Benjamin J. Noonan, «Hide or Hue? Defining Hebrew #x$ At%A», Vol. 93 (2012) 580-589
The word #$xAtA% has long puzzled Hebrew lexicographers. The present paper evaluates the most common definitions for this elusive Hebrew word, focusing particularly on Stephanie Dalley’s recent consideration of this term. Dalley’s proposal that #$xAtA%A% is derived from Akkadian dušû and means «faience beadwork» falls short linguistically as well as contextually. More plausibly, Hebrew #$xAtA% originates with Egyptian ths, a term used with reference to leather. This well suits the contexts in which #$xAtA% occurs and reflects Egyptian influence on the tabernacle and its terminology.
06_Biblica_2_AM_A_Noonan_Layout 1 30/01/13 13:17 Pagina 585
585
HIDE OR HUE?
syrian Dictionary as well as von Soden derive Hurrian tuḫšiwe from Akka-
dian or Sumerian, not vice versa 14.
Nevertheless, let us grant Dalley a Hurrian origin for the sake of argu-
ment. Even then, Dalley’s loan hypothesis does not adequately explain the
final –û of Akkadian dušû. Languages rarely borrow the original inflection
along with the nominal stem 15, and the few that do (e.g., Coptic and Early
Romani) almost always borrow the word in the nominative rather than
oblique case 16. (Notable exceptions include mixed languages and “learnedâ€
borrowings from Greek and Latin 17 .) It is unlikely, therefore, that the –û of
Akkadian dušû reflects the Hurrian genitive ending –we.
When written syllabically, Akkadian dušû typically occurs as du8-ši-ia
or du8-šu-ú, and when written logographically it commonly appears as
DU8.ŠI.A. However, at Mari it typically occurs as DU8.ŠÚ.A (e.g., ARM
XXI 232,1.14). Contrary to what Dalley claims, the different spelling of this
term at Mari is probably a local scribal convention for this word that has no
bearing on the presence or absence of the final vowel. Even if Dalley were
correct that this word lacked a final –û at Mari, she never explains why He-
brew speakers would have borrowed an unusual dialectal form from Mari
rather than the much more common Akkadian form found elsewhere.
In any case, Dalley never adequately demonstrates that Akkadian dušû
means “faience beadworkâ€. Artifacts rarely come inscribed with any form
of self-identification, so connecting excavated realia with terminology can
be a difficult task. This is particularly the case with a word like Akkadian
dušû, which appears with reference to many, many different objects: leather,
wool, linen, stone and glass, sandals, plaques, cylinder seals, jewelry, equid
harnesses, chariot seats, head-rests, shields, and so on. Given its numerous
associations, Dalley’s contention that the realia of Hebrew #$xA tA% matches
the realia of this term is somewhat meaningless. In any case, the traditional
understanding of Akkadian dušû as a color seems much more likely given
the many different contexts in which it occurs 18.
CAD T 455; AHw 1367.
14
Systematic examination of many of the world’s language families from
15
many different regions provides no instances of case markers borrowed along
with a loanword (Y. MATRAS, “The Borrowability of Structural Categoriesâ€,
Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective [eds. Y. MATRAS – J.
SAKEL] [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 38; Berlin 2007] 44).
Cf. MATRAS, Language Contact, 160.
16
L. JOHANSON, “Case and Contact Linguisticsâ€, The Oxford Handbook
17
of Case (eds. A.L. MALCHUKOV ‒ A. SPENCER) (Oxford Handbooks in Lin-
guistics; Oxford 2009) 495; Y. MATRAS, Language Contact (Cambridge Text-
books in Linguistics; Cambridge 2009) 173.
CAD D 200-202; T 455; AHw 179.
18
© Gregorian Biblical Press 2012 - Tutti i diritti riservati