That’s nashaqu qaqqara in Akkadian, not nasaqu gaggara.

The trouble, as I see it, is that qaqqaru(m) in Akkadian doesn’t mean “ground/field,” but “ground (as a surface)/earth (as opposed to sky)/plot or stretch of land (esp. for building(s)”: I’m quoting from CDA. Hebrew and Aramaic bar II, on the other hand, both mean “(open) field,” not “ground/field.” In other words, qaqqaru and bar are less than perfect interdialectal equivalents (to use Shalom Paul’s terminology). Rather, qaqqaru in Akkadian corresponds to eretz in Hebrew; bar II in Aramaic, to sadeh.

Secondly, the verb nashaq in Hebrew occurs too infrequently in our corpus to draw any conclusions from the fact that it’s not otherwise found modified by an adverb or without an expressed object. More frequently occurring verbs in the D stem occur, albeit rarely, without an expressed object. The adverbial use of adjectives is also attested, albeit rarely, in ancient Hebrew. That’s all that matters. There are no strong arguments against the construal adopted by the NJPSV Ketuvim committee (i.e., Moshe Greenberg, Jonas Greenfield, and Nahum Sarna, each one of whom had more Hebrew in one pinky than most of us have in our whole bodies). It fits the context no less than Olofsson’s proposal, which is, despite the objections I raise, worthy of continued consideration.

Can this structure be supported? Perhaps the poet wanted BR to rhyme with HR – it’s all very alliterative. (see longer post on my blog – my references to other blogs in typepad don’t seem to register).

Fight the disambiguation!