CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 0Ancient Near East HistoryBotanical Research and ChemistryHistorical and Linguistic Studies

Image of the Dragon in RS 16.266 (= KTU1–3 1.83)

Open access
Richey, Madadh·2021·Journal of the American Oriental Society
DOI 10.7817/jameroriesoci.140.2.0381
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The fragmentary Ugaritic text RS 16.266 (= KTU1–3 1.83) contains a number of lexical and other problems exacerbated by the state of the tablet and difficulties in defining the plot and characters involved in the text. One of these lexical issues involves the analysis of two verbs that appear to be from the root √ṯrp. In the present paper, I survey previous hypotheses as to the etymology and semantics of this verb and contrast the deficiencies of these with the merits of identifying a thus far unrecognized cognate set in lexemes from the root √trp in later Aramaic dialects, i.e., Syriac, Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, and Mandaic. The verbs in this cognate set have the semantics ‘to strike (esp. of a snake)’, and thus clarify both the activity and morphology of the fearsome dragon described in RS 16.266.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The article argues that the problematic Ugaritic root √trp in RS 16.266 (= KTU 1.83) is best explained through cognates in Syriac, Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, and Mandaic, where the root denotes striking, especially when a snake is the subject. This reading supports a translation of the fragment as describing Yammu in draconic form, striking and licking with muzzle, tongues, and tails.

Key findings

  • The author rejects earlier etymologies for Ugaritic √trp—such as “to burn,” “to scatter,” or Arabic √tfr—as phonologically or semantically weak, and instead proposes a cognate set in later Eastern Aramaic: Syriac √trp, Jewish Babylonian Aramaic תורפתא (“incision” or “prick”) in b.Ketubot 39b, and Mandaic √trp used of a snake.
  • Mandaic evidence is central: in the Alf Trisar Šuialia, a snake is the subject of √trp and the result is a wound; in the Šapta dPišra dAinia, the phrase “May the snake strike you” appears alongside scorpion stings and centipede bites, supporting the sense of a snake’s attack.
  • The author reads mḫnm as a body part, “muzzle” or “nose” (cognate with Arabic maḫannat), rather than a toponym, and divides lines 4'–7' into three parallel clauses involving Yammu. The resulting translation has Yammu commanded to strike with his muzzle, lick the heavens with his tongues, and strike with his tails.
  • Yammu is identified with Tunnanu, the dragon in line 8', and is described as a composite creature with muzzle, tongues, and tails; the text also addresses Yammu/Naharu in lines 11'–12'.

Methods

  • Philological and lexicographical analysis of RS 16.266 (= KTU 1.83), focusing on the two verbs from √trp in lines 4' and 6', with a survey of previous hypotheses and a new cognate proposal.
  • Comparative evidence drawn from Syriac, Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, and Mandaic dictionaries, manuscripts, and editions, including Bar Bahlul, Al-Lobab, b.Ketubot 39b manuscripts, the Alf Trisar Šuialia, and the Šapta dPišra dAinia.
  • The proposed semantics are applied to clause division, verbal morphology, and translation; no quantitative or experimental analysis is used.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the Ugaritic tablet is fragmentary, with lines 1'–2' nearly lost and a break at line 3', leaving the plot, characters, and genre uncertain and making final determinations difficult.
  • It notes unresolved morphosyntax: prefix-conjugation verbs after imperatives could be jussive or indicative; √lḥk is rare in Ugaritic; and the Mandaic lexicon is poorly understood, with many manuscript sources unpublished or underpublished.
  • Evident from the text: the argument relies on late, laconic, or poorly attested Aramaic glosses and on manuscripts/editions with collation and transliteration problems; the cognate set also depends on the absence of contrary *√trp reflexes in other Semitic languages.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7817/jameroriesoci.140.2.0381

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 39 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingreasoning

    No reflexes of *√trp have been found that would invalidate the hypothesis that Ugaritic √trp belongs to the cognate set of *√θrp.

    “At present, though, no such *√trp reflexes have been found to invalidate the hypothesis outlined here.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingcitation

    Syriac ܬܪܦ is a poorly attested verb.

    “Moving from least to most illuminating, one can begin with Syriac ‫,ܬܪܦ‬ a poorly attested verb.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Payne-Smith (1901: 4507)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Findingnone given

    Mandaic includes verbal instantiations of √trp.

    “Again fortunately, yet another branch of Eastern Aramaic, Mandaic, does include verbal instantiations of √trp that are highly interesting and important for the present discussion.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    A parallel passage in Alf Trisar Šuialia associates a generic snake's attack with Leviathan: the one attacked by a snake will be marked with Leviathan's sign.

    “A parallel passage in the Alf Trisar Šuialia 28 does not include the verb √trp, but shows that association of the generic {hiuia}”
    • Also stated in: § 2' · plain
      “brušumh dliuatan etiršim}”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingreasoning

    The verbs √š-t and √rks in this text have as their subjects either individuals addressed or described as the primary actor.

    “These verbs have as their subjects either individuals addressed (2.m.s./2.f.s./2.m.p./2.f.p.) or described (3.f.s./3.m.p./3.f.p.) as the primary actor.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 24
  • May combine two claims. 30
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 6

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    This clause division gives each clause a verb and roughly equal clause lengths, with clauses A and C sharing parallel constituents: body part, verb, and the theonym ym Yammu.

    “As already noted, this division results in each clause having a verb.It also results in clauses of roughly equal length, with clauses (A) and (C) having parallel constituents”
    • Also stated in: § 2' · plain
      “(A 1 /C 3 ) Body Part, (A 2 /C 1 ) verB, and (A 3 /C 2 ) theonym {ym} Yammu.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The Ugaritic {ym} in the text is the theonym Yammu.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingown data

    RS 16.266 contains lexical and other problems caused by the tablet's condition and by uncertainty about its plot and characters.

    “The fragmentary Ugaritic text RS 16.266 (= KTU 1-3 1.83) contains a number of lexical and other problems exacerbated by the state of the tablet and difficulties in defining the plot and characters involved in the text.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Two verbs in RS 16.266, at lines 4' and 6', appear to derive from the root √trp.

    “One of these lexical issues involves the analysis of two verbs that appear to be from the root √trp.”
    • Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
      “These occur in ll.4' and 6' of the text and are reproduced here in context:”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    In the Alf Trisar Šuialia passage, the subject of {tariplh} is {hiuia} 'snake'; the act represented by √trp can be lethal but not necessarily immediately, and its result is a {mhita} 'wound'.

    “That the subject of {tariplh} 27 is {hiuia}”
    • Also stated in: § 2' · plain
      “In this Mandaic passage, we see that the act represented by √trp is potentially lethal, but not necessarily right away.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    {trp}, {tlḥk}, and {ttrp} are certainly verbs.

    “Beginning from the observation that {trp} (l.4'), {tlḥk} (l.5'), and {ttrp} (l.6') are certainly verbs”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingnone given

    Jewish Babylonian Aramaic has the noun תורפתא 'incision' in two manuscripts of b.Ketubot 39b.

    “One finds in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic the noun ‫תורפתא‬”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The root √lḥk is rare in Ugaritic; its sole other attestation, RIH 78/26:8, is broken and unclear.

    “Ugaritic √lḥk is rare.The only other occurrence of this root is at RIH 78/26:8 (= KTU 2-3 1.176), a fragmentary possibly mythological text, where {yt .lḥk [} appears immediately before the break in an otherwise unclear context.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites KTU 2-3 1.176

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The verbs in lines 4'-6' are respectively trp turup G Impv m.s.√trp; tlḥk tilaḥḥik(u) D PC 2.m.s.√lḥk; and ttrp tatrup(u) G PC 2.m.s.√trp.

    “The verbs are, respectively, {trp} (l.4') turup G Impv m.s.√trp; {tlḥk} (l.5') tilaḥḥik(u) D PC (Jussive?)35 2.m.s.√lḥk; and {ttrp} (l.6') tatrup(u) G PC (Jussive?)2.m.s.√trp.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: A D-stem morphological analysis of the relevant verb is correct.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    In the Bavarian State Library manuscript, the relevant lexeme has an erroneous {s} and a superscripted {r}; context and parallel printed editions show that the noun means 'prick' or similar.

    “(The {s} in this lexeme is in error; an {r} is superscripted to its left.)”
    • Also stated in: § 2' · boosted
      “The context of the occurrence and the parallel lexemes in printed editions together make it clear that the noun ‫תורפתא‬ in the manuscripts means”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In line 8' of RS 16.266, Yammu/Tunnanu is placed (√š-t) and bound (√rks) to the mountain.

    “and is there placed (√š-t) and bound (√rks) to the mountain.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The relevant portion of Šapta dPišra dAinia is a threatening address to the evil eye that lists a snake, scorpion, centipede, goose, and sword, each with a verb of destruction.

    “The relevant portion of the text, a threatening address to the evil eye, reads: hiuia tariplik uarqba mgarṣalik unandala mnaktalik uauaza mnaktalik usipa pasiqlik”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The Arabic noun maḫannat- 'nose' is well attested and semantically clear.

    “The Arabic-English compendium of E. W. Lane (1863-93: 814a-b) indeed lists this noun.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites E. W. Lane (1863-93: 814a-b)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Scholars usually call KTU 1.83 a myth or mythological, though some also link it to incantation.

    “Most authors describe this text as a”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites de Moor 1987: 181-82 source
    • cites Pitard 1998: 273 source
    • cites Mazzini 2003: 400-1

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Parker, Pitard, Dijkstra, Tropper, and Wyatt support taking the {y}s as vocatives.

    “Interpretation of these {y}s as vocative is now supported by Parker (1997: 192); Pitard (1998: 278); Dijkstra (1999: 152); Tropper (2000Tropper ( /2012: 318 [ §54.221b]: 318 [ §54.221b]); and Wyatt (1998/2002: 369 n. 10).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Parker 1997: 192

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Pitard 1998: 278 source
    • cites Tropper 2000/2012: 318

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premiseown data

    Two manuscripts of Šapta dPišra dAinia are known, held in the Bodleian Library's Drower Collection as DC 21 and DC 29.

    “Two manuscripts of this composition are known; these are held in the Drower Collection of the Bodleian Library as DC 21 and 29.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Tarelko announced a fresh translation and transliteration; it seems to have appeared, but the author could not consult it.

    “M. Tarelko (1999Tarelko ( -2000) ) thus promised”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Tarelko 1999-2000

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Tarelko 2011

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Whether prefix-conjugation verbs after imperatives are jussive or indicative cannot be resolved here.

    “These interrogative marks represent a morpho-syntactic problem that cannot be solved in the present context: do prefix-conjugation verbs following imperatives-that seem, semantically, to continue instruction-represent jussives (yaqṭul) or indicatives (yaqṭulu)?”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The semantics required by the 'burn' etymology are difficult: the watery enemy cannot easily be burned, and generic 'defeat' is not attested for *√s2rp.

    “The semantics required by this etymology are, if anything, more difficult.”
    • Also stated in: § 2' · plain
      “Generic”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Payne-Smith cites only Bar Bahlul's Syriac-Arabic lexicon for Syriac tɔrep (√trp D), which gives two meanings: 'to sink/submerge' and 'to ascribe/impute'.

    “Payne-Smith (1901: 4507) is able to cite for ‫ܦ‬ ܸ ‫ܪ‬ ܵ ‫ܬ‬ tɔrep (√trp D) only the lexicographical treatment in Bar Bahlul's Syriac-Arabic lexicon”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Payne-Smith (1901: 4507)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Bar Bahlul's Syriac-Arabic lexicon (tenth century ce; ed.R. Duval 1901Duval : 2090)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    For now, this study's transliteration is based on Drower's first edition, despite its faults.

    “Transliteration thus follows, for the present, Drower's initial foray, faulty as this may be.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Drower 1937

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Drower 1938

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • Rests on an assumption: Drower's transliteration of Šapta dPišra dAinia, despite its faults, is adequate for the present analysis.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    Drower's early edition of Šapta dPišra dAinia is unclear and not fully authoritative, owing to her inexperience in Mandaic and in scholarly publishing.

    “Drower (1937;1938) edited Šapta dPišra dAinia early on, but her lack of experience with Mandaic particularly and with the norms of scholarly publication generally resulted in the publication being less than clear and authoritative in numerous respects.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Drower 1937

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Drower 1938

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Because √lḥk is so rare in Ugaritic, it is impossible to tell whether it also developed the sense 'eat' or 'consume'; that remains possible but unproven.

    “Given the rarity of attestation of √lḥk in Ugaritic, one cannot say whether the same semantic extension took place in this language; this is possible but not demonstrable.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The semantics of Arabic √tfr are specific and difficult to adapt to the Ugaritic context; its core involves the anatomical location tafar, the area underneath an animal's tail.

    “Speaking against this hypothesis, though, is the fact that the semantics of Arabic ‫ثفر‬ √tfr are quite specific and difficult to adapt to the apparent requirements of the Ugaritic context.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Lane 1863-93: 340a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites M. Fīrūzābādī's al-Qāmūs

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationcitation

    The best English equivalent for √trp is 'to strike,' with the semantic components of rapid bodily extension and biting contact with the object attacked.

    “The best English equivalent is perhaps something like”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Drower and Macuch 1963: 490b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisenone given

    How different scholars understand this point depends mostly on how they read √trp and the surrounding nouns.

    “The understanding of various authors on this point is in large part dependent on their interpretations of the semantics of √trp and various other nouns in the vicinity.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The contextual approach to translating {trp} is valid, but one often finds at least one cognate lexeme to ground a contextual hypothesis; this proves true for √trp in later Aramaic dialects.

    “Of course, the contextual approach is perfectly valid.At the same time, the breadth and density of attestation of Semitic languages have usually meant that one often finds at least one cognate lexeme by which to ground a contextual hypothesis.18 As it turns out, this proves true even for the enigmatic root √trp, so long as one takes the time to look closely at later Aramaic dialects, namely Syriac”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Assyriologists connect šurīpu either to šarāpu 'to burn' by semantic polarity or to šarbu 'rainy season, cold' and related lexemes.

    “Assyriologists connect it to šarāpu”
    • Also stated in: § 2' · plain
      “or to šarbu”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites von Soden 1981: 1185a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites CAD Š/2 [1992] 60

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given

    The toponym interpretation of {mḫnm} generally produces awkward clause divisions that multiply difficulties in lines 4'b-7'.

    “But this has generally produced awkward clause divisions that multiply difficulties in ll.4'b-7'.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premiseown data

    No facsimile accompanies Drower's edition, so her text cannot be verified.

    “The text cannot be checked, either, since no facsimile is provided.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The 'driving' semantics of Arabic √tfr are plausibly an extension based on the use of the crupper in horse driving.

    “are plausibly an extension based on employment of the crupper in horse driving.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The hypothesis that Ugaritic √trp is cognate with biblical Hebrew שׂרף, Aramaic √śrp, and Akkadian šarāpu 'to burn' requires Ugaritic {t} to represent proto-Semitic *s2, a correspondence that is almost unparalleled.

    “This requires that Ugaritic {t} represent the reflex of proto-Semitic *s 2 (= ɬ = ś), which is almost unparalleled.”
    • Also stated in: § 2' · boosted
      “The phonological difficulty already mentioned-Ugaritic {t} for the reflex of proto-Semitic *s 2 -is already acute.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Tropper takes all these prefix-conjugation verbs as jussive, while Pardee notes that they lack orthographic jussive marking and that some energic morphemes may rule that out.

    “In brief, Tropper (2000Tropper ( /2012: 723-24 [ §77.324]: 723-24 [ §77.324]) opts for interpretation of all of these as jussives, but Pardee (2003-4: 360-61) points out that none are orthographically marked as such, and some have energic morphemes that may preclude such an analysis.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Tropper 2000/2012: 723-24

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Pardee 2003-4: 360-61

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Tropper cites two possible examples of Ugaritic {t} corresponding to proto-Semitic *s2, √tˁr and {ḫrmtt}, and notes that such irregular correspondences occur in lexemes with resonants, especially r.

    “J. Tropper (2000Tropper ( /2012: 110 [ §32.144.13]: 110 [ §32.144.13])does cite two possible examples of Ugaritic {t} for the reflex of *s 2 :”
    • Also stated in: § 2' · plain
      “He also draws attention to the fact that both of these irregular correspondences-as well as many of those in which {t} seems to represent the reflex of *s 1 -occur in lexemes with resonants, especially r.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites J. Tropper (2000/2012: 110 [ §32.144.13])

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    It is reasonable to understand תורפתא as a nominal instantiation of root √trp; if √trp occurred verbally in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, it would likely mean 'to prick'.

    “Furthermore, it is reasonable to understand ‫תורפתא‬ as a nominal instantiation of a root √trp.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Because RS 16.266 is fragmentary, one cannot settle its genre or identify all its participants with confidence.

    “The fragmentary nature of the text still makes final determinations regarding genre 36 and other participants very difficult.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Lines 4'-7' of RS 16.266 are best interpreted as commanding Yammu to strike with his muzzle, lick the heavens with his tongues, and strike with his tails.

    “(4') maḫannêma turup Yammi”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Drower does not identify which manuscript underlies her transliteration, and she herself concedes that many interpretive points are wrong.

    “The source (DC 21? DC 29? Both?) for the transliteration offered is unspecified, and numerous points of interpretation are obviously incorrect, even by Drower's (1953: 38) own admission.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Drower 1953: 38 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The passage presents Yammu in dragon form and depicts his mixed body and the fearsome deed he can do.

    “The text is thus shown to address Yammu in his draconic guise and to describe, incidentally, his fearsome composite morphology and the frightening action he is capable of performing.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Drower and Macuch's rendering 'to bite' is generally right, though in English it may not signal the snake as subject as strongly as desired.

    “Drower and Macuch's (1963: 490b)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Drower and Macuch 1963: 490b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    del Olmo Lete has recently challenged the view that the text is incantatory, mainly objecting to arguments based on lexical markers of that genre.

    “One can note also that del Olmo Lete (2014: 93) has recently disputed the text's incantatory character; his objections primarily address those who would identify lexical markers of the incantatory genre.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites del Olmo Lete 2014: 93 source
40 of 40

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    RS 16.266 describes a fearsome dragon whose activity involves √trp.

    “the fearsome dragon described in RS 16.266”
    “the activity and morphology of the fearsome dragon described in RS 16.266”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The Ugaritic {ym} in the text is the theonym Yammu.

    “theonym {ym} Yammu”
    “ttrp ym .dnbtm”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    A D-stem morphological analysis of the relevant verb is correct.

    “A D-stem morphological analysis is assumed here from the prevalence of the Piel in biblical Hebrew (all occurrences but the infinitive construct at Num. 22.4, the passage cited above).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Drower's transliteration of Šapta dPišra dAinia, despite its faults, is adequate for the present analysis.

    “Transliteration thus follows, for the present, Drower's initial foray, faulty as this may be.”
4 of 4

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • The stated manuscript-line range omits the final quoted line

    Minor

    The note locates its transliteration in manuscript lines 1536-37, but the transliterated passage explicitly continues into line 1538.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 44 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. 05m. It is held at the National Museum of Damascus, inventory number DO 4340. The editio princeps is C. Virolleaud 1957: 12 (PRU II no. 3), with hand copy only. Collations were undertaken by Dennis Pardee (April 23, 1981), by Wayne Pitard (with Theodore J. Lewis, in March 1995), results of which-including excellent, indeed the only published, photographs and new hand copies-are published in Pitard 1998, and by Pierre Bordreuil and Dennis Pardee (in May 1996). Pardee (written communication, June 26, 2017) has kindly shared with me his notes taken during both collations as well as personal photographs of the text. The text is accessible in transliteration in KTU 1-3 (M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín 1976: 96; 1995: 101; 2013: 103 [all no. 1., J. C. L. Gibson 1978: 136-37, and in the final version of C. Gordon's Textbook (Gordon 1965/1998: 216a). A large number of studies and translations have been published. The issue of the semantics and etymology of {šbm} has received the most discussion; for this problem in particular, see J. Barr 1973, esp. 35-37 (= ibid. 1987: 407-9);
  2. Ugaritic √trp is cognate with Arabic ‫ثفر‬ √tfr. Like the preceding hypothesis, this requires metathesis, here of the R 2 < > R 3 variety, either in Ugaritic (*√θpr > √trp) or in Ara- bic (*√θrp > √tfr). This is at least a more common metathetic process, especially when r is involved. 17 Dictionaries of the classical language (compiled and translated in Lane 1863-93: 339c) record verbal instantiations of ‫ثفر‬ √tfr as occurring in stems IV (ˀafˁala) "to bind, tie, fasten" and X (ˀistafˁala) "to put [something] between (or around) one's thighs." Tropper (2000: 165; 2012: 165) suggests for Ugaritic √trp "peitschte"; he cites only A. Wahrmund's 13. Loewenstamm (1969: 100; transl. ibid. 1980: 358) skips from a translation of {lšnm . tlḥk / (6') šmm} as ‫שמים"‬ ‫תלחכנה‬ ‫"לשונות‬ (perhaps with a variation thereon) ‫למרום"‪to‬‬ ‫תרכס‬ ‫תשית‬ ‫למחסום‬ ‫)אשר(‬ ‫התנין‬ ‫,"זנבות‬ which serves to translate {dnbtm} and following. {ttrp / (7') ym} is thus not translated, so one cannot be sure of Loewen- stamm's precise analysis here, except that these two lexemes presumably constitute a clause.
  3. Astour, M. C. 1975. Place Names. In Ras Shamra Parallels. The Texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible, ed. L. R. Fisher. Vol. II, pp. 249-369. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.
  4. Caquot, A., and J-M. de Tarragon. 1989. Textes Ougaritiques, vol. 2: Textes religieux et rituels: Intro- duction, traduction, commentaire [with Correspondance edited by J.-L. Cunchillos]. Paris: Éditions du Cerf.
  5. Cardahi, G. 1891. Al-Lobab, seu, Dictionarium syro-arabicum. Beirut: Catholica S.J. Clemens, D. M. 2001. Sources for Ugaritic Ritual and Sacrifice, vol. 1: Ugaritic and Ugarit Akkadian Texts. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
  6. Dijkstra, M. 1999. Ugaritic Prose. In Handbook of Ugaritic Studies, ed. W. G. E. Watson and N. Wyatt. Pp. 140-64. Leiden: Brill.
  7. Donner, H. 2013. Wilhelm Gesenius Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament […]. 18th ed. Heidelberg: Springer.
  8. ---. 1938. Shafta d Pishra d Ainia [Continued]. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 1938: 1-20.
  9. ---. 1941. The Alf Trisar Šuialia: "The Thousand and Twelve Questions." Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 1941: 101-26.
  10. ---. 1953. A Mandaean Bibliography. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 1953: 34-39.
  11. ---, and R. Macuch. 1963. A Mandaic Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon.
  12. T. Li and K. Dyer. Pp. 139-71. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias.
  13. Review of J. Tropper, Ugaritische Grammatik [First ed.]. Archiv für Orientfor- schung 50 (online edition): 1-404.
  14. Parker, S. B. 1997. The Binding of a Monster. 18. CAT 1.83. In Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, ed. S. B. Parker. Pp. 192-93. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
  15. Payne-Smith, R. 1901. Thesaurus Syriacus. Oxford: Clarendon.
  16. ---. 1978. Mid Rock and Scrub, a Ugaritic Parallel to Exodus 7:19. In Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor of William Sanford LaSor, ed. G. A. Tuttle. Pp. 146-50. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Related

Authors
Richey, M.
Affiliations
University of Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
Richey, Madadh
ORCID
Richey, Madadh
Venue
Journal of the American Oriental Society
Publisher
American Oriental Society
Published
2021-09-19
Volume
140
Issue
2
ISSN
  • 0003-0279 (ISSN-L)
  • 2169-2289
DOI
10.7817/jameroriesoci.140.2.0381
OpenAlex
W3041340653
Cited by
0
References
44
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Journal of the American Oriental Society (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Ancient Near East History
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Botanical Research and Chemistry
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Historical and Linguistic Studies
Keywords
Ugaritic texts, dragon imagery, verb etymology, cognate sets, Aramaic dialects, Syriac language, word meaning, Ugaritic mythology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-04.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-04.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review