By P. Swiggers
(Belgian National Science Foundation [N.F.W.O.]), Leuven
The oldest Semitic inscriptions exhibit some verbal formations which
have disappeared in the later dialects. The Bar-räkib inscription (ca.
730 B.C.) line 14 for instance has the form htn'hw, which must be
explained as a hittanaf al from y'W or as a hitp^'el or hitpa" al from
reb\
In Phoenician, the inscription of Ahiram, line 2, has revealed the
existence of a Qal reflexive with t infix: the verbal forms thtsp and thtpk
cannot be read otherwise as Gt stems (Ifta'al) of hsp and hpk^. The other
verbal patterns which occur in Phoenician are: Qal, Nifal, Pi"el,
Pu"al'', Yif il and perhaps Yufal'. In Punic there are also examples of
the reflexive factitive, Hitpa" el and Hitpolel*. The purpose of the
* The author wants to thank the Belgian National Science Foundation
(N.F.W.O.) for its financial support. He is indebted to Prof E. Lipinski and
Prof A. ScHOORS (Leuven) for valuable suggestions, and to F. Dekoning for
the excellent typing.
' The hittanaf al is the hitpa" al of the nif'al (which does not exist in Aramaic) . The form is explained as an Akkadian influence and must probably be vocalised as hittane'abu. For the interpretation see S. Moscati [ed.]: An Intro¬
duction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages. Phonology and
Morphology. Wiesbaden 1969^, p. 129 and J. C. L. Gibson: Textbook of Syrian
Semitic Inscriptions. Vol. II: Aramaic Inscriptions including inscriptions in the dialect of Zenjirli. Oxford 1975, p. 91 note 14.
^ This interpretation was first proposed by A. Poebel: Das oppositionell bestimmte Pronomen der 1. Pers. Sing, in den west-semitischen Inschriften. Chicago 1932, p. 51. The verb n' b is however not attested in the other Semitic languages.
' See Z. S. Harris: A Grammar of the Phoenician Language. New Haven 1936,
p. 43 and P. Swiggers: Notes on the Ahiram inscription. In: Orientalia Lova¬
niensia Periodica 12 (1982) (forthcoming).
■*For the existence of Pu"al see P. Swiggers: Les etudespheniciennes:progres et perspectives. In: Lingua 50 (1980), p. 387.
' S. Segert: A Grammar of Phoenician and Punic. Miinehen 1976, p. 143.
S. Seoert o.e. p. 141.
16 ZDMG 131/2
226 P. Swiggers
present article is to show that the same verbal pattern is also attested in
Phoenician, more specifically in North-Phoenician', but that its
phonetic form is Yitpa"el or Yitpolel.
In the Kilamu wa inscription*, line 10 we have the form ytlnn. This
verbal form must be read as a Perfect, given the narrative context, viz. a
description of the past: "before the former kings, the mäkbm cowed like
dogs" {Ipn hmlkm hlpnyni ytlnn mSkhm km klbm). The verbal form is a
Perfect of the Yitpa' ' el of Inn, or a Perfect of the Yitpolel of lün^. In each
case however, the verb cannot be read as an Imperfect. This point was
missed by Stanislav Segert'" in his recent Grammar of Phoenician
and Punic. Postulating a verbal pattern Hitpa"el or Hitpolel here", the
author interprets the form ytlnn as an imperfect of the Hitpolel of lün
(Segert does not take into account the presence of a root Inn). As a
consequence, he is forced to explain this imperfect as exceptionally
referring to a past action'^. This "exception" however does not exist.
The form ytlnn clearly is a Perfect of the Yitpa' ' el of Inn or of the
Yitpolel of lün. It is surprising that most authors'^ have recognised the
existence of a Yif ll (instead of HiPil) in Phoenician (with the exception of the old Byblian dialect'"). Z. Harris has tried to explain this parti-
' Elsewhere I have attempted a comparative study of the Old-Phoenician dialects (to appear in Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 1982). For a general survey see G. Garbini: / dialetti del fenicio. In: AION 37 (1977), p. 283-294.
* First published by F. von Luschan in: Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli. 4.
Berlin 1911, p. 374-377. Also published by M. Lidzbarski: Eji/n incris fürsemi¬
tische Epigraphik. III. Giessen 1915, 218-238; H. Bauer: Di< "(abo- Inschrift aus
Sendschirli. In: ZDMG 67 (1913), p. 684-691; H. Don.m-k-W. Köllig:
Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften {KAI) . Wiesbaden 1966-1969^ (nr. 24)
andS. Segert, o.e. p. 270. For new readings seeE. Lipm ski: From Karatepe to
Pyrgi. Middle Phoenician Miscellanea. In: Rivista di studi fenici (1974), p. 45-61 (p. 49-50).
' For the relation between verbs mediae w and verbs with identical second and third radicals, see Z. Frajzyngier: Notes on the R1R2R2 stems in Semitic.
In: JSS 24 (1979), p. 1-12. In Biblical Hebrew the vocalization points to a root
lün. For examples in BibUcal Hebrew, see Exod 15:24, 16:2-7; Numbers
14:2-27-29-36, 16:11, 17:6 and Psalms 59:15-16.
And also by his predecessors (Harris, Friedrich, Van den Branden).
" See Segert o.e. p. 141 (§ 54.364), p. 153 (§ 54.473), p. 188 {§ 64.234), p. 189 (§ 64.252), p. 191 (§ 64.342) and p. 194 (§ 64.434.2).
" Segert o.e. p. 194 (§ 64.434.2). It is the only example of an imperfect used to express a non-repeated past action . . .
Already since Z. Harris, o.e. p. 42: "In the Causative Phoenician has a peculiar form "iiqtll, as compared with hiqtil, 'aqtala, Saqtel and the related forms (. . .)".
Cf P. Swiggers: Les etudes . . . o.e. p. 384-385.
cular formation: "The form iiqtU must be ultimately connected with the
Hebrew hiqtU, for it could hardly represent a new Causative prefix.
Hiqtil already had the i vowel in its preformative in very early times, as
is seen from the Amama letters. The initial h may first have become an
'; at all events the following i vowel must have been a factor in the final
development to i. This development could have originated as a sandhi
phenomenon, something on the order of *M 'iqtil tending to *hu iiqtil,
*'an6lcl 'iqtdlti to *'an6ki iiqtdlti and so on. The development of an i
glide between two vowels of which the second is i would not be strange,
and the Hifil would nonnally occur not initially, but after a noun or
pronoun. Finally, there is always the possibility of the working of some
analogy not quite clear at present"'^. This explanation, which is by far
the most extended one can find in grammars of the Phoenician
language, is not satisfactory. Speiser, in his suggestive article on
Semitic formatives", has offered the solution of the problem: all the
Semitic languages manifest a solidarity between the morphemes of the
causative and reflexive verbal stems and the morphemes of the prono¬
minal suffixes of the third person singular. Akkadian for instance has a
Safel pattern and the pronouns M and Si^''. Hebrew is characterised by a
h morpheme: compare the Hif il pattern and the pronouns hü and hf^.
In Phoenician the pronouns of the third person are written after a
singular noun in the genitive, after nouns ending in long vowels, and
after verbs^°. Elsewhere the sufiix is not represented in the orthogra¬
phy. In view of the abovementioned morphemic solidarity, one must
accept a Yitpa" el (or Yitpolel) pattem for Phoenician. The only
Z. Harris o.e. p. 43.
E. Speiser: Studies in Semitic Formatives. In: JAOS 56 (1936), p. 22-46.
This article appeared in the same year as Z. Harris' grammar.
Also in Minean, Qatabanian and Hadrami, which have a ^-causative and S,
Sw, SWW, Syw (except for the Hadrami feminine singular which is ä or t) as
pronouns of the third person. See A. F. L. Beeston: A Descriptive Orammar of
Epigraphie South Arabian. London 1962, p. 19 and p. 44-45.
Also in Moabite, Ancient Aramaic, Sabean and Harami, Lihyanite and the
modern South-Arabian dialect of Mehri.
" S. Segert o.e. p. 97-101. The Old Bybhan dialect has h, cf. Z. Harris o.e.
p. 51.
For a study of the distribution of the suffixes of the third person singular
and plural in Phoenician, see F. M. Cross— D. N. Freedman: The Pronominal
Suffixes of the Third Person Singular in Phoenician. In: JNES 10 (1951), p. 228-
230; C. Krahmai.kov: Studies in Phoenician and Punic Grammar. In: JSS 15
(1970), p. 181-188 (p. 181-185), and the same author's The Object Pronouns of
the Third Person of Phoenician and Punic. In: Rivista di studi fenici 2 (1974), p. 39-43.
16»
228 P. Swiggers
example of this unproductive pattem (which was nevertheless
preserved in Punic as ltpa"el) in Phoenician is the form ytlnn in the
Kilamuwa inscription, belonging to the North-Phoenician dialect. This
form cannot be interpreted as an Imperfect Hitpa"el (or Hitpolel), but
has to be listed as a Perfect Yitpa' ' el (or Yitpolel) . It is to be hoped that
in forthcoming grammars of Phoenician this fact, together with its
stmctural sohdarity with the presence of a Yifil and the pronominal
suffixes of the third person singular, will not be left unnoticed.
Verb-Forms
By Saul Levin, Binghamton, N.Y.
I
At first sight (or rather at first hearing) the altemation illustrated by
jf'f {'akala) 'he ate, he has eaten' and its pausal counterpart ['akal] is
peculiar to Arabic' While Hebrew too has an altemation between
non-pausal and pausal forms, it is not easy to discem what the Hebrew
and the Arabic altemation have in common. As long as we say that in
Hebrew the non-pausal form is "JDN {'okal) whereas the pausal is Vbs
{ 'okol }, no correlation appears between the Hebrew difference in vowel-
quality within the second syllable of the root and the Arabic difference
of a final vowel present or absent.
But when we cite the Hebrew forms more fully, and with a sufficient
context — e.g.,
"nrn VSs {?3käl hayöwm} 'he has eaten today' (I Sam. 14:30),
^anV "^SN {'5kal Vexcm} 'he has eaten (ate) bread' (30:12),
pausal ••'?5n {'okol} (Ezek. 19:3, etc.) -
we are led to a discovery. Now we have only to restate the comparative
facts: The Hebrew pausal from {'okol) has a fixed accent upon the
second syllable, while the Arabic pausal form ['akal] has no final
vowel ;^ on the other hand, Arabic maintains the final vowel in the non-
pausal environment, where Hebrew shows a variable accent, not
' See Harris Birkeland: Altarabische Pausalformen. Oslo 1940. (Skrifter
utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo. II: Hist.-Filos. Klasse, 1940, No. 4), especially p. 21. I use square brackets [ ] for a strict phonetic repre¬
sentation, and curved braces { ) for a transliteration from the Oriental to
modified Latin characters. For accuracy and consistency, my transliteration of
Hebrew and Aramaic departs from the customary ones in several respects.
^ The one occurrence of jrt in the Qur'än (5.3) is not at the end of a verse; but jij^i 'and he hamstrung' is at the end of 54.29, and jlJ 'it has gone before' (20.99[100]) is marked with a voluntary pause, hence [fa''aqar, sabaq].
