Abnormal Interests

11111 = 30

BTW, you haven't got a photo of KTU 1.167 floating about in your abnormal collection, have you? It doesn't seem to have been published, which is a crime.

Oh, thanks! I guess I should have looked at that a little more closely. Without reflection, I thought it a rather strange example of a binary number.

As to KTU 1.167, no, I sure don't have a picture. By the way, what is your interest in this badly broken tablet from Ras Ibn Hani. Do you think you've found a join to another tablet?

I was considering KTU 1.166 (RIH 77/08A + 77/13 +77/21B). The occurrence of ˁẓrn(?!?) in both, and only these two, is especially unusual. And they seem to have been found in the same place.

Any thoughts on ˁẓrn and what I guess must be the plural form?

I'm currently trying to get a copy of Bordreuil & Caquot, Syria 56.

Without context it's hard to know what to make of a word like that. It could well be a "foreign" word or an n sub-formative noun of some kind. While I doubt it, it could even be proper name. As to the possibility that it is a plural, I'm not so sure. Of course, the standard Ugaritic masculine plural suffix is m (/uma/ or /ima/ or the like). A quick, but far from rigorous, look at the Ras Ibn Hani texts makes me think the same is true for those texts. Heck, it might even be a verbal form but I doubt this too.

To clarify, ˁẓrn is in KTU 1.166:15 and 1.167:10, while ˁẓrnm is in KTU 1.166:11. That's why I think it's the singular and plural forms. And, that's also why I don't think it's a PN.

As for what it means, I'm still guessing.

actually, 11111 = 31, the carnival that will be posted over at my site later today (really, I'm not kidding!).

I'm currently writing on 1.164 and 1.168 so I know the trials of those Ras Ibn Hani tablets. Most of the time Pardee's hand drawings are better than Bordreuil & Caquot's photos (I've got both). And I've got no clue what ˁẓrn means, but somebody let me know if you figure it out!

N.T.

Oh, for some reason I didn't notice the example in line 11. I guess I need to work on my powers of observations a little more. In fact, if I had read your comment with the care it deserved, would not have jumped to the conclusion I did. My only excuse is that I was "entertained" the other day by someone who spend about an hour in a library study area trying to convince me that Ugaritic was "really" the proto-Aramaic! I was afraid the affliction had crossed the Atlantic. I have no idea what it means either. I did try to find a classical Arabic cognate, but didn't see anything useful in Lane. Haven't tried a more general Arabic dictionary as yet. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be some sort of bird, even if we would expect a s. instead of a z. Gordon once thought that z. and s. could both represent the same PS phoneme *.D. I think that idea is largely out of date these days.

Jim,

I agree that Pardee's drawing are usually better than Bordreuil & Caquot's photos.

Jim - ok ... I confess, I can't count in binary, either. Do/can you ever conclude anything about 1.164 & 1.168?

As for KTU 1.166/167, there's other elusive 'coincidences' going on, such as the coincidence of gṯr (+n?? KTU 1.166 25) with ǵsb (KTU 1.167): compare KTU 1.109:26. And gṯrn and yqr together on the different sides of KTU 1.166.

You have a bird hunch, huh, Duane? Now that could be interesting if offerings to dead heroes are involved. I haven't checked Aramaic cognates, yet ... ;-)

"Hunch" sounds much more definitive than I actually feel about it.

Duane,

I can see the proto-Aramaic argument. There are some ways in which Ugaritic syntax acts more like what we find in the Tell el Fakhariya inscription more than what we find in more Canaanite dialects. Of course, the probable answer for this is that both Ugaritic and Fackhariya both attest to the influence of Akkadian on the scribal class, but I can understand where that argument comes from.

NT,

Yes, I can say many wondrous things about CAT 1.164 & 1.168. You'll just have to come hear my paper at SBL to find out what they are ;-) You also have me now intrigued with 1.166 and 1.167. I don't know when I'll find the time to look at them in any depth; but I'm certainly going to put a sticky note in my CAT.

Jim,

Interesting. Had my "instructor" mentioned the Tell el Fakhariya inscription or any other evidence, I might have not considered his bright idea an affliction. It was most mostly a hand waving exercise on his part and perhaps on mine also. Of course, one can find isoglosses of one type or another between any two Semitic languages (or any two languages for that matter). Some of them are attributable to practices of the scribal class. I must say that I doubt Ugaritic is proto-anything. While I'm not sure how to defend the idea, other than with hand waving :-), I think that what I take to be a local dialect, Ugaritic, died out shortly after the Ugarit fell. It may have taken a generation or two before the spoken language disappeared completely.

"Following a Trail of Slime to Turkey and a Good Cold Beer"

Now I have to think of a good story that will go with that title.

Since these carnivals will probably go on for many years to come, here's a tip for those who need a little help with binary numbers: If you use MS Windows, click Start, Programs, Accessories, then select Calculator. The default view for the Calc program is Standard. Click View & select Scientific. Now you'll see a radio-buttom list across the top-left corner giving you the option of Hex, Dec, Oct, & Bin. For this demo, click Bin, then type "11111", then click Dec, & you'll see "11111" change to "31".

G. M.

There's an even better way, at least for smaller numbers. Think about it. I didn't think at all and N T Wrong didn't do such a great job either. An even number cannot end in a 1.