¹ See M. Berkooz, The Nuzi Dialect of Akkadian (NDA) 23 f. (Lang. Diss. 23, 1937). Strictly speaking, this statement applies primarily to the middle of the second millennium and subsequent centuries. Akkadian orthography itself reflects adjustments of the underlying Sumerian script. The Hurrian syllabary, too, presupposes older paleographic forms and phonetic conditions, since it antedates clearly the First Dynasty of Babylon; cf. Speiser, JAOS 58.189, note 68 (1938). It should be stressed that the Hurrian texts from Mâri, which date back to the period of the first Dynasty, approximate the Babylonian rather than the later Hurrian orthography; for the Mâri texts see F. Thureau-Dangin's publication in Revue d'Assyriologie (RA) 36.1–28 (1939).

² Berkooz, NDA 40 f.

³ J. Friedrich, Analecta Orientalia 12.128 ff. (1935); cf. also Thureau-Dangin, Syria 12.252 (1931).

⁴ Loc. cit. 130 f.

⁵ ZDMG 91.574 (1937).

⁶ Syria 20.127 (1939).

⁷ This does not preclude the presence of etymological voiced stops as wholly unrelated phonemes; cf. pp. 333–4.

⁸ A Comparative Grammar of the Hittite Language (1933) 74 ff.

⁹ Latest transliteration by Friedrich, Kleinasiatische Sprachdenkmäler (1932) 9–32. Unless specifically stated, the citations from the Mitanni Letter given below follow Friedrich's transliteration. No volume is mentioned in such cases.

¹⁰ These transcriptions are intended primarily as graphic symbols and not as phonetic representations.

¹¹ Cf. JAOS 58.192, where I used, however, z̄ for ž following Z. Harris, JAOS 55.95 ff. (1935). Harris's judicious statement leaves a choice between affricate and sibilant, and these alternatives are still attractive. I now transcribe this symbol as ž (with H. L. Ginsberg and B. Maisler, JPOS 14.243 ff. [1934]) in order to stress the correspondence of this character with syllabic -š-.

¹² The phonetic values of θ and ž are very difficult to determine. All that the new evidence from orthography presupposes (see below) is that their syllabic representations (-šš-:-š-) indicate voice and voicelessness respectively. It is suggestive, however, that Semitic [ṯ] actually became [š] in Akkadian as well as Canaanite. If these two changes were related phonetically, an intermediate [s] has to be assumed in both instances; but there is no historical evidence whatsoever which would favor such an assumption. The alternative would be to regard the two changes as independent, the Akkadian shift to be ascribed to Sumerian, and the Canaanite to Hurrian influence.

If this theory is right, Hurrian θ/-šš- was not an interdental spirant, like [t], but some other sound patterned more closely with [š]. Egyptian transliterations are ambiguous, unfortunately, on this moot point. To be sure, Hurrian θ is treated apparently like Semitic [ś]; cf. Tí-su-pi (for Teshub/tθb), W. F. Albright, The Vocalization of the Egyptian Syllabic Orthography (1934) 56. But this is inconclusive inasmuch as Egyptian had no symbol for [ṯ], since the Egyptian character transcribed as ṯ is taken to represent a ‘palatalized’ [č], not the spirant [t]; cf. Albright, op. cit. 26, n. 97. Accordingly, Egyptian ṯ was not a proper equivalent of the Hurrian sound under discussion.

In these circumstances, it is best to leave open the question of the phonetic value of θ/-šš- and ž/-š-. The one thing that is certain is that the sounds reflected by these writings were by far more common in Hurrian than any other phonemes for which the syllabary employed sibilant-signs.

¹³ I use this abbreviation for Syria 20.127 (1939).

¹⁴ Syria 10, pl. LXIV (1929).

¹⁵ Brandenstein, ZDMG 91.559.

¹⁶ Cf. also I 24; II 77. Note also the compund ^IAr-te-e-eš-šu-pa- IV 36. But the double -šš- is not yet found in the Mâri texts, where the orthography follows Babylonian usage (cf. RA 36.6 f.); in the proper names from Nuzi we find both single and double š, the underlying principle of orthography being here of a different kind (see JAOS 58.192).

¹⁷ The form in -š marks the logical subject with transitives plus direct object. Grammatically, the š-case is best regarded as the ‘agentive’; cf. Speiser, JAOS 59.308 (1939). For an unrecognized n-form of this pronoun cf. iš-te-e-en II 71.

¹⁸ This one example cannot be regarded with certainty as being in the š-case, owing to the obscure character of the verbal form ta-a-na-aš-du-en with which it is associated syntactically.

¹⁹ For analogous instances see below, p. 336.

²⁰ These citations are meant to be representative, not exhaustive.

²¹ This last form recalls pa-ša-la-a-e KUB XXIX 8 iii 14. But the form pa-ši-ib of the Mâri texts (RA 36 No. 4. 3, 6) is ambiguous (see above, note 16).

²² See now Thureau-Dangin, RA 36.99.

²³ The stroke which represents aš is in this instance flush with the first horizontal stroke in šu.

²⁴ Another possible interpretation of -na-ša is as dat.-loc. pl., according to a kind communication from Prof. A. Goetze.

²⁵ For *tari-na-ša, according to the principle established by J. Friedrich in his Kleine Beiträge zur churritischen Grammatik (1939), Mitt. d. Vorderas.-Aeg. Ges. 42.6 (1939); see also below, p. 337.

²⁶ It may be noted in passing that before -š- only u may represent the back vowel, not ú. On the other hand, ú is found before sounds written double, such as -tt- and -ll- when these consonants represent initial sounds of enclitic pronouns with the š-ending assimilated. Consequently, the restoration še-e-ni-iw-wu-ú-š[a-a-a]n I 9 (cf. also II 83, 84) is immediately suspect, and these doubts are confirmed by the association of these restored words with verbal forms which do not take the š-case (cf. JAOS 59.309 ff.). Moreover, the preserved traces preclude double š, which we should expect in this element when occurring between vowels. On the other hand, the text admits of -r[a as well as -š[a, and the comitative suffix -ra happens to take a preceding ú, as is evidenced by šu-ú-ú-ra ‘with me’ II 93. Thus we are led to the correct restoration of breaks in the text by the application of the orthographic principles established above.

²⁷ Cf. JAOS 58.192.

²⁸ Ibid.

²⁹ See the section on ‘Labials’ in JAOS 58.194 ff. The present account amplifies and supersedes the earlier study. Cf. also F. Thureau-Dangin, Syria 12.253.

³⁰ Cf. Friedrich, Kl. Beitr. z. churr. Gramm. 37 f.

³¹ Speiser, JAOS 59.309 ff. This element may be preceded by the formative -u/il- (whose function remains to be determined), in which case -u/ilewə is the result.

³² Pp. 323–4.

³³ Cf. Friedrich, op. cit. 37. This particular form represents, therefore, two distinct labial phonemes; we shall see that the first was voiced, while the other was probably voiceless in view of the apparent connection between the verbal suffix -a-ú and the possessive suffix -iwwə (where the labial is invariably written double). The result appears as -uwwə, and the u remains even after -i (at least in writing).

³⁴ Cf. the following note.

³⁵ If I am right in assuming that the suffix -a-ú of transitive verbs was etymologically related to the possessive -iwwə (both referring to the first person), the final ú has to be regarded as an unvoiced semivowel. It is suggestive that this ú is repeated when another suffix follows: e.g., a-ru-ša-ú-ú-n III 2 (= ɱun?). But when the consonant in question is written double, the resulting form is a-ru-u-ša-uš-še IV 48, 58. Moreover, such forms as šu-ú-ú-ra II 93 and šu-ú-ú-ta III 113, IV 24 are left unexplained. It appears that ú had more than one function.

³⁶ Thureau-Dangin, Syria 12.257 f.

³⁷ The occurrence of the same enclitic personal pronouns as the subjects of intransitive verbs and as the logical objects of transitives is, to my thinking, one of the many strong arguments in favor of a passive orientation of the Hurrian transitive verb. But the translations given here are not meant to suggest that the subject in Hurrian was necessarily a ‘nominative’ in our sense of the term. Something less direct, much like the ‘nominative absolute,‘ is a distinct possibility.

³⁸ In other words, the suffix -etta is analogous syntactically to the i-form of the verb (-i; -uš-i; -et-i) and to the form in -(l)ewə; cf. JAOS 59.309 ff.

³⁹ This form was first recognized by Friedrich, Kl. Beitr. z. churr. Gramm. 32 f.

⁴⁰ For the use of ú in more than one capacity cf. note 35.

⁴¹ It is worth noting that we have the same three-way variation in the initial of the personal name K/Ḫ/Guššiḫarbe; cf. Annual of the Am. Sch. of Oriental Research 16.59 note 1. Moreover, the š is written double, so that it might correspond to the θ of RŠ gθḫ-; but the following ḫ, which would seem at first to support the identification with the RŠ word, is really part of the element Ḫarbe and not of the first word of this compound, the whole name being Kassite and not Hurrian. Nor is an identification with the moon-god Kuša/uḫ), admissible, owing to the single š. Brandenstein's comparison with gešḫi is the best in these circumstances. We learn, however, that the initial sound in non-Hurrian K/Ḫ/Gušši-Ḫarbe was expressed by the Hurrians in the same way in which they treated an analogous sound of their own.

⁴² This fact has some bearing on the question of the phonetic character of that g which appears as the postvocalic variant of k. For that sound could not have been the same aspirate that is represented by the variants k/ḫ/g. If g:k was an aspirate, then k/ḫ/g has to be regarded as an affricate; if the latter was an aspirate, however, the former was probably some type of spirant. Obviously, Hurrian phonology is far more complex than anyone could have thought before the discovery of the Ras Shamra material.

⁴³ This was determined correctly by F. Bork, Die Mitannisprache (1909) 14 f.

⁴⁴ Cf. JAOS 59.298 ff.

⁴⁵ I assumed a voiced and an unvoiced ḫ in Hurrian in JAOS 58.197 ff., but I can no longer uphold my former argument in its entirety.

⁴⁶ Cf. W. F. Albright, Jour. Palestine Or. Soc. 14.104 ff. (1934).

⁴⁷ ZDMG 91.575.

⁴⁸ So already B. Hrozný, Archiv Orientalní 4.128 (1932). Incidentally, Ḫalpaḫi occurs as a personal name in the Nuzi texts.

⁴⁹ Cf. Friedrich, Anal. Orient. 12.122 ff.

⁵⁰ The t is also troublesome, owing to the writing of this name as Ḫe/iba (without t), when used as a theophoric element; cf. e.g. J. A. Knudtzon, Amarna 1556, and HSS 9.24.5 ff. (Nuzi).

⁵¹ Friedrich, Anal. Orient. 12.124; but -ḫḫ- is found, e.g., in KUB XXVII 1 iii 4, 5; 3 i 13, 14; 8 rev. 10; 16 iii 12, etc. But the occasional writing with -ḫ-, as compared with the regularity of the writings discussed previously, prevents a more positive statement in this instance.

⁵² Cf. Friedrich, Kl. Beitr. z. churr. Gramm. 27.

⁵³ For a similar treatment of the agentive (?) -š followed by -an see above, p. 323.

⁵⁴ Friedrich, op. cit. 6.

⁵⁵ Cf. Speiser, JAOS 59.307 note 56.

⁵⁶ This interrelation would parallel very closely the non-phonemic positional variation of stops and spirants in Canaanite. A few years ago I suggested that this manifestly un-Semitic pattern of the Canaanite stops might be ascribed to Hurrian influence. I did not know at the time (cf. provisionally, JBL 53 vi f. [1939]) that the Hurrian material provided so striking a parallel. A full discussion of spirantization in Canaanite will be presented elsewhere.

⁵⁷ Cf. RA 36.17 no. 5.5. That we have here an unrecognized occurrence of at(t)a(i) ‘father’ is shown by the otherwise rare stem-ending -ai and by the association of this word with the god Kumarwe (the father of the gods), ibid. 4.

⁵⁸ See above, note 1. The Mâri syllabic texts in Hurrian follow the orthography of the local Semitic documents just as Ras Shamra Hurrian texts which use the alphabetic script employ, with only minor modifications (θ, ž), values designed for another Semitic language (Ugaritic). In both these instances, however, Hurrian was using scripts which had not been established very long; Old Babylonian still struggles with the expression of the Semitic emphatics (cf. A. Goetze, Orientalia 6.12 ff. [1937]), while Ras Shamra employs the same symbol for Semitic ġ and ẓ (see above, note 46). It is possible, therefore, that the gradual normalization of the syllabic orthography in the dialects of Middle Akkadian may have hastened the emancipation of the Hurrian syllabic orthography from its Semitic analogues.

⁵⁹ The results of the present study are also of some interest to students of Dravidian linguistic connections. Ten years ago G. W. Brown virtually anticipated the discovery of the Hurrian device of marking voicelessness by means of double writing (The Possibility of a Connection between Mitanni and the Dravidian Languages, JAOS 50.273–305, esp. 280). The above discussion would thus seem to lend color to Brown's cautious argument. Nevertheless, a closer examination of the problem, made possible by recent progress in Hurrian studies, can lead only to a negative conclusion. The pronouns and numerals of Hurrian show no connection with the corresponding elements of Dravidian. Moreover, the syntax of the Hurrian verb suggests radical differences from Dravidian. Finally, the positional relationship of the stops in Tamil, which seems to recall the Hurrian pattern, is regarded as a late development within Dravidian (cf. Linguistic Survey of India 4.288). The existing similarities between the two groups, such as the absence of prefixes and the use of a negating infix in the verb, bespeak at best related linguistic types. There is nothing in the available evidence which would argue a genetic relationship between Dravidian and Hurrian.