Basics of Ancient Ugaritic

Robert Marshall Murphy

Spring 2013

Contents
1 Lesson 1 2
1.1 Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 For Further Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2 Lesson 2 3
2.1 Exercises p.34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 For Further Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3 Lesson 3 4
3.1 Exercises p.44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2 For Further Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.1 Proper Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.2 Duals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.3 Case Endings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.4 Case Endings in the Construct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

4 Lesson 4 6
4.1 Exercises p.50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2 For Further Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.1 Participles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

5 Lesson 5 8
5.1 Exercises p.55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2 For Further Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

6 Lesson 6 9
6.1 Exercises p.60-61 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2 For Further Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

7 Lesson 7 10
7.1 Exercises p.65 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2 For Further Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1
8 Lesson 8 11
8.1 Exercises p.72-74 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.2 For Further Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

9 Lesson 9 13
9.1 Exercises p.78-79 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2 For Further Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

10 Lesson 10 13
10.1 Exercises p.85-87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.2 For Further Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

11 Lesson 11 14
11.1 Exercises p.94-95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.2 For Further Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.2.1 General Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.2.2 First Aleph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.2.3 First Glide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11.2.4 Middle Glide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11.2.5 Doubly Weak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

12 Lesson 12 16
12.1 Exercises p.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12.2 For Further Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

13 Lesson 13 17
13.1 Exercises p.103-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
13.2 For Further Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

1 Lesson 1
1.1 Exercises
ere are no exercises.

1.2 For Further Study

“e Goddess Anath” (Cassuto , 1951) is a translation by Umberto Cassuto of several Ugaritic
tablets into pointed Hebrew, which has in turn been translated into English by Israel Abraham.
e tablets themselves are of moderate interest, detailing stories of the god Ba’al and Anath, and
the righteous hero Danel. is mortal (so the author argues) is the one mentioned by Ezekiel in his
fourteenth chapter. (It is highly unlikely that he would mention the younger, contemporaneous
prophet to those not in Babylonia in the middle of Noah and Job. It is highly likely that Ezekiel
is listing famous, righteous foreigners to jar Judahite religious leaders’ sense of entitlement.)

2
 e more fascinating part of this book is the three chapters before the tablets translation.
Chapter 1 is a rather dated discussion of the Ugaritic writing. Like Akkadian and Sumerian,
Ugaritic was wrien with a wedge-shaped (Latin: cuneo) stylus pressed into clay. Unlike Akka-
dian, the Ugaritic cuneiform writings are not descended from logographic or hieroglyphic writing
(entailing hundreds of graphemes) but an abjad (consonantal alphabet) of a mere 30 characters.
is enabled their (relatively) easy decipherment aer their discovery in 1928. e language was
quickly seen to be a Semitic relative to Hebrew, in fact a very close cousin.
Chapter two is the big pay-off for scholars of the Bible. Ugaritic sheds much light on the
Hebrew Bible. As Cassuto says in his conclusion, when we find two passages of the Bible that are
similar, rather than assuming one is dependent upon the other and aempting to discern which
came first, we now have a tertium quid: that both passages follow Canaanite/Semitic literary
conventions as demonstrable by Ugaritic epic poetry.
e first subsection lists several conceptual metaphors that have been found in common be-
tween the Bible and Ugaritic (e.g. dissolving couches with tears, mourning down into Sheol, Sheol
being a “house of freedom”, etc.). e second subsection lists several explicit similes in common
(e.g. biting like a serpent, goring like a wild ox, harts longing for streams, etc.). e third sub-
section details many, many cognates that have been deployed in both languages in synthetic
parallelism with each other (e.g. earth/dust, eternity/generation-to-generation, mouth/lips, etc.).
e fourth and fih subsections list several literary devices the two languages shared. ese
sections are especially rich for those who have read Silva’s Biblical Words and eir Mean-
ing: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics because many choices of diction are not explicit in
the authors’ mind but literary conventions (cp. today when an author writing in “Christianese”
about the “quick and the dead”, an archaic use of ’quick’ only alive to those who still recite the
“Authorized Version” of the Apostles’ Creed).
In the last subsection of chapter two, the author details several obscure and difficult Hebrew
words that can be resolved thanks to Ugaritic cognates. 2 Kings 4:42; 2 Kings 15:5; Isaiah 27:1 all
contain such disputed words. Most fascinating is an explanation behind the Biblical injunction
against “cooking a kid in its mother’s milk”. Over and over again, Cassuto shows that Ugaritic
proves to Critical scholars that the Biblical text does not need emendation, but follows convention
’as is’.
Chapter three details the necessary background of ’El, Ba’al, Mot, Yam, Anath, and Asherah
needed to understand the Ugaritic epics. I was repeatedly struck by the lack of originality in
Greek, Latin, Egyptian, and Ugaritic mythology: they are all derived from Akkadian legends.
Ba’al is Zeus, ’El is Chronos, Mot is Hades, Yam is Poseidon, etc. is chapter usefully explains
many features of the Elijah vs. the priests of Ba’al at Mt. Carmel episode

2 Lesson 2
2.1 Exercises p.34
Transliterate, look up, vocalize, and translate each of the following:

1. 𐎁𐎓𐎍 - bʿl ; baʿlu ; lord, master, Baʿal

2. 𐎓𐎗𐎔𐎚 - ʿrpt ; ʿurpatu or ʿurpātu ; cloud or clouds

3
 3. 𐎊𐎄 - yd ; yadu or yada ; hand or with

4. 𐎀𐎗𐎕 - arṣ ; ʾarṣu ; earth, land

5. 𐎁𐎐 - bn ; binu or bêna ; son or between/among

6. 𐎔𐎐𐎚 - pnt ; pinnatu or pinnātu ; corner, vertebra or corners, vertebrae

7. 𐎛𐎐 - in ; ʾêna ; there is not

8. 𐎊𐎎 - ym ; yôma or yammu ; day or sea

9. 𐎛𐎍 - il ; ʾilu ; god, El

10. 𐎁𐎚 - bt ; bêtu or biu ; house or daughter

2.2 For Further Study

In 1958, Hallo (Hallo , 1958) suggested that the order of the Semitic alphabet as we know it pre-
cedes the names of the leers (as we know them today). He suggests each leer was simply
known by its own sound plus /aw/. Two possible places where this may be observable are in
Ugaritic practice tablets found at Raš Šamra and in Isaiah 29. e famous verses about “line upon
line, precept upon precept” may actually be a reference to the abecedarian names for the leers
of the Semitic alphabet used in elementary scribal education.

3 Lesson 3
3.1 Exercises p.44
Translate the selected phrase:

baʿlu ʾarṣi
1. e lord of the earth has died.
pinnātu
2. e vertebrae of her back are weakened.
bêtu
3. Let him build a house of cedars.
binu ʾilīma
4. e son of the gods responds.

yômāmi
5. Two days pass by.

bêtu baʿli
6. ere is no house for Baʿal .
ʿênā baʿli
7. e eyes of Baʿal are upon it.

4
 yadêmi
8. Li up the mountain on your hands .

ʿurpāti
9. e rider of the clouds fears him.
ʿênū ʾilīma bêti baʿli
10. e eyes of the gods are on the house of Baʿal .

3.2 For Further Study

3.2.1 Proper Names
Richardson (Richardson , 1978) suggests that the final -y of many Ugaritic place names is not
gentilic (unless it is of Akkadian origin) but consonantal. He finds over 80 place names in the
Raš Šamra texts which he painstakingly sorted by their final leer and correlated with known
Akkadian syllabic transcriptions. Not all names are present in the cuneiform texts, so he divided
the words into four categories. e first category are those that are clearly gentilic (40 words). If
a word is not such, but does not occur in the Akkadian texts, it is in class B (12 words). en, if
it is not always spelled with a -y, it is in class C (8 words), whereas if it does, it is in class D (20
words). is division allows for a systematic breakdown of the use of final -y in Ugaritic place
names.
Some of the more salient points to come of Richardson’s analysis are that matres lectionis
are exceedingly rare in Ugaritic, and certainly cannot be proven from any of these place names.
Specifically, -y does not stand for final -ī ever. Nor is it clearly a feminine ending, though it
may be hypocoristic/diminutive. What is his conclusion? “e Ugaritic spellings which omit the
historically correct -y are more accurate representing the spoken form of these words.”

3.2.2 Duals
In the Autumn 1983 issue of the Journal of Semitic Studies (Sivan , 1983), Daniel Sivan describes
the problems he finds with our understanding of the Ugaritic usage of the dual number. e dual
in Hebrew is largely antiquated by the Biblical period, and Sivan shows that it plays a smaller
part in Ugaritic than we thought at first blush.
While regular feminine nouns have a readily identifiable dual form in the consonantal text,
masculine nouns do not. e enclitic consonant -m may be the marker of the dual or plural. What
situations can we feel confident that it indicates two of something? Surely, one of the most secure
scenarios is aer the number 2! Sivan then turns to the syllabic text of Akkadian manuscripts
and shows quite conclusively that plural forms were used aer the number ‘2’, even in feminine
forms!
e most salient feature for this author’s growth in Semitic studies is the need to have a
beginning familiarity with Akkadian. Does every word begin with ‘m’? Why are transcriptions
so filled with hyphens and so oen preceded or followed by parenthetical, small caps words?
While Sivan’s point is clear, there appear to be many subtleties I am missing due to a complete
ignorance of cuneiform transcription practice.

5
3.2.3 Case Endings
In 1958, Sabatino Moscati (Moscati , 1958) showed that the Semitic case endings had to be short
vowels. e older formulation had been that they were -ū, -ī, and -ā. One of the most important
helps that Ugaritic has been to Comparative Semitology has been that the ‘Locative He’ of Hebrew
is not derived from the older accusative ending, but is a coda consonant in its own right (not a
mater lectionis). Moscati goes on to point out that this sets up a clear contrast, then, between the
bare vowels which end plural nouns in the construct state (which are diptotic), and singular nouns
(which are triptotic). As Moscati notes, this insight has not made its way into any elementary
Hebrew grammar, which is certainly true of our own Weingren!

3.2.4 Case Endings in the Construct

Ziony Zevit (Zevit, 1983) has wrien a penetrating article forever taking away two quick-and-
easy solutions: that Ugaritic verbs end in -u for the indicative, -a for the subjunctive and -ø for
the jussive, or that the three forms of aleph in ‫ ל–א‬nouns indicate ‘gloal stop + V’ at the end of
construct state nouns. Without recourse to Akkadian syllabic texts, Zevit shows that a variety of
final alephs are used when a different vowel is clearly meant.
How does Zevit account for this? Just as in later Hebrew, where final alephs were not pro-
nounced yet retained in the orthography, diachronic changes in Ugaritic could mean that con-
struct state nouns had final vowels at some point in the past, but they had passed out of usage
while the scholarly community retained them in spelling. is lead to inconsistencies in which
aleph appears at the end of a word in the singular, construct state. He notes Blau’s and Laewen-
stamm’s proof that these vowels had dropped out of Canaanite dialects by ca. 1300 B.C.

4 Lesson 4
4.1 Exercises p.50
Identify the adjective. Tell whether is is verbal or regular. Name gender and number. Tell whether
it is substantive, predicative, or aributive

ḫatuʾu huwa
1. vanquished he was. ḫatuʾu is the adjective. It is verbal, passive, masculine, singular,
nominative. It is predicative.

ḥayyu baʿlu
2. alive Baʿal is. ḥayyu is the adjective. It is regular, masculine, singular, nominative. It
is predicative.

bāniyu banūwāti
3. O creating of of created . bāniyu is a verbal adjective, active, singular, masculine, and
substantive. banūwāti is a verbal adjective, passive, plural, feminine, and substantive.

ʾilu dū piʾdi šāmiḫu

4. e god of who mercy rejoicing . šāmiḫu is a verbal adjective, active, singular, masculine,
and predicative.

6
 ʿanāti maḥrūṯāti
5. Let Baʿal rain upon furrows plowed . maḥrūṯāti is a verbal adjective, passive, feminine,
plural, and aributive.

kallāti kanūyāti
6. the abode of brides named . kanūyāti is a verbal adjective, passive, feminine, plural,
and aributive.
qāniyati ʾilīma
7. the gis of creating of of the gods . qāniyati is a verbal adjective, active, feminine, singular,
and substantive.
ḥarbi laṭūšati
8. like sword sharpened . laṭūšati is a verbal adjective, active, feminine, singular, and aribu-
tive.
ʾanūšātu pinnātu
9. weakened vertebrae of her back. ʾanūšātu is a verbal adjective, passive, feminine, plural,
and predicative.

taḥummu ʾili ḥukmu

10. word El wise . ḥukmu is the adjective. It is regular, masculine, singular, and
predicative.

4.2 For Further Study

4.2.1 Participles
Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein of Haifa University’s contribution to the first volume of the Hebrew
Annual Review, “Semantic Aspects of the Paern QÔṬĒL” is a masterpiece of minuscule analy-
sis. In it, he takes apart an reveals every nuance of the nouns and participles which paern aer
the Qal participle vocalization. What is clearly a spectrum from noun to verb is dissected into
a paern of intricate complexity. Just as the morpheme -er is infinitely subtle in its polysemic
value for speakers of English, so too this paern would have been very facile in the mouth of
a Hebrew speaker millennia ago. When is one just shepherding versus when has one crossed
the line and become a sheepherder? Kedar-Kopfstein suggests a nine-fold division of the uses of
qôṭēl:

1. ese items lack radical cognates and have only nominal character

2. ese items are similar but are for office-holders or professions, and hence have the first
blush of verbal character

3. Class C words are derived from nouns and are professions

4. is group is for words derived from verbs that do not appear in the Qal. “Professional
terms are less predominant than in the previous classes.”

5. Now we encounter words traditionally called Qal participles. But “they no longer describe
the actual exercise of an activity but have become fixed.”

7
 6. Here are Qal participles that denote a fixed aribute of the subject in character or behavior

7. ese items are substantive participles of limited duration

8. Penultimately, non-appositional participles that clearly modify a noun

9. Predicate participles

I had not encountered several terms in this article before. Two terms, however, were not in four¹
out of the five dictionaries I have access to: junction and nexus. While I did finally find the
definitions in the Glossary of Linguistic Terminology (Pei, 1966), I was ultimately helped more
by the Wikipedia article on the coiner of the terms, Oo Jespersen.
Kedar-Kopfstein concludes his article with examples of studied ambiguity intended by the
Biblical authors.

5 Lesson 5
5.1 Exercises p.55
Using the (following) vocabulary words (and those from the previous lessons), translate the
Ugaritic words and phrases in the following sentences.

lêbini ʾilīma
1. Do not draw near to the sons of the gods .

bêna yadê
2. Strike between the two hands of Judge River.

biyadê baʿli kamā našri

3. e club swoops in the two hands of the gods like an eagle .

bêna nāšīma
4. My life was absent among men .

ʿimma nûrati ʾilīma

5. She sets her face toward the torch of the gods .

bêtu lêbaʿla kamā ʾilīma

6. ere is no house for Ba’al like the gods .

¹e four without the terms are:

1. Pei, Mario A. and Frank Gaynor, contrib. ed. A Dictionary of Linguistics, 1954, Philosophical Library, New
York, New York
2. Hartmann, R. P. K. and F. C. Stork, Dictionary of Language and Lingustics, 1973 reprint, Applied Science
Publishers, Essex, England
3. Crystal, David, A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, 1993, 3rd. ed., Blackwell Reference, Cambridge,
Massachuses
4. Bright, William, ed., International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Volumes 2 and 3, 1992, Oxford University
Press, New York, New York

8
 panîma tôka
7. You must set your face towards his city.

taḥta paʿnê baʿli

8. ey fall under the two feet of Ba’al .

5.2 For Further Study

Too difficult

6 Lesson 6
6.1 Exercises p.60-61
Vocalize and translate the Ugaritic words and phrases in the following passages. Underline the
independent and suffixed pronouns.

I like a lamb in my mouth

1. ʾanāku
:::::
made him kaʾimmari bipî::
ya .

Your message, O ’El, (is) wise

2. taḥummu::
ka ʾilu ḥukumu

What O virgin ’Anat

3. ::::
maha do you want batūlatu ʿanatu ?

, O gods, whom
4. Give ʾilāma dā
::
you harbor.

whatever reptiles which (are) of the foundation of the earth

5. mannuma
:::::::::
dabībīma dī :
môsadāti ʾarṣi

most powerful Baʿal (is) our judge

6. ʾalʾiyānu baʿlu ṯāpiṭu::
nū

as the heart of a cow for her calf

7. kalibbi ʾarḫi lêʿigliha
::

e two eyes of Ba’al (are) before his two hands

8. ʿênā baʿlu qudāma yadê::
hu

6.2 For Further Study

General linguistic terminology has been generally absent from much of the journal selections
reviewed herein. is article, however, was a wonderful exception! Rebecca Hasselbach (Has-
selbach , 2007) wrien a wonderful review of demonstratives across all known Semitic language
and elucidates a typology. Nothing is earth-shaering or even new about the data, but the format
and context is unique.

9
 Typologies are groupings of languages which reveal universals and universal tendencies. Of-
ten, insights into the nature of language itself can be gleaned or hinted at. Frankly, I am surprised
more Christians are not interested in this endeavor, since it could be used to bolster arguments
about the common origin of language in human beings. “Generally, when a language exhibits
nominal inflection, pronominal demonstratives are more likely to be inflected than adnominal or
adverbial demonstratives, thus:
noun > pronominal > adnominal > adverbial
e most common inflectional category of pronominal demonstratives is number, followed by
gender and case, leading to the hierarchy
number > gender > case
is means, in cases where an adnominal demonstrative is inflected for number and gender, the
pronominal demonstratives show at least the same kind of inflection, while the opposite scenario
is not necessarily true. An inflected substantive can be accompanied by an uninflected adnom-
inal demonstrative. In languages in which nouns are inflected for gender, number, and case,
the pronominal demonstratives are usually marked for the same grammatical categories, while
adnominals are more oen uninflected.”
ese maxims help explain why Ugaritic retains the suffix -m to make adverbs, where Hebrew
does not. Hebrew has lost case, while Ugaritic - generations older - still had it. Old South Arabic
and even older or more conservative languages preserved gender distinctions in near-deitic pro-
nouns, while Hebrew and Ugaritic lost it (e.g. Hebrew ‫)אלּה‬. Hasselbach has set up anyone who
wants to study derivational paerns between Semitic languages very nicely.

7 Lesson 7
7.1 Exercises p.65
Vocalize the following Ugaritic words. Parse and translate the verbs.

1. ypʿr: yipʿaru, yaqtulu 3ms, “he will give a name”

2. an bnt: ʾanā banêta, “I made”

3. at tmḫṣ: ʾaa timḫaṣu, yaqtulu 2ms, “you will kill”

4. qritm: qaraʾtum/qaraʾtumā, qatala 2mp/2md, “you will call”

5. amlk: ʾamluku, yaqtulu 1cs, “I will reign”

6. hw ymlu: huwa yimla’u, yaqtulu 3ms, “he will rule”

7. atm tlḥmn: ʾaumā/ʾaum tilḥamāni/tilḥamūna, yaqtulu 2cd, “you/two will eat”

8. mǵny: maǵênayā, qatala 1cd, “We two arrived”

9. at tṣmtn: ʾai taṣmutīna, yaqtulu 2fs, “You (f.) will destroy”

10. hm yḫtan: humā yiḫtu’āni, yaqtulu 3mp/3cd, “ey will vanquish”

10
7.2 For Further Study
Forms and Function of the Finite Verb in Ugaritic Narrative Verse (Greenstein , 2006) is an
outline of a proposed way of handling the two verbal forms - YQTL and QTL - in Ugaritic non-
poetic passages. In short, he believes it is unnecessary to conjecture a yaqtul/preterite form in
addition to the yaqtulu/narrative form. Because Ugaritic does not (generally) write vowels, his
evidence rests on usage paerns for III-y and III-’ verbs. Under his analysis, there is no syntactical
significance to apocopating the final y when the proclitic particle w- is used versus when the y
is un-apocopated.
is disproof is perhaps unwelcome to students of comparative Semitology. “at there was
once a yaqtul preterite in West Semitic, as there was routinely in East Semitic (Akkadian), is
evident from the waw-consecutive forms in Hebrew and Aramaic, from the fixed use of the free-
standing yaqtul referring to past time following adverbs like ‫ אז‬in Hebrew and ‫ באדין‬and ‫ עד‬in
Aramaic, from vestigial uses of a free-standing yaqtul preterite in B[iblical]H[ebrew] verse [he
cites ‫ יבקע‬in Ps 78:15], and, especially, from the developed use of yaqtul preterite in Amarna
Canaanite.” Nevertheless, the simpler explanation is to be preferred, and Greenstein’s argument
against a preterite in Ugaritic is convincing. Inexplicably interjected in the middle of his disproof
of the yaqtul is an aempt to deny syntactical meaning to the -n form, but it seems completely
tangential to his argument.
e only confusing aspect (the pun is intended) of this article is the way the author contrasts
TAM (tense-aspect-mood) considerations from “discourse considerations (e.g. foregrounding,
backgrounding, integrating and dividing discourse, indicating genre and perspective, and more)”.
I find this very odd because Verbal Aspect is foregrounding and backgrounding. For example, in
English (which only ever conflates tense and aspect) the difference between “I went to the store”
and “I was going to the store” is aspectual, since they are both past tense. In this author’s opinion,
Greenstein has a penetrating analysis but ought to have been satisfied with saying he has proven
Ugaritic to be an aspect-only language, without a morphological marking for tense (like Tagalog,
ASL, or Chinese).
Aer having established the foregrounding character of yaqtulu (like the Hebrew wayyiqtol,
Greenstein goes on to delineate the various uses of the qatala (cp. Hebrew qātal). ese uses are
as background information given by the narrator, background information given in direct speech,
performative statements, stative functions [perhaps this is comparable to the alternative theme
vowels found in Hebrew stative verbs in the qātal], indicating a change in subject or scene [this
section contains some of the most fascinating observations that, while they never say the word
‘anaphoric’, shows how qatala is used to harken back to an obviative third person reference],
and the completion of tasks given as imperative commands. [Again, aspect terminology as used
by general linguists would be sufficient here. Imperfective imperative voices are answered with
the imperfective indicatives and perfective imperatives are reported as completed with perfective
verbs.]

8 Lesson 8
8.1 Exercises p.72-74
Vocalize and translate the following Ugaritic words. Parse the verb forms.

11
 1. šmʿ lbtlt ʿnt: šumuʿī labatūlatu ʿAnatu, imperative 2fs, “Listen, O virgin Anat”

2. mh taršn: maha taʾrušīna, indicative 2fs, “What do you () require?”

3. tlḥm rpum: talaḥumū rapʾūma, jussive 2ms, “Let the shades eat!”

4. ltikl: lātaʾkulū, jussive 3mp, “Do not let them eat!”

5. ym ymm yʿtqn: yômu yômāmi yaʿtuqāni, indicative 3cd, “A day, two days pass”

6. lḥm bṯlḥnt: laḥam biṯulḥanāti, imperative 2ms, “Eat at the tables!”

7. lpʿn mt hbr: lêpaʿnê môti hubura, imperative 2ms, “Bow at the feet of Death!”

8. šmm šmn tmṭrn: šamûma šamna tamṭurūna, indicative 3mp, “e heavens rain oil”

9. al tqrb: ʾal taqrub, jussive 2ms, “Do not draw near”

10. bḥrb tbqʿnn: biḥarbi tibqaʿannanū, energetic 2fs, “She really split him by the sword”

8.2 For Further Study

In his broad and deep survey, Anson Rainey (Rainey , 1990) takes into account the vast scope of
linguistic scholarship from the twentieth century about ANE languages, especially East Semitic
and Canaanite morphology that was unknown until the Amarna leers came to light, and were
so rigorously studied by Moran. Much of this monograph is dependent upon scholarship into
Akkadian grammar and West Semitic studies.
Rainey begins by dividing the uses of the prefixing verb forms into two broad categories:
indicative and injunctive. (Non-Semitologists would say Realis and Irrealis.) Each of these two
categories exhibits three levels of intensity. e indicative’s subcategories are preterite, imper-
fect, and energetic. Rainey pours scorn on Hebrew and Arabic grammarians who have failed to
recognize the historical priority of the preterite form. As this author himself was taught, the stan-
dard pedagogy today is still to think of the imperfect as the “base” form, and the preterite as the
apocopated or shortened-from-the-imperfect form. e loss of final vowels in Biblical Hebrew
obfuscated these differences, and now the shorter form is only visible in weak verbs, or the Hiphil
of strong verbs. However, as is well known, the wayyiqtol form preserves the ancient preterite.
e injunctive mode also boasts three subcategories, called the Jussive, Volitive and (some-
what confusingly also the) Energetic. It is easy to see how these fine distinctions between the
ancient forms was so quickly lost: they vary very lile! Canaanite and Ugaritic seem to preserve
many more of the ancient features than does Biblical Hebrew, so this study would seem to be
more useful the more ancient the text one is studying (e.g. Ex. 15, Judges 4,5, etc.). Overall, this
was a very technical article that I must review aer I learn Akkadian.

12
9 Lesson 9
9.1 Exercises p.78-79
…provide the correct vocalization and translation for the Ugaritic words found in the following
sentences and phrases. … Underline the infinitive constructs and infinitive absolutes.

1. Have you come mḫṣy hm mḫṣ bny? maḫāṣuya

:::::::
himma maḫāṣu
:::::::
binīya, “to slay me or to
slay my sons?”

2. byṣi nšm: bi::::::

yaṣā’i nāšīma, “when the men go out”

3. llḥm wlšty ṣḥtkm: lê:::::::

laḥāmi walê::::::
šatāyi ṣāḥtukum, “I called y’all to eat and to drink”

4. mzl ymzl? mazālu

:::::::
yamzulu? “Does he really suffer?”

5. tbʿ ank ::::::

tabāʿu ʾanāku, “I departed”

6. ydʿ lydʿt :::::::

yadāʿu lā yadiʿtu “I really did not know”

7. wyqrb bšal krt, wayaqrubu bišʾāli

::::
kirti , “And he will draw near at the asking of Keret”

8. šmʿ ilt, šamāʿu

:::::::
ʾilatu, “the goddess hears”

9.2 For Further Study

Unavailable

10 Lesson 10
10.1 Exercises p.85-87
… identify and parse the verbs in the following phrases, and then translate.

1. ʿanatu tanaggiṯuhu - NGṮ, D-stem, yqtl, 3fs - Anat seeks him

2. ʾahabtu ṯôri taʿāriruki - ʿRR, L-stem, yqtl, 3ms - e love of a bull arouses you?

3. šaskin maggāna - SKN, Š-stem, imperative, 2ms - Supply a gi!

4. ʾal tištaḥwiyā lêpuḫri môʿidi - ḤWY, Št-stem, jussive, 2cd, - Do not bow in the assembly
of the council!

5. ʾarṣa darkati yištakinu -ŠKN, Gt-stem, yqtl, 3ms - He will establish a land of dominion.

6. kaʾimmari bipîhu tiḫḫatiʾāni - ḪTʾ, N-stem, yqtl, 2cd - You will be vanquished like a lamb
in his mouth.

7. dūyašabbiʿu hamullāti ʾarṣi - ŠBʿ, D-stem, yqtl, 3ms - Who will satisfy the multitudes of
the earth.

13
 8. kaʾiššatêmi yiʾtamirā - AMR, Gt-stem, yqtl, 3cd - ey will look like two fires.

9. yašattik baʿlu ʿênāti maḥrūṯāti - NTK, Š-stem, jussive, 3ms - Let Ba’al make it rain (in
the) plowed furrows.

10. yabbanî bêtu lêbaʿli - BNY, N-stem, jussive, 3ms - Let a house be build for Ba’al!

10.2 For Further Study

In German only

11 Lesson 11
11.1 Exercises p.94-95
Provide the vowels, three leer root, and translation for the following weak verb forms.

1. tiḫd (G, YQTL, 3fs) - tiʾḫadu - AḪD - “she will grasp”

2. tšṣqnh (Š, YQTL, 3fs energetic + 3m) - tašaṣîqannahu - ṢYQ - “She really seizes him”

3. tlk (G, YQTL, 3fs) - taliku - HLK - “She walks”

4. idʿ (G, YQTL, 1cs) - ʿidaʿu - YDʿ - “I know”

5. aṯbn (G, YQTL, 1cs energetic) - ʿaṯûbanna - ṮBN - “I will really return”

6. yštk (Š, Jussive, 3ms) - yašaik - NTK - “Let him pour”

7. pl (G, QTL, 3mp) - pallū - PL - “ey cracked”

8. knyt (G, Passive Participle, fp) - kanūyātu - “ey who are being named”

9. nḫt (G, active participle, fs) - nāḫatu - “She who is resting”

10. tʿn (G, YQTL, 3fs) - taʿnû - “She answers”

11.2 For Further Study

11.2.1 General Works
Final Triphthongs and Final Yu/a/i - Wu/a/i Diphthongs in Ugaritic Nominal Forms (Sivan ,
1982) is a summary of the various ways nominal endings which proceed vowel-y/w-vowel either
contract or fail to contract, and an argument that there is not way to predict which elements will
and which will not contract.
Previous theories included the idea that a preceding ‘a’ or ‘i’ would preserve the ‘y’ of a
triphthong, but Sivan provides many counter examples. He shows that there are singular, nominal
forms and nominal forms with suffixes (feminine or plural) which preserve the ‘y’ or ‘w’, do not
preserve it, and others which behave both ways.

14
 One element - which was thankfully disproven - that I found unpleasantly startling was the
mention of mater lectionis in Ugaritic. Basics of Ancient Ugaritic (Williams , 2012) has no
mention of 𐎅 𐎀 𐎛 𐎜 𐎊 𐎆 ever being used in this way. A quick Google search showed that
mater are extremely rare in Ugaritic. A quick sentence seems in order in any manual!
But the largest element I found disconcerting in the entire article was the use of the word
‘triphthong’. Every dictionary which I have consulted writes that a triphthong is a single syllable
wherein the speaker moves through three vowels, such as /aʊ̯ə/̯ - the British pronunciation of
‘hour’. As far as I can tell, no one is suggesting that these construction were only one syllable
long. True triphthongs are extremely rare cross-linguisticly. Additionally, the use of the word
‘diphthong’ when the syllable begins with a semi-vowels appears to be non-standard. In such
syllables, ‘y’ and ‘w’ are functioning solely as consonants. ese usages of -thong words in such
abnormal ways seem to be a Semitologism.

11.2.2 First Aleph

A Note on the Use of the ʾu-Sign in Ugaritic Roots with First ʾaleph (Sivan , 1996) is a summary
of the five proposals for how to handle 𐎜 when it represents a syllable-coda consonant and a
proposed solution. 𐎛 very clearly represents both ʾi and ʾ+ø. Sivan states that there are a few
places where 𐎀 does the same thing, though it is much rarer. In none of these instances are the
Ugaritic leers mater lectionis.
e real rub comes down to yaqtulu paerns on I-ʾaleph words. One would expect yʾiCuCu
but one gets yʾuCuCu. e five solutions that have been proposed in the past are:

• e 𐎜 represents the ô vowel and the ʾalpeh is a mater.

• e 𐎜 does not represent a vowel and is simply assimilated to the thematic vowel of the
verb.

• e 𐎜 is a mater and the gloal stop quiesced.

• Like 𐎛, the 𐎜 merely represented a vowel gloal stop.

• Some of the forms represent passive verbs.

Certainly the first choice is conceivable for students of Hebrew, where we are accustomed to
ā > ō. However, Ugaritic never progressed in such a fashion (cp. e Canaanite Vowel Shi).
e second choice was proposed by Cassuto (a famous Ugaritic scholar) but never got serious
aention. Sivan calls it “never more than an idle curiosity.” e third option was proposed by
John Huehnergard, but presupposes a system of “vowel harmony” (perhaps non-Semitologists
would say assimilation) which has never been proven to exist. Regarding the fourth choice, Sivan
says, “is solution can be true although there appears small amount of examples [sic] that show
that.” e last choice is ruled out because the same forms where proven to be non-passive in the
60’s, when the nature of the three ʾalephs was being seled.
Sivan proposes that it is a glide, a reduced vowel, like the Hebrew ḥāṭēf. He rejects Bauer’s
transcription of a superscript-u in favor of writing two forms every time, both with and without
the ‘u’. Aside from the notation, I find this to be a very fascinating suggestion.

15
11.2.3 First Glide
David T. Tsumura of Tokyo (Tsumura , 1979) suggests in his 1979 article that there were indeed Pe-
Waw verbs in Ugaritic, but that the general Northwest Semitic tendency to assimilate these initial
glides through a phonological process was only stopped in cases where they were followed by the
high back rounded vowel /u/. His arguments are based on the works of Dahood and Ginsberg with
existing texts, and their convoluted explanations and emendations. For example, wāladu is said
to be wa+yalādu, the conjunction and an “infinitive consecutive”. e other examples force wld
into the mold of waw+imperative, which the contexts mitigate against. Tsumura is pursuasive
that the example of I-waw forms which were preserved, while few, are not non-existent. At least
to this author, his five examples listed at the end of his monograph are sound corrections to the
previous scholarly consensus.

11.2.4 Middle Glide

In Ugarit-Forsugen 15, Segert (Segert , 1983) seems to be arguing that Ugaritic verbs had two
(hence the term “polarity”) families of thematic vowels, and that the Hollow Verbs switched from
their expected paern to the other one because of the phonological need to maintain this bipartite
system. is is a difficult concept and requires an extensive knowledge of existing Semiticology
terms, not all of which was I able to find. e “Gingsberg Law” seems to have been that *ya > yi
in the prefix of the imperfect forms in Northwest Semitic. A scholar named Barth amended this
theory in light of Ugaritic data, and now it is known as the “Barth-Ginsberg Law”.
e other large lacuna in my education that made this article almost impossible to understand
was the notion that there are seperate verbal paerns (or just thematic vowels?) for stative verbs
in Ugaritic. While I have seen such paerns before in Biblical Hebrew, nothing has been said of
these paerns in Ugaritic. Clearly the need for more research is indicated. At a later date, I will
follow up with a more detailed Ugaritic grammar.

11.2.5 Doubly Weak

In 1972, David Marcus (Marcus , 1972) argued very persuasively that the middle leer of the word
‘to live’ in Ugaritic was y in the Qal and w in the Piel. Drawing on both the consonantal and the
Akkadian syllabic texts, Marcus proves very conclusively that the vocalizations of Dahood are
wrong. He draws from a wide array of other Semitic languages to show that IV AB 1:20 could not
mean what scholars have thought it meant. Doubly weak verbs such as ḥwy and Hebrew hyh
are very hard to predict, so correct elucidation of the existing texts is very important.

12 Lesson 12
12.1 Exercises p.99
Vocalize and translate the Ugaritic words and phrases in the following passages.

1. idk al ttn pnm ʿm ǵr - ʾiddāka ʾal tatinā panêma ʿimma ǵûri- then surely you-two must
set your faces towards the mountain.

16
 2. ht tṣmt ṣrtk - hia taṣmutu ṣarrataka - now you will destroy your adversary

3. apnk alp yṭbḫ - ʾappūnaka ʾalpa yiṭbaḫu- then he will slaughter a bull

4. mid tmtḫṣn - maʾda timtaḫiṣanna- she will certainly strike much

5. gm yṣḥ il - gâm yaṣîḥu ʾilu - El cries aloud

6. mǵy qrth - maǵaya qarêtah - he arrived at the town

7. hlk ṯm - halaka ṯamma - he walked there

8. aḫr tmǵyn mlak ym - ʾaḫra tamǵiyāni malʾakū yammi - aerwards, the messengers of Sea
will arrive

12.2 For Further Study

Ephraim Speiser (Speiser , 1954) wrote an article a half-century ago about the nature of the suffix
-h in Ugaritic and Hebrew. It is very surprising that this well-worn lesson has not been taken to
heart and Hebrew curricula changed but, as the author notes, “new material can prove upseing”.
e evidence is decisively in, that it is not related to the old case ending. e principle source of
this proof is Ugaritic and its consonantal texts.
Speiser lists several uses of -‫ה‬:

1. e place towards

2. e place where

3. e time until

4. e time when

5. ø, as evidenced by the pleonastic constructions (e.g. ‫ מצפנה‬Joshua 15:10)

What then follows is a convoluted effort to show that -h is alike to, but not derived from Akkadian
-iš. I say convoluted because all of the comparative semitology grammars which I have surveyed
state that the Proto-Semitic (PS) š remained constant in East Semitic, but changed into h in West
Semitic. Hence, the etymology is real. e grammar part, however, of Speiser’s study is very use-
ful, albeit very technical. e deitic function of -h is not mutually exclusive from its terminative
function in Semitic, while they are so in Indo-European languages.

13 Lesson 13
13.1 Exercises p.103-4
Vocalize and translate the Ugaritic words and phrases in the following passages.

1. ap ʿnt ttlk - ʾap ʿanatu tialiku - also Anat walks.

17
 2. šbt dqnk ltsrk - šêbatu daqnika lūtasiruka - the grey-hair of your beard will surely instruct
you

3. in bt lbʿl - ʾêna bêtu lêbaʿli - there is no house for Ba’al

4. wl yṯb - walā yaṯibu - and he does not remain

5. iy zbl bʿl arṣ - ʾêya zūbulu baʿlu ʾarṣi - where is the prince, master of the earth?

6. my hmlt - maya hamullātu - woe, o crowd!

7. ʿd ilm ttlkn šd - ʿadê ʾiūma tialikūna šadâ - until the gods walk around a field

8. lpʿn il al tpl - lêpaʿnê ʾili ʾal tappul - at the foot of a god do not fall!

13.2 For Further Study

J. Glen Taylor (Taylor , 1986) excitedly presents the option from a then recently restored example
of what may be a singular noun ending in a gloal stop in the vocative case. He suggests that the
genitive case or a form without final vowel may be a later-Ugaritic vocative case. e example
is rather uncertain, since it comes from a restored text that was apparently badly damaged. In
context, his example is rather convincing. And the alternative – that it is a genitive case beginning
a line of poetry – seems completely indefensible.
As any first year language student knows, one is taught the vocative case alone with all the
other forms as if it were going to be frequently encountered and common. Instead, one almost
never finds the form (if it has a unique morphology). As Taylor points out, there is lile reason
for one to exclaim ”O throne!”, either 3000 years ago or today. However, the specific imagery in
the poem in question makes it very likely and it makes good sense of the context. Taylor makes
a very sensible recommendation at his conclusion: that we wait and see if further examples arise
before amending our grammars. However, he certainly appears to be on to something and has
convinced this author in this singular case.

References
Pierre Bordreuil and Dennis Pardee A Manual of Ugaritic Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Indiana,
2009

Umberto Cassuto e Goddess Anath e Magnes Press, Hebrew University, Jerusalem 1951,
1971 translated by Israel Abrahams

Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein Semantic Aspect of the Pattern QÔṬĒL in Hebrew Annual Review
1 (1977): 155-76 Ohio State University

Edward L. Greenstein, Forms and Functions of the Finite Verb in Ugaritic Narrative Verse in
Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives
ed. Steven. E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz, e Hebrew University Magnes Press, Jerusalem, 2006.
p.75-102

18
William W. Hallo Isaiah 29:9-13 and the Ugaritic Abecedaries in e Journal of Biblical
Literature 77 (1958): 324-38 Emory University, Atlanta GA
Rebecca Hasselbach Demonstratives in Semitic in e Journal of the American Oriental
Society 127 (2007): 1-27 Yale University, New Haven CT
David Marcus e Verb ‘To Live’ in Ugaritic in e Journal of Semitic Studies 17 (1972): 76-82
Oxford, UK
Sabatino Moscati On Semitic Case-Endings in e Journal of Near Eastern Studies 17 (1958):
142-144 Chicago, IL
M. O’Connor e Human Characters’ Names in the Ugaritic Poems: Onomastic Eccentricity
in Bronze-Age West Semitic and the Name Daniel in Particular in Biblical Hebrew in Its
Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives ed. Steven. E. Fassberg
and Avi Hurvitz, e Hebrew University Magnes Press, Jerusalem, 2006. p.269-283
Anson F. Rainey e Prefix Conjugation Patterns of Early Northwest Semitic p.407-20 in Lin-
gering Over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L.
Moran Harvard Semitic Studies 37. Edited by Tzvi Abusch et al. Atlanta: Scholar Press, 1990
M. E. J. Richardson Ugaritic Place Names with Final-Y in e Journal of Semitic Studies 23
(1978): 298-315 Oxford, UK
Stanislav Segert Polarity of Vowels in the Ugaritic Verbs/ʾ/ in Ugarit-Forsungen 15 (1983):
219-222 Verlag Butzon und Bercker, Münster Germany
Daniel Sivan Final Triphthongs and Final Yu/a/i - Wu/a/i Diphthongs in Ugaritic Nominal
Forms in Ugarit-Forsungen 14 (1982): 209-18 Verlag Butzon und Bercker, Münster Germany
Daniel Sivan Dual Nouns in Ugaritic in Journal of Semitic Studies 28 (1983): 233-40 Oxford,
UK
Daniel Sivan A Note on the Use of the ʾu-Sign in Ugaritic Roots with First ʾaleph in Ugarit-
Forsungen 28 (1996): 554-59 Verlag Butzon und Bercker, Münster Germany
Ephraim A. Speiser e Terminative-Adverbial in Canaanite-Ugaritic and Akkadian =Ori-
ental and Biblical Studies p.494-505
J. Glen Taylor e Long-Awaited Vocative Singular Noun with Final Aleph in Ugaritic (KTU
1.161.13)? in Ugaritic-Forsungen 17 (1986): 315-318 Verlag Butzon und Bercker, Münster
Germany
David T. Tsumura e Verba Prima WAW, WLD in Ugaritic in Ugaritic-Forsungen 11 (1979):
779-82 Verlag Butzon und Bercker, Münster Germany
Michael Williams Basics of Ancient Ugaritic: A Concise Grammar, Workbook, and Lexicon
Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2012
Ziony Zevit e Question of Case Endings on Ugaritic Nouns in Status Constructus in e
Journal of Semitic Studies 28.2 (1983): 225-32 Oxford, UK

19