Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Verb in the Amarna Letters from Canaan
by
Krzysztof J. Baranowski
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Graduate Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations
University of Toronto
© Copyright by Krzysztof J. Baranowski, 2014
II
The Verb in the Amarna Letters from Canaan
by
Krzysztof J. Baranowski
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Graduate Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations
University of Toronto
2014
Abstract
The present dissertation is devoted to the Amarna letters from Canaan. This corpus of letters,
directed to the pharaoh from Canaanite kinglets, dates to the fourteenth century B.C.E. and is
inscribed on clay tablets in cuneiform writing. The dissertation focuses on the nature of the
linguistic system of the letters and on their verbal system, its morphology and semantics.
The language of the letters is a second language learners' interlanguage developed through
time by the Canaanite scribes who failed to acquire normative Akkadian language in local
schools because of the lack of access to proper educational materials and native speakers of
the target language. Two linguistic mechanisms contributed to the formation of the Amarna
interlanguage: the fossilization of linguistic knowledge on a level lower than the previous
generation and the transfer of Canaanite features which affected the verbal system in a
systemic manner.
III
The resulting verbal system exhibits mixed verbal morphology: Akkadian forms used as
lexical bases with added Canaanite morphemes. The morphology of the mixed forms is
characterized by a great deal of variation which depends mostly on the place of the origin of
letters and reflects the habits of individual scribes acquired during their scribal training.
The semantics of the verbal system is characterized by the opposition between the perfective
(yaqtul and qatal) and imperfective (yaqtulu) forms. These aspectual forms receive a default
temporal interpretation in the past (yaqtul and qatal) and in the present-future (yaqtulu).
Within the qatal paradigm, two forms are to be distinguished: the perfective verbal qatal and
the nominal predicative qatal of the lexically stative verbs.
The verbal syntax has a sequential nature: verbs have implications which are carried over
sentence boundaries and guide the interpretation of the forms that follow in the same verbal
sequence. The sequential nature of the verbal system is apparent in the modal sequence
triggered by a directive-volitive form. This sequence may use the yaqtula form which is both
modal and subordinated.
This verbal system is used in Canaan, with the exception of the letters from Tyre which
apparently emulate Akkadian morphology and semantics.
IV
Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... II
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... VIII
Chapter 1
The Study of the Amarna Verbal System: History, the Current State of Research, and
Challenges ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Initial Efforts ............................................................................................................... 1
1.2 The Breakthrough ........................................................................................................ 5
1.3 Recent Research .......................................................................................................... 8
1.4 Challenges for a New Study ....................................................................................... 15
Chapter 2
Preliminaries to the Study of the Amarna Letters and Their Verbal System ......................... 17
2.1 Philology, Linguistics and the Study of the Verb in the Amarna Letters ..................... 17
2.2 Interlanguage: Language Contact and Second Language Acquisition ......................... 21
2.2.1 Bilingual Mixed Languages, Pidgins, and Creoles ............................................... 22
2.2.2 Language Contact ................................................................................................ 25
2.2.3 Second Language Acquisition ............................................................................. 26
2.2.4 Interlanguage ....................................................................................................... 27
2.2.5 Transfer ............................................................................................................... 28
2.2.6 Fossilization ........................................................................................................ 31
2.2.7 Language Contact vs. Second Language Acquisition ........................................... 33
2.3 The Verbal System .................................................................................................... 33
2.3.1 Concepts of Verbal Semantics ............................................................................. 33
2.3.2 Time and Tense ................................................................................................... 35
V
2.3.3 Aspect ................................................................................................................. 38
2.3.4 Modality and Mood ............................................................................................. 43
2.3.5 The Interaction of Tense, Modality and Aspect .................................................... 49
Chapter 3
Amarna Letters in Their Archaeological and Historical Context .......................................... 51
3.1 The City of Amarna ................................................................................................... 51
3.2 The Discovery of the Letters and Their Publication .................................................... 52
3.3 The Archival Context of the Amarna Letters .............................................................. 55
3.4 The Corpus of the Amarna Letters from Canaan ........................................................ 60
Chapter 4
The Language of the Amarna Letters from Canaan .............................................................. 68
4.1 Scholarly Views of the Amarna Language ................................................................. 68
4.2 Western Peripheral Akkadian and Cuneiform in Canaan as the Linguistic Context of
the Amarna Language ...................................................................................................... 76
4.3 The Fossilized Scribal Interlanguage of the Amarna Letters from Canaan .................. 93
Chapter 5
Morphology of the Amarna Verb ...................................................................................... 117
5.1 The Paradigms of the Amarna Verbs ........................................................................ 117
5.1.1 The Mixed Morphology of the Verb in the Letters from Canaan ........................ 117
5.1.2 The Mixed Suffixed Conjugation Qatal ............................................................. 118
5.1.2.1 The Endings of the Mixed Suffixed Conjugation Qatal ............................... 118
5.1.2.2 The Voweling and the Patterns of Qatal ...................................................... 121
5.1.2.2.1 The Voweling of Qatal in G Stem ........................................................ 121
5.1.2.2.2 The Voweling of Qatal in the Derived Stems ........................................ 130
5.1.3 The Mixed Prefix Conjugation Yaqtul ............................................................... 132
5.1.4 The Mixed Prefix Conjugation Yaqtulu ............................................................. 144
5.1.5 The Mixed Prefix Conjugation Yaqtula ............................................................. 147
5.1.7 The Energic Ending -na ..................................................................................... 152
VI
5.2 Variation in the Morphology of the Amarna Verb .................................................... 153
5.2.1 Variation in the Morphology of the Amarna Verb as a Research Challenge ....... 153
5.2.2 The Verb epēšu ―to do‖ ..................................................................................... 157
5.2.3 The Verb leqû ―to take‖ ..................................................................................... 162
5.2.4 The Verb nadānu ―to give‖ ................................................................................ 166
5.2.5 The Verb naṣāru ―to guard‖ .............................................................................. 171
5.2.6 The Verb paṭāru ―to desert‖ .............................................................................. 175
5.2.7 The Verb šakānu ―to place‖ ............................................................................... 177
5.2.8 The Verb šemû ―to hear‖ ................................................................................... 177
5.2.9 The Verb šapāru ―to send‖ ................................................................................ 179
5.2.10 The Verbal Forms uš-ḫe-ḫi-in and iš-ta-ḫa-ḫi-in ―I prostrate myself‖ .............. 179
5.2.11 The Verb wuššuru ―to send‖ ............................................................................ 182
5.2.12 The Infix -t- ..................................................................................................... 187
5.2.13 Variation within a Single Letter ....................................................................... 191
5.2.14 Evaluation of Morphological Variation ............................................................ 193
5.3 The Morphology of the Amarna Verb as a System ................................................... 200
Chapter 6
Uses of the Verbal Forms .................................................................................................. 202
6.1 Qatal and Its Indicative Uses ................................................................................... 202
6.2 The Indicative Use of Yaqtul .................................................................................... 221
6.3 The Uses of Yaqtulu ................................................................................................. 226
6.4 Directive-Volitive Forms, the Modal Sequence, and Yaqtula ................................... 247
6.5 Conditional Clauses ................................................................................................. 280
6.6 The Energic ............................................................................................................. 288
6.7 Verbs in the Epistolary Performative Utterances ...................................................... 292
Chapter 7
The Verb in the Amarna Letter from Canaan as a System .................................................. 296
7.1 The Nature and Logic of the Amarna Verbal System ............................................... 296
VII
7.1.1 Basic Aspectual and Temporal Oppositions ....................................................... 296
7.1.2 The Double Nature of Qatal .............................................................................. 299
7.1.3 Yaqtul and Qatal as Perfective Forms: Additional Arguments ........................... 301
7.1.4 Sequential Nature of Verbal Syntax and Semantics............................................ 303
7.1.5 Modality ............................................................................................................ 306
7.1.6 The Minor Forms and Morphemes..................................................................... 309
7.2 Forms and Uses of Certain Verbs ............................................................................. 310
7.3 The Verbal System of the Letters from Tyre ............................................................ 312
7.4 The Amarna Verbal System in a Larger Semitic Perspective .................................... 319
Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 331
Appendix 1
The Senders of the Amarna Letters.................................................................................... 336
Appendix 2
The Amarna Letters from Canaan according to Their Provenance ..................................... 355
Appendix 3
The Amarna Letters from Canaan Excluded from Analysis ............................................... 380
Appendix 4
Cities and Their Letters ..................................................................................................... 382
Appendix 5
Morphological Terminology and Abbreviations ................................................................ 384
Appendix 6
Shlomo Izre‘el‘s Vision of the Language of the Amarna Letters from Canaan ................... 385
Abbreviations .................................................................................................................... 391
Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 392
VIII
Introduction
Anyone who embarks on the study of Semitic languages or ancient Near Eastern history soon
encounters the Amarna letters from Canaan. These letters are part of a larger archive of clay
tablets inscribed in cuneiform which were discovered in Egypt in the eighties of the
nineteenth century. Their fame derives from both their content and language. Their content
sheds light on the diplomacy and administration of ancient Egypt and the Levant in the
fourteenth century B.C.E. The language of the letters from Canaan gives a unique glimpse
into the vernacular languages of this area thanks to the systemic transfer of their features into
the Akkadian in which they were written. The corpus of the correspondence of the Canaanite
kinglets with the pharaoh has up till now remained unparalleled and constitutes a unique
linguistic and historical source. As such, it is also one of the most intensively studied ancient
Near Eastern epistolary corpora. Given its importance and difficulty, its renewed
investigation, with new approaches and research questions, is needed in every generation.
The present study is an examination of one of the linguistic aspects of the letters from
Canaan: their verbal system.
A fresh investigation of this topic is justified by recent advances in the fields of ancient Near
Eastern studies and linguistics. In fact, the philological study of ancient Near Eastern texts
has recently been characterized by a growing consciousness of the scribal nature of the
evidence they provide. The evidence of the Amarna letters, like of all other ancient texts,
cannot be treated on a par with phonetic transcriptions of living languages but rather as a
product of scribal minds and linguistic abilities, both innate and learned. This perspective
dictates the necessity of re-evaluating the linguistic system used in the letters from Canaan.
The verbal system is only part of a larger structure of this linguistic system. A better
understanding of its formation is a prerequisite for a comprehensive explanation of the
characteristic of the individual verbal forms as well as their systemic interaction. Although
there is still no ―unified theory‖ of language, various methodological approaches to its study
and the results they produce can already be used with a high degree of confidence to advance
the understanding of ancient texts and their linguistic usages. These methods and results were
IX
obviously inaccessible to previous generations of students of the Amarna letters but today
they have the potential to advance the study of this unique corpus and its linguistic features.
It seems that a new edition of the Amarna letters is impracticable not only because of the
dispersion of the tablets in various collections but, most importantly, because of a long
tradition of collating problematic readings. It is hard to believe that any new edition would
become authoritative because the tablets were collated in the past by outstanding scholars
and, even if a new edition was produced, one would still conclude in many instances in favor
of the older readings. Therefore, the present study relies on the readings from the classic
edition by Knutdzon (1915) and from Rainey‘s supplementary collection (Rainey 1978a),
checked against available hand-copies. The main source of textual notes, collations and
emendations is Moran‘s standard English translation of the letters (Moran 1992). His
translations are also reproduced in the majority of examples given in the present study in
order to increase the objectivity of the research. In fact, one of the pitfalls of the linguistic
study of ancient texts consists of analyzing the personal understanding of texts rather than
their meaning. It is hoped that by relying on this translation the analysis will reflect a
commonly accepted understanding of the meaning of individual verbs. The possibility or
need of alternative renderings of certain passages will be explicitly noted.
In comparison with the classical studies on the Amarna verbal system and beside the use of
Moran‘s translation, this study will benefit immensely from the use of a computerized
database of the verbal forms. Such a database was built as an Excel file and comprises 2674
verbs. All references to the number of occurrences of individual forms and morphemes are
taken from it.
The objectives of the present study are twofold: descriptive, and interpretative-explanatory.
As for the descriptive dimension, it provides a systematized and easy-to-consult account of
individual forms, morphemes and their usages. The interpretative goals concern the general
characterization of the verbal system, the meaning of individual forms and their systemic
interaction as well as the historical genesis of this system and the mechanisms which led to
its formation. To achieve these goals, a comprehensive analysis must consider the historical
setting of the formation and use of the Amarna linguistic system and to take into account the
personal dimension of this language as consisting not only of an abstract system but
concretely also of personal idiolects of individual scribes. The goals of this investigation and
X
the characteristics of the material under study dictate the following structure for the present
dissertation.
Chapter 1 introduces the verbal system of the Amarna letters as a research problem through a
historical overview of the most important studies. It focuses not on evaluation of individual
analyses, but on showing that in spite of a century of research no consensus on the nature of
the system and functions of individual forms has been reached.
Chapter 2 provides a methodological framework. It considers the distinctiveness of
philological research from linguistic study as well as the limitations of linguistic approaches
in the study of the Amarna letters. It also offers an overview of basic concepts and theories of
language contact and second language acquisition which are useful in dealing with materials
produced by non-native speakers, as is the case with the Canaanite scribes writing in
cuneiform. Finally, it introduces the way in which the verb is described and studied in
linguistics, mostly in formal semantics. Since the goal of this research is not the development
of linguistic theory, only basic and commonly agreed upon points are introduced, without the
formal apparatus and notation required in theoretical approaches.
Chapter 3 contains essential information on the discovery of the tablets, their archaeological
and archival context and their publication. The discussion of the geographical extent of
Canaan which is contained in this chapter impacts directly the delimitation of the corpus of
the letters that forms the textual basis of this study.
Chapter 4 discusses the nature of the language of the Amarna letters from Canaan. It situates
this linguistic system in the larger context of the use of cuneiform in Canaan and the Western
Periphery (the Levant and Anatolia). Building on notions of language contact and second
language acquisition, it proposes a historical scenario which led to the formation of the
Amarna language and the linguistic mechanisms which contributed to it. Considerable
attention is also given to various pieces of information contained in the letters and their
features which indicate the scribal nature of this linguistic system in terms of its genesis,
transmission and use.
Chapter 5 is dedicated to the morphology of the verb. As required by the nature of the
evidence, two different approaches are taken. In the first place, various prefixes and suffixes
are described as morphological markers of consistent verbal paradigms. Secondly, variation
XI
in the use of various Akkadian bases to derive the mixed forms is investigated. This part of
the research analyzes several frequently occurring verbs and morphemes.
Chapter 6 offers a taxonomy of the typical uses of the individual forms by means of listing
various examples. Its goal is to provide the reader with the sense of the range of meanings
and uses of the forms as close as possible to the original understanding of the scribes. This
chapter contains also such comments as are needed for the description and classification of
the uses of the verbal forms.
Chapter 7 proposes an interpretation of the verbal forms as forming a system. It interprets the
evidence described in chapter 6 in terms of basic aspectual and temporal oppositions. It also
argues in favor of the distinct status of the verbal system used in the letters from Tyre.
Finally, some typological, comparative and historical considerations are offered.
Appendices contain principally lists specifying the origin of the individual letters.
References to individual lines and passages of the Amarna letters are done without the
abbreviation EA, using the following format: ―number of the letter : number of the line.‖
1
Chapter 1
The Study of the Amarna Verbal System:
History, the Current State of Research, and Challenges
1.1 Initial Efforts
The discovery of cuneiform tablets in Egypt in 1887 sparked immediate interest among
scholars interested in the ancient Near East, in particular those working in biblical studies and
in the newly established field of Assyriology. The initial efforts were directed to editing and
translating these texts that were dubbed ―the Amarna letters‖ because of their genre and the
place where they were found. Although not edited properly and not always well understood,
the Amarna letters soon took a central place in the historical reconstructions of the Ancient
Near East in the fourteenth cent. B.C.E. and were divulgated in the form of anthologies
(Bezold 1893; Conder 1894; Winckler 1896; Boehmer 1900; Niebuhr 1901; Handcock
1920). Linguistic and historical research on the letters moved by comparison with the data
obtainable from the Hebrew Bible. From this period stand out in particular two studies
dedicated to the topography of the Amarna letters in light of the contemporaneous Egyptian
sources and the Hebrew Bible (Clauß 1907; Dhorme 1908, 1909). At that time, the linguistic
study of these texts was still at a nascent stage and the scholars were largely unaware of the
potential contribution that the Amarna letters had for the study of the Canaanite dialects.
In one of the first language-focused studies, H. Zimmern collected a number of the so-called
―Canaanite glosses‖ and compared them to the words attested in the Hebrew Bible (Zimmern
1891). Semitic studies owe to him also the first major study on the verb in the Amarna letters
(Zimmern 1890). In this paper, dedicated to the form today generally referred to as the
Akkadian Stative, Zimmern argued that it originally had an intransitive meaning and
compared it with the corresponding Egyptian Stative, referred to then as the ―Pseudo-
Participle.‖ He also noticed its use with the particle lū to express wishes and some instances
2
of its use in the passive voice with the transitive verbs. However, he failed to exhaustively
describe the past transitive use of the mixed qatal conjugation which is typical of the Amarna
letters from Canaan.
In 1893 Ch. Bezold published a selection of the Amarna letters with a vocabulary and a
grammatical sketch (Bezold 1893). He was largely unaware of the distinct character of the
letters and described their language as if it was ―Assyrian‖ with some peculiar forms. The
first doctoral dissertation about the Amarna letters, ―Commentatio de Rib-Addi Byblensis
epistolis quibusdam selectis, quam sententiis controversies adiectis,‖ was defended by L.
Kootz at the University of Wrocław (then Breslau) and was apparently published in 1895 but
remained largely unavailable (Böhl 1909, III). Among the early studies worthy of mention
are also Knudzton‘s contributions in vol. 4 of Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen
Sprachwissenschaft (1902) and D. H. Müller‘s notes on the stylistic aspects of the letters in
comparison with the Hebrew Bible, the meaning of the verb qâlu, and the multiplicative
numerals in the Amarna letters and Hebrew (Müller 1906).1
The end of the first decade of the twentieth cent. saw two systematic studies dedicated to the
verb in the Amarna letters. On December 3, 1908 E. Ebeling defended his dissertation ―Das
Verbum der El-Amarna-Briefe.‖ It was published as his Inaugural-Dissertation in 1909 and
republished a year later in Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft
(Ebeling 1910). After a short presentation of the orthographic and phonetic peculiarities of
the letters, Ebeling discussed two prefixed forms, "Präteritum" (ikšud) and "Präsens-Futur"
(ikašad). He distinguished two kinds of formations in each of these two forms: Assyrian with
prefixes 3 ms i-, 3 fs ta-, 2 ms ta-, 2 fs ta-, 1 cs a-, 3 mp i-, 1cp ni- and Canaanazing with
prefixes 3ms ji- and ti-, 3 fs ti-, 2 ms ti-, 1 cs i-, 3 mp ji- and ti-, 3 fp ti- and ji-, 2 mp ti-. He
concluded also that there were two forms of ―Imperfekt‖ in Canaanite: jikšud and jakšud.
Their distinction was impossible to establish because both forms were masked by the
Assyrian "Präteritum." In spite of this faulty description, he reached the correct conclusion
that the form jikašad, parallel to the Assyrian "Präsens-Futur," did not exist in Canaanite
(Ebeling 1910, 47). He divided the suffixed conjugation into two groups: the Assyrian
―Permansivformen‖ of the qatila kind and the Canaanite qatala ―Perfektformen.‖ He
1 For a full list of early studies see Heintz 1995, 3-18.
3
correctly observed that the Canaanite qatala forms are active while the Assyrian qatila forms
are usually passive and only occasionally active (Ebeling 1910, 55-57). In his description of
stems, beside the Canaanite passive stem and the D, Š and N derived stems, Ebeling included
also forms with the infixed -t- as forming a series of T-stems because he was unaware of the
existence of the Akkadian iptaras, still unknown at that time to Assyriologists (Ebeling 1910,
66-68). He explained the ending -na found on many verbs as Energic by analogy with
Hebrew and Arabic but he also denied that this ending was a part of the plural marker
because it appears with verbs in the singular (Ebeling 1910, 69-73). In general, his
description was focused on morphology while semantics was only superficially touched
upon.
Simultaneously with Ebeling, Fr. M. Th. Böhl also worked on the Amarna letters. His
research, published in 1909, was intended to be a comprehensive study of the language of the
letters with special attention paid to the Canaanite forms (Böhl 1909). He was clearly aware
that the peculiar verbal forms found in the Amarna letters were not erroneous or coincidental
Akkadian forms but that they must be explained by analogy with the West Semitic forms
(Böhl 1909, 40-41). In his description of the suffixed forms, he took for granted their use as
the Akkadian Stative (―Permansiv‖ in his terminology) and concentrated on the qatal with
the active meaning, peculiar to the Amarna letters (Böhl 1909, 42-48). While he discussed in
great detail the prefixes of the prefixed forms, he made no attempt to distinguish between
them and described all of them in one section entitled ―Präsens-Präteritum‖ (Böhl 1909, 48-
56). His treatment of the internal passive prefixed forms and the suffixed forms derived from
the Akkadian prefixed conjugations was overall quite successful (Böhl 1909, 58-63). He
compared the ending -na to the Arabic plural ending -ūna and noticed that it often followed
the plural ending of the prefixed forms but he did not state whether it is a part of the plural
marker. He noticed also that the verbs in questions, requests and emphatic utterances often
have the ending -u while the verbs in subordinate clauses often are lacking it, contrary to
Akkadian which in these clauses uses the Subordinate marker -u (Böhl 1909, 74-75).
Concerning the use of the verbal forms, he remarked only that the forms of ―Präsens‖ and
―Präteritum‖ are often used where they are not expected and that there are cases in which an
―Imperfektum‖ is followed by a conjunction u and a ―Permansiv,‖ like in Hebrew (Böhl
1909, 79).
4
Both contributions deal correctly with the active qatal and the internal passive but they fail to
do justice to the prefixed forms. Although they describe the peculiar prefixes of 3 ms, 3 fs, 1
cs and 3 mp in great detail, they either fail to distinguish the conjugations (Böhl) or build a
false portrait of two conjugations distinguishable by internal vowels (Ebeling). Consequently,
they cannot explain the morphemes -u and -na which appear as endings on many verbs.
Similarly, neither Ebeling nor Böhl discuss at length the use and meaning of the individual
forms. Therefore, their contributions, although valuable in certain points, do not show an
adequate understanding of the morphology and semantics of the Amarna verb.
The next study which took systematically into consideration the Amarna letters was authored
by É. Dhorme (1913, 1914). Unfortunately, it contributed little to a better understanding of
their language because it had another goal and a specific methodology. In an attempt to write
a grammar of Ancient Canaanite, Dhorme compared forms found in the Amarna letters with
the forms in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible and other epigraphic sources known at
that time (chiefly the Moabite stele of Mesha) and argued for a great deal of similarity and
continuity between them.
In the ensuing years, although the Amarna letters were the topic of vigorous research, no
major linguistic study appeared. However, progress in Assyriology and Semitic philology
made between the World Wars was critical to the research on the Amarna letters, as would
become clear after the Second World War. The studies on the Akkadian texts found in
Hattuša (Labat 1932) and Nuzi (Berkooz 1937; Goetze 1938; Gordon 1936, 1938) provided
much needed contextualization of the Amarna letters as documents in Peripheral Akkadian
and a basis for distinguishing between the specifically Canaanite and the general peripheral
linguistic features of the letters. Important was also a better understanding of the forms with
the -t-infix achieved in Assyriology (Goetze 1936). The discovery of ancient Ugarit and its
language provided comparative material in a local language close to the times of the Amarna
letters. Indeed, a morphological trait common to both corpora, the 3 mp prefix ti-, was soon
identified (Herdner 1938). The comparative research on the Amarna verb received also
another aid, a new grammar of the Canaanite dialects (Harris 1939).
The most prominent figure of the Amarna research in the thirties and forties was W. F.
Albright. In a series of articles he elucidated a number of individual letters and obscure
5
passages.2 In spite of his brilliant insights, he did not reach a new synthesis on the Amarna
verb because he had partially wrong assumptions about the Canaanite verb, as is seen from
his reconstruction of a yiqatal form in 252:18 (Albright 1943, 31). However, the familiarity
with the texts he gained during these years enabled him to guide securely his doctoral
students, who eventually achieved a breakthrough in the understanding of the verbal system
in the Amarna letters.
1.2 The Breakthrough
The breakthrough in the understanding of the Amarna verbal system and the Canaanite
usages it reflects was achieved by two of Albright‘s doctoral students: G. E. Mendenhall and
W. L. Moran.
Mendenhall‘s work clarified a critical misconception that previously had thwarted progress.
As Mendenhall clearly stated already in the first sentence of his dissertation, ―the so-called
present-future tense (yiqatal) in Canaanite does not exist‖ (Mendenhall 1947, 5). However,
he mistakenly concluded that the scribes had only one prefixed tense in their native tongue
and that this unique form was used for both past and present-future time (Mendenhall 1947,
6-7). Since his work essentially consisted of a list of the verbal forms, he offered no
additional comments on the verbal semantics.
In his dissertation defended in 1950, Moran limited his research to the letters from Byblos
and concentrated on two areas whose treatment was then most deficient: the verb and syntax
(Moran 2003, 1-130). In the first part of his study, dedicated to the particles, prepositions and
pronouns, he adduced a number of interesting comparisons between the Amarna and Biblical
Hebrew usages. Although he left the full study of the forms with -na for the section on
Energic, he spoke about this ending as the particle -na that can be affixed to the indicative
2 For a full list of his studies on the Amarna letters in this period see Heintz 1995, 19-20.
6
yaqtulu, to the imperative, and to the volitive yaqtula (Moran 2003, 11). Thus it seems that
he did not consider the forms with the Energic -na as forming separate paradigms or moods.3
In his analysis of the suffixed forms, Moran paid attention to the lexical aspect of the verbs
which he divided into stative and active verbs. He concluded that the suffixed forms (―the
Perfect‖) have past, present and future meaning. However, he noticed also that the stative
verbs in the Perfect usually have the present meaning and the active verbs the past meaning.
According to Moran, the future meaning is conditioned syntactically and occurs in the verbs
preceded by the conjunction u or found in the protasis of a conditional clause. Concerning the
nature of the Perfect, he stated that it is neither temporal nor aspectual: ―the perfect cannot be
a tense in the true sense of the word. No form that expresses past, present and future has an
intrinsic time determination‖ (Moran 2003, 33); moreover, ―the perfect does not express of
itself the completion of an action or a state. A form that expresses completed action is not
suited to express general truth or describe repeated or customary action‖ (Moran 2003, 34).
Therefore, for him the perfect merely reported an action or a state:
―The perfect then says nothing of the present, past, or future. It does not
say whether the action or state be completed or not completed. It merely
states the fact of the occurrence of the action or the existence of the state.
We might call it a tenseless aorist‖ (Moran 2003, 35).
In his opinion, the tenseless nature of the perfect as originally a nominal clause and the fact
that it prescinds from stating whether the action be instantaneous, continuous or completed,
customary, repeated etc., can explain all of its uses (Moran 2003, 38).
The most important of Moran‘s contributions is a better description of the morphology and
uses of the prefixed conjugations. Indeed, the existence of multiple prefixed conjugations in
Canaanite was known but their description was faulty. For example, the best available
grammar of Canaanite at that time spoke about yaqtulu preterite, yaqtul short preterite,
yaqtulu imperfect, and yaqatalu present forms (Harris 1939, 46-49). Moran established that
in the Amarna letters there is a yaqtulu(na) form which is chiefly used in present-future
context; when it appears in past contexts it is typically iterative or circumstantial. He noticed
3 See also Moran 2003, 51 speaking about the yaqtuluna form: ―Essentially it is an emphatic form of
yaqtulu, with the precise nuance of emphasis determined by the context.‖
7
also its modal uses but considered them rather a matter of translation than the meaning of this
form. On the grounds that it can be used in different temporal settings, he denied that it is a
tense and characterized its meaning as follows:
―... the essence of the form consists in the expression of continued
action, the time and particular nuance of continued action (incipiency,
repetition, custom, duration) deriving from the context‖ (Moran 2003,
46).
He argued the existence of the short yaqtul form on the basis of its jussive use and the non-
continuous meaning in the past. He thought that the use of yaqtul referring to the past is
relatively rare and that the perfect is the usual form for past narrative and for a present or
historical perfect (Moran 2003, 47-49). It seems, therefore, that for Moran many short
prefixed forms were in reality genuine Akkadian iprus forms known as such to the scribes
rather than reflexes of the Canaanite yaqtul.
In analyzing the prefix forms with the ending -a, Moran departed from his methodology
centered on the evidence of the letters themselves and started with comparative
considerations (Moran 2003, 51-53). He concluded that yaqtula was originally an emphatic
volitive form and dubbed it ―subjunctive‖ because of the corresponding Arabic and South
Arabian forms. He parsed the form yaqtulan(na) as the subjunctive plus the energic ending -
na and considered it to be an emphatic/volitive form (Moran 2003, 52). He was aware that
the yaqtula forms could be interpreted also as instances of the Akkadian ventive but he
concluded that they represent a genuine Canaanite form because they have a specific
meaning, are used in certain syntactic environments, and differ in all of this from yaqtulu. He
classified 48 of 70 occurrences of yaqtula as clear volitives and by adding the instances of
yaqtula in conditional sentences reached 62 out of 70 cases of yaqtula that have ―excellent
volitive parallels in Hebrew and Arabic‖ (Moran 2003, 88). Since he concluded that the use
of yaqtula in independent clauses cannot be secondary and analogical, he was unable to
pinpoint how yaqtula is different from yaqtul. He described them in the following words:
―Rather we would view yaqtul and yaqtula as essentially the same with
the accidental difference of emphasis, the latter probably the more
emphatic form. [...] In other words, the Byblian scribes used
8
interchangeably yaqtul and yaqtula, though undoubtedly with some slight
difference of meaning which escapes us‖ (Moran 2003, 98).
Although Moran did not realize it, this statement calls into question the understanding of
yaqtula as a subjunctive, if the only difference with the yaqtul (the form used in independent
clauses) is only a matter of ―emphasis.‖ Moreover, it remains unclear why this already
emphatic form should be reinforced with the Energic ending. The failure in establishing the
difference between the two forms proved to be critical and prevented Moran from a better
understanding of yaqtula. Instead, he tried to prove how its different uses can be classified as
―volitive.‖
The analysis of the infinitive was another valuable part of Moran‘s dissertation. Beside the
cases of the infinitive used to emphasize the meaning of the finite verb of the same root, he
noticed its use in place of the finite verb and with the independent personal pronoun as
subject (Moran 2003, 54-56).
In the ensuing years Moran returned to some topics concerning the verb in the Amarna
letters. He corrected his and Albright‘s earlier parsing of taqtulū(na) forms as feminine and
established that these are true masculine forms (Albright and Moran 1951). Against the
interpretation put forward by J. Obermann, he defended his view that the use of the infinitive
with the independent personal pronoun in the Amarna letters should be compared with a
similar construction in the Phoenician Karatepe inscriptions (Moran 1952). In a paper on
yaqtula, he repeated the views elaborated in his dissertation (Moran 1960). He also opposed
N. Sarna‘s parsing of three taqtul forms as an alternative 3ms (Moran 1964). After these
studies, he did not return to the subject of the verb in the Amarna letters.
1.3 Recent Research
The study of the Amarna verbal system was taken up by A. F. Rainey, who, since the
beginning of seventies, published a series of articles and engaged his students in research on
the letters from individual cities. Their research culminated in a comprehensive study of all
the Amarna letters (Rainey 1996) and in a series of studies dedicated to individual corpora of
9
the letters in Peripheral Akkadian from Amurru (Izre‘el 1991), Alashia (Cochavi-Rainey
2003), and Egypt (Cochavi-Rainey 2011).
Izre‘el identified a number of features, most of them shared with other Peripheral Akkadian
texts, which characterize the Amurru corpus: the 3fs verbal prefix ti-, disuse of the
subordination marker -u, disuse of the plural ventive marker and the emergence of a new
plural verbal ending -ūni (typical of the Amurru corpus), precative formation with iparras
stems, use of iprus to designate modality, and the use of epēšu ―to do‖ as an auxiliary verb
(Izre‘el 1991, vol. 1, 364-367). He found that only letters nos. 60 and 371 exhibit verbal
usages close to the Amarna letters from Canaan such as the 3 ms prefix y- or the use of the
Stative as the verb. He pointed out that these letters differ from the Amarna letters from
Canaan because of the lack of the imperfective yaqtulu (Izre‘el 1991, vol. 1, 260-262). His
analysis of the verbal system is idiosyncratic because Izre‘el employed the ad-hoc categories
of dynamism, tense, proximity and modality to describe the meaning of individual forms
(Izre‘el 1991, vol. 1, 222).
In her book on the Alashia letters, Cochavi-Rainey listed verbal forms according to their
translational values but did not attempt any synthesis in terms of a system. A valuable part of
her study consists in the identification of four instances of the yaqtulu used as future-present
in letter no. 34 (Cochavi-Rainey 2003, 84-85) and of the past transitive qatal in the same
letter (Cochavi-Rainey 2003, 118). Cochavi-Rainey‘s book on Egyptian Akkadian included
the results of her doctoral dissertation and of several earlier studies. Although she was able to
identify some features which testify to West Semitic influence on Egyptian Akkadian, she
concluded that ―the use of various tenses conforms to the rules of standard Akkadian‖
(Cochavi-Rainey 2011, 96). She found only one form similar to the forms from Canaan,
namely yi-[ta]-din (369: rev. 28), but she duly noticed that in the same letter the scribe uses a
proper Akkadian form (Cochavi-Rainey 2003, 201). A similar picture emerges from a recent
descriptive grammar of Egyptian Akkadian (Müller 2010, 197-218).
As for Rainey‘s opus magnum, it is impossible to present here all aspects of his study. For its
full examination and critique one must refer to reviews of which the most comprehensive are
Tropper 1997-1998, Huehnergard 1998, Pardee 1999, and von Dassow 2003. By and large,
Rainey describes the verb according to the lines set by Moran. In three significant points,
however, he differs from Moran. First, he insists that the instances of the past yaqtul attest
10
not to the use of the Akkadian iprus but to the existence of the yaqtul preterite in the native
language of the scribes (Rainey 1996, vol. 2, 223). Second, he divides the prefix conjugations
into two modes: indicative (concerned with tenses) and injunctive (concerned with volition).
In his division each mode has three conjugations and the overall system is composed of the
following six basic patterns:
INDICATIVE INJUNCTIVE
Preterite yaqtul, -û Jussive yaqtul, -û
Imperfect yaqtulu, -ûna Volitive yaqtula, -û
Energic yaqtulun(n)a Energic yaqtulan(n)a
Third, in the suffix conjugation, he distinguishes two West Semitic patterns: the transitive
qatal contrasted with the passive qatil (Rainey 1996, vol. 2, 316). As for the yaqtula forms,
he states that it is impossible to decide on the basis of the Amarna evidence whether their
ending -a is the Akkadian ventive or a Canaanite modal marker. At the same time, he accepts
the existence of a yaqtula form in the ―native repertoire‖ of the Canaanite scribes because of
the comparative evidence from Ugaritic, Hebrew and Arabic (Rainey 1996, vol. 2, 263).
Rainey‘s multivolume work was followed by the short sketch of Izre‘el in which he provides
several valuable observations (Izre‘el 1998). In his treatment of the suffix conjugation, he
takes into consideration the lexical semantics and syntax: ―the suffix conjugation (SC) is a
verbal category unmarked for TMA, with past implicature for transitive semantemes, present
or habitual implicature for stative semantemes, and future or resultative implicature in
specific syntactic or semantic environments‖ (Izre‘el 1998, 35). He also recognizes the
difficulty of taking all yaqtul forms as Caananite and observes that the ambiguity in the
interpretation of the yaqtula forms as having the Akkadian Ventive or Canaanite modal
morpheme is actually inherent to the linguistic system of the Amarna letters from Canaan
(Izre‘el 1998, 37-38). Although excellent in some details, his sketch does not constitute a
major advance in the study of the Amarna verbal system because he does not describe in
which syntactic and semantic environments various implicatures of each form arise.
In spite of its descriptive exhaustiveness, Rainey‘s analysis did not gain universal acceptance
and students of the Amarna letters have continued to propose alternative schemes for the
11
verbal system. In his review of Rainey‘s monograph, J. Tropper modified his earlier scheme
for the Old Canaanite and Ugaritic verbal system (1995) and proposed the following view of
the indicative and volitive forms (Tropper 1997-1998, 136):
Stamm Präfixkonjugation
Kurzform Langform
Indikativ (sogenannte
Tempora)
yaqtul, -ū
(Präteritum)
yaqtulu, -ūna
(Imperfekt)
Volitiv einfach qtul, -ū
(Imperativ)
yaqtul, -ū
(Jussiv)
erweitert qtulā
(emphat. Imp.)
ʾ/naqtulā
(Kohortativ)
The major difference between this and Rainey‘s model consists of analyzing the ending -a as
a kind of ―Exhortativendung‖ that is used for emphasis with the Imperative and the 1 pers.
Jussive (or Cohortative) rather than a marker of a grammatical mode.
Not persuaded by Rainey‘s analysis, Korchin took up the study of the prefixed verb system in
the Amarna letters from Byblos, Gezer and Gimtu as the topic of his doctoral dissertation,
which was defended in 2001 and published as Korchin 2008. His thesis has the merit of being
the first investigation of the Amarna verbal system which explicitly employs a linguistic
theory. He chose to describe the Amarna prefix conjugation in terms of markedness, which
sees language as a system of binary, hierarchical oppositions. This methodological choice
leads him to an elegant description of the formal structure of the prefix conjugations
(Korchin 2008, 323):
yqtl + Ø
(unmarked)
yqtl + u
(singly marked)
yqtl + a
(singly marked)
12
yqtl + u + (n)na
(doubly marked)
yqtl + a + (n)na
(doubly marked)
He recognizes the following differences between the morphemes: the morphemes Ø, -u, and -
a are intrinsic to the prefixed verb system while the morpheme -(n)na is an enclitic particle
which can be appended to the two singly marked forms yqtl-u and yqtl-a (Korchin 2008,
325).
According to Korchin, markedness is useful also to describe the functional structure of the
prefix conjugations:
yqtl-Ø
Ant / NAnt
(unmarked)
Ind / NInd
(unmarked)
yqtl-u
NAnt
(singly marked)
yqtl-a
NInd
(singly marked)
yqtl-u-(n)na
NAnt + Cont
(doubly marked)
yqtl-a-(n)na
NInd + Cont
(doubly marked)
As described by Korchin, the verbal system conforms to markedness theory because each
more marked form has a more restricted functional range which is at the same time
encompassed by a less marked form. According to him, the presence of the morpheme -u
consistently indicates non-anteriority (NAnt) of the action, that is, locates a verbal situation
simultaneously or subsequently to the temporal orientation of its syntagm. The absence of the
morpheme -u implies functional neutrality with respect to non-anteriority. In this case,
anteriority (Ant) or non-anteriority is indicated by syntagmatic means. Similarly, the
presence of the -a morpheme signifies non-indicative modality whereas its absence signifies
neutrality with respect to non-indicative (NInd) modality. Therefore, the form without the
morpheme -a can be modal or non-modal depending on its syntagm (Korchin 2008, 324-
13
325). The particle -(n)na serves to ostensibly mark a verbal situation "as being functionally
contrastive (+Cont) in some manner with its syntagmatic surroundings" (Korchin 2008, 325).
In his overall evaluation, Korchin concludes that neither tense nor aspect is formally marked
in the Amarna verbal system. With the exception of yqtl-u, which is marked for non-
anteriority, tense is a product of deixis and Zeitbezug, both of which are signified
extraparadigmatically. In other words, the sole temporal opposition that is morphologically
marked is between yqtl-Ø and yqtl-u whereas all other temporal oppositions are
paradigmatically external and derivative. As for aspect, on a strictly isolated grammatical
level, it is subordinate to tense. Pragmatically, the aspect of a verb is determined by various
combinations of grammatical, lexical, syntagmatic and contextual factors (Korchin 2008,
326).
Since the suffix conjugation is out of the scope of Korchin‘s study, he only comments that qtl
encroaches into the functional range of yqtl-Ø and that the syntactic distributions of these two
forms are fluid and interchangeable (Korchin 2008, 332).
Yet another vision of the Amarna verbal system is offered by short but valuable sketch of
Canaano-Akkadian by Tropper and Vita which incorporates the results of the authors‘
previous studies (Tropper and Vita 2010). In their understanding, the Canaano-Akkadian
verbal system is basically Canaanite, not Akkadian, because the temporal and aspectual
categories are expressed by Canaanite morphemes affixed to Akkadian verbal bases, which
are irrelevant with regard to these categories (Tropper and Vita 2010, 61). Since the final /a/
on the verbs in the 2nd
and 3rd
pers. should be understood as the Akkadian Ventive and the /a/
suffixed to the imperative and the verbs in the 1st pers. is a kind of ―Exhortativendung,‖ there
are only three conjugations: the suffix conjugation, the short yaqtul and long yaqtulu prefix
conjugations. The suffix conjugation and the yaqtul have the same past temporal meaning
and are used interchangeably with this meaning. The non-past meanings are covered the long
yaqtulu conjugation. As for their aspect, the suffix and short yaqtul conjugations are
perfective whereas the yaqtulu conjugation is imperfective. Including other uses, their
functions can be summarized as follows (Tropper and Vita 2010, 104-105):
14
Perfective Imperfective
Past qatal yaqtulu
yaqtul
Present-Future (u) qatal yaqtulu
The prefix conjugations have also modal uses: the long yaqtulu expresses nuances of ability
and obligation; the short yaqtul is used as the volitive mode ―Jussive.‖ In Tropper and Vita‘s
opinion, the volitive use of the suffix conjugation is probable but the secure attestations of it
are lacking (Tropper and Vita 2010, 105).
As for the Energic, they understand it as an optional ending rather than a separate mode and
maintain that its form in Canaano-Akkadian is -(a)nna. They observe that it can be added to
the Imperative, the short conjugation yaqtul (both with jussive and preterital meaning), and
the long indicative yaqtulu form in order to emphasize the verbal phrase (Tropper and Vita
2010, 83-86).
The studies on the verbal system of the Amarna letters from Canaan that are currently
available share a number of assumptions and characteristics which determine in part their
results. The nature of the language attested in the Amarna letters is generally not discussed.
The analysis depends on its classification as a peripheral dialect of Akkadian and proceeds
with the tacit assumption that it differs little in its nature from natural, spoken languages.
Consequently, the verb is treated in a vacuum, as a self-contained system rather than a part of
a peculiar linguistic system which informs and conditions the verbal morphology and
semantics. Of course, all scholars are aware the Amarna letters display a mixture of
Akkadian and Canaanite features. Nevertheless, it is rarely clear in their descriptions of the
verbal semantics what they actually describe: mixed or Canaanite verbal usages. From the
current descriptions one gains the impression that the Amarna verbal system is close to, if not
identical with the Canaanite verbal system.
Another feature of the current research is a poor dialogue with linguistics. It is true that
Korchin employs the markedness theory with great competence but his study covers only part
of verbal system, the prefix conjugations. Moreover, judging from the results, it is
questionable if markedness theory is appropriate for the study of verbal semantics. Other
15
studies, although they display a degree of linguistic sophistication, use hermetic terminology,
idiosyncratic theories, or do not incorporate syntax and lexical semantics into their analysis.
Much is left unexplained also because of the frequent recourse to the concept of context as
being the main factor which decides the meaning of the form. As the result, the current
descriptions are divergent from one another and partial because they do not cover all uses
that each form exhibits. Furthermore, they are difficult to use for typological comparisons.
1.4 Challenges for a New Study
Although the study of the verb in a limited corpus of texts seems to be a pretty
straightforward enterprise, in the case of the Amarna letters it involves a wide array of topics
that must be considered before such a study can be successfully attempted. Indeed, the verb
cannot be understood separately from the nature of the Amarna language and the latter
cannot be described without adequate knowledge of the historical circumstances which lead
to its formation and use. Without due consideration given to social and historical
circumstances it may be possible to describe the verb in the Amarna letters as a formal
system but it is impossible to understand why it looks as it does. Therefore, a new study of
the verb must begin with a discussion of the genesis of the Amarna language and its nature.
In fact, only a better understanding of the Amarna language as a particular sociolinguistic
phenomenon can provide the necessary grid to interpret the features of the verb. In other
words, before we can study the Amarna language as a linguistic system, we must study it as a
linguistic artifact.
In order to address the problematic issues, a new study of the Amarna verb must be
comprehensive. It cannot be limited to a certain sub-corpora of the letters because such a
limitation thwarts the discovery of differences between idiolects of each sub-corpus and leads
to conclusions which are grounded on a very small set of data. At the same time, the
inclusion of non-Amarnian corpora, such as letters from Tell Taʿanach or Tell Kāmid el-Lōz,
is not justified. In spite of internal differences, the Amarna letters constitute a well-defined
corpus from a relatively narrow temporal window. The dating of other corpora is done by
comparison with the Amarna letters and its results are less precise. Hence, the inclusion of
16
other corpora would mean adding the diachronic aspect to a basically synchronic description
of the Amarna archive. Since the methodology of diachronic study requires it to be based on
a series of synchronic descriptions, it is preferable to investigate first the Amarna letters on
their own.
Analysing the Amarna letters on their own implies demotion of the comparative
considerations to an auxiliary level. Because of its potential for historical reconstructions, the
Amarna verbal system has been usually approached having in mind its similarity to other
West Semitic verbal systems, in particular Biblical Hebrew, Arabic and Ugaritic. Although
there is no harm in keeping in mind facts about the Semitic verbal system in general, using
them to interpret the Amarna verbal system is detrimental. It obscures problems and gives a
false impression that all issues are resolved with the same degree of confidence on the basis
of the evidence. Furthermore, extensive use of comparative arguments to interpret the
Amarna verb is dangerous to the entire field of Semitic philology because it creates a
methodologically vicious circle: the evidence of Amarna letters is crucial in historical
comparative reconstructions but its interpretation is derived in part from these
reconstructions.
A new study must also approach the meaning of the verb from a holistic rather than only
morphological perspective. Given that there are some disagreements concerning morphology,
in particular of the prefix conjugations, it is necessary to give it due consideration. However,
the semantics of the verb cannot be seen only in relation of the verbal morphology. It is
imperative to see its interaction with syntax and lexicon. Moreover, it must consider and
interpret at the same time the entire array of different usages each form has in order to build a
comprehensive picture of its functions and in order to explain how they relate one to another.
Therefore, in order to be successful, a new study must combine a philological approach with
linguistic insights. Above all it requires constant return to the letters themselves and
continuous exanimations of presuppositions. Only in this way, it will be possible to achieve
the goal set high by the famous definition of historical linguistics as ―the art of making the
best use of bad data‖ (Labov 1994, vol. 1, 11).
17
Chapter 2
Preliminaries to the Study of the Amarna Letters
and Their Verbal System
2.1 Philology, Linguistics and the Study of the Verb in the Amarna Letters
The study of the Amarna letters and their verbal system has a long philological tradition. This
tradition privileged dialogue with the field of Assyriology and Semitic Philology. In the
earlier period, it was impossible to incorporate insight from linguistics because linguistic
sciences were still at a nascent stage. More recently, some students of the Amarna letters
have looked at linguistics with suspicion because of its jargon and ever-changing theories;
others have made recourse to peculiar or idiosyncratic schools of linguistics. The prevalent
feeling that one might get in Semitic studies in general, and hence in the study of Amarna
letters too, is that philology stands for old, intuitive approach to texts whereas linguistics is
the modern, advanced science with sophisticated methodology and solid theoretical
foundations. The reality is of course different. Although autonomous, both disciplines are
interdependent. In fact, a philologist cannot write a sentence without running into basic issues
of linguistics. For example, if a philologist says that the word nazāqum means in Akkadian
―to worry, to be upset,‖ a linguist may ask what a word is and how it comes to mean
anything. Conversely, large textual corpora remain inaccessible to linguists without being
edited and commented upon by philologists.
Since both philology and linguistics study languages, their goals and methods in part overlap
and the difference between them often lies in direction and emphasis rather than in clearly
established boundaries. However, certain characteristics make philological and linguistic
enterprises qualitatively different. Consciousness of these characteristics is indispensable to
appreciate the research done in both disciplines and is crucial for establishing the specific
nature of the present study and understanding its natural limitations.
18
Linguistics as a discipline originated with the nineteen century comparative grammarians and
their efforts to establish the study of language on firm grounds and to dissociate it from the
literature-oriented research. A further separation of the two fields was advocated by August
Schleicher (1821-1868), who saw linguistics as a natural science that investigates unalterable
laws of the language and philology as a historical discipline which uses language to study
thought and cultural life (Koerner 1997, 168-170). Hence, the philologist primarily
researches texts offering a commentary on its linguistic properties, dating, cultural content,
historical references etc. In this way, he amasses knowledge about the man and the society.
In his endeavor, the philologist is naturally limited and determined by the academic school to
which she or he belongs, by the culture of his own generation and society and by the
remoteness of the culture she or he investigates (Mantel-Niećko 1984-1986, 285-286).
Although focused on the text, philology defined broadly as cultural and social study
encroaches on linguistics, history and cultural anthropology. For the philologist, an
investigation into the linguistic properties of a text is therefore situated within a historical and
cultural context that created this text. In the present case, a linguistic study must take into
consideration in particular the scribes who wrote the Amarna letters, their schooling and level
of competence.
The specific task of philology vis-à-vis linguistics is to establish the attributes of the text
which may be relevant for a subsequent linguistic analysis and to retrieve linguistic
information from the text (Holmstedt 2006, 5; Hale 2007, 21). However, in achieving these
goals, philology does not operate in a vacuum but it employs, consciously or not, a certain
theory of language in general and of the grammar of the studied text in particular. Therefore,
linguistic information that the philologist provides is never pure but it is necessarily
conditioned by his or her own understanding of the language and the text. In the case of the
Amarna letters, as of any cuneiform text, the transliteration already implies a certain analysis
and understanding of the text because otherwise it is impossible to choose between the values
of the polyphonous signs. In relation to the Amarna letters, it suffices to recall that readings
of the sign PI or some signs with vowels /e/ and /i/ are often chosen because of the
understanding of the shape of the morpheme or a word in which they occur. Consequently,
the use of these readings in a linguistic analysis can result in an unconscious vicious circle of
arguments and interpretations.
19
It is also said that philology focuses on what is peculiar to a text while linguistics deals with
the things common to all texts (and utterances). Thus, the ―text versus system‖ approach
distinguishes the two disciplines in the sense that linguists strive for a deeper analysis of the
language as a system, whereas philologists aim at a description of the meaning of the text,
and pay attention to language in the measure of its being the primary means for interpreting
the text (Holmstedt 2006, 5-6). But precisely in the moment in which a philologist decides to
reconstruct the grammar of a corpus, he undertakes a task proper to a linguist and must think
in terms of a system rather than a text.
The reconstruction of a grammatical system of an ancient textual corpus is characterized by
peculiar difficulties and almost insurmountable limitations. First of all, a philologist or
linguist who works on an ancient language lacks native speaker informants who could
provide their judgment about the grammaticality of the material at hand or intuitions about
the structure or function of the language. Moreover, he is unable to gather new data or to
refine their interpretation by designing specific tests (Miller 2004, 292-292). Consequently, it
must be assumed that ―nearly all the extant ancient data is grammatical, interpretable, and
pragmatically felicitous within its discourse content‖ (Holmstedt 2006, 10). Such an
assumption is reasonable in the case of the texts written by native speakers but in the case of
the Amarna letters it is rather problematic since their authors are not native speakers. The
lack of native informants can be remedied to some degree with the help of language typology
in order to validate or question an analysis through comparison with similar structures in
better understood languages (Miller 2004, 300-304). In the case of the Amarna letters,
comparative study makes typically recourse to West Semitic languages, in particular Biblical
Hebrew and Classical Arabic. Similarities between the Amarna and West Semitic verbal
systems justify comparisons but the resort to language typology is problematic unless the
nature of the Amarna linguistic system is identified.
A corpus chosen for linguistic inquiry must be extensive enough so that the relevant features
are present and representative enough to include different varieties of language. Otherwise,
the research runs the risk of using data that provide much information on certain features of
the language but omit some other important ones. Consequently, the nature of the described
corpus deeply affects its linguistic analysis (Miller 2004, 284-289). The Amarna letters are a
perfect example of how linguistic analysis is negatively influenced by a limited and
20
inadequate corpus. As a matter of fact, they represent only one literary genre, display all the
same register, and contain many requests, whereas narrative passages are scarce. Moreover,
roughly half of the corpus comes from one city (Byblos), privileging its idiolect in the
analysis. As a result, in the reconstruction of the language system of the letters there are gaps
and grey areas. They are not due to the superficiality of investigation or the lack of proper
linguistic methodology or theory but they reflect the nature and limitations of the available
data. For example, the morphology of the verbs in the 2 fs, 2 fp and 2 mp can be described
only imperfectly because of the dearth of these forms which is understandable considering
that the epistolary nature of the texts favors the use of the 1st
and 3rd
person and of the
masculine gender. Similarly, in the realm of verbal semantics, while the volitive use of the
prefix conjugation is well documented, volitive use of the suffix conjugation is plausible but
secure attestations of it are lacking (Tropper and Vita 2010, 105). This being the state of
matters, certain areas of grammar can be described with confidence while others can be only
tentatively interpreted or even must remain philological cruces till new data surface
(Holmstedt 2006, 12).
Finally, there is a basic issue in reconstructing the grammatical system which seems obvious
but is rarely recognized. Most logically, the reconstruction of grammar depends on
interpretation of the text, its translation and parsing. Indeed, the need for constant
reassessment of the meaning characterizes philological vs. linguistic study. Translation and
interpretation of a text, especially of the verbal forms, can be usually achieved with an
acceptable degree of confidence thanks to the narrative flow and general knowledge of how
things happen. In other words, normally it is possible to reconstruct only one coherent picture
that a text conveys depending on the meaning assigned to individual verbs. Ideally, once a
number of verbal forms with secured meaning is collected, it becomes possible to make
generalizations about the function of each form, that is, to reconstruct the verbal system. In
the case of the Amarna letters, it is sometimes impossible to assign an unambiguous meaning
to a verbal form in a particular clause. As the result, the verbal system is reconstructed on the
grounds of selective and not always convincing interpretations of the text. The exclusion of
these unclear cases is inadvisable not only because of the small size of the corpus but more
importantly because these cases can be potentially very indicative of the meaning of a form.
It is rather necessary to describe these cases and include them in the grammatical system. The
21
engagement of a linguistic theory to validate or refine the interpretation of the data at this
point is a very delicate procedure because it may easily create an impression of manipulating
the data so that they fit the theory. There is no other way to address this difficulty than openly
admitting how much can be inferred from the data and what constitutes interpretation.
Of course, it is not enough to invoke the use of linguistics in general but it is necessary to
individuate topics which require insights from specialized subfields of linguistics. The
historical survey indicates two major areas that can be improved with the help of linguistics:
the nature of the Amarna language and the analysis of the verbal system. Since the Amarna
language represents an attempt at using a foreign tongue by non-native speakers, insights
from the fields of language contact and of second language acquisition are potentially useful.
A better description of the verbal system requires acquaintance with linguistic semantics. The
basic concepts that need introduction are the categories of tense, mood and aspect. The nature
of the Amarna language and the analysis of the verbal system are two distinct issues and
constitute two major topics of the present study. Their linguistic study is characterized by
very different goals, methods, and perspectives, which cannot be easily treated in a holistic
manner.
2.2 Interlanguage: Language Contact and Second Language Acquisition
Language contact refers to all sorts of situations in which the speakers of one language enter
into interaction with the speakers of another language. The study of language contact
demands a great deal of extra-linguistic considerations. In fact, in order to explain the
linguistic outcomes of contact, it is necessary to consider not only linguistic constraints and
mechanisms, the history and length of contact but also sociocultural factors, such as the types
of community setting, the demographics of the populations in contact, the patterns of social
interaction, and ideologies of linguistic choices (Winford 2003, 24-28).
Depending on a variety of factors, such as degree of genetic or typological proximity, time
and intensity of contact, social status of the speakers in contact and their communicative
needs, language contact leads to different phenomena. Situations in which both languages
maintain their distinctiveness are characterized by lexical borrowing only or also slight to
22
moderate structural borrowing, depending on the intensity of contact between them.
Language maintenance includes also more or less stable bilingual communities whose users
alternate the use of two languages in different situations or within the same stretch of speech,
often even within the same sentence. This phenomenon is known as code switching. More
intense language contact in the situation of language maintenance results in numerous lexical
borrowings and heavy structural diffusion. Other situations lead to language shift, that is,
cases in which a minority group adopts the language of the majority group, a majority group
shifts to the use of the language of a prestigious minority or an indigenous community
abandons the use of its own language in favor of an imported language. Finally, language
contact may lead to language creation, that is, the emergence of new contact languages.
These can be divided into bilingual mixed language, pidgins, and creoles (Winford 2003, 11-
24).
2.2.1 Bilingual Mixed Languages, Pidgins, and Creoles
Bilingual mixed (intertwined) languages are created through long-term contact and
conventionalization of the hybrid language as a community norm. Their components can be
easily traced back to the contributing language, as it is the case with the Media Lengua of
Ecuador which incorporates Spanish lexicon into Quechua grammatical framework. A
bilingual mixed language can also exemplify more complicated scenarios, as in the case of
Michif. In this language, Métis French supplied most of the nouns and of the noun phrase
structure whereas Plains Cree contributed practically all of the verbs and their inflections,
questions words, personal pronouns and postpositions (Winford 2003, 184). Finally a very
interesting case is presented by Copper Island Aleut which is a blending of Aleut (primarily
Attu) and Russian: while nominal morphology is entirely Aleut, other components of this
language incorporate Russian elements. In verbal morphology, valency-changing suffixes,
aspectual suffixes, some dependent form and topic-number agreement are Aleut but tense
suffixes, analytic future, negative prefix, infinitival suffix, and person agreement (pronouns)
are Russian. As for function words, reflexive object pronouns, postpositions, and
demonstratives derive from Aleut whereas subject and object pronouns, modal verbs and
23
words, and several complementizers from Russian. In syntax, the rigid Subject-Verb-Object
order of Aleut has been substituted by variable word order, with Russian-like patterns
predominating. Similarly, in complex sentence constructions, Russian-like structures,
complementizers and subordinating conjunctions took over Aleut elements (Winford 2003,
198-203). Although bilingual mixed languages display significant differences in their pattern
of mixture, they all share an important feature: lexical and structural components of their
input languages are preserved relatively intact and can be easily traced (Winford 2003, 205).
Pidgins are highly reduced lingua francas with minimal vocabulary and rudimentary
grammar, employed in restricted functions, typically in trade, and arise in situations of short
and limited contact. Although pidgins may undergo further development, prototypical
pidgins are lacking the characteristics associated with natural language and display simplicity
at all levels. Their structural characteristics are (Winford 2003, 275-277; Crowley 2008, 77):
1. a near-total absence of inflectional morphology hence of morphological categories such
number, person, agreement and the like;
2. little or no derivational morphology;
3. a near total absence of morphological irregularity, suppletion, and allomorphic variation;
4. absence of other functional categories such as tense and aspect, with limited expression of
deontic modality;
5. minimal inventory of function morphemes such as articles, quantifiers, prepositions,
conjunctions, etc.;
6. restricted number of questions words and pronouns, usually undifferentiated for gender or
number;
7. one universal negative marker;
8. analytic structures, with word order as the primary means of determining syntactic roles
such as subject or object;
9. a reduced number of sentence patterns because of lack the of rules for changing word order
10. absence of subordination or embedding
11. a very restricted inventory, usually of 150-500 words;
12. semantically and grammatically ambiguous generic lexical entries
24
13. lexicon drawn from one main source language, with incorporation of other languages
with spread of the pidgin.
Pidgins, that with time become vehicles of wider everyday communication, may expand
significantly their complexity and even be recognized as official language, like Bislama and
Tok Pisin in Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea respectively (Winford 2003, 302-303).
Creoles are more complex and stable languages which derive from longer and more intense
contact and arise typically in colonial contexts. Although simplified, they may also display a
degree of complexity (Winford 2003, 319-329):
1. Categories such case and agreement are lacking; in the pronominal system, case and
gender are often eliminated or reduced but number distinctions are preserved; some creoles
may preserve also other distinctions such as emphatic and non-emphatic or stressed and
unstressed forms.
2. Derivational patterns display a great richness.
3. Most creoles use overt and distinct copulas only in predicative nominal and locative
constructions while predicative adjective constructions are lacking copulas. These copulas
are invariant, with no distinctions number and agreement.
4. To express temporal, modal and aspectual distinctions, creoles employ pre-verbal markers.
The temporal categories that are marked include relative past, future, and prospective. The
aspectual distinctions comprise perfective, progressive, imperfective and perfect.
5. Creoles have elaborated syntactic systems, including movement rules, such as contrastive
focus constructions, relativization and passivization strategies, various types of
complementation and subordination, such as temporal and conditional clauses and serial verb
constructions.
6. The bulk of the creole lexicon is derived from the superstrate language, with retentions
from the substrate language. However, internal innovations also occur, including categorical
changes such as reanalysis of prepositions as verbs and the formation of compounds.
The differences between various creoles are usually due to the social circumstances in which
they were created. Overall, creoles are characterized by a relatively high number of
continuities from their superstrate language, with simplification and reanalysis (Winford
25
2003, 355-356). It must be stressed that pidgins and creoles form a continuum rather than
clear-cut distinct categories.
2.2.2 Language Contact
To establish a claim of contact-induced changes in a language several conditions are to be
met. First, the source language of the contact-induced changes must be indentified and the
existence of a contact intense enough to produce interference must be proven. Therefore, it is
necessary to describe the time, ways and circumstances in which two languages came into
contact. Second, shared structural features must be identified. These features need to be
similar enough to argue for the creation or reinterpretation of a feature in the receiving
language. Third, the nature of the shared features as innovations in the receiving language
must be ascertained. Fourth, one must prove that the shared features existed in the input
language and that they are old, that is, do not constitute innovations shared with the receiving
language. Fifth, it is important to consider multiple causation so that reasons for the
developments that took place other than language contact are excluded (Thomason 2004, 8-
9).
The processes and mechanisms which intervene in the creation of contact languages are
explained in several ways. One theory sees pidgins and creoles as reduced codes. It holds that
the speakers of the superstrate language used deliberately a reduced variety of their language
(baby-talk or foreigner-talk) in contacts with the speakers of the substrate language.
Consequently, the latter were unable to acquire the full variety of the superstrate but rather
conventionalized the use of the reduced variety. A theory which aims at explaining the
genesis of creoles considers them to be nativised pidgins, that is, languages which were
originally no one‘s first languages but rather reduced lingua francas which were in turn
acquired by a next generation. In this way, they become native varieties and were
subsequently expanded by their native speakers. For others, pidgins and creoles are
restructured dialects of their superstrate language. Language Bioprogram Hypothesis
maintains that creoles reflect closely the properties of Universal Grammar because children
exposed to impoverished language varieties use their Language Bioprogram to nativise and
26
expand the pidgin. Finally, another hypothesis invokes the concept of relexification, that is, a
mental process of copying the lexical entries of an already established lexicon and of
replacing subsequently their phonological representations with representations derived from
another language. Additionally, relexification can be accompanied by reanalysis,
desemanticisation, grammaticalization and dialect leveling which all can interact in the
creation of creoles (Lefebvre 2005, 12-34).
2.2.3 Second Language Acquisition
Another approach to contact language sees their formation as a case of unsuccessful second
language acquisition (SLA). In fact, a number of similar phenomena occur both in situation
of language contact and of learning a second language. Moreover, both fields use the key
concept of interference and transfer, that is, instances of deviations in the language of
bilinguals as a result of their familiarity with more than one language. Furthermore,
interference or transfer and simplification are processes that occur both in language contact
and SLA: simplification typical of restricted pidgin can be seen as product of partial SLA
whereas transfer from the native language can contribute to expansion found in extended
pidgins and creoles (Siegel 2006). It follows that the study of second language acquisition
can illuminate features of contact language.
SLA may involve the learning of a language though formal instruction or in a natural setting,
without benefit of instruction, when learners attempt to communicate using the dominant
language of the community. In both cases, the stages of the acquisition and phenomena that
accompany them are similar. The main difference between SLA in these settings is that the
learners that acquire a language in a natural setting feel more free to adapt the language that
they learn to their communicative needs (Winford 2003, 208-209).
The goal of SLA is to achieve the full proficiency in another language, called often the
second language (L2) or the target language, which is different from the first language (L1)
or the native language which is learned as a child. SLA passes through gradual acquisition of
all levels of the language: its phonology, morphology, syntax, lexicon and semantics,
pragmatics and discourse strategies. In this process, the learners acquire progressively the
27
language performance being helped by their innate language competence. They work their
way through a number of developmental stages, from apparently deviant versions of the
target language to its more elaborate versions. Each of these stages constitutes a language
system developed by the learner and is often called an interlanguage. It possesses a number
of characteristics such as systematicity, variability and creativity, and the use of prefabricated
chunks as a learning strategy. It is also characterized by incomplete success or fossilization
and language transfer, that is, cross-linguistic influences. In order to acquire fluency and
control of an emergent second language system as well knowledge of its components
(―knowing that‖) and skills to use it (―knowing how‖), the learner needs both comprehensible
language input and output through interaction and conversation. Conversational episodes
involve the negotiation of meaning which provides negative or positive evidence and
corrective feedback which contribute to shaping the interlanguage. The factors that determine
success in SLA include inner mental mechanisms, age, cognitive and affective traits of
individual learners, their intelligence and language aptitude (phonetic coding ability, memory
abilities, etc.), learning strategies, motivation, language anxiety and willingness to
communicate, learners‘ social identity (Mitchell, Myles and Marsden 2013, 6-26).
2.2.4 Interlanguage
An interlanguage is a language system that is created by the learners as they develop their
knowledge of the target language. An interlanguage is dynamic rather than static because the
learners restructure it constantly in response to the input they receive. Therefore, an
interlanguage can be better seen as a series of systems or stages of development through
which language competence is acquired (Loewen and Reinders 2011, 98). Interlanguage
constitutes a structure that the learners impose on the available linguistic data. The elements
which compose this internalized system can be traced back mostly to the first language and
the target language but some of them do not have their origin in either languages (Gass and
Selinker 1994, 11).
Trying to compensate for their limited knowledge of the target language, the learners adapt
the resources they know and in so doing some create new forms and structures alien to both
28
the first and the target language. Typically, they make recourse to simplification and to
regularization of rules and grammatical structures. Simplification often entails avoidance of
features which are not present in the first language and thus elimination of the parts of
morphology of the target language or phonemic oppositions which are absent in the native
language but required in the target language. Simplification can also take an ―elaborative‖
form when the learners develop new, simpler forms. For instance, periphrastic means can be
used to compensate for loss of morphology, adverbs to convey time reference instead of
verbal morphology or fixed word order to distinguish syntactic roles once cases are dropped.
Another simplification strategy consists in analogical leveling and overgeneralization of
rules. For example, irregular formations are substituted by new regular forms (―sheeps‖ for
―sheep,‖ ―buyed‖ for ―bought‖) or incorrect innovations are produced based, for example, on
derivational morphology (―sparcity‖ for ―sparseness‖), analogical extension (―cruelism‖),
back formation (―nocent‖ for ―guilty‖), folk etymology (―matter language‖ for
―metalanguage‖), and compounding (―young family‖ for ―nephew‖). The main motivation of
these phenomena is to achieve maximum regularity and transparency in the grammar by
assigning an invariant meaning to an invariant form (Winford 2003, 217-220).
2.2.5 Transfer
Although features of the first language which appear in the interlanguage can be seen as
retentions, they are usually regarded as instances of transfer. Transfer can be regarded as the
compensating strategy par excellence as it involves the use of the grammar and lexicon of the
first language until the appropriate knowledge of the target language is acquired. The
presence or the absence of a feature may facilitate or hinder the acquisition of this feature.
Transfer which facilitates learning is called positive (for example, /s/ as the marker of
plurality both in English and Spanish facilitates its learning) whereas transfer which delays
learning is called negative (for example, the lack of the article in the first language results in
problems with its acquisition). Transfer errors are based on the learners‘ assumption that the
target language functions in a way similar to their mother tongue (Loewen and Reinders
2011, 168-169).
29
Transfer may affect all elements of the language. In the realm of lexicon, learners may use
items of their native lexicon, employ words of the target language with meanings of their first
language (―false friends‖) and create loan translations (―ill-car‖ in English for German
Krankenwagen). In phonology, learners replace a target sound by its close counterpart in the
first language or drop phonetic distinctions of the target language which are lacking in their
mother tongue. Morphemes tend not to be transferred directly because an interlanguage
typically reduces or eliminates inflection. However, close typological similarity may
facilitate substitution of certain native morphemes for their target counterparts. For example,
some German learners mark English plurals using German suffixes (dog-e, girl-en). More
often morphological transfer consists in reinterpretation of the target categories in terms of
the native counterparts, as when French or German learners use the English perfect with the
preterite meaning (―I have written the letter yesterday‖ in imitation of ―Ich habe den Brief
gestern geschrieben‖). Finally, reinterpretation or reanalysis of target categories in terms of
the first language may lead to the emergence of new constructions in the interlanguage. An
example of such morphosyntactic innovation is Hiberno-English ―hot-news‖ perfect,
consisting of be + after + V-ing (―She‘s after painting the house‖ for ―She‘s just painted the
house‖). In the realm of syntax, the use of the native word order is typically found in the
earlier stages of learning (Winford 2003, 209-217).
Since transfer may occur also between languages which are typologically distant, some
research denies the importance of similarity as the cause of transfer. Such cases of transfer
are referred to as ―transfer to nowhere‖ and are considered as attempts of transfer language-
specific ways of dealing with experience of the world to another language (Han 2004, 69-86).
The main idea behind this notion is that learners who encounter barriers in their attempt at
using the target language resort to strategies based on their native language. For example,
learners may use abstract syntactic patterns of their first language as template into which they
insert words of the target language. This strategy can be formulated as the ―relexification
principle:‖
When you cannot perceive the structural pattern used by the language you
are trying to acquire, use your native language with lexical items from the
second language (Winford 2003, 248).
30
―Transfer to nowhere‖ may include also use of the content or function morphemes of the first
language to convey meanings for which appropriate means of the target language are still to
be acquired. Learners seem to intuitively follow a very simple principle: ―When in doubt, fall
back on L1 knowledge.‖ The following examples from Hawaiʾi Pidgin English illustrate both
strategies of ―transfer to nowhere‖ at work (Japanese items are in italics):
A. da pua pipl awl poteito iit
―The poor people ate only potatoes‖
B. mista karsan-no tokoro tu eika sel shite
Mr. Carson-POSSESIVE place two acre sell do
―I sold two acres to Mr. Carson‘s place‖ (Winford 2003, 249-250).
More commonly, however, the role of similarity which leads to ―interlingual identifications‖
is admitted and codified in the so-called ―Transfer to Somewhere Principle:‖
A grammatical form or structure will occur consistently and to a
significant extent in interlanguage as a result of transfer if and only if there
already exists within the L2 input the potential for (mis)-generalization
from the input to produce the same form or structure‖ (Andersen 1983,
178).
This proposal provides a general vision of transfer but does not predict the constraints of the
first language influence. Earlier studies predicted that morphemes which are free, invariant
and not complex (with simple grammatical function) are more likely to be transferred
(Andersen 1983, 180-182). Current research maintains that three main factors interact in
transfer: a learner‘s psychotopology, that is, the way in which the learner organizes the native
language, perception of the distance between L1 and L2, and finally actual knowledge of L2.
It must be stressed that the notion that similarities between languages imply easy learning
while differences entail difficulties has been disproved by years of research (Gass, Behney
and Plonsky 2013, 147-153).
The initial formation of interlanguage and its continuous reshaping is possible, among other
things, thanks to exposure to the target language and interaction in it. Although the sole
contact with another language does not guarantee its acquisition, the presence of the proper
input is prerequisite for learning a second language. Input consists in all language data
31
available to the learner and is different from intake which refers to the language data which
are processed and internalized by the learner (Loewen and Reinders 2011, 91). In order to
stimulate acquisition of the language, input must be comprehensible and contain new
elements that are slightly beyond the learner‘s current level of proficiency. Learners make
sense of input, recognize novelty or anomaly of a form, acquire and alter their implicit and
explicit knowledge and consequently reformulate and develop their interlanguage toward
fuller acquisition of the target language thanks to interaction. Interaction enhances
comprehension through backchannels cues such as verbal messages (―uh huh‖ or ―yeah‖) or
facial expressions, confirmation checks (―Is this what you mean?‖) and clarifications
requests. Additionally, interaction forces learners to produce comprehensible output and thus
stimulates development of the complete grammatical processing. Finally, through interaction
learners receive feedback that provides them with information about the success of their
utterances and creates opportunity to perceive and correct their errors (Mitchell, Myles and
Marsden 2013, 160-187; Gass, Behney and Plonsky 2013, 339-390). Practically speaking, the
role of input and interaction in SLA underscores the need for appropriate teaching materials
and for different ways of exposure to the target language in order to assure robust and
persistent input. It also highlights the position of the native speaker who can provide the
input and corrective feedback. The lack of such an input can be responsible not only for SLA
failure but also for creole genesis (Sprouse 2006).
2.2.6 Fossilization
It is a common experience of most, if not all, learners that they never acquire the same level
of proficiency as the native speakers but rather continue to use forms and structures that
deviate from the norm of the target language. In other words, interlanguage ceases evolving
toward the native variety and reaches a stable form. This phenomenon is called fossilization
or, less commonly, stabilization (Loewen and Reinders 2011, 168-169). It occurs despite
optimal teaching and corrective feedback and is a central characteristic of any interlanguage.
Apparently, fossilization occurs in particular when learners perceive that their
communication is effective and adequate (Han 2004, 18-19). Although it is commonly
32
assumed that fossilization is a global process, it is more precise to see it as affecting a
number of features in certain subsystems of the interlanguage while other features in the
same subsystem continue to evolve and eventually are acquired with success (Han 2004, 21-
22). Thus fossilization is a general feature which does not exclude the possibility of some
further changes and development in the interlanguage.
According to the ―Skill Acquisition Theory,‖ fossilization is a result of not-native-like
declarative knowledge of the target language becoming automatized. In this view, learning
begins with establishing explicit knowledge about the language that is open to conscious
reflection and can be verbalized by learners (declarative knowledge). Next, this knowledge is
put to action and performed as skill; consequently it becomes a procedural knowledge.
Extensive practice leads to automatized knowledge which is still prone to errors. In this
stage, erroneous knowledge is difficult to change or delete because it is outside of attentional
control, once automatized. Although it is not universally agreed that declarative knowledge is
transferable to other contexts and skills, this theory accounts for several key phenomena of
SLA. According to it, certain native structures are lacking in the interlanguage because of
inaccurate or unreliable declarative knowledge. Such defective knowledge particularly
affects complex, abstract, communicatively redundant, infrequent or non-salient structures.
Alternatively, parts of declarative knowledge may never be proceduralized because of
insufficient opportunity of practicing them. Moreover, if declarative knowledge is so
fundamental to SLA, differences between individual learners must naturally occur because of
their individual cognitive abilities to acquire and process declarative knowledge. Finally,
―Skill Acquisition Theory‖ accounts for the variety of fossilized structures. In fact,
declarative knowledge about more complex and less salient structures is more likely to be
incorrect. Furthermore, these structures being less frequent are less likely to be restructured
thanks to corrective feedback. Finally, simple features and structures can be easily fossilized
too if they are frequent but their declarative knowledge is incorrect (Mitchell, Myles and
Marsden 2013, 139-142). The effects of inadequate knowledge of a form can be magnified
by language transfer phenomena affecting that form, in accordance with the multiple effects
principle which states that the chance of fossilization of an interlanguage feature is greater
when two or more factors work in tandem (Han 2004, 118).
33
2.2.7 Language Contact vs. Second Language Acquisition
Comparison of the phenomena found in language contact and second language acquisition
show that they are similar at least in their manifestation, if not in the mechanisms that
produce them. Indeed, they can be seen as two faces of the same coin because language
contact implies an attempt at learning a language while language acquisition requires contact
with another language. However, language learning aims at its full acquisition whereas
language contact responds to the need for immediate communication. From the perspective
of research, SLA places the individual learner at the center, unlike language contact which
privileges the communities of speakers in their social settings.
2.3 The Verbal System
The verbal system is a part of a larger structure of language. Therefore, the description and
understanding of it faces the same basic issues and questions as in the case of other sub-
systems of language. The following discussion assumes this larger perspective but it focuses
on the problems specific to the verb.
2.3.1 Concepts of Verbal Semantics
Language as a way of communication manifests itself through speech (performance) which
reflects the language system. Language is composed of signs that combine a concept with its
sound-image. The descriptions and explanation of language entails categorization of these
signs and viewing them as forming a system. This system can be studied in time perspective,
with attention to changes that affect it (diachronically) or in a given point of time
(synchronically). In the classical approach, categorization is based on four basic assumptions:
1. categories are defined in terms of necessary and sufficient features; 2. features are binary;
3. categories have clear boundaries; 4. all members of a category have equal status (Taylor
2003, 21). It is assumed here that the linguistic categories should be discrete, that is, should
34
be sharply defined and that the features which distinguish them can be divided into defining
and accidental properties.
Generally speaking, meaning is a message or content which is conveyed on different levels of
the language by its various elements. The combination of these elements determines the
meaning that is conveyed by a single proposition, a sentence, and on a higher level, by the
entire discourse. In the study of meaning the crucial distinction between semantics and
pragmatics must be drawn. Semantics deals with the literal meaning of words and the way in
which their combination produces the whole meaning of a particular utterance. Pragmatics
deals with all the ways in which literal meaning is refined, enriched or extended in the
speaker‘s particular expression (Kearns 2000, 1). Obviously, the analysis of an ancient text
combines the reader‘s understanding of its semantics and pragmatics.
The meaning of sentences is composed of lexical meaning of the individual words and
structural meaning which derives from the way the words are combined. This property of
language is known as the principle of compositionality which states that the meaning of a
sentence is determined by the meaning of its component parts and the manner in which they
are arranged in syntactic structure. Ambiguity arises when the lexical meaning cannot be
unequivocally established in the context or the structure can be analyzed in several ways, as
in the phrase "wealthy men and women" where ―wealthy‖ can refer both to the men and
women or to the men alone.
Since the meaning of the sentence is compositional, its semantic analysis requires
specification of what kind of information each element of the sentence contributes to its
meaning or how the meaning of a component produces or enforces a certain reading or
understanding of the entire sentence. Therefore, the description of the verbal system may
assume the form of a taxonomy of syntactic and discourse uses of individual forms. Such
description must specify the meaning which every form conveys in a given syntactic and
discursive environment. However, if the goal is to understand and explain the verbal uses in
terms of a system, taxonomy is not sufficient. It does not see the specific meanings that are
encountered in the data as a logical whole but rather creates the illusion that all uses can be
simply and adequately explained with the recourse to their syntactic and discourse context.
Taxonomy, rather than an explanation, is a map which provides the data and helps to take
cognizance of the array of uses that each form exhibits. The goal of taxonomy is not only
35
establishing what is the whole array of uses of a form but most importantly, what are the
main or typical uses in hope that these uses reflect the ―general‖ meaning of each form to
which the specific meanings can be reasonably related (Cook 2012, 182-185).
Description is good if it captures all individual uses and constructions. There is no way to
verify its correctness beyond checking the interpretations provided by its author. A theory
can be invalidated by showing that its assumptions are incorrect or predictions that it makes
do not correspond to the facts. But how to assess a description that attempts at interpretation
of the verbal usages in terms of a system? It seems that the only viable way consists in
typological comparisons. These comparisons cannot provide proof that the description and
interpretations are correct but may support their probability of being such, if the proposed
system matches in general what it is known about typologically similar languages. In other
words, if the proposed system is highly idiosyncratic, it has a higher probability of being
faulty. Typology may be synchronic when typological classification and typological
generalizations are intended. Diachronic typology classifies shifts between language stages
and types. It is associated with grammaticalization framework which traces changes that
individual grammatical items undergo. It must be observed, however, that in the case of the
Amarna letters both typology and grammaticalization approaches are not unproblematic as
they depend on the classification of the Amarna linguistic system and the understanding of its
origin and properties. Typological comparisons must be therefore general and
grammaticalization approach must be limited. In fact, the Amarna language is a one stage
system and hence tracing developments is impossible.
It is assumed here that in order to describe and analyze the various meanings carried by the
verb, it is advisable to use three domains or super-categories: tense, aspect and mood.
2.3.2 Time and Tense
Time is central to human experience; it is perceived as a dynamic flow moving from the past
by the present to the future or as a static series of instants and intervals. These instants and
intervals are ordered relative to one another and form a continuous timeline. States persist for
periods of time while events evolve over time. Periods, or intervals, are bounded substretches
36
of the timeline. They are convex, that is, uninterrupted and contain all the instances between
their initial and final bounds or endpoints. Intervals can be closed on both sides, or only on
one side or open on both sides. Intervals are related to the order of temporal precedence
and/or to relations of overlap and inclusion (Devine and Stephens 2013, 15-17).
The time of eventualities (events and states) is usually captured by language in the category
of tense which is grammaticalized expression of location in time and is commonly expressed
by verbal morphology (Comrie 1985, 9-13). Tense expresses the event time by defining its
relationship to the utterance time and the reference time and may specify it further with the
adverbial time (Devine and Stephens 2013, 17).1 Therefore, tense is a deictic system because
it relates entities to a reference point (Comrie 1985, 13-18).
The event time is a part of the timeline in which an eventuality took place in the actual world
or, in other words, the interval occupied by the eventuality which can be measured by its
duration. It must be noticed that not all eventualities occupy an interval. Some are
instantaneous (―He saw‖); other are permanent states with indeterminate bounds (―The sea
was hemmed in by cliffs‖) or are not easily locatable in space and time (―I am tall‖). An
event time covers a slice of history which becomes known when it is embedded in a
discourse context (Devine and Stephens 2013, 17-19).
Since the world is viewed from the standpoint of the speaker, the context of the utterance is a
basic factor in how the message is encoded. References to time, space and participants are
made in relationship to the time and location of the utterance and to the identity of the
speaker. The time of the utterance is therefore conceived as an instant in relation to which
tensed propositions are computed and evaluated (Devine and Stephens 2013, 19-20).
Reference time situates the event contextually because it defines the time of the event in
relation to some point given by the context rather than to the time of the utterance (Comrie
1985, 56). For example, in the sentence ―I had mailed the letter when John came,‖ the action
described in the main clause in defined in relation to the action in the temporal clause.
Finally, adverbial time is the time denoted by the temporal adverbials. Most important classes
of temporal adverbials are positional (―today,‖ fourteen years ago‖), frequency (―every day,
1 For historical sketch of theories which distinguish event time, utterance time and reference time in
order to describe tense see Binnick 1991, 109-125.
37
every fifth year‖), duration (―for a long time,‖ ―entire night‖), and container (―in a few days,‖
―within a few years‖). Adverbs may modify both the event time and the reference time (―in
the same year‖). Durative adverbials measure the run time of atelic predicates (including
habitual and iterative) while container adverbials occur with telic predicates and specify the
interval within which the event or its phase is completed (Devine and Stephens 2013, 22-26).
Tenses situate the event in time by its relation to the reference time. Tenses which take the
utterance time as the reference time are called absolute tenses and depending on the location
of the even time prior, simultaneously or subsequently to the reference/utterance point are
divided into past, present and future tenses (Comrie 1985, 36). Tenses which use the
reference time different from the utterance time as the deictic center are called relative tenses
(Comrie 1985, 56-82).
Evaluation of the propositions in the past and the present tenses in terms of their truth value
is relatively simple as these can be verified against the facts in the actual world. The status of
the future propositions is more complicated as it involves philosophical issues of
determinism and skepticism. In a deterministic perspective, a future event is already true or
false because it is objectively a necessity in the actual world. In an indeterministic
perspective, there are many possible worlds with their own complete histories and in some of
them a future proposition can be a true prediction and in others can be false. The speaker can
adopt the deterministic perspective using the future indicative or the indeterministic
perspective using modals for future possibilities. The speaker can also exclude a number of
far-fetched worlds and make an assertion about the future in terms of absolute truth which is,
however, still understood by the conversational participants as representing his belief. Rather
than being modal, these assertions present claims about how the actual world will develop.
The settledness of the future events may be signaled also by the so called futurates which use
the present tense for planned, scheduled or predetermined events. However, in general, the
future has a modal component (Comrie 1985, 43-48; Devine and Stephens 2013, 31-39).
Most commonly, languages have tense systems which convey directly information about the
temporal location of events by morphological means. Often three tenses, past, present, and
future, are encountered, as in Lithuanian. Many languages make a two-way distinction
between a past tense and a neutral, non-past tense which can be used for present and future
events. Few languages oppose future (or irrealis) to nonfuture (or realis) which refers to
38
either past or present activity. Some languages may also prefer the use of clitic particles to
indicate temporal distinctions (Timberlake 2007, 305-306). Finally, information about
temporality may not be expressed by tenses but rather aspectual grammatical items may be
given default temporal interpretations (Smith 2008).
2.3.3 Aspect
Language not only conveys information about the temporal location of an eventuality with
tenses but also about the temporal properties of eventuality structure with aspectual
distinctions. In general, these distinctions concern the duration, boundaries and phases of an
eventuality and can be conveyed on various linguistic levels. In discussing the aspect it is
useful to distinguish lexical aspect (Aktionsart), morphological or viewpoint aspect, and
syntactic or compositional aspect. Lexical aspect is the aspectual meaning of verbal root
itself and is an inherent property of the verb or a verb-complement phrase; thus it refers to an
aspectual class of the event which the verb or the verb phrase describes. Morphological
aspect comprises the contribution of the verbal inflection to the aspectual meaning of the
sentence or the way in which the run time of the event is linked to the reference time.
Syntactic aspect is the aspectual meaning of a verbal projection after the verb has been
composed with the arguments and adjuncts therein (Devine and Stephens 2013, 56, 69).
Aktionsarten or aspectual classes of events are determined by boundedness, duration and
change. A bounded or telic event has a natural ending point beyond which it cannot continue.
An unbounded or atelic event has no inherent natural finishing point and consequently can
continue indefinitely. A durative event occupies time while a nondurative event is idealized
to a point of time. Depending on the presence or absence of change, events can be divided
into heterogeneous, that is, not identical from moment to moment but containing internal
change, and homogenous, that is, unchanging, with all the parts uniform. Based on the
39
combination of characteristics, events can be divided into: states, activities (processes),
accomplishments, and achievements (Kearns 2000, 201).2
States are atelic, durative and homogenous, as illustrated by the following examples:
The cat is asleep.
The light is on.
Clive knows my brother.
The plot has lain fallow for years.
States usually do not occur in the progressive (*John is knowing the answer) and are true
presents in null context. They also do not occur as complements of verbs like ―force‖ and
―persuade‖ (*John forced Henry to know), as imperatives (*Know the answer!) or with the
adverbs deliberately and carefully (*John deliberately knew the answer) because they have a
nonvolitional nature (Binnick 1991, 173-174).
Activities are atelic and durative but unlike states they are heterogenous as they imply
progress. They are energized: they start with the input of energy, require energy to sustain
and terminate with its cessation. Examples:
The leaves fluttered in the wind.
They chatted.
The guests swam in the river.
The visitors played cards.
Activity verbs allow only the phrases with ―for‖ not with ―in‖ (―John walked for an hour‖ not
*―John walked in an hour‖). For activity verbs, x VERBed for y time entails that at any time
during y, x VERBed, x is VERBing entails that x has VERBed, and x stopped VERBing
entails that x did VERB (Binnick 1991, 175-176).
Accomplishments are telic events of complex structure with onset and process leading up to
an outcome which finishes the event. Thus, they are durative because they occupy time and
heterogeneous because of their internal structure, as seen in examples:
2 The following paragraphs offer rudimentary introduction to basic concepts of aspectual classes. For a
historical sketch and research problems see Filip 2011.
40
John built a house.
Marcia ate an apple.
The new incumbent made a speech.
I read the book.
Accomplishment verbs take prepositional phrases with ―in‖ but only very marginally with
―for‖ (―John painted a picture in an hour,‖ but ―John painted a picture for an hour‖ is
atypical), do occur as the complement of the verb ―finish‖ and are ambiguous in a special
manner with the adverb ―almost‖ which implies with them the beginning but not the
completion of an action (Binnick 1991, 175-176).
Achievement verbs typically denote the transition from one state to another, so that the event
is bound, as in the following examples:
Then he recognized her.
They reached the summit.
John noticed a mark on the wallpaper.
They lack duration as they are idealized to occur at a nondivisible point in time and in
denoting a change, they are heterogeneous, too. Achievements are quite strange with a for-
phrase (―John noticed the painting for a few minutes‖) and generally unacceptable as
complements of ―finish (*―John finished noticing the picture‖). The adverbs which denote
attention and personal commitment to an action (―studiously,‖ ―obediently‖) are semantically
anomalous with achievements (Binnick 1991, 177-178).
Additionally, some scholars propose semelfactives as an independent class. They are
bounded but do not describe change or process leading up to the bounding culmination.
Examples include:
John coughed.
Sally blinked.
Mary swallowed the apple.
The light flashed (Kearns 2000, 204).
41
The aspectual class of the event may not coincide with the aspectual class of the verbal root
itself. For example, the verb ―walk‖ belongs to the activity class (―John walked in the park‖)
but the addition of a telic head results in its classification as an accomplishment event (―John
walked a mile‖). Therefore, it is possible to think about the lexical aspect not as a property of
verbal lexemes but rather of verbal phrases.
Morphological or viewpoint aspect is distinguished into the perfective and imperfective
aspect.3 It has been characterized in terms of a different view of the internal temporal
structure of a situation: perfective ―indicates the view of a situation as a single whole,
without distinction of the various separate phases that make up that situation‖ (Comrie 1976,
16) while the imperfective sees the situation from within and ―pays essential attention to the
internal structure of the situation‖ (Comrie 1976, 16). Using the metaphor of the focal length
of camera lenses, the perfective can be compared with a wide scope panoramic view of the
situation which includes its boundaries and the imperfective to a high focal lens which
provides a close up view of the situation in its unfolding. In terms of a geometrical metaphor,
the perfective sees the eventuality as a circumscribed dot or circle and the imperfective as a
boundless line. As useful as these characterizations and metaphors may be, they do not
provide precise definitions.
In order to arrive at a more precise definition of aspect it is necessary to recognize that
eventualities are presented in the discourse not in the abstract but as located in space and
time. In other words, in a real discourse context, eventualities must be somehow linked to a
reference time and a reference location. The viewpoint aspect specifies the way in which the
eventuality is linked to its reference time, that is, the time at which the eventuality is
contextually situated. Therefore, like tense and unlike lexical aspect, the viewpoint aspect
cannot be interpreted without the reference time.
In the perfective, the run time of the event is seen as included or coinciding with the
reference time. Therefore it is seen as a bounded whole that occurs within or at the reference
time and that includes all the internal stages (onset, nucleus, end) into which the event is
structured.
3 Also the perfect and the progressive can be analyzed as kinds of the morphological aspect in languages
in which they are expressed by morphological means, such as English. They are not treated here because there
are not relevant to the Amarna verbal system. For an overview of perfect and progressive see Portner 2011.
42
In the imperfective, the reference time is included in or commensurate with the run time of
the event. Consequently, the reference time can be located at one of the internal stages that
constitute the event, at the exclusion of the beginning and the end. Hence, the imperfective
focuses by default on the nucleus of the eventuality rather than its boundaries. This definition
permits but does not require the event time to extend beyond the initial and/or final moments
of the reference time.
Because of its different way of relating the reference and event times, the imperfective lends
itself naturally to serve as an event frame for another event taking place in the same time
while the perfective advances the reference time and thus creates a narrative sequence of
events (Devine and Stephens 2013, 69-70).4
In principle all four aspectual classes of events can be used perfectively or imperfectively.
Naturally they can occur with different sorts of arguments and adjuncts. The way in which
lexical and morphological aspect of the verbs interact with other constituents of the sentence
results in particular nuances of the meanings or different aspectual readings of the sentence.
In this manner, using morphological, syntactic and lexical means, language can focus on
different stages of the internal structure of an eventuality or the way in which it unfolds in
time. While states typically persist across a temporal span, actions may have different
aspectual readings. Some of the most common include:
● ingressive: focuses of the onset of an eventuality and the alternation of a state or action
● progressive-continuous: views an action (progressive) or a state (continuous) as ongoing at
the reference time (―Sara is reading‖).
● habitual: presents the event as customarily repeated on different occasions (―I walk home
from work every day,‖ ―The Temple of Diana used to stand at Ephesus‖). Habitual describes
―a situation which is characteristic of an extended period of time, so extended in fact that the
4 These abstract definitions can be exemplified with a sentence which gives an approximate idea of the
perfective and imperfective (using the English Progressive aspect instead): ―Today evening, at 5 PM, Jenny was
walking to my house and but she slipped and broke her leg.‖ In this sentence the reference time is established by
the adverbial time (―today evening, at 5 PM‖). The actions described by the verbs ―slipped‖ and ―broke‖ occur
at the reference time while the reference time is included in the run time of the action described by the verb
―was walking.‖ Using the definitions given above, the verbs ―slipped‖ and ―broke‖ are approximate examples of
the perfective aspect and ―was walking‖ of the imperfective.
43
situation referred to is viewed not as an incidental property of the moment but, precisely, as a
characteristic feature of a whole period‖ (Comrie 1976, 27-28).
● iterative: an event is repeated on a particular occasion (―I read the same books again and
again‖).
● frequentative: includes habitual meaning and additionally specifies that the event is
frequent during a period of time.
● continuative: includes progressive meaning, describes extension of an event without a
pause, and additionally specifies that the agent deliberately keeps the action going on (―She
continued shaking her head‖).
● perfect: focuses on the resultant phase of an event and indicates the continuing present
relevance of a past situation (―I have lost my penknife‖). Its particular characteristic consists
in expressing a relation between two time-points (Comrie 1976, 52-53).
● resultative: signals that a state exists as a result of a past action (―He is gone‖). It is
compatible with the adverb ―still‖ and is used only with telic verbs (Bybee, Perkins, and
Pagliuca 1994, 54).
In most cases, the aspectual reading of a sentence (its compositional aspect) is intuitively
perceivable by the language users. This is not so for lexical and morphological aspect which
must be established through linguistic analysis.
2.3.4 Modality and Mood
People are capable not only of thinking and speaking about the eventualities in the actual
world (using tense and aspect to refer to them) but also about the ways the world might be or
might have been or they wish it to be. In doing so, rather than referring to facts, people
express their attitudes or opinions about the world. The alternative ways things could be
(actual, possible, counterfactual) are called possible words and the utterances which refer to
them are called modal. Modality can be expressed by words of various grammatical
categories such as adverbs (possibly, probably, necessarily) or main verbs (require, know,
hope) but in English it is traditionally associated with the study of the so-called modal verbs
44
(could, can, must, may, should, might). From the point of view of formal logic, a modal
proposition ―includes the information that the basic proposition it contains is necessarily or
possibly true‖ (Kearns 2000, 52).
Modal expressions can be seen as describing the interaction of a set of data (the modal base)
with a set of norms (the ordering source). Different ordering sources determine the
accessibility relation involved in a modal expression. The modal force of an expression in its
simplest manifestation consists in a binary distinction of possibility versus necessity (Portner
2009, 141-143). The modal base can be circumstantial (the facts in the world at some time
and place) or epistemic (what someone knows about the facts in the world). The ordering
source (a set of norms) determines the relevant type of modality:
● Circumstantial modality: the modal base is given by facts of the actual world while the
ordering source comes from the laws of nature (physics, biology etc.). Therefore, it refers to
the relevant facts or circumstances that necessitate, permit or exclude the occurrence of an
eventuality by virtue of the laws of nature. The truth of circumstantial modal utterances
depends on the speaker getting the facts right and taking all the relevant facts into account.
Example: ―It is possible for clouds that are low and close to the earth to produce fire by their
own friction.‖
● Epistemic modality: the modal base of epistemic modality is formed by the facts that
someone know or thinks he knows. The ordering source comes from the laws of probability.
Using epistemic modality, the speaker evaluates the necessity and possibility of an
eventuality in light of the facts known to him or makes an inference based on the available
knowledge and evidence.5
Example: the sentence ―Mary must be lost,‖ said by John
expecting Mary in vain.
● Deontic modality: The modal base of deontic modality is given by a set of facts in the
actual world and the ordering source comprises a set of norms or obligations (the laws of the
land, morality, customs etc.). The deontic accessibility relation selects, as accessible from the
actual world, those possible worlds in which the law or norms are not violated. Example:
5 Depending on the kind of judgment the speaker makes, it is possible to divide epistemic modality into
speculative (―John may be in his office‖), deductive (―John must be in his office‖) and assumptive (―John will
be in his office‖). On those and additional distinctions see Palmer 2001, 24-35.
45
―You must take your shoes off when you enter the temple.‖ Beside their primary function of
informing about deontically accessible worlds, deontic modals may assume a performative
use, when they are used to require, request or permit the address to act in conformity with the
norms in the ordering source.
● Bouletic modality: In the case of bouletic modality, the modal base and the ordering source
are relativized to an individual. The modal base can be epistemic (the world as known by the
speaker) or doxastic (different ways the possible worlds can develop according to the
speaker‘s beliefs). The bouletic ordering source consists in the desires of an individual. The
worlds determined by the bouletic accessibility relation are those in which the desires of the
individual are satisfied. Example: ―May I look at you when my final hour arrives.‖ Beside
informing about wishes and desires, bouletic modals may assume a performative use of
requesting the realization of a wish.
● Teleological modality: it involves worlds in which the goals of an individual are achieved.
The modal base is provided by the actual world with a number of possible future
developments in it. The ordering source is the set of goals in question. The teleological
accessibility relation determines that only these worlds in which the goals are attained are
accessible. Teleological modality is notionally close to bouletic modality (somebody usually
wishes to attain his goals) and purpose clauses can be diachronically derived from
independent sentences with bouletic modality that shift to teleological modality with
subordination. The objective may not be overtly stated but it can be implicit in the context as
in this example: ―The following rule should be observed as to how plant the land.‖
● Ability modality: it concerns worlds in which the abilities of an individual are realized by
action. The modal base is provided by the actual worlds with a number of possible future
developments of which some are within the capability of the individual and others are not
under the appropriate circumstances (called the dynamically accessible worlds). The ordering
source consists in the capacities of the individual (physical, intellectual, sociopolitical etc.).
These capacities determine which worlds are accessible and establish an order of
accessibility among them. Accessibility relation may include only possible worlds (―He
might be able to pass the test‖) or also the actual world (―He can pass the test‖). Ability
modals can be used statively or eventively, that is, express stable, long term properties (―have
46
the capacity to‖) or transient abilities, often depending on the circumstances of the situation
(―Today I can swim across the river‖).
Modality is commonly expressed on the sub-sentential level by adjectives and adverbs
(―possible worlds,‖ ―necessarily‖) and on the sentential level by a modal verbs (―I can
swim‖). The realm of modality does not end with these levels but it extends into other
grammatical structures and levels which are deeply tied with modality. Most relevant here
are conditional clauses and mood.
Conditionals contain two clauses: the protasis (the antecedent, the ―if clause‖) which
expresses the condition, and apodosis (the consequent) which expresses the eventuality
which depends on the condition given in the protasis. In general, the protasis may be seen as
subordinated to the apodosis, although the exact syntactic relationship between the two is
debatable, especially given the fact the conditionals are often coordinated. It is also not easy
to pinpoint what is exactly the kind of relationship that conditionals express. The semantic
relationship between protasis and apodosis is often described as causal, that is, the apodosis
refers to the effect of the material cause described in the protasis. Another way of analyzing
conditionals is to see the role of the protasis as serving to restrict the set of accessible worlds,
that is, to say that the apodosis is true only in those worlds in which the protasis is true.
Moreover, it is debatable if conditionals lack truth conditions or not (Portner 2009, 247-257).
Finally, conditionals seem to be somewhat akin to temporal clauses as it can be deduced from
the fact that some languages mark both conditional and temporal clauses using the same
means (e. g. German wenn). Considering all these difficulties, it is preferable to adopt a broad
perspective and speak about a variety of conditional constructions which express a mutual
dependency between two or more eventualities. The dependency between eventualities
involves often their mutual necessity or possibility. Consequently, conditionals tend to
contain modal expressions.
In general, conditionals can be divided into realis conditionals and irrealis conditionals.
Realis conditionals refer to present (―If it‘s raining out there, my car is getting wet‖),
habitual/generic (―if you step on the brake, the car slows down‖), or past (―If you were at the
party, then you know about Sue and Fred‖) situations. Irrealis conditionals can be divided
into two types: imaginative conditionals in which the speakers imagine what might be or
what might have been, and predictive conditionals in which the speakers predict what will be
47
(―If he gets the job, we‘ll all celebrate‖). Imaginative irrealis conditionals may refer to
situations which might happen (hypotheticals, ―If I saw David, I would speak with him‖) and
to situations which did not or could not happen (counterfactuals, ―If you had been at the
concert, you would have seen David‖).6
In many languages, marking of modality in the verb involves not only modal verbs but also
alternative verbal paradigms, that is, moods. Correspondingly to their meaning, these moods
are termed in various languages conjunctive, subjunctive, optative, realis, irrealis etc. The
category of these moods represents dependent sub-subsentential modality in the form of the
verb and reflects modal properties of the context in which it occurs.7 For example the
subjunctive que je vienne in the sentence ―Il est possible que je vienne‖ (―It is possible that
I‘ll come‖) reflects the modal ―possible.‖ In other words, the subjunctive que je vienne is
triggered (or licensed) by the modal ―possible.‖ Verbal moods can be triggered by various
contexts in different languages. Beside the overtly modal constructions, these contexts
include emotive constructions as well as interrogative and negative sentences. Verbal moods
can also occur in independent clauses with a meaning similar to the one they have when
overtly triggered (Portner 2009, 258-259). In sum, modal verbal moods have two key
characteristics: their occurrence is to be explained in terms of modal properties of the
context; their occurrence is, in most cases, overtly triggered and thus the pattern of their
distribution is limited.
Modal meanings can be expressed not only by modal verbs and verbal moods but also in a
variety of ways which can be grouped for convenience under the umbrella of ―notional
mood.‖ Notional mood covers two major phenomena: verbal forms with the function of the
verbal mood, and modal subordination. The group of forms used in lieu of verbal moods
includes, in particular, infinitives. In fact, many languages use the infinitive in instances in
which another language would employ a verbal mood (the subjunctive) or allow an infinitival
clause instead of a subordinate clause with the subjunctive, when the subjects of the main and
infinitival/subordinate clause are the same. ―Modal subordination is the phenomenon
whereby a sentence is interpreted as part of the argument of a modal expression even though
6 For an overview of linguistic study of conditionals see von Fintel 2011.
7 In general, all consistent verbal paradigms can be termed ―moods‖ as it is the case, for example, with
the indicative and the imperative, two common verbal moods.
48
it does not occur under the syntactic scope of that modal‖ (Portner 2009, 261). In other
words, the material under the scope of the modal is semantically subordinated to a non-
factual proposition in previous discourse, that is, a proposition which is not meant to be
interpreted as true or false in the actual world. Non-factual proposition are typically protases
of conditional clauses, imperative clauses and simple declarative sentences used to report on
the content of a dream (Roberts 1996, 219, Portner 2009, 260-261). For example, in the
discourse chunk ―I had a strange dream last night. My children were penguins,‖ the second
sentence is interpreted as under the scope of a ―dream‖ operator. Modal subordination occurs
often also with sentential modals, with various presuppositional elements and in intentional
contexts, as in the following examples:
A thief might break into the house. He would take the silver.
Maxime should become a carpenter. Her friends would discover she could build
things, and she would be very popular on weekends.
Mary is considering getting her Ph.D. in linguistics. She wouldn‘t regret attending
graduate school.
The linguistic analysis of these examples must consider the anaphoric relations between these
sentences and discourse principles (Roberts 1997, Portner 2009, 260-262).
The analysis of modals cannot prescind from the clause types and their sentential force. The
main clause types include the categories of declarative, interrogative and imperative. Each
clause type has its typical conversational use, that is, the sentential force: declarative -
assertion, interrogative - asking, and imperative - requiring. Speakers can assign to a sentence
also the illocutionary force, that is, the type of communicative act intended on a particular
occasion. For example, the interrogative sentence ―Can you open the window‖ which
inquiries about the abilities of an individual is typically used to request the action. Similarly,
the sentence ―I wonder if you can tell me the time‖ is an assertion with the illocutionary force
of asking. The illocutionary force is a pragmatic phenomenon and has to do with the
speaker‘s communicative intentions. Consequently, it must be analyzed in terms of speech
act theory rather than syntax and semantics (Portner 2009, 262-263).
49
2.3.5 The Interaction of Tense, Modality and Aspect
Temporal, modal and aspectual information is normally conveyed not by individual, separate
morphemes but by compound forms and involves interaction with syntax and lexicon. One of
the goals of linguistic analysis is to elucidate mechanisms and constraints of this interaction
within a system. It must be stressed that the interaction of the verbal forms results not only
from particular choices in the given grammatical system but also from deeper logical reasons.
The view of the verb as a dynamic system of interacting meanings is more appropriate than
the creation of false dichotomies in which a morpheme or a form can have only one meaning
or function. For example, the relationship of tense and aspect should be viewed as mutual
dependency rather than a categorical exclusion of one by another within the verbal system.
An example of interaction which reflects deeper logical relationships involves the future and
modality. Indeed, in the measure in which the future is not yet determined, it intuitively can
be considered as a kind of modality. Consequently, the future tense can be treated as a modal
rather than a temporal category. Similarly, the past tense is often used to indicate unreality in
conditionals (―Suppose Jill knew French‖). At the level of semantic analysis, both the
progressive and the perfect can be analyzed as involving a modal rather than aspectual
meaning (Portner 2009, 236-247).
The most interesting kind of interaction of aspect and tense consists in the default temporal
interpretation of aspectual forms (Smith 2008). Indeed, it seems possible that some languages
convey time using aspectual forms which receive temporal interpretation according to a few
simple principles: the Deictic Principle, the Bounded Event Constraint and the Simplicity
Principle of Interpretation. According to the Deictic Principle, the speaker is the center of
linguistic communication and speech time is the default orientation point (the reference
time). The Bound Event Constraint excludes bounded situations (expressed by the perfective
aspect) from being located in the present because they are closed, with an initial and final
endpoint, or punctual. The Simplicity Principle of Information dictates the choice of an
interpretation of a sentence in which least information must be added or inferred. These three
principles account for the default pattern of temporal interpretation of unbounded situations
50
(imperfective aspect) in the present and bounded situations (perfective aspect) in the past.
The future, according to this view, requires explicit information (Smith 2008, 230-231).
In conclusion. The categories of tense, modality and aspect provide a general grid in which
the entire array of meanings associated with the verb can be described and defined. However,
they must be integrated into a holistic vision which is sensitive to pragmatic and discourse
functions of the verbal forms.
51
Chapter 3
Amarna Letters
in Their Archaeological and Historical Context
3.1 The City of Amarna
The Amarna letters owe their name to the modern designation of the ancient city Akhetaten.
Although there is no visible tell, or mound, this location was designated El-Tell by the
Napoleonic expedition of 1798 and called Till Bene Amran by later travelers. This name
resulted from conflation of the names of the villages et-Tell and el-Amariya with the name of
the tribe Ben ʿAmran (pl. ʿAmarna) living in the region. The name Tell el-Amarna is in use
since the publication of J. G. Wilkinson‘s map of the site in 1830 (Bryan 1997, 82; Rainey
and Notley 2006, 87).
The ancient city of Akhetaten (―The Horizon of Aten,‖ that is, ―The Horizon of the Sun-
disc‖) was planned and built by the pharaoh Amenhotep IV-Akhenaten (ca. 1353-1336). In
the 4th or 5
th year of his reign, he decided to abandon Thebes and to move to a new capital
city that would embody his new religious ideas dominated by the cult of the Sun-god. The
city is situated in Middle Egypt, some 300 km south of Cairo, on the eastern bank of the Nile
River. It extended once over a large area of about 200 square kilometers but the actual city‘s
ruins cover now a narrow strip 1-1.5 km wide and 9-10 km long. The limits of the city are
indicated by boundary stelae carved in the rock around the city (Giles 2001, 41-45; Kemp
2012, 32-35; Mynářová 2007, 11).
According to B. Kemp, the current excavator of the city, the city comprised the following
areas from the North to the South: North City, North Suburb, Central City with two temples
dedicated to Aten, Main City and South Suburb (Kemp 2012, 46). The king‘s principal
residence was probably situated in the North Riverside Palace. The design of the Central City
suggests that it was planned mainly for administration and worship. It was dominated by two
52
temples: ―House of Aten‖ (Great Aten Temple) and ―Mansion of the Aten‖ (Small Aten
Temple). This part of the city was connected directly with the northern palaces by a wide
royal road. The king used it to arrive daily to his working quarters in the town center in a
kind of procession that passed through the main temples in imitation of the daily journey of
the sun on the sky (Van De Mieroop 2011, 205). The Main City together with its suburb in
the south was residential and administrative, with state and private-owned workshops and
storages (Bryan 1997, 84-85). The city was abandoned some twenty years after its
construction but its remains have always been visible to visitors. Being the only city in
ancient Egypt for which the entire layout is known, it is of crucial importance for
archaeological reconstructions of the urban life.
3.2 The Discovery of the Letters and Their Publication
The history of Amarna research begins with the publication of the boundary stela A by Fr. C.
Sicard, a French Jesuit, in 1714. The site was surveyed by the Napoleonic Expedition of 1799
with E. Jomard and later by J. G. Wilkinson. Both published their plans of the site in 1817
and in 1830 respectively. New plans of the site were executed between 1843 and 1845 by the
royal Prussian expedition. The site was visited also by other travelers in the first half of the
nineteenth century (Bryan 1997, 82-83; Peterson 1978-1979, Seyfried 2012, 43-46).
Unfortunately, none of the visitors was lucky enough to discover the clay tablets which
would give a clue about the extraordinary importance of the site.
The tablets were discovered by local peasants who dug for marketable antiquities.1 The
growing flow of objects from Amarna that were registered in the Cairo Museum from May
1887 on shows that the locals explored the site long before the find of the tablets (Mynářová
2007, 13). The timeline of the discovery of the tablets is uncertain and varies from the end of
the summer 1887 to the end of that year, according to E. A. Wallis Budge‘s account, and
October 1887, stated as the date of the find by A. H. Sayce (Mynářová 2007, 14-15).
1 The basic account of the discovery and following fortunes of the tablets is Knudtzon 1915, vol. 1, 4-15.
Mynářová 2007, 13-39 offers a lengthy story of the discovery and publications of the tablets based on primary
sources. One must refer to it for more details. A more concise account is in Giles 1997, 18-23.
53
The tablets reached antiquity dealers and private individuals very soon. Wallis Budge was
able to inspect and buy a group of seventy-one tablets from a dealer in Luxor for the British
Museum in late December 1887. Later, he was able to obtain another ten tablets so that his
publication of the Amarna letters in the British Museum, which appeared in 1892, contains
eighty-two tablets, including one tablet of unclear origin. Sayce is the second major figure
linked to the initial recovery and study of the tablets. Already in June of 1888 he published a
study of thirteen tablets in the possession of U. Bouriant and later, in December 1888, he
studied the tablets in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo together with those owned by A.
Rostovitz Bey, V. Golenischeff and Ch. Murch. The Cairo tablets entered the Egyptian
Museum during the early months of 1888. Their origin is unclear. Some were acquired from
a certain Mr. Philip; other were registered as originating from Akhim. A group of tablets was
also seized from an antiquity dealer in Giza. The largest collection of the tablets was bought
by Th. Graf, an antiquities dealer of Vienna, from Ali Abd el-Hajj, who tried to sell them
unsuccessfully to the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. This collection was acquired by the Royal
Museums in Berlin in 1888. The same Museums also purchased twelve tablets that were
originally in the possession of Bouriant. The last tablet that entered a museum before the
official excavations in Tell el-Amarna and that was said to be discovered by the peasants in
1887, known today as EA 209, was presented to the Louvre Museum by G. Maspero in 1890
(Mynářová 2007, 16-33).
Following the discovery of the tablets, W. M. Flinders Petrie decided to initiate excavations
of the site. He began his work in November 1891 and concentrated on an area indicated to
him by a local man as the place where the tablets were discovered. He found probably only
one tablet in one of the chambers in a block which he numbered nineteen. He continued to
search for the tablets in others structures (one in a considerable distance of 60 m. from block
nineteen) but without success. Digging deeper in block nineteen, he discovered a number of
tablets in two ―rubbish pits‖ below the walls of that building. These tablets went to the
Ashmolean Museum in Oxford and were published in 1894 by Sayce, a total of twenty
inscribed tablets together with one uninscribed fragment (Giles 1997, 28-32; Mynářová 2007,
33-36).
After Petrie, three more missions continued the archaeological investigation of Akhetaten.
The expedition of Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft found two tablets in private houses in North
54
and South Suburbs. These tablets entered the Egyptian Museum in Cairo in 1914. Their
connection with the original find of the archive is questionable not only because of the spot
of their discovery but also because of their genre. One of these tablets, EA 359, is the
Akkadian šar tamḫāri epic, and the other, EA 379, is a fragment of Sa signlist. During the
season 1933-34, the expedition led by J. D. S. Pendlebury on behalf of the Egyptian
Exploration Society found eight inscribed tablets and two more uninscribed ones. These
tablets ended up in the British Museum and were published by C. H. Gordon in 1947.
Pendelebury‘s excavations also unearthed several stamp bricks. The inscriptions on them are
crucial for identification of the buildings where the tablets were found as the ―Record Office‖
and the ―Clerk‘s House‖ (Giles 1997, 32-34; Mynářová 2007, 36-39). The ongoing
excavations of Akhetaten under the directorship of Kemp have not found any more
cuneiform tablets since beginning in 1977.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, the Amarna tablets circulated on the antiquities
marker and between private collectors and museums. A fragment of a tablet (join to EA 26),
acquired originally by Murch in Luxor, was registered in the collection of Art Institute of
Chicago in 1894, and later, in 1915, it entered the collection of the Haskell Oriental Museum
at the University of Chicago. In 1902, J.-V. Scheil published two other tablets, EA 15 and
153, but he was unable to buy them for a museum. These tablets reappeared at the antiquities
market in Cairo in 1924 and were purchased by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New
York. Another four tablets, apparently originating from the same source as the tablets
published by Scheil, were in the possession of Rostovitz Bey but later, in 1903, they were
registered in the collection of the British Museum. Three tablets (EA 70, 137 and 160),
originally owned by the Russian Egyptologist V. Golenischeff, were ceded to the Pushkin
Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow in 1911 and subsequently remained inaccessible for study.
They were published in cuneiform copies by H. Winckler and L. Abel in 1889 and reedited
recently by Sh. Izre‘el (1995a). Another lot of six tablets was acquired by the Louvre from an
unnamed private individual in Egypt in 1918. Also the British Museum added to its
collection of the Amarna tablets with the purchase of tablet EA 378 in 1925 and with the gift
of EA 380 in 1926. Finally, one tablet, EA 369, was purchased by the Musées Royaux d’Art et
d’Histoire in Brussels in 1933 and published by G. Dossin a year later (Mynářová 2007, 36-
39).
55
The tablets were published as they arrived in museums and private collections, in small and
larger groups, in hand copies or only in transliteration. Considering the importance of the
corpus and its inadequate publication, J. A. Knudtzon undertook a comprehensive study,
including collation of all the tablets. The results of his efforts were published in two volumes
in 1915. Although those volumes included transliterations, translations and textual notes, no
hand copies were included. The tablets that became available for study after Knudtzon‘s
edition, were collected by Rainey (1978), but again, were published without hand copies.
More recently, Izre‘el re-edited the Amarna school and literary tablets (Izre‘el 1997).2
However, there is no modern, trustworthy edition of the entire Amarna corpus, the fact which
makes the linguistic analysis of its content dependent on a textual basis of varying reliability.
Moreover, various scholars published their collations of the tablets and suggested
emendations and competing readings. Therefore, one must agree with the following
assessment: ―A new edition, with new copies, photographs, and both transliterations and
translations, is long overdue‖ (Mazar, Horowitz, Oshima, and Goren 2010, 9). This being the
state of matters, a textual basis must be established for each tablet, using available editions,
translations and contributions, before a linguistic analysis can be endeavored.
3.3 The Archival Context of the Amarna Letters
Since the tablets were found accidentally or in clandestine excavations, their exact
archeological context is irrevocably lost. The excavations clarified the situation only to some
degree. Petrie, who was the first to work in Akhetaten, concentrated his efforts on the area
indicated by the locals as the find spot of the tablets. The layout of the buildings and the
discovery of several limestone cobbles with ink labels allow us to identify this complex as
related to scribal offices. The inscriptions on the cobbles read: ―Southeast side, the Royal
Scribe Ra-apy,‖ ―West of the office of the Royal Scribe Ahmose,‖ and ―Northeast of the
office of the Town of the Aten.‖ One of these stones was found beside the building identified
by the official stamp on some mud bricks as ―The place of the correspondence of Pharaoh:
2 See Lambert 2004-2005 for a critical evaluation of this edition.
56
life, prosperity, healthy!‖ This building was dubbed ―the Record Office‖ and is commonly
indicated as the place where the tablets where originally discovered. A building nearby is
labeled on stamped mud bricks as ―House of Life.‖ This title indicates that the building
served to store and probably to study texts of an intellectual or sacred nature. Altogether, it
seems that the set of offices where the tablets were found was a place of scribal activity in
general. It likely accommodated not only scribes who worked on the diplomatic
correspondence but was used also for study and education (Kemp 2012, 122-127).
The stratigraphy of the early excavations is impossible to reconstruct but Petrie‘s mention
that he found some tablets in the ―rubbish pits‖ and a general knowledge of the Egyptian
administrative and archival practices give an idea how and why the tablets were stored. Since
the Amarna archive contains correspondence dating earlier than the construction of
Akhetaten, a part of the archive did not serve the current administrative needs but was a
collection of documents to consult when the need arose. In a probable scenario, the tablets
were brought to the buildings which were destined to become the scribal offices before their
construction was completed. Some of the tablets, deemed as relevant for immediate needs,
were placed in wooden chests or pottery jars, if one takes seriously the peasants‘ words that
they found the tablets in vessels of terracotta (Abrahami and Coulon 2008, 9), and stored on
shelves. Other tablets, thought less likely to be needed in the near future, and thus destined
for long-term storage, were buried beneath the floor, in accordance with one common method
of storage at Amarna (Kemp 2012, 128). Other tablets could also have been buried
periodically by the scribes who worked in the ―Record Office.‖ Finally, some tablets might
have been discarded on the floor during the abandonment of the city (Giles 1997, 34-35).
Because of the sketchy nature of the archaeological evidence, the history of the Amarna
archive cannot be elucidated beyond this general outline.
The tablets themselves shed some light on the archival techniques used at Akhetaten. Upon
their arrival, the tablets were not only translated and communicated to the court but also
annotated in ink in hieratic for archival purposes. There are two kinds of hieratic annotations.
Notes of the first category, typical for the diplomatic correspondence with the Great Powers,
mostly attested on the letters from Mitanni (EA 23, 26 and 27), comprise the date and the
57
place where the tablet was received.3 Sometimes they contain also the name of the author or
the addressee of the letter, as in the case of EA 39, which was annotated in hieratic as ―the
letter of the prince of Alashiya,‖ or are described by one word wr ―great, prince,‖ as in the
case of EA 233. The second category of hieratic notes is more enigmatic. It consists of one
hieratic sign, possibly to interpret as ―man with hand to mouth,‖ and is found on the letters
from Canaan (EA 220, 221, 234, 262, 294 and 326). This sign is a determinative used with
terms concerning speaking and language. It seems, therefore, that the scribes used it to
indicate that a particular tablet was read and translated or that its content was communicated
to the court. The hieratic annotations reflect the practice of Egyptian chancellery in dealing
with foreign correspondence. They possibly facilitated the storage and consultation of the
tablets too, but this archival use was secondary with respect to the administrative practice of
dealing with the newly received letters (Abrahami and Coulon 2008, 13-17).
The practice of storage and consultation of the tablets as well as their legal value are attested
in several letters from Amarna. The clearest example of legal value of the tablets as means of
validation of the message delivered orally comes from 32:1-13:
Behold, (concerning the fact) that Kalbaya has spoke this word to me, ―Let
us establish a blood-relationship,‖ in this matter I do not trust Kalbaya. He
has (indeed) spoke it as a word, but it was not confirmed on the tablet. If
you really desire my daughter, (how) should I not give her to you? I give her
to you! See to it now that Kalbaya returns quickly with my messenger, and
write back to me on a tablet concerning this matter. (Moran 1992, 103).
Consultation of previously exchanged correspondence is presupposed by many passages in
the Amarna letters. There are also cases in which, in the course of diplomatic negotiations, a
letter from the royal archives in quoted. For example, in 27:13-14, Tušratta of Mitanni, writes
to the pharaoh and introduces a quotation from a letter to his father as follows: ―And your
father, Mimmureya, s[aid] this on his tablet. When Mane brought the bride-price, thus
spo[ke] my brother, Mimmureya‖ (Moran 1992, 87). In some instances, the consultation of
3 The annotations on the letters from Mitanni, in particular on EA 27, play a key role in the discussion
about a possible coregency of Amenhotep III and his son. For a short discussion and references see Rainey
2002, 53-54.
58
the archive is encouraged and used by the author as an argument in his support. Again
Tušratta, in 24:35-43, a letter written in Hurrian, argues:
And there is … my father‘s daughter, my sister. And the tablet of her dowry
is available. And there is … my grandfather‘s daughter, my father‘s sister.
And the tablet of her dowry … again is available. May my brother have
their tablets given to him and may he hear (the words of) both their (tablets).
And the tablet(!) of the dowry from me, which I gave, may he have given to
him, and may my brother hear that the dowry is very extensive, that is
splendid, that is befitting my brother (Moran 1992, 67).
As is clear from the verb which is employed (amur, ―see!‖), in 52:5, Akizzi of Qaṭna requests
the visual inspection of the tablets conserved in the royal archive in Egypt: a-m[u]r b[e]-l[i-
i]a DUB-ba-te-šu ―Ins[pe]ct, [m]y l[o]rd, his tablets‖ (Moran 1992, 123). Also the rulers in
Canaan knew that the pharaoh could consult his archive. In 74:5-12, Rib-Hadda of Byblos
asks that the pharaoh to check (li-da-gal ―may he look at‖) the older correspondence from his
father‘s time and, in this way, to be assured about the city‘s constant fidelity:
May the king, the lord, know that Gubla, the loyal maidservant of the king
since the days of his ancestors, is safe and sound. The king, however, has
now withdrawn his support of his royal city. May the king inspect the
tablets of his father‘s house (for the time) when the ruler in Gubla was not a
loyal servant. (Moran 1992, 142-143).
Quotations from earlier letters and requests to check previous messages indicate that the
practice of conservation of international correspondence was widely known and observed
through the entire ancient Near East, including Canaan. The Amarna archive was, therefore,
no different than other royal archives in the region, with the exception that one part of it, the
tablets buried in the ―rubbish pits‖ before or during the construction of the city, was
accessible with difficulty.
The corpus of the Amarna tablets contains just two genres of documents: letters (including
inventories attached to letters) and school materials. The second group is small (32 tablets)
and quite diverse. It includes texts that belong to the Mesopotamian scribal tradition, such as
myths and epics, syllabaries, lexical lists, a god-list, as well as a tale of Hurrian origin (EA
59
341) and a list of Egyptian words spelled syllabically and accompanied by their Babylonian
equivalences (EA 368). The main group of the Amarna tablets, that is the letters, is
traditionally divided into the correspondence from foreign powers and from Canaanite
kinglets. The international correspondence was arranged by Knudtzon counterclockwise on a
map as follows: Babylonia (EA 1-14), Assyria (EA 15-16), Mittani (EA 17, 19-30), Arzawa
(EA 31-32), Alashia (EA 33-40) and Hatti (EA 41-44). The larger group of letters from
approximately forty Egyptian vassal cities in Canaan is much more difficult to arrange
geographically. On the basis of the initial addresses and content, but sometimes only of clay
texture and paleography, Knudtzon was able to assign the letters to various towns moving
from Lebanon and central Syria down to southern Palestine. He also attempted to order
chronologically the dossier of each city but here the results were necessarily less firm (Moran
1992, XVI-XVII).4 The documentary profile of the Amarna collection is understandable in
relation to the find spot and to the use of the cuneiform writing outside of core Mesopotamia
at that time. Cuneiform writing was used at the Egyptian court solely to communicate with
foreign entities, as the letters themselves attest. Literary and scholarly tablets (syllabaries,
lexical lists) testify to local training of the scribes who were responsible for the cuneiform
correspondence.
Considering together the find spot of the tablets, the purpose of their preservation, the
method of their handling and storage and their limited genres (letters and schooling
materials), it is necessary to clarify that the concept of ―archive‖ in relation to the cuneiform
material from Amarna is used in a twofold sense. Broadly speaking, the Amarna archive
means the entire collection of various tablets found in ancient Akhetaten. Strictly speaking,
the Amarna archive is only a part of this collection, a product of official effort to preserve the
letters for future reference. Literary and school texts were not kept systematically by the
bureaucratic apparatus, possibly with the exception of syllabaries and vocabularies which
were useful for dealing with the correspondence.
4 An updated list of the senders of the letters is available in the appendix 1.
60
3.4 The Corpus of the Amarna Letters from Canaan
The delimitation of the corpus of the letters from Canaan is a difficult task, especially if the
purpose is linguistic analysis. Two positive criteria, both based on the place where the letter
originated, can be considered. According to the first option, it is possible to consider as
―Canaanite‖ the correspondence sent from a geopolitical entity called ―Canaan.‖ The second
choice is to limit the ―Canaanite letters‖ to the letters dispatched from the towns where
―Canaanite dialects‖ were spoken. Both alternatives are, however, fraught with difficulties.
Neither the geopolitical and ethnic identity of Canaan nor the linguistic panorama of the area
are obvious. A third possible criterion, the exclusion of the diplomatic correspondence with
the Great Powers is a negative variant of the geopolitical delimitation, not a real alternative.
Finally, one could postulate that the appearance of non-Mesopotamian features in the
language of the letters can lead to their classification as ―Canaanite.‖ The criterion of non-
Mesopotamian features has flaws, too. First of all, it substitutes external, non-linguistic
reasons for the classification of the letters with internal, linguistic motifs and, in this manner,
it creates a vicious circle in which the linguistic analysis of the verb is pre-conditioned by a
cursory philological evaluation of individual letters. Moreover, its rigid application would
result in inclusion of the letters which exhibit non-Mesopotamian features due to influence of
languages other than the Canaanite dialects, such as the Hurrianizing letter EA 59 from the
citizens of Tunip, or of the letters with occasional but not systematic Canaanite features, such
as the letters from Alashia5. This being the state of the matter, it is impossible to choose one
criterion for the delimitation of the corpus of the Amarna letters from Canaan. Rather, it is
necessary to combine all the criteria, giving precedence to the geopolitical and linguistic
evaluation of the place from which the letters were sent.
The geographical extent of Canaan is never described in the sources contemporary with the
Amarna letters. The descriptions of Canaan which are found in the Hebrew Bible (for
example, Num 34:2-12; Ezek 47:13-20; 48:1-7, 23-29) refer often to toponyms of disputed
identification and most probably reflect a geographical and political reality of the time in
which they were redacted, not the reality of the Late Bronze Age. Moreover, the validity of
5 For West Semitic features in the Alashia corpus see Cochavi-Rainey 2003, 118-119.
61
precise identification of the terms ―Canaan‖ and ―Canaanite‖ has been questioned. Based on
his examination of the Late Bronze sources, in particular of the Amarna letters, N. P. Lemche
concluded that ―evidently the inhabitants of the supposed Canaanite territory in Western Asia
had no clear idea of the actual size of this Canaan, nor did they know exactly where Canaan
was situated‖ (1999, 39) and that ―to the scribe of ancient Western Asia ‗Canaanite‘ always
designated a person who did not belong to the scribe‘s own society or state, while Canaan
was considered to be a country different from his own‖ (1999, 52). Noting that in the Late
Bronze Age no nation-states existed in Western Asia nor had any nationalistic ideology
arisen, he stated that ―the Canaanites of the ancient Near East did not know that they were
themselves Canaanites‖ (1991, 152). Leaving aside theoretical justifications for such an
appraisal of the evidence, Lemche‘s conclusions mirror two objective difficulties with tracing
the territory of Canaan. First, with the exception of the Jordan River, there are no clear
physical-geographical boundaries within the larger costal area of Syria and Palestine. Second,
Canaan never formed a unified political entity with borders recognized by other regional
powers. These two facts explain modern difficulties with establishing the borders of Canaan
but they do not contradict the fact that ―Canaan‖ was used as a geographical reference in the
second millennium B.C.E. Indeed, ―Canaan‖ and ―Canaanite‖ appear in the sources dating to
the Amarna period and earlier.
The oldest cuneiform attestation of the Canaanites occurs in a Mari letter which mentions
them dwelling together with robbers (lú
ḫa-ab-ba-tu4 ù lú
ki-na-aḫ-nù.MEŠ) in Raḫiṣum, a
town probably located north of Damascus and south of Qaṭna (Dossin 1973, 278; Tammuz
2001, 505).6
The administrative documents from Alalaḫ identify four individuals as
Canaanites (Hess 1999, 225-235) and the Statue of Idrimi mentions the land of Canaan as the
place where the exiled king of Alalaḫ took refuge: ―To the land of Canaan I went. In the land
of Canaan, the town of Ammiya is located‖ (Oller 1977, 10). If the town of Ammiya is
indeed to be identified with the modern Amiyûn in the hills behind Byblos (Rainey 1996, 4;
Tammuz 2001, 506), this text testifies that Byblos was a part of Canaan. The Hittite ritual
texts mention the country of Canaan as a place where Ištar can be invoked. These mentions
occur in formulaic lists of countries which do not distinguish between great powers, local
6 Dossin's identification of the Sumerian Kengen with Canaan did not gain wide acceptance. For his
proposal see Dossin 1957.
62
kingdoms and smaller cities but compile a list of toponyms with the intent of addressing the
goddess Ištar as ubiquitous (Tammuz 2001, 507-508). There are also numerous mentions of
Canaan in Egyptian sources. The oldest one is the attestation of Canaan from the time of
Amenophis II (1427-1401 B.C.E.) in a list of captives on two steles from Karnak and
Memphis. The name ―Canaan‖ appears also in topographical lists (from Soleb dating to
Amenophis III, from Amarah dating to Ramses II), Seti I‘s reliefs at Karnak, papyri Anastai
I, IIIA 5 and IV 16, 4 as well as in the famous Merneptah‘s Israel Stele (Aḥituv 1984, 83-85;
Tammuz 2001, 509-511). Moreover, in a letter to Ḫattušili III, Ramses II informed him that
he will go to Canaan to meet the Hittite king there (Edel 1994, 22-23). To Egypt is also
directed the letter RS 20.182 from the king of Ugarit in which he notifies the pharaoh as the
overlord of the Canaanites about a verdict in a dispute between ―the people of Ugarit‖ and
―the overseer (?) of the sons of Canaan‖ (Rainey 1996, 4-6). The tenor of this letter, which
seems to oppose ―the sons of Ugarit‖ and ―the sons of Canaan,‖ is a better argument in favor
of the distinctiveness of Ugarit from Canaan rather than the simple mention of yʿl . knʿny
―Yaʿilu, a Canaanite‖ in KTU 4.96, a list of traders.7
The Amarna letters themselves are replete with mentions of Canaan. In EA 8, the Babylonian
king Burra-Buriyaš complains to the pharaoh that his merchants were detained and killed in
Canaan. He urges the pharaoh to compensate for the losses and to punish the responsible
party since Canaan is under Egyptian authority: [kur
k]i-na-aḫ-ḫi KUR-ka ù LUG[AL.MEŠ
ÌR.MEŠ-ka] ―Canaan is your country, and its kings are your servants‖ (Moran 1992, 16). The
fact that Canaan was in the Egyptian sphere of influence was acknowledged and respected by
the Babylonian rulers, as is clear also from 9:19-24:
In the time of Kurigalzu, my ancestor, all the Canaanites wrote here to him,
saying, ―C[om]e to the border of the country so we can revolt and be allied
[wi]th you.‖ My ancestors send them this (reply), saying, ―Forget about
being allied with me. If you become enemies of the king of Egypt, and are
7 The use of this list as the argument in favor of Ugarit and Canaan being two distinct entities and
ethnicities goes back to Rainey 1963 and is reiterated in Rainey 1996, 4. Tammuz is even more emphatic and
writes: ―This text shows that (a) Canaanites were considered foreigners in Ugarit and (b) that the people of
Ugarit did not consider their country part of Canaan‖ (2001, 508). However, these far-reaching conclusions
cannot be defended on the base of the identification of one individual as Canaanite in an administrative list.
63
allied with anyone else, will I not then come and plunder you? How can
there be an alliance with me?‖ (Moran 1992, 18).
Another proof of Egyptian authority over Canaan comes from 162:39-41 in which the
pharaoh, suspecting that Aziru, king of Amurru, plans to defect to the Hittite side, motivates
him to remain faithful as follows: ―so perform your service for the king, your lord, and you
will live. You yourself know that the king does not fail when he rages against all of Canaan‖
(Moran 1992, 249). Si vera lectio et interpretatio, 36:15 contains a reference to the Egyptian-
controlled [p]i-ḫa-ti ša ki-na-ḫi ―province of Canaan‖ (Moran 1992, 110; Rainey and Notley
2006, 34). Similarly, the Egyptian dominion over Canaan is clearly recognized in the Amarna
letters by the local kinglets. For example, Rib-Hadda of Byblos compares the previous state
of affairs in Canaan, when the appearance of an official from Egypt would terrify the
Canaanite kings with the current situation in which the sons of his archenemy ʿAbdi-Aširta
feel free to act with impunity (109:44-49). Correspondingly, he argues, the lack of Egyptian
military involvement will lead the pharaoh‘s losing control over Canaan (131:57-62; 137:76).
In 148:46-47, the king of Tyre asks the pharaoh to consult ―his commissioner, who is familiar
with Canaan‖ (Moran 1992, 235). The mention of Canaan in 151:49-68 from Abi-Milku of
Tyre is much-debated because the listed toponyms, in the mind of the author of the letter,
seem to be located in Canaan:
The king, my lord, wrote to me, ―Write to me what you have heard in
Canaan.‖ The king of Danuna died; his brother became king after his death,
and his land is at peace. Fire destroyed the palace at Ugarit; (rather), it
destroyed half of it and so hal<f> of it has disappeared. There are no Hittite
troops about. Etakkama, the prince of Qidšu, and Aziru are at war; the war
is with Biryawaza. I have experienced the injustices of Zimredda, for he
assembled troops and ships from the cities of Aziru against me (Moran
1992, 238-239).
Interpreted literally, this passage would indeed imply that Danuna and Ugarit belonged to
Canaan. Better is, however, an interpretation which takes into account the rhetorical goal of
the letter, that is, the appeal for the Egyptian support of Tyre. The author, asked for news
from Canaan, adds bits of information about Danuna and Ugarit to build a picture of
escalating violence that proceeds from relatively peaceful Danuna in the north to war-torn
64
regions close to Tyre (Tammuz 2001, 515-517). Consequently, this rhetorically motivated
description cannot be used to delimit the author‘s concept of Canaan.
While the occurrences of Canaan and Canaanites in the second millennium sources justify the
use of these appellatives in reference to the region of modern Israel, Syrian and Lebanon and
to its inhabitants, they hardly help us to establish its borders. Most modern delimitations of
the borders of the Late Bronze Age Canaan are actually retrojections of the biblical
descriptions of Canaan into the second millennium B.C.E. reality.8 Besides the obvious
methodological flaw, such a procedure is questionable and difficult because of the wide
variety of divergent descriptions of Canaan found in the Hebrew Bible.9 Moreover, some
toponyms used in the biblical description of Canaan are of dubious identification. Generally
speaking, the Bible distinguishes two main concepts of Canaan. According to the first vision,
Canaan is the Promised Land that extends from Lebo-Hamath in the north to the Dead Sea
and the Brook of Egypt in the south. The second concept equates Canaan with a limited
Phoenician territory which includes the Phoenician cities but excludes the Lebanon
Mountains from it (Tammuz 2001, 521). Obviously, only the first concept of the ―greater‖
Canaan can be compared with the earlier Egyptian-dependent Canaan (Oded and Gibson
2007, 392). On the south, Gaza was included in the biblical Canaan since the border is
marked by the "Brook of Egypt" (to be identified with Wadi El-Arish). The northern border
started with Mount Hor (to be looked for in the summits north of Byblos), advanced eastward
to Lebo-Hamath (the present-day Lebweh, north of Baalbek), included the region of
Damascus and the Hauran to the east as well as the Bashan and the Golan to the south,
touched the southeast corner of the Sea of Galilee and continued on the south along the
Jordan River to the Dead Sea, excluding Transjordan from the biblical Canaan (Rainey and
Notley 2006, 34-36).
By and large, the biblical description of Canaan corresponds to the picture that emerges from
the second millennium sources since it excludes from Canaan the territory of Amurru and
Ugarit, both located to the north of Lebo-Hamath. Similarly, the Bible does not include in
8 For example, Num 34:1-12, one of the most detailed biblical descriptions of Canaan, reflects the
geopolitical situation at the end of the seventh century B.C.E. (Schipper 2011).
9 The main descriptions of Canaan in the Hebrew Bible are Num. 34:1-12; Josh 13:1-6; Ezek. 47:13-20;
48:1-7, 23-29. For a reliable treatment of the biblical descriptions of borders see Wazana 2013.
65
Canaan Transjordan, the territory which was portrayed in the Egyptian texts from the
Eighteenth dynasty through the Third Intermediate Period as the homeland of unruly Shasu,
not a province dependent on Egypt (Redford 1992, 271-275).
The delimitation of Canaan as composed of the Lebanese coast and territories south of Lebo-
Hamath which emerges from the textual sources is supplemented by our limited knowledge
of the linguistic landscape of the area in the second millennium B.C.E.
The languages spoken during the second millennium B.C.E. in the Levant belong to the
Northwest Semitic branch of the Semitic family. With the exception of Ugaritic, they are
known from indirect sources such as personal names and glosses found in Akkadian and
Egyptian texts. The linguistic features of the Amarna letters identified as non-Akkadian are
another important source of our idea of the languages of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age.10
The data available permit only a general characterization of the languages of the area as West
Semitic or Northwest Semitic.11
The language spoken in Amurru, the region lying north of
Ugarit, between the Orontes and the central Levantine coast, was a certainly West Semitic
dialect but its position within the second millennium dialectal continuum cannot be defined.
It must be stressed, however, that one cannot posit a direct relationship between the substrate
features found in the fourteen century Amurru Akkadian texts and the earlier Amorite
dialects known mostly from personal names (dating back to the Ur III and mostly Old
Babylonian periods) or the later Aramaic dialects (Izre'el 1991, vol. 1, 378-379). The
language spoken in Ugarit in the Amarna period had to be an earlier but very similar variety
of the later Ugaritic. The linguistic classification of Ugaritic is still a matter of debate but it
seems that it should be counted not among Canaanite dialects but rather considered as an
archaic, Northwest Semitic language that descends from a western Amorite dialect (Pardee
2012, 13-25).12
The linguistic affiliation of Ugaritic is the only contemporaneous linguistic
10 A handful summary of linguistic data about West Semitic that can be extracted from the second
millennium sources is provided in Brovender 2007.
11 Before a certain point of time, probably toward the end of the second millennium B.C.E., it is
impossible to speak about the division of Northwest Semitic into the Canaanite and Aramaic language families.
This point is stressed in Moscati 1956.
12 Literature on the classification of Ugaritic is immense. Among the earlier publications one should
consult especially Goetze 1941 and Cantineau 1950, both proponents of the non-Canaanite affiliation of
66
data that contributes to establishing the limits of Canaan by excluding from it Ugarit, the city
where a non-Canaanite dialect was spoken.
Taking the line from Mt. Hor to Lebo-Hamath as the northern border of Canaan leaves us
with question of inclusion of two letters sent from Transjordan, from Pella, in the Canaanite
corpus from Amarna. Two arguments favor their inclusion in the corpus. First, in the first
millennium B.C.E. in Transjordan, languages that belonged to the same Canaanite group as
in Phoenicia and Israel were spoken. Thus, it may be assumed that the Transjordanian Pella
belonged linguistically to Canaan. Moreover, on the basis of clay analysis of EA 255 sent by
the ruler of Pella, it seems probable that the letter was actually dispatched not from Pella but
from Beth-Shean, that lies in Cisjordan (Goren, Finkelstein, and Naʾaman 2004, 261).
Indeed, Pella was probably under the administrative responsibility of the Egyptian governor
stationed in Beth-Shean and hence letters from Pella should be included among the letters
from Canaan.
To sum up, the designation of the area between Gaza, the Lebanese coast and southern Syria
up to Lebo-Hamath as Canaan is justified by the occurrences of such a name in the ancient
sources but at the same time is conventional because the borders of Canaan cannot be traced
with precision. Consequently, one can speak about the Amarna letters from Canaan only in a
conventional manner referring to the letters sent from the southern Levant where Northwest
Semitic languages where spoken. Canaan defined as such comprises the following regions
from the south to the north: 1. the Shephelah and the southern coastal plain; 2. the central hill
country of Judah; 3. the Galilee, the coastal plain of Acco and the northern valleys of Jezreel;
4. the Bashan area; 5. southern Syria 6. the Lebanese littoral; 7. the Lebanese Beqaʿ. The
assignment of single letters to the cities located in these regions is usually possible thanks to
the epistolary address that mentions the sender. If it is lacking, other criteria are helpful.
Among them there are: the content of the letter which contains elements typical for the
Canaanite correspondence (for example assurances of obedience or requests for the Egyptian
Ugaritic. A more recent defense of Canaanite classification of Ugaritic as a separate branch of North Canaanite
is advanced in Tropper 1994. Note also the cautious position of Huehnergard who writes in his Ugaritic manual:
"There is a scholarly debate about whether Ugaritic is itself a form of Canaanite; in this textbook, it is assumed
that Ugaritic constitutes a branch of Northwest Semitic that is distinct from the Canaanite branch (and from
Aramaic)" (2012, 1).
67
troops), mentions of events known from other letters from Canaan of secure provenience, and
finally, the ductus of the script and clay texture. All these criteria permitted Knudtzon
geographical assignment of the letters. His identifications of the senders of individual letters
are correct with only few exceptions (Moran 1992, XVI). A further refinement of provenance
of the Amarna letters and occasional corrections to Knudzton's assignments were possible
thanks to the petrographic analysis (Goren, Finkelstein, and Naʾaman. 2004). This analysis,
which is grounded also in historical and textual considerations, suggests inclusion of a
number of unprovenanced letters among the letters from Canaan. The study of Goren,
Finkelstein, and Naʾaman (2004) serves also as the basis for the geographical assignment of
the letters in the present study. The list of the letters from the territory of Canaan as defined
above comprises letters from almost forty localities and is available in Appendix 2. Some
letters from Canaan must be excluded from the analysis for a number of reasons: they are too
fragmentary for translation; they need too many restorations that affect the verbs; they do not
contain a coherent narrative, which is necessary for a contextual understanding of the verbal
forms. Appendix 3 presents the list of such excluded letters.
The correctness of the exclusion of the letters from Ugarit and from Amurru from the corpus
of the letters from Canaan is proved by the fact that the letters from these two entities employ
generally Akkadian iprus, iptaras and iparras to express categories of tense, mood and
aspect while West Semitic influence is limited. In the Akkadian of Ugarit, the Stative is used
in a few instances for a past action in economic and legal texts and the Preterite for a future
action in the case of four verbs (van Soldt 1991, 497-501). In the Akkadian of Amurru, the
Canaanite interference on the verbal system is discernible only in two letters, EA 60 and 371
(Izre'el 1991, vol. 1, 260-262). Thus, it seems reasonable that the Canaanite interference in
the Akkadian correspondence of Amarna was limited to the letters originating from the towns
lying south of Ugarit and Amurru, two polities being also outside of geopolitical Canaan.
It must be admitted that delimitation of the corpus of letters for the present research derives
from a sketchy concept of Canaan as a geopolitical and linguistic entity; therefore it must be
treated as conventional. The best confirmation of the delimitation will come from the internal
evidence of the letters, once it is determined that all of them express the categories of tense,
mood, and aspect in a similar manner. However, delimiting the corpus solely on the basis of
such a similarity would constitute a circular argument.
68
Chapter 4
The Language of the Amarna Letters from Canaan
4.1 Scholarly Views of the Amarna Language
Given the cuneiform writing system and the vocabulary, an intuitive classification of the
Amarna letters as Akkadian seems natural. However, a closer scrutiny of their features
reveals the peculiar nature of the linguistic system recorded on the Amarna tablets and calls
for its comprehensive evaluation. This kind of investigation cannot be limited to
considerations based exclusively on the linguistic properties of the letters but it must provide
a wide-ranging explanation of where, how and why the Amarna language emerged. In other
words, following the principles of sociolinguistics, the Amarna language is to be investigated
as a product of certain historical and cultural circumstances rather than as an abstract system.
The Amarna letters were one of the first examples of the use of the cuneiform writing
discovered outside of Mesopotamia. They came to light at a time when the linguistic
diversity of the Ancient Near East was still largely unexplored. In fact, the debate about the
status of Sumerian was still ongoing and important languages, such as Hittite and Hurrian,
were still unknown. Consequently, at that time, the use of the cuneiform script implied a text
in the ―Assyrian‖ language. Moreover, the subconscious paradigm of evaluating languages
saw their evolution in terms of corruption of the classical form. Considering these
circumstances, it is understandable that the language of the Amarna letters from Canaan was
seen as a barbarized version of the classical language known from Mesopotamian royal
inscriptions and literary texts. In this broader perspective, the use of the adjective ―barbarian‖
in relation to the Amarna letters and their language by Böhl (1909, 2) and later by
Oppenheim (1977, 278) and Kühne (1973, 5) is not pejorative but reflects the scholarly
mindset of the times in which they wrote. This evaluation of the language of the Amarna
letters from Canaan was due to easily noticeable deviations from the Akkadian usages rather
than a systematic reflection about the kind of the linguistic system they display.
69
The discoveries of Akkadian tablets in the first half of the twentieth century in the Near East
outside of Mesopotamia (principally in Hattuša, Nuzi, Ugarit and Alalaḫ) caused a re-
evaluation of the linguistic status of the Amarna language as a form of Peripheral Akkadian
which, inter alia, played the role of the diplomatic lingua franca of the Late Bronze Age.1
Conscious of its characteristics, scholars used to stressed the peculiar nature of the Amarna
Akkadian vis-à-vis other peripheral corpora because of the high interference of the local
language in it.
The concept of Peripheral Akkadian crystallized with R. Labat‘s description of the use of the
cuneiform writing and Akkadian language outside Mesopotamia in the 2nd
millennium B.C.E.
(Labat 1962). He traced their spread throughout the Near East, starting with Elam and Susa,
Hittite Anatolia, passing through Mittanni, various towns of Syria and Canaan (Ugarit,
Qatna), up to the pharaonic Egypt. He saw the spread of Akkadian as natural, given the
advanced cultural and civilizational status of Mesopotamia. In his opinion, it was not
propagated by merchants and soldiers but freely adopted by administrative, political and
scholarly elites (Labat 1962, 1). Thus, Peripheral Akkadian became seen as a manifestation
of a broader ―cuneiform culture‖ through the Ancient Near East and means of culture and
memory for local societies rather than just a vehicle of communication (Moran 1992, XVIII,
Izre‘el 1995c, 2412). The apparent diplomatic nature of the Canaanite correspondence from
Amarna fitted the vision in which Akkadian, once spread in the region, became a universal
diplomatic language (Nougayrol 1975, van Soldt 2011, 405). Moreover, the treatment of the
Amarna letters from Canaan on par with other peripheral corpora seemed justified by their
shared features, such as typical sign values (PI with the values ya-, yi-, and yu-) or the
confusion of stop consonants, characteristic of the Hurro-Akkadian syllabary.
It is difficult to infer from references to Peripheral Akkadian in general and the Amarna
language in particular what idea of this language the scholars had in their mind. As a matter
of fact, scholars wrote about Peripheral Akkadian as the language which was ―used‖ or
―known‖ and referred to it vaguely as ―mixed‖ or ―pidginized.‖ It seems that the matter was
considered as settled and no student of the Amarna letters felt the need to reflect further
about it. It could be also that this silence arose out of prudence and of a realization that the
1 Throughout its history the Mediterranean saw a number of contact languages. Seen in this larger
perspective, Peripheral Akkadian would be the first of them. For such narrative see Wansbrough 1996.
70
conclusions of such a study would be based necessarily on shaky assumptions. Be it as it
may, W. Moran refrained from a detailed discussion and offered only this general
characterization of the language of the Amarna letters from Canaan:
In the southern tradition the transformation of the Babylonian language
and the resulting deviation from normal usage were far more radical than
in most forms of Hurro-Akkadian. Indeed, so radical is the transformation
that one may ask whether the language of this tradition, even when
qualified as ―extremely barbarized,‖ should be called Babylonian at all. It
is a pidgin in which the Babylonian component is mainly lexical, whereas
the grammar is profoundly West-Semitized, most notably in the word
order and, most important of all, in the verbal system. The language can
only be described as an entirely new code, only vaguely intelligible (if at
all) to the West Semite because of the lexicon, and to the Babylonian
because of the grammar (Moran 1992, XXI-XXII).
Moran‘s view on the unintelligibility of the Amarna language to the speakers of both
Akkadian and West Semitic is convincing but his assessment of it as ―pidgin‖ reflects not the
linguistic use of this term but rather the general notion of a ―mixed, simplified dialect.‖
Building on Moran‘s ideas, Rainey suggested that the Amarna language could be spoken to
some degree (Rainey 1996, vol. 2, 31-32) and described its use in the following terms:
The practice was imagined in which a messenger used the Akkadian text,
with its West Semitic verbal system and word order, as kind of ―pony‖
from which he sight-translated into Canaanite for the benefits of the
recipient or the recipient‘s representative (such as an official at the
Pharaonic court or at the headquarters in Gaza). The message might, in
turn, be translated into Egyptian for Pharaoh‘s ears (Rainey 1996, vol. 2,
32).
In one of his last papers devoted to the Amarna letters, Rainey preferred to speak about ―the
hybrid language‖ and considered it to be ―a real dialect alongside Middle Babylonian and
Middle Assyrian‖ (Rainey 2010, 855). In his opinion, this dialect was devised by the scribes
71
in the Egyptian province of Canaan but the extent to which it was spoken is hard to determine
(Rainey 2010, 860).
In general scholars referred to the Amarna language as a lingua franca from the point of view
of its use and as mixed language because of its grammatical traits and saw it as a
manifestation of the diplomatic Peripheral Akkadian dialect (Naʾaman 1992, 175, Bryce
2003, 224).2 The spoken nature of Peripheral Akkadian and of the Amarna language was
advocated in particular by Izreʿel. In fact, his analysis of the writings of the vowels /e/ and /i/
in Amurru Akkadian was based on the assumption that various writings reflected a difference
in pronunciation of these vowels. Moreover, he spoke about the Amurru scribes as the
speakers of the Akkadian language they studied (Izre‘el 1987). The spoken nature of
Peripheral Akkadian and its presumed status as equal to other dialects of Akkadian seems to
underlie also his description of its genesis and use:
Offshoots of Akkadian were used as the common administrative, legal and
diplomatic communicative media in the ancient Levant since the third
millennium BCE in sorts of bilingual diglossia. During the second
millennium BCE, what is now termed Peripheral Akkadian is documented
not only as the upper diglossic language in these regions, but also the
common lingua franca of the ancient Near East, serving not only the
Levantine Semitic societies, but also as the main means of communication
between kingdoms and empires, like those of Egypt, Hatti (in Anatolia),
and Mitanni (in Syria), and all the more so in their communication with
Akkadian speaking Babylonia and Assyria.
Peripheral Akkadian, i.e. the diplomatic lingua franca, developed its own
idiosyncratic traits during constant long-term contacts with non-Akkadian
languages, both Semitic and non-Semitic. Yet, its characteristic structure
2 For an overview of Akkadian as lingua franca and a critique of this concept see Márquez Rowe 2006,
140-166.
72
did not radically alter from the Akkadian core dialects in the majority of its
attested varieties (Izre‘el 1998, 1).3
This description seems to presume that Akkadian was spoken through the Levant and
Anatolia by the upper class, especially ruling elites and merchants, and transmitted through
generations by parents to their children by means of everyday use. All of this is, however,
hard to imagine and impossible to prove. Indeed, the natural habitat of cuneiform writing and
the Akkadian language in the Levant was not everyday speech but rather the scribes who
used it for their professional purposes (administrative and legal procedures, letters). In other
words, Peripheral Akkadian was not a natural but scribal language. Its knowledge and use
were circumscribed to a small group which employed it according to the local needs.4 Such a
vision of Akkadian as a scribal or school language was adumbrated already by the great B.
Landsberger who highlighted the role of the Mitannian scribes in its formation and
propagation. As a matter of fact, Landsberger used the term ―Scribal Akkadian‖:
[...] in so weit von einander entfernten Orten wie Nuzi, Alalaḫ und
Ḫattuša, an den beiden erstgenannten orten bald nach 1500 bezeugt, wird
ein barbarisches Schreiber-Akkadisch geschrieben, das seine herkunft aus
der Schreiberschule in Ṷaššukanni nich verleugnen kann (Landsberger
1954, 48).
3 Recently Izre‘el reiterated his position in even stronger terms: ―Some of the features would prove that
at some point in its history, certainly during the time of its formation as a mixed language, this language was
spoken. Other features lead to the inevitable conclusion that Canaano-Akkadian was spoken contemporarily
with our data, at least to some extent. Of course, looking at the entire picture yields a stronger conviction than
any single argument may bring forth. The whole picture is clear and shows - to my mind without any doubt -
that a spoken reality for Canaano-Akkadian, at least at some level, must be assumed‖ (2012, 199). His study
(Izre‘el 2012) constitutes the most comprehensive and theoretically sophisticated discussion about the nature of
the Amarna language. It advocates in favor of its classification as a mixed language and of its spoken nature. Its
full critique requires a previous exposition of an alternative view which the present thesis advances.
Consequently, a critique of Izre‘el‘s arguments is relegated to appendix 6.
4 Of the same opinion is Kossmann who writes: ―Amarna-Akkadian was used in Palestine and Syria, in
the regions where later the Kanaanite languages Hebrew and Phoenician were spoken. There is no reason to
assume that there was an important community of native speakers of Akkadian in this region. In the 15th-14th
century B.C., Akkadian was used as the language of administration and correspondence in many countries of
the Levant: in Hatti (next to Hittite), in Mitanni (next to Hurrian), in Ugarit (next to Ugaritic), etc.‖ (1994, 171).
73
In a similar vein, W. F. Albright began his description of the language of the Amarna letters
from Canaan with an account of the local scribal schools and concluded it as follows:
Most significant is the fact that the letters abound with Canaanitisms in
vocabulary, syntax, morphology and phonology, proving a Canaanite
substratum in the mind of the scribe. Moreover, many grammatical forms
which recur constantly in these letters are neither Akkadian nor Canaanite
but a mixture of both, showing a formalizing of mistakes which must
themselves have been taught in the schools. In short, the language of the
Amarna Letters was a scholastic and diplomatic jargon, the use of which
had become acceptable for written communication between Canaanites
and foreigners, as well as among Canaanites who did not wish to use either
of the native consonantal alphabets which we know to have been current at
the time (Albright 1975, 99).
Also D. Pardee saw the language of the Amarna texts as a scribal creation which had a long
history and reflected an imperfect acquisition of Akkadian:
The Akkadian of these texts was a learned language, a lingua franca –
none of the scribes of these texts was a native speaker of Akkadian as
spoken in Mesopotamia. It had already been in use in Canaan long enough
to develop into a sort of code understood only by the scribal class who
used it: for speakers of Canaanite it was incomprehensible because it was
basically Akkadian, while the extent to which it reflected Canaanite,
particularly the morphology and morphosyntax of the verbal system,
would have made it nearly incomprehensible for a speaker of Akkadian.
The code, however, was never systematized: it is clear from the
examination of variants of given forms that the scribes vacillated between
their native language and their imperfectly learned Akkadian (Pardee
1999, 313).
A similar, realistic assessment of the scholastic and scribal habitat of the cuneiform and
Akkadian in the Levant led A. Gianto to propose that the Amarna letters attest to an
institutionalized interlanguage, that is, an intermediary system that learners develop in their
74
attempt to acquire the target language. He reasoned that the absence of native speakers or
well-trained teachers resulted in the lack of corrective influence on this interlanguage and its
successive adoption as an acceptable variety (Gianto 1990, 10-11). He stressed that every
treatment of the Amarna language must be based on its scribal nature: ―But there is one
factor which is often forgotten in the discussion of Amarna Akkadian. The language was
developed and used mainly among the scribes of the local southern courts so that it never
spread to the larger population‖ (Gianto 1999, 127).
This point has been taken seriously by E. von Dassow who proposed a totally different view
of the Amarna linguistic and writing system (von Dassow 2004). Her initial point is simple
and convincing: there is no evidence for speaking Canaano-Akkadian and the spellings which
supposedly prove its spoken nature are better accounted for as scribal practices and writing
conventions rather than as phonological processes. The logical consequence of assuming an
exclusively written status for Canaano-Akkadian is, as she observes, that its mixed features
cannot be the result of language contact because this phenomenon occurs in spoken settings
(von Dassow 2004, 649). She argues that the kind of errors that scribes made and the use of
the glosses indicate that they did not write Akkadian while spelling Akkadian words with the
syllabic signs but rather Canaanite, the real lingua franca they shared (von Dassow 2004,
656). According to her, the scribes used sequences of signs which were meaningful as
Akkadian words as graphic signs for Canaanite words, or in other words, as Akkadograms.
Thus, the scribes would read the Akkadian-like sequences of signs as the required Canaanite
forms thanks to the Canaanite morphemes affixed to these sequences. Practically, while
writing yi-IL-TE-Qú, the scribe would intend and read his Canaanite *yiqqaḥu. Similarly, the
spelling IZ-ZI-IZ-ti would stand for *naṣṣabti (von Dassow 2004, 660-661). Consequently,
she contends, the Amarna letters attest not to a mixed language but to akkadography of local
languages which is an instance of a larger phenomenon termed ―alloglottography‖ after I.
Gershevitch‘s understanding of the use of Elamite to write Old Persian in the Persepolis
tablets (Gershevitch 1979).5
Von Dassow‘s strongest argument is that the apparent language of writing or spelling does
not necessarily entail the language which is intended in writing (von Dassow 2010, 895-896).
5 For an overview of alloglottography in Iranian languages and other features of ancient Near Eastern
writing system which might be interpreted as alloglottographic see Rubio 2007.
75
Yet, such scenario is in itself only a possibility, not the proof of the alloglottographic nature
of the Amarna letters from Canaan. Most importantly, the theory of akkadography simply
does not do justice to the spellings and the texts themselves because it does not explain all the
phenomena found in them. In fact, the texts attest not only to faulty forms but also to correct
Akkadian forms or creations which cannot directly reflect a Canaanite form. Moreover, von
Dassow‘s theory assumes the perspective of a modern scholar who analyzes the language and
writing in terms of morphemes. It does not explain how the Canaanite scribes came to
analyze the morphology of their native verbs as composed of prefixes and suffixes and how
they developed the idea of combining them with the Akkadian bases. Furthermore, it does
not explain why the scribes continued to use a number of ―akkadographs‖ for each verb and
occasionally created peculiar forms otherwise unattested. Finally, she does not address a very
simple question. The scribes clearly had an understanding of the syllabic nature of cuneiform
writing and were able to spell Canaanite words, when needed, as is shown by the glosses.
Why did they not begin writing their own language but instead devised the awkward
―akkadographic‖ system? Consequently, her theory must be rejected en bloc. It may reflect
our attempt at parsing the forms of the language of the Amarna letters from Canaan but not
its historical reality.
The merit of von Dassow‘s theory lies in calling attention to the fact that language mixing
and language contact are not the proper models for the description of the Amarna
interlanguage. However, her substitution of alloglottography for language contact is equally
unacceptable. In fact, as the Amarna language was born in scholastic practice, the right
perspective for understanding its genesis is not the perspective of modern scholars who think
in terms of grammatical features but rather the perspective of a young scribe who attempts to
learn the cuneiform script and its language using his natural linguistic instinct. The
mechanisms that are responsible for the formation of the peculiar linguistic system of the
Amarna letters from Canaan must be the natural phenomena that occur in situations of
language acquisition, be it due to language contact or schooling, and not the idea of an ad-
hoc, presumably collegial, creation and diffusion of a new practice. In fact, a natural process
seems to be far more probable than an ad-hoc invention. Moreover, the Amarna language
cannot be dissociated from the tradition in which it originated: Peripheral Akkadian. Finally,
a convincing vision of the Amarna language must account for all its features. Therefore, one
76
must re-assess the evidence for the cuneiform writing and its language in Canaan and
compare it with other peripheral corpora. As a matter of fact, the Amarna letters should be
studied in light of the cuneiform documents found in Canaan and not vice-versa, as pointed
out by Horowitz, Oshima and Sanders (2006, 18). Moreover, one must re-examine the
features of the Amarna language in light of modern learning phenomena and ancient scribal
practice. The most important of them is the question of the presumed indications of its
spoken nature.
4.2 Western Peripheral Akkadian and Cuneiform in Canaan as the Linguistic Context of the
Amarna Language
The Amarna language did not develop in a vacuum but belonged to a broader tradition of
writing in the cuneiform script and in Mesopotamian languages (Sumerian and Akkadian)
outside of Mesopotamia itself, in particular in Syria and Anatolia. In the third and second
millennium B.C.E. this tradition advanced not with the immigration of native speakers of
these languages but with the scribes as its vehicle and with the support of local political and
administrative elites who appreciated the utility of writing for practical purposes.
Cuneiform writing is attested on a large scale in Syria for the first time in Ebla circa 2400
B.C.E. Although the language of the documents is the local Eblaite, the writing makes
abundant use of Sumerian logograms to the extent that it conceals almost completely the
language in which they were read. In the Ebla Archives are found for the first time some
characteristics which will later occur in other peripheral collections, including the Amarna
archive. The scribal activity in Ebla is connected with different areas of the palatial
administration as shown by the variety of documents, which include records concerning
foodstuffs consumed at the court, distribution of clothing to foreign kings and to the
dependants of the Eblaite court, agricultural production (mostly barley but also olive oil and
wine, raising animals), consignments of sheep for sacrifices to the gods and meat
consumption at the palace. The chancery texts also reflect the activities of the court. This
category of texts includes political agreements (with Mari, Ibal and Abarsal), diplomatic
reports and letters (including a letter from the king of Mari with the description of the
77
conquests made by his ancestors) and royal decrees. Religious texts are represented by the
ritual for the enthronement of the royal couple and a number of incantations. Also literary
texts are few: one Sumerian hymn, two Semitic hymns and some thirty incantations. The
most impressive testimony of scribal activity in Ebla is provided by a number of lists (Hallo
1992, 71-74). There are some forty lists which contain Sumerian words arranged by subject
(names of professions, cities, animals, objects) of the type and arrangement known from the
core of Mesopotamia (Shuruppak, Abu Salabikh). Local scribes did not remain passive
recipients of the Mesopotamian cuneiform tradition but also engaged in the creation of their
own lists. In fact, eight word-lists arranged according to acrophonic principles were redacted
at Ebla. The most impressive one, however, are bilingual word-lists which contain several
hundred Sumerian words (the longest has 1200 entries) with their Eblaite counterparts (Archi
1997). The hallmarks of the Eblaite cuneiform tradition are: its administrative-palatial setting
and the local training of the scribes, as proved by the abundance of the lexical lists.
Although the non-literary texts from Ebla are written mostly with Sumerograms, it is safe to
assume that they were read in Eblaite. The presence of few Sumerian literary texts (a hymn,
incantations) suggests that Sumerian was also read in Ebla. It is difficult to assess to what
extent it was actually known and spoken in scribal circles rather than just being a part of
writing system. There is, however, a piece of hard evidence which strongly suggests that
Sumerian was not only learnt as a system of graphic signs which were read in the local
language: a tablet which contains the Sumerian numerals spelled syllabically (Edzard 1980,
Pettinato 1981). Since the numerals are spelled in the cuneiform writing with simple signs
which can be easily read in any language, the presence of this tablet shows that the scribes
cared not only for the readings of the numerals in their native tongue but also in Sumerian. In
other words, this tablet indicates that Sumerian was certainly pronounced in Ebla as a scribal
language. Thus, already in Ebla the learning of the script and the language in a peripheral
schooling setting included pronunciation.
The idea that the cuneiform writing spread to other areas of Syria and even to Canaan already
at the time of the Ebla archives is tempting but the evidence for it is minute. In the pre-World
War Second excavations at Byblos, at a level predating the beginnings of the second
millennium B.C.E. a tablet with a sign list was found. The shape of the signs suggests a
dating to the time of the IIIrd
dynasty of Ur. The limitation of the inventory to basic signs, the
78
repetition of some signs in the same column, the lack of a comparable list from the core of
Mesopotamia, and the acrophonic arrangement of some signs (LI-LÁ-LÚ, SU-BU-DU-UB,
LAM-LIM, DAM-DIM) suggest that this list might have been written as an ad-hoc teaching
aid by a local scribe or dictated to an apprentice as an exercise (Dossin 1969, 245-248). The
National Museum in Beirut houses another document which testifies to the use of cuneiform
writing and Sumerian language in the valleys of Lebanon: the clay prism commissioned by a
certain king mŠar-ri-AN-na (Šarri-El?) on the occasion of the restoration and dedication of a
cultic structure in a locality belonging to Kumidi (if one accepts the reading kur Ku-mi5!-di).
Judging from its linguistic details, the prism can be dated to the end of the third millennium
B.C.E. (Arnaud 2006, 225-228). These two documents, being unique and isolated, can be
easily under- or overestimated. However, it cannot be merely a fortuitous coincidence that
they come from two localities in which cuneiform writing was used also in the second
millennium B.C.E. One may cautiously suggest that in fact there was a long tradition of
cuneiform in those peripheral towns.
The penetration of the cuneiform script and the Akkadian language into Canaan in the first
half of the second millennium B.C.E. is to be connected with Old Babylonian Mari and the
north-Galilean city of Hazor. In fact, Mari, located on the right bank of the Euphrates, close
to the present-day border between Syria and Iraq was a major center of cuneiform literacy
and it maintained friendly relations with Hazor. The Mari archive contains records of goods
sent to Hazor as well as of the circulation of messengers and musicians between Mari and
Hazor. It seems that Hazor served for Mari as gateway of economic exchange with Canaan,
the Lebanese coast and the Arabian Peninsula (Bonechi 1991, Rovira 2010). In this context,
the exchange between the two cities was not limited to trade but it naturally included also the
transmission of cuneiform writing and of the Akkadian language. Indeed, the internal
evidence of the cuneiform texts from Hazor datable to the Old Babylonian period supports
such a scenario.
The corpus of cuneiform inscriptions from Hazor is admittedly small but at the same time it
is also steadily growing. To the Old Babylonian period or the Middle Bronze Age are
datable: a name incised on a vessel (mI[š]-me-
dIM
!), two liver model fragments with omens, a
verdict regarding an estate at Hazor and agricultural land at another site, a list of small
payments and names of individuals, a beautifully executed fragment of a probable royal
79
letter, a combined multiplication table, a letter mentioning Mari and Ekallatum (Horowitz,
Oshima and Sanders 2006, 65-86), a letter fragment (Horowitz and Oshima 2007), a clay
liver model (Horowitz, Oshima and Winitzer 2010), and two tablet fragments that had to
have come from a law collection (Horowitz, Oshima, and Vukosavović 2012). Among the
Late Bronze Age findings are: a school tablet with an excerpt from the canonical version of
the list Urra = ḫubullu, similar to the version attested at Emar, a letter similar in format and
style to the Amarna letters from Canaan, an administrative document which mentions an
unknown locality named A-ma-ZA-RUM, Hazor, and possibly Nazareth, a dedicatory
inscription of a stone bowl (agannu), a small administrative record (Horowitz, Oshima and
Sanders 2006, 73-86), and an administrative docket recording garments (Horowitz and
Oshima 2010).
In spite of its small size, this corpus displays characteristics which permit us to identify
Hazor as a major center of cuneiform literacy in Canaan in the Middle and Late Bronze Age.
Several features best known to us from the Mari archives point to the Mariote origin of the
cuneiform tradition in Hazor: the theme vowel /u/ in išput instead of standard Akkadian /i/,
the reading ṭà for ḪI (Horowitz, Oshima and Sanders 2006, 12), the use of an extra BI as the
phonetic complement for the Sumerian reading of the fraction 2/3 (Horowitz, Oshima and
Sanders 2006, 80). Contacts with Mari must have led to the establishment of local cuneiform
training and to the broad use of cuneiform writing for a variety of purposes. The existence of
local schooling is suggested by the presence of a lexical list and a law collection as well as by
the fact that the multiplication table was prepared locally, as indicated by the analysis of its
clay (Goren 2000, 34-35). The fact that such a small corpus includes documents of different
nature (administrative receipts, a mark of ownership, a dedicatory inscription, a law suit,
interstate letters) indicates that cuneiform writing was used in everyday life, as in
Mesopotamia. Finally, cuneiform was in use in Hazor for a number of generations, as the
dates of the individual documents encompass two periods, the Middle and the Late Bronze
Age. The features of the tradition from Hazor which are relevant to the discussion of the
Amarna letters are: the early time of the penetration of cuneiform into Canaan, its persistence
throughout centuries, and the local training of the scribes.
Cuneiform writing and the Akkadian language were used in the local administration already
in the Middle Bronze Age also in central and southern Canaan. Such administrative use can
80
be suggested for cylinder-seals from Beth Mirsim, Beth Shean and Jemmeh (Horowitz,
Oshima and Sanders 2006, 46-48, 95) but cannot be stated with absolute certainty since seals
travel easily with their owners. However, the envelope fragment from Gezer dated on the
base of the ductus to the seventeenth cent. B.C.E., the document from Hebron which pertain
to the transfer of herd animals and seems to involve the local king, and the letter from
Shechem which seems to be a complaint of a professional in charge of junior apprentices that
deliveries were not sent to him, must be taken as unambiguous evidence for the everyday use
of the Akkadian language by the local administration because the production of this kind of
document is unthinkable in a different setting (Horowitz, Oshima and Sanders 2006, 51-53,
88-91,121-123).
In the Late Bronze Age, that is, the time of the Amarna letters, the cuneiform tradition in
Canaan shows three important characteristics: continuity, expansion and participation in a
larger Western Peripheral Akkadian tradition.6 The continuity of this tradition is evidenced
by the fact that the same Middle Bronze Age sites yielded cuneiform texts also in the Late
Bronze Age. As a matter of fact, from Gezer comes a letter fragment with the mention of
Jaffa. It may pre-date the Amarna times because of the lack of the distinctive Late Bronze
Western features of the ductus or it may be indeed dated to the Late Bronze Age but be
written in a mixed hand. A fragment containing a list of witnesses from Shechem indicates
the continuity of the administrative use of cuneiform in this town also in the Late Bronze Age
(Horowitz, Oshima and Sanders 2006, 53-55, 88-91,123-125).
The expansion of cuneiform in Canaan is seen also in a number of new localities where
cuneiform is used. Of course, it cannot be excluded that cuneiform was there already in use
earlier but only the tablets dating to the Late Bronze Age survive. From Aphek there are
several administrative fragments, but the most important is the letter of the governor of
Ugarit (c. 1230) and two lexical fragments which suggest local training of the scribes.
Particularly important is the trilingual lexical text which testifies to an indigenous adaptation
of the Mesopotamian tradition as it gives Sumerian words with their Akkadian and West
Semitic equivalents (Horowitz, Oshima and Sanders 2006, 29-38). Beth Shean yielded a
letter of Tagi to Labʾaya which is open to several interpretations ranging from a school text, a
6 The prime evidence for this assessment is obviously provided by the Amarna letters. Logically, the
letters must be excluded from the discussion of the sources which will serve later for their assessment.
81
spy letter which uses the form of a cylinder to conceal sensitive information, to
correspondence of a local official at Shechem (Horowitz, Oshima and Sanders 2006, 48-49).
A lexical fragment from Ashqelon preserves a section from a western parallel to the list Urra
= ḫubullu and could be employed in schooling or used as a kind of consultation manual for a
local scribe (Horowitz, Oshima and Sanders 2006, 42-43). From Jericho comes a fragment of
a Late Bronze Age administrative tablet. In addition to it, there are two seals: one from
Jericho and another from the proximity of Jericho (the Shuneh region on the eastern bank of
the Jordan River). The second seal contains Babylonian personal names but it had to be
produced locally as it preserves Egyptian hieroglyphs and non-Mesopotamian iconography
(Horowitz, Oshima and Sanders 2006, 96-97). Among the cuneiform documents from
Canaan is to be counted also Amarna letter no. 333 which, although it is commonly treated as
if it were part of the Amarna archive, was actually found in Tell el-Ḥesi. In fact, this
―Amarna‖ letter was the first cuneiform document discovered in the land of Israel (Horowitz,
Oshima and Sanders 2006, 92-94). Finally, from Jerusalem comes a chip of a tablet which
most probably contained a diplomatic letter and can be paleographically dated to the Amarna
times (Mazar, Horowitz, Oshima, and Goren 2010).7
Participation of the Canaanite scribes in a broader Western Peripheral Akkadian culture is
epitomized by a 38-lines long section of a western version of the Middle Babylonian period
Gilgamesh Epic found in Megiddo, the sole piece of cuneiform literature discovered in
Canaan. Since the tablet uses the spelling dGIŠ.PAN.MAŠ for the name of Gilgamesh, which
is known from the Hittite Gilgamesh and an omen from Hattuša, its ultimate origin is to be
looked for in Anatolia (Horowitz, Oshima and Sanders 2006, 102-105). Analysis of the clay
indicates that the tablet itself was produced in southern Canaan, possibly in Gezer. One can
only speculate whether this tablet was used for schooling in Megiddo or brought there by an
itinerant scribe or a scribe who found employment in the local court, or whether it was
delivered to Megiddo as part of a system of exchanging tablets (Goren, Mommes,
Finkelstein, and Naʾaman 2009). In any case, cuneiform gained some popularity in Megiddo
as indicated by small finds of three inscribed cylinder seals and a jar stopper which contains a
7 Since this chip contains just a few signs, different conclusions about its nature are also possible. See
Rollston 2010.
82
cuneiform rendering of an Egyptian personal name (Horowitz, Oshima and Sanders 2006,
105-108).
The use of cuneiform in Canaan followed the general patterns of the other peripheral corpora.
This conclusion is unavoidable if one carefully considers the small archive of seventeen
documents discovered in Taanach and commonly dated to the fifteenth cent. B.C.E.
(Horowitz, Oshima and Sanders 2006, 127-151). Like in other peripheral corpora, two usages
of the cuneiform script are prominent: administration and letter writing. The everyday use of
cuneiform in Taanach is exemplified by six lists of personal names which were probably
produced by the local administration as part of its human resource management. The second
important realm of cuneiform in Taanach was its epistolary use, as must be concluded from
the nine letters and their fragments exchanged between local rulers. The corpus from
Taanach is of crucial importance for the historical understanding of the formation of the
Amarna language, not only because it attests to the regular use of cuneiform before the
Amarna age, but also because it contains some forms which become normative in the
Amarna correspondence.
The letters from Taanach exhibit a limited knowledge of Akkadian in terms of its grammar
and vocabulary.8 The style and expressions are reminiscent of Akkadian but they must be
characterized as clumsy. Among their syntactic and stylistic peculiarities stand out the
frequent use of the coordinating conjunction u, the tendency toward a sentence-initial
position of the verb, and the use of the adverb ša-ni-tam to introduce a new section of the
letter, all hallmarks of the Amarna letters. More importantly, some verbal forms and usages
resemble forms and construction widespread in the Amarna letters. The letter of Ahiami to
Talwašur (Taanach 2) employs the stative ar-ba-ku in reference to the past action, exactly as
the Amarna letters use the qatal forms: 5ù i-na ŠÀ-bi-ka i-nu-ma
6ar-ba-ku i-na É ra-qí
―Now, it is in your mind that I have entered into an ―empty house.‖ The same letter uses a
form with the subordination marker as required by Akkadian syntax but apparently with
present-continuous meaning, exactly as the yaqtulu of the Amarna letters. The use of i-nu-ma
to introduce a content clause is an additional Amarnian trait of this passage: 17
˹i˺-na-an-na a-
mur-ni i-nu-ma 18
i-pu-šu DÙG.GA it-ti-ka ―Now, see that I am doing you a favour.‖ A few
8 The Taanach tablets are quoted from Horowitz, Oshima and Sanders 2006, 127-151, according to
numeration employed there.
83
lines later, in the same letter, the forms ending in -a and in -u follow a verb with a volitive-
directive meaning, as it often happens in the Amarna letters. Additionally, the non-Akkadian
morphology of the form i-wa-ši-ra is notable: 21
ša-ni-tam li-ru-ba-am mDINGIR-ra-pí-i
22a-
na URU Ra-ḫa-bi ù lu-ú 23
i-wa-ši-ra LÚ-ia a-na maḫ-ri-ka 24
ù lu-ú i-pu-šu ḫa-at-nu-tam
―Furthermore, let Elu-rapi enter into Rehov? and I will certainly send my man to you and I
will certainly arrange a marriage.‖ Also the letter of Amenhatpa to Talwašur (Taanach 6)
attests to several forms and usages well-known from the Amarna correspondence, such as the
stative of bašû with the Canaanite suffix -ti, the Energic -na and the forms ending in -u in the
main clause with present-ongoing or past-continuous meaning: 6ša-ni-tam la-a-mi
7˹i˺-na ma-
an-ṣa-ar-ti i-˹ba-šu˺ 8˹ḫa˺-na-ku-u-ka ù la-a-mi
9ti-il5-la-ku en-na at-t[a]
10a-na maḫ-ri-ia ù
šum-ma-mi 11
tu-wa-še-ru-na ŠEŠ-ka 12
ša-ni-tam i-na URU Ḫa-za-t[i] 13
i-ba-ša-ti ù la-a-mi
14ti-il5-la-ku-na a-na ma[ḫ-ri]-ia ―Furthermore, your retainers are not on guard and you
yourse[lf] do not come before me nor do you send your brothers here. Furthermore, in Gaza I
was, but you were not coming t[o] me.‖ It is noteworthy that the same letter makes the proper
use of the Akkadian subordinate marker: 23
LÚ.MEŠ ḫu-ub-t[e] 24
[š]a ap-ta-aṭ-ru ―the
captive[s] whom I have redeemed.‖ Finally, a letter fragment (Taanach 8) seems to contain a
spelling of the verbal form of nadānu ―to give‖ with the sign TE rather than the usual DI,
assuming that the form i-te-na derives in fact from nadānu. The usage of spelling the forms
of the verb nadānu with a T-sign is rare but attested twice in the Amarna letters (ia-ti-na in
83:31 and an-ti-in4-nu in 96:8) and in several forms in the Akkadian of Ugarit: at-te-nu, ia-
te-nu, ta-te-nu, i[a]-t[u]-nu and [i]a-ta-nu (Sivan 1984, 255, 292). The peculiarities shared by
the texts from Taanach and the Amarna letters clearly indicate that the linguistic system
displayed by the latter was not an idiosyncratic creation but the result of a long, organic
process that took place within the scribal circles of Canaan.
A general assessment of cuneiform writing in Canaan is difficult because of the relatively
low number of available documents. In fact, only three places (Hazor, Aphek and Taanach)
produced assemblages which might indicate the presence of a local archive. But even in these
cases, the number of documents amounts to a dozen and thus makes comparisons with other
peripheral corpora difficult. However, certain characteristics of cuneiform in Canaan are
already apparent and they must be taken into consideration in the discussion of the Amarna
letters. Although the scope of writing in Canaan might be more limited than in other
84
societies, the governing forces of single polities used it for communication between
themselves and in the internal administration, as is clear from the types of documents
discovered in Canaan which are not produced outside of a chancery. Their small number is
due rather to the historical circumstances which did not lead to their preservation and cannot
be taken as evidence for a limited use of writing. In fact, it is difficult to imagine that
administrative lists which occur quite frequently in the cuneiform corpus from Canaan would
have been produced on special occasions rather than in everyday practice. Therefore, it is
probable that for every list and document that survived there had to be dozens or hundreds
which were lost. Writing was a tool of administrative control, an indication of a higher
position in the local community and a way of participating in a larger regional and
international community. Most logically, the use of the Akkadian language conformed with
these functions of writing. Such a vision of cuneiform and Akkadian in Canaan makes sense
also in the context of the invention of the alphabetic writing system which took place in the
Middle or Late Bronze Age as a reflection of an alternate way of life in the marginal
segments of society (Shai and Uziel 2010).
The overview of the cuneiform corpus from Canaan leads to the conclusion that the scribes
were trained locally. As Hallo astutely points out, ―it is a fact that wherever in the western
periphery cuneiform texts of the Late Bronze Age have turned up at all, they have included
scholastic texts; the only exception to this rule thus far is Hebron‖ (1992, 80). If the scribes
were schooled locally, one wonders naturally where and by whom they were trained. As far
as Canaan is concerned, there is no direct evidence which would help answer this question.
Hence, one must resort to inferences based on the way in which cuneiform was taught in
other regions. The evidence from outside Canaan points to scribal training within families. It
seems that in Babylonia, after the demise of more institutionalized training in the
É.DUB.BA.A, education became private and relied on scribes who taught their sons and
maybe a few others in their own houses (George 2005, 135). In fact, the Old Babylonian
documents from Sippar attest to five generations of a scribal family active in the eighteen and
seventeenth centuries B.C.E. Its members were not only scribes but also merchants and
judges. A member of the last known generation of this family, Ipiq-Aya, is the author of an
important manuscript of the Atram-hasis Epic (van Koppen 2011). The existence of scribal
families is also documented in first millennium Babylonia, with the Sîn-lēqi-unninnis being
85
the chief example (Beaulieu 2000). The fact that writing and knowledge were passed down in
the family was a hallmark of Babylonian scholarship, remembered even during its ultimate
stages, as stated in the first century B.C.E. by the Greek historian Diodorus of Sicily
(Beaulieu 2007, 475). Similar cases are also known from the cuneiform periphery. For
example, Anu-šar-ilāni, a Babylonian expert, settled down and found a scribal family in
Hattuša (Beckman 1983, 107). In Ugarit, the colophons of several documents in the syllabic
cuneiform permit us to reconstruct family connections between the scribes (Roche-Hawley
and Hawley 2013). Given the hereditary transmission of cuneiform elsewhere, it is safe to
assume that also in Canaan many scribes ―must have trained with their fathers, as was normal
for other crafts‖ (von Dassow 2004, 669). Schooling in families had unavoidable
consequences: the future scribes studied under non-native speakers and had limited access to
scholarly materials. The possibilities of exchange of teachers and learning materials involved
not direct contact with the core Mesopotamia, but rather dependency on other, bigger centers
of cuneiform literacy located in the vicinity of Canaan. In fact, cuneiform in Canaan and the
Amarna letters contain some spellings which must be interpreted as evidence for such contact
within the periphery. An obvious example of such common peripheral features in the Amarna
letters is provided by the logographic writings of the name of the city Beirut. This name,
beside the syllabic spellings, is written with the sign TÚL (meaning in Sumerian ―well‖) and
often with the plural markers MEŠ or ḪI.A to form an etymological pun on Beirut. Such a
spelling occurs only in Amarna, Ugarit and in a letter from the king of Beirut to the king of
Ugarit (Arnaud and Salvini 2000, 5, Belmonte Marín 2001, 56-57). Necessarily, it reflects a
scribal tradition common to Amarna and Ugarit.
Perusal of Western Peripheral Akkadian reveals few characteristics which must be included
in the discussion on the nature of the Amarna language system. In the first place, it is
important to observe that the so-called West-Semiticisms occur in various Peripheral
Akkadian corpora in a sporadic or systematic manner and with various frequency.
In Alalaḫ, the inscription of the statue of Idrimi, which dates back to the first half of the
fifteenth (Oller 1977, 148-149) or fourteenth century (Sumakaʾi Fink 2007, 200) and is
written in a variety of Akkadian commonly referred to as Mitanni or Ḫurro-Akkadian (Aro
1956, 365), contains two forms that reflect the West Semitic suffix conjugation with the past
meaning: ḫal-qà-nu ―we fled‖ in line 4 and e-li-ia-ku ―I went up‖ in line 34 (Aro 1956, 364).
86
Also, the Akkadian of Ugarit, although it follows the usages of Core and Peripheral
Akkadian, exhibits some usages which are most easily attributed to the influence of the
native West Semitic tongue of the scribes. In the realm of the verb, those features include:
several instances of the use of the Preterite instead of the Durative as if it was the Ugaritic
yaqtulu but without the final /u/ and of the Preterite with lā that expresses a prohibition and
possibly correspond to the Ugaritic lā with yaqtul (Huehnergard 1989, 252-255, van Soldt
1991, 500-501), a single case of the Durative used for a punctual past tense (Huehnergard
1989, 257), a number of cases in which the Akkadian Stative forms (sometimes of the
Ugaritic roots) are used transitively or with the past tense reference by analogy to the
Ugaritic qatal (Huehnergard 1989, 258-261, van Soldt 1991, 506-507). Related to the verbal
usages is the question of the frequent occurrences of the conjunction u which do not reflect
normative Akkadian usage but might be due to the Ugaritic substrate influence. However,
since similar occurrences of u occur also in other peripheral corpora, they may represent a
common tradition too (Huehnergard 1989, 241-243).
West Semitic influence in the Akkadian texts of Emar is most prominent in the lexicon
(Pentiuc 2001). In the verbal usages, the features which can be traced back to the interference
of the local West Semitic languages are few. It seems that the use of the prefix ti-, well
known from the Amarna letters and from the Akkadian of Ugarit, is of West Semitic origin
given that it is used frequently with verbs that belong to the local lexicon (Seminara 1998,
349-350). Also, the instability of the thematic vowel of the verbs can be attributed to the
imposition of the West Semitic verbal paradigms over the Akkadian morphology (Seminara
1998, 339-340). The creation of simplified rules for the use of the Ventive which is
observable in the texts from Emar seems to be a solution adopted by the scribes who were
incapable of a full understanding of its semantics, given the absence of this morpheme in
their mother tongue (Seminara 1998, 387-388). Similarly, the non-coherent use of the
subordination marker reflects the lack of a morphological distinction between the verbs in
main and subordinate clauses in the native tongue of the scribes (Seminara 1998, 397).9
9 In the Akkadian of Ugarit, in the non-canonical texts there is only one certain case of a formally
marked subjunctive (Huehnergard 1989, 169). The Akkadian of Ugarit displays therefore the same phenomenon
as the Akkadian of Emar but to a far greater extent: the absence of a grammatical category in a native tongue
causes difficulty or a total failure in its acquisition in the second language.
87
A few features typical of the Amarna letters from Canaan are found also in the Akkadian
texts from Egypt. An Amarna letter sent from Egypt contains a 3 ms verbal prefix spelled
with the sign PI (369: rev. 28). This spelling must be a slip of the scribe‘s pen since
otherwise the proper Akkadian verbal forms are used. Moreover, the Treaty between
Ramesses II and Ḫattušili uses the adverb adi twice with the meaning ―again, once more,‖
typically found in the Amarna letters from Canaan. The Akkadian texts from Egypt make
also an abundant use of the conjunction u, a hallmark of West Semitic syntax (Cochavi-
Rainey 2011, 201-207). Certainly West Semitic is also the loanword bi-it-ti ―daughter‖ in a
thirteenth century letter from Egypt found in Hattuša (Cochavi-Rainey 1989, 39).
Curiously, there are also some West Semitic verbal usages in the letters sent from Alashia,
that is, from Cyprus (Goren, Bunimovitz, Finkelstein, and Naʾaman. 2003). An Alashia letter
uses the typically Amarnian form uš-ši-ir-ti (34:52) with the past reference (―I sent‖) or as an
epistolary performative (―hereby I send‖). Another letter employs a 3ms yaqtul with the
Canaanite prefix as a negative jussive 18
˹LÚ˺ pa-qá-ri-ka ul 19
ia-qá-ar-ri-ib 20
it-ti-šu-nu
―may your inspector not draw near to them‖ (39:18-20). A similar negative jussive, but
without the Canaanite prefix, occurs also in 40:26. Finally, the syntax of 39:12 resembles the
syntax of the Amarna letters from Canaan as it employs an iprus (yaqtul?) after the
imperative to convey purpose: uš-še-ra-šu-nu ù iš-mé ―Send them so that I may hear‖
(Cochavi-Rainey 2003, 118-199).
The Akkadian of Amurru in general uses the core Akkadian verbal categories (iprus, iptaras,
iparras and the Precative) but a number of its features are to be attributed to the native West
Semitic tongue of the scribes. Among such features that concern the verbal system, there are:
a tendency to have an /i/ stem-vowel in the iparras of the G stem, confusion between G and
D forms in the third-weak verbs, modal use of iprus forms, limited use of iptaras forms.10
Moreover, Amarna letters from Amurru no. 60 and 371 use an idiolect closer to that of the
Amarna letters from Canaan. They employ 3 ms verbal prefix y-, the 3 mp prefix ti-, iprus
forms with the Jussive function, and the suffix conjugation forms to convey prospectivity.
Unlike the Amarna letters from Canaan, these two peculiar Amurru letters do not use the
yaqtulu (Izre‘el 1991, 260-262). The change that the Amurru Akkadian experienced in time
10 For these and many other morphological, syntactic and lexical features of the Akkadian of Amurru
which point out to the West Semitic influence see Izre‘el 1991, 374-379.
88
is also crucial in the context of the Amarna letters from Canaan. As a matter of fact, West
Semitic interference is greater in the earlier texts and decreases with the advance of time. The
progress of the Amurru Akkadian toward a standard form of Akkadian had to result from the
introduction of new scribal traditions, as is evidenced by the growing Assyrianization of the
later texts (Izre‘el 1991, 379-387).
The Western Peripheral Akkadian corpus contains also texts which attest to the use of a
linguistic system very close to the Amarna letters from Canaan. An excellent example is
provided by the texts found in Kāmid el-Lōz (the southern Lebanese Beqaʿ) which date back
to the time of the Amarna archive (Pruzsinszky and Heinz 2008).11
The presence of typical
Amarnian traits (the past transitive qatal, the imperfective yaqtulu, the internal passive, the
Energic) in the correspondence between Canaanite cities does not surprise, but in two letters
from the pharaoh (LUGAL, ―the king‖) one remarks on the occurrence of the Stative as
epistolary performative, the function typical for qatal in the Amarna letters from Canaan: an-
na-a uš-te-bi-la-ku ―hereby I send‖ (KL 69:277:3-4, KL 69:279:3-4). Moreover, one of the
Kāmid el-Lōz texts is a school tablet with signs listed in a non-regular order. The presence of
this tablet testifies that cuneiform was learned in this town, as was the case throughout the
Levant in general (Naʾaman 2005, 312-314).
Beside West Semitic influence, an important feature of the Peripheral cuneiform tradition is
the participation of foreign scribes in its creation. These foreign scribes were native speakers
of Akkadian and most probably received training in Mesopotamia. The contribution of
foreign scribes is clear in Hattuša where Anu-šar-ilāni, probably a Babylonian, founded a
scribal family which is documented for several generations, since probably the fifteenth to
the thirteenth century B.C.E. Two Assyrian scribes, Mār-Šerūʾa and Nabu-naṣar, entered also
into Hittite service. Another Mesopotamian scribe who founded a local scribal family in
Hattuša could be the Assyrian ambassador Bēl-qarrad since his son is a scribe and bears the
good Hittite name GUR.LUGAL-ma (Beckman 1983, 104-111). Similarly, the spelling
habits of the early scribes at Nuzi and the syntax of the texts produced by them suggest that
they were of Babylonian origin (Purves 1940, 171-172).
11 The editions of these texts and various studies on them are conveniently gathered in Hachmann 2012.
Quotations are taken from this collection and use the excavation numbers.
89
At Emar, two foreign scribes are attested but it is possible that they did not reside there but
rather visited Emar for business reasons. In fact, one of them, Mār-Šerūʾa is explicitly
identified as ―the merchant of the king (of the Assyrian king or the Hittite viceroy at
Carchemish) and another one, Ṭābia, could be a commercial representative of a certain Aḫī-
mukīn-apli (Cohen 2009, 116-117). However, another Babylonian scribe, Kidin-Gula, was
certainly also a local teacher since the colophon of a tablet of the series IZI = išātu identifies
its author as a student of Kidin-Gula. It is possible that two fragments of the tablets
containing the series ḪAR.RA = ḫubullu were also written by his students since the name
Kidin-Gula occurs in them too. The impact of this scribe is possibly seen also in the
documents from House 5 which are distinguished from other Emar tablets by their shape and
size, script, grammatical and stylistic peculiarities as well as their dating by Babylonian
month names (Cohen 2009, 183-189). It is possible that with the Mesopotamians scribes
travelled not only their professional skills and broader cultural education but also actual
tablets from Mesopotamia. In fact, the lexical lists from Emar and Nippur shows similarities
which prove that there was direct contact between the lexical traditions of Kassite Nippur and
Emar. Since lexical lists which contain these similarities come from Emar‘s archives dating
to both approximately the 15th-14
th and 14
th-13
rd centuries B.C.E., these contacts might be
more than random (Peterson 2006).
In Ugarit, the strong Assyrian influence (the shape of the signs, orthographic habits, nominal
and verbal morphology) in the documents traceable to the archive found in the Southern
Palace is due to Naḫeši-šalmu, the Assyrian scribe who must have worked there. However,
the fact that the documents are not written in the purely Middle Assyrian dialect indicates a
more complicated scenario. It is probable that Naḫeši-šalmu trained new scribes and
inculcated them with his own language usages and scribal habits. It is also possible that he
adopted some writing habits, in particular the orthographies of /w/ and /y/, which had been
developed by his Ugaritic colleagues at least seventy five years before his arrival (van Soldt
2001).
There is no evidence for Mesopotamian scribes in Egypt. However, the character of Egyptian
Akkadian which is overall correct suggests that the Egyptians had access to qualified teachers
and proper teaching materials. These resources were probably provided to them by the Hittite
scribes. Such a conclusion is supported by the similarity between the Egyptian and Hittite
90
scholarly materials (texts dealing with the Sargonic kings and with the Hurrian hero Kešši,
lexical lists) and by the Egyptian capacity for writing in Hittite (Beckman 1983, 112-114).
Compared to these centers of cuneiform, Canaan looks poor. Indeed, there is no known
example of a Mesopotamian scribe working in Canaan or training Canaanite apprentices.
To build a full picture of the Western Peripheral Akkadian tradition, it is also necessary to
take into account the scholarly and literary texts that were found in various centers and
circulated between them.12
The biggest and the richest of them is Hattuša which was a major
center of scribal training, as is clear from numerous fragments of the syllabary A, various
lexical series (DIRI = watru, ERIM.ḪUŠ = anantu, ḪAR.RA = ḫubullu, IZI = išatu,
KÁ.GAL = abullu, Proto-LÚ) and a fragment of the Old Babylonian grammatical texts which
were found there (Laroche 1971, 47-53). Also, various pieces of Sumerian and Akkadian
literature were studied and copied there: Gilgamesh (Laroche 1971, 58-59, Beckman 2003),
various Akkadian omens including series concerning lunar and solar eclipses, foetal
anomalies, earthquakes, oil omens, liver omens and models (Laroche 1971, 91-97), hymns
and numerous incantations (Laroche 1971, 145-148). Moreover, the presence of numerous
bilingual (Sumero-Akkadian) and even trilingual compositions is remarkable (Cooper 1971,
1972).
Emar too has yielded a considerable amount of lexical and literary texts. The lexical texts are
represented by Syllabary A, the palaeographic Syllabary A, the series DIRI = watru, Ea = A
= naqû, LÚ = šá, numerous fragments of ḪAR.RA = ḫubullu. There are also many divinatory
texts, including menologies, the series iqqur īpuš and šumma izbu, liver omens and models as
well as medical omens. Religious texts comprise incantations and rituals. Literary texts
include a Sumerian poem about early rulers, a blessing for the king, fragments of the
Gilgamesh Epic, the so-called ―Syrian Wisdom‖ or the ―Dialog of Šūpē-amēli with His
Father,‖ the ―Dialog between the Date Palm and the Tamarisk‖ as well as a number of
bilingual literary texts, with multiple fragments of ―Enlil and Namzitarra‖ (Arnaud 1987,
Kämmerer 1998, 9-12).
12 A quantitative study of scholarly texts of various genres and their role in the scribal schooling was
undertaken in Fincke 2012. This study is in general solid but it must be observed that it tacitly assumes that all
texts found were employed in scribal training.
91
Also at Ugarit the amount of lexical and literary texts is impressive. Over one hundred and
forty lexical texts comprise fragments of six lexical lists (DIRI = watru, Ea = A = naqû
ERIM.ḪUŠ = anantu, ḪAR.RA = ḫubullu, IZI = išātu, LÚ = šá), five different sign lists and
syllabaries, Middle Babylonian grammatical texts, lists of gods (Ugarit pantheon, the
Weidner list and an unidentified list), measures, personal names. A tablet which matches
Ugaritic letters forms, written in the order of the Ugaritic alphabet, with syllabic cuneiform
signs is also very interesting (Huehnergard 1989, 331-336). The literary texts are represented
by a fragment of Atraḫasīs, the ―Righteous Sufferer,‖ Akkadian and Sumerian incantations,
literary letters, omens, a blessing for the king, fragments of prayers or hymns, precepts
(Huehnergard 1989, 337-338) and fragments of the Gilgamesh Epic (George 2007).
Remarkable are also several tablets with fragments of Akkadian literary texts (possibly a
hymn and incantations) which are transcribed in the Ugaritic alphabetic signs (Dhorme
1940).
The collection of scholarly texts found in Amarna is rich too. There are several school tablets
with the exercises of the students who had to be trained on the spot. The lexical texts
comprise fragments of sign lists and syllabaries (DIRI = watru, syllabary A). The tablet with
an Akkadian-Egyptian vocabulary could be also used in schooling or as a practical aid in the
chancery In modern times it has been used to reconstruct Egyptian pronunciation and
phonology (Meltzer 1988). The literary texts from Amarna include the story of Kešši of
Hurro-Hittite origin, the myths of ―Adapa and the South Wind‖ and of ―Nergal and
Ereškigal,‖ the šar tamḫāri Epic and several fragments of undetermined genre (Izre‘el 1997).
Relevant is not only the presence of numerous and various lexical and literary texts in the
individual centers of cuneiform literacy throughout Anatolia, the Levant and Egypt, but also,
and more importantly, the circulation of these texts between the cuneiform centers and the
creation of their peripheral versions or of new compositions. In fact, the repertoires of Ugarit
and Emar share three compositions: the poem about early rulers, a blessing for the king and
the ―Dialog of Šūpē-amēli with His Father.‖ The last text is probably an original work
composed in the Syrian cuneiform circles and largely utilized in the local schools (Seminara
92
2000, 523-529).13
The extent to which this composition became popular is clear from the fact
that it made its way also to Ḫattuša where it was provided with a Hittite translation (Dietrich
1991, 69-74, Cohen 2013, 123-124).
Compared with the richness of the lexical and literary texts found in other regions, Canaan
looks poor. Although isolated lexical fragments were found in several localities, with the
single exception of the Megiddo fragment of the Gilgamesh Epic, there are no literary
compositions. Together with the absence of foreign teachers, the lack of more advanced texts
is a sign of the lower status of the cuneiform tradition in Canaan. The presence of various and
advanced learning materials (lexical lists, literary texts) in other centers correlates with the
level of the language used in them which is much closer to the core Akkadian than the
language of the Amarna letters from Canaan. Seen in this perspective, the Amarna letters
reflect this lower status of cuneiform in Canaan.
The history and characteristics of the western peripheral cuneiform tradition provide several
points which must be considered in a successful explanation of the nature of the linguistic
system attested in the Amarna letters from Canaan. First, cuneiform has a long history in the
region as it dates back to third millennium B.C.E. Second, the peripheral texts commonly
attest to interference from the native languages of the scribes. Third, there is a correlation
between the presence of the Mesopotamian scribes and of advanced texts or their lack in
various localities, and the level of the language. The first two characteristics indicate that the
Amarna language is part of a long tradition rather than the idiosyncratic creation of an
alloglottographic writing system. In fact, cuneiform writing as well as Sumerian and
Akkadian languages were known and used in the region long before the Amarna age.
Considering the conservatism of all scribal traditions in general and of the cuneiform one in
particular, it is highly improbable that this long-standing tradition would have been
abandoned or radically transformed to create a new writing system. Indeed, the creation of
such an alloglottographic system would have been possible at the time of the introduction of
the cuneiform tradition to the region but it is improbable that it would have happened after a
few centuries. Obviously, this is not the case since the tablets that predate the Amarna letters
are certainly written in a variety of Akkadian. Moreover, the fact that the Amarna letters
13 This composition is probably mentioned in a Mesopotamian catalogue of literary works and thus its
Mesopotamian origin can be argued, too. See Cohen 2013, 82, 115-116, 124-127.
93
attests to the same characteristics as other peripheral corpora (interference, variation)
indicates that their distinctive quality developed as the result of the same processes that are
observable in other corpora but which took place to a far greater extent. In other words, it is
the quantity of the first language interference known from elsewhere that with the passing of
time altered the quality of Akkadian in Canaan and not the ad-hoc creation of a new system.
A successful explanation of the Amarna linguistic system must not only propose mechanisms
that led to this systemic alternation but also account for the correlation between the level of
the language and the presence of foreign teachers and advanced materials throughout the
region. The only framework that can do all of this is the vision of the Amarna linguistic
system as a fossilized scribal interlanguage. Various features of the letters from Canaan and
of their language point in the same direction.
4.3 The Fossilized Scribal Interlanguage of the Amarna Letters from Canaan
Before proceeding to the discussion of the Amarna language as a scribal linguistic system, it
is necessary to put to rest once and for all the idea that the Amarna letters attest to the use of
Canaano-Akkadian, a mixed language, a pidgin or a creole. In fact, the Amarna linguistic
system cannot be treated as the result of language contact or language mixing for a very
simple reason. Contact languages arise when groups of the native speakers of different
languages interact and negotiate a common linguistic system in order to satisfy their
communicative needs. Since any presence of a considerable population of Akkadian native
speakers in Canaan in the second millennium B.C.E. cannot be reasonably postulated, it is
imperative to conclude that there were no conditions which made possible the formation of a
mixed language. If one wishes to treat it as a typologically odd, unique written mixed
language, the Amarna language still cannot be classified as a pidgin or creole. It cannot be a
pidgin because it is much richer than pidgins as it possesses, for example, inflectional
morphology and agreement features, the functional categories of tense and aspect as well as
rich modal expressions, two negative markers and makes recourse to changes in word order
to mark information structure. The level of complexity makes the Amarna language closer to
a creole but some important characteristics, such as richness of derivational patterns as means
94
of lexical innovation or the use of preverbal markers to express temporal and modal
distinctions, are lacking in it and call to question its classification as a creole. Moreover, it is
hard to argue that the Amarna language shows signs of simplification and re-analysis, typical
of creoles. If the Amarna language were a contact language, it would had to be treated rather
as a bilingual mixed language because it shows the most distinctive characteristic of this
group of contact languages: its components can be easily assigned to the contributing
languages, Akkadian and Canaanite (von Dassow 2004, 649). But it must be stressed again
that the entire enterprise of treating the Amarna language as an example of a contact
language is inappropriate because of the impossibility of individuating the two communities
of speakers which would have entered into contact.
The fact that so many scholars in the past characterized the Amarna language as a contact
language is, however, understandable. As a matter of fact, processes that take place in the
formation of a contact language and in second language acquisition are much the same.
Similarly, the features which occur in contact languages and in learners‘ interlanguages may
look alike. In fact, some theories see the formation of contact languages as cases of failed
second language acquisition. A corollary of the similarities between language contact and
second language acquisition is the difficulty of distinguishing between the two processes on
the basis of written materials only. This objective difficulty compounded with the lack of due
attention to the scribal habitat of cuneiform and Akkadian rather than their spoken nature in
Canaan led the scholars to the mistaken identification of the Amarna interlanguage as a
variety of a contact language. It is also understandable that the alternative classification of the
Amarna language as an interlanguage has not gained popularity. The reason lies the in lack of
clarity about the concept itself, the mechanisms that were active in the formation of the
Amarna interlanguage and the features which can be identified as clues for such a
classification.
Interlanguage and fossilization are phenomena that occur on the personal level in every
learner, that is, everybody who attempts learning a language necessarily constructs a variety
which is different from the target language and incorporates, among others, features of his
own native tongue. Every learner experiences also fossilization of his interlanguage as he or
she stops progressing rapidly toward the native variety of the target language and moves to
the permanent use of the level of the interlanguage he or she developed. A mechanical
95
application of this model in order to define and explain the Amarna linguistic system would
mean that it represents examples of the interlanguage developed by individual scribes who
attempted to learn Akkadian in Canaan. Such a simplistic scenario, however, does not allow a
shared and generally uniform system to be formed, as is the case with the Amarna linguistic
system. In fact, the level at which every individual stops in language acquisition varies and
consequently produces an array of personal idiolects rather than a shared linguistic system.
Being a necessary part of language acquisition, fossilization at the personal level certainly
occurred. But in order to understand its role in the formation of the Amarna interlanguage
one must consider not only its results in every scribe but, more importantly, its impact over
generations of scribes in an environment such as Canaan. As argued in 4.2, in comparison
with other peripheral regions, Canaan is characterized by the scarcity of advanced learning
materials such as a variety of lexical lists and literary compositions. Moreover, as there are
no identifiable cases of Mesopotamian scribes teaching in Canaan, it is likely that the local
scribes were responsible for schooling of their own successors, possibly their own sons. In
this scenario, the effects of fossilization at the personal level were passed on and amplified
from one generation of scribes to another. In fact, a non-native speaker whose language
acquisition fossilized at some level of competency and acted as language master necessarily
passed down the imperfections of his own language to his pupils for whom his language
constituted the best input to which they had access. In turn, the pupils acquired as part of
their own interlanguage the errors present in the interlanguage of their master and added new
errors because the level at which they fossilized was necessarily lower than the available
input. In this way, errors accumulated and linguistic usages in an isolated environment such
as Canaan declined. Seen in this way, without the native input, the formation of the Amarna
linguistic system was not only possible but inevitable.
The concept of a progressive, generational fossilization is supported by the evidence from the
Taanach letters. As seen in 4.2, these letters contain many examples of Amarna-like forms
and usages. These Canaanite features show that already a few generations before the Amarna
age, the local cuneiform tradition was heavily influenced by local languages. However, some
Akkadian forms are still used properly and not all Canaanite usages made their way into the
language of the Taanach letters. For example, there are no examples of the optative yaqtul
which is widespread in the Amarna letters or forms which might be interpreted as yaqtula.
96
Instead, the Imperative or the Precative is used to convey demands and the Ventive is often
spelled with the final -am sign, as the mimation is in general preserved. Moreover, Taanach
1:10 seems to properly use a durative with the present meaning, unless a performative usage
is intended: a-nu-ma a-na-˹din˺-[n]a ―so now I am givi[ng] over.‖ It is implausible that all
these features would have been the result of fossilization in an individual scribe because the
Taanach letters originate from more than one scribe and show shared usages. Therefore, the
Taanach letters provide a snapshot of generational fossilization, a historical process which
eventually led to the full development of a linguistic system found in the Amarna letters, its
spread through the region and its institutionalization as the common means of local
communication.
The inevitability of the creation of the Amarna interlanguage in Canaan is also the result of
morphological similarities between Akkadian, the target language, and the native tongue of
the scribes. These similarities activated the second factor responsible for the formation of the
Amarna interlanguage: transfer. The similarities had to lead the Canaanite scribes to
interlingual identifications and consequently to the phenomenon of ―transfer to somewhere.‖
In fact, there are four morphological similarities shared by the Akkadian and West Semitic
verbal systems. However, in spite of their similar morphology, their meanings are different.
The scenario of ―transfer to somewhere‖ postulates two stages: the mistaken assignment of
the Canaanite usages to the morphologically similar Akkadian forms and the successive
transformation of the Akkadian paradigm to become closer to the Canaanite system. These
two stages might reflect two successive phases of the development of the Amarna
interlanguage or the internal mechanisms of a process which took place within one
generation or a scribal school. Based on a common historical reconstruction of the West
Semitic verbal system (Hasselbach and Huehnergard 2008, 416), it is possible to hypothesize
four cases of ―transfer to somewhere‖ that contributed to the formation of the Amarna
interlanguage.
Stative paris/parsāku and Suffix Conjugation qatal/qatalti: The two paradigms in both
languages are similar, the major exception being the 1 cs. The Akkadian Stative usually
expresses the condition or state that is the result of the action of the verb but it is also used in
a transitive construction, mostly with verbs of holding, grasping, or seizing, and with them it
expresses possession. Risking a circular argumentation and judging mostly from the Amarna
97
letters, already in the Late Bronze Age the West Semitic/Canaanite suffix conjugation was
used transitively in reference to past actions. It is probable that it still denoted states,
especially with verbs having a stative lexical aspect. This being the state of affairs, the cause
of the transfer of the functions of the Canaanite suffix conjugation to the Akkadian Stative
was not only their morphological similarity but also a marginal overlap of their function,
assuming that peripheral scribes were familiar with its transitive use.
iprus and yaqtul: The morphology of these two conjugations is different in details (prefix
vowels, 3 ms and 3 mp prefixes) but they share the common characteristic of the zero ending
which distinguishes them from other forms. Since yaqtul is the Proto-Semitic perfective form
par excellence, its use for the past actions until some stage of West Semitic/Canaanite is
certain but the extent to which this use was current in the Late Bronze Age and is attested in
the Amarna interlanguage may be a matter of dispute. The assumption that it was indeed still
used with past time reference reinforces the probability of identification of the Akkadian
iprus with yaqtul, its Canaanite counterpart, and the extension of the use of iprus as the
Optative. This extension would be a case of a transfer of the Canaanite usage to the Akkadian
iprus (―to somewhere‖) because of the morphological similarity and partial overlap in use, if
the past reference of yaqtul is assumed.
Subordination Marker -u and yaqtulu: In Akkadian, the forms of the prefix conjugations
and the 3 ms Stative receive the suffix -u (the subordination marker) in subordinate clauses,
unless the verb has another verbal ending, while West Semitic/Canaanite possesses a
conjugation marked by final -u, yaqtulu. In particular, iprus in a subordinate context (iprusu),
especially in temporal-circumstantial clauses, is subjected to identification as the West
Semitic yaqtulu form since yaqtulu may also function as a past circumstantial form.
Similarly, a temporal clause referring to the future (for example, ―until I come‖) will have a
form ending in -u in both Akkadian and Canaanite, albeit for different reasons. The case in
which both language uses iprusu and yaqtulu in the same syntactic structures but with
different meanings would lead to identification of the two forms, the use of iprusu with the
meaning proper to yaqtulu, and later, to the use of yaqtulu with its Canaanite morphology.14
14 A clear example of such a kind occurs in 365:11 where the Akkadian lexeme is glossed by its
Canaanite counterpart: er-ri-šu \ aḫ-ri-šu ―I am cultivating.‖ This gloss shows that the scribe is aware of the
98
The effects of similarity between iprusu and yaqtulu are not limited to the transfer of the
latter to the Amarna interlanguage. Once the temporal marking is identified with the use of
external morphemes (iprus vs. iprusu), it becomes impossible for the second language
learners (the scribes) to discover the logic and the functions of the Akkadian verbal system
with its oppositions iprus/iptaras vs. iparras, which are based on internal marking.
Consequently, as internal marking becomes meaningless, the various forms become used
outside of their context, in a haphazard manner. This is precisely the case found in the
Amarna letters which uses the Akkadian forms as inflectional bases rather than meaningful
forms.
The Ventive -a(m) and yaqtula: With the fall of mimation, the Akkadian forms of the prefix
conjugations with the Ventive -a started to resemble the forms of the West Semitic
conjugation yaqtula. Also in this case, the identification of the Akkadian form with the
Canaanite was based not solely on morphology but also on the occurrences of the two
morphemes in similar environments, albeit with a different function in every language. In
fact, the yaqtula forms are used often in requests for the benefit of the speaker and imply
movement of people or goods toward him. The frequent form yu-wa-ši-ra is a case in point:
the final /a/ can be parsed as the marker of the Canaanite volitive conjugation yaqtula or as
the Akkadian Ventive, which is justified by the movement of the requested goods toward the
speaker. In other words, in the context of a request, the Canaanite scribes would identify a
properly used Akkadian Ventive as the marker of their own conjugation yaqtula. In turn, this
misidentification would lead to the transfer of the Canaanite yaqtula conjugation into the
Amarna interlanguage.
It is important to observe that the similarities between Akkadian and Canaanite affect all four
Canaanite conjugations and thus allow them to be transferred to the interlanguage in a
systemic manner. This is indeed the case with the Amarna interlanguage in which the
Akkadian verbal system is replaced with the Canaanite one almost in toto. Assuming that the
West Semitic dialects of the Late Bronze Canaan were lacking the directive-volitive form
with the prefix /l/, the Precative (liprus) is the only genuine Akkadian form mastered and
actively used by the Canaanite scribes.
lexical difference between his own native language and the language his writes but he identifies his native
yaqtulu with the form ending in -u in the written interlanguage.
99
The hypothesis of the ―transfer to somewhere‖ presented above explains also why it is
precisely the verbal system which is affected by the influence of the native tongue of the
scribes. In fact, although the similarities between the two languages in the realm of nominal
morphology are extensive, the syntactic and semantic functions assumed by individual
morphemes (case markers etc.) are much alike. In this case the similarity of morphology,
syntax and semantics, rather than leading to transfer, facilitated the successful learning of the
Akkadian system.
Beside the morphological similarities, the complexity of the verbal system, the highly
contextual choice of the forms to be used in individual contexts, and the possibility of using
alternative forms in the same syntactic environments with only subtle changes in the meaning
are other causes which make precisely the verbal system more susceptible to learning
difficulties and transfer. Direct evidence for such a state of matters comes from several Late
Bronze Age letters from Qatna. It seems that the scribes glossed in Hurrian the Akkadian
verbs which they perceived as more difficult while they left without glosses basic Akkadian
verbs which could be well understood by any scribe. The fact that some verbs are only in
Hurrian shows that both the writer and the recipient knew Hurrian (Richter 2005, 115). A
good illustration of this practice comes from the letter of Ḫannutti and Takuwa (Richter and
Lange 2012, 55):
1a-na
lid-a-an-da
ù a-na LÚ<.MEŠ>
mar-ia-ni-na
um-ma lḫa-an-nu-ut-ti
ù um-ma ltá-ku-wa
5ŠEŠ-ka bu-lu-uṭ
a-na UGU-ku-nu lu-ú šul-mu
To Idadda and the mariannū, thus Ḫannutti
and thus Takuwa, your brother: Live! Well-
being to you!
LÚDUMU KIN
ri-šu
ša dUTUx
ši LUGAL it-tal-kam
um-ma šu-ma URU
qàṭ-na
10du4-un-ni-in-ku-nu
A messenger of His Majesty, the King,
came. Thus he: ―Keep Qatna strong until I
arrive!‖ But now the town of Armatte
changed (alliance). This (city) is the one
that we drove away and he (Šuppiluliuma
100
\ da-ab-be-eš
a-di a-na-ku a-kaš-ša10-du
ù i-na-an-na
URUar-ma-at-te
15i-ša10-an-na-ú
\ ú-lu-ḫu-ši
ù ni-bá-kà-nu
\ WA-ga-nu-ša10-še-na-an
\ ul-lu-ḫu-ša10-aš-še
I) destroyed (it).
20ù um-ma
ltá-ku-wa
a-nu-um-ma šur-ru-um-ma
ša ŠÀ-ia i-pu-šu-ni7
ù ša at-tu4-nu \ za-za-al-ki-mu
lu-ú la i-bá-aš-ši
25ù ÉRIN.MEŠ ḫu-ra-te
ša10-nu-ú \ ut-ḫa-na-a
na-ṣi-ra ša URU
qàṭ-na
ù i-na aš-ra-nu
ÉRIN.MEŠ ḫu-ra-te \ it-ḫu-ni
30ù at-tù-nu
\ za-za-lu-uk-ku a-na-ṣa-ru!
ù ṭup-pu a-na pa-ni
LÚ.MEŠmar-ia-ni-na
And thus Takuwa: Look, the troops act at
my will. Your despair is out of place! Other
ḫurādu-troops are on their way. The
ḫurādu-troops will take over the protection
of Qatna there. Do not despair! I will
protect (you). Show this tablet to the
mariannū!15
15
The translation is based on Richter and Lange 2012, 56-57 and the comments there.
101
\ ú-ru-uš-te
The relevance of this text to the Amarna interlanguage does not end with showing that it was
precisely the verbal system that created the biggest difficulties for the scribes. The verb a-na-
ṣa-ru! in line 31 seems to be a 1cs yaqtulu, a form well known from the Amarna letters from
Canaan. If so, it constitutes another example of an occasional Amarna-like feature found
outside the corpus of the cuneiform documents from Canaan.
The framework of second language acquisition theories and treatment of the Amarna
linguistic system as scribal interlanguage have the explanatory power to account for other
phenomena and features found in Western Peripheral Akkadian sources. This fact adds to the
credibility of the entire approach to these sources as reflecting a scribal language rather than
language contact.
The first characteristic of Western Peripheral Akkadian which is explained within the second
language acquisition framework is the occasional presence of West Semitic or Amarna-like
forms in documents that come from regions where West Semitic languages were not spoken
as native tongues, as documented in 4.2. The presence of these features cannot be the result
of the influence of the native tongue or language contact because West Semitic was not
spoken in the locations where texts with these features originated, such as Egypt or Cyprus. It
is also hardly probable that occasional contact with the native speakers of these languages
would lead the scribes to the adoption of features of the spoken West Semitic languages to
their written language. To understand how these features spread to other corpora, it is
necessary to recall the fact that for non-native speakers, such as peripheral scribes, all
documents which they handled constituted at the same time linguistic input for their learning
process. Since they were not native speakers, their ability to judge the grammaticality of the
texts they read was limited and they easily could consider as normative all the usages found
in the letters that arrived in their own scribal center. Consequently, the scribes had to be
prone to the adoption of all, also non-normative, forms and usages occurring in the texts
which circulated between various cuneiform centers. In this way West Semitic features
travelled from one center to another in the measure they occurred in the texts which were
exchanged throughout the region and necessarily constituted linguistic input for the scribes.
102
The second characteristic of Western Peripheral Akkadian which naturally fits its nature as
the scribal language of second language learners is the correlation between the quality of the
linguistic input, the benefits of interaction with native speakers of Akkadian, and the
differences in the level of the interlanguage between Canaan and other regions. As observed
in 4.2, the access to high and diversified learning materials and to native speakers permitted
peripheral scribes to maintain an acceptable knowledge of Akkadian, in particular of its
verbal system and syntax. An overview of the learning materials from Canaan shows that
they consisted mostly of lexical lists. This fact is reflected directly in the Amarna letters. In
fact, it is possible to learn vocabulary using lexical lists but it is impossible to acquire the
grammar of a language without access to texts, preferable literary, which provide the learner
with exposure to the richness of grammar, syntactic and stylistic usages of the studied
language. As seen in the Amarna letters, the local scribes were able to acquire Akkadian
vocabulary properly from lexical lists but failed in the realm of grammar, in particular of the
verbal system and word order, to which they had limited access because of the lack of high
quality input from the literary texts.
These considerations clearly indicate that the Amarna linguistic system should be viewed as
an interlanguage developed though generations of Canaanite scribes. This interlanguage
eventually become institutionalized on the level of local schools and became their shared
heredity, and possibly a mark of their own scribal tradition and identity. The idea of
generational fossilization and the concept of transfer are two linguistic mechanisms
responsible for the creation of the Amarna interlanguage. This model which uses second
language acquisition as its framework fits the broader picture of Western Peripheral
Akkadian. It is a dynamic model which allows variations depending on the school and the
individual scribe, different levels in the proficiency and grammatical usages as well as the
exchange and introduction of new features with the arrival of scribes schooled elsewhere.
Moreover, the Amarna letters from Canaan themselves provide additional evidence for the
scribal nature of this interlanguage, that is, its use by the scribes and the features which
testify to its origin in scribal schools.
Second language learners are necessarily limited in their abilities to express themselves
freely in the second language and use a number of strategies to remedy their limitations. One
of them is the creation of new forms which employ elements of the grammar and lexicon of
103
the target language and show some understanding of its derivational strategies.16
In the realm
of the verbal system, there are at least three examples of scribal creativity which address the
limited knowledge of the Akkadian lexicon. The first example is the denominative verb
warādu, ―to serve‖ derived from Akkadian wardu, ―servant.‖ It occurs in 84:30, 114:66,
147:42, 241:11, 250:51.59, 257:18.20, 264:24, 294:33, 296:27 and 300:20. Since this verb is
unattested outside the Amarna letters, it must be considered as a lexical innovation which
was created in local schools. Its spread to different cities, but only in Canaan, fits the picture
of a closed scribal tradition in which the scribes were trained locally and had contact only
with other schools and scribes within Canaan. Similar to the creation of the verb warādu is
the use of the N stem of the verb epēšu ―to do‖ in the expression nenpušu ana meaning "to
side with a person or a country," "to ally with." This usage is also an innovation known only
from the Amarna letters from Canaan. It may represent the understanding of nenpušu as the
passive form ―to be done for/in favour of‖ and the extension of this meaning to include the
making of an alliance. In any case, it is a scribal innovation which spread throughout the
local schools and it proves that the Amarna linguistic system is a result of processes that
affected the language and not the writing system, as pointed out by Gianto (2009) against von
Dassow‘s hypothesis of alloglottography. Finally, the scribe of a Byblos letter resorts to an
ad-hoc creation of a verb from the adverb arḫiš ―soon‖ with the meaning ―to hasten‖: ya-ar-
ḫi-ša ―may he hasten‖ (137:97). Also this verb is an innovation typical for the second
language learners and does not indicate that the Amarna interlanguage had to be spoken, pace
Izre‘el (2012, 193).
Another feature of second language acquisition that is recognizable in the Amarna
interlanguage is ―learning in chunks.‖ In fact, learners tend to acquire groups of words as a
semantic unit, especially in the initial stages of learning, and continue to string these words
together also when their fluency increases (Loewen and Reinders 2011, 24). The Amarna
letters from Canaan are, of course, full of formulaic expressions and some letters even give
the impression of being a pastiche of few fixed formulas rather than the work of a fluent
scribe. This kind of formulaic composition can be explained by the limitations of the
16 The easiest strategy is the use of the native language while communicating in the target language. This
strategy is marginal in the Amarna letters from Canaan. An example of it occurs in 265:8 where the scribe uses
the noun šu-lu-uḫ-ta ―shipment,‖ presumably a word from his own native language.
104
epistolary genre and its constantly reoccurring terms; nevertheless it still testifies to the
limited active knowledge in language proficiency which is characteristic of learners who face
fossilization, as was the case with the Canaanites scribes. Given the possibility of different
reasons behind the use of formulaic expressions, these expressions cannot be a convincing
proof of learning in chunks pointing to the nature of the Amarna linguistic system as the
learner‘s interlanguage. The evidence for learning in chunks is provided rather by the
occurrence of certain verbs only in one, standard expression. These verbs were acquired as
part of the chunk and remained stored in the scribe's memory as a chunk rather than as part of
his active lexicon. The following example of a learning chunk from the Amarna letters was
certainly memorized by the scribes as a chunk since it has a proverbial nature (Moran 1992,
144): the comparison of the abandoned field to a wife without a husband occurs in 74:17-19
(17
A.ŠÀ-ia aš-ša-ta 18
ša la mu-ta ma-ši-ìl aš-šum ba-li 19
i-ri-ši-im ―My field resembles a
woman without a husband because of lack of a cultivator‖) and is repeated with minor
variations in 75:15-17, 81:37-38, and 90:42-44. The verb mašālu ―to resemble‖ occurs in the
letters from Canaan only in this comparison and hence was memorized as a part of the entire
proverb rather than as an independent lexeme. Similar is the case of the forms of the verb
riāḫu ―to remain‖ which is used exclusively by the Byblian scribes with only ―Gubla‖ or
―cities‖ as its subject (74:22, 76:9, 78:11, 79:27, 91:21, 103:12.49.54, 124:10, 129:18).
Another example which points out to learning in chunks is the use of an idiosyncratic passive
form a-pé-eš ―was done‖ exclusively with the word ip-šu ―deed‖ as its subject in 81:18-19,
108:19, 122:41-43 and 123:10-12. Again, the verbal form in question was memorized as part
of a chunk and not actively produced as part of a paradigm.
The scribal nature of the Amarna interlanguage is further indicated by certain forms and
spellings which are most easily explained as the result of phonetic processes and thus
indicate that the Amarna letters ―represent a language that can be decoded phonemically
rather than solely graphemically‖ (Izre‘el 2012, 189). These forms are taken by some
scholars as evidence for the Amarna interlanguage being a spoken language. This assessment
of the evidence must necessarily provoke opposition because this claim requires
hypothesizing a community of speakers, the circumstances in which it was used, and the
modes of its transmission from one generation of speakers to another. Such a comprehensive
hypothesis about the existence of a community which would use the spoken Amarna
105
interlanguage is hardly sustainable.17
At the same time, one cannot dismiss the evidence for
the phonetic reality behind the Amarna letters. In fact, such evidence is multiple.
Two pieces of evidence brought forth by Izre‘el (2012, 191) are particularly convincing. The
first one consists in the forms which exhibit vowel deletion where it does not occur in core
Akkadian, such as ti-ir-bu ―you enter‖ (102:11), or ˹ir˺-bu-nim ―they enter‖ (127:22), and ti-
ìš-tap-ru-na (117:8) ―you write‖ (with the Energic) vs. ti-ìš-ta-pa-ru (117:31) ―you write‖
(without the Energic). To these examples, one may add few 3 ms qatal forms with the final
/a/ which also exhibit deletion of the vowel after the second radical: ma-an-ga (106:15), pal-
ḫa (129:82), ḫa-an-pa (288:7), and dam-qá (326:18). Since vowel deletion is a phonetic
process, it is improbable that these forms would have been generated in writing. A second
argument in support of the phonetic reality of the Amarna interlanguage consists in the
spellings which seem to show the assimilation of the Canaanite Energic ending to the
following Akkadian pronominal suffix and may testify to the phonetic process of assimilation
nC → CC. Examples include: iš-ti-mu-uš-šu (320:20), nu-ub-ba-lu-uš-šu (245:7), ni-ik-šu-
du-um-mi (245:5) and ú-ta-aš-ša-ru-uš-šu (245:29).
The opposite process of dissimilation occurs in forms of the verb magāgu ―to be distraught‖
ma-an-ga (106:15), ma-a-ga-mi (362:13, error for ma-an-ga or māga = manga? See Moran
1992, 360-361) and ma-an-ga-am-mi (362:15). If these forms derive indeed from the verb
magāgu, they can be interpreted as the 3 ms qatal forms with the final /a/ and the elided
vowel in the second syllable which lead to dissimilation of a geminated consonant: *magag
or *magig + a > magga > manga. The spelling ma-an-ṣa-ar-tu, a by-form of maṣṣartu
―guard,‖ attested in 238:11, 244:35 and Taanach 6, line 7 (Horowitz, Oshima, and Sanders
2006, 141) may represent another case of a similar dissimilation (CC > nC) which took place
in Akkadian in Canaan. The same dissimilation CC > nC seems to occur also in some verbal
forms in the letters from Tyre: i-na-an-ṣur (150:9), a-na-an-ṣúr (151:6), i-na-an-din-ni
(154:13), and i-na-an-din-nu-nim (155:13). Since dissimilation is a phonological
phenomenon, these forms would further indicate the spoken reality of the Amarna
17 Kossmann makes a similar observation: ―We do not know much about the origin of the Amarna-
Akkadian jargon. It is probable that it originated in intellectual circles (scribes) and it is doubtful whether it was
ever a spoken language‖ (1994, 171).
106
interlanguage.18
However, it is also possible that they were learned as such from lexical lists
and consequently cannot alone constitute a conclusive argument in the present discussion.
Finally, the distribution of the vowels /e/ and /i/ was invoked by Izre‘el (1987; 2012, 190-
191) as evidence of phonological rules and thus of the spoken nature of the Amarna linguistic
system. However, the examples discussed by him cannot be conclusive because of broader
issues with the status of the vowels /e/ and /i/ in the Amarna interlanguage. In fact, the signs
which in the Mesopotamian syllabary differentiate between /e/ and /i/ are often used
interchangeably in the Amarna letters. The interchangeability of the signs suggests that the
assumption that the scribes learned them with the values that are commonly assigned to them
in Labat‘s Manuel d'épigraphie akkadienne (Labat and Malbran-Labat 2002) is doubtful. For
example, the sign TE is at times used where the vowel /i/ is expected, as in the 1 cs qatal
ending -ti: qa-be-te (94:10), ma-qa-ta-te (138:4), i-ba-ša-te (230:5.6.14), uš-ši-ir-te (265:4),
da-ag-la-te (292:8.9.11), ša-mi-te (362:5), and in the prefix of the prefixed conjugations: te-
la-ku (203:19, 204:20), te-la-ku-na (249:5), te-da-ga-lu (197:41), te-eq-bu-na (94:14,
197:16.23, 362:21), te-eq-bu-ni (362:25), te-ma-ḫa-ṣú-nu (271:21), te-ed-din-na (246:6*), te-
na-mu-šu (292:17), te-na-ṣa-ru (180:8), te-pa-ṭi4-ru-na (362:35). To build a fuller picture it is
necessary to consider also other cases in which the same word is spelled interchangeably
with the /e/ and /i/ signs. A very interesting case is provided by the spellings of the word
―heavens‖ in the formulaic expression ―the sun from heaven,‖ referring to the pharaoh in
many letters, mostly from southern Canaan. The usual spelling is dsa-me-i (298:3.10,
303:3.9.16, 305:2.10). In some cases, the last sign is omitted and the word is spelled dsa-me
(233:2.11, 300:3.28, 311:321:4.19, 323:3.13.21), In several instances, these two spellings
occur in the same letter (328:3 vs 12, 322:24 vs. 3.10). In some letters, the final sign is E:
dsa-me-e (232:19, 234:2, 235:5, 320:4). In few letters, this word is written with the final -mi:
dsa-mi (316:7, 324:3, 325:2.14.22). Finally, letter 331 spells
dsa-mi in line 9 but
dsa-me in
line 23. Very illuminating are also cases of alternative spellings of the same personal names:
lbi-e-ia (292:42.50) vs.
lbi-i-ia (294:16.24.30) and
fgu-la-te (292:42, 294:17) vs.
fgu-la-ti
(294:24). It is noteworthy that the alternative spellings of the second name occur in the same
letter. There are also several instances in which other words are spelled alternatively only a
few lines apart: yi-ìš-me (103:5) vs. yi-ìš-mi (103:23.32), yi-ìš-me (107:25) vs. yi-ìš-mi
18
For various examples of dissimilation in spoken ancient Semitic languages see Lipiński 2006.
107
(107:35), iš-te-me (141:18) vs. iš-te-mi (141:23), [e]š[-ti-mu] (218:7) vs. iš-ti-mu (218:13), i-
pu-uš-me (250:16) vs. i-pu-uš-mi (250:41), la-a-me (244:15.19.37) vs. la-a-mi (244:13), ki-it-
mi (252:10) vs. ki-it-me (252:10) and el-te-qé (280:22) vs. el-ti-qé (280:26). In some cases,
there is a mismatch between the vowels in two consecutive vowels, as in it-te-ia (209:8,
267:20). Similar to these alternative spelling and to the spellings of the word ―heavens‖ are
cases in which a sign is followed by the vowel which does not match its ―main‖ Akkadian
value, as in a-na-ku-mi-e (137:14), ti-e-te-pu-š[u-na] (129:88), ni-e-ta-lí (178:4), and te-i-ṣa
(362:30). Because most examples presented here concern the signs TE and ME, it is possible
that their use with the readings ti7 and mì is an extension of their values triggered by analogy
with other signs, such as IB or GI, which do not distinguish between the readings with the
vowels /e/ and /i/. However, since these vowels most probably did not constitute a minimal
pair in the native tongue of the scribes, it may be concluded that the lack of a clearly
distinguishable pronunciation of the signs with /e/ and /i/ by the Canaanite scribes
contributed to the creation of the alternative spellings. Consequently, seen in their totality,
the spellings of /e/ and /i/ can be taken as an argument of favor of the spoken reality behind
the Amarna interlanguage but not according to the lines of argumentation advanced by
Izre‘el, who proposed phonetic rules dictating various writings.
All the above discussed forms indicate an oral reality behind the Amarna letters, but at the
same time it is impossible to propose that the Amarna interlanguage was spoken as if it were
a natural language. One must therefore ask what kind of oral reality was at work. In order to
address this question, it is necessary to abandon the false dichotomy of the written versus the
oral and to take into account the way in which cuneiform was read. In Mesopotamia, as in
other ancient cultures, reading implied pronunciation of the text because silent reading was
unknown. This is evidenced by the use of verbs which mean ―to speak‖ or ―to cry out‖ in
reference to reading, qabû and šasû in Akkadian or קרא in Hebrew and Aramaic (Grayson
2000). Similarly, the fact that learning implied reading tablets sotto voce explains why in a
Neo-Babylonian document from Uruk the prohibition of teaching temple slaves is formulated
in terms of the prohibition to recite the tablets (Beaulieu 1992). It is reasonable to assume
that Canaanite scribes did not differ from their Mesopotamian colleagues and that they also
108
read cuneiform aloud.19
Hence, the Amarna interlanguage had to be pronounced both in the
schools where pronunciation of the individual signs, words and phrases was part of everyday
learning, and in the daily practice of the scribes, when they would read the letters they
composed to their master to check them and make necessary corrections, as was practiced in
Mesopotamian (Charpin 2010, 119).20
The fact that the Amarna interlanguage was pronounced not only explains the forms and
spellings discussed earlier but also constitutes an additional mechanism or circumstance
which contributed to the introduction and permanence of the Canaanite forms. While reading
aloud the letters or other documents, the scribes would naturally judge the correctness of the
forms contained in them not only on the basis of their declarative knowledge of Akkadian but
also on the basis of how a word sounded to them. The second criterion would entail the use
of the native language as a reference and would result in the introduction of forms similar to
the native language to the scribal interlanguage because these forms would sound more
natural and ―correct‖ to the scribes.
Not the spoken but pronounced nature of the Amarna interlanguage is certainly an important
argument in favor of the scholastic origin of this linguistic system and its scribal habitat. It is
also important to observe that the Amarna letters from Canaan constitute actual
correspondence between scribes rather than between the Canaanite kinglets and the pharaoh.
In fact, they attest to the following scheme of communication: the local ruler would orally
convey his message and instructions to the scribe who in turn would put them in writing in
the form of the letter. At the Egyptian court, another scribe would present the message of the
letter to the pharaoh. The body of the letter is therefore a report of the scribe to another scribe
about what the kinglet said. Consequently, the entire letter is a reported speech and the time
of the utterance of the verbs is given by the imaginary moment when the kinglet would
19 Akkadian was pronounced also at Emar, as is clear from several spellings, in particular sandhi writings
and variants of a few words with /a/ and /u/, collected by Ikeda (2010). His conclusion, however, on the basis of
few spellings, the presence of one inflected logogram and the deictic use of annû which represent a common
Peripheral Akkadian idiosyncrasy, that Akkadian was spoken at Emar, is unwarranted.
20 The scribes also were able to read the logograms as it is clear from the gloss in 136:28 DÙG.GA \
TU.KA (Akkadian ṭābūtu ―goodness,‖ here in reference to ―alliance of friendship‖) which provides the
pronunciation of the logogram. Therefore, they knew that the logograms were actual words and not only graphic
symbols.
109
pronounce his message. Internal evidence from the Amarna letters support this reconstruction
of the communication scheme.
The most straightforward indication of the scribe‘s role is provided by postscripts in the
Jerusalem letters in which ʿAbdi-Ḫeba directly addresses the Egyptian scribe and asks for his
intercession with the pharaoh.21
For example, in letter no. 287, he asks to present his words to
the pharaoh with eloquence and to convince him about the Kašites‘ guilt:
64-70Say to the scribe of the king, my lord: Message of ʿAbdi-Ḫeba, your
servant. I fall at (your) feet. I am your servant. Present eloquent words to
the king, my lord: I am a soldier of the king. I am always yours.
71-78And please make the Kašites responsible for the evil deed. I was almost
killed by the Kašites [i]n my own house. May the king [make an inquiry] in
the[ir] regard. [May the kin]g, my lord, [provide] for th[em. 7 t]imes and 7
times may the king, my lord, [provide] for me (Moran 1992, 328-329).
Similar postscripts directed to the royal scribe are found also in other Jerusalem letters,
including 288 and 289. Another postscript to the royal scribe (Albright 1946, 20-21) occurs
in 316:16-25 but it testifies rather to the importance and influence of the court scribe rather
than his role in the epistolary exchange.
The way in which the letters were redacted transpires also from the formulation of the
heading of several letters, in particular from the verbal forms used in them. Instead of the
widespread structures, such as ana ―addressee‖ umma ―sender‖ or ana ―addressee‖ qibī-ma
umma ―sender‖ (Mynářová 2007, 123), a number of letters begins with the name of the
sender followed by the verb iqbi ―he said‖ which is often translated in the present ―he says‖
because of the epistolary context. For example, letter 74 starts with the following heading:
1mri-ib-ad-da iq-bi a-na EN-li-šu
2LUGAL KUR.KUR LUGAL GAL LUGAL ta-am-ḫa-ar
―Rib-Hadda said to his lord, king of all countries, Great King, King of Battle.‖ Analogous
headings occur also in 68, 76, 78, 79, 83, 88, 89, 92, 105, 105, 106 and 107. Seen in its locus
in vita, rather than being an example of ―Koinzidenfall‖ (Moran 1992, XXIX, 143), the form
21 The role of the scribe in the Amarna letters and other letters from Mesopotamia was highlighted by
Oppenheim (1965), albeit from a different perspective as he pointed out to the importance of the office held by
the court scribe or the royal secretary.
110
of the verb iqbi indicates that the words of the message that follows were said by the king
prior to the redaction of the letter. Interpreted from the perspective of the scribe who
participated in the epistolary exchange, the heading means ―my king said to your king what
follows.‖ That iqbi ―he said‖ introduces a scribal report of the kinglet‘s words is most
obvious in the letter Dagantakala (317) in which this verb occurs in the middle of the body of
the letter (317:14) and thus must be clearly taken as the introduction of a quotation. Similar
in meaning must also be these headings which use the past tense of the verb šapāru ―he sent‖
instead of iqbi ―he said‖ (94, 108, 116, 119, 121, 122, 123). It may be hypothesized that this
―formula of the report‖ originated in the legal language. In fact, some documents are redacted
in the form of reports of the words said by the participants in a transaction or by the person
bequeathing property in a last will and employ the same verb iqbi ―he said,‖ or the plural
iqbû ―they said.‖ In Peripheral Akkadian, such formulations are found, for example, in the
testaments and sales from Emar (Beckman 1996, 3, 9-14, 17-18, 27-28, 31-32, 43-44, 47-47,
58-61, 71-72, 76-77, 82-83, 96-97). It seems, therefore, that from the scribe‘s perspective, the
letter was a report containing the king‘s words, in a manner similar to legal documents which
reported the words said under the oath. In fact, the same formulas which refer the actual
action of uttering the content which was subsequently recorded on clay are used in both
cases. Consequently, the verbs in the past tense that occur in some heading of the Amarna
letters are not cases of ―Koinzidenzfall,‖ but examples of their regular meaning which testify
to the way in which the letter was composed.
The conclusion that the letters were redacted by the scribes rather than dictated by the ruler
may be inferred from the frequent usage of introducing a new topic or section of a letter with
the adverb ša-ni-tam ―secondly,‖ ―moreover.‖ The use of dividing the message of the letter
into thematic sections reflects not only the need for its logical organization but also the way
in which the scribe took notes from the ruler in preparation for writing the letter. The scribes
would normally take notes in the form of a ―memorandum‖ in which every new topic was
introduced by the word aš-šum ―concerning,‖ and with the verb often in the infinitive. It is
possible that the Amarna scribes followed this way of working which is well known from
Mari (Joannès 1984, 87-104, Joannès 1985). When writing the actual letter, they would
change the infinitive into the appropriate finite verbal forms, and the word aš-šum, which
served as the item marker in a memorandum, into the adverb ša-ni-tam which was more
111
appropriate in the letter. The reconstruction of such a scenario is supported by Amarna letter
no. 308 which actually conserves the form of a memorandum on the reverse preceded by the
usual formulas of obeisance on the obverse:
1[ep-ri ša] G[Ì]R.ME[Š-ka]
2[
lúqar-tab-b]i
š[a] ANŠE.KUR.RA.MEŠ-ka4 3[a-na
G]ÌR.[ME]Š LUGAL EN-ia
4[DINGIR.MEŠ]-ia [
dUTU]-ia
dUT[U]
5[ša]
iš-[tu d]sa-mì-i
6[7]-šu [u 7-t]a-a-an
7lu-ú iš-
t[a-ḫa-]ḫ[i]-in
… [the dirt at your] f[ee]t, [the groo]m o[f]
your horses. I indeed pr[ost]r[a]te myself
[at the fe]e[t] of the king, my lord, my
[god], my [Sun], the Su[n] fr[om] the sky,
[7] times [and 7 ti]mes.
2ru aš-šum la-ma-[a]d
3r[LUGAL] EN-ia
[dU]TU-[ia]
4raš-šum na-da-an
5rANŠE.KUR.RA.MEŠ a-na ÌR-k[a4]
6ra-na
na-ṣa-ri [ma-ṣ]a-a[r] 7r
LUGAL EN-ia
[dUT]U
8rša iš-[tu
ds]a-mì-i
9ru a-na i[z]-zi-
i[r]
… and concerning the [king], my lord, [my
S]un to lea[r]n. Concerning the horses to
give to yo[ur] servant to keep [the gu]ar[d]
for the king, my lord, [the Su]n fro[m the
s]ky and to h[e]l[p] (?) …
The voice of the scribe as the actual author of the Amarna letters is most visible in a letter
from Satatna, the ruler of Akka (233). The superscript, greetings and obeisance formula are
developed but at the same time standard and betray a well educated scribe. However, the
body of the letter is formulated in an unusual manner. Instead of using the first person, as
other similar letters, this letters employs the third person and consequently it looks like the
scribe‘s report about the kinglet‘s obedient attitude rather than the actual message of the
ruler:
1a-na LUGAL-r[i EN-i]a
2dUTU iš-tu [
dsa-
m]e 3qí-bí-ma
4um-ma
msà-ta-at-na
5LÚ
uruak-ka
ki ÌR-ka
6ÌR ša LUGAL-ri
7ù
SAḪAR.MEŠ ša 2 GÌR.MEŠ-šu 8KI.MEŠ
ša ka-pa-ši-šu 9a-na GÌR.MEŠ LUGAL-ri
10EN-ia DINGIR.MEŠ-ia
11dUTU iš-tu
dsa-
me 12
7-šu 7-ta-a-an 13
uš-ḫe-ḫi-in ù 14
ka-ba-
Say to the king [m]y [lord], the Sun from
[the sky]: Message of Satatna, the ruler of
Akka, your servant, the servant of the king
and the dirt at his feet and the ground on
which he treads. I prostrate myself at the
feet of the king, my lord, my god, the Sun
from the sky, 7 times and 7 times, both on
112
tu-ma 15
ù ṣi-ru-ma the stomach and on the back.
16ša ia-aš-tap-pár LUGAL
17be-lí-ia a-na
ÌR-šu 18
yi-iš-ti-mu ù 19
gáb-bi ša yi-q[a-bi]
20EN-ia ú-še-š[i-ru]
He is obeying what the king, my lord, has
written to his servant, and prepa[ring]
everything that my lord has order[ed]
(Moran 1992, 292).
Similarly, in letter no. 211 the scribe speaks about his ruler in the third person and even
associates himself to the ruler by using the first person plural:
1a-na LUGAL-ri EN-ia
2qí-bí-ma
3um-ma
mzi-[i]t-ri-ya-r[a]
4ÌR-ka 7 ù ši-i[b]-i-[t]a-an
5ù
uzuša-ša-lu-ma ù
6uzuUR5 a-na GÌR.MEŠ
LUGAL-ri 7EN-ia am-qut
Say to the king, my lord: Message of
Z[i]triyar[a], your servant. I fall at the feet
of the king, my lord, 7 times and s[e]v[e]n
times, both on the back and on the
stomach.
a-mur-mi 8a-na-ku ÌR ša LUGAL-ri
9EN-ia
a-na-ku ù 10
a-ba-at ša-a 11
š[a]-pár LU[GAL
EN-i]a 12
[a-n]a ÌR-š[u] 13
[y]i-ìš-te-m[i]
As I am a servant of the king, my lord, he
[ha]s obeye[d] the order that the ki[ng, m]y
[lord], s[e]nt [t]o h[is] servant.
14ÌR LUGAL-ri a-na-k[u]
15EN-ia a-mur
LUGAL 16
ki-i-ma dUTU iš-tu4
17AN.ḪI.A \\
ša-mu-ma ù 18
la-a ni-la-ú 19
e-zi-ib a-ba-at
20LUGAL-ri EN-ia
21ù
lúMAŠKÍM
22 ša-a
ša-ak-na-t[a] 23
UGU-ia 24
ni-ìš-mu a-na
25ša-a-šu
I a[m] the servant of the king, my lord. As
the king is like the Sun from the sky: ša-
mu-ma, we are unable to ignore the order
of the king, my lord, and we obey the
commissioner that you have place[d] over
me (Moran 1992, 282).
Finally, scribal control over the communication between the pharaoh and the Canaanite
kinglets is strongly suggested by the sharp contrast between frequent references to the
messengers‘ movement and activities reported in the Amarna letters from the great powers
and the lack of comparable notices from Canaan. In fact, the international correspondence
from Amarna testifies that messengers are much more than simple bearers of letters. These
messengers served most probably as readers of the letters, interpreters, diplomats and royal
merchants (Holmes 1975). Outside of the letters between the great powers, messengers are
mentioned only in the letters from Byblos and Amurru. These mentions are to be seen as the
113
indications of their higher status than other Canaanite polities. However, it is not clear if the
messengers mentioned by Rib-Hadda performed in the same manner as other diplomatic
envoys or whether they were simple letter-carriers. In fact, Aziru might have largely relied on
the pharaoh‘s messenger rather than his own since he requested his arrival (160:33-37) and
boasted of the assistance he rendered to the king‘s envoy Ḫanʾi (161:11-34). Rib-Hadda
mentions the messenger of the king of Akka and complains that this messenger is more
honored than his own (88:46-48) and speaks about messengers sent to the pharaoh (92:12-16,
114:33, 116:13-14, 117:12-18) and to Ṣumur (108:46-47). However, the verb used by him to
describe the messengers‘ role is wabālu ―to carry,‖ which suggests that they were simple
bearers of the letters. Moreover, also Rib-Hadda mentions the messengers that came from the
pharaoh (116:21-24). In 138:77-81 he also complains that his son, who was sent as a
messenger, was not granted an audience with the pharaoh and protests against detention of
another man sent in aid of his son. The last passage seems to indicate that with the real
diplomatic mission Rib-Hadda had to send his son since other messengers he mentions were
simple letter-carriers. Finally, also Rib-Hadda had to rely on the Egyptian envoys to deliver
his correspondence too, as is clear from his request that Amanmašša stay with him so that he
might bring the tablet to the pharaoh (113:36-41). All these mentions of the messengers in
letters from Byblos and Amurru are not sufficient to change the general picture which
emerges from the comparison of the letters from the great powers and from the Canaanite
kinglets. In fact, the way in which the communication with these two groups was carried was
radically different: the messages from the great powers were delivered directly to the pharaoh
by the messengers using the letters they carried, while the letters from the rulers of Canaan
were handled by the royal scribes who transmitted news to the pharaoh at their discretion. In
this way, the Amarna letters actually involved communication between two scribes: the
Canaanite scribe reported the words of his kinglet to the scribe employed at the Egyptian
chancery who in turn would decide if the message should be transmitted to the pharaoh at all.
Consequently, the Amarna interlanguage was ―scribal‖ in yet another sense of the word.
Namely, its users were exclusively scribes and not messengers, as is assumed by those who
think that the Amarna letters from Canaan were read by the messengers themselves (pace
Izreʾel 1995b, 118). In fact, their movement and activity is not attested in the letters from the
majority of the Canaanite polities.
114
The fact that the tablets were read only by the scribes allows us to judge correctly the use of
glosses which are characteristic of the letters from Canaan. As for their purpose and
significance, they were traditionally seen as a kind of reading aids for the messengers and the
scribes who read the tablet and might not be familiar with various logograms or Akkadian
words (Krecher 1957-1971, 438). This view is challenged by von Dassow who thinks that the
Canaanite glosses indicate that the entire letter was written in Canaanite by the means of
Akkadography (2004, 654). An examination of individual glosses may lead us to
hypothesizing their function or rationale for providing a certain logogram or word with a
gloss. For example, Gianto (1995) grouped the glosses in the Byblos letters according to their
apparent function into glosses which: provide the pronunciation of the logogram (DÙG.GA \
TU.KA in 136:28, the unique example of this category), express Akkadian or Canaanite
equivalents (ḪUR.SAG \ ḫa-ar-ri in 74:20), give a more precise meaning than the glosses
term (ḫu-ḫa-ri \ ki-lu-bi in 74:46), and have a rhetorical goal of intensifying an expression by
repeating it with another word (i-ka-al \ ḫa-ṣí-ri in 138:130). Gianto‘s and similar
classifications are based on learned guesses about the reasons which might motivate the
scribe to gloss a logogram or a word in a certain manner. What they actually show is the fact
that there is no clear and unified purpose which the Amarna glosses fulfill. If so, it is
certainly possible that the glosses served in reality no immediate practical purpose. In fact,
glosses accompany many basic logograms such as AN ―heavens,‖ KA ―mouth,‖ SAḪAR
―dirt,‖ MAŠKIM ―commissioner,‖ or BA.UG5 ―to die.‖ It is hard to believe that the scribes
might need glosses to understand these logograms. It is possible that the glosses were a part
of a larger strategy of using West Semitic in the correspondence with the Egyptian court in
order to secure favorable relations with the West Semitic scribes and officials which might
work there (Siddall 2005, 93). Without excluding this speculative possibility based on larger,
historical considerations rather than the letters themselves, it seems best to approach the
problem from a more textual and scribal perspective.
Noticing that some glosses are not necessary from a functional point of view, Vita proposed
that they have a more symbolic nature and that their origin ―can perhaps be sought in the
training of the scribes, in the sense that these glosses could somehow directly reflect elements
from the lexicographical education of the scribes‖ (Vita 2012, 283). In his understanding, the
glosses were used by the scribes who wished to hint at their scribal training and professional
115
expertise (Vita 2012, 284). Again, this interpretation is possible but speculative and its author
is aware of this (Vita 2012, 283). Resting on the solid ground of the textual evidence, another
interpretation of the lexical nature of the glosses is preferable. It seems that the origin of the
glosses goes back to the vocabulary and spelling found in lexical lists which subsequently
became a part of writing practice. In other words, rather than having a symbolic purpose, the
glosses belonged to the mechanics of the script. The scribes who used to copy the lexical lists
as a part of their elementary education would drag the habit of writing the logogram with its
Akkadian or Canaanite counterpart into epistolary practice. Admittedly, this interpretation is
difficult to prove but two observations support it. First, in 244:16 there is a trilingual gloss
which looks as if it were copied directly from a lexical list: KÁ a-bu-ul-lí \ ša-aḫ-ri ―gate.‖
Since there is no functional reason for glossing a logogram in two different languages, this
gloss is an example of scribal automatisms in writing cuneiform in general and glosses in
particular. Moreover, in the Amarna letters and in other peripheral corpora (Ugarit, Emar)
there are a number of logograms followed by the syllabic spellings of the same word without
a gloss mark. These spelling are examples of the same mechanism or practise of dragging a
lexical entry into an actual text, like the glosses of the Amarna letters. The Emar examples
include the writing KI er-ṣe-tu which initially was taken by some scholars as a new word as
well as i-na KI qa-qa-ri and i-na GE6 mu-ši (Huehnergard 1991). Such writings occur also in
Ugarit, including a-na-ku BA.ÚŠ.MEŠ mi-ta-ku, NU.TUK la i-šu-ni7, SUM.MEŠ-nu ni-id-
nu and ŠU.BA.AN.TE il-qé (Huehnergard 1989, 72). Comparable in the Amarna letters are,
for example, KA pí (137:72), AN sa-me (267:14), BA.ÚŠ ni-mu-tu4 (288:60-61), [IZI].MEŠ
i-ša-ti (306:32) or BA.ÚŠ.MEŠ ni-mu-ut (362:11). In all cases, the logograms that are
glossed belong to the basic repertoire, which further strengthens their interpretation as a
phenomenon of the writing system, without special linguistic or metalinguistic significance.
In fact, as is the case with other corpora in Peripheral Akkadian, the Amarna glosses are yet
another indication of the scribal nature of the linguistic system they represent.
To conclude. Sherlock Holmes said once, ―Each fact is suggestive in itself. Together they
have a cumulative force.‖ In the same vein, none of the arguments and observations
presented here independently proves that the Amarna linguistic system is a scribal
interlanguage. However, they are suggestive of such vision and their cumulative force is
difficult to refute. Moreover, the concept of the Amarna scribal interlanguage provides the
116
most comprehensive framework which can fruitfully account for various phenomena and
features of the Amarna letters.
117
Chapter 5
Morphology of the Amarna Verb
5.1 The Paradigms of the Amarna Verbs1
5.1.1 The Mixed Morphology of the Verb in the Letters from Canaan
The morphology of the verbal forms in the Amarna letters from Canaan is generally
described as mixed. Based on the origin and function of the morphemes, it is possible to
divide the mixed features into three major categories: 1. the Canaanite prefixes and suffixes
that mark the tense, mood and aspect; 2. other Canaanite morphemes; 3. the Akkadian bases
used to create the mixed forms. These three kinds of mixed features are of different nature.
Only the first category, the Canaanite verbal prefixes and suffixes, are used by the scribes in
a systematic manner. Other Canaanites morphemes occur as ad-hoc scribal creations in order
to remediate for the scribes' unfamiliarity with Akkadian words or forms required by the
context or are a part of usages learned during the scribal training and thus constitute a part of
the common heredity of the scribal tradition. The occurrence of these items is random. Also
the use of the Akkadian bases in the mixed forms is not governed by apodictic rules. The
Canaanite verbal prefixes and suffixes can be described as paradigms but the analysis of
other morphemes requires a different theoretical and methodological approach. Therefore,
the present description will be divided into two parts: an overview of verbal paradigms and a
discussion of the morphological variation.
Akkadian and Canaanite share the basic distinction of the verbal conjugations into the
suffixed conjugation and a series of prefixed conjugations. The suffixed conjugation is
morphologically similar in both languages while the system of the prefixed conjugations is
1 The following pages are intended to be an outline of the verbal morphology of the Amarna letters. For
detailed discussions of all possible attestations of each form one must refer to Rainey 1996.
118
radically different. Generally speaking, Akkadian marks the various prefixed conjugations
using vocalic alternation and doubling, while the Canaanite makes recourse to external
marking using a system of vowels. Both languages share a system of verbal stems which
modify the root to express such notions as passivity and causality as well as the common
morphological categories of the imperative and infinitive. Both languages have certain
characteristic morphemes: Akkadian uses the Precative and the Ventive while Canaanite
possesses the Energic. There is no universal terminology that can be used to describe
individual morphological categories. Moreover, since the Amarna mixed morphology
exhibits similar forms used with different meanings, a confusion can arise easily. In order to
avoid it as well as long, clumsy denominations which specify each time the language to
which their use refers, it is opportune to devise short and unequivocal nomenclature.
Therefore, the present work employs its own terminology which is defined in appendix 5.
5.1.2 The Mixed Suffixed Conjugation Qatal
5.1.2.1 The Endings of the Mixed Suffixed Conjugation Qatal
The mixed suffixed conjugation qatal is similar to the Akkadian Stative but has the endings
and functions of the Canaanite suffix conjugation. The following table presents an outline of
the most typical forms.
Person Form Example
3 ms qa-ta-al / qa-ta-la la-ma-ad (196:30), na-da-an (366:14), da-ak
(140:11.13), ša-pár (320:18) da-a-kà (154:19), ša-pa-
ra (65:7)
3 fs qa-at-la-at ga-am-ra-at (297:10), šal-ma-at (268:9), šul-ma-at
(330:19)
2 ms qa-at-la-ta qa-la-ta (71:11, 251:8), šap-ra-ta (252:5), na-ad-na-ta
119
(82:31, 250:12), lum-da-ta (98:26)
1 cs qa-at-la-ti / qa-ta-al-ti
/ qa-at-la-ku
da-ag-la-ti (296:11.12), ir-ru-ba-ti (253:21), i-ri-ib-ti
(263:8), na-ad-na-ti (288:18.21), na-ad-na-ku (242:9),
pal-ḫa-ti (89:11), pal-ḫa-ku (102:28), e-ba-aš-ša-ti
(237:13, 238:7), du-ub-ba-ku-me (245:1), ip-pu-uš-ti
(280:12), ep-ša-ti (286:5), ip-ša-ku-me (245:36)
3 mp qa-at-lu / qa-tV-lu na-ad-nu (79:10, 287:31), ga-am-ru (75:11, 272:11),
qa-bu (121:19), la-qú (83:7.11), šal-mu (102:23), du-
bi-ru (104:27), da-nu (126:66), da-an-nu (363:29)
3 fp qa-at-la / qa-at-lu ki-na (89:14)
2 mp qa-at-la-tu-nu pa-aš-ḫa-tu-nu (74:27)
1 cp qa-at-la-nu da-na-nu-UM (362:27)
3 md qa-ta-la mi-ḫi-ṣa (335:9)
Observations:
3 ms: In a small handful of instances, 3 ms qatal occurs with the final vowel /a/ which most
probably reflects the final vowel of the Canaanite 3 ms form of the suffix conjugation but it
might be also interpreted, at least in some instances, as the Akkadian Ventive without
mimation. Examples include: ša-pa-ra (65:7), ta-ra (85:54), ḫa-b[a]-ta (113:14), di-ka
(132:45), pa-la-ša (139:17, 140:19), a-ṣa (105:84, 117:14.19), la-qa (89:64, 124:21.40), la-
qa-a (125:23, 134:34), la-qa-ma (76:19), la-q[a-mi] (124:7), la-qa-še (124:13), qa-ba (63:7,
134:35, 263:26, 315:10.14, 323:13, 325:18), ša-ma (132:35). A few forms with the final /a/
exhibit deletion of the vowel after the second radical: ma-an-ga (106:15), pal-ḫa (129:82),
ḫa-an-pa (288:7, of dubious morphological and syntactical parsing), and dam-qá (326:18, if
the form should be parsed as 3 ms and not 3 fp). A similar deletion occurs with the suffixed
pronoun in [n]a-ad-na-an-ni in 287:27.28. Finally, in 138:80 there is ḫa-ṣí-ri, a qatal with the
final /i/ which Moran considers "simply a question of writing" (Moran 1992, 224).
3 fs: The addition of the 3 fs ending causes usually the deletion of the vowel after the second
radical. The forms with the preserved vowel derive mostly from the verb paṭāru "to desert"
120
(pa-ṭa-ra-at in 272:14, 286:35, 290:12.17.23 but [p]a-aṭ-ra-at in 272:14) and are to be taken
as the idiosyncrasy of the scribe from Jerusalem. Another example of the preserved vowel is
[n]a-ki-ra-at in 335:16.
2 ms: The forms of 2 ms end always in -Ca-ta, with the exception of na-ṣir-ta in 112:9 (but
see na-ṣa-ra-ta in 117:84), uš-ši-ir-ta (194:22) and ta-šap-pár-ta (102:10). The last form
exhibits an idiosyncratic double marking of the person, both by the prefix and the suffix.
1 cs: In the 1 cs two competing endings occurs: the most common Canaanite -ti and the rarer
Akkadian -Ca-ku. The ending -ti is written with the signs TI and TE. The latter can be
transliterated in this ending also as ti7. In about eighty percent cases, the ending -ti is
preceded by the vowel /a/ (Rainey 1996, vol. 2, 285). In some cases, the vowel before the
ending belongs to the base form of a weak root: qa-bi-ti (119:46, 132:31.37, 263:20), qí-be-ti
(137:72), qa-be-te (94:10), l[a]-q[í]-t[i] (109:30), la-qí-te (251:2), ša-mi-te (362:5). In few
cases, the vowel is different than /a/ without an apparent reason: ma-aq-ti-ti (64:5, 284:4.5,
compare ma-aq-ta-ti in 63:6, 65:5, 282:4, 283:6 and ma-aq-ta-te in 138:4), i-ba-šu-ti (284:8).
At least certain scribes had to know that Akkadian and their mother tongue employed
different endings, as is seen in the following gloss which substitutes the Akkadian ending
with the Canaanite one: ma-ṣ[a]-ku \ ṣí-ir-ti (127:25). At any rate, it is the Canaanite ending
that becomes current, and, with the base forms in D and Š stems, is almost exclusive. Finally,
one must note two difficult forms with -tu ending: pal-ḫa-tu (occurring three times in 129:82,
137:68, 138:120) and mi-ta-tú (138:137, compare mi-ta-ti in 119:17).
3 mp: The forms of the 3 mp end with the vowel /u/ and exhibit deletion of the vowel after
the second radical. The vowel is not deleted in [la]-qa-ḫu (287:36), la-qí-[ḫ]u (287:56), qa-
di-šu (137:32), si-ki-pu (143:20), [š]a-li-mu (287:12), ir-ti-ḫu (103:49), du-bi-ru (104:27),
du-ub-bu-ru-ni (248:17), ku-mi-ru (129:9), šu-ri-bu (123:17), and tu-ur-ri-ṣú-me (250:5).
Note also the form tar-ṣa which occurs is 109:61 with the 3 mp subject and has the final /a/
instead of the expected /u/.
3 fp: The evidence for the forms of 3 fp is difficult to interpret. The best piece of evidence
for the ending /a/ as the marker of the 3 fp is provided by the forms ki-na (89:14), pa-aṭ-ra
(83:28) and ša-ma-ma (104:43). Three other verbs in 104, [i]z-[z]i-za (line 49), al-ka and en-
ni-ip-ša (line 52) can be interpreted as 3 fp (Moran 1992, 177). It seems that in two cases a 3
121
fp subject ("cities," masc. in Akkadian, usually fem. in the Amarna use) is constructed with
the verb ending in /u/ of the 3 mp: ir-ti-ḫu (103:12) and ḫa-ṣí-lu (263:13, a form preceded by
a Glossenkeil).
2 mp: The 2 mp verbs occur only twice: pa-aš-ḫa-tu-nu (74:27) and i-ba-ša-tu-nu (74:26).
1 cp: A verb in 1 cp is attested only once in 362:27: da-na-nu-UM. The odd spelling of 1 cp
with the final sing UM (U16?) occurs in the same letter a line earlier in the 1 cp independent
pronoun: ni-nu-UM (362:26).
3 md: A verb in 3 md is attested once in a Canaanite gloss: mi-ḫi-ṣa (335:9).
5.1.2.2 The Voweling and the Patterns of Qatal
5.1.2.2.1 The Voweling of Qatal in G Stem
Introduction: The voweling of the G qatal exhibits two major forms: qatal and qatil.2 The
first pattern, qatal, is typical for high-transitivity constructions, while the second pattern,
qatil, occurs normally in low-transitivity usages (intransitive verbs, stative meaning, passive
voice). Moreover, qatil occurs typically with the III-weak verbs. The distinction on account
of transitivity is, however, only a general tendency and examples to the contrary are many.
The picture is further complicated because it is often difficult to decide if a certain qatil form
should be analyzed as a genuine passive voice or rather considered as a form that conforms to
the use of the Akkadian Stative. The following examples illustrate the general association
between the choice of the pattern qatal vs. qatil and the level of transitivity.
a-pa-aš vs. a-pé-eš: The scribe of several Byblos letters uses the writing a-pé-eš in the
expression "a deed was done" (81:18, 108:19, 123:10.12). The possibility that in the case of
this particular pair the vocalic alternation expressed the opposition between the active and the
passive voice is supported by its use in 122:
2 A G qatul form is rare: [na]-mu-ur (266:12.15), ṣa-du-uq (287:32).
122
Example
Number
Text Translation
5.1.1 31
ia-ši ù mpa-ḫu-ra
32a-pa-aš ip-ša ra-
ba 33
a-na ia-ši (122:31-33)
Pạhura has committed an enormity
against me.
5.1.2 41
ip-šu 42
ša la a-pé-eš iš-tu 43
da-ri-ti a-
pé-eš 44
a-na ia-ši-nu (122:41-44)
A deed that has not been done
since time immemorial has been
done to us!
It can be doubted, however, that much weight was placed on the voweling of the suffix
conjugation because in 113 one finds the forms of two different patterns side by side:
5.1.3 9li-ma-ad [mi-na]
10a-pa-aš LUGAL-
ru a-na ša-a-[šu] 11
ša-ni-tam mi-na ip-
ša-ti a-[na] 12m
ia-pa-dIM i-nu-ma ya-
a[š-ku-nu] 13
lum-na lum-na-ma a-na
ia-[ši] (113:9-13)
Be informed! [What] has the king
done to hi[m]? Moreover, what
have I done to Yapaḫ-hadda that
he p[lots] evil upon evil against
m[e]?
da-ak vs. di-ik: The verb dâku "to kill" is used with the vowel /a/ in the active voice: da-ak
(139:38, 140:11.13.26), da-a-kà (154:19), da-kà-at-šu-nu (149:65), da-ku (89:20, 101:5.29,
122:35, 123:14, 245:14, 250:17), da-a-ku (362:69). In three instances of this verb, the vowel
/i/ occurs in the passive voice: di-ki (131:22), di-ka (132:45) and di-ku (131:9). In assessing
these three occurrences, two observations are in order. First, the passive use of this verb is
limited to just two Byblian letters, nos. 131 and 132. Second, two of three attestations have a
final vowel (/a/ or /i/, di-ku in 131:9 is 3 mp and thus the vowel is unattested) and hence may
indicate that the scribe was confused and considered this verb as III- and not II-weak.
Therefore, these passive uses of dâku must be ad-hoc scribal creations based on association
of the vowel /i/ with the Akkadian Stative and the understanding of this grammatical
category as having the passive meaning.
ka-ša-ad vs. ka-ši-id: The intransitive verb kašādu "to arrive" occurs mostly in the qatil
pattern: ka-ši-id (82:16, 92:19, 130:13, 136:22, 256:34). The pattern qatal is attested twice
with no difference in the meaning: [k]a-ša-ad (288:17) and ka-ša-ad-ti-šu (138:80). It is
difficult to argue that the pattern qatil is dominant because of the intransitive meaning of the
123
verb since another intransitive verb paṭāru "to depart, defect" never occurs in this pattern.3
Rather, kašādu was memorized by the scribes in the qatil pattern as its paradigmatic form
while its use in the qatal pattern constitutes an example of the analogical pressure of the
predominant pattern of the suffix conjugation. This interpretation is plausible in light of the
use of the pattern qatal in na-ka-ar (298:23) in the same meaning "to be/become hostile" as
the pattern qatil in n[a]-ki-ra-at (335:16).
la-qa vs. la-qí: The spellings of the verb leqû "to take" with the vowel /a/ after the second
radical occurs only in the letters from Byblos and once in a letter from Jerusalem (287:36)
and in all these cases the verb is used transitively: 76:19, 89:64, 124:7.13.21.40, 125:23
(spelled la-qa-a), 140:13, 287:36. The Byblos letters (108:32, 117:27, 132:17, 138:59.106)
employ also the spelling la-qí with the active voice which is expected in a III-weak root and
known from letters from other cities: 245:34, 250:14, 251:2, 289:13.32. However, in some
cases, the same spelling can be interpreted as a passive:
5.1.4 10
LÚ-ia ut-ta-ši-ir a-na ma-[ḫa]r
11EN-ia ù la-qú 2 ANŠE.KUR.RA-šu
12ù LÚ ša-nu la-qí LÚ-šu (83:10-12)
I sent a man of mine t[o] my lord,
and both his horses were taken.
And another man, a man of his,
was taken.4
5.1.5 18
i-na a-ṣí ERÍN.MEŠ 19
pí-ṭá-ti ka-li
mi-am mÌR-a-ši-ir-ta
20it-ti-šu-nu la-a
la-qí ù giš
MÁ.MEŠ-šu-nu 21
a-ṣa ki-ma
ki-ti iš-tu kur
mi-iṣ-ri (105:18-21)
When the archers came out, all the
property of ʿAbdi-aširta in their
possession was not taken away,
and their ships, by an agreement,
left Egypt.
5.1.6 8i-[r]i-[i]b-ti a-na É-ti
9 be-[l]i-ia la-
qí-i 10
gáb-bu iš-tu É-ti ÌR-ka 11
la-qí-i
When I v[i]s[i]ted the house of my
l[o]rd, everything was taken from
3 The pattern qatil is attested with another intransitive verb alākum "to go" in a-li-ik (155:68) in a letter
from Tyre. The same verb is spelled a-li-uk in the letters sent by the Beqaʿ rulers (174:11, 175:9, 363:9). This
spelling occurs also in 176:9 and thus makes probable that also this letter, although unprovenanced, belongs to
the same group of the letters.
4 It is possible to take all the verbs in the active voice, too, and translate: "I sent a man of mine to my
lord, and they took both his horses. And another man took a man of his."
124
KUG.BABBAR.MEŠ la-qí-i
12LÚ.MEŠ la-qí-i UDU.UDU.MEŠ \
ṣú-ú-nu 13
\ ḫa-ṣí-lu URU.MEŠ-nu be-
li-ia 14
ù mi-im-mu ša na-da-an 15
be-li-
ia a-na 16
ÌR-šu ù šu-tú 17
la-qí-i (263:8-
17)
the house of your servant. Silver
was taken; men were taken; sheep
and goats : ṣú-ú-nu were taken.
The cities of my lord : ḫa-ṣí-lu
(were despoiled), and whatever my
lord had given to his servant, this
too was taken.
3 mp uses the spelling la-qú can be translated in the active in 104:28.30, 105:28, 108:13.41,
109:15.20, 116:69, 123:16.39, 126:35, 132:35 and in the passive in: 83:11, 105:23. It is
possible that a Jerusalem letter uses the two patterns in the plural to distinguish between the
active and the passive voice:
5.1.7 35
ù ú-ba-áʾ-ú ar-na kab-ta GAL 36
[la]-
qa-ḫu ú-nu-tú-šu-nu (287:35-36)
...they attempted a very serious
crime. They [to]ok their tools...
5.1.8 56
la-qí-[ḫ]u i-n[a] ú-[g]a-ri \ ša-de4-e
57uruia-lu-na
ki (287:56-57)
...but they have been taken i[n] the
coun[try]side : ša-de4-e of
Ayyaluna.
ma-ad vs. ma-id: The verb mâdu "to be plentiful" occurs with the voweling /a-a/ and /a-i/
with the same stative meaning: ma-ad (86:10, 137:60.62.74) and ma-id (89:46, 105:38,
116:29.5
na-da-an vs. na-di-in: The qatal of nadānu "to give" is used mostly in the qatal pattern in
transitive constructions:
5.1.9 a-na mta-gi
lúi-mi-šu na-da-an
ÌR.MEŠ-šu (249:8-10)
To Tagi, his father-in-law, he
handed over his own servants!
5.1.10 mi-im-mu ša na-da-an be-li-ia a-na Whatever my lord gave to his
5 In the core Akkadian the Stative of mâdu is normally mād or less often maʾad. CAD, vol. 10, part 1, 24
registers the form maʾid in Middle Babylonian, Middle Assyrian and once in Standard Babylonian. Therefore,
the spelling ma-id should not be considered as an Amarna idiosyncrasy but rather as a feature shared with the
contemporaneous Akkadian dialects which testifies to access to the learning materials from outside Canaan.
125
ÌR-šu (263:14-16) servant.
5.1.11 am-mi-nim-me na-ad-na-ta uru
gi-ti-pa-
da-al-la i-na ŠU LUGAL-ri EN-ka
(250:11-13)
"Why have you handed
Gittipadalla to the king, your lord?"
5.1.12 [š]á-ni-tam 2 DUMU-ia ù 2 mí
DAM
na-ad-nu a-na LÚ ar-ni ša LU[GA]L
(136:44-46)
[M]oreover, they gave two of my
sons and two of my wives to the
rebel against the k[in]g.
Other examples include: 73:38, 79:10, 82:31, 83:36, 85:28, 105:26, 108:15, 112:45, 117:20,
134:37, 150:4, 242:9, 250:12, 254:36, 263:14, 265:10, 287:27.28.31, 288:18.21, 298:26,
366:14. On several occasions the qatil pattern is used instead. It is not always easy to decide
if the verb in such passages should be interpreted as the Akkadian Stative that describes the
past state of the matters because of the past narrative context, or rather a true passive form
that reports an action which took place in a certain moment in the past. Such a problem of
interpreting the verbal form can be seen, for example, in 83:10-14, in which Rib-Hadda asks
for the pharaoh's intervention because of his messenger's abduction:
5.1.13 10
LÚ-ia ut-ta-ši-ir a-na ma-[ḫa]r
11EN-ia ù la-qú 2 ANŠE.KUR.RA-
šu 12
ù LÚ ša-nu la-qí LÚ-šu 13
[ù]
DUB-pí LUGAL la-a na-di-in4 14
[i]-
na qa-at LÚ-ia ši-m[é i]a-ši
I sent a man of mine t[o] my lord,
and both his horses were taken.
And another man, a man of his, was
taken and a tablet of the king was
not given [in]to my man‘s hand.
List[en to m]e!
In this passage, 3 qatil forms (la-qú, la-qí, na-di-in4) follow the past form yaqtul (ut-ta-ši-ir,
"I sent") that refer to a single past action. It is possible to argue that the qatil forms refer the
current state of the matters which requires the king's attention. However, because of the
narrative flow of the passage and because the verbs "to take" and "to give" are transitive, it is
plausible to interpret those qatil forms as the passive forms that report three actions that
follow one another. Other examples of the qatil pattern of nadānu do not help to settle the
matter. Also in the following two passages na-din can be interpreted as having a stative
126
meaning or as the past passive. The second example contains also a passive qatil of the verb
šapāru ―to send‖:
5.1.14 8ù i-wa-ši-ir
lúDUMU š[ìp-ri-ia]
9a-
na É-ti É.GAL ù i-[tu-ur] 10
ri-qú-
tam i-ia-nu ERÍN.MEŠ ma-ṣa-a[r-
tam] 11
a-na ša-a-šu ù ti-mu-ru
L[Ú.MEŠ É]-ia 12
i-nu-ma la-a na-di-
in KÙ.BABBAR ti-iš-la-u5 13
a-na
ia-ši ki-ma LÚ.MEŠ-ḫa.MEŠ-za-ni
ŠEŠ.MEŠ-ia 14
ù ti-na-i-ṣú-ni (137:8-
14)
I sent a me[ssenger of mine] to the
palace, but he [returned] empty-
handed; he had no garri[son]. The
me[n of] my [house] saw that no
money had been given, and so, like
the mayors, my brothers, they did
me injustice and despised me.
5.1.15 126
ù [i]a-pu \ ḫa-mu-du 127
ša-a ša-pí-
ir i[š]-tu 128
LUGAL be-li la-a na-di-
in 129
ia-a-ši (138:126-129)
A [n]ice thing: ḫa-mu-du
(desirable) that was sent f[r]om the
king, the lord, has not been given
to me.
ša-ka-an vs. ša-ki-in: The Amarna letters use normally the qatal pattern of the verb šakānu
"to place" in the active voice: 114:8, 138:60, 174:15, 286:26, 287:60, 288:5, 289:32, 292:34,
293:34, 326:16, 363:12. The qatil pattern is used twice: once in the active voice and once as
the passive voice:
5.1.16 21
ù ERÍN.MEŠ SA.GAZ.MEŠ ù
gišGIGIR.MEŠ
22ša-ki-in4 i-na ŠÀ-bi
(87:21-22)
He has stationed the ʿApiru and
chariots there.
5.1.17 22
i-nu-ma di-ki mpé-wa-ri
23lú[m]a-lik
LUGAL ù [š]a-[k]i-in (131:22-23)
When Pewuru, the king‘s
[co]unselor, was killed, [he] was
[pla]ced in …
One should recall also the use of 3 fs ša-ak-na-at with the typical, Akkadian Stative meaning
"to be set, placed":
5.1.18 35
ki-ma MUŠEN ša i-na ŠÀ-bi Like a bird placed in a [t]rap \ ki-
127
36[ḫ]u-ḫa-ri \ ki-lu-bi ša-ak-na-at
37[ki]-šu-ma a-na-ku i-na
38[uru
]gub-
laki
(79:35-38, see also 74:47, 78:15,
105:9, 116:19, 289:17)
lu-bi, [s]o am I in Gubla.
Qatal and qatil in the III-weak verbs: The pattern qatil occurs typically in the III-weak
verbs but there is a tendency to replace the vowel /i/ with the vowel /a/ by analogy to the
strong roots:
Verb Qatil Qatal
ḫadû "to be happy, to
rejoice
ḫa-di (141:11, 362:6, 209:7),
ḫa-ad-ia-ti (147:27), ḫa-dì-
ia-ti (147:29), ḫa-ad-ia-ku
(154:10)
qabû "to say" qa-bi (234:20), qa-bi-me
(256:4), qa-be-mi (138:5),
qa-be-te (94:10), qa-bi-ti
(119:46, 132:31.37, 263:20),
qí-be-ti (137:72)
qa-ba (63:7, 134:35,
263:26, 315:10.14, 323:13,
325:18), qa-ba-ku (259:7)
šemû "to hear" ša-mi (138:97), ša-mi-te
(362:5)
ša-ma (132:35), ša-ma-ma
(104:43)
zerû "to hate" za-ir (126:45)
Of all these examples, only three instances of the qatil pattern of the verb qabû can be
translated in the passive voice: qa-be-mi (138:5), qa-bi (234:20) and qa-bi-me (256:4).
Qatil with the stative meaning: There are plenty of examples in which the qatil pattern has
a stative meaning:
5.1.19 6šá-ni-tam da-mi-iq-mi
7a-na pa-ni
LUGAL BE-ia i-pí-iš 8I
ÌR-da-ši-ir-
ti UR.GI7 i-nu-ma 9en-ni-ip-ša-at
Moreover is the activity of ʿAbdi-
aširta, the dog, with the result that
the lands of the king are joined to
128
KUR.KI.ḪI.A LUGAL BE-ia 10
a-
na ša-šu ù qa-al a-na
KUR.KUR.KI-šu (84:6-10, see also
98:25, 108:8, 109:49, 112:40,
114:46, 116:48, 117:71, 151:68.
This particular form requires often
a modal translation).
him, pleasing in the sight of the
king, my lord, and so he does
nothing for his lands?
5.1.20 38
ga-mi-ir 39
gáb-bu i-na ZI-nu
(107:38-39, see also 102:12,
117:75, 138:38, 143:37)
Everything is gone so that we might
stay alive.
5.1.21 45
ù la-a iš-te-mi a-ma-tam LUGAL
be-li-šu 46
ḫal-qá-at URU-[š]u ḫa-
li-iq É-šu 47
ia-nu šu-um-šu i-na
gáb-bi 48
KUR-ti i-na da-ri-ti
(147:45-48)
If he does not heed the word of the
king, his lord, h[i]s city is destroyed,
his house is destroyed, there is not
his name anymore in all the land.
5.1.22 45
šá-ni-tam 46lú
DUMU K[IN]
LUGAL uru
ak-ka 47
ka4-bi-id iš-tu
lúDUMU ši-ip-r[i-ia]
48[ù n]a-ad-nu
ANŠE.KUR.RA šap-li-[š]u (88:45-
48)
Moreover, still the messenger of the
king of Akka is more honoured than
[my] messeng[er, for they fur]nished
h[i]m with a horse.6
5.1.23 30
ù i-de-mi 31
LUGAL be-li i-nu-ma
DINGIR.MEŠ uru
gub-la 32
qa-di-šu
ù mur-ṣú-ú-ma GAL (137:30-32)
The king, my lord, knows that the
gods of Gubla are holy, and the
pains are severe.
5.1.24 49
ki-na-na-ma 50
ma-ri-iṣ ma-gal a-
na ia-ši
For this reason my situation is
extremely grave.
6 Note that 129:16 uses a Stative of this verb with the vowel /u/: 15ù ra-bi-ṣú LÚ e[m-qu šu-ut] 16ša ka-
bu-ut ma-gal ―and the (last) commissioner [was] a wise man who was highly respected‖ (129:15-16, for
restorations see 109:39 and 107:23). Moran regards this form as ―a sporadic Assyrianism‖ (1992, 210).
129
(114:49-50, see also 84:24, 95:41,
103:7.15, 131:26, 362:59
5.1.25 17
A.ŠÀ-ia aš-ša-ta 18
ša la mu-ta
ma-ši-ìl aš-šum ba-li 19
i-ri-ši-im
(74:17-19, see also 75:16, 81:37)
My field is similar a woman without
a husband because of the lack of a
plowman.
5.1.26 17
ù a-nu-ma iš-te-m[é] 18
sa-ri ša
LUGAL DÙG.GA-ta 19
ù it-ta-ṣa-at
20a-na ia-ši ù pa-ši-iḫ
21ŠÀ-bi-ia
ma-gal (297:17-20, see also
362:57).
I have, however, just hear[d] the
sweet breath of the king. It has come
forth to me, and my heart is very
appeased.
Conclusions: Putting aside for a moment the instances of the qatil pattern of the III-weak
verbs and the occasional preservation of this pattern in some verbs (most notably kašādu), the
following picture emerges: 1) most of the forms of pattern qatil have the meaning of the
Akkadian Stative, that is, they refer to a state in the present (usually) or in the past (rarely); 2)
few forms with the vowel /i/ after the second radical are used in the passive voice. Both these
characteristics come as no surprise in an interlanguage developed in second language
acquisition context. The use of the pattern qatil with the stative meaning is to be seen as an
example of the acquisition of a feature of the target language. The use of /i/ to mark the
passive voice in a limited number of cases stems from the incorrect understanding of the
stative meaning of qatil as the passive, the formulation of the mistaken ad-hoc rule that the
vowel /i/ can mark the verbs as passive and the subsequent application of this rule to create
new forms such as a-pé-eš or di-ik. In more general terms, the pattern qatil was associated
with intransitivity, while the transitive constructions favoured the use of the qatal pattern.
This observation is supported by the dominant use of the pattern qatil in the verb kašādu and
its occurrence in alāku, both intransitive verbs. Further confirmation comes from the
distribution of the pattern in the III-weak verbs that are characterized by the qatil pattern:
with the intransitive ḫadû "to be happy" the qatil pattern is exclusive but with the transitive
verbs qabû "to say" and šemû "to hear" the pattern qatal is used competitively.
The variation of the patterns qatal and qatil open also a window onto the reconstruction of
the formation of the mixed suffix conjugation. The following stages of the development of
130
the suffix conjugation during the formation of the Amarna interlanguage can be identified in
the different usages of the qatal and qatil patterns. Initially, the use and the morphology
pattern qatil conformed with the core Akkadian practice. This stage is preserved, for
example, in the forms ga-mi-ir (107:38, 102:12, 117:75, 138:38, 143:37) and ma-ši-ìl (74:18,
75:16, 81:37). Subsequently, the qatil pattern acquired the meaning of the Canaanite suffix
conjugation. Examples of this stage include the past intransitive ka-ši-id (82:16, 92:19,
130:13, 136:22, 256:34) and the past transitive ša-ki-in4 (87:22). The past transitive use of the
forms of the Akkadian Stative as if they were the Canaanite suffix conjugation caused
logically two following developments: 1) the use of the Canaanite ending -ti in the 1 cs
instead of the Akkadian -āku; 2) the substitution of the qatil pattern (typical in the Canaanite
languages to the verbs that have stative lexical aspect, like "to know" or "to be full") by the
qatal pattern (used in the Canaanite languages with verbs of all other categories of the lexical
aspect) in most verbs. This step resulted in the widespread forms such as na-da-an ( 85:28,
249:9, 263:14, 265:10) or da-ag-la-ti (266:9.13, 296:11.12). Finally, the pattern qatal became
associated with the transitive usages and the pattern qatil with the intransitive constructions.
This association led some scribes to understand the vowel /i/ as the marker of the passive
voice and to create passive forms such as a-pé-eš (81:18, 108:19, 123:10.12) or di-ik
(131:22), di-ka (132:45) and di-ku (131:9) or to use the forms of the qatil with the past
passive rather than stative meaning, for example la-qí-[ḫ]u (287:56).7 This sketch of the
development of the mixed suffix conjugation qatal does not imply necessarily a long process
but rather seeks to interpret the logic that can explain the variety of the forms and their
usages.
5.1.2.2.2 The Voweling of Qatal in the Derived Stems
The patterns of the derived stems pose no major problem as their use is quite straightforward.
The qatal forms of the derived stems can be usually explained as derived from the use of an
7 The idea of the development of the passive meaning by the Stative is corroborated by the situation in
the Akkadian of Emar in which the Stative is used often instead of the N conjugation (Seminara 1998, 364-365).
131
Akkadian form with the appropriate endings of qatal.8 In most cases the same stems occur in
the Amarna interlanguage and in the core Akkadian with the same lexemes. The gemination
is not indicated graphically in a systematic manner. Sometimes, the qatal forms of the
derived stems seem to be scribal creations to answer specific semantic needs. The following
table summarizes the major patterns that occur in the qatal of the derived stems.
Pattern Stem Examples
naqtVl N [e]n-nam-mu-ru (142:10), na-aq-ṣa-pu (82:51, gloss), na-
az-a-qú (366:24, gloss) en-ni-ip-ša-ta (33:18), en-ni-ip-ša-
te (297:12)
quttil D ḫu-li-iq (197:32), du-bi-ru (104:27), uš-ši-ir-ti (82:36,
316:21), uš-še-er-ti (151:26), mu-še-er-ti (287:53), bu-i-te
(264:6.20), pu-ḫi-ir (129:91)
quttul D du-ub-bu-ba-ku-me (245:1), du-ub-bu-ru-ni (248:17), uḫ-
ḫu-ra-ta (102:9)
quttal D ur-ra-ad-ti (296:27, the only attestation of qatal of this
pattern)
qattul D ka-bu-ut (129:16, the only attestation of qatal of this
pattern, stative meaning, Assyrianism?)
šuqtil Š šu-šu-ra-tá (367:15), šu-ši-ra-ku (141:25, 191:14), šu-ši-
ir-ti (324:12), šu-uš-ši-ra-te (193:21), šu-te-ra-at
(280:14), šu-ri-ib (112:49, 123:33), š[u]-ri-ib-ti-šu-nu
(116:24)
8 On the pattern quttil which exhibits the vowel of the Canaanite rather than Akkadian pattern in the
second syllable see Huehnergard 1992, 221.
132
5.1.3 The Mixed Prefix Conjugation Yaqtul
The morphology of the mixed short prefix conjugation yaqtul is close to the Akkadian
Preterite iprus, the main difference being the prefix of 3 ms and 3 mp as well as the vowels
of other prefixes. The forms of the same verb can be built on various Akkadian forms used as
the bases to which appropriate prefixes and suffixes are added. This way of creating the
verbal forms results in great variation. The forms are, however, morphologically transparent
because both the endings (which indicate their person, number and conjugation) and the base
(which indicates the stem and the lexical meaning) are easily identifiable. The choice of
iprus, iparras or iptaras as base has no impact on the semantics of the mixed form.
Therefore, the detailed discussion of different bases used in the mixed forms is interesting
from a philological point of view but contributes little in terms of their linguistic analysis.
The following table summarizes the main morphological traits of yaqtul.
Person Form Examples
3 ms yV-qtVl yi-de (280:21), i-de (305:23), ya-zi-ib (197:40), yi-te-pu-uš (258:7),
i-ḫal-li-iq (286:37), iq-bi (317:3), yi-iq-bi (245:27), yi-qa-bi
(234:16), ia-aq-bi (116:32), ya-di-in (337:13), yi-id-din (248:11), iṣ-
bat (84:36), iṣ-ṣa-bat (75:1.36), yi-iṣ-bat-ši (244:28.37), iš-pu-ur
(292:18), ia-aš-pur-me (250:23), iš-tap-pár (233:16), yi-ìš-ta-pár
(73:26), i-da-gal (75:19), yi-da-gal (91:9)
3 fs tV-qtVl ti-din (73:4), ti-di-in4 (108:4), ti-id-di-in4 (68:5), ti-pu-uš (122:47),
tu-da-bi-ir (76:39)
2 ms tV-qtVl ti-de (102:17), te-de (230:20), ti-di-i (102:21), ti-i-di (145:5), ti-iq-bi
(83:45), táq-bi (86:15), ti-ìš-me (90:13), ta-aš-me (151:50), ta-aš-te-
me (149:46), tu-ma-še-er (289:30)
1 cs V-qtVl aq-bi (82:21), aq-qa-bi (286:17), aq-ta-bi (82:5), e-qa-bi (180:16),
ib-ni (84:29), a-ta-mar (197:43), ú-ba-al (327:9), ur-ra-ad (84:30),
e-ra-ar (179:25), ip-pal-šu-ni (250:19.48), am-qut (201:8), iš-mi
133
(317:12), i-ši-me (87:15), aš-mi (364:21), eš-me (105:40), iš-te-mi
(213:10), iš-ti-me (319:15), aš-ta-pa-ar (132:12), eš-tap-pa-ar
(134:31), ú-ṣur (155:71), a-na-ṣur-ši (137:82), a-na-ṣa-ar-mi
(138:29), a-na-an-ṣur (147:61), id-din (155:27), at-ta-din (148:6,
151:19.23.47)
3 mp tV-qtVl-u /
i-qtVl-u
ti-di-nu (71:5, 86:4), ti-ṣú-ru (87:14), ti-na-ṣa-ru (85:22), te-na-ṣa-
ru (180:8), ti-na-ṣí-ru (130:48), ti-ìš-ku-nu (74:42), tu-ga-me-ru-nu
(299:25), ta-ša-mé-ú (286:50)
1 cp nV-qtVl ni-du-bu-ur (279:20), nu-da-bir5 (74:34), nu-ba-li-iṭ (68:28, 85:38),
ni-ub-lu-uṭ (86:36), ni-pu-uš (93:13, 174:22, 363:19), ni-pa-aš
(366:31), nu-ra-ad (264:17), ni-mu-ut (362:11), né-e-na-ṣa-ar-šu
(178:6), nu-du-uk (197:17)
3 md tV-qtVl-a te-ed-[di]n-na (246: rev.6)
Observations:
3 ms: According to common opinion, the 3 ms of the mixed prefixed conjugations (yaqtul,
yaqtulu, and yaqtula) begins with a glide /y/ followed by a vowel /i/ (typically), /a/ (less
often) or /u/ (only in the passive G, in the D and Š stems, as well as in the I-waw verbs in the
G stem). The spelling of this prefix in the Amarna letters from Canaan is peculiar as it
employs the sign PI with the values ya, yi, yu which are unusual in the Akkadian syllabary
(Rainey 1996, vol. 2, 34-36). The spelling with or without the sign PI is critical for the
analysis of the verbs with the weak first radical, such as epēšu or ezēbu, and for another
important question: do all the yaqtul forms reflect the Canaanite use of the short prefix
conjugation? The question is legitimate because the prefixed forms of 3 ms are written with
the PI sign or the IA sign, another sign which can be used to spell the initial glide /y/, only in
approximately 62% cases and because there are indisputable and numerous cases in which a
3 ms prefix form is spelled with the vowel /i/. Therefore, one must admit that the Amarna
letters from Canaan use not only spellings with the PI sign to reflect the Canaanite
pronunciation of the prefix, but also employ the Akkadian spelling of the prefix and
consequently the Akkadian-like form iprus. Since the practice of spelling without the graphic
134
representation of the initial glide (i. e., without the signs PI or IA) is legitimate and well
known, the analysis of the writings of the verbs with the weak first radical such as i-pu-uš
(185:10), ir-ru-bu (76:21) or i-zi-bu 73:13) as the forms of the mixed suffix conjugation qatal
is a mere convention which can sometimes be substantiated (for example, when a form
occurs in a chain of qatal, such as i-ru-ub in 298:24) but cannot be proven. Treating these
forms as Akkadianisms is absurd because overall the Amarna interlanguage was meant to
represent the Akkadian language. The state of the matters can be elucidated to some extent
by the analysis of the variation in spelling of all prefixed forms.
In the letters taken into consideration in my database, there are 480 forms that must
unambiguously be parsed as 3 ms of the prefix conjugation.9 Their distribution is as follows:
9 The forms of the I-weak verbs and of izuzzu are excluded from this statistics because their secure
identification as the prefixed forms relies only on the spelling of the prefix with the sign PI and thus would
falsify the data by introducing into them a potentially high number of securely identified forms and arbitrarily
excluding the problematic forms spelled with the initial vowel. The forms of the verb bašû are also excluded
because they never have the prefix yi- spelled with the sign PI nor the 3 fs with the preformative t- and thus they
must be analysed as the forms of the suffixed conjugation derived from the fossilized base with the preformative
vowel (Rainey 1996, vol. 2, 319-321). As for the yaqtula form, all prefix forms with the final /a/ are counted,
regardless their possible interpretation as the Akkadian Ventive.
A check of the spelling of the 3 ms prefix in the excluded forms of the I-weak verbs and izuzzu shows that
their spelling habits conform by and large to those of the strong verbs, although the spellings with the initial
vowels occur somewhat more often:
Total number
of yaqtul forms:
75 = 100%
with a glide:
32 = 42.67% with PI: 31 = 41.33% with IA: 1 = 1.33%
with a vowel:
43 = 57.33 %
with /i/: 37 =
49.33%
with /e/: 4 =
5.33%
with /u/: 2 =
2.67%
Total number
of yaqtulu forms:
47 = 100%
with a glide:
37 = 78.72%% with PI: 37 = 78.72% with IA: 0 = 0%
with a vowel:
10 = 21.28 %
with /i/: 7 =
14.89%
with /e/: 2 =
4.26%
with /u/: 1 =
2.13%
Total number
of yaqtula forms:
with a glide: 39 =
86.67% with PI: 39 = 86.67% with IA: 0 = 0%
135
yaqtul 313 = 65.20%
yaqtulu 122 = 25.42%
yaqtula 45 = 9.38%
The spelling of 3 ms prefix in the analysed yaqtul forms is distributed as follows:10
Total number
of yaqtul
forms: 313 =
100%
with a glide: 154
= 49.20% with PI: 137 = 43.77% with IA: 17 = 5.43%
with a vowel:
159 = 50.80 %
with /i/: 157 =
50.16%
with /e/: 1 =
0.32% (179:23)
with /u/: 1 =
0.32%
(147:10)
The prefix of the 3 ms of the yaqtulu forms is spelled in the following manner:
Total number
of yaqtulu
forms: 122 =
100%
with a glide: 112 =
91.80% with PI: 135 = 79.50% with IA: 17 = 12.30%
with a vowel: 10 =
8.20% with /i/: 9 = 7.38%
with /u/: 1 = 0.82%
(88:22)
The spelling of the 3 ms prefix in the yaqtula conjugation is distributed in this way:
Total number
of yaqtula
with a glide: 40 =
88.89% with PI: 32 = 71.11% with IA: 8 = 17.78%
45 = 100% with a vowel: 6 =
13.33% with /i/: 4 = 8.89% with /u/: 2 = 4.44%
In the light of general similarity of the spelling of the 3 ms of the prefixed forms of the weak verbs and
izuzzu and the strong verbs, the automatic assignment of all the forms with the initial vowels to the suffix
conjugation is doubtful. It should rather be decided case by case if a form with initial vowel is better taken as a
prefix or suffixed conjugation by considering in which conjugation the lexeme from which a particular form is
derived typically occurs.
10 In this and the following tables, all the percentages refer to the total number of the occurrences of the
form in the first column.
136
forms: 45 =
100%
with a vowel: 5 =
11.11.% with /i/: 5 = 11.11%
To build a fuller picture, it is necessary to consider the spelling of the 3 ms prefix of yaqtul in
relation to its meaning:11
Total number of
yaqtul forms: 313 =
100%
with a glide: 154 = 49.20%
indicative: 41 = 26.62%
optative: 101 = 65.58%
other modal: 12 = 7.80%
with a vowel: 159 = 50.80%
indicative: 129 = 81.13%
optative: 21 = 13.21%
other modal: 9 = 5.66%
Two important facts emerge from these data:
1. There is a strong tendency to spell the 3 ms prefix in the yaqtulu and yaqtula forms with
the glide: 91.80% of yaqtulu and 88.89% of yaqtula are spelled with the signs PI or IA. In
contrast to this tendency, only 49.20% of the yaqtul forms employ the signs PI or IA in the
same prefix.
2. In the yaqtul conjugation, the spelling of 3 ms prefix with a vowel is typical for the forms
in the indicative (81.13%) while the Optative shows preference for spellings with the glide
(65.58%).
The preference for the spelling with the glide comes as no surprise in the yaqtulu and yatula
conjugations. These verbal formations do not occur in Akkadian but in Canaanite and
consequently employ the spelling that more clearly reflects the Canaanite morphology of the
prefix conjugation. Moreover, a similar rate of spelling with the signs PI and IA in yaqtulu
and yaqtula forms is a clue that also the yaqtula form is a non-Akkadian feature of the
Amarna interlanguage, even if some of the yaqtula forms exhibit clearly the Ventive writing
11 In this table, the percentage values in the third column refer to the spellings with a glide and with a
vowel respectively and not to the total number of occurrences of the yaqtul forms.
137
of the ending (with the final /a/) or can be interpreted as having the meaning of the Akkadian
Ventive.
The same tendency to link Canaanite morphology with Canaanite use is observable in the
yaqtul conjugation, but here the evidence is much more difficult to evaluate because these
forms may reflect not only the Akkadian iprus but also a Canaanite short conjugation yaqtul.
The Akkadian side of the yaqtul conjugation is visible in the relatively high number of
spellings of the 3 ms prefix with the initial vowel as in Akkadian (50.80%) in comparison
with the yaqtulu and yaqtula conjugations (respectively, 8.20% and 11.11.% of the spellings
with the vowel), and in the preference of these spelling with the vowel to be employed with
the indicative meaning (81.13%). The Canaanite side of the yaqtul comes to light in its
association of the glide prefix with the optative meaning (65.58%), both the prefix and the
usage being alien to the Akkadian grammar.
The analysis of the spelling of the 3 ms prefix of the yaqtul conjugation cannot provide a
definitive answer to the question of its nature, although it provides some important clues. The
forms spelled in conformance to the Akkadian norm with the initial vowel and not with the
glide, especially those used as the past indicative, represent simply better acquisition of the
target language. These forms can be indeed considered relatively correct examples of the use
of the Akkadian iprus in the Amarna interlanguage.12
The forms that exhibit non-Akkadian
morphology and meanings result from the transfer of morphological and grammatical traits
of Canaanite to Akkadian and vice-versa because of the interaction of the two languages in
the second language acquisition environment. Now, since the transfer of linguistic features
from one to another language tends to be based on equating a grammatical structure of one
language with a grammatical structure of another language (Aikhenvald 2006, 32-33; Heine
and Kuteva 2005, 4, 219-234), it is arguable that the transfer of the Canaanite morphology
(the spelling of the prefix with the initial glide) to the Akkadian iprus is triggered by the
existence of the equivalent form in Canaanite, that is, yaqtul. If so, the morphology of the 3
ms and meanings of the yaqtul forms as well as their statistical correlation can be interpreted
in the following manner. The existence of the Canaanite yaqtul with the past indicative
12 A strong argument is support of this explanation comes from the exclusive spelling of the 3 ms prefix
in the letters from Tyre with the initial vowel, in accordance with the Akkadian morphology. The Tyrian letters
are, therefore, a case of the full acquisition of a feature of the target language.
138
meaning facilitated the acquisition of the Akkadian iprus with the same meaning. As the
result, the Akkadian spelling of the prefix with the initial vowel was preserved with a higher
frequency in the forms with the past indicative meaning. The use of the yaqtul as optative
must be ascribed uniquely to transfer from Canaanite because such a use is not known in core
Akkadian. The preference for spelling the 3ms yaqtul with the glide is a clue to its Canaanite
origin.
As is expected in a situation of second language acquisition, variation is the most prominent
feature of the morphology of yaqtul. However, for each verb there is usually a form which is
used with higher frequency. The following selection of the 3 ms yaqtul forms gives an idea of
the variety of the Akkadian forms used as base. It also illustrates various spelling of the
prefix and the preference for using one, typical yaqtul with individual lexemes. The variation
in the voweling of the 3 ms prefix occurs in other forms too and thus the 3 ms can be taken as
illustrative of forms of other persons and numbers.13
The Verb Forms with the glide prefix Forms with the vowel prefix
dagālu "to look" yi-d[a]-gal (91:9) i-da-gal (75:19, 94:8, 95:28,
114:40, 116:62)
nadānu "to give" ia-di-in4 (116:46), ya-di-in
(337:13), ya-di-in4
(197:11.12.29.30), yi-din-ni
(144:26), yi-id-din (248:11), yi-
di-in4 (101:28, 113:32)
e-din (179:23), id-din (92:43,
144:12, 147:13), i-din (144:24), i-
di-in4 (116:35), i-na-an-din-ni
(154:13), it-ta-din (155:24)
qâlu "to be
unmindful of"
ia-qú-ul (132:44), ia-qul-me
(68:31), ia-qú-ul-mi (137:25),
ia-qú-ul11 (137:77.59)
i-qù-ul (196:39), i-qú-ul (149:41), i-
qa-al (185:67)
qabû "to speak" ia-aq-bi (83:34, 101:32,
116:32, 119:36), yi-iq-bi
i-qa-ab-bi (298:15), iq-ba-bi
(275:9), iq-bi (68:2, 74:1, 74:25,
13 For the possibility that the voweling of some yaqtul forms, especially those in the Canaanite glosses,
testifies to the operation of the Barth-Ginsberg Law see Rainey 1996, vol. 2., 61-75.
139
(85:23.32, 91:10, 94:74,
138:48, 245:27)
76:1, 78:1, 79:1, 81:11, 83:1, 88:1,
92:1, 105:1, 106:1, 107:1, 239:15,
317:3.14.20, 318:4)
ṣabātu "to seize" yi-iṣ-bat (138:28, 244:28.37,
250:46)
iṣ-ba-at (197:28), iṣ-bat (84:36), iṣ-
ṣa-bat (75:31.36)
šapāru "to send" ia-aš-tap-pár (233:16), ia-aš-
pur-me (250:23), ia-aš-pu-ur
(117:60), yi-ìš-ta-pár (73:26)
iš-pu-ur (147:16.67, 276:9, 277:8,
292:18, 293:9, 294:7, 302:12), iš-
tap-pár (71:9, 148:4, 278:9,
280:17), iš-tap-ra-an-ni (253:10,
254:7, 304:17, 305:17, 329:15)
3 fs: The prefix of the 3 fs is in the great majority of cases ti-; a few times it is spelled with
the sign TE, that can be transcribed in these cases as ti7. Examples: ti-di-in (74:3), ti-pu-uš
(122:47), ti-ìl-qe (138:33), ti-iq-bi (138:44), ti7-iḫ-la-aq (122:39), ti7-ìl-qé (362:20). There are
several forms with the prefix ta-, typical for 3 fs in the Assyrian dialects: ta-ša-aš (82:50), ta-
ap-šu-uḫ (107:31), ta-aq-bi (138:11, but in the same letter also ti-iq-bi in line 44) and taq-
gu5-ub (147:14). As expected, the prefix tu- occurs in the passive G forms, for example: tu-
ul-qé (91:8), tu-pu-uš (281:13), and in the D stem, for example: tu-da-bi-ir (76:39).
2 ms: In over half of the examples of the 2 ms, the prefix is spelled as ti-. Examples: ti-zi-ib-
ši (287:50), ti-de (102:17.31, 306:28), ti-i-de (73:15.39, 77:16), ti-di-i (102:21), ti-pa-ṭì-ir
(138:11), ti-ìš-me (90:13). The ratio of the spellings with ta-, the Akkadian paradigmatic
form, is surprisingly high and amounts to approximately a quarter of the occurrences of the 2
ms yaqtul. Examples: ta-qa-al-mi (74:13, 74:48, 76:45), ta-qú-ú-ul (82:34), ta-qú-ul
(139:5.10), táq-bi (86:15), ta-aq-[bi]) (77:21), t[a5]-din-ni (83:30), ta-pa-la-[aḫ] (82:26), ta-
šap-pár (102:38), ta-aš-ta-ni (82:26), ta-aš-me (151:50), ta-aš-te-me (151:50). The spellings
with ta- should be treated as examples of a fuller acquisition of the target language. Such an
interpretation is supported by the fact that all these spelling come from the two larger cities
(Byblos and Tyre) which were probably capable of supporting better education and had
easier access to other cuneiform centers, being located close to the northern border of
Canaan.
140
1 cs: The 1 cs is marked by a vowel prefix.14
The distribution of the vowels in the 1 cs yaqtul
prefix is following:
/a/ 143 = 42.06%
/e/ 14 = 4.12%
/i/ 165 = 48.93%
/u/ 18 = 5.29%
Total 340 = 100%
The spellings with /a/ and /i/ are free variants not only because of a similar ratio of the
occurrences but also because they can occur in the same verbs, although there is usually a
typical vowel associated with each verb. Examples: a-qa-bi (286:17.39.49), à-qa-bi (286:22),
aq-bi (81:42, 82:21, 138:46) vs. i-qa-bi (106:46), iq-bi (82:37); aš-pu-ur (138:31, 362:18) vs.
iš-pu-ur (147:70); aš-ta-pár (81:22, 83:21, 117:4, 148:23, 149:11.70), aš-tap-pár (88:13,
92:12.16) vs. iš-ta-par (123:1) and ìš-tap-pa-ar (134:31); note also the very frequent verb
am-qut which is nevertheless spelled im-qú-ut in 317:6 and 318:7. The spellings with /e/ must
be considered as part of a larger phenomenon of the allomorphism of /e/ and /i/. Examples of
the prefix /e/ in 1 cs include: e-de (254:28.32), e-qa-bi (180:16), e-na-ṣa-ar (179:26), e-ra-ar
(179:25), e-ma-e (136:14). The prefix /u/ occurs mostly with I-waw roots and with the verbs
in derived stems: ú-ba-al (327:9), ú-bal (147:40, 149:15); ur-ra-ad (84:30), ú-ša-ab (260:14),
ut-ta-ši-ir (83:10), uš-ḫe-ḫi-in (221:7, 232:9, 233:13, 234:9, 366:9). Its occurrence in ú-ṣur
(155:71) uṣ-ṣur-šu (230:13) may be explained by the use of the Akkadian base but in ú-na-
ṣár (327:5) it is obscure. Note also that the forms of uš-ḫe-ḫi-in with the infix /t/ are spelled
consistently with the 1 cs prefix /i/ (298:12, 302:10, 303:10, 304:12, 305:12, 306:9, 307:2,
308:7, 314:8, 315:6, 319:13, 320:13, 321:14, 322:12, 323:7, 324:8, 325:8, 326:7, 328:14,
329:12, 331:10-11, 378:8).
14 In 286:22 the 1 cs prefix is written with the sign PI, which is usually used for the glide /y/ followed by
a vowel but which must be transliterated in this case as à. Moran sees this writing as an example of pedantry of
a "learned" provincial scribe who seeks to impress his colleague in Egypt by employing a rare value of the sign
PI (Moran 1975, 161).
141
3 mp: According to all grammars of the "Amarna Canaanite" the 3 mp prefix of all prefix
conjugations is exclusively /t/ followed by a vowel (Rainey 1996, vol. 2, 43-45; Tropper and
Vita 2010, 65, 68). This view simply does not match the evidence. Some forms with the
prefix /i/ must undoubtedly be parsed as 3 mp (Izre'el 1987, 88-89). Their use should lead
also to re-evaluation of a handful of problematic 3 mp forms with the prefix written with the
sign PI.
The following passages prove the use of the prefix /i/ in the 3 mp:
5.1.27 25m
A-d[u-na] 26
LU[GA]L uru
ir-qa-t[a]
i-du-ku-š[u] 27
[LÚ].MEŠ
GAZ.ZA.MEŠ ù ia-nu 28
ša ia-aq-bi
mi-im-ma a-na 29m
ÌR-a-ši-ir-ta (75:25-
29)
The ʿApiru killed Ad[una], the
k[in]g of Irqat[a] but there was no
one who said anything to Abdi-
aširta.
5.1.28 21
ù ERÍN.MEŠ SA.GAZ.MEŠ ù
gišGIGIR.MEŠ
22ša-ki-in4 i-na ŠÀ-bi
23ù la! i-nam-mu-šu-nim
24[i]š-tu pí
KÁ.GAL uru
gub-laki
(87:21-24)
And chariots and the hosts of the
ʿApiru he stationed in the middle and
they did not move [f]rom the
entrance of the gate of Gubla.
5.1.29 ù i-ša-ra-pu KUR.[MEŠ i-n]a IZI
(126:52)
And they have set fire to the
country.
5.1.30 61
ù ip-ḫu-ru-nim giš
MÁ.MEŠ-šu-nu
62gišGIGIR.MEŠ-šu-nu ERÍN.MEŠ
GÌR.MEŠ-šu-nu 63
a-na ṣa-ba-ti uru
ṣur-
ri GEMÉ LUGAL (149:61-63)
And they have assembled their
ships, chariots, and infantry, to
capture Tyre, the maidservant of the
king.
5.1.31 11
ù la-a i-pu-uš-šu-nim 12
ki-ma qa-bi
LUGAL be-li-ia 13
la-a i-na-an-din-
nu-nim (155:11-13)
But they did not do in accordance
with the command of the king, my
lord; they did not give (these
things).
5.1.32 37
ù uru
uš-te[k]
i [U]R[U.KI
m]LUGAL-ri
EN-ia 38
ṣa-ab-tu-mi lú
SA.G[AZ].MEŠ
And Uštu, a [c]it[y] of the king, my
lord, the ʿAp[i]ru captured and
142
ù i-ša-la-l[u-ši] (185:37-38, see also
l85:18.23.31)
plunder[ed it].
5.1.33 42
ù a-mu-u[r]-mi lú
SA.[GA]Z.MEŠ
43iš-ḫi-ṭú-mi
uruḫa-zi
ki [UR]U.[K]I
44mLUGAL-ri EN-ia (185:42-44)
And th[e]n the ʿA[p]iru raided Ḫasi,
a [c]i[t]y of the king, my lord.
5.1.34 15
i-din-nu a-na ša-šu-nu
16NINDA.ḪI.A Ì.ḪI.A ù mi-im-ma \
ma-aḫ-zi-ra-mu (287:15-16)
They have given them food, oil, and
any other requirement.
5.1.35 7
ḫa-an-pa 8ša iḫ-nu-pu a-na mu-ḫi-ia
(288:7-8)
It is, therefore, impious what they
have done to me.
According to Izre'el 1987, 89, other instances of the 3 mp prefix /i/ in the prefix conjugations
include: i-ti-zi-bu (93:22), i-ra-ʾa4-mu-šu (106:40), [ip]-pa-ṭá-ru (292:50). Moreover, a
Jerusalem letter uses another 3 mp yaqtul with the prefix that conforms to Akkadian
morphology: ù ú-ba-áʾ-ú ar-na kab-ta GAL "and they attempted a very serious crime"
(287:35). All these occurrences are to be taken as examples of a better acquisition of the
target language and considered as genuine iprus forms. Such an interpretation is confirmed
by the lack of the prefix /i/ in the 3 mp of yaqtulu, a non-Akkadian conjugation.15
The examples of the 3 mp prefix /i/ are admittedly not numerous, yet they are important
because they cast doubt on the parsing of all forms of the I-weak verb with the initial vowel
as qatal forms. These verbs use occasionally the prefix /t/: te-pa-šu (197:14), ti-mu-ru
(138:36.61, 141:34) but usually they begin with a vowel: i-ru-bu (103:9), i-ru-bu-ni
(185:20.26), iz-az-az-zu (237:3), iz-za-zu (238:26), i-ka-lu (285:6). The convention of treating
all forms without the prefix /t/ as qatal forms leaves us with almost no attestations of the 3
mp of the prefix conjugations of the I-weak verbs. This supposed rarity of the 3 mp of I-weak
verbs in the prefix conjugations is yet another argument that the possibility of parsing the
forms of the I-weak verbs with a vocalic prefix (both in the 3 ms and 3 mp) as the prefix
conjugation should be considered.
15
With the exception of the I-weak verbs which may appear with a vocalic prefix.
143
The second main problem of the 3 mp of the prefix conjugations is the possibility that some
forms may begin with a glide and thus be spelled with the sign PI. Indeed, Izre'el collected
sixteen such forms but concluded that all these forms should be parsed as 3 ms of the yaqtulu
conjugation rather than 3 mp yaqtul and left two 3 mp forms of namāšu with the PI prefix
without explanation (Izre'el 1987). His analysis of the texts and his conclusions are solid and
can be accepted. They are prompted, however, by an understanding of the Amarna
interlanguage in terms of paradigms in which only one form is admitted. The occurrence of
both /t/ and /i/ as the 3 mp prefix is yet another proof that this paradigmatic vision of the
Amarna interlanguage is not entirely true. Moreover, since the prefix /i/ is occasionally used,
it is possible that in few instances some scribes spelled it with the sign PI by analogy with the
prefix of the 3 ms. This simple solution seems viable, if one does not want to follow Izre'el
readings and explanations of each of the problematic occurrences of the PI sign in the 3 mp
prefix.
As the 3 mp begins with /t/ in the great majority of the cases, the question of the vowel that
follows must be briefly treated. The vowel /i/ is predominant, for example: ti-la-ku (101:34),
ti-na-ṣa-ru (85:22), while the vowel /a/ occurs just a few times: ta-di-nu-ni (126:64.66), tal-
qú-ni (70:16), ta-ša-mé-ú (286:50). The vowel /e/ occurs with the verbs that exhibit /e/ vowel
coloring, for example: te-èl-qú-ni (180:22), te9-e-te-pu-šu (129:88) but the sign TE is used
also with other verbs in which it can be transcribed ti7: ti7-la-ku (203:19). As expected, the
prefix /tu/ appears in I-waw verbs: tu-ṣú (362:56), in the G passive stem: tu-da-nu (137:6,
138:43), tu-ul-qú (132:15), in the D stem: tu-pa-ri-šu (116:33), and in the Š stems: tu-ša-am-
ri-ru (77:24). However, particularly in the D stem forms, the prefix /ti/ occurs too: ti-dáb-bi-
bu (138:49), ti-dáb-bi-ru (138:69).
1 cp: The prefix of the 1 cs is ni-, as in core Akkadian, with the usual changes of the vowels
because of the root or the stem. Examples of the forms with ni-: ni-pu-uš (136:13, 174:22,
363:19), ni-pa-aš (366:31), ni-ti-pu-uš (73:22), ni-te-pu-uš-mi (138:45), ni-mu-ut (363:11),
ni-iš-mi (185:50), ni-da-ak-šu-nu (185:46). Forms with ne- are a scribal idiosyncrasy as they
occur in the same letter and are spelled with an extra sign E: né-e-ta-li (178:4 but ni-te-lí in
264:15) and [ne]-e-ṣa-ar-šu (178:6). The I-waw roots and the D stem have the prefix nu-: nu-
ra-ad (264:17), nu-bal-li-iṭ (68:28, 85:38), nu-da-bir5 (74:34) but the prefix ni- occurs in
144
them too: ni-ša-ab (174:24, 363:21), ni-du-bu-ur (279:20), ni-ub-lu-uṭ (86:36). Finally, the
prefix of nu-du-uk (197:17) can be due to the vowel harmony.
5.1.4 The Mixed Prefix Conjugation Yaqtulu
The forms of the long mixed prefix conjugation are similar to those of the short conjugation
yaqtul, the main difference being the endings.16
As is the case with yaqtul, the choice of the
Akkadian iprus, iparras or iptaras base form has no impact on the meaning of the mixed
form. The alternations of the vowels in the prefixes correspond generally to the patterns
discernible in the short yaqtul conjugation. Therefore, their discussion will not be repeated.
The forms and their variation can be summarized as follows:
Person Form Examples
3 ms yV-qtVl-u
/ ia-qtVl-u
/ V-qtVl-u
yi-na-ṣí-ru (112:14), yi-na-ṣa-ru (315:17), yi-iš-mu (109:18), yi-iš-
te-mu (325:13), yi-iš-ti-mu (233:18), yi-ìš-ta-pa-ru (112:7), yi-ìš-
tap-pa-ru (103:20), iš-tap-ru (106:30), i-ša-pa-ru (123:29), ia-aš-
pu-ru (89:36, 138:123), yi-im-lu-ku (142:17, 216:20), yi-ma-li-ku
(104:16, 114:48), ya-di-nu (225:10), i-din-nu (298:23), ia-di-nu
(105:85, 116:34, 126:14.18), yi-ìš-ta-ka-nu-ni (125:31), ia-aš-ku-nu
(113:6), ia-aš-ku-un-nu (139:33), yi-iq-bu (129:84, 270:17), yi-qa-
bu (201:23), yi-iq-ta-bu (253:30), ia-aq-bu (101:19, 117:7), i-qa-bu
(106:30, 125:8), yu-qa-bu (85:65), yi-pu-šu (73:19.32; 74:41,
140:9), yu-pa-šu (114:42, 138:75.135), yu-wa-še-ru (255:17.19), yi-
iḫ-li-qú (254:9), yu-ḫa-li-qu (197:34), yi-ìl-qu (71:18), yi-il-te-qú
16 The vocalic ending of the yaqtulu conjugation usually merges with the vowel that can be added before
the personal suffix. This can be proven by the standard questions ―who can...?‖ which are introduced by mi-nu
or ma-an-nu and use the yaqtulu. In these questions the forms with 1st person suffix end usually in -an-ni, for
example, i-ri-ṣa-an-ni (127:16) or yi-na-ṣa-ra-ni (119:10). Note, however, the form with the vowel of the
yaqtulu conjugation in 125:31 (yi-ìš-ta-ka-nu-ni) and the fluctuation of the two forms in a letter from Byblos:
mi-nu yi-na-ṣí-ra-an-ni (112:13) vs. mi-nu yi-na-ṣí-ru-ni (112:17-18).
145
(254:25), yu-ú-ul-qú (117:33), yu-ba-lu (113:41, 116:13, 117:16), ú-
ba-lu4 (149:49), i-ba-lu (326:19)
3 fs tV-qtVl-u ti-la-ku (296:35), te-la-ku (203:19, 204:20, 205:18), ti-pu-šu
(129:34.44), ti-ik-šu-du (221:14), ta-aq-bu (122:41), ti-ša-šu
(122:39), tu-ra-du-šu (257:20), tu-ṣú (129:39), tu-ba-ú-na (82:49),
tu-um-ḫa-ṣú (252:17), tu-uš-mu (138:96), tu-ul11-qú (362:13)
2 ms tV-qtVl-u ti-pu-šu (250:18), ti-qa-bu (117:30, 124:35, 252:23), ti-iq-bu
(71:12), táq-bu (73:7), ta-aq-bu ( 89:40, 138:65), ti-ma-qú-tu
(73:10), ti-ša-i-lu (89:40), ti-ša-lu-ni (102:26), ta-ra-ia-mu (286:18),
ti-ša-pa-ru (93:8), ti-ìš-tap-ru (124:36), tu-te-ru-na (83:7.48), ta-za-
ia-ru (286:20), tu-ṣú (362:62), tu-ša-ṣú-na (126:42)
1 cs V-qtVl-u aq-bu (107:10, 109:15), aq-ta-bu (254:23), iq-bu (74:7, 197:25), i-
qa-bu (127:30), a-na-ṣa-ru (126:33, 221:12, 296:31, 321:24), i-na-
ṣa-ru (65:10, 196:38, 243:10.14.17; 323:10), i-na-ṣí-ru (130:49), e-
na-ṣa-ru (187:14), iṣ-ṣú-ru (292:23, 294:12), uṣ-ṣú-ru (141:41,
142:12), aš-te-mu (149:42), eš-mu (116:16), iš-mu (251:15), iš-te-
mu (225:9.12, 316:14), iš-ti-mu (261:12, 250:60), aš-pu-ru (91:27,
116:16), aš-ta-pa-ru (89:7, 118:9), iš-tap-ru (85:6.55, 106:18), ú-
ba-ú (74:64, 109:55), i-ba-ú (362:58), i-ri-bu (137:34), i-ra-bu
(151:13), ú-wa-ši-ru-šu (114:35), uš-ši-ru-na-ši (143:16), ú-ta-aš-
ša-ru-uš-šu (245:29)
3 mp tV-qtVl-u-
na
tu-ub-ba-lu-na (224:14, 365:22), tu-ba-lu-na (108:39, 117:18), ti-la-
ku-na (73:16, 126:12), te-la-ku-na (249:5), ti-pu-šu-na (108:11,
131:31, 365:18), ti-ik-šu-du-na (145:19), ti-iq-bu-na (73:29, 129:32,
250:14.50), te-eq-bu-na (197:16.23, 362:21), te-eq-bu-ni
(362:17.25), ti-ìl-qú-na (104:22.25.32), tu-ul-qú-na (90:18), ti-iš-
pu-ru-na (118:47, 138:137), ti-iš-ta-pa-ru-na (124:38), ta-aš-pu-ru-
na (138:22), tu-ba-ú-na (79:23.28, 105:24,) ti-ba-ú-na (129:29,
362:45) te-ba-ú-na (362:24), ta-mu-tu-na (362:44)
146
3 md tV-qtVl-a-
na
ti-ìš-ma-na (103:22)
2 mp tV-qtVl-u-
na
tu-ša-ab-li-ṭú-na-nu (238:31)
1 cp nV-qtVl-u ni-ìš-mu (221:24), ni-di-nu (112:52), ni-iš-pu-ru (112:53), ni-pu-šu-
na (98:21), ni-le-ú (98:19, 244:13), ni-la-ú (211:8), ni-ka-ši-šu
(138:37), ni-ìl-qú (103:57), ni-wa-aš-ši-ru-šu (197:18), nu-ub-ba-lu-
uš-šu (245:7)
Observations:
3 ms: The vocalic prefix is rare (8.20%) but its appearance is important for understanding the
yaqtulu conjugation as constructed on the basis of the Akkadian iprus by addition of the
suffix and later by the spelling of the prefix with the signs PI and IA. Examples of the vocalic
prefix in the yaqtulu include: i-ba-lu (326:19), ú-ba-lu4 (149:69), en-ni-bi-tu (256:7), it-ta-
na-la-ku (254:35), ir-ru-bu (76:21), i-qa-bu (106:30, 125:8), i-ra-mu (114:68), iš-tap-ru
(92:35, 106:30), i-ša-pa-ru (123:29), it-ta-ṣú-ú (286:48), ú-ba-ú (88:22).
2 ms: A 2 ms yaqtulu form with the Energic -na can look alike the 3 mp yaqtulu, but the
context helps to disambiguate the parsing. Examples: ti-ìš-mu-na: 2 ms in 74:50 but 3 mp in
73:12 and 82:11; tu-te-ru-na 2 ms in 83:7.48 but ti-tu-ru-na 3mp in 134:14.
3 mp: One form, yi-na-mu-šu-n[a] (109:7) has the prefix spelled with the sign PI. Since this
is the sole form with this prefix, it is most probably the result of an inadvertence of a scribe
who started to write a 3 ms form, later realized that 3 mp is required by the context and thus
added the final -na but did not correct the initial sign to ti-.17
In two letters from Byblos there
are forms of the 3 mp yaqtulu which end with -ni rather than the expected -na: ta-di-nu-ni
(126:64.66) and te-eq-bu-ni (362:17.25). Also, these two forms must be considered scribal
idiosyncrasies because all other 3 mp yaqtulu forms in these letters end with -na.18
The
17 This form can be an instance of what Worthington calls "soft" auto-corrections. For their examples see
Worthington 2012, 168-174.
18 Tropper and Vita (2010, 82-82) consider this form as a product of contraction of the verbal ending with
the Ventive: tiqtul-ūna + -ni(m) > tiqtul-ūnni(m). This analysis cannot be excluded but it is also possible that the
147
second of these forms, te-eq-bu-ni (362:17.25), alternates with the expected te-eq-bu-na in
362:21.
3 md: A form of 3 md of the yaqtulu is not registered in current grammars of ―Amarna
Canaanite.‖ I propose to identify ti-ìš-ma-na (103:22) as the 3 md yaqtulu based on the
reading of 103:16-22 where this form refers to two subjects and on the fact that the 3 mp
yaqtulu of šemû is ti-ìš-mu-na (73:12, 82:11).19
5.1.34 16
i-ti-z[i-i]b 17uru
gub-la ù ia-[nu] 18m
zi-
im-ri-da [ù] 19m
ia-pa-dIM [it]-ti-ia
20a-
nu-ma ki-[a-m]a yi-ìš-tap-pa-ru
21lú[GA]L [a-n]a ša-šu-nu ù
22l[a-a] ti-
ìš-ma-na a-na ša-šu (103:16-22)
I le[f]t Gubla, but Zimredda [and]
Yapaḫ-Hadda wer[e n]ot [w]ith me. So
the [mag]nate keeps writing [t]o them,
but they pay n[o] attention to him.
2 mp: tu-ša-ab-li-ṭú-na-nu (238:31) is the unique attestation of 2 mp yaqtulu.
5.1.5 The Mixed Prefix Conjugation Yaqtula
The morphological analysis of the prefixed verbs with the final /a/ is affected by several
difficulties, the main one being the choice between parsing this form as a particular verbal
formation yaqtula or as composed of a form of a prefix conjugation with the Akkadian
Ventive morpheme. Therefore, in the analysis of these forms, it is advisable to carefully
distinguish their morphological description from their syntactical and semantic function as
well as from the historical and comparative considerations about the Semitic verbal system.
scribe of these letters substituted the verbal ending -ūna with -ūni because he understood it mistakenly as the
correct Akkadian plural marker. Finally, one should remind that - ūni is a plural verbal marker in the Akkadian
of Amurru (Izreʾel 1991, 137-140).
19 Tropper and Vita (2010, 64) seem to be against this parsing because they expect the ending of this
form to be -āni rather than -āna and because the pronoun that refers to the subject of this verb in the preceding
line is plural and not dual. Both objections are invalid. The expectation that the ending should be -āni is based
on comparison with Arabic. However, internal evidence must take precedence over comparative considerations.
As for the plural and not dual pronoun, one must observe that the 3 person dual pronouns are in general
unknown in Byblos.
148
Another difficulty resides in the scarce number of attestations of the forms ending in /a/ other
than 3 ms and 1 cs. Hence, it is uncertain if the forms with the final /a/ in 3 fs, 2 ms, 1 cp, and
3 mp should be treated as a part of the same paradigm or each rather explained on its own.
The uncertainty concerning the morphology of these rarer forms is aggravated by the
possibility that the ending /a/ merges with the plural markers and thus that certain yaqtula
forms are misunderstood as forms of other prefix conjugations. The following description
takes a maximalist approach as it considers all forms with final /a/ and assumes that these
forms, although not all, reflect a paradigm. The following table summarizes the morphology
of the yaqtula forms.
Person Form Examples
3 ms yV-qtVl-a
/ ia-qtVl-a
/ V-qtVl-a
yi-ìl-qa (71:30), ìl-ti-qa (84:34), yi-ma-qú-ta (81:31, 83:43), yi-ta-ṣa
(337:15), yu-ṣa (124:46), yu-ṣa-am (362:60), yu-ṣa-na (74:39), yu-
šé-bi-la (88:35), ul-te-bi-la (267:9), yi-ìš-ma (82:23), yi-iš-ti-ma
(234:31), yi-ni-pu-ša (234:23), ya-di-na (117:78), ia-di-na
(118:11.16), ya-di-nam (127:27), yu-da-na (86:32.47), yu-da-nam
(85:34.37), yu-uš-ši-ra (180:6, 269:11.14), yu-ši-ra (366:30), yu-wa-
ši-ra (64:12, 85:17), yi-iq-ba (129:52), yu-uq-ba (83:16), ia-aš-pu-
ra (234:23), iš-pu-ra-am (328:19), iš-tap-ra-am (321:17), yi-iš-pu-
ra-am (362:22), i-ti-la (81:46), i-ti-la-am (88:14), i-te-la-am (88:17)
3 fs tV-qtVl-a ti-zi-za (107:33), tu-da-na (86:29), tu-da-bi-ra-šu (85:81), tu-ṣa
(362:19), tu-uṣ-ṣa (234:17), te-i-ṣa (362:30)
2 ms tV-qtVl-a ti-ip-pa-ša (287:71), ta-aš-pu-ra (77:7, 95:7), ta-aš-tap-ra (102:14),
ta-aš-ta-na (82:14), tu-ṣa-na (73:9, 86:14)
1 cs V-qtVl-a il5-la-ka (294:32), ur-ra-da (294:33), i-ru-da-am (300:20), iz-zi-ba
(294:31), i-zi-ba-ši (126:45) a-da-bu-ba (119:23), a-qa-bu-na
(119:53), i-pu-ša (83:24), i-mu-ta (130:51), ib-lu-ṭá (123:26), a-na-
ṣa-ra (74:56, 83:33, 117:73), i-na-ṣí-ra (123:27), i-ka-ša-da-am
(362:34)
149
3 mp tV-qtVl-a-
na
ti-ma-ḫa-ṣa-na-n[i] (77:37)
1 cp nV-qtVl-a nu-ul11-qa-am-mi (362:23)
Observations:
The Ending -am: There are a number of verbs in the prefix conjugation which end in /-am/:
i-ru-da-am (300:20), yu-da-nam (85:34.37), iš-pu-ra-am (328:19), yi-iš-pu-ra-am (362:22),
iš-tap-ra-am (321:17), i-ti-la-am (88:14), i-te-la-am (88:17), ya-di-nam (127:27), yi-ṣa-ḫi-ra-
am (136:25), t[ú]-te-ra-am (145:26), i-ka-ša-da-am (362:34), yu-ṣa-am (362:60), nu-ul11-qa-
am-mi (362:23). This ending reflects obviously the morphology of the Akkadian Ventive.
The occurrence of the Ventive -am does not come as a surprise because the Amarna letters
from Canaan also know the Ventive ending -ni(m) which is used in the core Akkadian after
the verbs ending with a long vowel: pu-ḫu-ru-nim-mi (74:31), pal-ḫu-ni (89:43-44, Stative),
ip-ḫu-ru-nim (149:61), i-li-ú-nim (149:66), ip-pu-u-šu-nim (155:11), i-na-an-din-nu-nim
(155:13). In evaluating the evidence of the ending -am, it must be observed that this ending
cannot be taken as proof of the knowledge of the Akkadian Ventive on the part of the
Canaanite scribes because it does not occur in a systematic manner. It rather reflects some
familiarity with this morpheme at certain stages of the peripheral cuneiform tradition in
limited circles. In other words, the occurrence of the ending -am is a scribal idiosyncrasy.
This assessment is confirmed by the distribution of the morpheme: it occurs twice in letters
no. 85 and 88 in the same verb and it characterizes the idiolect of the scribe of letter 362 who
employs it four times on different verbs. The understanding of the writing -am as scribal
idiosyncrasy is also supported by the distribution of its allomorph -nim, typical of the letters
from Tyre (149 and 155).
3 ms: As noticed in 4.1.3, the majority of yaqtula forms (86.67%) are spelled with the initial
glide (signs PI or IA). As in the yaqtul and yaqtulu conjugations, the vowel of the prefix can
be usually explained as depending on the root used (strong or weak), the conjugation or the
voice.
3 fs: The table above contains all the 3 fs yaqtula forms recorded in the database.
2 fs: The table above contains all the 2 ms yaqtula forms recorded in the database.
150
3 mp: According to Huehnergard (1998:71), the counterpart to the singular yaqtula form is
tiqtulū. Consequently, many 3 mp forms could have remained unidentified as such because
they would be morphologically identical with the 3 mp yaqtul forms and semantically similar
to them. However, ti-ma-ḫa-ṣa-na-n[i] in 77:37 can be identified as a 3 mp yaqtula form.
Parsing it as a 3 mp verb is the most straightforward solution as its subject is LÚ.MEŠ ḫu-up-
š[i-ia]. That this is a yaqtula form is expected because it follows the verb palāḫu ―to fear‖
which in 131:28 is followed by an unequivocal yaqtula form. It must be noticed, however,
that other scholars parsed this form differently depending on their understanding of the
number and gender of the subject: for Rainey (1996, vol. 2, 263) and Korchin (2008, 262) it
is 3 fs yaqtula with the energic -na constructed with a collective 3 mp subject; for Tropper
and Vita (2005, 58) this form could be parsed as 3 fp with the so far unrecognized ending -
āna. The parsing of ti-ma-ḫa-ṣa-na-n[i] in 77:37 as 3 mp yaqtula can be further supported by
the form tu-ṣa-na in 117:55. This piece of evidence, however, is unfortunately not
unambiguous because the subject of tu-ṣa-na in 117:55 are ―two men from Egypt‖ and
because the semantics of this verb does not exclude its parsing as 3 md of the yaqtulu
conjugation.20
Since ti-ma-ḫa-ṣa-na-n[i] in 77:37 seems to be the only certain 3 mp yaqtula
and since it is possible that 3 mp yaqtul and 3 mp yaqtula are identical, it seems more
advisable to withhold final judgment over the morphology of 3 mp yaqtula.
1 cp: The form nu-ul11-qa-am-mi (362:23) is the unique attestation of the 1 cp yaqtula. It
must be reminded that it comes from letter 362 which is notorious for its use of the ending-
am. It must be parsed as the 1 cp of the prefix conjugation with the ending -am followed by
the enclitic particle -mi that marks in the context the end of a quotation (Tropper and Vita
2010, 82).
20
Or 3 fs yaqtula with the energic -na constructed ad sensum with a 3 md subject.
151
5.1.6 The Imperative
Only imperatives of 2 ms and 2 cp are attested. In contrast to the prefixed and suffixed
conjugations, the morphology of the imperative exhibits little variation.21
The following table
lists all forms of the imperative in the database.
Person Form Examples
2 ms qVtVl a-lik (102:15), a-mur (292:41), uš-šir-mi (82:28), uš-ši-ra
(180:10.19), mu-še-ra (287:52), bu-li-iṭ (215:16), du-gu-la-ni
(283:9), i-pu-uš-me (250:16), i-ru-ub (192:31), še-ri-ib (287:67), šu-
ri-ib-mi (112:43), iz-zi-ib-mi (294:29), ḫu-mi-ṭam (192:29), ku-uš-
da (86:6), ka-ša-da (102:30), qí-bi (283:14), qí-bí-ma (192:2), qí-
ba-mi (85:48), le-qa (86:45), li-ma-ad (83:52, 292:50), li4-ma-ad
(284:6), mi-lik (116:17), i-din-mi (289:50), id-na-mi (270:18), ú-ṣur
(292:21), i-zi-iz (102:15), šu-up-ši-iḫ (132:59), ṣa-bat (101:15), ša-
al (89:41), ša-a-la (113:4), šu-ku-un (101:27), ši-me (85:47), šu-pur
(151:51), ši-si-mi (127:13), tu-ur (95:36), te-ra-ni (114:25), šu-te-ra
(83:23), uṣ-ṣi (127:12), šu-ši-ir-me (337:8), še-zi-ba-an-ni (318:8),
nu-pu-ul-mì (252:25), up-ša (179:12)
2 cp qVt(V)l-u al-ku-mi (117:62), al-ku-ni (280:20), al-ka-am-mi (197:17), uš-ši-
ru-na-ni (71:23), du-ku-mi (73:27, 74:25), i-zi-bu-šu (138:44), li-qú-
na (117:63), li-qa-mi (280:19), id-nu-mi (289:27), pu-ḫu-ru-nim-mi
(74:31), in-ni-ip-šu (73:28)
21 In 112:43 the Š imperative of erēbu is formed according to the Babylonian paradigm (šu-ri-ib-mi)
while the Jerusalem letters use consistently its Assyrian counterpart še-ri-ib (286:62, 287:67, 288:64). All
occurences of the imperative of the verb wuššuru begin with u- but the scribe from Jerusalem, following the
practice in Babylonia, uses only the form mu-še-ra (287:51.52, 289:45) with initial m-. The 2 ms imperative of
kašādu is attested four times: three times as ku-uš-da (82:52, 86:6, 95:34) and once as ka-ša-da (102:30).
152
Observations:
The Expanded Imperative: There is quite a significant number of imperatives with the final
vowel /a/. This ending occurs always on the imperatives of the verbs wuššuru ―to send‖ (uš-
ši-ra 38 times, once uš-šir-mi in 82:28) and kašādu ―to arrive.‖ It occurs optionally on a few
other verbs (le-qa in 86:45 and 95:37; le-qa-mi in 280:19, a plural form, id-na-mi in 185:56
and 270:18, ša-a-la in 113:4, up-ša in 179:12 and qí-ba-mi in 73:33, 83:39, 85:48, 86:31,
93:10 and 113:36) while it is not attested on the remaining verbs. The pattern of limited
distribution of this morpheme suggests that it was memorized as a part of the imperative of
certain verbs rather than added according to syntactic and semantic needs or used as a free
variant of the regular imperative. Two 2 cp imperatives have the Energic ending -na: uš-ši-
ru-na-ni (71:23) and le-qú-na. (117:63).
The Imperative with the Ventive: There are several imperatives with the Akkadian
Ventive: al-ka-am-mi (197:17), ḫu-mi-ṭam (192:29), al-ku-ni (280:20), pu-ḫu-ru-nim-mi
(74:31).
5.1.7 The Energic Ending -na
There are ca. sixty verbal forms ending in -na in which this ending cannot be interpreted as
part of the plural marker.22
The first problem concerning this ending is its exact morphology.
The occurrence of verbs with a similar ending that exhibit geminated /n/ in some
paradigmatic forms in Arabic, Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew raises the question as to whether
a similar gemination should be reconstructed also for these forms in the Amarna
interlanguage. Since there are no writings in the Amarna letters which unequivocally indicate
such a gemination, it is preferable to speak about the Energic ending -na and not -n(n)a.23
Such a choice corresponds to the larger vision of the Amarna interlanguage as scribal
construct which can be compared directly neither with the scribes‘ native tongue nor with the
cognate languages. Therefore, an Energic ending with gemination should not be
22 A handful list of the passages in which they occur with translation is available in Zewi 1999, 161-170.
23 Such a geminated ending can be identified in a letter from Kāmid el-Lōz: ut-ta-aš-še-ru-un-na-šu-nu
(KL 72.600:8; Wilhelm 1973, 69).
153
reconstructed because of the evidence from other natural languages. Conversely, the lack of
graphic gemination in these forms does not indicate that corresponding forms in the scribes‘
native language were lacking such gemination.
The second problem is the possibility of the use of this ending on forms other than yaqtulu,
that is, on yaqtula and on the imperative. The question is difficult to debate because of the
number and nature of the attestations. The use of the Energic -na with the imperative is
certain and occurs in uš-ši-ru-na-ni (71:23) and le-qú-na. (117:63). This use must be judged
as marginal since there are just two occurrences of such a form. Nevertheless, the appearance
of the Energic -na on the imperative is very telling as to its nature as clitic ending which can
be suffixed to different verbal forms rather than a form that marks a separate paradigm. If so,
the possibility of finding it with the yaqtula could be admitted. Indeed, several -na are
attested on the yaqtula forms: tu-ṣa-na (73:9, 86:14) yu-ṣa-na (74:39, 77:27) and ti-ma-ḫa-
ṣa-na-n[i] (77:37). Thus, this ending is not incompatible with the mixed yaqtula conjugation.
It is a separate issue whether the vowel /a/ before the Energic ending -na on these forms
represents a residue of the Akkadian Ventive or if it marks the Canaanite volitive form.24
5.2 Variation in the Morphology of the Amarna Verb
5.2.1 Variation in the Morphology of the Amarna Verb as a Research Challenge
The most salient feature of the morphological variation in the Amarna letters from Canaan is
the fact that the same grammatical form of a verb can take different morphological shapes.
For example, all the following forms are to be parsed as 3 ms yaqtul of the verb qabû ―to
speak‖: iq-bi (78:1), yi-iq-bi (138:48), ia-aq-bi (116:32), yi-qa-bi (234:16), iq-ba-bi (275:9)
and i-qa-ab-bi (298:15). Admittedly, the forms occur with different frequency: the first form,
iq-bi, is widespread; the forms yi-iq-bi and ia-aq-bi are attested several times, while iq-ba-bi
24 Rainey proposes that the Energic -na suffixed to the forms of the yaqtula forms of the verb waṣû is a
scribal convention of marking this verb as expressing the meaning of the long conjugation yaqtulu (1996, vol.
II, 209-210, 239). This proposal is rejected by Tropper and Vita (2005, 62).
154
and i-qa-ab-bi are unique formations. The forms attested once can be dismissed in the
linguistic description as scribal idiosyncrasies, but the occurrence of several seemingly free
variants calls for a closer description and analysis of the morphological variation.
Variation is hardly unknown to the scholars working on the Amarna letters from Canaan.
Already in 1909, speaking about the spelling of the vowels /i/ and /e/, F. M. Th. Böhl wrote:
―In unseren barbarischen Texten scheint Regellosigkeit die Regel‖ (1909, 2). However, in
spite of this Böhl‘s realization, his and subsequent studies focused on describing paradigms
and finding rules. Variants were accounted for as sporadic appearances of Assyrian rather
than Babylonian forms and as scribal oddities. Among the studies which took the analysis of
the variants seriously, the most important is Moran‘s contribution on the letters from
Jerusalem in which he described different features of these letters in relation to similar
features of the core Mesopotamian and Peripheral Akkadian dialects and concluded that they
display a ―curious mélange‖ of typically northern features with southern components (Moran
1975, 155). This masterful study was followed by Rainey‘s sketch in which he was able to
diagnose variation in the letters from Jerusalem as stemming from ―a neurological quirk of
the scribe and not any linguistic tendency‖ (Rainey 1978b, 150). The following studies were
devoted to topics other than morphology. In his 1984 dissertation, J. Hayes found some
differences in the way the letters from Ashqelon, Gezer, Amurru and Alashiya use the
conjunction u and the adverb anumma before the verb (Hayes 1984). E. Morris investigated
the formulas of obedience and obsequiousness and, not unsurprisingly, found that they follow
a geographical pattern: the closer to Egypt, the more obsequious the formulas become
(Morris 2006). A geographical pattern was found also by L. Siddall in the use of the
Injunctive: the northern and central cities preferred the Akkadian Precative while the
southern and coastal cities favoured the Canaanite jussive (Siddall 2009). To these examples
one should add the negation ul, which is popular at Byblos but attested just a few times
elsewhere, and the use of the verb išû (―to have‖ in core Akkadian) with the meaning ―to be
at,‖ which is found only in region VI, twice in Byblos (68:20, 77:9) and once in Sidon
(145:21). A possible reason for the scholars‘ reluctance to investigate the morphological
variation was the lack of an appropriate theoretical framework and methodological
procedure. Indeed, the traditional philological approach to the study of language sees
morphology only as a system of unitary paradigms and linguistic laws as apodictic, ever-
155
working rules.25
This approach can be used in the study of the verbal morphology of the
Amarna letters only with regard to the marking of person and number as well as the verbal
conjugations and stems. It is, however, useless in the study of other morphological features,
most notably the Akkadian forms used to built the mixed Amarna forms. Therefore, it is
obvious that the traditional study of Amarnian morphology must be supplemented with an
investigation that embraces a vision of the language in which variation is an important
feature of the language itself. Such vision of the language with corresponding methodology
for its study is provided by variationist sociolinguistics.26
However, the nature of the
evidence that can be extracted from the Amarna letters severely limits the application of the
variationist analysis because its methodological requirements cannot be fully met.
The most important limitation of the Amarna evidence which renders a typical, historical-
sociolinguistic research impossible is the uniformity of the data. Since sociolinguistic
explanations correlate language usage with social patterns such as social class, gender, age,
style and register, it is a pre-requisite of sociolinguistic research to build a database which
contains the data derived from informants of different social class, gender, age and so on in
similar proportions. An investigation that considers such patterns is impossible in the case of
the Amarna letters from Canaan because they are the product of the members of the same
social class (scribal elite), presumably all male, of similar age and reflect the same style and
register of the correspondence of vassals kinglets with their overlords. The only available
independent variable is the place of the origin of each letter. Therefore, it may seem better to
define the study of the variants in the Amarna letters from Canaan in terms of dialectology, a
sub-field of sociolinguistics which studies variations in language based primarily on
geographic distribution.27
However, such an approach is also problematic: as most of the
variants are not circumscribed geographically but can occur in different regions, with few
25 This evaluation can be extended also to some modern linguistic theories. In Tagliamonte‘s words: ―In
the broader field of linguistics, identification of patterns in language data is key to understanding linguistic
mechanisms. At least as far as formal theories of grammar are concerned, these mechanisms are categorical.
Where there is an environment for linguistic rules to apply, they do. Where the environment does not exist, they
do not. No variation‖ (Tagliamonte 2012, 72). See also Walker 2010, 132-133.
26 A convenient introduction to this field is provided in Tagliamonte 2012. Hernández-Campoy and
Conde-Silvestre 2012 provide an overview of its use for historical research.
27 For an overview of dialectological research see Auer, Schmidt, Lameli, et al. 2010.
156
exceptions it is impossible to draw isoglosses of linguistic features. Moreover, since other
features of the Amarna inter-language (syntax, lexicon) show a significant degree of
uniformity throughout the entire corpus of the letters from Canaan, it would be inappropriate
to speak about local dialect solely on the base of some characteristics of the verbal
morphology.28
Another limitation of the Amarna corpus is the number of tokens (2674 verbs) which is low
in comparison with the size of corpora typically used for variationist analysis. To complicate
things further, this small database is severely uneven, both geographically and linguistically.
Geographically, over a half of the verbs (1364) come from one location - Byblos. It follows
that the Byblian usages are far better illustrated than usages from any other city.
Linguistically, the content of the letters favours repetitive formulas and selected structures
such as reports on the present condition of the town and requests for help. Consequently, the
verbal forms used in these formulas and structures are overrepresented while other lexemes
and forms remain marginal. These two characteristics of the database combined together
mean, in practical terms, that there can be a well-attested use of a certain form in one city
with no comparable cases elsewhere. Indeed, such is the case with the forms of the verb
riaḫu, attested only at Byblos in one standard phrase.
The small size of the unevenly distributed data causes yet another, more fundamental
problem. Linguistic variables are ―two or more ways of saying the same things‖ or, in other
words, alternatives within the same grammatical system which have the same meaning
(Tagliamonte 2012, 3-8). Now, since the Amarna letters can provide only a small and uneven
set of data, especially while analyzing the prefix conjugations, it is necessary to combine in
one list forms which belong to different conjugations and thus differ in their meaning. This
way of proceeding creates a more representative set of data but at the same time it runs
against the basic principle of variationist analysis which examines units of the same meaning.
The only way of addressing this problem is the manual scrutiny of the lists which pays
attention to a possible relationship between the conjugation and the form. In other words, in
the variationist analysis, the possibility that the variants carry different meaning are excluded
during the first steps of building the dataset. The present analysis, although centered around a
28 With few exceptions (the spelling of the 3 ms prefix in the prefix conjugation or the ending of the 1cs
in the suffix conjugation), verbal prefixes and suffixes are the same in all letters.
157
geographical distribution of variables, remains open to the possibility of discovering that
some variables relate to the kind of conjugation in which they occur and that their variation
must be described separately.
In conclusion, it is impossible to analyze morphological variation in the Amarna letters using
the procedures current in variationist sociolinguistics and dialectology. The following
description is inspired by variationist sociolinguistics but does not claim to be a variationist
analysis of the Amarna verb. Moreover, in analyzing and describing the variation, it is not
feasible to account for all variants that are found within even a single form of one verb.
Consequently, the description of the data will focus on the variables selected for their
interesting characteristics while reading the letters and compiling the database of the verb.
5.2.2 The Verb epēšu ―to do‖
The following list contains the forms of prefixed conjugations of the verb epēšu arranged
according to the city of provenience.
Form Reference Region No. City No.
yi-pu-šu-ni 270:10 I 1
yu-pa-šu 271:27 I 1
ep-pu-šu-mì 378:17 I 1
ip-pu-šu 280:38 I 2
ip-pu-uš 283:19 I 2
ni-pa-aš 366:31 I 2
i-pu-šu 328:26 I 3
ep-pu-šu 254:46 II 8
e-pu-uš 286:14 II 9
158
ip-pu-šu 287:19 II 9
ti-ip-pa-ša 287:71 II 9
ni-pu-uš 289:21 II 9
yu-up-pa-šu-mi 232:20 III 13
i-pá-aš-ši 239:10 III 14
i-ti-pu-uš-me 244:11 III 15
yi-pu-šu-mi 245:3 III 15
ti-pu-šu-na 365:18 III 15
ip-pu-šu-na 249:10 III 16
ti-pu-šu 250:18 III 16
yi-te-pu-uš 258:7 III 17
i-pa-aš 196:32 V 28
i-pa-aš 196:41 V 28
te-pa-šu 197:14 V 28
yi-pu-šu 73:19 VI 30
yi-pu-šu 73:32 VI 30
yi-pu-šu 74:41 VI 30
i-pu-šu-na 74:63 VI 30
i-pé-šu 82:46 VI 30
i-pu-šu 83:9 VI 30
i-pu-ša 83:24 VI 30
i-pu-šu 85:60 VI 30
159
i-pu-šu 90:22 VI 30
i-pu-šu-na 91:26 VI 30
ni-pu-uš 93:13 VI 30
i-pu-šu-na 104:37 VI 30
ti-pu-šu-na 108:11 VI 30
i-pu-šu 114:26 VI 30
yu-pa-šu 114:42 VI 30
i-pu-šu-na 117:92 VI 30
i-pu-šu-na 119:14 VI 30
yi-pu-šu 119:40 VI 30
ti-pu-uš 122:47 VI 30
i-pu-šu-na 122:49 VI 30
i-pu-šu 125:39 VI 30
ti-pu-šu-na 125:42 VI 30
ti-pu-šu-na 129:8 VI 30
ti-pu-šu 129:34 VI 30
ti-pu-šu 129:44 VI 30
i-pu-šu-na 130:31 VI 30
i-pu-šu-na 130:31 VI 30
ti-pu-šu-na 131:31 VI 30
yi-pu-šu 131:36 VI 30
i-pu-šu-na 134:15 VI 30
160
ni-pu-uš 136:13 VI 30
yi-pu-uš 137:24 VI 30
yu-pa-aš-mi 137:96 VI 30
ni-te-pu-uš-mi 138:45 VI 30
i-ti-pu-šu 138:46 VI 30
yu-pa-šu 138:74 VI 30
yu-pa-šu 138:75 VI 30
yi-pu-uš 138:105 VI 30
yi-pu-uš 138:117 VI 30
yu-pa-šu 138:135 VI 30
yi-pu-iš 139:11 VI 30
yi-pu-šu 140:9 VI 30
i-pu-šu 362:69 VI 30
ni-pu-šu-na 98:21 VI 31
i-pu-uš 148:35 VI 33
i-pu-uš 148:45 VI 33
i-pu-uš 151:13 VI 33
et-te-pu-uš 153:5 VI 33
e-te-pu-uš 154:9 VI 33
i-pu-uš-šu-nim 155:11 VI 33
i-pu-uš 155:36 VI 33
i-pu-uš 155:45 VI 33
161
i-pu-uš 185:10 VII 34
i-pu-šu-mi 185:13 VII 34
ni-pu-uš-mi 185:44 VII 34
ni-pu-uš 174:22 VII 36
ni-pu-uš 363:19 VII 36
e-pu-iš 180:16 VIII 39
ni-pu-šu 212:6 VIII 40
íp-pu-šu 212:9 VIII 40
i-pu-šu 317:16 VIII 40
i-pu-uš 317:18 VIII 40
Beside the occasional use of the infix -t- and spellings with the double -pp-, the most
interesting variant is the use of the Babylonian theme vowel /u/ versus the Assyrian /a/. The
use of theme vowel tends to be consistent within single cities but this tendency does not
constitute an iron rule. For example, on the one hand, the letters from Damascus (196 and
197) consistently use the vowel /a/; on the other hand, the Jerusalem letters, known for their
Assyrianisms (Moran 1975), employ both vowels. Moreover, the variation of the theme
vowels does not occur in the 1 cs in which the vowel /u/ is used consistently. The fact that the
Byblian scribe of letters 137 and 138 uses both vowels /a/ and /u/ side by side in the same
letter suggests that they constitute a free variant. The tendency of certain scribes to use the
Assyrian vowel is to be ascribed to their educational background.
The following table shows the 1 cs of the suffix conjugation:
Form Reference Region No. City No.
ep-pu-uš-ti 280:12 I 2
ep-ša-ti 286:5 II 9
ep-ša-ku-me 245:36 III 15
162
ep-ša-ti 89:17 VI 30
ep-ša-ti 113:11 VI 30
Although the form ep-ša-ti, found in a Jerusalem letter and in two letters from Byblos,
emerges as a kind of standard form, the occurrence of three different forms in a sample of
just five specimens shows the impropriety of treating the morphology of the verb in the
Amarna letters from Canaan in terms of fixed paradigms.
5.2.3 The Verb leqû ―to take‖
The forms of the prefix conjugations of the verb leqû found in the database are as follows:
Form Reference Region No. City No.
yi-ìl-te-qé-ni 270:27 I 1
il5-qé-ši 292:33 I 1
il5-te-qé 280:22 I 2
il5-te9-qé 280:26 I 2
yi-il5-te-qú 280:31 I 2
yi-il5-qé-šu-nu 281:14 I 2
il5-qé-šu-nu 294:23 I 5
yi-il-te-qú 254:25 II 8
el-ti-qú-ú 237:2 III 14
el-ti-qú 237:5 III 14
el-ti-qú-ú 237:11 III 14
el-ti-qú-ú 238:6.26.27 III 14
163
yi-il5-te-qé 239:13 III 14
yi-il5-qé-me 245:25 III 15
yi-ìl-qé-šu 245:30 III 15
il-te-qé 364:19 IV 24
yi-il5-qé 197:10 V 28
yi-il5-qa 197:27 V 28
til-qú-ši 197:36 V 28
ìl-ti-qú-mi 69:10 VI 30
ti-ìl-te9-qú-na 71:15 VI 30
yi-ìl-qu 71:18 VI 30
yi-ìl-qa 71:30 VI 30
ìl-ti-qé 74:23 VI 30
ìl-ti-qé 81:8 VI 30
yi-ìl-qa-ni 81:32 VI 30
ìl-ti-qé 81:47 VI 30
ìl-ti-qa-ni 82:24 VI 30
ìl-ti-qa-ni 82:41 VI 30
il-ti-qú 84:22 VI 30
ti-ìl-qú 84:32 VI 30
ìl-ti-qa 84:34 VI 30
yu-ul-qú 86:11 VI 30
ìl-qé 88:16 VI 30
164
yi-ìl-qé-ši 90:12 VI 30
tu-ul-qú-na 90:18 VI 30
[yi]-ì[l]-ti-qú-šu-nu 90:25 VI 30
yi-ìl-qa 91:6 VI 30
tu-ul-qé 91:8 VI 30
ìl-qé 91:19 VI 30
ìl-qé 92:17 VI 30
ti-il5-qé 94:11 VI 30
yi-ìl-qé-ši 95:33 VI 30
ni-ìl-qú 103:57 VI 30
ti-ìl-qú-na 104:22.25.32 VI 30
ti-ìl-qé-šu 107:30 VI 30
yi-ìl-ti-qú-šu-nu 109:17 VI 30
yi-ìl-ti-qú-šu-nu 109:19 VI 30
ti-ìl-qé-ni 114:46 VI 30
yu-ú-ul-qú 117:33 VI 30
ti-ìl-qú-na-še 117:64 VI 30
yu-ú-ul-qú-na 117:68 VI 30
yi-ìl-qé-šu 117:70 VI 30
yi-ìl-qé 118:18 VI 30
yi-ìl-qa-šu-nu 118:33 VI 30
yi-ìl-qé-šu 119:47 VI 30
165
yi-ìl-qé 119:48 VI 30
yi-ìl-qú-še 124:15 VI 30
tu-ul11-qú-na 126:6 VI 30
ti7-ìl-qú-na 126:13 VI 30
ti-ìl-qú-na 129:21 VI 30
ti-ìl-qú-ni 129:50 VI 30
yi-ìl-qí-šu-nu 129:79 VI 30
ti-ìl-qú-na-ši 131:17 VI 30
tu-ul-qú 132:15 VI 30
ti-ìl-qú 132:54 VI 30
ti-ìl-qú 137:80 VI 30
ti-ìl-qú 137:80 VI 30
ti-ìl-qí 138:33 VI 30
ti-ìl-qú 138:41 VI 30
tu-ul11-qú 362:13 VI 30
te-èl-qé 362:20 VI 30
nu-ul11-qa-am-mi 362:23 VI 30
yi-ìl-qé 362:61 VI 30
il-qé 148:25 VI 33
il-qè 149:49 VI 33
ìl-qé-mi 185:48 VII 34
ìl-qé-šu-nu-mi 185:62 VII 34
166
The major variable in the morphology of the prefixed conjugations of leqû is the presence or
absence of the infix -t- which can be interpreted as the use of iprus or iptaras as a base to
build the mixed form. The forms with and without the infix -t- do not differ in meaning. The
forms with the infix -t- occur in all regions and cities; thus geography cannot explain their
distribution. The clustering of these forms in letters 238-239 and 280 suggests that they are
due to scribal education and rote learning which privileged the use of one of the variants.
However, since both variants occur in the same letters (81:8.47 vs. 81:32, 84:22.34 vs. 84:32
and 90:25 vs. 90:12.18), they must be treated as free variants.
5.2.4 The Verb nadānu ―to give‖
The following table contains a selection of the forms of nadānu in the prefix conjugations.
Omitted are mostly the forms ti-di-in4 that occur in formulaic greeting of a number of
Byblian letters.
Form Reference Region No. City No.
i-din-nu 287:15 II 9
i-din-nu 298:23 II 9
ya-di-nu 225:10 III 12
te-ed-din-na 246:6* III 15
yi-id-din 248:11 III 15
ya-di-in 337:13 IV 25
ya-di-in4-šu-ni 197:11.12 V 28
ya-di-in4-ši 197:29.30 V 28
ti-id-di-in4 68:5 VI 30
ti-di-nu 71:5 VI 30
167
ti-din 73:4 VI 30
ti-di-in 74:3 VI 30
ia-di-na 74:54 VI 30
ti-din 75:4 VI 30
ti-di-in4 76:4 VI 30
ti-di-in4 79:4 VI 30
yu-da-na-ni 79:33 VI 30
ti-di-in4 83:3 VI 30
tu-da-nu-na 83:23 VI 30
[t]a5-din-ni 83:30 VI 30
ia-ti-na 83:31 VI 30
ti-di-in4 85:4 VI 30
ia-di-na 85:19 VI 30
yu-da-nam 85:34 VI 30
yu-da-nu 85:36 VI 30
yu-da-nam 85:37 VI 30
ia-di-na 85:76 VI 30
ti-di-nu 86:4 VI 30
[t]u-da-na 86:29 VI 30
yu-da-na 86:32 VI 30
yu-da-na 86:47 VI 30
ti-di-nu 87:6 VI 30
168
yu-da-an 89:58 VI 30
id-din 92:43 VI 30
yi-di-na 93:11 VI 30
ti-di-nu 95:5 VI 30
yi-di-in4 101:28 VI 30
ti-di-in4 105:3 VI 30
ia-di-nu 105:85 VI 30
ti-di-in4 107:5 VI 30
ti-di-in4 108:4 VI 30
ti-di-in4 109:3 VI 30
ti-di-in4 112:4 VI 30
ni-di-nu 112:52 VI 30
yi-di-in4 113:32 VI 30
ti-di-in4 114:3 VI 30
ia-di-nu-šu-nu 114:58 VI 30
ti-di-in4 116:4 VI 30
ia-di-nu 116:34 VI 30
i-di-in4 116:35 VI 30
ia-di-in4 116:46 VI 30
ya-di-na 117:78 VI 30
ti-di-in4 118:7 VI 30
ia-di-na 118:11 VI 30
169
ia-di-na 118:16 VI 30
ti-di-in4 119:4 VI 30
ia-di-nu 119:51 VI 30
ti-di-in4 121:4 VI 30
ti-di-in4 122:5 VI 30
ti-di-in4 123:5 VI 30
ti-di-in4 125:6 VI 30
ia-di-nu 125:16 VI 30
ia-di-nu 126:14 VI 30
ia-di-nu 126:18 VI 30
yu-da-nu 126:28 VI 30
yu-da-nu 126:49 VI 30
ta-di-nu-ni 126:64 VI 30
ta-di-nu-ni 126:66 VI 30
ya-di-nam 127:27 VI 30
ti-di-in4 130:5 VI 30
ti-di-in4 132:7 VI 30
tu-da-nu 137:6 VI 30
ia-di-na 137:39 VI 30
a-na-din-mi 137:55 VI 30
tu-da-nu 138:43 VI 30
id-din 144:12 VI 32
170
i-din 144:24 VI 32
yi-din-ni 144:26 VI 32
id-din 147:13 VI 33
at-ta-din 148:6 VI 33
at-ta-din 151:19 VI 33
at-ta-din 151:23 VI 33
at-ta-din 151:47 VI 33
i-na-an-din-ni 154:13 VI 33
i-na-an-din-nu-nim 155:13 VI 33
it-ta-din 155:24 VI 33
id-din 155:27 VI 33
e-din 179:23 VII 37
The variation occuring in the prefix conjugations of nadānu, although bewildering at first
sight, can be described along the following lines. Most of the forms are built from the base
id-din with the doubling spelled optionally. The prefixes employ the vowels /i/ or /a/ and
oscillate in spelling the initial glide of the 3 ms. Thus, the following combinations appear as
prefixes: i-, a-, yi-, ia-, ti- and ta-. Forms built according to these rules appear in all cities and
in all conjugations. The scribe of the Tyrian letters uses two peculiar formations: one
corresponding to the Akkadian iptaras (at-ta-din, it-ta-din) and another with two /n/ which is
reminiscent of the Akkadian iparras (i-na-an-din-ni, i-na-an-din-nu-nim). A similar form, a-
na-din-mi, occurs at Byblos (137:55). In any case, these spellings are geographically
circumscribed and hence they must correspond to a peculiar scribal tradition. The passive
forms exhibit consistently the vowel /u/ in the prefix and /a/ as the theme vowel. Since the
internal passive is known in Canaanite languages but not in Akkadian, this regularity of the
voweling must reflect the pattern found in the mother tongue of the scribes. The
preponderance of the forms built on the basis of id-din and the limited appearance of the
171
forms with the infix -t- or the consonant /n/ can be judged in a similar way, namely as
reflecting a Canaanite form similar to id-din and attesting to the lack of forms with the infix -
t- and the consonant /n/ of the verb nadānu of the prefixed conjugations in the native
language of the authors of the letters.
5.2.5 The Verb naṣāru ―to guard‖
The imperative of naṣāru exhibits unusual regularity and in seventeen occurrences is always
spelled ú-ṣur. The suffix conjugation is fairly regular; although some scribes use unique
formations, most forms can be explained as deriving from the base *na-ṣa-ar:
Form Reference Region No. City No.
na-aṣ-ra-ti 227:5 III 10
[n]a-aṣ-ra-ti-ši 237:15 III 14
na-aṣ-ra-at 255:25 III 19
ú-uṣ-ra-te 209:14 IV 27
na-ṣir-ta 112:9 VI 30
na-ṣa-ra-ta 117:84 VI 30
na-aṣ-ra-at 127:29 VI 30
na-ṣa-ar 132:36 VI 30
na-aṣ-ra-ku 142:11 VI 31
na-aṣ-ra-ku 230:10 VIII 39
na-aṣ-ru 230:15 VIII 39
na-àṣ-ru 230:19 VIII 39
172
As expected, more variation is found in the prefix conjugations. The following table lists the
1 cs of the prefix conjugations:
Form Reference Region No. City No.
iṣ-ṣú-ru 292:23 I 1
iṣ-ṣú-ru 293:12 I 1
a-na-ṣa-ru-mì 378:11 I 1
i-na-ṣa-ru 65:10 I 2
i-na-ṣa-ru 331:13 I 3
iṣ-ṣú-ru 294:12 I 5
a-na-ṣa-ru 296:31 I 5
[i-n]a-ṣa-ru 303:17 I 6
i-na-ṣa-ru-me 304:19 I 6
a-na-ṣa-ru 305:18 I 6
a-na-ṣa-ru 321:24 I 6
a-na-ṣa-ru-me 322:15 I 6
i-na-ṣa-[r]u 323:10 I 6
i-na-ṣa-ru 324:10 I 6
i-na-ṣa-ru 325:10 I 6
i-na-ṣa-ru 326:9 I 6
i-na-ṣa-ru 326:22 I 6
i-na-ṣa-ru 314:11 I 7
i-na-ṣa-r[u] 315:8 I 7
173
i-na-ṣa-ru 315:11 I 7
i-na-ṣa-ru 316:10 I 7
uṣ-ṣur-ru-na 252:8 II 8
ú-ṣur-ru-na 252:28 II 8
ú-ṣur-ru-šu-nu 252:31 II 8
i-na-ṣa-ru-um-mi 228:14 III 10
ú-na-ṣár 327:5 III 13
i-na-ṣa-r[u] 243:10 III 15
i-na-ṣa-ru 243:14.17 III 15
a-na-ṣa-ru 221:12 III 17
i-na-ṣa-ru 264:25 III 18
ú-ṣur-ru 337:28 IV 25
i-na-ṣa-ru 196:38 V 28
a-na-ṣa-ra 74:56 VI 30
a-na-ṣa-ra 83:33 VI 30
i-na-ṣa-ru-na 112:10 VI 30
a-na-ṣa-ra 117:73 VI 30
i-na-ṣí-ra 123:27 VI 30
i-na-ṣí-ru-na 123:32 VI 30
i-na-ṣa-ru-na 125:12 VI 30
a-na-ṣa-ru 126:33 VI 30
a-na-ṣa-ar 127:37 VI 30
174
i-na-ṣí-ru 130:49 VI 30
a-na-ṣa-ar-ši 137:53 VI 30
a-na-ṣur-ši 137:82 VI 30
a-na-ṣa-ar-mi 138:29 VI 30
a-na-aṣ-ṣa-ar 362:31 VI 30
uṣ-ṣú-ru 141:41 VI 31
uṣ-ṣú-ru 142:12 VI 31
i-na-ṣa-ru-šu 142:16 VI 31
a-na-an-ṣur 147:61 VI 33
a-na-an-ṣúr 151:6 VI 33
ú-ṣur 155:71 VI 33
e-na-ṣa-ar 179:26 VII 37
uṣ-ṣur-šu 230:13 VIII 39
a-na-ṣa-ru 307:3 VIII 40
e-na-ṣa-ru 187:14 VII 42
Perusal of this list indicates that scribes from individual cities privileged one form among the
variants built on two main models: *V-na-ṣV-Vr and *uṣ-ṣur. In the first model, the prefix
vowel varies freely between /a/ and /i/ but /a/ is predominant as the theme vowel. In the
second model, the spelling of the double /ṣṣ/ is optional. Moreover, there are peculiar
formations to note: a-na-ṣur-ši (137:82) or a-na-an-ṣur (147:61). Although it is possible to
indicate the typical form in each city, a wider perspective shows that the forms vary freely.
Indeed, for example, in region I (the Shephelah and the Southern Coastal Plain) the form i-
na-ṣa-ru is almost exclusive in Ashkelon and Yurṣa but the adjacent cities yield also forms
such as a-na-ṣa-ru and iṣ-ṣú-ru. That these are free variants is confirmed by the co-
occurrence in the same letters of the forms uṣ-ṣur-ru-na (252:8) and ú-ṣur-ru-na (252:28), a-
175
na-ṣa-ar-ši (137:53) and a-na-ṣur-ši (137:82) or uṣ-ṣú-ru (142:12) and i-na-ṣa-ru-šu
(141:16).
5.2.6 The Verb paṭāru ―to desert‖
The verb paṭāru exhibits a very regular conjugation in the suffix conjugation. Indeed, all the
forms can be analyzed as derived from the basis pa-ṭa-ar:
Form Reference Region No. City No.
[p]a-aṭ-ra-at 272:14 I 1
pa-ṭa-ar-mi 286:8 II 9
pa-ṭa-ra-at 286:35 II 9
pa-ṭa-ar 287:46 II 9
pa-aṭ-ra-an-ni 287:50 II 9
pa-ṭa-ar 289:39 II 9
pa-ṭa-ra-at 290:12 II 9
pa-ṭa-ra-at 290:17.23 II 9
pa-ṭá-ar 234:12 III 13
pa-aṭ-ru 73:14 VI 30
pa-aṭ-ra-ti 82:44 VI 30
pa-aṭ-ra 83:28 VI 30
pa-aṭ-ra-ti 83:47 VI 30
pa-aṭ-ra-ti 83:50 VI 30
pa-ṭá-ar 106:48 VI 30
176
pa-aṭ-ru 125:28 VI 30
pa-aṭ-ru 134:18 VI 30
A surprising variety of the forms is found in the prefix conjugations:
Form Reference Region No. City No.
ip-pa-ṭá-ru 292:49 I 1
ni-ip-ṭú-ur 289:29 II 9
yi-ip-ṭú-ra 234:21 III 13
i-pa-ṭar 197:19 V 28
ip-ta-ṭú-ur 91:18 VI 30
i-pa-ṭá-ra 118:35 VI 30
i-pa-ṭá-ra-ni-mi 126:47 VI 30
ti-pa-ṭì-ir 138:11 VI 30
te-pa-ṭi4-ru-na 362:35 VI 30
It seems as if every scribe had a slightly different idea about the morphology of this verb.
The main base to derive the prefixed forms of paṭāru seems to be *i-pa-ṭa-ar which occurs
four times and resembles the base used for the suffixed conjugation. Among other forms
three different bases are distinguishable: *ip-ṭú-ur, *ip-ta-ṭú-ur and *i-pa-ṭi-ir. Although it is
impossible to discover any pattern, the variation of the prefix conjugations of paṭāru provides
us with two important clues that help build a wider picture of the morphological variation.
First, the fact that so much free variation is found among relatively seldom attested forms
suggests that the scribes did not remember its exact morphology because of its rarity and had
to resort to their own creativity when they needed to use a form of the prefix conjugations of
paṭāru. Second, the use of different bases, at least two of which go back clearly to Akkadian
forms (*ip-ṭú-ur to iprus and i-pa-ṭi-ir to the Stative) proves that the scribes were familiar
with a variety of Akkadian forms of paṭāru but they failed to associate the vocalic schemes
with the corresponding forms. Since, at least in the case with the verb paṭāru, the vocalic
177
schemes were void of morphological and semantic significance, they could occur in free
variation.
5.2.7 The Verb šakānu ―to place‖
Like paṭāru, the verb šakānu exhibits several forms and spellings of the prefix conjugations
in just a handful of attestations that all originate from the same city, Byblos:
Form Reference Region No. City No.
ti-ìš-ku-nu 74:42 VI 30
ìš-ta-kán-šu 101:30 VI 30
ia-aš-ku-nu 113:6 VI 30
yi-ša-kan 119:58 VI 30
yi-ìš-ta-ka-nu-ni 125:31 VI 30
ia-aš-ku-un-n[u] 139:33 VI 30
The observations made for paṭāru apply also to the verb šakānu: a low number of attestations
of the prefix conjugations is paralleled by significant free variation; the forms hint at
familiarity with different Akkadian forms (ti-ìš-ku-nu - iprus, yi-ša-kan - iparras and ìš-ta-
kán-šu - iptaras) which are used within the same mixed paradigms.
5.2.8 The Verb šemû ―to hear‖
In 46.53% of the occurrences in the database, the prefixed forms of šemû are built with the
infix -t- which can be analyzed in terms of derivation from Akkadian iptaras of the G stem of
this verb and reflects the tendency of the weak roots to appear with this infix (Huehnergard
178
1998, 68, 73).29
The frequency of the forms with and without the prefix varies according to
the regions from which the letters originate:
Region No. Number of Forms with
the Infix -t-
Number of Forms
without the Infix -t-
Ratio in %
I 29 2 93.55 : 6.45
II 3 1 75 : 25
III 12 2 85.71 : 14:29
IV 1 1 50:50
V 0 0 0 : 0
VI 11 64 14.67 : 85.33
VII 0 1 0 : 100
VIII 11 6 64.71 : 35.29
TOTAL 67 77 46.53 : 53.47
Putting aside letters from unknown locations (referred to as region VIII) and these which
contain only a small number of attestations (regions II, IV, V and VII), a clear pattern of
geographical distribution emerges: the forms with the infix -t- are favoured in the Shephelah
and the Southern Coastal Plain (region I, 93.55%) and the Galilee, the Coastal Pain of Acco
and the Northern Valleys (region III, 85.71%), while they are avoided in the cities on the
Lebanese Littoral (region VI, 14.67%). A closer look at the latter region reveals that there is
significant variation within the region itself. While in three of the cities of this region (Beirut,
Sidon and Tyre) the ration of the forms with and without the infix -t- is close to the average
(9 forms with -t- vs. 10 forms without -t-, that is, 47.37 % vs. 52.63 %), the forms with the
infix -t- are virtually unknown in Byblos (2 forms with -t- vs. 54 forms without -t-, that is,
3.57 % versus 96.43 %). In conclusion, the prefixed forms of the verb šemû with and without
29 Of all 1588 prefixed forms in the database, the forms with the infix -t- are 254; thus they constitute
15.99% of all the prefixed forms. Compared to the average, the verb šemû shows the ratio of the form with the
infix -t- three times higher.
179
the infix -t- can be taken as a good example of the variable with a geographically motivated
distribution.
5.2.9 The Verb šapāru ―to send‖
The verb šapāru uses in the prefix conjugations two bases: *iš-pu-ur and *iš-ta-pár, with no
discernible difference in meaning.30
Both forms are used as free variants throughout all of
Canaan, that is, none of them is preferred in any location. What is surprising is their ratio: out
of 102 registered forms, 65 have the infix -t-! Compared with the average rate of the infix -t-
in the prefixed forms which is 15.44%, the preference for the -t- infixed forms of šapāru
which amounts to 63.73% is indeed bewildering. The only possible explanation of the ratio
of -t- infixed from of this particular verb is that this particular form was memorized by the
scribes as the main one and therefore used commonly. Memorization in chunks could also
play a role in the preference for the base iš-ta-pár which occurs often together with LUGAL
in the phrase ―the king has sent.‖ Although every scribe preferred one of the bases, they
remained free variants, as can be deduced from their co-occurrence in the same letters: aš-pu-
ru (83:44) vs. aš-ta-pár (83:44), ia-aš-pu-ru (89:36) and aš-pu-ru (89:66) vs. aš-ta-pa-ru
(89:7), aš-pu-ru (108:24) vs. iš-ta-par (108:1) and aš-ta-pár (108:28), ni-iš-pu-ru (112:53)
vs. yi-ìš-ta-pa-ru (112:7), aš-pu-ru (116:16) vs. iš-ta-pár (116:1), aš-pu-ru (132:51) vs. aš-
ta-pa-ar (132:12). That the choice of base for šapāru is a matter of individual scribal
education is confirmed by the consistent use of one of the bases by the authors of the Tyrian
letters: the scribe of letter 147 uses consistently *iš-pu-ur (three times) while the scribes of
letters 148, 149, 151 and 154 employ forms of iš-ta-pár (total of eight occurrences).
5.2.10 The Verbal Forms uš-ḫe-ḫi-in and iš-ta-ḫa-ḫi-in ―I prostrate myself‖
The forms uš-ḫe-ḫi-in and iš-ta-ḫa-ḫi-in and their derivatives are peripheral formations that
stem ultimately from the Assyrian form of šukênu (von Soden 1995, § 109 m). Outside the
30
The base with the theme vowel /a/ occurs marginally: ta-šap-pár (102:38), i-ša-pa-ru (123:29).
180
Amarnian corpus, they are attested in texts from Nuzi, Hattuša and Ugarit (CAD Š III, 214).
Their variants and distribution exemplify perfectly two main factors found in the
morphological variation in the Amarna letters: geographical distribution and free variation.
The following table contains all attestations of this peculiar verb:
Form Reference Region No. City No.
iš-ta-ḫa-ḫi-in 298:12 I 1
iš-ta-[ḫ]a-ḫi-in 378:8 I 1
uš-ḫé-ḫi-[in] 366:9 I 2
iš-ta-ḫa-ḫi-in 328:14 I 3
iš-ti-ḫa-ḫi-in 329:12 I 3
i[š-t]u-ḫa-[ḫ]i-in 331:10-11 I 3
iš-ti-ḫi-ḫi-in 302:10 I 6
iš-ti-ḫa-ḫi-in 303:10 I 6
[i]š-[t]a-ḫ[a]-ḫi-in 304:12 I 6
iš-ta-ḫa-ḫi-in 305:12 I 6
iš-ta-ḫa-ḫi-in 306:9 I 6
iš-ta-ḫa-ḫi-in 320:13 I 6
iš-ta-ḫa-ḫi-in 321:14 I 6
iš-ta-ḫa-ḫi-in 322:12 I 6
iš-ta-ḫa-ḫi-in 323:7 I 6
iš-ta-ḫa-ḫi-in 324:8 I 6
iš-tu-ḫu-ḫi-in 325:8 I 6
iš-ta-ḫa-ḫi-in 326:7 I 6
181
iš-ta-ḫa-ḫi-in 314:8 I 7
iš-ta-ḫa-ḫi-in 315:6 I 7
uš-ḫe-ḫi-in4 223:6 III 11
uš-ḫe-ḫi-in 232:9 III 13
uš-ḫe-ḫi-in 233:13 III 13
uš-ḫe-ḫi-in 234:9 III 13
uš-ḫe-ḫi-in4 242:8 III 15
uš-ḫe-ḫi-in 221:7 III 17
uš-ḫi-ḫi-in4 222:6 III 17
iš-t[a]-ḫa-ḫi-in 319:13 VIII 38
iš-ti-ḫa-ḫi-in 307:2 VIII 40
iš-t[a-ḫa]-ḫ[i]-in 308:7 VIII 40
The following facts appear clearly from the table. The verbal forms uš-ḫe-ḫi-in and iš-ta-ḫa-
ḫi-in are used exclusively in regions I and III. Moreover, in region I only the forms with the
infix -t- appear, while in region III no forms with this infix are attested.31
Three attestations
listed under region VIII (unidentified cities in Canaan) come actually from region no. I as
indicated by the petrographic analysis of the clay (Goren, Finkelstein, and Naʾaman 2004,
302-302, 311). Since the letters from region VIII use the form with the infix -t-, exactly as
the letters from region I, the philological analysis supports the petrographic examination of
the tablets and vice-versa.
31 One attestation of uš-ḫé-ḫi-[in] (366:9) in region I comes from the correspondence of Šuwardata,
probably from Gath, and is the only attestation of this verb in the entire corpus of thirteen letters from this
kinglet. Its appearance must be judged together with the atypical use of the suffix conjugation instead of prefix
conjugation of maqātu in the prostration formula. Seen in this light, uš-ḫé-ḫi-[in] seems to hint at a variety of
epistolary traditions at Gath.
182
While the presence or the absence of the infix -t- in these forms depends strictly on the place
of origin, the voweling of the forms with the infix -t- exhibits a great deal of free variation.
Beside the most common iš-ta-ḫa-ḫi-in, the following forms are attested: iš-ti-ḫa-ḫi-in, iš-tu-
ḫa-ḫi-in, iš-ti-ḫi-ḫi-in and iš-tu-ḫu-ḫi-in. Since this forms occur only in one formulaic phrase,
their variation likely reflects imperfect memorization.
5.2.11 The Verb wuššuru ―to send‖
The most common form of the verb wuššuru is the 2 ms imperative which occurs in the
stereotypical requests for help. It displays one basic form only and is typically provided with
the final /a/: uš-ši-ra.32
The form with the initial /mu/, mu-še-ra, is found only in the
Jerusalem letters (287:51.52, 289:45). It reflects the practice of local scribes who spell initial
and intervocalic /w/ with the m- signs, and is known also in Babylonia, Mitanni, Ugarit,
Alalaḫ, Ḫatti and Egypt (Moran 1975, 151). Similarly, little variation is found in the suffix
conjugation. Its forms derive from the basis *uš-ši-ir, with the exception of one Jerusalem
letter that employs a form with /mu/: mu-še-er-ti (287:53) and two other letters which exhibit
minor variants: a letter from Byblos spells it with inital /i/: iš-ši-ir (140;8.24.28); a letter from
Beirut has a unique form with the infix -t-: uš-ti-šir (142:6). More variation is found in the
Precative:
Form Reference Region No. City No.
lu-ma-še-ra 285:28 II 9
lu-ma-še-ra 286:45 II 9
lu-ma-še-ra 287:18 II 9
lu-ú-ma-še-ru 287:38 II 9
lu-ma-še-er 289:42 II 9
32
A form without final /a/, uš-ši-ir-mi, occurs in 82:28.
183
lu-ma-šir9 290:20 II 9
lu-w[a-a]š-ši-ra-an-ni-mi 238:9 III 14
lu-wa-ši-ra-ni 263:23 III 16
li-wa-še-ra 255:22 III 19
lu-wa-ši-ra-am 84:26 VI 30
lu-wa-ši-ra 84:31 VI 30
li-ši-ra 94:71 VI 30
lu-wa-ši-ra 106:36.42 VI 30
li-wa-aš-šar 149:17.76 VI 33
Putting aside the spellings from Jerusalem with characteristic /ma/, it is possible to identify
lu-wa-ši-ra as the typical form and li-ši-ra (94:71) and li-wa-aš-šar (149:17.76) as idiolectic
variants of individual scribes.
As expected, the forms of the prefixed conjugations display a great deal of variation:
Form Reference Region No. City No.
yu-uš-ši-ra 269:11.14 I 1
yu-uš-ši-ra 270:24 I 1
yu-uš-ši-ra 271:18 I 1
yu-wa-ši-ra 64:12 I 2
yu-uš-ši-ir-ni 280:9 I 2
yu-ši-ra 281:11.27 I 2
yu-uš-ši-ra 282:10 I 2
yu-uš-ši-ra 283:25 I 2
184
yu-ši-ra 366:30 I 2
tu-ma-še-er 289:30 II 9
ú-ta-aš-ša-ru-uš-šu 245:29 III 15
yu-ta-šar-šu 245:31 III 15
yu-ta-šar 245:42 III 15
yu-ta-šar-me 245:44 III 15
ú-wa-še-ru-na 255:11 III 19
uš-še-ru-ši 255:11 III 19
ú-wa-še-ru 255:13 III 19
yu-wa-še-ru 255:17 III 19
yu-wa-ša-ra-ni-me 196:34 V 28
ni-wa-aš-ši-ru-šu 197:18 V 28
yu-ši-ra 182:8 V 29
yu-wa-ši-ru-na 71:13 VI 30
yu-wa-ši-ra 74:60 VI 30
yu-wa-ši-ru-na-k[a] 77:22 VI 30
ut-ta-ši-ir 83:10 VI 30
yu-wa-ši-ra 83:34 VI 30
yu-wa-ši-ra 85:17 VI 30
yu-wa-ši-ra 89:54 VI 30
yu-ši-ra 104:14 VI 30
yu-wa-ši-ru-na 112:19 VI 30
185
yu-wa-ši-ru 112:37 VI 30
ú-wa-ši-ru-šu 114:35 VI 30
yu-wa-ši-ru-na 116:31 VI 30
yu-wa-ši-ra 116:72 VI 30
y[u]-wa-ši-ra 117:66 VI 30
yu-wa-ši-ra 117:72 VI 30
yu-wa-ši-ra-šu 117:77 VI 30
yu-wa-ši-ra 118:42 VI 30
yu-wa-ši-ra 121:47 VI 30
yu-wa-ši-ra 122:46 VI 30
tu-wa-ši-ru-na 125:44 VI 30
yu-ša-ru 126:19 VI 30
yu-ši-ru 126:22 VI 30
yu-ša-r[u] 126:40 VI 30
yu-ši-ra 131:12 VI 30
yu-ši-ru 131:15 VI 30
yu-šìr-mi 131:32 VI 30
i-wa-ši-ir 137:8 VI 30
yu-ši-ra-šu 137:79 VI 30
yi-[i]š-ši-ra 139:30-31 VI 30
yi-iš-ši-ru 139:34 VI 30
yi-iš-ši-ru 139:38 VI 30
186
yu-ša-ru 362:10 VI 30
yu-wa-šar 362:66 VI 30
uš-ši-ru-na-ši 143:16 VI 31
yu-uš-ši-ra 180:6 VIII 39
yu-ši-ra 216:15 VIII 40
yu-ši-ra-me 218:15 VIII 40
The forms are derived from two bases: *yu-wa-ši-ir and *yu-uš-ši-ir, with the optional
graphic indication of the geminated /š/ in the latter form. The prefix of the 3 ms is
predominantly spelled with the sign PI. As expected, in Jerusalem letters the initial /w/ is
realized as /m/. The forms with the infix -t- are an idiosyncrasy of the scribe of letter no. 245
who employs them four times. Another -t- infixed form occurs in a Byblos letter (83:10) and
remains isolated within the Byblian corpus.33
There is a tendency toward consistent
morphology within cities and region, but there are also cases in which the same letter
contains two different forms of the bases: ú-wa-še-ru-na (255:11), ú-wa-še-ru (255:13), yu-
wa-še-ru (255:17.19) vs. uš-še-ru-ši (255:11); ut-ta-ši-ir (83:10) vs. yu-wa-ši-ra (83:34), yu-
ša-ru (126:19.40) vs. yu-ši-ru (126:22), i-wa-ši-ir (137:8) vs. yu-ši-ra-šu (137:79), yu-ša-ru
(362:10) vs. yu-wa-šar (362:66). The presence of different forms in the same cities and
letters supports the characterization of the variation of the prefix conjugations of wuššuru as
free.
33 Since the form ut-ta-ši-ir (83:10) with the infix -t- occurs in yaqtul with the past meaning and the same
letter spells yu-wa-ši-ra (83:34), a yaqtula form, without this infix, one is tempted to explain this unique
occurrence of the t-infixed form of wuššuru in the Byblos corpus as a recollection of the past meaning of the
Akkadian iptaras. The fact that the -t-infixed forms tend to occur in the yaqtul conjugation adds some force to
such an explanation.
187
5.2.12 The Infix -t-
The presence or absence of the infix -t- is an easily identifiable feature and is attested in a
significant number of cases. Therefore, it is a natural candidate for variationist analysis. A
glance at all 270 verbs with the infix -t- registered in the database reveals an interesting fact:
this infix is attested almost exclusively in the prefixed forms (254 times), while it is rare in
others.34
Hence, the prefixed forms with the infix -t- will be considered apart.
No imperatives with the infix -t- are registered, while in the Precative this infix appears only
in the letters from Tyre and once in a letter from Anaharath:
Form Reference Region No. City No.
li-it-ta-ṣi 239:20 III 14
li-it-ta-din 148:9.13.26 VI 33
li-it-te-er 149:84 VI 33
li-it-ta-din 151:37 VI 33
The fact that four out of six attestations are the same form li-it-ta-din of the verb nadānu ―to
give‖ suggests that all forms of the Precative with the infix -t- were acquired by the scribes as
lexical items and not as part of larger paradigms. This interpretation is confirmed by the use
of the infix -t- with the suffixed conjugation only with a special hybrid form of riāḫu ―to
remain‖ (Rainey 1996, vol. 2, 338-339) in Byblos and once with waṣû ―to go out in Gezer:‖
Form Reference Region No. City No.
it-ta-ṣa-at 297:19 I 1
ir-ti-ḫu 74:22 VI 30
34 The fact that the -t- infixed forms occur almost exclusively in the prefixed conjugations is the strongest
argument in favour of their origin from the Akkadian iptaras rather than from the Canaanite interference with
the Canaanite -t- infixed reflexive conjugations. Had these forms originated by the Canaanite interference, they
would occur in all forms, including the suffix conjugation and the Precative. Obviously, this is not the case.
188
ir-ti-ḫu 76:9 VI 30
ir-ti-ḫu 78:11 VI 30
ir-ti-ḫu 79:27 VI 30
ir-ti-ḫa-at 91:21 VI 30
ir-ti-ḫu 103:12.49 VI 30
ir-ti-ḫa-at 124:10 VI 30
ir-ti-ḫ[a-at] 129:18 VI 30
Moreover, the form of riāḫu with the infix -t- occurs in one formulaic statement with ―the
city,‖ ―cities,‖ or ―Gubla‖ as its subject. The occurrence of this particular form in one
expression only reinforces the understanding of this form as the result of learning in chunks
rather than conscious use of the infix -t- because ―the Canaanite scribes associated some
reflexive nuance, expressed by a Gt, with the stative concept, ―to remain, to be left over‖
(Rainey 1996, vol. 2, 338).
The prefixed forms with the infixed -t- occur with varying frequency in different regions. The
following table lists the number of -t- infixed prefix forms in each region and the ratio the
forms from each region versus all verbs from that region as well as the number of -t- infixed
yaqtul forms from each region and their ratio versus all -t- infixed forms from that region.
The attestation from region VI will be divided into three groups according to the cities:
Byblos, Beirut and Sidon, Tyre.
189
Region
No.
Number of
all -t-
infixed
forms
from the
region
Number of -t-
infixed yaqtul
forms from
the region
Number of
all coded
verbs from
the region
Ratio of -t-
verbs in the
region vs. all
the verbs from
the region
Ratio of the -t-
infixed yaqtul
forms from the
region
I 64 48 213 30.05% 75%
II 10 4 68 14.71% 40%
III 29 21 158 18.35% 72.41%
IV 3 2 22 13.67% 66.67
V 1 1 37 2.70% 100%
VI Byblos 95 69 832 11.42% 72.63%
VI Beirut
and Sidon
8 8 43 18.60 100%
VI Tyre 29 29 111 26.13% 100%
VI entire 132 97 986 13.39% 73.48%
VII 1 1 38 2.63% 100%
VIII 14 7 66 21.21% 50%
Total 254 152 1588 15.99% 59.84%
Perusal of the table reveals that the ratio of -t- infixed forms varied significantly depending
on the region. Regions II, III and IV contain forms with -t-infix in a ratio close to the
average, 15.99%. Regions V and VII are characterized by marginal use of -t- infixed forms
while regions I and VIII and the letters from Tyre are distinguished by massive use of these
forms. How much the level of use of -t- infixed forms varies according to region becomes
particularly clear when one realizes that the ratio of these forms in region I is ten times as
high as in regions V and VII. The same geographical variation may occur within a region, as
190
is exemplified by region VI. If considered as a unit, region VI contains a ratio of forms with -
t- infix similar to the average of all the letters. This average ratio in region VI is, however,
the result a high number of letters from Byblos which are characterized by a relatively lower
ratio of the -t- infix which counterbalances the higher ratio found in the smaller corpora from
Sidon, Beirut and Tyre. A higher than average ratio in the letters classified as region VIII
(unknown locations) is understandable in light of the petrographic assignment of some of
these letters to towns of region I in which the ratio of -t- infixed forms is the highest.
Geography is not the unique factor which influences the use of the forms with the infix -t-.
With the exception of regions II and VII, there is a strong tendency to associate the -t- infixed
forms with the yaqtul conjugation. This tendency elucidates the origin of the -t- infixed forms
in the Amarna interlanguage as a result of partial acquisition of the morphology and
semantics of Akkadian iptaras. The fact that -t- infixed forms, which in Akkadian express the
past tense, occur mostly in the yaqtul forms, which also are used for the past tense, indicates
that at least at a certain moment in the development of the Amarna interlanguage some, if not
many scribes were aware of the existence and meaning of Akkadian iptaras. Because of the
substitution of the Akkadian tense and mood marking by the Canaanite system, and possibly
due to the confusion of the Akkadian -t- infixed tense forms with the Canaanite -t- infixed Gt
stem, the proper and conscious use of iptaras was lost; nevertheless, some level of memory
of the function of iptaras or of actual familiarity with it caused the preference for the -t-
infixed forms in the yaqtul conjugation. To be sure, there are instances of -t- infix that belong
to the Akkadian Gtn stem form (it-ta-na-la-ku, 254:35) or may be due to an attempt to
indicate a special nuance of the verb with the Canaanite reflexive-passive infix -t- (it-ta-ṣa-
[a]b in 148:42, ni-ta-ṣ[a-a]b in 151:42, both from Tyre). These single instances, however,
cannot be taken as evidence for the systematic use of the -t- infix as the reflexive-passive
marker or knowledge of the Akkadian Gtn stem. Rather, they are isolated forms learned as
lexical items and not part of paradigms. Therefore, against Rainey‘s insistence on the
analysis of many -t- infixed forms as reflecting the Canaanite Gt stem (1996, vol. 2, 81-113),
it is preferable to assume Huehnergard‘s overall vision of these forms as simply based on the
Akkadian iptaras (Huehnergard 1998, 68). The association of these forms with the yaqtul
conjugation is the strongest confirmation of such an interpretation.
191
To conclude, the forms with -t- infix are a perfect example of the complexity of factors that
condition morphological variation in the Amarna letters from Canaan. Beside the usual
geographical factor, the presence of the -t- infix is favoured by the grammatical form of the
verb, the yaqtul conjugation. In addition to these two causes, there is a lexical factor: some
verbs, as exemplified by the forms of riāḫu, were memorized with this infix; others were
learned without it, as shown by the rarity of the -t- infixed forms of the verb wuššuru ―to
send.‖
5.2.13 Variation within a Single Letter
In general, individual scribes consistently use the same variants in any given letter. This
uniformity of the verbal morphology in every letter lies behind the geographical pattern of
distribution of many variables. The choice of only one forms is, however, not always the
case. The examples in which two different bases are used to conjugate the same verb in one
letter are listed in sections dedicated to variation in the verbs epēšu, leqû, naṣāru, šapāru and
wuššuru. To those instances the following examples must be added.
In the following passage of a Byblian letter, there are five occurrences of the yaqtulu of the
verb naṣāru:
5.2.1 10
iš-tu ma-an-ni i-na-ṣa-ru-na 11
iš-tu
na-ak-ri-ia 12
ù iš-tu LÚ.MEŠ ḫu-ub-
ši-ia 13
mi-nu yi-na-ṣí-ra-an-ni 14
šum-
ma LUGAL yi-na-ṣí-ru 15
ÌR-šu [ù ba-
al-ta-]ti 16
[ù šum-m]a [LUG]AL-ru la-
a 17
[yi-n]a-ṣa-ru-ni mi-nu 18
yi-na-ṣí-
ru-ni (112:10-18)
With what shall I guard? With my
enemies, or with my peasantry? Who
would guard me? If the king guards
his servant, then I will survive. [But i]f
[the ki]ng does not [gu]ard me, who
will guard me?
Closer scrutiny of the forms reveals that after the second radical, that is, in the place where in
Akkadian the theme vowel occurs, two vowels are used interchangeably: the forms in lines
10 and 17 contain the vowel /a/ and the forms in lines 13, 14 and 18 the vowel /i/. Since there
192
is no grammatical factor which would explain the use of these vowels, this passage is an
example of free variation.
Two competing forms of the Precative of the verb nadānu in Tyre (li-id-din and li-it-ta-din)
provide us with another interesting example of variation. On the one hand, letter no. 150 uses
only one form: li-id-din (150:14), li-id-din-šu (150:17). On the other hand, both variants
occur in letter no. 151: li-id-din-ni (151:14), li-it-ta-din (151:37), li-id-d[in] (151:69).
Similarly, the two variants occur side by side in the same passages in letter no. 148:
5.2.2 8
ù 9li-it-ta-din LUGAL be-li-ia
10pa-
ni-šu a-na ÌR-šu 11
ù li-id-di-din uru
ú-
zuki
12a-na ÌR-šu DUG \\ a-ku-lí \ mi-
ma 13
a-na ši-te-šu li-it-ta-din
14LUGAL be-li-ia 10 LÚ.GÌR
15a-na
na-ṣa-ri 16
URU-šu (148:8-16)
May the king, my lord, give his
attention to his servant and give the
city of Uzu to his servant (as) a jug :
a-ku-lí \ mi-ma for his drinking. May
the king, my lord, give 10 palace
attendants to protect his city.
5.2.3 26
li-it-ta-din 27
pa-ni-šu LUGAL a-na
ÌR-šu 28
ù li-ip-qí-id 29
a-na
lúMAŠKÍM-šu ù
30li-id-din
uruú-zu
ki
31a-na A.MEŠ mi-e-ma
32a-na ÌR-šu
a-na la-q[í] 33
GIŠ.MEŠ a-na IN ti-ib-
nu 34
a-na ti-i-ti
May the king give attention to his
servant, and may he charge his
commissioner and may he give the
city of Uzu to his servant for water, for
fetchi[ng] wood, for straw, for clay.
In line 11, the variant li-id-din is spelled with the additional sign /di/ and thus can be taken
even as a third variant of this Precative. Since this is a unique form, the additional sign /di/
can be better taken as a kind of gloss (li-id-di
-din) or a scribal mistake. In any case, these
passages confirm knowledge and interchangeable use of two variants by the same scribe.
Because no grammatical reason can be proposed to explain their choice, their variation must
be considered free.
The following passage show the use of two different vowels in the qatal of epēšu:
5.2.4 9
[mi-na] 10
a-pa-aš LUGAL-ru a-na
ša-a-[šu] 11
ša-ni-tam mi-na ep-ša-ti a-
[na] 12m
ia-pa-dIM (113:9-12)
[What] has the king done to hi[m]?
Moreover, what have I done t[o]
Yapaḫ-Hadda?
193
If one thinks about the morphology of the Amarna verb as paradigms, one should expect the
same voweling thought the entire paradigm and vowel reduction governed by phonetic rules.
It seems that the scribe of this letter does not see the two forms of epēšu as forming one
unitary paradigm because he uses once the vowel /a/ and later the vowel /e/ or /i/ in the first
syllable of the verb.35
Now, it is possible to hypothesize that he used the vowel /a/ in the 3 ms
by analogy with other 3 ms qatals that often have the voweling /a-a/. It is impossible to say
why he retained the vowel of the Akkadian paradigm in the 1 cs.
The last example is better regarded as an orthographic rather than morphological variant:
5.2.5 8
ù ṣa-bat 12 LÚ.MEŠ-ia ú ša-ka-an
9ip-ti-ra be-ri-nu 50 KÙ.BABBAR ù
10LÚ.MEŠ ša-a [u]š-ši-ir-ti a-na
11uruṣu-mu-ra ṣa-ab-bat (114:8-11)
He has seized 12 men of mine, and the
ransom price between us he has set at
50 (shekels of) silver. It was the men
whom I [s]ent to Ṣumur that he has
seized.
The 3 ms qatal of ṣabātu ―to seize,‖ which in line 8 appears as ṣa-bat, is spelled in line 11
with an additional sign AB: ṣa-ab-bat. Normally, such a spelling would indicate a geminated
consonant which, in turn, would be unexpected in this form. Therefore, another interpretation
is preferable: while spelling the same verb for the second time, the scribe added the sign AB
to clearly indicate that the following sign should be read with the value /baṭ/ and not with its
other common values /be/, /til/ or /mid/. If so, this orthography can be interpreted as similar
to disambiguatory plene spellings known in the core Mesopotamian tradition (Worthington
2012, 266-269).
5.2.14 Evaluation of Morphological Variation
Although it is hard not to see Amarna verbal morphology as a chaos of countless variants,
scrutiny of the variation that individual verbs exhibit reveals major tendencies and rules.
These rules are of course not categorical rules since they do not apply all the time. Yet, the
optional application of these rules does not mean that they are completely random because it
35
The sign IB is used both for /ep/ and for /ip/.
194
is possible to make quantitative generalizations about their occurence (Walker 2010, 17-18).
Since the rules are optional but at the same time are characterized by a predictable likelihood
depending on multiple independent variables, their seemingly chaotic variation can be
regarded as possessing a ―structured heterogeneity‖ (Bayley 2002, 117). A vision of the
linguistic rule as optional and of variation as depending on multiple factors of different
strength makes a description of the verbal morphology of the Amarna letters from Canaan
possible.
There are several general observations that hold true for the majority of analyzed verbs:
1. Although some variation occurs in the Imperative, the Precative and the suffix
conjugation, the greatest deal of variation is found in the prefix conjugations. Moreover,
certain variables vary according to the conjugation of the verb in which they occur.
2. Some variables vary according to the lexeme in which they occur.
3. Most variants show different geographical distribution.
4. Most verbs use two Akkadian forms as bases to derive the mixed prefix forms and one
base for the suffix conjugation.
5. Morphological variation consists not only in different distribution of individual variables
but also in their co-occurrence in the same text. The co-occurrence of variants in a letter may
be referred to as fluctuation.
Each of these observations requires further discussion and interpretation.
Variation and the Form of the Verb: The Imperative and the Precative show relative
stability: each verb having only one form. Several cases of variation in the Imperative must
be left without comments because of the low number of attestations, which results often in
just two or three forms and thus does not provide a solid base to identify a main form and its
variants as well as their distribution. Also, variation in the Precative gives little information
about its patterning. However, two cases of geographical distribution of the variants are
noteworthy because they correspond to the forms found in different Akkadian dialects. The
first case is the spelling of the Precative of wuššuru ―to send‖ with /m/ rather than /w/: lu-ma-
še-ra (285:28). This spelling reflects a Middle Babylonian phonetic change and occurs in
Canaan only in the letters from Jerusalem. The second case concerns the spelling of the
Precative of amāru ―to see‖: in a Jerusalem letter it is spelled twice like in the Assyrian
195
dialects la-mur-mi (286:40.46) while in Tyre it shows a peculiar formation li-mur (148:17,
149:20.78) which has the vowel /i/ in the first syllable rather than Assyrian /a/ or Babylonian
/u/. It is difficult to explain in general, however, why the Imperative and the Precative show
little variation.
The relative stability of the suffix conjugation can be explained as result of the existence of
one Canaanite suffix conjugation which is morphologically similar to the Akkadian Stative.
Thus, one to one structural correspondence between Canaanite and Akkadian morphology
reinforced the cohesiveness of the mixed paradigm.
The lack of direct correspondence between the Akkadian and Canaanite prefix conjugations
is the main factor which contributed to a high level of morphological variation in the mixed
prefix conjugation. Indeed, the Akkadian and Canaanite verbal systems present radically
different logic as far as it concerns the marking of tense, mood and aspect: Akkadian uses
internal marking by changes that are introduced between the radical consonants (iprus,
iparras, and iptaras), while Canaanite makes recourse to external marking with final vowels
(yaqtulØ, yaqtulu, and yaqtula). Moreover, the theme vowels of the Akkadian iprus and
iparras are unpredictable as they vary according to the lexeme and at times according to the
Akkadian dialects. Similarly, in accordance with Barth-Ginsberg Law, the native tongue of
the scribes had to display three combinations of the prefix and the theme-vowels (yaqtul,
yaqtil, and yiqtal) in different classes of verb in the G stem. The difficulty of understanding
Akkadian marking for the Canaanite scribes is the ultimate reason for its substitution by
Canaanite marking and for the treatment of different Akkadian forms as equally good to
derive the mixed forms. The fact that the forms of the Akkadian prefix conjugations are used
as rule to build the forms of the mixed prefix conjugations and appear only accidentally in
the mixed suffix conjugation shows that the scribes perceived Akkadian iprus, iparras and
iptaras as parallel to the prefix conjugations in their own mother tongue. Some familiarity
with different Akkadian forms but without understanding their meaning led them to a
peculiar way of dealing with the morphology of the prefix conjugations. Being aware that the
verb in Akkadian displays a variety of forms, the scribes employed several different bases for
each verb in order to imitate the kind of verbal morphology they saw in their target language.
In doing so, they made recourse usually to two or three Akkadian basic forms for each verb.
Since these basic forms may co-occur in the correspondence from the same city and, at times,
196
in the same letter, it must be concluded that an average scribe was familiar with more than
one basic Akkadian form for deriving each verb and was free to use it at will. His personal
habits, formed during scribal training, were responsible for the preferential use of one of the
forms he knew in everyday practice and thus resulted in formation of the geographical
patterns of variation that can be detected in the overall analysis of the letters. Since, as
explained above, the prefixed conjugations presented a challenge far greater than the
imperative or the suffixed conjugation, more variation occurs in them.
The second way in which the form affects variation concerns single variables rather than the
entire phenomenon of variation as such. In these cases, it is possible to speak about optional
rather than apodictic rules that govern morphology. The present investigation discovered two
such cases. The first case is variation in the spelling of the 3 ms prefix of the prefix
conjugations. As discussed in 4.1.3, the use of the glide signs (PI or IA) vs. the vowel-signs
varies according to the conjugations: only 49.20% of the yaqtul forms vs. 91.80% of yaqtulu
and 88.89% of yaqtula are spelled with the signs PI or IA. Moreover, the spelling of yaqtul
varies according to its meaning: the spelling of 3 ms prefix with a vowel is characteristic for
the indicative (81.13%) while the optative shows preference for spellings with the glide
(65.58%). The second case is the association of the -t- infixed forms with the yaqtul
conjugation, as discussed in 5.2.12. In both cases, the factors that influence the variables are
indicative of the development of the Amarna interlanguage. The tendency to spell yaqtul in
general, and the indicative yaqtul in particular, with the vowel-signs hints at the origin of the
mixed prefix conjugation in Akkadian iprus. Also the association of the -t- infix with the
yaqtul conjugation testifies to remote familiarity with the Akkadian iptaras and its past
meaning.
In conclusion, the cases of variation that relate to the form of the verb are indicative of the
formation of the Amarna interlanguage. Rather than being due to the random factor of scribal
education, they testify to a partial understanding of Akkadian morphology and semantics at
some point of the development of the Amarna linguistic system.
Variation and the Lexeme: What is meant here by the relationship between variation and
lexeme is not the obvious fact that every verb may use different basic forms but the fact that
occurrence of some variables considerably depends on the lexeme. In other words, the same
variable may occur with different frequency depending on the verb in which it appears. Such
197
a variation is different from the use of a morpheme to build new, derived forms (for example,
the prefix m- for the participles of the derived conjugations) because the forms with and
without it have basically the same meaning. The presence or absence of the -t- infix is a good
example of the lexeme-dependent variation. On the one hand, compared to 15.99%, the
average rate of the use of the -t- infix, some verbs show an unexpectedly high ratio of forms
with this infix, which in the case of šemû amounts to 46.53% and in the case of šapāru to
63.73%. On the other hand, the presence of the -t- infix in some verbs is rare: naṣāru - 0% (0
out of 106 registered occurrences), wuššuru - 3.75% (6 out of 160 occurrences), epēšu -
5.45% (6 out of 110 occurrences), and nadānu - 6.16% (9 out of 146 occurrences). The most
probable reason for the lexeme-dependent variation is scribal schooling which led to
memorization of the forms with the -t- infix in the case of some verbs and of forms without it
in the case of other verbs.36
This explanation is true in general terms, but in the case of
individual verbs one should also look for additional factors which may influence the variable.
Such a possibility is exemplified by the verb šemû: it is used prevalently with the infix -t-,
but in region VI 85.33% of its occurrences do not contain this infix. Therefore, geography
intervenes as an additional factor that influences the distribution of this infix in this particular
verb.
Although lexeme-dependent variation seems to be an example of variation based on a
linguistic factor, this sort of variation is, in reality, based on the extra-linguistic factor of
36 Huehnergard (1998, 73) considers likely Rainey‘s explanation that -t- infix was used particularly in
weak roots ―in accordance with a known tendency among peripheral scribes to prefer -t- augmented forms for
weak verbs‖ (Rainey 1996, vol. 2, 338). As evidence for such a tendency, Rainey refers to a paper on the
Akkadian of Nuzi in which Gordon suggested that the common occurrence of the -t- infix in some weak verbs
(bašu, malû, matû and rašû) in Nuzi ―may have been favoured by a levelling tendency to increase the bulk to
that of the strong verb‖ (Gordon 1938: 215). However, the weak verbs which in Nuzi have often the infix -t-,
usually do not have it in the Amarna letters. Moreover, the suggested link between the infix -t- and weak roots
does not account for its relatively rare occurrence in some weak roots (epēšu, wuššuru, nadānu, naṣāru) as well
as for its elevated use in šapāru which is a strong root. Finally, this rule, if true, should result in the frequent use
of the -t- infix in the waṣû ―to come out‖ which has two weak consonants. This is, however, not the case and the
infix -t- occurs in this verb in only 14.89% of attestations (7 out of 47 registered occurrences), which is close to
the average ratio of its overall use in the Amarna corpus.
198
scribal education. Its extra-linguistic nature is confirmed by its haphazard influence: the form
which became memorized by the scribes as basic for each verb is random.
Variation and Geography: That the variants shows different distribution according to the
place from which the letters originate is the most salient characteristic of morphological
variation in the Amarna corpus. It suffices to recall the distribution of uš-ḫe-ḫi-in and iš-ta-
ḫa-ḫi-in with its variants. Because the geographical factor can be detected almost in every
case of variation, one is naturally inclined to consider it the main reason for morphological
diversity in the Amarna letters. Two observations are in order. First, geography is the only
independent variable that is available in the analysis. Therefore, it should be assumed that the
impact that geography has on variation may reflect other factors which are unavailable for
analysis. Second, geographical variation testifies not to different dialects but rather to
different scribal schools. In other words, geographical variation results not from the linguistic
autonomy of the interlanguage used in every location but from habits and preferences
developed by individuals during their scribal education. These habits and preferences mirror
to a great extent the usages of every scribal center but one should admit also the possibility
that every scribe developed also his personal idiosyncrasies.
In present-day sociolinguistics, variation found across different regions or cities can be
analyzed in terms of different social history and stratification of each speech-community. The
case of geographical variation in the Amarna interlanguage is unlike geographical variation
found in the speech-communities which employ natural language on an everyday basis.
Geographical variation in the Amarna letters mirrors usages and habits of different schooling
traditions found in Canaan. The kind of language they taught was basically similar and
mutually understandable but it varied in a myriad of minor details.
Variation and the Main Base: In general verbs use two bases for the prefix conjugations
and one base for the suffix conjugation.37
It is usually possible to identify the Akkadian
forms that are identical or very similar to the bases of the prefix conjugations. For example,
in the prefix conjugations šapāru uses *iš-pu-ur and *iš-ta-pár, which correspond to
37 Some verbs use only one main base for the prefix conjugation and another for the suffix conjugation.
For example: qabû ―to speak‖ uses mostly iq-bi and qa-ba; nadānu ―to give‖ derives most forms from i-din and
na-da-an. Of course, this general tendency does not exclude occasional uses of other bases. For instance, in
several cases, these two verbs are attested also in the forms with the infix -t-.
199
Akkadian iprus and iptaras but in the suffix conjugation it uses *ša-pár. Similarly, naṣāru
uses *i-ṣur, *i-na-ṣar (occasionally with /i/ as the theme-vowel: i-na-ṣir) and *na-ṣa-ar. A
closer scrutiny of the bases used in the prefix conjugations shows that usually one of them is
dominant and used throughout the entire corpus while the second is more conscripted and
occurs only in some cities or in a specific group of letters. For example, the base *iš-ta-pár is
ubiquitous, but outside of Byblos iš-pu-ur is found only in letters 234, 259, 292-294, 328. In
Byblos both forms occur in free variation, while Tyrian letter no. 147 uses exclusively iš-pu-
ur (3 times) and other Tyrian letters nos. 148, 149, 151, 154 have only *iš-ta-pár (8 times).
Similarly, the base *i-na-ṣar is found everywhere, while i-ṣur occurs only in letters nos. 87-
88, 141-142, 155, 230, 252, 292-294, 337. The variant of the main base with /i/ as theme-
vowel (i-na-ṣir) is found only in four Byblian letters: 112, 119, 123 and 130. The existence of
one main base and a limited distribution of alternative bases suggests that every scribe used
actively only one basic Akkadian form of each verb to derive the mixed prefix conjugations
while he could be familiar with other forms. This observation, in turn, provides an important
glimpse into the dynamics of acquisition of the Amarna language by scribes: rather than
learning the verb as a system of paradigms, the scribes memorized one form of each verb of
the main conjugational categories they needed (the prefix and suffix conjugations, the
imperative) as lexical items and used these frozen forms to built new forms according to the
flexion of their mother tongue.
Morphological Fluctuation: In the linguistic study of morphology, fluctuation is defined as
a haphazard variation of a phoneme in the same word that occurs in the speech of the same
speaker. Whereas it is possible to find distributional patterns of free variation within the
entire speech community, it is much more difficult to analyze fluctuation because it varies
from one individual speaker to another (Walter 2000, 486). In the case of the Amarna letters,
by morphological fluctuation is meant the use of two variant forms of the same verb in the
same grammatical form occuring in the same letter. Morphological fluctuation is found in the
use of two bases in epēšu, leqû, naṣāru, šapāru and wuššuru in the same letters (see 5.2.2,
5.2.3., 5.2.5., 5.2.9, and 5.2.11) as well as in the cases discussed in 5.2.13. Although it is
impossible to determine why two competing forms occur in the same letter, the phenomenon
of morphological fluctuation is indicative of the idea that the scribes had about the Amarna
interlanguage. It shows that they knew a variety of Akkadian forms but they failed to
200
understand the distinctions between them based on internal changes in their morphology.
Therefore, it is inappropriate to speak about theme-vowels of the mixed verbal forms because
the vocalic patterns were used without clear connection with the morphology or semantics of
the mixed forms. Since the choice of this or other Akkadian base did not change the meaning
of the mixed form, the forms of the same verb derived from different bases constituted free
variants and were used as such. Morphological fluctuation is an extreme example of it.
5.3 The Morphology of the Amarna Verb as a System
The Semitic verbal morphology is usually described as a system of stems, that is, of
templates which determine the number of syllables, vowel length, gemination, the use of
affixes and the vocalic patterns. According to this view, the Semitic verb has the root-and-
pattern structure which results from interdigitation of a consonantal root and morphemes
proper to each stem. Moreover, it employs a system of affixes which mark person, gender
and number.38
Compared with this kind of morphology found in natural Semitic languages,
the morphology of the Amarna verb has a very different nature. As a matter of fact, it is
impossible to speak about roots and patterns. The Amarna verbal forms are frozen Akkadian
lexical bases which are inflected to convey the Canaanite categories of tense, mood, aspect
and, at times, voice. In other words, the verbal forms of the Amarna texts from Canaan are in
reality ―Akkadian bases altered by the overlaying of the minimal amount of information
required to make them comprehensible in terms of Canaanite morphology‖ (Huehnergard
1992, 221). It follows that the descriptions of the Amarna verb in terms of the basic G stem
and the derived stems do not conform to the morphological processes responsible for the
formation of these forms, but rather categorize forms of the Amarna interlanguage in relation
to the Akkadian and Canaanite stems. The morphology of these forms may reflect faithfully
the Akkadian or Canaanite forms, represent a mixture of both, or be scribal idiosyncratic
38 For an overview of the root-and-pattern morphology of the Semitic verb see Gensler 2011, 283-286
and Goldenberg 2013, 199-202. The appropriateness of this model and its distinctiveness is discussed in Bat-El
2003 and Izre‘el 2009.
201
creations. It is necessary to determine the composition of every form case by case.
Consequently, not all forms have the same value for comparative purposes.
A prominent feature of the Amarna morphology is its variation. In general, variation affects
the Akkadian bases of the mixed forms while the Canaanite morphemes show a considerable
degree of uniformity. Variation in the Akkadian bases is caused by the use of competing use
of iprus, iparras or iptaras as the main lexicalized form to derive the mixed forms or by the
use of dialectal Akkadian forms. The Canaanite morphemes are used consistently but
occasionally yield forms which reflect the Akkadian morphemes: most notable are here the 1
cs suffix of the suffix conjugation which ends occasionally in -ku, and in the prefixed
conjugations, the spelling of 3 ms prefix without the initial glide and the vowel /a/ in the
personal prefixes. Since the number of Akkadian lexical bases is limited and the system of
Canaanite morphemes is overall stable, the resulting mixed morphology is transparent and
relatively easy to comprehend. It had to be such to the ancient Canaanite scribes, too.
202
Chapter 6
Uses of the Verbal Forms
6.1 Qatal and Its Indicative Uses
The qatal forms are often used in reference to past events without any syntactic restrictions.
The following examples illustrate their use in the main clauses, including questions.
Example
Number
Text Translation Comments
6.1.1 14
ù uš-ir-ti 3
[giš
M]Á.[MEŠ a-na] 15
ma-
ḫar mia-a[n]-ḫa-mi
(105:14-15)
I sent three [s]hip[s t]o
Ya[n]ḫamu.
Part of a past
narrative.
6.1.2 1ša-ni-tam du-ub-ba-ku-
me 2UGU ŠEŠ.ḪI.A-ia
(245:102)
Moreover, I urged my
brothers.
Introduces direct
speech.
6.1.3 27
an-nu-ú i-na-na du-bi-
r[u] 28lú
MAŠKÍM-ka ù la-
qú 29
URU.MEŠ-šu a-na
ša-šu-nu 30
a-nu-ma la-qú
uruul-la-sà (104:27-30).
Now they have driven
o[ut] your commissioners
and have taken his cities
for themselves. They have
taken Ullassa.
6.1.4 20
al-lu-ú ḫa-za-na-šu da-
ku 21
qa-du a-ḫa-ti-ia ù
DUMU.MEŠ-še (89:20-
21)
They have, I assure you,
killed their mayor,
together with my sister and
her sons.
203
6.1.5 10
[…] a-mur m
a-zi-ru ma-
du-na LUGAL kur
ir-qa-ta
11da-ak LUGAL
kuram-mi-
ia 12
ù LUGAL kur
ar-da-ta
13ù
lúGAL da-ak ù la-qa
14URU.MEŠ-šu a-na ša-šu
(140:10-14)
Aziru killed Aduna, the
king of Irqata; he killed
the king of Ammiya, the
king of Ardata, and a
magnate and he took their
cities.
6.1.6 12
ip-pu-uš-ti nu-kúr-ta
(280:12)
I did (=waged) war.
6.1.7 31
[…] ù mpa-ḫu-ra
32a-pa-
aš ip-ša ra-ba 33
a-na ia-ši
uš-ši-ir 34
LÚ.MEŠ kur
su-te
ù 35
da-ku lú
še-er-da-ni 36
ù
3 LÚ.MEŠ 37
šu-ri-ib a-na
kurmi-iṣ-ri (122:31-37)
And Pạhura has
committed an enormity
against me. He sent
Suteans and they killed
širdanu-people. And he
brought 3 men into Egypt.
6.1.8 56
LÚ.MEŠ ḫa-bi-ru ḫa-bat
gáb-bi KUR.ḪI.A LUGAL
(286:56)
(That) ʿApiru has
plundered all the lands of
the king.
For translation see
Moran 1992, 327.
6.1.9 79
um-ma LÚ-ia a-na uru
ta-
aḫ-daki
80
ka-ša-ad-ti-šu
(138:79-80)
My man reports, ―I have
reached him at Taḫda.‖
6.1.10 10
qa-be-te a-na LUGAL
be-lí-ia (94:10)
I said to the king, my lord,
[…]
Introduction to
direct speech.
6.1.11 43
13 KÙ.BABBAR.MEŠ
441 ta-pal na-al-ba-ši
45na-
ad-na-ti ag-ru-tú 46lú
GAZ
i-nu-ma šu-[ri]-ib DUB-pí
47a-na
uruṣu-mu-ra
I gave 13 shekels of silver
and a pair of mantles as
the hire of the ʿApiru
when he br[ou]ght the
tablet into Ṣumur.
204
(112:43-47)
6.1.12 36
[…] at-ta-mi na-ad-[n]a-
ta 37
DUMU-nu a-na
LUGAL (83:36-37)
―You ga[v]e our son to the
king.‖
Direct speech.
6.1.13 35
[…] ša-ma a-n[a ia-ši]
36ù na-ṣa-ar UR[U.MEŠ]
37LUGAL EN-šu (132:35-
37)
He listened t[o me], and
he guarded the ci[ties] of
the king, his lord.
6.1.14 55
[…]ṣa-ab-tu 56
ka-li
KUR.MEŠ LUGAL BE-ia
(126:55-56)
They have seized all the
lands of the king, my lord,
6.1.15 9at-ta
10ša-ap-ra-ta
11a-na
šu-ši-ri 12
a-na pa-ni
ERÍN.MEŠ pí-ṭá-te
(203:9-12)
You have written me to
make preparations before
the arrival of the archers.
6.1.16 33
ù al-lu-ú il5-qé-ši mma-a-
ia 34
iš-tu qa-te-ia ù ša-kán
35lúMAŠKÍM-šu i-na ŠÀ-
bi (292:33-35)
But Maya has just taken it
away from me and placed
his commissioner in it.
6.1.17 36
ša-ni-tam mi-na-am-mi
ep-ša-ku-me 37
a-na
LUGAL-ri EN-ia (245:36-
37)
Moreover, what have I
done to the king, my lord?
6.1.18 11
am-mi-nim-me 12
na-ad-
na-ta uru
gi-ti-pa-da-al-la
13i-na ŠU LUGAL-ri EN-
ka URU.KI 14
ša la-qí-mi
mla-ab-a-ya
lúa-bu-nu
―Why have you handed
Gittipadalla to the king,
your lord, a city that
Labʾayu, our father, had
taken?‖
Direct speech not
introduced
formally. Note the
second qatal in the
relative clause
205
(250:11-14) which refers to the
action which took
place before the
action in the main
clause.
6.1.19 35
mi-nu qa-ba mi-im-ma
36a-na ša-a-šu (134:35-36)
Who has said anything to
him?
Similarly, the qatal forms refer to the past in subordinate clauses:
6.1.20 18
[…] LÚ.MEŠ-ia 19
š[a]
uš-ši-ir-ti a-na 20
ur-ra-di
i-na uru
ia-pu (294:18-20)
My men wh[om] I sent to
serve in Yapu…
6.1.21 10
a-ba-at ša-a 11
š[a]-pár
LU[GAL EN-i]a 12
[a-n]a
ÌR-š[u] (211:10-12)
…the order that the ki[ng,
my lo]rd, s[e]nt [t]o hi[s]
servant…
6.1.22 37
ù mi-im mḫa-za-ni
LUGAL 38
ša [d]a-ak yi-iš-
ši-ru 39
a-na ka-ta (139:37-
39)
It is property belonging to
a royal mayor whom he
[ha]s killed that he sends
to you.
6.1.23 21
i-nu-ma ir-ru-ba-ti 22
a-
na uru
gaz-ri (254:21-22)
When I entered Gazru…
6.1.24 33
3 LÚ ša-a šu-ri-ib 34I
Bi-
ḫu-ra uš-ši-ra (123:33-34)
Send the three men who
Biḫura brought in.
Note the direct
object fronted
before the
imperative.
6.1.25 44
[..] a-nu-ma 45
di-nu an-
nu-ú di-in4 ki-ti-ia 46
ša-a
qa-bi-ti (119:44-46)
Now this case is a case
concerning my loyalty,
which I have declared.
206
6.1.26 1li-iš-al-šu-nu
2LUGAL-ru
šum-ma la-qí-te 3mi-im-ma
aš-šum lú
ḫa-za-ni (251:1-
3)
Let the king inquire of
them if I have taken
anything from a mayor.
Qatal occurs in a
complement clause
introduced by šum-
ma ―if.‖
6.1.27 8ša-ni-tam ti-de-mi
9i-nu-
ma lam-da-ta uḫ-ḫu-ra-ta
10a-ṣa (102-:8-10)
Moreover, you know that,
though informed, you
have delayed coming out.
Translation follows
Moran 1992, 175.
The clause i-nu-ma
lam-da-ta literally
means ―when you
learned.‖
6.1.28 11
li-il-ma-ad LUGAL-ru
EN-ia 12
i-nu-ma lú
SA.GAZ
[ša] 13
yi-na-aš-ši \ na-aš-
ša-a 14
i-na KUR.KI.ḪI.A
na-da-an 15
DINGIR-lu4 ša
LUGAL-ri EN-ia a-na ia-
ši 16
ù i-du-uk-šu (366:11-
16)
May the king, my lord, be
informed that the ʿApiru
[that] rose up: na-aš-ša-a
against the lands, the god
of the king, my lord, gave
to me, and I smote him.
Qatal occurs in a
virtual relative
clause which
depends on a
governing noun in
the bound form.
6.1.29 33
[…] DUMU ši-ip-ri-[ia]
34[uš]-ši-ir-ti ù aš-ta-ni
35[m]a-ni UD.KÁM.MEŠ
ú-wa-ši-ru-šu 36
ù la-a yi-
le-ú 37
i-ri-ba a-na uru
ṣu-
mu-ra ṣa-ab-tu 38
ka-li
KASKAL.MEŠ a-na ša-a-
šu 39
a-na nu-KÚR ša-a
UGU-ia ù UGU 40uru
ṣu-
mu-ra šu-tú i-da-gal 41
2
ITI a-ši-ib it-ti-ia UGU
[I ha]ve sent […] a
messenger of [mine] time
and again. [Ho]w often did
I send him and he was
unable to get into Ṣumur!
They have blocked all the
roads against him. That
fellow looked with
pleasure on the war against
me and against Ṣumur. For
2 months he has been
In spite of the
Akkadian Stative
vocalism, the qatal
a-ši-ib refers to the
past action because
of its past narrative
context. Its past
reference is
additionally
suggested by the
adverbial time ―two
207
42ša [m]a-an-ni yu-pa-šu
ki-a-ma 43
ÌR ki-ti-ka UGU
a-ra-di-ka (114:33-43)
encamped against me. For
[wh]at reason was your
loyal servant so treated?
For service to you!
months.‖ Note also
that in contrast to
examples 6.1.38-
39, the meaning of
the verb wašābu in
this passage is
close to the literal
meaning ―to sit‖
rather than the
meaning ―to be
dweller of.‖
In all these examples the qatal verbs refer to a single, temporally contained event that took
place before the reference time; therefore these verbs represents the perfective aspect and the
past tense. Such a semantic parsing of the qatal forms is typical and unambiguous especially
with the transitive verbs which express a high degree of active involvement of the subject in
the action.
The qatal forms are often used to describe the state of affairs rather than a past action. Since
states, rather than occupying a definite interval of time, last across temporal spans, the qatal
forms in this use are usually translated in the present tense, unless the context requires
another temporal interpretation. They occur typically in the content clauses which report the
current state of affairs. When the vowel is visible, the qatal forms with this stative meaning
often have the vowels of the Akkadian Stative, as seen in examples nos. 5.1.19-26. To these
examples of the stative qatal, the following ones can be added:
6.1.30 9yi-de LUGAL be-li
10i-
nu-ma da-na-at 11
nu-kúr-
tu UGU-ia 12
ù UGU mšu-
wa-ar-da-ta (271:9-12)
May the king, my lord,
know that the war against
me and against Šuwardata
is severe.
6.1.31 6ù lu-ú yi-de-me
7LUGAL
be-lí-ia 8[i-nu]-ma da-an-
And may the king, my
lord, know [th]at the
208
nu 9[
lúSA].G[A]Z.MEŠ
10UGU-nu (307:6-10)
[ʿA]p[i]ru are more
powerful than we.
6.1.32 60
šum-ma ma-gal ma-ad
61KÙ.BABBAR KÙ.GI a-
na ŠÀ-bi-ši a-na
É.DINGIR.MEŠ-ši 62
ma-
ad mi-im-mu (137:60-62)
Note, there is much silver
and gold in it, and much is
the property belonging to
its temples.
6.1.33 7ma-ri-iṣ ma-gal
8a-na ia-
ši (103:7-8)
It is very difficult to me. Qatal used
impersonally. In
the context, it
describes the
difficult situation
of the author of the
letter.
6.1.34 45
a-na LÚ.MEŠ ḫa-za-nu-
tu URU.MEŠ 46
a-na ša-šu-
nu ù pa-aš-ḫu 47
ù la-a ti-
ìš-pu-ru-na 48
a-na
LUGAL-ri (118:45-48)
As for the mayors, since
the cities are theirs and
they are at peace, they do
not keep writing to the
king.
Note the opposition
between state and
action for which
correspondingly
the qatal pa-aš-ḫu
and the yaqtulu ti-
ìš-pu-ru-na are
used.
6.1.35 20
ù lu-ú ti7-de 21
e-nu-
<ma> ša-al-mu
22URU.DIDLI.ḪI.A-ka
gáb-bu (230:20-22)
May you well know tha<t>
all your cities are safe.
6.1.36 5[lu-ú] ti-i-de i-nu-ma
6šal-
[m]a-ku (145:5-6)
May you [well] know that
I am [sa]fe and sound.
209
6.1.37 36
mi-na i-pu-šu-na 37
a-na-
ku ša aš-ba-ti 38
i-na ŠÀ-bi
LÚ.MEŠ SA.GAZ.MEŠ
(130:36-38)
What am I, who live
among ʿApiru, to do?
The verb wašābu
means literally ―to
sit‖ but in the
stative it means ―to
be dweller of.‖
Thus, it
exemplifies the
interaction of
morphology and
lexicon.
6.1.38 88
aš-ba-ti a-na [uru
A.PÚ ù]
89i-ia-nu LÚ LUGAL be-li
ša ì[l-lik] 90
ù ti-iq-bu
URU.KI al-lu-mi m[ri-ib-
ad-di] 91
a-ši-ib a-na
uruA.PÚ a-ya-mi LÚ-lu
92ša a-lik iš-tu KUR.MEŠ
mi-iṣ-ri a-na MAḪ-šu 93
ù
te-ni-pu-šu-na a-na ma-zi-
ri 94
pa-na-nu aš-pu-ru a-
na LUGAL ú-ul yi-iš-mu
95a-wa-ti a-nu-ma i-na-na
a-na uru
A.PÚ 96
aš-ba-ti ke-
e UR.KI la-a tu-uš-mu 97
a-
wa-ti (138:88-97)
(Though) I am living in
[Beirut], there has been no
man of the king, my lord,
who ha[s come]. The city
has said, ―Look, [Rib-
Addi] is living in Beirut.
Where is a man who has
come to him from Egypt?‖
And so they are being
joined to Aziru. Previously
I would write to the king;
he would not heed my
word. Now I am living in
Beirut like a dog, and my
word is (still) unheeded.
6.1.39 19
i-na lú
MAŠKÍM
LUGAL-ri 20
ša i-šu-ú i-na
uruṣu-mu-ur
21ba-al-ṭá-at
urugub-la (68:19-21)
Thanks to the king‘s
commissioner who is in
Ṣumur, Gubla is alive.
210
6.1.40 8li-il5-ma-ad
mLUGAL-ri
9EN-ia a-na-ku DIŠ-en i-
ba-ša-ti (282:8-9)
May the king, my lord, be
informed that I am alone.
6.1.41 12
[…] a-nu-ma 13
i-na-ṣa-
ru a-šar LUGAL EN-ia
14ù URU.KI LUGAL a-šar
15[i]-ba-ša-ti (331:12-15)
I am indeed guarding the
place of the king, my lord,
and the city of the king,
the place where [I] am.
6.1.42 4a-mur-mi a-na-ku ÌR-ka
5i-na aš-ri ša i-ba-ša-te
6a-
mur aš-ra-nu ša i-ba-ša-te
7URU.ḪI.A-ka gáb-bu
8a-
na-ku ÌR-di12-ka 9lú
ḫa-za-
nu-te-ku 10
lu-ú na-aṣ-ra-
ku 11
šum-ma lú
w[i]-ḫu-ka
12il-la-ak a-[n]a m[u]-ḫi-ia
13ù u[ṣ]-ṣur-[š]u
14 ù
URU.DIDLI.ḪI.A [š]a i-
ba-ša-te 15
[l]u-ú na-aṣ-ru
16gáb-bu a-na ka-tam
17ù
lúḫa-za-nu-te-k[a]
18ša-al-
šu-nu 19
šum-ma lu-ú na-
àṣ-ru 20
ù lu-ú ti7-de 21
e-nu-
<ma> ša-al-mu
22URU.DIDLI.ḪI.A-ka
gáb-bu (230:4-22)
Look, I am your servant in
the place where I am.
Look, the places, where I
am, are all your cities. I
am your servant. I truly
keep/kept guard of your
commissioners. If a
s[ol]dier of yours comes
[t]o [m]e, then I g[u]ard
[h]im (or: Whenever a
soldier of yours came to
me, I guarded him). And
the cities [wh]ere I am are
all [re]ally guarded for
you. Just ask yo[ur]
commissioners wheth<er>
they are really guarded.
May you well know that
all your cities are safe and
sound.
The use of the
qatal forms of the
verbs baššû and
šalāmu in this letter
is similar to other
letters but the qatal
forms of naṣāru
require further
comments for
which see
examples nos.
6.1.66-69.
211
The qatal forms with the verbs of lexical stative aspect are often used in a past narrative or in
connection with another verb which must be interpreted with past reference. Consequently,
these qatal forms are interpreted as referring to past states, as in the following examples:
6.1.43 39
ti-i-de pa-ar-ṣa-ia 40
i-nu-
ma i-ba-ša-ta i-na 41uru
ṣu-
mu-ra (73:39-41)
You know my conduct
when you were in Ṣumur.
See 6.1.41-43 for
the same verb with
the present
reference.
6.1.44 50
[…] pa-na-nu 51
ba-lu-aṭ
LUGAL i-ba-ši el-li-ia 52
ù
ni-di-nu ag-<ru>-tú LÚ
53ša ni-iš-pu-ru (112:50-
53)
Previously, provisions
from the king were at my
disposal, and we could pay
the h<ir>e of a man whom
we used to send.
Time of the
eventuality is clear
thanks to the
adverbial time pa-
na-nu.
6.1.45 9 […] i-na
uruši-g[a-ta]
10i-
ba-ša-ti ù aš-t[a-pár] 11
a-
[n]a [k]a-[t]am (90:9-11)
I was in Šig[ata] and I
wr[ote] t[o y]o[u].
6.1.46 20
li-il-ma-ad LUGAL
21EN-ia i-nu-ma
22lúŠEŠ-ia
TUR.TUR 23
na-ka-ar iš-tu
24ia-ši u i-ru-ub
25a-na
urumu-uḫ-ḫa-zi
26u na-da-
an 2 qa-šu 27
a-na
lúSA.GAZ.KI (298:20-27)
May the king, my lord, be
informed that my younger
brother became my
enemy and entered
Muḫḫazu and pledged
himself to the ʿApiru.
The qatal na-ka-ar
might refer also to
the brother‘s
present condition
but in light of its
vowel pattern and
narrative flow, its
ingressive use is
more probable.
6.1.47 47
[...] i-na UD.KÁM 48
pa-
ṭá-ar ERÍN.MEŠ
KI.KAL.KASKAL.BAD
be-li-[i]a 49
na-ak-ru gáb-
bu (106:47-49)
The day the troops of m[y]
lord‘s expeditionary force
left, all became enemies.
212
6.1.48 8[…] šá-ni-tam iš-te-me
9a-wa-te.MEŠ D[U]B ša
LUGAL-ri EN-ia 10d
UTU-
ia DINGIR.MEŠ-ia ša-ri
ba-la-ṭì-ia 11
ù ḫa-di ŠÀ
ÌR-ka ù 12
i-pí-ri ša
GÌR.MEŠ LUGAL EN-ia
13dUTU-ia ù
DINGIR.MEŠ-ia ša-ri
TIL.LA 14
ma-gal ma-gal i-
nu-ma a-ṣa-at 15
ša-ru ša
LUGAL EN-ia 16d
UTU-ia
DINGIR.MEŠ-ia 17
a-na
ÌR-šu ù i-pí-ri ša
GÌR.MEŠ-šu (141:8-17)
Moreover, I have heard the
words of the t[ab]let of the
king, my lord, my Sun, my
god, the breath of my life,
and the heart of your
servant and the dirt at the
feet of the king, my lord,
my Sun and my god, the
breath of ‹my› life, has
rejoiced very, very much
that the breath of the king,
my lord, my Sun, my god,
has come forth to his
servant and the dirt at his
feet.
The qatal ḫa-di can
be understood as
the past ingressive
(became filled with
joy), the
description of the
past condition of
the author at
receiving the tablet
(was joyful) or/and
of his present
condition too. Note
also the past qatal
a-ṣa-at ―has come
forth.‖
6.1.49 5a-nu-ma ša-mi-te a-wa-
te.MEŠ 6LUGAL be-li-ia
ù ḫa-di ŠÀ-bi 7ma-gal […]
(362:5-7)
I have indeed heard the
words of the king, my
lord, and my heart is
overjoyed.
See the previous
example.
6.1.50 11
da-ag-la-ti ki-ia-am 12
ù
da-ag-la-ti 13
ki-ia-am ù la-
a 14
na-mi-ir ù da-ag-la-ti
15a-na mu-uḫ-ḫi LUGAL
EN-ia 16
ù na-mi-ir
(296:11-16)
I looked this way, and I
looked that way, and there
was no light. Then I
looked towards the king,
my lord, and there was
light.
In the same
formula in 266:9-
15 the qatal of the
same verb is
spelled na-mu-ur.
6.1.51 21
a-mur pa-na-nu
LÚ.MEŠ a-bu-ti-ia 22
[d]a-
nu (130:21-22)
Look, formerly my
ancestors were [st]rong.
Time of the
eventuality is clear
thanks to the
adverbial time pa-
213
na-nu.
6.1.52 69
i-nu-ma al-ka-ti a-na
ma-ḫar mḫa-mu-ni-ri
70aš-
šum DUMU.MEŠ ÌR-ši-ir-
ti i-nu-ma 71
da-nu UGU-ia
ù i-ia-nu ša-ri 72
KA pí
LUGAL a-na ia-ši ù qí-be-
ti 73
a-na be-li-ia (137:69-
73)
When I came to
Ḫammuniri because of the
sons of ʿAbdi-Ašrati,
seeing they were stronger
than me and there was no
breath from the mouth of
the king for me, I said to
my lord, […].
6.1.53 53
i-nu-ma a-na-ku a-na
URU-li.KI a-na-ṣa-ar-ši
54a-na be-li-ia [ù] ta-ri-iṣ
ŠÀ-bi 55
UGU LUGAL be-
li-ia la a-na-din-mi
56URU.KI a-na
DUMU.MEŠ ÌR-[a]š-ra-ti
(137:53-56)
When I was in the city, I
guarded it for my lord,
a[nd] I was dedicated to
the king, my lord. I did not
give the city to the sons of
ʿAbdi-[a]šrati.
6.1.54 24
[…] i-na-an-na 25
e-nu-
ma it-ta-ṣ[í] 26
še-ḫu
LUGAL a-na UGU-ḫ[i-i]a
27ù ḫa-ad-ia-ti ma-gal
28ù
\\ a-ru-ú i-na UD-mi u
U[D-mi]-ma 29
aš-šum ḫa-
dì-ia-ti la-a ti-[ši-i]r 30
er-
ṣé-tum a-nu-ma iš-me
31DU[MU.K]IN-ri SIG5 ša
iš-tu be-li-ia 32
ù gáb-bi
KUR-ti pal-ḫa-at 33
iš-tu
pa-ni be-li-ia e-nu-ma 34
iš-
me še-ḫu DÙG.GA ù
Now that the breath of the
king has come for[th] t[o
m]e, I am very happy and
: a-ru-ú (he is satisfied),
day b[y d]ay. Because I
am happy, does the earth
not pr[osp]er? When I
heard the gracious
mes[sen]ger from my lord,
all the land was in fear of
my lord, when I heard the
sweet breath and the
gracious messenger who
The qatal ḫa-ad-ia-
ti reports the
current state of joy
of the author of the
letter in contrast
with his distress
which is described
in previous lines.
214
DUMU.KIN-ri SIG5 35
ša
i-kà-ša-da-ni […] (147:24-
35)
reached me.
The Stative qatal can refer also to a future state. However, this translational value constitutes
no evidence for the future meaning of the Stative qatal as it refers not to a state that will arise
in the future but to the current state which will end at the point of time specified with another
verb or adverbial time, as in the following example:
6.1.55 20
[ú-r]a-[a]d iš-tu 21kur
a-
mur-ri ù yi-qa-bu 22
a-na
ia-ši 23
ma-a-d[i Š]E.MEŠ-
mi 24
a-na [kur
a-mur-ri 25
a-
di ka-š]a-ad lú
GAL 26
[iš-tu
LUGA]L EN-ia (178:20-
26)
[He c]am[e do]wn from
Amurru and kept saying to
me, ―There will be
plen[ty of gr]ain in
[Amurru until] the
magnate [arr]ives [from
the kin]g, my lord.‖
The temporal interpretation of some verbs is ambiguous, that is, it is difficult to decide on the
basis of the context if the eventuality that they describe is a past event, a past state or a state
which began in the past and continues. In fact, all these interpretations are covered by qatal.
For example, it is not always clear if the verb qâlu ―to be inert, silent, to neglect,‖ which has
a stative lexical aspect, referrs to a past lack of reaction or ongoing lack of interest on the part
of the king.
6.1.56 13
[…] ù qa-la-ta 14
[a-na
ip-ši-š]u-nu i-nu-ma ti-ìš-
me (109:13-14)
And you did nothing
[about th]eir [actions]
when you heard (of them).
The qatal qa-la-ta
refers to the past
inertia of the king,
as is clear from the
past verb in the
temporal clause
which establishes
the time of the
main clause.
215
6.1.57 24
[…] pa-na-nu 25
ti-ì[l-
q]ú-[n]a URU.MEŠ 26
ḫa-
za-ni-ka ù qa-la-ta
(104:24-26)
Previously, they wo[ul]d
t[ak]e the cities of your
mayors, and you would
be inert.
Since both the
qatal and yaqtulu
can describe past or
present ongoing
action (yaqtulu) or
state (qatal), it is
only the adverbial
time pa-na-nu that
establishes the past
time of these
eventualities.
6.1.58 55
[…] ṣa-ab-tu 56
ka-li
KUR.MEŠ LUGAL BE-ia
57ù qa-al be-li iš!-tu-šu-nu
(126:55-57)
They have seized all the
lands of the king, my lord,
but my lord has done
nothing to them.
Although qa-al
follows a verb with
past reference, it
can be interpreted
as referring also to
the ongoing state of
the king‘s inertia
and translated: ―my
lord is inert toward
them.‖
6.1.59 1li-iš-al-šu-nu
2LUGAL-ru
šum-ma la-qí-te 3mi-im-ma
aš-šum lú
ḫa-za-ni 4ù li-iq-
bi 5i-na pa-ni LUGAL-ri ù
6LUGAL-ru be-lí-ia la-aš-
al-ni 7a-nu-ma ki-i-ia-am
8qa-la-ta a-di-mi
9yi-ìl-ma-
du LUGAL-ru 10
be-lí-ia a-
wa-ta5 11
an-ni-ta5 ù yu-te-
Let the king inquire of
them if I have taken
anything from a mayor.
Let him speak in the
presence of the king, and
let the king, my lord,
demand of me a
reckoning. You have now
in this way been
Moran‘s translation
of qa-la-ta with
―you have been
negligent‖ renders
well the temporal
ambiguity of this
stative qatal. In
fact, no piece of
information in the
216
ru-12
an-ni LUGAL-ru be-
lí-ia 13
a-wa-at yu-te-ru-na
14ù a-na a-wa-at
15LUGAL-ri iš-mu (251:1-
15)
negligent. Surely the king,
my lord, is going to learn
of this matter, and the
king, my lord, will reply to
me as he will, and the
order of the king I will
obey.
letter entails that it
refers to the
Egyptian official‘s
inertia only in the
past. It is rather
clear that the
author of the letter
refers to the past
and ongoing state
of inaction.
6.1.60 10
[...] a-na mi-nim 11
qa-la-
ta ù la-a 12
ti-iq-bu a-na
LUGAL-ri 13
ù yu-wa-ši-
ru-na 14
ERÍN.MEŠ pí-ṭá-ti
ù 15
ti-ìl-te9-qú-na 16uru
ṣu-
mu-ra […] (71:10-16)
Why are you silent (or:
have you been negligent),
not speaking to the king so
he will send archers and so
they will take Ṣumur?
The qatal qa-la-ta
refers to the
ongoing state of
vizier‘s inertia as it
is clear from the
following yaqtulu
la-a ti-iq-bu ―you
do not speak.‖
6.1.61 15
a-n[a] mi-<ni> qa-la-ta ù
t[u-u]l-[q]ú 16
KUR-ka […]
(83:15-16)
Why are you negligent so
that your land is being
taken?
Another interesting case of the interaction between the lexical meaning of a verb and the
qatal forms occurs in the case of the verb paṭāru ―to loosen,‖ ―to release‖ which is used in
the Amarna letters with the meaning ―to depart,‖ referring simply to ―going away from a
place‖ and with the specialized meaning ―to abandon,‖ ―to desert‖ in the context of the troops
defecting the enemy and of the change of alliance (Gianto 2009, 287-288). Since this verb
expresses intentionality and control over the action, its use in qatal implies past action.
However, since the action of abandoning the ally logically entails an ongoing state of
desertion, in some instances the qatal of the verb paṭāru may be understood in reference to
the past action of abandonment and to the ongoing state of desertion that resulted from the
217
past action. The following examples illustrate these nuances of the qatal forms of paṭāru
which depend on their narrative context.
6.1.62 11
ṣa-ab-tu4 KUR uru
ru-bu-
teki 12
pa-ṭa-ra-at KUR
LUGAL-ri 13
a-na
LÚ.MEŠ ḫa-pí-ri 14
ù i-na-
an-na ap-pu-na-ma 15
URU
kurú-ru-sa-lim
ki šu-mu-ša
16uruÉ-
dNIN.URTA
17URU
LUGAL-ri pa-ṭa-ra-at 18
a-
šar LÚ.MEŠ uru
qí-il-tiki
(290:11-18)
They seized Rubutu. The
land of the king deserted
to the ʿApiru. And now,
beside this, a town
belonging to Jerusalem,
Bit-dNIN.URTA by name,
a city of the king, has
gone over to the side of
the men of Qiltu.
Since the qatal
forms pa-ṭa-ra-at
occur in a report on
past events, they
are best interpreted
as referring to the
past events and not
to the condition.
6.1.63 10
[yi]-d[e] LUGAL be-li
11[i-nu-m]a ga-am-ru
12[LÚ.MEŠ ḫ]a-za-nu-te
13[ša-a] i-na ma-ḫa-z[e
E]N-[ia] 14
[ù p]a-aṭ-ra-at
15[ka-li] KUR LUGAL
16[E]N-ia i-na
17[LÚ].MEŠ
SA.GAZ (272:10-17)
[Ma]y the king, my lord,
kn[ow] [tha]t [the m]ayors
[that] were in the citie[s of
my lo]rd are gone, [and]
that [the entire] land of the
king, my [lo]rd, has
[de]serted to (=is on the
side of) ʿApiru.
The impression of
the stative use of
pa-aṭ-ra-at is
stronger because
this form occurs in
the formula which
reports the current
state of affairs in
the land.
6.1.64 35
[li-i]s-k[ín] L[UG]AL a-
na KUR-šu pa-ṭa-ra-at
36[KUR.ḪI].A LUGAL
EN gáb-ša mi-li-mil-ku
37i-
ḫal-li-iq gáb-bi KUR
LUGAL-ri 38
ù li-is-kín
LUGAL EN a-na KUR-šu
(286:35-38)
[May] the king
[pr]ovi][de] for his land!
The entire [lan]d of the
king, my lord, has
deserted. Ili-milku has
caused the loss of all the
land of the king, and so
may the king, my lord,
Because pa-ṭa-ra-
at is followed by a
verb with a clear
past meaning (i-
ḫal-li-iq), its
interpretation as
past action is
preferable.
However, it refers
218
provide for his land. also to the present
condition of the
land. A few lines
earlier (286:35-38)
the land is
described as ḫal-
qa-at-mi but in
reference to the
past action in
286:37 the yaqtul is
used.
6.1.65 27
[…] ša-ni-tam šum-ma
28ap-pu-na-ma a-nu-ma
pa-aṭ-ra 29uru
ṣ[u]-mu-ra ù
uruÉ-ar-[ḫ]a
30[t]a5-din-ni
i-na qa-at 31m
ia-an-ḫa-mi
[…] (83:27-31)
Moreover, now that over
and above everything else
Ṣ[u]mur and Bit-Ar[ḫ]a
have defected, [ma]y you
put me in Yanḫamu‘s
charge.
Finally, the verb naṣāru ―to guard‖ displays some uses which must be explained as the result
of an idiosyncratic analysis of the meaning of the Akkadian Stative. Being a transitive verb
and being an activity verb as far as it concerns its lexical aspect, the qatal of naṣāru in its
indicative uses should refer to the past action. In fact, such meaning has already been seen in
example no. 6.1.13. In some cases, it is used en guise of the Akkadian Stative to describe the
condition, as in example no. 6.1.42 (230:19) and in the following passage:
6.1.66 22
li-wa-še-ra LUGAL-ru
23EN-ia KASKAL-ra-
na.ḪI.A 24
a-na-ku ub-ba-
lu-ši 25
ki-ma ma-diš na-aṣ-
ra-at (255:22-25)
Let the king, my lord, send
a caravan. I will personally
conduct it heavily
guarded.
219
However, in few instances, the qatal of naṣāru seems to refer to a present, ongoing action of
guarding the city. These cases are unexpected because yaqtulu is normally used to express
this action. The passage with this idiosyncratic use of the qatal of naṣāru include:
6.1.67 11
[šá]-ni-tam a-nu-um-ma
na-aṣ-ra-ku ma-gal 12
ù uṣ-
ṣú-ru URU.KI PÚ.ḪI.A
13a-na LUGAL EN-ia a-di
ka-ša-di 14
ERÍN.MEŠ pí-
ṭá-ti LUGAL EN-ia
(142:11-14)
[Mo]reover, I am indeed
very much on my guard
(or: I guarded well), and I
shall guard Beirut for the
king, my lord, until the
arrival of the archers of the
king, my lord.
It is also well
possible that na-aṣ-
ra-ku expresses
here the past action
in opposition to the
present-future
yaqtulu uṣ-ṣú-ru.
6.1.68 5a-mur-me a-na-ku na-aṣ-
ra-ti [URU].6DIDLI.ḪI.A-
ni LUGAL EN-ia 7a-di ka-
ša-di EN-ia an [ia-ši]
(227:5-7)
Look, I have the [citie]s of
the king, my lord, under
guard until the arrival of
my lord to [me] (Moran
1992, 289). Or: I guarded
the cities of the king, my
lord until the arrival of my
lord to me.
6.1.69 9ù li-il-ma-ad
10mLUGAL-
ru EN-ia 11
e-nu-ma [e]l-ti-
qú-ú 12
[UR]U.DIDLI.ḪI.A
š[a] mLUGAL EN-i[a]
13[ù] URU.KI ša e-ba-aš-
š[a]-ti 14
[i-n]a ŠÀ-bi-ši a-
nu-um-ma 15
[n]a-aṣ-ra-ti-
ši 16
a-di a-ta-mar uzu
2
IGI.MEŠ 17lú
ḫa-za-an ša
mLUGAL-ri
18EN-ia
(237:9-18)
May the king, my lord, be
informed that [th]ey have
captured the [ci]ties of the
king, m[y] lord, [but] the
city [i]n which I am, I now
[ke]ep under guard until
I see the eyes of the
commissioner of the king,
my lord.
220
Since all the cases of the alleged present meaning of the qatal of the verb naṣāru occur in the
first person, it is possible that the scribes used them intending the meaning ―I am guardian‖
by analogy with the Akkadian Stative like šarrāku ―I am king.‖ It is also possible that this
use of the 1 cs qatal of naṣāru is a result of a re-analysis of the positive injunctions to guard
the city expressed with the qatal forms of this verb which are attested several times in the
letters from the pharaoh (99:8, 367:4, 370:5) and as quotations from such letters (112:9,
117:84). In any case, these instances of the qatal of naṣāru seem to be scribal idiosyncrasies
and cannot be taken as the evidence for the use of qatal in reference to an ongoing action at
the time of speaking.
The overall picture of the indicative uses of qatal which emerges from this survey is simple
and clear. The qatal forms, when used in reference to eventualities in the actual world, have
just two meanings depending on the lexical aspect of the verb.
The verbs which have a lexical aspect other than stative, when used in the qatal, refer to a
past, temporally contained action. In this use, qatal can be defined as the past tense. The
definition of qatal of the lexically non-stative verbs as the past tense is due not only to its
consistent past reference but also to the fact that such qatals can establish the past time
narrative reference frame for other verbal forms. That is, other verbal forms, which
potentially may refer to the past or the present, when used together with the past tense qatal
forms receive the past time interpretation.
The qatal of lexically stative verb expresses a state or condition. In this use, the qatal is
usually translated in the present tense because this is the form which in most languages is
used to refer to states which persist across time. This translational value of the qatal forms
does not mean that the qatal of the lexically stative verbs actually expresses the present tense
because it refers not to an action which can be located in time but to a state or condition
which is not limited to a point or interval of time. The lexically stative qatals may also refer
to a past state or condition when such temporal reference is clear from their narrative context.
Additionally, the qatal forms of the lexically non-stative verbs can be used as the Akkadian
Stative, that is, with the vocalism a-i or a-u rather than a-a typical for the past tense qatals. In
this case, with the vowels of the Akkadian Stative, the lexically non-stative verbs refer to a
221
state or condition rather than an action and thus have the same meaning as the qatals of the
lexically stative verbs. In other words, they can be considered genuine Akkadian Statives.
In conclusion, in the indicative, qatal is sensitive to the lexical aspect of the verbs. In fact,
depending on the lexical aspect of the verb, qatal will express a past action or a state.
6.2 The Indicative Use of Yaqtul
Used as the indicative, yaqtul refers always to past, temporally contained eventualities, in
both main and subordinate clauses. The following examples illustrate this use.
6.2.1 51
a-nu-ma ma-ma-an-ap-pa
it-ti-ka ša-al-šu 52
šu-ut yi-
de ù ia-ta-mar pu-uš-qa
53ša UGU-ia (74:51-53)
Look, Amanappa is with
you - ask him! He knows
as he saw the straits I am
in.
6.2.2 30 [...] ù yi-ìl-qé-šu 31m
zu-
ra-ta ù yu-ta-šar-šu 32
iš-tu
uruḫi-na-tu-na
ki 33
a-na É-šu
(245:30-33)
Zurata took him, but he
sent him from Ḫinnatunu
to his home.
6.2.3 27
iš-tu kur
ia-ri-im-mu-ta
28nu-bal-li-iṭ (68:27-28)
It is from the land of
Yarimuta that we have
acquired provisions
(Moran 1992, 138).
Rainey translates
―we had to get
supplies‖ (1996,
vol. 3, 272)
probably for
stylistic reasons as
he does not claim a
past modal value of
yaqtul here.
Cochavi-Rainey
disregards the
222
temporal value of
yaqtul and
translates
contextually with
the present tense
אנחנו נתקיים
(Cochavi-Rainey
2005, 116).
6.2.4 61
a-mur a-bu-ka la-a a-ṣí
[ù] 62
la-a i-da-gal
KUR.KUR.KI.MEŠ [ù]
63ḫa-za-ni-šu (116:61-63)
Note: did not your father
come out [and] visit (his)
lands [and] his mayors?
6.2.5 42
ù a-mu-u[r]-mi
lúSA.GAZ.MEŠ
43iš-ḫi-ṭú-
mi uru
ḫa-ziki [UR]U.[K]I
44mLUGAL-ri EN-ia ù ni-
pu-uš-mi 45
ta-ḫa-za i-na
lúSA.GAZ.MEŠ ù
46ni-da-
ak-[š]u-nu (185:42-46)
And th[e]n the ʿApiru
having raided Ḫasi, a
[c]i[t]y of the king, my
lord, we did battle with the
ʿApiru, and we defeated
[t]hem.
6.2.6 20
i-nu-ma yi-mur lú
ŠEŠ-ia
i-nu-ma 21
a-ṣí lú
DUMU
šìp-[ri]-ia ri-qa-mi 22
i-ia-
nu ERÍN.MEŠ ma-ṣa-ar-
tam it-ti-šu 23
ù ia-an-aṣ-ni
ù ki-na-an-na 24
yi-pu-uš
ar-na ù yu-ṭá-ri-id-ni 25
iš-
tu URU-li.KI (137:20-25)
When my brother saw that
my mes[sen]ger had come
out empty-handed and that
there was no garrison with
him he despised me.
Accordingly, he
committed a crime and
drove me from the city.
6.2.7 11
[...] ù la-a ar-na-ku 12
ù
la-a ḫa-ta-ku ù 13
ù la-a a-
I am not a rebel and I am
not delinquent in duty. I
223
kal-li GUN.ḪI.A-ia 14
ù la-
a a-kal-li 15
e-ri-iš-te lúra-
bi-ṣí-ia (254:11-15)
have not held back my
payments of tribute; I
have not held back
anything requested by my
commissioner.
6.2.8 34
[…] a-nu-ma 35
ìš-ti-mé
ú-ul i-nu-ma 36
uš-ši-ir-ti
LÚ-ia a-na É.GAL 37
ù iq-
bi a-na LÚ ù iz-zi-iz 38
GÍR
ZABAR UGU-[ia] ù am-
ma-ḫa-aṣ-ni 39
9-ta-an
(82:34-39)
Now, I have obeyed. Is it
not a fact that I sent my
man to the palace, and he
gave orders to a man and
he attacked [me] with a
bronze dagger. I was
stabbed nine times!
6.2.9 6[…] iš-te-mé a-wa-
te.MEŠ 7ša LUGAL EN-ia
ša iš-pu-ur 8a-na ÌR-šu
[…] (294:6-8)
I have heard the orders
that the king, my lord, sent
to his servant.
6.2.10 16
ki-ma ša yu-uṣ-ṣí 17
iš-tu
pí-i 18d
UTU iš-tu 19
sa-me-e
ki-na-an-na 20
yu-up-pa-šu-
mi (232:16-20)
In accordance with what
has issued from the mouth
of the Sun from the sky, so
is it done.
Note the opposition
between the past
yaqtul and the
present-ongoing
yaqtulu yu-up-pa-
šu-mi.
Yaqtul is rarely used with the lexically stative verbs, but it is not incompatible with them, as
the following examples show.
6.2.11 50
[…] ú-ul ta-ša-aš 51
\ na-
aq-ṣa-pu (82:50-51)
Has it not been/become
distressed \ na-aq-ṣa-pu
(have they not been
angry)?
Yaqtul is glossed
by qatal.
224
6.2.12 4[a-mur a]-ta-ša-aš a-na-
ku 5 \ [na]-aq-ṣa-ap-ti
6[UGU] a-wa-te-ka (93:4-
6)
[Look, I] was/became
distressed : [na]-aq-ṣa-ap-
ti (angry) [because of]
your words.
Yaqtul is glossed
by qatal.
6.2.13 7[…] ù en-du-um
8[iš]-te-
me a-wa-te.MEŠ DUB
LUGAL EN-ia 9ù yi-iḫ-di
ŠÀ-ia ù 10
[e]n-nam-mu-ru
2 IGI.MEŠ-ia ma-gal
(142:7-10)
… and when I[ h]eard the
words of the tablet of the
king, my lord, my heart
rejoiced and my eyes
[s]hone brightly.
6.2.14 13
ù i-nu-ma iš-te-mi a-wa-
at 14
LUGAL EN-ia i-nu-
ma iš-tap-pár a-na ÌR-šu
15ù yi-iḫ-di ŠÀ-bi-ia ù
16yi-
ša-qí SAG-ia ù en-nam-ru
172 IGI-ia \ ḫi-na-ia i-na
ša-me 18
a-wa-at LUGAL
EN-ia (144:13-18)
And when I heard the
words of the king, my
lord, when he wrote to his
servant, then my heart
rejoiced, and my head
went high, and my eyes
shone, at hearing the
words of the king, my
lord.
For the stative use
of namāru in the
qatal see example
no. 6.1.50.
6.2.15 39
a-na-ku a-qa-bi e-ru-ub-
mi 40
it-ti LUGAL-ri EN-ia
ù la-mur-mi 41
2 IGI.MEŠ
LUGAL EN-ia ù nu-kúr-
tú.MEŠ 42
KALAG.GA a-
na mu-ḫi-ia ù la a-la-áʾ-e
43e-ra-ba iš-tu LUGAL
EN-ia (286:39-43)
For my part, I said, ―I
would go in to the king,
my lord, and visit the king,
my lord,‖ but the war
against me is severe, and
so I was not able to go in
to the king.
Moran 1992, 326
translates a-qa-bi
and a-la-áʾ-e in the
present tense but
these two forms are
the past yaqtul and
in the context they
refer to ʿAbdi-
ḫeba‘s past plans.
See also 287:58.
225
6.2.16 10
ù a-nu-ma i-na-an-na ši-
iḫ-ṭá-at 11uru
ṣu-mu-ur a-di
a-bu-li-ši 12
ša-ḫa-aṭ-ši i-le-
ú ù ṣa-bat-ši 13
la i-le-ú
(106:10-13)
Ṣumur is now raided up to
its city gate. They have
been able to raid it, but
they have not been able
to capture it.
With the exception of the verb leʾû, all other yaqtuls of the lexically stative verbs can be
given an ingressive interpretation. Therefore, it plausible that the qatal and yaqtul of these
verbs differ in meaning as follows: qatal expresses a state or condition, while yaqtul refers
specifically to the moment in which the state began. The verb leʾû never occurs in the qatal
but it is sometimes used in yaqtulu for the past condition of inability. It is possible that yaqtul
is used to convey in a clear manner the past reference of the verb since yaqtulu refers usually
to present ability.
It is important to note that yaqtul occurs also with the verbs and verbal forms which cannot
be explained as instances of the Akkadian iprus, such as the Amarna lexical innovation
warādu ―to serve‖ and internal passives. Examples of such yaqtuls include:
6.2.17 41
ša iš-mi a-na LUGAL
be-li-šu ù 42
ú-ra-ad-šu i-
na aš-ra-ni-šu 43
ù it-ṣí
dUTU i-na UGU-ḫi-šu
44ù
i-ṣa-ḫar še-ḫu SIG5 iš-tu
uzupí be-li-šu (147:41-44)
Whoever gives heed to the
king, his lord, and serves
him in his place, the Sun
comes forth over him, and
the sweet breath comes
back from the mouth of his
lord.
The example
comes from one of
the Tyrian letters
which do not
conform to the
verbal usages of
the Amarna letters
from Canaan. It is
used here as an
example of a non-
Akkadian verb in
yaqtul.
6.2.18 8 […] t[u]-ul-qé
9uruÉ-ar-
q[a] (91:8-9)
Then Bit-arq[a] was
[t]aken.
226
6.2.19 5aš-tap-pár aš-ta-ni a-n[a
ERÍN.MEŠ ma-ṣa-ar-ti] 6ù
la-a tu-da-nu (137:5-6)
I wrote repeatedly fo[r a
garrison], but it was not
granted.
6.2.20 42
[…] aš-pu-ur a-na
É.GAL 43
a-na ERÍN.MEŠ
ù ú-ul tu-da-nu
ERÍN.MEŠ ia-ši (138:42-
43)
So I wrote to the palace for
troops, but no troops were
given <to> me.
In these and all other cases of the indicative use, the yaqtul forms refer to a temporally
contained eventuality which took place before the time of reference.
6.3 The Uses of Yaqtulu
Yaqtulu refers typically to an action which is ongoing at the moment of speaking and often
can be interpreted as extending over a period of time. Consequently, the sentences with verbs
in yaqtulu can be interpreted as having both present-continuous, habitual, continuative or
frequentative reading depending on the verb and on how one can conceptualize the entire
action. In this use, yaqtulu appears both in main and subordinate clauses.
6.3.1 50
EN-ia LUGAL-ra EN-ia
51i-ru-du a-na-ku ù
ŠEŠ.MEŠ-ia 52
ša ti-iš-ti-
mu-na a-na ia-ši (250:50-
52)
It is the king, my lord, I
serve, along with my
brothers that give heed to
me.
Note the word
order which places
emphasis on the
object.
6.3.2 21
a-nu-ma iš-te9-me 22
gáb-
bi a-wa-te.MEŠ 23
ša yi-iq-
bi 24m
ma-ia lú
MAŠKÍM
LUG[AL] 25
a-na ia-ši a-
nu-ma 26
i-pu-šu gáb-ba
I have indeed heard all the
words that Maya, the
kin[g‘s] commissioner, has
spoken to me. I am indeed
carrying out every one of
Note the opposition
between the past
and present-
ongoing actions for
which yaqtul and
227
(328:21-26) them. yaqtulu are
correspondingly
used.
6.3.3 16
a-nu-ma yi-ka-lu ka-ar-
ṣí-ia 17
ḫa-ba-lu-ma ù la-a
18yu-sà-an-ni-qu LUGAL-
ru EN-ia 19
ar-ni-ia
(254:16-19)
Now, he denounces me
unjustly, but the king, my
lord, does not examine
my alleged act of
rebellion.
6.3.4 31
[...] a-mur mi-ta-at-ka-ma
32ḫu-li-iq
urugi-is-sà u an-
nu-ú 33m
ar-sà-wu-ya qa-du
mbi-ri-da-aš-wa
34yu-ḫa-li-
qu kur
a-pí (197:31-34)
And see, Itatkama has
caused the loss of the land
of Kissa, and behold,
Arsawuya along with
Biridašwa is causing the
loss of Apu.
Note the opposition
between the past
and present-
ongoing action for
which the qatal ḫu-
li-iq and the
yaqtulu yu-ḫa-li-qu
are
correspondingly
used.
6.3.5 68
mi-im-me ša-a yu-ú-ul-
qú-na 69
ìš-tu ša-a-šu-nu a-
na LUGAL ú-ul 70
yi-ìl-qé-
šu LÚ ša-nu a-na ša-šu
(117:68-70)
Everything that is taken
from them belongs to the
king. Let no one else take
it for himself.
6.3.6 21
ša-ni-tam aš-ta-pár a-na
LÚ.MEŠ ma-ṣa-ar-ti 22
ù
a-na
ANŠE.KUR.RA.MEŠ ù
la-a 23
tu-da-nu-na (83:21-
23)
Moreover, I have written
for a garrison and for
horses but they are not
given.
228
6.3.7 85
[...] mia-pa-
dIM la-a ia-
di-nu giš
MÁ.MEŠ-ia 86
[a-
n]a kur
ia-ri-mu-ta ù uš-ša-
ar-šu-nu a-na uru
ṣu-mu-ra
87[l]a-a i-li-[ú] [...]
(105:85-87)
Yapaḫ-hadda does not let
my ships [int]o Yarimuta,
and I can[not] sen[d] them
to Ṣumur.
6.3.8 18
ù a-nu-ma 19
i-na-ṣa-ru-
me 20
a-šar LUGAL-ri
21EN-ia ša it-ti-ia (304:18-
21)
And now I guard/am
guarding the place of the
king, my lord, that is under
my responsibility.
6.3.9 15
a-nu-ma a-na-ṣa-ru-me
16aš-ri LUGAL ša it-ti-ia
(322:15-16)
I am indeed
guarding/guard the place
of the king that is assigned
to me.
6.3.10 7[...] gáb-bi
8a-wa-te.MEŠ
LUGAL-ri-[ia] 9iš-te-mu ù
10MAŠKÍM ya-di-nu
11mLUGAL-ri-ia
12UGU-
<ia> iš-te-mu 13
gáb-bi a-
wa-te-šu (225:7-13)
I obey all the orders of
[my] king and, as for the
commissioner whom my
king appoints over <me>,
I obey all his orders.
6.3.11 6[a-n]u-ma ki-a-ma-am iš-
tap-ru a-na LUGAL-ri
EN-ia 7[ù] la yi-ìš-mu-na
a-wa-te-ia (85:6-7)
Though I keep writing
like this to the king, my
lord, he does not heed my
words.
6.3.12 4ša-a-la aš-šum ḫa-z[a-ni]
5ša-ni ù ú-ul y[i-pu-šu]
6ar-na ù ia-aš-ku-nu
7i-na
ŠÀ-bi-šu (113:4-7)
Inquire from another
ma[yor]. Is he not always
[committing] or plotting a
crime in its midst?
229
6.3.13 7a-na mi-ni la-a tu-te-ru-
[n]a 8a-wa-tam a-na ia-a-
ši (83:7-8)
Why do you not send
[ba]ck a word to me?
6.3.14 34
[…]a-[mur-mi] 35
i-nu-
ma ša-pár-mi LUGAL be-
l[i] 36
a-nu-ma ERÍN.MEŠ
a-ṣa-at u ti-i[q-bi] 37
ka-az-
za-bu-tu \ ka-ma-m[i] 38
ia-
nu-mi ERÍN.MEŠ pí-ṭá-tu
la-[a] 39
tu-ṣú u da-nu
UGU-nu (129:34-39)
L[ook], as to the king,
m[y] lord‘s, having
written, ―Troops have
indeed come out,‖ you
sp[oke] lies: ka-ma-
m[i](?). There are no
archers; they are no[t]
coming out. And they are
stronger than we are.
Note the opposition
between past and
present-ongoing
actions for which
qatal and yaqtulu
are
correspondingly
used.
6.3.15 18
an-nu-ú ar-nu-ia 19
ù an-
nu-ú 20
[ḫ]i-tu-ia i-nu-ma
21ir-ru-ba-[t]i i-na
22urugaz-
riki
23
um-ma a-[n]a-[k]u-mi
24yi-in4-ni-nu-nu-mi
25LUGAL-ru […] (253:18-
25)
Here is my act of rebellion
and here is my
[de]linquency: when I
ente[re]d Gazru, I (spoke)
as follows: ―The king
treats us kindly.‖
6.3.16 9a-wa-at ul-te-bi-la
10LUGAL EN-ia
DINGIR.MEŠ-ia 11d
UTU-
ia a-na ia-ši 12
a-nu-um-ma
i-šu-ši-ru-šu 13
a-na
LUGAL EN-ia 14d
UTU iš-
tu AN sa-me (267:9-14)
The order the king, my
lord, my god, my sun,
dispatched to me, I am
carrying out for the king,
my lord, the sun from
heavens.
6.3.17 36
ù NU-id a-na mri-a-na-
ap 37lú
MAŠKÍM-ia ù yu-
šu-te-er 38
URU.KI i-na qa-
Enjoin Reanap, my
commissioner, to restore
my village to me, as I am
230
te-ia ù 39
ú-ši-šu-ru a-na
pa-ni 40
ERÍN.MEŠ pí-ṭá-
at LUGAL EN-ia (292:36-
40)
making preparations for
the archers of the king, my
lord.
6.3.18 8li-de-mi LUGAL EN-ia
9a-na ÌR-šu u a-na
URU.KI-šu 10
a-nu-um-ma
a-na-ku-ma 11
er-ri-šu \ aḫ-
ri-šu 12
i-na uru
šu-na-maki
13u a-na-ku-ma
14ub-ba-lu
LÚ.MEŠ ma-as-sà.MEŠ
15u a-mur-me
16LÚ.MEŠ
ḫa-za-nu-ta.MEŠ 17
ša it-ti-
ia 18
la-a ti-pu-šu-na 19
ki-
ma ia-ti-ia la-a 20
te-er-ri-
šu-na 21
i-na uru
šu-na-maki
22u la-a tu-ub-ba-lu-na
23LÚ.MEŠ ma-as-sà.MEŠ
ù 24
a-na-ku-ma / ya-ḫu-du-
un-ni 25
ub-ba-lu LÚ.MEŠ
ma-as-sà.MEŠ 26
iš-tu
uruia-pu[
ki]
27yi-la-ku iš-tu
ŠU-[ia] 28
an-ni-ki-ma iš-
t[u] 29uru
nu-ri-ib-tá[ki
] 30
[u]
li-de-mi 31
LUGAL EN-ia
a-na URU.KI-šu (365:8-
31)
May the king, my lord,
take cognizance of his
servant and his city.
In fact, only I am
cultivating : aḫ-ri-šu in
Šunama, and only I am
furnishing corvée
workers. But consider the
mayors that are near to me.
They do not act as I do.
They do not cultivate in
Šunama, and they do not
furnish corvée workers.
Only I: ya-ḫu-du-un-ni
furnish corvée workers.
From Yapu they come,
from [my] resources here,
and from Nuribta.
[And] may the king, my
lord, take cognizance of
his city.
Line 11 contains a
very interesting
gloss: the scribe
knows the
morphological
difference of the
verbs in Akkadian
and Canaanite but
he still equates the
verbal forms: in
both cases he uses
yaqtulu.
As can be gathered from the examples above, the yaqtulu forms which refer to the present-
ongoing or present-habitual eventuality involve typically non-stative verbs. There are several
examples of the present yaqtulu forms of lexically stative verbs but it is difficult to
231
understand the difference in their meaning compared with the qatal of the stative verbs. One
may surmise that they present the subject as being actively involved in the condition rather
than being passively subjected to it. However, it is impossible to prove that this is exactly the
difference in meaning of qatal vs. yaqtulu forms for the lexically stative verbs.
6.3.19 34
ù ia-aq-bi LUGAL ù yu-
wa-ši-ra 35
LÚ-ia
LÚ.MEŠ-šu ti-ša-šu-na
UGU-ia 36
ur-ra mu-ša at-
ta-mi na-ad-[n]a-ta
37DUMU-nu a-na LUGAL
ù uš-ši-ra-šu šu-ut (83:34-
37)
And may the king give the
order and release my man!
His family are very upset
with me, (saying) day and
night, ―You gave our son
to the king.‖ So send him
back, especially him.
6.3.20 18
[...] i-na a-ṣí ERÍN.MEŠ
19pí-ṭá-ti ka-li mi-am
mÌR-
a-ši-ir-ta 20
it-ti-šu-nu la-a
la-qí ù giš
MÁ.MEŠ-šu-nu
21a-ṣa ki-ma ki-ti iš-tu
kurmi-iṣ-ri
22ki-na-na la-a
ti-pa-li-ḫu-na 23
a-nu-ma
la-qú uru
ul-la-ṣa ù 24uru
ṣu-
mu-ra tu-ba-ú-na la-qa
(105:18-24)
When the archers came
out, all the property of
ʿAbdi-aširta in their
possession was not taken
away, and their ships, by
an agreement, left Egypt.
Accordingly, they are not
afraid. Now they have
taken Ullassa, and they
strive to take Ṣumur.
6.3.21 16
a-di LUGAL EN-ia
TI.LA 17
a-qa-bi a-na
lúMAŠKÍM LUGAL EN-
ia 18
am-mi-nim-mi ta-ra-
ia-m[u] 19lú
ḫa-bi-ri ù
LÚ.MEŠ ḫa-zi-[a-nu-ti]
20ta-za-ia-ru ù ki-na-an-na
21ú-ša-à-ru i-na pa-ni
As truly as the king, my
lord, lives, I say to the
commissioner of the king,
my lord, ―Why do you
lov[e] the ʿApiru but hate
the may[ors]?‖
Accordingly, I am
slandered before the king,
232
LUGAL EN-ia (286:16-
21)
my lord.
The second major use of the yaqtulu forms is in reference to past eventualities which took
place over an extended interval of time or were customarily repeated.
6.3.22 10
ia-aš-al-me 11
LUGAL
EN-ia 12lú
MAŠKÍM-šu
13šum-ma
14[t]u-ub-[b]a-
lu-na 15lú
a-bu-tu-nu 16
aš-
šum UD.KÁM.MEŠ 17m
ku-
zu-na 18lú
a-bi-nu (224:10-
18)
May the king, my lord, ask
his commissioner whether
our ancestors, since the
days of Kuzuna, our
ancestor, always
[s]hi[p]ped (grain).
The past reference
time is given by the
adverbial time and
the subject of the
verb.
6.3.23 14
ša-ni-tam mi-nu-um ia-
di-nu 15
mi-im-ma ù ba-la-
ṭux (=UD) 16
LUGAL a-na
LÚ.MEŠ ḫa-za-nu-ti ib-ri-
ia 17
ù a-na ia-ši la-a-mi
18ia-di-nu mi-im-ma ù pa-
na-nu 19
a-na lú
a-bu-ti-ia
yu-ša-ru 20
iš-tu
É.GAL.MEŠ
KÙ.BABBAR.MEŠ 21
ù
mi-im-mu a-na ba-la-ṭì-šu
22ù yu-ši-ru be-li
ERÍN.MEŠ 23
a-na ša-a-
šu-nu ù a-nu-ma 24
a-na-ku
aš-pu-ru a-na be-li-ia 25
a-
na ERÍN.MEŠ ù
ERÍN.MEŠ ma-ṣa-ar-tu
26la-a tu-[ša-ru] ù
27mi-im-
mu [la-a]-mi 28
yu-da-nu
Moreover, why does the
king give the mayors, my
friends, every sort of
provision, but to me not
give anything? Previously,
money and everything for
the‹ir› provisions were
sent from the palace to my
ancestors, and my lord
would send troops to
them. But now I write for
troops, but a garrison is
not s[ent], and [nothi]ng at
all is given [to m]e.
The entire passage
employs the
yaqtulu forms.
Their temporal
reference is
specified by the
adverbs pa-na-nu
―previously‖
(126:18) and a-nu-
ma ―now‖ (126:23)
and the reference to
the author himself
and his ancestors.
233
[a-na i]a-ši (126:14-28)
6.3.24 54
mi-lik a-na ÌR ki-ti-k[a]
p[a-n]a-nu 55
iš-tu kur
ia-ri-
mu-ta 56
tu-ba-li-ṭú-na
LÚ.MEŠ 57
ḫu-up-ši-ia ù
an-nu-ú 58
an-nu-ú la-a ia-
di-nu-šu-n[u] 59m
ia-pa-dIM
a-la-kám (114:54-59)
Give thought to yo[ur]
loyal servant. Pr[evio]usly,
my peasantry used to get
provisions from the land
of Yarimuta, but now, now
Yapaḫ-hadda does not let
the[m] go.
The past reference
of the yaqtulu tu-
ba-li-ṭú-na is
specified by the
adverbial time pa-
na-nu ―previously‖.
6.3.25 6ki-i ni-pu-šu iš-[t]u
7da-
ri-te 8ki-i ka-li
lúḫa-za-nu-
te 9ki íp-pu-šu a-na
LUGAL 10
bé-li-ia ÌR
LUGAL 11
bé-li-ia a-na-ku
12ka-li a-wa-ta5
13LUGAL
bé-[l]i-i 14
iš-te-mu (212:6-
14)
Just as we have alw[ay]s
acted — as all the mayors
(have acted) — so (shall) I
act towards the king, my
lord. I am the servant of
the king, my lord. Every
order of the king, my
lo[r]d, I do obey.
The temporal
reference of the
yaqtulu ni-pu-šu is
given by the
adverbial time iš-tu
da-ri-te ―since the
past.‖
6.3.26 30
ša-ni-tam mla-ab-a-ya
31BA.ÚŠ ša yi-il5-te-qú
32URU.DIDLI.ḪI.A-ni-nu
ù 33
a-nu-ma mla-ab-a-ya
34ša-n[u]
mÌR-ḫe-ba ù
35[ù]
yi-il5-te-[q]ú
URU.DIDLI.ḪI.A-nu
(280:30-35)
Moreover, Labʾayu, who
used to take our towns, is
dead, but now anoth[er]
Labʾayu is ʿAbdi-Ḫeba,
[and] he seiz[e]s our town.
The yaqtulu yi-il5-
te-qú is in the
relative clause
which depends on
the main clause
with the same
subject and
specifies that the
subject is dead.
Therefore, the
yaqtulu yi-il5-te-qú
can logically refer
only to the past.
234
6.3.27 14
pa-na-nu LÚ.MEŠ ma-
ṣa-ar-ti 15
LUGAL-ri it-ti-
ia ù 16
LUGAL-ru ia-di-nu
ŠE-im.ḪI.A 17
iš-tu kur
ia-ri-
mu-ta 18
a-na a-ka-li-šu-nu
ù 19
an-nu-ú i-na-na 20
iš-ta-
ḫa-at-ni ma-zi-ru
21ù iš-ta-
ni (125:14-21)
Previously, there was a
garrison of the king with
me, and the king was
accustomed to giving
grain for their food from
the land of Yarimuta. But
now Aziru has repeatedly
raided me.
The repetition of a
single temporally
contained action is
expressed lexically
by the yaqtul iš-ta-
ni ―he did again‖
that follows the
qatal iš-ta-ḫa-at-ni
Yaqtulu, if used,
would imply past
ongoing action of
raiding.
6.3.28 50
[…] pa-na-nu 51
ba-lu-aṭ
LUGAL i-ba-ši el-li-ia 52
ù
ni-di-nu ag-<ru>-tú LÚ
53ša ni-iš-pu-ru (112:50-
53)
Previously, provisions
from the king were at my
disposal, and we would
pay the h<i>re of a man
whom we would send.
6.3.29 94
pa-na-nu aš-pu-ru a-na
LUGAL ú-ul yi-iš-mu 95
a-
wa-ti a-nu-ma i-na-na a-
na uru
A.PÚ 96
aš-ba-ti ke-e
UR.KI la-a tu-uš-mu 97
a-
wa-ti […] (138:94-97)
Previously I would write
to the king; he would not
heed my word. Now I am
living in Beirut like a dog,
and my word is (still)
unheeded.
The adverbs of
time establish the
temporal reference
of the yaqtul forms
in this passage.
6.3.30 38
[...] ki-ti-ia yi-du 39
yi-du
LUGAL ma-ni UD.KÁM
40yi-pu-šu du-um-qa
41a-
na ia-ši i-nu-ma 42
ia-nu
ŠÀ-bi ša-na a-na ia-ši
(119:38-42)
He knows my loyalty! The
king knows how often he
has done some kindness to
me because I am without
duplicity.
The adverbial time
ma-ni UD.KÁM
suggests the past
interpretation of the
yaqtulu yi-pu-šu
but does not
235
exclude the present
understanding.
6.3.31 38
ù ma-ni UD.KÁM.MEŠ
39ti-ša-šu URU UGU-ia
40ù al-li-e
41ta-aq-bu URU
ip-šu 42
ša la a-pé-eš iš-tu
43da-ri-ti a-pé-eš
44a-na ia-
ši-nu (122:38-43)
How long has the city
been enraged at me! And
indeed the city keeps
saying, ―A deed that has
not been done since time
immemorial has been done
to us!‖
The adverbial time
ma-ni
UD.KÁM.MEŠ
suggests the past
interpretation of the
yaqtulu ti-ša-šu but
does not exclude
the present.
Examples of the indicative yaqtulu in main clauses with future meaning (―The king is going
to arrive to his land and kill his enemies‖) are rare. One can quote the following passages.
6.3.32 43
i-nu-ma ni-de ù
KALAG.GA ù 44
ni-iq-
<bi> a-na LUGAL
KALAG.GA-me 45
al-lu-ú
la-a ti-le-ú-na (108:43-45)
Because we know that
they are strong, we have
to<ld> the king, ―They are
strong.‖ Truly, they will
not prevail.
The yaqtulu ti-le-ú-
na refers to an
ongoing action
which will continue
in the future.
6.3.33 8[…] ša-ni-tam ti-de-mi
9i-
nu-ma lam-da-ta uḫ-ḫu-ra-
ta 10
a-ṣa a-na mi-nim ta-
šap-pár-ta 11
ù an-nu-ú i-
na-an-na ti-ir-bu 12
a-na É-
ti re-qú ga-mi-ir gáb-bu
(102:8-12)
Moreover, you know that,
though informed, you have
delayed coming out. Why
did you write? Now you
are going to come into an
empty house. Everything
is gone.
The future
interpretation of the
yaqtulu ti-ir-bu is
the only logical
possibility, given
the mention of the
addressee‘s delay.
6.3.34 25
yi-il5-qé-me m
la-[ab-a-ia]
26iš-tu
uruma-kìd-da[
ki]
27ù
yi-iq-bi a-na ia-a-[ši] 28
i-
na-me ŠÀ giš
MÁ \ a-na-yi
29ú-ta-aš-ša-ru-uš-šu
30a-
It had been Zurata that
took La[bʾayu] from
Magidda and said to m[e],
―I will send him to the
king by boat : a-na-yi.‖
The yaqtulu ú-ta-
aš-ša-ru-uš-šu can
be interpreted as
refering to the
action ongoing at
236
na LUGAL-ri ù yi-ìl-qé-šu
31mzu-ra-ta ù yu-ta-šar-šu
32iš-tu
uruḫi-na-tu-na
ki
33a-
na É-šu [...] (245:25-33)
Zurata took him, but he
sent him from Ḫinnatunu
to his home […].
the moment of
speaking but it is
more logical to
interpret it in
reference to a
prospective future
action.
6.3.35 29
[…] ki-na-na ti-iq-bu-na
30lú.mešḫa-za-nu-tum ki-na-
na 31
yi-pu-šu a-na ia-ši-nu
32ù ti-ni-pu-šu kali
KUR.MEŠ 33
a-na
lú.mešGAZ (73:29-33)
Accordingly, the mayors
say, ―He will do the same
thing to us, and all the
lands will be joined to the
ʿApiru.‖
6.3.36 30
[…] [ša]-n[i-t]am SIG5-
mi 31
i-[p]í-iš LUGAL BE-
ia i-[n]u-ú 32
š[a]-pá[r]
LUGAL a-na L[U]G[A]L
uruPÚ.HÁ
k[
i]
33ù a-[n]a
LUGAL uru
ṣi-du-na 34
ù a-
na LUG[AL] uru
ṣu[r-r]i
35[al-l]u-mi i[š]-tap-ru
mri-
ib-ad-d[i] 36
a-[n]a ka-tu-
nu a-na ti-la-ti 37
ù at-[la]-
ku gáb-bu-[k]u-nu
[Mo]re[ov]er, it was a
good a[ct]ion of the king,
my lord, t[h]at the king
w[r]ot[e] to the k[i]ng of
Beirut, to the king of
Sidon, and t[o] the king of
T[yr]e, [say]ing, ―Rib-
Hadd[a] wil[l be w]riting
t[o] you for an auxiliary
force and all of you a[re]
to go.‖
Outside of the modal context, yaqtulu occurs with future reference in temporal clauses,
typically with the conjunction a-di ―until.‖
6.3.37 41
a-nu-um-ma uṣ-ṣú-ru
42URU ša LUGAL EN-ia
dUTU-ia
43ša-ri ba-la-ṭì-ia
I will indeed guard the city
of the king, my lord, my
Sun, the breath of my life,
The yaqtulu uṣ-ṣú-
ru refers to the
action which is
237
44ù BÀD-ši \ ḫu-mi-tu
45a-
di i-m[u-r]u 2 IGI.ḪI.A
46ERÍN.ḪI.A pí-ṭ[á-at ša]
LUGAL EN-ia (141:41-
46)
and its wall: ḫu-mi-tu,
until I see the eyes of the
archers of the king, my
lord.
ongoing at the
moment of
speaking and will
continue in the
future.
6.3.38 11
a-nu-ma 12
a-na-ṣa-ru
13URU LUGAL-ri EN-ia
14a-di ti-ik-šu-du
15a-wa-at
LUGAL-ri 16
EN a-na ia-ši
(221:11-16)
I am indeed guarding the
city of the king, my lord,
until the word of the king,
my lord, arrives.
6.3.39 15
šá-ni-tam a-na LÚ
urugub-la ša a-ba-aš-ša
16it-ti-ia a-nu-um-ma i-na-
ṣa-ru-šu 17
a-di yi-im-lu-ku
LUGAL a-na ÌR-šu
(142:15-17)
Moreover, as to the ruler
of Gubla, who is here with
me, I shall indeed guard
him until the king gives
thought to his servant.
6.3.40 37
[…] ù la-a 38
ip-pu-šu mi-
im-ma a-di 39
yu-šu-te-ru
LUGAL a-wa-tam 40
a-na
ÌR-šu (280:37-40)
But I will do nothing until
the king sends back word
to his servant.
It is possible that the conjunction a-di began to be grammaticalized as a marker of the future
with yaqtulu, as can be gathered from the following example.
6.3.41 7a-nu-ma ki-i-ia-am
8qa-
la-ta a-di-mi 9yi-ìl-ma-du
LUGAL-ru 10
be-lí-ia a-
wa-tam 11
an-ni-tam ù yu-
te-ru-12
-an-ni LUGAL-ru
be-lí-ia 13
a-wa-at yu-te-ru-
na 14
ù a-na a-wa-at
You have now in this way
been negligent. Surely the
king, my lord, is going to
learn of this matter, and
the king, my lord, will
reply to me as he will,
and the order of the king I
The translation of
a-di-mi (a-di + the
enclitic -mi) as
―surely‖ reflects its
traditional
understanding as an
emphatic particle
238
15LUGAL-ri iš-mu (251:7-
15)
will obey. peculiar to the
periphery.
The yaqtulu forms of qabû ―to speak‖ and šapāru ―to send, to write‖ are often used to
introduce direct speech or quotations. Their translation with attention to the proper meaning
of yaqtulu (―he is saying,‖ ―they kept writing‖) is possible but often sounds awkward. It can
be suggested that they are used not because the ongoing or repated action of speaking but
rather because of a stylistic or literary convention of introducing direct speech with verbal
forms which refer to the present or ongoing action, as is well known from Akkadian epics. In
fact, the formula which introduces direct speech in Akkadian literary texts generally uses a
combination of the Preterite and the Durative (pāšu īpušam-ma izakkaram ana, pāšu īpušam-
ma iqabbi), but at times quotations are introduced only by the verb in the Durative (iqabbi
ana, izakkar, ippal).1 It is plausible that the use of yaqtulu to introduce direct speech in the
Amarna letters from Canaan is parallel to the use of the Durative in similar formulas in
Akkadian. It is impossible to speculate if it represents only a stylistic device learned by the
Amarnian scribes or if it is taken over from the everyday use in their native language. In any
case, it is well attested but not obligatory since direct speech in the Amarna letters is
introduced also with the verb in qatal or yaqtul. Examples of this use of yaqtulu which can be
dubbed ―the yaqtulu of quotation‖ include:
6.3.42 8[...] ur-ra m[u-ša]
9[ti-š]a-
si17 a-na ka-tam ù 10
[ti-i]q-
ta-bu ma-ad m[a-gal]
11[mi-i]m-mu ša yu-ul-qú
ì[š-tu] 12
[ša]-šu-nu a-na
kurmi-ta-na (86:8-12)
Day and n[ight it has
c]ried to you [say]ing: ―It
is v[ery] much [wh]at is
taken f[rom] [t]hem to
Mittana.‖
This example is the
closest parallel to
the Akkadian
formula because it
employs together
the yaqtul and
yaqtulu.
6.3.43 15
ù ki-ia-am ti-iq-bu-na
162 DUMU la-ab-a-ya a-
na ia-ši i-pu-uš-me 17
nu-
And the two sons of
Labʾayu keep talking to
me like this, ―Wage war
See also 250:40.
1 For an overview of different formulas and their attestations see Sonnek 1940.
239
kúr-tú i-na LÚ.MEŠ kur
gi-
na UGU da-ku-me 18lú
a-
ba-nu […] (250:15-18)
against the people of Gina
for having killed our
father.‖
6.3.44 13
yi-mur-ma LUGAL
urubu-uṣ-ru-na
14ù LUGAL
uruḫa-lu-un-ni u te-pa-šu
15nu-kúr-ta it-ti
mbi-ri-da-
aš-wa 16
a-na mu-ḫi-ia u te-
eq-bu-na 17
al-ka-am-mi
nu-du-uk mbir5-ia-wa-za
(197:13-17)
When the king of Buṣruna
and the king of Ḫalunnu
saw (this), they waged war
with Biridašwa against me,
constantly saying,
―Come, let‘s kill
Biryawaza, […].
6.3.45 23
[…] [te]-eq-bu-na
24[ÌR.MEŠ LUGAL.MEŠ
kurḫa-a]t-te ni-nu
25ù a-na-
ku iq-bu ÌR LUGAL kur
mi-
iṣ-r[i] 26
a-na-ku […]
(197:23-26)
[They] keep saying, ―We
are [servants of the king of
Ḫa]tti,‖ and I keep saying,
―I am a servant of the king
of Egyp[t].‖
The example
comes from letter
no. 197, the same
as in the previous
example no. 6.3.44.
6.3.46 8[…] i-nu-ma yi-qa-bu-na
i-na 9[pa]-ni-ka i-ba-ša-at-
mi 10
[u]
ruṣu-mu-ra a-na
LUGAL-ri (116:8-10)
As to its being told t[o]
you, ―Ṣumur belongs to
the king,‖ […].
6.3.47 6 […] a[l-lu]-me
7[i]a-aq-
bu LUGAL-ru EN-li a-na
8mi-ni at-ta-ma ti-ìš-tap-
ru-na 9a-na ia-ši […]
(117:6-9)
I[nde]ed the king, my lord,
[ke]eps saying, ―Why do
you alone keep writing to
me?‖
6.3.48 83
ša-ni-tam i-nu-ma yi-qa-
bu 84
LUGAL-ru ú-ṣur-me
lu na-ṣa-ra-ta (117:83-84)
Moreover, as to the king‘s
saying, ―Guard! Be on
your guard,‖ […].
The example
comes from letter
no. 117, the same
240
as in the previous
example no. 6.3.47.
6.3.49 8LÚ.MEŠ
urugub-la ù É-ia
9ù
míDAM-ia
10ti7-iq-bu-
na a-na ia-ši-ia 11
a-li-ik-
mi EGIR 12m
DUMU ÌR-a-
ši-ir-ta 13
ù ni-pu-uš šal-ma
bi-ri-nu 14
ù e-ma-e a-na-
ku 15
la-a iš-me a-na ša-šu-
nu (136:8-15)
Men of Gubla, my own
household, and my wife,
kept saying to me, ―Ally
yourself with the son of
˓Abd-Aširta so we can
make peace between us.‖
But I refused. I did not
listen to them.
6.3.50 17
te-eq-bu-ni ia-nu-mi
18ERÍN.MEŠ pí-ṭá-ta5 ù
aš-pu-ur 19
ù tu-ṣa
ERÍN.MEŠ pí-ṭá-tu 20
ù te-
èl-qé ma-ba-šu-nu
21a-nu-
ma i-na-an-na te-eq-bu-na
22la yi-iš-pu-ra-am ù
23nu-
ul11-qa-am-mi ù a-nu-ma
24te-ba-ú-na ṣa-bat
URU.MEŠ gub-li 25
ù te-
eq-bu-ni ṣa-bat-mi 26
ni-
nu-u16 a-mur-mi 27
ù da-na-
nu-u16 a-mur-mi (362:17-
27)
Recently they were
saying, ―There will be no
archers‖, but I wrote with
the result that archers
came out and took their
father. Now indeed they
are saying, ―Let him not
write or we will certainly
be taken.‖ They seek to
capture Gubla, and they
say, ―If we capture Gubla,
we will be strong.‖
Letter no. 362
shows a number of
scribal
idiosyncrasies, one
of them being the
yaqtulu form
ending in both -na
and -ni.
6.3.51 44
[…] ù aš-pu-ru a-na ša-
šu 45
šum-ma ki-a-ma la- ti-
iq-bi 46
ù i-ti-zi-ib URU ù
47pa-aṭ-ra-ti […] (83:44-
47)
And so I write: ―If you do
not tell him this, I am
going to abandon the city
and go off.‖
241
6.3.52 8i-nu-ma yi-ìš-ta-pa-ru
LUGAL-ru 9EN-li ú-ṣur-
me ra-ma-an-ka 10
mi-nu
yi-na-ṣa-ra-ni […] (119:8-
10)
As to the king, my lord‘s
having written to me,
―Guard yourself,‖ what is
to guard me?
6.3.53 121
[…] [ù] a[l-lu-mi] 122
ta-
aš-pu-ru-na LÚ.MEŠ
urugub-[l]a
123a-ya-mi i-nu-
ma ia-aš-pu-r[u]
124LUGAL be-èl-ka [a-n]a
MAḪ-ka (138:121-124)
L[ook], the people of
Gub[l]a keep writing,
―Where are the days when
the king, your lord, us[ed]
to write [t]o you?‖
Beside these indicative uses of yaqtulu, there are occurrences in which the most natural
translation of a yaqtulu form requires the use of a modal verb. These yaqtulu forms occur
outside of modal contexts discussed in 6.4 and consequently raise the question of the
relationship between the usual readings of yaqtulu and its apparent modal uses. Outside the
modal contexts, there seems to be two modal uses of yaqtulu: to express an obligatory action
(―must‖), and a possible action under the control of its subject (―can‖).
The cases in which yaqtulu seems to express an obligation are few and always involve its
future fulfillment. Moreover, they occur in sentences in which the speaker appears to be in a
position of authority. Consequently, it can be proposed that the use of yaqtulu to express an
obligation is a pragmatic use of its future meaning similar to the use of the future tense in
English by a person with authority such as the superviser telling his employee: ―You are
going to come to my office tomorrow morning and you will explain your conduct to me.‖
The instances in which yaqtulu forms can be interpreted as expressing obligation include:
6.3.54 8LUGAL EN-li ša-pár a-
na mu-ḫi-ia mḫa-a-ia
9a-na
qa-bi KASKAL-ra-
ni.ḪI.A 10kur
ḫa-na-gal9-bat
an-nu-ú 11
ú-wa-še-ru-na
The king, my lord, sent
Ḫaaya to me to say, ―This
man must send a caravan
to Ḫanagalbat, […].
242
[...] (255:8-11)
6.3.55 73
[…] ù k[i-i] i-pí-iš 74
yu-
pa-šu a-na LÚ-[l]i ša a-ši-
ib a-na URU.KI-šu 75
yu-
pa-šu ia-a-ši (138:73-75)
[…] and j[ust] as is done
to a ruler that resides in his
own city should be done
to me.
6.3.56 33
[...] <la>-a ia-aš-ku-un-
n[u] LUGAL ŠÀ-šu 34
i-na
mi-im-mi ša yi-iš-ši-ru
35ma-zi-ru a-na ša-šu
(139:33-35)
The king is to tak[e] ‹n›o
account of whatever Aziru
sends him.
6.3.57 5la-a ya-qú-lu LUGAL
EN-ia 6i-na
urugub-la
GEMÉ-šu 7URU LUGAL-
ri iš-tu da-ri-ti (140:5-7)
The king, my lord, shall
not neglect Gubla, his
maidservant, a city of the
king from most ancient
times.
6.3.58 13
yi-mur-ma LUGAL
urubu-uṣ-ru-na
14ù LUGAL
uruḫa-lu-un-ni u te-pa-šu
15nu-kúr-ta it-ti
mbi-ri-da-
aš-wa 16
a-na mu-ḫi-ia u te-
eq-bu-na 17
al-ka-am-mi
nu-du-uk mbir5-ia-wa-za
18ù la-a ni-wa-aš-ši-ru-šu
a-na […] (197:13-18)
When the king of Buṣruna
and the king of Ḫalunnu
saw (this), they waged war
with Biridašwa against me,
constantly saying, ―Come,
let‘s kill Biryawaza, and
we must not let him go to
[…].
6.3.59 25
[…] ti-di i-nu-ma gáb-bu
26ša-ru ù la-[mi t]i-ša-lu-
ni (102:25-26)
Know that all are traitors,
and [y]ou must no[t]
inquire about me from
my enemies.
243
The second group of modal usages of yaqtulu involves cases where it refers to future or
possible actions which depend on the will and abilities of an individual. It is often difficult to
decide if yaqtulu in these cases is better translated in the future tense or with modal verbs.
6.3.60 12
ù ṣa-ab-tu-še
DUMU.MEŠ mÌR-a-ši-ir-
[t]a 13
ù ia-nu ša-a yu-ba-
lu a-wa-tam 14
[a]-na
LUGAL-ri (116:12-13)
[…], and the sons of
˓Abdi-Ašir[t]a seized it.
And so there is nobody
who will/can carry word
[t]o the king.
6.3.61 15
ša-ap-[r]a-ti a-na
LUGAL-ri ia-nu 16
LÚ ša-
a yu-ba-lu DUB-pí-ia 17
a-
na É.GAL a-nu-ma 2 LÚ
an-nu-tu 18
tu-ba-lu-na
DUB-pí a-na LUGAL-ri
(117:15-18)
Did I not wr[i]te to the
king, ―There is no one who
will/can bring my tablet
to the palace. It is these
two men that must bring a
tablet to the king.‖
6.3.62 10
[...] a-na mi-nim 11
qa-la-
ta ù la-a 12
ti-iq-bu a-na
LUGAL-ri 13
ù yu-wa-ši-
ru-na 14
ERÍN.MEŠ pí-ṭá-
ti ù 15
ti-ìl-te9-qú-na
16uru
ṣu-mu-ra (71:10-16)
Why were/are you inert,
not speaking to the king so
he will/can send archers
and so they can take
Ṣumur?
6.3.63 31
at-tu-nu tu-ša-ab-li-ṭú-
na-nu 32
ù at-tu-nu 33
\\ ti-
mi-tu-na-nu (238:31-33)
It is you who can keep us
alive, and it is you who
can put us to death.
6.3.64 34
ki-na-an-na la-a i-ri-bu
35a-na ma-ḫar LUGAL be-
li-ia (137:34-35)
Accordingly, I shall not
/cannot enter in the
presence of the king, my
lord.
Compare several
lines earlier where
the modal meaning
is expressed
lexically: ―I
244
personally am
unable to enter (la-
a e-la-ú-mi i-ri-ba)
the land of Egypt. I
am old and there is
a serious illness in
my body‖ (137:27-
30)
6.3.65 44
ù ti-iq-bi URU.KI i-zi-
bu-šu 45
ni-te-pu-uš-mi a-
na ma-zi-ri ù
46aq-bi ki-i i-
ti-pu-šu a-na ša-šu 47
ù i-
zi-bu LUGAL be-li
(138:44-47)
Then the city said,
―Abandon him. Let‘s join
Aziru!‖ I said, ―How
could I join him and
abandon the king, my
lord?‖
6.3.66 39
ù ti-na-mu-šu UGU-ia ù
a-du-uk-šu-nu 40
ù ti-iq-bu
a-di ma-ti te-du- 41
-ku-nu
a-ya-mi ti-ìl-qú LÚ.MEŠ
a-na a-ša-bi 42
a-na
[U]RU.KI […] (138:39-
42)
Then they moved against
me, but I killed them.
They said, ―How long can
you go on killing us?
Where will/can you get
people to live in the city?‖
6.3.67 65
[…] ki ta-aq-bu mi-it
66mri-ib-ad-di […]
(138:65-66)
How can you say, ‗Rib-
Addi is dead, […].
6.3.68 16
[…] ù 17
ti-na-mu-šu SIG4
18 \ la-bi-tu iš-tu
19[š]u-pal
tap-pa-ti-ši 20
ù a-na-ku la-
a i-na-mu-šu 21
iš-tu šu-pal
GÌR.MEŠ 22
LUGAL-ri be-
A brick: la-bi-tu may/can
move from [u]nder its
partner, still I will not
move from under the feet
of the king, my lord.
245
li-ia (296:16-22)
6.3.69 29
i-nu-ma i-ša-pa-ru
30LUGAL-ru ú-ṣur-mi
31ra-ma-an-ka iš-tu ma-ni
32i-na-ṣí-ru-na (123:29-
32)
As to the king‘s writing,
―Guard yourself,‖ with
what am I to guard / can
I guard?
6.3.70 36
mi-na i-pu-šu-na 37
a-na-
ku ša aš-ba-ti 38
i-na ŠÀ-bi
LÚ.MEŠ SA.GAZ.MEŠ
(130:36-38)
What am I, who live
among ʿApiru, to do?
6.3.71 21
ù ERÍN.MEŠ uru
ku-aṣ-
batki 22
nu-kùr-tum UGU-ia
ù a-nu-ma 23
ia-nu-um
LÚlum
ša yi-ri-ṣú-ni 24
iš-tu
qa-ti-šu-nu (69:21-24)
… and the forces of
Kuaṣbat are at war with
me, and there is no one
who can rescue me from
them.
6.3.72 52
ù yi-de be-li i-nu-ma
UGU-šu a-mu-tu (137:52)
The king, my lord, knows
that I will/can die for him.
6.3.73 20
ki-i a-na-ku i-ša-ḫa-ṭú
21ú-ma an-nu-ta5 ù
22ṣa-
ab-ta-at-me MIN URU-ia
(252:20-22)
How at this time can I
show deference and then
another city of mine will
be seized?
6.3.74 36
[…] mi-na 37
i-pu-šu-na
ù a-na-ku 38
la-a i-le-ú a-
la-kám 39
a-na ṣu-mu-ra
(104:36-39)
What am I to do / can I
do? I cannot go personally
to Ṣumur.
The possibility of a
modal
interpretation of i-
pu-šu-na as ―can
do‖ is supported by
the fact that the
next clause
246
contains the
explicitly modal ―I
cannot go.‖
6.3.75 8ù mi-ia-ti a-na-ku ù
9yi-
iḫ-li-qú LUGAL-ru
KUR.KI-šu 10
UGU-ia [...]
(254:8-10)
Who am I that the king
should/can lose his land
on account of me?
6.3.76 4[…] ki-i qa-bi-me
5i-na
pa-ni-ka mmu-ut-
dIM-me
6in-ni-bi-it
ma-ia-ab
7 \ ḫi-
iḫ-bé-e ki-i en-ni-bi-tu
8LUGAL
urupí-ḫi-lim iš-tu
9pa-ni LÚ.MEŠ ra-bi-ṣí \
sú-ki-ni 10
LUGAL-ri EN-
šu [...] (256:4-10)
How can it have been said
in your presence, ―Mut-
baḫlu has fled. He has
hidden Ayyab‖? How can
the king of Piḫilu flee
from the commissioner:
sú-ki-ni of the king, his
lord?
Note the opposition
between the past
yaqtul ―has fled‖
and the modal
yaqtulu of the same
verb ―can flee.‖
6.3.77 17
a-na ÌR.MEŠ-šu
18L[Ú.M]EŠ ša la-a ti-iš-
ti-mu-na 19
a-na LUGAL
LUGAL EN-ia 20
yi-im-lu-
ku a-na ša-šu-nu (216:17-
20)
To men who do not obey
the king, can/will the king,
my lord, give thought?
Perusal of these examples shows that there are two main environments which generate the
possibility of assigning a modal meaning to a yaqtulu form. Most commonly such a reading
is possible in questions, typically ―who,‖ ―what,‖ and ―how,‖ or in a phrase which is logically
connected with a question. Another environment which can generate the modal meaning of
yaqtulu is negation.
In all these examples the yaqtulu forms have the imperfective aspect, that is the run time of
the eventualities which they describe includes the reference time or is commensurate with it.
For example, the run time of the yaqtulu which refer to an ongoing action is commensurate
247
with the time of the utterance. Similarly, the yaqtulu which refers to an eventuality which
extended over a period of time or was repeated in the past includes the reference time given
by another verb which refers to a past, temporarily contained event, or by the adverbial time.
6.4 Directive-Volitive Forms, the Modal Sequence, and Yaqtula
It is necessary to treat together different verbal forms which express a command or a wish
and the forms which have modal meanings. In fact, the same forms may have both indicative
and modal meanings depending on their environment because the implications of certain
verbal forms go beyond the boundaries of the sentence in which they occur and result in a
modal reading of the verbs that follow. In other words, the verbal system operates not only at
the level of a single sentence but through sentence boundaries; and consequently the reading
which verbal forms receive is not only the result of their morphology but also of the
environment in which they occur because they are interrelated:
There is interrelation in TMA usage between two or more sentences which
are semantically related, i.e., where there is a sequential coherence in the
message of the sentences. Thus, predicative complexes of a second or any
following sentences within discourse unit are dependent on the one in the
opening sentence. This dependency may affect coordinated sentences with
or without a conjunction (Izre‘el 1998, 70-71).
The interrelations of the verbal forms are epitomized by the sequences of modal verbs. The
main environment in which the verbs receive a modal reading consists in sequences of verbs
which follow or imply a command or wish. Therefore, before proceeding to the description
of the verbal forms used modally, it is necessary to look at the forms which express the user‘s
will to impact the will and actions of other people, that is, the directive-volitive forms.
The simplest and most direct way of expressing commands is with the imperative:
6.4.1 15
ù ki-ia-am ti-iq-bu-na 16
2
DUMU la-ab-a-ya a-na
ia-ši i-pu-uš-me 17
nu-kúr-
And the two sons of
Labʾayu keep talking to
me like this (saying),
248
tú i-na LÚ.MEŠ kur
gi-na
UGU da-ku-me 18lú
a-ba-nu
(250:15-18)
―Wage war against the
people of Gina for having
killed our father.‖
6.4.2 6li4-ma-ad
mLUGAL-ri
EN-ia
Be informed, o king, my
lord!
Literally: ―learn!‖
6.4.3 67
[…] ša-ni-tam mi-lik a-
na ia-š[i] (114:67)
Moreover, give thought to
m[e].
6.4.4 22
ù a-nu-ma 23
ia-aš-pu-ra
mšu-ta
24a-na ia-ši i-din-
me 25m
zi-ir-dam-ia-aš-da
26a-na
mbir5-ia-wa-za […]
(234:22-26)
And Šuta has just written
to me, ―Hand over
Zirdamyašda to
Biryawaza.‖
6.4.5 51
[…] ù qí-bi a-na
LUGAL 52
ku-uš-da ki-ma
ar-ḫi-ìš (82:51-52)
So tell the king: ―Come
with all the haste!‖
6.4.6 43
ù uš-ši-ra-šu qa-d[u]-mi
44ERÍN.MEŠ re-ṣú-ti […]
(126:43)
So send him alo[n]g with
rescue forces.
6.4.7 16
ù bu-li-iṭ 17
KUR.ḪI.A-ka
(215:16-17)
So give life to your lands.
6.4.8 62
al-ku-mi qa-du LÚ.MEŠ
ḫa-za-ni-ku-nu 63
li-qú-na
kura-mur-ri […] (117:62-
63)
―March along with your
mayors. Take the land of
Amurru.‖
Note the Energic
added to the
Imperative in
117:63.
6.4.9 7ù [š]a-ap-r[a]
mLUGAL-
ri E[N-i]a 8a-na ia-ši ur-
ru-[b]a 9du-gu-la-ni KI
mLUGAL-ri EN-ia (283:7-
The king, my lord, [h]as
writte[n me], ―Ent[e]r
(and) pay me homage.‖
Into the presence of the
249
9) king, my lord!
6.4.10 27
[…] du-ku-mi EN-ku-nu
28ù in-ni-ip-šu a-na
29lú.mešGAZ […] (73:27-
29)
―Kill your lord and join
the ʿApiru!‖
6.4.11 51
[MU] an-ni-ta mu-še-ra-
an-ni LÚ ma-ṣar-ta 52
[ù]
lúM[A]ŠK[Í]M LUGAL-ri
mu-še-ra \ an-ni-ka-nu
(287:51-52)
This [year], send me a
garrison, [and] (as for) the
co[mm]iss[io]ner of the
king, send (him) right
here.
The translation
conserves the word
order of the
original.
6.4.12 49
LUGAL be-li-ia iš-ta-
pár a-na ia-[š]i 50
ša ta-aš-
me iš-tu kur
ki-na-aḫ-na 51
ù
šu-pur a-na ia-ši (151:49-
51)
The king, my lord, wrote
to m[e], ―What you have
heard in Canaan, write (it)
to me.‖
The conjunction u
precedes the
imperative and
syntactically
separates it from
the preceding
clause which is the
direct object of the
imperative.
The imperative usually stands at the beginning of the phrase but it can be also preceded by
the conjunction u which may occur because the content of the command is somehow related
to the preceding discourse or may simply mark the boundary of the new clause. Two
imperatives may be coordinated by the conjunction u or may simply follow each other.
Finally, a constituent can precede the imperative for emphasis (examples nos. 6.4.11-12).
Prohibiton, that is, the negative command, is expressed by the negation and yaqtul:
6.4.13 30
[ú]-ul ti-ka-li m[i-im-ma]
(86:30)
Do [n]ot hold an[ything]
back!
6.4.14 50
ši-mi <ia>-ši UGU-<ia> Listen to m‹e›. For ‹my›
250
51ú-ul ti-im-i (122:50-51) sake, do not refuse!
6.4.15 9ù a-nu-ma i-na-an-na ša-
ap-ru-mi 10
LÚ.MEŠ ša
urugub-ub-la a-na ia-ši
11la-a-mi ti-pa-ṭì-ir iš-tu
uruA.PÚ.KI.MEŠ (138:9-
11)
Just now people from
Gubla have written me,
―Do not leave Beirut […].
6.4.16 5la-a ta-qú-ul [a-na
urugu-
la] 6URU-ka ù URU a-bu-
t[i-ka] 7iš-tu da-ri-ti […]
(139:5-7)
Do not neglect Gu<b>la,
your city and the city of
your ancestors from most
ancient times!
Beside the negative commands, yaqtul is also employed to encourage an action. The nuance
of the meaning of this category of the modal use of yaqtul depends on the grammatical
person and varies between desire and wish. Although the meaning of yaqtul is in these cases
basically identical, depending on the grammatical person, the variety of the directive-volitive
yaqtul forms can be divided into the Cohortative yaqtul (1st pers.), the Jussive yaqtul (2
nd
pers.), and the Optative yaqtul (3rd
pers.).
6.4.17 5 […] yi-ìš-me LUGAL-ru
6EN-li a-wa-te ÌR
7ki-ti-šu
[…] (103:5-7)
May the king, my lord,
heed the words of his
loyal servant.
6.4.18 7 […] yu-ḫa-mi-iṭ be-li
8uš-šar ERÍN.MEŠ pí-ṭá-
te ki-ma 9ar-ḫi-iš (362:7-9)
May my lord hasten the
sending of the archers with
all speed.
In the same letter,
there is also the
Optative of the
same verb with the
Ventive: yu-ḫa-mi-
ṭá (362:40).
6.4.19 67
[…] la-a i-qa-al
mLUGAL-ru
68EN-ia b[a]-
May the king, my lord,
not be negligent, wi[th]
The Optative of the
lexically Stative
251
lu [ša]-a-al m
a-[m]a-an-
ḫa-at-pé (185:67-68)
no [reck]oning demanded
of A[m]anḫatpe.
verb ―to be
negligent, silent.‖
6.4.20 15
ù yu-ši-ra-me 16
LUGAL
EN-ia ERÍN.MEŠ 17
a-na
KUR.MEŠ-šu (218:15-17)
May the king, my lord,
send troops to his
countries.
6.4.21 60
ù yu-ṣa-am LUGAL be-
li-ia yi-[mur]
61KUR.MEŠ-šu ù yi-ìl-qé
gáb-ba (362:60-61)
May the king, my lord,
come out, vi[sit] his lands,
and take all.
Note the Ventive
on the first
Optative.
6.4.22 13
ù yi-ki-im 14
LUGAL be-
li KUR-šu 15
iš-tu qa-at
16LÚ.MEŠ SA.GAZ.MEŠ
(271:13-16)
So may the king, my lord,
save his land from the
hand of ʿApiru.
6.4.23 21
a-nu-[m]a [d]a-an-nu
22lúSA.GAZ.MEŠ UGU-nu
23ù LUGAL i-de
24a-na
KUR.KI.MEŠ-šu (305:21-
24)
A[s] the ʿApiru are more
[po]werful than we, may
the king take cognizance
of his lands.
The subject
precedes the
Optative.
6.4.24 36
šá-ni-tam ù 2 MUR ša
LUGAL EN 37d
UTU-ia
DINGIR.MEŠ-ia ša-ri
TIL.LA-ia 38
tu-ti-ru [g]i-
mi-li ÌR-šu (141:36-38)
Moreover, may the two …
of the king, my lord, my
Sun, my god, the breath of
my life, avenge his
servant.
The subject
precedes the
Optative.
6.4.25 4d
NIN ša uru
gu-ub-la 5ti-id-
di-in4 du-na 6a-na
LUGAL be-li-ia (68:4-6)
May the lady of Gubla
give strength to the king,
my lord!
See also 73:4, 74:3,
75:4, 76:4, 79:4,
83:3, 85:4, 105:3,
107:5, 108:4,
109:3, 112:4,
252
114:3, 116:4,
118:7, 119:4,
121:4, 122:5,
123:5, 125:6,
130:5, 132:7.
6.4.26 5d
a-ma-na ù dNIN
6ša
urugub-la ti-di-nu
7TÉŠ-ka
a-na pa-ni LUGAL BE-ia
(87:5-7)
May Amana and the Lady
of Gubla establish your
honor in the presence of
the king, your lord.
See also 71:5, 86:4,
and 95:5.
6.4.27 36
ša-a yu-da-[nu] pa-na-nu
i-na uru
ṣu-mu-ra 37
[y]u-da-
nam i-na-na i-na uru
gub-la
(85:36-37)
What used to be
previously given in Ṣumur,
may it now [b]e given in
Gubla.
Note the Ventive
on the Optative and
the direct object
(relative clause)
preceding the
Optative.
6.4.28 13
yi-mur-ma LUGAL
urubu-uṣ-ru-na
14ù LUGAL
uruḫa-lu-un-ni u te-pa-šu
15nu-kúr-ta it-ti
mbi-ri-da-
aš-wa 16
a-na mu-ḫi-ia u te-
eq-bu-na 17
al-ka-am-mi
nu-du-uk mbir5-ia-wa-za
18ù la-a ni-wa-aš-ši-ru-šu
a-na […] (197:13-18)
When the king of Buṣruna
and the king of Ḫalunnu
saw (this), they waged war
with Biridašwa against me,
constantly saying, ―Come,
let’s kill Biryawaza, and
we must not let him go to
[…].
6.4.29 33
[...] ni-ti-pu-[u]š 34
di-na
a-na pa-ni ma-[m]a-an [
]-[d]i (105:33-34)
Let us [pu]t the case
before Aman-…
Literally: ―Let us
do!‖
6.4.30 27
id-nu-mi gáb-bi e-ri-iš-ti-
šu-nu 28
a-na LÚ.MEŠ ki-
―Grant all their demands to
the men of Qiltu, and let
Direct speech.
253
il-tiki
29
ù lu-ú ni-ip-ṭú-ur
uruú-ru-sa-lim
ki (289:27-
29)
us isolate Jerusalem.‖
6.4.31 27
[…] ša-ni-tam šum-ma
28ap-pu-na-ma a-nu-ma
pa-aṭ-ra 29uru
ṣ[u]-mu-ra ù
uruÉ-ar-[ḫ]a
30[t]a5-din-ni
i-na qa-at 31m
ia-an-ḫa-mi
ù ia-ti-na 32
ŠE-im.ḪI.A a-
na a-ka-li-ia ù 33
a-na-ṣa-
ra URU LUGAL a-na ša-
a-šu (83:27-33)
Moreover, even if Ṣ[u]mur
and Bit-Ar[ḫ]a have
defected, may [yo]u put
me in charge of Yanḫamu
so that he will give me
grain to eat so that I may
guard the city of the king
for him!
6.4.32 20
ù lu-ú te-de 21
e-nu ša-al-
mu 22
URU.DIDLI.ḪI.A-ka
gáb-bu (230:2-22)
May you well know that
all your cities are safe.
6.4.33 28
[ù l]u-ú ti-de be-l[í-ia]
29[i]-nu-ma ša-ar-p[u]
30URU.DIDLI.KI.MEŠ-ka
ù 31
KISLAḪ \ ma-aš-ka-
n[a-ti-k]a 32
[i-na IZI].MEŠ
i-ša-ti (306:28-32)
[And] may you, [my]
lor[d], know [t]hat th[ey]
burnt your cities and
[yo]ur pl[ac]es in fire.
As a rule, the directive-volitive yaqtul occupies the first place in a phrase and can be
preceded by the conjunction u and the particle lū. In other words, the phrases with the
directive-volitive yaqtul forms have Verb-Subject word-order. The cases in which the subject
or the object are placed before the Optative yaqtul for emphasis are very rare. The fronting of
the divine names attested in the blessing formulas from Byblos (examples nos. 6.4.25-26)
may be influenced by the knowledge of honorific transposition in Egyptian Hieroglypic, that
is, the practice of writing the reference to the king, a god or father in front of the head of the
construct chain out of respect (Allen 2010, 44). Conscious of this Egyptian habit, the Byblian
scribes would front the divine names in the blessing formula.
254
The Optative can be realized also with the forms beginning with l- and reflecting the
Akkadian Precative without any difference of meaning vis-à-vis the Optative yaqtul.
6.4.34 10
[…] li-da-gal LUGAL
DUB-pí.MEŠ 11
ša É a-bi-
šu i-nu-ma ú-ul ÌR ki-ti
12LÚ-lim ša i-ba-aš-ši i-na
urugub-la (74:10-12)
May the king inspect the
tablets of his father‘s
house (for the time) when
the ruler who is in Gubla
was not a faithful servant!
6.4.35 22
[…] ù 23
lu-wa-ši-ra-ni
be-li-ia 24
LÚ.MEŠ ma-ṣa-
ar-ta 25
ù
ANŠE.KUR.MEŠ \ sú-ú-
[sí-ma] (263:22-25)
May my lord send a
garrison and horses : sú-ú-
[sí-ma].
6.4.36 4ù li-iq-bi
5i-na pa-ni
LUGAL-ri ù 6LUGAL-ru
be-lí-ia la-aš-al-ni (251:4-
6)
Let him speak in the
presence of the king, and
let the king, my lord,
demand of me a
reckoning.
The subject of the
second Precative is
fronted.
6.4.37 18
a-mur ni-i-nu 19
ÌR.MEŠ
LUGAL-ri 20
ù li-it-ta-ṣi
21LÚ.GAL ù
22li-id-mi
23ar-na-nu […] (239:18-
23)
As we are the servants of
the king, may the magnate
come forth and know our
crime […].
6.4.38 4 […] a-na LUGAL be-lí-
ia 5ù lí-de i-nu-ma te-la-
ku-na [LÚ.MEŠ]-ia UD
mmi-[ìl-ki-lí] (249:4-5)
As to the king, my lord,
may he know that my
[men] are doing service in
the days of Mi[lkilu].
The second part of
l. 5 is difficult to
understand.
Moran‘s translation
(1992, 302) is
followed here.
255
The interpretation of both yaqtul and the mixed forms of the Precative beginning with l- as
simply two allomorphs of the Optative is supported by their parallel and interchangeable use.
As a matter of fact, in a letter from Hazor the Precative is glossed with the Optative yaqtul:
6.4.39 18
[ù] li-iḫ-šu-uš-mi 19
\ ia-
az-ku-ur-mi 20m
LUGAL-ri
EN-ia 21
mi-im-ma ša 22
en-
ni-pu-uš-mi 23
UGU uru
ḫa-
ṣú-raki 24
URU.KI-ka ù
25UGU ÌR-ka (228:18-24)
May the king, my lord,
recall : ia-az-ku-ur-mi
whatever has been done
against Hazor, your city,
and against your servant.
Moreover, a letter from Byblos substitutes the yaqtul commonly used in the blessing formula
(examples nos. 6.4.25-26) with the Precative:
6.4.40 5d
NIN ša uru
gub-la
6DINGIR LUGAL BE-ia
li-din 7TÉŠ-ba-ka a-na pa-
ni LUGAL be-li-ku 8d
UTU
KUR.DIDLI.MEŠ.KI […]
(102:5-8)
May the Lady of Gubla,
the goddess of the king,
my lord, establish your
honor in the presence of
the king, my lord, the Sun
of all countries.
The Optative yaqtul and the Precative are also used commonly side by side in various letters.
A good example of their interchangeable use is provided by a letter of Šuwardata which uses
both the Precative and the Optative yaqtul of the verb lamādu ―to learn:‖
6.4.41 8li-il5ma-ad
mLUGAL-ri
9EN-ia a-na-ku DIŠ-en i-
ba-ša-ti 10
yu-uš-ši-ra
mLUGAL-ri
11EN-ia
ERÍN.MEŠ pí-ṭá-ti 12
ma-
aḫ-da ma-gal 13
ù yi-ki-im-
ni 14
\ ia-ṣí-ni 15
ù yi-<ìl>-
ma-ad mLUGAL-ri
16EN-
ia (282:8-16)
May the king, my lord, be
informed that I am alone.
May the king, my lord,
send a very large archer-
force that it may save me:
ia-ṣı́-ni (get me out). May
the king, my lord, be
<in>formed.
256
Finally, it must be observed that the scribes of two cities, Jerusalem and Tyre, used
exclusively the Precative. From the perspective of interlanguage, the scribes of Jerusalem and
Tyre simply represent a better level of the acquisition of a form of the target language, the
Akkadian Precative.
The common characteristic of the directive-volitive forms (the Imperative, yaqtul and the
Precative) is their initial position within the phrase. In fact, with few exceptions which can be
explained as cases of emphasis placed on other constituent of the phrase, the directive-
volitive forms occur always before the subject. They can be preceded by the conjunction u
which can be interpreted as indicating that the content of the request relates somehow to the
preceding discourse or as marking the boundaries of the phrase. They can also form strings of
requests coordinated by the conjunction u or constructed asyndetically.
The directive-volitive forms often stand at the beginning of a series of verbs which refer to a
sequence of actions that may follow the fulfillment of the request or depend on it. Therefore,
they refer to an action not in the actual real world, but rather in a possible world whose
existence is sanctioned by the fulfillment of the request. In other words, the verbs which form
a sequence that begins with a directive-volitive form most naturally receive a modal reading.
Such sequences of verbs should be seen as manifestations of the same basic phenomenon in
which the modal reading of the verb is assigned as the result of the modal environment
created by the opening verb and the sequential position of each verb. The relationship
between the request and the action of the verbs that follow is usually not specified in any way
and remains a matter of logical interpretation. Seen from the perspective in which the request
is fulfilled, these verbs are typically interpreted as expressing the consequence or result of the
request. Seen from the perspective in which the request is not yet fulfilled, they are most
naturally interpreted as expressing the goal or purpose of the request. These sequences of the
verbs can be conveniently referred to as ―modal sequences.‖
In its most simple manifestation, the modal sequence is composed of a directive-volitive verb
and of another verb or verbs which receive a modal interpretation. These verbs are usually
coordinated with the conjunction u, which overtly signifies their sequentiality. Most
typically, the verbs which follow the directive-volitive form are qatal and yaqtul. There is no
distinguishable reason for the occurrence of one or the other form but qatal may be favored
257
with the lexically stative verbs. The modal verbs usually have a subject that is different from
the directive-volitive verbs.
6.4.42 8LÚ.MEŠ
urugub-la ù É-ia
9ù
míDAM-ia
10ti7-iq-bu-na
a-na ia-ši-ia 11
a-li-ik-mi
EGIR 12m
DUMU ÌR-a-ši-
ir-ta 13
ù ni-pu-uš šal-ma
bi-ri-nu 14
ù e-ma-e a-na-
ku 15
la-a iš-me a-na ša-šu-
nu (136:8-15)
Men of Gubla, my own
household, and my wife,
kept saying to me, ―Ally
yourself with the son of
ʿAbdi-Aširta so we can
make peace between us.‖
But I refused. I did not
listen to them.
Imperative + modal
yaqtul
6.4.43 38
uš-ši-ra ERÍN.MEŠ pí-
ṭá-ti 39
ra-ba ù tu-da-bi-ir
40a-ia-bi LUGAL iš-tu
41ŠÀ-bi KUR-šu ù
42ti-né-
ep-šu ka-li
43KUR.KUR.MEŠ a-na
LUGAL-ri (76:38-43)
Send me a large archer
host so that it may drive
out the king‘s enemies
from his land and so that
all lands be joined to the
king.
Imperative + modal
yaqtul + modal
yaqtul
6.4.44 26
a-nu-ma ma-zi-ru DUMU
27mÌR-a-ši-ir-ta qa-du
28ŠEŠ.MEŠ-šu i-na
urudu-
ma-aš-qa 29
ù uš-ši-ra
ERÍN.MEŠ 30
pí-ṭá-ti ù ti-
ìl-qé-šu 31
ù ta-ap-šu-uḫ
KUR LUGAL (107:26-31)
Seeing that Aziru, the son
of ʿAbdi-aširta, is in
Damascus along with his
brothers, send the archers
that they might take him
and the land of the king be
at peace.
Imperative + modal
yaqtul + modal
yaqtul
6.4.45 30
an-nu-ú LÚ.MEŠ
MAŠKÍM LUGAL-ri
31yu-wa-ši-ru-na LUGAL-
ru ù 32
ia-aq-bi LUGAL-ru
a-na ša-šu-nu 33
ù tu-pa-ri-
Now as the king is going
to send the royal
commissioners, may the
king tell them to decide
between us.
Optative yaqtul +
yaqtul
258
šu be-ri-ku-ni (116:30-33)
6.4.46 32
ia-aq-bi LUGAL a-na 3
URU.MEŠ 33
ù giš
MÁ
LÚ.MEŠ mi-ši 34
ù la-a ti-
la-ku a-na 35kur
a-mu-ri
[…] (131:32-35)
Let the king tell the 3
cities and the ships of the
army not to go to the land
of Amurru (to enter).
Optative Yaqtul +
negated yaqtul
6.4.47 26
[…] ù yi-din-ni
27LUGAL i-[n]a qa-[a]t
LÚ-lim ša yi-la-ak 28
i-na
pa-ni ERÍN.MEŠ pí-ṭá-at
LUGAL (144:26-28)
May the king put me i[n]
cha[rg]e of a man who will
lead the archers of the
king [...].
Optative yaqtul +
modal yaqtul in the
relative clause
6.4.48 40
[šá-ni-t]am lu-ḫa-mu-
ṭám LUGAL BE-ia
41ERÍN.MEŠ
gišGIGIR.MEŠ ù ti-ṣú-ru
42URU.KI LUGAL BE-ia
[…] (88:40-42)
[Moreo]ver, may the king,
my lord, hasten the troops,
chariots that they may
guard the city of the king,
my lord.
Precative + modal
yaqtul
6.4.49 35
ù li-di-nam be-li-ia 36
[1]
ME LÚ.MEŠ ù 1 M[E]
ER[Í]N.MEŠ kur
ka-ši 37
ù
30 giš
GIGIR.MEŠ ù lu-ú a-
na-ṣa-ar 38
[KUR].KI be-
li-ia a-di a-ṣí
39[ERÍN.M]EŠ pí-ṭá-ti ra-
bi-ti (127:35-39)
May my lord grant [1]00
men and 10[0] sol[d]iers
from Kaši, and 30 chariots,
that I may guard the
[la]nd of my lord until the
arrival of a [large fo]rce of
archers […].
Precative + modal
yaqtul
6.4.50 23
ù an-nu-uš i-na-an-na ìl-
ti-qé 24m
ÌR-a-ši-ir-ta uru
ši-
ga-ta a-na ša-a-šu 25
ù iq-
bi a-na LÚ.MEŠ uru
Am-mi-
And look! After taking
Šigata for himself, ʿAbdi-
Aširta said to the men of
Ammiya, ―Kill your
Imperative + modal
qatal + modal
qatal. The choice
of qatal in this
259
ia du-ku-mi 26
eṭ-la-ku-nu
ù i-ba-ša-tu-nu ki-ma ia-
ti-nu 27
ù pa-aš-ḫa-tu-nu ù
ti-ni-ip-šu ki-ma 28
a-wa-
te.MEŠ-šu ù i-ba-aš-šu ki-
ma 29
LÚ.MEŠ GAZ […]
(74:23-29)
leader and then you will
be like us and you will be
at peace.‖ They were won
over, following his
message, and they are like
ʿApiru.
sequence may be
due to the lexically
stative aspect of the
verbs. Note the
opposition between
the modal and the
indicative qatal of
bašû.
The variety of ways in which the modal yaqtul is translated in these examples is the result of
the need to accomodate the lexical meaning of the individual verbs and the global picture of
the sequence of the actions in the target language (English) and not of the variety of the
functions or meanings of the modal yaqtul. In all these cases, yaqtul refers to a possible or
projected action which, in the context, is wished (or not, if the negation precedes). The modal
yaqtul does not have per se the nuance of wish but, in the context, the action coded by the
modal yaqtul is easily interpreted as wished because it follows a directive-volitive form
which explicitly expresses a request or wish. If negated, the modal yaqtul refers to a possible
action which is not wished and can be translated with the English ―lest.‖ It is remarkable that
most such sentences are not preceded by the conjunction u. In all cases, the yaqtul forms in
this kind of sentence can be interpreted as independent negated Optative yaqtuls. This
possibility shows the extent to which an exact understanding of modal forms rests on
interpretating the logic of the utterance rather than its syntax.
6.4.51 11
[…] mi-lik-mi a-na
UR[U-ka] 12
[ú]-u[l] yi-ìl-
qé-ši mÌR-[a-ši-ir-ta]
(90:11-12)
―Give thought to your city
[l]es[t] ʿAbdi-[aširta] take
it.‖
Imperative +
negated modal
yaqtul
6.4.52 35
lì-pa-qa-ad KUR.KI-šu
LUGAL la-a-me 36
til-qú-
ši LÚ.MEŠ na-ak-ru-tu
(197:35-36)
May the king look
carefully to his land lest
the enemies take it.
Prectative +
negated modal
yaqtul
260
6.4.53 25
ù lu-ú-mi 26
li-iq-qí-im-mi
27LUGAL-ru URU.KI-šu
la-a-me 28
yi-iṣ-bat-ši
29mla-ab-a-ya (244:25-29)
May the king save his city
lest Labʾayu seize it.
Precative + negated
modal yaqtul
6.4.54 33
[…] ù lu-ù 34
li-id-nam-
mi LUGAL-ru 35
1 ME
lúma-an-ṣa-ar-tú
36a-na
na-ṣa-ri URU.KI-šu 37
la-
a-me yi-iṣ-bat-ši 38m
la-ab-
a-ya […] (244:33-38)
So may the king give a
garrison of 100 men to
guard his city lest Labʾayu
seize it.
Precative (with the
Ventive) + negated
modal yaqtul
6.4.55 21
[…] ù lu-ú 22
yi-de
LUGAL 23
ip-ša an-na-am
24ù lu-ú yu-uš-ši-ra
25LUGAL be-li
26gišGIGIR.MEŠ ù lu-ú
27yi-ìl-te-qé-ni
28a-na mu-
ḫi-šu la-a 29
iḫ-la-aq
(271:21-29)
May the king know of this
deed, and may the king,
my lord, send chariots and
take him to himself lest I
perish.
Optative yaqtul +
coordinated
Optative yaqtul
(with the fossilized
Ventive) +
coordinated
Optative yaqtul +
negated modal
yaqtul
6.4.56 17
š[u]m-ma i-ia-nu 18
yu-
uš-ši-ra 19
LUGAL be-li
gišGIGIR.MEŠ
20a-na la-
qí-n[u l]a-a 21
ti7-ma-ḫa-
ṣú-nu ÌR.MEŠ-nu
(271:17-21)
I[f] not, may the king, my
lord, send chariots to take
u[s] [l]est our servants
strike us.
Optative yaqtul
(with the fossilized
Ventive) + negated
modal yaqtul
The instances of the modal sequences composed just of the directive-volitive forms followed
by the modal yaqtul are relatively rare. The directive-volitive form is usually followed by
yaqtula and optionally by the modal yaqtul or qatal in the third place:
261
6.4.57 31
ša-ni-tam qí-ba-mi a-na
LUGAL 32
ù yu-da-na a-
n[a ÌR-šu] 33
mu-ú-ṣa ša
kuria-a[r-mu-ta]
34ki-ma
na-da-ni-šu [pa-na-nu]
35a-na
uruṣu-mu-ra [ù]
36ni-
ub-lu-uṭ a-di y[i-ma-la-ku]
37LUGAL-ru a-na URU-
šu (86:31-37)
Moreover, speak to the
king so that grain, the
export of the land of
Ya[rmuta], be given t[o
his servant] as it was given
[previously] to Ṣumur, [so]
we may keep alive until
the king gi[ves thought] to
his city.
Imperative +
yaqtula + modal
yaqtul
6.4.58 9 [...] ši-mé ia-[š]i
10qí-ba-
mi a-na LUGAL-ri 11
ù yi-
di-na a-na ka-tam 12
3 ME
LÚ.MEŠ ù ni-[d]a-gal
13URU ù ni-pu-uš (93:9-
13)
Listen to [m]e. Tell the
king to give you 300 men
so we can v[i]sit the city
and regain (it).
Imperative.
Imperative +
yaqtula + modal
yaqtul + modal
yaqtul
6.4.59 23
[...] šu-te-ra a-wa-tam
24a-na ia-ši ù i-pu-ša a-na-
ku 25
ki-ta it-ti mÌR-a-ši-ir-
ta 26
ki-ma mia-pa-
dIM ù
mzi-im-ri-[d]a
27ù bal-ṭá-ti
[...] (83:23-27)
Send back word to me or
I will form an alliance
with ʿAbdi-aširta like
Yapa-Hadda and
Zimrid[d]a so that I stay
alive.
Imperative +
yaqtula + modal
qatal. See example
no. 6.4.47 for the
modal yaqtul of
balāṭu with the
same meaning as
here.
6.4.60 17
ù yi-iq-bu 18
a-na ia-ši id-
na-m[i] 19
DAM-ka ù
20DUMU.MEŠ-ka ù lu-ú
21i-ma-ḫa-ṣa (270:17-21)
…and he says to me,
―Give me your wife, your
sons, or I will strike
(you).‖
Imperative +
yaqtula
6.4.61 67
še-ri-ib a-wa-tú.MEŠ ba-
na-ta 68
a-na LUGAL-ri
Present eloquent words to
the king, my lord: ―I am a
Imperative +
yaqtula
262
EN-ia 69lú
ú-e-eḫ LUGAL-
ri a-nu-ki 70
ma-at-ti a-na
ka-wa 71
ù ti-ip-pa-ša ip-ša
la-am-na 72
a-na UGU-ḫi
LÚ.MEŠ kur
ka-si (287:67-
72)
soldier of the king. I am
always yours.‖ And please
make the Kašites
responsible for the evil
deed.
6.4.62 23
uš-ši-ru-na-ni 50 ta-pal
24ANŠE.KUR.RA ù 2 me
ERÍN.MEŠ GÌR.MEŠ 25
ù
i-zi-za i-na uru
ši-ga-ta 26
i-
na pa-ni-šu a-di 27
a-ṣí
ERÍN.MEŠ pí-ṭá-ti 28
ú-ul
yu-pa-ḫi-ra ka-li
29LÚ.MEŠ GAZ.MEŠ ù
30yi-ìl-qa
uruši-ga-t[a]
31ù
uruam-bi […] (71:23-31)
So send me 50 pairs of
horses and 200 infantry
that I may resist him in
Šigata until the coming
forth of the archers and let
him not gather together
all the ʿApiru and take
Šigata and Ampi […].
Imperative +
yaqtula + negated
yaqtula + yaqtula
(under the scope of
the preceding
negation)
6.4.63 18
ù yi-ša-al 19
LUGAL be-li
20LÚ ra-bi-ṣa-[š]u
21a-na
ša y[u-p]a-[š]u 22
i-na KUR
L[UGAL E]N-i[a] 23
ù yu-
la-mi-da 24
LUGAL be-li
ERÍN.MEŠ-šu pí-[ṭá]-ti-šu
25a-na ia-ši-ia (272:18-25)
May the king, my lord ask
[hi]s commissioner about
what is be[ing] d[on]e in
the land of the k[ing, m]y
[lo]rd, so that the king, my
lord, instructs his
ar[che]rs in my regard.
Optative yaqtul +
yaqtula
6.4.64 13
ya-di-i[n] 14
DINGIR ša
LUGAL EN-ia 15
ú yi-ta-ṣa
16mLUGAL E[N]-ia qa-du
17ERÍN.MEŠ.GAL-šu ú yi-
ìl-ma-ad 18
KUR.ḪI.A-šu
[…] (337:13-18)
May the god of the king,
my lord, gra[nt] that the
king, my lo[rd], come
forth along with his large
army and learn about his
lands.
Optative yaqtula +
yaqtula + modal
yaqtul
263
6.4.65 15
[…] ša-ni-tam 16
yi-ìš-mé
LUGAL EN-li a-wa-te
17ÌR ki-ti-šu ù yu-wa-ši-ra
18ŠE-im.ḪI.A i-na ŠÀ-bi
gišMÁ.MEŠ ù yu-ba-li-iṭ
19ÌR-šu ù URU-šu ù ia-di-
na 20
4 me LÚ.MEŠ 30 ta-
pa[l
AN]ŠE.KUR.RA.MEŠ
21ki-ma na-da-ni a-na
mzu-
[r]a-[t]a 22
ù ti-na-ṣa-ru
URU a-na ka-tam (85:15-
22)
Moreover, may the king,
my lord, heed the words of
his loyal servant and send
grain in ships in order to
keep alive his servant and
his city. And may he give
me 400 men and 30 pair[s
of h]orses, as were given
to Zu[r]a[t]a, so that they
can guard the city for
you.
Two modal
sequences that
begin with the
Optative yaqtul yi-
ìš-mé which is not
repeated for the
second time:
Optative yaqtul +
yaqtula + modal
yaqtul
6.4.66 44
[…] ù yi-ìš-me
45LUGAL-ru a-wa-te ÌR-
šu 46
ù yu-wa-ši-ra
47LÚ.MEŠ ú-ul ti-pu-uš
48URU ar-na […] (122:44-
48)
So may the king heed the
words of his servant and
send (back) the men, lest
the city revolt.
Optative yaqtul +
yaqtula + negated
modal yaqtul
6.4.67 28
[…] ù li-it-ru-uṣ 29
i-na
pa-ni LUGAL-ri EN-ia ù
30lu-ú yu-ši-ra
mia-an-ḫa-
ma 31
ù lu-ú ni-pa-aš gáb-
bu-ma 32
nu-kúr-ti ù lu-ú
tu-te-er 33
KUR.KI.ḪI.A ša
LUGAL-ri EN-ia 34
a-na
ZAG.ḪI.[A]-ši \ up-sí-ḫi
(366:28-34)
So may it seem right in
the sight of the king, my
lord, and may he send
Yanḫamu so that we may
all wage war and you
restore the land of the
king, my lord, to its
borders: up-sı́-ḫi.
Precative + yaqtula
+ modal yaqtul +
modal yaqtul
6.4.68 33
ša-ni-tam li-[i]d-mì-iq i- Moreover, may it b[e The yaqtula-clause
264
na pa-ni 34
LUGAL-ri EN-
ia ù yu-da-nam 35
ŠE-
im.ḪI.A mu-[ú-ṣ]a kur
ia-ri-
mu-ta 36
ša-a [y]u-da-[nu]
pa-na-nu i-na uru
ṣu-mu-ra
37yu-da-nam i-na-na i-na
urugub-la
38[ù] nu-ba-li-iṭ
a-di ti-š[a-i-lu] 39
[a-n]a
URU-li-ka (85:33-39)
p]leasing in the sight of
the king, my lord, that the
grain that is pro[duc]ed in
Yarimuta be given. What
[used to be] previously
giv[en] in Ṣumur, may it
now be given in Gubla,
[so] that we may have
provisions until you
in[quire abo]ut your city.
is repeated for
emphasis with the
objected fronted.
Optative + yaqtula
(2 times) + modal
yaqtul. Note the
―Ventive spelling‖
of the yaqtula.
6.4.69 53
[…] li-ìš-mi LUGAL-ru
a-wa-te ÌR-šu 54
ù ia-di-na
ba-la-ṭa ÌR-šu 55
ù yu-ba-
li-iṭ ÌR-šu ù 56
a-na-ṣa-ra
URU ki-it-ti-šu a-di
N[I]N-nu 57
DINGIR.MEŠ-
nu a-[na ka-tam] ù yi-da-
ga[l] LUGAL 58
KU[R-šu]
ù ÌR-šu li-im-lik a-na
KUR-šu 59
ù šu-u[p-ši-iḫ
KUR-k]a-ma li-it-ri-i[ṣ]
60i-na pa-ni LUG[AL E]N-
ia yu-wa-ši-ra 61
[L]Ú-šu ù
yi-zi-iz i-na-an-na ù ak-šu-
u[d] 62
a-na-[k]u a-na ma-
ḫar LUGAL-ri EN […]
(74:53-62)
May the king heed the
words of his servant and
give provisions to his
servants and to keep alive
your servant and let me
guard his faithful city
together his our L[a]dy,
our gods f[or you]! And
may the king surv[ey his
l]and and his servant! May
he give thought to his
land! And pa[cify you]r
[land]! May it seem
go[od] in the sight of the
ki[ng], my [lo]rd, to send
[a m]an of his in order to
stay this time so I may
arri[ve] in the presence of
the king, my lord.
This passage can
be divided into the
following modal
sequences: 53-57:
Precative + yaqtula
+ modal yaqtul +
yaqtula; 57-59:
three independent
directive-volitive
forms: Optative
yaqtul, Precative,
Imperative; 59-62:
Precative + yaqtula
+ modal yaqtul +
modal yaqtul.
265
The perusal of the examples of the modal sequence (6.4.42-6.4.69) makes the chaos of
various forms used to convey commands and request apparent. In fact, the modal sequence
always begins with a directive-volitive form (Imperative, Precative or yaqtul) and may be
followed by yaqtula or the modal yaqtul or both of them, yaqtula followed by the modal
yaqtul. The occurrence of yaqtula in a specific environment is already the first argument in
favor of its being an independent form of the verbal system. The question that naturally arises
is its meaning versus the modal yaqtul.
The Meaning of yaqtula: First, it must be observed that both yaqtul and yaqtula should be
conceptualized as general modal forms instead of being described on the basis of their
renderings with various modal verbs such as ―will,‖ ―may,‖ ―can.‖ Second, verbs that follow
a directive-volitive form in a sequential manner are easily interpreted as expressions of wish
or desire not because this is their own semantic import, but rather because they are governed
by the directive-volitive form which begins the modal sequence. A close reading of the
examples 6.4.57-6.4.69 indicates that yaqtula and the modal yaqtul differ in their input in the
way in which the sequence of actions is interpreted. In fact, yaqtula can be understood and
labeled as conjunct modal and the modal yaqtul as sequential modal. The yaqtul form is the
conjunct modal in the sense that the action it refers to should be seen as temporally or
logically united with the action of the directive-volitive form. The modal yaqtul is sequential
in the sense that is refers to an action that simply will follow the command. Both yaqtul and
yaqtula are modal but differ in their relationship to the main directive-volitive form. This
difference in the degree of immediacy or closeness may seem abstract and of little relevance,
but it impacts the way in which the entire sequence of events is interpreted in a significant
manner. Most typically, the conjunct yaqtula will be interpreted as part of the command or
wish, and the sequential yaqtul as the action that will follow the execution of the wish, that is,
its result or purpose. These interpretations of yaqtula and the modal yaqtul do not cover the
entire array of examples and thus indicate that their real semantic difference must be
searched for elsewhere. Depending on the lexical meaning of the verbs and the participants of
the action to which they refer, the use of yaqtula vs. yaqtul results in different interpretations
of the modal sequence. The discussion of some examples will make it clearer.
The sequential yaqtul which immediately follows a directive-volitive form is usually
interpreted as expressing the goal or the result of the action which is desired or requested
266
(examples nos. 6.4.42-46.48-49). When negated, the sequential yaqtul refers to the action
which is the result of non-compliance with the request (examples 6.4.51-56). As expected,
the same interpretations are given to the sequential yaqtul also when it occurs in the modal
sequence preceded by yaqtula.
The conjunct modal yaqtula commonly continues the ―mode of request‖ of the directive-
volitive form (examples nos. 6.4.61-63.65-69). In other words, it marks the action as part of
the same wish or command as the preceding directive-volitive form. This simple continuative
use of the yaqtula is responsible for its common identification as the volitive form which
expresses a wish or desire. The way in which the conjunct yaqtula which is used to continue
the directive-volitive form creates with it one request or wish is the best seen in the examples
in which yaqtula follows verbs of speaking (examples no. 6.4.57-58). In these cases yaqtula
actually expresses the content of the message which should be told and it is conveniently
translated with the infinitive as the content clause which is the direct object of the directive-
volitive form. As a matter of fact, in example no. 6.4.58, to the translation ―tell the king to
give‖ corresponds the sequence of Imperative and the conjunct yaqtula. Keeping in mind
these examples, it is possible to return to examples nos. 6.4.45-46 in which the directive-
volitive form of the verb of speaking (ia-aq-bi ―may/let he tell‖) is followed by the plural
verb ending in -ū and parsed as the modal yaqtul. Seen in light of the use of yaqtula to
express the content of the message, it is possible that these forms also should be parsed as the
3 mp plural yaqtula rather than as yaqtul, and taken in support of Huehnergard‘s contention
that the plural counterpart of yaqtula is yaqtulū and that consequently some possible plural
yaqtulas can look like yaqtuls (Huehnergard 1998, 71). Similar to the cases of the yaqtula
after the verbs of speaking is the yaqtula yi-di-na (example no. 6.4.58) which is also
translated with the infinitive. In all these cases, one sees how the action of the yaqtula is
temporally and logically connected to the action of the directive-volitive form. In fact, the
yaqtula in question can be often translated with the infinitive which is subordinated to the
main directive-volitive-form.
The difference in the logical interpretation of the verbs in the modal sequence which follows
from an appropriate use of yaqtula and yaqtul can be clearly seen in cases where it results in
the interpretation of the yaqtula form as expressing the demand, and of the yaqtul form as
expressing the purpose or result. The clearest example is no. 6.4.67: the yaqtula yu-ši-ra
267
―may he send‖ is part of the demand, while the yaqtuls ni-pa-aš ―we may wage‖ and tu-te-er
―you may restore‖ refer to the action which may follow the positive response to the request
and are consequently interpreted from the point of view of the logic of the entire modal
sequence as expressing the purpose of the demand. The function of the yaqtula vis-à-vis
yaqtul forms can be interpreted in a similar manner in examples nos. 6.4.65 and 6.4.69. It is
noteworthy to observe how in example no. 6.4.69 the yaqtula a-na-ṣa-ra ―let me guard‖
allows the sender of the letter to return to making a request after expressing the goal of the
first part of the request with the preceding sequential yaqtul yu-ba-li-iṭ ―in order to keep
alive.‖
Also in examples nos. 6.4.59-60 the action of the conjunct yaqtula must be interpreted in a
strict relation to the preceding directive-volitive form. However, the logical relationship
between the action of the verbs in question is not one of continuity but of alternative. These
examples show how mistaken is the interpretation of yaqtula as volitive form of wish and
how yaqtula is necessary in certain contexts. In fact, the action of the yaqtula in these
examples is not desired but presented as a possibility. In both cases, had the yaqtul be used,
the meaning of the resulting sequence would be very different. With the yaqtul, the sequence
in example no. 6.4.59 would mean: ―Send back word to me so that I may form an alliance
with ʿAbdi-aširta‖ and in example 6.4.60: ―Give me your wife, your sons so that I can strike
(you/them).‖
The idea that yaqtula is a conjunct modal, that is, the modal form which must be interpreted
in relation to the preceding verb which triggers its modal interpretation, can be seen also in
its use after the verb of fearing palāḫu ―to be afraid.‖ In fact, in many languages of the world,
this kind of verb triggers the use of modal verbs because of its meaning: the state of being
afraid is usually caused by situation which may happen, and one obviously wishes that it will
not happen.
6.4.70 36
pal-ḫa-ti LÚ.MEŠ ḫu-
u[p-ši-ia] 37
ul ti-ma-ḫa-ṣa-
na-[ni] (77:36-37)
I am afraid the pea[sentry]
will strike [me] down.
The form ti-ma-ḫa-
ṣa-na-[ni] must be
a yaqtula but it is
not certain if it
should be analyzed
268
as 3 mp or 3 fs with
the Energic used as
collective (more
probable).
6.4.71 27
[…] pa[l-ḫ]a-ti a-n[a-
k]u 28
la-a-mi ú-da-a-k[a]
[…] (131:27-28)
I my[self a]m [afr]aid I
will be kill[ed].
Moran 1992, 213
remarks that the
reading ú-da-a-k[a]
is almost certain.
Again, the modal reading is assigned by virtue of the triggering verb, as in the case of the
directive-volitive forms, while the use of yaqtula indicates that the two verbs must be
interpreted together. The negation is used in the original because the action is not desired, but
it cannot be literally rendered into English because such a literal translation would result in
the exactly opposite meaning. One sees also how the use of the sequential yaqtul would alter
the meaning of the sequence. In fact, yaqtul would indicate the action that followed the state
of fear and the translation would be correspondingly: ―I was afraid (but) the peasantry did not
strike me down‖ and ―I was afraid (but) I did not get killed.‖
In light of these considerations, one may conclude that yaqtula is the modal yaqtul modified
with the addition of the morpheme -a which indicates that the verb in question must be
interpreted jointly with the preceding verb. Such a vision of the morpheme -a as a clitic
rather than an integral part of the verbal form is supported by some modal sequences which
look like those treated up till now but which use the Precative with the morpheme -a in place
of yaqtula:
6.4.72 18
ù li-de-mi 19
LUGAL EN-
ia 20
ù li-di-na LUGAL
E[N-ia] 21
ERÍN.MEŠ pí-
ṭá-a-te 22
ù ni-pu-uš
URU.DIDLI.[ḪI.A]
23LUGAL EN-ia
24ù ni-ša-
ab 25
a-na
May the king, my lord,
take cognizance, and may
the king, [my] lo[rd], give
archers that we may
(re)gain the cities of the
king, my lord, and dwell
in the cities of the king,
Precative +
Precative-a +
modal yaqtul +
modal yaqtul. The
same sequence is
repeated verbatim
in 363:15-23.
269
URU.DIDLI.ḪI.A
26LUGAL EN-ia DINGIR-
ia dUTU-ia (174:18-26)
my lord, my god, my Sun.
6.4.73 8šá-ni-tam a-na mi-nim-mi
tu-uš-ti-te-eq-ni 9uš-ši-ra-
am-mi lú
DUMU KIN-ka
10it-ti-ia a-na ma-ḫar
11LUGAL BE-ka ù lu-ú
12li-di-na-ku ERÍN.MEŠ ù
gišGIGIR.MEŠ
13i-zi-ir-tam
a-na ka-tam 14
ù ti-ṣú-ru
URU (87:9-14)
Moreover, why did you
lead me astray, saying:
―Send your messenger to
me before the king so he
may give you troops and
chariots as a help to guard
the city?‖
Imperative (with
the Ventive) +
Precative-a +
modal yaqtul
The cases of the use of yaqtula outside the modal sequence are very rare and difficult to
judge because no pattern emerges. In a few instances they are found in quotations and
consequently one may surmise that the directive-volitive form which should occur before the
yaqtula was omitted. In the following passage, the directive-volitive form is also absent:
6.4.74 18
[…] i-nu-ma qa-bi a-na
19pa-ni LUGAL-ri
mri-bi-
dIM
20šu-mi-it ERÍN.MEŠ
pí-ṭá-at 21
LUGAL-ri i-nu-
ma ba-al-ṭú 22
LÚ.MEŠ
MAŠKÍM.MEŠ ù 23
a-da-
bu-ba ka-li ip-ši-[š]u-nu
24ù yi-de LUGAL-ru i-nu-
ma 25
ÌR ki-ti a-na-ku a-na
ša-šu (119:18-25)
As to its having been said
to the king, ―Rib-Hadda
has caused the death of
(some) royal archers,‖
since the commissioners
are alive, let me tell about
all [t]heir deeds so the
king will know that I am a
loyal servant of his.
Yaqtula + modal
yaqtul
It is possible that the directive-volitive form is absent because it was difficult to harmonize it
stylistically with the preceding quotation and causative clause. This passage may also
indicate that the directive-volitive form could be optionally deleted. Given the paucity of
examples, it is impossible to establish the conditions under which the directive-volitive form
270
could be omitted. However, it should be noted that the yaqtula in example no. 6.4.74 is
followed by the sequential modal yaqtul and thus both verbs can be treated as a modal
sequence with the virtual triggering form.
Beside the few problematic cases of yaqtula apparently outside of the modal sequence, the
main difficulty in analyzing the verbal forms ending in -a consists in the use of this
morpheme en guise of the Akkadian Ventive.
Yaqtula and the Ventive: Having established that there is a genuine pattern to the modal use
of the yaqtula form, it is possible to address the long-standing issue of the yaqtula form vs.
the Akkadan Ventive. In order to approach this problem in a fruitful manner, it is necessary
to abandon the false dichotomy in which only one parsing (yaqtula or the Ventive) must be
assigned to every case of the verbal form ending in -a. Moreover, it is relevant to observe that
the logic which correlates the morphological shape of the morpheme with its function is
simplistic and not sustainable in the case of yaqtula vs. the Ventive. In fact, since the transfer
between Akkadian and Canaanite is the main mechanism responsible for the creation of the
verbal system of the Amarna interlanguage, it is expected to find cases of the use of the
Akkadian Ventive spelled unambiguously with the ending -am, but having the function of the
yaqtula form, as in example 6.4.68. Moreover, since the Amarna interlanguage is the
learners‘ language, the proper use of the form of the target language to some extent, in this
case the Akkadian Ventive, should be anticipated. In other words, the fact that in some cases
the Akkadian Ventive seems to be used properly from the modern scholar‘s perspective does
not entail that the scribes had a real understanding of this form and its meaning, that is, the
declarative knowledge of it in general. Consequently, bringing the examples of the ―proper‖
use of the Akkadian Ventive in the Amarna letters proves nothing more than a partially
successful acquisition of a feature of the target language by some scribes. At the same time,
the cases of the ―improper‖ use of the Akkadian Ventive cannot be automatically parsed as
instances of the Canaanite yaqtula because they may be explained as learners‘ mistakes. Seen
in this perspective, the real problem of yaqtula vs. the Ventive concerns not the cases in
which it must be clearly parsed as the Akkadian Ventive (for example, when it is added to the
yaqtul forms with the preterital meaning), but when the final -a appears on the modal forms
outside of the pattern of the modal sequence as established above. In other words, the real
question is: are these forms with final /a/ which express a wish or request to be understood as
271
the instances of the genuine use of the Canaanite yaqtula, or parsed as the Optative yaqtul
with the Akkadian Ventive? In fact, there are a number of forms of the prefix conjugation
with final -a which occur independently or at the beginning of the modal sequence, where not
yaqtula but the Optative yaqtul is expected.
In order to answer the question of the initial Optative forms with the final -a, it is necessary
to compare the verbs which occur in the alleged Optative yaqtula forms and the verbs which
occur in the Optative yaqtul. In the following table are listed the Optative yaqtula forms:
Form Reference Comments
yu-uš-ši-ra 269:11
yu-uš-ši-ra 271:18 in the apodosis of the conditional
yu-ši-ra 281:27
yu-uš-ši-ra 283:25
yu-wa-ša-ra-ni-me 196:34
yu-uš-ši-ra 180:6
yu-ši-ra 216:15
yu-ši-ra-me 218:15
yu-uq-ba 83:16
yu-wa-ši-ra 116:72
yu-wa-ša-ra 117:25
yu-wa-ši-ra 117:66
yu-wa-ši-ra 117:72
yu-wa-ši-ra-šu 117:77
ia-di-na 118:11 possibly in quotation
yu-wa-ši-ra 118:42
272
ya-di-nam 127:27 in the apodosis of the conditional
yu-ḫa-mi-ṭá 129:78
yu-ši-ra 131:12 in the apodosis of the conditional
yu-ši-ra-šu 137:79
yi-iš-pu-ra-am 362:22 in quotation, it can be a part of a larger
modal sequence quoted only in part
yu-ḫa-mi-ṭá 362:40
yu-ṣa-am 362:60
The following list gives the occurrences of the Optative yaqtul at the beginning of the modal
sequence:
yi-ki-im 271:13
yi-i-dì 267:15
yi-de 268:8
yi-de 270:22
yi-de 271:9
yi-de 273:8
yi-de 273:15
yi-de 273:16
yi-de 273:25
y[i]-ša-al 271:23
yi-ša-al 272:18
yi-da-mi-iq 64:10
273
yi-ik-ki-mi-ni 283:16 in the apodosis of the conditional
yi-de 279:9
yi-de 280:21
yi-il5-ma-ad 64:8
yi-il5-ma-ad 281:30
yi-il5-ma-ad 283:18
yi-ìl-ma-ad 366:17
yi-iš-ta-al 280:25
yi-de-mi 330:9
yi-de-mi 330:17
yi-il5-ma-ad 294:14
yi-il5-ma-ad 294:25
yi-ša-al 296:23
yi-ša-al 296:30
i-de 305:23
ti-de 306:28
i-li-eʾ-e 287:62
ia-aš-al-me 224:10
yi-iš-me 234:10
yi-de 243:21
yi-de-mi 245:46
yi-ki-im-ni-mi 250:20 in the apodosis of the conditional
274
yi-de-mi 250:4
yi-de-mi 250:9
yi-it-r[u-u]ṣ 250:22
yi-ìl-ma-ad 264:23
ya-di-i[n] 337:13
[y]a-zi-ib 197:40
[i]-qù-ul 196:39
i-de 68:9
i-de 74:5
i-de 75:7
i-de 76:7
i-de 78:7
i-de 81:6
i-de 84:21
ia-qúl-me 68:31
yu-uq-bu 83:19
ia-aq-bi 83:34
ti-id-di-in4 68:5
ti-di-nu 71:5
ti-din 73:4
ti-di-in 74:3
ti-din 75:4
275
ti-di-in4 76:4
ti-di-in4 79:4
ti-di-in4 83:3
[t]a5-din-ni 83:30
ti-di-in4 85:4
ti-di-nu 86:4
ti-di-nu 87:6
yi-ìš-me 78:17
yi-ìš-me 79:13
yi-ìš-mé 85:16
yi-ìš-mé 85:75
yi-ìš-me 89:53
yi-de 94:4
ti-di-nu 95:5
ia-aq-bi 101:32
yi-ìš-me 103:5
yi-ìš-mi 103:23
yu-ša-am-ri-ir 103:30
yi-ìš-mi 103:32
yi-it-ru-uṣ 103:40
yi-de 104:6
ti-di-in4 105:3
276
yi-im-li-ik 105:6
i-de 106:47
ti-di-in4 107:5
yi-ìš-me 107:11
yi-ìš-me 107:25
yi-ìš-mi 107:35
ti-di-in4 108:4
ti-di-in4 109:3
ti-di-in4 112:4
yi-di-in4 113:32
ti-di-in4 114:3
i-de 114:6
ya-am-lik 114:20
ti-di-in4 116:4
i-de 116:6
yi-de 116:10
ia-aq-bi 116:32
i-di-in4 116:35 in the apodosis of the conditional
yi-ìš-mi 116:44
ia-aš-pu-ur 117:60 in the apodosis of the conditional
yi-ìl-qé-šu 117:70
ti-di-in4 118:7
277
yi-ìš-me 118:15
ti-di-in4 119:4
yi-iš-me 119:26
yi-ša-kan 119:58
ti-di-in4 121:4
ti-di-in4 122:5
yi-ìš-me 122:44
ti-di-in4 123:5
yi-ša-al 124:23
ti-di-in4 125:6
i-ša-al-šu 127:24
ti-di-in4 130:5
ti-di-in4 132:7
ia-qú-ul 132:44
yi-iš-me 136:6
yi-im-lu-uk 136:36
yi-im-lu-uk 136:40
ia-qú-ul-mi 137:25
i-de-mi 137:30
yi-iš-mi 137:38
yi-de 137:52
ia-qú-ul11-mi 137:59
278
ia-qú-ul11 137:77
yi-iš-mi 137:90
ia-qú-ul-mi 137:94
yi-de 139:29
yu-ḫa-mi-iṭ 362:7
yi-iš-mi 362:48
ti-ra-ʾa4-as 141:31
ti-mu-ru 141:34
tu-ti-ru 141:38
yi-il5-ma-ad 142:18
i-de 144:10
i-de 144:18
i-de 144:22
yi-din-ni 144:26
i-qú-ul 149:41
i-te-zi-ib 151:35
i-qa-al 185:67
te-de 230:20
yi-de-mi 226:6
yi-de-me 307:6
yi-de-me 307:11
279
A comparison of the two tables indicates that the Optative yaqtul is used commonly with a
variety of verbs while the Optative form with the final /a/ at the beginning of the modal
sequence occurs almost exclusively with the verb wuššuru ―to send.‖ If both yaqtul and
yaqtula were used at the beginning of the modal sequence, yaqtula would occur with a wide
variety of verbs. Since this is not the case, it is plausible that the final /a/ on the Optative
forms of wuššuru is a fossilized Ventive. This conclusion is supported also by the consistent
occurrence of the final /a/ on the Imperative of this verb. If the fossilized Ventive is used
with the Optative yaqtul of wuššuru, also the final /a/ on a few other Optatives could
represent a random use of the Ventive rather than a genuine yaqtula used outside of the
modal sequence.
Appendix: Modal Use of the Qatal: In a few isolated cases, the qatal of damāqu ―to be
good‖ seems to require a modal translation:
6.4.75 49
da-mi-iq mu-tu a-[na ia]-
ši (109:49)
Death would be sweet t[o
m]e.
6.4.76 46
da-mi-iq it-ta-ka
(114:46)
It would be good to be
with you.
Note that Moran
translates the same
expression da-mi-
iq it-ti-ka in 74:62
in the indicative:
―It is good for me
to be with you.‖
6.4.77 47
[…] ša-ni-tam 48
da-mi-
iq a-na ia-ši ù 49
i-ba-ša-ti
it-ti-ka ù 50
pa-aš-ḫa-ti
(116:47-50)
Moreover, it would please
me were I with you and so
at peace.
Virtual conditional
clause.
6.4.78 64
[…] ša-ni-tam di-nu a-
na ia-ši 65
it-t[i m
]ia-pa-dIM
ù it-ti mḫa-
66ù y[u]-wa-ši-
ra LUGAL [lú
MAŠ]K[ÍM]
Moreover, I have litigation
wit[h] Yapaḫ-Hadda and
Ha‘‹ip›. M[ay] the king
send a [comm]issi[oner to
Moran 1992, 194
translates: ―May it
please the king.‖
Note that for the
280
67[ù] y[u-p]a-r[e-e]š [b]e-
ri-nu ka-li 68
mi-im-me ša-a
yu-ú-ul-qú-na 69
ìš-tu ša-a-
šu-nu a-na LUGAL ú-ul
70yi-ìl-qé-šu LÚ ša-nu a-
na ša-šu 71
[d]a-mi-iq a-na
LUGAL-ri […] (117:64-
71)
d[ec]i[d]e [be]tween us.
Everything that is taken
from them belongs to the
king. Let no one else take
it for himself. This would
be [g]ood for the king.
Optative of
damāqu in 64:10 is
used yaqtul and in
85:33 the
Precative.
In all these cases the Stative qatal has its usual function, that is, it predicates the quality of an
eventuality.2 The modal translation is required because the eventuality in question is non-
factual. In fact, according to the state of knowledge available to the reader of the letter, the
eventuality cannot refer to the events or states in the actual, real world. Consequently, it must
be placed in a possible world which means that it must be seen in the categories of modality.
In examples 6.4.75-77, the modal reading of the sentence stems from knowledge that the
subject is not with the pharaoh. In example 6.4.78, the quality of ―being good‖ is predicated
about the series of demanded actions which are necessarily modal. In all these cases, what is
modal is the eventuality, not the Stative qatal per se.
6.5 Conditional Clauses
Conditional clauses are usually introduced by šumma ―if,‖ sometimes by enūma ―when;‖
they are very rarely unmarked. Conditional clauses use often yaqtul and qatal but yaqtulu,
directive-volitive forms, and nominal clauses are also well attested. The following table
contains examples of various combinations of predicates attested in conditional clauses.3
6.5.1 15
[…] šum-ma ni-til-lí 16
a- Should we go up to the P: šumma + yaqtul
2 In the Amarna letters there are no examples of the qatal which would be directly comparable with the
use of the Perfect in Arabic to express wishes. For this Arabic use, see El-Ayoubi, Fischer, and Langer 2010,
80-81.
3 Abbreviations in the table: P = protasis, A = apodosis.
281
na AN \ ša-me-ma šum-ma
17nu-ra-ad i-na er-ṣé-te
18ù SAG.DU-nu \ ru-šu-nu
19i-na qa-te-ka […]
(264:15-19)
sky: ša-me-ma, or should
we go down into the
netherworld, our head :
ru-šu-nu is in your hand.
+ P: šumma +
yaqtul + A:
nominal clause
6.5.2 33
ḫa-ba-li-ia UGU-ka
šum-ma 34
ta-[q]ú-ú-ul a-
na ia-ši […] (82:33-34)
My damages are your
responsibility, if you
ne[g]lect me.
A: nominal clause
+ P: šumma +
yaqtul
6.5.3 57
šum-ma i-ba-aš-ši
LÚ.MEŠ ERÍN pi-ṭa-ti 58
i-
na MU an-ni-ti i-ba-aš-ši
KUR.ḪI.A 59
LUGAL EN
ù šum-ma ia-a-nu-mi
LÚ.MEŠ ERÍN pi-ṭa-ti
60ḫal-qa-at KUR.ḪI.A
LUGAL EN-ia (286:57-
60)
If there are archers this
year, the lands of the king,
my lord, will remain. But
if there are no archers,
lost are the lands of the
king, my lord.
P: šumma + qatal +
A: qatal; P: šumma
+ nominal clause +
A: qatal
6.5.4 22
ù šum-ma ia-a-nu
ERÍN.MEŠ pi-ṭa-tum 23
pa-
ṭa-ra-at KUR LUGAL-ri
a-na LÚ.MEŠ 24
\ ḫa-pí-ri
(290:22-24)
If there are no archers,
the land of the king will
desert to the ʿApiru.
P: šumma +
nominal clause +
A: qatal
6.5.6 41
[…] šum-ma 42
2 ITI ia-
nu ERÍN.MEŠ pí-ṭá-ti 43
ù
i-ti-zi-ib URU.KI 44
ù pa-
aṭ-ra-ti ù 45
bal-ṭá-at ZI-ia
a-di 46
i-pé-šu i-pé-eš ŠÀ-
bi-ia (82:41-46)
If within two months
there is no archer host, I
will abandon the city and
depart and my life will be
safe while I do what I
want to do.
P: šumma +
nominal clause +
A: yaqtul + qatal +
qatal
6.5.7 44
[…] ù aš-pu-ru a-na ša- And so I write: ―If you do P: šumma +
282
šu 45
šum-ma ki-a-ma la ti-
iq-bi 46
ù i-ti-zi-ib URU ù
47pa-aṭ-ra-ti ša-ni-tam
šum-ma la-a 48
tu-te-ru-na
a-wa-tam a-na ia-ši 49
ù i-
ti-zi-ib URU ù 50
pa-aṭ-ra-
ti qa-du LÚ.MEŠ 51
ša i-
ra-a-mu-ni (83:44-51)
not tell him this, I am
going to abandon the city
and depart. Moreover, if
you do not send word
back to me, I will
abandon the city and
depart, together with the
people who are loyal to
me.‖
negated yaqtul + A:
yaqtul + qatal; P:
šumma + negated
yaqtulu + A: yaqtul
+ qatal
6.5.8 11
šum-ma lú
w[i]-ḫu-ka 12
il-
la-ak a-[n]a mu-ḫi-ia 13
ù
u[ṣ]-ṣur-[š]u (230:11-13)
Whenever a s[ol]dier of
yours comes t[o] me, then
I [g]uard [h]im.
P: šumma + yaqtul
+ A: yaqtul
6.5.9 9[…] šum-ma LUGAL be-
li 10
la-a yu-ša-ru
ERÍN.MEŠ pí-ṭá-tam 11
ù
ni-nu-mi BA.ÚŠ.MEŠ ni-
mu-ut 12
ù URU.MEŠ gub-
ub-li 13
tu-ul11-qú (362:9-
13)
If the king, my lord, does
not send archers, then we
ourselves must die and
(cities of) Gubla will be
taken.
P: šumma +
negated yaqtulu +
A: yaqtul + yaqtul
or yaqtulu
(depending on the
number of the
subject)
6.5.10 43
[…] ša-ma-ma šu-nu
44šu-nu i-nu-ma i-ti-ru-bu
45i-na
uruṣu-mu-ra
46URU.MEŠ an-nu-tu
gišMÁ.MEŠ
47ù
DUMU.MEŠ ÌR-a-ši-i[r]-
ta 48
i-na ṣé-ri 49
[i]z-[z]i-za
UGU ù 50
la-a i-le-ú 51
a-ṣa
ù ip-ša-at uru
gub-la 52
[a]-
na LÚ.MEŠ GAZ.MEŠ
Should they <<they>>
hear that I was entering
Ṣumur, there would be
these cities with ships,
and the sons of ʿAbdi-
aši[r]ta in the countryside.
Th[ey] would [at]tack
<me>, and I would be
unable to get out, and
Gubla would be joined
Unmarked
conditional. P:
qatal + A: nominal
clause + qatal +
negated yaqtulu +
qatal
283
[…] (104:43-52) [t]o the ʿApiru.
6.5.11 36
[…] al-lu 37
pa-ṭá-ri-ma
LÚ.MEŠ ḫu-up-ši ù 38
ṣa-
ab-tu LÚ.MEŠ GAZ.MEŠ
39URU […] (118:36-39)
Look, if the peasantry goes
off, the ʿApiru will seize
the city.
Unmarked
conditional. P:
Infinitive + A:
qatal
6.5.12 15
i-na ba-la-ṭì-ia i-na-ṣí-ru
16URU LUGAL a-na ša-a-
šu ù 17
šum-ma mi-ta-ti mi-
na 18
i-pu-<šu>-na […]
(119:15-18)
While alive I shall guard
the king‘s city for him, but
if I die, what can I <d>o?
P: šumma + qatal +
A: yaqtulu
6.5.13 44
šum-ma ŠÀ-bi LUGAL-
ri [a-n]a 45
na-ṣa-ar KUR-
šu ù 46
ÌR-šu uš-ši-ra
47LÚ.MEŠ ma-ṣa-ar-ta
48ù
ti-na-ṣí-ru URU 49
[i]-na-
ṣí-ru i-na 50
[b]a-la-ṭì-ia i-
nu-ma 51
[i]-mu-ta mi-nu
52[y]i-na-ṣa-ru-še (130:44-
52)
If the desire of the king is
[t]o guard his city and his
servant, send a garrison to
guard the city. [I] will
guard it while I am [a]live.
When [I] die, who [is]
going to guard it?
P: šumma +
nominal clause +
Imperative.
Conditional
introduced by
inūma: P: yaqtul(a)
+ A: yaqtulu
6.5.14 97
[…] šum-ma ša-mi
LUGAL a-na ÌR-šu 98
ù
na-ad-na-at ERÍN.MEŠ
ia-ši 99
[ù ta-ar-at-m]i
URU.KI a-na LUGAL
(138:97-99)
If the king listened to his
servant and troops were
given to me, the city
[would return] to the
king.
Counterfactual
conditional. P:
šumma + qatal +
A: restored qatal
6.5.15 34
šum-ma ia-di-nu
LUGAL-ru a-na ÌR-šu 35
ù
i-di-in4 ù šum-ma ap-pu-
[n]a-ma 36
yi-ìl-qí LUGAL
If the king gives (the
property) to his servant,
may he give! And if not,
let the king take
P: šumma +
yaqtulu + A:
Optative yaqtul; P:
virtual + A:
284
gáb-ba a-na ša-[š]u
(116:34-36)
everything for him[se]lf. Optative yaqtul
6.5.16 39
ù šum-ma ap-pu-na-ma
yu-ṣa-na LUGAL-ru 40
ù
ka-li KUR.KUR.KI nu-
kúr-tum a-na ša-šu 41
ù mi-
na yi-pu-šu a-na ia-ši-nu
(74:39-41)
Should even so the king
come out, the entire
country will be against
him and what will he do
to us?
P: šumma + yaqtul
or yaqtulu (+
Ventive + Energic)
+ A: nominal
clause + yaqtulu
6.5.17 38
ša-ni-tam ké-e šum-[m]a
39a-na DAM-ia ša-pár
LUGAL-rum 40
ké-e a-kal-
lu-ši ké-e 41
šum-ma a-na
ia-ši 42
ša-pár LUGAL-ru
43šu-ku-un GÍR.ZABAR
44i-na ŠÀ-bi-ka ù
45BA.ÚŠ
ké-e la-a 46
ep-pu-šu ši-pí-
ir-ti LUGAL-ri (254:38-
46)
Moreover, how, i[f] the
king writes for my wife,
how could I hold her
back? How, if the king
writes to me, ―Put a
bronze dagger into your
heart and die‖, how could
I not execute the order of
the king?
P: šumma + qatal +
A: yaqtulu; P:
šumma + qatal +
A: negated yaqtulu
6.5.18 15
šum-ma LUGAL-ru yi-
ša-i-lu 16
ù na-ad-na pa-ni-
nu a-na 17
a-ra-di-ka […]
(89:15-17)
If the king asks for it, we
will turn into your
service.
P: šumma +
yaqtulu + A: qatal
6.5.19 11
[…] šum-ma 12
ti-ìš-mu-
na a-ṣé-ni ERÍN.MEŠ
13pí-ṭá-ti ù i-zi-bu
URU.MEŠ-šu-nu 14
ù pa-
aṭ-ru […] (73:11-14)
If they hear about the
coming out of the archers,
they will abandon their
cities and desert.
P: šumma +
yaqtulu + A: yaqtul
+ qatal
6.5.20 56
[…] šum-ma MU.KÁM
an-ni-[ta] 57
ia-nu
If thi[s] year there are no
archers, a[ll] the lands will
P: šumma +
nominal clause +
285
ERÍN.MEŠ pí-ṭá-ti ù k[a-
li] 58
KUR.MEŠ a-na
LÚ.MEŠ GAZ.MEŠ ù
59šum-ma ŠÀ-bi LUGAL
ba-li uš-ša-[ar]
60ERÍN.MEŠ pí-ṭá-ti ia-
aš-pu-ur a-na 61m
ia-an-ḫa-
me ù a-na pí-ḫu-ra 62
al-ku-
mi qa-du LÚ.MEŠ ḫa-za-
ni-ku-nu 63
li-qú-na kur
a-
mur-ri i-na UD.KÁM 64
ti-
ìl-qú-na-še […] (117:56-
64)
belong to the ʿApiru. And
if the king does not want
to sen[d] archers, may he
write to Yanpahamu and
Piḫura, ―March along with
your mayors. Take the
land of Amurru.‖ In a day
they will take it.
A: nominal clause;
P: šumma +
nominal clause +
A: Optative yaqtul
+ yaqtulu (may be
also analyzed as an
independent
clause).
6.5.21 15
šum-ma mi-la an-na i-ia-
nu 16
ERÍN.MEŠ pí-ṭá-ti
yi-ik-ki-mi-ni 17m
LUGAL-
ri EN-ia (283:15-17)
If there are still no archers
available, then may the
king, my lord, take me
away.
P: šumma +
nominal clause +
A: Optative yaqtul
6.5.22 20
ù šum-[m]a da-mi-[iq]
21i-na pa-ni-ka ù
22š[u]-
ku-un i-na 23lú
MAŠKÍM
DUGUD i-n[a] 24
pa-ni
LÚ.MEŠ ḫa-za-nu-ti
LUG[AL] (107:20-24)
Then i[f] it pleas[es] you,
a[p]point as it
commissioner someone
respected b[y] the ki[ng]‘s
mayors.
P: šumma + qatal +
A: Imperative
6.5.23 23
šum-ma la-a ti-le-ú la-
qa-[ia] 24
iš-tu qa-at na-ak-
ri-ia ù 25
te-ra-ni a-wa-tú ù
i-de 26
ip-ša ša i-pu-šu a-
nu-ma
If you are unable to
rescue [me] from my
enemies, then send back
word so I can know what
action I am to take.
P: šumma +
negated yaqtulu +
A; Imperative +
sequential modal
yaqtul (modal
sequence)
286
6.5.24 15
[…] a-na-ku aq-bu
16[šum-ma
UD.K]ÁM.MEŠ yi-iš-mu
LUGAL-ru 17
[ù
UD.KÁ]M.MEŠ yi-ìl-ti-
qú-šu-nu 18
[ù šum]-ma
mu-ša yi-iš-mu ù 19
[mu-š]a
yi-ìl-ti-qú-šu-nu […]
(109:15-19)
For my part, I keep saying,
―[If] the king gives heed
for a [d]ay, [in that da]y
the king will take them.
[And i]f the king gives
heed for a night, [in that
ni]ght he will take them.‖
P: šumma +
yaqtulu + A:
yaqtulu; P: šumma
+ yaqtulu + A:
yaqtulu
6.5.25 13
[…] ù šu-ma 14
[l]a [ú]-
uṣ-ra-te URU.MEŠ-k[a]
15ù DINGIR.[MEŠ-nu] ša
it-ka 16
[SA]G-k[a]-di li-
mu-[ḫ]u (209:13-16)
[…] and if I have [n]ot
[g]uarded your cities,
may the gods where you
are sma[s]h my [h]e[a]d.
P: šumma +
negated qatal + A:
Precative
6.5.26 81
šum-ma LUGAL be-li yi-
iḫ-na-nu-ni ù 82
yu-te-ru-
ni a-na URU.KI a-na-ṣur-
š[i] ki-[ma] 83
ki pa-na a-na
LUGAL be-li-ia (137:81-
83)
If the king, my lord, shows
me favor and returns me
to the city, then I will
guard i[t] … a[s] before
for the king, my lord.
P: šumma +
yaqtulu + yaqtulu +
A: yaqtul
6.5.27 27
šum-ma ki-ia-am yi-iq-
bu 28
LUGAL EN-ia a-na
ia-ši 29
iz-zi-ib-mi URU.KI-
ka 30
iš-tu pa-ni mbi-i-ia
31ù
lu-ú iz-zi-ba ù 32
il5-la-ka ù
lu-ú 33
ur-ra-da LUGAL
EN-ia 34
UD.KÁM.MA ù
mu-ša a-di 35
da-ri-ia-ta
(294:27-35)
If the king, my lord, says
this to me, ―Abandon your
city, (fleeing) from before
Biya,‖ then of course I
will abandon it, and I will
come and of course I will
serve the king, my lord,
day and night, forever.
P: šumma +
yaqtulu + A:
yaqtul(a) +
yaqtul(a) + yaqtul
(a)
287
6.5.28 23
[šum]-ma i-ra-am
LUGA[L-ru] 24
[E]N-li ÌR
ki-t[i-šu] 25
[ù] uš-ši-ra
26[3] LÚ ù ib-lu-ṭá
27ù i-
na-ṣí-ra 28
URU a-na
LUGAL-ri (123:23-28)
[I]f the kin[g], my [lo]rd,
loves [his] loy[al] servant,
[then] send (back) [3] men
and let me live and guard
the city for the king.
P: šumma + yaqtul
+ A: Imperative +
conjuct yaqtula +
conjunct yaqtula
(modal sequence)
The overview of the verbal forms used in conditional clauses raises two major questions. The
most important one is the difference between qatal, yaqtul and yaqtulu, or in other words, the
semantic import of each of these forms which dictates its preference in individual clauses.
This question must remain unanswered because it is impossible to identify any syntactic or
semantic pattern which would explain the appearance of these forms. For example, it is
doubtful whether the use of yaqtul implies a higher degree of the hypothetical nature of a
phrase than yaqtulu, or whether qatal might be specifically used for counterfactual
conditions, based on the sole example 6.5.14. The second problem is the interpretation of the
morpheme -a on a small number of prefixed forms: should they be parsed as yaqtula or rather
the forms with the fossilized Akkadian Ventive? The question is difficult to answer because
of the small number of occurrences of these forms in conditionals.4 However, since the
majority of these verbs are verbs of movement, it is plausible that the final -a is the fossilized
Akkadian Ventive rather than the marker of yaqtula. Consequently, it must be concluded that
in general yaqtula is not used in conditional clauses. However, it can appear in conditionals
as a part of the modal sequence established in 6.4. In fact, such a case occurs in example no.
6.5.28. One can wonder whether the use of the forms ending in -a in example 6.5.27 is
triggered by the preceding imperative in spite of its being part of the protasis rather than
apodosis. As for for Ventive in example no. 6.5.13 i-nu-ma [i]-mu-ta ―when I die,‖ one must
observe with Rainey (1996, vol. 2, 260) that in core Akkadian, the verb mâtu ―to die‖ takes
sometimes the Ventive.
4 To the examples listed in 6.5.13.27-28 add: i-ti-la (81:46), yu-ṣa-na (74:39), yu-ṣa-na (77:27), tu-ṣa-na
(81:45a), yu-šé-bi-la (88:35), ti-zi-za (107:33), i-zi-ba-ši (126:45), i-pa-ṭá-ra-ni-mi (126:47), yu-ši-ra (131:12),
yi-zi-za (132:48), te-i-ṣa (362:30), i-ka-ša-da-am (362:34).
288
6.6 The Energic
The Energic is a non-obligatory suffix because there is no clearly discernible syntactic
environment in which the use of this suffix would be required. Moreover, there are several
cases of similar utterances in which this suffix appears in one instance and is absent in the
other.5
6.6.1 36
[…] mi-na 37
i-pu-šu-na
[…] (104:36-37)
What am/can I to do? See also 74:63,
91:26, 104:37,
117:92, 119:14,
122:49, 130:31,
134:15, 249:10.
6.6.2 22
[…] mi-na i-pu-šu 23
[a-
n]a-ku i-na i-de-ni-ia […]
(90:22-23)
What am/can [I] to do by
myself?
The available hand
copies and pictures
do not show the
sign -na after the
final -šu which
appears in
Kundzton‘s
transliteration.
Youngblood
observes:
―Knudtzon reads
correctly i-pu-šu-
na […], although
he failed to indicate
that the NA-sign is
an emendation and
5 Zewi 1999, 159: ―In all contexts the usage of the energicus appears to be optional, and verbs with
energicus might appear alongside verbs without energicus.‖
289
was probably
omitted as a result
of vertical
haplography‖
(1961, 344-345).
6.6.3 6[…] a[l-lu]-me
7[i]a-aq-
bu LUGAL-ru EN-li a-
[n]a 8mi-ni at-ta-ma ti-ìš-
tap-ru-na 9a-na ia-ši […]
(117:6-9)
In[de]ed the king, my lord,
[ke]eps saying, ―Why do
you alone keep writing
[t]o me?‖
6.6.4 30
[…] ti-qa-bu a-na mi-ni
31ti-ìš-ta-pa-ru a-wa-te ša-
ru-ta (117:30-31)
And you say, ―Why do
you write treacherous
words?‖
6.6.5 6[a-n]u-ma ki-a-ma-am iš-
tap-ru a-na LUGAL-ri
EN-ia 7[ù] la-a yi-ìš-mu-
na a-wa-te-ia (85:6-7)
[No]w, I keep writing like
this to the king, my lord,
[but] he does not hear my
words.
6.6.6 50
[…] pa-na-nu
51LÚ.MEŠ MAŠKÍM ša-a
52uruṣu-mu-[ra]
53[yu]-pa-
ri-šu be-ri-nu ù an-nu-[ú]
54[l]a-a [y]i-ìš-mu ḫa-za-
nu a-na ša-šu (118:50-54)
Look, previously the
commissioner at Ṣumu[r]
would [de]cide between
us, but no[w n]o mayor
[l]istens to him!
6.6.7 35
ù iš-te-mu-na a-w[a]-
t[e.MEŠ-ka] (256:35)
And I do obey [your]
or[d]e[rs].
6.6.8 7 […] gáb-bi
8a-wa-
te.MEŠ LUGAL-ri-ia 9iš-
te-mu ù 10
MAŠKÍM ya-di-
I obey all the orders of my
king, and I obey all the
orders of the
See also 63:8,
64:17.19, 65:8,
212:14, 216:12,
290
nu 11m
LUGAL-ri-ia
12UGU iš-te-mu
13gáb-bi
a-wa-te-šu (225:7-13)
commissioner whom the
king appoints over me.
218:13, 226:10.20,
250:60, 253:31,
261:10, 292:24,
300:25, 316:14.
The available examples of the Energic do not allow us to determine its semantic import
beyond its general characterization as ―emphatic.‖6 Although it is impossible to determine
what exactly the emphasis expressed by the Energic consists of, it seems plausible that
indeed the Energic is an emphatic suffix because it often occurs in contexts in which
emphasis is conveyed by other means such as word order or personal pronouns, as in
examples 6.6.2-3 and in the following passages:7
6.6.9 63
[…] mi-na i-pu-šu-na a-
na-ku i-na 64
[i]-de-ni-ia
[…] (74:63-64)
What am I to do by
[m]yself?
The Energic co-
occurring with the
independent
personal pronoun.
6.6.10 14
i-na-na a-di yu-pa-ḫi-ru
ka-[l]i 15
URU.MEŠ ù yi-ìl-
qú-še a-ia-[mi] 16
i-zi-zu-na
a-na-ku (124:14-16)
He is now in fact gathering
together a[l]l the cities and
he will take it. Whe[re] am
I to make a stand?
The Energic co-
occurring with the
independent
personal pronoun.
6.6.11 82
a-na-ku aq-bu-[n]a a-
[n]a […] (138:82)
For my part, I keep
say[in]g t[o] […].
The Energic co-
occurring with the
independent
6 Moran 2003, 51: ―Essentially it is an emphatic form of yaqtulu, with the precise nuance of emphasis
determined by the context.‖
7 The term ―emphasis‖ refers here to the complex phenomena of the information structure of a text.
Since the study of the word order and information structure of the Amarna letters is out of scope of the present
research, the description of the interaction of the Energic with constituent movement employs the intuitive
notion of ―emphasis‖ rather than concepts of topic and focus. Moreover, it is doubtful that the study of the
Energic in the perspective of information structure would produce convincing results because there are too few
examples of the Energic occurring in passages in which information structure is conveyed by constituent
movement.
291
personal pronoun.
6.6.12 9i-nu-ma yi-iš-tap-pa-ra
10LUGAL-ru a-na ia-ši a-
nu-ma 11m
i-ri-ma-ia-aš-ša
12ya-ak-šu-du-na a-na
13mu-ḫi-ka ú-ul ka-ši-id
14a-na mu-ḫi-ia […]
(130:9-14).
As to the king‘s having
written to me,
―Irimayašša is coming to
you,‖ he has not come to
me.
Compare Subject-
Verb word order in
the clause with the
Energic with the
preceding clause
which has Verb-
Subject order.
6.6.13 38
[…] ù a[l-lu ša-pár]-ti
39LÚ.MEŠ DUMU ši-
<ip>-ri-ia a-n[a LUGAL
E]N-li-ia 40
ERÍN.MEŠ la-
a yu-ša-r[u] 41
ù lú
DUMU
ši-ip-r[i-ia] 42
la-a tu-ša-
ṣú-na (126:38-42)
I have in[deed sen]t my
mes<sen>ger t[o the king],
my [l]ord, but troops are
not se[nt], and [my]
messeng[er] you do not
allow to come out.
The clause with the
Energic has Object-
Verb word order.
Finally, it must be observed that the Energic is often used in short questions, like these in
examples 6.6.1.3.9-10. It should not be concluded, however, that the Energic is specifically
to be associated with questions. It rather highlights further the rhetorical load that these
questions have, as is clear in the following passage:
6.6.14 7 […] a-na mi-ni yi-ìš-ta-
pa-ru 8LUGAL-ru EN-li
a-na ia-ši 9ú-ṣur-mi lu-ú
na-ṣir-ta 10
iš-tu ma-an-ni
i-na-ṣa-ru-na 11
iš-tu na-
ak-ri-ia 12
ù iš-tu LÚ.MEŠ
ḫu-ub-ši-ia 13
mi-nu yi-na-
ṣí-ra-an-ni (112:7-13)
Why does the king, my
lord, write to me, ―Guard!
Be on your guard! With
what shall I guard? With
my enemies, or with my
peasantry? Who would
guard me?
292
6.7 Verbs in the Epistolary Performative Utterances
Verbs are used not only in descriptive statements which can be analyzed in terms of truth-
values but also in performative utterances, where the function is one of ―doing‖ rather than
―saying.‖ This kind of utterance refers to a type of sentence where an action is realized by the
virtue of the sentence having been uttered. They belong to the pragmatic rather than semantic
level of the language. Explicit performative utterances occur often in formal contexts and
involve the use of the first person, for example ―I marry you.‖ In the Amarna letters there are
no clear examples of such explicit performative utterances. There are, however, examples of
utterances which refer to the action taking place together with the sending of the letter and
which can be dubbed ―epistolary performative utterances.‖ These utterances employs qatal or
yaqtul (typical for the letters from Tyre) and often contain adverbs meaning ―now‖ or
―behold.‖ All the examples recognized in the course of the present research involve the use
of the 1st pers. sing. of the verbs ―to give‖ and ―to send.‖ They refer to the person or goods
given or sent together with the letter, as in the following passages:
6.7.1 13
[…] [i]-nu-ma qa-ba
14LUGAL EN-ia
dUTU a-
na NA4.MEŠ
a[ḫ]-l[u]-pa-
[a]k-ku 15
[a]l-lu-ú uš-ši-ir-
ti a-na LU[GAL E]N-ia
1630
NA4.MEŠa[ḫ]-lu-pa-ak-
[k]u (323:13-16)
[A]s the king, my lord‘s,
having ordered some
g[l]a[s]s, I [he]rewith send
to the ki[ng], my [lo]rd, 30
pieces of [g]la[s]s.
qatal
6.7.2 26
[ù] a-nu-ma uš-ši-[ir-t]i
27[KUŠ].MEŠ a-ši-ti
28[ša
t]a-pal ANŠE.KUR.[RA]
[…] (266:26-28)
I herewith se[n]d
harnesses [for a p]air of
horse[s] […].
qatal
6.7.3 34
ki-na-an-na la-a i-ri-bu
35a-na ma-ḫar LUGAL be-
li-ia 36
ù a-nu-ma DUMU-
Accordingly, I shall not
enter the presence of the
king, my lord. So I
Qatal. See also
lines 78-79 in the
same letter.
293
ia ÌR LUGAL BE-ia 37
uš-
ši-ir-ti a-na ma-ḫar
LUGAL be-li-ia (137:34-
37)
herewith send my own
son, a servant of the king,
my lord, into the presence
of the king, my lord.
6.7.4 22
ù a-n[u-ma u]š-š[i]-ir-ti
23DUMU.MÍ-ia a-na
[É].G[A]L 24
[a]-na
LUGAL-ri BE-ia
DINGIR-i[a] 25d
UTU-ia
(187:22-25)
And I here[with s]e[n]d
my daughter to the
[pa]la[c]e, [t]o the king,
my lord, m[y] god, my
Sun.
qatal
6.7.5 30
[...]
ša-ni-tam 31
a-na
mDUMU-mu-ia ša-pár
LUGAL-ru 32
ú-ul e-de i-
nu-ma 33m
DUMU-mu-ia it-
ti 34
LÚ.MEŠ SA.GAZ 35
it-
ta-na-la-ku 36
ù al-lu-ú na-
ad-na-te-šu 37
i-na ŠU mad-
da-[i]a (254:30-37)
Moreover, the king wrote
for my son. I did not know
that my son was
consorting with the ʿApiru.
I herewith hand him over
to Adda[y]a.
qatal
6.7.6 9al-lu-ú-me na-ad-na-ku
10[Š]U.KAM.MI LUGAL-
ri 11
[EN]-ia 30 GUD.MEŠ
(242:9-11)
I herewith give what the
king, my [lord] requested:
30 oxen […].
qatal
6.7.7 4LUGAL be-li-ia iš-tap-
pár 5aš-šum
na4me-ku ša ša
i-bá-aš-ši 6it-ti-ia at-ta-din
7a-na LUGAL be-l[i]-ia
81
me-at KI.LÁ […] (148:4-
8)
The king, my lord, wrote
for glass. I give as much
as I have at hand, 100
units in weight to the king,
my lo[r]d.
yaqtul
6.7.8 44
[…] a-nu-um-ma 45
uš- <I> herewith send qatal (emended on
294
še-er-<ti>
mDINGIR.LUGAL
lúKIN-
ri 46
a-na maḫ-ri LUGAL
be-li-ia 47
ù at-ta-din 5
GUN ZABAR 48giš
ma-
<qì>-bu-ma 1 giš
ÙSAN? \\
qì-na-zu (151:44-48)
Ilimiluk as messenger to
the king, my lord, and I
give 5 talents of bronze,
ma<ll>ets and 1 whip.
the basis of the
qatal in the
performative
utterance in the
same letter, in line
26) + yaqtul
The use of the qatal and yaqtul in performative occurrences allows us to judge correctly the
use of the same verbal forms of the verb maqātu ―to fall‖ in the prostration formulas. In fact,
these formulas are also perfomative utterances in the sense established above. They
accompany the sending of the letter, not in a literal but in a figurative sense.8 In the
prostration formula, yaqtul is normally used:
6.7.9 6a-na GÌR.MEŠ LUGAL
EN-ia 7DINGIR.MEŠ-ia
dUTU-ia
87-šu 7-ta-a-an
am-qut (271:6-8)
I fall at the feet of the
king, my lord, 7 times and
7 times.
The formula is
widely attested.
Among others see
71:3, 103:5, 141:8,
145:4, 177:5,
182:5, 205:8,
225:7, 227:4,
239:7, 246:7,
250:3, 253:6,
265:4, 268:7,
276:8, 288:4,
317:6, 325:6,
330:8.
8 The idea of the epistolary performative used in the figurative sense is the most economic way of
accounting for the meaning of the prostration formula. For a lengthy discussion with a similar conclusion see
Dobbs-Allsopp 2004-2007, 71-81.
295
The letters which can be identified as sent from Gath or by Šuwardata employ the yaqtul
amqut several times (278:8, 279:8, 280:8, 281:6, 283:4). These letters and once a letter from
Byblos use the qatal in the same prostration formula:
6.7.10 4a-na 1 GÌR.MEŠ
LUGAL-ri EN-ia 5ma-aq-
ti-ti 7 GÌR.MEŠ LUGAL-
ri EN-ia 6ù 7 mi-la an-na
7ù ka-ba-tu-ma ù ṣú-uḫ-ru-
ma (64:4-7)
I fall at the feet of the
king, my lord, 7 times
<<the feet of the king, my
lord>> and 7 times, here
and now, both on the
stomach and on the back.
See also 63:6, 65:5,
282:4, 283:6,
284:4.5.
6.7.11 3a-na KI.TA GÌR.MEŠ
LUGAL EN-li-i[a] 47-tam
ù 7 m[a]-aq-ta-te (138:3-
4)
I f[a]ll beneath the feet of
the king, m[y] lord, 7
times and 7 times.
Letter from Byblos.
The use of qatal in the prostration formula is an idiosyncracy of one or two scribes.
However, in light of the use of qatal in other performative utterances, the qatal of maqātu ―I
fall‖ must be judged as a fully grammatical form.
296
Chapter 7
The Verb in the Amarna Letter from Canaan
as a System
7.1 The Nature and Logic of the Amarna Verbal System
7.1.1 Basic Aspectual and Temporal Oppositions
To say that qatal and yaqtulu are used for an eventuality in the past, present and future is as
true as it is misleading. Similarly, the fact that yaqtul is translated in the past and in the future
tense does not mean that this is an atemporal form which derives its temporal reference from
the context or the reader‘s interpretation. The overview of the uses of various forms shows
rather that each of them has specific usages or meanings associated with determined syntactic
environments or classes of verbs.
In the indicative, the qatal forms of the fientive verbs (verbs with lexical aspect other than
stative) always refer to the past, temporally contained events. The qatal of the lexically
stative verbs describes the states which can be temporally located in the past, the present or
the future. Qatal is therefore sensitive to the lexical aspect of the verb and exhibits radically
different meanings depending on it. In fact, the morphology of qatal should be seen as
covering two distinct forms: the past qatal and the stative. The qatal forms can be used also
in modal contexts (conditional clauses, the modal sequence) where they refer to a possible
eventuality (event or state, depending on the lexical aspect of the verb) in the future.
In the Indicative, yaqtul always refers to a temporally contained eventuality in the past. With
this meaning, it can be called Preterite yaqtul. It has a directive-volitive use which is signaled
by Verb-Subject word order. Depending on the grammatical person of the subject, the
directive-volitive yaqtul forms can be divided into: Cohortative (1st pers.), Jussive (2
nd pers.),
297
and Optative (3rd
pers.). Yaqtul occurs also in modal contexts in which it refers to a possible
action, usually in the future.
Yaqtulu refers in the indicative to an ongoing action, or an action which is repeated or cannot
be seen as a point in time but must occupy an interval because of its internal consistency.
Typically, it reports on a present, ongoing action but it can be used also for a past, ongoing
action or an action which will entirely take place or will end in the future. If used modally
outside of the modal sequence and conditional clauses, yaqtulu usually expresses ability and
more rarely obligation.
These three forms (qatal, yaqtul, and yaqtulu) are the main verbal forms in the Amarna
letters and form the backbone of the verbal system. The past qatal and the Preterite yaqtul
constantly refer to bound events which took place within the past reference time, or will
occur at some point of timeline, in the case of the modal qatal, directive-volitive and modal
yaqtul. Yaqtulu refers to events which include the reference time and usually extend beyond
it. Consequently, the past qatal and the Preterite yaqtul can be defined as coding the
perfective aspect by their morphology. Yaqtulu represents the morphological imperfective
aspect and stands in opposition to the two forms encoding the perfective aspect: qatal and
yaqtul. The constant past temporal reference of the indicative qatal and yaqtul is the default
temporal interpretation typical of the perfective aspect. The range of meanings of the yaqtulu
conforms to the typology of the imperfective: its default temporal interpretation in the
present, while the past and the future readings are signaled by the adverbial time or syntax.
The past interpretation of the qatal of the non-stative verbs and of yaqtul in indicative or non-
modal contexts is constant, that is, there is no systematic use of qatal or yaqtul to describe
present, ongoing action. This default temporal interpretation is independent in the sense that
it does not require any additional marking such as adverbial time. Even more important is the
fact that qatal or yaqtul which by default are interpreted with past reference can establish the
past reference of the verbs which occur in the same context and form a logically and
temporally related sequence of actions. In other words, they can anchor the narrative in the
past. In contrast, yaqtulu is not circumscribed to any reference time and can be used for the
past or the future, and by default for a present-ongoing action. Consequently, the verbal
system of the Amarna interlanguage is based on the fundamental aspectual and temporal
opposition between the perfective aspect encoded by qatal and yaqtul which by default have
298
the past reference and the imperfective yaqtulu which is by default interpreted as the non-
past. The peculiar characteristic of the Amarna interlanguage consists in double encoding of
the perfective aspect by both yaqtul and qatal.
As predicated by the hypothesis of the default temporal interpretation of the aspectual forms
(Smith 2008), the past or the future reference of the imperfective yaqtulu requires additional
specification. Typically, the past reference is established by the adverbial time. The adverb
most often used is pa-na-nu ―previously‖ (examples nos. 6.3.23-24.27-29), but other
adverbial phrases meaning ―since old times‖ or alike can appear too (examples nos.
6.3.22.25.30). The past reference may occur also in questions which imply the time that
elapsed (example no. 6.3.31). Finally, yaqtulu receives the past interpretation when it is
found in a sequence of past verbs or used in a clause which depends on a verb which has the
past reference and the anchoring function (qatal, yaqtul). Accordingly, the past reference of
the yaqtulu in example 6.3.26 is the only logical possibility as it occurs in a clause which
depends on another clause reporting the death of the subject of the yaqtulu. The future
reference of yaqtulu is typically signaled by the adverb a-di ―until‖ which places the action of
the yaqtulu at a point in the future (examples nos. 6.3.32-27). In some instances, the future
meaning of the yaqtulu is the most logical temporal interpretation because the action cannot
be conveniently conceptualized in the given context as ongoing in the present (examples nos.
6.3.32-36). In this case, yaqtulu should be considered modal because the following rule is
operating: if the action of yaqtulu can be logically interpreted as happening in the actual, real
world, it will be assigned the present, ongoing temporal interpretation; if the action cannot be
considered as happening now in the actual world, it will be placed in a possible world; this
implies its interpretation in the future. In other words, an utterance with yaqtulu is judged by
its placement in the actual or possible world and receives its temporal interpretation
accordingly. For instance, in example 6.3.33 the action of the yaqtulu is a future possibility
because the previous sentence reports an action opposite to the action of the yaqtulu. In
example no. 6.3.35, the action of the yaqtulu cannot be considered as happening now
according to the state of knowledge based on the other facts reported in the letter. The modal
value of this future yaqtulu form is also suggested by the fact that they can be followed by
the modal sequential yaqtul, as in example 6.3.35. In conclusion, yaqtulu refers to the future
299
in the indicative when this time reference is indicated by the adverbial time or when it is
modal, that is, when the action is a future possibility.
The aspectual forms of the Amarna interlanguage and their temporal interpretations can be
summarized as follows:
Aspect Default Temporal Reference Form
Perfective Past yaqtul, qatal
Imperfective Non-Past yaqtulu
7.1.2 The Double Nature of Qatal
Although qatal forms a morphologically consistent paradigm, it conceals in reality two forms
of a different nature: the verbal transitive qatal and the nominal stative qatal/qatil. This
distinction is crucial since the two forms are used in a different manner: the verbal qatal
refers to actions while the stative is used predicatively, that is, as the predicate of a verbless
clause. The nominal nature of the stative qatal is particularly visible in cases in which it is
used in the 3 pers. as the predicate of verbless clauses (examples 6.1.30-36). Similarly, the
qatal is nominal, not verbal, when it is used in the 1st and 2
nd person in the predicative
construction, as the Akkadian stative (Huehnergard 1987, 221-226). The qatal of the
lexically stative verbs is used as a nominal, predicative form while the qatal of the non-
stative verbs is normally a verbal form. The lexically non-stative verbs can also be used
predicatively; in this case they usually have the pattern qatil.1 The distinction of these two
forms is crucial because their temporal uses exhibit different logic.
The stative qatal/qatil exclusively predicates the quality of the state or condition. It does not
encode tense or modality. However, the state or condition predicated by the Stative qatal can
be located in the past, present or future, or be possible rather than actual. The present location
of the state predicated by the stative qatal is default because the state persists across time and
thus is ever-present. A different, past or future, temporal location of the state or condition
1 Additionally, in few instances the qatil pattern is used as the passive voice. For details see 5.1.2.2.1.
300
which is predicated by the stative qatal is usually established by other verbs in the same
sequence (examples nos. 6.1.45.50.52-53), or by the adverbial time (examples nos.
6.5.44.51.55.57). At times, the temporal location of the state is not specified because it is part
of the knowledge shared by both the sender and the addressee (example no. 6.1.43), or
because locating the state in time is not particularly important for communication (example
no. 6.1.61). The modal status of the eventuality predicated by the stative qatal (examples nos.
6.4.75-78) is not signaled explicitly but must be logically inferred.
The verbal qatal expresses actions which are temporally located in the past or the future.
With the exception of few occurrences of the 1 cs of the verb naṣāru (examples nos. 6.1.65-
67), it does not express an ongoing action in the present. The only form which expresses an
ongoing action in the present is the yaqtulu; the cases of the 1 cs of naṣāru cannot be taken as
evidence of the systematic present meaning of the verbal qatal but must be explained as
scribal idiosyncrasies, the result of a peculiar understanding of another construction by one or
two scribes. The past or the future reference of the verbal qatal is conditioned differently: the
past reference stems from the default temporal interpretation; the future reference occurs only
in modal contexts, chiefly in the modal sequence.
It is true that qatal can be used for the past, present and future eventualities. However, its
temporal reference is not established arbitrarily by the context but it is the result of the lexical
aspect of the verb and of its indicative or modal status. The following table summarizes the
different possibilities.
Type of qatal Past Present Future
Stative qatal =
predicative
construction
if established by the
adverbial time or the
verbal sequence
default if established by the
adverbial time or the
verbal sequence or
modal
Verbal qatal = action by default
interpretation of the
perfective aspect
no only if modal
301
7.1.3 Yaqtul and Qatal as Perfective Forms: Additional Arguments
The conclusion that both yaqtul and the verbal qatal share the same characteristic of
encoding the perfective aspect is supported by cases of their interchangeable use. The shared
characteristic of being perfective explains the use of both qatal and yaqtul in performative
utterances, as described in 6.7. This use further supports the identification of yaqtul and qatal
as perfective forms because it is the perfective aspect that is used in performative utterances
in Semitic languages in general (Dobbs-Allsopp 2004-2007, 36-68, 81).
Interchangeable use of the two perfective forms is visible in many passages. A convincing
illustration comes from qatal and yaqtul which occur in the phrase that refers to the message
received previously as the words, or the messenger, or something else ―which the king sent.‖
In this phrase, both qatal and yaqtul occur in the same person in the relative clause
(introduced by ša or virtual). There is no grammatical reason which would dictate the
preference for one or the other form. Also, no geographical pattern emerges as the two forms
co-occur in the same cities and are used in various regions. The following table contains the
occurrences of qatal in the phrase ―which he sent:‖
Verb Reference Region no. City no.
ša-pár 378:15 I 1
ša-pa-ra 65:7 I 2
ša-pár 320:18 I 6
š[a]-pár 211:11 VIII 40
ša-pár 226:9 VIII 40
In the same phrase, yaqtul appears in the following instances:
Verb Reference Region no. City no.
iš-pu-ur 293:9 I 1
iš-pu-ur 294:7 I 5
302
iš-tap-pár 278:9 I 2
iš-p[u]-ra-am 328:19 I 3
iš-tap-ra-an-n[i] 329:15 I 3
iš-tap-pár 276:9 I 4
iš-t[a]p-pár 277:8 I 4
iš-tap-pár 302:12 I 6
iš-t[ap]-ra-an-ni 304:17 I 6
iš-tap-ra-an-ni 305:17 I 6
iš-tap-ra-am 321:17 I 6
[i]š-tap-ra-[a]n-n[i] 253:10 II 8
iš-tap-ra-an-ni 254:7 II 8
ia-aš-tap-pár 233:16 III 13
iš-ta-pár 154:6 VI 33
Finally, the cases in which yaqtul is glossed by qatal are to be seen also in light of their
aspectual sameness:
7.1.1 4 [a-mur a]-ta-ša-aš a-na-
ku 5 [\ na]-aq-ṣa-ap-ti
6
[UGU] a-wa-te-ka […]
(93:4-6)
[Look, I] became
distressed [: na]-aq-ṣa-
ap-ti (angry) [because of]
your words, […].
Although the forms
are partially
reconstructed, they
are certainly yaqtul
and qatal.
7.1.2 11
li-il-ma-ad LUGAL-ru
EN-ia 12
i-nu-ma lú
SA.GAZ
[ša] 13
yi-na-aš-ši \ na-aš-
ša-a 14
i-na KUR.KI.ḪI.A
na-da-an 15
DINGIR-lu4 ša
May the king, my lord, be
informed that the ʿApiru
[that] rose up: na-aš-ša-a
against the lands, the god
of the king, my lord, gave
303
LUGAL-ri EN-ia a-na ia-
ši 16
ù i-du-uk-šu […]
(366:11-16)
to me, and I smote him.
7.1.4 Sequential Nature of Verbal Syntax and Semantics
The description of verbal syntax and semantics is impossible if one relies only on relating the
morphology of each form to the meaning it may have. In fact, every morphological form has
an array of possible meanings and translational values; nevertheless, ―in the context‖ it is
almost always clear which meaning is intended. This intuitive role of the context can be at
least partially described in terms of syntax and of the implications of certain forms that
project beyond the boundaries of a single phrase. In other words, it is necessary to pay
attention to the way in which every verb is meaningfully incorporated into the sequence of
adjacent verbs in order to produce a coherent picture of the entire narrative or argument.
Consequently, the verbal system of the Amarna interlanguage should be described not only in
terms of morphology, but also in terms of verbal sequences or of the impact of some forms or
syntactic constructions on the meaning of the adjacent verbs. This dimension of the verbal
system of the Amarna interlanguage can be referred to as its sequential nature. It must be
stressed that it does not cancel the impact and meaning of the morphology of verbs and their
syntax, but it relies on them and with regard of the verbal syntax, it can be conceived as a
way of describing its parts.
The verbal sequence in which the meaning of the verbs is mutually conditioned can be
defined as a string of phrases or sentences which are characterized by the sequential
coherence of their message. This definition of the verbal sequence includes both the
sequences of subordinated clauses which necessarily form a syntactic unit with the main
clause and the sequences of coordinated clauses (beginning with the conjunction u or
constructed asyndetically). The logical relationship between two coordinated clauses in a
sequence may often demand the use of subordination in the translation because other
languages require explicit marking of the logical relationship between the message of two
clauses in cases where the Amarna interlanguage leaves such a relationship open to the
304
interpretative logic of the discourse instead of marking it explicitly, as in the following
examples:
7.1.3 16
[…] mi-nu 17m
ÌR-a-ši-ir-
ta ÌR 18
UR.ZÍR ù yi-ìl-qu
19KUR LUGAL a-na ša-a-
šu 20
mi-nu ti-la-at-šu 21
ù
KALAG.GA […] (71:16-
21)
What is ʿAbdi-ashirta,
servant and dog, that he
takes the land of the king
for himself? What is his
auxiliary force that it is
strong?
7.1.4 8ù mi-ia-ti a-na-ku ù
9yi-
iḫ-li-qú LUGAL-ru
KUR.KI-šu 10
UGU-ia [...]
(254:8-10)
Who am I that the king
should lose his land on
account of me?
7.1.5 44
[…] ma-ni
45UD.KÁM.MEŠ-ti yi-šal-
la-l[u]-š[i] 46
ù en-ni-ip-ša-
at [ki-ma] 47
ri-qi ḫu-bu-l[i]
48a-na ša-šu […] (292:44-
48)
How long has he gone on
plunder[ing] i[t] so that it
has become, thanks to him,
[like] a pot held in
pledg[e].
Although the criterion of sequential coherence of the message seems vague, there is usually
little doubt where the sequence begins and where it ends because of various syntactic,
discourse, and thematic signals. Among them are: the change of subject marked by the
change of person, number or gender of the verb, or the introduction of a new subject,
coordination and subordination, change of the type of sentence to a question or a command
marked by an interrogative pronoun or a directive-volitive form. Adverbs and discourse
markers contribute to the delimitation of the verbal sequences too. In fact, verbal sequences
are often preceded by the adverb ša-ni-tam ―secondly, moreover‖ or a-nu-ma ―now‖ which
begin a new discourse unit of the letter and thus a new sequence.
With regard to the expression of time, verbal forms can be divided into two fundamental
categories: the forms which can establish the past reference of the forms in the same
305
sequence and the forms which cannot do this. Consequently, the verbal system is
characterized by a basic opposition between the past and the non-past, the latter being the
default temporal orientation. The forms which establish the past reference of a sequence are
yaqtul and the verbal qatal. The stative qatal and yaqtulu are by default non-past and their
reference other than the present must be established by other verbs in the sequence or the
adverbial time, unless they can be given a resultative interpretation, that is, understood as
referring to an ongoing eventuality which is the result of a previous one.
Keeping in mind the sequential manner of establishing the time reference of some verbal
forms, it is possible to return to previous examples of non-present stative qatal and yaqtulu to
individuate the particular element of the sequence which established the time reference of
these verbs. And so, in example no. 6.1.52 the stative qatal da-nu refers to the past as it is
preceded by the temporal clause with the past verbal qatal and followed by the main clause
with the past verbal qatal. Similar is example no. 6.1.53 in which the past reference of the
stative qatal ta-ri-iṣ is established by the preceding and following yaqtul. In example no.
6.1.55 the stative qatal ma-a-di refers to a state which will last in the future till the point
specified by the adverbial phrase. In a similar manner a clause with the stative qatal can have
the past time reference because of the adverbial time, as in example no. 6.1.51. Also the past
yaqtulu is often accompanied by the adverb of time with the past reference, as in examples
nos. 6.3.23 or 6.3.24. In cases in which the stative qatal reports the state resulting of the
previous past action, it can be interpreted both in the past or present time (examples nos.
6.1.48-49).
The sequential determination of the past reference of the stative qatal and of yaqtulu is
confirmed by cases in which there is no past verbal qatal, yaqtul or an adverb with the past
reference in the verbal sequence. In these cases, the time of the eventualities in the sequence
remains undetermined. Such a sequence may be referred both to the past or the present, with
the preference for the interpretation in the present which is default for the stative qatal and
yaqtulu. And so, example no 6.1.61 is temporally vague while example 6.1.57 has the past
reference thanks to the adverb.
Thus, it can be concluded that the expression of time of the eventualities in the indicative
sentences relies on the default temporal interpretation of the perfective forms (the Preterite
yaqtul and the verbal qatal) compounded by the principle of extension of this past reference
306
to the verbs in the same verbal sequence. In this manner a verb or a sequence of verbs is
assigned the past rather than the default non-past time. Correspondingly, the principle of
sequentiality operates also to express modality.
7.1.5 Modality
A fruitful description of modality in the Amarna letters from Canaan must begin with the
simple fact that all three major verbal forms (qatal, yaqtul, and yaqtul) are used in reference
not only to eventualities in the actual world but also in reference to events and states in
possible worlds. In other words, the same forms are used in the indicative and non-indicative
or modal contexts. This being so, the basic question concerning modality is the way in which
the modal reading of an individual form is signaled. This question is crucial because the
verbal system of the Amarna letters from Canaan is characterized by a deep dichotomy
between the indicative and modal uses of the verbal forms. In fact, all cases in which qatal
and yaqtul refer to future eventualities occur in modal contexts, while only yaqtulu can be
used for the future in an indicative context. Therefore, although all major forms can be used
for eventualities in the future, it is so for different reasons.
The way in which modality is signaled is related to the concept of modality broadly defined,
and also in its opposition to the indicative mood which is the default mood of
communication. The fact that a verbal form must be interpreted with a modal meaning, that
is, as referring to an eventuality in a possible rather than in the actual world, can be signaled
explicitly or must be inferred the basis of logic and the knowledge shared by the participants
in the act of communication. In the second case, modality is signaled implicitly. In all cases
of modal meanings, the choice of modal verbs used to translate the modal sequences reflects
the logical relationships of the lexical meanings of the verbs. On the level of grammar, only
opposition between indicative and non-indicative meaning is relevant.
There are two main cases in which modality is signaled explicitly: the modal sequence (6.4)
and conditional clauses (6.5). The reason why these two syntactic environments signal
modality in the sense defined above is simple. In fact, the protasis of the conditional clause is
an explicit statement that the eventualities contained in it and in the following clauses which
307
depend on it are to be located in a possible world rather than in the actual one. The existence
of this possible world is sanctioned by the fulfillment of the condition contained in the
protasis. Similarly, the existence of the eventualities which follow the directive-volitive form
in the modal sequence is conditioned by the fulfillment of the action which is requested or
wished. In these two contexts, all forms are used with modal meaning and therefore one must
conclude that modality in the Amarna letters from Canaan is not morphologically marked.
A verbal form may receive a modal reading also in cases in which its default, indicative
meaning results in a logical and cognitive impossibility because it goes against facts which
are certain, or in cases where a modal reading leads to a more logical interpretation of the
verbal sequence. In the first case, the modal reading is obligatory; in the second case, it is
possible. Consequently, the interpretation of each utterance entails a judgment (done
intuitively by the native users of the Amarna interlanguage in conformity with their innate
linguistic faculties) on the plausibility of the indicative vis-à-vis the modal interpretation of a
particular eventuality in the context of the verbal sequence. If the verb can be interpreted
with its default indicative value, the time is assigned using the default temporal interpretation
of the aspectual forms and the principle of sequentiality. Should the indicative reading of the
verb be impossible or implausible, the verb is interpreted as expressing a possible
eventuality. This modal interpretation normally refers to a future possibility, unless the entire
verbal sequence refers to the past. Finally, implicit signaling of modality is also responsible
for the virtual marking of conditional clauses. In most cases in which modality is signaled
implicitly, it is possible to reconstruct the reasoning behind the modal interpretation assigned
to a particular utterance.
In the following example, the qatal ir-ba-ta must be interpreted modally since, according to
the shared knowledge of the facts, the pharaoh (the subject of this verb) did not arrive and
consequently its indicative interpretation is excluded. The modal meaning of the first verb
leads to the modal reading of the verb which follows in the sequence in a way similar to a
conditional clause. Various possible English rendering of this passage show that the structure
and forms possess only general modal meaning in opposition to the indicative: ―As soon as
you enter… you must write…‖ or ―if you enter… you should write…:‖
7.1.6 37
[ù ir]-ba-ta a-na URU- [As soon a you [en]ter the Qatal + yaqtul
308
lim ù 38
[iš]-tu ŠÀ-ši ta-
šap-pár a-na [ia-ši]
(102:37-38)
city, it is [fr]om there you
must write me.
In a similar passage, the modal meaning is clear thanks to the negation which forces the
modal interpretation of the sequence: ―they do not hear (yet) but they (already) wrote.‖ The
action of the second verb is modal as it follows an action expressed by the first verb but
which is made hypothetical by the negation:
7.1.7 9LÚ.MEŠ GAZ.MEŠ it-ti-
šu 10
ù LÚ.MEŠ ḫa-za-nu-
tu ú-ul 11
ti-ìš-mu-na mi-
im-ma 12
ù šap-ru a-na ša-
a-šu (82:9-12)
All the ʿApiru are on his
side and as soon as the
mayors hear anything,
they write to him.
Negated yaqtulu +
qatal
Also in the following passage the verb is under the scope of negation in the main clause.
Consequently, its action can be interpreted as modal and this modal meaning is carried over
to the next verb in the verbal sequence:
7.1.8 14
[…] ú-ul 15
ša-ap-[r]a-ti
a-na LUGAL-ri ia-nu
16LÚ ša-a [y]u-ba-lu
DUB-pí-ia 17
a-na É.GAL
a-nu-ma 2 LÚ an-nu-tu
18tu-ba-lu-na DUB-pí a-
na LUGAL-ri (117:14-18)
Did I not wr[it]e to the
king, ―There is no one who
will/can [b]ring my tablet
to the palace. It is these
two men that must bring a
tablet to the king.‖
Yaqtulu + yaqtulu
The modal meaning is often implicit in the questions. In fact, many questions imply that the
action is better conceived not in the actual, but in a possible world, as in the following
example in which the sequence of verbs which follow the question can be also explained as a
virtual conditional clause:
7.1.9 12
ma-an-nu LÚ-lum 13
ù ša-
pár LUGAL 14
EN-šu a-na
Who is the ruler-should
the king, his lord, write to
Qatal + negated
yaqtulu
309
ša-šu 15
ù la-a yi-iš-[m]u-
mi (232:12-15)
him-that would not
ob[e]y?
The modal meaning is typically implicit with yaqtulu, as it can be seen in examples nos.
6.3.60-77. In these examples, the modal reading of yaqtulu arises typically in a question, or
after a negation or in cases where the action is better conceived in a possible world because it
contradicts the state of affairs in the actual world (6.3.72 - Rib-Hadda is alive) or it is used in
an imaginary comparison (6.3.68).
A minor role in interpreting the verbs in modal sequence is played by the forms ending in -a.
Since modality is in general not marked morphologically in the Amarna letters from Canaan,
it is implausible to assign the role of a peculiar marker of modality to the final -a in yaqtula.
Rather, as explained in 6.4, it is a marker of subordination used in modal contexts. Its
understanding as marking a subordinated form or mood is supported by the fact of its limited
distribution. In fact, the use of this morpheme is licensed by the directive-volitive form and
limited to the modal sequence.
7.1.6 The Minor Forms and Morphemes
The backbone of the Amarna verbal system is constituted by the aspectual (and derivatively
temporal) opposition between the perfective coded by yaqtul and the verbal qatal and the
imperfective coded by yaqtulu. These forms can be used with indicative or modal meanings,
in the main or subordinate clauses and in every grammatical person. Other verbal forms are
limited in their use to certain meanings, syntactic environments, or to a grammatical person
and number. To capture this obvious fact, it is useful to divide all verbal forms into major and
minor. The major forms are yaqtul, the verbal qatal and yaqtulu. The minor forms and
morphemes with their uses can be summarized as follows:
Forms and Morphemes Uses
yaqtul-a subordination marker used only with the prefixed form forming
a subordinate mood used only in the modal sequence
310
the Energic -na optional morpheme added usually to yaqtulu and sometimes to
the imperative and possibly to yaqtula for ―emphasis‖
Imperative direct command in the 2nd
pers.
Prohibitive = negation
+ yaqtul
direct prohibition in the 2nd
pers.
Precative the Akkadian-like form which begins with the l- and occurs
interchangeably with the Optative yaqtul
Infinitive a nominal form used at times in lieu of a finite verb. For these
cases see Moran 2003, 54-57 and Rainey 1996, vol. 2, 383-388.
7.2 Forms and Uses of Certain Verbs
Some verbs require additional comments because of the way in which their tense, mood and
aspect are expressed or the forms in which they were fossilized.
buʾʾû: The verb buʾʾû is used only in the D stem and means ―to search for, wish for, to
intend.‖ In the Amarna letters it conveys typically the idea of wishing for something,
intending an action and being actively engaged in its completion (Rainey 1996, vol. 2, 140-
146). Because of various nuances of meaning used by individual Amarna scribes, it is
difficult to decide if this verb is lexically stative (―long for, wish for‖) or rather it belongs to
the class of activity verbs (―to look for, attempt‖). Classification as an activity verb seems
more probable as it is often used in reference to the enemies‘ plots. At any rate, it
presupposes a state or action which is prolonged in time. Consequently, it is possible to
predict that this verb should be paired with the imperfective form yaqtulu which often refers
to actions extended over a period of time. This is indeed the case: out of twenty nine
occurrences of this verb registered in the database, twenty six are yaqtulu forms which are
used typically in reference to the present-ongoing action (for example, in 73:20.24, 91:13.22,
109:25.53.55, 362:24.45.58) and rarely for the past (85:52, 91:13). The association of buʾʾû
311
with the imperfective yaqtulu does not, however, preclude its use in the perfective, when
required. In fact, this verb occurs in yaqtul in 287:35 and qatal in 264:6.20.
edû: The verb edû is a lexically stative verb meaning ―to know,‖ but in the Amarna letters
from Canaan it is used also with the nuance of ―to take cognizance of.‖ Since this verb is
lexically stative, one might expect its use in the Stative qatal in reference to the present or
past state of knowledge. This verb, however, is never used in qatal. Contrary to
Mesopotamian Akkadian, it occurs in the Amarna letters from Canaan also in the Precative
(for example, in 148:43, 155:21.40, 174:18, 177:6, 182:6, 239:22, 249:5, 257:8.17, 286:25,
287:11.48.57, 364:24 but never in the letters from Byblos). With few exceptions, it is used
only in the yaqtul form, both as Indicative and as Optative. Its prevalent use in the short form
yaqtul in reference to the present state of knowledge represent a case of partial acquisition of
the form of the target language, since this form, although morphologically a Preterite, has no
specific tense value in Mesopotamian Akkadian. Corollary to the use of the same form for
the Indicative and the Optative is the difficulty of distinguishing at times which of two
meanings is intended by the scribe. Since the directive-volitive yaqtul as a rule precedes the
subject, the position of the verb usually clarifies which form is intended. However, this is not
always the case, as the subject can be fronted before the Optative:
7.1.10 20
[…] ù 21
a-nu-[m]a d[a]-
an-nu 22
lú
SA.GAZ.MEŠ
UGU-nu 23
ù LUGAL i-de
24a-na KUR.KI.MEŠ-šu
(305:20-24)
As the ʿApiru are more
powerful than we, may the
king take cognizance of
his lands.
The occurrence of the yaqtulu of edû in 112:36 and 182:14 conforms to the pattern of the use
of yaqtulu with the adverb a-di when the future eventuality is intended (examples nos.
6.3.37-40). The yaqtulu forms of edû in 119:38.39 are idiosyncrasies without parallels. They
might be cases of a scribal lapsus linguae or hypercorrection, or else they might indicate that
the scribe of this letter was not familiar with the use of the yaqtul/Preterite of edû for the
present.
raʾāmu: The verb raʾāmu belongs to the aspectual class of stative verbs and means ―to love.‖
Consequently, its use in the Stative qatal is expected. However, only two of its ten
312
attestations occur in qatal (138:71, 362:55). Twice the yaqtulu of this verb is employed. In
114:68 it occurs in a question and thus it can be compared to the use of the modal-future
yaqtulu in questions. In 106:40 and 286:18 the yaqtulu forms of raʾāmu refer to the present
eventuality. The occurrences of yaqtul of this verb constitute a crux since they seem to refer
to the present, ongoing condition or action of loving for which the Stative qatal or the
yaqtulu might be expected. It has been suggested that the use of the yaqtul in [š]a ti-ra-am
dUTU ―whom the Sun-god loves‖ (323:22-23) reflects the perfective passive participle in the
parallel Egyptian epithet mry Rʿ ―beloved of Ra‖ (Rainey 1989-1990, 72) but this
explanation is hardly tenable in light of other similar cases (73:18, 83:51). It must be recalled
that in these cases the raʾāmu refers not to the feeling of love but to the political dimension
of love, that is, the making of an alliance and fidelity to it (Moran 1963). Since the verb
raʾāmu is lexically stative, its yaqtul has most probably an ingressive nuance, as other cases
of yaqtul of stative verbs (examples nos. 6.2.11-14). Considering together the particular
political usage of this verb and the ingressive meaning of its yaqtul, the cases in which the
yaqtul of raʾāmu seems to refer to the present love are better taken as referring literally to the
moment in which the relationship of love (that is, alliance) began. Obviously, this
relationship continues and thus the present translation seems suitable, even if this is not the
literal meaning of the form.
7.3 The Verbal System of the Letters from Tyre
The letters from Tyre do not employ the common system of verbal forms as attested in other
letters from Canaan. This conclusion in based on the simple fact that among the one hundred
eleven prefixed forms from Tyre which were recorded during the present research there are
no yaqtula forms while three yaqtulu forms in this corpus can be interpreted as instances of
the use of the Akkadian subordination marker -u, although their parsing as Canaanite yaqtulu
forms cannot be excluded.2
2 The interpretation of e-lí-ú in 155:34 as a yaqtulu is probable but not entirely certain because of the
broken context. Therefore, it is not included here.
313
7.3.1 42
[…] e-nu-ma aš-te-mu
43šu-um LUGAL ù šu-um
um-ma-ni-šu 44
ù pal-ḫu
ma-gal ù gáb-bi 45
KUR-ti
pal-ḫa-at ù ša-a la-a 46
i-
la-ak a-na EGIR LUGAL
be-li-ia (149:42-46)
When I hear the name of
the king and the name of
his army, they will be very
afraid, and all the land will
be afraid, that is, he who
does not follow the king,
my lord.
The final -u in aš-
te-mu can be
justified by the
conjunction e-nu-
ma. Note, however,
that there is no
final -u on i-la-ak
in the relative
clause in line 46.
7.3.2 67
ù uru
ṣu-mu-ra ṣa-ab-tù-
nim 68
i-na uzu
pí mzi-im-re-
da 69
ša ú-ba-lu4 a-ma-tam
LUGAL 70
a-na ma-zi-ra
[…] (149:67-70)
They captured Ṣumur
through the instructions of
Zimredda, who brings the
word of the king to Aziru.
The form ending in
-u occurs in the
relative clause. Its
meaning fits also
its parsing as
yaqtulu. But, in the
same letter, a verb
in the relative
clause (the
previous example)
does not have the -
u ending.
7.3.3 12
iš-mi-ni-ma e-nu-ma 13
i-
ra-bu ù i-pu-uš 14
nu-kúr-
tum it-ti-ia […] (151:12-
14)
He heard that I was going
and he waged war with
me.
The verb i-ra-bu
occurs after the
conjunction e-nu-
ma but it can be
parsed also as
yaqtulu.
These instances of the yaqtulu/subordination marker epitomize interlingual identifications
which eventually led to the introduction of the yaqtulu to the Amarna interlanguage. In fact,
in these cases a verb ending in -u could be used in both the Akkadian and Canaanite
314
languages. In turn, this parallel use might lead to the identification of the Akkadian
subordinate verbs with the scribes‘ native yaqtulu.
The use of the suffixed conjugation differs from the pattern of other Amarna letters from
Canaan. Qatal is almost twice as rare as in other letters, and there is a strong preference for
the lexically stative verbs to occur in qatal. In other letters from Canaan there are 671
registered occurrences of qatal out of total 2504 verbs taken in account (26.80%). In Tyre,
there are 25 qatals among 170 analyzed verbs (14.70%). The difference in the use of the
stative roots with qatal is also striking: in Canaan, among 671 qatal forms, 210 derive from
stative verbs (31.30%); in Tyre 14 out of 25 qatal forms are derived from stative roots (56%).
This profile of the use of qatal in Tyre can be interpreted as evidence of a verbal usage that is
closer to core Akkadian, as the suffix form is rarer and preferred for expressing the stative
meaning.
Since Tyrian letters do not employ the Canaanite prefixed forms to express the categories of
tense, mood, and aspect, the question of how they code these categories naturally arises. This
question cannot be satisfactorily answered on the basis of the available evidence but, upon
the reading of some passages, one gains impression that the scribes were well aware of the
Akkadian verbal system and tried to emulate it both in morphology and semantics. However,
they were able to do so only in an imperfect manner and the evidence reflects this. The
clearest example of this is the following:
7.3.4 67
[…] a-mur LÚ uru
P[Ú-
r]u-ti i-na 68
[1] giš
MÁ a-li-
ik ù LÚ uru
ṣí-du-[n]a i-na 2
gišM[Á]
69[i]-la-ak ù a-na-
ku i-la-ak qa-du gáb-[b]i
gišMÁ-k[a] (155:67-69)
Look, as the ruler of
B[ei]rut has done service
with [one] ship, and the
ruler of Sido[n] is [d]oing
service with two shi[ps], I
will do service with a[l]l
yo[ur] ships.
It seems that in this passage the vowel alternation in a-li-ik vs. i-la-ak is meant to convey the
temporal opposition between the past and present-future actions in a way similar to the
315
Akkadian Preterit illik vs. Durative illak.3 There are other passages in which Durative-like
forms with the medial vowel /a/ can be interpreted as referring to the present-ongoing action.
However, in some cases they can be understood as referring to a past action, too, and
consequently they cannot provide a conclusive answer to the question of the possible use of
the Durative in Tyrian letters.
7.3.5 61
ù a-nu-um-ma a-na-an-
ṣur 62uru
ṣur-ri URU ra-bi-
tu 63
a-na LUGAL be-li-ia
a-di 64
i-yu-ṣí Á LUGAL
da-na-tu i-na UGU-ḫi-ia
65a-na na-da-an me-e a-na
šu-ta-ia 66
ù GIŠ.MEŠ a-na
šu-ḫu-ni-ia […] (147:61-
66)
I am indeed guarding
Tyre, the principal city, for
the king, my lord, until the
powerful arm of the king
comes forth over me, to
give me water to drink and
wood to warm myself.
The verb a-na-an-
ṣur must refer to
the present-future
action since the
next clause
specifies the end
point of the action
in the future. Note
that in similar
passages with a-di
in the letters from
Canaan yaqtulu is
used (examples
nos. 6.3.37-40) but
here yaqtul is used.
7.3.6 9 […] i-na-an-ṣur 1
l[ú]wi-
ú 10
URU LUGAL EN-ia ù
11a-n[a-k]u i-ra-ab
12a-na
da-ga-li 13
pa-ni LUGAL
be-li-ia (150:9-13)
Should a single soldier
guard the city of the king,
my lord, then [I] would go
in to behold the face of the
king, my lord.
7.3.7 6an-nu-ú a-na-an-ṣúr
URU LUGAL 7ša ip-qí-id
I am indeed guarding
carefully the city of the
Th translation of a-
na-an-ṣúr in the
3 Another case of i-la-ak used for the present occurs in 45 [...] ša-a la-a 46
i-la-ak a-na EGIR LUGAL be-
li-ia ―he who does not follow the king, my lord‖(149:45-46).
316
a-na qa-ti-ia ma-gal
(151:6-7)
king that he put in my
charge.
past is possible but
similar passages
(for example,
65:10, 142:12,
243:10, 316:10)
suggest that the
present-future
action is intended.
See also example
7.1.15.
7.3.8 11
ša-ni-tam iš-tu pa-ṭá-ri
12ERÍN.MEŠ LUGAL EN-
lí-ia 13
UGU-ḫi-ia la-a i-
na-an-din-ni 14
LÚ uru
ṣí-
du-na 15
LÚ.MEŠ-ia a-ra-
da 16
a-na er-ṣé-ti 17
a-na
la-qí GIŠ.MEŠ 18
la-qí
A.MEŠ a-na ši-ti (154:11-
18)
Moreover, since the
departure of the troops of
the king, my lord, from
me, the ruler of Sidon does
not allow me or my
people to go to the land to
fetch wood or to fetch
water for drinking.
7.3.9 7LUGAL iq-bi a-na ÌR-šu
[ù] 8a-na ÌR
fma-ia-a-ti
9a-
na na-da-ni še-ḫu ù a-n[a]
10A.MEŠ \ mi-ma a-na ši-
te-šu 11
ù la-a i-pu-uš-šu-
nim 12
ki-ma qa-bi LUGAL
be-li-ia 13
la-a i-na-an-din-
nu-nim (155:7-13)
The king ordered
concerning his servant
[and] the servant of Maya-
ati to give breath and water
: mi-ma for his drink, but
they do not act in
accordance with the
command of the king, my
lord; they do not give
(these things).
Moran 1992, 214
understands the
verbs as referring
to the past actions:
―they have not
acted,‖ ―they have
not given.‖
317
Another very distinct characteristic of the letters from Tyre consists in the absolute lack of
spellings of the 3 ms verbal prefix with the sign PI, the hallmark of Amarna orthography. In
fact, there is no single occurrence of such a spelling among the seventy registered instances
of 3 ms yaqtul forms.4
Very noticeable also is the use of the Precative as the directive-volitive and modal form
rather than the yaqtul. The exclusive use of the Precative in place of the Optative yaqtul is
known also in the letters from Jerusalem. The consistent use of the Precative in instances in
which a modal sequence would occur in letters from Canaan is unparalleled:
7.3.10 9li-it-ta-din LUGAL be-li-
ia 10
pa-ni-šu a-na ÌR-šu
11ù li-id-di-din
uruú-zu
ki
12a-na ÌR-šu DUG \\ a-ku-
lí \ mi-ma 13
a-na ši-te-šu
li-it-ta-din 14
LUGAL be-
li-ia 10 LÚ.GÌR 15
a-na na-
ṣa-ri 16
URU-šu ù li-ru-ub
17ù li-mur pa-ni LUGAL
be-li-ia (148:9-17)
May the king, my lord,
give his attention to his
servant and give the city of
Usu to his servant so he
can drink a jug : a-ku-ni of
: mi-ma (water). May the
king give 10 palace
attendants to guard his city
in order that I may enter
and see the face of the
king, my lord.
The following gloss strongly suggests that the scribes were aware of the differences between
the language their wrote and their own native speech:
7.3.11 69
[…] li-id-d[in] 70
pa-ni-
šu LUGAL a-na ÌR-šu ù
li-sà-ḫar \\ yu-ṣa (151:69-
70)
May the king giv[e] his
attention to his servant and
return : yu-ṣa (come
forth).
Instead of the modal sequence typical for the letters from Canaan, this passage uses two
Precatives. The second Precative is glossed by the scribe‘s native form yaqtula. This form
4 The form i-yu-ṣí (147:64) is difficult to interpret. Is the second sign an alternative spelling of the
prefix?
318
could be parsed as ending with the Akkadian Ventive but it occurs where yaqtula occurs in
the modal sequences and thus it is better understood as reflecting this Canaanite form.
Further indication of its Canaanite character is provided by the spelling of the prefix with the
sign PI which does not occur in the Akkadian of the letters from Tyre. The fact that this form
occurs as a gloss indicates that in the scribe‘s mind the proper Akkadian use required the
Precative when his native language used yaqtula.
Finally, the letters from Tyre contain a minor peculiarity of the verbal morphology: the use of
the Ventive morpheme with the preserved mimmation and spelled -nim on 3mp verbs, in
conformity with core Akkadian usage. In other letters from Canaan, this morpheme is rare
(for example, pu-ḫu-ru-nim-mi in 74:31 and i-nam-mu-šu-nim in 87:23 from Byblos) and
more often spelled without mimmation (pal-ḫu-ni in 89:43, yi-pu-šu-ni in 270:10). Seen in
this light, the five occurrences of the Ventive -nim in the Tyrian corpus seem remarkable: ip-
ḫu-ru-nim (149:61), ṣa-ab-tù-nim (149:67), i-pu-uš-šu-nim (155:11), i-na-an-din-nu-nim
(155:13), aš-bu-nim (155:66). Since the occurrences are confined to just two letters, however,
it is also possible that they represent a trait of the idiolect of an individual scribe.
Given all these peculiarities of the verbal morphology and usages, a distinct character of the
verbal system of the letter from Tyre is apparent. It can be described as closer to core
Akkadian usages than other letters from Canaan. In fact, the Canaanite prefix conjugations
are not used, the 3 ms verbal prefix is vocalic, wishes are expressed with the Akkadian
Precative rather than the Canaanite Optative yaqtul, and one gains the impression that the
scribes were aware of the existence and use of the Durative. The distinctiveness and more
advanced level of the verbal system of the Tyrian letters is comprehensible from the
perspective of interlanguage and second language acquisition: the idiolect of these letters
represents a case of better acquisition of the features of Akkadian, the target language. The
appropriateness of the model of interlanguage to comprehend the language of the Tyrian
letters, and of the Amarna letters from Canaan in general, is confirmed by the fact that the
more advanced level of the acquisition of the second language is mirrored by the literary
sophistication of letter no. 147 which contains a long and refined hymnic address to the
pharaoh as sun-god. Taken together these two facts indicate that the scribe or scribes who
wrote the Tyrian letters had access to better schooling and educational materials (scholarly
and literary compositions), and consequently were able to reach a better level of linguistic
319
and literary skill. This correlation of the level of language and the literary education found in
the letters from Tyre fits nicely with the wider thesis presented in chapter 4 which linked the
formation of the Amarna interlanguage to the level of teaching materials and scribal training.
Thus, the distinctiveness of the verbal system of the Tyrian letters further confirms the
correctness of the understanding of the Amarna language as scribal interlanguage.
7.4 The Amarna Verbal System in a Larger Semitic Perspective
The nature of the Amarna interlanguage cautions against immediate comparison with verbal
forms and usages attested in natural Semitic languages. In fact, individual verbal forms may
be used not only in accordance with proper Akkadian or Canaanite usage but they may also
represent cases of errors, over-analysis, hypercorrection or misunderstanding of the Akkadian
forms or of the use of a limited inventory of forms memorized by the scribe.5 Consequently,
it is methodologically unsound to quote one or two passages or forms as evidence for their
counterparts in Canaanite or as evidence of active knowledge of Akkadian paradigms and
semantics. The same possibility that we are dealing with forms and usages created by the
scribes ad-hoc or representing their mistaken analysis of Akkadian or of their native forms
and usages excludes the use of a simplistic procedure which would automatically identify all
non-core Akkadian elements with features of Canaanite grammar. Such a method is also
dubious because of the features which occur both in the Akkadian and the Canaanite
languages and represent their shared Semitic heritage. Instead, one must compare systemic
uses of individual forms.
The verbal system of the Amarna letters from Canaan as understood in the present study
appears to show the binary opposition most commonly marked by bound morphology in
languages of the world: the opposition between perfective and imperfective aspect and,
consequently by the default time interpretation, between the past and non-past time reference
of these aspectual forms (Bybee and Dahl 1989, 83, 95). Similarly, the range of the use of the
5 See examples nos. 6.1.65-67 which constitute unique examples of the use of qatal for the present,
ongoing action. They are most probably due to the over-analysis of the Akkadian injunctive use of Stative with
the particle lū.
320
imperfective form for both the past and the ongoing present, and also for habitual
eventualities, fits the typology of the imperfective (Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca 1994, 125-
127). Also, the contextual determination of the use of the perfective and imperfective forms
for the future (modal for the perfective qatal and yaqtul, modal and aspectual for the
imperfective yaqtulu) is typical for aspectual futures (Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca 1994,
275). The main atypical element of the Amarna verbal system in this respect is the coding of
the perfective aspect by two different forms, the yaqtul and the verbal qatal. This element
requires a historical and comparative explanation.
Before proceeding to the evaluation of individual forms and usages, it is necessary to argue
in favour of the Canaanite nature of the verbal system as attested in the Amarna letters in
general. Obviously, the letters do not employ the Akkadian tense, mood, and aspect marking
and thus, most logically, the system must be Canaanite in general terms. This assessment,
based on the observation that the Canaanite prefix conjugations are used without regard to
the semantics of the Akkadian forms (Tropper and Vita 2010, 61), can be supported with two
more arguments deriving from the discussion of the Amarna interlanguage in 4.3. First, since
the possibility of interlingual identifications affects all four major forms of the verbal system
in Akkadian and Canaanite, it is probable that also all usages attested in a systematic manner
are due to transfer from the native language of the scribes rather than to the acquisition of the
Akkadian categories. This assessment must, however, be qualified: the basically Canaanite
nature of the Amarna verbal system does not exclude the possibility of the acquisition of
certain Akkadian verbal forms or usages, both systematically and by individual scribes. An
evident example of such a form is the Akkadian Precative used through various cities. The
second argument is based on the intuitive and spontaneous nature of language transfer rather
than its analytical nature. In fact, the substitution of Akkadian internal marking (iprus,
iptaras vs. iparras) with Canaanite external marking (yaqtul vs. yaqtulu) prevented the
Canaanite scribes from understanding the logic of the Akkadian system and thus resulted in
the use of their native categories. This observation makes it more probable that the use of the
yaqtul for the past was due rather to the existence of such a form in their native language
rather than to a selective appropration of the Akkadian iprus. Finally, a third argument can be
added: the coherence of the verbal system in itself and throughout various cities. Since all the
letters, with the exception of the Tyrian corpus, exhibit the same verbal usages with only
321
minor variations, it is more probable that this general uniformity is a result of the transfer of
the common Canaanite verbal system in toto rather than only a partial mixing which would
produce divergent results depending on the individual scribes and their education. Given that
the Amarna verbal forms represent basically Canaanite usages, it is possible to compare their
syntax and semantics to the forms and usages known from natural ancient Semitic languages
and thus use them in the historical reconstruction of the Semitic verbal system.
Yaqtul: The Canaanite yaqtul is historically continued by the prefix conjugation of individual
West Semitic languages. Some usages observable in the Amarna letters can be compared to
the uses found later in North-west Semitic languages, most notably in Biblical Hebrew.
The consistent use of the yaqtul in clauses with Verb-Subject word order (that is, in initial
position in the clause) as the Optative corresponds to the same use of the prefix conjugation
yiqtol in Biblical Hebrew (Niccacci 1987). Since the Biblical yiqtol is a result of the
coalescence of two historically distinct forms, yaqtul and yaqtulu, the Optative use of the
forms which can be traced back to yaqtulu rather than to yaqtul originated from the
appropriation of the Optative use of yaqtul by the original yaqtulu forms. This process was
facilitated by the similarity of the two forms, once the final vowel had fallen (Cook 2012,
246).
Although it is commonly accepted that the past narrative wayyiqtol form is to be traced to the
corresponding use of the yaqtul (Cook 2012, 257), it is unclear to what extent such a use of
yaqtul was alive in Late Bronze Age Canaanite dialects. Unfortunately, the Amarna letters do
not provide the definitive answer to this question because of the restrained nature of the
evidence. First, the Canaanite yaqtul is marked by the zero-ending and thus it can be argued
that the use of yaqtul forms in the Amarna letters from Canaan represent the successful
acquisition of the Akkadian Preterite iprus rather than the active use of yaqtul in the spoken,
prosaic language of the scribes (Pardee 1999, 314). Second, the Amarna letters contain few
passages which can be classified as historical narratives since the basic mode of discourse is
referring to recent or currents facts and argumentation. In the context of argumentation, the
past events are not narrated, but rather recalled in support of a claim. If the use of yaqtul
would have been active in the native language of the scribes but confined to historical
narratives, as in wayyiqtol, it would still not be apparent in the Amarna letters because of
their literary genre. There are, however, several passages in which the sender of the letter
322
seems to narrate past history rather than to report on a past event. These passages can be
compared with narratives in the Hebrew Bible which employ series of concatenated
wayyiqtol forms. Curiously, also in these Amarna passages yaqtul prevails while the clauses
which convey background information often employ qatal in a way which reminds one of the
Biblical narratives:
7.4.1 15
ù a[n-n]u-ú i-ši-me a-na
16a-wa-te.MEŠ-ka ù ú-wa-
š[ir4-šu] 17
ù uṣ-ṣa-am re-
qú-tám 18
ù i-ši-me e-nu-ú
ia-nu-um [ER]ÍN.MEŠ
19it-ti-šu ù te-ni-pu-[u]š
20urubaṭ-ru-na a-na ša-šu
21ù ERÍN.MEŠ
SA.GAZ.MEŠ ù
gišGIGIR.MEŠ
22ša-ki-in4
i-na ŠÀ-bi 23
ù la i-nam-
mu-šu-nim 24
[i]š-tu pí
KÁ.GAL uru
gubki
(87:15-
24)
And [s]o I listened to your
words and I se[nt him]
and he came out empty-
handed and I hear that
there were no [tr]oops with
him and so Baṭruna was
join[e]d to him and
chariots and the hosts of
the ʿApiru he stationed in
the middle and they did
not move [f]rom the
entrance of the gate of
Gubla.
7.4.2 10
[…] ù i-na-an-na 11
KÚR-kùr-tum.MEŠ ma[š]-
ši-ik-tum i[t]-ti-[ia i]n4-né-
pu-uš 12
ù aš-tap-pár
DUB-pí-ia ù L[Ú KIN-i]a
13a-na ma-ḫar LUGAL
BE-ia ù L[UGAL] 14
a-wa-
te.MEŠ DUB-pí-ia ù LÚ
KIN-ia 15
la yi-ši-mi ù mi-
na ip-p[u-š]u-[n]a 16
ù aš-
tap-pár LÚ KIN-ia a-na
And now, an ev[i]l war
[ha]s been waged
a[g]ainst [me] and I sent
my tablet and m[y
messen]ger to the king, my
lord, but the k[ing] did not
listen to the words of my
tablet and my messenger.
So what am I t[o d]o? And
I sent my messenger to the
king, [my] lord [in regard
323
LUGAL BE-[ia] 17
[UGU
UR]U.KI.ḪI.A-ia ša ìl-qé
18mÌR-aš-ra-ti ù iš-[mé]
19mÌR-aš-ra-tum i-nu-ma
ka-ši-id 20
LÚ-ia iš-tu ma-
ḫar LUGAL BE-ia 21
ù i-
ši-mé ù ia-nu-um m[i-i]m-
ma 22
ù i-nu-ma ia-nu-um
LÚ.MEŠ ti-l[a-t]am š[a
a]-[ṣ]a-at 23
a-na ia-a-ši ù
a-nu-ú i-ti-el-[l]a 24
[i]-na-
an-na a-na ṣe-ri-ia (92:10-
24)
to] my [c]ities that ʿAbdi-
ašrati took. And ʿAbdi-
ašrati hea[rd] that my man
arrived from the king my
lord and he heard that he
had no[th]ing with him.
And since there was no
auxiliary f[or]ce th[at
c]a[m]e out to me, he
move[d u]p against me.
7.4.3 5aš-tap-pár aš-ta-ni a-n[a
ERÍN.MEŠ ma-ṣa-ar-ti] 6ù
la-a tu-da-nu [ù la-a] 7yi-
iš-mi LUGAL be-li-ia a-
wa-t[e ÌR-šu] 8ù i-wa-ši-ir
lúDUMU š[ìp-ri-ia]
9a-na
É-ti É.GAL ù i[a-tur-ur]
10ri-qú-tam i-ia-nu
ERÍN.MEŠ ma-ṣa-a[r-
tam] 11
a-na ša-a-šu ù ti-
mu-ru L[Ú].M[EŠ É]-ia
12i-nu-ma la-a na-di-in
KÙ.BABBAR ti-iš-la-u5
13a-na ia-ši ki-ma
LÚ.MEŠ-ḫa.MEŠ-za-ni
ŠEŠ.MEŠ-ia 14
ù ti-na-i-
ṣú-ni [...] (137:5-14)
I wrote repeatedly fo[r a
garrison], but it was not
granted, [and] the king,
my lord, did [not] heed
the word[s of his servant].
I sent a me[ssenger of
mine] to the palace, but
h[e returned] empty-
handed; he had no
garri[son]. The m[en] of
my [house] saw that no
money had been given,
and so, like the mayors,
my brothers, they did me
an injustice and despised
me.
324
7.4.4 28
i-nu-ma yi-iṣ-bat uru
ṣ[u-
mu]r-ri 29m
ÌR-aš-ra-ti ù a-
na-[ṣa-a]r-mi 30
URU-
la.KI a-na [i]-di-i[a] i-ia-
nu 31
LÚ.MEŠ ma-ṣa-ra-tú
it-ti ù aš-pu-ur 32
a-na
LUGAL be-li-ia [ù] tu-ṣa
ERÍN.MEŠ 33
[ù] ti-ìl-qí
uruṣu-[m]u-ri ù
34[
mÌR-a-ši-
i]r-ti ù a-[nu-m]a i-na-an-
na 35
l[a-qú uru
ṣ]u-m[u-ri
m]a-zi-ru
36ù ti-mu-[r]u
L[Ú.M]EŠ uru
[g]ub-[u]b-
[l]i 37
a-di ma-ti ni-ka-ši-šu
DUMU mÌR-[a-ši-ir-ti]
38ga-mi-ir KÙ.BABBAR-
pu-na a-na nu-kúr-ti 39
ù ti-
na-mu-šu UGU-ia ù a-du-
uk-šu-nu 40
ù ti-iq-bu a-di
ma-ti te-du- 41
-ku-nu [a]-
ya-mi ti-ìl-qú LÚ.MEŠ a-
na a-ša-bi 42
a-na
[U]RU.KI aš-pu-ur a-na
É.GAL 43
a-na ERÍN.MEŠ
ù ú-ul tu-[d]a-nu
ERÍN.MEŠ ia-ši 44
ù ti-iq-
bi URU.KI i-z[i]-bu-šu
45ni-te-pu-uš-mi a-na
ma-
zi-ri ù 46
aq-bi ki-i i-ti-pu-
šu a-na ša-šu 47
ù i-zi-bu
LUGAL be-li ù yi-iq-bi
When ʿAbdi-Ašrati seized
Ṣ[umu]r, I gu[ard]ed the
city by [m]yse[lf]. There
was no garrison with ‹me›,
and so I wrote to the king,
my lord. Troops came out
[and] took Ṣu[m]ur and
[ʿAbdi Aši]rti. N[o]w
Aziru has taken Ṣumur,
and when the p[eop]le of
[G]ub[l]a s[a]w this, (they
said), ―How long shall we
contain the son of ʿAbdi-
[Aširti]. Our money is
completely gone for the
war.― Then they moved
against me, but I killed
them. They said, ―How
long can you go on killing
us? [W]here will you get
people to live in the
[c]ity?‖ (So) I wrote to the
palace for troops, but no
troops were [gi]ven ‹to›
me. Then the city said,
―Ab[an]don him. Let‘s
join Aziru!‖ I said, ―How
could I join him and
abandon the king, my
lord?‖ Then my brother
spoke and [s]w[o]re to the
325
48ŠEŠ-ia ù [yi]-i[t]-mi a-
na URU.KI 49
ù ti-dab-bi-
bu [ù] LÚ.MEŠ BE
URU.KI 50
[ni-t]e-pu-šu-
mi a-na DUMU.MEŠ mÌR-
aš-ra-t 51
ù [al]-la-ak-mi a-
na a-na uru
A.PÚ.KI.MEŠ
52a-na da-[ba-b]i a-na ma-
ḫar mḫa-mu-ni-[ri]
53ù ni-
pu-[uš ki]-tam aš-šum-ma
m[ḫ]a-[mu-ni-ri]
54i-nu-ma
[…] -[n]u ù 55
iš-tu a[š-
56URU.KI […] n[i-
la-a]k-m[i] 57
a-na-ku ù
[…] UG[U URU].KI
58ú-ul na-a[d]-nu-n[i i-r]i-
ba 59
la-qí LÚ ar-ni
LU[GAL ERÍN.ME]Š ma-
zi-ri 60
ša-ka-an a-na Š[À-
bi U]RU.[KI] ù 61
ti-mu-ru
URU.K[I i]-nu-m[a
ER]ÍN.MEŠ ša-nu 62
a-na
URU.KI ù t[i-m]a-ga-r[u]
a-ša-bu 63
i-ri-bi a-na
U[RU].KI ù t[i]-iq-bu 64
a-
na ša-a-šu a[l]-lu-ú-mi
BA.ÚŠ 65
be-ìl-nu ki ta-aq-
bu mi-it 66m
ri-ib-ad-di ki-
ka-n[u] iš-tu 67
ŠU.MEŠ
qa-ti-š[u] la-a-mi [ia-a]š-
pu-ra 68
a-na KUR.MEŠ
city. They had a
discussion [and] the lords
of the city [were jo]ined
to the sons of ʿAbdi-
Ašrati. [I] myself went to
Beirut for a dis[cuss]ion
with Ḫammuni[ri], and we
ma[de an alli]ance so that
[Ḫ]a[mmuniri], when …
… , then … … W[e
we]nt, … and I, t[o the
ci]ty. They did not
p[e]rmi[t me to en]ter. The
rebel against the ki[ng]
had taken [troop]s of
Aziru; he had stationed
(them) i[n the c]ity, and
the cit[y] saw [t]ha[t] there
were foreign [tr]oops i[n
the cit[y. So the residents
f[av]or[ed] my entering
the c[it]y, and they s[a]id
to him, ―(You say),
‗B[e]hold, our lord is
dead.‘ How can you say,
‗Rib-Addi is dead, and so
w[e] are out of h[is]
control?‘ Let him not
[wri]te to Egypt or he will
t[a]ke us and o[ur]
children.‖ So they d[ro]ve
326
mi-iṣ-ri ù yi-ì[l]-qa-nu
69qa-du DUMU.MEŠ-n[u]
ù ti-[da]b-bi-ru
70ERÍN.MEŠ
ma-zi-ri iš-
t[u] URU.KI (138:28-70)
the troops of Aziru fro[m]
the city.
7.4.5 5 […] ù me-ia-te a-na-ku
I[GI.MIN] 6ÌR a-na ia-ši-
ia a-na-me LUGAL gáb-
bu 7yi-mur-ma
mbi-ri-da-
aš-wa ip-ša an-na 8ù ya-
an-na-mu-uš uru
ya-nu-am-
ma UGU-ia 9u yi-du-ul
KÁ.GAL a-na EDIN-ia
10ù yi-il5-qé
gišGIGIR.MEŠ
i-na uru
aš-tar-te 11
ù ya-di-
in4-šu-ni a-na LÚ.MEŠ
SA.GAZ 12
ù la-a ya-di-
in4-šu-ni a-na LUGAL
EN-ia 13
yi-mur-ma
LUGAL uru
bu-uṣ-ru-na 14
ù
LUGAL uru
ḫa-lu-un-ni u
te-pa-šu 15
nu-kúr-ta it-ti
mbi-ri-da-aš-wa
16a-na mu-
ḫi-ia u te-eq-bu-na 17
al-ka-
am-mi nu-du-uk mbir5-ia-
wa-za 18
ù la-a ni-wa-aš-ši-
ru-šu a-na 19
[…]-še ù i-
pa-ṭar a-na-ku iš-tu 20
[qa-
ti-š]u-nu ù iz-zi-iz i-na
21[…]
urudi-maš-qa i-nu-
And who am I? My (only)
purpose is to be a servant.
Everything belongs to the
king. Biridašwa saw this
deed and moved
Yanuamma to rebellion
against me. He barred the
city gate against me, he
took chariots from Aštartu
but gave both of them to
the ʿApiru and did not
give both of them to the
king, my lord. When the
king of Buṣruna with the
king of Ḫalunnu saw
(this), they waged war
with Biridašwa against me,
constantly saying, ―Come,
let‘s kill Biryawaza, and
we must not let him go to
… … ‖ But I got away
from them and stayed in
… Dimašqa, for by
myself [h]ow can I serv[e
the king, my lord]? They
327
ma 22
[…] [k]i-i ur-ru-d[u]
23[LUGAL EN-ia ù] te-eq-
bu-n[a] 24
[ÌR.MEŠ
LUGAL.MEŠ kur
ḫa-a]t-te
ni-nu 25
ù a-na-ku iq-bu ÌR
LUGAL kur
mi-iṣ-r[i] 26
a-
na-ku ù yi-la-ak mar-sà-
wu-ya 27
a-na uru
gi-i[s-sà] ù
yi-il5-qa 28
ERÍN.MEŠ ma-
zi-[ri ù] iṣ-ba-at 29
uru
ša-
ad-du u ya-di-in4-ši a-na
30LÚ.MEŠ SA.GAZ u la-a
ya-di-in4-ši 31
a-na
LUGAL EN-ia ù […]
(197:5-31)
keep sayi[ng, ―We are
servants of the king of
Ḫa]tti,‖ and I keep saying,
―I am a servant of the king
of Egyp[t].‖ Arsawuya
went to Gi[ssa], took
(some of) Azir[u‘s] troops,
and captured Šaddu. He
gave it to the ʿApiru and
did not give it to the king,
my lord.
Although it is impossible to prove that the use of yaqtul in these narrative passages is due to
the existence of yaqtul in the native language of the scribes, the comparison with the Biblical
Hebrew wayyiqtol imposes itself since the yaqtul forms are preceded by the conjunction u
and the word order in the clauses in which they occur is verb-subject in most cases. Finally,
the existence of the passive yaqtul forms and the yaqtul of the non-Akkadian verb warādu ―to
serve‖ (examples nos. 6.2.17-20) can be taken in support of the possibility that the yaqtul
form with the past meaning was still alive in the speech of the scribes. In fact, these forms
cannot be taken as the Akkadian iprus and thus may represent a case of the full transfer of the
Canaanite forms to the Amarna interlanguage.
Qatal: As is commonly agreed, the West Semitic qatal represents the case of the
development of the resultative function by an originally adjectival predicative form which
underwent the well-attested grammaticalization process from resultative to perfect, and
further to perfective or simple past (Kouwenberg 2010, 181-193, Cook 2012, 201-217). The
ambiguity of the past and present-resultative meaning of the verb paṭāru observed in
examples nos. 6.1.62-65 may provide a synchronic snapshot of this historical process. The
extensive use of the verbal qatal in the Amarna letters most probably originated from the
328
transfer of the same use in the native language of the scribes and can be taken as its oldest
secure attestation. If the active use of the past yaqtul in the native languages of the scribes is
accepted, the coexistence of the two perfective forms in the Amarna interlanguage
corresponds to the situation in the Canaanite language and can be understood historically as
the coexistence of a newly emerged perfective (qatal) with the original perfective (yaqtul).
However, it is hard to say whether the cases of Stative qatal (of both lexically stative and
non-stative verbs) attest to such a form actively used in the scribes‘ native language or
whether they represent cases of a successful acquisition of the Akkadian form.
Modality: The topic of modality in West Semitic languages lacks a coherent and convincing
description. The contribution of the Amarna letters to its elucidation is limited because of the
limited repertoire of modal utterances, which consist mostly of conditional clauses (typically
referring to the present-future rather than past conditions) and forms which follow the
directive-volitive forms. Certain similarities between the Amarna letters and the later
corpora, for example Biblical Hebrew, are easily noticeable: both qatal and yaqtul appear in
conditional clauses and follow the directive volitive forms.6 The most important contribution
of the Amarna letters to the historical understanding of the modal system consists in the fact
that all three major verbal forms (qatal, yaqtul yaqtulu), have modal uses.
Yaqtula: The interpretation of yaqtula as a form that is both modal and in a sense
subordinated (even though it appears in coordinated clauses) matches in general the uses of
the prefixed forms with the final -a in other Semitic languages. However, a more precise
historical reconstruction of the nature of these forms and their evolution is hampered by two
difficulties. First, the number of attestations of these forms is relatively low. More
importantly, there is still no modern linguistic analysis of these forms in individual languages
which goes beyond obvious descriptive affirmations that these forms occur in ―volitive‖ and
subordinate contexts. In fact, in most cases the current scholarship does not take a clear
6 Also in Arabic there are occurrences of the imperative-yaqtul sequences. They were traditionally
analyzed as unmarked conditional clauses. A modern analysis describes them in a very similar manner to modal
sequences of the Amarna letters: ―What is established by positing the two morpho-semantically related forms
uqtul and yaqtul in juxtaposition is merely a modal dependency of the yaqtul-clause on the uqtul-clause. The
latter is essentially an imperative clause conveying a command or request. The former is a consecutive clause
expounding the consequence of the requests being fulfilled‖ (Peled 1987, 42).
329
position on whether the final -a encodes modality, or subordination, or both. The following
remarks are therefore speculative and are not intended as a comprehensive comparative
treatment of yaqtula but rather are meant to highlight the issues which require further
research.
The understanding of the final -a as encoding subordination rather than modality may be
compared with several occurrences of forms with final -a in Old Akkadian texts from the
Diyala region. These forms are clearly not modal or ―volitive‖ but occur in relative clauses. If
so, the Amarna use of the yaqtula might be taken in support of the hypothesis that these Old
Akkadian forms preserve the original Proto-Semitic subordination marker which was
eventually lost in East Semitic (Hasselbach 2005, 209). The direct comparison is, however,
difficult, because of the different syntactic conditions in which the Old Akkadian and
Amarnian forms occur.
The yaqtula of the Amarna letters is usually compared with the Arabic subjunctive and the
Biblical Hebrew Cohortative (Moran 2003, 84-98). The comparison between these forms and
the Amarnian yaqtula forms must stress the differences and not only invoke the similarity of
these forms due to their general ―volitional character.‖ Although, according to the classical
definition, the function of the Arabic subjunctive as indicating ―an act which is dependent
upon that mentioned in the previous clause, and future to it in point of it‖ (Wright 1896, vol.
2, 24) matches closely the description of the Amarna yaqtula as subordinated to the
preceding directive-volitive form, there is also a major difference: the Arabic subjunctive
occurs mostly after certain subordinating conjunctions (Fischer 2002, 109). In this respect, it
is closer to the Old Akkadian subjunctive which, however, lacks a modal or volitional
nuance. Consequently, the Amarna yaqtula is best compared with the Arabic subjunctive
which occurs in the clauses beginning with the conjunction fa- after a clause containing an
imperative, a wish, a question, or a negation (Wright 1896, vol. 2, 30-32), and the
conjunction wa- ―of simultaneousness‖ when the conjoined clause indicates ―an act
subordinate to, but simultaneous with, the act expressed by the previous clause‖ (Wright
1896, vol. 2, 32).
Also, the comparison of yaqtula with the Biblical Hebrew Cohortative cannot be direct. It
must consider the Biblical form as historically related to the yaqtula but not identical with it.
On the one hand, both forms share the characteristic of occurring in main rather than
330
subordinated clauses. On the other hand, the Amarna form is better described as subordinated
than modal or volitive, as is the case with the Biblical Hebrew Cohortative. The function of
the latter as expressing a strong commitment to an action, or to a wish to perform it, must be
seen as a development of its typical meaning of continuing the wish or request of another
directive-volitive form, as attested in the modal sequences in the Amarna letters. Example no.
6.4.74 might indicate that such a process was already ongoing at the time of the Amarna
letters.
The Energic: The usefulness of the evidence from the Amarna letters for the reconstruction
of the Energic ending in North-west Semitic is limited because this ending is written in the
Amarna interlanguage in a systematic manner only as final -na and thus provides little
information about the possible forms of the Energic in the native language of the scribes.
Consequently, historical considerations, such as the ones in Pardee 1999, 315, rather than
appealing directly to evidence from the Amarna letters, must rely on cognate languages.
331
Conclusions
Language is a multifaceted reality and no definition of it can capture all its aspects. Similarly,
no study can claim to be truly comprehensive, not only because it is impossible to study all
aspects of a language at once, but also because every study requires a certain methodological
approach and theoretical assumptions which in turn necessarily inform its results. The results
obtained in the present study exemplify these limitations. On the one hand, there are certain
aspects of the verbal system of the Amarna letters from Canaan which can be considered as
successfully interpreted thanks to the use of concepts and theories elaborated by linguistics.
An example of such an advance is provided by the distinction of lexical and morphological
aspects which led to the recognition of two forms in the qatal conjugation. On the other hand,
certain theoretical approaches and definitions proved to be inadequate in dealing with the
problems posed by the verbal system of the Amarna letters, and therefore their usefulness in
elucidating the Semitic verbal system in general can be questioned. Formal semantic
approaches to tense and modality operate on the level of the sentence and concentrate on the
role of morphemes and syntax within a sentence. Consequently, they cannot successfully
capture the logic in which temporal and modal values are assigned in the Amarna verbal
system because they do not pay necessary attention to the role played by information which
derives from previous utterances in the same discourse and the interaction between any new
piece of information with knowledge shared by the participants in the act of communication.
Consequently, although it may seem methodologically unsound to mix various linguistic
theories and methodologies, a more comprehensive interpretation of the Amarna verbal
system and the Semitic verbal system in general will require integration of discursive and
cognitive approaches.
Language is inaccessible as an abstract and ideal system; it can be investigated only through
its actual manifestations: the idiolects of individual users. The goal of the present study was,
however, to describe and interpret common and systemic usages. Such an orientation
marginalized the treatment of secondary uses and the description of individual cases in which
the interaction of morphology, syntax, and lexical meaning in a given context produces a
332
particular interpretation of a verbal form. Therefore, the examples, although numerous, did
not include such cases. However, the overall interpretation of the verbal system as emerging
from the current study provides guidelines for dealing with such cases so that they can be
assessed as coherent within the system, or else attributable to the idiosyncrasies of an
individual idiolect.
In spite of these natural limitations, and the persistence of some areas which require more
elaborate investigation (most importantly, modality vs. indicative mood), the present study
produced some results which can be considered solid.
Although it has been already suggested in the past that the language of the Amarna letters
from Canaan should be treated as a fossilized interlanguage developed by second language
learners, the present study proposes the first comprehensive treatment of this topic. It stresses
that the Amarna language should be evaluated in the larger perspective of the use of
cuneiform writing and the Akkadian language by scribes outside of Mesopotamia. The
scribal habitat and transmission of cuneiform in the periphery in general, and in Canaan in
particular, dictate the understanding of the processes which led to the development of the
Amarna linguistic uses as happening within the scribal education. Two main linguistic
mechanisms which were responsible for the formation of the Amarna interlanguage were
identified. The first mechanism is generational fossilization: the transmission of the
knowledge of cuneiform writing and the Akkadian language within families, from father to
son, without access to high-quality teaching materials and to native speakers of Akkadian as
teachers, entailed a progressive deterioration of linguistic usages since second language
learners generally fossilize in their development of the interlanguage at a level lower than the
available input. Every new generation of scribes who were trained locally necessarily
presented a lower level of Akkadian since they acquired non-normative usages from their
teachers and introduced new ones of their own. The second mechanism which shaped the
Amarna interlanguage is linguistic transfer. Because of similarities between Akkadian and
Canaanite verbal morphology and partial overlap in the meaning of the forms, the scribes
were induced to identify Akkadian forms with their Canaanite counterparts. Consequently,
they transferred the Canaanite system of verbal prefixes and suffixes to the Akkadian forms,
using the latter to create mixed forms which were used according to Canaanite semantics.
333
The morphology of the Amarna verb has been described in terms of paradigms, as far it
concerns the morphemes which mark the Canaanite conjugations, and also in terms of
variation, which occur mostly in the use of the various Akkadian bases from which the mixed
forms are derived. Although the place of origin of the letters was identified as the main factor
which determined variation, some other factors were noticed, too. In fact, variation in the
prefixed conjugations is much more pronounced than in other forms and it patterns
differently depending on individual lexemes. It was also observed that most verbs use
typically one base to derive the forms of the suffixed conjugation qatal and two bases for the
prefix conjugations. In addition, cases of morphological fluctuation were noticed, that is, the
use of two variants of the same grammatical form in a single letter.
The discussion of numerous examples of various uses of individual forms delineated their
main features and identified some special usages. Among these special usages there are:
ingressive meaning of the yaqtul of stative verbs, the yaqtulu ―of quotation‖ used to introduce
direct speech, and occurrences of the use of both qatal and yaqtul in performative utterances.
It has been argued that the verbal system of the Amarna letters reflects essentially Canaanite
usages and semantics. The present study found useful to propose a distinction of the verbal
forms and morphemes into major and minor, based on the fact of their unlimited vs.
constricted distribution. The main forms are: qatal, yaqtul and yaqtulu. They are
characterized by the basic aspectual opposition between the perfective (coded by qatal and
yaqtul) and the imperfective yaqtulu. Given the default temporal interpretation of the
aspectual forms, the verbal system is also characterized by the opposition between the qatal
and yaqtul, which receive the past interpretation, and the present-future yaqtulu. The second
major opposition within the system consists in the dichotomy between the indicative and
modal readings to which all major forms are susceptible. The perfective forms receive a
future temporal reference only in modal contexts, while the imperfective yaqtulu is capable
of such a reference also in the indicative context, especially when it is explicitly indicated by
the adverbial time. Conforming to the typology of the imperfective in languages of the world,
yaqtulu may also be used for the past continuous or habitual action.
It has been proposed that two forms should be distinguished within the qatal paradigm: the
verbal qatal of the fientive verbs, and the stative qatal of the lexically stative verbs. This
distinction is justified by the different behavior of the two forms: the verbal qatal refers to
334
the past actions by default and to future actions if used modally, but it never expresses the
action ongoing in the present. The stative predicates a state or condition which contextually
may be placed in the past or in the future. It requires usually the present interpretation since it
refers to a state which persists across the temporal span. The distinction of two qatal forms is
historically understandable since the stative qatal is an original formation while the verbal
qatal is a newly emerged category.
The expression of time is not only a matter of the default temporal interpretation of the
morphological aspect, of the interaction of the lexical and morphological aspects, and of the
indicative and modal contexts, but also the result of the sequential nature of verbal syntax. In
fact, the verbal system must be described not only on the sentential level but also in terms of
implications which are carried over sentence boundaries. The stative qatal and the
imperfective yaqtulu have the default non-past interpretations while the perfective forms
behave like the past tense. The non-past forms refer to the past action or state when they
occur in the same verbal sequence together with the past perfective forms. Since there are a
few verbal sequences of coordinated yaqtuls in initial position within the clause, similar to
the wayyiqtol sequences in Biblical Hebrew, it was concluded that yaqtul was still a form
used actively in the native language of the scribes.
The sequential nature of the verbal syntax and semantics is best exemplified by the modal
sequences, that is, the sequences which begin with the directive-volitive forms (Imperative,
yaqtul, Precative) and are continued by the verbs which receive a modal interpretation. The
realization of the importance of sequential syntax has permitted to establish the existence and
function of yaqtula, the prefix forms with final -a. Because these forms follow the directive-
volitive forms, they have a modal meaning, as do the yaqtul forms used in modal sequences.
The difference between these two modal prefix forms lies in a closer association of the action
expressed by yaqtula with the action of the directive-volitive form. Therefore, it was
concluded that the final -a on yaqtula should be considered a subordination marker. Seen in
this perspective, yaqtula conforms to the cross-linguistic tendency of subordinate moods to
have a modal value.
Since yaqtula occurs in a limited syntactic environment, it belongs to the second group of
verbal forms and morphemes: the minor forms. Beside yaqtula, among them are to be
classified: Imperative, Prohibitive (negation + yaqtul), Precative and Infinitive. Also, the
335
Energic is a minor form because of its optional use for a vaguely defined ―emphasis.‖ Such
emphatic use was ascertained in the course of the textual analysis. However, because of the
low number of occurrences of the Energic and formulaic contexts in which it appears, it was
impossible to define more precisely the specific import of this morpheme.
The distinctiveness of the verbal system used in the letters from Tyre is another important
discovery made in the course of the study. This corpus does not employ the mixed prefixed
forms, uses qatal with a preference for its stative meaning, and seems to emulate the use of
the Akkadian Durative with forms with the vocalism /a/.
In general, it must be concluded that the transfer of the Canaanite verbal system to the
Amarna interlanguage resulted in a simple and coherent manner of expressing the categories
of tense, mood and aspect. In cases of non-standard or erroneous forms, the context of the
letter and the knowledge of cliché expressions and topics allowed the scribes receiving the
tablets to understand the message in the same way as it assists the modern readers.
336
Appendix 1
The Senders of the Amarna Letters
EA
No.
Origin The Name of
the Sender
Museum No. Hand-Copy PSAT
Reference1
1 Egypt Nibmurea BM 29784 BB 1 24-25
2 Babylonia Kadašman-enlil VAT 148 + 2706 WA 2 + WA 5; VS
11, 1
34
3 Babylonia Kadašman-enlil C 4743 (12210) WA 1`
4 Babylonia Kadašman-enlil
(?)
VAT 1657 WA 3; VS 11, 2 34-35
5 Egypt Nibmuareya
(reconstructed)
BM 29787 + C
(12195)
BB 4 + WA 17
6 Babylonia Burra-buriyaš VAT 149 WA 4; VS 11, 3 35
7 Babylonia Burra-buriyaš VAT 150 WA 7; VS 11, 4
8 Babylonia Burra-buriyaš VAT 152 WA 8; VS 11, 5 35
9 Babylonia Burra-buriyaš BM 29785 BB 2
10 Babylonia Burra-buriyaš BM 29786 BB 3
11 Babylonia Burra-buriyaš VAT 151 + 1878 WA 6 + WA 218; VS
11, 6
35-36
12 Babylonia A princess VAT 1605 WA 188; VS 11, 7 36
13 Babylonia VAT 1717 WA 216; VS 12, 197 36-37
14 Egypt VAT 1651 + 2711
(+) Ash. 1891.1-41
WA 28 + WA 209;
VS 12, 198 (+) Petrie
25
1 The numbers in this column refer to pages in Goren, Finkelstein, and Naʾaman. 2004.
337
1894, no. 8.
15 Assyria Aššur-uballiṭ Metropolitan
Museum of Art
24.2.11
Moran 1988, plates
112-113
16 Assyria Aššur-uballiṭ C 4746 (12209) WA 9
17 Mittani Tuiše-ratta BM 29792 BB 9 39-40
18 Mittani not extant VAT 1880 (+) VAT
1879
VS 11, 8
19 Mittani Tušratta BM 29791 BB 8 40
20 Mittani Tušratta VAT 191 WA 22; VS 11, 9 40
21 Mittani Tušratta VAT 190 WA 21; VS 11, 10 41
22 Mittani Tušratta VAT 395 WA 26; VS 12, 199 41
23 Mittani Tušratta BM 29793 BB 10 41
24 Mittani Tušratta VAT 422 WA 27; VS 12, 200 41
25 Mittani Tušratta VAT 340 WA 25; VS 12, 201 42
26 Mittani Tušratta BM 29794 (+) A
9356
BB 11 (+) Luckenbill
and Allen 1916
42
27 Mittani Tušratta VAT 233 (+) 2197,
no.1; 2193
WA 23; VS 11, 11 42
28 Mittani Tušratta BM 37645 Scheil 1897, 302 43
29 Mittani Tušratta
(reconstructed)
VAT 271 +
fragments
WA 24; VS 11, 12 43
30 Mittani not mentioned BM 29841 BB 58 43
31 Egypt Nimuwareya C 4741 (12208) WA 10; VBoT, no. 1
32 Arzawa not mentioned VAT 342 WA 238; VS 12, 202,
VBoT, no. 2
45-47
33 Alašiya not mentioned VAT 1645 WA 15; VS 11, 13 50
338
34 Alašiya not mentioned BM 29789 BB 6 50-51
35 Alašiya not mentioned BM 29788 BB 5
36 Alašiya not extant C 4750 (12187) WA 19 + WA 20
37 Alašiya not mentioned BM 29790 BB 7 49-50
38 Alašiya not mentioned VAT 153 WA 11; VS 11, 14 51
39 Alašiya not mentioned C 4748 (12206) WA 12
40 Alašiya not mentioned C 4749 (12190) WA 13 + 14
41 Ḫatti Šuppiluliumaš C 4747 (122-7) WA 18
42 Ḫatti (?) not extant VAT 1655 WA 16; VS 11, 16
43 Ḫatti (?) not extant Ash. 1207 Petrie 1894, plate
XXXI
44 Ḫatti Zita VAT 1656 WA 29; VS 11, 16 31-32
45 Ugarit Ammistamru
(partially
reconstructed)
VAT 1692 WA 177; VS 11, 17 88-89
46 Ugarit not extant VAT 1694 WA 179; VS 11, 18 89-90
47 Ugarit not extant VAT 1693 WA 176; VS 11, 19 90
48 Ugarit not extant VAT 1690 WA 181; VS 11, 20 90
49 Ugarit Niqm-adda C 4783 (12238) WA 204 + 180
50 Byblos not extant VAT 1594 WA 191; VS 11, 21 159
51 Nuḫašše Addu-nirari VAT 559 WA 30; VS 11, 22 91-92
52 Qaṭna Akizzi C 4759 (12197) WA 196
53 Qaṭna Akizzi BM 29820 BB 37 95
54 Qaṭna Akizzi (?) VAT 1868 + 1869
+ 1721
WA 229 + 232 + 233;
VS 11, 23
95-96
55 Qaṭna Akizzi BM 29819 BB 36 94-95
339
56 unknown but to be
closely associated
with the Akizzi
correspondence
not extant VAT 1714 WA 173; VS 11, 24
57 the area of Qaṭna not extant VAT 1738 VS 11, 25 96
58 the neighbourhood
of Amurru
Teḫu-Teššup VAT 1716 WA 214; VS 11, 26 122-123
59 Tunip the citizens of
Tunip
BM 29824 BB 41 118-121
60 Amurru ʿAbdi-aširta VAT 343 WA 93; VS 11, 27 103-105
61 Amurru not extant Ash. 1893.1-41:410 Petrie 1894, no. 3 105-106
62 Amurru ʿAbdi-aširta VAT 1680 WA 158; VS 11, 28 106
63 Gath ʿAbdi-aštarti BM 29817 BB 34 283-284
64 Gath ÌR-dINNIN
(=ʿAbdi-
aštarti?)
BM 29816 BB 33 284-285
65 Gath The reading of
the name is
problematic.
VAT 1685 WA 175; VAT 11, 29 285
66 unknown not extant VAT 1702 VS 11, 30
67 unknown not extant VAT 1591 WA 186; VS 11, 31
68 Byblos Rib-hadda VAT 1239 WA 80; VS 11, 32 136-137
69 Byblos Rib-hadda BM 29856 BB 73 137
70 Byblos not extant PM 1,25 1575
71 Byblos Rib-hadda VAT 1632 WA 72; VS 11, 33 137
72 Byblos not extant VAT 1712 VS 11, 34 134-136
73 Byblos Rib-hadda BM 29798 BB 15
74 Byblos Rib-hadda BM 29795 BB 12 138
340
75 Byblos Rib-hadda C 4757 (12191) WA 79
76 Byblos Rib-hadda VAT 324 WA 74; VS 11, 35 138
77 Byblos not extant VAT 1635 + 1700 WA 81; VS 11, 36 138-139
78 Byblos Rib-hadda VAT 1282 WA 84; VS 11, 37 139
79 Byblos Rib-hadda VAT 1634 WA 75; VS 11, 38 139-140
80 Canaan not extant VAT 1711 VS 11, 39 303-304
81 Byblos not extant VAT 1318 WA 89; VS 11, 40 136
82 Byblos Rib-hadda BM 37648 Scheil 1897, 306 140
83 Byblos Rib-hadda BM 29797 BB 14 140-141
84 Byblos Rib-hadda VAT 1633 WA 73; VS 11, 41 141
85 Byblos Rib-hadda VAT 1626 WA 48; VS 11, 42 141
86 Byblos Rib-hadda BM 29804 BB 21 141-142
87 Byblos Rib-hadda BM 29805 BB 22 142
88 Byblos Rib-hadda BM 29800 BB 17 142
89 Byblos Rib-hadda VAT 1627 WA 49; VS 11, 43 143
90 Byblos Rib-hadda VAT 1661 WA 53; VS 11, 44 143
91 Byblos not extant VAT 931 WA 56; VS 11, 45 144
92 Byblos Rib-hadda VAT 868 WA 50; VS 11, 46 144
93 Byblos Rib-hadda VAT 1663 WA 55; VS 11, 47 144-145
94 Byblos Rib-hadda C 4756 WA 78
95 Byblos Rib-hadda VAT 1668 WA 70; VS 11, 48 145
96 Egyptian
administrative
center in Ṣumur
Egyptian
general
VAT 1238 WA 82; VS 11, 49 116
97 Beirut/Gaza Yapaḫ-hadda
(partially
VAT 1598 WA 183; VS 11, 50 161-162
341
reconstructed)
98 Beirut Yapaḫ-hadda VAT 1675 WA 128; VS 11, 51 162
99 Egypt not extant C 4742 (12196) WA 202
100 Irqata the elders of
Irqata
BM 29825 BB 42 122
101 Byblos not extant BM 29827 BB 44 147
102 Byblos Rib-hadda BM 29806 BB 23 147
103 Byblos/Ṣumur Rib-hadda VAT 1208 WA 77; VS 11, 52 147-148
104 Byblos Rib-hadda C 4751 WA 60
105 Byblos Rib-hadda VAT 1628 WA 51; VS 11, 53 148
106 Byblos Rib-hadda VAT 344 WA 43; VS 11, 54 148
107 Byblos Rib-hadda VAT 346 WA 41; VS 11, 55
108 Byblos Rib-hadda VAT 345 WA 42; VS 11, 56 149
109 Byblos Rib-hadda VAT 1629 WA 52; VS 11, 57 149
110 Byblos not extant VAT 1666 WA 64; VS 11, 59 149-150
111 Byblos not extant VAT 1631 WA 68; VS 11, 59 150
112 Byblos Rib-hadda VAT 1664 WA 57; VS 11, 61 150-151
113 Byblos (?) not extant C 4753 WA 63
114 Byblos not extant BM 29796 BB 13
115 Byblos not exant VAT 1630 WA 69; VS 11, 60 151
116 Byblos Rib-hadda
(partially
restored)
C 4752 WA 61
117 Byblos Rib-hadda VAT 350 WA 45; VS 11, 62 151
118 Byblos Rib-hadda BM 29808 + VAT
1662
BB 25 + WA 54; VS
11, 63
151-152
342
119 Byblos Rib-hadda VAT 349 WA 44; VS 11, 64 152
120 Byblos not mentioned VAT 1636 WA 85; VS 11, 65 153
121 Byblos Rib-hadda VAT 1665 WA 59; VS 11, 66 153
122 Byblos Rib-hadda VAT 1625 WA 47; VS 11, 67
123 Byblos Rib-hadda BM 29803 BB 20 153-154
124 Byblos Rib-hadda C 4755 (12188) WA 62 + WA 64d +
WA 65
125 Byblos Rib-hadda BM 29802 BB 19 154
126 Byblos/Ṣumur Rib-eddi BM 29802 BB 19 154-155
127 Byblos not extant VAT 1687 WA 184; VS 11, 69 155
128 Byblos (?) not extant VAT 1873 WA 227; VS 11, 71
129 Byblos Rib-addi
(partially
reconstructed)
VAT 1637 + 1638 WA 86 + WA 87; VS
11, 70
155
130 Byblos Rib-hadda VAT 1624 WA 46; VS 11, 72 156
131 Byblos not extant BM 29807 BB 24 156
132 Byblos Rib-hadda BM 29801 BB 18 156-157
133 Byblos not extant VAT 1667 WA 66; VS 11, 74 157
134 Byblos not extant C 4754 (12189) WA 83
135 Byblos (?) Ash 1893. 1-41:
409
Petrie 1894, no. 2
136 Byblos/Beirut Rib-hadda BM 29799 BB 16 157-158
137 Byblos/Beirut Rib-addi PM 1,25,1567 WA 71;
138 Byblos/Beirut Rib-addi VAT 351 WA 58; VS 11, 73 157-158
139 Byblos Ili-rapiḫ BM 29828 BB 45 158
140 Byblos Ili-rapiḫ VAT 1639 WA 91; VS 11, 75 158
343
141 Beirut Ammunira BM 29809 BB 26 162-163
142 Beirut Ammunira
(reconstructed)
BM 29810 BB 27 163
143 Beirut Ammunira VAT 1584 (+) C
4764
WA 211; VS 11, 79
(+) WA 203
163
144 Sidon Zimreddi VAT 323 WA 90; VS 11, 76 165
145 Sidon Zimreddi
(partially
reconstructed)
VAT 1695 WA 182; VS 11, 77 165
146 Tyre (?)/Tripolis
area
Abi-milku VAT 1871 WA 231; VS 11, 78 168-169
147 Tyre Abi-milku BM 29812 BB 29 167
148 Tyre Abi-milku C 4765 WA 99
149 Tyre Abi-milku BM 29811 BB 28 167
150 Tyre Abi-milku C 4766 WA 98
151 Tyre Abi-milku BM 29813 BB 30 166
152 Tyre Abi-milku VAT 1719 VS 11, 80 167
153 Tyre Abi-milku Metropolitan
Museum of Art
24.2.12
Moran 1988, plates
114-115
154 Tyre Abi-milku VAT 1718 WA 162; VS 11, 81 167-168
155 Tyre Abi-milku BM 29814 (+) VAT
1872
BB 31 (+) WA 228;
VS 11, 82
168
156 Amurru Aziru VAT 337 WA 34; VS 11, 83 106-107
157 Amurru Aziru VAT 624 WA 36; VS 11, 84 107
158 Amurru Aziru C 4758 (12205) WA 40
159 Amurru Aziru VAT 1658 WA 35; VS 11, 85 107
344
160 Amurru Aziru PM 1,25 1574 WA 34a
161 Amurru Aziru BM 29818 BB 35 108
162 Egypt a pharaoh VAT 347 WA 92; VS 11, 86 25-26
163 Egypt not extant VAT 1885 VS 11, 87 26-27
164 Amurru Aziru VAT 249 WA 38; VS 11, 88 108
165 Amurru not extant VAT 325 WA 33; VS 11, 89 108-111
166 Amurru Aziru VAT 250 WA 31; VS 11, 90 111
167 Amurru not extant VAT 326 WA 32; VS 11, 91 111
168 Amurru Aziru VAT 1659 WA 37; VS 11, 92 112-113
169 Amurru not extant VAT 1660 WA 39; VS 11, 93 114
170 Amurru Baaluya and
Bet-ili
VAT 327 WA 143; VS 11, 94 115
171 Amurru Aziru VAT 1723 WA 185; VS 11, 95 115
172 unknown not extant VAT 1887 WA 224; VS 11, 96
173 not extant not extant VAT 1875 WA 22; VS 11, 97 130-131
174 Ḫašabu Bieri VAT 1585 WA 160; VS 11, 98 129-130
175 Ḫasi ʾIldayyi VAT 1588 WA 163, VS 11, 99 130
176 unknown not extant BM 29829 BB 46
177 Guddašuna Yamiuta VAT 1684 WA 170; VS 11, 101 128-129
178 Beqaʿ? Ḫibiya VAT 1677 WA 146; VS 11, 100 131
179 Beqaʿ? not extant VAT 1703 WA 171; VS 11, 103 132
180 unknown not extant C 4788 (12233) WA 198
181 Beqaʿ? not extant VAT 1623 VS 11, 102 131
182 Mušiḫuna Šutarna VAT 1615 WA 130; VS 11, 104
183 Mušiḫuna Šutarna VAT 1595 WA 130; VS 11, 105
345
184 not preserved Šutarna Ash 1893, 1-41:
426
Petrie, no. 18 bis
185 Ḫasi Mayarzana
(partially
restored)
VAT 1725 WA 189; VS 11, 106 127
186 Ḫasi Mayarzana VAT 1724 WA 193; VS 11, 107 128
187 Enišasi Šatiya BM 29860 BB 77 126-127
188 unknown not extant C 4793 (12237) WA 208
189 Qadesh Etakkama VAT 336 WA 142; VS 11, 108
190 Egypt not extant Ash 1893. 1-41:
411
Petrie 1894, no. 4 27
191 Ruḫizza Arsawuya C 4760 (12192) WA 125
192 not mentioned Arsawuya VAT 1674 WA 126; VS 11, 109
193 not mentioned Tiwati VAT 1608 WA 161; VS 11, 110
194 Damascus Biryawaza VAT 1705 VS 11, 112 170-171
195 Damascus Biryawaza C 4761 (12230) WA 96
196 Damascus Biryawaza VAT 1592 + 1710 WA 159 (+) 143; VS
11, 111
171
197 Damascus Biryawaza BM 29826 BB 43 171
198 Kumidu Arašša C 4763 (12194) WA 205
199 not extant not extant C 4789 (12234) WA 205
200 not extant not extant VAT 1622 WA 164; VS 11, 113 221
201 Ṣiribašani Artamanya VAT 338 WA 132; VS 11, 114 216
202 not mentioned Amawaše VAT 331 WA 135; VS 11, 115 221
203 Šašḫimi ʿAbdi-milki VAT 330 WA 134; VS 11, 116 216-217
204 Qanu not mentioned VAT 328 WA 133; VS 11, 117 217
346
205 Ṭubu not mentioned BM 29861 BB 78 217-218
206 Naziba (partially
restored)
not mentioned C 4762 (12229) WA 151
207 not
mentioned/Bashan
Ipte- (partially
preserved)
VAT 1593 WA 194; VS 11, 118 221-222
208 not extant/Bashan not extant VAT 1699 VS 11, 119 222
209 not
mentioned/Bashan
Zišamimi AO 2036 WA 149a; Thureau-
Dangin 1922, 101
222
210 not extant/Bashan not extant VAT 1876 WA 223; VS 11, 120
211 not mentioned/Gaza Zitriyara VAT 1648 WA 140; VS 11, 121 306-307
212 not mentioned/Gaza Zitriyara VAT 1587 WA 141; VS 11, 122 307
213 not mentioned/Gaza Zitriyara BM 29859 BB 76 307-308
214 not extant not extant VAT 1607 VS 11, 123
215 not mentioned/Gaza Bayawa BM 29843 BB 60 308
216 not mentioned/Gaza Bayawa C 4784 (12202) WA 195
217 not mentioned/Gaza not extant VAT 1604 VS 11, 124 310
218 not extant/Gaza not extant VAT 1696 VS 11, 125 310-311
219 not extant not extant VAT 1720 VS 11, 126 314
220 partially preserved:
-nu
Kurtuya C 4785 (12226) WA 150
221 Tel Yokneam (?) Wiktasu VAT 341 WA 136; VS 11, 127 255
222 Tel Yokneam (?) Wikasu
(partially
restored)
VAT 1683 VS 11, 128 255
223 Akšapa/Tell Keisan Endaruta
(partially
damaged)
VAT 1870 WA 220; VS 11, 129 232-233
347
224 Šamḫuna/Beth-
shean
Šamu-adda BM 29849 BB 66 234-237
225 Šamḫuna Šamu-adda C 4787 (12222) WA 131
226 not mentioned Ṣipṭu-riṣa VAT 1610 WA 157; VS 11, 130 308
227 Hazor not mentioned BM 29830 BB 47 228
228 Hazor ʿAbdi-tirši BM 29831 BB 48 228-229
229 Gath Probably only
partially
preserved:
ʿAbdina?
VAT 1689 WA 178; VS 11, 131 286
230 not mentioned Yama BM 37646 Scheil 1897, 309 304
231 not extent not extant VAT 1599 WA 212; VS 11, 132 315
232 Acco/Beth-shean Surata VAT 1640 WA 93; VS 11, 133 239
233 Acco Satatna C 4767 (12201) WA 94
234 Acco/Beth-shean Satatna VAT 1641; WA 95; VS 11, 134 238
235
+
327
Acco/Beth-shean Sitatna BM 29815 (+) C
4791 + VAT 1882
(with join = C
12235)
BB 32 (+) WA 206
(without join)
238-239
236 not extant not extant Ash. 1893 1-41:
423
Petrie 1894, no. 16 315
237 Anaharath? not extant VAT 1701 VS 11, 135 240-243
238 Anaharath? Bayadi VAT 1867 WA 219; VS 11, 136 240-241
239 Anaharath? Baduzana
(partially
damaged)
VAT 334 WA 139; VS 11, 137 241
240 not extant not extant VAT 2198 + 2707 VS 11, 240 313
241 Šaruna Rusmanya VAT 1678 WA 148; VS 11, 139 220-221
348
242 Megiddo Biridiya VAT 1670 WA 114; VS 11, 140 244
243 Megiddo Biridiya VAT 1669 WA 113; VS 11, 141 244
244 Megiddo Biridiya C 4768 (12200) WA 244
245 Megiddo no BM 29855 BB 72 245
246 Megiddo Biridiya VAT 1649 WA 111; VS 11, 142 245-246
247 Megiddo (?) not extant C 4792 (12236) WA 207
248 Megiddo Yašdata BM 29842 BB 59 246-247
249 Rehob (?) mdIM.UR.SAG
(partially
restored)
VAT 1603 WA 149; VS 11, 143 249-250
250 Rehob (?) mdIM.UR.SAG C 4769 (12204) WA 154
251 not mentioned not mentioned BM 29826 BB 79 304-305
252 Shechem Labʾayu BM 29844 BB 61 262-264
253 Shechem Labʾayu VAT 1589 WA 155; VS 11, 144 264
254 Shechem Labʾayu VAT 335 WA 112; VS 11, 145 264
255 Piḫilu/Beth-shean Mut-baḫlu VAT 333 WA 144; VS 11, 146 261
256 Piḫilu Mut-baḫlu BM 29847 BB 64 260-261
257 Tel Yokneam (?) Baʿlu-meḫir VAT 1715 WA 168; VS 11, 147 251
258 Tel Yokneam (?) Baʿlu-meḫir VAT 329 WA 167; VS 11, 148 251
259 Tel Yokneam (?) Baʿlu-meḫir
(only the last
syllable extant)
VAT 1582 WA 213; VS 11, 149 252-255
260 Bit-tenni Balu-mer Oppert none published
261 not mentioned Dašru BM 29858 BB 75 305-306
262 not mentioned Dašru C 4786 (12220) WA 127 `
263 Rehob (?) not extant VAT 1688 WA 169; VS 11, 153 250
349
264 Ginti-kirmil (?) Tagi BM 29853 BB 70 256-258
265 Ginti-kirmil (?) Tagi VAT 1697 WA 165; VS 11, 151 258
266 Ginti-kirmil (?) Tagi (partially
restored)
VAT 1590 WA 156; VS 11, 152 258
267 Gezer Milkilu C 4771 (12232) WA 109
268 Gezer Milkilu VAT 1532 WA 108; VS 11, 153 271
269 Gezer Milkilu BM 29864 BB 63 271-272
270 Gezer Milkilu BM 29845 BB 62 272
271 Gezer Milkilu VAT 1531 WA 110; VS 11, 154 272
272 Gezer BM 29863 BB 80 275-276
273 Gezer fNIN-
UR.MAḪ.MEŠ
VAT 1686 WA 137; VAT 11,
155
276-277
274 Gezer fNIN-
UR.MAḪ.MEŠ
C 4773 (12216) WA 138
275 Shephelah Yaḫzib-Adda VAT 1682 WA 166; VS 11, 156 290
276 Shephelah Yaḫzib-Adda VAT 1706 WA 187; VS 11, 157 290
277 Shephelah? not extant BM 29864 BB 69 291
278 Higher Shephelah Šuwardata BM 29852 BB 69 283, 286
279 Gath Šuwardata VAT 1647 WA 107; VS 11, 158 280-281
280 Gath (?) Šuwardata C 4772 (12213) WA 100
281 Gath Šuwardata VAT 1681 WA 190; VS 11, 159
282 Gath Šuwardata BM 29851 BB 68 281
283 Gath Šuwardata VAT 339 WA 101; VS 11, 160 282
284 Gath Šuwardata BM 29850 BB 67 282
285 Jerusalem/Beth-
shean
ʿAbdi-ḫepa VAT 1601 WA 174; VS 161 268
350
286 Jerusalem ʿAbdi-ḫepa VAT 1642 WA 102; VS 11, 162 266
287 Jerusalem ʿAbdi-ḫepa VAT 1644 WA 103; VS 11, 163 266
288 Jerusalem ʿAbdi-ḫepa VAT 1643 WA 103; VS 11, 164 266-267
289 Jerusalem ʿAbdi-ḫepa VAT 1645 + 2709 WA 105 + WA 199;
VS 11, 165
267
290 Jerusalem ʿAbdi-ḫepa VAT 1646 WA 106; VS 11, 166 267-268
291 Jerusalem?/Gezer VAT 1713 VS 11, 167 268-269
292 Gezer Baʿlu-šipṭi BM 37647 Scheil 1897, 298 273
293 Gezer Baʿlu-šipṭi C 4774 (12231) WA 201
294 Ashdod (?) Baʿlu-šipṭi BM 29854 BB 71 293-294
295 not mentioned -DI.KUD VAT 1650 WA 88; VS 11, 168
296 Ashdod Yaḫtiru BM 29840 BB 57 292-293
297 Gezer Yapaḫu BM 29834 BB 51 273
298 Gezer Yapaḫu BM 29833 BB 50 274-274
299 Gezer Yapaḫu BM 29832 BB 49 274
300 probably Gezer can be restored
as Yapaḫu
VAT 1606 VS 11, 171 274
301 Ashkelon? Šubandu C 4781 (12214) WA 117
302 Ashkelon Šubandu VAT 332 WA 120; VS 11, 172 297
303 Ashkelon Šubandu BM 29821 BB 38 297
304 Ashkelon Šubandu BM 29822 BB 39 298
305 probably Ashkelon Šubandu C 4780 (12215) WA 116
306 Ashkelon Šubandu BM 29823 BB 40 298
307 not extant/Gaza not extant VAT 1586 WA 215; VS 11, 170 311
308 not extant/Gaza not extant VAT 1602 WA 172; VS 11, 173 311
351
309 not extant/Gaza not extant VAT 1874 WA 221; VS 11, 174 311-312
310 not extant/Gaza not extant VAT 1698 VS 11, 169 312
311 most likely Lachish not extant VAT 1597 VS 11, 175 289
312 not extant/Gaza not extant VAT 1886 + 1709 VS 11, 176 312-313
313 not extant not extant C 4782 (12228) WA 197
314 Yurṣa Pu-Baʿlu C 4778 (12219) WA 153
315 Yurṣa Pu-Baʿlu BM 29839 BB 56 300
316 Yurṣa Pu-Baʿlu BM 29838 BB 55 301
317 not mentioned/Gaza Dagan-takala VAT 1676 WA 129; VS 11, 177 309
318 not mentioned/Gaza Dagan-takala BM 29857 BB 74 309
319 Aḫtirumna/Aḫtiašn
a
Ṣur-ašar VAT 1722 WA 145; VS 11, 178 302-303
320 Ashkelon Yidia C 4777 (12218) WA 121
321 Ashkelon-Gaza Yidia VAT 1671 WA 119; VS 11, 182 295
322 Ashkelon Yidia C 4776 (12217) WA 118
323 Ashkelon Yidia BM 29836 BB 53 295
324 Ashkelon Yidia BM 29837 BB 54 295-296
325 Ashkelon Yidia BM 29835 BB 52 296
326 Ashkelon Yidia VAT 1672 WA 122; VS 11, 138 297
235
+
327
Acco/Beth-shean Sitatna BM 29815 (+) C
4791 + VAT 1882
(with join = C
12235)
BB 32 (+) WA 206
(without join)
238-239
328 Lachish Yabni-ilu C 4775 (12193) WA 124
329 Lachish/Gaza Zimreddi VAT 1673; WA 123; VS 11, 181 288-289
330 possibly Lachish Šipṭi-Baʿlu BM 29848 BB 65 288
352
331 possibly Lachish Šipṭi-Baʿlu
(name partially
restored)
C 4779 (12221) WA 200
332 possibly Lachish Šipṭi-Baʿlu
(name partially
restored)
VAT 1883 VS 11, 184 287-288
333 not mentioned Paapu Istanbul Arkeoloji
Müzeleri, Tell el-
Ḥesi, Fi. 11
Hilprecht 1896, pl.
64, no. 147
334 Zuḫra not extant VAT 1609 VS 11, 185 219-220
335 Gath ʿAbdi-aštarti VAT 1616 + 1708 VS 11, 186 285-286
336 Zuḫra (?) Ḫiziru VAT 1707 VS 11, 188 220
337 Zuḫra(?)/Aštaroth Ḫiziru VAT 1679 WA 147; VS 11, 187 219, 223-
224
338 not extant not extant VAT 1884 VS 11, 189
339 not extant not extant VAT 1887 VS 11, 190
340 Egypt scholarly text VAT 1583 Izre‘el 1997, 110 76
341 Egypt scholarly text VAT 1704 Izre‘el 1997, 111 77
342 Babylonia? scholarly text Ash. 1893 1-41:414 Izre‘el 1997, 112 77
343 Egypt scholarly text Ash. 1893 1-41:427 Izre‘el 1997, 113 78
344 Babylonia fragment of a
letter or a
scholarly text
Ash 1893 1-41:417 Izre‘el 1997, 114 78
345 Egypt scholarly text Ash. 1893 1-41:424 Izre‘el 1997, 115 78-79
346 Egypt scholarly text Ash. 1893 1-41:420 Izre‘el 1997, 116 79
347 Egypt scholarly text Ash. 1893 1-41:422 Izre‘el 1997, 117 79
348 Egypt scholarly text Ash. 1893 1-41:419 Izre‘el 1997, 118-119 80
349 Egypt scholarly text Ash. 1893 1-41:428 Izre‘el 1997, 120 80
353
350 Egypt scholarly text Ash. 1893 1-41:425 Izre‘el 1997, 121 80-81
351 Egypt scholarly text Ash. 1893 1-41:412
(lost)
Izre‘el 1997, 122
352
+
353
Egypt scholarly text Ash. 1893 1-41:
413+421
Izre‘el 1997, 123 81
354 Egypt scholarly text Ash 1893 1-41:418 Izre‘el 1997,124-125 81-82
355 Egypt scholarly text Ash. 1893 1-41:416 Izre‘el 1997, 126-127 82
356 Babylonia scholarly text VAT 348 Izre‘el 1997, 128-131 82-83
357 Egypt scholarly text BM 29865 + VAT
1611 + 1613 + 1614
+ 2710
Izre‘el 1997, 132-139 83
358 Egypt scholarly text VAT 1612 + 1617
+ 2708
Izre‘el 1997, 140-143 83-84
359 Egypt scholarly text C 48396 (12223) Izre‘el 1997, 144-148
360 Egypt scholarly tex VAT 1709 Izre‘el 1997, 148
361 Qaṭna-Amurru
region
join to EA 56 VAT 3780 Izre‘el 1997, 158
362 Byblos Rib-haddi AO 7093 Thureau-Dangin
1922, 102-103
158-159
363 E<ni>šasi ʿAbdi-riša AO 7097 Thureau-Dangi 1922,
107
130
364 Aštaroth Ayyab AO 7094 Thureau-Dangin
1922, 104
218, 223
365 Megiddo Biridiya AO 7098 Thureau-Dangin
1922, 108.
245-246
366 Gath Šuwardata AO 7096 Thureau-Dangin
1922, 106
282
367 Egypt a pharaoh AO 7095 Thureau-Dangin 27
354
1922, 105
368 Egypt scholarly text Ash. Tell al
Amarna 1921, 1154
Izre‘el 1997, 149 84
369 Egypt a pharaoh Musées Royaux
d‘Art et d‘Histoire
(Brussels) E. 6753
Dossin 1934, 127
370 Egypt a pharaoh BM 134870 Gordon 1947, 15 27-28
371 Amurru? not extant BM 134868 Gordon 1947, 16-17
372 Egypt scholarly text BM 134872 Izre‘el 1997, 150
373 Egypt possible join to
EA 351, 352 +
353 and 354
BM 134864 Izre‘el 1997, 151
374 Egypt scholarly text BM 134863 Izre‘el 1997, 152-153
375 Egypt scholarly text BM 134866 Izre‘el 1997, 154
376 Egypt scholarly text BM 134865 Izre‘el 1997, 155
377 Egypt scholarly text BM 134871 Izre‘el 1997, 156
378 Gezer Yapaḫu BM 50745 Millard 1965 275
379 Egypt scholarly text C 48397 (12224) Izre‘el 1997, 157
380 royal
correspondence?
not extant BM 58364 Walker 1979, 249
381 Egypt a small, illegible
fragment
VAT 3781
382 Egypt small unplaced
fragments
VAT 8525 (a
collective number)
Izre‘el 1997, 160
355
Appendix 2
The Amarna Letters from Canaan
according to Their Provenance
I: The Shephelah and the Southern Coastal Plain
EA
No.
Origin Mentio
n of the
city of
proven
ance in
the
letter
Author PSAT
Reference
Remarks
GEZER
267 Gezer no Milkilu
268 Gezer no Milkilu 271
269 Gezer no Milkilu 271-272
270 Gezer no Milkilu 272
271 Gezer no Milkilu 272
272 Gezer no 275-276 Petrographic analysis confirms that
the tablet was made at Gezer.
However, the reading of the name of
the ruler remains uncertain.
According to Rainey‘s collation
(2003, 201*-202*), it is Baʿlu-danu.
273 Gezer no fNIN-
UR.MAḪ.MEŠ
276-277
356
292 Gezer no Baʿlu-šipṭi 273
293 Gezer no Baʿlu-šipṭi
297 Gezer no Yapaḫu 273
298 Gezer yes Yapaḫu 274-274 Yapaḫu identifies himself as the ruler
of Gazru in the superscript of the
letter. However, petrographic
analysis indicates that the tablet is
made of raw materials specific to the
coastal strip between Raphia and
Ashkelon.
299 Gezer yes Yapaḫu 274 Like in EA 298, Yapaḫu identifies
himself as the ruler of Gazru in the
superscript of the letter but
petrographic analysis indicates a
southern coastal origin.
300 probably
Gezer
no can be restored
as Yapaḫu
274 The name of the ruler and the place
of origin were restored by Knudzton
on the basis of similarity of the tablet
to EA 298-299. Petrographic analysis
could not have been done but
examination under the
stereomicroscope confirmed
Knudtzon‘s conclusions.
378 Gezer yes Yapaḫu 275 The name of the city appears in the
superscript together with the first
syllable of the name of the ruler
which allows a secure identification
as a letter sent by Yapaḫu of Gezer.
However, petrographic analysis
indicates its coastal origin, like EA
298-300.
GATH/ŠUWADARATA
63 Gath no ʿAbdi-aštarti 283-284. Knudzton attributed the letter to the
357
Phoenician coast and to ʿAbdi-aštarti,
king of Amurru. Naʾamann 1979
demonstrated that EA 63-65 were
sent from the same place where
Šuwardata resided. See Moran 1992,
135. Geological interpretation of EA
63 is as EA 279.
64 Gath no ÌR-dINNIN
(=ʿAbdi-
aštarti?)
284-285 The petrographic data suggest an
upper Shephelah origin. If its author
is to be identified with ʿAbdi-ašrati,
the ruler of Gath, it had to be sent
from the eastern flank of the Gath
territory.
65 Gath no The reading of
the name is
problematic.
285 Geological interpretation of EA 285
is the same as EA 279. The close
similarity of EA 65 to EA 63-64
suggests that its author was ʿAbdi-
aštarti too.
229 Gath no Probably only
partially
preserved:
ʿAbdina?
286 Geological interpretation as EA 64;
thus it belongs to the Canaanite
correspondence.
278 Higher
Shephelah
no Šuwardata 283, 286 Šuwardata is generally identified as
the ruler of Gath (Gimtu) which is
most probably identified as the
modern Tel-Ṣafit. However, EA 278
is not made of materials from Tel-
Ṣafit‘s immediate environment. Its
petrographical analysis indicates
origin in the higher Shephelah area.
279 Gath no Šuwardata 280-281 According to petrographic analysis it
was sent from the lower Shephelah,
most probably from Tel-Ṣafit.
280 Gath (?) no Šuwardata
358
281 Gath no Šuwardata According to petrographic analysis it
was sent from the lower Shephelah,
most probably from Tel-Ṣafit.
282 Gath no Šuwardata 281 According to petrographic analysis it
was sent from the lower Shephelah,
most probably from Tel-Ṣafit.
283 Gath no Šuwardata 282 According to petrographic analysis it
was sent from the lower Shephelah,
most probably from Tel-Ṣafit.
284 Gath no Šuwardata 282 According to petrographic analysis it
was sent from the lower Shephelah,
most probably from Tel-Ṣafit.
335 Gath no ʿAbdi-aštarti 285-286 Geological interpretation of EA is the
same as EA 279.
366 Gath no Šuwardata 282 According to petrographic analysis it
was sent from the lower Shephelah,
most probably from Tel-Ṣafit.
LACHISH
311 most likely
Lachish
no not extant 289 Badly preserved; previously
unclassified but according to
petrographic analysis most likely a
Lachish tablet.
328 Lakish yes Yabni-ilu
329 Lachish/Gaz
a
yes Zimreddi 288-289 The superscript identifies the author
as Zimreddi of Lakish. However,
petrographic analysis indicates that it
was dispatched from the Gaza-
Ashkelon area. Its script is identical
to EA 321 from Askelon. Hence, one
may concluded that all these letters
were sent when the kinglets traveled
to Gaza to receive verbal orders from
359
the Egyptian official.
330 possibly
Lachish
no Šipṭi-Baʿlu 288 The petrographic details are
insufficient for assigning this tablet to
Lachish but confirm its origin from
the southwestern Shepehlah.
331 possibly
Lachish
no Šipṭi-Baʿlu
(name partially
restored)
332 possibly
Lachish
yes,
partiall
y
restore
d
Šipṭi-Baʿlu
(name partially
restored)
287-288 Petrographically similar to the
reference material from Tel Lachish.
SHEPHELAH
275 Shephelah no Yaḫzib-Adda 290 The tablet suits petrographically the
higher Shephelah.
276 Shephelah no Yaḫzib-Adda 290 The tablet suits petrographically the
higher Shephelah.
277 Shephelah? no not extant 291 Sampled only for elemental analysis
which revealed great similarity to EA
275 and 276.
ASHDOD
294 possibly
Ashdod
no conflicting
readings: Ṣi-x-
x-x-ni or
Ad[da]-[d]anu
293-294 Petrographically similar to EA 296.
296 possibly
Ashdod
no Yaḫtiru 292-293 The petrographic analysis indicates
that the tablet was sent from the area
between Ashdod and Caesarea.
Archaeologically, only Ashdod or
Jaffa could function in this area as a
city-state. Textual references in EA
360
294 and 296 favor Ashdod as the
place of origin.
ASHKELON
302 Ashkelon no Šubandu 297 Na‘aman suggested in his dissertation
that Šubandu was the ruler of
Ashkelon before Yidia.
Petrographically, Šubandu‘s letters
belong to the Askelon and Gaza
group. Since there is no example of a
kinglet who wrote all his letters from
the Egyptian centre in Gaza, it is
reasonable to assume that Šubandu‘s
letters come from Ashkelon.
303 Ashkelon no Šubandu 297 Petrographically, it is most likely an
Ashkelon-made tablet.
304 Ashkelon no Šubandu 298 Petrographically, it is most likely an
Ashkelon-made tablet.
305 probably
Ashkelon
no Šubandu
306 Ashkelon no Šubandu 298 Petrographically, it can be considered
as Ashkelon made. The similarity in
script and text to EA 329 suggests
that it was sent from the Egyptian
center in Gaza.
320 Ashkelon yes Yidia Yidia identifies himself as the ruler of
Ashkelon in the superscript.
321 Ashkelon-
Gaza
yes Yidia 295 Yidia identifies himself as the ruler of
Ashkelon in the superscript.
Petrographically, it can be considered
as Ashkelon made. The similarity in
script and texture to EA 329 suggests
that it was sent from the Egyptian
center in Gaza.
361
322 Ashkelon yes Yidia Yidia identifies himself as the ruler of
Ashkelon in the superscript. The
ruler‘s and the city‘s name are
partially restored.
323 Ashkelon no Yidia 295 The sender identifies himself as Yidia
in the superscript but does not
mention the city. Cluster and
principal component analyses place
this tablet within the Ashkelon group.
324 Ashkelon no Yidia 295-296 It is impossible to distinguish
petrographically between Gaza and
Ashkelon but there is no reason to
attribute EA 324 to Gaza.
325 Ashkelon no Yidia 296
326 Ashkelon no Yidia 297
YURṢA
314 Yurṣa yes Pu-Baʿlu Pu-Baʿlu identifies himself as the
ruler of Yurṣa in the superscript of
the letter.
315 Yurṣa yes Pu-Baʿlu 300 Petrographic analysis points to Tell
Jemmeh as the place of origin of EA
315. This location is most probably to
be identified as Yurṣa in accordance
with other archaeological and textual
evidence.
316 Yurṣa no Pu-Baʿlu 301 Petrographically, the tablet is
identical with EA 315.
362
II: The Central Hill Country
SHECHEM
252 Shechem no Labʾayu 262-264
253 Shechem no Labʾayu 264 Clay differs from EA 252 and 254 but
it reflects the local material in the
vicinity of Shechem.
254 Shechem no Labʾayu 264
JERUSALEM
285 Jerusalem/B
eth-shean
no ʿAbdi-ḫepa 268 Made of sediments from the central
Jordan Valley; produced at the
Egyptian administrative center of
Bet-shean?
286 Jerusalem no ʿAbdi-ḫepa 266
287 Jerusalem yes ʿAbdi-ḫepa 266
288 Jerusalem no ʿAbdi-ḫepa 266-267
289 Jerusalem yes ʿAbdi-ḫepa 267
290 Jerusalem yes ʿAbdi-ḫepa 267-268
291 Jerusalem?/
Gezer
no 268-269 Petrographically it belongs to the
Gezer tablets; too fragmentary for
translation; attributed to the
Jerusalem letters on the basis of
script, the writing on the left round
side of the tablet and on the basis of
the verbal form lumaššer.
363
III: The Galilee, the Coastal Plain of Acco and the Northern Valleys
HAZOR
227 Hazor yes not mentioned 228 The author identifies himself as the
king of Hazor but does not mention
his name. Petrographical analysis
confirms Hazor as its place of origin.
228 Hazor yes ʿAbdi-tirši 228-229
AKŠAPA
223 Akšapa/Tell
Keisan
no Endaruta
(partially
damaged)
232-233 Petrographic analysis limits the origin
of this tablet to the coastal plain of
the western Galilee, from Qiryat Atta
northwards, Tell Keisan being its
most preferred source.
ŠAMḪUNA
224 Šamḫuna/Be
th-shean
no Šamu-adda 234-237 Šamḫuna is identified unanimously
with Tel Shimron. Petrographically,
the tablet does not fits Tel Shimron
but rather Beth-shean valley
sediments which suggests that it was
written for Šamu-adda by a local
scribe on the occasion of his visit in
the Egyptian administrative center in
Beth-shean.
225 Šamḫuna yes Šamu-adda The sender and the place of origin are
identified in the superscript.
ACCO
232 Acco/Beth-
shean
yes Surata 239 Petrographic analysis points to Beth-
shean as the place of origin.
233 Acco yes Satatna The sender and the place of origin are
364
identified in the superscript.
234 Acco/Beth-
shean
yes Satatna 238 The sender and the place of origin are
identified in the superscript. This
tablet cannot be regarded
petrographically as local to Acco. In
its petrographic details it is similar to
EA 224. Therefore; it is likely that it
was written for Satatna by a local
scribe on the occasion of his visit in
the Egyptian administrative center in
Beth-shean.
235 +
327
Acco/Beth-
shean
no Sitatna 238-239 Petrographic analysis was performed
only on EA 235. It indicates that the
tablet was very probably sent from
Beth-shean.
ANAHARATH
237 Anaharath? no not extant 240-243 No information about the sender and
origin of the letter is extant in the
tablet. Knudtzon noticed the
similarity in the clay and placed it
with EA 238 and 239. His conclusion
is confirmed by petrographic
analysis. The petrographic
composition, the textual evidence and
the archaeological data suggest that
EA 237-239 originated from Tel
Rekhesh, which is identified with the
city of Anaharath.
238 Anaharath? no Bayadi 240-241 Petrographic analysis confirm the
similarity of this tablet to EA 237 and
239.
239 Anaharath? no Baduzana
(partially
damaged)
241 Petrographic analysis confirm the
similarity of this tablet to EA 237 and
238.
365
MEGIDDO
242 Megiddo yes Biridiya 244 The sender and the place of origin are
identified in the superscript.
Petrographic analysis confirms the
origin of the tablet from Megiddo.
243 Megiddo yes Biridiya 244 Petrographic analysis confirms the
origin of the tablet from Megiddo.
244 Megiddo yes Biridiya
245 Megiddo yes no 245 EA 245 continues EA 244. Knudzton
attributed it to Biridiya on the basis
of the fabric, the script and contents.
The petrographic analysis confirms
Knudzton‘s conclusion.
246 Megiddo no Biridiya 245-246 Petrographic analysis confirms the
origin of the tablet from Megiddo.
248 Megiddo no Yašdata 246-247 Yašdata does not state the identity of
his city but he affirms that he is
exiled and stays with Biridiya.
Petrographic analysis confirms the
origin of the tablet from Megiddo.
365 Megiddo no Biridiya 245-246
mdIM.UR.SAG/REHOB (?)
249 Rehob (?) no mdIM.UR.SAG
(partially
restored)
249-250 The suggestion that mdIM.UR.SAG‘s
city was Rehob is based on
petrographic, archaeological and
textual data but is not certain.
250 Rehob (?) no mdIM.UR.SAG
263 Rehob (?) no not extant 250
TEL YOKNEAM (?)
221 Tel no Wiktasu 255 Petrographic analysis and
366
Yokneam (?) archaeological considerations allow
us to hypothesize that the author of
the letter resided in Tel Yokneam. He
could have been Baʿlu-meḫir‘s
successor.
222 Tel
Yokneam (?)
no Wikasu
(partially
restored)
255 See EA 221.
257 Tel
Yokneam (?)
no Baʿlu-meḫir 251 Petrographic analysis and
archaeological considerations allow
to hypothesize that the author of the
letter resided in Tel Yokneam.
258 Tel
Yokneam (?)
no Baʿlu-meḫir 251 See EA 257above.
259 Tel
Yokneam (?)
no Baʿlu-meḫir
(only the last
syllable extant)
252-255 See EA 257 above.
GINTI-KIRMIL (?)
264 Ginti-kirmil
(?)
no Tagi 256-258 Identification of Gimti-kirmil as
Tagi‘s capital can be inferred from
various allusions in the Amarna
letters. Petrographic analysis and
archaeological considerations do not
help to identify its location more
closely than somewhere in the eastern
Sharon plain. It bordered on the
territory of the Egyptian centre of
Jaffa in the south, Shechem in the
east, Megiddo and Tel Yokneam in
the north.
265 Ginti-kirmil
(?)
no Tagi 258 Geological interpretation as EA 264.
266 Ginti-kirmil no Tagi (partially 258 It is possible that the scribe of EA 266
367
(?) restored) and EA 296 was the same person
because of the similarity of their
ductus but the clay of EA 266 differs
clearly from EA 296.
PIḪILU-PELLA
255 Piḫilu/Beth-
shean
no Mut-baḫlu 261 Petrographically, the tablet differs
from EA 256 and is to be assigned
rather to the Beth-shean group. It is
possible that it was written at Beth-
shean when Mut-baḫlu was ordered
to appear in the Egyptian
administrative center.
256 Piḫilu yes Mut-baḫlu 260-261 Pella in Jordan fits the geological
environment reflected in this tablet.
IV: The Bashan Area
ṢIRIBAŠANI
201 Ṣiribašani yes Artamanya 216 Petrographically, it belongs to the
southern Bashan or Yarmuk valley
sub-group of the Bashan
correspondence.
ŠAŠḪIMI
203 Šašḫimi yes ʿAbdi-milki 216-217 Petrographically, it belongs to the
southern Bashan or Yarmuk valley
sub-group of the Bashan
correspondence.
QANU
204 Qanu yes not mentioned 217 Petrographically, it belongs to the
southern Bashan or Yarmuk valley
sub-group of the Bashan
368
correspondence.
ṬUBU
205 Ṭubu yes not mentioned 217-218 Petrographically, it belongs to the
southern Bashan or Yarmuk valley
sub-group of the Bashan
correspondence.
AŠTAROTH
364 Aštaroth no Ayyab 218, 223 The identification of Ayyab as the
ruler of Aštaroth is inferred from
different pieces of information in the
Amarna letters. The petrographic
analysis confirms that the tablet could
originate in Tell ʿAshtara, the site
identified with the ancient Aštaroth.
ZUḪRA
334 Zuḫra yes not extant 219-220 Petrographically, it belongs to the
Aštaroth sub-group of the Bashan
correspondence but its author is
identified explicitly in the text as the
ruler of Zuḫra.
336 Zuḫra (?) no Ḫiziru 220 The identification of Ḫiziru as ruler
of Zuḫra is based on the similarity of
his letters to EA 334 which is
identified in the text as written from
Zuḫra.
337 Zuḫra(?)/Ašt
aroth
no Ḫiziru 219, 223-224 Petrographically, it belongs to the
Aštaroth sub-group of the Bashan
correspondence; hence it could have
been written on the occasion of
Ḫiziru‘s visit in Aštaroth.
ŠARUNA
369
241 Šaruna yes Rusmanya 220-221 Petrographically, it belongs to the
southern Bashan or Yarmuk alley
sub-group of the Bashan
correspondence.
UNSPECIFIED CITIES IN THE BASHAN
200 not extant no not extant 221 Petrographically, it belongs to the
southern Bashan or Yarmuk valley
sub-group of the Bashan
correspondence.
202 not
mentioned
no Amawaše 221 Petrographically, it belongs to the
southern Bashan or Yarmuk valley
sub-group of the Bashan
correspondence.
207 not
mentioned
no Ipte- (partially
preserved)
221-222 Since the letter mentions the
Egyptian commissioner of Kumidi,
its origin should be sought in
southern Syria. Petrographically, it
belongs to the Aštaroth sub-group of
the Bashan correspondence.
208 not extant no not extant 222 Petrographically, it belongs to
Damascus sub-group of the Bashan
correspondence.
209 not
mentioned
no Zišamimi 222 Petrographically, it belongs to
Damascus sub-group of the Bashan
correspondence.
210 not extant no not extant Petrographically, it belongs to
Damascus sub-group of the Bashan
correspondence.
370
V: Southern Syria and the Neighbouring Areas
DAMASCUS
194 Damascus no Biryawaza 170-171 The petrographical analysis together
with the textual data confirms that the
letter was sent from Damascus.
195 Damascus no Biryawaza
196 Damascus no Biryawaza 171 The petrographical analysis together
with the textual data confirms that the
letter was sent from Damascus.
197 Damascus yes Biryawaza 171 The petrographical analysis together
with the textual data confirms that the
letter was sent from Damascus.
MUŠIḪUNA
182 Mušiḫuna yes Šutarna 172 The location of Mušiḫuna is unkown.
It is identified with Mśḫ of Thutmose
III‘s topographical lists where it is
mentioned side by side with the cities
of the Bashan area. The tablet does
not provide enough petrographic data
to identify its origin.
183 Mušiḫuna yes Šutarna 172 The tablet does not provide enough
petrographic data to identify its
origin.
184 not
preserved
no Šutarna 173 The clay of EA 184 is different from
EA 182-183. However, there are no
details that may help to identify its
origin.
371
VI: The Lebanese Littoral
BYBLOS
50 Byblos not
extant
not extant 159 The presence of the conjunction al-
[lu-mi], si vera lectio, points to the
Byblian origin of the letter.
Petrographically, this letter belongs
to the main group of the Byblos
tablets.
68 Byblos yes Rib-hadda 136-137
69 Byblos not
extant
Rib-hadda 137
70 Byblos not
extant
not extant For the text see Izre‘el 1995.
71 Byblos no Rib-hadda 137
72 Byblos not
extant
not extant 134-136
73 Byblos yes Rib-hadda
74 Byblos yes Rib-hadda 138
75 Byblos yes Rib-hadda
76 Byblos yes Rib-hadda 138
77 Byblos yes not extant 138-139
78 Byblos yes Rib-hadda 139
79 Byblos yes Rib-hadda 139-140
81 Byblos yes not extant 136
82 Byblos no Rib-hadda 140
83 Byblos yes Rib-hadda 140-141
372
84 Byblos yes Rib-hadda 141
85 Byblos yes Rib-hadda 141
86 Byblos no Rib-hadda 141-142
87 Byblos yes Rib-hadda 142
88 Byblos yes Rib-hadda 142
89 Byblos yes Rib-hadda 143
90 Byblos yes Rib-hadda 143
91 Byblos yes not extant 144
92 Byblos yes Rib-hadda 144
93 Byblos no Rib-hadda 144-145
94 Byblos no Rib-hadda
95 Byblos yes Rib-hadda 145
101 Byblos no not extant 147 Petrography indicates that this tablet
indeed belongs to the Byblos
correspondence.
102 Byblos yes Rib-hadda 147
103 Byblos
/Ṣumur
yes Rib-hadda 147-148 Petrographically, EA 103 is similar to
the tablets from Ṣumur and the text
(lines 13-16) confirms that it was
indeed sent from Ṣumur. This is the
only case in the Amarna
correspondence in which an author
explicitly states that he writes his
letter from an Egyptian
administrative center.
104 Byblos yes Rib-hadda
105 Byblos yes Rib-hadda 148
106 Byblos yes Rib-hadda 148
373
107 Byblos yes Rib-hadda
108 Byblos yes Rib-hadda 149
109 Byblos yes Rib-hadda 149
110 Byblos not
extant
not extant 149-150
111 Byblos not
extant
not extant 150
112 Byblos no Rib-hadda 150-151
113 Byblos (?) no not extant
114 Byblos partially
restored
not extant
115 Byblos not
extant
not exant 151
116 Byblos yes Rib-hadda
(partially
restored)
117 Byblos partially
restored
Rib-hadda 151
118 Byblos yes Rib-hadda 151-152
119 Byblos yes Rib-hadda 152
120 Byblos no not mentioned 153
121 Byblos yes Rib-hadda 153
122 Byblos yes Rib-hadda
123 Byblos yes Rib-hadda 153-154
124 Byblos yes Rib-hadda
125 Byblos yes Rib-hadda 154
126 Byblos Byblos Rib-eddi 154-155 The petrographic data indicates that
374
/Ṣumur this letter was sent from Ṣumur.
127 Byblos yes not extant 155
128 Byblos (?) not
extant
not extant
129 Byblos yes Rib-addi
(partially
reconstructed)
155
130 Byblos yes Rib-hadda 156
131 Byblos yes not extant 156
132 Byblos yes Rib-hadda 156-157
133 Byblos yes not extant 157
134 Byblos yes not extant
135 Byblos (?) This tablet no longer exists.
136 Byblos
/Beirut
yes Rib-hadda 157-158 As it may be inferred from the text,
this tablet was sent from Beirut.
Petrographically, the tablet is similar
to other Beirut letters.
137 Byblos
/Beirut
yes Rib-addi As it may be inferred from the text,
this tablet was sent from Beirut.
138 Byblos
/Beirut
yes Rib-addi 157-158 As it may be inferred from the text,
this tablet was sent from Beirut.
Petrographically, the tablet is similar
to other Beirut letters.
139 Byblos yes Ili-rapiḫ 158
140 Byblos yes Ili-rapiḫ 158
362 Byblos yes Rib-haddi 158-159
BEIRUT
97 Beirut/Gaza no Yapaḫ-hadda
(partially
161-162 The attribution of the letter to the
correspondence from Beirut is based
375
reconstructed) on the name of the sender. The
petrographical analysis indicated
clearly that the tablet was made of
sediments from the Gaza region.
98 Beirut no Yapaḫ-hadda 162
141 Beirut yes Ammunira 162-163
142 Beirut yes Ammunira
(reconstructed)
163
143 Beirut yes Ammunira 163
SIDON
144 Sidon yes Zimreddi 165
145 Sidon no Zimreddi
(partially
reconstructed)
165
TYRE
146 Tyre
(?)/Tripolis
area
no Abi-milku 168-169 Petrographically, the material of this
letter is foreign to the Tyre area and
rather belongs to the Lebanon
Mountains.
147 Tyre yes Abi-milku 167
148 Tyre no Abi-milku
149 Tyre yes Abi-milku 167
150 Tyre no Abi-milku
151 Tyre no Abi-milku 166
152 Tyre no Abi-milku 167
153 Tyre no Abi-milku
154 Tyre no Abi-milku 167-168
155 Tyre yes Abi-milku 168
376
295 Tyre no -DI.KUD 295 Kudtzon attributed this letter to the
ruler of Gezer but Na‘aman
suggested that it was sent by the
predecessor of Abi-milku in Tyre.
Moran accepted this proposal but
noted that the scribe of this letter is
different from the other scribes of the
Tyrian correspondence (Moran 1992,
338). The petrographic analysis
supports the Tyrian origin of this
letter.
VII: The Lebanese Beqaʿ
ENIŠASI
187 Enišasi yes Šatiya 126-127 The clay type, widely distributed in
the Labanese mountains and in some
areas on the edges of the Beqaʿ
valley, makes impossible to
determine more precisely its place of
origin.
ḪASI
185 Ḫasi yes Mayarzana
(partially
restored)
127 The petrographical analysis does not
help to establish the precise origin of
the letter but confirms that it was sent
from the the Lebanese Beqaʿ.
186 Ḫasi yes Mayarzana 128 This tablet is petrographically
different from the other Ḫasi letters
but its composition does not allow to
establish its provenience more
precisely.
GUDDAŠUNA
377
177 Guddašuna yes Yamiuta 128-129
A GROUP OF IDENTICAL LETTERS SENT BY FOUR BEQAʿ RULERS
173 not extant no not extant 130-131
174 Ḫašabu yes Bieri 129-130
175 Ḫasi yes ʾIldayyi 130 The petrographical analysis does not
help to establish the precise origin of
the letter but confirms that it was sent
from the Lebanese Beqaʿ.
363 E<ni>šasi yes ʿAbdi-riša 130 Geological interpretation of EA 363
is like EA 187 of Enišasi.
LETTERS OF UNSPECIFIED LOCATIONS, POSSIBLY FROM THE BEQAʿ VALLEY
178 Beqaʿ? no Ḫibiya 131
179 Beqaʿ? no not extant 132
181 Beqaʿ? no not extant 131
VIII: Unidentified Cities in Canaan
AḪTIRUMNA/AḪTIAŠNA
319 Aḫtirumna/
Aḫtiašna
yes Ṣur-ašar 302-303 The petrographical analysis indicates
that the letter was made in the
southern coastal plain between
Raphia and Ashkelon, possibly in
Gaza.
LETTERS OF UNPROVENANCED CANAANITE RULERS
80 not extant no not extant 303-304 The petrographical analysis indicated
that it was definitely not sent from
Byblos, even if its script and text are
typical of Rib-haddi letters.
378
180 unknown no not extant
230 not
mentioned
no Yama 304 Petrographically, there is no
component which can disclose its
origin.
251 not
mentioned
no not mentioned 304-305
261 not
mentioned
no Dašru 305-306
LETTERS OF UNPROVENANCED RULERS, SENT FROM GAZA
66 not extant no not extant 309-310
211 not
mentioned
no Zitriyara 306-307
212 not
mentioned
no Zitriyara 307
213 not
mentioned
no Zitriyara 307-308
215 not
mentioned
no Bayawa 308
216 not
mentioned
no Bayawa
217 not
mentioned
no not extant 310
218 not extant no not extant 310-311
226 not
mentioned
no Ṣipṭu-riṣa 308
307 not extant no not extant 311
308 not extant no not extant 311
309 not extant no not extant 311-312
379
310 not extant no not extant 312
312 not extant no not extant 312-313
317 not
mentioned
no Dagan-takala 309
318 not
mentioned
no Dagan-takala 309
SMALL FRAGMENTS OF LETTERS OF OTHER PROVENANCES
214 not extant no not extant 313 An upper Shephelah provenance may
be suggested.
219 not extant no note extant 314 The clay of this tablet indicates
clearly its origin from the central hill
country.
231 not extent no not extant 315 According to the petrographical
analysis, it is most likely a fragment
of a letter from Byblos.
236 not extant no not extant 315
240 not extant no not extant 313
380
Appendix 3
The Amarna Letters from Canaan Excluded from Analysis
EA Number Origin Reason for Exclusion
50 Byblos only the greeting and obeisance formula are preserved
66 unknown Canaanite origin not certain; too fragmentary
67 unknown Canaanite origin not certain
70 Byblos fragmentary state of preservation; too many restorations
72 Byblos too fragmentary for translation and analysis
80 Canaan too fragmentary
97 Beirut/Gaza partially preserved; some forms reconstructed
110 Byblos too fragmentary for analysis
111 Byblos too fragmentary for analysis
115 Byblos too fragmentary for translation
120 Byblos the body of the letter contain a list of vessels; the end of the
letter contains several verbal forms but is not well preserved
128 Byblos too fragmentary for translation
135 Byblos too fragmentary for translation
146 Tyre? too fragmentary for analysis
172 unknown a small fragment
173 Beqaʿ Valley fragmentary, most verbal forms reconstructed
181 unknown only the greeting and obeisance formula are preserved
183 Mušiḫuna only the greeting and obeisance formula are preserved
381
184 Mušiḫuna (?) too fragmentary for translation
186 Ḫasi badly preserved; most verbs reconstructed
188 unknown only the greeting and obeisance formula are preserved
194 Damascus badly preserved; most verbs reconstructed
199 not extant too fragmentary for analysis
200 not extant too fragmentary for analysis
207 not mentioned too fragmentary for analysis
210 not extant/Bashan too fragmentary for translation
214 not extant too fragmentary for translation
217 not mentioned/Gaza badly preserved; most verbs reconstructed
219 not extant too fragmentary for translation
236 not extant too fragmentary for translation
240 not extant too fragmentary for translation
291 Jerusalem/Gezer too fragmentary for translation
309 not extant/Gaza fragmentary, no verbal form preserved except one infinitive
310 not extant/Gaza too fragmentary for translation
311 not extant/Lachish one verbal form well preserved but without context
312 not extant/Gaza too fragmentary for translation
332 Lachish only the greeting and obeisance formula are preserved
334 Zuḫra only the greeting formula is preserved
335 Gath too fragmentary for analysis
336 Zuḫra (?) only the greeting formula is preserved
338 not extant too fragmentary for translation
339 not extant too fragmentary for translation
382
Appendix 4
Cities and Their Letters1
City No. Region No. Name of the City Number of Letters
1 I Gezer 15
2 I Gath/Šuwardata 13
3 I Lachish 6
4 I Shephelah 3
5 I Ashdod 2
6 I Ashkelon 12
7 I Yurṣa 3
8 II Shechem 3
9 II Jerusalem 6
10 III Hazor 2
11 III Akšapa 1
12 III Šamḫuna 2
13 III Acco 4
14 III Anaharath 3
15 III Megiddo 7
16 III mdIM.UR.SAG/Rehob (?) 3
17 III Tel Yokneam (?) 5
1 The numbers assigned to individual cities and regions in these table are used in reference to the same
cities throughout the present study.
383
18 III Ginti-Kirmil (?) 3
19 III Piḫilu-Pella 2
20 IV Ṣiribašani 1
21 IV Šašḫimi 1
22 IV Qanu 1
23 IV Ṭubu 1
24 IV Aštaroth 1
25 IV Zuḫra 3
26 IV Šaruna 1
27 IV Unspecified cities in the Bashan 6
28 V Damascus 4
29 V Mušiḫuna 3
30 VI Byblos 70
31 VI Beirut 5
32 VI Sidon 2
33 VI Tyre 11
33 VII Enišasi 1
34 VII Ḫasi 2
35 VII Guddašuna 1
36 VII Four Beqaʿ rulers 4
37 VII Unspecified locations, possibly the Beqaʿ valley 3
38 VIII Aḫtiruma/Aḫtiašna 1
39 VIII Unprovenanced Canaanite Rulers 5
40 VIII Unprovenanced Rulers, sent from Gaza 16
41 VIII Small fragments of other provenance 5
384
Appendix 5
Morphological Terminology and Abbreviations
Term Explanation
TMA Tense-Mood-Aspect
qatal A mixed form which exhibits the morphology and functions of the Canaanite
suffix conjugation
yaqtul A mixed form which exhibits the morphology and functions of the Canaanite
short prefix conjugation
yaqtulu A mixed form which exhibits the morphology and functions of the Canaanite long
prefix conjugation
yaqtula A mixed form which exhibits the morphology and functions of the Canaanite
prefix conjugation with the final /a/
iprus The Akkadian Preterite
iptaras The Akkadian Perfect
iparras The Akkadian Durative
C Consonant
V Vowel
ms masculine singular
fs feminine singular
mp masculine plural
fp feminine plural
md masculine dual
385
Appendix 6
Shlomo Izre‘el‘s Vision of the Language
of the Amarna Letters from Canaan
Shlomo Izre‘el‘s recent contribution on the language of the Amarna letters (2012) is the
result of his decades-long study of the Amarna letters and combines his cuneiform expertise
with his familiarity with various linguistic disciplines. It contains many detailed and useful
observations but his choice of contact linguistics as the most appropriate framework for
analyzing the Amarna language must be questioned.
Izre‘el‘s argument is straightforward: the language of the Amarna letters exhibits various
features typical of ―mixed languages;‖ consequently, it should be classified as a mixed
language and its characteristics should be interpreted using the conceptual and
methodological framework of ―contact linguistics.‖ Certainly, none can dispute the fact that
on the synchronic level the Amarna language looks structurally similar to ―mixed
languages.‖ However, whether these similarities justify the classification of the Amarna
language as ―mixed language‖ and the use of ―contact linguistic‖ as the framework to discuss
the genesis and features of this language is questionable.
If languages were simply abstract systems, it would be possible to study them only by
analyzing their formal features. But languages live on the mouths and in the minds of their
users. They are part of human behavior and are shaped by historical circumstances in which
their users employ them. A comprehensive study of any language must consider not only its
formal features but also the historical and social context of its use. This is the central
principle of sociolinguistics, which expands the study of the language beyond formal analysis
(morphological, syntactic etc.) and introduces the social identity and history of the linguistic
community as a formative factor (Mesthrie 2011). It follows that, if one wishes to advance a
claim that a language should be classified as a ―mixed language‖, in order for this claim to be
valid, one must specify the circumstances of language contact which produced a particular
―mixed language‖ (see 2.2.2). Izre‘el openly contradicts this principle of contact linguistics
when he writes: ―I should also add at this juncture that whether there was any direct contact
386
at any time between Canaanite and Akkadian speakers is not something that I should
consider in order to classify or define the nature of the resulting contact between the
languages (pace Sanders 2009, pp. 88-90)‖ (2012, 180). At this point, Izre‘el‘s logic is
difficult to accept. Contact linguistics considers situations of contact between populations of
speakers of different languages. It is not methodologically acceptable to use theoretical
framework but disregard the central question of that framework.
Only when we recognize Izre‘el‘s methodological sidestep, may we accurately summarize
his argument: the Amarna language had to be a mixed language because it looks like one;
therefore, there had to have been contact between languages in order to produce this mixed
language though it is irrelevant how and where it happened! Izre‘el is forced into this vicious
circularity by the simple fact that it is impossible to prove contact between the speakers of
Canaanite and Akkadian in Canaan for sufficient length and intensity to produce a mixed
language.
Having accepted that the Amarna language exhibits features of a mixed language, the logical
next step would have been to investigate what other explanations could both explain these
features and account for the more likely non-contact scenario. In fact, the likeliest context in
which Canaanite and Akkadian could have entered into contact in Canaan is local scribal
education. But, admitting that scribal education is the environment responsible for the
formation of the Amarna language requires the choice of a linguistic framework which
studies the language and its transformation in such a setting. This linguistic framework is
provided by theories of second language acquisition. The validity of such an alternative
theoretical approach to the Amarna language is not explored by Izre‘el. However, he makes
several important observations concerning the use of the term ―interlanguage‖ with regard to
the Amarna language.
Izre‘el rightly observes that ―when the term ‗interlanguage‘ is to be used as a denotation for a
synchronic status of linguistic use, it should refer to a dynamic situation where learners are
still in the process of learning the language and therefore the form of their interlanguage is
due to change in time‖ (2012, 177). This calls for remarks which further clarify the concept
of the Amarna interlanguage.
387
Though the use of interlanguage to define the linguistic output of the Canaanite scribe at a
synchronic level does not fully correspond to the use of this concept with regard to modern
language learning, it is equally so that the classification of the Amarna language as ―mixed
language‖ is problematic because it proposes a contradictio in terminis: a contact language
which is not a result of language contact because such a contact cannot be postulated.
Therefore, it is necessary to choose between two imperfect alternatives. One may adapt a
term used within a linguistic framework whose use is justified by the context of the
development of the Amarna language (second language acquisition). Or, one may use the
concept of ―mixed language,‖ which properly defines the Amarna language at a synchronic
level according to the categories used for modern languages but whose justification on a
diachronic level is speculative. In a larger perspective, this choice exemplifies the problem of
the use of linguistics in the study of ancient languages. It shows that, in order to analyze
ancient languages, every linguistic framework must be selectively adapted rather than
entirely adopted. The main reason for such a need is the nature of the data, which are
fragmentary and open to interpretations which cannot be verified by native informants.
In the case of the Amarna letters, the adaptation of second language acquisition theories is
justified by our knowledge of the historical circumstances of the formation of the language
while the adoption of contact linguistic would be based on a speculative postulate of the
genesis of a linguistic system which resembles contact languages. This fundamental choice of
second language acquisition theories demands consistent and coherent use of this framework.
Consequently, it is necessary to adapt the concept of interlanguage rather than introduce the
term ―mixed language‖ to a framework does not use it.
The adaption of the concept of interlanguage to describe the Amarna linguistic system
assumes that the linguistic mechanisms and their results, which operate in the scribal
community across generations, are a cumulative reflection of these operating in individual
scribes. By virtue of the Uniformitarian Principle (―the processes which we observe in the
present can help us to gain knowledge about processes in the past‖), it can be safely assume
that the Canaanite scribes experienced fossilization and were prone to interlingual
identifications which led to the transfer of native language features to the language they
studied, as is the case with the modern adult language learners. While the adoption of the
concept of interlanguage from a synchronic perspective may seem problematic, its adaptation
388
to fit the Amarna linguistic system reflects a larger perspective which has a greater
explanatory force, as I discussed was in chapter 4.
While Izre‘el‘s objection against the term ―interlanguage‖ is legitimate, his assessment of the
level of cuneiform education in Canaan (2012, 176) must be questioned. In fact, the
comparison of the scholastic materials from Canaan and other centers where Peripheral
Akkadian was employed (see 4.2) clearly indicates that Canaan was characterized by
―impoverished education.‖ Such a characterization is also plausible because of the history of
Peripheral Akkadian and cuneiform in Canaan. While the Akkadian attested in other centers
reflects in general the expansion of cuneiform literacy during the Middle Babylonian period,
the cuneiform tradition of Canaan is rooted in the Old Babylonian period and most probably
linked to contacts between Hazor and Mari. The level of the language displayed by Old
Babylonian texts from Hazor shows that Akkadian was acquired successfully by the scribes
of that period. The fall of Mari to Hammurabi in 1759 had to lead to the isolation of the
cuneiform tradition in Canaan which lasted until a new phase in the spread of Akkadian
during the Middle Babylonian period. Thus, cuneiform in Canaan was transmitted by several
generations of scribes in a situation of impoverished education. This historical scenario
explains why cuneiform in Canaan differs so much from other peripheral traditions. This
historical perspective is not appreciated enough by Izre‘el. Moreover, the framework of
contact linguistic chosen by him cannot incorporate this historical scenario into its model of
the development of the Amarna linguistic system while this historical context can be
perfectly handled by the framework provided by second language acquisition theories.
The body of Izre‘el paper contains many interesting and correct observations. He also
interprets a number of phenomena found in the Amarna interlanguage within his framework.
Some of these phenomena can be alternatively interpreted within the framework of second
language acquisition; some of Izre‘el‘s observations require additional comments.
Although Izre‘el‘s conclusion in section 2 that ―the Canaanite scribes perceived their
language of correspondence as (a dialect of) Akkadian‖ (2012, 181) is correct, some of his
interpretations in this section are suspect. The opening formulae of the letters (Izre‘el 2012,
182) have little bearing on the discussion of the Amarna language because they result from
rote learning. Moreover, they were not treated by the scribes as linguistically different from
the body of the letter, as can be seen from examples 6.7.10-11 in which the scribes substitute
389
the ―proper‖ Akkadian verbal form amqut with the qatal of the same root. One must also
question the interpretation of i-ru-da-am (Izre‘el 2012, 183) as a case of hyper-correction
because such an explanation assumes a level of declarative knowledge of Akkadian that is
unparalleled in other letters. To put the question simply; how is it possible that the scribes
had the declarative knowledge of mimation and of the use of the Akkadian ventive but failed
to learn the Akkadian verbal system? Clearly, the interpretation of the form i-ru-da-am as a
case of interlingual identification is superior because it explains it as a linguistic mechanism
which operated in the scribes rather than presupposing the high sophistication of their
grammatical knowledge.
Izre‘el‘s discussion of variation (section 3) leads to his conclusion that ―Canaano-Akkadian
is not different from any other natural language, written or spoken‖ (Izre‘el 2012, 184).
Again, I must concur with this conclusion, but with a significant qualification. Variation
motivated by linguistic or social factors identified by Izre‘el cannot be taken as an argument
against the Amarna language as a second language learners‘ language because linguistic and
sociolinguistic variation is also well attested in interlanguage (Gass, Behney and Plonsky
2013, 293-338). Moreover, Izre‘el‘s variational rules are based on selected examples and are
doubtful in light of a comprehensive examination of variation. We must also question some
of Izre‘el‘s interpretations of these examples. For instance, it is improper to characterize the
verbs in his example 18 (Izre‘el 2012, 188) as ―Akkadianized‖ because of the vowel rather
than glide prefix. In fact, these verbs are the yaqtulu forms, which are alien to the Akkadian
verbal system.
In section 4 of his paper Izre‘el moves from a limited definition of an underlying spoken
reality of the Amarna language to the claim that this language was spoken because it exhibits
various traits of natural languages, in particular the creation of new forms. In his opinion, this
underlying spoken reality is an argument for the genesis of the Amarna language in a contact
situation. While he is correct that various features of the orthography and morphology of the
Amarna language indicate that this language had a phonetic reality, such a reality does not
entail that this was a spoken language on par with a natural language. As I argued in 4.3, it
may simply prove that the Amarna interlanguage was pronounced by the scribes during their
training (as was Sumerian in Old Babylonian edubba and as is any ancient language in
modern classes which use an integrated approach to language instruction) and professional
390
duties but it cannot be used to prove the existence of a stable speech community of
―Canaano-Akkadian.‖ Moreover, Izre‘el‘s insistence on linguistic innovations by the Amarna
scribes tacitly assumes that such creativity is confined only to natural spoken languages. This
is also not the case, since second language learners are capable of producing formae novae in
their interlanguage (Ellis 1997, 60-61).
In conclusion; Izre‘el‘s contribution provides a reasonable interpretation of various features
of the Amarna language in spite of his infelicitous choice of contact linguistics as the
linguistic framework. Such a state of matters is not an indication of the correctness of his
methodological choices but stems from similarity of processes and mechanisms which
intervene in creation of both the interlanguage and of contact languages.
391
Abbreviations
Ash. item number in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford
BB Bezold, Carl, and E. A. Wallis Budge. 1892. The Tell El-Amarna Tablets in
the British Museum with Autotype Facsimiles. London: The British
Museum.
BM item number in the British Museum, London
C item number in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo
CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago. 1956-. Chicago.
EA El Amarna, refers to the numbering of the letters in Knudtzon 1915 and
Rainey 1978a
VAT item number in Vorderasiatische Teil der Staatlichen Museen, Berlin
VS Schroeder, Otto. 1915. Die Tontafeln von El-Amarna, Vorderasiatische
Schriftdenkmäler der königlichen Museen zu Berlin 11-12. Leipzig: J. C.
Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung.
WA Winckler, Hugo. 1889. Der Thontafelfund von El Amarna: Nach den
originalen autographirt von Ludwig Abel, Königliche Museen zu Berlin:
Mitteilungen aus den Orientalischen Sammlungen 1-3. Berlin: W. Spemann.
392
Bibliography
Abrahami, Philippe, and Laurent Coulon. 2008. "De l'usage et de l'archivage des tablettes
cunéiformes d'Amarna." In La lettre d'archive: Communication administrative et personelle
dans l'Antiquité proche-orientale et égyptienne: Actes du colloque de l'université de Lyon 2,
9-10 juillet 2004, edited by Laure Pantalacci, 1-26. Le Caire: Institut Français d'Archéologie
Orientale.
Aḥituv, Shmuel. 1984. Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents.
Jerusalem/Leiden: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University/E. J. Brill.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2006. "Grammars in Contact: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective." In
Grammars in Contact: A Cross-Linguistic Typology, edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and
R. M. Dixon, 1-66. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press.
Albright, William F. 1943. "An Archaic Hebrew Proverb in an Amarna Letter from Central
Palestine." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 89:29-32.
———. 1946. "Cuneiform Material for Egyptian Prosopography 1500-1200 B. C." Journal
of Near Eastern Studies 5 (1):7-25.
———. 1975. "The Amarna Letters from Palestine." In The Cambridge Ancient History:
Volume II, Part 2, edited by I. E. S. Edwards, N. G. L. Hammond and E. Sollberger, 98-116.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Albright, William F., and William L. Moran. 1951. ―New Evidence on Canaanite
taqtulū(na).‖ Journal of Cuneiform Studies 5:33-35.
Allen, James P. 2010. Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of
Hieroglyps. 2nd., revised ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
393
Andersen, Roger W. 1983. ―Transfer to Somewhere.‖ In Language Transfer in Language
Learning, edited by Susan M. Gass and Larry Selinker, 177-201. Rowley, MA: Newbury
House Publishers.
Archi, Alfonso. 1997. ―Ebla Texts.‖ In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near
East, edited by Eric M. Meyers, vol. 2, 184-186. New York: Oxford University Press.
Arnaud, Daniel. 1987. Recherches au pays d'Aštata, Emar VI, Tome 4: Textes de la
bibliothèque, Transcriptions et traductions. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
———. "Un prisme de fondation de Šarrī-El." BAAL: Bulletin d'Archéologie et
d'Architecture Libanaises 10:225-241.
Arnaud, Daniel, and Mirjo Salvini. 2000. "Une lettre du roi de Beyrouth au roi d'Ougarit de
l'époque dite 'd'El-Amarna'." Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 42 (1):5-17.
Aro, Jussi. 1954-1956. "Remarks on the Language of the Alalakh Texts." Archiv für
Orientforschung 17:361-365.
Auer, Peter, Jürgen Erich Schmidt, Alfred Lameli et al., ed. 2010. Language and Space: An
International Handbook of Linguistic Variation. 2 vols. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Bat-El, Outi. 2003. ―Semitic Verb Structure within a Universal Perspective.‖ In Language
Processing and Acquisition in Languages of Semitic, Root-Based, Morphology, edited by
Joseph Shimron, 29-59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Bayley, Robert. 2002. "The Quantitative Paradigm." In The Handbook of Language
Variation and Change, edited by J. K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill and Natalie Schilling-Estes,
117-141. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Beaulieu, Paul-Alain. 1992. "New Light on Secret Knowledge in Late Babylonian Culture."
Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 82:98-111.
———. 2000. ―The Descendants of Sîn-lēqi-unninni.‖ In Assyriologica et Semitica:
Festschrift für Joachim Oelsner anläßlich seines 65. Geburtstages am 18. Februar 1997,
394
edited by Joachim Marzahn, Hans Neumann, and Andreas Fuchs, 1-15. Münster: Ugarit-
Verlag.
———. 2007. ―Late Babylonian Intellectual Life.‖ In The Babylonian World, edited by
Gwendolyn Leick, 473-484. New York: Routledge.
Beckman, Gary. 1983. "Mesopotamians and Mesopotamian Learning at Ḫattuša." Journal of
Cuneiform Studies 35 (1):97-114.
———. 1996. Texts from the Vicinity of Emar in the Collection of Jonathan Rosen, History
of the Ancient Near East/Monographs 2. Padova: Sargon srl.
———. 2003. "Gilgamesh in Ḫatti." In Hittite Studies in Honor of Harry A. Hoffner Jr. on
the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, edited by Gary Beckman, Richard H. Beal and Gregory
McMahon, 37-57. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Belmonte Marín, Juan Antonio. 2001. Répertoire géographique des textes cunéiformes XII/2:
Die Orts- und Gewässernamen derTexte aus Syrien im 2. Jt. v. Chr, Beihefte zum Tübinger
Atlas des Vorderen Orients. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Berkooz, Moshé. 1937. The Nuzi Dialect of Akkadian: Orthography and Phonology,
Language Dissertations. Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America.
Bezold, Charles. 1893. Oriental Diplomacy: Being the Transliterated Text of the Cuneiform
Despatches between the Kings of Egypt and Western Asia in the XVth Century before Christ,
Discovered at Tell el-Amarna, and Now Preserved in the British Museum, With Full
Vocabulary, Grammatical Notes, etc. London: Luzac and Co.
Binnick, Robert I. 1991. Time and the Verb: A Guide to Tense and Aspect. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Boehmer, Julius. 1900. Aus den Tell-Amarna-Briefen: Ein morgenländisches Zeitbild aus der
Mitte des zweiten vorchristlichen Jahrtausends. Gütersloh: G. Bertelsmann.
395
Bonechi, Marco. 1991. "Relations amicales syro-palestiniennes: Mari et Haṣor au XVIIIe
siècle av. J.C." In Florilegium marianum: Recueil d'études en l'honneur de Michel Fleury,
edited by Jean-Marie Durand, 9-22. Paris: La Société pour l'Étude du Proche-Orient Ancien.
Böhl, Franz Marius Theodor. 1909. Die Sprache der Amarnabriefe mit besonderer
Berücksichtigung der Kanaanismen, Leipziger Semitistische Studien. Leipzig: J. C.
Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung.
Brovender, Chaim. 2007. "Hebrew Language: Pre-Biblical." In Encyclopaedia Judaica,
edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, vol. 8, 620-625. Detroit: Macmillan
Reference USA.
Bryan, Betsy M. 1997. "Amarna, Tell El-." In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in
the Near East, edited by Eric M. Meyers, vol. 1, 81-86. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bryce, Trevor. 2003. Letters of the Great Kings of the Ancient Near East: The Royal
Correspondence of the Late Bronze Age. London: Routledge.
Bybee, Joan L., and Östen Dahl. 1989. "The Creation of Tense and Aspect Systems in the
Languages of the World." Studies in Language 13 (1):51-103.
Bybee, Joan L., Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar:
Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Cantineau, J. 1950. "La langue de Ras-Shamra." Semitica 3:21-34.
Clauß, H. 1907. "Die Städte der El-Amarnabriefe und die Bibel." Zeitschrift des Deutschen
Palästina-Vereins 30:1-79.
Charpin, Dominique. 2010. Reading and Writing in Babylon. Translated by Jane Marie Todd.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cochavi-Rainey, Zippora. 1989. "Canaanite Influence in the Akkadian Texts Written by
Egyptian Scribes in the 14th
and 13th
Centuries B.C.E." Ugarit-Forschungen 21:39-46.
396
———. 2003. The Alashia Textes from the 14th and 13
th Centuries BCE: A Textual and
Linguistic Study, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 289. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
———. 2005. To the King My Lord: Letters from El-Amarna, Kumidu, Taanach and Other
Letters from the Fourteenth Century BCE., The Biblical Encyclopaedia Library 20.
Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute-Ben-Gurion University Press.
———. 2011. The Akkadian Dialect of Egyptian Scribes in the 14th
and 13th
Centuries BCE,
Alter Orient und Altes Testament 374. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Cohen, Yoram. 2009. The Scribes and Scholars of the City of Emar in the Late Bronze Age,
Harvard Semitic Studies 59. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
———. 2013. Wisdom from the Late Bronze Age, Writings from the Ancient World 29.
Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature.
Conder, C. R. 1894. The Tell Amarna Tablets. Strand: Committe of the Palestine Exploration
Fund by A. P. Watt & Son.
Cook, John A. 2012. Time and the Biblical Hebrew Verb: The Expression of Tense, Aspect,
and Modality in Biblical Hebrew, Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 7. Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Cooper, Jerrold S. 1971. "Bilinguals from Boghazköi. I." Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und
Vorderasiatische Archäologie 61:1-22.
———. 1972. "Bilinguals from Boghazköi. II." Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und
Vorderasiatische Archäologie 62:62-81.
Crowley, Terry. 2008. ―Pidgin and Creole Morphology.‖ In The Handbook of Pidgin and
Creole Studies, edited by Silvia Kouwenberg and John Victor Singler, 74-97. Malden, MA:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Devine, A. M., and Laurence D. Stephens. 2013. Semantics for Latin: An Introduction.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
397
Dietrich, Manfried. 1991. "Der Dialog zwischen Šūpē-amēli und seinem 'Vater': Die
Tradition babylonischer Weisheitssprüche im Westen. Anhang: Die hethitische Version by
Götz Keydana." Ugarit-Forschungen 23:33-74.
Dhorme, P. É. 1913. "La langue de Canaan." Revue Biblique 10:369-393.
———. 1914. "La langue de Canaan." Revue Biblique 11:37-59, 344-372.
———. 1940. "Textes accadiens transcrits en écriture alphabétique de Ras Shamra." Revue
d'assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale 37 (3):83-96.
Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. 2004-2007. "(More) On Performatives in Semitic." Zeitschrift für
Althebraistik 17-20:36-81.
Dossin, Georges. 1934. "Une nouvelle lettre d'El-Amarna." Revue d'assyriologie et
d'archéologie orientale 31 (4):125-136.
———. 1957. "Kengen, pays de Canaan." Rivista degli Studi Orientali 32:35-39.
———. 1969. "Trois inscriptions cunéiformes de Byblos." Mélanges de l'Université Saint
Joseph 45:243-255.
———. 1973. "Une mention de Cananéens dans une lettre de Mari." Syria 50 (3-4):277-282.
Ebeling, Erich. 1910. "Das Verbum der El-Amarna-Briefe." Beiträge zur Assyriologie und
semitischen Sprachwissenschaft 8 (2):39-79.
Edel, Elmar. 1994. Die ägyptisch-hethitische Korrespondenz aus Boghazköi in babylonischer
und hethitischer Sprache: Band I: Umschirften und Übersetzungen, Anhandlungen der
Rheinisch-Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 77. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Edzard, Dietz Otto. 1980. "Sumerisch 1 bis 10 in Ebla." Studi Eblaiti 3 (5-8):121-127 + plate
26 a-b.
El-Ayoubi, Hashem, Wolfdietrich Fischer, and Michael Langer. 2010. Syntax der Arabischen
Schriftsprache der Gegenwart, Teil II: Die Verbalgruppe. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag.
398
Ellis, Rod. 1997. Second Language Acquisition, Oxford Introductions to Language Study.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Filip, Hana. 2011. ―Aspectual Class and Aktionsart.‖ In Semantics: An International
Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, edited by Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia
Maienborn, and Paul Portner, 1186-1217. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Fincke, Jeanette C. 2012. ―The School Curricula from Ḫattuša, Emar and Ugarit: A
Comparison.‖ In Theory and Practice of Knowledge Transfer: Studies in School Education in
the Ancient Near East and Beyond, Papers Read at a Symposium in Leiden, 17-19 December
2008, edited by W. S. van Egmond and W. H. van Soldt, 85-101. Leiden: Nederlands
Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.
Fischer, Wolfdietrich. 2002. A Grammar of Classical Arabic. Translated by Jonathan
Rodgers. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Gass, Susan M., and Larry Selinker. 1994. Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory
Course, Topics in Applied Psycholinguistics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gass, Susan M., Jennifer Behney, and Luke Plonsky. 2013. Second Language Acquisition:
An Introductory Course. 4th ed. New York: Routledge.
Gensler, Orin D. 2011. ―Morphological Typology of Semitic.‖ In The Semitic Languages: An
International Handbook, edited by Stefan Weninger, 279-302. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
George, Andrew R. 2005. ―In Search of the É.DUB.BA.A: The Ancient Mesopotamian
School in Literature and Reality.‖ In “An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing:”
Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein, edited by Yitschak Sefati, Pinḥas
Artzi, Chaim Cohen, Barry L. Eichler, and Victor A. Hurowitz, 127-137. Bethesda, MD:
CDL Press.
———. 2007. "The Gilgameš Epic at Ugarit." Aula Orientalis 25 (2):237-254.
Gershevitch, Ilya. 1979. "The Alloglottography of Old Persian." Transactions of the
Philological Society 77:114-190.
399
Gianto, Agustinus. 1990. Word Order Variation in the Akkadian of Byblos, Studia Pohl 15.
Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico.
———. 1995. "Amarna Lexicography: The Glosses in the Byblos Letters." Studi Epigrafici e
Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 12:65-73.
———. 1999. ―Amarna Akkadian as a Contact Language.‖ In Language and Cultures in
Contact: At the Crossroad of Civilizations in the Syro-Mesopotamian Realm, Proceedings of
the 42th RAI, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 96. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en
Departement Oosterse Studies.
———. 2009. "Unheeded Pleas to the Powers That Be?: On Amarna Akkadian nenpušu ana
and paṭāru." Orientalia 78 (3):282-291.
Giles, Frederick J. 1997. The Amarna Age: Western Asia, The Australian Center for
Egyptology Studies 5. Wiltshire: Aris and Phillips Ltd.
———. 2001. The Amarna Age: Egypt, The Australian Centre for Egyptology Studies 6.
Wiltshire: Aris and Phillips Ltd.
Goetze, Albrecht. 1936. "The t-Form of the Old Babylonian Verb." Journal of the American
Oriental Society 56 (3):297-334.
———. 1938. "Some Observations on Nuzu Akkadian." Language 14 (2):134-143.
———. 1941. "Is Ugaritic a Canaanite Dialect?" Language 17 (2):127-138.
Goldenberg, Gideon. 2013. Semitic Languages: Features, Structures, Relations, Processes.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gordon, Cyrus H. 1936. "Nouns in the Nuzi Tablets." Babyloniaca 16:1-153.
———. 1938. "The Dialect of the Nuzu Tablets." Orientalia 7:32-63, 215-232.
———. 1947. "The New Amarna Tablets." Orientalia 16:1-21.
400
Goren, Yuval. 2000. "Provenance Study of the Cuneiform Texts from Hazor." Israel
Exploration Journal 50 (1-2):29-42.
Goren, Yuval, Shlomo Bunimovitz, Israel Finkelstein, and Nadav Naʾaman. 2003. "The
Location of Alashiya: New Evidence from Petrographic Investigation of Alashiyan Tablets
from El-Amarna and Ugarit." American Journal of Archaeology 107 (2):233-255.
Goren, Yuval, H. Mommes, Israel Finkelstein, and Nadav Naʾaman. 2009. "A Provenance
Study of the Gilgamesh Fragment from Megiddo." Archaeometry 51 (5):763-773.
Goren, Yuval, Israel Finkelstein, and Nadav Naʾaman. 2004. Inscribed in Clay: Provenance
Study of the Amarna Tablets and Other Ancient Near Eastern Texts, Tel Aviv University-
Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 23. Tel Aviv: Emery
and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology.
Grayson, A. Kirk. 2000. ―Murmuring in Mesopotamia.‖ In Wisdom, Gods and Literature:
Studies in Assyriology in Honour of W. G. Lambert, edited by A. R. George and I. L. Finkel,
301-308. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Hachmann, Rolf. 2012. Kāmid el-Lōz 20.: Die Keilschrftbriefe und der Horizont von el-
Amarna, mit einem Beitrag von Gernot Wilhelm, Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Alterumskunde
87. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GMBH.
Hale, Mark. 2007. Historical Linguistics: Theory and Method, Blackwell Textbooks in
Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Hallo, William W. 1992. ―The Syrian Contribution to Cuneiform Literature and Learning.‖
In New Horizons in the Study of Ancient Syria, Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 25, edited by
Mark W. Chavalas and John L. Hayes, 69-88. Malibu: Undena Publications.
Han, ZhaoHong. 2004. Fossilization in Adult Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters LTD.
Handcock, Percy. 1920. Selections from the Tell El-Amarna Letters. London: Society for
Promoting Christian Knowledge.
401
Hasselbach, Rebecca. 2005. Sargonic Akkadian: A Historical and Comparative Study of the
Syllabic Texts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
Hasselbach, Rebecca, and John Huehnergard. 2008. "Northwest Semitic Languages." In
Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, Vol. III: Lat-Pu, edited by Kees
Versteegh, 408-422. Leiden-Boston: Brill.
Hayes, John Lewis. 1984. Dialectical Variation in the Syntax of Coordination and
Subordination in Western Akkadian of the el-Amarna Period. PhD diss., Department of Near
Eastern Languages and Cultures, University of California, Los Angeles.
Heine, Bernd, and Tania Kuteva. 2005. Language Contact and Grammatical Change,
Cambridge Approaches to Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heintz, Jean Georges. 1995. Index documentaire d'El-Amarna 2: Bibliographie des textes
babyloniens d'El Amarna [1888 à 1993] et concordance des sigles EA. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz Verlag.
Herdner, Andrée. 1938. "Une particularité grammaticale commune aux textes d'El-Amarna et
de Ras-Shamra: t- préfixe pronominal de la troisième personne masculin pluriel." Revue des
Études Sémitiques (no number):76-83.
Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel, and Juan Camilo Conde-Silvestre, ed. 2012. The
Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics, Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics. Malden, MA:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Hess, Richard S. 1999. "Canaan and Canaanite at Alalakh." Ugarit-Forschungen 31:225-236.
Hilprecht Hermann V. 1896. Old Babylonian Inscriptions Chiefly from Nippur, The
Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, Series A: Cuneiform Texts, Vol.1,
Part 2. Philadelphia: Department of Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania.
Holmes, Y. Lynn. 1975. "The Messengers of the Amarna Letters." Journal of the American
Oriental Society 95 (3):376-381.
402
Holmstedt, Robert. 2006. "Issues in the Linguistic Analysis of a Dead Language, With
Particular Reference to Ancient Hebrew." The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 6 (11): 1-21.
Horowitz, Wayne, Takayoshi Oshima, and Seth L. Sanders. 2006. Cuneiform in Canaan:
Cuneiform Sources from the Land of Israel in Ancient Times. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
Society / The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Horowitz, Wayne, and Takayoshi Oshima. 2007. "Hazor 15: A Letter Fragment from Hazor."
Israel Exploration Journal 57:34-40.
———. 2010. "Hazor 16: Another Administrative Docket from Hazor." Israel Exploration
Journal 60 (2):129-132.
Horowitz, Wayne, Takayoshi Oshima, and Abraham Winitzer. 2010. "Hazor 17: Another
Clay Liver Model." Israel Exploration Journal 60 (2):133-145.
Horowitz, Wayne, Takayoshi Oshima, and Filip Vukosavović. 2012. "Hazor 18: Fragments
of a Cuneiform Law Collection from Hazor." Israel Exploration Journal 62:158-176.
Huehnergard, John. 1987. ""Stative," Predicative Form, Pseudo-Verb." Journal of Near
Eastern Studies 46 (3):215-232.
———. 1989. The Akkadian of Ugarit, Harvard Semitic Studies 34. Atlanta, GA: Scholars
Press.
———. 1991. "More on KI.erṣetu at Emar." N.A.B.U. Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et
utilitaires no. 2 (Juin), note no. 58.
———. 1992. "Historical Phonology and the Hebrew Piel." In Linguistics and Biblical
Hebrew, edited by Walter R. Bodine, 209-229. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
———. 1998. "A Grammar of Amarna Canaanite." Bulletin of American Schools of Oriental
Research (310):59-77.
———. 2012. An Introduction to Ugaritic. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
403
Ikeda, Jun. 2010. "Was Akkadian Spoken in Emar? Diglossia in Emar." In Language in the
Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 53e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, edited
by Leonid Kogan, N. Koslova, S. Loesov and S. Tishchenko, 841-850. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns.
Izre'el, Shlomo. 1987. "Early Northwest Semitic 3rd pl m Prefix: The Evidence of the
Amarna Letters." Ugarit-Forschungen 19:79-90.
———. 1991. Amurru Akkadian: A Linguistic Study, With an Appendix on the History of
Amurru by Itamar Singer. 2 vols, Harvard Semitic Studies 40-41. Atlanta, GA: Scholars
Press.
———. 1995a. "Amarna Tablets in the Collection of the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts,
Moscow." Journal for Semitics 7(2):125-161.
———. 1995b. "The Amarna Glosses: Who Wrote What for Whom? Some Sociolinguistic
Considerations." In Israel Oriental Studies 15: Language and Culture in the Near East,
edited by Shlomo Izre'el and Rina Drory, 101-122. Leiden: Brill.
———. 1995c. "The Amarna Letters from Canaan." In Civilizations of the Ancient Near
East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, vol. 4, 2411-2419. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
———. 1997. The Amarna Scholarly Tablets, Cuneiform Monographs 9. Groningen: Styx
Publications.
———. 1998. Canaano-Akkadian, Languages of the World/Materials. München: Lincom
Europa.
———. 2009. "Constructive Constructions: Semitic Verbal Morphology and Beyond." In
Egyptian, Semitic and General Grammar: Studies in Memory of H. J. Polotsky, edited by
Gideon Goldenberg and Ariel Shisha-Halevy, 106-130. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of
Sciences and Humanities.
———. 2012. ―Canaano-Akkadian: Linguistics and Sociolinguistics.‖ In Language and
Nature: Papers Presented to John Huehnergard on the Occasion of His 60th
Birthday, edited
404
by Rebecca Hasselbach and Naʿama Pat-El, 171-218. Chicago, IL: The Oriental Institute of
the University of Chicago.
Joannès, Francis. 1984. ―Textes no 91 à 245.‖ In Archives royales de Mari XXIII: Archives
administrative de Mari I, 83-226. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
———. 1985. "Nouveaux mémorandums." In Miscellanes babylonica: Mélanges offerts a
Maurice Birot, edited by Jean-Marie Durand and Jean-Robert Kupper, 97-113. Paris:
Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
Kämmerer, Thomas R. 1998. Šimâ milka: Induktion und Reception der mittelbabylonischen
Dichtung von Ugarit, Emār und Tell el-ʿAmārna, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 251.
Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Kearns, Kate. 2000. Semantics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kemp, Barry. 2012. The City of Akhenaten and Nefertiti: Amarna and Its People. London:
Thames & Hudson.
Knudtzon, J. A. 1915. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen:
Anmerkungen und Register bearbeitet von Otto Weber und Erich Ebeling. 2 vols,
Vorderasiatische Bibliothek. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung.
Koerner, Konrad E. F. 1997. "Linguistics vs Philology: Self-Definition of a Field or
Rhetorical Stance?" Language Sciences 19 (2):176-175.
Korchin, Paul D. 2008. Markedness in Canaanite and Hebrew Verbs, Harvard Semitic
Studies 58. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Kossmann, Maarten. 1994. ―Amarna-Akkadian as a Mixed Language.‖ In Mixed Languages:
15 Case Studies in Language Intertwining, edited by Peter Bakker and Maarten Mous, 169-
173. Amsterdam: Uitgave IFOTT.
Kouwenberg, N. J. C. 2010. The Akkadian Verb and Its Semitic Background, Languages of
the Ancient Near East 2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
405
Krecher, Joachim. 1957-1971. "Glossen." In Reallexikon der Assyriologie und
Vorderasiatischen Archäologie, Dritter Band: Fabel-Gynes und Nachtrag, edited by Ernst F.
Weidner and Wolfram von Soden, 431-440. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Kühne, Cord. 1973. Die Chronologie der internationalen Korrespondenz von El-Amarna,
Alter Orient und Altes Testament 17. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag/Vluyn: Verlag
Butzon & Bercker Kevelaer.
Labat, René. 1932. L'akkadien de Boghaz-Köi: Étude sur la langue des lettres, traités et
vocabulaires akkadiens trouvés à Boghaz-Köi. Bordeaux: Librairie Delmas.
———. "Le rayonnement de la langue et de l'écriture akkadiennes au deuxième millénaire
avant notre ère." Syria 39:1-27.
Labat, René, and Florence Malbran-Labat. 2002. Manuel d'épigraphie akkadienne: Signes,
syllabaire, idéogrammes, Geuthner Manuels. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change. 3 vols. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Lambert, Wilfred G. 2003-2004. Review of The Amarna Scholarly Tablets and Adapa and
the South Wind: Language Has the Power of Life and Death by Shlomo Izreʾel. Archiv für
Orientforschung 50:394-396.
Landsberger, Benno. 1954. "Assyrische Königsliste und "dunkles Zeitalter"." Journal of
Cuneiform Studies 8:31-45, 47-73, 106-133.
Laroche, Emmanuel. 1971. Catalogue des textes hittites. Paris: Éditions Klincksieck.
Lefebvre, Claire. 2004. Issues in the Study of Pidgin and Creole Languages, Studies in
Language Companion Series 70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Lemche, Niels Peter. 1991. The Canaanites and Their Land: The Tradition of the
Canaanites, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 110. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press.
406
Lipiński, Edward. 2006. ―Dissimilation of Gemination.‖ In Loquentes linguis: Studi
linguistici e orientali in onore di Fabrizio A. Pennacchietti, edited by Pier Giorgio Borbone,
Alessandro Mengozzi and Mauro Tosco, 437-446. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
Loewen, Shawn, and Hayo Reinders. 2011. Key Concepts in Second Language Acquisition,
Palgrave Key Concepts. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Luckenbill, Daniel David, and Thomas George Allen. 1916. "The Murch Fragment of an El-
Amarna Letter." The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 33 (1):1-8.
Mantel-Niećko, Joanna. 1984-1986. "Some Thoughts on the Role of the Contemporary
Philologist: Based on the Experience of an Ethiopian Philologist." Orientalia Suecana 33-
35:285-294.
Márquez Rowe, Ignacio. 2006. The Royal Deeds of Ugarit: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern
Diplomatics, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 335. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Mazar, Eilat, Wayne Horowitz, Takayoshi Oshima, and Yuval Goren. 2010. "A Cuneiform
Tablet from the Ophel in Jerusalem." Israel Exploration Journal 60 (1):4-21.
Meltzer, Edmund S. 1988. "The Cuneiform List of Egyptian Words from Amarna: How
Useful is It Really for Reconstructing the Vocalization of Egyptian?" Varia Aegyptiaca 4
(1):55-62.
Mendenhall, George E. 1947. The Verb in Early Northwest Semitic Dialects, PhD diss., The
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
Mesthrie, Rajend. 2011. ―Introduction: The Sociolinguistic Enterpries.‖ In The Cambridge
Handbook of Sociolinguistics, edited by Rajend Mesthrie, 1-14. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Millard, A. R. 1965. "A Letter from the Ruler of Gezer." Palestine Exploration Quarterly
97:140-143, pl. 25.
407
Miller, Cynthia L. 2004. "Methodological Issues in Reconstructing Language Systems from
Epigraphic Fragments." In The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies
and Assumptions: The Proceedings of a Symposium, August 12-14, 2001 at Trinity
International University, edited by James Karl Hoffmeier and Alan Ralph Millard, 281-305.
Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Mitchell, Rosamond, Florence Myles and Emma Marsden. 2013. Second Language Learning
Theories. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.
Moscati, Sabatino. 1956. "Sulla posizione linguistica del semitico nord-occidentale." Rivista
degli Studi Orientali 31:229-234.
Moran, William L. 1952. "‗Does Amarna Bear on Karatepe?‘: An Answer." Journal of
Cuneiform Studies 6 (2):76-80.
———. 1960. ―Early Canaanite yaqtula.‖ Orientalia 29:1-19.
———. 1964. ―*taqtul-Third Masculine Singular?‖ Biblica 45:80-82.
———. 1963. ―The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy.‖
The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 25 (1):77-87.
———. 1975. "The Syrian Scribe of the Jerusalem Amarna Letters." In Unity and Diversity:
Essays in the History, Literature, and Religion of the Ancient Near East, edited by Hans
Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts, 146-166. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
———. 1988. "Amarna Texts (Nos. 102, 103)." In Cuneiform Texts in the Metropolitan
Museum of Art, Vol. I: Tablets, Cones, and Bricks of the Third and Second Millennia B.C.,
edited by Ira Spar, 149-151 + plates 112-115. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
———. 1992. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
———. 2003. Amarna Studies: Collected Writings. Edited by John Huehnergard and Shlomo
Izre'el, Harvard Semitic Studies 54. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
408
Morris, Ellen F. 2006. "Bowing and Scraping in the Ancient Near East: An Investigation into
Obsequiousness in the Amarna Letters." Journal of Near Eastern Studies 65 (3):179-195.
Müller, D. H. 1906. "Semitica: Sprach- und rechtsvergleichende Studien." Sitzungsberichte
der Philosophisch-Historischen Klasse der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften
135:1-48.
Müller, Matthias. 2010. Akkadisch in Keilschrifttexten aus Ägypten: Deskriptive Grammatik
einer Interlanguage des späten zweiten vorchristlichen Jahrtausends anhand der Rames-
Briefe, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 373. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Mynářová, Jana. 2007. Language of Amarna-Language of Diplomacy: Perspectives on the
Amarna Letters. Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology-Faculty of Arts, Charles University in
Prague.
Naʾaman, Nadav. 1992. "Amarna Letters." In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Volume 1: A-C,
edited by David Noel Freedman, 174-181. New York: Doubleday.
———. "On Two Tablets from Kāmid el-Lōz." Ancient Near Eastern Studies 42:312-317.
Niccacci, Alviero. 1987. "A Neglected Point of Hebrew Syntax: yiqtol and Position in the
Sentence." Liber Annuus Studii Biblici Franciscani 37:7-19.
Niebuhr, Carl. 1901. The Tell El Amarna Period: The Relations of Egypt and Western Asia in
the Fifteenth Century B.C. According to the Tell El Amarna Tablets. Translated by J.
Hutchinson. London: David Nutt.
Nougayrol, Jean. 1975. Le babylonien, langue internationale de l'antiquité. Ljubljana:
Academia Scientiarum et Artium Slovenica.
Oded, Bustanay, and Shimon Gibson. 2007. "Canaan, Land of." In Encyclopaedia Judaica,
edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, vol. 4, 391-393. Detroit: Macmillan
Reference USA.
409
Oller, Gary H. 1977. ―The Autobiography of Idrimi: A New Text Edition with Philological
and Historical Commentary.‖ PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania.
Oppenheim, A. Leo. 1965. "A Note on the Scribes in Mesopotamia." In Studies in Honor of
Benno Landsberger on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, April 21, 1965, Assyriological Studies 16,
253-256. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
———. 1977. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Revised edition
completed by Erica Reiner. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Pardee, Dennis. 1999. "Review of Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of
the Mixed Dialect Used by Scribes from Canaan by Anson F. Rainey." Journal of Near
Eastern Studies 58 (4):313-317.
———. 2012. The Ugaritic Texts and the Origins of West Semitic Literary Composition: The
Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 2007. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Peled, Yishai. 1987. "‗Conditional Sentences without a Conditional Particle‘ in Classical
Arabic Prose." Zeitschrift für arabische Linguistik 16:31-43.
Pentiuc, Eugen J. 2001. West Semitic Vocabulary in the Akkadian Texts from Emar, Harvard
Semitic Studies 49. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Peterson, Bengt. 1978-1979. "Ein Besucher in Tell el Amarna 1837." Orientalia Suecana 27-
28:31-33.
Peterson, Jeremiah. 2006. "Direct Interconnections Between the Lexical Traditions of Kassite
Babylonia and the Periphery." Ugarit-Forschungen 38:577-592.
Petrie, W. M. Flinders. 1894. Tell El Amarna. London: Methuen.
Pettinato, Giovanni. 1981. "La pronuncia sumerica dei numeri da 1 a 10 in un testo lessicale
di Ebla." Annali dell'Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli 41:141-143 + plate I.
Portner, Paul. 2009. Modality, Oxford Surveys in Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
410
———. 2011. ―Perfect and Progressive.‖ In Semantics: An International Handbook of
Natural Language Meaning, edited by Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn, and Paul
Portner, 1217-1261. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Pruzsinszky, Regine, and Marlies Heinz. 2008. "The Texts from Kāmid el-Lōz and Their
Chronological Implications." In The Bronze Age in the Lebanon: Studies on the Archaeology
and Chronology of Lebanon, Syria and Egypt, edited by Manfred Bietak and Ernst Czerny,
79-85. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenchaften.
Purves, Pierre M. 1940. ―The Early Scribes of Nuzi.‖ The American Journal of Semitic
Languages and Literatures 57(2):162-187.
Rainey, Anson F. 1978a. El Amarna Tablets 359-379: Supplement to J. A. Knudtzon Die El-
Amarna-Tafeln, Alter Orient und Altes Testament, 2nd rev. ed. Neukirchen: Neukirchener
Verlag/Vluyn: Verlag Butzon & Bercker Kevelaer.
———. 1978b. "Scatterbrained Scribe." In Studies in Bible and the Ancient Near East
Presented to Samuel E. Loewenstamm on His Seventieth Birthday, edited Yitschak Avishur
and Joshua Blau, vol. 2, 141-150. Jerusalem: E. Rubinstein's Publishing House.
———. 1989-1990. "A New Translation of the Amarna Letters - After 100 Years." Archiv
für Orientforschung 36-37:56-75.
———. 1996. "Who Is a Canaanite? A Review of the Textual Evidence." Bulletin of
American Schools of Oriental Research 304:1-15.
———. 2002. "The ʿAmârnah Texts a Century after Flinders Petrie." Ancient Near Eastern
Studies 39:44-75.
———. 2003. "Some Amarna Collations." In Hayim and Miriam Tadmor Volume: Eretz-
Israel, Volume Twenty-Seven, edited by Israel Ephʿal, Amnon Ben-Tor and Peter Machinist,
192*-202*. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society-The Hebrew University of Jerusalem-
The Israel Museum.
411
———. 2010. "The Hybrid Language Written by Canaanite Scribes in the 14th Century
BCE." In Language in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 53e Rencontre
Assyriologique Internationale, edited by Leonid Kogan, N. Koslova, S. Loesov and S.
Tishchenko, 851-861. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Rainey, Anson F. and Steven R. Notley. 2006. The Sacred Bridge: Carta’s Atlas of the
Biblical World. Jerusalem: Carta.
Redford, Donald B. 1992. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Richter, Thomas. 2005. "Qaṭna in the Late Bronze Age: Preliminary Remarks." In General
Studies and Excavations at Nuzi 11/1, edited by David I. Owen and Gernot Wilhelm, 109-
126. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press.
Richter, Thomas and Sarah Lange. 2012. Das Archiv des Idadda: Die Keilschrifttexte aus
den deutch-syrischen Ausgrabungen 2001-2003 im Königspalast von Qaṭna. Mit einem
Beitrag von Peter Pfälzner, Qaṭna Studien 3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
Roberts, Craige. 1996. "Anaphora in Intensional Contexts." In The Handbook of
Contemporary Semantic Theory, edited by Shalom Lappin, 215-246. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishers.
Roche-Hawley, Carole and Robert Hawley. 2013. ―An Essay on Scribal Families, Tradition
and Innovation in Thirteenth-Century Ugarit.‖ In Beyond Hatti: A Tribute to Gary Beckman,
edited by Billie Jean Collins and Piotr Michalowski, 241-264. Atlanta, GA: Lockwood Press.
Rollston, Christopher A. 2010. "A Fragmentary Cuneiform Tablet from the Ophel
(Jerusalem): Methodological Musings about the Proposed Genre and Sitz im Leben." Antiguo
Oriente 8:11-21.
Rovira, Leticia. 2010. "Una red necesaria de circulación entre Mari y Haṣor: Un caso durante
el debut del reinado de Zimrî-Lîm." Rivista degli Studi Orientali 83 (1-4):59-76.
412
Rubio, Gonzalo. 2007. ―Writing in Another Tongue: Alloglottography in the Ancient Near
East.‖ In Margins of Writing, Origins of Cultures, Oriental Institute Seminars 2, edited by
Seth L. Sanders, Second Printing with Postscripts and Minor Corrections, 33-70. Chicago,
IL: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Scheil, V. 1897. "Tablettes d'El-Amarna de la collection Rostovicz." Mémoires publiés par
les membres de la Mission Archéologique Française du Caire 6:297-312.
Schipper, Bernd Ulrich. 2011. "Zum geopolitischen Hintergrund von Num 34,2-12."
Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 127 (2):142-161.
Seminara, Stefano. 1998. L'accadico di Emar, Materiali per il Vocabolario Sumerico 6.
Roma: Università degli Studi di Roma "Sapienza," Dipartimento di Studi Orientali.
———. 2000. "Le Istruzioni di Šūpê-amēlī: Vecchio e nuovo a confronto nella "sapienza"
siriana del Tardo Bronzo." Ugarit-Forschungen 32:487-529.
Seyfried, Friederike. 2012. ―An Outline of Research and Excavation History of Tell El-
Amarna Pre 1914.‖ In In The Light of Amarna: 100 Years of the Nefertiti Discovery, edited
by Friederike Seyfried, 43-49. Berlin: Ägyptisches Museum and Papyrussammlung,
Staatliche Museen zu Berlin.
Siddall, Luis Robert. 2005. "Was There a Purpose for the Use of West-Semitic in the Amarna
Letters from Syria-Palestine?" The Bulletin of the Australian Centre for Egyptology 16:85-
99.
———. 2009. "A Geographical Analysis of the Injunctive in the Amarna Letters from Syria-
Palestine and its Relevance for Egyptian Imperialism." Journal of Ancient Egyptian
Interconnections 1 (4):5-12.
Siegel, Jeff. 2006. "Links between SLA and Creole Studies: Past and Present." In L2
Acquisition and Creole Genesis: Dialogues, edited by Claire Lefebvre, Lydia White and
Christine Jourdan, 15-46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
413
Sivan, Daniel. 1984. Grammatical Analysis and Glossary of the Northwest Semitic Vocables
in Akkadian Texts of the 15th-13th C.B.C. from Canaan and Syria, Alter Orient und Altes
Testament 214. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag/Vluyn: Verlag Butzon & Bercker
Kevelaer.
Shai, Itzhaq, and Joe Uziel. 2010. "The Whys and Why Nots of Writing: Literacy and
Illiteracy in the Southern Levant During the Bronze Ages." Kaskal 7:67-83.
Smith, Carlota S. 2008. "Time With and Without Tense." In Time and Modality, edited by
Jacqueline Guéron and Jacqueline Lecarme, 227-249. Dordrecht: Springer.
Sonnek, Franz. 1940. "Die Einführung der direkten Rede in den epischen Texten." Zeitschrift
für Assyriologie und Verwandte Gebiete 46:225-235.
Sprouse, Rex A. 2006. "Full Transfer and Relexification: Second Language Acquistion and
Creole Genesis." In L2 Acquisition and Creole Genesis: Dialogues, edited by Claire
Lefebvre, Lydia White and Christine Jourdan, 169-181. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Sumakaʾi Fink, Amir. 2007. "Where Was the Statue of Idrimi Actually Found?: The Later
Temples of Tell Atchana (Alalakh) Revisited." Ugarit-Forschungen 39:161-245.
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2012. Variationist Sociolinguistics: Change, Observation,
Interpretation, Language in Society 40. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Taylor, John R. 2003. Linguistic Categorization. 3rd ed, Oxford Textbooks in Linguistics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Timberlake, Alan. 2007. ―Aspect, Tense, Mood.‖ In Language Typology and Syntactic
Description, Vol. III: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, edited by Timothy Shopen,
280-333. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thomason, Sarah. 2004. "Determining Language Contact Effects in Ancient Contact
Situations." In Lenguas en contacto: El testimonio escrito, edited by Pedro Bádenas de la
414
Pena, Sofía Torallas Tovar, Eugenio R. Luján and María Ángeles Gallego, 1-14. Madrid:
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.
Thureau-Dangin, F. 1922. "Nouvelles lettres d'El-Amarna." Revue d'assyriologie et
d'archéologie orientale 19:91-108.
Tropper, Josef. 1994. "Is Ugaritic a Canaanite Language?" In Ugarit and the Bible:
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ugarit and the Bible, Manchester, September
1992, Ugaritisch-Biblische Literatur 11, edited by George J. Brooke, Adrian H. W. Curtis,
and John F. Healey, 343-353. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
———. 1997-1998. "Kanaanäisches in den Amarnabriefen." Archiv für Orientforschung 44-
45:134-145.
Tropper, Josef, and Juan-Pablo Vita. 2005. "Der Energikus an Jussiven im Kanaano-
Akkadischen der Amarna-Periode." Orientalia 74:57-64.
———. 2010. Das Kanaano-Akkadische der Amarnazeit, Lehrbücher orientalischer
Sprachen. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Van De Mieroop, Marc. 2011. A History of Ancient Egypt. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
van Koppen, Frans. 2011. ―The Scribe of the Flood Story and His Circle.‖ In The Oxford
Handbook of Cuneiform Culture, edited by Karen Radner and Eleanor Robson, 140-166.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
van Soldt, Wilfred Hugo. 1991. Studies in the Akkadian of Ugarit: Dating and Grammar,
Alter Orient und Altes Testament 40. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag/Vluyn: Verlag
Butzon & Bercker Kevelaer.
———. 2001. ―Naḫiš-šalmu, an Assyrian Scribe Working in the ‗Southern Palace‘ at
Ugarit.‖ In Veenhof Anniversary Volume: Studies Presented to Klass R. Veenhof on the
occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, edited by W. H. van Soldt, 429-444. Leiden:
Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.
415
———. 2011. ―Akkadian as a Diplomatic Language.‖ In The Semitic Languages: An
International Handbook, edited by Stefan Weninger, 405-415. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Vita, Juan-Pablo. 2012. "On the Lexical Background of the Amarna Glosses."
Altorientalische Forschungen 39:278-286.
von Dassow, Eva. 2003. "What the Canaanite Cuneiformists Wrote: Review Article." Israel
Exploration Journal 53:196-217.
———. 2004. "Canaanite in Cuneiform." Journal of the American Oriental Society 124
(4):641-674.
———. 2010. "Peripheral Akkadian Dialects, or Akkadography of Local Languages?" In
Language in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 53e Rencontre Assyriologique
Internationale, edited by Leonid Kogan, N. Koslova, S. Loesov and S. Tishchenko, 895-924.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
von Fintel, Kai. 2011. ―Conditionals.‖ In Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural
Language Meaning, edited by Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn, and Paul Portner,
1515-1538. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
von Soden, Wolfram. 1995. Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik. 3rd
ed., Analecta
Orientalia 33. Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico.
Walker, C. B. F. 1979. "Another Fragment from El-Amarna (EA 380)." Journal of
Cuneiform Studies 31 (4):249.
Walter, Henriette. 2000. "Fluctuation and Free Variation." In Morphology: An International
Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, edited by Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann and
Joachim Mugdan, 484-489. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Walker, James A. 2010. Variation in Linguistic Systems. New York: Routledge.
Wansbrough, John E. 1996. Lingua Franca in the Mediterranean. Richmond: Curzon Press.
416
Wazana, Nili. 2013. All the Boundaries of the Land: The Promised Land in Biblical Though
in Light of the Ancient Near East. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Wilhelm, G. 1973. "Ein Brief der Amarna-Zeit aus Kāmid el-Lōz (KL 72:600)." Zeitschrift
für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 63:69-75.
Winckler, Hugo. 1889. Der Thontafelfund von El Amarna: Nach den originalen autographirt
von Ludwig Abel, Königliche Museen zu Berlin: Mitteilungen aus den Orientalischen
Sammlungen 1-3. Berlin: W. Spemann.
———. 1896. Die Thontafeln von Tell-el-Amarna, Keilschriftliche Bibliothek 5. Berlin:
Verlag von Reuther & Reichard.
Winford, Donald. 2003. An Introduction to Contact Linguistics, Language in Society.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Worthington, Martin. 2012. Principles of Akkadian Textual Criticism, Studies in Ancient
Near Eastern Records 1. Boston: De Gruyter.
Wright, W. 1896. A Grammar of Arabic Language: Translated from the German of Caspari
and Edited with Numerous Additions and Corrections. 2 vols. Cambridge: The University
Press.
Youngblood, Ronald Fred. 1961. The Amarna Correspondence of Rib-Haddi, Prince of
Byblos (EA 68-96). PhD diss., The Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning,
Philadelphia.
Zewi, Tamar. 1999. A Syntactical Study of Verbal Forms Affixed by -n(n) Endings in
Classical Arabic, Biblical Hebrew, El-Amarna Akkadian and Ugaritic, Alter Orient und
Altes Testament 260. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
