BES15_MS 22

ḤRBN – This form is attested in a number of Safaitic inscriptions (C 1607; KRS 24). It is most likely to be parsed as a faʿīl adjective, which in West Semitic often has a passive voice (see Fox 2003: 187), hence the translation “plundered.” The same form is attested in CAr (Lane 541). Both Safaitic and CAr attest the passive participle maḥrūb (Safaitic mḥrb) with the same meaning (Al-Jallad 2026; Lane, 541). Several aspects of the syntax of this phrase deserve our attention. First, the noun ḥrbn seems to be in construct with the following NP ʾl ḥwlt. In Semitic, plural nouns in construct drop the final nasal. This is universally the case in CAr; however, in the modern Arabic dialects masculine plural nouns in the construct never drop the final -n. Given that another very common phrase, rġmn mny “struck down (m.pl.) by fate” (cf. C 4988) also appears to be in construct but does not drop the nasal, it is tempting to conclude that the dialects in the Safaitic inscriptions pattern with modern dialects over against CAr in having leveled the absolute form of the noun in all syntactic contexts. However, Al-Jallad argues, based on phrases like qtl ʾl rm, which he interprets as plural construct qātilī (ZeWa 1) and bn ʾʿẓmy (ASWS 59), which he interprets as plural construct banī, that, at least in some dialects, there is still a distinction between construct and absolute states in masculine plural nouns (Al-Jallad 2026, Ch. 5). Another possibility is that the faʿīl pattern is analyzed as having verbal force and here governs the nominative subject, so ḥarībīn ʾāl ḥwlt “plundered by the Ḥwlt tribe.” While this is not impossible, it is quite rare for a patiens adjective or passive participle to govern the nominative (see Lane I: 69–70 for examples), and I can find no examples of an adjective from a singly transitive root in the absolute followed by the semantic subject. Thus it seems most natural to interpret the construction as a construct. Another issue deserving of comment here has to do with the fact that this is an asyndetic relative clause with a definite head. In CAr, the vast majority of attested relative clauses pattern in a particular way: i. Definite Heads + RelProN + Construct Relative Clause ii. Indefinite Head + nunation + Appositional Relative Clause Modern Arabic dialects show more diversity, although there is still a strong tendency for clauses with definite heads to be syndetic, and clauses with indefinite heads to be asyndetic (Brustad 2000). In Safaitic, this pattern can be considered no more than a tendency. In his discussion of relative patterns, Al-Jallad notes (2026: §17.1) that it is quite common for both syndetic and asyndetic relative clauses to be headed by either a definite or indefinite head. Interestingly, in Safaitic, attributive participles never agree in definiteness with their head noun, which leads Al-Jallad to suggest the possibility that they are analyzed as unmarked adnominal phrases. ʾL ḤWLT – This tribe is attested in a handful of Safaitic inscriptions and, as M.C.A. Macdonald notes (2009: 18), they are always treated as enemies who raid and plunder the tribes of those who produced the Safaitic inscriptions. Macdonald speculates that the ʾl ḥwlt is equivalent to Pliny’s Avalitae, who were supposedly based between Dumat al-Jandal (modern Al-Jawf) and Madāʾin Ṣāliḥ (modern Al-Ḥijr) (ibid., 18). The present inscription lends further support to this impression, as the author grieves over his companions who were “plundered by ʾl ḥwlt.” HL – There is quite a bit of surface damage to the rock and, consequently, this portion of the inscription is not clear. The most natural reading of the glyphs is as hl, but such a reading produces interpretive challenges as this would be, so far, a hapax legomenon in the Safaitic inscriptions. A possible parallel, however, may be found in a number of other Semitic languages, namely an asseverative particle hallu, cf. Ugaritic hl, Amarna hallu, Hebrew halu, and possibly etymologically related to Geʿez hallo (see Schniedewind and Sivan 1993 for a discussion of the Hebrew and NW Semitic evidence).