Accounting for the graphematic separation of prefix particles

While relatively rare in literary texts, the graphematic separation of prefix particles occurs frequently enough, especially in the case of 𐎆w- and 𐎄 d-, that it deserves an explanation beyond the postulation of scribal error.

At least in the case of clitic chains followed by word division, a prosodic explanation seems reasonable. At §1.4.2.1 I showed that it is possible for two clitics to comprise a single graphematic word. In the Greek case discussed there, we provided the example of a proclitic and an enclitic forming a single prosodic word.

If the clitic chains discussed at §9.2.3 here represent prosodic words, this could be interpreted by postulating that the proclitic 𐎆w- provides the following prepositional particle with an accent, enabling the two to stand as a single prosodic word.

The case of monoconsonantal particles standing as independent graphematic words is trickier to account for. If these are monomoraic, we would not expect them to be capable of standing as independent prosodic words (§1.4.2.4); if word division represents the demarcation of prosodic words, we would not expect to find these particles standing as independent graphematic words. The verse form may be partly responsible. It is well known that in Greek epics certain short vowels are artificially lengthened so as to fit the scansion of the verse (see e.g. Hoekstra 1978). The explanation could also be related to contrastive focus. As we will see in the next section, there is a tantalising example from a non-literary text where a lone graphematically independent 𐎆w- appears to be associated with change of topic and/or subject (cf. also §9.4.4.3). Further work is needed before it is possible to be certain. From the evidence presented here, however, the graphic separation of prefix clitics is too frequent a phenomenon in literary texts to be ignored.

9�3� Non-literary texts adopting the ‘Majority’ orthography

As with the literary texts (§9.2), so in letters we occasionally find the graphematic separation of prefix clitics. Consider the following example:

(265) KTU³ 2.86:4–13

⟶ ⁴ 𐎛𐎍𐎎

5 𐎚𐎙𐎗𐎋 𐎟 𐎚𐎌𐎍𐎎𐎋

6 𐎍𐎔𐎓𐎐 𐎟 𐎁𐎓𐎍𐎊

7 𐎌𐎁𐎓𐎄 𐎟 𐎆𐎌𐎁𐎓𐎄

8 𐎎𐎗𐎈𐎖𐎚𐎎

9 𐎖𐎍𐎚𐎊 𐎟 𐎆𐎅𐎐𐎐

10 𐎓𐎎 𐎟 𐎓𐎁𐎄𐎋

11 𐎎𐎛𐎄 𐎟 𐎌𐎍𐎎

12 𐎆 𐎟 𐎁𐎓𐎍𐎊

13 𐎌𐎍𐎎𐎅

ỉlm tǵr=k tšlm=k l=pʿn bʿl=y

gods protect.3pl=you.sg give_wellbeing=you.sg to=feet lord-my

šbʿd w=šbʿd mrḥqtm qlty w=hn=n<y>

seven_times and=seven_times from_afar fall.1sg and=here=me

ʿm ʿbd-k mỉd šlm w

with servant-your.2sg very well-being and

bʿl-y šlm-h

lord-my wellbeing-his

‘may the gods guard you, may they keep you well. At the feet of my master seven times and seven times (from) afar do I fall. Here with your servant it is very well.

As for my master, (news of) his well-being …’ (trans. Pardee 2003, 112; see also Dietrich & Loretz 2009, 132–133)

At lines 6 and 7 the prefix clitics 𐎍 l- and 𐎆 w- are written together with the following morphemes. This is the practice almost everywhere in this 25-line text, except in line 12, where in the sequence w · bʿly ‘and my lord’ 𐎆 w- is followed by a word divider.

While it is difficult in general to find a one-size-fits-all explanation for the graphematic separation of 𐎆 w- (§9.2.3), in this case it is tempting to suggest one.

Specifically, as Pardee’s translation indicates, 𐎆 w- in line 12 begins a new section of the letter, in which the topic shifts from the well-being of the letter’s author, to that of his lord. This change of topic coincides with the graphematic separation of 𐎆 w-. If word division in this letter does indeed correspond to prosody, the placement of a word divider after 𐎆 w- should indicate that 𐎆 w- is its own prosodic word, with its own accent. That 𐎆 w- might receive an accent of its own in a context where the topic is shifting would make considerable sense from a prosodic point of view,

since the accenting of 𐎆 w- could be interpreted as corresponding to a stronger break in the coherence of the text than might be indicated by non-accented 𐎆 w-.

9�4� Non-literary texts adopting the ‘Minority’ orthography 9.4.1. Introduction

In the previous chapter we considered the word division orthography that constitutes that for the majority of texts written in Ugaritic alphabetic cuneiform. In this chapter, I offer a counterpoint to this by discussing a number of non-literary documents which appear to employ a word division strategy based on principles of morphosyntax rather than prosody.

In the Ugaritic mythological texts, as well as a number of non-literary texts considered at §8.5, the orthography of word division has very few fixed properties (cf. §5.3). Two of the most reliable, however, are these:

• Monoconsonantal prefixes, e.g. 𐎆 w-, 𐎍 l-, 𐎁 b-, 𐎋 k-, are almost always written together with the following morpheme(s);

• Monoconsontantal suffixes, e.g. 𐎋 k-, are written together with the previous morpheme(s).

As has often been noted, however, (Horwitz 1971, 107–113; Robertson 1994, 34–35, 222–223, 277; 1999, 90 n. 2; Tropper 2012, 68, §21.412a) in an important minority of non-literary texts the first of these principles routinely ignored, e.g.:

(266) KTU³ 2.12

⟶ ¹ 𐎍 𐎟 𐎎𐎍𐎋𐎚

2 𐎀𐎄𐎚𐎊

3 𐎗𐎂𐎎

4 𐎚𐎈𐎎𐎟𐎚𐎍𐎎𐎊𐎐

5 𐎓𐎁𐎄𐎋

6 𐎍𐎟𐎔𐎓𐎐

7 𐎀𐎄𐎚𐎊

8 𐎌𐎁𐎓𐎛𐎄

9 𐎆𐎟𐎌𐎁𐎓𐎛𐎄

10 𐎎𐎗𐎈𐎖𐎚𐎎

11 𐎖𐎍𐎚

12 𐎓𐎎𐎟𐎀𐎄𐎚𐎊

13 𐎎𐎐𐎎𐎟𐎌𐎍𐎎

14 𐎗𐎂𐎎𐎟𐎚𐎘𐎘𐎁

15 𐎍𐎟𐎓𐎁𐎄𐎅

l 〈ω〉 mlkt 〈ω〉 ảdt-y _〈λ〉 rgm _〈λ〉 tḥm 〈ω〉

to Queen lady-my speak.imp message

tlmyn _〈λ〉 ʿbd-k _{〈λ〉 〈ω〉}l pʿn _〈λ〉 ảdt-y _〈ω〉

PN servant-your to feet lady-my

šbʿỉd _〈ω〉 w _〈ω〉 šbʿỉd _〈ω〉 mrḥqt=m _〈ω〉 qlt _〈λ〉

seven_times And seven_times distance=ptcl fall.1sg ʿm _〈ω〉 ảdt-y _〈λ〉 mnm _〈ω〉 šlm _〈λ〉 rgm _〈ω〉

with lady-my whatever well_being message tṯṯb _〈λ〉 〈ω〉l ʿbdh 〈ω〉

send.impf to servant-her

‘Speak to the queen, my lady; word of Talmiyānu, your servant. At the feet of my lady seven times and seven times from afar I have fallen. Whatever well-being (there is) with my lady, may she send back word to her servant’ (trans. after Huehnergard 2012, 192–193)

This letter is very short, consisting of a mere 15 lines, and 23 graphematic words.

Yet in this short span, there are no fewer than three instances of the prefix preposition 𐎍 l- followed by word division, at lines 1, 6 and 15. Furthermore, 𐎆 w- is followed by a word divider at line 9. This degree of word division after monoconsonantal particles is wholly unexpected, given its rarity in the literary texts (cf. Chapter 6).

Finally, note that in both instances of construct nps, the elements are separated from one another, in one instance by means of a word divider, and in the other by means of line division (which has the function of word division in this text):

• tḥm _〈ω〉tlmyn _〈λ〉 ‘message of PN’ (line 4)

• pʿn _〈λ〉ảdty _〈λ〉 ‘feet of my lady’ (lines 6–7)

Nor is this text without parallel. Other non-literary documents appear to adopt the same or similar word division strategy.²

The goal of the chapter is to identify the ORL of word division in these documents.

I argue that, unlike any other Northwest Semitic writing system, word division in the

‘Minority’ orthography targets the pre-phonological morphosyntactic level of linguistic represenation.

Im Dokument The Semantics of Word Division in Northwest Semitic Writing Systems (Seite 174-177)