,41
though the reasoning for his rejection is not explained. Rainey claims
that the Phoenician form is simply the -v with prothetic alef.42
There are problems with his statement, though. Even if Phoenician
is built on -, as Rainey suggests,43 it is still related to Hebrew -.
The Phoenician relative pronoun is also attested in Moabite and
Ammonite, but most importantly probably in Deir All.44Thus, the
particle is not a unique feature of the Canaanite languages, but
perhaps a regional one.45 As in doublet b), his argument also car-
ries less weight since Aramaic does not use either of these particles
Ibid., 72.
37
39
Ibid., 7374.
40
Ibid., 74.
41
Ibid., 75.
42
Rainey, Whence Came (n 1): 53.
43
See Huehnergard (On the Etymology of the Hebrew Relative e- [n 5]) for a thor-
oughly-argued opposite opinion.
44
J. A. Hackett, The Balaam Text from Deir All (Chico, CA: Scholars, 1984): 31.
45
Cf. Huehnergard, Central Semitic (n 4): 184186 on the definite article.
184 MAARAV 17.2 (2010)
4. Narrative preterite: Rainey49 notes that both early Aramaic (the Tel
Dan inscription), Moabite, and Hebrew (biblical and epigraphic) uti-
lize as a past-tense verb the short form of the Prefix Conjugation,
generally referred to as yaqtul as opposed to yaqtul-u. In the Tel Dan
inscription we find such words as yhk he went and w-ykb and he
46
The Scandinavian languages present a similar situation. Norwegian, Danish and
Swedish are very close relatives, some may say dialects; however, each one of them
uses a different relative particle: Norwegian som, Danish dar and Swedish vilken (som is
used in Swedish but has a restricted distribution). The syntax of the relative clause in the
Scandinavian languages is identical. It is only the marker of relative clause that is different.
In short, the fact that each language uses a different particle is irrelevant for the subgroup-
ing of these languages.
47
Rainey, Redefining Hebrew (n 1): 7576.
48
N. Pat-El and A. Treiger, On Adnominalization of Prepositional Phrases and Adverbs
in Semitic, ZDMG 158.2 (2008): 265283.
49
Rainey, Redefining Hebrew (n 1): 7681.
HACKETT AND PAT-EL: REJOINDER TO RAINEY 185
50
J. A. Hackett, yaqtul and a Ugaritic Incantation Text, in Language and Nature:
Papers Presented to John Huehnergard on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday (R.
Hasselbach and N. Pat-El, eds.; Chicago: Oriental Institute, 2012): ??; C. Gordon, Ugaritic
Textbook (rev. repr.; Rome: PBI, 1998): 72; E. Verreet, Modi ugaritici (Leuven: Peeters,
1998): 7; D. Sivan, A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language (Anson Rainey, trans.; Leiden:
Brill, 1997): 99; J. Tropper, Ugaritische Grammatik (Mnster: Ugarit, 2000): 73.25; J.
Huehnergard, An Introduction to Ugaritic (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2012): ??.
51
Rainey, Redefining Hebrew (n 1): 76.
186 MAARAV 17.2 (2010)
52
R. Hetzron, La division des langues smitiques, in Actes du premier congrs inter-
national de linguistique smitique et chamito-smitique (A. Caquot and D. Cohen, eds.;
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974): 181194; idem, Two Principles (n 5).
53
R. Voigt, The Classification of Central Semitic, JSS 32.1 (1987): 121, and many
other studies.
54
Huehnergard, Northwest Semitic (n 8); Aramaic (n 5); and many other studies.
55
W. Wright, Lectures on the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages
(Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1890, with several reprints); B. Kienast, Historische semi-
tische Sprachwissenschaft (with contributions from E. Graefe and G. Gragg; Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 2001); E. Lipiski, Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar
(2nd ed.; Leuven: Peeters, 2001); P. Bennett, Comparative Semitic Linguistics: A Manual
(Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1998).
56
G. Garbini, Il semitico di nord-ouest (Naples: Istituto Univ. Or. de Napoli, 1960): 105;
HACKETT AND PAT-EL: REJOINDER TO RAINEY 187
studies dealing with its origin.57 Even the discussion about the preterite,
which should be familiar to Rainey, who contributed to the understand-
ing of this form in Amarna, is far too circumscribed. Except for papers
by Rainey himself and Moran, no other reference is consulted.
This is not a matter to be dismissed; if we wish to conduct a construc-
tive informative discussion in this field and hope for our arguments to
be taken seriously, we cannot disregard the work of others, especially
when that work so clearly rigorously argues a strong case that is the
exact opposite of what Rainey contends. Rainey for all intents and pur-
poses argues against the consensus without once laying out what the
arguments of the consensus are. Rainey knows that the vast majority
of historical linguists believe Hebrew to be a Canaanite language, but
he ignores the whys entirely and proposes as counter-arguments spe-
cious lexical similarities, as if they somehow invalidate, or even matter
to, the consensus.
We find it ironic that Rainey criticizes Dever for his use of the Amarna
letters, claiming that his citations are incomplete and that he does not
use the latest transcription and translation. He states: such glaring mis-
takes show that Dever is trying to use materials for which he has no
competence.58 Rainey is upset when Dever, an accomplished archaeolo-
gist, makes mistakes citing and interpreting the Amarna letters; why then
is he himself willing to bypass years of research in a field which is not his
own and overlooking very basic facts?