Duane Smith at Abnormal Interests has some good comments concerning Tappy, McCarter, Lundberg, and Zuckerman’s publication of the Tel Zayit abcedary that appeared in the November 2006 edition of BASOR. Another good article in this volume is Christopher Rollston’s essay, Scribal Education in Ancient Israel: The Old Hebrew Epigraphic Evidence.
Through a syn- and diachronic analysis of the orthography and dialectal formations of northern and southern Hebrew inscriptions, Rollston argues that there were probably formal scribal schools in ancient Israel beginning with the establishment of the monarchy. He states that consistency seen in the spelling of diphthongs and the graphic formation of letters–particularly the fact that the Old Hebrew samek was consistently written above the “ceiling line”–demonstrates the existence of ancient scribal schools:
Old Hebrew scribes were meticulous about the morphology and stance of the letters they penned, but in addition, they were also meticulous about maintaining precise conventional spatial relationships of letters. I would argue that this sort of precision must be the result of specialized curricular training in script production (59).
It must be stated that Rollston does not assert that formal schools mean dedicated buildings for the exclusive purpose of training scribes. He merely states that scribes had a formalized education which may have taken place in the residence of practicing scribes–an apprenticeship of sorts.
Rollston stems from the Cross school of epigraphy (N.B. I come from the Kaufman school, Stephen A. Kaufman, not I. T. Kaufman who did his work under Cross and whom Rollston also mentions) but, Rollston tips his hat to Kaufman in note 9 on pages 50-51 in which he states “Suffice it to say that I believe the critiques of palaeography by S. Kaufman (1986) and B. Zuckerman (2003) are important, and I will be responding especially to these in another venue.” However, he then proceeds in Crossian fashion. In spite of this, I find Rollston’s proposition appealing. I don’t think it is a closed case on the presence of formal scribal curriculum in ancient Israel and Judah, but I do think Rollston lends a degree of support to this possibility.
I await Rollston’s response to Kaufman, possibly in his forthcoming Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel by Brill (I just hope the volume isn’t $500)?
What do you think about Rollston’s proposition?
I read this paper with some care and feel that it is part of the puzzle. The real problem is how do we fill the gap in evidence between the late Bronze Age and Iron Age II. Rollston’s work is a step, I think an important step, in that direction.
Could you explain what the Kaufman school is? I’ve read some of his articles, but I always considered him to be more of an Aramaicist. Didn’t Zuckerman go to Yale? Were they both students of Pope? Technically Rollston’s lineage is Albright > Cross > McCarter > Rollston.
One thing that I think would be helpful would be to think of orthography, particularly words with historic spellings. In order for rO’sh to experience the CS the aleph would have quiesced at an early date, which presupposes that it had already been written for some time (i.e. a historical spelling would not have been invented). Furthermore, written languages tend to be less conservative and more apt to quiese and “head” may reflect the language of literature, not just commercial documents.
I still think the missing link is papyrus having been mentioned in the Tale of Sinuhe.
Jake, I’m not certain I understand your argument. Perhaps you might clarify. The thing that troubles me in particular is your statement “written languages tend to be less conservative and more apt to quiesce.” Quiescence is a phonological phenomenon (phew!), so I’m having trouble understanding what you mean when you say that written languages are more apt to quiesce. Written language simply codifies in symbol what’s happening in spoken language (or in the case of historical spellings, doesn’t). This is really important because you seem to be concluding from this (or at least implying) that the presence of historical spellings points to scribal schools that were producing literature, not just reciepts and letters. A dubious claim, in my mind, characteristic of a strong tendency to overinterpret evidence of literacy. Evidence of scribal schools does not mean that a good portion of the population was literate or even that all the scribes trained in those schools could write “literature.” We know from both Egyptian and Mesopotamian models that this was not the case (i.e., there were different levels of scribal training), and there’s no reason I know of to think it would be different in ancient Israel. But perhaps I’ve misunderstood and, at any rate, I’d like to better understand where you’re coming from.
I made several offhand points and I can see how they’d be confusing. I don’t read Egyptian and am not able to evaluate the Egyptian models, though different levels of literacy make sense.
Perhaps quiese was the incorrect word, but the point is that with the word head the aleph was no longer pronounced at least by the 9th century (cf. rsh (MS)) and more interesting, the Canaanite in EA has a long O vowel. The only conclusion that I know to draw is that aleph was no longer pronounced at an early date or my understand of phonology is flawed.
I assume that you don’t have any qualms with the above point, but I get the impression that you doubt the theory below, which is fine.
As far as I’m aware, the general assumption (Note: there are exceptions) is that oral languages tend to be more conservative (e.g. Arabic; LBH; AA > AA). This even holds true in French, German, and Greek.
If this is true, I think the best way to explain head is that it was written often at an early date. I’d be curious to hear how you can explain the data differently… but of course, you might totally reject the theory of how languages tend to change. In that case, I’m afraid that I’d have nothing to offer you except an alternate theory.
I may have been hinting at a scribal school, but I’m very uncomfortable with seeing much literature during LB II-IA IIA arising from Israel. Maybe it was written before LB II on papyrus and disappeared on Atlantis?
I’m a student of McCarter and we still advocate the typology found in Cross’s famous article.
correction AA > NA
Jake, your last statement “I’m a student of McCarter and we still advocate the typology found in Cross’s famous article.” To which article are you referring, Cross has quite a few? This highlights an important difference between the Cross school and the Kaufman school. Kaufman is more conservative on the use of typology than Crossites. Kaufman does not think that we can date an inscription as precisely as Cross merely on the basis of typography. Instead, there is an amount of variation in typography that we should expect to occur. Also, Kaufman tends to view languages on the basis of geography and pays more attention to languages in contact than some others. Therefore, a unique form that occurs in a certain place might not be an “exception” or a misspelling, but rather a peculiarity to that specific place–often times because of its relation to other languages/dialects that come in close contact with it. Kaufman is certainly an outstanding Aramaicist, but also much more. His dissertation combined Aramaic and Akkadian and he also has published an Akkadian text with Hermann Hunger. He has dealt with Northwest Semitic languages and epigraphy–a RAMBI or other database search will show his wide area of publication or I’m sure that McCarter could attest to the fact that Kaufman is much more than an Aramaicist.
Jake, I find your assumptions about language change quite problematic. You seem to assume that languages are entities unto themselves that evolve in a linear fashion. (I’m extrapolating from what you’ve said here, so please forgive me—and correct me—if I’ve misunderstood/misrepresented your view.) I, too, am from the Kaufman school. Geography is a very important factor. And so is creativity and use of language in given contexts. I don’t believe the distinction between “oral language” and “written language” is terribly meaningful. One can write literature that imitates spoken dialects (the book of Ruth, for example). Furthermore, what we often understand simply as “early” vs. “late” features of Hebrew, assuming the kind of evolutionary model of language change that you seem to advocate, may have more to do with mode and genre than we realize. I certainly don’t mean to suggest that there aren’t “early” features of Hebrew, but when we approach language and language change in such a simplistic, linear way, we tend to then argue that when we see these “early” features, we must be dealing with an “early” text. But it isn’t necessarily so, precisely because things like genre come into play, and different genres use different types of language. It’s possible that these “early” features continued to be used in certain types of text and not others; if that’s the case, the presence of such features in a text does not, a priori, make it early. I’m fully aware that this flies in the face of the Cross school of thinking, and I’m not meaning to get into an “early vs. late” debate here in this context (precisely because I don’t see the issue as being that simple). I mean just to add to and emphasize Charles’ focus on geography as one of many elements that factor into language use and language change. A simple distinction between “oral” vs. “written” and an evolutionary model of language change simply can’t adequately account for these factors, which is why I find your assumptions problematic.
I apologize if I upset any of you. By referring to Kaufman as an Aramaicist I am in no way underestimating his prowess in Semitics. He’s definitely one of the 20 best Semitic Philologians alive, maybe even top 10! I have read some of his materials and I think their great. In fact, I just read his brief article on the Paragogic Nun last week–not persuasive, but interesting. I could tell that he resisted positing an archaic form (cf. Ugaritic and Arabic) or settling for Hoft.’s more general theory.
I hope I didn’t misrepresent the Albright/Cross school of typology. McCarter certainly is not unaware of considering geography, dialectic, genre, (e.g. Persian Period texts (D. Isaiah) often archaizes) etc… in his treatments. Advocating a non-stop evolutionary theory of languages is unacceptable–I only meant to point out general trends. I apologize for not making that clearer. We take the work of Garr seriously, but as far as I understand it, his model still holds with Cross’ general paradigm. Perhaps I’m mistaken.
Charles, I see how the Cross article could have been confusing! I was thinking of the one in From Epic to Canon, but you probably also thought of his article in Albright’s Festschrift (Development of Hebrew Scripts).
I’ve put my cards on the table, now I feel entitled to pose two questions.
1. Explain as best you can the historical development of the Hebrew word head, focusing on the aleph. I understand that there are certain data we don’t have and if you change your mind I won’t hold it to you.
2. Please find one Palestinian inscription that you’d redate differently than Cross by language or script and why. The rule, here, though, is that you cannot use his old dissertation.
3. Could you point me to a particular Hebrew grammar that eschews the Cross/Lambin/Bauer/Leander/Mouroka/Huhnergard theory of HHG? Would you even be willing to say that Segholates were not qa/i/utl’s in Hebrew? If so, I’m curious. My closest friends are at Chicago and Harvard, and my wife’s at Catholic–so I just assumed that these theories of HHG were accepted. I was obviously wrong!
In regard to the very colorful discussion of Semitic linguistics and Epigraphic typology, I am certain that I do not have much to contribute. However, I can’t help but make a few comments.
On the issue of oral vs. written language, I think that Angie has already said most of what needs saying. Jake, your position that “oral languages tend to be more conservative” (BTW, whence the idea? What would be your proof?) and, vice-versa, that written languages tend to be more susceptible is subject to various criticisms, the first being that which Angie pointed out, that such a difference may not be so significant. The second, already made in other terms, is that this scheme seems backwards. We should expect written language (note I did not say “written languages”) to display tendencies toward conservativism, especially those texts that serve official monumental interests (even in terms of script choice, e.g., the cuneiform script employed in building inscriptions in the Neo-Babylonian period). On the other hand, spoken language might (but NOT must) be expected to display change more readily in response to phonological issues (That is to say, as long as a language is nothing more than a code to be decoded, there would seem to be no need for language change. It is when languages develop and come into contact with other languages that new phonological environments develop and prompt language change). And, I might point out, when it comes to epigraphic material from any locale, the code into which a language is cast may not always be a very reliable source of information about linguistic change or the pronunciation of said language (a point that Kaufman makes very clear to his students). Now I am becoming long-winded.
As to the history of the word /ro$/, I assume that I am in essential agreement with Jake, seeing */ra’$/>*/ra:$/>/ro$/, which clearly puts the allophonic quiesence of ‘aleph before the Canaanite Shift (at least in THIS word-it is clear that some phonological changes that occur in more common words do not occur in others). Regarding the Canaanite Shift in general, I would add to Jake’s comment about El-Amarna the fact that we see evidence of the shift in texts from Ugarit as well, particularly occurring with the prefixed forms of the verb ‘HD /’aHadha/, but one might may a similar change in another I-’ verb.
In regard to Jake’s challenge to redate a Palestinian inscription dated by Cross: I suppose I can’t think of any such Palestinian inscriptions off-hand. However, I believe it is pertinent to mention the Fekhariyeh inscription, which, though not Palestinian, is certainly one text that has spawned disagreement with Cross on typological grounds. Further, I might mention the fact that Cross has made a few very important conclusions of script typology based on the famous arrow heads “from” El-Khadr, etc., though these inscriptions are completely unprovenanced, having been purchased on the Antiquities market. There is more that could be said, though I find that I am running out of time and finger strength.
Let me finish by suggesting that the History of Hebrew Grammar material produced by the heirs of Albright be interpreted as describing a practical approach to language change in Hebrew that is intended to provide a student with an elementary understanding of what sort of forms and changes to expect, and not as describing in detail the likely more complicated realities of linguistic change involved (one thinks of the article by Goetze in which he challenged the principle of pretonic vowel lengthening as a simple principle). Here I must finish for now.
Jake, I for one am nowhere near upset and didn’t mean to put you on the defensive. I hope you do not feel ganged up on by us Kaufmanites (the man himself is much more intimidating than all of us put together). This is a great discussion about an important topic, so thanks to you for raising the issues! I also (with Carl) would not disagree with your historical analysis of “rosh,” so that is not at issue. My disagreement lies with (a) the model of language use and language change into which you fit it, and (b) the significance you seem to draw from it (in terms of literature).
I really like Carl’s point about how to digest HHG, as a set of “rules” that helps us get a basic grasp on language changes (rather than tells us the realities of it). It’s quite valuable particularly in terms of pedagogy. But at some point these other factors have to be taken into account somehow. For example, you look at Exod 15, particularly the suffixes, and want to say that this is a rather early piece of poetry (as Cross himself argues). But the ideas it conveys are not. So how to navigate that tension? I, for one, am not entirely sure. Efforts to explain the reference to the temple (in particular) as early are not convincing, but neither are analyses that ignore these “early” linguistic features. So how to explain it? Perhaps archaizing is at issue (as you point out for Deutero-Isaiah…I didn’t know that before, so thanks!), perhaps genre is the issue, perhaps the bit about the temple at the end was added on later. I just use this example to illustrate that, in order to come up with satisfying explanations for texts like Exod 15, the tools HHG gives us alone are not sufficient. I realize that I’ve altered your #2 request a bit by picking a biblical text rather than an inscription, so perhaps I’ve been a bit unfair. But these typologies are used to date biblical literature, and it seems to be there (even moreso than inscriptions) that the inability of a straight HHG approach to provide adequate explanations starts to show. Would be curious to think about why this is. I suspect it could relate to genre. But I’m not sure. Anyone have ideas?
I echo Carl and Angie’s responses, I think they do a very good job of expressing my thoughts concerning Kaufman’s approach. Furthermore, I also reiterate their sentiments that Cross, McCarter, et al are very fine scholars whom I deeply respect.
One analogy that I would make to the use of Historical Hebrew Grammar as a set of general rules (and rules are made to be broken, at least with respect to language) that provide a starting place from which we can then analyze site specific languages/dialects. The analogy is Akkadian. While von Soden’s grammar is very good and it attempts to provide an introduction to the various languages/dialects of Akkadian, GAG does not represent THE Akkadian grammar. Old Babylonian is different than Neo-Assyrian. So-called “peripheral Akkadian” is different from “Standard Babylonian” (I might add that peripheral Akkadian is different primarily because it is a language in contact, for example, Nuzi Akkadian with Hurrian influence). Historical Hebrew Grammar is in some respects an entirely hypothetical and abstract reconstruction that does not correlate with any one particular language/dialect. Furthermore, language is really just dealing with human expression and humans are always doing the unexpected. Therefore, I think strictly linear approaches do not take into consideration some of the most human aspects–innovation, non-conformity, archaizing, and the unexpected and unanticipated.
As to your last question Angie, I too find it very hard when it comes to dating biblical texts. It seems to me that there was, possibly at different times, an impulse of standardization and mere re-copying of frozen texts, while at the same time a movement to update the text–at least certain portions. I think these two aspects complicate the prospect of dating texts–I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it certainly makes the job harder.
Thank you for your interactions.
1. You’re right–the theory of how writing affects the “conservativeness” of a language is totally anti-intuitive. Anyone who intuits otherwise would be quite strange. Except for providing a few vignettes (e.g. SS vs. ES; CBH vs. LBH), I’ll have to get back to you with more specifics. But I should hope that you grant me that SS vs. ES etc… does display the above model, and it’d be acceptable for you to call them exception if your more intuitive model is correct.
2. I can tell that you’ve worked with NWS epigraphy firsthand Carl simply by referencing Fekhariyah inscription. That’s definitely the example to use, but if you’ve read Cross’s article you’d see his concession. The method is not applied arbitrarily.
3. I don’t really want to go on a rabbit trail down ancient Biblical Hebrew and certainly not on the more ambiguous texts. Suffice it to say that Cross is no longer as strident (see his introduction to the new edition), nor are many Cross students. Personally, I think of dating early biblical texts to be a game and don’t put much stock into it. Sure some things are clear (e.g. Qohelet is written in LBH, etc…) Angie, I don’t know if you’ve taken NWS or HHG grammar yet, but I think you’d be able to see these principles firsthand by first looking at the photographs of Moussaieff and dating the script, by itself. Then read Pardee’s article. You’ll laugh.
4. Strictly linear non-stop evolutionary approaches are unacceptable, I don’t think anyone ever advocates such a model. Cross, perhaps more stridently than most others, is always talking about dialect. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that the general doubts of HHG tend to come from the more extreme poles of biblical scholarship. Those that want to date it to the Persian/Hellenistic Period and those from very conservative backgrounds who would like to see the Pentateuch’s original composition in the 13-12th century. Does this trend seem to be accurate?
Carl: Did we meet in Jerusalem and DC?
5. I haven’t read any Nuzi Akkadian, so I have nothing to say, but I have read several karatepe letters and I understand what you are saying.
In any case, I think it behooves each of us to try to see what features and contexts tend to promote conservative linguistic features. You’re reference to monumental inscriptions may be correct, but the Mesha Stele spells “head” without an aleph and a lot of the Neo-Assyrian reliefs are littered with Aramaisms.
Jake, I studied NWS twice, once with Cynthia Miller (if you’re in to academic lineages, that would be Miller > Pardee > Kaufman) and once with Kaufman himself. I ask you to please be careful of presumptions. Although I do not actively work in the area of epigraphy, I see and know the principles of HHG. My comments on its limitations are not due to lack of experience or knowledge, but considered critiques of it. (Critiques which, incidentally, Carl and Charles, whose training in NWS you do not question, have expressed some resonance with.) I don’t mean to be offensive or defensive here, just to request that my comments (along with everyone else’s) be taken with the assumption that, however right or wrong they might be, they are based on knowledge (regardless of who it happened to have been gained from) and well thought out unless there is evidence to the contrary. I hope I have not been overly frank.
I also don’t put much stock in appealing to the extreme poles of scholarship as a reason to dismiss well-considered critiques. (I don’t mean to insinuate that that’s what you’re doing, but it is often done and something to be very careful of.) This is a dynamic that, I find, seriously hinders field-forward thinking (to pick up your theme, Charles…). What matters is not where the critiques come from, but the value of the critique. Both “poles” of biblical scholarship spout a lot of ill-considered dreck. But there is also good thinking happening there that should not be dismissed.
Jake, I completely agree with your call for further study of why conservative linguistic features are found in various places. I hope I’ve contributed something to our thinking about that. Charles, hats of to you for such an awesome forum for considering these things.
Jake, we did indeed meet in Jerusalem and at the DC conference.
As to the idea of offense on the part of us “Kaufmanites”, I undestand how it comes off this way, but in reality, we are (I think) simply publicizing Kaufman’s lesser-known sides. There is quite a lot of material that he brings into his classes that he has not published (he is VERY picky about what ideas deserve publishing, cf. the 10 years he has spent on the Injirli inscription), and other work of his is occasionally swallowed up and disappears in his identity as a (THE? No insult intended to Sokoloff, et al.-this is only MY notion) major Aramaicist.
I see that as the discussion continues, your positions are becoming clearer. Anyone may correct me if I am wrong, but I get the sense that many problems are arising from simple misunderstandings of statements and word-choice issues. What we seem to be lacking in some regard is a standard shared vocabulary (lamentably the product of education at different institutions, probably a carry-over from days (not so?) gone by of heavy institutional competition and territorialism). BTW, Jake, can I ask what you mean by SS vs. ES (South Sem vs. East Sem?)?
As for many of your arguments, I understand your positions in part innately, since I myself was a student of one of Cross’ students, Sam Meier from Ohio State. After the fashion of a child born to a Hatfield and a McCoy (which I also am!), I sometimes find myself in a quandary about my nascent mixed Albright-Kaufman heritage! As with Charles, I do my best to respect these (and other) scholars as in many ways my venerable forebears, standing on their work as we all do.
Now let me respond to your statements. Forgive me for reiterating your own words-I think it will help contextualize my comments:
“Strictly linear non-stop evolutionary approaches are unacceptable”–I agree that a linear approach, though helpfully simplistic for an introduction to linguistic development, is not appropriately realistic or complex. But I am confused by your suggestion that “non-stop” linguistic evolution is also unacceptable. Perhaps language change may SEEM to occur in a stop-punctuated fashion, but in reality, a language always undergoes minimal degrees of change over time. We are not helped on this issue by the epigraphic canon, since writing (I stand by this principle) fossilizes the spoken language of a certain period. If all we have are a set of inscriptions over a long period of time illustrating language change, what can we really say about the slight shifts (even in pronunciation, stress, etc.) that are part and parcel of more dramatic linguistic developments?
“…if you’ve read Cross’s article you’d see his concession. The method is not applied arbitrarily”–I accept the criticism. I clearly have not reviewed the article with enough of a critical eye.
“…looking at the photographs of Moussaieff…”–Photos of what? And does the fact that Moussaieff is an antiquities collector give us any qualms in discussing his collection in terms of paleography and legitimacy?
“…general doubts of HHG tend to come from the more extreme poles of biblical scholarship”–I definitely don’t agree with the way this sounds (did you mean something different?). I am fine with the idea that certain biblical texts are archaic, not just archaizing (though as a scholar not-fully-trained as of yet, like most of us, I recognize that this is an opinion liable to change). But I do not think of the Pentateuch as an Iron I (or even Early Iron II!) production. I leave more important things to be said to Angie, whose work on the issue far outstrips my own. My “doubts” about HHG (Do you mean the unpublished work of Lambdin, Huehnergard, et. al., or the principles underlying it? My guess is the second, but your statement is unclear.) are not doubts about the veracity of many of the results of its methods, but are about the processes involved. For example, I do not doubt the veracity of the statement that /ra’$/ became /ro$/, or better, that original /dabari:ma/ became /deba:r:im/(I hate working without real diacritics!). My problem is with how one derives these forms. HHG (the text) proposes a few “steps” (it just happens), but I don’t think that these “steps” were actually functional changes in the history of the language, but are merely descriptors of the changes. What I am learning from Kaufman is that the real issue involved in these changes is a shifting of stress in Hebrew that creates certain phonological environment that demands lengthening in one place and shortening in another. On the issue of /ro$/ and the CS, I might also add that HHG, as far as I know it, does not have a good explanation for why tonic /a:/ arising from */a’/ in /ma:tsa:ti/ never does go to /o/, or why we have */`a:lamu/>/`ola:m/ but */ra’$i:m/>/ra:$i:m/ and not /ro$i:m/. I now suspect that this is related to the position of the accent in earlier phases of Hebrew vis-a-vis the Dreisilbengesetz (a la Kaufman, imported from a more general linguitic discussion). I am curious to know your thoughts on these matters. Perhaps I am missing some detail, and I admit that it is possible that your HHG information has been updated since I learned it myself.
“You’re reference to monumental inscriptions may be correct, but the Mesha Stele spells ‘head’ without an aleph and a lot of the Neo-Assyrian reliefs are littered with Aramaisms”–I guess I’m not sure where you’re going with this. All I can say is that such phenomena (spelling differences and loan words) to me are indicative of the fact that written texts are only fossils of real-time spoken languages (they can apparently even be fossils [lab induced??] of stages of a language earlier than that spoken by the writers, i.e. archaizing), not that they are exemplars of an oral vs. a written language, or the fact that languages, when written, are more susceptible to change.
Concerning Aramaisms, I am curious to know how you think they entered into the language–do you envision an Aramean scribe who, lacking the proper “King’s Assyrian” choses a word in his native tongue, or do you think that these words only entered the language in its written form? I, for my part, envision a language in contact with the many Arameans of Mesopotamia and other parts of Syria that over the “long duree” has experienced the mutual diffusion of each language into the other (here, Aramaic into Akkadian; see the opposite picture in S.Kaufman’s Akkadian Influences on Aramaic!) resulting in an “Aramaic-flavor” to Neo-Assyrian that is nothing more or less that what we should expect given geography, language, and time! In this view, Aramaisms (but I would argue Aramaisms no longer, rather adopted sons and daughters of the Assyrian lexicon!), making their debut slowly in the spoken language, are contemporaneously and “tempus post quem”(how is my Latin spelling? I suspect that I am mispelling here) are recorded, that is to say, fossilized in writing.
When it comes to /ro$/ written as /r’$/, it is clear that in many NWSem dialects the older (thus more conservative) tradition is adhered to for writing, though we have good reasons to believe that the spelling does not make the word, as you have pointed out. The spelling of the word /ro$/ (better: [ro$]?) as r$ in the Mesha Inscription only suggests to me that in this region, or even according to that particular scribe, there was some flexibility in representing the word phonetically vs. historically in the scribal system, but not that writing the word down MADE the phonetic change more concrete. It was already there-the scribe simply had to choose (if choice was involved in such matters of state!) how to render the word in writing.
Another point to make is that almost all of the Semitic languages SPOKEN in antiquity are WRITTEN languages, since this is the only form in which they are represented to us. Thus, how can you make a meaningful distinction between, say, Standard Babylonian (perhaps a literary dialect) and Neo-Assyrian (which you seem to mark as an oral language [is this the correct interpretation of your AA>NA?]). We only know Neo-Assyrian from written texts! It occurs to me that you might have meant Ancient (sic! Old) Aramaic>Neo-Aramaic. If this is the case, it certainly makes for a different discussion. Let me know which way to read you.
Your earlier point about Arabic as an oral language, supporting your argument that oral languages are more conservative, is also worth a critique. First, how do you make a distinction here? After all, we do have written Arabic, and early at that–I am thinking of the Namara inscription, as well as other Hadramautan, Qatabanian, etc. inscriptions–, not to mention of course the Qur’an which has had an immense impact on standardization of Arabic in antiquity and today (think of Modern Standard-upon what is it based?). How do these points interact with your theory about oral languages?
As I usually find, I have gone on far longer than I originally intended. For know, I’ll let this stand for review by all.
Carl,
Before this mushrooms into dissertations, I have to concede that you again anticipated the weaknesses in my argument, and we may be at an impasse. As for the ambiguities (which are many), here they are. East Semitic and South Semitic. As for Arabic, you’re correct, there are other factors… but the general tendency is to preserve sounds (
Arabic does preserve some sounds, though not all (is the tensed realization of the “emphatic” sounds to be thought original to P.Sem, or do we even know how they were realized?), nor can we be certain that the vowel qualities remained intact. I meant to suggest also that the conservativism of Arabic is the product of the large-scale linguistic isolation that Arabic experienced in the Arabian Penninsula. This is in contrast to many dialects of Akkadian which experienced much contact with Sumerian, Hurrian, West Semitic, Elamite, Persian, etc., not to mention other languages. But the “conservativism” of Arabic is only partial–Arabic may preserve many of the sounds of the original P.Sem phonological inventory, but the functioning of the verbal system seems to have undergone significant change from that of earlier stages in Semitic!
Let me end here, so as to break myself of the habit of writing to much. Let me only emend a statement I made previously: I did not mean to say that S. Kaufman is simply “VERY picky”, a poor choice of words. Rather, it is the case that he is very deliberate about what he publishes, concerned as he his that much work that has been published in the field is poorly thought-out and needs to be refined and organized properly. I intended no insult–instead, I meant respect at his meticulous nature of his critical work.
I would like to say that everyone who has participated in this thread is thoroughly qualified to speak on the issues presented and I wholeheartedly believe that ideas should be debated no matter the source. Furthermore, I believe that judging an idea because people who hold to that idea tend to be “conservative” or “liberal” in some area or another falls into the logical fallacies of ad hominem and non sequitur argumentation.
I would offer this proposition as one area of language that might be more “conservative” than others–onomastics of all types: deities, geographic, profession, etc. Particularly salient examples are some geographic names of cities and rivers. Gelb believed that the names of the cities Ur and Uruk were non-Sumerian and belonged to the proto-Sumerian population and were used in the Sumerian and Akkadian languages (1962, “Ethnic Reconstruction and Onomastic Evidence,” Names 10, p.49). Although Jacobsen proposed that they were Sumerian names and Edzard cautioned, “We should be warned against making use of pre-Sumerian as a paltry excuse for our ignorance” (1997, “The Names of the Sumerian Temples” in Sumerian Gods and Their Representations” p. 164). But, professional names like nagar “carpenter” were probably pre-Sumerian and were passed on to Akkadian, Aramaic, Hebrew, and Arabic. No doubt at times changes occur as names pass from one language to another, but many times these changes reveal fascinating phonological facts.
What are you thoughts?
Ahhh… I just saw that most of my post somehow disappeared. I have 5 chapter of Hebrew to read in 3 hours and need to get on it. Suffice it to say, I hope that my questions weren’t interpreted as dogmatic statements, just a possible observation. I don’t discount K. Kitchen because his works are primarily apologetic (biblical), I just read him a bit more suspiciously… but then again everyone has presuppositions that need to be evaluated with a critical eye. I’m certainly not immune to such a charge.
I think I see the differences between our opinions and I’ve pushed my knowledge of phonology to the outer limits. Besides, I only moonlight as a philogist–my interest lie in other areas. Plus, I’m licked linguistically. I haven’t formally studied Elamite, Persian, ESA, Hurrian, and Egyptian (next year), and can’t contribute to some of your very asute observations Carl on these languages.
Charles: I’m glad that you still read Golb and Jacobsen.
Onomastics: Agreed.
Jake:
So as to avoid giving the wrong impression, I have not studied Elamite, ESA, Hurrian, or Egyptian (among a host of other possible languages). My points are based on my own personal survey of the material along with what background I have in Semitic linguistics. I was not really attempting to make any observations on the languages you mention, but I was trying to pull from what resources I have pertinent to the discussion and to illustrate the effects of clear cases of language contact (or the lack of it!) among the Semitic languages.
I am curious: Jake, what are the areas of your primary interest? In the two times we spoke live, you never mentioned it.
Charles: I think you are spot on about the conservativism of names. It seems to me that in certain instances the value placed on a name is dependent on its connection to the past (we have discussed this before, I think). Nebuchadnezzar II would hardly have had an impressive name except for his illustrious predecessor. One also thinks of Jeroboam II, among others. I don’t think it is reasonable to expect names of many kinds, and certainly not these “traditional” names, to change as often.
On the topic of the pre-Sumerian substratum, you might do well to review an article by G. Rubio (“On the Alleged Pre-Sumerian Substratum,” JCS 51 (1999) 1-16). I would be interested in your feedback.
The topic of conservatism in names is extremely interesting. (This coming from someone whose dissertation is on place names. Surprised?) I might consider framing this question in terms of what a person might want to communicate to his subjects, foreigners, etc. by adopting a certain name, especially in the cases you’ve mentioned where we’re talking about royal names and not necessarily birth names given by a parent. In other words, I’m not sure it’s ONLY about conservatism in naming conventions, but may also be about a person communicating a (highly ideological?) message to a public in a specific context. Sargon II would be a patently obvious example. This sort of illustrates my earlier comments on the importance of considering the wide variety of factors that might play into a “trend.” In general, I think we may talk about such “trends” far too abstractly, forgetting that a trend in language is made up of a lot of individual acts.
Carl, thanks for the Rubio reference, I will definitely check it out–thank goodness for JSTOR. Angie, I think you have a good point about the various factors that go into naming conventions. Jake, your comments are certainly true that all of come from our set of presuppositions and they do factor in adjudications, good reminder. Also, there are two people associated with the University of Chicago that have similar names–Norman Golb is a professor of Jewish History and Ignace Gelb who taught assyriology; my reference was to the latter.
I know. (When you make crazy DSS conclusions you can also leave out the N!)
My interests focus primarily on the religion(s) of Iron Age Palestine, and delving into an opaque mess–sorting out methodologies, weighing evidence, trying to discover non-elite religion, archaeology, iconography, etc… in short: attempting the impossible. That was why I chose JHU (over and above several other good programs); I felt that Lewis and McCarter were two of the most established scholars on this topic.