Problems of Semitic Grammar By G. R. Driver-Oxford
I have elsewhere^) sought to explain a number of pecu¬
liarities in Hebrew grammar by referring them to the com¬
posite origin of the language, and I may add the following
fresh examples to those there collected; and others will
become apparent in the course of the present article.
Thus the failure occasionally to elide the article after
a preposition, as in Qf^nb (II. Chron. x 7)^) is not unknown
in Punic texts, as in ÜTiilh and n^in^'). So too the rare
iffiljjn Di"' (Gen. 131)*) is exactly parallel to the Phoen.
iJJ31«n ü> and ''B'Dnn D-'S), just as N^n nb-jba (Gen. xix 33,
XXX 6, xxxii 23 I. Sam. xix 10) is a construction illustrated
both by the Phoen. Nn nann«) and by the Moab. nST naan^).
All these exceptions then can be justified by parallel con¬
structions in the cognate languages, whence it may be inferred
that they are sporadic relics of the various elements which
have entered into the composition of classical Hebrew; they
ought then not to be excised from the text as scribal errors
but rather to be preserved as archaisms which, having escaped
the keen eyes of the Massoretes, throw valuable light on the
origin of tbe language.
So too, while the common nrs and "(HS contain the
1) In "Problems of the Hebrew Verbal System" (1936) 98-107.
2) Cp. Kautzsch-Cowlbt , "Hebr. Gramm.", §35 n. Allowance of
course must be made for the use of such forms as pseudo-archaisms in
late texts.
3) CooKB, "N.-S. I." 56, 3, 60, 3; but cp. Phoen. OTi^ (ibid. 18, 1).
4) Kaützsch-Cowley, "Hebr. Gramm.", §126w.
5) CooKB, "N.-S. 1.", 44 A, 2, 7.
6) Ibid. 4, 6.
7) Ibid. 1, 3.
344 G. R. Driver, Problems of Semitic Grammar
Phoenician form of the pronominal suffixes, the rare onnis
or Dnrs and onris or "jririNi) (of whose vocalization the
Massoretes seem to have had no clear tradition) contain
pronominal forms found regularly in Aramaic texts 2). Again,
the sing, use of i^O" seems to be of Phoenician origin*), while
its use as a plur. suffix is common to Phoenician and Pale¬
stinian texts, as the letters from Tall-al-'Amärna show. Again,
then, these variant forms offer precious hints in indicating
the sources of the language.
Even Baukr and Leander*) go only so far as to say that
die längeren Stammformen *'ilai, *'adai, *'alai,
ursprünglich zu sein scheinen, but they do not attempt
to account for them, contenting themselves with calling them
poet. Nebenformen. It is indeed true that archaic forms
tend to survive in poetry after they have become obsolete in
prose, but this is not always the case. Poetry and prose may
draw their vocabularies to a certain extent from different
sources: for example, the prosaic tS'''N is tbe Phoen. W while
tbe poetical B'lJN is the Aram. t^JN. Further, it is becoming
increasingly clear that all Semitic roots were at one time
biliteral, and this can be convincingly demonstrated in the
case of a number of primitive nouns. Is it not then a priori
likely that the short forms of these prepositions (bn , Ij; and SjJ)
are original and that the long forms C^N, ''ly and "i^JJ) are
in some way secondary? If so, it will follow that the simple
preposition IJJ "up to" gave rise to mj? "went up to, advanced"
and that similarly by "upon" gave rise to n^J? "went up to,
ascended"^); in other words, the prepositions expressing
mere position preceded the verbs describing change into
position. The difficulty lies in hü or ""^N "unto" for which
no verb has hitherto been claimed ? I suggest that the required
verb is the mysterious Bab. alü "to come", which occurs
1) Kaützsch-Cowley, "Hebr. Gramm.", § 103 b.
2) Cp. Cooke, "N.-S. I." 184, 185.
3) Cp. Harris, "Gramm. of the Phoen. Lang." 53.
4) In Hist. Gramm. d. hebr. Spr. I 640.
5) Cp. Driver, "Problems" 3-8.
G. R. Driver, Problems of Semitic Grammar 345
sporadically in Old-Babylonian letters and wbich aläku
{"[hn) with its convenient double usage with and without the
ventive termination and bä'u between them drove from
the field; and, in the same way that the verb died out, so
the originaUy deictic Bab. ana prevented the development
of a preposition cognate with this verb in that language.
The twofold forms of these three prepositions (apart from
rare variations from normal usage) may be set out by
languages in the following table:
Arab.
Jl
^
If then the shorter forms are primitive, the longer forms
must be due to assimilation of the original biliteral preposition
to the derived triliteral form of the verb. Thus Aramaic alone
retained the simple forms throughout its history, classical
Arabic alone shed them and adopted the developed forms for
all purposes, while the Sab. 'd beside 'dy shows the transitional
stage when pre-classical Arabic was giving up the shorter in
favour of the longer forms. This too is the stage in which
Accadian appears with ad and el as rare relics rapidly dying
out before adi and eli, which occur in the vast majority of
cases. Hebrew, here as so often elsewhere, draws its forms
from both sides, since it shares the older and shorter forms
with Aramaic, the younger and longer forms with Arabic;
thus once again the language of prose and poetry reflect a
different origin.
Hebrew however prefers to attach pronominal suffixes
not to the usual prose form of these prepositions but rather
to that otherwise found only in poetry, obviously for the
sake of euphony, thus treating them as nouns cognate with
rr'j-verbs, as indeed they are: e.g. TJ^'bs may be com-
1) E.g. Unonad, Ab. B. 47 B, 14-15, 108,33, 126,9-10 and
B. B. 167, 11, 101, 4, 261, 14-19, 269, 10, Ldtz "E. B. L. L." 92, 25
(s. Landsberger in ZDMG LXIX 521).
Aram. Syr. Acc.
Ij? A ad, usually adi
^j; el, usually eli
Hebr.
^N, poetical ''^N
ly, poetical nj?
by, poetical 'hy
346 G. R. Dbiveb, Problems of Semitic Grammar
pared with TJ'^??': "thy friend" i) and "^b^ with T^n.!!) "thy field" 2).
Besides these two prepositions, in which the y is a radical
letter, there are two which at first sight undergo a similar
change before the suffixes, namely "ins "behind, after" and
rnri "under". Thus BAuer and Leander*) explain "'ins as
a secondary form due to the analogy of its opposite ■'23b and
similarly "'Pnri as due to the analogy of its opposite "'bs. This
explanation might account for "'ins beside "ins but it is
ruled out by "'"ins, since this would require a plur. ^ahäray
(parallel with the plur. "'Ssb); and, if this explanation of
•^"inN is untenable, that of "'Finri may be dismissed as equally
untenable*), inasmuch as it explains only the vocalization
01 the suffix and leaves unexplained that of the root, which
ought by tbe same token to be fhätay. Both words are
clearly segbolates of the same form as D?s "step" and are
vocaHzed with suffixes like the du. "^b^T "my two feet"; for
they refer to the two sides respectively of the buttocks
regarded from different points of view*). So too T?a "behind,
away from", which is probably an Aramaizing form for T?a«),
makes ^isi^ys') which must receive a similar physiological
explanation.
Further, certain Semitic prepositions, though normally of
sing, form, sometimes take the plur. form, especially before
pronominal suffixes. Such is the Syr. «öjoO "round about
him" from hlL "around", meaning properly "(at) his sur¬
roundings" in reference to all the parts surrounding a man.
Then on the analogy of these true plur. forms there were
1) As in II. Sam. xii 11.
2) As in I. Ki. ii 26.
3) In Hist. Gramm. d. hebr. Spr. 1 645.
4) Cp. Sab. tht and tUy.
5) Cp. Dbiveb in "JTS." XXXIV 377-78.
6) In the MT ira is the abs. and ^5a the constr. state; cp. abs.
-133 with constr. "laa (Ps. xviii 26).
7) Beside I3']5a (Am. ix 10), a normal sing, form with a light
suffix from a guttural segholate noun.
G. R. Dkiveb, Problems of Semitic Grammar 347
coined such other forms as the Sab. qdmy "(at) the parts in
front of'i) (cp. Aram, ^ryror^ = Syr. w^cudU»") "at the parts
in front of him" = "in front of bim"»)) and the Sab. f^^^
"(at) the eastern parts of" = "(to) the east of"*). Ultimately
this usage is extended by false analogy to prepositions which
have no spatial sense, such as tbe Syr. ...c^o^S.^ "instead of
him".
Similarly cps "face" is in all probability a plur. form
derived from "mouth", as Haupt has suggested*), meaning
therefore "the parts about the mouth" as the principal organ
in the "face". From this is formed tbe secondary Acc. plur.
pänätu, the Phoen. nJS and the Sab. X®h^ (probably pron¬
ounced fanawät) "front", which (like the Hebr. niry "wells",
as eyes looking up to heaven from earth, beside D'r? "eyes")
served a metaphorical purpose*). Similar formations are the
Acc. elät "over and above, in addition to" ') beside eli "upon"
and the Phoen. n^JJ "upon". An extension of this type of
formation appears in rii3">a "(in) the parts between" =
"between" from V? "between"*) and riniao "(in) the sur¬
rounding parts of" = "around" from S'^ao "circuit".
It is also not improbable that the Acc. pütu^ "forehead"
is an analogous formation from pü"* "mouth", denoting
originally "front" and subsequently restricted in usage to
"forehead", as Holma') has suggested. Its prepositional
usage in ina put "opposite, instead of" is the origin of the
1) Also qdm.
0
2) Rarely also O^tJO• (Bbockelmahn, Lex. Syr.* 647).
3) Cp. Sab. qdmy.
4) I owe this example to Mr. A. F. L. Bebston, Assistant in the
Bodleian Library.
5) In "AJSL" XXIII 258 (s. Holma, N. Kt. 13, who takes D-'JD
as a distinct and primitive biliteral root).
6) Cp. DD and mro (v. infr. ; cp. Kaützsch-Cowuit, "Hebr. Gramm.",
§§ 87 o, 122 u).
7) Sing. elUu "upper part, preferential share."
8) Only constr. state; abs. state Arab. ^ "interval."
9) In N. Kt. 13-14.
2 .
348 G. R. Driver, Problems of Semitic Grammar
Syr. (cp. Acc. ana or ina pl and Hebr. ""S^) "in accordance
with", which Brockklmann ^) thus rightly refers to the same
root. This word is then probably identical with the Hebr. ris
which occurs twice in the Old Testament: first, the sing, ns
is used literally in iTiS^. inns mn"' (where in^if ought to be
vocalized "imnis) "the Lord shall shave their forebead(s)"
(Is. iii 17), which is a well-attested Babylonian punishment*);
second, Holma*) has plausibly derived the plur. TiTS (I. Ki.
vii 50), whatever precisely it means, from this same root*).
In conclusion, these arguments suggest that the -e wbich
replaces -a in certain archaic forms of various Ethiopic
prepositions and commonly precedes the pronominal suffixes
attached to them is not an abbreviation of an old constr.
accus, -ia-, as Dillmann*) thinks, but an ending analogous
to that found in the other Semitic languages. First, there are
those in which this -e indicates a connection with a n"^-root :
for example, as the Hebr. "'ba, so the Eth. ^enbale (beside
^enbala) "without" is beyond shadow of doubt connected
with the root of tbe Hebr. nba "wore out". Again, as the
Hebr. ""Ss (beside ht<) is connected with a j/Vy, which the
Acc. alü "to come" seems to attest, so the Eth. habe (beside
hai) "in (the house of), with" may be connected with the
same root as the Hebr. san = nan "hid" and the Eth. ^eske
(beside ^eska) "until" may be connected with that underlying
tbe Aram, sap * = Syr. .>ncp-v "looked for" «); further, the Hebr.
1373') or iSTa (beside JO) and the Eth. 'emne (beside 'emna)
"from" may not improbably be connected with a ymny wbich
1) In GVGSS I 333 (s. Nöldeke-Crichton, "Comp. Syr. Gramm."
102»). 2) Cp. Driver in "JTS" XXXVIII 38.
3) In N. Kt. 13-14.
4) Cp. D'^SD beside ddd (v. supr.); s. Kautzsch-Cowlet "Hebr.
Gramm." § 87 k.
5) In Dillmann-Crichton, "Eth. Gramm.", § 167, 3.
6) Otherwise 'eska must be referred to 'es- "till" (cp. Arab, sa-,
an abbreviated form of saufa expressing futurity, which is derived
from the Mishn. Hebr. Clio "end, purpose") -|- -ka, an obscure element
of uncertain denotation (s. Dilluann, Lex. Ling. Aeth. 750—751).
7) Only in Is. xxx 11 (bis).
G. R. Dbiveb, Problems of Semitic Grammar 349
lies also behind TlTn "counted, apportioned" (whence ipTp
"portion" as a part counted off or separated from the
total sum)!). Second, there are also a few prepositions in
wbich -e is an old constr. (accus.) plur. ending. Such, for
example, is mangale (beside mangal) "(in) the parts facing" =
"opposite" ; and on this analogy mesle (beside mesla) "with"
and perhaps heyate (beside heyata) "in place of", as also
me^re- as seen in me'rehä "(in) its moment" = "once", seem
to have been formed.
Two of tbe Hebrew forms bere cited, namely ^STa (beside
the Hebr. ^ST?) and ^ba (beside the Eth. 'eniale) require
comment, as their -t for the expected -ay > -e is peculiar.
If, as I have argued, forms like ""by are secondary, they must
have become stereotyped at a stage somewhere between the
biliteral b? "upon" and the completely triliteralized noun
like nbs? "thing coming up" = "leaf", i.e. at a stage when
final y had not yet given way to h in Hebrew orthography;
but ^ba has been, perhaps incorrectly, vocalized like the
alternative form of nouns from n"S-roots (e. g. like "^sn "half"
rather than like n2|5 "end"; cp. "^aa beside naa "weeping"),
probably through the influence of "^^a "rotting away"''); for
bv "upon" : iby "upon" : *'älay = ribv "went up" : ribv
"leaf" as ba "not" : ^ba "without" : * bälay = nba "wore out" :
^ba "rotting away". The secondary preposition is not to be
identified with the noun ; both, like the verb, are independent
formations derived from the same primary root. The vocali¬
zation of i|M (instead of iST?) is probably due to Massoretic
assimilation of the ending to "hireq" compaginis, although
the final -t has no connection with that termination*).
Another Hebrew form which has received no satisfactory
explanation, so far as I know, is Qi^ann "compassion", which
belongs more or less to the same class of formations; for, as
I have already suggested elsewhere*), the only possible way
1) Cp. DiLLMANM, Lex. Ling. Aeth. 191.
2) Is. xxxviii 17 (s. Drives in "JTS" XXXVllI 47).
3) Cp. Dbivbb in "JTS" XXVI 76-77.
4) Cp. Dbiveb in "JTS" XXXVI 294«.
350 G. R. Dbiveb, Problems of Semitic Grammar
to account for it is to suppose that it is a forma mixta (so
far as its vocaUzation goes ; for its true pronunciation is quite
unknown) between a du. rahämayim referring to the two
ovaries and an intensive plur. r^hämim denoting "tender
mercies"!), retaining its hybrid vocalization under Aramaizing
influence (cp. Aram. V'ann and Syr. ^,.,v>..V)").
* 7
Another jorma mixta, though of a different kind, is Oi"l1r»
"twenty", which can b.e explained only in the light of the
origin of the Semitic words denoting the twenties. It is well
known tbat the various languages differ in their treatment
of these words, some having du. and others plur. forms for
the whole range from twenty to ninety, as shown below:
Du. forms I
Acc.
S.-Arab.
Eth.
Plur. forms
eSra SaläSä
'Sry tlty
^eSrä Saläsä
— S^löStm
'esrin flätin
^iSrüna talätuna
and so on.
Only the Hebr. 'esrim "twenty" does not fit perfectly
into this scheme; for it, unhke the Aram, 'esrin*) and the
Arab. ^iSräna*), is an impossible plur. form. In fact, it can
be explained only as a mixture of a du. 'eSrayim and a plur.
"^Särim of the Aramaeo-Arabic type with ä like the Aram.
t'lättn or "^sörtm of tbe Phoenician type vriih ö (cp. TitDP
"decade") like the Hebr. S'Mtm; in fact, it probably comes
from the Accadian strain in Hebrew, as the non-guttural e
with J? (which is often represented by that letter in Accadian
roots) shows, provided with an Aramaeo-Arabic termination.
Obviously too C^flji (cp. Aram. T'J'aTÜ) "seventy" and
1) Similar mixted forms like D'js'jiJ may be contrasted with D-iam
on this explanation.
2) None of the other words of this class (cp. Baubb and Leandbb,
Hist. Gramm. d. hebr. Spr. I 571) are of pure Hebrew origin.
3) Cp. Syr. .Z^QOb., y>OCYVr.
U> ^ ♦
4) Originally *'dfrilna (s. Zumbbh, VGSS, § 18a).
G. R. Driver, Problems of Semitic Grammar 351
Oiyipn (cp. Aram. must be similarly explained as
formae mixtae, although the Accadian forms required to
clinch the argument have not yet been found.
I here take the opportunity to correct two notes in a previous
article and explain a misunderstood passage in a Punic inscription.
I. In Anal.Orient. XII 47 I suggested rendering nb^bn TOa vyi^ mcl
rio nbm (Cooke, "N.-S. I." 61, 24) by "and let sleep be withheld
from him in the night and may terror be given to him"; as however
I doubt the loss of the fem. n after the prec. b, I prefer to translate it
"and may he (sc. Hadad) withhold sleep from him in the night and
may terror (i. e. nightmares) be given to him" (or "and may he give
terror to him"; but the position of nbn before ^riD suggests that it is
the subject rather than the object of the verb). Again, ibid. 48, I
proposed to read Nana [in o]nnn (Cooke, op. cit. 61, 33) but I cannot
now help wondering whether it ought not to be Nana [in njana "in
wrath or in fury" (cp. Arab. ^ "was enraged"), since [o]cna is
pointless with nannn; for killing must be committed "with violence."
II. In Cooke, "N.-S. I." 41, 4 — 6 (s. Lidzbarski, H. Ns. E. I 427)
the facsimile shows Naxa|b CN nab|tt) "he completed what was
(required) for the erection of it" (sc. the naxa); this Naita must then
be taken as a noun with prefixed a from aX3 "erected" with the
suffix of the fem. sing. 3rd person (cp. Rabbis, "Gramm. of the Phoen.
Lang." 51, 58).
These notes will have served their purpose if they have
established the true interpretation of one or two vexed
passages in ancient Semitic texts and have cleared up certain
points, hitherto obscure, of grammatical formation and usage ;
in attempting to fulfil these objects I hope that I have rein¬
forced the case for believing Hebrew to be a composite
language and to have shown that the solution of many of
its problems must be sought along the lines not of logical
but of historical development.
[Completed on 9 April 1937.]
ZeltachrUt d. DMQ Bd. 91 (Neue Folge Bd. 16)
;i i •
21
Der Turm zu Babel
Eine exegetische Studie über Genesis 11, i-*')
Von 0. E. Ravn-Kopenhagen
Wenn ira vergangenen Jahrhundert die junge assyriolo¬
gische Wissenschaft schnell in weiteren Kreisen Aufsehen
erweckte und populär wurde, hatte es seinen Grund darin,
daß aus Urkunden, die jetzt in der Erde zum Vorschein
kamen und dem Verständnis erschlossen wurden, ein neues
Licht fiel auf Geschichte und Traditionen des biblischen
Altertums, wie sie in den heiligen Schriften der jüdischen und
christlichen Gemeinde niedergelegt sind. Die Zeit ist aber
längst vorüber, in der die Assyriologie als „biblical archaeo¬
logy" einwandfrei bezeichnet werden konnte; die Assyriologie
hat jetzt ihre eigene — und sehr umfassende — Archäologie
und ist ja überhaupt in jeder Beziehung eine selbständige
Wissenschaft. Der Wunsch bleibt jedoch bestehen, auch auf
Seiten der Assyriologie, gegebenenfalls dazu beitragen zu
können, daß Probleme, die außerhalb ihrer eigentlichen Do¬
mäne auftauchen, oder vielleicht schon lange vorlagen, von
ihr aus erhellt werden.
Was das Alte Testament vom Turmbau zu Babel erzählt,
hat keine Parallele in der Keilschriftliteratur; eine assyriolo¬
gische Beleuchtung der Erzählung wird sich daher anders
gestalten als z. B. bei der Sintflutlegende, wo wir von sume¬
rischer, babylonischer, assyrischer und hebräischer Variante
eines gemeinsamen Stoffes sprechen können. Beim Turmbau
liegt nur eine Rezension, die hebräische, vor, aber die direkte
Nennung der babylonischen Weltstadt und die Weise, in
welcher die Erzählung in eine Auslegung des Namens dieser
1) Vortrag gehalten in der Vorderasiatisch-Ägyptischen Gesellschaft in Berlin, 3. Februar 1937.
