The Perfect can have a performative use; for example, BRKTK, “I bless you” (fem.) (baraktīkī, KAI 50, 2f.).
The Perfect can be used as an optative: WBRK B‘L…“And may Ba‘l bless NP” (KAI 26 A iii, 2–3).
Imperfect
Singular
First: masculine/feminine ’KTB (’a-ktub)
Second:
Masculine TKTB (ta-ktub)
Feminine TKTB(N) (ta-ktub-ī(n))
Third:
Masculine YKTB (ya-ktub), YKTB(N) (ya-ktub-u(n))
Feminine TKTB (ta-ktub)
Plural
First: masculine/feminine NKTB (na-ktub)
Second:
Masculine TKTB(N) (ta-ktub-ū(n))
Feminine TKTBN (ta-ktub-nā)
Third:
Masculine YKTB(N) (ya-ktub-ū(n))
Feminine (not attested)
In the suffix conjugation, it is possible to distinguish two moods: Indicative (or long imperfect) and Jussive (or short imperfect). The Indicative is characterized by a final -N in the second-person feminine, third-person masculine singular, and in the second- and third-person plural. In the preserved inscriptions, the Indicative is only attested in some examples in the third-person plural; for example, YŠ’N, “they shall draw” (KAI 60, 6, Piraeus). In the other persons, the long Imperfect was originally characterized by a final short vowel (*yaktubu against *yaktub of the short Imperfect). In the consonantal alphabet (and with the loss of final short vowels), Indicative and Jussive became indistinguishable.
The Imperfect may be enlarged by a suffix -an, written -N, called “energic,” whose use, in respect to the Imperative, is not clear.
Imperative
The Imperative is only attested in the second-person singular, masculine and feminine. In vocalization, it corresponds probably to the short Imperfect, without prefix: masculine ktub; feminine ktubī, written always KTB.
Infinitive
As in Hebrew, there was probably an infinitive absolute, *qatālu > qatōl, used independently (also as the narrative form); for example, W’M RGZ TRGZN, “and if you in fact disturb me” (wa-’im ragōz targuznī [?]) (KAI 13, 7).
Furthermore, an infinitive construct, qtul, was used preceded by prepositions: LP‘L, “to do” (KAI 10, 11); liful (Poen. 935); DBR…L’MR, “he spoke…saying” (KAI 14, 2).
Participle
The active participle was *qātil > qōtil (Hebr. qōtel); the passive was qatīl (name Baric, “Blessed”) (contra Hebr. qatūl).
Conjugations
As in the other Semitic languages, the modification of the conjugation (i.e., stems or forms) is done by changes of vowels, by lengthening (or geminating) one consonant, or by adding a prefix or inserting an infix, modifying its meaning.
Qal (qatal = G) is the simple conjugation, according to the names given by the traditional Hebrew grammar, meaning “light.” If this stem had a passive form (as in Hebrew), it is not attested so far. The names of the conjugations are those used in the Hebrew grammar. The root used is P‘L, “to do,” which shows changes due to the first stop becoming spirant between vowels and the laryngeal ‘ affecting the vowels.
Nifal (niqtal = N) is reflexive and passive. In the Imperfect, only the context shows that the verb is nifal: YQBR, “they will be buried” (yiqqabirū < *yinqabirū, KAI 14, 8).
Piel and Pual (qittel and quttal = D) is factitive or intensive. The writing in Phoenician is the same as in the Qal, but the forms may be recognized either by analogy with their use in Hebrew or by Late Punic orthographs; for example, ḤDŠ, “he renovated,” written in Late Punic ḤYDŠ (ḥiddeš or ḥiddiš). The existence of a passive Pual form is possible.
Yifil (yiqtil Hebr. hifil, hiqtil = C). The prefix Y- is peculiar to Phoenician (others languages h- or š-); for example, YQDŠ, “he consacrated” (yiqdiš). In Late Punic, it can be written ’YQDŠ. Only the context allows identifying the Imperfect. The form yiqtil must be connected with the hifil, but the way of the development is discussed. There is no sure example of the passive form of the Phoenician yiqtil (Hebrew hofal).
Infixed t (= Gt). There are only two undisputed examples of a conjugation with infixed -t- with a reflexive-passive meaning, both in the Aḥīrōm inscription: TḤTSP (third-person feminine root ḤSP, tiḥtasip [?], “may be torn away,” “may there break”); and THTPK (Imperfect, third-person feminine root HPK, tihtapik [?] “may be overturned” or “may there overturn”).
Hebrew Hitpael (hitqattel). Phoenician has the discussed form YTLNN in the Kulamuwa inscription (KAI 24, 10), a long Imperfect or Perfect Polel, as in Hebrew, from LWN: “they used to wimper” (although Tropper proposed to read, instead, YTLKN, analyzing it as a long Imperfect from YLK with t infixed, “they were living,” [Tropper 1993]).
Late Punic has the form HTQDŠ (KAI 138, 1), “it was consacrated” (H for the vowel i? *yitqaddīš > ’itqaddīš > itqaddīš; Hebrew, hitqaddēš).
Weak Verbs
Verbs with laryngeals show retention of the a vowel in the prefix conjugation; for example, yaḥī- in the cuneiform Iaḫimilki, YḤMLK of Tyre (seventh century bce [Friedrich et al. 1951, 1970, 1999: §174bis]), “may Milk live!”
Verbs with first-nun. As in the nouns, n- is assimilated to a following consonant; for example, YŠ’ (yiššō < *yinša’), “he shall raise!” (KAI 14, 5, 7). N- is not assimilated to a following laryngeal: TNḤL (KAI 3, 4, uncertain whether the meaning “you possess” or “you inherit” < NḤL).
The verb LQḤ, “take,” as in Ugaritic and all the Canaanite languages, assimilates the first L-: YQḤ, “he took” (yiqqaḥ). In nifal, the L- is preserved in Late Punic NLQḤ’ (nilqaḥū), “they have been taken” (KAI 122, 2). The infinitive takes a suffix -T: L-QḤT, “to take” (KAI 76B 5).
Verbs with first yod (and originally waw) and *HLK (“to go”). The first radical is lost as in the other Semitic languages in the Imperfect: YŠB (yašib), “he will seat” (KAI 24,12) and in the imperative: lech “go” (Poen. 2013). The infinitive takes the suffix -T: L-D‘T (la/ida‘t), “to know” (KAI 2, 1). The verb “to give,” root NTN in Hebrew and Aramaic (nadānu in Akkadian), is YTN in Phoenician: Imperfect TN, “she gave” (KAI 10, 9); Infinitive construct L-TT, “to give.”
Verbs with third yod (and originally waw). The final -y was preserved in the Perfect only in the Old Byblian inscriptions: BNY (banaya), “he built” (KAI 7, 1); already in the ninth century bce, the form became BN (banō); for example, ḤZ (ḥazō), “he saw” (KAI 24, 11,12). For the pronunciation, cf. the Late Punic writing BN’ and Poen. avo, 994 etc. (Imperative), Late Punic ḤW’ and ḤW‘, “he/she lived,” and so on. In the Imperfect, -y has already been lost in Old Byblian: YGL (yaglē or yiglē < *yagliyu or *yiglayu), “he will uncover” (KAI 1, 2). The Infinitive construct is enlarged by -t, as in Hebrew: L-BNT (labnōt), “to build” (KAI 26 A ii 11).
Verbs with second radical lengthened (media geminata). The Perfect is ḤN (ḥann) (root ḥnn “show favor”). The Imperfect is YḤN, probably yaḥōn.
Verbs with second waw or yod. Probably had a middle long vowel: RM (rōm), “he is high”; QM (qōm), “he stands” (attested in personal names in Akkadian transcription); KN (probably kōn), “he was.”
Syntax
Studies concerning Phoenician syntax are scarce, because few inscriptions have a narrative or commemorative content, giving the possibilities of sound analysis. A good number of recent works, however, have addressed the study of syntactical issues. Here, only some specific features are stressed regarding the use of verbal forms.
Phoenician does not use the “conversive waw” (waw + prefixed form as a narrative tense); however, two examples have been detected by André Lemaire in the Hassan Beyli inscription (KAI 25): WYB’, “he came” (l. 4); and WYP‘L, “he did” (l. 5) (Lemaire 1983: 11).
Conversely, as a narrative past, Phoenician employs frequently the independent infinitive followed by a personal pronoun (subject); for example, WŠKR �
�NK, “and I hired (the king of Assur)” (KAI 24, 7–8); with object suffixed pronouns: YRDM ’NK, YŠBM ’NK, “I brought them down,” “I settled them” (KAI 26 AI, 20).
In conditional clauses, the use of w- + suffixed conjugation in the apodosis, with future or jussive meaning, is frequent; in other cases, the action of the apodosis is expressed by the prefixed conjugation, not preceded by w-. In negative clauses, ’L+ the prefixed conjugation is used; for example, (W’M MLK …) WMḤ B‘L ŠMM…’YT HMLK H’, “(if a king does this and that [verbs in prefixed conjugation]), let Ba‘lšamem destroy that king” (KAI 26 Aiii 18ff.); W’M BL TŠT ŠM ’NK ’TK…TSRḤ HRBT B‘LT GBL H’DM H’, “But if you do not place my name with yours…may the Lady, the Mistress of Byblos destroy that man” (KAI 10, 15); ’P ’M ’DMM YDBRNK ’L TŠM‘ BD
NM, “Even if people speak to you, do not listen to their words” (KAI 14, 6).
For expressing a future action, sometimes with a jussive or imperative nuance, L+ infinitive is attested; for example, KL ’Š LGNB T ’BN Z, “every person who shall steel this stone” (CIS I, 3784, 1–2); W’L KL ZBḤ ’Š ’DM LZBḤ, “for every sacrifice that a man shall offer” (KAI 69, 14).
References
Grammars and Linguistic Studies
Amadasi Guzzo, M. G. 1997. “Phoenician-Punic.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, volume 4, edited by E. M. Meyers, 317–24. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Amadasi Guzzo, M. G., and G. A. Rendsburg. 2013. “Phoenician/Punic and Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. Volume 3, edited by G. Khan, 71–77. Leiden-Boston: Brill.
Cunchillos, J.-L., and J.-Á. Zamora López. 1997. Gramática fenicia elemental. Second ed. 2000. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.
Friedrich, J. [1951, 1970] 1999. Phönizisch-punische Grammatik. Second edition edited by W. Röllig, third edition, edited by M. G. Amadasi Guzzo, with contributions by W. R. Mayer. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico.
Fuentes Estañol, M. J. 1997. Manual de gramática fenicia. Barcelona: Universidad de Barcelona.
Garbini, G. 1988. Il Semitico nordoccidentale. Studi di storia linguistica. Rome: Università degli Studi “La Sapienza.”
Garr, W. R. 1985. Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000–586 B.C. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. [Reprint Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004.]
Gzella, H. 2011. “Phoenician.” In Languages from the World of the Byble, edited by H. Gzella, 55–75. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Hackett, J. A. 2004. “Phoenician and Punic.” In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages, edited by R. D. Woodard, 365–85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harris, Z. S. 1936. A Grammar of the Phoenician Language. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society.
Holmstedt, R. D., and A. Schade, eds. 2013. Linguistic Studies in Phoenician. In Memory of J. Brian Peckham. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Huehnergard, J. 1991. “The Development of the Third Person Suffixes in Phoenician.” Maarav 7: 183–94.
Huehnergard, J. 2006. “On the Etymology of the Hebrew Relative šε-.” In Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives, edited by S. E. Fassberg and A. Hurvitz, 103–25. Jerusalem and Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Krahmalkov, Ch. R. 2001. A Phoenician-Punic Grammar. Leiden: Brill.
Pat-El, N. 2013. “On Negation in Phoenician.” In Linguistic Studies in Phoenician. In Memory of J. Brian Peckham, edited by R. D. Holmstedt and A. Schade, 47–64. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Schröder, P. 1869. Die phönizische Sprache. Halle: Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses.
Segert, S. 1976. A Grammar of Phoenician and Punic. Munich: Beck.
Van den Branden, A. 1969. Grammaire phénicienne. Beirut: Librairie du Liban.
Dictionaries
Fuentes Estañol, M.-J. 1980. Vocabolario fenicio. Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.
Hoftijzer, J., and K. Jongeling. 1995. Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions. Leiden: Brill.
Krahmalkov, Ch. R. 2000. Phoenician-Punic Dictionary. Leiden: Peeters.
Tomback, R. S. 1978. A Comparative Semitic Lexicon of the Phoenician and Punic Languages. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press.
Works on Personal Names
Benz, F. L. 1972. Personal Names in the Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions. Rome: Biblical Institute Press.
Halff, G. 1963–64. “L’onomastique punique de Carthage: répertoire et commentaire.” Karthago 12: 61–146.
Jongeling, K. 1984. “Names in Neo-Punic Inscriptions.” Ph.D. dissertation, Groningen.
Jongeling, K. 1994. North-African Names from Latin Sources. Leiden: Research School CNWS.
Works on Alphabet and Scripts
Garbini, G. 2006. Introduzione all’epigrafia semitica. Brescia: Paideia.
Gelb, I. G. [1952] 1963. A Study of Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hamilton, G. J. 2014. “Reconceptualizing the Period of Early Alphabetic Scripts.” In “An Eye for Form:” Epigraphic Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, edited by J. A. Hackett and W. E. Aufrecht, 56–71. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Lehmann, R. G. 2015. “Wer war Aḥīrōms Sohn (KAI 1:1)? Eine kalligraphische-prosoposographische Annäherung an eine epigraphisch offene Frage.” In Neue Beiträge zur Semitistik. Fünftes Treffen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Semitistik in der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft vom 15.–17. Februar 2012 an der Universität Basel, edited by V. Golinets, H. Jenni, H.-P. Mathys, and S. Sarasinet, 163–80. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Naveh J. 1982. Early History of the Alphabet: An Introduction to West-Semitic Epigraphy. Jerusalem: Magnes.
Epigraphic Corpora
Répertoire d’épigraphie sémitique publié par la commission du Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum (RES). 1900-. Paris: Imprimerie nationale.
Cooke, G. A. 1903. A Text-book of North-Semitic Inscriptions. Oxford: Clarendon.
Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum (CIS). Pars prima. Inscriptiones phoenicias continens. 1881–1962. Paris: E Reipublicae Typographeo.
Donner, H., and W. Röllig. 1962–2002. Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften (KAI). I–III. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Gesenius, G. 1837. Scripturae linguaeque Phoeniciae monumenta quotquot supersunt. Lipsiae: Fr. Chr. Guil Vogelii.
Gibson, J. C. L. 1982. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. Volume III: Phoenician Inscriptions Including Inscriptions in the Mixed Dialect of Arslan Tash. Oxford: Clarendon.
Jongeling, K. 2008. Handbook of Neo-Punic Inscriptions. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Kerr, R. M. 2010. Latino-Punic Epigraphy. A Descriptive Study of the Inscriptions. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Lemaire, A. 1983. “L’inscription de Hassan Beyli reconsidérée.” Rivista di Studi Fenici 11: 9–19.
Lidzbarski, M. 1898. Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik nebst ausgewählten Inschriften. Weimar: Von Emil Felber.
Lidzbarski, M. 1902–1915. Ephemeris für semitische Epigraphik. Volumes I–III. Giessen: J. Ricker’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung and Alfred Töpelmann.
Tropper, J. 1993. Die Inschriften von Zincirli. Neue Edition und vergleichende Grammatik des phönizischen, sam’alischen und aramäischen Textkorpus. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Zamora, J. A. 2010a. “La epigrafía fenicia: historia, situación y algunas perspectivas.” In El Mediterráneo antiguo: lenguas y escrituras, edited by G. Carrasco and J. C. Oliva, 93–156. Ciudad Real: Ediciones de la Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha,.
Zamora, J. A. 2010b. “Phoenician.” In Lenguas y escrituras en la Antigüedad, edited by J. P. Moferrer Sala and M. Marcos Aldón, 123–68. Córdoba: Autor/a.
Poenulus Punic Passages
Gratwick, A. S. 1971. “Hanno’s Punic Speech in the Poenulus of Plautus.” Hermes 99: 25–45.
Sznycer, M. 1967. Les passages puniques en transcription latine dans le “Poenulus” de Plaute. Paris: Klin
cksieck.
Chapter 16
Inscriptions
Madadh Richey
Phoenician and Punic inscriptions are almost the only surviving source for the language and literature of the inhabitants of Tyre, Sidon, Byblos, the other northern Levantine coastal city-states, and their various colonies and settlements. Aside from the mostly stone, metal, and clay epigraphs discovered in excavations and purchased on the antiquities market, mostly since the mid-nineteenth century ce, the only other substantial texts in Phoenician or Punic are the excerpts of Carthaginian speech in Plautus’s play Poenulus. In Phoenician and Punic studies, inscriptions are thus of greater than average importance for understanding basic linguistic topics like orthography, phonology, morphology, and syntax. But they are also key for comprehending broader literary phenomena like prayer, memorial, and sacrificial idioms, not to mention the domains of history and religion as revealed by, for example, royal and dedicatory texts.
The corpus or collection of Phoenician and Punic inscriptions is enormous. Most estimates place it at around ten thousand texts. Texts that are either formulaic or extremely short constitute the vast majority of the evidence. The current chapter presents an overview and focuses on those texts that are unique or expansive, as well as on those that have been discovered recently. Both the constant discovery and the broad geographic and chronological range of Phoenician and Punic inscriptions have made the creation of a comprehensive corpus difficult. Inscriptions in Phoenician and its descendant scripts date from the tenth or ninth century bce through at least the first century ce, and have been found from Portugal to Iraq and from Wales to North Africa. The first section of the Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum (CIS) published most Phoenician and Punic inscriptions known by ca. 1880 in its first volume (CIS I.1 [1881]), but later volumes focused solely on material from Carthage (CIS I.2–3 [1890–1962]), and the broader CIS project is now dormant. Smaller collections that scholars often reference—especially H. Donner and W. Röllig’s Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften (KAI, especially its 1966–1969 second edition)—are selective chrestomathies rather than exhaustive corpora. There are ongoing projects aimed at providing a new or updated comprehensive catalogue (e.g., Xella and Zamora 2007), and there do exist smaller, regional- or period-focused compendia. Most of these will be referenced in relevant sections here. Updates may be found in bibliographies, summaries, and new studies semiregularly published in the field’s chief epigraphic journals, especially the Rivista di Studi Fenici (RSF), Semitica, Semitica et Classica, Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico (SEL), and Transeuphratène. It should be noted, finally, that Phoenician and Punic inscribed seals and coins are incredibly plentiful and cannot be surveyed here in any systematic way (for extensive seal references, see Schmitz 2014; and for coins, J. Elayi and A. G. Elayi 2014; see also chapter 25, this volume).
The Oxford Handbook of the Phoenician and Punic Mediterranean Page 32