Graphematic words without close parallels to prosodic phrases in Tiberian Hebrew

4.3.3.1. Suffix + Independent pronoun

Although the parallels between prosodic phrases in Tiberian Hebrew and graphematic words in KAI 10 are striking, it is important to note some areas of disagreement. One univerbated sequence that has no parallel in Tiberian Hebrew prosodic phrases is that of a Suffix pronoun + Independent pronoun, where both pronouns agree in person and number:

(190) KAI 10.12

𐤊𐤋𐤌𐤅𐤇𐤉𐤊𐤍𐤀𐤌𐤔 ⟵ šm=ank=yḥwmlk _〈λ〉

name[my]=I=PN

‘My own name is Yeḥawmilk’ (trans. with ref. to Donner & Röllig 1968, 12, 15)

9 Parallels at Num 1:53; Deut 1:41; Judg 11:21; Jer 35:17, 41:10; 1Sam 2:17, 20:32; 2Sam 15:6; 1Kgs 2:23;

2Kgs 18:15; Zech 11:9.

In Tiberian Hebrew sequences of this kind, the independent pronoun constitutes its own prosodic phrase (cited Donner & Röllig 1968, 15):

(191) Num 14:32

וּ ֖ל ְפִּי ם֑ ֶתּ ַא ם֖ ֶכי ֵרְג ִפוּ ⟵

(w=pgry-km_φ) (ʾtm_φ) (yplw_φ) and=bodies-your.pl you.pl fall.3pl

‘But as for your bodies – they will fall’ ¹⁰

Nor is it possible to find maqqef sequences of this kind in Tiberian Hebrew.

A univerbated sequence Suffix pronoun + Independent pronoun is, however, attested in Ugaritic:

(192) KTU³ 1.2:IV:11–12

⟶𐎌𐎎𐎋𐎀𐎚 𐎊𐎂𐎗𐎌𐎟

šm-k=ảt _〈λ〉 ygrš _〈ω〉

name-your.sg=you.sg PN

‘Your name is Ygrš’

Since the sequence is univerbated in Ugaritic, and if it is right that graphematic word division in Ugaritic corresponds to prosodic words (see Part II), a univerbated sequence of this kind can be argued to be compatible with prosodic phrasehood, since each prosodic phrase must consist of one or more prosodic words. If this is correct, it suggests that prosodic phrasehood in Phoenician, and Ugaritic, has slightly different properties from those seen in Tiberian Hebrew.

4.3.3.2. Bissection of vps

At (178) we noted one instance where we find a verb written separately from an ensuing univerbated subject-object sequence. This is hard to parallel in Tiberian Hebrew at the prosodic phrase level. Furthermore, it is unexpected on theoretical grounds, since it entails a prosodic separation of the verb from both core arguments, which should not happen if prosodic phrases are aligned with xp^max.

The following Ugaritic parallel, where a subject-object sequence are written together, but separately from the verb, may be relevant:

10 I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for offering this translation.

(193) KTU³ 1.2:IV:11

⟶𐎋𐎘𐎗𐎕𐎎𐎄𐎎𐎟𐎊𐎐𐎈𐎚𐎟

kṯr=ṣmdm _〈ω〉 ynḥt _〈ω〉

[ [DN_np]=[double_mace_np] brought_vp]

‘DN brought a double mace’ (trans. per del Olmo Lete & Sanmartín 2015, 620) However, if graphematic words in Ugaritic do indeed represent prosodic words, rather than prosodic phrases, the Ugaritic example does not provide much help.

4.3.4. Implications for the ORL of word division

At §4.2 we found that there is a high degree of isomorphy of graphematic and syntactic structure in KAI 10, in contrast to what we have seen elsewhere. In this section I have sought to demonstrate that the particular relationship between syntax and graphematic word division seen in this inscription finds a close parallel in the relationship between syntax and prosodic phrases in Tiberian Hebrew, despite certain areas of disagreement. However, it is worth asking whether word division in this inscription does not in fact target syntax directly, without reference to prosody.

4�4� Syntactic vs� prosodic phrase level analysis

The strongest reason for believing that graphematic word division targets a layer distinct from syntax is the fact that, while there is a strong correlation between syntactic phrasing and graphematic word division, the two are not completely isomorphic. For instance, while most pps are univerbated in their entirety (§4.2.5), one instance is not, (173), repeated here for convenience:

(194) [𐤋𐤁]𐤂𐤍𐤋𐤀𐤋𐤊 𐤍𐤐𐤕𐤀 ʾtpn 〈ω〉 kl=ʾln=g[bl] 〈ω〉 [before=all=gods=Byblos] (10.16) Similarly, while most instances of the relative particle are univerbated with the following morpheme (§4.3.2.4), one is not:

(195) KAI⁵ 10.4 𐤆𐤍[ ]𐤁𐤔𐤀 ⟵

ʾš _〈ω〉 b[..]n̊= z _〈ω〉

rel this

‘which … this’

The fact that these syntactic inconsistencies are paralleled in the relationship between prosodic phrases and syntax in Tiberian Hebrew suggests that the representation of syntax is filtered through the prosodic layer of representation.

4�5� Verse form

Another reason for believing that factors beyond syntax are at play is the fact that univerbation occurs across a clause boundary:¹¹

(196) KAI 10.13–15 𐤔𐤕𐤌𐤀𐤅 ⟵

𐤋𐤂𐤕𐤅𐤆𐤌𐤒𐤌𐤕𐤋𐤏 𐤀𐤆 𐤕𐤊𐤀𐤋𐤌 𐤓 𐤅𐤓𐤕𐤔𐤌

w=ʾm=ts _〈λ〉r _〈ω〉 mlʾkt _〈ω〉 zʾ _〈ω〉

and=if=you_remove workmanship this

ʿlt=mqm=z=wtgl _〈λ〉 mstr-w _〈ω〉

from=place=this=and=uncover cover-its

‘and if you remove this workmanship from this place or open this cover’

Here, however, we have the added difficulty that it is hard to reconcile univerbation at clause boundaries with prosodic phrasehood: as we have seen (§1.5.3) clause boundaries in Tiberian Hebrew coincide with disjunctive accentuation, that is, with prosodic phrase boundaries.

We cannot, of course, exclude the possibility that the writer of the inscription intended a space where one is no longer discernible. It is in line 9 where the longest graphematic word occurs. As Lehmann (2005, 94) points out, the letters are written most closely together:

(197) KAI 10.9

𐤍𐤕𐤕𐤅𐤀𐤄𐤒𐤃𐤑𐤊𐤋𐤌𐤊𐤋𐤁𐤂𐤋𐤏𐤅𐤕𐤍𐤔𐤅𐤅𐤌𐤉𐤊𐤓𐤀𐤕𐤅 ⟵ w=tʾrk=ym-w=w=šnt-w=ʿl=gbl=k=mlk=ṣdq=hʾ=w=ttn

and=lengthen=days-his=and=years-his=over=TN=as=king=righteous=he=and=give ‘and may (the Great Lady of Byblos) lengthen his days and his years over Byblos since he is a righteous king, and may [the Great Lady of Byblos] give …’

However, univerbation at clause boundaries is something we have seen before in Phoenician (§3.4.6), where I argued that the writer sought to generate a poetic effect by univerbating across a clause boundary.

Such an explanation is conceivable in KAI 10, although a deeper understanding of Phoenician (and Ugaritic) verse form is needed before this can be substantiated.

11 Parallels may be found at lines 3 and 9.

It may turn out to be the case that other discrepancies from what would be expected from a prosodic phrase level analysis (§4.3.3) can be accounted for in this way.

4�6� Conclusion

In this chapter the principles of word division in KAI 10 have been analysed. The inscription provides a counterpoint to those considered in Chapter 3, in that graphematic word division shows a much closer relationship to syntactic structure than that seen previously. I sought to account for this closer relationship to syntax by arguing that graphematic words are separated on the basis of prosodic phrases, rather than prosodic words. This was for the following reasons:

• Cross-linguistically prosodic phrases show a much greater degree of alignment with syntax than prosodic words (cf. §1.5.1);

• Most of the word division phenomena can be paralleled in prosodic phrases in Tiberian Hebrew; and

• The occasional areas of disagreement with syntax may in many cases also be accounted for with reference to prosodic phrasehood.

This is not to say that there are not still some areas of uncertainty. In particular, it appears that, as with the inscriptions considered in the last chapter, verse form has a role to play over and above that of prosodic phrasehood, a subject that deserves future investigation.