Article published in:
Writing Systems: Past, present (… and future?)
Edited by Terry Joyce and Robert Crellin
[Written Language & Literacy 22:2] 2019
► pp. 198–222

Writing vowels in Punic

From morphography to phonography

| University of Cambridge

This paper traces the employment of original Phoenician-Punic guttural graphemes, <ˀ>, <ˁ>, <h>, and <ḥ>, to represent vowel phonemes in later Punic. Three typologically distinct treatments are identified: (1) morphographic, where the grapheme <ˀ> indicates the etymological glottal stop /ˀ/ (its original function) as well as vowel morphemes without specifying their phonological character; (2) morpho-phonographic, where guttural graphemes continue to indicate etymological guttural consonants, but now both the presence of a vowel morpheme and (potentially) the vowel quality of that morpheme; and (3) phonographic, where the same set of guttural graphemes serve to denote vowel phonemes only, and do not any longer indicate guttural consonants. The threefold division is argued for on the basis of the Late Punic language written in Punic and Neopunic scripts. Despite the availability of dedicated vowel graphemes, these are not obligatorily written in any period of written Punic. It is suggested that a typologically significant path of development may be observed across these three uses of guttural graphemes, with (3) the endpoint of a development from morphography to phonography.

Keywords: orthography, Phoenician-Punic, Neopunic, gutturals, script, morphography, phonography, abjad, alphabet
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Writing systems terminology
  • 3.Representing vowels with guttural graphemes
  • 4.Punic language, scripts and orthographies
  • 5.Procedure for identifying the function of guttural graphemes
  • 6.Orthographies of vowel notation in Punic
    • 6.1Morphographic vowel representation
    • 6.2Morpho-phonographic vowel representation
    • 6.3Phonographic vowel representation
  • 7.Discerning a trajectory of development from morphography to phonography
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations and symbols
  • References
Published online: 30 March 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.00026.cre
References

References

Amadasi Guzzo
(2014) Punic scripts. In Jo Ann Hackett & Walter E. Aufrecht (eds.), “An eye for form”: Epigraphic essays in honor of Frank Moore Cross, 314–333. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Bauer, Thomas
(1996) Arabic writing. In Peter T. Daniels & William Bright (eds.), The world’s writing systems, 559–568. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coulmas, Florian
(1996) Typology of writing systems. In Hartmut Günther & Otto Ludwig (eds.), Schrift und Schriftlichkeit [Writing and its use], Vol. 21, 1380–1387. ( Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 10.) Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Crellin, Robert & Tamponi, Lucia
forthc.). Vowel quantity and quality in Neo-Punic and Latin inscriptions from Africa and Sardinia. In Geoffrey Khan and Aaron Hornkohl eds. Studies in Semitic vocalizations and reading traditions Cambridge University of Cambridge & Open Book
Daniels, Peter T.
(1990) Fundamentals of grammatology. Journal of the American Oriental Society 110(4): 727–731. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1996a) Aramaic scripts for Aramaic languages. In Peter T. Daniels & William Bright (eds.), The world’s writing systems, 499–504. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(1996b) Mandaic. In Peter T. Daniels & William Bright (eds.), The world’s writing systems, 511–514. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Daniels, Peter T. & William Bright
(eds.) (1996) The world’s writing systems. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Donner, Herbert & Wolfgang Röllig
(1968) Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. 2nd edn. vol. 21. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
(2002) Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. 5th edn. vol. 11. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.Google Scholar
Faber, Alice
(1992) Phonemic segmentation as epiphenomenon: Evidence from the history of alphabetic writing. In Pamela Downing, Susan D. Lima, and Michael Noonan (eds.), The linguistics of literacy. ( Typological Studies in Language, 21.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ferjaoui, Ahmed
(2007) L’onomastique dans les inscriptions néopuniques de l’Afrique à l’époque romaine. Orientalia 76 (1): 33–46.Google Scholar
Friedrich, Johannes, Wolfgang Röllig & Maria Giulia Amadasi Guzzo
(1999) Phönizisch-Punische Grammatik. ( Analecta Orientalia, 55.) 3rd edn. Rome: Pontificio Instituto Biblico.Google Scholar
Gelb, Ignace J.
(1963) A study of writing: The foundations of grammatology. 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gnanadesikan, Amalia E.
(2017) Towards a typology of phonemic scripts. Writing Systems Research 9 (1): 14–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hackett, Jo Ann
(2004) Phoenician and Punic. In Roger D. Woodard (ed.), The Cambridge encyclopedia of the world’s ancient languages, 365–385. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2008) Phoenician and Punic. In Roger D. Woodard (ed.), The ancient languages of Syria-Palestine and Arabia, 82–102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Häberl, Charles G.
(2006) Iranian scripts for Aramaic languages: The origin of the Mandaic script. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 3411: 53–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoftijzer, Jacob & Karel Jongeling
(eds.) (1995) Dictionary of the North-West Semitic inscriptions. 21 vols. ( Handbuch der Orientalistik, 21.) Leiden & New York: Brill.Google Scholar
Jongeling, Karel
(1984) Names in Neo-Punic Inscriptions. (PhD dissertation). University of Groningen.Google Scholar
(2003) Use of vowel letters in Neo-Punic texts from Guelma. Dutch Studies on Near Eastern Languages and Literatures 5(1–2): 117–136.Google Scholar
(ed.) (2008) Handbook of Neo-Punic inscriptions. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Jongeling, Karel & Robert M. Kerr
(eds.) (2005) Late Punic epigraphy: An introduction to the study of Neo-Punic and Latino-Punic inscriptions. Tübingen: Mohr SiebeckGoogle Scholar
Kerr, Robert M.
(2010) Latino-Punic epigraphy: A descriptive study of the inscriptions. ( Forschungen zum Alten Testament , 42.) Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Phoenician-Punic: The view backward – phonology versus paleography. In Robert D. Holmstedt & Aaron Schade (eds.), Linguistic studies in Phoenician in memory of J. Brian Peckham, 9–29. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
(2014) Punic erections: A neglected field of study – some grammatical remarks. KUSATU 171: 157–193.Google Scholar
(2018) In search of the historical Moloch. In Robert M. Kerr, Robert Miller II & Philip C. Schmitz (eds.), “His word soars above him”: Biblical and North-West Semitic studies presented to Professor Charles R. Krahmalkov, 59–80. Ann Arbor, Mich.Google Scholar
Krahmalkov, Charles R.
(2001) A Phoenician-Punic grammar. ( Handbuch der Orientalistik, 54). Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Reinhard G.
(2012) 27-30-22-26 – How many letters needs and alphabet? The case of Semitic. In Alex de Voogt and Joachim Friedrich Quack (eds.), The idea of writing: Writing across borders, 11–52. Leiden & Boston: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Macuch, Rudolf
(1965) Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Menken, Daniel Lee
(1981) Neopunic orthography. (PhD dissertation). Harvard University.Google Scholar
Millar, Fergus
(1968) Local cultures in the Roman Empire: Libyan, Punic and Latin in Roman Africa. The Journal of Roman Studies 581: 126–134. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Muraoka, Takamitsu
(1997) Classical Syriac: A basic grammar with a chrestomathy. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Nöldeke, Theodor
(2003 [1904]) Compendious Syriac grammar, translated from the second German edition by James A. Crichton. Eugene, Ore.: Wipf and Stock.Google Scholar
O’Connor, Michael Patrick
(1996) Epigraphic Semitic scripts. In Peter T. Daniels & William Bright (eds.), The world’s writing systems, 88–107. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Peckham, J. Brian
(1968) The development of the late Phoenician scripts. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey
(2015) Writing systems. 2nd rev. edn. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Smelik, Klaas A. D.
(1995) Moloch, Molekh, or molk-sacrifice? A reassessment of the evidence concerning the Hebrew term Molekh. Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 9(1): 133–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sznycer, Maurice
(1999) Le punique en afrique du nord à l’époque romaine d’après les témoignages épigraphiques. In Serge Lancel (ed.), Numismatique, langues, écritures et arts du livre, spécificité des arts figurés: actes du VIIe colloque international réunis dans le cadre du 121e congrès des Sociétés historiques et scientifiques, Nice, 21 au 31 octobre 1996, 171–181. Paris: Éditions du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques.Google Scholar
Wilson, Andrew
(2012) Neo-Punic and Latin inscriptions in Roman North Africa: Function and display. In Alex Mullen & Patrick James (eds.), Multilingualism in the Graeco-Roman worlds, 265–316. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zamora López, José Ángel
(2012) La escritura en el period púnico tardío: La epigrafía neopúnica en Hispania como product histórico. In Bartolomé Mora Serrano & Gonzalo Cruz Andreotti (eds.), La etapa neopúnica en Hispania y el Mediterráneo centro occidental: identidades compartidas, 113–140. ( Historia y Geografía, 246.) Seville: Secretariado de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Sevilla.Google Scholar
Zevit, Ziony
(1980) Matres lectionis in ancient Hebrew epigraphs. ( American Schools of Oriental Research, 2.) Cambridge, Mass: American Schools of Oriental Research.Google Scholar
Ziadeh, Farhat J. & R. Bayly Winder
(1957) An introduction to modern Arabic. Princeton & London: Princeton University Press & Oxford University Press.Google Scholar