# Canaanite: QR, QRT, QRH, QRY = city



## Abu Rashid

*Moderator note: Split from quoted thread.

*


origumi said:


> While the word is usually _qart_ in Phenician, the more common apperance in Biblical Hebrew is _qirya_ (with few cases of _qeret_ / _qaret_). This hints that the final _t_ is not part of the root but a feminine suffix (typical to Canaanite and other Semitic languages). Therefore the root is qr_, where _ stands for a mute sound that tends to change into _t_ or _y_ in conjugations (spelled as ה = h when mute).



The taw is definitely not part of the root, as is obvious by the ة in Arabic, which is a special form of taw used only for feminine (and a few proper masculine) nouns.

The root is q-r-y. The 'y' does not change into 't', the 'y' is merely not apparent in languages like Phoenician, which didn't represent even long vowels.


----------



## origumi

Abu Rashid said:


> The root is q-r-y. The 'y' does not change into 't', the 'y' is merely not apparent in languages like Phoenician, which didn't represent even long vowels.


I wouldn't rush with such statement unless backed-up by some source. As far as I know there's a dispute, some propose biconsonantal root q-r, some q-r-y, some q-r-h, some propose two similar roots, _qart_ (Pho.) / _qeret_ (Heb.) / _qrt _(Uga.) is constructed from one, _qirya_ (Heb) / _qryt_ (Uga.) from the other. Aramaic like Hebrew and Ugaritic has both forms. And there's also _qir_ for place names like Qir Moab, interpreted by some as City of Moab and supports the biconsonantal root.

See for example "Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament", http://books.google.co.il/books?id=RAwg47G0M2IC&pg=PA164, pp. 164-165, with useful references.


----------



## Abu Rashid

origumi said:


> I wouldn't rush with such statement unless backed-up by some source. As far as I know there's a dispute, some propose biconsonantal root q-r, some q-r-y, some q-r-h, some propose two similar roots, _qart_ (Pho.) / _qeret_ (Heb.) / _qrt _(Uga.) is constructed from one, _qirya_ (Heb) / _qryt_ (Uga.) from the other. Aramaic like Hebrew and Ugaritic has both forms.


 
I think it's pretty conclusive regarding the taw not being part of the root though. The ة ending on the قري stem in Arabic makes it quite clear that the taw is not part of the root, but is a feminising appendage. The differing spelling seems to be a result of the fact that in the time period those languages were recorded, the representation of long vowels and weak consonants was not consistent, hence the reason both spellings are found for most languages. Arabic on the other hand had a fairly consistent spelling from the beginning of its written history, and included special forms of letters to represent weak consonants and the feminising taw.

Regarding the 3 roots you've proposed there, by q-r, I assume you mean q-r-r? As there is no actual bi-consonantal roots in the Semitic languages. May I ask who proposes this? And on what basis? And as for q-r-h, I would consider it highly unlikely. There are virtually no tri-consonantal Semitic roots that end in 'h' (nor in 't' for that matter, with the exception of m-w-t that I can think of). Perhaps you're confusing this for the fact Hebrew orthography represented a long final vowel with ה? For all those roots where Hebrew has this, we'll find the other Semitic languages have a weak consonant, whilst Arabic will usually have the special letter ى (alef maqsurah) which is used specifically for this purpose.



origumi said:


> And there's also _qir_ for place names like Qir Moab, interpreted by some as City of Moab and supports the biconsonantal root.



Isn't it q-y-r? As far as I'm aware it refers to a wall, hence a walled city, not actually a city itself.


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> I think it's pretty conclusive regarding the taw not being part of the root though. The ة ending on the قري stem in Arabic makes it quite clear that the taw is not part of the root, but is a feminising appendage.


What makes you think whoever fixed the spelling of the word millennia after the last word of Proto-Semitic was spoken had superior insight in the etymology of the word?


----------



## rayloom

Abu Rashid said:


> As there is no actual bi-consonantal roots in the Semitic languages. May I ask who proposes this? And on what basis? And as for q-r-h, I would consider it highly unlikely. There are virtually no tri-consonantal Semitic roots that end in 'h' (nor in 't' for that matter, with the exception of m-w-t that I can think of).



There are biconsonantal roots in the Semitic languages. Also there are many triconsonantal roots which end with 'h' and many others which end with 't'.


----------



## Abu Rashid

berndf said:


> What makes you think whoever fixed the spelling of the word millennia after the last word of Proto-Semitic was spoken had superior insight in the etymology of the word?



That is a good question, but can you provide any example where ة was haphazardly applied to a word where it should be an actual ت? I think given that Arabic fully preserved the proto-Semitic vowel system, means they were aware that the third radical of the root was a weak consonant, and that the final taw, which is soft in Arabic pronunciation anyway was a feminising taw. In almost all other Semitic languages, the proto-Semitic vowel system was modified dramatically, and so it could become confusing to know whether a long vowel was actually a weak consonant, or had become obscured by vowels of the surrounding letters.

Anyway the main issue I think is that the root q-r-y doesn't seem to match up in meaning to the word for city/town/village. The meaning is to provide hospitality/accommodation, which doesn't really lead to the meaning of the noun.

Also the rendering qart from carthage seems pretty flimsy, considering how badly they butchered the other component to the compound word. If hadasht -> hage, then we can't really rely too heavily on cart -> qart being too sound. Unless there's another source for this rendering I'm not aware of?


----------



## Abu Rashid

rayloom said:


> There are biconsonantal roots in the Semitic languages. Also there are many triconsonantal roots which end with 'h' and many others which end with 't'.



Examples...


----------



## rayloom

Abu Rashid said:


> Examples...



The notion of biconsonantal roots isn't a new one. The first person to create a dictionary of the Arabic langauge, Al-Khalil Al-Farahidi (and one of the first Arab grammarians (he's even Sibawayh's teacher), states that Arabic roots can be biconsonantal, triconsonantal, quadriconsonantal or quinticonsonatal (pentaconsonantal).
Examples of biconsonantal roots:
دم، يد، فم، فو
etc...

The fact that an extra radical is added to form verbs derived from these roots, doesn't negate the fact that they're originally biconsonantal.


Triconsonantal roots ending with h:
أبه، نبه، شبه، نده...
etc...

Triconsonantal roots ending with t:
موت، صوت، بهت، فوت، نعت، نكت...
etc...

I can go on & on


----------



## Abu Rashid

rayloom said:


> Examples of biconsonantal roots:
> دم، يد، فم، فو
> etc...



They're not roots, they''re isolated nouns. Sorry, I should've been more specific, I'm talking about verbal roots, which in relation to the Semitic languages is pretty much a given.



rayloom said:


> Triconsonantal roots ending with h:
> أبه، نبه، شبه، نده...
> etc...



You'd be pretty hard pressed to find anymore, and you'd be hard pressed to find correspondences in other Semitic languages. Besides I didn't say none exist, just that there is virtually none, compared to most other letters, which have plenty of roots ending in them. And it's probably for good reason, given 't' is the feminine marker, and 'h' is almost like a weak consonant, as well as being the masculine enclitic pronoun. So there would've been a natural aversion to forming such roots I think.



rayloom said:


> Triconsonantal roots ending with t:
> موت، صوت، بهت، فوت، نعت، نكت...
> etc...



I already mentioned m-w-t. Same as above for the rest.



rayloom said:


> I can go on & on



I don't think you can, certainly not for common Semitic roots.


----------



## Abu Rashid

Another point I should've maybe made clearer, is that in Hebrew, if a root ends in a weak consonant (like 'y'), then it will actually be written with 'h'. So origumi mentioning q-r-y- and q-r-h was a bit pointless, since the word only contains a 'h' in Hebrew, and even if the root were q-r-y, it'd appear as q-r-h in Hebrew anyway.


----------



## rayloom

Abu Rashid said:


> They're not roots, they''re isolated nouns. Sorry, I should've been more specific, I'm talking about verbal roots, which in relation to the Semitic languages is pretty much a given.



They're considered in Arabic grammar as roots. Modern Semitic linguistics considers them as roots as well. 
And weren't we taking about the possibility of qr (a noun) being a biconsonantal root (or "isolated noun" if you wish!). How did you all of a sudden shift it to verbal roots?



> You'd be pretty hard pressed to find anymore, and you'd be hard pressed to find correspondences in other Semitic languages. Besides I didn't say none exist, just that there is virtually none, compared to most other letters, which have plenty of roots ending in them. And it's probably for good reason, given 't' is the feminine marker, and 'h' is almost like a weak consonant, as well as being the masculine enclitic pronoun. So there would've been a natural aversion to forming such roots I think
> 
> I already mentioned m-w-t. Same as above for the rest.
> 
> I don't think you can, certainly not for common Semitic roots.
> .



I can bring more! 
Classical Arabic dictionaries are arranged by the last radical, so it's not that hard! And for such roots common in different Semitic languages, you'd still be able to find some.
Here is a pdf document from the entry of taa in Taj Al-3aruus (a Classical dictionary), arranging all Arabic roots ending with taa (107 pages long, of course with their meanings):
http://www.al-hakawati.net/arabic/civilizations/95a3.pdf

And I think you'd be able to find common Semitic roots ending with taa. Some I recognize to be Common Semitic (in addition to mwt):
sbt, byt, nbt...maybe there's more. Unfortunately my vocabulary in different Semitic languages is quite limited.

Same thing if you look in any Classical Arabic dictionary under 'h'.

So it's not "virtually none" as you say!


----------



## Abu Rashid

rayloom said:


> They're considered in Arabic grammar as roots.



I can't say I'm anywhere near an expert in Arabic grammar, but I've never heard of anything below جذر ثلاثي during my studies of Arabic grammar. Even if it's mentioned in some books, it's clearly not taught as a standard part of Arabic grammar.



rayloom said:


> Modern Semitic linguistics considers them as roots as well.
> And weren't we taking about the possibility of qr (a noun) being a biconsonantal root (or "isolated noun" if you wish!). How did you all of a sudden shift it to verbal roots?



I think it's pretty obvious that most words in Semitic languages derive from a verbal root, triliteral or higher. There are certain words which, and these you listed are amongst them, do not involve any kind of derivation of nouns from roots, and therefore are not relevant. The noun being mentioned is in Arabic قرية, in Hebrew קריה (q-r-y-h), in Aramaic  ܩܪܝܬܐ (q-r-y-t-a), which to me seems to suggest the root is q-r-y. Some languages do have it without the 'y', but those languages often didn't represent long vowels or weak consonants.



rayloom said:


> Here is a pdf document from the entry of taa in Taj Al-3aruus (a Classical dictionary), arranging all Arabic roots ending with taa (107 pages long, of course with their meanings):
> http://www.al-hakawati.net/arabic/civilizations/95a3.pdf



I will have a look for curiosity's sake, but I think you're over-reacting a little, as I said virtually, not non-existent. Also as pointed out, the more important point was to make it clear to origumi that most Hebrew roots ending in 'h' actually end in a weak consonant.



rayloom said:


> And I think you'd be able to find common Semitic roots ending with taa. Some I recognize to be Common Semitic (in addition to mwt):
> sbt, byt, nbt...maybe there's more. Unfortunately my vocabulary in different Semitic languages is quite limited.



Yeh there is a few, also th-b-t, S-m-t, s-k-t. Again, I think you're missing the word "virtually" from my sentence.



rayloom said:


> So it's not "virtually none" as you say!



I guess it depends on how you interpret virtually none. What I meant was, compared to other letters, roots ending in these two, common amongst the Semitic languages are not that common.


----------



## origumi

Abu Rashid said:


> Another point I should've maybe made clearer, is that in Hebrew, if a root ends in a weak consonant (like 'y'), then it will actually be written with 'h'. So origumi mentioning q-r-y- and q-r-h was a bit pointless, since the word only contains a 'h' in Hebrew, and even if the root were q-r-y, it'd appear as q-r-h in Hebrew anyway.


May I suggest: (1) concentrating on the specific word (vs. discussing whether Arabic is the most conservative language or not), focus on the relevant language family (Aramaic-Ugaritic-Canaanite) where _qrt _means city (vs. a similar and maybe cognate Arabic root), (3) follow authorities when possible (vs. claiming to know everything by heart).

* Noeldeke (1904) says _qr_ is a biconsonantal root.
* Blau (1979) accept the biconsonantal root idea, and says that Ugaritic made it triconsonantal by adding _y _to make _qr_ -> _qry._
* Dahood; Blau & Loewenstamm (1970); Moor & Spronk (1982) say that there are two similar roots, _qr_ and _qry_.
* Margalit (1984); Eitan (1924) suggest that Hebrew _qirya_ (but not necessarly _qrt_) is derived from root _qrh_.

It's true (and written shortly in my post above) that in Hebrew there's a list of roots end with mute _h_ that becomes _y_ / _i_ in conjugations. There are also roots in which this doesn't happen. Again - discussing principals and ignoring the specific case may lead to vague conclusions.


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> That is a good question, but can you provide any example where ة was haphazardly applied to a word where it should be an actual ت? I think given that Arabic fully preserved the proto-Semitic vowel  system, means they were aware that the third radical of the root was a  weak consonant, and that the final taw, which is soft in Arabic  pronunciation anyway was a feminising taw.


You are mixing morphological regularity in Arabic with Etymology in Proto-Semitic. It can still be a merger of two roots and be morphologically regular, adapting the _-ah, -at_ variation to a that of a feminine suffix. I am not saying it necessarily is a merger of two roots but morphological behaviour in Arabic (which the spelling ة represents) is no proof it isn't.



Abu Rashid said:


> Also the rendering qart from carthage seems pretty flimsy, considering how badly they butchered the other component to the compound word. If hadasht -> hage, then we can't really rely too heavily on cart -> qart being too sound. Unless there's another source for this rendering I'm not aware of?


Fortunately we don't have to rely on the English rendering of the name (_Cart*hage*_) alone to know what the it means.


----------



## Abu Rashid

origumi said:


> Abu Rashid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another point I should've maybe made clearer, is that in Hebrew, if a root ends in a weak consonant (like 'y'), then it will actually be written with 'h'. So origumi mentioning q-r-y- and q-r-h was a bit pointless, since the word only contains a 'h' in Hebrew, and even if the root were q-r-y, it'd appear as q-r-h in Hebrew anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> May I suggest: (1) concentrating on the specific word (vs. discussing whether Arabic is the most conservative language or not)
Click to expand...


Perhaps you're referring to something other than what you quoted from me there, but nothing in that quote even references Arabic at all, let alone how conservative it is. In fact in that issue, Arabic is much like Hebrew, it replaces the weak consonant with a consistent letter in the root (alef maqsura, instead of 'h' though).



origumi said:


> focus on the relevant language family (Aramaic-Ugaritic-Canaanite) where _qrt _means city (vs. a similar and maybe cognate Arabic root),


 
The language family is Semitic, and they all belong to it. If you're referring to a specific sub-family, then there's two classifications, one including Arabic, one not. Not that it makes an iota of difference to this issue anyway. In Arabic the word means village, not city, as it does in Aramaic too. I am not quite sure why you are claiming the Arabic word is any different than the Aramaic, Ugaritic or Canaanite words?



origumi said:


> (3) follow authorities when possible (vs. claiming to know everything by heart).
> 
> * Noeldeke (1904) says _qr_ is a biconsonantal root.
> * Blau (1979) accept the biconsonantal root idea, and says that Ugaritic made it triconsonantal by adding _y _to make _qr_ -> _qry._
> * Dahood; Blau & Loewenstamm (1970); Moor & Spronk (1982) say that there are two similar roots, _qr_ and _qry_.
> * Margalit (1984); Eitan (1924) suggest that Hebrew _qirya_ (but not necessarly _qrt_) is derived from root _qrh_.



I don't claim to know anything by heart, merely stating my opinions, take them or leave them. If you feel they're flawed, feel free to point it out, I welcome any constructive criticism of my opinions.

Regarding q-r-h, again I assert there's absolutely no evidence of such a root. No language other than Hebrew contains the 'h', and as pointed out, that's most likely in place of the 'y' as Hebrew does in all roots with final 'y'.



origumi said:


> It's true (and written shortly in my post above) that in Hebrew there's a list of roots end with mute _h_ that becomes _y_ / _i_ in conjugations. There are also roots in which this doesn't happen. Again - discussing principals and ignoring the specific case may lead to vague conclusions.



The relevant point is not what Hebrew does in conjugations, the relevant point is that in most other Semitic languages, the cognate root has 'y', making it clear that Hebrew represents final 'y' in a root with 'h'.


----------



## Abu Rashid

berndf said:


> ..but morphological behaviour in Arabic (which the spelling ة represents) is no proof it isn't.



Agreed it isn't.



berndf said:


> Fortunately we don't have to rely on the English rendering of the name (_Cart*hage*_) alone to know what the it means.



Right, so if the second half of the compound could be so heavily modified, then so could the first half, which means if that word is the only source for the rendering of Phoenician q-r-t as qart, then it's rather flimsy evidence. There could therefore be a 'y' between the r and t, that does not show up in Phoenician spelling, due to its lack of representation of long vowels.


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> Right, so if the second half of the compound could be so heavily modified, then so could the first half, which means if that word is the only source for the rendering of Phoenician q-r-t as qart, then it's rather flimsy evidence. There could therefore be a 'y' between the r and t, that does not show up in Phoenician spelling, due to its lack of representation of long vowels.


Why are you interested in how the Romans or English corrupted the spelling. I really don't get it. What has that to do with the meaning of the name in Punic?

 The name of the city is Q-R-T 7-D-Sh-T in Phoenician. There is absolutely no ambiguity as to what it means.


----------



## Abu Rashid

berndf said:


> Why are you interested in how the Romans or English corrupted the spelling. I really don't get it. What has that to do with the meaning of the name in Punic?
> 
> The name of the city is Q-R-T 7-D-Sh-T in Phoenician. There is absolutely no ambiguity as to what it means.



I don't see anywhere that I've stated anything about what it means, what on earth led you to that conclusion?? My point is q-r-t might not have been rendered as qart. All I've spoken about in that regard is how the word is rendered with vowels, nothing about its meaning whatsoever.


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> I don't see anywhere that I've stated anything about what it means, what on earth led you to that conclusion?? My point is q-r-t might not have been rendered as qart. All I've spoken about in that regard is how the word is rendered with vowels, nothing about its meaning whatsoever.


And how and why would the vowels in Q-R-T in Punic be important to what we are discussing here? I still don?t see what you're driving at.


----------



## Abu Rashid

berndf said:


> And how and why would the vowels in Q-R-T in Punic be important to what we are discussing here? I still don?t see what you're driving at.



Because it may well have been qariyt for instance in Phoenician, not qart.


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> Because it may well have been qariyt for instance in Phoenician, not qart.


In Phoenician (and also in Hebrew) the Jod must than be represented as it is consonantic and not vocalic - In Punic writing vowels are generally transcribed.


----------



## Abu Rashid

berndf said:


> In Phoenician (and also in Hebrew) the Jod must than be represented as it is consonantic and not vocalic - In Punic writing vowels are generally transcribed.



Are you sure about that?

As an example, the word Sidonians:

Hebrew: צידנים
Phoenician: צדנם


----------



## Abu Rashid

Another example which might be more relevant is that of the verb "to build", b-n-y, as it is a y-final root as (in my opinion) the one in question is.

To conjugate this verb into first person perfect, it becomes:

Hebrew: בָּנִיתִי
Phoenician: בנת

He. 1 Kings 11:38
Ph. Eshmun'azar inscription CIS I, 3 (line 4)

In Phoenician the 'y' is not represented, whilst in Hebrew it is.


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> Another example which might be more relevant is that of the verb "to build", b-n-y, as it is a y-final root as (in my opinion) the one in question is.
> 
> To conjugate this verb into first person perfect, it becomes:
> 
> Hebrew: בָּנִיתִי
> Phoenician: בנת
> 
> He. 1 Kings 11:38
> Ph. Eshmun'azar inscription CIS I, 3 (line 4)
> 
> In Phoenician the 'y' is not represented, whilst in Hebrew it is.


בָּנִיתִי is baniti. The Hebrew Jod is a vowel sign, not a consonant sign. Like in Arabic, Jod can represent a long vowel or a consonant.

Qiriyah is קִרְיָה . In spelling with Niqqud you can distinguish a consonantal Jod from a vocalic Jod by the fact that a consonantal Jod carries its own vowel sign. In the case of קִרְ*יָ*ה it carries a Kamaz.


----------



## Abu Rashid

berndf said:


> בָּנִיתִי is baniti. The Hebrew Jod is a vowel sign, not a consonant sign. Like in Arabic, Jod can represent a long vowel or a consonant.
> 
> Qiriyah is קִרְיָה . In spelling with Niqqud you can distinguish a consonantal Jod from a vocalic Jod by the fact that a consonantal Jod carries its own vowel sign. In the case of קִרְ*יָ*ה it carries a Kamaz.



Regardless it serves my point, as the yodh is lost in the Phoenician orthography, and that was all I was seeking to show. Thanks.


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> Regardless it serves my point, as the yodh is lost in the Phoenician orthography, and that was all I was seeking to show. Thanks.


The Hebrew verb is B-N-H. But it is true, it is probably an evolution from an earlier form B-N-Y.

Anyway, the name of Carthage isn't Quarit 7adasht or something of the sort. Contrary to Phoenician spelling, Punic spelling carried vowels.


----------



## Abu Rashid

berndf said:


> The Hebrew verb is B-N-H. But it is true, it is probably an evolution from an earlier form B-N-Y.



Given that we have b-n-y in Ugaritic, Sabaic, Phoenician & Arabic, and given that pretty much every single common Semitic root which is y-final has ה-final in Hebrew, I think it's pretty safe to say that the root is b-n-y, and that Hebrew orthography merely represented a final weak consonant with ה. I don't think this is even remotely disputed by any Semitist.

Besides my point was about Phoenician, I merely included the Hebrew example to contrast it. In Phoenician the root is y-final, but the y is not spelled when it is conjugated, which is all I intended to show.



berndf said:


> Anyway, the name of Carthage isn't Quarit 7adasht or something of the sort. Contrary to Phoenician spelling, Punic spelling carried vowels.



So how was it spelled in Punic?


----------



## Abu Rashid

I was flicking through a book of Punic inscriptions, and they provide the texts of the inscriptions, but in Hebrew characters and they spelled it with only consonants: קרתחדשת


----------



## berndf

The spelling קרתחדשת won't tell you, if there are vowels in it or not because the pronunciation_ Qart 7adasht_ contains neither a long "i", which would be spelled Jod, nor a long "o" or "u", which would be spelled Waw (long "a" is not represented). If you want to know if a particular inscriptions represents long vowels you have to look for words like בית (with vowel) or בת (without vowel) in the same inscription.

Punic continued to be used after the destruction of Carthage for a few centuries. There are what is called "Neo Punic" inscriptions with added vowels and even with Latin characters. I did'n find any where the name Carthage appeared. If you want to keep looking, if you find anything, let me know.


----------

