| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Baranowski, Krzysztof J., 1978-
(författare)
-
Canaanite Scribes in the Amarna Letters
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American Oriental Society. - : AMER ORIENTAL SOC. - 0003-0279 .- 2169-2289. ; 138:3, s. 599-601
-
Recension (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Baranowski, Krzysztof J., 1978-
(författare)
-
The Biblical Hebrew "Store Cities" and an Amarna Gloss
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Vetus Testamentum (Print). - : Brill. - 0042-4935 .- 1568-5330. ; 67:4, s. 519-527
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The word מסכנות used in the phrase ערי מסכנות “store cities” is commonly considered a loanword from the Neo-Assyrian word maškattu, “account, deposit, storehouse.” The current loan hypothesis does not account for the difficulties of the Akkadian evidence and does not take into consideration a gloss in Amarna letter no. 306. This gloss shows that the Canaanite scribes of the Late Bronze Age were familiar with the Akkadian plural form maškanātu and used it with the meaning “granaries, storage areas.” This technical term was borrowed into a Canaanite dialect and was subsequently transmitted to Biblical Hebrew as מסכנות.
|
|
| 6. |
- Baranowski, Krzysztof J., 1978-
(författare)
-
The Present-Future in Amorite: A Rejoinder
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Ancient Near Eastern Studies. - 1378-4641 .- 1783-1326. ; 54, s. 81-89
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Andrason and Vita (2014) argued on typological grounds that the Amorite verbal system should be reconstructed with a present-future form. They proposed that in Amorite there were two such forms, yagtulu and yagattal, the latter being more prominent. In their view, such a reconstruction corresponds to a dynamic vision of language evolution with resulting fuzzy dialectal boundaries. Their argumentation is, however, flawed in several points. In spite of their claims, the exclusively onomastic nature of the evidence for Amorite does not permit a characterisation of the verbal semantics which is required by their argumentation. Notwithstanding the adoption of a diachronic view of language, their argument compares forms which belong to different stages of the evolution of the Semitic verbal system and in this way it neglects the factor of time. Their argumentation is hypothetical and can even better support the view that Amorite had only one present future form, yaqtulu.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
