The Phoenician Language: Remarks on the Present State of Research

THE PHOENICIAN LANGUAGE:

REMARKS ON THE PRESENT STATE OF RESEARCH

W. R O L L I G

T h e t o p i c o f the present t a l k w a s suggested to m e b y the organizers of this con­

gress (*). It s e e m s to m e , that these illustri colleghi a n d w e are clear w h a t w e m e a n w h e n w e s p e a k o f the « P h o e n i c i a n language ». B u t is this a c t u a l l y the case?

Several y e a r s ago E. U l l e n d o r f f p u b l i s h e d a rather p r o v o c a t i v e article entitled « I s B i b l i c a l H e b r e w a L a n g u a g e ? » (')• T h i s q u e s t i o n can j u s t as easely be a s k e d o f P h o e n i ­ cian. T h e s a m e h o l d s true, w i t h slight m o d i f i c a t i o n , f o r U l l e n d o r f f ' s initial s t a t e m e n t o f p u r p o s e : « I a m s i m p l y interested t o k n o w w h e t h e r the w o r d s , f o r m s , a n d construc­

t i o n s t h a t h a p p e n to o c c u r i n this c o r p u s of relatively m o d e s t size, w h i c h w e call the H e b r e w B i b l e , w o u l d b e a d e q u a t e t o serve as a basis f o r the o r d i n a r day-to-day re­

q u i r e m e n t s o f a n o r m a l speech c o m m u n i t y ». H e c o m e s to the c o n c l u s i o n that it is

« clearly n o m o r e t h a n a linguistic f r a g m e n t , ... scarcely a f u l l integrated language w h i c h ... c o u l d ever h a v e b e e n s p o k e n a n d h a v e satisfied the needs o f its speakers » (2).

I n v i e w of the c o r p u s of P h o e n i c i a n a n d P u n i c i n s c r i p t i o n s o u r s t a t e m e n t s m u s t b e m u c h m o r e m o d e s t . F o r , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e w e l c o m e increase o f t e x t u a l m a t e r i a l i n the p a s t decades (3). P h o e n i c i a n p r o b a b l y r e m a i n s the w o r s t t r a n s m i t t e d a n d least k n o w n o f all S e m i t i c languages. T h e size o f t h e c o r p u s , n u m e r i c a l l y s o i m p r e s s i v e , gives a m i s l e a d i n g i m p r e s s i o n o f p l e n t y , since the i n s c r i p t i o n s are h a l l m a r k e d b y a m o n o t o n y o f c o n t e n t s a n d a f o r m u l a i c a n d l a c o n i c style. T h u s w e l a c k the variety r e q u i r e d f o r the g o o d gram­

m a t i c a l a n d lexical u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f a language. O n l y i n the f i e l d o f o n o m a s t i c s can w e b e said t o h a v e a m p l e m a t e r i a l as a glance at the collection o f m a t e r i a l b y F r a n k L . B e n z clearly s h o w s (4). E v e n here, h o w e v e r , the variety is d i s a p p o i n t i n g , f o r the cons­

t r u c t i o n s , as i n H e b r e w , are s h a r p l y curtailed. Sentence n a m e s are rare a n d « verbal

(*) At the beginning I offer m y sincere thanks to Sabatino Moscati, Sandro Filippo Bondi and all m y colleagues here for their invitation and the organization of this stimulating congress. I thank Mr. Gilbert M c E w a n for his constant help connected with the English version of this paper.

(1) E . ULLENDORFF, IS Biblical Hebrew a Language?: BSOAS, 34 (1971), republished in a book to which it gave the title, Wiesbaden 1977, pp. 3-17.

(2) Ibid., p. 3.

(3) This increase of textual material can be easily appreciated when one looks at the first independent grammar of Phoenician, P. SCHRODER'S, Die phonizische Sprache. Entuurf einer Gram- matik, Halle 1869, which appeared just over 110 years ago. There on pp. 47-72 all the texts known at the time are listed — 332 of them. Today, if w e look at CIS Pars I, the incompleteness of which w e scarcely need mention, w e find 6068 texts.

(4) F. L. BENZ, Personal Names in the Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions, Roma 1972.

Originalveröffentlichung in: Atti del I. Congresso Internationale di Studi Fenici e Punici / 2, Rom, 1983, S. 375-385

376 W. Rollig

sentence n a m e s » a r e p r e d o m i n a t e l y f o r m e d w i t h t h e p r e d i c a t e i n the p e r f e c t (28 e x a m­

ples) o r , less f r e q u e n t l y i n t h e i m p e r f e c t (12 e x a m p l e s ) (5). T h e o n o m a s t i c o n w e e n c o u n ­ ter, t h e n , is o n l y s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d a n d e v i d e n t l y n o l o n g e r v e r y p r o d u c t i v e (6).

E v e n a v e r y l i b e r a l p e r u s a l o f t h e l e x i c o n , c o u n t i n g c o n j u n c t i o n s a n d p r e p o s i t i o n s ( b u t e x c l u d i n g f o r t h e m o s t p a r t u n c e r t a i n a t t e n t a t i o n s ) y i e l d s a n a m a z i n g v i e w of t h e v o c a b u l a r y (7). T h e P h o e n i c i a n - P u n i c v o c a b u l a r y a t t e s t e d t o d a t e a m o u n t s t o s o m e 668 w o r d s , s o m e o f w h i c h o c c u r f r e q u e n t l y . A m o n g these are 321 hapax legomena a n d a b o u t 15 f o r e i g n o r l o a n w o r d s . I n c o m p a r i s o n w i t h H e b r e w w i t h a r o u n d 7000-8000 w o r d s a n d 1500 hapax legomena (8), the n u m b e r is r e m a r k a b l e . T o b e g i n w i t h w e h a v e a b a s i c v o c a b u l a r y w h i c h d o e s n o t e v e n a m o u n t to o n e t e n t h o f t h a t o f H e b r e w . M o r e o ­ ver, p r a c t i c a l l y h a l f o f t h e w o r d s o c c u r o n l y o n c e o r i n o n e i n s c r i p t i o n , w h i c h is n o t v e r y h e l p f u l f o r s e m a n t i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . I t s h o u l d also b e n o t e d t h a t t h e great m a j o r i t y o f hapax legomena o c c u r i n P u n i c o r N e o - P u n i c i n s c r i p t i o n s , w h i c h are still r a t h e r e n i g m a ­ tic w i t h their t e r m i n o l o g y f o r s a c r i f i c i a l p r a c t i c e s a n d d e s i g n a t i o n s f o r v a r i o u s o f f i c i a l s . W i t h o u t the H e b r e w v o c a b u l a r y a n d c o m p a r i s o n w i t h o t h e r S e m i t i c languages the i n ­ t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the P h o e n i c i a n i n s c r i p t i o n s w o u l d b e c o m p l e t e l y i m p o s s i b l e (9). Still, it is clear t o a n y o n e w h o uses J . H o f t i j z e r ' s excellent Dictionnaire a n d reads h i s c a r e f u l l y w e i g h t e d j u d g e m e n t s o f the p r e s e n t t e n t a t i v e a t t e m p t s at s e m a n t i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , t h a t lexical w o r k , e s p e c i a l l y i n P u n i c , m u s t r e c e i v e still m o r e e m p h a s i s . T h e e x t r a c t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l t e r m s , h o w e v e r , is o f little v a l u e . I t w o u l d b e m o r e a d v i s a b l e o n the o t h e r h a n d to i n t e r p r e t c o m p l e t e p r o b l e m g r o u p s i n c o n t e x t . I n this respect it is l a m e n t a b l e t h a t the textual b a s i s is n o t s u f f i c i e n t i n all cases, f o r m a n y i n s c r i p t i o n s h a v e b e e n p u b l i s h e d w i t h o u t c o p i e s o r w i t h i n a d e q u a t e copies. T h e s o l u t i o n i n these instances — I a m t h i n k i n g o f the i n s c r i p t i o n s f r o m G u e l m a , M a k t a r a n d T r i p o l i t a n i a (10) f o r e x a m ­ p l e — is a c a r e f u l r e e d i t i o n o f t h e texts.

Let u s t a k e u p the q u e s t i o n a g a i n w h i c h w a s p o s e d at the o u t s e t : W h a t is t h e « P h o e ­ n i c i a n - P u n i c L a n g u a g e » a c t u a l l y ? O n t h e s u r f a c e a n d v i e w e d f o r m a l l y it w o u l d n o t s e e m d i f f i c u l t t o a n s w e r : I t is t h e l a n g u a g e o f the m o n u m e n t s o f t h e m o t h e r - c o u n t r y . N o r t h A f r i c a a n d t h e M e d i t e r r a n e a n c o u n t r i e s w r i t t e n i n P h o e n i c i a n a n d P u n i c script (n) ,

(5) References in F. L. BENZ, cit., p. 206 ff.

(6) Cf. M. NOTH, Die israelitischen Personennamen, Stuttgart 1928, pp. 48 ff., 215 ff., for similar proportions in Hebrew. Unfortunately, Benz avoids any sort of evaluation of the onomasticon.

Similarly, G. HALFF'S, L'onomastique punique de Carthage: Karthago, 12 (1965), p. 63 ff., only dis­

cusses aspects of interest for historians of religion.

(7) This is based upon C. F. JEAN-J. HOFTIJZER, DISO, with some — certainly not exhaustive — additions.

(8) E . ULLENDORFF, cit, p p . 5 f., 14 f.

(9) A warning about method is in order here: lexical derivation should always attempt to pro­

ceed from the nearest to the more distantly related languages, rather than simply making arbitrary comparisons. Above all, the popularly adduced « pertinent» etymologies f r o m Arabic are all too often worthless, since meanings arbitrarily arrived at for the Canaanite language of the first millen­

nium B.C. have no intrinsic validity, as they do not take into account the age or semantic range of the word.

(10) Happily, a new edition of the texts from Maktar has been announced by M. Sznycer and one of those f r o m Tripolitania by M. G. Guzzo Amadasi.

(11) In his article M. SZNYCER, L'emploi des termes « phenicien », « punique », « neopunique »:

Atti del Secondo Congresso Internationale di Linguistica CamitoSemitica, Firenze 1978, pp. 261-68, M . Sznycer has rightly pointed out the danger of purely external differentiations, which I do not under­

estimate. And I wholey agree with his statement, « un... principe serait qu'il faudrait... ecarter le cr- tere de l'ecriture » in the classification of languages. But, since w e k n o w dead languages only through

The Phoenician Language. 377

t h e m e d i u m f o r w h i c h m a y b e s t o n e , m e t a l o r p a p y r u s . E v e n t h i s r a t h e r w i d e d e f i n i­

t i o n is i n s u f f i c i e n t , h o w e v e r , f o r P l a u t u s h a s g i v e n u s i n h i s Poenulus a n i n t e r e s t i n g , al­

b e i t c o r r u p t r e n d e r i n g i n L a t i n t r a n s l i t e r a t i o n o f a P u n i c p a s s a g e (12). A n d t h i s w e c a n n o m o r e i g n o r e , t h a n the S e p t u a g i n t o r H e x a p l a c a n b e i g n o r e d in t h e s t u d y o f t h e H e b r e w . W e m a y n o w a d d t o t h a t t h e P u n i c i n s c r i p t i o n s o f t h e C h r i s t i a n e r a f r o m N o r t h A f r i c a m a d e a v a i l a b l e t o u s s o b r i l l i a n t l y b y G . L e v i D e l i a V i d a (13). F i n a l l y , w e c a n n o t i g n o r e t h e f e w a t t e s t a t i o n s i n G r e e k s c r i p t a n d t h e n u m e r o u s P h o e n i c i a n a n d P u n i c p e r s o n a l n a m e s i n c u n e i f o r m , G r e e k o r L a t i n (14). I n c o n s i d e r i n g t h i s m a t e r i a l , o s t e n s i b l y s o p l e n t i f u l a n d v a r i e d , it s h o u l d b e b o r n e in m i n d t h a t t h e l a n g u a g e w a s in u s e o v e r a w i d e a r e a f o r m o r e t h a n a m i l l e n n i u m (1S). T h u s t h e s e a r c h f o r n e w t e x t s a n d t h e s o l i d i f y i n g o f t h e n e t w o r k o f e v i d e n c e t h r o u g h t h e r e l i a b l e e d i t i o n s o f all t h e m a t e r i a l a r e t h e i n e s c a p a b l e p r e c o n d i t i o n s f o r f u r t h e r p r o g r e s s i n o u r d i s c i p l i n e . I n t h i s r e s p e c t i t is g r a t i f y i n g t o n o t e t h e w a x i n g of i n t e r e s t i n P h o e n i c i a n a n d P u n i c in r e c e n t y e a r s , t o w h i c h t h e p r e s e n t c o n g r e s s b e a r s w i t n e s s . A t t h e t i m e I w a s w o r k i n g o n KAI, h o w e v e r , this w a s n o t e v e n t o b e e n v i s a g e d . A n d , if s o m e o f t h e q u e s t i o n s w h i c h at t h a t t i m e a p p e a r e d t o h a v e b e e n s o l v e d o r to b e i n s o l v a b l e o n t h e b a s i s of t h e m a t e r i a l a v a i l a b l e , h a v e b e e n r a i s e d a g a i n a n d s u b j e c t e d t o i n t e n s i v e a n a l y s i s , it is d u e

the m e d i u m o f their scripts, w e are required in the interest of better u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the language to e x p l a i n all t h e peculiarities of the script, t h o u g h naturally not in a paleographical sense.

T h e o t h e r b a s i c sentence « p o u r q u a l i f i e r u n e langue, o n doit exclure tous les criteres non-lin- guistiques, c o m m e ceux d u c o n t e n u des textes, de leur p r o v e n a n c e o u de l e u r date » c a n n o t , h o w e v e r , b e s o s i m p l y accepted. I t is u n a v o i d a b l e that w e take i n t o a c c o u n t w h e n a text w a s w r i t t e n or c o p i e d f o r all questions of linguistic classification a n d interpretation. T h e s a m e h o l d s t r u e f o r t h e place, since, otherwise, local peculiarities a n d linguistic changes w o u l d n o t b e t a k e n i n t o account.

E v e n the content c a n n o t b e forgotten. I t is indisputable, f o r e x a m p l e , that the language o f poetic texts differs basically f r o m that of p u r e l y e c o n o m i c d o c u m e n t s a n d letters.

I n his article Sznycer s e e m s t o r e g a r d the three concepts given i n t h e title as equivalent t o one another. This, h o w e v e r , (and here w e m u s t consider the t e r m Phoenician-Punic) c a n n o t be. F r o m a certain, n o t yet exactly ascertainable, p o i n t in t i m e P u n i c as the language o f the Phoenicians o f N o r t h A f r i c a b e g a n a special d e v e l o p m e n t , w h i c h led t o c e r t a i n characteristic differences w i t h the e r s t w h i l e m o t h e r tongue. Neo-Punic is a f u r t h e r d e v e l o p m e n t of this w i t h i n the s a m e region a n d p r o b a b l y w i t h the s a m e substratum a n d superstratum influences (e.g. L a t i n ) . I t is t o b e consi­

d e r e d a n a l o g o u s t o the d i v i s i o n b e t w e e n « A l t p h o n i z i s c h » a n d « klassiches P h o n i z i s c h » in PPG. • I n actual fact then, Sznycer's acceptance of the three concepts is, strictly speaking, u n j u s t i f i e d . Lin­

guistically w e c a n o n l y speak of « P h o e n i c i a n » a n d « P u n i c », w h i c h , because of their close relation­

ship, are best h y p h e n a t e d .

(12) T h e last s t a n d a r d edition is b y M . SZNYCER, Les passages puniques en transcription latine dans le 'Poenulus' de Plaute, Paris 1967. Cf. also C. KRAHMALKOV, The Punic Speach of Hanno:

OrNS, 39 (1970), pp. 52-74; A . S. GRATWICK, Hanno's Speach in the Poenulus of Plautus: Hermes, 99 (1971), p p . 2545.

(13) G. LEVI DELLA VIDA: Libya, 3 (1927), p. 114; OA, 2 (1963), p p . 65-94; OA, 4 (1965), pp. 59-62;

AION, 17 (1967), p p . 257-66.

(14) T h i s source is b y n o m e a n s exhausted, since F. L. B e n z o n l y indicates correspondences to the n a m e s attested i n inscriptions. F o r the c u n e i f o r m m a t e r i a l see F. M . FALES, West Semitic Names from the Governor's Palace: Annali di Ca' Foscari, 13 (1974), pp. 179-88; R . ZADOK, On West Semites in Babylonia during the Chaldaean and Achaemenian Periods, J e r u s a l e m 1977; ID., Phoe­

nicians, Philistines and Moabites in Mesopotamia: BASOR, 230 (1978), pp. 57-65.

(15) T h e earliest P h o e n i c i a n inscriptions, the a r r o w s a n d spearheads (KAI 20-22) a n d the short B y b l o s inscriptions, F . M . CROSS - P . K . MCCARTER: RSF, 1 (1973), pp. 3-8, b e l o n g t o the end of the 12th or beginning of the 11th century B . C . T h e latest datable P u n i c inscription (KAI 173) dates f r o m the p e r i o d b e t w e e n 162 a n d 217 A.D.

378 W. Rollig

m a i n l y t o the w o r k o f t h r e e colleagues, G i o v a n n i G a r b i n i , J a c o b H o f t i j z e r a n d M a u r i c e S z n y c e r , w h o h a v e c o n t r i b u t e d s o m u c h i m p e t u s t o t h e d i s c u s s i o n s . T h e y are the o n e s w h o s h o u l d b e s i n g l e d o u t f o r h a v i n g c o n t r i b u t e d s o m u c h t o o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e texts b y t h e i r lexical a n d text-critical s t u d i e s a n d g r a m m a t i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , a n d w h o h a v e n e v e r h e s i t a t e d t o c o n t r i b u t e t h e i r i n s i g h t s o n s p e c i f i c p r o b l e m s . T h i s w i l l u n d o u b - t a b l y r e m a i n the t r e n d f o r the c o m i n g y e a r s , i.e. the d e v e l o p m e n t o f i n d i v i d u a l t e x t u a l a n d p h i l o l o g i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . F o r w e h a v e i n o u r d i s c i p l i n e t h e p r e c o n d i t i o n s at l e a s t f o r s u c h f u r t h e r w o r k w i t h the s e c o n d e d i t i o n of the « P h o n i z i s c h - p u n i s c h e G r a m m a - t i k » (PPG) a n d the « G r a m m a r o f P h o e n i c i a n a n d P u n i c » b y S t a n i s l a u s Segert (16). T h e g r a m m a r s p o i n t u p o u r w e a k n e s s e s i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d w o r k i n g t h r o u g h t h e texts, a n d t h e y m o r e o r less i g n o r e several q u e s t i o n s w h i c h s h o u l d b e w o r k e d u p o n f u r t h e r .

O n c e m o r e I w o u l d r e t u r n t o the initial q u e s t i o n a n d p o s e it again: « W h a t is t h e P h o e n i c i a n l a n g u a g e a c t u a l l y ? » — t h i s t i m e h o w e v e r f r o m the p o i n t o f v i e w o f classifica­

t i o n a n d r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the n e i g h b o u r i n g languages.

A f e w y e a r s a g o it still s e e m e d a relatively s i m p l e m a t t e r t o c l a s s i f y t h e S e m i t i c languages a n d t o f i n d t h e p l a c e o f P h o e n i c i a n a m o n g t h e m : I n t h e N o r t h w e s t S e m i t i c g r o u p , w h i c h w a s d i v i d e d i n t o A r a m a i c a n d C a n a a n i t e b r a n c h e s , it w a s a s i d e f r o m H e ­ b r e w the chief r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f C a n a a n i t e . E v e n t h e n , h o w e v e r , t h e p r o b l e m of f i t t i n g U g a r i t i c i n t o this s c h e m e w a s e v i d e n t (17). A n d w i t h t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f A m o r i t e a n d n o w E b l a i t e the p i c t u r e h a s b e e n c o m p l e t e l y b l u r r e d , s o t h a t n o w w e m u s t f i n d n e w cri­

teria f o r a r r a n g i n g t h e m — n o t h e r e a n d n o w , h o w e v e r (!8). F o r the p u r p o s e s of h i s t o ­ rical linguistics, w e r e t a i n the v i e w t h a t o n l y t h o s e i n s c r i p t i o n s w r i t t e n i n the a l p h a ­ b e t i c script s h o u l d b e called « P h o e n i c i a n a n d P u n i c ». T h a t m e a n s t h a t the actual P h o e n i c i a n t r a d i t i o n b e g i n s o n l y a f t e r t h e u p h e a v a l s c a u s e d b y t h e Sea P e o p l e s . T h i s l i m i t is n o t s o a r b i t r a r y a s it m i g h t s e e m at f i r s t . R a t h e r , it is s u p p o r t e d b y the o n o - m a s t i c o n , w h i c h clearly changes at t h a t t i m e a n d c a n a l s o b e j u s t i f i e d o n religious-histo­

r i c a l g r o u n d . F o r M e l q a r t a n d E S m u n b o t h a p p e a r t h e n , w h e r e a s i n t h e s e c o n d m i l - l e n i u m t h e y w e r e still f o r e i g n ("). I d o n o t i n t e n d t o p u r s u e t h i s t o o f a r here, espe­

c i a l l y since t h e r e a r e p r o b a b l y s o m e w h o w i l l d o u b t t h e m e t h o d o l o g i c a l r e l i a b i l i t y o f s u c h a n e x a m p l e . Still, I a m n o m o r e a b l e t o v i e w linguistic c h a n g e as a n i s o l a t e d p h e n o m e n o n t h a n I a m c h a n g e s i n t h e religious s p h e r e .

S i n c e the d i s c o v e r y o f the earlier B y b l o s i n s c r i p t i o n s it is clear t h a t P h o e n i c i a n c a n n o l o n g e r b e v i e w e d as a u n i f o r m language. O n t h e c o n t r a r y , traces o f dialects c a n b e r e c o g n i z e d d e s p i t e the d e f e c t i v e o r t h o g r a p h y o f t h e i n s c r i p t i o n s . Q u i t e recen­

tly G. G a r b i n i h a s t r e a t e d the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e dialects o f B y b l o s , T y r e ( a n d

(16) J . F R I E D R I C H - W . ROLLIG, Phonizisch-punische Grammatik2, Roma 1970; S . SEGERT, A Gram­

mar of Phoenician and Punic, Munchen 1976. Cf. also A. VAN DEN BRANDEN, Grammaire phenicienne, Beyrouth 1969.

(17) Cf. the still basic work of H. GOESEKE, Die Sprache der semitischen Texte Ugarits und ihre Stetlung innerhalb des Semitischen: Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Martin Luther- Universitdt Halle-Wittenberg, Ges.-Sprachwiss., 7 ( 1 9 5 8 ) , pp. 623-52.

(18) Cf. the seminal review article by W. VON SODEN, Zur Einteilung der semitischen Sprachen:

WZKM, 5 6 (1960), pp. 177-91; and recently G. G A R B I N I , II semitico di nord-ovest nell'eta del Bronzo:

Atti del 1" Convegno Italiano sul Vicino Oriente antico, Roma 1978, pp. 163-73; I. J . G E L B , Thoughts about Ebla: Syro-Mesopotamian Studies, 1 (1977), p p . 3-30, a n d G. GARBINI, Pensieri su Ebla (ovvero:

le uova di Babilonia): AION, 38 (1978), p p . 41-52.

(19) That must be somewhat qualified in the case of Esmun, for he is also found, though very rarely, in Ugarit.

The Phoenician Language. 379

S i d o n ) a n d C y p r u s again as the m a i n m a n i f e s t a t i o n s o f E a s t e r n P h o e n i c i a n (x) . Ne­

vertheless, it seems t o m e q u i t e p o s s i b l e that the p h e n o m e n a w h i c h w e r e n o t e d m a y s o m e t i m e s reflect local scribal t r a d i t i o n s as i n c u n e i f o r m a n d , c o n s e q u e n t l y , n e e d n o t reflect linguistic reality to t h e extent that w e w o u l d like to t h i n k . T w o e x a m p l e s w i l l s u f f i c e t o s h o w h o w little reliability there actually is inherent in the criteria f o r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .

A « Cilician » P h o e n i c i a n h a s been t h o r o u g h l y d e m o n s t r a t e d to u s b y the K i l a m u w a i n s c r i p t i o n a n d the K a r a t e p e texts. G a r b i n i assigns it t o the T y r i a n dialect Q1). T w o a m u l e t t s w e r e f o u n d n e a r b y , the p r o v e n a n c e of w h i c h c a n n o t be d e t e r m i n e d w i t h cer­

t a i n t y b u t w h i c h are t h o u g h t to be f r o m A r s l a n Ta? (n) . T h e y present several p e c u l i a r features, w h i c h b e t r a y a n A r a m a i c i n f l u e n c e b u t w h i c h also s h o w the p r o b a b i l i t y o f dialectical differences a n d / o r divergent scribal t r a d i t i o n f o r their place of origin, w h o s e P h o e n i c i a n c a n n o t b e a s c r i b e d t o a n y of the « m a i n dialects ».

C o n n e x i o n s h a v e a l r e a d y b e e n established w i t h the H e b r e w of the n o r t h e r n king­

d o m , a n d i n this regard, G a r b i n i ' s o b s e r v a t i o n that the S a m a r i a o s t r a c a — if o n e lea­

v e s aside the o n o m a s t i c o n — c a n b e c o n s t r u e d o r t h o g r a p h i c a l l y as P h o e n i c i a n is in s o m e respects valid. H e r e as w e l l , scribal t r a d i t i o n s w h i c h w e r e q u i t e closely related, especially in the area of e c o n o m y , m a y h a v e u s seeing similarities w h i c h d o n ' t actually exist (B). Nevertheless, t h e q u e s t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p o f P h o e n i c i a n t o H e b r e w re­

q u i r e s r e n e w e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n (see b e l o w t o the tense system).

T h e q u e s t i o n b e c o m e s still m o r e d i f f i c u l t w h e n w e t u r n t o « W e s t P h o e n i c i a n » o r P u n i c as I still p r e f e r t o call it. T o b e g i n w i t h there are n o a p p r e c i a b l e differen­

ces w i t h P h o e n i c i a n . T h e l a n g u a g e is o r i e n t a t e d i n its b a s i c aspects t o w a r d the dia­

lect o f T y r e / S i d o n . I n a n y event it s h o w s n o n e o f the features o f the dialect o f A r - v a d , if w e d i s c o u n t N e o - P u n i c f o r t h e m o m e n t , w h i c h c a n s o m e t i m e s b e seen i n C y p r u s ,

(20) G. GARBINI, / dialetti del fenicio: AION, 37 (1977), p p . 283-94.

(21) Ibid., p. 289.

(22) F o r t h e t w o i n c a n t a t i o n texts f r o m A r s l a n Ta? see W . ROLLIG: NESE, 2 (1974), p p . 17-36 a n d f o r n. 1 (KAI 27) A. CAQUOT, Observations sur la Premiere Tablette Magique d'Arslan Tash: JANES, 5 (1973), p p . 45-51; E . LIPINSKI: ATD Ergdnzungband, 1 (1975), p. 264f. F o r n. 2 see n o w M . LIVERANI,' Proposte sul secondo incantesimo di Arslan Tash: RSF, 2 (1974), p p . 50-54; F. M . CROSS, Leaves from an Epigraphist's Notebook: CBQ, 36 (1974), p p . 486-90; T. H . GASTER, A Hang-up for Hang-ups:

BASOR, 209 (1973), p p . 18-26.

(23) G. GARBINI closes h i s article m e n t i o n e d a b o v e w i t h the sentence « A d ogni m o d o , bisognera tener presente 1'eventualita che ai dialetti fenici s o p r a e s a m i n a t i sia d a aggiungere u n n u o v o dia- letto, q u e l l o p a r l a t o dagli israeliti d i S a m a r i a — a l m e n o nel I X secolo a.C. » (p. 294). H e c o n t i n u e s i n t h i s vein b a s e d m a i n l y o n seal inscriptions in his article Fenici in Palestina: AION, 39 (1979), p p . 325-30. A l t h o u g h I c a n appreciate the p r o v o c a t i v e cleaverness of m y esteemed collegue, I a m c o n v i n c e d that t h e epigraphic m e t h o d is i n s u f f i c i e n t f o r such far-reaching conclusions. T h e ex­

t r e m e l y defective o r t h o g r a p h y , t h e f o r m u l a i c n a t u r e of the inscriptions a n d t h e r e d u c t i o n o f voca­

b u l a r y m e n t i o n e d a b o v e d o n o t a l l o w u s t o d e t e r m i n e w i t h certainty a f f i n i t i e s a n d differences o f C a n a a n i t e ideolects. O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , the r e p e a t e d l y re-edited text of the O l d T e s t a m e n t , h a r m o ­ nized again b y the Masoretes, a l l o w s u s t o m a k e statements a b o u t s y n c h r o n i c a n d d i a c h r o n i c diffe­

rentiation w i t h i n H e b r e w o n l y i n a f e w places. M o r e o v e r , it s h o u e d be r e m e m b e r e d that S. SEGERT h a d a l r e a d y stated in ArOr, 29 (1961), p . 255 « S o m i t ergibt sich der Schluss, dass die i n der Insch- rift d e s K o n i g s v o n M o a b (d.h. Mesa-Stele) v e r w e n d e t e S p r a c h e H e b r a i s c h w a r , u n d z w a r sein m i t - telpalastinensicher Dialekt ». Consequently, one could, if one w a n t e d to develop these ideas f u r t h e r , c o n s t r u c t a P h o e n i c i a n — Israelite — M o a b i t e Koine f o r the n i n t h c e n t u r y B.C.!

3 8 0 W. Rollig

P y r g i a n d S p a i n (24). T h i s is a g r a t i f y i n g c o n f i r m a t i o n o f t h e h i s t o r i c a l a c c o u n t s o f t h e f o u n d a t i o n o f Carthage. I t a l s o p o i n t s o u t , h o w e v e r , that the P h o e n i c i a n e x p a n s i o n i n the M e d i t e r r a n e a n w a s c e r t a i n l y n o u n i f o r m p h e n o m e n o n , b u t r a t h e r d e v e l o p e d a l o n g several lines (25). T h e later P u n i c i n s c r i p t i o n s , w h i c h c a n scarcely b e d a t e d , s h o w c h a n­

ges i n the p r o n o m i n a l s u f f i x e s a n d i n the p r e f i x o f the c a u s a t i v e s t e m . T h e s e m a y p e r h a p s o n l y reflect o r t h o g r a p h i c v a r i a n t s , as the o r t h o g r a p h y g r a d u a l l y m o v e d a w a y f r o m that o f the m o t h e r - c o u n t r y , a n d w h i c h are c e r t a i n l y t o b e t r a c e d b a c k t o t h e substrata a n d superstrata ( L a t i n ) . T h e d i v i s i o n i n t o P u n i c a n d N e o - P u n i c , m a d e o n t h e b a s i s of the s c r i p t (26) a n d a r b i t r a r i l y c o n s i d e r e d to h a v e b e e n c o m p l e t e d b y 146 B . C . w i t h the d e s t r u c t i o n o f C a r t h a g e , b r i n g s n o b a s i c changes. T h e o r t h o g r a p h y , h o w e v e r , b e c o ­ m e s m o r e a n d m o r e degenerate, s o t h a t F r i e d r i c h w a s c e r t a i n l y r i g h t i n c o i n i n g the t e r m

« V u l g a r p u n i s c h » ( c o r r e s p o n d i n g to v u l g a r L a t i n , s u c h as is f o u n d i n t h e i n s c r i p t i o n s o f N o r t h A f r i c a ) , w h i c h u n f o r t u n a t e l y h a s n o t b e e n t a k e n u p i n s u b s e q u e n t p u b l i c a t i o n s . T h i s r a t h e r i m p r e c i s e s c r i b a l t r a d i t i o n n a t u r a l l y h a d the c o n s e q u e n c e that dialecti­

cal d i f f e r e n c e s c o u l d n o l o n g e r b e recognized. Still, these m a y b e a s s u m e d f o r t h e v a ­ r i o u s r e g i o n s o f N o r t h A f r i c a , t h o u g h they m a y n o t h a v e b e e n p a r t i c u l a r l y u n i f o r m c o n s i d e r i n g the v a r i e d s u b s t r a t a . Still, the a d o p t i o n of P u n i c b y the N u m i d i a n k i n g d o m (Masinissa, r a i s e d i n Carthage, h a d a P u n i c v o t i v e i n s c r i p t i o n p l a c e d i n M a l t a (27), t h e c o i n a g e u s e d the P u n i c script a n d t h e grave i n s c r i p t i o n is b i l i n g u a l ) s h o w s t h a t a s t r o n g i n t e r a c t i o n m a y b e s u p p o s e d . H i e m s a l , t h e g r e a t - g r a n d s o n o f M a s i n i s s a is s u p p o s e d t o h a v e p u b l i s h e d i n P u n i c h i m s e l f (2S). I t is b y n o m e a n s a m a z i n g that u n d e r R o m a n d o ­ m i n a t i o n m o r e a n d m o r e f o r e i g n w o r d s a n d o c c a s i o n a l l y even f o r e i g n c o n s t r u c t i o n s a r e i n t r o d u c e d . F i n a l l y , t h e L a t i n o - P u n i c i n s c r i p t i o n s a l l o w u s s o m e i n s i g h t as t o h o w f a r the P u n i c p h o n o l o g y h a d d i v e r g e d in the c o u r s e o f t h e c e n t u r i e s f r o m t h a t o f the m o ­ t h e r - c o u n t r y . M o s t n o t a b l e are t h e c h a n g e s i n the v o c a l i c s y s t e m , w h i c h , h o w e v e r , c a n b e i n v e s t i g a t e d in detail o n l y if t h e i n s c r i p t i o n s h a v e b e e n c o l l a t e d a n d r e l i a b l y edited.

T h i s is a n i m p o r t a n t t a s k f o r t h e f u t u r e as w e l l (29), i n the c o u r s e o f w h i c h o n e s h o u l d n o t neglect the s t u d y o f p r o p e r n a m e s , w h i c h c a n b e f o u n d i n large n u m b e r s i n t h e L a t i n i n s c r i p t i o n s o f N o r t h A f r i c a .

T h e P h o e n i c i a n « dialects » are k n o w n t o u s i n o u t l i n e at least, b u t t h e y still re­

q u i r e o u r a t t e n t i o n , f o r the p r e c i s e k n o w l e d g e of regional d i f f e r e n c e s is o f p a r t i c u -

(24) Cf. G . GARBINI: AION, 37 (1977), p. 290. It m u s t b e stated b y w a y of q u a l i f i c a t i o n , t h a t i t is this v e r y a r r a n g e m e n t w h i c h is p r o b l e m a t i c . I n actual fact the results are ex negativo. Phe­

n o m e n a w h i c h c a n b e o b s e r v e d n e i t h e r i n B y b l o s n o r in T y r e n o r i n S i d o n are a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e m o s t n o r t h e r n , a n d a l s o closest t o C y p r u s , coastal city. B u t A r v a d itself h a s n o t p r o d u c e d a n y ins­

c r i p t i o n s , s o that it is i m p o s s i b l e t o m a k e a n y s t a t e m e n t s a b o u t its « d i a l e c t » .

(25) T h a t is suggested n o t o n l y b y v a r y i n g ancient r e p o r t s , w h i c h u n d o u b t a b l y represent d i f ­ ferent h i s t o r i c a l t r a d i t i o n s , b u t a l s o b y t h e u n e v e n d i s t r i b u t i o n o f i n s c r i p t i o n s i n p a r t i c u l a r places, a l s o u n d o u b t a b l y d e t e r m i n e d b y t r a n s m i s s i o n . T h e t w o v e r y o l d i n s c r i p t i o n s f r o m N o r a / S a r d i n i a p o i n t t o s i m i l a r p r o b l e m s .

(26) F o r related q u e s t i o n s see a b o v e n o t e 11 a n d M . SZNYCER: Atti del Secondo Congresso, cit., p. 267, w h o d i f f e r e n t i a t e s three t y p e s o f Neo-Punic scripts. I d o u b t , h o w e v e r , that t y p e 1 (Cartha­

ge b e f o r e 146 B.C.) c a n b e separated f r o m t y p e 3 (« ecriture n e o p u n i q u e d ' A f r i q u e »). T h e special p o s i t i o n o f t h e ( m o n u m e n t a l ) script i n T r i p o l i t a n i a m u s t , o f course, b e recognized.

(27) Cic. Verr. 5, 103, cf. VALER. MAX. 1,1 ext. 2 a n d HAAN, p . 1093. (28) HAAN, I, p. 331 f.

(29) S u c h a p r o j e c t h a s recently b e e n started. See G. COACCI POLSELLI, Per un c o r p u s delle iscri- zioni latino-puniche: Atti del 1" Convegno Italiano sul Vicino Oriente antico, R o m a 1978, pp. 231-41.

I o w e this reference t o M . G. G u z z o AMADASI.

The Phoenician Language . 381

l a r interest f o r the h i s t o r i c a l linguist a n d u l t i m a t e l y f o r the h i s t o r y o f P h o e n i c i a n e x p a n s i o n . F u r t h e r research w i l l a l s o h a v e to give m o r e a t t e n t i o n t o o t h e r areas in w h i c h the characteristics o f P h o e n i c i a n w h i c h clearly c o n t r a s t it t o H e b r e w m a n i f e s t themselves. W h i l e it is t r u e t h a t the s t u d y o f P h o e n i c i a n h a s s o d e v e l o p e d i n recent y e a r s that it m a y n o w c l a i m a n i n d e p e n d a n t value, it is nevertheless a l s o true that P h o e n i c i a n is n o t t o b e u n d e r s t o o d w i t h o u t the h e l p o f H e b r e w .

I n the r e a l m o f m o r p h o l o g y t h e characteristics o f P h o e n i c i a n h a v e b e e n the o b j e c t o f extensive d i s c u s s i o n . U n d e r s t a n d a b l y , h o w e v e r , n o t all the p h e n o m e n a h a v e f o u n d s a t i s f a c t o r y e x p l a n a t i o n s . T h i s is especially true of the p r o n o m i n a l s u f f i x e s , a l t h o u g h the 3 r d p e r s o n singular s u f f i x o n n o u n s a n d verbs, f o r e x a m p l e , h a s received all the at­

t e n t i o n it m e r i t s as a n i n d i c a t o r o f dialectical differences (x) . H e r e w e s h o u l d single o u t the c o m p r e h e n s i v e t r e a t m e n t o f s u f f i x e s b y Segert i n h i s « G r a m m a r ». T h e r e he a r r a n g e d t h e m d i a c h r o n i c a l l y as w e l l as i n t e r m s of s y n t a x (the ties w i t h the n o m i ­ n a t i v e / a c c u s a t i v e o r w i t h the genitive).

F o r all t h a t , the p r o b l e m o f the d e r i v a t i o n a n d p h o n e t i c realization o f the v u l g a r P u n i c s u f f i x e s i n - m r e m a i n s u n s o l v e d . T h e « P h o n i z i s c h - p u n i s c h e G r a m m a t i k » s i m ­ p l y registers it w i t h o u t a t t e m p t i n g a n e x p l a n a t i o n . I . J . G e l b suggests, referring to H a - m i t e , the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a « c o n s o n a n t a l glide », t h o u g h this h a s been s h a r p l y d i s m i s ­ sed b y G. G a r b i n i (31). Segert o p i n e s that the s u f f i x « c a n p e r h a p s b e e x p l a i n e d b y s e c o n d a r y n a s a l i z a t i o n o f t h e f i n a l v o w e l o r b y a n a l o g y w i t h the 3. pi. f o r m s ». H e w o u l d seem t h e n t o b e n o n e t o certain a b o u t this, a n d this is p e r h a p s the r e a s o n w h y t h e p a r a g r a p h i n h i s g r a m m a r t o w h i c h h e refers i n his d i s c u s s i o n of nasalization, d o e s n o t even o c c u r (32). Still, G a r b i n i s e e m s t o h o l d this v i e w as w e l l , arguing: « che la f o r m a - m sia s o l t a n t o u n a v a r i a n t e f o n e t i c a di -y viene reso p r o b a b i l e d a l l a presenza dei d u e s u f f i s s i nella m e d e s i m a iscrizione, H o f r a 121 » (B). W e l l , I c a n n o t f i n d a n e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the r e m a r k a b l e f a c t that different s u f f i x f o r m s o c c u r together in the s a m e i n s c r i p t i o n , b u t I a m still u n h a p p y w i t h a r e c o n s t r u c t i o n w h i c h p o s i t s a s u f f i x f o r m in (M), f o r w h i c h I c a n f i n d n o attestation, as w e l l as the w e l l attested f o r m - d (quid in E l - H o f r a ) . I n d e e d , i n h i s r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e p r o n o m i n a l s u f f i x e s Segert goes s o f a r as t o i n t e r p r e t a w r i t i n g -y as a rendering of -ay(y)a (35). H e places (to b e sure!) a q u e s t i o n m a r k a f t e r w a r d s , b u t I w o u l d n o t s h r i n k f r o m r e c o n s t r u c t i n g /-iyu/

here. I n o t h e r w o r d s , a s u f f i x i n -I w h i c h c o u l d s o m e h o w b e nasalized d o e s n o t e x i s t i n P u n i c . T h a t w o u l d h a v e b e e n a b s u r d , f o r it w o u l d h a v e led to a hopeless c o n f u s i o n w i t h the s u f f i x of the 1st p e r s o n singular. M o r e o v e r , the L a t i n o - P u n i c i n s c r i p t i o n s and the P o e n u l u s p r o v e b e y o n d d o u b t that the -m s u f f i x w a s p r o n o u n c e d -im/-em. I still c a n n o t p r o v i d e a n e x p l a n a t i o n , h o w e v e r . T h e p r o b l e m here, as i n several o t h e r instan-

(30) F. M. CROSS-D.N. FREEDMAN, The Pronominal Suffixes of the Third Person Singular in Phoenician: JNES, 10 (1951), p p . 228-30; C. KRAHMALKGV, Studies in Phoenician and Punic Grammar:

JSS, 15 1970), p. 181 f., especially p p . 185-88; ID.: RSF, 2 (1974), p p . 3943; recently G. GARBINI, / dialet- ti del fenicio; AION, 37 (1977), p. 286 f f . T h e s c o l d i n g i n note 9 is n o t applicable, since s o m e of t h e h y p o t h e s e s of C r o s s - F r e e d m a n w e r e n o t t a k e n u p in PPG2 w i t h g o o d reason, cf. p r o v i s i o n a l l y BiOr, 27 (1970), p. 378.

( 3 1 ) J . FRIEDRICH - W . R O L L I G , PPG1, § 112, I I c ; I . J . GELB, Sequential Reconstruction of Proto- Akkadian: AS, 18 (1969), p. 229 f., see G . GARBINI: AION, 33 (1973), p. 264.

(32) S. SEGERT, Grammar, § 5125 refers t o a non-existent § 35,54.

(33) G. GARBINI: AION, 37 (1977, p . 291, n o t a 28.

(34) N o w h e r e a n alternative w r i t i n g -n, w h i c h s h o u l d be supposed, c a n b e f o u n d . (35) S. SEGERT, Grammar, § 41222.

3 8 2 W. Rollig

ces, c a n o n l y be s a t i s f a c t o r i l y r e s o l v e d w h e n w e h a v e m o r e m a t e r i a l at o u r d i s p o s a l , j u s t as this f o r m o f the p r o n o u n w a s a c t u a l l y recognized o n l y w i t h t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f the texts f r o m E l - H o f r a .

F u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n in the f i e l d s o f s y n t a x a n d stylistics c a n be c a r r i e d o u t , h o w­ ever, even w i t h o u t n e w m a t e r i a l . E n c o u r a g i n g starts h a v e a l r e a d y b e e n m a d e i n these areas.

F r a n c o i s B r o n r i g h t l y n o t e s i n h i s recent b o o k (36), t h a t « L ' e x i s t e n c e m e m e des t e m p s c o n v e r t i s en p h e n i c o - p u n i q u e est u n p r o b l e m e q u i m e r i t e r a i t u n e etude a p p r o - f o n d i e ». I t is c e r t a i n l y r e m a r k a b l e t h a t t h e u s e o f the w a w - c o n s e c u t i v e , w h i c h is so c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of H e b r e w , s e e m s t o h a v e n o real a n a l o g u e i n P h o e n i c i a n (37). T h i s pre­

sents d i f f i c u l t i e s , since m a n y a t t e m p t s at e x p l a n a t i o n s t a r t w i t h the p r e m i s e t h a t t h i s is a p h e n o m e n o n o f later C a n a a n i t e , w h e r e b y a s y n t a c t i c o p p o s i t i o n d e v e l o p e d a f t e r the d i s a p p e a r a n c e o f the s u f f i x c o n j u g a t i o n , w h i c h c o r r e s p o n d s t o tenses a n d aspects. I t is n o t necessary to e n t e r i n t o t h i s d i s c u s s i o n here, since i n this p o i n t P h o e n i c i a n is basi­

cally d i f f e r e n t f r o m H e b r e w . U p t o n o w , a p e r f e c t c o n s e c u t i v e h a s b e e n p o s i t e d o n l y f o r the K a r a t e p e i n s c r i p t i o n , a l t h o u g h w i t h d i f f e r i n g passages given as p r o o f . M o s t re- centily F. B r o n h a s c i t e d the c u r s e f o r m u l a i n KAI 26 I I I 12-14: « B u t if a k i n g ... erases (ymt - i m p e r f e c t ) t h e n a m e of A z i t a w a d d a f r o m t h i s gate a n d sets (wst - perfect) a n o ­ t h e r n a m e o n it ... ». H e n o t e s t h a t the passage is n o t r e c o r d e d i n PPG2, a l t h o u g h the c o m m e n t a r y i n KAI e x p l a i n s t h e f o r m wst as a p e r f e c t w i t h w a w - c o n s e c u t i v e (38)- T h e s a m e f o r m u l a , « a n d sets (his) n a m e o n it » o c c u r s a g a i n i n l i n e 16 o f c o l u m n I I I o f the gate i n s c r i p t i o n a n d i n col. I V 16 o f t h e statue i n s c r i p t i o n . T h e r e , h o w e v e r , it reads, (line 17f.): « H e s p e a k s T w i l l m a k e (pi - i m p e r f e c t ) a n o t h e r s t a t u e a n d set (wst) m y n a m e (smy) o n it... », a l t h o u g h here, as u s u a l , it c a n b e d i v i d e d i n a n o t h e r w a y a n d r e a d :

« H e s p e a k s T w i l l m a k e a n o t h e r statue' a n d h e set h i s n a m e o n it ». I n each case the

« P h o n i z i s c h - p u n i s c h e G r a m m a t i k » u n d e r s t a n d s st as a p a r t i c i p l e , w h i c h is a f o r m a l p o s s i b i l i t y a n d w h i c h t h u s m a k e s it u n s u i t a b l e as a n e x a m p l e o f the w a w - c o n s e c u t i v e . O t h e r e x a m p l e s w h i c h are s o m e t i m e s a d d u c e d s h o u l d b e i n t e r p r e t e d as the perfect u s e d as o p t a t i v e , w h i c h I shall d i s c u s s d i r e c t l y . T h e o n l y r e m a i n i n g e x a m p l e are the v e r y h o m o g e n e o u s o n e s o n the s a c r i f i c i a l t a b l e f r o m M a r s e i l l e , w h i c h are p r o b a b l y t o b e e x p l a i n e d as the p e r f e c t w i t h w a w - c o n s e c u t i v e a f t e r a n i m p e r f e c t . I n t h i s r e g a r d t h e r e m a r k in PPG2 § 266.2, « V i e l l e i c h t liegt h i e r E r h a l t u n g a l t e r t i i m l i c h e r F o r m e l n d e r j u r i s t i s c h e n b z w . religiosen S p r e c h w e i s e v o r , die d e r l e b e n d e n S p r a c h e f r e m d g e w o r d e n w a r », d e s e r v e d m o r e a t t e n t i o n . T h i s is s u p p o r t e d b y t h e p o s s i b l e o c c u r e n c e s o f the i m p e r f e c t w i t h the w a w - c o n s e c u t i v e i n O l d - P h o e n i c i a n i n s c r i p t i o n s . A n a t t e s t a t i o n i n the A h i r o m i n s c r i p t i o n (39) a n d a r a t h e r u n c e r t a i n o n e o n t h e a r c h a i c o f f e r i n g b o w l f r o m K i t i o n (*) m a y p e r h a p s b e c i t e d here, even if o n e c a n n o t e x c l u d e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y

(36) F. BRON, Recherches sur les inscriptions pheniciennes de Karatepe, Geneve/Paris 1979, p. 114 f.

(37) That is still valid despite the efforts of J.-G. F^VRIER, Le waw conversif en punique: Horn- mages a A. Dupont - Sommer, Paris 1971, pp. 191-84 dealing w i t h some still not completely clear Punic inscriptions.

(38) F. BRON, Recherches..., cit., pp. 114, 113-17.

(39) w'l mlk ... 'ly gbl wygl 'rn zn « and i f a king came t o B y b l o s a n d uncovered this sarco­

phagus...» KAI 1,2. See also W. GROSS, Verbalform und Funktion «wayyitqoh, 1976, p. 23, nota20.

(40) ml fr z gib wypg["\ « M L cut this hair and pray[ed ... Astarte ...] ». See most recently, M. G. Guzzo AMADASI, Fouilles de Kition III. Inscriptions pheniciennes, Nicosia 1977, p. 149 ff., line 1, with a discussion of various other reading suggestions.

The Phoenician Language. 383

o f o t h e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . I n general, h o w e v e r , it m u s t be m a i n t a i n e d , that this cons­

t r u c t i o n , w h i c h w a s so p o p u l a r a n d p r o d u c t i v e in H e b r e w , certainly did n o t h a v e the s a m e i m p o r t a n c e i n P h o e n i c i a n - P u n i c . I t c a n thus be d o u b t e d that this p l a y e d a n y decisive r o l e i n the P h o e n i c i a n tense s y s t e m .

A n o t h e r c o m p l e x w h i c h n e e d s a c o m p r e h e n s i v e analysis is the usage o f expres­

s i o n s f o r w i s h a n d p r o h i b i t i o n i n P h o e n i c i a n - P u n i c . PPG2 n o t e d f o u r types of expres­

s i o n o f this n a t u r e , t h o u g h there are m o r e , the n u a n c e s of w h i c h still n e e d to be better u n d e r s t o o d .

1. T h e w i s h c a n b e e x p r e s s e d b y a n o m i n a l sentence. T h i s o c c u r s i n the Pyrgi i n s c r i p t i o n : « a n d the years f o r the v o t i v e i m a g e ... m a y the years be (so n u m e r o u s ) as these stars! » (4I). T h e n o r m a l u s e o f t h e n o m i n a l sentence as a n e x p r e s s i o n of du­

r a t i o n is the decisive f a c t o r h e r e f o r the c h o i c e of c o n s t r u c t i o n . Parallels i n H e b r e w are w e l l k n o w n , s o that i n this i n s t a n c e w e are n o t faced w i t h a p e c u l i a r i t y of Phoe­

n i c i a n .

2. T h e w i s h is e x p r e s s e d relatively f r e q u e n t l y b y the perfect i n the sense o f a precative: « M a y B a a l bless (brk) ... Azitawadda... » « a n d m a y this city e n j o y a sa­

tiety o f w i n e (wkn hqrt z~.) »; o r i n the c o m m o n f o r m u l a « m a y h e hear h i s call, bless h i m , etc... (sm qly brky o r the like). I n these instances the n u a n c e w a s o b v i o u s l y that o f d u r a t i v e effect i n the f u t u r e . T h i s emerges f r o m the fact that the t w i c e attested f o r m u l a : « a n d m a y T i n n i t b e the j u d g e (spt) o f the spirit of this m a n » (42) is repla­

ced o n c e b y t h e c o m p a r a b l e f o r m u l a « that m a n ... T i n n i t w i l l strangle (nkst) » (43), w h e r e the p a r t i c i p l e is f o u n d i n place o f t h e u s u a l f i n i t e verbal f o r m .

3. F u r t h e r m o r e , the w i s h c a n b e expressed b y the s i m p l e i m p e r f e c t (jussive):

« m a y the m i s t r e s s of B y b l o s bless (tbrk) J e h a u m i l k » (**) o r — the n o r m a l blessing f o r m u l a i n the d e d i c a t i o n i n s c r i p t i o n s — m a y they (the gods) bless (ybrk') h i m »;

o r — a n a l o g o u s t o the c u r s e f o r m u l a i n t h e i n s c r i p t i o n cited a b o v e — « m a y B a a l H a - m o n e x t i r p a t e iyqsy) h i m » (45). H o w t h e n u a n c e here d i f f e r s f r o m that of the perfect, h o w e v e r , is d i f f i c u l t t o say. O n e m i g h t i m a g i n e that the i n t e n t i o n w a s to give the n u a n ­ c e o f a l o n g e r stretch i n the f u t u r e , w h i c h f i t s w i t h the use of 7 f o r the negative: « m a y the M u s k a b i m n o t h o n o u r the B a ' r i r i m (7 ykbd) » C6) o r « m a y t h e y n o t b e b u r i e d in a grave (7 yqbr) » (47).

4. T h e c o h o r t a t i v e w i t h t h e s u f f i x -n ( c o r r e s p o n d i n g to H e b r e w -na) is attested at least once: « m a y I get the silver (pqn hksp) » (**). It is t h u s clear that it w a s n o t u n k n o w n i n P h o e n i c i a n , a l t h o u g h it never f o u n d true e x p r e s s i o n there d u e t o the uni­

f o r m i t y of the i n s c r i p t i o n s .

5. F i n a l l y , the w i s h w a s e x p r e s s e d b y the p r o c l i t i c / - w i t h the i m p e r f e c t (preca­

tive). T h i s is attested several t i m e s i n P u n i c , t h o u g h n o t , as w a s s u p p o s e d in PPG2

(41) wsnt Im's ... snt km hkkbm 'I KAI 277, 9-11.

(42) CIS I 3785 = KAI 79, 10f.; 4937,3ff. cf. 5632,6 f. (subject Baal-Hamon).

(43) CIS I 3783,6 f.

(44) KAI 10,8.

(45) CIS I 3784,2 f.

(46) KAI 24,14.

(47) KAI 14,8.

(48) KAI 50,3.

3 8 4 W. Rdllig

in the Old Phoenician of the first incantation text from Arslan Ta?(⁴⁹). In Punic it is found in the blessing formula « may he hear (lysm) », and here it would seem to me that several writings which might be interpreted as perfects are simply orthographically inexact or incorrect renderings of the imperfect. Which nuance this form was suppo­

sed to express remains unclear at present.

6. The potentialis, i.e. the use of a non-proclitic li/lu with the imperfect is known from Plautus: « li phocaneth yth bynuthi » — « If I would just find m y daughter! » C50).

It should be clear from these few sketches that, despite the paucity of material, qui­

te a few constructions can be isolated, which would repay a broader comparative study, possibly in connexion with a study of interrogatives, interjections and negations.

In the use of the infinitive a significant difference can now be seen in comparison to Hebrew, especially after the discovery of the Karatepe inscription. That is the subs­

titution of an infinitive absolute with following 1st person singular independant pro­

noun for a finite verbal form at the beginning of a sentence. The long, heated discus­

sion about this form need not be recapitulated here, especially since it has just been comprehensively treated by F. Bron (51). As S. Segert emphasizes, it should be noted that the appending of a suffix on the infinitive absolute brings with it the syntactically unusual feature, that a suffix can thus be attached to a noun used adverbiall (⁵²). This phenomenon is of special interest for historical linguistics in that analogous usages can be found in the Canaanite of the Amarna period as well as in Ugarit, though not in « clas­

sical » Hebrew. There it appears first in Qoheleth and in the book of Esther. Thus the Phoenician tradition which stretches f r o m the ninth to fifth century B.C., provides a connecting link of sorts. This construction has not yet been attested in Punic. The rea­

son may be that there we lack the inscriptions with declarative historical phrases, whe­

re this construction was specially preferred.

Moreover, it is interesting that in some instances Phoenician uses a different pre­

positional government than the Hebrew, examples of which can again be found in the Karatepe inscription, among others. For the future the further lexical and gram­

matical development of Ugaritic may provide an aid in letting the deviating usages of Phoenician stand out more clearly. In principle, however, the differences are so great no direct comparisons are possible.

Still, there is one area which can profit from a future elucidation of Ugaritic and that is Phoenician stylistics. It goes without saying that style and syntax cannot be viewed separately from one another. Moreover, it is obvious that the laconic dedicatory inscriptions with their formulaic contents can contribute little to a study of Phoeni­

cian and Punic stylistics. On the other hand, the historical inscriptions in Phoenician, especially those of Ahirom, Kilamuwa and Azitawadda, of Jehaumilk and Esmunazar

(49) KM 27,22 f in PPG2 § 317,2b, see W. ROLLIG: NESE, 2 1976), p. 25 f.

(50) Poen. 932, see M. SZNYCER, cit, p. 61 f.

(51) F. BRON, cit., pp. 14346.

(52) S. SEGERT, Grammar, § 64.611.1.

The Phoenician Language. 3 8 5

h a v e j u s t recently b e e n the o b j e c t of increased interest, w h i c h h a s b r o u g h t a b o u t v a r i o u s interesting i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s w i t h r e g a r d t o c o m p o s i t i o n a n d language (53).

I a m sure, that t h e s y s t e m a t i c o b s e r v a t i o n of stylistic pecularities, t h e c o m p o s i­ t i o n o f the i n s c r i p t i o n s — a n d t h i s is t r u e especially f o r P u n i c a n d N e o - P u n i c — w i l l a d v a n c e o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f b o t h , g r a m m a r a n d content. A n d s o s o m e t i m e i n the f u t u r e — a n d I h o p e i n the n o t s o d i s t a n t f u t u r e — o u r illustri colleghi a n d w e shall b e clear w h a t w e m e a n w h e n w e speak of the « P h o e n i c i a n language ».

(53) Cf. e.g. J . C. GREENFIELD, Scripture and Inscription: The Literary and Rhetorical Element in Some Early Phoenician Inscriptions: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of W. F. Albright, B a l t i m o r e / L o n d o n 1971, p p . 253-68; ID., The Zakir Inscription and the Danklied: Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies, 1 (1971), p p . 174-91; T . COLLINS, The Kilamuwa Inscription — a Phoeni­

cian Poem: WO, 6 (1971-72), p p . 181-88; G. GARBINI, Analisi di inscrizioni fenicie: AION, 37 (1977), p p . 403-16.