Journal of Semitic Studies LI/1 Spring 2006 doi:10.

1093/jss/fgi081
THE NERAB
© The author. Published by Oxford INSCRIPTIONS
University Press on behalf of the University of Manchester.
All rights reserved.

A CASE OF LINGUISTIC TRANSITION:

THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS1

ILSUNG ANDREW YUN

THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 17, 2016

Abstract

Since the publication of the editio princeps by C. Clermont-Ganneau

in 1897, two funerary inscriptions from Nerab have received the at-
tention of relatively few scholars. It has been acknowledged that the
Nerab inscriptions stand at a major juncture for the development of
the Aramaic language, as well reflected in the divided scholarly opin-
ions on the classification of the language of the Nerab inscriptions,
either as Old Aramaic (OA) or as Official Aramaic (OfA). This paper
explores the possible contribution of the Nerab inscriptions to the
discussion of the phases of the Aramaic language by putting the
Nerab inscriptions in the wider perspective of developing Aramaic,
with special focus on comparison between OA and OfA. It is argued
that the Nerab inscriptions are rare examples of the inscriptions that
clearly represent the transition from OA to OfA, though they still cat-
egorically belong to OA.

The complexity involved in the discussion of the phases of the

Aramaic language is well reflected by the fact that there is still
no consensus on the chronological and dialectal boundary between
Old Aramaic (OA) and Official Aramaic (OfA), let alone the
terminologies for them. Thus, for the linguistic phase represented by
OA, various other terms such as Ancient Aramaic or Early Aramaic
are also used, and instead of OfA, some scholars use Imperial Ara-
maic or Standard Aramaic. Even the term ‘Old Aramaic’ is used by
scholars in various senses. To the surveys of the many different schol-
arly opinions already made by Degen (1969: 1–3) and Fitzmyer

1
 This paper grew out of my study of Old Aramaic with Professor Paul-Eugène
Dion to whom I am deeply grateful for warm memories of him as an exemplary
scholar and benevolent teacher.
List of abbreviations: Fek (Fekherye), Zk (Zakkur), Sf (Sefire), H (Hadad),
P (Panammu), Barr (Barrakkib), Nrb (Nerab), Herm (Hermopolis papyri), OA (Old
Aramaic), OfA (Official Aramaic), EA (Elephantine Aramaic), BH (Biblical Hebrew),
BA (Biblical Aramaic), OSA (Old South Arabian).

19
 THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

(1979: 57–60),2 further opinions can be added as follows. Kaufman

puts the partition of OA and Imperial Aramaic at the end of the
eighth century BCE, while utilizing another terminology, ‘Mesopota-
mian Aramaic’, to include all the Aramaic texts from Mesopotamia
up until the cuneiform Aramaic incantation from Uruk, probably of
the early Seleucid period (1974: 7–11). In his later works, Kaufman
adopts Fitzmyer’s fivefold division, but with a different chronological
delimitation, i.e. OA (c. 850 – c. 612 BCE) and OfA (c. 612 – c. 200
BCE) (1992: 173–4; 1997: 114–15). Gibson separates OA from
OfA, and the earliest examples of OfA are the Barrakkib inscriptions

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 17, 2016

and the Nerab inscriptions (1975: 88, 94). Greenfield’s fourfold divi-
sion, i.e. Early Aramaic which includes both OA and OfA, Middle
Aramaic, Late Aramaic, and Modern Aramaic (1976: 39), empha-
sizes the similarity between OA and OfA. According to him, OfA is
attested as early as in the Barrakkib and Nerab inscriptions (1976:
40). But in his subsequent article, he connects the Barrakkib inscrip-
tions and the Nerab inscriptions to ‘Mesopotamian Aramaic’ which
‘emerged in the area of Aram-Naharaim along the banks of the
Habur and Balikh rivers’, and ‘naturally spread into Assyria proper’
and ‘into Aram proper with the Assyrian conquests’ (1978: 95).
Beyer uses the term ‘Old Aramaic’ to cover Ancient Aramaic, Impe-
rial Aramaic, Old Eastern Aramaic and Old Western Aramaic, and
Ancient Aramaic is divided into early Ancient Aramaic (tenth–eighth
centuries BCE) and late Ancient Aramaic (seventh–sixth centuries
BCE) (1986: 10–14). Hoftijzer and Jongeling take c. 700 BCE as the
point of demarcation between OA and OfA (DNWSI: xii). The
Barrakkib inscriptions belong to the latest phase of OA and the
Nerab inscriptions to the earliest phase of OfA (DNWSI: 113 and
passim, where lexical items from the Nerab inscriptions are listed un-
der OfA).

2
 When Fitzmyer devised the fivefold division of the Aramaic language, i.e. OA
(925–700 BCE), OfA (700–200 BCE), Middle Aramaic (200 BCE–200 CE), Late Ara-
maic (200–700 CE), Modern Aramaic (700 CE – ) (1979: 57–84), he sought primarily
‘a purely chronological division’ (Italics his), within which one could make further
‘local or geographical subdivisions’ accounting for dialectal differences (1979: 60).
Thus, the primarily chronological division is supplemented with dialectal linguistic
features. The following are the linguistic characteristics of the OA phase, as presented
by Fitzmyer: ‘the widespread preservation of the Proto-Semitic phonemes’, ‘the devel-
opment of orthographic habits from the initial Phoenician starting-point’, the use of
’nh, the Peal infinitive without preformative m-, the Peal passive forms in yuqtal, the
prefixed negative la-; the 3rd sg. masc. suffix on plural nouns in –wh, the use of the
intensifying infinitive, the use of the waw-consecutive, the post-positive article (1979:
65–6).

20
 THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

Though the list could be much longer, enough has been said to
illustrate the diversity of scholarly opinions concerning the term-
inologies and the classification of epigraphic materials with regard to
the historical-linguistic phases of the Aramaic language of the first
millennium BCE.
One point of contention among scholars is the issue of the classifi-
cation of the language of the Nerab inscriptions. Even after Fitzmyer
rightly deplored Degen’s exclusion of the Nerab inscriptions from
OA on the basis of certain forms in them, i.e. nÒr (I:12–13), qdmwh
(II:2), the prefixed negative l- (II:4, 6, 8), the intensifying infinitive

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 17, 2016

(II:6) (1979: 66–7), scholarly opinions have been divided. Thus, it is
important to investigate the linguistic characteristics of the Nerab in-
scriptions in detail.

The Texts of the Nerab Inscriptions with Epigraphic Notes

The funerary inscriptions of Sinzeribni (Nrb I) and Si’gabbar (Nrb II),
priests of the moon-god at ancient Nerab, are incised on two basalt
stelae (respectively 0.93m x 0.35m and 0.95m x 0.45m), which were
found accidentally at a small tumulus at Nerab, approximately 7km
south-east of Aleppo. They were acquired by Clermont-Ganneau and
brought to the Louvre in Paris. Each stele has, besides its inscription,
a priestly figure in relief who is to be identified with the priest in
each of the inscriptions, respectively Sinzeribni and Si’gabbar — for
the pictures and facsimiles of the stelae, see KAI I pl. 24, 25; ANEP
nos 280, 636; Naveh 1982: fig. 76.

The Inscription of Sinzeribni

Transcription Vocalization
 1. snzrbn kmr  1. sinzeribni kumr
 2. shr bnrb mt  2. sahr banerab mat
 3. wznh Òlmh  3. wa∂anâ Òalmih
 4. w’rÒth  4. wa’erÒitih
 5. mn ’t  5. man ’att(a)
 6. thns Òlm’  6. tihanis Òalma’
 7. znh w’rÒt’  7. ∂anâ wa’erÒita’
 8. mn ’srh  8. min ’aqrih
 9. shr wsms wnkl wnsk ysÌw  9. sahr wasamas wanikkal wanusk yissaÌû
10. smk w’srk mn Ìyn wmwt lÌh 10. sumak wa’aqrak min Ìayyin wamawt laÌê
11. yk†lwk wyh’bdw zr¨k whn 11. yik.†ulûk wayiha’bidû zar¨ak wahin
12. tnÒr Òlm’ w’rÒt’ z’ 12. tinqur Òalma’ wa’erÒita’ ∂a’
13. ’Ìrh ynÒr 13. ’aÌarâ yunqar
14. zy lk 14. ∂î lik
21
 THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

Translation
 1. Sinzeribni, priest
 2. of Sahr at Nerab, died.
 3. And this is his image
 4. and his remains.
 5. Whoever you are,
 6. who remove this image
 7. and these (lit. this) remains
 8. from their (lit. its) place,
 9. may Sahr and Shamash and Nikkal and Nusk tear away
10. your name and your vestige from the living, and with evil death

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 17, 2016

11. may they kill you, and may they cause your offspring to perish. But if
12. you guard these (lit. this) image and these remains
13. in the future may yours be guarded.

The Inscription of Si’gabbar

Transcription
 1. s’gbr kmr shr bnrb
 2. znh Òlmh bÒdqty qdmwh
 3. smny sm †b wh’rk ywmy
 4. bywm mtt pmy l’t’Ìz mn mln
 5. wb¨yny mÌzh ’nh bny rb¨ bkwn
 6. y whwm ’thmw wlsmw ¨my m’n
 7. ksp wnÌs ¨m lbsy smwny lm¨n
 8. l’Ìrh lthns ’rÒty mn ’t t¨sq
 9. wthnsny shr wnkl wnsk yhb’sw
10. mmtth w’Ìrth t’bd
Vocalization
 1. si’gabbar kumr sahr banerab
 2. ∂anâ Òalmih baÒidqatî qudmawih
 3. samnî sum †ab waha’rik yawmî
 4. bayawm matit pumî la’it’aÌiz min milan
 5. waba¨aynî miÌzâ ’anâ binay rabi¨ bakûnî
 6. wahûm ’ithamû walasamû ¨immî ma’n
 7. kasp wanuÌas ¨im lubusî samûnî lima¨n
 8. li’aÌarâ latihunas ’erÒitî man ’att(a) ti¨suq
 9. watihanisnî sahr wanikkal wanusk yihab’isû
10. mamotatih wa’aÌratih ti’bud

Translation
 1. Si’gabbar (is) a priest of Sahr at Nerab,
 2. This is his image. Because of my righteousness before him,
 3. he established a good name for me and prolonged my days.
 4. On the day I died, my mouth was not closed from (speaking) words,
 5. and with my eyes I was looking at children of the fourth generation. They
wept for
 6. me and were greatly disturbed. And they did not place with me any vessel
 7. of silver or bronze. With my garment they placed me, so that
 8. in the future my remains would not be taken away. Whoever you are who
do wrong
 9. and take me away, may Sahr and Nikkal and Nusk make his death odious,
10. and may his posterity perish.

First, I will briefly discuss a few perennial cruxes of the texts that still
remain without any satisfactory solutions.
22
 THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

’rÒth (I:4): the most common translation for this word is ‘sar-
cophagus’ in connection with BH ¨eres, Ugaritic ¨rs, Akkadian ersu
(NSI: 187–8; Torrey 1912: 90; Gevirtz 1961: 184; Koopmans
1962: 92; KAI 2: 275; Segert 1975: 527; DNWSI: 113; Gropp
1997: 128; etc.). It fits well both in the textual and archaeological
contexts.3 The obvious problem with this interpretation is the insur-
mountable phonological difficulty in deriving the Aramaic ’rÒt from
the proto-Semitic form *¨rs. As for the phonetic change /¨/ > /’/, OA
and by and large OfA retained the independent articulation of the
pharyngeals (/¨/ and /Ì/) and glottals (/’/ and /h/), and only by the

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 17, 2016

time of Middle Aramaic, did the two phonemes begin to be con-
fused, as evidenced by the fact that two graphemes aleph and ¨ayin
were interchanged frequently or dropped altogether (cf. Moscati
1964: §8. 56). More problematic is the change from s to Ò. Another
main difficulty with this view is that none of the proposed cognates
of the’rÒt of our text is attested with the meaning of ‘sarcophagus’,
and the regular term for ‘sarcophagus’ is aranu in Akkadian, ’arôn in
BH (1x in Gen. 50:26), ’rn and Ìlt in Phoenician, and ’rn’ in OfA
and later Aramaic (cf. Marcus 1975: 85–91).
The second interpretation of ’rÒt is to relate it to Akkadian erÒetu
‘the earth, the nether world’, used here in the restricted sense of
‘grave’ (Driver 1935: 49; Kutscher 1965: 42; Gibson 1975: 96;
etc.). This explanation creates no phonological problem. Though one
could contend that in OA orthography ’rq is expected here as a cog-
nate of Akkadian erÒetu, it can be resolved by the argument that ’rÒt
in the Nerab inscriptions represents a direct loan from Akkadian
erÒetu due to its special meaning, since ’rÒ /q in Northwest Semitic is
not used in the sense of ‘underworld’, let alone ‘grave’. Meanwhile, in
Akkadian, erÒetu, together with qeberu, occurs with the concrete
sense of burial ground (CAD E: 313). However, the plausibility of
this view is seriously undermined by the fact that ’rÒt in the Nerab
inscriptions is nothing like a plot of land used for burial as in
Akkadian, but something that can be removed from its burial site.

3
 The image of the priest incised on the stele must be referred to by the Òlmh of the
inscription. Thus, it is tempting to identify ’rÒth (I:4) and ’rÒty (II:8) with the sar-
cophagus containing two skeletons found at the same location. Besides the sarcopha-
gus, a golden cylinder, a bronze figurine of a male deity and a female deity, etc. were
also found. For the circumstantial account of their findings, see Clermont-Ganneau
1897: 183–7. The systematic excavation of the site was carried out by a French team
in 1926 and 1927, and produced 27 neo-Babylonian tablets inter alia. For the ar-
chaeological report of these excavations, see Barrois and Carrière 1926; Barrois and
Abel 1928.

23
 THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

According to the third solution, proposed by Kaufman (1974:

50), the cuneiform parallel to Nerab ’rÒt is eÒittu ‘bone, skeleton’
which appears in the phrase a-na kimaÌÌi u e-Òi-it-ti sú-a-ti ‘against
that sarcophagus and (those) remains (?)’ in the mortuary inscription
of Shamash-ibni, an Aramaean tribal chief in the time of the
Assyrian king Ashur-etil-ilâni (626–18 BCE) (Clay 1915: 60–1). This
translation agrees well with the context as well as with the ancient
Semitic preoccupation with the preservation of the remains of the
dead.4 Furthermore, eÒittu (also eÒemtu) with the meaning of ‘bone,
remains’ is well attested in Akkadian (CAD E: 341– 3). One obvious

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 17, 2016

problem of this interpretation, as pointed out by Kaufman himself, is
that, ‘the r of the Aramaic form is disturbing but not impossible to
account for’ (1974: 50). However, on this insertion of r he does not
offer an explanation. Meanwhile, P.-E. Dion sees the insertion of r in
’rÒt in the light of krs’ ‘throne’ (Barr I:7; also khs’ in Sf III:17 which is
probably an error for krs’), which is compared to Akkadian kussu (cf.
another Akkadian form kurse), though he also recognizes that the
gemination of s in kussu (also reflected in BH kisse’) makes a differ-
ence from the non-gemination of Ò in eÒittu (personal communica-
tion, 1998).5 The cumulative evidence from philology, textual and
archaeological context, and ancient Near Eastern mortuary customs,
seems to indicate that Kaufman’s interpretation should be regarded as
superior at least provisionally.
thns (I:6): Clermont-Ganneau, assuming that the t and h of thns
are prefixes, has already raised the possibility of such etymologies as
Hebrew nss or nws ‘to flee’, Aramaic ’ns ‘to demolish, rob, compel’,
and the common Semitic ns’ ‘to lift’ (1897: 197 – 8). Since then, the
third of these options has been followed by most subsequent schol-
ars. The first suggestion, a C-stem (or G) imperfect of ’ns (NSI: 188;
Gibson 1975: 16; etc.), has a serious problem in that it cannot ex-
plain the disappearance of aleph, because etymological aleph was
regularly represented orthographically even in a syllable-closing posi-
tion in OA, probably still retaining its consonantal value (see infra
the discussion under yh’bd).6 The second interpretation of thns takes
it as G-stem (or D?) imperfect of a so far unattested root hns
(DNWSI: 290). However, the complete absence in other Semitic lan-
4
 It is especially well reflected in the Phoenician funerary inscriptions such as the
inscriptions of AÌiram, Tabnit, and Eshmunazar.
5
 Or one can imagine a complex development, eÒemtu > eÒertu > ’rÒt.
6
 Cooke notes that in the Targums, h is written for the aleph of ’ns, as hyk for ’yk,
hlw for ’ly (NSI: 188). But this cannot be applied to OA, since confusion among the
pharyngeals and the glottals became common only after the Middle Aramaic phase.

24
 THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

guages and extreme rarity in Aramaic of such a root makes this op-
tion less attractive.7 The third and best option, a C-stem imperfect of
nws (Degen 1969: 76; KAI 2: 275; Hug 1993: 85; etc.), causes no
serious linguistic problem. Some reluctance to accept nws as the root
behind thns comes from the fact that the basic meaning of nws is
intransitive ‘to flee, to escape’, while thns of the Nerab inscriptions
is contextually transitive ‘to remove (something)’. But BH has the
G-stem of nws used figuratively in the sense of ‘to be gone, to disap-
pear’,8 and in the C-stem it is used for a concrete object with the
sense of ‘to cause to disappear, to hide’, i.e. l¢hanîs in Judg. 6:10 ‘to

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 17, 2016

hide (wheat from the Midianites)’.
’sr-k (I:10): the majority of scholars have translated this word as
‘(your) place’ (Clermont-Ganneau 1897: 193; NSI: 186; KAI 2:
275; Segert 1975: 527; Gibson 1975: 96; Hug 1993: 142; Gropp
1997: 128; etc.), which is the most common meaning of the Proto-
Semitic root *’tr in West Semitic, and is an obvious meaning of ’sr-h
of line eight. The translation ‘your happiness’ (cf. BH ’oser/’asrê ‘hap-
piness’ and Neo-Punic ’sr in KAI 145:11) also seems possible. But
the best contextual meaning of ’sr-k is ‘(your) vestige or achievement’
(DNWSI: 127). This interpretation is further supported by the
meaning of ’sr in the Zakkur inscription, since the curse formula of
Zakkur B shows a striking similarity with that of Nerab I. In Zakkur,
’sr also appears with two different meanings: wk[tbt. b]h. ’yt[.] ’sr. ydy
[. wkl.] mn. yhg¨. ’[sr. ydy]. zkr. mlk. Ìm[t. wl]¨s. mn. nÒb’. znh[.]
wm[n. y]hg¨. nÒb’. znh. mn. q[d]m. ’lwr. wyhnsnh. m[n.] [’s]rh (B:14 –
21) ‘I wrote on it the achievement of my hands. And whoever re-
moves the achievement of the hands of Zakkur, king of Hamath and
Lu¨uth, from this stele, and whoever removes this stele from before
Ilu-wer and takes away from its place…’ The meaning of ’sr as
‘achievement, vestige, legacy’ depends on Arabic ’atr ‘trace, vestige,
tradition, etc.’ or ’atara ‘remainder, remnant, faint trace, vestige’
which should be a further semantic development of BH ’asar ‘to ad-
vance, proceed’ or ’asur ‘(foot)step, going’. Such a meaning of ’sr is
further supported by a comparison with a recurrent warning against
altering, erasing or destroying the list of the accomplishments of the
king in Akkadian royal inscriptions. For example, ’sr ydy of Zakkur is
the functional equivalent of the common Akkadian expression epes
7
 Outside of the Nerab inscriptions (also lthns in Nrb II:8, wthnsny in Nrb II:9),
this root is attested once in OA (yhnsnh in Zk B:20) and once in OfA (mns in
Herm ii:3).
8
 With such subjects as ‘vigour’ (Deut. 34:7), ‘shadows’ (Song 2:17), and ‘sorrow’
(Isa. 35:10; 51:11).

25
 THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

(epset) / lipit (liptat) qati ‘accomplishments of my (the king’s) hands’

(Tawil 1974: 52, no. 93).
mÌzh (II:5): this form has been interpreted by some as a G-stem
masculine singular participle of Ìzh with a prefixed shortened form
of the interrogative pronoun mh, thus translating ‘(with my own
eyes) what do I see?’ (NSI: 190; KAI 2: 276; Gropp 1997: 128;
etc.). Apart from its awkward syntax, this view is not satisfactory be-
cause it creates a morphological problem. In OA and OfA mh as an
interrogative pronoun or an indefinite relative pronoun stands alone
(Sf I B:26; III:3; H 12; Herm iv:5; etc.), and as an indefinite rela-

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 17, 2016

tive pronoun or adverb, it can be prefixed only to zy in orthography
(e.g. mz ‘whatever’ in H 3, 4, 22), though even then not always (e.g.
mh zy ‘in whatever way’ in Sf III:16). Thus, the orthography of
mÌzh, if it is interrogative, is otherwise unattested. The second inter-
pretation of mÌzh is a D-stem participle, with the translation ‘(with
my eyes) I was beholding’ (Gibson 1975: 98; Degen 1969: 78, no.
82; Hug 1993: 86; DNWSI: 360; etc.). Even though it is syntacti-
cally superior, this view also cannot be accepted because of one fatal
morphological problem, the fact that Ìzh never occurs in the
D-stem for the transitive verb ‘to behold, to see’ in any of the West
Semitic languages.
Confronted with the difficulties of the previous explanations, I
propose as an alternative to read mÌzh as a G-stem infinitive absolute
used as a substitute for the finite verb of the past tense. This proposal
eliminates all morphological problems. It appeared to be established
fact that in OA, including Sam’alian, the G-stem infinitive of a
strong verb is always spelled without the preformative m-,9 in con-
trast to later Aramaic mqtl. The consensus on this changed dramati-
cally, however, with the discovery of the Fekherye inscription, where
all G-stem infinitives are written with the preformative m-: lm’rk (7),
lmld (9), lmsm¨ (9), lmlqÌ (10). Meanwhile, at the early stage of OfA,
both forms of the G-stem infinitive, with and without m-, are at-
tested — lmslÌ (Adon Papyrus 7) vs. qrq (Ashur Ostracon 9). How-
ever, already in Egyptian Aramaic, and in later OfA and also in BA,
miqtal became a dominant form, and the infinitive without m- sur-
vived only in the fossilized quotation formula l’mr — lm¨bd (Xanthos
7), lmslÌ (TAD A 1.1:7), lmbnyh (TAD A 4.7:23, 25; A 4.9:8), lmsbq
(TAD C 1.1:92), lm’∞mr (TAD C 1.1:163), mns’ (TAD C 1.1:170),
etc. vs. l’mr (Ashur ostracon 8, 10, 17; Herm i:6; about 50x in EA)

9
 Fitzmyer’s reading lmslÌ in Sf I B:34, which is interpreted as a G-stem infinitive
(1995: 112), has been corrected to lyslÌ (Degen 1969: 15; Kaufman 1982: 151).

26
 THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

(cf. Muraoka and Porten 1998: 106). Therefore, it seems plausible

that mÌzh in our text represents the transitional period when the G-
stem infinitive mqtl which was once a dialectal feature of Gozan Ara-
maic was becoming a more dominant form in OfA as against qtl
which was the dominant form in OA.
The use of the infinitive absolute as a substitute for a finite verb
can be traced back to the earliest stage of West Semitic, and it is
found in Ugaritic, the Canaanite of the Amarna letters, Phoenician,
BH and Syriac (cf. Moran 1950; Rubinstein 1952; Huesman 1956a,
1956b).10 Even though its origin and distinctive syntatic nuance in

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 17, 2016

comparison to a finite verb (purely stylistic or semantic?) still remain
obscure, the infinitive absolute as a legitimate variant of a finite verb
persisted in use in West and South Semitic. In this light, it should
not be a surprise that we encounter in the Nerab inscription the first
example of the infinitive absolute replacing a finite verb in OA.11

OA, OfA and the Nerab Inscriptions

We turn to the specific linguistic features of the Nerab inscriptions

relevant to the discussion of the linguistic phases of OA and OfA.

Phonology and Orthography

1. znh (I:3, 7; II:2), z’ (I:12), zy (I:14), l’t’Ìz (II:4): the proto-
Semitic interdental voiced fricative */∂/ is represented by the graph-
eme z in OA, and by d or less often by z in OfA. The regular form
for the masculine singular demonstrative pronoun in OA is znh (Zk
A:17, Barr I:20, Sf I A:36, P:22, etc.), but zn with a defective spell-
ing in Sam’alian (H 1, 14, 16; P 1, 20). Two concurrent spellings
znh/’ and dnh/’ in OfA and predominantly dnh/’ with rare exceptions
of the archaic spelling znh in later Aramaic show that the transition
in the orthographic representation of the proto-Semitic */∂/ took
place during the OfA phase. Likewise, the feminine singular demon-
strative pronoun z’ in OA (Sf I A:35, 37; III: 9) becomes z’ and dh in
OfA, and thenceforth d’/h with rare exceptions of the archaic z’/h.
2. ’sr (I:8, 10): the proto-Semitic interdental voiceless fricative
*/q/ is represented by the grapheme s in OA, and usually by t or oc-
casionally by s in OfA.
10
 Outside of West Semitic, it is also attested in Old South Arabian, Ethiopic and
Arabic (Moran 1950: 171–2), but there is no firm evidence for it in Akkadian.
11
 One can even wonder whether some qtl finite verbs in OA might be in fact
infinitives.

27
 THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

3. tnÒr (I:12), ynÒr (I:13): the proto-Semitic interdental emphatic

fricative */q/ is represented by the grapheme Ò in OA, and predomi-
nantly by † or rarely by Ò in OfA.

PS BH OA OfA MA/LA Ug Akk CA

*d/∂ [∂] z z‫ז‬ z‫ז‬/d‫ד‬ d‫ד‬ d/d z d
*t/q [q] s s‫ש‬ s‫ש‬/t‫ת‬ t‫ת‬ t s t
*∂ [t√’] Ò q‫ק‬ q ‫ק‬/ ¨ ‫ע‬ ¨‫ע‬ Ò / g(?) Ò ∂

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 17, 2016

* q [q’] Ò Ò‫צ‬ Ò‫צ‬/†‫ט‬ †‫ט‬ q/g Ò Â

Fig. 1. Graphemic Correspondences of the Semitic Sibilants

4. mwt (I:10), ywmy (II:3), bywm (II:4), b¨yny (II:5): the diph-
thongs in qatl type nouns with the second weak radical w/y did not
contract in the Nerab inscriptions, with one possible, though uncer-
tain, exception mmtth (II:10). Since both in OA and OfA, the situa-
tion involving the diphthongs is similar, they have no merit for
comparative purposes. That is, the diphthongs in general did not
contract, though the supposedly exceptional examples of mono-
thongization have been increasing both in OA and OfA (cf. Folmer
1995: 173–83; Muraoka and Porten 1998: 36–8). So far, in OA, at
least, three words with contracted diphthongs, often alongside
uncontracted ones, have been found — i.e. bt (Fek 17) and bty (Zk
B:9) vs. byth (Fek 8) and byt (Zk B:12), ¨lh ‘to it’ (Sf I A:32) vs.¨lyh
(Sf III:9), and bnyhm ‘among them’ (Sf III:18 bis, 19).12 In
12
 The editors of the editio princeps of the Fekherye inscription note diphthongs,
ay in lÌyy (7), lhwy (12), Ìywh (14), ty†tb (15), m’ny’ (16), yrwy (21bis), and aw in
dmwt’ (1, 15), ’Ìwh (4), tÒlwth (5, 9), the second w of ywmwh (7), snwh (8), ’nswh (9,
14), Ìywh (14), mwh (17, 18) (1982: 40–1). However, further delineation seems
necessary. First, lÌyy (7) is a D-stem infinitive construct of the root Ìyy, pronounced
either laÌayyay or laÌayyî which is not subject to the diphthongal reduction. Sec-
ond, y in lhwy (12) and yrwy (21 bis) is morphographemic for the so-called
‘Kurzimperfekt’ in contrast to ‘Langimperfekt’, and its phonetic value is uncertain.
While Degen makes an assertion that -y of the ‘Kurzimperfekt’ indicates /ay/ in con-
trast to /ê/ for -h of the ‘Langimperfekt’ (1969: 28–9, 38), Dion argues that the final
-y of ybny, a ‘Kurzimperfekt’ in Sam’alian represents /i/ (1974: 187–8, 220), and
Muraoka, while he rightly points out that ¨/i/ is only one of the possible values that
one can assign to the final y’, maintains, on the basis of another ‘Kurzimperfekt’ wy¨nny
(Zk A:11), that ‘the y in question in OA does not indicate the diphthong’ (1983–4:
85). Third, y in ty†b (15), a D-stem prefixed conjugation, is part of a trithong and is
not supposed to contract. Fourth, in the case of m’ny’ (16), vocalized ma’nayya’, y

28
 THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

Sam’alian, examples of monophthongization are ample — ymy (H 9,

10, 12; but ywmyh in P 9, ywmy in P 10, 18), msb ‘throne’ (H 8, 15,
20, 25; but hwsbt ‘I made (gods) dwell’ in H 19, hwsbny in P 19),
lbn’ ‘to build’ (H 13, 14; but lbny in H10, bnyt in H 14), tgltplsr (P
13, 15, 16; cf. also Ashur 15; but tgltplysr in Barr I:3, 6). After all,
these supposedly exceptional attestations of monophthongization in
OA are frequent enough to invalidate Cross and Freedman’s thesis
that ‘there is no evidence for the contraction of the diphthongs, ay
and aw, in OA under any circumstances’ (EHO: 24, no. 4).13 In light
of the preceding observation, the common acknowledgment that

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 17, 2016

monophthongization originated from Phoenician and spread to
other Semitic languages can be challenged. It seems equally possible,
if not more likely, that monophthongization was a shared innovation
among the Northwest Semitic languages, but with different degrees
of consistency.
The forms of the word for ‘day’ deserve a comment. It is now
widely accepted that there were two PS forms for the word ‘day’, i.e.
*yamu (BH plural yamim, Ugaritic ya-mu in Ugaritica V 138: 2, Ara-
bic plural ayyam) and *yawmu (BH singular yôm, Arabic singular
yawm and its derivative muyawama ‘day labor’, OA ywm). As a rule,
in the Canaanite languages, the short form ym is employed (Ugaritic
ym, Phoenician ym, Moabite ym, Epigraphic Hebrew ym, BH yôm),
with one rare execption, ywmt in the Ammonite Tell Siran Bottle in-
scription. The short form ym in West Semitic could have derived his-
torically either from the contraction of the diphthong or from the PS
*yamu. In OA, the situation is exactly opposite, as we find the conso-
nantal element of the diphthong aw uncontracted — ywm (Sf I
A:12, I B:31, I C:20, II B:12; Nrb II:4), ywmh (Sf I C:15f ); ywmwh
(Fek 7); ywmyhm (Sf II C:17) with exceptions only in the Sam’alian
dialect, in which both the contracted forms, ymy (H 9, 10, 12), and
the uncontracted forms, ywmy (P 10, 18) and ywmyh (P 9), were em-
ployed. In OfA, the contracted form ym is attested increasingly more

which is the ending of the masculine plural noun in the emphatic state, is not a kind
of diphthong that should contract. Fifth, w in dmwt’ (1, 15) and tÒlwth (5, 9) is more
likely an internal mater lectionis for damûta and taÒlûteh. Sixth, w in ’Ìwh (4)ywmwh
(7) snwh (8) ’nswh (9, 14), Ìywh (14), mwh (17, 18), is part of the third masculine
singular pronominal suffix on plural nouns -wy, and therefore is not supposed to
contract.
13
 Similarly, Degen does not offer any example of the contraction of aw and ay,
except ay > /ê/, which is indicated by the vowel letter h, in the long imperfect of the
III-y verbs (1969: 39). Also about the preposition in bnyhm (Sf. III:18 bis, 19), he
states, ‘Vielleicht liegt im Aa. eine andere Nominalform vor’ (1969: 62, no. 39a).

29
 THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

often, though ywm is still more frequent than ym (e.g. kymn in Ashur
Ostracon 16 vs. kywmy Adon Papyrus 3).
5. hwm (II:6), cf. yk†lwk (I:11), bkwny (II:5–6), smwny (II:7):14
the strictly consonantal Phoenician orthography underwent a major
modification, i.e. the orthographic representation of the final long
vowels, when the Phoenician alphabet was adopted by the
Aramaeans. This principle of the consistent representation of the fi-
nal long vowels in OA was in time extended to the sporadic use of
internal vowel letters for medial long vowels in OA, though the me-
dial /a/ was never indicated by vowel letters. In the past, the apparent

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 17, 2016

paucity of the internal vowel letters was well recognized (cf. Degen
1969: 27, Dion 1974: 71–7). For example, Cross and Freedman
find only one certain example, ’swr (Barr I:9), in the entire corpus
that they deem OA (EHO: 30). However, the examples of internal
vowel letters are not in insignificant number — mÌnwt ‘armies’ (Zk
A:9), swr’ ‘rampart’ (Zk A:17), ymwt ‘he dies’ (Sf I A:36), byr’ ‘well’
(Sf I B:34), kym ‘like’ (Sf III:1), rwÌ ‘breath’ (Sf III:2), sybt ‘return/
turnabout’ (Sf III:16), sÌlyn ‘cresson (watercress)’ (Sf III: 24),
tgltplysr (Barr I:3; II:1–2), ’swr (Barr I:9) — even after excluding
contested forms such as qwh ‘Que’ (Zk I:7), tw’∞m ‘Tu’im?’ (Sf I
A:34), y¨wdn ‘he will bear witness?’ (Sf II B:4). Furthermore, the
situation surrounding the internal matres lectionis in OA drastically
changed with the discovery of the Fekherye inscription, which exhib-
its the extraordinarily frequent use of the internal matres lectionis,
compared to other OA inscriptions — w for /u/ or /o/15: dmwt’ (1),
gwgl (2, 4), ¨dqwr (3), tÒlwth (5, 9), gwzn (6, 7, 13), ssnwry (7), Ìbwr
(16 ), tnwr (22); y for /î/ or /ê/: ’lhyn (4), smym (11), ysym (12), s¨ryn
(19), prys (19), nyrgl (23).16 This situation seems to indicate a further
development from what Fitzmyer, writing before the discovery of the
Fekherye inscription, calls ‘the inceptive use’ of the internal vowel

14
 yk†lwk (I:11), bkwny (II:5–6), and smwny (II:7) have internal vowel letters that
are in actuality final vowels, with the pronominal suffixes attached to them.
15
 The precise quality of this medial vowel letter w is uncertain sometimes. Andersen
and Freedman’s assumption that the medial mater lectionis w always represents /û/
seems to be precarious (1992: 166–7). According to Muraoka, /u/, /u/ or /o/ is repre-
sented by the medial w — for example, probably ’adaqur, gugal, sasnurî and certainly
gozan, Ìabor (1983–4: 85–6).
16
 This orthographic difference of Gozan Aramaic should be attributed to the
Akkadian-Aramaic bilingual environment of the region. The plethora of Akkadian
personal names and Akkadian loan words among these early examples of the internal
vowel letters provides compelling evidence for Muraoka’s contention that ‘foreign
words and names may have served as a major catalyst for the development of matres
lectionis, whether medial or final’ (1983–4: 86).

30
 THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

letters (Fitzmyer 1979: 80, no. 50). However, Muraoka’s thesis that
‘in our inscription the use of word-medial matres lectionis is the norm
rather than the exception’ seems a bit overstated (1983–4: 87). The
absence of the expected internal vowel letters, i.e. w, in yld ‘he re-
moves’ (11) (cf. ysym ‘he puts’ in line 12) and y in plural forms such
as ’lhn ‘gods’ (14), ’nsn ‘men’ (14), s¨rn ‘barley’ (22) (cf. ’lhyn in line
4, s¨ryn in line 19), shows the inconsistent use of the internal vowel
letters even in the Fekherye inscription. That is, even in the Gozan
dialect of OA, the internal vowel letters, at least y, are only optional.
The use of internal vowel letters in the Nerab inscriptions still

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 17, 2016

conforms to the general rule of the earlier OA inscriptions, except
the Fekherye inscription, in that the internal vowel letters are often
absent, as in the C-stem of the II w/y verb (thns in I:6, lthns in II:8,
wthnsny in II:9) and at the place of the contracted diphthong (mmtth
in II:10). However, the orthography of hwm (II:6) exhibits one
marked departure from OA. In OA, the conjugations, especially the
C-stem, of the II-w/y verbs of the /u/ or /i/ theme vowels have an
extremely rare orthographic representation of the internal long vow-
els that rise from the historical spelling of originally contracted diph-
thongs — only two or three examples, ymwt ‘he dies’ (Sf III:16),
ysym ‘he puts’ (Fek 12) and possibly y¨wdn ‘he will bear witness’ (Sf II
B:4) — and the vowel letters are never used in the infinitive and
imperative. But, such orthographic representation began to appear
much more frequently, almost as a regular feature, in OfA (e.g. qwm
‘Arise’ in TAD D 7.24:5, sym ‘Put’ in TAD A 4.3:10, htyb ‘he re-
turned’ TAD B 2.9:7; etc.).
6. ysÌw (I:9), ’t (I:5, II:8), but tnÒr (I:12), ynÒr (I:13): in OA, as a
rule, within a word, etymological n, not immediately followed by a
vowel, was assimilated to the following consonant. Though a few ex-
ceptions to this n-assimilation in OA have been suggested,17 there is
only one unequivocal example, mhnÌt ‘bestower’ (Fek 2), besides two
in the Nerab inscription (cf. yÒrw in Sf I C:15, lyÒr in Sf I C:17).
From OfA, the orthographic representation of n in I-n and III-n
verbs and in nouns with etymological n (e.g. ’np, ’nth, ’nt, etc.) be-
came much more frequent than the forms with assimilated n — e.g.
ysÌw (Nrb I:9) vs. ynsÌwhy ‘they will remove him’ (Teima A:14), ’t
(Nrb I:5, II:8) vs. ’nt in OfA, etc. The frequent assimilation of n in
the Hermopolis papyri should be seen as a feature of colloquial
17
 Fitzmyer thinks tnt¨ (Sf I B:29) is the only exception to the n-assimilation in the
Sefire inscriptions, but division of the word is contested (1995: 110). Certainly lnÒb
(H 10) cannot be an example of this exception, since the form is clearly an infinitive
construct of either G- or D-stem, which requires a vowel after n.

31
 THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

Egyptian Aramaic, by contrast with the more literary Elephantine

Aramaic (EA) where n normally does not assimilate — ’tnnh ‘I
would give it’ (Herm iv:5; viii:12) and ntnhy ‘we shall give it’ (Herm
iv:7) vs. ’ntnnh ‘I shall give it’ (TAD B 4.6:5, cf. also ’ntn ‘I shall give’
in TAD B 2.1:7, passim) and nntn ‘we shall give’ (TAD B 2.11:10,
passim), mpqn ‘bringing (C-stem participle)’ (Herm v:3) and ’pqny
‘he brought me out (C-stem perfect)’ (Herm vi:4) vs. mnpqh ‘bring-
ing out (C-stem participle)’ (TAD C Ev1:15; C Ev2:6) and hnpqh
‘(the broken one) brought it out (C-stem perfect)’ (TAD C 1.1:93),
’pyk(y) ‘your face’ (Herm i:2, ii:2, iii:2, iv:2, vi:2) vs. ’npwhy ‘his face’

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 17, 2016

(TAD C 1.1: 115, passim, but rarely ’pyky ‘your face’ in TAD D
7.16:12), lmÌth ‘to bring down (C-stem infinitive)’ (Herm v:6) vs.
lmnÌt ‘to bring down’ (TAD C 3.16:1) or lmnÌtwth ‘to bring it
down’ (TAD C 1.1:171), md¨m ‘anything, something’ (Herm i:10,
iv:10, v:2, but mnd¨m in Herm v:4) vs. mnd¨m (TAD C 1.1:85, pas-
sim, but also less frequently md¨m in TAD B 4.1:3, 4), mpy ‘Mem-
phis’ (Herm ii:3) vs. mnpy (TAD A 4.2:11, passim). Under the influ-
ence of common orthographic representation of etymological n in
OfA, a new analogous development of spelling of non-etymological
n took place, as a result of the dissimilation of gemination replaced
by nasalization. Thus, y¨l (√ ¨ll ‘to go up’) (Sf I B:35) became yn¨l in
OfA (cf. Beyer 1984: 90–1; Folmer 1995: 74–94).
7. yk†lwk (I:11): the dissimilation of the emphatic q to voiceless
k, followed by another emphatic † or Ò within the same word, takes
place inconsistently in OA — i.e. two dissimilated forms kyÒ’ (Barr
I:19) and yk†lwk (Nrb I:11), but undissimilated llq†w (Fek 22)18 —
and the direction of the dissimilation q > k is always regressive, as no
dissimilation occurs in Òdqty (Nrb II:2), Òdq (Barr I:4, 4–5; II:5),
(*∂¯rq >) qrq ‘to flee’ (Sf III:4). The same situation continued in OfA,
as we find that the only unquestionable examples of the dissimilation
of emphatic consonants are regressive q > k before † or Ò — e.g. kÒph
‘his anger’ (TAD C 1.1:85, 101), hkÒr ‘harvest’ (TAD C 1.1:127),
kÒyr ‘harvest’ (TAD C 1.1:127), ksy†’ ‘upright’ (TAD C 1.1:158), bkÒt
‘in part’ (TAD C 3.11:9), krÒy ‘slander’ (Carpentra 2), etc. — along-
side undissimilated forms such as q†l ‘to kill’ (i.e. no k†l is attested in

18
 For the problem of the inconsistent dissimilation of q > k in OA, Garr proposes
a solution that dissimilation was restricted only to word-initial q (1985: 45). Though
it is true that Garr’s theory is supported by the examples in the corpus of his study,
specimens investigated seem to be too few for such a generalization. Furthermore, it is
hard to find any reason for such a phonological difference between word-initial q
followed by † and non-word-initial q followed by †. It also needs to be noted that from
OfA on, even word-initial q is not always dissimilated.

32
 THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

OfA), qÒth ‘its part’ (TAD A 2.2:7) (cf. Folmer 1995: 94–6, Muraoka
and Porten 1998: 18).
The spelling k†l in Nerab is preceded by OA qtl — e.g. ’qtl (Tell
Dan 6), yqtlnh (Sf I B:27), yqtl (Sf II B:8), qtlw (Sf III:21), qtylt
(P 8) — and followed by OfA q†l. The same variety is also attested in
the other Semitic languages, i.e. qtl in OA, Akkadian, Arabic, and
Ethiophic; k†l in Nerab; q†l in OfA and Hebrew.19 Among the three
proposed proto-Semitic forms, *qtl, *k†l and *q†l (cf. Dion 1974:
111–14), *qtl is accepted by most scholars (Brockelmann 1983:
§54h; Bauer and Leander 1927: 33; Moscati 1969: §9.3; Degen

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 17, 2016

1969: 41; Garr 1985: 72, no. 168; etc.). According to this view, *qtl
became, by the assimilation of t to the emphatic q, *q†l, which in
turn became k†l by the dissimilation of q before another emphatic
consonant. This diachronic development raises more questions than
it solves problems. First, the so-called ‘emphaticization’ of t in the
environ of another emphatic consonant is alien in Aramaic and other
West Semitic languages. Such assimilation of t is attested in
Akkadian and Arabic, but only in a very specific circumstance, i.e.
the infixed t immediately following an emphatic sound (i.e., without
vocalic interception) in the verbal conjugation — e.g. Akkadian
aqtirib ‘I approached’ > aq†irib; Arabic ’iÒtabaga ‘it was dyed’
’iÒ†abaga (cf. Moscati, 1969: § 9.3; Huehnergard, 1997: 589). Mean-
while, in Akkadian, both progressive and regressive dissimilation of †
to t in words that also contain q or Ò is a well-established rule, the so-
called Geers's Law (cf. von Soden 1952: § 51e; Huehnergard 1997:
588). Thus, the change *q†l > *qtl seems more probable than *qtl >
*q†l. Second, the proposed order of the subsequent diachronic devel-
opment from *qtl is chronologically reversed, as k†l in Nerab is ante-
rior to q†l in later Aramaic.
The second PS form *q†l was first suggested by Kutscher.20 Ac-
cording to him, the PS *q†l became, by dissimilation, either k†l of
Nerab or qtl of OA. This suggestion also has its own difficulties.
First, the incompatibility of two emphatic consonants was not a
norm in West Semitic as it was in Akkadian. Second, even if dissimi-
lation occurred in *q†l, the expected change in Aramaic would be q >
k in comparison to † > t in Akkadian, and thus the expected Aramaic
form is not qtl of OA but k†l of Nerab. Third, it does not explain
why this dissimilation was restricted only to the OA phase and not
operative any more in OfA.
19
 q†l in Hebrew (Job 24:14, 13:15; Ps. 139:19) could be an Aramaism.
20
 He has been quoted by many scholars, but I could not find his article in Asian
and African Studies 2 (1966).

33
 THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

To account for all these difficulties, I propose a trifurcated dia-

chronic development of the original form *q†l. First, Hebrew re-
tained the original form *q†l. Second, the original *q†l became qtl
(Geers's Law), and this qtl was used in Akkadian and persisted into
Arabic and Ethiopic. Third, reflecting its susceptibility to cross-lin-
guistic influence and dialectal diversity, Aramaic had diverse forms.
In the OA phase, possibly under Akkadian influence, qtl was used.
Probably from the second half of the eighth century, a new Aramaic
innovation of the dissimilation q > k began to be adopted, but only
selectively (in the Barrakkib, Nerab, Ahiqar, etc.), depending on dia-

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 17, 2016

lects and time (extensive in Mandaic, but totally absent in BA),
which indicates that the dissimilation of q > k was just one of the
many orthographic options. The rare form k†l, which is extant only
in the Nerab inscription, was soon superseded by another competing
form q†l in the subsequent phase of OfA.21
8. yh’bdw (I:11), t’bd (II:10): in OA, as a rule an etymological
aleph, even in a syllable-closing position, was orthographically repre-
sented, probably still retaining its consonantal value, and no example
of aleph functioning as a mater lectionis has been found so far.22
Though several forms have been proposed as possible examples of eli-
sion of aleph in OA, only one, byr’ ‘well, pit’ (Sf I B:34), can be ac-
cepted with a reasonable degree of certainty, seeing that comparative
evidence overwhelmingly points to *bi’r (Ugaritic b’ir, BH b¢’er, Arabic
bi’r > bir, OSA b’r, Syriac (*bi’r >) bira, Mandaic (*bi’r >) byr’, etc.).
Moabite br (Mesha 24, 25) also, though not certain, seems more likely
to have derived from *bi’r, since in Moabite the syllable-closing aleph
was usually lost (cf. rs ‘chief ’ in Mesha 20, ryt ‘spectacle?’ in Mesha
21
 The same can be observed for *q†r ‘smoke’. First, the PS form *q†r represented
by Ugaritic q†r, persisted into BH q∞ô†oret ‘smoke, odour (of burning sacrifice)’. Sec-
ond, Akkadian qutru ‘smoke, fume’ succumbed to dissimilation and was followed by e
Arabic qutar ‘odour (of esp. roasted meat)’ and Ethiopic q∞¢tare ‘incense’. Third,
Targumic Aramaic qî†ra’ or qû†ra’ ‘smoke’ represents one of three forms that could
have been available throughout several phases of Aramaic, though the other two forms
are not extant.
22
 Thus, one can still defend Cross and Freedman’s thesis that ‘in Old Aramaic,
aleph regularly is consonantal, and is not used as a mater lectionis, exactly as in early
Moabite and Hebrew’ (EHO: 33). For a summary of the subsequent criticisms on
Cross and Freedman’s thesis and Fitzmyer’s defence of it, refer to Fitzmyer 1979: 64–
5. Note the further significant support of their thesis offered by Fitzmyer — that is,
‘the prefixed negative la is never written in these (OA) texts with an aleph; it is diffi-
cult to explain such a form if aleph were a real vowel letter in this phase, especially in
light of the subsequent development in Aramaic, where it is almost always written
separately and with final aleph, which has by this time become a vowel-letter’ (1997:
65).

34
 THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

12). Though it has been suggested that byr’ of OA is related to BH bôr

(< *bwr) (Folmer 1995: 121, no. 554), BH bôr itself could have de-
rived from *bu’r (cf. a variant spelling bo’r in 2 Sam. 23:15, 16, 20;
Akk bur) rather than *bwr which was a by-form of *b’r.
However, ’hbd ‘I will destroy’ of the Sefire inscription (II C: 5)
seems more likely a simple scribal error, in light of ’h’bd (Sf II C: 4)
of the previous line (Degen 1969: 71, no. 64; Fitzmyer 1995: 132;
Garr 1985: 49; etc.), though some scholars see here the loss of aleph
through quiescence as in later Aramaic (KAI 2: 263; Dupont-
Sommer 1958: 120–1; Segert 1964: 120; etc.). Likewise, mlkh

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 17, 2016

(Hamath graffito 1) is not necessarily the emphatic state with (-’ >)
-h (Beyer 1984: 104), but could be a form with the third masculine
pronominal suffix (Fitzmyer 1979: 80, no. 56; Folmer 1995: 121,
no. 554). After all, Beyer’s argument that ‘schwandt silbenschliess-
endes’ in der 2. Hälfte des 9. Jh.s v.Chr’ (1984: 105) remains to be
further substantiated.
In the Sam’alian dialect of OA, the use of aleph evinces its transi-
tion to become a vowel letter. Though, as in OA, the etymological
aleph is normally retained in spelling, a few words have been pro-
posed as instances of the elision of aleph. For example, Tropper offers
three examples of the loss of aleph, i.e. ’Ìz ‘I grasp’ (H 3) and ytmr ‘it
was commanded’ (H 10) in syllable-closing position, and qrny ‘he
called me’ (H 13) in intervocalic position (1993: 183). The first two
examples are not certain, but still remain possible. First, the syncope
of aleph in ’Ìz should be ascribed to its special circumstance, as
Trooper himself notes, i.e. ’’Ìz > ’Ìz as a result of the dissimilation of
double alephs (also Dion 1974: 120f). Second, ytmr should be ex-
plained as tG-stem imperfect with a progressive assimilation of aleph
to t: /yit’amVr/ > /yittamVr/ (Dion 1974: 108f ). Tropper’s other ex-
planation of this form as Gt-stem imperfect with the loss of the sylla-
ble-closing aleph (i.e. /yi’tamVr/ > /yîtamVr/) is unlikely, since aleph
in the syllable-closing position of the prefixed conjugation is mostly
retained in Sam’alian. But the third example, qrny, if it is taken as a
verb from qr’ instead of a noun ‘my strength’, is a plausible incidence
of the loss of the etymological aleph, which is probably the result of
the contraction of non-consonantal aleph, and thus anticipates the
interchangeability between III-aleph verbs and III-y verbs in later
Aramaic. In fact, already in Sam’alian, aleph and w/y were inter-
changeable in certain cases — e.g. lbny (H 10) vs. lbn’ (H 13);23

23
 But the sounds represented by them might be different, i.e. the diphthongal
sound /-ay/ in lbny is contracted to /-ê/ which is represented by aleph in lbn’.

35
 THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

spelling of the nota accusativi wt (H 28), like w/yt in later Aramaic, in

contrast to ’yt in OA (cf. Dion 1974: 164–5). Furthermore, there are
some unambiguous instances of aleph functioning as a vowel letter,
as in p’ ‘and (then)’ (H 17, 33; P 11, 22), w’ ‘and’ (H 13; P 5, 6, 12),
Ìr’ ‘burning anger’ (H 20), Ìm’ ‘anger’ (H 23), lyl’ ‘night’ (H 24), etc.
(cf. Dion 1974: 55–62; Tropper 1993: 172).
The elision of etymologically consonantal aleph becomes much
more frequent in OfA, though the forms with aleph preserved still
count the majority. It first occurs extensively in the Hermopolis pa-
pyri, where the quiescence of aleph contributes to fluidity in orthog-

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 17, 2016

raphy and higher frequency of defective spelling than in Elephantine
Aramaic. The C-stem of ’ty ‘to send/bring’ is mostly spelled without
aleph: htty (iv:6), ytwnh (vi:10), thytn (5:5), ytw (iii:12; iv:7; v:5),
yhtw (v:4), lmtyh (iii:11), lmytyt (iii:11). Another example is m†’ ‘to
reach’: m†tny (iv:4), tm†h (vi:5–6), but mt’h (iii:4), mt’k (iii:6). Also,
in the Hermopolis papyri, h and aleph are often interchangible: lh vs.
l’ (i:8), klh ‘entirely’ (iv:4), tm†h (vi:5/6), the emphatic particle -h in
ksph (ii:4, vi:6), sprh (i:12, ii:17, iii:13, iv:12, v:9, vi:10) vs. spr’
(vii:4), etc.24
9. thns (I:6), yh’bdw (I:11), lthns (II:8), thnsny (II:9), yhb’sw
(II:9): in OA, with the exception of Sam’alian,25 the syncope of the
intervocalic h in the prefixed conjugation of the C-stem and the
transition from Haphel to Aphel had not yet taken place. A couple of
forms that have been identified as Aphel with syncopated inter-
vocalic h are still disputed. First, yskr (Sf III:3) has been proposed ei-
ther as the earliest Aphel form (Fitzmyer 1995: 145) or as a simple
scribal mistake. Seeing that all four other verbal forms of the root skr
in Sefire inscription III (i.e., thskrhm in III:2, hskr in III:2, yhskr
III:3, yhskrn III:3) retain h, yskr in Sf III 3 seems more likely a scribal
error (Segert 1964: 121; Degen 1969: 19, no. 79; Greenfield 1965:
9, no. 24; etc.). Second, y¨brnh (Sf III:17) also has been identified as
an Aphel by the majority of scholars (Fitzmyer 1995: 156; Gibson
1975: 55; DNWSI: 821; etc). However, it also has been interpreted
as a G-stem imperfect from the Arabic verbal root gibru ‘to hate’
(Rosenthal 1960: 30; Degen 1969: 68, 80). Whatever explanation
might be correct for these forms, it is from the OfA phase, first con-
spicuously in the Hermopolis papyri, that the frequency of syn-
cope of the intervocalic h exceeds the possibility of being a scribal
error: 'skÌth (iv:4), ’skÌt (iv:9), ’trtn (iv:5), yÌzny (i:2; ii:2; iii:2; v:2),

24
 For the examples of the elision of aleph in Elephantine Aramaic, refer to Folmer
1995: 106–9; Muraoka and Porten 1998: 22.

36
 THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

yskÌ (ii:15), tsqÌ (iii:10), ’skÌ (ii:12), mns (ii:3), mlbs (iv:6), mpqn
(v:3), lmÌth (v:6).
At this point, it seems worthwhile to discuss briefly the history of
the transition of Haphel to Aphel. The idea that Haphel and Aphel
are two historically distinct verbal stems (Bauer and Leander 1927:
62) should be rejected. The so-called Aphel form, i.e. the suffixed
conjugation of the C-stem with the prosthetic aleph, developed by
analogy with the prefixed conjugation of the same stem without h af-
ter the syncope of the intervocalic h. That is, the paradigmatic pres-
sure for pattern levelling in accordance with the h-syncopated forms

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 17, 2016

of the prefixed conjugation caused the elision of h in the suffixed con-
jugation, and in its place, the prosthetic aleph as an indicator of zero-
sound was instated, and in this process, Akkadian influence, i.e. zero-
sound aleph for the proto-Semitic *h, might be present. This view is
supported by the following observations. First, long before the first
Aphel forms of the suffixed conjugation appeared first in the
Hermopolis papyri, the Aphel imperfect forms with the syncopated h
are amply attested, i.e. besides two contested forms in the Sefire in-
scriptions, all the C-stem prefixed conjugations in the Zinjirli inscrip-
tions, y’∞Ìrm (Caquot 3–4), etc. Second, even in the Elephantine texts,
the suffixed conjugation without h, i.e. the true Aphel form, is ex-
tremely rare in comparison to the prefixed conjugation without h (cf.
Folmer 1995: 126–7). However, the Hermopolis papyri, reflecting
colloquial Aramaic linguistically more advanced than contemporary
literary Elephantine Aramaic, exhibit a high proportion of the C-stem
conjugations without h over those with h (25 vs. 8) and the unusually
frequent attestation of the C-stem suffixed conjugation without h in
comparison to the C-stem prefixed conjugation with h (6 vs. 10). In
BA, the suffixed conjugation without h is still extremely rare, with
only one clear example ’qymh (Dan. 3:1). Only gradually, the ratio of
the suffixed conjugation without h to the prefixed conjugation with-
out h increased, as both forms became more frequent, and the transi-
tion from Haphel Aphel was completed by and large by the time of
the Roman period, though a few archaic Haphel forms in the suffixed
conjugation persisted even in Mandaic.26
25
 One of many dialectal peculiarities of Sam’alian Aramaic is the consistent syn-
cope of the intervocalic h in all the forms of the C-stem prefixed conjugation: ywq’
(P 21), yzkr (H 16, 17), lytkh (H 23), yrsy (H 27, 28), yqm (H 28).
26
 This brief survey of the transition of Haphel to Aphel makes it clear that to call
the C-stem conjugation without h in the Sam’alian inscriptions and also possibly in
the Sefire inscriptions Aphel is an anachronism, though often used for the sake of
convenience, because no true Aphel form in the suffixed conjugation has yet appeared
in Sam’alian or in OA.

37
 THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

Morphology
10. qdmwh (II:2): the third masculine singular pronominal suffix
on plural nouns and ‘plural’ prepositions is always -wh in OA and -
yh/-wh in Sam’alian, in contrast to the usual OfA form -why, e.g.
qdmwhy ‘before him’ (TAD A 6.3:6).27
11. ynÒr (I:13): the so-called internal passive conjugation (i.e. the
verbal forms with the apophonic passive marker) of the G-stem pre-
fixed conjugation yuqtal is found only in OA of all the phases of the
Aramaic language — y¨r ‘will be blinded’ (Sf I A:39 bis), ygzr ‘(this
calf ) will be cut off ’ and ‘(Mati¨el) will be cut off ’ (Sf I A:40 bis),

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 17, 2016

tsbr (Sf I A:38), tgzr (Sf I A:43), ygzrn (Sf I A:40), y[r]smn ‘they are
written’ (Sf II C:3), t’mr (Sf I A:33, 36). The tG-stem (and Gt ygtzr
once in Fk 23) which was an alternative passive conjugation in OA,
became the sole means of expressing the passive for the G-stem pre-
fixed conjugation in OfA, though the internal passive of the suffixed
conjugation (Gp qtl∞) is found both in OA (ntnh in H 11, ntn in H
24, yhb in H 12, etc.) and in OfA (e.g. BA qtil∞). In the Hermopolis
papyri, ybl (i:14, ii:18, iii:13) and ywbl (vii:5) have been interpreted
as a yuqtal form, but it is more likely a C-stem internal passive (Cp
yqtl, i.e. =O/Uphal), which is a regular feature in OfA, along with
the Dp-stem.
12. mÌzh (II:5): the new understanding of mÌzh (Nrb II:5), as
argued above, as the G-stem infinitive and the discovery of the G-stem
mqtl infinitives in the Fekherye inscription affirm the antiquity of
the Aramaic form mqtl, which in turn seems to strengthen Fitzmyer’s
contention that the Peal infinitive without the preformative m- (i.e.
qtl) in OA is not a ‘genuine component’ of the Aramaic language,
but a Canaanitism (1979: 67). According to him, the very reason
that the qtl form is a Canaanitism is its absence in the later phases of
Aramaic, and its occasional attestation after OA (e.g. lbn’∞ in Ez. 5:3,
13; l’∞mr alongside lm’∞mr in the Elephantine texts; etc.) is a case of a
linguistic phenomenon that a feature borrowed at an early period
persists ‘in isolated forms in the language or in isolated areas’ (1979:
67–8). However, the infinitive forms of the weak verbs and lqÌ ‘to
take’ in OA show a marked difference from their Canaanite counter-
parts, in that they never have the compensatory afformative -t (e.g.
lÌyy in Fek 7, lbn’ in H 13, 14, lbny in H 10, mlqÌ in Fek 10). Mean-
while, the G- (and D-) stem infinitive construct of the I-y/w or III-y/
27
 But also note the concurrent use of different forms, e.g. ¨lwh ‘to him’ (Sheh
Hamad iii:4; iv:3), Ìsyh[y] ‘his favoured ones’ (Carpentra 4), ’grwh ‘its walls’ (TAD B
3.4:4), m’nhy ‘his vessels’ (TAD D 7.24:7), etc.

38
 THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

w verbs, hlk and lqÌ of the Canaanite languages consistently has the
-t ending.28 This morphological variation makes a direct borrowing
from the Canaanite languages less likely. Though coming from the
common West Semitic stock, the OA qtl infinitive underwent its
own independent development, eventually superseded by the Gozan
Aramaic innovation, the mqtl infinitive.
13. l- (II:4, 8): in OA, the negative particle of indicative verbs is
prefixed to the following verbs, while the OfA form, l’ as a separate
word, appears as early as in the Caquot inscription (c. 600 BCE).

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 17, 2016

Syntax
14. mÌzh (II:5): the infinitive functions as a substitute for a finite
verb (see supra).
15. hwm ’thmw (II:6):29 The emphatic use of the infinitive abso-
lute is amply attested in the Sefire inscriptions (Sf II C:8; III:2, 6,
12–13, 13, 18), though there infinitive absolutes and modified finite
verbs are always of the same stem. The only appearance of the em-
phatic use of the infinitive absolute in OfA comes from the Ashur
ostracon (c. 650), q[r]q qrqw ‘they indeed fled’ (9).
16. zy lk (I:14): the construction, the relative pronoun + the
preposition l- + the pronominal suffixes, which is not attested in OA,

28
 Phoenician ld¨t (Ahirom Graf 1), lsbtnm (Karatepe A i:17), ltty ‘by his giving’
(Karatepe A iii:4), lbnt (Karatepe A ii:11), lqÒtnm Eshmunazar 9/10), llkt (Karatepe A
ii:4), lqÌt (Punic inscription from Carthage, KAI 76 B:5); Hebrew kÒ’ty (Arad xvi:3),
lqrt (Siloam 4), l¨st (Arad i:8), lsnth (Horvat ¨Uza iii:23,3), lqÌt (Lachish iii:18), BH
lkt (rarely hlk e.g. in Exod. 3:19; Eccl. 6:9), BH qÌt, lrpt (Lach vi:6); Ammonite: lsbt
(El Mazar Ostracon iii:3); Moabite: lspt (Mesha 21). Also note that ld¨t ‘to know’ in
Deir ¨Alla II:17 is a Canaanite form, which has been neglected in the discussion of the
classification of the language of the Deir ¨Alla texts.
29
 Clermont-Ganneau’s original reading bkw ywhw m’t hmw and the problematic
translation ‘de telle sorte qu’ils atteignaient la centaine’ (1897: 193–4) were corrected
by Lidzbarski who reads hwm ’thmw and takes hwm as an abstract noun used as an
infinitive absolute of hwm, literally ‘to murmur, discomfit’ figuratively ‘to be dis-
tracted’, followed by the Ethpael third plural perfect of the same root (1900–2: 193).
This explanation has been followed by some scholars (NSI: 191; Gibson 1975: 96;
etc.), while others read hwm as the Qal infinitive absolute (KAI 2: 276; Hug 1993:
77; etc). The latter interpretation can be supported by the observation that in BH, as
a rule, the Qal infinitive absolute as the simplest and most general representative of
the verbal idea may come before a finite verb of other derived conjugations in the so-
called emphatic infinitive absolute construction (cf. GK §113w; Joüon and Muraoka
1996: §123p). Considering the fact that ‘the infinitive absolute may equally well be
represented by a substantive of kindred stem’ (GK §113w), we can safely conclude
that hwm ’thmw is the intensifying infinitive construction, whether hwm is a Qal
infinitive absolute or just an abstract noun.

39
 THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

became a popular means of expressing possession in OfA, e.g. zly ‘my

(servants)’ (Ashur 13), etc.

Conclusions

The Nerab inscriptions exhibit sufficient OA linguistic features to

remain in the category of OA, i.e. the phonology of the interdental
fricatives, znh (I:3, 7; II:2), l’t’Ìz (II:4), ’sr (I:8, 10), tnÒr (I:12), ynÒr
(I:13); the preservation of the diphthongs, ywmy (II:3) and bywm
(II: 4); the assimilation of n: ysÌw (I:9), ¨t (I:5, II:8); the dissimila-

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 17, 2016

tion of the emphatic sound q, yk†lwk (I:11); the orthographic repre-
sentation of aleph in a syllable-closing position, yh’bdw (I:11), t’bd
(II:10); the non-syncopation of the intervocalic h, thns (I:6), yh’bdw
(I:11), lthns (II:8), thnsny (II:9), yhb’sw (II:9); the third masculine
pronominal suffix on plural nouns and ‘plural’ prepositions, qdmwh
(II:2); the internal passive of the G-stem prefixed conjugation, ynÒr
(I:13); the negative particle l- (II:4, 8); the emphatic use of the in-
finitive absolute, hwm ’thmw (II:6). At the same time, some linguis-
tic developments which later became standard features of OfA, such
as the non-assimilation of n (tnÒr in I:12), the medial mater lectionis
in II-weak verbs (hwm in II:6), the G-stem infinitive with prefixed
m- (mÌzh in II:5) and the expression of possession zy lk (I:14), also
appear in the Nerab inscriptions. Thus, the Nerab inscriptions
clearly represent the transitional period from OA to OfA.
OfA, probably originating from an Aramaic dialect of northern
Mesopotamia, ‘possessed a basically uniform linguistic character and
represented mostly a conventional form of speech standardized for
use in writing and employed often by people whose native tongue
was not Aramaic’ (Rosenthal 1978: 85). This OfA is best represented
by the Aramaic documents from Egypt during the Achaemenid pe-
riod. Meanwhile, the seventh and sixth century Aramaic inscriptions,
including the Nerab inscriptions, collected and studied by V. Hug,
show a gradual transition from OA to OfA, thus making it difficult
to identify the exact point of demarcation between them. If one de-
cides on the basis of linguistic proximity to the standard features of
OA and OfA, the Nerab inscriptions stand at the ultimate juncture
of OA. Therefore, the proposed dating of the Nerab inscriptions, c.
700 BCE,30 can serve, at least for heuristic purposes, as the chrono-
logical boundary between OA and OfA.
30
 The paleography of the Nerab inscriptions does not allow Naveh to date them
‘more precisely than the seventh century BCE’ (1970:15–6). However, with reason-

40
 THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

REFERENCES

Abou-Assaf, A. et al. 1982. La Statue de Tell Fekherye et son inscription bilingue

assyro-araméenne. (Paris)
ANEP = Pritchard, J.B. (ed.). 1969. The Ancient Near East in Pictures. (Princeton)
Albright, W.F. 1944. ‘The “Natural Force” of Moses in the Light of Ugaritic’.
BASOR 94, 32–5
Andersen, F.I. and D.N. Freedman. 1992. ‘The Spelling of the Aramaic Portion of
the Tell Fekherye Bilingual’, in David N. Freedman et al. (eds), Studies in He-
brew and Aramaic Orthography (Winona Lake, IN). 137–70
Barrois, A. and B. Carrière. 1927. ‘Fouilles de l’école archéologique française de
Jérusalem effectuées à Neirab du 24 septembre au 5 novembre 1926’, Syria 8,

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 17, 2016

124–42 and 201–12
Barrois, A. and M. Abel. 1928. ‘Fouilles de l’école archéologique française de
Jérusalem effectuées à Neirab du 12 septembre au 6 novembre 1927’, Syria 9,
187–206 and 301–19.
Bauer, H. and P. Leander. 1927. Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen. (Halle)
Beyer, K. 1984. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer samt den Inschriften aus
Palästina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den
alten talmudischen Zitaten. (Göttingen)
—— 1986. The Aramaic Language: Its Distribution and Subdivisions, trans. J. Healey
(Göttingen)
Brockelmann, C. 1983. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen
Sprachen. (Berlin, reprint of the 1908 edition)
Clay, A.T. 1915. Miscellaneous Inschriptions in the Yale Babylonian Collection. (YOS
1, New Haven)
Clermont-Ganneau, C. 1897. ‘Les Stèles araméennes de Neîrab’, Études d’archéo-
logie orientale 2, 182–223
Degen, R. 1969. Altaramäische Grammatik der Inschriften des 10. — 8. Jh. v. Chr.
(Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 38/3, Wiesbaden)
Dion, P.-E. 1974. La Langue de Ya’udi: Description et Classement de l’ancien parler de
Zencirli dans le cadre des langues sémitiques du nord-ouest. (Waterloo, ON)
DNWSI = Hoftijzer, J. and K. Jongeling. 1995. Dictionary of the Northwest Semitic
Inscriptions. 2 vols, (Leuven)
Driver, G.R. 1935. ‘Problems in Aramaic and Hebrew Texts’, in Miscellanea Orien-
talia: Dedicata Antonio Deimel (Analecta Orientalia 12, Roma). 46–70
EHO = Cross, F.M. and D.N. Freedman. 1952. Early Hebrew Orthography. (Balti-
more)
Fitzmyer, J.A. 1979. ‘The Phases of the Aramaic Language’, in A Wandering
Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (SBL Monograph Series 25, Missoula, MT).
57–84
—— 1995. The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefîre. rev. edn (Biblica et Orientalia – 19/A,
Rome)

able confidence, Si’gabbar of Nerab II can be identified with mse-e’-ga-ba-ri ‘a priest of

Nerab’ in royal correspondence to Sargon II sent by Nabû-pasir governor of Harran
(SAA I 189) (Parpola 1985: 275) which makes the erection of the funerary stele c.
700 most reasonable.

41
 THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

Folmer, M.L. 1995. The Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period: A Study in
Linguistic Variation. (Leuven)
Garr, W.R. 1985. Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine: 1000-568 BCE. (Philadel-
phia)
Gervitz, S. 1961. ‘West-Semitic Curses and the Problem of the Origins of Hebrew
Law’, VT 11, 137–58
Gibson, J.C.L. 1975. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions: Volume II, Aramaic
Inscriptions Including Inscriptions in the Dialect of Zenjirli. (Oxford)
GK = Gesenius, W., et al. 1910. Gesenius= Hebrew Grammar. 2nd edn (Oxford)
Greenfield, J.C. 1965. ‘Studies in West Semitic Inscriptions, I: Stylistic Aspects of
the Sefire Treaty Inscriptions’, Acta Orientalia 29, 1–18
—— 1976. ‘Aramaic’, in G.A. Buttrick (ed.), The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 17, 2016

Bible. Sup. Vol (Nashville), 39–44
—— 1978. ‘The Dialects of Early Aramaic’, JNES 37, 93–9
Gropp, D.M. 1997. ‘Nerab Inscriptions’, in E.M. Meyers (ed.), The Oxford Ency-
clopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. vol. IV (New York). 127–9
Huehnergard, J. 1997. A Grammar of Akkadian. (Atlanta)
Huesman, J. 1956a. ‘Finite Use of the Infinitive Absolute’, Biblica 37, 271–95
—— 1956b. ‘The Infinitive Absolute and the Waw + Perfect Problem’, Biblica 37,
410–34
Hug, V. 1993. Altaramäische Grammatik der Texte des 7. und 6. Jh.s v. Chr.
(Heidelberg)
Joüon, P.S.J. and T. Muraoka. 1996. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 2 vols, (Rome)
KAI = Donner, H. and W. Röllig. 1971. Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften.
3rd edn, 3 vols. (Wiesbaden)
Kaufman, S.A. 1974. The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic. (Chicago)
—— 1992. ‘Aramaic’, in D.N. Freedman, et al. (eds), Anchor Bible Dictionary.
vol. IV (Nashville). 173–8
—— 1997. ‘Aramaic’, in R. Hetzron (ed.), The Semitic Languages (London). 114–
30
Koopmans, J.J. 1962. Aramäische Chrestomathie: Ausgewählte Texte (Inschriften
Ostraka und Papyri) bis zum 3. Jahrhundert n. Chr. für das Studium der ara-
mäischen Sprache gesammelt. 2 vols. (Leiden)
Kutscher, E.Y. 1965. ‘Contemporary Studies in North-Western Semitic’, JSS 10,
21–51
Lidzbarski, M. 1900–02. Ephemeris für Semitische Epigraphik. vol. I (Giessen)
Marcus, D. 1975. ‘The Term “Coffin” in the Semitic Languages’, JANES 7, 85–94
Moran, W.L. 1950. ‘The Use of the Canaanite Infinitive Absolute as a Finite Verb
in the Amarna Letters from Byblos’, JCS 4, 169–72
Moscati, S. (ed.). 1964. An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic
Languages: Phonology and Morphology. (Wiesbaden)
Muraoka, T. 1983–4. ‘The Tell-Fekherye Bilingual Inscriptions and Early Aramaic’,
Abr-Nahrain 25, 79–117
Muraoka, T. and B. Porten. 1998. A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic. (New York)
Naveh, J. 1970. The Development of the Aramaic Script. (Jerusalem)
—— 1982. Early History of the Alphabet. (Jerusalem)
NSI = Cooke, G.A. 1903. A Text-Book of North-Semitic Inscriptions. (Oxford)
Rosenthal, F. 1960. ‘Notes on the Third Inscription from Sefîre-Sûjîn’, BASOR
158, 28–31
—— 1978. ‘Aramaic Studies during the Past Thirty Years’, JNES 37, 81–91

42
 THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS

Rubinstein, A. 1952. ‘A Finite Verb Continued by an Infinitive Absolute in Biblical

Hebrew’, VT 2, 362–7
SAA 1 = Parpola, S. 1987. The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part I: Letters from
Assyria and the West. (State Archives of Assyria 1, Helsinki)
Segert, S. 1964. ‘Zur Schrift und Orthographie der altarmäischen Stelen von Sfire’,
Orientalia 32, 110–26
—— 1975. Altaramäische Grammatik mit Bibliographie, Chrestomathie und Glossar.
(Leipzig)
TAD = Porten, B. and A. Yardeni. 1986. Textbook of Aramaic Documents from An-
cient Egypt. 4 vols, (Winona Lake, IN)
Tawil, H. 1974. ‘Some Literary Elements in the Opening Sections of the Hadad,
Zakir, and the Nerab II Inscriptions in the Light of East and West Semitic Royal

Downloaded from http://jss.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on May 17, 2016

Inscriptions’, Orientalia 43, 40–65
Torrey, C.C. 1912. ‘New Notes on some Old Inscriptions’, ZA 26, 77–92
Tropper, J. 1993. Die Inschriften von Zincirli. (Münster)
Von Soden, W. 1952. Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik. (Rome)

43