« Thoughts on Richard Dawkins at Cal Tech
Main
Neandertals Again »
October 30, 2006
A Broom for a Horse or a Coat for a Goddess?
A little free association with a point
My mother used to sing a little song that was a parody on something; I'm not sure what. The only lines I can remember went something like this.
Now the captain, of course, has a broom for a horse, as he led them off to war.. . .
It will be Waterloo for Neapolitan if he slips upon the linoleum.
That is all I can remember and I can't find this song or poem anywhere except in the distant recesses of my memory.
Obviously, a child playing war in the kitchen is the surface subject, but I think there is more to it than that. Anyway, I remember as a very young child singing this song to myself and wondering why a horse would want or need a broom and what on earth it would do with one if it had it. The idea of cleaning up after itself never occurred to me. It was with some embarrassment that I learned from my mother that the broom wasn't for a horse but was a substitute for a horse. Why I remember this is not clear. The lesson has caused me to question just about every straightforward expression I have ever heard. It also caused me at a young age to realize the importance of context.
As I said the other day, I'm working my way through a fairly large number of texts in several Semitic languages that use a very simple formula, a subject (sometimes implied) followed by the preposition l followed by a noun or nominal expression. A couple of examples from Ugarit will do.
KTU 4:149:9 kd . l mrynm, "a pitcher (of wine) for the Mariani."
KTU 4:175:6 dd l ‛bdktr, "a pot (of barley[?]) for Abdu-Katharu."
KTU 6:19 tmm . dmm š‛rm . l ħmrm, "Eight baskets of barley for (the[?]) asses"
I offer the last example to show that something can be "for" a horse or, in this case, for asses. There are literally dozens of examples of this structure from Ugarit alone. Hebraists will be very familiarly with the formula. It occurs in the Hebrew Bible and in epigraphic contexts most notably, but not exclusively, on seals. On seals, the subject is generally implied. On occasion, the preposition itself is also implied on Hebrew seal inscriptions and elsewhere.
In the above examples the formula likely means "S for O." But there are occasions when it means "S (sometimes implied) belonging to O."
KTU 6:11: kd [.] yn l prt, "A pitcher of wine for Purrati." can be read either "for" or "belonging to." It stands somewhere in the middle. KTU 6:11 is a label that was once attached to a sealed wine pitcher. The text on this label should be compared with the Akkadian text on the otherwise quite similar label, RS 15.154. Like the seal on which KTU 6:11 is written, the Akkadian label has a seal impression and a string hole. The text reads, 1 dug geštin š[a] ma-zi-ra-[na], "One jar of wine belonging to ’Adurānu."
Among other things, I am looking for non-Hebrew examples where the object is a god and I thought I had found a couple in KTU 4:186. Look at lines 9 and 10.
šb‛ . lbšm . allm | l . ušhry, "7 garment(?) cloths for Ušharay (Išhara[?])"
Išhara is a Hurrian goddess. She shows up in the AN list from Ugarit (RS 20.121:168). While I'm not sure it is certain that ušhry and Išhara are the same, this seems the most probable equivalent. So does this text say that some kind of material for a garment is for the goddess Išhara? Well before we make too definitive a judgment it just might be a good idea to look at a few other lines in KTU 4:186. For example, lines 3 and 4 read.
tltm . l . mit . š‛rt | l . šr . ‛ttrt, "130 wool (garments) for the singers of Astarte"
Notice that these wool garments are for the singers of Astarte and not Astarte herself. In fact, of the four sections of this text that have the form S l C, in two C is clearly not a divine name. It is possible that a god or goddess, Mgmr, in intended in line 12 but this section and even this word has its own problems. In a fifth section (lines 5-8) it appears that some clothing is given to some class of government officials, the Trmnm. The preposition is missing in this section. A missing preposition is not a problem. See KTU 4:149 where it is lacking is several sections but there can be no doubt that, although these may be scribal errors, it is to be inferred. I'm even wondering if the final y in ušhry should be understood as a gentilic of sorts, "Išhara's people." To be sure, I can find no other example of the gentilic y used with a personal name, divine or otherwise. It is usually used with a place name.
So I really doubt that lines 9 and 10 are telling us that the cloth is for the goddess. Rather, I think we need to understand this line as telling us that the cloth is for some unnamed, but at the time well known, official associated with the goddess. If indeed, we are dealing with a goddess at all.
How might this apply to other possible cases where it appears that a god is the object of the preposition l? I'm not sure yet. I still need to work my way through a number of Phoenician, Hebrew and other examples. I worry that no rule will be forthcoming and, as always, we will need to depend on context. But alas, many short inscriptions lack a context that is known to us even if it was well known to those who wrote and read them.
Please note, I don't think any of these examples imply that the subject is a substitute for the object. I don't think that usage of this preposition can be found in Semitic languages but one can never be absolutely sure.
An additional note: I'm not saying that the gods didn't get dressed up from time to time. I'm only saying that this particularly text (KTU 4:186) does not indicate that this or that thing was for or belonged to a god or goddess.
Posted by Duane Smith at October 30, 2006 1:49 PM | Read more on Ugarit |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1921
Comments
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.
Send me an email if it is important.