Linguistic Evidence for the Northern Origin of Selected Psalms.

• Author: Pardee, Dennis

How does one go about isolating two forms of a language? A normal minimum requirement is a group of data (oral or written) from each of at least two different sources, to be defined according to the requirements of the situation or according to the sources themselves. The two groups of data are analyzed for distinguishing features, frequently termed isoglosses, though the latter term refers strictly speaking to lexical distinctions. In modern dialect geography, for example, utterances are solicited from native speakers and isoglosses are defined on the basis of actual usage. Complicated isogloss maps may result, with one feature having one distribution, another a partially overlapping distribution, with others overlapping in various ways. In the study of dead languages the task of defining dialect and language boundaries is usually much more difficult because (1) the sources are only written, thus reflecting spoken usage in varying degrees, (2) the quantity and quality of the sources may vary considerably, (3) the graphic representation of the language may be insufficient for close analysis of various features, and (4) there may be problems in the transmission of the texts themselves.

All of the problems just listed plague the attempts at dialect/language identification among the group known as the Northwest Semitic languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Phoenician, Ugaritic), particularly among the ancient forms of these languages. The distinctions between the four principal languages are relatively clear, though debates continue as to the proper linguistic classification of Ugaritic, in particular. But when it comes to defining the sub-groupings or dialects of Hebrew, Phoenician, and Aramaic, and the proper identification and classification of some of the more sparsely attested of the related languages (e.g., Ammonite, Moabite, Edomite), the data are often improper and insufficient to permit meaningful distinctions. To cite but one example: because of the paucity of inscriptions, only one clear isogloss is known to exist between Judaean and Samarian Hebrew, viz., the reduction of the /ay/ diphthong in accented position in the latter language ('wine' is written {yyn} = /yayn/ in Judaean, {yn} = /yen/? in the Samaria Ostraca. And because this one feature is shared by Phoenician, it has even been proposed that the economic documents from Samaria were written in the Phoenician language, rather than in Hebrew (cf. the brief review of the question by F. Israel in Journal asiatique 274 |1986~: 478-79, and the...