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

375-385

THE PHOENICIAN LANGUAGE:

REMARKS ON THE PRESENT STATE OF RESEARCH
W. R O L L I G

T h e topic of the presen t talk w a s suggested to m e by the organ izers of this c on ­

gress ( * ) . I t s e e m s t o m e , t h a t th ese illustri colleghi a n d w e a r e clear w h a t w e mean
w h e n w e s p e a k o f t h e « P h o e n i c i a n l a n g u a g e ». B u t is t h i s a c t u a l l y t h e c a s e ?
S e v e r a l y e a r s a g o E. U l l e n d o r f f p u b l i s h e d a r a t h e r p r o v o c a t i v e a r t i c l e e n t i t l e d « I s
B i b l i c a l H e b r e w a L a n g u a g e ? » (')• T h i s q u e s t i o n c a n j u s t as e a s e l y b e a s k e d o f P h o e n i ­
cian. Th e s a m e h o l d s t r u e , w i t h sligh t modification, f o r Ullendorff's initial statement
of purpose: « I a m simply interested to k n o w wh eth er th e w o r d s , forms, and construc­
tions th at h a p p e n to occur in th is corpus of relatively modest size, w h i c h w e call th e
Hebrew Bible, would be adequate to s e r v e as a b a s i s f o r t h e o r d i n a r d a y - t o - d a y re­
quirements of a normal s p e e ch c o m m u n i t y ». H e c o m e s t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n th at it is
« clearly n o m o r e th an a linguistic fragment, ... s c a r c e l y a full integrated language
wh i ch ... c o u l d ever h a v e b e e n s p o k e n a n d h a v e s a t i s f i e d t h e n e e d s o f its s p e a k e r s » ( 2 ).
I n v i e w of th e corpus of Ph oenician and Punic inscriptions o u r statements m u s t be m u c h
more modest. For, n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g th e w e l c o m e increase of textual material in th e past
d e c a d e s ( 3 ). P h o e n i c i a n p r o b a b l y r e m a i n s t h e w o r s t t r a n s m i t t e d a n d least k n o w n o f all
S e m i t i c languages. Th e size o f t h e c o r p u s , n u m e r i c a l l y s o i m p r e s s i v e , gives a m i s l e a d i n g
i m p r e s s i o n of plenty, since th e inscriptions are h a l l m a r k e d b y a m o n o t o n y of contents
a n d a f o r m u l a i c a n d l a c o n i c style. Th u s w e l a c k t h e v a r i e t y r e q u i r e d f o r t h e g o o d g r a m ­
m a t i c a l a n d lexical understanding of a language. Only in th e field of onomastics can
w e b e s a i d t o h a v e a m p l e m a t e r i a l a s a g l a n c e at t h e c o l l e c t i o n o f m a t e r i a l b y Frank
L . B e n z c l e a r l y s h o w s ( 4 ). E v e n h e r e , h o w e v e r , t h e v a r i e t y is d i s a p p o i n t i n g , f o r t h e c o n s ­
tructions, as in Hebrew, are sh arply curtailed. Sentence n a m e s are rare a n d « verbal

(*) At the beginning I offer m y sincere thanks to Sabatino Moscati, Sandro Filippo Bondi and
all m y colleagues here for their invitation and the organization of this stimulating congress. I thank
Mr. Gilbert M c E w a n for his constant help connected with the English version of this paper.
(1) E . ULLENDOR FF, IS Biblical Hebrew a Lan guage?: BSOAS, 34 (1971), republished in a book to
w h i c h it gave the title, Wiesbaden 1977, pp. 3-17.
(2) Ibid., p. 3.
(3) This increase of textual material can be easily appreciated w h e n one looks at the first
independent grammar of Phoenician, P. SCHR ODER 'S, Die phon izische Sprache. En tuurf ein er Gram-
matik, Halle 1869, which appeared just over 110 years ago. There on pp. 47-72 all the texts known
at the time are listed — 332 of them. T o d a y , if w e look at CIS Pars I, the incompleteness of which
w e scarcely need mention, w e find 6068 texts.
(4) F. L. BENZ, Person al Names in the Phoen ician an d Pun ic In scription s, R o m a 1972.
376 W. Rollig

s e n t e n c e n a m e s » a r e p r e d o m i n a t e l y f o r m e d w i t h t h e p r e d i c a t e i n t h e p e r f e c t (28 e x a m ­
p l e s ) o r , less f r e q u e n t l y i n t h e i m p e r f e c t (12 e x a m p l e s ) ( 5 ). T h e o n o m a s t i c o n w e e n c o u n ­
ter, t h e n , is o n l y s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d a n d e v i d e n t l y n o l o n g e r v e r y p r o d u c t i v e ( 6 ).
Even a very liberal perusal of the lexicon, counting conjunctions and prepositions
(but excluding f o r the m o s t part uncertain attentations) yields a n a m a z i n g v i e w of the
v o c a b u l a r y ( 7 ). T h e P h o e n i c i a n - P u n i c v o c a b u l a r y a t t e s t e d t o d a t e a m o u n t s t o s o m e 668
words, s o m e of w h i c h occur frequently. Among these are 321 hapax legomena and
a b o u t 15 f o r e i g n o r l o a n w o r d s . In comparison with Hebrew with around 7000-8000
w o r d s a n d 1500 hapax legomena ( 8 ), t h e n u m b e r is r e m a r k a b l e . T o begin w i t h w e have a
basic vocabulary w h i c h does not even a m o u n t to o n e tenth of that of H e b r e w . Moreo­
v e r , p r a c t i c a l l y h a l f o f t h e w o r d s o c c u r o n l y o n c e o r i n o n e i n s c r i p t i o n , w h i c h is n o t v e r y
helpful for semantic investigations. I t s h o u l d also b e n o t e d that the great m a j o r i t y o f
hapax legomena o c c u r i n P u n i c o r N e o - P u n i c i n s c r i p t i o n s , w h i c h a r e still r a t h e r e n i g m a ­
tic w i t h their t e r m i n o l o g y f o r sacrificial practices a n d designations for various officials.
W i t h o u t the H e b r e w v o c a b u l a r y a n d c o m p a r i s o n w i t h o t h e r S e m i t i c l a n g u a g e s t h e i n ­
t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e P h o e n i c i a n i n s c r i p t i o n s w o u l d b e c o m p l e t e l y i m p o s s i b l e ( 9 ). S t i l l , it
is c l e a r t o a n y o n e w h o u s e s J . H o f t i j z e r ' s e x c e l l e n t Dictionnaire and reads his carefully
weighted j u d g e m e n t s of the present tentative attempts at semantic interpretations, that
lexical w o r k , especially i n Punic, m u s t receive still m o r e emphasis. The extraction of
i n d i v i d u a l t e r m s , h o w e v e r , is o f l i t t l e v a l u e . It w o u l d be m o r e advisable o n the other
h a n d to interpret c o m p l e t e p r o b l e m groups in context. I n t h i s r e s p e c t it is l a m e n t a b l e
t h a t t h e t e x t u a l b a s i s is n o t s u f f i c i e n t i n a l l cases, f o r m a n y i n s c r i p t i o n s h a v e b e e n
published w i t h o u t copies or w i t h inadequate copies. T h e s o l u t i o n i n these i n s t a n c e s —
I a m t h i n k i n g o f t h e i n s c r i p t i o n s f r o m G u e l m a , M a k t a r a n d T r i p o l i t a n i a (10) f o r exam­
ple — is a c a r e f u l r e e d i t i o n o f t h e texts.

L e t u s t a k e u p t h e q u e s t i o n a g a i n w h i c h w a s p o s e d at t h e o u t s e t : W h a t is t h e « P h o e ­
nician-Punic Language » actually? On the surface a n d viewed f o r m a l l y it w o u l d not
seem difficult to answer: It is the language of the m o n u m e n t s of the mother-country.
N o r t h Africa a n d the Mediterranean countries written in Phoenician a n d P u n i c script ( n ) ,

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

(6) Cf. M. NOTH, Die israelitischen Personennamen, Stuttg
a rt 1928, pp. 48 ff., 215 ff., for simila r
proportions in H e b r e w . Unfortuna tely, Benz a voids a ny sort of eva lua tion of the onoma sticon.
Simila rly, G. HALFF'S, L'onomastique punique de Carthage: Karthago, 12 (1965), p. 63 ff., only dis­
cusses aspects of interest for historians of religion.
(7) This is based upon C. F. JEAN-J. HOFTIJZER , DISO, w i t h some — certainly not exhaustive —
additions.
(8) E . ULLENDOR FF, cit, pp. 5 f., 14 f.
(9) A warning about method is in order here: lexical derivation should always attempt to pro­
ceed f r o m the nearest to the more distantly related languages, rather than simply making arbitrary
comparisons. A b o v e all, the popularly adduced « pertinent» etymologies f r o m Arabic are all t o o
often worthless, since meanings arbitrarily arrived at for the Canaanite language of the first millen­
nium B.C. have no intrinsic validity, as they do not take into account the age or semantic range
of the w o r d .
(10) Happily, a new edition of the texts f r o m Maktar has been announced by M. Sznycer a n d
one of those f r o m Tripolitania by M. G. Guzzo Amadasi.
(11) In his article M. SZNYCER , L'emploi des termes « phenicien » , « punique » , « neopunique » :
Atti del Secondo Congresso Internationale di Linguistica CamitoSemitica, Firenze 1978, pp. 261-68, M .
Sznycer has rightly pointed out the danger of purely external differentiations, which I do not under­
estimate. And I wholey agree w i t h his statement, « un... principe serait qu'il faudrait... ecarter le cr-
tere de l'ecriture » in the classification of languages. But, since w e k n o w dead languages only through
 The Phoenician Language. 377

the m e d i u m for w h i c h m a y be stone, metal or papyrus. E v e n this rather w i d e defini­

t i o n is i n s u f f i c i e n t , h o w e v e r , f o r P l a u t u s h a s g i v e n u s i n h i s Poenulus a n i n t e r e s t i n g , al­
b e i t c o r r u p t r e n d e r i n g i n L a t i n t r a n s l i t e r a t i o n o f a P u n i c p a s s a g e (12). A n d th is w e can
n o m o r e ignore, th an th e Septuagint or H e x a p l a can be ignored in th e study of th e
Hebrew. W e m a y n o w a d d to th at th e Punic inscriptions of th e Ch r i s t i a n era from
N o r th A f r i c a m a d e a v a i l a b l e t o u s s o b r i l l i a n t l y b y G . L e v i D e l i a V i d a (13). Finally, we
cannot ignore th e f e w attestations in Greek script and th e n u m e r o u s Ph o e n i c i a n and
Punic personal names i n c u n e i f o r m , G r e e k o r L a t i n (14). I n considering th is material,
ostensibly so plentiful and varied, it sh o u l d be b o r n e in m i n d th at th e language was
i n u s e o v e r a w i d e a r e a f o r m o r e t h a n a m i l l e n n i u m (1S). Th u s th e s e a r c h for n e w texts
a n d th e solidifying of th e n e t w o r k of evidence th rough t h e r e l i a b l e e d i t i o n s o f all th e
material are th e inescapable preconditions f o r furth er progress in o u r discipline. In
h
t is r e s p e c t it is g r a t i f y i n g t o n o t e t h e w a x i n g of interest in P h o e n i c i a n a n d P u n i c in
recent years, to w h i c h th e present congress bears witness. At th e time I w a s working
o n KAI, h o w e v e r , th is w a s n o t e v e n to b e e n v i s a g e d . A n d , if s o m e o f t h e q u e s t i o n s w h i c h
at t h a t t i m e a p p e a r e d to h a v e b e e n solved or to be insolvable on th e basis of th e
m a t e r i a l a v a i l a b l e , h a v e b e e n r a i s e d a g a i n a n d s u b j e c t e d t o i n t e n s i v e a n a l y s i s , it is d u e

t h e m e d i u m o f t h e i r scr ipts, w e ar e r e q u i r e d i n t h e inter est o f b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e language

t o e x p l a i n all t h e p e c u l i a r i t i e s o f t h e s c r i p t , t h o u g h n a t u r a l l y n o t in a p a l e o g r a p h i c a l sense.
T h e o t h e r b a s i c sentence « p o u r q u a l i f i e r u n e langue, o n doit e x c l u r e t o u s les c r i t e r e s non-lin-
g u i s t i q u e s , c o m m e c e u x d u c o n t e n u des textes, d e l e u r p r o v e n a n c e o u d e l e u r d a t e » c a n n o t , h o w e v e r ,
b e s o s i m p l y accepted. I t is u n a v o i d a b l e that w e t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t w h e n a t e x t w a s wr i t t e n or
c o p i e d f o r all q u e s t i o n s o f l i n g u i s t i c c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a n d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . T h e s a m e h o l d s t r u e f o r t h e
p l a c e , since, o t h e r w i s e , l o c a l p e c u l i a r i t i e s a n d l i n g u i s t i c c h a n g e s w o u l d n o t b e t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t .
E v e n the c o n t e n t c a n n o t b e f o r g o t t e n . I t is i n d i s p u t a b l e , f o r e x a m p l e , t h a t the l a n g u a g e o f p o e t i c
t e x t s d i f f er s b a s i c a l l y f r o m t h a t o f p u r e l y e c o n o m i c d o c u m e n t s a n d lette r s.
I n h i s ar ticle S z n y c e r s e e m s t o r e g a r d t h e t h r e e c o n c e p t s g i v e n i n t h e title as e q u i v a l e n t t o o n e
a n o t h e r . T h i s , h o w e v e r , ( a n d h e r e w e m u s t c o n s i d e r t h e t e r m P h o e n i c i a n - P u n i c ) c a n n o t be. rF om
a c er t a i n , n o t y e t e x a c t l y a s c er t a i n a b l e , p o i n t i n t i m e P u n i c as the l a n g u a g e o f the P h o e n i c i a n s o f
N o r t h A f r i c a b e g a n a special d e v e l o p m e n t , w h i c h led t o c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c d i f f er e n c e s w i t h t h e
er s t w h i l e m o t h e r tongue. N e o - P u n i c is a f u r t h e r d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h i s w i t h i n t h e s a m e r e g i o n a n d
pr o b a b l y w i t h t h e s a m e substratum a n d superstratum i n f l u e n c e s (e.g. L a t i n ) . I t is t o b e c o n s i ­
d e r e d a n a l o g o u s t o t h e d i v i s i o n b e t w e e n « A l t p h o n i z i s c h » a n d « k l a s s i c h e s P h o n i z i s c h » i n PPG. •
I n a c t u a l f a c t t h e n , S z n y c e r ' s a c c e p t a n c e o f the three c o n c e p t s is, s t r i c t l y s p e a k i n g , u n j u s t i f i e d . Lin­
g u i s t i c a l l y w e c a n o n l y s p e a k o f « P h o e n i c i a n » a n d « P u n i c », w h i c h , b e c a u s e of t h e i r c l o s e relation­
s h i p , are b e s t h y p h e n a t e d .
(12) T h e last s t a n d a r d e d i t i o n is b y M . SZNYCER, Les passages puniques en transcription latine
dans le 'Poenulus' de Plaute, P a r i s 1967. Cf. a l s o C. KRAHM ALKOV, The Punic Speach of Hanno:
OrNS, 39 (1970), p p . 52-74; A . S. GRATWICK, Hanno's Speach in the Poenulus of Plautus: Herm es, 99
(1971), p p . 2545.
(13) G . LEVI DELLA VIDA: Libya, 3 (1927), p . 114; OA, 2 (1963), p p . 65-94; OA, 4 (1965), p p . 59-62;
AION, 17 (1967), p p . 257-66.
(14) T h i s s o u r c e i s b y n o m e a n s e x h a u s t e d , since F. L . B e n z o n l y i n d i c a t e s c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s
to t h e n a m e s a t t e s t e d i n i n s c r i p t i o n s . F o r the c u n e i f o r m m a t e r i a l see F . M. FALES, West m
Se itic
Na
m es from the Governor's Palace: Annali di Ca' Foscari, 13 (1974), p p . 179-88; R . ZADOK, On West
Sem ites in Babylonia during the Chaldaean and Achaem enian Periods, J e r u s a l e m 1977; ID., Phoe­
nicians, Philistines and Moabites in Mesopotamia: BASOR, 230 (1978), p p . 57-65.
(15) T h e earliest P h o e n i c i a n i n s c r i p t i o n s , t h e a r r o w s a n d s p e a r h e a d s (KAI 20-22) a n d the s h o r t
B y b l o s i n s c r i p t i o n s , F . M . CROSS - P . K . M CCARTER: RSF, 1 (1973), p p . 3-8, b e l o n g t o t h e e n d o f t h e
12th o r b e g i n n i n g o f t h e 11th c e n t u r y B . C . T h e latest d a t a b l e P u n i c i n s c r i p t i o n (KAI 173) dates f r o m
t h e p e r i o d b e t w e e n 162 a n d 217 A.D.
378 W. Rollig

m a i n l y to th e w o r k of th ree colleagues, G i o v a n n i G a r b i n i , J a c o b H o f t i j z e r a n d M a u r i c e
Sznycer, w h o h ave contributed so m u c h impetus to th e discussions. Th e y a r e t h e o n e s
w h o sh ould be singled out f o r h aving contributed so m u c h to o u r understanding of th e
texts b y th eir lexical a n d text-critical studies a n d g r a m m a t i c a l investigations, a n d w h o
h ave never h esitated to contribute th eir insigh ts on specific problems. Th is will u n d o u b -
t a b l y r e m a i n t h e t r e n d f o r t h e c o m i n g y e a r s , i.e. t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f i n d i v i d u a l textual
and ph ilological investigations. F o r w e h a v e i n o u r d i s c i p l i n e t h e p r e c o n d i t i o n s at l e a s t
f o r such furth er work with th e s e c o n d edition of th e « Ph onizisch -punisch e Gramma-
t i k » (PPG) a n d t h e « G r a m m a r o f P h o e n i c i a n a n d P u n i c » b y S t a n i s l a u s S e g e r t (16). T h e
g r a m m a r s p o i n t u p o u r w e a k n e s s e s i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d w o r k i n g t h r o u g h t h e texts, a n d
t h e y m o r e o r less i g n o r e s e v e r a l q u e s t i o n s w h i c h s h o u l d b e w o r k e d u p o n f u r t h e r .
O n c e m o r e I w o u l d r e t u r n t o t h e i n i t i a l q u e s t i o n a n d p o s e it a g a i n : « W h a t is t h e
Ph oenician language actually? » — th is t i m e h o w e v e r f r o m th e point of view of classifica­
tion and relationship w i t h the neighb ouring languages.
A f e w y e a r s a g o it s t i l l s e e m e d a r e l a t i v e l y s i m p l e m a t t e r t o c l a s s i f y t h e Semitic
languages and to f i n d the place o f Phoenician a m o n g them: I n the N o r t h w e s t Semitic
g r o u p , w h i c h w a s d i v i d e d i n t o A r a m a i c a n d C a n a a n i t e b r a n c h e s , it w a s a s i d e f r o m H e ­
b r e w the chief representative of Canaanite. E v e n then, h o w e v e r , the p r o b l e m of fitting
U g a r i t i c i n t o t h i s s c h e m e w a s e v i d e n t (17). A n d with the development of Amorite and
n o w E b l a i t e t h e p i c t u r e h a s b e e n c o m p l e t e l y b l u r r e d , s o t h a t n o w w e m u s t f i n d n e w cri­
teria for arranging t h e m — n o t h e r e a n d n o w , h o w e v e r ( !8 ). F o r the p u r p o s e s of histo­
rical linguistics, we retain the view that o n l y those inscriptions w r i t t e n in the alpha­
b etic script s h o u l d b e c a l l e d « P h o e n i c i a n a n d P u n i c ». T h a t m e a n s that the actual
Phoenician tradition b egins o n l y after the upheavals caused b y the Sea Peoples. This
l i m i t is n o t s o a r b i t r a r y a s it m i g h t s e e m at f i r s t . R a t h e r , it is s u p p o r t e d b y t h e o n o -
masticon, w h i c h clearly changes at that t i m e a n d can also b e justified on religious-histo­
rical ground. For Melqart and E S m u n b o t h appear then, whereas in the second mil-
l e n i u m they w e r e still foreign ("). I do n o t intend to p u r s u e this too f a r here, espe­
cially since there are p r o b a b l y some w h o will doub t the methodological r e l i ab i l i t y
of such an example. Still, I a m n o m o r e ab le to v i e w linguistic change as a n isolated
phenomenon than I a m changes in the religious sphere.
Since the discovery of the earlier B y b l o s inscriptions it i s c l e a r t h a t Phoenician
c a n n o l o n g e r b e v i e w e d as a u n i f o r m l a n g u a g e . O n the contrary, traces of dialects
can b e recognized despite the defective orthography of the inscriptions. Quite recen­
tly G. Garb ini has treated the characteristics of the dialects of B yb l o s , Tyre (and

(16) J . FR IEDR ICH-W. R OLLIG, Phonizisch-punische Grammatik2, Roma 1970; S. SEGER T, A Gram­
mar of Phoenic ian and Punic , Munchen 1976. Cf. also A. VAN DEN BR ANDEN, Grammaire pheni
c ienne,
Beyrouth 1969.
(17) Cf. the still b asic work of H. GOESEKE, Die Sprac he der semitisc hen Texte Ugarits und ihre
Stetlung innerhalb des Semitisc hen: Wissens
c haftli
c he Zeits
c hrift der Martin Luther- Universitdt
Halle-Wittenberg, Ges.-Sprachwiss., 7 (1958), pp. 623-52.
(18) Cf. the seminal review article b y W. Zur Einteilung der semitisc hen
VON SODEN, Spra
c hen:
WZKM, 5 6 ( 1 9 6 0 ) , pp. 177-91; and recently G.
G A R B I N I , II semitic o di nord-ovest nell'eta del Bronzo:
Atti del 1" Convegno Italiano sul Vic ino Oriente antic o, Roma 1978, pp. 163-73; I . J . G E L B , Thoughts
about Ebla: Syro-Mesopotamian Studies, 1 (1977), p p . 3-30, a n d G . GAR BINI, Pensieri su Ebla (ovvero:
le uova di Babilonia): AION, 38 (1978), p p . 41-52.
(19) That must b e somewhat qualified in the case of Esmun, for he is also found, though very
rarely, in Ugarit.
 The Phoenician Language. 379

S i d o n ) a n d C y p r u s a g a i n as t h e m a i n m a n i f e s t a t i o n s of Eastern Phoenician (x). Ne­

v e r t h e l e s s , it seems to m e quite possible that the p h e n o m e n a w h i c h were noted m a y
sometimes reflect local scribal traditions as in cuneiform and, consequently, need
n o t r e f l e c t l i n g u i s t i c r e a l i t y to t h e e x t e n t t h a t w e w o u l d l i k e t o t h i n k . T w o examples
w i l l s u f f i c e t o s h o w h o w little r e l i a b i l i t y there a c t u a l l y is i n h e r e n t i n t h e c r i t e r i a for
classification.
A « Cilician » Phoenician has been thoroughly d e m o n s t r a t e d to us by the K i l a m u w a
i n s c r i p t i o n a n d t h e K a r a t e p e texts. G a r b i n i assigns it t o t h e T y r i a n d i a l e c t Q1). Two
a m u l e t t s w e r e f o u n d n e a r b y , t h e p r o v e n a n c e of w h i c h c a n n o t b e d e t e r m i n e d w i t h cer­
tainty b u t w h i c h are thought to be f r o m A r s l a n Ta? (n). T h e y p r e s e n t several p e c u l i a r
features, w h i c h betray an A r a m a i c influence but w h i c h also s h o w the probability of
dialectical differences a n d / o r divergent scribal tradition for their place of origin,
w h o s e P h o e n i c i a n c a n n o t b e a s c r i b e d t o a n y o f t h e « m a i n d i a l e c t s ».
Connexions have already been e s t a b l i s h e d w i t h the H e b r e w o f t h e n o r t h e r n k i n g ­
d o m , a n d i n t h i s r e g a r d , G a r b i n i ' s o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t t h e S a m a r i a o s t r a c a — if o n e lea­
ves aside the o n o m a s t i c o n — c a n b e c o n s t r u e d o r t h o g r a p h i c a l l y as P h o e n i c i a n is in
s o m e respects valid. H e r e as w e l l , s c r i b a l t r a d i t i o n s w h i c h w e r e q u i t e c l o s e l y related,
e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e area o f e c o n o m y , m a y h a v e u s seeing s i m i l a r i t i e s w h i c h d o n ' t a c t u a l l y
exist (B). Nevertheless, the question of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f P h o e n i c i a n t o H e b r e w re­
quires renewed consideration (see b e l o w t o the tense system).
T h e q u e s t i o n b e c o m e s still m o r e d i f f i c u l t w h e n w e t u r n t o « W e s t P h o e n i c i a n »
o r P u n i c as I still p r e f e r t o c a l l it. T o begin w i t h there are n o appreciable differen­
ces w i t h P h o e n i c i a n . T h e l a n g u a g e is o r i e n t a t e d i n its b a s i c a s p e c t s t o w a r d t h e d i a ­
lect o f T y r e / S i d o n . I n any event it shows none of the features of the dialect of Ar-
v a d , if w e d i s c o u n t N e o - P u n i c f o r t h e m o m e n t , w h i c h c a n s o m e t i m e s b e seen i n C y p r u s ,

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

(21) Ib id., p . 289.
(22) F o r t h e t w o i n c a n t a t i o n t e x t s f r o m A r s l a n T a ? see W . ROLLIG: NESE, 2 (1974), p p . 17-36 a n d
f o r n . 1 (KAI 27) A . CAQUOT, Ob servations sur la Premiere Ta
b lette Magique d'Arslan Tash: JANES,
5 (1973), p p . 45-51; E . LIPINSK I: ATD Ergdnzungb and, 1 (1975), p . 264f. F o r n . 2 see n o w M . LIVERANI,'
Proposte sul secondo incantesimo di Arslan Tash: RSF, 2 (1974), p p . 50-54; F. M . CROSS, Leaves from
an Epigraphist's Note
b ook: CBQ, 36 (1974), p p . 486-90; T . H . GASTER, A Hang-up for Hang-ups:
BASOR, 209 (1973), p p . 18-26.
(23) G . GARBINI closes h i s article m e n t i o n e d a b o v e w i t h t h e sentence « A d o g n i m o d o , b i s o g n e r a
t e n e r p r e s e n t e 1'eventualita c h e a i d i a l e t t i f e n i c i s o p r a e s a m i n a t i sia d a a g g i u n g e r e u n n u o v o dia-
l e t t o , q u e l l o p a r l a t o d a g l i i s r a e l i t i d i S a m a r i a — a l m e n o nel I X secolo a.C. » (p. 294). H e c o n t i n u e s
i n t h i s v e i n b a s e d m a i n l y o n seal i n s c r i p t i o n s i n h i s article Fenici in Palestina: AION, 39 (1979),
p p . 325-30. A l t h o u g h I c a n a p p r e c i a t e t h e p r o v o c a t i v e c l e a v e r n e s s o f m y e s t e e m e d collegue, I a m
c o n v i n c e d t h a t t h e e p i g r a p h i c m e t h o d is i n s u f f i c i e n t f o r s u c h f a r - r e a c h i n g c o n c l u s i o n s . T h e ex­
t r e m e l y d e f e c t i v e o r t h o g r a p h y , t h e f o r m u l a i c n a t u r e o f the i n s c r i p t i o n s a n d t h e r e d u c t i o n o f voca­
bulary mentioned above d o not allow us to determine w i t h certainty affinities and differences of
C a n a a n i t e i d e o l e c t s . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e r e p e a t e d l y re-edited text o f t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t , h a r m o ­
n i z e d a g a i n b y t h e M a s o r e t e s , a l l o w s u s t o m a k e s t a t e m e n t s a b o u t s y n c h r o n i c a n d d i a c h r o n i c diffe­
r e n t i a t i o n w i t h i n H e b r e w o n l y i n a f e w places. M o r e o v e r , it s h o u e d b e r e m e m b e r e d t h a t S. SEGERT
h a d a l r e a d y s t a t e d i n ArOr, 29 (1961), p . 255 « S o m i t ergibt s i c h d e r S c h l u s s , d a s s d i e i n d e r I n s c h -
r i f t d e s K o n i g s v o n M o a b (d.h. Mesa-Stele) v e r w e n d e t e S p r a c h e H e b r a i s c h w a r , u n d z w a r sein m i t -
t e l p a l a s t i n e n s i c h e r D i a l e k t ». C o n s e q u e n t l y , o n e c o u l d , if o n e w a n t e d t o d e v e l o p these i d e a s f u r t h e r ,
c o n s t r u c t a P h o e n i c i a n — I s r a e l i t e — M o a b i t e Koine f o r t h e n i n t h c e n t u r y B.C.!
 380 W. Rollig

y g i a n d S p a i n (24).
Pr T h i s is a g r a t i f y i n g c o n f i r m a t i o n o f t h e h i s t o r i c a l a c c o u n t s o f t h e
foundation of Car thage. I t also p o i n t s out, h o w e v e r , that the Phoenician expansion i n
t h e M e d i t e r r a n e a n w a s c er t a i n l y n o u n i f o r m p h e n o m e n o n , b u t r a t h e r developed along
s e v er a l l i n e s (25). T h e later P u n i c inscr iptions, w h i c h can scar cely be dated, s h o w chan­
ges i n t h e p r o n o m i n a l s u f f i x e s a n d i n t h e p r e f i x o f the causative stem. These may
p e r h a p s o n l y r e f l e c t o r t h o g r a p h i c v a r i a n t s , as t h e o r t h o g r a p h y g r a d u a l l y m o v e d a w a y
f r o m that of the m o t h e r - c o u n t r y , a n d w h i c h are certainly to be traced back to the
s ubs trata a n d s upers trata (Latin). T h e division into Punic and Neo-Punic, made on the
b a s i s o f t h e s c r i p t (26) a n d a r b i t r a r i l y c o n s i d e r e d t o h a v e b e e n c o m p l e t e d b y 146 B . C . w i t h
the destruction of Carthage, b r i n g s n o basic changes. The orthography, however, beco­
m e s m o r e a n d m o r e degenerate, so that Friedrich w a s certainly right in coining the t e r m
« Vulgarpunisch » (corresponding t o v u l g a r L a t i n , s u c h as is f o u n d i n t h e i n s c r i p t i o n s
of N o r t h Africa), w h i c h unfortunately has not been taken up in subsequent publications.
This rather imprecise scribal tradition naturally h a d the consequence that dialecti­
cal differences could n o longer be recognized. Still, these m a y be a s s u m e d for the va­
rious regions of N o r t h Africa, t h o u g h they may not have been particularly uniform
considering the varied substrata. Still, the a d o p t i o n of P u n i c b y the N u m i d i a n k i n g d o m
( M a s i n i s s a , r a i s e d i n C a r t h a g e , h a d a P u n i c v o t i v e i n s c r i p t i o n p l a c e d i n M a l t a (27), t h e
c o i n a g e u s e d t h e P u n i c s c r i p t a n d t h e g r a v e i n s c r i p t i o n is b i l i n g u a l ) s h o w s t h a t a s t r o n g
interaction m a y be supposed. H i e m s a l , t h e g r e a t - g r a n d s o n o f M a s i n i s s a is s u p p o s e d t o
h a v e p u b l i s h e d i n P u n i c h i m s e l f (2S). I t is b y n o m e a n s a m a z i n g t h a t u n d e r R o m a n d o ­
m i n a t i o n m o r e a n d m o r e foreign w o r d s and occasionally even foreign constructions are
introduced. Finally, the Latino-Punic inscriptions a l l o w us s o m e insight as to h o w f a r
the P u n i c p h o n o l o g y h a d diverged in the course of the centuries f r o m that of the m o ­
ther-country. M o s t n o t a b l e are the changes in the vocalic system, w h i c h , however, c a n
b e i n v e s t i g a t e d i n d e t a i l o n l y if t h e i n s c r i p t i o n s h a v e b e e n c o l l a t e d a n d r e l i a b l y e d i t e d .
T h i s is a n i m p o r t a n t t a s k f o r t h e f u t u r e a s w e l l (29), i n t h e c o u r s e o f w h i c h o n e s h o u l d
n o t neglect the s t u d y of p r o p e r n a m e s , w h i c h c a n b e f o u n d in large n u m b e r s in the
Latin inscriptions of N o r t h Africa.
The Phoenician « d i a l e c t s » a r e k n o w n t o u s i n o u t l i n e a t least, b u t t h e y still re­
quire o u r attention, f o r the precise k n o w l e d g e of regional differences is of particu-

(24) Cf. G . GARBINI: AION, 37 (1977), p. 290. I t m u s t b e s t a t e d b y w a y o f q u a l i f i c a t i o n , t h a t i t

is t h i s v e r y a r r a n g e m e n t w h i c h i s p r o b l e m a t i c . I n a c t u a l f a c t t h e r e s u l t s a r e ex negativo. Phe­
n o m e n a w h i c h can be observed neither in B y b l o s nor in T y r e n o r i n Sidon are attributed to the
m o s t n o r t h e r n , a n d a l s o c l o s e s t t o C y p r u s , c o a s t a l city. B u t A r v a d itself h a s n o t p r o d u c e d a n y i n s ­
c r i p t i o n s , s o t h a t it is i m p o s s i b l e t o m a k e a n y s t a t e m e n t s a b o u t i t s « d i a l e c t » .
(25) T h a t is s u g g e s t e d n o t o n l y b y v a r y i n g a n c i e n t r e p o r t s , w h i c h u n d o u b t a b l y r e p r e s e n t d i f ­
ferent historical traditions, but also b y the uneven distribution of inscriptions in particular places,
also undoubtably determined b y transmission. T h e two very old inscriptions f r o m Nora/Sardinia
point to similar problems.
(26) F o r r e l a t e d q u e s t i o n s see a b o v e n o t e 11 a n d M . SZNYCER: Atti del Secondo Congre ss o, cit.,
p . 267, w h o d i f f e r e n t i a t e s t h r e e t y p e s o f N e o - P u n i c s c r i p t s . I d o u b t , h o w e v e r , t h a t t y p e 1 ( C a r t h a ­
ge b e f o r e 146 B.C.) c a n b e s e p a r a t e d f r o m t y p e 3 (« e c r i t u r e n e o p u n i q u e d ' A f r i q u e »). T h e s p e c i a l
position of the ( m o n u m e n t a l ) script i n Tripolitania m u s t , of course, be recognized.
(27) C i c . Verr. 5, 103, cf. VALER. MAX. 1,1 e x t . 2 a n d HAAN, p . 1093.
(28) HAAN, I , p . 331 f .
(29) S u c h a p r o j e c t h a s r e c e n t l y b e e n s t a r t e d . See G . CO ACCI PO LSELLI, Per un c o r p u s delle si cri-
zioni latino-puniche: Atti del 1" Convegno Italiano s ul Vicino Oriente antico, R o m a 1978, p p . 231-41.
I o w e t h i s r e f e r e n c e t o M . G . G u z z o AMADASI.
 The Phoenician Lan
g ua
g e . 381

lar interest f o r the historical lingu ist a n d u ltimately for the history of Phoenician
expansion. u
F r t h e r r e s e a r c h w i l l a l s o h a v e t o give m o r e a t t e n t i o n t o o t h e r areas i n
w h i c h t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f P h o e n i c i a n w h i c h c l e a r l y c o n t r a s t it t o H e b r e w manifest
themselves. W h i l e it i s t r u e t h a t t h e s t u d y o f P h o e n i c i a n h a s s o d e v e l o p e d i n recent
y e a r s t h a t it m a y n o w c l a i m a n i n d e p e n d a n t v a l u e , it is n e v e r t h e l e s s a l s o t r u e t h a t
P h o e n i c i a n is n o t t o b e u n d e r s t o o d w i t h o u t t h e h e l p o f H e b r e w .
I n the r e a l m of m o r p h o l o g y the characteristics of Phoenician have been the object
o f e x t e n s i v e d i s c u s s i o n . U n d e r s t a n d a b l y , h o w e v e r , n o t all t h e p h e n o m e n a h a v e f ou n d
satisfactory explanations. T h i s is e s p e c i a l l y t r u e o f t h e p r o n o m i n a l s u f f i x e s , a l t h o u g h
t h e 3 r d p e r s o n s i n g u l a r s u f f i x o n n o u n s a n d v e r b s , f o r e x a m p l e , h a s r e c e i v e d a l l t h e at­
t e n t i o n it m e r i t s as a n i n d i c a t o r o f d i a l e c t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s ( x ) . Here we should single
out the comprehensive treatment of s u f f i x e s b y Segert i n h i s « G r a m m a r ». There
h e a r r a n g e d t h e m d i a c h r o n i c a l l y a s w e l l a s i n t e r m s o f s y n t a x ( t h e ties w i t h the n o m i ­
native/accusative or w i t h the genitive).
F o r all t h a t , t h e p r o b l e m o f t h e d e r i v a t i o n a n d p h o n e t i c r e a l i z a t i o n o f t h e v u l g a r
Punic suffixes in - m remains unsolved. The « Phonizisch-punische G r a m m a t i k » sim­
p l y registers i t w i t h o u t a t t e m p t i n g a n e x p l a n a t i o n . I . J . G e l b suggests, r e f e r r i n g to H a -
m i t e , t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a « c o n s o n a n t a l g l i d e », t h o u g h t h i s h a s b e e n s h a r p l y d i s m i s ­
s e d b y G . G a r b i n i (31). Segert o p i n e s t h a t t h e s u f f i x « c a n p e r h a p s b e e x p l a i n e d by
s e c o n d a r y n a s a l i z a t i o n o f t h e f i n a l v o w e l o r b y a n a l o g y w i t h t h e 3. p i . f o r m s ». He
w o u l d s e e m t h e n t o b e n o n e t o c e r t a i n a b o u t this, a n d t h i s is p e r h a p s t h e r e a s o n w h y
t h e p a r a g r a p h i n h i s g r a m m a r t o w h i c h h e refers i n h i s d i s c u s s i o n o f n a s a l i z a t i o n , d o e s
n o t e v e n o c c u r (32). S t i l l , G a r b i n i s e e m s t o h o l d t h i s v i e w as w e l l , a r g u i n g : « c h e l a
forma - m s i a s o l t a n t o u n a v a r i a n t e f o n e t i c a d i -y viene reso probabile dalla presenza
dei d u e suffissi nella m e d e s i m a iscrizione, Hofra 121 » ( B ) . Well, I cannot find an
explanation for the remarkable fact that different suffix f o r m s occur together in the
s a m e i n s c r i p t i o n , b u t I a m still u n h a p p y w i t h a r e c o n s t r u c t i o n w h i c h p o s i t s a s u f f i x
f o r m in (M), f o r w h i c h I c a n f i n d n o a t t e s t a t i o n , as w e l l as t h e w e l l a t t e s t e d f o r m -d
(quid in E l - H o f r a ) . Indeed, in his reconstruction of the pronominal suffixes Segert
goes s o f a r a s t o i n t e r p r e t a w r i t i n g -y a s a r e n d e r i n g o f -ay(y)a (35). H e p l a c e s (to b e
sure!) a question m a r k afterwards, b u t I w o u l d not shrink f r o m reconstructing /-iyu/
here. I n o t h e r w o r d s , a s u f f i x i n -I w h i c h c o u l d s o m e h o w b e n a s a l i z e d d o e s n o t e x i s t
in Punic. T h a t w o u l d h a v e b e e n a b s u r d , f o r it w o u l d h a v e l e d t o a h o p e l e s s c o n f u s i o n
w i t h t h e s u f f i x o f t h e 1st p e r s o n s i n g u l a r . Moreover, the L atino-Punic inscriptions and
t h e P o e n u l u s p r o v e b e y o n d d o u b t t h a t t h e -m s u f f i x w a s p r o n o u n c e d -im/-em. I still
cannot provide an explanation, however. T h e p r o b l e m h e r e , as i n several o t h e r i n s t a n -

(30) F. M . C R O S S - D . N . FREEDMAN, The Pronominal Suffixes of the Third Person Sin

g ular in
Phoenician: JNES, 10 (1951), p p . 228-30; C. KRAHMAL KGV, Studies in Phoenician and Punic Grammar:
JSS, 15 1970), p . 181 f., especially p p . 185-88; ID.: RSF, 2 (1974), p p . 3943; r e c e n t l y G . GARBINI, / dialet-
ti del fenicio; AION, 37 (1977), p. 286 f f . T h e s c o l d i n g i n n o t e 9 is n o t a p p l i c a b l e , since s o m e o f t h e
h y p o t h e s e s o f C r o s s - F r e e d m a n w e r e n o t t a k e n u p i n PPG2 w i t h g o o d r e a s o n , cf. p r o v i s i o n a l l y BiOr,
27 (1970), p . 378.
( 3 1 ) J . F R I E D R I C H - W . R O L L I G , PPG1, § 112, I I c ; I.J. G EL B , Sequential Reconstruction of Proto-
Akkadian: AS, 18 (1969), p . 229 f., see G . GARBINI: AION, 33 (1973), p. 264.
(32) S. SEGERT, Grammar, § 5125 r e f e r s t o a n o n - e x i s t e n t § 35,54.
(33) G . GARBINI: AION, 37 (1977, p . 291, n o t a 28.
(34) N o w h e r e a n a l t e r n a t i v e w r i t i n g -n, w h i c h s h o u l d b e s u p p o s e d , c a n b e f o u n d .
(35) S. SEGERT, Grammar, § 41222.
382 W. Rollig

ces, c a n o n l y b e s a t i s f a c t o r i l y r e s o l v e d w h e n w e h a v e m o r e m a t e r i a l at o u r d i s p o s a l , j u s t
as t h i s f o r m o f t h e p r o n o u n w a s a c t u a l l y r e c o g n i z e d o n l y w i t h t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f the
texts f r o m E l - H o f r a .
F u r t h e r investigation in the fields of syntax a n d stylistics can be carried out, h o w ­
ever, e v e n w i t h o u t new material. Encouraging starts have already been made in
these a r e a s .
Francois B r o n rightly notes in his recent b o o k (36), t h a t « L'existence meme des
t e m p s c o n v e r t i s e n p h e n i c o - p u n i q u e est u n p r o b l e m e q u i m e r i t e r a i t u n e e t u d e a p p r o -
f o n d i e ». I t is c e r t a i n l y r e m a r k a b l e t h a t t h e u s e o f t h e w a w - c o n s e c u t i v e , w h i c h i s s o
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f H e b r e w , s e e m s t o h a v e n o real a n a l o g u e i n P h o e n i c i a n (37). T h i s pre­
s e n t s d i f f i c u l t i e s , s i n c e m a n y a t t e m p t s a t e x p l a n a t i o n s t a r t w i t h t h e p r e m i s e t h a t t h i s is
a p h e n o m e n o n of later Canaanite, w h e r e b y a syntactic opposition developed after the
d i s a p p e a r a n c e o f t h e s u f f i x c o n j u g a t i o n , w h i c h c o r r e s p o n d s t o tenses a n d a s p e c t s . I t is
not necessary to enter into this discussion here, since in this p o i n t Phoenician is basi­
cally different f r o m H e b r e w . U p to n o w , a perfect consecutive has been posited only
f o r t h e K a r a t e p e i n s c r i p t i o n , a l t h o u g h w i t h d i f f e r i n g p a s s a g e s g i v e n a s p r o o f . M o s t re-
c e n t i l y F. B r o n h a s c i t e d t h e c u r s e f o r m u l a i n KAI 26 I I I 12-14: « B u t if a k i n g ... erases
(ymt - i m p e r f e c t ) t h e n a m e o f A z i t a w a d d a f r o m t h i s g a t e a n d sets (wst - p e r f e c t ) a n o ­
t h e r n a m e o n it ... ». H e n o t e s t h a t t h e p a s s a g e is n o t r e c o r d e d i n PPG2, although the
c o m m e n t a r y i n KAI e x p l a i n s t h e f o r m wst as a p e r f e c t w i t h w a w - c o n s e c u t i v e (38)- The
s a m e f o r m u l a , « a n d sets (his) n a m e o n it » o c c u r s a g a i n i n l i n e 16 o f c o l u m n I I I o f t h e
gate inscription a n d in col. I V 16 o f t h e s t a t u e i n s c r i p t i o n . There, however, it reads,
( l i n e 17f.): « H e s p e a k s T w i l l m a k e (pi - i m p e r f e c t ) a n o t h e r s t a t u e a n d set (wst) my
n a m e (smy) o n it... », a l t h o u g h h e r e , as u s u a l , it c a n b e d i v i d e d i n a n o t h e r w a y a n d r e a d :
« H e s p e a k s T w i l l m a k e a n o t h e r s t a t u e ' a n d h e set h i s n a m e o n it ». I n each case the
« P h o n i z i s c h - p u n i s c h e G r a m m a t i k » u n d e r s t a n d s st as a p a r t i c i p l e , w h i c h i s a f o r m a l
possibility a n d w h i c h thus m a k e s it u n s u i t a b l e as a n e x a m p l e of the waw-consecutive.
O t h e r e x a m p l e s w h i c h a r e s o m e t i m e s a d d u c e d s h o u l d b e i n t e r p r e t e d as t h e p e r f e c t u s e d
as o p t a t i v e , w h i c h I s h a l l d i s c u s s d i r e c t l y . T h e o n l y remaining example are the very
homogeneous ones o n the sacrificial table f r o m Marseille, w h i c h are probably to be
explained as the perfect w i t h waw-consecutive after a n imperfect. I n this regard the
r e m a r k i n PPG2 § 266.2, « V i e l l e i c h t liegt h i e r Erhaltung altertiimlicher Formeln der
juristischen b z w . religiosen S prechweise v o r , die d e r lebenden S prache f r e m d geworden
w a r », d e s e r v e d m o r e a t t e n t i o n . T h i s is s u p p o r t e d b y t h e p o s s i b l e o c c u r e n c e s o f the
imperfect w i t h the waw-consecutive in Old-Phoenician inscriptions. A n attestation in
the A h i r o m i n s c r i p t i o n (39) a n d a r a t h e r u n c e r t a i n one on the archaic offering bowl
f r o m K i t i o n (*) m a y p e r h a p s b e cited here, even if o n e c a n n o t exclude the possibility

(36) F. BRON, Recherches sur les in scription s phe

n icie
nn es de Karatepe, G
e e
n e
v /Paris 1979,
p. 114 f.
(37) That is still valid de spite the e fforts of J.-G. F^VRIER, Le waw con versif en pun ique: Horn -
mages a A. Dupon t - Sommer, Paris 1971, pp. 191-84 de aling w i t h som e still not compl e t e ly cle ar
Punic inscriptions.
(38) F. BRON, Recherches..., cit., pp. 114, 113-17.
(39) w'l mlk ... 'ly gbl wygl 'rn zn « and i f a king c a m e t o B y b l o s a n d uncov e r e d this sarco­
phagus...» KAI 1,2. S ee also W. GROSS, Verbalform nu d Fun ktion «wayyitqoh, 1976, p. 23, nota20.
(40) ml fr z gib wypg["\ « M L cut thi s ha i r and p r a y [ e d ... Astarte ...] ». See most recently,
M. G. G u z z o AMADASI, Fouilles de Kition III. In scription s phen icie nn es, i
N cos
i a 1977, p. 149 ff., li ne
1, wi th a di scussi on of var i ous other readi ng suggesti ons.
 The Phoen ician nLa guage. 383

of other interpretations. I n g e n e r a l , h o w e v e r , it m u s t b e m a i n t a i n e d , t h a t this c o n s ­

t r u c t i o n , w h i c h w a s s o p o p u l a r a n d p r o d u c t i v e i n H e b r e w , c e r t a i n l y d i d n o t h a v e the
same importance in Phoenician-Punic. I t c a n t h u s b e d o u b t e d that t h i s p l a y e d any
decisive role in the Phoenician tense system.
Another complex which needs a comprehensive a n a l y s i s is t h e u s a g e o f expres­
sions for wish and prohibition in P h o e n i c i a n - P u n i c . PPG2 n o t e d f o u r t y p e s o f e x p r e s ­
s i o n o f t h i s n a t u r e , t h o u g h t h e r e a r e m o r e , t h e n u a n c e s o f w h i c h still n e e d t o b e b e t t e r
understood.

1. T h e w i s h c a n b e e x p r e s s e d b y a n o m i n a l sentence. T h i s o c c u r s i n the Pyrgi

inscription: « and the years for the v o t i v e i m a g e ... m a y t h e y e a r s b e (so n u m e r o u s )
a s t h e s e s t a r s ! » ( 4I ). T h e n o r m a l use of t h e n o m i n a l sentence as an expression of du­
r a t i o n is t h e d e c i s i v e f a c t o r h e r e f o r t h e c h o i c e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n . Parallels in Hebrew
are well k n o w n , so that in this instance w e are not faced w i t h a peculiarity of Phoe­
nician.

2. T h e w i s h is e x p r e s s e d r e l a t i v e l y f r e q u e n t l y by the p e r f e c t in the sense o f a

precative: « M a y B a a l b l e s s (brk) ... A z i t a w a d d a . . . » « a n d m a y t h i s c i t y e n j o y a sa­
t i e t y o f w i n e (wkn hqrt z~.) »; o r i n t h e c o m m o n f o r m u l a « m a y h e h e a r h i s call, b l e s s
h i m , etc... (sm qly brky o r the like). I n t h e s e i n s t a n c e s the n u a n c e w a s o b v i o u s l y t h a t
of durative effect in the future. This emerges f r o m the fact that the twice attested
formula: « a n d m a y T i n n i t b e t h e j u d g e (spt) o f t h e s p i r i t o f t h i s m a n » (42) is repla­
ced once b y the comparable f o r m u l a « that man ... T i n n i t will strangle (n kst) » (43),
w h e r e t h e p a r t i c i p l e is f o u n d i n p l a c e o f t h e u s u a l f i n i t e v e r b a l form.

3. Furthermore, the w i s h can be expressed by the simple imperfect (jussive):

« m a y t h e m i s t r e s s o f B y b l o s b l e s s (tbrk) J e h a u m i l k » (**) o r — the n o r m a l blessing
f o r m u l a in the dedication inscriptions — may they (the gods) bless (ybrk') h i m »;
o r — analogous to the curse f o r m u l a in the inscription cited a b o v e — « m a y Baal Ha-
m o n e x t i r p a t e iyqsy) h i m » (45). How the nuance here differs f r o m that of the perfect,
h o w e v e r , is d i f f i c u l t t o say. O n e m i g h t i m a g i n e t h a t t h e i n t e n t i o n w a s t o give t h e n u a n ­
ce o f a longer stretch in the future, w h i c h fits w i t h the use of 7 f o r the negative: « m a y
t h e M u s k a b i m n o t h o n o u r t h e B a ' r i r i m (7 ykbd) » C6) o r « m a y t h e y n o t b e b u r i e d in
47
a g r a v e (7 yqbr) » ( ).

4. T h e c o h o r t a t i v e w i t h t h e s u f f i x -n ( c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o H e b r e w -n a) is a t t e s t e d
a t least o n c e : « m a y I get t h e s i l v e r (pqn hksp) » (**). I t is t h u s clear t h a t it w a s n o t
u n k n o w n i n P h o e n i c i a n , a l t h o u g h it n e v e r f o u n d t r u e e x p r e s s i o n t h e r e d u e t o t h e u n i ­
f o r m i t y of the inscriptions.

5. Finally, the w i s h w a s expressed b y the proclitic / - w i t h the imperfect (preca­

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

(41) wsn t Im's ... sn t km hkkbm 'I KAI 277, 9-11.

(42) CIS I 3785 = KAI 79, 10f.; 4937,3ff. cf. 5632,6 f. (subject Baal-Hamon).
(43) CIS I 3783,6 f.
(44) KAI 10,8.
(45) CIS I 3784,2 f.
(46) KAI 24,14.
(47) KAI 14,8.
(48) KAI 50,3.
384 W. Rdllig

in the Old Phoenician of the firs t incantation text f r o m Ars lan Ta?(49). I n Punic it is
found in the bles s ing formula « m a y he hear (lysm) », and here it would s eem to me
that s everal writings which might be interpreted as perfects are s imply orthographically
inexact or incorrect renderings of the imperfect. Which nuance this f o r m was s uppo­
sed to express remains unclear at present.

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

It should be clear f r o m these few sketches that, despite the paucity of material, qui­
te a few constructions can be isolated, which would repay a broader comparative study,
possibly in connexion with a study of interrogatives, interjections and negations.
In the use of the infinitive a significant difference can n o w be seen in comparison
to Hebrew, especially after the discovery of the Karatepe inscription. That is the subs­
titution of an infinitive absolute with following 1st person singular independant pro­
noun for a finite verbal f o r m at the beginning of a sentence. The long, heated discus­
sion about this f o r m need not be recapitulated here, especially since it has just been
comprehensively treated by F. Bron (51). As S. Segert emphasizes, it should be noted
that the appending of a suffix on the infinitive absolute brings with it the syntactically
unusual feature, that a suffix can thus be attached to a noun used adverbiall (52). This
phenomenon is of special interest for historical linguistics in that analogous usages can
be found in the Canaanite of the Amarna period as well as in Ugarit, though not in « clas­
sical » Hebrew. There it appears first in Qoheleth and in the book of Esther. Thus the
Phoenician tradition which stretches f r o m the ninth to fifth century B.C., provides a
connecting link of sorts. This construction has not yet been attested in Punic. The rea­
son may be that there we lack the inscriptions with declarative historical phrases, whe­
re this construction was specially preferred.
Moreover, it is interesting that in some instances Phoenician uses a different pre­
positional government than the Hebrew, examples of which can again be found in the
Karatepe inscription, among others. For the future the further lexical and gram­
matical development of Ugaritic m a y provide an aid in letting the deviating usages
of Phoenician stand out more clearly. I n principle, however, the differences are so
great no direct comparisons are possible.
Still, there is one area which can profit f r o m a future elucidation of Ugaritic and
that is Phoenician stylistics. It goes without saying that style and syntax cannot be
viewed separately f r o m one another. Moreover, it is obvious that the laconic dedicatory
inscriptions with their formulaic contents can contribute little to a study of Phoeni­
cian and Punic stylistics. On the other hand, the historical inscriptions in Phoenician,
especially those of Ahirom, K i l a m u w a and Azitawadda, of Jehaumilk and Esmunazar

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

(50) Poen. 932, see M. SZNYCER, cit , p. 61 f.
(51) F. BRON, cit ., pp. 14346.
(52) S. SEGERT, Grammar, § 64.611.1.
 The Phoenician Language. 385

h a v e j u s t recently been the o b j e c t of increased interest, which has brought about

v a r i o u s i n t e r e s t i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s w i t h r e g a r d t o c o m p o s i t i o n a n d l a n g u a g e (53).
I a m sure, that the systematic observation of stylistic pecularities, the composi­
tion of the inscriptions — a n d t h i s is t r u e e s p e c i a l l y f o r P u n i c a n d N e o - P u n i c — will
advance o u r understanding of both, g r a m m a r a n d content. A n d so s o m e t i m e in the
future — a n d I h o p e i n t h e n o t s o d i s t a n t f u t u r e — o u r il l ustri co
ll eghi a n d w e shall
b e clear w h a t w e m e a n w h e n w e s p e a k o f t h e « P h o e n i c i a n l a n g u a g e ».

(53) Cf. e.g. J . C. GR EENFIELD, Scripture and Inscription: The Literary and Rhetorical l
E ement in
Some Ear ly Phoenician Inscriptions: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of W. F. Al bright, Baltimore/
L o n d o n 1971, p p . 253-68; ID., The Zakir Inscription and the Dankl ied: Proceedings of the Fifth Wor
ld
Congress of Jewish Studies, 1 (1971), p p . 174-91; T . COLLINS, The Ki l amuwa Inscription — a Phoeni­
cian Poem: WO, 6 (1971-72), p p . 181-88; G. GAR BINI, Analisi di inscrizioni fenicie: AION, 37 (1977),
p p . 403-16.