« The Power of a Beard
Main
Hacking Vandalism Happens »
January 11, 2008
On the "Ugaritic" Alphabet and Cuneiform Alphabets
Like Charles at Awilum, I'm working my way through Schniedewind and Hunt's A Primer on Ugaritic: Language, Culture and Literature. I'll leave it to Charles to write the definitive review of this interesting and potentially useful textbook. For now, I just want to pick on a single footnote. Referring to the thirty letter Ugaritic cuneiform alphabet, note 2, starting on page 35, reads as follows,
Dietrich and Loretz argued for another, shorter alphabet written right to left which was based on their reading of the alphabetic cuneiform text from Beth-Shemesh and was also known at Ugarit (KTU 1.77; 4.31; 4.710) . . . The publication of a new abecedary by D. Pardee and P. Bordreuil (RS 88.2215) suggests that there was on reduced southern or Canaanite alphabet. [references removed]
Well, I'm not so sure about this. You can read my own treatment of RS 88.2215 and the Beth Shemesh Tablet (KTU 5.24) in Part 9 of my aging series on "The Cuneiform Short Alphabet." RS 88.2215 does suggest that the abecedary on KTU 5.24 was not a short alphabet but it doesn't suggest much else that wasn't already known. The primary evidence for the possibility that KTU 1.77; 4.31; and 4.710; to which I would add KTU 6.70 from Sarepta in Lebanon and, perhaps, KTU 6.1 from the Tabor Valley use a short alphabet comes from phonetic considerations and not simply the morphology of the letters or the direction of the writing. The above links are to my treatment of each of these texts. Simply put, it appears that a few single letters in these texts represent two phonetically related sounds that are written separately in the standard, long, Ugaritic alphabet. It is true that the morphology of some of the letters in the proposed short alphabet differs from the morphology of their counterparts in the "canonical" alphabet and the direction of writing may sometimes be a factor. In addition, KTU 6.70 uses a Phoenician (and Hebrew) like verb for "make" rather than the verb commonly used in Ugaritic for the same action in the same context. You can see the details in my posts on this inscribed jar handle and the accompanying PDF file. To be sure, this vocabulary based evidence is only circumstantial for a short cuneiform alphabet but then it is circumstantial evidence.
It is true that we do not have an abecedary written in a short cuneiform alphabet. But I think the phonetic evidence for the use of such an alphabet is quite strong.
I see the cuneiform alphabet story as follows:
1) With the exception of KTU 1.77; 4.31; 4.710; and RS 88.2215, all the texts found at Ugarit and vicinity are in the "canonical" Ugaritic alphabet of 30 letters. This alphabet originally had 27 letters to which the final three where added (likely in two stages). While it is not certain, it is probable that, except for the tablets just mentioned, the scribes of all the texts we have from Ugarit worked within the framework of a 30 letter cuneiform alphabet. It may be that the KTU 1.77; 4.31; and 4.710; and possibly RS 88.2215 originated elsewhere.
2) RS 88.2215 and KTU 5.24 represent another ordering of likely a somewhat different, perhaps 27 letter, alphabet. The order of these abecedaries is related in someway or other to the Old South Semitic Alphabet. Another thing of note about these two abecedaries is that the morphology of the letters on RS 88.2215 tends to be similar to the morphology of the letters in the "canonical" alphabet from Ugarit and the morphology, in so far as it is discernable, of the letters in KTU 5.24 tends to be more like the morphology of many of the letters in a proposed short alphabet(s). But this last point does not negate the use of a short alphabet on the texts I list below.
3) Those who wrote KTU 1.77; 4.31; 4.710; 6.1(perhaps); and 6.70 likely worked within a framework of one (or more) 22 letter (or slightly larger) alphabet(s). It is not clear to me that all four or five of these texts are in the same scribal tradition. It's a little hard to tell, in part, because two of them are inscriptions and, in part, because all of them are very short.
Posted by Duane Smith at January 11, 2008 8:09 PM | Read more on Ugarit |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2381
Comments
This footnote caught my eye as well. Thanks for this very helpful discussion.
Posted by: Charles Halton at January 12, 2008 5:43 AM
In April 2006 you posted about Citing Ugaritic Tablets and Texts and How to Get Them Online, but all the links are down now. Do you have any current information on how to access the texts in electronic form?
Posted by: Amelia Arbisser at January 16, 2008 10:03 PM
Hi, Duane - I am interested in the answer to Amelia's question as well. http://www.labherm.filol.csic.es seems to be unavailable now. Is this not available for free, now you can buy Chunchillos' extensive volumes for an exorbitant price? I wonder if there is a library that interloans the texts and concordance volumes (I doubt it)?
On the current topic, the maps and cuneiform pictures aren't very good quality in Schniedewind & Hunt, are they? Figure 1.2 is very poor and Figure 2.2 looks like the digital resolution was far too small.
I always think that the cuneiform with the open wedges rather than wholly black are more readable when the font gets small. But maybe that's a personal preference.
Posted by: Deane at January 17, 2008 2:16 PM
Hi again, Duane -
I'm stumped on one thing in Schniedewind and Hunt, so if you've got the time and (abnormal) interest, I'd be abnormally interested, too. If not, I may work it out later.
The table on p. 160 of Schniedewind and Hunt shows forms of the word kalbum ("dog") with the 1cs suffix. This is intended to illustrate one application of the pronomial suffixes listed on p. 155. Now, I understand how the singular forms of kalbum+1cs were arrived at: they are merely the construct forms of the noun, with the pronomial suffixes listed on p. 155 added on. From p. 155, I understand that the applicable 1cs suffixes are either -i for the nominal or -ya for the oblique (gen-acc).
But when you get to the plural and dual forms of the noun with 1cs suffix, on p. 160:
- the 1cs suffix to the nominal masculine plural noun is -ya (from p. 155 I would have expected -i), and
- the 1cs suffixes to the nominal masculine and plural dual nouns are both -ya (from p. 155 I would have expected -i).
- the oblique fem dual +1cs has a form klb, which doesn't agree with the vocalisation kalbeya (form klby).
Deane
Posted by: Deane at January 23, 2008 4:24 PM
This is one place were Schniedewind and Hunt don't do a very good job explaining things. What you are missing is the following: if a noun ends in a long vowel, a reduced diphthong or short i or a, the 1cs possessive pronoun is -ya. Otherwise it is -ī. Therefore, the suffix is normally -ī with normal nominative singular nouns. But for gen, acc and oblique fem. ps, all duels and masc. ps it is -ya. There are exceptions but this is the general rule. The bound forms kalbū and kalbā end in long vowels so the suffix is -ya. Some grammarians, I think Tropper is one but I don't remember for sure, sees the y in these forms as simply standing for a -ī. Pardee, if I understand him correctly, thinks the -ī comes from -uya and is therefore a reduced form but I think he is in agreement with my point about the vowel length. Just to add to the confusion. What do you make of umy, 'ummuya(?), "my mother?"
I hope this helps.
Posted by: Duane at January 23, 2008 8:51 PM
Thanks, Duane - I wondered what I was missing. This primer can sure be concise at times, and a little too concise in this instance. I'm obtaining some other Ugaritic grammars and books by interloan, but they are yet to arrive.
'ummuya? In the oblique, that makes sense. In the nominative, I'm guessing there would have to be a contracted diphthong after the m. But I'm only a week into Ugaritic, so please be merciful on me.
Posted by: Deane at January 24, 2008 2:43 PM
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.
Send me an email if it is important.