Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Ma
r
IBERIA
Fenicia
Mar Negro
Ad
ri
Rutas
comerciales
tic
o
Mar
Egeo
ASIA
Gadir
SICILIA
Cartago
Tingis
Mar
Mediterrneo
FRICA
Leptis
CHIPRE
CRETA
Biblos
Sidn
Tiro
Cirene
Menfis
The most important Phoenician trade routes and cities along the
Mediterranean Area.
History
3 PHONOLOGY
Canaanite script that also became the basis for the Greek
and hence the Latin alphabets. The Western Mediterranean (Punic) area form of the script gradually developed somewhat dierent and more cursive letter shapes;
in the 3rd century BC, it also began to exhibit a tendency to mark the presence of vowels, especially nal
vowels, with an aleph or sometimes an ayin. Furthermore, around the time of the Second Punic War, an even
more cursive form began to develop[14] and it gave rise to
a variety referred to as Neo-Punic, which existed alongside the more conservative form and became predominant
some time after the destruction of Carthage (146 BC).[15]
Neo-Punic in turn tended to designate vowels with matres
lectionis more frequently than the previous systems had
and also began to systematically use dierent letters for
dierent vowels,[15] in the way explained in more detail
below. Finally, a number of late inscriptions from ElHofra (Constantine), in the 1st century BC, make use of
the Greek alphabet to write Punic, and many inscriptions
from Tripolitania, in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD, use
the Latin alphabet for that purpose.[16]
In Phoenician writing, unlike that of most later abjads
such as those of Aramaic, Biblical Hebrew and Arabic,
even long vowels remained generally unexpressed, and
that regardless of their origin. Eventually Punic writers
did begin to implement systems of marking of vowels by
means of consonantal letters (matres lectionis): rst, beginning in the 3rd century BC, there appeared the practice of using nal to mark the presence of any nal
vowel and, occasionally, of y to mark a nal long [i].
Later, mostly after the destruction of Carthage, in the socalled Neo-Punic inscriptions, this was supplemented
by a system in which w denoted [u], y denoted [i], denoted [e] and [o], denoted [a][17] and h and could also
be used to signify [a].[18] This latter system was used rst
with foreign words and was then extended to many native
words as well. A third practice reported in the literature
is the use of the consonantal letters for vowels in the same
way as that had occurred in the original adaptation of the
Phoenician alphabet to Greek and Latin, which was apparently still transparent to Punic writers: i.e. h for [e]
and for [a].[19] Later, Punic inscriptions began to be written in the Latin alphabet, which also indicated the vowels.
These later inscriptions, in addition with some inscriptions in Greek letters and transcriptions of Phoenician
names into other languages, represent the main source for
Phoenician vowels.
Phonology
3.2 Vowels
Our knowledge of the vowel system is very imperfect because of the characteristics of the writing system; during most of its existence Phoenician writing didn't express any vowels at all, and even as vowel notation systems did eventually arise late in its history, they never
came to be applied consistently to the native vocabulary.
It is thought that Phoenician had the short vowels /a/, /i/,
/u/ and the long vowels /a/, /i/, /u/, /e/, /o/.[22][28] The
Proto-Semitic diphthongs /aj/ and /aw/ are realized as /e/
and /o/; this must have happened earlier than in Biblical
Hebrew, because the resultant long vowels are not marked
with the semi-vowel letters (bt house was written bt in
contrast to Biblical Hebrew byt).
4.1
Nominal morphology
3
sonal name rendered in Akkadian as ma-ti-nu-ba-a-li
Gift of Baal", with the case endings -u and -i, was written ma-ta-an-baa-al two centuries later. However, we
do nd evidence of a retention of the genitive case in the
form of the rst singular possessive sux: by /abiya/ of
my father vs b /ab/ my father.
The written forms and the reconstructed pronunciations
of the personal pronouns[35] are as follows:
Singular:
1st: /ank/ nk (Punic sometimes nky), also attested as
/anek/
2nd masc. /atta()/ t
2nd fem. /atti()/ t
3rd masc. /hu/ h, also [hy] (?) hy and /huat/ ht
3rd fem. /hi/ h
Plural:
1st: /anan/ nn
2nd masc. unattested
Judging from stress-dependent vowel changes, stress was 2nd fem. unattested
[31]
probably mostly nal, as in Biblical Hebrew.
Long 3rd masc. /hummat/ hmt,
vowels probably only occurred in open syllables.[32]
3rd fem. /himmat/ hmt
3.3
Suprasegmentals
Enclitic personal pronouns are added to nouns (to encode possession) and to prepositions, as shown below for
4 Grammar
standard Phoenician (the predominant dialect, as distinct from the Byblian and late Punic varieties). They apAs is typical for the Semitic languages, Phoenician words pear in a slightly dierent form depending on whether
are usually built around triconsonantal roots and vowel they follow the plural form masculine nouns (and therechanges are used extensively to express morphological fore are added after a vowel) or not. The former case is
distinctions.
given in brackets with the abbreviation a.V..
Singular:
1st: /-/ , also y (a.V. /-ayy/ y)
4.1 Nominal morphology
2nd masc. /-ka()/ k
Nouns are marked for gender (masculine and feminine), 2nd fem. /-ki()/ k
number (singular, plural and vestiges of the dual) and 3rd masc. /-o/ , Punic , (a.V. /-yu()/ y)
state (absolute and construct, the latter characterizing 3rd fem. /-a/ , Punic (a.V. /-ya()/ y)
nouns followed by their possessors) and also have the cat- Plural:
egory deniteness. There is some evidence for remains 1st: /-o(n}}/ n
of the Proto Semitic genitive grammatical case as well. 2nd masc. unattested
While many of the endings coalesce in the standard or- 2nd fem. unattested
thography, inscriptions in the Latin and Greek alphabet 3rd masc. /-o()m/ m (a.V. /-nm/ nm)
permit the reconstruction of the noun endings (which are 3rd fem. /-e()m/ m (a.V. /-nm/ nm)
also the adjective endings) as follows:[33]
In addition, according to some research, the same written
Masculine: absolute singular -, dual /-m/ m, plural /- forms of the enclitics that are attested after vowels are
m/ m
also found after a singular noun in what must have been
construct singular -, dual /-/ , plural /-/
the genitive case (which ended in /-i/, whereas the plural
Feminine: absolute singular /-(o)t/ t, dual /-tm/ tm, plu- version ended in /-/). In this case, their pronunciation
ral /-t/ t
can be reconstructed somewhat dierently: 1st singular
construct singular /-(o)t/ t, dual */- tn/ tn?, plural /-t/ t /-iya()/ y, 3rd singular masculine and feminine /-iyu()/ y
In late Punic, the nal /-t/ of the feminine was apparently and /-iya()/ y. The 3rd plural singular and feminine must
dropped: mlkt son of the queen or mlkt brother of have pronounced the same in both cases, i.e. /-nm/ nm
the queen rendered in Latin as HIMILCO.[30][34] /n/ was and /-nm/ nm.
also assimilated to following consonants: e.g. t year These enclitic forms vary between the dialects. In the arfor earlier */ant/.[30]
chaic Byblian dialect, the third person forms are h and w
The case endings in general must have been lost between /-/ for the maculine singular (a.V. w /-w/), h /-aha()/
the 9th century BC and the 7th century BC: e.g. the per- for the feminine singular and hm /-hum(ma)/ for the mas-
4 GRAMMAR
The non-nite forms are the innitive construct, the innitive absolute and the active and passive participles. In
the G-stem, the innitive construct would usually be combined with the preposition l- to as in /liqtul/ to kill"; in
contrast, the innitive absolute (qatl[39] ) is mostly used
to strengthen the meaning of a subsequent nite verb with
the same root: pt tpt you will indeed open!",[38] accordingly /*qatl tiqtul/ you will indeed kill!".
Singular:
1st: /qatalt/ qtlty
2nd masc. /qatalt/ qtlt
2nd fem. /qatalt()/ qtlt
3rd masc. /qatl/ qtl
3rd fem. /qatal(t)/ qtlt,[38] also qtl, Punic qtl
5
(yqtl).
the D-stem (functioning as a factitive): the forms
must have been /qittil/ in the sux conjugation,
/yaqattil/ in the prex conjugation, /qattil/ in the imperative and the innitive construct, /qattl/ in the
innitive absolute and /maqattil/ in the participle.
The characteristic doubling of the middle consonant
is only identiable in foreign alphabet transcriptions.
the C-stem (functioning as a causative): the original *ha- prex has produced *yi- rather than the
Hebrew *hi-. The forms were apparently /yiqtil/ in
the sux conjugation (/iqtil/ in late Punic), /yaqtil/
in the prex conjugation, and the innitive is also
/yaqtil/, while the participle was probably /maqtil/
or, in late Punic at least, /miqtil/.[41]
Most of the stems apparently also had passive and reexive counterparts, the former diering through vowels,
the latter also through the inx -t-. The G stem passive 7 Survival and inuences of Punic
is attested as qytl, /qytal/ < */qutal/.;[38] t-stems can be
reconstructed as /yitqatil/ ytqtl (tG) and /yiqtattil/ (Dt) The signicantly divergent later-form of the language
yqttl.[42]
that was spoken in the Tyrian Phoenician colony of
Carthage is known as Punic; it remained in use there
for considerably longer than Phoenician did in Phoenicia
4.3 Prepositions and particles
itself, arguably surviving into Augustine's time. It may
Some prepositions are always prexed to nouns, deleting have even survived the Arabic conquest of North Africa:
the initial /h/ of the denite article if present: such are the geographer al-Bakr describes a people speaking a
b- in, l- to, for, k- as and m- /min/ from. They language that was not Berber, Latin or Coptic in the city
where spoken Punic
are sometimes found in forms extended through the addi- of Sirte in northern Libya, a region
[47]
However
it is likely that
survived
well
past
written
use.
tion of -n or -t. Other prepositions are not like this, e.g.l
Arabization
of
the
Punics
was
facilitated
by their lanupon, .d until, r after, tt under, b(y)n beguage
belonging
to
the
same
group
(the
Semitic
languages
tween. New prepositions are formed with nouns: lpn
group)
as
that
of
the
conquerors,
and
thus
having
many
in front of, from l- to and pn face. There is spegrammatical
and
lexical
similarities.
cial preposited marker of a denite object yt (/iyyt/?),
which, unlike Hebrew, is clearly distinct from the preposition t (/itt/). The most common negative marker is bl
(/bal/), negating verbs, but sometimes also nouns; another
one is y (//), expressing both non-existence and negation of verbs. Negative commands / prohibitions are expressed with l (/al/). Lest is lm. Some common conjunctions are w (originally perhaps /wa-?/, but certainly
/u-/ in Late Punic), and m (/im/), when, and k (/k/),
that; because; when. There was also a conjunction ()p
(/ap/"also. l- (/l, li/) could (rarely) be used to introduce
desiderative constructions (may he do X!"). l- could also
introduce vocatives. Both prepositions and conjunctions
could form compounds.[43]
Syntax
11
Surviving examples
Ahiram
Bodashtart
ineky inscription
Cippi of Melqart
Eshmunazar
Karatepe
Kilamuwa Stela
Nora Stone
Pyrgi Tablets
Temple of Eshmun
See also
Punic language
Phoenician alphabet
Extinct language
List of extinct languages of Asia
REFERENCES
10
Notes
11
References
[18] Jongeling, K., Robert M. Kerr. 2005. Late Punic epigraphy: an introduction to the study of Neo-Punic and
Latino-Punic Inscriptions
[19] Segert, Stanislav. Phoenician and the Eastern Canaanite languages. In Robert Hetzron, ed., The Semitic Languages. P. 175
[36] Segert, Stanislav. 2007. Phoenician and Punic Morphology. In Morphologies of Asia and Africa. Morphologies
of Asia and Africa. ed. by Alan S. Kaye. P.80
[37] The vocalized reconstructions in the schemes below follow chiey Hackett, Joe Ann. 2008. Phoenician and
Punic. In: The Ancient Languages of Syria-Palestine and
Arabia (ed. Roger D. Woodard). The spellings are based
mostly on Segert, Stanislav. 2007. Phoenician and Punic
Morphology. In Morphologies of Asia and Africa. Morphologies of Asia and Africa. ed. by Alan S. Kaye. P.82
[38] Segert, Stanislav. 2007. Phoenician and Punic Morphology. In Morphologies of Asia and Africa. Morphologies
of Asia and Africa. ed. by Alan S. Kaye. P.82
[23] Kerr, Robert M. 2010. Latino-Punic Epigraphy: A Descriptive Study of the Inscriptions. P.126
[24] Cf. Hackett, Joe Ann. 2008. Phoenician and Punic. In:
The Ancient Languages of Syria-Palestine and Arabia (ed.
Roger D. Woodard). P.87
[25] Segert, Stanislav. Phoenician and the Eastern Canaanite languages. In Robert Hetzron, ed., The Semitic Languages.
[26] , .. 2009.
.
: . .
. . , ..
. P.283
[27] Kerr, Robert M. 2010 Latino-Punic Epigraphy: A Descriptive Study of the Inscriptions. P.105 .
[28] Segert, Stanislav. 1997. Phoenician and Punic phonology. In Phonologies of Asia and Africa: (including the
Caucasus), ed. Alan S. Kaye, Peter T. Daniels. P.60.
[29] Cf. Hackett, Joe Ann. 2008. Phoenician and Punic. In:
The Ancient Languages of Syria-Palestine and Arabia (ed.
Roger D. Woodard). P.88
[30] Segert, Stanislav. 1997. Phoenician and Punic phonology. In Phonologies of Asia and Africa: (including the
Caucasus), ed. Alan S. Kaye, Peter T. Daniels. P.61.
[40] , .. 2009.
.
: . .
. . , ..
. P.293
[41] Hackett, Joe Ann. 2008. Phoenician and Punic. In:
The Ancient Languages of Syria-Palestine and Arabia (ed.
Roger D. Woodard). P.97.
[42] Hackett, Joe Ann. 2008. Phoenician and Punic. In:
The Ancient Languages of Syria-Palestine and Arabia (ed.
Roger D. Woodard). P.99.
[43] Hackett, Joe Ann. 2008. Phoenician and Punic. In:
The Ancient Languages of Syria-Palestine and Arabia (ed.
Roger D. Woodard). P.98
[44] Booth, Scott W. (2007). Using corpus linguistics to address some questiongs of Phoenician grammar and syntax
found in the Kulamuwa inscription (PDF). p. 196.
[45] Alfabeto fenicio.
Proel (Promotora Espaola de
Lingstica) (in Spanish). Retrieved 5 July 2011.
[46] . (1967). .
: .
[47]
12 Further reading
Krahmalkov, Charles R. (2001), A PhoenicianPunic Grammar, Handbook of Oriental Studies,
Section 1 54, Leiden, Boston & Kln: Brill Publishing, ISBN 90-04-11771-7.
J. Friedrich W. Rllig (1999). Phnizischpunische Grammatik (III ed., neu bearbeitet von
M.G. Amadasi Guzzo unter Mitarbeit von W.R.
Meyer)
12 FURTHER READING
Lehmann, Reinhard G. (2013). Wilhelm Gesenius and the Rise of Phoenician Philology (PDF).
Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft (Berlin / Boston: De Gruyter) 427: 209
266.
Barthlemy, Jean-Jacques (1764). Rexions sur
quelques monuments Phniciens, et sur les alphabets qui en rsultent. Mmoires de littrature, tirs
des registres de lacadmie royale des inscriptions et
belles-lettres 30: 405427.
Gesenius, Wilhelm (1837). Scriptur linguque
phoenici monumenta quotquot supersunt edita et
inedita ad autographorum optimorumque exemplorum dem edidit additisque de scriptura et lingua
phoenicum commentariis. Leipzig.
13
13.1
13.2
Images
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Rutas_comerciales_
13.3
Content license