It's probably worth bearing in mind that all the NE Semitic languages use a
dual or plural form for Egypt (מצרים - Hebrew/Aramaic, מצרם -
Ugaritic/Phoenician, מצרין in Aramaic). The plural (I'm only certain of the
Syriac as Jewish Aramaic has a 'dual' /miSrayin/ that might well be Hebraizing
- perhaps Mandaic would give a vocalised clue) could easily be a reformulation
of an older dual, while the consonantal Ugaritic and Phoenician orthographies
leave the name frustratingly ambiguous in these languages, though Ugaritic at
least had a functioning dual. I wonder whether it appears at all in later
neo-Punic texts? Still, to me this set of duals and plurals together suggests
that in Hebrew a fossilised dual is far more likely than some locative here.
It's interesting that the nisba adjective is מצרי in all of them (מצריא
miSrāyā in the definite in Syriac).
As for Arabic's singular form (miSru), while your idea is plausible, it could
just as easily be an earlier borrowing from Akkadian (muSri or miS(i)r), or
have some other explanation. Arabian dealings with—or at least consciousness
of—the major power to their West are going to be as ancient as the Canaanites',
even if the early proto-Arabic of such dealings is not documented.
John Leake
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
