2022 Ugaritic ǵ from Proto-Semitic *θ̣

“Like ʾIlu Are You Wise” Studies in Northwest Semitic Languages and Literatures in Honor of Dennis G. Pardee EDITED BY H. H. HARDY II, JOSEPH L A M, AND ERIC D. REYMOND STUDIES IN ANCIENT ORIENTAL CIVILIZ ATION • NUMBER 73 THE ORIENTA L INS TIT U TE OF THE UNIVERSIT Y OF CHIC AGO oi.uchicago.edu Dennis G. Pardee (photo by Nancy Pardee) oi.uchicago.edu “LIKE ʾILU ARE YOU WISE” STUDIES IN NORTHWEST SEMITIC LANGUAGES AND LITERATURES IN HONOR OF DENNIS G. PARDEE Edited by H. H. Hardy II, Joseph Lam, and Eric D. Reymond studies in ancient oriental civilization • number 73 the oriental institute of the university of chicago oi.uchicago.edu Library of Congress Control Number: 2022939076 ISBN (paperback): 978-1-61491-075-6 ISBN (e-book): 978-1-61491-076-3 ISSN: 0081-7554 The Oriental Institute, Chicago © 2022 by the University of Chicago. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 73 Series Editors Charissa Johnson, Steven Townshend, and Andrew Baumann with the assistance of Connie Gundry Tappy and Susanne Wilhelm Cover Design James M. Slate Cover Illustration RS 3.325+ (= KTU 1.16), col. IV, from the Kirta Epic. Photo courtesy of the PhoTÉO project of the Mission de Ras Shamra. This paper meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (Permanence of Paper). oi.uchicago.edu contents Contributors and Affiliations List of Figures Acknowledgments Introduction Publications of Dennis G. Pardee Dissertation Advisees Abbreviations Ugaritic Alphabetic Text Cross-References ix xi xiii xv xix xli xliii xlix part 1 — ugaritic studies 1 The Further Quest for Ugaritic Peter T. Daniels 3 2 A Critique of the Counter-Argument for yaqtul Preterite in Ugaritic Edward L. Greenstein 19 3 God [ʾIlu] and King in KTU 1.23 Theodore J. Lewis 31 4 Patrons, Brokers, and Clients at Late Bronze Age Ugarit Miller C. Prosser 55 5 Transmission and Mortal Anxiety in the Tale of Aqhat Jacqueline Vayntrub 73 part 2 — northwest semitic inscriptions 6 Where Is the Devourer? A Reappraisal of the Arslan Tash II Plaque in Its ANE Context Dan Belnap 91 7 A Revised Interpretation of the Melqart Stele (KAI 201) Jo Ann Hackett and Aren M. Wilson-Wright 105 8 The Incised ʾIšbaʿl Inscription from Khirbet Qeiyafa: Paleographic, Onomastic, and Historical Notes Christopher A. Rollston 113 9 Grammatical and Historical Notes on the Phoenician Text of the Incirli Inscription Philip Schmitz 121 10 “And Now” wʿt(h): A Transition Particle in Ancient Hebrew William M. Schniedewind 143 11 A Study of the Preposition b- in Samʾalian Aramaic: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach with Ramifications for the Interpretation of the Katumuwa Stele K. Lawson Younger Jr. 151 oi.uchicago.edu vi contents part 3 — biblical hebrew poetry 12 Line Lengths in Poetic Units in Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew Poetry Drayton C. Benner 169 13 Biblical “Alternation” and Its Poetics Simeon Chavel 179 14 So-Called “Number Parallelism” in Biblical Poetry F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp 205 15 Pronominal Gender Parallelism as a Poetic Device in Biblical Hebrew H. H. Hardy II 225 16 On Psalm 1: Structure and Meaning Koowon Kim 239 17 Acrostic Style and Word Order: An Examination of Macrostructural Constraints and Local Syntax in the Acrostic Poem of Lamentations 3 Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Jacobus A. Naudé 255 18 Vertical Grammar of Parallelism in Ugaritic Poetry David Toshio Tsumura 269 part 4 — semitic philology 19 “His Tent”: Pitched at the Intersection of Orthography and Source Criticism Joel S. Baden 283 20 A Brief History of the Phrase “King of Kings” Samuel L. Boyd 291 21 Akkadian kaslu, Ugaritic ksl, and Hebrew ‫כסל‬: A (Very Tardy) Response to Moshe Held John Burnight 307 22 The Ugaritic Compound Adjective ʾib ʾiqnʾi “Lapis-Lazuli-Pure” and the Three Special Types of Construction in Akkadian, Biblical Hebrew, and Ugaritic, in Which the Nonpredicate Adjective Precedes the Noun Chaim Cohen (Z″L) 327 23 The Biblical Hebrew Root bhl in Light of New Ugaritic Evidence Joseph Lam 345 24 From Kothar to Kythereia: Exploring the Northwest Semitic Past of Aphrodite Carolina López-Ruiz 355 25 The Root GMR and a Shared Divine Epithet in Ugaritic and Classical Hebrew Nathan Mastnjak 377 26 Biblical King Og and the Ugaritic Deity Rāpiʾu: Sorting Out Two Figures in Light of the Rephaim and the Toponyms Ashtaroth and Edrei Matthew McAffee 389 27 “From the Burrows of Their Lairs . . .”: The Imagery of a Prophetic Utterance in a Mari Letter Adam E. Miglio 405 28 The Third Masculine Singular Suffix on Nouns Written with heh mater Eric D. Reymond 417 29 Pondering Pandemonium: Reimagining ʾĔlōhîm in 1 Samuel 28:13 Brian B. Schmidt 435 oi.uchicago.edu contents vii part 5 — hebrew linguistics and verbal system 30 The Hebrew Verbal System in an Oyster Shell: Egypto-Semitic Notes David Calabro 453 31 On Some Syntactic Alternations in Biblical Hebrew Stuart Creason 479 32 The Coordinated Perfect W. Randall Garr 493 33 Dating the Earliest Hebrew Verbal System: The Role of Dialect Variation in Ancient Linguistic Change Seth Sanders 523 part 6 — comparative semitics 34 An Aramaic Cognate to Akkadian -iš, Hebrew -ɔ, and Ugaritic -h Aaron Michael Butts 539 35 The Origin of the Third-Person Markers on the Suffix Conjugation in Semitic Rebecca Hasselbach-Andee 559 36 Ugaritic ǵ from Proto-Semitic *θ̣ John Huehnergard 573 part 7 — beyond 37 On the Human Mind and Deities Gary A. Long 587 oi.uchicago.edu 36 ugaritic g from proto-semitic *Θ̣ John Huehnergard University of Texas at Austin The Proto-Semitic (PS) consonant *θ̣ has two reflexes in Ugaritic: one reflex is a discrete consonant, transliterated ẓ; the other reflex appears as the consonant transliterated ǵ, which otherwise reflects PS *ǵ.1 This development is interesting both phonetically, in that an interdental or dental consonant has become uvular or velar,2 and typologically, in that phonemic splits and partial mergers are uncommon in Semitic. In this paper these aspects are reexamined, and a conditioning factor is proposed to account for the sound change. The paper is offered in deep admiration to Dennis Pardee, the undisputed doyen of Ugaritic studies. The phonetic realization of PS *θ̣ cannot of course be established with certainty. That it formed the emphatic member of the triad of consonants whose other members were voiced *ð and voiceless *θ, however, suggests that it too was an interdental fricative. The reflexes of *θ̣ in the various Semitic languages support this assumption: its reflex is an interdental in the Modern South Arabian languages Mehri and Jibbāli, voiceless [θ’] or voiced [ð’];3 in Arabic, too, it is sometimes pronounced as an interdental, voiced [ðˤ], though in other traditions it is a dental-alveolar, [zˤ];4 in Akkadian and Hebrew, PS *θ̣ has merged with * tṣ and *ṣ́ to ṣ;5 in Old Aramaic inscriptions, the reflex of *θ̣ was written with {Ṣ}, while in later Aramaic dialects it has merged with *ṭ (in a general shift of PS interdentals to their dental-alveolar counterparts). It is now generally accepted that the PS emphatic consonants were glottalic (ejective);6 thus, the data indicate that PS *θ̣ was probably a glottalic interdental fricative, [θ’].7 In Ugaritic, as already noted, PS *θ̣ had a double reflex. In some roots, the reflex of PS *θ̣ was a consonant, transliterated ẓ,8 that reflected only PS *θ̣ ; examples: Author’s note: A version of this paper was presented in the Historical Linguistics Workshop at the University of Texas on April 16, 2015. I wish to thank those attending for their helpful comments, particularly Pattie Epps, Danny Law, and Ben Kantor; I also want to thank several other individuals for their insights and criticism: Dana Abdulrahim, Peter Daniels, Jo Ann Hackett, Leonid Kogan, Na‘ama Pat-El, Richard Steiner, and Aren Wilson-Wright. Responsibility for the opinions herein, of course, rests with me. 1 We transliterate ǵ in conformance with the practice of our jubilarian; the Ugaritic and the Proto-Semitic consonants are also transliterated ġ by others. 2 While the Semitic plosives k and g are usually velar ([k] and [g]), their fricative counterparts ḫ and ǵ are usually uvular (respectively [χ] and [ʁ]) rather than velar ([x] and [ɣ]). 3 For Mehri, see Rubin 2010, 14; Watson 2012, 12. For Jibbāli, see Rubin 2014, 25. In Soqoṭri, as in Aramaic, *θ̣ has merged with ṭ, as in ṭími ‘to be thirsty’ < PS *θ̣mʔ; see Naumkin and Kogan 2015, 686; further, Johnstone 1975, 4; Simeone-Senelle 2011, 1076. As the Modern South Arabian reflexes indicate, and as can been determined from other evidence as well, the Proto-Semitic glottalic consonants were unmarked for the feature of voice. 4 See, e.g., Fischer 2002, 17; Holes 2004, 59; Ryding 2005, 15; Brown 2007. 5 In classical Ethiopic, too, PS *θ̣ merged with* tṣ to ṣ; PS *ṣ́ remained distinct for a time (usually transliterated ḍ ) but also ultimately merged to ṣ. 6 See most recently Kogan 2011, 59–61. 7 Or [ð’]; see above, n. 3, on the voicing of the PS glottalic consonants. 8 The transliteration ẓ was modeled on the usual transliteration of the corresponding Arabic consonant. 573 oi.uchicago.edu 574 john huehnergard ẓby ‘gazelle’ < PS *θ̣aby-; ʕẓm ‘strong’ < PS *ʕaθ̣vm-; qẓ ‘summer’ < PS *ḳayθ̣-. The pronunciation of Ugaritic ẓ, like that of PS *θ̣, cannot be known with certainty. In the few transcriptions into syllabic cuneiform of Ugaritic words and names with ẓ, it is represented by the Z series of signs:9 ẓrw ‘(aromatic) resin’: ZU-ur-wu;10 personal name ẓl: ZA-al-la-a; place name ẓrn: uruZA-ra-ni, uruZA-ri-nu; personal name ḥrẓn: ḫa-ra-ZI-na or ḫa-ru-ZI-en-ni. The Z series of syllabic signs, however, was used to represent nearly all of the Ugaritic dental-alveolar and interdental fricatives (i.e., ḏ, s/s̀, ṣ, ṯ, and z, in addition to ẓ);11 thus, while these examples do tell us that ẓ was indeed a fricative, they indicate the place of articulation only generally. In a few texts, {ẓ} is written for etymological *ṭ ; since the letter {ṭ} does not appear in those texts, this is clearly a graphic phenomenon, as shown by Freilich and Pardee.12 The writings show, however, that ẓ and ṭ were phonetically similar.13 These sparse pieces of evidence suggest that ẓ was emphatic, fricative, and either interdental or dental-alveolar.14 In other Ugaritic roots, the reflex of PS *θ̣ was a consonant, transliterated ǵ, that was also the reflex of another PS consonant, the voiced uvular/velar fricative *ǵ. There are only a few examples of this development, the most certain of which are the following: ǵr ‘mountain’, i.e., /ǵūru/ < *θ̣ūru; cf. Hebrew ṣûr, Aramaic ṭur;15 nǵr ‘to guard’ < *nθ̣r; cf. Arabic nẓr, Hebrew nṣr, Aramaic nṭr; ǵmʔ ‘to be(come) thirsty’ < *θ̣mʔ; cf. Arabic ẓmʔ, Hebrew ṣmʔ.16 That the writings of PS *θ̣ with ǵ reflect a sound change rather than merely a graphic phenomenon is shown by syllabic cuneiform transcriptions, in which the set of Ḫ-signs is used both for ǵ < PS *θ̣ and for ǵ < PS *ǵ;17 for example:18 ǵ < PS *ǵ: [l]ú ḫa-ma-ru-ú for /ǵamaru-hū/ ‘his apprentice’; cf. Arabic ǵum(u)r ‘inexperienced’; (genitive) ḫu-li for /ǵōli/ ‘low ground(?)’; cf. Arabic ǵawl ‘extent of land, much earth’. ǵ < PS *θ̣ : lú na-ḫi-ru for /nāǵiru/ ‘a guard’ < *nāθ̣iru; ni-iḫ-rù for /niǵru/ ‘to guard’ < *niθ̣ru; 9 For these examples, see Huehnergard 2008, 226; van Soldt 1991, 315 with n. 122; 2005, 24; Tropper 2012, 82, 115. 10 Since both Sabaic and Arabic have ḍrw, reflecting earlier *ṣ́vrw, Ugaritic /ẓurwu/ is presumably a loan, the word arriving with the substance (so also Tropper 1994, 23). 11 Huehnergard 2008, 199–200, 223–29. 12 Freilich and Pardee 1984. See also Pardee 2003–4, 67; Bordreuil and Pardee 2009, 24–25; Tropper 2012, 113–14. 13 It has also been suggested that {ẓ} may be written for etymological ṣ in one or two instances (Tropper 2012, 114); as Pardee (2003–4, 67) notes, however, there is no compelling reason to interpret the forms in question thus. 14 Tropper (2012, 113) likewise suggests that ẓ “ist . . . als emphatischer Vertreter der Interdentalreihe ausgewiesen.” It is uncertain whether the Ugaritic emphatics remained glottalic as in PS or had become pharyngealized as in Arabic; see, e.g., Garr 1986, 48 with n. 25; Tropper 2012, 98. Like Pardee (2004, 292 = 2008, 9), I believe the evidence suggests that they were glottalic. 15 There may have been early byforms of this word, *θ̣ūr and *θ̣awr, the latter suggested by Sabaic ẓwr ‘(bed)rock’ and a form ṭawrā in some Western Aramaic writings; see Steiner 2015, 134–35. 16 On this root see Militarev and Kogan 2000, lxxviii, 332–33. 17 Thus we would not agree with Dietrich and Loretz (1967, 300–15), who suggest that the letter {ǵ} was polyphonic. 18 Huehnergard 2008, 153. oi.uchicago.edu ugaritic g from proto-semitic *Θ̣ 575 probably also ḫu-ul-ma-tu4 for /ǵulmatu/ ‘darkness’ < *θ̣ulmatu, for which see further below. The change of *θ̣ to ǵ is typologically interesting because it represents a phonemic split and partial merger; schematically: PS *θ̣ → Ug. ẓ ↘ PS *ǵ → Ug. ǵ Phonemic splits of consonants are relatively rare in the histories of the Semitic languages. Examples include the split of PS velars into velar and labiovelar phonemes in Gǝʕǝz, as in *k > k and kw, and the split of earlier *s into s and š in Amharic. And partial phonemic mergers, such that only some instances of PS *θ̣ merged with ǵ, are also uncommon. Interestingly, another example occurs in Ugaritic, viz., the reflexes of the PS voiced interdental *ð; the Ugaritic reflex of *ð is occasionally a distinct consonant, transliterated ḏ, which reflects only that PS consonant, but more often *ð has merged with the reflex of PS *d: PS *ð → Ug. ḏ ↘ PS *d → Ug. d The rarity in Semitic of splits and partial mergers is related to the nature of Semitic root structure, in that sound changes are commonly overridden or blocked when they affect only some derivatives of a root. To illustrate, we may consider an early West Semitic sound rule, *s > *h / __V, i.e., a rule that changed prevocalic *s to *h, as in pronouns such as *suʔa > *huʔa ‘that, he’. That change was carried through only in grammatical morphemes, however, because it was blocked in most verbal roots, where it would only have applied to some, but not all, forms; e.g., in the root *smʕ ‘to hear’, the sound rule would have caused the adjective *samiʕ- ‘heard’ to become **hamiʕ- but would have left the preterite *yasmiʕ ‘he heard’ unchanged; thus, the rule was blocked and all forms of that root retained *s (as did, indeed, forms of verbal roots in general). This type of paradigm pressure or levelling, which we may term “root integrity,”19 is pervasive and very powerful in Semitic because of the triradical root structure. But here, evidently, we do have the split of PS *θ̣ into two reflexes in Ugaritic, one of which merged with the reflex of another PS consonant, *ǵ. There have been several previous proposals to account for this development, and we will review those briefly before turning to our own suggestion.20 Cyrus Gordon suggested the Ugaritic situation must reflect the existence of a third PS consonant, which merged with ǵ in Ugaritic but with *θ̣ in other Semitic languages;21 i.e., PS other Semitic Ugaritic *θ̣ *? *ǵ θ̣ θ̣ ǵ ẓ ǵ ǵ It is improbable, however, that, with the sole exception of Ugaritic, all of the other languages would undergo a change in common.22 Moreover, *ǵ and *θ̣ are already two of the rarest PS consonants, and it is thus quite unlikely that they reflect in part a third, still rarer PS consonant. 19 Huehnergard 2013. 20 See also Kogan 2011, 95–96. In a few older studies, the change of *θ̣ to ǵ was attributed to substrate Hurrian influence; see, e.g., Brockelmann 1947, 61–63; Fronzaroli 1955, 33; von Soden 1967, 291–94 = 1985, 89–92. Substrate influence does not, however, account for the fact that the change is attested with some consistency in several roots, but never in other roots. 21 Gordon 1965, 28. 22 So also Rössler 1961, 161–62. oi.uchicago.edu 576 john huehnergard Joshua Blau has suggested that the Ugaritic evidence is the result of “dialect mixture.”23 But Blau is forced to propose several unlikely cognates to account for such mixture. Moreover, we might expect more variation in individual roots than we find. In their recent Manual of Ugaritic, Pierre Bordreuil and Dennis Pardee suggest that the “words containing etymological /ẓ/ [that] are regularly written with {ǵ}. . . [are] probably expressing a phonetic shift, itself reflective of a double articulation of /ẓ/, i.e., dental and laryngeal.”24 This does not, however, account for the fact that only some instances of PS *θ̣ underwent the shift, while others remained a discrete consonant. In a detailed review of prior scholarship on Ugaritic ǵ, Stanislav Segert noted the presence of a liquid or nasal in nǵr ‘to guard’, ǵr ‘mountain’, and ǵmʔ ‘to thirst’;25 he did not, however, believe that these consonants could “be considered [a] clear and unequivocal conditioning factor for the change,” and he also suggested that “a search for possible factors prohibiting this change is also inconclusive.”26 Nevertheless, Edward Greenstein27 and Josef Tropper28 likewise posit the presence of a sonorant elsewhere in the root as the conditioning factor that resulted in the shift of *θ̣ to ǵ. But, like Segert, Leonid Kogan rejects this explanation of the data, because “in five (out of nine) regular examples one or two sonorants are also involved,”29 i.e., there are counterexamples to the conditioning environment posited by Greenstein and Tropper. Indeed, Kogan states unequivocally, “There is no convincing explanation for the split of PS *ṯ̣ into ɣ and ṯ̣ in Ugaritic.”30 Since, however, PS *θ̣ sometimes remained a distinct consonant in Ugaritic, ẓ, while sometimes merging with ǵ, Segert, Greenstein, and Tropper have been right to look for a conditioning factor, a phonetic environment in which some tokens of *θ̣ changed to, and merged with, *ǵ, while other instances of *θ̣ remained unaffected. And the factor posited, the presence of a sonorant as one of the other root consonants, may also be essentially correct (although a different conditioning factor will be suggested below). Above, it was noted that one effect of “root integrity,” the pervasive paradigmatic pressure or levelling in Semitic that results in the tendency for roots to exhibit the same consonants, is the countering or blocking of sound rules even when the conditioning environment is met. But that paradigmatic pressure can also have the opposite effect: it can cause derivatives that do not meet the conditions of a sound rule to undergo the change anyway, i.e., the change can spread by analogical levelling, so that all forms of the root will continue to exhibit the same set of radicals. An example is the PS root *plṭ ‘to survive’, attested as such in Ugaritic, Hebrew, and (Old) Aramaic, but in Akkadian as blṭ ‘to live’. In Akkadian, evidently, the initial radical p was voiced to [b] when in contact with the voiced second radical [l], as in the preterite *yapluṭ, pronounced [yabluṭ]; the pronunciation of the first radical in the latter form then contrasted with its pronunciation in a form such as the verbal adjective, [paliṭ]; since p and b are distinct phonemes in Akkadian, the contrast would have suggested two distinct roots, and so in all forms the initial radical shifted to b.31 In another root with the same two first radicals, palāḫum ‘to fear, respect’, however, the contrast between (it may be assumed) preterite [yablaḫ] and verbal adjective [paliḫ] was resolved in the opposite direction, all forms of the root retaining the original p as first radical. Thus Greenstein and Tropper may indeed be right to point to the presence of a sonorant. But to overcome Kogan’s objection, it is likely that a more specific environment should be proposed, perhaps, for example, that *θ̣ became ǵ immediately before a sonorant; some forms of a number of roots would then be 23 Blau 1977, 70–72 = 1998, 53–55. See also Blau 1968, 525 = 1998, 341–42. Similarly, Sivan 1997, 24. 24 Bordreuil and Pardee 2009, 24. 25 Segert 1988, 295; see also 1991, 317. 26 Segert 1988, 296. 27 Greenstein 1998, 404. 28 Tropper 1994, 23–25; 2012, 96, 114–15. 29 Kogan 2011, 96. 30 Ibid. 31 Hebrew attests both plṭ and mlṭ ‘to escape’, the latter exhibiting still further assimilation of the first radical to the sonorant second radical (similarly in Jewish Aramaic and some Ethiopian Semitic languages); in this case, the resolution of conflicting forms was the rise of a separate byform root. oi.uchicago.edu ugaritic g from proto-semitic *Θ̣ 577 affected, such as the verbal noun *niθ̣ru > /niǵru/, whereas other derivatives of a root would be unaffected by the sound rule, such as the preterite *yaθ̣θ̣ur. But the change of *θ̣ to ǵ in some forms of the root, as the result of a sound rule, may have been sufficient to trigger paradigmatic pressure, thus prompting the change to occur in all forms of the root. In other roots in which some forms would have been affected by the sound rule, such as *mvθ̣lālu ‘shelter’ (which would have become **mvǵlālu by such a sound rule), the rule was instead blocked or overridden because of the forms that were unaffected, such as *θ̣illu ‘shade’, and the original consonant remained throughout all forms of the root, as in mẓll and ẓl. A conditioning factor involving a sonorant might, therefore, underlie the change of *θ̣ to ǵ, if the environment could be established with more precision. But another possibility exists. We observed above that the change of *θ̣ to ǵ is phonetically interesting: a presumed glottalic interdental fricative, *θ̣, became a uvular or velar fricative, ǵ.32 This should be borne in mind when a conditioning factor for the change is sought: the place of articulation has moved from front to back, and the broad class of sonorants is not an obvious trigger for such a shift. I propose therefore to offer an alternative suggestion, one that provides a better phonetic basis for the change; specifically, I propose that the backing, from interdental to uvular/ velar, is the result of assimilation to a following back vowel, u; i.e., *θ̣ > ǵ / __ u .33 One of the certain examples of the change of *θ̣ > ǵ obviously conforms to this proposed environment: *θ̣ūru > /ǵūru/ ‘mountain’. The change of *θ̣ > ǵ in the root *nθ̣r ‘to protect’ probably began with the prefix-conjugation and imperative forms, which are especially common: *yaθ̣θ̣ur > /yaǵǵur/ ‘may he protect’ *n(u)θ̣ur > /n(u)ǵur/ ‘protect!’. The change then spread throughout the root by paradigmatic pressure. In the root *θ̣mʔ ‘to thirst’, the change may have begun with a verbal noun, then spread throughout the root: *θ̣umʔu > /ǵumʔu/ ‘thirst’; cf. Akkadian ṣūmu < *θ̣umʔ-.34 Another likely example of the change of *θ̣ > ǵ before u is *θ̣ulmatu > /ǵulmatu/ ‘darkness’, which is written syllabically ḫu-ul-ma-tu435 and which may be compared with Akkadian ṣulmu and Gǝʕǝz ṣǝlmat < *θ̣ulm(at)-.36 This word probably appears as ǵlmt in the Baˤlu myth:37 32 We may note in passing a similar change in the history of Spanish, where, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, palatal [ʃ] (usually written {x} as in {dixo} ‘he said’ or {j} as in {mejor} ‘better’) changed to velar [x] (eventually written {j} in most instances, {dijo}, {mejor}); this was an unconditioned change, however. See Lapesa 1968, 247–48; Lleal 1990, 309–10; Penny 2002, 99–101. We may also compare the development in Aramaic of the Proto-Semitic glottalic lateral fricative *ṣ́ to uvular or velar fricative *ǵ (and then to ʕ ); for details on this “journey,” as he calls it, see Steiner 2011, 71–72. 33 If the Ugaritic emphatics were glottalic (see above, n. 3), then the glottalic feature of *θ̣ was also presumably lost in this development. A glottalic uvular or velar fricative is not impossible; indeed, I have elsewhere proposed such a consonant for Proto-Semitic, *x̣, probably [χ’] or [x’], as the emphatic counterpart to PS *ḫ and *ǵ (Huehnergard 2003). But there is no reason to assume that the Ugaritic change under consideration here did not result in a merging with ǵ in all its features rather than a glottalic counterpart of the latter that was merely represented with the same letter. The result of the sound change, ǵ, was presumably voiced. As was noted above (n. 3), the Semitic glottalic consonants are essentially unmarked for voice, and so this feature is probably not relevant to the operation of the sound change. Note, however, that Tropper (2012, 114–15) provides some evidence that Ugaritic ẓ was voiced. 34 Perhaps also Gǝʕǝz ṣ ǝmʔ, but the latter may derive as well from *θ̣imʔ-, like Arabic ẓimʔ and Hebrew ṣimʔā. Presumably *θ̣imʔ- is the earlier form, becoming *θ̣umʔ- in Akkadian and Ugaritic with assimilation of i to u before the labial m. 35 Huehnergard 2008, 99. 36 Cf., probably, Hebrew ṣal-māwet, to be read ṣalmût. 37 The masculine form ǵlm may also mean ‘darkness’ (cf. Akkadian ṣulmu) in the phrase ǵlm ym in RS 2.[003]+ i 19–20 (KTU 3 1.14), i.e., perhaps /ǵulmu yōmi/ ‘darkness of day’; see Loretz 2000, 275. oi.uchicago.edu 578 john huehnergard ʕn . [gpn] . / w ủgr . b . ǵlmt / [ʕmm . ] ym . bn . ẓlmt / r [mt . prʕ ]t ‘Look, [Gupanu-]wa-ˀUgāru: The sea [is enveloped] in darkness, in obscurity the [highest] peaks.’ RS 2.[008]+ vii 53–56 (KTU 3 1.4), with Pardee’s translation;38 || RS 2.[014]+ vi 6–9 (KTU 3 1.3 vi, formerly KTU 1/2 1.8 ii). These lines have generated a wide range of interpretations, which for the most part fall into two camps; one view takes b(n) ǵlmt and bn ẓlmt to be epithets of gpn wủgr (or alternatively of servants of Mot), with ǵlmt meaning ‘lass’ and ẓlmt as a parallel word of uncertain meaning; the other view, which like our honorand we follow here, takes ǵlmt and ẓlmt as terms for darkness.39 If that is correct, the etymology of ǵlmt requires comment. Some scholars consider it to be unrelated to the parallel word ẓlmt, but rather simply a poetic synonym, related to Hebrew ʕlm ‘to hide, conceal’.40 This is unlikely, however; while “darkness” can of course “hide” things, the transitive verb ʕlm ‘to hide’ is not, in and of itself, semantically close to the PS stative verb *θ̣lm ‘to be(come) dark’. In Ugaritic the latter verb, from which ǵlmt is derived and which likewise exhibits ǵ, probably occurs in the Kirta epic, where it is, like PS *θ̣lm, stative:41 [ảḫ]r . mǵyh . wǵlm ‘when he arrived it was getting dark’ RS 3.325+ i 50 (KTU 3 1.16), with Pardee’s translation.42 Thus it is more likely that the verb ǵlm ‘to be(come) dark’ and the noun ǵlmt ‘darkness’ are reflexes of PS *θ̣lm(t) rather than cognate with Hebrew ʕlm. If so, it is particularly interesting that in RS 2.[008]+ vii 54–55 (KT U3 1.4) and RS 2.[014]+ vi 7–8 (KTU 3 1.3), ǵlmt stands in parallel with ẓlmt; they are the same word, the latter an archaic (pre-sound-change) form and the former a “modern” form that reflects the sound change. As Segert aptly put it, “Since the A-word is in principle more common, ġlmt can be considered the usual form, while the B-word ẓlmt is a less common word, a poetic archaism.”43 We see the same phenomenon with the root *θ̣mʔ ‘to thirst’: the sound change is reflected in the phrase ǵmủ ǵmỉt ‘you (fs) were very thirsty’ (RS 2.[008]+ iv 34 [KTU 3 1.4]), but an archaic writing is preserved in the form mẓmả ‘thirsty’ (acc.; RS 3.343+ i 2 [KTU 3 1.15]). (See further below on mǵy and mẓʔ.) Another possible example of *θ̣ > ǵ is the form tqǵ in the following: ỉštmʕ . wtqǵ . ủdn ‘Listen (ms) and let (your) ear be alert.’44 RS 3.325+ vi 42 (KTU3 1.16) and parallels. 38 Pardee 1997a, 263. 39 So also Tropper (2012, 823): ‘In Dunkelheit ist das Meer / der Tag eingehüllt; in Finsternis (sind eingehüllt) die höchsten Berge.’ On these lines, see the review of scholarship and commentary in Smith and Pitard 2009, 371–74 (who, however, opt for the other interpretation). 40 E.g., del Olmo Lete (2005, 52–53 with n. 24; his identification of the Emar deity Ḫalma as ‘dark’ seems unlikely to me). Similarly, DULAT 3 (316) glosses ǵlmt ‘concealment, darkness’. But the gloss ‘concealment’ is prompted by the alleged Hebrew cognate ʕlm; in the context of the Baˤlu passage, in fact, ‘darkness’ is preferable, while ‘concealment’ is tautological (‘The sea is enveloped in concealment’?). See also Gzella 2007, 542. 41 Others read ǵlm here as ‘lad’; see DULAT 3, 315. 42 Pardee 1997b, 340. 43 Segert 1988, 296–97; pace Tropper (2012, 95), who believes the earlier and later forms should not co-occur. As Benjamin Kantor kindly reminds me, we may compare the appearance of both ʔarqā and ʔarʕā ‘earth’ in the Aramaic of Jeremiah 10:11. 44 Pardee (1997b, 342) translates ‘listen closely and tend (your) ear’; I think it more likely, however, that the verb is intransitive, with ‘ear’ as its subject. oi.uchicago.edu ugaritic g from proto-semitic *Θ̣ 579 The form tqǵ is most often derived from a root yqǵ, cognate with Hebrew yqṣ and Arabic yqẓ ‘to be awake’.45 If that is correct, it does not conform to the phonological environment for *θ̣ > ǵ that was suggested above.46 In Hebrew, however, a byform hollow root qwṣ/qyṣ occurs alongside yqṣ; if the same was true in Ugaritic, we may suggest that *taquθ̣ > /taquǵ/, i.e., the assimilatory change of *θ̣ > ǵ in this case taking place after the vowel u.47 We turn finally to consider the problematic etymology of the common Ugaritic verb mǵy ‘to come (to), arrive (at), reach’ and its relationship to the rare mẓʔ ‘to meet, encounter’. The latter occurs in only one text, RS 2.[012] (KTU 3 1.12); in one of those occurrences it is in parallel with mǵy: wn . ymǵy . ảklm wymẓả . ʕqqm ‘That he might reach the Devourers, That he might encounter the Destroyers.’ RS 2.[012] i 36–37 (KTU 3 1.12). Otherwise, mẓʔ occurs, twice, in the following couplet: šr . ảḫyh . mẓảh wmẓảh . šr . ylyh ‘The prince of his brothers encountered him, Did encounter him the prince of his comrades.’ RS 2.[012] ii 50–51 (KTU 3 1.12). The verbs mǵy and mẓʔ belong to a bewildering set of roots with similar radicals and apparently similar meanings. In a painstaking review of the evidence and of previous scholarship, Joshua Blau concluded that there were originally five distinct roots (listed here with Blau’s glosses):48 1. *mṣ́y > only Arabic maḍā ‘to go’; 2. *mǵy > only Ugaritic mǵy ‘to reach, arrive, come’; 3. *mṭw > Arabic maṭā(w) ‘to stretch, draw, pull; walk quickly’; Sabaic mṭw ‘to walk, march (or sim.)’; Gǝʕǝz maṭṭawa ‘to deliver’ (others include Arabic ʔanṭā ‘to give’, assuming an earlier form *ʔamṭawa); 4. *mθ̣ʔ (Blau’s mẓʔ ) > Sabaic mẓʔ ‘to come, arrive’; Aramaic mǝṭā ‘to arrive’ (originally with consonantal ʔ, as shown by the Old Aramaic writing {MṢʔ }); Ugaritic mẓʔ ‘to arrive, reach, 45 The root also occurs in Modern South Arabian languages, as wḳð̣ ‘to wake’, with initial radical w (Johnstone 1981, 290; 1987, 427). Note that Jibbāli and Mehri ð̣ reflects PS *θ̣; other examples include Jibbāli ð̣ífɛ́r and Mehri ð̣fēr ‘finger/toe-nail’, Jibbāli ð̣ǝll and Mehri að̣lēl ‘to give shade’, Jibbāli eð̣lím and Mehri hǝð̣láwm ‘to become dark’, Jibbāli ð̣ĩ and Mehri ð̣áyma ‘to be thirsty’, Mehri nð̣r ‘to see’; see Johnstone 1981, 48, 49; 1987, 83, 84, 282. 46 One might suggest that *θ̣ > ǵ before the final u of yaqtulu forms, e.g., yīqaθ̣u > /yīqaǵu/ (although the form in question here is presumably yaqtul or yaqtula); but it is doubtful that an inflectional ending would trigger the change of a root consonant. It may be noted that if the root of the form tqǵ is indeed y-q-ǵ < *y-q-θ̣, then it would also not conform to Greenstein and Tropper’s proposed conditioning factor, the presence of a sonorant elsewhere in the root (unless we are to include the glide y among the sonorants); thus Tropper (2012, 95) derives tqǵ from a different root entirely, viz., q-ǵ-w/y, comparing Arabic ṣ-ǵ-w ‘(sich) neigen’, ˀaṣǵawa ‘Ohr zuneigen; aufmerksam sein’; as he himself (ibid.) notes, however, the correspondence of Ugaritic q and Arabic ṣ is unexpected. Segert (1988, 295–96) suggested the change of *θ̣ > ǵ in this root may have been triggered by “the assimilatory vicinity of the articulation place of the deep velar /q/ and the postvelar /ġ/.” 47 Or between u-vowels in yaqtulu forms: *taqūθ̣u > /taqūǵu/; but see the preceding note. It must be conceded that the Hebrew hollow root occurs only in the causative, and so we do not know whether it was medial w, as suggested here for the Ugaritic, or medial y. 48 Blau 1972, 67–72 = 1998, 231–36. oi.uchicago.edu 580 john huehnergard find’; Old Akkadian maṣû ‘to reach’; and in part Gǝʕǝz maṣʔa ‘to come’; Hebrew māṣāʔ ‘to find; to reach, arrive’. 5. *mṣʔ > Aramaic mṣʔ ‘to be able, to be the match of’ and marginally also ‘to find’ (from ‘to arrive’); Akkadian maṣû ‘to suffice’; and in part Hebrew māṣāʔ ‘to find; to suffice’; Gǝʕǝz maṣʔa ‘to come’.49 It is, however, uneconomical to posit so many phonetically similar roots with similar meanings. In fact, Blau’s fifth root, *mṣʔ, is unnecessary, since, as shown by Steiner,50 Aramaic ṣ may derive from PS *ṣ́ when m or r immediately precedes or follows, as in ʕmṣ ‘to shut (eyes)’ and ḥmṣ ‘to be sour’, from PS *ǵmṣ́ and *ḥmṣ́, respectively. Thus Aramaic m(ǝ)ṣā ‘to be able’ is the reflex of Blau’s first root, *mṣ́y, and the Hebrew, Gǝʕǝz, and Akkadian verbs listed under 5 should instead be listed under 4, *mθ̣ʔ (with the meanings ‘to find’ and ‘to suffice’ as semantic extensions of ‘come [to], arrive [at]’). Blau’s second root, *mǵy, is found only in Ugaritic, and yet it also has essentially the same meaning as his fourth root,*mθ̣ʔ. The latter is obviously reflected in Ugaritic mẓʔ. I suggest that mǵy reflects a blending of the latter root, but now exhibiting the change of *θ̣ to ǵ, and a reflex of PS *mṣ́y.51 It is likely that *mθ̣ʔ was u-class in the prefix-conjugation and thus conformed to our proposed sound rule above, i.e., *yamθ̣uʔ(u) > *yamǵuʔ(u). It is also possible that the final glottal stop of that root dissimilated to a glide, either before the change of *θ̣ > ǵ—i.e., [θʼ. . .ʔ] > [θʼ. . .w]; thus *yamθ̣uʔ(u) > *yamθ̣uw(u) > *yamǵuw(u)—or after the change (because of the incompatibility of ǵ and ʔ )—thus *yamθ̣uʔ(u) > *yamǵuʔ(u) > *yamǵuw(u). The post–sound change root, *mǵw, would have been close enough phonetically and semantically to *mṣ́y for the blending to occur. The new root, mǵy, presumably coexisted for a time with the earlier mẓʔ, the latter an archaic form, as with ẓlmt and ǵlmt ‘darkness’. Thus we need posit only three PS roots, with fairly distinct semantic ranges: 1. *mθ̣ʔ ‘to come (to), arrive (at), reach’:52 (Ancient South Arabian) Sabaic mẓʔ ‘to go, proceed; to reach’,53 Minaic mẓʔ ‘to be somewhere’ and s1tmẓʔ ‘to arrive’,54 and Qatabanic mẓʔ ‘to come, enter’;55 Aramaic m(ǝ)ṭā (originally with ʔ ) ‘to come, arrive, reach’; Gǝʕǝz maṣʔa ‘to come’; (Modern South Arabian) Soqoṭri míṭa ‘to touch, reach’56 and Jibbāli míð̣ i ‘to reach (to)’;57 Hebrew māṣāʔ ‘to find; to reach’;58 Akkadian maṣû ‘to suffice’; Ugaritic mẓʔ ‘to meet’; and Ugaritic mǵy ‘to come, arrive’, from a blend of *mǵw (< *m-θ̣-ʔ ) and *m-ṣ́-y; 49 Blau also included here “Ugaritic mṣʔ D ‘to fell,’” but a Ugaritic root mṣʔ no longer appears in recent dictionaries. 50 Steiner 1977, 149–51. 51 Cf. Hoch 1986, 189: “Blending consists in the development of a morphological ‘compromise’ between two forms with identical or similar meaning which are perceived as being in competition with each other.” Cf. also Blake’s (1920) “congeneric assimilation.” 52 On this root see also Kogan 2015, 441. 53 Beeston et al. 1982, 89–90; Biella 1982, 273. mẓʔ appears as mḍʔ in the minuscule texts, where ẓ and ḍ have merged; see Stein 2013, 43. 54 Arbach 1993, 1.63. 55 Ricks (1989, 96) glosses Qatabanic mẓʔ as ‘to enter, go through; to replace, do away with’; the verb is clearly intransitive at times, however; for ‘replace’ in the text cited by Ricks, for example, we read bymẓʔ ʕls1ww ‘(which) comes upon/against it’. (For the reading bymẓʔ rather than bymṣʔ in this text, see the note in the online edition of the text in the Corpus of South Arabian Inscriptions, section “Corpus of Awsanite Inscriptions,” at http://dasi.humnet.unipi.it/index.php?id=79&prjId=1&co rId=4&colId=0&navId=674516597&recId=523 (accessed July 25, 2015). 56 Naumkin and Kogan 2015, 616; as mentioned above in n. 3, PS *θ̣ has merged with ṭ in Soqotri. 57 Johnstone 1981, 169; as mentioned above in n. 45, PS *θ̣ is reflected as ð̣ in Jibbāli. 58 On the semantics of Biblical Hebrew māṣāʔ, see Ceresko 1982. We need not agree with Ceresko, however, that more than one root underlies Hebrew māṣāʔ; ‘to find’ is simply an extension of ‘to reach’. oi.uchicago.edu ugaritic g from proto-semitic *Θ̣ 581 2. *mṣ́y ‘to move on, ahead’: Arabic maḍā ‘to pass, go (on)’;59 Aramaic m(ǝ)ṣā ‘to be able’; Sabaic mḍy ‘to penetrate (of a wound)’;60 and Ugaritic mǵy ‘to come, arrive’ from a blend of *m-ṣ́-y and *mǵw (< *m-θ̣-ʔ );61 3. *mṭw ‘to extend, hand over’: Gǝʕǝz maṭṭawa ‘to hand over’; Arabic maṭā(w) ‘to hurry, pull’, and probably also ʔanṭā ‘to give’, from *ʔamṭawa;62 Sabaic mṭw ‘to undertake an expedition’.63 There may have been other Ugaritic roots in which the proposed sound change might have operated, i.e., in which *θ̣ occurred before u (other than u as case-ending or verbal affix), but in which the change was blocked by paradigmatic pressure. A survey of DULAT 3, however, does not yield any obvious candidates.64 59 According to Abdulrahim (2013, 138), maḍā in Modern Standard Arabic is {‘go’ of LOCOMOTION vs. GOAL}, ‘go on, go ahead; to pass (of time)’. 60 Beeston et al. 1982, 84; Biella 1982, 282. 61 Note also perhaps Gǝʕǝz maḍaw ‘spring (season)’ (from ‘to arrive, enter’?). 62 Also ‘to ride, mount’, perhaps denominal; Mehri mṭw ‘to mount (camel)’ may in turn be a loan from Arabic. 63 Beeston et al. 1982, 88; Biella 1982, 272–73. 64 Perhaps prefix-conjugation forms of rwẓ ‘to run’, such as /yaruẓ/ (or /yarūẓu/), parallel in form to /yaquǵ/, which, it was suggested above, may derive from *yaquθ̣ (or /yaqūǵu/ < *yaqūθ̣u). The form ʕẓm ‘powerful’ may have been vocalized /ʕaẓūmu/ (cf. Hebrew ʕāṣûm; but cf. also Arabic ʕaẓīm); if so, the change of θ̣ to ǵ may have been blocked to prevent the otherwise unattested sequence ʕ. . .ǵ (i.e., */ʕaǵūmu/). The noun ẓr ‘back’ was presumably a qatl form originally, i.e., /ẓāru/ < *θ̣ahr-, as in Arabic ẓahr ‘back’; Akkadian ṣēru ‘back’ (for which see Huehnergard 2013, 458); and Mehri ð̣ār, Jibbāli ð̣er, and Soqotri ṭahar ‘on, over’ (Kogan 2015, 575), rather than qutl as in Hebrew ṣōhar ‘roof(?)’, ṣohŏrayim ‘noon’ and Amarna Canaanite /ẓuhru/ (zú-uḫ-ru; see DULAT 3, 988). The noun ẓủ ‘excrement’ is probably /ẓāʔu/; for discussion, see Militarev and Kogan (2000, 256–67, no. 286); Kogan (2015, 575–76). For /ẓurwu/ ‘(aromatic) resin’, see n. 10 above. oi.uchicago.edu 582 john huehnergard BIBLIOGRAPHY Abdulrahim, Dana 2013 “A Corpus Study of Basic Motion Verbs in Modern Standard Arabic.” PhD diss., University of Alberta. Arbach, Munir 1993 “Le maḏābien: Lexique, onomastique et grammaire d’une langue de l’Arabie méridionale préislamique.” 3 vols. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Provence Aix Marseille I. Beeston, A. F. L., M. A. Ghul, W. W. Müller, and J. Ryckmans 1982 Sabaic Dictionary / Dictionnaire sabéen (English –French–Arabic). Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters/ Beirut: Librairie du Liban. Biella, Joan 1982 Dictionary of Old South Arabic, Sabaean Dialect. HSS 25. Chico, CA: Scholars Press. Blake, Frank R. 1920 “Congeneric Assimilation as a Cause of the Development of New Roots in Semitic.” In Studies in Honor of Maurice Bloomfield, 35– 48. New Haven: Yale University Press. Blau, Joshua 1968 “On Problems of Polyphony and Archaism in Ugaritic Spellings.” JAOS 88: 523–26. Repr. in Topics in Hebrew and Semitic Linguistics, by Joshua Blau (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1998), 339–43. 1972 “Semitic Marginalia II.” Israel Oriental Studies 2: 57–82. Repr. in Topics in Hebrew and Semitic Linguistics, by Joshua Blau (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1998), 221–46. 1977 “‘Weak’ Phonetic Change and the Hebrew śîn.” Hebrew Annual Review 1: 67–119. Repr. in Topics in Hebrew and Semitic Linguistics, by Joshua Blau (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1998), 50–103. 1998 Topics in Hebrew and Semitic Linguistics. Jerusalem: Magnes. Brown, Jonathan A. C. 2007 “New Data on the Delateralization of ḍād and Its Merger with ẓā’ in Classical Arabic: Contributions from Old South Arabic and the Earliest Islamic Texts on ḍ/ẓ Minimal Pairs.” JSS 52: 335–68. Ceresko, Anthony R. 1982 “The Function of Antanaclasis (mṣ’ “to find” // mṣ’ “to reach, overtake, grasp”) in Hebrew Poetry, Especially in the Book of Qoheleth.” CBQ 44: 551–69. del Olmo Lete, Gregorio 2005 “Ḫalma of Emar and ġlmt of Ugarit: A ‘Dark’ Deity.” In Memoriae Igor M. Diakonoff: Babel und Bibel 2, edited by L. Kogan, N. Koslova, S. Loesov, and S. Tishchenko, 47–58. Papers of the Institute of Oriental and Classical Studies 8. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Dietrich, Manfried, Oswald Loretz, and Joaquín Sanmartín 2013 Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani und anderen Orten / The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places. 3rd ed. AOAT 360/1. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Dietrich, Manfried, and Otto Loretz 1967 “Untersuchungen zur Schrift und Lautlehre des Ugaritischen (I): Der ugaritische Konsonant ǵ.” WdO 4: 300–15. Fischer, Wolfdietrich 2002 A Grammar of Classical Arabic. Translated by Jonathan Rodgers. New Haven: Yale University Press. Freilich, Donna, and Dennis Pardee 1984 “{ẓ} and {ṭ} in Ugaritic: A Re-examination of the Sign-Forms.” Syria 61: 25–36. Fronzaroli, Pelio 1955 La fonetica ugaritica. Sussidi Eruditi 7. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. Bordreuil, Pierre, and Dennis Pardee 2009 A Manual of Ugaritic. LSAWS 3. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Garr, W. Randall 1986 “On Voicing and Devoicing in Ugaritic.” JNES 45: 45–52. Brockelmann, Carl 1947 “Kanaanäische Miszellen.” In Festschrift Otto Eissfeldt zum 60. Geburtstag 1. September 1947, edited by Johannes Fück, 61–67. Halle: Niemeyer. Gordon, Cyrus H. 1965 Ugaritic Textbook. 3 vols. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. Greenstein, Edward L. 1998 “On a New Grammar of Ugaritic (Review of Sivan, A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language).” Israel Oriental Studies 18: 397–420. oi.uchicago.edu ugaritic g from proto-semitic *Θ̣ Gzella, Holger 2007 “Some Penciled Notes on Ugaritic Lexicography.” BiOr 64: 527–67. Hoch, Hans Henrich 1986 Principles of Historical Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Holes, Clive 2004 Modern Arabic: Structures, Functions, and Varieties. Rev. ed. Georgetown Classics in Arabic Language and Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Huehnergard, John 2003 “Akkadian ḫ and West Semitic *ḥ.” In Studia Semitica, edited by Leonid Kogan, 102–19. Orientalia: Papers of the Oriental Institute 3. Alexander Militarev volume. Moscow: Russian State University for the Humanities. 2008 Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription. Rev. ed. HSS 32. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2013 “Akkadian e and Semitic Root Integrity.” Babel und Bibel 7: 445–75. Johnstone, T. M. 1975 “The Modern South Arabian Languages.” Afroasiastic Linguistics 1/5: 1–29 (93–121). 1981 Jibbāli Lexicon. London: Oxford University Press. 1987 Mehri Lexicon and English–Mehri Word-List. London: School of Oriental & African Studies. Kogan, Leonid E. 2011 “Proto-Semitic Phonetics and Phonology.” In Semitic Languages: An International Handbook, edited by Stefan Weninger in collaboration with Geoffrey Khan, Michael P. Streck, and Janet Watson, 54–151. HSK 36. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. 2015 Genealogical Classification of Semitic: The Lexical Isoglosses. Boston/Berlin: de Gruyter. Lapesa, Rafael 1968 Historia de la lengua española. 7th ed. Madrid: Escelicer. Lleal, Coloma 1990 La formación de las lenguas romances peninsulares. Barcelona: Barcanova. Loretz, Oswald 2000 “‘Schwarze Magie’ des Tages in Hi 3,8 und KTU 1.6 VI 45b–53; 1.14 I 19–20; 1.4 VII 54– 56: Zur Überlieferung der ‘schwarzen Magie’ in Altsyrien-Palästina.” UF 32: 261–87. 583 Militarev, Alexander, and Leonid Kogan 2000 Semitic Etymological Dictionary. Vol. 1, Anatomy of Man and Animals. Münster: UgaritVerlag. Naumkin, Vitaly, and Leonid Kogan 2015 Corpus of Soqotri Oral Literature. Vol. 1. SSLL 76. Leiden: Brill. Pardee, Dennis 1997a “The Baˤlu Myth (1.86).” In The Context of Scripture, vol. 1, Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, edited by William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger Jr., 241–74. Leiden: Brill. 1997b “The Kirta Epic (1.102).” In The Context of Scripture, vol. 1, Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, edited by William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger Jr., 333–43. Leiden: Brill. 2003–4 Review of Ugaritische Grammatik, by J. Tropper. AfO 50. https://orientalistik.univie.ac.at/ publikationen/afo/downloads/. 2004 “Ugaritic.” In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages, edited by Roger D. Woodard, 288–318. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Repr. in The Ancient Languages of Syria-Palestine and Arabia, edited by Roger D. Woodard (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 5–35. Penny, Ralph 2002 A History of the Spanish Language. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ricks, Stephen D. 1989 Lexicon of Inscriptional Qatabanian. Studia Pohl 14. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico. Rössler, Otto 1961 “Ghain im Ugaritischen.” ZA 54: 158–72. Rubin, Aaron D. 2010 The Mehri Language of Oman. SSLL 58. Leiden: Brill. 2014 The Jibbali (Shaḥri) Language of Oman. SSLL 72. Leiden: Brill. Ryding, Karin C. 2005 A Reference Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Segert, Stanislav 1988 “The Ugaritic Voiced Postvelar in Correspondence to the Emphatic Interdental.” UF 20: 287–300. oi.uchicago.edu 584 1991 john huehnergard “Northwest Semitic Postvelar /ǵ/ in Correspondence to Dental Phonemes.” In Proceedings of the Fifth International Hamito-Semitic Congress 1987, edited by Hans G. Mukarovsky, 2: 315–20. Beiträge zur Afrikanistik 41. Vienna: Institut für Afrikanistik und Ägyptologie der Universität Wien. Simeone-Senelle, Marie-Claude 2011 “Modern South Arabian.” In Semitic Languages: An International Handbook, edited by Stefan Weninger in collaboration with Geoffrey Khan, Michael P. Streck, and Janet Watson, 1073–113. HSK 36. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. Sivan, Daniel 1997 A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language. HdO 28. Leiden: Brill. Smith, Mark S., and Wayne T. Pitard 2009 The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. Vol. 2, Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU/CAT 1.3–1.4. VTSup 114. Leiden: Brill. Soldt, Wilfred H. van 1991 Studies in the Akkadian of Ugarit: Dating and Grammar. AOAT 40. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. 2005 The Topography of the City-State of Ugarit. AOAT 324. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Stein, Peter 2013 Lehrbuch der sabäischen Sprache. Vol. 1, Grammatik. Subsidia et Instrumenta Linguarum Orientis 4.1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Steiner, Richard C. 1977 The Case for Fricative-Laterals in Proto-Semitic. AOS 59. New Haven: American Oriental Society. 2011 Early Northwest Semitic Serpent Spells in the Pyramid Texts. HSS 61. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2015 Disembodied Souls: The Nefesh in Israel and Kindred Spirits in the Ancient Near East, with an Appendix on the Katumuwa Inscription. Ancient Near Eastern Monographs 11. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Tropper, Josef 1994 “Das ugaritische Konsonanteninventar.” JNSL 20: 17–59. 2012 Ugaritische Grammatik. 2nd ed. AOAT 273. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. von Soden, Wolfram 1969 “Kleine Beiträge zum Ugaritischen und Hebräischen.” In Hebräische Wortforschung: Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von Walter Baumgartner, edited by Benedikt Hartmann, Ernst Jenni, E. Y. Kutscher, Victor Maag, I. L. Seeligmann, and Rudolf Smend, 291–300. VTSup 16. Leiden: Brill. Repr. in Wolfram von Soden, Bibel und Alter Orient: Altorientalische Beiträge zum Alten Testament, edited by Hans-Peter Müller (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1985), 89–98. Watson, Janet C. E. 2012 The Structure of Mehri. Semitica Viva 52. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.