The Aramaic Language in the Archaemenid Period: A Study in Linguistic Variation.

• Author: Lipinski, Edward
• Position: Review

By M. L. FOLMER. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, vol. 68. Leuven: PEETERS PRESS: DEPT. OF ORIENTAL STUDIES, 1995. Pp. xviii + 849. FB 3800.

This is a grammar of the Aramaic language as attested by texts dating from the Achaemenid and Hellenistic periods. However, the contemporary Aramaic epigraphs on clay tablets, the vocalized Aramaic proper names attested in Late Babylonian documents, and the Aramaic texts from Qumran are not taken into account, although a part of the literary Qumran material is at least as old as the biblical book of Daniel. The volume reproduces a 1995 doctoral dissertation (Leiden) supervised by J. Hoftijzer. It divides into six chapters: "Introduction" (pp. 1-47), "Orthography and Phonology" (pp. 49-188), "Morphology" (pp. 189-257), "Morphosyntactic and Syntactic Studies" (pp. 259-585), "Lexical and Related Studies" (pp. 589-689), "Conclusions" (pp. 691-768). Two appendices deal with "Some documents written by unknown scribes" (pp. 769-80) and with "Forgeries" (pp. 781-82). A third appendix contains a "Concordance" of different text editions (pp. 783-800). The book ends with a bibliography (pp. 801-24), an index of problematic Aramaic words and forms (pp. 825-33), and an index of subjects (pp. 833-49).

There is little doubt that M. Folmer's book will become a standard work, although the lack of a wider perspective prevents the author from giving a full picture of Aramaic in the Achaemenid and Hellenistic periods. In the chapter on orthography and phonology, for instance, there is no discussion of the representation of h, g, and s. Yet, there was at least a dialectal distinction in the period concerned between h and h, between g and c, between s, s, and s. Although West Semitic h is generally represented by Late Babylonian h, just like etymological h, there are examples of a different notation of h, as in mRa- -bi-DINGIR/Rahab il/(BE IX, 44,16 and 1.e.) and in fRe- -in-du/Ra.himtu/(AHw, 969b). Besides, Papyrus Amherst 63 in Demotic script distinguishes h and h, for instance in hyl, "force," but slh, "to send"; or hmr, "wine," but lhm, "bread." The phonemic distinction between g and is even better established, since initial Aramaic is usually not rendered in Late Babylonian, while g is always expressed by h, like in Ba-hu-tu4/Bagutu/(UET IV,25,6), "Desired." The scribe of Papyrus Amherst 63 distinguishes velar g from pharyngeal c as well. As for s, it is rendered in Late Babylonian either by s, or by t, or by lt as in...