In Ugaritic this week we discussed our vocalization and translation of KTU 2.16. At lines four and five we ran into an issue that produced a good fifteen minutes of conversation on the various possibilities. I should make a disclaimer at this point that I have less than one semester of Ugaritic under my belt, so it is entirely possible that I will make some painfully stupid and unlearned remark in this post–I beg your forgiveness in advance. For those who don’t have the Ugaritic text handy, I’ve reproduced the two lines in question below:
2.16:4 – yšlm . lk . ily
2.16:5 – ugrt . tǵrk
The issue basically revolves around ily. In class we came up with a variety of possibilities on how to put these two lines together. It seems obvious that lines 1-3 are the introduction, and so we don’t need to worry about finding the subject of line four in line three. It also seemed plain to everyone in class that line six began a new clause. The question is, how should one take ily? That is, should it be vocalized as a plural or singular? What is the final y? Is it actually in construct with ugrt in line 5? Here are some of the possibilities we came up with:
1. The y is gentilic – I’m not sure how a gentilic makes sense in reference to the gods, but someone threw it out as a possibility.
2. The y is a mater – This would make sense, except that my understanding is that there is no agreement among scholars on whether or not mater letters exist in Ugaritic (I’m actually inclined to say that a majority say that Ugaritic does not have them, but I could be completely off base there).
3. The y is a textual corruption – This just seems like throwing ones hands up and saying “I don’t know!” but it is certainly a possibility, I suppose.
4. Enclitic y on analogy with enclitic m – Professor Kline actually proposed this as a possibility, though I don’t know enough about Ugaritic yet to make a judgment on the likelihood.
5. The y is the 1cs personal pronoun – This was actually how I had taken it in the first place, and others had done the same.
The majority of the class favored one of the first four explanations and translated: “May it be well to you. May the gods of Ugarit guard you.” A small minority favored the fifth option and translated “May my god grant welfare/health/wellness to you. May Ugarit guard you.” This second option obviously only works if Ugarit is grammatically feminine.
I know many of you who read The Floppy Hat are far more knowledgeable of Ugaritic than I am. I’d love your thoughts on this section of text. How would you explain ily? What would your rough translation look like?
You might want to look at the letter from Ugarit to the governor of Aphek (Aphek 7:8-12).
ana muhhi abiya bēlīya
lû šulma ilū ša milki rabî bēlīka
ilū ša Ugarit
lūkrubuka
lîşşuruka
To my father, my lord.
Greetings! May the gods of the Great King, your lord,
(and) the gods of Ugarit
bless you (and) keep you.
Hope this helps.
(Sorry, to make this work, I had to play with the font a little.)
FWIW Tropper’s Ugaritische Grammatik §§21.134.21 & 54.121.2 seems to think that it’s a mater.
Segert (p. 135-137)says it’s pl. constr. and the y is “apparently a vowel letter.” He adds it could be a postpositive element or a scribal error. Schniedewind in his recent primer thinks the vowel letter explanation is unavoidable here (p. 86 n. 40). Huehnergard also says vowel letter in his outline of Ug grammar. (Sivan probably says it’s a mater, too, but I don’t have him to check.) I don’t like the mater explanation because if they use vowel letters at all, why so rarely and inconsistently? Also other Semitic inscriptions like Heb don’t use maters until 7th century or later. I’d go with the suffix option first, then punt to scribal error or enclitic y before I accepted it as a vowel letter. Don’t knock the scribal error explanation. It happens more often than you’d think in Ugaritic.
For the record, I did some digging of my own, and Sivan says that it is a mater indicating the wrong case (see pg 14 and 84 of his grammar). He also mentions that perhaps Ugaritic was losing its case system by the time 2.16 was written, but he seems to be offering that up along with a shrug as far as I can tell.
Thanks for the comments everyone, its been quite helpful.