| what's new
| announcements
| public programs |
| website navigational aid |
ORIENTAL INSTITUTE RESEARCH ARCHIVES
Introduction
Purpose
At
present, a beginning course on Ugaritic might use either D. Sivan, A Grammar
of the Ugaritic Language (HdO 1/28;
Leiden: Brill, 1997), J. L. Cunchillos and J. A. Zamora, Gramática Ugaritica
Elemental (Madrid: Ediciones
Clásicas, 1995), or J. Tropper, Ugaritisch. Kurzgefasste Grammatik mit
Übungstexten und Glossar (Elementa
Linguarum Orientis 1; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2002). These books will be joined
shortly by Joel H. Hunt and William M. Schniedewind's work, A Primer for
Ugarit: Language, Culture and Literature
(in preparation), which will be particularly suitable for beginning students.
J. Tropper's Ugaritische Grammatik
(AOAT 273; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000) is a research grammar appropriate for
advanced courses and research. For an advanced course on Biblical Hebrew, one
might consult N. Waldman's reference work, The Recent Study of Hebrew: A
Survey of the Literature with Selected Bibliography (Bibliographica Judaica 10; Cincinnati: Hebrew Union
College Press; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989). Readers will find good
bibliography (as well as direction) in B. Waltke and M. P. O'Connor's study, An
Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax
(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990). Building on these works and others, this
work of mine is offered as a resource for the study of Ugaritic grammar and the
grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Although such a bibliography may appear tedious,
scholars cannot afford to work in a bibliographical vacuum. The linguist E. H.
Sturtevant made this point over five decades ago when he wrote that "a
writer who neglects the work of his predecessors and contemporaries is wasting
his time and the time of his readers."[1]
I have had
misgivings about compiling a bibliography on Ugaritic grammar with bibliography
of Biblical Hebrew grammar. After all, Ugaritic is not the only West Semitic
source to provide important information for the background of Hebrew
(especially "archaic Hebrew" and "classical Hebrew").
Indeed, readers will note from the organization of section one that Ugaritic and
Hebrew are preceded by -- and therefore located bibliographically within --
their larger context of general linguistics and Semitics. This bibliography
generally reflects the overall weight given to Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew
over and against other West Semitic material; these, too, are included but to a
lesser degree. Missing from the listings for the West Semitic corpora is
Aramaic, which deserves a treatment in its own right; readers may turn to J. A.
Fitzmyer and S. A. Kaufman, ed., An Aramaic Bibliography, Part I: Old,
Official, and Biblical Aramaic
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1992).
The weight
given to Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew may be justified based on the relative
distribution of texts that currently survive in the West Semitic languages of
the second and first millennia. For continuous texts, Ugaritic and Hebrew
clearly enjoy a disproportionately superior place among the attested corpora.
Readers may find it nonetheless misleading to juxtapose Ugaritic and Hebrew
material in parallel sections, as if to suggest that Ugaritic is a direct
antecedent to Hebrew. In order to be clear on this point, I would refer to the
balanced view expressed by Anson Rainey over thirty years ago:
Ugaritic is
not Hebrew; it is not an older
stage of Hebrew; it must even be differentiated from the dialect(s) reflected
in the Amarna glosses. Its closest relative is undoubtedly Phoenician; but
there are marked differences between them. One might agree that Ugaritic is a
North-West Semitic language, evidently standing alongside Phoenician, Hebrew,
Moabite and the Amarna glosses over against Aramaic.[2]
As this
statement suggests, Ugaritic and Hebrew belong to a larger group within the
West Semitic languages. As the Ugaritic and Hebrew texts comprise the two
largest corpora within this group, comparison of their grammatical features has
often proved illuminating despite considerable differences between the two
languages. A word about the listing for Hebrew: delineating the boundaries of
what constitutes bibliography pertinent to the historical development of
biblical Hebrew, or "Hebrew historical grammar," is not always
obvious, and what I have provided perhaps tends toward the more inclusive end
of the spectrum (with the exceptions of introductory grammars and dictionaries,
which are not included here).
In order to
make this bibliography more "user friendly," I have presented it in
the order of topics found in a grammar. The order here is largely traditional
(with the customary division of phonology, morphology and syntax), although
since the 1960s linguists have paid a great deal of attention to the interface
between these levels of grammar.[3] In section 15, the organization for syntax gives
precedence of text linguistics before the syntax of clauses and their subunits,
reflecting the current view that the sentence does not constitute the largest
unit of grammatical analysis.[4] One might go further and present syntax as
theoretically prior to, and the context for, situating morphology, and, by
extension, phonology as well; however, the traditional order of grammars is
retained here for the sense of familiarity that it affords readers.
I have
included bibliography for the alphabet (under section 2), although properly
speaking the alphabet is not a grammatical topic but a matter of the graphic
representation of languages.[5] However, the alphabet's historical importance for the
study of West Semitic languages dictates its inclusion here. I have included
some entries for Hebrew phonology or morphology with little or no mention of
Ugaritic, in part to be more inclusive in these areas and in part to promote
such work in the study of Ugaritic. Also included are entries for the syntax of
particles (under 9.2) and for the verb (under 10.2.1) as well as some select
individual verbal roots (under 14.11 and following). The bibliography in
section 16 includes both basic and illustrative entries in the areas of
lexicography, loanwards and semantics as well as personal names, but listings
for dictionaries and lexica for Biblical Hebrew have not been included.[6] As this discussion and the many entries in 1.1.1 and
1.1.2 illustrate (not to mention specific references in many other sections),
the study of ancient Hebrew has benefited from the application of modern
linguistics more than Ugaritic. The borders between some areas of grammar and
other subjects are not always simple to delineate. For example, some
bibliography for grammatical aspects of Hebrew poetry are included (word-order
and semantics), but other aspects of Hebrew poetry are not. Some entries are
listed more than once when they pertain to multiple grammatical topics.
Standard abbreviations have been used (see the list in the final section of
this introduction); these are found also in Ugarit-Forschungen and Journal of Biblical Literature).
This bibliography is not comprehensive. As a work in progress, it
contains omissions and mistakes. Moreover, some of terms or words in foreign
language fonts as well as some diacritical marks have not come through. I trust
that the contexts where these terms or words appear will indicate what foreign
words (mostly in Hebrew) they refer to. For words spelled in Hebrew I have
substituted English spellings in square brackets. As a result of working on
this project at different times, I have produced other inconsistencies of
format as well. I hope to correct these flaws in future revisions; in the
meantime, I hope this bibliography will nonetheless serve the field.
Origins and
Acknowledgments
This
bibliography originated in the early 1980s during my studies at Yale
University. In the summer of 1981, Marvin Pope hired me to produce a general
bibliography regarding Ugaritic mythological texts. The following year Robert
R. Wilson put into my hands a basic bibliography for a reading course on Hebrew
historical grammar that he had inherited from his own teacher at Yale, S. Dean
McBride. Professor Wilson's bibliography as well as the bibliographical
learning gained under Professor Pope were useful later for courses that I
offered. I have also found it useful to maintain the bibliography as a resource
for my own research and for course readings. A couple of years ago I made this
bibliography available to interested scholars and students in the form of xerox
copies. At that time, it was suggested to me that this bibliography should be
published. Despite the flaws of this edition and despite some misgivings, I
have decided to proceed with this e-version so that the bibliography can be
made more widely available.
I am indebted in particular
to the students who went through courses with me. The bibliography was advanced
through the labors of the interlibrary office of Drexel Library of Saint
Joseph's University. I am grateful also to the Simor Bible Bibliographical
Computer Service, which provided me with a printout of its listings for Ugarit
and Ugaritic. A number of colleagues kindly provided help with references:
Professors S. A. Fassberg, J. Huehnergard, T. Muraoka, F. H. Polak, G. A.
Rendsburg and G. Rubio. John Huehnergard generously shared his bibliography
with me. I thank Charles E. Jones, Research Archivist and Bibliographer, and
Thomas G. Urban, Senior Editor, both of the Oriental Institute, for their time
and energy in preparing this work for the web.
[1] Sturtevant, An Introduction to Linguistic Science (New Haven/London: Yale, 1947) 2 (cited by A. Hurvitz,
"The Relevance of Biblical Hebrew Linguistics for the Historical Study of
Ancient Israel," Proceedings of the Twelfth World Congress of Jewish
Studies. Division A: The Bible and Its World [Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1999] 24* n. 6).
[2] Rainey, "Observations on Ugaritic Grammar," UF 3 (1971) 153 (Rainey's italics).
[3] For example, see E. Benveniste, "Les niveaux de
l'analyse linguistique," Proceedings of the Ninth International
Congress of Linguists, Cambridge, Mass., August 27-21, 1962 (ed. H. G. Lunt; Janua Linguarum, series maior XII;
London/The Hague/Paris: Mouton, 1964) 266-75, with responses on 275-93; and J.
Kurylowicz, "The Notion of Morpho(pho)neme," Directions for
Historical Linguistics: A Symposium
(ed. W. P. Lehmann and Y. Malkiel; Austin/London: University of Texas, 1968)
65-81.
[4] See the response of K. Pike to E. Benveniste,
"Les niveaux de l'analyse linguistique," Proceedings of the Ninth
International Congress of Linguists, Cambridge, Mass., August 27-21, 1962 (ed. H. G. Lunt; Janua Linguarum, series maior XII;
London/The Hague/Paris: Mouton, 1964) 266-75, on p. 283. See more recently J.
Joosten, "The Indicative System of the Biblical Hebrew Verb and Its
Literary Exploitation," Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers
of the Tilburg Conference 1996 (ed. E.
van Wolde; Biblical Interpretation Series 29; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 54; M.
O'Connor, "Discourse Linguistics and the Study of Biblical Hebrew," Congress
Volume: Basel 2001 (ed. A. Lemaire;
VTSup 92; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2002) 26.
[5] See the response of J. Lee to J. V. Walsh,
"Linguistic Factors in the Evolution of the Alphabet," Proceedings
of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, Cambridge, Mass., August
27-29, 1962 (ed. H. G. Lunt; Janua
Linguarum, series maior XII; London/The Hague/Paris: Mouton, 1964) 519-20.
[6] For recent discussions, see M. O'Connor, "Semitic
Lexicography: European Dictionaries of Biblical Hebrew in the Twentieth
Century," IOS 20 (2002) = Semitic
Linguistics: The State of the Art at the Turn of the 21st Century (ed. S. Izre'el; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002)
173-212; and G. J. Van Steenbergen, "Hebrew Lexicography and Worldview: A
Survey of Some Lexicons," JSem 12/2
(2003) 268-313.
The full text of the bibliography is available in three formats.
RETURN TO
THE HOME PAGE OF MARK S. SMITH