▪ ḪBR_1:
DRS distinguishes this value (= #ḪBR-2) from that of ‘to assemble, join, associate’ (= #ḪBR-1), while Klein1987 treats the two as belonging together (in entry on Hbr √ḤBR). The latter value does not seem to be represented in Ar (unless ḪBR_2 one day should turn out to be related, see below). – According to
DRS, »les verbes ‘saluer’ sont délocutifs de Mhr
ḫəbōr? ‘(quelles) nouvelles?’ (<
ʔaḫbār, pl. de
ḫəbēr […])«.
▪ ḪBR_2: The value ‘cotter, peg, pin, wedge’ is not found in the usual dictionaries of ClassAr (Freytag1830, Kazimirski, Lane, Bustānī
Muḥīṭ); there,
ḫābūr is only ‘a certain plant’ (Freytag1830), a tree (Bustānī), identified however by Hava1899 as ‘elder-tree’ and by
DRS (in MġrAr) as ‘genêt d’Espagne’ (see ḪBR_14, below).
1
The
fāʕūl form would suggest that we are dealing with a loanword, but the source remains obscure so far. Should we assume Akk (lBab, neoBab)
ḫabburu (var.
ḫaburru,
ḫabūru ḫabbaru) ‘(green) shoot, stalk’ (CAD), in itself a Sum (?) loanword,
2
to be the etymon? A direct loan cannot per se be excluded, but a borrowing via Aram would be more common. However, given that the word is not mentioned in ClassAr dictionaries and only seems to appear at rather late stage in the history of the language would make us doubt the Akk hypothesis. The item is neither mentioned by Fraenkel1886 nor Zimmern1914. The first attestation found so far is in Hava1899, where it is said to be LevAr. But, as evidenced by BadawiHinds1986, it is also an EgAr item:
ḫā̆būr (pl.
ḫawā̆bīr)
‘wedge, wooden peg or plug’;
3
and both WehrCowan1979 and Baalbaki1995 (
al-Mawrid) list it as a MSA item. If Akk
ḫabburu ‘(green) shoot, stalk’ should have to be excluded and if the meaning ‘peg, pin, wedge’ is not just a development, however unlikely, from the homonymous
ḫābūr ‘certain plant, elder-tree, spartium’ (ḪBR_14) (*used
as peg, pin, wedge?), should we then assume a relation to Sem ḪBR (
DRS #ḪBR-1) ‘to assemble, join, connect, associate’? Rather unlikely either.
4
▪ ḪBR_3: identical with / belonging to ḪBR_4 (=
DRS #ḪBR-7)?
▪ ḪBR_4 (=
DRS #ḪBR-7): includes perh. ḪBR_3.
▪ ḪBR_5 (=
DRS #ḪBR-5): According to
DRS, von Soden relates this item to Sem KBR as well as to Akk
ḫamāru ‘(se) dessécher’ (cf. Ar
ḫamira ‘changer, subir un changement’).
▪ ḪBR_6: no further information available.
▪ ḪBR_7: probably fig. use of some of the other items, but which?
▪ ḪBR_8-10: the values ‘seed-produce’, ‘camel’s hair’, and ‘foam of the mouth of a camel’ come in addition to the more common values of
ḫabīr such as ‘aware; omniscient (God)’ (ḪBR_1, ↗
ḫabara); a case of homonymy or fig. use? – the semantics are highly confusing here.
▪ ḪBR_11 (=
DRS #ḪBR-3)
ḫabbir, a part of the loom: according to
DRS, CAD »semble expliquer le nom d’une ‘partie du métier à tisser’ par le bruit qu’elle provoque. – Pour le Gz, le rapport avec l’Akk est supposé par Finkelstein JBL 75/328 qui le justifie par le fait que l’enchanteur émet des sons.«
▪ ḪBR_12: no further information available.
▪ ḪBR_13 (=
DRS #ḪBR-8): no further information available.
▪ ḪBR_14 ‘elder-tree (Hava1899), elder-berry (id.,
al-Mawrid 1995)’:
ḫābūr. – For Freytag1830, this is just ‘some kind of plant’ (
planta quaedam). But is it the same as the one called
ḫābōr in
DRS (#ḪBR-9), marked MġrAr there and identified as ‘genêt d’Espagne’ (spartium, Spanish broom) (whence also
ḫābōre ‘jaune de la couleur de ces genêts’)? Cf. also (CAD) Akk (lBab)
ḫubūru C ‘(a plant)’. – For a possible relation (or identity?) with ḪBR_2, see above s.v.
▪ ḪBR_15: no further information available.