The Ethiosemitic verb hlw ‘to be present’ is strange in three regards: it shows an unusual alternation between -o and -awa in Classical Ethiopic; it is formally Perfect, but used in the present... Show moreThe Ethiosemitic verb hlw ‘to be present’ is strange in three regards: it shows an unusual alternation between -o and -awa in Classical Ethiopic; it is formally Perfect, but used in the present tense; and it has no verbal cognates in other branches of Semitic. This is because it is originally not a Perfect, but a presentative particle,to be connected with other Semitic presentatives reflecting *hallaw. Due to the leveling of the second person object suffixes to the Perfect endings in Ethiosemitic, suffixed presentative forms like hallo-ka could be reanalyzed as consisting of a verbal stem hallo- and a subject ending -ka. Other forms of the paradigm,including the 3m.sg Perfect hallaw-a, were then created by analogy with III-w 02-stem verbs like fannawa ‘to send’. Show less
Daniel 5 contains a number of historical inaccuracies, most glaringly the identification of Nebuchadnezzar as Belshazzar’s father. This article argues that all mentions of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel... Show moreDaniel 5 contains a number of historical inaccuracies, most glaringly the identification of Nebuchadnezzar as Belshazzar’s father. This article argues that all mentions of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 5 may be secondary, suggesting that the oldest version of the text could have been written soon after the Neo-Babylonian period. The queen’s speech in vv. 10-12 contains a number of archaic linguistic features which may support such an early dating. These are the use of a morphologically distinct jussive, the use of two perfects in the expression 'she spoke, saying', and the use of infinitives without a preceding preposition. Show less
The presence of words deriving from Greek κιθάρα (“cithara”), σαμβύκη (“sambuca”), ψαλτήριον (“psaltery”), and συμφωνία (“symphonia”) in Dan 3 has long been taken as damning evidence against the... Show moreThe presence of words deriving from Greek κιθάρα (“cithara”), σαμβύκη (“sambuca”), ψαλτήριον (“psaltery”), and συμφωνία (“symphonia”) in Dan 3 has long been taken as damning evidence against the traditional sixth-century BCE date of composition for the book of Daniel. For the past fifty years, however, scholars have increasingly argued that Greek loanwords could have occurred in sixth-centuryAramaic. In this article, I challenge the underlying assumption that the Greek words in Dan 3 result from lexical borrowing. They are characterized by a lack of phonological and morphological integration. This suggests that they are not established loanwords but instances of code-switching: Greek linguisticmaterial was inserted into an Aramaic framework by a multilingual author, writing for an audience that was similarly multilingual. As widespread proficiency in Greek is not known to have occurred in the Near East before the Macedonian conquests of the 330s, the identification of these words as code switches thuslimits their use in Dan 3 to the Hellenistic period and strongly suggests that they were used for literary effect: together with the lack of Greek code-switching elsewhere in the chapter, they highlight the transience of worldly empires. The phonology of the Greek underlying these code-switches as revealed by the use of matres lectionis, moreover, points to a terminus post quem of ca. 200 BCE, later than the story collection of Dan 2–6 is usually held to have been put together. Show less
The first half of the book of Daniel contains world-famous stories like the Writing on the Wall. These stories have mostly been transmitted in Aramaic, not Hebrew, as has the influential apocalypse... Show moreThe first half of the book of Daniel contains world-famous stories like the Writing on the Wall. These stories have mostly been transmitted in Aramaic, not Hebrew, as has the influential apocalypse of Daniel 7. This Aramaic corpus shows clear signs of multiple authorship. Which different textual layers can we tease apart, and what do they tell us about the changing function of the Danielic material during the Second Temple Period? This monograph compares the Masoretic Text of Daniel to ancient manuscripts and translations preserving textual variants. By highlighting tensions in the reconstructed archetype underlying all these texts, it then probes the tales’ prehistory even further, showing how Daniel underwent many transformations to yield the book we know today. Show less
In his 2021 monograph The Valediction of Moses, Idan Dershowitz argues that the manuscripts offered for sale by Moses Wilhelm Shapira in 1883, generally considered to have been forged, were genuine... Show moreIn his 2021 monograph The Valediction of Moses, Idan Dershowitz argues that the manuscripts offered for sale by Moses Wilhelm Shapira in 1883, generally considered to have been forged, were genuine and contained a pre-exilic source text of Deuteronomy he refers to as V. Based on Dershowitz’s new critical edition of the text, this paper examines the historical and philological evidence for this thesis. V’s literary dependence on the Masoretic Text can be demonstrated on text-critical and linguistic grounds, which makes a pre-exilic date of composition highly unlikely. An analysis of the historical, literary, and linguistic arguments presented by Dershowitz moreover shows that nothing in V proves its authenticity, while the orthography and certain linguistic features strongly support the identification of this text as a forgery produced between 1870 and 1880. Show less
In both Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic, there is a construction formed by the existential marker followed by a non-verbal clause. This construction is used to mark polarity contrasts, i.e.,... Show moreIn both Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic, there is a construction formed by the existential marker followed by a non-verbal clause. This construction is used to mark polarity contrasts, i.e., to contrast a non-negated sentence with its negated counterpart or vice versa. If the subject of the non-verbal clause is a personal pronoun, this is incorporated in the existential marker as a pronominal suffix, but the presence of such a suffix is not an essential feature of the construction. Show less
This paper provides a new explanation for the insertion of *a in plural forms of *CVCC- nouns also formed with an external plural suffix, e.g. *ʕabd- : *ʕabad-ū- ‘servant(s)’, in various Semitic... Show moreThis paper provides a new explanation for the insertion of *a in plural forms of *CVCC- nouns also formed with an external plural suffix, e.g. *ʕabd- : *ʕabad-ū- ‘servant(s)’, in various Semitic languages. This *CVCaC-ū- pattern is usually considered to be a remnant of the Proto-Semitic broken plural system in Northwest Semitic, but we show that it goes back to Proto-Semitic in this form. Internal evidence from Semitic as well as comparative evidence from Afroasiatic points towards a pre-Proto-Semitic plural suffix *-w- underlying the external plural suffixes. This suffix created a consonant cluster in the plural of *CVCC- nouns, triggering epenthesis of *a. As the prime example of broken plural formation in Northwest Semitic thus seems to be purely suffixal in origin, we conclude by briefly considering the implications for the history of nominal pluralization in Semitic. Show less
The Proto-Semitic genitive ending on triptotic nouns is commonly reconstructed as *-im (unbound state)/*-i (bound state). In Akkadian, however, this case ending is long -ī- before pronominal... Show moreThe Proto-Semitic genitive ending on triptotic nouns is commonly reconstructed as *-im (unbound state)/*-i (bound state). In Akkadian, however, this case ending is long -ī- before pronominal suffixes. Since the length of this vowel is unexplained, I argue that it is original and that the Akkadian bound state ending -i should also be reconstructed as long *-ī, explaining its retention in word-final position. This form seems more original than Proto-West-Semitic *-i. Hence, the Proto-Semitic bound state genitive ending should also be reconstructed as *-ī. Through internal reconstruction supported by the parallel of kinship terms like *ʔab-um ‘father’, I arrive at a pre-Proto-Semitic reconstruction of the genitive ending as *-ī-m (unbound), *-ī (bound). This paper then explores a hypothetical scenario where the genitive ending *-ī is derived from the adjectivizing ‘nisbe’ suffix through reanalysis of adjectival constructions like *bayt-u śarr-ī ‘the/a royal house’ as construct chains with meanings like ‘the/a king’s house’; with the addition of mimation and the resultant vowel shortening, this yielded the Proto-Semitic construction with a genitive, *bayt-u śarr-im. The genitive case failed to develop with diptotic nouns because they did not take mimation and in the dual and plural because the nisbe adjective was derived from the uninflected (singular) noun stem; hence, these categories all retain the more original contrast between the nominative and and an undifferentiated oblique case. Show less
Benjamin Suchard treats the phenomenon of irregular reflexes of the vowels *i and *u in Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic from a novel perspective of ‘phonological adaptation’, whereby speakers... Show moreBenjamin Suchard treats the phenomenon of irregular reflexes of the vowels *i and *u in Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic from a novel perspective of ‘phonological adaptation’, whereby speakers of one language adapted borrowed forms to their own phonology. This process is known to be irregular. The author makes an innovative suggestion that in Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic, respectively, the irregular reflexes of the vowels *i and *u are due to the phonological adaptation of pre-Tiberian Hebrew to Aramaic phonology and of Biblical Hebrew to Palestinian Greek phonology. Such a process sheds light on general developments in the reading traditions and linguistic realities of Palestine of late antiquity. Show less
For nearly a thousand years, the texts of the Hebrew Bible were transmitted both in writing, as consonantal texts lacking much of the information on their pronunciation, and orally, as an... Show moreFor nearly a thousand years, the texts of the Hebrew Bible were transmitted both in writing, as consonantal texts lacking much of the information on their pronunciation, and orally, as an accompanying reading tradition which supplied this information. During this period of oral transmission, sound changes affected the reading tradition. This paper identifies a number of sound changes that took place in the reading tradition by comparing their effects on Biblical Hebrew to those on Biblical Aramaic, the related but distinct language of a small part of the biblical corpus: sound changes that affect both languages equally probably took place in the reading tradition, while those that are limited to one language probably preceded this shared oral transmission. Drawing this distinction allows us to reconstruct the pronunciation of Biblical Aramaic as it was fixed in the reading tradition, highlighting several morphological discrepancies between the dialect underlying it and that of the consonantal texts. Show less
Several verbal forms reconstructed for proto-Semitic strongly resemble reconstructed forms in proto-Berber: compare Semitic yV-PaRRaS to Berber y-əFăRRăS, Semitic yV-PRaS to Berber y-əFRăS, and... Show moreSeveral verbal forms reconstructed for proto-Semitic strongly resemble reconstructed forms in proto-Berber: compare Semitic yV-PaRRaS to Berber y-əFăRRăS, Semitic yV-PRaS to Berber y-əFRăS, and Semitic yV-PRuS and yV-PRiS to Berber y-ăFRəS. We suggest that these forms are historically related and sketch a line of development from the reconstructed meanings to their attested uses. yVPaRRaS, originally imperfective, retains that value in both Berber and Semitic. yVPRas, originally stative, gained a perfective meaning in Berber and Semitic; the stative meaning is retained in Berber, but was largely lost in Semitic. yVPRus/yVPRiS, originally perfective, retained that meaning in Semitic, merging with the newly perfective yVPRas forms; in Berber, yVPRaS completely replaced perfective yVPRuS/yVPRiS, relegating the latter to non-aspectual uses. We conclude by considering the quality of the first vowel; the alternation seen in Berber y-əFRăS and y-ăFRəS supports reconstructions as yiPRaS and yaPRuS/yaPRiS, conforming to the Barth–Ginsberg Law of Semitic. Show less
The Modern South Arabian third person feminine pronouns show an unexpected reflex sfor Proto-Semitic *s1. This s is argued to be the regular outcome of *s3 = *ts, which replaced *s1 = *s in these... Show moreThe Modern South Arabian third person feminine pronouns show an unexpected reflex sfor Proto-Semitic *s1. This s is argued to be the regular outcome of *s3 = *ts, which replaced *s1 = *s in these forms due to phonological reanalysis in constructions like *malkat sī’ ‘she is a queen’ → *malkat tsī’. In Ḥaḍramitic, these feminine pronouns also reflect *s3, but their relation to the Modern South Arabian forms remains unclear. Show less
In historical linguistics, the prevailing view is that sound change is phonetically regular: within one language variety, the same sound in the same phonetic environment always undergoes the same... Show moreIn historical linguistics, the prevailing view is that sound change is phonetically regular: within one language variety, the same sound in the same phonetic environment always undergoes the same sound changes, regardless of other factors like word meaning or part of speech. Many of the sound changes previously identified for Biblical Hebrew, however, seem to operate irregularly or only affect certain categories of words. Earlier attempts to make sense of these processes are either hindered by outdated assumptions about the nature of Hebrew, rely on implausible appeals to analogy, or offer explanations that are contradicted by other Hebrew data. This dissertation takes a fresh, holistic look at the sound changes affecting the vowels of Biblical Hebrew, starting from the reconstructed Proto-Northwest-Semitic stage. The sound changes investigated include the Canaanite Shift (*ā > *ō), the contraction of diphthongs and triphthongs, (pre-)tonic and pausal lengthening, changes of *i > *a and *a > *i, and the loss of word-final vowels. Additionally, the interaction of these sound laws with various morphological changes is examined in a concise historical morphology of Biblical Hebrew. The conclusion is that purely phonetic conditions can indeed be established for practically all sound changes affecting the Biblical Hebrew vowels. Show less
Evidence from various Semitic languages suggests that 'hollow' verbs should not be reconstructed with a vowel as their middle radical, but with three radical consonants, the middle one being *w or ... Show moreEvidence from various Semitic languages suggests that 'hollow' verbs should not be reconstructed with a vowel as their middle radical, but with three radical consonants, the middle one being *w or *y. In the past, forms from Biblical Hebrew have been cited as being incompatible with such a reconstruction. This paper shows that almost all parts of the Hebrew hollow paradigm can easily be derived from their strong counterparts, leaving only the nip̄ʿal imperfect and the hip̄ʿil participle as anomalies. These two forms are then investigated in more detail. The nip̄ʿal imperfect, yikkon, is argued to be an analogical extension of the stem found in the perfect, nåk̠on, based on the model of the geminate roots. The hip̄ʿil participle, mešib̠ , is shown to be the regular outcome of earlier *mihatīb-, a reconstruction which is supported by cuneiform transcriptions. Show less
