Biblical Hebrew consistently uses the letter ס (s) to transcribe names with the Akkadian consonant š. For example, Esarhaddon for Aššur-aḥa-iddina, Esther from Ištar, Sargon from Šarru-ukīn (all Akkadian transcriptions copied from Wikipedia). Etymologically, Akkadian š and Hebrew š almost always correspond (š and ṯ, although Akkadian š can also correspond to Hebrew ś, but not to s to my knowledge).

The only exception I can think of is Aššur which is transcribed that way (with š). Since the Aramaic reflex is Attur, the word seems to have reached both languages as a descendant (through *Aṯṯur) and not a borrowing.

On the other hand, Shalmaneser comes from Šulmanu-ašarid, and yet preserves the š at the beginning of the word, while the second š is transcribed as s.

My question is: Why does Hebrew not transcribe Akkadian š with Hebrew ש (š) instead of ס (s)? Does this indicate that Akkadian š was actually pronounced s (maybe only in Assyria)? And why was the š preserved in the name of Shalmaneser (only one of the two times)?

  • @A.M.Bittlingmayer Akkadian š is cognate to Hebrew š and sometimes ś but not s. The Hebrew cognate of šarru is śar. Regarding Aramaic: Interestingly enough, Aššur-banipal is attested in Aramaic as Asnappar, but the Syriac translation (not sure where it's attested) is given by Wikipedia as ܐܫܘܪ ܒܢܐ ܐܦܠܐ, which is doubly strange since the Aramaic cognate is t and not š. – b a Mar 5 at 11:05
  • You are correct. – Adam Bittlingmayer Mar 5 at 11:12
up vote 8 down vote accepted

Yes, some people think Akkadian š was pronounced [s].

For the sibilants, traditionally /š/ has been held to be postalveolar [ʃ], and /s/, /z/, /ṣ/ analyzed as fricatives; but attested assimilations in Akkadian suggest otherwise. For example, when the possessive suffix -šu is added to the root awat ('word'), it is written awassu ('his word')

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akkadian#Consonants)

There is also relevant discussion in the Wikipedia article on Proto-Semitic:

The "maximal affricate" position additionally posits that *s *z were actually affricates [t͡s d͡z] while *š was actually a simple fricative [s] [...] According to Kogan, the affricate interpretation of Akkadian s z ṣ is generally accepted

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Semitic_language#Fricatives)

I am not familar with any of the literature, so I can't expand beyond what Wikipedia says.

  • 2
    Good answer, but I still wonder why it got transliterated as š in the first place, if there might have been differences between dialects, or if it was just based on the Hebrew cognate – b a Mar 4 at 9:56
  • @ba: The Wikipedia article on PS indicates that "The notation given here is traditional and is based on their pronunciation in Hebrew, which has traditionally been extrapolated to Proto-Semitic" – sumelic Mar 4 at 10:39
  • 1
    I found a more detailed answer that addresses the inconsistency. "Akkadian Lownwords" here (paywall): "Moreover, the consonants š and s were pronounced differently in the two principal Akk dialects, Babylonian (Bab) and Assyrian (Assyr), such that Bab š=[š], s=[s]; Assyr š=[s], s =[š], whence the BH spelling, imitating the pronunciation rather than preserving the etymology, (cont. >) – b a Oct 25 at 15:20
  • 1
    (< cont.) permits identification of the donor dialect (cf. BH שַׁלְמֹנִים šalmōnīm < Bab šulmānu ‘bribe’, BH סֶגֶן sɛḡɛn < Assyr šaknu ‘governor’)." I think you should add that detail to make your answer more complete. – b a Oct 25 at 15:20

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.