Learn to Read Ancient Aramaic: E. Cook (2022), Chapter Two, “Orthography”
Introduction
This is the second post in a series that provides a resource to learn or review Biblical Aramaic and its related (Middle) Aramaic dialects via Edward Cook’s recent grammar, Biblical Aramaic and Related Dialects: An Introduction (Cambridge University Press, 2022). Each blog in the series covers a single chapter in Cook’s grammar. For chapter one, “Introduction: Aramaic and Its Dialects,” see here. We seek to provide here a summary of the contents of each chapter without reproducing too much of Cook’s material. The ultimate hope is that the reader’s interest will be piqued and curiosity sparked so that (s)he will pursue further study of the Aram. language and literature on their own. This blog post covers chapter two, “Orthography.”
In eight pages, Cook walks the reader through the primary features of BA orthography, including discussions of the consonantal alphabet (§21-22), Masoretic vowel points (§23-24), matres lectionis (§25-28), other graphic signs (§29-32), and the unique issue in the Masoretic reading tradition called ketiv-qere (§33). Before embarking on the discussion of BA orthography, however, a one-page introduction (§20) provides a discussion of BA as part of the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible. As Cook shows, Biblical Aram. and Hebrew share the same consonantal signs, vowel points, and cantillation marks, meaning “there is no graphic differentiation between Hebrew and Aramaic in the Masoretic text” (p. 19). According to Cook, the task of the Masoretes was to faithfully transmit the fixed consonantal text while supplementing the nequdot ‘(vowel) points’ as well as cantillation marks. As such, the Masoretic text is the product of a written and oral tradition which were woven together. While a number of vocalization traditions existed, such as ones which used a supralinear system, the system that became standard was centered in ancient Tiberias (hence the name, “Tiberian” Masoretic tradition) and ultimately became the basis of Biblia Hebraica and other Hebrew Bible editions used today.
N.b., as a reminder, the following abbreviations are used: OA for Old Aramaic; IA for Imperial Aramaic; BA for Biblical Aramaic; QA for Qumran Aramaic; MA for Middle Aramaic; and Aram. for Aramaic. Additionally, BH is used for Biblical Hebrew.
Consonantal Alphabet
The student of BH will have a great advantage when learning to read BA since, as already established, there is no graphic distinction between the two, at least as they’ve been received in the Tiberian Masoretic tradition. Practically, this means that Hebrew and Aram. share the same twenty-two graphemes representing twenty-three letters (since the grapheme ש sign represents both שׁ /š/ and שׂ /ś/ as differentiated by the placement of the supralinear dot). Table 1 (Cook 2022: p. 21; not reproduced here) presents the letter, name, transcription, description, and conventional pronunciation of the letters of the Aram. alphabet. Five of the letters (k, m, n, p, and ṣ) also have graphic variations that do not affect pronunciation (§22).
N.b., one fascinating nugget of information which I didn’t know before reading this section is that, according to Cook, the longer (final) forms of the letter with descending strokes (e.g. ך rather than כ for final /k/) are historically more original, since the descenders were shortened within a word due to the exigencies of sinistrograde cursive writing.
Vowel Points
§§23-24 presents the Masoretic vowel points used in BA and BH. In all but one case (ḥolem), the vowels are sublinear. The table is helpful as it provides the vowel point, name, transcription, description, and conventional pronunciation of the vowels. The transcription and description section of the table are especially important for the student to internalize, and it’s obvious that Cook demonstrates a keen engagement with current scholarship in his understanding of the synchronic phonological analysis of the Tiberian vowel system. While not stating so explicitly, it is evident that Cook understands the Tiberian vowel system to represent seven vowel qualities (ɔ, a, ɛ, e, i, o, u) as well as a sign for murmured/no vowel called shewa (ə). BA also contains three ḥaṭeph vowel signs, marked in transcription with a breve, which are used mainly with gutturals.
N.b., for an overview of the discussion on vowel qualities in the Tiberian vocalization tradition, I point the reader to Benjamin Suchard, “The Vocalic Phonemes of Tiberian Hebrew,” Hebrew Studies 59 (2018). For a more engaged treatment, see Geoffrey Khan, The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew, 2 vols. (2020).
Matres Lectionis (Consonants as Vowel Indicators)
The term matres lectionis, Latin for “mothers of reading” (sg. mater), refers to the use of a consonant sign to indicate the presence of a (usually long) vowel. This was necessary in pre-Masoretic times before vowels were indicated in the script. They originated in OA to indicate word-final long vowels, albeit often omitted when unstressed (Cook 1990). Table 4 on p. 23 presents these matres. As Cook’s grammar also deals with related dialects to BA, §26 discusses, in particular, the orthography of QA not shared by the other dialects. Cook lists three: (1) medial א to indicate long vowel ā usually after consonantal w or y; (2) medial ו to indicate short *u; and (3) graphic final, non-etymological א in word-final position after a י or ו mater. In §27, Cook touches on defective versus plene (full) spelling, which is used to describe the orthography of a word when long vowels either are (plene) or are not (defective) accompanied by a mater. Cook makes one especially important point in this regard: “The historical arc of orthographical development is toward the increase of plene spelling, from fewer to more matres lectionis. In the unpointed texts of IA and QA, they provide valuable hints on the pronunciation of words” (p. 24). Finally, §28 discusses the dagesh, a dot inside a consonant to express (1) gemination (called dagesh forte ‘strong dagesh’; rarely also used for the so-called ‘conjunctive dagesh’), or (2) for the letters בגדכפת, the pronunciation of a stop without gemination (called dagesh lene ‘weak dagesh’; in other words, the pronunciation of בּ as /b/ instead of /v/, פּ as /p/ instead of /f/, and so forth).
N.b., on the omission of matres in word-final long vowels in OA and IA mentioned above, see Cook 1990: “The Orthography of Final Unstressed Long Vowels in Old and Imperial Aramaic,” Maarav 5-6 (Spring, 1990): 53-67. Although I’m not exactly sure what Cook was doing at the time, his institutional affiliation on the article is listed as “The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD” (where I currently study). His CV, available on academia.edu, does not list his employment history this far back, but he graduated from UCLA in 1986 and then lists five publications (better: bibliographic entries) for 1990, including two book reviews and serving as editor of the festschrift in honor of his doktorvater titled Sopher Mahir: Northwest Semitic Studies Presented to Stanislav Segert.
Other Graphic Signs
§§29-32 present other graphic signs with which the student of BA should be familiar, including the dot in šureq, the mappiq in word-final הּ, the maqqeph line which connects two or more words making them a single stress unit, and a number of signs used for cantillation purposes, the principal division of the latter being disjunctive and conjunctive accents.
Ketiv-Qere
The Tiberian Masoretic tradition includes a number of instances in which the consonantal text and its reading tradition contain variants. The word ketiv is an Aramaic passive participle meaning “(what is) written,” whereas qere is a passive participle meaning “(what is) read.” Since the principal task of the Masoretes was to faithfully preserve both the consonantal text and its reading tradition, such variants were noted in the margins of the manuscript. The consonantal text remained unchanged, but the discrepant vowels of the qere were supplied to the text accompanied by a circellus above the word and the relevant note in the manuscript’s margin. For a fuller description of the notation of ketiv-qere variants with examples, see §33 (pp. 25-26).
N.b., one especially interesting point that Cook makes is how the differences between the ketiv and qere sometimes reflect ancient dialectal differences. For example, the ketiv of the 2ms independent pronoun (m.s. “you”) according to the Tiberian tradition is always אנתה while its qere is אנת, indicating that the dialect of the qere pronounced the word as ˀant rather than the original dialect which had ˀantɔ̄. To support this, one text of Daniel from Qumran (4Q112) reads אנת in the ketiv at Dan 2:31.
Conclusion
In just 8 pages Cook does well to summarize the orthography of Biblical and Qumran Aram., including the consonantal alphabet, vowel points, matres lectionis, other graphic signs, and the ketiv-qere system of the Tiberian tradition. The book fleshes out all the information found in this blog post, including helpful tables which are intentionally not reproduced here. His third chapter, the topic of the following blog post in this series, covers Aram. phonology.
About The Author
LTR Ancient Akkadian: Caplice, Lesson One 
Learn to Read Ancient Aramaic: E. Cook (2022), Chapter One, “Introduction: Aramaic and Its Dialects” 
Learn to Read Ancient Akkadian: R. Caplice (2002), Prolegomena