For this publication, a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license has been granted by the author(s), who retain full copyright.
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies is an electronic journal dedicated to the study of the Syriac tradition, published semi-annually (in January and July) by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute. Published since 1998, Hugoye seeks to offer the best scholarship available in the field of Syriac studies.
For J. F. ‘Chip’ Coakley on his retirement
I would like to thank George A. Kiraz (Beth Mardutho: Syriac
Institute) for discussing this paper with me as well as for adding several
examples to those cited here. I would also like to thank the anonymous
reviewer(s) at Hugoye who provided useful feedback. Finally, I am especially
grateful to Lucas Van Rompay (Duke University) for his helpful comments.
Note the following abbreviation: CAD = The Assyrian Dictionary of the
Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Chicago, 1956-).
It is well established that the primary use of syāmē in Syriac is to
mark the morphological category of plurality. This study explores a
secondary use of syāmē. This occurs most frequently with grc words
in Syriac that ended in syāmē can also
explain the regularity and consistency with which syāmē occur with
the feminine forms of the teen cardinal numbers.
It is well established that the primary use of
1 Brockelmann 1981: §11; Duval 1881: §66; Kiraz 2012: §225-234;
Nöldeke 1904: §16; Segal 1953: 5. For the history of the term
2 As an aside, it should be pointed out that the
3 A color image of this manuscript is available in Brock, Butts, Kiraz, and Van Rompay 2011: 457, where one can see several examples
of
4 Jones 1998: 435; Kiraz 2012: §2012.
syāmē ‘(lit.) placings’ in
Syriac is to mark the morphological category of plurality.
syāmē along
with alternative designations, such as nāqzay saggiyānutā ‘points of plurality’,
see Kiraz 2012: §225.syāmē on the latter.
k n Syriac malkin‘kings’
(Ezra 4:20) *malakīn (see Rosenthal 1995: §51). This is due to an analogical development in Syriac whereby the plural
base *malak- was replaced by the singular base *malk-. syāmē is attested already in the earliest Syriac manuscripts, such as London, Brit. Libr. Add. 12,150, which is
dated to 411 CE.
syāmē marking plurality, e.g., syāmēthe use of which belongs to the original scribe (see at p. 439).syāmēare not found in the Old Syriac inscriptions, e.g., syāmē mark the morphological category of plurality in the vast majority of cases, this is not their only use in Syriac.
Occasionally, syāmē function as a phonological marker for a final
mid front vowel in Syriac.
The occasional use of
5 In each of these examples, the singular is assured by the context – or,
it is at the very least highly likely. It is tempting to add to this list syāmē as a phonological marker for a final
mid front vowel is most common with Greek loanwords in Syriac
that ended in syāmē. When written with syāmē, however, this word always seems to take plural agreement. Thus,
plurale tantum, probably on analogy to the semantically similar plurale tantum. It should be noted that the latter may well be a loanword from
Akkadian damē ‘blood money’ (CAD D 79, sub2b), even though it is not included in Kaufman
1974, especially since the Akkadian form is also plural. For the association between
(1)
6 The singular is assured by the following adjective that does not have syāmē
as well as by the witnesses of other manuscripts that have syāmē, such as ms. Sachau 222 (1881 CE; ed. Bedjan 1890-1897:
3.272.21).
7 See also 94.14, 20; 146.20; 147.30; 162.21; 172.4.
8 See also 90.3; 150.26; 168.24; 171.13. Perhaps also Part 3, 104.16; ed. Chialà 2011). The form ʾḥd‘to take’ plus syāmē should be rejected.
9 See also 160.1; 162.7; 164.1; 165.8, 18; 187.20.
10 Becker (2006: 104-105 with n. 79 [on p. 243]; see also 2010: 93 n. 10)
suggests that the phonological use of syāmē occurs in the title of the Cause of
the Foundation of the Schools: The Cause of the Establishment of the Session of the School. It should be noted that one manuscript reads
syāmē), which weakens the argument.
11 The plural of this loanword only seems to be attested as
12 The plural cannot be absolutely ruled out in the context, even if the singular seems much more likely.
It should be noted that forms without
13 Though many of these examples occur in Qiyore of Edessa’s syāmē are much more
common for all of these words. Regardless, in each of the cases in
(1), the syāmē serve as a phonological marker for a final mid front
syāmē, thus, disambiguates the consonantal
script of these Greek loanwords, which could be read with either
final -ā or final -ē, in the same way as it disambiguates the
consonantal script of many masculine nouns, e.g., singular syāmē occasionally occur as a phonological marker for
a final mid front vowel in Syriac reflecting -Six Explanations of the Liturgical Feasts, Feasts, the phenomenon is certainly not limited to
this text.
Syriac
14 See also syāmē also serve as a phonological marker for a final mid
front vowel with several Greek proper nouns that ended in -
(2)
These cases are comparable to those cited in (1) in which syāmē disambiguate the consonantal script, which could be read with
either final -ā or final -ē.
The use of
15 Allen 1987: 69-75; Woodard 2004: 617.
16 Allen 1987: 74-75; Gignac 1976-: 1.235-242; Mayser 1970: 46-54; Palmer 1934: 170; 1945: 1.
17 See Welles, Fink, and Gilliam 1959: 47 as well as the following spellings from the P.Euph. documents:
18 The present author is currently completing a study that uses Greek
loanwords in Syriac as a witness to the Greek of Late Antique Syria and
syāmē as a phonological marker for final Greek syāmē as a phonological
status emphaticus ending was never realized as a high front
vowel but always as mid front. The preservation of a mid front
pronunciation of Greek y, which would have represented a final high front vowel, e.g., y), though at least some
Syriac writers and/or scribes preserved its mid front realization
well into the Roman Period (representations of final -syāmē as a phonological marker).
In addition to final Greek -
19 Allen 1987: 79; Gignac 1976-: 1.191-193; Mayser 1970: 83-87. For
this merger in the Greek of Syria and Mesopotamia, see Welles, Fink, and
Gilliam 1959: 47 as well as the following selected spellings from the P.Euph.
documents: syāmē more rarely serve as a
phonological marker for final Greek -Six Explanations of the Liturgical Feasts
by Qiyore of Edessa (1.1; ed. Macomber 1974). This Syriac name derives from Greek syāmē in
syāmē occurs with the writing of the Greek aorist passive infinitive syāmē in Part 3 of
the Ecclesiastical History by Yuḥanon of Ephesus (15.28; ed. Brooks
1935). In the editio princeps, Brooks proposed to emend this word by
removing syāmē. This emendation is, however, unnecessary, since
the syāmē here are a phonological marker for final Greek -
An interesting case of the use of
(P.Euph. 2.14-15 [mid-3rd]); χέρειν for χαίρειν (P. Euph. 11.11 [232]). 20 For this anonymous tract, see Segal 1953: 79. For a facsimile edition
of the entire manuscript, see Loopstra Forthcoming. I would like to thank
Jonathan Loopstra (Capital University) for sharing his work with me prior
to its publication.
syāmē for Greek -
(3) Anonymous tract in East-Syriac ‘Masora’ (Brit. Libr. Add.
12,138 [899 CE])
21 Translating Greek
The
22 The same five points appear with this letter in the version of this
verse found on f. 275v, ln. 1 of Brit. Libr. Add. 12,138, which is not from
the anonymous tract (303v-308v) but from the actual biblical samples.
23 .Segal (1953: 98-99), for instance, cites half a dozen.
p in quššāyā point, an East-
Syriac zqāpā with two points, as well as two additional points.
rāhṭā accent, which ‘joins two
words closely together in a context to which a rising tone is
suitable’ (1953: 98-99). A similar interpretation is found in Kiraz’s
recent volume on Syriac orthography, where it is added that the
two points are ‘not to be confused’ with syāmē (2012: §139). This
analysis is, however, not without problems. The use of rāhṭā at the
end of a word is found in a fair number of reliable examples.
rāhṭā at the beginning of a word is not so
reliably attested. Following the anonymous tract on accents in Brit.
Libr. Add. 12,138, Segal (1953: 99) provides three total examples,
but comments that ‘in all these examples one of the two points
may not be part of rāhṭā but a diacritical point’ (n. 7). Given the
uncertainty over the use of rāhṭā at the beginning of a word, an
alternative analysis of the two additional points in syāmē being used as a
phonological marker. In this case, the syāmē would represent the
final -
If the
24 The Syriac is edited in Moberg 1922: 166.16-22, and a German
translation is available in Moberg 1907-1913: 1.145. It should be noted that
Bar ʿEbroyo does not call these vocatives but diminutives (syāmē in ptāḥā would then be a
secondary development. In his Book of Splendors, Bar ʿEbroyo (d.
1286) explains that Greek personal names in Syriac that end in -os have a vocative in -e, e.g.,
as have a vocative in -a, e.g.,
zuʿʿārā).
(4) Book of Splendors by Bar ʿEbroyo (ed. Moberg 1922)
25 The edition has dālat; this is not impossible,
though it is preferable to emend as above.
‘The East Syrians, not keeping this rule, mix these two
types with one another and read pwlā, tʾpylā, etc., with their zqāpā which resembles ptāḥā ...’ (66.23-24)
Thus, Bar ʿEbroyo states that the two Greek types -
26 If the anonymous tract on accents (303v-308v) is older than the
biblical samples in Brit. Libr. Add. 12,138, as Segal (1953: 7) supposes, then
this date can be pushed even earlier.
27 Perhaps, the forms ending in os and -as had been leveled to a single vocative in
-ā in East Syriac by his time
(the thirteenth century). The form zqāpā given by Bar ʿEbroyo in his
description of East Syriac and the final ptāḥā found in Brit. Libr.
Add. 12,138.
ptāḥā are the result of West-Syriac
influence, where the vocative of Greek personal names in -as end in ptāḥā.
zqāpā and ptāḥā are found for these forms in the later East-Syriac tradition; the
Mosul Bible, for instance, has zqāpā but
ptāḥā.
Thus, it is proposed that the two additional points in
28 It is from here, of course, that this analysis made its way into Segal
1953: 99 and more recently Kiraz 2012: §303.
quššāyā marker nor the
East-Syriac zqāpā – are best analyzed as syāmē. This syāmē would
have functioned as a phonological marker for final -e and -a) to a single type in
-a/ā. After the leveling, the syāmē would not have been analyzable, since the final vowel was no
longer mid front. This would have made it possible for syāmē in this
case to be reinterpreted as a rāhṭā accent, as they have been in the
East-Syriac ‘Masora’ (Brit. Libr. Add. 12,138, f. 306v, ln. 17).
Up to this point, all of the examples of syāmē functioning as a
phonological marker for a final mid front vowel involve Greek
words in Syriac. There is, however, a set of native Syriac words
where syāmē also function as a phonological marker (or at least did
originally): the feminine forms of the teen cardinal numbers (11-19).
The most commonly attested forms of the teen cardinal numbers
are given in the chart in (5).
(5)
In the manuscripts, there is a great deal of variation in the
forms themselves as well as in which forms are written with
29 Brockelmann 1981: §157; Coakley 2002: 134; Muraoka 2005: §44;
Nöldeke 1904: §148.
30 So already Nöldeke 1904: §16 and Hetzron 1977: 186 n. 1.
31 This is certain since the same ending is found with these forms in
Biblical Hebrew, which does not of course have the Aramaic masculine
plural
32 The result of such an extension can be illustrated by Christian
Palestinian Aramaic, where syāmē
syāmē are most commonly found
with the feminine forms of the teen cardinal numbers. This is due
to the fact that it is the feminine forms of the teen cardinal
numbers that end in -ē.
ē is not etymologically related
status emphaticus ending -ē.
status emphaticus ending -ē, e.g., šlōš ʿeśrē ‘thirteen (FEM)’, which is
written in the consonantal script as šlš ʿśrh. The etymology of the -ē that
occurs in the word for ten in feminine forms of the teen cardinal numbers
in Hebrew and Syriac continues to defy explanation. Traditionally, it was
connected with the feminine ending *-ay (see, e.g., Brockelmann 1908:
§225Bdβαα [p. 412]; 249cβ [p. 489]; 1981: §106; Cowley 1910: §80L; Joüon
and Muraoka 2005: §89l, 100e; Moscati et al. 1964: §12.33 [tentatively];
Wright 1890: 138; for the wider Semitic context of the feminine ending *-ay, see the bibliography and discussion in Layton 1990: 241-249). One would,
however, expect the feminine ending *-ay to be realized as -ay in both Syriac
and Hebrew, based on Syriac salway ‘quail’ (Sokoloff 2009: 1012; for
additional examples, see Nöldeke 1904: §83) and on Hebrew śāray (Gen.
11:30), the earlier name of Sarah. Ugaritic evidence adds further difficulties
to the traditional etymology that relates the -ē in the word for ten in
feminine forms of the teen cardinal numbers in Hebrew and Syriac to the
feminine ending *-ay In Ugaritic, the word for ten in teen cardinal numbers
is written as ʿšrh alongside ʿšr and ʿšrt (Tropper 2000: §62.2). Given that the
word for ten is also written with final -h in the feminine of these forms in
Hebrew, it is likely that Ugaritic ʿšrh is cognate to the Hebrew forms as well
as to the Syriac forms, where the mater lectionis will have been changed from h to ʾ (for this change in Syriac, compare the orthography of the feminine
singular status absolutus ending, which is consistently -ʾ in Syriac but was -h in
Old Aramaic [Degen 1969: §34] with Biblical Aramaic attesting both forms
[Rosenthal 1995: §42]). The -h in Ugaritic ʿšrh cannot be a reflex of the
feminine ending *-ay because: 1. the feminine ending *-ay is probably
realized as -y in Ugaritic (Tropper 2000: §52.4 with the comments in Pardee
2003/2004: 176-177); 2. Ugaritic h never functions as a mater lectionis and is
always consonantal in Ugaritic (Tropper 2000: §21.342.2; Huehnergard
2012: 21). Thus, while the analysis of the final -h in Ugaritic ʿšrh remains
uncertain (Bordreuil and Pardee 2009: 36; Huehnergard 2012: 49; see the
discussion in Tropper 2000: §62.201), the Ugaritic evidence casts further
doubt on analyzing the ending -ē on the word for ten in feminine forms of
the teen cardinal numbers in Biblical Hebrew and Syriac as the feminine
ending *-ay (contra Joüon and Muraoka 2005: §100e, who doubt whether the
Ugaritic evidence can be used to show that h in Hebrew ʿšrh was originally
consonantal). It should be noted here in passing that Hetzron (1977) has
proposed that the final -ē in these Hebrew and Syriac forms is – at least
partially – the result of language contact with Akkadian. This is, however, unlikely given what is known about the contact between these languages as
well as about contact-induced change more broadly.
syāmē (at least originally) serve as a phonological
marker for a final mid front vowel in Syriac – this time with native
Syriac words. The fact that syāmē are occasionally found with the
masculine forms of the teen cardinal numbers, which do not end in -ē, as well as with other numbers, which also do not end in
-ē suggests that the phonological use of syāmē was secondarily
reinterpreted as a morphological marker of plurality by at least
some writers and/or scribes. This, however, represents a secondary
development. The regularity and consistency with which syāmē occur with the feminine forms of the teen cardinal numbers
suggest that the origin of their use with numbers is to be found
there, where they functioned originally as a phonological marker,
and it is from there that they spread to other numbers.
syāmē are used with masculine and feminine
forms of the teen cardinal numbers as well as with many other forms of the
numbers (for the forms, see Müller-Kessler 1991: §4.3.1).
The connection between
33 Syriac incantation bowls, also called ‘magic bowls’, are earthenware
bowls that are inscribed with incantations in ink. The bowls are typically
thought to stem from the late Sasanian period (sixth to seventh century),
though both earlier and later dates have been suggested. Two scripts are
attested in the Syriac bowls: Esṭrangela and a related script that is often
termed ‘Proto-Manichaean’. The language of the Syriac bowls differs in a
number of ways from Classical Syriac (Van Rompay 1990). Collections of
Syriac incantation bowls are available in Hamilton 1971: 98-164 as well as
more recently Moriggi 2004: 235-294 (for the history of publication of
Syriac bowls, see Moriggi 2004: 1-6, 47-48 with further references). The
Syriac incantation bowls have parallels in Mandaic and Jewish Babylonian
Aramaic.
34 This feature is not mentioned in Hamilton 1971: 48-49 or Moriggi
2004. In addition,
35 For this edition, see the review article in Wesselius 1991.
syāmē and the end of a word is
interestingly enough reflected in the orthography of the Syriac
incantation bowls.
syāmē often occur on the final ʾālap in the Syriac incantation bowls,
e.g., sub ln. 12]).
syāmē are unfortunately not marked in the texts in the
appendix of Moriggi 2004, leaving this interesting difference between
Classical Syriac and the language of the Syriac incantation bowls indiscernible to the reader (syāmē are marked in Hamilton’s texts, even
though they are written in square script).
syāmē on the last letter of the word indicates
the close connection between syāmē and the phonology of the last
syllable.
This study has aimed to shed light on a minor, but interesting
orthographic feature of Syriac that is not recorded in the standard
grammars, such as those of Duval (1881) and Nöldeke (1904): the
occasional use of
36 This use was, however, noted by Van Rompay (
37 Following a similar development, syāmē as a phonological marker for a final mid
front vowel in Syriac.
apud Salvesen 1997:
245 n. 66), Becker (2010: 93 n. 10), and Kiraz (2012: §158).
syāmē is due to a reanalysis of
the relationship between syāmē and the ending -ē of masculine plural status emphaticus
nouns, such as syāmē to be extended to non-plural words that ended in a
mid front vowel, such as Greek words in Syriac that ended in -syāmē occasionally function as a
phonological marker for a final mid front vowel in Christian Sogdian texts
(Sims-Williams, apud Kiraz 2012: §621).