Printer Friendly

Phoenician-Punic grammar and lexicography in the new millennium.

Linguists, Semitists, historians, and biblical scholars will welcome two new research aids by Charles R. Krahmalkov. A specialist in Northwest Semitic languages and epigraphy, the author has produced brief, accessible, and innovative analyses of the Phoenician language and its vocabulary. Since 1970, Krahmalkov has published fundamental studies elucidating Phoenician-Punic grammar and syntax. Transliterated Punic texts are among the least intelligible in the surviving corpus of Northwest Semitic. Krahmalkov has long pondered the Punic passages of Plautus' Poenulus and the Neo-Punic stelae in Latin letters from Tripolitania, and his achievements have made these vocalized texts fundamental for grammatical description of Phoenician and Punic. (1)

Both books are accessible to specialists and educated non-specialists. All Semitic texts are transliterated, and the writing is clear and precise, avoiding technical jargon and needless formalism. Examples almost invariably include transliteration. English translation, and morphological or phonological analysis. When the author comments on a form or construction, he cites complete phrases or sentences (in transliteration and English translation) in support of the analysis. Italic capitals transliterate Phoenician letters; Latin letters are transliterated with boldface lowercase roman type. (2)

The reader can discern the textual base of both the grammar and the lexicon from the reference lists (PPD 19-21; PPGK xvi-xix). (3) Most published texts are represented, with some omissions. (4) Krahmalkov generally follows established readings, but offers several brilliant new restorations and alternative readings. Specialists may find some readings open to question.

The limited bibliographical citations make these works truly a personal statement. (5) Scholarly consensus is inconsistently represented, compelling readers to weigh the evidence by comparison with other grammars and lexica. I will review the grammar first, then the dictionary, despite the reverse order of publication.



THE PHOENICIAN LANGUAGE (1-15). Krahmalkov sets out cultural and geographic terminology first: the indigenous name of Phoenicia was PT /put/; the name of the Phoenicians and their language was /ponnim/ (note the interpretation of Ps. 45:12b-14a). A discussion of Plautus' Poenulus establishes this usage (3-5). Linguistic diversity characterized "Greater Phoenician" (6) as a language in all periods and regions (6). The essay then sketches the southern coastal dialects (7-8), the northern coastal dialects (Arvad, Byblos) (8-9), and western Phoenician (10-15).

ALPHABET, ORTHOGRAPHY, AND PHONOLOGY (16-37). According to the author, the consonantal system for writing Phoenician derives from literary Ugaritic, but Phoenician scribes infrequently employed waw and yod as vowel letters in spelling foreign names and writing certain inflectional morphemes (e.g., pleonastic spelling of the pronoun 'NKY 'aniki "I"; plene spelling of the first-person singular possessive suffix -i "my"). The tendency to employ vowel letters increases with time in Punic and Neo-Punic. In Phoenician, 'alep is infrequently used to represent final vowels in transcribing hypocoristic personal names and foreign personal and geographic names. Krahmalkov delineates orthographic distinctives of Cypriote inscriptions and the increasing divergence of Punic and Neo-Punic spelling practice.

Before surveying phonology, Krahmalkov acknowledges the sporadic and incomplete character of the evidence, cautioning that his own description is "perforce fragmented, incomplete and always problematic" (20). These limitations arise in part because the author makes more extensive use of examples from transliterated Punic and Neo-Punic texts than any previous grammar of the language.

According to Krahmalkov's analysis, the Proto-West-Semitic sibilant series [theta], s, s merged in Phoenician as simple /s/, represented orthographically as S (25-26). Transcriptions such as 'S = /'is/ may confuse readers who fail to apprehend this point. Regarding vowels, note the single example of the so-called "furtive" a-vowel before a laryngeal (32). The discussion of word stress and vowel reduction (33-37) advances beyond previous treatments, bringing system to the apparently disparate spellings of Phoenician words in Greek and Latin letters. Among the truly brilliant analyses are Punic ierasan /ye[r'.sup.a]san/ < /yer'isan/ (*YR'SN in Phoenician letters) "may he shake," and Neo-Punic iryla /yir'ila/ (*YR'L) with the same meaning (34; cf. PPD 446 s.v. R-'-S and 445 s.v. R-'-L). Further discussion of phonotactics, for example regarding the orthography of the consonant 'alep, would have enhanced an already fine phonological analysis. (6)

INDEPENDENT PERSONAL PRONOUNS (38-49). Chapter 3 begins the format that continues through the rest of the book: section A of the chapter or topic presents morphology (followed by comments), and section B takes up syntax and usage (see the rationale, xiv). The vocalization of the first-person singular independent pronoun /'aniki/ is explained from the Latin-letter spellings anec(h) and anic (39-40). (7) The intensive personal pronoun BT or BNT "I myself" is now fully described (47-48). (8) The anaphoric pronoun ("that, the aforementioned") is analyzed with respect to syntactic context (determination of the antecedent noun or of the pronoun, 48), and the emphatic anaphoric pronoun (BT- or BNT-"the/that very, the/that same"; to be distinguished from the intensive personal pronoun is a newly recognized form. (9) Note that the second-person feminine plural independent pronoun remains unattested (39, 41). (10)

SUFFIXAL PRONOUNS (50-74). One of Krahmalkov's lasting contributions to the study of Phoenician and Punic grammar is his description of the morphology and distribution of suffixal pronouns. (11) Krahmalkov worked out the phonological shape of these morphemes in several important studies, updated and supplemented in this grammar. The second-person feminine plural suffixal pronoun remains unattested. Krahmalkov has supplied three attestations of the third-person feminine plural suffixal pronoun (55, 59). The synchronic dimension of this grammar's approach can be seen in its care to document orthography as well as morphology: e.g., QL' and QL' are listed as variants of the third-person masculine singular suffix in Form A (51), although only a spelling variation is involved. The discussion of syntax (72-74) distinguishes five categories of object pronouns (note the interpretation of KAI 89.2).

DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS AND THE DEFINITE ARTICLE (75-92). The grammar recognizes a Z-series (masc. Z, 'Z, Z', esde, esse; fem. Z, 'Z), an S-series (S, si, sy), an S-series with excrescent -t (ST, sith, syth), the neuter hoc (a Latin loan?), and the plural ('L, 'L', ily, illi). The syntactic discussion (77-82) distinguishes pronominal and adjectival uses of the demonstrative, further distinguishing deictic and locative uses. Determination is a free variant, producing the phrases QRT Z, HQRT Z, QRT HZ, and HQRT HZ. Byblian employed two sets of demonstrative pronouns, labeled A and B (82-85). The section on the definite article makes significant steps forward in defining the morphology and phonological realization of determination in Phoenician and Punic.

RELATIVE AND DETERMINATIVE PRONOUNS (93-107). The first part of the chapter (93-103) concerns the relative pronoun. The author mentions but does not describe the old relative pronoun zu, written Z, found in archaic inscriptions from Byblos (KAI 1-7). From the ninth century onward, the relative pronoun 'is replaced the older form in all dialects of Phoenician and Punic (94). (12) The phonetic shape can be determined from "the plene spelling 'YS and Roman and Greek letter spellings es, is, ys, vs." (13) A Hebrew example is cited in Num. 1:4. Krahmalkov stresses that the form s- is a determinative pronoun, not a relative (94). (14) Late in the Neo-Punic phase, a form mu replaced 'is, or combined with it in the relative phrase mu 'is (this form is the key to a stunning interpretation of Poen. 939). A possible example of Phoenician M = mu in a votive inscription on a bronze carinated bowl (15) is problematic, as the author notes (the text as transcribed ignores the numeral 2 in the original).

Discussion of the syntax of the relative pronoun is organized in eleven sections. The first category involves a relative pronoun intro-ducting non-verbal clauses (a) with or (b) without an independent personal pronoun (95-96). In the second category, the relative pronoun introduces verbal relative clauses employing (a) participles or (b) finite verbs (96-97). The third category involves relative clauses with a resumptive pronoun, subdivided into (a) clauses including a pronoun that resumes the indirect object and (b) clauses without such a pronoun. (The last example under category b [99] appears to be misplaced; see my comments concerning category eight below.) Additional categories involve ellipsis of the antecedent of the relative pronoun, relative pronoun with definite article, locative function of the relative, and relative pronoun as adverbial complement to the jussive/optative (99). This last category is exemplified in a Neo-Punic inscription from Mactar (KAI 147), ingeniously interpreted by Krahmalkov as a report of a prayer service. The damaged condition of the inscription leaves room for uncertainty about its complete restoration, but as a possible example of Punic prayer, the passage has tremendous significance. (16)

Category eight, designated the virtual relative clause, (17) fits the Neo-Punic example from KAI 168 (101), which appeared out of place in category 3b above. The Phoenician example, from the Ur ivory box (KAI 29), involves a restoration. Krahmalkov follows H. L. Ginsberg's apt suggestion that the fourth letter be restored as S rather than Z, an earlier restoration. (18) This new restoration is rejected by some epigraphers in favor of the relative [Z]N. (19) Krahmalkov's syntactic analysis depends on the restoration S, which eliminates the relative pronoun; MGN is the verb (see 167). Firmer examples are needed.

Categories nine and ten examine compound relative phrases: 'S L- and 'S B-, and 'S LY, called an independent possessive pronoun (102). The cited examples of the independent possessive pronoun appear to be cases of 'S L-with pronominal suffixes on the preposition (see also 112).

The final category of relative pronominal syntax, the pseudo-relative clause, is "a feature of rhetoric and style rather than function" (102). (20) The main example is from Karatepe-Aslantas (KAI 26 C III 2-4). This sentence, from lines 2-4 of the statue inscription, is difficult to analyze textually as well as syntactically. Line 3 was apparently omitted by the scribe (by homoioteleuton) and inserted in small letters between lines 2 and 4. (21) The resulting text may include a dittography of the demonstrative Z. (22) Compounding the uncertainty about the meaning of the sentence is the difficult word MSKT, translated by Krahmalkov "sacrifices" (102). The Hieroglyphic Luwian parallel text uses the word haparis, probably meaning "river-land"; adopting this meaning would require a reanalysis of the syntax. (23) The pseudo-relative clause thus remains without a fitting example. The keen analysis of dedications of the type NP 'S V-S (102-3) merits close attention.

The determinative pronoun is "a proclitic, uninflected for number, gender and case" (103). Of the same lineage as the Akkadian determinative pronoun sa, its syntactic--not morphological--counterpart is the inflected particle d-, dt, dt of Ugaritic (104). Its phonological shape was si with doubling (lengthening) of the following consonant (103). In Phoenician orthography, the particle appears as S written solid with the following word or suffix. Two forms are attested: in Latin letters, Form A is written su-, sy-, si- (103); Form B is always SL- (103).

Discussion of syntax and usage distinguishes expressions of indirect genitive relationships (104-6) from expressions of personal relationship (107). The indirect genitive section begins with Form B (104-5). The construction is attested only three times in Phoenician, in texts of the Hellenistic period. Again a new reading and a restoration reinterpret a difficult passage of the later Phoenician papyrus from Egypt (KAI 51 verso 2); the example in the grammar (105) regroups the older word division HRM LYM as HRMNYM, reading N for previous L. The word HRMNYM, interpreted as a toponym (Hermonim or Hermon-Yam), is then restored in the lacuna at the end of the line (see also PPD 197 s.v.). The reading requires confirmation, but it suggests new interpretive possibilities for the text of this paleographically difficult papyrus. All attestations of SL- can be glossed with "of."

The discussion of Form A notes that S- is common in Punic and Neo-Punic, and is often used in labeling contexts where the governing noun is unexpressed (105). Coins provide examples of this usage, and here a contrast between Phoenician L- and Punic S- can be detected (106).

The precise sense of constructions in which S- precedes a personal name is uncertain: it may imply descent or servitude. The author favors descent, advancing the view that the construction involves elision of a noun: S'ZRT PN "of the family of PN" becomes SPN "of PN" (107). There is no clear syntactic distinction between uses of Form A expressing personal relationship and labeling uses with absent governing noun. The distinction may be principally semantic, but the grammar's meticulous analysis brings the question clearly before its reader.

INTERROGATIVE PRONOUNS AND OTHER PRONOUNS (108-19). This chapter distinguishes four types of pronouns: the personal interrogative MY, my, mi (108-9); the neuter interrogative M, M', mu, M' 'S, mu ys (109-11); the independent possessive pronouns 'S LY, 'S L, 'S LN, and SL- with suffixal pronouns (112-14); and the independent object pronouns 'LT (Phoenician) and 'T (Punic) (114-15). The Phoenician examples of the fourth type are instances of the preposition 'LT with pronominal suffixes preceded by the verbs P-T-H or '-R-Y in funerary texts. The meaning of 'LT in these constructions is unclear, but classing it with the independent object pronouns fails to convince. A fifth section (116-19) groups nouns (e.g., 'DM), noun phrases (e.g., BL 'S), and phrases with KL and MNM in specifying and generalizing constructions. Whether pronoun is the best category for some of these constructions remains to be determined. Note the pronoun BT-/bitt-/, in free variation with BNT- /binat-/, signifying "one, oneself; same" (116-17).

NOUN AND ADJECTIVE (120-50). As in previous chapters, the discussion of the noun separates morphology (120-35) from syntax and usage (135-43). Adjectives, which constitute both a morphological category (labeled "true adjectives") and a syntactic pattern ("adjectival nouns"), are discussed with reference to form and function (143-48). Nisbe (or gentilic) forms of the noun and adjective occupy a third section (morphology, 148-49; syntax and usage, 149-50).

The section on noun morphology outdates previous grammatical descriptions. First, it expands the suffix paradigms (120-23). Second, it provides a vocalization for nearly every form discussed. The vocalizations mostly reflect Greek or Latin writings of Punic and Neo-Punic rather than historically reconstructed forms. Here the reader would have benefited from a more detailed discussion of the principles that guided the phonological interpretation of transliterations. Previous grammars, for example PP[G.sup.3], generally represent the historical phonology of morphemes, whereas PPGK strives to describe the phonetic realization of morphemes at representative periods.

An example is the inclusion of the Neo-Punic noun suffix -ut(h) (fem. sing.) with Form A, otherwise -ot in Phoenician, Punic, and Neo-Punic. The divergent phonology of this form is not forced into a historical paradigm, but represented synchronically. (24) Form B of the masculine plural (122) is -em, accounting for MM mem "water" and SMM samem "sky." Synchronic analysis is clearly represented in this placement, because the nouns derive from the bases may- and samay- in all probability. (25) Forms B (-hut) and C (-yut) of the feminine plural suffix (123) are also synchronic representations. The general comments (123-35) range from diachronic analyses to full paradigms of the nouns 'B, 'H, 'ST, BN, and BT.

On syntax and usage of the noun (135-43), discussion moves from number to abstractedness to gender (including valuable asides on the number and gender of the word "god"). Then syntax is the organizing principle: adverbial uses of the noun (139-40) and the genitival relationship (140-43).

Adjectives are a minor lexical category in the attested corpus of Phoenician and Punic (143-44). Krahmalkov identifies new adjectives: DRY /duri/ "lasting, enduring," SPR /sippir/ "beautiful." (26) Description and comparison are the major functions of adjectives (144-45). The predicate adjective is rare. A list of fifteen adjectival nouns with proposed meanings (145-48) raises unanswered questions about lexicalization. (27) Regarding nisbe or gentilic forms, the discussion of names of languages (149) will interest many readers. Part four of this section again concerns lexicalization.

VERBS (151-214). Chapter 9-11 are devoted to verb morphology, syntax, and usage. The first paragraph of chapter 9 summarizes the analysis. There are three verbal moods: indicative, non-indicative (subsuming subjunctive, optative, jussive, cohortative), and imperative. There are four voices: active (transitive and intransitive), passive, stative, and reflexive. There are two aspects: perfective and imperfective. There are six tenses: past perfective, past imperfective, pluperfect, present perfective, present imperfective, and future. "Stem" is the preferred term for the Binyanim, and there are six: Qal, Nip'al, Pi'el/Pu'al, Yip'il/Yop'al, Yitpe'el, and Yitpa'al (this last in Byblian Phoenician only). (28) Stems take nine forms: Suffixing Form, Prefixing Form A (yaqtulu), Prefixing Form B (yaqtul), Prefixing Form C (yaqtula), Active Participle, Passive Participle, Imperative, Infinitive Absolutive, Infinitive Construct.

The next paragraph's plenary adumbration of a discourse-linguistic approach (151-52) locates tense, aspect, and mood at the intersection of syntax with morphology. A table correlating stems (here labeled "Form") with tense, aspect, and mood (153-54) illustrates the axis of selection from which combinations can be mapped.

Neutral labels (e.g., Suffixing Form, A, B, C, etc.) conscientiously preclude premature judgments about function. With regard to tense, however, labeling is carried too far. The reader must keep in mind over a 120-page span that Past Perfective I stands for past tense expressed with the infinitive absolute, Past Perfective II involves Prefixing Verb B (recall that B is yaqtul), and Past Perfective III involves (all?) Suffixing Forms (the system is explained on 170 and again on 188). Past Perfectives I and II are restricted to sentence-initial position, Past Perfective III to other positions. Correlating these labels is more difficult than the matter warrants.

Suffixing forms (159-79). The full presentation of morphology (159-70) instructs the user by presenting spelling variants as well as morphemes. Feminine singular verbs with affixed object pronouns are now well described (160), obviating earlier participial interpretations. Vocalized examples of the six stems (162-69) with interpretive comments (169-70) help the learner interpret examples in Phoenician-Punic scripts and Greek and Latin letters.

Tenses and moods organize the discussion of the syntax and usage of suffixing forms: past perfective (170-73, with a paragraph on "Cypriote and Punic Usage," 173-74), pluperfect (174-75), present perfective (175), cohortative and optative (175-76), future (176-77), and consecutive (178-79). The parsimony of the Phoenician writing system leaves many verbs ambiguous with respect to their morphology. This grammar's analysis is empirical: the verb's position in a clause is crucial in establishing past perfective, future, and consecutive tense interpretations and the cohortative and optative moods, but not relevant in the present perfective tense (175). This method is wise, because sentence position is usually unambiguous even if verb morphology is uncertain.

Prefixing forms (181-94). Diachronic analysis is necessary to disambiguate the Prefixing Forms A (yaqtulu), B (yaqtul), and C (yaqtula). Punic and Neo-Punic Latin-letter orthography represents the final -a of Form C (e.g., ierasan [Poen. 1037A]). Prefixing Form A expresses present imperfective, past imperfective, and future. Prefixing Form B is morphologically distinct in second-person feminine singular forms and second- and third-person masculine plurals (188). It expresses Past Perfective, subjunctive, jussive, optative, and cohortative, imperative, prohibitive and vetitive, and negative result. (29) Two examples of Prefixing Form C (192-94) involve excellent interpretations of Punic and Neo-Punic expressions in a difficult passage of Plautus' Poenulus: ierasan (1027 A) from R-`-S, and iyryla (1027 P) from R-`-L, both meaning "may he make tremble." Also discussed in this section is the particle -n affixed to Prefixing Form A in present indicative uses and Prefixing Form B in past perfective uses (193).

Imperatives, participles, infinitives. Chapter 11 (194-214) presents the imperative, the participle, and infinitives. Imperatives are found in three grades: Grade I (zero-grade), Grade II (with -a suffix), and Grade III (with -anna suffix). These grades undoubtedly exemplify the language of deference, a point not explicitly made in the grammar. (30) The active participle differs in form from Hebrew only in loss of the pretonic vowel in the plural: e.g., dobrim/dobrim/ (Poen. 935). Participles provide a surrogate for any tense (199). The "nominal" category (200) recognizes the distinct set of occupational titles derived from participles (e.g., RP' rufe "physician"). The passive participle singular is attested only in feminine forms (201). The afformative is -t affixed directly to the base. For example, the spelling of Punic TNT / tanu(')t/ "was erected" (CIS I 5510.7) indicates the quiescence of syllable-closing 'alep before the afformative.

Most uses of the infinitive construct involve the preposition L- before the verbal noun, or, in temporal expressions, B- (three examples, 202-3). (31) The infinitive construct is highly productive in Phoenician-Punic, serving as direct object of certain verbs, in periphrastic expressions of future possibility, subjunctive, jussive and optative, and imperative. (Krahmalkov was the first to describe the periphrastic future and jussive/optative constructions in a linguistically adequate fashion.)

Phoenician is exceptional among the Canaanite dialects in regularly employing the infinitive absolute as a narrative form. The Anatolian Phoenician inscriptions are a principal source of this usage: of the twenty-one forms cited as examples of infinitive absolute morphology (209), four examples occur in the Kilamuwa inscription (KAI 24), and sixteen are from Karatepe-Aslantas (KAI 26). (32) Besides the cognate infinitive construction, the infinitive absolute can occur in the Consecutive construction that usually employs a Suffixing Form (210). (33) The discussion of the Past Perfective III (211-14) provides contrastive examples of Past Perfective I (should this label be II? The examples involve infinitive absolutes in sentence-initial position [see comments, 211, par. 3a]). Krahmalkov has identified examples of this syntax in Tyro-Sidonian, Byblian, and Punic (see 211, 213).

NUMERALS (215-26). Chapter 12 provides a compact and complete description of cardinal and ordinal numbers. The set of cardinal numbers is well attested: only the feminine construct of the number two and the masculine absolute of the numbers six through nine remain unrecorded (feminine forms of these do occur). The ordinal set is thinner--carried only through "fifth," with only masculine forms attested. Regarding fractions (225), numismatists will wish to note the discussion of coin legends.

PREPOSITIONS (227-58). The variety and usage of prepositions in Phoenician calls for the exhaustive description provided. Five kinds of prepositions are recognized: simple, compound, independent, compounds of simple and independent, and phrasal prepositions (227). Prepositions are treated individually, with examples grouped by translation equivalents. The previously unnoted preposition 'SL (KAI 9 B 2) is included. The preposition DL "without" (citing KAI 26 A II 6) should be considered uncertain. (34) The preposition KM (241) is distinct from the homographic conjunction (270). Of particular significance is the recognition of discontinuous phrasal prepositions, such as LM(N)B ... W'D'T "from ... to" (248). The sole case of NGD "facing, opposite" (250) depends on a restoration of KAI 147.2. "South of" is a new meaning proposed for THT in CID 3B-5A (258).

ADVERBS AND CONJUNCTIONS (259-75). Clearly organized and thoroughly documented, this chapter is especially helpful to students of the language. The adverbs (259-66) are grouped semantically as expressing degree and manner, location, or time. A brilliant addition to the temporal group is 'LS "at dawn" (CIS I 5510.10). The related exegesis of Diod. 13.90.1 sheds light on an obscure passage of a significant Punic text (265). The treatment of conjunctions (266-75) distinguishes subordination, modal expressions, and disjunctions. Concluding the chapter is a significant discussion of the conjunction W- as a clause marker following anticipatory clauses, marking the apodosis of a conditional sentence, and marking the result clause of temporal sentences (273-74).

PARTICLES (276-89). Chapter 15 considers a variety of particles expressing anticipation ('M, cognate with Arabic 'amma [KAI 14.11; 26 A III 12], is newly identified), existence, and negation (276-81). The accusative particle 'YT/'T receives nearly five pages of discussion (281-85). It is therein proposed that only Punic 'T receives pronominal suffixes, whereas Phoenician selects the preposition 'LT with suffixal pronoun. The presentative particle *HLM (285-86) makes good sense of the Latin-written particle alem (Poen. 944, 948). (35) The L- that precedes Prefixing Forms A and B expressing cohortative or jussive is analyzed simply as a proclitic (287-88); this morpheme is distinct from the preposition L-. Concluding the chapter are brief considerations of the post-imperative -na, the enclitic -n, the directional ending -a (adverbial cona "hither" [Poen. 942]), and the accusative suffix -am (288-89).

SYNTAX (290-98). The final chapter offers further observations on constituent order in equational sentences (290), verbal clauses (290-95), and complex sentences (295-98). The fundamental observations concerning verbal clauses are that (1) the Suffixing Form expressing Present Perfective is unrestricted; (2) the Suffixing Form expressing Past Perfective is excluded from initial position in Phoenician but not in Punic; (3) Prefixing Form A is unrestricted; (4) Prefixing Form B expressing Past Perfective is restricted to sentence-initial position. (36) Complex sentences--that is, those containing temporal, conditional, or final clauses--are discussed according to the introductory rubric employed.

The book is supplied with a subject index (298-301) and an index of key morphemes and words (301-9). There is no index of sources cited, and no bibliography (beyond the works listed pp. xiv-xvi).


This book opens a new era of Phoenician-Punic lexicography. (37) It merits close attention from Semitists, Biblical scholars, linguists, and historians interested in linguistic and cultural comparison. The dictionary is, as the author states, "a personal work" (9), representing three decades of scholarly engagement with the language. I will point out its limitations not to detract from its importance, but to enhance its usefulness to readers.

PPD exemplifies a synchronic dictionary. (38) It generally treats the lexical stock of Phoenician and Punic as a single language without explicit attention to language change over time (14). According to the typology of Swedish lexicographer Bo Svensen, PPD is a passive bilingual dictionary with general translations of live examples. (39) "Live" here means, as I see it, generated by native speakers. Each entry includes citations of examples in transliterated Phoenician, Punic, or Neo-Punic with English translation. The citations generally include full sentences and occasionally a longer passage to establish context. The dictionary thus provides a running gloss on most of the corpus of published Phoenician-Punic. Individual entries show us Krahmalkov's interpretations of transliterated Neo-Punic from the Poenulus and other sources.

Krahmalkov estimates that about a quarter of the entries are new, in the sense that they are (1) words from newly published inscriptions not included in previous dictionaries, or (2) words resulting from novel analysis of existing inscriptions, or (3) words attested only in transliterated sources. (40) An example of the first category is '-G-D "wage war" (PPD 30). (41) The earlier attestation of this root, in Byblos 13, occurred in an ambiguous context. (42) Its two occurrences in the new royal inscription from Kition show the syntax and meaning: L'GD L- "to wage war against." (43) The previously unattested noun TRPY "trophy" (PPD 498) occurs twice in the same inscription.

In the second category, words resulting from novel analysis of known inscriptions, are a number of Krahmalkov's best original interpretations. The word BTM, vocalized /bittim/ (IRT 828.3), is glossed "his own" (PPD 131-32). Three Neo-Punic examples of BTM come from consonantally written inscriptions. The verb H-L-M "strike" (PPD 159) is attested in the coin legend MHLM (followed by a geographic name) "coin mint of GN" (PPD 272). K-P-T "bind" is a divine punishment in CIS I 5510.4. (44) From the same Punic inscriptions comes the verb R-H I (yiph.) "provide rest, make welcome" (PPD 443). The entry QRMN "Qerumin" is a place-name, perhaps the Phoenician name of Tell Abu Hawam (PPD 432). The supporting evidence includes Egyptian topographical lists and a Punic inscription from El-Hofra (102.2, 4).

Many Phoenician words are attested only once. Some are established only by restoring letters in a broken inscription. Examples of such restorations are NGD II "opposite, facing" (PPD 325), the first letter of which is restored by Krahmalkov (KAI 147.1-2 [Mactar]). Similarly, the root Y-Q-S "awaken" (PPD 215) is attested only in the restored causative participle [m]yqs (KAI 77.1; see PPD 310).

There are many examples of the third category (interpretations of Latin and Greek transliterations), some of breathtaking originality. Two excellent examples meaning "make quake, shake" have been pointed out above in the discussion of Prefixing Forms. Others are 'NM "wealth" (65), KN II "hither" (235), and P-R-S "explain, translate" (408). The specialist will readily identify others.

The ghost word QNMY "whoever" (14.4, 20) has finally been eliminated. Krahmalkov realized that two words are involved: the participle qone "acquirer" and the interrogative particle mi "who, whoever," spelled MY. The clause QN MY 'T can be glossed, "Acquirer, whoever you are (or: may be)" (428-29). This is a subtle sensitivity to the Phoenician lexicon and rhetorical style.

The entry just mentioned also illustrates a limitation: the examples are cited s.v. Q-N-Y (428-29) but not s.v. MY I (279-80). Imbalanced or incomplete lemmatization is a general weakness of the dictionary. I draw attention to the problem only to caution the user that extra effort is necessary to uncover some of the truly insightful features of this book.

From the foreword (13) we know that proper names were excluded from the first version of the dictionary, but were added later at the urging of the series editor. The addition was hastily carried out, and some problems have resulted. Because PPD includes entries for lexical units of more than one word (see 9), consistency in analyzing and lemmatizing constructions has been hard to achieve. (45) Inclusion of a personal name as a lexical entry requires meticulous analysis of its constituents.

The entry s.v. N-D-B (325) probably derives from Ammonite rather than Phoenician. The root has not heretofore been included in Phoenician-Punic dictionaries. (46) The two attestations of N-D-B cited in PPD are from personal names in seal inscriptions. The name 'BNDB (29) is generally regarded as Ammonite. (47) The name 'HNDB (43) is likewise classed as Ammonite. (48) It is probable that no words from the root N-D-B are yet attested in Phoenician.

Should personal names be lemmatized at all? This is a question about the procedure of dictionary construction, and here the practice of lexicographers is instructive. Svensen permits personal names as dictionary entries, but for reasons other than their value as lexical sources. (49) The exclusion of "divine names, personal names, geographical names, and names of months," from the Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions (DNWSI) is not explained. (50) The origin of a name is notoriously difficult to trace, and names move across linguistic and cultural boundaries, leaving them unreliable as lexical sources. Northwest Semitic names frequently consist of more than one lexical element, complicating the problem of lemmatization. The entry N-D-B in PPD (325) would, if valid, be complete in itself. In my judgment, lemmatizing complete personal names as examples of their constituents is redundant.

Because gender is morphemic in Phoenician-Punic, feminine forms of nouns and adjectives are commonly lemmatized but referred to the masculine form for the full entry. For example, DNWSI has an entry 'DT "lady" with a see-reference to the masculine 'DN "lord" (20). The feminine title is entered under its masculine counterpart. PPD breaks this androcentric tradition, providing full entries for feminine forms. There is much to be said for this practice. Additional cross-references would make the entries more useful. Without a "see also" reference added to the entry 'DN "lord" (34-35), for example, the beginning student using might not perceive the etymological relationship with the entry 'DT "lady" (37-38).

The entries 'H "brother" (42) and 'HT "sister" (44) are similarly separated without cross-reference. (51) The aphetic form HT is noted under 'HT but has no separate entry; personal names beginning with HT are listed individually, however (200). To an extent this practice reflects the synchronic rather than diachronic emphasis of the dictionary, but enhanced cross-referencing would have facilitated look-ups.

The dictionary is not intended to be exhaustive. Entries involving words with multiple attestations do not necessarily include every instance of the word. A few words found in earlier dictionaries are not in PPD. For example, WW "nail" (painted beside nails on the planking of the Marsala Punic warship) has no entry, nor does BHR "keel" (?) from the same source. (52) Words from some other recently published inscriptions are not listed. (53) Phoenician seal inscriptions are not fully represented. One important seal is cited from an outdated source (PPD 81 s.v. 'S 'LM).

The dictionary gives special attention to vocabulary pertaining to the practice of ritual infanticide (see 9-10). There is insightful philology here, worthy of careful scrutiny.

In sum, PPD is an original, powerful lexical tool. Its riches far outweigh its shortcomings. The user must employ it with care. Those who do will uncover lexical delights, and wisdom born of long and patient study.


For surveys of relevant epigraphic discoveries, see M. Sznycer, "Rapport sur l'epigraphie phenicienne et punique," in Atti del I Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici (Rome: Consiglio nazionale delle Ricerche, 1983), 387-95 (to 1979); "Rapport sur l'epigraphie phenicienne et punique," in Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici (Rome: Consiglio nazionale delle Ricerche, 1991), 535-43 (from 1979 to 1987); "Rapport sur l'epigraphie phenicienne et punique," in Actes du IIIe Congres international des etudes pheniciennes et puniques, Tunis, 11-16 novembre 1991, ed. M. H. Fantar and M. Ghaki (Tunis: Institut National du Patrimoine, 1995), 51-56 (from 1987 to 1991); "Rapport sur l'epigraphie phenicienne et punique," in Actas del IV Congreso Internacional de Estudios Fenicios y Punicos Cadiz, 2 al 6 Octubre de 1995, ed. M. E. Aubet and M. Barthelemy (Cadiz: Servicio de Publicaciones, Universidad de Cadiz, 2000), 1: 103-10 (from 1991 to 1995). Of P. Bordreuil's many publications of new inscriptions, one recent example must suffice: "Nouveaux documents pheniciens inscrits," in Actas del IV Congreso Internacional de Estudios Fenicios y Punicos Cadiz, 205-16 (e.g., attestation of the verb N-S-H).

The significant corpus of inscribed arrowheads from Lebanon and other Levantine areas is represented in PPD/PPGK by a limited sample (e.g., PPD 193 s.v. HSI); M. Heltzer, "Late Canaanite-Phoenician Inscribed Arrowheads and Pre- and Early Monarchic Developments in Israel," in Periplus: Festschrift fur Hans-Gunter Buchholz zu seinem achtigsten Geburtstag am 24. Dezember 1999, ed. P. Astrom and D. Surenhagen (Jonsered: Astroms, 1999), 41-65, provides a relatively complete survey, to be supplemented with E. Puech. "Les pointes de fleches inscrites de la fin du I[I.sup.e] millenaire en Phenicie et Canaan," in Actas del IV Congreso Internacional de Estudios Fenicios y Punicos Cadiz, 251-70; and H. Sader, "Une pointe de fleche phenicienne inedit du Musee National de Beyrouth," in Actas del IV Congreso Internacional de Estudios Fenicios y Punicos Cadiz, 271-80.

From Syria, Ras al-Bassit produced an inscribed amphora (P. Bordreuil, "Epigraphes pheniciennes sur bronze, sur pierre et sur ceramique," in Archeologie au Levant: Recueil R. Saidah, ed. R. Starcky [Lyon: Maison de l'Orient, 1982], 187-92 [Phoenician ink inscription on amphora: LGRB`L (6th/5th c.)]). From Lebanon, there are five or six inscriptions on votive items from the temple of Eshmun near Sidon (R. A. Stucky, Die Skulpturen aus dem Eschmun-Heiligtum bei Sidon [Basel: Vereinigung der Freunde antiker Kunst, 1993], nos. 101, 157, 227-29). An inscribed krater sold at auction in Zurich probably came from the Tambourit necropolis near Sidon (Objects with Semitic Inscriptions, 1100 B.C.-A.D. 700: Jewish, Early Christian and Byzantine Antiquities. Auction XXIII. Jerusalem: L. Alexander Wolfe; Zurich: Frank Sternberg, 1989], 12, no. 9). It has only recently been interpreted (see E. Puech, "Une cratere phenicien inscrit: rites et croyances," Transeuphratene 8 [1994]: 47-73) and is not cited in PPD/PPGK. Neither are the inscribed stelae from Tyre that probably came from the necropolis now partly excavated--see H. Sader, "Phoenician Stelae from Tyre," Berytus 39 (1991): 101-26; Sader, "Phoenician Stelae from Tyre (continued)," Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici 9 (1992): 53-79; M. E. Aubet, Francisco J. Nunez, and Laura Trelliso, "The Phoenician Cemetery of Tyre al-Bass," BAAL (Bulletin d'Archeologie et d'Architecture Libanaise) 3 (1998-1999): 267-94.

Several Phoenician inscriptions come from recent Israeli excavations: from Dor, J. Naveh, "Unpublished Phoenician Inscriptions," Israel Exploration Journal 37 (1987): 25-30; from Jaffa: R. Avner and E. Eshel, "A Juglet with a Phoenician Inscription from a Recent Excavation in Jaffa, Israel," Transeuphratene 12 (1996): 59-63 (reading KD HRMS); from Har Mispe Yamim: R. Frankel and R. Ventura, "The Mispe Yamim Bronzes," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 311 (1998): 39-55 (a sixth-century inscribed bronze situla). E. Eshel has recently published two Persian-period Phoenician inscriptions found in the excavations directed by Professor Amos Kloner at Maresha on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority. (54) Both texts are inked on ostraca in cursive script; neither introduces new words, although the personal names are new combinations of attested elements.

Published while PPD/PPGK were in press is a new Hieroglyphic Luwian-Phoenician bilingual: R. Tekoglu and A. Lemaire, "La bilingue royale louvito-phenicienne de Cinekoy," Compte Rendus des Seances de l'Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (2000): 961-1007 (Phoenician text, 990-1007). An additional Luwian-Phoenician bilingual inscription from Ivriz has been described by W. Rollig, "Asia Minor as a Bridge between East and West: The Role of the Phoenicians and Aramaeans in the Transfer of Culture," in Greece between East and West: 10th-8th Centuries BC, ed. G. Kopcke and I. Tokumaru (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1992), 98; also Rollig, "Anatolie," in La civilisation phenicienne et punique: manuel de recherche, ed. V. Krings (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 644. An Anatolian Phoenician inscription from Incirli is in the course of publication: for a preliminary report, see the web site:

A few Aegean inscriptions appear to be absent from PPD/PPGK. Comparing the list compiled by C. Bonnet, "Monde egeen," in La civilisation phenicienne et punique, 653-54, with the Aegean texts in P. Magnanini, Le iscrizioni fenicie dell'Oriente (Rome: Istituto di Studi del Vicino Oriente, Universita degli Studi di Roma, 1973), 135-42 (see PPD 20), nine inscriptions are unrepresented. The six inscribed amphorae from Kition published by M. Sznycer ("Inscriptions pheniciennes sur jarres de la necropole d' 'Ayios Georghios'," Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus [1984]: 117-21 and pl. xxii) are of lexical interest (note the name[?] `LSB`L, p. 118) but are grammatically insignificant. A seventh is D. Michaelides and M. Sznycer, "A Phoenician Graffito from Tomb 103/84 at Nea Paphos," Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus (1984): 249-25. From Idalion (Dali), Cyprus: a three-line broken Phoenician inscribed ostracon (L. E. Stager and A. M. Walker, American Expedition to Idalion, Cyprus 1973-1980 [Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1989], 466, object no. 669) dated by F.M. Cross ("A Phoenician Inscription from Idalion: Some Old and New Texts Relating to Child Sacrifice," in Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King, ed. M. D. Coogan, J. C. Exum, and L. E. Stager [Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994]), (93-107) to the period 350-300 B.C.E. Fourth-century economic records on ostraca (from Room 1 in the north wing of the Phoenician administrative building) and inscribed gypsum tablets from Rooms 6 and 8 of the west wing) have been described in a general fashion by M. Hadjicosti, "The Kingdom of Idalion in the Light of New Evidence," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 308 (1997): 58. The inscriptions are not yet published.

Seals are grammatically spare, and Phoenician seals are only incidentally cited in either book. Phoenician and Punic inscribed "magic bands" and amulets have some lexical significance (e.g., PPD 335 s.v. N-S-R, 471 s.v. S-M-R I). For additional attestations of n-s-r and s-m-r, see H. Sader, "Deux epigraphes pheniciennes inedites," Syria 67 (1990): 318-21; H. Lozachmeur and M. Pezin, "De Tyr: Un nouvel etui et son amulette magique a inscription," in Hommages a Jean Leclant, vol. 3, Etudes isiaques, ed. C. Berger, G. Clerc, and N. Grimal (Cairo: Institut francaise d'archeologie Orientale, 1994), 361-67; and P. Schmitz, "Reconsidering a Phoenician Inscribed Amulet from the Vicinity of Tyre," JAOS 122 (2002): 817-23.

Some of the more recently discovered inscriptions from Italy are not cited in PPD/PPGK. M. G. Amadasi Guzzo, Scavi a Mozia: Le iscrizioni (Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, 1986) does not appear in the reference list, and I find no citation of the Motye inscriptions in either work. Only the fifteen inscriptions from Tharros (Sardinia), published in IFPCO are cited. For a checklist, see G. Garbini, "Iscrizioni fenicie a Tharros," Rivista di Studi Fenici 19 (1991): 223-31 (Tharros 1-24). From Sulcis (Sardinia) there is a silver cup with a Punic inscription: P. Bartoloni and G. Garbini, "Una coppa d'argento con iscrizione punica da Sulcis," Rivista di Studi Fenici 27 (1999): 79-91. The date formula is BST SPTM BSLKY "in the year of the sufetes in Sulcis...."

I recently examined several older but neglected ink-written Punic inscriptions on ceramic vessels from Carthage tombs. (55) These epigraphs contribute mainly personal names already attested (e.g., A. Merlin and L. Drappier, La necropole punique d'Ard el-Kheraib a Carthage [Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1909], 73 n. 2). Six Neo-Punic stelae from Henchir Ghayadha (Tunisia) are highly significant to historians of religion but grammatically less fecund (A. Ferjaoui and A. M. Charek, "Le sanctuaire de Ba[`]l-Hammon-Saturne a Henchir Ghayadha: Les inscriptions," REPPAL (Revue des Etudes Pheniciennes-Puniques et des Antiquites Libyques) 5 [1990]: 117-48). (56)



This is a review article of: Phoenician-Punic Dictionary. By CHARLES R. KRAHMALKOV. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta. vol. 90. Leuven: PEETERS, 2000; and A Phoenician-Punic Grammar. By CHARLES R. KRAHMALKOV. Handbook of Oriental Studies, section 1, vol. 54. Leiden: BRILL, 2001.

1. The significance of Krahmalkov's achievements is acknowledged, for example, in J. Friedrich, W. Rollig, M. G. Amadasi Guzzo, and W. R. Mayer, Phonizisch-punische Grammatik, 3d ed. (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1999), xxxviii, 2 (hereinafter cited as PP[G.sup.3]). Where not otherwise indicated, abbreviations and sigla follow the usage of the books under review.

2. Greek examples are set in Greek font in both books, without transliteration.

3. I will use PPGK to refer to the grammar, and PPD for the dictionary. My remarks on PPGK will generally follow the sequence of topics in the book.

4. See the appendix below.

5. As stated by E. Lipinski (PPD 6).

6. On the orthographic representation of 'alep in various phonetic environments, see PP[G.sup.3] 15-16 ([section]29a-d).

7. Cf. PP[G.sup.3] 64 ([section]111) /'anoki/; on the vowel change o/o > e, 42 ([section] 79 bis).

8. Cf. PP[G.sup.3] 183 ([section]254 III). See also the lexical entry BTM. discussed below.

9. The attested example. BNTY, occurs in line 3 of the trophy-base inscription from Kition: M. Yon and M. Sznycer. "Une inscription phenicienne royale de Kition (Chypre)," Compte Rendus des Seances de l'Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (1991): 791-823.

10. PP[G.sup.3] 64 ([section]110) indicates that both masculine and feminine forms of the second-person plural are unattested. For the masculine. Krahmalkov cites KAI 163.1 (see also PPD 90 s.v. 'TM I).

11. For bibliography, see PP[G.sup.3] xxxv-xxxvi.

12. On the phonology, see my comments above.

13. The example of the plene spelling from a fourth-century B.C.E. incense altar from Lachish is not in NESE as cited in the text.

14. The seal whose text is cited as including a non-Phoenician example of the determinative pronoun s- is published in N. Avigad and B. Sass, Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Israel Exploration Society; Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem, 1997), 328, no. 876. Dated to the seventh century B.C.E., the seal is classed as Ammonite.

15. N. Avigad and J. C. Greenfield. "A Bronze phiale with a Phoenician Dedicatory Inscription," Israel Exploration Journal 32 (1982): 118-28. The volume number in the source citation (PPGK 95) should be corrected.

16. For more context, see also PPD 127 s.v. BRKT I.

17. "Virtual" in this terminology may confuse some readers. This type of clause is usually labeled "headless" in linguistic discussions, or asyndetic in older literature.

18. H. L. Ginsberg, "Ugaritico-Phoenicia," Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 5 (1973): 141.

19. M. G. Amadasi Guzzo, "Two Phoenician Inscriptions Carved in Ivory: Again the Ur Box and the Sarepta Plaque," Orientalia 59 (1990): 59.

20. In the first sentence of this paragraph, correct the first "is" to 'is.

21. H. Cambel, Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions, vol. 2, Karatepe-Aslantas. The Inscriptions: Facsimile Edition (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999), pls. 48 (photograph), 49 (handcopy by W. Rollig).

22. So Rollig, in Cambel, Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian (see previous note). 64 n. 3.

23. For a complete review of the problem, see K. L. Younger, Jr., "The Phoenician Inscription of Azatiwada: An Integrated Reading," Journal of Semitic Studies 43 (1998): 36-40. Rollig, in Cambel, Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian (see n. 21), 60, derives mskt from nsk. Krahmalkov's analysis of the passage is more completely represented in PPD 298 s.v. MSKT. The Hieroglyphic Luwian parallel is not discussed there.

24. PP[G.sup.3] (150, [section]228) observes, "noch zu erklaren ist das -ut bei Formen, die sonst einfaches -t zeigen."

25. P. Fronzaroli, "Studi sul lessico comune semitico, III.--I fenomeni naturali," Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Rendiconti di Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche ser. 8, 20 (1965): 135, 140, 144 (table. no. 3.02), 146 (table. no. 3.21).

26. PPD (479 s.v. SPR) cites M'S 'LM SP'R ST "this beautiful statue" (KAI 118.1). Cf. M.-J. Fuentes Estanol, Vocabulario Fenicio (Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1980), 212 s.v. P'R ("of marble" [?]).

27. "[I]solated areas of the ... system where semantic specialization has overtaken systematic force," B. Waltke and M. O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990). 444, [section]27.4b. PPGK tends to analyze at the lexical level over the discourse level.

28. These correspond to the general Semitic ground, reflexive-passive, intensive/extensive-factitive or doubling, and causative stems, with combinatory additions: passive t in doubling stem and reflexive t in ground stem (B. Kienast, Historische semitische Sprachwissenschaft [Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2001], 190-91).

29. Two of the examples supporting the Past Perfective I category involve dubious readings. In KAI 30.1, the reading YB' is highly uncertain. In the second line (KAI 30.2), yod is an unlikely reading of the ninth letter (giving Y`L [p. 188]); the established reading K`L is unimpeachable.

30. See M. O'Connor, "Discourse Linguistics and the Study of Biblical Hebrew," in Congress Volume Basel 2001, ed. A. Lemaire (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 23-24 (on vocatives and lexical restrictions).

31. There is no comment on the morphology of the Yip`il infinitive construct lyrhy (CIS I 5510.6). For comparative examples, see PP[G.sup.3] 93, [section]147c.

32. The infinitive absolute forms the past perfective in the Hieroglyphic Luwian-Phoenician bilingual inscription from Cinekoy, e.g., WBN 'NK HMY[T] "and I built fortifications" (line 10). See appendix for the bibliographic reference.

33. The cautions expressed above concerning the interpretation of KAI 26 C III 2-4 apply equally to the interpretation of KAI 26 A II 18-19 (PPGK 210).

34. Note also the discussion of the conjunction DL "together with," 271-72 (cf. PP[G.sup.3] 179, [section] 250 [preposition]).

35. Cf. PP[G.sup.3] 66 n. 1.

36. I have commented above on the weak textual base of this last observation.

37. I presented an earlier version of this section of the review in the joint meeting of the Midwest Region of the Society of Biblical Literature, the Middle West Branch of the American Oriental Society, and the American Schools of Oriental Research, at the University of Notre Dame, February 10, 2001. I thank participants in the session for helpful questions and comments.

38. L. Zgusta, Manual of Lexicography (The Hague: Mouton, 1971), 202.

39. B. Svensen, Practical Lexicography: Principles and Methods of Dictionary-Making (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1993), 200-205.

40. I thank the author for personal communication regarding this point.

41. PPD indicates roots by separating the consonants with hyphens.

42. W. Rollig, "Eine neue phonizische Inschrift aus Byblos," in Neue Ephemeris fur semitische Epigraphik (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1974), 2: 1-15. An excellent photograph of the inscription is printed in J. Teixidor. Bulletin d'Epigraphie Semitique (1964-1980) (Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1986), 190.

43. Yon and Sznycer, "Une inscription phenicienne royale," (see n. 9 above) 805, line 2: 811-12.

44. Cf. J. Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 532 s.v. kpt "meaning uncert[ain]."

45. The principles recommended by Svensen (Practical Lexicography, 207-9) are important in this regard. On ways of explicitly denoting constructions. See Svensen, 86-97.

46. Hoftijzer and Jongeling (Dictionary, 716) have no Phoenician entry s.v. ndb. Fuentes Estanol, Vocabulario Fenicio, 176 has an entry ndb' (RES 907A) explained as an error for ndr'.

47. Krahmalkov cites the name from F. L. Benz, Personal Names in the Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1972), 54, who depends on N. Avigad, "Two Phoenician Votive Seals," Israel Exploration Journal 16 (1966): 243-51. The seal is part of the de Luynes collection conserved in the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris. It was identified as Ammonite by Cross in 1976 (according to L. G. Herr, The Scripts of Ancient Northwest Semitic Seals [Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978], 71 n. 13) and is so regarded by specialists (e.g., P. Bordreuil. "Sceaux inscrits des pays du Levant," Supplements au Dictionnaire de la Bible 12 [1992], col. 177). P. Magnanini (Le iscrizion fenicie dell'oriente [Rome: Istituto de studi del Vicino Oriente, Universita degli studi di Roma, 1973], 149, Sigilli no. 26) included the inscription as Phoenician, as did F. Vattioni ("I sigilli fenici," Annali dell'Istituto Orientali di Napoli 41 [1981]: 190, no. 82). Both of these publications predate the establishment of a corpus of Ammonite seals and inscriptions (by W. Aufrecht, A Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions [Lewiston, N.Y.: Edward Mellen Press, 1989]).

48. Krahmalkov cites the name from Benz, Personal Names, 61. Herr (Scripts, 42, no. 84) thought the name possibly Ammonite; Bordreuil (Catalogue des sceaux ouest-semitiques inscrits de la Bibliotheque Nationale, du Musee du Louvre et du Musee biblique de Bible et Terre Sainte [Paris: Bibliotheque Nationale, 1986], no. 82) considers the name Ammonite. Aufrecht includes the seal as Ammonite in his Corpus (no. 16).

49. Svensen, Practical Lexicography, 51.

50. Hoftijzer and Jongeling, Dictionary, xiv.

51. Note, however, GR II (142), with listing of GRT (fem.) also. A cross-reference from GRT (no entry) to GR II would lead the user to this word.

52. W. Johnstone, "The Epigraphy of the Marsala Punic Ship: New Phoenician Letter-form and Word," in Atti del I Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici, 3: 909-18. Both words are listed in Hoftijzer and Jongeling, Dictionary, s.vv.

53. See the appendix.

54. See the author's summary of the finds at I thank Dr. Eshel for additional information about the find.

55. I am grateful to Dr. Fethi Chelbi, Director of the Carthage Museum, for permission to examine these artifacts.

56. This survey is undoubtedly incomplete. I thank scholars who have notified me of recent discoveries, and implicitly apologize to any whose discoveries I have overlooked.
COPYRIGHT 2004 American Oriental Society
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2004 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Schmitz, Philip C.
Publication:The Journal of the American Oriental Society
Geographic Code:4EUIT
Date:Jul 1, 2004
Previous Article:The Chinese game of Shengguan tu.
Next Article:William J. Gedney's elicitation questionnaire.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters