The Akkadian Verb and Its Semitic Background 9781575066240

Citation preview

THE AKKADIAN VERB AND ITS SEMITIC BACKGROUND

LANGUAGES OF THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST Editorial Board Gonzalo Rubio, Pennsylvania State University Editor-in-Chief James P. Allen Gene B. Gragg John Huehnergard Manfred Krebernik Antonio Loprieno H. Craig Melchert Piotr Michalowski P. Oktor Skjærvø Michael P. Streck

Brown University The Oriental Institute, Univ. of Chicago Harvard University Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena Universität Basel  University of California, Los Angeles University of Michigan Harvard University Universität Leipzig

1.  A Grammar of the Hittite Language, by Harry A. Hoffner Jr. and H. Craig Melchert Part 1: Reference Grammar Part 2: Tutorial 2.  The Akkadian Verb and Its Semitic Background, by N. J. C. Kouwenberg 3.  Most Probably: Epistemic Modality in Old Babylonian, by Nathan Wasserman

The Akkadian Verb and Its Semitic Background

by

N. J. C. K ouwenberg The University of Leiden

Winona Lake, Indiana Eisenbrauns 2010

© 2010 by Eisenbrauns Inc. All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America www.eisenbrauns.com

 

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Kouwenberg, N. J. C.   The Akkadian verb and its Semitic background / by N. J. C. Kouwenberg.      p.  cm.    Includes bibliographical references and index.    ISBN 978-1-57506-193-1 (alk. paper)    1.  Akkadian language—Verb.  I.  Title.    PJ3291.K678  2010    492′156—dc22

2010040187

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. †Ê   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 20  19  18  17  16  15  14  13  12  11  10

Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    xi List of Abbreviations, Symbols, and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   xii Part One

Preliminaries Chapter 1.  Objective, Structure, and Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   1 1.1.  Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2.  Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.2.1.  (Diachronic) Typology  2 1.2.2.  Grammaticalization  3 1.2.3.  The structure of paradigms  5 1.3.  The Structure of the Present Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1.4.  Akkadian, Semitic, and Afroasiatic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.4.1.  Akkadian  9 1.4.1.1.  Third-Millennium Akkadian  11 1.4.1.2.  Babylonian  12 1.4.1.2.1.  Archaic Babylonian  13 1.4.1.2.2.  Old Babylonian  13 1.4.1.2.3.  Middle Babylonian  15 1.4.1.2.4.  Neo-Babylonian  15 1.4.1.2.5.  Late Babylonian  16 1.4.1.2.6.  Standard Babylonian  16 1.4.1.3.  Assyrian  17 1.4.1.3.1.  Old Assyrian  17 1.4.1.3.2.  Middle Assyrian  18 1.4.1.3.3.  Neo-Assyrian  19

1.4.2.  Semitic  19 1.4.3.  Afroasiatic  20 1.5.  Excursus: The Dialect Classification of Third-millennium Akkadian . . . . . . 21

Chapter 2.  Structure and Organization in the Akkadian Verbal Paradigm. . . . . . .   28 2.1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2.2.  The Organization of the Verbal Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2.2.1.  The basic structure  29 2.2.2.  Derivational categories related to the verb  33 2.2.3.  Lexicalization and grammaticalization  35 2.3.  The Structure of Individual Verb Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 2.3.1.  The root-and-pattern system  37 2.3.2.  The rise of vowel alternation in Semitic  38 v

Contents

vi

2.3.3.  The root and the radicals  40 2.3.4.  The pattern and the base  44 2.4.  Vowel Syncope and Vowel Assimilation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 2.5.  The Personal Affixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Part Two

The Basic Stem Chapter 3.  The Paradigm of the G-Stem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   53 3.1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 3.2.  The G‑stem as the Basis of the Verbal Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 3.3.  Distinctions in Aktionsart: Fientive, Stative, and Adjectival Verbs . . . . . . . 54 3.3.1.  Fientive verbs with a stative meaning  55 3.3.2.  Adjectival verbs  58 3.3.3.  List of adjectival verbs  60 3.3.4.  Deviating adjectives in Assyrian  64 3.4.  Transitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 3.5.  The Vowel Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 3.5.1.  Form and function  68 3.5.2.  The individual vowel classes  71 3.5.2.1.  The vowel class I/i  71 3.5.2.2.  The A/u or Ablaut class  72 3.5.2.3.  The vowel class U/u  73 3.5.2.4.  The vowel class A/a (including E/e)  74 3.5.2.5.  The vowel class A/i  75

3.5.3.  Changes in vowel class  75 3.6.  Appendix: List of G‑stem Verbs Arranged according to Vowel Class . . . . . 81

Chapter 4.  The Impact of Gemination I: The Imperfective iparrVs . . . . . . . . . . . .   88 4.1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 4.2.  The Imperfective: Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 4.3.  The Imperfective: Function   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 4.4.  The Historical Background of iparrVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 4.4.1.  The controversy about the Proto-Semitic imperfective  97 4.4.2.  The emergence of   iparrVs  100 4.4.3.  Evidence  103 4.4.3.1.  Historical evidence from Akkadian  103 4.4.3.2.  Comparative evidence from Afroasiatic  104 4.4.3.3.  Typological evidence  107

4.5.  From Proto-Semitic *yiqattal‑ to Akkadian iparrVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 4.5.1.  The development of a variable imperfective vowel  109 4.5.2.  The pluractional of the derived verbal stems and      the quadriradical verbs  112 4.5.3.  The ending(s) of Proto-Semitic *yiqattal‑  115 4.6.  Akkadian iparrVs and the South Semitic Imperfective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 4.6.1.  iparrVs and yəqattəl  117

Contents

vii 4.6.2.  The quadriradical and quinqueradical verbs      in South Semitic  123

Chapter 5 The Perfective and the Imperative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 5.1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 5.2.  The Perfective: Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 5.3.  The Perfective: Function    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 5.4.  The Historical Background of the Perfective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 5.5.  The Imperative: Form and Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Chapter 6.  The t‑Perfect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 6.1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 6.2.  The t‑Perfect: Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 6.3.  The t‑Perfect: Function  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 6.3.1.  The t‑perfect in Old Babylonian  141 6.3.2.  The t‑perfect in third-millennium Akkadian  149 6.3.3.  The t‑perfect in Old Assyrian      150 6.3.4.  The t‑perfect in the later dialects  153 6.4.  The Historical Background of the t‑Perfect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Chapter 7.  The Stative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 7.1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 7.2.  The Stative: Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 7.3.  The Stative: Function   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 7.3.1.  Statives derived from adjectives and nouns  165 7.3.2.  Statives derived from verbs  168 7.3.3.  Marginal and secondary uses of the stative  174 7.4.  The Prehistory of the Stative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 7.4.1.  The formal background of the stative  176 7.4.2.  The relationship with the West Semitic perfect  181 7.4.3.  The suffixed stative conjugations of Afroasiatic  189

Chapter 8.  The Nominal Forms of the Verbal Paradigm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 8.1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 8.2.  The Infinitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 8.2.1.  Form and function  194 8.2.2.  Historical background  199 8.3.  The Past Participle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 8.3.1.  Form and function  200 8.3.2.  Historical background  202 8.4.  The Present Participles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 8.4.1.  The simple present participle  203 8.4.2.  The present participle with the suffix ‑ān-  207 8.4.3.  Historical considerations  209

Contents

viii

Chapter 9.  The Secondary Members of the Verbal Paradigm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 9.1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 9.2.  The Irrealis Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 9.2.1.  The precative  212 9.2.1.1.  Form and function  212 9.2.1.2.  Historical background  213

9.2.2.  The vetitive: form and function   217 9.2.3.  The prohibitive  219 9.3.  The Subjunctive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 9.3.1.  The form of the subjunctive  220 9.3.2.  Other subjunctive-like suffixes  224 9.3.3.  The function and the historical background of the subjunctive  227 9.4.  The Ventive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 9.4.1.  The form of the ventive  232 9.4.2.  The function of the ventive  233 9.4.2.1.  The ventive as allative  234 9.4.2.2.  The ventive as dative  235 9.4.2.3.  Other ventives  236 9.4.2.4.  The ventive as a linking morpheme  238

9.4.3.  The ventive in a historical perspective  240

Part Three

The Derived Verbal Stems Chapter 10.  The Derived Verbal Stems: General Features. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 10.1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 10.2.  Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 10.3.  Formal Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 10.4.  Functional Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 10.5.  The Relationship between the G‑Stem and the Derived Stems . . . . . . . . . 250 10.6.  Oppositions between Stems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 10.7.  Diachronic Aspects of the Derived Verbal Stems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 10.8.  The Grammatical Functions Expressed by the Derived Verbal Stems . . . 256 10.8.1.  Verbal plurality  256 10.8.2.  Causative and factitive  256 10.8.3.  Voice  257 10.8.3.1.  Passive  259 10.8.3.2.  Mediopassive  260 10.8.3.3.  Direct reflexive  261 10.8.3.4.  Indirect reflexive or autobenefactive  263 10.8.3.5.  Reciprocal  263 10.8.3.6.  The middle voice and “middle verbs” in Akkadian  265

Chapter 11.  The impact of gemination II: the D‑stem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 11.1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 11.2.  The Form of the D‑Stem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268

Contents

ix

11.3.  The Function of the D‑Stem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 11.3.1.  D‑stems of intransitive process verbs  272 11.3.2.  D‑stems of intransitive action verbs  274 11.3.3.  D‑stems of transitive process verbs  274 11.3.4.  D‑stems of transitive action verbs  274 11.4.  D tantum Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 11.5.  The Essence of the D‑Stem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278 11.6.  The D‑Stem in Historical Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 11.6.1.  The D‑stem in Semitic and Afroasiatic  280 11.6.2.  The development of the factitive function  282

Chapter 12.  The Prefix n-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288 12.1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288 12.2.  The N‑Stem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288 12.2.1.  The form of the N‑stem    288 12.2.2.  The function of the N‑stem  294 12.2.2.1.  The N‑stem of transitive verbs  294 12.2.2.2.  The N‑stem of intransitive verbs  297 12.2.2.3.  The N tantum verbs  298

12.2.3.  The essence of the N‑stem  299 12.3.  The naparraru Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 12.4.  The Verb mēlulu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305 12.5.  The Quadriradical Verbs of the nabalkutu Group  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307 12.6.  The Historical Background of the Prefix n‑ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314 12.6.1.  The prefix n‑ as an original “light verb”  314 12.6.2.  The development of the N‑stem  321

Chapter 13.  The Prefix š‑. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 13.1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 13.2.  The Š‑stem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 13.2.1.  The form of the Š‑stem  324 13.2.2.  The function of the Š‑stem  327 13.2.2.1.  The Š‑stem as causative of transitive verbs  327 13.2.2.2.  The Š‑stem as causative or factitive of intransitive verbs  328 13.2.2.3.  The “elative” use of the Š‑stem  331 13.2.2.4.  The denominal function of the Š‑stem  332 13.2.2.5.  The relation of the Š‑stem to the D‑stem and the N‑stem  333

13.3.  The ŠD‑stem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334 13.4.  The Quadriradical Verbs with the Prefix š‑ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 13.4.1.  The šubalkutu group  338 13.4.2.  The šuparruru group  340 13.4.3.  The šuḫarruru group  341 13.4.4.  Šukennu and šupellu  346 13.5.  The Š‑stem in Other Semitic Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350 13.6.  The Historical Background of the Sibilant Prefix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351

Chapter 14.  The t-Infix and Its Ramifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355 14.1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355

Contents

x

14.2.  Formal Aspects of the t‑Infix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356 14.2.1.  The form of the Gt‑stem in historical Akkadian  356 14.2.2.  Assimilation and metathesis of the t‑infix in general  359 14.3.  The Function of the Gt‑Stem in Historical Akkadian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360 14.3.1.  The Gt‑stem in older non-literary texts  361 14.3.1.1.  Third-millennium Akkadian  361 14.3.1.2.  Assyrian  362 14.3.1.3.  Old Babylonian  363

14.3.2.  The Gt‑stem in later non-literary texts  365 14.3.3.  The Gt‑stem in literary texts: Standard Babylonian  367 14.3.4.  The functional development of the Gt‑stem in Akkadian  369 14.4.  The Evolution of the Gt‑Stem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375 14.4.1.  The formal evolution of the Gt‑stem in Semitic:      from prefix to infix (and back)  375 14.4.2.  The functional development of the Gt‑stem in      West Semitic  380 14.5.  The Remaining Secondary Stems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382 14.5.1.  The Dt‑stem  383 14.5.2.  The Št1‑stem  386 14.5.3.  The Neo-Assyrian stems with a double t‑infix  388 14.5.4.  The Nt‑stem  391 14.5.5.  Comparison with West Semitic  392 14.5.6.  Excursus: The Eblaite verbal nouns with both prefixed      and infixed t  395 14.6.  The Pattern taPRvS(t) and the Št2‑Stem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397 14.6.1.  The pattern taPRvS(t)  397 14.6.2.  The Št2‑stem  403 14.6.2.1.  The paradigm of the Št2‑stem  403 14.6.2.2.  The function of the Št2‑stem  404 14.6.2.3.  Comparison with West Semitic  412

14.7.  The tan‑Stems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415 14.7.1.  The function of the tan‑stems  415 14.7.2.  The Gtn‑stem  417 14.7.3.  The Dtn‑stem  422 14.7.4.  The Štn‑stem  424 14.7.5.  The Ntn‑stem  425 14.7.6.  The historical background of the tan‑stems  431

Chapter 15.  Verb Forms with Reduplication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438 15.1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438 15.2.  The Dtr‑Stem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439 15.3.  Deverbal Nouns with Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444 15.4.  Derived Verbal Stems with Reduplication in Other Semitic Languages . . 445

Contents

xi

Part Four

The Minor Paradigms Chapter 16.  The Weak Verbs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447 16.1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447 16.2.  The I/w Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448 16.2.1.  The corpus  448 16.2.2.  The forms of the G‑stem  450 16.2.3.  The derived stems  454 16.2.4.  The historical background of the I/w verbs  457 16.3.  The I/*y Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462 16.3.1.  The prefix forms of the adjectival I/w verbs  462 16.3.2.  The original I/*y verbs  464 16.3.3.  The verbs idû ‘to know’ and išû ‘to have’  465 16.4.  The I/n Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469 16.4.1.  The assimilation or non-assimilation of n to the      following consonant  469 16.4.2.  The elision of word-initial n  470 16.4.3.  The paradigm(s) of n/tadānu ‘to give’  472 16.5.  The II/voc Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474 16.5.1.  The sources  474 16.5.2.  The paradigm of the G‑stem  476 16.5.3.  The derived stems  480 16.5.3.1.  The Gt‑stem  480 16.5.3.2.  The Gtn‑stem  480 16.5.3.3.  The D‑stem  482 16.5.3.4.  The Š‑stem and the Št2‑stem  485 16.5.3.5.  The N‑stem  488

16.6.  The II/gem Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491 16.6.1.  Formal aspects of the II/gem verbs  491 16.6.2.  Semantic aspects of the II/gem verbs  494 16.7.  The III/voc Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496 16.7.1.  The sources  496 16.7.2.  The paradigm of the III/voc verbs  499 16.7.2.1.  The original paradigm  499 16.7.2.2.  Further developments in third-millennium Akkadian  501 16.7.2.3.  Further developments in Assyrian  501 16.7.2.4.  Further developments in Babylonian  506

Chapter 17.  The Verbs with Gutturals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510 17.1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510 17.2.  The Rendering of Guttural Consonants in Cuneiform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510 17.3.  The Reflexes of the Gutturals in Akkadian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515 17.4.  The Strong ʾ in Babylonian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 520 17.5.  The E-paradigm and Babylonian Vowel Harmony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525 17.5.1.  E‑colouring in the older dialects  525 17.5.2.  E‑colouring in later Babylonian  534

Contents

xii

17.6.  The I/voc Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537 17.6.1.  Introductory remarks  537 17.6.2.  The paradigm of the G‑stem  542 17.6.3.  The derived stems  546 17.6.3.1.  The Gt‑stem and the Gtn‑stem  546 17.6.3.2.  The D‑stem  547 17.6.3.3.  The Š‑stem and its derivatives  548 17.6.3.4.  The N‑stem and the Ntn‑stem  550

17.7.  The II/H Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 554 17.7.1.  Introduction and sources  554 17.7.2.  (Pre‑)Sargonic Akkadian and Mari Old Akkadian  557 17.7.3.  The II/H verbs in Assyrian  560 17.7.3.1.  The strong paradigm  560 17.7.3.2.  The weak paradigm  563

17.7.4.  The II/H verbs in Babylonian  566 17.7.4.1.  The II/ā verbs in Babylonian  566 17.7.4.2.  The II/ē verbs in Babylonian  570

17.8.  The III/H Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 572 17.8.1.  Introduction and sources  572 17.8.2.  The III/H verbs in third-millennium Akkadian  573 17.8.3.  The III/H verbs in Assyrian  576 17.8.4.  The original III/H verbs in Babylonian  582

Part Five

Proto-Semitic from an Akkadian perspective Chapter 18.  The Verbal Paradigm of Proto-Semitic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584 18.1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584 18.2.  The Main Developments from Proto-Semitic to Akkadian . . . . . . . . . . . . 584 18.3.  The Proto-Semitic Verbal Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 586 18.3.1.  The basic stem  587 18.3.2.  The derived stems  591 18.4.  The Sub-grouping of Semitic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599 Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635 Index of Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635 Index of words from other languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 650 Index of Akkadian words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 653

Preface This book is the result of the project “The Akkadian Verb and its Semitic Background,” financed by the Dutch Organization of Scientific Research (NWO) in the years 2001–2005. It represents the completion of a long preoccupation with the structure and the history of the Akkadian verb, which started with my 1997 doctoral dissertation on the D‑stem. It would not have been written if the NWO had not provided me with a generous grant that allowed me to focus completely on this research project for almost four years without being distracted by other obligations. I am grateful for this grant and for the trust they have had in me. I would also like to thank the Faculty of Arts of Leiden University and the Netherlands Institute for the Near East (NINO) for the facilities they offered me during and after this period. It is a great pleasure to thank the people who have contributed to the completion of this book. In the first place, I thank my supervisor, Klaas Veenhof, who spent much time and energy on this project, dealing with the paperwork for the NWO, and, in the final stages, reading the manuscript, giving valuable comments, and providing me with additional material, especially in Old Assyrian matters. Gonzalo Rubio, editor-in-chief of Eisenbrauns’ series Languages of the Ancient Near East, Wilfred van Soldt, Holger Gzella, Guy Deutscher, and Bram Jagersma also read the manuscript, and Harry Stroomer and Joris Borghouts read parts of it. I would like to thank all of them for their valuable comments. Obviously, none of these colleagues are responsible for any errors, omissions, and incongruities that remain. Last, but not least, I would like to thank my wife Yvonne not only for undertaking the troublesome task of reading through the entire manuscript to eradicate the barbarisms of my English and to improve the style but also for her unfailing moral support and her tolerance during the years that I have been engrossed in the intricacies of the Akkadian verb.

xiii

List of Abbreviations, Symbols, and Terminology

1.  Abbreviations of Series, Periodicals, Dictionaries, and Manuals AfO AHw AION AJSL AMMK AMMY AnOr. AOAT AoF AOS ArAn. ARES ArOr. AS ASJ Assur AuOr. BagF BBVOT BiOr. BM BSOAS CAD CDA

Archiv für Orientforschung. Vienna. = von Soden 1959/81. Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli. Naples. American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature. Chicago. Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi. Konferanslari. Ankara. Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi. Yıllığı. Ankara. Analecta Orientalia. Alter Orient und Altes Testament. Altorientalische Forschungen. Berlin. American Oriental Society. Archivum Anatolicum. Ankara. Archivi reali di Ebla—Studi. Archív Orientální. Prague. Assyriological Studies. Acta Sumerologica (Japonica). Tokio. Assur, Monographic Journals of the Near East. Malibu. Aula Orientalis. Barcelona. Baghdader Forschungen (BagF 18 = S. M. Maul, Zukunftsbewältigung). Berliner Beiträge zum vorderen Orient. Texte. Bibliotheca Orientalis. Leiden. Bibliotheca Mesopotamica. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. London. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian, ed. J. Black, A. George, and N. Postgate. Santag 5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999. = Leslau 1987. CDG CDLJ Cuneiform Digital Library Journal. CILT Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. CM Cuneiform Monographs. CRRAI Comptes rendus de la rencontre assyriologique internationale. DRS = D. Cohen 1994–. DTCFD Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi (Revue de la Faculté de langues, d’histoire et de géographie). Ankara. FAOS Freiburger Altorientalische Studien. FM Florilegium Marianum. Mémoirs de NABU. Paris. GAG = von Soden 1952a. GAG3 = von Soden 1995. GAV = Kouwenberg 1997. GKT = Hecker 1968. GLECS Comptes rendus des séances du Groupe linguistique d’études chamito-sémitiques. Paris. HSAO Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient.

xiv

List of Abbreviations, Symbols, and Terminology HSS HUCA IOS JANES JAOS JCS JEOL JNES JRAS JSS KUSATU LAPO MAD 3 MARI MC MIO MUSJ MEE NABU OAAS OBO OIP OLA OLP Or. OrAnt. OrSuec. PIHANS QuSem. RA RSO SAACT SAAS SED I/II SEL SSLL StAT StEb. StOr. TTK TTKY TSL UF WdO WKAS WVDOG WZKM ZA ZAh ZAL ZAW ZDMG

Harvard Semitic Studies. Hebrew Union College Annual. Cincinnati. Israel Oriental Studies. Tel Aviv and Winona Lake, IN. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society. New York. Journal of the American Oriental Society. New Haven, CT. Journal of Cuneiform Studies. New Haven, CT. Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap ‘Ex Oriente Lux’. Leiden. Journal of Near Eastern Studies. Chicago. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. London. Journal of Semitic Studies. Manchester. Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt. Waltrop. Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient. = Gelb 1957. Mari, Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires. Paris Mesopotamian Civilizations. Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung. Berlin. Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph. Beyrouth. Materiali Epigraphici di Ebla. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires. Paris. Old Assyrian Archives, Studies. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis. Oriental Institute Publications (OIP 27 = I. J. Gelb, Inscriptions from Alishar and Vicinity). Orientalia Lovanensia Analecta. Orientalia Lovanensia Periodica. Leuven. Orientalia. Rome. Oriens Antiquus. Rome. Orientalia Suecana. Uppsala. Uitgaven van het Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten te Leiden, voorheen Publications de l’Institut historique-archéologique néerlandais de Stanboul. Quaderni di Semitistica. Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale. Paris. Rivista degli Studi Orientali. Rome. State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts. State Archives of Assyria Studies. = Militarev and Kogan 2000 and 2005. Studi epigraphici e linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico. Verona. Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics. Studien zu den Assur-Texten. Studi Eblaiti. Rome. Studia Orientalia. Helsinki. Türk Tarih Kongresi. Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınlarından. Typological Studies in Language. Ugarit-Forschungen. Münster. Die Welt des Orients. Göttingen. Wörterbuch der klassischen arabischen Sprache. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1958–. Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes. Vienna. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie. Berlin. Zeitschrift für Althebraistik. Stuttgart. Zeitschrift für arabische Linguistik. Wiesbaden. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. Giessen. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft. Wiesbaden.

xv

xvi

List of Abbreviations, Symbols, and Terminology

2.  Abbreviations of Text Publications Editions of Akkadian texts are referred to with the abbreviations enumerated in AHw III: ix–xvi, with the following additions: Adapa

S. Izre'el, Adapa and the South Wind. Mesopotamian Civilizations 10. Winona Lake IN, 2001: Eisenbrauns. AIHA F. Rasheed, The Ancient Inscriptions in Himrin Area. Baghdad: The State Organization of Antiquities and Heritage, 1981. AKI I. J. Gelb and B. Kienast, Die altakkadischen Königsinschriften des dritten Jahrtausends v. Chr. FAOS 7. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1990. AKT Ankara Kültepe Tabletleri / Ankaraner Külltepe-Texte (1/2: E. Bilgiç et al., 4: I. Albayrak, 5: K. R. Veenhof, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1990, 1995, 2006, and 2010; 3: E. Bilgiç and C. Günbattı, FAOS Beiheft 3, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1995). ARET Archivi reali di Ebla—Testi. Roma: Missione archeologica in Syria. Balag-Komp. K. Volk, Die Balag̃-Komposition úru à-ma-ir-ra-bi. FAOS 18. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1989. BAP B. Meissner, Beiträge zum altbabylonischen Privatrecht. Assyriologische Bibliothek 11. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1893. BDHP L. Waterman, Business Documents of the Hammurabi Period I. AJSL 29 (1913) 145–204; II. ibid. 288–303; III. AJSL 30 (1913/14) 48–73. CTMMA Cuneiform Texts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Vols. I–III. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1987–2005. Diagnostik N. P. Heeßel, Babylonisch-assyrische Diagnostik. AOAT 43. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000. Edikt F. R. Kraus, Ein Edikt des Königs Ammi-ṣaduqa von Babylon. Studia et Documenta ad Iura Orientis Antiqui Pertinentia, vol. V. Leiden: Brill, 1958. ELTS I. J. Gelb; P. Steinkeller; and R. M. Whiting, Earliest Land Tenure Systems in the Near East: Ancient Kudurrus. OIP 104. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1991. Epilepsy M. Stol, Epilepsy in Babylonia. CM 2. Groningen, 1993. EV Estratti di Vocabulari (in Pettinato 1982: 347–81). Fernhandel B. I. Faist, Der Fernhandel des assyrischen Reiches zwischen dem 14. und 11. Jh. v. Chr. AOAT 265. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2001. FI M. Civil, M. The Farmer’s Instructions: A Sumerian Agricultural Manual. AuOr. Supplementa 5. Barcelona: Editorial AUSA, 1994. B. Kienast, Glossar zu den altakkadischen Königsinschriften. FAOS 8. Stuttgart: GAKI Franz Steiner, 1994. Gilg. A. R. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. K. Radner, Das mittelassyrische Tontafelarchiv von Giricano /Dunnu-ša-Uzibi. Giricano Subartu XIV. Turnhout: Brepols, 2004. Innāya C. Michel, Innāya dans les tablettes paléo-assyriennes II: Edition des texts. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1991. Ištar B. Groneberg, Lob der Ištar, Gebet und Ritual an die altbabylonische Venusgöttin. CM 8. Groningen, 1997. Siglum of unpublished tablets from Kültepe (Kaniš). kt Kaufvertragsrecht B. Kienast, Das altassyrische Kaufvertragsrecht. FAOS Beiheft 1. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1984. Land Tenure A. Suleiman, A Study of Land Tenure in the Old Babylonian Period with Special Reference to the Diyala Region, Based on Published and Unpublished Texts. Ph.D. dissertation, London, 1966. Legends = Westenholz 1997. LB Siglum of unpublished tablets in the de Liagre Böhl Collection, Leiden.

List of Abbreviations, Symbols, and Terminology

xvii

̃ ÁL. Leiden: Brill, 1983. J. van Dijk, LUGAL UD ME-LÁM-bi NIR-G H. Freydank, Mittelassyrische Rechtsurkunden und Verwaltungstexte I–VII, 1976– 2006. MATC S. Jakob, Die mittelassyrische Texte aus Tell Chuēra in Nordost-Syrien. Vorderasiatische Forschungen der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung, Band 2, Teil III. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009. MATSH = Cancik-Kirschbaum 1996. O. R. Gurney, The Middle Babylonian Legal and Economic Texts from Ur. British MBTU School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1983. MesMagic Mesopotamian Magic. Textual, Historical and Interpretative Perspectives, ed. T. Abusch and K. van der Toorn. Ancient Magic and Divination 1. Groningen: Styx, 1999. Mesopotamian History and Environment: Texts. Ghent: University of Ghent, 1991–. MHET MSL SS Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon, Supplementary Series. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1986. MVN 3 D. I. Owen, The John Frederick Lewis Collection. Materiali per il vocabolario neosumerico, vol III. Rome: Multigrafica, 1975. NATN D. I. Owen, Neo-Sumerian Archival Texts Primarily from Nippur. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1982. NATSH K. Radner, Die neuassyrischen Texte aus Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad. Berichte der Ausgrabung Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad/Dūr-Katlimmu, Band 6, Texte 2. Berlin: Reimer, 2002. NBNippur = Cole 1996. NTA V. Donbaz, Ninurta-Tukulti-Aššur. TTKY VI/19. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1976. OAA Old Assyrian Archives. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2002–. OBAH F. N. H. Al-Rawi and S. Dalley, Old Babylonian Texts from Private Houses at Abu Habbah, Ancient Sippar. Baghdad University Excavations. É-DUB-BA-A 7. London: NABU Publications, 2000. U. Jeyes, Old Babylonian Extispicy: Omen Texts in the British Museum. PIHANS 64. OBE Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1989. OBHorn 1 and 2 M. Sigrist, Old Babylonian Account Texts in the Horn Archaeological Museum. Andrews University Cuneiform Texts IV and V. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1990 and 2003. K. van Lerberghe, Old Babylonian Legal and Administrative Texts from Philadelphia. OBLAP OLA 21. Leuven: Peeters, 1986. OBRED L. Dekiere, Old Babylonian Real Estate Documents from Sippar in the British Museum. MHET, Series III, vol. II, 1–6. Ghent: University of Ghent, 1994–1997. = Whiting 1987. OBTA POAT W. C. Gwaltney Jr., The Pennsylvania Old Assyrian Texts. Hebrew Union College Annual Supplements 3. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, Jewish Institute of Religion, 1983. K. Hecker, G. Kryszat, and L. Matouš, Kappadokische Keilschrifttafeln aus den Prag I Sammlungen der Karlsuniversität Prag. Prague: Filozofická fakulta Univerzity Karlovy, 1998. RIMA Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987–. A. Rositani, Rīm-Anum Texts in the British Museum. Nisaba 4. Messina: Di.Sc.A.M, Rīm-Anum 2004. Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods. Toronto: University of Toronto RIME Press, 1990–. RitDiv. I. Starr, The Rituals of the Diviner. BM 12. Malibu: Undena, 1983. ŠA S. M. Freedman, If a City Is Set on a Height: The Akkadian Omen Series Šumma Ālu ina Mēlê Šakin, Volume I: Tablets 1–21. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 17. Philadelphia: Samuel Noah Kramer Fund, 1998. SAA State Archives of Assyria. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1987–. Lugal MARV

xviii SAB Sadberk

List of Abbreviations, Symbols, and Terminology

= Kienast and Volk 1995. V. Donbaz, Cuneiform Tablets in the Sadberk Hanim Museum. Istanbul: Sadberk Hanim Müzesi, 1999. ShA J. Eidem, and J. Læssøe, The Shemshara Archives, Vol. I: The Letters. Copenhagen: The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, 2001. SKS W. Farber, Schlaf, Kindchen, Schlaf!, Mesopotamische Baby-Beschwörungen und ‑Rituale. MC 2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989. St. Alp Hittite and other Anatolian and Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Sedat Alp, ed. H. Otten et al. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1992. Studies Presented to Robert D. Biggs, June 4, 2004, ed. M. Roth et al. From the St. Biggs Workshop of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, Volume 2. AS 27. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 2007. Miscellanea Babylonica: Mélanges offerts à Maurice Birot, ed. J.-M. Durand and St. Birot J.‑R. Kupper. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1985. St. de Meyer Cinquante-deux réflexions sur le Proche-Orient ancien, offertes en homage à Léon de Meyer, ed. H. Gasche et al. Mesopotamian History and Environment. Occasional Publications 2. Leuven: Peeters, 1994. St. Dietrich Ex Mesopotamia et Syria Lux: Festschrift für Manfried Dietrich zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, ed. O. Loretz et al. AOAT 281. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2002. St. Finet Reflets des Deux Fleuves: Volume de mélanges offerts à André Finet, ed. M. Lebeau and P. Talon. Akkadica Supplementum VI. Leuven: Peeters, 1989. St. Garelli Marchands, Diplomates et Empereurs: Études sur la civilization mésopotamienne offertes à Paul Garelli, ed. D. Charpin and F. Joannès. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1991. St. Kraus Zikir Šumim: Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. Kraus on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. G. van Driel et al. Leiden: Brill, 1982. St. Landsberger Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on his Seventy-fifth Birthday, April 21, 1965, ed. H. G. Güterbock and T. Jacobsen. AS 16. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. St. Larsen Assyria and Beyond: Studies Presented to Mogens Trolle Larsen, ed. J. G. Dercksen. PIHANS 100. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2004. Lingering over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of St. Moran William L. Moran, ed. T Abusch et al. HSS 37. Atlanta: Scholars, 1990. St. Nimet Özgüç Aspects of Art and Iconography: Anatolia and its Neighbors—Studies in Honor of Nimet Özgüç, ed. M. J. Mellink et al. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1993. St. Oelsner Assyriologica et Semitica: Festschrift für Joachim Oelsner, ed. J. Marzahn and H. Neumann. AOAT 252. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000. St. Pettinato Von Sumer nach Ebla und zurück: Festschrift Giovanni Pettinato, ed. H. Waetzoldt. HSAO 9. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 2004. Language, Literature, and History: Philological and Historical Studies Presented St. Reiner to Erica Reiner, ed. F. Rochberg-Halton. AOS 67. New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1987. St. Sjöberg DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A, Studies in Honor of Åke W. Sjöberg, ed. H. Behrens et al. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 11. Philadelphia: The Samuel Noah Kramer Fund, 1989. St. Veenhof Veenhof Anniversary Volume, ed. W. H. van Soldt et al. PIHANS 89. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2001. St. von Soden (AOAT 1) Lišān Mitḫurti: Festschrift Wolfram Freiherr von Soden, ed. W. Röllig. AOAT 1. Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1969. St. von Soden (AOAT 240) Vom Alten Orient zum Alten Testament: Festschrift für Wolfram Freiherrn von Soden zum 85. Geburtstag am 19. Juni 1993, ed. M. Dietrich and O. Loretz. AOAT 240. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995.

List of Abbreviations, Symbols, and Terminology St. Walker Tall Biʿa TAZ TB 1 TCBI TPAK VE

xix

Mining the Archives: Festschrift for Christopher Walker, ed. C. Wunsch. Babylonische Archive 1. Dresden: ISLET, 2002. = Krebernik 2001. = Sommerfeld 1999. = Ismail et al. 1996; 2: L. Milano; W. Sallaberger; P. Talon; and K. van Lerberghe. Third Millennium Cuneiform Texts from Tell Beydar (Seasons 1996–2002). Subartu XII. Turnhout, 2004. Tavolette cuneiformi . . . delle collezioni della Banca d’Italia, 2 vols. Rome: Banca d’Italia, 2006. C. Michel and P. Garelli, Tablettes paléo-assyriennes de Kültepe, volume I (Kt 90/k). Paris: De Boccard, 2001. (Sinossi del) Vocabulario di Ebla (in Pettinato 1982: 197–343).

3. Other Abbreviations AA Afroasiatic Acc accusative adjective Adj Akk Akkadian All allative Ar Arabic Aram Aramaic ArBab Archaic Babylonian Ass Assyrian Bab Babylonian Bo Boğazköy c. br. context broken c. st. construct state comm. sect.   commentary section (in CAD) cp(s) copy/copies CT consecutio temporum Dat dative DN divine name DNF feminine divine name Du dual duf dual feminine dum dual masculine Ebl Eblaite e.o. each other ESA Epigraphic South Arabian Eth Ethiopian Fem feminine Gen genitive GN geographic name He Hebrew Imp imperative Impf imperfect Impfv imperfective incant. incantation Indic indicative Inf infinitive intr. intransitive Juss jussive

LB lex. sect. lit. LL MA Masc MB MN MSA NA NB Nn Nom OA OAk OB Obl p Partc Perf pf Pl pm PN PNF PPartc Prec Pres Pret Proh prov. PrPartc PSAk PSem R1 R2 R3 R4

Late Babylonian lexical section (in CAD) literal(ly) (attested in a) lexical list Middle Assyrian masculine Middle Babylonian month name Modern South Arabian Neo-Assyrian Neo-Babylonian noun (indexes) nominative Old Assyrian Old Akkadian Old Babylonian oblique case person participle perfect plural feminine plural plural masculine proper name feminine proper name past participle precative present preterite prohibitive provenance present participle Pre-Sargonic Akkadian Proto-Semitic first radical second radical third radical fourth radical

List of Abbreviations, Symbols, and Terminology

xx RI(s) SAk sb. SB Sem sf Sg sm Stat sth. Subj Sum

royal inscription(s) Sargonic Akkadian somebody Standard Babylonian Semitic singular feminine singular singular masculine stative something subjunctive Sumerian

Syr TN t‑Pf tr. trans. Ugar var. Vb Vent Vet WSem

Syriac temple name t‑perfect translation transitive Ugaritic variant verb (indexes) ventive vetitive West Semitic

4. Symbols /.../ [...] ⟨  ⟩

surrounds a phonological interpretation of a transliterated word or a cuneiform sign surrounds a phonetic approximation of a phonological interpretation1 (surrounding a cuneiform) sign indicates the specific reading of the sign (capitals indicate the name of the sign): pi = ⟨wa⟩, bad = ⟨be⟩ > and < indicate a phonological change, e.g. *baytum > bītum; *yilqaḥ > yilqē > ilqē; iššakin > (Ass) iššikin, or a semantic change, e.g. šaknum ‘appointed’ > ‘governor’. → and ← indicate (1) a morphophonemic or morphosyntactic (analogical) change or replacement, e.g., *ušāḫaz → ušaḫḫaz; nāmurum → nanmurum; iššaknū → (Ass) iššiknū; (2) a relationship of derivation, e.g., iparrVs → paris; iparras → ipparras. // separates different manuscripts (duplicates) of the same text. * precedes a reconstructed but not actually attested form. ** precedes an incorrectly reconstructed or presupposed form: **putanrrusum (Inf Dtn), **innimir.

Conventions of Transcription and Terminology For Akkadian, I have in general adopted a transliteration system that is fairly close to what may be considered to be the actual form of the word—i.e., basically that of von Soden and Röllig 1991 rather than the more “objective” system of Gelb 1970 and CAD; see Reiner 1973: 39–45 for a discussion of some relevant points. I will also adhere to the traditional convention of distinguishing between long vowels with a circumflex (if they are contractions of adjacent vowels) and long vowels with a macron (if they are “originally” long or compensate for a lost guttural or sonant), although it is unlikely that there is a phonological motivation to do so. However, for third-millennium Akkadian, this system is problematic for several reasons (see Rubio 2003b: 363–67 and Hasselbach 2005: 24–25). Therefore, I have adopted for Sargonic Akkadian Gelb’s system of transliteration, which is also used in Hasselbach’s recent grammar of Sargonic Akkadian (2005), supplemented by a phonological interpretation (which is of course subjective), e.g. ga-ti-su /qātīsu/, ìl-gi /yilqē/, iš-du-ud /yisdud/, etc.2 For Mari Old Akkadian, 1.  For instance, in Old Assyrian /qabyāku/ represents what I take to be the most likely phonological representation of qá-áb-a-ku and qá-bi-a-ku ‘I have (been) told’. Occasionally, I have ventured to posit a more phonetic reconstruction, e.g. [qabiyāku]. 2.  The contrast between the phoneme /s/ of Sargonic Akkadian corresponding with /š/ elsewhere (including Mari Old Akkadian; Hasselbach 2005: 135–36) is awkward in cross-dialectal comparison. There-

List of Abbreviations, Symbols, and Terminology

xxi

which has only one series of sibilants as compared with the two series found in Sargonic Akkadian (A. Westenholz 1978: 163a), I will use š for the reflex of PSem *š/ś, e.g. ù-šu-rí-id /y?ušūrid/ AKI p. 361 MŠ 4:4), where Sargonic Akkadian would have /yusūrid/.3 For Ur III Babylonian, I will normalize the transliteration in accordance with later Babylonian practice. Whenever this seemed relevant, I have added to third-millennium quotations an indication of the genre and the provenance of the text.4 Also for Eblaite, where the distance between spelling and the (presumably) intended form is fairly large and many interpretations are uncertain, I have preferred the more cautious transliteration that is employed by most specialists; for instance, I write mu-sa-ga-i-núm (VE 1306) rather than mu-śa-kà-i-núm for what is phonologically doubtless /muskayyinum/ (Bab muškênu ‘commoner’; see §13.4.4, p. 347). For the second-millennium and later dialects, I use the traditional system of transcription as it is applied in the standard manuals and dictionaries, although this is not always phonologically accurate and sometimes inconsistent with the third-millennium transcriptions. I use the forms of Old Babylonian, but without mimation, as the “default dialect” for quoting verbs in contexts where no specific dialect is referred to or when the form in question is not attested nor reconstructible for the dialect under discussion; for instance, I speak of the verb petû ‘to open’. Other forms, such as Old Assyrian patāʾum or Middle Assyrian patāʾu, will only be quoted when this is relevant in the context. With regard to other Semitic languages, I have opted for a transcription system that suits the historical and comparative orientation of the present study. For Hebrew, this is basically the Moscati system (Moscati, ed. 1964: 50), with ẹ for ṣerē (ֵ   ), e for s  egōl (ֶ   ), a for pataḥ (ַ   ), ā or o for qāmeṣ (ָ    ), o for ḥolem (ֹ    ), and u for ḥireq (  ִ ), with an additional macron if the vowel is long, and the superscript version for ḥāṭēp and pataḥ furtivum. Spirantization of consonants will be ignored. For Geʿez, I will also follow Moscati, ed. 1964: 54 in using a for the 1st order, ū for the 2nd order, ī for the 3rd order, ā for the 4th order, ē for the 5th order, ə or ∅ for the 6th order, and ō for the 7th order. For consonants of Proto-Semitic for which there is no generally accepted symbol, I will use the rather traditional and typographically convenient system of Moscati, ed. 1964: 43–44, with, however, θ for the voiceless interdental (> Akk š ), ð for the voiced interdental (> Akk z), θ̣ for the glottalic interdental (> Akk ṣ), and ṣ́ for the glottalic lateral fricative (> Akk ṣ), which is also written ð̣ or ḏ̣ elsewhere (see also Huehnergard 2004: 142–43). For the Proto-Semitic sibilants, I will use the familiar signs *š, ś, and *s rather than *s1, *s2, and *s3 (cf. Faber 1981: 253–57). With regard to grammatical terminology, there are two particular areas where the juxtaposition of forms from different languages leads to terminological difficulties: the tense/aspect system and the system of derived verbal stems. The tense/aspect system of the older Semitic languages is based on a binary opposition between a marked and an unmarked category, the former having an imperfective aspect and usually referring to non-past tense, whereas the latter may basically be a perfective but is generally used as a straightforward past tense. In the various Semitic languages, different terms are traditionally used to refer to these categories, such as Imperfect, Present, and fore, I will ignore this difference and use Babylonian š in the pertinent words, except in the phonological representation of Sargonic Akkadian words between slashes, e.g. /yusēṣī/, the Š Perf of waṣû ‘to go /come out’, but elsewhere yušēṣī. 3.  See §16.2.3 (p. 455) for this form. 4.  For the label “Me-ság,” which refers to the Sargonic Akkadian texts of BIN 8 coming from the estate of Me-ság in the Umma or Girsu region, see Foster 1982a: 6 and 1982b: 301.

xxii

List of Abbreviations, Symbols, and Terminology

Durative for the marked category, and Perfect and Preterite for the unmarked category (whereas in Akkadian “Perfect” refers to a third category). If we include other branches of Afroasiatic, a massive terminological confusion arises in which no term can be taken at its face value and in which categories that correspond across languages have quite different labels. In order to avoid ambiguity on the one hand and cumbersome formulations on the other, I—at least for Semitic—use the terms imperfective and perfective for the marked and the unmarked variants of the prefix conjugations, respectively, regardless of the traditional term in a given language and no matter whether the category in question is perhaps more temporal than aspectual (as is certainly the case in Akkadian; see §4.3, pp. 91–95): so Akk iparrVs, Ar yaqtVlu, He yiqṭol and Geʿez yəqattəl are imperfective; Akk iprVs, Ar yaqtVl, and He (way)yiqṭol are perfective (in so far as they have indicative function). For the rest, I use the traditional terms perfect and jussive for the West Semitic suffix conjugation (qatVla) and the irrealis use of yaqtVl, respectively. For the Akkadian past tense with infixed t (iptarVs), I use the label t‑perfect to avoid confusion with the West Semitic perfect. For other languages, I use the terms imperfective and perfective when these are clearly appropriate, or else the labels current in the specific language (with an initial capital), with a definition when ambiguity might arise. The abbreviations of grammatical terms in the list of abbreviations are mainly used as tags to specific forms quoted. Each Semitic language also has its own terminology for the derived verbal stems,5 and even for Akkadian itself two different systems are in use. For specific languages, I will use the system current for that language, but for comparative purposes and when referring to a specific stem across languages, I follow the Akkadian notation employed by W. von Soden in his grammar (GAG) and his dictionary (AHw), which is transparent and mnemonically superior. For the derived stems with a lengthened vowel, which occur in some West Semitic languages but not in Akkadian, I use the symbol L when that is convenient. 5.  See Goshen-Gottstein 1969 for a description of the history of the terms; Tropper 2002: 100–101 and Lipiński 1997: 334 contain handy tables for comparing the various terminological systems.

Part One

Preliminaries Chapter 1

Objective, Structure, and Method

1.1. Objective This book has two closely related objectives: to describe the Akkadian verbal system during its period of attestation, and to reconstruct its prehistory on the basis of internal reconstruction, comparison with cognate languages, and typological evidence. The first of these aims is a necessary prerequisite for the second: before we start comparing aspects of the Akkadian verb with corresponding phenomena in related languages, we must squeeze the maximum amount of information out of the languages involved—in particular, Akkadian itself. Moreover, description of the Akkadian verb has a merit of its own, because Akkadian has one of the longest documented histories of all languages: data are available from about two and a half millennia—although the data are not without interruptions and are not always as copious as we would like. During the course of this history, numerous developments took place, illustrating how languages change over time and offering parallels for the reconstruction of changes that occurred in poorly documented periods. Knowledge of historical processes enables us to go backward in time by extrapolating them into prehistory, especially because such processes are often cyclic. There is no lack of detailed and competent studies of the Akkadian verb and specific aspects of it, among which we of course single out W. von Soden’s monumental Grundriss der akkadi­schen Grammatik (1952), which has lost little of its relevance as a comprehensive description of Akkadian, although several of its historical and more theoretical statements are in need of revision. Nonetheless, even further progress can be gained from a variety of strategies. The first one is a more detailed and more comprehensive look at our primary evidence, the Akkadian texts themselves, which constitute our basic set of data. They still contain untapped resources that can be made available by means of systematic comparison between dialects, detailed investigation of orthographical features, and the exploitation of new data from recently published texts and to some extent also from the language of Ebla, which is gradually revealing more and more of its secrets. A second strategy is a greater emphasis on the systematic nature of the Akkadian verb. A verbal system is a complex structure, with its own dynamics based on and driven by the functions it has to perform. This means that we should not limit ourselves to an atomistic description of the verbal categories in isolation from one another but also study their interactions and the ways they influence each other through the course of time. The structure of the paradigm and the 1

Method  1.2.

2

dependency relations between its members hold important clues for understanding diachronic processes and thus also for reconstructing its prehistoric development. A third strategy is the use of typological evidence, which provides insight into the question of what kinds of developments are common or uncommon in the history of languages. Therefore, it is an important tool in evaluating the likelihood of proposed hypothetical developments and particularly relevant in situations where actual data are inadequate. By combining these strategies, I will describe the verbal categories of Akkadian as they developed in the historical period, reconstruct the oldest attainable situation, compare this with other Semitic languages, and formulate a hypothesis regarding the structure of the verb in ProtoSemitic from an Akkadian perspective, in order to bridge the gap between Akkadian and the rest of Semitic and to shed light on the diachronic processes that have led to their diversification. Deeper comparison on the level of Afroasiatic is not a specific aim of this book, although I will not hesitate to use Afroasiatic evidence if I consider it relevant to the point under discussion. In fact, achieving some kind of consensus about the nature of Proto-Semitic is a major condition for a fruitful study of Afroasiatic.

1.2.  Method The methods used will be in accordance with the objectives outlined in the preceding section. The extant Akkadian texts provide the primary data for a description of the verbal system. This description is in principle synchronic, but because of the large time span covered by the recorded history of Akkadian, this is hardly the appropriate term. A synchronic description is only possible for the individual dialects or periods of Akkadian, even though generally speaking the differences between them—or rather between the written forms in which they are available to us—are surprisingly small. I will instead use the term “historical” for the descriptive part of the present study, in contrast to “prehistoric,” when referring to the reconstruction of the genesis of the verbal system, which mainly took place in the prehistoric period. The reconstruction of the prehistoric development will primarily be based on the time-­honored methods of historical linguistics: internal reconstruction and the comparative method (in this order). However, they can be supplemented by other approaches that have been developed in the domain of general linguistics in the past few decades. I will single out three of them that are immediately relevant to the historical study of language in general, and to the present study in particular: (diachronic) typology, grammaticalization, and the structure of paradigms.

1.2.1.  (Diachronic) Typology Of particular importance to historical linguistics is the typological approach to language, which originates with Greenberg’s studies on word-order universals (Greenberg 1963, 1966) and was carried on by others, such as Bybee (1985, 2001), Croft (1991, 2003), Givón (especially 1979, 1995), Hopper and Thompson (1980, 1984), to mention only those who have been a particular source of inspiration for the present study. This typological approach starts from the assumption that variation in language is subject to universal restrictions that are ultimately grounded in the function(s) language performs. It investigates these restrictions in order to detect cross-linguistic regularities and ultimately to establish what is a possible human language or, perhaps more modestly, “what is a more probable, as opposed to less probable, human language” (Song 2001: 3). The basic method of typologists is large-scale comparison on the basis of a representative corpus of languages. Studies of this kind have revealed remarkable parallels in the way in which par-

1.2.  Method

3

ticular domains of grammar are encoded cross-linguistically, such as the expression of the passive (Siewierska 1984; Keenan 1985; Haspelmath 1990), the middle voice (Kemmer 1993), the causative (Nedyalkov and Silnitsky 1973; Song 1996), the resultative (Nedjalkov and Jaxon­tov 1988), tense/aspect in general (Dahl 1985; Bybee et al. 1994), adjectives (Dixon 1982; Wetzer 1996; Dixon and Aikhenvald 2004), intransitive predicates (Stassen 1997), and nominal predicates (Hengeveld 1992). It has also become clear that these domains tend to be grammaticalized through a restricted number of diachronic processes. This is the field of diachronic typology, which studies occurring changes (Greenberg 1995) in order to understand the limits of possible diversity (Givón 1999: 110). Diachronic typology conceives language states as stages in a process of change, so that the focus of attention shifts from the states themselves to the transitions between them (Croft 2003: 232–44). This has blurred the borderline between synchronic and diachronic linguistics, which has had the status of a dogma since Saussure and has long tended to relegate historical linguistics to a marginal position. It is now recognized that both approaches are equally valuable, that change is an inherent property of language, and that there are grammatical phenomena that can best be meaningfully described in a historical perspective (Hopper 1987; Heine and Claudi 1986: 147–50; Heine et al. 1991: 248–52; Bybee 2001: 57, 189–215). The typologists maintain a different emphasis from the more traditional comparative linguists: they are primarily interested in the process of diachronic change itself and the principles that govern it, and therefore focus on historical stages of languages that are attested over a long period. They do not shun reconstructions but regard them as by-products rather than as goals in themselves (Givón 1999: 109–11). Their studies have shown that diachronic developments in languages tend to follow rather narrowly circumscribed paths that recur again and again with different lexical means even in unrelated languages. This enables us to determine which kinds of historical processes are common in language development, and which kinds are uncommon or even not attested, and thus to check our hypotheses and reconstructions. The importance of this kind of information for the reconstruction of prehistoric stages of a language is obvious: a hypothetical reconstruction that has parallels in historical developments has a greater plausibility than one that has few or no parallels. The latter is not automatically disqualified but needs to be supported by stronger evidence to be acceptable.

1.2.2.  Grammaticalization The study of diachronic processes in language has demonstrated the importance of grammaticalization as a pervasive principle of language development. Grammaticalization is “that subset of linguistic changes whereby a lexical item or construction in certain uses takes on grammatical characteristics, or through which a grammatical item becomes more grammatical” (Hopper and Traugott 2003: 2).1 If an element undergoes grammaticalization, it becomes more frequent but less independent, it gets a more general and more grammatical meaning, a reduced form, and a less variable position. Ultimately, it may lose its status as an independent word and become a clitic or an affix with a grammatical rather than a lexical meaning. Accordingly, grammaticalization is an important mechanism for creating new grammatical categories and for replacing existing ones, in contrast to sound change and analogy, which normally only modify existing 1.  General introductions are Hopper and Traugott 2003 and Heine et al. 1991; see also Croft 2003: 253–79; Bybee et al. 1994: 4–9; Joseph and Janda, eds. 2003: 575–601. A non-technical account of grammaticalization and its role in the development of language, with special attention to the rise of the Semitic verbal system, is Deutscher 2005.

Method  1.2.

4

categories (Meillet 1948b: 133). It has its own dynamics and follows its own rules, and is often cyclical: a new mode of expression that has arisen because of its greater expressivity gradually replaces the older expression, loses its expressivity in the process and becomes vulnerable to being replaced in its turn.2 The study of well-documented grammaticalization processes has provided a considerable amount of knowledge that is applicable to the clarification of synchronic states of languages without a documented past. Since it is inherently diachronic, it has—together with typology—strongly contributed to ending the (post‑)Saussurean bias in favour of synchronic analysis and to creating an upsurge in diachronic research. A grammaticalization process that is particularly relevant for the present study is the renewal of tense and aspect categories. As far as I am aware, Jerzy Kuryłowicz was the first to draw attention to the regularity and recursiveness in the way the verbal categories referring to the present and the past evolve over time. He formulates the development of present categories as follows (1975: 104): The most important phenomenon which has repeated itself over and over again and has left numerous traces in the old I.E. languages, is the renewal of the durative character of the verbal forms denoting the moment of speaking (present-imperfect system). The durative form may easily invade other semantic spheres: general (“timeless”) present, futurity, modality (“capability,” “eventuality”), etc. This expansion, involving the loss of expressiveness (i.e., of concentration on durativity), is the cause of drawing upon derived forms designed to renew the durative function. A formal split is likely to ensue: durative present (new form) and general or indetermined present (old form), present (new form) and future (old form), indicative (new form) and subjunctive (old form).

A corresponding process for the past tense starts with the perfect: As regards the so-called perfect the normal evolution seems to be: derived form (or verbal noun + auxiliary verb) > perfect > indetermined past (“passé indéfini”) > narrative tense. The derivative is adopted as a regular member of the conjugation in order to replace the old form of the perfect, which, having been additionally charged with the narrative function, has lost its expressiveness. (Kuryłowicz 1975: 106; see also ibid. 128).

Kuryłowicz’s claims have been confirmed by the cross-linguistic study of grammaticalization processes by Bybee et al. (1994) and have been applied to the Semitic languages by D. Cohen (1984) in his monumental study of the renewal of verbal categories in Semitic. Bybee et al. have established far-reaching commonalities in the ways verbal categories that are semantically parallel develop over time even in unrelated languages. They investigate in particular the evolution of past tense forms, the rise of futures and irrealis forms, and—most importantly for the present study—the renewal of present and imperfective categories. D. Cohen uses the long period of attestation of most West Semitic languages to investigate the evolution of the verbal system and 2.  See Heine et al. 1991: 243–47 (they refer in particular to Hodge [1970], who illustrated this with examples from Old Egyptian and Coptic); Hopper and Traugott 2003: 122–24; Givón 1971; Croft 2003: 253; Haspelmath 1998: 54–55. Prominent examples of cyclic processes in Semitic are the renewal of the verbal categories by means of periphrastic constructions (to be described in chap. 4), the restriction of the perfective iprVs to subordinate clauses in later Akkadian, a repetition of what happened to the original Proto-Semitic imperfective *yiqtVlu, which became a subjunctive in Akkadian (see §9.3.3, pp. 227–232); the introduction of the new pluractional category ipta(na)rrVs after the earlier pluractional iparrVs had become the regular imperfective (see §14.7.6, pp. 431–437); and the development of the original stative/ resultative suffix conjugation into the West Semitic perfect, which is a repetition of what happened to the earlier Proto-Semitic perfective *yiqtVl.

1.2.  Method

5

to show in detail how the same functional tendencies repeatedly trigger the renewal of existing verbal categories. Since this is an important clue to the understanding of the evolution of the verb in prehistoric times as well, I will discuss it in greater detail in chap. 4 on the Akkadian imperfective iparrVs.3 In sum, the interest in diachronic typology and grammaticalization has proved highly fruitful for the historical study of language, especially for the solution of diachronic problems, such as the way in which complex grammatical systems develop over time. This approach is crucial for the solution of the problems caused by the Akkadian verb and its relation to the verb in other Semitic languages.

1.2.3.  The structure of paradigms An important means for language speakers to handle complex morphological structures is to organize them in paradigms. According to Bybee (1985: 49), a paradigm is “a group of inflectionally related words with a common lexical stem”.4 Each form (or “member”) is specified for one or more of the relevant inflectional categories constituting the paradigm. In a nominal paradigm, these typically include case, gender, and number; in a verbal paradigm, they include person, gender, number, tense/aspect, mood, and diathesis (Booij 1998: 15). A paradigm has a hierarchical structure, in which some forms are (more) basic and others (more) derived. Generally speaking, the more basic forms are those that perform the prototypical functions of the paradigm. For a verbal paradigm, this means that verb forms are more basic when they are finite rather than non-finite, when they refer to an event rather than to a state, and when they are realis (indicative) rather than non-realis.5 Among the finite realis forms, the most basic forms are those that refer to the actual moment of speech—that is, those of the present or imperfective—and among the persons of this category, it is the third-person singular that is the most basic form of the verbal paradigm.6 In accordance with their prototypical status, the finite realis forms also tend to show the greatest number of morphosemantic distinctions—typically, 3.  For a survey of grammaticalization processes in Semitic languages, see Rubin 2005. Deutscher 2000 is a pioneering study of the grammaticalization of complement markers in Akkadian. For an application of the results of Bybee et al.’s investigations on the verb in Biblical Hebrew, see T. D. Andersen 2000. Cook 2001 also offers a grammaticalization approach to the Hebrew verbal system. 4.  Cf. also Hock (1991: 168), who defines a paradigm as “the set of inflected forms of a given word.” 5.  See in general Bybee 1985: 49–65; for events versus states: Givón 1984: 51–56; for realis versus non-realis: Manńczak 1958: 387–88; Greenberg 1966: 46; Hopper and Thompson 1984: 708, 726; Givón 1995: 56. 6.  For the basicness of the present or imperfective, see Mánczak 1958: 388; Greenberg 1966: 48–49; Hock 1991: 218–220; H. Anderson 1990: 8–10; Croft 2003: 162. With regard to Semitic languages, Greenberg (1966: 48), Benmamoun (1999), Ratcliffe (1998a: 33 n. 6), and Heath (2002: 120–21) argue that the imperfective is the basis of word formation in Arabic. For the third-person singular as the most basic form of a verbal paradigm, see Kuryłowicz 1964: 137; Bybee and Brewer 1980: 210–14; Bybee 1985: 50; Hock 1991: 220–22; Aikhenvald and Dixon 1998: 61–62; van Loon 2005: 13 and 46. The main arguments are the following. First, semantically, the third person is the “zero person,” which refers to the one who is not present at the speech situation and which accordingly often has zero expression (Benveniste 1966; Kuryłowicz 1968: 74); second, where word counts are available, the third person usually turns out to have the highest frequency (Greenberg 1966: 44–45); third, in language acquisition by children, the third-person singular present is acquired first in many languages and used initially for all other forms of the paradigm (Bybee 1985: 50–51; Bybee Hooper 1980); fourth, in historical change, this form often serves as the basis for the innovation of the paradigm or for the remake of other forms (Bybee and Brewer 1980: 210–14 for Spanish and Provençal dialects). In nominal paradigms, it is usually the nominative or the absolutive that is basic (Hock 1991: 216–18).

6

Method  1.2.

those of tense/aspect, mood, diathesis, person, number, and gender; the less prototypical forms, in contrast, often show varying degrees of neutralization of these verbal distinctions. The prototypical members also tend to be the most frequent, and according to Bybee (1985: 117–18), frequency is the ultimate criterion for determining basicness: each time a form is heard and produced, it becomes more entrenched in the speaker’s mind and acquires what she calls a greater “lexical strength.” A great lexical strength entails a high degree of “autonomy”—that is, the degree to which the word in question is represented as an independent item in the speaker’s mental lexicon. Autonomous forms are relatively resistant to change (see below) and are the basis on which other, less frequent and therefore less autonomous, forms are built. In a complex paradigm, the members are organized in subgroups on the basis of similarity in meaning. Similarity in meaning can be measured by means of Bybee’s concept of relevance— that is, the degree to which the contrast between the respective forms affects the semantic content (Bybee 1985: 33): a contrast is more relevant as it has more drastic consequences for the nature of the action. In a verbal paradigm, for instance, differences in person are less relevant than differences in aspect, because for the nature of the action it makes less difference who performs it than how it is performed; in the noun, differences in case are less relevant than differences in number and gender, since the former do not affect the lexical meaning. Traditionally, forms that are similar are arranged in conjugations (in the verb) and declensions (in the noun). The definition of a paradigm quoted above stipulates that the members of a paradigm have inflectional status. As such, they are opposed to (etymologically or historically) related forms with derivational status.7 The difference is aptly summarized by Haspelmath (1996: 47): “the most basic property of inflectional forms is that they are described exclusively in grammatical paradigms, whereas derivational formations are described by listing them individually in a dictionary.” In more concrete terms, inflectional forms generally serve to express a relatively small, closed set of grammatical functions; they are predictable in meaning and function and often also in form, and they are fully productive, since they must be available for each lexeme, unless semantic factors interfere (Booij 1998: 14–15). Derivation typically serves to create new lexemes on the basis of others in order to express complex meanings that are in some way related to the basic word. It cannot be applied automatically and may therefore be more or less productive (Hock 1991: 173–75; Booij 1998: 16–17). The semantic relationship between source word and derivation is much more unpredictable than in the case of inflection: since a derivational form is essentially an independent lexeme, it undergoes lexicalization more easily than an inflectional member of a paradigm (Bybee 2001: 118).8 However, the boundary between inflection and derivation is not clear-cut (Bybee 1985: 81– 84, 108–9; Dressler 1989). Instead, it is a continuum, with prototypically inflectional and prototypically derivational categories at both ends, and in between are the categories that are more 7.  A selection of the huge literature about inflectional versus derivational categories should include Kuryłowicz 1964: 35–38; Bybee 1985: 81–110; Dressler 1989; Haspelmath 1996; Booij 1998; Stump 2001: 252–60. 8.  An often-quoted difference between inflection and derivation is that derivation entails a change in the syntactic category (word class) of the word. This is indeed often the case, but it does not seem to be an essential property (Haspelmath 1996; Booij 1998: 12–14). Well-known derivational categories such as diminutives (nouns from nouns), derived adjectives (such as English adjectives with -ish: bluish from blue), and verbs from verbs (in particular, the derived verbal stems of Semitic; see §10.5, pp. 250–252) do not entail a category change. Nor is it an essential property of inflection that it does not entail a change in wordclass; cf. infinitives and participles, which are nouns and often inflectional members of the verbal paradigm (Haspelmath 1996).

1.2.  Method

7

or less inflectional or derivational depending on the number of features they show of either kind (Kuryłowicz 1964: 37). The gradual nature of the contrast makes it possible for categories to shift from (more) derivational to (more) inflectional and vice versa: lexicalization and grammaticalization, respectively (see §2.2.3, pp. 35–36). A paradigm is a dynamic structure: the relations between its members are in a constant flux. Some of them may be expanding their range of use, usurping functions of others; other members may be in a process of gradual decline or replacement by another form. Therefore, the structure of a paradigm is also relevant from a historical point of view.9 The most important point is that the hierarchy among its members influences the type of change to which they are exposed. We can distinguish three kinds of historical changes affecting the members of a paradigm: sound change, analogical (morphophonemic and morphosyntactic) change, and grammaticalization. Basic forms will be affected by both sound change and grammaticalization, the former because it indiscriminately affects all words that meet the phonological conditions for the change, the latter because it is triggered by semantic and discourse factors that lead to renewal of categories regardless of their status in the paradigm. Basic forms will not normally be affected by analogical change, since they are the source rather than the target of analogical change; this is Kuryłowicz’s (1945–49: 23–25) second law (see Hock 1991: 212–22). Derived forms, on the other hand, are affected by all three kinds of change, but in particular by analogical change. Sound change affects them directly if they meet the phonological conditions for the change, or indirectly, when their basic form is affected, since they will tend to adjust to the new base form. In this way, the effects of the sound change will gradually penetrate into the more derived forms, whether or not they meet the phonological conditions (it is not always easy to determine whether a change in a derived form is caused by sound change or analogy). Even where no sound change is involved, analogical change will tend to make derived forms more regular and predictable.10 In general, derived forms are sensitive to any kind of change in their base form. This agrees with the principles formulated by Mańczak (1958, 1980), who establishes that among the forms of a paradigm some will be more conservative and others more prone to change, that the more conservative forms include the singular, the present, the indicative, the third person, inferior numerals (vs. superior numerals), and the cardinal numbers (vs. the ordinal numbers), and that these forms trigger reformation of other forms more often than vice versa. These are the categories that, also according to other criteria, are the basic ones in their respective domains.

9.  For a striking example of change under the influence of the paradigm, see Malkiel 1968, in particular pp. 47–49. 10.  See Hock 1991: 167–89, Givón 1995: 58–59, and in particular Bynon 1977: 34: “in contrast however with phonological change, which operates independently of grammatical and semantic structure, analogy is concerned precisely with the relationship between phonological structure and grammatical structure. It is in fact the very mechanism which, either by modifying existing linguistic forms or by creating new ones, brings back into alignment phonological forms and grammatical function after the relationship between these has been disrupted by sound change.” A good example from Akkadian is offered by the independent personal pronouns (GAG §41). Their paradigm shows a striking difference between the nominative, which is the basic form (both in function and in frequency), and the oblique cases: whereas the nominative remains more or less stable in form throughout the history of Akkadian, the oblique cases have a different form in almost every dialect and period. Another example is the imperfective: since the form referring to the actual moment of speech is the basic category of the verbal paradigm, a change in the present or imperfective of a given language will have important consequences for the entire paradigm. Accordingly, in Akkadian the introduction of a new imperfective with gemination of the second radical (iparrVs) led to a drastic restructuring in many other areas of the verbal paradigm, as I will argue in the rest of the present study.

8

The Structure of the Present Work  1.3.

Generally speaking, there will be a strong tendency within a conjugation to level formal distinctions that are not central to its function, such as stem differences in the finite verb (Mańczak 1958: 301–12; Bybee 1985: 65; Koch 1996: 229–37; see also Bybee Hooper 1980: 166–80). The outcome of all this is that derived forms are far more vulnerable to change than basic forms.11 Irregular derived forms tend to be preserved only when they are frequent enough to have a high lexical strength and thus to be stored in the speaker’s mental lexicon as independent forms (Bynon 1977: 35–36; Bybee 1985: 121–22). Very frequent forms, derived or not, may become irregular because they are subject to phonetic attrition (Zipf’s Law; cf. Bybee 2001: 60–62). Language is a system in which “tout se tient,” to use once more André Meillet’s worn-out dictum, and this is particularly relevant to the close-knit system of a paradigm. Accordingly, we should try to reconstruct paradigms or systems rather than individual categories (Petráček 1984: 434–36). The Akkadian verbal paradigm offers numerous illustrations of this, as will become clear in the course of the present study.

1.3. The Structure of the Present Work In accordance with the objectives outlined in §1.1, the description of the Akkadian verbal system will be twofold. On the one hand, it will be “factual” in the sense that it describes the form and function of each verbal category during the recorded history of Akkadian. On the other hand, it will be hypothetical to the extent that it attempts to reconstruct the prehistory of each category by means of (primarily) internal reconstruction and (subsequently) comparison with corresponding Semitic and Afroasiatic categories. In the “factual” parts, I will give a detailed description of each verbal category in the various periods and dialects in which it occurs, with particular attention (a) to its relations with competing and contrasting categories, (b) to its position in the system as a whole, and (c) to the consequences this may have for its form, its function and its development over time. Obviously, the degree of detail is limited by the quantity of the available sources and by what is possible in terms of the acceptable size of a monograph. For practical reasons, Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian will have centre stage: they are the earliest dialects for which a very large corpus is available, they are both fairly uniform, and Old Babylonian has a sophisticated orthography that reveals the underlying language with more precision than most other dialects. With the results drawn from this description, I will turn to other Semitic languages (and to Afroasiatic languages if reliable correspondences are available) and compare the Akkadian forms with the evidence they provide in order to reconstruct the prehistoric development of the category in question. Ultimately, this should enable us to derive the Akkadian category from its Semitic ancestor (if any) and thus to “explain” the Akkadian form, to the extent that a language form is explained as soon as we know where it has come from. The order in which the individual categories will be discussed is in principle from basic to derived, which by and large means from simple to complex. This gives rise to a main division of this monograph into four parts (not counting the present one, Part I, which includes the ­preliminaries): 11.  In this context we should also view the conclusions of Fox, who observes (2003: 52) that in the case of deverbal nouns usually only the patterns, rather than individual words, are reconstructible to ProtoSemitic, but that “isolated nouns”—nouns that are not primarily associated with a verbal root—can often be reconstructed back to intermediate proto-languages or even Proto-Semitic itself in their full form (see the list in Fox 2003: 72–87). This is a consequence of the ongoing reformation and renewal typical of deverbal categories.

1.4.  Akkadian, Semitic, and Afroasiatic

9

• Part II deals with the categories belonging to the basic stem (the G‑stem) of the strong triradical verb; it describes their form and also includes a discussion of functional aspects such as tense/aspect and mood, which of course also apply to the corresponding categories of other types of verbs. • Part III deals with the form and function of the derived verbal stems. There is some overlap with Part II as a result of the diachronic process whereby derived stem-forms penetrate into the paradigm of the G‑stem (the imperfective iparrVs and the t‑perfect iptarVs); therefore, some issues that strictly speaking belong to this part are actually discussed in Part II. • Part IV gives a succinct account of the paradigms of the weak verbs—that is, verbs with w, y, and/or a vowel as radical—and verbs that (originally) had a guttural consonant among their radicals. The weak-verb paradigm is ostensibly modelled on that of the strong verb, but occasional deviations may provide important information about relations between forms. The importance of the verbs with gutturals is that the loss of guttural consonants is a relatively recent phenomenon in the earliest documents, so ensuing changes can be observed in the texts. Of all verbal categories, these verbs show by far the greatest number of changes in the historical period, which makes them crucial for dialect classification and particularly interesting for observing the kind of restructurings which occur after the loss of a radical. • Part V, finally, consists of a single chapter that wraps up the results achieved in the preceding parts concerning the verbal categories to be reconstructed for the common parent language from the perspective of Akkadian and attempts a—naturally hypothetical—description of the main features of the Proto-Semitic verbal system.

1.4.  Akkadian, Semitic, and Afroasiatic The following sections contain a short description of Akkadian and its dialects and an even shorter one of the languages of the Semitic family and the branches of the Afroasiatic phylum to which Akkadian belongs. The dialect classification of Akkadian itself is not a primary concern of the present study, but in a historical description of Akkadian it is obviously essential to refer constantly to the source of the forms discussed in terms of dialect and chronology. Therefore, the main purpose of the enumeration of Akkadian dialects is to define the labels I will use and to point out some features or problems in individual dialects that are relevant in this context. Most of it is uncontroversial. In §1.4.2, I will briefly describe the subgrouping of Semitic as presupposed in the present study, and in §1.4.3 the relevance of Afroasiatic.

1.4.1.  Akkadian The earliest traces of the Akkadian language consist of personal names in Sumerian documents from ca. 2600 B.C. onward. The earliest extant documents in Akkadian date from ca. 2350 B.C., and the last ones from the beginning of the Christian era. As a spoken language, it is likely to have become extinct several centuries earlier, presumably around the middle of the first millennium B.C., although this is somewhat controversial.12 It was eventually replaced by Aramaic, doubtless after a prolonged period of bilingualism. Akkadian was originally spoken in Mesopotamia by the Babylonians and the Assyrians, but the cultural hegemony of its speakers 12.  For instance, Streck (1995a: xxiii–xxiv) places the disappearance of Akkadian as a spoken language some time during the Hellenistic period (against Buccellati 1996: 345), but Leichty (1993: 27) puts it in the eighth century B.C.; see also Streck 1997/98: 322b); Rubio 2007b: 48–52; and A. Westenholz 2007.

10

Akkadian, Semitic, and Afroasiatic  1.4.

caused its use to spread to many of the adjacent areas, at least as a written language, in particular to the Levant and present-day Turkey. As a result, texts in Akkadian have been found in numerous centres outside Mesopotamia, such as Elam, Boghazköy (ancient Hattusas, the capital of the Hittite empire), El‑Amarna, Alalakh, Ugarit, Emar, and Nuzi. These texts were often written by people with a different native language, and to varying degrees they show divergences from the texts in “core Akkadian” and influences from the local language.13 Therefore, they are adduced here only in cases where evidence from “core Akkadian” is lacking. The very long period during which Akkadian is attested and its wide geographic expanse entails the existence of different varieties according to place and time of attestation. If we take mutual comprehension to be an important criterion distinguishing languages from dialects,14 and if we assume that the spelling more or less reliably represents the language as it was spoken (which is more plausible for the earlier than for the later periods), there can be little doubt that the varieties of Akkadian we find in the texts constitute dialects rather than languages (see below regarding Eblaite).15 For the sake of convenience, I will speak of dialects for variations both in place and in time, although strictly speaking the latter should be called periods rather than dialects. Actually, if we take into account the more than 2,000 years that separate the oldest and the latest attested forms of Akkadian, the rate of observable change is surprisingly small—much smaller, for instance, than that between present-day English and the totally different language that is generally reconstructed as its ancestor of 2,000 years ago, or, to limit ourselves to Semitic, than that between modern Aramaic and its ancestor around the beginning of the Christian era. It is quite likely, however, that the spelling, in particular that of the latest dialects, was much more conservative than the spoken language and that therefore the actual difference was larger than is visible to us.16 Most changes taking place during this period are of a type familiar from language history in general. In the domain of phonology, we observe cases of erosion of phonological substance, such as the loss of mimation and short final vowels, contraction of adjacent vowels, and simplification of consonant clusters. In morphology and morphosyntax, there are instances of the gradual elimination of non-basic and less frequent categories such as the dual (replaced by the plural), the third-person singular feminine (in Babylonian replaced by the masculine form), the vetitive (replaced by the prohibitive), and some of the derived verbal stems, such as the t‑stems (see chap. 14). The most salient change in this domain is doubtless the gradual replacement of the inherited perfective iprVs by the t‑perfect iptarVs as the past tense in affirmative main clauses. It is significant that we do not find developments that drastically change the verbal system as a whole. In particular, there are no changes that have an effect comparable to what we observe in West Semitic, where the basic verbal functions of imperfective and perfective are renewed by means of completely different categories on the basis of periphrastic constructions with parti13.  For an enumeration of the different types of “Peripheral Akkadian” and bibliographical references, see GAG3 §2l* and Huehnergard 2005a: xxv, xxxi. 14.  See, for instance, Payne 1997: 18–19. However, Gelb (1987: 72) flatly denies the usefulness of this criterion. 15.  See, for instance, Joannès, ed. 2001: 27b. A dissenting voice is Woodington (1982: 1): “What we call the dialects of Akkadian are more appropriately referred to as languages.” She gives no motivation for this statement, however. Reiner (1966: 21) states: “I would be inclined to consider Old Akkadian and NeoBabylonian as distinct languages” (the absence of Neo-Assyrian from this statement is surprising). Parpola (1988: 294) takes it for granted that Babylonian and Assyrian were mutually understandable. 16.  See also Buccellati 1996: 345. I disregard here changes in vocabulary, which obviously have a drastic effect on comprehensibility but do not affect the grammar.

1.4.  Akkadian, Semitic, and Afroasiatic

11

ciples and particles. Even the replacement of iprVs by iptarVs is not a complete innovation but rather a shift in the division of tasks between two already-existing categories. A consequence of this situation is that dialect classification depends on a fairly small number of isoglosses, which leads to many uncertainties, especially in the rather poorly documented period of thirdmillennium Akkadian. In the next sections, I will enumerate the individual dialects, using the labels I will employ in the rest of the present study and with short references to the main sources on which our knowledge is based. For second‑ and first-millennium Akkadian, I will not attempt to justify the classification, since it is generally uncontroversial. However, for third-millennium Akkadian, I will be more specific about the classification I am adopting, without undertaking an exhaustive discussion of the issue. In the Excursus to §1.5 (pp. 21–25), I will elaborate on the dialect classification of third-millennium Akkadian and the relationships among its dialects.

1.4.1.1.  Third-Millennium Akkadian I will distinguish four third-millennium dialects: Pre-Sargonic Akkadian, Mari Old Akkadian, Sargonic Akkadian, and Ur III Babylonian; the latter two can perhaps be combined under a single heading, for which I will use the label Old Akkadian (tout court); see §1.5 below (p. 27). For Eblaite, which is better classified as a separate language, see also §1.5 (p. 22). 1. Pre-Sargonic Akkadian is known to us almost exclusively from proper names contained in very early texts that otherwise are written in Sumerian; most of them are conveniently listed by A. Westenholz (1988), Biggs (1988), and Krebernik (1998: 260–70). In the Excursus to §1.5, I will come back to its most important feature in terms of dialect ­classification. 2. Mari Old Akkadian is known from several groups of third-millennium texts found at Mari (Tell Hariri, on the upper course of the Euphrates).17 They range from the Pre-Sargonic period until after the end of the Ur III period, which at Mari is called the “Šakkanakku period,” and comprise votive inscriptions of early Mari rulers; administrative texts, both from the Pre-Sargonic and the Šakkanakku period; and a collection of liver omina. I will also include in this dialect the closely related corpus of texts found at Tell Beydar (ancient Nabada, in the far north of Mesopotamia on the Habur river), dating from ca. 2400 B.C. These texts are mainly administrative.18 3. Sargonic Akkadian is the official language of the Sargonic Empire (ca. 2350 to 2170 B.C.). As the language of royal administration, it was used throughout Mesopotamia, replacing the earlier writing conventions associated with the Pre-Sargonic “Kish Civilization” (Sommerfeld 2003: 583–86) and fell into disuse with the decline of the Empire. The extant 17.  Mari Old Akkadian is not an early stage of the second-millennium dialect of Mari (which belongs to Old Babylonian) and should be strictly distinguished from it. 18.  A survey of the Mari sources can be found in A. Westenholz 1978: 160–61 and Gelb 1992. The votive inscriptions are collected in AKI pp. 355–67 and discussed in Gelb 1992: 152–60; for the Pre-Sargonic administrative texts, see Charpin 1987 and 1990; the texts from the Šakkanakku period were published by H. Limet in ARM 19, apart from a single but extremely interesting legal text published by J.-M. Durand in MARI 1 (1982) 79–89. According to Durand, it is Pre-Sargonic, but I concur with Gelb (1992: 167–69), who dates it to the same period as the administrative texts of ARM 19. The liver omina were published by M. Rutten in RA 35 (1938) 36–70 and are discussed by Gelb (1992: 169–71). They are an unreliable source for the Mari Old Akkadian dialect, because they combine forms with a different background, among which we can discern a heavy Babylonian influence (A. Westenholz 1978: 161 n. 9; Gelb 1992: 169–71, 195). For Tell Baydar, see Ismail et al. 1996; Milano et al. 2004. Grammatical studies of Mari Old Akkadian are Limet 1975; A. Westenholz 1978; Charpin 1987: 89–90; and Gelb 1992: 171–200. The orthography of the different kinds of Old Akkadian Mari texts is discussed in great detail in Gelb 1992.

Akkadian, Semitic, and Afroasiatic  1.4.

12

sources consist of royal inscriptions, letters and administrative documents, and a small number of other texts, among which a fairly long and well-preserved incantation (MAD 5, 8, edited and discussed by J. and A. Westenholz (1977).19 4. Ur III Babylonian is the term I will use for the hundred-odd texts written in Akkadian dating from the Ur III Period (ca. 2110 to 2000 B.C.).20 They consist of letters, administrative documents, royal inscriptions, and a few very fragmentary incantations. All sources are listed in Hilgert 2002: 20–85. The available evidence, scarce as it is, is sufficient to prove that Ur III Babylonian is a direct predecessor of the Babylonian dialect of the second millennium.21

1.4.1.2.  Babylonian From the second millennium onward, the dialect classification of Akkadian is fairly straightforward. After Ur III Babylonian, we can divide Babylonian on a linguistic and chronological basis into Archaic Babylonian, Old Babylonian, Middle Babylonian, Neo-Babylonian, and Late Babylonian. Likewise, we can divide Assyrian into Old Assyrian, Middle Assyrian, and Neo-Assyrian. The boundaries between the stages are not only linguistic but usually coincide with major gaps in our documentation: most dialects are separated by several centuries from which few texts are extant (GAG §187c). This geographical and chronological classification is intersected by the literary dialect of Standard Babylonian (see §1.4.1.2.6, pp. 16–17). The difference between Babylonian and Assyrian is large enough to make it fairly easy to identify even a short passage as Babylonian or Assyrian, but most differences are rather superficial, such as differences in vowel pattern (often resulting from the Assyrian vowel assimilation rule; see §2.4, pp. 48–49), differences in vowel contraction, and the specifically Assyrian ni‑subjunctive. The number of lexical differences is limited, at least for the core vocabulary (see Kogan 2006a). Generally speaking, there can be little doubt that they were mutually understandable and dialects of a single language rather than different languages. This is confirmed by the fact that their development over time runs remarkably parallel (Parpola 1988: 293–94): many changes occur in both dialects (though not always simultaneously), such as the loss of mimation and short final vowels, the gradual introduction of vowel contraction, the development of the t‑perfect iptarVs as a simple past tense in main clauses and the concomitant reduction of the perfective iprVs to secondary clause types, the gradual loss of the t‑stems, etc. This presupposes protracted and fairly intensive contact between the inhabitants of Babylonia and Assyria, for which there are also many other indications.22 19.  The royal inscriptions are conveniently edited by I. J. Gelb and B. Kienast in AKI and by G. Frayne in RIME 2; most of them are only extant in Old Babylonian copies, which in general seem to be rather reliable (see A. Westenholz 1996: 120–21, but cf. Hasselbach 2005: 11–13). The letters are edited by K. Volk and B. Kienast in SAB. There is no comprehensive edition of the administrative texts, but Hasselbach (2005: 255–62) gives a full list of extant texts that have been published so far. A recent grammatical description of Sargonic Akkadian is Hasselbach 2005, which replaces I. J. Gelb’s pioneering Old Akkadian Writing and Grammar (1952; 2nd ed., 1961). 20.  See Hilgert 2003: 11 n. 57. 21.  This fairly recent insight is associated in particular with the names of A. Westenholz (1978, esp. 163b n. 24 end), Whiting (1987), and Sommerfeld (2003); see the “Forschungsgeschichte” in Hilgert 2002: 5–15. 22.  Several concrete facts show that Babylonia had a strong cultural influence on Assyria, such as the use of Babylonian for “literary” purposes, the adoption of the Babylonian syllabary in Middle Assyrian, and the appearance of Babylonian names in the Middle Assyrian onomasticon (Saporetti 1970: II 90). A remarkable grammatical feature that Middle Assyrian may have borrowed from Babylonian is the use of š in the dative pronoun of the first-person plural ‑nâši(n); see W. Mayer 1971: 34 and Huehnergard 2006: 12 n. 57.

1.4.  Akkadian, Semitic, and Afroasiatic

13

1.4.1.2.1.  Archaic Babylonian Archaic Babylonian roughly covers the first half of the Isin-Larsa period—that is, from the fall of the Ur III empire until the rise of the First Dynasty of Babylon (ca. 2000 to 1900 B.C.). The main texts comprise a corpus of letters from Eshnunna, published by R. M. Whiting as OBTA nos. 1–30, some other letters, and a few royal inscriptions of kings ruling in this period.23 There is a great deal of continuity between Ur III Babylonian and Archaic Babylonian: the two share several important features, the most salient of which are global E‑colouring (see §17.5.1, pp. 525–534), the absence of contraction of heterogeneous vowels, the weak conjugation of II/  ʾ verbs and the occasional use of a subjunctive particle -na. On the other hand, Archaic Babylonian shows a few remarkable differences from Ur III Babylonian: occasional deviations from global E‑colouring, the 3ms independent subject pronoun šūt ‘he’, the common use of the dual, and the use of ta- as 3fs prefix (see for details Whiting 1987: 8–21 and Hilgert 2002: 158–68). Since these features are reminiscent of Assyrian, they may simply be due to the fact that the extant sources of Archaic Babylonian have a more northern provenance than most of the Akkadian Ur III sources. Hilgert’s conclusion (2002: 168) that Ur III Babylonian is more closely related to Classical Old Babylonian than to Archaic Babylonian should probably be seen in this light.

1.4.1.2.2.  Old Babylonian Attestation for Old Babylonian roughly coincides with the First Dynasty of Babylon (ca. 1900 to 1600 B.C. in the conventional chronology that is followed here). There is no chronological gap between Archaic and (early) Old Babylonian: the transition is gradual, and the dividing line is not always clear-cut. The main criterion distinguishing them is the appearance of contraction of heterogeneous vowels, not only because it is readily observable in a substantial number of forms, but also because it is an innovation that provides a clear terminus ante quem. A. Westenholz (1978: 164 n. 29) dates it to “the time just before Sumu-abum, both in Babylonia and in the Diyala area”—that is, ca. 1900 B.C. It is convenient to set the first century of this period apart as “Early Old Babylonian” (see Whiting 1987: 16–17). It is mainly known from letters, mostly from Eshnunna, and published by R. M. Whiting in OBTA nos. 31–55. Subsequently, the main period of Old Babylonian begins with the reign of Hammurapi and his successors. The language of this period is often taken to be representative of Akkadian par excellence and has more or less acquired the status of a standard against which all other dialects are measured. It is characterized by a high degree of standardization in grammar and orthography, doubtless made possible by a well-functioning system of scribal education: a relatively simple and accurate syllabary; and an unusually abundant and varied quantity of texts, many of which belong to the highlights of Mesopotamian civilization. Where necessary, I will distinguish this period as “Classical Old Babylonian.”  24 In spite of this standardization, there is evidence of local varieties during the Old Babylonian period.25 Linguistic differences from Classical Old Babylonian are found in particular in texts from the north of Mesopotamia. Best known among these is the dialect of “Mari Old Babylo23.  The most important texts are enumerated by A. Westenholz (1978: 163b n. 25). An important addition is the inscription of Iddi(n)-Sin of Simurrum, edited by Shaffer and Wasserman (2003). 24.  For some more-or-less detailed lists of sources, one might consult Lieberman 1977: 9–14. See also GAG §189 for a general characterization of Old Babylonian. Buccellati 1996 is a grammar that specifically describes Old Babylonian, but almost all grammars with “Akkadian” in the title basically describe the Old Babylonian dialect (e.g., Huehnergard 2005a) or take it as the default form of Akkadian (e.g., GAG). 25.  In particular, in the domain of the sibilants, see Sommerfeld 2006: 371–74 and Streck 2006: 237. The differences between northern and southern texts pointed out by Goetze (1945a) seem to be mainly orthographical; see Kraus 1973b: 33 (but cf. Izre’el and Cohen 2004: 28–29).

14

Akkadian, Semitic, and Afroasiatic  1.4.

nian,” attested in the huge archive of the palace of Zimri-Lim at Mari (see Finet 1956; Lambert 1967). It is only marginally different from Classical Old Babylonian; the only major divergence is the regular contraction of ia to ê (e.g., iqbêm [passim] instead of iqbiam ‘he said to me’, i-méed /imêd/ ARM 1, 6:34 ‘it will become numerous’ instead of imīad ). A very similar dialect is found in the letters from Shemshara (Kupper 2001). Traces of a more northern kind of Old Babylonian are also preserved in a few letters found at Mari but sent from Ilān-ṣurā, which is in the vicinity of Tell Leilan according to Charpin (1989: 31); this dialect is studied by Charpin (1989). Not a different dialect but a different stylistic register is what von Soden (1931/33) calls “der hymnisch-epische Dialekt” and what I will call “literary Old Babylonian.” It is found in a specific and fairly small set of literary works, mostly hymns and epic texts, of which the most typical examples are the Agušaya text, recently reedited by Groneberg (1997) along with several other specimens of the same genre. Other instances are the so-called love poems about a king and a goddess, incantations, religious texts, royal inscriptions (especially the Prologue and Epilogue of Hammurapi’s law code), and several fragments of royal epics.26 The language of these texts is more or less consciously embellished by stylistic devices, such as a special vocabulary, changes in word order, parallelismus, sound effects such as assonance, and various unusual morphological forms.27 Grammatically, literary Old Babylonian differs only superficially from “normal” Old Babylonian, so it can hardly be considered a “dialect.” 28 There are two basic types of differences. The first concerns the cultivation of archaisms, such as the case endings -iš and -um, the 3fs prefix ta-, the Š perfective forms of I/voc and I/w verbs with ū (ušūšir, ušūmid, etc.; see §16.2.3, pp. 455–456), the suffix pronouns with apocopation of the final vowel (-š instead of -šu/a, etc.), and occasional uncontracted vowels. The second is the tendency of Babylonian scribes to exploit derivational patterns in order to adorn their style by creating novel forms that were not part of ordinary language and could therefore be felt as literary. In the nominal declension, for instance, they opted for different construct-state forms (Edzard 1982: 87–88) and greatly extended the use of the old case endings -iš and -um. In the verb, they used the formal and functional similarity between the D‑ and the Š‑stems to derive Š‑stems where ordinary usage required a D‑stem, and even combined their use in the ŠD‑stem (see GAV pp. 271–77, 336–40; and §13.3, pp. 334–337). This creative process started during the Old Babylonian period but reached its peak in the postOld Babylonian stage of Standard Babylonian. Finally, a striking feature of literary Old Babylonian is that it has a much freer word order. In particular, the clause-final position of the verb is often not maintained, and the order of noun and adjective is often reversed. It remains to be determined whether this represents the preservation of an archaic feature (also attested in Eblaite and Mari Old Akkadian; see §1.5, pp. 22–23) or a secondary development dictated by metrical, prosodic, and/or stylistic factors.29 After the Old Babylonian period, this literary dialect developed into Standard Babylonian, which will be discussed below. 26.  See von Soden 1931/33: I 166–75; Groneberg 1972: 7–27. Remarkably enough, the most famous Old Babylonian epics, Atraḫasis and the Old Babylonian fragments of Gilgamesh, do not use this literary Old Babylonian extensively but apparently prefer a much more prosaic and straightforward style using ordinary words, short clauses, and relatively few stylistic adornments. This also applies to the Old Babylonian fragments of the smaller epics, Anzu and Etana. A catalogue of all Old Babylonian literary texts can be found in Wasserman 2003: 185–224. 27.  See GAG §186e/f; Von Soden 1931/33, esp. II 160–81; Groneberg 1996. 28.  A recent description of literary Old Babylonian is Izre’el and Cohen 2004; specific grammatical features are mentioned and/or discussed in von Soden 1931/33, Groneberg 1972, and Huehnergard 2005a: 346–48. Metzler 2002 contains a detailed account of the use of the tenses. 29.  There is some debate about the time of origin of this literary dialect. On the basis of similarities with Sargonic Akkadian, von Soden (1931/33: I 164, II 176–77) and Lambert (1973: 358) situate its origin in the

1.4.  Akkadian, Semitic, and Afroasiatic

15

1.4.1.2.3.  Middle Babylonian Middle Babylonian is usually taken to start with the fall of the First Dynasty of Babylon ca. 1600 B.C., but the earliest texts are from a much later date (from ca. 1400 B.C. onward), so there is a considerable gap between Old and Middle Babylonian. The texts mostly consist of letters and administrative documents, mainly from Nippur, Dūr-Kurigalzu, Ur, and Babylon (the latter were found at El-Amarna in Egypt). Some other contemporary texts, such as the Epic of TukultiNinurta and a corpus of boundary stones (BBS) are in principle written in Standard Babylonian, though they occasionally contain Middle Babylonian forms.30 This also applies to the extant royal inscriptions of Babylonian and Assyrian kings of this period, which are written in an assyrianized Middle Babylonian (Aro 1955: 15; Stein 2000). Generally speaking, Middle Babylonian is a natural continuation of Old Babylonian, and most of its distinctive features are already more or less sporadically attested in (late) Old Babylonian.31

1.4.1.2.4.  Neo-Babylonian Neo-Babylonian is usually dated to the period 1000–600 B.C. (GAG §2g). For linguistic purposes, the most important corpus consists of the Kuyunjik letters written in Neo-Babylonian, which were originally published in ABL and in CT 54.32 They were sent to Assyrian kings by their officials in Babylon and elsewhere and mainly deal with political and historical matters. As a result, they can therefore be accurately dated within the 120-year period from the reign of Sargon II (722–705) to the fall of the Assyrian Empire shortly before 600 (Woodington 1982: 2–5), so they only cover the final part of the Neo-Babylonian period. An important new corpus of NeoBabylonian letters found in Nippur and dating from around 750–730 B.C. has been published by Cole (1996). From a linguistic point of view, Neo-Babylonian rather accurately continues Middle Babylonian, although it is often credited as having been strongly influenced by Aramaic (GAG §192; but cf. Streck 1997/98: 322b).33

Sargonic Period. Whiting (1987: 18–19), however, points out that most of its archaic features are still found in the early letters from Eshnunna and that there is therefore no reason to discount the Isin-Larsa period as the time of origin. This does not exclude the possibility that even older elements have survived. A plausible example are the Š perfective forms with ū: ušūšir, etc., which are common in Sargonic Akkadian but in Old Babylonian are mainly restricted to literary texts that are directly associated with the king: the Prologue of Hammurapi’s law code and a text about Naram-Sin, first published by Lambert (1973) and reedited by J. Westenholz (1997: 189–201). It seems likely that these particular forms are intended as reminiscences of the inscriptions of the Sargonic kings. Generally speaking, the tendency to create a specific literary language is insolubly connected with the emergence of a written language used for purposes other than simple accounting, and this makes it likely that already in the third millennium B.C. there were words, forms, and expressions specifically used in literary creations. See Hasselbach 2005: 11–15 for a characterization of Sargonic Akkadian literary texts. 30.  Aro (1955: 15–18) lists the sources that were then available; see also Pedersén 1998: 103–25. The texts found in Ur were published by O. R. Gurney in MBTU. 31.  The main tools for the study of Middle Babylonian are Aro 1955 and 1957; Bloch 1940 is in most respects outdated. See also GAG §190 for a general characterization. For the differences between Old and Middle Babylonian, see Reiner 1966: 113 and Lieberman 1977: 8–9 n. 21. 32.  Most of these texts have recently been (re)edited in the SAA Series (SAA 17 and 18); see also de Vaan 1995. 33.  Grammars of Neo-Babylonian are Woodington 1982 for the Kuyunjik letters and de Vaan 1995 specifically for the letters sent by Bēl-ibni. See also GAG §192 for a general characterization of Neo-Babylonian.

16

Akkadian, Semitic, and Afroasiatic  1.4.

1.4.1.2.5.  Late Babylonian Late Babylonian comprises the non-literary cuneiform texts from after the fall of the Assyrian Empire—that is, from the Neo-Babylonian, Persian, and Seleucid periods (GAG §2h).34 They consist of a vast quantity of letters and administrative documents; see Dandamaev (1984: 6–29) and Streck (1995a: xxvi-xxix) for convenient surveys. The literary texts and royal inscriptions of this period are to be considered part of Standard Babylonian.35

1.4.1.2.6.  Standard Babylonian In the English-speaking world, Standard Babylonian is the established term for the literary and scientific variety of Akkadian after the Old Babylonian period (German: jungbabylonisch). The name is unfortunate in that the standard for Standard Babylonian is actually Old Babylonian (GAG §2f; Izre’el and Cohen 2004: 2): Standard Babylonian owes its existence to the fact that the learned scribes of the post-Old Babylonian period attempted to emulate Old Babylonian without being completely successful (and getting more and more unsuccessful in the course of time), because they were influenced by their own everyday speech. “Literary Babylonian” is another possible label, but it has the disadvantage that Standard Babylonian also comprises many texts that we would designate “learned prose style” or the like rather than “literary.” The Standard Babylonian corpus is huge and varied; it contains literary texts in the usual sense of the word (epics, hymns, poems, wisdom texts, incantations, etc.), but also what we would call historical texts (royal inscriptions and chronicles) and scientific texts: medical, divinatory, mathematical and astronomical texts, and various (other) types of omen texts. To some extent, the contrast between literary and “ordinary” Old Babylonian discussed in §1.4.1.2.2 (p. 14) continues to exist in the various degrees of “literariness” that we observe in Standard Babylonian for different genres. The genres that used the most literary kind of Babylonian during the Old Babylonian period continue to do so and adhere most closely to the Old Babylonian tradition of the “hymnic-epic dialect.” Here belong the religious epic of Enūma Elîš and other hymnic texts. A more “simple” form of Standard Babylonian is represented by epics and other narrative texts and by royal inscriptions. Finally, various branches of scholarly activity developed their own jargon while using more or less the same grammatical features; clear examples are medical texts, extispicy literature, and other omen texts. They lack most of the stylistic adornments of the previously mentioned text types. Apart from emulating Old Babylonian, the Babylonian scribes also strove for stylistic originality by using and exploiting forms that were not used in their everyday language—not only vocabulary items but also grammatical forms. This explains their fondness of, for instance, the case endings -iš and -um. In the framework of the Akkadian verbal system, the most important feature of their style is the extensive use of derived verbal stems that were not or no longer in use in contemporary non-literary texts. The most prominent cases, which will all be discussed more fully in due course, are the ŠD‑stems (see §13.3, pp. 334–337), the “literary Š‑stems” (see §13.2.2.2, pp. 329–331), and the non-prefixed forms of the Gt‑stem (see §14.3.4, pp. 372–376).36 34.  There is some debate about where to put the dividing line between Neo-Babylonian and Late Babylonian. For other opinions, see Brinkman 1966: 294a and Streck 1995a: xxvi. 35.  A grammatical study of Late Babylonian numerals and the verbal system is Streck 1995a. Blasberg 1997 contains a detailed study of Late Babylonian orthography and morphology, with particular attention to word-final vowels. See also GAG §193 for a general characterization. 36.  There is as yet no comprehensive grammar of Standard Babylonian; see von Soden 1931/33 and Huehnergard 2005a: 595–98. Groneberg 1987 is a grammar of the hymnic texts from the first millennium B.C., focusing on their literary aspects.

1.4.  Akkadian, Semitic, and Afroasiatic

17

Unlike GAG and AHw, I will label as Standard Babylonian almost all texts that belong to the literary and scientific tradition of Mesopotamia from the post‑Old Babylonian period, regardless of their place of origin. This means that many texts that these handbooks list as Middle and Neo-Assyrian, Middle and Neo-Babylonian, and perhaps Late Babylonian are labeled Standard Babylonian here. The other labels are mostly restricted to texts belonging to genres that are relatively free of “literary” influence, such as letters and administrative documents. There are, however, also occasional instances of texts of other genres written (partly or entirely) in these dialects, such as the Neo-Assyrian vassal treaties edited by S. Parpola and K. Watanabe in SAA 2 and the Neo-Assyrian prophecies edited by S. Parpola in SAA 9. Moreover, many texts contain a mixture of literary (Standard Babylonian) and non-literary forms; for instance, Assyrianisms in the royal inscriptions of Assyrian kings (which are in principle written in Standard Babylonian) and Standard Babylonian passages in Neo-Assyrian letters (see §1.4.1.3.3, p. 19).

1.4.1.3.  Assyrian The homeland of the Assyrian dialect is located at the upper course of the Tigris River in the northeastern part of Mesopotamia. Its development can be divided into three periods: Old Assyrian, Middle Assyrian, and Neo-Assyrian. Apart from differences in language, an important reason for this division is historical: each dialect consists of a specific corpus of texts from a particular period and location. Although they are separated by fairly long periods for which we have (almost) no documentation, the general impression is one of more or less uninterrupted development. In many respects, Assyrian is more archaic than Babylonian but it shows at least one important innovation: the vowel assimilation rule (see §2.4, pp. 48–49).

1.4.1.3.1.  Old Assyrian Old Assyrian has come down to us mainly in texts excavated in Anatolia, where Assyrian merchants had established various trading colonies, one of which, the Kārum Kaniš (Kültepe), has produced huge quantities of texts that constituted the archives of this colony; some other places in Anatolia have yielded similar texts but in much smaller numbers.37 They cover a relatively short period and can be accurately dated on archaeological and historical grounds: most texts date from Kaniš Level II (ca. 1950–1835 B.C.); after a break of about 35 years, further texts come from Kaniš Level Ib (ca. 1800–1730; see Veenhof 2003; all dates according to the middle chrono­logy). Systematic differences in language between the texts of the two layers have not (yet) been established.38 From the Assyrian capital Assur itself, we have a few royal inscriptions of Assyrian kings from roughly the same period that are basically written in Old Assyrian; they were published by A. K. Grayson in RIMA 1.39 Almost all Old Assyrian texts are letters and administrative and legal documents that concern the business activities of the merchants and are written in a rather difficult, specialized jargon. However, aspects of their daily life are occasionally discussed as well, giving us a good idea of

37.  In GKT §1, K. Hecker enumerates the Old Assyrian texts available to him at the time of the publication of his grammar (1968); important new text editions include AKT 1–5, Prag I, TPAK 1, and VS 26; thousands of other texts remain unpublished. Michel 2003 is a full bibliography. 38.  See the remarks by Balkan (1955: 41–63), Lewy (1957), Garelli (1963: 51–79), and Hecker (1998: 300). 39.  The few inscriptions we have of earlier rulers of Assur contain hardly any Assyrian elements but are written in the traditional style that goes back to the inscriptions of the Sargonic kings of the third millennium. As a result of the rising cultural prestige of Babylonia, later kings—from Šamši-Adad I (ca. 1808–1776) onward—draw up their inscriptions in Babylonian.

18

Akkadian, Semitic, and Afroasiatic  1.4.

their daily language.40 The style is unadorned and simple. The spelling is rather defective, and the exact shape of many Old Assyrian words can only be established by internal reconstruction and comparison with the corresponding Babylonian forms, which usually show a more accurate spelling. The general impression of Old Assyrian is a surprisingly uniform dialect, which in many respects is more archaic than other dialects and therefore of crucial importance for the history of Akkadian.41

1.4.1.3.2.  Middle Assyrian Middle Assyrian covers the period ca. 1500 to 1000 B.C. Most texts date from the latter half of this period and come from Assur itself and from Kār-Tukulti-Ninurta in its immediate vicinity, or from Assyrian outposts in various parts of the empire that served as residences of Assyrian officials, who themselves doubtless originated from the leading circles in Assur. Outposts of this kind include Dūr-Katlimmu and Tell Sabi Abyad. The texts mainly include letters and administrative documents, an important corpus of legal texts (the Middle Assyrian Law Code and the “Harem Edicts”), inventories, and some rituals.42 Most literary texts from this period, in particular the royal inscriptions, are written in Standard Babylonian, although they occasionally contain Assyrian words and phrases. Our knowledge of Middle Assyrian is rather incomplete. The number of texts is far smaller than for Old Assyrian. Many of the economic texts, and even some of the letters, are stereotyped and provide little grammatical information (W. Mayer 1971: 4). On many points of detail, therefore, we have to supplement our knowledge of Middle Assyrian grammar by inference from earlier and later stages.43 On the other hand, the importance of Middle Assyrian also lies in the fact that it uses a different orthography that is less defective and more precise than that of Old Assyrian. In contrast to Old Assyrian, for instance, it often distinguishes voiceless, voiced, and glottalized consonants, the vowels e and i (⟨še⟩ versus ⟨ši⟩, etc.), and vowel and consonant length (Cancik-Kirschbaum 1996: 69–71). This allows us to observe distinctions that in Old Assyrian we can only reconstruct. In most respects, Middle Assyrian seems to be a close successor to Old Assyrian, in spite of the time gap.44

40.  However, the almost complete absence of other genres—in particular, literary and religious texts— hides a large part of its vocabulary from view. A noteworthy exception is the Assyrian version of a Sargon epic, first published by C. Günbattı (ArAn. 3 [1997] 131–55); see the recent discussion in Dercksen 2005. It is remarkable that the few extant Old Assyrian incantations (listed in Michel 2003: 137–38) show a strong Babylonian influence in their morphology and vocabulary. 41.  The basic tool for the study of Old Assyrian is Hecker 1968 (GKT); for a short general characterization, see also GAG §2i and p. 194. 42.  W. Mayer (1971: 1–3) lists the sources then available; see also Pedersén 1998: 80–103. Important, more recent publications include H. Freydank’s MARV 1–7 and the letters from Dūr-Katlimmu (CancikKirschbaum 1996). A few specimens of the text finds from Tell Sabi Abyad were published by Wiggermann (2000). 43.  The basic tool for Middle Assyrian is still W. Mayer 1971; see also Cancik-Kirschbaum 1996: 62–69. For a short general description, see GAG §2j and p. 195. 44.  See also Reiner 1966: 113. There are, however, at least three Middle Assyrian features that cannot be derived from Old Assyrian: the first-person plural dative pronoun with š (see n. 22, p. 12 above); the N‑stem perfective forms with an ending, which have i in Old Assyrian (iššiknū, etc.) but again show the original a in Middle Assyrian (iššaknū) (see §12.2.1, p. 289); and the use of the vowel a, which sometimes appears in Middle Assyrian where Old Assyrian has an allegedly secondary e—e.g., OA ileʾʾē versus MA ilaʾʾē ‘he is able’.

1.4.  Akkadian, Semitic, and Afroasiatic

19

1.4.1.3.3.  Neo-Assyrian Neo-Assyrian covers the time from the beginning of the first millennium B.C. until the fall of the Assyrian Empire shortly before 600 B.C., but almost all extant texts date from the last 150 years of this period.45 The main corpus consists of letters sent to Assyrian kings and other types of documents related to the royal court (grants, decrees, treaties) that were found in the royal library of Niniveh (Kuyunjik). Smaller groups of letters and legal documents come from various places in the Assyrian empire, such as Assur, Nimrud (CTN 5), and Dūr-Katlimmu (NATSH).46 There are also a few literary texts written in Neo-Assyrian or with a strong Neo-Assyrian influence (see §1.4.1.2.6, p. 17), although Standard Babylonian is the normal medium for such genres. Royal inscriptions from this period are invariably in Standard Babylonian, but those of some kings show a heavy Assyrian influence.47 Because of their varied subject matter and relatively unadorned style, the letters seem to be the best evidence for our knowledge of Neo-Assyrian. Although many of them were written by scholars and high officials and are interspersed with learned forms and quotations from Standard Babylonian (Parpola 1983: 442–43; Worthington 2006), it is usually not too difficult to distinguish these from genuine Neo-Assyrian elements. What is very difficult, however, and has hardly been attempted so far, is to get a reliable idea of the actual Neo-Assyrian dialect from the doubtless largely conventional and perhaps archaizing orthography. As far as we can tell, NeoAssyrian seems to be a close successor to Middle Assyrian in all important respects; it must have been subject to Aramaic influence, but to what extent any innovations were caused by this fact is hard to say.48

1.4.2.  Semitic Evidence from other Semitic languages is indispensable for a reconstruction of the (pre)history of Akkadian and will play an important role in this study. The relationships among the Semitic languages are fairly close; compared to Indo-European, they are on the level of similarity of the Romance or Germanic languages rather than that of Indo-European itself (Ullendorff 1971: 34). Nevertheless, there are striking differences between Akkadian and the rest of Semitic (in particular, in the verbal system) that are large enough to make the reconstruction of the verb in Proto-Semitic a hotly debated issue. Also controversial is the subgrouping of Semitic, but this mainly concerns the internal relationships of West Semitic and is not directly relevant to Akkadian, which together with Eblaite constitutes the East Semitic branch. The present study will not be directly concerned with the internal subgrouping of West Semitic, although its results may be of some consequence for it.49 45.  See K. Deller and A. R. Millard, BagM 24 (1993) 235; and Luukko 2004: 15. Interestingly, the recently published Neo-Assyrian texts from Dūr-Katlimmu (NATSH) date from the beginning of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II (604–562), thus, after the fall of Niniveh (see Radner 2002: 16–19). 46.  For lists of (published) texts, see Luukko 2004: 17–19, 191–212, and Pedersén 1998: 130–81. Most of them, in particular the letters, have been (re)published in the SAA series. 47.  See, for instance, Deller 1957a and 1957b on Assyrian elements in the inscriptions of Aššurnaṣirpal II and Tukulti-Ninurta II, respectively. 48.  A comprehensive Neo-Assyrian grammar is an urgent desideratum. Ylvisaker’s pioneering study of 1912 is largely outdated. For the present, we have Deller 1959, Hämeen-Anttila 2000, Luukko 2004, and numerous articles by S. Parpola, who was the first to place the study of Neo-Assyrian on a firm footing. For short characterizations, see Reiner 1966: 114; GAG §2k and p. 196. 49.  See Faber 1997 on the subgrouping of Semitic (with earlier literature) and, more recently, Hueh­ ner­gard 2005b.

Akkadian, Semitic, and Afroasiatic  1.4.

20

However, the subgrouping of West Semitic has terminological implications in that there is a major dividing line between two groups of languages according to the imperfective they use. One group uses an imperfective consisting of a “simple” prefix conjugation, sometimes with a special set of endings: Arabic yaqtulu, Hebrew yiqṭol, Syriac neqṭol, etc. The other group uses an imperfective that has (or once had) gemination of the second radical: e.g., Geʿez yəqattəl and Mehri yərūkəz. Because in the present study the former group is routinely contrasted with the latter, I will use the label Central Semitic to refer to the former (Arabic, Ugaritic, Hebrew, Aramaic, Epigraphic South Arabian, etc.) and South Semitic to refer strictly to Modern South Arabian and the Semitic languages of Ethiopia.50 An important motive for this is convenience, since it avoids the necessity of constantly referring to “South Semitic without Arabic” and “Central Semitic plus Arabic.” It is true that in many other respects Arabic is more closely related to South Semitic (e.g., with regard to the broken plural; see Ratcliffe 1998b), and in chap. 18, I will argue that this is where Arabic indeed belongs, because the imperfective yaqtulu, on which its classification as Central Semitic is largely based (Faber 1997: 8–9), is a shared retention of Arabic and Northwest Semitic and therefore a poor diagnostic for subgrouping. So the terminology I will use in the course of the present study is based on the following diagram (see also Voigt 1987d: 15): Proto-Semitic West Semitic                   East Semitic Central Semitic                South Semitic    • Northwest Semitic   • Ethiopian Semitic    • Epigraphic South Arabian   • Modern South Arabian    • Arabic Figure 1.  Subgrouping of the West Semitic Languages.

1.4.3.  Afroasiatic From a wider perspective, Semitic is one of the branches of the Afroasiatic language family. The other branches are Berber, Old Egyptian, Cushitic, Chadic, and perhaps Omotic.51 The study of this family is still in its infancy and the relationship between the branches is rather distant. However, it is precisely in the morphology of the verb that convincing correspond­ences are found. There are three points of correspondence in particular. First, there is a striking agreement in the personal prefixes of the fientive verb in Semitic, Berber, and Cushitic (see §2.5, p. 52) and of the suffixed person-markers of stative categories in at least Semitic, Egyptian, and Berber (see §7.4.3, pp. 189–193). Second, there are strong correspondences between several markers of derived verbs: a sibilant with causative function (see §13.6, pp. 351–352); t with detransitive function (see §14.4, p. 375); and n or m, also with detransitive, in particular (medio)passive, 50.  This is basically Voigt’s classification (e.g., Voigt 1987d; see the tree diagram on p. 15); in Hetzron’s classification (1976a: 106), Epigraphic South Arabian is part of the South Semitic branch alongside Ethiopian and Modern South Arabian. 51.  For an extensive survey of Afroasiatic, see Hayward 2000. Other literature includes Hodge, ed. 1971; Sasse 1981; Loprieno 1986: 1–26; Diakonoff 1988; Petráček 1988; Lipiński 1997: 23–47; Voigt 2002; Huehnergard 2004.

1.5.  The Dialect Classification of Third-millennium Akkadia

21

function (see §12.6.1, pp. 315–317). Third, perhaps less conspicuous but no less remarkable and of particular relevance to the present study is the common tendency of present renewal (but with different formal means), as described above in §1.2.2 (pp. 3–5), in many, if not all, branches of Afroasiatic (see §4.4.3.2, pp. 104–107). For the study of the verb in Semitic, therefore, Afroasiatic represents a potentially valuable source of information. The use of Afroasiatic evidence raises numerous problems, however. There is a huge chronological gap between the earliest Semitic data we have (from around 2500 B.C., as indicated above) and the data from other branches of Afroasiatic, which—with a few negligible exceptions—do not predate the 19th century a.d. (with the obvious exception of Old Egyptian). When we compare phenomena attested in Akkadian with putative parallels in, say, Berber and Cushitic, we should be aware that the latter languages have undergone at least 4,000 years of development—and probably far more—since their separation from some prehistoric stage of Akkadian (Kossmann 1999: 13–14). This often makes it difficult to assess the value of such parallels. In order to attain a more solid basis for comparative studies on the Afroasiatic level, we urgently need reconstructions of the common ancestors of these subfamilies, especially of ProtoBerber and Proto-Cushitic (Sasse 1980: 154; Zaborski 1994a: 234–36; Huehnergard 1996: 264–65). Otherwise, comparison may easily degenerate into picking out convenient pieces and equating them with similar pieces elsewhere, without an understanding of the system to which they belong. This has not yet been achieved, however, and for the moment I will accept Afro­ asiatic evidence that I regard as sound and plausible—on the basis of typological evidence, for instance—mainly in support of claims and hypotheses concerning (Proto‑)Semitic that are ultimately based on data from Semitic itself.

1.5. Excursus The Dialect Classification of Third-millennium Akkadian The dialect classification of third-millennium Akkadian raises vexing problems for which only provisional solutions can be offered. Important causes for this are the scarcity of (published) texts, the difficulties in establishing their provenance and date, the (in many respects) unusual orthography, with ensuing difficulties of interpretation, and, last but not least, the fact that a large part of the evidence must be extracted from proper names, with all of the uncertainties this involves. In recent years, it has become clear that the traditional view of third-millennium Akkadian, represented, for instance, in GAG §2c and in I. J. Gelb’s (1961) grammar, which lumps together all extant texts under the heading “Old Akkadian” and regards the later dialects of Babylonian and Assyrian as continuations of Old Akkadian, is far too simplistic.52 Two major innovations seem to have met with general approval.53 First, third-millennium Akkadian is by no means a coherent unity but a conglomerate of several dialects or a dialect continuum. Second, the (very scarcely attested) Akkadian texts of the Ur III Period represent the earliest manifestation of what will later be the Babylonian dialect (hence the term “Ur III Babylonian”; see §1.4.1.1, p. 12 above). In other matters, there is not much unanimity about the relationships among the various dialects. If we consider the geographic location of each of the dialects distinguished in §1.4.1.1 above and the patterns of isoglosses that unite or separate them, a fairly consistent picture arises. In the 52.  This insight is already found in Reiner 1966: 21 and Kienast 1981: 98. 53.  The revision of traditional views on third-millennium Akkadian was in particular initiated by A. Westenholz (1978) and Sommerfeld (2003); see also Hilgert 2002: 168–70 and 2003; Rubio 2003a: 165–69, 2006: 110–12; Hasselbach 2005: 231–35, 2007.

The Dialect Classification of Third-millennium Akkadia  1.5.

22

far northwest of Mesopotamia, we find the Old Akkadian dialect of Mari and Tell Beydar. As far as we can judge from the sparse material, it is very archaic. It shows the following phonological archaisms: • preservation of at least part of the Proto-Semitic gutturals • no E‑colouring • no vowel contraction Morphological archaisms are: • the forms PaRRvS and šaPRvS (versus PuRRvS and šuPRvS, see below) • the original vowel ū (< *aw) in the Š‑stem of I/voc verbs (ù-šu-rí-id /y?ušūrid/ AKI p. 361 MŠ 4: 4); see §16.2.3 (p. 455) • the a vowel in ti-iš-da-u /tištayū/ MARI 1 81:23 ‘they drank’; see §16.7.1 (pp. 496–497) • extensive use of the dual (Limet 1975: 39–43) • retention of case, gender, and number distinctions in the determinative/relative pronoun (Limet 1975: 45–47). Particularly important is the fact that Mari Old Akkadian has a few features that it shares only with Eblaite (to be discussed below), such as: • • • •

no E‑colouring the third-person plural prefix ti‑ (see §2.5, p. 51) instances of S-V-O word order the prepositions sin ‘to, towards’ (at Tell Beydar), and perhaps *qidmē ‘in front of’ (if this is indeed the correct reading of igi-me).

This brings us to the position of Eblaite itself, the language that is preserved on tablets from the archives of the kings of Ebla in northern Syria, to be dated to ca. 2400 B.C. Eblaite is very closely related to Akkadian, but the exact degree of relationship is a matter of debate: the question is whether it is a dialect of Akkadian or whether it should instead be classified as a separate branch of East Semitic, a “sister language” of (Proto‑)Akkadian (see Huehnergard 2006: 3–5; Rubio 2006: 110–123). Eblaite has a number of specific features that set it apart from (the rest of) Akkadian and, conversely, Akkadian has several common characteristics that are absent from Eblaite. An Eblaite innovation not shared by Akkadian is L-reduction, the apparent weakening of the phoneme /l/, presumably to y or ∅ (Krebernik 1982: 210–11).54 A common Akkadian innovation not shared by Eblaite is the dissimilation of the instrumental noun prefix ma- to na- in roots that have a labial radical. Of most other contrasting features, it is difficult to be certain which is innovative and which is a retention, but the sheer quantity of differences supports the view that Eblaite is a separate language rather than a dialect of Akkadian. Therefore, in the present study I will treat it as the closest relative of Akkadian that we know about but nonetheless a separate branch of East Semitic.55 The commonalities between Mari Old Akkadian and Eblaite are in keeping with their geographic location in the extreme northwest of Mesopotamia and their extensive contacts in the Early Dynastic period of the “Kish Civilization,” discussed in particular by Gelb (1992 and many other publications). It is not the case, however, pace Gelb, that Mari Old Akkadian and Eblaite

54.  Unless this is a purely graphic phenomenon, as argued by Rubio (2006: 17, with further literature). 55.  Similarly, Pettinato 2003; Huehnergard 2005b: 157 n. 9, 2006: 4; and Rubio 2006: 121. Krebernik, however, prefers to regard Eblaite as an Akkadian dialect (1996: 249, but cf. also 2006: 84).

1.5.  The Dialect Classification of Third-millennium Akkadia

23

are virtually the same dialect: on balance, the former shows more commonalities with the rest of third-millennium Akkadian than with Eblaite. Among these we may single out: • the merger of Proto-Semitic *ð with z and *θ with š/ś (for the latter point, see A. Westenholz 1978: 163a) • the dissimilation of the instrumental noun prefix ma- to na- if the root contains a labial radical (Charpin 1987: 90) • the change of ay to ē, which does not seem to have occurred in Eblaite (Conti 1990: 35) • the loss of the Proto-Semitic prepositions min ‘from’ and bayn ‘between’, which are still used in Eblaite • the fact that—as far as we know—Mari Old Akkadian does not share the numerous Eblaite lexemes with a West Semitic background (which are also absent from other Akkadian dialects). Opposite Mari Old Akkadian in the far northwest of Mesopotamia, we have to assume the presence of (Pre‑)Assyrian in the northeast, although we have no texts in Assyrian from the third millennium. In many respects, Assyrian stands apart from all other dialects, particularly because of the innovative feature of vowel assimilation (see §2.4, pp. 48–49) and the use of personal pronouns with ‑ti for the dative (GKT §§48–49), but also because of numerous other morphosyntactic features, different vowel patterns, and many specific vocabulary items (see Kogan 2006a).56 These are more than enough to show that Assyrian is not a fairly recent split-off of another dialect but has had an independent development that must go back far into the third millennium. Where Assyrian agrees with other dialects, in particular with Mari Old Akkadian and Sargonic Akkadian, it almost invariably concerns shared retentions—such as the partial preservation of gutturals; PaRRvS and šaPRvS in the non-prefix forms of the D‑ and the Š‑stems; the absence of vowel contraction; the alternation PitRvS–PitaRSū in the Gt‑stem; the use of ‑kunu/‑šunu, etc., for the accusative; and the oblique plural ending ‑ē in the noun (Hasselbach 2007: 40–41). Farther to the south, in Central Mesopotamia, is where we should look for the core area of Sargonic Akkadian. In all likelihood, Sargonic Akkadian is the dialect of the homeland of the Sargonic kings (Sommerfeld 2003) that, according to Gelb (1992: 124), was “an area north of Babylonia proper, which was bounded by the Tigris, the Lower Zab, the mountains, and the Diyala River”—although this is not universally accepted (see A. Westenholz 1999: 31–34). Gelb’s location tallies with the fact that in many respects Sargonic Akkadian is linguistically intermediate between the dialects of Mari Old Akkadian and later Old Assyrian in the north and Babylonian in the south. Phonological features of Sargonic Akkadian that have parallels in the north are:57 • the at least partial preservation of gutturals • local E‑colouring58 56.  Most typically Assyrian features are retentions: for example, PaRRvS and šaPRvS (see §11.2, pp. 269–271, and §13.2.1, pp. 325–326); PitRvS—PitaRSū in the Gt‑stem (§14.2.1, pp. 358–359); the I/voc N‑stem with a long vowel innāmer (§17.6.3.4, pp. 550–551); the ni‑subjunctive (§9.3.3, pp. 222–224); the accusative suffix pronouns ‑kunu, ‑šunu, etc.; the II/voc D perfective ukayyin (§16.5.3.3, pp. 482–483)—to mention only the most salient points. Innovations (or at least independent developments) are, apart from vowel assimilation, the vowels of the precative (§9.2.1.2, pp. 213–216); the t‑perfect of II/voc verbs with a (iddūak, iqtīap, see §16.5.2, p. 478); the generalization of ē in the Š‑stems of I/w verbs (ušēbil, etc., see §16.2.3, p. 456); the loss of ‑š‑ in the dative pronouns; and the change wa‑ > u‑ in word-initial position (GKT §12). See also Table 1 below (p. 27). 57.  See also Hasselbach 2005: 234. 58.  That is, the change a > e in immediate contact with the guttural only, in contrast to global E‑colouring, which also affects other a vowels in the word; see §17.5.1 (pp. 525–534) for details.

24

The Dialect Classification of Third-millennium Akkadia  1.5. • the absence of vowel contraction • the change *ay > ē (rather than ī).

Morphological features agreeing with northern dialects include: • the (residual) use of the subjunctive particle ‑ni • the partial preservation of the original vowel ū (< *aw) in the Š‑stem of I/voc verbs (alongside ē) • PitRvS—PitaRSū in the Gt‑stem (see §14.2.1, pp. 358–359) • the 3mp accusative suffix pronoun ‑šunu (only in copies of royal inscriptions) • the oblique plural ‑ē in the noun • the preposition in (rather than ina). On the other hand, Sargonic Akkadian shares a number of features with the southern dialect of Babylonian: • the pattern PuRRvS/šuPRvS in the non-prefix forms of the D‑ and the Š‑stems • the prefix vowels of the precative • the weak form of the D perfective of the II/voc verbs (ukên/ukîn; see §16.5.3.3, pp. 482–483) • preservation of the dative pronouns with ‑š‑ and the use of genitive/accusative plural forms with ‑ti (šunūti, etc.) • the regular absence of the ni‑subjunctive (apart from residual cases) • the preposition ana (Hasselbach 2005: 167). This raises the question of the relationship between Sargonic Akkadian and Babylonian, which is one of the main problems in the dialect classification of third-millennium Akkadian. Hilgert (2002: 168; 2003: 11) emphasizes the differences between Sargonic Akkadian and Ur III Babylonian and concludes that there is no continuity between them, which means that Babylonian is not a later stage of Sargonic Akkadian. A similar view was expressed earlier by A. Westenholz (1978: 163b n. 24). Hasselbach (2005: 2, 234–35; 2007: 41–42), on the other hand, points out that the similarities between them, although not very numerous, are more significant than the differences, because most of them are shared innovations and therefore indicate a period of common ­development. In fact, if we consider the differences between Sargonic Akkadian and Babylonian, it turns out that most of the Babylonian features can be regarded as later stages of the corresponding Sargonic Akkadian features: • the complete (instead of partial) loss of the gutturals (except the “strong aleph,” for which see §17.4, pp. 520–525) • the contraction of heterogeneous vowels (post-Ur III) • the loss of the ni-subjunctive (and its variant with ‑na), which is the endpoint of a process already well under way in Sargonic Akkadian • the loss of the 3fs prefix ta‑ • the decline of the dual • the loss of the genitive ending ‑i in the construct state (A. Westenholz 1978: 165a; Hassel­ bach 2005: 183), which can be explained from analogy with the nominative and accusative • the oblique plural suffix pronouns ‑šunūti, etc., resulting from a gradual replacement of the original accusative ‑šunu with the independent pronoun šunūti, which itself became a suffix in the process (see Gensler 1998: 238–39, 274)

1.5.  The Dialect Classification of Third-millennium Akkadia

25

• the use of ‑ninni instead of ‑ni as the 1s direct object suffix after the long vowels ‑ū and ‑ā (Hasselbach 2005: 154 n. 23; cf. Kouwenberg 2002: 222–23) • the replacement of in by ina, perhaps caused by the analogy with ana (Hasselbach 2005: 168) and of išti by itti 59 The main question is whether all differences between Sargonic Akkadian and Babylonian can be regarded as internal developments of Sargonic Akkadian. If the answer is positive, nothing prevents us from classifying Babylonian as a later stage of Sargonic Akkadian. Unfortunately, the rest of the evidence is equivocal and therefore inconclusive. The relevant features are the change *ay > ī and E‑colouring. A first point of divergence between Sargonic Akkadian and Ur III Babylonian is that the Proto-Semitic diphthong *ay becomes ē in Sargonic Akkadian but ī in Babylonian. If the latter dialect is a later stage of Sargonic Akkadian, we have to adduce arguments for a regular change ē > ī between the two stages—e.g., Proto-Semitic *baytum > SAk bētum > Bab bītum. Hasselbach (2005: 91 n. 186) does indeed assume this sort of process and adduces parallels for it from other languages. The problem is, however, how to account for numerous ē vowels in Babylonian from various sources that have not become ī.60 Second, a salient difference between Sargonic Akkadian and Babylonian is the kind of E‑­ colouring: if Sargonic Akkadian has E‑colouring, it is of the local type—e.g., e-ra-si-iš /   ʾerāsis/ SAB p. 183:23 (Gasur) ‘in order to cultivate’. In Babylonian, it is global­—e.g., eleqqē ‘I will receive’ < *ʾalaqqaḥ (cf. Ass alaqqē, which is also local; see §17.5.1, pp. 525–529). Several scenarios that might explain this difference can be envisioned, each with its own problems. It is possible that the global form is a secondary extension of the local one—that is, Babylonian would have had alaqqē first and changed it to eleqqē later—thus a case of “Babylonian vowel harmony” (see §17.5.1, p. 525). The problem is that it does not account for forms such as the Stat leqī ( eleqqē without an intermediate alaqqē, since this directly accounts for petī < *patiḥ. However, this implies that E‑colouring in Babylonian was a fundamentally different process from E‑colouring in Sargonic Akkadian (and Assyrian). Finally, we should mention another point of difference between Babylonian and Sargonic Akkadian, namely, the formation of the Š‑stems of I/w verbs. Hilgert (2002: 166–67) adduces the fact that the Š‑stems of I/w verbs have the vowel ā in Ur III Babylonian as an important indication of the distance between Ur III Babylonian and Sargonic Akkadian, since the latter either has the original vowel ū < *aw or (more often) ē. This argument must be questioned, however. First of all, the Ur III Babylonian evidence consists of a single form: tù-ša-ba-lam TCS 1

59.  More difficult is the appearance of Bab elī < *ʿalay instead of SAk al < *ʿal (Hasselbach 2005: 168). We have to assume either that elī took over its final vowel from other prepositions, such as ittī ‘with’, adī ‘until’, qadī ‘together with’, etc., or that Sargonic Akkadian also had an unattested alē alongside al. 60.  Instances: (a) near gutturals (bēlu ‘lord’ < *baʿlum, ipettē ‘he opens’ < *yipattaḥ, mēšenu ‘shoe’ < *mašʿanum, and passim); (b) near ṣ and r (ṣēru ‘back’ < *θ̣ahrum, rēšu ‘head’ < *raʾšum); (c) other cases: ušēṣi ‘he caused to go out’ (Š Pfv of waṣû, see §16.2.3 [pp. 455–456], already in use in Sargonic Akkadian!), ušēdi ‘he informed’ (Š Pfv of idû ‘to know’). Is it possible to assume that ē near gutturals remained because it arose only when the change ē > ī was no longer operative?

26

The Dialect Classification of Third-millennium Akkadia  1.5.

370:8 ‘you will have (sth.) brought to me’.61 Remarkably enough, it is precisely this verb that in Sargonic Akkadian shows a few exceptional forms with ā alongside regular ones with ē: lu-sabí-la-kum /lusābilakkum/ SAB p. 141:12, 14 (Kish) ‘I will send to you’ and perhaps uš-da-abí-la /  ʾustābila/ OAIC 10:8 (Diyala) ‘I considered’ (Subj), if this form is correctly interpreted as coming from wabālu Št2 ‘to consider’ (Hasselbach 2005: 227). Since usābil existed as a variant of usēbil in Sargonic Akkadian, tù-ša-ba-lam provides no evidence for discontinuity between Sargonic Akkadian and Ur III Babylonian. We have to await evidence from other verbs before we can draw any reliable conclusion about these particular forms. The commonalities between Sargonic Akkadian and Babylonian are significant, but our view on E‑colouring and the outcome of Proto-Semitic *ay will determine whether we classify Babylonian as a later stage of Sargonic Akkadian or assign it an independent position as a closely related “sister” of Sargonic Akkadian. It is clear, however, that the two dialects had close contacts or a substantial period of common development during the third millennium. There is a final set of data to be considered here, and these concern Pre-Sargonic Akkadian. The most striking feature of the proper names attested in Pre-Sargonic Akkadian texts is that several of them show E‑colouring and the loss of a syllable-final guttural. The forms in question are /yismē/ ‘he heard’ and /bēlī/ ‘my lord’ in the following proper names: • Iš-me-ì-lum (A. Westenholz 1988: 115 no. 215, 116 no. 292) • Iš-me-lum (A. Westenholz 1988: 115 no. 216, 116 no. 293), and Èš-me-lum OrAnt. 18 225:I 9; see Foster 1982: 307 s.v. • be6 (PI)-lí in, e.g., Ì-lí-be6 (PI)-lí (A. Westenholz 1988: 115 no. 220). The loss of the final guttural may be inferred from Iš/Èš-me-lum, which not only shows E‑­ colouring but also vowel contraction (or syncope) over two gutturals (< *Yismaʿ-ʾilum). This suggests that the process of weakening of the gutturals was far advanced.62 According to A. Westenholz (1988: 101), during the Pre-Sargonic period, forms such as these are only found in Nippur and further south. Since they are typical of the Babylonian dialect and restricted to what will later become the Babylonian dialect area, it is attractive to see the first attestations of Babylonian in these forms.63 This seems to support the idea that what we find as Babylonian many centuries later had very ancient roots in the south of Mesopotamia and coexisted with what we find as Sargonic Akkadian more to the north, close enough to explain the shared innovations listed above. Table 1 summarizes the preceding discussion in the form of a list of the most important innovations on which the classification proposed here is based. It includes neither shared retentions nor features that are lost in more than one dialect, since these are less consequential for subgrouping. I have also omitted Pre-Sargonic Akkadian because of the lack of data on most of the relevant features.

61.  Hilgert (2002: 339) registers a second Š‑stem of a I/w verb, ù-sa-ti-ir AKI p. 326: 51 (RI from Elam) ‘he gave in addition’ from watāru ‘to exceed, surpass’, but as long as watāru Š is only attested in Babylonian, it offers no evidence for dialect classification. 62.  Although it is not certain that we may generalize on the basis of proper names about the state of the gutturals, see Kouwenberg (2003–4b: 363–64) regarding Old Assyrian names in which gutturals are dropped that are never dropped in other circumstances. 63.  Cf. D. O. Edzard, RlA 9 (1998–2001) 108a §3.2 and Hilgert (2002: 170 n. 205). A. Westenholz (1999: 33 n. 81) is skeptical. Hasselbach (2005: 9 n. 50) summarizes the debate without taking a position. However, if these Pre-Sargonic forms indeed represent the oldest traces of the Babylonian dialect, this is incompatible with the claim that Sargonic Akkadian is an early form of Babylonian.

1.5.  The Dialect Classification of Third-millennium Akkadia

27

Table 1  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15

L-reduction ‑ma > na‑ with labials merger of *ð and *z ay > ē or ī SOV word order PaRRvS > PuRRvS E-colouring yusūbil > yusē/ābil Acc ‑šunu, etc. > ‑šunūti vowel contraction Gt PitaRSv > PitRvSv in replaced by ina Dat ‑šunūšim, etc. > ‑šunūti vowel assimilation ni-subjunctive

Ebl + – – – – – –

MariOAk – + + + (ē) – – – –

–

– –b –

– –

–

SAk – + + + (ē) + + –/+a –/+a –/+a – – – – – –c

Bab – + + + (ī) + + + + + + + + – – –c

Ass – + + + (ē) + – + + – – – + + + +

Notes to the Table: a blank cell indicates lack of reliable data. a. The feature is incipient and both types of forms are found b. If si-dar-KI-šu is indeed Inf Gt of šarāqu, see n. 24 to chap. 14 (p. 362). c. Apart from residual cases without a clear function, see §9.3.2 (p. 225).

This leads to the provisional diagram shown in fig. 2 for the relations among the third-millennium languages or dialects (only those without an asterisk are actually attested):         *Proto-East Semitic Eblaite                *Proto-Akkadian     Mari Old Akkadian   *(Pre-)Assyrian      *Old Akkadian             Assyrian     Sargonic Akkadian    Ur III Babylonian Figure 2.  Sub-groupings of third-millennium Akkadian. Note that there is a global correspondence between a dialect’s position in this tree and its geographical location: from left to right roughly corresponds with northwest to southeast. The location of Eblaite far to the northwest of other kinds of East Semitic and from the centre of Mesopotamian civilization is in perfect agreement with its linguistic position: it shows a greater difference from Akkadian than the third-millennium dialects do among themselves.

Chapter 2

Structure and Organization in the   Akkadian Verbal Paradigm

2.1. Introduction In order to master and use a system that is as complex as the Akkadian verb, a tight organization and a transparent structure are indispensable. Organization refers here to the hierarchical relations among forms and categories, which constitute a paradigm with the properties described in the previous chapter (§1.2.3), and structure to the structure of individual forms. This chapter investigates the organization of the Akkadian verbal system as a paradigm and the structure of each of its constitutive members in terms of the “root-and-pattern system.” There are several reasons to start the description of the Akkadian verb with a general account of its organization and structure. First, this makes it possible to draw a precise picture of the relationships between the various verbal categories and the way they interact with each other. Second, it enables us to distinguish the verbal paradigm from derivational forms that are outside the paradigm but are related to it and interact with it. Third, as I argued in §1.2.3 (pp. 7–8), the position of a form in the verbal paradigm influences the way it develops over time. It is convenient here to point to a terminological difficulty concerning the term stem. This term is used in two different meanings in Semitic linguistics:1 it refers both to a word without its inflectional ending(s) and to a specific type of morphosyntactic category—namely, the derived verbal stems, in well-established terms such as the G‑stem, the D‑stem, the Š‑stem, etc.2 On the one hand, we call, for instance, šarr‑ the stem of šarru ‘king’, ‑parras‑ the stem of iparrasū ‘they separate’, and pars‑ the stem of parsāku ‘I am/have separated’; on the other hand, both iparras and parsāku are said to be the G‑stem of parāsu ‘to separate’. In order to avoid confusion, I will use the term inflectional stem for stem in the morphological sense (the word minus the inflectional endings), and verbal stem or derived (verbal) stem for the functional categories traditionally referred to as G‑stem, etc., whenever confusion is possible. Finally, I will use the term stem vowel for the vowel between R2 and R3 that replaces the root vowel (see §2.3.4, p. 45) in most grammatical categories, e.g., i in the D Pfv uparris (root vowel u). Among the stem vowels, the vowel of the G‑stem Impfv iparrVs—which I will call the “imperfective vowel”—has a privileged status, because it is introduced into several categories derived from the G‑stem imperfective (see §4.2, pp. 89–90).

1.  The stem is in general defined as minimally consisting of the root, but usually it is extended with a derivational morpheme, and it may or may not be a complete word (Payne 1997: 24). 2.  See chap. 10 n. 2 (p. 246) for alternative designations of what I will call the derived verbal stems.

28

2.2.  The Organization of the Verbal Paradigm

29

2.2. The Organization of the Verbal Paradigm 2.2.1.  The basic structure The Akkadian verbal paradigm formally distinguishes eight major grammatical categories (see GAG §74): • four finite indicative categories for the expression of tense/aspect: the imperfective, the perfective (usually called preterite), the t‑perfect, and the stative; • one irrealis category: the imperative; • three verbal nouns: the infinitive, the past participle (usually called verbal adjective; see n. 14 to chap. 8), and the present participle.

nonfinite

finite

These categories are shown in Table 2.1 in their Old Babylonian form; by way of illustration, this table contains the forms of the paradigmatic verb parāsu ‘to separate, decide’ in the G‑stem; the finite forms are third-person singular (masculine), apart from the imperative, which is secondperson singular masculine; the nominal forms are nominative singular masculine. Category

Form

(1) imperfective

i-parras

(2) perfective

i-prus

(3) t‑perfect

i-p-t-aras

(4) imperative

purus

(5) stative

paris

(6) infinitive

parās-um

(7) past participle

pars-um

(8) present participle

pāris-um

Type of Stem

prefix base ‑PRvS

suffix base PaRvS

Table 2.1: The eight members of the Akkadian verbal paradigm. Parāsu represents the conjugation of the strong triradical verb, which is the norm for all other types of verbs, both basic and derived. In principle, the verbal paradigm functions independently of any specific type of verb: all Akkadian verbs have essentially the same paradigm, although they do not all have the full range of formal distinctions shown by the basic verb.3 These eight categories are inflectionally related to one another and constitute the primary members of the verbal paradigm. There are three other types of categories that are in some way related to it and dependent on it: a number of secondary members, also with inflectional status, which will be discussed at the end of this section; and two kinds of derivational categories: deverbal nouns and derived verbs, for which see §2.2.2 (pp. 33–35). The structure of this paradigm can be described on the basis of the criteria outlined in §1.2.3 (pp. 5–8). The eight members form a functional hierarchy with the prefix conjugations of imperfective, perfective, and t‑perfect at the top. They represent the quintessentially verbal forms, on which the tense/aspect system of Akkadian is based and which therefore constitute the core of the 3.  The adjectival verbs discussed in §3.3.2 (pp. 58–60) have a more restricted paradigm and a different relationship among some of their members.

The Organization of the Verbal Paradigm  2.2.

30

verbal paradigm. As prototypical verb forms, they can express all morphosyntactic distinctions of the Akkadian verb: • • • • •

person, number, and gender (by means of prefixes and suffixes) tense/aspect (by means of differences in stem) mood (by means of a prefix [l- in the precative] and proclitic particles [i, lū, ē /ay, lā]) orientation (by means of the suffix -am/-m/-nim of the ventive) subordination (by means of the subjunctive suffix -u).

Their basic status is confirmed by the fact that they show different vowel patterns, which—at least in the basic stem—are unmotivated. This variation lies at the basis of the vowel classes; see §3.5 (pp.  68–71). Among the three prefix conjugations, the imperfective has the highest rank in the functional hierarchy of the verbal paradigm, since it is the only one that can refer to the actual moment of speech. Its basic status, in particular that of the G‑stem iparrVs, is demonstrated by the strong influence it has exerted on other categories; see §4.2 (pp. 89–90). The perfective and the t‑perfect, as past tenses, are semantically subordinate to the imperfective. In one respect, the relationships among the prefix conjugations are atypical: the imperfective is the basic member, but it is not unmarked: in Akkadian it is the perfective that is formally unmarked; see further §4.2. The stative is also a finite indicative form, but it is lower in rank because it refers to a state. This is reflected in the fact that it does not make the typically verbal distinctions of tense and diathesis (see §7.3, pp. 163–165, for details) and that it is predictable in form, since it has the same inflectional stem PaRiS as the past participle, from which it is historically derived. The stative can also have the patterns PaRuS or PaRaS in the G‑stem, but only in primary adjectives. This agrees with the fact that a primary adjective is a basic, unmotivated form, whereas a past participle is a low-ranking derived category. The imperative is closely associated with the prefix conjugations and, particularly, with the perfective, whose inflectional stem it shares and from which it is derived by means of subtraction of the personal prefixes (at least synchronically; see §5.5, pp. 133–134). It is subordinate in rank to the prefix conjugations because of its irrealis function. The highly irregular semantic relationship between the imperative and the perfective (which is basically a past tense) can be understood from a historical perspective: in an earlier stage of the language, the inflectional stem ‑PRvS was also employed for the imperfective, as I will argue in §4.4.2 (pp. 100–103). The three remaining categories—the infinitive, the past participle, and the present participle— are peripheral members subordinate to the finite forms, since they do not serve as predicate but as an argument or an attribute to an argument and accordingly have nominal morphology. Their lower rank is reflected in the fact that they are predictable in form and show neutralization of verbal distinctions such as tense, aspect, mood, and diathesis, which is a typical property of decategorized verb forms (Hopper and Thompson 1984: 737–38). I have classified the infinitive and the participles as inflectional on the basis of the criteria mentioned in §1.2.3 (pp. 5–8): they are generally productive, predictable in meaning and form, and strongly dependent on the corresponding finite verb forms in some of their uses (see below).4 It is true that they also show derivational features, such as a change in word class from verb to noun and idiosyncrasies in their meaning. However, a change in word class does not automatically lead to derivational status. According to Booij (1998: 13–14), such forms can be inflectional if they are felt to belong to the paradigm and can be made for each word of the relevant word 4.  Cf. Izre'el (2005: 545), who places them “somewhere mid-way on the derivational-inflectional continuum.”

2.2.  The Organization of the Verbal Paradigm

31

class. In a similar vein, Haspelmath (1996) argues that word-class-changing processes are not necessarily derivational. He introduces (1996: 58–59) the additional criterion of syntactic behaviour: if a noun derived from a verb preserves its “internal syntax”—i.e., its syntactic behaviour as a verb—it can still be inflectional; if, on the other hand, it adopts the internal syntax of the noun, it is derivational. According to this criterion, the infinitive is inflectional, at least in the older stages of Akkadian, where it can be construed verbally, with the subject in the nominative and the direct object in the accusative (see §8.2.1, pp. 197–198). The past and present participles, on the other hand, always have the internal syntax of the noun, if they are the head of a noun phrase or syntagm; they are construed, for instance, with a genitive rather than an accusative. However, they also have some typically verbal functions in which they are closely dependent on the finite verb; for instance, in alpū dāʾišūtu ‘threshing oxen’, the present participle is closely associated with its finite counterpart in alpū idiššū ‘the oxen are threshing’; and in awīlu ḫablu ‘a wronged man’, the past participle is closely associated with awīlu ḫabil ‘the man has been wronged’ and more distantly with awīla iḫbul ‘(someone) wronged the man’ (see further §8.3.1, pp. 200–203, and §8.4.1, pp. 203–207). Although both participles are admittedly more often used as lexicalized nouns, this verbal part of their use— which certainly for the past participle and perhaps also for the present participle is more original—justifies their classification as inflectional members of the verbal paradigm. Formally, the eight members are contrasted by differences in their inflectional stem, apart from the fact that the perfective and the imperative on the one hand, and the stative and the past participle on the other, have the same inflectional stem for historical reasons (see §5.5, p. 137, and §7.4.1, pp. 176–177, respectively). Table 2.1 (p. 29) shows that the G‑stem paradigm consists of no less than six inflectional stems; in most derived stems, the number is lower because some contrasts are neutralized, as we will see in the respective chapters. The finite members are conjugated for the typically verbal categories of person, gender, and number; these are expressed by endings (prefixes and suffixes) that are basically the same for all verbal conjugations; they will be briefly discussed in §2.5 (pp. 49–52). The non-finite members are declined for case and some of them also for number and gender, depending on their function, with the same nominal endings as nouns in general. The endings are the same across all conjugations with parallel functions.5 This causes an association between forms that have both the same function and the same form across conjugations, such as first-person singular forms with the prefix a- or causatives with the prefix ‑š-. Such an association functions as a “morphological relation,” in the terminology of Bybee (1985: 118), and enables speakers to identify such elements as markers of a specific function. The most important dividing line among the inflectional stems is the contrast between the prefix stems (nos. 1 through 4 in Table 2.1), which are built to accommodate prefixes (even if they do not have them), and the suffix stems (nos. 5 through 8), which are built to take suffixes (including zero). Each actually comprises three different forms, one simple and two extended (or marked). Among the three prefix stems, ‑PRvS of the perfective and the imperative is unmarked and is overall the simplest of all inflectional stems; the other two prefix stems are marked by means of an extra consonant, the geminate in ‑PaRRvS and the t-infix in ‑PtaRvS. Among the 5.  In this respect, Akkadian is similar to many other languages: since distinctions of tense/aspect and diathesis are more relevant (in the sense of Bybee 1985: 13–14 and 22–23; see §1.2.3, pp. 5–8) to the meaning of the verb than distinctions of person, number, and gender, the morphemes expressing them tend to have a more central position in the word, whereas the morphemes for person, number, and gender tend to occupy a more peripheral position. In accordance with this tendency, Akkadian uses different stems for the former and different endings for the latter.

The Organization of the Verbal Paradigm  2.2.

32

prefix stems suffix stems

Inflectional stems

three suffix stems, PaRvS- of the stative and the past participle is the simplest, whereas PaRāSand PāRiS- of the infinitive and the present participle, respectively, are marked by means of a long vowel. It is convenient to introduce the term prefix base for the simple prefix stem ‑PRvS, and suffix base for the simple suffix stem PaRvS. The contrast between prefix and suffix base also plays a prominent role in some of the derived stems, even though they tend to have far less different inflectional stems. Table 2.1 clearly shows the peculiar position of the stative: it is finite but belongs to the deverbal members because of its form. This testifies to its relatively recent verbalization and its penetration into the verbal paradigm as an inflectional form (see chap. 7). Before this happened, there was an even stronger correlation between prefixation = verbal = finite and suffixation = deverbal (nominal) = non-finite. For the G‑stem, see Table 2.2:

Category

Strong verb

Markedness

Pfv stem

‑PRvS

simple

Impfv stem

‑PaRRvS

marked

t‑Pf stem

‑PtaRvS

marked

PPartc stem

PaRiS

simple

Inf stem

PaRāS

marked

PrPartc stem

PāRiS

marked

Status finite

non-finite

Table 2.2: The six inflectional stems of the basic verb A common inflectional stem implies a close relationship, not only in function but also in historical background, as in the case of the stative and the past participle. If, on the other hand, forms have a markedly different inflectional stem, it is likely that they come from different sources. This holds in particular for those members of the paradigm of the basic stem that have a consonantal addition to the simple triradical stem (and are therefore not basic in the strict sense of the word): the imperfective (PaRRvS) and the t‑perfect (PtaRvS). This suggests that they originally did not belong to the basic stem but have penetrated secondarily into a pre-existing paradigm.6 It is generally assumed that this is indeed the case for the t‑perfect (see chap. 6), and in chap. 4 I will argue that it also applies to the imperfective. Each of the eight members forms a conjugation based on its common inflectional stem. In the finite conjugations of imperfective, perfective, t‑perfect, and stative, the third-person singular (masculine) is the basic form; in the imperative, the endingless second-person singular masculine; and in the nominal categories, the nominative singular masculine. Since this is based on theoretical considerations rather than on any specific Akkadian evidence,7 it is perhaps more 6.  That this is indeed the case is confirmed by a comparison with Central Semitic, where all members of the verbal paradigm of the basic stem have a simple inflectional stem without consonantal additions. In my view, this can only be an archaism; see chap. 4 and §18.3.1 (p. 590). 7.  The criteria for establishing the basicness of the third-person singular (masculine) mentioned in chap. 1 n. 6 (p. 5) are difficult to apply to Akkadian. It does not have zero expression and is not unmarked in relation to the other persons (except in the stative). Statistical data on the relative frequency of Akkadian verb forms are not available to me and probably difficult to obtain, because almost all extant genres have some

2.2.  The Organization of the Verbal Paradigm

33

Nonfinite

Finite

cautious to state that the endingless forms of the finite conjugations are basic to the forms with endings. This is clear from the way the latter tend to be changed by analogy with the former, rather than vice versa.8 As I stated above, the eight members of the verbal paradigm included in Table 2.1 do not represent the whole array of inflectional forms constituting the paradigm. There is a second group of inflectional forms that are formally dependent on the primary members. These secondary members are presented in Table 2.3 in their Old Babylonian form: Category

Realis

Irrealis

(1) Impfv

iparras(-am, -u)

liprus(-am), ay iprus(-am), lā iparras(-am)

(2) Pfv

iprus(-am, -u)

(lū iprus(am))

(3) t‑Pf

iptaras(-am, -u)

—

(4) Imp

—

purus(-am)

(5) Stat

paris(-am, -u)

lū paris(-am), lā paris(-am)

(6) Inf

parāsum

(7) PPartc

parsum

(8) PrPartc

pārisum, pārisānum

Table 2.3: The secondary members of the verbal paradigm The function of the finite secondary members is modal (for the precative, the vetitive, and the prohibitive), syntactic (for the subjunctive), or deictic (for the ventive). The secondary participle pārisānu serves to renew the verbal nature of the present participle pārisu (see §8.4.2, pp. 207–209). The secondary members with modal (irrealis) function show a continuum of expression from bound (prefixes in most forms of the precative) via “half-bound” (proclitics in some precative forms and in the vetitive) to periphrastic (in the prohibitive and the “asseverative” forms with the particle lū);9 these categories will be discussed in §9.2 (pp. 211–220). The appurtenance of these forms to the verbal paradigm and their inflectional status is shown by the fact that they are fully productive and predictable in form and meaning.

2.2.2.  Derivational categories related to the verb Outside the verbal paradigm, there is a large number of deverbal categories with derivational status. They are of two kinds: verbal and nominal. The verbal derivations comprise what is generally known as the derived verbal stems: the D‑stem, the Š‑stem, etc. They will be discussed particular bias for a specific kind of form: letters for first and second person, omen texts for third person, royal inscriptions for either first or third person (and sometimes a mixture of both), etc. There are hardly any texts that can be regarded as a written reflex of the “normal” use of language in conversation and very few with a natural, unadorned kind of narrative. 8.  Examples of this process are the G‑stem imperative (  purus § pursī/ā; see §5.5, p. 133), the nonprefixed Gt forms (original pitrus - pitarsū § pitrus - pitrusū in Babylonian; see §14.2.1, p. 358), the Old Assyrian N‑stem (original iššikin - iššaknū § iššikin - iššiknū; see §12.2.1, p. 289), the Babylonian N‑stem of I/voc verbs (ipparras - ippăris § innammar - innămir instead of innāmir; see §17.6.3.4, p. 552), the Middle and Neo-Assyrian t‑perfect (ilteqē - iltaqyū (OA) § ilteqē - ilteqiū (MA); see §6.2, p. 140, and §16.7.2.3, pp. 505–506), and the paradigm of the III/voc verbs in general; see §16.7.1 (p. 498). 9.  Which I have put in parentheses, since it is unclear to me to what extent the asseverative represents a mood in its own right; see the recent discussion in E. Cohen 2005: 17–68.

34

The Organization of the Verbal Paradigm  2.2.

in later chapters. The nominal derivations comprise a large number of deverbal patterns with a more-or-less specific semantic function, mostly in the sphere of abstract nouns, agent nouns, instrument nouns, etc. Their productivity tends to be limited and their meanings show many idio­ syncrasies. It is also typical that there is a considerable overlap between similar patterns rather than a strict semantic differentiation. An exhaustive enumeration is to be found in GAG §55/56. The most important derivational categories of the verbal paradigm are the following: 1. The patterns PaRRiS and PaRRāS are used to form agent nouns derived from fientive verbs; in spite of their geminate second radical, they belong to the basic stem (GAG §55o; GAV pp. 65–66). Common examples of PaRRāS are šarrāqu ‘thief’, rakkābu ‘sailor’, dayyānu ‘judge’, errēšu ‘cultivator, farmer’, and kaṣṣāru (OA) ‘donkey driver’; examples of PaRRiS are babbilu ‘carrier’ (from wabālu), maššiʾu ‘robber’, ṭabbiḫu ‘butcher’, and šaggišu ‘murderer’. For lists of the relevant forms and a discussion of their nature, see GAV pp. 58–66. These patterns compete with the G‑stem present participle PāRiS, which is also regularly used for agent nouns (see §8.4.1, p. 205). 2. The pattern maPRaS(t) is a common device for the formation of deverbal nouns with a wide range of meanings (GAG §56b/c; Streck 2002b). It comprises abstract nouns that express the verbal content (mašdaḫu ‘procession’ from šadāḫu ‘to walk in procession’), the result of the verbal action (mēreš (t) u ‘cultivated field’ from erēšu ‘to cultivate’), the instrument (naglabu ‘razor’; cf. gullubu ‘to shave’), and the place of the action (maṣallu ‘resting place’ from ṣalālu ‘to sleep’). A few instances serve as abstract nouns of adjectives (nēmequ ‘wisdom’ from emqu ‘wise’). 3. The pattern PiRS and its feminine form PiRiSt are very productive as verbal nouns to fientive verbs, which may subsequently acquire a wide range of meanings (GAG §55c; Fox 2003: 141–42). They are sometimes used as abstract nouns (e.g., rimku ‘washing’) but are more often concretized (riksu ‘bundle’, šipru ‘messenger’ [OA], migru ‘favorite’, ṣibittu ‘prison’). 4. Derivational patterns of the derived verbal stems are not very numerous, but a prominent case is PitRāS derived from the Gt‑stem, a derivational variant of the past participle PitRuS (GAG §56n, Streck 2003a: 99–101 and §14.2.1, p. 359), e.g., šitrāḫu ‘splendid’ (cf. šarḫu and šitruḫu with a similar meaning); most of them are restricted to literary texts, but a few have a wider use, e.g., mitḫāru ‘of equal size, equivocal’ and itbāru ‘partner, associate’ (OB and OA) (see §14.2.1 about the question of whether the a is long or short). Less productive deverbal patterns with derivational status, which I will not further discuss, are PuRāS (GAG §55k; Fox 2003: 229–30), PuRūS (GAG §55l; Fox 2003: 209), and PuRuSSāʾ (GAG §56o and von Soden 1989: 69–82). A few other relatively productive derivational patterns are de-adjectival rather than deverbal, such as PaRRăS, which is a plural formation of a small number of adjectives, especially adjectives denoting dimensions, such as kabbaru ‘thick’ (cf. kabru); see GAV, pp. 52–58, and PuRS, which derives abstract nouns from adjectives, e.g., dunnu ‘strength’ from dannu ‘strong’ (GAG §55d).10 A feature of derivational forms is that they are less subject to the pressure of the verbal paradigm than inflectional forms (Dressler 1989: 8 sub 17; Booij 1998: 16). They have not only a greater freedom to go their own way semantically but in some cases also formally. The pattern maPRaS(t) provides two illustrations of this. First, its prefix ma- is replaced by na- if the root contains a labial consonant (GAG §31b), whereas the prefix mu- of the present participle, which has inflectional status, always remains mu-; cf., for instance, the maPRaS(t) form nablaṭu 10.  It is arguable that these de-adjectival patterns are ultimately deverbal.

2.2.  The Organization of the Verbal Paradigm

35

‘healing, recovery’ versus the D PrPartc muballiṭu, from balāṭu ‘to live, to be(come) healthy’. The pressure of the verbal paradigm prevents dissimilation, but outside the paradigm this pressure is not strong enough to do so.11 Second, in II/gem roots there is a tendency of identical radicals to cluster together if they are separated by a short vowel; in Arabic, for instance, II/gem verbs show forms such as yaruddu ‘he returns’ instead of *yardudu in conformance with the strong verb (Fischer 1972: 111–13). In the Akkadian verbal paradigm, this tendency is suppressed: Akkadian has idbub, idbubū ‘he/ they spoke’, just as the strong forms iprus, iprusū. However, in maPRaS(t) forms of these verbs, we find instances in which the two final radicals occur as a cluster: maṣallu ‘resting place’ from ṣalālu ‘to sleep’, madakku ‘mortar’ from dakāku ‘to crush’; mašaddu ‘pole’ from šadādu ‘to pull, to stretch’ and namaddu ‘measuring vessel’ from madādu ‘to measure’. In addition, the regular form with the two identical radicals separated by a vowel is also found, in particular in feminine nouns, e.g., maškakātu ‘harrow’ from šakāku ‘to harrow’ and napšaštu ‘ointment’ from pašāšu ‘to anoint’ (Streck 2002b: 250).12

2.2.3. Lexicalization and grammaticalization As stated in §1.2.3 (pp. 5–8), there is no clear-cut boundary between inflectional and derivational categories. In between the prototypical instances of inflection and derivation, there are intermediate categories that combine features of both types, such as the nominal members of the verbal paradigm discussed in §2.2.1 (pp. 29–33). In a historical perspective, these often show a tendency to shift gradually from (more) inflectional to (more) derivational (lexicalization), or vice versa (grammaticalization).13 An important reason for emphasizing the distinction between inflection and derivation is that it clarifies various aspects of the behaviour of these intermediate forms. Lexicalization in the sense intended here is the process of emancipation of members of a paradigm, which makes them (more) derivational and may ultimately make them into independent lexemes.14 In the verbal paradigm, the non-finite, nominal members are most affected by this process: • Present participles tend to develop into agent nouns, e.g., māḫiṣu ‘weaver’ (cf. maḫāṣu ‘to hit, to strike)’, mukinnu ‘witness’ (cf. kânu D ‘to confirm’). • Past participles are often substantivized and acquire some lexicalized meaning, e.g., šaknu ‘appointed’ > ‘governor’, ṣarpu ‘(refined) silver’, eršu ‘(cultivated) field’; see the end of §8.3.1 (pp. 201–202.15 11.  The exception mentioned in GAG §31b, nubattu ‘evening’, related to bâtu (ī) ‘to spend the night’, actually confirms the rule, since in spite of its prefix mu-, it is a derivational form and not a regular participle. 12.  An interesting instance of the phenomenon discussed here is the verb pitqudu: originally a Gt‑stem of paqādu ‘to entrust, provide, muster’, it became lexicalized in the meaning ‘to be careful’ and in NeoBabylonian developed an irregular stative/past participle putqudu (but imperative pitqid ), with the assimilation of i-u to u-u, as in izuzzu > uzuzzu and and itūlu > utūlu (see GAG §107d, §107j). This is a symptom of its separation from its verbal origin: in regular Gt forms with i-u (stative/past participle and infinitive pitrus (u)), the sequence i-u was maintained. 13.  On lexicalization versus grammaticalization, see Kuryłowicz 1964: 36; Comrie 1985a: 10–13; Anttila 1989: 149–52; Brinton and Traugott 2005, especially pp. 62–88. 14.  Cf. Anttila 1989: 151: “Whenever a linguistic form falls outside the productive rules of grammar it becomes lexicalized”. 15.  The lexicalization of past and present participles is often accompanied by adopting the nominal ending ‑ū/‑ī (or ‑ē) instead of ‑ūtu/i in the masculine plural; see §8.3.1 (p. 201) and §8.4.1 (p. 203), respectively.

36

The Structure of Individual Verb Forms  2.3. • Infinitives may become abstract nouns (e.g., balāṭu ‘to live’ > ‘life’) and thence concrete nouns (e.g., danānu ‘strength’ > ‘stronghold’ (as part of the liver, OB) and nadānu ‘to give’ > gift (NB, Pl nadānātu); see the end of §8.2.1 (p. 198).

As these examples illustrate, the starting point of this process is usually that the form in question acquires a specialized meaning with a relatively high frequency. This gives it its own niche in the vocabulary and so opens the way for an independent development. Lexicalization primarily occurs on the level of individual words, but if it involves numerous members of the same category, it becomes more difficult for speakers to recognize the category as a coherent entity with a specific function, so that it becomes less productive and may disintegrate into individual words that only share a similar form.16 For lexicalization in the derived verbal stems, see §10.4 (p. 250). The opposite process, the incorporation of derivational forms into the paradigm, may be called grammaticalization, although this term normally has a wider meaning (as described in §1.2.2, pp. 3–5).17 In the context of the verbal system, it can also be called verbalization. This process occurred with the Akkadian stative; see chap. 7. Another process is the incorporation of a derived verbal stem into the paradigm of the basic stem; this occurred at least twice in the history of Akkadian: with the t‑perfect iptarVs (see chap. 6) and with the imperfective with gemination iparrVs (see chap. 4). It is also possible that the nominal members of the verbal paradigm, or some of them, have originated as derivational forms that gained in productivity and penetrated into the paradigm. It is well-known that infinitives often originate as abstract nouns (cf. the Arabic maṣdars). To what extent this also applies to the nominal forms of the Akkadian verbal paradigm remains unclear. Since membership in the verbal paradigm is only open to categories, not to individual forms, verbalization normally concerns entire categories. Only under exceptional circumstances (in Akkadian, this mostly means: if the verb has an exceptional form) may individual members of a derivational pattern be included in the verbal paradigm. This happened, for instance, with the PaRRāS forms kayyānu ‘normal, regular’ and tayyāru ‘returning, relenting’, which replace the regular present participles *kāʾinu of kânu ‘to be(come) stable, true’ and *tāʾiru of târu ‘to return’, and with ma/upras forms of irregular verbs, which serve as present participles: mūdû ‘knowing’ from idû and muzzazzu ‘standing’ from izuzzu.18

2.3. The Structure of Individual Verb Forms In addition to the organization of verb forms in a tightly-structured paradigm, the complexity of the Akkadian verbal system was made manageable for its speakers by the high degree of transparency and predictability in form and meaning of the verb forms themselves. This was achieved by two interrelated strategies: first, vowels and consonants were invested with different aspects of the meaning of a verb form; and, second, the basic members of the paradigm—which serve as the input of the derivational rules for creating the more derived members—have severe restrictions on their form. The first strategy gave rise to the division of tasks between consonants and vowels that we know as the root-and-pattern system; the second lies at the basis of the predominant triradicality of the verbal root in Semitic. I will discuss each of these strategies in the following sections. 16.  Sometimes this leads to a renewal of the old function by means of a new form—for instance, the renewal of the present participle by means of the suffix ‑ān‑; see §8.4.2 (pp. 207–209). 17.  “Inflectionalization” would be more accurate, but this term does not seem to be in common use. 18.  An example similar to kayyānu and tayyāru is šarrāqānu from šarāqu ‘to steal’. It usually replaces the present participles šāriqu and šāriqānu, which for no obvious reason are hardly ever used; see chap. 8, n. 39 (pp. 207–208).

2.3.  The Structure of Individual Verb Forms

37

2.3.1.  The root-and-pattern system In the root-and-pattern system, which is generally regarded as the hallmark of the Semitic language type,19 consonants and vowels have different functions: the consonants, which make up the root, provide lexical information, whereas the vowels, which constitute the pattern, specify the grammatical function and/or the meaning (basically, according to whether the word is inflectional or derivational). In addition, there may be an optional third element consisting of one or more consonantal affixes that also have grammatical or lexical function. For instance, Akkadian has a root √rkb (corresponding to Proto-Semitic √rkb) that expresses the general meaning of riding (an animal) and sailing (a boat). Combining it with different patterns, we get, first of all, inflectional forms of the verb ‘to ride, sail’ with grammatical meaning, such as the infinitive rakābu (pattern C1aC2āC3), the imperfective irakkab ‘he rides’ (pattern ‑C1aC2C2aC3), the stative rakib ‘he (has mounted and now) is riding’ (pattern C1aC2iC3), the causative ušarkib ‘he caused to ride’ (pattern ‑ša‑C1C2iC3), etc.; and second, derivational forms such as the agent noun rakkābu ‘sailor’ (pattern C1aC2C2āC3), the instrument nouns rukūbu ‘vehicle, boat’ (pattern C1uC2ūC3) and narkabtu ‘chariot’ (< *markabtum, pattern ma‑C1C2aC3 with the feminine ending ‑t), and the action noun rikbu ‘riding’, often used as a collective noun for ‘crew’ (pattern C1iC2C3). Consistent application of such a system makes the morphology of a language completely transparent, and, as long as there is a reasonable balance between the number of functional and of morphological categories, also highly isomorphic. It enables the language user to assign a rather precise grammatical or lexical function to many words on the basis of their vowel pattern alone and to get at least a general idea of their meaning on the basis of their consonantal skeleton. Because the root-and-pattern system embeds regular forms in a formal and semantic network of associations, it stabilizes both the form and the meaning of words and makes both the root and the pattern applicable to new items—that is, productive. Since the pattern normally expresses a grammatical function (in the widest sense of the word), an enumeration of the patterns with their functions is an indispensable part of the grammars of Semitic languages, in particular for the “classical” Semitic languages of Akkadian, Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Geʿez (Goldenberg 1994: 31–32). However, the working of the root-and-pattern system is dependent (1) on the possibility of associating a specific pattern with a particular function on the basis of the fact that it recurs in a substantial number of other words with a parallel function but with different consonants and (2) on the possibility of associating a specific root with a particular lexical meaning on the basis of the recurrence of the consonants in other words with a related meaning (Cantineau 1950b: 120–21; Larcher 1999: 104). It is of little use (and counter-intuitive, as pointed out by Schramm 1991: 1402) to posit a root for combinations of consonants that only occur in a single word or a few words without a clear semantic relationship, or to posit a pattern for a vowel sequence that has no obvious meaning. Therefore, the root-and-pattern system is only applicable to productive processes of inflection and derivation of the kind we typically find in verbal paradigms and their deverbal derivations. Its usefulness for nominal derivation is far more restricted: many nouns remain unaccounted for. This applies to two kinds in particular: primary nouns and deverbal nouns with sporadic unproductive vowel patterns that do not have an obvious function, such as Akkadian šakkūru ‘drunk person’ (cf. šakāru ‘to be(come) drunk’), sikkūru ‘bolt’ (cf. sekēru ‘to lock’), and zuqāqīpu 19.  See, for instance, Cantineau 1950a, 1950b; Goldenberg 1994; Fox 2003: 37–44; and in particular Rubio 2005, which is an exhaustive discussion of recent literature on the nature of root and pattern in Semitic from a general linguistic point of view.

38

The Structure of Individual Verb Forms  2.3.

‘scorpion’ (cf. zaqāpu ‘to erect, to rear up’). The former kind is extremely common in all Semitic languages. Primary nouns typically have a fixed vowel pattern and use suffixation rather than the root-and-pattern system to create secondary derivations (see Fox 2003: 61–68). This applies in particular to Akkadian (Buccellati 1996: 43–45, 139–42).20 In this respect, there is an important difference between Akkadian and the rest of Semitic, especially Classical Arabic, which has exploited the potential of the root-and-pattern system to its utmost, also implicating in it (a part of) nominal derivation, particularly for the formation of plurals, diminutives, and elative adjectives (Cantineau 1950a: 74; Fischer 1993: 40–41).

2.3.2.  The rise of vowel alternation in Semitic The root-and-pattern system is a purely synchronic mechanism. In the context of the present study, it has to be supplemented with a reconstruction of how the typically Semitic division of tasks between consonants and vowels came into being.

20.  Buccellati posits a fundamental difference between the verbal system and nominal derivation. The former employs “internal inflection” (i.e., the root-and-pattern system) for its most essential distinctions (tense/aspect and diathesis) and “external inflection” (i.e., suffixation) for person, number, and gender and for the secondary inflectional categories of the subjunctive and the ventive. Nominal derivation, on the other hand, only employs external derivation: both primary and deverbal nouns only use suffixation for operations such as plural formation and derivation of abstract nouns, with very few exceptions (alkakātu, Pl of alaktu ‘gait, behaviour’, derived from alāku ‘to go /come’). However, there are some instances of internal inflection in primary nouns: 1. Plural forms with gemination, mainly in kinship terms: abbū (Ass abbāʾū) ‘fathers’, etc.; see §4.4 (p. 96) (admittedly, the insertion of gemination is not a prototypical instance of internal inflection, since the pattern itself is not affected). 2. A few expressive derivations (diminutives?) of primary nouns by means of reduplication: kulbābu ‘ant’ (at least if derived from kalbu ‘dog’—i.e., ‘little dog’?) and *pērūru ‘(little?) mouse’ (only attested in the further derivation pērūrūtu; cf. AHw 856b s.v.) < *paʾrūru, of which the basic form *pērum has been lost (Landsberger 1934: 106–7; cf. Ar faʾr ‘rat’). 3. A few (other) diminutives of which the basic noun is not attested in Akkadian but has parallels elsewhere in Semitic (Testen 2006): unīqu ‘young female goat’ (cf. Ar ʿanāq ‘female kid’), urīṣu ‘male goat’ and ḫuzīru ‘pig’ (< ‘piglet’); they show the (Proto-)Semitic diminutive pattern -u-ay- (with ay > ī in Babylonian), which is well-known from Arabic (see von Soden 1991a). It is attested for East Semitic by the Eblaite noun šu-ga-ga-bù-um VE 1128 /ḏuqāqaypum/ (or the like) ‘scorpion’ (Krebernik 1983: 39; Testen 2006: 146–49), which regularly becomes zuqāqīpu in Akkadian. This demonstrates that it was possible in Akkadian to derive diminutives from primary nouns by means of internal inflection, just as in other Semitic languages. In Akkadian, it is also possible—but not very common—to derive a verb from a primary noun by abstracting its consonants and treating them as radicals; cf. the D‑stems wazzunum ‘to listen attentively’ (OA) from uznu ‘ear’ (first noted by K. R. Veenhof; see AHw 1494a s.v.), uppulu ‘to delouse’ (SB) from uplu ‘louse’, ruggubu ‘to provide with an attic’ (OB) from rugbu ‘attic’, and šammunu ‘to anoint with oil’ (NA) from šamnu ‘oil’. Moreover, the noun atḫū ‘partner(s)’, which comes from aḫu ‘brother’ with the reciprocal t-infix (see §14.2.1, p. 359), presupposes a denominal verb in the Gt‑stem (I am aware that this is not quite consistent with my remarks in Kouwenberg 2005: 99). There are even a few instances of verbs derived from loanwords, which are also primary nouns to the extent that they are unmotivated: nukkusum ‘to balance an account’ (SAk) from nikkassu ‘account’ (B. R. Foster, NABU 89/115), and lullû ‘to provide abundantly’ (SB) from lalû ‘desire, charm, luxury’ (both loanwords from Sumerian). To a very limited extent, then, it was possible in Akkadian to “break open” a primary noun and use the consonants to derive a noun or a verb. However, this does not impair the overall validity of Buccellati’s distinction between internal and external inflection.

2.3.  The Structure of Individual Verb Forms

39

Complex systems usually evolve from more simple ones, and the root-and-pattern system is no exception. An important factor in its emergence is the well-known fact that vowels are less stable than consonants. They are particularly susceptible to influence from the environment: their quality tends to be influenced by adjacent consonants and by vowels in neighbouring syllables, and their quantity by accent. This relative instability lies at the basis of widespread phenomena such as vowel harmony and “Umlaut” and “Ablaut” (apophony), in which original phonological vowel alternations are exploited for grammatical purposes (Hock 1991: 66–68, 141–43). Accordingly, derivation by means of vowel alternation is a common phenomenon in the languages of the world; in this respect, the Semitic languages are not very special. Kuryłowicz (1972, especially pp. 36–40) has argued that the guttural consonants and the semi-vowels, in particular, are responsible for the rise of apophony, since they are known to have the greatest influence on neighbouring vowels.21 Semitic also makes wide use of affixation, both prefixation (in the verb and in deverbal nouns) and suffixation (both in the verb and the noun), and combines this freely with vowel alternation, thus accumulating derivational processes: a derived form is taken as the input for a new derivation, often with the aim of strengthening or renewing its form.22 This may lead to a large formal difference between the original source word and its derivative, particularly when the intermediate stages no longer survive. The gradualness of the process may be obscured by the fact that, once a productive derivational relationship has established itself, the intermediate steps may be skipped (Kuryłowicz 1972: 7). In this way, an association arises between words that are far apart in form. The difference will appear in the vowels more than the consonants. Because inflectionally related forms have the same meaning and derivationally related forms different but related meanings, speakers will associate the meaning of the forms in question with their only common element, the consonants, and because productive derivation will assign a specific function to parallel derived forms, the patterns will come to be associated with this function. In this way, vowels and consonants underwent a gradual specialization: they were automatically given their different association with lexical meaning and grammatical meaning, respectively (Rundgren 1980: 89–90). The association of lexical meaning with the consonants only and the location of grammatical meaning in the vowels are, as it were, accidental consequences of the increasing complexity of patterns and the ensuing absence of an invariant sequence of phonemes that could be abstracted as a linear stem with a lexical meaning. The ultimate form of the root-and-pattern system was achieved by the mechanism of “derivation by association”—that is, the common practice in Semitic of combining categories that formally come from different sources in a derivational or even inflectional relationship on the basis of a purely semantic association. Extreme examples of this procedure are the Arabic pattern taqtīl which serves as maṣdar to Stem II qattala (already in Akkadian; see §14.6.1, pp. 401–402), the patterns qatlā and qutlā as feminine to the elative ʾaqtal (Kuryłowicz 1972: 97) and numerous broken plurals and maṣdars of the basic stem (ʾaqtilah from qatīl, etc.). This kind of derivation is a weak type of suppletion—that is, the secondary combination of forms that are formally unrelated into a single paradigm (Payne 1997: 100–101). It is well known in the Indo-European languages, where it mostly occurs in individual words of high frequency: English go and went, good and better/best, Latin sum (present) and fui (perfect) ‘to be’, Classical Greek phérō (present), oísō (future), and ḗnenkon (aorist) ‘to carry, bring’, etc. In the Semitic cases, the words in question also have a different background, although they belong to the same root. 21.  Petráček (1960: 574–82) discusses a number of earlier proposals to explain the rise of apophony in Semitic. 22.  See, for instance, Fleisch 1961: 362–469; 1968: 49–92; GAV pp. 28–33.

40

The Structure of Individual Verb Forms  2.3.

The Arabic examples mentioned above are extreme cases, but a milder form of derivation by association is ubiquitous in Semitic morphology: entire morphosyntactic categories are associated with each other via this process. For instance, the four finite categories of the Akkadian verb, the imperfective iparrVs, the perfective iprVs, the t‑perfect iptarVs, and the stative parVs, all have a different background and have entered into an inflectional relationship through a secondary association based on their function. The same applies to the basic opposition between the prefix and the suffix conjugation of West Semitic, to which I will return below.23 In the course of history, the difficulty of isolating a fixed stem in the verbal paradigm has steadily increased. In Proto-Semitic, the finite categories of the basic verb (insofar as they are reconstructible) still have a single inflectional stem *‑qtVl- (which occurs in the imperfective *yiqtVlu, the perfective *yiqtVl, and the imperative *q(V)tVl ).24 Surely there is another inflectional stem, *qatVl- (in the infinitive *qatāl-, the past participle *qatil-, and the present participle *qātil-), but it is restricted to the non-finite and therefore subordinate forms of the verbal paradigm (see further chap. 8). In Akkadian, on the other hand, the four finite categories of the verb that I mentioned above all have a quite different inflectional stem as a result of different verbalization processes. In West Semitic, the rise of qatala as a new perfect instead of older yaqtul entailed the penetration of the erstwhile deverbal stem *qatVl into the core of the paradigm, creating a situation in which the two most basic forms have different inflectional stems, from which it is no longer possible to extract a fixed sequence of consonants and vowels. As a result, the speakers had to break up the stem and rearrange its parts in order to use it as a basis for derivation. This paved the way for other rearrangements and was undoubtedly an important stimulus for the huge increase in the importance of “internal inflection”.25 Ultimately, Semitic word formation is not essentially different from that in other languages. The difference between the use of apophony in Semitic and in Indo-European languages—e.g., the Ablaut of English sing/sang/sung—lies in the extraordinary degree of productivity and complexity of the former rather than in its nature (Ullendorff 1958: 69; Rubio 2005: 58–59). This applies even to Arabic, which has exploited the possibilities of apophony to an extreme that has hardly any parallel in the languages of the world.

2.3.3.  The root and the radicals The root is usually defined as the element that is common to all members of the paradigm of a given verb and its deverbal derivations. The nature of the Semitic root is one of the most disputed problems of Semitic comparative linguistics. The most important issues were summarized 23.  Petráček (1963: 613) argues for the same kind of origin for the apophonic passive in the West Semitic languages. 24.  The arguments supporting this statement will be provided in the course of the present study; see in particular chap. 18. 25.  Another consequence of this process is the relative stability of Semitic radicals over a long time. It is instructive to compare their rate of change with the situation in Indo-European, where the consonants reconstructed for the proto-language show massive changes in their development toward the historically attested daughter languages. The consonant inventory of many Semitic languages preserves a considerable part of the phonemes of the proto-language. To a large extent, this is due to the fact that the “internal inflection” causes a radical to be word-initial or word-final in some forms, intervocalic in others, and the first or last part of a cluster in still other forms. This means that sound changes will only have effect if they are more or less unconditional, because as long as a consonant is unaffected in some of its positions, the pressure of the paradigm will tend to preserve it also in other positions, thus effectively blocking the change. A radical will often undergo phonological change only if the change is unconditional and thus affects all environments (e.g., p > f in South Semitic and Arabic and g > j in Arabic (Diakonoff 1965: 35 and 1991/92: 94; Voigt 1995: 518).

2.3.  The Structure of Individual Verb Forms

41

and extensively discussed by del Olmo Lete (2003); a more recent discussion is Rubio (2005). Therefore, I will restrict myself to the issues that are directly relevant to understanding the structure and the evolution of the Akkadian verbal paradigm: strong versus weak roots, the possible existence of biradical roots, the incompatibility of radicals, and the difference between verbal and nominal roots. 1.  In its prototypical form, the Semitic root contains three strong radicals, which remain unchanged during all inflectional and derivational processes.26 Strictly speaking, the definition given above only applies to such “strong roots.” In reality, we have to allow for the existence of weak roots as well, which have one or more radicals that are unstable and may undergo changes such as assimilation, replacement by another phoneme, or total disappearance. Already in ProtoSemitic, there were weak roots with a semi-vowel (*w or *y) among their radicals and others with the long vowels *ū and *ī as second radical: e.g., √mūt ‘to die’ and √śīm ‘to fix, decree’ (see §16.5.1, pp. 474–476); and as third radical: e.g., √ðrū ‘to scatter’ and √bkī ‘to cry’ (see §16.7.1, pp. 496–498). In Akkadian, too, the verbal paradigm is based on strong roots, but various phonological changes have greatly increased the number of verbs with weak radicals. As a result of the loss of the Proto-Semitic guttural consonants, which mostly have become vowels or glides (see §17.3, pp. 515–520), the original I/H verbs have become I/voc verbs, the II/H and the III/H verbs have joined the paradigms of the II/voc and the III/voc verbs, respectively, and the original I/y verbs have also become I/voc verbs. Moreover, Proto-Semitic verbs with *w and *y as R3 occur as III/ voc verbs in Akkadian. All in all, we can distinguish the following types of weak roots (the paradigms of which will be discussed in chaps. 16 and 17):27 1. Roots with n as R1 (the I/n verbs), which is weak because it regularly assimilates to the next consonant, e.g., nṢuR ‘to guard’ (in other positions, n is strong); see §16.4 (pp. 469–471). 2. Roots with u as R1 (traditionally called the I/w verbs), e.g., uLiD ‘to give birth’; u interchanges with w (short u does not occur as R2 or R3); see §16.2 (pp. 448–462). 3. Roots with the vowels a or e as R1 (the I/a and the I/e verbs, together the I/voc verbs), e.g., aMuR ‘to see’, ePuŠ ‘to do /make’, aLiK ‘to go /come’; these verbs go back to verbs with a guttural in Proto-Semitic; see §17.6 (pp. 537–554). 4. Roots with a long vowel (ū, ī, ā, or ē) as R2: the II/ū, II/ī, II/ā and II/ē verbs, together the II/voc verbs, e.g., MūT ‘to die’, QīŠ ‘to give’, BāŠ ‘to become ashamed’, and RēQ ‘to be/ go far away’. The II/ā and II/ē verbs probably all go back to verbs with a guttural in ProtoSemitic. See §16.5 (pp. 474–490) for the II/ū and II/ī verbs; and §17.7 (pp. 554–572) for the II/ā and II/ē verbs. 5. Roots with a long vowel (ī, ū, ā, or ē ) as R3: the III/ī, III/ū, III/ā, and III/ē verbs—as a group, the III/voc verbs, e.g.—BNī ‘to build’, TRū ‘to take/bring along’, MLā ‘to be(come) full’ and LQē ‘to receive’. The III/ā and III/ē verbs probably all go back to verbs with a 26.  Apart from superficial phonological processes of assimilation to a suffix, such as Akk anaddikkum < anaddin-kum ‘I will give to you’ from nadānu, aṣbassu < *aṣbat-šu ‘I seized him’ from ṣabātu, and uššamma < uššab-ma ‘I will sit down and’ from wašābu. 27.  For an economical description of the weak verbs, it is more efficient to allow for both semi-vowels (u and i ) and real vowels (a and e) as radicals than to hold to the axiom of only consonantal radicals. The same kind of development took place between Geʿez and Amharic, according to Gragg (1987: 140). Izre'el (1991; 2005: 534) also assumes vocalic radicals. For vocalic radicals in Arabic, see Voigt 1988a: 15 (who accepts u and i as vocalic radicals, but not a, because it cannot open a syllable).

42

The Structure of Individual Verb Forms  2.3. guttural in Proto-Semitic. See §16.7 (pp. 496–509) for the III/ī and III/ū verbs and §17.8 (pp. 572–583) for the III/ā and III/ē verbs.

Some verbs have more than one weak radical but never two successive ones. If two successive radicals belong to the class of weak radicals, one of them is treated as strong. Examples are NūḪ ‘to be(come) quiet’ (II/ū but with strong n as R1), LWī ‘to surround’ (III/ī but with strong w as R2), nWR ‘to shine’ (I/n but with strong w as R2), Bāʾ ‘to pass’ (II/ā, but with strong final ʾ  ), and WīṢ ‘to be(come) few’ (II/ī but with strong w as R1). 2.  If we allow for vocalic and semi-vocalic radicals, no Akkadian root has less than three or more than four radicals.28 There are hardly any verbal forms that cannot be derived from a triradical or quadriradical root. More specifically, Akkadian has no verb forms that are unambiguously derived from a biradical root. However, there are a few individual verbs and groups of verbs of which the root can be broken down into a sequence of two consonants plus an additional third consonant that is arguably a secondary accretion.29 The most plausible instances of individual verbs are šakānu ‘to place’, which is perhaps a fossilized causative of the root √kūn (Akk kânu) ‘to be(come) stable, firm, true’ (Kuryłowicz 1972: 6–7), the twin verbs šaḫālu and naḫālu ‘to sift’, where the alternation of š and n also suggests an old prefix (without an obvious semantic motivation, however); and šaḫātu ‘to fear’, because of ḫātu/ḫattu ‘fear, panic’.30 The most plausible instances of groups of verbs are the following: • a group of I/n verbs denoting sounds, which can be derived from onomatopoeic interjections containing two consonants (see §12.6.1, pp. 314–321) • a group of I/n verbs that denote directional motion and show biradical forms in other Semitic languages (see §12.6.1) • the fientive I/w verbs, which preserve a biradical PiRS or PuRS derivation; e.g., šubtu ‘domicile’ from wašābu ‘to live, stay’ (see §16.2.4, p. 460). None of these verbs have preserved a clearly biradical form in their historical paradigm, with the possible exception of the Assyrian imperative din ‘give!’ of tadānu ‘to give’.31 I will discuss this issue in greater detail in the respective sections on the paradigms of the weak verbs in chaps. 16 and 17.32 28.  In addition, Akkadian has various subparadigms to accommodate verb forms with five or even six consonants but uses these only in non-basic categories: in the derived verbal stems (where it has to allow for the additional consonant of the prefix or for the cluster caused by gemination or both) and in the quadriradical verbs. 29.  Note that this does not imply that such a sequence of two consonants was itself ever in use as a root. 30.  The claim in GAG §73b that Akk šapāru ‘to send’ is related to the well-known biradical sequence PR, which is part of many triradical roots denoting some nuance of separation, seems rather doubtful. If we include instances from other Semitic languages, we might adduce šapālu ‘to be(come) low’, cf. He nāpal ‘to fall’. However, the fact that šapālu is intransitive does not increase the plausibility of this association. 31.  It cannot be ruled out, however, that din is a secondary shortening of the regular form idin (the Babylonian form), although in Assyrian this verb is not normally a I/n verb; see §16.4.3 (p. 474) for details. The allegedly biradical imperatives of the I/w verbs are poor candidates for being genuine biradicals since they can be derived from the triradical perfective by means of the regular rule of imperative formation, namely subtraction of the personal prefix, such as bil ‘bring!’ from tubil like parris ‘separate!’ (Ass, D‑stem) from tuparris, see §5.5 (pp. 133–134) and §16.2.4 (pp. 459–460). 32.  All other cases where two radicals alternate can also, and even more plausibly, be explained as variations of an originally triradical pattern (Zaborski 1991; Goldenberg 2005: 18–19). Akkadian instances are arāru / tarāru ‘to tremble’, ezû / tezû ‘to defecate’, and dakāku ‘to crush’ versus dâku ‘to beat, kill’, for which see §16.6.2 (pp. 495–496).

2.3.  The Structure of Individual Verb Forms

43

3.  A remarkable and often discussed feature of the verbal root in Semitic concerns the “incompatibility rules,” the co-occurrence restrictions of certain (groups of) radicals in the strong root. These rules were first formulated by Cantineau (1946: 133–36) for Arabic, but are best known from Greenberg’s classic article (1950) and later were applied to other Semitic languages by other scholars.33 In a Semitic root, R1 and R2 are never identical nor homorganic (i.e., having the same place of articulation); R2 and R3 are never homorganic unless they are identical; and R1 and R3 may be homorganic and identical, but this occurs only rarely. The absence of identical and homorganic R1 and R2 cannot be separated from the fact that in the basic forms of the verbal paradigm as it existed in Proto-Semitic, and without any doubt also in Afroasiatic, R1 and R2 were adjacent in the prefix conjugations of the basic stem (the ProtoSemitic Impfv *yiqtVlu and the Pfv *yiqtVl; see Kuryłowicz 1972: 22, 30–31; Zaborski 1991: 1684–87). This caused assimilatory changes, the product of which could spread to forms where R1 and R2 were not adjacent. Traces of this process are visible in the existence of variants of the same root, such as He ṣāʿaq and zāʿaq ‘to scream’, where ‑ṣʿ‑ became ‑zʿ‑ by assimilation of voicing, and in irregular sound correspondences between cognates in different languages, e.g., He sābal and Akk zabālu ‘to carry’, where ‑sb‑ became ‑zb‑ (Kuryłowicz 1972: 30–31).34 Where total assimilation would occur (as in the case of homorganic radicals), a loss of transparency would result, which was apparently avoided in Proto-Semitic (Kuryłowicz 1972: 16). The reason why R2 and R3 may be identical but not homorganic is also primarily phonetic and due to ease of articulation: similar but not identical phonemes in close vicinity tend to be avoided: they are either assimilated or dissimilated.35 Moreover, since R2 and R3 are contiguous in various deverbal categories (in Akkadian even in the verbal paradigm itself as a result of the vowel syncope rule), they were subject to assimilation, the product of which could also easily spread to other environments.36 The restrictions on the co-occurrence of R1 and R3 doubtless have the same phonetic background but are far weaker than the other ones. The strength of the incompatibility therefore nicely correlates with the degree of adjacency of the radicals: R1 and R2 have the strictest incompatibility, since they are immediately adjacent in the core members of the verbal paradigm; R2 and R3 are close but rarely contiguous; and R1 and R3 are relatively distant.37 So it is the verbal paradigm that determines the incompatibilities and explains them in a historical perspective.38 Akkadian inherited the incompatibilities of the Proto-Semitic root (see Buccellati 1996: 66– 68 for a discussion and examples).39 There is one type that Buccellati does not mention explicitly: 33.  Such as Kuryłowicz (1972: 15–31). Zaborski (1994b and 1996b) has shown that the exceptions occur mainly in denominal and onomatopoeic verbs or are clearly secondary developments. See also del Olmo Lete 2003: 70–76 and, for Akkadian, Buccellati 1996: 66–67. 34.  Instances of this kind of alternation within Akkadian include baqāru and later paqāru ‘to claim, contest’ and perhaps also zakāru and saqāru ‘to speak’ (Sem √ðkr), although the details are unclear. 35.  Cf. Akk zanānu ‘to rain’, compared to Geʿez zanma and Sabaic ðnm ‘to rain’; Tigriña zänäbä or zänämä, Tigre zälma or zänma (CDG 641a s.v. zanma), and He zerem ‘heavy rain’ show a different solution to get rid of the apparently all too similar radicals n and m. 36.  See §16.6.2 (pp. 494–496) for the background of II/gem roots. 37.  For changes in R3, cf. also Akk kabātu ‘to be(come) heavy’ versus West Semitic kbd (which is also Neo-Assyrian), an alternation that may be caused by assimilation of d to the feminine suffix t: -dt- > -tt-. Within Akkadian, similar cases are Ass nābudu ‘to flee’ and biādu ‘to spend the night’ versus Bab nābutu and bâtu (ī). 38.  For a different view on the incompatibilities, see, for instance, Petráček 1964 and Voigt 1981. 39.  Incidental instances of incompatible radicals in Akkadian include the following: R1 = R2 only occurs in ḫaḫû ‘to spit’ (doubtless onomatopoeic) and lullû ‘to provide abundantly’ (a loanword from Sumerian

44

The Structure of Individual Verb Forms  2.3.

the incompatibility of a glottalized consonant and ʾ in the position of R1 and R2: there are no Akkadian roots that (originally) had ʾ as R2 and ṣ, ṭ, or q as R1 and vice versa.40 This is related to Geers’ Law, which forbids more than one emphatic (i.e., glottalized) radical in an Akkadian root (Buccellati 1996: 68). However, there is no ban on a sequence of glottalized consonant plus ʾ as R2 and R3: cf. waṣû ‘to go /come out’, kaṣû ‘to be(come) cold’, maṣû ‘to be sufficient’, and ḫaṭû ‘to err’, which are all original III/  ʾ verbs (see Kouwenberg 2003: 83–84).41 4.  A further issue is the difference between verbal and nominal roots. A nominal root (i.e., the consonantal skeleton of a primary noun) shows less restrictions on its form than a verbal root: it need not be triradical and has no incompatibility of radicals.42 This is caused by the fact that in Semitic the nominal paradigm is far simpler than the verbal paradigm; in particular, it does not include prefixation, which was an important determinant of the incompatibility of radicals and— as I argued in the preceding section—an important trigger of the rise of the root-and-pattern system. In most cases, therefore, we can do with an invariable stem as the basis of nominal inflection and derivation (see also GAG §51h; Diakonoff 1970; Fronzaroli 1973). However, because many primary nouns are also triradical, they can easily be analyzed as if they consist of a root and a pattern, even though the pattern does not have an identifiable function. This makes it possible to integrate them into the verbal system as denominal verbs (Fischer 1993: 40–41; Fox 2003: 63–65; Rubio 2005: 51–52; Goldenberg 2005: 14–15). Moreover, the oldest stages of Semitic already show clear instances of diminutives formed according to the root-and-pattern system. This is doubtless related to the fact that diminutives are, in origin, expressive derivations and therefore have a greater capability of incorporating additional elements, in particular as reduplicated syllables, which may disrupt the stem and cause internal changes.

2.3.4.  The pattern and the base The pattern (also called scheme or template) is the vocalic complement of the consonantal root: a vowel sequence, sometimes extended with one or more consonantal affixes, which is shared by the members of a specific grammatical category (inflectional or derivational) and can therefore be seen as carrier of its function; the pattern ‑a‑ā‑, for instance, characterizes the G‑stem infinitive PaRāS in Akkadian. This implies that not every vowel sequence is a pattern. and a D tantum verb; see n. 20); babālu is secondary to wabālu. The ban on homorganic R1 and R2 does not affect I/w verbs, as is clear from verbs such as wabālu, wabāʾu, wamālu, wamāʾum, wapû, and wapāšu; see §16.2.1 (pp. 448–450). Identity of R1 and R3 is not uncommon: ḫašāḫu ‘to need’, kanāku ‘to seal’, karāku ‘to collect’, nadānu ‘to give’ (Bab), šabāšu ‘to collect (taxes)’; šagāšu ‘to murder’, sabāsu ‘to be(come) angry (Ass, Bab šabāsum), and the denominal verb šalāšu ‘to do for the third time’. 40.  Because in Babylonian ʾ has been dropped, original II/  ʾ verbs can no longer be distinguished from II/*h verbs and original II/ā verbs (if there are any). The assumption made here is that Babylonian II/ā verbs starting with a glottalized consonant were not II/  ʾ verbs but original II/h (or II/ā?) verbs. Apart from the very problematic verb ṣânu ‘to load, fill’, this only concerns ṣâlu ‘to quarrel’, of which the Old Assyrian forms are ambiguous but compatible with an original root √ṣhl; see chap. 17 n. 152 (p. 557). 41.  Arabic and Geʿez have a number of roots with R1 = glottalized and R2 = ʾ, but they seem all to be denominal or otherwise secondary; see Zaborski 1994b: 4–7. 42.  For instance, verbal roots in Akkadian never have a dental and a sibilant as R1 and R2 (Hirsch 1975: 293; Bucccellati 1996: 68), but nominal roots do; cf. √dšʾ ‘grass, spring’ in the Babylonian noun dīšu ‘grass’ (< *dišʾum), cf. OA dašʾum ‘spring’ and the adjective dešû ‘luxuriant’; √dšp ‘honey’ in the noun dišpu ‘honey’ and the adjective dašpu ‘sweet’ (the infinitive dašāpu occurring as a citation form in lexical texts is doubtless artificial). What applies to nominal roots also applies to the roots of numerals: cf. √tšʿ of the numeral tišē ‘nine’ and √θlθ of šalāš ‘three’, with R1 = R3. The shape of these roots identifies them immediately as non-verbal.

2.3.  The Structure of Individual Verb Forms

45

Among the vowel patterns that can be combined with a root, a special position is occupied by the “root vowel,” an unmotivated short vowel between R2 and R3. The combination of root and root vowel is the “base”; for instance, the root √prs of parāsu ‘to separate, decide’ has a base PRuS.43 The root vowel is not a pattern insofar as it has no obvious (synchronic) function; its importance lies in the fact that it is the basis of inflection and derivation and therefore historically prior to the purely consonantal root, which owes its role to the rise of a more-and-more-complex apophony and the ensuing gradual phase-out of the root vowel (see §2.3.2, p. 40). Most of the categories in which the root vowel originally occurred were replaced by categories with other vowel patterns—usually more complex ones—so that the root vowel was marginalized: in Akkadian, it only surfaces in the perfective and the imperative of the G‑stem—i.e., iprus and purus, respectively, for the verb parāsu. Elsewhere, it was sacrificed to the demands of inflection and derivation (GAG §1b; Schramm 1991: 1403). However, this description mainly applies to strong roots, in which there is a clear distinction between the root and the pattern. In weak roots, the boundary between root and pattern tends to be blurred. In the G infinitive of the I/voc verbs, such as amāru ‘to see’, the initial vowel a is both part of the root aMR and of the G infinitive pattern PaRāS. In the II/voc verbs, the vocalic radicals ī, ū, ā, and ē do double service as radical and as root vowel. Therefore, there are no vowel classes: all II/ī verbs are conjugated in the same way: e.g., iqīap - iqīp ‘he entrusts/entrusted’ (OB), and likewise all II/ū, II/ā, and II/ē verbs. This also applies to the III/voc verbs. Insofar as they originally had a consonantal R3, their final vowel—which is at least structurally long (see §16.7.2.1, p. 499)—is the reflex of the root vowel plus the original weak radical: e.g., imlā ‘it became full’ < *yimlaʾ in the III/ā verbs, and ilqē ‘he received’ < *yilqaḥ in the III/ē verbs. Something similar may have happened in the III/ ī and III/ū verbs: e.g., ibkī ‘he cried’ < *yibkiy and imnū ‘he bound’ < *yimnuw (but the long vowel may also be original here). The outcome of these developments (which will be discussed in greater detail in chaps. 16 and 17) is that the final vowel serves both as radical and as root vowel and thus determines the vowel class: a III/ ī verb automatically belongs to the I/i class, a III/ū verb to the U/u class, etc.44 This double function makes the vowel in question relatively stable, because where it is not required as radical, it may still be required as root vowel and vice versa (Kienast 2001: 63–64). For instance, whereas the root vowel u of parāsu only surfaces in the perfective iprus and the imperative purus, the root vowel ū of mâtu ‘to die’ not only appears as root vowel in the perfective imūt and the imperative mūt but also as radical in the imperfective imūat, the infinitive muātum, and the deverbal noun *mawtum ‘death’ (> mūtu), at least as long as it is not removed by vowel contraction. In this respect (but not historically), a form such as imūt can be seen as based on *imwut Ÿ iprus.45 Thus the weak roots bridge the gap between root and (inflectional) stem, because they are both at the same time.

43.  This use of the term “base” is to be distinguished from its use as part of the designations prefix base and suffix base introduced in §2.2.1 (p. 32). The term “base” is already used by Brockelmann (1908: 287); see also Fronzaroli 1973: 2–3 and Wolff 1977: 203. 44.  However, this only applies to historical Akkadian. In the oldest texts we have, there are some traces of a more complex situation, such as the Mari Old Akkadian form tištayū ‘they drank’, with y as R3 and the root vowel a, from šatû, which is an I/i verb in later dialects; see §16.7.1 (pp. 496–497). 45.  Cf. Voigt 1988a: 59, 73–78.

46

Vowel Syncope and Vowel Assimilation  2.4.

2.4.  Vowel Syncope and Vowel Assimilation In principle, the inflectional stem is the part of a word that remains after the inflectional endings have been removed, and also the form that after the attachment of an ending gives a complete surface form. In some cases, however, the combination of inflectional stem and ending must still be adjusted to the requirements of three superficial phonological rules: vowel syncope (in all dialects of Akkadian), vowel assimilation (only in Assyrian), and vowel harmony (only in Babylonian). Here, I will discuss the first two rules; the (Babylonian) vowel harmony rule can best be discussed in the context of the verbs with E‑colouring in chap. 17. The vowel syncope rule stipulates that if an inflectional stem contains a sequence of two or more short syllables apart from the final syllable, the vowel of the last syllable of the sequence is syncopated.46 For sequences of two syllables, cf. the t‑perfect 3mp iptarsū < iptărăsū ‘they have separated’ and the PPartc parsu < *părĭsum ‘separated’, Pl parsūtu < *părĭsūtum, in contrast to the PrPartc pārĭsu, Pl pārĭsūtu, which remains unaffected (the relevant sequence of syllables is underlined). For sequences of three short syllables, cf. the feminine singular of the adjective damiqtu ‘good’ < dămĭqătum (versus Masc damqu < *dămĭqum), the non-prefixed Gt forms with an ending in Old Assyrian, e.g., the Gt PPartc pitarsum (GKT §88a) < *pĭtărŭsum,47 whereas the form without ending is regularly pitrus < *pĭtărus (Gt Stat 3ms) (see further §14.2.1, p. 358), the suffixed pronouns ‑kunu/‑šunu, etc., in libbaknu ‘your (Pl) heart’ < *libbăkŭnu (and similarly the other suffix pronouns of the second and third person plural; see GKT §49a),48 and the Ntn imperfective of the quadriradical verbs, such as the 3ms ittanablakkat < *ittănăbălakkat (GAG Verbalpar. 39; see further §12.5, p. 312). The overall working of this rule is regular and pervasive and it has a profound influence on the shape of Akkadian; Knudsen (1986: 724) appropriately calls it “one of the most characteristic features of Akkadian phonology.” Of particular interest is that it can apply across word boundaries (Greenstein 1984: 33–34), as in the preposition ănă, which often appears as an, and, more remarkably, in compound proper names, such as OB Aš-ri-ì-lí-šu /Ašr-ilīšu/ < ašir-ilīšu ‘cared for by his god’ and Kur-bi-la-ak /Kurb-ilak/ < kurub-ilak ‘pray to your god!’; and OA Šalmaḫum for Šalim-aḫum ‘the brother is well’, Wardilīšu for Warad-ilīšu ‘servant of his god’, and Taqnabum for Taqun-abum ‘the father is well’.49 However, in these compound names, it is the middle of three short syllables that is syncopated: Šalmaḫum < Šălĭm-ăḫum, rather than **Šalimḫum, perhaps because they had a different stress pattern from single words: Šalim-ʹaḫum (in contrast to *dam ʹiqatum). There are, however, a few exceptions and difficulties in the details. First, a short vowel is sometimes preserved before r, e.g., labĭru ‘old’; in particular, if it is a short ă (including a short ĕ that has developed from ă), as in zikăru ‘male’, išăru ‘straight’, šikăru ‘beer’, ašăru ‘place’,

46.  See GAG §12 and especially the extensive discussion in Greenstein 1984. 47.  The corresponding Babylonian form pitrusā results from an analogical change on the basis of the endingless form pitrus < *pitarus; see §14.2.1 (p. 358). It is not an indication that vowel deletion can also affect the antepenultimate syllable. 48.  The spelling libbakunu is also attested and is perhaps morphophonemic (GKT §49a). For libbakunu in Babylonian, see below. 49.  References for Ašr-ilīšu: AbB 2, 154:1; for Kurbilak: see Hilgert 2002: 589–90 s.v.; for Šalmaḫum: Šál-ma-ḫu-um Prag I 557:6; for Wardilīšu: Wa-ar-dí-li-šu HSS 10, 223:1; for Taqnabum: Táq-na-bi4-im BIN 6, 190:9; Ta-aq-na-bu-um ICK 1, 33b:5 (all OA). A possible instance outside proper names is the genitive construction ri-ig-ma-dIškur YOS 10, 18:47 (OB), if it stands for /rigm-Adad/ < rigim Adad ‘the thunder of Adad’ (CAD R 332b s.v. rigmu 4).

2.4.  Vowel Syncope and Vowel Assimilation

47

epĕru (< *ʿapărum) ‘earth, soil’, epĕrū (Pl) provisions’, and ešĕret (< *ʿaśărat) ‘ten’ (Fem).50 Some other exceptions include Sumerian loanwords (Goetze 1946b: 235–36; Buccellati 1971: 82), but the quantity of the vowels in Sumerian loanwords is often hard to establish. A few forms suggest that l may have the same effect (Huehnergard 1987b: 192), but this is extremely rare: it only occurs in akalu ‘bread’ alongside regular aklu, a PaRs form of akālu ‘to eat’, and perhaps in the irregular trisyllabic perfective forms ubilū, ubilam, etc., of wabālu ‘to carry’, which will be discussed in §16.2.2 (pp. 451–452).51 Second, in contrast to Old Assyrian forms of the libbaknu type, Babylonian always shows the full suffix (libbakunu, etc.), in apparent violation of the rule. We could explain Babylonian libbakunu as a morphophonemic spelling, but this does not seem very likely, since we would expect to find at least some instances of the phonemic spelling, as we do in Old Assyrian. It seems more plausible to assume that -kunu is restored on the basis of other environments, where the rule does not apply, such as the Gen Sg libbīkunu,52 or that the Babylonian form is actually libbākunu, with ā by analogy with the other long vowels that may come after the stem: the Gen Sg -ī and the plural endings -ū and -ī. Third, there is at least one case where the application of vowel syncope is blocked by “paradigmatic pressure”, namely in the non-prefixed forms of the Št2‑stem of II/voc verbs (GAG Verbalpar. 28), e.g.: • Inf šŭtăkūnu ‘to confirm’ (e.g., šu-ta-ku-nu-um ARM 28, 155:11 (OB Mari) and šŭtănūdu ‘to praise’ ((ana) šu-ta-nu-di-im BagM. 34, 150: XIV 13 (OB)) • Stat 3fp šŭtăḫūqā ‘they are intermingled’ BE 14, 4:6 (MB) • Imp šŭtăqīp (šu-ta-qí-ip FM 1 p. 128:30 ‘buy on credit!’ (OB Mari)). This is based on the relationship between the corresponding strong forms: uštaparras : šutaprVs(u) § uštakān : šutakV¯n(u) (instead of **šutkV¯n(u)); see §16.5.3.4 (pp. 487–488) for the paradigm of these forms. In later dialects, in particular in Neo-Assyrian, more forms emerge in which short ă is restored on the basis of the strong verb—for instance, in the Š‑stem of II/voc verbs: • lu-šá-di-il-lu /lušadillū/ SAA 2 p. 53:575 var. Q (NA) ‘may they cause to ride around aimlessly’ from dâlu (see §16.5.3.4, p. 487) • li-šá-ṭib /lišaṭīb/ Wedg. 16: r.3 (LB) ‘may he make pleasant’ from ṭâbu Š (earlier lišṭīb), and also in the quadriradical verbs, which will be discussed in §13.4.1 (p. 339), e.g., Š Impfv ušabalakkat for earlier ušbalakkat. Sporadically, we find exceptions the other way around: vowel syncope in cases that do not meet the criteria of the vowel syncope rule, usually of a short vowel following a long syllable.

50.  See GAG §12b Anm.; Goetze 1946b: 234–35; Matouš and Petráček 1956: 10–12. This happens especially in Babylonian; Assyrian more often (but not always) shows syncope in these words: e.g., epru ‘dust’ (ep-ra-am BIN 4, 10:26) and šikru ‘beer’ (e.g., ší-ik-ri-im CCT 4, 7b:6) versus išaru (i-ša-ru-ú OIP 27, 15:11 ‘they are correct’) and igaru ‘wall’ (i-ga-ri-im RA 80, 128 no. 26:30, both without vowel assimilation!). 51.  The Old Assyrian instances mentioned by Matouš and Petráček (1956: 11) of the type bu-qú-lam KTK 67:12 ‘malt’ alongside bu-uq-lúm TC 3, 181:15 and šu-qú-lu-um TC 3, 81:19 ‘package (for shipping metals)’ alongside šuqlum (passim), both PuRS forms, and perhaps also imperatives such as šu-ku-nam TC 3, 1:29 ‘place for me!’ beside šu-uk-nam TC 3, 1:22 from šakānu are instances of vowel epenthesis rather than vowel syncope. 52.  For long ī in the genitive singular, see Aro 1953: 7–8 and Hecker 2000.

48

Vowel Syncope and Vowel Assimilation  2.4.

This occurs in meršu (mēršu?) ‘cultivated land’ (see CAD M/2 27a s.v. meršu) (OB) and in meṭlūtu (mēṭlūtu?) ‘mature age’, a maPRaS form related to eṭlu ‘young man’ (SB).53 Finally, the application of the rule to vowels followed by a semi-vowel or an (original) ʾ is a difficult point. Most pertinent forms suggest that the rule does not work in this position, e.g., Bab rabiāku ‘I am big/old’ from the III/ ī verb rabû, and OA zakuāku ‘I am free’ from zakû (III/ū), which correspond to parsāku in the strong verb (Greenstein 1984: 28–29).54 In the discussion of the paradigm of the weak verbs, I will argue that in principle vowel syncope also applies to this environment but that it was restored (in Old Assyrian often and in other dialects always) by introducing an epenthetic vowel; see §16.7.2.3–4 (pp. 501–509). Vowel syncope is a phonological process that operates “across the board,” i.e., regardless of grammar or word class. It gives important information on the quantity of vowels in the word independently of the actual orthography and thus greatly helps us to reconstruct the exact form of words. It is valid for all dialects of Akkadian and is therefore certainly Proto-Akkadian, but it is uncertain to what extent it was already operative in Eblaite, especially because of the highly ambiguous orthography (cf. Huehnergard 2006: 8; Krebernik 2006: 86–88). The vowel assimilation rule is a specifically Assyrian phenomenon.55 It stipulates that a short ă in the penultimate syllable of a word of three or more syllables is assimilated to the vowel of the final syllable: e.g., ippăris > ippiris, but bisyllabic păris does not change.56 Accordingly, Old Assyrian has aššutum (Nom) - aššitim (Gen) - aššatam (Acc) instead of OB aššatum - aššatim aššatam ‘wife’; in the verb, Assyrian has išakkan, išakkunū instead of OB išakkan, išakkanū ‘he/ they (will) place’, and taṣbitī instead of taṣbatī ‘you (Fem) seized’, etc.57 Occasionally we find forms in which an apparent short ă does not show assimilation (GKT §10 end): kar-pá-tim kt c/k 1645:9, Gen Sg of *karpatum ‘jar’ alongside regular karpitim, and 53.  Perhaps the difficult verb forms muštedqi from edēqu Št2 ‘to put on’ in mu-uš-te-ed-qì apluḫtim JRAS CSpl. p. 67: 11 (OB) ‘clad in armour’ and tuštētepšam from epēšu Št2(?) in tu-uš-te-te-ep-ša-am AbB 14, 116:26 (OB) ‘you have caused to be made for me’ for expected muštēdiq‑ and tuštetēpišam also belong here. 54.  Unless zakuāku is to be interpreted as a D‑stem zakkuāku, see chap 3 n. 76 (p. 65). 55.  Traditionally called vowel harmony in Akkadian grammar. However, this term as it is usually defined in handbooks of phonology is exclusively applied to rules that stipulate that all vowels of a word must share one or more specific phonological properties, such as being all either front or back, rounded or unrounded, etc.; see, for instance, Katamba 1989: 211. The Assyrian phenomenon does not satisfy this condition, because it only concerns the penultimate vowel. 56.  GAG3 §10e/f; for Old Assyrian: GKT §10; for Middle Assyrian: Meyer 1971: 12 §8 sub 1a) aʹ (the forms W. Mayer quotes sub 1a) bʹ) and 1a) gʹ (sic) are uncertain [see Postgate 1974: 273–74] or belong to a different category); for Neo-Assyrian: Hämeen-Anttila 2000: 30f.; see also Greenstein 1984: 38 n. 48 (but read “only a ” instead of “usually a ” for Old Assyrian). The formulation excludes the first syllable of a word from being affected, but there are a few words that in Babylonian have short ă in the first syllable but in Assyrian i or u, just as in the next syllable: isītu ‘tower’ (Bab asītu) and ziqīpu ‘stake’ (Bab zaqīpu), kulūmu ‘lamb’ (Bab kalūmu). Perhaps these forms are a kind of side-effect of the rule. Other words with short ă in the first syllable do not have assimilation, such as maḫīru ‘market’. 57.  The first syllable of a bisyllabic word is affected by way of exception in kulu (also kalu), Gen kili, Acc kala ‘all’ (GKT §10c) and perhaps also in iš-ri- + suffix pronoun, Gen of ašrum ‘place’, but as long as no Nom **ušrum is attested, it is not certain that i- of išrī- is caused by vowel assimilation. The forms -neand ‑nu‑ instead of ‑na‑ in the imperfective of tan‑stems such as uštenebbal, Štn imperfective of wabālu ‘to bring/take’, and ittunūar, Gtn imperfective of târu ‘to come back’, are not instances of this rule but analogical formations (uštakkal : uštanakkal § uštebbal : uštenebbal, etc.; see §16.2.3 sub 3 (p. 457). It is questionable whether the vowel variation in the declension of pû ‘mouth’ is caused by vowel assimilation, as GAG3 §10f claims: several other forms are attested than the ones quoted, and the details remain to be established.

2.5.  The Personal Affixe

49

ma-ak-na-ki-im CCT 4, 7c:3 ‘seal’ (Gen Sg) alongside ma-ak-ni-ki-im BIN 6, 241:6. It is hard to establish whether these exceptions reflect the actual pronunciation or whether they are only examples of careless or partly morphophonemic spellings. It is possible that, in a word such as maknakum, forms with long and short ă coexisted (cf. the agent nouns kaṣṣārum ‘donkey-driver’ versus *šarrăqum [> šarruqum] ‘thief’), but this is unlikely in the case of *karpatum. Whatever the explanation, the important thing for our purpose is that, wherever the rule is applied in general, we have to do with an original short ă. Like vowel syncope, vowel assimilation is basically a phonological process that is purely conditioned by formal criteria. In one environment, however, it has spread beyond its original domain, namely in the perfective of the N‑stem: the 3ms ippiris (< ippăris, as in Babylonian) has extended its i to the forms with an ending, e.g., 3mp ippirsū; see §12.2.1 (p. 289). Chronologically, vowel assimilation is posterior to vowel syncope: first, because it is an Assyrian innovation whereas vowel syncope is pan-Akkadian; and second, because it is posterior to the change a > e in the vicinity of a guttural, as is clear from forms such as ilqeū ‘they received’ < *yilqaḥū versus išʾulū ‘they asked’ < *yišʾalū, and mašʾenum ‘shoe’ < *maśʿanum versus namʾudum ‘large quantity’ < *namʾadum. These forms would otherwise be **ilquʾū and **mašʾunum. So the chronological order of the three great vowel-changing developments of Assyrian is: vowel syncope – E‑colouring – vowel assimilation. Vowel assimilation also operates in Middle and Neo-Assyrian (W. Mayer 1971: 11–12; Hämeen-Anttila 2000: 30). However, in Middle Assyrian, its effects are partly reversed by the change u > a in an open syllable preceding a stressed u (Postgate 1974: 274). It causes forms such as errabūni ‘he enters’ (Subj) instead of errubūni (Indic errab) and aḫzatūni ‘she has been married’ for expected aḫzutūni (Indic aḫzat) (for references, see W. Mayer 1971: 12, where the attested Middle Assyrian instances are listed).58 As Postgate argues, this is doubtless a side-effect of a stress shift caused by the additional syllable. In Neo-Assyrian, the u > a change before a stressed u becomes widespread, affecting not only verbal forms but also nouns (e.g., a-nu-tú SAA 16, 139:6 ‘utensils’ for unūtu) and pronouns (atta-nu-u-ni SAA 1, 25:9 ‘you (Pl)’ for attunu + Subj) (Luukko 2004: 93–94). Interestingly, the existence of the rule is exploited to express (or rather to restore) a morphosyntactic contrast between the third person masculine singular and plural of verb forms that had coincided as a result of the generalization of the subjunctive marker ‑ni in Middle Assyrian (see §9.3.1, pp. 223–224). For instance, both the 3ms ekkal ‘he eats’ and the 3mp ekkulū ‘they eat’ have a subjunctive ekkulūni in Middle Assyrian, which may become ekkalūni through the u > a change. In Neo-Assyrian, the latter form is in practice mainly used for the plural ‘they eat’ (Subj), whereas ekkulūni is mainly reserved for the singular ‘he eats’ (Subj) (Fabritius 1995; Luukko 2004: 93–97). The mechanism behind this diversification is not clear to me: is it a tendency to maximize the formal contrast: 3ms ekkal § ekkulūni versus 3mp ekkul(ū) § ekkalūni ?

2.5. The Personal Affixes In principle, Akkadian has only one set of personal affixes for all finite categories, apart from superficial distinctions resulting from vowel contraction, E‑colouring, and similar processes. The deverbal, non-finite members of infinitive and present and past participle all show the regular nominal declension consisting of endings for case, number, and gender (insofar as these are 58.  Interestingly, several exceptions to vowel assimilation in Old Assyrian can be explained as very early instances of this rule: (ša . . .) i-lá-ku-ma BIN 6, 11:13 ‘(who) should go’ (normally īllukū); ú-ša-aḫda-ru-ni TC 2, 2:31 ‘they frighten me’; see GKT §47c and 79g for a few other examples.

The Personal Affixe  2.5.

50

applicable), which I will not further discuss here (see GAG §63). Table 2.4 presents the set of personal affixes of the strong verb (without E-colouring; see §17.5.1, pp. 525–534) in its Old Babylonian form (“---” represents the stem; forms within parentheses are obsolete in Old Babylonian).59 Prefix Conjugations

Imp

Stat

3ms.

i ---

u ---

---

3fs

(ta ---)

(tu ---)

--- at

2ms

ta ---

tu ---

---

--- āta/i, -āt

2fs

ta --- ī

tu --- ī

--- ī

--- āt, -āti

1s

a ---

u ---

--- āk(u)

3du

(i --- ā)

(u --- ā)

(--- ā)

3mp

i --- ū

u --- ū

--- ū

3fp

i --- ā

u --- ā

--- ā

ta --- ā

tu --- ā

ni ---

nu ---

2mp 2fp 1p

--- ā

--- ātunu --- ātina --- ānu

Table 2.4: The personal affixes of the finite verb forms. In the prefix conjugations, the prefixes are the basic person markers. The suffixes provide additional specification of gender or number in the second and third persons, but not consistently.60 The stative only has suffixes, which will further be discussed in §7.4.1 (pp. 176–181). The variation between the prefixes with a/i and those with u is predictable: the u-set is only used for the D‑ and the Š‑stems and their derivatives and in the G‑stem imperfective and perfective of I/w verbs. However, the prefix of the present participle of the derived stems is always mu-, even in 59.  See also GAG §75d/h; Reiner 1966: 69–70. I do not see any advantage in assuming that the prefixes are basically consonantal and that the following vowel belongs to the stem, as claimed by Izre'el (1991), Goldenberg (1994: 35–36), and Buccellati (1996: 92–93). This would be justified if the prefix vowels had a consistent function separate from their environment; this is not the case, however, as can be inferred from Akkadian u. In terms of descriptive simplicity, it makes little difference, since it reduces allomorphy in the prefixes, but it increases allomorphy in the stem (although stem allomorphy is strongly disfavoured in Akkadian; cf. p. 33 n. 8). Moreover, the fact that all non-prefixed forms start with the first radical rather than with a vowel is a strong indication that the first radical should also be taken as the beginning of the stem in prefixed forms. Especially in derived verbal stems, where the inflectional stem is relatively stable, it seems counter-intuitive to claim that the prefix forms have a stem uPaRRvS (Izre'el 1991: 44), whereas the nonprefixed forms obviously have PaRRvS. 60.  Actually, this only occurs in the second person singular and the third person plural. The identity of second person singular masculine and the third person singular feminine (before the latter was given up in Old Babylonian) is a pervasive feature of Semitic. After the 3fs prefix ta‑ was lost in Babylonian, no new gender distinction arose in the third person singular. The overall inconsistency in the formal distinctions of person, gender and number suggest that the combination of prefixes and suffixes as we know them in Akkadian was not devised with the express function of indicating unambiguously all possible combinations of person, gender and number, but is the outcome of accidental grammaticalization processes.

2.5.  The Personal Affixe

51

the stems that elsewhere have a/i.61 Instead of the second person ta‑, the defective verbs idû ‘to know’ and išû ‘to have’ have ti‑ in all dialects—e.g., OB 2ms tīdē ‘you know’, tīšū ‘you have’, where tī‑ includes the original weak first radical—against tā‑ or tē‑ in all other I/voc verbs; see §16.3.3 (p. 465). The forms in the Table 2.4 are basically valid for the strong verb in all dialects, with the following qualifications: • the special 3fs prefix ta- gradually disappears in the early Old Babylonian period.62 • the 3ms and 3pl prefixes i- and u- appear in their older form yi- and yu- in thirdmillennium Akkadian, as indicated by the use of the specialized signs and , in contrast to other i‑ or u‑signs (Hasselbach 2005: 190–92), except in Ur III Babylonian.63 • Mari Old Akkadian shows a 3pl prefix ti- instead of (y)i- (which does not seem to be attested): tim-ḫa-ṣú ‘they beat’, ti-ku-lu ‘they ate’, ti-iš-da-u ‘they drank’, ti-il-tap-tu ‘they rubbed each other’ in MARI 1, 81:21–24; ti-ku-lu ARM 19, 382, and tim-za-u ‘they cleaned(?)’ ARM 19, 38–45.64 • The 3du affixes are regularly used in Mari Old Akkadian, Sargonic Akkadian, and Old Assyrian, but are residual in Babylonian.65 On the other hand, Old Babylonian shows a few instances of a first person dual in reciprocal verbs, consisting of the first person singular with the dual ending ‑ā affixed: lurtāmā ‘let us love (each other)’, lunnamrā ‘let us meet’; see Kouwenberg 2005: 100–101.66 • a sporadically occurring deviation from the forms in the table is the second-person prefix ti‑ instead of ta‑ in Old Babylonian: (ša) ti-qà-bi-ú AbB 9, 253:9 ‘whom you mention’, ([lā]) [t]i-ḪA-da-ar ibid. 19 ‘do not worry’, and ti-iq-bi-am AbB 14, 82:6 ‘you said to 61.  Since mu‑ is absent in the basic stem, one could argue that it belongs to the stem and is therefore not an inflectional affix. However, it behaves like the personal prefixes in that it is followed by the prefix base, and therefore it is more efficient to classify it as an inflectional affix. The present participle is the only member of the paradigm for which the derived stems show a form fundamentally different from the basic stem. 62.  See GAG §75h, Hilgert 2002: 160 and Whiting 1987: 11. In Old Babylonian, it occurs occasionally in literary texts (von Soden 1931/33: II 148–51), in particular in the precative preceded by the particle i; see chap. 9 n. 8 (p. 213), and very rarely in letters (tu-ši-ib AbB 7, 52:13 ‘she stayed’; ta-at-ta-na-la-ka-ku AbB 14, 49:14 ‘she keeps coming to you’. 63.  Also in Eblaite, as is clear from spellings with : e.g., i-da-ḫa-ú /yiṭaḫḫaʿū/ OrAnt. 18, 341: I 4 and Plate 37 ‘they come near’; see Fronzaroli 1982: 109 sub k; and with (e.g., u9-ga-da-ra /yuqaṭṭar(a)/ ibid. 112 ‘he will sacrifice incense’. According to Krebernik (1988a: 52), some instances of the prefix aalternating with i- may represent an older form ya-, as in the interchange of a-me-tum and i-me-tum ‘right (hand)’ < *yamittum (Sem √ymn). 64.  For an extensive discussion, see Bonechi 1988. It also occurs in Ebla (alongside yi‑, as in i-da-ḫa-ú; see the previous note), in peripheral Akkadian (Emar) and West Semitic—namely, in some Amarna letters, especially those of Rib-Addi (Rainey 1996: II 43–45)—and in Ugaritic (Tropper 2000: 432–41). Tropper argues that in Ugaritic y‑ is archaic and t- an innovation. Hasselbach (2004: 25–26) suggests that the consonant t‑ arose from leveling with the 2p t‑ and the 3fp t‑ (which is not actually attested but reconstructed on the basis of Ugaritic, Hebrew, and Amarna letters) and that the vowel of ti‑ arose by analogy with yi‑ in the third person singular and dual masculine. This is all extremely speculative. See, for earlier explanations, Edzard 1985, Lambert 1992: 53–54, and Gelb 1992: 188–89. 65.  See Limet 1975: 39–43 for Mari Old Akkadian; Hasselbach 2005: 191 for Sargonic Akkadian; GKT §73a for Old Assyrian. In Ur III Babylonian, the dual is not attested (except in the curse formulae of royal inscriptions, where it is doubtless traditional; see Hilgert 2002: 161), but since it is still used occasionally in later Babylonian, it cannot have been completely extinct; see Whiting 1987: 15–16. 66.  Since the second person plural (also) has the ending ‑ā, we cannot establish whether there was a second person dual, since it would doubtless have the same ending.

52

The Personal Affixe  2.5. me’, and perhaps in the Sargonic Akkadian incantation MAD 5, 8:11 = Or. 46, 201:11 (Kish) ti-ib-da-ad-ga,67 if this stands for /tibtatqā/ ‘you (Du) cut off for yourselves’ (Gt perfective).68

There are some clear similarities between the personal prefixes and the independent subject pronouns. In the second person, the prefix ta‑ agrees with ‑ta/‑ti/‑tunu, etc., in the pronouns atta < *an‑ta, atti < *an‑ti, attunu < *an‑tunu, etc. In the first person plural, the prefix ni‑ corresponds to the pronoun nīnu ‘we’, and also in the first person singular ʾ‑ recurs in the personal pronoun, if we assume that PSem *ʾanā(ku) comes from *an‑ʾā(ku). There is also a connection between the 3fs prefix ta‑ and the nominal feminine suffix -(a)t. With regard to the gender and number suffixes, the third person plural gender markers ‑ū and ‑ā are also used as (parts of) the nominal and adjectival plural markers. On the basis of purely theoretical considerations (i.e., grammaticalization processes of person markers in better-documented languages), it is plausible that the personal prefixes represent either cliticized pronominal elements or cliticized auxiliary verbs containing a pronominal element. This implies a gradual shortening until they acquired the monosyllabic form that is actually attested.69 Since Berber and Cushitic show a set of prefixes that is very similar to the Semitic set, this process must be situated in the Afroasiatic period or even earlier.70 This makes further speculations about the details of this process rather fruitless.71 The fact that they cannot easily be reduced to a uniform paradigm in Proto-Semitic is doubtless caused by recurrent remodelling through analogy and the influence of neighbouring elements, which is difficult to retrace but which may have made them quite different in form from their original pronominal shape.72

67.  Interpreted as 2du by J. and A. Westenholz (1977: 208); according to Lambert (1992: 54) and Hasselbach (2005: 191–92), it is 3duf; if so, it belongs to the cases mentioned previously. 68.  3fs ti‑ has parallels in Eblaite as well: ti-ig-da-ra-ab ARET 11, 1: r.ix 5 /tikta(r)rab/ ‘she blesses’, ti-a-ba-an ARET 5, 3: I 2 ‘she makes bricks’ /tilabban/, alongside ta‑ in da-ne-a-al6 ARET 11, 1: iii 1 / tanīal/ ‘she lies down’ (see also Gelb 1992: 188–89; Edzard 2006: 80). 69.  A recent discussion with a survey of earlier literature is Hasselbach 2004. 70.  See, for instance, Lipiński 1997: 380–83. 71.  The claim that the Semitic prefixes go back to originally vowelless forms that needed an epenthetic vowel to be attached to the verb (Testen 1994a: 432–34; Hasselbach 2004: 32–34) is not acceptable to me. First, it is unclear what kind of status such a monoconsonantal element could have had unless it was a reduction of a longer element that included at least one vowel. Second, it seems illogical to assume that an original independent element was first reduced to a single consonant and subsequently acquired an epenthetic vowel to be combined with a verb stem. Such a development is inconsistent with what we know from grammaticalization processes. Another important point is that the very existence of vocalic sonants in Semitic remains to be proven. The parallel with Indo-European to which Testen refers (1993b: 5) is unconvincing because the Indo-European languages have many different forms to base the existence of vocalic sonants on, and a clear morphological raison d’être: the coexistence and the morphological alternation of full and zero grade forms in the same paradigm; this makes it necessary to create alongside a form such as *bheugh (full grade) : *bhugh (zero grade) or *leikw : *likw from a root such as *bhendh a zero grade *bhṇdh and from *pleH a zero grade *pḷH, etc. This morphological motivation for the existence of these cross-linguistically not-very-common phonemes is absent in Semitic. See also Voigt 2002: 276, who argues against the existence of syllabic sonorants in Afroasiatic. 72.  For the sake of convenience, I will adopt Hetzron’s (1973/74: 40) reconstruction of the ProtoSemitic personal prefixes of the basic stem (*ʾa‑, *ta‑, *yi‑, *ni‑) when quoting Proto-Semitic verb forms, with the qualification that there are reasons to assume that there was an additional series of prefixes with i in all persons, mainly or exclusively for prefix forms with a as root vowel (*yiqtal(u)), in accordance with the Barth-Ginsberg Law; see especially §16.3.1 (pp. 462–464).

PART TWO

The Basic Stem Chapter 3

The Paradigm of the G-Stem

3.1. Introduction In this chapter, I will take a closer look at the paradigm of the G‑stem. In particular, I will discuss the semantic and formal distinctions that hold among the G‑stem verbs. The semantic distinctions concern the subclasses of fientive, stative, and adjectival verbs on the one hand and differences in transitivity on the other; the formal distinctions concern the vowel classes. Fientive, stative, and adjectival verbs show differences in the structure of their paradigm and also in the meaning of some tense/aspect categories (§3.3). Differences in transitivity influence the meaning of the stative, the possibility of passivization, and the choice of derived stems (§3.4). Finally, the vowel classes reflect differences in transitivity and Aktionsart (§3.5).

3.2. The G‑stem as the Basis of the Verbal Paradigm The paradigm of the G‑stem of the strong triradical verb is the norm for all other paradigms. It owes this status to the fact that triradical verbs are more frequent than any other type of verb, that the class of strong verbs is much larger than any class of weak verbs (although all weak verbs taken together are not much less in number than the strong verbs), and that their paradigm is more transparent. In relation to the other verbal stems, the G‑stem is dominant because it is unmarked and, again, much more frequent than any derived stem individually. The unmarked nature of the G‑stem concerns both form and function.1 With regard to form, the G‑stem has no special marker, it has the greatest number of formal distinctions,2 and, most importantly, it shows variation in its vowel pattern, because it has an unmotivated vowel between R2 and R3: the root vowel. This is a typical feature of unmarked categories (van Loon 2005: 67–73). The G‑stem is also semantically unmarked because it expresses verbal concepts in their most natural valency and because there are no restrictions on the nature of the situations (i.e., actions, events, processes, and states) it can denote. Finally, it is the semantic nature of the G‑stem 1.  For markedness and its criteria in general, see Greenberg 1966: 9–12; Croft 2003: 87–101; Givón 1995: 25–69; Battistella 1996; van Loon 2005: 1–11. 2.  It has six inflectional stems, as we saw in §2.2.1 (pp. 31–32), and it is the only stem in which the infinitive and the past participle have a different form ( parāsu versus parsu).

53

54

Distinctions in Aktionsart: Fientive, Stative, and Adjectival Verbs  3.3.

(whether it is transitive or intransitive, stative or fientive, etc.) that to a large extent determines which of the derived stems can be selected as productive derivations (see §10.6, pp. 252–254). Therefore, the G‑stem contains verbs of widely different meanings and can be divided into several classes on the basis of differences in Aktionsart—i.e., in fientive, stative, and adjectival verbs (§3.3); and on the basis of differences in transitivity—i.e., in transitive and intransitive verbs on the one hand and high- and low-transitivity verbs on the other (§3.4). Both Aktionsart and transitivity are relevant to another distinction among the G‑stem verbs, namely, the formal distinction of the vowel classes (§3.5).

3.3.  Distinctions in Aktionsart: Fientive, Stative, and Adjectival Verbs The term Aktionsart will be used here—for want of a better one—to refer to the type of situation that is inherent in the meaning of the verb. The most common Aktionsarten are such notions as punctual versus durative, telic versus atelic, stative versus dynamic (fientive), iterative and ingressive.3 Most verbs have a single Aktionsart, which is a constant property, independent of the context or the grammatical category in which the verbs happen to be used.4 Aktionsarten are lexical categories, which may or may not be grammatically relevant. In this and the next sections, we are only concerned with a single set of Aktionsarten, namely, the distinction between fientive (i.e., dynamic), stative and adjectival verbs.5 There is a fundamental distinction in language between dynamic and static situations, on the basis of which we can distinguish dynamic (usually called fientive in Semitic studies) and stative verbs.6 Since it is the primary function of a verb to express an event or a process, most verbs are inherently dynamic. Many languages also have a small number of stative verbs, such as English to know, possess, live, belong, contain (Lyons 1977: II 706–7; Binnick 1991: 183–88); in general, states are more typically expressed by non-verbal clauses or copula constructions. Changes from stative to fientive or vice versa are typically expressed by lexical or derivational processes—i.e., by using a derived verb or an altogether different verb as, for example, English know (stative) vs. learn (dynamic), which corresponds to German kennen versus erkennen, Russian znatj versus uznatj, Dutch weten versus te weten komen or vernemen (Lyons 1977: II 706; Bybee 1985: 21; Buccellati 1988: 178). The situation in Akkadian is quite different. Akkadian has grammaticalized the contrast between dynamic and static situations in the opposition between the prefix conjugations and the stative.7 Since the stative is an inflectional category of the verb, Akkadian does not have a 3.  For a definition, see, for instance, Bybee 1985: 21 (“aspectual distinctions expressed lexically [. . .] such as English do vs. complete, know vs. realize”). Lyons (1977: II 706) calls it “aspectual character” (“The aspectual character of a verb (. . .) will be that part of its meaning whereby it (normally) denotes one kind of situation rather than another”), and Smith (1997) speaks of “situation aspect.” See also Comrie 1976: 6–7 n. 4, 41–51; Binnick 1991: 144–46, 170–78; D. Cohen 1989: 31–33. 4.  It is therefore better not to use the term Aktionsart for the functions of the derived verbal stems, although some of them express the same kind of meaning (e.g., pluractional in the tan‑stems and ingressive in the N‑stem). Iterative as an Aktionsart is found in a G‑stem verb such as baṣāṣu ‘to drip’; see §16.6.2 (pp. 494–495). 5.  In other chapters, we will find other Aktionsart distinctions playing a certain role in Akkadian, such as durative versus punctual in the use of the imperfective (see §4.3, pp. 91–95) and telic versus atelic in the stative (see §7.3.2, p. 169). 6.  For the difference between dynamic and stative situations, see, for instance, Comrie 1976: 48–51; Lyons 1977: II 483; Binnick 1991: 183–88; Bybee et al. 1994: 55. 7.  See also Leong 1994: 14; Metzler 2002: 898–99.

3.3.  Distinctions in Aktionsart: Fientive, Stative, and Adjectival Verbs

55

semantic distinction between inherently fientive and stative verbs but a grammatical distinction between fientive and stative forms of the same verb, which are inflectionally related. This means that the question whether an Akkadian verb expresses a static or a dynamic situation depends on the form in which it is used rather than on the Aktionsart of the verb itself: in the stative, it expresses a state; in the prefix conjugations, an event or a process.8 The verb kabātu ‘to be(come) heavy’, for instance, which looks like a typical stative verb, denotes a process if it is used in a prefix category such as the perfective ikbit; its fientive meaning is usually interpreted as ingressive: ‘it became heavy’.9 A verb such as paḫāru ‘to come together’, on the other hand, denotes a movement and therefore seems typically fientive. Used in the stative, however, it denotes a state that results from a previous event, e.g., ṣābum pa-ḫe-er ‘the army is assembled’ (ARM 6, 52:22 and elsewhere). This explains why it is often difficult to determine whether a given Akkadian verb is stative or not. This applies especially to intransitive change-of-state verbs such as abālu ‘to be(come) dry’, takālu ‘to put one’s trust in, to trust’, and malû ‘to be(come) full’. For abālu, for instance, we cannot establish on the basis of its meaning alone whether it is parallel to kabātu, i.e., basically stative ‘to be dry’, with ingressive prefix forms (ībal ‘it became dry, dried out’), or parallel to paḫāru, i.e., basically fientive ‘to become dry’, with a resultative stative abil ‘it has become (and therefore is now) dry’. This difficulty is recognized by scholars who have attempted to classify Akkadian verbs on the basis of their meaning.10 Aro (1964: 7–10), for instance, points out that for intransitive verbs the criteria for deciding whether a verb is stative or fientive often contradict one another. He concludes (ibid., 9) that there is no clear-cut distinction between stative and fientive, but that these concepts are instead the two poles of a system, and that individual verbs are only “a potiori” stative or fientive. In sum, the distinction between stative and fientive as a lexical opposition in Aktionsart is not applicable to Akkadian; however, as a grammatical opposition within the verbal paradigm it is one of the most fundamental features of the Akkadian verb. Nevertheless, for a variety of reasons that will become apparent in the course of the present study, it is difficult to dispense completely with a distinction between (prototypical) fientive verbs on the one hand, and at least two other types of verbs that are not prototypically fientive, on the other: formally fientive verbs with a stative meaning (§3.3.1), and adjectival verbs (§3.3.2).

3.3.1.  Fientive verbs with a stative meaning There is a small group of verbs in Akkadian that have a prototypical stative meaning yet are mostly used in the prefix conjugations (GAG §78b). The most common examples are bašû ‘to exist, be available’, i/uzuzzu ‘to stand’, kullu ‘to hold’,11 ḫašāḫu ‘to need, wish’, leʾû ‘to be able’, 8.  Nevertheless, the existence of fientive and stative verbs is taken for granted in most studies on Akkadian and Semitic. For instance, GAG §52a claims that there is a distinction between the “Schilderung von Handlungen und Vorgängen” and the “Beschreibung von Zuständen und Eigenschaften.” The former is the domain of “das eigentliche Verbum,” the latter is the domain of the adjective and the verb derived from it (the “Zustands­verben”). It is more or less implied that only the fientive verb is a real verb (§§52a, 73c), whereas the stative verb is actually a conjugated adjective, which, for instance, has no part in the vowel classes. On the other hand, there is no clear formal difference between the two types (§73c end). 9.  See Comrie 1976: 19–20; Lyons 1977: II 713; Wetzer 1996: 188–92; Stassen 1997: 162–64. 10.  For instance, W. von Soden in GAG §87b Anm., Rowton (1962: 264), and Kienast (1967: 67). 11.  Kullu is only partially a stative verb: it is fientive in the meaning ‘to offer, provide’ (CAD K 515–16 s.v. 4).

56

Distinctions in Aktionsart: Fientive, Stative, and Adjectival Verbs   3.3.

muāʾu (OA) ‘to be willing’ (always with negation: ‘to refuse’), bêlu ‘to be master/owner of, to rule’, râmu ‘to love’, and zêru ‘to hate’.12 Their stative meaning is so dominant that even their prefix forms can express a state, although most of them may also denote an event, depending on the context. This results in a number of deviations from ordinary fientive verbs in the use of several verbal categories. First of all, their imperfective is used to refer to states in present, past, and future, adopting the neutrality towards tense of the stative (which also has imperfective aspect; see §7.3, pp. 164).13 The verb bašû is the prototype of these verbs. Its imperfective ibaššī has a purely stative meaning, ‘is present, is available’, and may even be used in a way that is very similar to a copula, as in (01), but may also refer to past (02) or future (03):14 (01) KH xlviii 21/4 (OB) (a lord) ša kīma abim wālidim ana nišī i-ba-aš-šu-ú ‘who is (present) like a natural father for the people’ (also Syria 33, 66:6–9; ARM 28, 147: r.13ʹ) (02) ARM 10, 50:9–10 (OB) GNF ul wašbat u ṣalmū ša maḫrīša ul i-ba-šu-ú ‘Bēlet-ekallim was not staying there and the statues in front of her were not present either’ (see also Metzler 2002: 500; note the coordination of stative and imperfective) (03) YOS 10, 31: XIII 34–35 (OB) kuṣṣum mādum i-ba-aš-ši ‘a severe cold will occur’15 Second, the perfective of these verbs is also neutral towards the contrast between event and state: it may refer to a state in the past (04), but it may also express an event, namely, the beginning of the state—that is, it may also be ingressive (05): (04) VS 8, 71:23–25 (OB) ((I swear that) the silver) itti PN abīya lā ib-šu-ú ittīya lā i-ba-aš-šu-ú ‘was not in the possession of PN, my father, and is not in my possession’ (05) BagM. 2, 57: II 13–14 (OB) šitūl ina libbī ib-šu-ú ina libbi PN ib-ši ‘the idea that occurred to me also occurred to PN’ Both ibaššī and ibšī can refer to a past state, but the perfective ibšī is far less common and presumably states more emphatically that the situation no longer exists.16

12.  The defective verbs idû ‘to know’ and išû ‘to have’, the so-called ‘prefixed statives’ (GAG §78b and §106q/r), also belong to this group semantically; they will be discussed in §16.3.3 (pp. 465–468). 13.  Therefore, stative verbs are prominent among the imperfective forms with past reference (see §4.3, p. 92). 14.  Bašû also shows other features of copular behaviour (see Hopper and Thompson 1984: 729–30; Pustet 2003: 40–41). First, it tends to become invariable: already in Old and Middle Assyrian, it may be in the singular, even if the subject is plural (GKT §115f and W. Mayer 1971: 97), and this becomes the norm in Neo-Assyrian (Hämeen-Anttila 2000: 103). Second, it is often placed at the beginning of the clause, either in its existential meaning or as an emphasizing adverb (e.g., in Neo-Assyrian; see Hämeen-Anttila 2000: 109). The suggestion that bašû arose from a verbalization of the West Semitic preposition *ba‑ followed by the 3ms suffix pronoun ‑šu is contradicted by Sargonic Akkadian spellings, which show that the middle radical was originally *θ; see Rubin 2005: 45–46, with earlier literature; Hasselbach 2005: 45 with n. 91. 15.  In the future, the distinction between the state itself and its beginning is usually neutralized. 16.  The perfective ibšī is mainly used as part of the precative (libšī, etc.), where it appears for purely formal reasons; see, in particular, CAD B 145–46 s.v. bašû v. 1b-1′ about Old Assyrian. There seems to

3.3.  Distinctions in Aktionsart: Fientive, Stative, and Adjectival Verbs

57

The same semantic relationship exists between izzāz and izzīz from i/uzuzzu ‘to stand (up)’: izzīz either denotes a past state ‘he was standing’ or a past event (and is then telic and ingressive): ‘he stood up’ (Metzler 2002: 500), e.g.:17 (06) AbB 13, 77:3 (OB) (concerning the field rent) ša ina qātīka iz-zi-zu ‘which was (lit., stood) in your hand’ (07) AbB 2, 65: 27–28 (OB) niāti ul issûniāt[īma] ul ni-iz-zi-iz ‘(since) they did not summon us, we did not stand up (as witnesses)’ Third, a peculiarity, which is puzzling at first sight, is that most of these verbs do not or only rarely occur in the stative.18 Bašû, for instance, has a stative bašī, which alternates with ibaššī without observable difference in meaning, but it is comparatively rare (mainly Standard Babylonian) and gives the impression of being secondary; an Old Babylonian instance is (08), which alternates with the imperfective in (09):19 (08) AbB 3, 88:20–21 anāku uznāya ana kâšim ba-ši-a-ku ‘As for me, my attention is on you’20 (09) AbB 11, 106:13′–14′ kīma bēlīa u beltīa uznāya i-ba-aš-ši-a-ni-kum ‘My attention is on you as (if you were) my Lord and my Mistress’ (tr. M. Stol) The reasons for the rarity of the stative of these verbs are that they are basically atelic and therefore incompatible with the resultative function of the stative (just like atelic activity verbs; see §7.3.2, p. 169) and that the stative is a derived and therefore marked form: if a verb has a stative meaning anyway, there is no need to use this form, and the speaker may fall back on the basic form of the imperfective. Fourth, just like the adjectival verbs to be discussed in the next section, many of these stative verbs do not have a present participle, because this is basically an agent noun restricted to fientive verbs denoting actions, as we will see in §8.4.1 (p. 206).21 In the rest of this study, I will reserve the term “stative verb” for members of this small set of verbs, which are conjugated like fientive verbs but have a prototypically stative meaning. On the other hand, I will not use the term “stative verb” for the much larger group of adjectival verbs to be discussed in the next section, since these are only stative when they are used in the stative.

be no t‑perfect *ibtašī (Maloney 1981: 32), but perhaps the rather common t‑perfect of the N‑stem ittabšī replaces this form. 17.  An interesting case of such an “ingressive” perfective is the form yirʾam/tarʾam in Sargonic Akkadian proper names, such as Dar-àm-A-ga-dè KI MDOG 132 (2000) 140 fig. 3 ‘She has conceived love for Akkad’ > ‘She loves Akkad’, the name of a daughter of Naram-Sin; see §17.7.2 with n. 157 (p. 558). These perfectives have a resultative nuance (just as in idû ‘to know’ and išû ‘to have’; see §16.3.3, pp. 465–468), which is perhaps an archaic trait; see §5.4 (p. 130). 18.  Obviously, this does not apply to ḫašāḫu, of which the stative is common for ‘to need’, whereas the imperfective seems to express the more active nuance of wishing for or demanding something but is also used for ‘to need’ in the future; see von Soden 1964: 438 and Loesov 2005: 137–38. In many contexts, however, which translation one prefers is rather subjective. 19.  For bašī = ibaššī in Late Babylonian, see Streck 1995a: 172–73. 20.  I.e., presumably bašiā (3fp) + ku(m) (or 1s bašiāku, so that the sentence is an anacoluthon caused by the emphatic anāku in front?). 21.  Kullu is an obvious exception, in the light of the ubiquitous mukillu (see §16.5.3.3, pp. 484–485). On alleged present participles such as **bāšû and **šēbû, see chap. 8 n. 32 (p. 206).

58

Distinctions in Aktionsart: Fientive, Stative, and Adjectival Verbs   3.3.

3.3.2.  Adjectival verbs Apart from the cases discussed in the preceding section, there is yet another subclass of fientive verbs that significantly differs from prototypical fientive verbs in their morphosyntactic behaviour, namely, verbs that are closely related to primary adjectives, such as lemēnu ‘to be(come) bad’, rabû ‘to be(come) big’, and warāqu ‘to be(come) green’. Therefore, I will call them “adjectival verbs.” Adjectival verbs are not stative, since their verbal paradigm denotes the meaning of the adjective as a process (it is usually ingressive); only the adjective itself and its predicative form, the stative, are stative in meaning. The adjectival verbs differ from prototypical fientive verbs in several respects:22 1. Since they are not action verbs, their verbal paradigm does not include a present participle (GAG §85d and Buccellati 1996: 405). 2. They do not have a past participle either. Its place is occupied by the primary adjective itself, but rather than being a low-ranking member of the verbal paradigm (see §8.3.1, p. 200), it is the basic form from which the entire paradigm of the adjectival verb is derived.23 Accordingly, the adjective has an unpredictable vowel pattern, PaRiS, PaRuS, or PaRaS. The formal relationship between adjective and adjectival verb is complex, in the sense that the vowel class of the latter is not quite predictable from that of the adjective, although there is a clear tendency: adjectival verbs usually belong to the I/i class (for the exceptions, see A3 and A4 in §3.3.3), but those corresponding to PaRuS adjectives predominantly belong to the U/u class (for the exceptions, see B2 and B3 in §3.3.3). A major cause of this lack of regularity is doubtless the instability of their vowel pattern (see below). 3. The fact that fientive verbs have a predictable stative/past participle PaRiS24 implies that verbs that do not have PaRiS must be adjectival. This agrees fairly well with the overall meaning of the latter verbs, with the exception of a few specific types discussed in n. 30 (p. 59). For adjectives of the pattern PaRiS, we need additional semantic information to decide whether the corresponding verb is adjectival or not. 4. In two classes of weak verbs, there are some differences in form between fientive and adjectival verbs. First, in II/gem verbs the 3ms stative is bisyllabic in fientive verbs (madid from madādu ‘to measure’, balil from balālu ‘to mix’) but monosyllabic in adjectival verbs (dān from danānu ‘to be(come) strong’, ēl from elēlu ‘to be(come) clean’; see §16.6.1 (pp. 492–493) for details. Second, in the prefix forms of the I/w verbs, the adjectival verbs are conjugated like I/y verbs (Impfv ītter from watāru ‘to exceed’, īrriq from warāqu ‘to be(come) green’), but the fientive verbs have the prefix vowel u (Impfv uṣṣī from waṣû ‘to go /come out’, urrad from warādu ‘to descend’); see further §16.3.1 (pp. 462–463).25 22.  According to Hopper and Thompson (1984: 726) and Wetzer (1996: 30–31), adjectival verbs often differ in some respect from prototypical verbs, in particular in having a defective paradigm. 23.  This view of the relationship between adjective and adjectival verb is also expressed by Aro 1964: 200–201 and Tropper 1995a: 496–97. 24.  At least in Babylonian; see §7.2 (p. 162) for a few exceptions in Assyrian. 25.  In the literature, some other differences are mentioned, which have to do with the occurrence or nonoccurrence of specific categories; see, in particular, Buccellati 1988: 166 and 1996: 405–8: stative verbs do not normally occur in the N‑stem and have a factitive D‑stem, whereas intransitive fientive verbs have a causative Š‑stem. These criteria have a limited value, however: they are tendencies rather than rules and are sometimes contradictory. For instance, târu ‘to return’ (intr.) is stative according to the criterion of the D‑stem but clearly fientive because of its meaning and the fact that its G‑stem does not even have a stative ( pace Buccellati 1996: 409).

3.3.  Distinctions in Aktionsart: Fientive, Stative, and Adjectival Verbs

59

5. A semantic criterion to identify adjectival verbs is the kind of property they express: a verb is more positively adjectival as the corresponding adjective denotes a more stable, inherent, or permanent property.26 6. There is, finally, also a distributional criterion, namely, the relative frequency of verb and adjective: in adjectival verbs, the adjective is unmarked vis-à-vis the verb and is therefore expected to occur more frequently. For part of the adjectival verbs listed below in §3.3.3, this is borne out by an impressionistic survey of the dictionaries, although exact statistics are not available to me. This criterion can obviously only be applied to common adjectives, or if the difference in frequency is so large that even small numbers are statistically valid, as in the case of adjectives without corresponding prefix forms, such as barmu ‘multicoloured’, paglu ‘strong’, and dašpu ‘sweet’.27 A corollary of this difference in frequency is the fact that primary adjectives tend to be relatively stable in their vowel pattern,28 whereas adjectival verbs show a fair amount of variation, in particular when they do not belong to the I/i class, which is the default vowel class for adjectival verbs. This may be inferred from the footnotes to §3.3.3, where alternative vowel patterns are listed.29 All in all, these criteria do not lead to a hard and fast distinction between adjectival verbs and the rest of the fientive verbs. There is rather a continuum with some verbs more clearly adjectival than others, and with a substantial number of verbs which are difficult to classify.30 In some cases 26.  According to Dixon (1982: 16), the properties that cross-linguistically are most typically expressed by adjectives are dimension, physical properties, colour, human propensity, age, value, and speed. However, other linguists give slightly different lists; see Stassen 1997: 164–79 for an extensive discussion. 27.  Some of these have, however, an infinitive in lexical texts as citation form. 28.  Primary adjectives show very little variation, apart from a weak tendency to adopt the most frequent pattern PaRiS, e.g., in paluḫ ‘frightful’ and raṭub ‘moist’; see §3.3.3). There are, however, a few important differences between Babylonian and Assyrian which point to changes in vowel pattern in the prehistoric period; see §3.3.4 below. 29.  To conclude from this that adjectives originally did not have a prefix conjugation (e.g., Tropper 1995a: 497; Voigt 2004: 44–45) would be unjustified: rather, we cannot reconstruct it because of the amount of variation in vowel pattern. The relatively infrequent use of adjectival verbs makes them vulnerable to analogical changes. 30.  This applies in particular to change-of-state verbs with a PaRiS stative, such as abālu ‘to be(come) dry’ and kabātu “to be(come) heavy’, discussed in §3.3 (p. 55), and three specific groups: 1. Adjectives and verbs of speed: lasāmu ‘to run’ (U/u) alongside lasmu ‘swift’ (lasim), arāḫu ‘to hurry’ (A/a) alongside arḫu ‘quick’ (aruḫ), and ḫamāṭu ‘to hurry’ (U/u) alongside ḫamṭu ‘quick’ (ḫamuṭ). The verbs are prototypically fientive because they denote motion, and the adjectives are not resultative and therefore primary. The irregularity of their vowel patterns is doubtless related to the fact that the concepts they express are common both as properties (‘to be quick’) and as events (‘to move quickly’). This makes verb and adjective relatively independent of each other. 2. A number of PaRiS adjectives related to atelic activity verbs: gaṣṣu ‘ferocious’ and gaṣāṣu ‘to gnash the teeth’, tarru ‘trembling’ and tarāru ‘to tremble’, g/qarru ‘round’ and garāru ‘to roll’, and perhaps also šapṣu ‘strong, resistant’ alongside šapāṣu ‘to grip, twist’ and zaqtu ‘pointed’ alongside zaqātu ‘to sting’ (cf. W. R. Mayer 2003: 370–71 n. 3). These adjectives are not resultative and therefore not past participles (see §8.3.1, p. 200). They are etymologically related to the verbal paradigm but (synchronically) independent of it. Similar cases occur in the D‑stem, e.g., gunnuṣu ‘constantly wrinkling the nose’ alongside the verb gunnuṣu; see GAV p. 402 n. 4. 3. Three adjectives of location and the corresponding verbs: qerbu ‘near’ and qerēbu ‘to come near’, rê/ūqu ‘far’ and rêqu ‘to go far’, and nesû ‘far’ (nesū) and nesû ‘to go far’ (E/e). I have added no vowels to the first two because they are very unstable. I will discuss them below, in §17.7.3.2 (p. 565).

Distinctions in Aktionsart: Fientive, Stative, and Adjectival Verbs   3.3.

60

it seems appropriate to assign a verb to both classes and posit, for instance, both a fientive elû ‘to go /come up’ and an adjectival elû ‘to be high’. Similar cases include šaqû with roughly the same meanings, and ešēru ‘to be straight, normal, just’ (adjectival) versus ešēru ‘to go straight toward’ (fientive). Since the adjectival verbs form a marked subgroup among the fientive verbs, the correct procedure is to classify a verb as adjectival only when there is sufficient positive evidence and to classify all doubtful cases as fientive. Since they are intransitive, the adjectival verbs can only belong to the isovocalic vowel classes—mostly I/i, sometimes U/u, and rarely A/a (see §3.5.2, pp. 71–75). Actually, it would be more useful to characterize adjectival verbs by means of the vowel of the adjective and the vowel of the prefix conjugations: e.g., to call kabāru ‘to be(come) thick’ A/i because of kabar, ikabbir/ ikbir), and lemēnu ‘to be(come) bad, evil’ U/i because of lemun, ilemmin/ilmin), etc. I will not use this notation, however, in order to avoid confusion.

3.3.3.  List of adjectival verbs This section contains a list of verbs that, on the basis of the criteria discussed above, can be plausibly classified as adjectival, arranged according to the pattern of the adjective. For reasons of clarity, the adjective is mostly mentioned in its 3ms stative form, where the relevant vowel is visible (in some cases this form is inferred from the feminine adjective) and the verb in its 3ms imperfective. Since we have far more data on Babylonian than on Assyrian, the list is based on Babylonian. Where no indication of dialect is added, the Assyrian form is either the same or not attested; where “Bab” is added, Assyrian is known to have a different form. Specifically Assyrian forms are listed and discussed separately in §3.3.4. However, where Assyrian is only different in not having E‑colouring in the first syllable or in having ē instead of ī, this is simply indicated by “Ass a ” or “Ass ē.” References are only given for forms not listed in the dictionaries. A1. PaRiS adjectives with i in the prefix forms: arik banī damiq ebī ediš ekil elī eniš gašir kabit labir

īrrik ibannī idammiq 32 ībbī   īddiš īkkil īllī īnniš igaššir ikabbit ilabbir

long beautiful good thick new dark 33 high weak (Ass a?) powerful heavy old

peṣī rabī salim ṣalim ṣeḫir šadil šalim šanī šapil šelī wasim

ipeṣṣī irabbī isallim iṣallim iṣeḫḫir išaddil išallim išannī išappil išellī īssim

white (Ass a) big 31 friendly dark, black small (Ass a) wide, spacious good, sound34 different low, deep blunt appropriate35

31.  Earlier Pfv islam (ìs-lam ARM 2, 40:6; ìs-la-am A. 488+492:94 quoted FM 6, 148 n. 108, both OB); see §3.5.3. 32.  For ībbī, cf. Prec lu-ú-bi ZA 75, 200:35 (OB). 33.  Also fientive in the meaning ‘to go /come up’. 34.  Earlier Pfv išlam (Iš-lam-gi ELTS p. 147 no. 41: IV′ 13′ (Pre-Sargonic kudurru from Sippar); Išlam-dingir CTMMA 1, 6 nr. 6: III 36 (SAk account text from Sippar); Iš-la-am-DN Tall Biʿa p. 52 no. 48:5 (early OB); and Ina-pîm-lu-úš-lam ARM 13, 1: VII 40 (OB). 35.  Earlier, perhaps wasum in theophoric PNs of the type Ina-šamê-wasum, DN-wasum, etc. Contrary to Stamm (1939: 81), I do not interpret the spelling pi-súm in such names as a D-form wussum but as a G stative wasum, first, because the use of PuRRuS forms in theophoric names is exceptional: they almost

3.3.  Distinctions in Aktionsart: Fientive, Stative, and Adjectival Verbs maṣī imaṣṣī sufficient, able maṭī imaṭṭī insufficient nawir inawwir bright

zaqir zenī

izaqqir izennī/ē

61

high, steep36 angry (Ass a)

A2. PaRiS adjectives of II/voc verbs: pīq rīq sīq

ipīaq irīaq isīaq

narrow (Bab) šīb išīab empty (Bab) wīṣ iwīaṣ narrow (Bab)

A3. PaRiS adjectives with u in the prefix forms: daʾim idaʾʾum dark37 lasim emiṣ īmmuṣ hungry38 ṣamī

gray, old (Ass ē) few (Ass ē)

ilassum iṣammū

swift thirsty

imallā

full40

A4. PaRiS adjectives with a/e in the prefix forms: berī kaṣī

iberrē ikaṣṣā

hungry39 (Ass a) cold41

malī

A5. PaRiS adjectives without prefix forms attested: baḫir emiṣ eriš erī laḫim masik

hot sour  42 wise naked hairy bad, ugly

pagil pelī qarid qašid sakil zaqin

strong white heroic 43 holy (< *qadšum) foolish, stupid bearded

always contain simple adjectives (cf. Stamm 1939: 81, 229), and second, because we would expect to find occasional instances of this rather common type of name where the geminate is graphically indicated or with initial ú- instead of wu-; such spellings do not occur, as far as I know. However, we have to distinguish these theophoric names with the stative wasum from the Sargonic Akkadian PuRRuS name Wussum(t)um (AHw 1498a s.v. and GAV p. 376) and from names with the construct state of wusmum ‘ornament, fitting attribute’, such as DN-ú-su-um-šamê ‘DN is a fitting ornament of heaven’ (Stamm 1939: 81). 36.  Also izqur and izaqqar ; see AHw 1513a s.v. zaqāru I G. 37.  Only in [i]-da-aḪ-Ḫu-mu LKA 105: IV 6 (SB, but the spelling with aḫ and ḫu reveals that this form has an Old Babylonian source; see §17.4, p. 520), versus id-ḪI-im Legends p. 70:62 (OB) and i-da-im AMT 85, 1: ‘VI’ 6 (SB). This distribution makes it difficult to establish which vowel is more original; I have opted for U/u on the basis of the general drift from U/u towards I/i; see §3.5.3 (pp. 78–79). 38.  Stat emiṣ according to e-mi-iṣ OBTA p. 52 no. 12:35 (ArBab); for īmmuṣ, cf. im-mu-ṣa(-a) BWL 40:44 (SB). 39.  Originally perhaps A/a; cf. SAk a ib-ra /ay yibrā/ SAB p. 163:5 (Diyala) ‘let it (the field) not starve’, i.e., lie fallow. 40.  SB rarely imallī. 41.  SB also ikaṣṣī. 42.  Emiṣ 1x OB (e-mi-iṣ Sumer 13, 113:12); also u in SB. 43.  The Fem qarrattu (qá-ra-at-ta Ištar p. 75: I 2 (OB lit.) and elsewhere) is the feminine of qarrādum.

Distinctions in Aktionsart: Fientive, Stative, and Adjectival Verbs   3.3.

62

B1. PaRuS adjectives with u in the prefix forms (at least originally; see §3.5.3):44 baḫū eṭū gapuš ḫabur ḫamuṭ ḫarub ḫarup karū naqud pašuq

ibaḫḫū īṭṭū igappuš iḫabbur iḫammuṭ iḫarrub iḫarrup ikarrū inaqqud ipaššuq

thin45 dark (Bab)46 huge, massive noisy quick (to hurry) waste49 early short51 worried narrow

š/sabus šaḫun šamuḫ šapū šaqū šarū taqun ṭaḫud zakū

B2. PaRuS adjectives with i in the prefix forms: emuq īmmiq52 wise matuq lapun ilappin poor  53 waruq lemun ilemmin bad54 (Ass. also a)

iš/sabbus išaḫḫun išammuḫ išappū išaqqū išarrū itaqqun iṭaḫḫud izakkū

angry (Bab) warm prosperous loud, dense47 high (Bab)48 rich (Bab)50 certain abundant clean, free

imattiq īrriq

sweet green (Bab)

B3. PaRuS adjectives with a in the prefix forms (at least originally; see §3.5.3): aruḫ īrraḫ maruṣ imarraṣ nesū/ī inessē

quick (to hurry) ill (Bab)56 far

paluḫ ipallaḫ qerub iqarrab rêq/rūq irêq

awesome55 (Bab) near (Bab)57 far (Bab)

B4. PaRuS adjectives without prefix forms attested: barum dašup

multicoloured sweet

rašub raṭub

awe-inspiring moist58

44.  Ordinal numbers, which regularly have PaRuS in Babylonian but PaRiS in Assyrian (GAG §70a/b), are not included. 45.  Also Stat baḫī and Impfv ibaḫḫī. 46.  The Impfv īṭṭū is only based on Gilg. p. 234:39 (OB) i-˹ṭù˺-ma u4-mu, cf. A. R. George, NABU 2004/49; ūmu is unlikely to be plural, cf. also Sg u4-mu in 35); elsewhere I/i. 47.  Also išappī (SB); this might be the same word as šapī ‘thick’ (A5). 48.  Also išaqqī (SB). 49.  Also iḫarrib (LB). 50.  Also išarrī (SB). 51.  Also ikarrī (OB, SB). 52.  Only based on Gilg. p. 580:104 (SB) ˹i ˺-mì-iq ‘he will become wise’. 53.  It occurs as I/i in Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian (i-lá-pì-nu AKT 1, 21:9; il5-tí-pí(-ma) ArAn. 1, 48 n. 23 kt 88/k 507b:14), alongside U/u in SB (lu-ul-pu-un-mi ZA 43, 86: I 6). The stative pattern *lapun suggests that U/u may be older, and this would also agree with the general pattern of change. 54.  But NB ilemmun. 55.  Paluḫ only in SAk and OB proper names, later paliḫ. 56.  But NB imarruṣ. 57.  Iqarrab inferred from sporadic OB Pfv iqrab (e.g., iq-ra-ab Legends p. 198:46), later Bab iqerri/ub; OA iqarrub, Stat qurub; see §17.7.3.2 (p. 565) for this verb and the next one. 58.  But also raṭib (ra-ṭi-ib YOS 10, 33: II 24. 26; ra-ṭì-ib-tum ARM 27, 66:18). Cf. also the noun ra-ṭàab-tum ‘terre irriguée’ ARM 26/1, 217 no. 76:26 (OB). Perhaps raṭib is already attested in Ebla, if la-ti-bat [um?] // la-ti-tum stands for /raṭibtum/ (Krebernik 1983: 42).

3.3.  Distinctions in Aktionsart: Fientive, Stative, and Adjectival Verbs kazub narub naṭū raṣum/n

63

luxuriant59 (Bab) šaruḫ proud, magnificent soft, moist (Bab) waruš dirty, impure appropriate z/ṣap/bur evil, malicious loud

C1. PaRaS adjectives with i in the prefix forms (at least originally; see §3.5.3): išar kabar nakar qatan

īššir ikabbir inakkir iqattin

straight, just thick foreign thin, fine

rapaš waqar wašaṭ watar

irappiš īqqir īššiṭ?  60 īttir

wide, broad rare, precious fierce exceeding

ṭāb

iṭīab

good, pleasant

C2. PaRaS adjectives of II/voc verbs: mād sām

imīad isīam

numerous (Bab)61 red

C3. PaRaS adjectives with vowel class U/u (at least originally): No instances. C4. PaRaS adjectives with vowel class A/a: No instances in Babylonian.62 C5. PaRaS adjectives without prefix forms attested: ḫamar

dry

D1. Adjectives of II/gem verbs with i in the prefix forms: dān idannin strong ēb ībbib pure ēl īllil pure, free ēm īmmim hot erur(!)63 īrrir dry

mār qāl raggu rāq

imarrir iqallil iraggig iraqqiq

bitter light (of weight) bad, wicked thin, fine

59.  Only as PNF Kazubtum (Ka-zu-ub-tum AbB 14, 46:3; CT 6, 4: I 6, both OB). 60.  Only based on iš-ši-ṭ [a] Erra IIIc 49 (SB). CAD does not have a verb ašāṭu, only an adjective ašṭu (A/2 475–76). 61.  Bab mād, imīad replaces an earlier II/  ʾ adjective and verb with maʾad and imaʾʾid (belonging to C1), which is preserved in Assyrian; see §16.5.1 (pp. 474–476). 62.  One might include here Ass balaṭ—iballaṭ ‘to live, be(come) healthy’ (corresponding to Bab baliṭ— iballuṭ), but there is insufficient reason to classify balāṭu as an adjectival verb. See §7.2 (p. 162) for the Stat balaṭ. 63.  Erur, a rather abnormal form, occurs in JCS 24, 66 no. 66:8 e-ru-úr (OB). It cannot be ruled out that it is a Pfv with e‑ prefix instead of i‑. For īrrir, cf. lā ir-ri-ra BAM 1, 22:34 (// lā i-ba-l [a] 6, 515: I 65), said of herbs; and for the meaning, see Köcher 1965.

Distinctions in Aktionsart: Fientive, Stative, and Adjectival Verbs   3.3.

64

D2. Adjectives of II/gem verbs with u in the prefix forms: ēd īddud?  64 sharp rāb irabbu/ib soft, weak ēz, eziz īzzu/iz angry D3. Adjectives of II/gem verbs without prefix forms attested: daqqu

very small

sār

false65

E. Adjectives of unknown pattern but with corresponding verb: erpu

īrrup

cloudy

ṭanpu

iṭannup

dirty

3.3.4.  Deviating adjectives in Assyrian For the adjectives that have a different pattern in Assyrian, the vowel class of the corresponding adjectival verb is often unknown, so it is no use listing them in the way that I have listed the Babylonian ones above. Instead, I will arrange them according to the corresponding verb of the Babylonian adjective. There are three types:66 1. Ass PaRiS corresponding to Bab PaRuS: mariṣ imarraṣ narib sabis eriq šaqī išaqqī (MA/NA) šarī išarrū

ill moist67 angry green high rich

Bab maruṣ—imarraṣ (B3) (< *weriq < *wariq)68 Bab šaqū—išaqqū (B1) Bab šarū—išarrū (B1)69

2. Ass PuRuS corresponding to Bab PaRuS: qurub70 rūq71

iqarrub irūaq

near far

Bab qerub—iqarrab (B3), Bab rêq/rūq, irêq (B3)

64.  Based on several doubtful forms (all SB): id-du-ud AnSt. 30, 101:19 // Iraq 60, 192:19 (= Ludlul I 19, SB), of uncertain inter­pretation, and e-du-ud AfO 14, pl. IV: ii 17; ACh. Spl. 8:9, 11, which at first glance is a stative (like ed-de-et in the same context, e.g., ACh. 2. Spl. 1: I 10), but the subject qarnu ‘horn’ is feminine, so it is a 3ms Perfective, in spite of e‑. 65.  There are, however, N forms with stem vowel a, which is highly irregular: Impfv is-sa-ra-ar/ár LSS 1/6, 33:2, 4 and t‑Pf it-tas-ra-ar MSL 1, 48:10 ‘he will prove/has proved to be unreliable’ (both SB); perhaps also in AbB 12, 32:28 (OB). 66.  The forms are Old Assyrian, unless indicated otherwise. 67.  Fem Adj naribtum (e.g., na-ri-ib-tum Prag I 429:11). 68.  OA also has warqum (stem vowel unknown, also written barqum: bar-qú-t [u]m RA 58, 64 no. 7:5), and substantivized in rabi ur-qé/wa-ar-qé TMH 1, 27b:2 and VS 26, 125:13′ ‘the overseer of the vegetables’. 69.  The OA adjective e-ṭí-ú-tim JCS 14, 3:21, said of textiles, which AHw 266a s.v. eṭû I 4 connects with Bab eṭû ‘dark’ might be another instance. It is, however, more likely that this eṭium is a variant of WA‑DÍ‑um, an adjective of unknown meaning that qualifies textiles, hides, and saddles; see Veenhof 1972: 186 and 2010: 141. 70.  Attested in Old Assyrian (ana ūmē qurbūtim ‘on short terms’; see CAD Q 215a s.v. qerbu adj. 2; qú-ru-ub Prag I 483:25; qú-ur-bu OAA 1, 83:26), Middle Assyrian (qur-bu-ú-te KAV 1: III §24:44), and Neo-Assyrian (qu-ru-ub SAA 16, 125:9′ and passim). See further §17.7.3.2 (p. 565). 71.  Rūqu (< *ruḥqum; see §17.7.3.2, p. 565) occurs in Old Assyrian as adjective in ru-qú-um(-ma) RA 88, 121:20; as stative in ru-qú BIN 4, 32:27; in Middle Assyrian perhaps in the PNF Ṣīḫtī-ru-[qá-at] KAJ

3.3.  Distinctions in Aktionsart: Fientive, Stative, and Adjectival Verbs puluḫ72 kuzub73



65

frightful charming

3. Ass PāS corresponding to Bab PīS in II/voc verbs: rāq irīaq pāq (NA)74 sāq (MA/NA)75isīaq (NA)

empty narrow narrow

~ class A2 in Bab ~ class A2 in Bab ~ class A2 in Bab

The fact that the differences between Assyrian and Babylonian concern groups of adjectives rather than individual cases is striking, but the historical significance of this is not very clear. The most remarkable fact is the rare occurrence of PaRuS in Assyrian. There are only three instances: la/emnu ‘bad, evil’, zakû ‘clean, free’, and naṭû ‘appropriate’.76 The rest of the Babylonian PaRuS adjectives show either PaRiS (Type 1) or PuRuS (Type 2) in Assyrian. The importance of Type 1 is enhanced by the fact that it also includes the ordinal numerals from three to ten: they normally have the pattern PaRiS instead of Bab PaRuS (GKT §69). I would not dare to speculate on which form is more original. The PuRuS pattern of Type 2 is the only pattern of basic adjectives that does not show a in the first syllable. Apart from the four adjectives listed above, it also occurs in a few statives of verbs that do not seem to be adjectival: • *puḫrū ‘they are assembled’ from paḫāru (U/u) in pu-ùḫ-ru OIP 27, 62:25 (OA), pu‑uḫ-ru SAA 5, 21:14 and elsewhere in NA • mušul ‘it is similar’ from mašālu (mostly A/u) in mu-šu-ul SAA 10, 382: r.9 and elsewhere in NA A possible explanation is that PuRuS is secondary, resulting from the occasional assimilation of a to u in the next syllable.77 This reminds us of the vowel assimilation rule discussed in §2.4 (pp. 48–49). Although this rule does not regularly affect the first syllable of a word, there are a few similar cases, such as Ass kulū/kilī/kalā ‘all’ and kulūmu ‘lamb’ for Bab kalūmu (see chap. 2, n. 56, p. 48). It is unclear, however, why la/emnu, zakû, and naṭû were not affected. Moreover, this also presupposes the existence of *paḫur and *mašul, which remains speculative.78 16:14 (PN, see CAD R 424b s.v. rūqu 3a); for Neo-Assyian, cf. perhaps ru-qu-ti SAA 10, 58: r.6; but most, if not all, instances may be Standard Babylonian intrusions; cf. §1.4.1.3.3 (p. 19). 72.  Attested in the 3fs Stat pulḫat: e-za-at pu-ul-ḫa-at Or. 66, 59:1, an Old Assyrian incantation, corresponding to OB e-ze-et pa-al-ḫa-at YOS 11, 20:1 ‘she is furious and frightful’. The regular stative of palāḫu ‘to fear’ is palVḫ ‘he is afraid’ (pattern unknown), e.g., pá-al-ḫa-ni JEOL 35/36: 103: r.5′ ‘we are afraid’. 73.  Attested in the Fem Sg kuzubtum: awātam ku-zu-ub-tám Or. 36, 410 kt b/k 95:14. 74.  Attested in pa-aq-tú SAA 9, 3: III 8 (NA) and pa-a-qu Diri I 266 (SB), quoted by S. Parpola, SAA 9, p. 25 ad III 8. 75.  Sāq is attested in sa-qa-at Iraq 31, 31:44 (MA) and sa-a-qu-u-ni SAA 10, 364:5′ (NA); for isīaq; see CAD S 170a s.v. sâqu v. 1d. 76.  Of these, la/emnum is atypical because of its e and naṭûm because it is only used predicatively and in Old Assyrian does not agree in gender with the subject (see CAD N/2 131a s.v. naṭû A adj. c 2′). It is further unclear to what extent forms of zakûm belong to the G‑stem or the D‑stem; see the comments in CAD Z 25b s.v. Note that there are also a few instances of zakû with i: za-ki-am BIN 4, 23:4 (OA) and za-ki-a MVAG 41/3, 16:35 (MA), both Masc Sg Acc. 77.  This is also Parpola’s view (1983: 220) about the Neo-Assyrian instances (qurub, rūq, puḫrū, mušul ); he does not mention the Old Assyrian parallels. 78.  Von Soden (1948: 301), followed by Hämeen-Anttila (2000: 26) and Luukko (2004: 85 n. 262), explains qurbu as [qorbu], in which [o] is caused by the surrounding consonants q and r. However, forms such as mušul and pulḫat show that it is unlikely to be an occasional instance of “Vokalfärbung.”

Transitivity  3.4.

66

Finally, the three II/voc adjectives rāqu, pāqu, and sāqu of Type 3 may well be more original than their Babylonian counterparts rīqu, pīqu, and sīqu, because the latter can easily be explained as remodelled on the basis of the fientive II/ī verbs, such as qâpu (ī) ‘to entrust’ (see §16.5.2, pp. 476–479): Impfv iqīap : Stat qīp § irīaq : x, where x is rīq, replacing rāq.

3.4. Transitivity A second important semantic dividing line between different kinds of G‑stem verbs in Akkadian concerns transitivity. Two kinds of transitivity are currently distinguished, syntactic and semantic. The former represents the traditional concept of transitivity: a binary distinction between transitive verbs, which normally require a direct object, and intransitive verbs, which normally do not. Semantic transitivity, on the other hand, is a gradient feature that is determined by a combination of factors involving not only the meaning and the construction of the verb but also the clause as a whole (Hopper and Thompson 1980: 252). Prominent among them are the degree of agentivity and volition of the subject, the degree of affectedness and individuation of the object (the patient), and the degree of telicness of the verb (Hopper and Thompson 1980: 252; see also Lakoff 1977: 244–45; Givón 1990: 565–66). The more these features are present, the higher the degree of transitivity. If all features of high transitivity appear together in a clause, we can speak of prototypical transitivity, because semantic transitivity is a prototype concept (Givón 1984: 96–97; Croft 2003: 175–78). Since the most important of these criteria depend on the semantic nature of the verb, we can qualify verbs that normally occur in clauses with a high degree of transitivity as high transitivity verbs and verbs that normally occur in clauses with a low degree of transitivity as low transitivity verbs. Syntactic and semantic transitivity are often closely parallel: semantic high transitivity implies syntactic transitivity, because it requires a strongly affected patient. Syntactic intransitivity normally correlates with low transitivity. The most crucial difference is that a verb that normally has a direct object may still have inherent low transitivity—when this object does not meet the important criteria of affectedness and individuation (see Givón 1984: 98–104). Examples of low transitivity verbs with a direct object are expressions such as to sing a song, to cross a street, to pass an exam, to have the flu. It is this kind of verb in particular for which the concept of semantic transitivity proves to be illuminating. This description also applies to Akkadian. Both syntactic and semantic transitivity can be relevant for a description of the Akkadian verb. Generally speaking, if we are dealing with verbs that are prototypically transitive or intransitive in the syntactic sense, we need not bother too much about degrees of transitivity. Syntactic transitivity is relevant to processes such as passivization (only transitive verbs can be passivized; see §10.8.3.1, p. 260), transitivization (only intransitive verbs can have a D‑stem with transitivizing force; see §10.8.2, pp. 256–257, and §11.5, p. 279), and the membership of the vowel class A/u (which is only open to transitive verbs; see §3.5.2.2, pp. 72–73). It is especially for verbs whose meaning makes them borderline cases between transitive and intransitive that the notion of semantic transitivity can help solve problems of classification and can provide a better understanding of their peculiar behaviour (see also GAV pp. 95–98). The most important group consists of “transitive low-transitivity verbs,” i.e., verbs that are construed with a direct object (or at least a noun in the accusative) without being high-transitivity verbs, because this direct object does not have the semantic status of a patient. In contrast to “normal” transitive verbs, these verbs cannot be passivized: if they occur in the N‑stem at all, the N‑stem form tends to be ingressive, just as N‑stems of intransitive verbs (see §12.2.2.2, pp. 297–298); if they have a D‑stem, it has factitive function (i.e., it is the agentive counterpart of the G‑stem; see §11.3.3, p. 274), although this function is normally restricted to D‑stems of intransitive verbs.

3.4.  Transitivity

67

Moreover, it is typical of such verbs to be construed alternatively with an accusative or with a prepositional phrase. This applies in particular to the following semantic classes:79 • verbs of approaching and addressing (saḫāru + Acc or ana ‘to turn to’, emēdu + Acc or ana ‘to lean on, reach as far as, take refuge with’, and kašādu listed in the next group) • verbs of praying (karābu, s/ṣullû, suppû, sarruru, all + Acc or ana) • some other individual cases including quʾʾû and (w)aqû ‘to wait for’ (+ Acc or ana; cf. GAG §143c), naṭālu ‘to look at’, usually + Acc but + ana ‘to look for support, wait’ (CAD N/2 125b s.v. 3), mekû ‘to be negligent’ (CAD M/2 8–9 s.v. 1b), and kapādu ‘to plan, devise’ (+ Acc or ana, cf. CAD K 172–73 s.v. 1a versus 1b).80 Most importantly, this phenomenon is found in motion verbs: • kašādu + Acc or ana, adi and ana ṣēr ‘to reach, arrive’ (see n. 81) • alāku ‘to go /come’ may express the path as a direct object or as a prepositional phrase (sūqa alāku or ina sūqi alāku ‘to walk along the street’, ṣēra alāku or ina/eli ṣeri alāku ‘to walk in the open country’, ḫarrāna alāku or ana ḫarrāni alāku ‘to set out on a journey or an expedition’) • erēbu ‘to enter’ normally has ana, but an Acc is also found (typically bāba ‘door’, abulla ‘gate’, and bīta ‘house’) • waṣû ‘to go /come out’ mostly has ina, ištu, etc., but occasionally it has an Acc, in particular bāba ‘door’ and abulla ‘gate’; in Mari Old Babylonian, we find ana ḫarrāni waṣû (ARM 2, 20:7) beside ḫarrāna waṣû (2, 138:7), and ana gerri waṣû (FM 2, 34 no. 10:5) alongside gerra waṣû (MARI 7, 45:12′ and 15′); cf. alāku above • wašābu ‘to sit down, settle’ usually has ina, but a few times it has an Acc (OB: AbB 7, 42:13 (ālam); Kisurra no. 153:24 (a place name); OA: EL 7:8 (bētam); 286:1 (eqlam). The two constructions do not always have the same meaning: the transitive construction with an accusative often correlates with a higher degree of affectedness of the patient than the prepositional construction.81 This double construction makes it difficult to classify these verbs as syntactically either transitive or intransitive (cf. Aro 1964: 9–10; Kienast 1967: 67). Their semantic transitivity shows that semantically they belong to the class of intransitive verbs and throughout also behave as intransitive verbs. Finally, both syntactic and semantic transitivity play a role in the characterization of the vowel classes. The large A/u class is only open to verbs that are syntactically transitive, i.e., that normally have a direct object (see §3.5.2.2, pp. 72–73). The vowel class A/a, on the other hand, typically comprises low transitivity verbs, regardless of whether they are (syntactically) transitive (e.g., lamādu ‘to learn’), intransitive (e.g., abālu ‘to become dry’), or both (e.g., malû ‘to be(come) full; fill, cover’) (see further §3.5.2.4, pp. 74–75).

79.  For references, see in general the dictionaries. 80.  A particularly intriguing case is tamû ‘to swear’, which has an Acc (AHw 1317–18 s.v. G I 2) or ina (ibid., II 1) for the object sworn by, e.g., OA patram or ina patrim ša Aššur tamāʾum ‘to swear by the dagger of Aššur’ (Hirsch 1972: 65a); likewise, we find mamītam tamāʾum ‘to swear an oath’ in Old Assyrian (AHw 1317b s.v. G I 2), but ina mamîtim tamûm in Old Babylonian (ibid., II 1, e.g., AbB 9, 216:10–11). 81.  See also GAV pp. 97–98. A good example from Akkadian is kašādu, which, in addition to the alternation of an accusative and a prepositional phrase in the meaning ‘to reach, arrive’, may also mean ‘to acquire, conquer’, but then only takes an accusative.

The Vowel Classes  3.5.

68

3.5. The Vowel Classes The prefix conjugations and the imperative of the G‑stem show a variable and unpredictable vowel between R2 and R3, on the basis of which we can divide the G‑stem verbs into five formal types, the vowel classes. The vowel classes properly belong to the G‑stem, although they have been extended to part of the derived stems as well, and correlate in a complex way with certain semantic and syntactic properties of the verb. They owe their existence to the combination of the inherited root vowel (see §2.3.4, pp. 45) and the vowel of the new geminated imperfective, which brought along its own vowel, into a single paradigm. I will discuss the details of this process (insofar as they are recoverable) in chap. 4. In the next sections, I will focus on the vowel classes as they appear and develop in the historical period of Akkadian.

3.5.1.  Form and function The vowels determining the vowel class of a verb appear in the imperfective, perfective, t‑perfect, and imperative. In the G‑stem, the vowel of the t‑perfect is identical to that of the imperfective (see §6.2, pp. 138–139), and the vowel of the imperative is always identical to that of the perfective (see §5.5, p. 133). Therefore, we can define the vowel classes by means of the vowels of imperfective and perfective alone. The three imperfective vowels a, i, and u (of the A-verbs, I-verbs and U-verbs; see §4.2, pp. 88–90) combine with the root vowel of the perfective to form the five possible vowel classes:82 1. the I/i class (e.g., ipaqqid – ipqid ‘he entrusts/entrusted’ 2. the U/u class (e.g., imaqqut – imqut ‘he falls/fell’ 3. the A/a class (e.g., ilammad – ilmad ‘he learns/learned’ 4. the A/u or Ablaut class (e.g., išakkan – iškun ‘he places/placed’ 5. the A/i or weak class (e.g., uššab – ušib ‘he is sitting down/sat down’) The first three are “isovocalic”: they have the same vowel in the imperfective and the perfective. The last two are “anisovocalic” and are also called the “Ablaut classes,” in particular in reference to the very large A/u class. The vowel of the stative is not included in the definition of the vowel classes, since it is predictable in fientive verbs (always i ). This is not the case in adjectival verbs, but here the adjective is outside the verbal paradigm (see §3.3.2, p. 58), and their past participle slot is empty.83 The five vowel classes characterize the strong triradical verbs and all weak verbs in which the weak radical is not in direct contact with the relevant vowel(s)—i.e., the II/gem verbs—and the verbs with a weak R1—i.e., the I/voc, I/w, and I/n verbs. The other types of weak verbs have their own specific system. As I argued in §2.3.4 (pp. 44–45), their weak radical also serves as root vowel and determines the vowel pattern, so that there is no unpredictable variation. In the II/voc verbs, it is the long vowel serving as R2 which plays this role. As a radical, this vowel has no obvious correlation with any semantic or syntactic features, such as transitivity ( pace GAG 82.  See also GAG §73c–d and 87a–d; Kienast 1967 (= 2001: 237–49); Aro 1964; Kuryłowicz 1972: 54–56; Moscati, ed. 1964: 122–23. For lists of verbs, see Aro 1964: 18–43 with Aro’s own additions apud Jucquois 1967: 311. GAG §87a speaks of “Bedeutungsklassen” (but “Wurzelvokalklassen” in §87c), which is a rather unfortunate term, because there is no direct correlation between vowel class and meaning; see below. 83.  Since the vowel of the stative/past participle is not included in the definition of the Akkadian vowel classes, they cannot be directly compared with the vowel classes in West Semitic, which are based on the vowels of the prefix conjugation and the suffix conjugation (e.g., Ar yaqtulu – qatala), especially because the most common type of suffix conjugation, qatala, has no counterpart in Akkadian.

3.5.  The Vowel Classes

69

§104c–e; see §16.5.1, p. 476). In the III/voc verbs, the long vowel that serves as final radical determines the vowel class (see §2.3.4, p. 45): a III/ī verb is automatically I/i, a III/ū verb U/u, etc.84 Therefore, the III/voc verbs can only belong to the isovocalic vowel classes.85 In these circumstances, it is questionable to what extent we are justified in speaking of vowel classes stricto sensu, but it is still convenient to use the term, if only to retain the parallel with the strong verb. The function of the vowel classes poses a delicate problem. On the one hand, they are primarily formal categories, based on vowels that are unmotivated (at least synchronically) and do not have a grammatical function. Even in the Ablaut classes, the contrast of imperfective versus perfective is primarily conveyed by gemination (see §4.2, pp. 88–89).86 This is particularly clear from the behaviour of the weak verbs, where it is the radical itself rather than a semantic or syntactic feature of the verb that determines the vowel pattern, and from the nature of the A/i class, membership of which is purely determined by the form of the verb (see §3.5.2.5, p. 75). It is also shown by the fact that a G‑stem verb can switch from one class to another or can belong to more than one vowel class without any observable consequence for its meaning.87 Such cases will be discussed in greater detail in §3.5.3 (pp. 75–81).88 On the other hand, in the strong verb there are definitely some correlations between vowel class and certain syntactic and semantic features of the verb in terms of Aktionsart and transitivity.89 The main correlations are the following (for the details, see §3.5.2 below): 1. Syntactic transitivity is relevant to the A/u class, almost all members of which are transitive, and the U/u class, which is predominantly intransitive. 2. Semantic transitivity is a prominent feature of the A/a class, which mainly contains lowtransitivity “middle verbs”. 3. Aktionsart is involved in the U/u class, insofar as it contains many atelic (durative) activity verbs, and in the fientive part of the I/i class, insofar as it mainly contains punctual verbs.90 84.  At least in historical Akkadian, see n. 44 to Chapter II. 85.  With the notable exception of MA/NA uṣṣā, uṣī from uṣāʾu ‘to go /come out’, which developed secondarily from earlier uṣṣī, uṣī, see chap. 16 n. 176 (p. 498). 86.  In this respect, the vowel classes can be regarded as conjugations in the sense familiar from Latin, where almost all verbs belong to one of four conjugations on the basis of the final vowel of their stem (there are ā‑stems, ē‑stems, ī‑stems, and consonant‑stems [i.e., with ∅ vowel]; see Aronoff 1994: 45–53), or from Germanic languages with their classes of strong and weak verbs. The weak correlation with certain semantic and syntactic parameters, to be discussed presently, undermines the similarity, however. 87.  Pace GAG §87d and von Soden 1989: 181–82; Kienast 1967: 82 sub 4). 88.  In a very small number of cases, the vowel classes distinguish different verbs with the same radicals, such as šaḫāṭu (A/u) ‘to take off, tear off’ and šaḫāṭu (I/i) ‘to jump, attack’, šaqû (I/i) ‘to give to drink’ and šaqû (U/u) ‘to be(come) high’. This is far too incidental, however, to qualify as a ‘function’. There is no observable tendency in Akkadian to systematically distinguish identical roots in this way: other homonymous verbs also share the same vowel class, e.g., kamāsu (I/i), which means both ‘to kneel, bow down’ and ‘to gather, finish’, and ṣâdu (ū) which means ‘to melt’ (intr.) and ‘to turn about, spin’. 89.  The attempts to assign a specific semantic function to the vowels a, i, and u by themselves, e.g., by Gelb (1969: 209: “a for the neutral action, i for the punctual action, and u for the durative action”) and by Castellino (1962: 48), or to their combination in a specific vowel class (e.g., by von Soden [GAG §87c], Kienast [1967: 69], and Ségéral [2000: 287]) are to be considered unsuccessful. Cf. Kuryłowicz 1972: 43: “The association of a given root-vocalism with a certain fundamental meaning (like trans. intrans. stative) can be rightfully established only for derived verb-forms, whether deverbative or denominative. To look for a constant association between the vocalism of R2 and the fundamental meaning of non-motivated (primary) verbs is a methodological derailment tantamount to the old theory of ‘Lautsymbolik’” (emphasis original). 90.  Sometimes much more precise definitions of the “meaning” of a vowel class are given. For instance, GAG §103b characterizes the I/w verbs with A/i as “Verben der Bewegung mit bestimmtem Ausgangs-

70

The Vowel Classes  3.5.

These correlations are not rules, but tendencies that may be stronger or weaker. Moreover, they are not symmetrical: a vowel class mostly contains verbs that share certain semantic features, but these features are not specific to that particular vowel class. For instance, almost all A/u verbs are transitive, but not all transitive verbs have A/u; many U/u verbs denote atelic activities, but not all atelic activities are expressed by U/u verbs; the A/a class mainly contains low-transitivity verbs, but there are far more low-transitivity verbs outside the A/a class, etc. On the basis of its vowel class, then, we can infer some semantic and syntactic features of a verb with a reasonable rate of success, but it is more difficult to predict the vowel class of a verb on the basis of these features. Here too, however, there are a few tendencies. For instance, an atelic activity verb has a high probability of being U/u, a transitive verb with a punctual Aktionsart is likely to be I/i, and an intransitive verb is very unlikely to be A/u. In this respect, the vowel classes are not essentially different from vowel patterns in general: as a result of the root-and-pattern system, words with a parallel meaning or function tend to share the same vowel pattern, but this pattern is not necessarily restricted to nouns of that particular semantic class, since it may comprise words of quite diverse origins. For instance, abstract nouns derived from adjectives often have the pattern PuRS in Akkadian (GAG §55d), but not all nouns of this pattern are abstract nouns of adjectives, as is clear from nouns such as ummu ‘mother’, zumru ‘body’, and uznu ‘ear’. The ambivalent nature of the vowel classes is a consequence of the way in which they have emerged: they are an accidental by-product of the combination of the inherited perfective with the new geminated imperfective *yiqattal‑ in a prehistoric stage of Akkadian. Both categories brought along their own vowel: the perfective its root vowel, and the new imperfective presumably a fixed vowel a, at least originally; I will discuss this problem in detail in chap. 4. Once the paradigm based on these two categories was established, the vowel classes gradually acquired their historical form through the mechanism of semantic association: groups of verbs with the same vowel class served as a magnet for attracting existing and new verbs with a similar meaning, so that the similar meaning became more and more dominant and typical of the class in question. Eventually, this led to a situation in which large groups of semantically similar verbs shared the same vowel pattern. On the other hand, since the vowels that determine the vowel classes do not have a meaning of their own, a particular vowel class is not closed to verbs with other meanings, but such verbs are isolated and therefore more vulnerable to undergoing change, such as shifting to another class or being discarded altogether. In sum, we can say that on the level of individual verbs the vowel classes increase the isomorphism of the verbal system, because they make verbs that share a semantic feature also more similar in form. On the level of the verbal paradigm as a whole, they increase its uniformity and coherence, because they constrain the number of possible relationships between the vowels of the basic members of the verbal paradigm to five, although they do not make one form fully predictable from the other one (see further §5.2, p. 126). It is important to note that there is a fundamental difference between the vowel classes of the G‑stem and those of the derived stems. Whereas the former are unmotivated and grammatically non-contrastive, the latter are motivated and usually have a grammatical function. They express, for instance, the contrast between imperfective and perfective (e.g., uparras versus uparris in the D‑stem), between imperative and stative (e.g., pitras versus pitrus in the Gt‑stem), or between oder Zielpunkt”, and Kienast (1967: 72) claims that transitive I/i verbs denote “ein Abtrennen oder Loslösen eines Teiles vom Ganzen bzw. ein Zusammenfügen von Einzelnem, d.h. eine Aktivität, die ein gewisses Richtungsmoment beeinhaltet.” Such characterizations are either too vague to be meaningful or too specific to do justice to the observable variety of meaning.

3.5.  The Vowel Classes

71

different derived stems (e.g., Gtn Prec liptarras versus Dt(n) Prec liptarris). Therefore, it is methodologically incorrect to treat the vowel patterns of the basic stem in the same way as those of the derived stems as, for instance, Kienast (1967: 76–82) does. Insofar as the derived verbs show variation in their vowel pattern (e.g., in the t‑stems and the tan‑stems and in the imperfective of the N‑stem), it is determined by the imperfective vowel of the corresponding G‑stem (see §4.2, p. 89). This explains the relative stability of the vowel patterns of the derived stems, whereas in the basic stem we observe a considerable fluctuation over time, as I will show in §3.5.3. The quadriradical verbs show a comparable picture: the N‑stem, which is their basic stem, has vowel classes (A/i, I/i, and U/u; see §12.5, pp. 307–310), but the derived Š‑stem has the fixed A/i pattern of all Š‑stems (see §13.4.1, p. 338).91 Finally, unlike West Semitic, Akkadian has never exploited the possibilities of vowel alternation for expressing differences in grammatical voice. In Arabic, for instance, we find contrastive pairs such as malaʾa (yamluʾu) ‘to fill’ versus maliʾa (yamlaʾu) ‘to be full’ and ḥazana (yaḥzunu) ‘to sadden’ versus ḥazina (yaḥzanu) ‘to be sad’ (Kuryłowicz 1972: 67–68). This is virtually unknown in Akkadian.92 It is hard to say whether the West Semitic cases are a secondary development in which Akkadian took no part or the remains of a Proto-Semitic system that was discarded in Akkadian. The former option seems more likely, because they can hardly be separated from the rise of apophonic voice distinctions in general in West Semitic, which in particular resulted in a class of “middle verbs” of the pattern qatila/yiqtalu and the “internal” passive forms of the type of Arabic qutila/yuqtalu.

3.5.2.  The individual vowel classes 3.5.2.1.  The vowel class I/i The appendix of §3.6 sub 1 contains 359 verbs of the I/i class, which makes it by far the most numerous class.93 There does not seem to be any restriction on the range of meanings expressed 91.  The vowel classes in the derived stems are an Akkadian innovation, see §14.2.1 (pp. 356–357) for the Gt‑stem, §14.7.2 (p. 417) for the Gtn‑stem, §12.2.1 (pp. 288–290) for the N‑stem, and §12.5 (pp. 307–310) for the quadriradical verbs (so already Knudsen 1984/86: 232–33). See also the statement of Kuryłowicz quoted in n. 89. 92.  Possible candidates, all extremely rare and marginal, are: (1) tarāṣu A/u ‘to stretch’ (trans.) versus U/u ‘to be right, correct’, which can perhaps be derived from a single underlying root √trṣ‘to be straight’; (2) qarāru U/u ‘to flow, overflow’ versus A/u ‘to pour’ (only once: i-qar-ra-ru quoted by CAD Q 127b s.v. qarāru 2 (MB legal), which may be a mistake for a D form uqarrarū); (3) zaqāpu A/u ‘to plant, erect’ versus zaqāpu (U/u) ‘to appear in court, take up a position’, which might be a middle or reflexive derivation of zaqāpu A/u (‘to erect oneself’), but it only appears in Neo-Assyrian and is clearly late and secondary; (4) a remarkable but also indecisive case concerns the two verbs raḫāṣu: raḫāṣu (I/i) ‘to flood, inundate’ (also ‘to run quickly’, cf. AHw 943a s.v. raḫāṣu I G 3; same verb?), often with Adad as subject, and raḫāṣu (A/u) ‘to wash, rinse’. If they have a common origin, which seems semantically plausible, they have doubtless been differentiated secondarily. For W. von Soden’s speculations on the different vowels of this verb, see von Soden 1947: 456–57. The alleged transitive verb ašāšu A/u ‘to worry (sb.), disturb’, alongside ašāšu U/u ‘to be worried’ (Kuryłowicz 1972: 57) is to be cancelled: the transitive verb is actually ʾašāšu ‘to catch in a net’ with a strong ʾ (see §17.4, pp. 520–521), cf. the Impfv iʾaššaš and in particular the Inf ḫa a-ša-šu quoted in CAD A/2 423a s.v. ašāšu A lex. sect. and 425a s.v. ašāšu B lex. sect. The fact that the Sumerian version of the two instances clearly points to ašāšu ‘to worry’ suggests some confusion on the part of the Babylonian scribes. 93.  This includes all strong verbs and the III/ī verbs, but not the II/ī verbs, for which see §3.6 sub 7 (40 verbs). According to §3.3.3, there are 51 adjectival I/i verbs (listed in A1, B2, C1, and D1) and thus 308 fientive I/i verbs.

The Vowel Classes  3.5.

72

by it, but two specific groups of verbs stand out: on the one hand, high transitivity verbs denoting punctual actions (GAG §87c), such as nakāsu ‘to cut, slaughter’, pašāṭu ‘to erase’ and ṣamādu ‘to harness, yoke’ and, on the other hand, adjectival verbs. These groups are semantically each other’s opposite, occupying the two ends of the transitivity continuum. Intermediate between them, we find a host of verbs with other meanings, such as transitive durative verbs (e.g., malāku ‘to advise, deliberate’ and zabālu ‘to carry’), telic motion verbs (e.g., ḫalāqu ‘to run away, dis­appear’, rabāṣu ‘to lie down’, kamāsu ‘to kneel’), punctual event verbs (barāqu ‘to flash’, ganāḫu ‘to cough’ and šaḫāṭu ‘to jump’), and even some durative activity verbs (which we would rather expect to find in the U/u class): nazāqu ‘to squeak, worry’, pasālu ‘to turn around’, pašālu ‘to crawl’, sapādu ‘to mourn’, ṣarāmu ‘to exert oneself’, and šadāḫu ‘to move in procession’. For purely formal reasons, all III/ī verbs belong to this class regardless of their meaning (see §2.3.4, p. 45); for the very few II/gem verbs of the I/i class, see §16.6.1 (p. 491). The size of the I/i class and the virtually unlimited range of meanings it can accommodate make it the productive default vowel class. In Babylonian in particular, there is a widespread drift from other classes towards the I/i class, which especially affects the weak verbs of the III/voc class and most verbs with E‑colouring (see §17.5, pp. 525–537), but also many strong verbs. I will discuss this phenomenon in §3.5.3 below.

3.5.2.2.  The A/u or Ablaut class The A/u or Ablaut class is the second largest vowel class after the I/i class; it contains 219 verbs according to the Appendix of §3.6 sub 2. Its major feature is syntactic transitivity: almost all members are basically construed with a direct object (Kienast 1967: 69–70). It has no connection with a specific degree of semantic transitivity: it contains many typical high-transitivity verbs, such as ḫanāqu ‘to strangle’, parāsu ‘to separate’, sapāḫu ‘to scatter’ and ṭabāḫu ‘to slaughter’, but also many transitive verbs that do not meet all criteria for high transitivity, such as amāru ‘to see’, šakānu ‘to place’, šapāru ‘to send’, etc. Nor has it any association with a specific Aktionsart: although most A/u verbs are punctual, we also find some typically durative verbs, such as akālu ‘to eat’, dagālu ‘to watch’, naṣāru ‘to guard’, naṭālu ‘to see, look at’, ḫasāsu ‘to think, mention’, karābu ‘to pray, bless’, šaṭāru ‘to write’, and zakāru ‘to speak, swear’. Intransitive A/u verbs are exceptional; apart from some uncertain and problematic instances, they include:94 • abātu ‘to flee’ in Old Assyrian, cf. CAD A/1 45 s.v. abātu B 1; it corresponds to an N‑stem nābutu in Babylonian, which remarkably is I/i. 94.  Other A/u verbs reported to be intransitive (e.g., in Aro 1964: 23, 31–32) are not to be considered as part of this class: adāru ‘to fear’, magāru ‘to do a favour to’, qanānu ‘to nest’, and ṣanāḫu ‘to void (excrement)’ are not really intransitive. Of ṣapāru ‘to squint’ and kamāmu ‘to grind one’s teeth’ no perfective is attested, so that the vowel class remains unknown (A/u or A/a). Of ḫabātu ‘to move across’, only a Pfv iḫbut is attested with certainty; all imperfective forms with a are either N‑stems or belong to one of the other ḫabātu verbs; see especially Kraus 1975: 31–40. This also applies to several verbs in AHw that are characterized as A/u: ḫalālu ‘to creep, steal’ (A/u) is only found in the Pfv iḫlul; the single instance of iḫallal (TBP 22: III 6 i-ḫal-la-la) is obscure; palāsu ‘to look at’ (+ Dat) is normally N; the only certain G forms attested are statives; cf. AHw 814a s.v. G 2; note that a-pa-al-la-ás-ku-um St. Reiner p. 192:61 (OB) may also be N, and that ip-ta-la-ás ARM 1, 109:41 (OB) stands for iptaras, see Durand 1997/2000: I 198 note c. Maṣāru ‘to move in a circle/etwa ‘umschreiten’ is A/u according to AHw and CAD s.v.; however, the single imperfective instance quoted in the dictionaries (a-ma-aṣ-ṣa-ar ARM 2, 120:21) does not exist; see Durand 1997/2000: II 262 note b. For darāru ‘to add an intercalary month’, the NA Impfv idarrar (SAA 10, 42: r.20 ni-da-ra-ru-ni ) alongside Pfv idrur (SAA 13, 60: r.1 ni-id-ru-ur) may be explained from the Neo-Assyrian change u > a before stressed u (see Hämeen-Anttila 2000: 31).

3.5.  The Vowel Classes

73

• agāgu ‘to become angry’: SB Impfv īggag and īggug (e.g., ig-ga-gu NBNippur p. 272 no. 128:59 // i-gu-gu BWL 114:58), suggesting a fluctuation between A/u and U/u; Pfv īgug OB/SB passim. • nagāgu ‘to bray’: OB/SB Impfv inaggag, SB also inaggug; Pfv ingug (1x SB: in-gu-ug CT 40, 36:56); semantically, nagāgu typically belongs to the large U/u class of atelic activity verbs, which may may explain the rise of inaggug. The deviant Impfv inaggag may have an onomatopoeic background. • erēbu ‘to enter’ in Assyrian; it has switched to U/u in Babylonian (like epēšu, see §3.5.3, p. 76); for erēbu + Acc, see §3.4 (p. 67) • mašālu ‘to resemble, be half’ • ragāmu ‘to call out to, complain against’ (mostly + Dat): SAk, OA, and OB Impfv iraggam, OB and later both iraggam and iraggum, Pfv always irgum, see CAD R 63–64 s.v. 4b and GKT §81b. Iraggam is attested earlier but the meaning (an intransitive verb of sound) suggests that it is originally an U/u verb. Remarkably, the typically legal terms baqāru ‘to claim’, magāru ‘to agree’, and šabāšu ‘to collect’ show the same interchange of a and u in the imperfective; see also §3.5.3. With regard to the weak verbs, the A/u class contains I/voc verbs (e.g., amāru ‘to see’) and I/n verbs (e.g., naṣāru ‘to guard’, but no I/w verbs (which are A/i, unless their third radical is also weak). It does not contain III/voc verbs, which are all isovocalic, for the reason expounded in §3.5.1 above, nor II/  ʾ verbs, which all have A/a or I/i (GAG §98e; see §17.7.1, pp. 554 –556).95 The II/ū verbs have developed their own variant of A/u: Babylonian Impfv idâk < idūak, Pfv idūk, which is doubtless modelled on iparras—iprus (see §16.5.2, pp. 476–478). Diachronically, the A/u class loses a substantial number of verbs to the I/i class, in particular in Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian, and a few to the U/u class. Also in Babylonian, original A/u verbs shift to an isovocalic class, as soon as they acquire E-colouring, mostly I/i, sometimes U/u (see §3.5.3 sub 5 for details).

3.5.2.3.  The vowel class U/u The U/u class is the third largest vowel class after the I/i and the A/u classes and contains 160 verbs according to §3.6 sub 3.96 Their semantic range is wide, but two semantic types are dominant. The first one comprises atelic activity verbs, especially verbs of sound (šagāmu ‘to roar’, saʾālu ‘to cough (up)’, zamāru ‘to sing’, and dabābu ‘to speak’), and verbs of non-directional motion (rapādu ‘to roam about’, lasāmu ‘to run’, saḫāru ‘to turn around’). They are basically intransitive, and if they can have a direct object, they tend to be low-transitivity verbs.97 The second semantic type consists of adjectival verbs associated with PaRuS adjectives, which were enumerated in §3.3.3 sub B1 (p. 62).98 95.  Except for MB laʾātu ‘to swallow’ (secondary form of ʾalātu) and naʾādu ‘to praise’ (Pfv i-ud AfO 18, 50:19 = Tn-Ep. I 19), which is doubtless secondary, remade on the basis of Impfv inaʾʾad and a shift to the A/u class. 96.  This includes the 34 adjectival verbs listed in §§3.3.3–3.3.4 under A3, B1, D2, and E and the Assyrian Types 1 and 2. It does not include, however, the 51 II/ū verbs of Section §3.6 sub 6. 97.  E.g., zamāru and dabābu can have words for ‘song’ and ‘utterance’ as direct object, and saḫāru can have a direct object in the meaning ‘to look for’. 98.  The borderline between atelic activity verbs and adjectival verbs is not always easy to draw, especially for verbs that denote emotions: it is difficult to distinguish emotional activities from emotional states. A verb that—according to the dictionaries—can indicate both is raʾābu (U/u) ‘to tremble’ (from fear or anger) and ‘to be angry, furious’. It seems plausible that various verbs for emotions originally denoted some kind of bodily activity that accompanies the emotion and gradually acquired a more neutral, adjectival

74

The Vowel Classes  3.5.

A smaller group of U/u verbs comprises telic motion verbs, such as maqātu ‘to fall’, namāšu ‘to depart’, and paḫāru ‘to come together’. In addition, the U/u class contains a fair number of other verbs that cannot easily be brought under a general heading, such as kapādu ‘to plan, devise’ and parāru ‘to dissolve’. Some of them are even transitive: nasāku ‘to throw’, samādu ‘to grind’, and the variants laʾātu/  ʾalātu ‘to swallow’. The U/u class also contains a large number of weak (III/voc) verbs, which show a much wider semantic variation. They comprise a relatively large number of transitive verbs, such as kamû and kasû ‘to bind’, naṭû ‘to hit’, qalû ‘to burn, roast, qamû ‘to burn’, ṣapû ‘to irrigate’, šatû ‘to weave’, warû ‘to lead’, and tarû ‘to lead, take along’. It seems plausible to assume that these verbs originally belonged to the large transitive A/u class, e.g., *yikassaw – *yiksū from kasû. As a result of the change aw > ū, this regularly became ikassū – iksū in historical Akkadian. Their membership of the U/u class is therefore secondary, at least for part of these verbs. The U/u verbs show a marked tendency to switch to the I/i class, especially the III/ū verbs among them. Moreover, as already stated above with regard to the A/u class, there is some fluctuation between U/u and A/u; see §3.5.3 (pp. 75–81) for these developments.

3.5.2.4.  The vowel class A/a (including E/e) The relatively small A/a class comprises 43 verbs according to §3.6 sub 4. Historically, however, the 54 II/ā and II/ē verbs of §3.6 sub 8 should be added to this number, since virtually all of them were A/a verbs before they lost their guttural R2. The A/a verbs consist of two different groups. One comprises verbs with a guttural as R2 or R3 and is therefore primarily based on a formal criterion, although most of the verbs in question also fit in quite well semantically with the rest of the A/a class. The guttural causes a strong predilection for the root vowel a, which becomes e if it causes E‑colouring (see §17.5, pp. 535–537).99 Generally speaking, these verbs have preserved their original paradigm much better in Assyrian than in Babylonian; the details will be discussed in chap. 17. The other group is based on a semantic criterion: it mostly contains verbs that are semantically homogeneous and can be characterized as “middle verbs” (see §10.8.3.6, pp. 265–267). They denote concepts that are typically stative and are often expressed by stative verbs in languages that do not have a grammaticalized opposition between fientive and stative, e.g., lamādu ‘to know’, labāšu ‘to wear’, ḫabālu ‘to owe’, palāḫu ‘to fear’, etc. They may be transitive or intransitive, but if transitive, they are of low transitivity.100 They have an exact counterpart in West Semitic, especially in Arabic, Hebrew, and Geʿez—namely, the verbs with the vowel pattern A/i (yaqtalu–qatila). For instance, Ar yalbasu–labisa ‘to wear’ is completely parallel to Akk ilabbaš–ilbaš, stative labiš). According to Kuryłowicz (1972: 67–68), they are a residue of ancient medio­passives (see further §18.3.1, pp. 588–589). A few A/a verbs, however, do not share this low-transitivity character: maḫāṣu ‘to hit’ and ṣabātu ‘to seize’. They also differ from the rest of this class in the form of their imperative, which has the pattern PaRaS (maḫaṣ ‘hit!’, ṣabat ‘seize!’), whereas most other A/a verbs have PiRaS (e.g., limad ‘learn!’, rikab ‘ride!’; see §5.5, p. 134). Moreover, the verb tabālu ‘to take/ meaning through bleaching, such as galātu (U/u) ‘to quiver, shake’ > ‘to fear’, and nakādu (U/u) ‘to palpitate’ (of the heart) > ‘to worry’. 99.  However, there also are verbs that originally had a guttural as R2 or R3 but i as root vowel, e.g., našû (I/i) ‘to carry’ and waṣû (I/i) ‘to go /come out’, and a few with u, e.g., ṣamû (U/u) ‘to be(come) thirsty’, ṭebû (U/u) ‘to sink’. See further §16.7.1 (pp. 497–498). 100.  This is eloquently shown by their behaviour in the N‑stem and the D‑stem: if they have an N‑stem, it is usually ingressive rather than passive (see §12.2.2.1 sub 4, p. 296), and if they have a D‑stem, it is mostly factitive, just as with intransitive verbs (see §11.3.3, p. 274).

3.5.  The Vowel Classes

75

bring along’ (Imp tabal) is also atypical, but this may be related to the fact that it originates as a Gt‑stem of wabālu ‘to carry, bring’ (see §16.2.3, p. 454). There are indications that the A/a class was much more numerous in the earlier stages of Akkadian, not only because the loss of the guttural consonants and the concomitant change a > e caused it to fall apart into several subgroups but also as a result of the reorganization of original III/*y verbs. This is suggested by the Mari Old Akkadian form ti-iš-da-u MARI 1, 81:23 ‘they drank’, i.e., /tištayū/, which shows that this verb had the root vowel a, as in other Semitic languages, and also by the final ‑ē forms of the doubly weak verbs leʾû ‘to be able’, šeʾû ‘to look for’, and reʾû ‘to tend (sheep)’, which may originally go back to perfective forms *yilʾay, *yiṯʿay and *yirʿay (see further §16.7.1, pp. 496–497). In historical Akkadian, there is a drift from A/a towards I/i: many A/a verbs show occasional I/i forms, especially the III/ā verbs; this is part of the general trend for III/voc verbs to shift to the I/i class (see further §3.5.3).

3.5.2.5.  The vowel class A/i The vowel class A/i differs from the previous ones in that it only contains weak and irregular verbs: the fientive verbs of the I/w class, insofar as they do not have a weak R3 (in which case they are isovocalic; see §3.5.1 above and §16.2.1, pp. 448–449), and the two irregular verbs alāku ‘to go’ (īllak–illik; see §17.6.2, pp. 545–546) and Ass tadānu ‘to give’ (iddan–iddin; see §16.4.3, pp. 472–474).101 Accordingly, only 10 verbs can be assigned to it with certainty; see §3.6 sub 5. The A/i class constitutes a purely formal category without any obvious semantic uniformity. A far more prominent use of the contrast A/i is found in the derived stems, where it is one of the means of distinguishing imperfective from perfective in the D‑stem, the Š‑stem, and their derivatives, and in part of the N‑stems (see §4.5.2, pp. 112–115).

3.5.3.  Changes in vowel class The system of the vowel classes remains stable during the entire history of Akkadian. There are no signs that additional combinations of vowels become possible in the course of time, nor do existing ones disappear completely. Moreover, there are no instances of verbs that do not conform to one of the five licensed classes.102 The only type of change we observe is the shift of a verb from one class to another. Differences in vowel class between Babylonian and Assyrian show that this already occurred in the prehistoric period of Akkadian. Well-known instances are: • • • •

balāṭu ‘to live, recover’ (A/a in Ass, U/u in Bab) parādu ‘to be(come) worried’ (I/i in OA, U/u in OB, later also I/i) ḫašāḫu ‘to need, want’ (A/a in OA, I/i and A/u in Bab) šalāšu ‘to do (for the) third (time)’ (I/i in OA, U/u, A/u or I/i in Bab, see n. 106)103

101.  The verb i/uzuzzu ‘to stand (up)’ (izzāz—izzīz), which is sometimes included in this class, e.g., by Tropper (1998a: 20 n. 41) and Kienast (2001: 239), does not belong here, since it is a (fossilized) N‑stem; see §16.5.3.5 (pp. 488–490). 102.  If we find an illicit pattern, e.g., a Neo-Assyrian Pfv ilbur to an Impfv ilabbir from labāru ‘to be(come) old’ (cf. AHw 522–23 s.v. G 1) or iṣruḫ versus iṣarriḫ (cf. CAD Ṣ 100a s.v. ṣarāḫu C ‘to flare up’), the most likely explanation is that the verb fluctuates between two vowel classes, mostly as an intermediate stage in a transfer from one to the other. A vowel class I/u, as assumed by Castellino (1962: 45), does not exist. Pairs such as iblaṭ–iballuṭ adduced by Kuryłowicz (1972: 56) belong either to different dialects (in this case, Assyrian versus Babylonian) or to different periods of the same dialect. 103.  I/i only in the PN I-ša-li-iš-ilum CT 8, 34a:11 ‘the god will do (give) for the third time’.

76

The Vowel Classes  3.5. • qerēbu (Ass *qarābu) ‘to come near’ (U/u in OA, A/a, later I/i in OB) • rêqu (Ass ruāqu) ‘to be/go far away’ (ē in Bab, ū in Ass).104

In the historical period, we can distinguish various types of changes: 1.  In particular in the older dialects, there is some variation between the imperfective forms iparras of the A/u class and iparrus of the U/u class.105 It is usually difficult to establish which form is more original; possible criteria are the period of attestation and whether the verb is transitive or not, but often the evidence is conflicting. A shift from iparras to iparrus may be posited for the following verbs: • epēšu ‘to make, do’: originally ēppaš (still in Assyrian), early OB īppeš through E‑colouring, later īppuš; see Whiting 1987: 45 • erēbu ‘to enter’: originally ērrab (still in Assyrian), Bab īrrub • magāru ‘to agree’: imaggar passim, imaggur MB and later • baqāru ‘to claim’: ibaqqar passim, ibaqqur rarely OB, later also I/i; see below sub 2 • šabāšu ‘to collect (taxes)’: išabbaš OB and SB, išabbuš MB and SB • qanānu ‘to nest’: iqannan OB (ta-qa-an-na-nu ARM 1, 18:23), SB also iqannun The following instances of fluctuation are indeterminate, mainly because of conflicting evidence (i.e., A/u is attested earlier but the verb is intransitive): • ragāmu ‘to call out to, complain against’ (+ Dat); see §3.5.2.2 above • nagāgu ‘to bray’: inaggag OB, SB also inaggug (see §3.5.2.2; same comment as ragāmu) • zanānu ‘to rain’: normally U/u, except i-za-an-na-an YOS 10, 36:I 9 and MIO 12/2, 50:11 (both OB), and i-za-an-na-nu Gilg. p. 708:91 var. (SB) • zamāru ‘to sing’: normally U/u, except a-za-ma-ar WO 4, 12:I 1 (OB) • nasāku ‘to throw, pile up’: normally U/u, except i‑na-as-sà-ka ARM 27, 4:11 (OB) • qadādu ‘to bow’: normally U/u, except i-qàd-da-ad CT 51, 124:I 23 (SB); i-qà-adda‑a[d ] KUB 4, 35:5 (Bo) Insofar as the instances attested make inferences about the direction of the shift feasible, it seems that the iparras forms are generally older than the iparrus forms—i.e., the direction of change is from A/u to U/u (Kienast 1967: 71). This would be in line with the general drift from anisovocalic to isovocalic, which is manifest in later periods (see below). In the same vein, the relatively early date of most of the exceptional iparras imperfectives of the second group suggests that they might be archaisms. If this is true, it lends support to the claim I will make in §4.5.1 (pp. 109–112) that the geminated imperfective originally had a fixed vowel pattern with a in the place of the root vowel (iparras).106 104.  See §17.7.3.2 (p. 565) on the vowel patterns of qerēbu and its antonym rêqu. 105.  For Neo-Assyrian forms such as ilaqqut (instead of ilaqqat) from laqātu ‘to glean’ (see AHw 537b s.v. G 2a) and inaṣṣur (instead of inaṣṣar, e.g., i-na-ṣur SAA 1, 93:9) from naṣāru ‘to guard’, see HämeenAnttila 2000: 33. 106.  Problematic cases are napāḫu and šalāšu. Napāḫu ‘to blow, become visible, rise, set fire to’, which is normally A/u but once shows an Impfv ina-pu-uḫ KAR 384:20 (SB) ‘it hisses’ (of a snake). It may come from a different verb. Šalāšu ‘to do for the third time’ has a Pfv išluš and once an Impfv išallaš (eqla i-šalla-áš MSL 1, 53:38 (SB) ‘he will break the field for the third time’) in Babylonian, apart from išalliš in a proper name (see n. 103); in Assyrian, it is an I/i verb. On the basis of other verbs derived from numerals, such as rebû ‘to do for the fourth time’ and ḫamāšu ‘to do for the fifth time’ (see in particular OBTI 24:8, 11, 15, and 20), we would expect it to be U/u in Babylonian. Is the imperfective išallaš here because it has a direct object (cf. n. 92)?

3.5.  The Vowel Classes

77

2.  Far more important in terms of quantity is the shift from A/u to I/i. Mostly, the A/u forms can be argued to be older, because of greater frequency and/or earlier attestation; in the case of gamālu, kašāru, and parāku, the A/u forms are restricted to texts of the third millennium, showing that for some verbs the shift started quite early. The following A/u verbs shifted to I/i at some stage of Akkadian (see also Kienast 1967: 71): • baqāru ‘to claim’ (I/i in MB and later, see also above) • barāmu ‘to seal’ (I/i in NA) • gamālu ‘to be obliging, spare’ (I/i in OB and later)107 • ḫabālu ‘to oppress, wrong’ (A/u only OB, I/i OB and later) • ḫabātu ‘to rob, plunder’ (rarely I/i in NB) • ḫamāṭu ‘to burn’ (rarely I/i in SB)108 • kamāru ‘to pile up’ (I/i in NA) • kasāmu ‘to cut, chop’ (I/i in SB) • kašāru ‘to repair’ (I/i in OB and later [kešēru])109 • kašāšu ‘to master’ (I/i only in EA) • magāgu ‘to stretch out’ (I/i in SB, if i-man-g[i-ga] Gilg. p. 600:231 is restored correctly) • mašāʾu ‘to rob, plunder’ (also I/i in SB am-ta-ši-iʾ AnSt. 11, 152:50) • nakāmu ‘to store, pile up’ (also I/i in MB/SB) • našāku ‘to bite’ (rarely I/i in SB) • nazāru ‘to insult’ (also I/i in SB and NA) • parāku ‘to block’ (I/i in OB and later)110 • sadāru ‘to set in a row’ (I/i in SB and later), • saḫālu ‘to pierce’ (I/i in SB lis-ḫi-il-šú STT 179:48) • saḫāpu ‘to cover, overwhelm’ (I/i already OB: is-ḫi-ip-šu ARM 14, 4:11) • šakāku ‘to harrow, string’ (I/i already OB: li-iš-ki-ik OBHorn 2, 261:10) • šalāpu ‘to draw, pull out’ (I/i in SB i-šal-lip ZA 16, 180:34) • šalāṭu ‘to rule, dispose of’ (I/i in SB and NA) • šaqālu ‘to weigh, pay’ (I/i already in OB: i-ša-qí-il OBRED 5, 588:10 ‘he will pay’)111 • šarāku ‘to grant, bestow (I/i in SB liš-rik KB 6/2, 44:19 • šarāpu ‘to burn’ (I/i in EA: VAB 2, 53:39 and 55:41 i-šar-ri-ip-) • zaqātu ‘to sting’ (I/i in SB i-zaq-qit!-su TU 6:I 17 • zarāqu ‘to sprinkle’ (I/i SB and later). To these verbs should be added the A/u verbs that became I/i in later Babylonian after adopting E‑colouring; they are listed below sub 5. According to Kienast (1967: 72), just under (“knapp”) 20% of the original A/u verbs were transferred to the I/i class at one time or another. Kienast explains the coexistence of A/u and I/i forms from the archaizing tendency of the literary language. He also claims (ibid., 75–76) that the shift occurred in stages from A/u to U/u and then to I/i. This is hard to verify. There are 107.  A/u only in Sargonic Akkadian: Impfv a-ga-ma-lu-su4 /  ʾagammalūsu/ SAB p. 117: r.6ʹ (Girsu); Pfv igmul in PNs, see MAD 3, 118 s.v.; similarly in Ebla (Krebernik 1988b: 45). 108.  In i-ḫa-me-ṭa LKA 94: II 11 according to CAD G 151b s.v. ḫamāṭu B. 109.  A/u in Sargonic Akkadian: Impfv a-ga-sa-ar /akassar/ SAB p. 183: 15 (Gasur); Pfv ik-sur OAIC 36: 2, see Gelb 1984b: 274–76. 110.  A/u in Ur III Babylonian: áp-ru-uk-šu NATN 917:2 ‘I blocked his way’, and perhaps in literary Old Babylonian: ip-ru-ku-[. . .] Ištar p. 81: VII 21. 111.  Cf. also the N‑stem Impfv iššaqqil quoted in CAD Š/2 12 s.v. 9.

The Vowel Classes  3.5.

78

indeed two verbs for which this can be documented: baqāru ‘to claim’ (OB ibaqqar–ibqur, rarely ibaqqur–ibqur (see above sub 1), from Middle Babylonian onwards ibaqqir–ibqir) and erēšu ‘to cultivate’ (originally A/u as in Assyrian, OB īrruš (1x: i-ru-uš BDHP 37: r.5)–īruš (˹i ˺-ru-šu OBTA p. 78 no. 25:3), elsewhere īrriš–īriš). In general, however, the shift A/u to I/i only affected transitive verbs (see the preceding list), and the shift U/u to I/i mainly intransitive ones; see the lists below sub 2. It seems more likely, therefore, that the two processes developed in relative independence. Generally speaking, it would be extremely interesting to know more details about these shifts, in particular, which form—the imperfective or the perfective—is the first to change, but the available material does not allow a firm conclusion about this. On the basis of the same criteria of frequency and earlier occurrence, a very small number of I/i verbs may have undergone the opposite shift from I/i to A/u:112 • karāṣu ‘to pinch off’ (normally I/i, but A/u rarely in SB) • palāq/ku ‘to slaughter’ (normally I/i, but A/u rarely in SB) • ḫašāḫu ‘to need, want’ (I/i in OB and later, A/u in SB, but A/a in Ass). 3.  The vowel class U/u is also affected by a shift towards I/i, especially in Babylonian (Kienast 1967: 74).113 This is demonstrated by the numerous U/u verbs that have occasional forms with i. Among the strong U/u verbs, this applies to: galātu ‘to be frightened’ (rarely I/i in SB) ḫarābu ‘to become waste’ (I/i in LB iḫ-ri-ib TCL 9, 138:17) kanāšu ‘to bow’ (rarely I/i in SB) kapādu ‘to plan, care for’ (rarely I/i in OB [ta-ka-ap-pí-da-˹šu-um˹ AbB 14, 31:23], MB and SB) • nasāku ‘to shoot, throw, pile up’ (rarely I/i in SB) • parādu ‘to be frightened’ (OB U/u, except ta-pa-ri-dam! Kisurra no. 177:25,114 SB also I/i [as in OA, see CAD P 142 s.v. 1a]) • rabābu ‘to be(come) soft, weak, to relax’ (rarely I/i in OB [i-ra-ab-bi-ib/bu ARM 14, 74:9, 12] and SB [ta-ra-ab-bi-ib ZA 64, 146:49]) • raḫāṣu ‘to trust’ (I/i in SB and NA) • ṣarātu ‘to break wind’ (both U/u and I/i in OB and SB) • tarāṣu ‘to be(come) straight, in order’ (I/i only in EA) • • • •

In the III/voc verbs with U/u, the shift took on massive proportions (GAG §105d): • • • • • • •

atwû ‘to speak’ (only Gt) (also I/i in SB) baḫû ‘to be(come) thin’ (U/u and I/i in SB, not attested in OB) egû ‘to be(come) negligent’ (also I/i from OB onwards) eṭû ‘to be(come) dark’ (U/u perhaps once in OB; see n. 46 (p. 62); elsewhere I/i) kamû ‘to capture, bind’ (also I/i already in SAk and from OB onwards) karû ‘to be(come) short’ (U/u and I/i from OB onwards) kasû ‘to bind’ (also I/i from OB onwards, OA only I/i)

112.  For malās/šu ‘to pluck out’ and salātu ‘to split, cut’, not enough data are available for conclusions about the direction of change. 113.  Interchange of I/i and U/u without clues as to the original vowel class occurs in the adjectival verbs daʾāmu ‘to be(come) dark’ (see n. 37, p. 61) and lapānu ‘to be(come) poor’ (see n. 53, p. 62). 114.  For U/u in Old Babylonian, cf. also i-pa-ar-ru-ud ARM 26/1, 171 no. 37: r.17′ and p. 573 no. 275:21, 24; ip-ru-ud MARI 8, 349:13.

3.5.  The Vowel Classes

79

labû ‘to growl, groan, cry out’ (U/u and I/i in SB, not attested in OB) manû ‘to count, recite’ (rarely also I/i in SB/LB) naṭû ‘to hit, beat’ (U/u, except [i ]ṭ-ṭi MSL 1, 10:38 (SB))115 panû ‘to turn to, precede’ (U/u, esp. OA, later also I/i) qalû ‘to burn, roast’ (also I/i in SB and later) qamû ‘to burn’ (also I/i from OB onwards) segû ‘to move about’ (I/i in LB) ṣapû ‘to irrigate, moisten’ (rarely I/i in SB) šalû ‘to throw, shoot’ (occasionally I/i in SB, see CAD Š/1 272 s.v. šalû A 1b) šapû ‘to be(come) loud, dense’ (rarely I/i in SB) šaqû ‘to be(come) high’ (rarely I/i in SB; I/i in Ass; see §3.3.4, pp. 64–65) šarû ‘to be(come) rich’ (rarely I/i in MB (Elam) and SB) šegû ‘to be(come) rabid’ (also I/i in SB, N‑stem only; see §12.2.2.2, p. 297) šelû ‘to be(come) negligent’ (also I/i in LB) warû ‘to lead, bring’ (I/i exceptional; see chap. 16, p. 453, n. 21; more often i in the Gtn‑stem) • zakû ‘to be(come) clean, free’ (rarely I/i in SB) • zarû ‘to scatter, sow’ (I/i in SB i-zar-ri LKU 33:21–22).

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

The same shift is observable in quadriradical verbs, such as naparkû ‘to cease, leave’ (U/u in OB, U/u and I/i in SB), and neqelpû ‘to drift down, glide along’ (with U/u and I/i coexisting from OB onwards); see §12.5, pp. 309–310. 4.  Parallel to the shift U/u > I/i is the shift from A/a to I/i. Early instances are: • qerēbu ‘to come near’ (early OB Pfv iqrab [see n. 57, p. 62], later iqrib [but OA iqrub, see §17.7.3.2, p. 565]) • salāmu ‘to make peace’ (Pfv islam in OB Mari [see n. 31, p. 60], later islim) • šalāmu ‘to be(come) sound, in good condition’ (Pfv išlam in PSAk, SAk, and OB PNs, see n. 34, p. 60), later always išlim) Later instances of A/a shifting to I/i are found in the following verbs:116 anāḫu ‘to sing, lament, moan’ (I/i in SB in-ni-iḫ Racc. 44b:5) kalû ‘to detain, withhold’ (also I/i in SB and LB) kaṣû ‘to be(come) cold’ (also I/i in SB ) pašāḫu ‘to cool, calm down’ (I/i already in OB, also in SB, but cf. also lip-šu-ḫa-am-ma JAOS 103, 206:47) • malû ‘to be(come) full, to fill’ (also I/i in SB) • takālu ‘to trust’ (also I/i in SB and NA) • tamû ‘ to swear’ (NB/LB t‑Pf ittemē) • • • •

5.  In Babylonian, adoption of E-colouring (see §17.5, pp. 525–537) led to membership of an iso­vocalic class, mostly I/i. Comparison with Assyrian and some archaic forms in Sargonic Akkadian and Babylonian shows that in some cases I/i was the original vowel class (e.g., in ekēmu 115.  According to CAD N/2 132b s.v. naṭû v. (in one section with im-ḫa-aṣ, i-du-uk and iḫ-pi [Sumerian broken]). 116.  For the I/i forms of labāšu ‘to put on, wear’ in the Gt and N forms (such as iltabiš and illabiš), see chap. 14, p. 357 n. 5.

80

The Vowel Classes  3.5.

‘to take away’, erēšu ‘to ask’, and eṣēdu ‘to harvest’), whereas in other cases I/i replaced another class: A/u in emēdu ‘to lean against, reach’, erēšu ‘to cultivate’ (but see above for an Impfv īrruš in Old Babylonian), and perhaps in ezēbu ‘to leave’. I/i may have replaced U/u in etēqu ‘to pass through’.117 The cause of the shift is the introduction of global E‑colouring in Babylonian (see §17.5.1, pp. 525–534), which changed the imperfective vowel to e (e.g., 3ms *yīmmed instead of *yiʿammad  ); since e can be an allophone of i, this form was assimilated to the many I/voc imperfective forms with i (ēkkim, ērriš, ēṣṣid, etc.) and became ēmmid, which caused the Pfv ēmud to be replaced with ēmid. A few E‑verbs, however, do not partake in this change: epēšu ‘to make/do’ and erēbu ‘to enter’ joined the U/u class instead (see above), and ṭebû ‘to sink’, an original U/u verb, stayed in this class.118 Finally, the verb eṣēru ‘to draw, design’ shows interchange of u and i in Old Assyrian, which is unique in that dialect, as far as I know.119 In the course of Babylonian history, the number of E-verbs continually increased (see §17.5.1, pp. 528–529), especially through the influx of verbs that have r or ḫ among their radicals. This also led to adoption of I/i instead of their original vowels. So, in Middle Babylonian or later the following A/u verbs joined the I/i class: • ḫarāṣu ‘to cut off, clarify’ (in NB ḫerēṣu I/i: i-ḫe-ri-iṣ-ṣu SAA 18, 152: r.4) • kaṣāru ‘to join, bind’ (in SB also keṣēru I/i: i-ke-ṣí-ir Izbu 185:3 acc. to CAD K 260a s.v. 2c) • makāru ‘to irrigate’ (in MB also mekēru I/i) • mašālu ‘to resemble, be half’ (in MB mešēlu I/i) • rasānu ‘to moisten’ (in NB resēnu I/i)) • samāḫu ‘to unite, join’ (in Nuzi semēḫu I/i)) • ṣapāru ‘to press, inlay’ (in SB also ṣepēru I/i) • šarāmu ‘to break, cut’ (I/i in LB šerēmu (only i-ši-ri-ma TMH 2, 140:8)). It is not always easy to establish the direction of the shift for each individual verb on independent grounds, but the overall picture seems to be beyond doubt and allows the following conclusions. First, there is a tendency to generalize the vowel class I/i at the cost of all other classes (except A/i). Second, there is also a tendency to abolish rather than to introduce vowel alternation (Kie­ nast 1967: 70–73), undoubtedly with the motive of discarding a contrast that has no grammatical function. Third, these changes do not entail a semantic change. Fourth, only a minority of the 117.  For emēdu, cf. Ass emādu A/u, and OB Pfv i-mu-du-šu AbB 9, 267:16 (no imperfective attested); for erēšu, cf. Ass arāšu A/u, and OB Pfv ˹i  ˺-ru-šu OBTA p. 78 no. 25:3; for ezēbu, original A/u is suggested by the particle ezub (also ezib) ‘apart from’, a frozen imperative (but Assyrian also has I/i); for etēqu, cf. Impfv i-tu-uq, i-tu-qú ARM 18, 7:7; Pfv i-tu-qú ARM 27, 80:46 (but i-ti-qú ibid., 18, 37); t‑Pf e-te-tu-uq AbB 12, 56: 8 (but OA etāqum is I/i, so U/u may be secondary). 118.  Forms with u are also found in the E‑verbs edēdu ‘to be(come) sharp’ (uncertain, see p. 64, n. 64), emēṣu ‘to be(come) hungry’ (Impfv im-mu-ṣa(-a) BWL 40:44 [SB]), erēpu ‘to be(come) cloudy’, erēru ‘to be(come) dry’ (see p. 63, n. 63) [OB]), ezēzu ‘to be(come) angry’ (li-zux(su)-uz Ištar p. 78: V 13 (OB); i‑zu-uz Ee I 42; VAB 4, 218:11 [both SB]), lemēnu ‘to be(come) bad’ (il-mu-un SAA 10, 79: r.17 [SB omen quotation]), and qerēbu ‘to come near’ (often in Standard and Neo-Babylonian, interchanging with i; cf. AHw 915b s.v. G). Another possible exception is enēnu ‘to do a favour’ (A/u in Assyrian), but it is very rare (mainly in proper names) and suspect, because there seem to be several homonymous enēnu verbs; cf. AHw 217 ss. vv. (three verbs) and CAD E 162–65 (four verbs). 119.  See Veenhof 1995: 331; i is the most common vowel; u occurs in the Pfvs né-ṣú-ur DTCFD 34, 261:10; le-ṣú-ra-kum C 43:7 (1s Prec, unpublished, quoted in Veenhof 1995: 330); and té-ṣú-ra-ni ICK 2, 296:3.

3.6.  Appendix: List of G‑stem Verbs Arranged according to Vowel Class

81

Akkadian verbs are involved in these changes: most verbs hold on to the vowel class they have in the earliest sources.

3.6.  Appendix: List of G‑stem Verbs Arranged according to Vowel Class This section contains lists of verbs arranged according to vowel class. Only verbs that can reliably be assigned to a specific vowel class are included. If a verb shows fluctuation between classes, I have included it in the class that I regard as the most original. Variant forms are ignored. However, if Babylonian and Assyrian disagree, I have included the verb in its Babylonian form, with the Assyrian vowels between parentheses. As a result, each verb appears only in one class. 1. Vowel class I/i *abātu apāru arāku awāʾum baʾālu baʾāšu bakû balāmu balāṣu banû banû barāqu barû bašāmu bašû baṭālu bedû beḫāšu belû daʾāpu dalāpu damāqu danānu danû darāsu ebēbu ebēḫu ebēlu ebēru ebēṭu ebēṭu ebû edēlu edēpu edēqu edēru

flee (only N; Bab; Ass A/u) wear (on the head) become long calculate (OA) become large smell bad cry tie up stare build become beautiful flash see build be, exist stop, end cheat(?) stir (Ass) become extinguished push be/keep awake become good become strong be of inferior quality(?) trample become pure gird catch cross swell(?) gird become thick close, lock blow away put on, don embrace

edēšu eʾēlu egēgu egēru ekēb/pu ekēku ekēlu ekēmu ekēku elēḫu elēlu elēpu elēṣu elû emārum emēmu emēru emēšu enēnu enēqu enēšu enû epēqu epēru epû eqēqu eqû erēḫu erēru erēšu erû esēḫ/ku esēlu esēpu esēqu esēru esēru eṣēdu

become new bind moan, cry become twisted come near scratch become dark take away scratch sprinkle become pure, free sprout swell, rejoice become high, go up pile up (OA) become hot become swollen try punish suck become weak change embrace, overgrow provide with food bake become paralyzed(?) anoint act aggressively become dry ask become pregnant assign inflate collect carve lock up put under pressure harvest

eṣēlu eṣēnu eṣēpu eṣēru eṣû ešēbu ešēru ešû etēqu etēqu eṭēlu eṭēru eṭēru eṭû ewû ezēbu ezēhu ezēru gadāmu galû ganāḫu garāmu gašāru gerû ḫadālu ḫakāmu ḫakāru ḫalābu ḫalāpu ḫalāqu ḫamādu ḫamālu ḫamāšu ḫamû ḫanāmu ḫanāpu ḫanāṣu ḫanû

paralyze smell twine, double draw, design slit grow profusely go straight, prosper confuse cross bend, twist become a man save, take away pay become dark turn into leave gird insult cut off banish cough orbit (planet) become powerful quarrel, sue go back(?) understand reduce(?) milk wear, be dessed disappear hide plan break in two paralyze bloom flatter bare one’s teeth put under pressure(?)

82

Appendix: List of G‑stem Verbs Arranged according to Vowel Class   3.6.

ḫapātu triumph, prevail ḫarādu wake up, guard (ḫ)arāmu cover ḫarāpu cut ḫarāšu be in labour ḫarāṭu graze ḫasāpu pluck out ḫasāru blunt, chip ḫaṣānu shelter ḫašāḫu need, want (Ass A/a) become dark ḫašû ḫatānu protect ḫatāpu slaughter ḫatāru wag (tail), flutter ḫatû smite ḫaṭāmu muzzle, block ḫaṭû sin, neglect ḫaz/ṣûm object ḫepēru dig ḫepû break ḫerû dig ḫesû cover kabāru become thick kabātu become heavy kadāru become arrogant kadāru establish a border kalāṣu shrivel, roll up kamālu become angry kamāsu gather, finish kamāsu squat, kneel k/qapālu roll up kap/bās/ṣu  curl, droop karāku block, collect karāmu hinder k/garāṣu pinch off karātu cut off kasāpu perform a kispu sacrifice kasāru dam kaṣāpu think, wish kašāpu bewitch kašāru be successful kašāṭu cut off kašû cover kašû increase (intr.) katāru call to aid katāru wait kazābu tell lies kezēru curl the hair(?) laʾābu infect labāku become soft labānu beg humbly labānu make bricks labāru become old

laḫābu laḫāmu lakādu lakû lawû lemēnu lemû lezēnu madādu madālu maʾādu malāku marāru marāsu marû maṣû mašādu mašû matāqu maṭû mazāʾu mekû menû naʾādu naʾālu naʾāmu naʾāsu naʾāšu nabû nadādu nadānu nadû naḫālu naḫātu naḫāsu naḫāsu naḫāšu nakālu nakāpu nakāru nakāsu nakāšu napû naqû naṣû našāqu našāšu našû naṭ/tāpu nawāru nazāqu nebû nezû padû

growl consume run become weak surround become bad eat slander escape salt, pickle become numerous advise become bitter squash fatten, become slow become sufficient strike, comb (OA A/u) forget become sweet become insufficient squeeze become negligent love attend, be worried make wet advance boldly chew gasp for breath(?) name, invoke cede(?) give (Bab) throw, leave hand over become small go back lament prosper act cleverly gore, butt become hostile cut set aside sift sacrifice tear, scrape kiss sniff(?) lift, carry tear out be(come) bright squeak, worry shine void excrement spare

paḫāzu be arrogant pakāru chain palālu guard palāq/ku slaughter panāgu mount, cap paqādu entrust insult parû pasālu turn around pasāmu veil pasāqu choke, strangle(?) paṣādu carve paṣānu veil (Ass) pašālu crawl pašāṭu erase patālu turn, wrap patānu become strong patāqu form, build patāqu drink peḫû close, plug peṣû become white qabû speak, say qadāpu ? qadû hoot qalālu become light qanû acquire qatānu become thin qatû end qebēru bury qemû grind qerû invite, take away rabāqu ? rabāṣu lie down rabû become big rabû go down, set radāpu pursue ragāgu become bad raḫāṣu trample, destroy ramû set in place rapāqu hoe rapāqu fasten rapāsu beat, thrash rapāšu become wide raqāqu become thin, fine raqû hide rasāb/pu slay, destroy raṣāpu pile up, build rašû get, acquire rašû itch reḫû beget, impregnate retû fix saʾāb/pu ? sabāku bring into contact(?) sabû brew beer saḫāmu be under pressure(?)

3.6.  Appendix: List of G‑stem Verbs Arranged according to Vowel Class sakālu appropriate sakālu get stuck or loose sakāpu push away salāḫu tremble salālu flutter, flap salāmu make peace salāqu go up salātu split, cut salāʾu deceive(?) s/zamārum  establish (OA) sanāp/bu tie sanāqu check, arrive s/šanāšu insert sapādu mourn sapāqu be sufficient, able sarādu load, pack sarāmu cut, incise satālu plant sekēru dam sepēru write alphabetically seʾû press down ṣabû wish ṣalāmu become dark, black ṣalāpu cross out, cancel ṣalāʾu put down ṣamādu harness, yoke ṣamāru strive for, plot ṣapāru trim, strip ṣarāmu apply oneself

ṣeḫēru šabāṭu šadāḫu šadālu šagālu šagāšu šaḫāṭu šaḫāṭu šakāru šalāmu šalû šamādu šamātu šanāṣu šanû šanû šanû šapālu šapāṣu šapāṭ/tu šapû šaqāru šaqātu šaqû šarāqu šasû šatānu šatāpu šatû

become small strike, sweep march, proceed become spacious appropriate ? kill jump, attack become angry become drunk become well submerge oneself apply mark sneer do again; change run flood, wet become low, deep grip exercise authority wrap, fasten pierce ? give to drink steal call, summon urinate groove drink

šawû šebēru šeʾēru šeḫēqu šepû šerû šerû šerû šeṭû takāpu tarû temēru teṣ/zû ṭapāru ṭawû ṭepû ṭerû wabāʾu wamālu wapû waqāru warāqu wasāmu wašāṭu watāru waṣû zabālu zarāpu

dagālu dakāšu dalāḫu dalālu darāku emādu

watch press in disturb glorify pack lean on, impose (Bab I/i) do a favour (OA) make, do (Bab U/u) enter (Bab U/u) chop, cut shave be obliging, spare complete, use up confine shave oppress, wrong borrow rob, plunder borrow incise

ḫadālu ḫalālu ḫalālu ḫalāṣu ḫalāšu ḫamāmu ḫamāṣu ḫamāṭu ḫanāqu ḫapāpu ḫarāru ḫarāṣu ḫarāṭu ḫasāsu ḫaṣābu ḫaṣāṣu

roast break pass, cross sneeze(?) ask take refuge lay down redeem(?) spread out speckle lift bury defecate press towards spin, twine add, register penetrate weed become veiled, misted become clear become rare, precious become green become appropriate become stiff exceed go out carry buy

2. Vowel class A/u: abāku abāku ʾabātu adāru agāgu agāru aḫāzu akālu ʾalālu amāru apālu arāḫu arāru arāšu ašāru ʾašāšu balālu baqāmu baqāru barāmu batāqu

send, lead overturn destroy fear become angry hire take, marry eat hang see answer destroy curse cultivate (Bab I/i) muster catch in a net mix pluck (wool) claim seal cut

enānum epāšu erābu gadādu galābu gamālu gamāru ganānu gazāzu ḫabālu ḫabālu ḫabātu ḫabātu ḫadādu

83

tie up, knot detain creep, slink squeeze out scrape off collect tear off burn strangle break up, smash dig, groove cut off, clarify graze think, mention break off break, build (a reed hut) ḫašālu crush ḫašāšu hurry(?) ḫaṭāṭu excavate kabābu burn

84

Appendix: List of G‑stem Verbs Arranged according to Vowel Class   3.6.

kadādu rub in, anoint kabāsu step upon kamāru pile up kanāku seal kanānu twist, coil kapāpu bend, curve kapāru wipe off, rub kapāru trim, uproot karābu pray, bless karāru put, place kasāmu cut, chop kasāpu chip, break off kasāsu gnaw kaṣābu reduce kaṣāru join, bind kaṣāṣu grind one’s teeth kaṣāṣu trim, mutilate kašādu reach, acquire kašāru repair kašāšu master katāmu cover labābu rage lamāmu chew lapāpu wrap lapātu touch, affect, write laqātu glean latāku test, question madādu measure magāgu stretch out magāru favour, comply with maḫāḫu soak, soften maḫāru receive, confront makāku spread makāru irrigate malāḫu tear out malālu consume, plunder malāš/su pluck out marāqu crush, grind marāru break (a field) marāsu stir marāṭu rub, scratch mašāḫu measure, compute mašālu resemble mašāru drag mašāšu wipe mašāʾu rob, plunder matāḫu lift, carry mazāqu suck maz/sāru block, withhold mazāʾu squeeze (Ass I/i) naʾādu praise nagāgu bray naḫālu sift nakāmu store, pile up

napāḫu blow, light napālu dig out, demolish napālu compensate napāṣu kick, smash napāšu pluck, comb naqābu deflower naqāru tear down, scrape nasāḫu tear out nasāqu choose naṣābu suck naṣāru guard, watch našāku bite našāru cut off, deduct naṭālu see, look at nazālu pour out nazāru insult paʾāṣu strike, crush parāku block palāku delimit palāšu drill parāsu cut, sever parāṣu break parāṭu clear away parāʾu cut off pasāsu erase pašāru loosen pašāšu anoint patāḫu pierce patānu dine paṭāru loosen qalāpu peel qanānu nest q/garādu tear out, pluck (wool) q/garānu pile up qarāšu trim, carve qatālu kill qatāpu pluck, cut off rabāku distill, stir rabāšum substantiate a claim (OA) radādu pursue ragāmu shout, complain raḫāṣu rinse, bathe rakāsu bind rasānu moisten sadāru set in a row saḫālu pierce saḫāpu cover, overwhelm salāḫu sprinkle salāqu boil salāʾu sprinkle, infect samāḫu mix, unite samāku cover, remove(?) sapāḫu scatter

sapānu level, destroy saqālu take away sarāqu strew, sprinkle ṣabāru bend, twist? ṣaḫātu extract ṣanāhu have diarrhea ṣapāru press, inlay ṣarāḫu lament, cry ṣarāḫu heat ṣarāḫu dispatch quickly ṣarāpu refine, fire šabāšu collect (also u/u) šadādu pull, carry šaḫālu sift šaḫātu wash, clear šaḫāṭu take off, pull off šakāku harrow, string šakānu place šalāḫu tear off šalālu kidnap, plunder šalāpu draw, pull out šalāqu cut open, split šalāṭu rule, dispose of šamāmu paralyze šamāṭu strip off šanānu rival šanāʾu obstruct šap/bāḫu sprinkle šapāku heap up, pour šapāru send, write šaqālu weigh, pay šarāḫu pick, tear out šarāku grant, bestow šarāmu break, cut šarāpu burn šarāṭu tear šatāqu split šaṭāru write šaṭāṭu slit open tabāku pile up, pour talālu stretch, span tamāḫu seize tarāḫu dig tarāku beat, palpitate tarāṣu stretch (out) ṭabāḫu slaughter ṭapālu insult, slander ṭarādu send, drive away zakāru declare, invoke zanānu provide (food) zaqāpu erect, plant zaqātu sting zarāqu sprinkle

3.6.  Appendix: List of G‑stem Verbs Arranged according to Vowel Class

85

3. Vowel class U/u ʾalātu arāru ʾarû ašāšu *awû ʾazû baḫû balāṭu barāru barāṣu daʾāmu dabābu dakāku dalû damāmu damāṣu daqāšu edēdu egû emēṣu erēpu galātu ganāṣu gapāšu gešû ḫabābu ḫabāru ḫabāṣu ḫabû ḫadādu ḫadû ḫaḫû ḫalālu ḫalāpu ḫamāšu ḫamāṭu ḫamû ḫanābu ḫarābu ḫarāpu ḫašāšu ḫawû kamû kanāšu kapādu karû kasû kašāšu laʾātu labû lapānu lasāmu

swallow tremble vomit worry speak (only Gt) hiss become thin live (Ass A/a) glow, shine shine brightly become dark speak gambol draw (water) mourn humble oneself bend down become sharp become negligent become hungry become cloudy quiver, fear lift (lip or nose) become massive, swell belch murmur, chirp make noise be swollen, elated draw (water) rumble, rustle rejoice cough pipe, wheeze slip in/through be/do fifth hurry rely, be confident grow abundantly lie waste be early swell, rejoice growl bind bend, submit plan become short bind become dizzy(?) swallow howl, groan become poor run

lezû continue maḫû become frenzied makāsu collect taxes manû count maqātu fall marāru leave naʾāpu wither nabābu play the flute(?) nabāḫu bark nabāṭu shine brightly nabāʾu rise (flood) nabāzu bleat nagû sing joyously naḫāru snort nakādu palpitate, worry nalāšu dew namāšu depart napāšu relax, expand narāṭu tremble nasāku throw nasāsu complain našāpu blow away, winnow natāku drip naṭû beat nazāmu complain nazāzu grunt, rustle paḫādu be in terror paḫāru come together panû go to, go in front parādu start, fear (Ass I/i) parāru dissolve parāʾu sprout parû vomit pašāqu become narrow qadādu bow qalû burn, roast burn qamû qanānu nest qanû acquire qarāḫu freeze q/garāru fear q/garāru wind, roll, flow qatāru rise (smoke) raʾābu tremble rabābu become soft, relax raḫādu become viscous raḫāṣu trust, entrust raḫāšu mobilize ? ramāku bathe ramāmu roar ramû become loose rapādu run around, traverse

raqādu rasābu raṣanu raṣāṣu rašāšu ratātu raṭāpu redû saʾālu sabāʾu sagû saḫāḫu saḫāru sakāpu sakātu samādu samû segû se/ahû ṣabābu ṣabāru ṣamû ṣapû ṣarāḫu ṣarāru ṣarātu šabābu šabāḫu šagāmu šaḫāḫu šaḫānu šaḫātu šalāšu šalû A šamāḫu šamāru šapû A šapû B šaqû šarāru šarû šatû šegû šelû taqānu tarāru tarāṣu tarû ṭaḫādu ṭanāpu ṭebû warû

dance err become loud ring (ears) glow tremble start be appropriate cough toss, churn trouble tremble turn, seek lie down be silent grind vacillate move about become disturbed spread (wings) flit, prattle become thirsty irrigate flare up flow, sparkle break wind glow settle (dust) roar, buzz crumble, dissolve become warm fear, respect do third (Ass I/i) shoot, throw thrive, flourish surge, rage be silent flicker, billow become high, rise go ahead become rich weave become rabid (only N) become negligent become secure tremble become correct take along become abundant become dirty sink lead

86

Appendix: List of G‑stem Verbs Arranged according to Vowel Class   3.6.

zakû become clean, free zamāru sing

zanānu rain

zarû

sow

reʾû ṣabātu ṣalālu šaʾāru šebû šemû šeʾû tabālu takālu w/tamû tebû ṭeḫû watû zenû

tend, look after seize sleep win, vanquish become sated hear look for, search take away trust swear rise come near find become angry

4. Vowel class A/a (including E/e) abālu anāḫu arāḫu bašālu berû dekû idû kalû kaṣû katāʾu labāšu lamādu lazāzu leqû letû

dry out be(come) tired hurry boil, ripen become hungry summon know detain, withhold be(come) cold take as security put on, wear learn continue, persist take, receive split

leʾû maḫāṣu malû marāṣu mesû nepû nesû palāḫu pašāḫu petû qerēbu raḫāṣu rakābu redû

be able, win hit, weave become full, cover become ill wash abduct move away fear, respect cool, calm open come near (OA U/u) run ride, sail follow, accompany

5. Vowel class A/i alāku tadānu wabālu wadādu

go, come give (Ass) carry, bring love

walādu give birth wapāšu abuse warādu descend

waṣābu add wašābu sit down, settle wašāpu exorcise

6. Vowel class II/ū of the II/voc verbs

bâru

stay firm bâʾum come dâku kill dâlu walk around *duārum surround (SAk) gâšu hurry ḫâb/pu purify ḫâlu dissolve ḫâqu go ḫâšu give kânu become firm, true kâru become depressed kâṣu flay, skin kâšu be late lâdu bend, kneel lâšu knead lâṭu keep in check

luāmum mâḫu mânu mâtu mâʾu muāšu muāʾum nâḫu nâpu nâqu nâqu nâšu puāgu puāšu qâdu qâlu qâpu

put pressure on (OA) set out ? supply with food die vomit check (NA) be willing (OA) rest, become still pay in addition cry run, go quake, shake take away (Ass) agree (Ass) set afire pay attention buckle

râbu râdu râʾu s/zâku sâru ṣâdu ṣâdu šâbu šâṭu šâṭu šâʾu tâpu târu ṭâpu zâbu zâru zâzu

tremble tremble become friends pound, crush whirl, dance prowl, spin melt sway, tremble pull, drag be negligent fly be attentive return ? dissolve twist divide

3.6.  Appendix: List of G‑stem Verbs Arranged according to Vowel Class

87

7. Vowel class II/ī of the II/voc verbs *bâšu stamp bâtu spend the night judge dânu dâšu thresh challenge? gâru ḫâsu install ḫâlu scream mix ḫâqu ḫâru choose hurry ḫâšu kâšu help k/qiāšum seal in a case (OA) lâp/bu ? mâru buy?

nâku nâlu pâqu qâlu qâpu qâšu râmu râbu râḫu râqu râšu s/šâtu sâmu

have intercourse lie down (also II/ā) become narrow fall trust give bestow replace remain become empty jubilate be left over become red

sâqu ṣâḫu šâṣu šâbu šâḫu šâlu šâmu šânu šâṭu ṭâbu wâru wâṣu zâqu

become narrow laugh decline become gray, old grow coat, smear decree urinate be negligent become good go become small, few blow (wind)

sêru ṣâlu ṣênu ṣêʾu šâlu šâmu šêlu šênu šêqu šêru šêṭu têb/pu têʾu têlu têlu ṭêmu ṭênu zêru

plaster fight, quarrel load immobilize ask buy whet, sharpen put on shoes measure level rise early disdain, be negligent ? cover, hide pronounce dock, moor? inform grind hate

8. Vowel class II/ā and II/ē of the II/H verbs ʾâdu bâlu bâru bâšu bâʾu bêlu bêru bêšu dâṣu êru gêsu gêšu ḫâšu kâdu kêsu lêku lêmu mêsu mêšu

notice pray catch become ashamed pass rule, possess select move away harass, dupe become awake bestow rumple worry be distressed? ? lick consume crush, destroy despise, disregard

nâdu nâṣu nêru nêšu nêtu nêʾu pâdu pâru râmu râṭu rêmu rêqu rêṣu rêtu sâbu sâdu sêdu

praise scorn kill recover surround loosen, turn imprison search love ? have mercy be far, go away (Ass II/ū) help spit out draw (water) slay support

Chapter 4

The impact of gemination I:  the imperfective iparrVs

4.1. Introduction In this chapter and those following, I will describe the form and function of the members of the verbal paradigm individually and in relation to one another. The functional description that follows—which is summary, unless there is a specific reason to elaborate on a particular point— is valid for all types of verbs. For the form, on the other hand, I will concentrate on the standard paradigm, that of the G‑stem of the strong triradical verb. The formal aspects of the other types of verbs will be dealt with later in the relevant chapters. The description is twofold: it starts with an account of the category under discussion in Akkadian itself, distinguishing according to dialect whenever doing so is relevant to the presentation. The findings will be compared with what we know from other Semitic and sometimes also Afroasiatic languages to get an idea about the state of affairs in Proto-Semitic and the prehistoric development of Akkadian. The first of these chapters deals with the imperfective (also called present or durative), not only because it is the most basic category of the verbal paradigm but also because a large part of the prehistoric developments that took place in the Akkadian verb can only be understood from the emergence of the G‑stem imperfective iparrVs instead of an earlier imperfective form without gemination.

4.2. The Imperfective: Form The inflectional stem of the G‑stem imperfective of the strong triradical verb has the form PaRRvS, with gemination of R2 and a variable vowel between R2 and R3. Gemination of R2 is the hallmark of the Akkadian imperfective.1 The variable stem vowel a, i, or u (iparras, iparris, or iparrus), which I will call the “imperfective vowel,” has no grammatical function (perhaps with the partial exception of a; see below) but belongs in the sphere of the vowel classes.2 On the 1.  In the early days of Assyriology, there was uncertainty about the presence of gemination in iparrVs, since it is often not indicated in the script. This gave rise to interpretations such as ipar(r)as or ipa(r)ras. Goetze established that the correct form is iparras (explicitly so in 1942: 4 n. 43), and this was canonized by W. von Soden’s GAG of 1952; see also Greenberg 1952: 1–2 and Kienast 2001: 293–94. Rössler (1958: 115 n. 19) aptly stated that ipar(r)as is not “akkadisch” but “überholt-assyriologisch.” Surprisingly, it turns up again in a recent handbook (Malbran-Labat 2001). For the claim that the basic contrast between imperfective and perfective is the vowel a after the first radical, see n. 51 below (p. 103). Finally, it should be noted that there is no evidence at all for the existence of verb forms which have a long vowel instead of a geminate R2, like the Arabic Stem III and Geʿez Stem I/3 qātala, as is claimed by Zaborski (2003). W. von Soden (GAG 3 §88f*) mentions this possibility, only to reject it with good reason. 2.  For e instead of a as imperfective vowel in Babylonian as a result of E‑colouring, see §17.5.1 (p. 526).

88

4.2.  The Imperfective: Form

89

basis of the imperfective vowel, we can distinguish A-verbs, I-verbs, and U-verbs (for E-verbs, see §17.5, pp. 525–537). The combination of the imperfective vowel with the root vowel of the perfective and the imperative gave rise to the vowel classes discussed in the previous chapter. In the anisovocalic vowel classes A/u and A/i, we can observe their respective roles, especially to what extent they recur in derived categories. It is the imperfective vowel that recurs elsewhere, whereas the root vowel is never used outside the perfective and the imperative of the G‑stem. In Table 4.1, the positions where the imperfective vowel occurs are shown in capitals; the forms that preserve the root vowel are printed in bold. As a contrasting example of an iso­ vocalic verb, the I/i verb paqādu ‘to entrust, provide’ has been added; it has i in all forms:3 v.cl.

tense

G‑stem

Gtn‑stem

Gt‑stem

N‑stem

Ntn‑stem

A/u

Impfv t‑Pf Pret Imp

iparrAs iptarAs iprus purus

iptanarrAs — (see §14.7.2) iptarrAs pitarrAs

iptarrAs — iptarAs pitrAs

ipparrAs ittaprAs (ipparis)4 (napris)

ittanaprAs — ittaprAs itaprAs

A/i

Impfv t‑Pf Pret Imp

uššAb ittašAb ušib šib

ittanaššAb — ittaššAb *itaššAb

—

—

I/i

Impfv t‑Pf Pret Imp

ipaqqId iptaqId ipqid piqid

iptanaqqId — iptaqqId pitaqqId

*iptaqqId — *iptaqId *pitqId

ippaqqId ittapqId ippaqid napqid

ittanapqId — ittapqId itapqId

Table 4.1: The distribution of the imperfective vowel and the root vowel.

As the table shows, the imperfective vowel recurs in the t‑perfect of the G‑stem (iparras § iptaras, ipaqqid § iptaqid) and in most finite forms of the derived stems that adopt the vowel pattern of the G‑stem: the Gtn‑stem (iparras § iptanarras, ipaqqid § iptanaqqid ), the Gt‑stem (iparras § iptarras, ipaqqid § iptaqqid), the imperfective of the N‑stem (iparras § ipparras, ipaqqid § ippaqqid), and the Ntn‑stem (iparras § ittanapras, ipaqqid § ittanapqid). Therefore, the imperfective vowel is the characteristic or defining vowel of a specific verb. Among the three imperfective vowels a, i, and u, a has a special status, since it occurs not only in the G imperfective of all A‑verbs but also in several imperfective forms of the derived verbal stems. Only the Gt‑, Gtn‑, N‑, and Ntn‑stems have another present vowel, if they come from an I‑verb or an U‑verb. This makes a an important secondary imperfective marker in addition to gemination. The respective spheres of use of the imperfective vowel and the root vowel reflect both the hier­archical relationship between the imperfective and the perfective as defined in §2.2.1 (p. 30), and their historical relationship, with the imperfective as the innovative and expanding category, 3.  The D‑stem and the Š‑stem are omitted because they have a fixed vowel pattern independent of vowel class. 4.  The N perfective normally has a fixed i independent of vowel class; see §12.2.1 (pp. 289–290) for the complexities in the vowel pattern of the N-stem. The rare instances of the N imperative all seem to have this vowel, too, perhaps on the model of the D and Š imperatives (Ass parris/šapris); see chap. 12, p. 290, n. 8.

90

The Imperfective: Form  4.2.

and the perfective (or rather the inflectional stem on which it is based) as the receding category that is gradually being replaced (cf. also the replacement of iprVs by iptarVs). As stated in §1.2.3 (p. 5), there are good reasons to assume that the imperfective is generally the most basic form of a verbal paradigm. That this also applies to Akkadian is demonstrated by at least three features of the G‑stem imperfective: 1. It is formally differentiated from other categories with more consistency than any other member of the verbal paradigm. With very few exceptions, imperfective forms are recognizable as such without any context,5 whereas all other categories show varying degrees of syncretism. For instance, there is syncretism of the infinitive and the past participle of all derived stems, and of the perfective of the t‑stems and the t‑perfect of the corresponding primary stems. In the tan‑stems, except for the Gtn‑stem, the imperfective is the only category that has a form of its own, whereas all other forms are identical to those of the corresponding t‑stems. In these cases, we need the context to identify a particular form. 2. The G‑stem imperfective imposes its vowel on the t‑perfect of the G‑stem and on the imperfective of the derived verbal stems that take part in the vowel classes, as shown above. 3. The G‑stem imperfective also exerted such a strong formal influence on the imperfective forms of the derived verbal stems that most of them introduced gemination where this is formally possible, in addition to the more original imperfective marking by means of the stem vowel a between R2 and R3. This accounts for doubly-marked imperfective forms such as the N Impfv ipparras, the Št2 Impfv uštaparras, and the Š and Št imperfectives of the I/voc verbs (ušakkal and uštakkal ). The details will be discussed in §4.5.2 (pp. 112–115). In one respect, the relationship between the imperfective and the rest of the verbal paradigm is atypical: the imperfective is basic, but not unmarked; on the other hand, in Akkadian it is the perfective that is formally unmarked.6 In this respect, Akkadian agrees with many other Semitic and Afroasiatic languages.

5.  The exceptions are the Gt imperfective, which is identical to the Gtn perfective, and the Babylonian G imperfective forms of the II/ā and II/ē verbs without ending, such as išâm and ibêl, which we conventionally and conveniently distinguish in our transcriptions from the perfectives išām and ibēl. Of course, this claim is only valid for the actual forms of Akkadian, not for the way they are spelled, so it does not allow for defective spellings such as i-pa-qí-id from paqādu, which may be G Impfv ipaqqid, N Impfv ippaqqid, and N Pfv ippaqid, or i-ri-iš from erēšu ‘to ask’, which may be G Impfv īrriš and G Pfv īriš. 6.  Generally speaking, the verbal category referring to the present is semantically unmarked vis-à-vis the category referring to the past (Jakobson 1990: 138). Therefore, the former tends to be formally unmarked as well (see chap. 1, p. 5, n. 6). However, the common renewal of present categories by stronger marked formations is responsible for the widespread occurrence of marked presents, such as the English progressive form (for the rise of the progressive in English, see Bybee et al. 1994: 132–37 and the literature mentioned in Lass 1997: 318–19). This process is also responsible for the situation in Akkadian. Comrie (1976: 111) notes that “in general, the morphological criteria [of markedness—NJCK] are the least telling, since the morphology often reflects systematic correspondences of an earlier period in the history of a language.” He mentions an exact parallel from the history of Persian, where a marked imperfective with the prefix mi- has been generalized except in a few stative verbs (ibid., 121). With regard to aspect, Aikhenvald and Dixon (1998: 62) state that “[c]oncerning aspect, there is often no markedness in the system and when there is there seems to be no cross-language consistency as to which term is unmarked” (also referring to Comrie 1976: 111–22). This can be ascribed to the same process, since in languages where aspect is dominant the new form tends to become an imperfective, as in many branches of Afroasiatic.

4.3.  The Imperfective: Form

91

4.3. The Imperfective: Function  7 The Akkadian imperfective combines temporal, aspectual, and modal functions, but its aspectual function is marginal. In a context that is unspecified for its location in time, the imperfective refers to the future or to activities (usually habitual ones) taking place at the moment of speech, as opposed to the perfective and the t‑perfect, which refer to the past. The imperfective is the only form available for referring to present and future events and therefore covers all possible modalities, such as the actual present, habitual present, generic present, immediate future, and more remote future (GAG §78c/d). Since this use is well-known, I will refrain from giving examples.8 The stative, however, can also refer to the present and indicate simultaneity, but it differs from the imperfective in that it can only refer to a state (see §7.3, pp. 163–165), e.g., Impfv adabbub ‘I am talking’ versus Stat šalmāku ‘I am well’.9 An example is the interchange of the stative and imperfective in the following passage, from a description of a (figure of a) goddess:

7.  For other descriptions of the use of the imperfective, see GAG §78; Streck 1995a: 190–94; Leong 1994: 31–32, 292–360; Huehnergard 2005a: 98–99; Metzler 2002: 886–92; Loesov 2004b: 416–17, 2005; E. Cohen 2006. 8.  Loesov (2005: 105–6) argues that the Akkadian imperfective is not used to refer to telic events taking place at speech time and that Akkadian codes such situations in different ways according to the inherent temporal properties of the situation, but in particular by the use of the stative. It is true that imperfectives referring to telic events taking place at speech time are very hard to find. The question is: is this caused by the function of the imperfective itself, or by the nature of our sources? For the time being, I prefer the latter option. The nature of the extant Akkadian texts is not very favourable to the occurrence of this kind of situations: they are typically found in natural conversation, and apart from occasional instances of dialogue in literary texts, the closest thing that we have to natural conversation are letters. However, the problem with letters is that we usually do not know enough of the correspondents and their background to distinguish between references to the present and to the immediate future. Take, for instance, ARM 6, 5:12–13, in which the writer communicates to his lord that a boulder has fallen into a canal and has blocked it (see Durand 1997/2000: II 597). He continues: inanna abnam šâti ú-ḫa-ap-pa: nothing in the context nor in our knowledge of the background of this letter allows us to decide whether the writer intends to say ‘now I am breaking down this boulder’ or ‘now I am going to break down this boulder’. This applies to dozens of other cases as well (cf. Loesov 2005: 114–15 for a discussion of some of them). Moreover, Loesov’s instances of statives referring to telic events ongoing at speech time are all in some respect problematic and are certainly insufficient to prove such a far-going claim. Actually, the Mari letters contain several good candidates for this kind of imperfectives, such as ARM 28, 134:7 ištu 3 u4 PN ina GN wašib [u] ālam ú-da-an-na-an ‘since three days PN is staying in GN and he is fortifying the town’; perhaps also ARM 3, 1:9, 14 and ARM 6, 58:18. 9.  This contrast is clear enough as long as prototypical fientive and prototypical adjectival verbs are concerned, but in the case of peripheral members of these categories, the distinction may be blurred and speakers may fluctuate in their use of either form. This applies to the stative verbs discussed in §3.3.1 (pp. 55–57), whose imperfective can have stative meaning, and to verbs such as wašābu ‘to sit down, stay’, ṣalālu ‘to sleep’, and rakābu ‘to ride’, e.g., uššab and wašib ‘he stays, lives’ from wašābu and iṣallal and ṣalil ‘he sleeps, is asleep’ from ṣalālu. In their fientive forms, these verbs are basically ingressive and telic, but in the imperfective they may drop their telicity and indicate a state or an activity: uššab ‘I am seated’, arakkab ‘I am riding’ (although the imperfective of most of these verbs more often has future or irrealis meaning: iṣallal ‘he can/will sleep’). This is caused by the convergence of two semantic/pragmatic factors: first, the meaning we expect it to have theoretically (‘I am sitting down [but not yet seated]’, etc.) is hardly used at all, since it is appropriate in very few contexts. Second, the imperfective aspect of uššab, etc., with its typical open-endedness clashes with the basically telic meaning of wašābu itself; this neutralizes the telic meaning and allows the verb to take on the meaning of ‘to sit’ rather than ‘to sit down’. For the same reason, these verbs show an overlap in use between their past and present participles (see §8.3.1 end, p. 202).

The Imperfective: Form  4.3.

92

(01) MIO 1, 70/72: III 41′–45′ (SB) ‘the goddess is girt (rak-sa-at: Stat) with a girdle (. . .), in her left (hand) she has/carries (na-šat: Stat) a child, it feeds from (lit., eats) (ik-kal: Impfv) her breast, with her right (hand) she prays (i-kar-rab: Impfv) (i.e., is in a praying posture)’ The imperfective also has an important irrealis use, which is related to its future meaning (Leong 1994: 31–32, 402–3; Gianto 1998: 187–88): it can express intention, obligation, injunction, prescription, etc. In affirmative clauses, the choice between indicative and irrealis use usually depends on the context; in an omen apodosis, for instance, iddâk will indicate a prediction ‘he will be killed’; elsewhere it may also indicate an injunction ‘he must be killed’.10 However, the particle lū can be used to convey the notion of an emphatic statement, especially in a promissory oath; see the final part of §9.3.3 (pp. 231–232).11 In negative clauses, the contrast between future tense and irrealis is at least partly indicated by means of the use of a special negation lā for the irrealis use, the prohibitive (see §9.2.3, pp. 219–220). In Babylonian, there is a clear distinction, since the non-irrealis use normally has ulā or ul; for example: (02) AbB 5, 210:9–10 (OB) libba ⟨ki  ⟩ lā i-ma-ra-aṣ u libbī ul i-ma-ra-aṣ ‘do not be cross, and I won’t be cross either’ In Assyrian, the distinction is less pronounced, since lā may also be used in indicative clauses (GKT §105c and GAG §122a/b). The aspectual function of the imperfective is only activated when the temporal location is specified as past by the context or the situation in general.12 In this case, it expresses incompleted action, simultaneity with a past event (non-anteriority), and verbal plurality and serves to exclude the completed or anterior function and the implication of a once-only event entailed by the perfective (see §5.3, pp. 127–128).13 Apart from literary narrative, this use is rare, especially in main clauses, and when it occurs, it usually concerns the stative verbs discussed in §3.3.1 (pp. 55–57), such as bašû ‘to be present, available’, izuzzu ‘to stand’, and kullu ‘to hold’, and the verb alāku ‘to go /come’ in its atelic meaning ‘to go /walk around’ (without a specific goal), e.g., (02) quoted on p. 56, and:14 (03) AbB 4, 132:8–9 (OB) pāna inūma ana rēdîka a-al-la-ku ‘formerly, when I served as one of (lit., went to) your rēdûs’ (04) AbB 6, 1:26 (OB) inūma ina pīḫāti az-za-az-zu ‘when I was (lit., was standing) still in service’.15 Instances with other verbs are:

10.  See GAG §78d δ; Streck 1995a: 94–99; Hämeen-Anttila 2000: 112. 11.  See GAG §152b and 185b–d, Edzard 1973: 129–30; E. Cohen 2005: 17–68. 12.  Many Old Babylonian instances of this use contain the adverb pānānum ‘formerly’; with a perfective, it refers to a once-only event (e.g., Sumer 14, 48 no. 24:5–6), with an imperfective to a repeated event, a habit, etc. (e.g., AbB 10, 1:13–16). 13.  For the use of the imperfective in past contexts, see also GAG §78e–f; Leong 1994: 343–46 and 349–50; Streck 1995a: 111–12 and 116–19; 1995b; Metzler 2002: 147–49, 493–95, and 888–91. 14.  More examples in Leong 1994 and Metzler 2002. 15.  In these “stative” verbs, the perfective often has ingressive function (see §3.3.1, p. 56): azzīz ‘I stood up’, allik ‘I went’ (in the sense of ‘I started moving’). An important reason for the use of the imperfective is presumably to exclude this interpretation.

4.3.  The Imperfective: Form

93

(05) ARM 27, 133:8–9 (OB) ina muḫḫi eperī ša i-ša-ap-pa-ku izziz ‘it (the army) took position on top of the ramp it was building’ (06) AbB 11, 7:13–14 (OB) alpum ipṭurma šammī i-ka-al [imq]utma imtūt ‘the ox strayed away, and while it was grazing (lit. eating grass), it dropped dead’. In (05), the perfective would be a kind of pluperfect (see §5.3, p. 128), implying that the ramp was already finished (‘which it had built’), and in (06) it would make the events sequential: ‘the ox strayed away, ate grass, and dropped dead’. The use of the imperfective excludes these interpretations. The remarkable use of the imperfective to introduce direct speech in narrative contexts may have a similar background, e.g.: (07) HSAO [1], 186:7 (OB) DN pāšu īpušamma ippuḫri kala ilī is-sà-aq-qá-ar ‘Enlil opened his mouth and spoke in the assembly of all gods’ (followed by Enlil’s words).16 The use of the imperfective issaqqar may also be aimed at avoiding the implications of the perfective, which might be interpreted by the hearer as referring to a previous utterance instead of the actual quotation that is still to come. This explanation is essentially the same as Jacobsen’s (1988: 191) explanation of the same phenomenon in Sumerian.17 In punctual and telic verbs, the imperfective in past contexts can be frequentative (08) or habitual (09) and perhaps emphasizes that an intended event was not realized or completed (10); with the negation ul, it can denote a refusal (GAG §151c), as also in (10): (08) ARM 28, 104:34–35 (OB) bēlī [š]aḫtākūma ana GN ul a-ša-ap-pa-ar inanna anumma ana GN a-ša-ap-pa-ar ‘for fear of my lord I never wrote to GN; but now I am going to write to GN’ (09) ARM 27, 1:38–39 (OB) aššum 1 gur.àm ša pānānum i-ka-lu PN imḫurū ‘concerning the one kor each, which they formerly enjoyed, they turned to PN’ (10) ARM 27, 1:36–37 (OB) pānānum 1 gur.àm a-na-ad-di-in-šu-nu-ši-im-ma ul i-ma-ḫa-ru ‘in the past, I wanted to give them one kor each, but they did not accept (it) (so how should they now accept 100 qa?)’.18 Cases such as (10) and perhaps also (15B) quoted below may be related to the irrealis use of the imperfective. Finally, the imperfective with past reference is also used in narrative passages in literary texts, as described in detail by Streck (1995b), E. Cohen (2006), and W. R. Mayer (2007). In main clauses, this especially concerns backgrounded events and processes that are durative or iterative (Streck 1995b: 37–50); in subordinate clauses, it often occurs in circumstantial, final, and consecutive clauses (1995b: 53–73). Streck (1995b: 75–77) explains this use from its function of non-anteriority, which is related to imperfective, but the fact that it often has a durative or itera-

16.  For more instances, see Sonnek 1940; Streck 1995a: 106–11; Metzler 2002: 520–39. 17.  See Streck 1995a: 109–11 and 193 for a discussion and more literature. In Indo-European languages, too, the use of the (historical) present or the imperfective of verbs of speech is widespread to introduce direct speech in narrative; see Kiparsky 1968: 32 n. 3 and Fleischman 1990: 82–83. 18.  For similar cases in Old Assyrian, see GKT §74c; for Middle Babylonian, see Aro 1955: 80; for Neo-Assyrian, see Hämeen-Anttila 2000: 111–12.

94

The Imperfective: Form  4.3.

tive nuance, or rather that of verbal plurality in general (cf. in particular Metzler 2002: 495–517, 888–91) may be a residue of its original pluractional function (see §4.4, p. 95–97).19 In the protasis of conditional clauses, the use of the imperfective is determined by its temporal relationship to the main clause, just as in the subordinate clauses quoted so far. The imperfective indicates that the event of the protasis either has not yet taken place or has started but is not yet completed. In the former case, the protasis often indicates an intention, usually in punctual verbs: (11) KH §138: 14–17 (OB) šumma awīlum ḫīrtašu ša mārī lā uldūšum i-iz-zi-ib ‘if a man wants/intends to leave his first wife who has not born him children’.20 In the latter case, the meaning of the verb is usually durative or iterative and denotes ongoing or repeated processes or activities, which are not temporally bounded by the realization of the apodosis. This occurs only rarely in legal texts, as in (12), but is ubiquitous in all kinds of omen texts; for example, (13): (12) KH §141:33–42 (OB) šumma aššat awīlim (. . .) bīssa ú-sà-ap-pa-aḫ mussa ú-ša-am-ṭa ‘if the wife of a man (. . .) squanders her estate and treats her husband badly’21 (13) CT 40, 34: r.8 (SB) (if a horse has become rabid and) lū tappâšu lū amēlī ú-na-šak ‘bites all the time/wants to bite/tries to bite/is prone to biting its companion or people’. The perfective and the t‑perfect would indicate that the event is completed at the moment referred to in the apodosis; see §5.3 (pp. 127–128), §6.3.1 (p. 148), and GAV pp. 154–57, and compare (13) with (14): (14) CT 40, 34: r.16 (SB) šumma sīsû ana bīt amēli īrubma lū imēra lū amēla iš-šuk ‘if a horse has entered a man’s house and has bitten a donkey or a person’. A striking example of an imperfective indicating uncompleted action in a šumma-clause occurs in the following pair of protases: (15A) HUCA 41/2, 90: II 27–32 (OB) šumma erûm lū nūnam lū iṣṣūram iṣbatma ipparšamma ina mu-uḫ-ḫu-ur awīlim i-ku-ul ‘if an eagle has caught a fish or a bird, has flown away and has eaten (īkul: Pfv) it on a man’s roof’22 (that man will experience a loss) (15B) ibid., 91: III 14–17 šum[ma] erû[m] ina ūr awīlim summata i-ka-al-ma uš-ta-ad-du-ú-šu

19.  As Bybee et al. (1994: 15–17) have shown, the synchronic use of a grammatical category may still bear traces of the earlier stages it went through during its grammaticalization. In that case, it is an instance of what Hopper (1991: 28–30) calls “persistence.” See also the comments by Metzler (2002: 891) and Loesov (2004b: 413). 20.  See GAG §161i; other cases are i-ig-ga-ar KH §274:22 ‘he wants to hire’ (discussion in Metzler 2002: 146–47) and i-na-ad-di-in KH §122:36 ‘he wants/intends to give’; ú-pa-ṣa-an KAV 1: VI §41:1 ‘he intends to veil’ in the Middle Assyrian laws; also passim in the recipes of YOS 11, 24/26 (see Metzler 2002: 283–84 and Loesov 2004a: 141). 21.  Also KH §142:72 and §143:8 (same verbs), §172:18 (ú-sà-aḫ-ḫa-mu-ši ‘they put her under pressure’), and §186:46 (i-ḫi-a-aṭ ‘he searches’). 22.  I interpret ina mu-uḫ-ḫu-ur awīlim as ina muḫḫ(i) ūr awīlim with crasis (GAG §17b).

4.4.  The Historical Background of iparrVs

95

‘if an eagle wants to eat/starts to eat (īkkal: Impfv) a dove on a man’s roof, but people have forced it to drop it (that man will increase in wealth)’ (similarly, ibid., 92: IV 4 versus 12) In (15A), the perfective is used as it normally is in conditional protases; in (15B) its use is avoided because it would mislead the hearer into thinking that the act of eating was completed successfully, and the imperfective is used instead. The imperfective excludes the implication of a single, completed event that adheres to the use of the perfective. This explains why in šumma clauses we often find the imperfective of the Gtn‑stem contrasting with the perfective of the G‑stem, as in (16):23 (16) Dreams 330:56–57 (SB) šumma nāra iš-la-a (. . .) šumma nāra iš-ta-na-lu ‘if he has dipped (Pfv G) into a river’ (. . .); ‘if he dips (Impfv Gtn) into a river time and again’ The various uses of the imperfective suggest that it may be described as an aspect (denoting incompleted action) and as a relative tense (denoting non-anteriority).24 This conclusion would also be in line with the corresponding categories in other Semitic languages, in particular the imperfective (yaqtVlu) of Classical Arabic, which is part of a basic opposition between simultaneity (yaqtVlu) and anteriority (qatVla) (Kuryłowicz 1973). However, the temporal use of the Akkadian imperfective is so dominant in terms of frequency that it is best regarded basically as a tense,25 the more so because the contrasting categories, the perfective iprVs and the t‑Pf iptarVs, are clearly temporal in function as well. It is possible that the more temporal nature of the Akkadian imperfective as compared to Ar yaqtVlu is a consequence of the rise of iparrVs instead of the Proto-Semitic imperfective *yiqtVlu, ‑ūnV: one might argue that the development from a pluractional to a progressive focusing on the actual moment of speech (see §4.4.3.3, pp. 107–109, below) has enhanced the temporal nature of the imperfective and that its marginal use in past contexts is a residue of its older, more aspectual function.

4.4. The Historical Background of iparrVs The G‑stem imperfective iparrVs is firmly established from the earliest attested period onward: it shows no significant differences between Babylonian and Assyrian, nor do the very few reliable data about the imperfective in Eblaite reveal any.26 This shows that it had already fully developed in Proto-East Semitic. The few changes that occur during the historical period of Akkadian are instantiations of general phonological processes not specific to the imperfective, such as the spread of E‑colouring (see §17.5, pp. 525–537) and vowel contraction, or shifts from one vowel class to another in individual verbs (see §3.5.3, pp. 75–81). None of these affect the essence of the category. A type of development that is conspicuously absent in Akkadian is the re23.  The Gtn perfective is hardly found at all in such contexts. Most alleged instances recorded as such in the dictionaries are undoubtedly t‑perfects of the G‑stem. 24.  For the Akkadian verb as basically aspectual, see Tropper 1998b: 157–59 and Stempel 1999: 127; for descriptions as a relative tense system, see, for instance, Kuryłowicz 1973 and Streck 1995a: 190–94. See also Kouwenberg 1998: 815–16 and in particular the discussion in Loesov 2004b: 401–9. 25.  See the section on terminology (pp. xxi–xxii) for an explanation of why I continue to call it “imperfective” in the present study. 26.  For the G imperfective in Eblaite, see Gelb 1992: 190; Krebernik 1988a: 59 with n. 37; 1996: 245; Edzard 2006: 79–80; and Rubio 2006: 122; e.g., i-da-ḫa-ú /yiṭaḫḫaʿū/ ‘they come near’, cf. Bab ṭeḫû (see chap. 2 n. 63, p. 51), and i-na-É-áš ARET 5, 1: VI 8 ‘he lives’ (/yinaḥḥaš/), cf. Bab nêšu ‘to live, to recover’.

96

The Historical Background of iparrVs  4.4.

newal of the imperfective by means of periphrastic forms or grammaticalized participles—which is such a prominent feature of almost all other Semitic languages.27 Consequently, there is little direct evidence from Akkadian itself to clarify the prehistory of iparrVs by means of internal reconstruction. There are, however, some “soft” indications that point in a certain direction. First, gemination, especially of the second radical, has a clear iconic background in Akkadian (GAV pp. 24–26): it reflects an increase in expressivity, intensity, and in particular plurality, both nominal and verbal. Several grammatical and lexical categories in Akkadian combine gemination with some type of expressive, intensive, or pluractional meaning (see §10.8.1, p. 256, for this term): • Nominal plurality underlined by gemination of R2—in addition to the normal plural endings—is found in a few individual nouns: abbû ‘fathers’ (Ass abbāʾū) from abu, aḫḫū ‘brothers’ from aḫu, aḫḫâtu ‘sisters’ (Ass aḫḫuātum) from aḫātu, and iṣṣū ‘trees’ from iṣu; in a group of adjectives of the pattern PaRRaS (rarely PaRRiS) denoting dimensions, e.g., arraku ‘long’, seḫḫeru (Ass *ṣaḫḫaru > ṣaḫḫuru) ‘small, young’, and rabbû ‘big’ < *rabbium (GAV pp. 52–57); and in adjectives of the pattern PuRRuS (Ass PaRRuS), which is often used as the plural of simple adjectives and statives (GAV pp. 359–71). • Verbal plurality underlined by gemination of R2 is found in the D‑stem of transitive verbs, which are often pluractional and sometimes intensive (see §11.3.4, pp. 274–277, and GAV pp. 117–75); in the pluractional Gtn‑stem (see §14.7.2, p. 417); and in the agent nouns of the patterns PaRRāS and PaRRiS, which denote habitual activities, often professions (GAV pp. 58–66). • Expressivity and intensity underlined by gemination of R2 is found in the group of PuRRuS (Ass PaRRuS) adjectives that denote highly expressive and stable qualities, often salient bodily characteristics (GAV pp. 371–78).28 It also occurs in a small number of (substantivized) adjectives with unusual patterns, most of which are exceedingly rare (GAV p. 34): e.g., šakkūru ‘drunkard’ from šakāru ‘to be(come) drunk’), muttāqu ‘sweetmeats’ from matqu ‘sweet’, and kussimtu ‘cut wood’ from kasāmu ‘to cut’ (giškuus-sí-im-tam ARM 28, 152:8). The use of gemination in these categories is completely conventionalized, i.e., a speaker of Akkadian could not replace a single consonant by a geminate ad libitum,29 and is the result of a long 27.  It is not a foregone conclusion that such replacements were completely absent; if they existed, they must have concerned (at least initially) the imperfective in its function of referring to the moment of speech. However, as Loesov (2004a: 131–32 n. 107; 2004b: 416–17; 2005) has aptly observed, this function of the imperfective is very poorly represented in our sources, which because of their nature contain far more imperfective forms with other meanings, such as future, prescriptive, general imperfective, and prohibitive. The concomitant use of the imperfective is typical of dialogue, which is heavily underrepresented. Moreover, this kind of renewal typically starts in everyday speech and does not penetrate into the written language until much later (or perhaps not at all, if this language is conservative and/or highly stereotyped, as most forms of late Akkadian are). 28.  These instances of the pattern PuRRuS must be distinguished from the far more numerous PuRRuS forms that serve as stative/past participle to the corresponding D‑stem. In GAV pp. 342–44, I call these two functions of PuRRuS the lexical and the inflectional function, respectively. The inflectional PuRRuS forms cannot be used as evidence for the (erstwhile) existence and the meaning of adjectives with gemination since their meaning is derived from that of the D‑stem. 29.  There are several expressions attested in Akkadian showing that a “living” iconic effect could be achieved by repeating an entire word, e.g., (têrētum) laptā laptā ‘they (the omens) are unfavourable each time’ from an OB Mari letter quoted by D. Charpin and J.-M. Durand, NABU 1988/17 no. [34]. An inter-

4.4.  The Historical Background of iparrVs

97

process of grammaticalization. Even though the Impfv iparrVs has little or no relationship with plurality, it seems reasonable to assume that its gemination has the same background but that grammaticalization replaced plurality with the more abstract aspectual function of imperfectivity, a kind of process for which there are ample parallels in Afroasiatic, as I will argue in the next sections.30 This also implies that iparrVs has a very long history: its genesis as a form (whatever its function) must date back to a remote period, a fact that is confirmed by the Afroasiatic parallels I discuss below. Second, the inflectional stem of iparrVs is an intruder within the paradigm of the G‑stem: with the exception of the t‑perfect, which is generally agreed to be an intruder as well, all other members are based on the simple triradical root without consonantal additions.31 This ties in with the fact that there is no predictable formal relationship between imperfective and perfective (see §5.2, pp. 126–127). Since the latter is of unsuspected Proto-Semitic extraction, it is likely that it already existed when iparrVs emerged as its imperfective counterpart. All these facts point to iparrVs having a different background from the rest of the verbal paradigm and therefore also being a relative newcomer.32 Third, in comparative perspective, this is further supported by the fact that the imperfective has no exact cognates in other Semitic languages: the corresponding forms in Central Semitic, such as Ar yaqtVlu, have no gemination, and South Semitic has an imperfective that does have gemination but differs from Akkadian in some important respects (see §4.6.1, pp. 117–121). These facts suggest that the Impfv iparrVs represents a renewal of an older imperfective.

4.4.1.  The controversy about the Proto-Semitic imperfective The historical background of the Akkadian imperfective with gemination and its relationship to the imperfective forms of West Semitic is one of the most controversial issues of comparative Semitics.33 The Semitic languages generally show two kinds of forms to express the imperfective: East Semitic and South Semitic use a prefixed stem that either has gemination (Akk iparrVs and Geʿez yəqattəl  ) or had it originally (Modern South Arabian, e.g., Mehri yərūkəz); Central Semitic uses a simple prefixed stem without gemination but (at least originally) with a suffix ‑u/mediate stage must have been the use of reduplication, and there are indeed a few instances of the use of reduplication for repetition in the Akkadian verb; see chap. 15. 30.  The same happened in the D‑stem of intransitive verbs, where the original association with expressivity and intensity was grammaticalized as the factitive function, also a shift from lexical (more concrete) to grammatical (more abstract) (see §11.6.2, pp. 282–287). 31.  If we consider the forms of the verbal categories alone, it looks as if all forms are derived from the perfective (iprVs), which does have the expected simple stem. This also applies to those of the derived stems that have different inflectional stems, such as the Gt‑stem and the N‑stem. The Gt PrPartc muptar(i)sum, for instance, looks as if it derives from the Pfv iptaras rather than from the Impfv iptarras, and the N PrPartc muppar(i)sum seems to come from ipparis rather than from ipparras. In view of the dominant position of the imperfective, this is an anomaly, which may be explained on the basis of a scenario in which the form with gemination is a replacement of an earlier form with the simple stem. 32.  This is also argued by Rundgren 1955: 323–25. The situation of a single inflectional stem for the whole G‑stem paradigm (and mutatis mutandis also for all individual derived verbal stems) still exists in Central Semitic (Gensler 1997: 230–31). Gensler points to the curious exception of the maṣdar of Stem II in Arabic (taqtīl from qattala), for which see §14.6.1 (pp. 400–402). 33.  I will not repeat here the full history of the debate. It has been described by many others: see, in particular, Rundgren 1959a: 129–40; Moscati, ed. 1964: 133–34; Hodge, ed. 1971: 17–19; Fleisch 1979: 207–24; Kienast 2001: 293–95. For a bibliography, see also Knudsen 1982: 9 n. 24 with additions in Knudsen 1984/86: 238 n. 1 and 1998: 5 n. 8. An important more recent contribution is T. D. Anderson (2000).

The Historical Background of iparrVs  4.4.

98

ūnV to distinguish it from another form with the same stem without suffix, which serves as a past tense and/or an irrealis category. The fundamental issue is whether the similarity between the East Semitic and the South Semitic imperfectives justifies the reconstruction of a geminated imperfective in Proto-Semitic, or whether Proto-Semitic instead had an imperfective based on the “simple” prefix conjugation, like Ar yaqtulu, -ūna. The former option originates with P. Haupt (1878), who proposed associating Akk ikašad with Geʿez yəqatəl (in his notation). Those who follow him ascribe a tense/aspect system with (at least) three different inflectional stems to Proto-Semitic: a long prefix stem with gemination and imperfective function (*yiqattVl‑); a short prefix stem without gemination, which has both perfective (or preterite) and irrealis functions (*yiqtVl); and a suffix stem (the stative in Akkadian, the perfect in West Semitic). Those who opt for the latter possibility reconstruct a tense/aspect system with two inflectional stems: a simple prefix stem that performs multiple functions by means of different suffixes, at least the imperfective (*yiqtulu, -ūnV) and the perfective/jussive (*yiqtul, -ū), and the suffix stem for the stative/perfect. If we call the former view the “three-stem system” and the latter the “two-stem system,” we can summarize this as in Table 4.2: Impfv

Pfv/ Juss

Stat/Perf

three-stem (Akk/SSem)

-QaTTvL-

-QTvL-

QaTvL-

two-stem (CSem)

      -QTvL-

QaTvL-

Table 4.2: The inflectional stems of the basic verb in Semitic.

Neither the three-stem nor the two-stem system as they are currently described offers a plausible explanation for the development of the Semitic verbal system. The three-stem system is unsatisfactory for three reasons. (1) The first concerns the status of the simple prefix form with the suffix ‑u, ‑ūnV, which survives in the Arabic Impfv yaqtulu, ‑ūna. The similarity in form between this form and the Akkadian subjunctive in its Assyrian form iprusu, -ūni compels us to reconstruct *yiqtulu, ‑ūnV in Proto-Semitic, as I will argue in §9.3.3 (pp. 228–231). However, which function did it have? Was it an imperfective as in Arabic, a subjunctive as in Akkadian, or something else? Actually, it cannot have been the Proto-Semitic imperfective, if one claims that this function was performed by *yiqattVl-. The usual explanation is, therefore, that the suffix -u, -ūnV was a marker of subordination but spread to main clauses in Central Semitic and developed into an imperfective marker. This is typologically unlikely, since the usual development goes in the opposite direction: verb forms restricted to subordinate clauses are typically residual categories that were once in general use but were ousted from main clauses by a competing form (see in particular Haspelmath 1998 and §9.3.3, pp. 229–231).34 (2) Second, in all attested instances of the renewal of present categories as described by various authors,35 the innovating form is more contrasting, more voluminous, and—at least origi-

34.  The purely theoretical nature of the “Szenarium” that Voigt (2004: 49–50) proposes to explain the spread of *yiqtVlu, ‑ūnV from subordinate to main clauses eloquently shows the lack of any substantial evidence for such a process. The development proposed by Hamori (1973) and adopted by Rubin (2005: 147–48) is implausible for the same reason: it requires that a subordinate form *yiqtVlu in relative clauses was powerful and frequent enough to spread to main clauses and oust a better marked and doubtless far more frequently used imperfective with gemination. 35.  E.g., Bybee et al. 1994:125–75; D. Cohen 1984; Haspelmath 1998.

4.4.  The Historical Background of iparrVs

99

nally—more transparent than the old one.36 This is what we would expect, since the renewal is motivated by the desire to encode the category in question in a more expressive and/or more “user-friendly” way. According to these criteria, it is unlikely that *yiqtVlu, ‑ūnV is a replacement of *yiqattVl‑. Quite to the contrary, they suggest that *yiqattVl‑ replaced *yiqtVlu, ‑ūnV, since it has a stronger marking, is more transparent because of its gemination, and is more clearly differentiated from the (original) perfective *yiqtVl, -ū. (3) The third major deficiency of the three-stem system is that there is no trace of *yiqattVl‑ in Central Semitic.37 It is of course quite normal for grammatical categories to drop out of use, but this particular case is inconsistent with everything we know about the evolution of verbal categories. If *yiqattVl‑ was indeed the Proto-Semitic imperfective, it was the basic form of the verbal paradigm and therefore a very unlikely candidate for vanishing without a trace. The usual fate of similar categories in other languages is that they are replaced by more expressive ones in a gradual process that tends to leave a residue of older forms, often in secondary functions (Haspelmath 1998). This is the picture that clearly arises from D. Cohen’s (1984) investigation into the verbal systems of other Semitic languages. There are no such phenomena relating to a geminated imperfective in Central Semitic.38 This is even more surprising, since the development of the Akkadian imperfective outside the G‑stem shows that the introduction of a new imperfective in the G‑stem has a strong influence on imperfective forms of other categories, as we will see in §4.5.2 (pp. 112–115), and that the same seems to have happened with the geminated imperfective in Geʿez (but in a different way; see §4.6.1, pp. 120–121). There is no trace of such an influence in any of the Central Semitic imperfective forms. So much for the main objections against the three-stem system. The two-stem system also has a major defect, insofar as it implies that Proto-Semitic did not have a form *yiqattVl‑. This is inconceivable for at least three reasons. (1) First, *yiqattVl‑ has parallels in Afroasiatic— namely, the Berber imperfective with gemination and the Beja imperfective with infixed nasal, which suggest that *yiqattVl- has an Afroasiatic background; see further §4.4.3.2 (pp. 104–107). (2) Second, although Akkadian iparrVs may arguably be younger than *yiqtVlu, ‑ūnV as an imperfective, it does not look like a recent formation, as Voigt (1990a; 2004: 35–38) rightly points out, and it is hard to envisage how it could have developed in the relatively short period between Proto-Semitic and Proto-East-Semitic.39 (3) Third, in reconstructing the prehistory of a language, it is generally more plausible to assume a process of simplification than the emergence of a totally

36.  Opaque forms are generally older than transparent forms, as emphasized by Voigt in the context of the Proto-Semitic verb (1990a: 87–89; 2004: 35–36). 37.  There is a long discussion about this issue; see the earlier literature collected by Knudsen (1982: 9 n. 25), but a broad consensus seems to have grown that there are no reliable traces of *yiqattVl‑ in Central Semitic, as may appear from recent contributions, such as T. D. Anderson 2000: 25 and Kerr 2001. It is significant that Rainey (1996: II 227–34) does not find traces of it in Amarna Akkadian, nor does Tropper (2000: 460–61) in Ugaritic. However, some dissenting voices remain: Lipiński 1997: 339; Kottsieper 2000; Voigt 2004: 50–51 (see Kerr 2001: 145–47 for a criticism of Kottsieper). For Amorite, an imperfective with gemination is sometimes assumed on the basis of a handful of proper names (Kerr 2001: 136), but others find the evidence inconclusive (von Soden 1985; Knudsen 1991: 879 with n. 14). 38.  See, however, n. 50 (below, p. 102) on possible traces of *yiqattal‑ as a derived verbal stem. 39.  Because of the (probable) amount of time separating Proto-Semitic from Akkadian, we should regard all Akkadian verb forms as Proto-Semitic, since however long this period may have lasted, it was certainly too short to allow for the rise of the relatively opaque verbal categories of Akkadian; relatively young categories are generally more transparent in form, such as the periphrastic categories of West Semitic (Voigt 2004: 37–43).

100

The Historical Background of iparrVs  4.4.

new category (Voigt 1990a: 93).40 It is therefore more likely that the two-stem system of Central Semitic is a reduction of an older, more comprehensive system than that the three-stem system is a relatively recent extension of the two-stem system (Voigt 2004: 36).

4.4.2.  The emergence of   iparrVs The circumstantial evidence discussed in §4.4 suggests a solution that obviates the shortcomings of both the three-stem and the two-stem systems—namely, to reconstruct both imperfective forms in Proto-Semitic: a basic imperfective *yiqtVlu, ‑ūnV and a derived imperfective *yiqattal‑, which gemination reveals to have originally been the imperfective of a derived stem with pluractional function. This leads to the following hypothetical account of what happened after the proto-language split up into the historically attested branches. (1) The basic stem of the Proto-Semitic verb had an Impfv *yiqtVlu, ‑ūnV, which is reconstructible on the basis of the correspondence between the Ar yaqtulu, ‑ūna and the Akkadian Subj iprusu, ‑ūni (see §9.3.3, pp. 228–231).41 (2) In addition, Proto-Semitic had a derived verbal stem serving for the expression of verbal plurality, similar in function to the later Gtn‑stem of Akkadian: a “pluractional G‑stem,” or “GPL‑stem.” Its imperfective can be reconstructed as *yiqattal‑, with gemination of R2. It is different from the D‑stem, which had an Impfv *yuqattilu, ‑ūnV (see below).42 (3) After the Proto-Semitic stage, East Semitic substituted its basic imperfective with that of the GPL‑stem. The ultimate motive for this change was the need to increase the formal contrast between the Impfv *yiqtVlu, -ūnV and the Pfv *yiqtVl, -ū, which was apparently felt to be insufficient since they only differed in the presence or absence of the suffix ‑u/‑ūnV; this issue will further be discussed in §18.3.1 (p. 591). Therefore, it was only the imperfective and not the entire 40.  Hetzron (1976a) calls this the principle of “archaic heterogeneity” and invokes it (1976a: 104) to argue for the primacy of the Akkadian and South Semitic systems, with their geminated imperfectives, over the Central Semitic system, with the imperfective *yiqtVlu. This principle says that, if cognate languages share a specific (sub)system that is similar enough to be related but more heterogeneous in one language than in another, the relatively most heterogeneous system may be regarded as the most archaic, and the more homogeneous ones are more likely to result from simplification (1976a: 93). Accordingly, Hetzron (1976a: 104) argues that the three-stem system of Akkadian and South Semitic is more archaic than the two-stem system of Central Semitic and closer to Proto-Semitic. The same reasoning is implicit in Voigt 1990a: 93. I accept the general usefulness of Hetzron’s principle for morphological developments and I agree with his conclusion insofar as the Akkadian imperfective is concerned, but for the evolution of verbal categories in general the principle can easily be shown to be invalid, if we compare the expression of the present tense in other languages, e.g., in modern English and standard German: English has two present categories, a simple present (I write) and a compound present, the progressive (I am writing), whereas standard German only has one (ich schreibe). According to the principle of archaic heterogeneity, the English situation would be more original and the German one would result from a simplification. However, we actually know that the reverse is true: German has preserved the Proto-Germanic situation with a single (reconstructible) present, and English has innovated (see also Bybee et al. 1994: 144). The same applies to the rise of past tense forms, which tend to be enriched by old resultatives or completives (Kuryłowicz 1975: 106, 128; Bybee et al. 1994: 51–105). In an earlier article (1975: 127), Hetzron still adds a reservation to the validity of his principle: “unless we find obvious motivation for the enrichment of the richer system.” This is clearly the case where the renewal of verbal categories is concerned. 41.  Everything points to Ar yaqtVlu, ‑ūna not being an innovation but an ancient form (Voigt 2004: 36–37), the great antiquity of which is further demonstrated by parallels of the -u/-nV suffix in Cushitic (Hetzron 1974) and Chadic (Voigt 1988a: 121); see further §18.3.1 (p. 589). 42.  For the time being, I will write this derived form as *yiqattal-. In §4.5.3 below (pp. 115–117), I will discuss whether or not it also had the ending -u/-ūnV of the basic Impfv *yiqtVlu.

4.4.  The Historical Background of iparrVs

101

conjugation of the G‑stem that was replaced. In this respect, the emergence of iparrVs from the GPL‑stem is parallel to that of the t‑Pf iptarVs from the Gt‑stem, which is also an individual form taken from a complete conjugation (with the important difference that in the case of the t‑perfect we know this for certain, since this conjugation continued to be used in its original function).43 The extension of the use of yaqattal‑ was accompanied by a corresponding weakening of its association with plurality: from a pluractional ‘he kills all the time, repeatedly’, etc., it developed into a progressive ‘he is killing’ and took over the hic-et-nunc function of the basic Impfv *yiqtVlu and later also most of its other functions (Kuryłowicz 1962: 59–60; see below for parallels). This was a specifically Akkadian innovation in which West Semitic took no part: Central Semitic continued to use the Proto-Semitic basic Impfv *yiqtVlu, ‑ūnV, and South Semitic initially did the same, but followed the example of Akkadian in a later stage and replaced it with a form with gemination of R2 (Geʿez yəqattəl; see §4.6.1, pp. 117–121). In Akkadian, the ancient basic imperfective was relegated to subordinate clauses, where its ending was reanalyzed as a marker of subordination (Kuryłowicz 1972: 60; see §9.3.3, pp. 228–231). The view that Proto-Semitic had two coexisting imperfective forms has also been proposed by other scholars, but it does not seem to have been elaborated systematically.44 In particular, it was advocated by Rössler (1950: 466 and elsewhere) and Kuryłowicz (1962: 53, 59–60; cf. also 1972: 53–54).45 Prima facie, this view may seem no more than a weak compromise between conflicting viewpoints. Moreover, we should generally avoid multiplying the number of morphosyntactic categories that we reconstruct, not only for the sake of simplicity, but also because the more categories we posit, the weaker the explanatory power of our model becomes.46 In this case, however, the reconstruction of two imperfective forms in Proto-Semitic is fully justified, since it offers a relatively straightforward explanation of the state of affairs attested in the diverse languages and a plausible account of the processes that have led to it, supported by some evidence from cognate languages (see §4.4.3.2) and abundant typological evidence (see §4.4.3.3). The scenario outlined above accounts for most of the problems raised by both the three-stem and the two-stem systems: 1. It gives due credit to the high antiquity of iparrVs: iparrVs is an innovation, but only insofar as it has a new function, as Kuryłowicz (1973: 120 n. 5) emphasizes: “The renewal did not consist in the creation of a new form, but in the shift derivative > inflectional form, i.e., in the incorporation of a derivative into the system of conjugation.” 2. It explains the different functions of *yiqtVlu, ‑ūnV in Akkadian and Central Semitic as the typologically common restriction of an old form to secondary contexts: *yiqtVlu, ‑ūnV

43.  Faced with the same problem, West Semitic chose to renew the perfective *yiqtVl by replacing it with the suffix conjugation qatala; see §18.3.1 (pp. 591). 44.  In several publications, W. von Soden suggested the existence of a contrast between a durative and a punctual imperfective, of which the former has gemination (1957: 207a; 1991b: 469). Similar views were expressed by Blau (1971: 144), T. D. Anderson (2000: 24–25), and Kerr (2001: 154). 45.  The scenario proposed here notably differs from Rössler’s in that Rössler regards the geminated imperfective as part of the basic stem rather than as an (originally) derived stem. This leads to the difficulties inherent in the three-stem system discussed above. 46.  This is perhaps more evident in historical phonology: in reconstructing the phoneme inventory of a proto-language, we can easily achieve complete regularity if we posit a different phoneme for each individual sound correspondence we find. However, apart from leading to a an atypical number of phonemes for the proto-language, the resulting system will obscure important generalizations and so conceal rather than clarify what actually happened in the course of its development.

102

The Historical Background of iparrVs  4.4.

preserves its original function in Central Semitic but was relegated to subordinate clauses in Akkadian. 3. It reduces the absence of *yiqattal‑ in Central Semitic to a problem of more manageable proportions. As I argued above, this is a major problem for the three-stem system as it is usually formulated. It remains an explanandum, of course, but if *yiqattal‑ is a derived imperfective with pluractional meaning, most of the reasons why its disappearance is so unlikely are no longer valid. A derived pluractional is interchangeable with an analytical (lexical) construction and can therefore easily be replaced by it, a process that is crosslinguistically very common.47 In this particular case, one could plausibly argue that the disappearance of *yiqattal‑ is related to competition with the D‑stem:48 two derived stems with the same basic marker, even though they have a different origin, may easily influence each other. 4. It clarifies the relationship between iparrVs and the D‑stem. In spite of the fact that both categories share gemination of R2, they have a different origin: the D‑stem is originally a denominal category derived from adjectives (see §11.6.2, pp. 283–284), whereas the Impfv *yiqattal- originates in the category of fientive verbs (see below for details). Neither of them is derived from the other.49 However, if we assume that *yiqattal‑ had a complete conjugation, their conjugations must have been rather similar, especially in the forms without prefixes; see §4.5.3 below.50 47.  See van Loon 2005: 43, 81–83 about the loss of marked categories. 48.  The loss of the imperfective with gemination in Central Semitic is often ascribed to its formal similarity to the D‑stem (e.g., Brockelmann 1951: 143; Polotsky 1964: 110–11; Hetzron 1975: 127; 1976a: 105; Voigt 2004: 49). Their view crucially differs from the one proposed here in that they regard *yiqattal‑ as the basic imperfective of Proto-Semitic. Ratcliffe (1998b: 123) claims that gemination became redundant once the suffix conjugation had become established as the usual indicator of the perfective tense/aspect in West Semitic). However, these are post factum arguments that are only relevant if we have first established the existence of such an imperfective on other grounds. Note that in Akkadian the G‑stem Impfv iparrVs and the D‑stem forms uparras and uparris have coexisted for several millennia without observable problems. 49.  The relationship between iparrVs and the D‑stem has played a prominent role in the discussion. Rundgren, in particular, argued (1959a: 126–27, 267, and elsewhere) that iparrVs arose from prefixation of the stative patterns qata/i/ul under the influence of the D‑stem, in order to renew the cursive (i.e., imperfective) aspect, his famous “réemploi de l’intensif.” However, there is no good reason to posit any formal connection between the stative and the imperfective; see the next note (n. 50). For similar objections, see, for instance, Kienast 2001: 294. 50.  It is not impossible that remnants of *yiqattalu as a derived stem are found in a few Hebrew D‑stems, such as dibbẹr ‘to speak’, zimmẹr ‘to make music’, riqqẹd ‘to dance’, and hillẹk ‘to go’. They are atypical because of their meaning (durative activities of low transitivity) and/or the absence of a corresponding basic stem, as was already observed by Landsberger (1926b: 972) and several other scholars after him, e.g., Goetze (1942: 7–8), von Soden (1957: 206–7), Kuryłowicz (1962: 53), Aro (1964: 193–94), Kerr (2001: 147–48), and H.‑P. Müller (2003: 439). As durative verbs, they were relatively often used in the derived pluractional *yiqattal‑ and may therefore have survived the decline and ultimate disappearance of this form, to be incorporated in the very similar D conjugation, in spite of their aberrant meaning. The atypical nature of these verbs may also have a different background—they may be denominal, for instance—but the present explanation is supported by a few atypical Hithpael forms in Hebrew and perhaps by the vowel pattern of the Arabic Stem V (yataqattalu), as I will argue in §14.5.5 (p. 394). It is also possible that the existence of agent noun patterns with gemination in West Semitic that—just as their Akkadian counterparts PaRRāS and PaRRiS—semantically do not belong to the D‑stem (Loretz 1960; Kerr 2001: 150–54) also testifies to the erstwhile existence of a verbal category with gemination different from the D‑stem. Finally, it is conceivable that the well-known alternation of II/gem and II/voc roots in Arabic and Hebrew discussed by Kuryłowicz

4.4.  The Historical Background of iparrVs

103

5. It decides the controversy about whether gemination is the actual imperfective marker or whether it is a secondary phenomenon—for instance, a consequence of a stress shift, to preclude syncope of the vowel between R1 and R2, etc. The original pluractional function indicates that gemination is the essential and defining feature of *yiqattal‑.51 An important consequence of this scenario is that Central Semitic preserves the Proto-Semitic paradigm of the basic stem most faithfully, in particular the Impfv *yiqtVlu, ‑ūnV, which has become Arabic yaqtulu, ‑ūna, and the Pfv *yiqtVl, ‑ū, which is preserved in Arabic as a past tense after the negation lam and in the Hebrew imperfective with waw consecutive wayyiqṭol. With regard to South Semitic, we might argue that it replaced its original imperfective with that of the derived pluractional in the same way as Akkadian. There are good reasons, however, to separate iparrVs from yəqattəl and regard their emergence as parallel but independent processes. I will discuss this issue in detail in §4.6.1 (pp. 117–123).

4.4.3.  Evidence There are three kinds of evidence in favour of the reconstruction proposed in the preceding section: internal historical evidence from Akkadian itself (§4.4.3.1), comparative evidence from Afroasiatic (§4.4.3.2), and typological evidence, especially from other Semitic and Afroasiatic languages, to be discussed in §4.4.3.3.

4.4.3.1.  Historical evidence from Akkadian The Akkadian evidence in support of the scenario proposed above concerns two phenomena, the Assyrian form of the subjunctive and the tan‑stems. The endings of the Akkadian subjunctive in the form in which they may be reconstructed for (Pre‑)Assyrian are so similar to those of the imperfective of Classical Arabic that the two categories must have a common origin. The (1972: 10–11), e.g., Ar dakka (u) and dāka (ī ) ‘to grind’, He zrr ‘to squeeze’ and zwr ‘to press, wring’, goes back to a reinterpretation of pluractional forms as basic verbs; see §16.6.2 (pp. 495–496). 51.  This controversy was mainly sparked by the initial uncertainty about the exact form of the Akkadian imperfective, iparVs or iparrVs. The defective spelling of geminates and the reluctance to accept the existence of gemination as a grammatical marker in the basic stem led scholars to claim that iparVs is the primary imperfective form (usually explained as a derivation of iprVs by means of vowel insertion and a shift of stress) and that gemination is secondary and only served to safeguard this a from being syncopated (e.g., Sayce [1877: 39–40], Klingenheben [1956: 218–19], Gelb [1969: 205], Janssens [1972], Diakonoff [1988: 86], H.-P. Müller [1998: 149], Kropp [1999: 100] and Rubio [2006: 124, 131]). Other Semitists, inspired by the identity of the vowel in the final syllable of Akk iparras and the West Semitic active/transitive perfect qatala, have maintained that there is a genetic relationship between them and that iparras arose from prefixation of a stative pattern PaRaS and secondary insertion of gemination for the same reason. This was first proposed by Barth (1887) and followed by many illustrious others, such as Delitzsch (1889: 235–36), Brockelmann (1908: 569), Bauer (1910: 44), Rundgren (1959a: 126–27; 1963b: 106), and Kuryłowicz (1962: 55). However, it is only based on the superficial similarity of the shared a-vowel in the final syllable of both forms. Aro (1964: 18) rightly calls it “ein Spiel des Zufalls.” There are no other reasons to suppose that there is a connection between qatala (which is undoubtedly a secondary development specific to West Semitic) and iparras. At least since the publication of W. von Soden’s GAG in 1952 (and even earlier, from A. Goetze’s studies; see n. 1 in this chapter, p. 88), it has been established wisdom that the Akkadian G‑stem imperfective always has gemination. This means that all these speculations are irrelevant (so also Kienast 1982: 19; 1995: 126; 2001: 294). The argument that the vowel a after the first radical is the actual imperfective marker becomes invalid if we regard gemination as original: this a is the default vowel in all verbal forms in which R2 consists of a geminate or a cluster (and in many others as well), so that an intervening vowel is necessary. It is purely morphological and does not have a morphosyntactic function (see also Buccellati 1996: 88).

The Historical Background of iparrVs  4.4.

104

hypothesis that the subjunctive is a residual form that in its core function was replaced by the new imperfective with gemination offers a plausible explanation for their difference in function. I will come back to this issue in §9.3.3 (pp. 228–231). Furthermore, the tan‑stems provide indirect proof of the original pluractional function of iparrVs. Since their historical development can best be treated in the context of the development of the t‑infix in Akkadian in chap. 14, I will only give a brief summary here. The tan‑stems are an Akkadian innovation, but the oldest forms of their conjugation are rooted in Proto-Semitic, specifically in the Pfv iptarrVs. IptarrVs goes back to a form with gemination of R2 and the marker t, which was originally prefixed: *yi-t(a)-qattal-. In some prehistoric stage of Akkadian, this form became *yiqtattal, the direct ancestor of iptarrVs. The double marking shows it to be the pluractional of the Gt‑stem *yiqtatVl‑. However, after iparrVs had ousted *yiqtVlu, ‑ūnV as the basic imperfective, iptarrVs was re-employed to provide the new imperfective with a new pluractional counterpart, thus restoring the old contrast between a neutral and a pluractional form, see Table 4.3. Proto-Semitic

Akkadian

basic Impfv

*yiqtVlu, ‑ūnV

iparrVs

plur. Impfv

*yiqattal-

iptarrVs

Table 4.3:  Basic and pluractional imperfectives in Proto-Semitic and Akkadian.

Thus the form iptarrVs testifies to the former existence of a derived pluractional imperfective in the Gt‑stem. The principle that a marked category will not show distinctions that the corresponding unmarked category does not have entails that the G‑stem must have had a derived pluractional as well.52 It is not difficult to guess what it must have looked like: gemination but no t-infix, in other words, *yiqattal‑. As I will argue in chap. 14, this process was ultimately made possible by the previous decline of the Gt‑stem, which already started in Proto-Semitic. The Gtn‑stem is only one of several categories that owe their emergence to this decline and the ensuing reemployment of some of its forms for different purposes. The historically attested conjugation of the Gtn‑stem with the Impfv iptanarrVs as its most salient member is based on iptarrVs, and the other tan‑stems are based on the Gtn‑stem; see further §14.7.6 (pp. 431–437).

4.4.3.2.  Comparative evidence from Afroasiatic Outside Semitic, there are imperfective forms in Afroasiatic languages that show a striking resemblance to the Akkadian imperfective iparrVs. The forms most widely discussed come from the Berber languages and the Cushitic language Beja (Beḍauye).53 In spite of considerable differences among the Berber languages, their verbal paradigm can generally be described as comprising three categories for the expression of affirmative predicates (we will not be concerned with the additional categories used in negative clauses): an aorist, a perfective, and a third form that is basically a kind of imperfective, usually construed with 52.  For this principle, see, for instance, Greenberg 1966: 27–28. 53.  The main protagonists of the relevance of these forms for Proto-Semitic are Rössler (1950, 1951, 1952, and elsewhere), Greenberg (1952), Voigt (e.g., 2002: 281–86); see also Rubio 2003a: 172–76; 2006: 123–32. Others have denied a direct relation between these forms, e.g., Klingenheben (1956: 226–27); D. Cohen (1984: 78–81).

4.4.  The Historical Background of iparrVs

105

particles. It is known under various names, in particular “intensive aorist,” but I will simply call it imperfective (see D. Cohen 1984: 80; Chaker 1995: 55; Kossmann 2002: 354 n. 2). It basically has two markers: either gemination of a consonant or a prefixed t- or tt-, but both procedures may be accompanied by vowel alternation (D. Cohen 1984: 79–80; Kossmann 2002: 354–56); see the following instances of aorist versus imperfective from Tashelhit (examples from Aspinion 1953: 269–73): gemination:

kərz – kərrəz ‘to plough’

tt-prefixing:

kkəs – ttəkkəs ‘to take away’

gemination + apophony

dəl – ddal ‘to cover’

tt-prefixing + apophony

ḫdəm – ttəḫdam ‘to work’

In Tuareg, where the reflex of a has remained distinct (ă) from that of i and u (ə), the earlier vowel pattern of these forms is still visible (the examples come from Prasse 1972/4: III 86 and 92; see also Heath 2005: 341–42): gemination:

əkrəz – əkârrăz ‘to plough’

t-prefixing:

əkkəs – ətâkkăs ‘to take away’

Which of the two basic imperfective markers applies to a given verb largely depends on the form of the basic stem (that of the aorist): gemination is particularly frequent in stems of the form CCC and CCV; prefixing is typical of longer stems, but also of monoconsonantal stems. A combination of gemination and prefixing is very unusual (Kossmann 2002: 355–56). It has not gone unnoticed that the imperfective with gemination is very similar to the Akkadian imperfective.54 Rössler (1950: 467, 483–84; 1951: 366–69; 1952: 150) has equated it directly with iparrVs, arguing that these forms are genetically related and go back to an Afroasiatic imperfective. However, there is a wide consensus among berberologists that the imperfective is a diachronically secondary formation and that at an earlier stage the basic opposition was between the aorist and the perfective (D. Cohen 1984: 80–81; Chaker 1995: 55–57, 230–31; Kossmann 2002: 356–58, with earlier literature). This suggests that the Berber imperfective is originally a derived verbal stem that has penetrated into the tense/aspect system. Rössler (1951: 106) claims that this is not possible, because it is formed from all stems and has definite syntactic uses. However, this argument is only valid synchronically and does not say anything about its historical background, the more so because there is no doubt that the other marker, the prefix t(t)‑, also goes back to a derived stem, which is well attested over the entire Afroasiatic area (Kossmann 2002: 358–59). There is no reason, therefore, why the form with gemination should not have a similar origin. The Akkadian t‑Pf iptarVs and, as I am arguing here, iparrVs itself show that derived stems can become inflectional members of the basic stem. The historical background of the Berber imperfective with gemination cannot be determined on the basis of Berber evidence alone but can only be studied in a wider Afroasiatic context (Kossmann 2002: 364). It is, more specifically, unclear whether we should associate it with the Akkadian imperfective iparrVs (i.e., in my account with the derived pluractional stem *yiqattal‑) 54.  Kossmann (2001: 71–72) reconstructs the 3rd p. sg. masc. of the triradical verb in Proto-Berber as ̄ ăC (where v stands for a high vowel ĭ or ŭ). *yv-CăC

106

The Historical Background of iparrVs  4.4.

or with the D‑stem (assuming that we recognize any relationship at all). Two observations should be made in this context. First, there are no clear indications of the existence of the D‑stem in Afro­asiatic outside Semitic (see §11.6.1, pp. 280–282). If it did exist originally, the Berber languages have either lost it completely or they have conflated it with the Berber counterpart of the Proto-Semitic pluractional *yiqattal‑.55 Perhaps a detailed study of the history of the Berber verb will shed more light on this matter. Second, there is one important argument in favour of associating the Berber imperfective with gemination with *yiqattal‑: verbs denoting typical adjectival properties rather consistently form their imperfective by means of the prefix t(t)‑ rather than by gemination (see Prasse et al. 1998: 434–39, 448 for Tuareg, about the verb classes IV and XIII, which comprise stative verbs; Aspinion 1953: 272 for Tashelhit, and also Lumsden 2000: 202). If the Berber imperfective is in some way related to the D‑stem, we would expect these verbs to have a particular preference for using gemination, since in Semitic the D‑stem is typically associated with adjectives (see §11.6.2, pp. 282–287). In sum, if we assume that both the Berber imperfective with gemination and Akk iparrVs go back to the derived pluractional *yiqattal‑, which thereby proves its Afroasiatic ancestry, we can plausibly account for the origin of the former as a derived stem as well as for its similarity to the Akkadian imperfective. In that case, they have both undergone a parallel process of being incorporated into the basic system as an imperfective. Among the Cushitic languages, there is one that has an imperfective reported to be genetically related to iparrVs, Beja. Here, too, the issue is controversial.56 Beja has five imperfective categories that are markedly different from each other (Voigt 1988c: 395–98). One of these is characterized by an infixed -n- which in biliteral verbs comes before the first consonant, e.g., Pret áḍah, Impfv ánḍīh ‘to be fat’ (1st p. sg.), and in triliteral verbs before the second one, e.g., Pret ášbib, Impfv ášambīb ‘to look’ (1st p. sg.) (the examples come from Voigt 1988c: 396). There are two competing explanations of the imperfective forms. The first one takes them to be the reflex of an originally periphrastic construction consisting of an auxiliary verb containing n—which is also preserved independently—preceding a nominal form of the verb. This n became a prefix in the biliteral imperfective forms, but by an analogical process got incorporated before the middle consonant in the triliteral ones (Voigt 1988c: 381–82, with earlier literature). The second one, which was promoted by Rössler (1950) and Greenberg (1952: 6), explains the n‑infix as secondary nasalization of an original geminate and equates this imperfective type directly with the geminated imperfective of Akkadian and the imperfective of Berber (Voigt 1988c: 382–86). If this is correct, we must add Beja to the Berber languages and Akkadian as a third source providing evidence for the existence of a geminated imperfective in Afroasiatic. After discussing in detail the pros and cons of both theories, Voigt (1988b, 1988c) rejects the former and forcefully pleads for the latter, giving some strong arguments against the auxiliary verb hypothesis. I am not in a position to judge the issue and must leave a final judgement—if possible—to the 55.  The closest parallel to the Semitic D‑stem in Berber is presumably to be found in the Tuareg class IV verbs with adjectival meaning, many of which have gemination of the second consonant in the perfect (“parfait”), e.g., izwaġ ‘to be red’, perfect zăggaġ, imġar ‘to be big’, perfect măqqăr/măqqor ; see Prasse et al. 1998: 422; Heath 2005: 387–93; and Rössler 1952: 146–47. These forms may be parallel to adjectives with gemination in Semitic, which are the starting point of the development of the D‑stem (which is a denominal category of such adjectives; see §11.6.2, pp. 282–285). Of course, they do not directly point to the existence of a derived verbal stem parallel to the Semitic D‑stem; on the contrary, in Tuareg they have been incorporated into the paradigm of the basic stem as perfects, with a kind of resultative meaning (Prasse 1972/4: III 181–84, 193–96 [type c]). 56.  A detailed history of research can be found in Voigt 1988c. See also Zaborski 1994a: 236–37.

4.4.  The Historical Background of iparrVs

107

specialists of Beja. However, the important point is that the model advocated above with a basic and a pluractional imperfective in Proto-Semitic enables us to recognize a genetic relation between the Akkadian, Berber, and Beja imperfectives, while at the same time maintaining that Akk iparrVs is an innovation replacing an older Proto-Semitic Impfv *yiqtVlu. The only problem we face is that we have to assume that the development from derived pluractional imperfective to basic imperfective occurred independently in Akkadian, Berber, and Beja. I will elaborate on this in a wider context in the next section.

4.4.3.3.  Typological evidence There is abundant typological evidence for the frequent occurrence of present renewal—as I will henceforth call the phenomenon for the sake of convenience—across languages. In §1.2.2 (p. 4), I have quoted Kuryłowicz’s (1975: 104) classic formulation of this process. It is investigated from a historical and typological perspective by Bybee et al. (1994: 125–75), who discuss numerous examples of what they call progressives; in many languages from their sample that have a progressive, it has a transparent etymological background and thus a relatively recent origin. This is an indirect indication that renewal is a fairly common phenomenon. For the Semitic languages, D. Cohen (1984) collected a wealth of evidence for the continuous renewal of the West Semitic imperfective *yiqtVlu, ‑ūnV by various formal devices.57 In this section, I will adduce typological evidence to answer three more specific questions: (1) What can we say about the cause of the process and the source of the new category? (2) How likely is the occurrence of the Akkadian development from pluractional to present/imperfective? (3) Most importantly, how likely is it that this process occurred independently in several related languages rather than once in the proto-language? D. Cohen’s (1984) detailed account of present renewal in West Semitic demonstrates that it tends to have the same cause and very similar consequences. The cause is the tendency to introduce a form with the specific function of explicitly expressing what D. Cohen calls “concomitance,” i.e., that the event is taking place at the actual moment of speech (1984: 586–91 and passim). Initially, the new form is an optional, expressive alternative, but it has a tendency to replace the neutral form, until it becomes obligatory. This reduces the old form to secondary functions, such as the generic, the habitual and the historical present, and the future, if the old present also had future meaning (see also Kuryłowicz 1975: 104; Bybee et al. 1994: 140–44, 153–60; Haspelmath 1998: 36–41, 56). Subsequently, the new category may extend further to the secondary functions of the old form. The old form may then disappear altogether or may be preserved as a special verb form for even more secondary clause types, such as subordinate, nonindicative, and negative clauses. This is a classic instance of a grammaticalization process: the function of the new form develops from highly specific to more and more general, increases in frequency, and at the same time undergoes the pertinent formal changes of “morphologization” (Hopper and Traugott 2003: 140–59). The tendency to create more expressive modes of expression is a universal feature of language, and this particular manifestation of it is so common that it is questionable whether any particular reason is required for the present renewal to be set in motion.58 It is plausible, however, 57.  Later contributions include Gzella 2004: 201–3; 2006, and Rubin 2005: 129–52. For the same process in other branches of Afroasiatic, see Sasse 1981: 207 for Cushitic and Wolff 1979 (see the quotation at the end of this section) and 2001 for Chadic. 58.  See also Hopper and Traugott 2003: 124: “Rather than replace a lost or almost lost distinction, newly innovated forms compete with older ones because they are felt to be more expressive than what was available before. This competition allows, even encourages, the recession or loss of older forms.”

108

The Historical Background of iparrVs  4.4.

that a more concrete cause may be the fact that at a particular stage of a language the formal contrast between the present/imperfective and its main contrasting category (the past or the perfective) was felt to be marked insufficiently, for instance as a result of phonological changes, such as the loss of final vowels. A case in point is the Berber imperfective discussed in the previous section. Chaker (1995: 230) argues that its penetration into the tense/aspect system of Berber alongside the aorist and the perfective is caused not only by “la tendance naturelle à l’insistance et à l’emphase,” but also by the loss of the distinctiveness of aorist and perfective in an important class of verbs after the partial or complete merger of short vowels. A second instance of a similar cause is the Geʿez imperfective yəqattəl, as I will argue in §4.6.1 (pp. 117–123). This may also have played a role in Akkadian, as I suggested in §4.4.2, especially because the original pluractional *yiqattal‑ only replaced the G‑stem *yiqtVlu, ‑ūnV in the imperfective. The second question concerns the likelihood of a basic present/imperfective developing out of a category that originally expressed notions such as verbal plurality and intensity. There seems to be a fair amount of typological support for such a development. Bybee et al. (1994: 166–74) adduce instances of a development from iterative/frequentative to habitual, from there to progressive and ultimately to imperfective;59 most of their instances concern forms with reduplication. In the Semitic languages, this type of development is not very well represented. Apart from Akkadian iparrVs, it is only Ethiopian Semitic that shows something comparable: the Geʿez imperfective yəqattəl—but it is questionable whether this is a good parallel (see §4.6.1 on the Geʿez form). In other branches of Afroasiatic, however, we find important parallels, apart from the forms in Berber and Beja mentioned in the previous section. Wolff (1977, 1979, 2001) argues that in Chadic languages there is widespread use of original pluractional categories to renew the basic imperfective. He demonstrates that gemination and infixation of a, which are primarily used as plural markers both in the noun and in the verb, have further developed into aspect markers in some individual languages, basically for the expression of a kind of imperfective. To what extent similar phenomena also occur in Cushitic (apart from Beja) is not quite clear to me. Zaborski (1975: 165) regards it as dubious whether intensive and plural verb forms are used for the renewal of the imperfective in Cushitic, but Sasse (1981: 173) reports that the Cushitic language Dasenech has used a frequentative stem for the creation of a new present category. In conclusion, then, the mechanism that Akkadian used to renew its imperfective has typological parallels in other branches of Afroasiatic and beyond, even though it may be more or less unique in Semitic and perhaps generally less common than other means of present renewal.60 The third question is by far the most important. The development I have argued for Akkadian in the preceding part of this chapter presupposes the occurrence of the same process in at least two and possibly three languages separately: Akkadian, Berber, and Beja, and not in their common ancestor, since it had not yet occurred in Proto-Semitic, as is clear from the situation in Central Semitic (and also in South Semitic, as I will argue below). Is it not much simpler to assume that it happened only once in the proto-language? This is a classic problem in historical linguistics.61 The likelihood of the first option crucially depends on the probability of the process—in 59.  See also Retsö 1989: 162; Givón 1991: 305. 60.  It is interesting to speculate on the background of its geographical distribution. Within Afroasiatic, this means of present renewal may have been more typical of the languages located (at the present moment) in Africa than in the Asiatic Near East, especially if we assume that its use in the Semitic languages of Ethiopia is due to areal influence of neighbouring Chadic (and perhaps Cushitic) languages. If this is correct, Akkadian is of course a glaring exception. Does this point to a very early period of contiguity between Akkadian and the African branches of Afroasiatic? 61.  See, among others, Meillet 1948a: 43; D. Cohen 1984: 106; and Harrison 2003: 232–39.

4.5.  From Proto-Semitic *yiqattal‑ to Akkadian iparrVs

109

other words, on the extent to which it is a natural development in the history of a language. In the light of the ubiquity of present renewal in Semitic, as demonstrated by D. Cohen (1984), and in other branches of Afroasiatic, there can be no doubt about its naturalness. Another question is to what extent these processes are independent of each other. On the one hand, the entire range of the Semitic languages (or at least West Semitic) can safely be regarded as a single linguistic area. To this extent, the parallel developments are doubtless not quite independent of each other. This is fairly obvious, for instance, for the parallels between Hebrew and Aramaic in the predicative use of the present participle and among modern Arabic dialects in the use of particles to renew the imperfective. Outside Semitic, this also applies to the strengthening of the imperfective by means of particles in almost all Berber languages (Chaker 1995: 55–62) and to the use of pluractional forms in Chadic for the same purpose. On the other hand, the large variety in the formal means of renewal shows that the inspiration may have come from areal influence but that the actual realization was independent in different languages and that the process started afresh in many different places.62 The process in question is attested or can be reconstructed independently for so many Afroasiatic languages that we may speak of a genuine drift, as Wolff (1979: 169) does with regard to the Chadic development mentioned above: [W]e could very tentatively assume that the Proto-Afroasiatic dialect cluster shared a “drift” towards integrating verbal plurals, which all of the dialects seem to have possessed, into their AUX-systems – based on the fact, that verbal plurals when they are used to indicate frequentative/repetitive/ habitual action have strong imperfective connotations (“Iterativity”).

In sum, a definitive answer to the question “how likely is it that the rise of a geminated basic imperfective *yiqattal‑ has taken place independently in Akkadian, Berber, and Beja?” can obviously not be given, but there is no good reason to reject the possibility that it is the result of parallel innovations.

4.5.  From Proto-Semitic *yiqattal‑ to Akkadian iparrVs So far, I have referred to the derived Proto-Semitic imperfective as *yiqattal-, a form that is meant to be non-committal in several respects but that in fact conceals a number of problems. If we try to reconstruct the details of the prehistoric development from *yiqattal- to iparrVs, some difficulties arise that are not easily explained, although they do not seem serious enough to invalidate the scenario proposed here. In the next sections, I will give a more detailed account of this process and discuss the problems it raises. The main issues are, first, how *yiqattal- developed a variable vowel (§4.5.1); second, what the specific form was of the derived verbal stems of ProtoSemitic that corresponded to the G‑stem pluractional *yiqattal- (if they had any) (§4.5.2); third, to what extent the pluractional imperfective originally had a complete conjugation (§4.5.3).

4.5.1.  The development of a variable imperfective vowel The reconstruction of the Proto-Semitic pluractional *yiqattal‑ with a fixed stem vowel a is based on the fact that derived verbal stems tend to have a fixed vowel pattern63 and that a is 62.  Generally speaking, the kind of grammaticalization process discussed here is often subject to areal influence. A parallel may be the emergence of the have-perfects in European languages. Heine (1994: 56) observes that have-perfects are quite common in Europe but virtually absent in all other parts of the world, which clearly points to areal influence: the have-perfect in one language arose as a calque of that in a neighbouring language. 63.  The variable vowel in the Akkadian Gt‑, Gtn‑, N‑, and Ntn‑stems is likely to be an innovation; see §4.2 (p. 89).

110

From Proto-Semitic *yiqattal‑ to Akkadian iparrVs  4.5.

widespread in Afroasiatic as a marker of the imperfective and of plurality (Greenberg 1952: 7–8; Voigt 1987b: 343). Both functions coincide in *yiqattal‑. A concrete parallel to *yiqattal‑ may be found in the Berber imperfective, which is often characterized by a in addition to gemination or a prefixed t(t)‑ (see §4.4.3.2, pp. 105–106). In Cushitic, the basic aspectual opposition was also based on the contrast of imperfective a versus perfective i, but the imperfective forms reconstructed by Sasse (1980: 169–71) do not have gemination.64 For a as the imperfective marker of the Akkadian derived verbal stems, see §4.5.2. This suggests that the variable vowel of iparrVs is an innovation, caused by the gradual incorporation of *yiqattal‑ into the paradigm of the G‑stem. In this respect, the development of iparrVs is parallel to that of the t‑Pf iptarVs: as a Gt perfective, it doubtless had a fixed vowel (presumably i; see §14.4.1, p. 376), but as a t‑perfect it adopted the imperfective vowel: iparras § iptaras, ipaqqid § iptaqid, imaqqut § imtaqut (see §6.2, pp. 138–139). This implies that the vowel classes A/a, A/u, and A/i preserve the original situation, whereas the vowel classes I/i and U/u have replaced a in the imperfective with i and u, respectively. This presupposes a massive shift from iparras to iparris or iparrus in the preliterary period of Akkadian, since the latter two patterns comprise about two-thirds of all verbs. The occurrence of such a shift has indeed been proposed by several scholars, such as Kienast (1967: 71–72), Kuryłowicz (1972: 57–60), Voigt (1988a: 108), and Tropper (1998a: 19–20 with n. 41)), but the available evidence is rather scanty and mostly speculative.65 The following arguments can be adduced in favour of the replacement of *iparras by iparris or iparrus: 1. The changes in vowel class observable in the historical period (discussed in §3.5.3, pp. 75–81), especially the rather common shift from A/u to I/i and the incidental shift from A/u to U/u, point to a gradual expansion of isovocalic verbs at the cost of the originally anisovocalic ones and a concomitant reduction in the number of iparras imperfectives. This process may have started already in prehistoric times and be responsible for at least part of the iparris and iparrus imperfectives we already find in our earliest sources. 2. A few I/i verbs actually show an imperfective with a in Sargonic Akkadian, which in later dialects is replaced by i : • nadānu ‘to give’: SAk Impfv inaddan, Pfv iddin, Bab inaddin, iddin (see §16.4.3, pp. 472–474, for details) • bašû ‘to exist, be present’: SAk Impfv yibaθθē < *yibaθθay, Pfv yibθī, Bab ibaššī, ibšī

64.  See also Zaborski 1975: 164; Hetzron 1980: 39; D. Cohen 1984: 88–102; Voigt 1985. 65.  Kuryłowicz (1972: 57–60) has argued that iparras was specific to transitive verbs and that intransitive verbs had iparris or iparrus from the outset. This would greatly reduce the number of verbs that must have shifted (mainly the transitive I/i verbs). However, vowel alternation on the basis of transitivity (or any other semantic or syntactic factor) is typical of basic categories and does not seem to occur anywhere in derived verbal stems in Semitic. Kuryłowicz’s reconstruction is related to his claim that iparrVs arose through the verbalization of the agent nouns PaRRă/āS and PaRRiS by means of prefixing a person marker: zabbilum ‘always carrying’ > *yi-zabbil ‘he always carries’ (1972: 57). This has also been argued by others, e.g., Klingenheben (1956: 249–50). It is true that agent nouns with gemination of R2 are as old as the pluractional imperfective, since at least QaTTāL can be reconstructed to Afroasiatic on the basis of Semitic and Berber (Kienast 2001: 551). It seems not very likely, however, that the pluractional imperfective was derived from them: first, because agent nouns are typically deverbal, so that it is far more plausible that the PaRRă/āS and PaRRiS forms are derived from a verbal form with gemination than vice versa (so also Rössler 1950: 477); second, there are no agent nouns with the pattern PaRRuS—which only comprises (verbal) adjectives—so that the numerous iparrus imperfectives are still to be explained as secondary.

4.5.  From Proto-Semitic *yiqattal‑ to Akkadian iparrVs

111

• qabû ‘to say, tell’: SAk Impfv yiqabbē ‘he says’ < *yiqabbay, Pfv yibqī, Bab iqabbī – iqbī (see §16.7.2.1, pp. 499–500, for the latter two verbs) Note that ibaššī and iqabbī also occur as such in Assyrian, where ay becomes ē. This rules out a purely phonological change of ay to ī. To what extent these verbs are representative of the III/voc verbs of the I/i class or even the I/i class as a whole is impossible to say. 3. The quadriradical verbs of the nabalkutu group also replaced a by i in the imperfective during the historical period: they tend to have A/i apophony in Old Babylonian (Impfv ibbalakkat, Pfv ibbalkit ), but I/i in Standard Babylonian (Impfv ibbalakkit, Pfv ibbalkit ); see §12.5 (pp. 307–311) for details. The question is whether this is an aftermath of the same shift in the triradical verb in prehistoric times or whether it is a completely independent development specific to the quadriradical verbs. 4. As noted in §3.5.2.3 (p. 74), the III/voc verbs of the U/u class that are atypical because they are transitive can plausibly be explained as original A/u verbs that have become U/u as a result of the change aw > ī, e.g., from kasû ‘to bind’: Impfv ikassū < *yikassaw alongside Pfv iksū. 5. More speculative is the possibility that several Akkadian A/u verbs that correspond to Arabic verbs with i in the imperfective may go back to original A/i verbs, in which i has become u under the influence of a neighbouring labial (Frolova 2003: 85–86; see also Kuryłowicz 1972: 59). Such verbs include, apart from some less reliable instances: • • • • • • • • • • • •

ḫabābu ‘to caress’ (Akk iḫbub, but Ar yaḥibbu ‘to love’) kabāsu ‘to trample’ (Akk ikbus, but Ar yakbisu ‘to make even, fill’) kasāpu ‘to break into pieces’ (iksup vs. yaksifu) lapātu ‘to touch’ (ilput vs. yalfitu) napālu ‘to make a supplementary payment’ (ippul vs. yanfilu) našāpu ‘to winnow’ (iššup vs. yansifu) parāsu ‘to sever, decide’ (iprus vs. yafrisu) qalāpu ‘to peel, skin’ (iqlup vs. yaqlifu) qatāpu ‘to pluck’ (iqtup vs. yaqṭifu) sapānu ‘to level, devastate’ (ispun vs. yasfinu) ṣarāpu ‘to refine (metal)’ (iṣrup vs. yaṣrifu) šapāru ‘to send, order’ (išpur vs. yasfiru ‘to chase, remove’).66

The scale of the required shift of iparras to iparri/us may perhaps be reduced by assuming that in adjectival verbs, which almost all have I/i or U/u (see §§3.3.2–3.3.3, pp. 58–66), the iparri/ us imperfectives do not go back to *yiqattal‑ directly but only emerged when the geminated imperfective was fully established as an inflectional member of the verbal paradigm in fientive verbs.67 Typological evidence suggests that if a new imperfective develops from an originally pluractional category, this process will start in verbs for which plurality of action is most relevant, i.e., in punctual telic verbs to express frequentativity and in atelic activity verbs to express durativity (Sasse 1991: 43). It is therefore plausible that originally PSem *yiqattal‑ was typically associated with fientive verbs.68 In adjectival verbs, the new imperfective may have appeared 66.  In several of these verbs, Hebrew sides with Akkadian in having o (< u) as root vowel (e.g., yikboš ≈ ikbus, yilpot ≈ ilput, yiqṭop̄ ≈ iqtup, yiṣrop̄ ≈ iṣrup, yišpor ≈ išpur), but since there is a large-scale shift toward o in Hebrew transitive verbs, this says little or nothing about the original root vowel. 67.  So Voigt 1988a: 115–16. 68.  Also in historical Akkadian, pluractional (Gtn) forms of adjectival verbs are rather uncommon.

112

From Proto-Semitic *yiqattal‑ to Akkadian iparrVs  4.5.

in a later stage and simply have adopted the root vowel, e.g., from kabātu (I/i): *yikbit(u) ‘he/it becomes/became heavy’ § *yikabbit. The new imperfective vowel in iparris and iparrus is always identical to the inherited root vowel and thus to the vowel of the original imperfective *yiqtilu, ‑ūnV in the I/i class and *yiqtulu, ‑ūnV in the U/u class. This suggests that in verbs that did have *yiqattal‑ initially, the original imperfective imposed its vowel on the pluractional imperfective during the transitional period in which the two forms competed: *yiprisu § *yiparras became *yiprisu § *yiparris and *yiprusu § *yiparras became *yiprusu § *yiparrus (mainly in intransitive verbs).69 After the new imperfective had established itself as the basic form of the verbal paradigm and had relegated *yiprVsu to subordinate clauses, the derivational relationship was reversed and the historical relationship imperfective § perfective with the five vowel classes came into being. The existence of such a transitional period is also presupposed by the historical paradigm of the I/voc verbs, which will be discussed in detail in §§17.6.1–17.6.2 (pp. 537–546). Let it suffice to state here that the long vowel in the imperfective of these verbs (āmmar ‘I see’ from amāru, ērrab ‘he enters’ [Ass] from erābu), which cannot be explained from a regular vowel contraction rule (see Kouwenberg 2003–4a: 94–98), is introduced by analogy with forms where the guttural had been dropped much earlier since it was syllable-final, especially older imperfective forms such as *yīmuru. The presence of a long vowel in the basic forms triggered the same process in the derived pluractional forms, giving rise to the historical form īmmar. This illustrates how the old imperfective may have influenced the form of *yiqattal‑ pluractionals during the process of their incorporation in the basic stem.

4.5.2.  The pluractional of the derived verbal stems and the quadriradical verbs In principle, the formal aspects of verb types other than the strong triradical verb are discussed in later chapters together with the rest of their paradigm, but an exception has to be made for the imperfective forms of the derived verbal stems and the quadriradical verbs. The rise of the historical imperfective forms of these verb types is the outcome of a single process under the influence of the geminated imperfective of the G‑stem. Therefore, they can best be discussed together in the context of this process. Just as in the G‑stem, the imperfective is always the marked member of the imperfective– perfective opposition. The derived stems have three different markers: gemination of R2, a/i apophony, and infixing of -na-. They may occur alone or in various combinations, and some weak verbs have all three—e.g., uštanakkal ‘he repeatedly causes to eat’, the Štn imperfective of akālu ‘to eat’ (Pfv uštakkil; see §17.6.3.3, pp. 549–550). Table 4.4 shows the imperfective of the derived verbal stems of the strong verb with the corresponding perfective in smaller print; Table 4.5 shows that of the quadriradical verbs, exemplified by nabalkutu ‘to cross’. It is precisely the complexity of imperfective marking in these verb types—caused by the competition of different markers and by the tendency to create an unambiguous distinction between imperfective and perfective—that gives us the clues necessary to reconstruct their historical background. Gemination and apophony are the oldest markers, dating at least from the Proto-Semitic period, whereas ‑na‑ is an Akkadian innovation. There are good reasons to assume that gemination was initially specific to the G‑stem and the Gt‑stem and a/i apophony to the other derived verbal stems and the quadriradical verbs (see below). However, as the marker of the basic stem, gemination spread secondarily to all imperfective forms where it was phonologically possible without

69.  For this kind of “overlap,” see Heine 1993: 48–53.

4.5.  From Proto-Semitic *yiqattal‑ to Akkadian iparrVs

G

primary stems (∅)

secondary stems (-t-)

tertiary stems (‑tan-)

iparrVs

iptarrVs

iptanarrVs

   iprVs

N

ipparrVs    ipparis

Š

ušapras

   iptarVs

  iptarrVs

ittanaprVs

(see §14.5.4, pp. 391–392)

  ittaprVs

uštap(ar)ras    ušapris

D

113

uparras

uštanapras    uštapris

  uštapris

uptarras    uparris

uptanarras    uptarris

  uptarris

Table 4.4: The imperfective of the derived verbal stems.

N N

Ntn

ibbalakkat

ittanablakkat ibbalkit

Š

ušbalakkat

ittablakkat

uštanablakkat ušbalkit

uštablakkat

Table 4.5: The imperfective of the quadriradical verbs.

disrupting important associations between paradigms (Knudsen 1984/86: 237; Goldenberg 1994: 46), in addition to a/i apophony. Secondary introduction of gemination was phonologically possible if the position of R2 was occupied by a simple consonant or a cluster of two consonants. A simple consonant was geminated, e.g., in the Š imperfective of the I/voc and the I/w verbs: ušakkal ‘I cause to eat’ from akālu Š and ušabbal (Bab) ‘I cause to bring’ from wabālu Š. The corresponding strong form does not have gemination (ušapras), nor does the Š perfective (ušākil, ušābil, strong ušapris).70 This means that gemination can only be caused by the corresponding G Impfv iparrVs, which caused an original *ušākal (< *ušaʾkal ) and *ušābal (replacing *ušūbal < *ušawbal ) to adopt gemination, presumably with shortening of the long vowel: ušakkal, ušabbal.71 For a similar process in the corresponding Štn imperfective forms uštanakkal and uštanabbal (Bab), see §17.6.3.3 (pp. 549–550). Gemination also penetrated into the N Impfv ipparras, which later adopted the imperfective vowel, replacing a with i or u in the I‑verbs and the U-verbs (see §12.2.1, pp. 289–290). If a cluster occupied the position of the second radical, the cluster was dissolved by an epenthetic vowel to allow its second member to be geminated: e.g., uštapras § *uštapVras § uštaparras in the Št2‑stem, and *ibbalkat § *ibbalVkat § ibbalakkat in the quadriradical verbs. 70.  This shows that Edzard’s proposal (1996: 24) to regard these forms as influenced by the Š‑stem of I/n verbs (Impfv ušaddan, Pret ušaddin, etc.) is incorrect; see also Tropper 1998a: 16. 71.  This explanation was also proposed by Knudsen (1984/86: 233–34). Other accounts of these forms were given by Steiner (1981), Voigt (1987a), and Tropper (1997a: 190–93); they will be discussed in the context of the tan-stems (§14.7.6, pp. 431–433). As Knudsen (1984/86: 234) points out, this process presupposes the previous loss of syllable-final ʾ in *ušaʾkal.

114

From Proto-Semitic *yiqattal‑ to Akkadian iparrVs  4.5.

This process is based on the model of the G‑stem, where the same happens (although it has a quite different historical background): uštapras § uštaparras ≈ iprVs § iparrVs, where the relevant part of the word is underlined (cf. §4.6.1 below for the same process in Geʿez).72 There is one major area in which gemination did not penetrate: the D‑stem, the Š‑stem, and their detransitive derivations Dt and Št1. This is only one of the numerous features by which these stems stand apart from the rest of the verbal stems and constitute a separate system of their own (see §10.3, p. 247). For D and Dt, the reason is phonological: gemination does not penetrate into forms that already have gemination. This is most clearly shown by the quadriradical verbs, where the nabalkutu type shows imperfective gemination (ibbalakkat ), but the naparruru type does not (ipparrar, not **ippararrar) (see §12.3, p. 302, and §12.5, p. 309, respectively). Therefore, gemination could not penetrate into the D Impfv uparras and the Dt Impfv uptarras. This does not apply, however, to the Š and Št1 imperfectives ušapras and uštapras. Here, gemination is phonologically possible by dissolving the cluster: ušapras § **ušaparras > ušparras after vowel syncope,73 and uštapras § uštaparras. Both forms actually exist, but with a different function: ušparras is known as the imperfective of the ŠD‑stem, which will be discussed in §13.3 (pp. 334–337), and uštaparras is the imperfective of the Št2‑stem. The reason that ušapras and uštapras did not get gemination is that this would disrupt the parallelism with the D‑stem and the Dt‑stem, on which the Š‑stem and the Št1‑stem are strongly dependent in form and in function (see §13.2.1, pp. 324–325, and §14.5.2, p. 386).74 This can be graphically represented as follows: D uparras

§

Dt uptarras

Š ušapras

§

Št1 uštapras

•

•

This is confirmed by the fact that the Št2‑stem, which is not dependent on any other derived stem (see §14.6.2.2, pp. 404–407), did introduce gemination and so acquired the imperfective uštaparras.75 The third imperfective marker, the infix ‑na‑, is restricted to the tan‑stems. It is the only marker in the Gtn‑ and the Ntn‑stem and was added to a/i apophony in the Dtn‑ and the Štn‑stems. It is an Akkadian innovation connected with the rise of the tan‑stems and will be discussed in detail in that context (§14.7.6, pp. 431–437). In historical Akkadian, all primary stems have a corresponding tan‑stem with pluractional function. This is a consequence of the tendency in the Semitic verbal system to extend formal distinctions in the basic stem to the derived stems, although the resulting stems often have an 72.  Note that the inversion of the correct analogical formula (which would be imperfective § perfective) is only apparent: strictly speaking, the rise of the new imperfective forms is not by analogy with the perfective but by analogy with the older imperfective category, which had the same inflectional stem as the perfective (the Proto-Semitic imperfective *yiqtVlu). It is actually this form that is historically the first member of the analogical proportion, as shown in §4.5.1 (p. 112). 73.  The development *ušapárras > *ušáparras > ušapras proposed by Tropper (1997a: 189) is phonologically impossible: the first form is subject to the vowel syncope rule and can only be realized as ušparras. Moreover, there is no evidence at all that in Akkadian a shift of accent can be made responsible for changes in the form of a word, apart from the vowel syncope rule itself. 74.  Similarly Goldenberg 1994: 46. 75.  Another reason why the Št2‑stem uštaparras developed gemination is that it is derived from a quadri­ literal base, namely, the deverbal noun taPRvS(t) (Voigt 1988a: 152), as I will argue in §14.6.2.2 (pp. 404– 411), and is thus associated with the imperfectives ibbalakkat and ušbalakkat of the quadriradical verbs.

4.5.  From Proto-Semitic *yiqattal‑ to Akkadian iparrVs

115

incomplete paradigm.76 The existence of *yiqattal‑ as derived pluractional of the basic stem, therefore, suggests that the derived stems that can be reconstructed for Proto-Semitic (see §18.3.2, pp. 591–593) also had a secondary derived stem with pluractional function. Its marker may have been the stem vowel a, contrasting with the stem vowel i in the (relatively) basic stem, as presented in Table 4.6 with the relevant forms of the Gt‑stem, the D‑stem, and the Š‑stem: Impfv

G

Gt

D

Š

basic

*yiqtVlu

*yiqtatilu

*yuqattilu

*yušaqtilu

pluract.

*yiqattal-

*yiqtattal-

*yuqattal-

*yušaqtal-

Table 4.6: The original pluractional imperfective of the derived stems

The basic imperfective with the vowel i is preserved as such in the derived stems of Arabic; it differed from the perfective only in its ending, just as in the G‑stem: D Impfv *yuqattilu vs. Pfv *yuqattil ≈ G *yiqtVlu vs. *yiqtVl. In Akkadian, after the basic Impfv *yiqtVlu was replaced by the pluractional imperfective in the basic stem, the same happened in the derived stems, e.g., in the D‑stem: *yuqattal‑ instead of *yuqattilu. West Semitic has discarded the secondary derived forms with the stem vowel a together with the basic form *yiqattal‑, since just as new distinctions in the basic stem tend to be copied in the derived stems, the loss of such distinctions also tends to lead to their loss in the derived stems.77 It is possible, however, that Modern South Arabian preserves traces of an original a in the imperfective of the causative stem (see §4.6.2, p. 125). The reconstructed forms *yuqattal-, *yušaqtal-, etc., are obviously inspired by the historical forms of the D and Š imperfective uparras and ušapras, which in this way find their natural (but circular) explanation, even though they are ultimately based on the Afroasiatic a as a marker of imperfective and plurality. The closest parallels are found in Berber, where the derived stems, such as the causative, show imperfective forms with a contrasting with aorist forms with ə, presumably from i, such as Tashelhit ssaγ   wad – ssaγ   wd (i.e., [ssaγ   wəd ]) ‘to stand (sth.) upright’ (Kossmann 2002: 358–59), and Tuareg sâkrâs – səkrəs ‘to cause to build’ (Prasse 1972/4: III 87; Heath 2005: 447; cf. also Rössler 1950: 485 and Willms 1972: 127–29). Rössler (1951: 106) cites Tuareg isăfras versus isəfrəs (his transcription) ‘he causes/caused to cut’ as a striking commonality with Akk ušapras/ušapris.

4.5.3.  The ending(s) of Proto-Semitic *yiqattal‑ If we reconstruct *yiqattal- as a derived verbal stem in Proto-Semitic on the model of the derived stems in the historical languages, we should deck it out with a complete paradigm 76.  Apart from Akkadian, the system of the verbal stems in Geʿez is a good example of this: after the verbal stems with geminated R2 (Stem I/2) and with a long vowel (Stem I/3) had become independent from the simple stem (I/1), they acquired the same range of derived stems as the latter; see, for instance, D. Cohen 1984: 61–62. For incomplete paradigms in derived categories, see also Edzard 1996: 17–18. 77.  The homonymous passive imperfective/jussive forms of Arabic, such as Stem II yuqattal(u) and Stem IV yuqtal(u) have nothing to do with these pluractional forms. They represent an independent development that accidentally had the same outcome as the new Akkadian imperfective. The Arabic forms are analogical extensions of the passive imperfective yuqtalu of the basic stem and can only have emerged after the development of the apophonic passive at some stage of Central Semitic or perhaps West Semitic (Huehnergard 2005b: 182). However, these Arabic forms are a good illustration of the principle invoked here— that in Semitic languages morphosyntactic distinctions in the basic stem tend to spread to the derived stems.

From Proto-Semitic *yiqattal‑ to Akkadian iparrVs  4.5.

116

comprising more or less the same forms as the basic stem *yiqtVlu, ‑ūnV. Because derived stems tend to have a predictable vowel pattern, it is not difficult to envisage what such a paradigm (if it existed) may have looked like for the pluractional *yiqattal‑, see Table 4.7:78 G‑stem

GPL

Impfv

*yiqtVlu

*yiqattalu

Pfv

*yiqtVl

*yiqattal

Imp

*q(V)tVl

*qattil

Inf

*qatāl- (e.g.)

*qattVl-

PPartc

*qatVl-

(*qattVl-)

PrPartc

*qātil-

*muqattil-

Table 4.7: The Proto-Semitic G and GPL stems.

It is questionable, however, whether this is a plausible reconstruction. There is only one direct parallel to a pluractional derived stem in the Semitic languages, namely, the Akkadian tan‑stems, which are the direct successors of *yiqattal‑ and the secondary pluractional stems derived from it. In several respects, the paradigm of the tan‑stems is significantly different from that of the other derived stems. First, except for the Gtn‑stem, only the imperfective is different in form from the corresponding t‑stems. Second, the imperfective of the tan‑stems is by far the most frequent form; the other forms are significantly less common or even hardly exist at all. Third, there are good reasons to assume that the formal distinction between the imperfective and the perfective of the tan‑stems (e.g., Gtn iptanarrVs vs. iptarrVs) is secondary and that the imperfective form is an innovation; see further §14.7.6 (pp. 431–437). A similar state of affairs may apply to the Proto-Semitic GPL‑stem. First of all, it may have lacked (part of) the non-finite forms. Second, the non-prefix forms and the present participle may have been identical to those of the D‑stem, because the only consistent difference between GPL and D concerns the prefix vowel and the stem vowel, and the latter may safely be assumed to conform to the overall vowel pattern of the derived stems. The same applies a fortiori to the pluractional of the D‑stem. Table 4.8 shows my reconstruction of these two stems; see §11.6.1 (pp. 280–282) for more details. D‑stem

DPL‑stem

Impfv

*yuqattilu

*yuqattalu

Pfv

*yuqattil

*yuqattal

Imp

*qattil

*qattil ?

Inf

*qattVl‑

*qattVl‑ ?

PPartc

*qattVl‑

*qattVl‑ ?

PrPartc

*muqattil‑

*muqattil‑ ?

Table 4.8: The Proto-Semitic D and DPL stems.

78.  The reconstruction of the basic stem paradigm will be motivated in greater detail in chap. 18.

4.6.  Akkadian iparrVs and the South Semitic Imperfective

117

The partial overlap in form between the GPL‑stem and the D‑stem is not a serious drawback, however, in view of the functional similarity between them (in particular in transitive verbs; see §11.5, p. 279), and even less serious when we recall that in historical Akkadian the paradigm of the tan‑stems is on many points identical to that of the t‑stems (see §14.7.6, p. 431). The greatest problem is created by the differentiation of imperfective and perfective. There is no direct reflex of *yiqattalu, -ūnV in Akkadian: the historical imperfective is simply iparrVs, and iparrVsu, -ūni only occurs as a subjunctive. The disappearance of the suffix ‑u, ‑ūnV in the indicative must be a consequence of its reanalysis as a marker of subordination. However, it is also conceivable that *yiqattal, ‑ū—i.e., the form corresponding to the perfective in other verbal stems—was unspecified for tense/aspect in the pluractional stems. This has the advantage of associating *yiqattal, ‑ū directly with iparrVs, whereas the existence of an imperfective *yiqattalu, ‑ūnV makes the restructuring of ‑u, ‑ūnV as a marker of subordination a more complex process. These issues will be discussed in §9.3.3 (pp. 227–231). It does not seem possible to take a definitive position on this issue. As a working hypothesis for the rest of this study, I will assume that the pluractional stems were distinct in the imperfective and the perfective only, with the opposition Impfv *yiqattalu, ‑ūnV versus Pfv *yiqattal, ‑ū, as elsewhere in the verbal paradigm, while expressly leaving open the possibility that they were not formally distinct.79 Accordingly, I will henceforth speak of the GPL‑stem *yiqattalu.80

4.6.  Akkadian iparrVs and the South Semitic Imperfective 4.6.1.  iparrVs and yəqattəl A final issue to be discussed is the background of the South Semitic imperfective with gemination and its relationship to the Akkadian Impfv iparrVs, because it was the similarity between iparrVs and Geʿez yəqattəl that led Haupt (1878) to contest the Proto-Semitic status of the Arabic Impf yaqtVlu, ‑ūna and to advocate its replacement with the alleged common ancestor of iparrVs and yəqattəl. Two of the three branches of South Semitic have a G‑stem imperfective with gemination or one that is likely to have had gemination at some stage in the past: Ethiopian Semitic (represented here by Geʿez) and the Modern South Arabian (henceforth: MSA) languages (represented by Mehri).81 79.  The consequences of the historical development proposed here for the subgrouping of the older stages of Semitic will be discussed in §18.4 (pp. 595–598). 80.  The existence of this form is also assumed by Hetzron (1972: 452), who states that “there is good reason to believe that proto-Semitic once possessed a non-past (present-future, imperfect) conjugation of the following pattern. . . .” [followed by a paradigm of verb forms with gemination and the endings ‑u, ‑ūnV]. Since Hetzron assumes a basic conjugation of the type non-past *yaqattalu versus a past yaqtVl (translated into my notation), he is at a loss to explain the function of this ending: “It does not seem to have fulfilled any clear-cut function in proto-Semitic. It was a redundant element confined to an indicative nonpast stem. It may have been more functional in the derived verbal forms (. . .) where no stem-difference can be reconstructed with certainty for the different tenses and moods” (1972: 453 n. 2). The problem is solved if we regard *yaqattalu as a derived stem, with ‑u, ‑ūnV as the imperfective marker contrasting with ∅ in the perfective. 81.  The third branch of South Semitic, Epigraphic South Arabian (ESA), has a purely consonantal alphabet, which makes it difficult to reach definitive conclusions about anything related to vowel patterns, but specialists on ESA seem to agree with Nebes (1994a) and Stein (2003: 16–61) that ESA does not have an imperfective with gemination, even though this makes the subgrouping of the South Semitic languages rather problematic (Appleyard 1996: 209, 225).

118

Akkadian iparrVs and the South Semitic Imperfective   4.6.

Geʿez has an Impfv yəqattəl,82 and Mehri has yərūkəz ‘he puts upright’ (also spelled with ō), the long vowel of which can be equated with the geminate of yəqattəl, because as a rule the MSA languages have lost gemination of the second radical, both in the imperfective and in what used to be the D‑stem.83 The scenario with the double imperfective of Proto-Semitic advocated here seems to provide an easy solution for the South Semitic imperfective as well: we might simply argue that South Semitic replaced its original imperfective with the imperfective of the derived pluractional *yiqattalu, just as Akkadian did. Although this is not impossible, it is unlikely because of the systematic differences that exist between the Akkadian and the South Semitic forms in the stem vowel of the imperfective in the G‑stem and in the derived verbal stems. They become apparent if we consider the verbal paradigm of the South Semitic languages as a whole rather than the imperfective forms in isolation. I will argue, therefore, that we can achieve a more satisfactory account of the Geʿez forms if we assume that they have developed parallel to but independently from Akkadian. First of all, the Geʿez Impfv yəqattəl does not formally correspond to the historical form of Akk iparrVs with its variable vowel, nor to its prehistoric ancestor *yiqattalu. To start with the latter, since in Geʿez i and u have merged into ə but a remains unchanged, *yiqattalu would give **yəqattal.84 We can of course discard this as an unimportant detail, but in all verb forms that can safely be regarded as inherited from Proto-West Semitic or even Proto-Semitic, there is a fairly exact correspondence between the vowels of Geʿez and those of other (West) Semitic languages, in particular Arabic.85 The G‑stem jussive is either yəqtəl or yəqtal, forms that are equivalent to Ar yaqtu/il and yaqtal, respectively. In spite of some fluctuation between yəqtəl and yəqtal, most verbs with yəqtəl can be matched with Arabic yaqtulu or yaqtilu verbs, and most verbs with yəqtal with Arabic yaqtalu verbs. The same correspondence holds in the G‑stem imperative, which has the same vowel as the jussive. There is a similar correspondence between the Geʿez perfect qatala and Ar qatala on the one hand and Geʿez qatla < *qatəla and Ar qati/ula, on the other.

82.  The presence of gemination in this form is based on the traditional pronunciation of Geʿez; cf. Goldenberg 1977: 484–87, 1994: 47; Voigt 1990b. The debate about whether it is original or a secondary phenomenon seems to be decided in favour of the first option; see in particular Voigt 1990b. 83.  Cf. Greenberg 1952: 5; Voigt 1994: 297–301; Lonnet 1993: 70; and Appleyard 1996: 213. Leslau (1953: 166), however, argues that the original presence of gemination in these forms is not evident. D. Cohen (1984: 68–75) also explains the long vowel in a different way (but cf. Goldenberg’s [1977: 475–77; 1979] criticism). An important difference between Geʿez and the Modern South Arabian languages is that in the latter not all verbs have two prefix conjugations with different inflectional stems for the imperfective and the jussive. Transitive verbs have an apophonic passive/intransitive form, which uses the same form for both: the Mehri verb ṯəbūr ‘to break’, for instance has a passive/intransitive ṯībər, with yəṯbōr as imperfective and jussive (doubtless from qatila, yVqtal-; cf. Voigt 1994: 297–99). The same pattern occurs in some basically intransitive verbs, e.g., wīṣəl ‘to arrive, reach’, imperfective and jussive yəwṣōl, and in some weak verb patterns (1994: 298), but the exact state of affairs is difficult to extract from the available reference works on Mehri. It is unclear whether in this language group gemination was introduced in transitive verbs only and never penetrated to all verbs, as it did in Geʿez, or whether the absence of gemination in intransitive verbs is secondary. Appleyard (1996: 210–13) prefers the latter option. 84.  The fact that the prefix vowel has become ə is irrelevant, since Geʿez has generalized ə, except in the causative stems, presumably from i (whereas Arabic has generalized a); see Hasselbach 2004. 85.  For the Geʿez verb, see in particular Dillmann and Bezold 1907: 140–212; Tropper 2002: 87–136; and Rubio 2006: 124–26.

4.6.  Akkadian iparrVs and the South Semitic Imperfective

119

Second, there is also an exact correspondence in the stem vowel of the prefix conjugation(s) of the derived verbal stems: where Arabic has i, Geʿez has ə, but where Arabic has a, Geʿez also has a; cf. Table 4.9:86 Geʿez Impfv/Juss

ə~i

a~a

Arabic Impfv/Juss

Stem I/2

yəqēttəl/yəqattəl

≈ Stem II

yuqattil(u)

Stem I/3

yəqāttəl/yəqātəl

≈ Stem III

yuqātil(u)

Stem II/1

yāqattəl/yāqtəl

≈ Stem IV

yuqtil(u))

Stem IV/1

yāstaqattəl/yāstaqtəl

≈ Stem X

yastaqtil(u)

Stem III/2

yətqēttal/yətqattal

≈ Stem III

yataqattal(u)

Stem III/3

yətqāttal/yətqātal

≈ Stem VI

yataqātal(u)

Table 4.9: The stem vowels of derived stems in Geʿez and Arabic.

These instances illustrate the overall stability of the vowel patterns in the Geʿez verb: categories that are inherited from an earlier period usually preserve their original vowels. This is broadly confirmed by the MSA languages, although drastic phonological changes have obscured the original situation.87 The important thing is that the imperfective, such as Mehri yərū/ōkəz ‘he puts upright’, also has a fixed vowel ə, whereas the jussive has a variable vowel that tallies rather well with the corresponding vowel in Geʿez and Arabic, and this also applies to the variable vowel of the perfect. In transitive verbs, the Arabic pattern of jussive u or i versus perfect a (Ar yaqtu/ilu – qatala) can be reconstructed as the dominant pattern for the whole of South Semitic, and the same applies to jussive a versus perfect i (Ar yaqtalu – qatila) for intransitive verbs (Voigt 1994: 293–99). The stability of the vowels in inherited categories makes it difficult to equate yəqattəl with reconstructed *yiqattalu. If we prefer to compare it with the imperfective iparrVs in its historical form, the problem becomes even bigger: there is no conceivable reason why Geʿez would abandon the alternating stem vowel of a PSem **yiqattVlu, whereas it faithfully preserves all other inherited vowel alternations.88 Therefore, rather than assuming an idiosyncratic behaviour that is 86.  An exception is the Geʿez Stem III/1 yətqattal/yətqatal versus the Arabic Stem VIII yaqtatil(u). This is an additional indication that these stems have a different background, as I will argue in §14.4.2 (pp. 380–382). 87.  For (basically synchronic) descriptions of the MSA verb, see Bittner 1911, Johnstone 1975, 1987, and Simeone-Senelle 1997, 1998; for diachronic analyses, see Wagner 1993, Voigt 1994, and Appleyard 1996, 2002. In general, the verbal paradigm of the MSA languages stems from the same source as that of the languages of Ethiopia; cf. the pertinent remarks of Bittner (1911: 4–5), W. W. Müller (1964), Kienast (2001: 306–7), and Appleyard (2002: 405–6). 88.  Those who follow Haupt’s thesis about the genetic relationship between iparrVs and yəqattəl tend to dismiss this difference as unimportant. Landsberger (1926b: 970) calls it “unwesentlich”; Gensler (1997) and Voigt (2004: 49–50) ignore it; Rössler (1950: 504–5) and Kienast (2001: 228) attribute it to secondary levelling. This is unsatisfactory: why would levelling only affect the imperfective and not the jussive, imperative, and perfect? On the basis of the hierarchy in the verbal paradigm, we would rather expect the latter categories to be levelled. Aro (1964: 194 n. 1), on the other hand, correctly observes that the Geʿez state of affairs presupposes “eine etwas gewaltsame Umvokalisierung und Vereinheitlichung der Form.” In addition, M. Cohen (1953: 89–90) rejects the connection between iparrVs and yəqattəl because of the difference in vowel pattern.

120

Akkadian iparrVs and the South Semitic Imperfective   4.6.

hard to motivate on independent grounds, it seems far more plausible to regard the invariable ə in yəqattəl as an original feature and thereby dissociate it from both *yiqattalu and iparrVs. Fixed vowel patterns are typical of motivated forms, such as the derived stems, which do not distinguish vowel classes outside Akkadian. Of particular importance is the fact that the Geʿez imperfective is immune to the influence of neighbouring gutturals (Kuryłowicz 1972: 59): it has ə even if R2 and/or R3 are gutturals, although the other finite verb forms are sensitive to gutturals and take the vowel a (Tropper 2002: 110–14). This is a strong indication that yəqattəl is originally a derived verbal stem, and several authors have indeed claimed that it goes back to the D‑stem form *yuqattilu, which we may reconstruct for Proto-West Semitic on the basis of the Arabic Stem II Impfv yuqattilu.89 F. Rundgren, in particular, has argued for such a development in many publications, the “réemploi de l’intensif.”90 He relates it to another innovation of the Semitic languages of Ethiopia, namely, the loss of a grammatical relationship between the basic stem and the derived stems with gemination (Stem I/2) and with vowel lengthening (Stem I/3): their relationship is completely lexicalized, i.e., the two are used as variants of the basic stem or as separate lexemes.91 This made it possible to use the D imperfective *yuqattilu > yəqattəl for renewing the G‑stem imperfective after the latter had coincided in form with the jussive as a result of the loss of word-final ‑u. So this is one more instance of the penetration of a derived stem into the paradigm of the basic stem. The adherents of Haupt’s thesis have ignored rather than refuted Rundgren’s arguments,92 without offering a more convincing account of the fixed vowel of yəqattəl.93 The difference in background between iparrVs and yəqattəl is confirmed by the derived verbal stems.94 As we saw above, Akkadian primarily marks the imperfective by means of a/i apophony, sometimes secondarily strengthened by gemination. Geʿez, on the other hand, distinguishes the imperfective from the jussive only by means of gemination, and where a form already has gemination, it introduces a vowel ē in the first syllable of the imperfective stem.95 The stem vowel of imperfective and jussive is always the same; see by way of illustration the Geʿez column in Table 4.9 above. Only one of these procedures can go back to Proto-Semitic, and it is fairly clear 89.  And also to Proto-Semitic as a whole; see §11.6.1, pp. 280–282. 90.  For instance, in Rundgren 1955: 328–29, 1959a: 292–94, and 1963b: 64–68. I do not agree with Rundgren that the rise of iparrVs is a case of réemploi de l’intensif, but the term is fully appropriate for what happened in Geʿez. 91.  The réemploi did not lead to the loss of the D‑stem: it coexisted with the Impfv yəqattəl, and the D imperfective was differentiated by introducing ē (yəqēttəl). Sasse (1980: 173) mentions the case of the Cushitic language Dasenech as parallel to Akkadian: “auch im Dasenech ist der Frequentativstamm zur Bildung einer neuen Präsenskategorie verwendet worden und besteht trotzdem—wie im Akkadischen—als abgeleiteter Stamm weiter”. 92.  There was criticism by Voigt, however (1990b: 10–11; 2004: 39–40). His main objections are obviated by the scenario proposed here. Rundgren’s proposal is endorsed by Stempel (1999: 133). 93.  Recently, Hudson (2005) has argued that the geminate of yəqattəl in A-type verbs (i.e., Stem I/1, the basic verb) results from an analogical extension from B-type (i.e., I/2) verbs, which have gemination of R2 in their entire paradigm (2005: 201–2). Since the class of I/2 verbs goes back to the Proto-Semitic D‑stem, this is very similar to the development assumed here on the basis of Rundgren’s ideas. The difference is that Rundgren posits a réemploi of the corresponding D form *yuqattil(u) of the same verb, whereas Hudson assumes that *yiqtVlu is renewed by analogy with the geminated imperfectives of I/2 verbs in general. Especially significant is the fact that Hudson also assumes that the geminate of yəqattəl in the basic stem is secondary (2005: 204). 94.  Testen (1998a: 132 n. 10) also doubts the equation iparrVs – yəqattəl because of the discrepancies in the imperfective formation of the derived stems, such as uparras versus yəqēttəl. 95.  The source of ē is a matter of debate that need not concern us here; see Voigt 1990b: 6–11, with the comments of Gensler 1997: 236–37 n. 11.

4.6.  Akkadian iparrVs and the South Semitic Imperfective

121

that it is the Akkadian a/i apophony that does so96 because it has Afroasiatic backing, is difficult to explain as secondary, and may have survived in MSA, as I will argue in the next section. The Geʿez procedure can easily be explained as an innovation: when imperfective and jussive had coincided after the loss of word-final ‑u, the formal contrast was renewed by introducing gemination of R2 from the G‑stem, where it had emerged for the same reason through the replacement of the original imperfective by the former D‑stem imperfective. If the consonant that is to be geminated is part of a cluster, as in Stems II/1 (yāqtəl ) and IV/1 (yāstaqtəl ), the cluster is first dissolved by the insertion of a, in the same way as in the Akkadian Št2‑stem (uštaparras) and the quadriradical verbs (ibbalakkat); see §4.5.2 above (pp. 113–114). Furthermore, in Geʿez, it is the G‑stem (I/1) which provides the model: § yəqattəl

I/1

yəqtVl

(§ yəq–tVl)

II/1

yāqtəl

(§ yāq–tVl)

IV/1

yāstaqtəl

(§ yāstaq–tVl)

§ yāqattəl

§ yāstaqattəl

So in spite of the superficial similarity of these imperfectives to their Akkadian counterparts, they can be explained more plausibly as inner-Ethiopic innovations triggered by the introduction of gemination in the basic stem than as retentions from Proto-Semitic. This conclusion is important for the explanation of another type of Geʿez imperfective, which has been claimed to offer incontrovertible evidence for the three-stem system discussed in §4.4.1 (pp. 97–100). Gensler (1997) points to the striking similarity between the quadriradical Impfv yədanaggəḍ in Geʿez and the corresponding Akkadian Impfv ibbalakkat  97 and claims that it provides “a new argument against those who may still hesitate to accept the Geez/Akkadian tripartite tense/aspect system as representing the Proto-Semitic one” (1997: 255).98 Therefore, we have to discuss Gensler’s argument in some detail. The forms involved are shown in Table 4.10. For reasons that will be become clear later on, it includes not only the quadriradical verbs of the dangaḍa type but also the quadriradical verb type of Arabic that follows the paradigm of the D‑stem, the quinqueradical verbs of Geʿez, and both types of verbs from MSA, represented by Mehri. The categories involved are the imperfective, perfective/jussive, and stative/perfect: root IV-rad

V-rad

Juss ≈ Pfv

Impfv

Perf ≈ Stat

Geʿez

yədangəḍ

yədanaggəḍ

dangaḍa

Mehri

yəkárbəl

yəkərbōl

karbəl

Arabic

yutarjim

yutarjimu

tarjama

Akk

ibbalkit

ibbalakkat

nabalkut

Geʿez

yəngargər

yəngaraggər

ʾangargara

Mehri

yənqárbəṭ

yənqərbōṭ

ənqərbōṭ

Table 4.10:  Quadri-   and quinqueradical verbs in Akkadian and South Semitic. 96.  So also Greenberg 1952: 5–6. 97.  For the quadriradical verbs, Geʿez dangaḍa ‘to be upset’, Ar tarjama ‘to translate’, Mehri kárbəl ‘to crawl on the knees’ (Johnstone 1987: 213), and Akk nabalkutu ‘to cross over’ (see §12.5, pp. 307–314) will serve as examples. For the quinqueradical verbs (cf. Tropper 2002: 134–36), I will use Geʿez ʾangargara ‘to wallow, roll’ and Mehri ənqərbōṭ ‘to be curled, wrinkled’ (Johnstone 1987: 234). 98.  For an earlier discussion, see von Soden 1987: 564.

122

Akkadian iparrVs and the South Semitic Imperfective   4.6.

First, I will focus on the similarity between yədanaggəḍ and ibbalakkat. Gensler describes these forms as “a near-exact match (ignoring derivational prefixes)” (1997: 246) and specifies four points of detail: the added vowel of the imperfective is specifically a, it serves to enable gemination, gemination comes at the same place, and in most relevant verbs R2 is a sonorant (n, l, r ) (1997: 246–47).99 He concludes that this “suggests the straightforward reconstruction to ProtoSemitic of this shared Geez/Akkadian pattern” and “rejects the opposite possibility: that the Geez and Akkadian patterns represent independent secondary innovations vis-à-vis some hypothetical earlier pattern” (1997: 247). However, none of these four points is specific enough to justify such a conclusion. The first three actually form a single phenomenon that follows from the procedure of imperfective formation on the model of the basic stem that I have described above. In other words, we can add yədangəḍ (§ yədangəḍ ) § yədanaggəḍ to the three categories included, just as I have included ibbalakkat in the account of the parallel forms in Akkadian in §4.5.2 (pp. 113–114). The fourth point, that R2 is usually a sonorant, indicates that this type of quadriradical verb is a common legacy from Proto-Semitic (which is not at issue, see below), but it does not say anything about the historical background of its actual conjugation. Gensler isolates the quadriradical verbs from the II/1 and IV/1 Stems and only mentions the latter in passing (1997: 231). However, these categories constitute a natural formal class of verbs whose antepenultimate and penultimate radicals form a cluster, which is of crucial importance for the formation of the imperfective.100 I argued above that the way the II/1 and IV/1 Stems form their imperfective does not go back to Proto-Semitic but is an innovation following the introduction of gemination in the basic stem. This implies that the Impfv yədanaggəḍ is an innovation as well. The strikingly similar Akkadian Impfv ibbalakkat—but note the vowel contrast in the final syllable, which Gensler ignores, parallel to that between yəqattəl and iparras—is the result of a parallel development: originally it contrasted with the perfective by means of a/i apophony (Impfv *yibbalkat vs. Pfv *yibbalkit ), but secondarily acquired gemination together with most of the other non-basic imperfective forms. As a result of the introduction of gemination to mark the imperfective, both Akkadian and Geʿez faced the “contradictory desideratum” (Gensler 1997: 233) that they had to include gemination but also conform to the dominant triradical pattern. Both achieved this in the same way— by sacrificing conformity to the triradical pattern, but not at a high price: a new conformity is obtained, namely to the patterns of (part of) the derived stems. As Gensler elegantly demonstrates (1997: 233–35), this is the most efficient way of solving the dilemma. It is quite possible that two languages, faced with the same challenge, independently come up with the same solution, if this solution is the most efficient one. Against the view that yədanaggəḍ and ibbalakkat represent a parallel development, Gensler argues that the “dominant structural principle” responsible for the rise of these forms cannot have worked independently in Akkadian and Geʿez, because it was already present in Proto-Semitic itself (1997: 249). This, however, is a perfect case of circularity. It leads directly to another point: Gensler’s claim is crucially dependent on the existence in Proto-Semitic of a geminated tri­radical (basic) imperfective: if it does not exist, there is no point in reconstructing a quadriradical im99.  Gensler does not discuss the difference in stem vowel, but see 1997: 247 n. 28 (where his remark that “this same position [i.e., the vowel of the final syllable of the stem—NJCK] is often variable in the triliteral inflection as well” is unjustified; see the beginning of this section. 100.  Therefore, it does not apply to the Gt‑stem (Stem III/1) and the stem with vowel lengthening (Stem I/3), where the penultimate consonant is intervocalic, nor to Stem I/2, where it is a geminate.

4.6.  Akkadian iparrVs and the South Semitic Imperfective

123

perfective of the same type. He offers no arguments for this claim, however; he simply takes the tripartite tense system as represented by Akkadian and Geʿez as given.101 Even by Gensler’s own methodological principles, the Geʿez and Akkadian imperfective forms are parallel developments. He states that “independent parallel genesis based on a triliteral model would be plausible only if it served somehow to create a more regular verb system (. . .), either (1) generalizing some dominant structural principle of the triliteral verbal system, and/or (2) conforming to some pre-existing triliteral inflectional pattern” (1997: 248). I have argued that the quadriradical imperfective does indeed do (1)—i.e., it generalizes gemination of the penultimate radical. It does not do (2), since that is impossible, but instead it conforms to the quadriradical pattern of the derived stems. This leads to the conclusion that the similarity between yədanaggəḍ and ibbalakkat is not the compelling kind of evidence Gensler argues it to be. Rather than providing a new argument for the tripartite tense/aspect system of Proto-Semitic, it does exactly the opposite: it suggests that Geʿez and Akkadian represent independent developments as an answer to the same challenge.102 This is not to say that the alternative option—that yədanaggəḍ is a survival of Proto-Semitic as a quadriradical counterpart to *yiqattalu—is impossible: one could argue that even though *yiqattalu was discarded, the corresponding quadriradical category remained in use and adopted ə as stem vowel by analogy with the triradical verb. This is an ad hoc explanation, however, which does not do justice to the systematic nature of the developments that have taken place both in Akkadian and in Geʿez as a consequence of the introduction of gemination in the basic imperfective.

4.6.2.  The quadriradical and quinqueradical verbs in South Semitic A more detailed study of the paradigm of the quadriradical and quinqueradical verbs in South Semitic supports the conclusion of the preceding section (see Table 4.10 for the relevant forms). The closest Geʿez counterpart to the Akkadian verbs of the nabalkutu type is not the dangaəḍa type but the small group of quinqueradicals with n as first radical, most of which consist of reduplicated biliteral elements, e.g., ʾangargara ‘to wallow, roll’ and ʾansōsawa ‘to walk about’ (Tropper 2002: 134–36). They are defined as quadriradical in Akkadian because the nasal has the status of a prefix (e.g., it is replaced by š in the Š‑stem; see §13.4.1, pp. 338–340). In Geʿez it is a stable part of the conjugation, although several of the verbs in question have variants without n (2002: 134).103 This should not detract us from the fact they are obviously related; there is even at least one cognate pair among them, which is exceptional for this kind of verb—namely, the abovementioned ʾangargara and Akk nagarruru with about the same meaning (see §12.6.1, pp. 319–320).104 Their imperfective is parallel to that of dangaəḍa—yāngaraggər—and can be explained in the same way. Its Akkadian counterpart, the imperfective iggarrar, cannot be directly compared, since it results from an inner-Akkadian development (see §12.3, p. 302). There 101.  He states, for instance, that “I will take it for granted that the Akkadian/Ethiopic three-way pattern, with gemination of the Present/Imperfect, is archaic and reconstructible to Proto-Semitic” (1997: 232; cf. also 249), and that it “is now generally accepted as reflecting a pattern reconstructible to Proto-Semitic” (1997: 230). I agree, but with the small change I have proposed above, that the form in question is not the basic imperfective, which makes a big difference. 102.  The same conclusion was drawn by D. Cohen (1984: 106–7) and T. D. Anderson (2000: 25). 103.  Several dictionaries, such as CDG, do not list them under n but under the second radical: e.g., ʾangaragara under grgr (CDG 202a). 104.  I will argue in §12.6.1 (pp. 319–320) that this type of quadriradical verb forms the Akkadian counterpart to the quadri­radical verbs of the structure C1C2C1C2 elsewhere in Semitic.

124

Akkadian iparrVs and the South Semitic Imperfective   4.6.

can be no doubt that the Akkadian quadriradical verbs and the Geʿez quinqueradicals with n as first radical are both inherited from the common proto-language, one of the many highly archaic shared retentions of these two branches of Semitic.105 With very few exceptions, Akkadian does not have quadriradical verbs without the prefix n‑.106 In Geʿez, the quinqueradical verbs of the ʾangargara type are a marginal group, numerically dwarfed by the mass of quadriradical verbs of the dangaḍa type. This suggests that the ʾangargara type is a residual group and that dangaḍa represents the productive way of conjugating quadriradicals.107 We can glimpse the contours of a historical development here. Originally, quadriradical elements needed a “conjugational prefix” n‑ to be conjugated as verbs. This stage is attested by the Akkadian nabalkutu group. In West Semitic, an alternative arose in which the two middle radicals were treated as a cluster equivalent to the geminate of the D‑stem. Hence, new quadriradical verbs were regularly conjugated on the model of the D‑stem (Gensler 1997: 229–30): Arabic tarjama – yutarjimu ≈ qattala – yuqattilu, Hebrew gilgẹl ‘to roll’, conjugated as a Piel verb, and Geʿez dangaḍa – *yədangəḍ (which survives as a jussive).108 This conjugation, which had the great advantages of being transparent and having a high type-frequency, gradually replaced the older one with the prefix n‑. The process has reached its completion in Central Semitic, where no traces of quinqueradical verbs with n as R1 survive, and is almost completed in Geʿez. Accordingly, the conjugation of quadriradical verbs on the model of the D‑stem is a West Semitic innovation. This is in keeping with the data from Geʿez: in Geʿez, the forms of the dangaḍa type closely correspond to those of Ar tarjama (see Tropper 2002: 131), except the imperfective yədanaggəḍ. There can be little doubt, therefore, that the original conjugation of the quadriradical verbs of the dangaḍa type was exactly like in Central Semitic and that the deviating imperfective is a secondary form that arose after the introduction of gemination in the basic stem. This is supported by the fact that the closest relatives of Geʿez, the other North Ethiopian languages Tigre and Tigrigna, have a quadriradical imperfective without gemination (see Hudson 2005: 201, 207 Table 5). Moreover, this also applies to the corresponding verb types in MSA. The Mehri imperfective forms, as presented in Table 4.10, show that Mehri did not take part in the introduction of gemination: the quadriradical yəkərbōl ‘he crawls’ and the quinqueradical yənqərbōṭ ‘it is curled, wrinkled’ may be derived from *yVkarbál(u) and *yVnqarbáṭ(u), respectively, on the model of similar forms discussed by Voigt (1994: 305–6). Even though the vowels of this reconstruction may be wrong, the important thing is that these forms clearly lack the geminate penultimate radical of yədanaggəḍ. So Mehri has also preserved the West Semitic conjugation in the imperfective. In conclusion, there is plentiful evidence indicating that the quadriradical imperfective forms of Geʿez and Akkadian result from parallel but independent developments, triggered by the introduction of gemination as the basic feature of the imperfective. This happened in Geʿez more 105.  See Cantineau 1932; von Soden 1987. 106.  An exception is paršumu ‘to let live to old age’ (NA); see chap. 12, n. 69 (p. 307). A partial exception is mēlulu ‘to play’ (see §12.4, pp. 305–307). 107.  In Modern South Arabian, the number of quinqueradicals with the prefix n‑ seems to be somewhat larger: Johnstone’s Mehri lexicon contains about 45 instances. 108.  With the exception of the infinitive (the maṣdar): the triradical verb has taqtīl and the quadriradical verb has tarjamah (Fleisch 1979: 448), doubtless because the secondary formation taqtīl (see §14.6.1, pp. 397–402) could not easily be adapted to a quadriradical root. There are also a few quadriradical verbs of a quite different type that are not relevant to the issue at hand; see Fleisch 1979: 453–63 and Larcher 2003: 132–33.

4.6.  Akkadian iparrVs and the South Semitic Imperfective

125

consistently than in Akkadian, since Akkadian also disposed of a/i apophony to differentiate between imperfective and perfective. This option was apparently not open to Geʿez, which suggests that the Proto-Semitic pluractional forms of the derived verbal stems had already fallen into disuse. However, there is a possible trace in some MSA forms. The causative stem of the strong verb in Mehri, for instance, has an imperfective yəhənsūm and a jussive yəhánsəm (Johnstone 1987: xxxvii–xxxviii; Voigt 1994: 301). The most straightforward way to account for these forms is to derive them from *yuhaqtal(u?) and *yuhaqtil, respectively, parallel to Akkadian ušapras – ušapris (Rössler 1951: 106; Voigt 1994: 301). If this analysis is correct, MSA uses an imperfective that goes back to the Proto-Semitic ŠPL‑stem *yušaqtalu. It is possible that a different analysis will present itself as we learn more about the historical background of MSA morphology, but for the time being these forms provide an additional argument for the ProtoSemitic nature of the Akkadian system rather than the South Semitic one and for the survival of the Proto-Semitic system in at least one class of MSA forms. Moreover, they show that the corresponding Geʿez form, the II/1 Stem Impfv yāqattəl, is an Ethiopic innovation (Voigt 1994: 301), as we already concluded above on the basis of comparison with Akkadian. The same applies to the reconstructed quadriradical and quinqueradical forms I have mentioned above: if the stem vowel a that I have posited above in *yVkarbál(u) and *yVnqarbáṭ(u) is correct, it provides a parallel with the corresponding reconstructed Akkadian imperfective *yinbalkat, which is the predecessor of the historical form ibbalakkat (see §12.5, pp. 309–310). It is conceivable that Proto-Semitic had a basic quadriradical imperfective *yi-n-balkitu and a derived pluractional imperfective *yi-n-balkatu, but in view of the overall semantic nature of the verbs involved, it is also possible that only the latter form existed. In that case, the ə in the final syllable of yədanaggəḍ arose by analogy as a result of the joint pressure from all other derived categories.

Chapter 5

The Perfective and the Imperative

5.1. Introduction The form and the function of the perfective (which is usually called preterite; see pp. xxi–​ xxii) and the imperative are straightforward and require little comment. Therefore, the main topic of this short chapter will be their historical background (little as we know about it) and the relationship between the past tense function of the perfective and its irrealis use in the precative and the vetitive.

5.2. The Perfective: Form The perfective and the imperative are the simplest forms of the Akkadian verbal paradigm: their inflectional stem consists only of the prefix base PRvS (see §2.2.1, pp. 31–32). The perfective is the unmarked prefix conjugation, and in the G‑stem its basic feature is a negative one—the absence of gemination. The additional contrast between the root vowel and the imperfective vowel in the anisovocalic vowel classes does not seem to play a significant role. The relationship between the two is not arbitrary, since only five out of the nine possible combinations actually occur, which represent the five vowel classes discussed in §3.5 (pp. 68–75); see Table 5.1: A/u

A/i

A/a

I/i

U/u

Impfv

iparras

uššab

ilammad

ipaqqid

imaqqut

Pfv

iprus

ušib

ilmad

ipqid

imqut

Table 5.1: The imperfective vowel and the root vowel of the five vowel classes.

Nor is the relationship between imperfective and perfective predictable in either direction:1 an imperfective with u and i entails a perfective with the same vowel, but an imperfective with a allows any vowel in the perfective. Conversely, a perfective with a entails an imperfective with a, but a perfective with u allows both u and a in the imperfective. A perfective with i entails i in the imperfective, except in the small group of I/w verbs and irregular verbs of the A/i class. Only by including semantic factors can we obtain a higher rate of predictability. For instance, only if the verb is transitive do we expect an imperfective with a to have a perfective with u and a perfective with u to have an imperfective with a (see §3.5.2, pp. 71–75). As a past tense, the perfective is functionally subordinate to the imperfective, but since it is unmarked, not predictable in form, and highly frequent (at least until it was ousted from most 1.  In the derived stems, the perfective is usually predictable on the basis of the imperfective.

126

5.3.  The Perfective: Function

127

environments by the t‑perfect), it has a relatively independent status. Hence, the Akkadian verbal paradigm can best be described as built on two basic forms rather than one.2 Their relationship is understandable from a diachronic point of view: the prefix base PRvS represents the basic form of the verb in the period before the introduction of iparrVs, when the root vowel was still the basic vowel. Where the new imperfective *yiqattalu held onto its original stem vowel a,3 the root vowel lost its status as dominant vowel and remained restricted to the forms in which it was historically present, the perfective and the imperative, whereas the new imperfective vowel expanded to derived categories dependent on the G imperfective, as was shown in §4.2 (pp. 88–90).

5.3. The Perfective: Function   4 In the older dialects, the basic functional opposition among the finite fientive categories is between imperfective and perfective. As opposed to the imperfective, the perfective indicates past tense, perfective aspect, and realis mood, but in practice it has the value of a simple past tense: it presents the event as real, anterior to a temporal reference point and completed (in telic verbs) or terminated (in atelic verbs). A series of perfectives, therefore, denotes a succession of events, which makes it the main form for narrative (E. Cohen 2006: 54–60). The perfective has no correlation whatsoever with the durative or punctual nature of the event, pace Landsberger (1926a: 359–60) and W. von Soden (GAG §79a). Therefore, it is freely compatible with durative qualifications, e.g.:5 (01) ArAn. 1, 48 n. 23 kt 88/k 507b:11–12 (OA) ištu mūtānī 10 šanātim abī ib-lá-aṭ ‘after the plague, my father was (still) alive for ten years’ (02) ARM 27, 2:10 (OB) šamûm kayyāniš iz-nu-un ‘(from the 3rd(?) to the 14th day of the month) it rained continuously’ (also MARI 8, 327:7–8); (03) YOS 3, 140:8–9 (NB) 20 mu.an.na.àm maṣṣarta (. . .) kī aṣ-ṣu-ru ‘after I had kept watch for 20 years’. Whatever the objective duration of the event, by using the perfective the speaker presents it as completed.6 If an event or an activity is not completed at the moment of reference, the perfective is normally avoided, as in examples (05) and (06) of chap. 4 (p. 93).

2.  In this respect, Akkadian agrees typologically with a great number of languages that have a verbal paradigm with a basic distinction between present and past or perfective and imperfective in such a way that these categories are not formally predictable from each other (cf. the strong verbs in Germanic, the imperfective stem versus the aorist stem in Greek, and the infectum versus the perfectum in Latin, etc.). The West Semitic contrast between prefix and suffix conjugation is another example. 3.  This only happened in a minority of all verbs: in most verbs, the root vowel was strong enough to impose itself on the new imperfective and oust its original a, as we saw in §4.5.1 (pp. 109–112). 4.  For definitions of the function of the perfective, see also GAG §79; Streck 1995a: 195–96; Buccellati 1996: 101; Huehnerguard 2005a: 19; Leong 1994: 30–31, 62–136; Metzler 2002: 873–74. These works also deal with some secondary uses of the perfective that I will not discuss, such as the “Koinzidenzfall” and the “gnomic” perfective; see GAG3 §79b* with literature. 5.  See also Loesov 2005: 111; more examples with discussion can be found in Leong 1994: 134–36. 6.  When the actual length of the period in the past is unspecified, as with adverbs such as pānānum ‘formerly’ (OB) or kayyāntam (and variant forms) ‘regularly, constantly’, there is a strong tendency to use the imperfective (see §4.3, pp. 92–95), because an indefinite period of time lacks the “boundedness” that

128

The Perfective: Function  5.3.

In subordinate clauses, the perfective is anterior because of its function of denoting completed action (versus the non-anterior function of the imperfective); this makes it into a kind of pluperfect in past contexts: (04) AbB 11, 116:13′–14′ (OB) x a.šà še.giš.ì ša am-ḫu-ru itbalma alpī ša ina maḫrīya il-qú-ú ana libbu x eqlim šuāti [iš ]talal ‘he appropriated the 2 bur of sesame field that I had received and dragged the oxen which he had taken from me to that 2 bur field’. In conditional clauses, the perfective indicates that the protasis is completed at the moment the apodosis is realized; see (14) and (15A) in §4.3 (p. 94). This is especially common in legal texts, where the condition normally has to be fulfilled—i.e., the unlawful act must have been committed—before the specified sanction can apply (cf. GAG §161d–f; Hirsch 1969: 125). The most noteworthy functional aspect of the perfective is its competition with the t‑perfect (iptarVs). As a neutral past tense that does not say anything about the attitude of the speaker toward the event in terms of his own involvement in it, its current relevance, or its actuality, the perfective was exposed to competition from a more expressive form that enables a speaker to include this kind of nuance. This is a typologically common process.7 Akkadian opted for an unorthodox solution to fill this need: it pressed the perfective of the Gt‑stem into service; the details of this process are problematic and will be dealt with in chap. 6, which deals with the t‑perfect. The tendency to replace the perfective with the t‑perfect is already observable in the oldest period. Instances of the perfective in contexts where speaker involvement, actuality, and recentness are likely to be present—as far as we can judge—are mostly restricted to very early texts, such as Sargonic Akkadian and Archaic Babylonian letters, which have relatively few t‑perfects; see §6.3.2 (pp. 149–150).8 As the t‑perfect became more common, the perfective came to be associated with the absence of the nuances expressed by the t‑perfect and was restricted to the function of a neutral (narrative) past tense. From Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian onward, there was a syntactic distinction between the t‑perfect and the perfective: the former was the regular past tense in affirmative main clauses and “Satzfragen,” whereas the latter was relegated to negative and subordinate clauses and “Wortfragen.” This process will further be discussed in §6.3.4 (pp. 153–155). The equivalents of the Akkadian perfective in other Semitic languages also have an irrealis function. In Akkadian, this is only possible with an explicit marker—namely, in the precative and the vetitive, which will be discussed in chap. 9. However, in Late Babylonian the perfective is attested with a volitive function and without the precative markers l- and i (GAG §81g; Streck 1995a: 127–41). In the first-person plural of the precative—the cohortative—this also occurs in Neo-Assyrian (Hämeen-Anttila 2000: 93; Streck 1995a: 139–41), and sporadic instances can even be quoted from Old Babylonian Mari (Finet 1956: 216 §78g–h) and Standard Babylonian (GAG3 §81g*).9 It is difficult to determine whether this process is related to the fact that in Late is inherent in the meaning of the perfective (see Langacker 1987: 80–84 and Smith 1997: 65–66 for the bounded nature of perfective aspect). 7.  See Kuryłowicz 1975: 106, quoted in §1.2.2 (p. 4); D. Cohen 1984 passim; Bybee et al. 1994: 51–105. 8.  However, after the “asseverative” particle lū, the perfective held its ground: although semantically lū would agree very well with the t‑perfect, it occurs with the perfective to denote an emphatic statement in the past tense (GAG §81f, 152b). Instances with the t‑perfect are extremely rare (AbB 2, 47:8, 115:15 [OB]); cf. also E. Cohen 2005: 49–50, 69–71. This may be an indication of its relatively recent origin (Loesov 2004a: 123). 9.  Additional instances include ni-iš-ḫi-iṭ ARM 28, 113:14 ‘let us attack’; NI-sa-aš-ḫi-ir (sic!) ibid. 16 ‘let us turn around’ (trans.); ni-iṣ-ṣa-bi-it ibid. 155:19 ‘let us compete with each other’. In ShA 1, 109

5.4.  The Historical Background of the Perfective

129

Babylonian the perfective is no longer used in affirmative main clauses, so that no ambiguity can arise from the omission of the precative marker, or whether it is an independent development related to the widespread use of past tense forms in irrealis function, an issue I will address in the next section. It is possible that Aramaic influence is also involved, as argued by Streck (1995a: 245–47) and Lipiński (1997: 513–14).

5.4. The Historical Background of the Perfective The Proto-Semitic ancestry of the perfective iprVs is beyond doubt. Both its form and its function demonstrate that it is a very old formation. Formally, it has exact correspondences in West Semitic, not only in the basic stem of the strong triradical verb, for which we can reconstruct PSem *yiqtVl, but also in most other verb types, e.g., the N‑stem *yinqatil (see §12.6.2, pp. 322–323), and the D‑stem *yuqattil (see §11.6.1, p. 280), the quadriradical perfective *yinbalkit (see §12.5, p. 309), and the weak perfective of the II/voc verbs *yimūt (see §16.5.2, p. 476).10 Parallels in Berber and Cushitic show that *yiqtVl already existed in Afroasiatic. For Berber, Kossmann (2001: 72) reconstructs a 3ms aorist y-ăC1C2vC3, contrasting with a preterite y-vC1C2ăC3 (where v stands for ĭ or ŭ). Sasse (1980: 170) reconstructs a prefixed perfective *yu/iqtu/il for the strong triradical verb in Proto-Cushitic, and Beja also has a prefixed perfective with a stem CCvC (G. Gragg apud Kienast 2001: 603–4). It is therefore futile to explain the constituent parts of *yiqtVl on the basis of (Proto‑)Semitic formations, as, for instance, Bauer (1910: 8) does when he claims that *yiqtul arose from the combination of a pronominal subject with a verbal stem qutul, which was at the same time imperative and infinitive.11 In principle, this kind of development is plausible, but it ignores the fact that *yiqtVl must have emerged long before the Proto-Semitic period. The use of iprVs and its counterparts in West Semitic also suggest a high antiquity. As a past tense, it has been or is being marginalized in the historical period. In Akkadian, it is gradually replaced by the t‑perfect, a process that will be investigated in detail in the next chapter. In the rest of Semitic, it only occurs in the oldest stages of several early Central Semitic languages and survives there as a residual past tense (T. D. Anderson 2000: 13–14, 17–20). In Ugaritic, it is restricted to poetic texts as a narrative form in competition with the suffix conjugation, whereas prose texts only use the latter (Tropper 2000: 695–97). In Aramaic, too, it is only found in some of the oldest inscriptions (Muraoka 1995: 19–20). In Biblical Hebrew, it occurs as a narrative past in the “consecutive imperfect” wayyiqṭol (Joüon and Muraoka 1991: 139–41; T. D. Anderson 2000: 20) and occasionally elsewhere (2000: 51–52). In Arabic, it is also restricted to a few specific environments: e.g., after the negations lam ‘not’ and lammā ‘not yet’ and in conditional clauses (Wright 1967: II 41; Fischer 1972: 96). We may conclude that *yiqtVl was the standard perfective formation in Proto-Semitic but that it was replaced by other formations after the no. 39:16–17 (OB Shemshara), a 1p Prec i ni-il-wi ‘let us lay siege to’ is followed by ni-ir-ši ‘let us obtain’ without i, which is also attested in Mari (Finet 1956: 216 §78g). For Standard Babylonian, see also W. R. Mayer 1987: 58. 10.  For a selection of individual verbs in the basic stem that we can reconstruct for Proto-Semitic on the basis of an exact correspondence in the root vowel, see §18.3.1 (p. 588). 11.  Similar ideas were expressed by Bauer and Leander (1922: 176), Kienast (2001: 196 and elsewhere), and Cook (2001: 130). Cook identifies the verbal stem involved with “the Common Semitic *q(u)tul infinitive form” (like Bauer and Leander). The infinitive seems a less likely candidate from which to derive a resultative; see Bybee et al. 1994: 67–68. Moreover, Cook’s example *ya-qrub ‘he is drawn near’ is unfortunate, since all evidence points to *yVqrab as the correct Proto-Semitic perfective of the verb in question; see §17.7.3.2 (p. 565).

130

The Historical Background of the Perfective  5.4.

break‑up of the parent language: by the t‑perfect in East Semitic and by the suffix conjugation qatVla in West Semitic.12 However, typological parallels can give us an idea about the historical background of *yiqtVl. Grammatical categories denoting a simple past tense usually represent a very late stage in a grammaticalization process. As Bybee et al. (1994: 51–105) have shown, they arise either from an earlier completive, or from a resultative, or from a perfect (which itself often comes from a resultative).13 Since *yiqtVl does not contain a marker that could have had completive function (completives are often grammaticalizations of a verb ‘to finish’; 1994: 56–61), it is most likely an ancient resultative that has developed into a perfect, a past, or a perfective, just as the West Semitic suffix conjugation qatVla must have done at a later point in time. Resultatives often come from a combination of a copula (which may be zero) with a past participle (1994: 67–68); so nothing prevents us from speculating that *yiqtVl goes back to the univerbation of a pronominal subject (+ copula) + participle in a very early stage of Afroasiatic.14 A small piece of evidence in favour of this is formed by the defective “stative” verbs idû ‘to know’ and išû ‘to have’: they are iprVs forms, yet they can refer to the present (GAG §106q/r). This suggests that they are a remnant of the original resultative meaning of *yiqtVl, since it is a typical feature of resultatives of stative verbs to denote a present state.15 A major problem concerning *yiqtVl is the historical and functional relationship between its use as a past tense and its irrealis function to express wishes, exhortations, injunctions, etc. The two coexist in Central Semitic, although, as stated above, the past-tense function is mostly dependent on a specific syntactic environment; see Gai 2000 for a survey. In Akkadian, this dual nature was abandoned, since the irrealis function is obligatorily marked by a prefix or a particle. Hetzron (1969) proposed solving the problem by assuming that the two functions were differentiated by stress: he reconstructs an irrealis form *yaqtV´l with final stress and a past tense *yáqtVl with penultimate stress.16 There are, however, serious difficulties with this proposal. First, it is widely held that in early Semitic stress was automatically assigned according to syllable structure and was therefore not contrastive. Second, the actual evidence Hetzron adduces (from Akkadian, Geʿez, and Hebrew) is unconvincing and open to a different interpretation.17 The only Akkadian evidence is the opposition between lū as the marker of the precative and lū as an asseverative particle: the former contracts with a following iprVs form (if it starts with a vowel): liprus, etc. (see §9.2.1.1, p. 213), whereas the latter remains separate: lū iprus. Hetzron explains this difference from an original contrast between *lū iprús > liprus and *lū íprus, which 12.  The very early date of the rise of *yiqtVl is indirectly confirmed by the incompatibility rules for Semitic roots, which were discussed in §2.3.3 (pp. 43–44). The strictest rules concern the first two radicals, which can be explained from the fact that these radicals were most often contiguous. This also pleads for a verbal paradigm based on both *yiqtVlu and *yiqtVl as posited above, where the first two radicals are adjacent in all basic forms. 13.  See also Givón 1991: 305: “[  p]ast tense morphemes seldom arise directly, but rather as reanalysis of either the perfect or perfective aspects.” 14.  Regarding the personal prefixes, the most we can say is that it is typologically plausible that they ultimately have a pronominal background (personal pronouns in the first and second persons, perhaps demonstrative pronouns in the third person), as already stated in §2.5 (p. 52). 15.  See Bybee et al. 1994: 74–78, 92. The perfect of stative verbs in West Semitic languages shows the same feature (Tropper 1995a: 510). 16.  Hetzron’s views are also found in Lipiński 1997: 336 (without reference to Hetzron; Lipiński cites examples from Modern Colloquial Arabic and Modern South Arabian); Buccellati 1996: 183; and Voigt 2004: 44. 17.  For Arabic, Hetzron (1969: 18) himself admits that “[t]here is no indication whatsoever of an earlier formal opposition between them [i.e., the yaqtVl forms for past tense and jussive—NJCK].”

5.4.  The Historical Background of the Perfective

131

remains unchanged. This is ad hoc and unlikely: the difference between asseverative and precative can more plausibly be explained as a difference in degree of grammaticalization, as I will argue in §9.2.1.2 (pp. 214–216). Hetzron’s evidence from Geʿez concerns a single form: yəbē ‘he said’, which is the only trace of a *yiqtVl perfective in Ethiopic. In all other words it was replaced by the suffix conjugation. The corresponding jussive is yəbal. Hetzron traces this contrast back to a difference in stress: *yVb(h)ál versus *yV´b(h)al. In the latter form the final l was weakened and palatalized to y: *yV´b(h)al > *yəbay > yəbē. He admits, however, that this explanation is “strongly hypothetical and highly questionable” (1969: 8). And indeed, the interpretation of yəbē is so controversial (see Tropper 2002: 125–27) that it can hardly be regarded as serious evidence for such a far-reaching hypothesis. It is far simpler to assume that the idiosyncratic behaviour of this verb—also in other forms, in particular the loss of its middle radical h—is related to its high frequency. The Hebrew evidence consists of the difference between the jussive and the “consecutive imperfect” wayyiqṭol in some types of weak verbs: yāqūm ‘may he stand up’ and yibnē ‘may he build’, with final stress, versus wayyāqom ‘he stood up’ and wayyiben ‘he built’, with penultimate stress. However, there is no reason to question the more common explanation that these forms reflect an original endingless perfective and jussive *yáqtVl and an imperfective *yaqtV´lu (see Huehnergard 1983: 587–88 n. 165).18 This leads to the conclusion that none of Hetzron’s arguments is compelling and that there is no reason to doubt the unitary nature of PSem *yiqtVl. So we have to look for a functional or developmental explanation for its double function. A functional explanation usually consists of a proposal to assume an original function that either encompasses the actual functions to be reconciled or is in some way intermediate between them. In order to account for the apparent contradiction between the past tense function of *yiqtVl and its irrealis function, which in temporal terms refers to the future, W. von Soden (GAG §79a) supposes an original “Zeitlosigkeit,” and Tropper (1998b: 158–59) argues that it is purely aspectual (perfective). This does not solve the problem of the irrealis use, however. It is true that the imperfective iparrVs includes an irrealis use in addition to its basic indicative function (see §4.3, p. 92), but this is based on its temporal function of referring to the future. IprVs does not normally refer to the future, since perfective is closely associated with past tense, which means that there is no path leading from perfective to “volitive,” as Tropper calls its irrealis use. The fact that the future may be aspectually represented as perfective plays no role here.19 A more likely explanation can be given if we consider the special association between past tense and irrealis (Kuryłowicz 1972: 64; Muraoka 1975: 66–67). Kuryłowicz points to the widespread use of past tense forms with non-realis function in modern languages, such as English if he wrote. . . , French s’il écrivait, Russian esli by (na)pisal. A well-known Semitic parallel is the use of the suffix conjugation for wishes, e.g., Arabic raḥimahū llāhu ‘may God have mercy on him!’ (Fischer 1972: 92), and for the prophetic perfect in Hebrew (Joüon and Muraoka 1991: 363). Fleischman (1989) offers a cognitive explanation: tense is basically used to locate an event chronologically in relation to a reference point, usually the “now” of the utterance. What is happening here and now (what is proximate) can usually be vouched for by the speaker, who experiences it as actual and real. An event that takes place “not-here” and “not-now” (which is distant) cannot be vouched for by the speaker in the same way: it is not experienced as actual and real. Therefore, there is a move from spatial and temporal proximity to a broader conceptual and cognitive proximity of actuality/reality, and a move from spatial and temporal distance to 18.  Objections to Hetzron’s thesis have also been raised by Streck (1997/8: 319–20) and Gai (2000: 25). 19.  Kienast’s explanation (2001: 336) is incomprehensible to me.

132

The Historical Background of the Perfective  5.4.

conceptual and cognitive distance (non-actuality/non-reality) (Fleischman 1989: 2–3). In this way, temporal distance in the direction of past is pressed into service to express modal distance, in particular to signal the speaker’s assessment of the “‘certainty-/reality-/actuality-status’ of a predicated situation” (1989: 4). Synchronically, this use of past tense forms is simply an extension of their basic meaning (1989: 38), but over time it may give rise to purely irrealis categories—for instance, when the past tense function is taken over by a new form.20 According to Kuryłowicz (1972: 64), this happened in West Semitic when yaqtVl was replaced by qatVla. This started in its primary past tense function, leaving yaqtVl mainly with its secondary, irrealis use as jussive, prohibitive (with lā), and a potentialis or irrealis in conditional clauses; afterward, qatVla tended also to oust yaqtVl from other functions, such as conditional clauses (where yaqtVl and qatVla interchange: ʾin yaqtul ‘if he killed’ is equivalent to ʾin qatala) and in wishes. The use of qatVla in wishes represents Fleischman’s (1989: 2) synchronic extension toward irrealis contexts.21 This explanation seems to be better founded than the one usually encountered in literature on Semitic grammar—that the perfective in wishes results from a tendency to represent the desired state of affairs as already realized (e.g., Streck 1995a: 195–96, with other literature).22 In Akkadian, the irrealis use of iprVs is restricted to the fixed environment of the precative and the vetitive. In an earlier stage, it must also have been a secondary synchronic extension of its temporal use. Already in Proto-Semitic, *yiqtVl had a strong association with a particle with initial l- (Testen 1993b: 3). In the historical period, the irrealis use was not grammaticalized as a result of the loss of the past tense function, as in West Semitic, but because the particle became obligatory. From that moment, the irrealis function resided in the particle. (See further §9.2.1, pp. 212–217, for the precative and §9.2.2, pp. 217–219, for the vetitive.) In historical perspective, iprVs is a residual form that in the course of time cedes more and more of its original function(s) to other categories with a more explicit and therefore more expressive marking. In this respect, it shows a striking similarity to the injunctive in Indo-European, as pointed out by Rundgren (1960). The injunctive is a verbal form with the secondary (i.e., basically past tense) endings of the aorist and the imperfect but without the augment (*e‑) that marks these forms. It survived precariously in Indo-Iranian and Ancient Greek before being replaced by forms that have a more overt marking. In itself, it is neutral toward tense and mood, but in contrast to a marked present or imperfective, it has past or perfective (including narrative) function, and in contrast to marked indicative forms, it can have non-indicative function.23 This is very similar to the way *yiqtVl is used in Semitic. However, it is not directly useful to clarify the problems raised by *yiqtVl, since it raises the same kind of questions. 20.  According to Bybee et al. (1994: 230), renewal of an old form typically starts in “main asserted clauses,” and it takes over all its functions only gradually. Non-assertive clauses are not used for the expression of focus or topic and tend to be conservative. So the old form continues to be used in such non-assertive contexts and adopts irrealis semantic aspects from it. Subsequently, it can again be used in main clauses, bringing their irrealis use with them. For the same process in the domain of the imperfective, see §9.3.3 (pp. 229–231). 21.  According to Kuryłowicz (1964: 136), the subjunctive and the optative of Indo-European languages also go back to old indicatives. Imperfective-future categories give rise to the subjunctive (eventuality), whereas past-tense categories give rise to the optative (wish). These represent secondary functions that were formally renewed in their fundamental function; cf. the irrealis use of the future in French and similar phenomena in other Romance languages. 22.  A general account of the relationship between past tense and irrealis forms is found in Palmer 2001: 203–16. He discusses various solutions that have been proposed (in particular on the polite use of past tense auxiliaries in English) without coming to a definitive conclusion. 23.  For the Indo-European injunctive, see, for instance, Szemerényi 1996: 263–66.

5.5.  The Imperative: Form and Function

133

5.5. The Imperative: Form and Function The function of the imperative is straightforward and needs no further comment. It is restricted to the second person and is not normally combined with a negation.24 Commands or exhortations in other persons are expressed by the precative (for which see §9.2.1, pp. 212–213), and negative commands by the prohibitive, i.e., lā + imperfective: alik ‘go!’, but lā tāllak ‘do not go!’ (see §9.2.3, pp. 219–220). The imperative can take the usual dative and accusative suffixes and the ventive endings. For obvious reasons, it does not take the subjunctive endings. The imperative has the same inflectional stem as the perfective, namely, the prefix base (see §2.2.1, p. 32), i.e., in the G‑stem PRvS. Synchronically, it is derived from the perfective in its secondary irrealis function by subtraction of the personal prefix, e.g., ‑prus from ta-prus.25 In historical perspective, however, the relationship is different, as I will argue at the end of this section. The resulting forms have an illicit initial cluster, which is resolved by an epenthetic vowel: Sg Masc purus ‘decide!’ The other two forms of the imperative, the singular feminine with the ending ‑ī and the plural (communis generis) with -ā (the same endings as in the second person of the prefix conjugations), are based on the singular masculine form but lose their second vowel through the vowel syncope rule: 2ms ta-prus § *‑prus, realized as purus 2fs ta-prusī § *‑prusī, remodelled on the Sg Masc purus as *purusī > pursī 2p ta-prusā § *‑prusā, remodelled on the Sg Masc as *purusā > pursā.26 The G‑stem imperative has four different vowel patterns correlating with the three root vowels (the root vowel a includes two patterns), as in Table 5.2 (see also GAG Verbalpar. 7): vowel class

A/u + U/u

I/i + A/i

A/a

A/a

Pfv

iprus

ipqid

ilmad

iṣbat

2ms 2fs

purus

piqid

limad

ṣabat

pursī

piqdī

limdī

ṣabtī

2p.

pursā

piqdā

limdā

ṣabtā

Table 5.2: The four vowel patterns of the G‑stem imperative.

Generally speaking, in the derived verbal stems and most types of weak verbs, the same subtraction rule applies, although historical changes and phonological rules sometimes obscure 24.  See GAG §81a. The fact that the imperative does not take a negation is also found in other Semitic languages (Edzard 1973: 131) and typical of many other Afro-Asiatic languages (Greenberg 1952: 8b). 25.  So also Gai 2000: 26; Kienast 2001: 200; Bravmann 1977: 197–99, with earlier literature. A good illustration is found in modern colloquial Hebrew, where a new imperative has emerged that is derived from the second person of the prefix conjugation by truncating the prefix t- and the following vowel or only the vowel: ftax, Fem ftexi ‘open!’ < tiftax/tiftexi, and tmale, Fem tmali ‘fill!’ < temale/temali, instead of the older imperative patax, pitxi and male, malʾi (Bolozky 1979; Bat-El 2002). Other parallels are He qaḥ and Ugar qḥ ‘take!’ from lāqaḥ, where the absence of the first radical depends on its absence in the prefix forms yiqqaḥ, etc., in which l is assimilated to q (see §12.6.1, p. 319). For Arabic, Benmamoun (1996; 1999: 192–95) argues that the imperative is derived morphologically from the imperfective. Here the mechanism is even clearer, since the initial cluster is preserved if the preceding word ends in a vowel: ta-qtul > qtul (uqtul if there is no preceding vowel); see Fleisch 1961: 161–62 and 198–99. 26.  Alternative forms of the type purussī/ā turn up occasionally in most dialects; see GAG §87f. They may point to a different stress pattern related to the specific function of the imperative.

134

The Imperative: Form and Function  5.5.

the pattern. The connection between the perfective and the imperative is apparent from the fact that they always have the same stem vowel: in the Gt‑stem iptaras § pitras, iptaqid § pitqid (  paqādu Gt ‘to be cautious’) and īterub § etrub (erēbu G = Gt ‘to enter’), in the Gtn‑stem iptarras § pitarras, etc., in the N‑stem ipparis § napris; in the D‑stem uparris § purris (Bab), etc. See the respective types of verbs for more details. In comparison to other members of the verbal paradigm, the imperative shows an unusual amount of formal variation and instability over time. The first type of variation concerns the epenthetic vowel that dissolves the initial cluster. As Table 5.2 shows, it is sensible to the root vowel: it is identical to the root vowel in purus and piqid, but if the root vowel is a, the epenthetic vowel may be i (limad  ) or a (ṣabat ). The distribution of i and a is complex and unstable. A few A/a verbs always have a: • ṣabat from ṣabātu ‘to seize’ • maḫaṣ from maḫāṣu ‘to hit’ • tabal from tabālu ‘to bring/take along’27 The first two differ from most A/a verbs in being high-transitivity verbs (see §3.4, pp. 66–67), so there is a semantic correlate to their deviating form.28 The a of tabal may be related to the fact that tabālu is a secondary verb derived from wabālu ‘to bring/take’ and therefore belongs to the second type to be discussed presently. Moreover, PaRaS is also the normal pattern for the imperative of II/  ʾ verbs of the A/a vowel class (OA šaʾam ‘buy!’, raʾam ‘love!’, etc.); see §17.7.3.1 (p. 560) and §17.7.4.1 (p. 567). A larger number of A/a verbs always has i; it includes a few III/voc verbs with E-colouring that originally belonged to the A/a class (see Kouwenberg 2001: 240 n. 39): • limad from lamādu ‘to (get to) know’ • pilaḫ from palāḫu ‘to fear, respect’ • rikab from rakābu ‘to ride’ • ṣilal from ṣalālu ‘to sleep’ • kilā from kalû ‘to hold, detain’ • kitā from katāʾu ‘to take as security’ (OA). • liqē from leqû ‘to take, receive’29 • pitē from petû ‘to open’ • ridē from redû ‘to follow, accompany’ • šimē from šemû ‘to hear’ (see GAG 3 §105f*) • tibē from tebû ‘to stand up’ • ṭiḫē from ṭeḫû ‘to approach’30 27.  An additional instance may be *raḫaṣ, attested with a ventive in ra-aḫ-ṣa-am ShA 1, 110 no. 40:8 and 114 no. 43:12 (OB) ‘come here quickly’; it presupposes a Pfv irḫaṣ ‘he ran’, although only irḫiṣ is attested (1x): awātka li-ir-ḫi-ṣa-am AbB 11, 1:14–15 ‘let your word hurry to me’ (tr. M. Stol, ArBab), and thus a verb *raḫāṣum or perhaps raʾāṣu (see §17.4, pp. 520–525), which may be a by-form of rêṣu ‘to come to aid’ (see §17.2, pp. 512–513). Note, however, that CAD R 75 s.v. raḫāṣu D ‘to gather(?)’ lists another verb raḫāṣu, which also has both irḫiṣ and irḫaṣ as perfectives. 28.  However, the A/a verb kalû ‘to detain’ is from the same semantic sphere as ṣabātu but still has an imperative with i: kilā. 29.  E.g., li-i-qé Kisurra 157:12 (OB) and Iraq 58, 162:8 (SB). 30.  In verbs with E‑colouring, it is mainly the Assyrian form that shows that the first syllable has i. If these verbs had a PaRaS imperative, they would show a in the first syllable in Assyrian, because Assyrian has “local E‑colouring”; see §17.5.1 (pp. 525–527). Alternatively, they might be PiRiS forms, but it is fairly clear from numerous plene spellings with final e that these verbs do not belong to the I/i class.

5.5.  The Imperative: Form and Function

135

A third group occurs with i or a, usually according to dialect: • • • •

tikal/takal from takālu ‘to trust’ pišaḫ/pašaḫ from pašāḫu ‘to calm down’ tišab/tašab from wašābu ‘to sit down’ timā/tamā from tamû ‘to swear’ (perhaps ultimately from SAk wamāʾum ‘to swear’)

The verbs takālu and pašāḫu mostly have tikal and pišaḫ (in PNs, e.g., pi-ša-aḫ-dingir AbB 13, 131:3), but in third-millennium proper names we find takal and pašaḫ.31 The other two instances come from an I/w verb and from a verb starting with t‑, which can plausibly be explained as a secondary verb derived from the Gt‑stem of a I/w verb (see §16.2.3, p. 454). In the older dialects, a predominates and most i forms are from later periods.32 This suggests that the form with a is older and that i is expanding, and that at least part of the limad imperatives are secondary substitutes for an earlier form with a.33 It seems unlikely, however, that all PiRaS imperatives are secondary, since they have a close parallel in Arabic, which has (u)qtul and (i)qtil but (i)qtal parallel to purus, piqid, and limad. This suggests that the use of i before the root vowel a goes back to Proto-Semitic and is related to the parallel use of i in the prefix conjugations, where according to the Barth-Ginsberg Law we may perhaps reconstruct 1s *ʾiqtal(u), 2ms *tiqtal(u), and 3ms *yiqtal(u), etc., versus 1s *ʾaqtu/ 31.  Pašaḫ is only found in Sargonic Akkadian PNs (MAD 3, 218; Hilgert 2002: 198 n. 91) and not later; takal, on the other hand, has a wider distribution: it is the usual form in Sargonic Akkadian (cf. MAD 3, 295, e.g., Ilis-da-gal and Sunīs-da-gal ); just once, tikal occurs (ti-ga-a[l ] SAB p. 72:5′, Girsu). Moreover, it is still used a few times in Ur III Babylonian alongside the more common form tikal (Hilgert 2002: 202–3). In Old Assyrian PNs, it may be in use alongside tikal (Hirsch 1972: 11b, 42b), but it is also possible that OA takal is a stative, just like ḫalaq, wašab, and balaṭ (see §7.2, p. 162). However, the coexistence of Aššuriš-takil and Aššuriš-tikal in CCT 5, 19b:3, 8, and 13, which obviously refer to the same person, should warn us against taking these forms too seriously. One could argue that the Sargonic Akkadian instances also represent PaRaS statives, but Sargonic Akkadian has no other instances of PaRaS statives where other dialects have PaRiS. 32.  Tašab and tamā are the usual forms in Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian; there are no reliable instances of tišab in these dialects; see AHw 1337–38 s.v. *tašābu (the reading ti ! ?-iš-ba-am(-ma) in Sumer 14, 73 no. 47:25 [OB] is implausible), but tišab occurs passim in Standard Babylonian (AHw loc. cit.). However, there is one possible instance of timā in Old Babylonian: ti-ma-a ARM 26/1, 437 no. 208: r.19 (reading according to AHw 1317b s.v. tamû II G 4). J.‑M. Durand’s objections against ti-ma-a in MARI 3, 153 n. 26 are only partially valid; for ša introducing an oath ‘that not’, cf. VAB 5, 13:28–30 nīš DN u RN ša awāt tuppim annîm ú-na-ka-ru ‘oath by DN and RN that they will not change the words of this tablet’; cf. CAD N/1 168b s.v. nakāru 10a). Timā also occurs in Neo-Babylonian: ti-ma-an-na-a-šú SAA 13, 185:25′ ‘swear to us’. 33.  This conclusion is somewhat unexpected in view of the fact that in general the default epenthetic vowel in the first syllable of verb forms is i, as may be inferred from numerous verbal categories, such as the non-prefixed forms of the Gt‑ and Gtn‑stems (PitRvS and PitaRRvS, respectively). Without the PaRaS imperatives, we could even argue that the imperative also uses i in principle (**PiRuS, PiRiS, PiRaS) but that **PiRuS was realized as PuRuS, because Akkadian tends to avoid i and u in the same word by means of assimilation. There are several indications for this. First, there are no nominal patterns of the types **PiRuS and **PuRiS. Second, the infinitives izuzzu ‘to stand (up)’ and itūlu ‘to lie down’ (a fossilized N‑stem and a fossilized Gt‑stem, respectively; see Huehnergard 2002b) have both developed by-forms uzuzzu (Bab) or izizzu (OA) and utūlu as a result of assimilation (GAG §107d, j; Huehnergard 2002b: 173), and another lexicalized Gt‑stem, pitqudu ‘to be cautious’, also appears as putqudu in Neo-Babylonian (CAD P 441–42 s.v.). This tendency may also have been responsible for changing an original **pirus to purus, which caused u to spread to the Fem pursī and the Pl pursā. In regular (i.e., non-lexicalized) verb forms of the pattern PitRuS, the sequence i – u was protected against assimilation by the pressure of the verbal paradigm.

136

The Imperative: Form and Function  5.5.

il(u), 2ms *taqtu/il(u), and 3ms *yiqtu/il(u), etc., when the root vowel is not a.34 Since the pattern *yiqtal (corresponding to the A/a vowel class in Akkadian) is typical of low-transitivity verbs, this suggestion is supported by the fact that ṣabātu and maḫāṣu, which are high-transitivity verbs, do not have a PiRaS imperative. The second type of variation concerns the I/w verbs. They show a tendency to replace their monosyllabic imperatives with bisyllabic ones: tašab ‘sit down!’, taṣī ‘go out!’, tarū ‘take/ bring!’, and perhaps the above-mentioned tabal ‘take/bring along!’, instead of monosyllabic šib, ṣī, rū, and bil.35 These forms will be discussed in greater detail in §16.2.2 (p. 453). There is also variation in the imperative of nadānu (Ass tadānu) ‘to give’: Bab idin versus Ass din ‘give!’, the background of which is not quite clear; see §16.4.3 (p. 474). Noteworthy later developments in the imperative concern Middle and Neo-Assyrian. From Middle Assyrian onward, II/gem verbs show an ending -u in the singular masculine imperative: du-ub-bu KAV 201:24 and MARV 1, 13:15 ‘speak!’ from dabābu, mu-ud-du MARV 1, 15:7 ‘measure!’ from madādu. This form also appears in Neo-Assyrian, not only in II/gem verbs, e.g., du-ub-bu SAA 15, 95:10′ and ku-ur-ru SAA 1, 235: edge 1 ‘put down!’ from karāru, but also in strong verbs, e.g., šu-up-ru SAA 5, 115:12 ‘send!’ and mu-ut-ḫu SAA 15, 123: r.2’ ‘raise!’ from matāḫu. In this dialect, it is part of a wider tendency to copy the vowel of the first syllable after a cluster of R2 and R3; cf. the imperatives šá-ʾ-la SAA 16, 63: r.1 ‘ask!’ (Sg) from šaʾālu, and it-zi SAA 5, 63: r.5 ‘stand!’ from izuzzu.36 The nature of this phenomenon is unclear to me.37 A highly interesting development in Neo-Assyrian is the tendency to strengthen the imperative of alāku (without ventive) by reduplicating it (Parpola 1984: 185–92): likalka ‘go!’ (Pl) < (a)lik-alkā, e.g., li-kal-ka CTN 5 p. 44:8. The usual plural Imp alkā is preceded by the singular Imp alik, of which the initial syllable is dropped. According to Parpola, the reason for this renewal was the confusion between alkā and the singular imperative with ventive alka (< alkam), which obscured the crucial contrast between ‘come!’ and ‘go!’ (Parpola 1984: 191–92). Other imperatives of motion verbs, too, are sometimes strengthened by alkā, e.g., et-qa al-ka StAT 2, 163: r.14 ‘come here!’, and especially i-ṣal-ka SAA 5, 14:13 ‘come and bring (them)’ (< iṣṣā alkā, with iṣṣā < išʾā from našû; cf. §17.8.3, p. 581), where it has coalesced with the preceding imperative. Generally speaking, the form of the imperative is firmly grounded in Proto-Semitic: other Semitic languages show the same procedure of subtraction and vowel epenthesis (Moscati, ed. 1964: 136–37; Kienast 2001: 200–202). Arabic, however, resolves the cluster by introducing a vowel before the cluster, as we saw above (unless the preceding word ends in a vowel). This is 34.  Needless to say, this reconstruction of two contrasting prefix conjugations (see also chap. 2, n. 72, p. 52) is highly speculative and is largely meant to be a working hypothesis. See §16.3.1 (pp. 463–464) for the Barth-Ginsberg Law in Akkadian. 35.  There are some other verbs, mostly doubly weak, that show occasional imperatives extended by means of t‑: in Old Babylonian, teqī from eqû ‘to daub, paint’ and tapul from apālum ‘to pay’ (normally apul ): te-qì-i-šu MSL 4, 114:16 (OB) ‘paint it!’, which is undoubtedly an imperative, because it is parallel to zu-ÚḪ-ḪI-in /zuʾʾin/ (ibid., 15) and equated with the Sumerian imperative [š]u.tag.ga.ab and ta-puul-šu AbB 4, 57:16 ‘pay him!’ In Old Assyrian, we find tenī from enû ‘to change’ in qātka té-ni TC 3, 101:7 ‘change your attitude’ alongside qātkunu e-ni-a TC 3, 63:8. The problem with many forms of this type is that they can also stand for a defectively spelled imperfective, which can also express an injunction (although this is not very common). A different case is tisī from šasû (OB, e.g., ti-si AbB 7, 134:30), a variant of the regular form šisī caused by dissimilation of the two sibilants. 36.  See S. Parpola, Iraq 34 (1972) 24–25 with n. 11 and Luukko 2004: 129–30. 37.  It cannot be explained as a ventive ending assimilated to the vowel of the preceding syllable, as GAG §101f claims; cf. Parpola, loc. cit.

5.5.  The Imperative: Form and Function

137

also the standard procedure in other contexts in Arabic (Fleisch 1961: 161–62, 198–200; Fischer 1967: 40–44). Since other West Semitic languages agree with Akkadian in this respect (e.g., He qəṭol ‘kill!’, šəxab ‘lie down!’; Geʿez nəgər ‘speak!’, gəbar ‘make!’), this seems to be an Arabic innovation. According to Fischer (1967: 42–44), this applies at least to Arabic nouns starting with a cluster, such as ismun ‘name’, and ibnun ‘son’.38 The relationship between the imperative and the other members of the verbal paradigm is complex and can only be understood from a historical perspective. Before the emergence of the imperfective iparrVs, all finite fientive verb forms of the G‑stem used the prefix base PRvS as their inflectional stem. This created a tight unity between imperfective (*yiqtVlu), perfective (*yiqtVl ), and imperative (*q(V)tVl ), especially between the imperfective and the imperative because of their semantic relationship in the temporal sphere (incompleted, non-past events). In Akkadian, this relationship was disrupted by the rise of iparrVs, which isolated the imperative from its natural partner and associated it secondarily with the perfective, to which it is most similar in form, although the precative may have played a role in establishing a kind of functional connection as well. So the subtraction rule represents the synchronic way to describe the derivation of the imperative. Historically, however, the imperative is prior to the perfective and all other finite forms in the sense that it represents the pristine form of the verb in the period before the other finite categories developed their specific grammatical markers by means of the grammaticalization of independent words or clitics. It did not take part in most of these developments, because an imperative is always second person, refers to the moment of speech, and is by definition irrealis, so that it can dispense with person, tense, and mood markers.39 Once the other categories had acquired their own markers, this pristine form became an imperative by default. It is unlikely that it already had specifically imperative function, since this would make it unfit to serve as basis for the development of verbal forms with other functions. Cross-linguistically, therefore, the imperative is often the stem in isolation and the shortest member of the paradigm.40 This agrees perfectly with its function, since commands are more urgent and efficient when they are shorter. 38.  For a recent discussion of imperative forms in Afroasiatic, see Banti 2005: 65–66. 39.  The only kind of marker we regularly find on imperatives are gender and number markers agreeing with the addressee(s) and markers of degrees of urgency (e.g., the energic endings (u)qtulan(na) on Arabic imperatives). Some kinds of voice markers are also possible, e.g., middle voice markers, but not normally passives, since passive imperatives are highly marked. Akkadian can also add the ventive to the imperative to denote the direction of the motion or as a first-person singular dative; see §9.4.1 (pp. 232–233). 40.  Cross-linguistically, this is the most common way to express a command (Martin 1957).

Chapter 6

The t‑Perfect

6.1. Introduction The third prefix conjugation of Akkadian is the t‑perfect. It has drawn more attention than most verbal categories in the scholarly literature on Akkadian grammar because of two controversial issues: (1) the nature of its opposition to the perfective and (2) its relationship to the Gt‑stem, whose perfective is formally identical to the t‑perfect of the G‑stem.1 Moreover, the use of the t‑perfect shows a clear diachronic development from a semantic opposition to the perfective in the older dialects to a syntactic one in the later dialects. Because of the principally diachronic aim of the present study, I will focus on the earlier dialects and on Old Babylonian in particular, which provides the most copious sources and has been studied most extensively (see below), and on the diachronic development of the t‑perfect. In this chapter, I will only discuss the t‑perfect itself and its historical background. The process that already in Proto-Semitic affected the use of verb forms with a t-infix in such a way that they could develop the function of a perfect tense will be discussed in chap. 14.

6.2. The t‑Perfect: Form The basic marker of all t‑perfects is an infixed -t- or -ta-, but further details differ according to verb type. In the G‑stem of the strong triradical verb, -ta- is inserted after R1 and the root vowel is replaced by the imperfective vowel: iparras (root vowel u: iprus) § iptaras, ipaqqid § iptaqid, imaqqut § imtaqut (see below for the Assyrian forms). In many other verb types, however, it is not the imperfective vowel that appears between R2 and R3 but the vowel of the corresponding perfective, i.e., the root vowel or the stem vowel (see §2.1, p. 28, for definitions of these terms). Obviously, this only applies to verbs in which these vowels are not identical, i.e., the G‑stem verbs of the anisovocalic vowel classes, several types of weak and irregular verbs, and a part of the derived verbal stems. Table 6.1 shows the relationship of the vowels in the imperfective, the t‑perfect, and the perfective; the arrow indicates the direction of the dependency: 1.  I will not go into the problem of how to distinguish it from the homonymous perfective of the corresponding t‑stem. Since the t‑perfect is more frequent than any of the t‑stems and becomes more and more frequent in later texts, whereas the t‑stems gradually drop out of use (see chap. 14), an ambiguous form should be interpreted as a t‑perfect unless there is positive reason to assume otherwise. Actually, it is only in the very small number of cases where there is no clear difference in meaning between the t‑stem and the corresponding primary stem that any confusion may arise; examples include ittalak from alāku G ‘to go / come’ or Gt ‘to start going, set out’ (see §14.3.4, pp. 371–372) and uttazzim ‘he (has) complained’ from nazāmu D = Dt (see §14.5.1, p. 385).

138

6.2.  The t‑Perfect: Form

139 Impfv

§

G A/u

iparras

G A/i

uššab

N

ipparras

alākum

īllak

II/voc Ass

imūat

D

uparras

uptarris

Š

ušapras

uštapris

izuzzum

izzāz

ittazīz

tadānum Ass

iddan

ittidin

II/voc. Bab

imât

imtūt

§

§ §

§

Pfv

t‑Pf iptaras

iprus

ittašab

ušib

ittapras

ipparis

ittalak

illik

imtuat

imūt

∞

∞ ∞

∞ ∞

uparris ušapris izzīz iddin imūt

Table 6.1: The relationship between the vowels of imperfective, t‑perfect, and perfective.

The question is how this situation arose and which of the two directions is the most original. There is one class of verbs in which we can establish with certainty that the identity between the t‑perfect vowel and the perfective vowel is the original situation—namely, the II/voc verbs, where Assyrian has imtuat, iqtiap, whereas Babylonian has imtūt, iqtīp (GAG Verbalpar. 26–27).2 Since an original imtuat would give **imtât in Babylonian, the Babylonian form is original and Assyrian has innovated by introducing the imperfective vowel: iparras : iptaras § imūat : imtuat. This agrees with the D and Š forms (uptarris, uštapris), where the t‑perfect preserves the perfective vowel i of the corresponding t‑stem. These forms are originally the perfectives of the Dt‑stem and the Št‑stem, which were introduced into the paradigm of D and Š by analogy with the introduction of iptarVs into the G‑stem. This leads to the conclusion that the forms in the upper half of Table 6.1 are innovations: they have introduced the imperfective vowel in the t‑perfect, first in the G‑stem itself, and from there in the categories whose vowel pattern is based on that of the G‑stem (see §4.2, pp. 88–90).3 Since the Gt‑stem has also adopted the imperfective vowel of the G‑stem and has further extended it to the Gt perfective and t‑perfect (see §14.2.1, pp. 356–357), the identity of the t‑perfect of the G‑stem and the perfective of the Gt‑stem was maintained. The vowel change in iptarVs is a consequence of its change in status from derivational to inflectional (Kuryłowicz 1972: 62). As long as it was the perfective of the Gt‑stem, iptarVs doubtless had a fixed vowel pattern, like other derived stems, presumably *yiptaris, as suggested by the comparison with Ar yaqtatil(u) (see further §14.4.1, p. 376). Another consequence is that it became necessary to create a t‑perfect for all verbs, including the existing t‑ and tan‑stems. The obvious solution would be to double the t‑infix. However, for a very long period this method was avoided, doubtless because it meant breaking out of the extremely stable and isomorphic matrix of the derived stems (see §§10.3–10.4, pp. 246–250). In Old Babylonian, forms with a double t‑infix are very unusual; in Old Assyrian, they do not seem to occur at all; only in later dialects do they start appearing on a somewhat larger scale. I will come back to this issue in the description of the individual t‑ and tan‑stems in chap. 14. 2.  See §16.5.2 (p. 478) for a more detailed account of these forms. 3.  The t‑perfect forms of izuzzu and Ass tadānu are problematic. See §16.5.3.5 (p. 489) for ittazīz and §16.4.3 (p. 472) for ittadin.

140

The t‑Perfect: Function  6.3.

The Assyrian conjugation of the G‑stem t‑perfect iptarVs offers yet another interesting innovation. IptarVs is subject to the vowel assimilation rule, so we find, for instance, iptiqid < iptaqid and imtuqut < imtaqut, if the imperfective vowel is i or u, respectively. If a vocalic ending is attached, the vowel does not change, e.g., 3mp iptaqdū, imtaqtū in Old Assyrian (GKT §10b). In Middle Assyrian, however, the vowel of the endingless forms is extended to the rest of the paradigm if it is u but not if it is i; cf. the following t‑perfect forms of namāšu U/u ‘to depart, move’ as opposed to those of qarābu I/i ‘to come near’ and tadānu A/i ‘to give’: • ta-tu-mu-uš St. Pettinato p. 131:9 vs. it-tu-um-šu-né MATSH 118 no. 6:25′, 28′ ‘she/they departed’ • aq-ṭì-ri-ib MATSH 96 no. 2:29 vs. iq-ṭar-bu KAV 159:4 ‘I/they came near’ • ittidin vs. ittannū (passim) ‘he/they gave’ (< ittadnū, see chap. 16, n. 90, p. 472) In weak verbs of the III/voc class, however, both ū and ī show this phenomenon, e.g., iqtibī, iqtibiū ‘he/they said’ from qabû (I/i), and *izzukū, izzukû ‘he/they became available’ from zakû U/u (see further §16.7.2.3, pp. 502–503). In Neo-Assyrian, the penetration of i and u into the forms with an ending also extended to the strong I/i verbs, but not consistently; cf. the following t‑perfect forms of namāšu U/u, saḫāru U/u ‘to turn’, labānu I/i ‘to make bricks’, and ḫaṭāʾu I/i ‘to sin’: • at-tu-muš RIMA I/2, 197:54 vs. at-tum4-šá RIMA 2/I, 174:54 ‘I set out’ (Ass forms in a SB RI) • i-su-ḫur SAA 5, 129:3′ vs. is-suḫ-ra SAA 5, 204: r.7 ‘he returned’ • *issibin vs. i-si-ib-nu /issibnū/ SAA 15, 156: r.5 and r.7 ‘they made bricks’, with ‑ss‑ < ‑lt‑ (Hämeen-Anttila 2000: 31) • aḫ-ti-ṭi SAA 16, 36:3′ ‘I have sinned’ vs. iḫ-ti-iṭ-ṭu-ú-nik-ka /iḫtit’t’ūnikka/ ABL 879:4 ‘they have sinned against you’4 Other I/i verbs preserve the ancient scheme of iptiqid – iptaqdū, e.g.: • e-ti-bir CTN 5 p. 41:5 vs. e-tab-ru ibid. 12 ‘he/they crossed’ from ebēru • ni-iq-ṭi-[r]i-ib CTN 5 p. 45:8 versus iq-ṭar-b[a] p. 77:7 ‘we/he approached’ from qerēbu • ittidin vs. ittannū passim from tadānu, fossilized as a result of its frequency

6.3. The t‑Perfect: Function 5 The overall function of the t‑perfect, as it appears in Old Babylonian, is that of referring to a past event, not as a neutral past, but with a specific nuance. Starting with Goetze (1936), most authors agree that this nuance is actuality: the speaker represents the past event as still actual to the moment of speech.6 Following Loesov (2004a), we might define the basic function of the 4.  For the spelling with ‑ṭṭ‑ rendering original ‑ṭ ʾ‑, see §17.8.3 (pp. 577–578). III/  ʾ verbs such as ḫaṭāʾu are generally conjugated as strong verbs in Neo-Assyrian; the situation with the III/voc verbs is the same as in Middle Assyrian. 5.  Earlier literature includes Oppenheim 1935; Goetze 1936; von Soden (GAG §80); Maloney 1981; Leong 1994: 151–225; Streck 1995a and 1999; Metzler 2002: 875–86; Loesov 2004a. 6.  The formulations used are slightly different. Goetze (1936: 312) states that the t‑perfect serves “to link the past to the present; (. . .) it denotes the action which has just been performed and still affects the situation.” This is translated almost literally by W. von Soden in GAG §80b: “vor allem soeben erst vollendete bzw. als solche gedachte und noch wirksame Handlungen.” Maloney (1981: 33 and elsewhere) chooses the term “current relevance.” Most recently, Loesov (2004a: 172) defines the t‑perfect as expressing “now

6.3.  The t‑Perfect: Function

141

t‑perfect as follows: by using the t‑perfect in reporting a past event, the speaker relates it to the present situation and includes it in his (subjective) perception of the present (the time of utterance). The reasons for doing so are manifold: he may be personally interested or involved in it, the event may be very recent and/or still unknown to the addressee (the “hot news perfect”), or he may wish to highlight (foreground) it vis-à-vis other events. At least in origin, the t‑perfect typically belongs to the deictic register of discourse rather than to the narrative register (Loesov 2004a: 108–9). It is therefore very common in letters, the genre most closely related to spoken language that we have.7 In its function of referring to past events, the t‑perfect contrasts with both the perfective, which denotes a simple past event and is neutral as to the speaker’s attitude towards it, and the stative, which denotes a (usually present) state resulting from a preceding event.8

6.3.1.  The t‑perfect in Old Babylonian A major feature of the t‑perfect in Old Babylonian is that it is mostly restricted to a small number of syntactic environments. The great majority of Old Babylonian t‑perfects occur in three fixed syntagms: 1. In a sequence of a perfective or a string of perfectives + -ma + t‑perfect, the so-called consecutio temporum, which will be discussed below; 2. In temporal and conditional clauses dependent on a main clause with future reference; 3. In letters as an epistolary t‑perfect, i.e., after inanna and/or anumma. For the sake of convenience, I will call such t‑perfects “bound t‑perfects” and t‑perfects outside these syntagms “free t‑perfects.” In spite of their relative rarity, the free t‑perfects are a better guide for establishing the specific value of the t‑perfect than the bound ones, since the use of the latter may not only be determined by the value of the t‑perfect itself but also by the syntagm in

extended past-wise,” i.e., “a past fact possessing a resultative component that is temporalized at the moment of observation coinciding with the coding time.” In other words, it is a “present perfect” (cf. also 2004a: 107–8), which grammaticalizes the notion of “speaker’s time,” i.e., the time-span that the speaker perceives as extending from the event itself up to the present moment (2004a: 107). 7.  There are also, however, some rather different—and in my view untenable—views on the function of the t‑perfect, in particular, those of Buccellati (1996: 87, 108–12), Streck (1995a: 219–34; 1999) and Metz­ler (2002: 384, 875–76). I will not discuss them in detail here, apart from a specific point of criticism in n. 22 (p. 145) below. For Buccellati’s claim that the temporal function of the t‑infix is no more than a specific realization of its alleged separative function, see Kouwenberg 2005 and 1998: 177–78. For further criticism of Buccellati’s and Streck’s views on the t‑perfect, see also Sallaberger 1999: 138 n. 194 and Loesov 2004a: 87–90. 8.  In contrast to Loesov, I prefer not to use the term resultative in the definition of the t‑perfect. In the first place, it is not the result of the event that stays prominent in the mind of the speaker but the event itself. Therefore, the t‑perfect is not, like the stative, restricted to telic verbs: prototypically atelic verbs, such as to dance and to walk around, are also used in the t‑perfect. Second, it might obscure the basic difference between t‑perfect and stative: the stative of a fientive verb denotes the state resulting from a previous event. It is therefore in principle restricted to verbs denoting events that can result in a state, usually telic verbs. This is the kind of misunderstanding to which Leong (1994: 32–33) has fallen victim when he defines the t‑perfect as “a semantic fusion of a perfective event and a stative situation. It describes both the anterior event as well as a stative situation that resulted from it. (. . .) [the perfect] also expresses the current relevance of that anterior perfective event, i.e., the event resulted in a state that has sustained validity.” It is also prominent in Rowton’s description of the function of the stative, e.g., Rowton 1962: 290–91. For the difference between stative and perfect, see also Maslov 1988: 64–65.

142

The t‑Perfect: Function  6.3.

which it occurs. The bound t‑perfects have developed from the fixation of patterns of free use that were frequent enough to become stereotyped. Free t‑perfects in main clauses can be found in letters and in dialogue passages of literary texts. They convey notions such as involvement of the speaker/writer, urgency, and actuality; the events in question arouse strong feelings in the speaker, are recent or relevant to the present situation and/or the people involved, and often as yet unknown to the addressee.9 Here are three examples from Old Babylonian letters and two from literary texts:10 (01) MARI 5, 178:5 PN im-tu-ut ‘PN has died’ (beginning of a letter) (02) AbB 14, 135:4–6 aḫātka im-tu-ut ummaka marṣatti u PN mārī im-tu-ut ‘your sister has just passed away, your mother is ill and PN my son has (also) passed away’11 (03) AbB 14, 18:6–12 tu-uš-ta-am-ri-iṣ libbī  12 u muruṣ libbi rabiam ana pānīya ta-aš-taka-an kīma lā aturrūma ina puḫur aḫḫīya šumi bīt abi lā azakkaru te-te-ep-ša-an-ni ‘you have hurt me and caused me great chagrin, and you have made it impossible for me to mention the name of (my) family ever again in the company of my relatives!’13 (04) Gilg. p. 234:33 ibrī a-ta-mar šanītam ‘my friend, I have seen a second (dream)’14 (05) Atr. p. 52:162 š [upšikku] ˹atru id ˺-du-uk-ni-a-ti ‘excessive toil has killed us’15 9.  For the letters, see Oppenheim 1935: 12–13; Goetze 1936: 308–21; Maloney 1981: 33–38, 77–85; Leong 1994: 160–64; Sallaberger 1999: 144–47; E. Cohen 2006: 52. For the “hot news perfect,” see McCawley 1971: 104. For literary texts, see Metzler 2002, in particular pp. 384–492; E. Cohen 2006: 50–52. A full study of the use of the t‑perfect in Old Babylonian narrative passages in literary texts still has to be done. Metzler’s discussion is marred by the fact that he does not distinguish adequately between narrative and dialogue (see in particular his discussion (2002: 422–23) of Gilg. p. 172:24 ītamar and 26 ātamar, the first of which is narrative in the consecutio temporum and the second of which is a free t‑perfect (see also Loesov 2004a: 118 n. 77) and by his assumption of a “Perfekt des Fortschreitens,” which in my view does not exist (see n. 22 below, p. 145). Even so, the Old Babylonian epic texts, especially Gilgamesh and Atraḫasis, contain many t‑perfects that are not easy to explain. 10.  Cf. also the (rare) use of the t‑perfect in proper names, where it expresses “das unmittelbar Erlebte” according to Stamm 1939: 94–95 (  pace Streck 2002a: 112 n. 5), in names such as Ātanaḫ-ilī ‘I have had enough, my God’ (but perhaps a Gt perfective; see §6.3.2, p. 150), Ātamar-DN ‘I have seen DN’ and Ittabši-dēn-Aššur ‘the verdict of Assur has (just) come about’ (MA). Streck (2002a: 112) observes that the earliest instances are first persons (if Imtīda(m) also belongs here, it is not a counterexample, since it has a first-person dative). For the use of T-forms in Eblaite proper names (as abbreviations of perfective + DN?), see Krebernik 1988a: 57–59. 11.  Perhaps the emotional involvement is also indicated by the “i-Modus” marṣatti; see Kraus 1973a, especially p. 264, and chap. 9, n. 3 (p. 211). 12.  Note the very unusual inversion of verb and direct object: is this also a sign of strong emotions? 13.  Further examples from letters include Sumer 23, pl. 5/6:11 i-te-ep-ša-ni, versus 28 i-pu-ša-ni (in a question); AbB 14, 88:4–5; ARM 1, 4:5–8; ARM 28, 145: r.8–9. 14.  The t‑perfect also occurs elsewhere in this phrase, e.g., Gilg. p. 172: 26; 232: 4; 238: 84; 242: 9. However, another Old Babylonian version of Gilgamesh uses a perfective in this phrase, but with the verb naṭālu instead of amāru: Gilg. p. 248: 3 ibrī šuttam a-ṭú-ul, since the perfective can always replace the t‑perfect. 15.  Other likely instances include Gilg. p. 242:1; 278: II 12′; 280: IV 12; Atr. p. 72:7.

6.3.  The t‑Perfect: Function

143

The use of the t‑perfect is optional. However, when a t‑perfect is available, the speaker will tend to use it, since an explicit indication of actuality heightens the interest of the hearer and by not using it he runs the risk that his words will be misinterpreted as purely historical information.16 If there is no t‑perfect available, as in the case of t‑stems—since in Old Babylonian a double t‑infix is avoided (see §14.2.1, pp. 357–358, for details)—the perfective can be used (Loesov 2004a: 110–11), e.g., in (06A), where we expect a t‑perfect on the basis of similar contexts, such as (06B), an example pointed out by Sallaberger 1999: 145 n. 202: (06A) AbB 2, 3:6–7 kaparrū ša qātīni ana rēdî um-ta-al-lu-ú ‘the shepherds under my command have been assigned (Pfv Dt) to the rēdûs’ (06B) AbB 2, 26:6–11 kartappī ša qātīya (. . .) PN ana rēdî u ilkim aḫîm um-ta-al-li-šu-nu-ti ‘PN has assigned (t‑Pf D) the grooms under my command to the rēdûs and a different ilku-task’ Generally speaking, free t‑perfects are not very common, since often more than one event is reported, especially in letters. In this case, the existence of the “actual” t‑perfect alongside the neutral perfective offered a ready opportunity to create a semantic ranking between successive past events, e.g., in reporting personal experiences. A fairly complex instance from an Old Babylonian letter is: (07) AbB 2, 87:7–11 (as soon as I had entered GN) šamallê imērī il-qé-ma iḫ-ta-li-iq u anāku am-ta-ra-aṣ ina napištim e-li-i u am-tam(sic) ša ana šūbulim ana ṣērīka im-tu-ta-an-ni ‘my assistant has run off (t‑Pf), taking (Pfv) the donkeys with him; in addition, I have fallen ill (t‑Pf) to the point of (almost) losing (Pfv) my life, and the slave girl who was destined to be sent to you has died (t‑Pf) on me’. Here, at least amtaraṣ and imtūtanni are free t‑perfects, highlighting the main events that involve the sender of this letter; iḫtaliq is semantically on a par with them, but since it is preceded by ilqēma, it is formally bound; as I will argue below, the event denoted by ilqē is subordinated to iḫtaliq; the perfective ēlī modifies the preceding amtaraṣ (cf. the unusual asyndeton and the fact that ina napištim ēlī is obviously metaphorical; it is not in the t‑perfect because it is not a major reported event).17 In this way, the t‑perfect came to express “the central event in a sequence of events, the event on which the action in subsequent clauses is based” (Huehnergard 2005a: 157). An example is (08), in which all events are situated in a rather remote past, but by means of a t‑perfect the writer singles out the last one as the event that is most crucial to the present situation: (08) AbB 9, 50:5–12 ‘my mother, a nadītum-priestess, adopted (il-qé-e-ma: Pfv) a youth, but that youth ran away (ṣīta[m i ]r-ši-ma: Pfv), and I brought together (ú-pa-aḫ-ḫiir-šum-ma: Pfv) 20 elders of the town with regard to him, I put (aš-ku-un-ma: Pfv) his case before them. Because that youth has run away (ṣītam ir-šu-ú: Pfv Subj) ištu mu.3.kam ina aḫḫūtim at-ta-sa-aḫ-šu ‘I removed him (t‑Pf) from (his) position as my brother three years ago’ 16.  For a few instances of perfectives where the context would lead us to expect a t‑perfect, see Loesov 2004a: 110–11. 17.  For this passage, again see Loesov 2004a: 118–19. He interprets iḫtaliq and amtaraṣ as Gt perfectives, which is purely pour besoin de la cause and very unlikely, if not impossible, in view of the general use of the Gt‑stem in Old Babylonian letters.

144

The t‑Perfect: Function  6.3.

In accordance with its foregrounding function, the t‑perfect tends to be avoided in negative, relative, and interrogative clauses (apart from rhetorical questions and “Satzfragen”—i.e., questions without an interrogative word) (Maloney 1981: 37–38; Loesov 2004a: 124–25). The latter kind of clause typically contains information that is not asserted but presupposed, which leads to a backgrounded status (Maloney 1981: 84–85). There are numerous instances of t‑perfects in affirmative main clauses contrasting with perfectives in a corresponding negative (09), relative (10), or interrogative (11) clause:18 (09) AbB 3, 77:14–20 2 wardī ana GN ana ekallim uš-ta-ri (. . .) ana GN wardam šuāti ul ú-ša-ri ‘I have had two slaves brought (t‑Pf) to GN (. . .) that slave I have not had brought (Pfv) to GN’ (10) AbB 12, 177:9–10 ina pāšim šēp alpim iš-te-bi-ir alpum ša šēpšu iš-bi-ru (. . .) ‘with an axe he broke (t‑Pf) the foot of an ox; the ox whose foot he had broken (Pfv) (. . .) (11) ARM 10, 38:12–17 ana mīnim 2 amātim limdātīya [t]a-ap-ru-ús (. . .) 1 amtam ta-ap-ta-ra-as ‘why have you withheld (Pfv) the two slave girls promised to me? (. . .); you have withheld (t‑Pf) one slave girl!’ In the course of time, the difference between foregrounding t‑perfect and backgrounding perfective was interpreted as a contrast between main event and subordinate event, respectively. Accordingly, a perfective or a series of perfectives followed by a t‑perfect can often best be translated by means of a subordinate clause. Illustrative examples include ilqēma in (07), āmuršūma in (12), and especially imīdūma in (13), where the contrast between the t‑perfect as main verb and the perfective plus ‑ma as semantically subordinate is especially clear, since they come from the same verb: (12) Gilg. p. 174:32 āmuršūma aḫ-ta-du anāku ‘(when) I saw it (Pfv), I rejoiced (t‑Pf)’. (13) Sumer 14, 23 no. 5:4–7 ina libbu gab.du munnabtū i-mi-du-ú-ma šitūlam kīam aṣbat umma anakūma anna munnabtū im-ti-du ‘(since) among the … the number of fugitives has become large (Pfv), I have deliberated as follows: “surely, the number of fugitives has become large (t‑Pf)”’19 Sporadic instances in third-millennium Akkadian (see (25) and (27)) and perhaps in Old Assyrian (see §6.3.3 below, pp. 152–153) show that this process was already under way in the earliest period attested. The perfective(s) and the t‑perfect are usually connected by ‑ma. This confirms their respective roles, since the basic function of ‑ma is to establish a logical connection between the surrounding 18.  Additional examples of affirmative versus negative clause: VS 7, 149:8–10 (elû); ARM 4, 74:6–11 (erēbu); ARM 1, 1: r.4′–9′ (ḫalāqu); ARM 26/2, 183 no. 373:32, 46 (lapātu); OBTR 101: 20–25 (nadānu); AbB 10, 145:15–18 (nadānu); ARM 1, 4:9–16 (ṣabātu); MARI 6, 263:5–8 (šarāqu); ARM 10, 160:23–25 (wuššuru); of main clause versus subordinate clause: AbB 9, 42:21–22 (batāqu); KH §267 (bašû Š); AbB 12, 102:23–24 (leqû); AbB 4, 119:9–10 (nadû); AbB 1, 127:17–18 (sekēru); ShA 1, 84 no. 12:6–11 (ṣabātu N); ARM 2, 22:19–20 (ṭarādu); LE p. 46 §5:25–26 (ṭebû D); of affirmative versus interrogative clause: AbB 4, 43:5′–12′ (baqāru). For a similar alternation in šumma-clauses, see the end of this section. 19.  For this passage, see also Loesov 2004a: 112–15 (with a different interpretation).

6.3.  The t‑Perfect: Function

145

predicates (GAG §123a: ‘und dann, und daher, und demgemäss’). In the words of Maloney (1981: 92), ‑ma “indicates (. . .) that the whole thrust of the construction is towards the final clause which represents the culmination of the -ma chain.”20 If, on the other hand, t‑perfects are used in succession in coordinated structures, they represent independent clauses of equal rank.21 In a series of one or more subordinated perfectives and a t‑perfect, the t‑perfect always comes at the end. This fixed order is known as consecutio temporum (henceforth: CT), which is an in­ accurate term, insofar as the essential difference between perfective and t‑perfect in the CT is not one of temporal order or sequentiality (which is iconically expressed by the order of the predicates and does not require further marking),22 but of rank, namely “virtual subordination”—in other words, it is a consecutio ordinum. Actually, it is an automatic consequence of the strictly verb-final word order of Akkadian, which entails that most types of subordinate clauses precede the main clause. For this reason, the foregrounded (main) event with the t‑perfect regularly landed in final position and became fixed there, so that it could also be interpreted as signaling the end and the culmination of the clause.23 The use of the perfective as “virtually subordinate” to the t‑perfect foreshadows the situation in the later dialects of Akkadian, where the contrast between them has developed into a purely syntactic opposition in which the t‑perfect is restricted to affirmative main clauses and the perfective mainly to subordinate clauses. I will return to this process below. A past tense with an additional nuance of actuality has a natural propensity to extend its domain, since it enables the speaker to heighten the interest of the addressee. Accordingly, the t‑perfect came to be used in narrative contexts as well (Loesov 2004a: 117–19). Various factors contributed to this: first, the fact that there is no clear-cut boundary between the relating of personal experiences, experiences of others, and historical events; second, the rise of the CT, which provided a convenient means of foregrounding and backgrounding events in an unobtrusive way, which is vital to narrative; and third, the development of the t‑perfect toward the standard past tense in affirmative main clauses. Yet, free t‑perfects in narrative texts are rather uncommon; they usually seem to indicate momentous events that have consequences of crucial importance for the rest of the story (see also von Soden 1965: 106). Examples are: (14) Atr. p. 72:5 DN iš-te-me rigimšin ‘Enlil heard their (the people’s) noise’ (15) Atr. p. 100:5 makurra i-ta-ma-ar q[urādu DN] ‘the hero Enlil saw the vessel’ 20.  Cf. also Patterson 1970: 113–14. The subordination of a predicate without conjunction is not peculiar to this construction: the imperfective with -ma is used as a virtual conditional clause (see GAG 3 §160a–b) and the stative with -ma often serves as a circumstantial clause (GAG3 §159a* with lit.), as in AbB 6, 64:10–11 gerrum pa-ri-is-ma adi inanna ul ašpurakki ‘because the road was blocked, I have so far not written to you’. 21.  Loesov (2004a: 152–53) argues that the succession of perfective and t‑perfect represents a shift from the narrative to the deictic register, which in laws and in letters is irreversible. This does not seem incompatible with the formulation adopted here. 22.  There is therefore no reason to assume that the t‑perfect has the function of indicating “Nach­zei­tig­ keit,” pace GAG §80d, GKT §76c, and Streck 1995a: 219–34; 1999, nor that there is a “Perfekt des Fort­ schrei­tens,” pace Metzler 2002: 384, 875–76. 23.  Maloney (1981: 127) explains the fixed position of perfective and t‑perfect in “Koppelungen” by claiming that “a mechanical rule of Old Babylonian syntax is restraining a perfect from appearing in penultimate position.” There may indeed be such a rule, but it is completely grounded in the actual use of the t‑perfect as a “superordinate” category.

146

The t‑Perfect: Function  6.3.

(16) Anzu RA 46, 88:1 Enlilūtam i-te-ki-im ‘He (Anzu) took away the Enlilship’ (first line of a new tablet) In contrast, instances of the CT in Old Babylonian narrative texts are quite common (Metzler 2002: 384–492; E. Cohen 2006: 60–62). The t‑perfect usually comes after a string of perfectives at the end of a passage; its impact often seems to be to recapitulate the previous events and highlight their meaning for the sequel of the story (as in the instances from Atra-ḫasis discussed by Metzler [2002: 387–91] and the two texts he quotes on pp. 394–95 [ibtanī in Agušaya and īterub in the merḫum-incantation]). The t‑perfect also automatically downplays the preceding event(s); an illustrative example from a hymnal context is: (17) JRAS Cspl. 68: II 1–4 ta-am-gu-ur-ma šarram u kalūšunu im-ta-ag-ru / ta-ab-bi šīmassu u kalūšunu it-ta-bi-i-ú ‘you (DN) have shown (Pfv) your favour to the king and they have all (i.e., all other gods) done (t‑Pf) the same; you have ordained (Pfv) his destiny, they have all done (t‑Pf) the same’. However, it seems more accurate to translate the perfectives as subordinate: ‘because/after you had shown your favour to the king, they have all done the same’, etc. Other t‑perfects in literary texts seem no more than mechanical instances of the CT in which its foregrounding nature can still be detected, but is hard to isolate from the natural emphasis that lies on the last-mentioned item of a series of events, e.g.: (18) Atr. p. 48:89–90 DN1 i-di-il bābšu kakkīšu il-qé it-ta-zi-iz maḫar DN2 ‘DN1, after having closed (Pfv) his gate and taken (Pfv) his weapons, appeared (t‑Pf) before DN2’. The interchange of perfective and t‑perfect may also serve a stylistic purpose, as in (19) and especially (20), where the stylistic sophistication is underlined by the chiastic arrangement of the two final constituents:24 (19) Gilg. p. 200:165–66 pāšī iš-pu-ku rabûtim / ḫaṣṣīnī 3 bilā iš-tap-ku ‘they cast (Pfv) big hatches, they cast (t‑Pf) axes of three talents each’ (20) Atr. St. Garelli p. 399:15, 18 arkūtum ik-ru-ú lāmšin / arkūtum mazzāzūšina ik-ta-ru-ú ‘the tall became short (Pfv) in stature (. . .); the tall, their stature became short (t‑Pf)’ Significantly, the t‑perfect is virtually absent from the narrative of Old Babylonian royal inscriptions. This is doubtless related to their generally stereotyped, solemn, and sometimes archaizing style, which did not promote the use of an innovating form.25 24.  Other instances include Bab. 12:16–17:6–7 (Etana) (ulid – ittalad ); Atr. p. 42:17–18 (īlû – [it]tardū). 25.  Instances from RIME 4 are it-ta-aš-ka-an-šum p. 376:32 and ú-tá-di p. 669:9. A reason for these t‑perfects (discussed by Metzler 2002: 458–59) may be that they are the first main verb after a rather intricate temporal clause (as is typical for these texts): the t‑perfect may signal that the main clause has started. A third instance, in the recurring phrase ge-ra-am i-ta-BA-al RIME 4, 708:11 // 710:11 // 711:11 in Archaic Babylonian inscriptions should instead be interpreted as Gtn perfective ittabbal (from wabālu ‘to carry’) or ītappal (from apālu ‘to answer’). Note that W. Farber (NABU 1998/129) reads the preceding word as zi‑ra‑am, with a variant zi-ra-tim ‘hostile actions/words’ (for the expression zērēti apālu; cf. ze-re-tim u parkātim i/ta-ta-na-ap-pa-la-an-ni Syria 33, 67:21, 26 (OB Mari) ‘he/you keep(s) answering me with hostile words and lies’ (tr. CAD P 185b s.v. pariktu B).

6.3.  The t‑Perfect: Function

147

The second type of bound t‑perfect in main clauses is the epistolary t‑perfect of verbs of sending and writing in letters, usually underlined by anumma, inanna, or both, as in (21):26 (21) AbB 7, 155:14–17 inanna PN ana maḫrīka aṭ-ṭar-dam šeʾam kaspam i-di-iš-šum-ma ana GN li-ib-lam ‘herewith I am sending you PN: give him barley and silver so that he can bring it to me in GN’ This type represents a conventionalized use of the regular function of the t‑perfect. The writer of the letter transfers the event of writing or sending from his own temporal perspective (present or future) to the speaker’s time of the addressee, when this event is in the addressee’s (actual) past (Loesov 2004a: 130–31). The actuality is often made explicit by means of a following injunction, in the form of an imperative or a precative, as in (21) (Leong 1994: 157; Huehnergard 2005a: 157–58). In Late Babylonian, the epistolary t‑perfect is often introduced by amur or enna amur (also enna alone) (Streck 1995a: 155–56) instead of OB anumma and/or inanna, e.g.: (22) CT 22, 52: 21–22 a-mur PN al-tap-rak-ka ‘see, I am sending PN to you’. The Imp amur ‘see!’ underlines even more clearly than anumma and/or inanna that the writer visualizes the moment at which the recipient takes note of the contents of the letter and takes it as his reference point. Therefore, he expresses the act of writing or sending as a recent past event, the result of which the addressee has before his eyes.27 The use of a perfective instead of an epistolary t‑perfect does not seem to be impossible (pace Loesov 2004a: 130), although it is very rare: (23) AbB 4, 54:12 ina qabê bēlīa aš-pu-ra-ak-kum ‘I am writing to you by order of my lord’28 The third “bound” use of the t‑perfect concerns temporal clauses that refer to the future, where the t‑perfect serves as a future perfect (   futurum exactum): it indicates an event that is anterior to the main clause (in accordance with its regular past function) but posterior to the moment of speaking (GAG §170f, 171h, 172f, 174a–f; Maloney 1981: 196–99; Loesov 2004a: 134–40), e.g.: (24) AbB 2, 5:17–19 ištu nāram šuāti te-eḫ-te-ru-ú šipram ša ašpurakkum [e] puš ‘after you have dug (t‑Pf) the canal, do the work I wrote you about!’ In this context, the t‑perfect is regular whereas the perfective is very unusual, if it occurs at all. The reason for preferring the t‑perfect here may be that it relates the event to the moment of speaking because of its nuance of actuality, whereas the perfective would suggest that the event 26.  For the epistolary t‑perfect, see Maloney 1981: 59–76; Pardee and Whiting 1987; Leong 1994: 191–202; Loesov 2004a: 101–2, 130–34. 27.  Therefore, the epistolary t‑perfect is not a future perfect, as contended by Wilcke (1978: 208–09 n. 6) and Streck (1995a: 155–59; 1999: 103–5)—cf. the comments by Maloney (1981: 67–75) and Metzler (2002: 484–86)—nor is it a “Koinzidenzfall,” as claimed by Heimpel and Guidi (1969), nor does it refer to “an event he [the speaker] is doing at the moment of speech” (Leong 1994: 191). This kind of t‑perfect indicates precisely what the t‑perfect indicates elsewhere. The fact that we can conveniently translate it by means of an English progressive form (‘I am sending you this letter . . .’) is simply a matter of idiomatic expression in English, not a feature of the Akkadian t‑perfect itself. 28.  Other cases are ARM 10, 19:5–11; FM 2, 104 no. 62:11–14, 63:21–22. The instance quoted by Streck (1999: 119): ARM 6, 55:10–12 inanna anumma tuppam ana ṣēr šarrim ú-ša-bi-lam, is not an “epistolary perfective,” since the king is not the addressee of the letter containing this message.

148

The t‑Perfect: Function  6.3.

already belongs to the past. It is arguably a secondary development, because earlier texts, e.g., in Old Assyrian (see §6.3.3 below, pp. 151–152) use either the perfective or the imperfective in the same circumstances, and at least the imperfective is still possible in Old Babylonian.29 It is a symptom of the gradual “syntacticization” of the t‑perfect, the shift from a semantic or pragmatic motivation toward a syntactic one. It is significant that in Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian, where the t‑perfect is generally not used in subordinate clauses, it is still used in temporal clauses with a future main clause (see §6.3.4 below, p. 155). The t‑perfect also occurs in conditional clauses as a future perfect, since the apodosis of a conditional clause is typically situated in the future.30 It alternates with the perfective (see §5.3, p. 128); both indicate that the event of the protasis is completed at the moment the apodosis is realized. If all finite verbs of a conditional clause are in the t‑perfect or in the perfective, it is hard to observe a clear difference between them (Maloney 1981: 270). It is much more common, however, to find a t‑perfect preceded by one or more perfectives in the CT (Maloney 1981: 271–99; Hirsch 1969), especially in the complex protases of the Old Babylonian law collections—the Codes of Hammurapi and of Eshnunna. In this case, the t‑perfect typically expresses the most important condition for the sanction expressed in the apodosis to apply (Maloney 1981: 277–78; Huehnergard 2005a: 157), whereas the conditions expressed by means of a perfective are typically backgrounded: they are circumstantial or qualifications of the main condition.31 So the use of the t‑perfect in šumma-clauses is syntactically parallel to that in main clauses (Loesov 2004a: 147).32 This is further demonstrated by the fact that it is often avoided if there is a negation.33 29.  In particular after ištu; see GAG §171i; in the instances presented in GAG §171g, the context suggests that ištu has shifted here toward a causal meaning, parallel to English since. An instance after inūma is AbB 6, 126:18 inūma i-il-la-ka-ku-nu-ši-im ‘when he comes to you’ (followed by an imperative in the main clause); see GAG §170g; 30.  For the t‑perfect in conditional clauses, see Hirsch 1969; Maloney 1981: 231–48; Streck 1999: 112–13; Metzler 2002: 38–50; Loesov 2004a: 140–47. Von Soden’s claim (GAG §161f) about the t‑perfect in šumma clauses as “potential oder hypothetisch” is generally rejected; see Loesov 2004a: 146 n. 137 with earlier literature. 31.  A counter-example to this claim seems to be KH §22:22–25 šumma awīlum ḫubtam iḫbutma it-taaṣ-ba-at, with the crime in the perfective and the legally superfluous statement that he has been caught in the t‑perfect. However, the correct interpretation is doubtless ‘if a man has been caught in the act of committing a robbery’, with the two verbs in a kind of hendiadys, and the core statement is that the seizure occurred flagrante delicto, as Loesov (2004a: 154) has observed. 32.  In Akkadian, conditional clauses are main clauses, since they have the verb in the indicative. According to Loesov (2004a: 144–45), this is due to the fact that the realization of the main clause depends on the realization of the condition, which makes a conditional clause more foregrounded than other types of subordinate clauses. The fact that conditional clauses employ the negation lā is due to the association of lā with modality (cf. the prohibitive) rather than to its use in subordinate clauses. For the non-factual status of conditional clauses, compare the use of the precative and the prohibitive with the function of a conditional clause. 33.  See, for instance, it-ta-la-ad KH §146:47 ‘she has given birth’ versus lā ú-li-id §147:61, and cf. also §146:52 aššum mārī ul-du ‘because she has given birth (Pfv) to sons’ in a relative clause. Other instances include AbB 4, 80:4 and 11 and AbB 9, 196:7, 14. However, from time to time the t‑perfect is carried over to the negated alternative, as in: AbB 9, 16:11–14 šumma i-te-er-ba-ak-ki (. . .) šumma lā i-te-er-ba-ak-ki ‘if he has entered into your (Fem) presence, (. . .); if he has not entered into your presence, (. . .)’. For details, see Maloney 1981: 344–52, with a summary on p. 344: sometimes the t‑perfect is replaced by perfective in the negated clause, and sometimes it is not; the conditioning factor is unknown. Yet, according to Maloney (1981: 232–33), the šumma-clause is the only place in Old Babylonian where t‑perfects regularly occur with a negation.

6.3.  The t‑Perfect: Function

149

6.3.2.  The t‑perfect in third-millennium Akkadian Among the four third-millennium dialects distinguished in §1.4.1.1 (pp. 11–12), only Sargonic Akkadian and Ur III Babylonian offer reliable instances of t‑perfects.34 Although they are very few in number, they suggest that there are no substantial differences from what we find in Old Babylonian as regards the use of the t‑perfect. Sargonic Akkadian shows two instances from a single letter and one from a royal inscription: (25) SAB p. 116:3 (Girsu) áš-má-ma aḫ-da-tu /  ʾasmaʿma(?) ʾaḫtadū/ ‘when I heard (it), I rejoiced’ (26) SAB p. 116:6–7 e-ni awātsu i-ti-iš i-da-ḫa-az /yītaḫaz/ ‘now he has taken his affair into his own hands’. (27) AKI p. 304:37–39 ip-la-aḫ-su-ma e-da-ra-ab /(y)iplaḫsūma (y)ētarab/ sadūsum ‘(the enemy leader,) having got frightened of him, fled into the mountain(s)’ All of them represent usages that are familiar from Old Babylonian: (25) and (27) are model instances of the CT, (26) contains a prototypical t‑perfect, underlined by e-ni, which (perhaps) means ‘now’. It is remarkable that other Sargonic Akkadian letters do not contain any t‑perfects.35 In a few cases, we find a perfective in a context where later texts would doubtless have a t‑perfect, which perhaps indicates that its use was less common in the third millennium than in later periods, e.g.: (28) SAB p. 170:4–8 (Eshnunna) x kù.babbar PN1 íl-gi-ma /yilqēma/ ana PN2 i-ti-in /yiddin/ ‘PN1 has received x silver and has given it to PN2’ (29) SAB p. 167:13′–15′ (Diyala) epinnī i-zu-ḫa-ma /yissuḫāma/ eqlī ana errāšē i-ti-na /yiddinā/ ‘(two persons?) have taken away my plough and have given my field to (the?) farmers’36

34.  The occurrence of the t‑perfect in Eblaite remains uncertain. There are several verb forms with infixed t that seem to be t‑perfects rather than t‑stems, in particular ni-da-za-an ARET 13, 9: r.VI 19 ‘we have weighed’ from wazānum (see §16.2.4, p. 458). Other forms of the same type are doubtless Gt‑stems, since they occur as such in Akkadian or elsewhere (e.g., iš-da-al /yištaʾal/ ‘he deliberated’ or the like, and iš11-da-mar in proper names [for the controversial meaning of the latter, see Pagan 1998: 24]), or their interpretation is uncertain (e.g., the forms mentioned in Rubio 2006: 122). A remarkable phenomenon pointed out by Krebernik (1988a: 57–59) is the use of perfective forms with infixed t (i.e., t‑perfects?) in abbreviated names where the subject (a god) has been omitted, whereas the corresponding full name uses the perfective; see also Pagan 1998: 22–23. 35.  Three other instances quoted by Hasselbach (2005: 198–99) are no doubt Gt perfectives: yittalkū in ana GN lū it-tal-ku SAB p. 116: r.3′ ‘they have indeed gone to / set out for GN’ comes from atluku ‘to start going, set out’ (see §14.3.4, pp. 371–372), since lū is hardly ever followed by a t‑perfect; see chap. 5, n. 8, p. 128; da-áš-da-˹bu˺ /taštapū/ SAB p. 186:9 (Gasur) ‘you were silent’ is from a verb that is regularly used in the Gt‑stem (G: šapû); see §14.3.4 (pp. 371–372), and Streck 2003a: 70 no. 186; and id-ba-lu /yitbalu/ OAIC 7:24 (Diyala) ‘he took along’ (Subj) is a perfective of tabālu ‘to take along’; see Kouwenberg 2005: 89–90. 36.  For errāšē instead of Inf erāši, as interpreted by Kienast and Volk (SAB p. 167), see Sommerfeld 1999: 19.

150

The t‑Perfect: Function  6.3.

In the narrative style of the Sargonic Akkadian royal inscriptions, we would not expect to find t‑perfects at all, so (27) is highly remarkable; it comes from a rather late (slightly post-Sargonic) inscription of Erridu-pizir of the Gutian dynasty.37 In Ur III Babylonian, the t‑perfect is attested a few times in letters and legal documents and does not seem different from its later use. An example is: (30) TMH NF 1/2, 7:7–9 nadānam iqbīšumma i-ta-dì-in ‘he promised to give him (the amount due), and he has indeed given (it)’38 Finally, third-millennium Akkadian offers a few proper names containing a verb form with infixed -t-, some of which may be t‑perfects (although this is hard to prove for lack of context). The most likely examples are: • Imtīda(m) ‘it has become (too) much for me’ in Ur III Babylonian (Hilgert 2002: 380– 82), apparently a t‑perfect of mâdu (ī) ‘to be(come) much, numerous’39 • Ātanaḫ ‘I have had enough!’ from anāḫu in Sargonic Akkadian (A-da-na-aḫ ELTS p. 130 no. 40 side C: IV 6 (Maništušu Obelisk) and in Ur III Babylonian (in various spellings, see Hilgert 2002: 238, 234–35 n. 22). This name is still common in later periods (Stamm 1939: 163)40

6.3.3.  The t‑perfect in Old Assyrian   41 In some respects, the use of the t‑perfect in Old Assyrian is markedly different from the use in Old Babylonian, although there are also some striking similarities. The main differences are that Old Assyrian makes a more sparing use of the t‑perfect (GKT §76h) and that there is little reason to distinguish between free and bound t‑perfects as defined in §6.3.1 (p. 141). Most t‑perfects are basically free, and their use is largely parallel to the use of the “free” t‑perfects of Old Babylonian: they typically express recent events that have an effect on the persons involved. We often find the t‑perfect when the speaker relates an event that concerns him personally and has aroused his anger, impatience, disappointment, or any other emotion. Referring to the speaker, it often expresses a personal experience, as in (31); elsewhere, the speaker often expresses his feelings 37.  The verb form in g ì r . n i t a2 g ì r . n i t a2 ˹iš ˺-da-ga-an AKI p. 292:15 ‘he has appointed governors everywhere’ is doubtless a Gtn perfective /yistakkan/. 38.  Similar instances are i-ta-dì-˹in˺ ZA 82, 184a:12 ‘he has given’; uš-te-li ASJ 12, 52:8 ‘he has dispossesssed’; and ir-tá-ši-ì FAOS 17, 127:13 ‘she has got’. 39.  Instances of third-millennium t‑perfects that are uncertain but still worth mentioning are: ú-DA-bibu-si(-ma) Or. 46, 201:30 (incant. from Kish), which is interpreted as a t‑perfect of ebēbu by AHw 181a s.v. D 4 but for which a derivation from dabābu D, as proposed by J. and A. Westenholz 1977: 210, seems more likely, precisely because of the rarity of the t‑perfect in this period; ti-ib-da-ad-ga in line 11 of the same text (according to Lambert 1992: 53–54 /tibtatqā/, a t‑perfect of batāqu ‘to cut off’ but perhaps also an indirect reflexive Gt‑stem (‘they(?) cut off for themselves’); ir11-ti-ab MAD 3, 229 s.v. Rʾ3B in a broken context; and the PN Dar-ti-bu (MAD 3, 229) ‘she has replaced’ (Gasur), perhaps an abbreviation of Tartīb-DN, both from râbu (ī) ‘to replace’ (which, however, more often shows the form raʾābu in Sargonic Akkadian PNs (Yirʾib-DN, etc.; see §17.7.2, p. 558). 40.  However, since t‑perfects in proper names remain very unusual until the Neo-Babylonian period (Stamm 1939: 38, 94), it may also be a lexicalized Gt‑stem; see §14.3.4 (pp. 371–372), and cf. perhaps the taPRīS noun tānī/ēḫu (see §14.6.1, p. 409). 41.  An earlier and thorough treatment was presented by K. Hecker in GKT §76. However, some of his instances are to be explained as t‑ or tan‑stems, especially the putative instances of future meaning in §76d (the t‑Pf áš-ta-ḫa-aṭ BIN 6, 113:5 mentioned there is not very clear but presumably refers to the past) and the Štn Pfv uš-té-bi4-lá-ku-ni TC 1, 2:19 (= OAA 1, 47:19) mentioned in §76g.

6.3.  The t‑Perfect: Function

151

about negative behaviour of the addressee or a third person who has failed to do something he promised or something he has a moral obligation to do, as in (32)–(34): (31) BIN 4, 35:9–10 lā libbi ilimma eršum i-ṣa-áb-ta-ni ‘unfortunately, I have been confined to bed’ (lit., the bed has seized me) (32) ICK 1, 187:7, 19 ūmūšu e-ta-at-qú ‘his term has already finished!’42 (33) AKT 1, 27:20–23 umma šūtma āllak kaspam ubbalakkum isliʾannīma kaspam lā i-ta-áb-lá-am ‘he said to me ‘I will bring you the silver’, but he has cheated me and has not brought me the silver’ (similarly TPAK 1, 3:15–18) (34) CCT 4, 45b:16–19 miššum kīma sinništim ištu itu.10.kam iqqerab ālim ta-áp-ta-aḫ-a-ni-i ‘why have you held me locked up in the town like a woman for 10 months?’ When a t‑perfect and a perfective of the same verb are used side by side, the contrast is one of recent past versus more remote past, as in (35) and (36), and/or personal involvement versus a more neutral attitude, as in (37) and (38): (35) TPAK 1, 191:5–6, 14–19 adi šinīšu ina dittim tù-ša-i-lá-ni-[m]a (. . .) e-ša-ni-ma yāti (. . .) ina dittim tù-uš-ta-i-lá-ni ‘twice you questioned (Pfv) me in court (. . .); now you have questioned (t‑Pf) me again in court’ (also CCT 1, 49b:14–17 with ūmam, quoted in GKT §76e)43 (36) BIN 6, 104:3–9 abūki (. . .) iš-pu-ra-am u anāku ṣuḫārēa u našpertī aṣṣēr abīki áš-ta-áp-ra-am ‘your father wrote (Pfv) to me and (now) I have sent (t‑Pf) my servants and my message to your father (. . .)’ (37) TC 2, 3:7–11 etalluttam ēpušma šuqlī ipṭur annikī il5-qé appūḫ awīlim sarrim šūt annakam yāʾam il5-té-qé ‘he acted high-handedly, opened my container and took (Pfv) my tin: instead of a criminal, he himself has taken (t‑Pf) the tin which is mine!’ (38) OAA 1, 126:22–25 šūt iṣṣērīa awīlma mā šuāti ta-qí-ip-ma yāti ulā ta-aq-tí-pá-ni ‘he is (apparently) a better man than I am: you have put (Pfv) your confidence in him, but you have not put (t‑Pf) your confidence in me’ Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian also differ in their use of the t‑perfect in the following ways. First, the epistolary t‑perfect is very rare in Old Assyrian letters.44 Second, the use of the t‑perfect 42.  This t‑perfect contrasts with the perfective in the same text (ICK 1, 187), line 49 ūmūšu e-tí-qú, which means the same but lacks the urgency of the first two times the writer uses this expression. In Old Assyrian, the t‑perfect occurs passim in similar contexts with etēqu, alāku, and mâdu (ī) ‘to be(come) (too) much’. 43.  However, recentness alone is not a sufficient condition for using the t‑perfect: a trivial recent event is often expressed by a perfective, e.g., CCT 2, 29:9–11 10 mana ūmam kunukkīa ak-nu-uk-ma našʾākkum ‘today, I have sealed (Pfv) 10 minas of silver with my seal and I am bringing it to you’, where aknuk is doubtless too colourless a verb to deserve a t‑perfect (cf. also ICK 1, 51:7–8 and the two examples of ūmam + perfective quoted in GKT §76h). 44.  Only OIP 27, 5:3 // 6:4. The instance mentioned by Pardee and Whiting (1987: 23)—TC 1, 2:19, quoted in n. 41 above—is without any doubt a Štn perfective.

152

The t‑Perfect: Function  6.3.

as a future perfect in temporal clauses is exceptional (GAG §172h and GKT §76f).45 In temporal clauses situated posterior to the moment of speech, Old Assyrian normally uses the perfective or the imperfective, e.g.: (39) TPAK 1, 42:r.9′ kīma kaspam ta-áš-qú-lu-šu-ni ‘as soon as you have paid (Pfv) him the silver (send your message to me and my representative)’ (40) CCT 2, 1:8–9 ina ūmim ša tuppī ta-ša-me-ú ‘as soon as (lit., on the day when) you hear (Impfv) my tablet (, buy tin for our joint property)’ Third, the Babylonian tendency to avoid the t‑perfect in negative, interrogative, and subordinate clauses is not very conspicuous in Old Assyrian, although there are some examples suggesting the contrary.46 A difficult point is the existence of the CT in Old Assyrian. From time to time we encounter phrases that are strongly reminiscent of it, such as: (41) RA 58, 120:11–13 né-gu5-ur-ma aṣṣērīšu ni-iš-ta-pá-ar ‘we (have) rented (Pfv) (a messenger) and have sent (t‑Pf) (him) to him’ (42) TC 1, 34:6–10 anāku u PN né-ru-ub-ma taḫsisātum (. . .) né-ta-mar ‘PN and I entered (Pfv) and we looked (t‑Pf) for the memoranda’ (cf. also GKT §76c and 134b) (43) OAA 1, 127:8–11 ḫuzīrum e-gi5-ri-ma am-qú-ut-ma šēpī áš-tí-bi4-ir-ma ak-ta-lá ‘a pig crossed (Pfv) my path and I fell (Pfv); (now) I have broken (t‑Pf) my foot and have become delayed (t‑Pf)’ The perfectives in these clauses precede one or two t‑perfects and may be interpreted as semantically subordinate and thus as instantiations of the CT. The question is, however, whether this sequence has a special syntactic status in Old Assyrian—as it undoubtedly has in Old Babylonian—or whether it is only one out of many possible sequences. These clauses may simply result from the general tendency in Akkadian to save the most salient information for the end. Actually, there is wide variation: apart from the rather common perfective – t‑perfect order, we also find the reverse order (44) and a succession of t‑perfects, as in (45) and (46): (44) OAA 1, 12:15–17 annakam abbāʾūšu im-tí-du-ma aḫḫēni nu-šé-ší-ib ‘here his “fathers” have become (t‑Pf) numerous, so we convened (Pfv) our colleagues’ (45) BIN 6, 114:14–16 kuṣṣum i-sí-ni-iq-ni-a-tí-ma ellutum i-ib-té-re ‘winter has reached (t‑Pf) us and the caravan has become (t‑Pf) hungry’47 (46) CCT 4, 14b:8–9 DN u ilka qātī i-ṣa-áb-tù-ma áš-tí-lim ‘Assur and your (personal) god have seized (t‑Pf) my hand and I have become (t‑Pf) well (again)’ 45.  A good example is BIN 4, 63:6–7 kīma awātim anniātim ni-iš-ta-am-ú-ni ‘although we have heard (about) these matters (we do not intend to leave)’; also CCT 2, 48:25 (i-ṣa-áb-tù-ú) and Prag I 715:26 tù‑ku‑ta-i-na-ni (both after ištumma) 46.  E.g., TC 3, 252 case: 21/3 šumma . . . i-tab-lu-nim versus TC 3, 252 case: 25 šumma lā ub-lu-nim. 47.  Cf. OAA 1, 50:8–9 kuṣṣum is-ni-iq-ni-a-tí, where the same event is expressed neutrally with a perfective.

6.3.  The t‑Perfect: Function

153

It seems most likely that the order perfective + -ma + t‑perfect is not (yet) syntacticized but that each constituent still has its own specific function. Finally, a major problem is the use of the t‑perfect in conditional clauses with šumma (GKT §137d). In šumma clauses that are anterior to the moment of speech, the perfective is used (GKT §137c); if the condition is posterior to the moment of speech, both perfective and t‑perfect may be used (cf. GKT §137d). The difference between them is unclear; in some contexts, the t‑perfect seems to be used if a previously affirmed future event is negated in a šumma clause, or vice versa,48 as in: (47) Prag I 491:11–13 (PN will send [ušebbalam] silver to me) šumma in miqit nigallim lā uš-té-bi4-lam ‘if he has not sent it by the time of the “falling of the sickle” (i.e., harvest time) (he will pay a fine)’ (48) AKT 1, 76:6–7 (PN has married PNF and he will not marry [ulā ēḫḫaz] a second wife) šumma e-ta-ḫa-az u e-tí-zi-ib-ší ‘if he (nevertheless) has married (another woman) and has left her (i.e., the first woman)’ (he will pay (a fine of) 5 minas of silver) (and often in similar contexts) Comparing the use of the t‑perfect in Old Assyrian and in Old Babylonian, we can provisionally conclude that its development is basically parallel in the two dialects but that Old Assyrian represents an earlier stage than Old Babylonian. This is also suggested by the remarkable fact that the differences between them no longer seem to exist in later periods: the use of the t‑perfect in Middle Assyrian is virtually identical to its use in Middle Babylonian (see below). A more detailed study of the Old Assyrian t‑perfect is required to obtain more clarity regarding how this came about.

6.3.4.  The t‑perfect in the later dialects From Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian onward, the perfective and the t‑perfect have the same temporal function of referring to a past event, but they differ syntactically in the fact that they occur in different types of clauses: the t‑perfect is the regular past tense in affirmative main clauses and “Satzfragen” (i.e., without a question word), and the perfective is used elsewhere— i.e., in subordinate and negative clauses and in “Wortfragen” (which include a question word).49 The roots of this differentiation are already observable in the CT of Old Babylonian, in which the perfective denotes “virtual subordination,” as we saw in §6.3.1 (pp. 144–146). The (partial) replacement of the perfective by the t‑perfect is an instance of a typologically common process, caused by the fact that the t‑perfect with its nuances of involvement, actuality, and recentness is more expressive than the perfective and therefore tends to be overused and gradually generalized at the cost of the neutral form, at the same time losing its expressiveness (Bybee et al. 1994: 86–87). In this particular case, we can establish the course of this process in some detail. The use of the t‑perfect in Old Babylonian shows that the replacement started in 48.  This is presumably what J. Lewy (MVAeG 35/3 (1935) 169 n. 1) intends with his proposal to translate the t‑perfect in Old Assyrian with ‘wirklich’, ‘tatsächlich’, ‘jetzt wirklich’, or ‘nunmehr’. It is also reminiscent of the use of the negated t‑perfect in šumma clauses of Hammurapi’s Laws, of which Loesov (2004a: 156–57) states that it indicates “behaviour that is contrary to the normal (expected) course of events, most typically penalized omissions.” 49.  From this period onward, the term (t‑)perfect is strictly speaking inappropriate (as it is in the West Semitic suffix conjugation): it should rather be called “simple past” or “preterite,” but this would cause confusion; see also Streck 1995a: 212 n. 487.

154

The t‑Perfect: Function  6.3.

affirmative main clauses. This is due to the fact that such clauses are typically foregrounded: they are used for the most important and most salient part of the message, to convey new information, and to refer to highly focalized events. Consequently, it is in affirmative main clauses that new and more expressive words and constructions tend to be introduced first. Other clause types are more likely to contain information that is presupposed (“non-challengeable”), already known to the interlocutors, and therefore backgrounded. After the rise of innovative forms in affirmative main clauses, they will be formally different in that they preserve older forms (Bybee et al. 1994: 230–36; Haspelmath 1998; Loesov 2004a: 123 n. 93)). In a later stage, the new forms may spread to all environments and thus completely replace the older ones, but in Akkadian this did not happen with the perfective: it was not given up but was restricted to secondary environments. The details of the process are, however, fairly complex. Generally speaking, conservative types of language use, especially literary and legal texts, lag behind in completing the strict syntactic division between the two tenses. The literary dialect of Standard Babylonian never adopted it at all and continued using perfectives in main clauses, just as in Old Babylonian, side by side with t‑perfects. For Middle Babylonian, Aro (1955: 81) distinguishes between letters on the one hand and legal texts (“Urkunden”) and kudurru-inscriptions on the other. In letters, the t‑perfect is the usual past tense in affirmative main clauses, whereas the perfective is found in questions and negative clauses. However, in the legal texts and the kudurru-inscriptions, the perfective is also used in affirmative main clauses. Aro ascribes this to the difference between Behauptung (for the t‑perfect) and Feststellung (for the perfective) defined by W. von Soden (GAG §80f). It should instead be ascribed to a difference between contemporary usage on the one hand and archaizing or formulaic style on the other (Streck 1995a: 153–54).50 This is confirmed by the fact that the t‑perfect does appear in legal texts but only in verbatim quotations of the persons involved (Aro 1955: 82–83). However, Aro (1955: 83–86) also points to a fair number of perfectives in main clauses of letters, and among these are the perfective of qabû ‘to say’ and šapāru ‘to write’. These examples indicate that the replacement of the perfective in main clauses by the t‑perfect was not yet quite completed and that these frequent and colourless verbs preserved their old form longer than other verbs. As Aro states (1955: 86), a more detailed study on a wider basis is required. Finally, in conditional clauses, the t‑perfect has largely replaced the perfective (1955: 144–45), and in temporal clauses it is used as a future perfect (1955: 148–49), continuing Old Babylonian usage. Neo-Babylonian and Late Babylonian essentially show the same picture (Woodington 1982: 87–88; Streck 1995a: 120–26). Interestingly, in Late Babylonian legal documents, the perfective still continues to be used in affirmative main clauses alongside the t‑perfect (1995a: 122–24). Streck plausibly explains this as due to their stereotyped and traditional style (1995a: 153–54). It shows that the advance of the t‑perfect was gradual and took place first in passages that are closest to everyday language. The details for Middle Assyrian are unclear, since W. Mayer’s representation of the facts (W. Mayer 1971: 58 and elsewhere) is too laconic to be of much use. In Middle Assyrian letters, 50.  W. von Soden’s (GAG §79b, 80f) distinction between the t‑perfect as a “Behauptungsform” and the perfective as “Form der blossen Feststellung” in later dialects has no basis in the actual use of these tenses and is directly refuted by the syntactic distribution that I have described above: if two categories differ in that one mainly occurs in affirmative main clauses and the other one in other kinds of clauses, they cannot also differ in that one expresses “Behauptungen” and the other “Feststellungen.” Moreover, the use of the t‑perfect in “Satzfragen” directly contradicts the claim that it is a “Behauptungsform,” as Streck (1995a: 208) points out.

6.4.  The Historical Background of the t‑Perfect

155

the situation seems to be parallel to Middle Babylonian, with the t‑perfect in affirmative main clauses and the perfective in subordinate clauses, negated clauses and questions (CancikKirschbaum 1996: 63), e.g.:51 (52) MATSH p. 96 no. 2:54–56 ana īne mullāʾē ša ṣābe u imārē ḫalqūte ša GN lā tu-ma-al-li imārē um-ta-al-li why have you not provided (Pfv) compensation for the lost workers and donkeys of GN?’ – ‘I have provided (t‑Pf) donkeys’ Other kinds of Middle Assyrian texts show a less consistent picture. In the legal texts of the Harem Edicts, the past tense in main clauses may still be expressed by the perfective (e.g., riksa irkus AfO 17, 280:60 ‘he [the king] issued a binding regulation’ in the introductory formula), and this is also found in contracts. However, W. Mayer (1971: 58) claims that in “younger texts,” such as the economic texts from the time of Ninurta-tukulti-Assur (ca. 1130 b.c.), the t‑perfect has replaced the perfective as the past tense in main clauses. So here, too, we witness a gradual replacement, with the Harem Edicts and the contracts doubtless representing a more archaic stage. In the conditional clauses of the Middle Assyrian laws (which doubtless also represent an older stage), the CT is used as it was in the Old Babylonian law collections (W. Mayer 1971: 110–11), but the t‑perfect tends to become more frequent (Hirsch 1965: 131). In subordinate clauses the t‑perfect is used if the main clause refers to the future (W. Mayer 1971: 112, 115), an interesting Babylonian-style innovation versus Old Assyrian. In relative clauses, only perfectives are used for past tense (W. Mayer 1971: 58). All instances of “Wortfragen” referring to the past quoted by W. Mayer (1971: 108) have the perfective rather than the t‑perfect. He makes no mention of “Satzfragen.” The situation in Neo-Assyrian, as described by Hämeen-Anttila (2000: 110), seems a close continuation of the tendencies observable in Middle Assyrian: the t‑perfect is the usual form in affirmative main clauses and “Satzfragen,” the perfective is used in subordinate clauses, negative clauses and “Wortfragen.” Hämeen-Anttila (2000: 110) also reports the use of the epistolary t‑perfect in the formula ūmâ annuri(g) assapra or assaprakka ‘herewith I am writing to you’. This is remarkable, since it does not seem to be attested in earlier Assyrian.52

6.4. The Historical Background of the t‑Perfect There is a broad consensus among Semitic scholars that the t‑perfect of the G‑stem goes back to the Gt‑stem and that it represents a specific development of the originally detransitive function of the t-infix. However, this seems largely based on the lack of an alternative explanation (Loesov 2004a: 167): apart from the well-known and widespread T-forms in Semitic (including Akkadian), there does not seem to be any plausible source for the t‑perfect. There are, however, a few positive arguments for this derivation. First, there is no distinction in form whatsoever between the t‑perfect forms of the primary stems and the perfective of the corresponding t‑stem. Second, infixes do not easily emerge: they are by far the least common type of affix (Greenberg 1963: 73; Ultan 1975; Mayerthaler 1988: 78). Therefore, a unitary origin of t‑perfect and t‑stem 51.  According to Cancik-Kirschbaum (1996: 63), the perfective is also found in “Aussagesätze (. . .) für die Vorvergangenheit”—i.e., in main clauses. However, this cannot be substantiated from the texts, as demonstrated by Streck (1997: 272). 52.  The rare use of the t‑perfect as a future perfect is mainly attested in the legal formula ša (. . .) dēnu dabābu ubtaʾʾûni ‘who (. . .) lodges a complaint’, which according to Hämeen-Anttila (2000: 111) is a “petrified formula” dating from the Middle Assyrian period.

156

The Historical Background of the t‑Perfect  6.4.

is a priori much more likely than the assumption of two homonymous infixes emerging through different historical processes. Obviously, this presupposes the existence of a plausible development from a detransitive voice marker in the perfective to a tense marker with the function of a perfect. Given this point of departure, there are two major problems regarding the historical background of iptarVs. First, how did it acquire its function as perfect of the basic stem? and second, is the t‑perfect an Akkadian innovation, or did it already exist in Proto-Semitic or even Afroasiatic? The second question seems to be relatively easy to answer. Other Semitic languages do not have a perfect characterized by a t-infix among their tense/aspect categories, and it is therefore generally assumed that the perfect function of iptarVs is an Akkadian innovation. There are, however, at least three dissenting voices. First, Zaborski (2004) claims, on the basis of Berber evidence (see below), that already in Afroasiatic the t-infix was used as a perfect and that the existence of numerous Arabic Stem VIII (iqtatala) verbs that do not have the regular detransitive meaning of this stem (reflexive, etc.; see §14.4.2, pp. 380–381) but have the same meaning as Stem I or are isolated are a residue of this perfect. This line of reasoning is questionable, however. What these verbs demonstrate is that the t-infix of Stem VIII has lost part of its original force and has largely become a variant to the basic stem, in accordance with the development that will be described in chap. 14. They do not provide any evidence for the existence of a perfect with infixed t. In order to prove that these T‑forms were once a perfect, we also need to show that this perfect was an inflectional part of the basic stem with a paradigmatic relationship to the other finite categories, the imperfective and the perfective (see, for instance, Loesov 2004a: 164). This was not really proved by Zaborski. Second, Voigt (1987c: 93–97; 2002: 284–85) adduces T‑forms in Berber and Beja as evidence for the fact that parallels to iptarVs already existed in Afroasiatic. This is unconvincing, since in Berber the T‑forms have imperfective function (see §4.4.3.2 above, pp. 104–106). In Beja, they characterize what Voigt (2002: 284–85) calls the present and the perfect of a specific class of verbs but are lacking in the corresponding aorist. So their function is sufficiently different from that of iptarVs to raise serious doubts about this parallel. The forms in question instead show that iptarVs is not the only instance of the penetration of t as prefix or infix into the paradigm of the basic stem: in Berber and Beja, this also happened but in tense/aspect categories different from Akkadian. The general explanation behind these parallel developments is the fact that at a very early moment the detransitive function of t started to weaken so that it lost its function or was reused for a different function. In Semitic, this happened on a large scale, as I will argue in chap. 14.53 Third, Loprieno (1986: 123–41) has also argued in favour of the Proto-Semitic provenance of the t‑perfect iptarVs. His view is intimately connected with his reconstruction of the functional evolution of the t-infix and with his claim that the Semitic t-infix is cognate with the suffix t of the Egyptian sḏm.t=f form. He argues that the t-infix originally had perfective function, which is preserved as such in Akkadian but was replaced in West Semitic by the suffix conjugation qatVla, and that the reflexive, reciprocal, and passive functions are secondary developments. This is very unlikely, however. It is contradicted by massive typological evidence, which strongly suggests that exactly the opposite has happened—namely, that the reflexive function is original and the 53.  Lipiński (1997: 338) quotes two Ugaritic Gt forms construed with a direct object in support of a Proto-Semitic origin of the Gt‑stem used as a perfect. However, Tropper classifies both of them as unclear (2000: 521 s.v. √mḫṣ and 525 s.v. √šbm), and D. Testen (IOS 20 [2002] 517) rightly observes that more evidence is needed for such a far-reaching claim.

6.4.  The Historical Background of the t‑Perfect

157

other functions are successive stages in a continuing grammaticali­zation process, of which the temporal function of t in Akkadian is undoubtedly the last. Loprieno’s claim that the Semitic t-infix (which was originally a prefix; see §14.4.1, pp. 375–​ 380) and the suffix t of the Egyptian sḏm.t=f form are genetically related remains to be proven. It is true that the derivational prefixes of Semitic occur as suffixes in other Afroasiatic languages, especially in Cushitic and Chadic, but Egyptian sides with Semitic, at least in the case of the causative sibilant and the detransitive n (or m), both of which are prefixed in Egyptian.54 This raises the question why t would appear as a suffix, if it is indeed related to the Semitic t. Moreover, it is far from clear how the sḏm.t=f form should be analyzed. In view of its three main functions (after prepositions, after the negation n with the meaning ‘not yet’ or ‘before . . .’, and as a complement after verbs of seeing, speaking, etc.), Edel (1955/64: 368 §732) deems it most likely that it is actually a nomen actionis rather than a finite category. Others regard it as a finite form, however: Loprieno (1995: 78) describes it as “a subordinate negative perfective form,” Zonhoven (1998: 600, 612–13) as a “verbal verb form” (as opposed to a “substantival verb form”) indicating “a relative future tense,” and Schenkel (2005: 205–7) as a tense with two temporal reference points, one in the past and one in the future. This is strikingly similar to Streck’s (1995a: 196–209; 1999) definition of the Akkadian t‑perfect iptarVs, and Schenkel explicitly mentions the possibility that the two categories are etymologically related (Streck 1995a: 207). However, Streck’s account of the t‑perfect has not found general acceptance among Assyriologists (see n. 7 above, p. 141). According to the description of its function given here, which is based on earlier studies by authors such as Goetze, Maloney, and Loesov, there is very little similarity with the sḏm.t=f form. Consequently, since neither the function nor the form of sḏm.t=f provides a sufficient basis for treating it as cognate with Akkadian iptarVs, I will not include Egyptian in the discussion of the next sections nor in the reconstruction of the evolution of the t‑infix in chap. 14. In sum, there are no compelling reasons to assume that the verb forms with infixed t were used as a perfect anywhere but in Akkadian. This means that the perfect function of the t‑infix is an Akkadian innovation and the t‑perfect itself a relative newcomer in the Akkadian verbal paradigm.55 The second and more difficult question is how the original perfective of a t‑stem acquired the function of perfect of the corresponding primary stem in a paradigmatic relationship with its imperfective and perfective. This implies a double change: from a simple past tense—or perhaps, more accurately, a perfective—to a perfect, which is a typologically bizarre development, since it is the opposite of the common development from perfect to perfective or preterite (Kuryłowicz 1975: 106, 128; Bybee et al. 1994: 81, 104), and from detransitive to active, which seems to be unusual as well. Essentially, two kinds of developments have been proposed for this change, one based on the well-attested development from resultative to perfect, the other based on the original indirect reflexive function of the t-infix.56 54.  See §13.6 (pp. 351–352) on the causative sibilant and §12.6.1 (p. 315) on the prefix n in Egyptian and their relationship to the Semitic forms. 55.  This is also claimed by Loesov (2004a: 123) on functional grounds. 56.  I will not discuss other views that I think lack any plausibility, such as the claim that the t‑perfect arose from a specific use of t in its separative function, as was proposed by Goetze (1936: 332–33), Gelb (1955b: 110), von Soden (1965: 104b; 1991b: 472), and Buccellati (1996: 87, 108–12); see my arguments (Kouwenberg 2005) against this alleged separative function. A striking piece of verbal acrobatics (entirely fanciful in my view) deriving the t‑perfect from the reflexive function of t (which in itself is quite plausible; see presently) can be found in Lieberman 1986: 627. For possible Sumerian influence on the rise of iptarVs, see the end of this section. Loesov (2004a: 162–72) presents a brief discussion of the most important proposals.

158

The Historical Background of the t‑Perfect  6.4.

The claim that the Akkadian t‑perfect goes back to a resultative use of the t-infix originates with Kuryłowicz (1962: 64–65; 1972: 61; 1975: 110) and was taken up—with minor variations—by various others, such as Voigt (1987c: 88–89), Stempel (1995), and the present author (GAV pp. 72–75).57 It is based on the observation that, cross-linguistically, many perfects come from a resultative, a common verbal category indicating the state which is the result of a preceding event.58 Resultatives often become passives as well, as is shown by the widespread use of the same marker for both categories. In many European languages, for instance, the copula is used to denote the perfect and the passive (Kuryłowicz 1964: 56–57). In Akkadian, the stative has come very close to expressing both notions, in the “active” versus the “passive” stative; see further §7.3.2 (pp. 168–174). Since the t-infix also combines both functions in Akkadian—if not in the Gt‑stem, then at least in the Dt‑stem and the Št1‑stem—this seems to be an attractive solution. On closer inspection, however, it does not seem applicable to the Akkadian t‑perfect. The main reason is that the t-infix is not a resultative, neither in actual use, because it never has resultative function, nor in origin, because we can be confident that it goes back to a reflexive, as I will argue in chap. 14. In view of the general polysemy of detransitive voice markers (see §10.8.3, pp. 257–258), this may seem too critical an attitude: if the t-infix can be direct and indirect reflexive, reciprocal, (medio)passive, and perhaps denote yet other detransitive notions, why could it not be resultative as well? The answer is that reflexive and resultative belong to two different grammaticalization processes. The reflexive is usually part of a development: reflexive noun § reflexive/reciprocal affix § middle § spontaneous event § passive (see §14.3.4, pp. 369–370). The resultative, on the other hand, is part of a development: stative expressions § resultative § passive and/or perfect. In the corpus studied by Bybee et al., there are no instances of reflexives developing to resultatives. Instead, resultatives tend to go back either to stative expressions, such as clauses with a copula, or to auxiliary verbs for ‘to remain’ or ‘to come’ (Bybee et al. 1994: 67–69). This has three important consequences. First, the passive may arise from both reflexive and resultative markers—apart from other possible sources (see Haspelmath 1990)—but these are different processes unrelated to each other. This is illustrated by most of the Romance and Slavic languages, which use both types of passives side by side. Second, if passive and resultative are diachronically related, the development is from resultative to passive, not vice versa (Nedjalkov and Jaxontov 1988: 49), as the situation in Akkadian would require, if we wanted to derive the perfect from a resultative use of t. Third, if we want to derive the perfect function of iptarVs from a resultative, we have to combine two grammaticalization paths that are superficially similar and may lead to the same outcome but which should actually be kept distinct. This leads to the conclusion that the use of the t-infix for the perfect cannot be derived from a putative resultative function. The second option that has been proposed is to derive the perfect meaning from the indirect reflexive. In the indirect reflexive, the subject is coreferential with the indirect object. As such, it can have autobenefactive meaning: the subject does something for his own benefit, as in 57.  The present account of the rise of the t‑perfect (and its complementary part in chap. 14) replaces my explanation of the t‑perfect in GAV pp. 72–77, which includes some implausible developments, as pointed out by, for instance, Streck (1998b: 527–28) and Loesov (2004a: 166). 58.  For the development from resultative to perfect, see Kuryłowicz 1975: 109–10; Voigt 1987c: 88–93; Nedjalkov and Jaxontov 1988: 41–44; Bybee and Dahl 1989: 68–73; Bybee et al. 1994: 68–69, 104–5. For the development from resultative to passive, see Kuryłowicz 1964: 56–58; Nedjalkov and Jaxontov 1988: 45–49; Voigt 1987c: 90–92 n. 15.

6.4.  The Historical Background of the t‑Perfect

159

the middle voice of Classical Greek. Coreferentiality with the subject may easily develop into subject-affectedness (Waltereit 1999: 265–73), which does not seem to be too far removed from subject involvement. As we saw above, this is an important feature of the use of the t‑perfect in Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian. Along these lines, L. B. Anderson (1982: 256–57) has argued that the form with infixed t was an “ethical dative,” which took on the expression of “relevance of experience” and in combination with past tense became a category similar to the English perfect of have plus participle. Anderson’s characterization of the t-infix as an ethical dative does not seem very plausible (at least not as its “original” function), but the notion of ethical dative is closely related to subject involvement, so this idea is compatible with a development from an indirect reflexive. Likewise, Loesov (2004a: 167) derives the perfect use of the t-infix from its use as a middle voice. The problem is that this does not answer the question why and how this originally indirect reflexive completely lost its detransitive meaning and became restricted to the past tense.59 For the time being, we can say little more than that the rise of the t‑perfect is likely to be related to the autobenefactive meaning of the t‑infix, but further details remain completely obscure.60 Finally, several authors have argued that Sumerian influence played a role in the emergence of the t‑perfect. The first was probably Goetze (1936: 332–34), but the classical formulation comes from von Soden (1965).61 He points to similarities in use between the Akkadian t‑perfect and Sumerian verbs forms with the prefixes ba-, imma-, and u- and argues that the first two prefixes occur in narrative in places where an event is highlighted (“hervorgehoben”; 1965: 107a), just as the t‑perfect may function in narrative contexts, and that the use of the “prospective” prefix u‑ is parallel to the future perfect use of the t‑perfect.62 In the present state of our knowledge, it does not seem possible to decide this issue. On the one hand, the functional parallel between the t‑perfect and any specific Sumerian verbal category 59.  Loesov (2004a: 171) states that the form with t “was at a certain point put to the service of expressing an explicit temporal relation of past facts to the speaker,” but he does not explain how. His attempt (2004a: 167–72) to find iptarVs forms in Old Babylonian letters that would show a trace of this original “medial value” (his terms) are generally unconvincing: they are more likely to be t‑perfect forms, although not all of them completely fit the normal use of the t‑perfect. 60.  It is possible that the use of the reflexive marker se in Spanish gives an idea of how these processes may have come about, although I do not wish to argue that Akkadian must have had exactly the same development. Apart from the usual functions of a reflexive marker, se can also have completive function in transitive clauses, if their direct object refers to a finite quantity (Nishida 1994: 428) in a way that is reminiscent of preverbs in Germanic languages: the contrast between comer and comerse is parallel to the conrast between to eat and to eat up in English (1994: 450–51). This implies that apart from being detransitive, se can also increase the transitivity of a clause. Moreover, the completive meaning of se associates it more closely with perfective than with imperfective aspect (Maldonado 1999: 177). This may give us a hint why the grammaticalization of the t-infix to a tense/aspect form of the basic stem only took place in the perfective. As shown by Bybee et al. (1994: 57–61), completives are a well-known source of perfects. Maldonado (1999: 154–55) describes the non-detransitive use of se as benefactive or completive or as expressing “full involvement” of the subject. The last-mentioned function makes it clear that this use of se is a natural extension of reflexive se in its function of indirect reflexive “to do something for oneself.” The Spanish reflexive pronoun shows that it is possible for a detransitive voice marker to lose its detransitive value and to acquire an association with completive function. We do not know whether the t‑infix in Akkadian underwent a similar development, but it seems at least theoretically possible. For the parallel between se in Spanish verbs such as irse ‘to go away’ and t in Akkadian atluku ‘to start going, to set out’, see §14.3.4 (pp. 371–372). 61.  Others have taken up this idea: Streck (1995a: 221), Woods (2001), and Huehnergard (2006: 13–14). 62.  For a more recent discussion of these prefixes—with a rather different interpretation—see Rubio 2007a: 1344–49.

160

The Historical Background of the t‑Perfect  6.4.

or group of categories is far from obvious (see Streck 1998a: 190–91 for a discussion of possible parallels). Generally speaking, the function of Sumerian verb forms is more problematic than that of the Akkadian forms, so trying to explain the latter on the basis of Sumerian is tantamount to explaining obscurum per obscurius. Moreover, there is a widespread tendency in languages to develop a past tense form that underlines the recentness, current relevance, etc., of a past event. This increases the possibility that Akkadian and Sumerian developed this function independently. On the other hand, the likelihood of Sumerian influence also correlates with the absence of a plausible inner-Akkadian explanation. I have argued above that there is one, but admittedly it is far from conclusive. In conclusion, it cannot be ruled out that contact with Sumerian was indeed a factor in the rise of the t‑perfect, but—as is usual in such matters—positive evidence is difficult to find.

Chapter 7

The Stative

7.1. Introduction The last of the finite verbal categories to be discussed is the stative. It offers both historical and typological interest. Historically, the stative is a fairly transparent combination of an adjectival (rarely nominal) stem and a pronominal subject, and it has become an important member of the Akkadian verbal paradigm. It is related to verb forms with suffixed person markers in other Semitic languages and further afield in Egyptian and Berber. Functionally, it represents an intermediate stage between Berber, where it is essentially a conjugation of predicative adjectives, and West Semitic, where it has evolved into a perfective and/or past tense. Typologically, it belongs to a cross-linguistically common category of deverbal adjectives (“past participles”) that penetrate into the verbal system and gradually take on functions such as (medio)passive, resultative, perfect, and, ultimately, past tense.

7.2. The Stative: Form The G‑stem stative consists of an inflectional stem combined with suffixed endings for person, gender, and number. The stem is mostly that of an adjective, but may under certain conditions also come from a noun. Table 7.1 shows the standard paradigm of the G-stem stative as it appears in the main dialects, using the adjective šalmu ‘sound, in good shape’.1 Since many formal details of the stative endings have a strong diachronic aspect, they will be dealt with in §7.4, which deals with its historical background. person

singular

dual

plural

1st

šalmāku, -āk

šalmānu, -ni

2nd masc.

šalmāta, -āti, -āt

šalmātunu

2nd fem.

šalmāti (-tī?), -āt

šalmātina

3rd masc.

šalim

šalmā

šalmū

3rd fem.

šalmat

šalmā/  šalimtā

šalmā

Table 7.1: The conjugation of the stative.

In the G‑stem, the stative is built on the suffix base PaRvS, which originally belongs to the (verbal) adjective. Statives derived from primary adjectives have PaRiS, PaRuS, or PaRaS, corresponding to the (unmotivated) vowel of the adjective. Statives derived from verbs regularly 1.  For details about the variant endings, see §7.4.1 (pp. 176–181). See also GAG 3 §75b–c; GKT §72a; Huehnergard 2005a: 219–20. For the stative forms of E-verbs, see §17.5.1 (pp. 525–526).

161

162

The Stative: Form  7.2.

have the inflectional stem PaRiS, at least in Babylonian.2 Assyrian shows more variation: apart from PaRiS, there are two other (marginal) patterns: PaRaS and PuRuS (see §3.3.4, pp. 64–66) in the following verbs:3 • • • • • • • • •

wašab ‘he is sitting, staying’ from wašābu (A/i) ḫalaq ‘he/it is lost’ from ḫalāqu (I/i) balaṭ ‘he is alive’ from balāṭu (A/a) qurub ‘he/it is near’ from *qarābu (U/u) rūq ‘he/it is far away’ from ruāqu (ū) (see §17.7.3.2, p. 565) *kuzub ‘he is charming’ (no corresponding verb attested) *puluḫ ‘he is frightful’ from palāḫu (A/a) *puḫur ‘it is assembled, together’ from paḫāru (U/u) mušul ‘he/it is similar’ from mašālu (only NA, U/u?)

The Assyrian forms are all from intransitive verbs that are semantically close to denoting stative situations, similar to the verbs of the A/a vowel class (see §3.5.2.4, pp. 74–75) and can be regarded as borderline cases between fientive and adjectival verbs. In the G‑stem forms, the stem vowel is only visible if there is no ending—i.e., in most 3ms forms: šalim (cf. Fem adjective šalimtu), maruṣ (maruṣtu) ‘ill’, and kabar (kabartu) ‘thick’. Statives derived from nouns simply copy the stem of the noun. In the derived verbal stems and the quadriradical verbs, the stative has the stem vowel u (Pa/uRRuS, naPRuS, naBaLKuT, etc.) and is always identical in pattern to the infinitive. As a finite verbal form, the stative can—at least in principle—take the same range of endings and suffixes as the prefix conjugations: the endings of the ventive and the subjunctive and the suffix pronouns of dative and accusative. For ventive forms after a stative, see §9.4.1 (p. 233).4 The subjunctive was originally not used with a stative, but during the history of Akkadian there was a growing tendency to attach the subjunctive ending ‑u to the third-person singular (see §9.3.1, p. 221, for details). The first and second persons of the stative do not take ventive or subjunctive endings for morphological reasons (Reiner 1966: 97), but they do occasionally take suffix 2.  A systematic exception concerns the stative of II/ā verbs in Babylonian, which have ā: šām ‘it has been bought’ (e.g., ša(-a)-am YOS 8, 66a:16 // 66b:30, Fem ša-ma-at TCL 1, 133:4); see §17.7.4.1 (p. 567). The only other genuine exception seems to be epuš, a rare by-form (MB/SB) of regular epiš, from epēšu ‘to make, do’ (e-pu-uš VAB 2, 10:35 (MB); CT 13, 35:1; IV R 25: III 58 (both SB); e-pu-us-si BWL 236: II 13 (SB), d ù -uš (/epuš/) ŠA 1, 96:99–100, cf. Huehnergard 1987a: 221 n. 10). The corresponding past participle sometimes has the feminine form epuštu in Neo-Babylonian; see CAD E 247a s.v. epšu adj. 1e. This verb has a strong general predilection for the vowel u; cf. also the atypical N forms Impfv inneppuš, Pfv innepuš, and t‑Pf ittenpuš , which will be discussed in detail in §12.2.1 (p. 291). For other instances of past participles with u derived from fientive verbs, all rather doubtful and most of them unique variants of normal PaRiS forms, see Kouwenberg 2000: 58–59 nn. 33–34; an additional instance is atū ‘it has been found’ from watû (a-tu MSL 5, 50:3 (SB)). 3.  For a possible fourth instance naʾal from nâlu ‘to lie down’, see chap. 16, n. 100 (p. 475). In addition, Assyrian has a few Fem nouns with the pattern PaRaSt, which may be derived from obsolete PaRaS past participles: ḫašaḫtu ‘need, requirement’, napaštu ‘life’, and šabartu ‘(broken) piece, block’, for which Babylonian has PaRiS (napištu) or PiRiS (ḫišeḫtu and šibirtu). It is also possible that the Sargonic Akkadian proper name Í-lu-ga-sa-ad RA 8, 158 AO 5659:3 contains a PaRaS stative /kasad/; cf. the Old Babylonian name type DN-kašid (Huehnergard 1987a: 221 n. 10). References for the PuRuS statives and adjectives were given in §3.3.4 (pp. 64–66). 4.  Since the stative denotes a state (see below), it is normally incompatible with the ventive as allative, but not with the ventive as dative (see Kouwenberg 2002: 201–3); an exception is napḫata quoted below.

7.3.  The Stative: Function

163

pronouns from Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian onward, although not very frequently; cf. the following selection of first‑ and second-person statives with a suffix pronoun:5 1. after ‑āk(u) (1st p. Sg): • dam-qá-ku-um AbB 3, 33:19 (OB) ‘I am favourably disposed toward you’ (damqāk(u) + -kum) • na-áš-a-ku-nu-tí Prag I 709:7 (OA) ‘I am bringing to you (Pl)’ (našʾāk(u) + -kunūti) • ka-ab-sà-ak-šu-nu-ti ARM 26/1, 421 no. 195:16 (OB) ‘I have trampled them’ (kabsāk(u) + ‑šunūti) • ḫa-bu-lá-ak-šu-um AfO 31, 17:37 (OA) ‘I owe him’ (ḫabbulāk(u) + -šum)6 • ḫi-ra-kaš-šu KAR 66:24 (SB) ‘I have chosen it’ (ḫīrāk(u) + -aššu) 2. after ‑āti, ‑āta, ‑āt (2nd p. Sg): • (atta) mé-ša-ta-an-ni ARM 10, 8:9 (OB) ‘you disregard me’ (mēšāt(a) + -anni • (atta) ḫa-aš-ḫa-as-sú ARM 28, 81: r.10′ (OB) ‘you want (to do something) against him (ḫašḫāt(a) + ‑šu(m)) • ša-ak-na-as-sú MSL 4, 82:87 (SB LL)’you have been placed for him’ (šaknāt(a) + šu(m) 3. after -at (3fs): • nap-ḫa-ta SAA 10, 31: r.5 (NA) ‘she (the planet Venus) has risen’ (napḫat + a(m))7 • ma-aḫ-ra-ta-an-ni BE 17, 43:6 (MB) ‘it has confronted me (maḫrat + -anni) • na-ad-na-ta-šu(-ma) RIMA 2/I, 13:32 (SB) ‘it has been given to him’ (nadnat + -aššu) • ḫa-da-tak-ka Dreams 340: IV 8 (SB) ‘it (amēlūtu ‘mankind’) rejoices in you’ (ḫadât + ‑akka) Although there seems to be no reason why statives in the first‑ and second-person plural should not be able to accommodate a suffix pronoun, I am not aware of any instances.

7.3. The Stative: Function  8 The grammatical function of the stative is the expression of a state.9 It is used indiscriminately for all kinds of states, whether permanent or transient, whether a “pure” state or a state resulting from a previous event. As such, it is opposed to the fientive members of the verbal

5.  It makes no difference whether the stative is derived from a verb, an adjective, or a noun, but most instances are from verbs, and instances from nouns with a ventive or suffix pronoun are not known to me. This is not caused by the nature of the stative but by the meaning of the affixes in question, which are far more compatible with verbal than with adjectival or nominal predicates. Dative suffix pronouns attached to statives that do not seem to be verbal at all include ka-a-a-an-šum AfO 18, 65:22 ‘it is constant for him’, ka-ia-na-kum AbB 1, 37: r.14 ‘it is constant for you’ (both OB). 6.  By way of exception, the final -u of ‑āku may be preserved: ḫa-bu-lá-ku-šu-um OAA 1, 63:34. 7.  This form is unique, as far as I know, in that it is the only instance of a 3fs stative followed by a pure ventive. It is less uncommon to find forms with a ventive followed by another element such as a nisubjunctive (e.g., ibid. 3′ nap-ḫa-ta-ni (napḫat + a(m) + ni  ) (see Parpola 1983: 14 ad loc.), (ša . . .) še-ṣua-ta-ni KAV 205:6 (MA) ‘(which) has been taken out’), the particle ‑ma ((ša. . .) ab-ka-ta-am-ma YOS 7, 7:44 ‘(which) has been led away’ [LB]), or a suffix pronoun (see above). 8.  Earlier literature on the function of the stative includes GAG §77; GKT §72c/e; Rowton 1962; Kraus 1984; Huehnergard 2005a: 219–23; Metzler 2002: 892–900. 9.  According to Lyons (1977: 483), “[a] static situation (. . .) is one that is conceived of as existing, rather than happening, and as being homogeneous, continuous and unchanging throughout its duration.”

164

The Stative: Function  7.3.

paradigm, which express events.10 This opposition is formally underlined by the contrast between the suffixes and the originally nominal stem of the stative (PaRvS) versus the prefixes and the verbal stem of the prefix conjugations (PRvS). A corollary of the stative function is the lack of tense distinctions: the stative may refer to the present, the past, and—much more rarely—the future.11 This is ultimately grounded in pragmatics: tense distinctions are less relevant as the situation they denote is more prolonged, and stative situations typically continue over a longer period of time than prototypical events—i.e., they are more “time-stable” (Givón 1984: 51–56). Aspectually, the stative has imperfective aspect, since it does not envisage the beginning or the end of the state.12 The stative is basically uniform in function, but for a more detailed description we should distinguish between statives derived from adjectives, from nouns, and from verbs. For the sake of convenience, I will refer to them as verbal statives, adjectival statives, and nominal statives, respectively, but these terms purely refer to their derivational background and not to their grammatical status, which is verbal in all cases. Adjectival and nominal statives (to be discussed in §7.3.1) are simply the predicative form of the corresponding adjective or noun. Verbal statives, on the other hand, have a complex relationship to the verb they are derived from, a relationship based on their historical development and on the fundamentally different properties of states versus events. First of all, for the reasons explained in §2.2.1 (p. 30), the verbal stative is subordinate in rank to and (synchronically) derived from the fientive prefix conjugations: iparrVs/iprVs/iptarVs § paris. Historically, of course, the stative is derived from the past participle, but the verbalization of the stative has reversed their relationship (see §8.3.1, pp. 200–201, and Kouwenberg 2000: 59–63). The dependence of the verbal stative on the verbal paradigm, and in particular on the fientive forms, is most clearly demonstrated by the “active” stative to be discussed in §7.3.2 below and by verbal statives that differ semantically from the corresponding past participle, such as: • taklāku ‘I trust in’ (+ Dat) from takālu + Dat ‘to trust, put one’s trust in’ (versus the adjective taklu ‘reliable, good’, lit., ‘that which can be trusted’) • qīpāku ‘I trust, I believe’ (+ Acc) from qâpu (ī) ‘to entrust, believe’ (versus qīpu ‘trust­ worthy’, usually substantivized as ‘official, administrator’) • kašdāku ‘I have arrived, I am at my place of destination’ (GAG §77d) from kašādu ‘to arrive’ (versus kašdu ‘obtained, successful, sufficient’) Second, in terms of semantic transitivity, statives have “zero transitivity,” since they do not indicate a change in the state of the world. Accordingly, they cannot have an agentive subject, since agentivity implies a conscious volitional act on the part of the subject and is therefore only applicable to actions (Binnick 1991: 187).13 Moreover, since statives do not envisage the termination of the state, as noted above, they are by nature atelic, whereas the fientive verb itself must be telic in order to have a stative at all. Finally, statives derived from verbs are neutral for voice: they can be “active” or “passive.” This is due to the fact that they only refer to the result of an event and 10.  Only in very specific, exceptional circumstances are some statives capable of referring to events; see §7.3.3 (pp. 174–176). 11.  For the stative with future reference, see GAG3 §77d*; Leong 1994: 244. 12.  Comrie 1976: 50–51; Binnick 1991: 187–88; Smith 1997: 32. For adjectival states, Akkadian uses the prefix forms of the corresponding adjectival verb to express the beginning of the state. 13.  This is important for Akkadian insofar as it bears on the interpretation of some types of “active” statives that Rowton (1962) claims to have an agentive subject. I will briefly discuss some of Rowton’s views in n. 32 below (p. 170).

7.3.  The Stative: Function

165

do not indicate how it came about; it is therefore immaterial whether its subject was the agent or the patient of the event. These features will be discussed further in §7.3.2. The sum of these semantic differences sets the stative apart from the fientive prefix categories and explains why it has a strong tendency to lexicalize—i.e., to develop its own meaning different from that of the other forms of the same verb, a process that is especially prominent in the active statives to be discussed below (Rowton 1962: 267–68). The nature of the stative has given rise to a controversy concerning its nominal or verbal character. In particular, Buccellati (1968) has claimed that the stative is (also synchronically) a nominal sentence consisting of a nominal (adjectival) base and an enclitic subject pronoun, and that it is therefore a syntactical rather than a morphological category that can be more economically treated in the grammar in the sections on the noun and the pronoun, respectively.14 In Kouwenberg 2000: 22–26, I argued that this view is untenable for a variety of reasons and that from a synchronic point of view the stative is a verbal category. Briefly summarized, the main arguments are the following. First, the stative is verbal in syntax, since it is always the predicate of the clause, has the verb-final word order of the verbal clause (whereas in non-verbal clauses with a pronoun the subject is clause-final), and can be a complete clause in itself (whereas a nonverbal clause needs an explicit subject, unless it is existential). Second, it is verbal in morphology, since it has personal endings and can have most of the verbal endings and suffixes that the prefix conjugations can have.15 Only semantically is the stative similar to non-verbal clauses in being tenseless and expressing states. However, semantic criteria are inferior to morphological and syntactic ones as a basis for deciding whether a form is verbal or not. In the next two sections, I will first deal with the adjectival and nominal statives (§7.3.1) and subsequently with verbal statives (§7.3.2).

7.3.1.  Statives derived from adjectives and nouns An adjectival stative is the predicative form of a primary adjective (GAG §77b; Rowton 1962: 236; Reiner 1970: 292). For instance, šarru dān ‘the king is powerful’ is the predicative form of šarru dannu ‘the powerful king’. Adjective and stative do not differ in meaning but only in their syntactic status. The stative is directly derived from the adjective without interference from the verbal paradigm. Needless to say, the root vowel of the adjective is copied in the stative, where it only surfaces in the 3ms: kabar ‘he is thick’ from kabru (< *kabarum, cf. Fem kabartu. For a predicative adjective, the use of the stative is more or less obligatory, especially in the older dialects. Very rarely, however, we find a predicative adjective in the nominative; this seems to occur mainly if the adjective is substantivized (01) and if it is followed by the enclitic particle -ma (02) but exceptionally also in other cases for unclear reasons, as in (03)-(04) (see Kouwenberg 2000: 34–38 for more examples): (01) TC 3, 70:11–12 (OA) ke-e-nu-um anāku ‘I am an honest person’ (02) ARM 26/1, 111 no. 13:12–13 (OB) bīt mārtī  [k]a dam-qú-um-ma ‘the house of your daughter is excellent’ 14.  See also Buccellati 1988 and 1996: 121–22; Huehnergard 1987a: 230–31; and Kouwenberg 2000: 22 n. 3 for more references. 15.  A “nominal” feature of the stative, however, is its combination with the precative particle lū (GAG §81b; e.g., lū i-ša-ra-a-ti MSL 4, 74:227 (OB) ‘may you be prosperous!’; bēlī lū ḫa-di ARM 10, 26:7 (OB) ‘may my lord be glad!’), which is also used in nominal clauses (GAG §127d). For the stative with lā as a prohibitive, see chap. 9, n. 36, p. 220).

166

The Stative: Function  7.3.

(03) St. Larsen p. 14:32 (OA) (four persons) e-lu-tum šunu ‘they are free of claims’ (elsewhere Stat ellū, e.g., St. Nimet Özgüç p. 133:14 and p. 135:35 e-lu) (04) OBTR 120:14–16 (OB) ina ālim GN [še].ba wa-aq-rum u ì.giš wa-aq-rum ‘in the city of Assur barley rations are expensive and sesame oil is expensive’ (05) MATSH p. 131 no. 8:49′ (MA) me-e-tu šūt ‘is he dead?’ However, in the later stages of Akkadian, and especially in Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian, it is quite common to find predicative adjectives in the nominative (Kouwenberg 2000: 33 n. 16; De Vaan 1995: 174–76) It is possible that Aramaic influence is involved, as suggested by Buccellati (1968: 9).16 See the following instances: (06) CT 54, 22: r.40 (NB) ḫa-as-si u pu-ut-qu-du atta ‘you are wise and circumspect’ (07) SAA 10, 245: r.6 (NA) šal-mu šū ‘it is safe’ (08) SAA 9, 3: III 8 (NA lit.) DNF pa-aq-tú šī ‘Ištar is slight’ (tr. S. Parpola) Apart from the vowel pattern, adjectival statives are not formally different from verbal statives. Their identification depends on the difference between fientive and adjectival verbs, which was discussed in §3.3.2 (pp. 58–60). However, in the II/gem verbs, there is a difference in form between adjectival and verbal statives: the former are monosyllabic in the 3ms, e.g., dān ‘he is strong’ and ēl ‘he is pure’ (see §16.6.1, p. 492) from dannu and ellu, respectively; but the latter are bisyllabic, e.g., balil ‘it has been mixed or polluted’, madid ‘it has been measured’ and šakik ‘it has been harrowed’ from balālu, madādu, and šakāku. This difference is due to a difference in derivation: dān and ēl are derived from the adjectives dannu and ellu by subtraction of the case ending and mimation (see §7.4.1, p. 178), whereas verbal statives such as balil are derived from the corresponding fientive forms (iballal § balil  ) on the model of iparrVs § paris.17 The stative of nouns is a subcategory of the stative of adjectives.18 A predicative noun may be conjugated as a stative, if it has the function of an adjective (i.e., if it is classifying rather than identifying) and constitutes a simple predicate (i.e., if it is not accompanied by any qualification or complement, such as an attributive adjective, a genitive, a suffix pronoun, a relative clause, or an enclitic particle), e.g., šarrāku ‘I am (a) king’. It is not possible, however, to use the stative in a clause such as šarru dannu anāku ‘I am a mighty king’ or if the predicative noun identifies the subject as a specific individual (i.e., if it is referential), as in:   (9) VAB 2, 4:8 (MB) lugal atta ‘you are the king’ (i.e., you are the one who decides)19

16.  The available grammars of these dialects do not allow us to determine the extent and the details of this development. 17.  There are some counter-examples, however, in Standard Babylonian; see §16.6.1 (p. 492). 18.  For a detailed discussion and an enumeration of nouns occurring in the stative, see Kouwenberg 2000: 38–48, and earlier discussions in Rowton 1962: 261–62 and Kraus 1984: 14–17. 19.  The logogram l u g a l can only be interpreted as a nominative šarru.

7.3.  The Stative: Function

167

(10) OIP 27, 56:7 (OA) wābil tuppim šūt dam.gàr-ru-um ‘the bearer of (this) tablet is the creditor (tamkāru)’ (i.e., he is the person who is entitled to the money specified in the tablet) The stative of nouns mainly occurs in two types of (con)texts: in legal (con)texts, in order to classify a person as belonging to a social group and thus being entitled to its rights or subject to its obligations, as in (11) and (12); and in literary texts, as an epithet on a par with adjectives, as in (13):20 (11) CHJ pp. 70–71 no. 143:16–17 (OB) PNF mārtī ul a-ma-at ‘PNF is my daughter, she is not a slave girl’ (12) AKT 3, 88:56 (OA) lū a-wi-lá-tí ‘be a gentleman’ (also in OB: ARM 1, 69: r.13′) (13) RIMA 2/1, 239:34–36 (SB) šar-ra-ku be-la-ku na-aʾ-da-ku geš-ra-ku kab-ta-ku šur‑ru-ḫa-ku (. . .) qar-ra-da-ku lab-ba-ku u zi-ka-ra-ku ‘I am king, I am lord, I am praised, powerful, honoured and famous, (. . .) I am a hero, a lion and a he-man’ However, even if a predicative noun is non-referential and qualifies for being in the stative for other reasons as well, it may be in the nominative; this is common in all dialects and again seems to be the only possibility in the later dialects.21 Here are a few examples: (14) ShA 1, 138 no. 64:62 atta lū a-wi-lum ‘be a man’ (OB, also Kisurra 156:16); (15) Legends p. 184:18 (OB lit.) bēlī attāma lū la-bu ‘my lord, verily you are a lion’ (tr. J. Westenholz) In practice, mainly animate nouns are used in the stative, as is clear from the examples given so far; a rare example of an inanimate noun (from agurru ‘kiln-fired brick’) is:22 (16) Gilg. p. 538:20 (SB) šumma libittašu lā a-gur-rat ‘(see) if its (Uruk’s) brickwork is not kiln-fired brick’ (tr. A. R. George) There is a contrast in markedness between statives of adjectives and statives of nouns: for predicative adjectives the use of the stative is unmarked, whereas that of the nominative is marked, and for predicative nouns the situation is the opposite (Huehnergard 1986: 232–33; Kouwenberg 2000: 55).23 The nominal stative developed secondarily as a subcategory of the adjectival 20.  Outside literary texts, statives of nouns are very rare; in the Old Babylonian letters of AbB 1–10, for instance, Kraus (1984: 14) counts only 20 nominal statives among 1200 instances of statives. 21.  Nominal statives are very hard to find in Neo- and Late Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian, which is not surprising in view of the fact that even predicative adjectives are often in the nominative in these dialects, as stated above. One exception is known to me: muš-ke-né-ku ABL 1059:6 (NB) ‘I am a commoner’ (but muškênu is a borderline case between noun and adjective; cf. the nominative in šarru muš-ke-e-nu SAA 10, 43:15 (NA) ‘is the king a poor man?’). However, it is not always easy to see whether a form is a stative or a nominative because of the loss of final vowels and the resulting inconsistencies in spelling. 22.  See Kouwenberg 2000: 39–40 for a list (add perhaps JRAS CSpl. 71:20 [OB lit.] DN ša qabalšu né-e-re-et ‘whose onslaught is murder(ous)’, from nêrtu ‘murder’). 23.  This is in keeping with the general markedness relationships between different kinds of nominal predicates, as established by Hengeveld 1992: 130–55 and Stassen 1997: 125–31; see also Pustet 2003: 72–73. Nouns are less likely to occur as predicates than adjectives and are therefore marked in this respect (Pustet 2003: 186–87).

168

The Stative: Function  7.3.

stative.24 This is demonstrated by the fact that if a nominal stative is derived from a noun with the feminine marker t, this t is omitted in the stative, a peculiarity that was taken over from the adjectival stative, where a single stem serves for masculine and feminine (see §7.4.1, p. 177), e.g.:25 (17) ARM 10, 31: r.7′ (OB) šumma anāku sí-ni-ša-ku ‘(even) if I am (only) a woman’ (i.e., sinnišāku from sinništu) (18) Or. 36, 120:65 (SB) ma-ra-ku kal-la-ku ḫi-ra-ku ab-rak-ka-ku ‘I (DNF) am daughter (mārtu), bride (kallatu), spouse (ḫīrtu) and housekeeper (abrakkatu)’

7.3.2.  Statives derived from verbs Verbal statives—i.e., statives derived from fientive verbs—are the most common and most complex type. In contrast to adjectival and nominal statives, which differ only syntactically from the adjective or noun they are derived from, verbal statives have the same syntactic status as the other finite forms of the verb but a different meaning: they denote the state that results from the event expressed by the fientive forms of the verb (GAG §77e).26 A few random Old Babylonian instances are: (19) AbB 6, 219:14–15 našpakum (. . .) pa-te-eḫ-ma šeʾum le-qí ‘the storehouse (. . .) has been broken into (lit., pierced) and barley has been taken’ (20) CT 47, 63:57–59 tuppātum šina ina bīt PN iḫ-li-qá-ma (. . .) kīma tuppātum šina ḫal-qá-a ‘these tablets disappeared from the house of PN (. . .); because these tablets are gone, (. . .)’ (21) FM 7, 15 no. 5:5–10 (the weapons of Adad of Aleppo have arrived here) ina bīt DN2 ina GN2 ka-le-ek-šu-nu-ti ‘I have stored them [hence: ‘I keep them’] in the temple of Dagan in Terqa’

24.  So already B. Landsberger 1926b: 971, Huehnergard 1986: 238–39; Voigt 1988a: 121; Tropper 1995a: 498–99. The opposite claim, that the ability to form statives of nouns is an archaic feature (e.g., Rössler 1950: 471; von Soden 1961b: 41) is implausible, since it goes against the markedness relationship referred to in the previous note, which implies that the predicative use of nouns presupposes the predicative use of adjectives. This also sheds light on the rarity of statives of nouns in Neo-Assyrian and NeoBabylonian: the decline in the use of the stative of nouns must have preceded the decline in the use of the stative for predicative adjectives. 25.  The 3fs (e.g., sinnišat ‘she is a woman’ from sinništu) is only an apparent exception, since -at of the stative has developed into a different ending from -(a)t- as the feminine marker, in spite of their historical identity. 26.  Nedjalkov and Jaxontov (1988: 6) define the resultative as follows: “The term resultative is applied to those verb forms that express a state implying a previous event. The difference between the stative and the resultative is as follows: the stative expresses the state of a thing without any implication of its origin, while the resultative expresses both a state and the preceding action it has resulted from.” With regard to Akkadian, it seems that the definition of Nedjalkov and Jaxontov puts too much weight on the preceding event at the cost of the resulting state. Since Akkadian has both a resultative and a t‑perfect, which typically expresses a past event that the speaker includes in his subjective present (see §6.3, pp. 140–141), it seems better to define the Akkadian stative in its resultative function as expressing a state and implying (rather than expressing) the preceding action it has resulted from; cf. Bybee et al. 1994: 54: “a state exists as a result of a past action.”

7.3.  The Stative: Function

169

In (20), for instance, the stative ḫalqā ‘they (Fem) are gone’ expresses the result of the past event iḫliqā ‘they got lost, disappeared’. Usually, the preceding event is not explicitly mentioned. The occurrence of resultative statives is therefore restricted to verbs denoting telic events, which culminate in a state. Atelic verbs for activities, such as malāku ‘to deliberate’, s/ṣullû ‘to pray’, ṣâḫu (ī) ‘to laugh’, and zanānu ‘to rain’, do not normally have a stative.27 On the basis of the valency relationship between the fientive forms of a verb and the stative, we can distinguish three kinds of verbal statives: intransitive statives, passive statives, and active statives.28 The intransitive stative applies to single participant verbs and describes the state of the subject of the preceding event after its completion (John has sat down > John is (now) seated  ). Examples are (20) quoted above, and, e.g.: (22) ARM 5, 43:8–9 (OB) nakrum ina GN pa-ḫi-ir ‘the enemy is assembled in GN’ (23) KH §240:72 (OB) eleppašu ṭe4-bi-at ‘his ship has sunk (and is therefore on the bottom of the river)’ The most typical cases are statives of intransitive verbs of telic movement, such as ḫalāqu ‘to get lost’, kamāsu ‘to kneel down’, paḫāru ‘to come together’, qerēbu ‘to approach’, rabāṣu ‘to crouch, lie down’, tebû ‘to stand up’, and wašābu ‘to sit down’, and change-of-state verbs, such as belû ‘to go out (of fire)’, mâtu ‘to die’, pašāḫu ‘to become calm’, and šebû ‘to become satisfied’. As argued in §3.3 (p. 55), there is no clear-cut borderline between the intransitive statives of the latter type and adjectival statives, as in the case of abālu ‘to be(come) dry’ and malû ‘to be(come) full’. If the verb is transitive, either the subject or the direct object of the underlying fientive clause may become the subject of the stative, depending on the context and on semantic and pragmatic factors outside the stative itself, which, as stated above, is neutral with regard to voice. If it is the direct object, we have a “passive stative.”29 It describes the state of the object (the patient), e.g., the lion in: šarru nēša idūk ‘the king killed the lion’ § nēšu dīk ‘the lion is dead as a result of being killed’.30 There­fore, it usually requires a passive translation, as in (19) quoted above and: (24) St. von Soden (AOAT 240), p. 45:10–15 (OB) PN GN1 ul iṣbat / ālam GN2 PN iṣbat (. . .) mimma GN1 ul ṣa-bi-it ‘Bunū-ma-Addu has not seized Aparḫā, B. has seized the town of Ḫaduraḫā (. . .). Aparḫā has not been seized’ [or, more accurately: ‘is unseized’] The passive stative competes with the fientive forms of the derived stems with (medio)-passive function, the N‑stem, the Dt‑stem, and the Št1‑stem. In principle, the latter refer to the event itself 27.  For cases such as lasmu ‘quick’ (Stat lasim ‘he is quick’) beside lasāmu ‘to run’, see chap. 3, n. 30 (p. 59). 28.  Nedjalkov and Jaxontov (1988: 8–10) speak of the subjective, objective and possessive resultative, respectively. 29.  If we take the terms active and passive in their strict sense—i.e., as denoting an action which an agent performs on a patient and an action which is undergone by a patient, respectively—they are inappropriate to the stative, because the stative does not denote any action. Nevertheless, I will retain them as convenient terms in a purely syntactic meaning: in relation to the stative, passive only means that the original direct object appears as subject, active means that the original subject remains the subject of the stative. This use is also prompted by the fact that most European languages do not have a grammatical category “stative” and often have to use passive constructions to translate the passive stative. 30.  Promotion to subject of other participants than subject and direct object is exceptional: see §10.8.3.1 (p. 260) for an example of the indirect object promoted to subject in the verb qabû ‘to speak’.

170

The Stative: Function  7.3.

rather than to the resultant state, and sometimes this nuance is tangible, as in (25A) versus (25B), but in practice there is often little difference, so that the choice depends on the subjective decision of the speaker, as in (26), where the stative and the N perfective occur as variants:31 (25A) ARM 5, 67:9–10 (OB) ṣābum bāqimu ul ibašši immerātum ul ba-aq-ma ‘There are no sheepshearers (available/present) and the sheep are still unshorn (Stat)’ (25B) ARM 2, 140:8–10 (OB) šamû ṭaḫittum iznunma 1 me immerātum ul ib-ba-aq-ma ‘since it has been raining incessantly, one hundred sheep have not yet been shorn (N Pfv)’ (similarly FM 2, 140 no. 76:17, 19 and AbB 4, 79:7 vs. 25) (26) ÖB 14:5 (OB) šamnum sà-pi-iḫ-ma (var. i-sà-pi-iḫ-ma) kāsam imlā ‘(if) the oil has been scattered and has covered the (surface of the) bowl’ (similarly KH §120:14). If the subject of the underlying transitive clause retains its subject position in the stative, we have an “active stative,” which describes the state of the subject after the completion of the event, e.g., the army in: ṣābum ālam ilwī ‘the army laid (Pfv) siege to the city’ § ṣābum ālam lawī ‘the army holds (Stat) the city under siege’.32 There is no standard way to translate an active stative into English; we often need some kind of periphrasis; cf. the following clauses: (27) ARM 3, 1:6–7 (OB) šipir nār GN ṣa-ab-ta-ku ‘I am engaged in (lit., I have seized) work on the canal of GN’ 31.  See Rowton (1962: 279–85), who argues that the passive stative may be used instead of the N perfective and that “[I]f (. . .) the speaker selects paris, then the continued bearing of the past event on the existing situation is rendered explicit by the choice of that tense” (1962: 284). This is not borne out by the examples he cites and confuses the stative with the t‑perfect (which also vitiates Rowton’s account of the active stative; see below); see also Maloney 1981: 151–53. It is true, however, that there is a tendency for the stative to encroach upon the domain of the t‑perfect (see §7.3.3 below, pp. 174–175), and the situation in the passive is more complex than in the active, also because of the relative rarity of the N t‑perfect (ittaprVs). A more detailed study is clearly required. 32.  The active stative was the subject of a detailed description by Rowton (1962). His study is welldocumented, exemplary as to how a grammatical problem should be addressed, and pioneering in its inclusion of competing categories such as the t‑perfect and the passive. However, his semantic interpretation of many statives is highly questionable. Using the term “permansive” for the stative, he distinguishes two functions: the descriptive permansive, which describes the subject in terms of his condition, position, location, appearance, etc.; and the active or agentive permansive, in which the subject is an agent who is “engrossed in the action” and which serves “to emphasize persistency or sustained care on the part of the subject” (1962: 234). He characterizes the latter kind of permansive with terms such as control, persistency, and sustained effort, and once claims that it expresses “not merely action, but a highly intensive aspect of action” (1962: 299). These notions are quite alien to the nature of the stative, however, which purely expresses a state resulting from a previous event. Any impression of effort or persistency on the part of the subject resides in the meaning of the verb itself and/or in the context (and is sometimes read into the text by Rowton without actually being there). To quote only two instances: Rowton’s no. 116 on p. 251—‘with greatest care I have examined (ḫi-ṭa-ku) the inscriptions on stone (dating) from before the flood’: in my view, ḫīṭāku simply means ‘I have examined/studied (with the result that I am now expert in)’, without any implication of effort, just as amrāku simply means ‘I (have seen so that now I) know’; likewise, Rowton (1962: 255 no. 166) translates AbB 2, 74:11–12 PN aḫūni rabûm ḫa-ab-la-an-ni-a-ti ‘PN, our elder brother, persists in wronging us’; in my view, this verb simply means ‘has wronged us (so that we are now victims of injustice)’, or the like. Earlier criticism of some of Rowton’s views can be found in Kraus 1984: 6–10; Maloney 1981: 151–53; and Streck 1995a: 177. For Rowton’s views on the use of the stative as a t‑perfect, see below.

7.3.  The Stative: Function

171

(28) AbB 13, 110:28–29 (OB) inanna šiprum ṣa-ab-ta-an-ni ‘at the moment, work keeps me busy (lit., work has seized me)’. Through its resultative nature, the active stative is closely related to the fientive past tenses of perfective and t‑perfect. There are many situations that the speaker can describe in different ways, according to whether he prefers to stress the past event itself (perfective), its association with the present moment (t‑perfect), or the resultant state (stative).33 Therefore, we find instances of perfective and stative alternating in the same context, e.g.: (29A) CT 47, 13:2–3 (OB) kirbānam ana nārim is-su-uk ‘he has thrown (Pfv) a clod into the river’, versus: (29B) CT 47, 13a:2–3 kirbānam ana nārim ˹na˺-si-ik (Stat) (see Veenhof 1973: 366–67) (30A) St. Dietrich, p. 586 nr. 7:18–20 (MA) (garments) ša ikkarātu ma-aḫ-ru-ú-ni (Stat) ‘which the farmers have received’, versus: (30B) ibid. p. 587 no. 9:17–18 (garments) ša ikkarātu im-ḫu-ru-ni (Pfv) Stative and t‑perfect are two sides of the same coin: the t‑perfect represents a past event as still associated with the present moment, whereas the stative describes a state resulting from a past event. Accordingly, the choice is often subjective, and we find both forms used in the same context: (31A) AfO 18, 65: II 31 šumma awīlum šuʾrāšu īnīšu ka-at-ma ‘if a man’s brows hold his eyes covered (Stat)’ (31B) YOS 10, 56: II 23 šumma izbum uznāšu īnīšu ik-ta-˹ta˺-ma ‘if an anomaly’s eyes have covered (t‑Pf) its ears’ (32) AbB 14, 119:6–9 (OB) (with regard to the three textiles which are your impost) ina libbi 3 ṣubātīka ištēn na-ad-na-a-ti u šaniam anāku annikīam at-ta-di-in ‘from your three textiles, you have given (Stat) one and I have given (t‑Pf) another one here’34 Whether the stative of a transitive verb is active or passive primarily depends on the context. The presence of an accusative does not automatically entail an active interpretation, as is clear from (33), nor does its absence guarantee a passive one; see (34) and (35): (33) BAM 4, 393: r.5 (OB) šumma awīlum kalbam na‑ši‑ik ‘if a man has been bitten by a dog’ (or, more accurately, ‘if a man has a dogbite’) (34) AbB 10, 7:14 (OB) 2 áb.ḫi.a ša ibaššiā al‑da ‘the two cows that are present have calved’ (/aldā/ < waldā) (35) ATHE 46:18 (OA) annakam emārū ak-lu-ú ‘the donkeys have eaten here (i.e., they are well fed now)’ However, verbs exhibit large differences in the likelihood that their stative will be active or passive. Statives of high-transitivity verbs are almost always passive. This is due to the fact that 33.  See also Leong 1994: 32–33; Streck 1995a: 166–89. For a similar contrast in Egyptian between stative and eventive verb forms, see Reintges 1997: 362–64. 34.  In this passage, the stative doubtless implies that the addressee is now free of his legal obligation, whereas the t‑perfect indicates the news value of the message for the addressee and/or its recentness and relevance.

172

The Stative: Function  7.3.

it is the degree of affectedness of the participants that determines whether the resultant state is more likely to be predicated of the subject (the agent) or of the object (the patient). Since in high-transitivity verbs the direct object (the patient) is strongly affected by the event, whereas the agent usually suffers no relevant effect as a result of having performed the action in question (see §3.4, p. 66), it will generally be the state of the object that is described by means of a stative.35 It is therefore unlikely that we will ever find active statives of verbs such as dâku ‘to kill’ and petû ‘to open’: clauses such as *šarru nēša dīk ‘the king has killed a/the lion’ or *awīlu bāba petī ‘the man has opened the/a door’ would imply that these actions have left some kind of mark on the subject that is relevant enough to be described in the form of a resultative stative, a situation that will not often occur. Statives of low-transitivity verbs, on the other hand, can be both active and passive, because the direct object of low-transitivity verbs is not or not significantly affected by the action (see §3.4, p. 66), so that their subject becomes proportionally more salient and therefore a more likely candidate to be described as having performed the action (Kozinskij 1988: 517–21). Therefore, most active statives come from transitive verbs with a low degree of transitivity. This is confirmed by the list of active statives attested in Akkadian that was compiled by D. Cohen (1984: 257–58).36 The fact that the stative describes an entity in terms of the result of a previous event makes the active stative eminently suitable for legal (con)texts to describe the legal status of a person (Rowton 1962: 292–94), as in the following instances: (36) KH §158:28 (OB) (a woman) ša mārī wa-al-da-at ‘who has given birth to sons’ (i.e., who has sons, is the mother of sons) (also LE §59: A IV 29) (37) CT 6, 6:5 (OB) eqlum ša PNF (. . .) ša-ma-at ‘the field that PNF has bought’ (and therefore now owns) (38) AbB 3, 2:11 (OB) aḫūni ṣeḫrum aššatam ul a-ḫi-iz ‘our youngest brother has not taken a wife’ (i.e., is still unmarried) (39) YOS 8, 150:19–22 (OB) ša pî kunukkim annîm kaspam gamram lū na-ad-na-ku ‘I have certainly given/paid all the silver in accordance with the words of the document!’ (40) CCT 5, 11d:6–7 (OA) (an amount of gold) ša ana PN ša-áp-kà-tí-ni ‘which you have invested for PN’ (41) KAV 1: VII §47:28–31 (MA) (in accordance with the words of the tablet that you have sworn to (ta-am-ʾ-a-ta-a-ni: Stat + Subj) before the king and his son) ta-am-ʾ-a-ta ‘you have sworn’ (i.e., you are bound by this oath)37 The subject of these clauses has performed an act which has brought him or her into a state with legal consequences,38 and the stative emphasizes the ensuing rights or obligations. The corre35.  See Comrie 1981b: 70–71; what Comrie argues here for the perfect applies to the stative in Akkadian. 36.  D. Cohen’s list could be augmented substantially, but the overall picture is not likely to change signifi­cantly. D. Cohen concludes (1984: 260) that the active stative is typical of the verbs that M. Cohen (1935) has called “déponents internes” and that we would call “middle verbs” or low-transitivity verbs, see §18.3.1 (p. 588). 37.  Many additional examples are quoted in Rowton 1962: 292–94. 38.  “[E]ine juristisch bedeutsame Situation” (Aro 1964: 8); similarly, Rowton 1962: 292.

7.3.  The Stative: Function

173

sponding perfectives or t‑perfects would simply have stated the occurrence of the event. This explains why so many active statives come from verbs denoting legally binding actions.39 As I stated above, active statives have a particular tendency to develop a lexicalized meaning if they are used frequently enough. The most common instances are four verbs that express different modalities of “taking” or “acquiring”, and whose active stative denotes the corresponding state of possession, as was first established by Ungnad (1918): ṣabātu ‘to take, seize’, leqû ‘to receive’, maḫāru ‘to receive’, and našû ‘to lift, carry’. The first three verbs often occur in the legal contexts referred to above and express different nuances of possession. Ṣabātu often refers to the ownership of real estate: ‘he owns, he is the legitimate owner of’ (but it also has a more general use, see, e.g., (27) and (28) above), and leqû and maḫāru to ownership of commodities that someone is entitled to and has received, e.g.:40 (41) AbB 4, 40:7 (OB) eqel bīt abīa ša ištu ūmī mādūtim ṣa-ab-ta-nu ‘the field of my father’s estate which we have owned for a long time (PN has claimed from me)’ (42) AbB 6, 43:8–9 (OB) 1/2 gín 15 še kaspam la-qí-a-ku ‘I have received 1/2 shekel and 15 grains of silver’ (43) AbB 11, 47:12–13 (OB) šeʾam ma-aḫ-ra-a-ta libbaka ṭāb ‘you have received the barley, (so) you are satisfied’ (i.e., you have been paid and have no further claims) The stative of našû, on the other hand, typically refers to the transportation of goods with which somebody is on his way: ‘to have on oneself, carry’, especially in Assyrian, but occasionally also in Babylonian: (44) Prag I 553:13–15 (OA) šitti kaspim (. . .) PN na-áš-a-kum ‘PN is on his way to you (našʾakkum) with (carrying) the rest of the silver’ (45) AbB 1, 132:7 (OB) kaspam ul na-ši-a-ku ‘I have no silver with me’ (tr. CAD N/2 95a s.v. našû v. A 2d–2′) Numerous other verbs have an active stative with more or less lexicalized meanings, among which I may single out (see Rowton 1962: 267 for a longer list): • amāru ‘to see’, Stat ‘to know, have experienced’41 • lamādu ‘to learn’, Stat ‘to know’ • katāmu ‘to cover’ (action), Stat ‘to cover’ (state) • lawû ‘to lay siege to’, Stat ‘to besiege’ (i.e., ‘to lie around (a city)’) • rakābu ‘to mount’ (an animal or a ship), Stat ‘to ride, sail’ 39.  For active statives in Old Assyrian, see Rowton 1962: 285–88. A very atypical case is the legal but apparently non-resultative use in: (a woman) uš-ba-at ak-lá-at u pá-ša-at ištīšunu St. Larsen p. 12:14 // 14:17–18 ‘shall live, eat, and be anointed together with them (the owners of the house)’. The usual form in such contexts is the imperfective, e.g., the ubiquitous īkkal ‘he has the usufruct of (a field)’, which comes close to stative meaning in this context, where a situation rather than an event is described (see Loesov 2005: 111). This may explain the shift to the stative in this clause. 40.  Many additional examples are quoted in Rowton 1962: 243–45. For an atypical use of the active stative of našû ‘to lift, carry’, see chap. 17, n. 212 (p. 574). 41.  Cf. Greek (w)oida, Sanskrit veda ‘I know’, which are also resultatives of a verb ‘to see’, preserved in the Greek aorist (w)eidon ‘I saw’ and Latin vidēre; cf. also the Gtn stative of amāru: ‘to have seen many times’ > ‘to know well’ (AHw 41b s.v. Gtn 2).

174

The Stative: Function  7.3.

In their typological study of resultatives, Nedjalkow and Jaxontov (1988: 22–26) use the term “possessive resultative” for this kind of active stative, and they observe that it is cross-linguistically the least common type.42 In Akkadian, however, it is fairly widespread and productive, although less frequent than the passive stative.43 Moreover, the term “possessive resultative” does not capture the essence of the active stative and is far too restrictive. There are numerous instances in which the notion of possession is quite inappropriate, such as the passages (39), (40), and (41) quoted above.

7.3.3.  Marginal and secondary uses of the stative Not all verbal statives conform completely to the definition of a resultative as given above. First of all, the stative of some verbs may express a state that, strictly speaking, does not result from a previous event, doubtless as a secondary extension of their core function. This applies in particular to the frequent “locational” statives of šakānu ‘to place’ (see (47)) and nadû ‘to put down’ (see (48)), which have developed more or less into a copula in such contexts (see CAD Š/1 132–33 s.v. šakānu 3b; N/1 91–92 s.v. nadû 5) and to the stative of šakānu with a double accusative ‘to provide with’ (see (49)); but it sporadically occurs in other verbs as well, such as kabāsu ‘to tread on, trample’ in (50): (47) AbB 4, 1:11 (OB) (a good field) ša ana mê ša-ak-nu ‘that is situated along/borders the water’ (48) RA 44, 13:14 (OB) šumma (. . .) šīlū mādūtum na-du-ú ‘if there are numerous holes’ (49) MIO 1, 74:24, 29 (SB) qaran alpi gar-in (. . .) kappī gar-in ‘he has (lit., is provided with) the horn of an ox (. . .) he has wings’ (in a description of a figure of a god, and passim in such contexts) (50) Sg. 8:375 (SB) (a figure of two goddesses) ša šiḫar šēpēšina šuk-bu-sa labbī nadrūte erbettašunu ‘the soles of whose feet are standing on four raging lions’ (tr. CAD K 11a s.v. kabāsu 7b; also MIO 1, 80: VI 3 and elsewhere with kabāsu G; for the Š‑stem, see §13.2.2.2, pp. 330–331) Second, resultative forms have a widespread tendency to develop into perfects and further into past tense forms, as we saw in §6.4 (pp. 157–159). The Akkadian stative did not become a productive perfect, doubtless because Akkadian already had one in the iptarVs form,44 but it was not 42.  See Kozinskij (1988: 516–22) for a thorough discussion of functionally similar categories in a variety of languages. 43.  The active stative is attested in all dialects but is apparently most common in Old and Standard Babylonian. For third-millennium Akkadian, the only instances I know are TCBI 1, 235:11 (wool for the palace) PN za-bi-it /ṣabit/ ‘PN has in his possession’, and the problematic na-se11-⟨a⟩-nim AKI p. 256:55 (cp RI of Naram-Sin) ‘they (Fem: the people) carry for me’ (see chap. 17, n. 212, p. 574). It also occurs in the latest dialects, but the available handbooks do not make it clear how common it is. Instances are ḫaas-sa-na-ši-ni SAA 10, 39:14 (NA) ‘he has thought about us’ (Subj) from ḫasāsu, and maḫ-rak SAA 18, 160:13 (NB) ‘I have received’ from maḫāru. Streck (1995a: 169–70) mentions a few instances from Late Babylonian. 44.  This was already argued by Kraus (1984: 11–12), who discusses various Old Babylonian passages with a stative that cannot be interpreted as denoting a state but only indicate that the event in question has occurred or not occurred. See also Loesov 2004a: 86 on the similarity between perfect and stative.

7.3.  The Stative: Function

175

completely immune to such a development.45 The clearest cases are the passive stative of dâku ‘to kill’ and the intransitive stative of mâtu ‘to die’; cf. the following instances: (51) VS 26, 26:4–9 (OA) 6 imārū (. . .) u ṣuḫārūa ina GN de8-ku ‘six donkeys (. . .) and my servants have been killed in GN’ (also AMMK 1995 p. 150:7, 12, 18, 20) (52) AbB 13, 181:31–32 (OB) ina mitḫuri 1 mār GN di-i-ik ‘one man from GN was killed in the clash’ (also AbB 8, 24:17–20 and ARM 2, 63:14 according to Durand 1997/2000: I 487 n. 144) (53) BIN 4, 141:1–3 (OA) (I sent half a textile to PN) inūmi merʾassu me-ta-at-ni ‘when his daughter (had) died’ (54) KAV 1: VI §45:85–86 (MA) šumma lā ittūra ina māte šanītemma me-e-et ‘if he has not returned but has died in another country’ (also KAV 1: VI §43:22 with the stative lū me-e-et parallel to the Pfv lū innābit: ‘if he has either died or fled’) (55) Or. 24, 243:3 acc. to CAD Š/3 220 s.v. šuklultu c (SB) (the ghost of a person) ša ina šuklulti šīmtīšu mi-tu4 ‘who died at the completion of his allotted lifespan’ In themselves, the statives dīk (Bab)/dēk (Ass) and mīt/mēt mean ‘he has been killed (and therefore is now dead)’ and ‘he has died (and therefore is now dead)’, respectively, and simply describe the condition of the subject. However, the inclusion of a specification of the time and/ or the place of death (as in all these instances) shifts the attention from the present state to the previous event, since it can only refer to the event itself. Therefore, the stative is used as a perfect here.46 Instances from other verbs include: (56) AbB 3, 48:32–33 (OB) awâtum ekallam ka-aš-da ‘the words/matters have reached the palace’ (cf. Kraus 1984: 11–12 on the interpretation of this stative) (57) AbB 10, 208:4–5 (OB) kīma ina pa-⟨ ni  ⟩-tim ina šaptīya ša-mi-a-ta ‘as you heard from me (lit., from my lips) in the past’ (58) AbB 7, 59:9–11 (OB) ištu mu.2.kam eqlam (a.šà-lam) tu-ur-ra-an-né-ši-im ‘Seit zwei Jahren hat er uns das Feld zurückgegeben’ (tr. F. R. Kraus) (59) ABIM 20:82 (OB) (a slave girl) ša mādiš namrat ištiššu šinīšūma wa-al-da-at ‘who is in very good shape and has given birth once or twice already’ (i.e., has one or two children)

45.  Rowton (1962, especially 292–95) also claimed that the stative tends to become a perfect. In principle, he is right, but he supports his claim in particular by means of numerous active statives in legal (con) texts for which an English translation with a present perfect is often possible or even unavoidable (see above, (36)-(41)). However, as I argued above, these are pure statives that describe the state of the subject, whatever English translation we prefer. 46.  It is interesting in this context that dâku does not seem to have an N‑stem perfective or t‑perfect; there is only an N Impfv iddâk (earlier iddūak), familiar from the Old Babylonian law codes. So it is conceivable that the stative dīk serves to fill an awkward gap, since a passive perfective of the verb ‘to kill’ seems hard to dispense with. This explanation does not apply to mâtu, however, whose t‑Pf imtūt is commonplace in Old Babylonian; see (01) and (02) in chap. 6 (p. 142), for instance.

176

The Prehistory of the Stative  7.4.

Third, in Standard Babylonian literary texts, we find occasional instances of statives in contexts that exclude a stative interpretation. They are apparently employed as stylistic variants of the other finite categories. A detailed investigation of this phenomenon is required before we can venture an explanation; I will therefore restrict myself to a few examples. The three following statives replace an active imperfective (in (60)), an active perfective (in (61)) and a passive (narrative) perfective (in (62)), respectively: (60) AGH 68:16–17 mūša u imma šumki ištammarā qurudki dal-la ‘night and day they keep praising your name and they extol your heroism’ (also OECT 6, 73:18) (61) Gilg p. 622:59 var. (the shepherd) [ša] kayyānamma tumrī šup-pu-kak-ki (var. of iš-pu-kak-ki) ‘who regularly piled up for you (bread baked in) embers’ (tr. A. R. George) (62) Ash. p. 92 §61:14–15 lî pu-ul-lu-qú aslī ṭu-ub-bu-ḫu armannū quddušu sur-ru-qu kišukki ‘bulls were slaughtered, lambs slain, holy armannu was scattered on the censer’ (tr. CAD A/2 291a s.v. armannu a)47

7.4. The Prehistory of the Stative 7.4.1.  The formal background of the stative From a formal point of view, the stative is a relatively transparent combination of a nominal/ adjectival stem and person affixes of nominal or pronominal descent. This does not imply, however, that it is of recent origin. On the contrary, many of its formal and functional characteristics presuppose a long grammaticalization process. The formal ones will be discussed below; the most important functional characteristic is the active stative. Since the past participle of transitive verbs is typically passive (see §8.3.1, pp. 200–201), it is likely that the earliest verbal statives had passive meaning. Typological evidence shows that passive statives are much more common than active statives in the languages of the world and that the existence of an active stative presupposes the existence of a passive one (Nedjalkow and Jaxontov 1988: 22). There can therefore be little doubt that the active stative is a secondary development that started from intransitive statives (Huehnergard 1987a: 228; Tropper 1995a: 502). This is confirmed by the fact, stated above, that most active statives come from low transitivity verbs, which generally form a bridge between prototypically transitive and intransitive verbs. Since adjectives constitute the most typical kind of predicative nominals (see §7.3.1, pp. 165–​ 168), it is plausible that the univerbation that created the stative started with primary adjectives and spread from there to past participles, which have the same form. If it is possible to derive a predicative form marṣāku ‘I am ill’ from marṣu ‘ill’, for instance, it is not a big step to derive ḫablāku ‘I have been wronged’ from the PPartc ḫablu ‘wronged’ and thus indirectly from the verb ḫabālu ‘to wrong’. This related the stative paradigmatically to the established finite members of the verbal paradigm and incorporated it into the verbal paradigm as a resultative.48 Since 47.  Metzler (2002: 639–40) signals a possible instance from an Old Babylonian Sargon legend: Legends p. 84: I 17′ qarrādūšu ap-lu-ni-šu ‘his warriors answered him’. 48.  Loesov (2004b: 417–18, 2005: 142–45) argues that the stative originated with past participles and spread from there to primary adjectives. This seems to be contradicted by the evidence from Berber, where the suffix conjugation is only open to primary adjectives; see §7.4.3 below (pp. 191–192). This does not

7.4.  The Prehistory of the Stative

177

a resultative state is dependent on the previous occurrence of the event expressed by the verb, the stative abandoned its dependence on the past participle to become hierarchically dependent on the fientive prefix conjugations. This enabled it to express the resulting state of any event, both active and passive, and to adopt more and more verbal properties. The past participle itself became a deverbal derivation of the stative, semantically subordinate to it, so that the historical derivational relationship past participle § stative became stative § past participle.49 This process of verbalization was essentially completed in the pre-literary period. The few historical changes we observe in the conjugation of the stative, especially the gradual adoption of the u‑subjunctive in the third-person singular, are the final stages on the road to verbal status.50 The univerbation of stem and personal pronoun had two important consequences. The first is the creation of a single stem for all persons regardless of gender and number. Differences in gender and number are only encoded in the personal endings themselves. This is a common outcome of grammaticalization processes (“simplification,” according to Croft 2003: 263–64).51 It was doubtless strengthened by the fact that almost all conjugations of Akkadian have an invariable stem.52 The second is that the third person could occur without an explicit subject even though it does not contain a subject marker: e.g., šar ‘he is king’. This only became possible after the stative had acquired verbal status, since other finite verb forms do not need an explicit subject either. A non-verbal form cannot in itself be a complete (propositional) sentence (Diem 1997: 47). For instance, Ḫammurapi šarru ‘H. is king’ and šarru šū ‘he is king’ are well-formed clauses, but šarru alone cannot mean ‘he is king’. The first‑ and second-person endings have a pronominal origin, and the third-person forms are only provided with gender and number markers agreeing with the subject. This reflects the fundamental contrast between the participants in the speech situation and the persons who are absent and spoken about. It is related to the non-existence of personal pronouns of the third person in languages all over the world.53 However, even without a personal suffix, the third-person stative forms are unambiguously marked through their contrast to the other forms. I will start with the third-person endings, shown in Table 7.2, which also includes the nominal endings of adjective and noun (cf. GAG Nominalparadigmen 1): mean, however, that “originally” only adjectives had a suffix conjugation (e.g., Tropper 1995a: 497–98). The similarity between the prefixed perfective of adjectival verbs in Akkadian (ikbit ‘he became heavy’, etc.) and the “aorist” of adjectival verbs in Berber languages (which often have the structure C1C2vC3; see D. Cohen 1970–71: 182) shows that the prefix conjugation of property concepts goes back at least to the common Berber-Semitic period, and probably further. 49.  See also Kouwenberg 2000: 56–68 for a more detailed description of this process. 50.  There is no compelling reason why we should assume Sumerian influence on this development, as maintained by Streck (1995a: 185), although it cannot be ruled out. 51.  Although it was deemed problematic by Kraus (1984: 20) and Diem (1997: 73). 52.  Streck (1995a: 184) attributes the invariable stem of the stative to Sumerian influence. Although this cannot be ruled out (cf. n. 50 above), it is especially hard to believe that the relatively rare predicative use of nouns that Streck mentions (l u g a l . m e . e n ‘I am (the) king’, lugal.me.en.dè.en ‘we are (the) kings’, with invariable l u g a l) would be able to impose its pattern on the vastly more frequent statives of verbs. 53.  The fact that Semitic uses pronouns that are originally demonstrative as independent subject pronouns of the third person, alongside the “real” personal pronouns of the first and second person (see Table 7.3), has the same background. See, in general, Benveniste 1966: 228–31; Comrie 1981a: 219–20; for IndoEuropean: Beekes 1995: 207; for Semitic and Afroasiatic: D. Cohen 1984: 108–9; Huehnergard 1987a: 221–22 ; Tropper 1995a: 493–94; Streck 1995a: 182–83; Satzinger 1999: 24 (“interlocutive” versus “delocutive”). Furthermore, in Neo-Aramaic, several of the new suffix conjugations have a zero marker in the 3ms; see D. Cohen 1984: 462 for Western, and p. 512 for Eastern Neo-Aramaic; and also Jastrow 1997: 343, 363.

178

The Prehistory of the Stative  7.4. stative

adjective (Nom)

noun (Nom)  54

3ms

šalim

šalmu

šarru

3fs

šalmat

šalimtu

šarratu

3mp

šalmū

šalmūtu

šarrū

3fp

šalmā

šalmātu

šarrātu

3dum

šalmā

šalmān

šarrān

3duf

šalmā/šalimtā

šalimtān

šarratān

Table 7.2: The third-person forms of the stative.

The third-person singular forms have a zero ending in the masculine and the nominal suffix ‑at in the feminine,55 so that they are identical to the corresponding nominal forms without case ending and mimation.56 They result from the subtraction of these elements, which symbolizes the loss of nominal or adjectival status: šalim ∞ šălĭmum and šalmat ∞ šălĭmătum (the outcome is somewhat obscured by the effect of the vowel syncope rule). For verbal statives, this statement is only historically true, however, since synchronically they are derived from the prefix forms, as I argued above; for statives derived from nouns and adjectives, it is also synchronically valid. Statives such as šarrāq ‘he is a thief’ and qātāt ‘he stands surety’ come directly from the nouns šarrāqu and qātātu, respectively, and dān ‘he is strong’ is directly derived from dannu ‘strong’ (see §16.6.1, pp. 492–493).57 The historical reason why the third-person singular of the stative has no ending is doubtless a consequence of the fact that, when adjectives in their primary attributive function acquired case markers, their predicative form remained the same.58 54.  From šarru ‘king’ and šarratu ‘queen’. 55.  In proper names from the third millennium, there are 3fs forms without -t, e.g., Si-be-la /Šī-bēla/ MAD 1, 163: I 28 ‘she is lord/lady’, especially in Mari Old Akkadian: Eš4-dar-dam-ga /Eštar-damqa/ ARM 19, 303:4, Ma-ma‑a-li-a /Mama-alia/ ARM 19, 384:12, and Eš4-dar-a-li-a /Eštar-alia/ ARM 19, 384:13, and exceptionally in Old Babylonian: Um-mi-na-da ‘my mother is exalted’ (quoted by Gelb 1961: 216), Um-mi-ṭà-ba ‘my mother is good’ and Ba-ba6-i-la ‘Baba is divine’ (quoted by Stol 1991: 195 as Ba-ú-i-la); see also Gelb 1961: 150–51, 1965: 74. We would expect damqat ‘she is good’, aliat ‘she is sublime’, etc. It is not clear to me whether we may regard these forms as alternatives for the 3fs stative or secondary forms determined by their position in a proper name, e.g., because of the sex of the bearer of the name according to the principle established by Edzard (1962) that the sex of the bearer may overrule the gender required by the subject of the sentence that forms the name. 56.  See Tropper 1995a: 493–94, who convincingly refutes Huehnergard’s (1987a: 221–22) contrary view. The reconstruction of Diem (1997: 69–71), who derives the third-person endings from the second part of the independent pronouns of the third person (as reconstructed by him), just as the first‑ and secondperson endings come from the second part of the corresponding pronouns (-ta from anta, etc.), is unconvincing, since it does not account for the background of this process. Presumably, the first‑ and secondperson independent pronouns are compounds themselves, for instance, of a former copula and an enclitic pronoun: an-āku ‘(it is) me’. It is unclear how an analysis of, say, huʾa/šiʾat into huʾ/šiʾ‑ plus -a/-at fits into this picture. I will come back to Diem’s views in §7.4.2 (pp. 182–183) for a different problem. 57.  For šarrāq ‘he is a thief’, see, e.g., awīlum šū ša-ar-ra-aq KH §7:55–56 (OB) ‘that man is a thief’, and for qātāt, e.g., PN aḫūšu qá-ta-at VS 26, 120:33 (OA) ‘PN, his brother, stands surety’. 58.  However, this issue is intimately connected with the prehistoric development of the 3ms stative. The corresponding form in West Semitic, the 3ms perfect qatVla, does have an ending ‑a, and both the background of this ‑a and the question whether it can be reconstructed for Proto-Semitic or not are highly controversial. I will discuss this further in the next section.

7.4.  The Prehistory of the Stative

179

In the plural, the third-person endings -ū and -ā are parallel to the nominal and adjectival endings without the suffix -tu and could also be explained from a process of subtraction. However, it is more likely that they were taken over from the corresponding endings of the prefix conjugations (e.g., Impfv 3mp iparrasū, 3fp iparrasā), as part of the process of incorporation of the stative into the verbal paradigm.59 This was suggested by Kuryłowicz (1972: 93) and explains both the absence of -t- in the third-person plural feminine and the remarkable fact that this ending is always -ā, even if the corresponding adjective has -ētu, as in ṣeḫrētu, Fem Pl of ṣeḫru ‘small, young’, but 3fp stative ṣeḫrā.60 The dual forms are restricted to the oldest dialects: Sargonic Akkadian has a 3dum (lū) za‑aḫ-ra /ṣaḫrā/ (ā) zu-ku-na /zuqqunā/ SAB p. 158:10 (Diyala) ‘they (the two slaves) must be young and not have a beard’, and a separate 3duf sá-lim-da /salimtā/ SAB p. 177 top: 9 (Eshnunna) ‘they two are well’. This special feminine form is not found anywhere else, with the remarkable exception of na-mu-ra-ta (īnāšu) TIM 9, 65:12 // 66:24 ‘its eyes are shining’ in an Old Babylonian incantation. Mari Old Akkadian has the dual form marṣā (spelled mar-za) ‘(they are) ill’ both for men (e.g., ARM 19, 55:2; 57:2) and for women (ARM 19, 19:2) (Limet 1975: 49–50). Old Babylonian instances include zi-za /zīzā/ UET 5, 114:12 ‘they (the two brothers) have divided (the inheritance)’; wa-aš-ba-a(-ma) St. de Meyer p. 85:11 ‘they (two partners) are present’. In proper names, we find Dingir.dingir-dan-na /Ilān-dannā/ AbB 10, 200:1 ‘the twin gods are strong’; Dingir.dingir-ra-bi-a /Ilān-rabiā/ CT 8, 44b:7 ‘the twin gods are great’; Mara-an-ki‑na /Mārān-kīnā/ ‘the two sons are legitimate’ (quoted in Stamm 1939: 296).61 These dual forms have a different structure from the plural: whereas the plural forms are built on the stem (šal(i)m-), the dual forms are derived from the singular of the corresponding gender by adding ā: šalim § šalmā, but šalmat § šalimtā (originally šălĭmat § šălĭmătā, a form preserved in namurratā).62 It is remarkable that these forms are built exactly like the thirdperson dual forms of the Arabic perfect (if we ignore -a of the 3ms): 3ms qatala § qatalā and 3ms qatalat § qatalatā (see Fleisch 1979: 117–19) and the corresponding forms of the Modern South Arabian suffix conjugation, e.g., Mehri 3dum kətəbō, 3duf kətəbtō (Johnstone 1975: 16). The suffixes of the first‑ and second-person have a pronominal origin, as is clear from their similarity to the independent subject pronouns; see Table 7.3. 59.  Since the moot problem of -ā versus -nā as original 3fp ending mainly concerns West Semitic, I will not go into it; for a recent summing up of the discussion, see Diem 1997: 53–61. 60.  Cf. Kouwenberg 2000: 57. The absence of -t in the plural forms, especially in the 3fp šalmā, results from a morphosyntactic process and cannot be compared with the loss of final t in Arabic (-ah < -atum) and Aramaic (-ā < -āt), as claimed by Streck (1995a: 183 n.427). The latter is a phonetic process of attrition at the end of a word for which there are no parallels in Akkadian at so early a date. 61.  For Old Babylonian dual forms in the verb in general, see Stol (1988: 178). 62.  This also applies to the adjective, which has -ān/-īn (Ass -ān/-ēn) instead of -ā: Masc šalmu § šalmān, Fem šalimtu § šalimtān, e.g., Masc kà-ab-tá-an VS 26, 157:5 (OA) from kabtu ‘heavy’, a-ni-an UM 5, 156: r.5 (OB) from annû ‘this’, mi-it-ḫa-ri-in YOS 10, 62:30 (OB) from mitḫaru ‘of equal size’; Fem pá-tí-té-en6 OAA 1, 88:4 (OA) from petû ‘open’ (< *patiḥtayn), re-ti-ta-an Legends p. 198:49 (OB) ‘fixed’ (retû), ra-ab-ba-ta-an Ištar p. 24:43 (OB) from rabbu ‘soft’; ra-qé-té-en CTMMA 1, 121 no. 85a:12 (OA) from raqqu ‘thin’ (< *raqqatayn). The Sargonic Akkadian Nom Fem da-mì-iq-tá Or. 46, 201:7 (incant. from Kish) from damqu ‘good, beautiful’ is irregular in that it lacks the final -n. Is this a defective spelling for -tān or a kind of absolute state serving as a vocative? The latter option is taken by J. and A. Westenholz (1977: 207), referring to GAG §62j, and Hasselbach (2005: 184). In the noun, the same principle holds: šaptu ‘lip’, Pl šapātum, but Du šaptān (e.g., ša-ap-ta-an Ištar p. 24:43, OB). A parallel in the verbal system is the sporadically attested reciprocal first-person dual mentioned in §2.5 (p. 51; lurtāmā ‘let us love (each other)’, etc.), which is derived from the first-person singular by affixation of the dual ending ‑ā; see Kouwenberg 2005: 100–101.

180

The Prehistory of the Stative  7.4. person

pronoun

stative

1s.

anāku

šalmāku (-āk)

2ms.

atta

šalmāta (-āti, -āt)

2fs.

atti

šalmāti (or -tī?) (-āt)

(3ms.

šū

šalim)

(3fs.

šī

šalmat)

1p.

nīnu

šalmānu (Ass. -āni)

2mp.

attunu

šalmātunu

2fp.

attina

šalmātina

(3mp.

šunu

šalmū)

(3fp.

šina

šalmā)

Table 7.3: The subject pronouns and the personal endings of the stative.

The emergence of the first‑ and second-person forms šalmāku, šalmāta, etc., presupposes the existence of a predicative 3ms šalim(‑) or perhaps šalima(‑). They consist of this form plus a short, probably enclitic, form of the independent pronoun, which apparently lacked the element an-: *‑(ā)ku), *‑tV, *‑tī, etc.: šalmāku < šalim + -āku. Stem and pronominal element coalesced into a single word through univerbation (Hopper and Traugott 2003: 145–49), with the pronouns developing from independent words to clitics and then to personal endings. Some problematic aspects of this development will be discussed further in the next section. However, the match between pronoun and suffix is far from perfect. In spite of atta, the 2ms form ‑āti is doubtless older than ‑āta: ‑āti is standard in Old Assyrian (sometimes reduced to -āt, see GKT §§72a, 45a) and is also typical of Archaic Babylonian and Early Old Babylonian, see GAG 3 §75c* and Stol 1988: 178.63 So ‑āta may be a secondary adaptation of -āti to the form of the independent pronoun. Old Assyrian seems to have -āti for both genders (GKT §72a), but it is conceivable that the feminine was actually ‑ātī. The short forms without final vowel are found from the oldest period onwards, e.g., SAk lū tu-mu-at /tummuʾāt/ SAB p. 53:10 (Adab) ‘be (2ms) bound by an oath’ from tamû D ‘to cause to swear’,64 OB la-ab-ša-a-at AbB 6, 22:15 ‘you (Fem) wear’ from labāšu, and OA qá-bi4-a-at Prag I 727:7 ‘you (Masc) have promised’ from qabû ‘to say, promise’. They are doubtless secondary, just as is 1s ‑āk for ‑āku. In the first-person plural, Babylonian -ānu contrasts with Assyrian -āni (GAG §75b; GKT §72a). It is hard to determine which is more original: on the one hand, the Babylonian form may be due to the influence of the pronoun, which has -nu in both dialects (nīnu or nēnu)65; on the other hand, Assyrian -ni may result from influence of the genitive suffix pronoun -ni. In conclusion, we cannot rule out the possibility that the similarity between the independent subject pronouns and the personal suffixes of the stative results from a gradual convergence rather than from an original identity.

63.  Add to the instances mentioned there (āl) wa-aš-ba-a-ti YOS 10, 36: III 14 ‘the town where you live’. 64.  This is the only 2ms stative attested so far in Sargonic Akkadian, so it is unknown whether a longer ending ‑ta or ‑ti also existed (Hasselbach 2005: 189–90). 65.  The forms nīni and anīni appearing in Neo-Babylonian and occasionally in Standard Babylonian are doubtless secondary, perhaps influenced by the suffix pronoun -ni.

7.4.  The Prehistory of the Stative

181

Apart from the variations shown in Table 7.3, the endings of the stative are relatively stable during the history of Akkadian, with the exception of Neo-Assyrian, where a noteworthy development takes place: ‑t- of the second person is replaced by -k- (GAG §75b; Hämeen-Anttila 2000: 90–91), e.g., -āka instead of -āta (kam-mu-sa-ka SAA 1, 107:8 ‘you are staying’), ‑āki for ‑āti (šur-ba-ki Or. 23, 347:14 ‘you (Fem) are magnificent’ (NA lit.), and ‑ākunu for ‑ātunu (pal-ḫa-ku-nu CTN 5 p. 13:26 ‘you (Pl) are anxious’).66 This may be explained as an analogical extension starting from ‑k- in the first-person singular and represents a remarkable parallel with the same (but undoubtedly independent) development in South Semitic (Moscati, ed. 1964: 139; see §7.4.2 below).

7.4.2.  The relationship with the West Semitic perfect Diachronically, the Akkadian stative is closely related to two other categories in cognate languages: the suffix conjugation of West Semitic, which is traditionally called the perfect (originally qatVla, in fientive verbs usually qatala), on the one hand, and several suffix conjugations with basically stative meaning in Afroasiatic, on the other. In this section, I will discuss some aspects of the relationship between the stative and the West Semitic perfect. The common origin of the Akkadian stative and the West Semitic perfect is ascertained by the commonalities in the personal endings, by the correspondence between the non-active perfects qatila/qatula and the Akkadian adjectival statives, and by the correspondence between the intransitive or low-transitive qatila perfects and the passive/intransitive stative pattern PaRiS in Akkadian. Moreover, the function of the West Semitic perfect can be understood as a further development of the resultative function of the verbal stative in Akkadian (Aro 1965; Tropper 1995a: 504–12; T. D. Anderson 2000: 26–32; Cook 2001: 127–30). It underwent the well-attested grammaticalization process from resultative to perfect and further to perfective or simple past (Bybee et al. 1994: 81–87).67 The oldest function of the suffix conjugation as a predicative form of adjectives is preserved in West Semitic in the use of the perfect of adjectival verbs to denote a state or a quality (Tropper 1995a: 510; Cook 2001: 129): e.g., Hebrew kābẹ̄d ‘it is heavy’, ʾāhabtī ‘I love’ (Joüon and Muraoka 1991: 359), Arabic kafarū ‘they are unbelievers’ (Reckendorf 1977: 10–11, who calls this “präsentisch-resultativ”).68 In this process, the perfect replaced the earlier perfective *yiqtVl, which is still in use in Akkadian and survives as a residual past tense in West Semitic (apart from a fully-fledged irrealis function); see §5.4 (pp. 129–130). The similarity between the personal endings of the Akkadian stative and the West Semitic perfect confirms their common origin: see Table 7.4 (p. 182), which compares Akkadian with Arabic and Geʿez as representatives of Central and South Semitic, respectively.69 66.  By way of exception, this also occurs in Neo-Babylonian: ku-uṣ-ṣu-pa-ku-nu ABL 301: r.2 ‘you (Pl) are planning’; ma-aṣ-ṣa-ku-nu ABL 1146: r.4 ‘you (Pl) are able’; see Woodington 1982: 94 (but note that in the latter form ‑ṣṣ‑ is typically Assyrian; see Kouwenberg 2003: 85). The alleged Old Babylonian instance of a second person with -k- (ka-aš-da-ki AbB 2, 135:4) mentioned by Gelb (1955b: 108b), Tropper (1995a: 509 n. 53), and Lipiński (1997: 362) is actually a first-person singular with a second-person feminine dative suffix: kašdāk(u)-ki(m) ‘I have come to you’. 67.  Not to mention the various other functions the perfect has developed in the West Semitic languages, such as the prophetic perfect in Hebrew (Joüon and Muraoka 1991: 363) and the Arabic use of the perfect in wishes (Fischer 1972: 92). 68.  According to Fleisch (1979: 193–94), Arabic normally employs a nominal clause or the copula kāna to express a state and has restricted the perfect to fientive use: kāna karīman ‘he was generous’ versus perfect karuma ‘he became generous’. This is modelled on the situation in the fientive verb and doubtless represents a secondary development. 69.  See Moscati, ed. 1964: 137; Lipiński 1997: 359–61; Kienast 2001: 203; for Arabic: Fischer 1972: 102; for Geʿez: Tropper 2002: 88.

182

The Prehistory of the Stative  7.4. person

Akkadian

Arabic

Geʿez

3ms

parVs

qatala

nagara

3fs

parsat

qatalat

nagarat

2ms

parsāti, -āta, -āt

qatalta

nagarka

2fs

parsāti/ī, -āt

qatalti

nagarki

1s

parsāk(u)

qataltu

nagarku

3dum

parsā

qatalā

—

3duf

parsā/paristā

qatalatā

—

2du

—

qataltumā

—

3mp

parsū

qatalū

nagarū

3fp

parsā

qatalna

nagarā

2mp

parsātunu

qataltum(ū)

nagarkəmmu

2fp

parsātina

qataltunna

nagarkən

1p

parsānu, -ni

qatalnā

nagarna

Table 7.4: The personal endings of the Semitic suffix conjugation.

There are four major differences between the Akkadian and the West Semitic paradigms as they can be reconstructed on the basis of Arabic, Geʿez, and other languages not included in the table. Three of these concern the endings: the distribution of k and t in the first and second persons, the presence of ā between stem and ending in these persons in Akkadian, and the ∅ vs. a ending in the third-person singular masculine. The fourth one concerns the stem vowel a in most West Semitic forms, which has no counterpart in Akkadian.70 With regard to k and t, there is a general consensus that Akkadian represents the original situation and that Central Semitic has extended t to the first-person singular, whereas South Semitic has extended k to all second persons (see in particular Hetzron 1976a: 93–94). According to Diem (1997: 14–16), this solution was first formulated by Theodor Nöldeke. Its correctness is confirmed by the stative conjugations of Egyptian and Berber (to be discussed in the next section), which have the same distribution of k and t as Akkadian (Tropper 1999a: 175). The three remaining differences—which are intimately connected with each other—are less easy to solve. I will start with the difference between Akkadian and West Semitic with regard to the vowel -ā- between stem and ending in the first and second persons.71 A popular explanation, which according to Diem (1997: 19) goes back as far as Brockelmann (1908: 583) and Bergsträsser (1928: 12 n. 2) and which is still embraced by Diem (1997: 22), claims that the presence of -ā- in the first-person plural and all second persons of Akkadian is due to an analogical extension from the first-person singular, where it comes from the pronoun anāku. The original stative endings would thus be identical to the pronouns (in historical times anāku, atta [< *anta], attī [< antī  ], etc.) minus the element an‑: 1s šalmāku < šal(i)m-āku, but 2s *šalim-ta/tī (as in West Semitic), which was later replaced by the historical form šalmāta by analogy with šalmāku. A consequence of this view is that the West Semitic first-person singular without -ā- (qatVltu 70.  I will not try to account for the other (minor) differences between the Akkadian and West Semitic personal endings; see Diem 1997 for a recent discussion. 71.  A detailed Forschungsgeschichte is given by Diem (1997: 19–26).

7.4.  The Prehistory of the Stative

183

šal(i)māta) but syncopated in West Semitic as a result of antepenultimate stress (*qatVl-a-ta > qatVlta). Although this might work for Akkadian (Tropper adduces the genitive singular as a parallel: bēli-šu > bēlīšu ‘of his lord’), it seems too ad hoc to be credible for West Semitic and against the usual stress patterns. The question of this short ă after the stem brings us to the two most problematic differences between Akkadian and West Semitic, namely, (1) the third-person singular masculine ending, for which Akkadian has ∅ (parVs) but West Semitic (originally) ‑a (qatVla), and (2) the origin of the stem vowel a in the West Semitic active/transitive perfect qatala. I will start with the second problem. On the surface, it may seem to concern West Semitic alone and thus to fall outside the scope of the present study. However, it bears directly on the reconstruction of the Proto-Semitic verbal system in so far as we have to answer the question whether Proto-Semitic had or did not have an active participle *QaTaL.

72.  Some authors have argued that this ā must have occurred in West Semitic, since it has left traces in some types of weak verbs, especially in the Hebrew conjugation of the II/gem verbs, e.g., sabbōtī, sabbōtā ‘I/you surrounded’ from sābab (e.g., Tropper 1999a: 186; Kienast 2001: 203). This would be plausible if we knew for certain that the first-person singular also had ‑ā‑ originally. Since this is not the case, it is one hypothesis piled on top of another. Actually, we do not need an original long vowel to explain these forms: starting from an original 1s *sabbatu (3ms *sabba § 1s *sabbatu (or ‑ku) modelled on the strong form *qatVla § *qatVltu) may become *sabbāta by vowel lengthening and sabbōtā by regular sound change (Tropper 1999a: 186). It is also possible that the vowel was lengthened in order to conform to the prosody of the corresponding strong form *qatVltu (etc.). Bauer and Leander (1922: 430) explain ō from analogy with the III/w verbs (< aw), which is also possible. 73.  The source of ‑ā- in the pronoun itself is not clarified by this proposal, of course, but this falls outside the scope of the verbal system.

184

The Prehistory of the Stative  7.4.

There seems to be a general consensus that the qatala perfect is a West Semitic innovation.74 The earliest factual evidence for its existence comes from Amarna Akkadian and Ugaritic, i.e., the 14th century b.c.75 Rainey (1996: II 296–301) mentions forms such as na-da-an VAB 2, 298:26 ‘he has given’, ša-ka-an VAB 2, 114:8 ‘he has established’, and ṣa-bat VAB 2, 114:17 ‘he has taken’. In Ugaritic, we find a few syllabic spellings showing a: ta-ba-ʾa ‘he departed’, ṣa-ma-ta ‘it devolved’ (Huehnergard 1989: 68 with n. 142; van Soldt 1991: 442; Tropper 2000: 464).76 However, since we do not have earlier reliable sources, we cannot determine when these forms emerged for the first time. As to the source of the qatala perfect, two possible options present themselves: it may represent the verbalization of a QaTăL participle, which was the active counterpart of the wellestablished passive/intransitive QaTiL form, or it may be a secondary offshoot of a doubtless more original perfect with the pattern qati/ula. I will start with the first option, which is the most far-reaching. From a typological point of view, it is not implausible that qatala arose from the grammaticalization of a periphrastic construction built on an active participle, parallel to the rise of qati/ula from QaTiL. This is indeed a widespread view, originating with Bauer (1910: 12–15).77 Aro (1964: 198–99) rejected it because of the cross-linguistic rarity of past active participles with the meaning ‘having done sth.’. It is true that such participles are rare (Haspelmath 1994: 154–57), but parallels from Modern Arabic show that the meanings expressed by qatala can very well develop from a present participle. This is based on the inherent ambiguity of a present participle. On the one hand, it can describe somebody as engaged in the activity expressed by the verb, e.g., Ar qātilun ‘killing’. As such, it may acquire an implication of habituality and thus develop into an agent noun (Ar. qātilun ‘killer, murderer’, and prominently in Akkadian; see §8.4.1, pp. 205–​ 206). On the other hand, if a participle of a transitive verb is qualified by a definite noun, e.g., qātilu Zaydin ‘the killer of Zayd’, it refers to a single event and the clause has an implicature: if someone is a killer of Zayd, he has killed Zayd. In this way, the present participle of a transitive verb may evolve into a resultative or a perfect (D. Cohen 1984: 269–328, esp. 275; Brustad 2000: 182–84 with additional literature). Concrete cases of this process have occurred in various Eastern Arabic dialects. According to D. Cohen (1984: 283), in the dialect of Bahrain the perfect is replaced by a predicative participle for the expression of perfect meaning in terminative verbs, whereas the participle in atelic motion verbs normally indicates the actual present. In the dialect of Baghdad, the perfect is the unmarked form for past reference, whereas the participle can serve as a resultative perfect. However, in verbs of state and movement the participle can express ongoing processes or processes about to begin (1984: 287–88).78 Johnstone (1967) reports a similar state of affairs for Kuwaiti, Baḥraini, and Qaṭari Arabic (1967: 144, 153, and 163, respectively). 74.  A selection of pertinent views includes Fleisch 1947/48: 51; Rössler 1951: 370–71; Rundgren 1959a: 280; Petráček 1963: 592; Diakonoff 1988: 94; Tropper 1995a: 504; Kienast 2001: 202–3. 75.  For the putative occurrence of QaTaL in Eblaite and the (non-existence of) earlier qatala perfects in Amorite proper names, see n. 93 (p. 189). 76.  It is significant, however, that the attested perfects of II/  ʾ verbs, where the stem vowel can be inferred from the preceding ʾ, all have i: lʾik /laʾika/ ‘he sent’, sʾid /saʾida/ ‘he served food’, and ˹š˺ʾil / šaʾila/ ‘he asked’ (Sivan 1997: 113; Tropper 2000: 470). 77.  See also, for instance, Nyberg 1920: 188; Brockelmann 1951: 146; Rundgren 1966: 137; Kuryłowicz 1972: 66; Loprieno 1986: 152–60; Tropper 1995a: 512–13; T. D. Anderson 2000: 31–34; Kienast 2001: 202. 78.  Further afield, T. D. Anderson (2000: 40–41) adduces evidence for this development from Japanese and Dravidian languages.

7.4.  The Prehistory of the Stative

185

Moreover, T. D. Anderson (2000: 34–50) argues that the Hebrew perfect qāṭal has many imperfective-like uses in addition to its main perfective function, the most important of which is its consecutive derivation wəqāṭal, which is problematic in almost all theories that attempt to explain the highly controversial verbal system of Hebrew. He proposes to account for this apparent contradiction by starting from qatala as an active participle. This scenario presupposes the existence of an active QaTăL participle in Proto-Semitic or, at least, in a very early stage of West Semitic. There is, however, hardly any evidence for this. Particularly detrimental to its existence in Proto-Semitic is the absence of unambiguous traces in Akkadian (Rössler 1950: 473).79 Akkadian has a rather marginal adjectival pattern PaRaS, but it does not have the required meaning: it comprises primary adjectives, most of which express prototypically adjectival concepts. They were enumerated in §3.3.3 under C1–5 (p. 63) and some additional Assyrian cases in §3.3.4 as Type 3 (p. 65). Moreover, Assyrian has a few PaRaS statives, already mentioned in §7.2 (p. 162): wašab, ḫalaq, and balaṭ. They suggest that PaRaS statives of fientive verbs may once have existed and that therefore the predominance of PaRiS in Akkadian may be secondary (so also Kienast 1967: 65).80 However, even if these statives are fientive, they are neither transitive nor active (in the sense of denoting an action) and are therefore poor parallels to the West Semitic qatala perfect. Other possible traces of QaTăL in Akkadian are also disputable. First, the agent noun PaRRāS (residually PaRRăS; see n. 81), might be interpreted as an expressive extension of a hypothetical pattern PaRăS with active/transitive meaning. Second, since vowel lengthening is a common indicator of substantivation in Semitic (Kuryłowicz 1972: 113; Kienast 1989: 281, 2001: 376), one could argue—with Kuryłowicz (1972: 109)—that the Akkadian infinitive pattern PaRāS is a substan­tivation of a participle PaRăS with active meaning, which contrasted with the farbetter-known detransitive past participle PaRiS. The identity of past participle and infinitive in all Akkadian derived verbal stems—both have the stem vowel u—may be taken as an argument that in the G‑stem, too, the infinitive was derived from the past participle (see further §8.2.2, pp. 199–​200). This line of reasoning obviously contains a high degree of speculation, and the forms involved may quite well have a different background. With regard to West Semitic, the only direct evidence for the former existence of an active QaTăL participle consists of the residual agent noun pattern QaTaL in Classical Arabic, studied by Fleisch (1955), e.g., ḥakam ‘arbitre’, tabaʿ ‘qui suit’). It is the basis for the more productive extended patterns QaTāL and QaTTāL.81 However, Fox (2003: 161) is reluctant to accept Fleisch’s claim that the extended patterns with a or ā in the second syllable are affective derivations of an original QaTaL pattern. He points out (2003: 179) that QaTāL has “no evident semantic connection to *qatal,” which does not normally serve for action nouns. This is remarkable, 79.  In so far as there are any traces of QaTaL in Berber, they are prototypical adjectives, as in Akkadian (Rössler 1950: 303), and there is nothing that points to an active participle with this pattern. 80.  It may be added here—if only for the sake of completeness—that several nouns that can plausibly be derived from primary adjectives or past participles with the pattern PaRiS actually have PaRaS: šalamtu ‘corpse’ (cf. šalāmu ‘to be(come) sound, well’ [see Eilers 1954/59: 322–23 n. 3], Adj šalim), kaspu ‘silver’ (cf. kasāpu ‘to break in little pieces’, Stat kasip), kabattu ‘liver’ (cf. kabtu (i) ‘heavy’), and ṣalmu ‘statue’, construct state ṣalam (cf. ṣalmu (i) ‘black’), and perhaps wardu ‘slave’, construct state warad (cf. warādu ‘to go /come down’, PPartc warid ). See for this phenomenon Eilers, 1954/59: 322–23 n. 3. It is difficult to judge the relevance of such forms: they may represent indirect evidence of an earlier past participle pattern PaRaS, but they may also have a quite different background. 81.  Fleisch also mentions QaTTaL, but this does not seem to occur in Arabic. It does occur in Old Assyrian šarruqum ‘thief’ < šarrăqum and in Hebrew (with ă > ā); see Fox 2003: 257–60. QaTāL “occurs in many languages as a rare actant noun” according to Fox (2003: 179); QaTTāL is pan-Semitic as an agent noun.

186

The Prehistory of the Stative  7.4.

since QaTiL and QaTīL are closely related and even overlapping in function, and likewise QaTuL and QaTūL (2003: 157). So the problem is whether we are justified in positing any historical relationship between them.82 It could be argued, however, that already in Proto-Semitic QaTăL as an action noun was completely replaced by QaTāL. A parallel of such a development can be found in Akkadian PaRRāS, which has almost completely replaced PaRRăS as an agent noun (see n. 81 above), so that in historical Akkadian the remaining PaRRăS forms have a quite different function from PaRRāS (they comprise plural and perhaps intensive adjectives; see GAV pp. 49–58). It does seem possible, therefore, to posit an active participle *QaTaL for Proto-Semitic transitive verbs, opposed to the well-attested passive/intransitive past participle *QaTiL. *QaTaL was substantivized as an action noun *QaTāL (widespread as an infinitive; see §8.2.2, pp. 199–200), on the one hand, and as an agent noun, on the other, in which function it was largely replaced by various longer patterns. As productive active participle, it was renewed by *QāTiL (< *QāTaL?). According to Rundgren (1974: 200), it was this process that left QaTăL with the function of an abstract verbal noun (> infinitive). Needless to say, all this is just as speculative as the Akkadian traces of QaTăL discussed above. All in all, there are three (de)verbal categories that combine the stem vowel ă or ā with an active meaning: the G‑stem infinitive PaRāS and the agent noun PaRRă/āS in Akkadian, and the active/transitive perfect qatala in West Semitic.83 Even so, it remains questionable whether this constitutes sufficient evidence for attributing a QaTăL participle to Proto-Semitic, which could be pressed into service as the source of qatala. The residual QaTăL agent nouns of Arabic might indicate that it developed subsequently in West Semitic, but this remains a matter of speculation as well. So it may be easier to abandon Proto-Semitic QaTăL as an active participle and assume that the qatala perfect was split off from the inherited qati/ul(a) perfect at some point in the development of Proto-West Semitic.84 Semantically, the derivation of an active/transitive perfect from an originally passive/intransitive participle is unobjectionable, as the active stative of Akkadian shows. There also is a fair number of active qatila perfects in West Semitic that can be directly derived from the Proto-Semitic past participle QaTiL, especially the low-transitivity a/ i verbs of the yalbasu – labisa type discussed in §3.5.2.4 (pp. 74–75). However, it is unclear what kind of mechanism can be made responsible for the rise of the stem vowel a in the great majority of transitive verbs of the yaqtulu and yaqtilu types (T. D. Anderson 2000: 30–31).85 82.  There is also another group of QaTaL agent nouns in Classical Arabic that are “quasi-plurals” of QāTiL participles, i.e., they “are not used with numerals, and can often be used as singular or as plural alike” (Fox 2003: 160 with n. 21): ṭalab ‘seeking (Pl), pursuing (Pl), group of students’, ḫadam ‘group of servants (of a household)’, tabaʿ ‘group of followers’, raṣad ‘group of ambushers’, and ḫaras ‘group of guards’ (Fox’s glosses). Moreover, its feminine derivation QaTaLat is one of the possible plural patterns of the present participle QāTiL (Ratcliffe 1998a: 99–100), e.g., ṭalabah from ṭālib ‘student’. As plural forms, these nouns should presumably be kept apart from the present discussion; they may be representatives of the “internal a-Plurals” studied by Greenberg (1955). 83.  The Akkadian Impfv iparras does not belong in this series, since, as I argued in §4.5.1 (pp. 109–110), its stem vowel is the imperfective vowel a of the derived verbal stems and/or the marker of plurality. 84.  In modern European languages, the active perfect with “to have” is also more recent than its passive counterpart with “to be”; see Kuryłowicz 1972: 66 n. 4; 1975: 109–10. 85.  Kuryłowicz (1972: 66) argues that a results from the replacement of i in the vicinity of a guttural consonant, a typically structuralist argument that awaits confirmation from factual and typological parallels. Voigt (2004: 47) explains a of qatala by inference from a of iptaras (which is Proto-Semitic in his view, a view I do not share; see §6.4, pp. 155ff.). Rössler (1951: 370–71) claims that the vowel pattern of qatala

7.4.  The Prehistory of the Stative

187

Finally, we come to the difference in the third singular masculine ending between Akkadian (parVs-∅) and West Semitic (originally qatVl-a). Only one of these forms can reasonably be reconstructed to Proto-Semitic, and which one has been a matter of debate since the beginning of the previous century. Diem (1997: 42–52) gives an exhaustive Forschungsgeschichte, showing that most scholars have opted for ‑a, since it seems easier to explain the loss of ‑a in Akkadian than its emergence in West Semitic. In itself, this is a sound argument, since loss of final vowels is ubiquitous in the history of languages, whereas the addition of a vowel requires some specific analogical proportion or grammaticalization process, but it should of course be backed by concrete evidence. The question is, therefore, whether the earliest stages of Akkadian show evidence for a third singular masculine ending ‑a in the stative and for a rule that accounts for its subsequent loss. If so, the issue can be regarded as solved: Proto-Semitic had *qatVla, which became parVs in (Proto‑)Akkadian. However, neither question can definitely be answered in the affirmative. The existence of a third singular masculine ending ‑a for the stative has been claimed on the basis of Sargonic Akkadian proper names containing a predicative noun or adjective with ‑a, which were collected and discussed by Gelb (1961: 147–53; 1965: 73–74), e.g., Šu-be-la ‘he is lord’, A-ḫi-ṭa-ba ‘my brother is kind’, dŠul-gi-na-da ‘Šulgi is praised’.86 Gelb also points out that the great majority of predicative nouns in Sargonic Akkadian have a zero ending (1965: 74), e.g., A-bí-ṭa-ab ‘my father is kind’, A-bu-ṭa-áb ‘the father is kind’, and Be-lí-ṭa-ab ‘my lord is kind’, or sometimes a nominative ending (e.g., A-bi-ṭà-bu and Be-lí-ṭa-bumx(balag) (all quoted in MAD 3, 301). Hasselbach (2005: 102–4) uses the names with ‑a as evidence that short final a is dropped in Sargonic Akkadian.87 She argues that final ‑a is an archaic feature preserved in this small group of Sargonic (or even earlier) proper names and that the corresponding names without ‑a represent a later stage in which ‑a has been dropped. If this is correct, the answer to both questions formulated above is affirmative. However, the argument rests solely on proper names, and—apart from the fact that evidence from proper names is unreliable, if it is not confirmed by other data (see, e.g., Rundgren 1965/66: 67–68 and Huehnergard 1987c: 714–15)88—there is also a different and perhaps more straightforward explanation for the alternative use of ‑a and ‑∅ in these names. In comparable names of later periods, predicative nouns may either be in the nominative or in the stative (see Kouwenberg 2000: 37–38):89 cf. the Old Babylonian names Adad-šarrum ‘Adad is (the) king’, Erra-bēlum ‘Erra is (the) lord’, and Abum-bēlum ‘the father is (the) lord’; this even applies to predicative adjectives: was modelled on that of Proto-Semitic yaqattal, for which he compares Mehri, where “qatala und yaqattal als Perfekt und Präsens gleichzeitig nebeneinander standen und gleichsam ein Gespann bildeten.” In my reconstruction of the history of yaqattal, this is not an option, however, since it implies that yaqattal was either already lost or in serious decline in Proto-West Semitic. Tropper (1995a: 504–5) argues that qatal was created on the basis of qatil, because it became “Ablautpartner” of *yiqtul, just as iparras in Akkadian. Therefore, it takes over the vowel a of iparras. This goes back to Rössler (1950: 510–12) and Voigt (1988a: 116–17) and is not acceptable to me, either. 86.  See also GAG 3 §77a* with further literature. 87.  See also Huehnergard 2005a: 591 and 2006: 6–7 with n. 31. 88.  A good illustration of this fact is the occurrence of proper names with ‑a whose subject is feminine, mentioned in n. 55 (p. 178) above (e.g., Eš4-tár-a-li-a ‘Eštar is sublime’), although the 3fs stative in context always has ‑at. This strengthens the impression that grammatical features from proper names should not be taken as representative of the grammar of the language to which they seem to belong, unless they are backed by other evidence. 89.  This also applies to predicative nouns in general: one can say either Ḫammurapi šar or Ḫammurapi šarru ‘Hammurapi is king’; see §7.3.1 (pp. 166–168) and Kouwenberg 2000: 37–38.

188

The Prehistory of the Stative  7.4.

Sin-waqrum ‘Sin is precious’ (beside the usual DN-waqar), Pīša-dannu ‘her word is strong’, and Middle Babylonian Šī-banītum ‘she is beautiful’ alongside Šī-ba-na-at (for references, see Kouwenberg 2000: 37–38). In spite of these predicative nouns in the nominative, we know for certain that in Old Babylonian the 3ms stative never has an ending ‑u(m). When we find ‑u(m), it is not a stative but a predicative noun or adjective. In Sargonic Akkadian, the matter is more complicated, because we also find ‑a beside ‑u(m), but the principle is the same: if we find ‑∅, the form is likely to be a stative, but if we find ‑u(m) or ‑a, the form may just as well be a predicative noun or adjective. In that case, names with ‑a differ syntactically from names with ‑∅, and the replacement of a by ∅ may represent a change in construction rather than a phonological change. Consequently, as long as we do not find a verbal stative with ‑a in context, there is no evidence for the existence of a stative with an ending ‑a. Whether the names with ‑a are older than names with ‑∅ has to be established on different grounds (basically, the date of the tablets on which they appear). The fact that names with ‑a are no longer used in later periods does indeed suggest that they are archaisms, but there is no reason to assume that there is a phonological change of ‑a to ‑∅. This leads to the conclusion that these names neither provide evidence for the existence of a 3ms stative ending ‑a nor for a sound change involving the loss of final ‑a.90 There does not seem to be much other evidence for the loss of final ‑a. Several concrete instances of final ‑a actually plead against such a rule: the a-subjunctives from the Diyala region (see §9.3.2, p. 224) and the accusative pronoun su4-a (/suʾa/ or /suwa/) ‘this’, which occurs in the standard curse formula of Sargonic royal inscriptions. There are occasional instances of the loss of final vowels other than a, e.g., in the suffix pronouns (‑š for ‑šu, etc.) and in prepositions (el for eli, ad for adi ‘until’), although prepositions are proclitic, so that their final vowels are not strictly word-final. However, a counter­example for u is the u-subjunctive.91 A further argument adduced is the loss of case vowels in the construct state during the Sargonic Akkadian period (Hasselbach 2005: 182–83). It seems doubtful that this can count as an instance of the loss of final vowels: they are not strictly final, because the construct noun is proclitic, and it seems likely that morphosyntactic processes were also involved in their loss.92 The evidence, then, for a sound change a > ∅/_# in early Akkadian seems inconclusive. The situation in Eblaite is not very clear, as usual. Eblaite also shows proper names with predicative 90.  The nature and the function of ‑a in these names is a matter of debate. It has been argued that it serves to indicate a specifically predicative form (Lipiński 1997: 360); that it indicates the status determinatus, as later in Aramaic (Kienast 2001: 158–59); or that it is a case ending, either simply the accusative of later Akkadian (Gelb 1965: 79–80; Krebernik 1991b: 138) or an “absolutus,” identical with or related to the later(?) accusative (Streck 2000: 284–90. It is possible that it is the same ending as the one found in descriptive proper names consisting of a single element (Kienast 2001: 155), such as Arnaba ‘hare’, Dumāqa ‘good one’, and Qarnāna ‘horned one’ (although -a in this kind of name may also be hypochoristic) and some early Akkadian loan words in Sumerian, such as na.gada ‘shepherd’ (cf. nāqidu), ma.da ‘land’ (cf. mātu), and d a m . ḫ a . r a ‘battle’ (cf. tamḫāru) (2001: 157). Actually, its exact nature is of minor importance for the issue at hand. The important thing is that in all proposals ‑a belongs to the realm of the noun or the adjective, not to the verb, and that there is no trace of an ending -a in any unambiguously verbal form. For a more extensive survey of opinions, see also Rubio 2003a: 178–81. 91.  On the other hand, in the light of the preservation of both the u‑subjunctive and the a-subjunctive, one might argue that these vowels were lengthened, since they were always in pausal position at the end of a (subordinate) clause and may have marked this prosodically by means of a lengthened vowel; cf. the common plene spellings of subjunctives in Old Assyrian (GKT §79g). 92.  Huehnergard (2006: 7 n. 31) adduces the dual endings ‑ān and ‑ēn (or ‑īn) < *‑āna/*‑ayna (cf. Arabic ‑āni and ‑ayni with dissimilation).

7.4.  The Prehistory of the Stative

189

nouns or adjectives with ‑a (Gelb 1981: 32; Krebernik 1988b: 9; Pagan 1998: 12–16), and the same alternation between forms with -a, with -u and with -i and forms without ending (Krebernik 1988b: 9).93 On the other hand, there are clear examples of endingless stative forms in Eblaite, both in texts and in proper names: wa-zi-in /wazin/ ARET 13, 15: r. III 1 ‘he has weighed’ from wazānum (see §16.2.2, p. 458) and A-bù-na-im /  ʾabu-naʿim/ ‘the father is good’ (Krebernik (1996: 244).94 In West Semitic, the situation is comparable in that, initially, forms with ‑a only occur in proper names and are therefore liable to the same objections as their Akkadian counterparts. Buccellati (1966: 219–20) mentions Amorite names from the Ur III period with ‑a attached to nouns and adjectives. Gelb (1965: 75–79) shows that in Amorite, too, names with ‑a alternate with names with -u and ‑∅. This means that they are as unreliable for Amorite as the corresponding Akkadian forms are for Akkadian for establishing the (original) form of the 3ms stative or any corresponding category. The earliest instances of suffix conjugation forms with ‑a outside proper names only occur during the 14th century b.c. in Amarna Akkadian and Ugaritic. Amarna Akkadian shows a number of forms that Rainey (1996: II 288) calls “possible hints to the existence of the short ‑a vowel on the native Canaanite of that day”, e.g., da-a-kà VAB 2, 154:19 ‘he has killed’, ta-ra VAB 2, 85:54 ‘he returned’. Most forms have a ∅-suffix, however. Ugaritic, too, shows a number of unambiguous qatVla forms both in syllabic transcription (e.g., šal-li-ma ‘he has paid’ (D‑stem)) and in III/ ʾ verbs (e.g., nšʾa ‘he lifted’ /našaʾa/; mlʾa ‘it was full’ /maliʾa/) (Tropper 2000: 464; Sivan 1997: 110). Here, too, as in the case of QaTaL, the absence of earlier reliable evidence prevents us from dating the emergence of ‑a. On the other hand, it is difficult to envisage a possible source for ‑a so late in the historical period. It seems that the problem of ‑a vs. ‑∅ in ProtoSemitic cannot be solved on the basis of the available data and that we must leave the issue open for the time being.

7.4.3.  The suffixed stative conjugations of Afroasiatic The Akkadian stative can be associated with various formations in Afroasiatic outside Semitic on the basis of similarities in their personal endings. These are strong enough to establish the existence of a suffix conjugation with stative meaning in Afroasiatic, which I will call the stative conjugation.95 Together with the commonalities in the personal prefixes of the fientive verbs, it provides one of the strongest arguments for the existence of the Afroasiatic language phylum. There can be no question of a detailed discussion of these formations, their relationships, and 93.  The question whether Eblaite had a qatala suffix conjugation parallel to the West Semitic perfect has been hotly debated (see the recent discussion in Pagan 1998: 12–16). It has not resulted in any convincing instance (  pace Pagan 1998: 14–16), so the answer remains negative for the time being (see also Rubio 2006: 133 n. 93). According to Pagan (1998: 15), instances of an active/transitive perfect are found in Ur III Amorite, but I have not found a single convincing case among the relevant names collected by Buccellati (1966: 196). Pagan (1998: 15 n. 39) mentions in particular A-ù-da-il or A-aw-te-il /Hawdā-ʾil/ ‘Il has praised’, but if this is the most convincing one to be found, the situation is fairly desperate. 94.  Several other possible instances are obscured by the Eblaite spelling practice of indicating wordfinal consonants by means of Cv-signs: na-zi-bù ARET 13, 1: r.IX 12 ‘egli è in attesa’ may plausibly be read /naṣib/. Cf. also ma-ḫi-la ARET 2, 5: VIII 1 ‘he has received(?)’, according to Fronzaroli 1982: 113, i.e., /maḫira/, and ne-da-la (= n ú) VE 841, which Krebernik (1983: 40) reads /nitāla(?)/ (“vermutlich ein Stativ auf -a”); both may also be read without final vowel. Finally, we have a possible stative form a-ba-ad ARET 13, 6: IV 6 ‘egli è in fuga’ (cf. Ass abātu ‘to flee’) (the Italian glosses are from Fronzaroli’s ARET 13 glossary). 95.  See, for instance, Diakonoff 1965: 88–91; Sasse 1981: 139–40.

190

The Prehistory of the Stative  7.4.

their development: this would require a separate monograph. I will restrict myself to a general characterization and highlight those aspects that are relevant to the historical background of the Akkadian stative. Table 7.5 compares the personal suffixes of Akkadian (copied from Table 7.3), Proto-West Semitic, Egyptian, Berber, and Eastern Cushitic (as given in Sasse 1981: 140):96 Akkadian

Proto-WSem

Egyptian

Berber

ECush.

1s

-āku, ‑āk

*-ku

-kwj

-γ

*-i-yu

2ms

‑āta, ‑āti, ‑āt

*-ta

-tj

-ḍ

*-i-tu

2fs

-āti (‑ātī?), ‑āt

*-ti

-tj

-ḍ

*-i-tu

3ms

-∅

*-a(?)

-j

-∅

*-a

3fs

-at

*-at

-tj

-t

*-a

1p

-ānu, ‑āni

*-na

-wjn

-it

*-i-nu

2mp

-ātunu

*-tumu

-tjwnj

-it

*-i-tin

2fp

-ātina

*-tin(n)a

-tjwnj

-it

*-i-tin

3mp

-ū

*-ū

-w

-it

?

3fp

-ā

*-ā

-tj

-it

?

Table 7.5: The personal endings of the Afroasiatic stative conjugations.

I will start with the stative conjugation of Egyptian (which is also known under other names, such as the “pseudo-participle” and the “old perfective”). It is of particular importance, not only because it shows a greater similarity to Akkadian than the stative conjugations of Berber and Cushitic, but also because in the fientive verb forms Egyptian and Akkadian (or Semitic as a whole) show a completely different development: Egyptian only employs suffix conjugations (of another kind than the stative) and Akkadian only prefix conjugations. Important details about the form of the stative conjugation are unknown to us because of the purely consonantal script of Egyptian. In their consonantal guise, the forms of the endings agree fairly well with those of Akkadian.97 The nature and background of the additional ‑j after most of the personal endings is problematic, but it is doubtless secondary (see Jansen-Winkeln 1993: 16–18). In many respects, the function of the stative conjugation is similar to that of the Akkadian stative.98 First, it is neutral with regard to voice: it is resultative/stative in intransitive verbs, active or passive in transitive verbs (see Reintges 1997: 361–66), and stative in verbs denoting adjectival properties. Derived from verbs, it shows the well-known development from present perfect in the oldest stages of Egyptian to preterite in Middle Egyptian, in complementary distribution with the sḏm.n=f    form (Satzinger 2002: 241). Already in the oldest available documents, 96.  For similar tables, see also Diakonoff 1988: 92–93 and Lipiński 1997: 378–79. For the Proto-West Semitic forms, cf., for instance, Moscati, ed. 1964: 138–41. 97.  Note, however, that in the oldest period the first-person singular is mostly spelled ‑k or -kj and that kw only becomes common in Middle Egyptian (Edel 1955/64: 271–72 §573). The interpretation of the spelling ‑kwj is uncertain; Reintges (1997: 270 n. 21) suggests that it is an orthographic compromise between the old and the new form. 98.  For the function, see Gardiner 1957: 237–42; Edel 1955/64: 280–88 §584–96; Jansen-Winkeln 1993: 7–16; Reintges 1997: 355–66.

7.4.  The Prehistory of the Stative

191

it tends to be restricted to circumstantial clauses qualifying a main verb or an indefinite noun. As main verb, it mainly occurs in first-person singular narrative and in other persons with a modal value. These features strongly suggest that the Egyptian stative conjugation was originally a resultative and may ultimately have been derived from a verbal adjective. They also presuppose a fairly long history, which implies that the stative conjugation cannot be a recent development. These are important parallels with the Akkadian stative. In other respects, the Egyptian stative conjugation does not contribute much to our under­standing of its Akkadian counterpart. Finally, there is a controversy among Egyptologists about the vowel pattern of the stative conjugation, which may be relevant to Proto-Semitic. Kammerzell (1990 and elsewhere) and Schenkel (1994) have argued on the basis of a specific spelling pattern, especially in older texts, that the consonantal spelling of the stative conjugation actually hides two different conjugations, one with perfect meaning and one with stative meaning. In the former, the personal endings of the first and second persons are attached directly to the stem, but in the latter a vowel ‑ā‑ appears between the stem and the ending; for the first-person singular, this gives *CvCv́C-kVj and *CvCCā´-kVj, respectively, which may perhaps be vocalized as *saḏV´m-kuw and *saḏmā´-kuw from the verb sḏm ‘to hear’ (Satzinger 1999: 29). If these claims are correct,99 the similarity between the Egyptian and the Semitic suffix conjugations is even stronger than so far assumed. Actually, it is strong enough to make one suspicious, especially because of the huge differences between Egyptian and Semitic in the rest of the verbal system, and to raise the question to what extent this reconstruction is actually inspired by the situation in Semitic. If it is right, we are compelled to assume that Egyptian and Semitic have inherited these two conjugations from their common ancestor, as indeed has been argued by Satzinger (2002: 241), because such a strong similarity can hardly result from a parallel development. However, there is not a shred of evidence that Proto-Semitic had two suffix conjugations, a perfect *qatVlku and a stative *qatlāku. In all Semitic languages, only one suffix conjugation is used as both a stative and as a perfect. Moreover, there is abundant typological evidence for a close diachronic relationship between these functions in that a stative often develops into a resultative and hence into a perfect. So there is no functional reason to posit a different origin for the two functions. In the end, the claim that there are two stative conjugations is based exclusively on the spelling patterns in older Egyptian; there is no other support available, and all functional evidence pleads against it. I am not in a position to evaluate the strength of Schenkel’s orthographic argumentation, but if any other explanation of this phenomenon is feasible, it should probably be preferred. The stative conjugation in Berber is less similar in form to the Akkadian stative but also much less controversial. Among the Berber languages, it only occurs in Kabyle Berber, in several varieties of Libyan Berber, in Zenaga Berber of Mauretania, and in a much-contaminated form in Tuareg (Taine-Cheikh 2003: 666–69), but it is likely to have been more widespread in the past (Chaker 1995: 233, referring to an example on p. 139). The endings shown in Sasse’s table refer to Kabyle Berber (without the regular spirantization of ṯ in this language). Of particular importance are the stative forms of Zenaga Berber, which have only fairly recently become known (Taine-Cheikh 2003). This language has a distinct class of prototypical adjectives, denoting colours, physical defects, and other salient features, which differ from nouns both morphologically and syntactically: they do not have the prefixes that all nouns have, and, in contrast to nouns, they 99.  Different explanations of the spelling pattern in question have been proposed by Depuydt 1995 and Borghouts 2001 (see especially p. 31).

192

The Prehistory of the Stative  7.4.

can serve as predicates without needing the predicative particle äḏ. However, only a part of the typically adjectival properties is expressed by these adjectives; other properties are encoded by means of verbs (Taine-Cheikh 2003: 662) or nouns (p. 663). The most important morphological feature of these adjectives is that they are the only words which can be conjugated by means of the stative conjugation. Taine-Cheikh (2003: 664, 671) gives the endings shown in Table 7.6: Sg 1st p.

-äg

2nd p.

-äḏ

3rd p. Masc

∅

3rd p. Fem

-äḏ

Pl

-iḏ

Table 7.6: The stative conjugation of Zenaga Berber.

They differ from the Kabyle endings shown in Table 7.5 in that they do not show pharyngealization, which makes their phonological correspondence to the Semitic endings more convincing. A specific feature of the Berber forms is that the plural persons all have a single ending consisting of i plus a dental. It is attractive to associate this with the adjectival plural ‑ūtu in Akkadian (see Table 7.2 above, p. 178),100 but this remains highly speculative. Apart from its form, the Berber stative conjugation is important, because it provides tangible evidence for the fact that the stative conjugation is in origin a conjugation of adjectives (TaineCheikh 2003: 671–72). Accordingly, it is often called the “Qualitative” from the “verbes de qualité,” i.e., the adjectival verbs, from which it is derived. This, too, applies in particular to Zenaga Berber. In the course of its development, it was gradually amalgamated with the prefix conjugations, so that we find, on the one hand, the first‑ and second-person suffixes extended towards the prefix forms in several dialects and, on the other hand, the prefixes attached to forms of the stative conjugation (Taine-Cheikh 2003: 672). In Tuareg Berber, for instance, the personal prefixes (and the accompanying suffixes) have invaded the suffix conjugation to such an extent that only the third-person singular masculine still differs from the regular prefix conjugations in the absence of the prefix i‑: măqqăr ‘he is big’, “parfait” of imġar ‘to be big’ versus ikrăs or yəkrăs ‘he built’, “parfait” of əḳrəs (Prasse et al. 1998: 418, 422). Moreover, what is left of the stative conjugation serves in Tuareg as the perfect (“parfait,” which others call the preterite) of stative verbs. In other categories, such as the aorist and the imperfective, these verbs are conjugated by means of prefixes, in the same way as all other verbs. So the stative conjugation has been incorporated into the verbal paradigm but in a different way from the Akkadian stative.101 According to Rössler (1950: 482–83; 1951: 105), the stem of the stative verbs to which these endings are attached shows the same vowel patterns as those of primary adjectives in Akkadian and occurs both with a single and a geminate radical: QaT(T)iL, QaT(T)uL, and QaT(T)aL (see also D. Cohen 1970–71: 182). I will not further go into the East Cushitic forms of Sasse’s table. Sasse (1981: 139) states that Cushitic has renewed the morphology of the stative but that some of the endings of the East Cushitic stative may go back to Afroasiatic. Banti (2001: 14–21), however, argues that this 100.  See, for instance, Diakonoff 1988: 93 n. 7; D. Cohen 1983: 84. 101.  See Prasse (1972/74: VI 16–19) for an attempted reconstruction of the development of the personal endings in Pre‑ and Proto-Berber.

7.4.  The Prehistory of the Stative

193

paradigm is actually cognate with the Egyptian fientive suffix conjugations (sḏm=f, sḏm.n=f, etc.) rather than with the stative conjugation. As long as the experts on Cushitic have not clarified this issue, these forms are too controversial to shed light on the prehistory of the Afroasiatic stative conjugation. In Beja, there is a quite different stative conjugation, which according to Rössler (1950: 493–94, 507–10) shows some similarities to the stative in Egyptian and Berber; however, Zaborski (1989: 418) concludes after a long discussion that it cannot be directly identified with categories elsewhere. In sum, the similarities in form and function between the stative conjugations of Akkadian, Egyptian, and Berber strongly suggest that they go back to the Afroasiatic proto-language and presumably started as a conjugation of predicative adjectives. However, the time depth and the vast overall differences between the languages involved make it difficult to go beyond this simple statement and to fill in some details about their early development.

Chapter 8

The Nominal Forms of the Verbal Paradigm

8.1. Introduction This chapter continues the description of the primary members of the verbal paradigm by discussing the non-finite derivations of the suffix base—i.e., the infinitive, the past participle, and the two present participles.

8.2. The Infinitive 8.2.1.  Form and function The infinitive expresses the verbal content as an argument to the predicate, without any reference to specific features of the situation, such as person, tense/aspect, mood, or diathesis. This makes it suitable to be used as a citation form in lexical texts as well as in modern handbooks. All verbs have an infinitive, although that of adjectival verbs is rare (see §3.3.2, pp. 58–60), since it is mainly used as an “action noun.”1 As a non-finite member of the verbal paradigm, the Akkadian infinitive is dependent on the finite members in form and meaning, and it has a single predictable form. The G‑stem is the only verbal stem in which the infinitive has a separate form from the past participle: parāsu versus parsu.2 Everywhere else, they have the same form, which is universally characterized by the stem vowel u: pitarrusu in the Gtn‑stem, pa/urrusu in the D‑stem, nabalkutu in the quadriradical verbs, etc.; see the sections about the respective verbal stems.3 1.  Goetze’s remark (1942: 4b) that “the infinitive faʿālu belongs exclusively to the action type verb” ignores the fact that adjectival verbs also have infinitives, not only as citation form in lexical texts, such as pagālu ‘to be strong’ and barāmu ‘to be multicoloured’, but also in the paronomastic infinitive construction (e.g., (08) below). Moreover, some adjectival verbs have a substantivized infinitive: danānu ‘strength’, labāru ‘long duration’, damāqu ‘kindness, success’, šalāmu ‘health, well-being’, salāmu ‘friendly relations’, etc. 2.  GAG3 §87k* mentions infinitives with the pattern PaRīS. Aro (1961: 14–15) shows that they are typical of the inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Sargonid kings and are always in the construct state before a noun. He argues, therefore, that they are likely to represent a Neo-Assyrian phonetic development of a to a kind of ä, spelled as i/e. An alternative explanation is that they are verbal adjectives in the construct state that are used as infinitives by analogy with the derived verbal stems, where the two forms are identical (see n. 3 on other verbal adjectives used as infinitives). 3.  Identity of infinitive and past participle also occurs in the G‑stem, namely, in the III/voc and the III/H verbs, at least in Old Babylonian, where the accusative of the infinitive of III/voc and III/H verbs verbs has i in the penultimate syllable: e.g., kalia(m) from kalû ‘to detain’ and leqiam from leqû ‘to receive’; see further §16.7.2.4 (pp. 507–508) for the III/voc verbs and §17.8.4 (p. 583) for the III/H verbs. The use of the G‑stem past participle of a strong verb in the function of an infinitive is also attested, but it is so rare that it may be due to scribal errors or poor language use. Possible instances are ana (. . .) wa-aš-bi-im AbB 14, 40:20 from wašābu ‘to sit down, stay’ and ana ba-al-ṭì-im FM 2, 38 no. 11:15 from balāṭu ‘to live, be(come) healthy’.

194

8.2.  The Infinitiv

195

The infinitive is morphologically a noun with case endings and—in the older dialects—mimation, but since it refers to an action or a process, it also has a number of verbal features, especially in its syntactic behaviour.4 As a noun, it occurs in the nominative as subject (01), in the accusative as direct object (02) and complement (03), and in the genitive, where it can depend on a preposition (04), a particle (ša, mala, ašar, etc.) (05), or another noun (06): (01) FM 2 p. 210 no. 117:48 (OB) [ma]tīmā wa-ṣú-šu-nu ibašši ‘when will their (the prisoners’) release (lit., coming out) take place?’ (02) ARM 2, 32:13–14 (OB) kīma ṣeḫrim irṭub ba-ka-am ‘he started to cry like a child’. (03) UM 5, 100: II 7–8 (OB) ṭēmam ana puḫrum (sic!) tu-ur-ra-am iqbû ‘they ordered to return the case to the assembly’5 (04) CCT 3, 24:27 (OA) ana a-kà-li-ni-i laššu ‘there is nothing to eat for us’ (lit., for our eating) (05) KH §134:27–28 (OB) šumma (. . .) ina bītīšu ša a-ka-li-im lā ibašši ‘if there is nothing to eat in his house’ (06) ARM 4, 6:17 (OB) eleppēt e-bé-ri-šu-nu ‘ships to carry them across’ (lit., of their crossing)6 A special use of the nominative is the paronomastic infinitive construction, in which an infinitive with the ending -um, usually followed by -ma, co-occurs with a finite form of the same verb (GAG §150a; Aro 1961: 111–15; E. Cohen 2003–4).7 Its function is to add emphasis to the predicate or to topicalize it: (07) AbB 13, 114:18–19 (OB) sa-na-qum-ma ul isniqam ‘he has definitely not arrived’ (tr. W. van Soldt) (08) ARM 4, 34:12–14 (OB) awīlû (. . .) da-ma-qum-ma damqū ‘the men (. . .) are very good indeed!’.8 The infinitive can also take the terminative ending -iš to express a purpose (GAG §67b; Aro 1961: 116–18; Veenhof 1986: 242–43). This is typical of the older dialects, such as Sargonic 4.  For the syntax of the infinitive, see the extensive descriptions in GAG §149–150; GKT §127; Hueh­ ner­gard 2005a: 337–45; Deutscher 2000, especially 127–34; and especially Aro 1961. 5.  Deutscher (2000: 124–32) has shown that this kind of complement clause only uses the infinitive when the main verb refers to the past; otherwise, a paratactic construction with a precative is used: so alākam taqbīšum ‘you told him to go’ but qibīšumma lillik ‘tell him to go!’ 6.  For infinitives after a noun in the construct state, see Aro 1961: 31–45. 7.  It is often argued that this form contains the locative ending -um (e.g., GAG §§66b, 150a; Huehnergard 2005a: 313, 341; E. Cohen 2003–4: 110–11). The locative is typical of locative expressions such as (ina) libbu and (ina) qerbu(m) ‘in (the midst of)’ and has a number of idiomatic uses (GAG §66). Since there is no locative nuance involved here at all, it seems simpler to assume that the paronomastic construction is an idiomatic use of the nominative, which is after all the unmarked case, not necessarily restricted to subject use. 8.  Other paronomastic constructions involving adjectival verbs occur in ARM 26/1, 582 no. 282:16 (maṣû ‘to be(come) able, sufficient’, OB) and AbB 14, 31:5 (zenû ‘to be(come) angry’, OB). On the other hand, in adjectival verbs the adjective itself could be used in this construction instead of the infinitive: ARM 26/1, 320 no. 154:29 i-ša-ru-um-ma i-ša-ra ‘they (the extispices, têrētum) are very favourable’; OBTR 156:16–17 ṣe-eḫ-ru-um-ma e-ṣe-eḫ-ḫe-er ‘it (the harvest) becomes smaller and smaller’ (both OB).

196

The Infinitiv  8.2.

Akkadian (09) and Ur III Babylonian (10), and sporadically survives into Old Assyrian (11), Old Babylonian, and Standard Babylonian, where it is normally replaced by ana + gen.: (09) SAB p. 183:22–23 (Gasur) šumma e-ra-si-iš /(ʾ)erāsis/ naṭū ‘if it (the field) is fit for cultivation’ (10) NATN 613:8 li-i-mu na-da-ni-iš ‘he refuses to give’ (11) TC 1, 13:11–12 šumma ṣubātam lā imuʾʾū ˹lá-qá ˺-iš ‘if they refuse to accept the textile’ As a noun, the infinitive can only have the suffixed pronouns of the genitive—not those of the accusative or dative, which are only attached to finite verb forms. The genitive pronoun can be both subject (04) and object (12) of the event expressed by the infinitive. If an infinitive requires a dative or a ventive, the ending or suffix is attached to the main verb, as ‑am in (13), ‑nim in (14), and ‑šum in (15), or it is left unexpressed (16): (12) KH §141:44–47 (OB) šumma mussa e-zé-eb-ša iqtabī i-iz-zi-ib-ši ‘if her husband has stated that he intends to leave her (lit., ‘her leaving’), he may leave her’ (13) TC 2, 23:36–37 (OA) kaspam (. . .) šēbulam qá-bi4-am ‘he has been instructed (qabī) to send the silver hither (‑am)’ (14) CCT 3, 49b:8 (OA) a-lá-kam lā im-tù-ú-nim ‘they did not want to come’ (15) ARM 1, 32:16–17 (OB) šumma bītum šū ana na-da-nim i-re-ed-du-šum ‘if that house is suitable to be given to him’ (16) AbB 14, 34:11 (OB) a-la-ki qerub ‘my going (or: coming) is imminent’ On the other hand, the infinitive is not a prototypical noun, since it refers to an action or a process. Accordingly, various nominal options—such as pluralization and qualification by means of an adjective, a demonstrative pronoun, or a relative clause—are very unusual for it (Aro 1961: 298–99). The following instances are therefore exceptional: (17) and (18) are accusative plural forms; (19) and (20) are infinitives qualified by an adjective and a relative clause, respectively: (17) ARM 28, 2:5 (OB) šena ši-tu-li ukīn ‘I have considered two options’, lit., ‘I have established two considerations’ (/šitūlī/, Acc Pl of šitūlu, Gt infinitive of šâlu Gt ‘to deliberate’) (18) ARM 8, 1:4–5 (OB) da-ma-qí-šu-nu idammiq le-mé-ni-šu-nu ilemmin ‘il jouira de leurs joies; il souffrira de leurs peines’ (tr. M. Birot, presumably /damāqīšunu/, Acc Pl of the G infinitive damāqu ‘to be(come) good’)9 9.  This passage is from an adoption contract. A similar expression occurs in Old Babylonian marriage contracts; its fullest version is erēbīša īrrub waṣîša uṣṣī zenîša izennī salāmīša isallim ‘she (the second wife) will enter and leave as she (the first wife) does, and be angry and reconciled as she (the first wife) is’; see, for instance, VAB 5, 4:21–23; 5:6–8; BAP 89:7–8; CT 4, 39a:16–17; BM 97159:18–19 (quoted by K. R. Veenhof, St. Finet, p. 185 n. 10). This infinitive seems to be equivalent to a circumstantial clause: ‘when PN1 acts in such and such a way, PN2 will do the same’—and may well be a plural accusative representing a general validity: ‘whenever . . .’. It is also possible that the form is actually a terminative: erēbišša, salāmišša, but ‑šš- is never spelled explicitly, as far as I am aware.

8.2.  The Infinitiv

197

(19) Prag I 680:20–21 (OA) ḫa-lu-qám rabiam tuḫallaqanni ‘you are ruining me completely’ (lit., a great ruining, D infinitive of ḫalāqu) (20) AbB 9, 61:10–12 (OB) ana ši-ta-pu-ri ša taštanapparī aḫmidma lā addikkim ‘in answer to your frequent appeals I have been evasive and have not (yet) given (them) to you’ (adapted from M. Stol’s translation; šitappuri(m) is Gtn infinitive of šapāru ‘to write’)10 These restrictions do not apply to the numerous infinitives that have been lexicalized and have become abstract nouns, such as qabû ‘speech, šapāru ‘message’, balāṭu ‘life’ and erēšu ‘harvest’ (Aro 1961: 299): (21) Atr. p. 60:244 (OB) išmûma anniam qá-ba-ša ‘they (the gods) heard this speech of hers’ (22) AbB 6, 63:5–6 (OB) mīnum ša-pa-ru-um annûm ša tašpurim ‘what is that message that you (Fem) wrote to me?’ (23) RA 22, 174:58 (OB) arkam dāriam ba-la-ṭa-am ‘a long and everlasting life’ (24) AbB 10, 96:2′ (OB) e-re-ša-am uppulam ‘the late harvest’ Whereas the morphology of the infinitive has always maintained its nominal character, its syntax has adopted some verbal features in that it can be construed as a finite verb with the subject in the nominative and the direct object in the accusative—just as the corresponding finite clause—when they are expressed by nouns (Aro 1961: 307–22): (25) AbB 6, 96:7–8 (OB) tuppī anniam ina a-ma-ri-im ‘in seeing this tablet/letter (Acc) of mine’ (i.e., when you see. . .’) (26) KH r.XXIV 59–60 (OB) (I wrote my precious words on a stele) dannum enšam ana lā ḫa-ba-lim ‘in order that the strong man (Nom) should not oppress the weak man (Acc)’ (27) ARM 1, 22:7–8 (OB) (I have written to you several times) aššum ina[nn]a ṣa-bu-[u]m ana ṣērīka lā a-la-ki-im ‘about the fact that the troops (Nom) cannot come to you right now’ The rather complex constructions (26) and (27) derive from clauses such as dannum enšam lā iḫabbal ‘let the strong man not oppress the weak man’ and inanna ṣabum ana ṣērīka lā īllakam ‘the troops cannot come to you right now’. This construction is not possible if the participants are encoded by means of suffixed pronouns. It is more common, however, to adapt the case of the noun to that of the infinitive, and when the infinitive is preceded by a preposition, to put the noun between them in the genitive (Frankena 1978: 8–9); cf. the nominative in (28) in contrast to (03) quoted above, and the genitive in (29) as compared to (25) and (26), and (30) as compared to (27): 10.  All instances of an infinitive with a relative clause known to me are of this type: cf. also (22) and: e-pé-e-šum annûm ša tēteneppušu ana manni muššul AbB 7, 179:11–13 (OB) ‘this doing that you are doing all the time, who else would act like that?’ (lit., to whom is it similar?), and [mi-t]aḫ-ḫu-ru ša ina qāt PN1 PN2 (. . .) im-taḫ-ḫa-ru MBTU 38:1 (MB) ‘The repeated receiving which PN2 did from PN1’ (cf. MBTU 39:1 mi-taḫ-ḫa-ru ša ina qāt PN1 PN2 (. . .) ma[ḫ-ru]).

198

The Infinitiv  8.2.

(28) AbB 3, 91: r.8′ (OB) eqlum (a.šà-um) tu-úr-ru-um ittaqbi ‘it has been ordered that the field (Nom!) should be returned’ (also AbB 3, 34:40; 4, 139:14–16) (29) AbB 5, 136:5 (OB) (the canal workers that have been assigned to you) ana šiprim e-pé-ši-im ‘in order to do the work’ (cf. Aro 1961: 151–71) (30) ARM 3, 13:8–9 (OB) (PN keeps writing hither) ana ṣa-bi-im Yamḫadāyi at-[l  ] u-ki-im ‘regarding the departure of the soldiers of Yamḫad’ This verbal construction of the infinitive is interchangeable with the nominal construction in which the subject or the direct object is in the genitive (Aro 1961: 311–22), cf. (31A) versus (31B) from the same text: (31A) BagM. 2, 56: I 27 (OB) ana ṣābim lā e-re-bi-im amguršunūti ‘I agreed with them that the army should not enter (the town)’ (lit., ‘for the army not entering’) (31B) BagM. 2, 57: II 12 ana lā e-re-eb ṣābim amguršunūti (same translation, lit., ‘for the not entering of the army’) Finally, if the object of the infinitive is a demonstrative pronoun (usually annû ‘this’), the infinitive is construed as a noun and the pronoun agrees with it (Aro 1961: 18, 210, 298–99; Veenhof 1986: 250 n. 23): (32) AbB 2, 64:11–12 (OB) ana e-pé-ši-im an-ni-i-im kī lā taplaḫ ‘why are you not afraid to do this?’ On the basis of the construction of a nominal direct object we would expect *ana annītim epēšim or *annītam ana epēšim ‘in order to do this’, but these do not seem to be attested. The heyday of the verbal use of the infinitive are the Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian periods. Later on, the verbal construction declines: the infinitive is more often construed as a noun with a genitive (Aro 1961: 321–22), and in complement clauses it is gradually replaced by other types of complements, such as subordinate clauses (Deutscher 2000: 123). As a deverbal noun, and thus a peripheral member of the verbal paradigm, the infinitive lexicalizes easily, primarily as an abstract noun (see §2.2.3, p. 36). This is particularly prominent in adjectival verbs (see n. 1, p. 194) and in verbs denoting atelic activities, such as dabābu ‘speech, complaint, lawsuit’, qabû ‘speech, utterance’, epēšu ‘action’, eṣēdu ‘harvest’, râmu ‘love’, zamāru ‘song’, ḫabālu ‘wrongdoing’, and karābu ‘prayer’. Lexicalized infinitives of other stems include the D‑stems s/ṣullû and suppû ‘prayer’, and nubbû ‘lament’. The change to nounhood can be underlined by adding the feminine or abstract suffix -t, as in awātu ‘word, matter’ (i.e., *awāʾtum from *awāʾum ‘to speak’; see chap. 17 n. 87, p. 538) and alaktu ‘way, road, behaviour’ from alāku ‘to go /come’, all from the G‑stem. In the derived stems we find, for instance, šitūltu ‘deliberation’ from šâlu Gt ‘to deliberate’. In later dialects, some of these abstract nouns also develop a concrete meaning, such as šaṭāru ‘copy, text’ (SB and later) from šaṭāru ‘to write’, nadānu ‘gift, tribute’ (MB and later) from nadānu ‘to give’, which has a plural nadānātu (NB), and ṣamādu ‘team (of mules)’ (NB), with a plural ṣamādāni from ṣamādu ‘to harness’ (see Cole 1996: 135 for this form).

8.2.  The Infinitiv

199

8.2.2.  Historical background The infinitive pattern PaRāS has close parallels in various Semitic languages and is therefore reconstructible as a G‑stem infinitive for Proto-Semitic (Moscati, ed. 1964: 146–47; Lipiński 1997: 415–16; Fox 2003: 179), perhaps alongside other patterns (Huehnergard 1995: 2130; 2004: 152).11 It also occurs in Berber. In Tuareg, for instance, the pattern aCăCaC < *(ā)CaCāC—in which *ā- is a secondary prefix—is the normal infinitive (or verbal noun) of the strong triradical verb (Prasse 1972/4: II 225; Greenberg 1952: 5 n. 14; Kienast 2001: 551; Heath 2005: 514), e.g., alămad from əlməd ‘to learn’. The infinitive patterns of the derived verbal stems are, to a large extent, language-specific: languages have often gone their own way in choosing a specific derivational procedure to (re)create these forms. Insofar as they are relevant to Akkadian, they will be discussed under the respective derived stem. Insofar as nouns are concerned, the pattern QaTāL has few other uses in Semitic (see Fox 2003: 179–86). There are a few primary nouns, such as *ʾatān‑ (Akk atānu) ‘she-ass’, and agent nouns, e.g., He ʿāšōq and ḥāmōṣ ‘oppressor’ (2003: 184), and, perhaps more importantly, hardly any abstract nouns that are not explicable as infinitives, such as Ar bayāḍ ‘whiteness’ and a few other abstract nouns of colour adjectives, quoted by Fox (2003: 182). It is plausible that its productivity as infinitive prevented other functions from arising and/or led to the discarding of pre-existing QaTāL nouns with a different function. As noted in the previous section, everywhere but in the G‑stem, the Akkadian infinitive is identical with the past participle. This might suggest that in origin the infinitives outside the G‑stem are substantivized past participles (Kuryłowicz 1972: 109; cf. also 1964: 29–31 for the process in general). It is, however, difficult how to envisage such a process in practice.12 In historical Akkadian, zero derivation of abstract nouns from adjectives is exceptional,13 and substantivation of a masculine past participle virtually always leads to a noun with concrete meaning, usually a person (see §8.3.1, pp. 201–202, for examples). Only feminine adjectives may normally be used as abstract nouns, which are a possible source of infinitives. In the G‑stem, the formal relationship between PaRāS and the past participle PaRiS is obscure, but it is clear that the former is not simply derived from latter. The fact that vowel lengthening often accompanies substantivation (see §7.4.2, pp. 185–186) seems to suggest that PSem QaTāL 11.  PaRāS also seems to be the regular G‑stem infinitive in Eblaite, e.g., a-ga-lu-um (= kú) /  ʾakālum/ ‘to eat’ (Krebernik 1983: 6); ba-ša-šum/šu-um (= š u . ì) /paṯāṯum/ ‘to anoint’ (1983: 18), and wa-za-nu-um (g i š . m a ḫ) /wazānum/ ‘to weigh’ (cf. Ar wazana) (1983: 16; see also §16.2.4, p. 458). However, there may be instances of infinitives with the pattern PiRāS; see Krebernik 1983: 22 n. 72. Krebernik prefers to interpret them as resulting from reduction of unstressed a > ə, but they may also come from dissimilation of a, just as the common Arabic G‑stem maṣdar qitāl may come from dissimilation of qatāl (Fox 2003: 224). Another possibility is that the forms in question are actually PiRS nouns, with the construct state PiRaS (as in Assyrian): bí-da-gi-i-ti[m], a variant of ba-da-gi-i-tim (= šu.ku5), which presumably stands for /batāq yidim/ ‘cutting of the hand’ (Krebernik 1983: 19), i.e., either /bitāq yidim/ as infinitive, or /bitaq yidim/ from bitqum; similarly mi-za-i 2 - š u (= n í g . a . š u . l u ḫ) (1983: 46), i.e., /misāḥ or misaḥ yiday(n)/ ‘washing of the hands’, ne-sa-gu(-um) (= n e . s u b5) (1983: 33), i.e., /nišāqum/ or /niš(a)qum/ ‘kiss(ing)’, and perhaps si-ga-pù-um (= ù . d i . d i) (1983: 40), i.e., /šikābum/ or /šik(a)bum/ ‘lying down’, if it is related to He škb. Fronzaroli (1991: 463–65) regards these form as manifestations of a rule that weakens pretonic a to i/e. 12.  Vycichl (1991: 434) mentions French entrée and Italian entrata and uscita ‘entering’ and ‘leaving’ as parallels in West European languages of abstract nouns derived from perfect participles. It is clearly a marginal phenomenon. 13.  A few cases are quoted in §8.3.1 below. Normally, either the feminine is used (lemuttu ‘evil’, šallatu ‘booty’, past participle of šalālu ‘to plunder’), or the patterns PuRS and PiRS (ḫulqu ‘loss, lost object’, ṣibtu ‘seizure’), or the suffix ‑ūt/‑utt- (Bab dannūtu ‘strength’). See GAG §§55c–d, 56s.

200

The Past Participle  8.3.

may come from a deverbal adjective QaTăL. This brings us back to the topic of the previous chapter, where it was argued that the existence of such a form remains to be proven.

8.3. The Past Participle 8.3.1.  Form and function The past participle14 is primarily an adjective expressing the state of an entity that results from a previous event. As such, it is the attributive counterpart of the verbal stative: what the stative expresses as a predicate, the past participle expresses as an attribute. Their close functional association is underlined by the fact that they have the same inflectional stem, PaRiS in the G‑stem, and forms with the stem vowel u elsewhere (D‑stem Pa/uRRuS, etc.; see §7.2, pp. 161–162, where also some exceptions to PaRiS are mentioned). Some random examples are wardu ḫalqu (cf. LE §50 A IV 3 // B IV 7) ‘a lost/runaway slave’ and awīlu ḫablu (cf. KH r. XXV 3) ‘a wronged man’ (both OB). The first is the attributive counterpart of the clause wardu ḫaliq ‘the slave has run away (and is now gone)’, the second of awīlu ḫabil ‘the man has been wronged’. In the hierarchy of the verbal paradigm, the past participle represents the final and lowest stage in a dependency relationship of finite fientive form § stative § past participle, e.g.: wardu iḫalliq ‘the slave runs away’

X awīla iḫabbal ‘X wrongs the man’

§ wardu ḫaliq § wardu ḫalqu

§ awīlu ḫabil § awīlu ḫablu

Accordingly, the use of the past participle is largely determined by the use of the corresponding stative.15 Verbs that do not have a stative (atelic activity verbs; see §7.3.2, p. 169), do not have a past participle either. Just as the stative, the past participle can be derived from both transitive and intransitive verbs and is (at least in principle) neutral with regard to the active/passive distinction. However, to an even larger degree than that of the stative, its actual use is severely constrained by semantic and pragmatic factors. An essential semantic condition for its use is that the resulting state must be sufficiently relevant to the entity qualified to make it worthwhile to mention this entity in the form of an attributive construction with a past participle.16 In practice, this means that only past participles of high-transitivity verbs are used more than incidentally, since these verbs describe a salient change in the state of the patient.17 As we saw in §7.3.2 (pp. 171–172), statives of high-transitivity verbs are almost always passive, and this applies even more strongly to their past participles. There is one important exception, however, namely zīzu (Ass zēzu) from zâzu ‘to divide’. It is used with active meaning in the

14.  For other literature on the past participle, see GAG §77g; Kouwenberg 2000: 58–68 (where it is called “verbal adjective”). The most common term for this category seems to be verbal adjective, which I have replaced with the more accurate past participle, because verbal adjective is more appropriate for a derivational category (Haspelmath 1996: 61). Another possible term is perfect participle or stative participle (Buccellati 1996: 85), but not passive participle, since the past participle is not principally passive. An even better term might be resultative participle (Haspelmath 1990: 40; 1994: 157–62), but this is too cumbersome. For the identity between the infinitive and the past participle in Akkadian outside the G‑stem, see the previous sections on the infinitive. 15.  When the meaning of the past participle deviates from that of the stative, this usually results from lexicalization of the past participle; see below. 16.  Cf. GAG §77g; Haspelmath 1994: 157–61; about Akkadian: Landsberger 1926a: 362; Aro 1964: 8. 17.  Cf. Hopper and Thompson 1980: 252–55; Kouwenberg 2000: 63–65; GAG §77g.

8.3.  The Past Participle

201

expression aḫḫū lā zī/ēzūtu ‘brothers who have not (yet) divided (their paternal estate)’.18 This is a nominalization of the stative of zâzu ‘to divide’ in clauses such as KAV 1: III §25:84 (MA laws) aḫḫē mutīša lā ze-e-zu ‘the brothers of her husband have not (yet) divided (their paternal estate)’ (CAD Z 78–81 s.v. zâzu 2d). The exceptional active meaning of this past participle is caused by the fact that (not) having divided the inheritance results in a legally relevant situation for the persons involved. This is parallel to the common use of active statives in legal contexts discussed in §7.3.2 (pp. 172–173). This expression illustrates that the past participle is not passive in principle but only for semantic and pragmatic reasons. It also reveals another reason for the rarity of active past participles: they cannot accommodate a direct object, which the active stative usually has.19 If one wants to qualify a noun by means of more than a single word, only a relative clause is possible. The semantic and pragmatic limitations on the use of the past participle are also responsible for the fact that passive, causative, and iterative verbs do not normally have a past participle. Past participles of the pluractional tan‑stems are not found at all (GAG §77g), and those of other derived stems only occur when the verb in question is lexicalized to such an extent that it has the status of a basic verb, e.g., Š-forms such as šūkulu ‘fattened’ (from akālu Š ‘to cause to eat’), and šulputu ‘destroyed’ (from the lexicalized Š‑stem šulputu ‘to destroy’), and Št2 forms such as šutāḫû ‘teamed’ (ultimately from atḫū ‘partners’; see §14.6.2.2, p. 407) and šutātû ‘facing each other’. A distinct group of past participles in the Š‑stem are the so-called elatives, such as šurbû ‘magnificent’ and šušqû ‘sublime’, which will be discussed in §13.2.2.3 (pp. 331–332). Derived verbs with passive meaning do not have a past participle of their own because that of the corresponding active stem is used (GAG §77g). Past participles of the N‑stem, for instance, only exist for N‑stems with non-passive meaning, such as nābutu ‘fugitive’ and naprušu ‘flying’ from the N tantum verbs nābutu ‘to flee’ and naprušu ‘to fly’, and nanḫuzu ‘burning’ from nanḫuzu ‘to flare up’ (of fire), an idiomatic N‑stem of aḫāzu ‘to take, marry’ (see §12.2.2.1 sub 4, p. 296). In terms of its syntactic status, the past participle is basically adjectival and, accordingly, has the masculine adjectival plural -ūtu/i, etc., rather than the nominal plural -ū/ī (GAG §61).20 In practice, however, it is no less frequently used as a noun than as an attributive adjective, and the impression one gets from the dictionaries is that this increases over time (no exact statistics are available to me). In fact, the typical use of the past participle, especially in the later dialects, is as a more-or-less lexicalized noun. With regard to Neo-Assyrian, for instance, inspection of the glossaries of SAA suggests that the attributive use of the past participle in its original meaning has become marginal and that it mainly survives in nouns, referring to functions, such as qēpu 18.  See CAD Z 149 s.v. zīzu adj. 2; AHw 1534b s.v. zīzu I. It also occurs in the singular: mār awīlim lā zi-zu LE §16 B I 12 (OB). In the same text as aḫḫū lā zēzūtu, the past participle with passive meaning is also found: ina eqle lā ze-e-ze KAV 2: II §4:27 (MA) ‘on an undivided field’. 19.  Very rarely, the past participle is construed with a dependent genitive, e.g., in the expression ša-akna-at napištim KH r.XXVII 18 ‘those who are provided with life’, i.e., ‘the people, mankind’ (šaknāt with ellipsis of nišū), and in some Old Babylonian proper names such as Takil-ilīšu ‘a loyal (servant) of his god’ and Ašr-ilīšu < Ašir-ilīšu ‘cared for by his god’ (Stamm 1939: 258). Such constructions are transformations of a stative with an accusative adjunct: X napišta šakin, etc., in the same way that the present participle + genitive is a transformation of an active finite verb plus an accusative direct object. It is also possible to attach the ending ‑am to the first member of such syntagms, the “damqam-īnim construction”; see Wasserman 2003: 45–60 for a recent discussion. 20.  In frequent substantivized past participles (and adjectives in general) there is often fluctuation between the plural endings -ū and -ūtu, e.g., in agru ‘hireling’ (cf. CAD A/1 151b s.v.: agrū in older dialects, agrūtu in NA/NB), in ebbu as the designation of an official, which has both ebbū and ebbūtum as plural in Old Babylonian (CAD E 1b s.v. 2), and similarly in šību ‘witness’ (CAD Š/2 390a s.v.).

202

The Past Participle  8.3.

‘delegate’, šaknu ‘governor’, agru ‘hireling’; to commodities, such as tabku ‘stored grain’, ṣarpu ‘silver’, ḫašlātu ‘groats’ (resulting from ellipsis of the head word); and sometimes also to abstract notions, such as baqru and its plural baqrū ‘claim’ (from the past participle of baqāru ‘to vindicate’), batqu ‘deficit, damage’ (cf. batāqu ‘to cut off, reduce’), baṭlu ‘interruption’ (cf. baṭālu ‘to stop, interrupt’), tarṣu ‘reach, time’ (cf. tarāṣu ‘to stretch out’), and karṣu ‘slander’ (originally the past participle of karāṣu ‘to pinch off’ (AHw 450b s.v.: ‘“Abgekniffenes”, Verleumdung’). In the latter function, the past participle usually has a feminine suffix, e.g., abiktu ‘defeat’, šalimtu ‘peace, safety’, batiqtu ‘information’, and galītu ‘deportation’. Some of these nouns have acquired concrete meaning: egirtu ‘message’.21 Generally speaking, there is a clear-cut contrast between the past participle and the present participle, both in form and in function (see §8.4.1 below for the form and the function of the present participle). In some verbs, however, the resultative meaning of the past participle and the active meaning of the present participle more or less coincide so that they converge in function and become more or less interchangeable (GAG 3 §87b*), e.g., in wašābu ‘to sit down’, ṣalālu ‘to fall asleep’, and rakābu ‘to mount’:22 wašbu ‘having sat down’ > ‘being seated’ vs. wāšibu ‘sitting, staying (somewhere)’, ṣallu ‘having fallen asleep’ > ‘sleeping’ vs. ṣālilu ‘sleeping’, and rakbu ‘having mounted’ > ‘riding’ vs. rākibu ‘riding, sailing’.23 This explains the alternative use of wašbu and wāšibu in, for instance, lú.meš wa-aš-bu-ut GN FM 2, 204 no. 116:12 ‘the inhabitants of GN’ versus wa-ši-bu-ut ālim ARM 27, 1:24 ‘the inhabitants of the town’ (both OB Mari).24

8.3.2.  Historical background The functional development of the past participle in Akkadian is determined by its relationship to the stative. Historically, the past participle is primary and the stative has evolved from its combination with person markers, but—as argued in §7.4.1 (pp. 176–177)—its incorporation into the verbal paradigm has reversed their relationship and made the past participle dependent on the stative and thus a derivation of it.25 After the rise of the stative to cover the predicative use of adjectives and past participles, the past participle itself only preserved its attributive function. Since, for the reasons explained in the previous section, past participles are far less frequently employed as attributes than as predicates, their use diminished drastically. This fact, 21.  Two uses of the past participle are extremely rare but still interesting enough to mention. First, it may replace the present participle in the paronomastic construction with a finite form of the same verb to express an indefinite subject (mītu imât ‘someone will die’); see §8.4.1 with n. 33 (p. 206). Second, it is used in combination with the ending ‑ān‑ of the present participle in a single Old Assyrian form; see n. 40 (p. 208). Related to these phenomena is the use of a primary adjective instead of a paronomastic infinitive in the case of adjectival verbs (see n. 8, p. 195). 22.  These are the same verbs that also show some degree of overlap in use between the stative and imperfective; see chap. 4, n. 9 (p. 91). 23.  This alternation also occurs between the present participle as epithet and the stative as predicate in expressions such as āpir(at) agê ‘wearing a crown’ versus its finite equivalent agê apir/aprat ‘he/she wears a crown’; see CAD A/2 167a s.v. apāru 1b. 24.  Other present and past participles that are very similar in meaning include those of palāḫu ‘to fear, respect’, kanāšu ‘to submit’ (GAG3 §87b), magāru ‘to agree, obey’ (see CAD M/1 45 s.v. māgiru and 47b s.v. magru b/c), and sakāpu ‘to lie down, sleep’ (see CAD S 77a s.v. sākipu and 81a s.v. sakpu B). In many cases, the present participle is typically used after a negation: ṣallu ‘sleeping’, but lā ṣālilu ‘sleepless, restless’; see the dictionaries. 25.  A formal trace of this difference in derivation is preserved in the difference between the feminine forms of primary adjectives and past participles of II/gem roots (see GAG Verbalpar. 20a): dannu ‘strong’ has a feminine dannatu but sakku ‘blocked, deaf’, past participle of sakāku ‘to block’, has sakiktu; see further §16.6.1 (pp. 492–493).

8.4.  The Present Participles

203

in combination with their more nominal character, makes the past participle one of the most marginal members of the verbal paradigm. The past participle pattern PaRiS can confidently be reconstructed for Proto-Semitic. Its West Semitic counterpart QaTiL survives not only as a common pattern of primary adjectives (Fox 2003: 165–71), just as in Akkadian, but also as the inflectional stem of the perfect with the stem vowel i, such as Ar yalbasu, labisa ‘to put on, wear’. The Akkadian past participle parsu < *parisum, the PaRiS statives, and the West Semitic qatila perfect can all be derived from the Proto-Semitic past participle *QaTiL. However, West Semitic QaTiL is no longer used as a past participle: that function has been usurped by more extended patterns, such as maqtūl in Arabic, qatīl in Aramaic and qətul ( ibnum) and *l-yaktub (> li-yaktub) can be explained from the difference between l and other phonemes without recourse to a syllabic ḷ, and the negation ul versus West Semitic ʾal (etc.) definitely does not go back to *ḷ, as Testen (1993b: 6) claims: ul is a reduction of ulā (ūlā?), which itself is a strengthening of lā. For the alleged existence of vocalic ṇ, see §16.4.2 (p. 471). 21.  There are also a few instances of lū with a second-person imperfective to express a strong injunction, e.g., lū tu-wa-ša-ar YOS 11, 12:9–13 ‘you must release’; lū te-te-bi-am YOS 11, 6:11 ‘you must rise’;

9.2.  The Irrealis Categories

217

in the precative paradigm itself before consonant-initial prefixes but in Assyrian completely replaced by lū since the earliest texts.22 This does not answer the question where i comes from, since it has no obvious cognates anywhere in Semitic. In principle, it might be a negation in origin: the cohortative meaning of, e.g., i nillik ‘let us go’, might go back to a negative question: ‘shouldn’t we go?’ There is indeed a negation ʾi in Geʿez, but it is more likely to correspond to the Akkadian vetitive particle ē/ay (Tropper 2002: 148).23

9.2.2.  The vetitive: form and function 24 The standard form of the vetitive consists of the perfective combined with a proclitic particle that differs according to dialect and is spelled in many different ways, but basically seems to have the form ay.25 In Sargonic Akkadian (Hasselbach 2005: 202–3), it occurs in this form before the third-person prefix yi‑/yu‑ in the spelling a: a u-gi-il /ay yukêl/ AKI p. 259:165 ‘may he not hold’ (cp RI of Naram-Sin), and a e-ru-ub /ay yērub/ SAB p. 189:r.5′ (Gasur) ‘may he not enter’. Before other consonants, it may also be spelled a, e.g., before the prefix ta-/tu- in a daq-bí /ay? taqbī/ SAB p. 90:10 (Girsu) ‘do not say’, and once before a stative: a zu-ku-na /ay? zuqqunā/ SAB p. 158:10 (Diyala) ‘they (Du) must not have a beard’. Edzard (1973: 132) explains this a as a defective spelling for ay. If this is correct, it implies that the form ay, which is presumably regular before y- of the prefix, because the two ys form a geminate, is analogically transferred to positions before other consonants, where it should regularly have become ē in Sargonic Akkadian (see §1.5, p. 25, and Hasselbach 2005: 91). In fact, ē (spelled e) also occurs, e.g., e tal-li-ik /ē tāllik/ SAB p. 174:14 (Eshnunna) ‘she must not go’ and e da-ti-in /ē taddin/ SAB p. 174:20 ‘she must not give’. It is even introduced before y of the 3ms prefix yi‑/yu‑, e.g., in e u-gi-il GAKI p. 382:102 ‘may he not hold’ and e iṣ-ba-at GAKI p. 382:106 ‘may he not seize’ (cps of RIs of Naram-Sin), which I interpret as /ey yiṣbat/ and /ey yukêl/, with ey as a positional variant of ē before y- (cf. Edzard 1973: 132 n. 39).26 Old Assyrian has e both before a consonant and before a vowel (GAG §81i; GKT §77d), i.e., /ē/, the regular Assyrian outcome of the diphthong ay (e.g., e i-ta-lá-ak VS 26, 37:18 ‘let him not depart’). In Babylonian, the usual distribution is e before a consonant (e ta-aṣ-la-li ZA 75, 200:39 ‘do (Fem) not sleep!’; e ni-iṣ-la-al YOS 11, 24: I 21 ‘let us not sleep!’) and ay before a vowel, spelled in many different ways.27 Ay before the third-person prefixes is the regular outcome of *ay plus yi- (ay+yiddin > ayyiddin), so that it dates from the period before the loss and perhaps also lu!(sign ú) ta-at-ta-la-ki Or. 23, 338:21 ‘you (Fem) must go away!’ in Old Babylonian, and lū ta-an-na-as-sa-aḫ lū ta-at-ta-a[l-lak] ZA 23, 374:86 ‘you must be eradicated and go away!’ in Standard Babylonian. These passages come from very similar contexts in Old Babylonian incantations; see W. von Soden, Or. 23, 344 at line 21 and GAG §81e (but note that the first example mentioned in GAG 3 §81e* lū taḫassas Gilg. Y VI 43 should be discounted; see Gilg. p. 206:271). This suggests that this unusual construction is an innovation, perhaps modelled on the corresponding combination of lā + imperfective, the prohibitive. 22.  Note, however, that lū before ta‑ already occurs in Mari Old Akkadian: (DNF) še.numun-šu lu tal-gu-ud /lū talqut/ AKI p. 360 MŠ 3:10 ‘may Ištar destroy his progeny’. 23.  Testen’s (1993b: 10) proposal to regard i as the phonological outcome of *ḷ before ni- (*ḷ niprus > ṇ niprus > i niprus) leaves i in i taprus unexplained (*ḷ should become lu here according to his explanation). 24.  For further literature, see GAG §81i–j; Edzard 1973: 132. 25.  For a survey of spellings, see CAD A/1 218–19 s.v. aj ; AHw 23 s.v. ai I. 26.  Note that this spelling only occurs in copies of royal inscriptions (Hasselbach 2005: 202–3). 27.  The most common spelling is ⟨a-i+a⟩, in which ⟨i+a⟩ = ia, iu, jí in the awkward notation of von Soden and Röllig 1991: 19 sub 104); alternatives are ⟨a-a⟩, ⟨a-i⟩, ⟨i-a⟩ and simply ⟨a⟩, which is perhaps archaizing (see CAD A/1 218 s.v. aj 1a with many examples).

218

The Irrealis Categories  9.2.

of word-initial y-. However, the form ē is irregular: *ay before a consonant should give **ī in Babylonian (GAG §11a). Although the vetitive particle is sensitive to the initial phoneme of its host word, it is not a prefix,28 because it may be detached from the verb in the Assyrian idiom with ē lā and because in the oldest texts it may also precede a stative (see below for this construction). Moreover, it is also attested sporadically as an independent interjection ‘no!’ (AHw 180a s.v. ē II). As regards its etymology, ay/ē is usually associated with the Geʿez negation ʾi (AHw 23a s.v. ai I; Tropper 2002: 148), which, however, is not restricted to irrealis functions. Since ay is also an interrogative particle ‘where’ in Akkadian (AHw 23b s.v. ai III), and since there is a diachronic path from interrogative to negation (Faber 1991), it is possible that all three go back to this particle (cf. also Lipiński 1997: 456).29 The vetitive is basically the negative counterpart of the precative and, rarely, of the imperative; first-person vetitives are relatively rare.30 As such, it competes with the prohibitive (lā + imperfective). There are two major differences between them: first, the vetitive is a residual category that is gradually becoming obsolete, whereas the prohibitive is fully productive and expanding; second, the vetitive seems to be more polite than the prohibitive: it is typically used for wishes and more-or-less formulaic exhortations, whereas the prohibitive has a wider use that especially includes negative commands (see §9.2.3, pp. 219–220). The vetitive mainly flourished in the older dialects. In Sargonic Akkadian, the prohibitive is not (yet?) attested (Hasselbach 2005: 203) and the vetitive is fairly common; all known instances are quoted by Hasselbach (2005: 202–3). Old Assyrian offers the most copious evidence. It typically employs the vetitive in more-or-less conventional expressions that concern the interpersonal relationship of the correspondents and other people involved, e.g.: (13) Prag I 502:26 libbaka e im-ra-aṣ ‘may you (lit., your heart) not be annoyed (angered, disappointed, etc.)’ (likewise in the Š‑stem, see CAD M/1 275b s.v. marāṣu 6a–2′) (14) BIN 4, 39:18–19 libbušu e il5-mì-in ‘may he not become angry’ (lit., ‘may his heart not become bad’ (likewise in the D‑stem, see CAD L 118b s.v. lemēnu 6) (15) OAA 1, 71:25 e tù-re-i-qá-ni ‘do not keep it (the silver) away from me!’ (16) OAA 1, 134:39 e tù-ḫa!-li-qí-ni ‘do (Fem) not ruin me!’ In most of these expressions the prohibitive also occurs; for instance, we also find libbī lā imarraṣ alongside (13) and libbī lā ilammin alongside (14).31 On the other hand, it is unusual to find the vetitive expressing a concrete negative command (GAG §81i/j; GKT §77d; Edzard 1973: 131–32). This is the typical domain of the prohibitive. 28.  Pace Reiner 1966: 71–72 and Buccellati 1996: 181. 29.  Note, however, that Gragg (2004: 428) explains ʾi from *ʾay, which he derives from the common West Semitic negation *ʾal through palatalization. 30.  Examples are: e a-sí-li-iḫ ATHE 39:17 ‘may I not be cheated’; e áp-la-aḫ CCT 1, 50:15 ‘may I not be afraid’ (both OA); a-ia a-mu-ur Gilg. p. 278: II 13′ ‘may I not see’; e ni-iṣ-la-al YOS 11, 24: I 21 (OB) ‘let us not sleep!’; and ayyabāš ‘may I not come to shame’ in Old Babylonian proper names; see Stamm 1939: 174. 31.  See in particular the alternation of the prohibitive lá ta-tù-ar ‘do not renounce!’ (lit., turn back) and the vetitive e ta-tur4 in the same clause in OAA 1, 34:28–29.

9.2.  The Irrealis Categories

219

In Old Babylonian letters, the vetitive is rare and mostly restricted to formulaic politeness expressions, as in (17) (see Leong 1994: 380; E. Cohen 2005: 101–2). The vetitive used as a conditional clause in (18), like the precative in (07), is unique in Old Babylonian (E. Cohen 2005: 148): (17) AbB 2, 113:6–7 ilum nāṣir abīa ṣibūtam a-jí ir-ši ‘may the god who protects my father not get an (unfulfilled) need’ (18) AbB 12, 169: r.23–26 ikam šuāti ē tu-da-ni-in bīt abīka kalāšu lū ušmāt ‘if you fail to strengthen that dike, I will put to death the entire family of your father’ The preponderance of stereotyped formulae among the instances of the vetitive in Old Assyrian and Old Babylonian letters is a clear symptom of its decline. This is doubtless also the reason why the prohibitive is strongly preferred for the expression of commands: as an old formation, the vetitive had lost too much of its strength, whereas the prohibitive, based as it is on the relatively new Impfv iparrVs and the productive negation lā, was innovative and thus more expressive and forceful. The decline of the vetitive is also shown by the fact that in the older dialects it displays traces of a wider use:32 in Sargonic Akkadian and Old Assyrian, it can still be used with a stative, as in ay? zuqqunā (quoted above and in (19); see GKT §77d),33 and in Old Assyrian it can also be combined with lā to express an urgent request, as in (20) (see GKT §105a): (19) CCT 1, 50:13 annakam e na-áš-a-tí ‘I hope you do not have the tin with you’ (20) TC 3, 64:27 e lá ta-áš-qú-ul ‘do not fail to pay’ As regards the later dialects, the vetitive survives in Standard Babylonian, doubtless as a literary archaism,34 but seems to be completely replaced by the prohibitive elsewhere: Aro (1955: 86–87) does not mention it for Middle Babylonian, and it is not found in Middle Assyrian,35 NeoAssyrian, and Neo-Babylonian, according to GAG §81i, W. Mayer 1971: 60–61, Hämeen-Anttila 2000: 94, and Woodington 1982: 323.

9.2.3.  The prohibitive The prohibitive consists of the negation lā followed by an imperfective (GAG §81h; E. Cohen 2005: 95, 101–2). In the second person, it is the negative counterpart of the imperative; in the other persons, it has the same range of meaning as the precative (see §9.2.1.1, pp. 212–213). It is common in all periods, with the exception of Sargonic Akkadian (Hasselbach 2005: 203) and Mari Old Akkadian, where it is not yet attested; this may well be fortuitous, however. 32.  There are no instances of ē with a t‑perfect, pace AHw 23b s.v. ai I 2a and GKT §77d n. 1 (on p. 130); ta-áš-tù-pu TC 3, 53:29 in ē taštupū ‘do not keep silent’ is a perfective of a “lexicalized” Gt‑stem; see §14.3.4 (pp. 371–372) and Streck 2003a: 70 no. 186. 33.  Exceptionally also in literary Old Babylonian: ina šerʾīšu dNidaba a ḫa-ni-ib Legends p. 260: r.7′ ‘may grain not be abundant in his furrow(s)’, which is no doubt an echo of a third-millennium royal inscription. Normally, Old Babylonian uses lā in this context; see n. 36. 34.  The idiosyncratic uses we find in Standard Babylonian, namely in a subordinate clause (noted in GAG 3 §176a for ZA 43, 19:74 = SAA 3, 32: r.34 aššu (. . .) ai iṭ-ḫu-ni a-a is-niq-u-ni ), and with asseverative force (GAG §81j) are secondary and artificial. The latter use is doubtless modelled on the double meaning of lū. 35.  The Middle Assyrian instance mentioned in GAG §81i: ja izziz (e.g., RIMA 1, 134:61) comes from a royal inscription and is a formulaic phrase taken over from earlier models.

220

The Subjunctive  9.3.

Historically, the prohibitive is based on the irrealis use of the imperfective, which in its turn is related to its function of denoting future events (see §4.3, p. 92). This irrealis use is not restricted to negative clauses, but the availability of a specific irrealis negation lā—at least in Babylonian—versus realis ul(ā) made it possible to formally distinguish between realis and irrealis meanings of the imperfective, a distinction that remains purely contextual in affirmative clauses.36 This is the ultimate reason for distinguishing a separate category “prohibitive,” after all.

9.3. The Subjunctive Akkadian has two formatives that serve to mark the clause as subordinate: a verbal ending -u and an enclitic particle -ni. I will refer to both of them as subjunctive37 and distinguish the u-subjunctive from the ni-subjunctive whenever this is relevant. The u-subjunctive is used in all dialects; the ni‑subjunctive is mainly restricted to Assyrian and is one of the defining characteristics of the Assyrian dialect. In Sargonic Akkadian and in the oldest stages of Babylonian, we find some other subjunctive markers that are used incidentally and whose exact status remains problematical. In Classical Old Babylonian and in Assyrian, the use of the subjunctive shows a great deal of regularity. I will first describe the regular u‑subjunctive and ni-subjunctive in Babylonian and Assyrian.38

9.3.1.  The form of the subjunctive Babylonian uses only the u‑subjunctive on a regular basis. It is attached to forms of the prefix conjugations that have no other ending, as in (21).39 Whenever these forms have an ending of their own—i.e., a number and/or gender ending, as in (22), or a ventive, as in (23)—there is no subjunctive and the form is identical to the form used in main clauses. (21A) tuppam ašpur

‘I sent a letter’

(21B) tuppum ša ašpuru

‘the letter that I sent’

(22A) tuppam išpurū

‘they sent a letter’

(22B) tuppum ša išpurū

‘the letter that they sent’

(23A) tuppam išpuram

‘he sent a letter to me’

(23B) tuppum ša išpuram

‘the letter that he sent to me’

36.  The prohibitive use of lā with the stative (GAG3 §81k), e.g., ana šeʾim anummîm lā ta-ak-la-ta ShA 1, 129 no. 59:7 (OB) ‘do not count on this grain’ (tr. J. Eidem)) and lā wa-aš-ba-at AbB 11, 139:13 (OB) ‘let her not sit’ is doubtless modelled on the prohibitive use of the imperfective. 37.  Von Soden (1973) proposes the term “Subordinativ,” which has the advantage that it does not have the association with modality that adheres to the term subjunctive; cf. Noonan 1985: 51: “Non-indicative s[entence]-like complement types can be referred to by the semantically neutral term subjunctive.” The Akkadian subjunctive, however, has no irrealis function and is in that respect a pure indicative. If we keep this in mind, however, there is no reason to replace the well-established and familiar term subjunctive. 38.  See also GAG §83; GKT §79; Huehnergard 2005a: 183–84. 39.  In the prefix conjugations, absence of the subjunctive ending is so rare that it may be considered incorrect. An instance is (kīma lā) i-ta-ar OBTR 2:18 (OB). An intriguing exception is the Old Babylonian expression ištu Šamaš iz-za-a-az ‘from sunrise’, lit., ‘since Šamaš stands’ (AbB 7, 50:9′; 10, 150:17; CTMMA 1, 87 no. 69:7); Wilcke (1987: 91) ingeniously suggests that Šamaš izzāz is “a call sung out by the guards on duty at the city gates or on the city walls functioning as the name of a specific moment in the course of the day,” so that it is a name or a quotation equivalent to a noun.

9.3.  The Subjunctive

221

If a suffix pronoun is attached to the verb, the subjunctive ending remains, with -u preceding the suffix (24B), unless the suffix is built on the ventive (see §9.4.2.4, pp. 238–240, and Kouwenberg 2002: 222–23), as in (25B): (24A) tuppam ašpuršum

‘I sent a letter to him’

(24B) tuppum ša ašpurūšum

‘the letter that I sent to him’

(25A) tuppam ašpurakkum

‘I sent a letter to you’

(25B) tuppum ša ašpurakkum ‘the letter that I sent to you’ In the stative, the u-subjunctive can only occur in the third-person singular (3ms paris, 3fs parsat). In Old Babylonian, it regularly occurs in the masculine,40 but not in the feminine, as in (26A) versus (26B); (27) is exceptional: (26A) RA 13, 131–32:7–8 ina ba-al-ṭú u ša-al-mu ‘when he has completely recovered (lit., is alive and sound)’ (26B) UM 8/2, 215:7 ina ba-al-ṭa-[at] u ša-al-ma-at (idem with ‘she’) (27) AbB 4, 58:13 awiltum (. . .) ša ina ekallim wa-aš-ba-a-tu ‘the lady ho lives in the palace’ (this is the only instance known to me, quoted in GAG §83a)41 In Middle Babylonian and later, the suffix -u extends to the feminine as well, but only in letters, as in (28) and (29), not in texts with a more literary style, as in (30) from a kudurru inscription (Aro 1955: 73; Woodington 1982: 106): (28) BE 14, 40:11 adi PNF ba-al-ṭa-tu ‘as long as PNF lives’ (29) UM 1/2, 72:5 (a woman) [ša] irassu mar-ṣa-tu4 ‘whose breast is diseased’ (30) BER 4, 146:29–31 (a field) ša ultu ūmī pāna iku lā šap-ku ab.sim lā šú-zu-za-at ana mērišti lā šú-lu-ku-ú ‘where since ancient times no dike had been built (Masc: Subj), where no furrow had been established (Fem: no Subj) and which was unfit for cultivation (Masc: Subj)’ In the latest period, the use of the subjunctive interferes with the loss of final short vowels (GAG §83g). In Neo-Babylonian, it is usually written according to traditional usage but is sometimes omitted; instead of -u it is also spelled -i (Aro 1975: 15–16; Woodington 1982: 103–12; Hackl 2007: 144–46). Sometimes, the third radical appears geminated, possibly indicating a shift of stress one syllable to the right (Aro 1975: 16–17; see also GAG §83d).

40.  Here, too, forms without ‑u occur in northern Old Babylonian texts: for Mari, see Finet 1956: 261 §91d; Charpin 1989: 34, e.g., kīma (. . .) wa-ši-ib ARM 26/2, 339 no. 435:9; at Tell al Rimah: ([ša (. . .) wa]-ši-ib OBTR 301:8–9; lāma ˹na-wi-ir˺ 304:12 ‘before dawn’. 41.  Finet (1956: 188) mentions two cases where the third singular masculine form apparently replaces the third singular feminine subjunctive. The first is ARM 5, 8:15–16 bītam/ašar ša sinništum šī wa-aš-bu ‘the house/the place where this woman lives’; its relevance is seriously undermined by the fact that the writer also uses the indicative wašib to refer to the same woman (line 9), alongside correct wašbat (line 8). The second one is ARM 6, 49:11–15, which is, however, ambiguous: šu-ur-ku-bu may refer (if only ad sensum) to the barbers rather than to the enūtum.

222

The Subjunctive  9.3.

Assyrian makes extensive use of both the u-subjunctive and the ni-subjunctive. The usubjunctive occurs in the same circumstances as in Old Babylonian, i.e., after the endingless forms of the prefix conjugations and the 3ms stative (GKT §79).42 In addition, Assyrian has a subjunctive particle (not a verbal ending) -ni. The basic rule in Old Assyrian is that ‑ni must be used if a subordinate clause is not marked by the u-subjunctive, as in (31), (32), and (33), and may be used elsewhere in addition to the u-subjunctive, as in (34):43 (31) tuppum ša išpurūni

‘the letter that they sent’

(32) tuppum ša išpuranni

‘the letter that he sent to me’ (< išpuram-ni)

(33) tuppum ša išpurūninni

‘the letter that they sent to me’ (< išpurūnim-ni)

(34) tuppum ša ašpuru or ašpurūni

‘the letter that I sent’.

If there is a suffix pronoun, -ni is separated from ‑u and attached to the end of the verb form: (35) tuppum ša ašpurūšunni

‘the letter that I sent to him’ (< -šum-ni)

(36) tuppum ša ašpurakkunni

‘the letter that I sent to you’ (< -kum-ni).

It is not clear whether -ni is obligatory after a suffixed pronoun, if there is also an u‑subjunctive; forms without it are found sporadically, but most editors tend to correct them by adding ⟨-ni  ⟩.44 It is not possible to use a ni‑subjunctive without an u‑subjunctive in cases where the latter is possible: in (35), **ašpuršunni would be ungrammatical.45 The 3ms stative also has -u, and may in addition have -ni, as in (37) and (38); the other persons of the stative cannot have -u and therefore must have -ni, as in (39): (37) AKT 3, 62:15 kaspam ša pá-aq-du luwašširūnim ‘let them release for me the silver which was entrusted (to them)’ (38) TPAK 1, 190:12–13 ištu PN me-tù-ni ‘since PN is dead’ (more often me-tù(-ú) in this phrase) (39) OAA 1, 115:4 kīma māt GN (. . .) sà-aḫ-a-at-ni ‘since the land of GN is in turmoil’ In verbless subordinate clauses, -ni is usually attached to the final constituent (GKT §79c):

42.  The rare Old Assyrian instances where against the general rules the u-subjunctive is lacking are doubtless errors; a few are quoted in GKT §§79–80 (but in BIN 6, 169:12–13 K. R. Veenhof (p.c.) reads šu-ma rather than [k]i-ma). An additional example is AKT 3, 81:7. 43.  See also Bar-Am 1938. For some instances where ‑ni is lacking, see GKT §§79–80. Note that the two last examples mentioned there have two closely coordinated verbs of which the first lacks -ni: is this regular? (cf. also (ša) i-šu-ú (. . .) i-šu-ú (. . .) i-šu-ú-ni Prag I 677:5, 10, 13). Other exceptions include Bell. 231, 223:6–7 (iššamši . . .) ta-ša-me-a ‘on the day that you (Pl) will hear’ (collated by K. R. Veenhof); cf. Bell 231, 225:7 ta-ša-me-a-ni; (ša) ta-ar-de8-a Prag I 521:9 ‘which you (Pl) transported’; (mamman ša) i-šé-a-ni AfO 31, 16:30–31 ‘whoever wants to sue me’ (V. Donbaz: i-šé-a-ni-⟨ni  ⟩); with a stative: awâtum ša ma-al-a šamāʾē OAA 1, 134:12–13 ‘matters that fill/cover the sky’ (perhaps a proverbial expression; note the word order!). 44.  GKT §79b mentions two such cases: (ša) a-dí-nu-šu-nu-tí TC 2, 3:25 ‘(what) I gave to them’, and (adi) ú-ša-aṣ-bu-tù-šu BIN 4, 37:8 ‘(until) I will have them caught’; additional instances are (ašar) ú-ša-ḫizu-šu Prag I 724:18–19 ‘where I have instructed him’; (ša) iš-ta-ú-lu-šu Prag I 711:15–17 ‘about which he interrogates him’; mala anāku ú-na-ḫi-du!-kà AKT 3, 88:51 ‘according to what I have informed you about’. 45.  Pace Kienast 1995: 124.

9.3.  The Subjunctive

223

(40) BIN 4, 223:3–5 kīma PN a-ḫu-kà-ni ‘because PN is your brother’ (41) Prag I 442:18–19 igi kārim pīka pitē kīma tamkārum ša-qí-il5 da-tí-ni ‘declare before the kārum that the merchant is a dātum-payer’ (/dātinni/ < dātim-ni, see K. R. Veenhof, JAOS 122 [2002] 798) These rules lead to a situation in which the u‑subjunctive mainly occurs on its own after verb forms that have neither ending nor suffix. As stated above, ‑ni may be used optionally here, but forms without ‑ni are more common (Bar-Am 1938: 28), cf.: (42) AKT 3, 92:3–6 inūmi annakam tù-ṣú-ni (. . .) ištu annakam tù-ṣú ‘when you left (from) here (. . .) after you had left (from) here (. . .)’ (43) CCT 2, 42:11, 14 ‘they went here to the city authorities on account of the silver which was seized (i-ṣí-ib-tù-ni) in PN’s house, the silver that was seized (i-ṣí-ib-tù) was a votive offering’ (tr. CAD Ṣ 40b s.v. ṣabātu 13a-2′). It is possible that in some cases the option to use or omit ‑ni is exploited to (re)introduce a distinction between the third person masculine singular and plural, e.g. (from two letters by the same sender): (44A) AKT 3, 85:33 alē wa-áš-bu ‘where he is staying’ (44B) AKT 3, 87:24–25 [a]lē PN1 u PN2 wa-áš-bu-ni ‘where PN1 and PN2 are staying’. Middle Assyrian shows two developments as compared to Old Assyrian (see W. Mayer 1971: 59–60) First, -u has spread to the 3fs stative, as in (45); (46) is an exception with the older form: (45) NTA p. 25 no. 1765:4–5 kī PNF mar-ṣu-tu-ú-ni ‘(a sheep has been sacrificed) when PNF was ill’46 (46) KAJ 223:4 (a chariot) ša ana šarri qar-ru-bat-ni ‘which was offered to the king’47 Second, ‑ni has become obligatory in all subordinate clauses, also where it was still optional in Old Assyrian, both in verbless clauses (W. Mayer 1971: 112 §102.3), as in (47), in verbal clauses with an u‑subjunctive, as in (48), and in verbal clauses with a stative, as in (49): (47) KAJ 13:13–14 (a garden plot) ša būru ina šà-bi-šu-ni ‘in which there is a well’ (libbišū-ni) (48) ZA 73, 78:21–23 mimma ša ana dabābīka il-lu-ku-ni ‘everything that pertains to your lawsuit’ (49) MARV 3, 24:7–8 (oil) ša bēt PN la-a-qi-ú-ni ‘that has been taken from the house of PN’48 46.  Note the vowel assimilation: < *marṣatūni; likewise pe-gu-tu-ú-ni MARV 3, 19:7 < *pegatūni (from puāgu ‘to take away’). Occasionally, there is no vowel assimilation: (ša) aḫ-za-tu-ú-ni KAV 1: VIII §55:11 ‘who has been taken (in marriage)’ (beside aḫ-zu-tu-ú-ni KAV 1: VI §45:75); these are early instances of the change u > a before a stressed ū; see W. Mayer 1971: 12 and Postgate 1974: 274 for Middle Assyrian and Hämeen-Anttila 2000: 31 for Neo-Assyrian. 47.  W. Mayer’s interpretation of this form (1971: 8 nr. 42) is to be rejected; see Postgate 1974: 273. 48.  An exception where -ni is lacking is: (ša) la-at-ku-ú MARV 3, 38:7 ‘which has been tested’: a mistake?

224

The Subjunctive  9.3.

This means that in Middle Assyrian the u-subjunctive can no longer occur by itself and that ‑ni has become the general and obligatory marker of subordination (W. Mayer 1971: 59; BarAm 1938: 30), a perfect example of Kuryłowicz’s first “law” of analogy (Kuryłowicz 1945–49: 20–23), which, briefly formulated, states that a complex marker will replace a simple marker with the same function. In Neo-Assyrian, the use of the subjunctive does not seem to be different from that of Middle Assyrian, although the stem to which it is attached has changed, especially to restore the distinction between the third-person masculine singular and plural, which had been lost at least since Middle Assyrian. Whereas the latter has, for instance, paqdūni for both singular (< paq(i)d + u + ni) and plural (< paqdū + ni) ‘it/they have been entrusted’, Neo-Assyrian replaces the singular paqdūni by paqidūni, always with a broken spelling: pa-qi-id-u-ni, etc., with i (re)introduced from the indicative paqid: Pl paqdū § paqdūni : Sg paqid § paqidūni (Hämeen-Anttila 2000: 91–92).

9.3.2.  Other subjunctive-like suffixes Apart from the canonical use of -u and -ni in Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian as described in the previous section, Sargonic Akkadian and the older stages of Babylonian occasionally show other forms with apparent subjunctive function and non-canonical instances of the suffix ‑ni. We can distinguish the following cases.49 1.  Sargonic Akkadian shows several instances of a suffix -a in subordinate clauses that is equivalent in function to the u-subjunctive (cf. Gelb 1955a: 190; 1961: 170–71): (50) OAIC 21:5–7 (a quantity of flour) šu ana PN a-ti-na /  ʾaddina/ ‘which I gave to PN’ (51) OAIC 3:7–10 (witnesses to the fact that) 1 pi še PN1 ana PN2 i-ti-na /yiddina/ ‘PN1 gave 1 pi of barley to PN2’ (52) OAIC 1:10–12 (8 witnesses to the fact that) PN1 é ana PN2 iš-du-da /yisduda/ ‘PN1 measured the house for PN2’50 All forms come from the same collection of tablets that probably originate from the Diyala region (Gelb 1955a: 174). Because of the small number of instances, it is difficult to establish their exact nature beyond the fact that they seem to be used exactly like the u‑subjunctive elsewhere in Akkadian. They are certainly not ventives without -m, as claimed by Kienast (1960: 152–53 n. 2, 2001: 272–73) and Lipiński (1997: 351–53), because the use of a ventive in the contexts of (50)–(52) is highly unlikely and final ‑m is not normally omitted in Sargonic Akkadian (see Gelb 1969: 103–4; Edzard 1973: 127; Kouwenberg 2002: 217; and Hasselbach 2005: 204 n. 157). In this collection of texts, a “normal” subjunctive 3ms id-ba-lu /yitbalu/ ‘(which) he took’ (OAIC 7:24) and a “normal” ventive (here as dative) i-ti-nam /yiddinam/ ‘he gave to me’ (OAIC 35:10) also occur. We have to wait for additional evidence before we can hope to learn more about the nature and background of these forms. 2.  In the great majority of cases, Sargonic Akkadian has the Babylonian-type subjunctive (Hasselbach 2005: 205–6), but it also has a few instances of what appears to be a ni-subjunctive (Gelb 1961: 169–70; Zadok 1996: 153–54). Most instances come from a single clause that occurs in

49.  See also Gelb 1961: 170–71; GAG3 §83b–c; Hasselbach 2005: 204–9. 50.  And a few other cases, for which see Hasselbach 2005: 206.

9.3.  The Subjunctive

225

the curse formula of almost all royal inscriptions (53). Otherwise, ‑ni occurs only sporadically; the most reliable cases are (54)–(57): (53) AKI p. 82:57–59 (RI of Naram-Sin) ša dub šūʾa u-sa-za-ku-ni /yusatstsakūni/ ‘whoever removes this inscription’ (and passim in Sargonic RIs, see GAKI pp. 255–56) (54) BIN 8, 134:8–9 (Mé-sag) īnu šarrum u-ur-da-ni /yurdanni/ ‘when the king came down (hither)’ (< urdam-ni) (55) BIN 8, 265:5–8 (Mé-sag) (receipt of goods) īnu ana še.ba engar-˹e˺ PN1 u PN2 i-li-ga-ni /yillikāni/ ‘when PN1 and PN2 had gone (come?) for barley for the ploughmen’ (56) SAB p. 69:8 (Girsu) šūt in tu.ra u-ù-ḫi-ru-un /yūḫḫirūn/ ‘Diejenigen, die wegen Krankheit (mit der Arbeit) in Verzug geraten waren’ (tr. B. Kienast and I. J. Gelb), where -ūn is probably a short form of -ni or -na (see also chap. 17 n. 12 [p. 514] and n. 111 [p. 545] for this form) (57) Or. 46, 201:38 (incant. from Kish) lā da-ba-ša-ḫi-ni /tapaθθaḫīni/ ‘(I swear that) you (Fem) will not have peace!’ The consistent use of ‑ni in yušassakūni and its rarity elsewhere are difficult to explain but are doubtless related to its stereotyped nature. Hasselbach (2005: 207–8) also points out that the relative pronoun ša is irregular (Sargonic Akkadian would require šu) and suggests that the phrase was imported into Sargonic royal inscriptions from a different literary tradition together with the rest of the curse formula. This is possible, but the other cases of ‑ni show that the situation was more complicated.51 A few cases of ‑ni also survive in early and literary Babylonian, of which (58) from Ur III Babylonian doubtless imitates an ancient model and does not give any information about the contemporary use of -ni (Hilgert 2002: 312): (58) AKI p. 330:18 ⟨  ša dub šūa⟩ ú-ša10-sà-ku8-ni ‘who removes this tablet’ (RI from Elam) (69) RIME 4, 51:30–35 inūma kittam ina māt GN1 u GN2 aš-ku-nu-ni ‘when I established justice in the land of Sumer and Akkad’ (RI of Lipit-Eštar of Isin, ArBab) (60) Ištar p. 87: V 23–25 šarrum ša anniam zamāram (. . .) iš-mu-ni ‘a king, who has heard this song’ (OB lit.) (61) St. Reiner p. 192:31 (the mountain) ašru mūlû mūrida lā i-šu-ni ‘where the ascent has no descent’ (tr. W. G. Lambert, OB lit.) (62) St. Reiner p. 192:49 ūmū ta-am-la-ú-ni dulla ‘the days when you were full of suffering’ (OB lit.) In so far as these forms are reliable, they are doubtless archaizing, but may represent traces of an erstwhile more extended use of the same particle -ni as is found in Assyrian. 51.  There are two other instances of ‑ni that apparently occur in main clauses: AKI p. 82:51 (RI of Naram-Sin) i-dar-su-ni-iš /ītarsūnīs(u)?/ ‘they asked him(?)’, and AKI p. 159:94; 173:99 (cps RIs of Sargon) maḫriš RN i-za-zu-ni /izzazzūni/ ‘they stood before RN’ (subject two cities, so dual expected). Krebernik (1993: 128) takes -ni as a ventive without -m; Edzard (1991: 259) as an “affirmative mood,” but the existence of this category is uncertain; see n. 57 (pp. 227–228).

226

The Subjunctive  9.3.

3.  Early Babylonian also has a few instances of a suffix -na with subjunctive function (Whiting 1987: 13, 43; Zadok 1996: 154–56). Its earliest occurrence is in an Ur III royal inscription and in the Mari liver omens, which show a strong Babylonian influence: (63) RIME 3/2, 141:7–10 īnu māt GN1 u GN2 ù-ḫa-li-qú-na ‘when he had destroyed GN1 and GN2’ (RI of Šulgi) (64) RA 35, 47 no. 22:1–6 inūmi šarrum mātam nakartam ana ṣērīšu ú-ti-ru-na ‘when the king had brought (back) the enemy land under his rule’ (65) RA 35, 44 no. 10:5–8 inūmi Šubariū i-sà-aḫ-ru-na ‘after the Subareans had returned’ Note that (63) and (64) are singular, but (65) is plural; in this respect -ūna is parallel to Assyrian -ūni, which often has the same ambiguity. The suffix -na also occurs a few times in Archaic Babylonian royal inscriptions [(66)–(70)] and letters [(71)–(74)] and even a few times in Old Babylonian letters [(75)-(76)]; Whiting (1987: 43–44) lists the cases known to him; I repeat them here with two additional instances, namely, (69) and (70):52 (66) RIME 4, 679:23–30 [inūma] (. . .) qaqqad ummānim šiāti im-ḫa-ṣú-na ‘when he defeated (lit., hit the head of) that army’ (RI of Anum-mutabbil of Dēr) (67) and (68) RIME 4, 655:23–28 inūmi DN bēlī i-di-na-an-na u DNF bēltī tappûtī i-li-ku-na ‘when my lord DN had pronounced a judgement in my favour’ (< idīnam-na) and my lady DNF had come to my help’ (RI of Ashduni-iarim of Kish) (69) ZA 93, 8: IV 10–13 (a land which . . .) biltam [ana] mammana [lā] ub-lu-ú-na ‘had brought tribute to nobody’ (RI of Iddi(n)-Sin of Simurrum) (70) ibid. 9: V 7′′–9′′ ša ṣalmī u šiṭirtī ú-š[a-s]à-ku-na ‘who removes my effigy and inscription’ (71) OBTA p. 41 no. 6:12 ašar lā ú-da-˹ni  ˺-nu-˹na˺ ‘if I had not strengthened it’ (72) OBTA p. 85 no. 30:4–6 ana šume . . . it-ta-na-la-ku-ni-in-na ‘concerning (the fact that) they continually come to me’ (< ‑ū-nim-na) (73) TIM 7, 116:8 ana agrī ša še-˹am ub˺-lu-na ‘for the workers who carried the barley’ (74) AbB 11, 1:8–9 adi awātka ì-la-kà-na ‘until your word comes here’ (< īllak-am-na) (75) UET 5, 265 case: 9 lā i-pa-ša-ru-na ‘that he will not redeem’ (76) UET 5, 265:12 lā i-qá-bu-na ‘that he will not say’ (~ case: 11 ulā i-qá-bi)

52.  Whiting’s nr. 11 = ARM 1, 3:20′ iš-ku-na-an-na should not be included in this group, according to Durand 1997/2000: III 73 n. 1 (read iš-ku-na-an-ni).

9.3.  The Subjunctive

227

Just as ‑ni in Old Assyrian, ‑na can follow a 3s subjunctive, e.g., in (66) and (75); a 3mp ending ‑ū, as in (73); and a ventive or a dative, e.g., in (67), (72), and (74).53 This suggests that it is a dialectal variant of ‑ni and goes back to the same source. 4.  Literary Old Babylonian shows various instances of -nim, which normally has ventive function (see §9.4.1, pp. 232–233, below), attached to an u-subjunctive in a subordinate clause (GAG3 §83b):54 (77) and (78) AnSt. 33, 148:28–31 a[d]i ta-ak-ka-lu-nim ayy īkulū ilū aḫḫūka adi atta ta-ša-at-tu-nim ayy ištû ilū aḫḫūka ‘as long as you are eating, the gods your brothers shall not eat; as long as you are drinking, the gods your brothers shall not drink’ (79) St. Reiner p. 192:57 kī ta-da-am-mi-qú-nim atta ‘(and) that you are well-favoured’ (tr. W. G. Lambert) (80) MIO 12, 54: r.17 [š ]a qerbuššu ni-it-ta-aš-ša-bu-nim rīšiš ‘(a court) in which we used to sit joyfully’55 Normally, the ventive morpheme -nim only comes after the plural endings -ū and -ā, and the forms collected here do not show a typical ventive function. They may represent reanalyzed (misunderstood?) forms ultimately based on earlier -ni and partly associated in form with the ventive, or even hypercorrect spellings of ‑ni, although, as we have seen, ‑ni is very rare in Babylonian.

9.3.3.  The function and the historical background of the subjunctive The main function of the subjunctive is to mark a clause as subordinate; it is obligatory in relative clauses and clauses introduced by a conjunction (except the conditional conjunction šumma).56 In addition, it has the marginal function of marking the verb in statements under oath; I will ignore this use in the main part of this section and return to it at the end. It should be emphasized that according to the usual definition of modality (cf. Palmer 2001: 1–18; E. Cohen 2005: 9–12) the subjunctive is not a mood (Edzard 1973: 127; Kienast 2001: 269): a subjunctive form only differs syntactically from the corresponding indicative form.57 53.  This means that there is no suffix ‑anna in Akkadian parallel to the Arabic Energic I yaqtulanna (see §9.4.3, pp. 242–243), pace Zaborski 1996a: 71–72. 54.  Completely atypical and hard to explain is Gilg. p. 248:4 anāku am.meš ṣerim aṣ-ṣa-ab-ta-nim ‘I had taken hold of (some) bulls from the wild’ (OB lit., tr. A. R. George; see his note on p. 250). 55.  An additional instance might be Legends p. 84:17′ mimma ša ta-qa-bi-ni-im lūpuš ‘I will do whatever you (Ištar ?) order’ (but according to J. Westenholz, the qarrādūya of line 16′ are addressed, which requires the correction ta-qa-bi-⟨a⟩-nim). I assume that (ša) ta-aš-pu-ri-NI AbB 9, 225:5 is a mistake for tašpurim ‘(what) you (Fem) wrote to me’, and lā ta-ma-ga-ri-ni-in-ni AbB 3, 15:28 a mistake for lā ta‑maga-ri-⟨⟨ni  ⟩⟩-in-ni ‘(if I do something wrong,) do (Fem) not agree with me’. 56.  Conditional clauses are treated as main clauses in Akkadian; see chap. 6, n. 32 (p. 148). 57.  It still must be ascertained whether the subjunctive can be used in main clauses to render insistence or emphasis, especially in Mari texts (Finet 1956: 262–63: “subjonctif d’insistance ou d’emphase”). Most of the instances Finet mentions have meanwhile found an easier explanation, so that only two or three deserve more serious consideration: i-ma-ar-ru-šu ARM 6, 13:12 ‘he will see it’, aš-ku-un-nu 4, 86:11 ‘I have provided’, and perhaps ad-bu-bu 6, 76:25 ‘I spoke’. The first two are not regular subjunctives but also have gemination of R3, which is reminiscent of the so-called i‑Modus of Old Babylonian, which was discussed in n. 3 (p. 211). The i‑Modus also occurs in Mari; see Durand and Charpin 1988: 12–13 nos. [16]–[18]. It is possible that ad-bu-bu is a defective spelling of a similar form /adbubbu/ (if it is not simply a mistake). Rather than accepting a highly unusual and exceptional use of the subjunctive, it seems more satisfactory

228

The Subjunctive  9.3.

To understand the rise and development of the subjunctive, it is important to distinguish between the u‑subjunctive and the ni‑subjunctive and, accordingly, between Babylonian and Assyrian. Since the subordinate clauses in which it occurs are also marked by other means, the subjunctive is functionally redundant. The two dialects have reacted to this fact in different ways. Babylonian only marks subordination on verb forms that have no (other) ending and leaves it unmarked elsewhere. This is particularly revealing for its historical background: if ‑u arose for the specific purpose of marking subordination, it is hard to understand why such a large part of the relevant verb forms are not marked as subordinate at all. It rather suggests that ‑u is a residual morpheme that originally had a more relevant function but in historical Babylonian has become trapped in subordinate clauses in the final stage of a grammaticalization process. Assyrian, on the other hand, developed a consistent way of marking subordination in all dependent clauses by means of the particle ‑ni. The fact that ‑ni was initially—i.e., in Old Assyrian—optional in subjunctive forms with ‑u and obligatory elsewhere, but in Middle Assyrian became obligatory also in the forms where it used to be optional, suggests that it was originally not present in the forms where it was optional and that it was introduced there by analogy with the forms where it was obligatory. From this we may conclude that the original domain of -ni consists of forms that also have a gender and/or number suffix, and that initially the other forms only had -u. If this conclusion is correct, there is a striking commonality between the original form of the Akkadian subjunctive and the imperfective prefix conjugation of Classical Arabic: the distribution of -ni in “Pre-Assyrian” is identical to that of -na in Classical Arabic,58 as may be seen from a comparison of the third and the rightmost columns of Table 9.2. Here the perfective has arbitrarily been taken as model, but there are no differences observable between imperfective, perfective, and t‑perfect with regard to the subjunctive. This demonstrates that both conjugations go back to a common Proto-Semitic ancestor, which I will indicate as *yiqtVlu, ‑ūnV, without attempting to specify the final vowel. The difference in function between the Arabic and the Assyrian forms can be accounted for by typological evidence. In the history of languages, the relegation of verbal categories to subordinate clauses and their subsequent reanalysis as indicating subordination is a well-known process (see Haspelmath 1998 for a general account and D. Cohen 1984 for its occurrence in Semitic). This makes it plausible that the tense/aspect function of Arabic is primary and that the Akkadian subjunctive represents the residual function of a verbal category that has been replaced by a new form in its main uses (Kuryłowicz 1972: 60), a view that is corroborated by the fact mentioned earlier that it is functionally redundant. It is true that the subjunctive is somewhat atypical insofar as it has not acquired a irrealis function, but this is to explain these forms as variants of this i‑Modus. The putative subjunctive of the verb kasû ‘to bind’ in a-ka-as-sú(-ma) ARM 2, 94:23 (OB Mari) testifies to the original U/u vowel class of this verb, and this explanation may also apply to lā i-ra-aš-šu-ú ARM 27, 25:18 and li-ir-šu VOM p. 186 A.1101:35 from rašû ‘to get, acquire’, which is I/i elsewhere but may have had an (older?) U/u alternative in accordance with the general drift of III/voc U/u verbs towards the I/i class (see §3.5.3, pp. 78–79). The only form that remains as a witness for an emphatic use of the subjunctive is lā ta-ma-aš-šu-˹ú˺ St. Reiner p. 192:56 ‘do not forget!’ (OB lit.), which is clearly too narrow a basis for a grammatical category. It is of course possible that some of these forms are ultimately related to the use of the subjunctive in oaths. 58.  This was already observed by Landsberger 1924: 121–22; Kuryłowicz 1962: 54–55; Kienast 1995: 124; and Hasselbach 2005: 208–9. The Arabic alternation of ‑na and ‑ni is determined by the quality of the preceding vowel. The Proto-Semitic origin of the Arabic forms is confirmed by Ugaritic (Tropper 2000: 457–60), Aramaic (Segert 1990: 249–51), and by vestigial remains in Hebrew (Joüon and Muraoka 1991: 136–38).

9.3.  The Subjunctive

229

Pfv Indic

Pre-Ass Subj

OA Subj

MA Subj

Ar. Impfv 59

3ms

iprus

*yiprusu

iprusu or -ūni

iprusūni

yaqtulu

3fs

taprus

*taprusu

taprusu or -ūni

taprusūni

taqtulu

2ms

taprus

*taprusu

taprusu or -ūni

taprusūni

taqtulu

2fs

taprusī

*taprusīni

taprusīni

taprusīni

taqtulīna

1s

aprus

*ʾaprusu

aprusu or -ūni

aprusūni

ʾaqtulu

3du

iprusā

*yiprusāni 

iprusāni

—

yaqtulāni

3mp

iprusū

*yiprusūni

iprusūni

iprusūni

yaqtulūna

3fp

iprusā

*yiprusāni

iprusāni

iprusāni

(yaqtulna)

2p

taprusā

*taprusāni

taprusāni

taprusāni

taqtulūna

1p

niprus

*niprusu

niprusu or -ūni

niprusūni

naqtulu

60

Table 9.2: The spread of the subjunctive endings in Assyrian.

not a major problem.61 In fact, Akkadian itself offers an exact parallel, namely, the old perfective iprVs, which was restricted to subordinate clauses (and some other clause types; see §6.3.4, pp. 153–155) without becoming an irrealis form. This does not mean that all details of this process are straightforward and easy to reconstruct. In particular, it is problematic how to envisage the shift of the ending ‑u, ‑ūnV from an imperfective to a subordination marker and its subsequent disappearance from main clauses. We may hypothesize the following scenario, which builds on Kuryłowicz’s (1962: 52–55, 59–60; 1972: 60; 1973) pioneering explanation. Two features of the Proto-Semitic imperfective *yiqtVlu, ‑ūnV are crucial for the development of ‑u, ‑ūnV towards a subordination marker: the fact that—just as the imperfective of the older daughter languages—it could indicate simultaneity with a past event (Kuryłowicz 1973: 119–20) and the fact that it had the same inflectional stem as the perfective *yiqtul. 59.  For the Arabic paradigm, see, for instance, Fleisch 1979: 119–20. I have omitted the persons that do not exist in Akkadian (the 2du taqtulāni and the 2fp taqtulna), and I have bracketed the 3fp yaqtulna, the backgound of which is a matter of controversy; see Faber 1997: 7 and Diem 1997: 53–61. Krebernik (1993: 125) plausibly claims that ‑na is taken over from the respective feminine personal pronouns, which also end in -na (Ar ʾantunna ‘you’ and hunna ‘they’). 60.  As far as I know, this form is only attested in Sargonic Akkadian: i-li-ga-ni /yillikāni/ BIN 8, 265:8 ‘they two went’ (Subj), quoted as (55) above. 61.  It is more common that verb forms that are secondarily restricted to subordinate clauses have some kind of irrealis function as well (Noonan 1985: 51–54); the subjunctive categories in Romance and Germanic languages are typical examples. In this respect, the term subjunctive may be somewhat misleading; cf. Noonan’s definition quoted above in n. 37 (p. 220). Finite verb forms exclusively used to indicate subordination do occur outside Akkadian, however. Noonan (1985: 50) only mentions the “dependent” forms in Irish. Another instance is Amharic, where a new present formation, the “Compound Imperfect” yəsäbrall (cf. Leslau 1995: 341–45), arose in affirmative main clauses, leaving to the old form, the “Simple Imperfect” yəsäbr (1995: 300–302), the negative main clauses and irrealis and subordinate clauses including relative ones (1995: 344); see also Haspelmath 1998: 52, who refers to Leslau’s description, and Rundgren 1963b: 69.

230

The Subjunctive  9.3.

The replacement of *yiqtVlu, ‑ūnV with the new Impfv iparrVs in Akkadian started in main clauses, as is usually the case,62 and left its predecessor *yiprVsu, ‑ūnV stranded in subordinate contexts—i.e., both subordinate clauses and asyndetic uses dependent on a main verb, such as circumstantial clauses. In these clause types, the imperfective typically expresses simultaneity with a past event. This strengthened the association of *yiprVsu, ‑ūnV with past tense, a development that was greatly enhanced by the fact that it has the same inflectional stem as the inherited perfective iprVs. The contrast between iprVs in main clauses and iprVsu in subordinate clauses caused the endings of the old imperfective to be reanalyzed as subordination markers. As a result, they became obligatory in subordinate clauses and thus also attached to other finite forms, including the stative (insofar as possible), and they were banned from main clauses. This entailed the replacement of an original *yiparrasu, ‑ūnV (see §4.5.3, pp. 115–117) by *yiparras, ‑ū, and also created the usual markedness relationship of an unmarked main clause and a marked subordinate clause.63 This process was greatly facilitated by the fact that the different endings were no longer needed to distinguish the imperfective from the perfective, which was now based on gemination. Initially, the reanalysis of ‑u, ‑ūnV led to a period of fluctuation and inconsistency, which is reflected in our third-millennium sources as described in §9.3.2 (pp. 224–227), both in the nature of the vowel after n (‑ni versus ‑na) and in the conditions under which the additional suffix ‑nV was used. The incidental cases of ‑nV in Sargonic Akkadian and the earliest stages of Babylonian show that the marker ‑nV started to develop in the same direction as in Assyrian but did not become productive (or lost its productivity before our earliest texts). In the second millennium, the situation crystallized into the divergent systems of Babylonian and Assyrian. Babylonian gradually discarded ‑nV; Assyrian, on the other hand, reinterpreted it as an additional marker of subordination to be added to the end of the clause rather than to the verb form. This made it possible to detach it from the verb (when there is a suffixed pronoun), and to add it to the end of all subordinate clauses, both verbal and nominal.64 Admittedly, this scenario is fairly speculative. However, it has the great advantage of solving various vexing problems that led to a great deal of fruitless speculation in the past. First, we can discard all claims about the background of ‑u as a nominal marker (case marker or otherwise) that in some way has come to be attached to a finite verb form;65 none of these is in the least convincing.66 Second, we have a straightforward explanation for the etymology of Assyrian ‑ni, 62.  See Bybee et al. 1994: 230–36; Hock 1991: 332; Givón 1979: 48–50 about the tendency of embedded clauses to be conservative. 63.  For the markedness relationship between main and subordinate clauses, see Givón 1995: 32–39. 64.  See also Eilers 1968; T. D. Anderson 2000: 24. Eilers’s claim that the loss of -u/-ni in main clauses can be attributed to a phonetic process—the omission of endings at the end of a clause in pausal position—is very unlikely. Other endings do not seem to be affected by such a process until much later in the history of Akkadian. 65.  Several scholars have put forward proposals to this effect, although it is difficult to envisage how a case ending could spread to a finite verb form (unless indirectly, if this verb form goes back to an earlier nominal form), e.g., Diakonoff 1965: 91 n. 88, referring to earlier publications by A. P. Riftin, and Diakonoff 1988: 103; Gelb 1969: 108–12; Tropper 1994 (with Knudsen’s [1998] rejoinder); Voigt 1997: 219–21; Lipiński 1997: 351. Others have explained ‑u as a marker of nominalization parallel to the Sumerian suffix ‑a, e.g., Fleisch 1966: 275–76; von Soden 1991b: 473. Hetzron (1976a: 105) proposes to derive WSem *yaqtVlu from the jussive *yaqtVl with an “indicativizer” ‑u/‑nV (“an original ‘he is so that he would do’ ~ ‘he is to do’ becoming ‘he does/will do’”). A similar explanation was proposed by Voigt (2004: 49–50). It may be theoretically possible, but there does not seem to be any factual or typological evidence in support of it. For the methodological background of all these proposals, Gensler’s (2000: 261–63) remarks are relevant. 66.  For some speculations about the structure of PSem *yiqtulu, ‑ūnV, see §18.3.1 (pp. 589–590).

9.3.  The Subjunctive

231

which Edzard (1973: 129) considered “noch ungeklärt,” implicitly disavowing all explanations then available.67 Third, we can dispense with the typologically unlikely spread of ‑u/‑nV from subordinate clauses in Akkadian to main clauses in the rest of Semitic, which is often adduced to account for the different imperfective categories in Akkadian and West Semitic (see §4.4.1, p. 98).68 We still have to discuss the second function of the subjunctive, that of indicating that a statement is an oath. Akkadian basically has two formal devices to mark a clause as an oath, which we can conveniently distinguish as with šumma and without šumma.69 The construction with šumma (which normally introduces conditional clauses) mainly occurs in the later dialects and is therefore arguably secondary. Its importance for the present study lies in the fact that in Old Babylonian it can still have the indicative (GAG3 §185g–g*), whereas later on it has the subjunctive. Since šumma in its normal use as a conditional conjunction does not have a subjunctive, the use of the subjunctive in oaths introduced by šumma must be secondary, taken over from the oath construction without šumma.70 In oaths without šumma, which are characteristic of the older dialects, the use of the subjunctive is probably original. Negative oaths consistently use lā with the subjunctive.71 Positive oaths show greater variation: according to whether they are assertory (with the verb in the perfective or the stative referring to past or present tense) or promissory (with the verb in the imperfective referring to the future), they may have the verb in the subjunctive or the indicative and they may have or not have lū.72 However, the actual form the oath takes does not provide us with any clear information about the crucial question to be addressed here, namely, why the subjunctive is used in oaths in the first place. This is still a matter of speculation.73 The most likely assumption is that it is also a residual use of the original imperfective, since oaths are arguably a conservative environment 67.  Among these is Kienast’s (1960: 158; 2001: 269) claim that both ‑u and ‑ni are “nachgestellte Demonstrativa” (which is vacuous without an additional account of how they could become a verbal ending), and that of Gelb (1969: 107) that ‑uni combines the subjunctive endings ‑u and ‑i (sic!) with n as a glide (which presupposes a process of agglutination of discrete morphemes that is completely alien to the structure of Semitic). 68.  E.g., R. Voigt 1988a: 118; 2004: 36–37; Lipiński 1997: 342, 351; Kienast 2001: 338. This view was criticized by T. D. Anderson (2000: 22). Among earlier comments, see in particular Polotsky (1964: 111): “no really convincing answer has yet been given to the third question” [i.e., about the emergence of *yiqtVlu], and Kienast (1995: 124): “die abweichende Funktion [of ‑u in Ar yaqtulu versus the Akkadian subjunctive] bleibt zu erklären”). 69.  For general accounts, see GAG §185; GKT §§131–32; Huehnergard 2005a: 436–38; Malbran-Labat 1979/84. 70.  For reported instances of subjunctives in main clauses apart from oaths, see n. 57 (p. 227). 71.  In Old Assyrian, rarely ulā (GAG §185c; GKT §132b). 72.  The t‑perfect does not seem to be used in oaths, as stated explicitly in GKT §131c for Old Assyrian; GAG §185 does not quote any oaths with a t‑perfect (apart from a few exceptional cases in šumma-oaths quoted in GAG3 §185g*). If this is correct, it is another archaic feature of the oath formula. 73.  Because oaths in Old Babylonian predominantly occur in legal documents, which are strongly dependent on Sumerian models in their formulations, Dombradi (1996: II 343) argues that the use of the subjunctive results from a literal translation of the corresponding Sumerian formula, which uses a dependent (nominalized) construction to express the contents of an oath. This may be an attractive explanation for the oaths in these particular texts, but it leaves us empty-handed with regard to another large corpus of subjunctives in main clauses: the Old Assyrian treaties, such as those published by S. Çeçen and K. Hecker in St. von Soden (AOAT 240), pp. 31–41 and the two published by C. Günbattı in St. Larsen, pp. 249–68. It seems unlikely that Sumerian influence has played a role here.

232

The Ventive  9.4.

where old forms can survive.74 According to Haspelmath’s investigation of old presents (1998), the main new functions of presents that have been ousted from their original function are future and subjunctive, but many of them also have additional minor functions, such as being used in proverbs, in stage directions, in narrative, as performatives, etc. It seems plausible that, in a specific language, oaths can also retain old forms that have become obsolete in other environments. It is, however, not the case that in oaths the original imperfective *yiqtVlu, ‑ūnV has simply been maintained: oaths use exactly the same forms as subordinate clauses, with the imperfective subjunctive iparrVsu referring to the future and the perfective subjunctive iprVsu referring to the past, and in Assyrian the particle ‑ni comes at the end of the verb form both in oaths and in subordinate clauses (GKT §132a, in particular BIN 4, 184:1–9 quoted there). This shows that the subjunctive in oaths was reanalyzed on the basis of its use in subordinate clauses and that in fact the oath was felt as a kind of subordinate clause without an introductory conjunction.75

9.4. The Ventive 9.4.1.  The form of the ventive The finite forms of an Akkadian verb can be extended with a suffix that appears in three allomorphs in complementary distribution: -am, -m, -nim. It is traditionally called “ventive,” a term coined by Landsberger (1924: 114), who was the first to gain a correct insight into the nature of this grammatical category. The suffix -am occurs after otherwise endingless forms, i.e., immediately after the verb stem, -m only after the suffix -ī of the second-person singular feminine, and -nim after the plural and dual endings -ū and -ā; see column II of Table 9.3 for the conjugation in its Old Babylonian form, with the perfective as the model for the prefix conjugations. I

II

III

IV

V

VI

Pfv

Pfv + Vent

Imp

Imp+Vent

Stative

Stat+Vent

3ms.

iprus

iprus-am

—

—

paris

pars-am

3fs.

(taprus)

(taprus-am) —

----

parsat

—

2ms.

taprus

taprus-am

purus

purs-am

parsāta

—

2fs.

taprusī

taprusī-m

pursī

pursī-m

parsāti

—

1s.

aprus

aprus-am

—

—

parsāku

—

3du.

iprusā

iprusā-nim

—

—

parsā

parsā-nim

3mp.

iprusū

iprusū-nim

—

—

parsū

parsū-nim

3fp.

iprusā

iprusā-nim

—

—

parsā

parsā-nim

taprusā

taprusā-nim pursā

pursānim

parsātunu

—

parsātina

—

niprus

niprus-am

—

parsānu

—

2mp. 2fp. 1p.

—

Table 9.3: The ventive endings after perfective, imperative, and stative. 74.  Or where new forms do not penetrate: a good parallel of this is the absence of the t‑perfect in assertory oaths, although semantically the t‑perfect would fit very well there; see especially §6.3.1 (pp. 142–144). 75.  One could argue that the reason for the subjunctive in oaths is that the statement is actually dependent on an unexpressed main verb “I swear that . . .” or the like, with the complement clause introduced by kīma ‘that’, for instance (cf. Deutscher 2000: 37–60). However, in historical Akkadian this construction is not actually attested with verbs of swearing.

9.4.  The Ventive

233

In the stative, the ventive morpheme can only be attached to the third-person singular masculine (pars-am) and the third-person plural forms (3mp parsū-nim, 3fp parsā-nim).76 This is doubtless a secondary development by analogy with the prefix conjugations, just as in the subjunctive.77 The ventive cannot be attached to non-finite verb forms. However, if an infinitive dependent on a main verb needs a ventive, it is possible to add the ventive to the main verb (GKT §78b; Veenhof 1986: 248–49), see (13) and (14) in §8.2.1 (p. 196). If a ventive is followed by a suffixed accusative or dative pronoun, final -m is assimilated to the initial consonant of the pronoun, in spite of the fact that m does not regularly assimilate to a following consonant: ṭurdaššu ‘send him to me!’ < *ṭurdam-šu, ašpurakkum ‘I wrote to you’ dative > ethical dative > emphatic, or the like.101 As long as we do not know the answer, we can only speculate about the historical background of the ventive and, in particular, about its relationship to similar verbal categories in West Semitic. 97.  According to the copy on pl. 8; the transliteration omits -ni-. 98.  Nothing definite can be said about the ventive in Eblaite. There are several verb forms attested which end in the sign AN (which might be read ⟨am6  ⟩), but its function is obscure: ù-wa-ì-da-an ‘(which) I have ordered’ (quoted in Fronzaroli 1984: 152); ù-sa-ti-an ARET 13, 19: III 7 ‘I announced’; lu-sa-ti-an ARET 13, 19: III 11 ‘he(?) announced’; i-ba-ti-ʾà-an ARET 13, 1: IV 8 ‘it is/was opened’, and nu-da-bí-an ARET 13, 9: r.IX 11 ‘we brought(?)’. Moreover, i-da-kam4 ARET 13, 5: r.X 12 may possibly be interpreted as /yittalkam/ or the like (Edzard 1992: 214), a Gt‑stem of (h)alākum ‘to go /come’ with ventive, which is common in Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian. 99.  There is no factual basis for the speculations by Testen (1993a: 300–301 n. 10) about an original difference between the ventive and the first-person singular dative. 100.  For a more-detailed account of the functional development of the ventive, see Kouwenberg 2002: 233–39, and the critical comments in Loesov 2004c, 2007. 101.  This was argued, for instance, by Gelb (1969: 136) and Kienast (2001: 272).

9.4.  The Ventive

241

The most important of these categories are the following: • the cohortative suffix ‑ā in Hebrew and Ugaritic, which is used for exhortations in the first person and after the imperative (Joüon and Muraoka 1991: 143, 374–75; Tropper 2000: 455–57) • the Arabic subjunctive yaqtVla, which is used in subordinate clauses to express purpose and intention, and after a number of modal particles and conjunctions (Fischer 1972: 97) • various formations with a suffix containing -n(n)-, in particular the energicus formations in Arabic, Ugaritic, and (in traces) in Hebrew and Aramaic. The historical background of these categories and their mutual relationships are themselves controversial and the subject of much speculation. The general idea seems to be that at least the Arabic subjunctive is a secondary formation ultimately derived from the energicus via pausal forms in which ‑an becomes ‑a.102 The most promising candidates for comparison with the ventive, then, are the formations with a suffix containing -n(n)-, since they contain a nasal like the ventive and may show similarities in use. There are several of them, but they are rather heterogeneous and their exact function is often elusive (Krebernik 1993; Testen 1993a: 296–302; Hasselbach 2006). By far the best known is the energicus in Arabic. It comes in two forms, a long one, traditionally called energicus I, and a short one, energicus II. Table 9.3 (adopted from Wright 1967: I 298) shows the conjugation of the energicus I and II and the corresponding forms of the other prefix conjugations of Classical Arabic: Impfv

Subj

Juss

energicus I

energicus II

3ms

yaqtulu

yaqtula

yaqtul

yaqtulanna

yaqtulan

3fs

taqtulu

taqtula

taqtul

taqtulanna

taqtulan

2ms

taqtulu

taqtula

taqtul

taqtulanna

taqtulan

2fs

taqtulīna

taqtulī

taqtulī

taqtulinna

taqtulin

3dum

yaqtulāni

yaqtulā

yaqtulā

yaqtulānni

—

3duf

taqtulāni

taqtulā

taqtulā

taqtulānni

—

2du

taqtulāni

taqtulā

taqtulā

taqtulānni

—

3mp

yaqtulūna

yaqtulū

yaqtulū

yaqtulunna

yaqtulun

3fp

taqtulna

taqtulna

taqtulna

taqtulnānni

—

2mp

taqtulūna

taqtulū

taqtulū

taqtulunna

taqtulun

2fp

taqtulna

taqtulna

taqtulna

taqtulnānni

—

1p

naqtulu

naqtula

naqtul

naqtulanna

naqtulan

Table 9.4: The prefix conjugations of Arabic with the energicus I and II.

According to Wright (1967: II 41–43), the most prominent uses of the energicus comprise emphatic future statements (preceded by la-), commands, prohibitions, wishes, questions, and conditional clauses, both in the protasis and the apodosis.103 102.  For the secondary nature of the Arabic subjunctive, see Fleisch 1947/8: 55–56; Testen 1994b; and Tropper 1997b: 403–4. 103.  See also Reckendorf 1967: 63–64; Fleisch 1979: 131–32; and Zewi 1999.

242

The Ventive  9.4.

Superficially, the endingless forms of the energicus II neatly correspond to the Akkadian ventive: yaqtulan ≈ iprusam (cf. the ending of the accusative singular: ‑an ≈ ‑am).104 If we consider the conjugation as a whole, however, an important difference appears: the ventive shows an alternation of three morphemes in complementary distribution according to the final vowel of the verb form: ‑am, ‑m, and ‑nim. This allomorphy has no synchronic motivation but must go back to an earlier stage of Akkadian (or Proto-Semitic). In the energicus I, a single morpheme is added to all verb forms regardless of their ending and the resulting phonological problems are solved by means of a purely phonological adjustment. The energicus can therefore simply be accounted for by the synchronic phonological rules of Arabic, which suggests that the energicus suffix(es) is/ are less integrated into the verbal system than the ventive and that it may therefore be a more recent development. Reckendorf (1967: 63) and Zaborski (1996a: 75), for instance, regard ‑an(na) as a particle attached to the conjugation of the jussive or the subjunctive (to which it is functionally most closely related), with the concomitant shortening of final ī and ū (e.g., *yaqtulū + ‑nna > yaqtulunna). This suggests that the energicus I forms result from an inner-Arabic (or innerCentral Semitic; see below) development and are not directly related to the Akkadian ventive. The relationship between the two energicus forms is problematic: it is unclear whether the long variant yaqtulanna is an extension of the short one yaqtulan or whether it is the other way around.105 It is generally assumed that Ugaritic also has a verbal category with a suffix ‑anna parallel to the Arabic energicus I, which Tropper (2000: 497–501) calls “Energikus I.” There is no conclusive evidence pointing to the existence of a form parallel to the Arabic energicus II with the suffix ‑an (Tropper’s “Energikus III,” 2000: 504–6). Tropper also identifies an “Energikus II,” which is formally characterized by a double suffix: -nn- (2000: 501–4); it is an allomorph of the “Energikus I” and functionally parallel to it, but its formal interpretation is uncertain. The consonantal script makes these distinctions extremely tentative. An important point is that the suffixes in question can also be attached to forms other than the prefix conjugation: the imperative (as in Arabic), the suffix conjugation, and even the narrative infinitive (2000: 222–23, 500, 503). The suffix nn is often separated from the verb itself by a word divider (a single wedge). All these features strengthen the possibility that n and in particular nn are actually particles rather than verbal endings.106 Sabaic may also provide some interesting evidence, in spite of its purely consonantal script (see Testen 1993a). In this language, the prefix conjugation may have a suffix ‑n in the singular and ‑nn in the plural: yqtl-n versus yqtl-nn (Testen 1993a: 297–98; Stein 2003: 181–85). Testen (1993a: 304) interprets these forms as *yaqtVlan and *yaqtVlūnin, respectively, and employs them to clarify the etymology of the Arabic energicus I and II. He argues that the singular form is 104.  The contrast between word-final ‑m in Akkadian and ‑n in West Semitic, which is specific to grammatical morphemes, is a subject of debate itself. A change ‑m > ‑n has been posited by Brockelmann 1908: 136–37; Voigt 1997: 211; and Testen 1993a. Conversely, it has also been argued that Akkadian ‑m goes back to an earlier suffix *‑n (e.g., Hasselbach 2006: 315), in particular because of its assimilation to a following suffix pronoun, which is regular for n but unusual for m (see Krebernik 1993: 128 and Kienast 2001: 292 for a discussion of the issue; and also von Soden [1988: 276–81], who is sceptical). A less far-reaching explanation is perhaps preferable—for instance, the fact that ventive and suffix form a close-knit unity in a peripheral position in the word, which may favour assimilation more than other positions. 105.  See Zaborski 1996a for some inconclusive speculations. 106.  See also Pardee 1984: 244–45 n. 14. Kienast (2001: 280) also ascribes a directional meaning to verb forms with a suffix -n- in Ugaritic. Tropper (2000), however, does not mention anything of the kind.

9.4.  The Ventive

243

directly related to the short energicus II yaqtVlan in Arabic and that the plural form lies at the basis of the energicus I: he explains ‑anna from ‑nin, which became ‑nna or ‑nni through the regular syncope of a short vowel between identical consonants and the addition of a final vowel to avoid a word-final geminate. Subsequently, the two forms became optional variants of each other as energicus I and II (1993a: 302–6). The uncertainty about the exact function of the Sabaic forms and the purely consonantal alphabet of Sabaic make the interpretation of these forms hazardous, but if Testen’s interpretation is correct, the Sabaic forms provide a striking parallel to Akkadian iprusam, iprusūnim. Both conjugations may then go back to PSem *yiqtVlam, ‑ūnim through the change of word-final ‑m to ‑n in Sabaic.107 Finally, Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic have preserved a number of forms that may offer an important formal and semantic parallel to the Akkadian ventive. The first one is the cohortative suffix ‑ā. Fassberg (1999) has shown that in Biblical Hebrew the imperative with this suffix (qoṭlāh) is used when the action of the verb is directed to the speaker, whereas the simple imperative is used when the action of the verb is directed elsewhere (1999: 10). The second form is the morpheme ‑n(n)‑, which in Hebrew and Aramaic is often inserted between endingless prefix forms and a suffixed object pronoun, e.g., He yiqṭəlennū ‘he kills him’ (alongside yiqṭəlẹhū) (Joüon and Muraoka 1991: 172–73; Segert 1990: 310–11). It is generally assumed to be a residue of an energicus suffix *‑an. This ‑n(n)‑ is also used in the imperative before suffixes, and Joosten (1999) argues that such imperative forms show the same semantic feature as the imperatives with the suffix ‑ā, e.g. tənennāh 1 Sam 21: 10 ‘give it to me’. These two points suggest, first, that the cohortative ending ‑āh goes back to ‑an, parallel to the Arabic energicus ‑an, which has a pausal form ‑ā, and, second, that there may also be a possible functional relationship between the Akkadian ventive and at least some of the West Semitic suffixes starting with a. These diverse scraps of evidence suggest that, in addition to the Impfv *yiqtVlu, ‑ūnV and the Pfv *yiqtVl, ‑ū Proto-Semitic had a third prefix category *yiqtVlam, *yiqtVlūnim (of which the plural form is rather uncertain). It is built on the imperfective by means of the suffix ‑(a)m, since ‑nim occurs in those persons that according to the reconstructed original distribution of ‑nV (see §9.3.3, pp. 228–229) have ‑nV in Proto-Semitic,108 with the function of conveying emphasis and/ or expressing a kind of first-person benefactive.109 The former may survive in the “emphatic” ventives of Akkadian discussed in §9.4.2.3 (pp. 236-37) and in the energicus formations of Central Semitic, the latter has greatly expanded and systematized in Akkadian, and survives marginally in the Hebrew cohortative forms elucidated by Fassberg (1999) and Joosten (1999). 107.  Stein (2003: 182) endorses Testen’s view, but Hasselbach (2006: 315) rejects it. See Nebes 1994b about the difference between the short and the long forms of the prefix conjugation (especially pp. 202–4); and Tropper 1997c. 108.  This does not apply to the second-person singular feminine, which has ‑īm rather than ‑nim in the ventive, whereas it has ‑na in Arabic (taqtulīna) and ‑ni in the Assyrian subjunctive (taprusīni  ). This is not surprising, however: as in many other cases in Semitic, the Akkadian second-person singular feminine is (re)modelled on the corresponding masculine form: taprus : taprusam § taprusī : taprusīm. This is doubtless also the reason why the second-person feminine prefix is not **ti‑ (as might be expected on the basis of the independent subject pronoun attī), but ta‑, as in the masculine. It is possible that **ti‑ was analogically replaced by ta‑, as claimed by Kienast 2001: 197 and Hasselbach 2004: 31, but it is questionable whether it ever existed at all. 109.  To what extent this *yiqtVlam, ‑ūnim can be related to, or even built on, the Sargonic Akkadian form ending in ‑a, which appears to be an alternative to the u-subjunctive (see §9.3.2, p. 224), is hard to determine.

244

The Ventive  9.4.

It has been argued that the directional use of the ventive morpheme has arisen—or perhaps has become predominant—under the influence of the Sumerian ventive, which is expressed by the prefix mu‑.110 This is possible but difficult to prove. 110.  This idea goes back to Landsberger (1924: 123) and has been endorsed by various others, for instance, Edzard 1984: 111 n. 1; Pedersén 1989: 434; Krebernik 1993: 127 n. 11; Testen 1993a: 301. Von Soden (1988: 277–78) is sceptical.

Part Three

The Derived Verbal Stems Chapter 10

The Derived Verbal Stems:   General Features

10.1. Introduction This chapter describes the general aspects of the system of derived verbal stems as it is found in Akkadian: their systematic structure, their status as derived verbs, the contrast between regular and irregular verbs in terms of their meaning, productive and unproductive derivation, and a general account of the kind of functions they perform. In later chapters, I will discuss the individual stems in detail, compare them with other Semitic languages and describe how they may have developed in prehistoric times.

10.2.  Definition One of the most characteristic features of the Semitic languages is the existence of a highly systematic pattern of verbal derivation.1 It is used to derive secondary verbs from basic verbs by adding one or more formatives to the simple stem. These formatives include infixes, prefixes, gemination, reduplication, vowel lengthening, and combinations of them. Generally speaking, a formative has a specific function, so that its presence correlates with a predictable semantic or syntactic modification of the meaning of the simple verb. From the G‑stem verb parāsu ‘to cut, separate’, for instance, we can derive several secondary verbs, such as naprusu with passive meaning by means of a prefix n(a)‑, purrusu with intensive and pluractional meaning by means of gemination of R2, and šuprusu with causative meaning by means of a prefix š(a)‑. Each of these verbs has a full paradigm that has the same structure as that of the simple verb, with only such adaptations as are necessary to accommodate the extra formative, and many of them have a regular semantic relationship to the basic verb.

1.  Literature on the derived verbal stems is legion; for Semitic in general, see Brockelmann 1908: 504–44 (§257); Castellino 1962: 114–39; Moscati, ed. 1964: 122–31; Lipiński 1997: 378–415; Stempel 1999: 110–18; and Kienast 2001: 207–236. For specific languages, see in particular Wright 1967: I 30–47 and Fleisch 1979: 271–335 for Arabic; Joüon and Muraoka 1991: 149–70 and Waltke and O’Connor 1990: 351–61 for Hebrew; Dillmann and Bezold 1907: 140–212 for Ethiopic; GAG §86–95 and Edzard 1965 for Akkadian.

245

246

Formal Aspects  10.3.

Most verbs have several such secondary verbs. This gives rise to an intricate system of “derived verbs,” which can be classified into “derived verbal stems” or simply “derived stems” according to their formative2 and which is exploited for the expression of various kinds of semantic and grammatical notions, among which voice (passive, reciprocal, etc.), causation, and verbal plurality are prominent. However, hardly any verbs have the full range of possible derived stems; how many and which ones a given verb will have is basically unpredictable (and for Akkadian at least partly dependent on chance occurrence), but there is a clear correlation with meaning and frequency: transitive verbs tend to select a different set from intransitive verbs, and frequent verbs tend to have a larger set than infrequent verbs.

10.3.  Formal Aspects The main formatives of the derived verbal stems of Akkadian are the prefixes n(a)- and š(a)‑, the infixes ‑t- and ‑tan-, gemination of R2, and combinations of these; for some others, which occur sporadically, see below (p. 248, no. 3). On the basis of these formatives, the verbal stems can be divided into primary, secondary, and tertiary. The primary stems (the “Hauptstammformen” according to GAG §86b) are the G‑, the N‑, the Š‑, and the D‑stem. The G‑stem (iparrVs) is the simple stem; the other three are extended by means of the prefix n(a)‑ (the N‑stem ipparrVs < *yi-n-p . . .), the prefix š(a)‑ (the Š‑stem ušapras), and gemination of R2 (the D‑stem uparras), respectively. These stems are primary because they can serve as the basis for a (further) derivation by means of infixes, which gives rise to the secondary and tertiary stems. The secondary stems (or “t‑stems”) have an infixed ‑t‑ after the first consonant of the inflectional stem of the primary stem. This results in the Gt‑stem iptarrVs, the (very rare) Nt‑stem ittaprVs, the Št1‑stem uštapras, and the Dt‑stem uptarras (see below for the Št2‑stem uštaparras). Finally, to each primary stem corresponds a tertiary stem (or “tan‑stem”), which (at least in the imperfective) adds -n- to the sequence -ta- in the secondary stems, or alternatively, inserts -tan- after the first consonant of the inflectional stem of the primary stem: the Gtn‑stem iptanarrVs, the Ntn‑stem ittanaprVs, the Štn‑stem uštanapras, and the Dtn‑stem uptanarras. We can represent the primary, secondary, and tertiary stems in a diagram, as in Table 10.1, illustrated by means of the imperfective of the usual sample verb parāsu: primary G

iparras

N

secondary

tertiary

1,316 Gt

iptarras

167 Gtn

iptanarras

312

ipparras

395 Nt

ittapras

6 Ntn

ittanapras

98

Š

ušapras

369 Št1/2

uštap(ar)ras

36+94 Štn

uštanapras

53

D

uparras

935 Dt

uptarras

237 Dtn

uptanarras

88

Table 10.1:  Diagram of the Akkadian derived verbal stems.

The numbers are meant to give an impression of the frequency of each verbal stem. They are based on a count of the verbal stems listed in AHw and should not be taken too literally because 2.  I will use the term “(derived) verbal stems” as the most simple and self-evident designation. Other terms current in the literature are verbal themes, modifications, conjugations (Joüon and Muraoka 1991: 124), forms (Wright 1967), (derived) measures (Versteegh 1997), patterns (Holes 1995), degrees (Hetzron 1973/74: 36 n. 1), classes (Kuryłowicz 1972: 48–49 and Izre'el 2005: 536), stirpes (Diakonoff 1988: 104), Stammformen (von Soden, GAG §86a), and the Hebrew term binyanim; see in general Goshen-Gottstein 1969: 70–71 n. 1.

10.3.  Formal Aspects

247

of the numerous uncertainties inherent in interpreting cuneiform texts, the ambiguity of many forms, the subjective decisions involved in counting verbal forms in general, and the numerous new instances from texts published since the appearance of AHw.3 The members of the diagram are arranged so as to show the regular structure they have relative to each other. The primary derived stems have an explicit morpheme distinguishing them from the unmarked G‑stem; the secondary stems share the infixes ‑t‑ and ‑tan‑, respectively, as their distinctive element and are in addition characterized by the morpheme of the corresponding primary stem (zero in case of the G‑stem), so that most of them are doubly marked. There is a clear increase in complexity from left to right caused by the number or the length of the morphemes added to the stem. There is also an increase in complexity from top to bottom, but only between the G‑stem on the one hand, and the other three primary stems, on the other. The latter are marked vis-à-vis the G‑stem but not marked in relation to each other. In addition, the two upper rows of G‑ and N‑stem with their derivatives, taken together, contrast with the two lower rows of D‑ and Š‑stem and their derivatives on four points:4 • they share the same prefix vowels (i/a versus u in D and Š) • they copy the imperfective vowel (see §4.2, pp. 88–89) of the G‑stem, whereas D and Š have their own fixed vowel pattern • they have different prefix and suffix bases (see §2.2.1, pp. 31–32): ‑PRvS, PaRvS(‑) for G, ‑n‑PaRvS, na-PRvS(‑) for N, whereas D and Š have a single base for their entire paradigm (Pa/uRRvS and Ša/uPRvS) • the t‑perfects of G and N have the same vowel as the imperfective, whereas the t‑perfects of D and Š have the same vowel as the perfective (see §6.2, pp. 138–139) Most of these differences are determined by the relationship of these stems to the G‑stem and by the way they developed historically; I will discuss them in greater detail in the sections about the individual stems. It is important to realize, however, that the diagram has a certain historical relevance as well, insofar as the primary and secondary stems have close parallels in other Semitic languages and may therefore be reconstructed to Proto-Semitic, whereas the tertiary stems are (largely) an Akkadian innovation. The formal regularity and transparency of the system of the verbal stems is immediately obvious. Already in the first full-scale grammar of Akkadian, that of Delitzsch, the verbal stems are presented as a coherent system of oppositions in the form of a diagram (Delitzsch 1889: 229), which was modelled on the one developed for Geʿez in Dillmann and Bezold 1907: 141.5 Table 10.1 is essentially Delitzsch’s diagram translated into modern notation, with the addition of a few stems Delitzsch had not yet identified and a different order in the vertical column. However, this kind of scheme has an important drawback: inevitably, some forms do not fit in and as a result run the risk of being marginalized in grammatical description. In addition, it requires a certain degree of schematization and subjectivity as to what criteria we adopt for including or excluding a given formal category as a derived stem. Therefore, Table 10.1 is an “ideal” scheme, since it also depends on a number of subjective choices:

3.  The numbers are adopted from GAV pp. 110–11. Verbs and derived stems found in texts published after the publication of AHw are not included. Streck (2003a: 1) gives slightly different numbers for some stems. 4.  See also Goetze 1947: 59. 5.  See Goshen-Gottstein 1969: 74–79 for the history of this form of representation.

248

Functional Aspects  10.4.

1. It does not include the quadriradical verbs, which have their own more reduced system, basically restricted to N‑ and Š‑stems with the corresponding secondary and tertiary stems; they will be discussed separately in chaps. 12 and 13. 2. I have excluded the ŠD‑stem, which does not fit into the scheme: it is not primary, because it cannot be extended with the ‑t‑ or ‑tan‑ infix (not counting a few doubtful forms), nor obviously secondary or tertiary. Moreover, it is arguably an artificial creation of the literary language; see further §13.3 (pp. 334–337). 3. I have also omitted some marginal devices for extending the stems included in the diagram: gemination of R3 in the paradigm of the II/gem verbs (see §16.6.1, pp. 493–494) and reduplication of R2 in a small group of Dt‑stems (see chap. 15). These forms are best regarded as variants of the corresponding regular forms. 4. However, I have included the Št2‑stem as a variant of the Št1‑stem because of its frequency and its similarity in form, although it does not belong in the diagram if we consider its function, as I will argue in §14.6.2.2 (pp. 404–411). The number of verbal stems, including the G-stem, can conveniently be taken to be fourteen, the thirteen members of the scheme (separating Št1 and Št2) plus the ŠD‑stem. These fourteen stems can be regarded as the “canonical” stems.6 They comprise the vast majority of Akkadian verb forms. A second point in which the diagram may be misleading is that it suggests that all stems are neatly distinguished from each other in their entire paradigm. This is not the case. A major source of complications is the fact that some formatives are used both to mark a verbal stem and a tense. First, the t‑infix functions as the marker of both the t‑perfect and the secondary stems, so that the t‑perfect of the primary stems is identical with the perfective of the corresponding secondary stem: iptaras is both t‑perfect of the G‑stem and perfective of the Gt‑stem, uptarris both t‑perfect of the D‑stem and perfective of the Dt‑stem, etc. Which of the two options applies in a given case can only be determined on the basis of the context. Second, gemination of R2 serves as the imperfective marker in the G‑stem and most derived stems but also as the marker of the Gtn‑stem and the D‑stem. Another source of ambiguity is the fact that except for the Gtn‑stem the tertiary stems are identical in form to the secondary stems in all forms outside the imperfective, so that the same form serves as a passive and as a pluractional active of a primary stem. For instance, the form uptarris, which I just mentioned, can also be the perfective of the Dtn‑stem.

10.4.  Functional Aspects Most derived verbs express a predictable semantic or syntactic modification of the simple verb. Therefore, the diagram also has a functional side: the formal oppositions shown in the diagram reflect the functional oppositions among the derived stems, at least in principle. If we include in the scheme presented above the hierarchy which determines these functional relationships by means of arrows, its systematic nature becomes even more apparent; see Table 10.2 This diagram is identical to the formal diagram (Table 10.1), apart from the fact that the primary stems are in the middle, between the secondary and tertiary stems.7 This reflects their functional relationship: both the secondary and the tertiary stems are derivations of the primary stems, but 6.  They are comparable to the Stems I–X in Arabic, which are usually contrasted with the “rare” Stems XI to XV; see, e.g., Fleisch 1979: 274 “les formes dérivées usuelles” versus ibid. 330 “les formes verbales dérivées dites ‘rares.’” 7.  The Št2‑stem has not been included, because it does not have a regular functional relationship to another stem; see §14.6.2.2 (pp. 404–411).

10.4.  Functional Aspects

249

secondary Gt

∞

Nt

∞

Dt Št1

∞

∞

primary

tertiary

G

§

N

§

Ntn

§

Štn

•

D Š

§

Gtn

Dtn

Table 10.2: The functional relations among the derived verbal stems.

synchronically they are not directly related to each other: the tertiary stems do not function as pluractionals to the secondary stems, in spite of the fact that they share the infix -t-.8 This curious fact can be explained from the way the tertiary stems developed historically: although they originated as derivations from the secondary stems, they came to be associated with the primary stems, a process which will be described in detail in §14.7.6 (pp. 431–437). As a result, Table 10.2 reflects the actual relationships between the verbal stems, whereas Table 10.1 shows the original state of affairs from a historical point of view. The increase in formal complexity noted in the previous section is paralleled by an increase in functional complexity. For instance, the Š‑stem is normally causative to the G‑stem, and the Štn‑stem is pluractional to the Š‑stem, so that the Štn‑stem is both causative and pluractional. This gives the system an extraordinary degree of transparency and isomorphism—and hence of stability: already in the oldest texts, it exists in its complete form (as far as we can tell), and it remains largely unchanged in the course of Akkadian history, apart from the fact that from Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian onward some stems started to drop out of use, especially the t‑stems (see §14.3.4, p. 371; and §14.5.3, p. 388). However, whereas the formal regularity applies to almost all verbs, the functional regularity only applies to a part of them. Each derived stem includes verbs with an irregular, unpredictable meaning. For the sake of brevity, I will refer to them as irregular derived verbs, but this only refers to their meaning, not to their form (unless indicated otherwise). Regular derived verbs have a predictable meaning that can be analysed into the lexical meaning of the basic verb and the grammatical function of the stem in question. For instance, šakānu ‘to place’ has a regular causative Š‑stem šuškunu whose meaning can be described as ‘to place + CAUS’ and a passive N‑stem naškunu that means ‘to place + PASS’. Of these “features,” the notion of placing resides in the radicals škn, the notions CAUS and PASS in the prefixes š(a)- and n(a)-, respectively, in combination with the specific pattern imposed upon the radicals. As a result, regular derived verbs are embedded in a network of associations. On the one hand, because of their lexical stem they are associated with other derived stems of the same root, especially with the basic verb; on the other hand, because of their derived stem affix, they are associated with other members of the same verbal stem. This network has a double function: it makes the system productive, thus enabling a speaker to create new verbs with a specific form and meaning, and for existing derived verbs, it strengthens the formal and semantic association with the basic verb, stabilizing the form and the meaning of the derived verb and thus countering lexicalization.

8.  For possible exceptions, see chap. 14 n. 249 (p. 434).

250

The Relationship between the G‑Stem and the Derived Stems  10.5.

Irregular derived verbs, on the other hand, have a fundamentally different status: since they are not analysable and not part of a productive process, they are in principle independent verbs9 in which the verbal stem is simply a formal vehicle for expressing a certain lexical concept. Almost all derived stems include irregular verbs. Overall they form a fairly small minority, but the proportion of regular to irregular verbs varies considerably. Generally speaking, irregular verbs are relatively numerous in the primary derived stems, relatively rare in the secondary stems, and very rare in the tertiary stems (with the possible exception of the Ntn‑stem). I will discuss this further in the context of the individual stems. The existence of irregular derived stems is an inherent feature of the system, caused on the one hand by the universal process of semantic change, and on the other hand by the specific way each derived stem has developed. The two main causes of irregularity are lexical­ization (see §2.2.3, pp. 35–36) and denominalization. The former changes the meaning of an individual derived verb and thus tends to separate it from the basic verb. Derived verbs with a high frequency are especially prone to this. Šūbulu, for instance, the Š‑stem of wabālu ‘to bring, carry’, originally means ‘to cause to bring/carry’ but in practice it is used as an independent verb ‘to send’. Denominali­ zation creates verbs that may formally belong to a derived stem but get their meaning from the source noun rather than from another verb. It is responsible for the notoriously irregular function of the Št2‑stem and is also an important function of the D‑stem (see §14.6.2.2, pp. 404–411; and §11.4, pp. 277–278, respectively). Finally, and most importantly, what neither of the two diagrams shows is that, under the surface of this regularity, massive changes can be going on that undermine the structure of the system without visibly affecting it. Lexicalization disrupts the semantic associations between different verbal stems of the same verb; grammaticalization causes whole categories to shift from one slot to another and thus to disrupt the isomorphic structure of the verbal paradigm. This happened, for instance, with the shift of iptarVs from a Gt perfective to a t‑perfect of the basic stem and the rise of gemination in the paradigm of the G‑stem. As I will argue in chap. 14, this kind of shift is a major cause of the decline of the secondary stems during the course of Akkadian history.

10.5. The Relationship between the G‑Stem and the Derived Stems The relationship between the G‑stem and the derived stems is determined by the unmarked nature of the G‑stem (see §3.2, pp. 53–54; and Edzard 1965). The G‑stem is the pivot of the entire system from which all other stems are derived, either directly or indirectly via the corresponding primary stem. Within the primary stems, there is an opposition between the G‑stem on the one hand, and the N‑, D‑, and Š‑stems, on the other, but the latter are not directly in opposition.10 The derived stems, then, constitute a multi-level system in which a derived stem may itself be the basic form of another derived stem. In principle, this process is unidirectional.11

9.  For the status of regular derived verbs, see §10.5 below. 10.  In other words, the N‑stem is not normally used as a passive to the D‑stem, nor is the Š used as a causative to the D‑stem, etc. However, in verb classes that do not have a G-stem (the quadriradical verbs and some N tantum verbs), N and Š are directly in opposition to each other; see §13.2.2.5 (p. 333). 11.  Under certain conditions, however, the functional relationship may be reversed: there are some G‑stems that may secondarily serve as intransitives to frequent transitive D-stems: for instance, qerēbu ‘to be/come near’ may be used as passive/intransitive to qurrubu ‘to offer’, lit., ‘to bring near’ (CAD Q 234 s.v. 4), and paḫāru ‘to come together’ occurs also as passive/intransitive of puḫḫuru ‘to bring together’ in Old Assyrian (CAD P 27 s.v. 1e). The frequency of these D‑stems makes them independent of the G‑stem and a likely basis for derivation themselves, even to the degree of pressing the G‑stem into service.

10.5.  The Relationship between the G‑Stem and the Derived Stems

251

An alternative way of organizing the verbal stems is to regard all stems as derived from the verbal root and thus of equal status. This, however, ignores the functional relationships between them and, therefore, the hierarchy on which they are based. Only by deriving the secondary stems from the primary stems can we explain that for detransitivization it is not an arbitrary derived stem that is chosen but the one corresponding to the primary stem: an N‑stem in the case of a G‑stem, a Dt‑stem in the case of a D‑stem, etc. Thus, the passivization rule presupposes a specific active stem, not just a root.12 In this respect, the four primary stems constitute four parallel subsystems, each with its own detransitive and pluractional category. As the term indicates, the derived verbal stems have derivational rather than inflectional status. They show many features that are typical of derivation. First, they do not meet the criterion of obligatoriness (Booij 1998: 14–15), because a verb may or may not have a specific derived stem; instead, they show the restrictions in productivity and idiosyncrasies in meaning that are typical of derivation. Second, the functions they express are cross-linguistically typically expressed by derivational categories: valency changes, especially detransitive and causative (Bybee 1985: 30–31, 98–99), and verbal plurality (1985: 100–101, 150–51). Third, their formal exponents, changes in the stem, are a typical feature of derivation, whereas inflectional categories tend to be expressed by more peripheral markers (Booij 1998: 20–21).13 The Semitic verb, with its person marking by means of prefixes and suffixes, is a prototypical representative of this tendency.14 From a grammatical point of view, then, derived verbs are separate lexemes with their own paradigm. However, their actual degree of independence vis-à-vis the basic verb may vary considerably according to their semantic nature and their frequency. Irregular derived verbs are by definition independent, since their meaning is unpredictable. Regular derived verbs, however, are dependent on the basic verb to the extent that they can be analyzed into a lexical and a grammatical part, as described in §10.4 (p. 249), and are thus semantically complex (Bybee and Brewer 1980: 202–3). The lexical part guarantees a close semantic association with the basic verb. For instance, the passive/intransitive N‑stem naškunu ‘to be placed’ and the causative Š‑stem šuškunu ‘to cause to place’ quoted in §10.4 have their own paradigm, but semantically they are strongly dependent upon šakānu ‘to place’, and it seems counter-intuitive to regard them as independent verbs. This applies even more strongly to the pluractional Gtn‑stem šitakkunu ‘to place continuously’. On the other hand, a derived verb has a more independent position as it has a higher frequency. Frequency contributes to independence, since it increases the “lexical strength” of a word according to Bybee’s (1985: 117–18; 2001: 113–16) terminology, i.e., the degree to which it is stored as 12.  The G‑stem is also described as the basis of the derived stems by D. Cohen 1984: 60–61; Wright 1967: I 29; Fleisch 1979: 272–73 n. 2. A prominent dissenting voice comes from Waltke and O’Connor 1990: 351–61; see also Hoftijzer 1992: 118–19 n. 7 for a discussion, mainly concerning Hebrew. 13.  However, the most important criterion for the distinction between inflection and derivation does not apply here, namely, that derivation forms independent lexemes and inflection does not (Booij 1998: 11). This is precisely what is at stake here. 14.  Aronoff (1994: 123–46) argues that the verbal stems are inflectional classes, mainly because they are obligatory in the sense that every verb must belong to a verbal stem, just as any verb in Latin belongs to a conjugation and any noun to a declension. However, the difference is that verbs and nouns in Latin typically belong to a single class and only exceptionally to more than one, with a corresponding difference in meaning (such as iacĕre ‘to throw’ versus iactāre ‘to throw repeatedly or energetically’, and iacēre ‘to lie’ (i.e., ‘to be thrown down’), whereas in Semitic a verb typically occurs in more than one verbal stem and the semantic relationships are largely predictable and productive. Thus the verbal stems have a clear grammatical function. The problem of the obligatory character of the system can be solved by assigning an essentially different place to the basic stem, as the default stem, outside the system of derived stems.

252

Oppositions between Stems  10.6.

a separate unit in the mental lexicon of the speaker. Therefore, derived verbs which are relatively frequent are also relatively independent of their basic verb. This applies to causative Š‑stems such as šūbulu ‘to cause to bring’ > ‘to send’ and šūṣû ‘to cause to go /come out’ > ‘to take/bring out’, as well as factitive D‑stems such as kunnu ‘to establish, confirm’ and qurrubu ‘to offer’. Ultimately, an increase in frequency may lead to lexicalization, as we saw in §2.2.3 (pp. 35–36), and to complete independence from the basic verb. Altogether, this demonstrates that for regular derived stems an absolute classification as derivational may be grammatically correct but that their actual status is rather more complex and variable. There is a continuum from independent to dependent. It is ultimately based on the way these forms are stored in the mental lexicon of the speaker and produced in an actual speech situation: the more independent forms are stored as whole units just as basic forms are, whereas the forms with a high degree of dependency are derived on the spot by means of a productive morphological rule, whenever the speaker needs them (Bybee 1985: 134).

10.6. Oppositions between Stems The function of a derived stem is determined by two factors: its historical background and its opposition to other stems. The first factor will be discussed in later chapters. This section contains a general survey of the oppositions between the individual stems. In a seminal article, Edzard (1965) has attempted to specify all attested oppositions on the basis of contrasting pairs of different stems of the same verb, in principle limiting himself to Old Babylonian (1965: 111–12). The results, summarized in a diagram (1965: 115), show a bewildering complexity and suggest that almost every stem can be in opposition to every other stem. However, this is largely caused by the fact that Edzard does not differentiate according to the number of verbs to which an opposition applies, although he points out (1965: 115–16) that there are large differences in productivity. For all practical purposes, Edzard’s system should be divided into a series of subsystems to which a verb is assigned on the basis of its semantic features. The subsystem determines the derivational options of a given basic form. Insofar as our sources allow this, I will make a three-way distinction between productive derivations, regular but (presumably) unproductive derivations, and all the rest—i.e., unproductive, irregular, and incidental derivations. In addition, it is useful to distinguish literary from non-literary texts, since there are strong indications that, in the former, the system of derived stems has been exploited for stylistic variation, so that several derived stems are mainly or even exclusively found in literary texts.15 The use of the derived stems in non-literary texts is considerably simpler, and many of the more complex stems, if they are used at all, appear to be strongly lexicalized, i.e., they were available to the speakers as ready-made entities rather than productive derivations. If we restrict ourselves to the productive and regular oppositions that (also) occur in nonliterary texts, it turns out that there is only a small number of “derivational paths” that a verb can follow and that are largely determined by its meaning or, more specifically, by its syntactic and semantic (degree of) transitivity. The following derivations may be considered productive (and therefore regular by definition) for verbs whose basic stem is the G‑stem: 1. All G‑stems can have a pluractional Gtn‑stem, although it is attested only for a minority of them (see Table 10.1).

15.  See especially §13.3 (pp. 334–337) on the ŠD‑stem, §13.2.2.1 (pp. 329–331) on the literary use of the Š‑stem, §14.3.4 (pp. 372–374) on that of the Gt‑stem, and §14.7.5 (p. 430) on that of the Ntn‑stem.

10.6.  Oppositions between Stems

253

2. Transitive G‑stems can have a passive N‑stem and a causative Š‑stem.16 The following figures may give a rough impression of the frequency of the combination G–N–Š: AHw contains about 700 transitive G‑stems, of which 126 have both an N‑stem and a Š‑stem attested; most of them are very common verbs. In addition, there are 162 transitive G‑stems with only an N‑stem (mostly medium frequency verbs) and 66 with only a Š‑stem (mostly rather infrequent verbs). The relatively low frequency of causative Š‑stems is due to the fact that the causative of transitive verbs is a highly marked category and generally far less frequent than the passive. The distribution of N‑stems and Š‑stems shown by the figures is in keeping with this fact: the absence of a Š‑stem in medium-frequency verbs and of an N‑stem in low-frequency verbs can safely be ascribed to non-attestation rather than to non-existence. The numbers also show that about 350 transitive G‑stems have neither an N‑stem nor a Š‑stem; most of them are very rare verbs. Many transitive G‑stems also have a D‑stem, for which see below under #7. 3. Intransitive G‑stems17 have either a D‑stem or a Š‑stem as their transitive counterpart, usually a D‑stem in process verbs and a Š‑stem in action verbs, but this is a mere tendency; see further §10.8.2 (pp. 256–257) below and the references given there. For verbs in the remaining primary stems—the N‑stem, the D‑stem, and the Š‑stem, whether they are themselves derived from a G‑stem or not—the following derivations may be regarded as productive: 4. They can all have a corresponding pluractional stem (N § Ntn, D § Dtn, and Š § Štn). 5. Transitive D‑stems and Š‑stems can have a detransitive secondary stem (D § Dt and Š § Št1). 6. N tantum verbs (most of which are quadriradical) can have a causative Š‑stem. Verbs in the secondary and tertiary stems do not have any further productive derivation. It is not easy to determine to what extent a derivation is actually productive in Akkadian. However, a few derived stems, even some that are quite common, give the impression of constituting a closed class, resulting from a derivational process that was productive in an earlier period. The following cases may belong here: 7. Transitive G‑stems frequently have a D‑stem,18 which in comparison to G § N and G § Š shows a high degree of idiosyncrasy. It often involves plurality, or is lexicalized, or appears to be interchangeable with the G‑stem (see §11.3.4, pp. 274–277, for details). The problem is aggravated by the fact that many D‑stems of transitive verbs mainly occur in Standard Babylonian, with its often highly stereotyped language. These features make it questionable whether the D‑stem belongs to the productive derivations of a transitive G‑stem, in spite of its frequency. Note also that several very frequent transitive G‑stems that are not typical high-transitivity verbs do not have a D‑stem (see §11.5, pp. 278–279). 8. Transitive G‑stems with a suitable meaning may have a reciprocal Gt‑stem; this is probably productive in Old Babylonian, fossilized in Old Assyrian, and artificially kept alive in Standard Babylonian (see §14.3, pp. 360–375). 16.  With the qualifications that transitive II/voc verbs starting with a sibilant cannot have a Š‑stem (see GAV pp. 248–49) and that transitive low-transitivity verbs cannot be passivized; if they have an N‑stem at all, it is usually ingressive; see §12.2.2.1 sub 4 (p. 296). 17.  Including transitive verbs with a low degree of transitivity, such as lamādu ‘to learn’, etc.; see §3.4 (p. 66). 18.  Roughly 420 of the approximately 700 transitive verbs listed in AHw have a D‑stem.

254

Diachronic Aspects of the Derived Verbal Stems  10.7.

9. Reciprocal Gt‑stems in Old and Standard Babylonian may have a causative Št2‑stem (see §14.6.2.2, pp. 405–406); it is sporadic but may be or may have been productive. 10. Dt‑stems in Old and Standard Babylonian may have reduplication as an additional marker to underline plurality or repetition (a Dtr‑stem; see chap. 15). Again, it occurs sporadically, but in certain dialects it may be or may have been productive. If we include literary texts, the picture becomes much more complex. The Babylonian scribes exploited derivations that were marginal and/or residual to create additional possibilities for stylistic variation. Edzard (1965) includes them in his more-or-less complete enumeration, and they will all be discussed in the following chapters under the respective verbal stem; here I will restrict the discussion to the most salient instances: 11. Intransitive G‑stem § factitive Š‑stem (in process verbs instead of D; see §13.2.2.2, pp. 328–331). 12. Intransitive G‑stem § ingressive N‑stem (see §12.2.2.2, pp. 297–298). 13. Transitive and intransitive G‑stem § Gt‑stem without reciprocal meaning (see §14.3.4, pp. 372–373). 14. D‑stem § ŠD‑stem (see §13.3, pp. 334–337). 15. Gt‑stem § Dt‑stem to underline plurality (see §14.5.1, p. 385). Edzard lists various other oppositions that are not mentioned here because they seem to be indirect, resulting from accidentally non-attested direct oppositions or from incidental analogical creations. They include Dt § Št2 (Edzard 1965: 117; see §14.6.2.2, p. 410, for lemēnu Št2), Gtn § Dtn, Gtn § Štn, Gtn § Ntn and N § Dt (or vice versa) (1965: 113). Indirect in a chronological sense is N § Št2 in a few reciprocal N-stems, such as amāru N ‘to meet’ and emēdu N ‘to join one another’ (1965: 117), which themselves replace a reciprocal Gt‑stem (see §14.6.2.2, pp. 405, 410). Derived stems that do not play a role in these productive processes are the marginal Nt‑stem (see §14.5.4, pp. 391–392), the stems with a double t‑infix, which are a Neo-Assyrian innovation (see §14.5.3, pp. 388–390), and—with a single exception—the Št2-stem, which is basically denominal and thus not derived from another verbal stem (see §14.6.2.2, pp. 404–411).

10.7.  Diachronic Aspects of the Derived Verbal Stems The diachronic development of the derived verbal stems involves their origin and growth in prehistoric times, on the one hand, and their further development in the course of Akkadian history, on the other. Both issues belong to the chapters about the individual stems. Here, I will only discuss some general points. Most formatives of the derived stems have clear cognates in other Semitic languages and even in Afroasiatic, implying that the Akkadian system of derived verbal stems must have a very long prehistory. I will not speculate about the form it had in Afroasiatic, but for Proto-Semitic we are on firm ground: the combined evidence of the older Semitic languages and some additional data from Afroasiatic allow us to reconstruct the Proto-Semitic system with a reasonable degree of certainty (see chap. 18). It differs from the Akkadian system in some important respects, the most salient of which is the existence of a derived verbal stem with pluractional function characterized by gemination in the basic stem (the GPL‑stem *yiqattalu) and the stem vowel a elsewhere (D‑stem *yuqattalu, etc.), as I argued in chap. 4. As far as we can tell, the Akkadian system is already fully developed in the earliest texts in much the same form as in later and better-documented periods. Since it is virtually the same in all

10.7.  Diachronic Aspects of the Derived Verbal Stems

255

older dialects, it can be reconstructed for Proto-Akkadian. The few data we have on the derived stems in Eblaite suggests that the Eblaite system was not very different from the Akkadian (see Edzard 2006: 79–82), with one exception: the action nouns or infinitives with a double t-infix and a different vowel pattern, which will be discussed in §14.5.6 (pp. 395–397). Thus, the Akkadian system dates back to Proto-East Semitic, although Proto-East Semitic itself may have had additional derived stems that were lost in Proto-Akkadian. Once it was established, the system proved to be extremely stable throughout the history of Akkadian, which is doubtless related to its regular and isomorphic structure. The main type of change affecting the system is the gradual decrease in productivity of individual stems, which is particularly evident in the secondary stems with infixed t: they gradually disappear from all but literary texts after the Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian periods. This decline corresponds to a concomitant increase in the use of the t‑perfect, which from Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian onward is the regular past tense in affirmative main clauses. There can be little doubt that there is a causal relationship between the two processes. The tertiary stems also decline but apparently at a somewhat later date, mainly in Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian, and this decline does not affect their whole paradigm: the imperfective of the tan‑stems, which in all dialects is vastly more frequent than the other forms, remains in use. The rise of new forms during the attested period of Akkadian is very limited and only occurs in the margins of the system. There is one instance of what one could call a “new derived stem,” namely the ŠD‑stem, which I will argue in §13.3 (pp. 334–337) is a literary artifice rather than a “natural” development instigated by ordinary speakers of the language. Another change is the creation of t‑perfect forms with a double t-infix in the secondary and tertiary stems: Gt iptatrVs, Gtn iptatarrvs, Dt(n) uptatarris, Št(n) uštatapris, etc. They became indispensable after the rise of the t‑perfect as an inflectional member of the verbal paradigm. Their actual attestation provides eloquent proof of the stability of the system of derived stems. Even though the t‑perfect was a fully productive and frequent category in Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian, the use of forms with a double t‑infix was staunchly avoided: in Old Babylonian they are very rare, and in Old Assyrian they seem to be absent altogether. Old Babylonian partly suppletes the missing form by using the t‑perfect of the N‑stem (see §12.2.2.1, p. 295); Old Assyrian seems to solve the problem by simply using the perfective instead. Only in Middle Babylonian did forms with a double t‑infix become less exceptional, but they still were fairly rare, because by that time the secondary and tertiary stems themselves had started to decline.19 Directly related to this process is the emergence of another new form: in Neo-Assyrian (and rarely in Neo-Babylonian), the inherited Dt and Št1 forms (Impfv uptarras and uštapras) are replaced by forms with a double t‑infix (uptatarras and uštatapras), the first of which has made it into most grammars of Akkadian as the Dtt‑stem. These forms are a reaction to the increasing predominance of the tense function of t, which made it unsuitable as a valency marker. Since it is hard to dispense with a passive for the predominantly transitive D‑ and Š‑stems, Neo-­ Assyrian created a new passive by extending the existing double t of the t‑perfects uptatarris and uštatapris to the imperfective and the perfective (see further §14.5.3, pp. 388–390). In the weak verbs, more changes take place over time, mostly after the Proto-Akkadian stage but still in the preliterary period. This is clear from differences between Babylonian and Assyrian that are already established in the oldest texts, such as the t‑perfect of the II/voc verbs (Bab imtūt versus Ass imtuat), the N perfective of the II/voc verbs (Ass iššiʾim versus Bab iššām), 19.  All these developments will be discussed in detail in chap. 14 on the history of the t-infix. Therefore, the presentation given here is schematic and without examples or references.

256

The Grammatical Functions Expressed by the Derived Verbal Stems  10.8

the Š imperfective of the II/voc verbs (Bab ušbāt versus Ass ušbīat), and the N perfective of the I/voc verbs (Ass innāmer versus Bab innămer). All these forms will be discussed in the relevant chapters. Generally speaking, the behaviour of the weak verbs confirms the stability of the system of derived stems. In particular, the rise of new weak verbs as a result of the loss of the guttural consonants is illustrative: the affected verbs tend to join existing schemes of weak verbs rather than creating a new conjugation that would not be derivable from the strong paradigm. In Babylonian, for instance, the original II/H verbs adopt the patterns of the II/voc verbs. In these processes, morphophonemic (analogical) change is much more prominent than phonological change. In sum, the general picture is that Akkadian has experienced a stage of drastic changes in its derived verbal stems in the preliterary period after the Proto-Semitic stage; and this gave rise to a well-balanced system that subsequently existed virtually unchanged for several millennia, except for a gradual decline in the productivity of some individual stems. The heydays of the system in terms of the number and productivity of stems lie in the early period—in Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian, and perhaps even more in the literary dialect of Standard Babylonian, which preserves and even extends the Old Babylonian system. The later non-literary dialects show a rather drastic decrease in the use of all but the primary stems: Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian seem to preserve mainly a simplified system consisting of a passive N‑stem, a causative Š‑stem, and a largely lexicalized D‑stem (usually factitive).

10.8. The Grammatical Functions Expressed by the Derived Verbal Stems It is convenient to give an overview of the grammatical functions expressed by the derived verbal stems, especially since the chapters on the individual stems are lengthy enough in themselves. In Akkadian, these functions concern verbal plurality, causativity, and voice.

10.8.1.  Verbal plurality Verbal plurality or event plurality refers to a quantification of the event or the process expressed by the verb, i.e., whether it refers to a single, a repeated, a protracted, or a more intensive occurrence. According to Dressler’s (1968) seminal account of verbal plurality, we can distinguish four basic realizations (1968: 56–84): iterative (which includes frequentative, repetitive, habitual, etc.), continuous or durative, distributive, and intensive. A definition of these notions and illustrations from Akkadian can be found in §14.7.1 (pp. 415–417), which deals with the functions of the tan‑stems. For the sake of convenience, I will subsume all these nuances under the noun phrase verbal plurality and under the adjective pluractional (following Newman 1990: 53–54), when there is no need for a more specific term. The main verbal stems for indicating verbal plurality in Akkadian are the tan‑stems, to be discussed in chap. 14, but it is also an important function of the D‑stem of transitive verbs. The typical marker of verbal plurality is gemination of R2. Gemination of R3 and reduplication are also used, but they are marginal (see §16.6.1, pp. 493–494; and §15.2, pp. 439–444, respectively.

10.8.2.  Causative and factitive An important function of derived verbal stems is causativization, i.e., to indicate an increase in valency. Akkadian has two verbal stems for this purpose, the Š‑stem and the D‑stem, but since they are different in character, I will call them causative and factitive, respectively (see also GAV pp. 237–44). This distinction is based on the semantic distinction between agent-oriented verbs

10.8  The Grammatical Functions Expressed by the Derived Verbal Stems

257

(shortly, action verbs) and process-oriented verbs (shortly, process verbs) (Payne 1997: 54–62; Haspelmath 1993: 90–96). Action verbs refer to events that require the intervention of an agent for their realization, so they normally have an agentive subject. Process verbs denote events that can (also) occur spontaneously, without intervention by an agent, and are characterized by the absence of “agent-oriented meaning components” (Haspelmath 1993: 93). Examples of English process verbs are break and redden (in their intransitive reading), in contrast to, for instance, cut and paint. Process verbs focus on the result of the process rather than on its modalities. Therefore, one can say that something broke or reddened but not that it cut or painted. The verbs cut and paint specify to some extent how the action was performed and are therefore agent-oriented. Process verbs are often related to adjectives and indicate the inception of the quality or the condition expressed by the adjective (‘to become what the adjective indicates’). Action verbs and process verbs behave quite differently when an external agent is added, i.e., when they are causativized. For action verbs, the addition of an extra agent on top of the one that is inherently present results in a prototypical causative event in which not only the original event and the external agent are clearly distinguishable but often also the original agent, the “causee,” who may keep a certain control over the action (Comrie 1981a: 166–67)). This is a highly marked situation for which an explicit marker is indispensable. Akkadian uses the Š‑stem for this purpose. The Š‑stem is a fully-fledged causative that can causativize both intransitive and transitive action verbs. Process verbs, on the other hand, do not have an inherent agent, and the addition of an agent to instigate the process in question usually results in a two-participant clause that is not significantly different from that of an ordinary transitive clause. Moreover, it is not a causative clause as defined above. The typical function of the D‑stem of intransitive verbs is to underline the presence of such an agent in process verbs that are intransitive in the G‑stem. I will call this function factitive. A factitive D‑stem, then, does not indicate the presence of an additional agent but a change in the subject from non-agentive to agentive. We can define its function as indicating “derived agentivity.” In terms of a valency change, it denotes a qualitative valency increase in contrast to the quantitative valency increase of the causative. The fact that the factitive D‑stem is usually also transitive is of secondary importance, as I will demonstrate further in §11.3.1 (pp. 272–274). The actual use of the D‑stem in Akkadian shows that it cannot be causative, i.e., it cannot add an extra agent to a clause which already has one. Therefore, D‑stems of action verbs have the same valency as the G‑stem and are never causative (see further §11.3.4, pp. 274–277).

10.8.3.  Voice In contrast to causativization, the term voice as it is usually defined refers to a reduction in valency. It concerns the different ways in which the argument structure of a clause can be changed by rearranging the arguments or reducing their number. There are three basic voice types: active, middle, and passive. In languages with a nominative/accusative system, the active is the unmarked voice: it selects the constituent performing the action as subject. The passive selects the patient as subject and demotes the subject of the corresponding active clause to oblique status or leaves it unexpressed altogether. In the middle voice, the subject is also an agent (or at least the initiator of an event) but is at the same time affected by the event (Croft et al. 1987: 184; Shibatani, ed. 1988: 3–4). Passive and middle differ in some important respects. First, passivization basically represents a rearrangement of arguments, rather than a reduction, and therefore entails a change in focus but not a significant change in meaning vis-à-vis the corresponding active clause. However, it amounts to a valency reduction as well, if the original subject is not overtly expressed. In fact,

258

The Grammatical Functions Expressed by the Derived Verbal Stems  10.8

the most common pragmatic reason for using the passive is either to avoid mentioning the agent or to describe the event from the perspective of the object (Givón 1990: 566–67). The middle voice, on the other hand, involves a salient change in the meaning of the clause by ascribing to the subject the status of affected entity, which is absent from a normal active clause. Second, the passive affects the status of the subject of the active clause, i.e., the first argument, whereas many types of middle voice affect the object, i.e., the second argument. Therefore, passive and middle can be distinguished as “first argument reduction” versus “second argument reduction” (Dik 1997: II 12–14). The latter especially concerns reflexive and reciprocal clauses. The distinction between first‑ and second-argument reduction is useful for the description of voice in Akkadian. Akkadian has two derivational categories for valency reduction, the secondary stems with infixed t (Gt, Dt, and Št1) and the N‑stem. G‑stem verbs realize first-argument reduction (passive and mediopassive) by means of the N‑stem and second-argument reduction (reflexive, reciprocal, and middle) by means of the Gt‑stem or the N‑stem. The primary derived stems only have one verbal means of valency reduction, namely, the secondary stems, which accordingly are used for all detransitive categories. In addition, the stative, strictly speaking a resultative, syntactically behaves like a kind of (medio)passive if it denotes the resulting state of the direct object of the active clause (see §7.3.2, pp. 169–170). The way Akkadian expresses valency reduction is very common in the languages of the world: according to Haspelmath (1990: 28–29), the most widespread passive morpheme is a marker affixed to the verb. Passive affixes tend to have other functions as well, such as reflexive, reciprocal, mediopassive, and occasionally also fientivization (1990: 32–37). Generally speaking, valency reduction markers are typically polysemous; they denote derived intransitivity or “detransitivity” in general but which type of detransitivity is purely determined by the meaning of the verb and the context.20 Rather than looking for a single overarching value to comprise all types of voice reduction, we should attempt to establish a diachronic process that shows how one function can develop into another, allowing for the possibility that early stages show little or no similarity to later ones.21 Because there is little terminological consistency in the literature, it may be useful to give definitions of some basic types that are relevant to Akkadian and describe their main features in this language. I will distinguish the following detransitive categories: passive, mediopassive, reflexive, reciprocal, and middle.

20.  See Keenan 1985: 253–56; Haspelmath 1990: 32–37. 21.  The polysemy of voice markers occasionally leads to problems of classification. A vexing case in Akkadian is the common verb labāšu ‘to put on, wear’. Its Gt‑ and N‑stems are usually classified as reflexive (which is at least partly inspired by their modern translation equivalents; see n. 29 below, p. 261), but this violates the main condition for reflexivity, namely, that the basic stem should mean ‘to dress (sb. else)’ (see §10.8.3.3, p. 261). This can only be expressed by the D‑stem lubbušu, however; labāšu G can only have clothing as its object. The N‑stem of labāšu can aptly be characterized as ingressive: ṣubāta labiš ‘he wears a garment’ § ṣubāta illabiš ‘he put on a garment’ (see §12.2.2.1 sub 4, p. 296), but this does not work for the Gt‑stem: there are no transitive Gt‑stems with ingressive function (the “ingressive” Gt‑stems of motion verbs such as alāku Gt ‘to start going’ are something quite different; see §14.3.4, pp. 371–372) nor with passive function. The easiest solution may be to assume that labāšu G did mean ‘to dress (sb. else)’ in some prehistoric stage of Akkadian but lost this meaning to the factitive D-stem (i.e., that labāšu once was a “factitive G-stem”; see §11.6.2, p. 286., and GAV pp. 438–41). Accordingly, I will treat labāšu Gt as a reflexive Gt‑stem in the rest of this study, with all due reservations.

10.8  The Grammatical Functions Expressed by the Derived Verbal Stems

259

10.8.3.1.  Passive In the passive, the direct object of a transitive clause is promoted to subject and the original subject is either suppressed or demoted to oblique status but is implicitly present. In Akkadian, the original subject is almost always left unexpressed.22 There are, however, a few Old Assyrian and Old Babylonian instances of passive statives with an explicit agent, introduced by itti or ina (see (01)–(04)), and at least one Standard Babylonian case of itti with a passive N‑stem (see (05)):23 (01) KTS 1, 24:6–8 (OA) ina utukkē u ina eṭammē ša-am-du-a-ni ‘we are plagued (? or the like) by demons and spirits of the dead’ (also RA 59, 166:13–15) (02) YOS 10, 17:1 (OB) niqi awīlim itti ilim ma‑ḫi‑ir ‘the man’s sacrifice has been accepted by the god’ (cf. TuL p. 41 VAT 9518:2 (OB) niqi awīlim ilum im‑ḫu‑ur ‘the god has accepted the man’s sacrifice’ with the corresponding active construction) (03) AbB 6, 73:4 (OB) itti šarrim ú-šu-ra-nu ‘we have been discharged by the king’ (OB, R. Frankena: ‘beim König’, which makes no sense) (04) RIME 4, 616:7–9 (OB) ‘(he dedicated two silver bags) ša ina dumu.meš ummênūtim šu-uk‑lu‑[la] ‘which had been perfectly fashioned by the artisans’ (also ibid. 618: 15′–17′) (05) JNES 33, 276:51 (SB) lu-na-ṭir (var. lu-un-né-ṭir) ittīka ‘let me be saved by you’24 It is more common to qualify passive forms by means of an adjunct accusative with instrumental function, e.g.: (06) RA 80, 117:39 (OA) (the textiles (. . .) which arrived later) sāsam lá-áp-tù ‘were moth-eaten’ (07) BAM 4, 393: r.5 (OB) šumma awīlum kalbam na‑ši‑ik ‘if a man has been bitten by a dog’ (= (33) in chap. 7, p. 171) 22.  Faber (1980: 89–104) gives a survey of agent marking in passive sentences in the older Semitic languages except for Akkadian. Her conclusion that “Hebrew, Arabic and Aramaic had at the very least vestiges of a passive agent construction” (1980: 105) and that “[t]his construction was a retention from Pre-Semitic stages of Afroasiatic” (p. 111) is vigourously contested by Liebermann (1986: 597–98 n. 103). 23.  Other passive statives with an agent are AfO 18, 65:32; 66: II 44–45; CT 44, 37:3; YOS 10, 46: II 44, III 41, 44 (all from Old Babylonian omens), and perhaps ARM 5, 67:12–13 (OB letter). Standard Babylonian instances are CT 20, 25:8 and SpTU 3, 93:13 according to E. Frahm, NABU 1998/10. It seems that passive statives with an agent are less unusual than passive N‑stems with an agent. 24.  Malbran-Labat (1991) also includes inanimate constituents in her collection of passives with agents. These cannot be agents, however (unless they are personified), since agents are by definition volitional. Strictly speaking, this also applies to constituents introduced by a compound preposition such as ina qāt‑ ‘by (the hand of)’, but because the compound preposition gradually replaces the simple one, its basically instrumental meaning will become more general and include that of agent, without a clear-cut boundary being discernible. Malbran-Labat (1991: 986 sub 3.3.3) mentions some other instances of passive forms with itti (unfortunately without references), which, however, should be interpreted differently: adduk ittišu (reference unknown to me) is a Gt-stem ‘to fight’ (itti ‘with’), and ittīšu ikkammalū (BBR 25:10) is an ingressive N-stem of kamālum itti ‘to be(come) angry with’.

260

The Grammatical Functions Expressed by the Derived Verbal Stems  10.8

In Akkadian, passivization is restricted to transitive fientive verbs with prototypical direct objects.25 Intransitive verbs have no passive (i.e., there is no impersonal passive in Akkadian), and passives of transitive verbs denoting stative-like concepts (see §3.3.1, pp. 55–57) are very unusual.26 Accusatives that have no direct object status cannot be promoted to subject (see GAG §144d). This concerns the “adjunct accusative” with verbs such as malû ‘to be(come) full (of/ with)’ and katāmu ‘to cover (with)’, etc., and the accusative with verbs of movement (gerra alāku/waṣû ‘to go on a journey or an expedition’ (OB), bīta erēbu ‘to enter the house’, bāba waṣû ‘to go out of the door’, eqla etēqu ‘to travel overland’, etc.).27 Indirect objects and similar constituents cannot be passivized either, with one exception—the verb qabû ‘to say, order’ (+ Dat), in which the indirect object may occur as subject of a passive stative in Old Assyrian and also very rarely in Old Babylonian: (08) CCT 2, 31a:21–25 (OA) (an amount of copper) ša (. . .) ina suḫuppim laqāʾam qá-bi4-a-tí-ni ‘which you have been authorized to take from the depot’ (see further CAD Q 37–38 s.v. 4e) (09) St. Reiner p. 192:50 (OB) šummamān lā qá-bi-ja8(pi)-at ana balāṭim ‘if you had not been ordained to life’ (tr. W. G. Lambert)28

10.8.3.2.  Mediopassive The mediopassive is similar to the passive in that it promotes the object of an underlying transitive clause to subject, but there is no implied agent: the action occurs spontaneously. It is also known under various other terms, such as anticausative (Haspelmath 1990: 33; Payne 1997: 218). In Akkadian, it forms a single category with the passive and is expressed by the same categories. Two Old Babylonian examples, an N‑stem of šebēru ‘to break’ (trans.) and a Dt‑stem of pasāsu ‘to annul, destroy’, are: (10) ARM 5, 66:7–11 ina atallukīya (. . .) GIŠgigir šū ina qablītīšu iš-še-bi-ir ‘during my voyage (. . .) that chariot broke in the middle’ (11) RIME 4, 382:52–54 (six great forts . . .) ina labirūtīšunu in ramānīšunu up-ta-as-sí-sú ‘in their old age they had fallen into ruin on their own accord’ (tr. D. R. Frayne) The choice between a passive and a mediopassive interpretation depends on the meaning of the verb and the context, but it is possible to make the mediopassive interpretation explicit by means of ina ramāni- and similar expressions, as in (11). 25.  These categories represent the class of “basic passives” according to Keenan 1985: 247–50. 26.  This phenomenon is found in many other languages; cf. Siewierska 1984: 189–204. In Akkadian in particular, it applies to verbs of the following semantic types: knowledge verbs (but see below for lamādu), verbs of fearing (šaḫātu, palāḫu, adāru, etc.), and verbs of possession (rašû ‘to get’, kašādu ‘to obtain’, ḫašāḫu ‘to need’, ḫabālu ‘to owe’, etc.). If these verbs occur in the N‑stem, it is usually ingressive rather than passive, e.g., ḫabālu N ‘to become indebted’ (OA). Yet there is no ban on passivization of these verbs. The D tantum verb kullu ‘to hold, offer’ has a quite common Dt-stem with passive meaning ‘to be held’ (alongside other meanings), and lamādu N occurs with passive meaning in a specific context in literary texts, presumably a literary artifice, e.g., BWL 265: r.7 ṭēm ili ul il-lam-mad (SB) ‘the will of a god cannot be understood’ (tr. W. G. Lambert; cf. CAD L 58b s.v. 9). 27.  Most of these accusatives interchange with prepositional phrases; see §3.4 (p. 67). This is syntactic proof of their non-direct object status. 28.  The normal construction in Old Babylonian is to promote the infinitive to subject; see Frankena 1978: 8–9. An example is (28) quoted in §8.2.1 (p. 198). Note that in the Old Assyrian instance (08) the infinitive keeps its accusative case (laqāʾam).

10.8  The Grammatical Functions Expressed by the Derived Verbal Stems

261

10.8.3.3.  Direct reflexive Whereas passive and mediopassive involve first-argument reduction, the remaining types of detransitivity (reflexive, reciprocal and middle) involve second-argument reduction: they affect the status of the direct object rather than the subject. The first to be discussed is reflexivity. Reflexivity’s basic feature is that the subject of the sentence is coreferential with another argument, either the direct object (direct reflexivity) or another constituent (indirect reflexivity) (Lichtenberk 1994: 3505). The subject is proto­typically a human agent who acts volitionally, and the event is usually an action. It is important to distinguish between prototypical reflexive verbs and natural reflexive verbs. In the former, the subject performs on him/herself an action normally performed on some other entity (English kill, blame, hurt, curse). This is a highly marked situation, in which a reflexive marker is indispensable. In contrast, natural reflexive verbs are verbs which because of their semantics have a natural propensity to be used in reflexive situations, e.g., verbs of body care: wash, shave, dress, etc.29 Their reflexive use is—at least in specific contexts—just as common or even more common than other uses, so that a reflexive marker carries little meaning and can therefore easily be dispensed with. As a result, the marker is liable to weakening and this may give rise to the class of “middle verbs” to be discussed in §10.8.3.6 below (pp. 265–267). In Akkadian, reflexivity is mostly expressed by a nominal marker, usually ramānu (also ramanu, ramnu; see CAD R 117–25 s.v.), but in Old Babylonian also by pagru, lit., ‘body’ (CAD P 16–17 s.v. 4) and in Ur III Babylonian and Old Assyrian sometimes also by qaqqadu, lit., ‘head’.30 Here are a few examples: (12) Kaufvertragsrecht p. 121 no. 12:3′–4′ (OA) PN ra-ma-šu ipṭur ‘PN redeemed himself’ (13) KH §32:23 (OB) ra-ma-an-šu ipaṭṭar ‘he himself will redeem himself’ (14) CBSM p. 122 §56:10 var. (SB) Lamaštu iṣabbassu ra-man-šú idâk (ga z-ak) ‘Lamaštu will seize him and he will kill himself’ (see pl. 45 K.2809: IV 9) (15) ARM 10, 3: r.8′ (OB) pa-ag-ri ušallim ‘je me suis préservée’ (tr. G. Dossin) (16) FAOS 17, 127:6 (Ur III Bab) (PNF . . .) qá-qá-sà ana šám iddin ‘PNF sold herself (lit., her head) (into slavery)’

29.  It should be emphasized that a basic condition for reflexivity is that the verb in question is basically (or at least originally) a two-argument transitive verb in which the two arguments happen to refer to the same entity. This condition is often not observed in grammatical studies of Akkadian, with the result that a fairly large number of verbs are incorrectly classified as reflexive, although they should rather be defined as intransitive, ingressive or mediopassive, and thus belong to §10.8.3.2 (e.g., in GAG 3 §90f/f*; Kienast 1967: 78–79 n. 32, 2001: 247; and Streck 2003a: 38–45). A major reason for labeling such verbs reflexive seems to be the fact that they can be translated with a reflexive pronoun in languages such as German and French. This is of course not a valid reason. For the problems this criterion may cause for some verbs, see n. 21 above (p. 258). 30.  For qaqqadu in Old Assyrian, see Veenhof 1972: 265 and Kouwenberg 2005: 101. It is not always possible to be certain whether these nouns are used in their original meaning or whether they have acquired the status of a reflexive noun. For instance, there is no compelling reason to regard the nouns qaqqadu and napi/aštu in the clauses quoted by Finet 1956: 37 §18c, as reflexive: they are used in their literal meaning of ‘head’ and ‘life’.

262

The Grammatical Functions Expressed by the Derived Verbal Stems  10.8

For prototypical reflexive situations, only nominal markers are used; for natural reflexive situations nominal markers may also be used, as in (17), but here they compete with the verbal markers of the N‑stem and the secondary stems. (17) KUB 4, 17:11 [āši ]pu r [a-m]a-an-šú ullal ‘the exorcist purifies himself’ Generally speaking, the use of verbal reflexive markers is marginal. There are a number of reflexive Dt‑stems (see §14.5.1, p. 384), but reflexive Gt‑ and N‑stems are extremely rare (see §14.3, pp. 361–364, and §12.2.2.1, p. 296, respectively), and reliable instances of reflexive Št‑stems do not seem to occur at all, neither in the Št1-stem (the canonical passive of the Š‑stem; see §14.5.2, p. 387), nor in the Št2‑stem (for which see §14.6.2.2, pp. 404–411).31 For the equivalence of nominal and verbal markers, compare the different reflexive constructions of naṣāru ‘to guard’ (Gt in (18A) with pagru in (18B) and with ramānu in (18C)), and of šakānu in the expression šuma šakānu ‘to provide with a (good) name, give renown’32 (Gt in (19A), N in (19B) and with pagru in (19C) (all OB): (18A) AbB 6, 107:4 eʾid iṣ-ṣa-ar ‘be careful and watch out!’ (also RA 53, 35a:11) (18B) ARM 10, 80:21–22 pa-ga-ar-ka uṣur ‘guard yourself’, i.e., ‘be on guard’ (18C) AbB 14, 148:7 ra-ma-an-ka uṣur (idem) (19A) FM 6, 184 no. 14: r.11′ šumam damqam bēlni li-iš-ta-ka-an ‘may my lord establish a good reputation (for himself)’33 (19B) ARM 10, 107:23–25 dawdam dūkma šumam na-aš-ki-in ‘give battle and establish renown for yourself’34 (19C) AbB 1, 115: r.4′ šum ḫabālim pa-ga-ar-ki tašakkanī ‘you (Fem) will establish a reputation of wrong-doing for yourself’35 31.  The instances adduced by Streck (1994: 169–72 and 175–76) under the headings “3.1. Št2 als Reflexiv zu Š” and “4.2 Št2 als Reflexiv zu D” do not qualify as reflexives under the definition of reflexivity adopted here: their meanings cannot be regarded as regular reflexive derivations (i.e., with coreferential subject and object) of transitive Š-stems (and are not volitional); see chap. 14, n. 176 (p. 407). For Šamaš šutēbib RitDiv. 30: 8 ‘Šamaš, purify yourself!’ (Streck 1994: 176 with n. 81), see §14.6.2.2 (p. 408). 32.  See Kraus 1960: 128–30, Römer 1971: 38 n. 3, and J.-M. Durand, ARM 26/1, 275 note d about this expression. Similar cases are šakānu Gt and N in the idiom piam maṭiam naškunu/šitkunu, which perhaps means ‘to speak humbly’ or the like (N in YOS 10, 23:8, 25:5; Gt in Izbu p. 204:18–19, 21–22, all OB; cf. also YOS 10, 31: I 29 with a slightly different construction), šakānu N in pâ ištēn or pâ ēda naškunu ‘to provide oneself with a single mouth’, i.e., ‘to come to an agreement, unite oneself’ (RIMA 1, 236:37 and BWL 207:14, both SB), and finally šakānu N with libbu as object in libbam rapšam na-aš-ki-in-šum ARM 4, 45: r.5′ (OB), lit., ‘provide yourself with a wide heart towards him’, i.e., perhaps ‘show yourself merciful towards him’ (but cf. Durand 1997–200: II 279: ‘aie pleine confiance en lui’, lit., ‘que tu sois doté d’un coeur vaste!’ with naškin as a passive N‑stem). 33.  Also Gilg. p. 200:160 and p. 202:188; ARM 1, 69: r.15′; RIME 4, 606:58 (all OB). 34.  Also ARM 26/2, 84 no. 318:30; FM 2, 206 nr. 116:44; FM 3, 192 no. 20:14; OBTR 115:17 (read ta-aš-ša-ak-ni; see the copy) (all OB). 35.  This construction also occurs in Old Assyrian: šumam ra-ma-ni (i.e., /ramanni/, Acc) lū ni-iš-ku-un Prag I 711:33–34 ‘we want to establish renown for ourselves’. The G-stem without reflexive marker may also be used, e.g., šumī aš-ku-un RIME 4, 603:54 (OB).

10.8  The Grammatical Functions Expressed by the Derived Verbal Stems

263

In principle, reflexive verbs have an animate subject, since only animate beings can do something to themselves. As they develop toward middle verbs, however (see §10.8.3.6 below, pp. 265–267), they are often extended to inanimate subjects as well, and this leads to the introduction of the nominal markers in clauses with an inanimate subject. This can also be observed for ramānu. An Old Babylonian instance is (20); in later periods it becomes more common, as in (21)–(22): (20) ÖB 2, 13:2 šumma šamnum ana šinīšu ra-ma-an-šu i-zu-uz (var. iz-zu-uz) ‘if the oil has divided itself in two’ (also ÖB 2, 17:18 and 18:26 [the latter with ana erbīšu]); (21) Sn. 108:59–61 (SB) (a precious material) ina GN ukallim ra-ma-nu-uš ‘showed itself in GN’, i.e., ‘became visible’ (also Sn. 127d: 6f acc. to AHw 989b s.v. ramānu 2c) (22) SAA 10, 21: r.9′–10′ (NA) (the king knows) kī bēt DN ra-man-šú id-dip-u-ni ‘that the temple of DN collapsed (lit., knocked itself over)’ (tr. CAD R 119a s.v. ramanu b-5′ )36 The diachronic development that is observable in the expression of reflexivity in Akkadian will be discussed in §14.3.4 (pp. 369–375).

10.8.3.4.  Indirect reflexive or autobenefactive In the indirect reflexive, the subject is coreferential with a constituent other than the direct object, often the indirect object. This indicates that the subject performs an action for his own benefit, in his/her own interest, etc.; it is therefore also called autobenefactive. In Akkadian, the expression of indirect reflexivity seems to be completely taken over by nominal markers, such as ana ramānī- ‘on behalf of oneself’, e.g.: (23) AbB 2, 110:17–18 (OB) ana ra-ma-ni-ja mīnam ēteneppuš ‘what do I ever do for myself?’ (24) KTH 16a:27–30 (OA) kīma (. . .) annakam u ṣubātē ana ra-mì-ni-šu-nu itbulūni ‘since they (. . .) have taken along the tin and the textiles for themselves’ However, the secondary verbs tabālu and tarû ‘to take/bring along’ are likely to go back to fossilized Gt‑stems with indirect reflexive meaning: ‘to take/bring with oneself’ (‘mit sich nehmen/ bringen’); see §16.2.3 (p. 454). This suggests that in prehistoric times this function could also be performed by verbal markers.

10.8.3.5.  Reciprocal In a reciprocal sentence, the subject—which is necessarily plural—performs an action on some other entity but simultaneously undergoes this action at the hands of the other entity involved (they punched each other ). Semantically, reciprocal situations are closely related to reflexive ones: both typically have animate subjects and are usually actions rather than states; moreover, here too we can distinguish between direct and indirect reciprocals and between proto­typical and natural reciprocals (see §10.8.3.3, p. 261). The latter prominently include verbs of meeting, conversing, embracing, and similar acts (Kemmer 1993: 102). Generally speaking, reciprocal can be seen as a subtype of reflexive that is restricted to a specific class of verbs and only occurs with a plural subject. 36.  Similar instances with daʾāpu in Neo-Assyrian include SAA 1, 138:12 and 13, 28: r.12 // 29: r.4′.

264

The Grammatical Functions Expressed by the Derived Verbal Stems  10.8

Reciprocity is often expressed by a special “reciprocal marker,” such as English each other and German einander (Akk aḫāmiš  ), but many other languages use the reflexive marker also for reciprocal situations, e.g., se in French and sich in German (alongside einander ). Akkadian, too, uses the same verbal markers for both concepts: the t‑stems (mainly Gt) and the N‑stem; see §14.3 (pp. 360–375) and §12.2.2.1 (pp. 294–295), respectively.37 Akkadian has both nominal and verbal markers for reciprocity. The nominal markers differ according to period. The older dialects use various syntactic paraphrases to express “each other”: a noun in two different semantic roles such as Latin manus manum lavat, the preposition (ina) birī- (Ass bari-) or birīt ‘between’ (like Latin inter se), and aḫu ‘brother’ (or aḫātu ‘sister’) in different cases. The latter expression is by far the most common in Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian. Cf. the following instances: (25) Prag I 446:33–34 (OA) tup-pu-um tup-pá-am imaḫḫaṣ ‘tablet will kill tablet’ (i.e., the two tablets [quittance and debt note] will cancel each other) (26) ARM 4, 20: 21–22 (OB) nīš ilāni ina bi-ri-ti-ni dannam i nizkur ‘let us swear a strong oath by the gods to each other’ (27) BIN 4, 72:9 (OA) aḫī atta i-ba-ri-ni nitakkir ‘you are my brother: should we fight among ourselves?’ (tr. CAD N/1 166a s.v. nakāru 6) (28) TIM 4, 40:20–21 (OB) a-ḫu-um libbi a-ḫi-im uṭīb ‘brother has made the heart of brother content’, i.e., ‘they have given each other satisfaction’. That the word brother in such contexts is to be taken literally (rather than being grammati­calized into a semantically empty grammatical marker) may be deduced from the fact that, if the subject is feminine, aḫātum ‘sister’ is found instead (CAD A/1 173a s.v. aḫātu A 3): (29) CT 6, 42b:9–10 (OB) a-ḫa-tum ana a-ḫa-tim ul iraggam ‘sister will not raise claims against sister’, i.e., ‘they (the two women) will not raise claims against each other’ On the other hand, the beginning of a process of grammaticalization is observable from the fact that there are also instances of aḫum as subject but with the verb in the plural: (30) TSifr. 37:19–20 (OB) a-ḫu-um a-ḫa-am lā i-tu-ru lā i-ge-er-ru-ú ‘they will not sue each other again’ (= tablet, but the case (TSifr. 37a:18–20) has the verb in the Sg: a-ḫu-um a-ḫa-am [lā] i-ta-ar-ma [lā] i-ge-er-ri ) From Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian onward, we find another reciprocal marker: aḫāmiš ‘each other’, obviously derived from the earlier construction with aḫu; but the details of this development remain unclear; see CAD A/1 164–68 s.v. aḫāmeš for examples. 37.  This may lead to ambiguity, for instance, in the verbs lapātu and pašāšu in the following passages, which describe the ceremonial feast following the conclusion of a legal transaction (see Gelb et al. 1991: 243–44): MARI 1, 81–82:20–24 (6 persons, his witnesses) sikkātim timhaṣū ninda tīkulū kaš tištayū u ì ti-il-tap-tu ‘who drove in the pegs, ate bread, drank beer and anointed each other with oil’; ARM 22, 328: II 46–47 ˹šībū˺ akalam īkulū šikaram u karā[nam] ištû u [š ]amnam ip-ta-aš-šu ‘the witnesses ate bread, drank beer and wine and anointed each other with oil’ (similarly ARM 8, 13:11′–14′ with ip-ta-šu), where ‘themselves’ (e.g., Gelb 1991: 168) is grammatically possible but less appropriate; cf. Gelb et al. 1992: 244.

10.8  The Grammatical Functions Expressed by the Derived Verbal Stems

265

The verbal markers for reciprocity are the same as for reflexive, but especially the Gt‑stem is far more often reciprocal than reflexive. Although most instances concern more-or-less natural reciprocals, there are even instances that are similar to prototypical reciprocals. I will discuss the reciprocal use of the t‑stems and the N‑stem below in later chapters. In this section, however, it is convenient to discuss several special nuances of reciprocity relevant to Akkadian (see also Streck 2003a: 82–83). First, the subject may be a collective rather than a plural noun, such as mātu ‘the people’, ṣābu ‘the troops’, or puḫru ‘the assembly’: (31) YOS 10, 49:5 (OB) mātum (kalam) iṣ-ṣa-ba-at i-ta-ka-al ‘the (people of the) land will fight and destroy (lit., eat) one another’ Second, the reciprocal meaning may give rise to the “collective” use of the reciprocal (Streck 2003a: 38 “soziativ”), in which the subject is a group of people (at least two) that carry out an action together (Kemmer 1993: 98, 123–25). It is not very common in Akkadian; an example is: (32) BDHP 80:6–9 (OB) (the wall that PNF bought from PNF2 is a party wall) ištu qaqqari adi elēnum ši-it-pu-ka ‘they (the two women) have erected it jointly from the ground up to the top’ Note that aḫāmeš can have this function, too, especially when preceded by itti (cf. CAD A/1 166–67 s.v. aḫāmeš 2). Other traces of this use are the nouns tākultu ‘(common) meal’ and tarbāṣu ‘stable’ (where animals lie together), which are originally deverbal nouns of reciprocal Gt‑stems (see §14.6.1, pp. 397–402). Third, reciprocal verb forms may also be used with a singular subject and the other participant(s) introduced by itti (Babylonian) or išti (Assyrian), or simply omitted. This doubtless serves to single out the subject as more topical or more in focus. (33) AbB 14, 140:43 (OB) ittišu ti-iṣ-bu-ta-ku ‘I have a dispute with him’. (34) OBTR 121:13 (OB) anāku itti PN ti-du-ku-ú ad-da-ak ‘must I have a fight with PN?’ (tr. S. Dalley) The other participant(s) may be omitted, if they are self-evident or irrelevant; I will call this “pseudo-reciprocal” (see also Streck 2003a: 83–84). Instances are: (35) AbB 1, 121: r.10 (OB) mi-it-ḫa-ṣí-im ‘fight!’ (Fem) (versus maḫaṣ ‘hit!’) (36) Gilg. p. 242:5 (OB) atta ta-at-ta-ak-ki-ip-ma kīma lîm tušabraqšu ‘you will lock horns and batter him like a bull’ (tr. A. R. George) (37) TCS 2, 31 no. 13:47 (SB) [puḫālu] rit-ka-ban-ni ‘ram, mount me!’ The pseudo-reciprocal is the starting points for a weakening of the reciprocal meaning observable in a number of reciprocal verbs, especially speech verbs, e.g., atwû ‘to speak’ (OA atawwum), where the t-infix seems to have lost its force already in the older dialects. In Standard Babylonian, this has caused a rather frequent use of Gt forms with no apparent difference from the corresponding G form, as I will argue in chap. 14.

10.8.3.6.  The middle voice and “middle verbs” in Akkadian The term middle voice derives from a specific verbal conjugation in Classical Greek that combines various detransitive functions such as direct and indirect reflexive, autobenefactive, and

266

The Grammatical Functions Expressed by the Derived Verbal Stems  10.8

(medio)passive. In modern linguistic literature, it refers more generally to verbal categories in which the subject is both the initiator of the action and at the same time affected by it (see, e.g., Kemmer 1993: 1–4). In an insightful analysis, Kemmer (1993) has shown that in many languages a specific class of “middle verbs” has developed, i.e., verbs that are reflexive in form but not in meaning according to the definition of prototypical reflexivity cited in §10.8.3.3 (p. 261) above: coreferentiality of participants in events in which the participants are normally distinct entities. This phenomenon is well known in Germanic and Romance languages: e.g., German sich fürchten ‘to be afraid’ and sich irren ‘to make a mistake’; French se douter ‘to suspect’, s’asseoir ‘to sit down’; Spanish asustarse ‘to be startled’, irse ‘to go’. Middle verbs typically belong to a small number of “event types” that are strikingly similar across languages. Prominent among them are verbs of body care (wash, shave), intransitive motion verbs (turn, bow, go, leave), verbs referring to natural reciprocal events (meet, converse, embrace), emotion verbs (be angry, grieve, be frightened  ), speech verbs (complain, lament, boast, confess), cognition verbs (think, believe), verbs of acquiring (acquire, take for oneself    ), and verbs for spontaneous events (grow, stop, change) (1993: 16–20). The trigger of this development is the fact that in natural reflexive verbs (see §10.8.3.3, p. 261), the reflexive marker is predictable to a certain extent and therefore liable to lose its force. Since natural reflexive verbs are semantically similar to ordinary one-participant—i.e., intransitive— verbs, there is a possibility of extending the use of the reflexive marker to intransitive verbs as a mainly formal exponent. The development of such “middle verbs” happens especially when the frequent use of the reflexive marker in natural reflexive situations has weakened its force to such an extent that it has triggered a renewal of the reflexive marker in prototypical reflexive clauses. In this case, the older reflexive marker becomes available to accompany both natural reflexive verbs and middle verbs and develops into a “middle marker”.38 In languages with more than one reflexive marker (which Kemmer [1993: 24–28] calls “twoform languages”), there is a consistent correlation between the “heaviest” of the two markers with prototypical reflexive function, on the one hand, and the “light” marker with natural reflexive function, on the other. Languages in which this situation obtains are Russian (heavy: sebja, light: sja) and Dutch (heavy: zichzelf, light: zich).39 Moreover, if the heavy and the light marker are etymologically related, the light one tends to be a reduction of the heavy one (as in Russian), or the heavy one an extension of the light one (as in Dutch). This suggests the well-known grammaticalization path of functional weakening and formal erosion, with a subsequent renewal of function in the prototypical instances of the reflexive function. Kemmer describes this process in detail for the development of sik in Scandinavian languages and se in Latin and Romance (1993: 151–93). She argues that the corresponding cognitive development consists of a gradual loss of the distinguishability of the participants in reflexive situations (1993: 66). Whereas in a reflexive event type the two participants, even though they refer to the same entity, are conceptualized as separate entities, in middle verbs with a reflexive marker they are not distinguished conceptually by the speaker but viewed as a single entity, so in this respect middle verbs are like ordinary intransitive verbs. 38.  See also Croft et al. 1987, esp. pp. 180–81, 190. 39.  In Dutch, the strong marker zichzelf (originally emphatic) is used in prototypical reflexive situations. The older and weaker form zich can only be used in natural reflexive situations (zich aankleden ‘to dress (oneself)’, zich wassen ‘to wash (oneself)’ but is also used in intransitive verbs such as zich vergissen ‘to make a mistake’ and zich schamen ‘to be ashamed’, which are reflexive only in form (there are no corresponding verbs without zich).

10.8  The Grammatical Functions Expressed by the Derived Verbal Stems

267

It may be clear from this description that the middle voice, as Kemmer defines it, is a different category from the types of detransitivity discussed in the previous sections. It represents a lexicalization of an original voice distinction in a group of reflexive verbs. The reason to include it among the detransitive categories is that it clarifies the nature of a number of otherwise problematic Gt‑stems in Akkadian. Akkadian is a two-form language in which the reflexive nouns ramānu, etc., are the strong markers and the verbal markers (the stems with infixed t and secondarily also the N‑stem) are the weak (and therefore older) markers. It is typologically parallel to Latin, where the deponent verbs, characterized by endings that mostly contain r, are a typical middle category, which is gradually being replaced by the new reflexive marker, the pronoun se/ sibi/sui (Kemmer 1993: 152). The t-infix goes back to a prototypical reflexive marker in a very remote period of Afroasiatic (see §14.4, p. 375), which in Akkadian has only preserved its reflexive function in a small and residual group of naturally reflexive verbs.40 In addition, it occurs in a large number of Gt‑stems that either do not show a significant difference in meaning from the G‑stem or have some idiosyncratic difference that is seemingly unrelated to reflexivity, especially the alleged separative Gt‑stem of alāku ‘to go /come’. These verbs can be regarded as the Akkadian representation of middle verbs, as I will argue in detail in chap. 14. 40.  It has also developed a fairly productive reciprocal function, but that is irrelevant here.

Chapter 11

The impact of gemination II:  the D‑stem

11.1. Introduction The first of the derived stems to be discussed is the D‑stem, which is by far the most productive derived stem of Akkadian: about 900 verbal roots occur in the D‑stem, mostly as derived verbs but in some cases only in the form of a Pa/uRRuS adjective (GAV p. 111).1 It is problematic because of its multiple functions and the high number of unpredictable and idiosyncratic instances among its members. The D‑stem has two “regular” derivatives, the secondary Dt‑stem and the tertiary Dtn‑stem, and a third one, the ŠD‑stem, which is atypical. In this chapter, I will only discuss the D‑stem itself; the three derivatives will be dealt with as part of the t‑stems, the tan‑stems, and the Š‑stem, respectively. Rather than giving a straightforward description dictated by functional principles, I will focus on the historical development and attempt to describe the various uses of the D‑stem in its successive stages.2

11.2. The Form of the D‑Stem The D‑stem is characterized by gemination of R2 and the prefix vowel u (GAG §88a). It has no vowel-class distinctions, and all forms are built on a single base PaRRvS (which in Babylonian appears as PuRRvS in forms without prefixes; see below). The vowel between R2 and R3 is the usual one in the derived stems: a in the imperfective; i in the perfective, t‑perfect, imperative, and present participle; and u in the stative, infinitive, and past participle. Table 11.1 gives the eight inflectional members of the D‑stem.3 1.  It is important to distinguish the D‑stem proper from two other categories with gemination of R2 (see §4.4, p. 95): first, the deverbal patterns for agent nouns PaRRiS, PaRRaS, and PaRRāS, discussed exhaustively in GAV p. 58–64; they are generally associated with the G‑stem rather than the D‑stem; second, the pattern PaRRaS, which includes plural formations of adjectives that have nothing to do with the factitive D‑stems of these adjectives, cf. GAV pp. 52–58. Strictly speaking, the Pa/uRRuS adjectives which do not have a corresponding verbal D‑stem should also be left aside. Their relationship to the verbal D‑stem is similar to that of the primary PaRvS adjectives to the G‑stem (see §3.3.2, pp. 58–60). However, since they are identical in form to past participles of the D‑stem, and since the borderline between them is fuzzy (see GAV pp. 343–59), it is more convenient to regard them as D‑stems as well. 2.  The description of the D‑stem given here is essentially a condensation and sometimes a reformulation of the more-detailed description in GAV, especially chaps. 5 through 8. 3.  For the patterns taPRīS and taPRiSt, which serve as productive verbal nouns of the D‑stem, see §14.6.1 (pp. 400–402).

268

11.2.  The Form of the D‑Stem

269 D‑stem (Bab)

D‑stem (Ass)

Impfv

uparras

Pfv

uparris uptarris

t‑Pf Stat

purrus

parrus

Imp

purris

parris

purrusu

parrusu

Inf/PPartc PrPartc

muparrisu

Table 11.1: The paradigm of the D‑stem.

The D‑stem paradigm is identical to that of the Š‑stem (see §13.2.1, pp. 324–325), except for their different verbal bases: PaRRvS versus šaPRvS. This formal similarity is strengthened by the fact that the factitive D‑stems have a function that is very similar to the causative function of the Š‑stem (see §10.8.2, pp. 256–257). The individual forms of the D paradigm give little reason for further comment. A noteworthy development is the specifically Middle Babylonian change of a to e if the next syllable contains i: Pfv uperris, t‑Pf upterris, and PrPartc muperris instead of uparris and muparris (GAG 3 §88b and Aro 1955: 40–50), e.g., Pfv ú-ṣe-bi-ta-na-ši BE 17, 55:14 ‘he seized us’ from ṣabātu D (normally uṣabbit), t‑Pf ug-de-mi-ru UM 1/2, 29:8 ‘they completed’ from gamāru D (normally ugdammir ). See §13.2.1 (p. 325) for a parallel change in the Š‑stem, and §17.5.2 (pp. 534–535) for a tentative explanation. The weak verbs show very few deviations from the pattern of the strong verb, with the predictable exception of the II/voc and the II/H verbs, whose weak or vocalic R2 cannot normally be geminated. These forms will be discussed in §16.5.3.3 (pp. 482–485) and §§17.7.2–17.7.4 (pp. 557–572), respectively. The main diachronic issue concerning the D‑stem is the contrast between Babylonian PuRRvS and Assyrian PaRRvS in the non-prefix forms, parallel to šuPRvS versus šaPRvS in the Š‑stem.4 It is one of the major dialect features differentiating the two dialects. There can be no doubt that PaRRvS is the original form. This is demonstrated by the parallel with the corresponding Š form šaPRvS, which has left numerous residual forms in Old Babylonian; this form will be discussed in §13.2.1 (pp. 325–326). Moreover, a rather than u is the default vowel to separate R1 and R2 in verbs forms when at least one of these is a cluster or a geminate (see chap. 4 n. 51, p. 103). The geographical distribution of the two forms shows that PuRRvS is an innovation that originated in the South of Mesopotamia and from there spread northward. “Core” Babylonian has PuRRvS consistently. The northern varieties of Old Babylonian (i.e., in texts from Mari, Shemshara, and Tell Leilan), have a residue of PaRRvS forms in the I/w verbs wuššuru ‘to release’ and wutturu ‘to augment’ alongside the expected PuRRvS forms, e.g.: • • • •

wa-at-te-ra-nim ARM 26/1, 205 no. 62:30 ‘enlarge (Pl) for me!’ (Mari) wa-aš-šu-ru ARM 28, 125:9 ‘they have been released’ (Mari) wa-aš-še-er ShA 1, 71 no. 1:67 ‘release!’ (Shemshara) wa-aš-šu-ur Vincente 1991: 88 no. 28: r.3 ‘he has been released’ (Tell Leilan),

4.  The contrast between Assyrian a and Babylonian u in the first syllable also occurs in some nouns: Ass labūšu versus Bab lubūšu ‘garment’, etc., see Reiner 1966: 75. However, this is a later inner-Assyrian development related to the overall change u > a before a stressed u in the next syllable; see Postgate (1974: 274) for Middle Assyrian and Hämeen-Anttila 2000: 31 for Neo-Assyrian.

270

The Form of the D‑Stem  11.2.

alongside regular forms such as wu-úš-še-er-ši ARM 28, 36:7 ‘release her!’. The fact that precisely these two I/w verbs show forms with a points to a dissimilatory tendency that temporarily blocked a change of a to u after w. Since PaRRvS is the original form, there is no reason to regard these forms as Assyrianisms.5 Assyrian was never affected by the innovation and thus always has PaRRvs. The much scarcer evidence from the third millennium broadly confirms this scenario. The southern dialect of Ur III Babylonian only shows PuRRvS forms (Hilgert 2002: 165), e.g., Inf (a-na) du-mu-qí-im AKI p. 326:40 (RI from Elam), and many proper names with the pattern PuRRvS, such as Duššumum, Kubbutum, etc. (Hilgert 2002: 220–23 and elsewhere; list on p. 515). Sargonic Akkadian (which in most respects sides with Babylonian against Assyrian; see §1.5, pp. 24–25) also regularly has PuRRvS,6 e.g.: • Inf ḫu-zu-zi-iš /ḫutstsutsis/ HSS 10, 197:13 (Gasur) ‘as a reminder’ • Stat 3dum (a) zu-ku-na /zuqqunā/ SAB p. 158:10 (Diyala) ‘they should not have a beard’ • PPartc ù-ḫu-ru-tum /  ʾuḫḫurūtum/ TAZ 1, 20:16 (Tutub) ‘delayed’ • Imp /nuʾʾid/ in the PN Ì-la-ak-nu-id MAD 5, 14:7 (Kish) ‘praise your god!’7 On the other hand, in third-millennium texts from the more northern area of Mari, we only find PaRRvS: • PPartc (substantivized) da-šu-ba-timx /daššupātim/ ARM 19, 393:4 ‘sweets’ (cf. dašpu ‘sweet’) • Inf (iš) ga-šur /kaššur/ ARM 19, 64:2 ‘in order to repair (objects)’8 Less-certain instances are the dual adjectives šappuwān and rabbuʾān, the former possibly a PaRRvS form of šapû ‘thick(?)’, the latter doubtless one of rabû ‘big’, e.g.: • 1 maš-a-na-an sá-pu-wa-an ra-bu-a-an ARM 19, 295:1–3 ‘one (pair of) thick? and large sandals’ Even further north, in Ebla, PaRRvS seems to be the most common form as well, e.g.: • Inf ga-du-ru12 in ga-du-ru12 u9-ga-da-ra /qatturu(m) uqattar(a(m)?)/ ARET 2, 34: VIII 11–12 (cf. Akk qatārum D ‘to fume incense’?) • Inf na-bù-ù in ù-na-ba-ga-ma na-bù-ù /unabbaʾkāma nabbuʾu(m)/ StEb. 4, 43 no. 25:12– 13 (cf. Akk nubbûm ‘to lament’?) • Stat 3mp da-nu-nu /dannunū/ ARET 5, 3: IV 7 and 3fp da-nu-na /dannunā/ ARET 5, 3: V 3 (cf. Akk da/unnunu ‘strong’) • Stat 3mp ʾax(NI)-bù-ḫu /  ʾabbuḫū/ ARET 5, 3: IV 6 and 3fp ʾax(NI)-bù-ḫa /  ʾabbuḫā/ ARET 5, 3: V 2 (cf. Akk ebēḫu ‘to gird’)9 5.  PaRRvS is also found in a few geographical names in Mari texts: Salluḫān (see M. Bonechi, NABU 1994/96); Qattunān (passim in ARM 27, spelled Qaṭṭunān, but also Quttunān: Qú-ut-tu-na-anKI FM 8, 152 no. 43:39), cf. Akk qatnu ‘small’; and perhaps also Ḫa-ar-ru-wa-tim KI MARI 8, 362 no. 10:11 and FM 3, 187 A.815:12, if it comes from ḫerû ‘to dig’. Even if these names belong to a different dialect or language than that of the Mari letters, they show the occurrence of PaRRvS forms in this northern area. 6.  See Gelb 1961: 168–69; Sommerfeld 2003: 569; and Hasselbach 2005: 212. 7.  A possible counter-example is BE 3, 116: 16 1 bán da-ku-ku-tum, an Akkadian loanword in a Sumerian context, which AHw 152a s.v. dakkukum translates as ‘zerstoßen(es)’, a PaRRuS form of dakāku ‘to crush’. 8.  Cf. also the PN Šaʾʾumu, if it means ‘bought’ (Gelb 1992: 191–92), which does not seem very plausible. 9.  However, PuRRvS and šuPRvS are also attested, e.g., ù-bù-tum (= nì.gilim.di) // su-bù-tum // sa-bùtum (= nì.gilim.a/e.di), i.e., /  ʾubbuṭum/, /šuʾbuṭum/, /šaʾbuṭum/; cf. Krebernik 1983: 41 n. 146 and 1996:

11.3.  The Function of the D‑Stem

271

In the third millennium, then, PuRRvS is restricted to South and Central Mesopotamia (Babylonian and Sargonic Akkadian); in the second millennium, it has taken over Northwest Mesopotamia as well (Mari and the even more northern Shemshara and Tell Leilan). This confirms the 10 general direction of the spread. With regard to the cause of the change in Babylonian, it is often claimed (e.g., Kuryłowicz 1972: 50) that it happened under the influence of the u of the prefix conjugations; cf. the corresponding N forms such as the N stative naprus (not *nuprus) because of ipparras, etc. However, this explanation is difficult to apply directly to the many Babylonian PuRRuS adjectives without a verbal paradigm, most of which refer to salient bodily characteristics (see GAV pp. 371–78).11 Another factor may be the influence of the Š‑stem: a number of very common Š‑stems come from I/w verbs (waṣû ‘to go /come out’, wašābu ‘to sit down’, wabālu ‘to bring’); their non-prefix forms have ū < aw in the first syllable for a purely phonological reason: Š Imp šūbil < *šawbil, etc. (see §16.2.3, pp. 455–456). This may have caused u to spread to the corresponding forms of strong Š‑stems and from there to non-prefixed D forms.12

11.3. The Function of the D‑Stem If a D‑stem has a corresponding G‑stem, its function varies with the semantic nature of the G‑stem. Therefore, the distinction between action verbs and process verbs made in §10.8.2 239 with n. 18, where he compares Akk ebēṭu ‘to bind’. Conti (1996) discusses all relevant cases and concludes (1996: 202) that the forms with u are restricted to a particular version of the Eblaite bilingual lexical lists. This suggests that this version may have originated in an area where the patterns PuRRvS and šuPRvS are indigenous, i.e., in central or southern Babylonia. It shows that the change of PaRRvS and šaPRvS to PuRRvS and šuPRvS in this area dates back to an earlier period than the earliest Sargonic Akkadian and Babylonian sources. 10.  Babylonian does not seem to have preserved other traces of PaRRvS. I am not sure whether the late (Standard Babylonian) epithets of witches and demons with the pattern PaRRuSītu (GAG §56o) are to be considered as archaic survivals of PaRRuS or secondary forms of later origin: šá-aḫ-ḫu-ṭi-tum ṣabbu-ri-tu Maqlû III 54 ‘flashing(?) and attacking’ (cf. ṣabāru ‘to move quickly’ or the like, and šaḫāṭu ‘to attack’), and ṣab-bu-ti-ti Šurpu III 77 ‘snatcher’ (cf. ṣabātu ‘to seize’). A different meaning has balluṣītu, a kind of bird (AHw 100a s.v.), lit., ‘with protruding . . .’; cf. balāṣu ‘to protrude’. Similar in meaning but from a completely different genre—namely, a Neo-Babylonian letter—is paḫḫuzû ‘cad, scoundrel’ (SAA 18, 102:9 ′) from the late verb paḫāzu ‘to be arrogant’. It is uncertain whether spellings such as ṣaA-A-du/di- . . . and ṣa-A-A-ḫu/ḫi- . . . should be interpreted as ṣayyud- and ṣayyuḫ-, as AHw 1075b ss. vv. ṣajjudû and ṣajjuḫû does. It seems simpler to derive them from the more common pattern PaRRāS, as in CAD Ṣ 66 ss.vv. ṣajādu and ṣajāḫu. Only an unambiguous spelling such as ṣa-a-a-ú-d/ḫ . . . or ṣa-jA-ú-d/ḫ . . . can decide the matter. 11.  It is possible, however, that these adjectives, or at least most of them, are themselves deverbal, as is clearly the case for buqqumu ‘with scarce hair’, derived from baqāmu ‘to pluck’; ḫuššulu ‘crippled’, from ḫašālu ‘to crush’; and gullubu ‘bald’ from galābu ‘to shave’ (see n. 24 below, p. 277), even though we often do not know the source verb. According to Kuryłowicz (1972: 153), it is a typical feature of Semitic to express colours and physical defects by means of intensive deverbal formations (see also Rundgren 1959a: 272–73). We have to assume, then, that the majority of verbal PuRRvS forms imposed its vowel on the relatively small group of PuRRuS adjectives without a verbal paradigm. 12.  It is not very likely that PaRRvS > PuRRvS is a simple assimilation process (pace Hasselbach 2005: 123), because the imperative PaRRiS also becomes PuRRiS, whereas the N‑stem naPruS is not affected. According to Diem (1982: 74), PuRRvS and šaPRvS owe their u to the influence of the corresponding t‑stem forms PutaRRvS and šutaPRvS. This is unlikely because the latter forms are far more infrequent than Pa/uRRvS and ša/uPRvS; and as deverbal members of the paradigm of the Dt- and the Št‑stems, which themselves are dependent on the D‑ and the Š‑stems, they occupy a much lower position in the hierarchy of the verbal paradigm, the more so since Pa/uRRvS is—at least in an etymological sense—the basic form of the entire D‑stem paradigm; see §11.6.2 (pp. 283–284).

272

The Function of the D‑Stem  11.3.

(pp. 256–257) is of crucial importance. We can distinguish four possibilities: intransitive process verbs (§11.3.1), intransitive action verbs (§11.3.2), transitive process verbs (§11.3.3), and transitive action verbs (§11.3.4).

11.3.1.  D‑stems of intransitive process verbs If the G‑stem is an intransitive process verb, the D‑stem is “factitive,” i.e., it is the agentive counterpart of the G‑stem (see §10.8.2, pp. 256–257). Most of these verbs belong to the adjectival verbs discussed in §3.3.2 (pp. 58–60) and to fientive change-of-state verbs, such as qatû ‘to come to an end’, D ‘to end, finish’; parāru ‘to fall apart’, D ‘to dissolve, scatter’; and belû ‘to go out’ (of fire), D ‘to extinguish’. But they also include a number of fientive verbs such as târu ‘to go /come back’, D turru ‘to bring back’; paḫāru ‘to come together’, D puḫḫuru ‘to bring together’; and saḫāru G ‘to turn’ (intr.), D ‘to turn’ (trans.). The D‑stem of such a verb regularly indicates that the process is instigated by an agent, e.g., from paḫāru ‘to come together’: (01A) Iraq 54, 106:15–16 (OB) mātum ana dannati i-pa-ḫu-ur ‘the people will gather (G) in a stronghold’ (01B) Iraq 54, 106:2 nakrum mātam ana dannatim ú-pa-ḫa-ar ‘the enemy will gather (D) the people in a stronghold’ (i.e., presumably, in this context, ‘will force/induce them to gather’ In a prototypical factitive clause, the subject of the corresponding intransitive clause (mātum in (01A)) appears as direct object. This function of D is regular and productive for the relevant verbs; an enumeration of factitive D‑stems comprising 235 items can be found in GAV pp. 293– 300. However, the D‑stem has to compete with the Š‑stem in this domain; for the difference between D and Š, see §10.8.2 (pp. 256–257) and §13.2.2.2 (pp. 328–331). However, as I argued in §10.8.2, the essential feature of the factitive D‑stem is not that it makes an intransitive process verb transitive but that it changes the nature of the subject from non-agentive to agentive: it expresses “derived agentivity.” This is demonstrated by the following phenomena. First, the change-of-state verb malû ‘to be(come) full, fill, cover’ can both be transitive and intransitive in the G‑stem but takes the D‑stem when its subject is agentive. For the G‑stem, compare (02), which is intransitive with the container as subject and an adjunct accusative specifying the substance, with (03), which is transitive, with the substance as subject and the container as direct object:13 (02) ARM 13, 35:11 (OB) eleppētum šina šêm li-im-la-a ‘let these ships be loaded (G) with (lit. become full of) barley’14 (03) Atr. p. 96:6 (OB) kīma kulīlī im-la-a-nim nāram ‘like dragon flies they (the drowned people) filled (G) the river’ For the D‑stem, compare (04A), where malû is transitive but does not have an agentive subject, with (04B), in which the subject is agentive:

13.  Usually, ‘to cover’ is a good English equivalent for this construction. 14.  The accusative šêm in (02) has no direct object status but is an “accusative adjunct” that can be omitted, e.g., BWL 144:19 (SB) ša amēli muttapraššidi ma-li karassu ‘the belly of a wandering man is full’, in contrast to that of (03), which cannot be omitted.

11.3.  The Function of the D‑Stem

273

(04A) Sg. 8:143 (SB) sīsêšunu ḫurrī natbak šadê im-lu(-ma) ‘their horses [i.e., of the vanquished enemy] filled (G) the ravines (and) torrents of the mountain’ (04B) RIMA 2/I, 211:114–15 (SB) pagrīšunu ḫurru natbaku ša šadê ú-ma-li ‘I filled (D) the ravines (and) torrents of the mountain with their corpses’ (tr. A. K. Grayson)15 Second, some factitive D‑stems can be used intransitively, in which case they differ from G in denoting an action or an activity rather than a process. For instance, dummuqu ‘to make good/ better’, the factitive D‑stem of damāqu ‘to be(come) good’, can also mean ‘to act well, do a favour to, behave properly or bravely’, etc., with a personal subject and without direct object,16 e.g.: (05) ARM 27, 142:28–29 (OB) (among the soldiers of my lord) ṣābum mādumma ú-da-mí-iq ‘many soldiers performed well’ (also in 26) (06) AbB 11, 5:8–9 (OB) ana bīti abīka ú-da-mi-iq ‘I did favors for your family’ (tr. M. Stol) Third, when process verbs, especially adjectival verbs, are used in combination with a fientive main verb (“Koppelung”; cf. Kraus 1987), they tend to appear in the D‑stem even when they are intransitive, e.g., dunnunu ‘to do severely, energetically’, from danānu ‘to be(come) strong, difficult’ (Kraus 1987: 20–22) in (07), surruru ‘to act fraudulently’, from sarāru ‘to be false, deceitful’ (CAD S 175a s.v. 2a) in (08), and uddudu ‘to act quickly’ from edēdu ‘to be(come) sharp’ (Kraus 1987: 18) in (09): (07) AbB 4, 19:15–17 (OB) ana PN1 u PN2 ú-da-an-ni-nam-ma aštapram ‘I have written to PN1 and PN2 in strong words’ (08) KH §265:66–67 (OB) ‘(if a shepherd) ú-sa-ar-ri-ir-ma šimtam uttakkir ‘has fraudulently altered the mark (on the animals) (and sold them)’ (09) AbB 11, 121:5 (OB) ud-di-dam-ma sinqam ‘arrive here quickly’17 Fientive verbs, on the other hand, use either the G‑stem (as in ḫamāṭu ‘to hurry’ [Kraus 1987: 18], târu [1987: 12] and saḫāru ‘to do again’ [1987: 13] and ṣabātu ‘to start’ [1987: 15–16]), or the D‑stem (as in qatû D ‘to do completely’ (1987: 17) and arāḫu ‘to go /come quickly’ (CAD A/2 222a s.v. arāḫu A 2b)), or they use both G and D without an appreciable difference in meaning (e.g., gamāru ‘to do, give, pay, etc., completely’ [Kraus 1987: 16], sadāru ‘to do regularly, periodically’ [1987: 10–11], šanû ‘to do for the second time’ [1987: 13]) and šalāšu ‘to do for the third time’ (1987: 13).18 The consistent use of the D‑stem in the case of adjectival verbs can be attributed to the fact that verbs in Koppelung not only must agree with the main verb in person, number, gender, and tense but also with regard to the agentive or non-agentive nature of the subject. This makes the G‑stem of such verbs unsuitable so that the D‑stem is used, even though the verb has no direct

15.  For more examples, see GAV pp. 252–54. 16.  Cf. CAD D 62–63 s.v. 2c–1′ and 4′ (in proper names), 2d–1′, AHw 156b s.v. D 3a/b. 17.  For more examples, see GAV pp. 259–61. 18.  For more detailed references, see the dictionaries under the respective verbs.

274

The Function of the D‑Stem  11.3.

object. This is confirmed by an unusual instance of the adjectival verb šalāmu in the G‑stem in Koppelung where the subject is inanimate and therefore non-agentive: (10) AbB 2, 98:12–13 (OB) eleppum šī i-ša-al-li-ma-am-ma iturram ‘will that boat return hither safely?’

11.3.2.  D‑stems of intransitive action verbs As I argued in §10.8.2 (pp. 256–257), the D‑stem cannot add an extra agent to a clause that already has one. If, therefore, the G‑stem is an intransitive action verb, the corresponding D‑stem is also intransitive. This only concerns a small number of atelic activity verbs with a rather narrow range of meanings: they mostly express sounds (e.g., nabāḫu G and D ‘to bark’ and nazāmu G and D ‘to complain’), bodily functions (e.g., saʾālu G and D ‘to cough’ and našāḫu G and D ‘to have diarrhea’), and mental activities (e.g., kapādu G and D ‘to think, plan’ and ṣarāmu G and D ‘to strive for, be concerned with’). Most of them only occur sporadically, and from the few available contexts it is hard to infer what the difference between G and D is, but the original function of gemination (see §11.6.2, p. 284) suggests that D indicates a more intensive and/or prolonged activity than G.19

11.3.3.  D‑stems of transitive process verbs If the G‑stem is a transitive process verb, the D‑stem behaves in the same way as in the intransitive process verbs of §11.3.1 and is factitive. Since process verbs are usually intransitive, this only concerns a small group of verbs, the most common of which include labāšu ‘to wear, put on’, D ‘to dress sb., provide sb. with clothes’, lamādu ‘to know, learn’, D ‘to inform’; idû ‘to know’, D (wuddû) ‘to identify, inform, assign’; palāḫu ‘to fear, respect’, D ‘to frighten’; ḫabālu ‘to become indebted to (Dat)’, D ‘to make indebted to’; and ḫasāsu ‘to think of, mention’, D ‘to remind’ (see further GAV pp. 98–100). Although the meaning of these D‑stems may seem to entail an extra participant, they hardly ever have a double accusative. They usually mention a single object argument, and when they mention two (e.g., in a context such as ‘to inform sb. of sth.’ or ‘to dress sb. in a garment’), only one of them becomes direct object; if the other one is mentioned at all, it usually takes an oblique case (a dative, an adjunct accusative [GAG §145c] or a prepositional phrase). This is an essential difference from the causative Š‑stem to be discussed in §13.2.2.1 (pp. 327–328).

11.3.4.  D‑stems of transitive action verbs Finally, if the G‑stem is a transitive action verb, the corresponding D‑stem tends to be used in a rather idiosyncratic way.20 Many of these D‑stems are used to underline plurality of the event and/or its participants, especially of the direct object, e.g.: (11A) RIME 4, 603:26–27 (OB) nārātim ú-pé-et-ti ‘I dug (lit., opened) (D) canals’ 19.  This is indeed claimed by the dictionaries for some of them. For nabāḫu, AHw 694 s.v. distinguishes G ‘bellen’ from D ‘kläffen’; for saʾālu, AHw 999a s.v. distinguishes G ‘husten’ from D ‘lange husten’; and for ganāḫu, AHw 280a s.v. distinguishes G ‘husten’ from D ‘husten und würgen’ and CAD G 39b s.v. remarks that D ‘does not refer simply to coughing but rather to fits of coughing and retching, etc.’ A somewhat more objective indication is the fact that, in a Standard Babylonian lexical list, kapādu G and D are equated with a form without and with reduplication, respectively: ir pa.ag.pag = ka-pa-du / ir.pag.ag.ag = kup-pu-du MSL 16, 81:112–13. 20.  A more detailed description of the use of D in these verbs is given in chap. 6 of GAV.

11.3.  The Function of the D‑Stem

275

(11B) RIME 4, 603:47 nāram ep-te-šum ‘I dug (G) a canal for it (GN)’ Generally speaking, the greater the effect of an action on the patient, the stronger the tendency to use the D‑stem if the direct object is plural. Thus, the consistency with which it is used is particularly strong in high-transitivity verbs, such as: • verbs that entail a partial or total destruction of the object (ḫepû ‘to break’, nakāsu ‘to cut off, fell’, šarāṭu ‘to tear’, šebēru ‘to break’, ṭabāḫu ‘to slaughter’) • verbs that entail a violent impact on the object (kabāsu ‘to trample’, maḫāṣu ‘to hit, smash, wound’, našāku ‘to bite’, palāšu ‘to pierce’, sapāḫu ‘to disperse’) • verbs that entail a less drastic or permanent change in the condition of the object than in the previous group, such as verbs of closing and opening (edēlu ‘to close’, petû ‘to open’), of binding and loosening (eʾēlu, kasû, kaṣāru, rakāsu ‘to bind’, retû ‘to fix’, paṭāru ‘to loosen’), verbs of covering and smearing (katāmu ‘to cover’, lapātu ‘to affect, smear’), verbs of seizing (ṣabātu ‘to seize’) • verbs of creating (eṣēru ‘to draw, design’, walādu ‘to give birth to, produce’) Many other transitive verbs can also have the D‑stem more or less incidentally in correlation with a plural object. There are great differences between individual verbs in this respect, and it is not easy to formulate a general rule. The plural constituent may also be the subject, as in (12), or the indirect object, as in (13): (12) RIMA 1, 101–2:5–15 (MA) dūrum ša RN1 RN2 RN3 RN4 RN5 mār RN6 abbāya ú-up-pí-šu-ni ēnaḫma (. . .) e-pu-uš (. . .) rubāʾu urkiu enūma dūrum šūt ēnuḫūma e-ep-pu-šu DN1 u DN2 ikribīšu išammeʾūšu ‘the wall that RN1, RN2, RN3, RN4, and RN5, the son of RN6, my forefathers, had built (D) had become dilapidated, and I rebuilt (G) (it) (. . .); (as for) a future prince, when that wall becomes dilapidated and he rebuilds (G) (it), DN1 and DN2 will listen to his prayers’ (other examples in GAV pp. 148–49) (13) AfO 10, 43 no. 102:8–9 (1 sheep for PN1, 1 sheep for PN2, 2 sheep in total ) ša ⟨ana⟩ abullāte pa-qu-du-ni ‘which have been entrusted to (the men of) the gates’ (contrasting with paqid and paqdū if the dative is Sg, cf. AfO 10, 43 no. 102:34–44 passim; other examples in GAV pp. 149–51) In some cases, where no plural participant is involved, the intended nuance instead seems to be plurality of the event itself, a function that is more commonly performed by the tan‑stems (see §14.7.1, pp. 415–417). In (14A), for instance, D refers to a habit or a repetition, in contrast to G in (14B), which refers to a one-off event in the past: (14A) CT 40, 34: r.8 (SB) (if a horse has become rabid and) lū tappâšu lū amēlī ú-na-šak ‘bites all the time/wants to bite/tries to bite/is prone to biting its companion or people’ (14B) CT 40, 34: r.16 (if a horse has entered a man’s house and) lū imēra lū amēla iš-šuk ‘has bitten a donkey or a person’ (see GAV pp. 154–57 for more details and examples)21 21.  For the contrast between imperfective and perfective, see §4.3 (p. 94), where these clauses are quoted as (13) and (14).

276

The Function of the D‑Stem  11.3.

Likewise, the Old Assyrian D‑stem of šaqālu ‘to pay’ typically refers to payments on different occasions and/or in instalments, or payment to different persons: (15) TTK 10/2, pp. 472–73:6–15 x kaspam ana perdim áš-qúl (. . .) x kaspam ana bīt kārim šadduʾatam áš-qúl x urudu (. . .) ana ki-ra-nim áš-qúl (. . .) mimma annim ina GN aššumi perdim ú-ša-qí-il5 ‘I paid (G) x silver for a perdum (. . .), I paid (G) x silver to the bīt kārim as a šaddūʾutum-fee (. . .), I paid (G) x copper for a . . .. (. . .). All this I paid (D) in GN for a perdum’ (likewise šaqālu G in 19, 21, 24, 26, and 27, versus mimma annim ušaqqil in 35) Some other instances are: (16) TDP 182:44–45 (SB) šumma ṣubassu ú-na-kas4 ‘if he (the patient) constantly tries/wants to tear his garment into pieces’ (17) ZA 75, 202/4:96–97 (OB) kīma as[k]u[  pp]a[t]im lu-ka-bi-is-k[a] / kīma qaq[qari ]m lūtettiqka ‘like a threshold I want to step upon you / like the ground I want to walk over you’ (with D coordinated with etēqu Gtn) (18) BKBM 30:43 (SB) adi šibîšu ú-al-lat ‘he swallows seven times’ (with ellipse of the object) In still other transitive verbs, the D‑stem seems to be intensive, i.e., to underline a more prolonged or forceful action, such as ḫamāṣu G ‘to take off, remove’ (usually clothes), versus D ‘to tear off, tear away’ (often metals from an object) (see GAV p. 176). This seems to be marginal, however, and usually it is quite difficult to establish such a nuance from the context in a sufficiently objective way. An original contrast in intensity has been lexicalized in dabābu G ‘to speak’, D ‘to talk much’ or ‘to talk loud’ > ‘to complain, grumble’ (intr.) and ‘to pester, harass, entreat’ (trans.),22 kašādu G ‘to reach, arrive’, D ‘to pursue, (try to) catch’ and ‘to drive away, expel, remove’ (cf. CAD K 280–81 s.v. 4/5),23 and (rarely) ḫasāsu G ‘to think of, mention’, D ‘to study, ponder’ (CAD Ḫ 125b s.v. 9), alongside the far more common factitive meaning ‘to remind’. The polysemous nature of the use of the D‑stem of transitive action verbs makes it sometimes difficult to establish the intended nuance, as in (19), where we may hesitate between frequentative (‘repeatedly’), intensive (‘severely’), or even plurality of the subject (‘all together’: (19) AbB 12, 65:29 (OB) ina d [ab]ābim ú-ma-ah-hi-ṣú-šu ‘during the trial they beat him repeatedly’ (tr. W. H. van Soldt) The use of the D‑stem for plurality of the event or its participants seems to be optional: in all cases mentioned, the G‑stem can also be used, and in most verbs it is actually far more common. Many other D‑stems of transitive verbs, however, do not have an obvious association with plurality, intensity, or similar notions. Some of them have acquired an idiomatic meaning (e.g., kasû G ‘to bind’, D ‘to demand payment from’, rakāsu G ‘to bind’, D ‘to bind someone to an 22.  Cf. AHw 147b s.v. D ‘viel reden’, perhaps attested in ARM 2, 24:12–13 (OB) annêtim u mādātim ú-da-ab-bi-ib-šu ‘these and many (other) things I spoke to him’; for ‘to complain, grumble’, see CAD D 11–12 s.v. 8a (G is also found in this meaning; cf. CAD D 10–11 s.v. 5, AHw 147a s.v. G 3); for ‘to pester, harass, entreat’, see CAD D 12–13 s.v. 8b–c. 23.  For the semantic change from catch to chase away, cf. French chasser ‘to hunt’ and ‘to chase away’, from Vulgar Latin captiare ‘to try to catch’ (cf. capere ‘to take, catch’); see Jongen 1985: 131–32.

11.4.  D tantum Verbs

277

agreement’ or ‘to bandage’), or interchange with the G‑stem without observable difference. The latter type is widespread in Standard Babylonian with, for instance, gamāru G and D ‘to finish’, katāmu G and D ‘to cover’, pašāru G and D ‘to loosen’, especially on a fairly large scale in the more-or-less technical vocabulary of scholarly texts (medical and ritual): kapāru G and D ‘to rub, wipe clean’, ḫalāšu G and D ‘to scrape’, marāqu G and D ‘to crush’, tabāku G and D ‘to pour, heap up’, G and D naqû ‘to sacrifice’, etc. In literary (con)texts, the equivalence between G and D can be exploited for stylistic variation, as in (20): (20) SpTU 3, 76:18 (SB) ina dimti bu-ul-lu-la-ku ina eperī bal-la-ku ‘I am stained (D) with tears, I am smeared (G) with dust’

11.4.  D tantum Verbs There are also many D‑stems without corresponding G‑stem, the “D tantum verbs,” such as kullumu ‘to show’, puḫḫu ‘to exchange’, kullu ‘to hold, offer’, and buʾʾû ‘to search, examine’. Lists of several types of D tantum verbs can be found in GAV pp. 310–16. There is no clear-cut distinction between “ordinary” D‑stems and D tantum verbs. Apart from the possibility that a specific G‑stem may accidentally be unattested,24 the decision whether a D‑stem is sufficiently similar in meaning to qualify as a derivation of a G‑stem of the same root is often subjective.25 In the D tantum verbs, the D‑stem does not have a grammatical function in the sense of a regular semantic relationship to a (relatively) basic stem. In most cases, there is no obvious reason why a G‑stem is lacking, yet among the D tantum verbs we can distinguish two specific groups. First, many of them are denominal, i.e., closely associated with and directly derived from a noun:26 gullulu ‘to act unjustly towards, commit (a sin)’ from gillatu ‘sin’, lullû ‘to provide abundantly with’ from lalû ‘desire, charm, luxury’ (recognizable as non-verbal in origin from 24.  A good example is the alleged D tantum verb gullubu ‘to shave’: in a recently published Old Assyrian letter the corresponding G‑stem has appeared: ArAn. 5, 3:61 a-ḫa-⟨at  ⟩-ni qaqqassa ana Ištar ta-aglu-ub ‘our sister has shaved her head for Ištar’. The existence of galābu is not unexpected in the light of the deverbal nouns gallābu ‘barber’, naglabu ‘razor’, and gulībātu ‘hair cuttings’, but it reminds us of the necessarily provisional nature of our classifications. This instance has the additional interest that it allows us to make a plausible reconstruction of how the replacement of a G‑stem by a D‑stem came about. The occurrence of a PuRRuS name Gullubu, which doubtless means ‘bald’ (rather than ‘shaven’), suggests that parallel to galābu an expressive PuRRuS adjective existed of the type discussed in GAV pp. 348–49 in §10.3.2, e.g., buqqumu ‘with scarce hair’ alongside baqāmu ‘to pluck’ and ḫuššulu ‘crippled’ alongside ḫašālu ‘to crush’. These forms belong to the group of PuRRuS forms for salient bodily characteristics (GAV pp. 371–78), many of which refer to a condition of the hair. It seems plausible that the D‑stem gullubu is a denominal verb of this adjective with factitive meaning: ‘to make bald’ > ‘to shave’, which replaced the simple verb in Babylonian and later Assyrian. 25.  For instance, the D‑stems lupputu ‘to tarry, be delayed’ and zubbulu ‘to linger, keep waiting’ differ so markedly in meaning from lapātu ‘to touch, smear, affect’ and zabālu ‘to carry’, respectively, that they can be considered to be D tantum verbs with good reason. On the other hand, burrû ‘to usher in, announce’ (CAD B 331a s.v. burrû, but in AHw 109b s.v. barû I ‘to see’ D) can be explained as a lexicalized factitive of barû ‘to see’, and qubbû ‘to lament’ (CAD Q 292a s.v. qubbû, AHw 890a s.v. qabû II ‘to speak’ II D) as an intensive of qabû ‘to speak’. Murruru ‘to check’ (CAD M/2 223b s.v. murruru v., AHw 609a s.v. marāru I D 3) seems to be a plausible case of a lexicalized D‑stem of marāru ‘to be(come) bitter’ via the meaning *‘to taste (whether something is bitter)’. Strangely enough, CAD lists lupputu (L 92a s.v. lapātu 4k) and zubbulu (Z 4 s.v. zabālu 3/4) under the G‑stems lapātu and zabālu, but the other three as independent verbs. 26.  For a list of denominal D‑stems, see GAV pp. 310–12. A few additional instances are battuqum (OA) ‘to send by means of an express messenger (a bātiqum)’ (ATHE 30:28), nugguru ‘to denounce’ from

278

The Essence of the D‑Stem  11.5.

the identity of its first and second radical), ṣullulu ‘to cover with a roof, to provide shade’, from ṣulūlu, ṣulultu ‘roof’, ultimately from ṣillu ‘shade’, uḫḫuzu ‘to mount in precious materials’ (D/Dt), from iḫzū ‘mountings’, and OA wazzunum ‘to lend one’s ear, listen carefully’, from uznu ‘ear’.27 Since denominal verbs are mainly recognizable by their close association with the source noun, they tend to have a very specific, often more-or-less technical meaning. Therefore, most of them are rather uncommon. The D‑stem is not the only verbal stem to accommodate denominal verbs (cf. GAV pp. 305–7), but it is by far the most common one and may be regarded as the standard form for this purpose. An important reason is that it is the most productive of all verbal stems (see §11.1, p. 268) and that its conjugation is completely regular, with a single base and no vowel-class distinctions. It is true that the G‑stem is far more common in terms of the quantity of verbs, but in normal cases there was already a G‑stem of the same root so that the use of the D-stem avoided homonymy; with an existing D‑stem, this is usually less harmful, since most D-stems are far less frequent than some G‑stems. In the case of transitive denominal verbs, the association of the D‑stem with transitivity was doubtless a crucial factor. Most denominal D‑stems are indeed transitive; see the list in GAV pp. 310–16.28 Second, a fairly large number of D tantum verbs denote activities that are inherently durative or repetitive: verbs of waiting (quʾʾû), lingering and delaying (lupputu, uḫḫuru, zubbulu, and possibly also muqqu ‘to hesitate’), verbs of praying (s/ṣullû, suppû, muʾʾû, sarruru (NA)), verbs of observing ( puqqu, ṣubbû) and reflecting (šummu), and verbs of searching (buʾʾû, naddudum (OA)). The reason why these verbs use the D‑stem as their default form is undoubtedly related to the general pluractional meaning of gemination of R2. Since it is semantically unlikely that they go back to an adjective or a past participle—as other D‑stems do (see §11.6.2, pp. 282–283)—it is conceivable that at least some of them come from the GPL‑stem *yiqattalu but were incorporated into the very similar conjugation of the D‑stem when *yiqattalu lost its association with verbal plurality. There are also D tantum verbs derived from adjectives that do not have a corresponding G-stem (GAV pp. 309–10). They are a subclass of the denominal D‑stems and have factitive function. Instances include duššupu ‘to make sweet’ from dašpu ‘sweet’ and duššû ‘to provide abundantly’ from dešû ‘abundant’. Such cases represent the original way of deriving factitive D‑stems, as I will argue in §11.6.2 (pp. 283–285).

11.5. The Essence of the D‑Stem We can summarize the function of the D‑stem as follows. If the G‑stem is a process verb and thus has a low degree of semantic transitivity and is non-agentive, the D‑stem is factitive and indicates that the process is brought about by an agent. Accordingly, it is usually transitive and by definition agentive and denotes a qualitative increase in valency. If the G‑stem itself is a transitive nāgiru ‘herald’ (Durand 1997/2000: I 102); and paršumu ‘to outlive somebody’ (NA) from puršumu ‘old man’ (see chap. 12 n. 69, p. 307). 27.  See AHw 1494a s.v., attested twice as an Imp Pl: wa-zi-na ATHE 64:43; ú-zi-na AKT 2, 32:23 (see J. G. Dercksen, JESHO 41 [1998] 221 for this interpretation). 28.  In a few cases, the D form may have been chosen because the verb is derived from a noun whose form is similar to forms of the D paradigm: e.g., puḫḫu ‘to replace, exchange’ from pūḫu ‘replacement’, and nukkusu ‘to balance an account’ (SAk) from nikkassu ‘account’ (cf. B. R. Foster, NABU 1989/115). In the case of adjectives, it is a plausible assumption that the gemination of the D‑stem ultimately goes back to gemination of R2 in adjectives (see §11.6.2, pp. 282–283).

11.5.  The Essence of the D‑Stem

279

action verb, and therefore agentive by definition, the D‑stem maintains the valency of the G‑stem but often adds a nuance of plurality or intensity. The upshot of this is that almost all D‑stems with a corresponding G‑stem are transitive and agentive. Since the factitive function implies an agentive subject and a patient object, and since most transitive action verbs with a D‑stem are high-transitivity verbs in themselves (see below), these D‑stems are prototypical high-transitivity verbs. Only two groups of D‑stems do not conform to this pattern: the intransitive action verbs of §11.3.2 (p. 274) and a part of the D tantum verbs of the previous section. The close association with high transitivity is an essential characteristic of the D‑stem. This is confirmed by the fact that there are two semantic classes of verbs that do not or only rarely have a D‑stem. The first and most striking class concerns transitive verbs that are not high-transitivity verbs, because they typically have a non-patient direct object, i.e., one which is not saliently affected by the action. The verbs in question belong to the following groups (I only mention the most common verbs; for more instances and further details, see GAV pp. 102–3): 1. verbs of giving and taking, e.g., aḫāzu ‘to take, marry’, ekēmu ‘to take away’, leqû ‘to receive’, nadānu ‘to give, sell’, šâmu ‘to buy’, šarāku ‘to grant, dedicate’, šarāqu ‘to steal’ 2. verbs of placing and sending, e.g., šakānu ‘to place’, nadû ‘to put down, leave behind’, našû ‘to lift, carry’, šapāru ‘to send’, wabālu ‘to bring, carry’, warû ‘to bring, lead’, tabālu and tarû ‘to take/bring along’ 3. verbs of observing and watching, e.g., amāru ‘to see’, naṣāru ‘to guard, watch’, naṭālu ‘to look at, watch’, šemû ‘to hear’ 4. verbs of possession, control, care and love/hate, e.g., rašû ‘to get’, kalû ‘to detain, withhold’, gamālu ‘to spare, oblige’, râmu ‘to love’, zêru ‘to hate’ 5. verbs of eating and drinking: akālu ‘to eat’, and šatû ‘to drink’29 Only very rarely do we find D‑stems of these verbs and other verbs of the same semantic nature, in spite of a few noteworthy exceptions, such as paqādu ‘to entrust’ and šaqālu ‘to pay’ (in Old Assyrian), which occur in the D‑stem quite frequently. However, the contrast between the absence or extreme rarity of the D‑stem in these very common verbs and its frequent occurrence in transitive verbs with a high degree of transitivity is strong enough to show how close the association between the D‑stem and high transitivity is. The second semantic type of verbs that often lack a D‑stem is that of intransitive motion verbs, such as alāku ‘to go /come’, etēqu ‘to pass’, ebēru ‘to cross’, etc. Since they are action verbs, they belong to the small group of verbs discussed in §11.3.2 (p. 274), such as saʾālu ‘to cough’. Unlike these, however, they are semantically unlikely to distinguish different degrees of intensity or expressivity, and as action verbs, they cannot be factitive. So they have no conceivable function for a D‑stem. To express verbal plurality, they use the Gtn‑stem in accordance with their lowtransitivity nature (see §14.7.2, pp. 417–419). In §11.6.2, I will give a reconstruction of the functional development of the D‑stem that will show how its actual functions can be derived from its original iconic association with plurality and intensity.

29.  In these verbs, the less-than-prototypical transitivity is related to the fact that in many contexts the activity of eating and drinking is more prominent than the substance that is eaten or drunk. Therefore, the object of these verbs is often less relevant and frequently omitted.

280

The D‑Stem in Historical Perspective  11.6.

11.6. The D‑Stem in Historical Perspective 11.6.1.  The D‑stem in Semitic and Afroasiatic The Proto-Semitic origin of the D‑stem is proven beyond doubt by an overall correspondence in form with other Semitic languages and a far-reaching similarity in function (to be discussed in the next section).30 Table 11.2 shows the relevant forms in Akkadian, Arabic, Hebrew, and Geʿez. Forms that are not directly comparable to the corresponding Akkadian forms are given in brackets. The rightmost column shows my reconstruction of the Proto-Semitic paradigm, repeated from Table 4.8 in chap. 4. Akkadian

Arabic

Hebrew

Geʿez

PSem

Ipfv

uparras

(yuqattilu)

(yəqaṭṭẹl)

(yəqēttəl)

*yuqattilu

Pfv

uparris

yuqattil

yəqaṭṭẹl

yəqattəl

*yuqattil

Imp

parris (Ass)

qattil

qaṭṭẹl

qattəl

*qattil

Inf

parrusu (Ass)

(taqtīl‑)

(qaṭṭẹl)

(qattəlō(t))

*qattVl‑

Stat/PPartc parrus(u) (Ass) (qattala)

(qiṭṭẹl)

(qattala)

*qattVl‑

PrPartc

məqaṭṭẹl

(qattāli)

*muqattil‑

muparrisu

muqattil‑

Table 11.2: The D‑stem in the main Semitic languages.

For the divergent imperfective forms, see chap. 4, especially §4.5.2 (pp. 112–115). The Akkadian perfective, imperative, and present participle match completely with the West Semitic forms. However, only Arabic offers evidence of the finite prefix vowel u; elsewhere it has become ə, which in Geʿez may also come from i and in Hebrew also from i and a (Bauer and Leander 1922: 324 opt for a).31 The agreement between Akkadian and Arabic strongly favours u as the original prefix vowel. The difference in prefix vowels between D and Š (which have u) on the one hand, and G and N (which have alternating i/a) on the other seems to defy an explanation for the present, but it certainly existed already in Proto-Semitic.32 30.  See Moscati, ed. 1964: 124; Lipiński 1997: 382–84; Kienast 2001: 227–31. 31.  The prefix vowel of the Ugaritic D‑stem remains unclear. The first person singular has ʾa-; the vowel of the other persons is unknown (Sivan 1997: 133; Tropper 2000: 545–46). Tropper posits u or, less probably, a, mainly on comparative grounds. 32.  The most common explanation, favoured, for instance, by Brockelmann (1908: 560), Bauer and Leander (1922: 324), and Rundgren (1959a: 265 and 1963a: 99–100) is that a changed to u in open pretonic position, i.e., D *yaqattilu > *yuqattilu. This is an ad hoc solution not confirmed by convincing parallels in other domains of the language, as argued by Christian (1953: 88) and admitted by Rundgren (1963a: 101–2), and is contradicted by the existence of weak perfective forms such as *yakūn(u) ‘he/it became firm’ and the derived pluractional *yiqattalu (2ms *taqattalu) that is assumed in the present work. Kienast’s (1957a) claim that u is taken over from the Š‑stem—where it derives from the independent 3ms pronoun šū in its function of causative marker—depends on his (and Speiser’s 1967: 404–16) explanation of the historical background of the Š‑stem, which is highly questionable (see §13.6, pp. 352–353). This does not mean, however, that u may not ultimately come from the Š‑stem. For Lipiński’s (1997: 368) view that u represents the ergative case and a/i the non-active case of an erstwhile ergative verbal system in Common Semitic, with the corollary that G‑stem verbs were originally intransitive and D‑stems transitive, see n. 39 below (p. 283). For the background of u, see also Izre'el 1991: 45 n. 37 and Hasselbach 2004: 29 n. 43. The idea that u in prefixes is a remnant of a verbal copula is interesting but requires more solid underpinning; it

11.6.  The D‑Stem in Historical Perspective

281

In the infinitive and the stative/past participle, the individual languages have gone their own way, as is usual in categories that are low in the hierarchy of the verbal paradigm. The Akkadian Inf parrusu has no certain parallels: the Hebrew form goes back to *qattil‑, apparently by analogy with the prefix stem (Bauer and Leander 1922: 324–25); the Geʿez form qattəlō(t)‑ is ambiguous: if ə is from u, it may be parallel to parrusu, apart from the secondary suffix.33 An indirect trace of parrusu may have survived in the Arabic Inf taqattul of Stem V (taqattala): it suggests that Stem II may originally have had *qattul.34 However, the productive infinitive (maṣdar ) of Stem II has the form taqtīl, which is unrelated to the D‑stem and actually comes from the Gt‑stem, as I will argue in §14.6.1 (pp. 400–401). Even without taqtīl, it is unlikely that Arabic would have preserved *qattul, since it has remodelled all other derived infinitives on the basis of the vowel sequence ‑i‑ā‑ (qitāl, (i)nqitāl, etc.), and indeed a rare infinitive pattern qittāl is also attested (Wright 1967: I 115 sub 6). Finally, the stative/past participle parrus(u) can be compared etymologically with the West Semitic perfect, but the actual forms of the latter are remodelled in various ways; see Huehnergard 1992 for a discussion of the West Semitic forms. The vigour and productivity of the D‑stem in Semitic contrasts sharply with its apparent absence in other Afroasiatic languages. The other languages typically use reduplication to express plurality and intensity. As to Cushitic, Sasse (1981: 209) and Gragg (apud Kienast 2001: 613) mention various derived verbal stems with reduplication that have intensive function. Frajzyngier (1979) quotes many similar examples of simple verbs with a reduplicated counterpart that indicate plurality of the object or the subject, intensity, and frequentativity in various Chadic and Cushitic languages and in Egyptian. In Tuareg, more than in other Berber languages, total and partial reduplication is widespread in verbs with intensive, iterative, and similar meanings (Prasse 1972/4: III 47–55). They belong especially to Prasse’s verb classes VII (fərəsfərəs ‘to cut into many pieces’, cf. əfrəs ‘to cut’ and əlkəsləkəs ‘to crush vigorously in a mortar’ from əlkəs ‘to crush in a mortar’), VIII (băkbăk ‘to shake out’), IX (bələgləg ‘to burst into flames’, XI (zəməmmərət ‘to drag oneself along’, XV (hulhəl ‘to ramble’), and XVI (   fuffərət ‘to rub’). Although some of them are clearly extensions of a simple verb, they are not normally assigned to the “derived verbal stems” of the Berber languages (which only include categories with prefixes). Alongside reduplication, gemination is also used in these languages as a grammatical marker but apparently on a much smaller scale. From the Chadic languages Pero and Kanakuru, Fraj­ zyngier (1979: 5–6) quotes a parallel use of both devices: in Pero, some verbs use gemination and others reduplication to indicate a plural object (and sometimes also for transitivizing an intransitive verb; see below), e.g., lookò – lokkò ‘to hang’, but menò – memmunò ‘to like’ and kubù – kubbubò ‘to taste a liquid’. In Kanakuru, a small group of verbs has gemination of the second was proposed by Hetzron 1973/74 for the u prefixes of the West Semitic apophonic passive, but it may be relevant to the D‑stem as well, especially if we assume that it was originally a conjugation of adjectives, as I will argue below. 33.  Geʿez also has a past participle qəttul (< *quttūl) associated with the D‑stem (Tropper 2002: 97), which it is tempting to equate with pa/urrusum. It is more likely, however, that it is modelled on the G‑stem past participle qətul < *qutūl, which is functionally equivalent to qatūl in other Semitic languages (Tropper 2002: 97 n. 127; Fox 2003: 200) but has no pendant in Akkadian and must be a West Semitic development. 34.  Wright (1967: I 117) mentions a pattern tiqittāl as infinitive of Stem V and seems to assume that this is primary to taqattul. However, tiqittāl can easily be explained as secondary, since it is clearly modelled on the general infinitive pattern with the sequence -i-ā-. The pattern taqattul is isolated and therefore difficult to explain as an analogical creation. Kuryłowicz (1972: 50) equates it with the corresponding Akkadian form putarrus(u); see further §14.5.5 (pp. 394–395).

282

The D‑Stem in Historical Perspective  11.6.

consonant to indicate plurality of subject or object (muti - mutte ‘to die’). Berber languages use gemination as one of the two main features of the imperfective, as discussed in §4.4.3.2 (p. 105). However, a derived verbal stem that is parallel to what I will describe presently as the original nature of the D‑stem—i.e., primarily consisting of denominal verbs associated with adjectives and expressing various aspects of verbal plurality—does not seem to be attested outside Semitic.35 On the other hand, as I argued in chap. 4, several branches of Afroasiatic had a pluractional imperfective characterized by gemination of R2, which survives in the Proto-Semitic GPL‑stem *yiqattalu and in imperfective forms of Berber and Beja and is therefore likely to have originated in the common Afroasiatic period. This category differs from the D‑stem in that it must have been mainly associated with fientive rather than with adjectival verbs. An indication that this was indeed the case is the fact that in Berber verbs that denote typical adjectival concepts do not normally use gemination to form their imperfective, but the prefix t(t)-: e.g., Tuareg itimġar from imġar – măqqăr ‘to be big’, and itišwaġ from išwaġ - šăggaġ ‘to be red’ (see §4.4.3.2, p. 106). This short and doubtless incomplete survey leads to the conclusion that the use of gemination and reduplication as grammatical markers in Semitic is the opposite of that in the rest of Afro­ asiatic: in Semitic, gemination is widespread and reduplication marginal (see chap. 15), whereas elsewhere it is the other way around (Rubio 2003a: 175–76).

11.6.2.  The development of the factitive function The use of the D‑stem in other Semitic languages is basically parallel to that in Akkadian as described in §11.3 (pp. 271–277). In textbooks, the functions of intensive/pluractional and factitive/causative figure prominently: see, for instance, Wright 1967: I 31–32 for Arabic; Joüon and Muraoka 1991: 154–56 for Hebrew; and Segert 1990: 366–67 for Aramaic.36 The denominal use is also mentioned widely.37 Only in South Semitic is the situation different. The corresponding stem in Geʿez, Stem I/2, does not have a productive opposition to the basic stem: most I/2 verbs do not have a corresponding basic verb and are lexically determined, like the D tantum verbs of Akkadian (Dillmann and Bezold 1907: 145–46; Rundgren 1959a: 18–19, 52–60; Hudson 1994: 48). Nevertheless, Tropper (2002: 106) mentions the same functions as in other Semitic languages (intensive, pluractional, factitive, declarative, and denominative). This suggests that many I/2 verbs are lexicalized with the meaning they originally acquired on the basis of the functions that are also attested elsewhere.38 The Modern South Arabian languages have replaced gemination of R2 with vowel 35.  As already observed by Kienast (1982: 20 and 2001: 563). 36.  A more detailed look at the older West Semitic languages, however, suggests that they differ somewhat from Akkadian in that the pluractional function has become marginal as compared to Akkadian. Most grammars mention it and give a few examples, but they also state or imply that it is rather rare compared to the factitive function (see GAV p. 9 for examples, and also Greenberg 1991). This suggests that these West Semitic languages represent a later stage of development in which the original function has been reduced and the factitive function has expanded. On the other hand, the pluractional use of Stem II still exists in modern Arabic, as demonstrated by Lentin (1991); in addition, Stem II has almost completely taken over the causative function of Stem IV (Fischer and Jastrow 1980: 46, 70–71). 37.  In addition to other verbal stems, especially the G‑stem and the Š‑stem; for the G‑stem, see GAV p. 306 for Akkadian, and, e.g., Fleisch 1979: 263–70 for Arabic; Bauer and Leander 1922: 289 for Hebrew; for the Š‑stem, see §13.2.2.4 (pp. 332–333). 38.  This is confirmed by the fact that the I/2 verbs of Amharic are transitive to a greater extent than is to be expected statistically (Hudson 1991: 681), in accordance with the Akkadian D‑stem. Moreover, as already observed in §4.6.1 (pp. 119–120), the fact that Stem I/2 does not have a variable vowel like Stem I/1 also points to an originally derived status (  pace Hudson 1991, 1994).

11.6.  The D‑Stem in Historical Perspective

283

lengthening, conflating their original D‑stem with the counterpart of the Arabic Stem III and the Geʿez Stem I/3 (both qātala) (see §4.6.1, pp. 117–118). The functions of this conglomerate are similar to those of the D‑stem elsewhere—transitivizing and denominal—and often there is no corresponding basic stem (Simeone-Senelle 1998: 77–79). We may conclude that the loss of the grammatical opposition between the basic stem, the D‑stem, and the stem with vowel lengthening (where it exists) is a specific innovation of South Semitic (Rundgren 1959a: 52–53). As argued in §4.6.1 (p. 120), this was an important factor in the reanalysis of the old D‑stem imperfective *yuqattil(u) as imperfective of the basic stem (yəqattəl ). Already in Proto-Semitic, then, the D‑stem combined the functions of pluractional/intensive and factitive/causative and was also used for deriving verbs from nouns and adjectives.39 In Akkadian, the D‑stem has a close association with adjectives: almost all common simple adjectives have a derived PuRRuS and/or PaRRaS adjective, and most of them also have a verbal D‑stem with factitive function. Among the factitive D‑stems, verbs that denote typical adjectival concepts—i.e., states and qualities—predominate. It seems therefore a plausible assumption that the D‑stem is originally a denominal category derived from adjectives with gemination of R2.40 Such adjectives must have been wide-spread in Proto-Semitic. They are amply attested in Akkadian with the patterns Pa/uRRuS and PaRRaS and sporadically with other patterns (see §4.4, p. 96) and have preserved the original iconic force of gemination in their association with plurality and intensity. Other Semitic languages also preserve a substantial number of such adjectives (Fox 2003: 264–80). Hebrew shows the patterns qattīl and qattūl, which Joüon and Muraoka (1991: 253) describe as intensives of qatīl and qatūl, and a small group of adjectives referring to mental and physical characteristics with the pattern qittẹl (1991: 253). Arabic has a number of sporadic patterns with gemination of R2 and (usually) a long vowel in the second syllable; most of them comprise only a very small number of words; a few examples of such words are farrūq ‘very fearful’, kubbār ‘very great’ and quddūs ‘very holy’ (Fleisch 1961: 358–59; Wright 1967: I 137–38). They typically denote qualities of persons and colours; in Moscati, ed. 1964: 78–79, they are described as “adjectives with intensive meaning,” and similar qualifications are found in Fleisch and Wright.41 Verbs derived from adjectives are among the most common types of denominal verbs (Comrie 1985b: 345–46; Kuryłowicz 1964: 88) and naturally adopt meanings such as ‘to be’, ‘to become’, or ‘to bring about’ the property expressed by the adjective. Akkadian has developed a threefold division of labour: for ‘to be’, it uses the stative; for ‘to become’ the fientive forms of the G‑stem (see §3.3.2, pp. 58–60); and for ‘to bring about’ the D‑stem in its factitive function. 39.  There is little or no reliable evidence supporting Lipiński’s (1997: 345, 368, 379) claim that the G‑stem represents the original conjugation of intransitive verbs in opposition to the D‑stem for transitive verbs, even though it is true that the great majority of D‑stems are transitive. It is not only based on the very speculative association of the prefix vowel u of the D‑stem and the Š‑stem with an ergative case ending and the association of i/a of the G‑stem with a non-active case ending but also fails to account for the remarkable fact that a significant quantity of transitive G‑stems are reconstructible to Proto-Semitic, including their root vowel—but hardly any intransitive verbs are (see §18.3.1, p. 588). It is also disproved by the existence of hundreds of transitive G‑stems in all historical Semitic languages. Moreover, Waltisberg (2002a) has shown convincingly that there is no good reason at all to attribute an ergative system to Proto-Semitic; see also Rubio 2003a: 179–181. 40.  The denominal origin of the D‑stem has been asserted by many scholars, such as Wright (1890: 198), Rundgren (1964: 76–77), Kuryłowicz (1972: 154), and Ryder (1974: 92, 165). 41.  In the rest of Afroasiatic, adjectives with gemination occur in Berber; see Rössler 1950: 482–83. In Tuareg, they have been incorporated into the TMA system as perfects of the stative/adjectival class IV verbs; see chap. 4 n. 55 (p. 106).

284

The D‑Stem in Historical Perspective  11.6.

The specialization of the D‑stem of process verbs to clauses with an agentive subject may have originated in cases where a simple adjective and an adjective with gemination of R2 co­ existed and where both of them had a derived fientive verb. An example is rapšu alongside rappašu ‘wide’ in historical Akkadian, the latter of which is mainly used with plural nouns (GAV p. 54). The identity of the radicals in the two corresponding verbs and their similarity in meaning provided an ideal starting point for a functional differentiation: speakers of Akkadian tended to prefer the form with gemination in sentences with an agentive subject—i.e., to express ‘to make wide’—because of the high degree of transitivity inherent in such sentences. This led to the restriction of the G‑stem to clauses that do not have these characteristics, i.e., to intransitive clauses denoting a process.42 The reason why the D‑stem was selected for clauses with an agentive subject was precisely the presence of gemination. The originally iconic association of gemination with plurality and intensity was metaphorically extended to (or, rather, reinterpreted as) an association with high transitivity, since the verbs in question happened to be predominantly high-transitivity verbs. It is likely that the connection between intensity and high transitivity is formed by the high degree of agentivity of the subject: an increase in agentivity can easily be equated with an increase in intensity. The general connection between intensity and high transitivity was pointed out by Hopper and Thompson (1980: 264), and the semantic shift from one to the other is by no means restricted to the D‑stem. It may be posited for all cases where originally intensive categories have causative (or factitive) function. This is found in many languages (Nedyalkov and Silnitsky 1973: 19–20). A well-known case is the suffix ‑*eye/o- in Indo-European: it is intensive and iterative in some words, causative in others, and also denominal (Szemerényi 1997: 274–75); the same applies to ‑*ske/o‑, which is originally iterative or durative—it still has this function in Hittite and Greek— but is also causative in Tocharian B and inchoative in Latin (Kuryłowicz 1964: 106–7; Szeme­ rényi 1997: 273–74, 300). For Semitic, one can point to the Arabic causative Stem IV ʾaqtala, which shares its stem with the “elative” pattern ʾaqtalu, and the Arabic Stem III (qātala), which, in addition to many other functions, also has intensive and causative meaning (Fleisch 1979: 295–96). According to Frajzyngier (1979: 7–8), some Chadic languages use forms with reduplication and gemination, which normally denote plurality (see the preceding section), also with transitive-factitive meaning: Pero cétò ‘to stand’, céttò ‘to raise’, Ngizim tlá ‘to get up’, tlátlá ‘to raise’. Since “recurrent similarity of form must reflect similarity in meaning” (Haiman 1985: 26), these parallels show that there is a relationship between the categories intensive (or whatever name we choose for the phenomenon in question) and causative (or factitive). Once the association of the D‑stem with actions (e.g., ruppušu ‘to make wide’) and the restriction of the G‑stem to processes (e.g., rapāšu ‘to be(come) wide’) had become productive, it also became obligatory, because it filled a gap in the system: cross-linguistically, the tendency to make a morphological distinction between actions and processes is a widespread phenomenon. 42.  This explanation of the factitive function of the D‑stem was anticipated by Rundgren (1959a: 273– 74; 1963a; 1964: 77; 1966: 135–36), who based his conclusions on Kuryłowicz’s explanation (1956: 86–94) of the causative function of the Indo-European suffix *‑eye/o‑. Rundgren points to the striking similarity between the development of *‑eye/o‑ from iterative/denominative to causative and that of the D-stem. However, Rundgren’s insistence on the fact that the iterative function must have become unproductive for the factitive function to develop (1963a: 111, 114) seems to be contradicted by Akkadian: the use of the D‑stem for event plurality, intensity, etc., does not become lost but is restricted to transitive verbs for which a factitive function does not develop. This suggests that in factitive verbs the association with these notions was only abandoned as a result of the rise of the factitive function, not vice versa.

11.6.  The D‑Stem in Historical Perspective

285

According to Nedjalkov and Silnitsky (1973: 4) and Haspelmath (1993: 100–103), only a few languages share the peculiarity of English that it frequently uses the same form for intransitives and causatives, as in change and break. Moreover, this distinction between action and process verbs made the association of the D‑stem with high transitivity more consistent and thus its use more uniform. On the other hand, the restriction of the D‑stem to factitive clauses caused the loss of the distinction between the neutral meaning of the G‑stem and the original pluractional and intensive meaning of the verb with gemination. In other words, ruppušu was no longer used with meanings such as ‘to be(come) wide repeatedly’, ‘to be(come) wide’ (said of a plurality of entities), or ‘to be(come) very wide’.43 This function was taken over by the Gtn‑stem. In transitive verbs with a D‑stem, however, the D‑stem did not become factitive but preserved its pluractional/intensive function. This explains why the Gtn‑stem is rare in these verbs. After a productive derivation had been established from intransitive G‑stem to factitive D‑stem, it could also be applied to intransitive change-of-state verbs, which cannot be strictly distinguished from adjectival verbs anyhow (see §3.3, pp. 54–55), such as belû ‘to go out’ (of fire): the model of rapāšu § ruppušu gave rise to belû § bullû ‘to extinguish’. Transitive action verbs (which cannot be factitive; see §10.8.2, p. 257) frequently have a D‑stem as well. Here the past participle may have played a pivotal role. Because there is no formal distinction between primary adjectives and past participles in Akkadian, derivation from the former entails derivation from the latter.44 Once this had become productive, the source of derivation shifted from the past participle to the verbal paradigm as a whole. As we saw in §8.3.1 (p. 200), past participles are used more frequently as the verb has a higher degree of inherent transitivity. This perfectly agrees with the fact observed above in §11.5 (p. 279) that the D‑stem is mainly formed from transitive verbs with a high degree of transitivity verbs and much less from those with a low degree of transitivity. There is also a semantic factor involved in this phenomenon: high transitivity actions lend themselves more easily to differentiation of degrees than low transitivity actions: it is much easier to envisage an intensive or drastic form of hitting, cutting, destroying, etc., than of giving, placing, bringing, and similar notions. Furthermore, plurality of participants is a more salient factor in high-transitivity verbs, since it makes a significant difference whether these actions are performed on a single object or on a plurality of objects. This expansion eventually led to a situation in which a D‑stem could be derived from any G‑stem, even without the existence of a past participle, through a direct association between the G‑stem and the D‑stem. This development is an example of the process whereby the relationship 1. basic verb § 2. deverbal noun § 3. denominal verb changed into 1. basic verb § 2. deverbal verb by skipping the intermediate stage (cf. Kuryłowicz 1972: 7, 154). This even allowed the creation of D‑stems of intransitive activity verbs, which do not have a past participle, such as nabāḫu ‘to bark’ § nubbuḫu ‘to bark (loudly?)’.45 On the other hand, in light of the widespread 43.  This process is an example of Kuryłowicz’s fifth “law” of analogy: “Pour rétablir une différence d’ordre central la langue abandonne une différence d’ordre plus marginal” (1945–49: 31). In this case, the semantic (and partly redundant) difference between G and D is abandoned in favour of a syntactic difference. Another matter is whether we should speak of rétablir or perhaps of établir for this Akkadian process. 44.  A similar development took place in the stative; see §7.4.1 (pp. 176–177): just as the stative was verbalized by its expansion from primary adjectives to past participles, the D‑stem became more closely dependent on the corresponding G‑stem as soon as it was also derived from past participles. 45.  The geminate in this type of D‑stem cannot be explained from the assimilation of an infixed n, as Goetze (1942: 7) claims (uraqqid ‘he danced’ < *yu-ra-n-qid), since such an infix (which Goetze infers from the imperfective of the tan‑stems) does not exist; see §14.7.6 (pp. 431–437).

286

The D‑Stem in Historical Perspective  11.6.

occurrence of gemination of R2 in all types of categories, it seems likely that verbs with gemination have existed from the outset, side by side with corresponding simple verbs and independent of those that were derived from adjectives, and that such forms were subsequently incorporated into the D‑stem. In other words, it is possible that such verbs originally belonged to the same category as the GPL‑ stem *yiqattalu (see chap. 4). The historical reality of this scenario is confirmed by the fact that a few originally intransitive verbs have escaped the functional differentiation between G and D and can still be used in the G‑stem as a (transitive) action verb. The most prominent ones are emēdu and kamāsu (see GAV pp. 439–40 for details, references, and instances). Emēdu G basically means ‘to lean (intr.) against, to reach’ (+ Acc or ana) but also ‘to impose’, with abstract conditions as direct object, such as labour, punishment, taxes, etc. The latter meaning is actually the factitive counterpart of the former. So emēdu G can be its own factitive. Its D‑stem is also factitive and means ‘to place upon, impose’, mainly used with concrete objects (body parts, beams, merchandise, ships (‘to moor’), etc. In a similar way, the G‑stem of kamāsu means ‘to gather (people, livestock, harvest)’ both in its intransitive (albeit rarely) and transitive (i.e., factitive) meaning, whereas D is always transitive.46 It is possible that these two verbs are residues of an earlier situation in which G‑stem verbs (or a significant part of them) were indeterminate with regard to process-oriented versus agent-oriented use (like English change and break, etc.), before the D‑stem became a productive means of distinguishing them.47 As stated in §11.5 (pp. 278–279), the outcome of the process outlined above was that the great majority of D‑stems are uniformly high-transitivity verbs. If the G‑stem is a low-transitivity verb, its D‑stem has high transitivity, i.e., it has become transitive; if the G‑stem itself has high transitivity, the D‑stem has it as well but also preserves its iconic association with plurality and intensity. Consequently, the association with high transitivity does not only explain the fact that D‑stems of intransitive verbs are factitive but also the fact that those of action verbs are not factitive: if we add an external agent to such a verb, we get a real causative, and this can only be expressed by the Š‑stem (see §10.8.2, pp. 256–257). Accordingly, the D‑stem of intransitive verbs normally denotes a valency increase ( paḫāru ‘to come together’ versus puḫḫuru ‘to bring together’), whereas that of transitive verbs preserves the valency of the G‑stem, so that ṣabātu and ṣubbutu both mean ‘to seize’.48 46.  The intransitive use of kamāsu is rare and doubtless residual; it only occurs in Old Babylonian, as far as I am aware (YOS 10, 36: I 37; ARM 26/2, 347 no. 437:30; ARM 28, 53: r.8′; OBTR 305:14). 47.  These verbs are the Akkadian counterparts of the verbs in other Semitic languages that express the same distinction by means of vowel alternation (apophony). Arabic, for instance, has verb pairs such as ḥazina ‘to be sad’ versus ḥazana ‘to make sad’, ḫafiya ‘to be hidden’ versus ḫafā ‘to hide’, and Hebrew has mālā ‘to fill’ beside mālẹ̄ ‘to be(come) full’. In a few cases, exactly the same form is used, e.g., Ar waqafa ‘to stop’ (trans. and intr.), ʿadala ‘to be equal’ and ‘to make equal’, ʿabara ‘to perish’ and ‘to destroy’. For this phenomenon, see especially Brockelmann 1913: 139–41; Kuryłowicz 1972: 67–68; Fleisch 1979: 280–81 n. 1; Saad 1982: 66; D. Cohen 1984: 148–49). As Fleisch (1979) and Saad (1982) clearly state for Arabic, such cases are residual: in Arabic, factitives are productively derived by means of Stems II and IV and in Hebrew by means of the Piel. This suggests that these derived stems have replaced the factitive G‑stems with and without apophony (see also Rundgren 1966: 136–37; 1980: 59–61). Akkadian has no trace of an opposition between intransitive and factitive by means of vowel pattern only, so this is likely to be a West Semitic innovation that perhaps became only possible after the development of the pattern QaTaL with active meaning (see §7.4.2, pp. 184–186) in opposition to intransitive QaTiL and QaTuL. 48.  According to Kuryłowicz (1956: 88), quoted by Rundgren (1966: 135), “Les exposants formels du mode d’action deviennent des morphèmes indiquant la diathèse (voix) ou se lexicalisent.” The former happened to the factitive D‑stems, the latter to many D‑stems of transitive verbs and of intransitive action verbs.

11.6.  The D‑Stem in Historical Perspective

287

In sum, the factitive function of the D‑stem is the outcome of a process of grammaticalization of gemination of R2, which has replaced the originally iconic (semantic) function of plurality and intensity with the more grammatical and more abstract function of underlining agentivity and high transitivity. This represents an instance of the common grammaticalization path from semantic to syntactic function, i.e., from more concrete to more abstract. The rise of the factitive function is likely to have taken place at least partially in the Proto-Semitic period, since it recurs in all other Semitic languages. On the other hand, the historical processes involved are common enough to allow for a considerable amount of parallel development. The different functions of the D‑stem represent different stages in this development. Together with typological parallels, they make a reliable reconstruction of its origin and history possible.

Chapter 12

The Prefix n-

12.1. Introduction This chapter deals with the verb forms that are characterized by the prefix n‑. Most of them belong to the canonical N‑stem, but other categories with the prefix n‑ are the verbs of the ­naparruru group, the verb mēlulu in part of its conjugation, the quadriradical verbs of the nabalkutu group, and a number of I/n verbs in which n is arguably a secondary accretion to an originally biliteral element. These manifestations of the prefix n‑ will be discussed in §§12.2–12.5. In §12.6, I will argue that they all ultimately come from a kind of “light verb” that was used to conjugate elements that did not easily fit into the patterns of verbal conjugation, especially elements that were biliteral and quadriliteral or longer. I will also describe the evolution of the n‑prefix from this “light verb” into a prefix and the subsequent development of the paradigms in which it occurs.

12.2. The N‑Stem 12.2.1.  The form of the N‑stem  1 Among the derived verbal stems, the N‑stem is unusually complex because of the unstable nature of n in general, the variations in its vowel pattern, and the existence of fundamental differences between verb classes in the way the N‑stem is formed. Table 12.1 gives the eight inflectional members of the N paradigm for the different vowel classes of the strong verb (cf. also GAG Verbalpar. 13). A/u

A/a

I/i

U/u (Bab)

Impfv

ipparras

iṣṣabbat

ippaqqid

inneppuš

Pfv

ipparis

iṣṣabit

ippaqid

innepuš

t-Pf

ittapras

ittaṣbat

ittapqid

ittenpuš

Imp

napris

naṣbit

napqid

*nenpuš ??

Stat

naprus

naṣbut

napqud

*nenpuš

Inf/PPartc

naprusu

naṣbutu

napqudu

nenpušu

PrPartc

mupparsu

*muṣṣabtu

muppaqdu

*munnepšu

Table 12.1: The paradigm of the N‑stem of the strong verb and epēšu ‘to do/make’.

The basic marker of the N‑stem is -n- or na- prefixed to the first radical. -n- is used in the prefix base ‑nPaRvS in the imperfective, the perfective, and the present participle: Impfv i-n-parrVs 1.  Earlier literature on the N‑stem includes Goetze 1947; GAG §90; Testen 1998a; Kouwenberg 2004.

288

12.2.  The N‑Stem

289

(> ipparrVs), Pfv i-n-parVs (> ipparVs), PrPartc mu-n-paris-u (> mupparsu).2 It always assimilates to the following consonant (for -nn- in the I/voc verbs, see §17.6.3.4, p. 552). Na- occurs in the suffix base naPRvS: Imp na-pris, Stat na-prus, etc.3 However, the division between the prefix and the suffix base is not quite parallel to that in the G‑stem. First, the t‑perfect uses the suffix base naPRvS: i-n-t-aPRvS > ittaprVs, because only naPRvS is able to accommodate an infixed t after the first consonant.4 Second, the imperative, which is normally derived from the prefix base by means of truncation of the personal prefix (see §5.5, pp. 133–134), is also derived from the suffix base na-pris, because the use of the prefix base would lead to an unmanageable initial cluster nC- > C1C1- (Testen 1998a: 131). The Assyrian paradigm differs in one important way from the Babylonian: the perfective forms without ending are subject to the vowel assimilation rule: ippiris, iṣṣibit, ippiqid. In Old Assyrian, this i is analogically extended to the forms with an ending, which, strictly speaking, do not fall under the rule (GKT §10b; GAG §90d; Kouwenberg 2004: 333–35), e.g., 3mp ippirsū instead of the expected form ipparsū. Surprisingly, this analogical extension seems to be reversed in Middle and Neo-Assyrian, where the a-forms reappear (W. Mayer 1971: 64 and GAG §90d), e.g.: • iṣ-ṣa-ab-tu KAV 1: VII §47:3 (MA) ‘they were seized’ from ṣabātu N • iš-ša-ak-nu(-ú)-ni KAJ 107:12 (MA) ‘(which) were placed’ from šakānu N • ik-kal-ú-ni /ikkalʾūni/ KAV 1: IV §36:105 (MA) ‘he was held’ (Subj) from kalû ‘to hold, detain’ • iš-ša-ak-nu-u-ni SAA 1, 31:18 (NA) (idem) • li-kar-ku SAA 10, 6: r.6 (NA) ‘let them be gathered’ from karāku N  5 If there is no ending, the form with vowel assimilation is still used (W. Mayer 1971: 63):6 • la-pi-ṭí-ir Fernhandel p. 252:22 (MA) ‘that I may be released’ from paṭāru N • lip-pi-ši-iš SAA 10, 318: r.4 (NA) ‘let him anoint himself’ from pašāšu N The vowel pattern of the N‑stem is complex, even if we omit for the moment the arguably secondary N‑stems of the U/u class. In the prefix categories, this is caused by the fact that their vowels have a different background. The imperfective adopts the imperfective vowel of the G‑stem (see §4.2, p. 89): iparras > ipparras, iṣabbat > iṣṣabbat, ipaqqid > ippaqqid;7 the t‑perfect adopts the vowel of the N imperfective, as in the G‑stem: ipparras > ittapras, iṣṣabbat > ittaṣbat, ­ippaqqid > ittapqid. The perfective, however, has a fixed vowel i, independent of the imperfective vowel: 2.  Evidence for i in the participle comes from feminine forms such as mu-pa-riš-tu Lugal 92 = III 3 ‘winged’ (Fem) and construct states such as mun-na-rib-šu-nu Sn. 47:34 ‘their fugitive(s)’ (both SB). 3.  There is no trace in Akkadian of an older suffix base **naPaRvS, from which naPRvS derives by vowel syncope, as is sometimes argued (Bauer 1912), in contrast to PitRvS from *PitaRvS, which is presupposed by the Old Assyrian alternation pitrVs—pitarsū (< *pitarVs : *pitarVsū). This is as expected, since *PitaRvS is a relatively recent replacement of *taPRvS, as I will argue in §14.4.1 (pp. 378–379), whereas naPRvS is the original form of the suffix base of the N‑stem; see §12.6.2 (pp. 321–322). 4.  The t‑Pf ittaprVs is a relatively recent inner-Akkadian formation, because it could only emerge after t had become an infix (see §14.4.1, pp. 375–380) and had acquired the inflectional function of perfect (since in its original function it was incompatible with the N‑stem). Otherwise this form would doubtless have been something like **yi-ta-n-parVs. 5.  However, i-bi-ši-ú Iraq 41, 90:40 (MA) ‘they came into being’ from bašû N preserves the Old Assyrian form. 6.  For the difficult form iṣ-ṣa-bi-[it] mentioned by W. Mayer, see Postgate 1973: 21. 7.  This rule also applies most types of weak verbs, but not to the U/u verbs of Type 4 discussed below.

290

The N‑Stem  12.2.

ipparis, iṣṣabit, ippaqid. No doubt, this originally also applied to the imperative with i, since the imperative is based on the (stem of the) perfective (see §5.5, p. 133). It may still be the case in historical Akkadian, but we cannot be certain as long as we do not know the form of the imperative of epēšu N (see below).8 This complexity derives historically from the fact that the Pfv ipparis is inherited from Proto-Semitic, whereas the imperfective and the t‑perfect are innerAkkadian innovations modelled on the G‑stem and therefore determined by its vowel class. The remaining forms in the lower half of Table 12.1 are independent of vowel class and follow the general pattern of the derived stems: i for the present participle and u for the stative, the infinitive and the past participle. These are precisely the forms that are also predictable in the paradigms of the G-stem, the Gt‑stem, and the Gtn‑stem.9 Because of the predominantly (medio) passive function of the N‑stem, they are also fairly infrequent and mainly restricted to non(medio)passive N‑stems.10 There are a few incidental irregularities in the vowel pattern of the N‑stem. First, some I/i verbs show N forms with a in the imperfective and the t‑perfect, e.g., Impfv in-na-za-aq ARM 26/2, 526 no. 533:4′ and t‑Pf ta-at-ta-an-za-aq ARM 18, 36:13 from nazāqu (I/i) N ‘to become worried’ (both OB Mari), and ik-kam-ma-lu BBR 25:10 ‘they will become angry’ from kamālu (I/i) (SB). They testify to a tendency to adopt the vowel pattern A/i from other derived stems and some frequent irregular verbs. The opposite development also occurs: pašāšu (A/u) ‘to anoint’ shows N forms with i in Middle and Standard Babylonian: t‑Pf it-ta-ap-ši-iš Adapa p. 20:65′ (MB) ‘he anointed himself’, and Impfv ip-pa-aš-ši-iš KUB 37, 55: IV 29, 35 ‘he will anoint himself’ and lā tap-pa-ši-i[š ] Gilg. p. 728:15 ‘do not anoint yourself!’ (both SB), instead of the expected forms ittapšaš and tappaššaš. Perhaps they represent an analogical extension of i from the Pfv ippašiš to the other finite forms, or they may be related to the general shift in vowel class from A/u to I/i (see §3.5.3, pp. 77–78).11 The N‑stems with a vowel u, shown in the fourth column of Table 12.1, behave rather erratically (see also Testen 1998a: 142–45). Since the related vowel class U/u mainly consists of intransitive activity verbs that rarely have an N‑stem, they are few in number and only occur in Babylonian, so that they are likely to be a secondary development specific to this dialect.12 Even so, they can be divided into four types. 8.  All other N imperatives known to me, albeit few in number, have the pattern naPRiS, e.g., na-aški-in ARM 10, 107:25 (OB) ‘provide yourself (with)’ from šakānu (A/u); ne-en-mi-da ShA 1, 74 no. 3:20 (OB) ‘ally (Pl) yourself!’ from emēdu (I/i); na-aṣ-bi-ta SAA 2, 54:590 (NA) ‘be (Pl) seized!’) from ṣabātu (A/a); and na-ak-li-i AbB 1, 31:8 (OB) ‘stay here!’ (naklî < nakliʾī ) from kalû (A/a). Cf. also nanši(am) quoted in (03) and (04) below. 9.  GAG §90a/b/c; Goetze 1947: 53–56; Reiner 1966: 81. 10.  It is possible that there are a few deverbal nouns derived from the N‑stem with the pattern naPRāS, parallel to PitRāS alongside the Gt Inf PitRuS: GAG §56h sub 17 mentions naplāsu ‘view, glance’ (na-apla-su-uš-šu RA 22, 172:15 (OB)), nazzāzu ‘das Hintreten’, and nalbābu ‘das Wildwerden’. They are rare and literary, and Kienast (1989: 282, 2001: 377) may be right in describing them as old infinitives that have been replaced by naPRuS and survive as action nouns outside the verbal paradigm. However, two of the three instances concern roots with a labial, so they may also be instrument nouns with the prefix ma-, which becomes na- in such roots. Note that nazzāzu is not in the dictionaries in this form but occurs as nanzāzu (AHw 731–32) or nanzazu (CAD N/2 261–62). More often than not it refers to a person (‘attendant, courtier’). A formally similar noun is na/eʾrāru (OB) later nā/ērāru ‘help, (military) aid’, but it has no etymology, so it is unclear whether it is a naPRāS derivation of a root √ ʾrr ; see the end of §12.3 (p. 304). 11.  A similar phenomenon occurs in the Gt‑stem; see chap. 14 n. 5 (p. 357). 12.  The common Neo-Assyrian form immagur (CAD M/1 43 s.v. 10b; Hämeen-Anttila 2000: 33; Luukko 2004: 112–13) from magāru is doubtless a secondary development.

12.2.  The N‑Stem

291

1.  The first type consists of a single verb, epēšu N ‘to be made, done, treated’, which is included in Table 12.1. It is by far the most common U/u verb with an N‑stem. It is therefore convenient to discuss it here, although as a I/voc verb it actually belongs to chap. 17. Epēšu originally belonged to the A/u class and is still a regular A/u verb in Assyrian: G Impfv ēppaš, Pfv ēpuš, t‑Pf ētapaš, N Impfv inneppaš, Pfv innēpiš, t‑Pf ittēpaš.13 In Babylonian, it has become U/u secondarily (GAG §97t): after Babylonian had replaced the Impfv īppeš (with E-colouring; see §17.5, pp. 525–526) with īppuš, u also penetrated into the G t‑Pf ītepuš and in the N Impfv, which, as I argued above, is based on the G Impfv: īppuš > inneppuš, which replaced an earlier (īppeš >) inneppeš, which is also attested. Subsequently, innepuš replaced *innepiš in the perfective and ittenpuš replaced ittenpeš in the t‑perfect.14 The Pfv innepuš is the only attested N perfective of a transitive verb that does not have i. It replaced *innepiš through the combined pressure of u in all other prefix forms of the G‑stem and the N‑stem. The uniqueness of this u finds a remarkable parallel in the stative epuš, which sporadically appears in Middle Babylonian and later alongside regular epiš and is also more or less unique among the statives derived from fientive verbs; see §7.2 with n. 2 (p. 162) for references. 2.  Other transitive U/u verbs with an N‑stem regularly show an imperfective with u, e.g.: • im-ma-ak-ku-ús Edikt p. 36: V 2 (OB) ‘it will be collected’ from makāsu • is-sa-am-mu-ud RA 73, 70a:3 (OB) ‘it will be ground’ from samādu • in-na-aṭ-ṭú-ú AbB 10, 14:21 (OB) ‘he will be beaten’ from naṭû but they probably have a perfective with i, although among the forms in which the vowel between R2 and R3 is visible, only III/voc instances are known to me: • iqqalī from qalû ‘to burn’ in li-iq-qa-li ARM 3, 73:15 (OB) • immanī from manû ‘to count’ (e.g., li-im-ma-ni SAA 3, 4: r.II 28′, SB) As we saw in §3.5.3 (pp. 78–79), they are not quite reliable as evidence, since they fluctuate between u and i in the greatest part of their conjugation.15 3.  Most intransitive U/u verbs with an N‑stem16 have u in both the N imperfective and the N perfective, i.e., they are isovocalic, like almost all intransitive verbs. The imperfective forms include: 13.  For the long ē in the perfective (innēpuš, innērub), see §17.6.3.4 (pp. 550–551) and Kouwenberg 2004. See further GKT §90d for Old Assyrian and W. Mayer 1971: 67–68 for Middle Assyrian (he only mentions G forms, but cf. N Impfv in-né-pa-áš MATSH p. 131 no. 8:44′). For Neo-Assyrian, cf. Impfv in‑né-ep-pa-áš SAA 10, 339: r.4, Pfv in-né-piš-u-ni SAA 10, 100: r.2 (Subj), t‑Pf it-te-pa-áš SAA 1, 188:13. 14.  For the older form of the imperfective and the perfect, cf., e.g., in-né-e-ep-pe-eš AbB 11, 160:28 and it-te-en6-pé-eš15 FM 2, 113 no. 71: r.15′ (both OB)). Unfortunately, the older form *innepiš of the perfective seems to be unattested, in spite of the fact that it is mentioned among the forms of epēšu N in AHw 228b s.v. e. II N. It is not included in Goetze’s (1947: 53–56) collection of N-forms either. For the infinitive, cf. ne-en6-pu-ša ARM 13, 144:32 (Acc) (for en6, see Durand 1997/2000: I 479 n. 126). 15.  An instance from a strong verb might be li-iz-za-mir Wedg. 16: r.11 ‘it must be sung’ (SB) from zamāru ‘to sing’, which is usually U/u. However, there is also an Impfv a-za-ma-ar WO 4, 12: I 1 (OB), which points to A/u and thus makes classification uncertain. The situation is even more complicated if iz‑za‑mi-ir in TuL 93:14 annâ ša ana DN ina attalî iz-za-mi-ir ‘this is what is sung to DN during an eclipse’ (tr. CAD Z 38b s.v. 4) is indeed an imperfective, as CAD translates: this would testify to I/i. 16.  Not included here are arāru and tarāru ‘to tremble’, which fall under Type 4; see below. Nor have I included ešû ‘to confuse’ (cf. (lā) te-en-neš-šú Legends p. 363:156 and en-né-šú ibid. 349:88, because it has mainly become I/i (cf. 3.5.3).

292

The N‑Stem  12.2.

• *iggappuš from gapāšu N ‘to become huge, massive’, inferred from the t‑Pf it-tag-pu-šú CT 15, 34:27 (SB) • im-maḫ-ḫu SBH p. 13 no. 6:6 (SB) from maḫû N ‘to become frenzied’17 • (lā) ta-an-na-ku-ud AbB 7, 42:18 (OB) from nakādu ‘to worry’18 • iš-šá-ḫu-un AfO 23, 40:8 (SB) from šaḫānu N ‘to become warm’ The perfective forms of these verbs with u are: • im-ma-ḫu ARM 10, 7:7 (OB) from maḫû N ‘to become frenzied’ (but see n. 17) • iš-šá-pu BWL 88:292 (SB) and li-iš-še-pu BWL 172: IV 8 (SB) from šapû N ‘to be(come) loud’ The vowel u in the imperfective is regular, since it is based on u in the G imperfective, but that of the perfective is remarkable and shows that these verbs deviate from the pattern ipparis. In fact, we may assume on the basis of this limited evidence that in these intransitive verbs an imperfective with u entails a perfective with u (Testen 1998a:144): *iggappuš – *iggapuš, immaḫḫū – *immaḫū, innakkud – *innakud, iššaḫḫun – *iššaḫun, and *iššappū – išša/epū. Four of these five verbs also have u in the stative: gapuš, nakud, šaḫun, and šapū.19 There are also two intransitive N tantum verbs with u in the imperfective and the perfective: • nērubu ‘to flee, run’ has an Impfv innerrub (in-ner-r [u!-ub] VS 1, 69:7 acc. to AHw 1580a s.v. (SB)), a Pfv innērub (in-ne/né-ru-bu ARM 26/1, 152 no. 24:9 and ARM 10, 60:13 (OB)), later also innĕ/ărub (in-na-ar-bi LKU 14: II 9 (SB)),20 a highly atypical Imp Pl nerrubā (né-er-ru-ba BAM 3, 248: IV 2 ‘flee!’ (Pl) (SB)), for which one would expect *nenrubā, an Inf ne-ru-bu-um MSL 12, 59:727 (OB) and a present participle munne/arbu ‘fugitive, running’ (passim) • nentû, a technical term in astronomical texts: ‘einander überdecken’ (AHw 777f s.v.), ‘to go with each other, go parallel to each other’ (CAD N/2 165–66 s.v.) has an Impfv *innettū (inferred from the t‑Pf it-te-en-tu DA 103:5) and a Pfv innetū (in-né-tu TU 16: r.23) (all SB) These verbs do not have a stative, so their u perfective cannot be derived from the stative and is doubtless original, the more so since there are also U/u verbs among the quadriradical N verbs (see §12.5, pp. 308–310). 4.  A few intransitive verbs of the U/u class do not have U/u in the N‑stem, but A/i, as if their G-stem belonged to the A/u or A/a verbs. By far the most important is saḫāru ‘to turn, look for’ (U/u), with the N forms Impfv issaḫḫar, Pfv issaḫir, t‑Pf ittasḫar. Their antiquity is confirmed by their occurrence in Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian and by an early instance of an N Pfv 17.  Already in Old Babylonian, maḫû also occurs as an I/i verb (Pfv im-ma-ḫi ARM 10, 8:7), showing that it takes part in the general drift of III/voc U/u verbs towards the vowel class I/i (see §3.5.3, pp. 78–79). This also accounts for the alternative SB im-maḫ-ḫi LKU 14: II 29. 18.  This very common expression is spelled with a single n everywhere else, which suggests that it is normally a G‑stem, although we cannot exclude the possibility that it is always an N‑stem, just as its (near-) synonym naʾduru/naḫduru. It is also possible, therefore, that ta-an-na-ku-ud is a poor spelling for the G Impfv /tanakkud/. 19.  There is no stative attested of maḫû. There is, however, in Ur III Babylonian a substantivized adjective in the Gen lúmaḫ-im RA 24, 44:5 (= TCS 1, 369:5), which cannot come from maḫḫû ( pace CAD M/1 90b s.v. d) because of its spelling and because maḫḫû is not attested before MB/SB. The earlier forms either represent a G‑stem adjective maḫû (only LL) or a D‑stem adjective muḫḫû, see GAV pp. 402–3 n. 6. 20.  The form in-ne/né-ru-ub Izbu 226:489 (SB) is ambiguous; see also §17.6.3.4 (pp. 550–551).

12.2.  The N‑Stem

293

issaḫer in the Mari liver omina (i-sà-ḫé-er RA 35, 44 no. 12:5).21 The other two are arāru and tarāru ‘to tremble’: both are U/u, but have an N imperfective with a: i-ár-ra-ár TDP 112:28′; i-ár-ra-ru CT 17, 5:34 (both SB); it-tar-ra-ru Tn-Ep. I 14 (MB) ‘he is/they are trembling’. Since saḫāru has a Stat saḫir and arāru has arir (a-ri-ir ZA 43, 96:14 (SB) ‘he is tremulous(?)’), it seems a plausible assumption that the vowel pattern of the N‑stem is based on that of the stative, as argued by Testen (1998a). The formal characteristics of the N‑stem associate it more closely with the G‑stem than with the D‑stem and the Š‑stem: it copies the vowel class of the G‑stem, it has the same prefix vowels as G, and if imperfective and perfective have a different vowel, the t‑perfect of the N‑stem follows that of the imperfective (see §6.2, pp. 138–139). This tallies with the close functional relationship between the N‑stem and the G‑stem, since the former is a productive detransitive derivation of the latter, and situates N near the inflectional end of the continuum between inflectional and derivational status, as argued in §10.5 (p. 251).22 In several types of weak verbs, the N‑stem presents idiosyncratic features that are important for the reconstruction of its prehistory, especially the I/voc verbs, which are built on a different stem in Assyrian (see §17.6.3.4, pp. 550–554), and to some extent also the II/voc verbs, which have an incomplete paradigm, comprising only an imperfective and a perfective (see §16.5.3.5, p. 488). In frequency, the N‑stem belongs to the most common derived verbal stems of Akkadian: AHw lists about 400 verbs with an N‑stem (see GAV p. 111). There are no certain (medio)passive N‑stems attested in Sargonic Akkadian (Hasselbach 2005: 212–13),23 nor in Ur III Babylonian, where we only have N forms of the idiomatic N‑stem naplusu ‘to look favourably at’, all of them in proper names, except ip-pá-al-su-šúm AKI p. 334:9 ‘he looked at him with favour’ (Subj) in a royal inscription from Elam (Hilgert 2002: 223–24).24 In view of the later productivity of the (medio)passive N‑stem, we must assume that its absence in these early dialects is accidental. The earliest instances occur in the Mari liver omina (which are difficult to date; see chap. 1 n. 18, p. 11), e.g., Impfv i-ša/sá-kà-an RA 35, 44 no. 12:6 and 49 no. 29:5 ‘it will happen’ from šakānu ‘to place’, Pfv i-pá-al-šu 44 no. 11:6 ‘they were breached’ from palāšu, and i-lá-qí-i ibid. 8 ‘it was taken’ from leqû. From then on, the N‑stem occurs frequently in its various functions and remains productive until the latest stages of Akkadian.25 We are very poorly informed about the N‑stem in Eblaite. Since geminates are not written in Eblaite, imperfective and perfective forms of the triradical N‑stem are hard to recognize, if they 21.  Saḫāru may take a direct object if it means to ‘look for’, but its more basic meaning is doubtless ‘to turn around’, with the U/u vocalism that is typical of atelic activity verbs (see §3.5.2.3, pp. 73–74). 22.  Reiner (1966: 75) also assigns the N‑stem a middle position between G on the one hand and D + Š on the other. 23.  However, i-ma-˹ri˺-[ù] TAZ 1, 48: II 7 (Tutub) ‘they will be fattened’ from marû may be one; see W. Sommerfeld’s note on p. 107; for marû in Sargonic Akkadian, cf. the Inf ma-ra-iš MAD 1, 159:3 (Eshnunna) ‘in order to fatten’. There is also an instance of the quadriradical N‑stem nabalkutu; see Hasselbach 2005: 212, and several forms of izuzzu ‘to stand (up)’, which is a fossilized N‑stem according to Huehnergard 2002b; see §16.5.3.5 (pp. 488–490). 24.  Hilgert also mentions N forms of pašāru ‘to release’ (2002: 223), naṣāru ‘to guard’ (2002: 313) and amāru ‘to see’ (2002: 245), but these, too, come from proper names and are of uncertain interpretation. 25.  With regard to the latest periods, Hämeen-Anttila (2000: 88) states that the use of the passive N‑stem is “very limited” in Neo-Assyrian. This may be true in a relative sense, but the number of N‑stems in various functions in Neo-Assyrian letters is considerable, even though some of them are doubtless due to Standard Babylonian influence. According to Woodington (1982: 81), the N‑stems make up 1% of the verbal attestations in her corpus of Neo-Babylonian letters (versus 8% for D and 5% for Š; the rest consists of G forms).

294

The N‑Stem  12.2.

had the same form as in Akkadian.26 A single form in context has been interpreted as an N‑stem so far: i-ba-ti-É-AN ARET 13, 1: IV 8 ‘it is/was opened’, which may stand for yippat(t)iḥan/-am (Edzard 2006: 80), perhaps with a ventive (see chap. 9 n. 98, p. 240). Among the Eblaite proper names we find En-a-mar and En-a-mi-ir, which look very much like the forms we would expect as third singular masculine imperfective and perfective, respectively, of the N‑stem of amāru ‘to see’, N ‘to be seen, appear, meet’ (Krebernik 1988a: 59; see chap. 17 n. 137, p. 552, about these forms). There is also positive evidence for the existence of the quadriradical verbs of the nabalkutu type in Eblaite (see §12.5, p. 314, below).

12.2.2.  The function of the N‑stem The N‑stem has two major functions (GAG §90e–g): when derived from transitive G‑stems, it is a marker of detransitivity; when derived from intransitive G‑stems, it has ingressive function. The former is by far the most important and concerns more than 80% of all N‑stems. It is fully productive and remains so throughout the recorded history of Akkadian. The ingressive function is marginal: it is common for a few specific verbs but in all other verbs it is sporadic and mainly restricted to literary texts.

12.2.2.1.  The N‑stem of transitive verbs The detransitive function of the N‑stem of transitive verbs can be divided into four subtypes: (medio)passive, reciprocal, reflexive, and a few idiosyncratic cases. I will discuss them one by one. 1.  The (medio)passive use (see §§10.8.3.1–2, pp. 259–260) is by far the most important, since it is the only way to passivize a G‑stem. Here are a few typical examples, (01) for the passive, (02) for the mediopassive: (01) KH §3:66–67 (and passim) awīlum šū id-da-ak ‘that man will be killed’ (OB) (02) CT 40, 3:65 šumma gušūrū bīt amēli iš-šeb-ru ‘if the beams of a man’s house have broken’ (SB) The mediopassive use of N may lead to a lexicalized, idiomatic meaning (Streck 2003a: 95), which usually coexists with the passive meaning, e.g., amāru N and naṭālu N ‘to be seen’ and ‘to appear, be(come) visible’, ezēbu N ‘to be left behind’ and ‘to stay behind, be delayed’ (OB), kalû N ‘to be detained’ and ‘to stay behind’ (GAG 3 §90f*: “mediale Bedeutung”), paṭāru N ‘to be untied, be demolished’ and ‘to fall apart, go away, disappear’, pašāru N ‘to be loosened’ and ‘to relax, show leniency’, and šakānu N ‘to be placed, provided with’, and ‘to occur, come into existence, be located, happen’. 2.  A small number of N‑stems of transitive verbs can (also) be reciprocal, competing with the Gt‑stem and nominal markers of reciprocity (see §10.8.3.5, pp. 263–265). In Old Assyrian, the verbs amāru N ‘to meet’, magāru N ‘to come to an agreement’, and ṣabātu N ‘to seize each other, quarrel’ are common, and ezēbu N ‘to divorce’, gerû N ‘to quarrel, litigate’, lawû N ‘to 26.  I.e., if the n prefix assimilated to R1, as it does in Akkadian. The evidence for n-assimilation is equivocal (Sanmartín 1995: 452–55): on the one hand, the personal pronouns an-da and an-da-nu, corresponding to Akk atta ‘you’ (Masc Sg) and attunu ‘you’ (Masc Pl) do not show it (but the spelling of these pronouns may be morphophonemic). On the other hand, n does not appear before the feminine suffix t, e.g., a/i-me‑tum /ya/imittum/ VE 534 ‘right (hand)’ from *yamintum, and li-ba/bí-tum /liba/ittum/ VE 146 ‘brick’ from *liba/intum (or is the absence of n purely orthographic?) (Huehnergard 2006: 5 n. 18).

12.2.  The N‑Stem

295

meet’ (?, cf. G ‘to surround’), maḫāru N ‘to meet’, and parāsu N ‘to divorce’ are occasionally found.27 In Old Babylonian, the Gt‑stem is very common in reciprocal function (see §14.3.1.3, pp. 363–364), but a few verbs use the N‑stem instead. The verbs amāru N ‘to meet’ and emēdu N ‘to be joined to each other, meet, work together’ occur especially frequently.28 Occasional instances include aḫāzu N ‘to marry’, edēru N ‘to embrace’, ešēru N ‘to advance against each other’ (in-ne-eš-ši-ra // i-né-ši-ra YOS 10, 58:2 // 57: 4 = ÖB 2, 13:2), and našāqu N ‘to kiss (each other)’ ((kīma) ni‑na-aš-qú ShA 1, 139 no. 65:9). A remarkable phenomenon in Old and Standard Babylonian is the use of a reciprocal N form in the t‑perfect in a suppletive relationship with the Gt‑stem in order to avoid a double t‑infix (see §14.2.1, p. 357). This is attested in the following verbs: • gerû N ‘to quarrel, litigate’ (OB, e.g., ni-it-te-eg-ri AbB 2, 107:12; SB, e.g., it-te-eg-ru-ú Gilg. p. 562:114) • magāru N ‘to come to an agreement’ (OB, e.g., i-ta-am-ga-ru VAB 5, 301:12)29 • maḫāru N ‘to meet’ (OB, e.g., it-tam-ḫa-ru Gilg. p. 180:214) • ṣabātu N ‘to seize each other, quarrel’ (OB, e.g., it-ta-aṣ-ba-tu YOS 10, 36: I 50; SB, e.g., it-ta-aṣ-ba-ta BWL 52:26)30 • ṣabāru ‘to flit, prattle’ (SB: it-ta-aṣ-ba-ra BWL 34:71)31 In Standard Babylonian, those reciprocal N‑stems that already occurred earlier continue to be used, doubtless as literary archaisms, especially amāru N, edēru N, emēdu N, and once našāqu N (in-niš-qu Ee III 132). Yet there are also a few “new” instances, not attested in Old Babylonian (so far), such as maḫāṣu N ‘to fight each other’ (e.g., im-maḫ-ḫa-a-ṣa SAA 4, 280: r.14), and malāku N ‘to deliberate’ (passim). In these two verbs, N is a replacement of the gradually dis­ appearing Gt‑stem (see §14.3.4, pp. 369–371). In addition, the N tantum verb nentû mentioned in §12.2.1 (p. 292) above presumably has a reciprocal meaning. In other than literary texts, reciprocity is almost always expressed by the nominal marker aḫāmiš ‘each other’ after the Old Babylonian/Old Assyrian period (see §10.8.3.5, pp. 264–265). I am not aware of any reciprocal N‑stems from Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian.32 In Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian, however, malāku N ‘to deliberate’ is still in use, apparently replacing the Gt‑stem of this verb, which was very common earlier on.33 27.  For a possible (pseudo‑)reciprocal N‑stem of *awāʾum ‘to speak’ (normally Gt), see chap. 14 n. 27 (p. 363). 28.  Note the first-person dual with reciprocal meaning lu-un-nam-ra ARM 10, 118:13 and lu-na-am-ra ARM 26/2, 259 nr. 404:6 (OB Mari) ‘let us meet’, parallel to similar Gt forms, discussed in chap. 14 n. 32 (p. 364). 29.  Also in Nuzi: all Nuzi forms are t‑perfects according to CAD M/1 43a s.v. magāru 10a. 30.  However, OB ṣabātu also shows a single instance of N that is not a t‑perfect: ARM 28, 155:19 anāku u šū maḫar abīya ni-iṣ-ṣa-bi-it (for i niṣṣabit) ‘moi et lui, que nous nous empoignions en présence de mon père’ (tr. J.-R. Kupper); note that the Gt‑stem would be niṣṣabat. Uncertain cases include VAB 5, 293:5–6 aššum zittīšu itti PN (. . .) iṣ-ṣa-bi-it ‘prozessierte er’ (AHw 1071a s.v. N II, but possibly ‘was seized by PN’; see §10.8.3.1, pp. 259–260); ARM 5, 75:5–6 PN ina ṣērīya iṣ-ṣa-bi-it-ma u karṣīya ana šarrim īkul ‘PN s’en est pris à moi et m’a calomnié auprès du roi’ (tr. Durand 1997/2000: I 98, but it is far from clear what the combination of ṣabātu N with ina ṣēr- means. 31.  An additional instance may be it-tar-ka-su/sú KH §109:29 from rakāsu N ‘to band together, conspire’, but a corresponding Gt‑stem in this meaning is not attested. 32.  However, the t‑perfect of maḫāru N is common in Nuzi in the stereotyped phrase alluded to in n. 29 above. 33.  See CAD M/1 157–58 s.v. malāku A 5a for N, and ibid. 156–57 s.v. malāku A 4 for Gt. Another possible reciprocal N‑stem in Neo-Assyrian comes from tarāṣu, if the phrases umā it-ta-a[t]-ru-uṣ SAAS 5,

296

The N‑Stem  12.2.

3.  The N‑stem can also have direct reflexive function (see §10.8.3.3, pp. 261–263), but this is exceptional. For Old Babylonian, I can only mention šakānu N ‘to provide oneself with’ in šuma naškunu ‘to provide oneself with a (good) name’, ‘to establish renown for oneself’, quoted in §10.8.3.3 as (19) with n. 35 (p. 262), and some other expressions quoted in chap. 10 n. 32 (p. 262). From Middle Babylonian onward, we find a few reflexive N‑stems replacing earlier reflexive Gt‑stems, namely, labāšu N ‘to put on’ and pašāšu N ‘to anoint oneself’.34 The earliest known instances are the t‑perfects it-ta-al-ba-aš Adapa p. 20:64′ ‘he put on’ and it-ta-ap-ši-iš Adapa p. 20:65′ ‘he anointed himself’ (MB lit.), which interchange with Gt imperatives in the same text (li-it-ba-aš and pí-iš-ša-aš Adapa p. 18:32′).35 In Standard Babylonian, pašāšu N completely takes over the reflexive function of Gt (see AHw 844a s.v. Gt and N) and even survives in Neo-Assyrian: šarru li/lip-pi-ši-iš SAA 10, 315: r.21 and 318: r.4 ‘may the king anoint himself’.36 Labāšu Gt, on the other hand, remains common in literary texts (see §14.3.3, pp. 367–369). Other putative reflexive N‑stems (for instance, most of those mentioned in GAG 3 §90f) do not meet (or probably do not meet) the main condition for reflexivity, namely, that the basic verb expresses the same action as the N‑stem, but with a different (non-coreferential) entity as direct object (see §10.8.3.3, p. 261). 4.  There are several atypical or irregular N‑stems or groups of N‑stems of transitive verbs. The first one is našû ‘to lift, carry’, N ‘to bring/take along’. Since it offers vital evidence on the background of the N‑stem, I will defer its discussion to §12.2.3 (pp. 299–300). The second one is aḫāzu ‘to take’, N ‘to flare up’ (with fire as subject), which is not easy to explain semantically.37 The third one consists of some verbs of the lamādu type discussed in §11.3.3 (p. 274): they are transitive verbs with a stative-like meaning and a low degree of transitivity. Accordingly, they behave like intransitive verbs, so that their N‑stem is ingressive rather than passive: for instance, ṣubāta illabiš means ‘he put on a garment’ and is the fientivization of ṣubāta labiš ‘he wears a garment’ (CAD L 19 s.v. 1e; Testen 1998a: 138–39).38 It is not possible to construe this verb with ṣubātu as subject. The main verbs to which this applies are ḫabālu ‘to borrow, owe, be indebted’, ḫalāpu ‘to put on (clothes)’, ḫašāḫu ‘to need, desire’, labāšu ‘to put on’ and ʾapāru ‘to put/wear on the head’. However, lamādu ‘to know, learn’, which also belongs to this group, has a few Standard Babylonian instances of a passive N‑stem (see CAD L 58b s.v. 9). These verbs show that the dividing line between the passive and the ingressive functions of the N‑stem is not so much determined by syntactic transitivity (the presence of a direct object) as by semantic transitivity. 65 no. 42:1′ ‘Now they have come to an agreement’ and [. . .] ḫursāna it-ta-⟨at ⟩-ru-ṣu SAAS 5, 75 no. 48:5′ ‘by means of the ordeal they have reached agreement’ (both tr. R. Jas) do indeed contain t‑perfect forms of the N‑stem. For the N‑stem in Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian in general, see Hämeen-Anttila 2000: 88 and Woodington 1982: 90–92, respectively. 34.  See, however, chap. 10 n. 21 (p. 258) for the problems with the reflexive function of labāšu N and Gt (  pace GAG §90f and Streck 2003a: 42–43, 46–47, 95). 35.  This reminds us of the suppletion of Gt‑stems by means of the t‑perfect of the N‑stem discussed above sub 2. It is possible that the replacement of Gt by N started in the t‑perfect to avoid a double t‑infix and spread from there to the other forms. 36.  For pašāšu N with passive meaning, cf. ip-pa-aš-ša-aš ZA 75, 198:23 (OB) ‘it must be rubbed in’. 37.  The G‑stem of aḫāzu is never associated with fire, as far as I know; the Š‑stem šūḫuzu ‘to kindle’ serves as transitive to N (see §13.2.2.5, p. 333). 38.  Pace CAD L 21 s.v. labāšu 4 ‘to be clothed, robed’: in all instances quoted, the person who is clothed is subject, so ‘to put on’ is equally possible; the forms in question are syntactically active (ingressive), even though it may be possible to translate them as passives.

12.2.  The N‑Stem

297

12.2.2.2.  The N‑stem of intransitive verbs The second major function of the N‑stem is ingressive, i.e., it denotes the beginning of a situation. With the few exceptions just mentioned, it is restricted to intransitive verbs and is far more infrequent than the N‑stem of transitive verbs. No more than 20% of the attested N‑stems come from intransitive verbs, and most of these are only sporadically attested. Since the explicit indication of ingressivity is especially relevant to verbs that refer to a static situation, it mainly occurs in fientive verbs with a stative meaning (see §3.3.1, pp. 55–57) and in adjectival verbs (§3.3.2, pp. 58–60). For intransitive verbs with fientive meaning, it is exceptional to have an N‑stem. The only verb occurring more than sporadically is saḫāru ‘to turn, go around, look for’, whose N‑stem seems to have roughly the same set of uses: ‘to turn around, return, turn to’, but always with an animate subject.39 Among the stative and adjectival verbs, frequent N‑stems are those of bašû ‘to be present or available’, N ‘to become available, emerge’ and takālu ‘to trust’, N ‘to put one’s trust in’.40 In addition, there are a few G‑stem statives or adjectives that use the N‑stem as their default fientive form: • naḫduru (OA) and naʾduru (Bab) ‘to become worried’ (cf. Stat a-dir Tn-Ep. II E 23 ‘he was worried’ (MB lit.) • nanduru ‘to become rabid, raging’ (cf. Adj. nēšum na-ad-ru-um ‘a raging lion’ JRAS Cspl. 72:29 (OB) • nešgû ‘to become rabid’ (cf. Stat še-gi LE §56 A IV: 20 ‘it (the dog) is rabid’, Adj. kalbim ša-ge-˹e-em˺ ARM 3, 18:15 ‘a rabid dog’ (Gen) (both OB) • nasluʾu N ‘to become ill’ (cf. Stat sà-li-IḪ MSL 9, 80:171 ‘he is ill’ (OB)) In other adjectival verbs, the ingressive N‑stem is very rare in the older non-literary dialects. The following cases are known to me: • belû N ‘to go out’ (of fire): ib-bé-el-li OBTR 144:22 (OB) • ḫadû N ‘to rejoice, to become happy’: aḫ-ḫa-[d]u-ú BE 17, 27:26 (MB)41 • maʾādu N (OA) ‘to become numerous’: e.g., i-mì-du-ni (/immīdūni/ CCT 4, 8b:13 (OA) • maḫû N ‘to become frenzied, insane’: im-ma-ḫu/ḫi ARM 10, 7:7, 8:7 (OB) • malû N ‘to become full’: am-ma-a-lu-ú ARM 10, 173:14 (OB) • masāku N ‘to become bad, ugly’: im-ma-as-sí-ik YOS 10, 54: r.24 (OB) • naʾādu N ‘to attend, take care’: lā ta-an-na-ḪI-i [d] AbB 9, 225:16 (OB, poor spelling for G?) • naḫāšu N ‘to become prosperous, healthy’: [i ]n-na-ḫi-iš, [i  ]n-na-aḫ-šu MSL 4, 55:645– 46 (OB LL) • nakādu N ‘to palpitate, worry’: lā ta-an-na-ku-ud AbB 7, 42:18 (OB, poor spelling for G? see §12.2.1 sub 3, p. 292) 39.  The most salient difference between G and N of this verb is that N is only said of animate beings and denotes a volitional act of turning (see CAD S 52–54 s.v. saḫāru 16–17) whereas the G‑stem has a much wider range of subjects: it usually describes a (change in) the position of an object, especially when used in the stative (see CAD S 37–47). The contrast G : N reminds one of that between alāku G and Gt, as described in §14.3.4 (pp. 371–372). 40.  However, most instances are perfective (attakil, ittakil, ittaklū, etc.; see CAD T 67–68 s. v. 4. These forms may also be G‑stems with the vowel class I/i, which replaced A/a in Standard Babylonian and later, see §3.5.3 sub 4 (p. 79). 41.  The Late Babylonian instance of the same verb iḫ-ḫi-du-ú UM 13, 82:5 is doubtless a bad spelling for G iḫdû.

298

The N‑Stem  12.2.

• nazāqu N ‘to become worried’ (quoted in §12.2.1 above, p. 290, because of an irregular a vowel, OB) • pašāḫu N ‘to become cool, calm down’: ip-pa-aš-ḫu RA 46, 90:29 (OB lit.) • šebû N ‘to become sated’: iš-še-eb-bu-ú MIO 12, 54:6 (OB lit.)42 • tarāru N ‘to start to tremble’ (it-tar-ra-ru Tn-Ep. I 14 (MB lit.) In Standard Babylonian, on the other hand, they proliferate: about 40 different verbs are attested, but apart from the four verbs mentioned above (naḫ/  ʾduru, nanduru, nešgû, and nasluʾu), almost all of them are extremely rare, and many are hapax legomena.43 This lends support to the idea that N was preferred for stylistic reasons, parallel to the stylistically determined use of some Š‑ and Gt‑stems (see §13.2.2.2, pp. 329–331, and §14.3.4, pp. 372–374, respectively), and that many of them may even be artificial creations based on the model of a few verbs, similar to the Gt statives and infinitives to be discussed in §14.3.4. An important reason for the rarity of the ingressive N‑stem is the fact that in adjectival verbs it competes with the G‑stem, which is the unmarked option for expressing the fientive, and therefore ingressive, side of an adjective. For instance, the adjective kabtu ‘heavy’ (Stat kabit) is never fientivized by means of the N‑stem, but by the G-stem: Pfv ikbit ‘it became heavy’, t‑Pf iktabit ‘it has become heavy’, etc., and this seems to apply to most verbs of this kind. Where G and N are both used, there does not seem to be a significant difference in meaning between them.44

12.2.2.3.  The N tantum verbs Apart from the (medio)passive and ingressive N‑stems, there is also a group of triradical N tantum verbs (for quadriradical N verbs, see §12.5, pp. 307–308). It includes the following verbs: • nābutu ‘to flee’ (I/i: Impfv innabbit, Pfv innābit, later innabit; see §17.6.3.4, pp. 550–554)45 42.  Uncertain but notable cases include the following verbs: anāḫu ‘to become tired, exert oneself’ (lā i-na-na-aḫ Ištar p. 78: V 11: form?); daʾāmu ‘to be(come) dark’ (li-id-da-ḪI-[im] Atr. p. 94:34 and id-da[ʾi-mu] RA 46, 96:76: N or Gtn or Dt?); se/aḫû N ‘to become rebellious, confused’ (es-se-[ḫi] Legends p. 272:8: N Pfv or G t‑Pf?); šapû N ‘to become loud, flicker, billow’: iš-˹ša˺-pu St. Reiner p. 190:7 (or read iš-˹ta˺-pu?, see CAD Š/1 489b s.v. šapû A v. 3). 43.  Apart from the ones already mentioned, the verbs in question are (see the dictionaries for details): agāgu N ‘to become angry’, damāqu N ‘to become good’, ebēṭu N ‘to get cramps(?)’, edēdu N ‘to become sharp’, emēru N ‘to get intestinal trouble’, erēru N ‘?’ (said of stars), erû N ‘to become pregnant’, esēlu N ‘to become constipated(?)’, ešēbu N ‘to grow profusely’, ešēru N ‘to become prosperous’, gapāšu N ‘to become huge, massive’, ḫarāšu N ‘to be in labour’, kamālu N ‘to become angry’, kamāsu N ‘to squat, kneel down’, kanû (CAD: kunnû) N ‘to be honoured, cherished’, kašāru N ‘to become successful, achieve’, kepû N ‘to become bent, blunt’, labābu N ‘to start raging’, mâdu N ‘to become numerous’, maḫû N ‘to become frenzied, insane’, malû N ‘to become full’, nabāṭu N ‘to shine brightly’, nagālu N ‘to glow(?)’, nâḫu N ‘to rest, become still’, naw/māru N ‘to become bright’, palāḫu N ‘to fear, respect’, pašāḫu N ‘to become cool, calm down’, pelû N ‘to become red’, sarāru N ‘to become false, cheat’, se/aḫû N ‘to become rebellious, troubled’, šaḫānu N ‘to become warm’, šapālu N ‘to become low, go down’, šapû N ‘to become loud, flicker, billow’, šâṣu N ‘to decline, wane’, šêḫu N ‘to become agitated’, warāqu N ‘to become green, yellow or pale’, zabābu N (AHw: ṣabābu) ‘to go into a trance, become wild’. 44.  The proposal of K. Hecker (GKT §84b) for a semantic distinction between G and N of intransitive verbs is difficult to verify from their actual use. His contrasting example of takālu N versus G is unsuitable, because the G form is a stative; such a contrast must arise from a comparison of a fientive G form with a fientive N form. 45.  Old Assyrian, however, has a G‑stem abātum in the same meaning but of the vowel class A/u, which is highly irregular for intransitive verbs (see §3.5.2.2, pp. 72–73). However, the present participle of nābutu is attested as a proper name: Mu-na-bi-tim (Gen) BIN 6, 250:7 (see §17.6.3.4 with n. 144, p. 553).

12.2.  The N‑Stem

299

• naḫbutu ‘to migrate’ (A/i: Impfv iḫḫabbat, Pfv iḫḫabit) (also G?) • naplusu ‘to look at’ (A/i: Impfv ippallas, Pfv ippalis) (rarely G) • naprušu ‘to fly away’ (A/i: Impfv ipparraš, Pfv ippariš ) • narqû ‘to hide’ (I/i: Impfv *irraqqī (cf. t‑Pf ittarqī), Pfv irraqī) (rarely G in OB) • nērubu ‘to flee, run’ (U/u; see §12.2.1 sub 3, p. 292) (G perhaps represented by SAk harbum ‘fugitive’, see below) • nentû (a technical term in astronomical texts) (U/u; see §12.2.1 sub 3, p. 292) Apart from naplusu and perhaps nentû, these verbs form a semantic cluster with the notion of fleeing and moving away and are basically intransitive, which associates them with the ingressive N‑stems. The rare G forms attested for some of them suggest that they are originally derived from intransitive G‑stems now lost. In the case of nērubu, there is a Sargonic Akkadian noun ḫarbum ‘fugitive, attested in á-ra-ab-s[u-n]u AKI p. 192:25 (cp RI of Rimuš), i.e., /harabsunu/, as proposed by A. Westenholz (1996: 118), and perhaps also in the PN La-á-ra-ab (see A. Westenholz 1978: 168 with n. 61). This suggests that nērubu replaces an original G‑stem *harābum, which is attested in Eblaite: É-ra-bù-um // É-la-bù-um (= ba.kar ) VE 1027, i.e. /harābum/ (see Krebernik 1983: 37). Similarly, its synonym nābutu may be built on *abtum, which belongs to the G‑stem abātum (A/u) still attested in Old Assyrian (see n. 45). Another possible N tantum verb is the irregular verb izuzzu ‘to stand (up)’, discussed in §16.5.3.5 (pp. 488–490). It is presumably a fossilized N‑stem that originally had ingressive meaning (Huehnergard 2002b). Its n- prefix is parallel to the t‑infix in itūlu ‘to lie down’, which may have the same function (see §14.3.4, pp. 371–372). The semantic development ‘to stand up’ > ‘to stand’ is parallel to that of našû ‘to lift’ > ‘to carry’ (see the next section).

12.2.3.  The essence of the N‑stem (Medio)passive and ingressive are two sides of the same coin and are expressed by the same or cognate markers in many languages, such as the auxiliary verbs get in English and werden in German.46 We can, therefore, derive the detransitive and the ingressive use of the N‑stem from a single function, namely, that of fientivizing the stative: the N‑stem basically serves to derive fientive verb forms from statives and adjectives. This is a syntactic function, of which the grammatical functions of denoting detran­sitive voice and ingressivity are a by-product, as was argued convincingly by Testen (1998a: 137–38). The (medio)passive meaning of the N‑stems of transitive verbs is a consequence of the fact that the stative of these verbs is mostly passive. The ingressive function is based on the fact that fientive forms derived from lexically stative verbs tend to adopt ingressive meaning.47 The irregular N‑stem of našû ‘to lift, carry’ offers a striking illustration of the dependency of the N‑stem on the stative (Testen 1998a: 138). In Old Assyrian and at least once also in Old Babylonian (quoted as (03)), it is not detransitive but has the same active voice as the G‑stem and typically refers to the transportation of goods by persons: ‘to take along’ (without ventive) and ‘to bring along’ (with ventive) (GKT §84c; CAD N/2 111f s. v. našû A v. 9), rather similar to tabālu and tarû (see §16.2.3, p. 454), e.g.:

46.  See Haspelmath 1990: 34 and Kuryłowicz 1964: 89 (the latter with parallels of the development from ingressive to passive). 47.  For literature, see chap. 3 n. 9 (p. 55).

300

The N‑Stem  12.2.

(03) AbB 1, 43:18 (OB) (Have them make a sealed receipt and) kanīkšunu atta na-an-ši ‘take it with you’ (F. R. Kraus: ‘nimm du an dich!’)48 (04) OAA 1, 20:12 (OA) (If anyone should be willing to give you even one shekel of silver for your joint-stock investment) na-an-ší-am ‘bring it along!’ (05) OIP 27, 7:13–14 (OA) 1 naḫlaptam (. . .) PN i-ni-iš-a-am ‘PN has brought (along) one naḫlaptum-textile for me’ (German: ‘hat mitgebracht’) The G Stat našī typically occurs in the same “transportational” contexts and is in complementary distribution with the N‑stem: it refers to the state of somebody who is on his way with goods in his possession: ‘he has with him’ (‘er hat bei sich’), whereas the N‑stem, usually in the imperative (as in (03)–(04)) or the perfective (as in (05)), focuses on the event as imminent or completed: ‘take/bring along/with you!’, and ‘I/you/he took/brought along’, respectively.49 Thus našû N serves as a fientive counterpart to našī in this specific meaning (in contrast to našû G in other contexts), and its unusual active meaning is due to the fact that the stative of našû has predominantly active meaning as well (see §7.3.2, p. 173), as argued by Testen (1998a: 138). The association between the N‑stem and the stative is confirmed by their respective vowel patterns: as Testen (1998a) has demonstrated, the perfective of the N‑stem, which is the oldest finite form of the N paradigm, copies the stem vowel of the stative. In transitive verbs, the Stat PaRiS corresponds to the N Pfv ipparis; in intransitive verbs, PaRiS usually follows the pattern of ­ipparis as well (e.g., naziq – innaziq, saḫer – issaḫer, etc., quoted in §12.2.1, pp. 292–293) and, as we saw above, the very rare N pattern ipparus broadly corresponds to the stative PaRuS.50 Moreover, the deviant stative pattern of the II/ā verbs in Babylonian (see §17.7.4.1, p. 567), e.g., šām ‘it has been bought’ from šâmu ‘to buy’, corresponds to ā in the N perfective: iššām ‘it was bought’. Testen (1998a: 138) concludes, therefore, that the Pfv ipparis is actually derived from paris and that it primarily serves to make a verb out of an adjective—in other words, to fientivize a stative. It ultimately owes its form to the addition of a verbalizing prefix n(a)- to a past participle *parisum or an adjective *parVsum in prehistoric Akkadian. So the N‑stem belongs to a crosslinguistically very common type of passive that is derived from verbal adjectives, as in many Indo-European languages (Haspelmath 1990: 37–40). In §12.6.1 (pp. 314–317), I will argue that this prefix ultimately goes back to an independent verb. However, this account of the N‑stem implies that its reciprocal and reflexive function is secondary: it is a side-effect of the mediopassive use and more specifically a consequence of the fact that the N‑stem was felt to be a substitute for the Gt‑stem, which was reflexive and reciprocal from the outset (Testen 1998a: 141–42; cf. also pp. 136–37 for the same process in Hebrew). 48.  The fact that this use of našû N is rare in Old Babylonian is doubtless related to the fact that the normal expression for this concept in Old Babylonian letters is leqû with a ventive, e.g., AbB 14, 141:9–11 kanīkšu līzibma PN li-il-qé-a-am-ma ana erēšim likšudam ‘let him draw up his document and let PN bring it along, so that it arrives here before the seeding starts’. 49.  It is often claimed that našû N is ingressive along with the intransitive N‑stems: AHw 765b s.v. našû II N II 2 says ‘ingr[essiv] aufnehmen, bringen’, and CAD N/2 111b s.v. našû v. A 9a/b translates ‘to pick up and keep’ and calls it ingressive. However, this does not explain why našû N is active nor does it capture its precise meaning, as K. Hecker (GKT §84c) observes. Actually, it is the G‑stem itself that means ‘to pick up, lift’ (and secondarily ‘to carry’). If našû N is ingressive, it is ingressive of the stative, not of the G‑stem. 50.  Most exceptions concern III/ū and III/ī verbs in which the fluctuation between u and i is so common (cf. §3.5.3, pp. 78–79) that it is of little if any importance in this context.

12.3.  The naparraru Group

301

12.3. The naparraru Group The naparraru group consists of a handful of intransitive II/gem verbs (all with r or l as R2 and R3) with an N‑stem which is different in form from the regular N‑stem in that it has a geminated R2 throughout its conjugation.51 It includes the following verbs: • nadarruru ‘to move about freely’ (OB, SB; also Ntn);52 there is also a triradical verb darāru (see CAD D 109a s.v. darāru A lex. sect.) with an N‑stem (Inf LL na-ad-ru-ru and Pfv 3mp id‑da-ar-ru Atr. p. 60:245 ‘they ran together’ (OB, tr. W. G. Lambert)); a deverbal noun is andurāru ‘remission (of debts), manumission’ • naḫallulu ‘to sneak around’ (N only as Inf LL [dir] = na-ḫal-lu-lu CT 12, 29a:12 (SB)); mostly Ntn (OB, SB); cf. ḫalālu ‘to creep, steal’ • nagarruru (or naqarruru) N ‘to roll over’ (OB, SB, MB, MA; also Ntn and Š); cf. g/qarāru ‘to roll’ (intr.) • naparruru N ‘to fall apart, become dispersed, confused’ (OB, SB; also Ntn and Š);53 cf. parāru ‘to dissolve, fall apart’, and purruru ‘to scatter’54 • *naqallulu ‘to hang, float’ (NA lit.; also Š)55 • nasarruru ‘to behave deceitfully’ (but von Soden 1951: 260 ‘das Weite suchen, sich davon machen’); related to sarāru ‘to be(come) false, to cheat’? • naṣarruru ‘funkeln??’ according to AHw 1085a s.v. ṣarāru I N; CAD Û 105b s.v. ṣarāru A lex. sect. gives no meaning (only SB Inf na-ṣar-ru-ru CT 12, 29a:9); cf. ṣarāru ‘to flash’?56 51.  Further literature: GAG §101g; Goetze 1945b: 246–49; Heidel 1945: 249–53; von Soden 1950b, 1951: 257–66; Speiser 1967: 481–84; Kienast 2001: 634. 52.  An instance not in the dictionaries is the PrPartc mu-ut-ta-ad-ri-ra-at YOS 11, 19:2 (OB) /mut­tad­ rir(r)at/, a 3fs stative ‘she is one who roams about’. 53.  In Boghazköy, the imperfective forms ipparrir (i-pa-ar-ri-ir JCS 47, 24:18′) and ipparrur (ip-párru-ur KUB 4, 66: II 5) are attested. It is not clear to me whether these forms are correct and whether they represent N Impfv forms of a triradical verb parāru U/u or I/i (parāru U/u exists, but its meaning is unclear; see CAD P 162a s.v. parāru A 1). 54.  A deverbal abstract noun derived from the infinitive or past participle is naparrurtu ‘dispersion’ (na-pa-ru-ur-tum Sumer 34, 45:17; na-pár-ru-ur-tu KAR 153:30, both SB). Another (older?) form of this word is napurratu ‘dispersion’ (na-pur-ra-tumx(dù) MDP 57, 67 no. 3: r.44; na-pur-ra-at (ummān nakri) MDP 57, 61 no. 3:1 (OB Susa)), which cannot be derived from naparruru but must have a triradical source; perhaps a metathesis of *naprur(a)tu, a feminine abstract noun based on the suffix base naPRvS? Cf. the interchange of na-mur-rat and nam-ru-rat, construct states of namurratu ‘splendour, radiance’. Or is napurratu modelled on the expressive de‑adjectival nouns of the namurratu type (GAG §55p)? 55.  It only occurs in t a libbi abul šamê at-ta-qa-al-la-al-la SAA 9, 3: II 15–16, which S. Parpola translates as ‘I issued forth as a fiery glow from the gate of heaven’ (cf. Parpola’s note on p. 24). According to Parpola, this verb is a denominal verb of anqullu, which means ‘Mittags-, Hochsommerglut u.ä’ according to AHw 54a s.v., but CAD A/2 143b s.v. is more cautious: ‘an atmospheric phenomenon’. This is possible but unproven in the absence of parallels; a relationship with šuqallulu (see §13.4.3, pp. 341–346) and its derivative ašqulālu, primarily an atmospheric phenomenon as well but also a weapon and a plant (CAD A/2 452b s.v.), and indirectly with qallu ‘light’ (in weight) can also be considered: ‘I floated down’ or the like, as in CAD Š/3 331b s.v. šuqallulu 1e; however, the translation as an imperfective there is incorrect: the form is a regular first-person singular t‑perfect with gemination of the final radical and a ventive ending. Note, however, that the semantic relationship between *naqallulu and šuqallulu is somewhat irregular, since the latter is not (always) a causative of *naqallulu. See also Streck 2003a: 130 no. 417. 56.  There is no corresponding Ntn‑stem attested, pace AHw 1085a s.v. ṣarāru I Ntn: iṣ-ṣa-na-ra-ra AGH 116:11 is a Gtn‑stem.

The naparraru Group  12.3.

302

• našallulu ‘to slither’ (OB, SB; also Ntn); cf. G šalālu ‘to slither’ (only Inf LL, e.g., laḫ4 = ša-la-lum OEC 4, 152: II 21 acc. to AHw 1142b s.v. šalālu II G) and N našlulu (Imp Pl na-aš-li-la-ni Ugar. 5, 31:40 beside na-šal-li-la-ni BAM 6, 574: IV 29) • *našarruru: ‘hell aufstrahlen’ according to von Soden 1951: 264 and GAG §101g, only in the Ntn Impfv it-ta-na-aš-ra-ru RIMA 1, 183:13 (A. K. Grayson: ‘to flash’); von Soden associates it with šarāru U/u ‘etwa ‘hin und her schwanken’‘ (which is not in AHw s.v. šarāru I or II), and also with šarūru ‘Strahlenglanz’ Table 12.2 contains the N and Ntn paradigm of the naparruru verbs with the regular triradical N‑stem for comparison: Trirad. N

naparruru N

Trirad. Ntn

nap(ar)ruru Ntn

Impfv

ipparrVs

ipparrar, Pl ippararrū

ittanaprVs

ittanaprar, Pl -rar(r)ū

Pfv

ipparis

ipparrir, Pl ipparirrū?

ittaprVs

ittaprar, Pl -rar(r)ū

t-Pf

ittaprVs

ittaparrar, Pl ittapararrū?

ittataprVs

ittataprar, Pl -rar(r)ū

Imp

napris

naparrir, Pl naparrirū

itaprVs

itaprar, Pl -rar(r)ā

Stat

naprus

naparrur, Pl naparrurū

itaprus

itaprur, Pl -rur(r)ū

Inf/PPartc

naprusu

naparruru

itaprusu

itaprur(r)u

PrPartc

mupparsu

mupparirru?

mutaprisu

mutaprir(r)u

Table 12.2: The N and Ntn paradigm of the naparruru verbs.

All verbs of this type have the vowel pattern A/i. Three of them (nag/qarruru, naparruru, and *naqallulu) have a causative/transitive Š‑stem (Impfv ušgarrar, Pfv ušgarrir, Inf šugarruru, etc.), which is conjugated in the same way as the quadriradical Š‑stem of the nabalkutu group and the šuḫarruru group, and will be further discussed in that context (see §13.4.2, pp. 340–341). The verbs of the naparruru group show a number of highly remarkable features. First of all, they differ from the triradical N‑stem in having gemination of R2 in all forms. The gemination is of the iconic type that also occurs in the Gtn‑stem and underlines the repetitive meaning of these verbs. As a result, their conjugation is identical to that of the nabalkutu verbs (see §12.5 below, p. 309), except in the imperfective (ipparrar versus ibbalakkat): ipparrar lacks the imperfective gemination of ibbalakkat for the same reason as elsewhere (e.g., in the D‑stem and the Gtn‑stem; see §4.5.2, p. 114): a geminate cannot take additional gemination. These verbs also share the prefix n‑ with nabalkutu, for which see §12.6.1 below (pp. 314–317). Second, perhaps their most salient feature—which they share with the II/gem verbs in general (see §16.6.1, pp. 493–494)—is that they can have gemination of the final radical before a vocalic ending. This is attested in the following N forms:57 • nag/qarruru: Impfv 3mp iq-qa/qá-ra-ar-ru ARM 2, 31:6, 10 (OB); Impfv 3mp ig-gara-ru MVAeG 41/3, 14:13 (MA, with -arrū, because there is no vowel assimilation) • naparruru: ip-pa-ra-ar-ru CTN 4, 63: VI 23 (SB) acc. to CAD P 164a s.v. parāru A 4a All four instances are imperfective, which makes one wonder whether this is accidental or whether it means that gemination of the final radical was restricted to the imperfective. A reason 57.  The form it-taš-lal(-la) adduced by von Soden 1951: 263–64 as a t‑perfect of the N‑stem is actually an Ntn perfective of šalālu ‘to plunder’; see CAD Š/1 196f s.v. šalālu A lex. sect.

12.3.  The naparraru Group

303

for this could be that unlike all other forms the imperfective is not different from that of the regular N‑stem. It is conceivable that the final radical was geminated to make up for this; a similar device may have operated in the Ntn‑stem, which will be discussed below. Since R3 is not consistently spelled with gemination, we do not know whether gemination is obligatory, but it is quite possible that it was a regular feature of the naparruru verbs. Neither do we know whether, when R3 was geminated, R2 was geminated as well. Von Soden (1951: 264–65) claims that R3 has obligatory gemination but that R2 has no gemination: iqqararrū rather than iqqarrarrū, muʾʾarirru rather than muʾʾarrirru (see below). This is supported not only by the imperfective forms just quoted but also by the conjugation of the verbs naʾarruru (see the end of this section) and mēlulu (see §12.4, pp. 305–306) and by the verbs of the šuḫarruru group (see §13.4.3, pp. 341–346), where the same issue holds. Until a form appears that proves the contrary, we may assume that von Soden is right, although the number of forms available at present is too small to be conclusive.58 Note, however, that the non-prefix forms cannot have a simple R2 and a geminated R3, since this would violate the vowel syncope rule: Inf **năpărurru. Because of the high degree of predictability of these forms in general (see §2.2.1, p. 30), I assume that they are regular—i.e., with gemination of just R2. Gemination of the final radical is particularly frequent in the Ntn forms: • naḫallulu: Impfv 3mp it-ta-na-aḫ-lal-lu CT 16, 44:103 and SpTU 2, 1: II 21; PrPartc mut-taḫ-lil-lum Diri RS Recension Section I E 16 (quoted CAD M/2 304a s.v. muttaḫlilu) (cf. also mut-taḫ-⟨⟨ ḫi ⟩⟩-lil-lum MSL 15, 74:332) (all SB) • nag/qarruru: Inf [i]-˹ta˺-aG-ru-ur-ru MSL 15, 40:16 (OB LL); Impfv 3mp it-ta-na-qara-ar-ru ZA 77, 204:20 (sic; see below, MB); it-ta-naG-ra-ar-ru KAR 389: I 21; it-tanGa-ra-ár-ru IAsb. 86:8 (sic; see below); Pfv 3mp it-taG-ra-ar-[ru] MSL 9, 109: 6a; Inf LL i-táG-ru-ur-rù CT 18, 49: II 17 (all SB) • naparruru: Stat 3mp [i-ta-a] p-r  [u]-ur-ru ARM 26/2, 425 no. 489:16; Inf i-ta-ap-ru-urru-um ZA 65, 188:116 (both OB); Impfv 3mp. it-ta-nap-ra-ár-ru CT 16, 34:218; PrPartc mut-tap-ri-ir-rum/ru ZA 9, 161:27; CT 17, 15:3+(all SB) • našallulu: Impfv 2p ta-at-ta-na-áš-lal-la K.10943:3–6 (quoted AHw 1143a s.v. šalālu II Ntn); 3mp it-ta-na-áš-lal-lu CT 16, 34:214 (both SB) Again, we do not know whether it is obligatory, but it is the only feature distinguishing these forms from regular Ntn‑stems (see Table 12.2). This suggests that the contrast between the regular N paradigm and that of the naparruru verbs, which is neutralized in endingless forms of the Ntn‑stem because R2 is a cluster (Pfv ittanapras ~ ittanaprar), was restored in forms with an ending by geminating the final radical: Pfv ittanaprasū ª ittanaprarrū). The ambiguity of many spellings makes it difficult to prove this, but it reminds one of the II/voc verbs, which also geminate the final radical because the second radical (a long vowel) cannot be geminated (see §16.5.2, pp. 476–477). The Ntn‑stem of the naparruru verbs shows some other deviations from the expected paradigm. There are two deviating imperfective forms: a MB 3mp it-ta-na-qa-ra-ar-ru ZA 77, 204:20 ‘they roll over constantly(??)’, and a SB 3mp it-tan-ga-ra-ár-ru IAsb. 86:8 or i-tan-ga-ra-ru SAA 9, 1: I 10′ ‘they roll constantly’.59 Moreover, there is an Ntn PrPartc with additional gemination: mu-ut-ta-ḫa-li-lum VAB 4, 84 no. 5: II 3 ‘sneak thief’, i.e., /muttaḫallil(l?)um/ instead of 58.  In other verbal stems, various forms are known which do have double gemination, such as the Gtn‑ and Ntn‑stems quoted in §16.6.1 (pp. 493–494). 59.  The form it-ta-na-qa-ra-ar-ru seems to represent /ittanaqar(r)arrū/ instead of regular /ittanaqrarrū/, i.e., it either lacks vowel syncope or is a scribal error with ⟨qa⟩ for ⟨aq⟩. The other two forms apparently

304

The naparraru Group  12.3.

muttaḫlil(l)um.60 An isolated instance of a t‑perfect with a double t-infix is at-ta-ta-aq-ra-ar BE 17, 5:19 (MB) ‘I rolled over repeatedly’. Semantically, the naparruru verbs refer to repetitive, iterative activities (GAG §101g and von Soden 1951: 257–58). This is formally reflected in their tendency to have gemination and to occur in the Ntn‑stem, and also in the fact that they have identical final radicals, just as the fientive II/gem verbs, of which most or perhaps even all of the naparruru verbs are extensions. Perhaps we can describe the difference between the N and the Ntn forms of these verbs as follows: the gemination in the N forms underlines the inherent repetitive meaning, whereas the Ntn forms indicate an additional, external repetition or temporal extension of the activity expressed by the verb. Finally, there is another verb that is conjugated like the naparruru group but atypical in some respects: naʾarruru ‘to come to sb.’s aid, to help’ (no Ntn, no Š).61 We may reconstruct the paradigm as follows (with n shown unassimilated for the sake of clarity; for Ḫ = / ʾ/, see §17.4, pp. 520–521; all forms are OB): • Impfv /inʾarrar/ (1s an-ḪA-ra-ar RA 35, 181b:17), with ending /inʾar(r)ar(r)‑/ (3s in-ḪAra-ar-ra-ak-kum ARM 2, 72:14), but apparently also with stem vowel i: an-Ḫa-ri-ra-am A.2821: 19 quoted FM 5, 200 n. 259; i-a-ri-ru-ni AbB 12, 99:12 (imperfective according to W. van Soldt, but perfective is not excluded) • Pfv /inʾarir/ (3s in-ḪA-ri-ir ARM 2, 26: r.1′; 1s an-ḪA-ri-ir ARM 10, 178:15; 1p i niIḪ-ḪA-ri-ir Sumer 14, 65 no. 39:20), with ending /inʾarrū/ (li-in-ḪA-ar-ra-am ARM 2, 72:16), or /inʾar(r)ir(r)‑/ (3s [li]-in-ḪA-ri-ra-am A. 3567:9 quoted ARM 26/1, 184; 3mp li-in-ḪA-ri-ru-ni-kum ARM 1, 60:10) • t-Pf /ittanʾarram/ (at-ta-ḪA-r[a]-am ARM 4, 26:31) • Imp. Pl. na-Ḫa-ar-ri-ra ARM 26/2, 323 no. 427:12 (but also né-Ḫa-ar-ra-nim ARM 26/2, p. 216 no. 389:15) • Inf /naʾarrur(r?)um/ (na-ḪA-ar-ru-ri-im RA 53, 29 D12: r.2) • PrPartc. /munʾar(r?)ir(r?)‑/ (mu-ḪA-ri-ri-im ARM 1, 90:12, see J.-M. Durand, MARI 5, p. 170) The verb also has a deverbal noun naʾrāru (OB), in OB Mari also neʾrāru, later nā/ērāru ‘help, (military) aid’. It looks like a naPRāS form of a root √ʾrr (see n. 10, p. 290). However, the unusual paradigm of naʾarruru suggests that the verb is derived from the noun, so this root may not have existed in the G‑stem. Points to be noted here are the occurrence of both i and a in the imperfective, the assimilation (outside Mari, except for the present participle) or non-assimilation (regularly in Mari, except for the t‑perfect) of n to the following ʾ, the coexistence of a short and a long form in the perfective (inʾarram and inʾar(r)ir(r)am) versus only a short form in the t‑perfect, and, most importantly, the absence of geminate spellings of the penultimate radical, except in the infinitive, which must have gemination of R2 to prevent the vowel syncope rule from operating. This leaves the possibility open that elsewhere only the final radical was geminated. Naʾarruru is atypical in three more ways: instead of being (mainly) literary, it only occurs in Old Babylonian letters, especially in Mari; it has no inherent iterative meaning, and it also lacks a triradical counterpart (although render /ittangar(r)arrū/ instead of the expected ittanagrarrū, or it may be from /ittanagar(r)arrū/ with vowel syncope. 60.  The form mu-ut-ḫa-li-lum St. Landsberger p. 34:8 can hardly be correct: emend to mu-ut-⟨ta⟩-ḫali-lum ? 61.  See also von Soden 1951: 258–59.

12.4.  The Verb mēlulu

305

the “short” forms can be analyzed as normal N‑stems). Therefore, it is not clear if the analysis to be proposed below in §12.6.1 (pp. 319–320) for the other naparruru verbs is also valid for this verb, whose etymological background is completely obscure.

12.4. The Verb mēlulu The verb mēlulu ‘to play’ shows a unique configuration: it has the prefix n‑ in the prefix conjugations and the present participle, just as the naparruru and the nabalkutu groups, but not in the non-prefix forms. It also resembles the naparruru group because R3 and R4 are identical, which leads to forms with gemination of the final radical. Table 12.3 gives my reconstruction of its paradigm.62 N‑stem

Ntn‑stem

Impfv

imme/allel, Pl imme/alellū

ittenemlel

Pfv

immēlil, Pl immēlilū and/or immĕlil, Pl immellū

Perf

*ittemlel

Imp

mēlil, Fem mēlilī

Stat Inf

mēlulu

PrPartc

mummellu, Fem mummeltu Table 12.3: The paradigm of mēlulu.

It is based on the following forms (more instances are listed in the dictionaries, s.v.): • G Impfv: 3s im-ma-le-el AbB 7, 126:15; im-me!-le-e[l] TuM NF 3, 25:15 (cf. CAD M/2 16a s.v. lex. sect.); 1s em-me-le-el AbB 10, 55:25; 3fp i-im-me-l [e]-el-la ZA 79, 16:9 (all OB); 3mp im-ma-lel-lu SpTU 2, 1: II 19; im-me-lel-lu CT 16, 44:101 var. (both SB) • G Pfv: 3s im-me-lil Dreams 329: II 10–11 (SB); im-me-li-l [u] FM 9, 267 n. 138 M.15107:10 (Subj) (OB); im-me-el-lu BL p. 118:5 (Subj) (SB); 3mp [li  ]-me-li-lu FM 9, 274 no. 69:15′; im-me-él-lu FM 3, 225 no. 51:5; li-me-el-lu Ištar p. 86:19 (all OB); im‑me-el-lu Tn-Ep. V 41 (MB); lim-mel-lu RA 46, 38:16 (SB)63 • G Imp: me-li-il Gilg. p. 278:9 (OB); Fem me/mé-li-li KAR 158: VII 30; RA 12, 78:10 (both SB) • G Inf: me-lu-lu-um ARM 2, 118:17; (ana) me-lu-[l]i-i-im ZA 79, 16:7 (both OB); me‑lul-šá BA 5, 564:5 (SB)64 • G PrPartc: mu-um-mé-el-lum RT 19, 59:2 (MB); mu-um-mé-lum(!sign aš for ⟨ rum⟩) MSL 12, 136:236; mu-um-mel-lu RA 51, 108:8; Fem mu-um-mil-tum AGH p. 132:38 (all SB) • Ntn Impfv: 1s e-te-ne-em-le-el AbB 10, 55:22 (OB) 62.  See in particular Landsberger 1960: 119–20 n. 30 for the paradigm, and further AHw 644 s.v. and CAD M/2 16–17 s.v. 63.  For li-me-li-lu-ki AK 1, 27:45, adduced by Landsberger (1960: 119–20 n. 30), W. G. Lambert, St. Kraus p. 204:45, reads li-šá-li-lu-k[i  ] from alālu Š. 64.  Derived from the Inf mēlulu is also the deverbal noun mēlultu ‘play’ and the nisbe adjective mēlulû ‘player, actor’ (or something similar) (me-lu-lu-ú-um MSL 12, 202: fr. II 11 acc. to CAD M/2 17a s.v. mēlulû).

306

The Verb mēlulu   12.4.

• Š PrPartc: mu-uš-me-li-il (ku-lí-lí) Legends p. 166:162 ‘who makes dragonflies (or wreaths?) dance’65 Landsberger (1960: 120 n. 30) connects mēlulu with He māḥōl and m eḥōlā ‘dance, play’ and posits a quadriradical stem mḥll, itself a deverbal noun (of instrument or place) of √ḥll with the prefix ma‑. √ḥll also survives in the substantivized infinitive elēlu ‘jubilation’ (CAD E 80 s.v.), or ‘fröhliches Lied’ (AHw 197b s.v. e. I). This denominal background explains its idiosyncratic paradigm and also fits with the forms of the imperfective and the infinitive, but the rest of the forms require the assumption of a restructuring on the basis of the imperfective. The imperfective itself can be reconstructed as an original *yi-n-maḥlal > immēlel, in which the first l was geminated along with all other imperfectives and the preceding vowel shortened: *immēlel > immellel. Because of the identity of R3 and R4, gemination seems to shift to the second l when this form has an ending, just as in the naparruru group: 3mp immelellū. Since immellel is identical in structure to the N imperfective in general (ipparrVs), other forms could be restructured by analogy with the regular N paradigm, starting from a base neMLvL (like naPRvS). Alongside *yi-n-maḥlal, we may assume an original perfective *yi-n-maḥlil > *yimmēlil. This form is attested in the 3s Subj im-me-li-l [u] and the 3mp Prec [li ]-me-li-lu from Mari Old Babylonian. The only perfective form without ending is the 3s im-me-lil, which is ambiguous: it may represent the expected form immēlil, but in view of the plural immellū, a shortened form immĕlil must have existed, too. This form can be explained as a remake on the basis of the imperfective immellel by analogy with the regular imperfective–perfective relationship in the N‑stem: ­ipparrVs : ipparis § immellel : x, where x is immĕlil, replacing *immēlil.66 This also explains the absence of any reflex of ḥ (apart from e) in the form of a long vowel or a glide in immellū. The formal relationship between immelil and immellū is reminiscent of naʾarruru: inʾarir – inʾarrū (see the end of §12.3, p. 304). The t‑perfect is not attested but can be reconstructed as *ittemlel on the basis of neMLvL and inferred from the Ntn Impfv ittenemlel, cf. ittaprVs alongside ittanaprVs. The present participle mummellu is (re)built on the basis of the imperfective: ipparrVs : mupparsu § immellel : x, where x is mummellu. For the feminine mummeltu, cf. mukillu – mukīltu in the D‑stem of II/voc verbs (see §16.5.3.3, pp. 484–485). The most remarkable feature of this verb is that the rest of the forms do not have the prefix n‑, in contrast to the naparruru and nabalkutu groups. They follow the model of the West Semitic quadriradicals that have the paradigm of the D‑stem (see §4.6.2, p. 124): Imp mēlil < *maḥlil, Inf mēlulu < *maḥlulum (cf. parris, parrusu in the D‑stem).67 The few forms attested of (other) derived stems, the Ntn Impfv ittenemlel and the ŠD PrPartc mušmellilu (J. Westenholz 1997: 166), also presuppose a base neMLvL or its causative counterpart šuMLvL. In an Eblaite lexical list, we find another form that looks like a Š PrPartc of this verb, in which ḥ may still be present: mu-sa-ma-a-lum // mu-sa-ma-É-lum (ezen) VE 1448′. As 65.  Rather than ‘dancer (adorned) with wreaths(?)’, as J. Westenholz translates, which ignores the causative. 66.  The same development took place in the N perfective of the I/voc verbs, where innāmir (Ass) became innămir in Babylonian; see §17.6.3.4 (pp. 552–554). 67.  This is another parallel (cf. the previous note) with the I/voc verbs: mēlil, mēlulu like nāmir, nāmuru (n‑ in the latter forms is the passive/intransitive prefix, not the verbalizing prefix of the quadriradical verbs, although the two are historically identical; see §12.6.1, pp. 314–321, below). B. Landsberger’s suggestion that the N forms of the prefix categories are only apparent N forms and that -mm- actually goes back to -mḥ(1960: 119 n. 30) is phonologically impossible and unnecessary.

12.5.  The Quadriradical Verbs of the nabalkutu Group

307

usually in Eblaite, the interpretation is conjectural, but the most straightforward one seems to be /mušmaḥallum/, parallel to Akkadian Š present participles of verbs with identical R3 and R4, such as mašqalillu ‘hanging ladder’, to be discussed in §13.4.3 (pp. 341–346).

12.5. The Quadriradical Verbs of the nabalkutu Group 68 There are not very many quadriradical verbs in Akkadian, in marked contrast to Arabic and Geʿez, for instance, which have huge numbers of them. Almost all of them are conjugated by means of what I will call a “conjugational prefix”, either n‑ or š‑ (or both), which is the reason why they are discussed as part of this and the next chapter.69 In all other respects, their paradigm is based on that of the triradical strong verb, with the necessary adaptations for accommodating the extra radical. The nabalkutu group comprises about 20 verbs, a few of which are quite common; the rest are fairly rare and mainly occur in literary texts. They have four radicals, the second of which is always a liquid (l or r  ); the final radical may be weak and the last two may be identical; in one case (neʾellû), the second and third radical are identical and form a geminate. Note, however, that if the last three radicals are identical, the verb belongs to the naparruru type discussed in §12.3 (pp. 301–305). The nabalkutu verbs show three vowel classes, A/i, I/i, and U/u, the latter being restricted to verbs whose final radical is weak. Semantically, they are all verbs of low transitivity: most of them are intransitive, but a few may take a direct object, such as nabalkutu ‘to cross, act against’ and nekelmû ‘to look angrily at’.70 They regularly have a pluractional Ntn‑stem (to be discussed below), and some of them have a parallel Š‑stem for the corresponding transitive/causative action, sometimes with a Štn‑stem. The Š and Štn forms will be discussed in §13.4.1 (pp. 338–340) under the Š-type quadriradicals. The verbs of the nabalkutu group can be divided into four kinds according to the nature of their radicals:71 1. Quadriradical verbs with four different strong radicals:72 • nabalkutu (OB+ A/i, in late SB and NB also I/i) ‘to cross, pass through, act against, rebel, turn over’ (also Ntn and Š) 68.  For further literature, see also GAG §110; Heidel 1940: 112–26. 69.  A partial exception is mēlulu, discussed in the previous section. There is also a full exception, namely the verb paršumu ‘to let live to old age’. Paršumu is only found in Neo-Assyrian and is doubtless a denominal verb of pa/uršumu ‘old, grey’, which occurs from Old Babylonian onward (Goetze 1945b: 247). The attested forms are two precatives (lu!-pa-ar-ši-man-ni SAA 10, 227: r.9 ‘may he (the king) grant me old age’ and lu-par-ši-im SAA 10, 227: r.14, 228: r.7), and a few Dtt imperfective forms (see §14.5.3, pp. 388–390): 3mp up-ta-tar-šu-mu SAA 13, 56: r.16 and 2ms [tu-up]-ta-tar-šá-am SAA 10, 185: r.23 ‘they/you will be granted old age’. As far as we can see, it is conjugated in the West Semitic way, like a D‑stem with a cluster -rš- instead of the geminate. Could this be due to Aramaic influence? 70.  GAG §110a aptly formulates this as follows: “Keines der ganz überwiegend intransitiven Verben dient als Ausdruck für eine unmittelbar auf das Objekt gerichtete Handlung.” 71.  For a similar enumeration, see Kienast 2001: 634–35. 72.  With regard to vowel class, the first and the second kind belong to A/i or I/i. However, in order to distinguish A/i from I/i, we need imperfective or t‑perfect forms (the perfective always has i ), which are not always attested for each individual period, so some verbs remain unclassified for some periods. The third kind is U/u or I/i and shows the same fluctuation as the III/voc verbs (see §3.5.3, pp. 78–79). A few related forms attested in Eblaite will be mentioned below.

The Quadriradical Verbs of the nabalkutu Group  12.5.

308 • • • • •

*naḫarbušu (OB/SB A/i) ‘to freeze’ (cf. ḫurbāšu, see below)73 naḫarmuṭu (OB A/i, SB also I/i) ‘to dissolve, crumble, melt’ (also Ntn and Š)74 napalsuḫu (OB A/i, SB also I/i) ‘to fall to the ground, squat’ (also Š) naparqudu (OB A/i, later also I/i) ‘to lie flat’(also Ntn and Š)75 naparšudu (OB unknown, SB I/i) ‘to escape, flee’ (also Ntn);76 for OA ta-áp-ta-na-raša-ad KTK 66: x+9 (= 11′), see n. 87 below • našarbuṣ/ṭu (only SB Inf; I/i according to Ntn) ‘to chase around, flit’ (also Ntn)77 2. Quadriradical verbs with identical third and four radicals: • naḫarmumu (only SB, vowel class unknown) ‘to collapse’ (also Š) • naḫaršušu (only SB Inf)78 ‘zusammenbrechen?’ (AHw 713a s.v.); mng. uncert. (CAD N/1 127b s.v.) • nazarbubu (OB/SB, only Inf and Stat) ‘to rage, be furious’ 3. Quadriradical verbs with a weak fourth radical, the ‘IV/voc verbs’: • nemerkû (mostly Bab: MB U/u, SB/NB I/i) and namarkûm (mostly NA, U/u) ‘to stay behind, be late’ (also Ntn and Š) • napardû and neperdû (SB U/u, 1x I/i) ‘to become bright, cheerful’ (also Š) • naparkû (SB rarely neperkû) (OB U/u, SB also I/i, MA U/u (see below)) ‘to cease, stop working, leave’ (also Ntn(?) and Š) • negeltû (SB also nagaltû) (OB/MB/SB U/u and I/i) ‘to wake up’ • neḫelṣû (SB also naḫalṣû) (OB I/i, SB U/u and I/i) ‘to slip, glide’ (also Ntn(?) and Š) • nepelkû (SB also napalkû) (OB/SB, vowel class unknown) ‘to be wide open’ (also Š?) • neqelpû (SB rarely naqalpû)79 (OB I/i (1x), SB U/u and I/i; MA U/u) ‘to drift down, glide along, sail downstream’ (also Ntn and Š) • nešelpû (SB, only Inf and Imp) ‘to glide, slither’80 • napalṭû (MB/SB, vowel class unknown) ‘to pass, miss’ (also Š) • nekelmû (SB also nakalmû) (OB/MB E/e; SB I/i, rarely U/u) ‘to look angrily’ (also Ntn) 4. The verb neʾellû, which will be discussed separately at the end of this section. 73.  N only in the t‑Pf at-ta-ḫar-ba-˹aš˺ CRRAI 35, 13:6′ (OB), but A/i is confirmed by the Standard Babylonian Ntn form it-ta-na-aḫ(!sign ḫar)-ra-ba-šú CT 39, 15:29; see below. 74.  Note also the Impfv ˹iḫ˺-ḫa-ra-am-ma-ṭú AuOr 17/8, 192:18 (OB). 75.  Cancel SB KAR 357:58 (= BAM 4, 339) ip-pa-ra-qid: read ip-pa-la!-saḫ acc. to CAD N/1 272a s.v. 1b–1′. 76.  The original pattern A/i is indirectly shown by Ntn forms such as lit-tap-ra-šá-du Maqlû VIII 58; see below. 77.  A form that looks as if it also belongs to this type of quadriradical verb is nagalmušu, in LL equated with gitmālu ‘perfect’, šaqû ‘high, sublime’ and nabû ‘shining, brilliant’; see CAD N/1 106b s.v. The situation is complicated by a variant šagalmušu, which has the shape of an Assyrian Š‑stem of this verb (Bab *šugalmušu), but is equated in LL with different forms of palāḫu ‘to fear, respect’ (CAD Š/1 62b s.v.: ‘terror(?)’). The two meanings are difficult to reconcile. 78.  And perhaps an imperative, if na-ḫar-šá-iš SKS p. 86: 361 is a mistake for naḫaršiš; see W. Farber’s commentary. 79.  The A-forms occurring in Old Babylonian are determined by the Babylonian vowel harmony rule; see §17.5.1 (pp. 531–533) and Kouwenberg 2001: 233–34, 245. 80.  See CAD N/2 192a s.v. (not in AHw, but see von Soden 1975: 327): Imp Pl né-šel-pa-a BAM 3, 248: I 49; Inf LL né-šal-pu-ú CT12, 29a:4.

12.5.  The Quadriradical Verbs of the nabalkutu Group

309

Table 12.4 contains the inflectional forms of the three kinds of verbs of the nabalkutu group, arranged according to vowel class, with nabalkutu, naparšudu, and naparkû as examples (see also GAG Verbalp. 39–40): N‑stem

A/i

I/i

U/u

Impfv

ibbalakkat

ipparaššid

ipparakku

Pfv

ibbalkit

ipparšid

ipparku

t‑Pf

ittabalkat

ittaparšid

ittaparku

Imp

nabalkit

*naparšid

?

Stat

nabalkut

*naparšud

naparku

Inf/PPartc

nabalkutu

naparšudu

naparkû

PrPartc

mubbalkitu

mupparšidu

mupparkû81

Table 12.4: The N‑stem of the verbs of the nabalkutu group.

81

The paradigm of the quadriradical N‑stems is based on a quadriliteral base BaLKvT,82 to which the prefix n(a)‑ is added; the reason why will be discussed in §12.6.1 (pp. 314–321) below. After a personal prefix and the prefix mu‑ of the present participle, its form is ‑n‑, which assimilates to the first radical, e.g., Pfv ibbalkit < *yi-n-balkit. In principle, the root or stem vowel in the second syllable of BaLKvT follows the pattern of the N‑stem: the vowel of the imperfective and the t‑perfect is determined by the vowel class (A/i or I/i), that of the perfective is in principle i but u in the U/u class. The stative, the infinitive, the two participles, and presumably also the imperative have the fixed vowels of all derived stems. As we saw in §12.2.1 (pp. 289–290), the fixed vowel of the perfective is specific to the N‑stem, as opposed to the T‑ and the tan‑stems (where the perfective has the imperfective vowel), but this does obviously not apply to the U/u verbs. The vowel classes A/i and I/i show an interesting development: all extant Old Babylonian imperfective and t‑perfect forms have a, and i only occurs in Standard Babylonian and later alongside a; some verbs with a in Old Babylonian appear with i in Standard Babylonian. This shows that the strong verbs of the nabalkutu type (groups I and II) originally had A/i, in accordance with the A/i pattern of the derived stems, but may later shift to I/i. This is in keeping with the fact that in the triradical N‑stem I/i also seems to be secondary, caused by i in the G imperfective (see §12.2.1, pp. 289–290). The change is clearly shown in the frequent verb nabalkutu, where imperfectives and t‑perfects with i start to appear in Standard Babylonian and become the norm in Neo-Babylonian. The verbs of the third kind, the IV/voc verbs, are always isovocalic, just like the III/voc verbs: they are either U/u or I/i and preserve their root vowel in the prefix categories (although I am not aware of an imperative showing the stem vowel). There is a great deal of fluctuation between u and i, which is reminiscent of the III/voc verbs, which—as we saw in §3.5.3 (pp. 78–79)—show a strong tendency to shift from U/u to I/i and to a lesser extent from A/a to I/i. However, in the IV/voc verbs, it is much less obvious that the direction of the shift is from u towards i: in negeltû, 81.  Note the uncontracted PrPartc mu-pa-ar-ki-um RIME 4, 51: 8 (ArBab RI of Lipit-Eštar). 82.  Heidel’s claim (1940: 116–17) that the stem balkVt is secondary and that -blakVt is a more original stem-form can only be upheld by assuming a large number of hypothetical changes. Heidel’s reconstruction of the formal background of the quadriradical paradigm is vitiated by his reliance on stress patterns that are unproved and far-fetched.

310

The Quadriradical Verbs of the nabalkutu Group  12.5.

neḫelṣû, nepelkû, and neqelpû, the I/i forms occur already in Old Babylonian and are older than the U/u forms or just as old, as far as we can judge. In Standard Babylonian, forms with u and i appear to be used indiscriminately. In this context, it is useful to look at the few Assyrian forms available, since Assyrian is far more conservative with regard to the root and stem vowel. Ass namarkû, naparkû, and naqalpû are U/u verbs, e.g.: • iq-qa-al-pu-a JEOL 2, 136:8 (MA) ‘it (a boat) drifted down (hither)’ • (lā) ip!-pár-rak-ku Sumer 15, 16 pl. 1: r.4 acc. to AHw 1578a s.v. (MA) ‘let him not cease’ • im-mar-rak-ku SAA 1, 237:11 (NA) ‘it will be in arrears’ • la-am-mar-ku CTN 5 p. 49:5 (NA) ‘let me delay’. However, the single Neo-Assyrian instance of naḫalṣû has i : • it-ta-ḫal-ṣi SAA 13, 192:6 ‘he slipped’ which agrees with the fact that all Old Babylonian instances of neḫelṣû also have i. Perhaps we may conclude, then, that nemerkû and neqelpû are original U/u verbs and neḫelṣû an original I/i verb. For the verb nekelmû, the plene spelling ik-ke-le-em-me-e-šu JRAS CSpl. 70:16 ‘he looks angrily at him’ and the Pfv li-ik-ke-el-mi RIME 4, 674:72 (both OB) suggest an original A/i verb that once had an E‑colouring guttural as R4, i.e., from a root √klmʿ or √klmḥ. I am not aware of any convincing etymology (  pace Huehnergard 1991: 692). For the rest of the IV/voc verbs, we have to wait for more unequivocal evidence.83 Some of the individual forms of Table 12.4 call for comment. The base BaLKvT occurs as such in all forms except the imperfective, in which gemination has been introduced from the G‑stem Impfv iparrVs through the mechanism described in §4.5.2 (pp. 113–114): *iprVs(u) : iparrVs § ibbalkVt(u) : x, where x = ibbalakkat, or on the basis of the rule “insert gemination in the imperfective wherever possible.”84 The quadriradical paradigm shows a number of irregular forms, even if we disregard the erratic interchange of A‑ and E‑forms in Standard Babylonian. Examples are the infinitives né‑ek‑le-muu MSL 5, 73:296 var. S8 instead of nekelmû, and nam-zar-bu-bu and na-az-ra-bu-bu, which are bizarre (incorrect?) variants of na-zar-bu-bu MSL 17, 37:195, and the statives na-pal-si-iḫ TuL 92:8 // CLBT pl. 1:7b (instead of napalsuḫ) (all SB), and nak-la-mu-u-ni RA 53, 130:19 (instead of nakalmûni) (NA lit).85

83.  It is unclear why some of the IV/voc verbs regularly have E‑colouring already in Old Babylonian (negeltû, neḫelṣû, nepelkû, and neqelpû), while others do not (naparkûm). The standard explanation for E‑forms is that the verb used to contain an E‑colouring guttural, but in that case we would expect them (or most of them) to belong to the A/i class rather than to the U/u class (like nekelmû). It is possible that other consonants (l and/or ṣ [in neḫelṣû]) are responsible for most E-forms; see GAG §9b. 84.  In late texts, there are several instances which superficially look like the more original imperfective *ibbalkat, but they are invariably spelled with CvC signs, which are also used for CvCv in this period (von Soden and Röllig 1991: xxiv–xxv). Therefore, spellings of the type ib-BAL-kat are to be interpreted as / ibbalakkat/ rather than /ibbalkat/, because they interchange with unequivocal spellings of /ibbalakkat/ and because *ibbalkat is completely lacking in earlier periods. 85.  The Neo-Assyrian form presumably stands for *naklumûni, an adaptation to the regular N Stat naPRuS, with the change u > a before stressed ū (Hämeen-Anttila 2000: 31). The Inf nablakutum listed in GAG Verbalpar. 39 is to be disregarded according to GAG 3 §110c*.

12.5.  The Quadriradical Verbs of the nabalkutu Group

311

The nasal prefix is an affix rather than a fixed part of the root. This is shown not only by the corresponding Š forms (see §13.4.1, pp. 338–340) but also by the existence of sporadic nonverbal forms without the prefix:86 • palkû ‘wide open’, related to napalkû • purqidam ‘on one’s back, supine’, related to naparqudu • ḫurbā/ašu ‘frost, shivers’, doubtless related to naḫarbušu (a denominal verb?) It seems plausible that the instrument nouns nabalkattu ‘crossing, ladder, revolt’ from nabalkutu and napalsaḫtu ‘footstool’ or the like from napalsuḫu also lack the prefix na‑ of the N‑stem and have the instrument noun prefix ma‑ instead, which has become na‑ because of the labial in the root (GAG §31b); but this is hard to prove, of course.87 The fact that the second radical of the verbs of the nabalkutu group is always r or l has given rise to the claim that it goes back to a vocalic sonant ḷ/ṛ, so that balkVt- is a realization of earlier *bḷkVt and paršVd- of *pṛšVd.88 There is no compelling reason to assume this, although it escapes us why the second radical is always r or l as long as we do not know the etymological background of these verbs. Nor is there an obvious advantage to be gained, unless we want to squeeze these verbs into a triradical mould, for which there is no reason at all. The absence of reliable cognates of the nabalkutu verbs makes it impossible to establish whether they are extensions of triradical roots and, if so, which of the four consonants is secondary.89 The background of the nasal prefix, which these verbs share with the N‑stem, will be discussed in §12.6.1 (pp. 314–321). Some of the nabalkutu-type verbs have a pluractional Ntn‑stem (nabalkutu, naparqudu, naparšudu, našarbuṭu, neḫelṣû, nekelmû, neqelpû, and perhaps naparkû).90 Its paradigm, insofar as it is attested, is laid out in Table 12.5 (see also GAG Verbalp. 39–40):

86.  The possible relationship between namarkû and warkû ‘later’ (suggested in AHw 725b s.v.), that between naparkû and parāku ‘to block’, and that between negeltû and galātu ‘to twitch, start’ is too speculative to be included. Similar to palkû, there may be an adjective/stative šerk/gûm ‘adorned’ in Sargonic Akkadian (si-ir-gu-a idāšu Or. 46, 201:25 [incant. from Kish] ‘his arms are adorned’), which may correspond to a Geʿez root srgw (CDG 512b s.v. *sargawa), as first suggested by von Soden (1972); see also Hasselbach 2005: 140 n. 81. This connection remains uncertain, however, because of e in the first syllable, unless we are prepared to assume a > e in the vicinity of r (J. and A. Westenholz 1977: 210). See further Gelb 1982, who rejects von Soden’s proposal, and Civil (1987: 235), who endorses it and compares Sum. še - e r - k a - a n . . . du g4 ‘to adorn’, apparently a loan from this word. 87.  Verbal forms without the nasal prefix do not seem to occur. However, Old Assyrian has an intriguing form, unfortunately unique and in an unclear context, which may be a quadriradical form without the prefix: ta-áp-ta-na-ra-ša-ad KTK 66: x+9 (= 11′). As it stands, it looks like a Gtn imperfective of (na)paršudu, and it is exactly the form we would expect on the basis of the Gtn imperfective of the triliteral verb (iptanarras). On the other hand, it violates the vowel syncope rule because of the extra short syllable caused by the additional radical (taptănăraššad > **taptanraššad ). 88.  In particular by W. von Soden (1950b: 332, GAG §110a/c). Insofar as it is based on exceptional irregular forms such as né-ek-le-mu-ú and na-az-ra-bu-bu (see above), it is unconvincing, since these forms are either unreliable or can easier be explained otherwise (see n. 85 for the former). 89.  Huehnergard (1991: 691–92) suggests etymologies (on the basis of alleged Modern South Arabian cognates) for neḫelṣû, nekelmû, and neqelpû, but neither the formal nor the semantic similarities involved are particularly convincing. This also applies to Lipiński’s (1997: 407) proposals. 90.  The alleged Ntn forms of naparkû all have E‑colouring (it-te-né-ep-rek-ku/GU TDP 70:14; 176:5; STT 403:43; it-te-né-ep-rek-ka-a TDP 170:15, 17) and their meaning is unclear, so it is doubtful that they belong to this verb; cf. CAD N/1 282a s.v. 5 ‘uncert. mng.’. If not, we have to add a separate Ntn‑stem neperk/gûm with uncertain meaning.

The Quadriradical Verbs of the nabalkutu Group  12.5.

312 A/i

I/i

U/u

Impfv

ittanablakkat

ittanapraššid

itteneqleppu

Pfv

ittab(a)lakkat

*ittapraššid

itteqleppu

t-Pf

ittatablakkat

Imp

*itablakkit

Stat

*itablakkut

Inf/PPartc

itablakkutu

PrPartc

muttablakki/atu

iteqleppû muttapraššidu

mutteklemmû

Table 12.5: The Ntn paradigm of the nabalkutu group.

The paradigm of these complex and rare verbs shows an uncharacteristic amount of idiosyncrasy and variation, especially in the presence or absence of gemination. The information given above about the vowel classes of the nabalkutu group is also valid here; cf. especially it-ta-na-ap-raqa-ad MDP 57, 118 no. 5:23 (OB) ‘it keeps falling backward’, which in Standard Babylonian also appears with i: it-ta-nap-ra-qid Rm. 106+:20–21 quoted by AHw 735a s.v. naparqudu Ntn. The imperfective is regular; as in all tan‑stems apart from Gtn, it differs from the perfective in the extra syllable -na-. Both imperfective and perfective contain a sequence ‑blakkat, which goes back to *-balakkat after application of vowel syncope; -balakkat itself is from the inflectional base BaLKvT, with gemination introduced from the Gtn‑stem. In the perfective, however, there is some fluctuation between regular ittablakkat (e.g., in li-tab-lá-kà-at ATHE 64:9 (OA) ‘let it cross repeatedly’) and ittabalakkat, which violates the vowel syncope rule (ittăbălakkat), e.g., it-ta-balak-ka-at TuL 42:3 (OB), and it-ta-ba-la-ak-ka-tu CT 37, 6:13 (SB). Of other verbs, I only know regular perfective forms: it-taḫ-[r]a-me-ṭu PKT pl. 26: r.5 (MA) ‘they melted’, lit-tap-ra-šá-du Maqlû VIII 58 ‘let them (the sorceries) flee’, and lit-te-eq-le-pu (var. lit-te-eq-lep-pa-a, lit-taqlap-pa-a) Erra IV 118 ‘let it (the boat) drift downriver’ (all SB). The t‑perfect occurs in at-ta-tab-lak-ka-ta CCEBK 92:17 ‘I have crossed repeatedly’, but there is also a form without gemination: it-ta-ta-bal-ki-tu RIMA 2/I, 149:31 ‘he constantly traversed’ (Subj).91 For the infinitive, cf. (ina) i-tab-lak-ku-ti BWL 44:104 ‘through twisting’ (tr. W. G. Lambert), i-te-eq-lep-pu-u MSL 9, 96:205 and i-te-ek-lem-mu-ú V R 16, 45cd (all SB). Particularly common is the Ntn present participle, which shows various idiosyncrasies. The regular form occurs, for instance, in mut-taš-rab-bi-ṭu-ti‑ CT 16, 15: V 40 ‘drifting’, mut-tapraš-ši-di ‘roaming, roving’ BWL 144:19, and mu-ut-te-ek-lem-mu ZA 43, 100:6 ‘angry-looking’ (Stat 3ms). In addition, there is a form without gemination: mut-ta-par-ši-du IAsb. 73: r.1 (of birds) (all SB).92 In Old Babylonian, a very unusual Ntn present participle of nabalkutum is found with a as stem vowel: mu-ut-ta-ab-la-ka-tu ShA 1, 93 no. 19:13 ‘they are rebels’ (Stat 3mp).93 It may be parallel to the stem vowel a in the Gtn present participles with additional gemination of R3 muštabbabbu and muktaššaššu, which will be discussed in §16.6.1 (pp. 493–494). If this is correct, we may have to interpret this form as /muttablakkattū/.94 91.  Unless this is a dittography for the N t‑Pf it-ta-⟨⟨ta⟩⟩-bal-ki-tu), which is also suggested by the vowel i (although there are parallels for this in Standard Babylonian; see above). 92.  AHw 689b s.v. muttapraššidu reads mut-ta-par(a)-ši-du, which is possible but also irregular. 93.  GAG Verbalpar. 39 gives the expected form muttablakkitu without references; perhaps it is not attested but inferred from the corresponding Š-form muštablakkitu, for which see §13.4.1 (pp. 338–340). 94.  A difficult form that may belong here is i-taḫ-la-ṣa-nu MVAeG 40/2, 68:11 (SB): AHw 403a s.v. ‘etwa ‘Haarausfall’??’; CAD I/J 293b s.v. ‘dislocated’), apparently from neḫelṣû. It may be interpreted as itaḫlaṣṣânu, i.e., a past participle (*itaḫlaṣṣû) with the suffix ‑ānu (GAG §56r).

12.5.  The Quadriradical Verbs of the nabalkutu Group

313

An atypical and formally isolated member of the nabalkutu group is neʾellû, which AHw 774b s.v. interprets as ‘(herum)suchen’, and CAD N/2 149a s.v. as ‘to run around, to drool(?)’.95 The difference from nabalkutu is that R2 and R3 are identical and form a geminate, and from the naparruru group, that R4 is weak and different from R2 and R3. The first radical is a strong ʾ. With a few reservations, its N and Ntn paradigm can be reconstructed as in Table 12.6, with nabalkutu for comparison: nabalkutu N

neʾellû N

nabalkutu Ntn

neʾellû Ntn

Impfv

ibbalakkat

*iʾʾellē

ittanablakkat

itteneʾellē

Pfv

ibbalkit

iʾʾellī

ittab(a)lakkat

itteʾellē

t-Pf

ittabalkat

*itteʾellē

ittatablakkat

*itteteʾellē

Imp

nabalkit

*neʾellī

*itablakkit

*iteʾellī

Stat

nabalkut

neʾellū

*itablakkut

*iteʾellū

Inf/PPartc

nabalkutu

neʾellû

itablakkutu

iteʾellû

PrPartc

mubbalkitu

*muʾʾellû

*muttablakkitu

*mutteʾellû

Table 12.6: The reconstructed paradigm of neʾellû.

For the N‑stem, there is a 3ms Pfv iʾ-el-li(!sign tu) MSL 16, 195:144; with a Vent iʾ-el-la-am MSL 16, 195:143, an Imp Fem né-ʾe-li-šú AfO 19, 53:166, a 3ms Stat ne-ʾe-lu4 STT 279:11,96 and an Inf né-ʾe-lu(-ú) MSL 16, 195:142. The Ntn‑stem occurs in a 3ms Impfv it-te-né-ʾe-lu-ú CT 16, 37:19 and i-te-né-el-lu-ú SpTU 2, 1: II 23 and IV 14, in a 1s Pfv lut/lu-ut-te-ʾe-lu BWL 78:141, and in an Inf LL i-te-ʾe-lu-ú quoted CAD N/2 149a s.v. lex. sect. (equated with saḫāru).97 All attested forms are Standard Babylonian. The interpretation of the few instances attested is hampered by the ambiguity of the ʾ‑sign, which may render a CV or a VC sequence. The paradigm presented in Table 12.6 assumes that neʾellû follows nabalkutu, with one important difference: because R2 and R3 form a geminate, they do not have additional gemination in the N imperfective and in the entire Ntn paradigm; so the N imperfective is parallel to *ibbalkat, the Ntn imperfective to *ittanabalkat, and the Ntn infinitive to *itabalkutu, etc.98 There is no obvious etymology for neʾellû. What we can say is that the final radical is likely to have been *ʿ or *ḥ because of the E-colouring (which cannot have been caused by the first radical, since a strong ʾ never goes with E‑colouring; see §17.4, pp. 520–525). Therefore, a connection with elû ‘to go /come up’ (√ʿlī  ) seems impossible and is also semantically unlikely. 95.  See also W. von Soden 1951: 156–58 for this verb. 96.  The text reads: (šumma amēlu k a-šu) ne-ʾe-lu4 dišpa peṣâ unaṣṣabma inaʾʾeš ‘if a man’s mouth is drooling(?) (or his nose running?), he sucks white honey and he recovers’ (tr. CAD N/2 149b s.v. 2; or perhaps from niʾlu? cf. AHw 790a s.v. nīlu II). Could this verb be related to nīlu/niʾlu ‘saliva, spittle’? 97.  Note that the Ntn forms, except for the perfective and the present participle, violate the vowel syncope rule. For similar cases, see §2.4 (p. 47). 98.  According to AHw 690a s.v. mutte/illû ‘etwa ‘der sich herumtreibt’’, mutte/illû is a participle of neʾellû. The regular form would be mutteʾellû (Ÿ muttablakkitu). CAD, however, has this word as muttilu (a demon), Fem muttiltu (M/2 313a) without reference to neʾellû. I would rather write this form as muttīlu, muttīltu and assume that it is a Dtn form of nâlum ‘to lie down’, i.e., ‘who constantly lays down’, an appropriate name for a demon. For a formal parallel to this present participle, see §16.5.3.3, pp. 484–485 (mukīnu, mukīntu, etc.).

314

The Historical Background of the Prefixn‑   12.6.

Finally, it is convenient to mention here that Eblaite lexical lists contain two verbs ostensibly related to the nabalkutu type: • na-sar-du-lu-um (= g[ír×gunû]) VE 1129; since gír×gunû = ul4 = arāḫum ‘to hurry’, Sjöberg (2004: 272) proposes a similar meaning for this verb • na-bar-su-um (= al.bal(!sign kul)) VE 993b, of unknown meaning, with an Ntn PrPartc in ma-wu mu-da-bar-si-ù-tum (= a.bal) /māwū muttabarsi(H)ūtum/ ‘. . . water’ (Krebernik 1983: 25) The infinitives do not provide any new information (apart from illustrating the similarity between Eblaite and Akkadian), but the Ntn present participle is noteworthy because it has no gemination, exactly like the incidental forms of the type muttabalkitu quoted above. This could be an indication that the introduction of gemination in the Ntn‑stem—prompted by that of the Gtn‑stem (see §14.7.6 (pp. 435–436)—is a later development.

12.6. The Historical Background of the Prefix n‑ 12.6.1.  The prefix n‑ as an original “light verb” The multiple functions of the prefix n‑ in Akkadian and parallel formations in West Semitic and Afroasiatic enable us to make a plausible reconstruction of its historical background. Our starting point will be the nabalkutu group and its South Semitic cognates, which offer the most crucial evidence. As I stated briefly in §4.6.2 (pp. 123–124), Geʿez has a class of expressive verbs with four or more radicals that are conjugated by means of a nasal prefix,99 and the same applies to Modern South Arabian.100 They come in several types, of which the most common are:101 1. verbs with four different radicals, e.g., Geʿez ʾanfarʿaṣa ‘to exult, dance’,102 Mehri ənqərbōṭ ‘to be curled, wrinkled’ (p. 234), and ənxərbūś ‘to be disarranged, disordered’ (p. 446) 2. verbs with a reduplicated final radical, e.g., Geʿez ʾanzāhlala ‘to become weak, languid’, Mehri ənḥəṣībūb ‘to become smart, active and clever’ (p. 189), derived from the adjective ḥəṣbēb, and ənḥēbōb ‘to screech, grunt looking for a young one’ (said of a camel) (p. 291) 3. verbs with a reduplicated biliteral element, e.g., Geʿez ʾangargara ‘to wallow, roll’, ʾanqaṭqaṭa ‘to tremble’, Mehri ənfəsfōs ‘to disperse’ (intr.) (p. 103) and əntəġtūġ ‘to be ­tickled’ (p. 400) Some of these verbs also occur without ʾan‑ as quadriradical verbs, e.g., Geʿez sāḥsəḥa and ʾansāḥsəḥa ‘to move back and forth’, or have a corresponding noun or adjective without ʾan‑, 99.  See Dillmann and Bezold 1907: 164–66 (§87 sub V); Tropper 2002: 134–35; Lambdin 1978: 229– 30; Moscati, ed. 1964: 130–31. For lists of verbs, see also Heidel 1940: 18–20; M. Cohen 1955: 196–97; Conti 1980: 73–93, 106. 100.  See M. Cohen 1955: 195–96; Simeone-Senelle 1997: 401. Leslau (1937) discusses these verbs in Soqotri and characterizes them as expressive and denominal. In Epigraphic South Arabian, verbs of this type do not seem to be attested (Beeston 1962: 19–20). 101.  The MSA examples come from Mehri; the numbers are the page numbers of Johnstone 1987, where they are listed under the respective consonantal roots. 102.  The initial ʾa‑ is generally regarded as taken over from the causative categories, just as ā in the prefix conjugations (yāngargər, etc.); see, e.g., Garr 1993: 146–47, 151).

12.6.  The Historical Background of the Prefixn‑

315

e.g., Geʿez ṣafṣāf ‘juice’ and ʾanṣafṣafa ‘to ooze’ (Lambdin 1978: 229–30; Tropper 2002: 134), and the Mehri adjective ḥəṣbēb alongside ənḥəṣībūb. The similarity of these South Semitic verbs to Akkadian verbs with the prefix n‑ is manifest. The first type, which usually has r or l as R2, corresponds to the nabalkutu verbs, the second type to the nabalkutu verbs that have identical R3 and R4, and the third type corresponds to the verbs of the naparruru group, as I will argue below. A further commonality with Akkadian is that the MSA verbs tend to come in pairs: an intransitive verb with the prefix n‑, and a transitive or causative verb with the prefix a‑ or zero, depending on the nature of R1 (Johnstone 1987: xiii). For instance, aqárbəṭ ‘to curl’, xárbəś ‘to put into disorder’, fásfəs ‘to break up’ (tr.), and táġtəġ ‘to tickle’ are the transitive counterparts of the corresponding verbs mentioned above. However, the verbs with a‑ or zero comprise numerous intransitive verbs as well, especially when there is no corresponding verb with n‑, e.g., abárbər ‘to make incomprehensible sounds’ (p. 51), kárbəl ‘to crawl on the knees’ (p. 213), and tárḏəm ‘to mumble, talk drivel’ (p. 403). Occasionally, both verbs are intransitive, e.g., awáswəs ‘to be too worried or preoccupied to listen to someone’ and ənwəswūs ‘to be preoccupied by worry’ (pp. 430–31). This agrees with the situation in Akkadian, where the quadriradical verbs with the prefix š‑ are transitives or causatives of the corresponding intransitive verbs with n‑ but are intransitive themselves when there is no such verb (see §13.4, pp. 337–350). Outside Semitic, we find a small group of similar verbs in Egyptian, mostly derived from biradical and reduplicated roots. Cannuyer (1983: 27) characterizes them as expressive and intensive (e.g., nftft ‘to leap’, ngsgs ‘to overflow’, nšny ‘become stormy, furious’ alongside šnj.t ‘storm’, and nhmhm ‘to shout’ alongside a simple nhm (Reintges 1994: 234)).103 Even though the verbs of the nabalkutu type show little of the expressive nature of the South Semitic verbs, they are undoubtedly genetically related and go back to a single class of verbs in Proto-Semitic and Afroasiatic.104 The fact that few, if any, individual verbs are found both in South Semitic and in Akkadian is typical of categories with an (originally) expressive character: usually, only their patterns can be reconstructed and not the individual words, which tend to have a low token frequency and a relatively short life span. The main question raised by the quadriradical verbs with an ]. One could argue that it expresses the contrast with the causative š‑prefix in the same verb (šubalkutu, etc.), but this is unsatisfactory, because the overall meaning of the verbs with n‑ shows that they are basically intransitive. Hence they have as little need of a marker as the average intransitive G‑stem. The corresponding Š‑stems, on the other hand, are not only formally but also semantically derived. This agrees with the fact that the nabalkutu verbs show vowel classes (see §12.5, pp. 307–308), but the corresponding Š‑stems have the fixed a/i apophony of other derived stems (see §13.4.1, p. 338). Another option is to assume that n‑ is ingressive, as in some adjectival verbs (see §12.2.2.2, pp. 297–298); this is claimed, for instance, by W. von Soden in GAG §110a. However, 103.  For Egyptian, see also M. Cohen 1955: 200–202; Edel 1955/64: 186–87; Derchain-Urtel 1973; Conti 1980: 47–71; Rubin 2004: 477–78. A typically Egyptian feature is that some roots prefixed with n‑ can be made transitive by prefixing the causative prefix s‑ to the n-prefix rather than replacing it (Reintges 1994: 234–35). Cushitic and Berber do not seem to have verbs of this kind with an n‑prefix; see M. Cohen 1955: 203–204 and Conti 1980: 37. However, at least one Cushitic language seems to use a prefix n‑ with passive meaning, parallel to the Semitic N‑stem, see n. 125 below. Moreover, Cushitic and Berber do have a formative m with detransitive function, prefixed in Berber and suffixed in Cushitic, which may be related to the prefix n elsewhere (Lieberman 1986: 600–604). Lieberman also discusses some possible cognate markers in Chadic (1986: 602–03). 104.  M. Cohen 1955: 205; Castellino 1962: 113; Conti 1980: 108; Gensler 1997: 250–54.

316

The Historical Background of the Prefixn‑   12.6.

as stated above, ingressivity typically belongs to stative verbs, whereas these quadriradicals are fientive, so an explicit marker of ingressivity is superfluous. There is, therefore, little reason why we should not find an intransitive **balkutu opposed to a transitive or causative šubalkutu, just as we have an unmarked G‑stem raqādu ‘to dance’ opposed to a causative Š‑stem šurqudu. Crucial for determining the function of n‑ is the fact that, if the verbs with the prefix n‑ can be associated with a (non-deverbal) noun or adjective, this word usually lacks the n‑prefix.105 This shows that the prefix exclusively belongs to the verbal paradigm. For Akkadian, I already mentioned purqidam, palkû, and ḫurbāšu alongside naparqudu, napalkû, and naḫarbušu, respectively, and for Geʿez ṣafṣāf ‘juice’ alongside ʾanṣafṣafa ‘to ooze’. Among the MSA quadriradical verbs with n‑, several are derived from a quadriradical adjective, such as the above-mentioned ənḥəṣībūb, and likewise ənṣəhēwū(w) ‘to become fawn, creamy in colour’ (Johnstone 1987: 360) from ṣəhwēw ‘cream-coloured’, or from a quadriradical noun, sucth as ənṭəlḥawm ‘to have spleen trouble, a disease of the spleen’ from ṭəlḥaym ‘spleen’ (Johnstone 1987: 410). This suggests that n‑ is a “conjugational prefix” that is added to a form to enable it to be conjugated as a verb. Such an element is likely to go back to an ancient verb itself, before it became a prefix in the course of a grammati­calization process. Hence we may surmise that the quadriliteral elements from which the nabalkutu verbs are derived originally depended on a support verb for their use as predicate. For instance, if we assume for the sake of the argument that nabalkutu and neḫelṣû go back to the very early stage in which this process must have taken place (which is unlikely), ibbalkit originally meant something like ‘he did (or: became, went, said, etc.) BLKT’, iḫḫelṣi ‘he did ḪLṢī’, etc. Cross-linguistically, it is fairly common to conjugate non-verbal elements by means of a “light verb,”106 i.e., a verb that has little lexical semantic content of its own and forms a single concept with another element, in this case a noun. English examples are take a walk, have a rest, give a shout, etc. The idea that many of the grammatical morphemes used in the Afroasiatic languages to create derived verbs for the expression of tense/aspect and voice distinctions ultimately go back to the grammaticalization of such verbs is by no means new107 but has gained a renewed popularity in recent years as a result of the upsurge in the study of grammaticalization pro­cesses.108 105.  This means that the non-prefix forms starting with na‑ of Table 12.4 owe their prefix to their deverbal nature: na‑ is taken over from the prefix conjugations in accordance with the dependency relations in the verbal paradigm (see §2.2.1, pp. 29-30). However, this did not take place in the verb mēlulu (see §12.4, pp. 305–307), nor in the N‑stems of I/voc verbs (Pfv innāmir versus Inf nāmuru, etc.); see §17.6.3.4 (pp. 550–554). Even some deverbal categories with derivational status may copy the prefix of the verbal forms, such as naparrurtu, mentioned in n. 54 (p. 301). 106.  Cf. Edzard 2003: 142–43 for a similar use of the verb du11(-g)/e/di in Sumerian. In the Akkadian dialect of Nuzi, the verb epēšu is frequently used to accommodate Hurrian words in an Akkadian context; see CAD E 201–25 s.v. epēšu v. 2c, where numerous Hurrian infinitives ending in -umma appear among the objects of epēšu. Examples further afield are Turkish etmek, Persian kardan, and Japanese suru. 107.  The first to have published this idea is generally reported to be Praetorius (1894: 329–34), but see the survey of earlier work in Voigt 1985: 87–90. 108.  This is mainly at the cost of the alternative explanation that they go back to deictic or pronominal elements. Recent adherents of this view include Lieberman (1986, esp. p. 592 for n and p. 619 in general) and Kienast (2001: 208). The main objection is that they have not been able to indicate a plausible grammaticalization path leading from such elements to the grammatical function performed by the N‑stem (cf. Zaborski 2001: 593). A different etymology for n‑ was suggested by Retsö (1989: 154), who considers the possibility that it was originally a dummy subject, inspired by the Hausa use of an in this function. Hetz­ ron (1973/74: 45–47) also proposes an auxiliary verb as the source of n, namely, the copula wn attested in Cushitic and Egyptian. This may provide a plausible explanation of n as marker of the (medio)passive N‑stem but not as a verbalizer in quadriradical verbs and in the I/n verbs.

12.6.  The Historical Background of the Prefixn‑

317

Among the Afroasiatic languages, it is particularly well known from Cushitic and from the Semitic languages of Ethiopia, doubtless under Cushitic influence. According to D. Cohen et al. (2002), the grammaticalization of verbs meaning ‘to say’ and ‘to do’ is an areal phenomenon of East Africa, not only in present-day Cushitic and Ethio-Semitic languages such as Afar and Amharic but already in Egyptian: they argue that the Egyptian sḏm-kꜢ-f, sḏm‑ḫr‑f and sḏm‑jn‑f conjugations go back to the verbs kꜢ ‘to intend’, ḫr ‘to shout’ and an ancient verb j cognate with Cushitic *y ‘to say’ (2002: 238–39; and see also Plazikowsky-Brauner 1957: 11–12, Zaborski 1999b: 48, and Appleyard 2001). The similarity between these developments and the use of the n‑prefix in the quadri­radical verbs suggests that n‑ also goes back to this kind of light verb. It had n among its radicals, was conjugated by means of personal prefixes, and had an appropriate meaning, such as ‘to do’, but other options are also conceivable, e.g., ‘to say’, ‘to be, become’, or ‘to go’. Actually, the existence of an Afroasiatic light verb Vn-/nV- or the like has long been recognized.109 Since it occurs as a prefix in at least Semitic, Egyptian, and Cushitic (see above), it may have been a prefix already in Afroasiatic (although some degree of parallel development should be reckoned with), but it also continued to be used as a light verb in Cushitic (Zaborski 1975: 17–18; 2005b: 85–86), as is often the case in grammaticalization processes. By the Proto-Semitic stage, n‑ had long since been reduced to a prefix with the general function of making verbs out of non-verbal (or deverbal) elements. We can identify at least five and possibly six categories in which it occurs in Akkadian. 1.  The first radical of some I/n verbs can be explained as going back to the prefix n‑ in its function as a verbalizer added to a biconsonantal element in order to conjugate it in accordance with the prevailing triradical verbal paradigm.110 The clearest examples are I/n verbs that can plausibly be explained as built on onomatopoeic inter­jections (GAG §102b), such as nabāḫu (U/u) ‘to bark’ (‘to say buḫ’), napāḫu (U/u) ‘to blow’ (‘to say puḫ’), našāqu (I/i) ‘to kiss’ (‘to make a šiq sound’), and natāku (U/u) ‘to drip’ (‘to do tuk’). Other cases include naʾāru ‘to roar’ (no prefix forms attested), nabāzu (U/u) ‘to bleat’, nagāgu (A/u, U/u) ‘to bray, neigh’, naḫāru (U/u) ‘to snore’, nasāsu (U/u, OB also A/a) ‘to wail, cry’, nazāmu (U/u) ‘to complain’, nazāqu (I/i) ‘to squeak’ (same verb as nazāqu ‘to be annoyed/worried’?), and nazāzu (U/u) ‘to hiss, rustle’.111 Many of these verbs recur in other Semitic languages (see von Soden 1968a: 176), showing that this use of n- dates back to Proto-Semitic. For instance, nabāḫu corresponds to Ar nabaḥa (yanbaḥu), našāqu ‘to kiss’ to He nāšaq, etc. The frequent combination of the light verb with an onomatopoeic interjection such as *buḫ ‘woof!’ became grammaticalized into a verb form *yi-n-buḫ ‘it said buḫ, it barked’ (Akk ibbuḫ), after which n‑ was (re)interpreted as the first radical, an easy way to make the verb triradical. By analogy with *yiprVsu § parVs, *yi-n-buḫ(u) gave rise to a suffix base nabVḫ, on which the non‑prefix forms are based, such as the Inf nabāḫu and the PrPartc nābiḫu. This process 109.  See, for instance, Reinisch 1909: 186; Voigt 1978: 48–49; Orel and Stolbova 1995: 12 no. 40 (*ʾan- ‘speak’). A survey of the traces it has left is to be found in Zaborski 2001: 595–98. 110.  Von Soden (1968a and GAG §102a–b) calls it a “Wurzelaugment.” As Voigt (1988a: 87) points out, these verbs do not provide evidence for biradical roots, since the onomatopoeic elements were not roots themselves but presumably a kind of interjection; the root only came into existence when it was combined with n. 111.  The I/n verbs contain many verbs of sounds, and most of these may have the same background, but it is difficult to delimitate this group sharply from other I/n verbs, especially because of semantic changes that seem to have taken place in some of them.

318

The Historical Background of the Prefixn‑   12.6.

was doubtless facilitated by the fact that there must have been a number of ‘original’ I/n verbs (see below). In historical Akkadian, these verbs are thoroughly triradical and have left no concrete traces of their original biliteral shape, with one exception: the noun tīku ‘drop’, related to natāku ‘to drip’.112 The claim that they go back to a biliteral element is exclusively based on their semantics. However, in combination with the reconstructed background of the n‑prefix as a light verb, von Soden’s analysis seems beyond doubt. To what extent the first radical of other I/n verbs also goes back to this prefix is a moot question.113 It seems likely that there are also I/n verbs that have an “ordinary” triradical root (cf. von Soden 1968a: 177), e.g., the I/n verbs that are also II/voc verbs: nâḫu (ū) ‘to rest’, nâku (ī) ‘to have intercourse’, nâšu (ū) ‘to shake’, and the verb nawāru ‘to shine’, as suggested by nūru ‘light’. More problematic is another group of I/n verbs consisting of rather common verbs, such as našû (I/i) ‘to lift, carry’, nadû (I/i) ‘to lay down, leave’, nadānu (I/i) ‘to give’ (Bab), naṭālu (A/u) ‘to look at’, and naṣāru (A/u) ‘to guard’ (originally ‘to watch’). In Akkadian, they do not show any indisputable traces of biradicality, although phenomena such as the interchange of Bab nadānu with Ass tadānu and its biradical Imp din (for which see §16.4.3, p. 474) may be interpreted as such.114 For further evidence, we should turn to West Semitic, where some of these roots occur with biradical forms: in Hebrew, for instance, we find the Infs tẹ̄t < *tin-t, with first-person singular suffix tittī < *tin-t-ī from nātan ‘to give’, ś   eʾẹt from nāśā ‘to carry’ and gešet from nāgaš ‘to approach’, alongside regular triradical forms such as n  eśọʾ and n  etọn (Kuryłowicz 1972: 72).115 These infinitives typically go with a biradical imperative: tẹn ‘give!’, śā ‘carry!’, and gẹš ‘approach!’ W. von Soden (GAG §102b) claims that in these verbs the n- prefix has a directional meaning (“richtungsbestimmend”), since they all refer to actions directed toward a goal. This is questionable, however, because direction­ality is an inherent part of the meaning of these verbs, and it seems arbitrary to associate it specifically with n-.116 Actually, the background of these verbs remains a matter of speculation. We can consider at least two possible scenarios. The first possibility is that n has the same background as in the onomatopoeic I/n verbs, i.e., that it serves to expand a biliteral sequence, e.g., Pfv *yi-n-śiʾ ‘he lifted’ (Akk iššī  ) may be based 112.  Cf. the I/w verbs, many of which have deverbal nouns without w‑, such as šubtu from wašābu; see §16.2.4, p. 460). 113.  Von Soden (1968a: 176) assigns many other verbs to this group, both from Akkadian and other Semitic languages, including high-transitivity verbs of the I/n class such as nakāsu ‘to cut, slaughter’ and napāṣu ‘to kick, hit’, which seems questionable. 114.  Similar but less reliable cases of the interchange of I/n with other verb types are nezû, tez/ṣû and ezû ‘to defecate’, naḫālu and šaḫālu ‘to sift’, naʾādu ‘to be attentive’, and the marginally attested ʾâdu with the same meaning (AHw 14a s.v.). For nadānu, note also that a root with identical R1 and R2 is unlikely to be original and points to R1 being secondary. This kind of alternation is far more common in West Semitic. Instances where the prefix n is involved are listed by Kuryłowicz 1972: 8, 11 and Nöldeke 1910: 179–201: Hebrew nʾw and yʾw ‘to be befitting for’, nāpal ‘to fall’ and šapẹl ‘to sink down’; nābẹl ‘to fade, decay’, and bālā ‘to be worn out’; Arabic našara = wašara ‘to saw’ (cf. Akk šaššāru ‘saw’ < *šaršāru), nabiha = ʾabaha ‘to remember’, nadima = sadima ‘to feel remorse’, naṭaḥa = waṭaḥa ‘to thrust’, naḫaza = waḫaza ‘to sting, prick’, naġara = waġira ‘to be enraged, spiteful’, waġala and ġalġala ‘to penetrate’, nahama = ‘mumble, growl’ and hamhama ‘to sigh, moan’, and other less convincing instances. 115.  For Testen’s (2000: 85–88) (untenable) claim that išû ‘to have’ is from the same root as našû, see chap. 16 n. 76 (p. 467). 116.  This argument would only be valid if we also had forms of the same root without n that are not directional—for instance, if alongside the root √ndʾ ‘to put down’ (cf. nadûm) there was a root √dʾ ‘to lie (on the ground)’, or the like. This does not seem to be the case.

12.6.  The Historical Background of the Prefixn‑

319

on *śiʾ, and *yi-n-t/din ‘he gave’ (Akk iddin) on *t/din (see §16.4.3, pp. 472–474). In this case, the bilateral element is not onomatopoeic but presumably the product of the previous attrition of a longer form (perhaps with another weak radical), which needed to be boosted for easier insertion into the triradical paradigm.117 The semantic similarity may be due to the fact that, after one verb had acquired the prefix, it became a model for others. It is further arguable that a form such as *yinśiʾ is a strengthening of an earlier Pfv *yiśiʾ, a member of a real biradical conjugation *yiśiʾ(u) parallel to *yubil(u) to be discussed in §16.2.4 (pp. 458–462). The Assyrian Imp din and the biradical Hebrew forms may represent vestiges of this conjugation. The second possibility is that the biradical forms are secondary. Many of them are imperatives, which may become biradical through the application of the regular rule of imperative formation, e.g., Akk bil ‘carry!’ from tubil (see §5.5, pp. 133–134, and §16.2., p. 453). In Hebrew, at least two of the existing biradical imperatives are demonstrably secondary: first of all, qaḥ ‘take!’, depends on the imperfective yiqqaḥ (< *yilqaḥ) (see chap. 5 n. 25, p. 133), with l assimilated to q. This is not a regular assimilation process but caused by the high frequency of this verb (and perhaps influenced by its antonym tẹn). The second case is lẹk ‘go!’ from hālak, where the initial h has been dropped (as in the Impfv yẹlẹk).118 In the I/n verbs such as nāgaš ‘to approach’, Imp gaš, the absence of n may be determined by the fact that in the imperfective n is assimilated to R2: yiggaš (as it is in Akkadian; see §16.4.1, p. 469). These verbs also have a biradical infinitive: qaḥat, leket, and gešet, which can hardly be explained other than as a derivation of the imperative (Joüon and Muraoka 1991: 186). Similar cases are leket ‘to go’ from lẹk, imperative of hālak; daʿat ‘to know’ from daʿ, imperative of yādaʿ; and šebet ‘to sit down’ from šẹb, imperative of yāšab, all of them verbs denoting actions that are frequently used in commands. It seems that this second explanation of the biradical forms as a secondary development is preferable, since it is less speculative and more down-to-earth than the first. The most important conclusion is that, whatever the details concerning the formal background of these I/n verbs, they can be fitted into the overall development of the prefix n‑ as outlined so far. 2.  The nabalkutu type may well belong to the oldest layer of verbs with the n‑prefix, since it results directly from the combination of the light verb and a quadriliteral element. Once the n‑prefix was established as a fixed part of its paradigm, n‑ was preserved in Akkadian, even though it had no clear morphosyntactic function (and since it was present anyhow, it could support and underline the contrast with the causative š‑prefix). In West Semitic, however, another type of quadriradical verbs emerged: it was conjugated like the D‑stem and did not have the prefix. As we saw in §4.6.2 (pp. 123–125), in Geʿez this type coexists with the quadriradical verbs with n‑, but in Central Semitic the n‑prefix was discarded, and quadriradical verbs fully adopted the conjugation of the D‑stem. Since these are also the languages in which the N‑stem is productive (apart from Aramaic, where both uses of the n‑prefix are absent), it is tempting to posit a connection between the rise of the N‑stem and the loss of the quadriradical verbs with n‑. 3.  The verbs of the naparruru group (see §12.3, pp. 301–305) are associated with the quadriradical verbs discussed so far, because they also have the prefix n‑, but they are different in that they ultimately come from triradical roots. Their background is clarified by a number of cognates in other Semitic languages: 117.  For the mechanism involved, cf. Voigt 1988a: 87–88: in the case of the root √ntn (Akk nadānu), Voigt suggests ya-ttin replacing ya-tin followed by dissimilation of tt. Though speculative, this is the kind of process we should envisage. 118.  Blau (2003: 72–73) derives He lẹ̄k ‘go!’ from *hlik on the basis of a sound shift that could survive in this verb because of its frequency but was undone in less frequent verbs.

320

The Historical Background of the Prefixn‑   12.6.

• nag/qarruru is clearly related to Geʿez ʾangargara ‘to wallow, revolve, roll’ (CDG 202 s.v. grgr; Kienast 2001: 634) • našallulu may be compared in meaning, if not in form, to Ar istalla and tasallala ‘to steal away’ (Kienast 2001: 220) • nadarruru is related to (late) He dirdẹr ‘sich wälzen’ and Ar tadardara ‘herumlaufen’ (AHw 163a s.v. darāru I) and to Meḥri adárdər ‘to go around so./sth.’ (Johnstone 1987: 73) • naparruru can be associated with a widespread biliteral segment PR with the general meaning of separation and splitting (GAG §73b; Moscati, ed. 1964: 73; Kienast 2001: 66–67) Many of these cognates occur in quadriradical verbs of the C1C2C1C2 type, i.e., with reduplication of a biliteral element,119 a type that is widespread in West Semitic but absent in Akkadian.120 This remarkable fact may be explained by assuming that the naparruru type is the Akkadian counterpart of the West Semitic C1C2C1C2 verbs and that the stem parrVr- goes back to *parpVr-, darrVr- to *dardVr-, šallVl- to *šalšVl-, etc. However, this cannot be a purely phonological instance of assimilation, because assimilation of such clusters normally has a different outcome: cf. cases such as qaqqaru ‘ground’ < *qarqarum, kakkabu ‘star’ < *kabkabum and daddaru (a kind of plant) perhaps < *dardarum. If this assumption is right, there must (also) be some morphosyntactic factor involved. It is possible, for instance, that the coexistence of triradical forms with gemination, especially the G‑stem imperfective (idarrar, išallal, etc.), and original quadriradical C1C2C1C2 forms such as *yiddardar and *yiššalšal (< *yi‑n‑. . . , conjugated like nabalkutu) caused a contamination resulting in the historical forms iddarrar and iššallal. This may be speculative, but it clarifies at least one feature of these verbs that is hard to explain other­wise, namely, why they are conjugated by means of the nasal prefix of the quadriradical verbs.121 4.  The canonical N‑stem of the triradical verb arose from the combination of the verbalizing prefix n‑ with a past participle (PaRiS) or a primary adjective (PaRvS): Pfv ipparis < *yi-n-paris; see the next section. 5.  The N‑stem of the I/voc verbs in its original form (preserved in Assyrian), e.g., innāmir from amāru ‘to see’, arose from the combination of n‑ with the suffix base nāmVr (< *naʾmVr) of the N‑stem: innāmir < *yi-n-naʾmir; see further §17.6.3.4 (p. 552). 6.  It is conceivable—but as yet rather speculative—that some Ntn‑stems, especially those that are not clearly pluractionals of the corresponding N‑stem, arose from the combination of n‑ with a deverbal taPRvS(t) noun: Pfv ittaprVs < *yi-n-taprVs; see chap. 14 n. 239 (p. 430). 119.  West Semitic verbs of this type are studied by Conti (1980), Fischer (1993), and Procházka (1995). 120.  However, an Akkadian instance may be the OB (Mari) Inf i-ta-GA-WA-GA-a-am in A.731:8 quoted by D. Charpin and J.-M. Durand in MARI 7 pp. 373–74 irṭubū i-ta-GA-WA-GA-a-am ‘ils se mirent en grève’ (it is preceded by irṭubū šitassâm ‘they started yelling’). It may be related either to Geʿez ʾangogawa ‘to wander about restlessly’ or to Geʿez ʾasqoqawa ‘to howl, lament’ (in spite of the different prefix; see above); both seem semantically appropriate. The Akkadian form can be explained as Ntn infinitive: itaGawaGGâm like itablakkutu (GAG Verbalpar. 39) (although strictly speaking we would expect itaGwaGGâm), but itaGawGâm, an Ntn‑stem without gemination (see §12.5, p. 312), is also possible. Hopefully, the Mari texts will reveal more forms of this verb. 121.  It is unlikely that n‑ in the naparruru verbs can be motivated semantically, as in the verbs of the naprušu type (see §12.2.2.3, pp. 298–299), since the naparruru verbs denote atelic durative activities and are not ingressive ( pace W. von Soden [GAG §101g], who characterizes them as “ingressiv-durativ”).

12.6.  The Historical Background of the Prefixn‑

321

With regard to the relative chronology of these categories, we may safely assume that categories 1 (nabāḫu, etc.), 2 (nabalkutu, etc.), and 3 (naparruru, etc.) were the first to develop, since they show the original function of the light verb or the prefix that arose from it. This is in keeping with the fact that they are attested throughout the entire Semitic area, and categories 2 and 3 also in Egyptian. The combination of n‑ with a past participle or adjective (category 4), which became the N‑stem, is likely to be a secondary stage because it presupposes the prior bleaching of its lexical meaning ‘to do’. Presumably, the prefix first came to be associated with ingressivity, perhaps in verbs of the našû and nadānu type discussed under 1 above, and from there acquired its (medio)passive function. From a chronological point of view, the most remarkable category is no. 5, the N‑stem of the I/voc verbs, since it presupposes that the verbs in question had dropped their first radical. Because this must have happened shortly before the historical period (see §17.6.1, pp. 539–542), these forms show that the derivation of quadriradical forms by means of n‑ was still productive then. If category 6 does indeed exist, its rise should be associated with that of the Št2‑stem and of the tan‑stems to be discussed in §14.6 (pp. 397–414) and §14.7.6 (pp. 431–437), respectively. This implies that it is an inner-Akkadian development.

12.6.2.  The development of the N‑stem Historically, the N‑stem results from the combination of n‑ with past participles and adjectives with the simple adjectival pattern PaRvS: *yi-n-paris(u). Hence the stem vowel of the N‑stem is the same as that of the past participle: i in fientive verbs, sometimes u in a few PaRuS adjectives (Testen 1998a). *Yi-n-paris(u) lies at the basis of the prefix base of the N‑stem (see §12.2.1, pp. 288–290) and thus of the emergence of the N‑stem as a whole.122 Since the past participle is a member of the verbal paradigm, the forms with the prefix n‑ were incorporated into this paradigm, and n‑ was invested with the grammatical function of (medio)passive, in opposition to other formatives, in particular the prefix š‑. Its incorporation into the verbal paradigm also required the creation of forms without prefixes. This was achieved by analogy with the existing I/n and/or secondary I/n verbs, just as in the case of nabāḫu described above: in the same way as *yi-n-buḫ(u) gave rise to a suffix base nabVḫ by analogy with *yiprVsu § parVs, *yi-n-paris gave rise to na-prVs and thus to the prefix na- of the suffix base. In this way, n‑ was emancipated from the presence of the personal prefix that according to this reconstruction was originally required. The same analogy must have operated in the non-prefix forms of nabalkutu (*yi-n-balkit § na‑balkVt).123 The N‑stem with detransitivizing function is only attested in Akkadian, Ugaritic, Hebrew, and Arabic (see below). It is absent in Aramaic and in South Semitic. Its absence in Aramaic is likely to represent a secondary loss, because it must have existed in its ancestor Proto-Northwest Semitic, although it is remarkable that it seems to have left no traces.124 As shown in the previous 122.  In passive categories, the dependency relations between the members of the verbal paradigm are different from the active: passives are often resultative, which is strongly associated with past tense. Therefore, past passive forms are more frequent and thus more basic than present passive forms (Langacker and Munro 1975: 824–27; Keenan 1985: 267). This explains the relative frequency of the N perfective over the N imperfective (which almost invariably has future meaning) and over the N t‑perfect (which is a marked form competing with the G stative). 123.  Therefore, the alternation of n- (in prefix forms) and na- (in non-prefix forms) does not result from a phonological process, such as the insertion of an anaptyctic vowel in an alleged *n-PRVS, as proposed by Garr (1993: 148), but is determined by the model of the strong verb. 124.  Garr 1985: 121; Brockelmann (1908: 536) considers the possibility that it once had similar forms on the basis of Syriac n eḥef ‘to be barefooted’ versus Ar ḥafiya. This instance typologically belongs to the

322

The Historical Background of the Prefixn‑   12.6.

section, South Semitic has the n‑ prefix in its conjugation of quadriradical verbs, but does not use it as a verbal stem with detransitive function. This means that either the grammaticalization process halted before n developed its grammatical function or that South Semitic acquired this function with the rest of West Semitic but gave it up again before the historical period.125 In Ugaritic, Arabic, and Hebrew, the emergence of the N‑stem led to the abandoning of the verbalizing function of n‑ so that only the grammatical function of detransitivization remained. In Akkadian, on the other hand, the initial stage remained productive, as is clear from the creation of the N‑stems of I/voc verbs (see §17.6.3.4, pp. 550–554). The emergence of N as a voice marker is also related to the destiny of the verbal stem with infixed t, the Gt‑stem. In the Semitic languages with an N‑stem, the Gt‑stem is clearly in decline and has largely lost its productivity. We may hypothesize that the rise of the N‑stem was a reaction to the decline of the Gt‑stem or at least strengthened by it. Other languages, such as South Semitic and Aramaic, reacted to the decline of the Gt‑stem by renewing it by means of the creation of a new prefixed t-, presumably by analogy with the derived stems (see §14.4.2, pp. 381–382). The final issue to be discussed is the form and development of the N‑stem paradigm in Semitic. The verbal stems of Central Semitic that correspond to the Akkadian N‑stem in form and function are the Arabic Stem VII, the Hebrew Niphal, and the N‑stem in Ugaritic. Table 12.7 presents the relevant forms. Forms that are not directly comparable with the corresponding Akkadian forms are given in brackets. The rightmost column shows my reconstruction of the ProtoSemitic paradigm. Akkadian

Arabic

Hebrew

Ugaritic

PSem

Impfv

ipparrVs

(yanqatilu)

(yiqqāṭẹl)

(*yiqqatVlu) *yinqatilu

Pfv

ipparis

yanqatil

yiqqāṭẹl

*yiqqatVl

*yinqatil

Imp

napris

(i)nqatil

hiqqāṭẹl

*naqtil ?

*naqtil

Inf

naprusu

((i)nqitāl‑)

(hiqqāṭẹ̄/ōl, niqṭōl) (*naqtāl)

Stat/PPartc

naprus(u)

((i)nqatala)

(niqṭal, niqṭāl)

PrPartc

mupparsu

munqatil‑

*naqtāl‑ ?

(*naqtala) *munqatil‑

Table 12.7: The N‑stem of the triradical verbs in Semitic.

The perfectives of Akkadian, Arabic, and (presumably) Ugaritic go back to a single form *yinqatil, which must also have existed in Hebrew. This also applies to the present participle *munqatil- on the basis of Akkadian and Arabic. In the other forms, the languages have gone their own way. Arabic has generalized the prefix base ‑nqatVl at the cost of naqtVl, with a prothetic vowel to avoid an initial consonant cluster (Testen 1998a: 131). This is the usual procedure use of n‑ as a verbalizing element and is not evidence for the former presence of a derived verbal stem with n‑. 125.  On the other hand, Sasse (1981: 209) mentions a verb form from the Cushitic language Saho, which suggests that the use of the n‑prefix with passive function is even older than Proto-Semitic: yi-gdif-e ‘he killed’, yi-n-gidif‑e ‘he was killed’ (alongside a causative yi‑s‑gidil‑e ‘he caused to break’ and a reflexive yi‑g‑gidil‑e < *yi‑t‑gidil‑e ‘it broke’ [intr.]). Note, however, that the Saho passive marker is basically m, as elsewhere in Cushitic (and Berber), which becomes n before a velar (Welmers 1952: 240–45). Although these Saho forms require further investigation, they make it possible that the detransitive N‑stem already existed in (a part of) Afroasiatic and that its absence in both Aramaic and South Semitic is secondary.

12.6.  The Historical Background of the Prefixn‑

323

in Arabic; cf. also Stem VIII (  yaqtatilu, (i)qtatala), discussed in §14.4.1 (p. 376), the strong Imp (u)qtul, etc. (see §5.5, pp. 136–137) and nouns such as (i)bn ‘son’. Hebrew has done the same, but only in the imperative and one type of infinitive (where initial h- has been borrowed from the causative Hiphil; cf. Garr 1993: 155–56). In the remaining forms, it preserves a separate suffix base (1993: 144–45), which shows that the Akkadian system with two bases is more original than the one-base system of Arabic. In Hebrew, ni- regularly goes back to na- in closed unstressed syllables (Bauer and Leander 1922: 193–94). The original vowel is preserved in the middle weak verbs, e.g., nākōn ‘it was established’ (Garr 1993: 157–58). As for the vowel patterns, niqṭal is modelled on the G Perf qāṭal, niqṭōl on the G Inf qāṭōl (Bauer and Leander 1922: 322–23).126 The evidence for the infinitive is contradictory, as in the other derived stems. Akkadian has naprusu with the stem vowel u, but He niqtōl and Ar (i)nqitāl (which replaces *naqtāl) point to Proto-Central Semitic *naqtāl. It is possible that the Akkadian naPRāS forms mentioned in n. 10 (p. 290) should also be connected with this form, in which case it would be of Proto-Semitic date. The Akkadian past participle has no exact counterparts in Central Semitic; the Hebrew “participle” niqṭāl is clearly modelled on the N Perf niqṭal. The Ugaritic N‑stem is a problematic category (Tropper 2000: 532–43; Sivan 1997: 131–32), since its marker n normally assimilates to a following consonant and is therefore only visible when separated from it by an intervening vowel, i.e., in the non-prefix forms. Many of the examples Tropper quotes seem to be rather problematic: it is unclear whether they actually represent N‑stems and/or how they are to be interpreted. The forms given in Table 12.7 are Tropper’s reconstructions; if we may rely on them, the N paradigm agrees fairly well with the Akkadian paradigm, especially in its preservation of the original non-prefix forms in the imperative(?) and the infinitive.127 126.  See also Garr 1993 for the formal development of the Hebrew Niphal. For Garr’s (1993: 147) claim that the original derivational prefix is *n and that na- results from the insertion of a vowel to dissolve a prohibited sequence of three consonants, see n. 123 above. 127.  However, Tropper (2000: 540) also mentions two forms with initial ʾi that might be imperatives and therefore suggest an imperative similar to those in Arabic and Hebrew.

Chapter 13

The Prefix š‑

13.1. Introduction The prefix š‑, the marker of the causative Š‑stem, is functionally the opposite of the prefix n‑ studied in the preceding chapter, but in many respects it is parallel to n‑: both are used as a conjugational prefix, mainly in quadriradical verbs, and both go back to an ancient “light verb.” I will first describe the form and function of the Š‑stem (§13.2), the ŠD‑stem (§13.3), and four different types of quadriradical verbs with the prefix š‑ (§13.4). Subsequently, I will compare the results with parallel formations in other Semitic languages (§13.5), and describe the historical development of the š‑prefix (§13.6).

13.2. The Š‑stem 13.2.1.  The form of the Š‑stem The Š-stem is characterized by a morpheme ša- prefixed to a base of the form PRvS, which is invariant, so that šaPRvS is both the prefix and the suffix base. In Babylonian, however, šaPRvS is replaced by šuPRvS in all non-prefix forms (see below). In the prefix conjugations, ša- is preceded by the personal prefixes with the vowel u: ušapras ‘he causes (sb.) to separate’. The vowel between R2 and R3 is the usual one in the derived stems: a in the imperfective; i in the perfective, t‑perfect, imperative, and past participle; and u in the stative, infinitive, and past participle. Table 13.1 gives the eight inflectional members of the Š-stem. Š‑stem (Bab)

Š‑stem (Ass)

Impfv

ušapras

Pfv

ušapris

t‑Pf

uštapris

Stat

šuprus

šaprus

Imp

šupris

šapris

Inf/PPartc

šuprusu

šaprusu

PrPartc

mušaprisu Table 13.1: The paradigm of the Š‑stem.

The paradigm of the Š‑stem is identical to that of the D‑stem, apart from the base itself (šaPRvS versus PaRRvS), as a comparison of Table 13.1 with Table 11.1 in chap. 11 (p. 269) shows, a parallel that also extends to the respective t‑ and tan‑stems. Moreover, in Babylonian D and Š share a common historical development, the change a > u in the first syllable of the non-prefix forms 324

13.2.  The Š‑stem

325

(see below for details). The close association between D and Š is strengthened by the fact that they both have a valency-increasing function: causative in the Š‑stem, factitive in (part of) the D‑stem. This association is even more strikingly demonstrated by the Babylonian paradigm of the Š‑stem of II/voc verbs, which have gemination of the final radical in all forms with an ending even though the corresponding strong Š forms do not have gemination (ušaprisū and ušaprasū; see §16.5.3.4, pp. 486–488, for more details), e.g., (all SB): • uš-dak-ku-šú TBP 50: r.9 ‘they will have him killed’, 3mp Impfv of dâku • uš-ṭi-ib-bu KAR 16: r.22 ‘they made pleasant’, 3mp Pfv of ṭâbu Š • šu-ṭúb-ba UFBG 473:8 ‘to make pleasant’, Inf (Acc) of ṭâbu Š The source of the gemination can only be the corresponding D forms udakkū, uṭibbū, and ṭubba. This shows that the Š‑stem paradigm of these verbs is modelled on that of the D‑stem.1 Parallel to the D‑stem, Middle Babylonian shows e instead of (and alongside) a in the Š forms that have i in the next syllable: Pfv ušepris, t‑Pf uštepris, and PrPartc muperrisu instead of ušapris, etc. (GAG 3 §89b and Aro 1955: 40–50), e.g., li-še-eṣ-bi-su BBS 8: IV 31 ‘may he cause him to seize’, ul-te-es-ḫi-ir BBS 6: I 41 ‘he caused to turn’, and mu-še-ed-bi-bi MDP 2, 105:17 ‘who causes to speak’. See §11.2 (p. 269) for a parallel change in the D‑stem and §17.5.2 (pp. 534–535) for a tentative explanation. Another parallel to the D‑stem is the Babylonian form šuPRvS versus Assyrian šaPRvS in the non-prefix forms. The Assyrian form is original, as shown especially by a large number of residual forms with a in Babylonian, mainly in literary sources and doubtless preserved as stylistically marked forms:2 1. There are several šaPRvS adjectives, most of them rare and literary: • šābulu ‘dry, dried’, from abālu ‘to be(come) dry’, doubtless preserving ša- to avoid homonymy with šūbulu (< šawbulum) from wabālu Š ‘to cause to bring’, see GAG §97i • šalbubu ‘furious, raging’ from labābu ‘to rage’ (cf. also šalbābu below) • *šānuḫu ‘exhausted’ in the adverb šānuḫiš from anāḫu ‘to be(come) exhausted’ (St. Sjöberg p. 327:97 and Legends p. 212: IV 12) (the adjective itself is always šūnuḫu) • šāšû ‘confused’ from ešû ‘to confuse’ (Gilg. p. 592:97, 100) (but ā instead of ē is unexpected) • šēzuzu ‘furious’ from ezēzu ‘to be angry’ (also šūzuzu) 2. There are also a number of deverbal nouns derived from a Š‑stem: • šadduttu ‘collection of debts’ (OB) (also šanduttu, šanduntu and šadduntu, cf. CAD Š/1 47b s.v.) from nadānu Š ‘to cause to give, collect (taxes)’; according to CAD loc. cit., all instances are from Northern Babylonia, which tallies with the general distribution of šu- and ša-. The expected form with u may be attested in šu-du!-ú-tim VS 8, 30:6 (from Sippar?) and in šu-ud-du-un-tam MARI 4, 405 n. 126:2′ • šībultu ‘consignment, shipment’ < *šaybultum (Whiting 1987: 116–17) from wabālu ‘to bring, carry’3 1.  Formally, these Š forms could be characterized as ŠD‑stems, but they differ from real ŠD‑stems in that this is their only available form, whereas ŠD‑stems are optional literary alternatives to D or Š; see §13.3 below (pp. 334–337). 2.  These residual forms conclusively show that šaPRvS is more original than šuPRvS and therefore refute Kienast’s (1957a; 2001: 212–14) account of the origin of the Š‑stem; see further §13.6 below (pp. 351–354). 3.  This form presupposes a root variant of wabālu with initial y, for which there is some evidence, but mainly in Assyrian; see §16.2.4 (pp. 461–462). Although ī is the regular Babylonian outcome of ay, it is

326

The Š‑stem  13.2.

• šēzubtu ‘leave, time off’ (OB) from ezēbu ‘to leave’ (also tēzubtu) • šaklultu ‘perfection, completion’ (OB: ša-ak-lu-ul-ti BagM. 34, 138: I 2, RI from Eshnunna) • šaḫluqtu ‘disaster, destruction’ (OB, SB), from ḫalāqu Š (but in the meaning ‘to destroy’ only ḫalāqu D is current, so that šaḫluqtu is formally isolated) • šalputtu ‘destruction, desecration’ (OB, SB) from lapātu Š ‘to destroy’ (OB: ša-al-puut-ti BagM. 34, 140: IV 2, RI from Eshnunna) • šaḫrartu ‘deathly silence, devastation’ (SB) from šuḫruru ‘to devastate’4 3. A few other words with different patterns are: • šapšāqu ‘hardship, anguish’ (OB, SB) from pašāqu ‘to be(come) narrow, difficult’ • *šarbābu ‘weakness’ (SB) (only as an adverb šarbābiš or šarbāba, see CAD Š/2 59b s.v.) from rabābu ‘to be(come) weak’ • šalbābu ‘furious’ (SB) from labābu ‘to rage’, but also ‘wise’; cf. libbu ‘heart’; see CAD Š/1 241 s.v.; cf. šalbubu above, to which šalbābu is related as PitRāS is to PitRuS; see §14.2.1 (p. 359) • šaḫrabbatu ‘devastation’ (late SB) from ḫarābu ‘to lie waste’5 The šuPRvS form is already found in Ur III Babylonian: Imp [šu]-ub-ší AKI p. 338:17′ ‘cause to be present!’ from bašû Š in a royal inscription from Elam, and Inf šu-lu-am ASJ 12, 56:4 ‘to cause to go up’ (Acc) from elû Š. The evidence we have for the other third-millennium dialects shows that Sargonic Akkadian sides with Babylonian and has u according to the infinitive (in) sum6-luì-su /sumluʾīsu/ MDP 14, 90:13 (incant. from Susa) ‘in filling it up’ (beside Impfv u‑sa‑am-la-su4 MDP 14, 90:12) and the stative ˹su˺-ku-ud /sūkud/ SAB 68:5 (Girsu) ‘he is in a hurry(?)’ from the obscure I/voc verb *ekēdu (assuming that *ekēdu is not actually a I/w verb).6 However, the PN Sa-am-ru-zum /Samruṣum/ AIHA 4: III 2 in a text from the Hamrīn basin (Sommerfeld 2003: 569) is a counterexample. Mari Old Akkadian, on the other hand, has šaPRvS (as it has PaRRvS; see §11.2, p. 270), e.g., šax(di)-ku-u[l-t]imx MARI 4, 167 TH 82-138:8 ‘šākultum-rite’ (Gen), and ša-aḫ-lu-uq-tí RA 35, 49 no. 28:1 ‘destruction’ (c. st.).7 For the possible cause(s) of the change of ša‑ > šu‑, see §11.2 (p. 271). Apart from this a/u interchange, the paradigm of the Š‑stem of the strong verb gives little reason for comment. Noteworthy deviations in the weak verbs and the verbs with gutturals occur hard to explain why this noun has ī, whereas in the verbal forms of I/w verbs we only find ē (e.g., Pfv ušēṣī from waṣû Š ‘to go /come out’) or ā (e.g., Pfv ušābil from wabālu Š); see §16.2.3 (pp. 455–456). Once, a form šēbultu occurs in Old Babylonian: KH §112:57 var. according to CAD Š/3 189f s.v. šūbultu B-2′. Mari Old Babylonian (J.-M. Durand, ARM 21 pp. 512–15) and later Babylonian use šūbultu. 4.  It seems clear that šaḫluqtu, šalputtu, šaḫrartu, and šaḫrabbatu (see below) have influenced each other in the preservation of ša‑. AHw 1150a also mentions šalquttu, but this example should be disallowed acc. to CAD Š/1 262a s.v. 5.  A possible additional case is šanūdu, if this is derived from nâdu ‘to praise’, but this does not seem likely. First, nâdu does not have a Š‑stem. Second, the large number of variants of this word (cf. CAD Š/1 409–10 s.v.) suggests that its derivation was obscure to the scribes who used it, and the equivalents in lexical texts (cf. CAD loc. cit.) point to a meaning ‘hero, heroic’ rather than ‘illustrious’ or ‘famous’. Nevertheless, a form šunūdu is also attested. 6.  The assumption that ˹su˺-ku-ud and the only other form of this verb attested in Sargonic Akkadian, the Š Prec li-sa-ki-id /lisākid/ SAB p. 66: r.3′ (Girsu) (see Hasselbach 2005: 268), come from a verb *ekēdu is only based on the semantically rather tenuous association with the Standard Babylonian adjective ekdu ‘fierce, wild’. 7.  Although this may not be a good example, since, as we saw above, even Babylonian has preserved šaḫluqtu instead of the expected *šuḫluqtu as an archaism.

13.2.  The Š‑stem

327

in the I/w verbs (see §16.2.3, pp. 455–457), the I/voc verbs (see §17.6.3.3, pp. 548–550) and the II/voc verbs (see §16.5.3.4, pp. 485–488, and §17.7.3–4, pp. 560–572). With regard to the distribution of Š forms over the various dialects of Akkadian, there do not seem to be any significant changes in the productivity of the Š‑stem during the course of Akkadian history. It is attested frequently in the third millennium and appears to remain productive even in the latest period, when some other derived stems show clear signs of decline (in particular those with infixed -t-; see §14.3.4, pp. 369–375), if we may base ourselves on the information provided by Woodington 1982: 82 about Neo-Babylonian and Hämeen-Anttila 2000: 89 about Neo-Assyrian.8 The little we know about the Š‑stem in Eblaite does not point to significant differences from Akkadian. There are a few šaPRuS infinitives such as sa-ḫu-sum (= dim) EV 056, which is presumably from aḫāzu ‘to take’ (/šaʾḫuḏum/) (Fronzaroli 1984: 149).9 Finite forms include a Š Pfv ù-sa-ti-an ARET 13, 19: III 7, which perhaps represents /  ʾušaw/ydiʿan/ ‘I have announced’ (Fronzaroli 1984: 149; Edzard 2006: 80–81), and some other forms of this verb, which corresponds to Akk šūdû ‘to inform’, a Š Impfv uš-a-na-ga ARET 13, 14: VII 1′, claimed to be from enēqu ‘to suck’, for which see chap. 16 n. 71 (p. 465), and a possible Št‑stem uš-da-si-ir / yuštayšir/ ‘he has prepared’; cf. Akk ešēru Št2 (Fronzaroli 1984: 151). Among the Š‑stems of quadriradical verbs, Eblaite shows several forms parallel to Akk šukennu ‘to prostrate oneself’, which will be discussed in §13.4.4 (pp. 346–347).

13.2.2.  The function of the Š‑stem The Š‑stem is the causative formation par excellence in Akkadian. It is convenient to distinguish four different uses: Š as causative of transitive verbs (§13.2.2.1), Š as causative or factitive of intransitive verbs (§13.2.2.2), Š as “elative” (§13.2.2.3), and the denominal function of the Š‑stem (§13.2.2.2.4). §13.2.2.5 deals with the relationship between the Š‑stem and other derived stems.

13.2.2.1.  The Š‑stem as causative of transitive verbs The Š‑stem makes transitive verbs doubly or bitransitive. It is the only causative formation available for these verbs (for the small lamādu group, see §11.3.3, p. 274). It belongs to their regular stem derivation (see §10.6, p. 253) and seems to be fully productive, although for many transitive verbs it is not actually attested because of the highly marked nature of trivalent (bitransitive) causatives in general.10 Even for very frequent verbs, such as šakānu ‘to place’, šapāru ‘to send’, and paqādu ‘to entrust’, the dictionaries tend to list only a handful of instances of the Š‑stem. A somewhat higher frequency is shown by lexicalized Š‑stems that have developed a specialized, more-or-less idiomatic use, such as šūbulu ‘to send’, lit., ‘to cause to bring’, from wabālu; šuddunu ‘to collect (taxes)’, lit. ‘to cause to give’, from nadānu; šūkulu ‘to feed’, lit., ‘to cause to eat’, from akālu; šurkubu ‘to load’, lit., ‘to cause to go on board’, from rakābu; šūnuqu ‘to suckle’, lit., ‘to cause to suck’, from enēqu; and šuršû ‘to provide with’, lit., ‘to cause to get’, from rašû. In the case of šuʾuddu ‘to appeal, inform’, the corresponding G‑stem ʾâdu ‘to know, 8.  Woodington lists Š forms on pp. 85–86, 94, 98, 101–2, 113, 120, 126, 130, 137, and 142. Taken together, they give a good impression of which verbs occur in the Š‑stem and suggest that there is no significant difference from earlier periods. 9.  For the occurrence of PuRRvS and šuPRvS in a particular version of the lexical texts, see chap. 11 n. 9 (p. 270). 10.  There may be one formal limitation on this productivity: it appears that II/voc verbs starting with a sibilant do not form a Š‑stem, doubtless for phonetic reasons; see §16.5.3.4 (p. 486).

328

The Š‑stem  13.2.

observe’ is almost obsolete,11 and in the case of šūrû from warû ‘to bring, lead’, the Š‑stem seems to be used as a replacement of the G‑stem, which is more or less restricted to the older dialects. A few Š‑stems of transitive verbs, while showing some similarity in meaning to the G‑stem, are not strictly causative: šuṣṣuru ‘to safeguard, guard carefully’ (cf. naṣāru ‘to guard’), šussuḫu ‘to remove, transfer’ (cf. nasāḫu ‘to tear out, remove’), and šussuku ‘to remove, annul’ (cf. nasāku ‘to throw (away)’. Quite unpredictable in meaning are šulputu ‘to destroy’ (cf. lapātu ‘to touch, affect’)12 and šūzubu ‘to save’ (cf. ezēbu ‘to leave’). Finally, in literary texts, Š‑stems of transitive verbs are occasionally used as literary variants of the D‑stem and do not have causative meaning (see the end of §13.2.2.2).

13.2.2.2.  The Š‑stem as causative or factitive of intransitive verbs The Š‑stem also serves as a causative of intransitive verbs, but here it competes with the D‑stem. As argued in §10.8.2 (pp. 256–257), the general rule is that the D‑stem is restricted to process verbs and serves to derive an agentive (i.e., usually transitive) counterpart to an intransitive process verb, underlining that the process in question is initiated by an agent rather than coming about of its own accord. The Š‑stem, on the other hand, is primarily a genuine causative indicating the presence of an additional and external agent in action verbs but may also take the role of the D‑stem in process verbs. Among the intransitive action verbs causativized by means of the Š‑stem, motion verbs and atelic activity verbs are prominent, i.e., two classes of verbs that tend to have no D‑stem (see §11.5, p. 279). Motion verbs with a frequent Š‑stem include alāku ‘to go /come’, bâʾu ‘to go along, pass’, bâtu ‘to spend the night’, ebēru ‘to cross’, elû ‘to go /come up’, erēbu ‘to enter’, etēqu ‘to cross’, itūlu ‘to lie down’, i/uzuzzu ‘to stand (up), maqātu ‘to fall’, rabāṣu ‘to lie down’, tebû ‘to rise’, warādu ‘to descend’, and wašābu ‘to sit down’. Atelic activity verbs with a common causative Š are bakû ‘to cry’, dabābu ‘to talk’, damāmu ‘to mourn’, raqādu ‘to dance’, šagāmu ‘to roar’, šakātu ‘to be/fall silent’, zanānu ‘to rain’. The existential verb bašû ‘to be present, available’ also has a common Š‑stem. In order to transitivize change-of-state verbs and adjectival verbs, the D‑stem is the most common option (see §11.3.1, pp. 272–274), but a few of them use the Š‑stem instead (which is factitive rather than causative here), e.g., mâtu ‘to die’, bašālu ‘to be(come) ripe, cooked’, ešēru ‘to be(come) straight, prosperous’, šabāsu ‘to be(come) angry’, watāru ‘to exceed, surpass’. A few other verbs use the Š‑stem more often than the D‑stem, e.g., abālu ‘to be(come) dry’, marāṣu ‘to be(come) ill, annoyed’, pašāqu ‘to be(come) narrow’, waqāru ‘to be(come) precious, rare, expensive’, wasāmu ‘to be proper, suitable’, and wapû ‘to become visible’. The reason why these verbs prefer the Š‑stem is not obvious, but it is remarkable that there are many I/w verbs among them. The fact that both the Š‑ and the D‑stem can be used to make an intransitive verb transitive made it possible to exploit them for the expression of subtle semantic and stylistic differences.13 Thus, a lot of intransitive verbs have both a Š‑ and a D‑stem with a more or less similar meaning. Among these, we can broadly distinguish four types: 11.  It is mainly attested in Mari Old Babylonian: ni-ḪA-dam ARM 2, 107:18; 14, 109:24; 26/2, 489 no. 517:8′; i-ḪA-du-nim 26/2, 21 no. 291:18 (cf. W. Heimpel, NABU 1996/64, who reads ḫâṭum instead of ʾâdum). Other instances are i-ʾ-a-ad Tn-Ep. VI 25 (MB lit.) and i-ad-da (var. ia-a-ad) Ee VII 114. The verb may also occur in the Old Babylonian PNs lu-ḪA-ad-DN ‘May I know, DN!’ and lu-ḪA-du-um (AHw 1542a s.v.). For šuʾuddu, see §17.7.4.1 (p. 569). 12.  Šulputu also occurs as the regular causative of lapātu: ú-šal-pa-si RA 18, 26: II 10 (SB) ‘he will make her touch’. 13.  See GAV pp. 265–81 for a detailed description of the contrast between Š and D in intransitive verbs.

13.2.  The Š‑stem

329

1. The Š‑stem is associated more with the agentive aspect of these verbs and D usually restricted to their more process-like or stative aspects; elû, for instance, has a causative Š ‘to cause to go /come up’ corresponding to its fientive meaning ‘to go /come up’ but a factitive D ‘to make high(er)’ corresponding to its adjectival meaning ‘to be(come) high(er)’. 2. The Š‑stem is a more-or-less regular causative, whereas D is more lexicalized and idiomatic, e.g., erēbu ‘to enter’, Š ‘to cause to enter’ but D ‘to enter in a list, to register’ (OB and OA); šarû ‘to be(come) rich’, Š ‘to make rich’ but D ‘to provide plenty’ (fodder to horses, MA); and waqāru ‘to be(come) rare or valuable’, Š ‘to make/regard as rare or valuable’, D ‘to finish, use up’. This kind of relationship is much more common in transitive verbs, where Š is a regular causative and D is largely lexicalized (see §11.3.4, pp. 276–277). 3. Many D‑ and Š‑stems of intransitive verbs are used without observable difference. Prominent examples include labāru ‘to be(come) old’, naw/māru ‘to shine, be(come) bright’, nesû ‘to withdraw, go away’, pašāḫu ‘to calm down’, râḫu ‘to be left over’, râqu ‘to be(come) empty’, šanû ‘to change’, and watāru ‘to be(come) excessive, superfluous’. 4. The most interesting point is the use of the Š‑stem as a literary alternative to the D‑stem. In a limited number of literary texts, especially royal inscriptions, religious texts (i.e., hymns, prayers, mythological texts, etc.), laudatory parts of other texts, and the epics of Enuma Eliš and Erra,14 many verbs that are normally transitivized by means of the D‑stem can also have the Š‑stem in the same function. These texts contain many Š‑stems that are never or hardly ever used in other, non-literary kinds of texts and that occur in exactly the same contexts as the corresponding D‑stems. This suggests that they were used because they had an additional stylistic value. It is a common feature of Babylonian literary texts that they use grammatical forms that are not or no longer used in non-literary texts. In this respect, the Š‑stem is analogous to the ŠD‑stem (see §13.3 below, pp. 334–337), to many statives, imperatives, and infinitives of the Gt‑stem (see §14.3.4, pp. 372–374), many N‑stems of intransitive verbs (see §12.2.2.2, pp. 297–298), and many Ntn‑stems (see §14.7.5, p. 430). Occasional instances of literary Š‑stems also occur in a wider range of scholarly literature (omens, medical, and astronomical texts). Common examples of such literary Š‑stems include arāku D and Š ‘to lengthen’ (especially with ūmū ‘day’ and palû ‘reign’ as object), galātu D and Š ‘to frighten’, ḫamāṭu D and Š ‘to burn’ (trans.), labāšu D and Š ‘to dress (sb.), cover, coat’, lamādu D and Š ‘to inform, teach’, malû D and Š ‘to fill, cover’, rabû D and Š ‘to enlarge, raise (children)’,15 and ṭâbu D and Š ‘to make good, pleasant’ (especially with libba or kabatta as object: ‘to please sb.’). Because the D‑stem and the Š‑stem are equivalent in function in the domain of intransitive verbs, it is not surprising to see Š replacing D for stylistic reasons. Much more unexpected is the fact that we occasionally also find Š‑stems of transitive verbs interchanging with the corresponding D‑stems, in spite of the fact that the Š‑ and the D‑stem of transitive verbs normally have a quite

14.  There is a striking difference between Enuma Eliš and Erra, on the one hand, and other epics, such as Gilgameš, Atrahasis, Anzû, Etana, and Adapa, on the other, in the use of the “literary Š‑stems.” In the latter texts, hardly any “literary Š‑stem” forms are found. This contrast correlates with the period in which they were created: they date from the Old Babylonian period, whereas Enuma Eliš and Erra date from Middle Babylonian times or later. For a general discussion and characterization of literary texts, see Oppenheim 1964: 250–75; Kraus 1973b: 32–33; GAG §§186, 191. 15.  The difference claimed by GAG §89d to exist between D ‘to raise (children)’ and Š ‘to enlarge’ is not borne out by the available evidence, see GAV pp. 273–74.

330

The Š‑stem  13.2.

different meaning. In particular, the stative of the Š‑stem is popular as a literary alternative to the stative of the D‑stem. Consider the following clauses, all SB: (01A) CT 51, 195:6 (// SpTU 2, 12: II 18) lū šu-uḫ-ḫu-ṭa lemnētūʾa u maskātūʾa ‘may the misfortune and evil affecting me be removed’ (01B) BBR 26: III 15 lū šu-uš-ḫu-ṭa lemnētūʾa ‘may the evil affecting me be removed’ (02) Sg. 8:229 ina dīše u ḫabburī šu-ru-šat tāmirtu ‘the meadow was planted with grass and sprouting shoots’ (03) Or. 36, 124:132 (ša . . .) pulḫatsu šul-bu-šat šadâni ‘whose terror envelopes (lit., clothes) the mountains’ In (01A), šuḫḫuṭā is an ordinary D stative of the transitive verb šaḫāṭu ‘to take away, strip off’ with pluractional function; in (01B) it is replaced by a Š‑stem, although it is unlikely that a causative reading such as ‘may (the evil) be caused to be removed’ is intended. This also applies to the (passive) Š stative of erēšu ‘to plant’ in (02) and certainly to the active Š stative of labāšu ‘to wear’ in (03). This use of the Š‑stem of transitive verbs is especially popular in a small number of Standard Babylonian texts, among which the annals of King Sargon II of Assyria and the epic of Enuma Eliš stand out. This can be regarded as an additional argument for their literary and artificial character. We can extend the argument to active instances as well; cf. the following pairs (all SB): (04A) CT 22, 1:16–17 DN1 u DN2 nēmeqa li-gam-me-ru-ni ‘may DN1 and DN2 give me all wisdom’ (04B) RA 11, 109:8 (// CT 36, 21:8) DN (. . .) nēmeqi ú-šá/ša-ag-mi-ir-šu ‘DN (. . .) gave him all wisdom’ (05A) BagF. 18, 301:17 (DNs) mu-pa-áš-ši-ru á.meš gi[sk]im.meš ḫul.meš ‘who dissolves bad omens and signs’ (05B) BagF. 18, 241:70 (DN1) mu-šap-šir/šìr á.me ḫul.me ša baʾūlāt DN2 ‘who dissolves the bad omens of the subjects of DN2’ Here the same argument applies: Š and D seem to be interchangeable, and there is no obvious motivation for a causative interpretation of the (B) clauses. Generally speaking, such Š‑stems used in active sentences are ambiguous unless all three participants involved in the causative of a transitive verb are explicitly mentioned. Usually, this is not the case, since more often than not the causee is omitted. This can make it difficult to decide whether we are dealing with a real causative or a “literary Š‑stem”; cf. the following instance: (06) Ash. p. 97 §65:33 (the king who has broken (uḫaṣṣiṣ) the rulers who do not submit to him like reeds in the swamp, and) ú-šak-bi-sa šēpuššu ‘tramples (them) underfoot’ (tr. CAD K 11a s.v. kabāsu 7b, ignoring the perfective form). Strictly speaking, ú-šak-bi-sa means ‘had them trampled’, viz., by his soldiers, as AHw claims (416a s.v. kabāsu Š 3 ‘niedertreten l[assen]’). It seems, however, that a non-causative translation is more natural, not only because of the coordination of ušakbisa with the non-causative uḫaṣṣiṣ but also because of the extremely egocentric style of Assyrian royal inscriptions.16 Most actions 16.  Another instance of the literary use of kabāsu Š is the active stative šuk-bu-sa Sg. 8: 375, which was quoted as (50) in chap. 7 (p. 174). It is semantically parallel to šulbušat in (03), and even AHw 416a s.v. Š 4 does not insist on a causative translation for it: ‘treten nieder’.

13.2.  The Š‑stem

331

narrated in royal inscriptions are not performed by the king himself, and yet we only rarely find a real causative form.17 It is difficult to see why in this particular instance the king should want to indicate explicitly that he did not trample his enemies himself. Therefore, it is plausible that ušakbisa is a literary variant of ukabbis rather than a real causative.18 In sum, the attractiveness of Š as a literary alternative to D was apparently such that the difference in function in the case of transitive verbs could be overruled. This is perhaps less surprising if we realize that causativity is primarily a semantic and syntactic phenomenon, namely, a type of sentence characterized by a specific arrangement of arguments. This arrangement can be made explicit by the use of a special verb form, but if the semantic and syntactic conditions for a causative interpretation are absent, the causative function of such a form can easily be neutralized.

13.2.2.3.  The “elative” use of the Š‑stem Finally, the use of the Š‑stem as a literary device has one further ramification: the so-called elative use of the past participle šuPRuS in Babylonian. Speiser (1967: 465–93) has argued that a number of šuPRuS forms are actually independent of the Š‑stem and have an “elative” function, i.e., they denote “some intensification of the basic meaning” (1967: 473). He based this claim on the fact that they are parallel to the Arabic elative pattern ʾaqtal and a group of Hebrew denominative Hiphil forms that are not causative but denote “such non-transitive concepts as colours, physical states, and the like” (1967: 466). He argues that the similarity between these categories indicates that they go back to Proto-Semitic and that the causative is “a specialized, and hence later, application of the morpheme used for the elative” (1967: 493). Speiser lists the following instances of elative šuPRuS forms (1967: 473–80; the glosses are his): šurbû ‘supreme’, šūturu ‘surpassing’, šušqû ‘exalted’, šūquru ‘most precious’, šupšuqu ‘most difficult’, šumruṣu ‘sorely afflicted, painful’, šūnuḫu ‘exhausted’, šuʾduru ‘in mourning, in consternation’, šupšuḫu ‘peaceful’, šudlupu ‘agitated’, šūtuqu ‘surpassing’, and šanūdu ‘illustrious’. We can expand this list substantially with additional instances, some of which have only turned up after Speiser’s publication, such as šūpû ‘illustrious’, šūzuzu ‘furious’, šušruḫu ‘glorified’, šūsumu ‘befitting, appropriate’, šuršubu ‘awe-inspiring’, šuršudu ‘well-founded’, šuḫmuṭu ‘hasty’ (Or. 61, 20:1a), šūlû ‘high, elevated’ (VAB 4, 278: VI 33), šuglutu ‘terrifying’, and šuknušu ‘obedient’ (VAB 7, 839: C 3).19 Speiser’s claim about the background of these adjectives is important because it bears on the prehistoric development of the Š‑stem. For it to be valid, it has to be demonstrated that the elatives are independent of the verbal Š‑stem, in the same way that many Pa/uRRuS adjectives can be shown to be independent of the D‑stem (see GAV pp. 346–51). This does not seem to be possible, however. On the contrary, it is more likely that they are dependent on, and therefore derived from, the Š‑stem: most of the šuPRuS adjectives belong to verbs that use either Š or both Š and D as factitives, in spite of the fact that they come from typical adjectival verbs. Moreover, many of them belong to the group of “literary” Š‑stems discussed in the previous section. This means that 17.  It is common in many languages to leave a causative situation unexpressed if the context itself clearly shows that the subject does not perform the action himself; cf. Rundgren 1966: 133–34. 18.  Similar cases include ú-šak-tim Sg. 8:256 (from katāmu ‘to cover’ Š; see CAD K 302b s.v. 9b ‘it [the army] overwhelmed’, but CAD E 258a s.v. erebiš translates ‘I had [the armies] cover’); šu-up-ru-su VAB 4, 112:23 (from parāsu ‘to block’ Š); šuk-ṣu-ru BWL 134:129 (from kaṣāru ‘to join’ Š), and šu-up-qu-ud-du Ash. p. 75 §48:2 (from paqādu ‘to entrust’ Š); in all these cases, Š is a variant of G and/or D and a causative interpretation is inappropriate. Insofar as this phenomenon concerns statives, an influence from the “elative” (see presently) is likely. For banû ‘to build’, CAD explicitly indicates that Š is a poetic form of G (B 89b s.v. banû A 6), and for dalāḫu ‘to disturb’, it translates the Š‑stem as the G‑stem with the comment “poetic only” (D 45b s.v. 4). 19.  For other references, see especially CAD Š/3 ss.vv.

332

The Š‑stem  13.2.

there is no reason to assign them a special status, different from other statives and past participles of the Š‑stem. Speiser’s argument (1967: 473–74) that the past participle šurbû cannot be derived from the verb šurbû ‘to make big(ger), great(er)’, because it would mean ‘magnified’, which is unsuitable as a divine epithet, is invalid, since Akkadian does not distinguish between absolute states and states that are the result of a previous process or action (see GAV pp. 351–57). Depending on the context, šurbû can mean ‘great, magnificent’ as well as ‘made big(ger), great(er)’, just as, for instance, dunnunu can mean both ‘(very) strong’ and ‘strengthened’.20 The main difference between the “elative” šuPRuS forms and the corresponding simple adjectives appears to be stylistic: they occur only in a small number of literary texts, mostly as epithets of gods, kings, or highly esteemed—often religious—objects, acts, and institutions. This makes them more “special” than other adjectival patterns and therefore more expressive. Whether they are also elatives, as Speiser claims—i.e., whether they denote an “intensification” as compared to the normal G‑stem adjective—is difficult to prove or disprove, especially because they typically occur in highly stereotyped and formulaic language.21 An exception is šumruṣu from marāṣu ‘to be(come) ill, annoyed’, which normally has a factitive Š‑stem (see, e.g., AHw 610 s.v. D and Š), of which šumruṣu is the ordinary stative and past participle.22 Even if we accept that the šuPRuS forms have an elative meaning, there are no indications that they go back to Proto-Semitic, as Speiser claims (1967: 493). The fact that they occur in literary texts may indicate that they are archaisms, but since literary Babylonian is also highly innovative in the sense that the Babylonian scribes consciously exploited derivational mechanisms in order to create novel forms for a literary effect, they may also be secondary formations. The creation of literary Š‑stems as variants to (mostly factitive) D‑stems doubtless also included the creation of šuPRuS forms as literary variants to PuRRuS forms.

13.2.2.4.  The denominal function of the Š‑stem Apart from the grammatical functions of causative and factitive, the Š‑stem can also be denominal. It is not always easy to distinguish denominal Š‑stems from (lexicalized) causative Š‑stems, but the most likely instances are: • šumšû ‘to do during the night, stay awake’, trans. ‘to keep awake’, from mūšu ‘night’ (√mšy) • šumṣulu ‘to do in the afternoon’, from muṣlālu ‘sleeping time, siesta, midday’ (itself from ṣalālu ‘to sleep’) • šuklulu ‘to perfect, make complete, finish’, from kullatu ‘totality’ • šupšuqu ‘to get into trouble’, from pušqu ‘trouble’ (acc. to GAG §89e) • šūlulu ‘to jubilate, acclaim’, from alālu, a harvest or work song (acc. to GAG 3 §89e*) • šutlumu ‘to bestow, grant’ (if related to (a)tulimānu ‘both hands’, talīmu ‘favourite brother’ and *tilmu in ti-li-im libbīšu BagM. 34, 140: IV 1 (OB) ‘his heart’s desire’ (or the like)23 Historically, the denominal function of the Š‑stem is much more important than can be inferred from this small group of verbs, since it applies to many, if not all, Št2‑stems, which can 20.  So also Bravmann 1968: 31–33. 21.  The main argument for elative meaning would be the parallel with the Arabic pattern ʾaqtal, which is also both elative and causative (in Stem IV yuqtilu - ʾaqtala). 22.  It is found, for instance, in Old Babylonian letters, cf. CAD Š/3 282b s.v. (add AbB 4, 137:8; ARM 26/1, 561 no. 259:22; OBLAP 21, 23:8; UET 5, 561: II 8 (the latter two in proper names). 23.  See Krispijn 2001: 253–55 about the basic meaning of √tlm: ‘close beside each other’, ‘closely related’.

13.2.  The Š‑stem

333

be explained as denominal verbs derived from nouns starting with the deverbal prefix ta‑, the taPRvS(t) nouns. This will be discussed in §14.6.2.2 (pp. 404–411).

13.2.2.5.  The relation of the Š‑stem to the D‑stem and the N‑stem A point that should finally be mentioned is the relation of the Š‑stem to the other primary derived stems, the D‑stem and the N‑stem. There are no incontestable instances of Š‑stems serving as causatives to D‑stems.24 It is, however, possible, at least in literary texts, to combine Š and D in the ŠD‑stem, but this is a purely formal procedure that does not alter the meaning of either D or Š (see §13.3 below). With regard to the relationship between the Š‑stem and the N‑stem, we should distinguish between transitive and intransitive verbs. Only in the former can we speak of a regular relationship between Š and N (since N‑stems of intransitive verbs are not productive; see §12.2.2.2, pp. 297–298). This relationship is indirect and passes through the G‑stem, as represented in Table 13.2: Detransitive

∞

N‑stem naṣbutu ‘to be seized’

Basic (transitive) G‑stem ṣabātu ‘to seize’

Causative

§

Š‑stem šuṣbutu ‘to cause to seize’

Table 13.2: The relationship between G, N, and Š.

As I argued in §10.6 (p. 253), this scheme represents the most important stem derivation of the transitive verb in Akkadian. If there is no G‑stem, however, there is a direct relationship between N and Š, with N being intransitive and Š its transitive counterpart. This is typical of N tantum verbs, both the triradical verbs (see §12.2.2.3, pp. 298–299) and the quadriradical verbs (see §§12.3–12.5, pp. 301–314). Triradical N tantum verbs with a causative Š‑stem include: • naplusu ‘to watch’ (rarely G), Š šuplusu ‘to cause to watch’ • naprušu ‘to fly’, Š šuprušu ‘to cause to fly’ • naḫbutu ‘to migrate, roam around’ (perhaps also G), Š ‘to cause to roam’ (only tu-šà-aḫ-ba-ta-an-ni TuL 20:9 ‘you cause me to wander’ (OB)) A few of these Š/N pairs are a sub-paradigm of another verb, sometimes with a lexicalized meaning: • naḫdurum ‘to worry’ (intr.), Š šuḫdurum ‘to worry’ (trans.) in Old Assyrian, corresponding to naʾduru – šuʾduru in Babylonian, ultimately derived from ʾadāru ‘to be worried’ • nanḫuzu ‘to flare up’ (fire), Š šūḫuzu ‘to set fire to’, ultimately derived from aḫāzu ‘to take’ For the Š‑stems of the nabalkutu group, see §13.4.1 (pp. 338–340). 24.  The Š‑stem ušaglib in Legends p. 234:7 (OB) and ArAn. 3, 135:61 (OA), both from historical narratives about Sargon of Akkad, which arguably means ‘I/he caused to shave’, cannot be unambiguously derived from gullubu ‘to shave’, because a G‑stem galābu also existed (see chap. 11 n. 24, p. 277). Moreover, the interpretation of these passages meets the same difficulty as the literary Š‑stems quoted as (04)–(06) above: it is unlikely that the king performed these actions in person, but this is not sufficient to prove that šuglubu is a real causative, and in the immediate context non-causative forms (G and D) are used for similar acts. So it is unclear whether we should interpret these forms as real causatives. In Standard Babylonian, there is at least one instance of a Š‑stem serving as a literary alternative to a D tantum verb: šuklumu for kullumu ‘to show’ (see GAV p. 275).

334

The ŠD‑stem  13.3.

13.3. The ŠD‑stem The ŠD‑stem (GAG §95a) as a purely literary category distinct from the Š‑stem was first identified by W. von Soden (1931/33: II 151–55). It is not found in Assyrian, and in Babylonian it is more or less restricted to literary texts belonging to what von Soden (1931/33) has termed “der hymnisch-epische Dialekt.” A few ŠD‑stems are already attested in literary Old Babylonian (idû, narāṭu, naw/māru, pašāḫu, and pazāru; see the list below), but most of them are Standard Babylonian. Actually, the majority of ŠD‑stems come from a few specific texts or text groups that have a special predilection for it: Enūma Eliš, the royal inscriptions of Sennacherib, and the two “literary prayers” to Marduk edited by Lambert (1959/60: 55–66), especially the second one (cf. Lambert’s comments on p. 49).25 The only attested forms of the paradigm of the ŠD‑stem are the imperfective (ušparras), the perfective (ušparris), and the present participle (mušparrisu). Most instances come from strong verbs and III/voc verbs, but there are also two II/gem verbs (danānu and rabābu) among them, and the (at least originally) I/w verb wuddû. The list on p. 335 shows the data necessary for establishing the nature and background of the ŠD‑stem. It includes the attested forms, their translation, the period of attestation, and their semantic relationship to the corresponding D‑stem and Š‑stem (if any).26 The most important point emerging from the list is that in most of the verbs the ŠD‑stem corresponds in meaning to the D‑stem rather than to the Š‑stem. Only four verbs have a D‑stem and no Š‑stem (danānu, mesû, narāṭu, and pazāru). Nine others have a Š‑stem that clearly differs in meaning from both D and ŠD, either because it is lexicalized (ḫalāqu, idû, maṭû, rabābu, and redû) or because they are transitive, so that the Š‑stem is causative and the D‑stem not (nasāqu, pašāṭu, paṭāru, and petû). Most others are non-committal on this point, since the corresponding D‑ and Š‑stems have the same meaning. Some of these belong to the group of specifically literary Š‑stems described in §13.2.2.2 (kullumu, malû, parādu, rabû, and rapāšu) and others to the Š‑stems that are used interchangeably with the D‑stem (kanāšu, naw/māru, nesû, and pašāḫu). Only in five cases is the ŠD‑stem obviously associated with the Š‑stem, since there is no corresponding D‑stem: manû, nabāṭu, naprušu, ramû, and rašû (all of which occur only once). W. von Soden already observed (1931/33: II 152) that the ŠD‑stem is far more closely related to the D‑stem than to the Š‑stem and that it does not seem to show a significant difference in meaning from the corresponding D‑ or Š‑stem.27 These facts, in combination with other peculiarities, especially the fact that it is restricted to literary texts, has an incomplete paradigm, and can only be formed from a small range of verb types, indicate that it is a redundant category with a function that can equally well be performed by other verbal stems. This suggests that it is a more-or-less artificial category created by Babylonian scribes with the purpose of enhancing the literary nature of a text by means of forms that are not found in ordinary language. In this respect, the ŠD‑stem is parallel to the literary Š‑stems described in §13.2.2.2 and the other derived verbal stems mentioned there, which also acquired a specifically literary function. Thus, Speiser’s claim (1967: 487) that “[t]he evidence clearly precludes a late development” and that it has “a common Semitic origin” is unfounded. The fact that the ŠD‑stem is not found 25.  It contains five ŠD forms that are attested nowhere else and that come from transitive verbs, a fact that is even more significant (see below). 26.  In the rightmost column, “diff.” means that the stem has a different meaning from the ŠD‑stem; “lit.” that it has the same meaning but only occurs in literary texts; “caus.” (only for transitive verbs) that it is a causative (in contrast to ŠD, which is never causative). 27.  So also Poebel (1939: 69), in contrast to Goetze (1945b: 248 n. 13) and Speiser (1967: 485–87); see GAV p. 339.

13.3.  The ŠD‑stem Verb danānu ḫalāqu

Attested form(s) Impfv ˹uš˺-dan-na-an BHLT 72:22) Impfv nu-uš-ḫal-laq Ee I 45 Prec lu-uš-ḫal-liq Ee I 39 idû Pfv uš-we-ed-di/-du-ú JCS 31, 103:49–50 kanāšu Impfv [u]š-kan-na-áš BWL 174c:2 kullumu PrPartc muš-kal-lim AfO 19, 57:108 malû Impfv (t)ušmalla/i/u pass. Pf ušmalli/u passim manû PrPartc muš-man-ni Ee VI 151 (see JCS 46 (1994) 132 ad line 151) maṭû PrPartc muš-man-ṭi AnSt. 30, 105:27 mesû Impfv(!) tuš-mas-si AfO 19, 65: III middle 7 nabāṭu Impfv uš-na-an-baṭ SpTU 5, 225:8 naprušu Pfv uš-pa-riš RA 27, 18:16 narāṭu Impfv uš-na-ar-ra-aṭ Ištar p. 77:IV 14 uš-nar/na-raṭ Lugale I 45 nasāqu Impfv tuš-na-ás-saq AfO 19, 63:48 nawāru Impfv uš-na-wa-ru Or. 42, 503:9 Impfv (t)ušnammar passim Pfv (t)ušnammir passim PrPartc mušnammiru passim nesû Impfv(!) tuš-na-as-si PSBA 17, 139:11 parādu Impfv uš-par-ra-ad St. Kraus 194:9 pašāḫu Impfv (t)ušpaššaḫ passim pašāṭu

Impfv tuš-pa-áš-šaṭ AfO 19, 64:93

paṭāru pazāru

Impfv tuš-paṭ-ṭar AfO 19, 64:89 PrPartc mu-uš-pa-az-ze-er KH IV 11

petû

Impfv(!) tuš-pat-ti BWL 134:149, 153 tuš-pat-te Erra IIIc:41 Prec liš-rab-bi-ib Ee II 48; III 52 Pfv ušrabbi passim

rabābu rabû ramû rapāšu rašû redû

Pfv(!) uš-ram-ma Ee IV 146 Pfv uš-rap-piš Sn. 153:19 Impfv(!) uš-raš-ši // -šú AnSt. 30, 105:23 // Iraq 60, 192:23 Pfv uš-rad/ra-ad-di passim

335 Gloss I will strengthen we will destroy let me destroy I have assigned

Period D SB =D SB =D

— (diff.)

OB

=D

(diff.)

I/he subjugates he who reveals (to fill, cover)

SB SB SB

=D =D =D

=Š (lit.) (lit.)

he who counts

SB

—

(caus.)

he who reduces you wipe away

SB SB

=D =D

(diff.) —

he causes to shine he caused to fly she/it causes to tremble you select (to brighten, make radiant)

SB — SB — OB, SB = D

=Š =Š —

SB OB SB

(caus.) =Š

=D =D

Š

you remove she scares off you/he calm(s) down you obliterate (c. br.) you separate he who hides/ protects you open/reveal

SB =D SB =D OB, SB = D

=Š (lit.) =Š

SB

=D

(caus.)

SB OB

=D =D

(caus.) —

SB

=D

(caus.)

may he subjugate she/I elevated/ enlarged he installed I made wide he causes to get

SB SB

=D =D

(diff.) (lit.)

SB SB SB

— =D —

=Š (lit.) =Š

I/(s)he added

SB

=D

(diff.)

336

The ŠD‑stem  13.3.

in the huge and varied corpus of Old Babylonian letters strongly suggests that it simply did not exist in everyday language, and its complete absence in Old Assyrian, which in many respects is more conservative than Babylonian, proves beyond any doubt that it results from a secondary, inner-Babylonian development and has no Semitic ancestry. This does not absolve us from the task of explaining how it arose. Its relationship to the D‑stem suggests that it is a secondary derivation of the D‑stem, and the question is through what kind of mechanism it was created. The key to the answer is to be found in the II/voc verbs of Babylonian; as shown in §13.2.1 above (p. 325), their Š‑stems have adopted gemination of the final radical from the D‑stem, where it replaces gemination of R2 (see further §16.5.3.4, p. 486). So the dependency relationship is: D Impfv uṭāb, Pl uṭabbū D Pfv uṭīb, Pl uṭibbū

§ §

Š Impfv ušṭāb, Pl ušṭabbū Š Pfv ušṭīb, Pl ušṭibbū

This relationship, which can be summarized as “take the D form and insert š before the first radical,” has provided the model to derive the forms ušparras and ušparris from uparras and uparris, respectively. Relatively frequent Š‑stems of II/voc verbs such as mâtu Š ‘to cause to die’, mâdu ‘to make numerous’, nâlu ‘to cause to lie down’, and ṭâbu Š ‘to make pleasant’ (only literary!) must have played an important role in the creation of the ŠD‑stem. This implies that, from a purely formal point of view, the Š‑stem of the II/voc verbs is actually a ŠD‑stem. It would be unjustified, however, to classify it as such, because within the system of derived verbal stems it functions as an ordinary Š‑stem, whereas the ŠD‑stem has the quite different status of a marked alternative to (mostly) the D‑stem.28 There is also an alternative explanation for the ŠD‑stem, which, however, seems less satisfactory. Since there is a strong tendency to extend gemination from the G‑stem iparrVs to other imperfective forms (see §4.5.2, pp. 112–115), one might argue that an imperfective form such as ušḫallaq is derived from ušaḫlaq by inserting gemination (*ušaḫallaq becoming ušḫallaq through vowel syncope). This is possible and may have been an additional factor in the rise of the ŠD‑stem, but it is unlikely that it was the main mechanism—first, because it incorrectly associates the ŠD‑stem more closely with the Š‑stem than with the D‑stem and, second, because it does not directly account for the ŠD perfective and present participle. Instead, we have to assume a two-step process: first, the rise of the new imperfective and, subsequently, the expansion of gemination to the perfective and present participle. This seems unnecessarily complicated. A final point worth mentioning concerns the numerous ŠD‑stems of III/voc verbs. We expect to find final -ā in the imperfective and final -ī in the perfective, but almost all forms that seem to be imperfective on the basis of the context actually have -ī.29 An imperfective with -ā is only attested in Standard Babylonian for the frequent ŠD‑stem of malû (see AHw 599a s.v. malû IV ŠD).30 Apparently, the Babylonian scribes based themselves on a paradigm with ‑ī in both tenses: 28.  So already von Soden 1931/33: II 151–52, against Poebel 1939: 70–71. Poebel is apparently not aware of the fact that the “normal” Š‑stem of II/voc verbs geminates its final radical before a vocalic ending. 29.  I have marked these forms as “Impfv(!)” in the list. There are also a fair number of spellings with ‑u (cf. uš-raš-šú in the list, and also uš-mal-lu CT 34, 36: III 55), which should warn us against attaching too much value to the spellings of the final vowel. The perfective with -a in uš-ram-ma Ee IV 146 is also remarkable but might be explained according to the following note. 30.  Actually, these forms might contain a ventive ending. The ventive often appears in Standard Babylonian without any obvious function (cf. GAG §82b), so that a form such as uš-mal-la AGH 102:9 could perhaps be interpreted as /ušmallâ/ < ušmalliam, although we would rather have a plene spelling uš-malla-a in that case.

13.4.  The Quadriradical Verbs with the Prefixš‑

337

ušmallī – ušmallī, traces of which are also found in D‑ and Š‑stems of III/voc verbs in Standard Babylonian (GAG §105l). A possible explanation of this phenomenon is that gemination was deemed to be sufficient to mark the imperfective. We are left with a few forms that are difficult to fit into the system or can be analyzed in different ways. A genuinely literary form is the Inf šutraqqudu in šu-ut-ra(-aq)-qú-du (anti) Ištar p. 76: III 8, 12 (OB lit.); it is best analyzed as a Štn‑stem of raqādu ‘to dance’ (regular šutarqudu) with additional gemination of R2 for verbal plurality (see §14.7.1, pp. 415–417) (*šutaraqqudu), and subsequent vowel syncope: ‘to cause (sb.) to dance the antu(‑dance?) continually’.31 The same expression also occurs in Standard Babylonian with the verb in the D‑stem: enūma tu‑raaq-qi-du anta KAR 158: II 40 ‘when you have danced the antu(‑dance?)’. Since raqādu is a proto­typical action verb, its D‑stem falls under the forms included in §11.3.2 (p. 274) and can therefore not be causative (this would require the Š‑stem); it may rather be durative or intensive, but the expression is too obscure to allow a definite conclusion. In texts that do not belong to the narrow range of literary texts defined above, a few forms occur that can formally be explained as ŠD‑stems but may also have a different background: • uš-gal-lit CT 38, 47:46 and uš-ta-ga-lit CT 41, 31: r.29 (SB) ‘he has scared’, perfective and t‑perfect, respectively, of galātu ‘to twitch, start’, D ‘to scare’ in a Šumma ālu omen. If we interpret uštagallit as a ŠD‑stem, it is a unique instance of a t‑perfect of ŠD. It is also possible that these forms are occasional adaptations to the quadriradical paradigm (like ušbalkit and uštabalkit; see §12.5, p. 309, and GAG Verbalpar. 39). • tu-uš-ka-at-ta-ma CT 19, 45a: r.8, imperfective of katāmu ‘to cover’ in a Standard Babylonian list of diseases(?) • uš-ra-ka-bu Emar VI/3 p. 356 no. 373:180′, imperfective of rakābu ‘to ride, sail’ in an Emar ritual • (lā) tù-uš-ma-ra-aṣ VAB 2, 170:9 and (lā) tù-uš-ma-ra-ṣa-nim VAB 2, 170:40, prohibitive of marāṣu ‘to be(come) ill, annoyed’ in an Amarna letter • šu-pal-li-ka CT 22, 221:6 and lu-šu-pal-li-ka CT 22, 221:14, imperative and precative, respectively, of palāku ‘to cut off, distribute’ in a Neo-Babylonian letter (GAG §95b: “wohl (aramaisierende?) Neubildungen”). These forms are too few in number and/or too uncertain of interpretation to raise doubts about the purely literary and artificial character of the ŠD‑stem as described above. I have left some other forms out of account as being even more uncertain. For the alleged ŠD‑stems of garāru and parāru, see §13.4.2 (pp. 340–341).

13.4. The Quadriradical Verbs with the Prefix š‑ After the description of the quadriradical verbs with the prefix n‑ in the previous chapter, it is now the turn of the quadriradical verbs with the prefix š‑. I will distinguish four types: the Š‑stems of the nabalkutu group (§13.4.1), those of the naparruru group (§13.4.2), the verbs of the šuḫarruru group (§13.4.3), and the verbs šukennu and šupellu (§13.4.4).

31.  GAG §95c calls it an “Iterativ- oder Habitativform zum ŠD”; AHw 957b s.v. raqādu lists it as a ŠDt‑stem; see also von Soden 1931/33: II 154–55 and Groneberg 1972: 76.

338

The Quadriradical Verbs with the Prefixš‑  13.4.

13.4.1.  The šubalkutu group  32 Most of the nabalkutu verbs (see §12.5, pp. 307–314) have a derived causative with the prefix š‑:33 • šubalkutu, caus. of nabalkutu ‘to cross over’ (passim, already in SAk: Impfv uš-ba-laga-ad /usbalakkat/ MDP 14, 90:10 (incant. from Susa) ‘he will remove’; also Štn in OA, OB, SB, and perhaps Št1 in OB Mari and Nuzi; see below) • šuḫarmumu, caus. of naḫarmumu ‘to collapse’ (SB) • šuḫarmuṭu, caus. of naḫarmuṭu ‘to melt, dissolve’ (SB) • šumarkû, caus. of namarkû ‘to stay behind’ (NA t‑Pf us-sa-mar-ki K.9462: 15 quoted in CAD N/1 209 s.v. 3) • šupalsuḫu, caus. of napalsuḫu ‘to prostrate oneself’ (OB, SB) • šupalṭû, apparently caus. of napalṭû ‘to pass, miss’ (only SB LL: tu-šá-pala-ṭa V R 45:VI 55) • šupardû, caus. of napardû ‘to become bright or cheerful’ (SB) • šuparkû, caus. of naparkû) ‘to cease, stop working, leave’ (OB, SB, NB) • šuqelpû, caus. of neqelpû ‘to drift down, sail downstream’ • šuḫelṣû, caus. of neḫelṣû ‘to slip’ (OB, SB) • šupelkû, caus. of nepelkû ‘to open wide’ (SB) • šup/barzuḫu ‘to make abundant’ (SB) (no corresponding N‑stem attested). Table 13.3 shows the regular Š forms and the attested Štn forms (see below) of šubalkutu in Babylonian; some alternative forms are discussed in the commentary. Š‑stem

Štn‑stem

Š IV/voc verbs

Impfv

ušbalakkat

uštanablakkat

ušpalakkā

Pfv

ušbalkit

uštablakkit

ušpalkī

t‑Pf

uštabalkit

Imp

šubalkit

Stat

šubalkut

uštapalkī šutablakkit

šupalkī šupalkū

Inf/PPartc

šubalkutu

šutablakkutu

šupalkû

PrPartc

mušbalkitu

muštablakkitu

mušpalkû

Table 13.3: The paradigm of nabalkutu Š and Štn.

As derived Š‑stems, these verbs have the fixed vowel pattern of the triradical Š‑stem, i.e., a in the imperfective and i in the perfective and the t‑perfect, regardless of the vowel pattern of the corresponding N form, e.g.: • tu-uš-pa-ra-ak-ka AbB 7, 170:18 (OB) ‘do not allow to be lost’ • tu-uš-qa-lap-pa LKA 123:13 (SB) ‘you must allow to float down’ • li-iš-qá-al-pí-a-am AbB 13, 72:15 (OB) ‘let it float down hither’ 32.  See also GAG §110 and Verbalpar. 39/40. Many of GAG’s interpretations of individual forms are vitiated by unproven and unjustified assumptions about vocalic l and r. 33.  The form šuparqudu ‘to lay flat’ does not exist (Š of naparqudu): uš-pàr(a)-qad KAR 437: r.12— according to AHw 735a s.v.; Š is to be read uš-dak-šu ‘she will have him killed’ according to CAD N/1 283a s.v. naparqudu comm. sect.

13.4.  The Quadriradical Verbs with the Prefixš‑

339

• us-qa-al-pí-ú-ni MARV 4, 35: 7 (MA) ‘they caused to drift’ (Subj) • us-sa-mar-ki (NA) quoted above Other forms calling for comment are the following: 1. In Middle Babylonian, the perfective and the t‑perfect have e instead of a before i in the next syllable, just like the D‑ and the Š‑stem and their derivatives (see §11.2, p. 269, and §13.2.1, p. 325), e.g., li-iš-bé-él-ki-ta BE 17, 49:11 ‘let him transfer’ and uš-te-bé-él-ki-it BE 17, 49:3. See further §17.5.2 (pp. 534–535). 2. In Assyrian, non-prefix forms are extremely rare and not uniform. We would expect them to have ša‑, as in the triradical Š‑stems, but in Old Assyrian we actually find šu‑: Inf šu-baal-ku-tu[m] St. Larsen p. 398: r.34. It is the only form attested, but it is confirmed by nonprefix forms of the verbs šukennu and šupellu to be discussed in §13.4.4 (pp. 346–350). Perhaps šu‑ replaced ša‑ in this context by analogy with the non-prefix forms of the Št(n)‑stem(s), such as the Imp šutapris and the Stat šutaprus, which are prosodically parallel. However, Neo-Assyrian shows a substantivized infinitive (ina muḫḫi) šá-bal-ku-te SAA 10, 2: r.6 ‘overthrowing, rebellion’.34 It is possible that this form is secondary and that ša‑ replaced šu‑ by analogy with ‑ša‑ in the triradical Š‑stems and/or in the prefix forms of the type lušabalkit; see no. 3 below. 3. In Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian, and occasionally also in Standard Babylonian, a vowel a/e appears between š and R1, e.g.: • lu-šá-bal-ki-ta SAA 1, 1: r.60 (NA) ‘let him make (them) cross’ • tu-šá-pará-ka CT 22, 52:13 (NB) ‘do not leave (it) unfinished!’ • ú-še-qel-pu-ú Sn. 73:62, 64 (SB) ‘they let (them) sail downstream’. The insertion of a is probably by analogy with the triradical form ušapras, where -ša- is stable. It may be a consequence of the weakening of the vowel syncope rule in the late dialects.35 One of the verbs listed above, šubalkutu, also has a Štn‑stem. The attested forms are listed in the table; a selection of attestations is: • Impfv tù-uš-ta-na-áb-[l]a-kà-at OAA 1, 21:18 (OA) and uš-ta-nab-la-kát TDP 92:37 and 39 (SB) • Pfv ul-tab-lak-ki-is-su Gilg. p. 552:250 and tul-tab-lak-kit-su Gilg. p. 554:264 (SB) • Imp Pl šu-ta-áb-lá-ki-ta-šu-nu kt 94/k 1106:13 ‘keep turning them over (textiles)!’ (OA, quoted by courtesy of M. T. Larsen) • Inf šu-tab-lak-ku-tu MSL 13, 237:301 (SB LL) • PrPartc mu-uš-tab-la-ki-tum MSL 12, 163:186 (OB LL) This verb may also have a passive Št1‑stem, if (ina) šu-ta-ba-al-ku-tim ARM 3, 29:23 (OB) ‘while being transported’ can be so interpreted.36 Finally, there is a deverbal noun šutablakkuttu 34.  For Neo-Assyrian, Hämeen-Anttila (2000: 159) also mentions šaḫarruru and šamarkû, but I have not succeeded in locating these forms. 35.  All imperfective forms with a between š and the first radical that I know of are spelled with a CvC(v) sign (nu-u-šá-bal(a)-kàta-šú SAA 1, 103: r.9 (NA); ú-šá-bal(a)-kát YOS 3, 193:17 (NB), tu-šá-pár(a)-ka CT 22, 52:13 (NB); tu-šá-pal(a)-ṭa V R 45: VI 55 (SB); ú-šá-bal(a)-kàt BAL 2 p. 87:18 (SB, the Assyrian version has uš-ba-lak-ka-˹ta˺). Does this mean that they are to be interpreted as ušabalkat, etc.—in other words, that they have simplified the geminate in order to avoid the form ušabalakkat with three short syllables in a row? 36.  Other (uncertain) instances of a passive Št1‑stem of nabalkutu come from Nuzi, e.g., t‑Pf uš-te-etbal-kat ‘it has been transferred’, cf. CAD N/1 20a s.v. 6. According to GAG §110f, these are Štn‑stems.

340

The Quadriradical Verbs with the Prefixš‑  13.4.

or šutabalkuttu, ‘ein Signalholzbeutel?’ acc. to AHw 1290b s.v., ‘a bag with a marking(?)’ or ‘cycle’, acc. to CAD Š/3 394b s.v., a substantivized verbal adjective (spelled šu-ta-bal-kut-tú, šu-tab-lak-ku-tú, or šu-tab-lak-kut-tum). It shows the fluctuation between presence and absence of gemination that also appears in some Ntn forms (see §12.5, p. 312).

13.4.2.  The šuparruru group Two verbs of the naparruru group discussed in §12.3 (pp. 301–305) have a causative Š‑stem:37 • šugarruru ‘to roll’ (trans.), allow (an animal) to roam’ from nag/qarruru ‘to roll over’ • šuparruru ‘to spread out, broaden’ from naparruru ‘to fall apart, become confused’ Their paradigm can be reconstructed as in Table 13.4:38 Impfv

ušparrar

Pfv

ušparrir

t‑Pf

uštaparrir

Imp

šuparrir

Stat

šuparrur

Inf/PPartc

šuparruru

PrPartc

*mušparriru

Table 13.4: The Š‑stem of the naparruru group.

As far as we can tell, this paradigm is regular and directly based on that of the corresponding N‑stem: Impfv N ipparrar § Š ušparrar, etc. Its most important feature is the absence of any extant form with gemination of the final radical, an important characteristic of the corresponding N forms, as we saw in §12.3 (pp. 302–303). It may be accidental that such forms are not attested, but it is also conceivable that they did not exist, because as a derived category the Š forms are more regular and predictable than the N forms; cf. the vowel pattern of the N and Š forms of the nabalkutu verbs. A deviating form that may be connected with šugarruru is the past participle šugurruru ‘freeroaming’ in imēru šu-gu-ru-ru ‘free-roaming donkey?’ acc. to CAD Š/3 202b s.v. (but AHw 1260b s.v. calls it “unklar”). A Štn‑stem may be attested of šuparruru: Impfv tuš-ta-[na] p-ra-ar TuL 98: 14 (SB) according to CAD Š/3, 318a s.v. šuparruru d, but both reading and interpretation are uncertain. The classification of šugarruru and šuparruru is controversial.39 They have been analyzed in particular as ŠD‑stems of q/garāru and parāru. It is true that their paradigm is superficially identical to that of the ŠD‑stem (see §13.3, p. 334), but there are good reasons for classifying 37.  The dictionaries list them as independent verbs (AHw 1259f s.v. šugarruru; AHw 1278b s.v. šuparruru; CAD Š/3 317–18 s.v. šuparruru), except that CAD lists both nag/qarruru and šugarruru under garāru A (G 48). Von Soden’s claim (1951: 261) that a relationship between naparruru and šuparruru is “sehr unwahrscheinlich” on semantic grounds seems exaggerated, but it is clear that some amount of lexicalization has been going on in the use of both verbs. 38.  For attestations, see the dictionaries. The form šu-da-ra-ru(-u) CAD Š/3 193a s.v. (in LL, equated with andurāru) is too problematic to justify the positing of a Š‑stem of nadarruru. 39.  See Heidel 1940: 30 (only about šuparruru); Goetze 1945b: 248; von Soden 1950b: 331; Whiting 1981: 5–6.

13.4.  The Quadriradical Verbs with the Prefixš‑

341

them as causatives—perhaps to some extent lexicalized—of nag/qarruru and naparruru. The recognized ŠD‑stems are variants of D‑stems or (rarely) Š‑stems with which they are used interchangeably, they have an incomplete paradigm (no non-prefix forms), and they are for the most part restricted to literary texts. These two verbs, however, are not variants of a corresponding D‑ or Š‑stem, do not have an incomplete paradigm, and at least šugarruru is not a literary word: it also occurs in Old Babylonian letters (tu-uš-ga-ri-ru AbB 3, 4:12; li-iš-ga-ri-ir-šu-nu-ti AbB 10, 101:15), in Middle Assyrian (tu-uš-ga-ra(-a)-ar BVW passim; šu-ga-ri-ra KAV 203:29), and in Neo-Babylonian, if the above-mentioned šugurruru does indeed belong to it. If the hypothesis I advanced in §12.6.1 (pp. 319–320) about the background of the naparruru verbs is correct, these two verbs also go back to ancient quadriradical verbs with reduplication of a biliteral sequence C1C2 C1C2 verbalized by means of the prefix š‑. This implies that they are etymologically related to the triradical forms of the roots √prr and √q/grr but have undergone their own specific development.

13.4.3.  The šuḫarruru group The šuḫarruru group consists of only three verbs:40 • šuḫarruru ‘to become still, abate’ • šuqallulu ‘to hang (intr.), be suspended’ and ‘to hang (trans.), suspend’41 • šuqammumu ‘to fall silent’, rarely transitive ‘to silence’ These verbs are superficially similar to the two verbs of the preceding section, but on closer inspection they show some crucial differences. First, they are usually intransitive, which means that they are not derived causatives. Second, they sometimes show gemination of the final radical in the forms with prefixes, just as in other basic categories with identical final radicals. Third, in the older dialects they have—apart from a more-or-less regular quadriradical Š conjugation—also a set of shorter forms that have a/i instead of u in the personal prefixes and ša‑ instead of šu‑ in the non-prefix forms. I will start with this “short” conjugation. Except for a single form in Old Assyrian and some more-or-less divergent Standard Babylonian forms, it is typically found in Old Babylonian. The following forms are attested (all OB, unless indicated otherwise):42 1.  šuḫarruru: • Impfv 2ms [t]a-aš-ḫa-ra-a[r] OBTA p. 58 no. 14: r.9′ (ArBab) • Stat 3ms ša-ḫu-ur ZA 90: 196:10; ša-ḫu-ur-ru Atr. p. 94:47;43 3fs ša-ḫu-ur-ra-at Atr. p. 76:15; Adj ša-ḫu-ur-ru-tim Ištar p. 24:37; note also the derived verbal noun 40.  For earlier discussions, see Heidel 1940: 26–37 and 92–106; Goetze 1945b: 247–48; von Soden 1950b: 331–32; GAG §109a/h; Speiser 1967: 481–84; Whiting 1981: 5–14 and 19–20. 41.  There is also a noun ašqulālu (an atmospheric phenomenon, a weapon, and a plant according to CAD A/2 452–53 s.v.), which is related to this verb (e.g., CT 39, 32:24 quoted CAD Š/3 331a/b). Its pattern recurs in andurāru ‘remission (of debts), manumission’ from nadarruru (see §12.3, p. 301). Comparison with the vowel pattern ‑i‑ā‑ of Arabic maṣdars suggests that they are ancient verbal nouns. A second de­ verbal noun may be šuqullālu (an ornament: šu-qúl-la-li.meš PRU 3, 182:2 [Ugarit]), but it is only attested in a peripheral text. 42.  See also Whiting 1981: 6 for the short forms (but ignore iš-ḫa-ra-ra: read uš- according to CAD Š/3 204a s.v. šuḫarruru 1a). 43.  The syntax is unclear: the subject is rigmī, so a 3ms stative is expected. Is it an adjective in predicative function? This is not impossible (see Kouwenberg 2000: 35–36) but without parallel in an Old Babylonian literary text.

342

The Quadriradical Verbs with the Prefixš‑  13.4.

šaḫurratum (CT 15, 4: II 5 and YOS 10, 36: IV 7, which also appears as šuḫarratum (BM 120022: 17 quoted in CAD Š/1 108a s.v. šaḫurratu b) 2.  šuqallulu: • Impfv 3ms iš-qá-lá-al BIN 4, 63:4 (OA); iš-qa-la-al YOS 10, 25:63–65; 26: IV 13; 3fp iš-qá-lal-la TU 8:16 (SB) • Pfv (Prec) 1s lu-uš-qa-li-il TIM 9, 72:13 (i.e., /lušqalil/ from *išqalil (‘short’)? Or /lušqallil/ from ušqallil (‘regular’ Š form)?) 3.  šuqammumu: • Impfv(?) 3ms iš-qá-ma-a-am MIO 12, 54: r.20; • Stat 3mp ša-qú/qù-um-mu ZA 90, 196:10 // RA 32, 181:11; Stat 3fp ša-qú-um-ma-a ZA 90, 195:3; Adj šaqummu ‘quiet, silent’, with an adverb šaqummiš (OB, SB), see CAD Š/1 33–34 ss.vv. This survey shows that we only have imperfectives and statives or adjectives of the “short” conjugation. Particularly vexing is the fact that we do not have a perfective form showing whether it has gemination like the imperfective, or not—in other words, whether it is *išḫarrir or *išḫarir. The only perfective form attested, the precative lu-uš-qa-li-il, is ambiguous. If the perfective is išḫarrir, we may reconstruct the original conjugation as in the left column of Table 13.5; if it is išḫarir, we may reconstruct it as in the right column. conjug. based on išḫarrir

conjug. based on išḫarir

Impfv

išḫarrar

išḫarrar

Pfv

išḫarrir

išḫarir

Imp

*šaḫarrir (> šu . . .)

*šaḫrir

PPartc/Adj

*šaḫarruru (> šu . . .)

*šaḫruru (> šaḫurru?)

PrPartc

*mušḫar(r)ir(r)u

*mušḫariru (> *mušḫarru)

Table 13.5: Possible older paradigms of šuḫarruru and šuqammumu

The left column is more like the historically attested forms: it only requires a change of prefix from a/i to u and the well-attested Babylonian replacement of ša‑ with šu‑. It may therefore be regarded as more plausible. However, we need the right column—or something like it—to account for the “short” non-prefix forms šaḫurru and šaqummu.44 The forms given in the right column of Table 13.5 can be compared with the historical N‑stem: Impfv ipparras, Pfv ipparis, Imp napris, PPartc naprusu, and PrPartc muppar(i)su.45 After the Old Babylonian period, the prefix forms of the “short” conjugation with the vowel i/a no longer occur, except for the form iš-qá-lal-la TU 8:16 (// uš-qá-lal-la CT 40, 33:18 and LKU 124: r.10), which is a sporadic survivor, if not a mistake.46 However, the “short” stative/ adjective survives in a variety of forms. Šaḫurru lives on in the abstract noun šaḫurratu, and šaqummu continues to be used as stative, adjective, abstract noun (šaqummatu), and adverb 44.  In particular, if we assume that šaḫurru is actually a realization of ša‑PRvS in roots with identical final radical, i.e., if it stands for *šaḫrurum, cf. napurratum for napruratum quoted in chap. 12 n. 54 (p. 301). 45.  A vestige of this conjugation may be preserved in that of naʾarruru discussed in §12.3 (pp. 304–305): Impfv inʾarrar, Pfv inʾarir (as shown by forms with an ending, such as the precative + ventive linʾarram). 46.  Presumably, the same applies to iš-qá-˹li˺-la KAR 389b:4, in view of uš-qa-li-la KAR 389b:13. I assume that the form šu-ḫu-ru-ru MSL 5, 75:310 (variant of šá-ḫur-ra-tum) is also an error.

13.4.  The Quadriradical Verbs with the Prefixš‑

343

(šaqummiš). In later texts, there are numerous deviations in the vowel pattern of these forms: instead of šaḫur(ru), there is also a Stat šu-ḫu-rat Atr. p. 112:33 (SB, replacing OB ša-ḫu-ur-ra-at Atr. p. 76:15), which fits neither in the “short” nor in the regular Š conjugation of šuḫarruru: perhaps it represents /šuḫurrat/ or a PuRRuS form /šuḫḫurat/. We also find an adverb šuḫarriš (šuḫar-riš JNES 17, 138:15) and a noun šuḫarratu (šu-ḫar-rat (c. st.) KAR 239: II 5), which echo OB šuḫarratum mentioned above. Beside šaqummu also šuqammu seems to occur (in ḫur.sag šu-qám-ma KUB 4, 47: r.39).47 These forms are contaminations of the short form with ‑a‑u‑ and the regular stative/past participle šuḫarrur(u). The variation in the non-prefix forms suggests that there was some fluctuation in, or uncertainty about, the exact form of these doubtless exclusively literary words. After the Old Babylonian period, the three verbs under discussion largely conform to the regular quadriradical Š conjugation.48 Table 13.6 shows a reconstruction, arranged according to whether they have an ending or not. no ending

+ ending

Impfv

ušqallal

ušqallalū or ušqalallū

Pfv

ušqallil

ušqallilū or ušqalillū

t‑Pf

uštaqallil

uštaqallilū (or uštaqlillū?)

Imp

šuqallil

šuqallilā

Stat

šuqallul

šuqallulū

Inf/PPartc

šuqallulu

PrPartc

mušqallilu or mušqalillu

Table 13.6:  A reconstructed paradigm for the “regular” šuḫarruru group.

This table is based on the following selection of instances (SB unless indicated otherwise): 1.  šuḫarruru: • Impfv 3fp uš-ḫa-ra-ár-ra AGH 98:18, 20 var.; 2ms tuš-ḫar-ra-ar SBH p. 40 no. 20a:2 • Pfv 3mp uš-ḫar-ri-ru Iraq 16, 192:60; Prec 3ms liš-ḫar-ri-ir KB 6/2, 42:12 • Stat šu-ḫar-ru-ur AGH 134:75; Adj šu-ḫar-ru-ru-tu JAOS 103, 212:11 • Inf šu-ḫar-ru-ru MSL 17, 160:276. 2.  šuqallulu: • Impfv 3fp uš-qá-lal-la CT 40, 33:18 and LKU 124: r.10 (// iš-qá-lal-la TU 8:16); uš-q[á ]-lal-la Iraq 18 pl. XXV: I 17 • t‑Pf 3ms uš-ta-qal-lil SBH p. 122 no. 70:9 (var. uš-[ta]q-lil; see n. 47) • Stat 3ms šu‑qal-lul CT 39, 32:24; 3mp šu-qal-lu-lu MIO 1, 82:31 47.  Sporadically, Standard Babylonian shows triradical forms instead of the forms shown in Table 13.6: for šuqallulu, a Pfv ú-šaq-lil and a t‑Pf uš-[ta]q-lil occur as variants to uš-ta-qal-lil (see CAD Š/3 330b s.v. šuqallulu lex. sect.) and an Inf šu-uq-lu-lum MSL 13, 57:12 (which according to CAD Š/3 332a s.v. šuqallulu comm. sect. is probably to be emended to šu-uq-qú-lum). From šuḫarruru there is a t‑Pf uš-ta-aḫri-ru Gilg. p. 544: 116 and a Stat [š]u-uḫ-ru-ur KUB 4, 47: r.39 (perhaps from šuḫruru ‘to destroy’?), and a deverbal noun šaḫrartu ‘deathly silence’ (all SB). Their rarity and late date justify the assumption that they are secondary formations (supposing in the first place that they are interpreted correctly). 48.  I am not aware of any attestations in other late dialects. After the Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian period, these verbs are clearly obsolete except in literary texts.

344

The Quadriradical Verbs with the Prefixš‑  13.4.

• Inf šu-qá-al-lu-lum MSL 13, 57:13 (OB LL); šu-qal-lu-la BWL 253:11 • Note also the instrument noun mašqalillu ‘hanging ladder’ ([maš-qa]-lil-lu MSL 9, 170: ad 230, restored from maš-qa-li-lu MSL 9, 189:39, var. of maš-qa-lil-t [um], see CAD M/1 381b s.v. mašqalillu 3.  šuqammumu: • Impfv 3mp uš-qa-ma-am-mu LSS 1/6, 44:32; uš-qá-ma-am-ma CT 38, 8:26–27; uš-qa-am-ma-mu SpTU 4, 129: II 5 • Pfv 3mp uš-qa-mi-im-mu AnSt. 30, 106:102 // uš-qa/qam-mì-mu BWL 36:102 • Imp šu-[qa]m-mì-im BWL 108:15 • Stat 3ms šu-qam-mu-um AnBi. 12, 283:36; 3mp šu-qam-mu-mu TuL 163:9; Adj šu-qam-mu-mì Iraq 42, 43: I 13 • Inf šu-qam-mu-mu MSL 16, 123:304 If the prefix forms with an ending show gemination, it is either R3 or R4 that is geminated, in accordance with W. von Soden’s (1951: 264–65) principle provisionally accepted in §12.3 (pp. 302–303). Apparently, two options were available—e.g., in the third-person plural masculine imperfective ušqallalū or ušqalallū. It is possible that ušqallallū also existed, but I am not aware of explicit spellings to prove it. The non-prefix forms only show instances of gemination of R3, which is mandatory in order to avoid syncope of the second vowel (**šŭqălullu is illicit). Presumably, this implies that they do not geminate R4. The conjugation of Table 13.6 is typical of Standard Babylonian. Only a few non-prefix forms are already attested in Old Babylonian: the above-mentioned Inf šu-qá-al-lu-lum and a Stat šu‑ḫaru-ur RA 46, 88:2.49 On the other hand, no prefix forms with u are attested in the early dialects (Whiting 1981: 6). The earliest unambiguous cases appear in Middle Assyrian (e.g., tu-uš-qala-al PKT 34:16 (trans.!)) and in (literary) Middle Babylonian (uš-ḫa-ra-ra Legends p. 128:22′). This shows that the “short” forms are original and that the adaptation to the Š paradigm started during the Old Babylonian period and was more or less completed in Standard Babylonian. The historical background of these verbs and of the short conjugation in particular is very problematic, mainly because of the lack of adequate data and the absence of a convincing etymology in two of the three verbs. Therefore, the following account is somewhat speculative. Few as they are, the three verbs fall into two subtypes: šuḫarruru and šuqammumu on the one hand, against šuqallulu on the other. I will start with the former pair. The meaning of šuḫarruru and šuqammumu and the relative frequency of their adjective and stative šaḫurru and šaqummu suggest that the verbs are derived from the adjectives, as Goetze (1945b: 248) and Speiser (1967: 481) have argued. Following Goetze, we can envisage a derivation šaḫurrum § *yišḫarar (without ending) and *yišḫarr‑ (with ending), which would be parallel to the regular derivation of triradical adjectival verbs: šal(i)mum § *yišlim(u).50 With the expansion of gemination to all imperfective types, this *yišḫarar became the historical imperfective išḫarrar alongside a perfective *išḫarir, as in the right column of table 13.5. This išḫarrar took over the prefix vowel u from the (quadriradical) Š‑stem, and the new form ušḫarrar triggered a 49.  A deviating form sá-ḫu-ru-ri-im, probably an infinitive, is attested in Mari Old Akkadian in the omen amūt sá-ḫu-ru-ri-im ša ummānum i-is-ḫu-ur RA 35 p. 46 no. 16:1–4 ‘the/an omen of . . . (which means): the army has turned around(?)’ It may be the local dialect form of šuḫarruru, but there is obviously some kind of play on isḫur. Mari Old Akkadian has šaPRvS rather than šuPRvS in the triradical Š‑stem; see §13.2.1, p. 326. 50.  A parallel (at least typologically) can be found in the Arabic Stem IX (yaḥmarru [  jussive yaḥmarir ], iḥmarra), which we may assume to be originally derived from an adjectival pattern QaTvLL‑, even though this is obviously not true synchronically.

13.4.  The Quadriradical Verbs with the Prefixš‑

345

complete adaptation to the quadriradical Š‑stem, including the new base šuPaRRvR for the nonprefix forms. The OB Stat šu-ḫa-ru-ur RA 46, 88:2 shows that this process already started in Old Babylonian. A complication is that šaḫurru and šaqummu belong to a rare and literary adjectival pattern PaRuSS, which also includes rašubbu ‘awesome’, namurru ‘of awesome brightness’,51 daʾummu ‘dark’, and šalummu ‘of awesome radiance’, as observed by von Soden (1950b: 331). Their most common occurrence is in the feminine as abstract nouns (šaḫurratu, šaqummatu, namurratu, daʾummatu, rašubbatu, šalummatu), and it is even possible that the adjectives are backformations derived from these nouns. This seems to suggest that š‑ of šaḫurru and šaqummu is not a prefix but part of the root, at least at this stage of their development.52 It is therefore possible that the š of the verbs šuḫarruru and šuqammumu is not the š‑prefix that we also find in the Š‑stem. If it is, however, it seems attractive, though speculative, to assume the same formal background for šuḫarruru and šuqammumu as for the naparruru verbs (see §12.6, p. 320): a reduplicated CvC element verbalized by means of š‑: *yi-š-ḫar-ḫar replaced by išḫarrar and *yi‑š-qam-qam replaced by išqammam.53 The use of š‑ interchanging with n‑ in this kind of root has an exact parallel in Geʿez, which alongside the quinqueradical verbs with ʾan‑ of the ʾangargara type discussed in §12.6.1 (pp. 314–315) also has a few similar verbs with a prefix ʾas‑, e.g., ʾasqoqawa ‘to lament’ and ʾasqorara ‘to feel horror, loathe’ (Tropper 2002: 135). Similar forms occur in Tigre: ʾasqamqama ‘to groan’ and ʾasnaqnaqa ‘to be shaken’ (Raz 1983: 55). They are remarkably parallel to Akkadian, not only in their reduplicated structure but also in the fact that the sibilant does not have causative meaning because it does not contrast with n. The remaining verb šuqallulu is clearly fientive and thus has a different, more verbal background. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that no adjective or past participle **šaqullu seems to be attested. Moreover, it has a fine etymology—or even more than one:54 it can plausibly be 51.  Cf. also na-ma-ra-at Or. 66, 59:2 (OA) ‘she is radiant’ (said of Lamaštu), i.e., /namarrat/? 52.  This does not rule out the possibility that they ultimately consist of the prefix š plus a II/gem root, even though as members of the PaRuSS pattern they had synchronically become unanalyzable. Goetze (1945b: 248) suggests Ar ġarr ‘dull, inexperienced’ and qamm ‘dry, withered’ as etymologies for šaḫurru and šaqummu, respectively, but this is semantically doubtful. For šaqummu, no other plausible etymology has been proposed, to the best of my knowledge; for šaḫurru, Whiting (1981: 8–9) points to Bravmann’s (1977: 203–4) analysis of the Arabic verb saḫara or saḫḫara ‘to overthrow, subdue’ (with cognates in other Semitic languages) as a fossilized causative of ḫarra ‘to fall down, prostrate oneself’. Whiting accepts this etymology and points out that it was suggested earlier by C. Brockelmann. It may be correct, although it is semantically disputable. 53.  It is possible (but speculative) that this verbalizing š‑ is also present in the adjective šagapūru ‘mighty’ or the like, used as an epithet of gods in Old and Standard Babylonian, which may be derived from gapāru ‘to be(come) powerful’. 54.  The other option, at first sight even more alluring, is to connect šuqallulu with šaqālu ‘to hang’ (which secondarily also means ‘to weigh’ and ‘to pay’); see Goetze 1945b: 247 and Whiting 1981: 6, 16. It is even possible to assume that qallu, šuqallulu, and šaqālu are all related to each other, i.e., that šaqālu is a causative derivation of qallu: ‘to make light’ > ‘to hang’. This is precluded, however, by the fact that šaqālu has a perfect Arabic cognate θaqala (u) ‘to weigh’, showing that its š goes back to PSem *θ rather than to the causative prefix *š. Note, however, that two Sargonic Akkadian instances of this verb (from a period in which the reflexes of PSem *š and *θ are still different), namely, a-sa-ga-˹al ˺ /  ʾasaqqal/ SAB p. 174:21 (Eshnunna), and ˹i˺-sa-gal /yisaqqal/ UCP 9, 83: IV 13 according to A. Westenholz 1996: 120 n. 8, point to *š rather than *θ. Whether šuqallulu originally had *š or *θ cannot be established: in the former case, it contains the prefix š‑ in its denominal function; in the latter case, it must go back to a (non-attested) PaRuSS adjective *šaqullum, on a par with šaḫurru and šaqummu, which seems semantically unlikely. Thus, there

346

The Quadriradical Verbs with the Prefixš‑  13.4.

related to qallu ‘light (of weight)’, which as a II/gem root may be originally biradical. Analogous to the naparruru verbs, we may derive šuqallulu from the reduplication of ql verbalized by means of the prefix š‑: *yi‑š‑qal‑qal ‘he/it behaves as something light’, which became išqallal under the influence of the regular prefix forms of qalālu, such as iqallil (see §12.6, p. 320). However, this conclusion necessarily remains speculative as long as we do not know whether š in šuqallulu comes from PSem *š or *θ (see n. 54).

13.4.4.  Šukennu and šupellu The quadriradical verbs šukennu ‘to prostrate oneself’ and šupellu ‘to exchange’ (listed in the dictionaries as šukênu and šupêlu)55 have a weak penultimate radical (R3, if we regard š as R1). This has caused vowel contractions and hence a rather drastic rebuilding on the model of the II/H verbs with E-colouring, especially in Babylonian.56 Their Assyrian conjugation is more original but far more poorly attested. Table 13.7 shows the Assyrian conjugation of šukennu, largely based on reconstruction, including a few extant forms from Sargonic Akkadian and Eblaite, and its Babylonian counterpart; the identification of the weak radical as y anticipates the conclusions and should be taken as provisional.57 Assyrian and older

Babylonian

Impfv

uškayyan? MA uškân, Pl uškannū

uškên, Pl uškennū

Pfvt

uškayyin

uškên (uškîn?), Pl *uške/innū ?

t‑Pf

uštakayyin

uštekên

Imp

šukayyin

šukên, Pl šukennā

Stat/PPartc

*šukūn ??

Inf

šukayyunum

šukennu

PrPartc

muškayyinum

muškênu

Table 13.7: The paradigm of *šukayyunum/šukennu.

The forms of the left (Assyrian) column are based on the following attestations: • Impfv: 3ms uš-ka-an MVAeG 41/3, 8:31–32; 3mp uš-ka-nu MVAeG 41/3, 14:13 (MA; cf. 3ms uš-ka-an KAR 139:9, and 1s + Vent uš-ka-na KAR 73:31 in literary texts from this period) • Pfv: 3ms uš-ga-en /yuskayyin/ AKI p. 164:22 (SAk; cp RI of Sargon); 1s uš-kà-i-in BIN 4, 114:19; 1p nu-uš-kà-in ATHE 23:10; 2ms + Vent tù-uš-kà-i-nam TC 1, 87:49 (all OA); cf. also Eblaite 3du uš-ga-i-na ARET 13, 1: V 12 /uškayyinā/ are good reasons not to associate šaqālu with šuqallulu. Moreover, there is not even a remote parallel for this type of derivation in Akkadian, in spite of Whiting’s (1981: 18–20) attempts to find one. 55.  It is possible that we should actually write šukênnu and šupêllu; see chap. 16 n. 102 (p. 477). 56.  Earlier literature includes Heidel 1940: 37–45; GAG §109i/m; Speiser 1967: 487–92. Whether there is really a quadriradical verb šubeʾʾû or the like parallel to these two verbs, as posited, e.g., by von Soden (1951: 151–52 and AHw 1256b s.v.) must await further confirmation from additional attestations. Cf. also Groneberg (1981: 124), who prefers to derive the attested forms from bâʾu Š ‘to let pass’. 57.  In peripheral texts, this verb appears with an Impfv ušḫeḫḫan and a Pfv ušḫeḫḫi/en. Since these forms are clearly not correct Akkadian, I will not discuss them; see Heidel 1940: 45–46; GAG §109m; Tropper 1999b.

13.4.  The Quadriradical Verbs with the Prefixš‑

347

• t‑Pf: 1s ul-ta-ka-in KAJ 302:3 (MA) • Imp: Pl šu-kà-i-na kt 94/k 842:58 (OA, courtesy M. T. Larsen) • Inf: based on the uncontracted infinitives in Mari OB: šu-ke-ú-nim ARM 26/1, 134 no. 21:18′ and šu-ke-ú-un ARM 26/1, 134 no. 21:22′ (c. st.) according to J.-M. Durand, NABU 1990/24 (who also quotes šu-ke-ú-nu-um from unpublished A.3833: 6′); it goes back to šukayyun‑ with prevocalic a > e perhaps by analogy with the prefix conjugations • PrPartc: the form given is inspired by Eblaite mu-sa-ga-i-núm (= maš.en.gag) // [m]u-su⟨ga⟩-i-nu-um VE 1306′ (see Krebernik 1983: 43; Fronzaroli 2003: 16) These forms show that in Sargonic Akkadian and Assyrian the weak radical does not cause E‑colouring and is structurally a geminate; otherwise, vowel syncope would have operated in forms such as the imperative and the infinitive. This leaves us with ʾ, *h, or y (w can be ruled out on other grounds). For šukennu, the third-millennium spellings with ⟨  i  ⟩ rather than ⟨  ì  ⟩ in Ebla and ⟨en ⟩ in Sargonic Akkadian, which may stand for /yin/ (see §17.2, p. 514), strongly favour y. This tallies with Fronzaroli’s (1984: 146) equation with the Arabic root kyn ‘to humble oneself’ (Stem IV ʾakāna ‘to humble’, Stem X istakāna ‘to humble oneself’ [WKAS I pp. 516–18]).58 This does not account, however, for the imperfective forms, which are not attested earlier than Middle Assyrian. The form without ending is ambiguous, but the rest—uš-ka-nu, etc.—can hardly be interpreted otherwise than as /uškannū/, etc. In combination with the uncontracted perfective and t‑perfect forms, this shows that the conjugation is based on the regular Assyrian D paradigm of II/voc verbs: Impfv ukân(?), ukannū, Pfv ukayyin, t‑Pf uktayyin (see §16.5.3.3, pp. 482–484). This is supported by the fact that the same process occurred in Babylonian. Another noteworthy form is the Imp šukayyin with šu‑, although the triradical verbs have ša‑ in the forms without personal prefixes. We saw the same phenomenon in the Št Inf šu-ba-al-kutu[m] St. Larsen p. 398: r.34 quoted in §13.4.1 (p. 339), and it also occurs in Assyrian forms of šupellu to be quoted presently. As I suggested in §13.4.1, šu‑ may have replaced ša‑ by analogy with the non-prefix forms of the Št(n)‑stem(s), such as the Imp šutapris and the Stat šutaprus. Turning now to Babylonian, the following selection of attestations provides evidence for the details of the conjugation of šukennu in Babylonian: • Impfv: 3mp úš-ke-en-nu St. Birot p. 178:3′, 7′; 1p nu-uš-ke-en6 ARM 13, 29:22 (both OB); 3ms uš-ken CT 4, 5:7; 3mp uš-ken-nu-uš Ee V 85; uš-ken-nu TCS 5, 120:8 (all SB) • Pfv: 3ms úš-ke-e-en St. Birot p. 178:12′; úš-ke-en RA 42, 129:15; úš-ki-in ARM 14, 122:12 (all OB);59 3mp liš-ke-e-nu Legends p. 286:19′ (MB) • t‑Pf: 3ms uš-te-ke-ni JAOS 103, 53:47 • Imp: šu-ke-na-ši AfO 19, 54:216 (Pl, SB) • Stat/PPartc: not attested, but cf. šu-ku-ni-iš RIMA 2/I, 151:77 (SB) ‘humbly’? 60 58.  Tropper (1999b) suggests deriving šukennu from a root kʿn, a variant of a Central Semitic root knʿ ‘to bow, duck, wince’, with metathesis of the two final radicals, a phenomenon that is rather widespread in Akkadian. If this were correct, the verb would be a ŠD‑stem, but this is unlikely because it neither shows the very specific restrictions of the ŠD‑stem to a certain type of text nor its incomplete paradigm (see §13.3, pp. 334–336). Moreover, the ʿ of kʿn should have caused E‑colouring in the Assyrian forms (cf. the Impfv ureyyaq from √rḥq; see §17.7.3.2, p. 565). 59.  The form ú-uš-ki-in ARM 10, 84:10, 38 (OB), which is transitive (mātam šâti ú-uš-ki-in ‘il a soumis ce pays’, tr. G. Dossin), is apparently read ú-táq-qí-in by CAD; cf. CAD Š/3 218a s.v. šukênu comm. sect. Māta tuqqunu is a well known expression for ‘to bring order to the country’; see AHw 1323b s.v. taqānu D 2a. 60.  The correct form would rather be *šukenniš, as in the infinitive, but it may be modelled on the regular Š forms of II/voc verbs, which have u, such as šuṭubbu from ṭâbu ‘to be(come) good, pleasant’; see §16.5.3.4 (pp. 485–486) and Goetze 1945b: 249.

348

The Quadriradical Verbs with the Prefixš‑  13.4.

• Inf: šu-ke-nu-um St. Birot p. 178:4′ (OB); šu-ken-nu CT 18, 30: IV 25; šu-ken-ni BWL 38:14; šu-ken-na BWL 134:131 (all SB) (for Mari OB šu-ke-ú-un, see above) • PrPartc: muškênum passim, e.g., mu-uš-ke-e-nam AbB 1, 100:21 (OB); abstract noun (ana) mu-uš-ke-e-nu-ti-ia AbB 11, 82:17 (OB)61 The contracted forms presented so far, and especially the forms with gemination of the final radical, show that Babylonian, too, adapted the paradigm of these verbs to that of the D‑stem of the II/H verbs with E-colouring (see §17.7.4.2, pp. 571–572). Insofar as e and i are distinguishable, we usually find e-signs, although i-signs also occur (e.g., OB úš-ki-in). It is significant that the very common (substantivized) present participle muškênu is never spelled with -nn-: it has apparently developed directly from *muškayyinum and has escaped adaptation to the paradigm of the II/H verbs because of its frequency, unlike the regular II/H PrPartc mukinnu (see §16.5.3.3, pp. 484–485). The paradigm of šupellu seems to be identical to that of šukennu. The main problem of šupellu is its etymology and the existence of a deverbal noun or a set of nouns whose form is difficult to explain. Table 13.8 presents the Old Assyrian and Babylonian paradigm of šupellu itself and of its passive/reciprocal Št1‑stem. Assyrian Impfv

Babylonian Š

Babylonian Št1

ušpêl, Pl ušpellū

uštepêl, Pl -ellū uštepêl, Pl -e/illū ?

63

Pfv

ušpayyil

ušpêl, Pl ušpe/illū

t‑Pf

uštapayyil

uštepêl, Pl -e/illū ?

Imp

šupayyil

Stat Inf/PPartc Partc

*šupayyulu

šupellu mušpellu

Table 13.8: The paradigm of šupellu.

A selection of relevant Assyrian attestations is: • Pfv: 1p nu-uš-pá-il5 TC 1, 84:17; 3mp uš-pá-i-lu KTH 35:12 • t‑Pf: 3mp uš/ul-ta-pa/pá-i-lu JEN 251:4; 282:4; 225:4 (Nuzi, representing Middle Assyrian) • Imp: šu-pá-i-li (Fem) Ka. 876:22 quoted CAD Š/3 322a s.v. 1b • PPartc: *šupayyulu is inferred from the deverbal noun šu-pa-ul-ti KAJ 175:6 (MA) For šu‑ rather than ša‑ in the forms without personal prefixes, see the remark above concerning the Imp šukayyin. A selection of relevant Babylonian attestations is:63 61.  Perhaps the PrPartc of the royal epithet muš-ta-aš-kin kibrāt arbaʾi V R 33: I 40 (MB RI of AgumKakrime) ‘who causes the four quarters to submit’ is meant to be a Št(n?) form of this verb (so CAD Š/3 218a s.v. 3, against von Soden 1950b: 332). 62.  Or perhaps ušpêllū; see n. 55 above (p. 346). 63.  I have not included the Old Babylonian Imp Sg Masc šu-up-pi-il AbB 4, 68:19 instead of expected *šupêl; cf. F. R. Kraus’s n. 68b on p. 47. If it is correct, it suggests that šupellu could be reinterpreted as a D‑stem šuppulu.

13.4.  The Quadriradical Verbs with the Prefixš‑

349

• Š Impfv: 3mp uš-pe-el-lu4 MDP 2, 109:32; 2fs tu-uš-pe-el-li IV R 56: II 3+D; 3mp uš-peel-lu MDP 10, 91:30; 3ms Subj uš-pe-e-lu VAB 7, 184: r.10 (all SB) • Š Pfv: 3ms uš-pé-el TIM 5, 39:4; 3mp uš-pé-lu-ú VAB 5, 276:9; uš-pé-ḪI-lu TIM 4, 39:6 (all OB); uš-pe-el-lu VAB 4, 274: III 20 (SB) • Š t‑Pf: 3ms uš-te-pi-i[l ] LE A II §20:11 acc. to CAD Š/3 321f s.v. 1b; uš-te-pe-el KH r.XXVI 8, 30; 3mp uš-ta-pé-lu VAB 5, 112: edge 2 (all OB); 3ms uš-te-pe-li MVAG 13, 211:19; 3mp uš-te-pel-lu RA 65, 126: II 10; [u]š-ta-pi-lu Maqlû III 58 (all SB) • Š Inf: šu-[  p]é-e-el-lum MSL 13, 120:208; šu-pé-lam KH r.XXVI 75; šu-pe-li-im UET 5, 486:2 (all OB); šu-pel-li TCS 5, 148:46 (SB) • Š PrPartc: muš-pe-el (c.st.) UFBG p. 519:8′ (SB); muš-pe-lu-ú Tn-Ep. IIIa 33 (MB lit.). • Št1 Impfv: 3ms Subj uš-te-pe-el-lu RIME 4, 385:16 (OB); 3ms Subj uš-te-pe-el-lu OEC 6, 28:6; 2fs tu-uš-te-pe/pel-li AGH 60:14; 3ms (sic!) uš-ta-pe-el-lu Or. 36, 118:61 (all SB) • Št1 Pfv: 3mp uš-te-pé-lu-ú YOS 14, 155:17; uš-ta-pé-lu Dilbat 25:16; uš-t [e]-pé-i-lu FLP 1384: 3 quoted in CAD Š/3 321a s.v. 1a–1′ (all OB); 3ms uš-te-pe-li SBH p. 60 64 no. 31:r.19 (SB) The fairly numerous spellings with gemination of the final radical show that šupellu, too, has adopted the paradigm of the II/H verbs with E‑colouring. However, this process is not yet completed in Old Babylonian, as is shown by several of the verb forms mentioned above (especially uš-pé-ḪI-lu, i.e., /ušpeʾʾilū/), and instances of an uncontracted deverbal noun: the noun listed as šupêltu ‘exchange, trading’ in CAD Š/3 319a s.v. occurs in Old Babylonian in uncontracted forms such as šu-pé-ú-ul-tum AND 118:1 and šu-pé-ul-tim UCP 10, 145 no. 75:9 alongside contracted šu-pe-e-el-tum MSL 13, 123:313 and šu-pé-el-ti TEBA 19:11.65 The same word also occurs in Middle Assyrian (šu-pa-ul-ti KAJ 175:6) and frequently in Nuzi (šu-pé-ú-ul-ti JEN 662:69, 71, alongside šu-pé-el-ti JEN 247:1). Surprisingly, it turns up in Neo-Assyrian as šapûssu or the like (e.g., šá-pu(-u)-su SAA 14, 39:4, 10), apparently < *šapuHHultum, which is reminiscent of Sargonic Akkadian sa/ša-bu-ul-ti MAD 3, 280 s.v. špl? (Tell Asmar) and Susa Old Babylonian ša-pu-ul-ta-am (MDP 24, 366:13, 367:6).66 A possible explanation for the uncontracted forms of both verbs is that the weak radical— whatever its nature—was geminated, since there are various indications that geminated weak consonants blocked vowel contraction for a longer period than simple consonants; cf. the strong forms of the Gtn‑stem and the D‑stem of the II/voc verbs (see §16.5.3.2–3, pp. 480–485) and of the II/H verbs (see §17.7.4, pp. 566–572). In Table 13.9, I have opted for y as the original weak radical of šupellu. This is exempli gratia and purely based on the parallel with šukennu; I am not aware of any etymological support for a

64.  Neo-Babylonian also has forms based on a triradical Š‑stem šupʾulu, e.g., Pfv ú-šap-ʾi-lu BR 8/1, 40:3 and Imp šup-ʾi-il NBNippur 117: r.II 12′, see Cole 1996: 243; it must be a secondary derivation of šupellu. The lexical text V R 45 includes a form tu-šá-pa-a-la V R 45: VI 52, which is similar to the Š forms of the nabalkutu verbs with a inserted between the prefix and the first radical (see §13.4.1, p. 339): /tušapaʾʾala/. 65.  Standard Babylonian seems to have only šupêltu, Neo- and Late Babylonian mostly šupêltu, more rarely šupûltu; see AHw 1279 s.v. 5. 66.  It is possible that these forms should instead be derived from wabālu Š (normally šūbultum), but Whiting’s argument (1987: 117) that they cannot come from šupellu ignores the possibility that the spellings from the older dialects may also represent /šapuʾʾultum/ without contraction. Note also that the alternation of the stems šupaʾʾul‑ and šapuʾʾul recurs in šuḫarrur‑ versus šaḫurrur (in sá-ḫu-ru-ri-im RA 35 p. 46 no. 16:2 (Mari OAk), quoted in n. 49 above (p. 344).

350

The Š‑stem in Other Semitic Languages   13.5.

root √pyl nor of any other satisfactory etymology for šupellu itself.67 Perhaps we can be a little more positive about the rather unusual form of šukennu and šupellu: in the light of the verbalizing use of š‑ in its function of “conjugational prefix,” it seems plausible to assume that they are denominal verbs derived from nouns with gemination of R2 (which are usually deverbal themselves), i.e., with a pattern such as C1vC2C2v/vC3. ̄

13.5. The Š‑stem in Other Semitic Languages Causative formations with a sibilant causative marker (PSem *š or, rather, *s1) parallel to the Akkadian Š‑stem occur in Ugaritic, the Epigraphic South Arabian languages except Sabaic, and sporadically in Old Aramaic.68 (I am omitting the Št‑stem for reasons that will become clear later on). All other West Semitic languages have a causative with a guttural marker: Stem IV in Arabic, Hiphil in Hebrew, Stem II/1 in Geʿez, and Haphel/Aphel in Aramaic, etc.69 For the sake of convenience, I will call the sibilant marker the S‑prefix and the guttural marker the H‑prefix. When the prefixes are used with a causative function, I will speak of an S‑causative and an H‑causative, but it is important to distinguish the prefix as such from the causative function, since not all verbs with these prefixes are causatives. On the basis of the correspondence between Akkadian and Ugaritic, we may assume the existence of a Proto-Semitic verbal stem with the prefix š‑ *yVšaqtil‑ that has causative and denominal function.70 However, these languages do not agree on the vowel of the personal prefix: Akkadian has u, but Ugaritic shows first-person singular forms with ʾa, such as ʾašʿrb KTU 1.14: IV 42 ‘I cause to enter’ (Tropper 2000: 587). Since this also seems to apply to the D‑stem (2000: 545–46), where Proto-Semitic undoubtedly employs u according to the joint testimony of Akkadian and Arabic, we might conclude that Ugaritic either introduced the G‑stem prefixes in the D‑stem and the Š‑stem or that an original u had been shortened to ə, as in later stages of Canaanite. The latter solution is adopted by Tropper (2000: 545–46, 587–88). However, the same difference is found between Akk uštap(ar)ras and Arabic yastaf    ʿilu in the Št‑stem (where the corresponding vowel in Ugaritic is unknown (Tropper 2000: 606). Although 67.  Speiser (1967: 489) connects this verb with the Hebrew root √pʿl ‘to do’ and in particular with poʿal ‘deed, wage’ and p  e  ʿullā ‘work, wage’, from which he posits an Akkadian noun puʿultum or puʿullatum ‘return for services’. However, the Akkadian verb forms presuppose a form with a geminated R2 (see below). Tropper (1999b: 93–94) suggests a connection with the Central Semitic root √ḥlp (He/Aram) or ḫlp (Ar) ‘to (ex)change’, invoking a rather complex metathesis involving the guttural. This is possible but by no means compelling. According to Falkenstein (1960: 310), šupellu is a loan from Sum šu.bal. This is unlikely in view of the original guttural consonant or sonant that must have been present in šupellu between p and l. 68.  For general surveys, see Bravmann 1977: 200–205; Retsö 1989: 52–94; Tropper 1990: 8–17; Lipiński 1997: 387–92; Kienast 2001: 208–15. For Ugaritic, see Sivan 1997: 138–40; Tropper 2000: 585– 604; for Epigraphic South Arabian, Beeston 1962: 19; for Aramaic, Segert 1990: 258–59; Aramaic also has a few causatives with š, but these seem to be either loans from Akkadian or a lexicalized residue of the original causative form (cf. Kaufman 1974: 123–24 and Creason 2004: 411). The earliest representative of West Semitic, Amorite, does not show an S‑causative (nor an H‑causative, for that matter: its original presence is generally assumed on the basis of the idea that the yaqtil form is a contraction of a form with h or ʾ (Knudsen 1991: 880–81; Streck 2000: 336–37). Retsö (1989: 86–90) argues that this form is actually a basic form pressed into causative use through opposition to other vowel patterns. 69.  Actually, there is also a fourth marker, y in Phoenician, which I will leave out of account as arguably secondary; see Tropper 1990: 9. 70.  I do not share Retsö’s (1989: 86–90) doubts about the existence of the S‑causative in Proto-Semitic (he claims that there are “only scattered lexemes of sibilant augmented denominal verbs” [1989: 88]). The denominal function is especially represented by the Št2‑stem; see §14.6.2.3 (pp. 412–414).

13.6.  The Historical Background of the Sibilant Prefi 

351

further speculation on the background of these conflicting forms may be fruitless, it might be argued that the person prefixes with u originated in the D‑stem and are secondary in the Akkadian Š‑stem, caused by the pressure that the D‑stem exerted on the form of the Š‑stem (see §4.5.2, pp. 114–115, and §13.2.1, pp. 324–327).71 This would lead to PSem *yišaqtil‑ and *yištaqtil‑. It is possible that the residual Akkadian forms of the išqallal type (see §13.4.3, pp. 341–343) support this, but they are obviously not causatives and may have evolved differently. For the time being, I will leave the matter open and write the Proto-Semitic Š‑stem as *yVšaqtil‑.72 The languages that regularly employ the H‑causative do not entirely lack traces of the S‑prefix and even of the S‑causative. The S‑prefix with a non-causative function occurs in a large number of expressive descriptive nouns in various West Semitic languages, such as Ar sarhab ‘glutton’, sabādiḥ ‘exhausted from hunger’, and Hebrew nouns such as šalhebet ‘flame’, sanwẹrīm ‘bright light’, and šqaʿ  arūrōt ‘depths’ (Retsö 1989: 84).73 It also occurs in a few quadriradical verbs in Ethiopic, mentioned in §13.4.3 above (Geʿez ʾasqoqawa, etc., p. 345), parallel to the far more common use of the prefix n‑. The S‑causative occurs in a number of verbs starting with a sibilant that can be analyzed as a fossilized remnant of a former S‑prefix. Brockelmann (1908: 522) mentions cases such as Ar sabaqa ‘to leave behind’ (cf. baqiya ‘to stay’), sakana ‘to live’ (also He šākẹ̄n, originally transitive: ‘to fix (an abode)’ with ellipse of the direct object) (cf. kāna ‘to be fixed’), saṭaḥa ‘to spread out’ (cf. ṭaḥā ‘to be spread’), and sadala ‘to let (the hair) hang down’ (cf. dāla ‘to hang’).74 These verbs suggest that the S‑causative once existed also in West Semitic. Thus they support the reconstruction of a Proto-Semitic causative *yVšaqtil‑ and show that the H‑prefix and the H‑causative are a West Semitic innovation. The rise of the H‑prefix and the H‑causative will be briefly touched upon in §14.6.2.3 (pp. 412–414).

13.6. The Historical Background of the Sibilant Prefix Manifestations of the S‑prefix are attested with broadly the same functions as in Semitic throughout the entire Afroasiatic area.75 Egyptian has a prefix s‑ that is causative and denominal in a specific set of verbs, e.g., spʾ ‘to let fly’ from pʾ ‘to fly’ and sḥtp ‘to satisfy’ from ḥtp ‘to be satisfied’ (see Edel 1955/64: 194–97). It is a fossilized marker rather than a productive derived verbal stem (Loprieno 1986: 142; 1995: 54). The Berber languages show particularly close commonalities with Semitic in their causative formation: they also use a sibilant prefix as causative and denominal. For the causative, Rössler (1951: 106) and Kienast (2001: 563–66) compare the Tuareg Impfv isafras, Pret isəfrəs, and Imp səfrəs directly with Akk ušapras, ušapris, and (Ass) šaprus (for the Tuareg forms, see also Prasse 1972/74: III 87 and Heath 2005: 447). A denominal instance is sġyul ‘to behave like a donkey’ from aġyul ‘donkey’ (Chaker 1995: 73 71.  Kienast (1957a, 2001: 213) proposes the opposite development, but the argument is based on his views on the origin of the causative prefix, which in my view are untenable; see the next section. 72.  One could adduce H‑causatives as evidence for this problem, such as Ar yuqtilu, Syriac naqtel, and Geʿez yāngər (Subj), but apart from the fact that these appear to show the same fluctuation between u and a, it is doubtful that they can be traced back directly to S‑causatives through some sound change from sibilant to guttural; see the next section. 73.  All these nouns ultimately come from Nyberg (1920: 191–215). For remains of the S‑prefix in Hebrew, see also Soggin 1965 and Wächter 1971. Neither of them manages to find a particularly convincing set of instances. 74.  A few other instances are mentioned by Wright (1967: I 46); see also Bravmann 1977: 202–3. 75.  For general discussions of the sibilant causative marker in Afroasiatic, see Hodge, ed. 1971; Retsö 1989: 80–86; Lipiński 1997: 387.

352

The Historical Background of the Sibilant Prefi   13.6.

n. 4; Lipiński 1997: 388). Similar formations occur in Cushitic: Welmers (1952: 243) and Sasse (1981: 209) mention Saho yi-s-gidil-e ‘he caused to break’ alongside yi-g-gidil-e < *yi-t-gidile ‘it broke’ (intr.) and yi-n-gidif-e ‘he was killed’, which neatly correspond to the Š‑stem, the Gt‑stem, and the N‑stem of Semitic, respectively (see also §12.6.2, pp. 321–323). The prefixing verbs of Beja also have a causative S‑prefix (Gragg apud Kienast 2001: 613–14). The suffixing verbs of Cushitic generally have a causative suffix with a sibilant. Thus, the S‑prefix can be reconstructed to the Afroasiatic proto-language. Because of its great antiquity, any account of its etymological background will contain a high degree of speculation. An important clue, however, is the close parallel with the n‑ prefix discussed in the previous chapter, which started as a light verb, became a verbalizing prefix, a secondary radical in I/n verbs, and finally a grammatical marker to indicate detransitivization. The S‑prefix is also used as a verbalizing prefix in quadriradical verbs (in Akkadian—see §13.4.3, pp. 345–346, and §13.4.4, p. 350; and in Geʿez), as a secondary radical in a few verbs starting with š, especially šakānu ‘to put, place’, šaḫālu ‘to sift, filter’, and šaḫātu ‘to fear’ (see §2.3.3, p. 42), and finally as a grammatical marker. Consequently, if n‑ harks back to an ancient light verb, it is plausible that the same applies to the S‑prefix. This is an old idea that was already at the beginning of the previous century put forward by well-known scholars, such as Haupt (1907: 114), Bauer and Leander (1922: 283–84), and Vycichl (1934: 105). However, it was rejected by leading Semitists such as Brockelmann (1908: 520–21 n. 1) and Nyberg (1920: 261–62), and was completely eclipsed by Speiser’s theory of a pronominal origin.76 On the basis of the fact that the Semitic languages generally use the same phoneme for the causative and for the third-person independent subject pronouns, Speiser (1967: 404–16, originally published in 1936) argues that the S‑prefix comes from the pronoun (which he reconstructs as PSem hūʾa/šīʾa [1967: 411]) and is a reflex of the causee (the “secondary agent” in his terminology) in a causative clause. He analyses a form such as Akk ušabni ‘he caused to build’ as ‘A ordered or induced B to build’, in which B was expressed by means of the third-person pronoun in its function of giving emphasis (1967: 414). This pronoun developed into a prefix, gradually replacing the corresponding pronouns of all other persons. Some languages chose the masculine pronoun with h-, others the feminine pronoun with š- in this process. For non-causative Š‑stems—which often belong to stative verbs—Speiser assumes that the prefix is a reflex of the pronoun used as a copula, a construction occurring in nominal clauses in various Semitic languages (1967: 413–15).77 This bold attempt to account all at once, not just for the causative form and function of the causative markers in Semitic but also for the distribution of the S‑prefix and the H‑prefix, is unconvincing in the end. The identity of the initial consonant of prefix and pronoun is by no means a general feature (cf. the table in Voigt 1987e: 60). It only applies to š in Akkadian, h in Hebrew 76.  Another important source of causative morphemes is pointed out by J. J. Song (1996: 73–80): he demonstrates that in a large number of languages there is a relationship between purposive and directional markers on the one hand and causative morphemes on the other, and he offers plausible arguments, both formal and functional, for a grammaticalization process from purposive to causative. In this case, too, there is a relationship between the original function of the formative and the developing causative function but less direct than in the case of a verb ‘to do, make’, or the like. In this light, it is interesting to note the directional element -š/-h that occurs in various Semitic languages, in Akkadian mainly as the terminative case after nouns and as a dative marker after pronouns (‑šum ‘for/to him’, etc.). This is worth considering and far more likely than Speiser’s pronoun-theory, but in the end a verbal origin of the S‑prefix seems the most likely. 77.  Speiser’s proposal is accepted, for instance, by Kienast (1957a; 2001: 212–14), Gelb (1969: 174– 75; Woodington (1982: 82); and Loprieno (1986: 142–44); it is rejected by Rundgren (1963a: 101–2), Retsö (1989: 81–82), and Voigt (1987e: 59–60). Retsö has a fairly recent and thorough discussion.

13.6.  The Historical Background of the Sibilant Prefi 

353

and Sabaic, and s1 in Minaic. Even if we assume that different realizations of the H‑prefix, as in Arabic—which has ʾ in the causative versus h in the pronouns—can easily be explained as secondary,78 we are still left with Ugaritic, which has š in the causative but h in the pronouns. From a functional point of view, we can object that in causatives of transitive verbs the causee is usually left unexpressed, so that the grammaticalization process from pronoun to prefix assumed by Speiser will get little or no chance to start. Moreover, Speiser leaves the denominal function unexplained: his explanation of intransitive Š‑stems (for which he derives the prefix from the pronoun in its function of copula [1967: 413]) is untenable, since the Š‑stems in question have a different meaning from the alleged nominal clauses from which Speiser derives them: they are usually fientive, which non-verbal sentences can never be. His example is He heʾ  edīm ‘(it) has turned red’. However, this form is not identical in meaning to the corresponding nominal clause with the pronoun between subject and predicate, since the latter can only mean ‘is red’. It is also unlikely that so uniform a category as the Š‑stem should arise from two separate grammaticalization processes. In fact, the earlier idea that the causative marker comes from a light verb is functionally far more likely. Analytical causatives tend to be expressed by semantically suitable verbs whose meaning is something like ‘to cause’, ‘to make’, ‘to order’, ‘to say’, or, for permissive causatives, ‘to allow’, etc. The source of morphological causatives—i.e., those that are expressed by bound morphemes on the verb—is often unknown, but it is plausible that a major source will be the grammaticalization of this kind of verb. There are some recent proposals that the S‑prefix indeed goes back to such a verb. Hetzron (1976b: 377) connects it with a verb ‘to make’ in the Agaw languages of the Cushitic (sub‑)family: Awngi has a causative suffix -c (/ts/ and a verb céw ‘to make’, Xamir-Agaw has -s and sab-, Kemant-Agaw has -š and šäb.79 He also points to similar commonalities in Turkish (causative maker ‑T and the verb et- ‘to do, make’ and Japanese (s)ase and s(u)- ‘to do’. Zaborski (1999b) reviews the proposals made in the past concerning the identity of the verb that is the source of the S‑prefix; they all turn out to be extremely tentative, and none of them is really convincing. However, the plausibility of this theory is not dependent on the existence of a concrete verb to which we can trace back the prefix. The S‑prefix has such a long history that it is not very likely that the verb in question still exists, the more so since it may well have been a rather short verb with one or more weak radicals. It was doubtless conjugated by means of personal prefixes and was used with nouns as direct object with sufficient frequency to develop into a light verb and subsequently a prefix serving to verbalize the following noun. This is the direct source of the verbalizing and denominal use of the S‑prefix. The development of the causative function must have been triggered either by its combination with a deverbal forms (a noun or an adjective) or by its use as an auxiliary verb beside a finite main verb. This kind of development would explain the remarkable parallel in the use of š- and n-, especially in the quadriradical verbs, as shown by Geʿez and Akkadian, and their opposite meaning if they occur both in the same verb, such as nabalkutu versus šubalkutu. Whereas the intransitive N forms may go back to a verb meaning ‘to be(come)’, ‘to do’, ‘to say’, the transitive Š forms may owe their contrasting function to a verb meaning ‘to make’, ‘to cause’, to put down’, etc.80 78.  However, the possibility that ʾ can be a weakening of h, as is sometimes suggested, is rejected by Fleisch (1979: 66 n. 1). 79.  This is echoed by Lipiński 2001: 395–96. 80.  The “active” meaning of the š‑ prefix is also apparent in the Št2‑stem, which—as I will argue in §14.6.2.2 (pp. 404–411)—is a denominal derivation of taPRvS(t) nouns and typically means ‘to perform the

354

The Historical Background of the Sibilant Prefi   13.6.

For similar instances of transitive/intransitive pairs of light verbs, see also Zaborski 1999b: 48; Appleyard 2001: 8; D. Cohen et al. 2002: 228–32).81 In the triradical verb, there is an important difference between Š and N: Š has a single base for prefixes and suffixes (šaPRvS), whereas N has two different bases, -nPaRvS for prefixes and naPRvS for suffixes (see §12.2.1, pp. 288–289). The cause of this difference is a matter of speculation, but it may go back to a difference in form between the two original light verbs or to the influence the D‑stem has exerted on the paradigm of the Š‑stem because of the close association between them, or even to a chronological difference: no doubt, the incorporation of the S‑prefix into the system of verbal stems was earlier than that of n.82 The West Semitic languages that do not have the S‑prefix make use of the H‑prefix instead, which appears in the forms h and ʾ. The relationship between S and H is a controversial issue in comparative Semitics, but since it has no bearing on the history of Akkadian, I will not discuss it. In §14.6.2.3 (pp. 412–414), however, I will briefly return to the subject in the context of the Št‑stem(s). action or activity which the taPRvS noun indicates’, e.g., šutēmuqu ‘to perform a tēmī/ēqu’ (i.e., ‘prayer’), hence ‘to pray, supplicate’. 81.  Hetzron (1976b: 377) points to the situation in Turkish, which has a causative marker -t related to the verb et- ‘to do, make’, whereas the passive marker ‑Il shows striking similarity to the verb ol- ‘to be’. 82.  On the formal relationship between the prefixes š and n, see also Garr 1993: 148–49 and my comments in chap. 12 n. 123 (p. 321) on Garr’s explanation of na‑.

Chapter 14

The t-Infix and Its Ramifications

14.1. Introduction This chapter investigates the functions and the historical development of the t-infix. The extent and complexity of its history mirrors the complexity and versatility of the infix itself. In Akkadian, it has three major grammatical functions: it expresses perfect tense, it is a detransitive voice marker (in the secondary stems), and it is a marker of verbal plurality (in the tertiary stems). In addition, it has a number of uses that are as yet poorly understood, e.g., in the Št2‑stem. At first sight, these functions seem to have little in common, but there are good reasons to assume that they are manifestations of the same marker. First, from a formal point of view there is only one t-infix: it makes no difference whether a form is a t‑perfect or a secondary or a tertiary stem. This is the reason why so many forms with infixed t are ambiguous and can only be interpreted on the basis of the context. Second, the phonological consequences of the infixation of t—i.e., the assimilations and the metatheses described in §14.2.2 (pp. 359–360)—are exactly the same for all forms. If the t‑infix came from different sources, we would expect to find at least some traces of this in the form of a slightly different behaviour. Third, infixes do not emerge easily: they are usually the outcome of a long grammaticalization process. Since two of the three functions of the t‑infix are not found in Proto-Semitic and therefore represent Akkadian innovations,1 it is hard to see how they could have emerged in the intermediate period: it is far more plausible that they represent new uses of an old marker. On the basis of factual evidence from Akkadian, comparative evidence from Semitic, and typological evidence, I will therefore argue that all categories with a t‑infix have the same marker t, which has diversified and renewed itself several times. The prime mover of these developments is the basic stem with infixed t, the Gt‑stem. There are various indications that already in ProtoSemitic the Gt‑stem had lost a large part of its specific function of expressing detransitivity to other categories and was being marginalized or completely replaced, not only by other derived stems, such as the N‑stem and a derived stem with a prefix t, but also by lexical categories. This process is in full swing in Akkadian and is partly observable from the texts themselves and partly reconstructible from typological parallels. The decline of the Gt‑stem had far-reaching effects. First of all, verbs in the Gt‑stem came to be used in ways that are not obviously related to its original detransitive function, in various lexicalized meanings, and especially as literary variants of the corresponding G‑stem. Second, specific members of its paradigm were put to use for other functions, which caused the infix to be reinterpreted as a carrier of these new functions; in this way, it came to be a marker of the perfect and of verbal plurality. Third, this decline also resulted in the rise of the Št2‑stem in an indirect way, via the deverbal action nouns with the pattern taPRvS(t), from which the Št2‑stem is derived. 1.  I.e., the t‑perfect (see §6.4, pp. 155–160) and the pluractional function in the tan‑stems (see §14.7, pp. 415–437).

355

Formal Aspects of the t‑Infi  14.2.

356

An investigation into the corresponding verbal stem in other Semitic languages shows that this process of decline had already started in the proto-language, although in these languages it did not lead to extensive renewal on a scale that is comparable to Akkadian. The development of the t‑infix from a perfect marker to a general past-tense marker in affirmative main clauses after the Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian period (see §6.3.4, pp. 153–155) entailed a major increase in frequency, with the consequence that its older detransitive function was either discarded or formally renewed. Thus, the productivity of the t‑infix as a tense marker was a catalyst that accelerated the decline of the secondary stems, especially the Gt‑stem itself. However, the Dt‑stem and the Št1‑stem also became more and more infrequent, and in NeoAssyrian they were replaced by new verbal stems with a double t‑infix. The structure of this chapter roughly follows the various stages in the development of the t‑infix. The various aspects of the Gt‑stem are discussed first: its form (§14.2), its function (§14.3), and its historical development (§14.4). This sets the scene for the other categories: the secondary stems (§14.5), the pattern taPRvS(t) and its offshoot the Št2‑stem (§14.6), and finally the tertiary (TAN‑)stems (§14.7).

14.2.  Formal Aspects of the t‑Infix 14.2.1.  The form of the Gt‑stem in historical Akkadian Table 14.1 gives the eight inflectional members of the Gt paradigm for the different vowel classes of the strong verb (cf. also GAG Verbalpar. 13) and the verb atwûm ‘to speak’.2 A-verbs

I-verbs

U-verbs

atwûm (OB)

Impfv

iptarras

imtallik

īterrub

ītawwū

Pfv

iptaras

imtalik

īterub

ītawū

t‑Pf

iptatras

imtatlik

*ītetrub

*ītatwū

Imp

pitras

mitlik

qitrub

atwū

Stat

pitrus

*mitluk

qitrub

atwū

Inf/PPartc

pitrusu OA pitarsum

mitluku qitrubu OA *mitalkum

atwûm OA atawwum

PrPartc

muptarsu

mumtalku

mūtawûm

3

*mūterbu

Table 14.1: The paradigm of the Gt‑stem of the strong verb.

The basic marker of the Gt‑stem is an infixed t after R1. Accordingly, it has a prefix base ‑PtaRvS for the three prefixed tenses and the present participle and a suffix base PitaRvS for the remaining forms. I will come back to this form below. The vowel pattern of the Gt‑stem is complex. The prefix conjugations and the imperative adopt the imperfective vowel of the G‑stem,4 but the remaining forms have the fixed vowel of the derived stems: u in the stative, the infinitive, and the past participle, and i in the present participle 2.  Further literature on the Gt‑stem includes GAG §92; Gelb 1955b: 110; Diem 1982: 73–79; Streck 1994: 178 n. 95; 2003a; and Kouwenberg 2005. 3.  The I/i verb malāku does not have a stative, but cf. kitmus from kamāsu I/i ‘to kneel, squat’, ʾitpur from ʾapāru I/i ‘to put on the head’, etc. 4.  This is presumably an Akkadian innovation; see §6.2 (pp. 138–139).

14.2.  Formal Aspects of the t‑Infi

357

(which is usually syncopated).5 Gt forms of U‑verbs are rare; the table combines erēbu Gt ‘to enter’ and qerēbu Gt ‘to come near’, neither of which is an original U/u verb (see §3.5.3, pp. 75–76), and both are mainly attested in literary texts.6 A more-or-less complete paradigm is attested of the doubly-weak verb atwû (OA atawwum) ‘to speak’, which I have therefore also included.7 The Gt Impfv iptarrVs is identical in form to the Gtn perfective, an important fact that will be discussed in §14.7.6 (pp. 431–437). The Gt perfective is identical in form to the t‑perfect of the G‑stem. They can only be distinguished on semantic and syntactic grounds; this is usually unproblematic (see chap. 6 n. 1, p. 138). The t‑Pf iptatrVs is very rare.8 It is not found in Old Assyrian, and the only Old Babylonian instances I know of are it-ta-ti-il KH §130:62 (and elsewhere) from the fossilized Gt‑stem itūlu ‘to lie down’ and aš-ta-ta-al AbB 11, 118:14′ from šâlu Gt ‘to consider, deliberate’ (von Soden 1950a: 388).9 In Old Babylonian, forms with a double t-infix were avoided either by using the perfective instead of the t‑perfect (see §6.3.1, p. 143) or by replacing the t‑perfect of the Gt‑stem by that of the N‑stem (see §12.2.2.1, p. 295). Forms with a double t-infix are more common in the derived stems, where there was no alternative in the form of an N‑stem (see §14.5.1, p. 384, for Dt forms; §14.5.2, p. 386, for Št1 forms; and §14.6.2.1, pp. 403–404, for Št2 forms. From Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian onward, we do find Gt forms with a double tinfix, but they remain very rare. This is due to the fact that by this period the Gt‑stem had become obsolete outside Standard Babylonian, apart from a few lexical remnants, such as alāku Gt ‘to start going’. Accordingly, this is almost the only verb that occurs more than incidentally with a double t‑infix (ittatlak) in the later dialects.10 In Neo-Assyrian, a new paradigm emerged with a 5.  There are a few cases of fluctuation between the A- and the I-verbs. It usually concerns forms with i where we expect a: for Old Babylonian, cf. i-ta-li-ik VAB 5, 162:8 ‘he will leave’ and i-tá-li-ik MDP 28, 405:16–17 ‘he will go’ (Susa) instead of ittalak. In Standard Babylonian, we find perfectives such as am-daḫi-iṣ Sn. 31:2 and elsewhere ‘I fought’, im-ta-ḫir Gilg. p. 706:59 ‘it corresponded’, and (ay) il-ta-pit Gilg. p. 688:175 ‘let it (your hand) not touch(?)’, and the imperfectives al-tab-biš Gilg. p. 656:91 ‘I will put on’ and tal-tap-pit Gilg. p. 600:239 ‘you rub yourself’ (? c. br.). Perhaps they result from the expansion of the I/i vowel class (cf. GAG §92b and Kienast 1967: 81). Some of them may simply be orthographic variants (⟨pitx  ⟩ for ⟨ pat⟩) or mistakes (taltappitu for tultappitu?, as suggested in AHw 536a s.v. Gtn 1). A similar phenomenon occurs in the N‑stem; see §12.2.1 (p. 290). Landsberger (1968: 110 n. 42) suggests a secondary differentiation between t‑perfects of the G‑stem with a and reciprocal and reflexive Gt forms with i. The reverse development is represented by the imperatives pit-qád Ash. p. 83 §53:26 (SB) acc. to AHw 826a s.v. paqādu Gt 1 ‘be attentive!’ from the I/i verb paqādu (GAG 3 §92a*) and mi-it-la-ka CT 22, 121:13 (NB) ‘take counsel!’ (Pl) from the I/i verb malāku. 6.  Attestations of erēbu Gt include Impfv i-te-er-ru-ub YOS 10, 25:68; Imp et!-ru-ub Bab. 12, 38:10, et-ru-ba-am Iraq 25, 184:36, and Fem et-ru-bi ZA 32, 174:45 (all OB). For qerēbu Gt, cf. Stat qì-it-ru-ba Gilg. p. 242:2 (OB); Imp qí-it-ru-ub KAR 170:10 (SB); Inf qitrubu passim in SB. 7.  For references for atwûm (SB atmû), see the dictionaries; note in particular the Stat (ša) at-mu-ú KAR 45:24 ‘who spoke’, and the Imp at-ma-a RA 11, 113:35 ‘speak!’ (both SB). Remarkable is the Imp a-ta-ma-a Ee VI 22 /atammâ/, which seems to represent the original PitaRSā pattern, which is preserved in Old Assyrian (e.g., a-ta-wa TC 3, 28:17, i.e., /atawwā/). It is also possible, however, that it is a secondary form modelled on the Gtn‑stem. For the present participle, cf. mu-ta-wu-ú MSL 12, 162:164, c. st. mūtawi in mu-ta-wi šaniātim MSL 12, 161:118. For the conjugation of atawwum in Old Assyrian, see Kouwenberg 2008. 8.  See also Streck 1995a: 222–33 for a discussion of “double t forms” of all secondary and tertiary stems. 9.  It seems unlikely that aš-ta-ta-al is a Gtn perfect, but it cannot be ruled out (Streck 1995a: 223). The form it-ta-at-la-[ak] ARM 4, 22: 14 is to be read it-ta-ad-la-[ḫa], see Durand 1997/2000: II 94 n. 195. 10.  Cf. CAD A/1 323b s.v. 5d and Aro 1957: 10 for Middle Babylonian; Middle Assyrian has a Perf 3ms? [it?]-ta-at-la-ak MATC 15:30; Standard Babylonian has it-ta-at-la-ku KAR 25: I 15; see further

358

Formal Aspects of the t‑Infi  14.2.

double t-infix; most relevant forms concern the Dt(t)‑stem, but former Gt‑stems with a double t-infix are attested for alāku and šâlu (see §14.5.3, pp. 388–391).11 The non-prefix forms of the Gt‑stem are all based on the suffix base PitaRvS, which is a relatively recent replacement of a form with a prefixed ta- (taPRvS), as I will argue in §14.4.1 (pp. 375–380). PitaRvS actually represents the generalization of the prefix base ‑PtaRvS to the entire conjugation, with the initial cluster Pt- resolved by means of an epenthetic i. This i is determined by the a/i prefix of the finite forms, especially i‑ of the basic third-person singular: iptarVs § pitrVs just as in the Gtn‑stem iptarrVs § pitarrVs and in the Dt‑stem uptarrVs § putarrVs.12 With its succession of short syllables, PĭtăRvS is subject to vowel syncope (see §2.4, pp. 46–48). The outcome is preserved in its pure form in Sargonic Akkadian and Old Assyrian: Stat 3ms pitrus < *pĭtărus and Imp Sg Masc pitras < *pĭtăras, but Stat 3mp pitarsū < *pĭtărŭsū, Imp Pl pitarsā < *pĭtărŭsā, and Inf pitarsum < *pĭtărŭsum, etc.13 In Babylonian, however, this alternation was leveled in favour of the endingless forms: Stat pitrus, pitrusū, Imp pitras, pitrasā, Inf pitrusu, etc.,14 because the corresponding forms of all other derived stems have a single fixed stem: Stat purrus(ū), šuprus(ū), naprus(ū), Imp purris(ā), šupris(ā), napris(ā), etc. A number of residual forms of the pattern PitaRS‑ in Old Babylonian show that the Babylonian state of affairs is secondary: • a-ta-al-ki JCS 15, 6:19 ‘go away’, Imp Sg Fem of alāku Gt (for regular atlakī) • a-ta-al-ka-am Legends p. 176:3′ ‘come here!’, Imp Sg Masc + Vent of alāku Gt (for atlakam) • ši-ta-an-nu KH r.XXVII 61 and ši-ta-na-at ZA 65, 178:3 ‘he/she is competing with’, 3ms Stat (Subj) and 3fs Stat, respectively, of šanānu Gt ‘to compete’ (for regular šitnunu, šitnunat) • ši-ta-la AbB 10, 163:18 and ši-ta-lam/la-am FM 1, p. 63:21 and ARM 26/1, 181 M.6874:16′ ‘to deliberate’, Imp Pl /šitālā/ and Inf Acc /šitālam/, respectively, of šâlu Gt (< *šitaʾlā/‑am, as in Old Assyrian, regular šitūlā/‑am like pitrusā/am) In Standard Babylonian, there are a few past participles that preserve this form, presumably as frozen relics, if not Assyrianisms:

Streck 1995a: 232. Other t‑perfect forms of Gt from later periods are [im-ta]-at-ḫar MSL 1, 17/8:25, 30 from maḫāru Gt (SB: ṣibtu itti še-i[m im-ta]-at-ḫar ‘the interest equaled (the capital in) barley’ (tr. CAD M/1 52a s.v. lex. sect.), in-ta-at-ḫa-aṣ(-ṣú) KUB 3, 7:11 and 14:5 from maḫāṣu Gt ‘to fight’, and il‑tete-mu‑ú RA 25, 58 no. 8:7 from šemû Gt ‘to listen to e.o., make an agreement’ (Neo-Babylonian: (PNs) aḫāmeš il-te-te-mu-ú, interchanging with aḫāmeš iš-mu-ú RA 25, 58 no. 9:7; see CAD Š/2 285–86 s.v. 4). 11.  For NA tarāṣu with a double t-infix, see chap. 12 n. 33 (p. 295). 12.  For the exceptional occurrence of u instead of i in utūlu ‘to lie down’, uzuzzu ‘to stand (up)’, and NB putqudu ‘to be attentive’, alongside itūlu, izuzzu and pitqudu, see chap. 5 n. 33 (p. 135). Elsewhere, i is the default epenthetic vowel before a in the next syllable, as in the imperative (see §5.5, pp. 133–136). 13.  The only Sargonic Akkadian instance is e-dam-da /  ʾetamdā/ Or. 46, 201:37 (incant. from Kish) ‘they are adjacent, touching’, 3pdu Stat of emēdu Gt. Another third-millennium instance may be Mari OAk (adi) si-dar-ki-šu, for which see n. 24 (p. 362). 14.  So also Edzard 1986: 361b and Diem 1982: 74. For such a levelling process in general, cf. Bybee 1985: 123: “morpho-phonemic changes tend to eliminate alternations between forms that are most closely related, e.g., person/number forms in the same aspect or tense.” For similar developments in Akkadian, see chap. 2 n. 8 (p. 33). Other explanations for the contrast between Bab pitrusu and Ass pitarsu presuppose a stress shift for which there is no independent evidence or an ad hoc assumption of a difference in underlying form (e.g., Gelb 1955b: 110; Greenstein 1984: 34–35; Testen 1993b: 9–10; and Tropper 1997a: 196–97).

14.2.  Formal Aspects of the t‑Infi

359

• šitarḫu ‘magnificent’, a by-form of šitruḫu/šitrāḫu ‘proud, magnificent’, cf. CAD Š/3 133–34 s.v. šitraḫu a) • e/itepšu in mas-su-am e-te-ep-ŠE-im RIME 4, 40: II′ 13′–14′ (OB) and massû i-te-ep-šú AGH 106:2 (SB) ‘expert, capable leader’ • etamdu ‘joined, accumulated’ in igisê e-ta-an-du-te BWL 60:93 ‘accumulated donations’, and in na 4 e-tan-de-e-tum MSL 10, 33:105 (LL, meaning: ?) from emēdu Gt ‘to join’ (beside normalized itmudu in urpāti it-mu-da-tu Bab. 7, 233:17 ‘accumulated clouds’) The past participle pitrusu has a deverbal offshoot with the pattern PitRā/ăS, which is mainly used as a variant of PitRuS in Standard Babylonian. However, a few non-literary words of this pattern already occur earlier, such as mitḫā/ăru ‘of equal size, square’ and itbā/ăru (OA). It is generally assumed that a is long, both on the basis of a few plene spellings (see Streck 2003a: 101) and comparative evidence (Testen 1999).15 However, this is contradicted by OA mitḫiriš (mì-it-ḫi-ri-iš St. Nimet Özgüç p. 143:15 and Prag I 837:19).16 It is conceivable that the situation is similar to that in PaRRă/āS: lengthening of a may have been dependent on regular use as a noun, so that a distribution arose with ă for adjectives and ā for nouns, but we have too little evidence to verify this. Moreover, lengthening may have been less advanced in Assyrian than in Babylonian: cf. OA šarruqum ‘thief’ (< šarrăqum) versus Bab šarrāqum. Thus, mitḫiriš is no proof that PitRaS has a short a in Babylonian, nor that it always has a short a in Assyrian. The t-infix also occurs in a few nouns to which it imparts a reciprocal nuance: atḫū ‘brothers, partners’ from aḫu ‘brother’ (usually as a plural noun but as a stative in at-ḫu-a-ni BIN 6, 16:7 and a-ta-ḫu-a-ni (/ataḫ(u)wāni/ kt n/k 404:5, both OA), and itbāru (itbaru?) ‘associate’ or the like from i/ebru ‘colleague’; see CAD I/J 294 s.v.; AHw 403b s.v. ‘Freund, Gesellschafter’. Nouns are usually rather resistant to this kind of derivation (see §2.3.1, pp. 37–38), so that these instances may actually be deverbal, remnants of—as yet unattested—reciprocal verbs.17 With regard to the weak verbs, the Gt‑stem causes complications for I/w verbs (see §16.2.3, p. 454), for I/n verbs (see §16.4.2, pp. 470–471), and for I/voc verbs (see §17.6.3.1, pp. 546–547).

14.2.2.  Assimilation and metathesis of the t‑infix in general The infixed t interacts with the first radical if it is a dental, a sibilant, or g (GAG §96d–f). In the prefix forms, where t directly follows the first radical, it assimilates to a dental or a sibilant: ‑dt- > -dd- (*idtūk > iddūk ‘he killed’ from dâku), -ṭt- > -ṭṭ- (*iṭteḫi > iṭṭeḫi ‘he came near’ from ṭeḫû), ‑st- > -ss- (*istaniq > issaniq ‘he arrived’ from sanāqu), -sṭ- > -ṣṣ- (*iṣtabat > iṣṣabat ‘he seized’ from ṣabātu) and -zt- > -zz- (*iztakar > izzakar ‘he mentioned’ from zakāru). Partial assimilation occurs in the cluster -gt- > ‑gd-, e.g., igdamar ‘he finished’ from gamāru. Historically important is the fact that this outcome of the dental and sibilant assimilation differs from the outcome elsewhere. For instance, if the feminine suffix -t follows d or z, the outcome is -tt- and ‑st‑, respectively, e.g., sipittum ‘mourning’ < *sipid-tum) and manzastu ‘position’ from *manzaz-tum (from 15.  The dictionaries differ in their interpretation: according to Streck (2003a: 101), AHw consistently writes long ā. CAD is inconsistent (e.g., itbāru, mitḫāru, gitmālu, and gitpāšu, but ḫitlapu, mitgaru, and šitraḫu). Streck (2003a: 101) reports plene spellings for atmāṣu, bitrāmu, and itpēšu only. 16.  The single instance of itbāru we have (it-ba-ra-ni OIP 27, 15:16 ‘we are associates’) is unrevealing in this respect. 17.  My interpretation of this form as containing pluractional gemination (Kouwenberg 2005: 99 /ataḫḫuʾāni/) is unnecessary. The form a-ta-ḫu-a-ni is a regular Gt stative according to the III/ū verbs; cf. the denominal verb ʾaḫā, yaʾḫū ‘to be/become/act like a brother’ in Arabic (Fleisch 1979: 264). At-ḫu-a-ni, on the other hand, is derived from atḫū treated as an ordinary noun with a fixed stem atḫu(w)‑ (pattern PitRuS).

360

The Function of the Gt‑Stem in Historical Akkadian    14.3.

the verb izuzzu ‘to stand (up)’), see GAG 3 §29e, 60c*. With the t‑infix of the verb, however, -dt- becomes -dd- and -zt- becomes ‑zz‑, as shown above. The latter outcome actually conforms to what is regular if t precedes the sibilant or dental. This means that these assimilated forms go back to the period when t was still a prefix.18 In the non-prefix forms, where t and the first radical are separated by a vowel (Pit(a)RvS, etc.), metathesis of t and a sibilant or a dental as R1 occurs (GAG §36a): cf. the infinitives tiṣbutu ‘to quarrel’ and tidūku ‘to fight’ rather than **ṣitbutu and **ditūku. As a result, t is (again) a prefix. However, forms like tiṣbut are not original, since it is likely that the original form had a in the first syllable (taPRvS) (see §14.4.1 below, pp. 377–378). They are based on the model pitrVs, but either they switched back to the original order after first having been replaced by the new infixed form (e.g., *taṣbVt § *ṣitbVt, later > tiṣbut) or they kept the original order of t and sibilant but adopted the vowel pattern of PitRvS. The latter explanation is the simplest and therefore the most likely (so also Huehnergard 1997b: 440–41). If R1 is š, this metathesis is optional, e.g., in Old Babylonian 3fp Stat ši-it-pu-ka OBRED 5, 808:7 ‘they (Fem) have jointly erected’ beside 3mp ti-iš-pu-ku VS 8, 22:5; in Old Assyrian Gt Inf (Gen) tí-ša-áp-ki-im RA 80, 118:9 beside ší-ta-áp-ki-im OAA 1, 92:17, all from šapāku Gt. These assimilation and metathesis rules apply to all verb forms with an infixed t. Some examples from other verbal stems than Gt will be given in the appropriate places. Specific to the Gt‑stem is the situation that the t‑infix is immediately followed by another consonant, namely R2 in the non-prefix forms: pitrVs, etc. In this case it completely assimilates to R2:19 • • • •

pí-iš-ša-aš Adapa p. 18:32 (MB lit.) ‘anoint yourself!’ < *pitšaš from pašāšu Gt ḫi-is-sa-as BWL 108:14 (SB) ‘remember!’ < *ḫitsas from ḫasāsu Gt iṣ-ṣa-ar RA 53, 35a:11 (OB) ‘watch out!’ < *itṣar from naṣāru ‘to guard’ ina ši-˹du˺-di-im OBTI 9:19 (meaning unclear, OB), i.e. /šiddudim/ < *šitdudim from šadādu Gt

An instance with nasalization of the resulting geminate is (lū) mìn-du-da Gilg. p. 704:29 (SB) ‘they should correspond’ from madādu Gt. The outcome of the assimilation process is always identical to the original radical and is undoubtedly also influenced by the tendency to keep the radical intact for reasons of transparency.

14.3. The Function of the Gt‑Stem in Historical Akkadian   The overarching value of the Gt‑stem (and of the t‑infix in general) is detransitivi­zation, i.e., a reduction of (semantic) transitivity vis-à-vis the basic stem. This is realized in different ways according to the meaning of the verb and the context (see §10.8.3, pp. 257–258). By far the most important function is reciprocity; a marginal one is reflexivity, represented by a very small number of verbs in the older dialects. In addition, there is a third group of Gt‑stems, many of them from intransitive verbs, in which the meaning of the t‑infix is unclear. I will call them “lexicalized 18.  So also Diem 1982: 51. This explanation is far more likely than Hirsch’s proposal (1975: 293) to make a different stress responsible for it: *sipídtum versus *ídtagal and *qítdudu. An additional factor was doubtless that the outcome of the order t + R1 guarantees a more transparent relationship with the other forms of the paradigm than the reverse order: izzakar is more clearly derived from zakāru than **istakar would be. When the prefix became an infix in other verbs, the forms iṣṣabat, issaniq, and izzakar were established firmly enough to hold their own. Diakonoff (1991/92: 52) relates the difference to the original affricate pronunciation of the sibilants; cf. Streck 2006: 218. 19.  A similar change also occurs in eššu ‘new’ < *edšum, qaššu ‘holy’ < *qadšum, šeššu ‘sixth’ < *šedšum; see GAG §29d.

14.3.  The Function of the Gt‑Stem in Historical Akkadian  

361

Gt‑stems” as a convenient label. As stated in §10.8.3, the Gt‑stem never has passive function: only the N‑stem can be used to passivize basic verbs.20 At least two other uses of Gt are mentioned in the literature: a separative and a durative/intensive function (e.g., GAG § 92e–f; Streck 2003a). I have argued elsewhere (Kouwenberg 2005) that the motion verbs that are traditionally labeled as separative should instead be explained as lexicalized “middle verbs,” some of which have acquired ingressive function vis-à-vis the basic verb—especially alāku Gt ‘to start going’—and that the alleged durative or intensive function is a secondary development specific to literary texts. The use of the Gt‑stem has recently been described in great detail by Streck (2003a), and there is no need to duplicate this. In order to clarify the historical development of the Gt‑stem and of the t-infix in general, I will concentrate on the diachronic developments observable in the texts by differentiating according to dialect, period, and genre. The most important distinction is between non-literary and literary texts. In non-literary texts, there is a fundamental difference between the older dialects, in which the Gt‑stem is fairly common, and the later dialects (from Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian onward), in which it is virtually extinct. In Standard Babylonian, on the other hand, it keeps flourishing until the latest period, and even shows a considerable expansion to new verbs and new uses. In the case of common Gt‑stems, I will generally refer to Streck (2003a) for references and mention after each verb the number (printed in bold) that is assigned to it by Streck, especially for Old and Standard Babylonian. Only in the case of rare instances or instances not mentioned by Streck will I give a direct reference to the text where it is found.

14.3.1.  The Gt‑stem in older non-literary texts 14.3.1.1.  Third-millennium Akkadian In the small number of extant texts from the third millennium, the reciprocal function of the Gt‑stem is predominant. It comprises the following verbs: • aḫāzu Gt ‘to give battle’ (3du i-da-aḫ-za /yītaḫzā/ AKI p. 228:81 and GAKI p. 365:13)21 • maḫāṣu Gt ‘to give battle’ (imx-da-aḫ-za /yimtaḫṣā/ AKI p. 168:30) • emēdu Gt ‘to be entwined’ (e-dam-da /  ʾetamdā/ Or. 46, 201:37 (incant. from Kish) • lapātu Gt ‘to anoint e.o.’ (3mp ti-il-tap-tu /tiltaptū/ MARI 1, 82:24, legal text from Mari) In proper names, we find two other verbs that can be either reciprocal or reflexive: 20.  An enigmatic apodosis with two Gt‑stems, one of which occurs nowhere else (from mašāʾu ‘to rob’ and epēru ‘to provide with food rations’ [80]) is Lenormant, Choix 91: r.5 quoted in CAD M/1 362a s.v. mašāʾu 2: epirtu īteppira mašiʾtu imtaššaʾ ‘the woman who has food will be fed, the woman who is destitute will be robbed’ (tr. CAD M/1 362a). If this translation is correct, it is a unique instance of a passive Gt‑stem. A reflexive interpretation would also be unique, since it concerns a prototypical reflexive situation, which is always expressed by a nominal marker (see §10.8.3.3, pp. 261–263). It may therefore rather be an instance of the confusion between Gt and Gtn that sometimes occurs in Standard Babylonian (see Streck 2003a: 10–13); in this case, the translation is (with ēpirtu and māšiʾtu interpreted as present participles): ‘the woman who (always) provides will keep providing, the woman who (always) robs will keep robbing’. Another point is that ēpirtu and māšiʾtu may represent instances of the paronomastic use of the present participle to express an indefinite subject described in §8.4.1 (pp. 204–205); see especially (39)–(44). This would result in a translation such as ‘some woman will. . . , another woman will . . .’. 21.  In the edition, both instances are transliterated incorrectly i-tá-aḫ-ṣa, i.e., /yittaḫṣā/ from maḫāṣu Gt (also in Streck 2003a: 22 no. 8). However, assimilation of ‑mt‑ to ‑tt‑ is not further attested at so early a date, and the deverbal noun tāḫāzu ‘battle’ shows that aḫāzu Gt ‘to seize e.o.’ could have the metaphorical meaning of giving battle.

362

The Function of the Gt‑Stem in Historical Akkadian    14.3.

• malāku Gt ‘to deliberate’ (Im4-da-li-ik /yimtalik/, Dam-da-lik /tamtalik/, see MAD 3, 176; CAD M/1 157 s.v. m. A 4a)22 • šâlu Gt ‘to deliberate, take counsel’ (La-iš-da-al /lā-yistaʾal/ BIN 8, 121:28) The lexicalized Gt‑stem of alāku (atluku ‘to start going, set out’) occurs for the first time in lū it‑tal-ku SAB p. 116: r.3′ (Girsu) ‘they have indeed departed’.23 Other lexicalized Gt‑stems are šapû Gt ‘to become silent’ (186) and ʾalālu Gt ‘to jubilate’ (162) as an imperative in proper names from Mari: ḪI-it-làl-DN MARI 4, 153:5′; It-làl-DN AKI pp. 356–57 no. 10–11, ARM 19, 212–13:9 and passim in ARM 19. Šapû and ʾalālu Gt also occur in later dialects as lexicalized Gt‑stems.24 The most we can conclude about the use of the Gt‑stem in third-millennium Akkadian is that it does not seem to be significantly different from that in Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian. Apart from the uncertain form šitarqīšu (see n. 24 below), there are no Gt‑stems that do not reappear in later dialects.

14.3.1.2.  Assyrian In Old Assyrian, the reciprocal function is again predominant. It is found in the following verbs, the first three of which are fairly common, whereas the others are more or less unique: • šâlu Gt ‘to deliberate, take counsel’ (47 and 72) (which may also be reflexive) • šapāku Gt ‘to store, deposit jointly’ (68), a kind of collective reciprocal (see §14.3.1.3, p. 364, on šapāku Gt in Babylonian) • naṭālu Gt ‘to look at e.o., be face to face’ in the expression ana i‑ta-aṭ-lim (tadānum) ‘(to sell) for cash’ (64)25 • amāru Gt ‘to meet’ (Pfv ni‑ta‑ma-ar TPAK 1, 68:19, normally N) • emēdu Gt ‘to be in contact’ (31) • enû Gt ‘to exchange, do in turn’ (Impfv e-ta-ni-ú /ētanniū/ St. Nimet Özgüç p. 135:31) • etēqu Gt ‘to travel together(?)’ (Prec le-ta-at-qú-nim OAA 1, 98:37, perhaps a collective reciprocal; see §10.8.3.5, p. 265) • magāru Gt ‘to agree with e.o.’ (Imp sm mì-it-ga-ar VS 26, 56:19; Pl mì-ta-ag-ra VS 26, 56:15 (normally N) • maḫāṣu Gt ‘to fight with e.o.’ (8) • malāku Gt ‘to deliberate’ (44, also Impfv ni-im-ta-lik Prag I 711:8 ) • mašālu Gt ‘to resemble e.o.’ (PPartc mì!-ta-aš-lu-tim AMMY 2002, 163:12 acc. to J. G. Dercksen, NABU 2003/45) • nakāru Gt ‘to be(come) hostile towards e.o.’ (6) • ragāmu Gt ‘to sue e.o.’ (9)26 22.  For the Sargonic Akkadian proper names Mi/Mì-da-lik and Mi-da-ḫar, see n. 212 (p. 421). 23.  Since lū is hardly ever combined with a t‑perfect (see chap. 5 n. 8, p. 128), this form is doubtless a perfective, even though this letter contains two indisputable t‑perfects in lines 3 and 7, quoted as (25) and (26) in §6.3.2 (p. 149). 24.  An uncertain case is adi si-dar-ki-šu AKI p. 364 MŠ 9:23 and p. 367 MŠ 2: r.6′ (Mari OAk): it may represent a Gt Inf šitarqīšu (with the original PitaRS‑ pattern; see §14.2.1, pp. 358–359) from šarāqu ‘to steal’, Gt ‘to steal away, disappear’?, as proposed by CAD Š/3 129a s.v. šitarqu; see also Streck 2003a: 45 no. 83. The only other Gt form of šarāqu is the PrPartc muštarqu ‘secret lover’ (SB), discussed in §14.7.2 (pp. 419–420). 25.  Sporadically in other forms: Impfv i-ta-ṭù-lu CCT 4, 30a:17 ‘they are watching e.o.’. 26.  Uncertain cases are akālu Gt in li-ták-lu-šu(-ma) Or. 50, 103:22, 33 (meaning obscure), and *reḫāmum Gt ‘to take pity, have mercy on e.o.’ in BIN 6, 14:5–6 anāku u atti ni-ir-té-ḫa-am. This may be the verb that appears in other dialects as rêmu from PSem √rḥm (cf. §17.7.1, p. 556). However, the use

14.3.  The Function of the Gt‑Stem in Historical Akkadian  

363

The reciprocal function of the t-infix is also evident in the reciprocal nouns atḫū and itbāru mentioned above in §14.2.1 (p. 359). Finally, the common verb atawwum ‘to speak’ is a fossilized reciprocal without corresponding G‑stem.27 A few Old Assyrian Gt‑stems can have direct reflexive meaning: • pašāšu Gt ‘to anoint oneself’ (78), especially in (oil) ana pitaššīa ‘to anoint myself with’ (CAD P 248b s.v. 2) • labāšu Gt ‘to put on (clothes)’ (76), e.g., in (clothes) ana litabšīa ‘for me to put on’ (CAD L 18 s.v. 1c–1′) (but see the reservations expressed in chap. 10 n. 21, p. 258) • šakānu Gt ‘to provide oneself with’ in ṣa-ar-a-am áš-ta-kà-an ArAn. 3, 134:16 ‘I put on a snake (as a girdle)’, see Dercksen 2005: 112 (in a text where no t‑perfects occur) • perhaps also lapātu Gt ‘to be registered, have oneself registered (as a guarantor)’28 Finally, Old Assyrian has a few lexicalized Gt‑stems: • alāku Gt ‘to start going, set out’ (93) • šapû Gt ‘to become silent’ (186), which also occurs in Sargonic Akkadian (see above) • perhaps leʾû Gt in the expression (u)lā al-té-e ‘I am lost, at my wit’s end’, if this is not a t‑perfect of the G‑stem; see Veenhof 1986: 238–39 for a discussion29 Generally speaking, the use of the Gt‑stem in Old Assyrian is more restricted than in Old Babylonian (see below) and is often stereotyped or idiomatic. In some cases, Old Assyrian uses the N‑stem where Old Babylonian uses the Gt‑stem (e.g., magāru N ‘to come to an agreement’, ṣabātu N ‘to seize e.o., quarrel’ and gerû N ‘to quarrel, litigate’; see §12.2.2.1, pp. 294–295).

14.3.1.3.  Old Babylonian Of all non-literary dialects, Old Babylonian shows by far the greatest productivity of the Gt‑stem. All three functions we distinguished above—reciprocal, reflexive, and lexicalized—are represented. Here, too, the reciprocal function is strongly predominant: Streck (2003a: 90) counts 53 reciprocal Gt‑stems for Old Babylonian (including two cases that he classifies as “soziativ”, i.e., collective; 2003a: 38). Since Streck (2003a: 20–38) enumerates and discusses them extensively, I will only give some examples. Most of the Old Babylonian reciprocal Gt‑stems are “natural reciprocals” (see §10.8.3.5, p. 263), such as nakāpu Gt ‘to butt e.o., fight’ (5), maḫāṣu Gt ‘to fight’ (8), šanānu Gt ‘to vie with e.o., compete’ (11), ṣêlu (ṣâlu) Gt ‘to quarrel, fight’ (14), and magāru Gt ‘to agree with e.o.’ (20). However, there are also a few “prototypical” reciprocals among them, such as bâru Gt ‘to rebel against e.o.’ (2), baqāru Gt ‘to claim from e.o.’ (3), râmu Gt ‘to love e.o.’ (21),30 zêru N of a Ḫ-sign for Proto-Semitic *ḥ has no parallels in Old Assyrian; we would actually expect nirteam < *nirtaḥam. The verb râmu ‘to love’ would also fit the context—even better—but in that case both Ḫ and e are irregular. Râmu Gt does not (further) seem to occur in Old Assyrian with a reciprocal meaning. 27.  The alleged G forms of this verb mentioned in the dictionaries come from two other verbs awāʾum (I/i); see Kouwenberg 2008: 171–73 and Dercksen 2004: 148–51. The form na-wu-a-ku AKT 3, 103:7 may be an N‑stem of *awāʾum ‘to speak’; cf. Dercksen: 2004: 151 n. 424. 28.  Always used in combination with qātātum ‘guarantee’; see Veenhof 2001: 105–6 with examples and Streck 2003a: 43 no. 77. It interchanges with the N‑stem and seems to be either a passive or a reflexive causative; however, both functions are without parallel for the Gt‑stem. 29.  Some other possible Gt forms are too uncertain of interpretation to be included here. 30.  Including lu-ur-ta-a-ma MIO 12, 50:14, lu-ur-˹ta-a-ma˺ MIO 12, 48:3 and lu-ur-ta-ma St. Reiner p. 422: I 3, which are reciprocal Gt forms rather than Gtn forms, as claimed by Streck (2003a: 78 no. 207); see Kouwenberg 2005: 100–101 and n. 32 below.

364

The Function of the Gt‑Stem in Historical Akkadian    14.3.

‘to hate e.o.’ (16),31 akālu Gt ‘to eat e.o. or together’ (26 and 66), and lamādu Gt ‘to (come to) know e.o.’ (51). They testify to the vitality of the reciprocal function of the Gt‑stem. The verb šapāku Gt ‘to build a party wall together’ (68) is a good example of a collective reciprocal. The verbs atwû Gt (no G) ‘to speak’ (43), zakāru (saqāru) Gt ‘to speak’ (192) (passim in the introduction of direct speech; see Sonnek 1940), and perhaps a few others may be regarded as fossilized (pseudo‑)reciprocals.32 In addition to the Gt‑stem, there are various lexical means for expressing reciprocity, especially for prototypical reciprocal situations (see the examples mentioned in §10.8.3.5, pp. 264–265). Old Babylonian also shows a few reflexive Gt‑stems, all referring to natural reflexive situations (see also Streck 2003a: 38–45): pašāšu Gt ‘to anoint oneself’ (78), labāšu Gt ‘to put on (clothes)’ (76) (but see chap. 10 n. 21, p. 258), lapātu Gt ‘to rub oneself’ (77),33 epēru Gt ‘to provide oneself (with food)’ (80), and šakānu Gt ‘to provide oneself with’, especially in the construction šuma šitkunu quoted in §10.8.3.3 (p. 262) ‘to establish renown for oneself’ (82). In addition, there are a few lexicalized reflexives, such as naṣāru Gt ‘to watch out, be on guard’, lit., ‘to guard oneself’ (69), which interchanges with naṣāru G plus ramānu and pagru (see §10.8.3.3, pp. 261–263), and perhaps paqādu Gt ‘to act cautiously’, lit., ‘to take care of oneself’ (71). Finally, malāku Gt (44 and 70) and šâlu Gt (47 and 72), which have already been classified as reciprocal, may also be regarded as reflexive in some of their uses.34 As stated in §10.8.3.3, reflexivity is mostly expressed analytically by means of reflexive nouns and only rarely by the verbal markers. In addition to the reciprocal and the reflexive Gt‑stems, Old Babylonian shows a fairly large number of lexicalized Gt‑stems. They come both from transitive and intransitive verbs. Most of them occur only sporadically and more typically in literary texts than in prose texts. Since their function is problematic, I will list here all reliable instances that are known to me, starting with those which are found in Old Babylonian prose texts (some of them also occur in literary texts): • alāku ‘to go /come’, Gt ‘to start going’ (93; see §14.3.4, pp. 371–372) • barû ‘to see’, Gt ‘to watch carefully(?)’ (87 and 141) 31.  The Gt forms of zêru can also be reciprocal N‑stems because both ‑nz‑ and ‑tz‑ give ‑zz‑; cf. especially the PrPartc mu-un-ze-rù MDP 57, 62 no. 3:15 (OB Susa), where ‑nz‑ may be secondary dissimilation, however, in accordance with GAG §32b. I have included them here because a reciprocal function is more common for the Gt‑stem than for the N‑stem. 32.  Note the first-person dual that is specific to reciprocal verb forms (Gt and N; see chap. 12 n. 28, p. 295) in the form lurtāmā ‘let us love’ (references quoted in n. 30, p. 363) and lu-uḫ-ta-al-ṣa YOS 11, 24:22 ‘let us make love’ (? or the like) from ḫalāṣu Gt (not attested elsewhere in this meaning); see Kouwenberg 2005: 100–101. They look like secondary forms derived from first-person singular forms by adding the dual ending -ā (elsewhere the dual is also derived from the singular, e.g., in the stative; see §7.4.1, p. 179). An exact parallel form is found in the Modern South Arabian languages for the first-person singular dual subjunctive: cf. Mehri l‑ərkəzō, Harsūsi əlbədō (see Wagner 1952 and Johnstone 1975: 17). The MSA forms are not restricted to reciprocal contexts, so perhaps the Akkadian forms are the last vestige of an earlier, more-widespread first-person dual form. However, such a form is not normally reconstructed for Proto-Semitic; see the table in Lipiński 1997: 370–71. 33.  The use of a Gt form in YOS 11, 25:49 (ingredients) šizba ta-al-ta-pa-at ‘you rub with milk’ is difficult to explain: a lexicalized form that has lost its reflexive force? (cf. Streck 2003a: 68–69 no. 176). 34.  Rare Gt‑stems with (possibly) reflexive meaning further include ebēṭu Gt ‘to gird oneself’ (27), ḫašāšu Gt ‘to anoint onself’ (75), kaṣāru Gt in the imp. kiṣṣar, which is equated in MSL 4, 119:3–6 with etbiṭ and nenziḫ and therefore may mean ‘gird yourself’ (elsewhere, kaṣāru Gt is reciprocal rather than reflexive; cf. Streck 2003a: 46 no. 85); epēru Gt ‘to provide oneself (with food rations)’, Gt Imp et-pi-ir in YOS 11, 24: I 23 balāṭam et-pi-ir ‘provide yourself with life/health’; ḫanāqu Gt ‘to strangle or hang oneself’ in AḪ-ta-an-na-aq AbB 14, 149:32 ‘I will hang myself’(?) (Gt or Dt?).

14.3.  The Function of the Gt‑Stem in Historical Akkadian   • • • • • • • • • •

365

elû ‘to go /come up’, Gt ‘to lose’ (+ ina) (95; see §14.3.4, pp. 371–372) erēbu ‘to enter’, Gt id. (164; see §14.3.4, pp. 371–372) erēšu ‘to ask’, Gt id.35 kamāru ‘to heap up’, Gt id. (147) kašādu ‘to reach, arrive, obtain’, Gt ‘?’ (172) reʾû ‘to herd’, Gt id. (156) šadāḫu ‘to march, proceed’, Gt id. (102) šamāru ‘to rage, be(come) excited’, Gt id. (128) šapû Gt (no G) ‘to be silent’ (186) waṣû ‘to go /come out’, Gt id. (97; see §14.3.4, pp. 371–372).

Special mention should also be made of the fossilized Gt‑stem itūlu ‘to lie down’, see Huehnergard 2002b: 178–84 and Streck 1997/98: 321. The following lexicalized Gt‑stems are so far only found in Old Babylonian literary texts: • • • • • • • • • • •

akāšu ‘to go’, Gt id. (92) ʾalālu Gt (no G) ‘to shout, rejoice’ (162) bakû ‘to weep, lament’, Gt id.36 ekēlu ‘to be(come) dark’, Gt id. (110) enēšu ‘to be(come) weak’, Gt id. (113) ezēbu ‘to leave’, Gt id.?37 ḫabāṣu ‘to rejoice’, Gt id.? (114) ḫanābu ‘to bloom, grow abundantly’, Gt id.38 šamāru Gt (no G) ‘to praise’ in PNs (163)39 šapû ‘to be loud, thick’, Gt id. (129) šarāḫu ‘to be glorious, boast’, Gt id. (131)

They are forerunners of the flourishing of lexicalized Gt‑stems in Standard Babylonian to be discussed in §14.3.4 (pp. 372–374).

14.3.2.  The Gt‑stem in later non-literary texts In Middle Assyrian, the Gt‑stem is virtually extinct as a productive category (cf. W. Mayer 1971: 64). I know of a single instance of magāru Gt (im-tág-ru-ú-ni Abr-Nahrain 22, 161:15 ‘they came to an agreement’ [Subj]) in a doubtless traditional legal formula, and also šâlu Gt ‘to ask, deliberate’ must have been preserved, since it reappears in Neo-Assyrian with a double t‑infix (see §14.5.3, p. 389). Elsewhere, the reciprocal and the reflexive use of Gt are replaced by the periphrastic constructions with aḫāʾiš and ramunu, respectively (W. Mayer 1971: 34–35). Among the lexicalized Gt‑stems, only alāku Gt (Impfv ta-at-ta-lak Or. 17, 312: IV 7) continues to be used.40 There are also a few Gt‑stems attested in PNs: apālu Gt in the meaning ‘to requite’ 35.  Gt is attested in et-ru(-ú)-ša-[a]t YOS 10, 36: II 41 and 46: III 44, apparently with the same meaning as G. 36.  Gt is attested in bi-it-ki-a St. Moran p. 291:2, 4. 37.  Gt is attested in li-te-ez-ba-an-ni Atr. St. Garelli p. 401:24 (c. br.). 38.  Gt is attested in mu-uḫ-«x»-ta-an-bu St. Reiner p. 422: I 7′. 39.  Proper names with šamāru Gt already occur in Eblaite: iš11-da-mar-DN; see Krebernik 1988a: 58–59. 40.  The other two Gt forms of alāku mentioned by W. Mayer 1971: 92 (i-it-ta-lak KAV 1: IV §36:85 and i-it-tal-ka-an-ni KAV 2: VII §19:9) are doubtless t‑perfects. This also applies to at-ta-lak in the greeting formula ultakaʾʾin ana dinān bēlīa at-ta-lak (e.g., KAJ 302:5) ‘I have prostrated myself and have gone (i.e., have made myself available) as a substitute for my lord’, where ultakaʾʾin shows that both forms are

366

The Function of the Gt‑Stem in Historical Akkadian    14.3.

in DN-mūtaplī (CAD M/2 297a s.v. mūtaplu) and šamāru Gt ‘to praise’ in DN-tišmar (cf. CAD Š/1 298a s.v. š. B 2b–4′ ). However, these names also occur in Middle Babylonian and may therefore be borrowed from Babylonian, just like many other verb forms in Middle Assyrian names. The large corpus of Middle Assyrian letters published in Cancik-Kirschbaum 1996 (MATSH) does not contain any indisputable Gt forms. In Neo-Assyrian, the trend visible in Middle Assyrian has reached its completion: the inherited verbal stems with infixed t—not only the Gt‑stem but also the Dt and (both) Št‑stems— have become obsolete, and the use of the single t‑infix has been completely monopolized by the t‑perfect (Deller 1965: 271; Hämeen-Anttila 2000: 88).41 What survives of the old system of secondary stems is a new set of forms with a double t-infix, which will be discussed in §14.5.3 (pp. 388–391). However, both in Middle and in Neo-Assyrian, we still find a number of deverbal Gt forms, which were common enough earlier on to survive as independent lexemes outside the verbal paradigm, e.g. • mitḫāru ‘of equal size or degree’ in various expressions (CAD M/2 136b s.v. 1a–1′ c′) • mundaḫṣu ‘warrior’ < *mumtaḫṣum (mun-daḫ-ṣu-ti SAA 10, 111: r.13)42 In non-literary Middle Babylonian, the Gt‑stem has become exceedingly rare.43 Reciprocal and reflexive situations are normally expressed by the periphrastic constructions with aḫāmiš and ramānu, respectively (Aro 1955: 58, 117). Two lexicalized Gt‑stems have survived: the ubiquitous alāku Gt ‘to start going, set out’ (Aro 1957: 10) and šamāru Gt ‘to praise’, which mainly occurs in proper names, such as DN-šit-mar, DN-tíš-mar, and lultamar-DN (CAD Š/1 298a s.v. š. B 2b–2′)44 but also a few times in texts: lu-uš-ta-mar BE 17, 20:29 ‘let me praise’ and al-taam-mar BE 17, 20:11 ‘I will praise’, presumably under literary influence. With regard to the Neo-Babylonian Kuyunjik letters, Woodington (1982: 90) reports that “the t-infix that indicates a passive, mutual, or reciprocal action does not occur in these texts.” In other Neo-Babylonian texts, however, we find a few instances, such as il-te-te-mú mentioned in n. 10 above (p. 358) ‘they listened to e.o.’ (> they made an agreement’) from šemû ‘to hear’, doubtless a traditional legal formula.45 In addition, some deverbal forms that originally belonged to the Gt‑stem have survived outside the verbal paradigm (Woodington 1982: 114–15), such as: t‑perfects. Note that in all instances of this formula (see the references in CAD Š/3 218a s.v. šukênu 2b–1′ and MATSH Gloss. p. 218) ittalak is spelled with a single l, so it is unlikely to be a Gt imperfective or a Gtn perfective. 41.  Streck’s criticism of Hämeen-Anttila (2003b: 127) is unjustified. He points to the Gt forms mitḫur SAA 10, 241: r.1, šitqulū SAA 8, 140/141/142:3, and tātabkanni SAA 13, 190:25e. However, mitḫur is an isolated lexicalized adjective (the context is: lā mit-ḫur šū ‘this does not make any sense’ (tr. S. Parpola), but since mitḫur does not seem to occur elsewhere in Neo-Assyrian, the reading mit-ḫar is preferable); šitqulū is a Standard Babylonian technical term (the genuine Assyrian form should be *šitaqlū); ta-ta-ab-kan-ni is an ordinary t‑perfect of tabāku in the meaning ‘to weaken, ruin’ or the like; see CAD T 7b s.v. 3d. A large part of the extant Neo-Assyrian letters are written by scholars who frequently use Standard Babylonian words, forms and phrases (see 1.4.1.3.3, p. 19). 42.  The form it-taḫ-ṣu ABL 879:13, listed as Gt in both dictionaries, is in a main clause and therefore doubtless a t‑perfect (maḫāṣu G can also mean ‘to fight’ in Neo-Assyrian; see CAD M/1 77b s.v. 1h). 43.  We do find a number of Gt‑stems in peripheral texts from the Middle Babylonian period, e.g., akālu Gt ‘to eat together’ (66, Emar), maḫāru ‘to come to an agreement’ (59, Emar), maḫāṣu Gt ‘to fight’ (8, Boghazköy), and ṣêlu Gt ‘to quarrel’ (14, Amarna, Nuzi). In this respect, the Akkadian of these areas is more like Standard Babylonian than are the contemporary non-literary dialect. 44.  But also lultammar-DN, with the verb reanalyzed as a Gtn form; see §14.3.4 (p. 374). 45.  For Late Babylonian forms that look like irregular imperfectives of alāku Gt (at-ta-tal-lak, etc.), see §14.5.3 (pp. 390–391).

14.3.  The Function of the Gt‑Stem in Historical Akkadian  

367

• muntalku ‘counselor’ from malāku Gt (e.g., mun-tal-ku ABL 1286: r.10) • multaḫṭu ‘survivor’ from šaḫāṭu ‘to jump’ (which has no other Gt forms!) (e.g., mul-taḫ-ṭu ABL 1342:9) • šitūltu ‘deliberation’ (e.g., ši-tul-ti ABL 1387:10) • pi/utqudu (  pitqidu, pitqadu) ‘prudent, cautious’ from paqādu Gt (e.g., pu-ut-qu-du ABL 521:26), see CAD P 441–42 s.v. pitqudu46 In sum, there is a remarkable similarity between the development of the Gt‑stem in Assyrian and non-literary Babylonian: in both dialects, it is practically obsolete from Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian onward: the reciprocal and reflexive Gt‑stems have been replaced by periphrastic constructions, and the lexicalized Gt‑stems have been largely discarded, except for the very frequent verbs alāku Gt and šâlu Gt. We will come back to this development in §14.3.4.

14.3.3.  The Gt‑stem in literary texts: Standard Babylonian In Standard Babylonian, the Gt‑stem has basically the same functions of reciprocal, reflexive, and lexicalized as in other dialects. What is different, however, is the huge increase in the number of verbs that show Gt forms. In stark contrast to the contemporary non-literary dialects, the Gt‑stem reaches the summit of its productivity in Standard Babylonian (Streck 2003a: 89–90). As I will argue below, this is primarily caused by the fact that the Babylonian scribes have cultivated the obsolete forms of this stem to enhance the literary flavour of their works. A substantial part of the Standard Babylonian Gt‑stems have reciprocal function and are a continuation of Old Babylonian usage: the most frequent reciprocal Gt‑stems of Old Babylonian remain in use, and a significant number of new cases are found for the first time. Streck (2003a: 90) counts a total of 89 reciprocal Gt‑stems in SB. Since they can easily be found in Streck’s list (2003a: 19–81), I will not enumerate them here. The number of reflexive Gt‑stems in Standard Babylonian is insignificant in comparison. They comprise mostly the same verbs as those mentioned above for Old Babylonian as certainly or probably reflexive (pašāšu, labāšu, lapātu, epēru, šakānu, naṣaru, paqādu, malāku, and šâlu. Streck (2003a: 38–45) adds six others, but all of these are more or less hapax legomena and many are semantically of the labāšu type and therefore doubtful representatives of reflexive function (see chap. 10 n. 21, p. 258). Even more than in Old Babylonian, reflexivity is expressed by the nominal reflexive marker ramānu. The most important innovation in Standard Babylonian is the increase in the number of lexicalized Gt‑stems that are neither reciprocal nor reflexive (Streck 2003a: 89–92, especially the table on p. 90). Some of them are already attested in Old Babylonian (see §14.3.1.3, pp. 363–365), but most of them occur for the first time in Standard Babylonian. Since they are problematic because of their function and offer important evidence for the development of the Gt‑stem in general, it is useful to give a list here, even though they are also listed by Streck (2003a: 45–74) under the headings of “Mediopassiv,” “Separativ,” “Intensiv(?),” and “funktionell unklarer Gt.” The list also contains lexicalized Gt verbs that also have reciprocal and/or reflexive function. For reasons to be specified below, I have indicated in which forms each verb is attested.47 46.  The lexicalized Gt‑stem pitqudu ‘to be prudent, cautious’ is still found in Neo-Babylonian in the imperative, but in an irregular form: pít-qa-du SAA 18, 4: r.4 (for regular pitqidā). 47.  For various reasons, which usually amount to ambiguity of form or uncertainty of interpretation, I have not included here the (alleged) Gt‑stems of the following verbs: barû ‘to be continuous?’ (193), ḫiādu ‘to speak(?)’ (133), ḫanāṣu ‘to bare the teeth(?)’ (166), lamû ‘to surround’ (36), napāṣu ‘to kick’ (169), redû ‘to lead’ (106; see Kouwenberg 2005: 99), šabābu ‘to roast, burn’ (183), šakāṣu ‘to be wild(?)’ (127),

368

The Function of the Gt‑Stem in Historical Akkadian    14.3.

aḫāzu Gt ‘to take(?)’ (48, Stat, Inf) akāšu Gt ‘to go’ (92, Stat, Inf) alāku Gt ‘to start going’ (93, all forms) ʾalālu Gt ‘to rejoice’ (162, Impfv, Pfv, Imp) ʾapāru Gt ‘to put on one’s head’ (74, Stat) barāmu Gt ‘to be multicoloured’ (109, Stat) barû Gt ‘to see’ (87 and 141, Impfv, Imp, Inf) damāṣu Gt ‘to humble oneself’ (132, Impfv(?), Inf LL) ebēṭu Gt ‘to be tied, have cramps’ (27, Stat, Imp) eʾēlu Gt ‘to bind’ (52, Stat) ekēdu Gt ‘to be concerned’ (135, Imp) ekēlu Gt ‘to be(come) dark’ (110, Inf) ekēpu Gt ‘to approach’ (58, Pfv, Stat, Inf) elēṣu Gt ‘to rejoice, jubilate’ (111, Pfv) elû Gt ‘to lose’ (+ ina) (95, Impfv) epēšu Gt ‘to be active’ (142, Inf) erēbu Gt ‘to enter’ (164, Pfv, Imp) gašāru Gt ‘to be(come) powerful’ (121, PrPartc) ḫabāṣu Gt ‘to swell, be elated’ (114, Stat) ḫalāpu Gt ‘to dress, cover, be intertwined’ (84, Stat)48 ḫarābu Gt ‘to lie waste’ (117, Stat) ḫamāṭu Gt ‘to hurry’ (116, Stat and adverb ḫitmuṭiš) ḫamāṭu Gt ‘to burn’ (145, Inf)49 ḫamû Gt ‘to paralyze’ (144, Stat) ḫanābu Gt ‘to bloom, grow abundantly’ (PrPartc)50 ḫasāsu Gt ‘to heed, remember’ (143, Stat, Imp) ḫelû Gt ‘to shine, be(come) bright’ (115, Stat) kamālu Gt ‘to be(come) angry’ (7, Stat) kamāru Gt ‘to heap up’ (147, Stat, Inf) kamāsu Gt ‘to kneel, squat’ (118, Stat, Inf, PPartc) kanāšu Gt ‘to submit, bow down’ (119, Stat) kapādu Gt ‘to plan, take care of’ (148, Pfv, Stat, Imp) karābu Gt ‘to pray’ (149, Imp, Inf) laḫāšu Gt ‘to whisper’ (150, Inf) lamādu Gt ‘to (come to) know’ (151, Stat) lemēnu Gt ‘to be(come) bad, evil’ (120, Stat)

naʾādu Gt ‘to pay attention’ (136, Pfv, Imp, Inf) naḫāsu Gt ‘to lament’ (134, Inf) namāšu Gt ‘to set out, depart’ (99, Inf LL) napāḫu Gt ‘to light (a fire)’ (146, PrPartc) palāḫu Gt ‘to fear, respect’ (152, Stat, Imp) parādu Gt ‘to become frightened’ (123, Stat) parāsu Gt ‘to be interrupted’ (55, Stat) qarādu Gt ‘to pluck (wool)’ (81, Imp) qerēbu Gt ‘to come near (60, Stat, Imp, Inf) ramāku Gt ‘to bathe’ (155, Stat) rapāšu Gt ‘to be wide’ (125, Stat, Inf) raṣānu Gt ‘to make a loud noise’ (122, PrPartc) reʾû Gt ‘to herd’ (156, Impfv, Pfv, Inf LL, PrPartc) sanāqu Gt ‘to be tight’ or the like (137, Stat) ṣabāru ‘to flit, prattle’ (138, Imp, Inf, PrPartc) ṣamāru Gt ‘to strive’ (191, Stat) šaḫātu Gt ‘to fear, respect’ (157, Stat) šaḫāṭu Gt ‘to jump, attack’ (100, PrPartc) šakānu Gt ‘to place’ (158, Stat, Inf.) šalāṭu Gt ‘to dominate, have authority’ (159, Stat) šamāru Gt ‘to praise’ (163, Impfv, Pfv, Imp) šamāru Gt ‘to rage, be(come) excited’ (128, Impfv, Stat, PPartc, Inf) šanû Gt ‘to be(come) different, change’ (56, Stat) šânu Gt ‘to urinate’ (189, Impfv, Inf LL) šapāru Gt ‘to govern, rule’ (Inf)51 šapāru Gt ‘to outfit oneself, attire oneself with’ (187, Stat, Inf) šapātu Gt ‘to be malicious, treacherous(?)’ (179, PrPartc with abstract noun muštaptūtu) šapû Gt ‘to be silent’ (186, Stat, Imp) šapû Gt ‘to be loud, thick, etc.’ (129, PPartc) šarāḫu Gt ‘to be boastful’ (131, Stat, Imp, PPartc, PrPartc with abstract noun muštarḫūtu) šarāqu Gt ‘to steal’ (83, PrPartc)52 takālu Gt ‘to trust’ (139, Imp) zakāru (saqāru) Gt ‘to speak’ (192, Impfv, Pfv, Imp) zamāru Gt ‘to sing’ (161, Impfv, Pfv, Imp)

As is clear from the indications of attested forms, most of these verbs only show non-prefix forms (statives, imperatives, and infinitives) and present participles. This is of crucial importance if one wants to understand the nature of the Gt‑stem in Standard Babylonian. Since this topic can best be described in a diachronic perspective, I will postpone further discussion to the next section, *šarādu ‘to be solid(?)’ (188), šarāṣu ‘to clutch(?)’ (40), šelû ‘to be blunt’ (184), and warû ‘to lead, bring’ (104). 48.  Some of the forms show confusion with elēpu ‘to be grown together, be entangled’. 49.  The other instances mentioned in AHw 316b s.v. ḫamāṭu III Gt are more likely to be Dt forms. 50.  In [m]u-uḫ-ta-an-bu LSS 2/4, 23:3 ‘waxing’ (said of Sin, tr. CAD M/2 177b s.v.); also OB; see §14.3.1.3 (pp. 363ff.). 51.  In šit-pur mātāti Iraq 38, 94:6 acc. to CAD Š/1 448a s.v. 3b–2′. 52.  Perhaps already attested in Sargonic Akkadian, see n. 24 (p. 362) and also §14.7.2 (pp. 419–420) for its relation to muštarriqu.

14.3.  The Function of the Gt‑Stem in Historical Akkadian  

369

which deals with the diachronic development of voice markers in general and the Gt‑stem in particular.

14.3.4.  The functional development of the Gt‑stem in Akkadian The data presented in the previous sections can be interpreted diachronically on the basis of abundant typological evidence about the origin and development of detransitive voice markers. A common grammaticalization path of voice markers starts with an analytical marker of prototypical reflexivity (see §10.8.3.3, p. 261), often a noun referring to the body or a body part, especially “head.”53 Subsequently, it comes to be used for emphasis (“my body/head,” etc. > “myself”) and hence as a reflexive, starting in prototypical reflexive situations and then also in natural situations. This may trigger several other uses in a grammaticalization process that is remarkably uniform across languages.54 First, reflexive markers often allow a reciprocal interpretation if the subject is plural and the meaning of the verb allows it (like se in Romance and sich in German).55 A further offshoot of the reciprocal is the collective function (Kemmer 1993: 99–100; Streck 2003a: 18 [“soziativ”]), when several subjects perform an action together. Second, extension of the reflexive marker to inanimate subjects may lead to the mediopassive (anticausative) function: just as X hurt the man becomes the man hurt himself through reflexivization, X opened the door may become the door opened itself, in other words, the door opened.56 If in such an environment an agent is implied or even expressed, the marker may also acquire passive meaning: the door opened (by somebody’s action) > the door was opened (by somebody). Third, as described in §10.8.3.6 (pp. 265–267), the use of a reflexive marker in natural reflexive situations may lead to a weakening of its reflexive function and ultimately to the emergence of “middle verbs.” This kind of process is often accompanied by a parallel formal development. There are roughly three types of reflexive markers across languages: special reflexive nouns, reflexive pronouns, and affixes on the verb (Faltz 1985: 28–66). Diachronically, reflexive (pro)nouns tend to develop into verbal markers over time. This starts with the tendency among the reflexive (pro)nouns to drift to the verb and attach themselves to it (1985: 52–53, 214–35), after which they tend to be reduced to clitics or affixes. It goes without saying that detransitive voice markers can also have a different background that entails a different grammaticalization process (Givón 1990: 600–623; Haspelmath 1990).57 53.  Schladt (1999) points out that all reflexives in African languages, and a large part of them in languages all over the world, originate as nouns for the body or salient parts of the body, especially the head, and gives an account of the step-by-step development of their grammaticalization. He also asserts that expression of reflexivity by means of (original) pronouns is typical of European languages only (1999: 110–11). 54.  Cf. Heine 1999; Kemmer 1993: 196–200; Faltz 1985. 55.  Kemmer 1993: 98; Heine 1999: 8, 12; Frajzyngier 1999: 181; Lichtenberg 1999: 56–57. The common element in reflexive and reciprocal functions is a “low distinguishability of participants” (Kemmer 1993): the initiator is also the endpoint of the action, or both initiators are also endpoints. 56.  Cf. also Langacker and Munro 1975: 800–806: reflexive and (agentless) passive have in common that the subject and the direct object are non-distinct, either because they are coreferential or because the subject is unspecified; since coreferentiality is a special case of non-distinctness, the development from reflexive to passive represents a generalization in function. 57.  This evidently also applies to the t‑infix: its origin and development remain a matter of speculation. However, no satisfactory alternative seems to have been proposed. Lieberman (1986: 619) and Kienast (2001: 218) argue that t is originally a demonstrative pronoun, but why and how this developed into a reflexive remains unclear; I am not aware of any typological parallel for this. Hetzron (1973/74: 45–46) and Zaborski (2005b: 86) derive t from an auxiliary verb ‘to become’. This implies that it is originally (medio)

370

The Function of the Gt‑Stem in Historical Akkadian    14.3.

A case in point is the development of the N‑stem, as described in §12.6.1 (pp. 314–321): as a combination of verbalizing prefix n(a)- and a past participle, its primary function in fientive verbs must have been (medio)passive. This is in keeping with the actual data we have, both in Akkadian and in other languages that have a productive N‑stem (see §12.2.3, pp. 299–300, and §12.6.2, pp. 321–323). The occasional instances of reflexive and reciprocal N‑stems are a secondary consequence of its gradually replacing the Gt‑stem (see below). This means that the functional development of the N‑stem is the opposite of that of the Gt‑stem. Even though we do not know the etymology of the t‑infix, the use of the Gt‑stem fits neatly into the grammaticalization process of reflexives outlined above. If we include in our description the use of the N‑stem and of the nominal markers in the domains of reciprocal, reflexive, and (medio)-passive, the following picture emerges. The marginal use of the Gt‑stem for natural reflexives in the older dialects suggests that it started as a fully-fledged reflexive in both prototypical and natural reflexive situations but that by the beginning of the historical period it had been marginalized as a result of the competition from two sides: from the nominal reflexive markers ramā/anu, pagru, and qaqqadu, and from the N‑stem (at least for G‑stem verbs). The nominal markers were used initially for proto­typical reflexives but predictably also invaded the domain of natural reflexives. The rare use of the N‑stem in reflexive function (see §12.2.2.1, p. 296) can best be understood in the framework of the general decline of the Gt‑stem to be discussed presently. Thus, the few surviving reflexive Gt‑stems are the last vestige of the (direct) reflexive function of the Gt‑stem. The indirect reflexive function of t was lost already in prehistoric times: only the verbs tabālu and tarû ‘to take/bring along’, in which t occurs as a fossilized element that has become one of the radicals, preserve a trace of its former existence (see §16.2.3, p. 454). From Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian onward, reflexivity is only expressed by means of nominal markers, apart from its artificial preservation in Standard Babylonian. The reciprocal use of the Gt‑stem met the same fate—but in a later period. Although still robust and productive in the older dialects, it is also threatened from two sides. The most formidable threat was posed by the periphrastic expressions for reciprocity discussed in §10.8.3.5 (pp. 264–265), especially the use of aḫu ‘brother’ in various cases. It is clear, however, that this construction is a relative newcomer, since it is completely transparent: aḫu usually behaves like an ordinary noun and takes the exact form that is required according to the grammar (see §10.8.3.5 for examples). This implies that it has not yet been grammaticalized to a significant extent. The reciprocal Gt‑stem was also threatened by the N‑stem. There are not many reciprocal N‑stems (about a dozen; see §12.2.2.1, pp. 294–295), but some of them belong to the most frequent reciprocal verbs (such as amāru N, emēdu N, and magāru N). However, the increasing dominance of the periphrastic markers prevented this use of the N‑stem from becoming very productive.58 passive (like the N‑stem), which is contradicted by the fact that also in a historical perspective t is most prominently used for “second argument reduction” (see §14.4.2 below, pp. 380–382), which points to an original reflexive function. 58.  The actual replacement of the Gt‑stem by the N‑stem can be demonstrated by means of the verbs labāšu ‘to get dressed’ and pašāšu and lapātu ‘to anoint oneself’: they normally use the Gt‑stem in Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian but the N‑stem in Standard Babylonian and later to express reflexivity (cf. GAG 3 §*92h). The latest form of pašāšu Gt is pí-iš-ša-aš Adapa p. 18:32′ (MB lit.); the same line also includes labāšu Gt (li-it-ba-aš ), which occurs in later texts only exceptionally (Streck 2003a: 42–43 no. 76). These two Gt imperatives interchange with the N t‑perfects it-ta-al-[ba]-aš and it-ta-ap-ši-iš Adapa p. 20: 64′–65′. As I argued in §12.2.2.1 (p. 295), these t‑perfects were used to avoid a double t‑infix, and it is possible that these N forms were the trigger for the transfer of the whole paradigm to the N‑stem. Lapātu Gt is still used in Standard Babylonian but often in the meaning of G (or Gtn?) (Streck 2003a: 68–69 no. 176).

14.3.  The Function of the Gt‑Stem in Historical Akkadian  

371

After the Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian period, reciprocity was regularly expressed by the marker aḫāmiš, doubtless a grammaticalized form of aḫu in various cases (see §10.8.3.5, pp. 264–265), and the Gt‑stem had been ousted from its reciprocal function, except perhaps in a very small number of lexicalized Gt verbs (such as magāru and šâlu Gt in Middle and Neo-Assyrian; see §14.3.2, pp. 365–366). Only in Standard Babylonian do reciprocal Gt‑stems remain in use. The fact that the reciprocal use of Gt held out longer than the reflexive use can be attributed to two factors. First, it may have started later, since it constitutes a secondary use of the reflexive in specific circumstances. Second, the reciprocal function differs more saliently from the normal meaning of the verb than the reflexive function (which is often closely similar to intransitive), so that a derived form with reciprocal meaning is lexicalized more easily and can survive as an individual verb on its own. The third important detransitive domain is that of the (medio)passive voice, which unlike reflexive and reciprocal represents “first argument reduction,” as stated in §10.8.3 (pp. 257–258). The Gt‑stem is not used as a (medio)passive of the G‑stem in historical Akkadian; this is the exclusive domain of the N‑stem. Whether the Gt‑stem ever had mediopassive function in an earlier stage of the language is hard to say. On the one hand, the Dt‑ and Št1‑stems show that t was capable of performing this function, and the fact that the N‑stem still continues to replace reciprocal and reflexive Gt‑stems in historical times may suggest that in prehistoric times it did the same with the (medio)passive forms. On the other hand, it is significant that no residual (medio)passive Gt‑stems have been preserved and that the West Semitic verbal stem with infixed t hardly ever has (medio)passive function (see §14.4.2 below, pp. 380–382). The final outcome of these developments is that from the Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian period onward the Gt‑stem has virtually disappeared as a detransitive voice marker. However, this is not the end of the story. First, it survives as a literary artifact in Standard Babylonian with reflexive and reciprocal function, as we saw in §14.3.3 (pp. 367–369); and second, already in the oldest texts there is a group of lexicalized Gt‑stems, which are remarkably resilient and become enormously productive in Standard Babylonian. The earliest instances—from third-millennium Akkadian and Old Assyrian—are šapû Gt ‘to be silent’, ʾalālu Gt ‘to jubilate’, and alāku Gt ‘to start going’ (see §§14.3.1.1–2, pp. 361–363). In Old Babylonian, they greatly increase in number, especially in literary texts (see the list in §14.3.1.3, pp. 364–365), so that we can get an idea of their nature. They are clearly neither reciprocal nor reflexive, and they come from both transitive and (more often) intransitive verbs but not from high-transitivity verbs. Among them, a small group with some peculiar features stands out: alāku Gt ‘to start going’, elû Gt + ina ‘to lose’, erēbu Gt ‘to enter’, waṣû Gt ‘to go /come out’, and the fossilized Gt‑stem itūlu ‘to lie down’. These are intransitive motion verbs typically occurring with a personal subject and, unlike most other lexicalized Gt‑stems of Old Babylonian, they are not predominantly literary.59 This group of verbs leads us to an explanation for the lexicalized use of the Gt‑stem, since they have a remarkable typological parallel. In her study of the middle voice, Kemmer (1993: 56–57, esp. pp. 156–58) points to the occurrence of motion verbs with reflexive or middle morphemes that “focus on the initiation of the motion activity,” whereas the corresponding unmarked forms “often refer to the intermediate or final stage of a journey” (1993: 157). A prominent example is Old French, where some intransitive motion verbs developed a reflexive counterpart marked 59.  They are therefore more or less restricted to Old Babylonian, since later non-literary dialects no longer use the Gt‑stem. However, the dictionaries mention instances of alāku Gt for Middle and Neo-Babylonian and for Middle and Neo-Assyrian (AHw 33b s.v. Gt 1; CAD A/1 323–24 s.v. 5d–f; see also §14.3.2, pp. 365–367); Neo-Assyrian normally uses the “Gtt”‑stem instead; see §14.5.3 below (pp. 388–391).

372

The Function of the Gt‑Stem in Historical Akkadian    14.3.

with the reflexive pronoun se: s’en aler ‘to leave, go away’, s’en venir ‘to come’, s’en fuïr ‘to flee, run away’; but some other Indo-European languages also provide instances: Spanish irse ‘to go away’, Italian andarsene, Old Norse ganga-sk ‘go away’ and hlaupa-sk ‘to run (away)’ (1993: 57). It seems a plausible assumption that the t‑infix underwent a similar evolution and also expanded its domain to include intransitive motion verbs with the nuance of denoting the initiation of a motion performed by a human being. Kemmer’s definition perfectly fits the use of alāku and itūlu and also accounts for the other verbs, in which the focus on the beginning of the motion is less evident because they are inherently ingressive. So this group of lexicalized Gt‑stems are “middle verbs” and show the t-infix in its final stage of grammati­calization as a middle marker, which I discussed in §10.8.3.6 (pp. 265–267). Natural reflexive actions are by definition performed by volitionally acting human beings. Accordingly, the middle verbs that in some languages developed from natural reflexive verbs, including this group of motion verbs, typically have a human subject. It is conceivable, therefore, that -t- expanded to these verbs to underline the human, volitional nature of the subject, in contrast to the basic stems of these verbs, which can often have a much wider range of subjects and are therefore less specific in meaning.60 Among the lexicalized Gt‑stems in Old Babylonian, motion verbs and speech verbs are particularly well represented: apart from those mentioned above, the motion verbs include akāšu Gt ‘to go’,61 ezēbu Gt ‘to leave’, and šadāḫu Gt ‘to march, proceed’. The speech verbs are bakû Gt ‘to weep, lament’, erēšu Gt ‘to ask’, ʾalālu Gt ‘to jubilate’, šamāru Gt ‘to rage, be(come) excited’, šapû Gt ‘to be silent’, šamāru Gt ‘to praise’, šapû Gt ‘to be loud, thick, etc.’, and šarāḫu Gt ‘to boast’.62 These Gt‑stems and the remaining forms quoted in §14.3.1.3 (pp. 364–365) do not seem to differ significantly in meaning from the corresponding G‑stem, insofar as there is one. Their meaning and the absence of high-transitivity verbs among them suggest that they are also a kind of middle verb that in practice has become a variant of the G‑stem. In Standard Babylonian, the number of lexicalized Gt‑stems increases dramatically (see the list in §14.3.3, p.368). As I stated before, this is largely artificial, a feature of the literary language cultivated by the scribes on the basis of the Old Babylonian models they emulated. A more detailed investigation of what kind of verbs are used in the Gt‑stem and what kind of meaning they have confirms this. The lexicalized Gt‑stems that occur in Standard Babylonian for the first time show two unusual features. First, they interchange with the corresponding G forms, without any trace of a detransitive function. Second, they show a striking preponderance of non-prefix forms and present participles and a corresponding scarcity of finite prefix forms. I will elaborate these two points separately. The first feature can be illustrated by means of Gt – G pairs of “new” Gt‑stems such as the statives ḫitmuṭiš – ḫamṭiš ‘quickly’ (116), bitrum – barim ‘is multicoloured’ (109), kitmus – kamis ‘kneels down’ (118), litmun – lemun ‘is bad, evil’ (120), pitluḫ – paliḫ ‘is respectful’ (152), pitrud – parid ‘is fearful’ (123), ritmuk – ramik ‘is steeped (in)’ (155), ritpuš – rapaš ‘is wide’ (125), šitmur – šamur ‘is raging’ (128), šitruḫ – šariḫ ‘is proud, glorious’ (131), and various others. Similar pairs of imperatives include ḫissas – ḫusus ‘think about!’ (143) and kitrab – kurub 60.  See, for instance, CAD A/1 302–13 s.v. alāku 1/4 for the use of alāku G with non-animate subjects (e.g., blood and other secretions, eyes, water, messages, fire, wind, periods of time, prices, etc.). 61.  For references, see §14.3.1.3 (pp. 363–365); numbers in bold refer to Streck 2003a. 62.  However, the two most common speech verbs in the Gt‑stem, atwû (always Gt) and zakāru (saqāru) (Gt in literary texts), are more likely to be original reciprocals that have lost their reciprocal value (Streck 2003a: 84–86). In the case of atwû, the replacement was doubtless stimulated by its “doubly weak” character.

14.3.  The Function of the Gt‑Stem in Historical Akkadian  

373

‘bless!’ (149). Moreover, various Gt‑stems that were reciprocal or reflexive in Old Babylonian have lost this meaning and occur now as equivalents of the G‑stem: itḫuz – aḫiz ‘has learned’ > ‘knows’ (48), litbuš – labiš ‘is dressed in, wears’ (76 and 86), ḫitlup – ḫalip ‘is dressed in, wears’ (84),63 litmud – lamid ‘is acquainted with’ (151), šitkun – šakin ‘is situated, provided with’ (158), and šitnu – šani ‘is different, strange’ (56). Generally speaking, these are the cases for which W. von Soden in GAG §92f tentatively suggests the meaning “etwas für die Dauer tun” and which Streck (2003a: 53–66) lists under the heading “Gt als Intensiv(?) in Opposition zu G.” Whether these forms are really intensive or durative or the like is hard to establish on the basis of the context, but their frequency in literary texts suggests that they were felt to be appropriate or conducive to the literariness of the style. Their essential semantic feature seems rather to be their “otherness,” i.e., the fact that they are different from the forms used in everyday language. In this respect, they are similar to the “elative” forms with the pattern šuPRuS (see §13.2.2.3, pp. 331–332) the use of the Š‑stem as a literary alternative to the factitive D‑stem (see §13.2.2.2, pp. 328–331, and GAV pp. 271–76), and the purely literary ŠD‑stem (see §13.3, pp. 334–337, and GAV pp. 336–39). The elatives in particular are closely parallel to these literary Gt forms and raise the same problems with regard to their interpretation as intensive (see GAV pp. 291–92 n. 39). Several factors have contributed to the loss of the original detransitive function of these forms. In some cases, the reciprocal force of t has weakened because it was extended to pseudoreciprocal (see §10.8.3.5, p. 265, and Streck 2003a: 84–86) or even non-reciprocal contexts. This happened, for instance, with the verb atwû ‘to speak’, originally ‘to speak with e.o., to converse’, with a plural subject (“A and B speak with e.o.”). One of the subject participants could also be introduced by itti (išti in Assyrian): “A speaks with B.” Eventually, the reciprocal marker was also used if there was no other participant and became a fossilized part of the verb.64 Streck (2003a: 84–86) mentions the statives mitgur, qitrub, kitmul, pitrus, and šitnu, among others, as Gt‑stems that may have undergone this kind of weakening. One could perhaps add kiṣṣur ‘it is joined’ (85) and kitmur ‘it is heaped up’ (147). Even a small number of such alternating G/Gt pairs is sufficient to provide a model that the Babylonian scribes could exploit to create further Gt forms that are synonyms of the corresponding G form. These forms need not show any functional resemblance to the original Gt‑stems.65 An even more important factor in the loss of the detransitive function of the Gt‑stem was the general decline of the t-infix as a voice marker as a result of its increasing importance as marker of the t‑perfect in affirmative main clauses from Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian onward (see §6.3.4, pp. 153–155, and Streck 1995a: 220 with n. 506). The resulting increase in frequency 63.  An instance of the lexicalization of a reflexive Gt‑stem in SB may be the use of lapātu Gt in the meaning of lapātu G ‘to anoint, rub (someone else)’ (176). 64.  A clear example of the weakening of reciprocal force is the quadriradical Š‑stem šupellu ‘to (ex) change’ (see §13.4.4, pp. 348–350). It has a derived t-form that is reciprocal or passive in Old Babylonian (cf. CAD Š/3 321a s.v. 1a and 323a s.v. 3). In Standard Babylonian, however, it is also used in the same way as the forms without t (see the examples quoted CAD Š/3 322b s.v. 2 after the remark “note with reciprocal(?) -t-form”; it is impossible to interpret these instances as reciprocal. Moreover, already in the oldest texts, but especially in Standard Babylonian, the Š‑ and Št‑stems of some verbs are used interchangeably, e.g., šūšuru and šutēšuru ‘to put or keep in order’ (OB), šusḫuru and šutasḫuru ‘to surround’ (OB), and perhaps also šūḫuzu and šutāḫuzu ‘to kindle’ (SB). 65.  A nice indication of the “artificial” nature (in more than one sense) of these Gt forms may be the stative sít-nu-uq (137): the scribe in question seems to have applied the model PaRvS § PitRuS to saniq mechanically and came up with sitnuq, forgetting to apply the metathesis rule that is required in verbs starting with s (GAG §36a): the grammatically correct form (which is also attested) is tisnuq.

374

The Function of the Gt‑Stem in Historical Akkadian    14.3.

of the t‑perfect made the t‑infix increasingly unfit for the expression of other grammatical functions. This was particularly felt in the prefix conjugations of the imperfective (Gt: iptarrVs) and the perfective (Gt: iptarVs), which are formally very similar (in the case of iptarrVs) or identical (in iptarVs) to the t‑perfect of the G‑stem (but also in the finite forms of other t‑stems, as will be illustrated below). On the other hand, it hardly applies to the non-prefix forms of the Gt‑stem, which cannot be confused with the t‑perfect of the G‑stem. As a result, the Babylonian scribes tended to avoid the finite prefix forms of the Gt‑stem but exploited the non-prefix forms as literary alternatives to the usual G forms and even derived them from verbs that never had a Gt‑stem. This explains the second striking feature of many of the “new” Gt‑stems emerging in Standard Babylonian: they occur mainly as non-prefix forms and as present participles (see GAG §92f) and Streck 2003a: 87–88 and elsewhere) and relatively rarely in the imperfective and the perfective. This is a very unusual situation and the opposite of what we normally find for the relative frequency of the finite indicative forms vis-à-vis the non-finite and irrealis forms, but it finds its natural explanation in the development just mentioned. In order to illustrate this, I have indicated in the list in §14.3.3 (p. 368) which members of the verbal paradigm are actually attested for each verb. A further indication of the decline of the Gt‑stem is the fact that after the Old Babylonian period we sometimes find Gt forms that are reinterpreted as Gtn forms (many instances in Streck 2003a: 10–13). Well-known cases include the Middle Babylonian proper name Luštammar-DN as compared to earlier Luštamar and Šitmar/Tišmar (Streck 2003a: 12) and imdaḫḫiṣ for earlier imtaḫaṣ (see also p. 357 n. 5). It is significant that this only concerns prefix forms, where confusion with the t‑perfect was possible.66 In conclusion, both the disappearance of the Gt‑stem from non-literary texts after the Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian period and the way it is used in the literary texts of Standard Babylonian testify to the state of decline of its original detransitive function as a result of the competition from other markers and the expansion of the secondary perfect function. The phenomena we observe in Akkadian represent the final stages in the life cycle of a voice marker. Interestingly, this is not the end of the marker itself. On the contrary, it remains as vigorous and productive as ever, but in other functions. Various forms that originally belonged to the paradigm of the Gt‑stem or were directly associated with it came to be reemployed in a new function, as part of the paradigm of another verbal stem. This applies to at least four categories: 1. The Gt perfective iptarVs became a perfect to the corresponding primary stem, as discussed in §6.4 (pp. 155–160). 2. The Akkadian Gtn‑stem, which was the pluractional of the Gt‑stem (*yit(a)qattal‑) as long as iparrVs was the pluractional of the G‑stem, became the pluractional of the G‑stem after iparrVs had ousted the older Impfv *yiqtVlu (see §4.4.3.1, pp. 103–104, and §14.7.6, pp. 431–437). 3. The pattern taPRiS(t), the original deverbal noun of the Gt‑stem, gave rise to the denominal category of the Št2‑stem (see §14.6.2.2, pp. 404–411). 4. The pattern taPRiS(t) also became productive as the verbal noun of the D‑stem already in Proto-Semitic (see §14.6.1, pp. 401–402). More incidental cases of recycling are the (non-prefix) Gt forms used as literary variants of G in Standard Babylonian and some individual G‑stem verbs going back to original Gt forms: tabālu ‘to take/bring along’ and tarû ‘to take/bring/lead along’ are originally Gt‑stems of I/w verbs (see 66.  See in this context also the alternation of present participles represented by muštarqu – muštarriqu, discussed in §14.7.2, pp. 419–420 (although I do not think that the latter form is a Gtn present participle).

14.4.  The Evolution of the Gt‑Stem  

375

§16.2.3, p. 454), and šatānu ‘to urinate’ arose from the Gt‑stem of a II/ī verb šânu (see Streck 2003a: 72–73 no. 189). These developments were made possible, or at least facilitated, by the previous functional disintegration of the Gt‑stem. In the next section, we will see that in West Semitic, too, the Gt‑stem was being replaced or had already been replaced by other formations. This means that the decline must have begun already in Proto-Semitic.

14.4. The Evolution of the Gt‑Stem Verbal forms with prefixed or infixed (rarely also suffixed)67 t are widespread in the Afro­ asiatic languages and belong to the oldest reconstructible grammatical formatives of this phylum. The actual functions most commonly attributed to it are reflexive, reciprocal, middle, and passive.68 Some quite different functions are also reported, but it is unclear to what extent they hark back to the common proto-language or represent later secondary developments.69 The latter is certainly true of the pluractional function of t in the Akkadian tan‑stems, as I will argue in §14.7.6 (pp. 431–437) below. I will further concentrate on the evolution of t in Semitic, first on its formal aspects (§14.4.1) and then on its functional development (§14.4.2).

14.4.1.  The formal evolution of the Gt‑stem in Semitic:   from prefix to infix (and back) Derived verbal stems with the detransitive voice marker t occur in all Semitic languages. Attached to the basic stem, it is widespread but greatly varies in form and productivity. As an infix, it mainly appears in Akkadian, Ugaritic, and (Classical) Arabic. Scattered instances of infixed Gt forms are further attested in Amorite, Moabite, and Sabaic, and in the earliest stages of Aramaic and Phoenician (Garr 1985: 119–20; Lipiński 1997: 397; Friedrich and Röllig 1999: 94; Streck 2003a: 103–4). In Hebrew, the Gt‑stem with infixed t is virtually extinct. Perhaps it survives in a few fossilized forms used as place-names and other obscure instances (Bauer and Leander 1922: 281; Testen 1999: 5–6). Such remains are of little use by themselves but they show that once the infixed t was more widespread and also occurred in languages that later only show prefixing of t.70 67.  A suffixed ‑t occurs in Cushitic (Klingenheben 1956: 258–59; Plazikowsky-Brauner 1957: 28–29) and in Berber, if we assume that the enigmatic final ‑t on Berber verbs, especially in Tuareg (Prasse 1972/74: III 73–74 and Heath 2005: 294–99), is to be equated with the voice-marker t, as claimed by Kienast 2001: 638–41. 68.  For Afroasiatic in general, see Lieberman 1986: 610–19 and Diakonoff 1988: 104–5. For Berber, see Rössler 1950: 480–81; Prasse 1972/74: III 41, 63; and Kossmann 2002: 358–63. For Egyptian, see Rössler 1950: 309. For Cushitic, see Rössler 1950: 492–93 (Beja); Hayward 1975: esp. 208–9; and Voigt 2002: 284–85. For Semitic, see Brockelmann 1908: 528, 533–35; Moscati, ed. 1964: 127; and Lipiński 1997: 396. See also Streck 2003a: 103–4 for a general survey. 69.  Such functions include frequentative or habitual in Berber (Steiner 1981: 21–23, 26; Castellino 1962: 132–33; Lipiński 1997: 395) and causative in Cushitic (Castellino 1962: 132–33). For the alleged separative and durative/intensive functions of the t-infix in Akkadian, see §14.3.4 (pp. 369–374) and more extensively Kouwenberg 2005. 70.  Very problematic is the situation in the Modern South Arabian languages. They have at least two verbal stems with infixed t and none with prefixed t (Appleyard 1996: 218). In Mehri, one stem has an imperfective yəftəkērən with a perfect əftəkōr ‘to consider’, and the other has an imperfective yəftəgōr with a perfect fatgər ‘to burst, split open’ (Johnstone 1975: 14; Voigt 1994: 303). The relationship of these forms to derived verbal stems in other Semitic languages is controversial. Voigt (1994: 303), for instance, equates the yəftəgōr, fatgər type with the Geʿez III/1 Stem, i.e., the simple stem with t-prefix, and the yəftəkērən,

The Evolution of the Gt‑Stem    14.4.

376

In the other Semitic languages that have preserved the Gt‑stem (in particular Geʿez, Aramaic, and modern Arabic dialects), t is a prefix (see further §14.4.2, pp. 380–382).71 For comparison with Akkadian, the most important data is provided by Arabic and Ugaritic. Table 14.2 shows the relevant forms of the Gt paradigm of Akkadian and their formal counterparts in these two languages.72 Akkadian

Arabic

Ugaritic

Impfv

iptarrVs

yaqtatilu

*yiqtatVlu

Pfv

iptarVs

yaqtatil

*yiqtatVl

Stat/Perf

pitrus

(i)qtatala

*(i)qtatila ?

Imp

pitrVs

(i)qtatil

*(i)qtatVl

Inf

pitrusu

(i)qtitāl

PrPartc

muptar(i)su

muqtatil

Table 14.2: The Gt paradigm in Akkadian, Arabic, and Ugaritic.

In the prefix categories of the (im)perfective and the present participle, there is broad agreement between the languages: they can be reconstructed as *yiqtatVl(u) and *muqtatil‑, respectively. However, in the (im)perfective (and the imperative) Akkadian distinguishes vowel classes, where­as Arabic shows the fixed vowel pattern of the derived stems.73 In all likelihood, Arabic preserves the original situation; in Akkadian, the G imperfective has imposed its vowel on the Gt‑stem, as it has done in all derived stems with the exception of the D‑stem and the Š‑stem and their derivatives (see §4.2, pp. 88–90, and §4.5.2, pp. 112–115). Since the t‑perfect of the G‑stem iptarVs has also adopted the imperfective vowel (see §6.2, pp. 138–139), it still has the same vowel as the Gt perfective. The non-prefix forms cannot be derived from a single Proto-Semitic form, but they share an important feature: in all three languages, they result from the fact that the prefix forms have imposed their base on the non-prefix forms (Moscati, ed. 1964: 153). This happened in different ways in Akkadian and in the two West Semitic languages. Whereas Akkadian avoided the resulting word-initial cluster of ‑PtaRvS by means of an epenthetic i (see §14.2.1, p. 358), Arabic introduced a prothetic vowel, as it also did in Stem VII ((i)nqatala), the equivalent of the N‑stem (see §12.6.2, pp. 322–323). As a result, all forms have the same base ‑qtatVl. Ugaritic seems to have reorganized its Gt paradigm in the same way as Arabic: the imperative (e.g., ʾištmʿ ‘hear!’) and the perfect (e.g., ʾištʾir ‘it was left over’) also show a prothetic vowel. əftəkōr type with the III/2 Stem (yətqēttal, taqattala), or the III/3 Stem (yətqāttal, taqātala). Appleyard, on the other hand, does the opposite (1996: 216–19): he equates the yəftəgōr, fatgər type with the Geʿez III/3 Stem and regards the yəftəkērən, əftəkōr type as a reflex of the simple stem with t. So it seems that we need more clarity about the background of these forms before we can use them profitably for comparative purposes, and I will leave them out of account in the discussion on the development of the t‑stems (cf. also Diem 1982: 56 n. 47). 71.  Hebrew has one possible example of a prefixed Gt‑stem: the form hitpāqẹd ‘to be mustered’ (Joüon and Muraoka 1991: 158–59; but they leave open the possibility that it has an original long ā, like the Arabic Stem VI yataqātala). 72.  The Ugaritic forms are based on Krebernik 1991a: 228–33; Sivan 1997: 128–31; and Tropper 2000: 518–32 73.  In Ugaritic, the vowel between second and third radical may be a or i; cf. Krebernik 1991a: 230–31; Sivan 1997: 129; Tropper 2000: 519.

14.4.  The Evolution of the Gt‑Stem  

377

The original form of the stative/perfect, the imperative, and the infinitive was characterized by a prefix ta‑. In Akkadian, this is preserved in a number of deverbal taPRvS(t) nouns that are semantically linked to the Gt‑stem (see also Goetze 1936: 324 and Streck 2003a: 102). They will be discussed in greater detail in §14.6.1 below (pp. 397–402), so a few examples may suffice here: tamḫāru ‘battle’ from maḫāru Gt ‘to confront e.o.’, tamlāku ‘counselor’ from malāku Gt ‘to deliberate’, taṣbittu ‘quarrel’ from ṣabātu Gt ‘to quarrel’ (OB Mari), tašnintu ‘rivalry, battle’ from šanānu Gt ‘to compete’, and ta/ešmû and tašmētu ‘concord, harmony’ from šemû Gt ‘to listen to e.o.’. These action nouns are ancient deverbal derivations of the Gt‑stem dating from a period in which ta- was still a productive verbal prefix. Thus, they point to the existence of a prehistoric Gt paradigm preceding the paradigm of Table 14.1 in which the Gt‑stem had a suffix base taPRvS parallel to naPRvS in the N‑stem (Diem 1982: 37; Testen 1999: 4). This means that for the Akkadian non-prefix forms we can reconstruct an Imp *taprVs, an Inf/PPartc *taprusu, and a deverbal adjective tapră/ās,74 which were replaced by pitrVs, pitrus, and pitră/ās already in prehistoric times. The Proto-Semitic background of these forms is shown by deverbal taQTvL nouns in various West Semitic languages that can also be associated with the Gt‑stem, such as the following: 1. The word for twins, which can be reconstructed as PSem *tawʾă/ām on the basis of Akk tūʾă/āmum, He tōʾ amīm, and Ar tawʾam, Pl tawāʾim (Brockelmann 1908: 79, 384). Arabic also preserves a corresponding verb in the reciprocal Stem III wāʾama ‘to agree’. For the meaning, cf. Akk tāpālu ‘pair’ from apālu Gt ‘to correspond to e.o.’, mentioned in §14.6.1 (p. 398). 2. Testen (1999: 7–14) has pointed to Arabic deverbal nouns starting with tu- (with the patterns tuCāC- and tuCaCat- < *t-wCāC-, etc.) and associated with Stem VIII verbs with w as R1, such as tujāha ‘facing, opposite’ (a noun grammaticalized into a preposition) alongside ittajaha ‘to face, be oriented towards’ (cf. wajh ‘face’). They are remnants of an earlier deverbal noun pattern with a prefixed t-,75 which was later replaced by the new and productive pattern (i)qtitāl (in this case (i)ttijāh). 3. There are also a few other nouns with tV- in Arabic that can be associated with Gt verbs in Arabic itself or in other languages: • tahlukah and tuhlūk ‘ruin’ (presumably < *tahlūk acc. to Wright 1967: I 115–16), which look very similar (at least in form) to Akkadian tāluku mentioned in §14.6.1 (p. 400), can be compared to the common Gt‑stem atluku ‘to start going’ in Akkadian: both are t-derivations of the root √hlk ‘to go’ (Ar ‘to perish’) • tilqāʾ occurs as a verbal noun of laqiya (I and VIII) ‘to meet’ • timθāl ‘image, statue’ is derived from maθala ‘to resemble’, cf. Akk mašālu Gt ‘to resemble’ and tamšīlu ‘image, likeness’ 74.  The imperatives tabal and tarū ‘take/bring along!’ from tabālu and tarû, respectively, which are secondary verbs derived from the Gt‑stem of wabālu ‘to bring, take, carry’ and warû ‘to bring, take, lead’ (see §16.2.3, p. 454), may be residual forms with the prefix ta‑. According to Voigt (1987c: 99), the imperative also has a direct parallel in Tuareg: tăkrăh < *takraz , a t‑stem of əkrəz ‘to acquire’, referring to Prasse 1972/74: III 88; see also Heath 2005: 467–68. 75.  It is questionable whether we may generalize a strong verb pattern t-CCāC from this pattern tuCāC of the I/w verbs, as does Testen (1999: 12–14). As I will demonstrate in §16.2 (pp. 448–462), the I/w verbs show many specific forms that are not based on the paradigm of the strong verb. There is no reason why they should not have tuCāC, whereas the strong paradigm has taCCāC. See also my objections against working with affixes whose basic form is purely consonantal in chap. 2 n. 71 (p. 52).

The Evolution of the Gt‑Stem    14.4.

378

• He talbōšet and Syriac talbəštā, both meaning ‘garment’, can be compared to Akk labāšu Gt ‘to put on’ • He tōṣāʾōt ‘outlets’ corresponds to Akk tūṣātu ‘sortie, offspring’ < *tawṣaʾtum, cf. waṣû Gt = G ‘to go /come out’ (see §14.6.1, p. 399) 4. Geʿez has a few verbal nouns of the pattern tVqtāl that semantically belong to the G‑stem or the Gt‑stem, such as taṭbāb ‘astuteness, skill’ from taṭab(a)ba ‘to be astute, act wisely’ and tamyāṭ ‘conversion’ from tamayṭa ‘to turn’ (intr.) (Barth 1894a: 293; Testen 1999: 4–5). They mostly have the pattern taCCāC, but there are also a few cases with ə in the first syllable, pointing to an earlier tiCCāC or tuCCāC.76 In West Semitic, the number of taQTvL forms connected with Gt‑stems is much smaller than in Akkadian, for which see §14.6.1 below (pp. 397–401). The great majority of nouns with prefixed ta- are either so strongly lexicalized that they preserve no traces of their former association with a Gt‑stem or they have made the same switch as many taPRiS(t) forms in Akkadian and have gone over to the D‑stem.77 A generous selection can be found in Kienast 2001: 113–15.78 Even so, they show that West Semitic once had the same pattern for the deverbal forms of the Gt‑stem.79 Thus the paradigm of tables 14.1 and 14.2 replaces an earlier Gt paradigm with a prefix base ‑QtaTvL (as in historical times) and a suffix base taQTvL, as shown in table 14.3:80 Impfv

*yiqtatilu

Pfv

*yiqtatil

Imp

*taqtil ?

Inf

*taqtāl‑ ?

PPartc

*taqtVl- ?

PrPartc

*muqtatil-

Table 14.3: The Gt paradigm in Proto-Semitic. 76.  The regular verbal noun (or infinitive) pattern is taqatəlo(t); see Tropper 2002: 96–97. 77.  The relationship between these deverbal nouns and the Gt‑stem was already observed by Praetorius (1889: 38) but categorically rejected by Barth (1894a: 275–76) and has apparently been more or less forgotten since. Kuryłowicz (1972: 120–22) states that ta- serves to reinforce verbal abstracts and infinitives and is also used as a “simple phonetic prop (without semantic value) used as expressive enlargement or ‘euphonic’ element” (p. 120); cf. doublets such as Ar liqāʾ and tilqāʾ ‘meeting’, timθāl and miθāl ‘image’, hulūk and tuhlūk as maṣdars of halaka ‘to perish’. He also regards Akkadian taprīs and taprūs as derivations of parīs and parūs with ta- as the exponent of substantive value (p. 122). This might apply to a few individual cases, but it ignores the semantic association of many ta‑PRvS nouns with the Gt‑stem and leaves the source of t- unexplained. Kienast (2001: 113–15) distinguishes t- with a verbal function, obviously associated with the t‑stems and the D‑stem, and a nominal t- which he derives from a pronoun plus a nominal clause. This seems needlessly complicated, and the two kinds are difficult to distinguish, as Kienast admits (p. 113). 78.  For Arabic, see Fleisch 1961: 419–22; 79.  As I will argue in §14.6.2.2 below (pp. 406–407), the taPRvS nouns, although they are themselves residual in historical Akkadian, have played a major role in the development of the Akkadian verbal system, since they are the source of two quite productive categories: the taPRiS(t) forms associated with the D‑stem and the Št2‑stem. 80.  It is sometimes claimed (see Diem 1982: 35–37) that taQTvL goes back to an earlier taQaTvL (cf. especially the Geʿez Gt Inf taqatəlo(t)-). There is no factual evidence for this; it is purely based on the view that QtvL is always secondary to QaTvL and is therefore parallel to the claim that the finite prefix category *yi‑QTvL goes back to an earlier *yi‑QaTvL. For this form there is no factual evidence either, and it must be situated in a Pre-Afroasiatic period anyhow, since in the Afroasiatic proto-language the shorter form *yi‑QTvL is already firmly established; see §18.3.1 (pp. 587–590).

14.4.  The Evolution of the Gt‑Stem  

379

The fact that the prefixed forms of East and West Semitic have the same structure, whereas the non-prefix forms are quite different, shows that the replacement of the latter must have taken place after the split of the two main branches of Semitic. The vowel patterns of the imperative and the infinitive remain uncertain because of conflicting evidence. However, it is possible that the stem vowel a or ā of the deverbal taPRāS or taPRaS forms investigated in §14.6.1 (pp. 397–399) and their formal successors, the PitRāS forms discussed in §14.2.1 (p. 359), may be connected with ā in the Arabic maṣdars (Stem III qitāl, Stem IV ʾiqtāl, etc.). The sequence ‑i‑ā‑ may be based on an original QaTāL > QiTāL in the basic stem that is no longer used as such in Arabic but has left several traces (see Kienast 2001: 383–84). Thus, we may perhaps reconstruct an Inf *taqtāl or perhaps *tiqtāl, which in Arabic was replaced by (i)qtitāl. It is plausible to assume that also in the finite forms with personal prefixes t was originally prefixed to the stem (Impfv *yitqatVlu and Pfv *yitqatVl) and that the subsequent process of infixation started in these forms, where t and R1 were adjacent. This caused them to change places for phonological reasons (Diem 1982: 45–46): t is very low in sonority and therefore easier to process as second than as first member of a cluster. The metathesis may have started in clusters where the difference in sonority is very high, such as t + sonant, fricative, or š (Clements 1990: 287). As Ultan (1975: 178–79) has established, metathesis is one of the most common processes for creating infixes. Moreover, as we saw in §14.2.2 (pp. 359–360), the outcome of the assimilation of the t‑infix to a sibilant presupposes the original order with t before the sibilant. The fact that both the Akkadian Gt‑stem and the corresponding Arabic and Ugaritic stems—not to speak of the sporadic instances of infixed t in other West Semitic languages—show infixation implies that this metathesis must have taken place in the Proto-Semitic period. The subsequent (post-Proto-Semitic) replacement of the non-prefix forms in both East and West Semitic is caused by the fact that the finite prefix categories dominate the non-finite categories in the hierarchy of the verbal paradigm (see §2.2.1, pp. 29–30) and therefore impose their structure on the latter (Diem 1982: 45).81 No doubt, the switch from prefix to infix in the nonprefix forms was a gradual analogical (morphophonemic) process that may have started a long time after the emergence of the finite forms with infixed t.82 In all events, there must have been a sufficient time span for many deverbal nouns with the old prefix ta- to become lexicalized and survive as independent nouns—mostly action nouns (going back to infinitives), but also a few agent nouns (see below). This leads to the conclusion that prefixing of t is original and that infixing is secondary. However, there are also West Semitic languages—especially Geʿez, Aramaic, and modern Arabic dialects—that exclusively or predominantly use a prefixed t in the Gt‑stem. In the next section, I will argue—as others have—on the basis of functional arguments that the historical forms with prefixed t in these languages do not hark back to Proto-Semitic but result from the rise of a new 81.  This explanation of the non-prefix forms was already intuited by early Semitists, such as F. Philippi, H. Bauer and P. Leander; see Diem 1982: 45 n. 27 for references. It is much simpler and therefore more convincing than purely phonological explanations that have been put forward. An example is Testen’s attempt (1999: 11–14) to derive the Arabic Stem VIII maṣdar (i)qtitāl from an original *t-qtvl via insertion of an epenthetic vowel between the second and the third consonant: t-qvtāl, metathesis of the first two consonants, and the usual prothetic vowel. It seems more straightforward to assume that (i)qtitāl replaces an earlier *taqtāl or the like and is remade on the basis of the Impfv yaqtatilu and the Perf (i)qtatala in combination with the infinitive pattern ‑i‑a‑. This makes a hypothetical form *t-qtvl superfluous. 82.  The fact that Old Assyrian still preserves the original distribution of patterns based on the vowel syncope rule in the non-prefix forms of the Gt‑stem (PitRvS versus PitaRS‑; see §14.2.1, pp. 358–359), may be an indication that the rise of the Akkadian non-prefix forms is a fairly recent phenomenon.

380

The Evolution of the Gt‑Stem    14.4.

prefixing Gt‑stem by analogy with the prefixed t‑derivations of the D‑stem and the causative stem, after the infixing Gt‑stem had become more or less extinct.

14.4.2.  The functional development of the Gt‑stem in West Semitic For the functional evolution of the Gt‑stem in West Semitic, we have to distinguish again between languages with t as an infix (mainly Ugaritic and Arabic) and t as a prefix (Geʿez, Aramaic, and modern Arabic dialects). The former are the most informative for the development of t in comparison to Akkadian, since they also have a detransitive N‑stem competing with the Gt‑stem. With regard to the function of the Ugaritic Gt‑stem, Krebernik (1991a: 236–39) mentions direct and indirect reflexive (e.g., rḥṣ Gt ‘to wash (oneself)’ and ʾsp Gt ‘to collect for oneself’, respectively), reciprocal/collective (e.g., ḫṣb Gt ‘to fight’), and a fairly large number of unclear cases, which are partly a result of our inability to distinguish Gt from Dt. It is uncertain, according to Krebernik (1991a: 237), whether Gt can also be passive/intransitive. Tropper (2000: 531–32) also attributes reflexive and reciprocal function to the Ugaritic Gt‑stem and adds a durative/iterative function. He mentions other functions as well, namely, intransitive and “einfach transitiv.” These seem to be less well established.83 With regard to the durative/iterative cases, one might assume that the forms in question are actually lexicalized Gt‑stems that have partly lost their specifically detransitive meaning, the more so since the Ugaritic Gt‑stem is a largely literary category. This would be parallel to what happened in Akkadian. Important for establishing the exact status of the Ugaritic Gt‑stem is Tropper’s (2000: 528) observation that the suffix conjugation (*iqtatVla) is very rare and that the prefix conjugation (*yiqtatVl(u)) is especially common in the poetic corpus but rare in prose texts (p. 531). This suggests that it is an archaic category preserved in literary style but no longer (or less) used in ordinary language, just as the Gt‑stem in later Babylonian.84 This is in keeping with what we know about other languages from the same area. Moabite has several forms of the verb lḥm ‘to fight’ with infixed t. In the oldest Aramaic texts, we also find a few instances of infixed t (Garr 1985: 119–20), but later Aramaic only uses prefixed forms, unless the first consonant is a sibilant (Segert 1990: 256).85 Arabic also provides important information about the diachronic development of the Gt‑stem. For Classical Arabic, Stem VIII (iqtatala) is described by Wright (1967: I 41–42) as “properly the reflexive or middle voice” of the basic stem: it is both direct and indirect reflexive, reciprocal, and passive, the latter especially if there is no Stem VII (inqatala). Moreover, “in not a few verbs,” Stem VIII shows no discernible difference in meaning from the basic stem. Joüon (1935: 111–15) states that iqtatala is originally an indirect reflexive but tends to become similar to the basic stem and can also be direct reflexive and passive (his examples suggest that he instead means mediopassive or anticausative). Fleisch (1979: 309–14) states that iqtatala is often indirect reflexive or the intransitive counterpart of transitive verbs and that it is often synonymous with the basic stem (p. 314). Finally, Diem (1982: 70–73) states that iqtatala expresses direct and indirect reflexivity and reciprocity, that it is “nicht frei bildbar” but “stark lexikalisiert,” and that 83.  In contrast to Tropper, I classify ḫṣb and mḫṣ Gt ‘to fight’ as (original) reciprocals (cf. §10.8.3.5, pp. 263–265); hlk Gt ‘umhergehen’ may conceal a form with gemination like Akk alāku Gtn and He hithallẹk (for which see §14.5.5, p. 394). 84.  This is reminiscent of the difference between the ancient perfective *yiqtVl and the new perfect qatVla: poetic texts use the former, other texts mainly the latter (Tropper 2000: 695–97; Sivan 1997: 99). 85.  Amorite may have had past participles with infixed t; cf. proper names of the type Bataḫrum (from √bḥr ‘to select’), Yatašrum (from √yšr ‘to be straight, right’), and some others, suggesting the existence in Amorite of a Gt‑stem with infixed t; see Streck 2000: 340.

14.4.  The Evolution of the Gt‑Stem  

381

in modern Arabic dialects its function is largely taken over by inqatala and/or the “Neubildung” itqatal. Retsö (1983: 28–29), however, stresses the passive use of both inqatala and iqtatala and claims that it tends to be underrated. In contrast, Wright (1967: I 40–41) characterizes Stem VII (inqatala) as “approach[ing] more nearly to a passive” and also ascribes a direct reflexive and “effective” signification to it, with which, judging by his examples, he actually means a mediopassive or anticausative, e.g., inkasara ‘to break (intr.), to be broken’. He also emphatically states that it is never reciprocal. Joüon (1935: 111–15) and Fleisch (1979: 309–14) observe that inqatala is often used in process verbs with inanimate subjects or, if the subject is animate, describes involuntary events. Reckendorf (1967: 49) describes inqatala in a similar way but adds that it is also used for the passive. Perhaps we may summarize these descriptions by stating that, broadly speaking, Stem VIII primarily serves for “second argument reduction” and Stem VII for “first argument reduction” (see §10.8.3, pp. 257–258).86 This agrees with the functions of the Gt‑stem and the N‑stem, respectively, in Akkadian. Just as the Gt‑stem, Stem VIII is highly lexicalized and is often interchangeable with Stem I (see Zaborski 2004 for many examples)87 but also shows clear traces of an original association with reflexivity and reciprocity. The use of Stem VII (often passive, but also used to express processes and involuntary events) agrees well with the historical background of the N‑stem as described in §12.6.1 (pp. 314–321). This suggests that in Arabic, too, the voicemarker t is older and more lexicalized than n, that t has lost its force in many verbs and has been replaced by n in certain functions. The evidence from Ugaritic and Arabic ties in with the detailed evidence from the recorded history of Akkadian and suggests that the decline of the Gt‑stem and its replacement by the N‑stem and nominal markers already began before Proto-Semitic was split up. This is indirectly confirmed by the West Semitic languages that have lost the Gt‑stem with infixed t, especially Aramaic and Geʿez. They have developed a Gt‑stem with t as a prefix in all forms. In Geʿez (Stem III/1 yətqattal, taqat(a)la) and Aramaic (e.g., Syriac ʾEthpəʿel neṯqəṭel, ʾeṯqəṭel), it is the productive means of creating a detransitive (mostly passive) derivation of the basic stem. Although there can be little doubt that t was originally a prefix in (Pre‑)Proto-Semitic and earlier in Afroasiatic, there are good reasons to assume that the consistent prefixing of t in these stems in Geʿez and Aramaic is a secondary development and that infixing of t once existed but disappeared with the original Gt‑stem itself.88 The presence of prefixed t forms in Geʿez and Aramaic coincides with the absence of a productive N‑stem with (medio)passive function. This suggests that the rise of a 86.  Cf. also Reckendorf’s formulation of the difference between VIII and VII (1967: 49): “[W]ährend die andern vier Medialformen [i.e., the derived stems with t as infix or prefix—N.J.C.K.] bezeichnen, dass die Wirkungen unter mehr oder weniger positivem Zutun des Subjekts zu Stande kommen, scheint bei der VII Konjug. ursprünglich die lebendige Mitwirkung des Subjekts in den Hintergrund zu treten, sie bedeutete wohl: die Wirkungen der von der I Konjug. bezeichneten Handlung unter indifferentem Verhalten über sich ergehen lassen. Der Anteil des Subjekts ist negativ.” 87.  I do not agree with Zaborski’s conclusion (2004: 170) that these forms are traces of “iptaras Perfects” and show that this category already existed in Afroasiatic. In order to qualify for being such a perfect—i.e., a finite member of the basic stem—it is not enough to show that t does not have its usual detransitive meaning. It should also be demonstrated that it is in a paradigmatic relation to the other finite members of the basic stem—for instance, that it contrasts with a G‑stem imperfective of the same verb and denotes a difference in tense/aspect. 88.  For Geʿez, this is argued by Diem 1982: 57–58. Traces of infixing occur in the oldest Aramaic documents; see Garr 1985: 119–20. However, Brockelmann (1908: 529), Lieberman (1986: 614), and Fischer (1982: 84) consider itqatal to be original (Fischer: “eine altertümliche Bildungsweise”) and Classical Arabic iqtatala secondary, comparing it with Aramaic ʾEthpəʿel. If they mean that it is older than the

382

The Remaining Secondary Stems    14.5.

new Gt‑stem with prefixed t is caused by the urge to create a new (medio)passive for the G‑stem and explains why it is much more predominantly (medio)passive than the original Gt‑stem. The model for this was formed by the derived stems which had a detransitive derivation with prefixed t- all along (Retsö 1989: 149):89 in Aramaic (with Syriac as example), the ʾEthpaʿʿal neṯqaṭṭal, ʾeṯqaṭṭal beside the active Paʿʿel nəqaṭṭẹl, qaṭṭẹl, in Geʿez the III/2 Stem yətqēttal, taqattala, and the III/3 Stem yətqāttal, taqātala, which neatly correspond to the Arabic Stem V (yataqattalu, taqattala) and Stem VI (yataqātalu, taqātala). Thus the Geʿez III/1 Perf taqat(a)la is a backformation based on taqattala and taqātala and does not go back to the original Proto-Semitic suffix base *taqtVl-, which was lost in the common West Semitic period. Its fluctuation between a and ∅ < i or u (with taqatala mainly in verbs with gutturals) is based on the same phenomenon in the perfect of the G‑stem (qatala or qatla < *qati/ula).90 This also applies to the corresponding Aramaic forms. The same process as in Aramaic and Geʿez can be observed in modern Arabic dialects. Very few of them preserve the derived stem with infixed -t- (Stem VIII) as a productive category. According to Retsö (1983: 164), it mainly survives in “a rather small group, being limited to the south of the Arabian peninsula (Yemen, Ḥaḍramaut).” Elsewhere, it was replaced by forms with prefixed t of the type itqatal (Diem 1982: 64–66; Lipiński 1997: 397–98). Just as in Ethiopic, the rise of this itqatal form is usually accompanied by a more-or-less strong decline of the other detransitive stem, Stem VII (Diem 1982: 65–66). The final conclusion is that in all West Semitic languages the use of the original prefixing Gt‑stem is drastically reduced over time. Apart from Arabic, it is restricted to the oldest attested stages. In Classical Arabic, it manages to hold its own fairly well but shows clear signs of loss of function and lexicalization. In modern Arabic, it is largely replaced by prefixed forms, and this also happened more consistently in Geʿez and Aramaic. The fact that Akkadian shows the same picture suggests that this decline already started before the split between East and West Semitic (even if we allow for the much later date of attestation of the latter). This is confirmed by the function of the nouns of the pattern taPRiS(t) to be discussed in §14.6.1 below (pp. 397–402) and perhaps by the background of the Arabic Stem V (yataqattilu, taqattala) discussed in §14.5.5 (pp. 394–395). From a typological perspective, the decline of the Gt‑stem with infixed t is not an unusual development: Ultan (1975: 171) observes that “[I]nfixes tend to decay semantically more rapidly than other affixes” (see also pp. 185–88). One of the reasons is that infixes are always “firmly and closely bound to their roots. This close physical bond leads to blurring and eventual fusion of the semantic value or function of the infix with that of its root” (p. 171).

14.5. The Remaining Secondary Stems The other secondary stems, the Dt‑stem and the Št1‑stem, are in many respects parallel to the Gt‑stem: they have the same functional relation to the D‑stem and the Š‑stem, respectively, as the Gt‑stem has to the G‑stem. Unlike the Gt‑stem, however, the Dt‑stem and the Št1‑stem can also have (medio)passive function. This has saved them from becoming totally obsolete after corresponding prefix forms, this is difficult to reconcile with the rest of the evidence concerning the overall development of the verbal stems with t, apart from the chronological problem. 89.  I do not agree with Retsö that this suggests that t in the derived stems is older than in the basic stem. The whole evolution of t in the Semitic languages militates against this. 90.  It is possible that the older form *taqtala is preserved in tanśəʾa ‘to rise’ < *tanśaʾa, from the root √nś  ʾ, reanalyzed as a quadriliteral verb (Brockelmann 1908: 528; Moscati, ed. 1964: 153). However, Tropper (2002: 132) regards it as a denominal verb from the deverbal noun tənśāʾe ‘Auferstehung’.

14.5.  The Remaining Secondary Stems  

383

losing their reciprocal and reflexive function to nominal markers. However, it is clear that they were also affected by the ever-stronger association of the t‑infix with perfect function: in the late dialects, they have become very rare, and in Neo-Assyrian they were renewed by means of a new form with a double t‑infix.

14.5.1.  The Dt‑stem Table 14.4 shows the paradigm of the Dt‑stem and the Št1‑stem (to be discussed in the next section), which are parallel apart from their inflectional stem: Dt‑stem

Št1‑stem

Impfv

uptarras

uštapras

Pfv

uptarris

uštapris

t-Pf

uptatarris

uštatapris

Stat

putarrus

šutaprus

Imp

putarris

šutapris

Inf/PPartc

putarrusu

šutaprusu

PrPartc

muptarrisu

muštaprisu

Table 14.4: The paradigm of the Dt‑stem and the Št1‑stem.

The paradigm of the Dt‑stem is derived from that of the D‑stem by infixation of t after R1, which results in a base PtaRRvS.91 If there is no personal prefix, the initial cluster is avoided by inserting -u-, e.g., Imp putarris. This happens both in Babylonian and Assyrian, so that the Dt‑stem does not show the dialectal difference in the D‑stem between Bab PuRRvS and Ass PaRRvS. The vowel u is taken over from the personal prefixes in accordance with the usual hierarchy in the verbal paradigm (see §2.2.1, pp. 29–30). The t infix interacts with the first radical in the same way as in other t‑ and tan‑stems (see §14.2.2, pp. 359–360). However, for the metathesis of t and R1 I can only mention Assyrian forms, such as the following: • Imp Masc Sg tù-za-ki Prag I 428:24 (OA) ‘clear yourself!’ from zakû ‘to be(come) clean, free’ • Imp Masc Sg tù-ša-bi CCT 3, 27b:10 (OA) ‘satisfy yourself!’ from šebû ‘to be(come) sated’ • Inf (ša) tu-sa-ḫu-re Assur 2/4, 96: B II 11′ (MA) ‘(textiles) which are to be ‘turned’’ from saḫāru • Inf c. st. tu-šal-lu-um MARV 4, 78:27′ (MA) ‘to be transported’ from šalāmu D Because of its predominantly (medio)passive meaning, the Dt‑stem is mainly used in the finite forms of imperfective and perfective (see below on the t‑perfect). Other forms tend to occur only in non-passive Dt‑stems. Especially rare are the stative and the past participle, which are regularly replaced by those of the D‑stem with passive meaning (see GAG §93a).92 91.  Occasionally, the multiple use of both gemination of R2 and the infix t leads to homonymous forms, such as the PrPartc muptarrisu, which can be both Gtn and Dt(n), and this also applies to the 3s Prec liptarris, if the verb belongs to the I/i class. 92.  A noteworthy instance is the abstract noun šutarruḫūtu ‘magnificence’ (šu-ta-ru-ḫu-ti-šú RIMA 2/I, 151: 75, SB), which is based on a past participle *šutarruḫu, derived from a Dt Stat šutarruḫ, e.g., (with a

384

The Remaining Secondary Stems    14.5.

Forms of the t‑perfect with a double t‑infix (uptatarris) are rare, as is true of other double t forms, although some instances occur already in Old Babylonian: • uq-ta-ta-at-tu-ú AbB 14, 8:14 ‘it has been completed’ from qatû (cf. Pfv uq-ta-at-tu-ú in 16) • uš-ta-ta-i RA 90, 124:16 ‘I showed indifference’ from šutaʾʾû (see below) • [ú]-te-te-zi-zu Atr. p. 90:43 ‘they have become angry with each other’ from ezēzu93 From Middle Babylonian, I can only mention uḫ-ta-ta-li-qu BE 17, 28:29 from ḫalāqu ‘to become lost, escape’ (in obscure context). In Standard Babylonian, we find ú-ta-tab-bit SBH p. 114 no. 60:14 ‘it was destroyed’ from abātu and ul-ta-tal-li-t[u] OEC 6, pl. 20 K.4958:3 ‘they were split apart’ from salātu.94 Dt forms with double t‑infix do not seem to occur in Old or Middle Assyrian.95 In Neo-Assyrian, however, they gave rise to the Dtt‑stem—which is something quite different (see §14.5.3 below, pp. 388–391)—so they must have existed as well or have developed in the preceding period. The Dt‑stem is the detransitive counterpart of the D‑stem. Its use was illustrated extensively in GAV pp. 318–333, so a few examples may suffice here. Its main function is that of expressing the passive (with an agent implied) and the mediopassive (without an agent), as illustrated in (01) and (02), respectively:96 (01) UET 5, 75:4–5 (OB) ṣalam PN ḫurāṣam ú-ta-aḫ-ḫa-az ‘the statue of PN will be inlaid with gold’, from uḫḫuzu ‘to inlay’ (02) BagM. 21, 341:14–16 (SB) akîtum (. . .) labāriš illikma up-te-eṭ-ṭir “Das Akîtu (. . .) war alt geworden und fing an zu zerbröckeln” (tr. A. Cavigneaux and B. Kh. Ismail)97 In addition, the Dt‑stem has several marginal uses. It can be reflexive, as in (03), and reciprocal, as in (04): (03) TDP 170:10 (SB) [If a patient . . .] libbī qaqqadī iqabbi up-ta-sa-am ‘says “my belly, my head!” and keeps veiling himself’, from pasāmu G and D ‘to veil’ (04) Gilg. p. 732:88 (SB) (Gilgamesh and Enkidu) innedrūma ut-tataš-šá-qu ‘embraced each other and kissed’ from našāqu G and D ‘to kiss’ slightly different meaning) ul šu-ta-ar-[r]u-uḫ Legends p. 64: 29 (OB) ‘he was not thirsting for glory’ (tr. J. Westenholz). 93.  See Kouwenberg 2001: 231 with n. 19. Streck’s criticism (2003a: 75–76) that such a Dt form could only mean ‘they have made each other angry’ ignores the fact that the Dt‑stem is not only a detransitive derivation of the D‑stem but also a plural counterpart of the Gt‑stem (see below and GAV pp. 329–31). A direct parallel is lemēnu Dt as quoted in CAD L 118b s.v. 7. The form cannot be a t‑perfect of the Gt‑stem for formal reasons, as Streck (1995a: 223) shows, and the restoration [i ]-te-te-zi-zu as a Gtn t‑perfect does not fit in with the context. 94.  Unclear cases are uḫ-ta-taš-ši-il TDP 218:9 (from ḫašālu ‘to crush’ in some idiomatic meaning?); ul-ta-ta-ni-iʾ BAM 6, 514: II 27′ (šanāʾu Dt?); ú-te-te-eṭ-ṭi/e ACh. Ad. 20:49 ‘he/it becomes dark’ (the context requires an imperfective or a perfective, see Streck 1995a: 225), Epilepsy p. 65:41 (doubtless an imperfective), and Diagnostik p. 256:68; ub-ta-ta-ʾi ABL 1264: r.8 (buʾʾû Dt? in broken context). 95.  For Old Assyrian, GKT §76a mentions ú-ta-ta-e-ra-ni from târu D ‘to return’ (tr.) from an unpublished text but suggests that it is a scribal error. 96.  I am not aware of any passive Dt forms with an explicit agent (see §10.8.3.1, p. 259). 97.  This use is common in verbs of destroying and loosening, etc., such as ḫepû ‘to break’, paṭāru ‘to loosen’ (exemplified by (02)), pasāsu ‘to erase’ (see ex. (11) in chap. 10, p. 260), and many similar verbs.

14.5.  The Remaining Secondary Stems  

385

Moreover, it can fientivize a D stative (just like the N‑stem can fientivize a G stative), as in (05), it can contrast with a D stative to express an activity, as in (06), and it can underline plurality of the subject, especially in contrast to the Gt‑stem, an outgrowth of the original association of the D‑stem with plurality, as in (07):98 (05) Asb. B V 11 (SB) šapassu uk-tam-bil-ma īnu iṣḫir ‘his lip became paralyzed and (his) eye became small’ (versus kubbul ‘he/it is lame, paralyzed’ and ṣeḫer ‘he/it is small’) (06) Gilg. p. 550:211–12 (SB) (in Uruk) ašar Gilgameš (. . .) kī rīmi ug-da-áš-šá-ru eli eṭlūti ‘where Gilgameš (. . .), like a wild bull, acts overbearingly towards the men’ (cf. guššur ‘he is powerful’, from gašāru ‘to be(come) powerful’) (07) RA 65, 74:81′ acc. to CAD R 104a s.v. 11 (OB) zinnū ina šamê úr-ta-ak-ka-s[u] ‘rain clouds will gather in the sky’, versus ACh. Spl. 4:10 (SB) zunnu rit-ku-su ‘continuous rain’ Finally, it can be used instead of D to underline the intransitive nature of the action, especially in activity verbs denoting sounds, such as laḫāšu Dt ‘to whisper’, naʾāru Dt ‘to roar’, nazāmu Dt ‘to complain’, and raṣānu Dt ‘to make a loud noise’ (see GAV pp. 281–86). There are also a few lexicalized Dt‑stems, such as šutaʾʾû (mainly OB) ‘to show indifference’,99 putuqqu ‘to be attentive’ or the like (also D), utaqqû ‘to wait’ (from waqû), and perhaps also *mutuzzu ‘to refuse’ (see CAD M/1 440a s.v. *mâzu v.). The relationship between the Dt‑stem and the D‑stem mirrors that between the Gt‑stem and the G‑stem, except for the fact that the Dt‑stem can also be (medio)passive. So it covers the functions of Gt and N taken together and is therefore rather common: AHw includes approximately 237 verbs with a Dt‑stem versus 903 with a D‑stem (see GAV p. 111 n. 1). The diachronic development of the Dt‑stem is partially parallel to that of the Gt‑stem. Its reflexive function is marginal and its reciprocal function is somewhat more common, but both functions were increasingly taken over by nominal markers. However, since the Dt‑stem is also used for the (medio)passive, it preserved a domain of its own and was not affected to the same degree as the Gt‑stem. Accordingly, the Dt‑stem is still used—albeit sporadically—in Neo-Babylonian, where the secondary stems are strongly in decline: Woodington (1982: 91) mentions instances of paḫāru Dt ‘to be assembled’, esēru Dt ‘to be confined’, and the D tantum verb kupputu ‘to concentrate’.100 Additional cases are šalāmu Dt ‘to be compensated’ (lul-ta-lim NBNippur 20:33) and šamāḫu Dt ‘to join forces’, with reciprocal meaning, strengthened by it-ta-ḫa-miš (us-sa-am-ma-aḫ NBNippur 16:28). Ebeling (1953: 192) mentions uq-ta-at-ta YOS 3, 109:22 from qatû ‘to come to an end’ and us-sa-ab-bi-is YOS 3, 136:27 from š/sabāsu ‘to be(come) angry’ (Ebeling 1953: 200). In Neo-Assyrian, the Dt‑stem is replaced by the Dtt‑stem, which will be discussed in §14.5.3 below (pp. 388–391). For deviations in the conjugation of Dt‑stems of weak verbs, see the respective sections in chaps. 16 and 17. There are two secondary developments involving the Dt‑stem: the Old 98.  Cf. for Arabic, Wright 1967: I 37: “iftaraqa expresses the mere separation, tafarraqa the separation into a great many groups or in various directions”. 99.  According to Landsberger (1960: 120 n. 30), this verb is cognate with Syriac ešteʿī ‘to play’, but the Syriac verb rather looks like a loan from Akkadian. 100.  The exact forms are up-taḫ-ḫa-ru SAA 18, 101: r.9 ‘they come together’; ú-ta-sar CT 54, 22:17 ‘he will be confined’ (the clause may be an omen quotation, however); and uk-tap-pat CT 54, 258:6 (c. br.).

386

The Remaining Secondary Stems    14.5.

Babylonian Dtr‑stem to be discussed in chap. 15, which is an extension of the Dt‑stem by means of reduplication of R2, and the Neo-Assyrian Dtt‑stem.

14.5.2.  The Št1‑stem The paradigm of the Št1‑stem, as shown in Table 14.4 (p. 383) in the previous section, is derived from that of the Š‑stem by infixation of t after the first consonant (base štaPRvS)101 and is completely parallel to that of the Dt‑stem. This is caused by the fact that the relationship Š § Št1 (ušapras § uštapras) is modelled on, and dominated by, the far more frequent relationship D § Dt (uparras § uptarras) in the D‑stem. This is why the Št1 imperfective does not have gemination, although this would phonologically be possible, as I argued in §4.5.2 (p. 114). The Št1 imperfective of the I/voc and the I/w verbs does have gemination, however, because the corresponding Š‑stem has it as well, e.g., from waṣû ‘to go /come out’: ušeṣṣē ‘he causes to go out’ § ušteṣṣē (e.g., uš-te-eṣ-ṣe SpTU 2, 16: II 7 (SB) ‘he will be caused to go out’) (see §16.2.3, pp. 456–457). As a result, these classes of verbs do not have a formal distinction between the Št1‑stem and the Št2‑stem: ušteṣṣē can also be the imperfective of the Št2‑stem šutēṣû ‘to quarrel’. Another noteworthy point with regard to the Št1‑stem of weak verbs is that Št1 forms of II/voc verbs do not seem to be attested. For other aspects of the Št1‑stems of weak verbs, see the respective sections of chaps. 16 and 17. The comments made in the previous section on individual forms of the Dt paradigm are also valid for the Št1‑stem.102 Reliable Št1 forms of the t‑perfect with a double t-infix are very rare. There is, however, an Old Babylonian instance, quoted as (11) below.103 The few Standard Babylonian examples that are sometimes quoted are all very uncertain.104 Since the Št1‑stem is almost always (medio)passive, reliable forms of the imperative, stative, infinitive, and past and present participles are uncommon or unattested (GAG §94b). If such a form seems to occur, it usually belongs to the Št2‑stem or the Štn‑stem. The parallel with the Dt‑stem also applies to the function of the Št1‑stem: it is the detransitive counterpart of the Š‑stem, so it is an “anticausative” in the strict sense of the word. Since this is generally a highly marked form, the Št1‑stem is not very common, although it was doubtless productive and could be created whenever it was needed. AHw counts 36 verbs with a Št1‑stem, and Streck (2003a: 115) counts 35 instances, but many of these do not conform to the criterion 101.  The paradigm of the Št1‑stem is identical to that of the Št2‑ and Štn‑stems, except in the imperfective, where Št1 has uštapras, Št2 uštaparras (see §14.6.2.1, p. 403) and Štn uštanapras (see §14.7.4, p. 424). This makes it often problematic from which stem to derive a given non-imperfective form. The main criterion is that a Št1‑stem should be a regular detransitive derivation of a Š‑stem, preferably one that is actually attested. 102.  The vowel u in the non-prefix forms comes from u in personal prefixes, just as in the Dt‑stem. Tropper’s claim that it replaces i (the default epenthetic vowel) under the influence of the preceding š (Tropper 1997a: 197 n. 18) is contradicted by Gt forms of verbs starting with š, such as šitkun, šitmur, etc. 103.  The difficult verb form tu-uš-te-te-ep-ša-am AbB 14, 116:26 (OB) “you have caused to be made for me,” which apparently represents tuštētepšam for the expected tuštetēpišam from epēšu Št1 may be another example. 104.  They include uš-ta-tál-pit SBH p. 55 no. 28: r.11 ‘it has become ruined’ and uš-ta-taḫ-ri-ir SBH p. 31 no. 14:2 ‘it has become silent’; however, both forms occur in texts that do not use other t‑perfect forms and are therefore more likely to be interpreted as perfective forms: uš-tatál-pit and uš-tataḫ-ri-ir (Streck 1995a: 225–26). See Streck 1995a: 222–34 for a critical discussion of these and other attested verb forms with a double t-infix. Streck points to the difficulty of interpreting many “double t  ” forms as perfects because they occur in texts that normally use the perfective for past tense; he explains such forms as Dtt‑, Štt‑, and Gtt‑stems. This is not acceptable to me, as I will argue below in §14.5.3 (pp. 390–391).

14.5.  The Remaining Secondary Stems  

387

formulated here (see n. 101), so I prefer to regard them as either Št2‑stems or Štn‑stems or too uncertain to merit inclusion.105 Good examples of typically anticausative Št1‑stems are: (08) VS 8, 26:21–23 (OB) x gín kù.babbar ana PN1 PN2 uš-ta-áš-qí-il ‘PN2 (the guarantor) was made to pay x shekels of silver to PN1’ (see S. Lafont, FM 6 p. 75) (09) AMT 54, 1:9, 12 (SB) (you have him inhale medicated vapor) uš-ta-ÁŠ-ʾ-al ‘and he will be induced to expectorate’ (tr. CAD S 1b s.v. saʾālu c, passive of an unattested saʾālu Š ‘to cause to cough’) (10) KAR 428:29 (SB) nakru šallat ilqû uš-ta-ad-da ‘the enemy will be caused to abandon the booty he took’ (from nadû Št1, passive of Š ‘to cause to drop’) However, most Št1 forms come from lexicalized Š‑stems that function as more-or-less independent verbs, e.g., šulputu ‘to destroy’, šūbulu ‘to send’, šuddunu ‘to collect’ (taxes), or from Š‑stems that do not have a corresponding G‑stem, e.g., šuklulu ‘to make perfect, finish’. Reflexive and reciprocal Št1‑stems are very hard to find. A reciprocal Št1‑stem is (11), and a reflexive one may be (12), but it is problematic: (11) AbB 12, 5:25–26 (OB) alpam kīma alpim nupteḫma kanīk šīmātim nu-uš-te-te-zi-ib ‘we have exchanged one ox for another and have had a sales document drawn up for each other’ from šūzubu ‘to have (a document) drawn up’106 (12) AnSt. 33, 148:25–26 (OB) alik atta lū nūr tenēšētim tu-uš-te-pé ramānuk ‘go and be the light of mankind, make yourself visible/shining’ from šūpû ‘to make visible’ (my tr., cf. Streck 2003a: 128 no. 409)107 The functional development of the Št1‑stem is largely parallel to that of the Dt‑stem as described in the previous section. Most instances come from Old and Standard Babylonian (see n. 105). Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian do not furnish a single reliable Št1‑stem, which may be due to the scarcity of texts. In Neo- and Late Babylonian, Št1‑stems are very rare, but the way they are used suggests that the (medio)passive Št1 was still a productive category, available when 105.  Reliable Old Babylonian Št1‑stems include marāṣu Št1 ‘to be made ill, annoyed’, nadānu Št1 ‘to be collected (taxes)’, nadû Št1 ‘to be caused to drop’, redû Št1 ‘to be caused to flow (water)’ and wapû Št1 ‘to be made visible, be proclaimed’. In Standard Babylonian, we find adāru Št1 ‘to be frightened, become afraid’, ezēbu Št1 ‘to be saved, escape unharmed’, ḫarābu Št1 ‘to be destroyed’, lapātu Št1 ‘to be destroyed’, nasāku Št1 ‘to be annulled (words, etc.)’, (w)apû Št1 ‘to be made visible, be proclaimed’, (w)aṣû Št1 ‘to be brought out’, šuḫruru Št1 ‘to be destroyed’, and šuklulu Št1 ‘to be finished, be successful’. The recent survey of Št1‑stems compiled by Streck includes several instances not mentioned here (the comment in parentheses briefly explains why I have omitted it): ebēbu (327) (uncertain), edēqu (328) (Št2), elēpu (329) (Št2), elû (330) (peripheral), ešēru (331) (perhaps all forms are Št2: in I/inf verbs there is no difference between Št1 and Št2), ḫakāmu (333) (to be deleted; see n. 109), ḫasāsu (337) (Št2), naṣāru (345) (Št2), naṭālu (346) (OB to be deleted, SB uncertain), petû (348) (uncertain) and šarû (353) (to be deleted). 106.  The editor, W. van Soldt, transliterates nu-uš-te-⟨te⟩-zi-ib as a Š perfect, which seems an unnecessary correction: the preceding reciprocal Dt form suggests that the following form may quite well be reciprocal, too, and since a t‑perfect is appropriate in this context, the double t-infix is exactly what we expect (even though it is very unusual in Old Babylonian). 107.  This interpretation implies that the reflexive noun ramānuk strengthens the reflexive meaning of tušteppē. There does not seem to be a good reason for interpreting tušteppē as a Št2‑stem, made reflexive by ramānuk.

The Remaining Secondary Stems    14.5.

388

needed (cf. Woodington 1982: 91).108 In Neo-Assyrian, no Št1‑stems are attested according to Hämeen-Anttila (2000: 89), but there is a Š form with double t-infix parallel to the Dtt‑stem (see §14.5.3, p. 389).109

14.5.3.  The Neo-Assyrian stems with a double t‑infix The best illustration of the decline of the t‑infix in all functions except the perfect is the situation in Neo-Assyrian. In this dialect, the use of t as a past-tense marker was apparently so dominant that the simple t infix became unsuitable for other uses. As a result, its detransitive function virtually ceased to exist,110 and a new form emerged: insofar as former t‑stems were indispensable or frequent enough to be safeguarded from extinction, they were replaced by forms with a double t-infix, the Dtt‑stem and the Štt‑stem. For the same reason, the very few Gt verbs which still existed developed a double t‑infix in at least part of their paradigm. The most common category is the Dtt‑stem.111 Since most D‑stems are transitive, the lack of a clearly marked (medio)passive form after the demise of the regular Dt‑stem must have been a real handicap. Therefore, a repair mechanism was employed: the double -t- infix that existed all along in the t‑perfect (uptatarris) was generalized to all (finite) forms.112 Table 14.5 shows the forms of the common D‑stem gammuru ‘to complete, finish’:113 D

Dt before NA

Dtt in NA

Impfv

ugammar

ugdammar

ugdatammar, ugdatmar  114

t‑Pf

ugdammir

ugdatammir

Pfv

ugammir

ugdammir

     ¶ = ugdatammir, ugdatmir      •

ugdatammir (only as Prec)

Table 14.5: The forms of the Dtt‑stem and their relationships.  108.  Instances are ul-ta-ad-ba-bu SAA 18, 101: r.9 ‘they are made to speak’, ul-taḫ-la-qu SAA 18, 83: r.10 ‘he is allowed to escape’ (Subj), [u]l-taḫ-ma-ṣu CT 54, 122:9 from ḫamāṣu Š ‘to despoil’ (in broken context), and ul-ta-aṣ-ba-tu-ʾ VS 6, 84:3 ‘they are/will be induced to take (work)’. 109.  In SAA 10, 263: r.8, the alleged Št1 form ú-saḫ!-ka-mu-ni (cf. AHw 1044b s.v. simānu 2 end and 1558a s.v. ḫakāmu Št), can be read as a Š Impfv ú-šàḫ-ka-mu-ni (Š): ‘in places which the king will specify’; for ⟨šàḫ⟩, cf. SAA 10, 384:7 ú-šàḫ-kam-šú ‘I will explain to him’, which is also a Š imperfective, and lu‑šàḫ-kim-šú SAA 10, 238: r.18, where saḫ is impossible. There are no certain instances of ḫakāmu Št1 in the SAA volumes. 110.  Deller 1965: 271; Hämeen-Anttila 2000: 88, and see n. 41 above (p. 366). 111.  Previous literature includes von Soden 1950a: 390–93; Parpola 1984: 199; Streck 1995a: 231–33; Hämeen-Anttila 2000: 89; Luukko 2004: 145–46. 112.  See von Soden 1950a: 391. It is not quite accurate to state, with von Soden (1940a: 391), Parpola (1984: 199), and Hämeen-Anttila (2000: 89), that in the t‑perfect a triple infix is expected: the actual device consists in copying the double infix of the t‑perfect, not simply adding an additional infix, which I think is not a possible step. If the t‑perfect had not already contained a double infix, this solution would have been impossible. 113.  Sporadic Dt forms with a single t‑infix in Neo-Assyrian are presumably either borrowings from Standard Babylonian (e.g., uk-ta-at-ti-mu SAA 10, 226: r.3 ‘they have been covered’) or they are Dtt forms with three successive dentals, of which one is syncopated for euphonic reasons (Parpola 1983: 130; Hämeen-Anttila 2000: 89), e.g., ú-ta-da-ar SAA 10, 196: r.6 ‘he must keep in the dark’ (if this is not a loan from Standard Babylonian). 114.  It is not quite clear whether we have to assume d or t in the second syllable of the infix of this verb, since the spelling wavers between ta, da, and dam. Since verbs that do not have the partial assimilation -gt- >

14.5.  The Remaining Secondary Stems  

389

The forms of the Dtt‑stem that have an ending occur in a long and a short variant. In the short variant the second syllable of the infix is reduced to -t- and the geminate is simplified. Instances of long imperfective forms are (see also Parpola 1984: 208): ug-da-at-am-mar SAA 10, 74: r.21 ‘it will be completed’ ug-da-da-mar-u-[ni] SAA 1, 47: r.13 ‘it will be finished’ (Subj) ut-ta-ta-zu-mu SAA 10, 353: r.4 ‘they are complaining’ from nazāmu Dtt up-ta-tar-šu-mu SAA 13, 56: r.16 ‘they will be granted old age’ from the quadriradical verb paršumu (see chap. 12 n. 69, p. 307) • ú-sa-ta-pu-lu SAA 1, 82: r.5 ‘they will move downstream’ from šapālu Dt (/ussatappulu/ < *uštatappulū) • ú-sa-at-a-lam SAA 14, 163: r.4 and 164: edge 9 ‘he will be paid in full’ from šalāmu Dtt (/ussatallam/ < *uštatallam) • • • •

An example of a short imperfective form is: • up-ta-at-ḫu-ru SAA 5, 227: s.1 ‘they will assemble’ (or: ‘be assembled’) from paḫāru Dt. Long forms of the t‑perfect are: • ug-da-ta-me-ru CTN 5 p. 41:11 ‘they have been finished off’ • ú-za-ta-ki SAA 1, 175:6 ‘he prepared himself’ (/uzzatakki/) from zakû Dt • up-ta-ta-ṣi-di Iraq 4, 186:16 ‘it was destroyed’ from paṣādu Dt Short forms of the t‑perfect are: • ug-da-at-me-ru SAA 1, 80:9 ‘they have been completed’ • us-sa-at-mi-nu SAA 10, 226: r.2 ‘they have been anointed’ (/ussatminu/ < *uštat(am) minū from the denominal D‑stem *šummunu ‘to anoint’ (cf. šamnu ‘oil’) The perfective seems to occur only as basis of the precative (Hämeen-Anttila 2000: 89 n. 81): • lu-uk-ta-ti-ni SAA 5, 163:10 ‘let him be tried’ (/luktatīn(i)/) from kuānu Dt • lu-un-ta-ta-zi-qu SAA 1, 229: r.5 ‘let it (water) be sucked’ from mazāqu ‘to suck’ It is unlikely that this Dtt paradigm had other forms than the three mentioned in the table. Because of its passive meaning, it doubtless did not have an imperative, a stative, and a present participle. It may have had a passive infinitive, however. There is at least one instance in Neo-Assyrian of a Štt‑stem replacing a passive Št1‑stem: lu-u-sa-te-li SAA 16, 207:9′ ‘let him be promoted’, i.e., / lussatēli/ < *luštatēli from šālû ‘to promote’, lit., ‘to cause to go up’ (elû Š). Since the passive Št1‑stem always develops parallel to the Dt‑stem, such forms are to be expected. The fact that they are so rare is caused by the rarity of the Št1‑stem.115 Finally, at least two Gt‑stems that are well-known from earlier periods have survived in NeoAssyrian: šâlu Gt ‘to deliberate, inquire’ and alāku Gt ‘to start going’. The former shows a double t‑infix in li-sa-ta-al-šú CTN 5 p. 65:4′ ‘let (the king) interrogate him’, i.e., /lissatālšu/ < lištatālšu.116 Alāku Gt occurs much more frequently with a double t‑infix, but some of its forms -gd- generally have ta, I have opted for ugdatammar, etc. 115.  The form uš-ta-ta-ši-ru-ni in BBR 1–20:41 ištu kakkab šamāmī uš-ta-ta-ši-ru-ni (NA ritual), which must mean something like ‘after the stars of heaven have been provided for’, may be a Neo-Assyrian Štt‑stem of ašāru ‘to take care of’, adapted to Standard Babylonian phonology (i.e., with ‑št‑ preserved). 116.  Cf. Streck 2003a: 13 n. 12. There is no reason to doubt that this form goes back to a Gt‑stem rather than a Gtn‑stem: already since Old Assyrian, šâlu Gt is used in contexts where the reciprocal meaning has

The Remaining Secondary Stems    14.5.

390

have developed in a way that makes them almost unrecognizable, especially through the assimilation of ‑lk‑ > ‑kk‑.117 Parpola (1984: 199) has reconstructed its paradigm as in the rightmost column of table 14.6: G in NA

Gt before NA Gt(t) in NA

3ms Impfv

illak

ittallak

*ittatallak

3mp Impfv

illuku

itallukū

*ittatalluku

3ms t‑Pf

ittalak

ittatlak

ittatlak

3mp t‑Pf

ittalku

ittatlukū

ittatakku (< ittatalku), ittatku

3ms Pfv (Prec)

(l)illik

(l)ittalak

littatlak

3mp Pfv (Prec)

(i)lliku

(l)ittalkū

*littatakku (also littatku ?)

Table 14.6: The Neo-Assyrian paradigm of alāku Gt.

The only forms actually attested with a double t‑infix are t‑perfect forms and a single precative (see also Parpola 1984: 193–95). Selected attestations of the t‑perfect are it-ta-at-lak SAA 15, 37: r.4 ‘he went away’, it-ta-tak-k[u] SAA 5, 19: r.7, and it-ta-ta-ku CTN 5 p. 281:11 ‘they went away’, i-ta-ta-ku-ú-ni CTN 5 p. 241b:7′ ‘they came’, and i-ta-ta-ka CTN 5 p. 291:19 ‘he came’. A shortened form is i-ta-at-ku SAA 5, 32:11 and SAA 5, 217:9 ‘they went away’. The shortening follows the same pattern as in the Dtt‑stem (Parpola 1984: 199–200). The perfective seems to occur only as precative; the only form I know of is li-it-ta-at-lak SAA 15, 24: s.1 ‘let him depart’. However, the imperfective forms with a double t reconstructed by Parpola are not (yet?) attested. This raises the question of whether they really existed (cf. i-tal-lu-ku SAA 5, 126: r.8 with a single t !). If not, the only change regarding the t‑infix vis-à-vis earlier Assyrian is represented by the precative (littatlak and lissatāl  ). If we explain this form as an occasional analogical formation (iprus : liprus § ittatlak : littatlak), which does not seem implausible, we no longer need to posit a Gtt‑stem on a par with the Dtt‑ and Štt‑stem. It is possible that a few Late Babylonian verb forms with a double t‑infix and passive meaning result from the same process, either independently or under the influence of Neo-Assyrian: ut-tatap-pa-lu-ú UM 2/1, 112:11 ‘they will be held responsible’ from apālu,118 and un-da-ta-na-áš-šú BE 10, 132:17 ‘it will be charged to him’ from manû (< umtatannā‑aššu). The same explanation may apply to the Late Babylonian Impfv at-ta-tal-lak (discussed by Streck 1995a: 227–28), which may be a real Gtt form replacing an earlier Gt form attallak, identical to the (not attested) Neo-Assyrian imperfective of table 14.6. In addition, numerous other verb forms with a double t‑infix are found, especially in peripheral Middle Babylonian and in Neo‑ and Late Babylonian. However, they cannot be explained in the same way as the Neo-Assyrian forms, since they are neither passive nor t‑perfects of secondary stems. Streck (1995a: 231–33) argues that they also represent stems with a double t‑infix: Dtt‑, Štt‑, and Gtt‑stems. For instance, he explains the Neo-Babylonian form aḫāmiš il-te-te-mú RA 25, 58 no. 8:7 ‘they agreed with each other’ as a Gtt perfective, since this text is expected to worn off; see CAD Š/1 281 s.v. 4. Perhaps i-te-te-li SAA 16: 201:4′ ‘he came up’ is a parallel (and unique?) instance of elû Gt in Neo-Assyrian. 117.  Apart from the t‑perfect forms quoted in the text, this assimilation is also attested in the imperative: a-[t]a-[k]a-ni CTN 5 p. 23:50′ ‘come (Pl) here’, i.e., /atakkāni/ < atalkānim. 118.  It is, however, also possible to read ut-tatap-pa-lu-ú as a normal passive Dt‑stem.

14.5.  The Remaining Secondary Stems  

391

use perfectives rather than t‑perfects (the duplicate RA 25, 58 no. 9:7 has iš-mu-ú), and the NeoBabylonian form uš-te-te-eš-še-er VAB 4, 210:19 ‘I will keep in good order’ as a Štt imperfective (Streck 1995a: 227–28). It is true that many of these late “double t   ” forms are difficult to explain, but it is unlikely that we are justified in positing a specific set of verbal stems to account for them. The main reason is that it is hard to imagine a mechanism to trigger duplication of the infix unless it has two different functions which can be combined in a single form. This is what happened in the Old Babylonian forms with a double t‑infix mentioned in §14.2.1 (pp. 357–358) and §14.5.1 (p. 384) and in the Neo-Assyrian Dtt‑stem: the passive t‑perfect ugdatammir ‘it has been finished’ combines a passive t with t as perfect marker, and this combination spread to the imperfective and the precative. For active forms, only the t‑infix as perfect marker is available, so that it is difficult to see how “double t   ” forms could arise. A second reason why it is unlikely that a Dtt‑, Štt‑, and Gtt‑stem as proposed by Streck could arise is that it does not appear to have a distinctive function contrasting with the G‑stem and/or the Gt‑stem. Therefore, it seems preferable for the time being to regard the active forms with a double t‑infix that cannot be perfects of secondary or tertiary stems as hypercorrect forms, solecisms, and scribal errors (dittography). As Streck shows (1995a: 230–31), they make up only a minute percentage of the total number of secondary stems, and a significant number comes from peripheral texts. This confirms the impression that they might not be “correct Akkadian.”

14.5.4.  The Nt‑stem The existence of an Nt‑stem was posited (with some reservations) by W. von Soden in GAG 3 §95d* and under several entries in AHw, but it has never found wide acceptance.119 AHw registers the following Nt forms (with or without a question mark) in the alphabetical order of the verb to which it belongs: 1.  it-te-ki-pu CT 38, 45–46:15 (SB) from ekēpu ‘to draw near’ (AHw 195a s.v.: ‘Ntn od[er] Nt’) 2.  it-te-en-mi-i-du ÖB 2, 62:14; it-te-en6-mi-id YOS 10, 36: III 28 (both OB) and it-te-enm[i-da] CT 28, 9:26 (SB) from emēdu ‘to reach, lean on’ (AHw 213b s.v.: ‘Ntn (od[er] Nt?)’) 3.  lit-tap-raš/ra-áš JNES 15, 140:27 // CT 17, 22:144 (both SB) from naprušu ‘to fly’ (AHw 740b s.v.: ‘Nt’) 4.  at-ta-qa-al-la-al-la SAA 9, 3: II 16 (NA lit.) from *naqallulu (AHw 893b s.v. qalālu II: ‘unregelm[ässiger] Nt’ 5.  it-ta-aṣ-ba-ra BWL 34:71 (SB) from ṣabāru ‘to flit, prattle’ (AHw 1065b s.v. ṣabāru I: ‘Nt = Gt?’) 6.  it-ta-aṣ-ba-tu YOS 10, 36: I 50 (OB) and it-ta-aṣ-ba-ta BWL 52:26 (SB) from ṣabātu ‘to seize’ (AHw 1071a s.v.: ‘Nt’) 7.  i-taš-mar BWL 252:16 (SB), Imp of šamāru ‘to praise’ (AHw 1154b s.v. šamāru II: ‘Nt(n) für Gt’)120 8.  (l)ittasqar, (l)ittazkar from zakāru (saqāru) ‘to mention, invoke’, cf. AHw 1505a s.v. zakāru Nt (all SB) with active meaning 119.  See also Edzard 1965: 111 n. 5 and especially the detailed discussion by Streck (2003a: 16 n. 13, 129–31). I largely concur with his interpretations and conclusions. 120.  However, the editor W. G. Lambert has a quite different interpretation, in which he is followed by CAD M/1 284a s.v. marmaḫḫūtu and Ṣ 179a s.v. ṣīḫiš, but slightly differently in CAD I/J 77a s.v. ilku A k).

392

The Remaining Secondary Stems    14.5.

However, almost all these forms can far more easily be explained in other ways, especially as long as the existence of an Nt‑stem cannot be established by means of more solid evidence. No. 1 is probably an Ntn perfective, although the form is irregular: we would expect ittenkipū.121 The forms under 2 are certainly t‑perfects of the N‑stem, since the only clear Old Babylonian instance (ÖB 2, 62:14) occurs in a positive šumma clause whose negative counterpart contains an N perfective innemid. No. 4 is a t‑perfect of a verb of the naparruru group, although the details are not quite clear (see §12.3 and n. 55, p. 301). Nos. 5 and 6 are also certainly t‑perfects that replace t‑perfects of the Gt‑stem (see §12.2.2.1, p. 295). Nos. 7 and 8 are likely to be instances of the Ntn‑stem used instead of the Gtn‑stem, a phenomenon that also occurs elsewhere (see GAG 3 §91g and §14.7.5, pp. 429–430), perhaps to provide for the lack of a pluractional to the secondary stems, as suggested by Streck (2003a: 16 n. 13). It is doubtless not accidental that both šamāru and zakāru use the Gt‑stem with the same meaning as the G‑stem. The only form that one could justifiably call an Nt‑stem is no. 3, the Prec littapraš from naprušu ‘to fly’, as also argued by Streck (2003a: 131). Since naprušu is a motion verb, this Nt‑stem parallels the “ingressive” Gt‑stems of motion verbs discussed in §14.3.4 (pp. 371–372). Naprušu Nt is formed by analogy with these Gt‑stems and thus means ‘to start flying, fly up/ away’.122 Finally, an Nt‑stem is posited for the irregular verb izuzzu ‘to stand (up)’ by Streck (1997/98: 321–22) and Huehnergard (2002b: 166) to account for the Old Babylonian imperfective forms ittazâz, Pl Fem ittazazzā (e.g., 3ms it-ta-za-az YOS 10, 56: I 30; 3fp i-ta-za-az-za YOS 10, 17:60; it-[t ]a-za-az-za AbB 3, 114:13′). The meaning seems to be ingressive (AHw 410a s.v. Gt ‘er tritt hin’), so it is parallel to naprušu. Consequently, there are only two instances left for which we need an Nt‑stem, both of them rather atypical. To what extent we ought to posit a separate derived verbal stem on this basis is debatable, but it seems to me that it is not enough to justify this drastic step.

14.5.5.  Comparison with West Semitic The verbal stems in other Semitic languages that correspond to the Akkadian Dt‑stem and Št1‑stem are rather different in form. For comparative purposes, therefore, we should discuss the Dt‑stem and the Št1‑stem separately and combine the Št1‑stem with the Št2‑stem. I will deal with them together in §14.6.2.3 (pp. 412–414) and focus here on the Dt‑stem. Table 14.7 presents the relevant D and Dt forms of Akkadian, Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic (represented by Syriac), and Geʿez in the two basic finite categories of imperfective and perfective. The table shows that the West Semitic languages are very similar among themselves but differ substantially from Akkadian.123 The first point is prefixing versus infixing of t: the Akkadian forms all have an infixed t, whereas West Semitic always has a prefixed t, except in the neighbourhood of sibilants.124 This is 121.  CAD N/1 157b s.v. nakāpu A 2a derives it from nakāpu: ‘if pigs butting each other advance toward a man’, but there do not seem to be other E-forms of this verb. 122.  Formally, littapraš can be an Ntn‑stem, of course, but an iterative (‘to fly around’) is not very appropriate in the two available contexts, cf. CAD N/1 315a s.v. naprušu 3 end, with the comment: “possibly a ‘separative’ IV/2” (i.e., an Nt‑stem) and CAD I/J 211b s.v. iṣṣūru 1b. 123.  Ugaritic shows verb forms with a prefixed t beside verb forms with an infixed t. It seems a priori plausible that the former belong to the Dt‑stem discussed here, whereas those with an infixed t are Gt forms, but this cannot be verified. The least ambiguous form that can be assigned to this Dt‑stem is (w‑)tkms ‘and he buckled’ (J. Huehnergard, UF 17 [1986] 402; Tropper 2000: 573), which may be vocalized as /wa‑t(a) kammVs(a)/ or the like. Because of the prefix, it is generally referred to as “tD‑stem” in Ugaritic studies. 124.  A general exception may be Modern South Arabian, but I will ignore this here; see n. 70 (p. 375).

14.5.  The Remaining Secondary Stems  

Akkadian Arabic Hebrew Syriac Geʿez

393

D‑stem

Dt‑stem

Impfv

uparras

uptarras

Pfv

uparris

uptarris

Impfv

yuqattilu

yataqattalu

Pfv

qattala

taqattala

Impfv

yəqaṭṭẹl

yitqaṭṭẹ/al

Pfv

qiṭṭẹl

hitqaṭṭẹ/al

Impfv

nəqaṭṭel

netqaṭṭal

Pfv

qaṭṭel

ʾetqaṭṭal

Impfv

yəqēttəl

yətqēttal

Pfv

qattala

taqattala

Table 14.7: The West Semitic counterparts of the Akkadian Dt‑stem.

due to the fact that the Akkadian Dt‑stem is directly derived from the D‑stem by means of infixation of t, by analogy with the derivation of the Gt‑stem from the G‑stem. This also explains the vowel u of the personal prefixes.125 The second point is the vowel pattern: West Semitic uniformly shows a vowel a between R2 and R3 which cannot come from the corresponding active form, which always has i (yuqattilu), with the exception of Hebrew, where the Hithpael stem shows fluctuation between ẹ and a. The evidence from the rest of West Semitic suggests that a is the original vowel and that ẹ arose by analogy with the Piel (Bauer and Leander 1922: 324; Kuryłowicz 1972: 50).126 So we can plausibly reconstruct a Proto-West Semitic Impfv *yit(a)qattalu, where only the presence or absence of a between t and the root causes uncertainty (see the exhaustive discussion by Diem 1982: 34–37). The easiest solution is to assume that the longer form *yitaqattalu is original, since shortening (in this case through vowel syncope) is more common than vowel epenthesis and because the presence of a vowel readily explains why in this stem t has not undergone metathesis, as in the Gt‑stem.127 On the other hand, *yitaqattalu is only attested in Arabic, so the short form is more common, and even Arabic has some variant forms without a: yaṭṭahharu ‘he performs an ablution’, yaṣṣaddaqu ‘he gives alms’ instead of regular yataṭahharu and yataṣaddaqu, and in almost all modern Arabic dialects the prefix has become it- (Wright 1890: 209–10; Diem 1982: 63; 125.  Akkadian shows no traces of t as a prefix in the Dt‑stem forms that are comparable to the ta-prVs nouns of the Gt‑stem. This is not surprising, since deverbal forms of derived stems normally denote less basic concepts and are therefore less prone to lexicalization. However, in Eblaite, there are infinitives or verbal nouns with both a prefix ta‑ and an infix t. it is possible that they preserve an indirect trace of a prefixed *taPaRRvS form; see the next section. 126.  However, Garr (1993: 152 n. 61) assumes the opposite development. The source of ẹ in the perfect itself is a matter of debate: it may replace earlier a under the influence of the imperfective (Moscati, ed. 1994: 147), but according to Huehnergard (1992) it is original. He reconstructs a base *qáttil‑ for ProtoNorthwest Semitic or even earlier (1992: 228). 127.  Alternatively, one might argue that the prefix testifies to the fact that infixing started in the Gt‑stem, as we expect, since it is the basic t‑stem and never managed to penetrate into the derived stems (the various Št‑stems do not contradict this, as I will argue in §14.6.2.3, pp. 412–414).

394

The Remaining Secondary Stems    14.5.

Goldenberg 1994: 39–40; Lipiński 1997: 398–99). Since this problem has no direct bearing on the following account, I will write the form as *yit(a)qattalu. The Arabic Stem V yataqattalu especially shows how peculiar this form is as compared to the active yuqattilu: they differ in the vowel of the personal prefixes and in the vowel between R2 and R3 (Goldenberg 1994: 40 n. 33). This suggests that—unlike Akkadian uptarras—yataqattalu is not a simple derivation of the active form. It seems more likely that it was secondarily associated with the D‑stem, as happened with so many other derived categories in Semitic. As a matter of fact, we might assume that it was originally the pluractional derivation of the Gt‑stem *yiqtatilu in its earlier prefixed form *yit(a)qatilu (see §14.4.1, pp. 378–380) and that it was associated with the D‑stem after the decline of the Gt‑stem, just like the deverbal noun pattern taPRiS(t) (see §14.6.1, pp. 401–402).128 This “Gt PL‑stem” can be reconstructed as *yiqtattalu (see §4.5.2, pp. 112–115, and §18.3.2, p. 593), going back to an earlier *yit(a)qattalu, which exactly agrees with Ar yataqattalu. This scenario would explain why yataqattalu differs from yuqattilu both in its prefix vowel and in its stem vowel. If it is correct, the Arabic Stem V goes back to the same form as the Gtn‑stem in Akkadian; I will come back to this in §14.7.6 below (pp. 436–437). In the light of this reconstruction, it is worthwhile to have a fresh look at an old idea: Speiser (1967: 506–7) suggested that some Hithpael forms in Hebrew, which cannot readily be explained as detransitive derivations of the Piel and indicate “repeated and continuous action” (p. 508), are in fact ancient tan‑stems, in which the final n of the infix ‑tan‑ had been assimilated to the middle radical. He pointed especially to the verb hithallẹk ‘to walk around’, which is a remarkable parallel in both form and meaning to alāku Gtn. However, he was misled by the incorrect analysis of the Akkadian Gtn paradigm that prevailed in his time.129 This compelled him to propose a contrived and unconvincing explanation of the imperfective forms, which do not agree (He yithallẹk versus Akk ittanallak) (p. 514). According to the analysis of the Gtn paradigm that I will propose in §14.7.6 below (pp. 431–437), the geminate of the Gtn‑stem does not result from assimilation, and the original imperfective had the same stem as the historical perfective ittallak. This means that we can directly equate yithallẹk with ittallak130 and derive both forms from PSem *yit(a) hallak(u), the pluractional counterpart of the Gt‑stem *yithalVk(u).131 This suggests that He yithallẹk is a residue of the Proto-Semitic derived pluractional of the Gt‑stem. It is not clear to me whether other West Semitic languages preserve similar semantic traces in the corresponding stems.132 An interesting fact is the strikingly parallel pattern of the Ara­bic maṣdar of Stem V taqattul (and Stem VI taqātul) and the Akkadian Gtn Inf pitarrus that can be derived from the same Proto-Semitic form *t(a)qattul‑.133 However, since the Dt infinitive 128.  Kuryłowicz (1972: 49–50) proposes another solution for the contrasting vowel patterns of Stems II/III on the one hand and Stems V/VI on the other, based on apophonic processes. It is ingenious but entirely theoretical: there are no attested forms or processes in support of it. 129.  It was assumed that the geminate of the Gtn‑stem was the result of the assimilation of n to the adjacent consonant; see §14.7.6 (pp. 431–432). 130.  Apart from the irregular -tt- in Akkadian, of course, which is unexplained but irrelevant in this context (see chap. 17 n. 114, p. 546). 131.  Together with the Piel yəhallẹk, which may go back to the pluractional stem *yiqattalu (see chap. 4 n. 50, p. 102), yithallẹk may represent a unique yiqattal‑/yit(a)qattal‑ pair surviving from the Proto-Semitic system of pluractional derived stems (see §18.3.2, pp. 592–593). 132.  Arabic, by far the most archaic West Semitic language, would be the most suitable place to search. In the Arabic grammars available to me (which are often frustratingly laconic about the function of grammatical categories), I have not found any Stem V verb comparable in meaning to He yithallẹk. 133.  Fischer (1967: 42) derives taqattul from the suffix stem taqattala by assuming vowel harmony with the case endings ‑un, ‑in, ‑an, and generalization of the nominative. This is an ad hoc explanation that

14.5.  The Remaining Secondary Stems  

395

has the same pattern apart from the epenthetic vowel (  putarrusu), this does not offer further support for the association of Stem V with the derived pluractional rather than with the Dt‑stem. In conclusion, we can explain the differences between Akkadian and West Semitic with regard to the Dt‑stem as follows. The Akkadian Dt‑stem is derived from the D‑stem by means of infixation of t. In West Semitic, however, the conflation of the derived pluractional *yiqattalu with the D‑stem, which must have occurred in prehistoric times to account for the loss of the former (see chap. 4), also occurred in the t‑derivation of both stems and led here to the complete discarding of the t‑derivation of the D‑stem—if it ever existed—so that *yit(a)qattalu became associated with yuqattilu as its detransitive derivation.

14.5.6.  Excursus: The Eblaite verbal nouns with both prefixed and infixed t A phenomenon that may be relevant to the historical background of the Dt‑stem and the Št‑stem is the occurrence of verbal nouns that have both a prefixed and an infixed t in the language of Ebla.134 They all come from lexical lists and their meaning can only be inferred from their Sumerian glosses, which are often problematic in themselves, and from their etymology (if available). Corresponding finite forms are not attested. I will concentrate on cases for whose lexical meaning we can make an educated guess.135 They fall into three main types, each of which may show some variation in vowel pattern (Hecker 1984: 221–23). The most common pattern is taPtaR(R)iS. Plausible instances include: • dar-da-bí-tum (Sum. eden.du.du) VE 1342′, i.e. /tartappidum/ ‘to roam constantly’, cf. G Inf ra-ba-tum, i.e., /rapādum/ (Sum. also eden.du.du) VE 1342′, and Akk rapādu (U/u) ‘to roam’ (Krebernik 1983: 43) • da-áš-da-mì-lum (= lú.me.me.i) VE 1377′, i.e. /taðtammirum/, cf. ša-ma-lum (= l ú. me.i) EV 0198 /ðamārum/ ‘to sing’, and Akk zamāru (or šamāru ‘to praise’?) • da-da-bí-lu (= eme.bal), i.e. /taʾtappilu(m)/ ‘to act as interpreter’ (or rather: ‘to have a conversation, discuss’?), cf. G Inf a-ba-lu-um // a-ba-um, the agent noun a-bí-lu-um (all VE 179, equated with Sum. eme.bal), and Akk apālu ‘to answer’ Slightly different, with either a different vowel (tiPtaR(R)iS and taPtaR(R)aS) or vowel syncope and therefore no gemination (taPtaRvS) are: • ti-iš-da-gi-lum (= lá.lá) VE 1184, which may be related to Akk šaqālu ‘to hang’, i.e. /tiṯtaqqilum/ (although lá.lá might also be equated with É-ba-gú-um; cf. Akk epēqu ‘to embrace, clasp’(?)) • da-da-ga-bù-um (= á.du 7.du 7) VE 553–54, which because of na-ga-bù(-um) (= á.du 7) /nakāpu(m)/ ‘to butt, gore’ may be interpreted as /tattakpum/ ‘to gore each other’ (Krebernik 1996: 238), or perhaps /tattakkapum/, if we assume that all these forms do have a geminate R2 The second major type is tuPtaR(R)iS, possible instances of which are: • du-da-li-gú-um (= nam.nam.en) VE 1089, perhaps for /tumtallikum/ ‘exertion of kingship’ • du-uš-da-gi-nu/núm (= su 6(kar×kid).dù) VE 200, which must be related to Akk zaqānu ignores the parallel with Akkadian. 134.  Lists of attested forms with discussion can be found in Hecker 1984, Kienast 1984, and especially Krebernik 1984 and 1996. See also Edzard 1996: 24–28. 135.  The interpretations are from Krebernik 1983 and Fronzaroli 1984, unless indicated otherwise.

The Remaining Secondary Stems    14.5.

396

‘to have a beard’, so apparently /tuḏtaqqinum/ ‘to get/grow a beard’ ? (cf. also ša-ganúm // ša-gu-˹nu˺-um (=su 6(ka×kid).dù) VE 199 /ḏaq(a)num/, /ḏaqqunum/ ‘bearded’)136 One verb (with a weak R3) seems to have tuPtaR(R)aS as variant of tuPtaR(R)iS: • du-uš-da-na-um // du-uš-da-ne-um // du-ša-ne-u4 (= šà.dib.dib) VE 574 (cf. Krebernik 1983: 21–22), i.e. /tuðtanna/iHum/, and /tuðanniHu(m)/ cf. ša-na-u4/úm? // šè-na-um (= šà.dab) VE 575 /ða/ināHum/? and Akk zenû ‘to be(come) angry’ The third major type is tuštaPRiS, as in: • du-uš-da-ḫi-sum (= dili.ru) EV 055, i.e. /tuštaʾḫiðum/ from aḫāzum ‘to take’? (see Fronzaroli 1984: 140) • du-uš-da-gi-lum (= téš.téš.kú) VE 164, i.e. /tuštaʾkilum/ ‘to (cause to?) eat e.o.’ in the technical sense ‘to multiply’, from akālum ‘to eat’ In spite of all uncertainties surrounding these forms, we may be justified in assuming the existence of at least three verbal noun patterns, taPtaR(R)iS, tuPtaR(R)iS, and tuštaPRiS. The structural parallel with the Akkadian infinitives of the Gt(n)‑, Dt(n)‑, and Št(n)‑stems, respectively, can hardly be overlooked: Gtn:

taPtaR(R)iS

≈

PitaRRuS

Dt(n):

tuPtaR(R)iS

≈

PutaRRuS

Št:

tuštaPRiS

≈

šutaPRuS

Because it is possible that Eblaite did not have the vowel syncope rule that in Akkadian deletes the second of two consecutive short vowels in open syllables,137 it is not certain that the “Gtn” form had a geminated R2, but it is likely on the basis of the Sumerian glosses, which often show reduplication (Krebernik 1984: 197). Therefore, Gtn seems to be a more plausible equivalent than Gt, except perhaps in the arguably reciprocal da-da-ga-bù-um, for which Akkadian uses a Gt‑stem. The consonantal structure of the Eblaite forms can easily be fitted into the Akkadian system. They testify to a period in which the deverbal forms of the t‑stems still had their original prefixed ta‑ (ta-PRvS, etc.; see §14.4.1, pp. 377–378), whereas the finite forms had already acquired an infixed t, in the Gt‑stem *yiptarVs – *taprVs, in the Dt‑stem *yuptarras – *tuparrVs,138 and in the Št‑stem *yuštapras – *tušaprVs. The pressure of the finite inflectional stem caused the t‑infix to penetrate into the verbal noun as well (Gt taptarVs, Dt tuptarrVs, Št tuštaprVs) without initially affecting the prefix. Subsequently, the prefix was eliminated, not only because it was superfluous but also because it made the t‑stems different from all other verbal stems, including the G‑stem, that employ inflectional prefixes exclusively for person-marking. This is a striking example of 136.  But if we assume that these forms are to some extent parallel to the Akkadian Dt‑stem, both cases are semantically very atypical for this verbal stem. For tumtallikum, one would definitely expect something like ‘to deliberate, to take counsel’, etc. 137.  See §2.4 (pp. 46–48) for a more complete definition of the vowel syncope rule in Akkadian and Krebernik 1984: 195–96 and 2006: 88–89 for the situation in Eblaite. 138.  The form du-ša-ne-u4 VE 574 (according to Krebernik 1983: 21) mentioned above as a variant of du-uš-da-ne/na-um may be an instance of a verbal noun with the pattern tu‑PaRRiS with the original prefixed t (/tuðanni(H)u(m)/, cf. Akk zenû ‘to be(come) angry’). Eblaite has a few other forms that may be interpreted in the same way, but they are all very uncertain; see Krebernik 1984: 208.

14.6.  The Pattern taPRvS(t) and the Ṧt2-Stem

397

how the finite prefix conjugations have imposed their inflectional stem on the non-finite forms in several successive stages. If this reconstruction is correct, there is no need to assume the existence of finite forms with both a prefixed and an infixed t (cf. Edzard 1996: 27). The vowel i in the final syllable, however, is totally alien to Akkadian in this category of forms and is also hard to explain in a historical perspective. The Akkadian forms cannot easily be derived from the Eblaite, and vice versa, in the relatively short period of time separating the rise of the two languages (or dialects), which are in many respects very closely related. The use of u in the infinitive of the derived stems is firmly established in Akkadian and has parallels in Arabic (taqattul, taqātul; see the preceding section). So this is a point on which Akkadian and Eblaite show a fundamental difference and is an important indication that Eblaite had a system of derived stems that cannot be derived from the system we find in historical Akkadian. Since the Eblaite verbal nouns with both prefixed and infixed t date from a much earlier period than any comparable Akkadian form we have, it is possible that Akkadian also had such forms but that they were subsequently abandoned for the historically attested forms with only an infix. There are actually a few forms in Akkadian that may be survivals of this earlier stage: tartāmū ‘mutual love’ (Pl) from râmu Gt ‘to love e.o.’ (tar/ta-ar-ta-mi MIO 12, 54b:15 and RA 22, 172:17 [OB lit.]), and taltabšu, a type of clothing (CAD T 104a, SB LL), equated with litbušu from labāšu ‘to wear, put on’, which often occurs in the Gt‑stem. Finally, Krebernik (1984: 205; 1991a: 232) and Tropper (2000: 530) report the existence in Ugaritic of two infinitives with double t: tmtḫṣ and tḫtṣb KTU 1.3 II 19–20, reciprocal forms of the verbs mḫṣ and ḫṣb ‘to fight’.139

14.6. The Pattern taPRvS(t) and the Št2‑Stem One of the forms that originally belonged to the Gt‑stem and was re-employed for a different function is its ancient deverbal noun with the prefix ta-: in the forms ta‑PRīS and ta‑PRiSt, it became the verbal noun of the D‑stem. This had important consequences for the system of derived verbal stems, because the nouns with ta- gave rise to a productive class of denominal verbs, derived by means of š in its denominal function (see §13.2.2.4, pp. 332–333), the Št2‑stem. I will first describe the various kinds of taPRvS(t) nouns in Akkadian and the rest of Semitic in §14.6.1 and then the Št2‑stem in §14.6.2.

14.6.1.  The pattern taPRvS(t) As I argued in §14.4.1 (pp. 377–378), Akkadian has a group of deverbal nouns with the prefix ta- that semantically belong to the Gt‑stem. It comprises various patterns with taPRvS as their common base and the vowels a, i, and u (perhaps also ā, ī, and ū) in the second syllable, and they may have the feminine (abstract) suffix -t. For the sake of convenience, I will ignore this variation and simply refer to them as taPRaS, taPRiS, and taPRuS or, in general, taPRvS. The association of these patterns with the Gt‑stem is most evident in the taPRaS and taPRuS forms; taPRiS has largely been secondarily associated with the D‑stem, but a few taPRiS forms have retained their original status. We can distinguish the following types:

139.  This interpretation is accepted by Lipiński 1997: 404. It cannot be ruled out, however, that these forms are prefixed 3fs Gt‑stems (Testen 2002: 517). Sivan (1997: 128–31) does not mention them as infinitives.

398

The Pattern taPRvS(t) and the Ṧt2-Stem  14.6.

1. taPRaS nouns that can be directly linked to a reciprocal Gt‑stem:140 • tāḫāzu ‘battle’ (OB+) from aḫāzu Gt ‘to seize e.o., fight’ • tāmartu ‘present (given when meeting someone), tribute, observation’ (OB+) from amāru ‘to see’, N ‘to meet’ (earlier Gt [1× OA, quoted in §14.3.1.2, p. 362]); also tāmurtu (see below)141 • tamḫartu ‘square number’ (NB), cf. maḫāru Gt ‘to correspond to e.o.’ • tamḫāru ‘battle’ (OB+) from maḫāru Gt ‘to confront e.o.’ • tamḫāṣu ‘battle’ (OB: [t]a-am-ḫa-ṣú Ištar p. 22:21) from maḫāṣu Gt ‘to fight’ • tamlāku ‘counsellor’ (OB+) from malāku Gt ‘to deliberate’ • tāpālu ‘pair, set of two’ (OB+) from apālu Gt ‘to answer e.o., discuss, correspond’142 • tartāmu ‘(words of) mutual love’ (OB lit.) from râmu Gt ‘to love e.o.’, with both prefix and infix (see §14.5.6, p. 397) • tešmû ‘concord, harmony’ (OB+) from šemû Gt ‘to listen to e.o.’143 (< *tašmaʿum; in the form *tašmaʾum already in Mari Old Akkadian: taš-ma kalam RA 35, 47 no. 20:1 (= tašma mātim acc. to AHw 1352b s.v. tešmû 1);144 also Fem tašmētum, usually personified as the goddess Tašmētu < *tasmaʿtum)145 2. taPRaS nouns with a reciprocal nuance but without corresponding Gt‑stem:146 • tamkāru ‘merchant, creditor’(OA) from makāru ‘to trade’ (no Gt, but cf. makāru Št2 in §14.6.2.2) 140.  For the difficult question of the quantity of a (taPRaS or taPRāS), see Streck 2003a: 102. Assyrian evidence for ā (no vowel assimilation) comes from tamkārum ‘merchant’ and ta-ḫa-zi-im ArAn. 3, 133:12 ‘battle’ (Gen) (both OA) and from tarbāṣu in Middle and Neo-Assyrian. If ā is long, we have a neat parallel with the Arabic maṣdar pattern of most derived stems with the vowel sequence -i-ā-, e.g., Stem VIII iqtitāl (Testen 1999: 4), which points to an earlier form *ta‑qtāl (see §14.4.1, pp. 377–378). Of course, the vowel quantity of taPRaS cannot be separated from that of its successor PitRaS, which is also problematic (see §14.2.1, p. 359). 141.  See AHw 1313a s.v. 1 ‘Besuchsgeschenk’; CDA p. 396b s.v. ‘audience gift’; also Durand 1997/​ 2000: I 405 n. c. The meaning ‘observation’ (mainly SB) seems to be a later development. 142.  For the semantics of tāpālu, cf. also tūʾa/āmu or tūʾīmu ‘twins, double’ mentioned in §14.4.1 (p. 377). 143.  See Streck 2003a: 26 no. 24, and add MDP 57, 61 no. 3:9 šarrū (spelled 2.30) ina kiššati iš-teem-mu ‘kings(! form Sg) will listen to each other’, cf. MDP 57, 61 no. 3:46 taš-mu-ù kalîš iššakkan ‘harmony will be established everywhere’, and p. 91 no. 4:7 ana kiššati te-eš-mu ‘harmony to the whole world’ (all OB Susa). 144.  These words are usually interpreted as ‘obedience’ or the like (AHw 1352b s.v. tešmû ‘Erhörung’, CDA 405a s.v. ‘attention, listening’), which ignores the specific meaning of the ta‑ prefix. In the attested contexts, the interpretation given here is equally possible, if not better; cf. the coordination of tešmû with salīmu and magāru (AHw l.c., e.g., bēl tašmê u magāri Ee VII 20, SB). Cf. also ARM 27, 25:7 ‘the god of my lord has established tešmêm for this district’, which M. Birot, inspired by J.‑M. Durand (see note a), translates “obéissance.” However, ‘harmony, peace and quiet’ seems to fit the context even better. 145.  Already in Sargonic Akkadian, we find Da-áš-má-tum /Tasmaʿtum/ as a feminine proper name (MAD 3, 275). However, this may also be an abbreviation of Tašmaʿ-DN. 146.  An intriguing form that may belong here is the Eblaite noun da-da-mu (= ka.ukkin) VE 222b, which may be interpreted as ‘meeting’ or the like on the basis of ka.kin = ba-ḫa-lumum VE 222a, i.e., /paḫārum/ ‘to come together’. This is supported by the fact that it corresponds to a noun that appears in Old Babylonian Mari texts as ta-ta-mu-um (Nom) and ta-ta-ma-am (Acc) in texts from Tuttul, and as taAḪ-ta-mu-um (Nom) and ta-a-ta-mi-im (Gen) in texts originating from Imar; see Durand 1989: 32–37 and MARI 6 (1990) 56–57 for references. Durand (1989) convincingly argues for the meaning ‘assembly’ (see also Fleming 2004: 207–8). We can interpret these forms as taHtammum or tātammum, a word that may be

14.6.  The Pattern taPRvS(t) and the Ṧt2-Stem

399

• tarbāṣu ‘pen, enclosure’ (passim), lit. ‘(place of) lying together’ from rabāṣu ‘to lie down, crouch’ according to Goetze 1936: 324 • tapḫă/āru (1× Mari OAk tap-ḫa-ru-um ARM 19, 252:3), meaning uncertain but perhaps the same word as OA tapḫīrum;147 also in the adverb tapḫaram ‘together’ or the like (ta-ap-ḫa-ra-am YOS 11, 24:25, OB), from paḫāru ‘to come together’; cf. also tapḫuru below 3. taPRaS nouns belonging to reflexive or lexicalized Gt‑stems: • taḫlaptu ‘a cloak’ (only taḫ-la-pa-tum MSL 9, 201:263 var. (SB LL), usually naḫlaptu, from ḫalāpu Gt ‘to put on’; cf. also taḫluptu below • tallaktu ‘way, behaviour, procedure’ (OB+), cf. alāku Gt ‘to start going’ • tūṣātu ‘sortie, offspring’ < *tawṣaʾtum,148 cf. waṣû Gt = G ‘to go /come out’ (tu-ṣa-tam MARI 5, 622:9 (OB Mari); tu-ṣa-tum = ze-rum JAOS 83, 439:324 ‘offspring’ (SB LL)149 4. taPRuS nouns (almost always Fem) parallel to a reciprocal Gt‑stem:150 • tamḫuṣu ‘fight’ (SB) from maḫāṣu Gt ‘to fight’ • tamgurtu ‘agreement’ (OB, Nuzi) from magāru Gt ‘to agree with e.o.’ (also tamgirtu, see below) • taqrubtu ‘battle, fight’ (SB) from qerēbu Gt ‘to approach e.o.’ • tākultu ‘meal, banquet’ (SB), lit., ‘eating together’ from akālu Gt; its normal meaning, however, is ‘to eat each other’; see Streck 2003a: 26 no. 26 • tašnuntu ‘rivalry, battle’ (SB), from šanānu Gt ‘to compete’, a rare variant of tašnintu, see below typical of the geographical area of Mari and Ebla and presumably of the nomadic people who lived there. J.-M. Durand (FM 7, p. 46 note b to text 18) has proposed to derive this word from atwûm ‘to speak (with each other)’. This would make perfect sense, if only we had sufficient evidence for w > m in Akkadian or Amorite in this early period, which is not the case; cf. Streck 2000: 174. The most likely etymology is therefore Streck’s (2000: 119) suggestion that it might be a ta‑QTāL form of a verb that appears in Sabaic as ʾtm ‘to bring together, to reconcile two parties’ according to Beeston’s translation (Beeston et al. 1982: 8) and in Arabic as ʾatama ‘to unite’; see also Krebernik 2001: 57 ad line 5. If this is correct, it should be added to the taPRaS forms listed here. It might further be possible to connect ʾtm with Arabic ʾummah ‘people, clan’ as a fossilized stem with infixed t from a root that may also occur in Akk ummānu ‘army’. In that case, this Mari noun is another example of a deverbal noun with both prefixed and infixed t (see §14.5.6, pp. 395–397). However, AHw 1413b s.v. derives ummānu from ʿm (He ʿam, Uga. ʿm, etc.), against D. Cohen in DRS p. 23a s.v. ʾMM. 147.  This word means ‘goods or payments collected for a temple’ acc. to CAD T 179–80 s.v. tapḫaru. Note that the Acc tap-ḫi-ra-am CCT 3, 24:19 points to tapḫīrum (less probably tapḫĭrum) against CAD’s tapḫaru. As a taPRīS form, it is likely to be associated with the D‑stem puḫḫuru rather than with the Gt‑stem, despite its inherent reciprocal nuance. 148.  Or perhaps with short u: tuṣātu; cf. Testen 1999: 6–8 and §14.4.1 above (p. 378) for a Hebrew parallel. 149.  There are also some taPRaS nouns that seem clearly deverbal but do not show any relationship with the Gt‑stem: tapšaḫu ‘resting place’, tūšaru ‘flat land’ from wašāru ‘to be low’? (both referring to a location, just like tarbāṣu), takbaru, and tarpašu, both referring to an animal and derivable from a common adjectival verb (kabāru ‘to be(come) thick’ and rapāšu ‘to be(come)wide’). 150.  Uncertain is (ina) te-ku-up-ti AbB 11, 77:17 (OB) (AHw 1344b s.v.: ‘unter Zeitdrück(?)’), cf. ekēpu Gt, and perhaps šutēkup/bu ‘to do one’s best’, listed in §14.6.2.2 (p. 411). I have omitted NB talbuštu ‘(issue of) clothing’, in spite of labāšu Gt ‘to put on (clothes)’, since semantically it instead belongs to labāšu D ‘to provide with clothing’, which suggests that it is a variant of talbištu.

400

The Pattern taPRvS(t) and the Ṧt2-Stem  14.6.

5. taPRuS nouns with a reciprocal nuance but no corresponding reciprocal Gt‑stem: • tāpultu ‘payment’ (OB Susa), from apālu Gt ‘to pay e.o.’? (but see tāpālu above) • tapḫur(t)u ‘collection, meeting’ (SAk (˹da˺-ab-ḫu-ur-tum HSS 10, 204:11) and SB; OB tapḫurum ‘meeting’? (AbB 2, 118:15, 22) from paḫāru ‘to come together’; see *tapḫaru above and n. 147 regarding OA tapḫīrum • tadduntu ‘gift’ (SB LL), equated with Sum. nì.sum.sum.ma: if this case of reduplication has reciprocal function, the original meaning may be ‘mutual gift’ • tāmurtu, a rare variant of tāmartu (see above), mainly in peripheral texts and in Tn-Ep. II 11 (MB lit.) 6. taPRuS nouns that can semantically be associated with other functions of the Gt‑stem: • taḫluptu ‘armor, plating’ (SB) from ḫalāpu Gt (only stative) ‘to wear’ (SB, NB) • tērubtu ‘entry’ (OB+) from erēbu Gt = G ‘to enter’ • tāluku ‘gait, course, behaviour’ (OB+), cf. alāku Gt ‘to start going’151 7. taPRiS nouns that have preserved their semantic association with a reciprocal Gt‑stem: • tamgirtu ‘agreement’ (OA) from magāru Gt ‘to agree with e.o.’ (see Veenhof 1972: 255, e.g., OAA 1, 26:7); cf. tamgurtu above • taṣbittu ‘quarrel’ (ta-aṣ-bi-it-tam M.13095 quoted FM 2 p. 113 note f; bēl ta-aṣ-bita‑tim FM 2, 112 no. 71: r.4′, both OB Mari) from ṣabātu Gt ‘to quarrel’152 • tašnintu ‘rivalry, battle’ (OB+); cf. šanānu Gt ‘to compete’ (also tašnuntu, see above) • tarkību ‘layer of bricks’ (OB); cf. rakābu Gt ‘to ride/lie on top of e.o.’153 • tegrītu ‘litigation’ (ta-ag-ri-a-tum RA 44, 27:38, OB) from gerû Gt ‘to litigate’154 • tēnû/tēnītu ‘relief, substitution’ (OB+) from enû Gt ‘to exchange’ • tāw/mītu ‘query for an oracle and the answer to it’ acc. to CAD T 123f s.v. tāmītu, originally a deverbal noun of atwû ‘to speak’, originally ‘to speak to e.o.’; in OB Mari ‘libellé, formulaire’ according to D. Charpin, NABU 1988/85)155 Note that the three last-mentioned forms come from III/voc verbs, for which the pattern taPRiS serves as the point of neutralization of taPRaS, taPRuS, and taPRiS (just like PaRRû, PaRRītu 151.  A taPRuS noun from a verb without any trace of a Gt‑stem is tēṣubu/ū ‘addition, additional payment’, cf. waṣābu ‘to add’, i.e., < *tayṣubum ? (see §16.2.4 end, pp. 461–462). Perhaps also tapšuḫtu ‘rest’ (cf. tapšaḫu ‘resting place’). 152.  Old Babylonian also has a deverbal noun tiṣbuttu that seems to have approximately the same meaning (see AHw1362a s.v.; see also AbB 10, 6:16 with F. R. Kraus’s translation). This is a good example of the replacement of a residual type of derivation by a productive one, based on the contemporary infinitive (or past participle) tiṣbutu. 153.  An intriguing case is tēnīqu (MA tīnuqu) ‘suckling’ from enēqu ‘to suck’, which has no D‑stem (‘to suckle’ is expressed by the Š‑stem šūnuqu). This suggests that tēnīqu is derived from an unattested but semantically not unlikely Gt‑stem of enēqu. 154.  For Sg tegrītu (cf. OB gerû) versus Pl tagriātu, see §17.5.1 (pp. 531–533) and Kouwenberg 2001: 233–35. 155.  An alternative explanation for the III/voc nouns is that they are taPRuS(t) forms in which -uy- has become ī (*tagruytum > tagrītum). This does not work for tāw/mītu, however, which comes from the III/ū verb atwû ‘to speak’. For the difficult Old Babylonian expression tāw/  ʾītam uwwû, see Kraus 1979 with an in-depth discussion. Pace Kraus (1979: 138–39), tāwītum can also be derived from ewû ‘to become’, because the E‑colouring in this verb is secondary and specifically Babylonian (see §17.5.1 sub 3, p. 528). It is possible, therefore, that there were two or even more homonymous nouns with this form; see also CAD T 301–2 s.v. tāwītu.

14.6.  The Pattern taPRvS(t) and the Ṧt2-Stem

401

for the patterns PaRRa/i/āS; and cf. kusītu ‘cloak’ from the pattern PuRūS; see GAG §55l and Kuryłowicz 1972: 48). This also applies to the taPRiSt form tēṣī/ētu ‘conflict, rivalry’ from an unattested doubly weak verb (see §14.6.2.2, p. 407). Chronologically, taPRaS seems to represent an older stratum than taPRuS. Nouns of the taPRaS form typically occur in Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian and a few of them even in third-millennium Akkadian.156 Many of the taPRuS nouns, on the other hand, appear for the first time in Standard Babylonian or later. This suggests that taPRaS goes back to an earlier infinitive or past participle that was replaced by forms with the stem vowel u, first taPRuS, later Pit(a)RuS. The taPRvS nouns enumerated so far clearly belong to the Gt‑stem on the basis of their form and function. However, the great majority of taPRiS forms are just as clearly associated with the corresponding D‑stem. In Akkadian, they can be both masculine (taPRīS) and feminine (taPRiSt) (GAG § 56l).157 The feminine form is generally more productive and more regular in its use for abstract concepts; the masculine form usually refers to concrete objects, but there is a considerable fluctuation. A small selection of common examples must suffice here. We will encounter some more instances in the discussion of the Št2‑stem in §14.6.2.2 (pp. 404–411).158 TaPRiSt: • • • •

taḫsistu ‘reminder, note, protocol’ from ḫussusu ‘to remind’ (OA, MB, SB) takittu ‘confirmation’ from kunnu ‘to establish, confirm’ (OA, OB) tamlītu ‘full payment, landfill, decoration’ from mullû ‘to fill’ (OA, OB, and later) terdītu ‘addition, reinforcement’ from ruddû ‘to add’ (OB and later)

TaPRīS: • tābīlū ‘dried vegetables’ (OB and later) from abālu D ‘to make dry’ • taklīmu ‘show, demonstration’ (a kind of food-offering) from kullumu ‘to show’ (OB, SB) • tamlû ‘filled-in platform, decoration’, from mullû ‘to fill’ (OA, OB, and later) The association between taPRiS and the D‑stem is also found in West Semitic, especially in Arabic, where the pattern taqtīl (or taqtilah) serves as maṣdar of Stem II, the Arabic equivalent of the D‑stem.159 This is remarkable, because it is not only completely different from all other forms of Stem II but also from most other maṣdar patterns of the derived stems, which normally show the vowel sequence ‑i‑ā‑, e.g., qitāl in Stem III (qātala), ʾiqtāl in Stem IV (ʾaqtala) and istiqtāl in Stem X (istaqtala).160 Since taPRvS originally belonged to the Gt‑stem in West Semitic as well, 156.  A possible instance from Ebla is ti-ʾà-ma-tum (= nì.lu.lu) VE 64, which because of la/a-i-mu = n ì . l u VE 63 may be interpreted as /tilḥam(a)tum/, derived from a root √lḥm; cf. Ar laḥama and Syr laḥḥem ‘to join’ and He lḥm N ‘to fight’ (Krebernik 1984: 207). 157.  It is possible that ī remains long in spite of the closed syllable; see GAG §56l and Kouwenberg 2003–4a: 88. I will write taPRiSt for the sake of convenience. 158.  A possible instance of a taPRiSt noun associated with a D‑stem in Ebla is da-šè-ba-tum and ʾà/ašu-bù(-um) VE 228, both equated with ka.ru, which may be interpreted as /taHšiBtum/ and /HaššuBum/, respectively; unfortunately, its meaning is unknown (Krebernik 1984: 206). Other Eblaite taPRiSt nouns are da-na-i-si-du/tum (= n ì . z i . p a . z i . p a) VE 120, i.e., /tanHištum/, which occurs in Babylonian as tēneštum (more often Pl tēni/ešētum) ‘mankind’ and in Old Assyrian as tanīštum (ta-ni-iš-tum TC 3, 14:18), of uncertain background, and da-ir-iš-du-um VE 790 (variants te-rí-iš-du and ti-ir-iš-du-um) (= an.eden.ak), i.e., /ta/erHištum/ or the like, of unknown meaning (Krebernik 1984: 209). 159.  Geʿez uses taqtāl in the same function; see Barth 1894a: 293. 160.  There is a rare alternative Stem II maṣdar qittāl (Wright 1967: I 115 sub 6). Two other stems that do not have ‑i‑ā‑ are Stem V (taqattala) and Stem VI (taqātala), which have taqattul and taqātul instead, the

402

The Pattern taPRvS(t) and the Ṧt2-Stem  14.6.

as we saw in §14.4.1 (pp. 377–378), the same process took place as in Akkadian, which suggests that it already started before the breaking up of the proto-language. The question is: how and why did the shift of taPRiS from Gt to D happen? From a semantic point of view, it may seem to be a rather unlikely development, because these verbal stems have opposite functions. The use of Gt as a detransitive voice marker implies a change from transitive to intransitive or from high to low transitivity, whereas the D‑stem is strongly associated with high transitivity, as we saw in chap. 11, and many D‑stems do exactly the opposite of the Gt‑stem: they make intransitive verbs transitive. This does not seem to be a serious objection, however. Deverbal nouns are a typical point of neutralization between different valencies (Hopper and Thompson 1984: 737–38). English deverbal nouns such as sight and construction can be both active and passive according to their intended meaning: they can refer to the action of seeing and constructing, but they can also indicate the result of the action on the direct object: sight when it means that which has been seen, and construction when it refers to the concrete object that has been built. A related phenomenon is the fact that the Akkadian infinitive, also a kind of deverbal noun, is neutral with regard to the active/passive distinction. For instance, a genitive dependent on the Inf dâku ‘to kill’ can refer to both the person who kills someone and the person who is killed. The reason why the pattern taPRiS came to be associated with the D‑stem must be sought in a significant difference in frequency and productivity between the source and the target of the shift. It seems plausible, therefore, that the overall decline in productivity that I have ascribed to the Gt‑stem on the basis of its use in Akkadian and West Semitic provided a general condition for this process to happen. Deverbal nouns are often only loosely connected with the verbal paradigm and may easily survive as independent lexemes, especially when they are in common use. Therefore, they can also attach themselves to other verbal forms that are more frequent and therefore more prominent in the mind of the speakers. As we saw in chap. 11, the D‑stem is by far the most productive of all derived stems. The fact that, already before the decline of the Gt‑stem, the verbal and deverbal forms with ta‑ suffered competition from the new forms with infixed t (pitrVs, iqtitāl, etc.) doubtless contributed to their lexicalization and the loss of their original function. A relatively small number of such taPRiS nouns associated with the D‑stem is enough to trigger an analogical expansion of this model and create a direct derivation from D to taPRiS, without any association with the Gt‑stem. In this way, taPRiS became productive in both Akkadian and Arabic, so that its original function was largely—in Arabic, even completely—eclipsed by its association with the D‑stem. The relationship between the D‑stem and taPRiS is one of the most striking instances of “derivation by association,” which was discussed in §2.3.2 (pp. 39–40). Since the secondary association of taPRiS with the D‑stem already started in Proto-Semitic, it is one of the earliest examples of the phenomenon I described at the end of §14.3.4 (pp. 374–375): the reuse of forms that are being marginalized as a result of diachronic processes or are in danger of falling out of use altogether. In the older Semitic languages, then, there are two layers of taPRiS forms: one consisting of “original” taPRiS forms that are—or once were—associated with the Gt‑stem, and a later and much more numerous one consisting of those that are productively derived from a D‑stem. As we will see in the next sections, in Akkadian this corresponds to two semantically different kinds of Št2‑stems, since the Št2‑stem originates as a denominal derivation of nouns with the prefix ta- from both layers. former of which is reminiscent of the Akkadian Gtn Inf PitaRRuS or the Dt(n) Inf PutaRRuS (see §14.5.5, pp. 394–395).

14.6.  The Pattern taPRvS(t) and the Ṧt2-Stem

403

14.6.2.  The Št2‑stem The next category with infixed t to be discussed is the Št2‑stem. In §10.4 (p. 250), I argued that the Št2‑stem does not belong to the secondary stems because it is not a detransitive derivation of the corresponding primary stem. I will now propose a different analysis that fully accounts for the numerous problematical aspects of this stem.

14.6.2.1.  The paradigm of the Št2‑stem In the strong verb, the paradigm of the Št2‑stem is identical to that of the Št1‑stem and the Štn‑stem in all forms except the imperfective. Table 14.8 presents the paradigms of the three categories side by side, with the Š‑stem for comparison. Š‑stem

Št1‑stem

Štn‑stem

Št2‑stem

Impfv

ušapras

uštapras

uštanapras

uštaparras

Pfv

ušapris

uštapris

t‑Pf

uštapris

uštatapris

Stat

ša/uprus

šutaprus

Imp

ša/upris

šutapris

Inf/PPartc

ša/uprusu

šutaprusu

PrPartc

mušaprisu

muštaprisu

Table 14.8: The Št2‑stem in comparison with the other Št‑stems and the Š‑stem.

The imperfective with gemination uštaparras is the defining formal feature of Št2.161 It is due to the rule that the imperfective has gemination of R2 wherever possible, so that in an original *uštapras the cluster -pr- was broken up and r was geminated, just as in the quadriradical Impfv *ušbalkat (from nabalkutu Š; see §13.4.1, p. 348) is replaced by ušbalakkat (see §4.5.2, pp. 113–114). This tallies with the fact that the Št2‑stem is actually a quadriradical formation, since it is derived from nouns with the pattern taPRvS, as I will argue below. All non-imperfective forms can only be identified on the basis of the context, which leads to much ambiguity, especially for Št2 and Štn, both of which often have active meaning. As already noted in §14.5.2 above (p. 386), the I/w and I/voc verbs do not show any difference in imperfective form between Št1 and Št2: cf. Št1 ušteṣṣē ‘he will be brought out’ (quoted in §14.5.2, p. 386) from waṣû versus Št2 uštemmed ‘he will put together’ (e.g., uš-te-em-mé-ed AbB 14, 78:9) from emēdu (see §16.2.3, pp. 456–457). Since the Št2‑stem is not a passive, all forms of the paradigm are amply attested. Even t‑perfect forms with a double t-infix are not uncommon and are attested as early as Old Babylonian: • tu-uš-ta-ta-aḫ-ri-is-sú AbB 11, 44:15 (OB) ‘you have deducted it’ from ḫarāṣu Št2 • uš-ta-tam-ḫi-ir KH §146:51 (OB) ‘she has made herself equal’ from maḫāru Št2 161.  However, the distinction does not always apply: especially nadānu Št2 ‘to intermingle, deliberate’ more often has uštaddan than uštanaddan (cf. CAD N/1 57–58 s.v. nadānu 6). Conversely, mātum uš-tala-pát MDP 57, 202 no. 9: r.31 ‘the land will be destroyed’ (OB Susa) shows a Št2 imperfective with the function of the Št1‑stem. In Old Assyrian, there is a Št1 Impfv uštamgar in šumma išti PN lā uš-ta-am-ga-ar Prag I 473: r.17′–18′ ‘if I cannot come to an agreement with PN’, which does not have the Št1 meaning that is usual in Old Assyrian (‘to be made to agree’, see CAD M/1 42b s.v. magāru 9) but looks more like a denominal derivation of tamgirtum ‘agreement’ (see §14.6.1, p. 400), which makes it a Št2 form semantically (see below).

404

The Pattern taPRvS(t) and the Ṧt2-Stem  14.6.

• uš-te-te-eb-ru-ú ZA 90, 204:24 (OB) ‘it has continued’ from šutebrû • ul-te-te-ši-ra-[š]i? JCS 6, 144:11 (MB) ‘I have directed her(?)’ from ešēru Št2 • t [u]-ul-te-te-er-si WZJ 8, 569:36 (MB) ‘you have prepared’ (? context broken) from šutersû • uš-te-te-(ʾ)-il Lugal 182 = V 1 and 264 = V 28 (SB) ‘he wrung (his hands)’ from eʾēlu Št2162 The present participle muštaprisu shows a sporadic but interesting Standard Babylonian by-form muštaparrisu that has adopted the gemination of the imperfective and underlines its “continuous” meaning (GAG §105p):163 muštabarrû from šute/abrû ‘to continue’ (Impfv uštabarri), e.g., (a star/god) muš-ta-bar-ru-ú mūtānu HBA 52:42 ‘who brings persistent pestilence’, alongside regular muštabrû in (a star) muš-tab-ru-u zunnī Racc. 138:312 ‘which causes persistent rain’. Another irregular present participle, which is more difficult to explain, is mu-uš-ta-ḫal-qú-ti SAA 10, 111: r.13 (SB in a NA letter) ‘deserters’ from ḫalāqu Št2(?) ‘to escape’, for which we would expect muštaḫliqu. It is possible that this form is also based on the imperfective but with syncope of a syllable: *muštaḫalliqu > muštaḫalqu.164 Streck (2003a: 118) counts 105 verbs with a Št2‑stem, which means that it is fairly common, but it is most typical of the older stages of Akkadian, especially Old and Standard Babylonian.165 It is somewhat less frequent in Old Assyrian and Middle Babylonian and used only sporadically in Middle Assyrian.166 According to Hämeen-Anttila (2000: 89), there are no certain instances of any Št‑stems in Neo-Assyrian.167

14.6.2.2.  The function of the Št2‑stem The function of the Št2‑stem is a well-known crux in Akkadian grammar. The difficulty of establishing an overall definition of its function and of the nature of its semantic relationship with other verbal stems has earned it the designation “lexical Št‑stem,” with the connotation of unpredictability and idiosyncrasy adhering to the term “lexical” (cf. Aronoff 1994: 16–22). The Št2‑stem does not have a regular functional relationship with another verbal stem, which is a major characteristic of the system of derived verbal stems as a whole. It is true that the degree of regularity varies widely between stems (see §10.5, pp. 250–252), but the irregularity displayed by the Št2‑stem is without parallel.168 162.  Another instance from this text may be uš-te-te-li-iʾ in māt nukurti kīma šizbi kalbī uš-te-te-li-iʾ Lugal 260 = V 24 ‘he had dogs lap up (the blood of?) the hostile land as if it were milk’ (tr. CAD Š/3 400b s.v. šutelūʾu). 163.  For the same phenomenon in other verb types, see §14.7.2 (Gtn‑stem, p. 418), §14.7.5 (Ntn‑stem, p. 427), and §12.5 (the Ntn‑stems of the nabalkutu type, p. 312). 164.  There is, however, no further Št2‑stem of ḫalāqu with this meaning. Semantically, it instead seems to be a passive/intransitive of ḫalāqu Š ‘to allow or help someone to escape’ (AHw 311a s.v. Š), i.e., a Št1‑stem, which would be without parallel, since Akkadian has no passive participles (see §8.4.1, p. 206). 165.  A possible very early instance is uš-da-a-bí-la /  ʾustābila/ OAIC 10:8 ‘I considered’ (Subj) (letter from the Diyala), if this indeed comes from wabālu Št2 ‘to consider’ (Hasselbach 2005: 227). 166.  There are only two instances I know of. The first one is the deviant form tu-ša-ḫa-ru-ṣu-ni KAJ 120:7 ‘(which) have been deducted’ from šutaḫruṣu, for which one would expect tušaḫruṣuni (with metathesis of t and š; see §14.5.1, p. 383) and which may be administrative jargon borrowed from Babylonian. The other one is a Št2 present participle of epēšu in the PN Muš-te-piš-ilu KAJ 173:3 (cf. OMA 2 p. 117), which also may come from Babylonian, as many other Middle Assyrian personal names. 167.  However, we have to reckon with occasional Standard Babylonian forms (see §1.4.1.3.3, p. 19). A case in point may be the Št2 Impfv uš-ta-bal-u-ni SAA 10, 30: r.10 ‘I am arguing’ (Subj) from (w)abālu Št2. 168.  This is eloquently demonstrated by Streck’s (1994) enumeration of “functions” of the Št2‑stem in relation to other verbal stems. Streck distinguishes twelve classes of Št2‑stems and labels them as causative,

14.6.  The Pattern taPRvS(t) and the Ṧt2-Stem

405

Formally, there are two possible candidates that could be the source of derivation of the Št2‑stem: the Gt‑stem and the Š‑stem. With regard to the former, there is indeed a small number of Št2‑stems that appear to be causatives of a reciprocal Gt‑stem:169 • magāru Št2 ‘to cause to agree’ (Gt ‘to agree with e.o.’), as in: (13) RA 91, 136:38 (OB) (two officials . . .) uš-tam-gi-ru-šu-nu-ti ‘haben sie zu einer Einigung veranlaßt’ (tr. M. Jursa; Old Babylonian contracts hardly ever use a t‑perfect in such clauses) • maḫāru Št2 ‘to cause to face e.o., cause to correspond’ (Gt ‘to correspond to e.o.’), e.g.: (14) Lugal 85 = II 41 (SB) mūlâ u mušpāla uš-ta-maḫ-ḫar ‘he makes high and low places level’ (tr. CAD M/1 52b s.v. lex. sect.) • maḫāṣu Št2 ‘to cause to fight’ (Gt ‘to fight with e.o.’), e.g.: (15) JCS 21, 258: last line (SB) (DNF) muš-tám/tam-ḫi-ṣa-at aḫḫī mitgurūti ‘who causes enmity between brothers in good relations’ (tr. CAD M/1 84a s.v. 9) • ṣêlu Št2 ‘to cause to quarrel’ (Gt ‘to quarrel with e.o.’), in: (16) SSA 92:4 (OB) šittam itti šittim tu-uš-⟨te⟩-e-ṣe-e-li ‘you (Fem) incite one neighbor woman to quarrel with the other’ (tr. CAD Ṣ 89a s.v. ṣâlu lex. sect.) • ṣabātu Št2 ‘to cause to quarrel’ (Gt ‘to quarrel’), in: (17) SSA 92:6 (OB) kilattīšina tu-uš-ta-ṣa-ab-ba-ti ‘you (Fem) cause both of them (the neighbour women) to quarrel with each other’170 In accordance with the gradual replacement of the Gt‑stem by the N‑stem (see §14.3.4, pp. 370–371), we may perhaps include some Št2‑stems here that are causative to a reciprocal and even a passive N‑stem (Streck 1994: 166–69): • amāru Št2 ‘to cause to meet’ (N ‘to meet’),171 in: (18) ARM 5, 73: r.5′ (OB) (because PN was well trained in the art of singing) itti bēlīya uš-ta-me-er-šu-ma ‘I have made him meet with my lord’ (OB) • lapātu Št2 ‘to allow to be touched’ (N ‘to be touched’), in:172 (19) AbB 14, 35:18–19 (OB) 1 sila3 še . . . lā tu-uš-ta-la-pa-at ‘you must not allow one sila of barley to be touched’ (tr. CAD L 93b s.v. 7, cf. Streck 1994: 167) (20) MHET 1 p. 104 no. 70:18–19 (OB) ammīni dibbatam tu-uš-ta-la-pa-ta-ni ‘why, then, do you allow me to be faced with this dispute?’ (tr. K. van Lerberghe and G. Voet)

reflexive, reciprocal, passive, and intensive, each in relation to different stems. This perplexing variety shows that the Št2‑stem is fundamentally different from most other verbal stems, which are derived from a single more basic stem and express some kind of—more or less predictable—modification of its meaning. 169.  For the mathematical term šutākulu or šutakūlu ‘to multiply, square’, which is usually interpreted as literally meaning ‘to cause to eat e.o.’ or ‘to cause to hold e.o.’, see n. 180 below (p. 408). 170.  This meaning coexists with the more common ‘to collect, prepare’; see below. 171.  But cf. amāru Gt, 1× in Old Assyrian (see §14.3.1.2, p. 362). 172.  Perhaps also šutāḫuzu ‘to cause to catch fire’ (cf. nanḫuzu ‘to flare up’)? See Streck 1994: 166–67.

406

The Pattern taPRvS(t) and the Ṧt2-Stem  14.6.

These instances show the existence of a causative Gt § Št2 derivation with a limited productivity (see §10.6, p. 254), but they cannot account for the great majority of Št2‑stems. I will return below to the question of how to explain the rise of this relationship. The second candidate that could be the source of the Št2‑stem is obviously the Š‑stem. However, the relationship between Š and Št2 is completely erratic. Many Št2‑stems do not have a corresponding Š‑stem at all; this applies to šutāwûm, šutakūnu, šutamkuru, šutanūdu, šutapzuru, šutaṣūlu, šutašūmu, šutašnû, šutātû, šutelmunu, šutēmuqu, šutersû, šuteṣbû, šutēʾulu, and several others (see below for the meaning of these verbs). Other Št2‑stems have a meaning that is not derivable from that of the Š‑stem, e.g., šutēṣû and šutēpušu, or belong to a different register, genre, or dialect, e.g., šutamlû, which is common in administrative Old Babylonian contexts (especially letters), whereas malû Š is a purely literary equivalent of the D‑stem mullû (see GAV p. 272), and šutēmudu, which is common in Old Babylonian, whereas emēdu Š is only marginally attested elsewhere (see CAD E 145a s.v. 5).173 We can solve the functional problems of the Št2‑stem by assuming that it is essentially a formal category consisting of denominal verbs derived from taPRvS nouns. The Š‑stem can have a denominal function, as we saw in §13.2.2.4 (pp. 332–333), although this is marginal. However, the best parallel is not offered by the common triradical Š‑stem but by the quadriradical verbs, because taPRvS is a quadriliteral element. The use of š‑ to verbalize taPRvS nouns is parallel to the use of the prefix n‑ in the quadriradical verbs of the nabalkutu group (see §12.5, p. 311).174 As I argued in §13.6 (pp. 353–354), the prefixes n and š are parallel in their use as “verbalizer” but semantically divergent in that the contrast between verbs with n‑ and verbs with š‑ roughly correlates with the difference between processes and activities, especially when they are in opposition. This fits in quite well with the use of š‑ in the Št2‑stem, as will be clear from the examples that follow: the basic meaning of many Št2‑stems is “to perform the action indicated by the corresponding taPRvS noun.” This approach explains both the functional irregularity of the Št2‑stem as a whole and the indisputable similarity in meaning exhibited by many individual Št2‑stems. The irregularity is caused by the fact that the meaning of denominal verbs is determined by the source noun and the activity for which they are created. The similarity in meaning is a consequence of the fact that they are derived from a single type of source noun that is semantically fairly homogeneous, since it is (or was) the deverbal noun of the Gt‑stem.175 From this perspective, many peculiarities of the Št2‑stem become understandable. First of all, it explains why the Št2‑stem is independent of the causative Š‑stem, as we saw above: it belongs to the denominal function of the prefix š. Second, it clarifies the relationship between the Gt‑stem and the Št2‑stem. Apart from the few instances quoted above, the Št2‑stem is not a regular causative of the Gt‑stem but often seems to be more or less synonymous with it. For instance, šutēnû from enû ‘to change, replace’ means ‘to replace e.o.’ rather than ‘to cause to replace e.o.’, šutāwû (cf. atwû ‘to speak’) means ‘to 173.  In the II/voc verbs, the independence of the Št2‑stem vis-à-vis the Š‑stem is also formally marked in that the Š‑stem shows gemination of the final radical, whereas the Št2‑stem does not (see §16.5.3.4, pp. 485–488). 174.  These verbs have a derived causative with š (šubalkutu, discussed in §13.4.1, pp. 338–340), but this š‑ is not directly comparable to the š‑ of the Št2‑stem, since it is the causative š‑ rather than the š‑ as a verbalizing prefix. 175.  For the structure of the Št2 forms, this implies that there is a fundamental but invisible difference between the Št1‑stem and the Št2‑stem: the former consists of a base šaprVs with a t-infix, whereas the latter consists of a base taprVs with a prefixed š-.

14.6.  The Pattern taPRvS(t) and the Ṧt2-Stem

407

discuss, ponder’ rather than ‘to cause to speak (to e.o.)’, and similarly šutāpulu ‘to discuss, correspond’ (cf. apālu Gt ‘to answer e.o., discuss, correspond’). This shows that the Št2‑stem is not a causative derivation of Gt but is indirectly related to it, namely, via the taPRvS noun(s) tēnû and/or tēnītu ‘(the act of) replacing e.o.’, hence ‘replacement’, also in a concrete sense. Both are deverbal nouns of enû Gt ‘to replace e.o.’, and the Št2‑stem basically means ‘to perform a tēnû/ tēnītu’ or ‘to make into a tēnû/tēnītu’, depending on the context. The derivational chain G‑stem § Gt‑stem § taPRvS noun § Št2‑stem that we find for enû Št2 is usually not attested in its entirety; normally, we find two or three of the four stages, and the meanings involved are almost always lexicalized to some extent. Third, it accounts for the fact that so many Št2‑stems have a reciprocal-like or reflexive-like nuance without being reciprocal or reflexive in the strict sense of the term (see §10.8.3.5, p. 263, and §10.8.3.3, p. 261, respectively, for definitions of both concepts).176 This nuance comes from the reciprocal and reflexive function of the Gt‑stem from which the taPRvS noun is derived. This is also true of the few Št2‑stems quoted above as causatives of Gt: e.g., magāru Gt ‘to agree with e.o.’ § tamgu/irtu ‘(mutual) agreement’ § šutamguru ‘to achieve/to bring about a tamgu/irtu (between people)’ § ‘to cause (them) to agree’. However, instances such as these show the first stages of the rise of a derived verbal stem: once this semantic relationship has been established for a number of verbs, it may become productive without the existence of the intermediate taPRvS noun (Kuryłowicz 1972: 7). This is likely to be the source of many derived stems; in this particular case, however, the process was aborted before it could really take off as a result of the decline of the Gt‑stem itself. Fourth, alongside the reciprocal-like or reflexive-like Št2‑stems of the previous paragraph, there are also numerous Št2‑stems that are completely devoid of such a nuance (see below for examples). This is in keeping with the twofold background I posited in §14.6.1 (pp. 401–402) for the extant taPRvS nouns: part of the Št2‑stems can be associated with the Gt‑stem, and part with the D‑stem. The non-reciprocal and non-reflexive stems belong to the latter category. Fifth, and most importantly, the denominal origin of the Št2‑stem is also demonstrated by the fact that many Št2‑stems have a close semantic relation to a taPRvS noun. Some of these are further isolated, so that there is no obvious other source available (cf. Streck 1994: 179–81; 2003a: 118–29): • • • •

šutēmuqu ‘to pray, supplicate’ (OB, SB) ∞ tēmī/ēqu ‘prayer’ šutēṣû ‘to compete, quarrel’ (OA, OB, SB) ∞ tēṣī/ētu ‘conflict, rivalry’ šutāḫû ‘to team up with, join, conspire’ (SB) ∞ atḫū ‘partners’ šutamkuru ‘to do business, trade’ (OB, SB) ∞ tamkāru ‘merchant’

In other cases, a denominal source seems plausible for various reasons: 176.  Št2‑stems with reciprocal or reflexive meaning may look like derivatives of the corresponding Š‑stem (Streck (1994: 169–72), but if we consider their meaning more closely, it turns out that their relationship with the Š‑stem presupposes a considerable degree of lexicalization. For instance, Streck classifies šutamruṣu ‘to concern oneself, do one’s best’ as a reflexive of marāṣu Š ‘to make ill, annoyed’, šutēpušu ‘to be active, do one’s best’ as a reflexive of epēšu Š ‘to cause to do /make/act’ (1994: 170), šutamṭû ‘to suffer reduction’ as a passive of maṭû Š ‘to diminish’ (p. 173), and šutaṣbutu ‘to bring together, collect, prepare’ (especially groups of people or animals) as a causative of a reciprocal Gt‑stem ‘to cause to seize e.o.’ (p. 163). In none of these cases, the presupposed literal meaning is actually attested. This is not to say that the semantic development involved is implausible, but before we can claim that, for instance, the Št2‑stem is a reflexive of the Š‑stem, we should first establish this reflexive function on independent grounds by means of indisputable, i.e., non-lexicalized, instances, such as those we find for the Gt‑stem in relation to the G‑stem.

408

The Pattern taPRvS(t) and the Ṧt2-Stem   14.6.

• šutanūdu ‘to praise’ (OB, SB) ∞ tanittu or tanattu ‘praise’ ∞ nâdu (G and D) ‘to praise’, cf. in particular tanādātīa (. . .) ana šu-ta-nu-di-im BagM. 34, 150: XIV 13 (OB) ‘in order to sing my praise’ • šutersû ‘to prepare’ (OA, OB, MB, SB) ∞ tersītu ‘equipment, requisite’ ∞ ersû ‘ready’ • šutakūnu ‘to check, confirm’ (OB) ∞ takittu ‘confirmation’ ∞ kunnu ‘to confirm’ • šutašūmu ‘to give wisdom or understanding’ (OB and MB PNs) ∞ tašīmtu ‘prudence, wisdom’ ∞ šummu ‘to reflect, deliberate’ (see n. 184, p. 410) • šuteṣbû ‘to design or create in an artful way’ (OB, MB, SB) ∞ *teṣbû and/or *teṣbītu ‘artful design’ ∞ ṣubbû ‘to execute artfully’177 • šuterdû ‘to continue’ (OB, SB) ∞ terdītu ‘addition’ ∞ ruddû ‘to add’ • šutēbubu ‘to perform a tēbibtu’ (OB) ∞ tēbibtu ∞ ubbubu ‘to purify’178 • šuteqrubu ‘to perform a taqribtu-ritual’ (OB) ∞ taqribtu ∞ qurrubu ‘to offer, sacrifice’179 • šutākulu or šutakūlu ‘to multiply, square’ (OB), lit. ‘to perform a tākiltu or takīltu’ ∞ tākiltu/takīltu ‘multiplication’180 • šutāwû ‘to label’ (Mari OB) (to be distinguished from šutāwû A ‘to discuss, ponder’) ∞ tāwītum ‘label’181 Several of these verbs show the feature that is typical of denominal verbs: they have a technical meaning and a close relationship with the corresponding noun. In Old Assyrian and Old Babylonian, where the Št2‑stem is fairly productive, there are numerous Št2‑stems referring to technical activities, mostly in the sphere of commerce, administration, and accounting. This reminds us of the fact that the D‑stem, including its deverbal taPRiS noun, is also frequently used for technical 177.  *teṣbû is attested as an adverb teṣbîš ‘in an artful way’ (te-eṣ-bi-i-iš BagM. 34, 148: XIII 9 (OB RI) and in *teṣbītu in the Pl taṣbâtu (see §17.5.1, pp. 531–533, and Kouwenberg 2001: 233–34 for e > a) ‘artful design, sophistication’, or the like (ekal ta-aṣ-ba-ti ZDMG 98, 30:4 and qīšāti ta-aṣ-ba-ti Legends p. 366:173 ‘presents and artful things’). The verbs ṣubbû and šuteṣbû and these nouns are typically used in the context of the design and construction of royal buildings, except for the last mentioned instance, which AHw 1337b s.v. taṣbâtu translates as ‘Wunscherfüllungen’, deriving it from ṣa/ebû ‘to wish’. This sounds semantically plausible but it is perhaps too much to derive the only two attested instances of this word from two different verbs. B. Landsberger’s proposal to derive it from waṣābu ‘to add’ as a Pl of *taṣibtu, quoted and accepted by A. Westenholz 1997: 330 ad line 173 (‘supplementary presents[?]’), is unlikely, since there is no other instance of such a pattern among the I/w verbs. 178.  In [as]sīkum DN šu-te-bi-ib RitDiv. 30:8 ‘I appeal to you, Šamaš, perform a tēbibtu’. It is classified by Streck (1994: 176) as reflexive, but this leaves unexplained why a Št2‑stem is used, since a causative Š of this verb is not in use in Old Babylonian. 179.  In ili awīlim šu-te-eq-ru-ba-am īrriš YOS 10, 52: III 3 ‘the man’s personal god demands a taqribturitual’. For taqribtu as a religious ceremony, see Seux 1976: 151 n. 19 with lit. (‘une intercession’). 180.  Cf. the use of the verb and the noun in the same context in MCT 129 Ua 6-r.2: 3,30 itti 3,30 šu-taki-il-ma (. . .) 3,30 ta-ki-il-tam ina ištēn usuḫ ‘multiply 3,30 by 3,30 (and you get 12,15 . . ..), deduct 3,30, the tākiltu/takīltu, from 1’ (OB, similarly TMB p. 102 no. 206:11–17, etc.). The Sumerian logogram for this operation, g u7, suggests that both the noun and the verb come from akālu ‘to eat’ and should thus be spelled tākiltu and šutākulu. It has been argued, in particular by Høyrup (1990: 42–43 with n. 27 and elsewhere), that a derivation from kullu Št2 ‘to make (two line segments) hold each other (as sides of a rectangle)’ is semantically more satisfactory and that the spelling with gu7 is a kind of pun. Accordingly, we should write šutakūlu and takīltum (AHw 1306b s.v. takiltum II already refers to kullu, but has the verb under akālu Št 2 [p. 27b]). This may indeed be attractive semantically, but the only plene spelling known to me that allows us to distinguish the two verbs, the Impfv tu-uš-ta-ak-ka-al MCT p. 45: B r.15 (OB), shows that k is the middle radical rather than the first one (kullu Št2 would have had an Impfv tuštakâl). 181.  See D. Charpin, NABU 1988/85, Heimpel (1996: 166–67 and Streck 2003a: 119–20. Cf. especially ta-wi-tum ina tuppim ul šu-ta-wa-⟨at? ⟩ A.977: 9–10 quoted by Charpin: ‘there was no label/address on the tablet’, which shows the close relationship between noun and verb.

14.6.  The Pattern taPRvS(t) and the Ṧt2-Stem

409

terms. Accordingly, we may tentatively classify yet more Št2‑stems as denominal, although other options cannot be excluded: • šutamlû ‘to supplement’ (missing items, shortages of workers, etc.) (OB, SB); the supplement itself is called a tamlītu, see K. R. Veenhof, AbB 14 p. 219 s.v. tamlītum • šutamṭû ‘to suffer reduction, be in short supply’ (OB, SB) ∞ tamṭītu ‘reduction, scarcity’182 • šutaḫūqu ‘to make a mixture’ (OB, MB, SB) ∞ taḫīqtu ‘mixture’, cf. ḫâqu (ī) ‘to mix’ • šutašnû ‘to double, do for the second time’ (OA, OB, SB) ∞ tašna/i ‘double’ or tašnû/ītu ‘repetition’ ∞ šunnû ‘to repeat’ It is tempting to extend this explanation to other Št2‑stems with a technical meaning even though there is no taPRvS noun attested, such as šutaḫruṣu ‘to deduct, balance’ from ḫarāṣu ‘to cut off’, a common technical term in accounting. Anyhow, it is hard to find another reason for the fact that it is a Št2‑stem. Other, less common, candidates may be šutaḫtû ‘to mix, decant’ (wine) and šutaqūpu ‘to buy on credit (qīptu)’ (both OB Mari). For the great majority of Št2‑stems, it is difficult to find positive evidence that they are denominal. Most of them come from well-known roots with an extensive paradigm attested in a variety of derived verbal stems. In this case, it is difficult to argue compellingly that the Št2‑stem is directly derived from a taPRvS noun (attested or not) rather than from, say, the corresponding Š‑stem or Gt‑stem. The verbs šutāduru ‘to worry’ (intr.) and šutānuḫu ‘to be dejected, in pain’ (OB, SB) offer a good illustration of this problem. They can be explained as Št1‑stems derived from adāru Š ‘to worry (trans.), frighten’ and anāḫu Š ‘to make tired, to make work hard’, intransitively ‘to have a hard time’, which are common in Standard Babylonian.183 However, they also have a derived taPRvS noun: tānīḫu ‘sighing, moaning’ and tādirtu ‘worry, concern’, so that nothing prevents us from deriving them from tānīḫu and tādirtu as Št2‑stems. Because of this uncertainty, I will not attempt to explain the background of every single Št2‑stem but simply list them according to semantic criteria. I will also include relevant forms of the same root (usually a taPRvS noun and/or a Gt‑stem or a D‑stem, if available). First, many Št2‑stems that go back to deverbal nouns of the Gt‑stem can be recognized from the fact that they have a reciprocal or reflexive background, without being reciprocal or reflexive in the strict sense of the word. They form “semantic clusters,” i.e., groups of verbs with a closely related meaning. The “reciprocal cluster” consists of verbs of meeting and discussing, of fighting and quarreling, and of gathering and mixing: • šutābulu ‘to bring together, combine, compare, consider, discuss’ (OB, SB), cf. wabālu ‘to bring, take’ (there is no Gt, but the secondary verb tabālu testifies to a former Gt‑stem; see §16.2.3, p. 454) • šutaddunu ‘to mix, deliberate’ (OB, SB), cf. tadduntu, if this indeed means ‘mutual gift’, as I suggested in §14.6.1 (p. 400), from nadānu Gt ‘to give to e.o.’? (not attested) • šutagmulu ‘to do e.o. a favour, to compromise’ (OB), cf. gamālu Gt ‘to conspire’ • šutakṣuru ‘to bring together, make ready’ (SB), cf. kaṣāru Gt ‘to put together, join’ • šutamguru ‘to cause to agree with e.o.’ (OA, OB, SB), cf. magāru Gt ‘to agree with e.o.’ from tamgi/urtu ‘agreement’, and see (13) above (p. 405) • šutamḫuru ‘to cause to face e.o., cause to correspond’ (OB, MB, SB), cf. tamḫāru ‘battle’ from maḫāru Gt ‘to confront e.o.’ and see (14) above (p. 405) 182.  This obviates the necessity to assume an irregular imperfective, as done by Streck (1994: 173), who classifies it as a passive Št1‑stem with an irregular Št2 imperfective. 183.  Since they are I/voc verbs, they cannot be distinguished on the basis of their imperfective forms (see §17.6.3.3, pp. 548–550).

410

The Pattern taPRvS(t) and the Ṧt2-Stem   14.6.

• šutamḫuṣu ‘to cause to fight’ (OB, SB), cf. tamḫāṣu ‘battle’ from mahāṣu Gt ‘to fight’, and see (15) above (p. 405) • šutamluku ‘to give (good) advice’,184 cf. malāku Gt ‘to deliberate’ and tamlāku ‘counselor’ • šutamšulu ‘to be equivalent to’ (SB), cf. tamšīlu ‘likeness, image’ from mašālu Gt ‘to resemble e.o.’ (1× OA; see §14.3.1.2, p. 362) • šutāmuru ‘to cause to meet’ (OB), cf. tāmartu ‘meeting gift’ from amāru Gt ‘to meet’ (1× OA; see §14.3.1.2, p. 362) and see (18) above (p. 405) • šutaprusu ‘to distinguish’? (OB Mari), cf. Gt (stative) ‘to be separated from e.o.; to be ambiguous’ (of omens)’; pitrustu ‘ambiguous omen or feature’ • šutāpulu ‘to answer e.o., discuss, correspond’, cf. tāpālu ‘pair’ from apālu Gt ‘to answer e.o.’ (or do all instances belong to wabālu Št2?) • šutasḫupu ‘to cover e.o., overlap’ (OB, SB), cf. saḫāpu ‘to cover, overwhelm’ • šutaṣbutu (1) ‘to bring together, collect, prepare’ (OA, OB, SB), i.e. ‘to perform/make into a *taṣbittu, i.e. ‘a mutual seizing’; (2) ‘to cause to quarrel’ (OB), cf. taṣbittu ‘quarrel’ (see §14.6.1, p. 400) from ṣabātu Gt ‘to seize e.o.’ > ‘to quarrel’, and see (17) above (p. 405) • šutātû ‘to meet’ (OB, MB, SB), cf. watû G ‘to find’ • šutāwû A ‘to discuss, advice, ponder’ (OB, MB, SB), cf. tāwītu originally ‘*discussion, *response’, but actually ‘response to an oracle query’ from atwû ‘to speak’ (originally ‘to speak to e.o.’), see also Streck 2003a: 119–20 • šutēguru ‘to be intertwined’ (OB, SB), cf. egēru G and Gt ‘to be twisted’ • šutelmunu ‘to be/make hostile to e.o.’ (OA, OB, SB), cf. lemēnu ‘to be(come) bad, evil’, Gt = G • šutēlupu ‘to be entangled’ (SB), cf. elēpu G and Gt ‘to flourish’ • šutēmudu ‘to join, put together’ (OB, SB), cf. emēdu ‘to reach’ (with Gt replaced by N) • šutēnû ‘to replace e.o.’ (OB), see above • šuteṣūlu ‘to cause to quarrel with e.o.’, cf. ṣê/âlu Gt ‘to quarrel’ and see (16) above (p. 405) • šutešmû ‘to establish harmony’ (OB, SB), cf. tešmû ‘concord, harmony’ (see §14.6.1, p. 398) from šemû Gt ‘to listen to e.o.’ • šutētumu ‘to involve, mix’ (OA, OB), cf. etēmu id.? • šutēʾulu ‘to wring (one’s hands)’ (OB, SB), cf. eʾēlu ‘to bind’, Gt = G A second semantic cluster of Št2‑stems comprises verbs of exerting oneself, of doing one’s best. Their connection with the original meaning of the t-infix is less obvious, but some of them at least may go back to (taPRvS nouns of) reflexive Gt‑stems, even though none are attested: • šutalbubu ‘sich hart einsetzen?  ’ acc. to AHw 1570a s.v. labābu Št2, but Streck 1994: 180: ‘aufmerksam sein’ (indirectly related to libbu ‘heart’) (OB) • šutamruṣu ‘to concern oneself, do one’s best’ (OA, OB, SB), cf. marāṣu ‘to be(come) ill, annoyed’ • šutapšuqu ‘to suffer acute distress’ (CAD P 236a s.v. 2c) (SB), cf. pašāqu ‘to be(come) narrow’ 184.  In the PN Uš-tam-lik-DN St. Dietrich p. 761:1, see Streck 2003a: 123–24. Differently from Streck, I suggest: ‘DN was (my) tamlākum’, i.e., ‘has given (good) advice’ or the like; cf. the PNs of the type Uštašīm-DN and Lištasīm-DN (CAD Š/3 281a s.v. šummu v. 2), which I interpret (differently from CAD) as ‘DN has given/may give (me) understanding’.

14.6.  The Pattern taPRvS(t) and the Ṧt2-Stem

411

• šutamṣû ‘to make a serious effort, to provide sufficient help’ (tr. CAD M/1 349b s.v. 9) (OB, SB), cf. maṣû ‘to be(come) equal to, sufficient’ • šutēb/puru ‘to hurry’ (OB, SB) (no relatives?) • šutēkub/pu ‘to do one’s best’ (Veenhof 1972: 114–15 with n. 184; Streck 1994: 170: ‘sich bemühen zu’) (OA), see tēkuBtu in n. 150 (p. 399)? • šutēpušu ‘to do one’s best’ (OB, SB) (cf. etpušu/etpēšu ‘active, expert’?) The importance of these clusters is that they make the actual existence of a taPRvS noun superfluous for the creation of an individual Št2‑stem. If among semantically related verbs one has a Št2‑stem, the others may acquire it without the intermediate role of such a noun. For the sake of completeness, I will add a list of the attested Št2‑stems that have not yet been mentioned, mainly because their interpretation is uncertain and their background obscure:185 • šutāḫuzu ‘to kindle, incite’ (SB), cf. nanḫuzu ‘to flare up’ (fire) and šūḫuzu ‘to set fire to’ (see §13.2.2.5, p. 333, and Streck 1994: 166–67, 2003a: 118) • šutakruku ‘to soak, cause to immerse’? (SB), cf. karāku ‘to soak’ • šutakṣuṣu ‘to rage’ (SB), cf. kaṣāṣu ‘to gnash the teeth, to rage’ • šutakšudu ‘to make ready’ or the like? (OB) (said of fields, see Streck 2003a: 122 no. 380), cf. kašādu Gt, meaning unclear • šutaktutu ‘to collapse, descend to the horizon (of celestial bodies)’ (OB, SB), cf. katātu (meaning uncertain) • šutakūšu ‘to be delayed’ (SB), cf. kâšu id. • šutamrû ‘to provide abundantly’ (SB), cf. marû ‘to fatten’ • šutapzuru ‘to provide safety to’ (OB), cf. pazāru ‘to hide, steal through’, puzru ‘hiding place, refuge’, and tapzirtu ‘hiding’ • šutaqrunu ‘to pile up’ (OB, SB), cf. qarānu ‘to pile up’ and taqrintu ‘piling up, pile’ • šutaqtû ‘to complete’ (OB, SB), cf. qatû ‘to end’ (intr.) and taqtītu ‘end, completion’ • šutasḫuru ‘to surround on all sides’ (OB, SB), cf. tasḫīru/tasḫirtu ‘turning?’ • šutassuq/ku ‘to put in order, make ready, prepare’ (OB, MB) • šutaṣmudu ‘to link together’? (said of water) (OB), cf. ṣamādu ‘to harness’ • šutašpuru ‘to rule, govern’ (SB), cf. šapāru ‘to send, write, rule’ • šutebrû ‘to continue, make permanent, pass all the way through’ (OA, OB, SB), cf. bitrû ‘to be continuous, last’ • šutēlû ‘to rival in height’ (SB), cf. elû ‘to go /come up, be high’, Gt + ina ‘to lose’, tēlītu, a kind of tax • šutemkû ‘to pacify’? (OB, SB); its relation (if any) to mekû ‘to be negligent’ and temkû ‘Vernachlässigung’ acc. to AHw 1346a s.v. is not clear to me • šute/aptû (OB) (meaning unclear, see Hirsch 1987: 45–49; Heimpel 1996: 168–69), cf. petû ‘to open’, teptītu ‘reclamation (of land)’ • šutēṣupu ‘to triple’ (OA), cf. eṣēpu id. • šutēšuru ‘to put and keep in order, provide justice, take the road, prosper’ (OB, SB), cf. ešēru ‘to be straight, right, go straight’ (tēši/ertu unclear) • šutētunu ‘to overwhelm, destroy’ (SB)186 185.  I have added a taPRvS form when it is attested. This does not imply that I automatically regard it as the basis of the Št2 verb. 186.  See AHw 260b s.v. etēm/nu Št2 (add šu-te-tu-nu = sa-pa-nu SpTU 3 p. 249 no. 119: VI 10 (= 260) (SB LL).

The Pattern taPRvS(t) and the Ṧt2-Stem  14.6.

412

14.6.2.3.  Comparison with West Semitic As I stated in §14.5.5 (p. 392), for a comparison with other Semitic languages we must combine the discussion of the Št2‑stem with that of the Št1‑stem, since they are not distinguished outside Akkadian. Most West Semitic languages have a derived verbal stem characterized by the combination of a sibilant prefix and an infixed t (to which I will generally refer as the Št‑stem), including the languages with an H-causative.187 Table 14.9 presents the relevant Š and Št forms of Akkadian, Arabic, Aramaic (represented by Syriac), and Geʿez in the two basic finite categories of imperfective and perfective:

Akkadian Arabic Hebrew Syriac Geʿez

Š‑stem

Št‑stem

Impfv

ušapras

uštap(ar)ras

Pfv

ušapris

uštapris

Impfv

yuqtilu

yastaqtilu

Pfv

ʾaqtala

istaqtala

Impfv

yaqtīl

—

Pfv

hiqtīl

—

Impfv

naqṭel

nettaqṭal

Pfv

ʾaqṭel

ʾettaqṭal

Impfv

yāqattəl

yāstaqattəl

Pfv

ʾaqtala

ʾastaqtala

Table 14.9: The Št‑stem(s) in the older Semitic languages.

At first glance, there is little uniformity among the languages. In Hebrew, the Št‑stem is simply lacking, apart from a single instance, hištaḥ awā ‘to prostrate oneself’ (Joüon and Muraoka 1991: 170), which Hebrew shares with Ugaritic, where it is also more or less the only Št‑stem, not counting a few uncertain cases (Sivan 1997: 171; Tropper 1990: 72–75, 2000: 606–9). A Št‑stem is also absent from Phoenician and Aramaic,188 but Aramaic derived a new detransitive stem from the causative by combining the prefix t with the regular H‑causative: Perf ʾettaqṭal < *ʾet‑ʾaqṭal, from which a corresponding Impfv nettaqṭal was created on the model of the Dt‑stem (ʾEthpaʿʿal) ʾetqaṭṭal – netqaṭṭal (Brockelmann 1908: 532; Moscati, ed. 1964: 154, 156; Bravmann 1977: 201 n. 2). The languages that do have a Št‑stem have adapted its form to their own system. This is especially clear in Geʿez, which has introduced gemination in the imperfective: Stem IV/1 yāstaqattəl (see §4.6.1, pp. 120–121), whereas the jussive preserves the original stem: yāstaqtəl. This form agrees exactly with the Arabic Juss yastaqtil and the Akkadian Pfv uštapris, apart from the different vowels of the personal prefixes. Since the long ā in Geʿez is taken over from Stem II/1 yāq(at)təl, where it comes from the contraction of the prefix vowel and the following a (*yVʾaqtil‑), we can reconstruct a Proto-Semitic Št‑stem *yVštaqtil‑ in which V is either i/a or u, 187.  For earlier literature, see, for instance, Brockelmann 1908: 531–32; Lipiński 1997: 388, 400–401; and Streck 1994: 191–94. Dombrowski 1988: 343–47 gives a convenient survey of Št verbs in various languages. 188.  Aramaic has a few fossilized Št forms, however; see Brockelmann 1908: 532; Segert 1990: 259.

14.6.  The Pattern taPRvS(t) and the Ṧt2-Stem

413

and more probably the former, like yastaqtilu in Arabic. Akkadian u may be caused by the fact that the Št1‑stem is modelled on the D‑ and the Š‑stem and that this has influenced the Št2‑stem.189 The question is whether this Proto-Semitic Št‑stem corresponds to the Št1‑stem or the Št2‑stem in Akkadian. This can only be decided by a study of its function in West Semitic. The highly productive Št‑stem of Arabic, Stem X istaqtala, is usually described as a reflexive to the causative Stem IV ʾaqtala (e.g., Wright 1967: I 44; Fleisch 1979: 319). Fischer (1972: 89) calls it “Reflexiv zu dem nicht mehr existenten *safʿala.” Actually, its function is far more complex than is suggested by this laconic formula. Keller (1996) has examined the use of Stem X in modern written Arabic on the basis of the dictionaries of Wehr and Baranov and concludes that about 60% of the Stem X verbs can be explained as denominal (1996: 309), that one-fifth at most are reflexive/passive to Stem IV and that in about one-third of them there is no corresponding Stem IV at all (pp. 299, 309). He concludes that the Stem X verbs are “selbständige lexikale Einheiten” (p. 309), most of which are primarily related to a noun and only secondarily to a verb and that the relationship between Stem X and Stem IV is “wesentlich lockerer” than usually assumed (p. 300).190 This means that it is quite possible that the Arabic Stem X has the same denominal background as the Akkadian Št2‑stem.191 Among the South Semitic languages, Geʿez has three derived stems with an -st- infix, Stem IV/1 ʾastaqtala, IV/2 ʾastaqattala, and IV/3 ʾastaqātala (Tropper 2002: 103). The last two are secondary, resulting from the total reorganization of the system of derived stems on the basis of three basic forms qatala, qattala, and qātala, so that we are only concerned here with IV/1 ʾastaqtala. Tropper (2002: 108) describes it as causative or factitive to the simple t‑stem (Stem III/1) or the basic stem (e.g., ʾastamalḫa ‘to cause to draw (a sword)’ from malḫa ‘to draw (a sword)’, which implies that the force of the t-infix has been weakened here); and as estimative, declarative, and desiderative (e.g., ʾastamḥara ‘to ask for mercy’, from məḥra ‘to have mercy’). It is remarkable that Stem IV/1 is rarely used as a reflexive of the causative Stem II/1 (Tropper 2002: 108; Waltisberg 2002b: 286); there is only one common instance, ʾastarʾaya ‘to appear, become visible’ from ʾarʾaya ‘to show’. This suggests that there is no clear derivational relationship between Stems II/1 and IV/1. In Modern South Arabian, the situation is parallel to that in Geʿez. There are two derived verbal stems with the prefix š-, which goes back to -st-: a simple stem corresponding to the Geʿez Stem IV/1 ʾastaqtala, e.g., Mehri šəwbēd ‘to be shot, allow oneself to be shot’ and an extended stem with a full vowel between the first and second radical, e.g., šəlēbəd ‘to fight, shoot back’ (Johnstone 1987: lix, 250), which corresponds to the Geʿez IV/3 Stem ʾastaqātala. The latter usually has a reciprocal nuance; for the former, Simeone-Senelle (1998: 84–85) gives the functions of passive, middle, denominal, and what I would call “estimative” (“se faire une opinion de qch, qqn”), which can be explained as originally denominal. To what extent this stem is a 189.  Thus also Moscati, ed. 1964: 156. 190.  This is also argued by Retsö 1989: 133–34. On the other hand, Eisenstein (1980: 45, 52) observes a relatively strong statistical correlation between Stem IV and Stem X, stronger than between I and X. His approach, however, is purely quantitative, without any reference to the meaning of Stem X verbs or their semantic relation to other stems. After a discussion of Eisenstein’s data, Streck (1994: 194) concludes that the denominal function of Stem X is “eine der wichtigsten oder gar die wichtigste überhaupt” among its functions. 191.  The denominal function of Stem X is also mentioned by Wright 1967: I 45–46 and Fleisch 1979: 328. Many cases of putative reflexive-causative, declarative, and estimative meanings may also be ultimately denominal. For instance, istaḥsana ‘to regard as beautiful’ can plausibly be derived from ḥasan ‘beautiful’.

414

The Pattern taPRvS(t) and the Ṧt2-Stem   14.6.

derivation of the MSA causative stem or independent of it is hard to infer from the available reference works. For Epigraphic South Arabian, Stein (2003: 159–60) observes a close relationship between H-causatives and the corresponding ST‑stem of Sabaic, e.g., hʿn ‘to help’ versus stʿn ‘to ask for help’, which represents a semantic pattern that is also characteristic of the Arabic Stem X (Wright 1967: I 45; Keller 1996: 300–301). In other verbs, these stems seem to be interchangeable, however, such as hnqḏ and stnqḏ ‘to capture (booty), plunder’. These facts indicate that the West Semitic Št‑stem is more than a simple detransitive derivation of the causative and also has an important denominal function, especially in Arabic. This associates it more closely with the Akkadian Št2‑stem than with the Št1‑stem and suggests that the West Semitic Št‑stem may also ultimately go back to denominal verbs derived from taPRvS nouns. It is true that taPRvS nouns with the required reciprocal and reflexive meaning are very rare in West Semitic (see §14.4.1, pp. 377–378), but this can be ascribed to the fact that the West Semitic languages, especially Arabic, are attested much later. So there was a much longer period in which these nouns could be discarded, lexicalized, or, most importantly, associated with the D‑stem, and in which the Št‑stem itself could be more thoroughly embedded in the system of derived stems. The claim that the West Semitic Št‑stem is parallel to its Akkadian counterpart in being denominal in origin rather than a direct derivation of the causative stem has some interesting consequences. First of all, if the West Semitic Št‑stem is historically related to the Akkadian Št2‑stem, it is likely that the detransitive Št1‑stem is an inner-Akkadian innovation modelled on the D § Dt relationship. This is further supported by its formal dependency on the paradigm of the D‑ and Dt‑stems, which is shown in particular by the absence of gemination in the Št1 imperfective ušapras (see §4.5.2, pp. 113–114). Second, if the Št‑stem is derived from taPRvS nouns by means of the verbalizing prefix š (*yV-š-taprVs), š has always preceded t and t has never been a prefix in this verbal stem. This agrees with the fact that in the historical paradigms of the Št‑stem it always occurs as an infix, even in Geʿez, where t is prefixed in all other forms, even if it precedes a sibilant (Diem 1982: 40–41). This makes the reconstruction of forms such as **tašqatal and **tašaqtal, posited as predecessors of the historical base *‑štaqtVl by Brockelmann (1908: 531–32) and Diem (1982: 45, 47), superfluous. Third, and most importantly, if West Semitic employed the pre-existing Št‑stem to provide for a detransitive derivation of the causative—instead of creating a new form by means of the t‑infix—the connection between the causative and the Št‑stem is etymological rather than derivational and thus much weaker than is usually assumed. In fact, it would be parallel to the one we have posited for the D‑stem versus the Dt‑stem in West Semitic: in both cases, a category that already existed with a different function was secondarily associated with the active stem. This would cast a new light on the thorny problem of the relationship between the S‑causative of Akkadian and the H‑causative of West Semitic.192

192.  For instance, it would be no longer self-evident that the S‑prefix was the only or even the main causative marker in Proto-West Semitic or that it must have been used in all languages that descend from Proto-West Semitic. Already at a very early date, there may have been other means of expressing morphological causatives, such as the H-causative and/or a specific vowel pattern, as argued by Retsö (1989, esp. p. 66). These forms can still have used the Št‑stem for detransitivization.

14.7.  The tan‑Stems

415

14.7. The tan‑Stems The last category of derived verbal stems with a t-infix to be discussed are the tan‑stems, i.e., the Gtn‑stem, the Dtn‑stem, the Štn‑stem, and the Ntn‑stem. Since all tan‑stems have essentially the same function, but each has its own formal peculiarities, I will start with a brief account of their function (§14.7.1) and only then describe the formal aspects of each stem separately (§14.7.2 through §14.7.5). Finally, in §14.7.6, I will offer a reconstruction of the way they emerged in the prehistoric period.

14.7.1.  The function of the tan‑stems All tan‑stems have the same function: they are prototypical categories for the expression of verbal plurality or pluractionality (see §10.8.1, p. 256). Concretely, this means that according to the context and the verb in question they can be iterative, frequentative, habitual, continuous, or distributive to the corresponding primary stem. In very rare cases, they may also indicate a kind of intensity or carefulness. In practice, it may be difficult to determine which of these meanings is the most appropriate, and sometimes more than one realization may be involved at the same time.193 Since the use of the tan‑stems has been documented extensively in several other works,194 I will restrict myself to a short enumeration of the different kinds of verbal plurality and concentrate on some interesting aspects. The following uses are prominent: 1.  The iterative realization of the tan‑stems includes iterative in the strict sense of the word: frequentative and habitual. The iterative in the strict sense indicates that the subject performs a series of actions that together can be seen as comprising a single occasion (Bybee et al. 1994: 160–64). It is especially common in motion verbs, such as alāku and nagāšu Gtn ‘to walk about’ (G ‘to go /come’), rapādu and lasāmu Gtn ‘to run around’, ṣâdu Gtn ‘to turn about, prowl, whirl’, and šahāṭu Gtn ‘to leap up and down, move back and forth’ (see also Streck 1995b: 48–49). A transitive verb with this kind of Gtn‑stem is mašāru Gtn ‘to drag around’. The frequentative refers to an action or process that is repeated by the same subject on different occasions, usually in punctual and telic verbs, as in (21); the habitual is used for a habit, only with animate beings as subject, as in (22): (21) AAA 1, 53 no. 1: r.18′–19′ (OA) ana bēt abīša mušiātim ta-ta-na-lá-ak ‘she keeps going to her father’s house at night’ (tr. CAD A/1 326b s.v. alāku 6d, referred to as frequentative) (22) FM 2, 210 no. 117:35–38 (OB) kīma PN1 atḫūtam ana PN2 iš-ta-ap-pa-ru atta ana PN3 atḫūtam ši-ta-ap-pa-ar ‘just as PN1 used to write to PN2 in a brotherly way, you should always write to PN3 in a brotherly way’ 2.  The durative or continuous aspect of verbal plurality refers to an activity or process which is prolonged beyond its normal duration, usually in durative, atelic verbs, as in (23). The borderline between frequentative and continuous is often fuzzy, as in (24): (23) KAR 379:4 (SB) šumma ina bīt amēli kalbu ib-ta-nak-ki ‘if in a man’s house a dog keeps howling’ 193.  This is quite in keeping with Dressler’s claim that it is typical of verbal plurality to be polysemous (1968: 58) and to have a “global meaning” extending over the whole sentence or even further (1968: 92–94). 194.  For instance, GAG §91e–f; GKT §86; Steiner 1981: 24–25; GAV pp. 79–84.

416

The tan‑Stems  14.7.

(24) ACh. Ad. 9:4 (SB) šumma Adad iš-ta-na-as-si ‘if Adad thunders constantly (or repeatedly)’ 3.  The distributive nuance may refer to an action that is “spread over” a number of different participants and/or occasions or locations, as in (25)–(28): (25) RA 65, 74:68′ (OB) ṣeḫḫerūtu ina nārim im-ta-nu-ut-tu ‘children will die one after the other in the river’ (tr. CAD M/1 425a s.v. mâtu 1a–o′ with more examples) (26) Slm.Mon. II 73 (SB) maʾdūtīšu ana kāpi ša šadê i-ta-na-qu-tu-ni ‘many of them hurled themselves off the cliff of the mountain’ (tr. CAD M/1 23b s.v. mādu d 3′ a′) (27) BE 15, 48:2–3 (MB) (barley . . .) ša PN mi-taḫ-ḫu-ru ‘which PN received (on various occasions)’; cf. also the Inf mitaḫḫuru quoted in chap. 8 n. 10 (p. 197) and the parallel li-te-eq-qu-ú in BE 15, 7:2) (28) MVAeG 41/3, 14:4–5 (MA) šulmānāte [ana] šarri uq-ṭa-na-ru-bu ‘(the officials) offer presents to the king’ (i.e., on a single occasion, but, presumably, one by one, each one individually) Elsewhere the distributive use refers to plurality of direct and indirect object, especially in lowtransitivity verbs that have no D‑stem (see also §11.5, pp. 278–279): (29) RIMA 1, 64–65: III′ 7–13 (OB) ālāni dannāti ša māt GN kalāšunu ina Magrānim uṣabbitma bīrātīa lū aš-ta-ak-ka-an ‘in the month of Magrānum I captured all the fortified cities of the land of GN. I established my garrisons everywhere’ (tr. A. K. Grayson) (with šakānu Gtn alongside ṣabātu D for a plural object) (30) AbB 13, 8:5–7 (as soon as you have read this letter of mine) ana šāpir mātim ša lītim šapiltim ša qātīka [š ]i-ta-ap-pa-ar (OB) ‘issue a written order to all the governors of the lower district, who are under your authority’ (tr. W. van Soldt); cf. also AbB 13, 9:11 4.  Some Gtn‑stems seem to have developed a kind of intensive meaning: the stative of amāru Gtn is used in Mari Old Babylonian in the meaning of ‘to know well’ (‘genau kennen’ AHw 41b s.v. Gtn 2), from a literal meaning ‘to have frequently seen’, and the Gtn‑stems of šasû ‘to call’ and šemû ‘to hear’ are used with written documents as object of ‘to read’ or ‘to recite’ (CAD Š/2 165–66 s.v. 10) and of ‘to hear’ their contents, respectively, the latter verb mainly in Old Assyrian (AHw 1212b s.v. Gtn 1d and CAD Š/2 280–81 s.v. 1d–1′). Although intensity is generally a common aspect of verbal plurality, these cases seem to be a secondary development dependent on the specific meaning of these verbs rather than an original trait of the tan‑stems. Most examples quoted above concern the Gtn‑stem, which is by far the most frequent tan‑stem, but the other tan‑stems have the same function vis-à-vis the corresponding primary stem. In comparison to other derived verbal stems, the tan‑stems are fairly regular in function (and also in form) and show few signs of lexicalization. This is partly related to their iterative function (which entails a transparent semantic relationship with the basic stem; see §10.5, pp. 250–252) and partly to their relatively recent origin. However, the Ntn‑stem exhibits a somewhat more divergent and idiosyncratic behaviour (see §14.7.5 below, pp. 427–430).

14.7.  The tan‑Stems

417

A noteworthy feature of the tan‑stems is that the imperfective is far more frequent than we would expect on the basis of the normal frequency rates among the tenses. Even in contexts referring to past tense, the tan‑stems often occur in the imperfective.195 As a result, the great majority of tan forms are imperfective forms (Edzard 1996: 13). A striking example is (31), where the imperfective and perfective are used side by side to refer to the same (past and completed) event: (31) ARM 28, 18:8–9, 12–13 (OB Mari) attāma ina buluṭ abīya ana abīya kīam ta-áš-tana-pa-ra-am (. . .) annītam ana abīya ta-áš-ta-ap-pa-ra-am-ma anāku eš-te-em-me ‘during my father’s lifetime you used to write (Impfv) to my father as follows (. . .). This is what you used to write (Pfv) to my father, as I have often heard’ The reason is that the perfective has a strong association with one-off, real, and completed events in the past (see §5.3, p. 127), which poorly matches the pluractional function of the tan‑stems and causes a tendency to switch to the imperfective, which, after all, can be used in past contexts to underline the non-completed or repetitive nature of the event (see §4.3, pp. 92–94).

14.7.2.  The Gtn‑stem Table 14.10 gives the forms of the Gtn‑stem of the main vowel classes and those of the Gt‑stem for comparison. Gtn A‑verbs

Gtn I‑verbs

Gtn U‑verbs

Gt

Impfv

iptanarras

iptanaqqid

irtanappud

iptarrVs

Pfv

iptarras

iptaqqid

irtappud

iptarVs

t‑Pf

iptatarras

iptataqqid

irtatappud

iptatrVs

Imp

pitarras

pitaqqid

ritappud

pitrVs

Stat

pitarrus

pitaqqud

(*ritappud)

pitrus

Inf/PPartc

pitarrusu

pitaqqudu

ritappudu

pitrusu (Bab)

PrPartc

muptarrisu

muptaqqidu

murtappidu

muptarsu

Table 14.10: The paradigm of the Gtn‑stem.

The Gtn‑stem has two basic characteristics that appear in all forms—gemination of R2 and an infixed t—and a third characteristic that only occurs in the imperfective—the nasal infix n. The infixes t and n together form the imperfective marker -tan-, which is infixed after the first radical: iptanarrVs. Because the Gtn imperfective is far more frequent than all other forms, ‑tan- is the defining feature of the Gtn‑stem (and of the tan‑stems in general) from a synchronic point of view. The other forms have an infixed t after the first radical and gemination of R2: Pfv iptarrVs, Imp pitarrVs, etc.196 The Gtn‑stem adopts the imperfective vowel from the G imperfective (see §4.2, pp. 88–90) in the finite prefix forms and the imperative. The remaining forms have the fixed vowel pattern of the derived stems: u in stative, past participle, and infinitive; i in the present participle (which is identical to the Dt(n) present participle; see below). However, a few verbs of the U/u class sometimes have an irregular a vowel in the Gtn imperfective (GAG 3 §91c*), e.g.: 195.  GKT §86e, §152d; W. Mayer 1971: 64, 117 sub c; Steiner 1981: 25. 196.  In this way, all forms are different from the corresponding Gt form, which only has gemination in the imperfective, but the Gt imperfective is always identical to the Gtn perfective.

418

The tan‑Stems  14.7.

• i-da-na-ba-ab AbB 7, 20:11 (OB) from dabābu ‘to speak’ (beside regular iddanabbub)197 • id-da-nam-ma-am CT 40, 33:14 (SB) from damāmu ‘to wail, moan’ (regular iddanammum) • it-ta-na-az-za-am UM 2/2, 104:7 (MB) from nazāmu ‘to complain’ Such cases are due to the pressure of the predominant imperfective vowel a (see §4.2, pp. 89–90). The same phenomenon occurs in the Ntn imperfective and much more frequently (see §14.7.5, p. 426).198 A second peculiarity in the Gtn imperfective is the occurrence of forms of I/voc and I/n verbs in which the sequence -ttana- is shortened to ‑tna- (Groneberg 1972: 147–48),199 e.g.: • • • •

it-na-al-la-ak Legends p. 196:36 and at-na-la-ak Ištar p. 112:49 from alāku ‘to go /come’ ta-at-na-da-an-ši Ištar p. 75: II 9 from nadānu ‘to give’ it-na(-az)-za-az Ištar p. 85: II 14, 18 from izuzzu ‘to stand (up)’ it-na-aq-qí-šu-nu-ut RA 22, 173:42 from naqû ‘to sacrifice’200

All these instances come from Old Babylonian literary texts written in the highly artificial “Agušaya style,” which is characterized by unusual forms, words, and phrases (see §1.4.1.2.2, pp. 14–15). In later periods, a few of these forms survive in the Tukulti-Ninurta Epic (MB), which stylistically belongs to the same tradition, and in another Middle Babylonian literary text: • it-na-ṭa-la ‘they (ēnāya ‘my eyes’) keep looking’ Tn-Ep. IIIa 18 from naṭālu • it-na-ab-bal-šu Tn‑Ep. I 5 from wabālu (uncertain, c. br.) • it-né-em-bu-šu AfO 32, 1:3 ‘they keep calling him’ from nabû (with nasalization of ‑bb‑ and unexpected E‑colouring) This kind of shortening is apparently a literary phenomenon mainly associated with such texts. Of course, some instances may simply be scribal errors.201 Moreover, in late texts the predominance of the imperfective forms of the tan‑stems has led to the occasional replacement of -ta- in non-imperfective forms by ‑tana- (GAG §91b and M. P. Streck apud Edzard 1996: 17 n. 30).202 This is found in precatives and in present participles: • li-ta-na-qu-ta SAA 3, 48:14′ ‘may it keep falling’ from maqātu • li-sa-na-me-a SAA 3, 14: r.31 ‘may they (Fem) constantly listen’ from šemû • mušteneʾʾû ‘constantly searching’ for regular mušteʾʾû from šeʾû (e.g., UM 15, 80: I 3 (SB) mu-uš-te-né-ʾu-ú ašrāt ilī rabûti ‘assiduously caring for the shrines of the great gods’ (for regular mušteʾʾû ašrāt ilī, see CAD Š/2 362a s.v. šeʾû 5a–2′ a′).203 197.  Cf. also ad-da-ba-ab-ba-ak-kum ARM 26/2, 365–66 no. 449:40 and ad-da-ab-ba-ab-ba-ak-kum ARM 26/2, 365–66 no. 449:45 with gemination of R3 (see §16.6.1, pp. 493–494). 198.  One U/u verb appears to have a Gtn‑stem with i: nagāšu ‘to go, leave’, Gtn ittanaggiš. The rarity of nagāšu G makes it somewhat uncertain whether it is the same verb. If it is, ittanaggiš may be explained from the general drift of U/u verbs to I/i (see §3.5.3, pp. 78–79). As a matter of fact, ittanaggiš might also be Ntn (GAG 3 §91c*), but this does not solve the problem. 199.  Similar forms are occasionally attested in the Ntn‑stem as well (it-na-ak-ki-ìs and it-nab-šá-a); see §14.7.5 (p. 427). 200.  Different but perhaps comparable is (lā) ta-at-pa-li-i-ši Ištar p. 80: VI 45 ‘do (Fem) not answer her!’ from apālu Gt, i.e., for tātappalīši. 201.  An instance from a non-literary text is it-na-ar-ra-a[d] AfO 18, 65:4 (OB omen text) from warādu ‘to descend’ (for ittanarrad): a scribal error? 202.  Early instances (OB Mari) are li-iš-ta-na-aḫ-ḫi-ṭú ARM 26, 78: LE 3′ ‘may they keep attacking’ and li-ta-na-al-la-a-ak ARM 10, 54:15 (unless this is a mistake caused by attanallak in line 12). 203.  For the same phenomenon in other verb types, see §12.5, p. 312 (the Ntn‑stems of the nabalkutu group), §14.6.2.1, p. 404 (the Št2‑stem), and §14.7.5, p. 427 (the Ntn‑stem).

14.7.  The tan‑Stems

419

Among the non-imperfective forms of the Gtn‑stem, the t‑perfect, the stative, and the present participle give reason for comment. The t‑perfect of the Gtn‑stem is very rare and has a peculiar distribution that can easily be deduced from Edzard’s catalogue of tan forms (1996: 31–76; cf. also von Soden 1950a: 388–89). It is not attested in Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian but exhibits its highest frequency by far in Middle Babylonian, not so much in the published Middle Babylonian letters from Babylonia itself (4 instances)204 as in texts from the peripheral areas of Boghazköy (6×), Nuzi (2×), and Amarna (2×).205 For Standard Babylonian, Edzard’s list gives eight instances, and for Neo-Babylonian just one example.206 In Assyrian, instances of the Gtn t‑perfect are exceptional.207 Since the amount of published text material from Middle Babylonian is only a fraction of that of Standard Babylonian, this clearly indicates that its heyday was in Middle Babylonian, especially the kind of Middle Babylonian employed outside Babylonia proper. This is confirmed by the distribution of t‑perfect forms of the other tan‑stems, which will be discussed in the next sections. It is also similar to the distribution of Gt forms with a double t‑infix (see §14.2.1, pp. 357–358) and can be understood from the general development of the t‑infix: since in this period the t‑perfect had become the normal past tense category, t underwent an ever stronger association with its temporal function, but the decline of its other functions, which becomes conspicuous in the first millennium, had not yet fully set in. The prominence of Gtn t‑perfects in peripheral texts is doubtless also due to the fact that these texts are generally more “artificial,” because they were written by non-native scribes who tended to apply the rules of grammar more consistently than a native speaker would do. Because of the pluractional function, the Gtn stative is also relatively rare, and the past participle does not seem to be attested at all (GAG §77g).208 A special problem concerns the Gtn present participle muptarrisu, which can only be distinguished from the corresponding Dt and Dtn forms on the basis of other forms of the same verb: if the verb has a non-passive Dt‑stem, the form may be Dt; if it has a Dtn‑stem, the form may be Dtn; otherwise it should be interpreted as Gtn, since this is the least marked and by far the most frequent category. A well-known problem in this context is a specific group of Standard Babylonian muptarrisu participles that interchange with Gt forms of the pattern muptarsu without a noticeable difference in meaning: 204.  They come from amāru ‘to see’ (UM 1/2, 57:15), erēšu ‘to cultivate’ (BE 14, 39:10), and šakānu ‘to place’ (UM 1/2, 50:15). The fourth instance, ip-ta-ta-ar BE 17, 23: 10 interpreted by AHw 836b s.v. pâru as a Gtn form of this verb (‘suchen’) instead belongs to paṭāru ‘to release’; cf. CAD P 295b s.v. paṭāru 7a. 205.  In texts from Boghazköy occur ḫabātu ‘to plunder’ (KUB 3, 73:6–7), nadānu ‘to give’ (BoSt. 8, 82:24; KUB 3, 49:6; KUB 4, 33:3) and našû ‘to carry’ (BoSt. 8, 78:10); from Nuzi: leqû ‘to receive’ (HSS 19, 74:13) and šasû ‘to call’ (HSS 13, 325:17b); from Amarna: nadānu (VAB 2, 21:27) and šasû (VAB 2, 20:10). 206.  The Standard Babylonian examples come from alāku ‘to go /come’ (KAR 45:20; Šurpu II 94 and SAA 3, 51:4′), anāḫu ‘to sigh, moan’ (CT 23, 46:28), ebēru ‘to cross’ (Gilg. p. 692:253), elû ‘to go /come up’ (LKA 64:20), šapāru ‘to write’ (CT 13, 48:14) and wašābu ‘to sit down’ (SAA 3, 51: r.2 ). The NeoBabylonian instance is from nazāru ‘to insult’ (CT 22, 247:20). 207.  In Middle Assyrian, we find al-ta-ta-pa-ra-šu-nu MATSH p. 130 no. 8:40′ ‘I have written to them repeatedly’; for Neo-Assyrian, I only know a-sa-ta-par SAA 1, 241: r.8 and ni-sa-ta-pa-ar SAA 15, 351:5′, both from šapāru. For i-te-te-li SAA 16, 201:4′ (in a difficult context), see n. 116 (p. 389). 208.  According to Edzard (1996: 16 n. 29), AHw lists Gtn statives of 18 verbs. Examples are (27) above, itaddū from nadû ‘to put down, leave’ (passim in omen texts; see AHw 708a s.v. nadû III Gtn 13); ši-ta-ku-na-[a]t Sumer 14, 23 no. 5:16 (OB) ‘it is located (in several places)’ from šakānu; bi-te-ru-ú ARM 4, 24:25 (OB) ‘they are constantly hungry’ from berû ‘to be(come) hungry’; ši-ṭaḫ-ḫu-ṭa-ku VAB 7, 256:20 (SB) ‘I always ride (on horses)’ from šaḫāṭu ‘to jump’; gi-tar-ra-tú RA 18, 167:21 (SB) ‘you (Fem) are quarrelsome all the time’, i.e., /gitarrât(i)/, 2fs stative of gerû; ši-tem-me-ku BA 10/1, 99 no. 20:7 (SB) ‘I constantly hear’ from šemû.

The tan‑Stems  14.7.

420 • • • • • • •

mundaḫṣu and mundaḫḫiṣu ‘fighter’ mūtaplu and mūtappilu ‘requiter’ muttakpu and muttakkipu ‘goring’ murtapdu and murtappidu ‘roving’ muštaptu and muštappitu ‘treacherous’ muštarḫu and muštarriḫu ‘vainglorious’ muštarqu and muštarriqu ‘secret lover’

These participles were collected and discussed by Reiner and Renger (1974/77: 185), from whom the translations have been taken. Reiner and Renger opt for Dt, since they see no functional opposition between Gt and either Gtn or Dtn that could account for the coexistence of such pairs. They claim that it is a Gt : Dt opposition, with Dt marking plurality, such as exists between G and D (pp. 184–85). This is theoretically sound, since the tan‑stems are pluractionals to the primary and not normally to the secondary stems, and it is semantically plausible for the first three, mundaḫḫiṣu, mūtappilu, and muttakkipu, which ultimately go back to common reciprocal Gt‑stems, and for muštarriḫu, since šarāḫu is used both in the Gt‑ and the Dt‑stem in the meaning ‘to glory in, boast’.209 Resolution of this question for the remaining four is more difficult. Muštar(ri)qu comes from šarāqu ‘to steal’, which may have a Gt‑stem with the meaning ‘to sneak, go surreptitiously’ (see n. 24, p. 362) but has no D‑ or Dt‑stem. If it is a Gtn form, it can only mean ‘stealing constantly’, which is inappropriate. Murtappidu, on the other hand, can hardly be anything but the present participle of the common Gtn‑stem of rapādu ‘to roam around’, but this verb has no Gt‑stem. So perhaps the hapax murtapdu (mur-tap-di Tn‑Ep. II F 14 = AfO 18, 50b:14 [MB lit.] in broken context) is a back-formation from murtappidu or a scribal error. The verb from which muštap(pi)tu is derived is only lexically attested (G and D; see CAD Š/1 450b s.v. šapātu)), so that the relation to the basic verb is unclear.210 Since these present participles are clearly literary creations, it is questionable whether we should apply the strict functional criteria for derivation that are valid for non-literary texts. They may have been created by inserting gemination in a mechanical way. For instance, muštarriqu may have been derived directly from muštarqu by analogy with a “regular” pair such as mundaḫṣu – mundaḫḫiṣu, without regard for the usual rules for the derivation of secondary stems, which does not normally tolerate a Gt § Gtn derivation. A phenomenon that is doubtless also relevant here is the general decline of the Gt‑stem, which in later Standard Babylonian led to confusion between Gt and Gtn forms and reanalysis of some of them (Streck 2003a: 10–13). Peculiarities of the Gtn‑stems of weak verbs are discussed in the chapters on the weak verbs. These mainly concern II/voc and II/H verbs, which show different solutions to make up for the weak middle radical (see §16.5.3.2, pp. 480–482, and §17.7, pp. 554–572); the II/gem verbs, which occasionally have gemination of R3 in addition to that of R2 (see §16.6.1, pp. 493–494); and the I/voc and I/n verbs, for which it may be difficult to distinguish between Gtn and Ntn (see §17.6.3.4, p. 554). For a possible unique Old Assyrian Gtn form of a quadriradical verb (ta-ápta-na-ra-ša-ad KTK 66: x+9 (= 11′), derivable from *(na)paršudu), see chap. 12 n. 87 (p. 311). The Gtn‑stem is very productive during most of the history of Akkadian.211 Sargonic Akkadian shows an Impfv iš-ta-na-ba-ra-am /yistanapparam/ SAB p. 178:8′ (Eshnunna) ‘he keeps 209.  See GAV pp. 329–31 and §14.5.1 above (p. 385) for Dt forms as pluractionals to Gt forms. 210.  This replaces my earlier discussion in GAV pp. 74–75. I no longer agree with the conclusion reached there, that these present participles are most likely to be Gtn forms. 211.  There are no certain instances of the Gtn‑stem in Eblaite; see in particular Edzard 2006: 79–80. There are several forms with infixed t that might theoretically conceal Gtn forms; they are conveniently

14.7.  The tan‑Stems

421

writing to me’, a Pfv iš-tab-ba-ar /yistappar/ GAKI p. 360:7 ‘he sent’ (to various places), a PrPartc mu-dar-rí /mūtarrī/ AKI p. 251:10 ‘leader’ (c. st.) from warû (both cps RIs of NaramSin), and perhaps an imperative in the PNs Mi-da-ḫar /mitaḫḫar/ MAD 3, 173 from maḫāru and Mi/Mì-da-lik /mitallik/ MAD 3, 176 from malāku.212 In Ur III Babylonian, we find an imperfective of the Gtn‑stem in a letter: aš-tá-na-pá-ra(-ma) TCL 1, 370:7 ‘I keep writing to you’ and in two PNs: Iḫ-tá-na-[sa]-sú-nu-ut, which apparently means ‘he keeps thinking of them’ and Iš-ta-na-sí-šu ‘he always calls him’ (Hilgert 2002: 287– 88, 434). Moreover, there is a Gtn Pfv ˹iš˺-tá-kà-an AKI p. 292:15 (RI of an unknown king), an Imp Mi-tá-ḫar, as in Sargonic Akkadian (Hilgert 2002: 217), and a PrPartc. mūtabbil (from wabālu) or mūtappil (from apālu) as part of PNs, e.g., dingir-mu-tab-bíl (2002: 335). In all second-millennium dialects, the Gtn‑stem is fully productive.213 It is especially frequent in two kinds of verbs: intransitive action verbs, especially motion verbs such as alāku ‘to go / come’, elû ‘to go /come up’, erēbu ‘to enter’, ebēru ‘to cross’, etēqu ‘to pass’, maqātu ‘to fall’, and waṣû ‘to go /come out’, and transitive verbs with a low degree of transitivity, e.g., amāru ‘to see’, akālu ‘to eat’, apālu ‘to answer’, leqû ‘to receive’, nadû ‘to drop, leave behind, lay down’, našû ‘to lift, carry’, šakānu ‘to place’, šemû ‘to hear’, wabālu ‘to bring, carry’, and warû ‘to bring, lead’. These are exactly the same types of verbs that do not normally have a D‑stem (see §11.5, p. 279). So there is a complementary distribution between Gtn and D in its function of underlining verbal plurality: Gtn takes the area of intransitive and low-transitivity verbs, D that of high‑transitivity verbs. This agrees perfectly with the historical development of the Gtn‑stem, as I will argue in §14.7.6 below (pp. 433–434). For the first millennium, Woodington (1982: 88–89) emphasizes the rarity of the Gtn‑stem in Neo-Babylonian. The instances she quotes from her corpus (pp. 89–90) concern the verbs šapāru ‘to write’ (6×), alāku ‘to go /come’ (3×), šakānu ‘to place’ (2×), karābu ‘to bless’ (2×), and ḫabātu (1×).214 This suggests a decline in the use of the form and makes it uncertain whether listed by Edzard (ibid. 79) in the column “Gt(n).” Because Eblaite does not indicate geminate consonants, they can also be Gt forms or even t‑perfects, and their meaning is far too obscure to decide the matter. However, the fact that Eblaite does not show any forms with infixed ‑tan‑, whereas in Akkadian the great majority of TAN forms are imperfectives, is a strong indication that Eblaite did not have such forms and therefore did not have a Gtn‑stem as we find it in Akkadian. The verbal nouns with a double t‑infix discussed in §14.5.6 (pp. 395–397) are likely to express the same kind of pluractional meanings as the Akkadian tan‑stems, but formally they obviously belong to a different category. 212.  These forms are remarkable: they are the only forms with this pattern attested in third-millennium Akkadian and come from two verbs that are about the most common Gt‑stems of Akkadian in general, whereas they are not particularly common as Gtn‑stems. Therefore, it is far more likely that they are indeed Gt‑stems. However, the correct Gt forms should be mitḫar and mitlik. There are two possible solutions: either they are Gt forms that have escaped the impact of vowel syncope (but it is hard to think of a reason why they should have done so) or they are to be interpreted as /mitaḫḫar/ and /mitallik/, in other words, as Gtn‑stems in form. This causes one to wonder whether these (perhaps very ancient) proper names are a remnant of the original function of the Gtn‑stem as iterative to the Gt‑stem, as I will argue in §14.7.6 below (pp. 431–437). Other forms of malāku with infixed t used as proper names (Imx-da-li-ik and Dam-da-lik; see §14.3.1.1, p. 362) can be both Gt (imtalik) and Gtn (imtallik). 213.  W. Mayer’s claim (1971: 64) that in Middle Assyrian the tan‑stems are “überaus selten” is exaggerated as far as the Gtn‑stem is concerned. Apart from his own examples (see also under the various categories of weak verbs), cf. e-ta-na-ra-aš Assur 3/1, 5:12 from erāšu ‘to cultivate’, im-ta-ḫu-ru-ni MARV 2, 19: r.12′ from maḫāru ‘to receive’, ir-ta-na-ʾi Iraq 31, 31:54 from *reʾāʾu ‘to tend’ (sheep), and (ana) ti-šap-pu-r [e] MARV 2, 17 fr.8: 3 from šapāru. 214.  Also in the Neo-Babylonian letters published in NBNippur, šapāru Gtn is about the only Gtn‑stem attested beyond doubt (3×; cf. Glossary p. 383 s.v.). Other alleged Gtn‑stems can be better explained as poor

The tan‑Stems  14.7.

422

other verbs are not attested accidentally, or whether it had become less productive and these verbs are more or less lexicalized remnants.215 Parpola (1984: 187, 203 n. 13) claims that the Gtn‑stem is fully alive in Neo-Assyrian. The glossaries of the SAA volumes with Neo-Assyrian letters and those published in CTN 5 suggest that only five verbs occur more than incidentally in the Gtn‑stem (šapāru ‘to write’, šaʾālu ‘to ask’, šamāʾu ‘to hear’, šalāʾu ‘to cheat, lie to’, and garāru ‘to be scared’.216 From these, only šapāru has non-imperfective forms (the two perfects quoted in p. 419 n. 207 and the Imp ši-tappar CTN 5 p. 239:10). A provisional conclusion might be that the Gtn‑stem mainly survives in the imperfective of a few verbs in which it was very frequent in earlier periods.217

14.7.3.  The Dtn‑stem The remaining tan‑stems are characterized by -tan- in the imperfective and t in the rest of the paradigm, just like the Gtn‑stem. Since t is the only marker outside the imperfective, the forms in question are identical with the corresponding secondary stems. This is illustrated in Table 14.11.218

Impfv

Dtn

Dt

Štn

Št1

Ntn

Nt

uptanarras

uptarras

uštanapras

uštapras

ittanaprVs

ittaprVs?

Pfv

uptarris

uštapris

ittaprVs

t‑Pf

uptatarris

uštatapris

ittataprVs

Imp

putarris

šutapris

itaprVs

Stat

putarrus

šutaprus

itaprus

Inf/PPartc

putarrusu

šutaprusu

itaprusu

PrPartc

muptarrisu

muštaprisu

muttaprisu

Table 14.11: The Dtn‑, Štn‑, and Ntn‑stems.

This leads to the peculiar situation that the t-infix of the non-imperfective forms has two quite different functions, depending on the context: as a secondary stem it is detransitive, and as a tertiary stem it is pluractional. In practice, the ambiguity is mitigated by the fact that usually the secondary and the tertiary stems contrast sharply in valency (non-active versus active). For the spellings for the t‑perfect (see NBNippur: Glossary p. 383 s.v. kabāṣu and šakānu; see Jursa 1997/8: 423a) or are spelled ideographically (Glossary p. 384 s.v. šasû). 215.  The form it-ta-ta-ra-ṣu SAA 17, 82: r.16′, which she also mentions, is difficult but not a Gtn form: it looks more like an N imperfective with a double t‑infix, like the occasional Neo-Babylonian Dtt forms discussed in §14.5.3 (pp. 390–391); or should we read it-ta-⟨ta⟩-ra-ṣu? Cf. perhaps also chap. 12 n. 33 (p. 295). 216.  The incidental Gtn forms come from arāšu ‘to cultivate’ (CTN 5 p. 314: r.7), ebāru ‘to cross’ (SAA 15, 186:9), ḫalāqu ‘to escape’ (SAA 1, 183:15′), kalāʾu ‘to detain’ (SAA 5, 234:7) and šakānu ‘to place’ (SAA 1, 12:12′). The otherwise unusual verb garāru ‘to be scared’ occurs in the Gtn‑stem in SAA 5, 95:7–8 and CTN 5 p. 13:18. The absence of alāku Gtn is particularly striking (SAA 10, 42: r.8 is an omen quotation). Cf. in this context Deller’s (1965: 271) observation that “[d]er Gtn-Stamm von alāku is defektiv (nur Präsens, Imperativ [und Partizip nA lit.] bezeugt). Diese Charakteristik teilt er mit dem nA gut bezeugten Gtn-Stamm von šamāʾu ‘hören’.” 217.  This is confirmed by the fact that two of them are clearly lexicalized: šamāʾu Gtn mainly occurs in the form assanamme, used as a polite phrase of submission (Parpola 1983: 145), and salāʾu Gtn is interpreted by Parpola (pp. 70–71) as ‘to talk nonsense, rubbish’. 218.  An exception should be made for the Štn‑stem of I/voc and I/w verbs; see §17.6.3.3 (pp. 548–550).

14.7.  The tan‑Stems

423

Dt‑ and Dtn‑stems, this means that it is only difficult to distinguish between Dt and Dtn when the D‑stem itself is intransitive (and so the Dtn‑stem as well). Such cases are exceptional, however; an example is tu-ut-ta-az-zi-im ARM 4, 70:8, 10 ‘you complained’ (OB) from nazāmu Dt(n) ‘to complain’.219 Additional difficulties may arise from the fact that the Dtn perfective is not only identical to the Dt perfective but also to the t‑perfect of the D‑stem220 and that Dtn and Gtn are identical in form, if the prefix vowel is invisible: in the precative (e.g., 3ms liptarris) and the present participle (muptarrisu).221 With regard to individual forms of the Dtn paradigm, t‑perfect forms seem to occur only in peripheral Middle Babylonian and Standard Babylonian (see von Soden 1950a: 389–93), which tallies with our findings on the t‑perfect of the Gtn‑stem (see §14.7.2 above, p. 419): • uk-te-te-eb-bi-it/is-sú-nu-[ti] VAB 2, 29:32, 37 ‘he always honoured them’ from kubbutu ‘to honour’ (MB Amarna letter from Mitanni) • ú-te-te-et-ti-ir VAB 2, 29:40 ‘he always augmented’ from watāru D • ur-te-te-di Iraq 38, 90:8 ‘I added’ (SB) from redû D222 Apart from the exceptional Dtn (? or Dt?) Stat utattuk in (dāma) ú-ta-tu-u[k!] TuL 43:11–12 acc. to AHw 766a s.v. natāku Dtn and GAG 3 §102e* ‘it has been sprinkled (with blood)’, for which see §16.4.2 (p. 470), the Dtn‑stem does not seem to have a stative or past participle, so that the forms putarrus and putarrusu of Table 14.11 are only used as Dt forms. The function of the Dtn‑stem is straightforward: it is the pluractional counterpart of the D‑stem.223 Most of the attested Dtn forms belong to D tantum verbs (e.g., buʾʾû ‘to look for, search’, kullu ‘to hold, offer’, kullumu ‘to show’, s/ṣullû and suppû ‘to pray’, šurru ‘to lean, bend down’, and wuʾʾuru ‘to instruct’) and to factitive D‑stems of intransitive verbs (e.g., baḫāru D ‘to make hot, boil’, galātu D ‘to frighten’, kânu D ‘to make firm, stable’, nakāru D ‘to change, remove’, palāḫu D and parādu D ‘to frighten’, ṣâdu D ‘to make dizzy’, and târu D ‘to bring back’). These are precisely the two kinds of verbs for which there is no alternative to the Dtn‑stem, since the G‑stem, and hence also the Gtn‑stem, does not exist or has a different meaning. Dtn‑stems of transitive verbs, on the other hand, are very rare, because the D‑stem itself can usually be used to express verbal plurality (see §11.3.4, pp. 274–277), so that the Dtn‑stem is at least partly superfluous. Most instances come from D‑stems with a lexicalized meaning, such as kašādu D in (32): (32) CTMMA 1, 104 no. 76:21–22 (OA) ḫarrān libbīšu uk-ta-na-ša-ad ‘he keeps following roads of his own wish!’ (tr. M. T. Larsen) The Dtn‑stem is already found in third-millennium texts (SAk tu-úḫ-da-na-ma /tuḫtannamā/ Or. 46, 201:7 (incant. from Kish) ‘you (Pl) are blooming’. In the later dialects, it occurs from time to time in a sufficient variety of contexts to show that it was productive, but it is never used 219.  Since a Dtn Impfv *uttanazzam does not seem to be attested, whereas Dt uttazzam is fairly frequent, there are good reasons to assume that this form is Dt rather than Dtn. 220.  Part of the ambiguity is reduced by the overwhelming frequency of the t‑perfect versus all other uses of the t‑infix, especially in later periods. So when confronted with an uptarris form, we can safely opt for a t‑perfect of the D‑stem, unless the context precludes this, which happens only sporadically. 221.  It is difficult to identify Dtn forms on the basis of their pluractional meaning, since the expression of verbal plurality by means of a tan‑stem is optional—we find countless instances of primary stems referring to repeated events—but sometimes this may offer an additional clue. 222.  Uncertain cases are ul-ta-ta-ni-iʾ BAM 6, 514: II 27′ from šanāʾu ‘to suffuse’ (perhaps Dt t‑perfect; see p. 384 n. 94); and tul-ta-tal-li-mu LBAT 1602:6′ (SB) from šalāmu D ‘to keep well, compensate, complete’ (or -tatal-?, c. br.). 223.  See GAV pp. 334–36 for a more extensive description.

424

The tan‑Stems  14.7.

very frequently. AHw contains 86 Dtn‑stems, but some of these are more likely to be Dt or Gtn forms, and more than half of them are attested only once. In Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian, it seems to be more or less extinct.224

14.7.4.  The Štn‑stem For the paradigm of the Štn‑stem, see Table 14.11 in the preceding section (p. 422). It only differs from the Št1‑ and the Št2‑stems in the imperfective, except for the I/voc and the I/w verbs, where the Štn‑stem differs from the other two in that it has introduced gemination in all forms on the model of the Gtn‑stem: Pfv uštakkil, PrPartc muštakkilum, etc., versus Št1/Št2 uštākil, muštākilum, etc. (see §17.6.3.3, pp. 548–550). The ambiguity we have observed in the Dtn paradigm also exists in the Štn‑stem and is even more troublesome, since it involves two other stems, one of which, the Št2‑stem, is usually active, just like Štn itself. As a result, a form such as uštaṣbit from ṣabātu ‘to seize’ has four possible interpretations (at least theoretically): a t‑perfect of the Š‑stem ‘I have caused to seize’, a Št1 perfective ‘I was caused to seize’, a Štn perfective ‘I caused to seize repeatedly’, and a Št2 perfective ‘I brought together, I prepared’ (see §14.6.2.2, p. 410). With regard to individual forms, Štn t‑perfect forms with double t-infix are exceptional (see von Soden 1950a: 393–94): I can only quote two obscure forms, perhaps from the same verb, namely šuʾuddu ‘to notify’: ul-ta-ta-i-id AfO 12, 51b:7 (MA) (in broken context), and us-sa-taʾi-da-ni SAA 16, 78:19 (NA), for which see below.225 Stative and past participle do not seem to be attested. All remaining forms are about equally represented. Noteworthy is the present participle, which is used in literary texts as a variant of the Š present participle in epithets, e.g.: • mu-uš-ta-ar-kib meḫê RA 86, 79:4 ‘(DN) who causes the storms to ride’ from rakābu • mu-uš-ta-aṣ-mi-da-at 7 imḫullī RA 46, 92:75, 77 ‘(DNF) who harnesses the seven storms’ from ṣamādu (both OB lit.) • mu-ul-ta-aš-gi-mu qabal gērîšu RIMA 1, 182:11 (SB) ‘(RN) who makes resound the noise of battle with his enemies’ (tr. A. K. Grayson) from šagāmu ‘to shout’ • muš-tak-li-la-at parṣī ASKT p. 116 no. 15:1–2, 5–6 (SB) ‘who performs the rites properly’ from the Š tantum verb šuklulu Another remarkable present participle is muštaḫḫizu ‘contagious’ from aḫāzu ‘to take’, which will be discussed in §17.6.3.3 (p. 549). The function of the Štn‑stem as the pluractional of the Š‑stem needs little comment. Not un­expectedly, the most common Štn‑stems come from verbs with a frequent Š‑stem, such as wabālu ‘to bring, take’, waṣû ‘to go /come out’, etēqu ‘to pass’, and erēbu ‘to enter’. A further point worth mentioning is that several “literary Š‑stems” (see §13.2.2.2, pp. 328–331) also have a Štn‑stem, such as kullumu Štn ‘to show repeatedly’, and rabû Štn ‘to extol repeatedly’(Imp šu‑tar-bi RA 46, 88:10, OB), and the present participles just quoted. There is an intriguing Middle Assyrian Štn form with an irregular meaning: 224.  For Neo-Babylonian, Woodington (1982: 90) only mentions a Dtn Impfv un-da-na-ʾ-ar ABL 1240: r.11 with an ambiguous un-da-ʾ-er < umtaʾʾer ABL 1240:10 alongside, apparently from wuʾʾuru ‘to instruct’, but the interpretation is obscure; see CAD A/2 322a s.v. âru v. 3e. The absence of Dtn forms in Neo-Assyrian may be accidental, because there are Štn forms; see the next section. 225.  See §17.7.4.1 (p. 569) regarding šuʾuddu. The form ú-sa-ta-bu-lu ABL 547: r.5 quoted by von Soden (1950a: 393 n. 2) is now read ú-sa-ta-pu-lu (SAA 1, 82: r.5), a Dtt imperfective of šapālu ‘to move downstream’ (see §14.5.3, p. 389).

14.7.  The tan‑Stems

425

(33) MVAeG 41/3, 14: III 3 (cf. 12: II 38) (the high officials) [ina pān] šarri ul-ta-na-ak-na-nu ‘bow down repeatedly (or: one by one?) in front of the king’ The absence of vowel assimilation shows that this form is to be interpreted as /ultanaknannū/ with gemination of R3 (see §16.6.1, pp. 493–494). It presupposes a verb kanānu ‘to bow down’ (kanānu is actually attested as ‘to twist, contort’), with a Š‑stem šuknunu ‘to cause to bow down’. Either this Š‑stem could be used intransitively like the G‑stem—hence the pluractional Štn form of (33)—or šuknunu could have a detransitive Št1‑stem and (33) is an exceptional case of a Štn‑stem derived from a Št1‑stem. Just as the Dtn‑stem, the Štn‑stem is rare but productive in all but the latest periods of Akkadian. The oldest instance is the SAk Imp [s]u-da-˹rí  ˺-ib SAB p. 90:21 (Girsu) ‘bring inside (from various places)!’ (see §17.6.3.3, p. 550). Although detailed information about the fate of the Štn‑stem in Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian is difficult to get, the Štn-stem is definitely very rare. Woodington (1982: 90) reports no Štn forms in her corpus of letters, nor are there any in the glossary of NBNippur and the glossary to the Neo-Babylonian letters published by Ebeling (Ebe­ling 1953). In Neo-Assyrian, there is at least a Štn‑stem of etāqu ‘to pass’: Impfv ú-sa-nétaq-a‑ni SAA 1, 106: r.8 ‘he will keep ignoring me’ (tr. S. Parpola), and Inf (ana) šu-te-tu-qe-e SAA 16, 62:10 ‘in order to avert (lit., to let pass)’. These are precisely the forms mentioned by Hämeen-Anttila (2000: 150), but it is not clear to me whether they are the only ones. Another Štn‑stem may be the difficult t‑perfect us-sa-ta-ʾi-da-ni SAA 16, 78:19, which was already mentioned above. It is apparently from šuʾuddu ‘to notify’ (< *uštataʾiddanni ), for which see §17.7.4.1 (p. 569); the editors translate ‘he has been spreading tales about me’.

14.7.5.  The Ntn‑stem The Ntn‑stem is more complex in function than the Dtn‑ and Štn‑stems, particularly because it is not only the pluractional counterpart of the N‑stem but also comprises a group of expressive verbs without N‑stem. As such, it is also related to the quadriradical verbs of the nabalkutu and naparruru types. Table 14.12 shows the paradigm of the Ntn‑stem of the strong verb, with naplusu ‘to watch’ for the A-verbs and barāqu ‘to flash (of lightning)’ for the I‑verbs. For the few attested Ntn forms of U verbs, see below. A-verbs

I-verbs

U-verbs

Impfv

ittanaplas

ittanabriq

ittanabluṭ

Pfv

ittaplas

*ittabriq

t‑Pf

*ittataplas

ittatabriq

Imp

itaplas

*itabriq

Stat

itaplus

*itabruq

Inf/PPartc

itaplusu

*itabruqu

PrPartc

muttaplisu

muttabriqu

itanpuḫ

Table 14.12: The Ntn‑stem of the strong verb.

The Ntn‑stem is characterized by the infix -tan- in the imperfective and -t- in all other forms. Since there is no corresponding secondary stem (see §14.5.4, pp. 391–392, regarding the Nt‑stem), this does not cause ambiguity. Problematic, however, is the identity between the Ntn perfective and the t‑perfect of the N‑stem (ittaprVs). Because the meanings of N and Ntn mainly differ in verbal

426

The tan‑Stems  14.7.

plurality, and because the t‑perfect and the perfective tend to be used indiscriminately in Standard Babylonian, where most Ntn forms are found, there are often no reliable criteria to distinguish them. Since the Ntn‑stem is a marked category versus the N‑stem, I opt for a t‑perfect of the N‑stem unless there is a specific reason to assume the contrary.226 AHw, in particular, classifies many forms as Ntn that on the basis of this criterion should instead be regarded as t‑perfects. Consequently, many alleged Ntn forms mentioned in AHw are not considered here. The entire paradigm is based on a single inflectional stem with the form naPRvS, which also appears in the non-prefix forms and the t‑perfect of the N‑stem (see §12.2.1, p. 289). In this form, the markers -tan- and -t- are infixed after the nasal prefix: Impfv *intanaplVs, Pfv *intaplVs, PrPartc *muntaplisum, in which -nt- regularly becomes -tt-. For the absence of initial n- in the non-prefix forms (itaplVs instead of expected **nitaplVs, see §16.4.2 (pp. 470–471).227 The vowel pattern of the Ntn‑stem is based on that of the Gtn‑stem (see §14.7.6 below, pp. 434–435), with the imperfective vowel as defined in §4.2 (pp. 88–90) in the finite prefix forms and the imperative and the fixed vowel pattern of the derived stems in the rest. Usually, the imperfective vowel also appears in the corresponding forms of the N‑stem (except in the perfective; see §12.2.1, pp. 289–290), so that a regular and predictable relationship emerges: for the A/u verbs, G Impfv iparras § N Impfv ipparras § Ntn Impfv ittanapras, and for the I/i verbs G Impfv ibaššī § N Impfv ibbaššī § Ntn Impfv ittanabšī (from bašû I/i ‘to be present, available’). In the rare cases where the vowels of G and N differ (see §12.2.1, pp. 292–293), Ntn follows the N‑stem: G Impfv isaḫḫur § N Impfv issaḫḫar § Ntn Impfv ittanasḫar (from saḫāru U/u ‘to turn’). This pattern is also shown by a few U/u verbs without an N‑stem: ašāšu U/u ‘to worry’, Ntn Impfv ittanaššaš (OB/SB), and arāru U/u ‘to tremble’, Ntn Impfv ittanarrar (SB).228 The verb nabāṭu U/u ‘to shine brightly’, on the other hand, has Ntn forms with i: Impfv ittananbiṭ, etc.229 An important corollary of this pattern of relationships is that there is no direct association between the N perfective (always ipparis) and the Ntn perfective (ittaprVs with a variable vowel). As I will argue in §14.7.6 (pp. 434–435), this can be understood from the fact that the Dtn‑, Štn‑, and Ntn‑stem were created on the model of the Gtn‑stem, rather than directly derived from the corresponding primary stem. Since most Ntn‑stems attested come from A/u verbs and follow the pattern of naplusu,230 it is difficult to document the complete paradigm for I/i and U/u verbs. Those of I/i verbs almost 226.  Reiner (1966: 81), on the other hand, treats them all as Ntn perfectives. This is often contradicted by the context, especially by cases where such a form is in opposition to an N perfective, as in šumma GN it-ta-aṣ-ba-at (. . .) šumma GN lā iṣ-ṣa-bi-it ShA 1, 84 no. 12:6–9 (OB) ‘if GN has been taken (. . .), (but) if GN has not been taken (. . .)’; šumma (. . .) it-ta-ab-šu-ú AbB 4, 80:4–5 (OB) versus šumma (. . .) lā ib‑šu-ú AbB 4, 80:9–11 (replacing the t‑perfect *ibtašû; see chap. 3. n. 16, p. 56), and it-te-en-mi-i-du versus in-neem‑du ÖB 2, 62:14 (OB). 227.  In Mari Old Babylonian, an exceptional Inf a-ta-ap-lu-sa-am ARM 26/1, 582 no. 282:13 is attested instead of itaplusam. This points to some fluctuation between I/n and I/voc verbs, where this a- is regular. 228.  As a I/voc verb, the prefix forms of arāru are often ambiguous: either Ntn or Gtn. The infinitives attested show that the Old Babylonian forms belong to the Gtn‑stem (Impfv i-ta-na-ra-ar YOS 10, 17:12 (with a in spite of the vowel class U/u; see §14.7.2, pp. 417–418), Inf a-ta-ar-ru-rum ZA 65, 194:161), but the Standard Babylonian forms belong to the Ntn‑stem (Impfv it-ta-na-ar-ra-ru CT 41, 11:18, Inf i-tar-ruru MAOG 3/3, 5: 31). 229.  However, nabāṭu Ntn also has a few imperfective forms with a, e.g., it-ta-na-an-ba-ṭu4 LKU 104:6 (SB), which may be influenced by the quadriradical A/i class; see §12.5 (p. 309). 230.  A very rare deviation is i instead of a in two forms of šakānu ‘to place’: Impfv it-ta-na-áš-ki-nuniš-[šú] IM 67692:277 qu. CAD Š/1 156a s.v. 11l–1′, and a Pfv it-taš-kin in Glass texts; see CAD Š/1 156b s.v. 11p, both SB.

14.7.  The tan‑Stems

427

exclusively belong to III/voc verbs or E-verbs.231 Since there are very few N‑stems of U/u verbs (see §12.2.1, pp. 290–293), there are even fewer Ntn‑stems of this type. The following instances are known to me: • it-ta-na-ab-lu-uṭ AfO 48/49, 73:9′ (OB), Ntn Impfv of balāṭu (U/u) ‘to live’ • it-ta-na-aš-qu ŠA p. 28:26 (SB), Ntn Impfv of šaqû (U/u) ‘to be(come) high’ (context difficult) • a[t ]-ta-na-ap-ḪU-uṣ OBTA p. 85 no. 30:9 (ArBab), Ntn Impfv of paʾāṣu (normally A/u) ‘to beat’ in a metaphorical meaning ‘I am constantly being disappointed(?)’ (tr. R. M. Whiting)232 • i-ta-an-pu-ḫa-am ZA 75, 198:26 (OB lit.), Ntn Imp of napāḫu (normally A/u) ‘to light, become visible, rise (of the sun)’ It is remarkable that the two last-mentioned forms come from A/u verbs233 and, indeed, the expected forms with a also occur: (libbī) it-ta-na-ap-ḪA-˹aṣ˺ MSL 9, 80:181 (OB) from paʾāṣu, and Impfv ittananpaḫ, Pfv ittanpaḫ, etc. from napāḫu, see CAD N/1 269–70 s.v. 11. Even in comparison to the other tan‑stems, the Ntn‑stem is far more frequent in the imperfective than in all other forms. Especially rare are the t‑perfect and the stative: there is only one t‑perfect form of a triradical verb known to me: [it]-ta-ta-ab-ri-iq CT 42, 40b:4 (LL) from barāqu ‘to flash (of lightning)’. Just as rare is the Ntn stative: itamgur from magāru ‘to comply, favour’ is used as a literary variant of the G Stat magir and the Gt Stat mitgur in i-tam-gur/gu5-ra annâti BWL 40:33 (SB) ‘these things are pleasing’234 and occurs once in Neo-Assyrian (see below). A few forms are found that deviate from those shown in table 14.12. There is an Old Babylonian Impfv it-na-ak-ki-ìs FM 2, 164 no. 88:18 ‘it (the wood) is usually cut’, which stands for normal ittanakkis and—if it is not a mistake for it-⟨ta⟩-na-ak-ki-ìs—is reminiscent of the shortened Gtn forms of the itnallak type discussed in §14.7.2 (p. 418). The Ntn‑stem of nabāṭu ‘to shine’ has a present participle which has adopted gemination from the imperfective, like the Gtn present participles mentioned in §14.7.2: muttananbiṭu ‘always shining’ instead of muttanbiṭu, e.g., SBH p. 22 no. 10:67 nūru mut-ta-na-an-bi-ṭu ‘the ever-shining light’ (// SBH p. 19 no. 9: r.9 mut-ta-an-bi-ṭu). Ntn‑stems of weak verbs show numerous peculiarities, which will be discussed in the context of the weak verbs; see §17.6.3.4 (p. 554) for the I/voc verbs, §16.6.1 (pp. 493–494) for the II/gem verbs. There are no Ntn forms of II/voc verbs (cf. GAG3 Verbalpar. 28), doubtless because N‑stems of these verbs are very rare and do not seem to have a complete paradigm (see §16.5.3.5, p. 488). The function of the Ntn‑stem is more complex than that of the other tan‑stems. We can roughly distinguish three kinds.

231.  Strong I/i verbs with an Ntn‑stem are barāqu ‘to flash’, kabāru ‘to be(come) thick’, kadāru ‘to be overbearing’, kamāsu ‘to kneel down’, nakāsu ‘to cut’ (if it-⟨ta⟩-na-ak-ki-ìs FM 2, 164 no. 88:18 [see below] is interpreted correctly); parāku ‘to block’; raḫāṣu ‘to destroy’, and ṣalāmu ‘to be(come) black’. Most of these are attested only once; see the dictionaries. 232.  Perhaps the form i-tap-ḪU-ṣú MSL 9, 92:15 (SB LL) is an Ntn infinitive of this verb. Whiting (1987: 87) claims that it is a perfective, but this leaves final -u unexplained. 233.  Although napāḫu may also be U/u in the meaning ‘to blow’; see CAD N/1 264b s.v. 1c. 234.  See §14.3.4 (p. 373) regarding mitgur, and cf. also mit-gu-rat amatsi JAOS 88, 127: IIb 13, 20 ‘her word is pleasing’, beside amat aqabbû (. . .) lū ma-ag-rat AGH 62:34 ‘may the word I say (. . .) be pleasing’ (both SB).

The tan‑Stems  14.7.

428

The first kind consists of Ntn‑stems of transitive verbs. They are in principle regular pluractionals of the corresponding N‑stem in its (medio)passive function: (34) is passive and (35) mediopassive:235 (34) AKT 3, 63:12–14 (OA) miššum ikribum ina pīka i-ta-na-dí-am ‘why is a curse constantly placed in your mouth for me?’ (from nadû ‘to throw down’) (35) BagF. 18, 374:2′ (SB) [šumma ina] ˹bīt˺ amēli gušūrū it-te-neš-bi-ru ‘if in a man’s house the beams keep breaking’ (from šebēru ‘to break’) Ntn‑stems of transitive verbs are often used metaphorically, as in the example of paʾāṣu ‘to hit’ quoted above and in the following instances of ḫepû ‘to break’, ḫanāqu ‘to strangle, constrict’, and ʾabātu ‘to destroy’: (36) AbB 3, 80:11′ (OB) libbī lā it-te-né-eḫ-pí ‘let my heart not be broken continuously’236 (38) HGŠ 105:26–27 (SB) at-ta-na-aʾ-ba-tú ‘I am annihilated completely’ (37) SAA 15, 37: r.6′ (NA) [kīma ēta]maršu it-ta-na-aḫ-na-qa ‘[when] PN saw him, he became furious’ (see below for other instances) This metaphorical use associates the (medio)passive Ntn‑stems with the much larger group of Ntn‑stems of intransitive verbs, in which similar meanings predominate. The second kind consists of Ntn‑stems from intransitive verbs with an N‑stem. As we saw in §12.2.2.2 (pp. 297–298), only a few intransitive verbs have an N‑stem that occurs more than sporadically, and broadly speaking these are also the ones for which an Ntn‑stem is attested: ʾadāru N ‘to be(come) worried’ (Ntn in OA, OB, and SB) bašû N ‘to become available, arise’ (Ntn in SB) nadāru N ‘to become rabid’ (Ntn in SB) napāḫu ‘to rise (of celestial bodies), become enflamed’ (Ntn in OB, SB, lexicalized intransitive use of ‘to blow (into), light, kindle’) • saḫāru N ‘to turn’ (Ntn in OB and SB) • salāʾu N ‘to become ill’ (Ntn in OB and SB) • šegû N ‘to become rabid’ (Ntn in OB (Inf i-te-eš-[g]u ananti Ištar p. 76: III 15 ‘the raging of battle’) and SB)

• • • •

A specific group among these Ntn‑stems is formed by a number of Standard Babylonian medical terms, the meaning of which is not always quite clear: • • • •

ebēṭu N and Ntn ‘to swell(?)’ egēru N and Ntn ‘to stumble(?), cross, lie crosswise, twist(?)’ emēru N and Ntn ‘to have intestinal trouble’ esēlu N and Ntn ‘to be constipated’

235.  A possible example of a reciprocal Ntn‑stem is TC 1, 41:7 (OA): (if I had been here) lā a-ta-na-aṣba-at ‘would I not have quarreled all the time (with him)?’ (tr. CAD Ṣ 41b s.v. 13b–1′); however, a passive translation ‘(if) I were not seized (by him) all the time’ (as chosen by K. Hecker, GKT §139b) is also possible and more in line with the normal use of the Ntn‑stem. I do not know any certain instances of an Ntn‑stem derived from a reflexive N‑stem, but perhaps ta-ta-na-ṣa-ar KAV 1: II §12:17 is one; see n. 249 (p. 434). 236.  This was an idiomatic expression in Old Babylonian: cf. also AbB 1, 124:19 (read it-te-né-eḫ-⟨pi  ⟩); AbB 10, 28: 9 (i-te-eḫ-[  pí  ]); AbB 11, 168:17; IM 30976:10 (qu. AHw 341a s.v. N 5).

14.7.  The tan‑Stems

429

• eṣēlu N and Ntn ‘to be paralyzed’ A subtype consists of pluractionals of N tantum verbs: naplusu Ntn ‘to gaze at, examine’, and naprušu Ntn ‘to fly around’ (both OB and later), and occasional instances of nābutu ‘to flee’ and nentû, an astronomical term, for which see §12.2.1 (p. 292). The third and last kind consists of Ntn‑stems derived from intransitive verbs which do not have a corresponding N‑stem. A small number is already found in Old Babylonian: ašāšu ‘to be(come) worried’ (common) balāṭu ‘to live, recover’ (Impfv it-ta-na-ab-lu-uṭ AfO 48/49, 73:9′, already quoted above) kaṣāṣu ‘to grind the teeth’ (Prec li-it-ta-ak-ṣa-aṣ St. Garelli p. 144:9′) nabāṭu ‘to shine’ (Inf LL i-ta-an-bu-ṭù-um Proto-Izi qu. CAD N/1 22b s.v. lex. sect.) rabû ‘to be(come) big’ (Impfv it-ta-na-ar-b[i] AbB 11, 190:10) sakāku ‘to be clogged up’ (Impfv ta-ta-na-ás-ka-ka AbB 6, 93:6 in some metaphorical meaning; or is sakāku transitive?) • šarāḫu ‘to be(come) proud, arrogant’ (Impfv it-ta-na-áš-ra-ḫu ARM 4, 86:40) • • • • • •

Standard Babylonian shows a strong increase in the use of Ntn‑stems without corresponding N‑stem. Apart from the examples already attested earlier, the following intransitive verbs appear in the Ntn‑stem for the first time in Standard Babylonian: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

arāru ‘to tremble’ (passim; the Old Babylonian forms are rather Gtn‑stems) barāqu ‘to flash (of lightning)’ (common) kabāru ‘to be(come) thick’ (Impfv it-ta-nak-bir BKBM 6:24) kadāru ‘to be(come) overbearing’ (Impfv it-te-né-ek-dír TDP 54:6–7) kamāsu ‘to kneel down’ (Impfv it-ta-nak-mì-su IAsb. 80: r.4) k/qanānu ‘to twist, coil’ (common) pašāḫu ‘to calm down’ (Imp i-tap-šaḫ AfO 19, 55:2 and 4) ṣabābu ‘to spread (wings)’ (Impfv it-ta-na-aṣ-ba-bu Izbu p. 198: c 10) ṣalāmu ‘to be(come) black’ (Impfv ta-at-ta-na-aṣ-li-ma AfO 17, 314: D 4) šadāḫu ‘to march’ (it-ta-na-áš-d [i-ḫu] ZA 28, 77:52) šagāgu ‘to become stiff’ (common) šaḫāḫu ‘to waste away’ (Impfv it-tan-áš-ḫa-aḫ DA 96:18) šamāḫu ‘to thrive, flourish’ (Impfv it-ta-na-áš-ma-aḫ RA 17, 175: II 19) tebû ‘to rise’ (common) zaqāru ‘to be protuberant’ (Impfv it-ta-na-az-qar LKA 85:3)

Ntn‑stems with or without corresponding N‑stem are relatively common among II/gem verbs, as is clear from the lists above: cf. arāru, ašāšu, k/qanānu, kaṣāṣu, sakāku, ṣabābu, šagāgu, and šaḫāḫu, and the transitive verbs šadādu ‘to pull’ and šamāmu ‘to paralyze’.237 Finally, a few Standard Babylonian Ntn‑stems of transitive verbs do not have the expected passive/intransitive meaning but are active instead and are therefore used as if they were Gtn forms (GAG3 §91g*): (39) SAA 3, 13:2 lā it-ta-nak-šá-du zi.meš-ia ‘may they (my enemies) not take possession of my life’ from kašādu ‘to obtain, reach’ (40) AfO 17, 314: D 5 (you, demons) ša kīma alê ta-at-ta-nak-ta-ma ‘who like a bull always overwhelm’ (tr. W. G. Lambert) from katāmu ‘to cover’ 237.  This list does not include the Ntn‑stems of the naparruru group, for which see §12.3 (pp. 303–304).

430

The tan‑Stems  14.7.

(41) ACh. Sin 34:51 kur.giš.meš Adad i-ta-na-ar-ḫi-iṣ ‘Adad will keep destroying the country of the trees(?)’ from raḫāṣu ‘to destroy’ To this group we may also assign the alleged Nt‑stems (see §14.5.4, pp. 391–392) of šamāru ‘to praise’ (ila i-taš-mar BWL 252: III 16 (SB) ‘praise a god!’,238 and of zakāru (saqāru) ‘to speak’, e.g., at-tas-qa-ra šumēšin Sn. 113:5 ‘I spoke their names’ (cf. KAR 4: r.12 šumēšunu ta-za-naq [ar]). A unique NB or LB instance with active meaning is at-ta-na-aq-bi YOS 6, 183:17 ‘I said repeatedly’. These active Ntn forms are modelled on Ntn‑stems of intransitive verbs, where Gtn and Ntn do not differ in meaning, if they both exist. This may be compared to the extension of literary Š‑stems from intransitive to transitive verbs discussed in §13.2.2.2 (pp. 329–331). Perhaps the confusion (or conscious variation?) was promoted by the fact that in I/voc verbs Gtn and Ntn forms are very similar to each other (see §17.6.3.4, p. 554). The Ntn‑stem is most common in literary texts. Accordingly, the vast majority comes from Standard Babylonian, and in all other dialects it is infrequent. No third-millennium instances seem to be attested. It is rare in Old Assyrian, and all forms known to me are imperfectives: a-tana-aṣ-ba-at TC 1, 41:7 (see n. 235, p. 428), i-ta-na-áš-ku-nu-ni BIN 4, 205:18 ‘they are always placed’ (Subj), i-ta-na-dí-am AKT 3, 63:14 (= (34)), and ta-ta-na-am-ga-ar AKT 3, 98:14 ‘you constantly agree’. It is slightly more common in (non-literary) Old Babylonian, as may be clear from the instances already quoted in this section. The Ntn‑stems occurring more than sporadically are those of naplusu ‘to look at’, ḫepû ‘to break’ (see (36) with n. 236, p. 428), šakānu ‘to place’, napāḫu ‘to become enflamed’, ʾadāru ‘to be(come) worried’, arāru ‘to tremble’ and ašāšu ‘to worry’. I am not aware of any Ntn forms in Middle Assyrian. In Middle Babylonian, there are a few Ntn forms of ḫanāqu ‘to strangle’ in the lexicalized meaning ‘to be furious’ or the like, literally, ‘to choke, be constricted’: Impfv it-ta-na-aḫ-na-aq? BE 17, 14:12 acc. to AHw 320a s.v. Ntn, and a Pfv [i]t-ta-aḫ-na-qú UM 1/2, 16:12 in broken context. Remarkably, this verb also provides one of the very few Ntn forms in Neo-Assyrian, quoted above as (37). Other examples of this verb are represented by an instance of g/qarāru Ntn ‘to be frightened’ (it-at(sic)-ta-na-ag-ra-ra SAA 16, 20: r.5), which interchanges with the Gtn‑stem, and a very remarkable Ntn Stat i-tam-gu-ru CTN 5 p. 23:51′ ‘they were willing’. For all these forms, we have to reckon with interference from Standard Babylonian. Finally, in Neo‑ and Late Babylonian, Ntn‑stems are extremely rare. The Impfv it-te-neṭ-ṭir TCL 13, 141:11 (LB) from eṭēru ‘to pay’ is about the only regular one I am aware of. In addition, there are a few irregular forms: an Impfv it-tab-ba-šu-ú BRM 2, 48:17, which looks as if it is built on the perfective ittabši by inserting gemination instead of -na-, and the above-mentioned at-ta-na-aq-bi YOS 6, 183:17. Perhaps such forms are indications that the scribes who used them had difficulty in coming up with the correct form and that therefore the use of Ntn was artificial to some extent. Especially in Standard Babylonian, the Ntn‑stem is more than simply the pluractional counterpart of the N‑stem: it is (also) an expressive derivation of intransitive verbs in general (which often do not have an N‑stem; see §12.2.2.2, pp. 297–298), suitable for the expression of salient natural phenomena and emotions.239 238.  I follow the interpretation of W. von Soden (1962: 484–85 and AHw 902a s.v. qarādu I Gt ‘am Bart zupfen’); see Streck 2003a: 44 no. 81 for other interpretations. 239.  An intriguing possibility is that (part of) the Ntn‑stems that do not have a corresponding N‑stem are not derived from N at all but arose from a combination of a taPRvS noun with the verbalizing prefix n discussed in chap. 12, just as the Št2‑stem arose from a combination of a taPRvS noun with the verbalizing

14.7.  The tan‑Stems

431

14.7.6.  The historical background of the tan‑stems The tan‑stems do not have a direct counterpart in the rest of Semitic and are generally believed to represent an inner-Akkadian development. This is basically correct, but they are not a completely new category: they do go back to a Proto-Semitic verb form, namely *yit(a)qattalu, the detransitive derivation of the pluractional derived stem *yiqattalu, as I already argued in §4.4.3.1 (pp. 103–104). In this section, I will describe how this form came to be associated with the basic stem and subsequently acquired different forms as a pluractional marker for each of the existing primary stems. For a correct analysis of the complex forms of the tan‑stems, we must separate the Gtn‑stem from the other tan‑stems. There are several reasons for this (cf. also Steiner 1981: 18–19). First of all, the Gtn‑stem is the pluractional of the basic stem and therefore relatively basic to the other tan‑stems. Second, it is also vastly more frequent than the latter, not only in type frequency, i.e., the number of verbs that is attested for each stem, but also in token frequency, i.e., the number of occurrences of individual forms.240 Third, the Gtn‑stem is the only tan‑stem that has a complete paradigm distinct from the corresponding secondary stem, the Gt‑stem. The other tan‑stems only differ from the corresponding secondary stem in the imperfective. The combination of these three facts gives the Gtn‑stem a strongly dominant position in relation to the other tan‑stems. Many formal (and functional) aspects of the latter can only be understood in terms of their dependence on the Gtn-stem. The iconic relationship between gemination and plurality in Akkadian (see GAV pp. 23– 26, and §4.4 above, pp. 95–97) suggests that it is the gemination of R2 rather than the t‑infix and/or the n‑infix that should be regarded as the determinant of the pluractional function of the Gtn‑stem.241 This may seem obvious, but it runs counter to the analysis of the tan‑stems found in most handbooks on Akkadian grammar and Semitic linguistics. This analysis ultimately comes from A. Poebel and was extended and canonized by W. von Soden in GAG §91. Poebel (1939: 41–49) was the first to realize that the imperfective forms with ‑tan- and the non-imperfective forms with ‑t- actually constitute a single paradigm. He inferred from this that the non-imperfective forms also contained ‑tan- and that the geminate results from the assimilation of n to the following consonant, e.g., Pfv iptarras < *iptanras, Inf pitarrusum < *pitanrusum. This view was adopted by von Soden in GAG (§91a) and subsequently by other grammars. Von Soden even extended Poebel’s analysis to the other tan‑stems and also derived the Dtn Pfv uptarris from *up-tan(a)‑rris, the Štn Pfv uštapris from *uš-tan(a)-pris, etc.; in these forms, a is dropped by analogy with the Gtn‑stem, and n is syncopated (“ausgestossen”) before a geminate consonant or a cluster. prefix š according to §14.6.2.2. In other words, they would go back to a basic form *yi-n-taPRvS (> ittaprVs) parallel to *yV-š-taPRvS. To this form a new imperfective ittanaprVs would later be created, just as in the Gtn‑stem iptanarrVs emerged as new imperfective alongside the original form iptarrVs, see the next section. In accordance with the overall character of š versus n, the descendants of *yV-š-taPRvS generally have a more active/transitive meaning than the Ntn‑stems deriving from *yi-n-taPRvS, which would be typically intransitive. However, for the time being, this remains a purely theoretical possibility, since it is hard to find any factual evidence in support of it, such as an actual taPRvS noun with a matching Ntn‑stem that cannot be explained in another way. 240.  According to the statistics in GAV pp. 110–11 n. 1, AHw contains 312 instances of Gtn, 88 of Dtn, 53 of Štn, and 98 of Ntn). Whereas many Gtn‑stems are quite common, a large part of the Dtn, Štn, and Ntn forms occur only incidentally. It is especially this much higher token frequency that is relevant to the relationship between Gtn and the other tan‑stems. 241.  Cf. already Renger 1972: 230–31. For the obvious counter-argument that the Štn‑ and the Ntn‑stems do not have gemination, see below.

432

The tan‑Stems  14.7.

This analysis should be rejected on several grounds. First of all, whereas Poebel’s reconstruction of the Gtn forms is phonologically impeccable (but historically unjustified, as I will argue presently), von Soden’s extension of it to the other tan‑stems is not: a process whereby a triple consonant cluster -nCC- is reduced to a geminate runs counter to the basic principles of Akkadian phonology. As Reiner (1966: 52) states, a triple consonant cluster is dissolved by insertion of a vowel—insofar as we can tell, because triple clusters are not supposed to arise in the first place.242 Second, von Soden’s analysis exhibits numerous other deficiencies, as was first pointed out by Steiner (1981). Steiner shows that it does not work for several verb types outside the strong triradical verb. For instance, in the tan‑stems of quadriradical verbs, we would expect an Ntn Pfv *intan-balkat (cf. N Pfv in-balkit > ibbalkit), which would become **ittabbalkat. The actual form, however, is ittabalakkat, with the t‑infix after the prefix n- and gemination of R3. This would force us to assume that -tan- was split up into two morphemes, -ta- and -n-, separated by the first two radicals of the root (Steiner 1981: 13–14; cf. also L. B. Anderson 1982: 261 n. 21). The fact that not all of Steiner’s arguments can stand up to criticism, as pointed out by Voigt (1987a), does not substantially impair his overall conclusion that we need a different analysis of the tan‑stems.243 The strongest objection to von Soden’s view is that it implies a very unlikely development, namely, the loss of the very marker that distinguishes the pluractional from the corresponding non-pluractional forms. In his analysis, only the presence of n distinguishes the Dtn‑, Štn‑, and Ntn‑stems from the Dt‑, Št‑, and Nt‑stems outside the imperfective (Steiner 1981: 11–12). In this situation, we would rather expect n to be preserved, even if that would violate a phonological rule.244 This is precisely what we observe in other categories of the Akkadian verb. For instance, against the general phonological rule that n assimilates to a following consonant, it is preserved in many forms of the N‑stem and the Š‑stem of I/n verbs (GAG §33f, §102c), e.g., in the forms attansak and uštanṣir discussed in §16.4.1 (pp. 469–470). The preservation of n keeps these forms transparent. This is what we would expect to happen also in the non-imperfective forms of the Dtn‑, Štn‑, and Ntn‑stems. The fact that n is not present in these forms can only mean that it has never been there (Steiner 1981: 12). This means that Poebel’s and von Soden’s analysis of the form of the Gtn‑stem cannot be upheld. Having established that gemination is the actual marker of the Gtn‑stem, we have to determine the role of the infixes t and n. The function of -n- seems to be rather straightforward: it does not occur outside the imperfective and is therefore to be regarded as the imperfective marker of the tan‑stems.245 If non-imperfective forms contain a geminate, such as the Gtn Pfv iptarrVs and the Štn forms of I/voc verbs (muštaḫḫiz, etc.; see §17.6.3.3, p. 549), it is a “real” geminate, not the product of assimilation of n (see below on iptarrVs). Even in non-imperfective forms where n 242.  The only example of such a process adduced by GAG (§20i, §33j) is precisely the one discussed here. Another possible example could be the addition of a consonantal suffix pronoun to a nominal stem ending in a cluster or a geminate, such as kalbu ‘dog’ and libbu ‘heart’. In this case, an epenthetic vowel dissolves the cluster: kalb+šu is realized as kalabšu ‘his dog’, libb+šu as libbašu ‘his heart’. 243.  Several other objections by Steiner are less convincing and have been criticized in particular by Voigt (1987a). Voigt’s attempt to save von Soden’s analysis is unsuccessful since it depends on ad hoc phonological processes that have no parallels (see GAV pp. 70–71). 244.  A well-known example of the preservation of a morpheme that carries an important grammatical contrast against the workings of sound change is the s that characterizes the future tense in Classical Greek. Normally, s is lost between vowels, but in the future it was preserved to prevent it from becoming indistinguishable from the present; see Anttila 1989: 98–99. 245.  This does not apply to the clearly secondary extensions of -tan-, mainly to present participles of the Gtn‑stem and the Ntn‑stem; see §14.7.2 (p. 418) and §14.7.5 (p. 427).

14.7.  The tan‑Stems

433

would be phonologically possible it is absent: in verbs with a hollow root (type kânu ‘to be(come) stable, firm’), we would expect n to be visible in all forms, since there is no following consonant to which it could be assimilated, e.g., Pfv **iktanūn < ik-tan-ūn corresponding to the Impfv iktanân (< ik-tan-ân) (cf. G Pfv ikūn), but the actual form is iktūn; likewise, the Dtn perfective is uktīn, rather than **uktanīn (Steiner 1981: 14; Renger 1972: 230).246 The use of -n- as an imperfective marker is specific to Akkadian, just as all its other imperfective markers (see §4.5.2, pp. 112–115), and can only be understood in the wider context of the renewal of the Akkadian imperfective by means of gemination. I will come back to it below. The function of t in the tan‑stems is problematic, because it obviously does not have its usual detransitive function. Actually, this fact is the clue to a straightforward reconstruction of the rise of the tan‑stems. As I already intimated in §4.4.3.1 (p. 104), this t is nothing but the t-infix of the Gt‑stem used in a new function after the decline of the Gt‑stem itself. The development of this infix from detransitive towards the pluractional marker of the Akkadian tan‑stems was triggered by the replacement of *yiqtVlu by *yiqattalu described in chap. 4 and took place in four stages. The first stage was the concomitant replacement of *yiqattalu in its pluractional function by the pluractional with infixed t *yiqtattalu, which originally belonged to the Gt‑stem. It is remarkable that the replacement of *yiqtVlu by *yiqattalu did not lead to a loss in morpho­syntactic distinctions in Akkadian: just as Proto-Semitic had a basic Impfv *yiqtVlu and a pluractional verbal stem with a Impfv *yiqattalu, Akkadian has a basic Impfv iparrVs and a derived pluractional Impfv iptanarrVs; see table 14.13a: basic Impfv

plur. Impfv

PSem

*yiqtVlu, ‑ūnV

*yiqattalu

Akk

iparrVs

iptanarrVs

Table 14.13a:  Basic and pluractional imperfectives in Proto-Semitic and Akkadian.

This shows that the renewal of the basic imperfective triggered a subsequent renewal of the derived pluractional by means of the form that later would become the Gtn‑stem. The t‑infix reveals that this form is related to the Gt‑stem. If the Proto-Semitic G‑stem had a pluractional derivation with a geminate R2, we may plausibly assume that the Gt‑stem had one as well, with a form such as *yi-t(a)-qattalu, which at some prehistoric stage of Akkadian became *yitqattalu and later *yiqtattal (iptarrVs).247 In historical Akkadian, however, the Gt‑stem no longer has a derived pluractional. What happened to *yiqtattalu, then? The answer is that in historical Akkadian it serves as the perfective of the Gtn‑stem, which I will argue below to be the oldest form of the Gtn paradigm; the historical Impfv iptanarrVs is a later innovation. So the old Gt pluractional *yiqtattalu was re-employed as a pluractional to the basic stem, after *yiqattal- had replaced the old Impfv *yiqtVlu. Presumably, both shifts occurred together as a kind of morphosyntactic drag chain: when *yiqattal- occupied the slot of *yiqtVlu, it dragged *yiqtattal- along into its old slot; see table 14.13b with the original arrangement and 14.13c with the situation in Akkadian.248 246.  Voigt’s (1987a: 259–60) counterargument that the absence of **iktanūn follows from the fact that the strong perfective does not have -na- either is contradicted by his other claim that iptarrVs is underlyingly *iptanrVs: this implies that the corresponding II/voc form is also underlyingly **iktanūn, a form that has no reason for further change. 247.  The vowel alternation in iptarrVs is secondary; see §14.2.1 (pp. 356–357). 248.  The initial replacement of *yiqtVlu by *yiqattVl- may have been caused by the inadequacy of the formal contrast with the corresponding perfective *yiqtVl; see §18.3.1 (p. 591). In West Semitic, this

The tan‑Stems  14.7.

434 PSem G

core Impfv

derived Impfv

  *yiqtVlu ∞ *yiqattalu    ¶

Gt

*yiqtatVlu

*yiqtattalu

 §

Akk

core Impfv

derived Impfv

G

*yiparrVs

*yiptarrVs

Gt

*yiptarrVs

   ——

Table 14.13b.               Table 14.13c.

In surviving Gt‑stems, the older Gt Impfv *yiqtatVlu was replaced by *yiptarras‑ at the same time that the G Impfv *yiqtVlu was replaced by *yiparras. In all other verbs, *yiptarras took over the pluractional function of earlier yiparras and thus associated itself with the basic stem instead of the Gt‑stem, in the same way that the t‑Pf iptarVs did later. This accounts for the fact that the Gt imperfective and the (later) Gtn perfective are identical in form. Just as the t‑Pf iptarVs adopted the imperfective vowel (see §6.2, pp. 138–139), the new G imperfective did the same (see §4.5.1, pp. 109–112), and its pluractional iptarras did so, too (> iptarrVs). This presupposes that *yi-t(a)-qattal‑ had lost its original detransitive value. This is a natural consequence of the decline of the Gt‑stem in Proto-Semitic and the concomitant loss of a clear differentiation from the G‑stem, which must have instigated the same process in the pluractional verbs derived from it. It is not surprising, therefore, that once they were associated with the basic verb, very little of their original detransitive nature remained detectable. However, as we saw in §14.7.2 (pp. 421–422), the Gtn‑stem is particularly productive in the domain of intransitive and low transitivity verbs and less productive in the domain of high-transitivity verbs, where it competes with the D‑stem as a marker of verbal plurality. The lexicalized Gt‑stems discussed in §14.3.4 (pp. 369–374) are also without exception low-transitivity verbs. This suggests that this verb class played an important role in both the functional decline of the Gt‑stem and the reassignment of its pluractional derivation to the new imperfective iparrVs. This process left the Gt‑stem itself without a corresponding pluractional, a situation that remained throughout the history of Akkadian. As stated in §10.4 (pp. 248–249), the Gtn‑stem is exclusively the pluractional of the G‑stem and the other tan‑stems are only the pluractionals of the corresponding primary stem.249 Once the model iparrVs § iptarrVs was established for the opposition neutral versus pluractional in the basic stem, the t‑infix had a new function: since the basic form now also had gemination, the marking of pluractionality came to be associated with the t‑infix, which thus became a pluractional marker instead of a voice marker. This gave rise to the second stage, the introduction of t with pluractional function in the other primary stems: iparrVs § iptarrVs gave rise to uparrVs § uptarrVs in the D‑stem and ušaprVs § uštaprVs in the Š‑stem.250 In the N‑stem this development was not possible because its first consonant is a geminate, which cannot accommodate an infixed t. Therefore, the same procedure was used as in the t‑perfect: instead of creating the required forms on the basis of the prefix base, problem was solved by replacing *yiqtVl with qatVla. About the replacement of an old imperfective in Cushitic as a “push chain” process; see Hetzron 1980: 82 with earlier literature. 249.  Possible exceptions are ta-ta-na-ṣa-ar KAV 1: II §12:17 (MA) ‘she keeps resisting’, cf. naṣāru Gt ‘to guard oneself  ’ (see §14.3.1.3, p. 364) (or is this Ntn?); liš-ta-an-na-nu Gilg. p. 544:98 (SB) ‘let them contend’ (reciprocal and therefore Gt, but the Gt precative should be lištannū); uq-ta-na-la-al ZA 43, 94:44′ (SB) ‘he will be discredited’ according to CAD Q 58a s.v. qalālu 5. This implies a passive Dtn‑stem, for which there is no parallel at all. 250.  I use the symbol V also in the latter stems since the inflectional stem of these forms was still undifferentiated between imperfective and perfective, i.e., both had PSem i.

14.7.  The tan‑Stems

435

they were built on the suffix base naPRvS (see §12.2.1, p. 289, for the N perfect): *yintaprVs (> ittaprVs). This spread of t with its new pluractional function led to a uniform system, based on a quadriliteral base CvCCvC with t infixed after the first consonant (cf. also Edzard 1996: 17–19); see table 14.14.251 Gt(n)

Nt(n)

Dt(n)

Št(n)

base

PaRRvS

naPRvS

PaRRvS

šaPRvS

‘TAN base’

PtaRRvS

ntaPRvS

PtaRRvS

štaPRvS

*Impfv/Pfv

iptarrVs

ittaprVs

uptarrVs

uštaPRVS

Table 14.14: The basic forms of the tan‑stems.

The later imperfective with ‑tan‑ did not yet exist at this stage. We may assume that the differentiation between imperfective and perfective, if present at all, was still made by means of different endings, as it was in Proto-Semitic (Impfv *yiqtVlu versus Pfv *yiqtVl; see §18.3.1, pp. 587–591). This system is the direct precursor to the historical system. The third stage is the differentiation of imperfective and perfective on the basis of a different stem rather than a different ending. The formal relationship between the new Impfv iparrVs and the Pfv iprVs in the G‑stem triggered an avalanche of restructurings or replacements of the ancient imperfective forms, as we have seen in §4.5.2 (pp. 112–115): wherever possible, forms were introduced in derived categories that mirrored the formal characteristics of the G imperfective, in particular gemination of R2: • In the II/voc verbs *imūtu > *imuwwat (imūat) • In the I/voc verbs: *īkulu > īkkal and *ušākal > ušakkal • In the I/w verbs: *ušibu > uššab and *ušūbal replaced by uše/abbal • In the Gt‑stem: *iptarVsu > iptarrVs • In the N‑stem: *ipparisu > ipparras • In the Št2‑stem: *uštapras > uštaparras • In the quadriradical verbs: *ibbalkat > ibbalakkat and *ušbalkat > ušbalakkat The rise of the historical form iptanarrVs and the subsequent introduction of -tan- in the other tan‑stems should be seen in the context of this process. When in the original prefix form R2 was part of a cluster (as in iprVs and uštapras), the new imperfective form had an additional syllable (iparrVs, uštaparras) (Reiner 1966: 75–76). This contrast was introduced into the Gtn‑stem, too: in opposition to iptarrVs, a form with an extra syllable came into use, which was based on an alternative—historically incorrect, but structurally possible—analysis of iptarrVs as *iptanrVs (Kuryłowicz 1972: 25–26 and 63).252 In accordance with the normal rules for imperfective forma251.  According to Steiner (1981: 19), there is a gradual extension of the tan‑stems during the recorded history of Akkadian, with only Gtn‑stems in third-millennium texts and many Dtn‑ and Štn‑stems only occasionally occurring in late texts. This is not quite in keeping with the actual attestations of the tan‑stems. Dtn‑, Štn‑, and Ntn‑stems are indeed very rare in the third millennium but not rarer than we would expect on the basis of the available material. Their use in Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian is productive but uncommon, since they are highly marked forms. Their flourishing in late texts reveals more about the popularity of “artificial” forms in this period than about any late productivity: in late non-literary texts, they have practically disappeared; see the above-mentioned sections. 252.  Voigt (1987a: 249–50) assumes the same derivation to account for the paradigm of the Gtn‑stem, but he regards *iptanrVs as the real underlying form with an infix -tan-.

436

The tan‑Stems  14.7.

tion the second element of this cluster was geminated in the imperfective: iptanarrVs, just like ibbalakkat from *ibbalkat and uštaparras from uštapras.253 A similar reanalysis of a geminate as if it had developed from an assimilated nasal is attested elsewhere, too. In Old Babylonian, we find a plural erbenētum from erbettum ‘group or team of four’, in Neo-Assyrian a noun peʾettu ‘burning coal’ with a plural pe-eʾ-na-a-ti (SAA 2 p. 51:533), although the original form is peʾemtu (see Hämeen-Anttila 2000: 24), and in Late Babylonian the noun piqittu ‘appointment, function’ shows a plural piqinēti or piqnēti from a virtual singular *piqintu (see CAD P 393a s.v. piqittu e).254 The introduction of a nasal into the paradigm of the strong verb entails its introduction into weak verbs, especially the II/voc verbs, where it could not arise directly through this process: iparrVs : iptanarrVs § ikūan : iktanūan, Pl ikūnnū : iktanunnū, the singular of which ultimately became ikân : iktanân in Babylonian. The rise of the historical Gtn imperfective depended on two conditions: the regular assimilation of n to a following consonant in order to make the reanalysis of iptarrVs possible and the prosodic difference in syllable number between imperfective and perfective. This process further implies that the t‑infix of the non-imperfective forms, and especially the Gtn Pfv iptarrVs, is older than the -tan- infix of the imperfective. This is not only in keeping with the fact that in general the Akkadian perfective is the category with the most accurate correspondences in other Semitic languages and therefore arguably older than the imperfective, but it is also suggested by comparative evidence to be discussed presently. The fourth and final stage is actually a repetition of the second one: as soon as ‑tan‑ had become the marker of the Gtn imperfective, the other tan‑stems followed suit and introduced ‑tan‑ in their own imperfective: *uptarras was replaced by uptanarras, *uštapras by uštanapras, and *ittaprVs by ittanaprVs. The non-imperfective forms were not affected by this change and held on to t as their only marker. Moreover, the fact that the Gtn‑stem is characterized by gemination of R2 caused gemination to be introduced in the other tan‑stems where it is structurally possible, namely in the Štn forms of the I/w and I/voc verbs (Pfv uštabbil [Bab] and uštakkil; see §16.2.3, p. 457, and §17.6.3.3, pp. 549–550), and in the quadriradical verbs (Pfv ittablakkat and uštablakkit; see §12.5, p. 312, and §13.4.1, pp. 338–340). The ultimate outcome of this series of changes is a finely balanced and highly isomorphic system of tertiary stems, in which both form and meaning of all forms are determined by their relation to the other forms of the same stem as well as to the corresponding Gtn form according to the diagram in table 14.15. Finally, West Semitic offers additional support for the development of the tan‑stems as described here. In §14.5.5 (pp. 393–395), I argued that there are reasons to assume that the Arabic Stem V yataqattalu and the Hithpael forms in Hebrew discussed by Speiser (1967: 506–14), especially yithallẹk, are not direct derivations of the D‑stem but go back to the form *yit(a)qattalu, the detransitive derivation of the pluractional *yiqattalu. Since these forms correspond directly 253.  Renger (1972: 230–31) also derives iptanarrVs from ipta+arrVs with n as a glide but without explaining why it is precisely n that is employed. Reiner (1966: 95) starts from a basic form with two successive “length” phonemes (written “:”) ipta:ar:as, of which the first becomes n through dissimilation: iptanar:as, i.e., iptanarras. 254.  Cf. also GAG 3 §61m and Hirsch 1975: 307. For erbettu, derived from erbe ‘four’, it is unlikely that ‑tt‑ conceals an assimilated nasal, although the background of -tt- is unclear; cf. also sebettu ‘group of seven’. For piqittu, from paqādu ‘to provide, muster’, it is certain that it does not. For allunātu (CCT 4, 20a:4, OA), plural of alluttu ‘crab’, the situation is unclear because it has no obvious etymology, so -tt- may come from -nt-, as in šanātu, plural of šattu ‘year’. GAG 3 §61m* suggests that the form is dissimilated from an original *allultum.

14.7.  The tan‑Stems

437

G (iparrVs)

D (uparras)

Š (ušapras)

N (ittaprVs)

•

•

•

•

Gtn

Dtn

Štn

Ntn

Impfv

iptanarrVs §

uptanarras

uštanapras

ittanaprVs

Pfv

iptarrVs

uptarris

uštapris

ittaprVs

Imp

pitarrVs

putarris

šutapris

itaprVs

Stat/PPartc

pitarrus

putarrus

šutaprus

itaprus

muptarrisu

muštaprisu

muttaprisu

PrPartc

§ § §

muptarrisu §

Table 14.15: The development of the paradigm of the tan‑stems.

to the Akkadian Gtn perfective iptarrVs (apart from the variable stem vowel), rather than the imperfective iptanarrVs, they confirm that the perfective is an older form than the imperfective that has no exact parallels elsewhere in Semitic and is thus likely to be an inner-Akkadian innovation, like almost all other imperfective categories of Akkadian.255 Parallels in Berber suggest that the form *yit(a)qattal‑ and its association with the basic stem is even older than Proto-Semitic. As stated in §4.4.3.2 (pp. 104–106), the Berber imperfective, which is generally assumed by Berberologists to originate as a derived verbal stem, consists of two kinds of forms: forms characterized by gemination and forms with a prefix t(t)-. If we equate the former with the Akkadian imperfective iparrVs and derive both from a derived pluractional imperfective stem *yiqattalu, it becomes attractive to derive the latter from the corresponding t‑stem *yi-t(a)qattalu and to assume that in part of the verbs the pluractional without t was chosen as imperfective and in other verbs the pluractional with t (in low transitivity verbs?) or perhaps even the simple stem with infixed t (in particular in short verbs, in order to boost their form?). In conclusion, the development of the tan‑stems with their extraordinary “pullulement de formes” (Kuryłowicz 1962: 64) is an inner-Akkadian development, but it has not come ex nihilo: it is based on a form inherited from Proto-Semitic, the pluractional of the Proto-Semitic Gt‑stem *yi-t(a)-qattalu. Moreover, Proto-Semitic, as it is reconstructed here, had basically the same system, with a derived pluractional to every verbal stem, only with different forms (see §18.3.2, pp. 591–593, for details). The development from Proto-Semitic to Akkadian can be seen as a single process: all changes ultimately go back to the renewal of the original imperfective *yiqtVlu by means of *yiqattalu, which in its wake caused a reshuffling of functions and a renewal of those distinctions that threatened to be lost. 255.  Therefore, I agree with Lipiński’s (1997: 403) claim that the Gtn‑stem is Proto-Semitic because of Lybico-Berber t (which is rejected by Testen 2002: 513), but only insofar as the non-imperfective forms are concerned.

Chapter 15

Verb Forms with Reduplication

15.1. Introduction In marked contrast to gemination, reduplication hardly plays a role in the Akkadian verbal system. In fact, Akkadian has only one—marginal—type of derived verbs with reduplication that is attested beyond doubt and has a certain productivity and a more-or-less consistent function. It concerns a small group of Dt‑stems, mainly in Old Babylonian, that can optionally be extended with reduplication of R2 to underline reciprocity or pluractionality. Following Huehnergard (2005a: 465), I will refer to them as Dtr‑stems. This statement runs counter to a widespread view that Akkadian has a whole set of derived stems with reduplication of R2 or R3, although there is no unanimity about their number, their function, and their paradigm(s).1 They are usually referred to as R‑stems or, if reduplication is combined with another marker, as DR‑stems, ŠR‑stems, etc. (e.g., Whiting 1981: 18–19). However, most of the claims about the existence of verbal stems with reduplication apart from the Dtr‑stem do not stand up to closer scrutiny. First of all, in the alleged R‑stems, we find very little of the relative regularity in form, function, and productivity that generally characterizes the derived verbal stems. For instance, Whiting (1981: 18–19) posits no less than five, and possibly seven, different R‑stems, each comprising hardly more than a single form. Second, the role that reduplication generally plays in language is largely disregarded: reduplication is one of the most consistently iconic phenomena in language (see, for instance, Mayerthaler 1988: 85–86): the repetition of a sequence of phonemes usually corresponds to an element of repetition in the meaning (see below for examples from Semitic). In many of the alleged R‑stems, there is no such semantic element discernible. Third, and most importantly, many of the forms in question are unique and more easily explained as scribal errors. This applies especially to a large part of the alleged R‑stems with reduplication of R2 from Mari Old Babylonian collected by Durand and Charpin (1988), as suggested by Groneberg (1989: 28–31) and Huehnergard (2005a: 464), and to several forms discussed by Whiting, such as te-pé-pé-šu AbB 9, 264:26 (OB letter) and e-pé-pu?-uš  ? Ištar p. 86: V 8 (OB lit.) from epēšu ‘to make, do’ (Whiting 1981: 4, 18–19).2 The discussion about the R‑stems with reduplication of R3 is greatly obfuscated by a failure to make two fundamental distinctions: first, between gemination and reduplication, and second, between reduplication in the root and reduplication in the stem. 1.  The main contributors to the debate are Kienast 1957b and 1961; Whiting 1981; Durand and Charpin 1988; and Groneberg 1989. For an evaluation, see GAG 3 §95e* and Huehnergard 2005a: 463–65. 2.  If this reading is correct, one could speculate about the possibility that this form is an attempt to register the fact that epēšu has two imperfective forms in Old Babylonian, īppeš and īppuš (see §12.2.1, p. 291). For a possible parallel in a different area of the grammar, see Kouwenberg 2001: 240–41 n. 41. See also I. J. Gelb’s remark (1955b: 110b ad §94e) on e-pé-pu?-uš  ?.

438

15.2.  The Dtr‑Stem

439

The term gemination refers to doubling (or lengthening) of a single consonant and reduplication to the repetition of a whole syllable, which in the Akkadian verb always consists of a consonant plus vowel.3 A case in which these terms are not properly distinguished concerns the curious verb forms that show gemination of R3 and addition of ‑i (and perhaps also lengthening of the preceding vowel), which Kraus (1973a) has called the “i‑Modus”, such as im-tu-ut-ti ARM 10, 39:17 ‘she has died’. Durand and Charpin (1988) include this form in their list of alleged R‑stems attested in Old Babylonian Mari texts, and Groneberg (1989: 32–34) lists it under “reduplications of the third radical.” Whether these forms represent a mood or not is not at issue here (see chap. 9 n. 3, p. 211); the important thing is that they do not have reduplication but gemination and should therefore not be included in the debate concerning the R‑stem(s).4 The distinction between between reduplication in the root and reduplication in the stem is relevant to the II/gem verbs (e.g., dabābu ‘to speak’; see §16.6, pp. 491–496) and the quadriradical verbs of the naparruru group (see §12.3, pp. 301–305) and the šuḫarruru group (see §13.4.3, pp. 341–346). The conjugation of these verbs contains numerous forms with a reduplicated syllable (e.g., the infinitives just quoted), but this reduplication plays no grammatical role whatsoever, since it is an inherent feature of the root (and therefore also of the stem): dabābu is an ordinary G infinitive, and naparruru and šuḫarruru are ordinary quadriradical infinitives like nabalkutu and šubalkutu, rather than R‑stems.5 A form of such a verb needs at least three successive syllables starting with the same consonant to qualify as a stem with (grammatical) reduplication, as is indeed attested in the Dtr forms of danānu discussed in §15.2 below (pp. 442–443) and in a deverbal noun such as dababābu ‘twaddle’ (from dabābu ‘to speak’) to be quoted in §15.3 (p. 444). Prominent examples of forms that have been presented as R‑stems but actually have reduplication in the root are the present participles muktaššaššu and muštabbabbu from the II/gem verbs kašāšu and šabābu (Kienast 1957b), which are actually Gtn forms with additional gemination of R3, a fairly common phenomenon in II/gem verbs (see §16.6.1, pp. 493–494, for details).

15.2. The Dtr‑Stem If we apply the usual criteria for derived stems to the attested verb forms with reduplication—a consistent form, an identifiable function, and a certain productivity—only the Dtr‑stem mentioned above remains. It mainly occurs in Old Babylonian and comprises a small group of 3.  The repetition of a CVC syllable, which is common in verbs of other Semitic languages such as Arabic and Ethiopic (see §15.4, pp. 445–446), is conspicuously absent from the Akkadian verb, though it occurs in Akkadian nouns (see §15.3 below, pp. 444–445). In §12.6.1 (p. 320) and §§13.4.2–3 (pp. 345–346), I have argued that the verbs of the naparruru and the šuḫarruru groups are the Akkadian counterparts of these verbs. 4.  I have not included verb forms with reduplication of the t‑infix, such as the Neo-Assyrian Dtt‑stem. Their background is quite different from that of forms with a reduplicated radical. Two noteworthy instances are the following. First, ut-ta-taš-šá-qu Gilg. p. 732:88 (SB) ‘they kissed (each other)’, which is semantically parallel to the Dtr‑stem but reduplicates the t‑infix rather than R2. It is easy to dispose of this form by transliterating ut-tataš-šá-qu, as A. R. George does in his edition, but in view of the Dtr‑stem it is conceivable that this form originates from the same tendency to underline reciprocity by means of reduplication. Second, doubling of the t‑infix to express repetition may also be attested in the participle muttatīku from nâku (ī) ‘to have sexual intercourse’ (in LL: CAD M/2 310b s.v. [g]a.an.za.za = mu-ut-ti-k[um], mu-ut-ta-ti-k[um], šu-ú ‘habitual fornicator’), apparently an extension of the Gtn participle muttikku. Note, however, that AHw 689b s.v. muttattiku interprets it as a Gtn present participle of natāku ‘to drip’. 5.  See further §16.6.1 (pp. 491–496) for the II/gem verbs, and for šuḫarruru and its congener šuqallulu, chap. 13 n. 52 and n. 54 (p. 345).

440

The Dtr‑Stem  15.2.

Dt‑stems that can optionally be extended with reduplication of R2 to underline reciprocity or iterativity. It concerns the following verbs: 1.  tamû Dtr ‘to swear to e.o.’: Impfv [n]u-ta-ma-am-ma OBTA p. 73 no. 23:23 (ArBab); Pfv ut-ta-ma-am-mu-ú Bab. 12, 16:4 (OB lit.); for more instances in ArBab and OB, see Whiting 1981: 2–4  6 2.  zakāru Dtr ‘to swear to e.o.’: Pfv ú-za-ka-ak-ki-ir MARI 6, 338:54; uz-za-ka-ki-ir MARI 6, 338:25; uz-za-ka-ak-ki-ru ARM 26/2, 176 no. 370:45′, 1′′ (all OB Mari) 3.  kaṣāru Dtr ‘to assemble’ (intr., especially of troops): Impfv uk-ta-ṣa-ṣa-ra-am ARM 26/1, 287 no. 121:12; uk-ta-ṣa-ṣa-ru ARM 3, 16:12; but cf. uk-t[a]-a[ṣ]-ṣí-ra-am ARM 6, 58:17 without reduplication (all OB Mari) 4.  paḫāru Dtr ‘to assemble’ (intr., especially of troops): Pfv up-ta-ḫa-aḫ-ḫi-ru ARM 1, 69:15 acc. to Durand 1997/2000: II 25 n. 37; up-ta-ḫa-ḫi-ir A.396:4′ (quoted in Groneberg 1989: 30 n. 21, subject ṣābum) (all OB Mari) 5.  kullumu Dtr ‘to show e.o.’: Pfv nu-uk-ta-la-al-li-mu AbB 9, 204:7 (OB) ‘(the canal that you and I) showed each other’ (but note Groneberg’s (1989: 31) reservations) 6.  danānu Dtr ‘to contend for superiority’ (? see below): Impfv 2p tu(-ud)-da-na-an-na-na YOS 10, 47:80 // 48:18; 2ms tu-ud-da-na-an-na-an YOS 10, 47:74; 3s ud-da-na-an-na-naak-kum YOS 10, 25:21; Prec li-da-na-an-ni-in RitDiv. 31:29, 34:86 (all OB) 7.  elû Dtr ‘to become higher step by step, be raised more and more’: a selection of Old Babylonian forms: Impfv ú-te-le-el-le MCT p. 50a: r.16; ú-te-le-le MKT 1 p. 239:2; Prec li-te-leel-li MKT 1 p. 368: II 6; Imp ut-le-li RA 86, 4: II 8′;7 of Standard Babylonian forms: Prec li-te-et-li ArOr. 37, 483:20; Imp ut-le-li ibid. 484:38; Stat ut-lè (igi)-lu-ki KAR 98: r.10; Inf ut-lel-lu-ú MSL 17, 71:89 and elsewhere; PrPartc mut-lel-lu-u Lugal 31 and elsewhere 8. and 9. zaqāru and šaqû Dtr in two infinitives in lexical lists: [t]u?-za-qa!-qu-ru MSL 17, 71:90 var. B from zaqāru ‘to be high, tower above sth.’ (var. of íl.íl.la = tu-za-qu-ri  ), and šu-[t]a!-qaq-qú-u MSL 17, 71:91 var. B from šaqû ‘to be(come) high, go up’ (var. of ní.íl.íl.la = šu-taq-qu-ú ). The Sumerian equivalents point to a meaning such as ‘to raise the head/oneself, elevate oneself’; they were obviously semantically associated with the preceding item sag.sukud.sukud.e = ut-lel-lu-ú (MSL 17, 71:89). The Dtr forms appear as variants of ordinary Dt forms and can be analyzed as Dt forms with additional reduplication.8 Unfortunately, the text of variant B does not seem to be very clear, and the actual forms with reduplication violate the vowel syncope rule: we expect tuzqaqquru and šutqaqqû.9

6.  Whiting (1981: 2) also mentions a Gt form with reduplication (his no. 6): it-ta-ma-mu-ú in an unpublished Old Babylonian text from the Diyala region. He suggests (p. 5 n. 15; p. 35 n. 124) that it may be an error for a Dt form (ut- instead of it-). This is possible, but since the Gt‑stem often has reciprocal meaning, it cannot be excluded that the form is a genuine Gt‑stem with reduplication (interchange of reciprocal Dt and Gt is also known from râmu ‘to love’ and šanānu ‘to compete’ in Old Babylonian; see GAV p. 327. 7.  Cf. also Imp Fem utlalī in a PN from OB Mari: Ištar-ut-la-li ARM 7, 31:3, 71:3. The alternative Imp utelli, listed in AHw 1444a s.v. utlellû as utelle (TIM 9, 41:35; MDP 57, 16: IV 19–20) does not belong here, since it is the non-reduplicated counterpart of utlelli and therefore an ordinary Dt imperative. 8.  In tuza(qa)qquru with the metathesis required by the sibilant; cf. §14.5.1 (p. 383). 9.  One wonders whether the tablet actually has ut where the MSL edition reads [t]a!, but there is no published copy to verify this. On the other hand, this type of violation of the vowel assimilation rule also occurs in other forms, especially in the Št2‑stem of II/voc verbs: šutakūnu, etc.; see §2.4 (p. 47) and §16.5.3.4 (p. 487).

15.2.  The Dtr‑Stem

441

Insofar as the form and meaning of these instances can be established beyond doubt, they can be interpreted as Dt forms with reduplication of R2, and their meaning is in full conformance with the usual functions of the Dt‑stem: the first six are reciprocal, either in the strict sense of doing things to one another or in the wider sense of coming together, and no. 7 is iterative, a form of verbal plurality. For nos. 8 and 9, the Sumerian equivalents point to some kind of repetition as well, but the exact nuance cannot established Not all forms listed above are straightforward in their interpretation; in particular, those of elû and danānu are controversial. Most Old Babylonian forms of elû Dtr come from mathematical texts, where the context reveals their exact meaning, see (01): (01) MKT 1 p. 239:2 (among ten brothers, an inheritance of 1 2/3 minas of silver must be divided in such a way that) aḫum eli aḫim ú-te-le-le ‘(each) brother has an equally higher share than (his next younger) brother’10 A Dt form of elû (normally ūtellē) fits the context perfectly (‘to be made or become high(er), rise’). Therefore, following GAG §107t we can interpret ú-te-le-le as ūtelellē, a Dt imperfective with additional reduplication of R2, which serves here to underline the step-by-step increase in the share of each (older) brother (cf. O. Neugebauer’s commentary in MKT 1 p. 242). This means that ūtelellē and its Pfv ūtelellī are related to the usual Dt forms of elû ‘to be(come) high, go up’ in the same way that the Impfv uktaṣaṣṣar to uktaṣṣar and the Pfv uzzakakkir to uzzakkir, etc. In literary texts, elû Dtr has acquired a different meaning, something like ‘to become higher and higher, be elevated or praised ever higher’ (with gods, etc., as subject) and also occurs in other forms, which allows us to reconstruct its conjugation and hence that of the Dtr‑stem in general, which is confirmed by the other verbs; see table 15.1: regular Dt

Dtr strong verb

Dtr elû

from original ʿly:

Impfv

uptarras

uptararras

ūtelellē

*yuʿtalallay11

Pfv

uptarris

uptararris

ūtelellī

*yuʿtalalliy

Imp

putarris

putrarris

utlellī

*ʿut(a)lalliy

Inf

putarrusu

putrarrusu

utlellû

*ʿut(a)lalluyum

PrPartc

muptarrisu

*muptararrisu

mutlellû(!)

*muʿtalalliyum

Table 15.1: The paradigm of the Dtr‑stem.

There are—not surprisingly—no t‑perfect or stative forms of this stem. In the non-prefix forms, the vowel syncope rule regularly eliminates the vowel after the t-infix: Inf *pŭtărarrusu > putrarrusu. The attested present participle, however, (only SB) is irregular, since it should not undergo vowel syncope: the expected form is *mūtelellû (Kienast 1957b: 44). This suggests that mutlellû 10.  A possible additional instance is ur-ta-ba-bu-ú Sumer 7, 152:54′, apparently based on the Dt‑stem of rabû ‘to be(come) big’. The context is too broken for an interpretation, cf. CAD R 48b s.v. rabû A 8, but the parallel with the use of elû Dt in (01) suggests that it might well have the same meaning of ‘to increase step by step’. 11.  Phonologically, the imperfective *yuʿtalallay should become ūtelellī in Babylonian (GAG §11a) and thus coincide with the perfective. I assume, however, that the contrast was maintained or restored by introducing e in the imperfective by analogy with the strong paradigm and forms such as ušeppeš – ušēpiš from epēšu Š (see chap. 17 n. 123, p. 549). This is the regular procedure, as argued in §17.6.3.3 (pp. 548–550), but there is no orthographic or other evidence to verify this particular instance.

442

The Dtr‑Stem  15.2.

is an artificial literary creation.12 In conclusion, the putative verb utlellû is a Dt‑stem of elû with additional reduplication of R2 and it is parallel to the other verbs listed above.13 The most problematic Dtr‑stem is that of danānu. All forms can be explained as Dtr‑stems, although some of them are ambiguous, namely, those in which the t-infix, assimilated to d, is not written explicitly, such as the Prec li-da-na-an-ni-in.14 The question is what it means. On the assumption that it comes from the verb danānu ‘to be(come) strong’15 and because it occurs in Old Babylonian omen apodoses in a reciprocal (02) and “pseudo-reciprocal” construction (03), the translation in CAD D 86b s.v. danānu 4 ‘to contend for superiority’ may be plausible but remains a matter of speculation:16 (02) YOS 10, 47:80 // 48:18 atta u nakirka tu(-ud)-da-na-an-na-na ‘you and your enemy will contend for superiority’ (03) YOS 10, 47: 74–75 ana nakrīka tu-ud-da-na-an-na-an / nakirka ú-da-na-an-na-kum17 ‘you will contend for superiority with your enemy / your enemy will contend for superiority with you’ (also YOS 10, 25:21 with ud-da-na-an-na-na-ak-kum and partly restored in YOS 10, 42: III 7 tu-da-n[a-an-na]-an) A duplicate of YOS 10, 47 has the corresponding forms without reduplication (04), which are again attested in Standard Babylonian (05): (04) YOS 10, 48:12–13 ana nakrīka tu-da-na-an (. . .) nakirka ú-da-na-na-ku (05) KAR 423: I 61–62 nakirka ša ú-da-na-nak-ka [ul i]mangurka imangurka ‘your enemy, who contends with you for superiority, will or will not submit to you’18 Finally, there is a reduplicated form of the same root in a different context: (06) RitDiv. 31:29 (OB) kaskasum imittam ana qerbēnum likpiṣ li-da-na-an-ni-in šumēlam lipparqid ‘on the right side, let the breastbone be bent inward, let it . . . ; on the left side, let it be bent backward’ (also RitDiv. 34:86 with left/right interchanged, and restored in 89)

12.  A difficult form is the Prec li-te-et-li (SB, contrasting with OB lītelelli). It looks like a Gt precative of *telû, but it occurs in the same text as the Imp utlelli and has the same Sumerian equivalent; is it perhaps an error for li-te-le-li? See also von Soden 1950a: 396 for further speculations. 13.  This makes Rundgren’s (1959b) speculations about utlellû superfluous. He claims that it contains a trace of the West Semitic causative with the prefix ʾ/h-, that it is directly related to the Geʿez formations based on the secondary root lʿl (laʿala, yəlʿal ‘to be high, superior’ and its derivations; see CDG 303–304 s.v. laʿala), and that it represents a secondary quadriradical or even longer root. 14.  On closer inspection, however, this form must contain a geminate -dd-, since otherwise the vowel syncope rule would apply, because the precative prefix li- has a short vowel (see §9.2.1.2, p. 214). 15.  However, AHw 160a s.v. danānu III translates ‘Vertretung übernehmen’, assuming a relationship with dinānu and andunānu ‘replace­ment, representation’. This does not seem very appropriate in the available contexts. 16.  I.e., with one of the actors introduced by itti or a dative; see §10.8.3.5 (p. 265) and Streck 2003a: 83–84. 17.  It seems that the form ú-da-na-an-na-kum is a case of haplography for ú-da-na-an-na-⟨ na⟩-kum. Otherwise, the gemination of the final n is unusual (in spite of §16.6.1, pp. 493–494), unless we read udanannakkum < udanannankum. However, all other forms have ‑akkum rather than ‑kum. 18.  Cf. also KAR 428:24 šarru ellātūšu ú-dan-na-na-šu-ma kú[r . . .] ‘the military forces of the king will contend for superiority with him and [. . .] the enemy’.

15.2.  The Dtr‑Stem

443

This passage is also problematic. The editor, I. Starr, translates ‘let it be of even thickness’, following CAD D 86b s.v. danānu 4 ‘to become of even thickness’; this introduces a reciprocal nuance. On the basis of other Dtr forms quoted above, one could also consider ‘let it gradually become thicker’ or the like. Whatever the exact meaning of danānu Dtr may eventually prove to be, what we can infer from the available evidence does not contradict the claim made above concerning its appurtenance to the Dtr‑stem, with the form and function as defined above. This leads to the conclusion that in Old Babylonian the Dt‑stem could be extended through reduplication of R2 to underline two manifestations of verbal plurality: plurality of the subject in reciprocal verbs and iterativity in elû Dtr. This extension was optional, as is clear from parallel forms without reduplication. It is attested in a few verbs only, but it is sufficiently consistent in form and function to grant it the status of a derived verbal stem, albeit dependent on the Dt‑stem.19 It still has a faint echo in Standard Babylonian in the reuse of elû Dtr in a slightly different meaning. I am not aware of comparable forms in Assyrian. All other forms that have been claimed to be R‑stems are to be explained differently or remain of obscure interpretation.20 However, a difficult case that seems to defy analysis for the time being is the verb utnēnu or utnennu ‘to pray, supplicate’ (+ Dat or Acc).21 In Old Babylonian, it has two imperfective forms, a short form ūtennen (ú-te-en-né-en KUB 37, 72: r.8) and a long form ūtenenne/in (ú-te-ne-en-ne-en St. Reiner p. 188:2, ú-te-ne-en-ne-[en] YOS 9, 54c:1, and ú-lu-tene-ni-in AbB 10, 111: r.3 [for /ul ūtenennin/]). It also has a perfective that is parallel to the long imperfective: *ūtenennin, reconstructible from the precative lūtenennin (lu-te-ne-ni-in AbB 10, 111: r.5; cf. F. R. Kraus’s n. 111c on p. 103).22 We might interpret the long forms as Dtr forms parallel to the ones mentioned above with an imperfective/perfective opposition ūtenennen – ūtenennin, like ūtelellē – ūtelellī and the short imperfective form ūtennen accordingly as an ordinary Dt imperfective, but there is no obvious semantic motivation for using reduplication, in marked contrast to the other cases. Alternatively, we might be tempted to take the long forms as a kind of tan‑stems, but this is invalidated by the fact that the nasal part of the tan-infix is nowhere else attested outside the imperfective (see §14.7.6, pp. 432–433). In Standard Babylonian, we find an imperfective and a perfective utnen, pl. utnennū/ā (only 1st and 3rd p.) with a precative lit-nen BAM 3, 316: VI 10 // STT 95:90. This is parallel to the conjugation of the II/H verbs (e.g., Impfv ibêl, ibellū, Pfv ibēl, ibēlū), so it is presumably utnēn. But there is also another precative li-te-nin Hém. 94:41, which fits the Old Babylonian 19.  Cf. Hirsch (1967: 326; 1975: 319), who considers the R‑stems “Modifizierungen gesicherter Stämme.” 20.  Kienast’s (1957b) i-ša-na-na-ʾ-šu BKBM 34:65 from šanāʾu ‘to obstruct’ is read i-ša-an-na-ʾ-šu by the dictionaries (AHw 1162b s.v. šanāʾu I G 1; CAD Š/1 371a s.v. 1). The form [tu-u]š-ta-ḫa-lal-lal BVW p. 9:12 (MA), for which Kienast (1961: 60) questioningly considers a ŠTR‑stem of ḫalālu, is too obscure to justify positing a special R‑stem. If the enigmatic form namašši/ušu (CAD N 220b s.v. namāšu lex. sect. and 223a comm. sect. and Whiting 1981: 11–13) is related to namāšu ‘to go’, it is a case of reduplication of R3, but it may rather be from a verb *mašāšu, whatever its meaning (it is mentioned alongside a Prec li-im-ma-ši-iš-ku, an Impfv ta-ma-ša-aš and a t‑Pf it-ta-am-ša-aš [cf. CAD N 223a], all pointing to mašāšu N). This is strongly reminiscent of the verbs of the naparruru group discussed in §12.3 (pp. 301–305), with namaššušu alongside *mašāšu just as naparruru beside parāru (in this case, namaššusu is the original form and namaššišu secondary). Moreover, namašši/ušu is a noun and therefore inadequate as evidence for the existence of an R‑stem. 21.  See AHw 1444b; GAG §107v; von Soden 1952b: 179–81. 22.  The Pfv ut-ni-in UM 1/1, 2:37 = St. Sjöberg p. 326:79, reported by AHw 1347a s.v. tē/īnīnu(m) and 1444b s.v. utnēnu(m) II 1, is uncertain: W. G. Lambert (St. Sjöberg p. 326:79) reads the signs pa-ni še-er-t [išu] ‘when confronted with [his] guilt’.

444

Deverbal Nouns with Reduplication  15.3.

imperfective ūtenennen (formally: a Dtn imperfective versus perfective). The infinitive utnēnu or utnennu is only attested as a noun ‘prayer’ (AHw 1444 s.v. u. I). It does not seem possible to derive it from another form by any existing rules, like utlellû from ūtelellē/ī. Even more erratic is the present participle mutnennû ‘pious, prayerful’ (CAD M/2 301 s.v. and AHw 688b s.v.), since it seems to have a weak final radical. According to GAG §107v, it is a “Reimwortbildung zu mutlellû”), which is questionable because of their radically different meanings. The verb utnēnu/ utnennu is doubtless related to the noun unnē/īnu ‘prayer’, but this does not account for the infixed t and unnē/īnu has a problematical form itself.23

15.3.  Deverbal Nouns with Reduplication The role of reduplication in Akkadian nouns is not very prominent either, yet more varied than in the verb. There is a fairly large group of unmotivated nouns with reduplication, for the most part consisting of the repetition of a CVC element and predominantly referring to animate beings and concrete objects. Since they bear no relation to the verbal paradigm, they will not concern us here.24 Reduplication in motivated words, on the other hand, i.e., those that are derivable from a—usually verbal—root, is marginal. With inflectional function, it seems to be restricted to the plural formation of a single noun: the pl. alkakātu from alaktu ‘gait, course, behaviour’. In addition, there are several sporadic patterns of deverbal (rarely denominal) nouns with different types of reduplication: (1) reduplication of a complete triradical root may occur in gurušgaraš ‘vulva’ (SB LL); cf. garāšu in the meaning ‘to have sexual intercourse’. (2) reduplication of a CvC syllable—which does not occur in the verbal paradigm itself (see §12.6.1, pp. 319–320)—characterizes a small number of deverbal nouns (see GAG §57a/b): lillidu ‘offspring’ (< *lidlid‑) from walādu ‘to give birth’, māmītu ‘oath’ (< *maʾmiʾt‑) from wamû ‘to swear’ (where reduplication is a means of boosting a biradical noun; see §16.2.4, p. 460), birbirrū ‘luminosity’ from barāru ‘to glow’, ziqziqqu ‘storm’ from zâqu ‘to blow’ (of the wind), ḫalḫallatu (a musical instrument) from ḫalālu ‘to whistle’, ḫapḫappu ‘lower part of a door’ from ḫapāpu ‘to batter, knock’ (A. Livingstone, NABU 1988/65), and perhaps puḫpuḫḫû/u, if AHw’s (876 s.v.) interpretation ‘Kampf­schnauben, Streit’ and etymology (from napāḫu ‘to blow’) are correct. Derived from an adjective are dandannu ‘strong’, babbanû ‘beautiful’, kaškaššu ‘overpowering’, sarsarru ‘treacherous’ and lašlašu ‘worthless’ (AHw 1571a s.v.), which are strengthened forms of dannu, banû, kaššu, sarru, and laššu, respectively.25 Denominal is šeršerru ‘chain’ and šeršerratu ‘chain, fetters’ from šertu ‘ring’ (A. Livingstone, NABU 1988/65) (3) Reduplication of R2 also occurs in a small number of deverbal nouns (see GAG §55r): dababābu ‘twaddle’ from dabābu ‘to talk’, ḫananābu ‘a sweet fruit’ from ḫanābu ‘to grow abundantly’,26 and zuqāqīpu (with variants) ‘scorpion’, from zaqāpu ‘to rear up’. This type also comprises some abstract nouns: tum(m)ă/āmītu or tam(m)ă/āmītu ‘oath’ from tamû ‘to swear’ 23.  Utnēnum and Unnēnum (in various spellings) occur already in Ur III Babylonian as proper names: Ut5(= ùz)-ne-nu-um, Ut5-ne-nu-uš, Ut5-nen-nu-uš, and Ut5-nen9-nu-uš are attested, alongside Ú-ne-nu-um, Un-ne-nu, Un-ne:nu-uš, and Un-ni-núm (Hilgert 2002: 498). 24.  A brief discussion, classification and enumeration can be found in GAV pp. 39–42. A recent discussion is Unseth 2003. 25.  For sarsarru, cf. lúsar-sar-a-ni SAA 9, 3: II 10 (NA lit.) with S. Parpola’s note. 26.  I have listed these words in the form given by the dictionaries, but the vowel syncope rule (see §2.4, pp. 46–48) requires that the first and/or second syllable of these words be long, presumably dababbābu or dabābābu, etc.

15.4.  Derived Verbal Stems with Reduplication in Other Semitic Languages

445

and ṣum(m)ă/āmû or ṣum(m)ă/āmītu ‘thirst’ from ṣamû ‘to be(come) thirsty’.27 An intriguing instance is the couple pi-in-na-ru and pi-in-na-na-ru MSL 17, 38:220–21, equated with Sum. ellagx(bir).gùn and ellagx.gùn.gùn respectively, the first of which seems to indicate a kind of cheese (see CAD P 383–84 ss.vv.). The Sumerian equivalent suggests a plural or intensive meaning for pi-in-na-na-ru; this is very remarkable for a noun that is not deverbal. (4) Reduplication of R3 is also sporadically used in deverbal nouns: išbabtu (a kind of grass or weed) from ešēbu ‘to grow luxuriantly’, za/iqīqu (or zā/īqīqu) ‘phantom, ghost, soul, dream god’, from zâqu ‘to blow’ (of the wind), and naw/mrirrū or naw/mrīrū ‘awe-inspiring luminosity’ from nawāru ‘to shine brightly’.28 GAG3 §56o* posits a pattern PuRSāSī with diminutive/ pejorative meaning on the basis of bun(n)annû ‘appearance, features’, ḫubšāšû (a type of cup), sūqāqû ‘alley’ (cf. sūqu ‘street’), and upšāšû ‘witchcraft’ from epēšu in the technical sense ‘to practise witchcraft’ (CAD E 228–29 s.v. 2f–1′). If this is correct, kulbābu ‘ant’ (denominal from kalbu ‘dog’?) and burmāmu ‘porcupine’ from the adjective barmu ‘multicoloured’ may represent the related shorter form PuRSāS. Finally, the noun pērūrūtu (LL and as PN), which seems to mean ‘little mouse’ or the like, presupposes a diminutive noun pērūrum < *paʾrūrum, cognate to Ar faʾr ‘rat’ (see CAD P 420 s.v. pirurūtu and SED II pp. 224–25).

15.4.  Derived Verbal Stems with Reduplication in Other Semitic Languages In other Semitic languages, the use of reduplication as a verbal marker is also marginal but more common and more varied than in Akkadian. These languages show the following major types: 1.  There are numerous quadriradical verbs of the C1C2C1C2 type;29 many of them are typically onomatopoeic and/or denote repetitive actions, e.g., Ar waswasa ‘to whisper, suggest (evil)’, baqbaqa ‘to gurgle, prattle’, and saʾsaʾa ‘to call a donkey by shouting saʾsaʾ  ’ (Fleisch 1968: 130). Others are expressive or intensive derivations of a simple verb, such as Ar ṣarṣara ‘to shout’ from ṣarra (idem) and faxfaxa ‘to be a braggart’ from faxara ‘to boast’. Hebrew has some corresponding verbs that are usually described as belonging to a derived stem Pilpel, a variant of Piel, e.g., gilgẹl ‘to roll’ (Joüon and Muraoka 1991: 169), and among the vast number of Geʿez quadriradical verbs, there are many of this type, e.g., walwala ‘to hesitate’, fadfada ‘to be numerous’ (Tropper 2002: 130). Generally speaking, these reduplicated verbs are not recognized as a separate derived verbal stem, since they follow the conjugation of the D‑stem (see §4.6.2, pp. 123–125). 27.  Testen (2006: 146–49) plausibly argues that the nouns of the vowel pattern u‑ā-i are originally diminutive derivatives of nouns with a geminated middle radical, e.g., zuqāqīpu from an agent noun *zaqqāp‑ or a PuRRuS noun *zuqqup‑. An alternative explanation by J. Halévy apud Brockelmann (1908: 247): iqṭibûni but iqṭíbiū remains. As I stated above, some of the exceptional cases of vowel contraction in Old Assyrian are of the same nature as these Neo-Assyrian forms, and this also applies to Middle Assyrian exceptions such as ú-ṣu-né KAR 154:6 ‘they will come out’ from waṣû (for uṣṣuʾūné < uṣṣaʾūnim) and ú-še-lu-ni KAV 98:22 ‘they brought out’ (Subj) from elû Š (instead of ušēli yūni). This means that the Neo-Assyrian contraction rule operated occasionally many centuries before it became a fully-fledged rule.195 The conclusion about vowel contraction in Middle and Neo-Assyrian is that the former fairly closely resembles Old Assyrian in that there is no regular occurrence of contraction, but that in Neo-Assyrian the number of contracted forms greatly increases. The details of the situation in Neo-Assyrian still have to be worked out.

16.7.2.4.  Further developments in Babylonian In Babylonian, the original forms have undergone rather drastic changes as a result of contraction of the final vowel with the ending. Ur III Babylonian and Archaic Babylonian regularly show uncontracted vowels (A. Westenholz 1978: 164a; Hilgert 2002: 167, 462 n. 77; Whiting 1987: 17). Contraction starts between the Archaic and the Early Old Babylonian stages (see §1.4.1.2.2, p. 13), and in Classical Old Babylonian all adjacent vowels regularly contract, except i + a, which is preserved until the end of the Old Babylonian period. The general rule is that the outcome of the contraction is a long vowel—traditionally indicated by a circumflex accent—of the same quality as the final vowel, except for a/e + i, which becomes ê (GAG §16):196 • i + a > â (in late Old Babylonian), e.g., tâmtu ‘sea’ < tiāmtum, iqâš ‘he gives’ < iqīaš (see §16.5.2, p. 477), iqabbâ ‘he said to me’ < iqabbiam • u + a > â, e.g., mullâm ‘to fill’ < mulluam (D Inf Acc of malû), imât ‘he dies’ < imūat, itrâm ‘he brought here’ < itruam • i + u > û, e.g., rabû ‘big’ < rabium, iqabbû ‘they say’ < iqabbiū • u + i > î, e.g., mullîm ‘to fill’ < mulluim (D Inf Gen of malû), hudî ‘rejoice!’ (Fem) < ḫuduī 195.  Another example of this phenomenon is the rule that u > a before a stressed ū, which is regular in Neo-Assyrian and is attested from time to time in Middle Assyrian, and sporadically even in Old Assyrian; see §2.4 with n. 58 there (p. 49). 196.  Occasionally, uncontracted forms appear as residual forms (cf. n. 107, p. 477, concerning the II/voc verbs), e.g., ni-pu-a-at AbB 9, 238:4, 7 ‘distrainees’ (with i-ne-ep-pi-ú and li-ip-pi-ú from nepû ‘to take as pledge’ in lines 6 and 9), and the PN Mu-ḫa-di-um JCS 9, 92 no. 58:2 beside Mu-ḫa-du-um JCS 9, 65 no. 19:13, a D‑stem present participle of ḫadû ‘to rejoice’. In literary texts, they are not uncommon as archaisms; in Old Babylonian, for instance, we find (lā) mu-pa-ar-ki-um RIME 4, 51:8 (RI) ‘unceasing’ from naparkû, ra-bi-um KH r.XXVI 98 ‘great’ (beside ra-bu-um KH r.XXVI 45), ba-ka-i-iš /bakāʾiš/ St. Reiner 190:5 ‘in order to cry’ from bakû, ša‑ma-a-i CT 15, 4: II 3 ‘heaven’ (Gen) from šamû, la-lu-ú-am ZA 44, 34: 32 ‘desire’ (Acc) from lalû, and ša-ḫi-ú-um ‘pig’ ZA 75, 198:21, 200:58 instead of šaḫû.

16.7.  The III/voc Verbs

507

• a + u > û, e.g., qabû ‘to say’ (Inf Nom) < qabāʾum, it-mu-ú ‘they swore’ < itmaʾū (but see below for a + u > ô) • a + i > ê, e.g., ša-ma-al-le-e AbB 2, 87:7 ‘my assistant’ (< *šamallāʾī), qabê ‘my words’ (lit. my speaking, Inf Nom/Acc) < qabāʾī, qabêya ‘my words’ (idem, Gen) < qabāʾīya The fact that these vowel contractions also occur in other parts of the language in the same period shows that they are a phonological process rather than a morphophonemic one.197 Four additional issues regarding Babylonian merit a brief mention: the impact of vowel syncope, developments in the form of the infinitive and the past participle, the spread of final ‑ī where we expect final ‑ū, and the contraction of a and u to ō, attested in a few Old Babylonian texts. First, vowel syncope has led to a different outcome in Babylonian than it did in Assyrian: there is no difference between forms that have undergone vowel syncope and forms that have not, e.g., the 3mp t‑Pf iqtabû and the 3mp Stat qabû do not differ from the corresponding Impfv iqabbû and the Pfv iqbû. The easiest way to account for this is to assume that vowel syncope in Babylonian always led to lento forms. Thus, it did not cause a total syncope of the original full vowel but replaced it with an ultra-short vowel (qab iū, qib iā, iqtab iū, etc.), which was written as an ordinary short vowel, or was counted as one where contraction was concerned, or which developed back to an ordinary short vowel later on.198 The presence of such a secondary (ultra‑)short vowel is indirectly confirmed by the development of deverbal PiRS forms of III/voc verbs. These nouns never had a vowel between the two final radicals, and the cluster of R2 and y or w developed according to the pertinent phonological rule (GAG §15b): loss of the semi-vowel and compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel, e.g., šīsu < *šisyum ‘call’ from šasû (ī) ‘to call’, mīnu < *minwum ‘number, amount’ from manû (ū) ‘to count’, and nīšu ‘raising’ < *nišʾum from našû (ī, originally III/ ʾ) ‘to lift, carry’. The fact that the clusters that originally did have a vowel in between developed in a different way suggests that this vowel did not become lost completely. On the other hand, there can be little doubt that rigorous application of the rule concerning clusters of consonant plus semi-vowel would result in forms so deviating from those of the strong verb and so different from the corresponding forms without ending (e.g., **qābū, **qībā, **iqtābū; cf. Krebernik 2006: 88–89) that they were bound to be brought into line by means of analogical restructuring. Second, a consequence of vowel contraction in Babylonian is that the infinitive and the past participle coincided in the Nom but not in the other two cases, see Table 16.13:199

197.  Diem (1977: 27–28) argues against this, claiming that in Babylonian only identical vowels were contracted (2fs tabannî < *tabannī+ī from banû (I/i) ‘to build’ and imannû < imannū+ū from manû U/u ‘to count’) and that forms with non-identical vowels, such as 3mp ibannû (< ibanniū) and 3fp ibannâ ( banâku). He needs to resort to analogy with the personal prefixes, which is unconvincing. 198.  Or, alternatively, that vowel syncope did not work in III/voc verbs, but this is unlikely in the light of its general pervasiveness in Akkadian. 199.  See also Poebel 1939: 116–17; Huehnergard 1987b: 188–91; and A. Westenholz 1991: 10–11.

508

The III/voc Verbs  16.7. Infinitive

Past Participle

Nom

qabû

< *qabāʾum

qabû

< *qabiyum

Gen

qabê

< *qabāʾim

qabî

< *qabiyim

Acc

qabâ

< *qabāʾam

qabia

< *qabiyam

Table 16.13:  Vowel contraction in the Babylonian infinitive and past participle.

The original pattern of the infinitive still occurs in Old and Standard Babylonian in forms such as qabāšu ‘his words’200 and qabê ‘my words’ < qabāʾī (GAG §16g). Interestingly, the identity of infinitive and past participle in the nominative has led to the use of the accusative of the latter as accusative of the infinitive: cf. forms such as ka-li-a AbB 14, 155:15 ‘to keep’ from kalû, ali-a-am AbB 14, 123:4 ‘to go /come up’ from elû, and qa-bi-am OBHorn 2, 61:7 ‘promise’, lit., ‘speaking’, from qabû.201 Third, the categories that in the strong verb have the stem vowel u (the stative, infinitive, and past participle—e.g., purrus(u) for the D‑stem), sometimes show i instead of u in the III/voc verbs of Babylonian, e.g., ḫi-[t]a-ri-a-am AbB 10, 177:28 (OB) Inf Gtn of ḫerû ‘to dig’, na-qáal-pí-a-am AbB 12, 11:22 (OB), Inf Š of the quadriradical verb neqelpû ‘to sail downstream’, šit-ni BWL 40:43 (SB) ‘it is different’, 3ms Gt stative of šanû, and ku-pi ACh. Spl. 7:22 (SB) ‘it is blunt’, 3ms stative D of kepû. These forms may be a side-effect of the overall tendency to replace final ‑ū by ‑ī in the verbal system, which was discussed in §3.5.3 (pp. 78–79).202 Fourth, in some varieties of Old Babylonian, the contraction of ā + u must have had a different outcome from u or i + u (A. Westenholz 1991, following Poebel 1939: 116–17), because it is fairly consistently distinguished in the spelling. In lexical texts from Nippur, the outcome of ā + u is expressed by means of plene writings with ⟨u4⟩ or ⟨u⟩, that of i + u and u + u by means of plene writings with ⟨ú⟩. Examples of the former (all taken from A. Westenholz 1991) include infinitives such as qá-bu-u-um ‘to speak’ < qabāʾum, nouns such as ša-mu-u4 ‘heaven’ < šamāʾū, ru-bu-u4 ‘prince’ < rubāʾum, and mu-u4 ‘water’ < māʾū, the possessive pronoun ku-u4-um ‘yours’ < kuāʾum, and Sumerian loan words such as la-lu-u4-um ‘desire’ < lalāʾum and tap-pu-u ‘companion’ < tappāʾum. The uncontracted forms are attested in Assyrian. These spellings contrast with others in the same lists that use ⟨ú⟩, such as ra-bu-ú ‘big’ < rabium, ša-nu-ú-um ‘different’ < šanium, du-uš-šu-ú ‘to make abundant’ < *duššuHum, and du-lu-ú-tum ‘hoisting device’ from the III/ū verb dalû ‘to hoist’. A. Westenholz argues convincingly that the use of ⟨u⟩ and ⟨u4⟩ in these particular texts represents the vowel /ô/, not only long ô in the instances quoted above, but also short /o / in the vicinity of /r/ and /ḫ/, in u4-ru-ḫu ‘hair’ (1991: 15 no. 44) and (mê) u4-ḫu-li ‘suds’ (1991: 16 no. 81).203 200.  This form is in principle both nominative and accusative, but ā was reinterpreted as accusative ending, which gave rise to a new nominative qabûšu, etc.; see CAD Q 19–21 s.v. qabû A s. for references. Likewise, in the construct state of the genitive, original qabā(ʾ) was replaced by qabê by analogy with the nominative qabêm < qabāʾim (Huehnergard 1987b: 188–91); see also CAD Q 20–21 s.v. qabû A s. 5. 201.  See also Aro 1971: 247–48. This phenomenon is particularly common in III/H verbs (see §17.8.4, p. 583). 202.  GAG 3 §105l* also mentions the D stative kurrī ‘it is short’ in this context (ku-ur-ri-a AfO 18, 63:16 (OB) and elsewhere), but it is conceivable that this adjective actually has the diminutive pattern PuR(R)ayS > PuR(R)īS in Babylonian (GAG3 §55k–k*). 203.  A recurrent exception to the distribution of ⟨u4⟩ and ⟨u⟩ versus ⟨ú⟩ is represented by several infinitives of derived stems of III/voc verbs. They show ⟨u⟩ or ⟨u4⟩, although their contracted vowel is from u + u: mu-uṭ-ṭù-u4 ‘to diminish’ (A. Westenholz 1991: 14 no. 13), ru-ud-du-u ‘to add’ (no. 38) and [ṭub]-bu-u

16.7.  The III/voc Verbs

509

The change of a + u > ô is parallel to that of a + i > ê. In other texts, traces of this kind of contraction are exceptional: they have been found in two Old Babylonian legal texts from Nippur: BE 6/2, 30 distinguishes between it-mu-u4 ‘they swore’ < itmaʾū in 26 and iq-bu-ú ‘they said’ < iqbiū in 18, and UM 8/1, 82 has (lā) e-el-qù-u-ma ‘I did not take’ (Subj in oath) in line 11 versus šuú-ma ‘he’ with an original ū in line 3. Apart from these instances, the extent of this phenomenon in terms of both chronology and geography is therefore hard to determine.204 The derived stems of the III/ī and III/ū verbs offer few further points of interest. As is usual, the final radical, which is also the root vowel, adapts to the pattern of the form in question and is thus replaced by ā, ī, or ū according to whether the strong verb has a, i, or u. For instance, the common Š‑stem of rašû (ī) ‘to get, acquire’ has an Impfv ušaršā (~ ušapras), a Pfv ušaršī (~ ušapris) and a stative (Bab) šuršū (~ šuprus). When a vocalic ending is attached, the normal rules for vowel contraction apply. ‘to immerse’ (no. 19); these occur side by side with “correct” forms. A. Westenholz (1981: 18) is probably right in regarding them as analogical influence of the G infinitive. 204.  Other attempts to find a vowel o/ō in Akkadian are unconvincing and/or based on incorrect premises or methodological errors, especially the attempts of W. von Soden 1948; GAG 3 §8c–c*, §9e–f; and von Soden and Röllig 1991: xxiv); cf. Gelb 1955b: 97–98 and Reiner 1973: 47–48.

Chapter 17

The Verbs with Gutturals

17.1. Introduction A striking characteristic of the Semitic language family is the presence of a number of pharyngeal and laryngeal consonants, to which I will refer collectively as “gutturals.” From the earliest documented stages of Akkadian onward, they are involved in a process of weakening and loss, which often led to drastic changes in individual verb forms and subsequent analogical restructurings. As a result, there are hardly any areas of Akkadian grammar where more changes can be observed over time and where the differences between the dialects are more profound than in the verbs with gutturals. The gradual loss of the gutturals was initially remedied by replacing the lost guttural with a glide or hiatus, which leaves the structure of the forms intact. This is the usual procedure in Sargonic Akkadian and Assyrian. In Babylonian, however, the glide or hiatus was lost in a very early stage and the adjacent vowels were contracted (see §16.7.2.4, pp. 506–507). This disrupted the structure of the form itself and of its paradigm. The usual repair mechanism was to adapt them to the already existing paradigms of the “old” weak verbs. This represents one of the most profound differences between Babylonian and the other dialects of Akkadian. This chapter starts with an account of how to identify the gutturals in cuneiform spelling (§17.2) and a brief description of their phonological development (§17.3). Next, it deals with the specifically Babylonian phenomena of the “strong aleph” (§17.4) and the “E‑paradigm” (§17.5). Finally, it describes the main aspects of the paradigm of the verbs that originally contained a guttural: the I/voc verbs in §17.6, the II/H verbs in §17.7, and the III/H verbs in §17.8.

17.2. The Rendering of Guttural Consonants in Cuneiform First, we have to discuss the general problem of how to identify the guttural consonants in a writing system that expresses them very imperfectly or not at all. Cuneiform writing was devised for Sumerian, which did not have equivalents for (most of) the Semitic gutturals and therefore had no signs for them. In third-millennium Akkadian, a small number of special signs were created for gutturals, but they are used inconsistently and do not recur in later periods. As a result, it is often hard to establish whether a guttural that we expect in a specific position on grounds of etymology is weakened or lost or whether it is present but simply not written. And even where it is written with one of the “special signs,” it may be uncertain whether the spelling is an accurate reflex of the pronunciation or a historical spelling. The problem is aggravated by the imperfect rendering of the other weak consonants, the semi-vowels or glides y and w, which often makes it difficult to decide in a given case whether we should posit the guttural that is etymologically justified or the glide into which we suspect it may have changed. Thus, in order to reconstruct the actual form of words containing a guttural, we have to rely largely on circumstantial evidence. We can distinguish five kinds: 510

17.2.  The Rendering of Guttural Consonants in Cuneiform

511

1.  A broken spelling, i.e., the use of a V‑sign or a VC‑sign in the middle of a word, points to a missing consonant that will normally be a (former) guttural (Reiner 1964: 169–70; 1966: 47–49). However, broken spellings have three obvious shortcomings. First, they only give information about gutturals in intervocalic and post-consonantal position. Second, they do not tell us which consonant is missing. Third, between identical vowels, they are ambiguous. In Old Assyrian, for instance, a spelling such as iš-ta-al from šâlu ‘to ask’ (originally II/  ʾ ) may stand for /ištâl/, /ištaʾal/ or /ištaʾʾal/, whereas áš(-a)-al ‘I asked’ and a-ša-ú-lu ‘they ask’ unambiguously stand for /ašʾal/ and /ašaʾʾulū/. 2.  A reliable Semitic etymology enables us to identify the (former) presence of a specific guttural and to investigate its development in Akkadian. This makes it possible to reconstruct the general development of the individual gutturals, and the results thereof can be applied to other words that do not have an obvious etymology. 3.  E-colouring, i.e., the raising of a to e in the vicinity of the two pharyngeal consonants *ʿ and *ḥ, is an important heuristic tool to establish their (former) presence and to distinguish them from the laryngeals ʾ and *h, which do not cause E‑colouring.1 Usually, the occurrence of E‑colouring accords with the Semitic etymology of a word. For instance, Akk emmu ‘hot’ and eršu ‘bed’ come from Proto-Semitic words that on the basis of West Semitic evidence started with the E‑colouring pharyngeals ḥ and ʿ (*ḥamm‑ and ʿarś‑), whereas aššatu ‘wife’ and alāku ‘to go / come’, which do not show E‑colouring, started with the laryngeals ʾ and h: *anθ‑ and *halāk‑. There are also cases, however, where E‑colouring is in conflict with the established etymology of a word. First, some Akkadian words do not have E‑colouring, although their West Semitic cognates contain ʿ or ḥ (Kogan 2001: 263–64; Militarev and Kogan 2000: lxxv–lxxvi). Examples include the nouns šârtu ‘hair’ (√ś ʿr; see SED 1, 231–32) and rādu ‘downpour’ (cf. Ar raʿd ‘thunder, storm’) and the verbs saʾālu ‘to cough’ (√š/sʿl; see SED 1, 318) and naʾāru ‘to roar’ (√nʿr ). Conversely, some Akkadian words show E‑colouring, although their West Semitic cognate points to an original ʾ or h. Most of these cases are due to the fact that E‑colouring can also be caused by other phonemes, such as ṣ, ḫ,and r, in particular in Babylonian (GAG §9b), e.g., in ṣeḫru ‘small, young’ (Sem √ṣġr) and erṣetu ‘earth’ (Sem ʾarṣ́‑).2 Some other cases cannot be explained so easily, however. A case in point are the two related words for (different kinds of?) shoe(s), which occur in Old Assyrian as šēnum and mašʾenum, in Babylonian as šēnu and mēšenu (see n. 31, pp. 519–520 below). The only way to account for these forms, especially for Ass mašʾenum,3 is to posit a root √ś ʿn, although the corresponding words in West Semitic point to √ś ʾn (He s  e  ʾōn, Geʿez śāʾn). I assume, therefore, that Proto-Semitic indeed had a root √ś ʿn (perhaps alongside √ś ʾn), from which the Akkadian forms regularly derive: šēnum from *śaʿn-, the other form from *maś ʿan-.

1.  See the next section for the reflexes of the gutturals in Akkadian and §17.5 (pp. 525–537) for the details of E‑colouring. 2.  In roots containing a guttural and r, it is often difficult to determine which of the two is responsible for E‑colouring. A case in point is erēšu ‘to ask’: according to AHw 239a s.v. erēšu II, it is related to Ugar/ He ʾrš, which points to *ʾ as R1. However, it shows E-forms already in Sargonic Akkadian (e.g., te-er-rí-iš /tērris/ SAB p. 162:8 (Diyala) ‘you ask’) and also consistently in Old Assyrian (GKT §90a). This makes it unlikely that e is solely due to the presence of r. Erēšu may instead come from √ʿrš; cf. Ar ʿarūs ‘fiancée’. 3.  Because only *ʿ becomes ʾ with E‑colouring in Old Assyrian, whereas *ḥ in this position is presumably dropped. I am not aware of convincing parallels from nouns, but post-consonantal *ḥ in the verb does not become ʾ but either becomes y or is dropped; see §17.7.3.2 (pp. 563–565) and §17.8.3 (pp. 576–581).

512

The Rendering of Guttural Consonants in Cuneiform  17.2.

Such cases are not common enough to invalidate the general phonological rule concerning the development of the gutturals, but they may complicate the reconstruction of individual forms. Where etymology and E‑colouring are in conflict, I will generally assume that Proto-Akkadian had the guttural we can reconstruct on the basis of internal Akkadian evidence and that the irregularity is due to developments that occurred between Proto-Semitic and Proto-Akkadian or between Proto-Semitic and (Proto-)West Semitic. This substitutes one problem for another but is at least supported by the fact that gutturals are generally rather unstable consonants that do not only show a widespread tendency to be dropped in the course of time but also change fairly easily from one to the other.4 This can amply be illustrated from internal West Semitic variation5 and from fluctuations between gutturals within a single language,6 as well as in Akkadian itself. A prominent instance of this phenomenon is erēšu ‘to cultivate’ from the well-attested Proto-Semitic root √ḥrθ, which accounts for the Babylonian verb erēšu and for the attested Sargonic Akkadian forms.7 However, Assyrian has arāšu (Impfv ērraš, Pfv ēruš) (GKT §13b; Deller 1965: 37), which suggests that for some reason the original *ḥ changed to *h or *ʾ before the earliest Assyrian texts (but cf. Gelb 1992: 138).8 In addition, Akkadian has a number of duplicate verbs, one of which is weak and has Ecolouring, whereas the other one has ḫ or a strong ʾ (see below) without E‑colouring: 1.  ebēlu (√ḥbl ) ≈ ḫabālu ‘to bind, catch (with a snare)’ (e-bé-lum MSL 15, 123 Diri II 26–27; gu.lá = ḫa-bi-lu, éš.lá = e-bí-lu MSL 12, 139:354–55, naḫbalum ‘net, snare’ and ḫābilu ‘hunter, trapper’) 2.  erēšu (√ḥr θ ) ‘to cultivate’ ≈ ḫarāšu (see Civil 1994: 174, who points to ḫa-ra-šum šá ab.sín MSL 14, 501:178; cf. also ḫarāšu D ‘to plant (trees)’ in CAD Ḫ 95b s.v. ḫ. A) 3.  lêmu (√lḥm) ‘to consume’ ≈ laḫāmu 4.  nêšu (√nḥš, based on SAk spellings with ⟨É⟩, see below) ‘to live, be(come) healthy’ ≈ naḫāšu ‘to thrive, be in good health’ 5.  *enēbu (only D and Gtn) (√ʿnb) ≈ ḫanābu ‘to bloom’, in the PNs (Ḫ)unnubu and Ḫunābu 6.  elēṣu (√ʿlṣ) ‘to rejoice’ ≈ ḫalāṣu (or ʾalāṣu?) ‘to make love’ in YOS 11, 24:22 lu-uḫ-taal-ṣa ‘let us (sic! make love’9 7.  bêlu (√bʿl  ) ‘to possess, rule’ ≈ baʾālu ‘to be(come) abnormally large’ 8.  pêṣu (√pḥṣ́ or phṣ́, see below) ‘to break into pieces’ ≈ paʾāṣu 9.  rêṣu ‘to come to aid’ ≈ raḫāṣu or raʾāṣu ‘to go /come in a hurry’ (see §17.7.1, p. 556; chap. 5, p. 134 n. 27; and chap. 16, pp. 475–476 n. 101). For raḫāṣu, cf. ra-aḫ-ṣa-am 4.  Fluctuation between different but related phonemes is a common phenomenon, which we can also observe between different sibilants, different dentals, etc.; cf. Militarev and Kogan 2000: lxxi–lxxvii. 5.  See, for instance, Blake 1915 regarding ʾ and h (e.g., Ar sahafa ‘to thirst’ ≈ He šāʾap ‘to gasp’ and Ar ʾafa/ika ≈ He hāpak) and Tropper 2000: 122 regarding irregular correspondences of Ugaritic with other languages. 6.  For Arabic, see Fleisch 1961: 76–78; for Geʿez, see Ullendorff 1955: 35–45; Leslau 1987: xix–xx; for Ugaritic, see Tropper 2000: 125–27 concerning fluctuations between ġ and ʿ. Individual instances include Ar lahima = laḥama ‘to consume’, lahasa = laḥisa ‘to lick’, fahaḍa = faḥaḍa ‘to crush’, and nabaʿa ‘to well, gush out’ alongside nabaġa ‘to emerge’. 7.  Enumerated in Hasselbach 2005: 269–70 s.v. erēšum I. 8.  The deverbal noun mēraštum ‘time of planting’ acc. to CAD M/224a s.v. mēreštu B 3 (ina me-ra-áštim ATHE 75:15) is to be explained as the result of the occasional a > e change in the vicinity of r (GKT §13d) rather than as a derivation of erāšum ‘to ask’, pace GKT §13b. 9.  For the translation as first-person dual, see chap. 14 n. 32 (p. 364); for the meaning, cf. ulṣu epēšu ‘to make love’ (CAD E 224a s.v. epēšu 2c ulṣu).

17.2.  The Rendering of Guttural Consonants in Cuneiform

513

ShA1, 110 no. 40:8 and 114 no. 43:12 (OB, presupposing A/a), and li-ir-ḫi-ṣa-am AbB 11, 1:15 (ArBab), presupposing I/i) 10.  ṣenû ‘to have diarrhoea’ (iṣ-né-e AbB 13, 66:9, see W. van Soldt’s n. 66b on p. 63) ≈ ṣanāḫu (no etym.) No doubt, some of these doublets originate from “inter-dialectal mixing” (Huehnergard 2003: 110–11). For instance, some of the variants with ḫ may be loans from West Semitic, as L. Kogan (JSS 47 [2002] 192) argues for ḫabālu, or they may come from a northern dialect in which ProtoSemitic gutturals were preserved and spelled with Ḫ-signs. This is supported by words quoted in Mari letters, where we find dialect forms such as ḫazzum ‘goat’ (< *ʿanzum) instead of regular Akk enzum and ḫarāru ‘to be(come) parched’ instead of erēru ‘to be(come) dry’ (see chap. 16, p. 493 n. 158). Others, however, may go back to coexisting root variants with a different guttural: *ḥ versus ḫ in nos. 1 to 4, *ʿ versus ḫ or “strong ʾ ” in nos. 5 to 7 (for nos. 8 and 9, see below). Such variants may have arisen, for instance, from assimilation in contact positions (see §2.3.3, p. 43). 4.  Specialized signs for gutturals are mostly restricted to third-millennium Akkadian (PreSargonic and Sargonic Akkadian and Eblaite), the period in which the gutturals themselves were more conspicuously present than in later periods. Most of them concern syllable-initial gutturals and semi-vowels. Those bearing directly on the status of these consonants in syllable-initial position are the following:10 •  é (often transliterated ʾà, but since this is inaccurate, I will use the name of the sign) renders /ḥa/ and more rarely /ha/ in SAk and Mari OAk, e.g., É-ra-šè /ḥarrāθē/ SAB p. 167:14′ (Diyala) ‘farmers’ (Gen) and É-wa-a-ti /hawātī/ SAB p. 40:18 (Adab) ‘my word’. This is already found in Ebla (Krebernik 1985: 57). The values /ḥa/ and /ha/ can be distinguished on the basis of the occurrence of E‑colouring in later dialects: e.g., Old Babylonian has errēšī versus awātī. • ⟨á⟩ (i.e., id) may be used for /ha/ alongside the normal sign ⟨a⟩ in SAk, e.g., á-lik (maḫrīsu) /hālik/ AKI p. 195 BS g (cp RI of Rimuš) ‘his forerunner’, and á-ni-ù-ud /hanniūt/ AKI p. 83:69 (RI of Naram-Sin) ‘these’ (Gen Pl Masc).11 • ⟨ì⟩ (i.e., ni) is specifically used for /  ʾi/ and presumably for /ʿi/ in contrast to ⟨i⟩, which renders /ḥi/ and especially /yi/, e.g., ì-lí /  ʾilī/ ‘my god’ in PNs (passim) versus i- /yi-/ in third-person verb forms such as i-ḫu-uz /yīḫuz/ SAB p. 143:8 (Kish) ‘he took’, and in the PN I-ma-ru-um MAD 3, 47, lit., ‘donkey’ < *ḥimārum. This distinction also occurs in Ebla (Krebernik 1985: 57). • ⟨ú⟩ and ⟨ù⟩ are used for /  ʾu/ in contrast to ⟨u⟩, which stands for /yu/ and /ḥu/, distinguishing especially the third-person of verb forms from the 1s, e.g., u-ru /yurū/ HSS 10, 171:9 (Gasur) ‘he led’ versus ù-dam-me-ki /  ʾutammēki/ or /‑meʾki/ Or. 46, 201:34 ‘I conjured you’ (incant. from Kish), and more rarely in nouns, e.g., ⟨u⟩ for /ḥu/ in the PN U-ba/bar-ru-um, lit., ‘friend’ (MAD 3, 14–15) < *ḥubārum (cf. ibrum ‘partner’,

10.  For the values of the specialized signs, see especially Gelb 1961: 24–28, 164–65 and Hasselbach 2005: 73–95 (for Sargonic Akkadian); A. Westenholz 1978: 161b, 167–68 (for Mari Old Akkadian); Krebernik 1985: 56–57 (for Eblaite). 11.  In other cases, however, ⟨á⟩ seems simply to represent /(ʾ)a/, e.g., in á-dum (mīnim) SAB p. 172: r.10 (Eshnunna) ‘why?’ and á-mu-ut ‘I die’ GAKI p. 361:33 (cp RI of Naram-Sin). This makes it a dubious source for the preservation of initial h in Sargonic Akkadian.

514

The Rendering of Guttural Consonants in Cuneiform  17.2.

√ḥbr), versus ⟨ú⟩ for /  ʾu/ in ú-gul-la-ì-su /  ʾukullāʾīsu/ SAB p. 143: 10 (Kish) ‘his ration’ (Gen) from akālu ‘to eat’.12 • ⟨àm⟩ indicates /  ʾam/ in forms such as àm-ḫur /  ʾamḫur/ SAB p. 51:7 (Adab) ‘I received’, ìr-àm /yirʾam/ ‘he conceived love’ in PNs (MAD 3, 230), and perhaps in u-ṣa(-ab)-bi-àm AKI p. 227:24 and p. 285:24 (cps RIs) ‘he waged war against me’ from the specifically Sargonic Akkadian D‑stem *ṣubbuʾum ‘to wage war’ (√ṣbʾ ), and thus perhaps /yuṣabbiʾam/. However, because of li-se11-rí-àm SAB p. 193:28 (Susa) ‘let him cause to bring here’, Š Prec of warû (ū), and ti-àm-tim AfO 25, 102 MAD 1, 192:2 ‘sea’ (Gen) < PSem *tihām‑, it is more likely that ⟨àm⟩ had a wider use, e.g., for /am/ preceded by a syllable boundary. • ⟨íb⟩ stands for /  ʾib/, mainly in forms of raʾābum ‘to replace’ (later râbu (ī); see §16.5.1, p. 475), such as ìr-íb-a-ḫu /yirʾib/ TB 1, 5: iii 7 (PSAk PN). On the other hand, ib/ip- in third-person verb forms is always written with ⟨ib⟩; cf. MAD 3 under verbs starting with b and p. • ⟨è⟩ is mostly used in third-person forms of I/voc verbs, e.g., è-ru-ub MAD 5, 109:6 (prov. unknown) ‘he entered’ from erēbu (see MAD 3, 61 sub ʾ5RB), suggesting a value /yē/ or /yī/ (cf. Babylonian īrub < *yīrub and Assyrian ērub < *yērub, both from *yiʿrub), and in imperfective forms of alāku, e.g., è-la-kam SAB p. 180:6 (Gasur) ‘he will come’, i.e., presumably /yīllakam/ (see p. 546 n. 116 below; Kouwenberg 2003–4a: 95).13 However, it is also occasionally used in strong verbs with a short prefix vowel: è-ga-bi /yiqabbē/ SAB p. 151:8′ (Sippar) ‘he says’ and è-ra-[?]-am /yiraʾʾam/ Or. 46, 201:2 ‘he loves’ (incant. from Kish). Remarkable is the interchange of ⟨i⟩ and ⟨è⟩ in SAB p. 172:r.11′ lā è-e-sa-ru-ni and 13′ lā i-e-sa-ru (quoted in n. 111 below, p. 545). On balance, /yi/ and /yī/ seem to be more likely than /ye/ and /yē/.14 • ⟨ìr⟩ regularly stands for /yir/, as in the above-mentioned ìr-íb and other third-person verb forms. • ⟨íl⟩ is used for /yil/ in third-person verb forms, e.g., íl-gi-am /yilqeam/ OAIC 7:23 ‘he took’ (Diyala); ⟨il⟩ is not used in this context in genuine Sargonic Akkadian texts (Hasselbach 2005: 64). • ⟨en⟩ is used for /yin/ in third-person verb forms such as en-ar /yinḥar?/ AKI p. 256:39 ‘he defeated’ in RIs, and in uš-ga-en /uskayyin/ AKI p. 164:22 (cp RI of Sargon) ‘he prostrated himself’ from šukennu; see §13.4.4 (pp. 346–348). • ⟨im4⟩ (i.e., du) is sporadically used for /yim/, especially in /yimḫur/ ‘he has received’, e.g., im4-ḫur MAD 5, 6:3 (Kish) and elsewhere (much more often spelled im-ḫur; see MAD 3, 171–73), and occasionally in other third-person verb forms. There are also a few specialized signs that may render syllable-final gutturals: ⟨má⟩, ⟨sá⟩, and ⟨be⟩, but here the evidence is flimsier and more controversial:

12.  Several problematic verb forms suggest that ⟨ù⟩ may also be used to indicate a palatal glide in III/voc verbs (see §16.7.2.2, p. 501) and a long ū in plene spellings (see chap. 16 n. 182, p. 501, and Kouwenberg 2003–4a: 96). 13.  Hilgert 2002: 121 n. 46 gives a list of attestations. 14.  Cf. also è-da-su ELTS pp. 106–7 no. 35: II 5′, 8′ (Pre-Sargonic kudurru from northern Babylonia) ‘its border’, i.e., /yitāsu/ from /yitāʾum/ ‘border’, which appears as itû in Babylonian, with the absolute state itā.

17.3.  The Reflexes of the Gutturals in Akkadia

515

• ⟨má⟩ is mainly used in forms of šemû ‘to hear’ (√šmʿ) and w/tamû (√tmʾ) ‘to swear’ and is therefore usually interpreted as /maʿ/ or /maʾ/ (Gelb 1961: 27; Hasselbach 2005: 64).15 However, the fact that it is also used in plural forms such as [id  ]-má-ù /yitmaʾū/ OAIC 51: r.3′ (Diyala) ‘they swore’, where the guttural belongs to the next syllable, suggests that the use of ⟨má⟩ is a conventional, perhaps historical, spelling, perhaps borrowed from Eblaite,16 and provides no evidence for the actual presence of a syllable-final guttural.17 • ⟨sá⟩ (i.e., di) is thought to render the values /saʿ/ and /saʾ/ in forms such as u-sá‑rí-ib /yusaʿrib?/ AKI p. 86:33 (RI of Naram-Sin) ‘he brought in’, u-sá-ḫi-su-ni /yusaʾḫissunē?/ AKI p. 159:102 (cp RI of Sargon) ‘he settled them (Du)’ from aḫāzu Š, and similar Š forms of I/voc verbs. However, there are many exceptions and counter-examples, see also Kogan and Markina 2006: 566–67. Hasselbach (2005: 70) argues that the difference between ⟨sá⟩ and the normal sign ⟨sa⟩ rather seems to be one of provenance. • ⟨be⟩ is almost exclusively used in relation to the root √bʿl and especially the noun bēlu ‘lord’; it is therefore often considered to be a logogram (Krebernik 1985: 54–55; Hasselbach 2005: 39). However, J. Keetman (NABU 2007/25) plausibly argues that it originally rendered /baʿ/ and only acquired the value /be/ as a result of the change of /baʿ/ to /bē/. 5.  Morphosyntactic phenomena such as changes in paradigm are an important indication for the status of gutturals: if we observe that a specific verb has adopted a weak conjugation, e.g., a II/H verb that of the II/voc verbs, we can be certain that the guttural is no longer there. In Old Assyrian, for instance, where the gutturals are largely invisible in writing, we can nevertheless conclude that ʾ and ʿ are still present intervocalically but that h and ḥ have been dropped because original II/*h and II/*ḥ verbs have adopted the conjugation of the II/voc verbs, whereas II/  ʾ and II/*ʿ verbs have not done so (Kouwenberg 2006).

17.3. The Reflexes of the Gutturals in Akkadian It is established practice to reconstruct five different guttural phonemes for Proto-Semitic— the laryngeals *ʾ and *h, the pharyngeals *ḥ and *ʿ, and the voiced uvular *ġ18—and to state 15.  The former is attested in proper names from Pre-Sargonic times onward (e.g., iš-má-ì-lum BIN 8, 11: r.II 5 and iš-má-d i n g i r TB 1, 5: i 7 (both PSAk), iš-má-dingir SAB p. 206 s.v., and in context, e.g., iš-má-su4 AKI p. 233:265 (cp RI Naram-Sin) ‘he heard about him’; áš-má SAB p. 116:3 (Girsu) ‘I heard’. It also occurs in the DN Da-áš-má-tum MAD 3, 275 (Diyala), a deverbal taPRaSt noun of this verb. In w/tamû, it occurs in the perfective ù-má SAB p. 40:9 (Adab) and ú-má AKI p. 77:50 (RI of Maništušu) ‘I swear’ (performative perfective). 16.  In Eblaite, ⟨má⟩ is used in the same environments; see Krebernik 1982: 209. He states that ⟨má⟩ can express /maH/, e.g., in iš-má and daš-má, just as in Akkadian, and in má-ba-ḫu ‘girdle’, i.e., /maHbaḫu(m)/ (Akk ebēḫu) but is also used in circumstances where only /ma/ is applicable, e.g., in má-ba-la-zu-um, presumably the same word as ma-ba-ra-zu-um, i.e., /maplaZum/ (a copper tool). 17.  Sommerfeld (1999: 11) observes that the use of ⟨má⟩ is also connected with the specific ductus of a text. 18.  For Akkadian, see GAG §23; for Proto-Semitic, see, e.g., Moscati, ed. 1964: 38–43; Lipiński 1997: 3 141–50; Stempel 1999: 60–63. I follow W. Sommerfeld apud W. von Soden in GAG §25d* in assuming that the phoneme ḫ, often described as a voiceless uvular, was actually a velar fricative, opposed to the velar stop k; see §17.4 (pp. 520–525). This explains the fact that ḫ behaves quite differently from the gutturals and alternates with k in some words (such as ḫašāḫum and kašāḫum in Old Assyrian [dissimilation]; cf. von Soden 1968b: 217–18). For the correspondences between West Semitic ḥ and Akkadian ḫ (Tropper 1995b), see n. 49 below (p. 525).

516

The Reflexes of the Gutturals in Akkadia  17.3.

that in Akkadian all five of them have become a glottal stop, or aleph (ʾ ).19 Therefore, they are traditionally referred to as ʾ1 to ʾ5, in which the original *ʾ is ʾ1, *h = ʾ2, *ḥ = ʾ3, *ʿ = ʾ4 and *ġ = ʾ5. Of these gutturals, ʾ3–5 differ from ʾ1–2 in that they caused E‑colouring (the change a > e; see GAG §9a) before being dropped. This account is too simplistic for a variety of reasons (see also Kouwenberg 2006: 150–51). First of all, there is hardly any evidence for a change of Proto-Semitic *ġ to Akkadian ʾ with E‑colouring. As Kogan (2001) has demonstrated, only a small number of fairly rare Akkadian words can reliably be derived from Proto-Semitic words containing *ġ, and in these *ġ mostly corresponds to Akkadian ḫ or ∅.20 Therefore, the traditional view represented by GAG §23b is untenable. However, ġ or a very similar phoneme plays an important role in Babylonian phonology, as I will argue in the next section. Second, as stated in the previous section, Eblaite, Sargonic Akkadian, and Mari Old Akkadian exhibit a fairly consistent distinction between a set of signs that are specifically used for the reflexes of Proto-Semitic *ʾ and *ʿ and another set used for the reflexes of Proto-Semitic *h, *ḥ, and *y. This shows that the development of etymological *ʾ and *ʿ was different from that of *h and *ḥ and suggests a contrast between a hard onset expressed by the former, presumably realized as a glottal stop, and a soft onset expressed by the latter, perhaps realized as palatal (/y/), laryngeal (/h/) or ∅. This contrast is especially prominent in Sargonic Akkadian, Mari Old Akkadian, and Assyrian, as I will argue later on in this section. The contrast between Proto-Semitic *ʾ and *ʿ on the one hand and *h and *ḥ on the other in their (Proto-)Akkadian reflexes, and the contrast between E‑colouring *ʿ and *ḥ versus non-E‑colouring *ʾ and *h confirm the reconstruction of these four different gutturals to Proto-Akkadian. On the basis of the five types of evidence mentioned above, we may posit the following development in the individual historical dialects. With regard to Sargonic Akkadian, it is a plausible assumption that—at least in the more conservative genres, especially the royal inscriptions—the four gutturals were still present as distinct phonemes. This can be inferred from the spelling practices described above, on the one hand, and from the absence of E‑colouring, on the other. The fact that in some areas of Sargonic Akkadian (the Diyala and Gasur, sometimes also Kish) instances of E‑colouring occur in places where we can reconstruct *ʿ or *ḥ (Hasselbach 2005: 134–35) but not in the neighbourhood of *ʾ and *h means that, in the more conservative types of Sargonic Akkadian, the gutturals were still present to provide a conditioning factor for this contrast, e.g., between li-iš-me /lismē/ SAB p. 142:17 ‘let him hear’ from √šmʿ versus id-ma /yitmā(?)/ MAD 5, 21:7 ‘he swore’ from √tmʾ, both from the Kish area. These conclusions about the preservation of the gutturals in Sargonic Akkadian are, however, contradicted by morphosyntactic evidence concerning the paradigm of the I/voc verbs that can only be understood if we assume that their first radical is the vowel a or e and that the original guttural had already been dropped in Proto-Akkadian. I will discuss this problem in detail in §17.6.1 (pp. 539–542). The dialect of Mari Old Akkadian shows the same spelling practices as Sargonic Akkadian regarding the expression of prevocalic gutturals and y (A. Westenholz 1978: esp. 161–62, 167–68; Gelb 1992: 172–75), e.g., ⟨  ì⟩ for /  ʾi/ in ì-lí ‘my god’ (passim in PNs) versus ⟨i⟩ for /yi/ in thirdperson verb forms, and ⟨ú⟩ for /  ʾu/ in ú ‘and’ < *ʾaw, versus ⟨u⟩ for /yu/ in i-da-u-um a-li-u-um 19.  See GAG §23b; Buccellati 1996: 34; Huehnergard 2005a: 38. 20.  After an exhaustive discussion, Kogan (2001: 284) accepts only one instance of PSem *ġ > Akk ʾ with E‑colouring, ebēṭu ‘to gird’ (≈ Arabic ġbṭ), but even this one is not undisputed: on the basis of Eblaite spellings, Conti (1990: 81–82) concludes that the root is more likely to be ʿbṭ.

17.3.  The Reflexes of the Gutturals in Akkadia

517

/yitāyum ʿali/īyum/ MARI 1, 81:2 ‘the upper neighbour’ and ti-iš-da-u /tištayū/ MARI 1, 81:23 ‘they drank’, which was already quoted in §16.7.1 (p. 496). Likewise, é stands for /ḥa/ and /ha/, e.g., É-pá-áš /ḥapāš/ ARM 19, 96:1 ‘to make’ (Inf c. st.), (iš) lá-É-me-šu-ni /laḥāmīšunē/ ARM 19, 248:4 ‘for them (Du) to eat’ (Inf Gen),21 versus É-wa-tum /hawātum/ RA 35, 49 no. 30a:3 ‘the word’ (but also a-wa-sú RA 35, 47 no. 19:4 ‘his word’). Evidence on post-vocalic gutturals is uncertain. The specialized sign ⟨má⟩ is used in Mari Old Akkadian as well and raises the same problems.22 An interesting feature of this dialect is that according to A. Westenholz (1978: 162b) several of the specialized signs with a CV value (in which C is a guttural) can also be used with the reversed VC value, similar to pi = ⟨wa⟩ and ⟨aw⟩; the sign é, for instance, would also be /aḥ/ in addition to its normal value /ḥa/. I will come back to this phenomenon in §17.8.2 (p. 575). An important difference between Mari Old Akkadian and Sargonic Akkadian is that the former has no E‑colouring, e.g., a-li-u-um ‘upper’ < *ʿalium or *ʿalīyum (~ Bab elû), maš-a-na-an ARM 19, 292:3 (Nom Du) and sá-né-en ARM 19, 300:2 (Gen Du) ‘shoes’ (~ Bab mēšenu and šēnu),23 ti-da ‘she knows’ in the PN [Eš4]-dar-ti-da ARM 19, 397:2, and the above-mentioned verb forms.24 We do not know how the Old Akkadian dialect of Mari developed after the end of the third millennium, since it is no longer attested: the language of the archives of 18th-century Mari kings is more or less pure Old Babylonian.25 In the second-millennium dialects of Babylonian and Assyrian, special signs for the expression of gutturals are no longer in use26 or are used interchangeably with other signs, and there are no longer any systematic distinctions between different onsets. The Old Assyrian syllabary has no signs for any of the (former) gutturals. The only indications we have of their (former) presence is the occurrence of broken spellings, E‑colouring, and changes in the paradigm (Kouwenberg 2006: 153–56). With these reservations, we can describe the situation in Old Assyrian as follows. 21.  Interpretation according to A. Westenholz 1978: 167a. 22.  It may be relevant to the interpretation of ⟨má⟩ that the RN Iš-má-dDa-gan AKI pp. 361–62 MŠ 5:4 and 6:1 is spelled Iš-ma-AḪ-dDa-gan in a later (Old Babylonian) version (AKI p. 358 right column: 3 and MARI 4, 152:3). However, in Mari Old Babylonian, the Ḫ‑signs are (also) used to render guttural phonemes occurring in other languages than Akkadian, such as Amorite (Streck 2000: 231–33), some of which we find as loan-words in Mari texts. Apparently, this name was regarded by the Mari scribes as Amorite, too, or at least as not part of the language they normally used for writing. 23.  It is not clear to me whether we should interpret these forms as /šaʿnēn/ and /mašʿanān/ with the guttural intact, or as /šānēn/ and /mašʾanān/ with loss of postvocalic *ʿ and *ʿ > ʾ between consonant and vowel. 24.  If e occurs in this dialect, it may result from i in the vicinity of a guttural (as in the month-name (Gen) E-bir5-timx < ʿibirtim (A. Westenholz 1978: 164a) and from ay, especially in proper names with leʾû ‘to be able, powerful’ quoted in §16.7.1 (p. 497) (/yilʾē/ and /talʾē/). A difficult form, however, is the Gen Du (in) šè-er-te-en ARM 19, 331:7 ‘in the morning’: does it come from *šaḥar(t)- with E‑colouring? or is it from a PiRiSt form *šiḥirtum? 25.  One of the most conspicuous (but still rather superficial) deviations from “southern” Old Babylonian is precisely that Mari Old Babylonian makes a more widespread use of a where the latter has e, in a totally unpredictable way. This suggests that in Mari and its surroundings E‑colouring was less pervasive than in Classical Babylonian and even in Assyrian, which may be an echo of its complete absence in the third-millennium texts. 26.  Not counting, of course, the special ʾ-sign that appears from Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian onward and the ambiguous use of the Ḫ-signs for another phoneme than /ḫ/ in Old Babylonian; see §17.4 (pp. 520–525).

518

The Reflexes of the Gutturals in Akkadia  17.3.

In word-initial position, the gutturals have been dropped, leaving a non-phonemic ʾ as syllable-onset for the initial vowel,27 e.g., abum < *ʾabum ‘father’, alākum < *halākum ‘to go / come’. Original *ḥ and *ʿ have caused E‑colouring: ešar ‘ten’ < *ʿaśar, eqlum ‘field’ < *ḥaqlum (e.g., e-qal-šu-nu Bell. 213, 303–4: 10, 15 ‘their field’). After a guttural, i tends to become e, e.g., emārum ‘donkey’ < *ḥimārum, eṣum ‘tree’ < *ʿiṣ́um. In the verbal paradigm, the N‑stem of the I/voc verbs offers morphological evidence for the absence of an initial (phonemic) guttural (see §17.6.3.4, pp. 550–552). In syllable-final and word-final position, the gutturals have been dropped, with compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel, e.g., mādum ‘much’ < *maʾdum, ālum ‘city’ < *ahlum, bēlum ‘lord’ < *baʿlum, arbē ‘four’ < *ʾarbaʿ. This can be inferred from forms in which the loss of the guttural has caused an observable change in the word, such as the noun luqūtum ‘merchandise’ (< *luqūḥtum from √lqḥ). The construct state luqūt- (e.g., lu-qú-ut x mana OAA 1, 9:9 ‘merchandise x minas worth’, and lu-qú-sú OAA 1, 80:20 ‘his merchandise’) shows that ḥ is no longer present; otherwise the construct state would have been **luquḥti/a, spelled lu-qú-tí/ta. Similarly, the construct state of wāṣītum ‘export duty’ (lit., ‘what goes out’) < *wāṣiʾtum (root √wṣ́ʾ ) is wāṣīt-, e.g., wa-ṣí-sú BIN 4, 127:2 ‘his w.’, rather than *wāṣiʾti/a‑ (see Kouwenberg 2006: 159–61). In intervocalic position, *ʾ and *ʿ have merged to ʾ, but original *ʿ is still distinguishable from ʾ through E‑colouring, e.g., in G‑stem infinitives: raʾāmum ‘to love’ (√rʾm) versus beʾālum ‘to possess, have at one’s disposal’ (√bʿl  ). The reflex of intervocalic *h and *ḥ is difficult to reconstruct by the lack of pertinent instances. The weak conjugation of original II/*h and II/*ḥ verbs suggests that both *h and ḥ have been dropped (see 17.7.3.2 below, pp. 563–565). With regard to nouns, *h occurs intervocalically in tí-a-am-tim TC 1, 104:8 ‘sea’ (Gen) < PSem *tihām(a)tum, presumably with a glide instead of *h. A noun with intervocalic *ḥ is PSem *paḥam/ntu ‘charcoal, embers’, which we find in Middle and Neo-Assyrian as peʾettu (CAD P 324ff. s.v. pēntu: MA pe-ʾ-et-ta, pe-ʾe-ta/te; NA pe-ʾ-et-tu, Pl pe-ʾ-na-a-ti  ), suggesting that *ḥ could become ʾ. It is possible, however, that ʾ is secondary, as often in these late dialects. Finally, between consonant and vowel the state of the gutturals is the same as in intervocalic position: *ʾ and *ʿ have merged to ʾ, with *ʿ causing E‑colouring, e.g., mašʾenum ‘shoe’ (√ś  ʿn; see §17.2, p. 511), versus namʾudum ‘large quantity’ (√mʾd  ),28 and in the verb išʾal (√šʾl  ) ‘he asked’ versus ibʾel ‘he possessed’ (√bʿl  ); see further §17.7.3.1 (pp. 561–562). In primary nouns, however, ʾ is dropped occasionally, especially in forms of ma/erʾum ‘son’ and merʾutum ‘daughter’ (GKT §28d), which are prone to shortening because of their frequency and their meaning.29 The fricative gutturals *h and *ḥ, on the other hand, seem to behave in the same way as in intervocalic position: the weak perfective forms of original II/*h and II/*ḥ verbs, such as ibēr or ibīr ‘he chose’ < *yibḥar and ibāš ‘he became ashamed’ < *yibhaš (? see §17.7.3.2, pp. 563–565) suggest that they had been dropped. Unproblematic evidence from nouns does not seem to be available. 27.  There are no indications of different syllable onsets: Old Assyrian only uses ⟨a⟩, ⟨i⟩, and ⟨ú⟩ (rarely ⟨ù⟩) for word-initial vowels, without regard for the initial consonant that may once have been there. The third-millennium signs ⟨ì⟩ and ⟨u⟩ are no longer used. For the problem of word-initial ʾ in Old Assyrian, see Kouwenberg 2006: 156–59. 28.  Namʾudum is subject to vowel assimilation but mašʾenum is not because of the relative order of E‑colouring and vowel assimilation; see §2.4 (p. 49). Note also that nouns such as zarʾum ‘seed’ < *zarʿum (√zrʿ ) and rabʾum ‘fourth’ < *rabʿum (√rbʿ ) do not have E‑colouring, because a is not adjacent to the guttural. 29.  Presumably, ʾ may be assimilated to the preceding consonant (merrum, merrutum), as also happens in later Assyrian; see Kouwenberg 2006: 164–65.

17.3.  The Reflexes of the Gutturals in Akkadia

519

Middle and Neo-Assyrian broadly follow the pattern of Old Assyrian. The main importance of Middle Assyrian lies in the use of a much more accurate syllabary, which allows us to observe phenomena that we can only hypothesize for Old Assyrian, e.g., gemination, the distinction between e and i, and the explicit ʾ‑sign. The use of this ʾ‑sign shows that Middle Assyrian shares with Middle Babylonian a tendency to restore ʾ in places where it is likely to have been lost in Old Assyrian, e.g., in the paradigm of šâlu ‘to ask’ (see §17.7.3.1, pp. 560–561). As compared to third-millennium Akkadian and Assyrian, Babylonian represents a more advanced stage of development with regard to the loss of the gutturals. All available evidence suggests that the four gutturals we have been discussing so far—but perhaps not *ġ; see §17.4 below (pp. 520–525)—were lost. Certainty can only be obtained for Classical Old Babylonian (see §1.4.1.2.2, pp. 13–14), where the pervasive occurrence of vowel contraction shows beyond doubt that the gutturals have been dropped in all positions. In Ur III Babylonian and Archaic Babylonian, we still find broken spellings, at least for (former) intervocalic gutturals, which could theoretically conceal a guttural. In actual fact, this possibility can safely be excluded because of changes in the shape of some nouns with gutturals and in the paradigm of verbs with gutturals. The former concern the loss of post-consonantal gutturals with lengthening of the preceding vowel, as in māru ‘son’ < marʾum, mēšenu ‘shoe’ < *mašʿanum, and other cases to be discussed below. In addition, numerous forms of verbs with gutturals can only be understood from the loss of the guttural: the imperfective of the I/voc verbs (see §17.6.2, pp. 543–545) and the II/H verbs (see §17.7.4, pp. 566–572), the perfective of the II/H verbs (see also §17.7.4), the N‑stem of the I/voc verbs (see §17.6.3.4, pp. 550–554), and the Š and N imperfective of the I/voc verbs (see §17.6.3.3, pp. 548–550, and §17.6.3.4, p. 552, respectively). Specified according to position, the loss of the gutturals caused the following changes. In word-initial position, all gutturals have been dropped and the vowel after the guttural has become word-initial. It is possible that word-initial vowels are preceded by a non-phonemic ʾ, but clearly less prominently so than in Assyrian (see Kouwenberg 2003–4a: 90–93). Intervocalically, contiguous vowels are contracted but at different moments (see GAG §16 and §16.7.2.4, pp. 506–507, for details). Apart from occasional exceptions and archaisms, absence of contraction (and insertion of ʾ or a glide) occurs in doubly-weak verbs for reasons of transparency (see §17.4 below, p. 521), in derived categories where ʾ is geminated (e.g., the Gtn‑stem of the II/voc verbs; see §17.7.4.1, p. 568) and in the present participle of the G‑stem, where it is (re)introduced in order to conform to the PāRiS pattern of the strong verb (as in II/voc verbs; see §16.5.2, p. 479). In syllable-final and word-final position, the gutturals have been dropped, with compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel (GAG §§15a, 24e), e.g., zību ‘vulture, jackal’ < ðiʾbum, nāru ‘river, canal’ < *nahrum, wēdu ‘alone’ < *waḥdum, bēlu ‘lord’ < *baʿlum. Some words with original ʾ or *h show E‑colouring, which is usually due to the presence of r, ṣ, or both, e.g., rēšu ‘head’ < *raʾšum, ṣēru ‘back’ < *θ̣ahrum, and ṣēnu ‘small cattle’ < *ṣ́aʾnum. Between consonant and vowel, they have also been dropped, with compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel (GAG §15b),30 e.g., ṣēlu ‘rib’ < *ṣalʿum, mēšenu ‘shoe’ < *maš  ʿanum,31 30.  According to Gelb (1955b: 100b), the primary change is actually metathesis followed by loss of the guttural and compensatory lengthening: milʾum > *miʾlum > mīlu. This is supported by other instances of metathesis involving clusters with a guttural, such as pêrtu ‘hair’ < *paʿartum versus WSem √prʿ, būṣu ‘hyena’ as compared to He ṣabūaʿ and Ar ḍab(u)ʿ (SED II 285–87), tûltu ‘worm’ < *tawʿultum versus WSem √twlʿ, and OA qēmum ‘flour’, which can only come from *qaḥmum although the root is √qmḥ; cf. the verb qemû ‘to grind’. 31.  The dictionaries write this word as mešēnu and generally assign a short first vowel and a long second vowel to maPRaS nouns derived from II/H roots (mešēltu ‘flint, blade’ from šêlu ‘to sharpen’, mešēqu

520

The Strong ʾ in Babylonian  17.4.

māru ‘son’ < marʾum, and pītu ‘opening’ < *pitḥum (PiRS form of petû). The fact that the reflex of the gutturals between consonant and vowel is the same as that between vowel and consonant may lead to homonymy, e.g., the PiRS nouns nīšu ‘raising’ from našû (√nśʾ ) and nīšu ‘oath’ (lit., ‘life’) from nêšu (√nḥš ), šību ‘satiety’ from šebû (√š/śbʿ) and šību ‘grey, old’ from šâbu (√ś īb). However, the claim that in Babylonian all gutturals have been dropped seems to be patently contradicted by the fairly widespread occurrence of a “strong ʾ.” This problem will be discussed in the next section.

17.4. The Strong ʾ in Babylonian There is a group of words in Old Babylonian in which the signs that are normally used for ḫ (the “Ḫ‑signs”) interchange with broken spellings. It occurs, for instance, in nouns such as pirḫu and pirʾu ‘shoot, leaf’ (see below) and verb forms such as ú-na-AḪ-Ḫi-du-ka AbB 2, 141:8 versus ú-na-i-du-ka AbB 12, 52:24 ‘I informed you’ (Subj) from naʾādu D, and ma-ša-i-im AbB 1, 129:20 versus ma-ša-AḪ-im AbB 6, 220:15 ‘to plunder’ (Inf Gen) from mašāʾu.32 The interchange of Ḫ‑signs and broken spellings does not represent phonological or dialectal variation but is a purely orthographic phenomenon.33 This follows from the fact that the two spellings may alternate in the same text, e.g., na-a-du-um-ma i-na-AḪ-i-du-šu-nu-ši-im AbB 3, 94:12 ‘people are very concerned about them’ from naʾādu, tu-ub-ta-na-ḪA-li AbB 3, 15:23 ‘you (Fem) are steadily increasing’, versus tu-ub-ta-i-li AbB 3, 15:13 ‘you (Fem) increased all the time’) from baʾālu Gtn, and (ša) šu-ta-i-im AbB 4, 53:16 ‘to act indifferently’ (Gen) versus in (lā) tu-uš-ta-ḪA-šum AbB 4, 53:18 ‘do not act indifferently towards him!’ from the Dt‑stem šutaʾʾû. It is confirmed by the fact that in Standard Babylonian and later, the special ʾ‑sign, which was secondarily differentiated from the sign aḫ (von Soden and Röllig 1991: 45–46 nr. 233), is used in places where Old Babylonian uses Ḫ‑signs interchangeably with broken spellings. Broken spellings remain in use as well, however (GAG §23e–g). The fact that the Ḫ‑signs are stable in some words but alternate with broken spellings in others without any obvious conditioning factors shows that they have a double value (Kogan 2001: 287): they do not only indicate a velar fricative ḫ but also a glottal stop,34 which I will call a “strong ʾ,” since it behaves like a strong consonant in all respects. It can, for instance, occur word-initially (e.g., ʾabātu ‘to destroy’; see below), it can be geminated (e.g., ú-na-AḪ-ḪI-du-ka quoted above), and a preceding n assimilates to it (e.g., ta-AḪ-ḪI-it-tam AbB 4, 111:17 ‘information’ (Acc), i.e., /taʾʾittam/ < *tanʾidtam, a deverbal noun of the same verb). On the other hand, when it comes in syllable-final position before another consonant, it may be omitted in writing, ‘measuring vessel’ from šêqu ‘to level off’, and meṭēnu ‘grinding’ (or the like) from ṭênu ‘to grind’), although the regular phonological development requires a long vowel in the first syllable and a short vowel in the second. It may be significant that the only relevant plene spelling in Old Babylonian listed in CAD M/2 38–39 ss.vv. mešēnu and mešēqu concerns the first syllable: mé-e-še-qí AbB 5, 222:8. Of course, it is possible that mēšenu and its congeners have become mešēnu, etc., secondarily by analogy with the long root vowel in other forms, but there is no concrete evidence for this. 32.  For a survey and discussion of previous literature on this aspect of Ḫ, see Kogan 2001: 290–94. 33.  Pace GAG §25c (with regard to pirḫu and pirʾu) and Gelb 1955b: 102a. According to GAG §23e and von Soden and Röllig 1991: xxxi, the use of Ḫ-signs in these forms is typical of Northern Babylonia. 34.  Note also the sporadic use of Ḫ‑signs to indicate a hiatus between vowels of successive words, as in mu-ši ù ḪU-ri AbB 5, 219: r.8′ ‘day and night’, i.e., /mūšī u (ʾ  )urrī/, and (a tablet) ša ḪI-li-a-am OBAH p. 56 no. 26:14 ‘which will come up’, i.e., /ša (ʾ)īlliam/ (normally i(-il)-li-a-am). In a few cases, however, Ḫ seems to represent a palatal glide y rather than ʾ: il-ta-qé-ḪA-ku AbB 1, 74: 10 for normal /iltaqeakku(m)/ ‘he has brought along for you’, nu-še20-el-le-Ḫ[A]-am AbB 4, 148:18 ‘we will cause to come up’. An early instance from the Mari Liver omens is da-ri-ḪA-timx RA 35, 47 no. 17:3 ‘eternity’ (for /dāri (ʾ) ātim/).

17.4.  The Strong ʾ in Babylonian

521

e.g., uḫ-ta-la-al St. Walker p. 137:4 beside ú-ta-la-al St. Walker p. 139:4 ‘it is suspended’ from ʾalālu Dt. I assume that both spellings represent /uʾtallal/ but this cannot be proved. It does not normally occur, however, in places where we expect the ʾ that is inherited from Proto-Semitic. In particular, it is hardly ever used in the paradigm of the well-known verbs that originally had ʾ, such as amāru ‘to see’, šâlu ‘to ask’, mâdu ‘to be(come) numerous’, malû ‘to be(come) full’, tamû ‘to swear’, etc., nor in nouns with an etymological ʾ, such as zību ‘jackal, vulture’ (Sem *ðiʾbum), kāsu ‘cup’ (cf. Ar kaʾs), and mīlu ‘flood’ < *milʾum. What, then, is this strong ʾ and where does it come from? In a number of cases, it clearly serves to prevent vowel contraction for reasons of transparency or the preservation of grammatically relevant contrasts. First of all, this applies to the conjugation of doubly-weak verbs, where contiguous vowels often do not contract to prevent forms from becoming difficult to recognize, e.g., ileʾʾe ‘he can’ from leʾû, ibāʾū ‘they passed’ from bâʾu, and eʾil ‘bind!’ from eʾēlu. Short words belonging to other word classes show the same phenomenon, e.g., nouns such as rūʾu ‘friend, companion’ and laʾû ‘child’ and the possessive adjectives yû ‘mine’, kû ‘yours’, etc., e.g., ia-AḪ-a-tum /yāʾātum/ AbB 6, 218:18 ‘mine’ (Pl Fem), nu-UḪ-ú /nūʾû/ AbB 13, 179:13 ‘our (people)’. Second, it occurs in forms in which etymological ʾ has been preserved, i.e., mostly in derived categories with gemination, such as the D‑stem, e.g., Pfv uwaʾʾer ‘I/he instructed’ from wuʾʾuru, and the Gtn‑stem, e.g., Inf šitaʾʾulu ‘to keep asking’ from šâlu. Finally, it is found in all kinds of weak roots when a strong radical is required for reasons of inflection or derivation, e.g., in the present participle (see §16.5.2, p. 479), and in agent nouns with the pattern PaRRāS, e.g., bakkāʾu ‘wailer’ and qabbāʾu ‘speaker’ from the III/ī verbs bakû and qabû. In addition, there is a large number of words, both verbs and nouns, where no such motive is discernible and where strong ʾ is just a consonant like all the others. I will give a selection of typical examples, omitting rare and uncertain cases and adding an etymology when a reliable one is available. The following verbs have a strong ʾ as one of their radicals: 1. Verbs with a strong ʾ as R1: ʾabātu ‘to destroy’,35 ʾadāru ‘to be(come) dark or worried’ (Ar ġadira? see Kogan 2001: 279–80), ʾalālu ‘to hang’, ʾalātu ‘to swallow’ (cf. laʾātu below), ʾapāru ‘to put on the head’ (Ar ġafara; see Kogan 2001: 279; CDG 58b s.v. ʿafara), and ʾarāmu ‘to cover’ (attested in OB naʾramum; later nāramu, a kind of garment; cf. OA ḫarāmum) (√ḥrm). 2. With a strong ʾ as R2: baʾālu ‘to be(come) abnormally large’ (doubtless related to bêlu), buʾʾû ‘to look for’ (Ar baġā ), daʾāmu ‘to be(come) dark’ (Ar idhamma), laʾātu ‘to swallow’ (WSem lhṭ  ? see Kogan 2001: 291–92), luʾʾû ‘to defile, make dirty’, naʾādu ‘to pay attention’, naʾāsu ‘to chew’ (Ar nahaš/sa ‘to bite, tear off’), naʾarruru ‘to come to aid’ (see also naʾrāru below), paʾāṣu ‘to hit’ (Ar faḥaḍa ‘to break open (a melon)’ and fahaḍa ‘to break’), raʾābu ‘to tremble’ (He/Aram/Ar rhb or rʿb, see Kogan 2001: 291); saʾāšu ‘to catch in a net’, šaʾāru ‘to defeat’ (Sem √  θġr, see Kogan 2002: 315–16), šutaʾʾû ‘to show indifference’ (Syriac ešt  e  ʿī; see Landsberger 1960: 120 n. 30). 3. With a strong ʾ as R3 (cf. GAG §99c): buzzuʾu ‘to maltreat’ (Ar bazā, He bāzā), mâʾu ‘to vomit’, mašāʾu ‘to rob’, mazāʾu ‘to squeeze’, D ‘to rape’, muššuʾu ‘to rub’ (√mšḥ), parāʾu ‘to cut off’ (Ar farā), parāʾu ‘to sprout’ (see pirʾu below), salāʾu ‘to infect, make ill’, šanāʾu ‘to block’.

35.  Pace AHw 5a s.v. abātu, Ugar/He/Aram ʾbd is cognate with Akk nābutu (Ass nābudu, OA abāDu (A/u)) ‘to flee’ rather than with this verb.

522

The Strong ʾ in Babylonian  17.4.

Strong ʾ also occurs in nouns, the most important of which are:36 • ʾad(i)ānu ‘period’ (√wʿd acc. to AHw 10b s.v.) • ʾapparrû ‘with coarse hair’ (OB also ḪA-ap-pa-ar-ri-tum Tall Biʿa p. 154 no. 373:5; Ar ġafr‑, etc. acc. to Kogan 2001: 280–81) • ʾaru ‘branch’ and ʾartu ‘foliage’ (OB also ḪA-ar-ti BAM 4, 393:21; Ar ġār- acc. to Kogan 2001: 282) • ʾazannu ‘bitter garlic’ (see AHw 338b s.v. ḫazannum I) • burbuʾātu ‘bubbles(?)’ • daʾummu ‘dark’ (with daʾummiš and daʾummatu, see daʾāmu above) • de/aʾatu, deʾtu ‘notice’ (from √wdʿ ‘to know’?) • diʾu (an illness: ‘headache’?) • diʾu or duʾu ‘platform’ (Sumerian loanword) • ʾerebu ‘crow, raven’ (Ar ġurāb, He ʿōrēb; see Kogan 2001: 278–79 and SED 2, 129–31) • ʾišû (a kind of document) (from Sum ḫé.sa 10 ‘may he buy’? thus AHw 349b s.v.) • kamʾū and kamʾātum ‘truffles’ (OB also kam!-ḪA-tim ABIM 5:18 acc. to CAD K 120b s.v. kamʾatu, and ka-am-ú/‑i ARM 27, 54:8, 13; SB Úka-ʾ-ma-tú CT 14, 27: I 8 with metathesis; Ar kamʾ ). • luʾʾu ‘throat’ (Kogan 2001: 276–78 compares He lō  a   ʿ ‘gullet’ and Ar luġah ‘word, language’, but cf. D. Testen, NABU 2001/95) • narʾamtu ‘mace’ (SB), related to ruʾʾumu ‘to scatter(?)’ (CAD R 441 s.v.), connected with WSem rġm ‘to thunder, flash’ by Mazzini (2002) • naʾrārum/niʾrārum (rather neʾ-?) ‘help’ (from naʾarruru; see §12.3 (pp. 304–305): always with Ḫ in Old Babylonian, later apparently with long vowel: nārārum, nē/īrārum, but 1× na-ʾ-ra-ru, quoted in CAD N/1 346a s.v. nārāru lex sect.; also nā/īrārūtu from Standard Babylonian onward) • piršaʾu ‘flea’ (see CAD P 414b s.v. piršaʾu; in early texts Pir  ʾašum with metathesis as PN; Sem *p/brġθ with variants, see SED 2, 246–47) • pir  ʾu ‘shoot, offspring’ ( √prġ/ḫ; see Kogan 2006b: 272 n. 8) • ruʾtu ‘spittle’ (see below for older forms; Ar ri/uġwah) • ṣeʾpu (a kind of tablet) (see Kraus 1967; Huehnergard 2003: 110 with n. 16, and AHw 1091b s.v.; also ṣé-EḪ-ep-šu AbB 13, 89:41 and ṣé-e-ep-ka AoF 10, 49 no. 83:9, i.e., c. st. /ṣeʾep‑/; cf. Geʿez ṣaḥafa?)37 • šerʾānu ‘sinew, muscle’ (Ar ši/arʿah, etc., acc. to SED 1, 239–40) • šerʾu ‘furrow’ • šuʾû (a disease) • tarbuʾ(t)u ‘dust storm’ • ʾurnīqu ‘crane’ (Ar ġu/irnīq in various forms; see Kogan 2001: 281) • ʾurnû (a plant: ‘mint’?) (also qurnû? (or different plant?), see also AHw 929b s.v. qurnû and n. 43 (p. 524) 36.  The main heuristic to identify such nouns is the interchange of broken spellings and Ḫ‑signs in Old Babylonian and the use of broken spellings and the ʾ‑sign in Standard Babylonian and later. I have focused on instances that are common and/or are relevant to an explanation of the strong ʾ, especially because they have a reliable etymology. If no references are given, see the dictionaries. 37.  AHw 1091b s.v. ṣêpum ‘to write’ associates ṣeʾpu with the verb ṣêpu and both with Geʿez ṣaḥafa ‘to write’. However, J.-M. Durand (ARM 26/1, 156–57 note f) shows that this verb instead means ‘to arrive’ (of letters) and that it is a I/voc verb eṣēpu. This precludes any connection between ṣeʾpu and eṣēpu, but the formal similarity is remarkable.

17.4.  The Strong ʾ in Babylonian • • • •

523

ʾuzālu ‘gazelle’ (Ar ġazāl(ah), see Kogan 2001: 282 and SED 2, 132–34) ʾullu ‘ring’ (Sum loanword acc. to AHw 354a s.v. ḫullu; Kogan 2001: 281–82: Ar ġull) ʾurʾudu ‘windpipe’ (vs. WSem warīd, etc.; see SED 1, 258) zuʾtu ‘sweat’ (√wðʿ; see chap. 16 n. 48 (p. 460)

These words have a very diverse background. No doubt some of them are loanwords and may have brought along their ʾ from the source language. The Ḫ‑signs are used to express various gutturals in surrounding languages such as Amorite (Streck 2000: 231–33). Mari Old Babylonian has several words that are doubtless loans from an Akkadian dialect or from a West Semitic language, where ḫ may reflect ʿ, such as ḫamqum ‘valley’ (ʿamq), and ḫārum ‘wild donkey’ (ʿair), and the already quoted ḫazzum ‘goat’ (Akk enzu). This may have reintroduced ʿ as a phoneme in the Akkadian of this area. However, this has no direct bearing on Akkadian in general and does not imply that ʿ was still a phoneme in Akkadian itself. Moreover, the majority of the words listed above do not have an etymology with ʿ.38 If we concentrate on cases that have a plausible etymology, two things catch the eye. First, they confirm that strong ʾ has nothing to do with the original ʾ inherited from Proto-Semitic. Second, there is no regular correspondence between strong ʾ and any Proto-Semitic guttural, but its most common source is PSem *ġ: ≈ PSem *ʾ: kamʾū ≈ PSem *h: naʾāsu, laʾātu (?), daʾāmu/daʾummu and perhaps paʾāṣu ≈ PSem *ḥ: ʾarāmu, muššuʾu, ṣeʾpu and perhaps paʾāṣu (unless it had *h) ≈ PSem *ʿ: baʾālu, šutaʾʾû, ʾad(i)ānu, de/aʾatu/diʾtu, šerʾānu, zuʾtu ≈ PSem *ġ: ʾadāru, ʾapāru, šaʾāru (but see n. 41, p. 524), buʾʾû, ʾapparrû, ʾār(t)u,    ʾerebu, luʾʾu, narʾamtu, pirʾašu/piršaʾu, ruʾtu, ʾullu, ʾuzālu This brings us back to the problem of *ġ, which we separated in §17.3 (p. 516) from the other gutturals traditionally distinguished in Akkadian grammar. Kogan (2001) has shown that the most common reflexes of PSem *ġ in Akkadian are ḫ and ∅ without E‑colouring. Many of the words in question show ḫ alternating with ∅ and therefore appear in the lists presented above. Other words with *ġ have not been included because we have no spellings with Ḫ‑signs: urinnu ‘eagle’ and urullu ‘foreskin’. Since they are not attested in Old Babylonian and the ʾ‑sign is not used word-initially, they may belong to the words listed above, i.e., their exact form may be ʾurinnu and ʾurullu. There are also words with *ġ that show a stable ḫ in Babylonian, especially ṣeḫru ‘small, young’, whose E-colouring is not caused by a guttural but by ṣ plus r (cf. Ass ṣaḫru and see §17.2, p. 511),39 and the very rare nouns lašḫu/laḫšu ‘jaw’, and zaḫalû ‘a silver alloy’, which are not attested in Old Babylonian. The association of PSem *ġ with Akkadian words with a strong ʾ suggests an explanation of the rise of strong ʾ (which must remain hypothetical for the time being). We may assume that PSem *ġ did not belong to the class of pharyngeals and laryngeals and did not share their decline but was closely associated with the (post)velar ḫ, perhaps as its voiced counterpart; therefore, it was expressed by the same sign and preserved until far into the historical period, concealed under its guise of the Ḫ‑signs. Somewhere in the early stages of Babylonian, it gradually started to change to ʾ. Originally, this did not change the way it was written, but once it had become ʾ, 38.  This makes the claim of, for instance, von Soden (GAG §23c) and Edzard (1959: 298–99) that spellings with Ḫ‑signs point to an occasional pronunciation as ʿayn very unlikely. 39.  The stable ḫ in Akk ṣeḫru may be due to devoicing in contact with ṣ in the prefix conjugations: PSem *yiṣġir(u) > *yiṣḫir(u); see §2.3.3 (p. 43).

524

The Strong ʾ in Babylonian  17.4.

the Ḫ‑signs were associated with ʾ apart from their other function and became an alternative to broken spellings that had arisen as a result of the loss of gutturals, just as broken spellings could take over the function of the Ḫ‑signs. This ʾ emerged when the loss of PSem *ʾ had been completed and therefore did not undergo the same development.40 It is obvious that the words with a strong ʾ that show a different guttural in West Semitic are not accounted for in this way. They must be explained as irregular phonological developments resulting from the general instability of gutturals. Examples of this phenomenon were presented in the previous section. With regard to the other early dialects, the scenario proposed here for the reconstruction of a voiced velar fricative alongside the long-established voiceless ḫ is in keeping with the fact that Sargonic Akkadian normally uses Ḫ‑signs in places where Old Babylonian alternates between Ḫ‑signs and broken spellings.41 This applies to the nouns naḫparum (túgna-AḪ-pá-ar kitîm MAD 1, 169: II 3), a kind of garment, which may be derived from ʾapāru ‘to cover’, pirʾašum ‘flea’ (as a PN: Pir6/Pí-ir-ḪA-šum’ see MAD 3, 217), and túgna-wa/ba-šu-ḪU-um, a kind of garment (MAD 3, 196), which also occurs in Old Assyrian (túgna-ma-šu-ḪA-am, na-ma-šu-ḪU ), but has a broken spelling in Old Babylonian (túgna-ma-an-šu-ú-um TCL 10, 100:34), which implies that it belongs to the nouns listed above.42 Since Sargonic Akkadian uses broken spellings elsewhere, this may be an indication that Ḫ does not (yet) represent ʾ here.43 The earliest instances known to me of Ḫ‑signs expressing a glottal stop come from Ur III Baby­lonian: the proper names Dan-ḪI-lum (i.e., Dan-(ʾ)ilum ‘the god is strong’), and I-dì-ḪAbu-um (i.e., Iddi(n)-(ʾ)abum ‘the father has given’, with assimilation of n; see Hilgert 2002: 281 with n. 58 and pp. 297–98 with n. 11.44 A Ḫ-sign in Ur III Babylonian in a word that later has a strong ʾ is the PN Pirʾašum, spelled Pí-ir-ḪA-šum, etc. (see Hilgert 2002: 59). Interestingly, another Ur III name contains the noun pirʾum ‘shoot, offspring’ with a syllable-final strong ʾ unexpressed: I-ku-pá-ra-ša ‘Her offspring has become lasting’, quoted by CAD P 418a s.v. pirʾu 2d < Ikūn-paraʾša.45 40.  A parallel to this development is provided by the voiceless uvular stop q in several varieties of spoken Arabic. In Egyptian Arabic, q has become a glottal stop, which—in contrast to the inherited glottal stop—is a strong consonant that is never dropped (Mitchell 1993: 15, 122). 41.  A vexing exception is šaʾāru ‘to defeat’, which is normally spelled with a broken spelling in Sargonic Akkadian royal inscriptions; see GAKI pp. 276–78 s.v. Perhaps W. von Soden’s derivation from PSem *ṯġr ‘to break’ (AHw 1118a s.v. š. II), which was hesitantly accepted by Kogan (2002: 316), should be abandoned after all. Another possibility is that šaʾāru is derived from a root variant with ʾ instead of *ġ: as we saw above, it is not uncommon for gutturals and similar phonemes to vary in semantically related roots. 42.  If the reading ḫu-˹ul?˺-lum TAZ 1, 47: I 2 is correct, this word is an additional instance (OB (ḫ)ullum ‘ring’) according to Kogan 2002: 316. For ruʾtu in Sargonic Akkadian, spelled ru-GA-tim, see the next note. 43.  In at least two very early instances PSem *ġ is expressed by the sign ⟨ga⟩: in SAk ru-GA-tim Or. 46, 201:12 (incant. from Kish) ‘spittle’ (Gen), interchanging with ru-úḫ-ti in 201:5 and 201:10, possibly plural versus singular, and in Eblaite g[a-r]í-bu ‘raven’ (Krebernik 1983: 13), corresponding to OB ḪE-re(-e)-bu, ḪE-re-ba-am, quoted in CAD A/2 265a s.v. āribu lex. sect. and SB āribu/ēribu. Both instances have cognates with ġ in Arabic (see above). Kogan (2001: 285–86) argues that ⟨ga⟩ stands for /ḳa/ (i.e., /qa/) here and points to other parallels between /ḳ/ and ġ in Ethio-Semitic and in Egyptian loans from West Semitic. 44.  Hilgert’s scepticism about the interpretation of these names, and especially his qualification of DanḪI-lum as “vollkommen unklar” (281 n. 58) seems exaggerated. 45.  Mari Old Babylonian normally uses Ḫ‑signs for the words under discussion and hardly ever broken spellings; an instance of the latter is the noun ka-am-ú/‑i in the list above. A particularly interesting case is the Gt Imp that in Mari Old Akkadian proper names appears as It-làl (e.g., It-làl-dDa-gan ARM 19, 212 and passim ‘Jubilate, Dagan!’). Since the non-prefix forms of I/a verbs start with a‑ (see §17.6.2, pp. 546–547),

17.5.  The E-paradigm and Babylonian Vowel Harmony

525

Very few of the Proto-Semitic words with *ġ discussed in Kogan 2001 are attested in Old Assyrian, and all of them show ḫ without E‑colouring: ḫadārum ‘to become worried’, ḫalālum ‘to hang’ (trans.),46 ḫalāpum ‘to cover’ (in Old Assyrian only in the derived nouns ḫulāpum ‘rag(?)’ and naḫlaptum ‘garment’),47 šerḫānum ‘muscle, sinew’, and the common adjective ṣaḫrum ‘small, young’.48 This ḫ behaves completely like an ordinary ḫ, so Old Assyrian does not offer any positive (or any negative) evidence for the assumption that it conceals a phoneme different from ḫ. The use of Ḫ‑signs for ʾ is exceptional and perhaps spurious (see Kouwenberg 2006: 152–53 with n. 14). The most likely conclusion is that in Assyrian *ġ has merged with ḫ. This means that only Old Babylonian offers evidence for the claim that what is usually referred to as a uvular fricative *ġ is actually a velar fricative and the voiced counterpart of the voiceless velar fricative ḫ.49

17.5. The E-paradigm and Babylonian Vowel Harmony 17.5.1.  E‑colouring in the older dialects The loss of the Proto-Semitic pharyngeals *ʿ and *ḥ was preceded or accompanied by the raising of a to e, i.e., “E‑colouring,” in most dialects of Akkadian. There are two kinds of E‑colouring, local and global. Local E‑colouring, which applies to Sargonic Akkadian and Assyrian, only affects a if it is directly adjacent to the guttural, e.g., Ass alaqqē ‘I will receive’ < *ʾalaqqaḥ. Global E‑colouring is typical of Babylonian; it affects all a-vowels in the core of the word, e.g., eleqqē (see below for a definition of “core” in this context). It is, therefore, also called “(Babylonian) vowel harmony.”50 It led to the rise of a different paradigm, the “E‑paradigm,” into which verbs were incorporated that did not originally contain a guttural. As an illustration of the impact of E‑colouring, Table 17.1 presents a selection of relevant forms of the sample verb parāsu, the verb leqû ‘to receive’ with local E‑colouring as in Old Assyrian and global E‑colouring as in Old Babylonian, and the strong E‑verb šebēru ‘to break’ in Old Babylonian, anticipating the discussion later in this section.51 there must be an initial consonant, which may be this elusive ġ. In Old Babylonian Mari texts, this name is also spelled with ḫ: Ḫi-it-làl-èr-ra MARI 4, 153:5′, but It-làl-èr-ra MARI 4, 177 no. 4 and 181 no. 11. In Babylonian, the verb alālu does not show signs of a strong ʾ. West Semitic cognates suggest a root √hll. Perhaps the name is Amorite; see Streck 2000: 240. 46.  In CCT 4, 45b:31–32 ḫulāpē kīma ṣú-ub-ri ḫa-lu-lá-ku ‘I am hung with rags like a(?) slave’ (interpretation by K. R. Veenhof, p.c.). 47.  It is not quite certain that this verb originally had *ġ as first radical; see Kogan 2001: 270–71. 48.  GKT §30a also ascribes an original *ġ to ḫalālum and ḫamādum. For ḫalālum, Kogan (2001: 282) rightly observes that its meaning ‘to keep waiting, detain’ does not fit Arabic ġll ‘eintreten’, so there is no basis for deriving ḫ from *ġ; the same applies to ḫamādum ‘to hide’ (or the like), for which there is indeed an Arabic parallel ġmd but also ḫmd (2001: 283). 49.  Huehnergard (2003) has proposed to account for the numerous “irregular” correspondences between WSem ḥ and Akk ḫ (Tropper 1995b), such as nbḥ versus nabāḫu ‘to bark’ quoted in §12.6.1 (p. 317), by assuming the existence of a phoneme x̣, an emphatic (i.e., glottalized) counterpart of ḫ, which in Akkadian merged with ḫ but in West Semitic with ḥ. If this is correct, we have a complete triad of a voiceless, voiced, and glottalized velar fricative, parallel to other triads of this kind, see Huehnergard 2003: 115. 50.  Cf. GAG §10: “Vokalangleichung”; Huehnergard 2005a: 45: “vowel harmony.” The addition “Babylonian” is to distinguish it from the Assyrian vowel harmony rule (GKT §10), which is called vowel assimilation here; see §2.4 (pp. 48–49). 51.  Cf. Reiner 1966: 84 for a similar table but without Old Assyrian; see also GAG Verbalpar. 6 and 17.

526

The E-paradigm and Babylonian Vowel Harmony  17.5. parāsum

laqāʾum (OA)

leqûm (OB)

šebērum (OB)

Impfv 1s

aparras

alaqqē

eleqqē

ešebber

t‑Pf 1s

aptaras

alteqē 

elteqē

ešteber

Pfv 1s

aprus

alqē

elqē

ešber

Pfv 2p

taprusā

talqeā

te/alqeā

tešberā

Imp sg.

purus

liqē

liqē

*šiber 53

Stat 3ms

paris

laqī

leqī

Stat 1s

parsāku

laqiāku

le/aqiāku 

šebrēku

Stat 3fs

parsat

laqiat

le/aqiat

šebret

Inf

parāsum

laqāʾum

leqûm

šebrum

PrPartc

pārisum

lāqium

lēqûm

šēbirum

52

šebi/er 54

    Table 17.1: The impact of E‑colouring. 

The emergence of E‑colouring can be dated to the period just before the appearance of the earliest texts. It is absent in Eblaite and Mari Old Akkadian. In Sargonic Akkadian, it is incipient: it is not attested in the relatively conservative corpus of royal inscriptions (Hasselbach 2005: 109) and exceptional in texts from Southern Babylonia.55 It becomes more common in texts from the Diyala region, in general the most innovative variety of Sargonic Akkadian (2005: 232–33), with forms such as íl-gi /yilqē/ SAB p. 170:6 ‘he took’ < *yilqaḥ and li-ib-te-u /lipteū/ SAB p. 163:13 ‘let them open’ < *lū yiptaḥū, and in Gasur, e.g., e-ra-si-iš /  ʾerāsis/ SAB p. 183:23 ‘in order to cultivate’ < ḥarāθis. It is normally “local E‑colouring” (Hasselbach 2005: 121): cf. e-ra-si-iš just quoted and zé-ra-at ni-se11 /ṣerrat nisē/ GAKI p. 380:42 (cp RI of Naram-Sin) ‘the lead-rope of the people’, with e caused by ṣ and/or r. A possible exception, however, may be the 1s Impfv e-bí-iš SAB p. 157:15 (Diyala) ‘I will do’ from epēšu, a difficult form that I read ʾēppes < ʾēppas) with global E‑colouring for lack of a plausible alternative.56 52.  The vowel e in the penultimate syllable of the t‑Pf alteqē is caused by vowel assimilation, not (directly) by E‑colouring, as is the corresponding vowel in Bab elteqē. 53.  Not attested as far as I know, but cf. [t]i-me-er AbB 7, 182:20 ‘bury!’ (versus Stat te-me-er CT 44, 37:2 (both OB)). 54.  Exceptional is a contracted form leqêku (e.g., bé-re-ku AbB 14, 23:20 ‘I am hungry’ from berû). In Mari Old Babylonian, on the other hand, this is the regular form, since ia > ê. 55.  In this area, only [l  ]i-˹iš-me˺ SAB p. 40:19 (Adab) ‘let him hear’ < *lismaʿ and e-rí SAB p. 141: 8 (Kish) ‘he is destitute’ < *ʿarī are attested. Note that e-dam-da Or. 46, 201: 37 (incant. from Kish) ‘they (Du) touch each other’, Gt stative of emēdu, is not a case of a > e, since it is from *ʿitamdā (  pace Hasselbach 2005: 113). 56.  This is problematic because ⟨bí⟩ normally stands for /bi/ and /pi/ versus ⟨bi⟩ for /be/ and /pe/ (Hasselbach 2005: 41–44). There are some exceptions, however, and the distinction may have been less strictly observed in closed syllables. The alternative is to assume that epēšu was an I/i verb in Sargonic Akkadian or at least in the Diyala, and thus to read /  ʾēppis/. There is no further evidence in favour of this (Whiting 1987: 45). Hasselbach’s interpretation /  ʾe(ḥ)pis/ is not a possible imperfective form in Akkadian, since it lacks gemination. A second instance of global E‑colouring adduced by Hasselbach (2005: 121) is e-ri-sunu SAB p. 183:18 (Gasur) ‘their plot of land’, which she interprets as /(ḥ)eressunu/ < *ḥaraθ-; it seems more likely to read /(ḥ)erissunu/ < *ḥariθ‑, a substantivized past participle with the regular pattern PaRiS ‘cultivated’, like eršu in later dialects (AHw 246a s.v. eršum II 1b). The use of ⟨ri⟩ rather than ⟨rí⟩ does not militate against this; see Hasselbach 2005: 49–50.

17.5.  The E-paradigm and Babylonian Vowel Harmony

527

In Assyrian, which is attested several centuries later, it is fully established from the earliest texts onward. As I concluded in §2.4 (p. 49), it emerged earlier than vowel assimilation but later than vowel syncope. The earliest actual instances of E‑colouring come from the Pre-Sargonic proper names from southern Babylonia quoted in §1.5 (p. 26): Iš-me-ì-lum, Iš‑me‑lum, Èš-me-lum and Ì-lí-be6(PI)-lí. They contain the words iš-me /yismē/ and PI-lí /bēlī/ from *yismaʿ ‘he heard’ and *baʿlī ‘my lord’ and show not only E‑colouring but also the loss of the two gutturals ʿ (in *yismaʿ) and ʾ (in (ʾ)ilum), which is a typical Babylonian feature. Therefore, they may represent the earliest testimony of the Babylonian dialect; but this is controversial (see §1.5 end, p. 26). Babylonian has global E‑colouring, and this is one of its most characteristic features. It is attested from the earliest texts onward. In Ur III Babylonian, the spread of e to other syllables is demonstrated by forms such as: •  gišne-re-bu-um /nērebum/ UET 3, 817:6 ‘entrance building’ < *naʿrabum (cf. Ass *nērabu) • ne-kè-pu-um (a metal object), an Akkadian loanword in Sumerian, doubtless from *naʿ/ḥkapum; see AHw 776a s.v. and MAD 3, 200 s.v. negibum • me-ṭe4-núm /mēṭenum/ < *maṭḥanum, an instrument noun derived from ṭênu ‘to grind’; see AHw 649–50 s.v. meṭēnu, MAD 3, 187 s.v. metēnum, and n. 31 (pp. 519–520) for long and short e • ú-še-re-bu-ú AKI p. 344:11 ‘he causes to enter’ (Subj), i.e., /ušerrebū/, Š Impfv of erēbu.57 I am not aware of any instances of local E‑colouring in Ur III Babylonian apart from the PNF Taš-me-tum < *tašmaʿtum (see §14.6.1, p. 398, for the meaning), which may be a traditional and/ or archaic form or an archaic spelling.58 Also in Archaic Babylonian, we find global E‑colouring, e.g., te-še-me OBTA p. 56 no. 13:5 ‘you hear’, te-pè-eš p. 44 no. 7:11 ‘you do’ (see the discussion on p. 45), te-el-qé-ú TIM 7, 115:8′ ‘you received’ (Subj), and er-bé-e RIME 4, 655:34. There are, however, some exceptions, the most interesting of which is the G Inf e-ba-bi OBTA p. 71 no. 21:8 from ebēbu, lit., ‘my being pure’. This form reflects the competing tendencies of vowel harmony versus ā as the defining marker of the G infinitive, which is maintained even if it is adjacent to an E‑colouring guttural: cf. Ass laqāʾu ‘to receive’ (√lqḥ) and beʾālu ‘to possess’ (√bʿl ). In this instance, the latter tendency has proved stronger; later on, vowel harmony prevails and we regularly find ebēbu in verbs of this type.59 In Classical Old Babylonian, global E‑colouring is the rule and forms that show local Ecolouring are exceptional.60 It also affects the derivational prefixes ta‑ and ma‑; cf. the taPRiSt 57.  I omit the problematic verb form e-pé-šu AKI p. 330:16; see I. J. Gelb and B. Kienast’s comment on p. 331. 58.  See Hilgert 2002: 264 n. 20 for a discussion of this name; he argues that it is not the well-known taPRaSt form of šemû but a Kurzname of Tašmē-DN(F) or the like. This makes no difference for the argument. 59.  Other noteworthy exceptions include be-al (mātīšu) RIME 4, 8:3 and 9:3′, no doubt a historical spelling, and i-bex(ne)-al Land Tenure p. 451:17 (= copy; the transliteration on p. 397 is incorrect). I cannot explain the form iṭ-ḫa(-ma) OBTA p. 67 no. 19:4; cf. R. M. Whiting’s discussion on p. 68; he considers it an archaism. If it is really from ṭeḫû, it is highly irregular. 60.  Instances include (ana) ḫa-re-e VS 7, 187: XI 16 ‘in order to dig’ from ḫerû (a lexical text); il-ta-qé AbB 7, 126:6, 17 ‘he has taken’ (cf. F. R. Kraus’s note to this letter); pa-ti-je-et-ku St. Reiner 192:66 ‘it is open to you’ (OB lit.); and ep-ša-tu-šu RIME 4, 348:7, 27 ‘his deeds’ (RI). The form a-la-qé-ku(-ma) AbB 12, 99:7 ‘I used to bring to you’ is not a real exception, because it represents an irregular contraction

528

The E-paradigm and Babylonian Vowel Harmony  17.5.

form terdītu ‘addition, reinforcement’ from redû D ‘to add’, and abstract or instrument nouns with the pattern maPRaS such as meṣḫerūtu ‘youth’ from ṣeḫru ‘small, young’ and mēšeltu ‘flint, blade’ from šêlu ‘to sharpen’. Suffixes, on the other hand, are not affected by E‑colouring, with the exception of the long ā between the stem and the personal endings of the first and second person of the stative, the 3fs ending ‑at of the stative, and the feminine plural ending of nouns and adjectives. Thus, we find, for instance, ṣeḫrēku ‘I am young’, ṣeḫrēta ‘you (Masc) are young’, ṣeḫret ‘she is young’, and ṣeḫrētu ‘young (women)’ from ṣeḫru). However, the third-person plural feminine of the stative has ‑ā (ṣeḫrā) by analogy with the prefix conjugations (iparrasā, etc.; see §7.4.1, p. 179). For the sake of convenience, I will call the syllables affected by E‑colouring the “word core,” even though this is difficult to define in a non–ad hoc way. A consequence of global E‑colouring was that the vowel e became dominant in the entire paradigm of verbs with E‑colouring gutturals. This gave rise to a separate paradigm, the “E‑paradigm”—in contrast to the regular “A‑paradigm”—that also had a certain productivity outside the narrow confines of these verbs. The verbs belonging to the E‑paradigm fall into four different categories: 1.  The original and most numerous group comprises verbs with *ḥ or *ʿ in their root, e.g., elû ‘to go /come up’ (√ʿlī), bêlu ‘to possess, rule’ (√bʿl), leqû ‘to take, receive’ (√lqḥ). 2.  The second group is that of the original I/y verbs (see §16.3.2, pp. 464–465). They owe their inclusion to the fact that y as R1 had the same effect as *ḥ and *ʿ: it caused ē or ī in all prefixes, e.g., 3ms īniq ‘he sucked’ < *yiyniq, parallel to, for instance, *yīzib < *yiʿzib ‘he left’. As a result, the tiny group of I/y verbs was absorbed by the mass of I/e verbs. 3.  The third group are the doubly-weak verbs with a weak R1 and R3, insofar as they are not I/w or I/n verbs: epû ‘to bake’ (√ʾpī  ), erû ‘to be pregnant’ (√hrī  ), ewû ‘to become’ (√hwī  ). They adopted the E‑paradigm because many forms of their conjugation, especially the basic third-person forms, are identical to those of the E‑paradigm: the Impfv īppī ‘he bakes’, Pl *īppiū > īppû ‘they bake’ and Pfv īpī, Pl īpû ‘he/they baked’ from epû are exactly parallel to the corresponding forms of elû ‘to go /come up’ (√ʿlī  ): īllī, Pl *īlliū > īllû and īlī, Pl īlû. This made it easy to switch. The transfer to the E-paradigm was favoured by its general association with weak verbs and perhaps also by the high frequency of elû, which may have served as a model. This led to an analogical replacement process of the type 3ms īllī : 2ms tēllī § īppī : tēppī (instead of *tāppī  ) and from there to the more peripheral forms of the paradigm. 4.  The fourth group comprises the I/i verbs with r as R2 or R3 (GAG §96b). In Old Babylonian, this concerns esēru ‘to confine’, erēšu ‘to ask’, qebēru ‘to bury’, qerēbu ‘to come near’, sekēru ‘to dam’, ṣeḫēru ‘to be(come) small, young’, šebēru ‘to break’, and temēru ‘to bury’. Their E‑paradigm is due to the E‑colouring influence of r both on a and on a preceding i (GAG §§9b, 9h): e.g., in the case of šebēru ‘to break’: išabbir > išabber > išebber through vowel harmony. From the Impfv išebber, e was analogically extended to the entire paradigm. This explains the close association between the E-paradigm and the vowel class I/i. With a few exceptions (see §3.5.3, pp. 79–80), all Babylonian verbs with an original E-colouring guttural have I/i, even when they originally had a different root vowel. Interestingly, the reverse is also true: all fientive verbs of the vowel class I/i with r as R2 or R3 already belong to the of alaqqeakkum. A few other remarkable cases include the word nēbeḫu, a kind of payment (see CAD N/2 144–45 s.v. nēbeḫu B), which often appears as nēbaḫu for unknown reasons (see CAD loc. cit.). Less exceptional is the occurrence of a in the prefixes of E-verbs; see the end of §17.5.2 (p. 537).

17.5.  The E-paradigm and Babylonian Vowel Harmony

529

E-paradigm in Old Babylonian or adopt it at a later moment.61 The Old Babylonian cases were mentioned above. Verbs that later join this group are ḫepēru ‘to dig out, scrape’ (not attested in OB), kasāru (I/i) ‘to dam’, kašāru ‘to repair’ (earlier A/u), makāru ‘to irrigate’ (earlier A/u), sadāru ‘to do regularly, to set in a row’ (OB Impfv isaddar, thus probably originally A/u), ḫasāru ‘to break off’ (only Stat and N Pfv iḫ-ḫa-sí-ir BagM. 2, 58: III 14 attested; thus, I/i or A/u), and kadāru ‘to behave overbearingly’ (only Stat attested in OB). Also ganāḫu ‘to cough’ (I/i, Impfv igenniḫ) (not attested in OB) belongs here. In Neo-Babylonian, some other verbs that do not have r as a radical join the E‑paradigm, such as mešēlu ‘to equal’, semēḫu ‘to mix, join’, and lebēnu ‘to prostrate’ and ‘to make bricks’. A systematic exception is formed by I/i verbs derived from adjectives that contain a: arāku ‘to be(come) long’ (cf. arku ‘long’), gašāru ‘to be(come) powerful (gašru)’, kabāru ‘to be(come) thick (kabru)’, labāru ‘to be(come) old (labiru)’, marāru ‘to be(come) bitter (marru)’, nakāru ‘to be(come) hostile (nak(a)ru)’, naw/māru ‘to be(come) bright (naw/mru)’, šakāru ‘to be(come) drunk (šakru)’, (w)aqāru ‘to be(come) rare, precious (waqru)’, and (w)atāru ‘to exceed, surpass (watru)’. The strong association with the adjective, which is generally more frequent than the verb, prevented the verb from switching to the E‑paradigm. Accordingly, adjectives with e also have derived verbs with E-colouring, e.g., edēšu ‘to be(come) new (eššu)’, emēmu ‘to be(come) hot (emmu)’, elû ‘to be high (elû)’, enēšu ‘to be(come) weak (enšu)’, ṣeḫēru ‘to be(come) small, young (ṣeḫru)’, qerēbu ‘to come near (qerbu)’, and lemēnu ‘to be(come) bad (lemnu).62 5.  A very small number of other verbs are E‑verbs for unknown reasons: esēpu ‘to collect, harvest’, ekēpu ‘to draw near’ (see n. 91, p. 538), and the already mentioned adjectival verbs enēšu and lemēnu. The third, fourth, and fifth group of E‑verbs are specifically Babylonian. There are occasional instances of E‑colouring in the vicinity of r in Old Assyrian (GKT §13), but not to the extent that they can be regarded as a specific paradigm. Insofar as these verbs occur in Assyrian, they normally have A-forms, e.g., Old Assyrian has ṣaḫārum, qarābum, and lamānum instead of Bab ṣeḫēru, qerēbu, and lemēnu, and in Middle Assyrian we find, for instance, āpiu ‘baker’ (lúa-pi-e MATSH p. 158 no. 12:33), instead of Bab ēpû.63 In Classical Old Babylonian, there are two systematic exceptions to E‑colouring. The first concerns derived stems that distinguish the imperfective and the perfective only by means of a/i apophony, i.e., the D‑ and Dt‑stems and the Š‑ and Št1‑stems. Verbs belonging to the E‑paradigm often show a in the imperfective of these stems rather than e as we would expect. Thus, alongside ūbbeb ‘he will purify’, imperfective of ebēbu ‘to be(come) pure’, it is much more common to find ūbbab.64 Comparable forms of I/voc verbs include ūllal (passim) from elēlu ‘to be(come) 61.  Only one I/i verb is found in AHw under the letter A: arāmu ‘to cover’, which actually has a strong ʾ (see n. 93, p. 539). This leaves us with only a very small number of extremely rare verbs that meet the conditions for having E‑forms but do not actually have them: pakāru ‘to tie up’, šaqāru ‘to pierce’, and ṭapāru ‘to throng(?)’. The verb ʾapāru (originally A/u if we may go by IḪ-pu-ur Atr. p. 62:284, OB) does not have E‑forms as long as it has a strong ʾ, but in Standard Babylonian it also develops weak forms—such as an N‑stem innapir (see §17.6.1, p. 539)—and accordingly also sporadic E‑forms, e.g., e-pi-ir AfO 19, 58:141 ‘he wears (as head-covering)’. 62.  Insofar as the adjectives with e have a reliable etymology, they owe their e to an E-colouring radical, such as eššu from √ḥdš, emmu from √ḥmm, elû from √ʿlī, etc. In ṣeḫru and qerbu, e is caused by r and/or ṣ, and in enšu and lemnu the cause of e is unknown (for enšu, cf. He ʾnš). 63.  But erēšu ‘to ask’ also has E-forms in Assyrian (see n. 2, p. 511). For OA eriat ‘she is pregnant’, see n. 89 (p. 538). 64.  The E‑form ūbbeb occurs passim in OBRED 2 and 5; see Kouwenberg 2001: 230–31 n. 17. For the long ū, see §17.6.2 below (pp. 543–545).

530

The E-paradigm and Babylonian Vowel Harmony  17.5.

pure’, ūmmad (passim) from emēdu ‘to lean against, impose’, ūssar from esēru ‘to press for payment’ (see Kouwenberg 2001: 230–31 for more instances and references). The III/H verbs show the same phenomenon: upattā from petû ‘to open’, uraddā from redû D ‘to add’, ubarrā from berû ‘to be(come) hungry’, etc. (2001: 227–28). Dt, Š, and Št1 imperfective forms of the verbs in question are fairly rare, but cf. ú-tam-ma-ad AbB 6, 191:21 ‘it will be imposed’ from emēdu Dt, ú-ta-as-sa-ar RA 65, 71:22′ ‘he will be confined’ from esēru Dt, uš-ta-ab-ba-ar RA 65, 73:40′ ‘it will be broken’, from šebēru Dt (a strong E‑verb), and ú-ša-ap-ta Atr. p. 100:15 ‘I will reveal’ from petû Š. These A‑forms compete with the corresponding E‑forms upettē, ureddē, ūtemmed (ú-te-meed FM 3, 66 no. 4:13), ūtesser, etc. (see further Kouwenberg 2001: 229–31). Other forms than the imperfective normally show the expected e vowel: Pfv uḫeppī from ḫepû ‘to break’, upettī from petû, t‑Pf uṭṭebbī from ṭebû ‘to sink’, PrPartc mubelli (c. st.) from belû ‘to be(come) extinguished’, etc. (2001: 228–29).65 The use of A‑forms in the imperfective is determined by the need to restore or maintain a clear formal distinction between imperfective and perfective.66 This is confirmed by the fact that the imperfective normally has e rather than a in derived stems in which it is also distinguished from the perfective by gemination. First, in the Š‑stem of the I/ voc verbs, where the imperfective has a/i apophony and gemination of R2 (ušakkal vs. ušākil  ), Old Babylonian only shows e in the imperfective: ušeppeš (vs. Pfv ušēpiš ) from epēšu, ušerreb (vs. Pfv ušērib) from erēbu, ušellē (vs. Pfv ušēlī) from elû, etc. (see GAG Verbalpar. 17 and §17.6.3.3 below, p. 549). Second, in the few attested imperfective forms of the Dtn‑, Štn‑, and Št2‑stems (uptanarras – uptarris, uštanapras – uštapris, and uštaparras – uštapris, respectively), we normally find e rather than a, e.g., us-sé-ne-el-le JCS 15, 6: I 24 ‘I pray constantly’ from sullû Dtn, uš-te-bé-er-re ZA 90, 196:11 ‘he continues’ from šutebrû (Št2), and uš-te-pé-et-te TJAUB p. 154:5 ‘he will distribute(?)’ from petû Št2. The fluctuation between a and e shows the conflicting pressures of paradigm consistency in verbs that have e as their basic vowel and the tendency to preserve a consistent and unambiguous marking of the imperfective by means of a.67 Most of the E‑imperfectives occur in texts that are either from a relatively early stage of Old Babylonian or from genres that tend to be conservative or traditional in style, such as literary and “scientific” texts (Kouwenberg 2001: 228). This suggests that the E-verbs originally had the phonologically “correct” imperfective forms with e and 65.  A‑forms are unusual outside the imperfective; see Kouwenberg 2001: 229 for some instances. They may be explained from the pressure the imperfective exerts on the rest of the paradigm. An exception is redû in the D‑stem ‘to add’ and in the Š‑stem ‘to have sth. sent, make (a fluid) flow, proceed, continue, intervene’, which show many A‑forms in their entire paradigm (see CAD R 239ff. s.v. 9–18), presumably because they are lexicalized and therefore no longer under the influence of the G‑stem redû ‘to follow, accompany’, with its host of E‑forms. Note that many non-imperfective A‑forms of III/H verbs are instances of the phenomenon to be discussed presently, the replacement of e with a in the presence of an a-holding suffix, e.g., the t‑Pf tu-ub-ta-ar-ri-a-an-ni AbB 2, 116:26 ‘you have made me hungry’ from berû and the Prec li-ba-li-a JCS 9, 9b:18 ‘may they (Fem) extinguish’ from belû. 66.  In Akkadian, e more often serves as an allophone of a or i than as a separate phoneme, and the phonological contrast between imperfectives such as upettē and ūbbeb and the corresponding perfectives upettī and ūbbib must have been minimal in the light of the numerous cases where e and i interchange, not only in the orthography but no doubt also in actual pronunciation. According to W. von Soden (GAG §8b), the frequent use of i where we would expect e (as in the use of ⟨ši⟩ for /še/), especially in the South of Babylonia, suggests that there was little difference in pronunciation between e and i. 67.  Old Assyrian has also replaced the D and Š imperfective forms that we would theoretically expect, such as *ušabbē < *ušabbaʿ ‘I satisfy’ and *ušašmē < *ušašmaʿ ‘I cause to hear’, with ušabbā and ušašmā, on the model of the a/i contrast in the strong verbs; cf. GKT §95g.

17.5.  The E-paradigm and Babylonian Vowel Harmony

531

only subsequently replaced them with A‑forms by analogy with the A‑paradigm: ūbbeb § ūbbab just as, e.g., ūrrak from arāku ‘to be(come) long’, and upettē § upattā just as urabbā from rabû ‘to be(come) big’.68 Since this replacement affects the basic form of the paradigm, it was bound to have consequences for the other members. Accordingly, we observe a gradual expansion of A‑forms to other forms in derived stems that restored a in the imperfective. This is one of the reasons for the fact that incidental A‑forms outside the imperfective already occur in Old Babylonian and for the massive appearance of A-forms in the D‑ and the Š‑stems of E‑verbs in Standard Babylonian, to which I will return in the next section. The second systematic exception to E‑colouring in Old Babylonian is that forms with a weak R3 that have E‑colouring in their basic forms show a strong tendency to have A-forms when they have an ending starting with a. These endings are: • the ventive -am and all suffix pronouns based on it, e.g., Impfv a-la-qé-a-am AbB 6, 195:7′ and passim ‘I will take along’ from leqû; Gtn Imp ši-ta-am-mé-a-an-ni Atr. p. 88:20 ‘listen to me carefully!’ from šemû; N Impfv i-pa-at-ti-a-ku-um JCS 24, 67 no. 68:6 ‘it will be opened for you’ from petû • the personal ending -ā in the prefix forms and the imperative, e.g., Pfv 2p ta-aḫ-pí-a AbB 2, 162:7 ‘you (Pl) broke’ from ḫepû; Impfv 2p (lā) ta-ag-gi-a AbB 6, 118:29; Impfv 3fp i-ta-ab-bi-a-ni-iš-šu OBE 14: r.26 ‘they (tillātūšu ‘his auxiliary troops’) will rise against him’ from tebû; Imp Pl a-li-a-nim AbB 9, 92:25 ‘come (Pl) up here!’ from elû • the stative endings -āku, etc. and the 3fs ‑at, e.g., ba-ri-a-nu AbB 7, 59:12 ‘we are hungry’ from berû; la-qí-at VAB 5, 78:17 from leqû • the Acc Sg ending -am, e.g., Inf la-qí-a-am AbB 14, 182:17 (see §17.8.4, p. 583); PrPartc ra-a-am UVB 18 pl. 28c:10 ‘loyal shepherd’ from rēʾû ‘shepherd’ (i.e., /rāʾâm/ < rāʾiam, see below); Adj (eqlam) pa-ṣi-a-am JCS 7, 96a:8 ‘a white (i.e., cleared) plot of land’ • the feminine singular construct state of the present and past participles, e.g., (DNF) pa-tia-at (kakkīa) KH r.XXVII 94 ‘who ‘opens’ my weapons’ from petû • the feminine plural ending -ātu/im, e.g., a-ri-a-tim AbB 7, 86:20 ‘pregnant (sheep)’ from erû, a-li-a-tim AbB 6, 64:18 ‘upcoming (caravans)’ from elû, and deverbal nouns such as taṣiātu, Pl of tēṣītu ‘quarrel’ (e.g., ta-ṣi-a-tum AbB 6, 189:32) and taptiātu, Pl of teptītu ‘reclamation (of land)’ (e.g., tap-ti-a-tum CT 6, 20a:1) The contraction of ia to â in late Old Babylonian does not further affect these A‑forms: cf. instances such as ta-al-la-am /tāllâm/ AbB 7, 148: r.7′ ‘you will come up’ < tālliam from elû; ša‑ma-ku /šamâku/ AbB 14, 150:11 ‘I have heard’ < šamiāku from šemû, and ši-ta-a-am /šitaʾʾâm/ AbB 7, 115:23′ ‘search for me’ < šitaʾʾeam, Imp Gtn of šeʾû. The phenomenon is not restricted to verbs and deverbal nouns but also applies to purely nominal and adjectival forms of III/voc roots, which originally ended in ‑ium, such as the ordinals rebû ‘fourth’ (e.g., ra-bi-at (mitḫartim) ‘a quarter of the side (of the square)’ TMB 13:2), sebû ‘seventh’ (sa-ba-at (šiddim) ‘one-seventh of the side’ Sumer 7, 148:20 < sabiat ) and šinšerû ‘twelfth’ (ši-in-ša-ri-am AbB 14, 77:11 ‘one-twelfth part’), and the nisbe adjectives elû ‘upper, 68.  Instead of upattā, a form upettā is theoretically conceivable but was clearly disfavoured, because only upattā is in accordance with the Babylonian vowel harmony rule and with the forms of the A‑paradigm (urabbā, etc.). Very few instances of the upettā type seem to occur: tu-ú-ḫe-ep-pa YOS 11, 26: III 40 (OB) ‘you must break’, which may, however, be an error because of te-ḫe-ep-PA-e-ma YOS 11, 26: I 4 where pa is certainly an error for -pe-. A comparable form for the Š‑stem is ú-še-e-da AbB 2, 157:19 (OB) ‘he may/ will inform’ from idû Š.

532

The E-paradigm and Babylonian Vowel Harmony  17.5.

outer’ and qerbû ‘inner’ in the set phrase tuppī/ṣeʾpī qa/erbiam u a-li-a-am ‘my inner and outer tablet’ (i.e., tablet and case, see Kraus 1967: 13–14), e.g., tuppī qá-ar-bi-a-am u a-li-a-am AbB 7, 97:21, and see Kouwenberg 2001: 243 for more references. The use of this type of A‑forms is geographically and chronologically confined to texts written in the core area of Babylonia (especially excluding Northern Mesopotamia; see below) during the First Dynasty of Babylon (ca. 1900–1600 b.c.). The earliest instances occur in the Archaic Babylonian letters published in OBTA, such as the forms te-še-me and te-pè-eš, quoted in §17.5 (p. 527). The end of the phenomenon is demarcated by the Middle Babylonian period: relevant instances no longer seem to occur in Middle Babylonian, where the verbs in question consistently show E‑forms (see the next section). In order to understand the background of these A‑forms, we have to investigate more closely the conditions under which they occur. First of all, when the words in question do not have an a-holding suffix, A-forms are relatively rare in Classical Old Babylonian; for examples, see Kouwenberg 2001: 242–46 under the verbs berû, elû, gerû, ḫerû, leqû, nepû, petû, redû, and šemû.69 Second, the use of A‑forms seems to be optional: in most cases, the corresponding E‑form is also in use: thus we also find lā tēggiā alongside lā tāggiā ‘do (Pl) not be remiss!’, eleqqeam alongside alaqqeam ‘I will bring along’, īteliam alongisde ītaliam ‘it has come up’ from elû, berêku alongside bariāku ‘I am hungry’ from berû, petiat alongside patiat ‘it (Fem) is open’ from petû, qerbiam alongside qarbiam ‘inner’ from qerbû, and rebiat (re-bi-a-at šamnim ÖB 2, 22:59 ‘one-fourth of the oil’) alongside rabiat from rebû, etc. (see Kouwenberg 2001: 242–46 for more examples and references). The relative frequency of A- and E-forms varies widely from word to word. Third, the alternation of A‑ and E‑forms is not a question of dialect variation within Old Babylonian, because in some texts we find E- and A‑forms side by side: e.g., AbB 5, 160 has le-qí-a-at ‘it has been taken’ in r.10′ beside ba-ri-a-ku ‘I am hungry’ in r.17′ and ú-sa-li-a-ki ‘I begged you’ in r.5′, and AbB 7, 89:13–14 uses a-li-a-am alongside qé-er-bi-a-am. Thus, the same speaker could use A-forms of one word and E-forms of another in the same (con)text. This demonstrates that the preference for E‑ or A‑forms varied per word rather than per speaker. Fourth, the presence of e need not be caused by a former guttural: the same interchange of A‑ and E-forms is found in the nisbe adjective qerbû ‘inner’ from qerbu ‘inner part’ and in the Š‑stem of waṣû (ušēṣī, etc.), where ē has a different source (see §16.2.3, pp. 455–456): cf. the Š Pfv ušēṣī alongside ušāṣiam and the Štn Impfv ušteneṣṣē alongside uš-ta-na-ṣí-a-am, both with a ventive (Kouwenberg 2001: 247 s.v.). 69.  This is in marked contrast to the situation in the northern dialects of Old Babylonian, for some of which we have abundant information, such as those of Mari and Shemshara. Here we find many forms that do not have E‑colouring at all and simply show a in forms where Classical Old Babylonian has e, without any obvious criterion. There are numerous instances of the same forms occurring both with a and with e, e.g., Gtn Impfv il-te-ne-eq-qé ARM 1, 132:12 vs. il-ta-na-aq-qú-ú A.2279:11 (quoted in NABU 93/55) from leqû ‘to take, receive’; D Pfv nu-ṭà-aḫ-ḫi ARM 26/1, 98 no. 9:5 vs. nu-ṭe4-eḫ-ḫi ARM 26/1, p. 266 no. 101:6 from ṭeḫû ‘to come near’; Dt Pfv ú-ta-ab-bi-ib ARM 4, 57:10 vs. ú-te-eb-bi-ib ARM 2, 18:6 from ebēbu ‘to be(come) pure’; Š Prec li-iš-qé-el-pu ARM 4, 81:27 vs. Š Pfv úš-qa-al-pu-ú ARM 2, 24: r.10′ from neqelpû ‘to float downstream’, and, in the same letter, li-qé-ri-bu-šu (ARM 10, 5:29) alongside ú-qaar-ri-bu-[. . .] (ARM 10, 5:31) from qerēbu D ‘to bring near’. One reason of this variation is the fact that the Mari documents come from a wide geographical area, with some of them clearly showing their own orthographic and dialectal peculiarities (see §1.4.1.2.2, pp. 13–14, for further literature). A comprehensive study of them might reveal certain patterns. However, this first requires a more complete publication and study of the Mari archives.

17.5.  The E-paradigm and Babylonian Vowel Harmony

533

Finally, an absolute condition is that the form contains the sequence ‑i/e  ya‑, with a palatal glide before a. This glide may go back to an E‑colouring guttural, as in the relevant forms of petû and šemû, or originate as a glide between i and a following vowel, as in those of elû (√ʿlī  ), waṣû Š, and qerbû. A‑forms of this type do not occur in E-verbs of other types, such as the I/voc verbs of the type ebēbu, II/voc verbs such as bêlu ‘to possess, rule’, and strong E‑verbs such as šebēru. Thus, it is this glide that blocks global E‑colouring. The question is how we should envisage this process in a historical perspective. From a theoretical point of view, two scenarios are conceivable. The first is that global E‑colouring is an extension of local E‑colouring. With the imperfective of leqû as example, we would first have *ʾalaqqaḥ > alaqqē and *ʾalaqqaḥam > alaqqeam, after which alaqqē further becomes eleqqē. Alaqqeam, on the other hand, persists until well into the Old Babylonian period, during which it is gradually replaced by eleqqeam; see Table 17.2: Impfv

Stage I

Stage II

Stage III

Stage IV

1s.

*ʾalaqqaḥ

alaqqē

eleqqē

eleqqē

3mp.

*yilaqqaḥū

ilaqqe( )ū

ileqqû

1s.+vent.

*ʾalaqqaḥam

alaqqe( )am

alaqqe( )am

y

y

ileqqû y

eleqqe(y)am

Table 17.2: The historical development of the imperfective of leqû.

Stage I represents the Proto-Akkadian (and possibly Sargonic Old Akkadian) stage, before the loss of the gutturals. In stage II, the guttural was lost after changing a to e, as we find in Old Assyrian. In stage III, which represents Old Babylonian in general, we observe the specifically Babylonian spread of e over the whole word as a result of vowel harmony except before a palatal glide plus a. In Stage IV, attained before the Middle Babylonian period, the exception was eliminated and the change a > e penetrated the entire paradigm of the E‑verbs. A major problem with this scenario is that the third stage, alaqqē > eleqqē, does not cover forms that have not yet developed a vowel e, such as the 3ms Stat *laqiḥ > laqī and the participles *laq(i)ḥum > laqium and *lāqiḥum > lāqium (which are the actual Old Assyrian forms). Thus we have to assume that they represent an additional stage in which e was extended analogically to such forms from the imperfective eleqqē.70 Forms such as laqī and laqium do sporadically occur in Old Babylonian, e.g., [b]a-ri-u4 AbB 5, 141:16 ‘they are hungry’ from berû, na-pí AbB 5, 141:17 ‘he has been taken as a pledge’ from nepû,71 and pa-tu-ú(‑um) MSL 12, 162:152 // 184:44 (= lú.si.sá), apparently from petû ‘to open’, but it is hard to tell whether they are meaningful in this context or belong to the numerous erratic variants. The second scenario is to assume that all a vowels were simultaneously affected under the influence of the E‑colouring guttural (*ʾalaqqaḥ > eleqqē ) but that only local E‑colouring occurred if there was a palatal glide followed by a‑ (*ʾalaqqaḥam > alaqqeam). In this case, the raising of a may have been a suprasegmental phenomenon, comparable to pharyngealization in Arabic, which may also affect the entire word (Laver 1994: 327–28). This accounts for forms such as *laqiḥ > leqī directly, without the need to assume an analogical change, but the sporadic laqī type forms can only be explained as irregular oddities. 70.  This implies that this scenario could be falsified by unmotivated words with E‑colouring of a vowel a that is not adjacent to a guttural. Such words are imēru ‘donkey’ < *ḥimārum and uṭṭetu ‘grain, barley’ (alongside uṭṭatu) < *ḥunṭatum, but in both cases e may also have been caused by r and ṭ, respectively (GAG §9b). 71.  Both forms are from the same letter, characterized as “early OB” by CAD N/2 172a s.v. nepû v. b-2′.

534

The E-paradigm and Babylonian Vowel Harmony  17.5.

Both scenarios lead to the same result for Classical Old Babylonian, and in both scenarios the A‑forms in the Š‑stem of waṣû and in qerbû—where e/ē is the original vowel—have to be explained as a secondary development by analogy with the e/a interchange in the reflexes of the III/H verbs: ušēṣī § ušāṣiam and qerbû § qarbiam by analogy with, say, ureddī § uraddiam or a similar form. The choice between the two scenarios is hampered by the lack of pertinent evidence from Ur III Babylonian. I remarked above that in Ur III Babylonian only global E‑colouring is attested, but this is not decisive because none of the actual cases concern a root with a weak R3. It might also seem of little consequence which scenario we prefer, since they have the same outcome, but this is not the case: it bears on the dialect classification of third-millennium Akkadian: if E‑colouring in Babylonian was first local and only later became global, this is an additional argument for classifying Babylonian as a descendant of Sargonic Akkadian. If, on the other hand, E‑colouring was global from the outset, it must have developed independently in both dialects, so that Babylonian cannot be a continuation of Sargonic Akkadian. This does not exclude the possibility, however, that it was triggered by a common stimulus and/or results from areal influence; see further §1.5 (pp. 25–26). In the course of the Old Babylonian period, the A‑forms with a weak R3 were gradually replaced by E‑forms. Their decline can be observed throughout this period from the coexistence of A- and E-forms. It was only completed in Middle Babylonian, where we do not find A‑forms any longer (see the next section). The driving force behind this process was the tendency to eliminate stem alternation, which is particularly strong in Akkadian.72 In this case, the E‑forms prevailed, since they are in the majority and because they occupy the basic positions of the paradigm. The vacillation of A‑forms and E‑forms is a good example of a typical development in the history of language: a purely phonological process, in this case E‑colouring, introduces irregularity in the paradigm, which is subsequently undone by analogy (see, for instance, Anttila 1989: 94–108).

17.5.2.  E‑colouring in later Babylonian For the relationship between E‑forms and A‑forms in later Babylonian, I will restrict myself to a general characterization. Middle Babylonian shows a continuation of the tendencies observable in Old Babylonian. As we saw in the previous section, there is an increase in the number of E‑verbs, and the E‑verbs with a weak R3 such as leqû and elû no longer show any A‑forms according to Aro’s glossary of Middle Babylonian letters (Aro 1957). We only find E-forms, e.g., i-le-eq-qa-a /ileqqâ/ BE 17, 26:14 ‘he will bring along’ and e-la-a /ēlâ/ BE 18, 10:12 ‘I came up’. Among the derived stems of E‑verbs, the Gtn‑stem, the Št2‑stem, and the N‑stem have almost exclusively E-forms. This is undoubtedly related to the fact that their imperfective did not adopt A‑forms in Old Babylonian to enhance the contrast with the perfective. In the D‑stem and the Š‑stem and their derivatives, on the other hand, the fluctuation between E‑ and A‑forms in the imperfective seems to have been resolved in favour of the A‑forms, although the number of extant forms is very small: ú-pa-at-⟨ta⟩-šu-nu-tì UM 1/2, 53:10 ‘I will open them’, ú-ra-ad-da BE 17, 23:6 ‘I will add’, ú-ša-at-ma-ru ‘he will cause to bury’ (Subj) BBS 3: V 47 from temēru, and perhaps ú-ḫa-as-su-ú BE 17, 61:2 from ḫesû ‘to hide’ (? c. br.). E-forms such as ūbbeb, upettē, and ureddē are no longer found. In the rest of the relevant forms of the D‑ and the Š‑stems, the distribution of A‑ and E‑forms is complex. One of the defining characteristics of Middle Babylonian is the fact that even pure 72.  Cf. the cases mentioned in chap. 2 n. 8 (p. 33). For the stative, in which the feminine and plural stems of the adjective were discarded in favour of one stem, that of the masculine singular, see §7.4.1 (p. 177).

17.5.  The E-paradigm and Babylonian Vowel Harmony

535

A-verbs may have e in the perfective, t‑perfect, and present participle of these stems alongside the regular A-forms, as already noted in §11.2 (p. 269) and §13.2.1 (p. 325). Thus, we find umellī and umtellī alongside umallī and umtallī from malû D ‘to fill’, ulebbiš and ulabbiš from labāšu D ‘to clothe’, etc. Original E-verbs may have both forms as well, e.g., uraddi and ureddi from redû D ‘to add’ and uqarrib and uqerrib from qerēbu D ‘to bring near’.73 The background of this e in otherwise pure A‑verbs and the apparently indiscriminate use of E‑ and A‑forms pose a difficult problem. A possible explanation for e is that it results from a phonological rule that in a closed syllable a may become e if the next syllable contains i (Umlaut). In this case, the A‑forms must represent historical spellings or—when they occur in royal inscriptions—Assyrianisms. In a similar vein, Aro (1955: 49) concludes that the a > e Umlaut is “ein fakultatives phonetisches Phänomen” that has gradually spread in the course of time. There are, however, two major objections to a phonological explanation. First, in Neo-Babylonian there are hardly any traces of this Umlaut. Second, it does not apply, for instance, to the G‑stem of I/i verbs, which have the same environment but no vowel change; cf. forms such as inaddī ‘he puts down’ (e.g., i-na-an-di UM 1/2, 41:26), inakkis ‘he cuts’ (e.g., i-na-ak-ki-is UM 1/2, 28:11), and išattī ‘he drinks’ (e.g., i-ša-at-ti UM 1/2, 19:18).74 These facts suggest that the a > e Umlaut is not a phonological but a morphosyntactic process, namely, an analogical extension of the relevant part of the E‑paradigm to the corresponding A‑forms, as schematically rendered in Table 17.3: E-verbs

A-verbs

A-verbs

Impfv

uraddā

umallā

umallā

Pfv

ureddī

umallī

t‑Pf

urteddī

umtallī

§

umellī umtellī

Table 17.3: The rise of Umlaut in Middle Babylonian.

The trigger for this replacement was the fact that the E‑verbs have an extra marker distinguishing the imperfective from the rest: they show both a/i apophony in the ending and a versus e in the stem. Although they are numerically a minority, the extra morpheme may have led to a tendency to introduce E-forms in A-verbs also and thus to the paradigm in the rightmost column of Table 17.3.75 This tendency was not carried through consistently, so that A- and E‑forms of A-verbs came to be used side by side, and in the end it was not strong enough to prevail. The original Everbs tend to keep their vowel e, except in a few instances—especially uraddī and uqarrib, which already showed a strong predilection for A‑forms in Old Babylonian.76 73.  See also GAG §§10c, 88b, and 89b; Aro 1955: 40–49; and van Soldt 1991: 390–91. 74.  It is true that several A‑verbs of the I/i class appear as E‑verbs in Middle Babylonian: examples include makāru and ganāḫu, mentioned above under no. 4 (p. 529). However, it seems that the final radicals r and ḫ are mainly responsible for this process. A counter-argument is the noun kisallu ‘courtyard’, which is attested in the Gen as kiselli (ki-se-el-li UM 1/2, 44:8); see Aro 1955: 40. 75.  Cf. Kuryłowicz’s (1945–49: 20–23) first law of analogy, which stipulates that when a simple and a compound morpheme have the same function, the compound morpheme will gradually replace the simple one. For another instance, see the end of §9.3.1 (p. 224). 76.  This explanation should be seen as tentative and provisional. A definitive solution cannot be attained without a detailed study of all extant Middle Babylonian texts, classified according to genre, provenance, and chronology, which still remains to be done.

536

The E-paradigm and Babylonian Vowel Harmony  17.5.

The Neo-Babylonian material presented in Woodington’s grammar of the Kuyunjik texts (Woodington 1982: 85–87) suggests that a further spread of A‑forms has taken place: E‑forms are exceptional in all derived stems, and even the Middle Babylonian Umlaut in D‑ and Š‑stems has hardly left any traces. A glaring exception is the imperfective (lā) ú-ḫe-ep-pe SAA 17, 102: s.4 ‘let him not destroy’, in a context that suggests that it may have been borrowed from Standard Babylonian. In Standard Babylonian, the situation with regard to E‑ and A‑forms is chaotic and impossible to portray in detail here. The following general tendencies can be observed. Original A‑verbs normally stick to the A-paradigm and only incidentally show E-forms. The E‑verbs inherited from Old Babylonian show a different behaviour according to type of verb and derived stem. With regard to the G‑stem, the I/voc and II/voc verbs with E‑colouring broadly preserve their traditional conjugation, with E‑forms being strongly predominant. The E‑verbs with a weak R3, which showed the fluctuation between A‑forms and E‑forms in Old Babylonian as described in the previous section, mostly use E‑forms as well, but there are large differences between individual verbs: some of them do not show A-forms at all,77 and others have them rather often.78 The strict criteria that originally determined the use of the A‑forms have disappeared.79 In addition, part of the A‑forms are undoubtedly to be explained as Assyrianisms, especially when they occur in royal inscriptions of Assyrian kings or in texts coming from an Assyrian environment. In the derived stems of E‑verbs, there is again a distinction between the Gtn‑, Št2‑, and N‑stems on the one hand, and the D‑, Dt‑, Š‑, and Št1‑stems of E‑verbs on the other. The former group, which earlier had a strong preference for E‑forms, in Standard Babylonian have suffered a considerable influx of A‑forms that are used indiscriminately alongside the E‑forms. It seems plausible that this development is at least partly due to Assyrian influence.80 In the D-, Dt-, Š-, and Št1‑stems of E‑verbs, which already showed a relatively large number of A‑forms in Old Babylonian, the predominance of A-forms has increased to such an extent that E-forms have been marginalized. Just as in Middle Babylonian, the imperfective, which in Old Babylonian tended to have a instead of e, has generalized a, so that there are hardly any imperfectives with e left in Standard Babylonian.81 For the other forms, the Middle Babylonian Umlaut of a > e in the perfective, t‑perfect, and present participle of D and Š is not carried through, although pertinent forms are occasionally attested. In fact, the main development is in the opposite 77.  Such as belû ‘to be(come) extinguished’, berû ‘to be(come) hungry’, egû ‘to be(come) negligent’, enû ‘to change’, epû ‘to bake’, reʾû ‘to tend (sheep)’, retû ‘to fix’, and zenû ‘to be(come) angry’. 78.  This applies, for instance, to dekû ‘to summon’, petû ‘to open’, reḫû ‘to pour out, beget’, and šemû ‘to hear’. 79.  There are, however, traces of the original rule—that A‑forms correlate with the presence of a in the ending—preserved in fossilized forms and expressions. It can hardly be accidental, for instance, that the adjective nebû ‘bright’ predominantly has e in the masculine forms but a in the 3fs Stat nabât (see CAD N/1 39b s.v. nabû C v. and N/2 148f. s.v. nebû adj.). Likewise, the obscure adjective which only occurs as an epithet of nišū ‘people’ in the form epiātum or apiātum in Old Babylonian appears as apâtu in Standard Babylonian (see CAD A/2 168f. s.v. apâtu). Thus, the A‑form has been generalized because of the ending ‑ātu. Another instance may be the Pl taṣbâtu alongside the Sg *teṣbītu, forms that were discussed in chap. 14 n. 177 (p. 408). 80.  See the dictionaries, for instance, under the Gtn‑stems of petû ‘to open’, redû ‘to follow, accompany’, retû ‘to fix’, šegû ‘to become rabid’, šeʾû ‘to look for’, tebû ‘to rise’, and šemû ‘to hear’; the N‑stems of ḫepû ‘to break’, ḫerû ‘to dig’, enû ‘to change’, ešû ‘to confuse’, petû ‘to open’, seḫû ‘to be(come) disturbed’, šemû ‘to hear’, and the Št2‑stems of redû ‘to follow, accompany’ and šutebrû ‘to continue, persist’. 81.  Instances of Standard Babylonian E‑imperfectives include tu-ṭep-pe BAM 2, 159: IV 21 (alongside more common tuṭappā) and ú-ṭeb-be SpTU 1, 34:27.

17.6.  The I/voc Verbs

537

direction: on the model of the A-verbs such as umallā – umallī – umtallī, a paradigm such as uraddā – ureddī – urteddī was replaced by uraddā – uraddī – urtaddī ; in other words, a was generalized across the whole paradigm of D and Š. This process was reinforced by two structural conditions: (1) the basic status of the imperfective and (2) the pressure exerted by the standard A-paradigm on all other (sub)-paradigms. In addition, Assyrian influence no doubt played an important role. Accordingly, if we consider the E-verbs with a common D‑ and/or Š‑stem as they are presented in the dictionaries, it turns out that most of them have exclusively or predominantly A‑forms,82 whereas a small number either show A- and E-forms in roughly equal proportions83 or predominantly E‑forms.84 Finally, a remarkable feature of Standard Babylonian E‑verbs is that the prefixes usually have a, even if the other vowels of the form are e. Occasionally, such forms are already found in Old Babylonian, e.g., ta-at-bé ZA 44, 32:16 ‘you stood up’ from tebû, (lā) ta-pé-et-te-e OBTR 147:25 ‘do (Fem) not open’ from petû, and a-pí AbB 3, 20:13, 16 ‘I distrained’ from nepû, but they become the norm in Standard Babylonian.85 This is especially striking in the first-person singular, which almost invariably has a-, just as in the strong verb (GAG §75g),86 e.g., a-de-ki Erra I 123 ‘I will summon’ and a-leq-qa-kim Maqlû III 116 ‘I will take for you (fem.)’. The prefixes with a have the double advantage that they are also used in the strong paradigm and that they are more distinctive than the ones with e. In royal inscriptions, prefixes with a in E‑verbs are standard, but this is doubtless one of the Assyrian features of these texts: e.g., ap-te-e Sg. Cyl. 66 ‘I opened’, áš-me (. . .) al-qé Ash. p. 104:33 ‘I heard . . . I took’, and ad-ke RIMA I/2, 143:10 ‘I summoned’ from dekû.

17.6. The I/voc Verbs 17.6.1.  Introductory remarks The I/voc verbs consist of two subclasses: the I/a verbs and the I/e verbs. In principle, the I/a verbs come from roots with a non-E‑colouring guttural (i.e., *ʾ or *h) as R1. I/a verbs with a Proto-Semitic root with *ʾ include several well-known verbs that have exact cognates in various Semitic languages, such as aḫāzu ‘to take’ (√ʾḫð ), akālu ‘to eat’ (√ʾkl  ), amāru ‘to see’ (√ʾmr ), agāru ‘to hire’ (√ʾgr ) and arāku ‘to be(come) long’ (√ʾrk ). In contrast, I/a verbs with 82.  Common verbs with exclusively A-forms include all III/R verbs: qebēru ‘to bury’ D, sekēru ‘to dam’ D, ṣeḫēru ‘to be(come) small, young’ D, šebēru ‘to break’ D, temēru ‘to bury’ D, and the III/H verbs dekû ‘to summon’ D and Š, ḫerû ‘to dig’ D and Š, leqû ‘to receive’ Š, letû ‘to split’ D, seḫû ‘to be(come) disturbed’ D, s/ṣullû D ‘to pray’, suppû D ‘to pray’, and wadû D ‘to make known’. Predominantly A-forms are listed for belû ‘to be(come) extinguished’ D, gerû ‘to quarrel’ D, ḫepû ‘to break’ D, petû ‘to open’ D, redû ‘to follow, accompany’ D and Š, retû ‘to fix’ D, šebû ‘to be(come) satisfied’ D, tebû ‘to rise’ Š, ṭebû ‘to sink’ D, ṭeḫû ‘to come near’ D, and ṭepû ‘to apply’ D. 83.  E.g., peḫû ‘to close up’ D, reḫû ‘to pour out, beget’ D, šemû ‘to hear’ Š, zenû ‘to be(come) angry’ D. 84.  This is, for instance, found in mesû ‘to clean’ D, nesû ‘to be/go far away’ D and Š, šūdû ‘to cause to know’ Š, and in the doubly-weak verbs elû ‘to go /come up’ and enû ‘to change’. 85.  According to Aro (1955: 72), Middle Babylonian only shows e in the prefixes, in accordance with the fact that it is a typical southern dialect with generally a strict application of E‑colouring. 86.  Examples of the rare first-person singular forms with e‑ include el-qé RA 33, 105:14, e-le-ʾ-i-a Gilg. p. 552:250, and e-le-e BWL 48:1 (var. of a-le-ʾi(-i)). Interestingly, first-person forms with e‑ become frequent again in Neo-Babylonian royal inscriptions, as archaizing forms, e.g., e-er-te VAB 4, 128:13 ‘I erected’ from retû versus earlier ar-ti Ash. p. 4: V 13, and e-es-ki-ir VAB 4, 136: VIII 39 ‘I dammed’ from sekēru ‘to dam’ versus earlier askir (passim).

538

The I/voc Verbs  17.6.

h in Proto-Semitic are less common, but reliable instances are alāku ‘to go /come’ (√hlk ), and *awāʾum ‘to speak’ (√hwū).87 The I/e verbs primarily come from roots with an E‑colouring guttural (i.e., *ʿ or *ḥ) as R1. Well-known instances with original *ʿ are ebēru ‘to cross’ (√ʿbr ), ekēmu ‘to take away’ (√ʿkm), elēṣu ‘to swell, distend’ (√ʿlṣ), elû ‘to go /come up’ (√ʿlī  ), emēdu ‘to lean on, reach’ (√ʿmd  ), *enēbu ‘to sprout’ (√ʿnb), erēbu ‘to enter’ (√ʿrb), etēqu ‘to pass’ (√ʿtq), ezēbu ‘to leave’ (√ʿzb), and ezēzu ‘to become angry’ (√ʿzz ‘to be huge’). With original *ḥ, we may single out edēdu ‘to be(come) sharp’ (√ḥdd  ), edēšu ‘to be(come) new’ (√ḥdθ  ), ekēlu ‘to be(come) dark’ (√ḥkl  ), elēlu ‘to be(come) pure’ (√ḥll  ), emēmu ‘to be(come) hot’ (√ḥmm), enēnu ‘to grant a favour’ (√ḥnn), erēru ‘to be(come) dry’ (√ḥrr ) and eṣû ‘to slit’ (√ḥṣī  ). The common verb epēšu ‘to make, do’ can also be assigned to this group on the basis of third-millennium spellings with the sign é in combination with E-colouring, although it does not have an obvious etymology.88 However, the distinction between I/a and I/e verbs does not always correspond neatly to the nature of the reconstructed gutturals. In Babylonian, the number of I/e verbs is enlarged by numerous verbs with *ʾ or *h as original R1: first, the doubly-weak verbs epû ‘to bake’ from √ʾpī, erû ‘to be(come) pregnant’ from √hrī,89 and ewû ‘to become’ from √hwī (see §17.5.1 group 3, p. 528); second, some E‑verbs with r among their radicals, such as esēru ‘to confine’ (√ʾsr) (see §17.5.1 group 4, pp. 528–529);90 and third, some other verbs that are E‑verbs for unknown reasons: enēšu ‘to be(come) weak’ (√ʾnš), esēpu ‘to collect, harvest’, and ekēpu ‘to draw near’ (see §17.5.1 group 5, p. 529).91 In Assyrian, the opposite is found in arāšu ‘to cultivate’, which is an I/a verb in spite of its root √ḥr  θ. In addition, the I/e verbs also include a few verbs that go back to PSem I/*y verbs (see §16.3.2, pp. 464–465, and §17.5.1 group 2, p. 528). With regard to Babylonian, we have to make a strict distinction between the I/voc verbs and verbs with a strong ʾ as R1 (see §17.4 above, pp. 520–525), such as ʾabātu ‘to destroy’, ʾadāru ‘to be(come) dark, worried’, ʾalālu ‘to hang’ (trans.), ʾalātu ‘to swallow’, and ʾapāru ‘to wear on the head’. These verbs are conjugated as strong verbs, as is clear from uncontracted forms such as lu‑a-pí-ir-ši AbB 1, 30:24 ‘let me cover her with a headdress’, i.e., /luʾappirši/, and mu-ḪA-abbi-it RA 86, 5: IV 12 ‘destroying’ (c. st.), i.e., /muʾabbit/. Even more significant is the fact that, 87.  *awāʾum (III/ū) is only attested in the Gt-stem (OB atwûm, OA atawwum), apart from awātu (Bab) ‘word, matter’, a substantivized G-stem infinitive (< *hawāʾtum). Initial *h may be posited on the basis of third-millennium spellings with ⟨é⟩ = /ha/ (see §17.2 above, p. 513) and perhaps also because of Ugar hwt ‘word’. The Old Assyrian G forms of *awāʾum mentioned in the dictionaries come from another awāʾum (III/ ī), which means ‘to perform an awītum’ (Dercksen 2004: 148–51); see Kouwenberg 2008. 88.  Cf. Mari OAk é-pá-áš ARM 19, 96:1, 5, i.e., /ḥapāš/, Inf c. st. It may be connected with Geʿez ḥafaśa ‘to rake up’ and Ar ḥafaša ‘to gather’ (see CDG 227 s.v.), but the semantic difference makes this problematic. 89.  Cf. Heb/Ugar hrī, SED 1, 286 s.v. *hry; cf. also é-rí-tum /harītum/ VE 594 in Ebla (Krebernik 1983: 23); Old Assyrian e-ri-a-at KTS 1, 42a:18 ‘she is pregnant’ has secondary E-colouring under the influence of r. 90.  Here should also be mentioned the N tantum verb nērubu ‘to flee’ (see §12.2.1, p. 292, and §12.2.2.3, p. 299), which is cognate with Ar haraba ‘to flee’; its e vowel must be due to the influence of r (GAG §9b). 91.  The verbs esēpu and ekēpu may plausibly be connected with Ugar/He/Aram ʾsp and He/Aram ʾkp, respectively, but since they do not contain r and also occur in Assyrian as I/e verbs (e.g., te-és-si-ip Or. 18, 405:24 (MA) ‘you collect’ and ek-pá-at CCT 4, 10b:15 (OA) ‘it (Fem) is close by’), they must go back to an E‑colouring guttural. Apparently, these verbs should be added to the words with variation in their gutturals discussed in §17.2 (pp. 511–513). However, for ekēpu a possible alternative explanation is that it is actually eqēbu, a denominal verb derived from the root √ʿqb ‘heel’ (Akk eqbu). A difficult case is also erēšu (Ass erāšu) ‘to ask’ (see n. 2 above, p. 511).

17.6.  The I/voc Verbs

539

where the strong paradigm differs from that of the I/voc verbs, these verbs follow the former; cf. the G Imp ʾubut ‘destroy!’ (ú-bu-ut Atr. p. 88:22),92 where the I/voc verbs have a‑ or e‑ (see below), and the paradigm of the N‑stem, where the I/voc verbs have ‑nn‑ as marker, but the verbs with a strong ʾ assimilate n to ʾ (GAG §97j), e.g.: • (lā) ta-AḪ-ḪA-ad-da-ra /taʾʾaddarā/ UET 5, 44:10 ‘do (Pl) not worry!’ (OB) • IḪ-a-pi-˹ir˺ /iʾʾapir/ Gilg. p. 234:35 ‘it got covered’ (OB) • iʾ/IH-ḪA-ab-tu4 /iʾʾabtu/ V R 42 no. 2: r.49 // KAR 375: III 26 (SB) ‘it was destroyed’ (Subj) (see CAD A/1 42a s.v. abātu A lex. sect.) These N forms are especially important, because the fact that they are different from the N‑stems of the I/voc verbs is conclusive proof that, from a phonological point of view, the verbs that do not start with a strong ʾ do not start with ʾ at all but with a vowel. In Middle and Standard Babylonian, the distinction between verbs with a strong ʾ and the I/voc verbs becomes blurred and most of the former also develop weak forms according to the I/voc paradigm. Instead of iʾʾapir and iʾʾabit, for instance, we find innapir (in-na-pir TBP 12a: I 18) and innabit (in-nab-tu VAB 7, 230:17). Similar cases are the G Impfv il-la-lu- Sn. 153:27 ‘they hang’ (trans.) for iʾallal and the D Impfv ub-ba-tu BBS 7: II 11 ‘he destroys’ (Subj) instead of uʾabbatu.93 Insofar as these verbs are attested in other dialects, they are spelled with Ḫ-signs and behave as ordinary strong verbs, as we saw in §17.4 (pp. 524–525), e.g., OA ḫalālum ‘to hang’ (trans.), ḫalātum ‘to swallow’, and especially the N‑stem naḫdurum with its strong perfective iḫḫidir (e.g., a-ḫi-dí-ir BIN 4, 35:32 ‘I became worried’; see GKT §30b), whereas the I/voc verbs have an N perfective of the innāmer type (see §17.6.3.4, pp. 550–551). The most remarkable feature of the I/voc verbs is that, apart from demonstrably secondary developments, there are hardly any dialectal differences in their paradigm. Already in the earliest texts, the paradigm is established in the form it will have for the rest of the recorded history of Akkadian in all important respects. This proves that the loss of the guttural and the subsequent morphophonemic adaptations took place already before Akkadian split up into dialects, although it is virtually certain that in all other environments, and especially in the II/H and III/H verbs, the loss of the gutturals only occurred after the formation of the separate dialects. This can be inferred from the fundamental differences between the paradigms of these verbs in Babylonian and in Assyrian, differences that will be discussed later on in this chapter. We can only speculate about how to explain this situation, but the most plausible way seems to assume that already in Proto-Akkadian, perhaps even in Proto-Semitic, there was a group of verbs that actually had a long prefix vowel where the strong verb had a short (prefix) vowel plus R1. Whether it was the reflex of a lost consonant—guttural or otherwise—or whether it was “originally” long is hard to say but not of prime importance. For the sake of argument, I will assume that it is the reflex of a lost guttural that for some reason or other was dropped far earlier than gutturals in other positions. 92.  This form is not “fehlerhaft,” as suggested (with a question mark) by GAG3 §97d*, nor is it caused by the following labial b, as Tropper (1998: 13 n. 17) claims, but it is a perfectly regular strong imperative like purus. 93.  A verb that seems to have lost its strong ʾ in later Babylonian is OB ʾarāmu ‘to cover’ (cf. OB naʾramum, a garment; see CAD N/1 346a s.v. nāramu and OA ḫarāmum), which corresponds to SB arāmu, erēmu (see AHw 64b s.v. and CAD A/2 228–29 s.v.). A difficult case that still needs to be sorted out is arāru/  ʾarāru; cf. CAD A/2 236–38 s.v. arāru B/C and AHw 65–66 s.v. arāru II.

540

The I/voc Verbs  17.6.

If such a group of verbs indeed existed, we may assume by way of hypothesis that it included the verbs aḫāzu ‘to take’, amāru ‘to see’, and akālu ‘to eat’, because, if they had a guttural as R1, it was ʾ, which is generally a weak consonant and prone to being dropped, and also because these verbs are very frequent.94 It is well known that frequent forms often undergo reductions in form and tend to be affected by sound change first (Bybee 2001: 57–62).95 Moreover, these verbs were frequent enough to be a plausible starting point for the spread of this long vowel to other verbs with a guttural as R1.96 With amāru ‘to see’ as example, this gives an original imperfective *yīmuru and a perfective *yīmur ) alongside a suffix base *(ʾ)amVr.97 From the prefix categories of the basic stem, this long vowel was introduced into other places in the verbal paradigm where the strong verb has a short vowel plus R1, such as the Gt‑stem (Pfv iptaras § ītamar), the Š‑stem (Impfv ušapras § *ušāmar, Pfv ušapris § ušāmir, etc.), and the suffix base of the N‑stem (naprVs § nāmVr; see §17.6.3.4, pp. 550–552). However, the long vowel also spread to prefix forms where in the strong verb R1 is intervocalic rather than syllable-final: in the (originally pluractional) imperfective with gemination iparrVs and in the prefix forms of the D‑stem uparras and uparris, e.g., G Impfv āmmar, D Impfv ūḫḫaz, and D Pfv ūḫḫiz.98 This is an analogical extension due to the fact that these two categories are subordinate to the original G‑stem imperfective: the original dependency relationship in the strong verb *yiqtVlu § *yiqattalu, which in Akkadian became *yiprVsu § *yiparras (see §4.5.1, pp. 109–112) entailed *yīmuru § yīmmar, and in the D‑stem yiparrVs § yuparras entailed yīḫḫaz § yūḫḫaz. For the long vowel in these forms, see §17.6.2. below (pp. 543–545).99 94.  Also in West Semitic, these verbs show various reductions in form, e.g., loss of the initial vowel of the imperative in Arabic (ḫuð ‘take!’, kul ‘eat!’) and loss of ʾ in the imperfective in Post-Classical Arabic (yāḫuðu instead of yaʾḫuðu); see Wright 1967: I 74. In Hebrew, some frequent I/  ʾ verbs show a long o < ā yērub, which gave rise to the subclass of I/e verbs. It is quite possible that during a long period I/H verbs coexisted with the I/voc verbs, until finally all original I/H verbs had adopted the new paradigm. There are reasons to assume, for instance, that the gutturals *ʿ and *ḥ held out longer than *h and *ʾ and that therefore in Sargonic Akkadian a Š form yusaʿrab from erēbu ‘to enter’ (√ʿrb) coexisted with yusāḫiz from aḫāzu (√ʾḫð) (see below). Since syllable-final gutturals are normally left unexpressed in cuneiform writing, this scenario remains a matter of speculation. What we can observe is that the I/voc verbs have a long prefix vowel in the imperfective of the G‑stem (īmmar ) and the imperfective and perfective of the D‑stem (ūbbab and ūbbib), as I will argue in the next section. Since this occurs in dialects that normally preserve intervocalic gutturals, it demonstrates that something irregular is going on with the guttural of the I/voc verbs. However, in syllable-final position, which is crucial to the argument, the gutturals are virtually invisible. The only possible trace consists of the thirdmillennium signs ⟨má⟩ and ⟨sá⟩, discussed in §17.2 (p. 515), which are believed to render the syllables /maH/ and /saH/, respectively, where H stands for ʾ or ʿ. Relevant forms concerning I/voc verbs are only found for ⟨sá⟩ (see Hasselbach 2005: 69):100 • u-sá-rí-ib AKI p. 86:33 (RI of Naram-Sin) ‘he brought inside’, Š Pfv of erēbu ‘to enter’ (√ʿrb) • u-sá-ḫi-sú-ni AKI p. 159:102 (cp RI of Naram-Sin) ‘he settled them (Du), Š Pfv of aḫāzu • u-sá-l[i]-š[im] AKI p. 365 MŠ 11:6 (Mari OAk) ‘he caused to go up to her’ However, ⟨sá⟩ is also used where the value /saH/ is inappropriate, as noted in §17.2 (p. 515), which makes these forms equivocal: they may represent the original forms /yusaʿrib/ and /yusaʾḫiz/, but nothing prevents us from interpreting them as /yusārib/ and /yusāḫiz/.101 The fact that the first form later appears as ušērib with E‑colouring does not militate against this, because ušērib is the regular Š‑stem of an I/e verb and may therefore be the result of a secondary remodelling. The only actual trace of the former guttural in the I/voc verbs is the contrast between the I/a and I/e verbs, which reflects their etymological background, as we saw in the beginning of this section.

100.  Hasselbach (2005: 69) also mentions the Š Prec li-sá-ki-id /lisaʿkid/ SAB p. 66: r.3′ (Girsu) ‘let him hurry’. Both this interpretation and the association of this form with the unattested verb *ekēdu, which is inferred from the adjective ekdu ‘fierce’ and which according to AHw 193b s.v. may be related to Ar ʿkd ‘dick, energisch sein’, are too uncertain for this form to qualify as evidence in this context. 101.  Hasselbach (2005: 69) interprets the first one as /yusaʿrib/ but the second one as /yusāḫissunē/ with a long vowel instead of ‑aʾ‑, but she does not explain why.

542

The I/voc Verbs  17.6.

In the next sections, I will discuss the I/voc paradigm on the basis of the developments outlined above. In spite of their speculative nature, they enable us to give a consistent description without having recourse to ad hoc explanations.

17.6.2.  The paradigm of the G‑stem Table 17.4 shows the paradigm of the I/voc verbs in its Babylonian form, with amāru ‘to see’ for the I/a verbs, ezēbu ‘to leave’ for the I/e verbs, and the irregular alāku ‘to go /come’, with deviating Assyrian forms in smaller print (see also GAG §97 and Verbalpar. 14–18). Strong verb

I/a

I/e

alāku

īmmar

īzzib

īllak

Impfv

iparrVs

Pfv

iprVs

īmur

īzib

illik

t‑Pf

iptarVs

ītamar

ītezib

ittalak

Imp

pVrVs

amur

ezib

alik

Stat

paris

amir

ezib

alik

Inf

parāsu

amāru

ezēbu

alāku

PPartc

parsu

amru

ezbu

—-

PrPartc

pārisu

āmiru

ēzibu

āliku

Ass ēmmar Ass ēmur Ass ētamar

Ass ēzzib Ass ēzib Ass ētizib

Ass ezābu

Table 17.4: The paradigm of the I/voc verbs.

Broadly speaking, these forms are valid for all dialects, except for some differences in E-colouring that are independent of specific verb classes. A noteworthy fact that still needs to be explained is that none of the fientive I/a verbs belong to the otherwise very productive I/i class, although all other classes are represented.102 To start with the most straightforward categories, the non-prefix forms of infinitive, past participle, and present participle can directly be derived from their historical ancestors: in the I/a verbs Inf amārum < *ʾamār-, PPartc amrum < *ʾamir-, and PrPartc āmirum < *ʾāmir-, in the I/e verbs Inf ezābum < *ʿazāb-, PPartc ezbum < *ʿazib-, and PrPartc ēzibum < *ʿāzib-, of which ezābum (SAk and Ass) becomes ezēbu in Babylonian through vowel harmony (see §17.5.1, pp. 525–528).103 102.  Most fientive I/a verbs are A/u; other vowel classes are represented by alāku (A/i), arāru U/u ‘to tremble’, anāḫu (A/a) ‘to sigh, be exhausted’, arāḫu (A/a) ‘to hurry, be quick’, etc. The apparent exceptions arāmu I/i ‘to cover’ and apāru I/i ‘to put or wear on the head’ are (originally) strong verbs with ʾ as R1; see above. Non-fientive I/a verbs may have all isovocalic vowel classes, e.g., arāku I/i ‘to be(come) long’), abālu (A/a) ‘to be(come) dry’, ašāšu (U/u) ‘to be(come) worried’, etc. The absence of the root vowel i in the fientive verbs contrasts with its presence in all I/w verbs with two strong radicals (wabālu ‘to bring/carry’, etc.; see §16.2.1, pp. 448–449). However, the I/e verb esēru ‘to confine’ goes back to √ʾsir according to Kogan (2005: 152). For a comparable phenomenon in Arabic, Schramm (1991: 1406–7) suggests that the nature of the weak R1 is conditioned by the root vowel: ʾ goes with u, w goes with i, and y goes with a. If this is correct, it casts an intriguing light on the prehistory of the paradigm of the I/voc and I/w verbs, which requires further study. 103.  In Sargonic Akkadian, this type of infinitive is attested in e-ra-si-iš /  ʾerāsis/ SAB p. 183:23 (Gasur) from erēšu ‘to cultivate’; see Hasselbach 2005: 210. I interpret e-re-su-nu in line 18 of the same letter

17.6.  The I/voc Verbs

543

This development gave rise to the suffix base with an initial short a or e, which is the basis for all non-prefix forms in the derived stems. The imperative can also be derived from it: amur ‘see!’, alik ‘go!’, ezib ‘leave!’. It originally had a in the first syllable because of the guttural (against GAG §97d): *ʾamur, *ʿazib, etc., which may be preserved in SAk É-ru-uš /ḥaruš/ SAB p. 90:15 (Girsu) ‘cultivate!’ The problems concerning the paradigm of the I/voc verbs reside in the prefix conjugations. The perfective may—as always—be traced back to Proto-Semitic 3ms *yiʾmur, 2ms *taʾmur, 1s ʾaʾmur, etc., but—as I argued in the previous section—it is likely that these forms had already replaced their guttural with a long vowel in Proto-Akkadian or earlier. The spelling does not show this, but the rest of the paradigm, especially the form of the I/voc imperfective (to be treated below), makes it virtually certain that the guttural had already been dropped. The Assyrian third-person prefix vowel ē‑ is not easy to explain. Since in Assyrian there is a tendency for i to change to e in contact with a guttural (GKT §16), ē‑ may have generalized on the basis of instances where the gutturals were still present after Assyrian had split from the other dialects. The I/e verbs developed in the same way, apart from the fact that they have ē where the I/a verbs have ā, e.g., 1s ērub versus āmur, etc. This makes the Assyrian 1s and the 3ms of the I/e verbs indistinguishable: ērub ‘I/he entered’.104 The forms of the t‑perfect are exactly parallel: Bab ītamar, Ass ētamar < *yiʾtamar, Bab ītezib, Ass ētizib < *yiʿtazib. The imperfective has no obvious counterpart in other Semitic languages. Table 17.4 shows the pertinent forms with the same long prefix vowel as the perfective: īmmar, īppeš, īllak, against, for instance, GAG §97c–d and Verbalpar. 14–18. Taking up a line of thought first developed by Knudsen 1984/86, I argued elsewhere (Kouwenberg 2003–4a) that the imperfective of the I/voc verbs does indeed have a long vowel, at least in the older stages of Akkadian. This is based on the fact that in Old Babylonian imperfective forms that start with a vowel (the first-person singular and all third-person forms) are spelled either defectively (i.e., without expressing the imperfective gemination), e.g., i-ma-ar ‘he sees’, i-la-ak ‘he goes’, or with the geminate expressed and an additional vowel sign at the beginning, e.g., i-im-ma-ar, i-il-la-ak (“initial plene writing” or IPW). The “intermediate” spelling, i.e., with the geminate expressed but without initial vowel sign, e.g., im-ma-ar, il-la-ak, is exceptional in Old Babylonian. In the verb alāku, which has a geminate R2 both in the imperfective and the perfective, this leads to a remarkable contrast in spelling: whereas the imperfective is written i-il-la-ak or i-la-ak, but hardly ever il-la-ak, the perfective is usually written il-li-ik, very rarely i-li-ik, and never i-il-li-ik. The very spelling, therefore, that is hardly ever used in the imperfective is the normal one in the perfective, and vice versa. A comparable distribution of contrasting spellings is observable in the D‑stem of the I/voc verbs. Here the imperfective and the perfective forms are either spelled defectively or with an additional vowel sign, e.g., those of ebēbu D ‘to purify’ are written ú-ba-ab, ú-bi-ib, or ú-ubba-ab, ú-ub-bi-ib, but hardly ever with the “intermediate” spelling ub-ba-ab, ub-bi-ib. The nonprefix forms of ebēbu D, however—i.e., the stative, the imperative, the infinitive, and the verbal adjective, only use the defective or the “intermediate” spelling, e.g., Imp ub-bi-ib or ú-bi-ib, Stat ub-bu-ub or ú-bu-ub, but hardly ever IPW.105 ‘their plot of land’ (Acc + suffix) as a substantivized verbal adjective eršum (see n. 56, p. 526), and Hasselbach’s other example, (a-na) É-ra-šè SAB p. 167:14′ (Diyala), as the agent noun *ḥarrāθum ‘farmer’. 104.  In principle, Babylonian has ē- in the first-person singular but ī- in the third person; but exceptions occur both ways (GAG3 §97o*). 105.  See Kouwenberg 2003–4a: 84–85 for some statistical underpinning on the basis of a corpus of Old Babylonian letters.

544

The I/voc Verbs  17.6.

Accordingly, IPW only occurs in places where in the strong verb the first radical is inter­ vocalic. This suggests that the use of IPW must somehow be related to the original presence of a guttural. In fact, it is often claimed that IPW is a way of indicating the presence of a word-initial aleph.106 This, however, does not account for the specific distribution of IPW over the paradigm of the I/voc verbs, as already observed by Knudsen (1984/86: 235). In particular, it leaves unexplained why we find IPW in the imperfective of alāku but not in the perfective, and in the imperfective and perfective of ebēbu D but not in the non-prefix forms. We can readily explain all peculiarities of these forms if we assume that IPW serves to indicate a long vowel, as suggested by Knudsen (1980: 11, 1984/86: 235) and Gai (1997: 73–74). It explains in particular why IPW forms are only found in places where in the strong verb R1 is intervocalic: it is only there that a long vowel is justified as compensation for the missing radical. The virtual absence of “intermediate” spellings such as il-la-ak, ub-ba-ab, and ub-bi-ib (Pfv) in Old Babylonian can be ascribed to the fact that the Old Babylonian scribes avoided a simple IL or UB for the syllables /īl/ and /ūb/, because they felt that these VC signs were unsuitable for the expression of a long vowel. They solved the resulting problem by inserting a vowel sign before the VC sign, just as they inserted an extra vowel sign after a CV sign in order explicitly to indicate a long vowel after a consonant. This situation only occurs at the beginning of a word, but it is parallel to the apparent reluctance to use CVC signs in syllables with a long vowel, especially syllables resulting from contraction.107 We can reconstruct, then, the pertinent forms of the I/voc verbs in Old Babylonian according to Table 17.5, with alāku, ezēbu, and ebēbu D.108 G Impfv

G Impfv

D Impfv

D Pfv

3s

īllak

īzzib

ūbbab

ūbbib

2ms

tāllak

tēzzib

tūbbab

tūbbib

2fs

tāllakī

tēzzibī

tūbbabī

tūbbibī

1s

āllak

ēzzib

ūbbab

ūbbib

3mp

īllakū

īzzibū

ūbbabū

ūbbibū

3fp

īllakā

īzzibā

ūbbabā

ūbbibā

2p

tāllakā

tēzzibā

tūbbabā

tūbbibā

1p

nīllak

nīzzib

nūbbab

nūbbib

D PrPartc

mūbbibum (nom.)

Table 17.5: The forms of the I/voc verbs with gemination of R2.

106.  Cf. W. von Soden, GAG §23d; K. Hecker, GKT §27a–c; Buccellati 1996: 24–25; Greenstein 1984: 9 n. 4; Aro 1955: 21–22; Lieberman 1977: 84 n. 231, and various others. 107.  I do not claim that IPW always indicates a long initial vowel. It is also used in other categories, both nominal and verbal, but there it typically lacks the systematic nature it has in the paradigm of the Old Babylonian I/voc verbs. It is not easy therefore to determine its function in each individual case, but it seems likely that it can have various functions depending on the word in which it occurs. A survey of possibilities is given in Kouwenberg 2003–4a: 89–90. 108.  The same Table is included in Kouwenberg 2003–4a: 93, but with spelling îllak, îppeš, and ûbbab, etc. I am using a macron instead of a circumflex here, because I no longer think that these forms result from a purely phonological process of vowel contraction, as I explained in the previous section.

17.6.  The I/voc Verbs

545

IPW, which provides tangible evidence for the long prefix vowels of the imperfective in Old Babylonian, is not systematically used in the remaining older dialects.109 They normally use defective spellings: Sargonic Akkadian shows forms such as a-la-kam SAB p. 90:34 (Girsu) ‘I will come’, i-la-gu HSS 10, 200:13 (Gasur) ‘they will go’, and e-bí-iš SAB p. 157:15 (Diyala) ‘I will do’, perhaps to be read /  ʾēppes/ (see §17.5.1, p. 526). In Ur III Babylonian we find forms such as ì-la-ak NATN no. 365: r.4 ‘he goes’, i-ṭì-ru AKI p. 326:66 ‘he takes away’ (Subj) from eṭēru, and [lā t]u-ma-sú TCS 1, 371:7 ‘do not let him starve’ from emēṣu D (see Hilgert 2002: 233–34). The number of instances in these two dialects is very small, but Old Assyrian provides a wealth of forms that all show the same defective spelling. Examples are quoted in GKT §89a and §90a for the G imperfective (e.g., e-ma-ar-šu ‘he sees him’ and e-pá-áš ‘I/he do(es)’), in §89b and §90b for the D imperfective and perfective (e.g., ú-ba-áb-šu ‘he will purify him’),110 and in §100a for the imperfective of alāku (i-lá-ak ‘he goes’). Defective spellings are ambiguous as regards the quantity of the prefix vowel, but they rule out the possibility that the I/voc verbs had “strong” forms of the type **aʾammar ‘I see’, **iʾammar ‘he sees’, **uʾabbab ‘I purify/he purifies’ and **uʾabbib ‘I/he purified’. Hardly any form of this type is attested with certainty.111 This means that even in dialects that regularly preserve a reflex of the gutturals in intervocalic position the imperfective of the I/voc verbs did not do so but had weak forms, just as in Old Babylonian.112 Since this imperfective has the same form (at least in the spelling) in all dialects, it is to be dated back to Proto-Akkadian.113 A vexing problem is the irregular Pfv illik of the very common I/voc verb alāku ‘to go /come’, apparently from √hlk. The geminate consonant of illik recurs in all forms with the t‑infix: t‑Pf ittalak, Gtn Impfv ittanallak, etc., and in the deverbal noun tallaktu ‘path, way of life’ (but not 109.  The oldest case of IPW I know is from Archaic Babylonian: ˹a-ap-pá-al-šu˺ OBTA p. 85 no. 30:23 ‘I answer him’ from apālu. Slightly later is e-ep-pe-eš OBTA p. 106 no. 51:6 ‘I will do’ (early OB). 110.  The apparent counter-example ú-a-ḫe-er-šu BIN 4, 10:16 quoted in GKT §89b must be corrected to ú-ṣa!-ḫe-er-šu according to Veenhof 1972: 112 n. 182. The text KUG 40 mentioned there as well is a falsification. 111.  It is possible that a few ambiguous spellings of rather difficult verb forms in Sargonic Akkadian reflect forms in which a guttural as first radical is preserved: G‑stem forms are è-e-sa-ru-ni and i-e-sa-ru SAB p. 172: r.11′, 13′ ‘they will take care of (me)’ (cf. ašāru in later dialects), and né-e-ra-[ab] SAB p. 178:10′ ‘we will enter’, both letters from Eshnunna. D‑stem forms are (ša) u-a-ḫa-ru ‘who(ever) will remove’ and li-a-ḫirx AKI p. 173:123, 126 and p. 176:42, 45 ‘let him remove’ (cps RIs of Sargon), and u-ù-ḫi-ru-un SAB p. 69:8 (Girsu), a 3mp Subj, possibly from uḫḫuru ‘to be delayed’. See Kouwenberg 2003–4a: 95–98 for a discussion of these forms. For the time being, I assume that u-a-ḫa-ru and li-a-ḫirx are indeed strong D forms without contraction (/yuʾaḫḫaru/ and /liʾaḫḫir/) but that in the rest the additional vowel is a plene writing representing a long vowel: /yēssarū(ni)/, /nērra[b]/, and /yūḫḫirūn(i)/. A contrasting weak form is u-li-il AKI p. 175:27 (cp RI of Sargon) ‘he purified’ from elēlu, which looks genuine because Old Babylonian does not use ⟨u⟩: /yūllil/. 112.  I will not discuss the later dialects, since they are of secondary importance here. Let it suffice here to repeat my conclusion (Kouwenberg 2003–4a: 98–100) that in the Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian period—and perhaps already in late Old Babylonian—the long vowels in the paradigm of the I/voc verbs had been shortened, although IPW was still in use, presumably as an archaic or conventional spelling. 113.  In Kouwenberg 2003–4a: 97–98, I have argued that the succession of two weak consonants in the first-person singular and most third-person forms (e.g., 1s *ʾaʾammar ‘I will see’, *yiʾammar ‘he will see’) in combination with the high frequency of these forms may have led to loss of the guttural and subsequent vowel contraction in this specific environment. There is some support for this kind of development from historical phonology and language processing (Bybee 2001: 57–62), but it remains ad hoc and not very satisfactory as an overall explanation. It is more in keeping with the overall morphosyntactic nature of most changes in the Akkadian verbal paradigm to assume that the long vowel is the result of a morphosyntactic process, as I argued in §17.6.1 (pp. 539–541).

546

The I/voc Verbs  17.6.

in tāluku ‘course, procession’, which may be a regular development of *tahluk‑; see §14.4.1, p. 377). There does not seem to be a plausible explanation for this phenomenon; for some speculations, see Huehnergard 2002b: 170–71 n. 26.114 Another remarkable feature of alāku is that in Assyrian it is the only I/voc verb that exclusively has the prefix i‑ in the perfective and ī‑ in the imperfective, whereas all other I/H verbs have ē‑,115 e.g., Impfv i-lá-ak, i-lu-ku, Pfv i-li-ik, i-li-ku and t‑Pf i-ta-lá-ak, i-ta-al-ku (GKT §100a), and similarly in Middle Assyrian (W. Mayer 1971: 92) and Neo-Assyrian (HämeenAnttila 2000: 148–49). This points to a correlation between the prefix vowels of perfective and imperfective and suggests that the old imperfective *yilliku (if that is the correct reconstruction) determined the prefix vowel of the new Impfv īllak.116 This indirectly confirms the claim made in the previous section that the long prefix vowel in the imperfective of the I/voc verbs is a copy of the long prefix vowel of the earlier imperfective *yīmuru.

17.6.3.  The derived stems Rather than attempting a comprehensive account of the derived stems of the I/voc verbs, I will restrict myself to a few points of particular interest: the non-prefix forms of the Gt‑ and Gtn‑stems (§17.6.3.1), the prefix forms of the D‑stem (§17.6.3.2), several forms of the Š‑stem and its secondary derivatives Štn and Št2 (§17.6.3.3), and the conjugation of the N‑stem (§17.6.3.4).

17.6.3.1.  The Gt‑stem and the Gtn‑stem In the older stages of Akkadian, the non-prefix forms of the Gt- and Gtn‑stems of I/voc verbs start with at- in the I/a verbs and et- in the I/e verbs (GAG §97d and Verbalpar. 15–17; Streck 2003a: 8–10). For Old Babylonian, cf.: • Gt Imp atlak ‘go!’, + Vent atlakam ‘come here!’ (passim) • Gt Imp etrub from erēbu (e.g., et-ru-ba-am Iraq 25, 184:36 ‘come in’) • Gtn Stat atammur (a-ta-am-mu-ru ARM 2, 67: r.8′ ‘they are well acquainted with’, lit., ‘they have seen often’ • Gtn Inf eteppušum ‘to do repeatedly’ (e.g., Acc e-te-pu-ša-am AbB 12, 52:22) Corresponding Assyrian forms are, for instance: • • • •

Gt Imp atlak ‘go!’, + Vent atalkam ‘come!’ (passim) Gt Imp Pl atawwā ‘speak!’ (a-ta-wa ATHE 23:8); Gtn Inf atalkum (Gen (ina) a-ta-al-ki-kà AKT 3, 71:26) Gt PPartc etamdum from emēdu (e.g., Acc Sg Masc e-ta-am-dam TMH 1, 2c:22 ‘put together’)

114.  Rather than assuming—as Huehnergard does—that ‑tt‑ of ittalak represents an unusual outcome of ‑ht‑, parallel to ‑wt‑ > ‑tt‑ in the I/w verbs, one could argue that ‑tt‑ is actually the outcome of ‑th‑, with t in its original prefixed position (see §14.2.2, pp. 359–360). This remains pure speculation, however, since there do not seem to be parallels showing what the regular outcome of ‑th‑ is in Akkadian. 115.  However, forms with ī- are occasionally found in other I/voc verbs in Old Assyrian (GKT §17d and §89a), and are more or less regular in the original I/*y verbs (see §16.3, pp. 462–463). 116.  The consistency of ī‑ in Assyrian stands in marked contrast to the variety of spellings attested for this form in Sargonic Akkadian: ⟨i⟩ in ˹i˺-la-ak SAB p. 66: r.2′ (Girsu), ⟨è⟩ in è-la-kam SAB p. 180:6 (Gasur) and AKI p. 280:15 (cp RI of Šarkališarri) and è-la-ku MAD 5, 60:10 (Kish), and ⟨e⟩ in e-la-kàLAM×KUR SAB p. 145:8 (Kish). Note that the transliteration É-la-kam in AKI p. 280:15 is a misprint for è-la-kam; see A. Goetze’s copy in JAOS 88 (1968) 57. In contrast, the perfective is always spelled with ⟨i⟩; see MAD 3, 38–39. No doubt, this difference reflects the long vowel of the imperfective versus the short one of the perfective, but leaves the exact nature of the prefix vowel in doubt, since the phonological interpretation of ⟨è⟩ is problematic; see §17.2 (p. 514).

17.6.  The I/voc Verbs

547

These forms consist of the suffix base (amVr, epVš ) with ta infixed after the vocalic radical: (*a-tă-lak >) a-t-lak, a-ta-mmar, etc. An epenthetic vowel corresponding to i in the strong verbs (  pitrVs, pitarrVs) is superfluous here.117 In Standard Babylonian, at‑ is often replaced by it‑ by analogy with the I/n verbs (see §16.4.2, pp. 470–471) and no doubt also under the influence of initial Cit‑ in the strong verb (Streck 2003a: 9–10).118

17.6.3.2.  The D‑stem The imperfective and the perfective of the D‑stem of the I/voc verbs have already been discussed in the previous sections. At least in the older dialects, the prefix forms have a long vowel ū in the prefix, based on the long prefix vowel of the G imperfective: ībbib/ēbbib ‘he/I will become pure’ § ūbbab ‘he/I will purify’ from ebēbu on the model of iparrVs § uparras, and similarly ūbbab § ūbbib on the model of uparras § uparris. Since in the D present participle the first radical is intervocalic as well, it also has a long vowel: mūbbibu, etc. It is possible that Sargonic Akkadian has preserved a few strong forms of the D tantum verb uḫḫuru ‘to remove’ (or the like) (see n. 111, p. 545, and Kouwenberg 2003–4a: 96). If we find strong forms in later dialects, they normally belong to verbs with a strong ʾ (such as muʾabbit, quoted in §17.6.1, p. 538), or to an analogical extension of their conjugation to I/voc verbs. In accordance with the contrast between Babylonian PuRRvS and Assyrian PaRRvS (see §11.2, p. 269), the non-prefix forms start with u- in Babylonian but with a-/e-in Assyrian, e.g., Stat uḫḫur vs. aḫḫur, Inf ubbubu versus ebbubu (see GKT §89b and §90b for Old Assyrian). There is, however, some fluctuation in Assyrian. Old Assyrian has also forms with u‑: an Inf (Gen) ú-ku-ší-im CCT 4, 38a:5 from akkušum ‘to remove’ and a PPartc (Fem Acc) ú-ḫu-úz-tam KTK 19:28 from aḫḫuzum ‘to inlay’. In Middle Assyrian, there seems to be only one relevant form, which also has u‑: ul-lu-lu-ú-ni KAV 1: VII §47:23 ‘he has been cleared’ (Subj) from elēlu D. In Neo-Assyrian, forms with u‑ seem to have become regular (Hämeen-Anttila 2000: 95), e.g., up-pu-šat SAA 14, 29:9 ‘she has been contracted’ from epēšu D, (ana) ul-lu-e CTN 5 p. 156:35 ‘in order to remove’ from elû D, and uḫ-ḫu-zu SAA 10, 349:14 ‘it is overlaid’ from aḫḫuzu.119 Whether the later Assyrian forms are due to Babylonian influence or whether they represent a parallel but independent development is hard to tell. It is true that this change is only one aspect of a more pervasive expansion of u in the D‑stem of the I/voc verbs in Neo-Assyrian: u also replaces a in the t‑perfect, which has -tu- instead of -ta- (Hämeen-Anttila 2000: 95), for instance: ú-tu-ús-si-ku SAA 10, 348: r.8 ‘they assigned’ from esēku D, ú-tu-uk-kiš SAA 10, 104: r.3 ‘it moved on’ from ukkušu, and nu-tu-me-di SAA 1, 210:12 ‘we undertook’ from emēdu D. Babylonian would have ūta/essik, ūtakkiš, and nūta/emmid instead. The same process occurs in the t‑perfect of the I/w verbs, where Neo-Assyrian uses ubil – ittubil instead of earlier ubil – ittabal (see §16.2.2, p. 453). These processes seem to result from an analogical extension of u‑ from one type of form to another.

117.  Just as in the case of the G imperative, there is no basis for phonological rules to explain a‑ and e‑ such as ʾit- > at-, as claimed by GAG §97d, or atlak < *ʾtalak, as Tropper (1997a: 198) proposes. 118.  Streck (2003a: 9) also reports an exceptional Old Babylonian instance of it‑: Gtn Inf (Gen) i-ta-luki-im ARM 28, 63:14 instead of atallukum. 119.  J. N. Postgate (BSOAS 34 [1971] 503 n. 26) claims that uppušu is the regular Assyrian form for I/*ʿ verbs. However, this is contradicted by uppušat itself, which is not from a I/*ʿ verb (its original guttural is either ḥ or unknown; see §17.6.1, p. 538), and by the fact that already in Old Assyrian *ʿ had become ʾ (see §17.3, p. 518, and Kouwenberg 2006: 167). So Hämeen-Anttila (2000: 95) is doubtless correct in positing this change for all I/voc verbs.

548

The I/voc Verbs  17.6.

17.6.3.3.  The Š‑stem and its derivatives In all forms of the Š‑stem except for the imperfective, the sibilant prefix is followed by a long vowel: ā in the I/a verbs and ē in the I/e verbs. This may simply be the reflex of ša‑ plus the guttural, e.g., Pfv ušāhiz < *yušaʾḫið, Imp šūḫiz < *šuʾḫið, etc., from aḫāzu Š ‘to cause to take, instruct’, and Pfv ušērib < *yušaʿrib, Imp šūrib < *šuʿrib, etc., from erēbu Š ‘to cause to enter, bring inside’. However, the imperfective, to be discussed presently, shows that this long vowel was already present in Proto-Akkadian, as I argued in §17.6.1 (pp. 539–541), so that it is also possible that at least in some verbs the long vowel was introduced by analogy with the long vowel in the prefix forms of the G‑stem. In Sargonic Akkadian, some alternative forms are found with the vowel ū in the Š‑stem of ešēru ‘to be(come) straight’: e u-su-si-ra /ē yusūsirā/ GAKI p. 382:120 (cp RI of NaramSin) ‘may they (Du) not cause to prosper’, and the PN u-su-si-ir-ti-ni /yusūsir-dīnī/ MAD 3, 77 ‘he gave the right verdict about me’, both from ešēru Š, an original I/y verb (see §16.3.2, pp. 464–465).120 They survive into literary Old Babylonian, where we find a PrPartc mušūšer in (RN) mu-šu-še-er ammi KH IV 54 ‘(the king) who provides justice for the people’ from the same verb, and the perfectives tu-šu-mi-da St. Reiner p. 192:32 ‘you caused to lean on’ from emēdu Š, ˹ú˺-šu-li-ja8-šu St. Reiner p. 192:43 ‘he raised him’ from elû Š, and i tu-šu-li-il Legends p. 196:30 ‘rejoice!’ from alālu Š ‘to rejoice’. This ū comes from the I/w verbs (aw > ū) but was analogically extended to include some original I/voc verbs. Conversely, the vowels ā and ē of the I/voc verbs penetrated the domain of the I/w verbs and completely ousted the vowel ū in all dialects except Sargonic Akkadian and (marginally) Old Babylonian; these fluctuations in the vowel after the prefix are a major characteristic of all types of I/voc and I/w verbs (GAG §103v) (see §16.2.3, pp. 455–457). The imperfective of the Š‑stem calls for comment as well; see Table 17.6, where Stat+ is shorthand for Stat, PPartc and Inf (I have omitted the I/e verbs which are completely parallel); the sample verb is aḫāzu Š ‘to inform, instruct’. 3ms Impfv

3ms Pfv

2ms Imp

Stat+

PrPartc

Š strong

ušapras

ušapris

šupris (Bab)

šuprus(-) (Bab)

mušaprisu

Š I/a

ušaḫḫaz

ušāḫiz

šūḫiz (Bab)

šūḫuz(-) (Bab)

mušāḫizu

Št1 + Št2

uštaḫḫaz

uštāḫiz

šutāḫiz

šutāḫuz(-)

muštāḫizu

Table 17.6:  Š and Št forms of the I/voc verbs (see also GAG Verbalpar. 15 and 17).

The form we would expected on the basis of the strong form ušapras is *ušāḫaz < *yušaʾḫað‑. The actual form is ušaḫḫaz (e.g., OB ú-ša-aḫ-ḫa-zu-šu KH §166:73 and tu-ša-aḫ-ḫa-as-sú AbB 6, 138:15), because the gemination of the G imperfective has caused gemination of the single consonant of *ušāḫaz—incidentally proving that the syllable-final guttural had been dropped—and perhaps subsequent shortening of the long vowel.121 Note that in this form (in contrast to ušapras) the introduction of gemination does not disrupt the parallel with the D‑stem but strengthens it: 120.  It is possible, however, that the forms with ū are not created by analogy with the I/w verbs, but that ešēru had a I/w root variant, of which ušūšir is the regular Š‑stem; see §16.2.3 (p. 455), and see the end of §16.2.4 (p. 461) for the alternation of w and y as first radical. 121.  This is a difficult point. Unlike Reiner (1966: 44), Greenstein (1984: 42–43), and others, I do not think that shortening is a necessary consequence (Kouwenberg 2003–4a: 88). I leave the possibility open that the actual form is ušāḫḫaz, but I will not write it with a macron (see also chap. 16 n. 102, p. 477, on the imperfective of the II/voc verbs).

17.6.  The I/voc Verbs

549

ušaḫḫaz is completely parallel to uparras.122 Thus, the contrast between imperfective and perfective is based on both a/i apophony and gemination. Parallel to ušaḫḫaz – ušāḫiz, the I/e verbs have ušeppeš – ušēpiš in Babylonian123 and ušerrab – ušērib in Assyrian.124 The same rule accounts for the Št1/Št2 Impfv uštaḫḫaz. The differentiation between Št1 uštapras and Št2 uštaparras is neutralized in the I/voc verbs. Since a geminate cannot be geminated, the rise of uštaparras in the Št2‑stem of the strong verb did not affect the I/voc verbs: cf. tu-uš-ta-ak-ka-al MCT p. 45: B 12 and r.15 ‘you multiply’ from akālu Št2,125 uš-te-em-mé-ed AbB 14, 78:9 ‘he will put together’ from emēdu Št2 (both OB), and (išāt) uš-taḫ-ḫa-zu Balag̃ Komp. p. 137:19 ‘(the fire which) I am lighting’ from aḫāzu Št2 (SB). The Štn‑stem of the I/voc verbs shows gemination in all its forms, although the corresponding strong verb has no gemination at all; see Table 17.7: Impfv 3ms

Pfv 3ms

Imp 2ms

Stat+

PrPartc

Štn strong

uštanapras

uštapris

šutapris

šutaprus(-)

muštaprisu

Štn I/a

uštanaḫḫaz

uštaḫḫiz

šutaḫḫiz

šutaḫḫuz(-)

muštaḫḫizu

Štn I/e

ušteneppeš

ušteppiš

šuteppiš

šuteppuš(-)

mušteppišu

Table 17.7:  Štn forms of I/voc verbs (see also GAG Verbalpar. 15 and 17).

This geminate is based on the gemination in the paradigm of the Gtn‑stem, which leads to gemination in other tan‑stems wherever possible, i.e., where the second radical is not part of a cluster. However, non-imperfective forms of the Štn‑stem are extremely rare, so textual evidence for the forms in Table 17.7 is scarce. From Old Babylonian, we have a 3ms Stat of a PrPartc muuš-ta-aḫ-ḫi-iz ARM 10, 129:20 ‘it (the disease) is infectious’ from aḫāzu,126 and from Standard Babylonian two finite forms: liš-tal-li-lu Ee VII 46 ‘may they exult all the time’ from alālu127 and tu-uš-te-ep-pí-ru VAB 4, 124:67 ‘you constantly provided food’ from epēru. The oldest instance 122.  Edzard (1996: 24 with n. 43) assumes influence of the I/n verbs on ušakkal and on similar forms in the I/w verbs, such as ušabbal. However, the Š‑stem of I/n verbs has gemination in all forms, which is caused by the assimilation of n, e.g., Impfv ušaddan, Pfv ušaddin, Inf šuddunu, etc., from nadānu Š ‘to cause to give’. Accordingly, we would not only expect ušaḫḫaz but also Pfv **ušaḫḫiz, Inf **šuḫḫuzu, etc., but there is no evidence for such forms. The derivation of ušakkal from *ušaʾakkal > *ušâkkal > ušakkal, proposed by Tropper (1997a: 191) and Huehnergard (2006: 5), starts from an impossible form (*ušaʾakkal is subject to vowel syncope and should become **ušʾakkal  ) and is contradicted by the fact that in Assyrian ʾ is dropped in neither of these positions. For the same reason, Assyrian ušebbal cannot be derived from **ušawabbal or the like and must be based on ušēbil (see §16.2.3, p. 456). 123.  In the Babylonian I/e verbs, the apophony is often obscured by an inadequate distinction between e and i in the spelling, but cf. Impfv ú-še-ep-pé-eš ShA 1, 142 no. 68:10 versus Prec li-še-pí-iš ShA 1, 142 no. 68:24; Impfv ú-še-te-eq OBAH p. 122 no. 115:15 versus Pfv ú-še-ti-qú OBAH p. 111 no. 106:11. 124.  However, since Old Assyrian does not express geminates, the earliest evidence for the actual presence of a geminate in these imperfective forms dates from Middle Assyrian: ú-ša-aḫ-ḫa-sú (/-assu/) MARV 1, 37:6 ‘he will make him take (a wife)’; ú-še-et-tu-qu KAV 1: III §25:91 ‘they will let pass’; ú-še-el-la MVAeG 41/3, 48:8′ ‘he will cause to go up’. See §16.2.3 (p. 456) for the same problem in the Š imperfective of I/w verbs. 125.  See chap. 14 n. 180 (p. 408). 126.  Does it literally mean something like ‘habitually causing (someone) to take (viz. an illness)’, or is it perhaps related to the idiomatic meaning of aḫāzu Š ‘to kindle (a fire)’? Moreover, present participles used as stative are very unusual (see §8.4.1, pp. 206–207). 127.  The variant liš-ta-li-lu makes it unlikely that this form is to be read liš-dal-li-lu and interpreted as a ŠD‑stem of dalālu ‘to praise’, as P. Talon (SAACT 4 p. 72, 113 s.v.) does, apart from the fact that dalālu is a very poor candidate for having a ŠD‑stem, since it has neither a D‑stem nor a Š‑stem (cf. §13.3, p. 334).

550

The I/voc Verbs  17.6.

is from Sargonic Akkadian: Imp [s]u-da-˹rí˺-ib SAB p. 90:21 (Girsu) ‘bring inside (from various places)!’ from erēbu Št(n). Unfortunately, we cannot see whether this spelling represents the ‘original’ form /sutaʿrib/ or the later form /sutarrib/.

17.6.3.4.  The N‑stem and the Ntn‑stem The N‑stem of the I/voc verbs shows a number of peculiarities that cast a particular light on the historical background of the N‑stem in general (cf. Kouwenberg 2004). In Assyrian and in a few residual verbs in Babylonian, the N perfective of the I/voc verbs is built on a different inflectional stem from that of the strong verb. Table 17.8 lays out the paradigm of the N‑stem of these verbs in both Babylonian and Assyrian with amāru N ‘to be seen, appear, meet’ for the I/a verbs and emēdu N ‘to come together’ and epēšu N ‘to be done/made’ for the I/e verbs of Babylonian and Assyrian, respectively.128 Babylonian

Assyrian

strong vb.

I/a verbs

I/e verbs

I/a verbs

I/e verbs

Impfv

ipparrVs

innammar

innemmid

innammar

inneppaš

Pfv

ipparis

innămir

innĕmid

innāmir

innēpiš

t‑Pf

ittaprVs

ittanmar

ittenmid

ittāmar

ittēpaš

Imp

napris

nanmir

nenmid

nāmir

*nēpiš

Stat

naprus

nanmur

nenmud

*nāmur

*nēpuš

Inf/PPartc naprusu

nanmuru

nenmudu

*nāmuru

*nēpušu

PrPartc

munnamru

munnemdu

munnāmiru?

*munnēpišu?

mupparsu

Table 17.8: The N‑stem of the I/voc verbs.

The most peculiar feature of the N‑stem of the I/voc verbs is the sequence nn in the imperfective and the perfective, where the strong verb has a geminate R1 resulting from the assimilation of the prefix n to R1. It occurs in Babylonian and Assyrian, but we have no relevant information about third-millennium Akkadian. Nevertheless, Babylonian and Assyrian show some fundamental differences: in the perfective, there is a contrast in vowel length (innămir versus innāmir), and in the t‑perfect and the non-prefix forms there is a contrast between the short vowel plus n in Babylonian and the long vowel without n in Assyrian (nanmir versus nāmir). The long vowel in Assyrian innāmir can be established from the fact that innāmir undergoes neither vowel assimilation (**innimir ; cf. GKT p. 148 n. 2) nor vowel syncope, when it has a vocalic ending (innāmirū, not **innamrū); cf. Old Assyrian forms such as i-na-mì-ir ArAn. 5, 68:27 ‘he appeared, met’ (cf. GKT §89d), (alē) i-na-mì-ru-ú Prag I 605:19 ‘where he has appeared’, and i-né-pí-šu ArAn. 5, 67:16 ‘they were made’, where the absence of vowel syncope shows that ē must be long: /innēpišū/; cf. Bab innamrū, innepšū, etc.129 The Middle Assyrian evidence includes ta-na-ḫi-zu!-ú-ni KAV 1: V §36:13 ‘she was taken in marriage’ (Subj) from 128.  For the N‑stem of the I/voc verbs, see also GAG §97cγ, f and Verbalpar. 15, 17 (with Assyrian forms in the footnotes). For the Assyrian forms, see also GKT §89d and §90d (especially n. 2 on p. 148). For the problems concerning the Babylonian forms of U/u verbs, see §12.2.1 (pp. 290–293). 129.  If we only had forms of amāru, it could be objected that the retention of i represents the wellknown exception to the vowel syncope rule before r (see §2.4, pp. 46–47). The perfective form of epēšu N, however, shows that this objection cannot be upheld.

17.6.  The I/voc Verbs

551

aḫāzu, in-na-ki-lu(-ú)-ni MARV 3, 43:12 and 34:8 ‘it was consumed’ (Subj) from akālu, and m[u-na]b-du ša i-na-bi-da-an-ni MATSH p. 157 no. 12:8 ‘a person who fled hither’ (see below on the PrPartc munnabdu).130 In Neo-Assyrian, we find forms such as ta-né-pi-šu-u-ni SAA 16, 63:18 ‘it (Fem) was made’ (Subj), and in-na-mì-ru-u-ni SAA 10, 238: r.15 ‘they were seen’ (Subj). Interestingly, the Assyrian type perfectives also occur in Old and Middle Babylonian, but only in two verbs that are very similar in meaning and structure: nābutu (corresponding to Assyrian nābudu) and nērubu, both meaning ‘to flee’ and both occurring more or less exclusively in the N‑stem (see §12.2.2.3, pp. 298–299). If the perfective of nābutu is followed by a vocalic ending, its stem vowel i is not syncopated, unlike that of ipparis – ipparsū (Goetze 1947: 56 n. 61), e.g., in‑na-bi-tam Tall Biʿa p. 93 no. 144:9 ‘he fled hither’, in-na-bi-tu AbB 13, 60:45 ‘they fled’ (both OB), and in-na-bi-tu-nim BBS 24:6 (MB) ‘they fled hither’.131 In Standard Babylonian, the situation is rather more complex. If we may rely on the dic­ tionaries,132 the forms of the innābitū type have been replaced by a new form innabtū, which conforms to the regular Babylonian form innamrū, e.g., in-nab-tu Sg. 8:193 and passim. In the texts that are the main source of this verb, the royal inscriptions of Neo-Assyrian kings, we find both the innovative Babylonian form innabtū and the Assyrian form innābidū, even side by side in the same text: in-nab-tú Ash. Nin. p. 106:23, 28 but in-na-bi-du Ash. Nin. p. 106:25.133 The second verb, nērubu, which is only rarely used, shows the same absence of vowel syncope as nābutu: in-né-ru-b[u] ARM 10, 60:13 and in-ne-ru-bu ARM 26/1, 152 no. 24:9 (both OB).134 According to the regular Babylonian N paradigm, we would expect **innerbū. This form (but with a) appears in in-na-ar-bi LKU 14: II 10 and in the PrPartc munna/erbu ‘fugitive’; see CAD M/2 205f s.v. munnarbu (both SB). The fact that the Assyrian paradigm of the N‑stem also occurs in the Babylonian “N tantum” verbs nābutu and nērubu is strong evidence that it is more original, that the Babylonian form is therefore an innovation, and that these two verbs are a residue of the older paradigm.135 Before we can address the question of why Babylonian introduced this new paradigm, we first need to know how the Assyrian perfective innāmir is to be analyzed. 130.  This is an example of the paronomastic present participle construction discussed in §8.4.1 (pp. 204–​205). 131.  W. von Soden (GAG §97l) claims that the retention of i is caused by gemination of the final radical t and writes the forms quoted above as innabittū, for Neo-Assyrian as innābiddū. This is doubtless based on the proper name Munnabittu (see below). However, none of the finite forms of nābutu known to me are ever spelled with a geminate -tt- (or -dd- in Assyrian). Therefore, ā seems more likely than -tt- as the cause of the retention of i, also because it fits into the scheme of the Assyrian forms. For Munnabittu, see n. 144 (p. 553). 132.  CAD A/1 46f s.v. abātu B 2g and AHw 700b s.v. nābutu II N 3. 133.  The glossaries of SAA 8 and SAA 10, which contain Neo-Assyrian letters, mention far more instances of the Babylonian form innamrū than of the Assyrian form innāmerū, but the former typically occur in astronomical contexts, where they can be explained either as verbatim quotations from omen compendia written in Standard Babylonian or as based on such quotations. 134.  The editor, J.-M. Durand, translates this form “. . . sont entrées,” apparently deriving it from erēbu ‘to enter’. However, this verb does not have an N‑stem, although it is remarkable that erēbu occurs two lines earlier (7: i-te-er-bu). Even if we allow for an exceptional N‑stem of erēbu here, it does not affect the argument: the regular Babylonian form would still be *innerbū. 135.  It is difficult to establish when this innovation took place because of the absence of innovative N forms of I/voc verbs earlier than Old Babylonian. As far as I am aware, not a single N perfective of a I/ voc verb is attested in Sargonic Akkadian, Ur III Babylonian, or Archaic Babylonian. The earliest instance seems to be ˹i˺-na-bi-ta-kum OBTA p. 105 no. 49:5 (Early OB), but this is an “old” form.

552

The I/voc Verbs  17.6.

In the strong verb, the inflection of the N‑stem is built on two different inflectional stems, as we saw in §12.2.1 (pp. 288–289): a prefix base -nPaRvS and a suffix base naPRvS, which mirrors a similar distinction in the G‑stem, -PRvS versus PaRvS (see §2.2.1, p. 29). The long vowel of innāmir can plausibly be explained as the reflex of a plus the guttural R1, parallel to that of the Š‑stem Pfv ušākil. This suggests that the I/voc verbs did not use the prefix base (e.g., **‑nʾaMvR) but attached the prefixes to a suffix base nāMvR instead. However, this stem was not treated as a derivation of a triradical root but as if it was the stem of a quadriradical verb of the nabalkutu type, which is conjugated by means of the verbalizing prefix n discussed in §12.6.1 (pp. 314–321). Thus, the existing quadriradical paradigm of the nabalkutu group was used as model for creating the finite prefix forms on the basis of the suffix base nāMvR: Impfv innammar like *ibbalkat, Pfv innāmir like ibbalkit, etc. An important advantage of this analysis is that we no longer need to assume an exceptional and ad hoc assimilation of ʾ to a preceding n (innamer < *inʾamir), as in GAG §97cγ, §24c, and §33e), which would go against the normal rule that n assimilates to the next consonant (GAG §33d)136 and would leave the long ā of innāmir unexplained. The absence of forms derived from the prefix base **‑nʾaMvR can hardly be explained otherwise than from the previous weakening of the guttural and is therefore a strong indication that at least in some I/voc verbs it was dropped at a very early stage, as I argued in §17.6.1 (pp. 539–541). For the N‑stem, this meant that these verbs could no longer use the prefix base ‑nPaRiS to derive N forms from and therefore created a new form on the basis of the suffix base nāMvR.137 This provided a model that the I/H verbs could adopt as they gradually lost their guttural R1 in the beginning of the historical period. The subsequent history of the N paradigm of the I/voc verbs followed the by now familiar pathways of the Akkadian verbal paradigm. When the Proto-Semitic imperfective *yiqtVlu was replaced by iparrVs and the derived stems followed suit by promoting their old pluractional imperfective characterized by a to the status of primary imperfective (see §4.5.2, pp. 112–115), the N‑stem developed an imperfective *yinnāmar parallel to the perfective *yinnāmir. Subsequently, *yinnāmar adopted gemination along with other derived imperfectives such as *ušākal § ušakkal and ended up as the historical imperfective innammar presumably with a shortened vowel before the geminate.138 This development triggered a further innovation in Babylonian. Since innammar is prosodically equivalent to the strong form ipparrVs, the corresponding perfective innāmir was analogically replaced by innămir: ipparrVs : ippăris § innammar : x, where x is innămir. This caused the subsequent introduction of innamrū, etc., instead of innāmerū by a similar analogy: ippăris : ipparsū § innămir : x, where x is innamrū. This innovation brings the I/voc verbs more into line with the strong verb and thus represents a kind of regularization that is especially common in forms with a low frequency (Bybee 2001: 113–29), to which the N‑stem of I/voc verbs definitely belongs.139 136.  As it actually does in verbs starting with a strong ʾ  ; see §17.6.1 (p. 539). Another putative instance of -nʾ- > -ʾʾ- is mentioned by GAG §98h, where Gtn forms such as the Imp šitaʾʾal ‘keep asking!’ are derived from *šitanʾal, like the strong form pitarras from *pitanras. However, as I have argued in §14.7.6 (pp. 431–437) (see also GAV pp. 77–79), this is an original geminate. 137.  It is possible that the Ebla PNs En-a-mar and En-a-mi-ir (see Krebernik 1988a: 59), if they are correctly interpreted as coming from amāru N, represent the original strong conjugation of the N‑stem of amāru. 138.  Note, however, that in Assyrian the earliest explicit spellings of imperfective gemination only date from Neo-Assyrian, e.g., in-né-ep-pa-áš SAA 10, 339: r.4′ ‘it is (always) performed’. 139.  The fact that innāmir nevertheless survived in Assyrian is striking proof of the unpredictability of potential changes in the history of a language, but it is undoubtedly related to the fact that the relationship

17.6.  The I/voc Verbs

553

We still have to discuss the rest of the paradigm of the I/voc verbs: the non-prefix forms, the t‑perfect, and the present participle. In Assyrian, the non-prefix forms and the t‑perfect have the expected forms with a long vowel, but Babylonian has introduced a consonant n between this vowel and the next radical and (presumably) shortened the preceding vowel: nanmir, nenmud, ittanmar, etc. This n is caused by the fact that the geminate nn of the imperfective and the perfective makes them identical in structure to the corresponding forms of the I/n verbs. The I/n verb nasāḫu ‘to tear out’, for instance, has an N Impfv innassaḫ and an N Pfv innasiḫ, just as innammar and innamir. This provides a starting point for the insertion of a secondary n, e.g., in the t‑perfect: innassaḫ : ittansaḫ § innammar : x, where x is ittanmar, replacing ittāmar ), in the infinitive innassaḫ : nansuḫu § innammar : x, where x is nanmuru, replacing nāmuru, etc.140 Note that in the N‑stem of I/n verbs the first radical n does not normally assimilate to the next consonant for reasons of transparency (GAG §102c) (see §16.4.1, pp. 469–470). Very rarely do we find the older forms without the secondary -n- in Babylonian: in Old Babylonian né-mu-da OBE 1: r.18′ ‘they are in contact with each other’ (3du Stat) from emēdu N (beside ne-en-˹mu˺-da OBE 16:11′), and né-SU-ḫa-at Ištar p. 80:7 ‘she is girded’ from ezēḫu.141 Such forms even appear in Standard Babylonian occasionally, although they may be scribal errors or Assyrianisms: na-mur(-šú) Or. 16, 200:4 // ZA 43, 96: II 4 ‘it is visible (to him)’, and ne-ru-ra TU 11:8 and né-ru-ur Dilbat ACh. Išt. 22:6 (said of stars), a stative and an infinitive N, respectively, of a verb *erēru or *nēruru that is not further attested. The verb nābutu, however, does not have this secondary n: its t‑perfect is ittābit, its past participle and infinitive are nābutu, never **ittanbit or **nanbutu.142 This is another point in which this verb has escaped develop­ ments that took place in the passive/intransitive N‑stem of Babylonian. Finally, we get to the present participle, which is problematic for several reasons. The only present participles of I/voc verbs known to me are those of nābutu and nērubu ‘to flee’. The former occurs in a “long” form munnābitu and a “short” form munnabtu. We would expect the long form to go with the use of the long perfective innābit and the short form with that of the short perfective innăbit, but the actual situation is that munnabtu is the usual form even in dialects that consistently use innābit, such as Old Babylonian and Middle Assyrian; cf. especially the paronomastic expression mu-un-na-ab-˹tu˺/[ti  ] ša (. . .) in-na-bi-tu-nim ARM 4, 76:41 and 63:5–7 ‘the persons who fled hither’ (OB) and m[u-na]b-du ša i-na-bi-da-an-ni MATSH p. 157 no. 12:8 ‘a person who fled hither’ (MA).143 The long form munnābitu is restricted to a single occurrence in Old Babylonian (mu-na-bi-tu FM 6, 178 no. 12:4) and one in Neo-Babylonian (lúmun-na-bitu ABL 839:16) and is otherwise only attested in peripheral Akkadian (Elam, Boghazköy, and Ugarit; see CAD M/2 204–5 s.v. munnabtu c).144 innammar – innāmir is not isolated but similar to the imperfective—perfective relationship of the Š‑stem of I/  ʾ and I/w verbs: ušakkal – ušākil, ušeppaš – ušēpiš, ušebbal – ušēbil, etc. (all Assyrian forms; see GKT §89c, §90c, and §93g), a much more frequent category than the N‑stem of the I/voc verbs. As part of this wider pattern, innāmer managed to resist restructuring. 140.  Such forms should be distinguished from imperfective forms in which -n- results from secondary dissimilation of a voiced geminate (GAG3 §32b–b*): e.g., in-né-en-di-il ‘it will be closed’ YOS 10, 24:28 < inneddil (cf. in-né-di-il YOS 10, 25:15) from edēlu, and in-na-am-bi-tu BagM. 2, 78:10 ‘they will flee’ (both OB) from nābutu. 141.  An uncertain case is nāmur in Ur III Babylonian proper names; see Hilgert 2002: 245: they may also belong to the adjective namurru. 142.  For the imperfective innambit, see n. 140 above. 143.  See CAD M/2 203–5 s.v. munnabtu for detailed references. 144.  However, the situation is seriously complicated by the existence of a proper name Munnabittu, which can hardly mean anything but ‘fugitive’; cf. the past participle of this verb, nābutu/nābudu, which also means ‘fugitive’ and is also used as a proper name in Old and Neo-Babylonian and Middle Assyrian;

554

The II/H Verbs  17.7.

The use of the short form munnabtu already in Old Babylonian suggests that the present participle was the first form to be adapted to the paradigm of the strong verb (mupparsu) via the same analogical process that I invoked above to account for the perfective innămir, that is, ipparras : mupparsu § innabbit : x, where x is munnabtu. This implies that all forms of nābutu have been regularized in accordance with the strong verb and that the perfective innābit with its long ā is the last survivor in Babylonian of the earlier system based on the suffix base nāMvR. The present participle of nērubu is only attested in the short form munnarbu in Standard Babylonian and can easily be explained as a secondary formation that only emerged after the perfective innērub had been replaced by innĕrub. The Ntn‑stem of the I/voc verbs has the same peculiarity as the Štn‑stem: unlike the Ntn‑stem of the strong verb (ittanaprVs, etc.), it shows gemination on the model of the Gtn‑stem: cf. forms such as it-ta-na-aš-ša-aš-šu M.5750 quoted in NABU 88/17 sub [14] ‘it (the army) is worried constantly’ (Subj), (lā) ta-ta-na-aš-ša-aš-ši OBTR 147:28 ‘do (Fem) not worry all the time!’145 and the Inf i-ta-aš-šu-úš-ša-a[m] ARM 10, 106:25.146 In the case of intransitive I/voc verbs, it may be difficult to establish on the basis of the prefix forms whether a form is Gtn or Ntn.147 For instance, a form such as lā ta-ta-na-ša-aš ARM 2, 69:9, 15 ‘do not worry all the time’ may be interpreted as tattanaššaš (Ntn) or tātanaššaš (Gtn). Only an unambiguous spelling of -tt- or a non-prefix form (in which Gtn has a- and Ntn i-) can decide the matter. In this case, both are available; see the three forms quoted above, showing that these forms are Ntn‑stems rather than Gtn‑stems. Note that the vowel a of ittanaššaš is not a reliable criterion: several Gtn‑stems of U/u verbs exhibit a instead of u (see §14.7.2, pp. 417–418).

17.7. The II/H Verbs 17.7.1.  Introduction and sources Unlike the essentially uniform “pan-Akkadian” paradigm of the I/voc verbs, the II/H verbs show strikingly different forms in Babylonian and Assyrian, which shows that they lost their guttural at a later stage. This is undoubtedly related to its position in the basic members of the paradigm: not syllable-final, where they are most vulnerable (see n. 95 above, p. 540), as in the I/voc verbs (Impfv/Pfv *yiʾmur(u) in Proto-Semitic), but syllable-initial (Impfv/Pfv *yišʾal(u) in Proto-Semitic). The II/H verbs show two different paradigms, a strong and a weak. In the strong paradigm, the presence of the (former) guttural is indicated by broken spellings—in third-millennium texts also by the “special signs” discussed in §17.2 (pp. 513–515)—and the forms do not show structural adaptations to compensate for a lost radical. The weak paradigm, on the other had, is characterized by adaptations to the paradigm of the II/voc verbs. In Babylonian, all original II/H verbs have a weak paradigm and are conjugated like the II/voc verbs. The only feature reminiscent see CAD N/1 40–41 s.v. nābutu adj. b. Munnabittu is common from the Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian period onward, apart from an ambiguous instance in Old Assyrian (Mu-na-bi-tim (Gen) BIN 6, 250:7). Formally, it looks like the feminine of munnābitu, but insofar as the sex of the bearers of the name can be ascertained, all of them are male. I have no explanation for this form, but see Kouwenberg 2004: 338–39 for some speculations. 145.  Interestingly, exactly the same form is addressed to a man in AbB 14, 219:7. This must be an instance of the “i‑Modus” as described by Kraus 1973a; see chap. 9 n. 3 (p. 211). 146.  These forms were already quoted in §16.6.1 (p. 493) because they also show gemination of R3. 147.  The problem is aggravated by the occasional use of Ntn forms with the meaning of Gtn; see §14.7.5 end (p. 429).

17.7.  The II/H Verbs

555

of the gutturals is the difference between forms with and without E‑colouring. In Assyrian, the original II/*ʾ and II/*ʿ verbs have a strong paradigm, the II/*h and II/*ḥ verbs a weak paradigm. For third-millennium Akkadian, the evidence is scarce and sometimes contradictory, but it generally follows the strong paradigm, as one might expect in this early period. Even if we do not have full documentation of the paradigm of a specific verb, there are a few rules of thumb that allow us to establish with a reasonable degree of confidence which paradigm it has. Typical features of the strong paradigm are a broken spelling in the perfective after R1 (e.g., Ass iš-am /išʾam/ ‘he bought’) and a four-syllable imperfective form with an ending (e.g., Ass ta-ša-a-ma /tašaʾʾamā/ ‘you (Pl) buy’). The absence of these features, as in the corresponding Babylonian forms i-ša-am /išām/ and ta-ša-ma /tašammā/, are reliable indications that the verb in question has a weak paradigm. Even if the geminate of the weak paradigm is not spelled out, as in the last-mentioned form, we have to assume its presence. These rules do not give full certainty, but especially for third-millennium Akkadian, where we often have hardly more than a single form of a given verb, they are indispensable. Arranged according to their original guttural, the following verbs can be used as evidence for the paradigm of the II/H verbs. 1.  Original II/  ʾ verbs can be identified relatively easily in third-millennium Akkadian and Old Assyrian, where they largely preserve their original conjugation. Reliable instances are: • raʾāmu (A/a) ‘to love’ (√rʾm) in (P)SAk and Ass (versus Bab râmu (ā)) • šaʾālu (A/a) ‘to ask’ (√šʾl ) in SAk and Ass (versus Bab šâlu (ā)) • šaʾāmu (A/a) ‘to buy’ (MSA ś ʾm) in SAk and Ass (versus Bab šâmu (ā)) • naʾādu (A/a?)148 ‘to praise’ (Geʿez yənʾad – nəʾda CDG 381a) (versus Bab nâdu (ā)) • baʾāšu (I/i) ‘to smell’ (√bʾš) in OA (versus Bab *bâšu (ī)) • ḫaʾāṭu (I/i) ‘to watch over, check’ (no etym.) in OA alongside ḫiāṭum (versus MA, NA, and Bab ḫâṭu (ī)) • maʾādu (I/i ‘to be(come) numerous’ (√mʾd) in OA (versus SAk(?) and Bab mâdu (ī)) • raʾābu (I/i) ‘to replace, compensate’ (Ar. raʾaba ‘to repair, rectify’, see Huehnergard 1991: 700) in PSAk and SAk beside riābum(?) (versus Bab râbu (ī)) As we saw in §16.5.1 (pp. 474–475), the II/  ʾ verbs of the I/i class occur in Babylonian as II/ī verbs. This phenomenon is already found in Old Assyrian with ḫâṭu (ī) (see n. 166, pp. 560–561). If we may rely on evidence from proper names, it might even occur as early as Sargonic Akkadian (see n. 159, p. 558). 2.  Original II/*ʿ verbs can be identified—apart from their etymology—from the fact that they show E‑colouring and, in Assyrian, a strong paradigm: • • • • •

bêlu ‘to possess, rule’ (√bʿl ) mêsu ‘to crush, trample’ (cf. Syr mʿs ‘zerbrechen’? acc. to AHw 647b s.v.) (SB) ṣênu ‘to load’ (√  θ̣ʿn) reʾû ‘to tend (sheep)’ (√rʿī ) šeʾû ‘to look for’ (√θʿī; cf. Ugar ṯʿy, He šāʿā acc. to AHw 1222b s.v.)149

148.  The vowel class A/a is suggested by the Geʿez parallel and the weak Pfv inād, e.g., in the PN lu‑naad(-DN) VS 7, 154:19 (OB). When strong forms appear in Standard Babylonian, however, the vowel class is A/u, with a Pfv iʾʾud, e.g., i-ud Tn-Ep. I 19; li-ʾu-du KAH 2, 26:14. 149.  One could add the rare denominal verbs (OB and SB) šênu ‘to wear shoes’ from šēnu ‘shoe’ (see §17.2, p. 511) and ṭêmu ‘to report’ from ṭēmu ‘report’.

556

The II/H Verbs  17.7.

3.  The sources for the paradigm of the original II/*ḥ verbs are unusually plentiful. We can identify them through their etymology, through third-millennium spellings with É in combination with E-colouring, and through their weak paradigm in Assyrian. On this basis, the following verbs belong here: bêru ‘to select’ (√bḥr ; cf. also Ebl ba-É-lu-um/lum VE 701; see Fronzaroli 1984: 137) lêku ‘to lick’ (√lḥk) lêmu ‘to consume’ (√lḥm, cf. also SAk spellings with É quoted below) nêru ‘to kill’ (√nḥr) nêšu ‘to live, recover’ (no etym. cf. also SAk spellings with É quoted below, and Ebl i-na-É-áš ARET 5, 1: VI 8) • rêmu ‘to have pity’ (Ar raḥima) • rêqu ‘to be/go far away’ (√rḥq) • šêlu ‘to sharpen’ (Geʿez saḥala; see CDG 493b; cf. also Ebl sa-É-lum EV 0440; see Civil 1984: 284) • šêqu ‘to level off, smooth’ (√šḥq) • šêru ‘to rise early’ (√šḥr) • šêṭu ‘to disdain’ (Geʿez saḥaṭa ‘to wound, harm’ CDG 494b) • ṭênu ‘to grind’ (√ṭḥn; cf. also Ebl da-É-nu-um/núm VE 656) • • • • •

Purely on the basis of its weak conjugation in Old Assyrian, zêru ‘to hate’ can also be identified as an original II/*ḥ verb. This is neither confirmed nor refuted by Eblaite za-a-rúm (= šà.ḫul) EV 0366, which leaves the guttural unspecified (Krebernik 1983: 23). Also without etymology and therefore either II/*ḥ or II/*ʿ are the verbs sêru ‘to plaster’, šêtu ‘to remain, leave’, and bêšu ‘to move away’. Irregular is mêšu ‘to despise’ as compared to √mʾs (see SED 1 p. LXXVI).150 4.  Very few Akkadian II/H verbs can be derived from original II/*h verbs. The most likely instances are bâlu (A/a) ‘to pray, beseech’ (√bhl; cf. Geʿez bəhla CDG 89b and DRS 48a s.v.) and rêṣu ‘to come to aid’ (√rhṣ interchanging with √rwṣ; see chap. 16, n. 101, p. 475, with E‑colouring because of r and ṣ). Another possible instance is nâqu (ū) ‘to scream’, for which see §16.5.1 (p. 475). Undoubtedly, there are more, hidden among the fairly numerous II/ā verbs of Babylonian and indistinguishable from the original II/  ʾ verbs. However, since some of the Babylonian II/ā verbs have a strong paradigm in Assyrian, whereas others have a weak paradigm, and since the former are clearly original II/  ʾ verbs, it is attractive to assume that the latter are original II/h verbs. They include bâšu ‘to become ashamed’ and bâʾu ‘to go along’ (Ass ‘to come’). Although the best-known cognates of these verbs in West Semitic, such as He bōš and bōʾ and Geʿez bōʾa, point to w or ū as R2, there is some etymological support for the view that these are II/h verbs (see chap. 16 n. 101, p. 475).151 Moreover, the paradigm of these two verbs in Old Assyrian militates against a II/w or II/ū root but strongly favours a II/H root without E‑colouring, although not a II/  ʾ root (see §17.7.3.2, pp. 563–564, below for details).152 150.  A further instance restricted to Ebla is za-É-gú-um (= su11.li9.li9) VE 217 ‘to laugh’ (cf. Sum su11. li = ṣú-ḫu-um and Sjöberg 1999: 524). It represents /ṣaḥāq/kum/, akin to Ar ḍaḥaka, He ṣāḥaq, etc. Akkadian uses ṣâḫu (ī) for ‘to laugh’, which is from a different root √ṣīḫ. 151.  See also Kouwenberg 2006: 173–74. The derived noun bûštu ‘shame, dignity’ is not an argument for an original II/ū root, since it can be a PuRūSt form, like ṭūbtu ‘happiness’ (usually Pl ṭūbātu) from ṭābu ‘good, pleasant’. Tropper’s (1998a: 21) derivation of ibāš from *yibwaš goes against the usual phonological development of the cluster Cw, which is either preserved as such or dissolved to Cuw; see §16.7.2.3 (pp. 504–505) regarding taštapwam. 152.  A third original II/*h verb in Old Assyrian may be ṣâlu ‘to protest’, for which see also K. R. Veenhof, JEOL 24 (1975) 107 and Huehnergard 1991: 706. Since ʾ as R2 seems to be incompatible with a

17.7.  The II/H Verbs

557

17.7.2.  (Pre‑)Sargonic Akkadian and Mari Old Akkadian Because of the scarcity of data, it is of little use to present a table with a full paradigm of the original II/H verbs in (Pre‑)Sargonic Akkadian, but we may safely assume that it would be very similar to the Old Assyrian paradigm shown in Table 17.9, apart from E‑colouring and vowel assimilation. A number of imperfective and perfective forms shows that the II/H verbs mostly preserve their strong paradigm:153 • Impfv da-la-É-mu /talaḥḥamu/ SAB p. 53:13 (Adab) ‘you shall eat’ (Subj) from lêmu • Impfv da-za-a-la /taṣṣaHHalā/ SAB p. 153:9 (Diyala) ‘you (Pl) are quarreling’ from ṣâlu • Pfv dar-a-mu-su4 /tarʾamūsu/ AKI p. 81:12 (RI of Naram-Sin) ‘she came to love him’ from râmu • Pfv iš11-ar /yiθʾar/ AKI p. 76:19 (RI of Maništušu) ‘he was victorious’ from šaʾāru (II/  ʾ?, see n. 41, p. 524) • Pfv en-ar /yinḥar?/ AKI p. 256:39 (cp RI of Naram-Sin) ‘he conquered’ and en-a-ra HSS 10, 206:4 (Gasur) from nêru There are no unambiguous weak imperfectives,154 but some are ambiguous: • è-ra-[?]-am Or. 46, 201:2 (incant. from Kish) ‘he loves’ from râmu, presumably /yiraʾʾam/ • da-sa-am /tasaʾʾam/ SAB p. 151:10′ (Sippar) ‘you will buy’ from šâmu155 • i-be-al /yibaʿʿal?/ AKI p. 208:72 (cp RI of Rimuš) ‘he rules’ from bêlu156 The number of strong perfectives can be extended substantially if we include perfectives from proper names: • yirʾam and tarʾam (3fs) from râmu: Dar-àm-A-ga-dè KI MDOG 132, 140 fig. 3 ‘She came to love Akkad’ (name of a daughter of Naram-Sin),157 Ìr-am-DN MAD 3, 230 ‘DN came glottalized R1 (see chap. 2 n. 40, p. 44) and the verb has no E-colouring, *h is the only remaining option for R2. The only verb form attested (a-ṣa-al CCT 3, 20:29 ‘I protested’ or the like) is ambiguous: if it is a Pfv /aṣāl/, it confirms that this verb has a weak paradigm and may therefore be a II/h verb like bâšu and bâʾu. It can also be read, however, as a t‑perfect /aṣṣaʾal/ or /aṣṣāl/. There is also a deverbal noun ṣa-al-tum ‘quarrel’ (passim), Pl ṣa-lá-tum kt a/k 478b:32, which may be /ṣaʾaltu/ or /ṣâltu/ and thus poses the same problem as baʾaštu/bâštu discussed in n. 181 (p. 564). A possible cognate is Geʿez ṣaʿala (  yəṣʿal) ‘to rebuke, scorn’ (CDG 543), but the Assyrian forms do not show E‑colouring and Babylonian has ṣêlu alongside ṣâlu, which makes it more likely that ṣ is the cause of e. A final possibility is that a-ṣa-al renders /as’s’al/ with the cluster -ṣʾ- equivalent to a geminate ṣṣ, just as uṣ-a-am ‘I/he came out’ may also be spelled ú-ṣa-am, i.e., /us’s’am/; see Kouwenberg 2003. I do not understand the form da-zi-íl-šu RA 35, 43 no. 9:4 assigned to this verb in AHw 1080a s.v. ṣâlu G 1. 153.  Although we have no information about the original II/*h verbs, which presumably were the first to give up the guttural, apart from a doubtful proper name La-ba-AḪ-šum/sum6 AKI p. 122 B1 8, which I. J. Gelb (MAD 3, 92) interprets as Lā-baḪšum, a past participle of bâšu ‘to come to shame’. This would point to a preservation of post-vocalic h, for which there are no other indications. 154.  The only other imperfective of Sargonic Akkadian is a-la-e /alaʾʾē/ SAB p. 167:17′ (Diyala) ‘I am able’ from the doubly weak verb leʾû, which is non-committal, since even in Babylonian doubly-weak verbs tend to preserve ʾ; see §17.4 (p. 521). 155.  Hasselbach (2005: 217) interprets this form as a perfective. The context is fragmentary, but it may well be a virtual conditional clause, which points to an imperfective (GAG §160). This perfectly fits in with the form. 156.  For i-be-il RA 38, 48 no. 25:3, see n. 171 (p. 561). 157.  The Sargonic PNF Dar-àm-Agade contrasts directly with the Ur III Bab PNF tá-ra-am-uri KI-am RA 56, 213:3′ ‘She loves Ur’ (daughter of Apil-kīn, king of Mari, a contemporary of Ur-nammu, early

558

The II/H Verbs  17.7.

to love’, with the Kurzname Ìr-a-mu-um. These forms already occur in Pre-Sargonic names, e.g., Ìr-am6-en TB 1, 1: i 3, Dar-am6-en TB 2, 150: V 1 from Tell Beydar. • yišʾal ‘he asked’ in the Kurzname Iš-a-lum MAD 3, 258 from šâlu • yirʾib ‘he compensated’ in the Kurzname Ìr-e-bum and other names; see MAD 3, 229, already in Pre-Sargonic texts from Tell Beydar, e.g., Ìr-íb-sá-lim TB 1, 1: iii 2 from râbu • yilʾē ‘he was able’ in íl-e-DN and the Kurzname íl-e-um; see MAD 3, 158 from leʾû ‘to be able, powerful’ (√lʾy?) • yirʾē ‘he tended, cared for’ in ìr-e-DN and the Kurzname Ìr-e-um; see MAD 3, 228 from reʾû ‘to tend (sheep)’ (√rʿy) • yiθʾē and yisʾē ‘he looked for’ in the PNs I-iš-e(-si-na-at) and Iš11-e(-si-na-at) ‘he has looked for them’; see MAD 3, 256 from šeʾû (√ṯʿy)158 In sum, there is plenty of evidence for the strong paradigm in (Pre‑)Sargonic Akkadian. There is, however, also some counter-evidence consisting of weak or at least weakened perfectives. To start with the latter, there are a few perfectives in proper names with assimilation of ʾ to a preceding r. Instead of yirʾam and yirʾib, we also find yirram and yirrib: Ìr-rí-bum HSS 10, 187: I 7 (Gasur), and Ìr-ra-am-DN MAD 3, 230. This shows weakening of ʾ but not (yet) adaptation to the weak paradigm (which would give (y)irām and (y)irīb).159 This may be a specific development of the cluster r  ʾ and/or restricted to proper names. Yirrib also occurs in Ur III Babylonian names; Hilgert (2002: 362–68) lists Ìr-rí-ib and Ìr-rí-bum alongside (DN-)ìr(-e)-eb and I-ri-ib/íb, etc.), perhaps as a survival from Sargonic Akkadian, since Babylonian shows no other traces of this change. However, the assimilation of ʾ to a preceding consonant may also occur in some Old Assyrian nouns (see Kouwenberg 2006: 164–65) and it is definitely found in original III/  ʾ and III/  ʿ verbs in Middle and Neo-Assyrian (see 2006: 172–73 and §17.8.3 below, p. 578).160 Ur III), nicely reflecting one of the main differences between these dialects, namely, the preservation versus the loss of post-consonantal ʾ (see §17.3, pp. 516–520). This presupposes that she got this name only when she came to Babylonia (which is ascertained by the mention of Ur in it (see Civil 1962), because in her native dialect the verb-form would doubtless have been tarʾam, as in Sargonic Akkadian. Since it is unlikely that two different tenses are used in the same type of name, the SAk Pfv dar-àm shows that tá-ra-am in the Ur III Babylonian name is a perfective as well, pace Hilgert 2002: 249–50. Hilgert’s argument that the meaning ‘Sie liebte Ur’ makes little sense ignores the fact that the perfective of stative-like verbs is often ingressive, so that tarʾam may also mean ‘she came to love’ (‘sie hat liebgewonnen’). The form ta-ar-tašu(-ma) AKI p. 370:14 (RI of Ibbiṭ-Lim of Ebla; see chap. 16 n. 63, p. 463), allegedly coming from râmu and meaning ‘she has come to love him’ (i.e., /tartâššu/ < tartâmšu?) is extremely problematic. 158.  For the interpretation of these names, see A. Westenholz 1987: 34. 159.  It is possible that there are real weak forms of raʾābum (I/i) in Sargonic Akkadian that show the Babylonian development discussed in §16.5.1 (pp. 474–475): the shift of II/  ʾ verbs of the I/i class to the class of II/ī verbs: a t‑Pf ir11-ti-ab /yirtīab/ in a difficult context (Lagash), and a PN Dar-ti-bu (Gasur), both quoted in MAD 3, 229. The latter may be a Kurzname for Tartīb-DN, either a t‑perfect—which is unusual in a proper name—or a Gt perfective (but a Gt‑stem is not attested elsewhere, although it is semantically not unlikely, since it may be a (pseudo)reciprocal; see §10.8.3.5, p. 265). These forms can only come from a II/ī verb riābum, which is the usual form in Sargonic Akkadian proper names. Note that if ir11-ti-ab is a t‑perfect, it is an Assyrian-style perfect with a secondarily inserted a; see §16.5.2 (p. 478). 160.  A baffling problem in this context is posed by the name Narām-Sin, which contains the deverbal instrument noun that the dictionaries list as narāmu ‘love’. In the dialects that preserve post-consonantal ʾ, the regular mapras form would be narʾamum, and this form is indeed attested in the Old Assyrian feminine proper name Narʾamtum (Na-ar-am-tum Prag I 467:3, alongside Naramtum [Na-ra-am-tum ICK 1, 17b:3]). The fact that Sargonic Akkadian consistently shows a form without ʾ, both as a noun in (PNF) [na]-ra-ma-at lu g a l AKI p. 44 S‑24:4 ‘PNF, favourite of the king’ and as a part of proper names (passim, e.g., NarāmSin) is hard to explain, apart from the circular statement that in proper names ʾ is more prone to being

17.7.  The II/H Verbs

559

There are also a few real weak perfectives in Sargonic Akkadian, where the post-consonantal guttural has been dropped: i-ša-ru AKI p. 52 D 13:4 (date formula of Naram-Sin) ‘he was victorious’ (Subj), i.e., /yiθāru/ instead of /yiθʾaru/ from šaʾāru, and i-bi-ru /yibēru/ HSS 10, 184:9 (Gasur) ‘he selected’ (Subj) from bêru. Both anticipate the later Babylonian adaptation of the II/H verbs to the II/voc verbs. If šaʾāru is an original II/  ʾ verb,161 i-ša-ru connects Sargonic Akkadian with Babylonian against Assyrian (see below), as in most other respects (see §1.5, pp. 24–26). The weak perfective i-bi-ru from the original I/ḥ verb bêru contrasts with the strong en-ar from nêru. It may be an additional indication that the language of the royal inscriptions is more conservative than that of most economic documents and that we actually witness two different stages in Sargonic Akkadian here (Hasselbach 2005: 231–33). The weak form ibēr recurs in both Babylonian and Assyrian. A problematic perfective is i-ṣa-na(-ma) AKI p. 221:38 ‘he loaded’ (cp RI of Maništušu), a 3ms + Vent from a root √  θ̣ ʿn. Two explanations present themselves: it is either a weak form yiṣān, a precursor of Bab iṣēn (which is remarkable in a royal inscription), or it is an instance of the practice attested in Old Assyrian of omitting a post-consonantal ʾ in writing when it follows a glottalized consonant (see Kouwenberg 2003 and §17.8.3 below, pp. 577–578);162 this obviously presupposes that ʿ had become ʾ. The rest of the attested II/H forms add little to our knowledge of the development of their paradigm. For the G‑stem, we have an infinitive and a few present participles: • na-É-áš (Acc c. st.) SAB p. 53:8–9, and (a-na) ˹na-É-si ˺ (Gen c. st.) AKI p. 107:4 (RI of Naram-Sin) ‘life’ from nêšu ‘to live, recover’163 • na-e ([i ]r-tim) AKI p. 93 2:04–05 (RI of Naram-Sin) and na-e (e-er-tim) AKI p. 236:462–63 (cp RI of Naram-Sin) (both Acc c. st) from neʾû ‘to turn’ • la-e-ma-ad /lāḥ/  ʾemat/ AfO 25, 99 no. 10:12 (Eshnunna) ‘it is consuming’ (3ms Stat) from lêmu164 • Re-˹ì˺-tum /rēʿ/  ʾītum/ OAIC 30:10 (Diyala) ‘Shepherdess’ (PNF with exceptional E‑colouring from reʾû ‘to tend (sheep)’; also in other PNs: see MAD 3, 228–29) The following forms of derived stems are known to me: • iš-da-al /yistaʾal/ BIN 8, 121:28 (Kazallu) in the PN (Lā)‑iš-da-al ‘Did-He-NotDeliberate?’ acc. to CAD Š/1 280b s.v. šâlu A 3a, Gt Pfv of šâlu ‘to ask’ dropped than elsewhere. Or are these forms perhaps borrowed from a specifically Babylonian environment? In Babylonian, post-consonantal ʾ has already been dropped in the earliest texts we have, but obviously we do not know how early this change has started. If these names have indeed been borrowed from Babylonian and narʾam(t)um has undergone the Babylonian development of post-consonantal ʾ, the correct form of the noun is nāramum rather than narāmum. 161.  This is not certain; see n. 41 (p. 524) above. It is, for instance, attested with a strong ʾ in later Babylonian, e.g., iš-ḪA-ar-šu-nu-ti FM 3, 10:11 ‘he defeated them’. 162.  Another example may be in ki-zi-im AKI p. 325:30 (RI from Elam) ‘in the morning’, if it stands for /kiṣṣim/, since we expect /kiṣʾim/ from the III/  ʾ verb kaṣû ‘to be(come) cold’ (in the dictionaries under kīṣu). It may, however, simply represent the Babylonian form kīṣu. 163.  A difficult form is u-na-áš GAKI p. 361:35 (cp RI of Naram-Sin), apparently a D imperfective of this verb and quite normal as such (/unaḥḥas/), but it is parallel to á-mu-ut ‘I die’, so that it must be intransitive ‘I live’, which is very abnormal for this kind of D‑stem. Whether the PN Li-na-áš MAD 3, 193 comes from this verb is too uncertain to warrant a discussion. 164.  If the interpretation is correct: a present participle in the stative is a very unusual phenomenon (see §8.4.1, pp. 206–207).

560

The II/H Verbs  17.7.

• ù-wa-e-ru-uš /  ʾuwaʾʾerus/ SAB p. 189:7′ (Gasur) ‘I instructed him’ (Subj), D Pfv of wuʾʾuru u-ga-e /yuqaʾʾē/ AKI p. 227:47 (cp RI of Naram-Sin) ‘he waited’, D Pfv of quʾʾû • u-ra-iš AKI p. 277:28 (cp RI of Šarkališarri) ‘he subdued’, D Pfv of râs/šu ‘to strike, subdue’ • nu-id /nuʾʾid/, a D Imp of nâdu ‘to praise’ in PNs such as Ì-la-ak-nu-id MAD 3, 189 ‘praise your god!’ The few relevant forms attested in Mari Old Akkadian add little of importance but confirm the conservative nature of this dialect: a Pfv iš-am-šu /yišʾamšu/ MARI 1, 81:13 ‘he bought from him’ from šâmu, and an Inf (ana) lá-É-mì-šu-ni /laḥāmīšunē/ ARM 19, 248:4 acc. to A. Westenholz 1978: 167a ‘(barley) for their (Du) consumption’. In proper names, we have the perfectives yilʾē and talʾē (3fs) discussed in chap. 16 n. 171 (p. 497).

17.7.3.  The II/H verbs in Assyrian 17.7.3.1.  The strong paradigm As stated above in §17.7.1 (pp. 554–555), Assyrian uses the strong paradigm for the original II/*ʾ and II/*ʿ verbs and the weak paradigm for the original II/h and II/ḥ verbs.165 The strong paradigm of the G‑stem in Old Assyrian is shown in Table 17.9, with šâlu ‘to ask’ as model for the II/  ʾ verbs and bêlu ‘to possess, rule’ as model for the II/ʿ verbs. For each category, a form without ending and one with ending (basically, the corresponding plural form) are included. šaʾālum (II/  ʾ)

beʾālum (II/ʿ)

no ending

+ ending

no ending

+ ending

Impfv

išaʾʾal

išaʾʾulū

ibeʾʾel

ibeʾʾelū

Pfv

išʾal

išʾulū

ibʾel

ibʾelū

t‑Pf

ištaʾal

ištālū

*ibteʾel

*ibtēlū

Imp

šaʾal

šālā

*beʾel

*bēlā

Stat

šaʾil

šālū

*beʾil

*bēlū

Inf

šaʾālum

beʾālum

PPartc

šālum

*bēlum

PrPartc

šāʾilum

*bēʾilum

Table 17.9: The strong paradigm of the II/H verbs in Old Assyrian.

The forms of šaʾālum are basically in accordance with those of the strong verb, apart from the loss of a syllable-final guttural (see §17.3, p. 518), for instance in the Imp Pl šālā < šaʾlā (see also GKT §91). A few noteworthy points are the following. Some of the original II/*ʾ verbs belong to the I/i class, especially maʾādu ‘to be(come) numerous’, along with the adjective mādu. Most forms are regular, e.g., in Old Assyrian Impfv imaʾʾid, Pfv imʾid, t‑Pf imtiʾid (but see below on the Pl imtīdū), Stat 3ms maʾad, 3mp mādū, Adj mādum, Fem maʾattum, etc.166  165.  See also Kouwenberg 2006 for a detailed discussion. 166.  Another OA I/i verb of this class is ḫaʾāṭum ‘to check’, which has a by-form ḫiāṭum: cf. the strong Pfv ta-aḫ-i-ṭá Adana 37b:16 (quoted GKT p. 158 n. 1) ‘you (Pl) checked’ (/taḫʾiṭā/) beside iḫīṭ in the Vet

17.7.  The II/H Verbs

561

Only very rarely do we find forms that deviate from the regular forms shown in the table. First, the infinitive shows a few instances with the loss of ʾ between identical vowels (see also §16.7.2.3, p. 503): (ana . . .) ša-mì-im TC 3, 210:6 and (ana . . .) ša-mì-šu-nu OIP 27, 55:64, i.e., /šâmim/, /šâmīšunu/ from šâmu ‘to buy’. Second, t‑perfect forms of maʾādum with an ending have ī rather than the expected ā: e.g., im-tí-du OAA 1, 12:16 (/imtīdū/) instead of *imtādū (< *imtaʾdū), cf. iptiqid – iptaqdū (GKT §82c).167 Since the generalization of the vowel pattern of the endingless forms to the entire conjugation (i.e., imtiʾid § imtīdū) is a feature of later Assyrian (see §6.2, p. 140),168 imtīdū may be a very early instance of an emerging tendency which only becomes regular much later.169 An irregular Gtn form of šaʾālum is (lā) ta-áš-té-né-e-li /tašteneʾʾelī/ St. Alp p. 33:47 ‘do not keep asking me’, for which we would expect *taštanaʾʾilī. It looks as if vowel assimilation affects not only the penultimate syllable here but also the two previous syllables. However, it may rather be the case that in this form ‑tene‑ replaced ‑tana‑ by analogy with the Štn forms of some frequent Š‑stems such as uštenebbal and ušteneṣṣā, in which ta has adopted the vowel e of the next syllable (‑tane‑ > ‑tene‑; see chap. 2 n. 57, p. 48). Finally, and most importantly, the use of the ʾ‑sign in Middle Assyrian shows that the sound change that deleted syllable-final ʾ could be reversed in forms of the verbal paradigm by analogy with forms in which ʾ is preserved, as I will show below. It is possible that this also occurred in Old Assyrian and that, for instance, the plural imperative šālā (< šaʾlā) could be realized as /šaʾlā/ because the singular imperative šaʾal also has ʾ. To what extent this actually happened is impossible to tell. The wealth of data on the II/  ʾ verbs sharply contrasts with the scarcity of data on the original II/*ʿ verbs in Assyrian. In fact, apart from the doubly-weak verbs reʾû and šeʾû, the only reliable instance is beʾālum ‘to possess, have at one’s disposal’. It has a number of highly technical uses in the jargon of the Assyrian merchants in Anatolia, which has obscured the interpretation (both semantic and formal) of several of its attested forms (see Veenhof 1972: 407–12).170 Most of the attested spellings suggest that beʾālum was a regular A/a verb before it underwent E‑colouring, as one would expect on the basis of its meaning (transitive/stative; see §3.5.2.4, pp. 74–75) and the presence of *ʿ as R2,171 e.g., Impfv 3ms i-be-el AKT 1, 71:8, 3mp i-be-e-lu OAA 1, 57:13, and Pfv 2ms Subj tab-e-lu TPAK 1, 48:14, which can be directly derived from *yibaʿʿal(ū) and tabʿalu, respectively.172 This also applies to the common N‑stem, which has 3mp (ē) i-ḫi-ṭù JSOR 11, 127:22 ‘let them not check’ (see §16.5.1, p. 475). In Middle Assyrian and later, it only appears as a II/ī verb: Impfv i-ḫi-aṭ Assur 3/1, 5–6 no. 2:16, 21 ‘he will weigh out’. 167.  A similar instance in a II/H verb is ta-al-tí-iq-a-nim Prag I 433:24 ‘you (pl) have taken for me’ (for the spelling, see §17.8.3, pp. 576–577). 168.  In Old Assyrian, this only occurs in the N‑stem (ippiris § ippirsū; see §12.2.1, p. 289). 169.  See §16.7.2.3 (pp. 503–504) and chap. 2 n. 58 (p. 49) for phenomena that are exceptional in Old Assyrian but regular later. Alternatively, one could simply assume that Old Assyrian had a root variant MīD (Inf miādum), but this does not explain why MīD only occurs in the t‑perfect of the G-stem. 170.  The most important result of Veenhof’s investigations is that several forms listed in GKT §91b–c as weak perfectives are in fact N‑stems, which makes it clear that beʾālum has preserved its strong paradigm, in contrast to the II/ḥ verbs, which have become weak. 171.  Rather than I/i, as claimed by GAG3 §98m* and p. 54* sub 19. For A/a, cf. also SAk i-be-al quoted in §17.7.2 (p. 557) and OB i-bex(ne)-al quoted in n. 59 (p. 527). As for Mari OAk i-be-il RA 35, 48 no. 25:3, I assume that this is an instance of Babylonian influence and stands for ibêl (i-be-él ) rather than a unique instance of the vowel class I/i. 172.  For additional occurrences, see Veenhof 1972: 407–12 and Kouwenberg 2006: 165–66. Occasional forms with i, such as Impfv 2p ta-bé-i-lá TC 1, 16:23, and Pfv 3ms Subj ib-i-lu kt n/k 518:20 are presumably due to the fluctuation between i and e, which is common in Old Assyrian.

562

The II/H Verbs  17.7.

the form Pfv 3ms ibbeʾil, 3mp ibbēlū, t‑Pf 3ms ittabʾel, e.g., i-be-i-il5 TC 3, 32:22, li-bé-lá-ni TC 1, 26:28, and i-ta-ab-e-el-kà TC 2, 15:13. These forms are in accordance with those of the strong A/a verbs, e.g., iṣṣibit, iṣṣibtū, ittaṣbat from ṣabātu ‘to seize’, except that the perfective forms with an ending are not expected to show vowel assimilation, because this is blocked by E‑colouring (see §2.4, p. 49). Therefore, I have given the plural form of the perfective as ibbēlū rather than ibbīlū, although all spellings known to me are ambiguous in this respect. The few forms of II/  ʾ verbs attested in Middle Assyrian (Meyer 1971: 69–70) are generally in keeping with the Old Assyrian forms. In addition to broken spellings, Middle Assyrian often uses the special ʾ‑sign, e.g., G 3mp Impfv i-ša-ʾ-ú-lu /išaʾʾulū/ KAV 1: VI §45:63 ‘they will ask’, Gtn 3ms Impfv il-ta-na-ʾ-al-šu /iltanaʾʾalšu/ KAV 1: VII §47:21 ‘he will ask him repeatedly’, G Inf Gen (balūt . . .) ša-ʾ-a-li AfO 17, 274:44 ‘without asking’. However, an important difference from Old Assyrian is that šaʾālu seems to have ʾ even in positions where it is presumed to have been lost in Old Assyrian,173 e.g., in the Imp Pl ša-ʾ-la KAV 107:19 (for which Old Assyrian is assumed to have šālā) and in the t‑Pf ịl-tạ-aʾ-la-ni MATC 15:12 ‘he asked me’ (OA ištālanni ). This suggests that ʾ was restored on the basis of other forms of the same verb where it was not syllable-final and therefore preserved, as in the corresponding forms without ending, the Imp Sg šaʾal (e.g., ša-ʾa-al Assur 3/1, 3 no. 1:18) and the t‑Pf aštaʾal or altaʾal (e.g., al-ta-ʾ-al JCS 7, 135 no. 62:8 ‘I asked’). As long as such forms exist, ʾ can be restored on the model of the strong verb; e.g., ṣabat § ṣabtā may lead to šaʾal § šaʾlā instead of šālā, and iptaras § iptarsanni leads to iltaʾal § iltaʾlanni replacing iltālanni.174 On the other hand, the verb šâmu ‘to buy’ shows the opposite behaviour in having weak perfective forms: i-ša-mu-ú-ni KAJ 175:25 ‘he bought’ (Subj) and i-ša-mu-šu KAV 195:6 (c. br.) (W. Mayer 1971: 69).175 It is unclear to me whether this testifies to an incipient process of weakening, as in Babylonian, or whether it is borrowed from Babylonian as part of legal terminology. The only data on the II/  ʾ verbs of Neo-Assyrian available to me is Table IVb in HämeenAnttila 2000: 153. The forms it shows (without references) suggest an almost consistently strong paradigm that is more or less identical to the Old Assyrian paradigm. Further study is needed to confirm whether this is correct. In Middle Assyrian, no forms of bêlu or any other original II/*ʿ verb are attested. The evidence for Neo-Assyrian only consists of bêlu, now in its regular non-technical meaning ‘to rule’. The few extant forms show that by this time it has shifted to the weak paradigm, as in Babylonian: Pfv li-pi-lu SAA 10, 228: r.2; t‑Pf ip-ti-ia-al SAA 10, 351:14.176 However, the contexts in which it is used bristle with Standard Babylonian forms, so it seems unlikely that it was really part of the genuine Neo-Assyrian vocabulary; note, however, that the t‑perfect form ip-ti-ia-al with its inserted a is specifically Assyrian.177

173.  The same peculiarity is found in Middle Babylonian, where ʾ also appears in forms that have doubtless lost it in Old Babylonian; see §17.7.4.1 (pp. 569–570). 174.  On the other hand, we find parallel Middle Assyrian forms without ʾ, such as the 3mp Stat ša-mu KAV 103:12 ‘they have been bought’ and the adjective (šīpāte) ma-da-te KAV 106:5. It cannot be determined whether or not these forms also contained a restored ʾ. 175.  There is also a Middle Assyrian PN Ištu-Aššur-a-šam/šàm-šu ‘I bought him from Assur’ (OMA 1, 269), but this may actually be a Babylonian verb form, as in many other Middle Assyrian proper names. 176.  For b > p, see Deller 1959: 234–42, esp. 242. Forms with p are particularly frequent in royal inscriptions (1959: 235). 177.  Other forms attested in letters can be explained as Babylonianisms, e.g., li-bé-e-lu SAA 10, 185: r.2; li-bé-lu SAA 10, 188: r.8 ‘may they rule’.

17.7.  The II/H Verbs

563

17.7.3.2.  The weak paradigm The original II/*h verbs (or II/ā verbs?) and the original II/*ḥ verbs have a weak paradigm in Assyrian. The former are very poorly represented and their paradigm is largely reconstructed on the basis of the II/ī verbs. Original II/ḥ verbs are plentiful, but the ambiguity of Old Assyrian orthography leaves many uncertainties. Table 17.10 presents the paradigm with bâšu ‘to become ashamed’, bêru ‘to choose’, and rêqu D ‘to keep away’ as sample verbs. The forms that are actually attested or directly based on attested forms are printed in bold. The second form in a slot exemplifies the forms with an ending.178 *baʾāšum (II/*h)

beārum (II/*ḥ)

reyyuqum (II/*ḥ)

G‑stem

D‑stem

G‑stem

D‑stem

Impfv

ibâš ? ibaššū

ubayyaš? ubaššū

ibē/  īar ibe/irrū

ureyyaq ureqqū

Pfv

ibāš ibāšū

ubayyiš ubayyišū

ibē/  īr ibē/īrū

ureyyiq ureyyiqū

t‑Pf

ibtaʾaš ? ibtāšū ?

ubtayyiš ubtayyišū

ibte/iar ibtē/īrū

urteyyiq urteyyiqū

Imp

bāš bāšā

bayyiš bayyišā

bē/īr bē/īrā

reyyiq reyyiqā

Stat

bāš bāšū

bayyuš bayyušū

bē/īr ? bē/īrū

reyyuq reyyuqū

Inf

baʾāšum ?

bayyušum

be/iārum

reyyuqum

PPartc

bāšum

bayyušum

bē/īrum

reyyuqum

PrPartc

bāʾišum

mubayyišum

bēʾirum

mureyyiqum

Table 17.10: The weak paradigm of the II/H verbs in Old Assyrian.

There are two significant features of the weak paradigm in Assyrian. First, it is actually weak only in a small part of its forms—the perfective and the imperative G and the imperfective D. Second, the distribution of strong and weak forms is—insofar as we can tell—identical to that of the II/voc verbs (see Table 16.7 in §16.5.2, p. 476, and Table 16.9 in §16.5.3.3, p. 482). This demonstrates that the weak paradigm essentially developed on the model of the II/voc verbs. I will first discuss the conjugation of bâšu and bâʾu. The attested G imperfective forms of bâšu with an ending are trisyllabic and therefore weak (see §17.7.1, p. 555), e.g., a-ba-šu /abaššu/ CCT 2, 1:33 ‘I will come to shame’ (Subj) and niba-šu /nibaššu/ ATHE 39:27 ‘we will come to shame’ (Subj). This is the main difference with šaʾālum (cf. Table 17.9). The imperfective forms without ending, such as G a-ba-áš OAA 1, 45:16, are ambiguous, and it is hard to choose between /ibaʾʾaš/, /ibâš/, and even /ibāʾaš/. The first form is most similar to the original imperfective, which we may reconstruct as *yibahha θ, but makes it difficult to account for the weak forms with an ending. The second, /ibâš/, may be 178.  The choice for ‑yy‑ as reflex of a geminate *h and *ḥ (unlike Kouwenberg 2006: 169, 174) is not based on orthographic evidence but on the parallel with the II/voc verbs (ukayyin, etc.; see Table 16.9, p. 482) and for the original II/*ḥ verbs also on the development of a single *ḥ to a palatal glide in Assyrian; see §17.3 above (p. 518).

564

The II/H Verbs  17.7.

explained from contraction of *yibahha θ after the loss of *h and readily accounts for the rest of the conjugation, e.g., 3mp *yibahha θu > *yibâšū, which adopts gemination by analogy with other imperfective categories (*yibâšū § ibaššū (or perhaps ibāššū; see chap. 16 n. 102, p. 477), and especially by analogy with the II/voc verbs (which have imuttū and iqippū; see §16.5.2, pp. 476–477). The third option, /ibāʾaš/, presupposes a specific development of *yibahha θ under the influence of imūat and iqīap of the II/ ū and II/  ī verbs. The D imperfective is parallel to the G imperfective: it is weak if there is an ending, cf. (˹lā˺) tù-ba-ša-ni /tubaššanni/ TC 3, 100:20 ‘do not shame me’,179 and ambiguous without ending, e.g., nu-ba-áš-kà TC 3, 1:33 ‘we will shame you’, i.e., /nubayyaš/ or /nubâš/? We met the same dilemma in the D imperfective of the II/voc verbs (see §16.5.3.3, pp. 483–484). All other D forms are undoubtedly strong. The G perfective is not attested with certainty, but on the basis of ibē/īr from beārum we may safely assume that it was weak: ibāš, Pl ibāšū.180 The original form must have been *yibha θ, in which h became weakened, after which the form was replaced by *yibāš by analogy with yimūt and yiqīp. The G Imp bāš, Pl bāšā is not attested but posited on the basis of the Imp of bâʾu ‘to come’, which is only attested in these two forms (see also GKT §98b and CAD B 181 s.v. 2a):181 ba(-a)-am /bāʾam/ Prag I 499:14 and 727:7, Pl ba-a-nim /bāʾānim/ CCT 3, 29:18. For the t‑perfect and the infinitive of the G‑stem, it is unclear whether we should posit strong forms (ibtaʾaš and baʾāšum) or weak forms (ibtâš and bâšum). Middle and Neo-Assyrian do not offer much additional information, apart from the fact that the weak form of the D imperfective is confirmed by the feminine proper name Lā-tu-ba-ši-ni AfO 10, 43 no. 100:25 ‘do (Fem) not shame me’ (/tubaššīni/) (MA) and its masculine counterpart Lā-tu-ba-šá-an-ni (‑DN) SAA 14, 21: r.11 (NA).182 For the original II/ḥ verbs, we have much more evidence.183 The forms of beārum in Table 17.10 show the similarity between the G‑stem paradigm of the II/ḥ verbs and the II/ī verbs represented by qâpu in Table 16.9 (p. 482). In the G imperfective, the original *yibaḥḥar became yibēar, and the resemblance of this form to iqīap caused the transfer of the entire conjugation to the II/ī verbs, replacing the perfective *yibḥar with yibēr, etc. The main uncertainty is whether all forms have introduced ī in accordance with qâpu or whether they have preserved ē as the regular result of E-colouring. In other words, is the perfective ibēr < *yibḥar, the infinitive beārum < *baḥārum, and the stative with endings bēr- < *baḥr-, or are these forms replaced by ibīr, 179.  Another instance, however, shows a plene spelling (tù-ba-a-ša-ni AKT 1, 14: 11 ‘you shame me’) and may therefore be strong: /tubaʾʾašanni/, but we cannot be certain about this. 180.  It is possible that an instance of the perfective is hidden in the PN E-ni-ba-áš /ē nibāš/ CCT 1, 11b:13 ‘may we not come to shame’, as compared to the corresponding Babylonian name in the first-person singular Ay-abāš (Stamm 1939: 174–75). The occurrence of a superficially similar name E-ni/na-ba-ša-at KTS 1, 47c:1 (1939: 369), which can only be a 3fs stative, makes this uncertain. 181.  A deverbal noun of bâšu may be baʾaštu (or bâštu?) ‘dignity’ or something similar, which is attested in the Gen (ina) ba-áš-tí-kà BIN 4, 9:16 and (a-)ba-áš-tí-kà BIN 4, 10:25 and the Nom ba-áš-tí KTS 1, 15:42 ‘my baʾaštu’. If it is derived from bâšu, it is an infinitive with a feminine ending, like alaktu ‘gait, course, behaviour’ from alāku, or a past participle with the pattern PaRaS, of which Assyrian shows a number of instances (see §7.2, p. 162). However, Kogan (2003: 258) suggests connecting bâštu with Ar baʾs ‘bravery, courage, vigour’, which is quite possible. 182.  Another Middle Assyrian II/ā verb (not attested earlier) may be qâlu ‘to pay attention’. It has a weak perfective: cf. the Prec li-qa(-a)-al MATSH p. 117 no. 6:10′ and p. 158 no. 12:31. In other dialects, it is normally a II/ū verb. Is this another instance of the alternation of h and w in a root referred to in chap. 16 n. 101 (p. 475)? 183.  For a selection of instances, see Kouwenberg 2006: 167–69.

17.7.  The II/H Verbs

565

biārum, and bīr-, respectively? For most forms, we need plene spellings with ⟨i⟩ or ⟨e⟩ to answer the question, but no such spellings are known to me. However, the participle is unambiguous: it deviates from that of qâpu (qāʾipu), as shown by ṭēʾittum ‘female grinder’ from ṭênu ‘to grind’, e.g., ṭé-i-té-en6 (Acc Du) OAA 1, 40:14. There is also a Middle Assyrian perfective form ta-ṭé-en JCS 7, 135 no. 62:9 ‘you ground’, where ⟨en⟩ points to /taṭēn/ (replacing *taṭḥan) rather than /taṭīn/. Perhaps these small clues tilt the balance in favour of ē, as in Babylonian, where these verbs have a separate paradigm dominated by ē forms (see GAG §98j–k and Verbalpar. 19). However, further evidence is needed for a definitive answer. The 3ms stative is likely to be a back-formation from the forms with an ending, just as šām and mīt in Babylonian (see §17.7.4.1, p. 567, and §16.5.2, pp. 478–479, respectively), i.e., bēr or bīr. For the imperative, I posit a PaRaS pattern, as in the II/  ʾ verbs: *ṭaḥan, Fem *ṭaḥnī. Bab ṭēn also points to *ṭaḥan (see §17.7.4.1, p. 567). Presumably, *ṭaḥan, *ṭaḥnī would become ṭên, ṭēnī, although ṭīn, ṭīnī would be more in accordance with the imperative of qâpu. The only D‑stem of an original II/*ḥ verb known to us, reyyuqum ‘to keep away’ from ruāqu (Ass) ‘to be far/go away’, confirms that the II/*ḥ verbs have adopted a weak paradigm. It is shown in the right column of Table 17.10. All forms outside the imperfective are strong. The only extant imperfective without ending (lā tù-re-a-aq OAA 1, 126:10 ‘do not keep away!’, i.e., /tureyyaq/) is also strong, but the one with an ending is weak: lā tù-re-qí-ni St. Biggs p. 292:34 ‘do (Fem) not keep me away’, i.e., /tureqqīni/. This is exactly parallel to the D conjugation of the II/voc verbs with ukayyan(?), ukannū (see Table 16.9, p. 482). The G‑stem corresponding to reyyuqum shows a particularly interesting development. It is a II/ū verb in Assyrian (OA ruāqum), although it is etymologically a II/ḥ verb (√rḥq). This presupposes a perfective *yirḥuq, which was replaced by yirūq after the loss of ḥ, thus providing a starting point for the creation of a new imperfective irūaq (Huehnergard 1991: 700; and see §16.5.1, pp. 474–475). The form *yirḥuq itself is also an Assyrian innovation: all evidence shows that *yirḥaq is more original, not only the Babylonian Impfv irêq and Pfv irēq (see below), but also the Geʿez cognate yərḥaq-rəḥqa (CDG 467 s.v. and Aro 1964: 98). The same difference in root vowel between Assyrian and Babylonian is found in its antonym *qarābu (Bab qerēbu) ‘to be/ come near’, with a perfective Ass iqrub but Bab iqrab. The parallel between the two verbs is demonstrated most clearly by the fact that both *qarābum and ruāqum have the exceptional pattern PuRuS in the adjective/stative (see §3.3.4 sub 2, p. 64): qurbu ‘near’ and rūqu ‘far’ < *ruḥqum (see Table 17.11):

Bab Ass

root

perfective

stative/adjective

√qrb

iqrab < *yiqrab

qerub/qerbum < *qar(u)bum

√rḥq

irēq < *yirḥaq

rûq < *raḥuq rēqum ibēl, *yirḥaq > irēq, etc. The imperative with ê goes back to a pattern PaRaS, just as in the II/ā verbs. The present participle bēʾiru is attested in agent nouns such as ṭēʾinu ‘grinder’ from ṭênu (ṭè-ì-nu-ú MSL 12, 170:422), šēʾiqu ‘distributor of barley’ from šêqu (lúše-i-qum ZAT 4 passim), and nēʾiru ‘killer’ as a royal epithet, e.g., né(-e)-ir (c. st.) RIMA 1, 131:3 (var. from KAH 2, 35:3).202 An interesting development is found in the verb rêqu ‘to be/go far away’, which was also mentioned in the previous section because of its Assyrian peculiarities. The Babylonian prefix forms can be derived directly from a Proto-Semitic verb with the root vowel a: Pfv *yirḥaq § irēq. The corresponding adjective goes back to a PaRuS form *raḥuqum (> *raḥqum > rēqu), which as a stative has the form *raḥuq > rûq. Subsequently, both forms have developed a full paradigm (Anttila 1989: 94–95) so that rēqu and rûqu coexist in Babylonian without discernible difference: cf. in particular Uta-naʾištim ru-ú-qí-im Gilg. p. 280: IV 6 (OB) versus Uta-naʾištim re-qá-am Gilg. p. 280: IV 13 ‘the distant Uta-naʾištim’. Assyrian only has rūqu < *ruḥqum, one of the adjectives with the pattern PuRuS (see §3.3.4 sub 2, p. 64). Sources for the derived stems of II/ē verbs are not very abundant. They are mostly parallel to the II/ā verbs, with one important exception: in Old Babylonian, the Gtn‑stem and the D‑stem predominantly have weak forms. A Gtn form is Impfv te-em-te-né-eš-ša-an-ni AbB 5, 168: r.14′ ‘you always despise me’ from mêšu. Weak D forms include: • Impfv (lā) tu-re-qá-an-ni /tureqqanni/ AbB 9, 214:10 ‘do not keep me away’ from rêqu D • Pfv li-iš-[t]e-él-la AbB 6, 89:7 /lištellā/ ‘let them be sharpened’ from šêlu Dt • Inf šu-uq-qum Syr. 59:130–36 passim from šêqu D (/šuqqum/)203 and ru-ú-uq-q[ú-u]m MSL 13, 123:327 /ruqqum/ from rêqu D (or /rūqqum/ because of the plene spelling?) However, strong forms are the D Pfv tu-me-i-ša-am UET 5, 81:22 and tu-me-e-iš UET 5, 81:29 ‘you despised me’ from mêšu (cf. the weak Gtn form just quoted!). Already in Ur III Babylonian, a strong form of the present participle D of rêqu is attested (see Hilgert 2002: 255–56 for references). It is variously spelled mu-RI-IQ, mu-RÍ-IQ, mu-RI-Ì-IQ-tum and mu-Ì-RI-IQ (doubtless a mistake for mu-RI-Ì-IQ), which points to /mureʾʾiqum/ or /mureyyiqum/. In the same context, a 3ms ù-RI-IQ occurs, which is probably an imperfective (Hilgert 2002: 255–56). It may either represent a strong form /ureʾʾeq/ or /ureyyeq/ or a weak form /urêq/. In the former case, it is safe to conclude that the entire conjugation was still strong. However, if there were additional evidence that ù-RI-IQ actually stands for /urêq/, the coexistence of a strong present participle with a 201.  Alternatively, we might read these forms as i-zé-ar and i-né-a-aš, the phonological outcome of *yizaḥḥar/*yinaḥḥaš with preservation (or restoration) of the root vowel (or imperfective vowel) a. The purely phonological outcome of E-colouring would have been **izeḥḥer/**ineḥḥeš, however. I-bex(ne)-al Land Tenure p. 451:17 may be another example (see n. 59 above, p. 527). 202.  Old Babylonian royal inscriptions often use A-forms of this verb, e.g., Impfv ni-na-a-ar RIME 4, 386:73 ‘we will kill’; Inf na-ar RIME 4, 387:87 (c. st.); Pfv i-na-ar RIME 4, 387:98, 102 ‘he killed’. This is doubtless an archaism inspired by the common form en-ar in Sargonic Akkadian royal inscriptions (see §17.7.2 above, p. 557). 203.  This infinitive must mean something like ‘to smoothen’ (of textiles). The editor, S. Lackenbacher, derives it from šaqû D ‘to make high’, which is implausible for both orthographic and semantic reasons.

572

The III/H Verbs  17.8.

weak imperfective is reminiscent of the Old Assyrian weak paradigm described in §17.7.3.2 (see Table 17.10, p. 563).204 In that case, it is not only in the G‑stem that Babylonian agrees with the Assyrian weak paradigm of the II/H verbs but also in the D‑stem. This opens the possibility that the verbs in question acquired this weak paradigm already before they became different dialects and that therefore the gutturals *h and *ḥ were already subject to weakening in that period. In Middle Babylonian and later, strong D forms greatly increase in frequency and interchange with weak forms. A Middle Babylonian instance is aḫā[miš  ] i nu-ra-i-iṣ BE 17, 52:23 ‘let us help each other’ from rêṣu. In Standard Babylonian, strong and weak are used interchangeably, often accompanied by the use of A-forms instead of the older E-forms: cf. in particular the alternation of strong and weak in ú-šá-ʾa-lu Ash. p. 44: I 71 ‘they were sharpening’ with a variant ú‑šal‑lu, from šêlu (see further CAD Š/2 275–76 s.v. šêlu A 2). In the older dialects, Š‑stems of II/ē verbs are attested mainly for ṭênu ‘to grind’. Their importance lies in the fact that they provide the oldest evidence for gemination of the final radical in the Š‑stem of II/voc verbs (see §16.5.3.4, p. 486): Pfv uš-ṭi4-in-nu AbB 11, 123:17 ‘they had (the barley) ground’ (also AbB 11, 123:20 [li-iš-ṭi4-i]n-nu-ú ). There is also an Inf ana (. . .) [š  ] u-ṭú-nim AbB 11, 62:12′, presumably /šuṭunnim/, but more common is ana (. . .) [š  ]u-ṭe4-nim AbB 9, 14:6, 14, 127:15 (all OB), which is completely irregular and apparently influenced by the G Inf ṭênu, i.e., /šuṭennim/ or /šuṭênim/?205 An Old Babylonian Š imperfective is uš-né-e-eš HSAO 1, 186: I 5 ‘he keeps alive’ from nêšu. In Standard Babylonian and later, there also are Š forms which replace ‑š‑ with ‑še‑, just as ‑š‑ may be replaced with ‑ša‑ in the Š‑stems of II/voc and II/ā verbs, e.g., Pfv ú-še-ri-qa-an-ni ‘I removed myself’(?) AnSt. 8, 58: I 23 and a t‑Pf uš-teri-qà-an-[ni ] AASOR 16, 3:20 (Nuzi). However, rêmu has an instance of a strong Š‑stem with ʾ restored: Imp šu-re-ʾ-im-am VAB 4, 124: I 69 ‘make graceful to me’, doubtless a secondary, artificial form. Extant N forms of Babylonian II/ē verbs are always weak in Old Babylonian: Impfv im-mee-eš ARM 26/2, 526 no. 533:6also ‘will it be ignored?’ from mêšu, and Pfv ni-ib-bé-el AbB 2, 46:10 ‘we are held prisoner’ from bêlu. Standard Babylonian, too, mostly has weak forms, e.g., Impfv im-meš TuL 127:12 and [i]m-mé-eš Bît rimki 59:58 ‘he will be despised’; ib-ber-ru BWL 54 l ‘it is selected’ (Subj). A strong form is iz-ze-ʾ-er CT 41, 39:9 ‘he will be hated’. For the appearance of a strong ʾ in II/ē verbs in Middle Babylonian and later, see the end of the previous section.

17.8. The III/H Verbs 17.8.1.  Introduction and sources The III/H verbs are originally strong verbs that after the loss of their guttural promoted the root vowel to the status of vocalic radical. Verbs with the root vowels i and u ended up as III/ī and III/ū verbs and were discussed in chap. 16; they will be mentioned here only insofar as they show forms with the guttural preserved. The great majority of III/H verbs had the root vowel a for phonetic reasons and therefore occur in Akkadian as III/ā or II/ē verbs, according to whether 204.  Hilgert (2002: 255) argues that all these forms are weak and have taken over the inflection of the II/voc verbs (*urêq, *murêq(tum)), but this seems unlikely for the present participle with its plene spelling mu-RI-Ì-IQ-tum. 205.  All instances known to me occur in the expression (do not be careless) ana zíd.da šu-ṭe4-nim ‘in having the flour ground’. It would be grammatically possible to interpret ‑šu as belonging to zíd.da ‘in grinding his flour’, but this is less satisfactory in the context.

17.8.  The III/H Verbs

573

the guttural causes E‑colouring or not. Thus the III/ā verbs go back to roots with *ʾ or *h as R3, whereas the III/ē verbs go back to roots with *ʿ or *ḥ as R3. Actually, all III/ā verbs with a reliable etymology come from roots with *ʾ as R3: I am not aware of any plausible instance of an Akkadian verb going back to a III/*h root. Common instances of III/ā verbs with a clear etymology are malû ‘to be(come) full’ (√mlʾ  ), kalû ‘to hold, detain’ (√klʾ  ), and w/tamû ‘to swear’ (Aram ymʾ; see DRS 556 s.v. WMʾ/Y). The verb kaṣû ‘to be(come) cold’ shows its ʾ through its conjugation in Old and Middle Assyrian (see Kouwenberg 2003: 83–84). We have no information about the original R3 of watû ‘to find’. Two specifically Assyrian III/ā verbs are katāʾum ‘to take as security’ and šalāʾum ‘to wrong’, both without etymology. III/ē verbs with a clear etymology include the original III/*ḥ verbs leqû ‘to take, receive’ (√lqḥ), peṣû ‘to be(come) white’ (√pṣḥ; see Huehnergard 2003: 107 n. 8), petû ‘to open’ (√ptḥ), qemû ‘to grind’ (√qmḥ), šeṭû ‘to spread’ (√šṭḥ; see CDG 518b s.v. saṭḥa), and ṭepû ‘to add, apply’ (He/Syr ṭpḥ). Original III/*ʿ verbs are šebû ‘to be(come) satisfied’ (√ś/šbʿ ), šemû ‘to hear’ (√šmʿ ), tebû ‘to rise’ (Ugar tbʿ ), and idû ‘to know’, which was discussed in §16.3.3 (pp. 465–​ 467). Less-certain cases are mesû ‘to wash’ (√msḥ),206 nesû ‘to be/go far away’ (√nsʿ; see CDG 410–11 s.v. nazʿa), redû ‘to follow, accompany’ (√rd  ʿ ),207 and retû ‘to fix’ (√rt  ʿ; see CDG 475– 76 s.v. rat  ʿa). There are also verbs that are written more or less consistently with final e, which suggests that they originally had *ḥ or *ʿ as R3, e.g., berû ‘to be(come) hungry’,208 dekû ‘to summon’, letû ‘to split, divide’, nepû ‘to distrain’, ṭeḫû ‘to approach’, and zenû ‘to be(come) angry’. It is not always easy to distinguish III/ē verbs from III/ī verbs, not only because of the incomplete and inconsistent differentiation of i and e in cuneiform spelling but also because there seems to be some fluctuation between them, especially in the sense that the III/ē verbs tend to shift to the class of III/ī verbs: most III/ē verbs also show plene spellings with i, but the reverse is exceptional.

17.8.2.  The III/H verbs in third-millennium Akkadian Hasselbach (2005: 217–18, 221) enumerates most of the forms attested in Sargonic Akkadian. The III/  ʾ verbs are represented by w/tamû ‘to swear’, malû ‘to be(come) full’, našû ‘to lift, carry’, and waṣû ‘to go /come out’. The latter two are I/i verbs and thus merge with the III/ī verbs later on (see §16.7.1, p. 498). The following points merit discussion. In forms without a vocalic ending, the word-final guttural is invisible and therefore uncertain (Hasselbach 2005: 77). For instance, id-ma MAD 5, 21:7 (Kish) ‘he swore’ may stand for /yitmaʾ/ or /yitmā/. It is possible that the sign ⟨má⟩, when it is used in a II/  ʾ verb, indicates that ʾ 206.  E‑colouring and Mari OAk spellings with é such as im-za-É (see below) show that the root is √msḥ. 207.  The original guttural of this verb is problematic. The combined evidence of ā in Sargonic Akkadian (e.g., ir-da-su4 /yirdāsu/ AKI p. 230:138 (cp RI of Naram-Sin) ‘he followed him’), ē in Babylonian and Assyrian, and the Old Assyrian alternation of ri-[d  ]am RA 58, 126:22 ‘bring here!’ with ri-id-am St. Veenhof p. 139:5, which can both be explained as representing a cluster of a glottalized consonant ṭ plus ʾ (‑t’    ʾ‑ > ‑ t’t’‑) (see Kouwenberg 2003: 81–82) points to *ʿ , which became ʾ in Assyrian (see §17.3, p. 518). Huehnergard (1991: 698–99) has suggested that the rather complex meaning of redû reflects the falling together of two or even three Proto-Semitic roots attested in South Semitic, one of which has ʾ: Geʿez radʾa 1. ‘to help, support’, 2. ‘to pursue, hunt down’. This accounts for the Old Assyrian spellings but leaves the E‑colouring unexplained, unless we are satisfied with attributing it to the presence of r, which is unlikely for Assyrian, though not impossible. 208.  If SAk a ib-ra SAB p. 163:5 (Diyala) ‘let it (the field) not be ‘hungry’’ (i.e., fallow) is from this verb, it also points to an E‑colouring guttural, originally *yibraḥ or *yibraʿ.

574

The III/H Verbs  17.8.

was still present, as in the Pfv ù/ú-má SAB p. 40:9 (Adab) and AKI p. 77:50 (RI of Maništušu) ‘I swore’, i.e., /  ʾumaʾ/,209 but this is not certain (see §17.2, p. 515). When an ending with u is added to an original II/  ʾ verb, the sign ⟨ù⟩ is always used, e.g.: • it-ma-ù /yitmaʾū/ AuOr. 9, 143: IV 7 (Eshnunna) ‘they swore’ from tamû (A/a) • li-se11-ù-ni-kum /lisseʾūnikkum/ SAB p. 90:19 (Girsu) ‘let them carry’ from našû (I/i) • li-˹se11˺-zi-ù-nim /lisēṣiʾūnim/ SAB p. 163:15 (Diyala) ‘let them bring out’ from waṣû (I/i) Š If ⟨ù⟩ has the same value here as word-initially,210 it indicates that intervocalic ʾ was still in place, not only after a but also after i. Before a, the nature of the glide cannot normally be established.211 Where the vowel i is adjacent to ʾ, it is often spelled with signs which stand for /Ce/: • Pfv i-se11-ù /yisseʾu/ AKI p. 227:20 (cp RI of Naram-Sin) ‘he lifted’ (Subj) from našû, and Prec li-se11-ù-ni-kum, quoted above • Pfv ù-dam-me-ki /  ʾutammēki/ or /‑meʾki/ Or. 46, 201:34 (incant. from Kish) ‘I herewith conjure you’ (see n. 202, p. 571) and Prec li-da-me-su4 /litammēsu/ or /‑meʾsu/ SAB p. 155:12 (Diyala) ‘he must make him swear’ from tamû D • Pfv u-su-zé /yusūṣeʾ/ or /‑ṣē/ SAB p. 186:8 (Gasur) ‘he brought out’ from waṣû Š This suggests that i may become e in the vicinity of ʾ, as it often does in Old Assyrian (GKT §§16–17). However, other Š forms of waṣû apparently preserve their i, e.g., Pfv u-se11-zi BIN 8, 144:59 (Umm el-Jīr), i.e., /yusēṣiʾ/ or /‑ṣī/ and the Prec li-˹se11˺-zi-ù-nim already quoted above.212 The original III/ḥ verbs of Sargonic Akkadian include leqû ‘to take, receive’ and petû ‘to open’; the III/ʿ verbs include šemû ‘to hear’, idû ‘to know’ (discussed in §16.3.3, pp. 465–467), and presumably redû ‘to follow, accompany’.213 Their most important feature is the co-occurrence of forms with and without E‑colouring, which suggests that E‑colouring is an incipient phenomenon. In forms without E‑colouring, the pharyngeals *ḥ and *ʿ must have been present to serve as a conditioning factor. In šemû, this may be confirmed by the use of ⟨má⟩ with the value /maʿ/, e.g., áš-má / ʾasmaʿ/ SAB p. 116:3 (Girsu) ‘I heard’; however, the reservations mentioned in §17.2 (p. 515) with regard to this interpretation are also valid here. 209.  I regard this form as a performative perfective, with GAG3 §78d*, contra Hasselbach 2005: 218; see Loesov 2005: 115–19; cf. the perfective ù-dam-me-ki quoted hereafter. 210.  This is not obvious, however, since III/ī verbs in Sargonic Akkadian also use ⟨ù⟩ (see §16.7.2.2, p. 501), and other forms also militate against /  ʾu/ as the only word-internal value of ⟨ù⟩ in this period (see chap. 16 n. 182, p. 501). 211.  For forms such as u-ṣa(-ab)-bi-àm AKI p. 227:24 and p. 285:24 (cps RIs) ‘he waged war against me’, allegedly /yuṣabbiʾam/ with for /  ʾam/, see §17.2 (p. 514). 212.  A problematic form is the Pfv i-se11-nim AKI p. 81:18 (RI of Naram-Sin) in the clause šarrē šūt i-se11-nim ‘the kings who rose against me’. It is usually assumed to be an error for 3mp i-se11-⟨ù⟩-nim or an abbreviated spelling (Hasselbach 2005: 36 n. 27). However, this makes i-se11-nim intransitive, which is unusual for našû, although not without parallel; see CAD N/2 103 s.v. n. A 5. Moreover, there is a second form of this type: g i š . í l DN ilīšu na-se11-nim AKI p. 256:52–55 (cp RI of Naram-Sin) ‘they (the people) carry the tupšikku of DN, his god’, where we would expect na-se11-⟨a⟩-nim. This phrase contains a rather atypical use of the active stative of našû, since the stative is not normally used for habitual activities. Interestingly, it also occurs later in the same context: bilassunu na-šu-ni-iš-šum RIME 4, 606:66 ‘they bring their tribute to him’ (OB RI of Jaḫdun-Lim of Mari), and Gilg. p. 618:17 lū na-šu-nik-ka biltu ‘let them bring tribute to you’ (SB). 213.  Note also the Pfv iš-bu-a(-ma) St. Oelsner p. 424: III 11 ‘he did as seventh/for the seventh time’, a denominal verb derived from sebē ‘seven’ (√š/śbʿ; note the sibilant!).

17.8.  The III/H Verbs

575

With regard to the III/*ḥ verbs, leqû ‘to take, receive’, shows forms with both a and e, e.g., Pfv íl-ga /yilqaḥ/ MAD 5, 82:6 (Umm el-Jīr) ‘he received’ versus íl-gi SAB p. 170:6 (Eshnunna) ‘he received’, which may represent /yilqē/ or an intermediate stage between /yilqaḥ/ and /yilqē/, such as /yilqäḥ/, /yilqeḥ/, or /yilqäy/. On the other hand, petû ‘to open’ only has forms with e: li-ib-te-u SAB p. 163:13 (Diyala) ‘let them open’, i.e., /lipteyū/ or something similar. Among the III/ʿ verbs, šemû has forms with a as well as e: áš-má quoted above and li-iš-me SAB p. 142:17 (Kish). On the other hand, idû ‘to know’ and redû ‘to follow, accompany’ only have forms with final ‑a in Sargonic Akkadian. For the former, see §16.3.3 (pp. 465–467); for redû, cf. Pfv ir-dasu4 AKI p. 230:138 (cp RI of Naram-Sin) ‘he pursued’, Prec li-˹ir˺-da SAB p. 155:18 (Diyala) ‘let him follow’. Note also the Inf [a-n]a ra-da-ì lugal /radāʾi/ SAB p. 112:12 (Girsu) ‘in order to accompany the king’. As argued by Hasselbach (2005: 134–35), this is likely to reflect chronological and geographical differences between conservative and innovative text genres and/or areas. Mari Old Akkadian has no E‑colouring to inform us about the state of word-final gutturals in the III/H verbs. It also uses the specialized sign ⟨má⟩, which raises the same problems as elsewhere. Relevant forms include the Impfv i-da-ba RA 35, 50 no. 31:4 ‘he will rise’ from tebû,214 and ti-da ‘she knows’ and iš-má ‘he heard’ in proper names, e.g., [Eš4]-tár-ti-da ARM 19, 397:2 and Iš-má-dDa-gan AKI p. 361 MŠ 5:4 (see n. 22, p. 517). Whether these forms represent /yitabbaʿ/, etc., or a form with weakened or lost ʿ cannot be determined from these spellings. It is possible, on the other hand, that Mari Old Akkadian offers a different kind of evidence for syllable-final gutturals. A. Westenholz (1978: 162b) has argued that it also uses some of the special signs for syllable-initial gutturals for syllable-final gutturals. The most plausible case is É, which not only has the value /ḥa/ and /ha/, as elsewhere, but perhaps also /aḥ/ in im-za-É ARM 19, 46:3, a 3ms perfective of mesû ‘to wash, clean’, which contrasts with a 3dum im-za-É ARM 19, 47:3 and a 3mp tim-za-u ARM 19, 38:3 (A. Westenholz 1978: 166a). This suggests that these forms are to be interpreted as /yimsaḥ/, /yimsaḥā/, and /timsaḥū/, respectively. Another instance is the Pfv 3ms il-qá-É RA 35, 42 no. 3:3 ‘he took’ from leqû, which interchanges with íl-qá-a RA 35, 43 no. 9:5 in the same context;215 this may point to a development /yilqaḥ/ > /yilqā/. Another case may be the use of word-final ⟨ì⟩ and ⟨i⟩ in the Mari liver omens in the Impfv or Pfv ú-ṣí-ì RA 35, 49 no. 30:3 and 50 no. 32:1, in the Stat wa-ṣí-ì RA 35, 46 no. 18:5 and 48 no. 24:4 from waṣû ‘to go /come out’, and in the N Pfv i-lá-qí-i RA 35, 44 no. 11:8 from leqû. Since waṣû is a III/*ʾ verb and leqû a III/*ḥ verb, these forms show the same correlation with ʾ versus y as in word-initial position, which suggests that they might represent a word-final ʾ in /yuṣ(ṣ)iʾ/ and /waṣiʾ/ versus word-final ḥ (> y ?) in /yillaqiḥ/ or simply a long vowel. Note, however, that another III/  ʾ stative shows ⟨i⟩ instead: ma-ṣí-i RA 35, 50 no. 31:1 from maṣû ‘to be(come) sufficient, able’, i.e., /maṣī/?, and that ú-ṣí-i-a-am RA 35, 47 no. 19:4 ‘it will come out’ has a palatal glide instead of ʾ: /uṣṣiyam/.216 214.  See J.-M. Durand, MARI 2 (1983) 218 for reading the final sign as ba. 215.  Although il-qá-É occurs in a clause introduced by ša (a-mu-ut RN sá GN il-qá-É RA 35, 42 no.3 ‘omen of RN who took GN’), it need not be a subjunctive since several other instances of such phrases occurring in this text do not have a subjunctive either (e.g., RA 35, 42–43 nos. 5, 6, 8, and 9; 46 no. 16), perhaps because ša does not introduce a relative clause but the contents of the omen, as argued by Tchapygina 2004. 216.  A different problem is raised by the 3fs Stat wa-ṣa-at RA 35, 50 no. 31:10 and 32:3, where we would expect waṣiat (as in Old Babylonian) or waṣʾat (as in Old Assyrian). Actually, it looks like an instance of the Old Assyrian practice (to be discussed in the next section) of spelling a cluster of a glottalized consonant plus ʾ as a simple glottalized consonant (which was actually a geminate): wa-ṣa-at may stand for /was’s’at/, which is equivalent to /was’   ʾat/.

576

The III/H Verbs  17.8.

Finally, another trace of the existence of different gutturals in Mari Old Akkadian may be the contrast between the past participles of mesû ‘to wash, clean’ (√msḥ) and tebû ‘to rise’ (√tbʿ ). The former—said of clothes—is spelled ma-as-˹u˺-tum ARM 19, 309:2 acc. to A. Westenholz 1978: 167a,217 the latter—said of shoes: ‘high, standing upright’?—is spelled tab-ú-tum ARM 19, 280:2. It is possible that this reflects the use of ⟨u⟩ for a “soft onset” versus ⟨ú⟩ for a “hard onset,” i.e., /masḥūtum/ versus /tabʿūtum/, if this dialect preserves syllable-initial gutturals, and otherwise perhaps /masyūtum/ versus /tabʾūtum/. We should bear in mind, however, that our knowledge of Mari Old Akkadian is extremely limited and that these reconstructions rest on the assumption that it differs only marginally from the better-known varieties of Akkadian.

17.8.3.  The III/H verbs in Assyrian In Assyrian, the original III/H verbs show three different paradigms according to which guttural they have or had: the original III/*ʾ and III/*ʿ verbs have a strong paradigm, the original III/*ḥ verbs a weak one. Table 17.13 illustrates this by means of the III/  ʾ verb kalû (A/a) ‘to hold, detain’, the III/*ʿ verb šemû (E/e) ‘to hear’, and the III/*ḥ verb leqû ‘to take, receive’. See GKT §95 for a selection of attestations. strong paradigm kalû (III/  ʾ)

weak paradigm

šemû (III/*ʿ

leqû (III/*ḥ)

no ending

+ ending

no ending

+ ending

no ending

+ ending

Impfv

ikallā

ikalluʾū

išemmē

išemme(ʾ)u

ileqqē

ileqqeyū

Pfv

iklā

ikluʾū

išmē

išme(ʾ)ū

ilqē

ilqeyū

t‑Pf

iktalā

iktalʾū

ištemē

ištamʾū

ilteqē

iltaq(i)yū

Imp

kilā

kilʾā

šimē

šimʾā

liqē

liq(i)yā

Stat

kalī

kalʾū

šamī

šamʾū

laqī

laq(i)yū

Inf

kalāʾum

šamāʾum

laqāʾum

PPartc

kalʾum

šamʾum

laq(i)yum

PrPartc

kāli(ʾ)um

šāmi(ʾ)um

lāqiyum

Table 17.13: The strong and weak paradigms of the III/H verbs in Old Assyrian.

This paradigm raises a number of difficult questions, especially because of the fact that Old Assyrian has no proper signs for ʾ and y. Therefore, the contrast between ʾ in the strong paradigm versus a glide in the weak one—which is the main, if not the only, difference—is almost entirely dependent on indirect evidence and reconstruction. There are three kinds of evidence for distinguishing ʾ in the strong paradigm versus y in the weak one: the spelling of clusters with ʾ or y as second element, the spelling of glottalized and dental consonants plus ʾ, and a number of specific verb forms in Middle and Neo-Assyrian. In verb forms in which the root or stem vowel is syncopated because of the vowel syncope rule—i.e., in the imperative, stative, and t‑perfect forms with an ending and all forms of the past participle as far as the G‑stem is concerned, and also in the perfective of the Gt‑stem and the N‑stem—R2 and R3 form a cluster consisting of a consonant and the former guttural. There are 217.  A. Westenholz transliterates ma-as-[u]-tum, but the upper part of ⟨u⟩ is still visible in the copy (ARMT 19, 309).

17.8.  The III/H Verbs

577

basically two ways of spelling this cluster: a broken spelling and a glide spelling (see §16.7.2.3, pp. 504–505). In the III/  ʾ verbs, only broken spellings occur, e.g., 3mp Stat ma-al-ú OAA 1, 86:20 ‘they are full’ from malû and 2p t‑Pf ta-ak-ta-al-a KTS 2, 36:32 ‘you have detained’ from kalû. This demonstrates that ʾ is still present in its pristine form. In the III/  ʾ verbs with E‑colouring, i.e., those which originally had *ʿ, broken spellings are strongly predominant as well, e.g., Imp + Vent tí-ib-a-am /tibʾam/ Prag I 638:7 ‘rise!’ from tebû, t‑Pf ni-iš-ta-am-ú-ni / ništamʾūni/ BIN 4, 63:7 ‘we have heard’ (Subj), and i-ta-áb-ú-ni /ittabʾūni/ JEOL 35/36, 103:7 ‘they have stood up’ (Subj) from tebû.218 This is a strong indication that *ʿ had merged with ʾ, at least in this cluster. In the weak III/H verbs, on the other hand, broken spellings alternate with glide spellings, just as in the III/ī verbs, as described in §16.7.2.3 (pp. 504–505). For instance, the plural imperative of petû is written as both pì-it-a OAA 1, 99:4 ‘open’ with a broken spelling and pí-tí-a AKT 1, 11:37 with a glide spelling. Likewise, the N Pfv 3ms Subj of leqû can be spelled i-li-iq-ú CCT 3, 18a:7, 25 ‘it was received’ or i-li-qí-ú BIN 4, 65:9, 26.219 The conclusion seems justified, therefore, that the weak III/ē verbs show consonant plus y where the other (original) III/H verbs have consonant plus ʾ. The second argument for contrasting ʾ in the strong paradigm with y in the weak one concerns the spelling of clusters of glottalized and dental consonants plus ʾ. In verbs that have such a consonant as R2,220 the cluster may be spelled as a simple ṣ or ṭ, e.g.:221 • 1s Stat ma-ṣa(-a)-ku ATHE 59:18 and ma-aṣ-a-ku OAA 1, 11:33 ‘I am able’ • 3ms Pfv ú-ṣa-am TC 3, 84:10 and úṣ-a-am CCT 4, 36a:11 ‘it came out’ (/uṣʾam/) • 3ms t‑Pf i-ta-ṣa-am CCT 3, 20:32 and i-ta-aṣ-a(-ma) Prag I 762:8′ ‘it has come out’ (/ittaṣʾam/) • Imp Pl id-a(-a) TC 3, 31:21 and i‑TA CTMMA 1, 105 no. 77:29 ‘put down’ (/iṭṭā/) • 1s Stat na-TA-ku BIN 4, 116:5 and na-ad-a-ku CCT 1, 38b:3 ‘I have been placed’ (/naṭṭāku/) As I have argued elsewhere (Kouwenberg 2003), these spellings are understandable on the basis of the assumption that the so-called emphatic consonants were actually post-glottalized, i.e., pronounced with a glottal closure following their basic articulation. When the post-glottalized consonant was followed by a glottal stop, they could merge into a single articulatory gesture so that 218.  In addition to the t‑perfect forms ištemē, ištamʾū included in Table 17.14, the forms iš-ta-me and iš-ta-me-ú(-ni) are sometimes adduced as alternatives. It is more likely, however, that these are Gtn forms (/ištammē/, /ištamme(ʾ)ūni/, because šemû Gtn is very common in Old Assyrian, especially with terms such as tuppu ‘letter’ and našpartum ‘message’ as direct object (see CAD Š/2 280 s.v. 1d–1′). Otherwise, these forms are irregular because they lack vowel assimilation (which is unusual but not impossible; see GKT §10), and the latter must be explained as an exceptional instance of a “glide spelling,” which properly belongs to the weak paradigm. A similar ambiguity applies to forms such as il5-ta-QÍ-ú Prag I 746:23: it may represent a t‑perfect of the G‑stem /iltaq(i)yū/ ‘they have taken’ or a Gtn perfective /iltaqqe y ū/, similar to iš-ta-ME-ú. 219.  For additional examples, see Kouwenberg 2006: 169–72. 220.  This includes the verbs waṣû ‘to go /come out’, maṣû ‘to be(come) sufficient, able’, kaṣû ‘to be(come) cold’, ḫaṭû ‘to err, sin’, nadû ‘to lay down, leave’, and redû ‘to follow, accompany’. Note that except for kaṣû (A/a) and redû (E/e), these verbs are of the I/i class and thus actually belong to the III/ī verbs in Old Assyrian. For the behaviour of post-consonantal ʾ, this appears to make no difference. 221.  For kaṣû, this phenomenon mainly occurs in the PuRS noun kuṣʾum ‘winter’, spelled as ku-uṣ-um CCT 4, 29a:10 and ku-ṣú-um CCT 4, 45b:6. For redû, cf. the Imp ri-[d  ]am RA 58, 126:22 ‘bring here!’, mentioned in n. 207 above (p. 573). For ḫaṭû, I only know MA/NA ḫiṭṭu for ḫiṭʾu and the G t‑Pf iḫ-ti-iṭ-ṭuú-nik-ka /iḫtit’t’ūnikka/ ABL 879:4 discussed in §6.2 (p. 140).

578

The III/H Verbs  17.8.

the acoustic effect of a cluster of ṣ or ṭ plus ʾ was identical or at least very similar to that of ṣ and ṭ by itself, and the acoustic effect of a dental plus ʾ very similar to that of the glottalized dental ṭ.222 It could be expressed both analytically (as in ma-aṣ-a-ku and na-ad-a-ku) and synthetically (as in ma-ṣa(-a)-ku and na-TA-ku).223 For structural reasons, we have to assume that the resulting glottalized consonants are geminates.224 Thus, whereas the underlying form of the above-mentioned examples is /maṣʾāku/, /uṣʾam/, /ittaṣʾam/, /idʾā/, and nadʾāku/, respectively, they could actually be realized as /maṣṣāku/, /uṣṣam/, /ittaṣṣam/, /iṭṭā/ and /naṭṭāku/, or, with the glottalized consonants in their official IPA notation, /mas’s’āku/, /us’s’am/, /itas’s’am/, /nat’t’āku/, and /it’t’ā/. These spellings only occur in words belonging to or derived from verbs of the strong paradigm, not in original III/*ḥ verbs, such as petû ‘to open’ and the adjective paṣium, in which they could theoretically occur. This supports the claim that in these cases vowel syncope did not result in clusters with ʾ as second element, which leaves the glide y as the only option. The third argument for ʾ versus y is the fact that, in Middle and Neo-Assyrian, some verbs that originally had *ʿ as R3 have—at least in some respects—a different paradigm from verbs that originally had *ḥ. Since there is no doubt that these consonants themselves were dropped many centuries before the emergence of Middle Assyrian, this difference must be a reflex of a difference already existing in Old Assyrian but concealed by its defective spelling. It concerns the t‑perfects of the original III/*ʿ verbs tebû ‘to rise’, šemû ‘to hear’, and šebû ‘to be(come) sated’, which in the third masculine plural are ittabbū, issaʾʾū, and issabbū, respectively, with ʾ ( GG, where G stands for a glottalized consonant, e.g., ṣʾ > ṣṣ (i.e., s’s’), ṭʾ > ṭṭ (i.e., t’t’), etc. The analytic spellings in Old Assyrian suggest that this natural kind of change had not yet taken place earlier on, unless we assume that the analytic spelling is morphophonemic. The tendency to integrate post-consonantal ʾ in the preceding consonant is also observable in the Middle (and Neo‑)Assyrian conjugation of našû ‘to lift, carry’. In this period, the phoneme that we traditionally transliterate as š—and whose phonetic realization in Old Assyrian is a matter of dispute—had become /s/.229 If this /s/ and the ʾ of našû are contiguous as a result of the vowel syncope rule, the resulting cluster /sʾ/ is spelled as a simple or geminate ⟨ṣ⟩, i.e., as a glottalized s’.230 This occurs in the stative (e.g., na(-aṣ)-ṣa-ku ‘I carry’ for earlier našʾāku, na(‑aṣ)-ṣu ‘they carry’ for našʾū), in the t‑perfect (e.g., it-ta-ṣu ‘they have lifted, taken up’ for ittašʾū, it-ta-ṣa ‘he brought here’ for ittašʾa(m)), and in the Imp (e.g., iṣ-ṣa or i-ṣa ‘bring (Sg) here!’ for išʾa(m)).231 A development that already started in Old Assyrian (see §16.7.2.3, p. 503) is the sporadic appearance of G forms with vowel contraction. In the finite forms, we have ú-ṣu-né KAR 154:6 ‘they will come out’, i.e., /uṣṣûne/, where we would expect uṣṣuʾūne < *uṣṣaʾūnim, and ú-uddu-ni MATSH p. 117 no. 6:5′ ‘they know’ (Subj), i.e., /uddûni/ < udduʾūni < uddaʾūni. In the infinitive, we find (ina) ṣa-le-e KAV 1: VII §53:99 ‘while throwing down’ from ṣalāʾu, and (ana) ḫa-pé MARV 1, 38:10 ‘in order to break’ from ḫepû (original guttural unknown). Such forms are similar to the exceptional OA Inf (ina) wa-ṣé-a CCT 4, 47a:18 for normal /waṣāʾīa/ from waṣû ‘to go /come out’. However, the uncontracted forms are still the regular ones. Insofar as derived stems of the III/H verbs are attested in Middle Assyrian (see W. Mayer 1971: 83–84, 88–89), they do not show many new developments. Here, too, we observe a gradual increase in the extent of vowel contraction. W. Mayer (1971: 89–90) mentions 2ms Impfv tu-šeṣu-ni PKT 39:10 ‘you (Pl) will cause to go out’ (Subj) < *tušeṣṣaʾūni and 3mp ú-še-ṣu-ni KAR 154:1 ‘they will cause to go out’ (Subj) from waṣû Š,232 and ud-du-ši-i-ni KAV 1: III §24:45 ‘they have assigned to her’ (Subj), i.e., /uddûšīni/ < uddi(ʾ)ūšim-ni from wadû Š. It is doubtless not accidental that also in Old Assyrian waṣû Š figures prominently among the verbs showing irregular vowel contraction: because of its frequency it was, more than other Š‑stems, prone to undergo formal reduction.233 It is worth noticing that most of these instances are plural or subjunctive forms extended with a suffix pronoun or a particle: the same forms, in Old Assyrian sporadically and in Neo-Assyrian regularly, show contraction, whereas the corresponding forms without additional element remain uncontracted (see §16.7.2.3, pp. 503–504). The spread of contraction was clearly a very gradual process. For Neo-Assyrian, the scarce information given by Hämeen-Anttila (2000: 97–98, 157, 161) suggests that Neo-Assyrian basically agrees with Middle Assyrian with regard to the III/H verbs. It is possible that the extent of vowel contraction has increased in comparison to Middle Assyrian, but since most of the forms are given in tables in bound transcription without references, it is unclear to me to what extent the numerous forms that Hämeen-Anttila (2000: 157, 161) gives as contracted are correctly interpreted. 229.  See Parpola 1974, Fales 1986: 61–66, and Huehnergard 1997b: 439–40, with further literature. 230.  The discovery that the forms with ṣ are part of the paradigm of našû is due to Parpola (1974). However, Parpola’s claim that na-ṣa stands for phonemic /nassa/ is justifiably criticized by Voigt 1986. 231.  For references, see Parpola 1974: 6–9. 232.  All other 3mp forms of the D imperfective listed by W. Mayer (1971: 83) show a plene writing ‑Cu-ú and can therefore at least theoretically be interpreted as uncontracted (pace W. Mayer 1971: 83, 18). 233.  The same applies to the uncontracted forms of the Š‑stem of the III/voc verb elû ‘to go /come up’; see W. Mayer 1971: 87 top.

582

The III/H Verbs  17.8.

17.8.4.  The original III/H verbs in Babylonian As a result of the early loss of the gutturals in Babylonian (see §17.3, pp. 519–520), the original III/H verbs were rearranged according to the nature of their root vowel, in the same way as the III/voc verbs described in §16.7.1 (pp. 497–498). Thus, all III/H verbs with the root vowels i and u joined the III/ī and the III/ū verbs, respectively, but the great majority of the III/H verbs have become III/ā or the III/ē verbs. Table 17.14 gives the paradigm of the III/ā and the III/ē verbs in Classical Old Babylonian by means of kalû ‘to hold, detain’ and leqû ‘to take, receive’ (see also GAG §99 and Verbalpar. 32). kalû

leqû

no ending

+ ending

no ending

+ ending

Impfv

ikallā

ikallû

ileqqē

ileqqû

Pfv

iklā

iklû

ilqē

ilqû

t‑Pf

iktalā

iktalû

ilteqē

ilteqû

Imp

kilā

kilâ

liqē

liqe(y)ā

Stat

kalī

kalû

leqī

leqû

Inf

kalûm

leqûm

PPartc

kalûm

leqûm

PrPartc

kālûm

lēqûm

Table 17.14: The paradigm of the III/H verbs in Babylonian.

The III/ē verbs have joined the E‑paradigm because of e in the ending (see §17.5.1, pp. 525–526). Accordingly, the interchange of A‑ and E‑forms is an important feature, one that was already discussed in §17.5.1 (pp. 531–534). As in Assyrian, the endingless forms are the regular outcome of the loss of the guttural. Of the forms with an ending, some result from the contraction of the root or stem vowel with the initial vowel of the ending according to the rules stated in §16.7.2.4 (pp. 506–507; see also GAG §16), e.g., Impfv 2fs takallê < *takallaʾī, 2p takallâ < *takallaʾā, 3mp Impfv ikallû < *yikallaʾū, Inf kalûm < kalāʾum (but see §16.7.2.4, pp. 508–509, regarding āu > ô ), PrPartc lēqûm < *lāqiḥum. Other forms have been analogically restructured on the basis of the imperfective, especially those that in their original form were subject to vowel syncope. The 3mp t‑Pf iktalû cannot be the regular outcome of iktalʾū (which would be something like **iktālū). It instead comes from the analogy ikallā : ikallû § iktalā : iktalû. In the same way, the actual forms with an ending of the imperative arose: the 2fs Imp kilê comes from takallā : takallê § kilā : kilê, the plural from takallā : takallâ § kilā : kilâ. Furthermore, the 3mp Stat kalû must be a replacement of an original kalʾū (which is the Assyrian form) on the basis of the stem of the 3ms kalī. Among the individual forms of Table 17.14, the second-person singular feminine of the III/ē verbs and the infinitive deserve comment. The second-person singular feminine of the III/ē verbs ends in ‑ē, just as in the III/ā verbs: Impfv teleqqê (e.g., te-le-qé-e-em AbB 6, 102:12, with ventive), t‑Pf telteqê (e.g., te-el-te-qé-e AbB 1, 135:24), Imp liqê (e.g., li-qé-e AbB 10, 170:25). It is, therefore, superficially identical to the masculine form (teleqqē, telteqē, liqē ). The difference becomes visible in the subjunctive, especially in the verb idû ‘to know’ (see §16.3.3, pp. 465–467): Masc tīdē ‘you know’, Subj. (kīma) tīdû ‘as you know’, but Fem tīdê, Subj (kīma) tīdê, because

17.8.  The III/H Verbs

583

the second-person singular feminine cannot have a subjunctive ending, e.g., kīma ti-de-e AbB 1, 39:4 (OB). The accusative of the infinitive of III/ā and III/ē verbs may be identical to the corresponding form of the past participle, just as that of the III/voc verbs, as I argued in §16.7.2.4 (pp. 507–​508). Instances include la/eqiam from leqû (e.g., la-qí-a-am AbB 14, 182:17; le-qí-a-am TIM 4, 36: r.21), gariam from gerû ‘to litigate’ (ga-ri-a-am AbB 10, 57:9; ḫepiam from ḫepû ‘to break’ (ḫepí-a-am VAB 5, 271:11), and some others, mentioned by Aro (1971: 247–48).234 It is not possible to interpret spellings such as ḫe-pí-a-am and la-qí-a-am as /ḫepēam/ and /laqēam/, as Aro (1971: 247–48) does, since such forms presuppose a Nom **ḫepēum and **laqēum, which does not exist: the infinitive never has ē instead of ā, not even before or after an E‑colouring guttural: cf. forms such as Ass beʾālum (√bʿl) and laqāʾum (√lqḥ).235 As I argued in §16.7.2.4 (p. 508), the penetration of the past participle form into the conjugation of the infinitive is due to the fact that in Babylonian their nominatives coincided in form through vowel contraction. With regard to the development of the III/ā and the III/ē verbs in later Babylonian, the available grammars give little information. A survey of the most common III/H verbs in Aro’s (1957) glossary of Middle Babylonian shows no significant deviations from Old Babylonian, apart from the much stronger predominance of E‑forms discussed in §17.5.2 (pp. 534–537). For the situation of the III/H verbs in Neo-Babylonian, see the succinct remarks in Woodington 1982: 137– 46, who combines the III/H verbs with the III/voc verbs. 234.  For a in the stem of laqiam and gariam, see §17.5.1 (p. 531). 235.  Therefore, the infinitive ša-ME-am Sumer 14, 42 no. 19:13 from šemû ‘to hear’ should be transcribed ša-mì-am. The pertinent forms mentioned in Kouwenberg 2001: 242–47 should be corrected accordingly.

Part Five

Proto-Semitic from   an Akkadian perspective Chapter 18

The Verbal Paradigm of Proto-Semitic

18.1. Introduction In the preceding parts of this book, I have indicated for each individual member of the Akkadian verbal paradigm what its form is likely to have been in the common parent language, comparing the oldest retrievable forms in Akkadian with the corresponding forms in West Semitic and sometimes also in Afroasiatic. In this final chapter, I will summarize the main results— singling out those that are most innovative—and integrate them into a description of the verbal paradigm of Proto-Semitic insofar as it is reconstructible on the basis of these data.1

18.2. The Main Developments from Proto-Semitic to Akkadian In Part Two of this study (chaps. 3–9), I investigated the formal categories that together make up the paradigm of the basic stem. Of the eight basic members that were distinguished, five are relatively unproblematic as far as their derivation from the parent language is concerned: the perfective, the imperative, the infinitive, and the past and present participles. The remaining three—the imperfective, the t‑perfect, and the stative—are innovations of Akkadian to the extent that they did not have quite the same status or function as in Proto-Semitic, although they were already present as a formal category:2 1. The imperfective iparrVs is a replacement of the PSem imperfective *yiqtVlu. It goes back to a Proto-Semitic derived stem with pluractional function, which was characterized by gemination of R2 and the stem vowel a (*yiqattalu; see below). *yiqtVlu was restricted to subordinate clauses, and its marker, the ending ‑u, ‑ūnV, was reanalyzed as a marker of subordination, giving rise to the subjunctive.

1.  For a discussion of earlier attempts at reconstructing Proto-Semitic (or, rather, their absence), see Huehnergard 2002a: 130–31. Other accounts of the verbal system of Proto-Semitic are Huehnergard 1995: 2130–34; 2006; T. D. Anderson 2000: 11–13; Voigt 2004; and Zaborski 2005a. 2.  The imperfective is actually an innovation of East Semitic (see §4.4, pp. 95–109, with n. 26, p. 95), and this may apply to the other two as well, but I will ignore this here.

584

18.2.  The Main Developments from Proto-Semitic to Akkadian

585

2. The t‑perfect goes back to the perfective of the derived verbal stem with infixed t through a functional reanalysis that is difficult to reconstruct in detail but that to some extent was made possible by the previous decline of this stem already in Proto-Semitic. 3. The stative, insofar as it is derived from fientive verbs, has been incorporated into the verbal paradigm as a resultative. It goes back to the combination of predicative adjectives with enclitic subject pronouns. To what extent this incorporation had already taken place in Proto-Semitic remains to be determined. In Part Three (chaps. 10–15), I investigated the derived verbal stems of Akkadian. Most of them already existed in Proto-Semitic with broadly the same functions as in Akkadian and can therefore be derived from Proto-Semitic in a straightforward way. This applies especially to the D‑stem, the Š‑stem, the N‑stem, and the Gt‑stem. Only a small part of the derived stems can be characterized as innovations of Akkadian, and even these are not absolute innovations but elaborations of forms that were—at least in nuce—present in Proto-Semitic. By far the most important innovations are the tan‑stems as a coherent subsystem of stems for the expression of verbal plurality. It is generally acknowledged that they are an Akkadian innovation. However, they are rooted in Proto-Semitic insofar as their original paradigm (Impfv *yit(a)qattalu, Pfv *yit(a)qattal, etc.) served as the pluractional counterpart of the Gt‑stem. A minor derived stem that seems to be an Akkadian innovation, because it has no parallels outside Akkadian, is the Dtr‑stem—the extension of the Dt‑stem by means of reduplication of R2 plus the following vowel (uptararras); see §15.2 (pp. 439–444). More consequential are the results of this study for the derived stems in Proto-Semitic itself. In several respects, the system of stems presented here differs from the communis opinio as it is represented in some recent handbooks on comparative Semitics.3 The next sections of this chapter will be concerned with a description of this system; here I will only give a short summary: 1. Proto-Semitic had a verbal stem with pluractional function that in its original form has not survived in any of its daughter languages. In the basic stem and in the Gt‑stem, it was characterized by gemination of R2 and the stem vowel a (*yiqattalu), and in verbal stems where no gemination was possible—such as the D‑stem—by the stem vowel a alone. It has survived in the Akkadian imperfective, both in iparrVs and in the imperfectives of the derived stems and indirectly in the tan‑stems. In West Semitic, it is lost as a separate grammatical category but may have left some scattered traces (see chap. 4 n. 50, p. 102; and §14.5.5, pp. 394–395). 2. The Gt‑stem, undoubtedly of Proto-Semitic extraction, was already in decline before the break-up of the parent language, but several individual forms of its paradigm were recycled for different uses. As early as Proto-Semitic, this happened with its deverbal noun taqtīl/ taqtil(a)t, which was put to use as deverbal noun of the D‑stem, especially in Akkadian and Arabic. In Akkadian, the recycling of Gt forms happened on a large scale and gave rise—more or less directly—to the t‑perfect, the tan‑stems, and the Št2‑stem. 3. The Št2‑stem arose in Proto-Semitic as a denominal of the same deverbal nouns. In Akkadian, it mostly kept this function and did not become a regular derived stem, in the sense that it was associated with a specific (more) basic stem and had a predictable semantic relation to it. Where it was preserved in West Semitic, it was incorporated more strongly in the system of derived stems and adopted the function of detransitive of the causative stem.

3.  See especially Moscati, ed. 1964: 122–59, Lipiński 1997: 378–415, and Kienast 2001: 207–36.

586

The Proto-Semitic Verbal Paradigm  18.3.

4. It is possible that, in a similar vein, the stem that serves as detransitive of the D‑stem actually originated as the pluractional of the Gt‑stem. This would at least explain why the Arabic Stem V ( yataqattalu) has a quite different vowel pattern from its active counterpart, Stem II ( yuqattilu). It would also explain the close similarity between the Akkadian Gtn perfective ittallak ‘he walked around’ and the atypical Hebrew Hithpael form yithallẹk, which has the same meaning. 5. Proto-Semitic regularly conjugated quadriradical verbs by means of a verbalizing prefix n‑, which survives in Akkadian and South Semitic but was replaced in Central Semitic by a conjugation on the model of the D‑stem. Finally, in Part Four (chaps. 16 and 17), I described the development of the verbs with weak radicals and with gutturals. Since this development is largely an inner-Akkadian process, the focus was on Akkadian itself and only marginally included a comparison with other Semitic or Afro­ asiatic languages. Accordingly, the results of Part Four will only play a minor role in this chapter.

18.3. The Proto-Semitic Verbal Paradigm The next two sections contain a description of the verbal paradigm of Proto-Semitic as it can be reconstructed on the basis of the above-mentioned results. I will not go into the theoretical issues concerning the reconstruction of proto-languages in general and the numerous problems inherent in it.4 Suffice it to say that the detailed commonalities between the Semitic languages cannot be explained from language contact alone (Stempel 1999: 3–5) and fully justify the hypothesis that these languages are genetically related and thus stem from a single proto-language. This makes its reconstruction a legitimate undertaking.5 It is a truism that a proto-language is necessarily schematic, incomplete, and more homogeneous than any “real” language is likely to be, since we can only reconstruct those features that have left matching traces in the daughter languages. Moreover, we do not know to what extent reconstructed features belong to the same chronological level.6 What we can reconstruct, however, can be quite accurate (Hock 1991: 568–73), but the degree of success depends very much on the availability of sufficient data and on their amenability, especially the degree to which there is a plausible way to derive them from a common source. For Proto-Semitic, the conditions for a successful reconstruction seem favourable. Several Semitic languages are attested over a very long period and/or survive until the present day (cf. Lass 1997: 273 n. 44). The overall differences between the Semitic languages are large enough to make comparison worthwhile but not too large to preclude meaningful results (cf. Goldenberg 2002: 24–26). There is indeed a broad consensus about the phonology of Proto-Semitic, although a few details remain controversial (see, for instance, Huehnergard 2004: 142–43). No such consensus has been reached concerning the morphosyntax of the Semitic verb, not so much because the reconstruction of morphology and morphosyntax is generally more difficult than that of phonology but because the reconstruction of the Proto-Semitic imperfective has proved a stumbling block.

4.  See especially Lass 1997: 104–111, Rankin 2003, and Harrison 2003. 5.  Not only as a convenient way to “summarize our assumptions, views and starting points,” as Huehnergard (2002a: 131) writes, but also in the conviction that we may ascribe a certain degree of historical reality to the results, even though it may be difficult to locate this reality in place and time. See, however, the critical remarks by Gzella (2004: 22–31). 6.  As duly emphasized by Bergsträsser (1928: 3).

18.3.  The Proto-Semitic Verbal Paradigm

587

I will argue in this chapter that, on the basis of the hypothesis formulated in chap. 4 in particular, it is possible to achieve a plausible and consistent but of course entirely hypothetical description of the verb of Proto-Semitic and a reconstruction of the historical development that resulted in the verbal systems attested in the daughter languages.

18.3.1.  The basic stem For the Proto-Semitic verbal paradigm, seven members can be reconstructed, as presented in Table 18.1:7 category

finite

non-finite

form

(1) Impfv

*yi-qtVl-u, ‑ūnV

(2) Pfv

*yi-qtVl, ‑ū

(3) Imp

*q(V)tVl

(4) Stat (1s)

*qatVlku

(5) Inf

*qatāl-

(6) PPartc

*qatVl-

(7) PrPartc

*qātil-

type of base prefix base ‑QTvL

suffix base QaTvL

Table 18.1: The verbal paradigm of Proto-Semitic.

The backbone of the Proto-Semitic verbal paradigm is formed by the opposition between the finite categories of the imperfective (or present) and the perfective (or past): *yiqtVlu, Pl *yiqtVlūnV and *yiqtVl, Pl *yiqtVlū (henceforth simply *yiqtVlu versus *yiqtVl ).8 The opposition between *yiqtVlu and *yiqtVl is still observable in Classical Arabic, where the form yaqtVl serves as a past tense in certain environments (see §5.4, pp. 129–130). Both *yiqtVlu and *yiqtVl have left ample traces in the daughter languages. The former is preserved in Arabic ( yaqtVlu) and Ugaritic and—with loss of the final short vowel—in Hebrew and other North West Semitic languages. In Akkadian it developed into the subjunctive, as I argued in §9.3.3 (pp. 227–231). For the development of the perfective *yiqtVl, see §5.4 (pp. 129–130). A fairly large number of imperfective and perfective forms of individual verbs are reconstructible to Proto-Semitic because they occur in more than one Semitic language—in practice, usually Akkadian and Arabic—with the same root vowel (Kogan 2005: 145–53). It mainly concerns transitive verbs, especially those with the root vowel u (*yiqtulu forms); only a few verbs with i are reconstructible. Only very rarely do intransitive verbs have a corresponding root vowel.9 7.  The only missing member as compared to Akkadian is the t‑perfect, which is an Akkadian innovation (see §6.4, pp. 155–160). 8.  This was also proposed by Fleisch (1947/48) (but with an additional contrast in stress: “inaccompli” *yaqtúlu versus “accompli” *yáqtul ) and by Aro (1964: 197). Fleisch (1979: 207–24) also gives a succinct account of the discussion about the Semitic “tenses” from the beginning until the 1980s. According to Bauer (1910: 10–11) and Klingenheben (1956: 255–59), Proto-Semitic had only one fientive verbal form. This seems very unlikely, since all daughter languages—and presumably most, if not all, Afroasiatic languages—have a basic opposition of at least two members. Moreover, since both *yiqtVlu and *yiqtVl are likely to be inherited from Afroasiatic (see below in this section) and are attested as such in Classical Arabic, it would be implausible to assume that they did not exist in the intermediate stage of Proto-Semitic. 9.  In a critical review of the proposals of his predecessors, Kogan counts 41 transitive verbs with the root vowel u and 11 with i. In sharp contrast, he only finds 10 instances of intransitive verbs with a

588

The Proto-Semitic Verbal Paradigm  18.3.

Among the transitive u-verbs, there are numerous strong verbs that are well-known in Akkadian,10 such as *yiðkuru ‘he speaks’, *yiḫnuqu ‘he strangles’, *yiktumu ‘he covers’, *yilquṭu ‘he picks’, *yiθqulu ‘he hangs, weighs’ and *yiṭrudu ‘he sends away’, but also I/n verbs, such as *yinqubu ‘he pierces’ and *yinθ̣uru ‘he watches’, and I/  ʾ verbs, such as *yiʾguru ‘he hires’, *yiʾḫuðu ‘he takes’, *yiʾkulu ‘he eats’, and *yiʾmuru ‘he sees(?)’. A remarkable fact is the relative frequency of II/gem verbs, such as *yibullu ‘he mixes’, *yiguzzu ‘he shears’, *yiḫummu ‘he collects’, *yiḫuṭṭu ‘he incises’, *yikubbu ‘he burns’, *yimuddu ‘he stretches’ (or: measures), and *yiruddu ‘he chases’ (Kogan 2005: 151–53).11 Transitive i-verbs are much less common. Kogan (2005: 152) only accepts 11 instances: *yiʾsiru ‘he confines’, *yiʿðibu ‘he leaves’, *yiḥpiru ‘he digs’, *yiḥrimu ‘he covers’, *yiqśiṭu ‘he cuts off’, yintipu ‘he tears’, *yipqidu ‘he looks after’, *yipṣidu ‘he splits’, *yiptilu ‘he plaits, twists’, *yišriqu ‘he steals’, and *yiśrimu ‘he splits’. According to Kogan (2005: 153), the intransitive verbs whose root vowel can be reconstructed reliably are *yiqliṣu ‘he shrivels’, *yiqillu ‘he becomes small’, *yirbiṣ́u ‘he crouches’, *yiriqqu ‘he becomes thin’ with i, *yiḥuśśu ‘to become quick’,12 *yišʿulu ‘he coughs’, and *yiḫubbu ‘he murmurs’ with u, and *yilbašu ‘he puts on’, *yirkabu ‘he rides’, and *yiθ̣allu ‘he sleeps’ with a. In addition, there is a large number of verbs with the root vowel a and a guttural as R2 or R3 that can be reconstructed to Proto-Semitic. This is not surprising, because a is phonetically motivated by the presence of the guttural. Well-known cases with a guttural as R2 include *yišʾalu ‘he asks’, *yibʿalu ‘he possesses’, *yiθ̣ʿanu ‘he loads’, *yibḥaru ‘he chooses’, *yinḥaru ‘he kills, pierces’, *yirḥamu ‘he pities’, *yirḥaqu ‘he is/goes far away’, *yišḥalu ‘he sharpens’, and *yiṭḥanu ‘he grinds’. With a guttural as R3 we find *yiklaʾu ‘he holds’, *yimlaʾu ‘it becomes full’, *yišmaʿu ‘he hears’, *yiśbaʿu ‘he gets satisfied’, *yilqaḥu ‘he takes’, *yiptaḥu ‘he opens’, and the doubly weak verb *yīdaʿ(u?) ‘he knows’. This list does not include II/voc verbs, which also show a number of cognates across Semitic languages; a few examples will be cited later in this section. The verbs with the root vowel a and no guttural pose a difficult but intriguing problem. They show a close formal correspondence between Akkadian and West Semitic (especially Arabic, Hebrew, and Ethiopic), e.g., Ar yalbasu – labisa ‘to wear’ and Akk labāšu (ilabbaš – ilbaš, Stat labiš  ); Ar yarkabu – rakiba ‘to ride’ and Akk rakābu (irakkab – irkab, Stat rakib). On the basis of a survey of these verbs in the most important Semitic languages, M. Cohen (1935: 229–36) concluded that they are typically used to express bodily functions, body care, movements and actions of the body, mental operations, postures, changes of place, and qualities. He also pointed to the semantic relationship between these verbs and derived verbs with the detransitive markers t and n (1935: 240), to the similarity with the use of the middle voice in Greek (1935: 243–45) and the use of se in French (1935: 246–48), and he generally characterized them as denoting “procès qui sont considérés dans leur effect sur l’agent” (1935: 238). This foreshadows many of the insights of more recent typological studies about the middle voice: the semantic classes he distinguished in these verbs show a striking similarity with the lexical classes identified by Kemmer (1993: 16–20) as characteristic of the class of “middle verbs.” congruent root vowel. An important reason is doubtless the massive introduction of a as root vowel of intransitive verbs in West Semitic (Kogan 2005: 153). 10.  The list is based on similar lists in Aro 1964, Frolova 2003, and Kogan 2005. 11.  For the form of the Proto-Semitic imperfective of II/gem verbs, *yibullu rather than *yiblulu, etc., see chap. 16 n. 150 (p. 491). 12.  From the Akkadian side, this is based on Mari OB ḫašāšu (A/u) ‘to do quickly’; see J.-M. Durand, ARM 26/1 p. 371 note b.

18.3.  The Proto-Semitic Verbal Paradigm

589

This lends support to the hypothesis put forward by Kuryłowicz (1972: 67–68), that they are a residue of ancient mediopassives. In his view, the prefix conjugation yiqtal(u) originates as a passive/intransitive derivation of the active yaqtu/il(u) and was later replaced by the t‑stems and the N‑stem and in West Semitic also by the new apophonic passive yuqtalu – qutila (as in Arabic), which is clearly based on older yiqtalu (or yaqtalu) – qatila. This would fit in with their stative nature because of the strong cross-linguistic association between stative and passive (via the resultative; see §6.4, p. 158).13 In a wider (and admittedly far more speculative) perspective, it is tempting to include the Berber perfective (Prasse’s parfait ), which is reconstructed by Kossmann (2001: 72) as 3ms y‑vccăc (versus “aorist” y‑ăccvc), where v may have been ĭ or ŭ. The use of this form (see especially Prasse 1972/74: III 38 and Heath 2005: 301) suggests that it was originally a resultative. This allows for the possibility that it has undergone the same development as the West Semitic suffix conjugation qatVla as compared to the Akkadian stative and that Proto-Berber had an active prefix conjugation *yaqtu/il‑ with a resultative derivation *yi/uqtal‑, just as we may reconstruct for Proto-Semitic according to Kuryłowicz. If this can be established more firmly, it supports Kuryłowicz’s proposal and implies that Akkadian has lost this kind of detransitive derivation except for the fossilized remains in the form of the A/a class, whereas Central Semitic has retained it.14 The imperfective *yiqtVlu with its n-holding suffix in the plural (*yiqtVlūnV, etc.) has parallels in Cushitic (Hetzron 1974) and Chadic (Voigt 1988a: 121) and is thus likely to go back to Afroasiatic. Since it is the marked member of the opposition with the perfective *yiqtVl, which is certainly of Afroasiatic origin, occurring at least in Semitic, Berber, and Cushitic, the latter is at least as old as *yiqtVlu, so the origin of the opposition between *yiqtVlu and *yiqtVl is to be sought in the Afroasiatic protolanguage. *yiqtVlu looks like a derivation from *yiqtVl, but the nature of the marker ‑u, ‑ūnV is a matter of speculation.15 The important conclusion to be drawn from this is that *yiqtVlu is not a Semitic innovation, as is duly emphasized by Voigt (2004: 36–37). Together with the imperative q(V)tVl, *yiqtVlu and *yiqtVl are the forms derived from the prefix base ‑QTvL. The opposition between ‑QTvL and the suffix base QaTvL is the most basic opposition we can reconstruct for Proto-Semitic, broadly corresponding to the contrast between verbal and nominal (including deverbal) categories. The absence of a vowel in the first syllable 13.  Retsö (1989:155–59), on the other hand, rejects a mediopassive *yi/uqtalu in Proto-Semitic. He argues that the use of yi/uqtal as a passive marker is a secondary development in the later stages of Semitic and that a is originally a marker of iterative/cursive aspect, which develops into a marker of cursive aspect (ultimately imperfective) in Akkadian iparras but into a marker of stativity and hence intransitive/passive in West Semitic. The semantic development from stative to imperfective is not implausible, since many imperfectives originate as stative expressions, often with locative meaning (see Bybee et al. 1994: 127–33), but the alleged Akkadian “a-imperfects without gemination” that he adduces as argument for the existence of *yi/uqtal‑ as a predecessor of *yiqattalu (Retsö 1989: 158–59) are incorrect or more easily explained otherwise. Nevertheless, the idea that *yiqattalu has replaced an earlier pluractional category without gemination but characterized by the stem vowel a deserves further consideration (cf. also chap. 17 n. 99, p. 540). 14.  On the other hand, the apophonic passive of Central Semitic is often regarded as an innovation; see Petráček 1963: 596–98, Knudsen 1984/86: 239 n. 20 with lit., and Huehnergard 2005b: 182. 15.  On typological grounds, one might assume that it is a (short) auxiliary verb, but its similarity with the nominal endings of the plural should not be dismissed a priori. Hetzron (1972: 456) attributes a “copulative origin” to the suffix. He posits a copula *un/wən on the basis of the suffix itself and Outer South Ethiopic, for which he posits the same shape (1972: 455). This is supported by the Egyptian existential verb wnn and Cushitic verbs such as Saho inn/an and Bilin wánna, both existential-locative verbs ‘there is’.

590

The Proto-Semitic Verbal Paradigm  18.3.

suggests that ‑QTvL is syncopated from an earlier ‑QaTvL as a result of the attachment of prefixes. However, since ‑QTvL is firmly rooted in Afroasiatic, this event takes us back to an even earlier period. It seems to show, however, that in this early stage prefixation had a more profound influence on the form of the stem than suffixation. This may be related to a very ancient wordorder pattern, with subject pronouns prefixed to the verb versus oblique pronouns suffixed to the verb as direct (and indirect?) object and suffixed to nouns as genitive. It is likely that more forms than just *yiqtVlu and *yiqtVl could be derived from the prefix base, especially a conjugation characterized by the endings that survive in the Akkadian ventive, say *yiqtVlam, *yiqtVlūnim. As I argued in §9.4.3 (pp. 240–244), it may have had the function of conveying emphasis and/or expressing a first-person benefactive. It is unclear whether *yiqtVlam was built on a separate category *yiqtVla, conceivably surviving in the Arabic subjunctive (see also §9.4.3, p. 241) and/or in the sporadic Sargonic Akkadian subjunctives with ‑a (see §9.3.2, p. 224). From the suffix base are derived the infinitive, for which the pattern QaTāL is the most common (see §8.2.2, p. 199), the past participle QaTvL (predominantly QaTiL), and the present participle QāTiL. Finally, there is the stative *qatVlku, built on the past participle and also on adjectives. It may not yet have been verbalized to the same extent as in historical Akkadian. All these forms have clear descendants in the daughter languages, for which see the appropriate chapters. The Proto-Semitic G‑stem paradigm shows a far greater uniformity than that of Akkadian insofar as all members only contain the three radicals of the root, without any consonantal additions. In Akkadian, the situation has become more complex due to the incorporation of the imperfective with gemination and the t‑perfect. In addition to the strong verb discussed so far, several weak verb types have their own basic paradigm, especially the II/gem verbs, the I/w verbs, the II/voc verbs, the quadriradical verbs, and the reduplicated verbs of the naparruru group; see Table 18.2, where they are exemplified by the ancestors of Akk balālu ‘to mix’, wašābu ‘to sit down, stay’, mâtu ‘to die’, and nagarruru ‘to roll’: II/gem verbs

I/w verbs

II/voc verbs

quadrirad. verbs

Impfv

*yibullu

*yuθibu

*yimūtu

*yingargiru

Pfv

*yibull

*yuθib

*yimūt

*yingargir

Imp

*bull

*θib

*mūt

*ingargir ?

Stat (1s)

*balilku

*waθVbku

*may(i)tku

Inf

*balāl‑

*waθāb‑

*muāt‑ ?

PPartc

*balil‑

*waθVb‑

*mayit‑

PrPartc

*bālil‑

*wāθib‑

*māyit‑ ?

*mungargir‑ ?

Table 18.2: The G paradigm of selected weak verbs in Proto-Semitic.

For the paradigm of the II/gem verbs, especially the prefix base, see chap. 16 n. 150 (p. 491). For details concerning the I/w verbs, especially why I (tentatively) opt for u as prefix vowel, see §16.2.4 (pp. 458–460). The fact that many of the Akkadian I/w verbs have an exact cognate in West Semitic makes their Proto-Semitic status indisputable, in spite of the irreconcilable difference in the vowel of the prefix.

18.3.  The Proto-Semitic Verbal Paradigm

591

For the II/voc verbs, see §16.5.2 (pp. 476–479). A considerable number of Akkadian II/voc verbs is reconstructible to Proto-Semitic:16 among the II/ū verbs, we find dâlu ‘to walk around’ (~ Ar yadūlu), dâku ‘to kill’ (~ Ar yadūku ‘to crush’; see also von Soden 1959: 54–55), kânu ‘to be(come) firm, true, stable’ (~ Ar yakūnu ‘to be’), lâšu ‘to knead’ (cf. Geʿez yəlūs CDG 321b s.v. lws), mâtu ‘to die’ (passim in Afroasiatic), nâḫu ‘to rest’ (~ He yānū aḥ); nâšu ‘to quake, shake’ (~ Ar yanūsu), and zâbu ‘to flow’ (~ Ar yaðūbu ‘to melt’). For the II/ī verbs, cf. bâtu ‘to spend the night’ (~ Ar. yabītu), dânu ‘to judge’ (~ Ar yadīnu ‘to lend, borrow’), ḫâru ‘to choose, select’ (~ Ar yaḫīru), nâku ‘to have intercourse’ (~ Ar yanīku), râqu ‘to be(come) empty’ (~ Ar yarīqu ‘to be poured out’), ṣâḫu ‘to laugh’ (~ Ar yaṣīḥu ‘to scream’), ṣâqu ‘to be(come) narrow’ (~ Ar yaḍīqu), šâbu ‘to be(come) gray, old’ (~ Ar yašību ‘to grow old’), šâmu ‘to destine, fix’ (~ Ar yašīmu ‘to put in’, He yāśīm), and ṭâbu ‘to be(come) good, pleasant’ (~ Ar yaṭību). The relatively high number of II/voc verbs with a congruent vowel may be due to the fact that as a long vowel it is more stable than the short root vowel of the strong verbs, as argued in chap. 16 n. 150 (p. 491). Quadriradical verbs are rarely reconstructible to Proto-Semitic individually, but their existence is guaranteed by their common paradigm in Akkadian, Geʿez, and Modern South Arabian (see §4.6.2, pp. 123–125, and §12.6.1, pp. 314–321). The exact form of the non-prefix forms, however, (which in Akkadian have na‑, in Geʿez ʾan‑, and in MSA ən‑) is a matter of speculation; the forms are given exampli gratia and obviously strongly inspired by the historical Akkadian forms. It is only a small step from the Proto-Semitic verbal paradigm as shown in Table 18.1 to that of Akkadian, on the one hand, and that of Proto-West Semitic, on the other: Akkadian replaced the imperfective *yiqtVlu with *yiqattalu and introduced the new t‑perfect iptarVs; Proto-West Semitic only replaced the perfective *yiqtVl with qatVla.17 Both changes were aimed at strengthening the formal contrast between imperfective and perfective (for West Semitic, see Aro 1964: 197). This was no doubt a fundamental weakness, dependent as it was on the final vowel ‑u in the singular of the imperfective, which in its long form ‑ū also marked the plural of the contrasting category. Any weakening of this final vowel resulted in ambiguity. Therefore, this contrast was renewed in all Semitic languages, but in different ways and at different moments.

18.3.2.  The derived stems Especially the older stages of the Semitic languages dispose of an elaborate system of derived verbal stems, the roots of which must go back to the parent language. There are striking differences, however, between Akkadian, Central Semitic and South Semitic, suggesting that the Proto-Semitic system was different from the historically attested systems, although no doubt it had the same general structure and was just as intricate. In previous chapters, I have proposed a more-or-less integral paradigm for each of the primary derived verbal stems, which I will summarize here. Needless to say, this is rather speculative, but it demonstrates the difficult points, where our knowledge is incomplete or contradictory. For the Gt‑stem, see Table 18.3 (p. 592), which reproduces and extends Table 14.3 (p. 378). The imperfective, perfective, and present participle can be reconstructed with confidence on the basis of Arabic and the system of derived verbal stems in general, even though Akkadian and Arabic do not agree in the vowel pattern of the former two. As argued in §14.4.1 (pp. 375–380), t may be reconstructed as an infix in Proto-Semitic, but we have to assume an earlier period in 16.  For the West Semitic verbs cited here, see also Aro 1964: 70–75, 101–2, 135, 149–50, and 176–79; Kuryłowicz 1972: 55. 17.  It does not seem necessary to assume that the process was caused by the fact that at this early stage the short final vowels were threatened with loss, since there does not seem to be conclusive evidence for this, pace Huehnergard 2006: 6–7 and Hasselbach 2005: 102–5.

592

The Proto-Semitic Verbal Paradigm  18.3. Impfv

*yitqatilu § *yiqtatilu

Pfv

*yitqatil § *yiqtatil

Imp

*taqtil ?

Inf

*taqtāl‑ ?

PPartc

*taqtVl- ?

PrPartc

*mutqatil- § *muqtatil‑

Table 18.3:  the Gt paradigm in Proto-Semitic.

which it was a prefix. The replacement of prefixed ta‑ in the non-prefix forms with a new form that has the same inflectional stem as the (im)perfective (Ar Imp (i)qtatil, etc.) only occurred after the break-up of the proto-language and is therefore not included in this table (see §14.4.1, pp. 376–377). For the vowel pattern of the imperative and the infinitive, also see §14.4.1. The form of the past participle is difficult to retrieve since it is only preserved in Akkadian ( pitrusu, earlier *taprusum). In West Semitic, it is supposed to survive only as the inflectional stem of the perfect, but the actual form (e.g. Ar (i)qtatala) is modelled on the predominant vowel pattern of the G‑stem (qatala). This also applies to all other derived stems in Arabic and West Semitic in general. Table 18.4 presents the paradigms of the D‑stem, the Š‑stem, the N‑stem, and the Št‑stem in Proto-Semitic. The forms of the D‑stem reproduce Table 4.8 in §4.5.3 (p. 116) and Table 11.2 in §11.6.1 (p. 280). Those of the N‑stem reproduce Table 12.7 in §12.6.2 (p. 322). For the Š‑stem, see §13.5 (pp. 350–351), and for the Št‑stem §14.6.2.3 (pp. 412–414). D‑stem

Š‑stem

N‑stem

Št‑stem

Impfv

*yuqattilu

*yušaqtilu

*yinqatilu

*yištaqtilu

Pfv

*yuqattil

*yušaqtil

*yinqatil

*yištaqtil

Imp

*qattil

*šaqtil

*naqtil

*šVtaqtil

Inf

*qattVl‑ (*qattul‑ ?

*šaqtVl‑

naqtVl‑ (naqtāl‑ ?)

PPartc

*qattVl‑

*šaqtVl‑

PrPartc

*muqattil-

*mušaqtil‑

*munqatil‑

*muštaqtil‑

Table 18.4: The paradigms of the D‑stem, the Š‑stem, and the N‑stem in Proto-Semitic.

The main uncertainties concern the infinitive and the past participle. For the infinitive D, we might posit *qattul‑, based on the agreement between Akkadian (Ass) parrusu and the Arabic Stem V and VI maṣdars taqattul and taqātul (see §11.6.1, p. 281); if *qattul‑ ever existed in Arabic, it was replaced with taqtīl, for which see §14.6.1 (pp. 401–402). The Š‑stem forms are based on the parallel with the D‑stem and the commonalities between Akkadian and Arabic, which has replaced š with a laryngeal or ∅ (see §13.5, pp. 350–351). The N‑stem forms are based on the commonalities between Akkadian, Arabic, and Hebrew (see §12.6.2, pp. 321–323). Finally, the exact form of the Proto-Semitic Št‑stem, which originally comprised denominal verbs based on nouns with the prefix ta‑, is difficult to reconstruct (see §14.6.2.3, pp. 412–414), but it seems plausible to assume an Impfv *yištaqtilu, a Pfv *yištaqtil, a present participle *muštaqtilu, and a suffix base *šVtaqtVl‑, represented by, for instance, an Imp *šVtaqtil.

18.3.  The Proto-Semitic Verbal Paradigm

593

One point I would like to stress is that the D‑stem *yuqattilu is independent of the G PL‑stem *yiqattalu, since it is ultimately derived from adjectives with gemination of R2, whereas *yiqattalu goes back to gemination in fientive verbs. The difference in prefix vowel is somehow related to this difference in background. Together with the G‑stem, these five derived stems constitute the six primary verbal stems of Proto-Semitic. They are primary insofar as they—or at least most of them—had a parallel secondary stem with pluractional function, comparable to the situation in Akkadian (see §10.3, pp. 246–247). These secondary stems were characterized by a stem vowel a instead of i and gemination of R2 whenever possible. Table 18.5 shows my reconstruction on the basis of the detailed discussions in previous chapters. primary

secondary

*yiqtVlu

§

G

Gt

*yitqatilu

§

Gt

*yitqattalu

N

*yinqatilu

N

*yinqattalu

D

*yuqattilu

PL

D

*yuqattalu

Š

*yušaqtilu

Š

PL

*yušaqtalu

ŠtPL

*yištaqtalu

G

Št

   •

taQTvL(t) §

*yištaqtilu

§ § § §

PL

*yiqattalu    •

PL

PL

Table 18.5: The system of derived verbal stems in Proto-Semitic.

The forms included in this table represent the system that is maximally possible. The range of secondary stems included is obviously inspired by the situation in Akkadian; to what extent each of them already existed in Proto-Semitic or is a later innovation is difficult to determine. Another uncertainty concerns the extent to which these pluractionals had a complete conjugation, distinct from the corresponding primary stem; this is particularly acute in the case of the D‑stem (see the discussion in §4.5.3, pp. 115–117). Recall in this context that outside the Gtn‑stem the Akkadian tan‑stems only have their own form in the imperfective and in all other categories coincide with the corresponding secondary stems, even though the latter have a radically different function (see §10.4, pp. 248–250). The weak verbs and the quadriradical verbs also had a comparable set of pluractional stems. For the verbs of Table 18.2, we might reconstruct the imperfective of these forms as *yiballalu, *yuθθabu, *yimuwwatu (or the like), and *yingargaru. The GPL‑stem *yiqattalu is the form on which these pluractionals are based and the starting point for their creation, just as the Akkadian Gtn‑stem was the starting point for the creation of the other tan‑stems (see §14.7.6, pp. 436–437). The agreement between Akkadian, Berber, and perhaps Beja gives *yiqattalu an Afroasiatic status. Its geminated radical is iconically motivated. The stem vowel a may also be motivated: Greenberg (1955) has reconstructed an infixed a as a common Afroasiatic plural marker in nouns, and Wolff (2001) has argued that in Chadic this a occurs in the verbal system in verb forms that he describes as denoting “extensive aspect” (2001: 150) and that correspond in function to the imperfective elsewhere. This suggests that the stem vowel of *yiqattalu also is a plural marker in its own right and contributes to the pluractional function of the form. Note, however, that in Cushitic a also serves as present marker without gemination (see chap. 17 n. 99, p. 540).

594

The Proto-Semitic Verbal Paradigm  18.3.

It may be useful to outline how this system developed toward the various historically attested systems. For the most part, it is fairly straightforward. In Akkadian, there are two major changes, which are interrelated. The first change is that the GPL *yiparrasu ousted *yiprVsu from its position as basic imperfective, which triggered the introduction of the pluractional form as imperfective in all non-basic categories, both in the derived stems and in the weak and quadriradical verbs. The presence of gemination in the G‑stem also caused the introduction of gemination in all imperfective forms in which R2 is a single consonant or a cluster, except in the Š‑stem and the Št1‑stem of the strong verb (see §4.5.2, pp. 112–115). The second change resulting from the rise of *yiqattalu as the basic imperfective was that the GtPL‑stem *yiptarrasu took over the pluractional function of the GPL‑stem, creating a new pluractional system based on the t‑infix as marker of pluractionality, which ultimately developed into the tan‑stems, a reparation mechanism made possible by the previous decline in the use of the Gt‑stem. This constitutes a fundamental difference between Akkadian (and presumably East Semitic as a whole) and the rest of Semitic, where the analytic expression of verbal plurality was discarded. Instead of renewing its imperfective, West Semitic adopted a different means of enhancing the formal contrast with the perfective, namely, by replacing the perfective *yiqtVl with the suffix conjugation (qatVla), which is derived from a resultative and ultimately cognate with the Akkadian stative (§7.4.2, pp. 181–189).18 The richest system in West Semitic is shown by Arabic. It preserves the primary stems intact and created a few additional ones, Stem III (qātala) and Stem IX ((i)qtalla), while discarding the pluractional stems. However, as I argued in §14.5.5 (pp. 394–395), there are reasons to assume that it also preserved the GtPL *yit(a)qattalu and employed it as detransitive counterpart of the D‑stem in Stem V (yataqattalu) and hence secondarily in Stem VI (yataqātalu), in the same way that the denominal Št‑stem *yištaqtilu was pressed into service as the detransitive counterpart of the causative stem. Other Central Semitic languages have simplified the primary stems in different ways. Hebrew, for instance, gave up the Gt‑stem, Aramaic the N‑stem, etc. In Geʿez, the most consequential development was the change in the status of the D‑stem and the parallel Stem I/3 with lengthened vowel (qātala), the “L‑stem”, from a derived to a basic stem on a par with the G‑stem (Rundgren 1959a: 52–56). This opened the possibility to renew the imperfective *yiqtVlu, which had coalesced in form with the jussive through the loss of short end vowels, by reusing the D imperfective *yuqattil(u) as imperfective of the G‑stem. A second consequence of the promotion of the original D‑ and L‑stems to the status of basic categories was the creation of the same set of derived stems as the original G‑stem: on the model of the G‑stem derivations Gt yətqattal – taqat(a)la, Š yāqattəl – ʾaqtala and Št yāstaqattəl – ʾastaqtala, a parallel set emerged for the D‑stem and the L‑stem; see the diagram in Moscati, ed. 1964: 130 and, for the complete paradigm, Tropper 2002: 103–5. According to the reconstruction presented here, the verbal system of Proto-Semitic is more like that of Akkadian than that of West Semitic in many respects. This is in keeping with the fact that Akkadian is by far the oldest Semitic language attested, but it is not determined by it. The present reconstruction is based on the fact that it accounts for the attested historical developments in a more straightforward way than when we assign a more important role to West Semitic. As Diem (1997: 11–12) has recently stressed, there is no necessary correlation between the antiquity of a language in chronological and in (historical) linguistic terms: the latter must be argued on the basis of linguistic facts alone. In the case of Akkadian and Proto-Semitic, there is no conflict between chronology and linguistic facts. 18.  Modern South Arabian may preserve traces of pluractional forms with a in the imperfective of the causative stem and elsewhere (see §4.6.2, p. 125).

18.4.  The Sub-grouping of Semitic

595

This reconstruction is also in keeping with the observation by Voigt (2004: 35–36, 38–39) that all Akkadian verbal categories should be reconstructed to Proto-Semitic on the basis of the principle that categories that are opaque are also ancient, whereas only categories that are transparent are likely to be innovations. However, this principle need not imply that the categories in question have also kept the same function. Finally, it demonstrates that the considerable differences between the individual Semitic languages regarding the verbal system do not form an insurmountable obstacle to the reconstruction of a relatively uniform proto-language. This confirms the hypothesis that they are genetically related and refutes the opposite claim of “polygenesis” and convergence as a result of areal influence. On the other hand, the impact of areal influence through language contact is beyond doubt (see especially §4.4.3.3, pp. 107–109) and has played its own specific role in the formation of the individual Semitic languages and their dialects.19

18.4. The Sub-grouping of Semitic The development of the verbal system from Proto-Semitic to the historical daughter languages described above is no obstacle to a straightforward subgrouping of the older Semitic languages either. In the classification that enjoys considerable popularity nowadays, that of Hetzron (especially 1976a: 105–6),20 West Semitic first branches off from Proto-Semitic by its major shared innovation of the suffix conjugation qatVla and subsequently splits into Central and South Semitic. The former replaced the inherited imperfective with gemination with the allegedly new imperfective *yiqtVlu, whereas the latter retained the imperfective with gemination (Faber 1997: 8–12; Huehnergard 2005b: 156–57). In other words, Central Semitic is the most innovating branch, renewing first the perfective and then the imperfective; East Semitic is the most conservative one; and South Semitic is in middle position, renewing only the perfective.21 Needless to say, this classification is based on other innovations as well, but I will omit them, as they are less fundamental and do not contradict the picture emerging from the two major changes in the verbal paradigm.22 The development proposed here necessarily leads to a different classification that is in many respects the mirror image of Hetzron’s scheme. (Proto‑)East Semitic is the first to split off from the parent language by replacing *yiqtVlu with *yiqattalu. This is a momentous change, causing numerous other developments in its wake that determine the particular shape of the East Semitic verbal paradigm in contrast to the rest of Semitic: the imperfective of the derived stems, the use of the t-infix with pluractional force, the subjunctive with ‑u and/or ‑ni, and perhaps also the perfect with the t-infix. Other major innovations in the sphere of the verb are the rise of the ventive/ dative, the precative built on the perfective with an obligatory particle, and the introduction of ‑ā‑ in the first­and second-person of the stative. In the sphere of phonology, (Proto‑)East Semitic is defined by the merger of several Proto-Semitic consonants: *ś and š on the one hand, and *ṣ, ṣ́ and θ̣ (> ṣ), on the other, and perhaps by the introduction of Geers’s Law. With regard to the noun, adjective, and pronoun, it is arguable that the adjectival masculine plural ‑ūtu is an East Semitic innovation, but for other points of difference it is difficult to determine which of the two 19.  For Proto-Semitic as a single language, see, for instance, Ullendorff 1971: 34. Prominent representatives of the opposite view include Garbini (1984: 210–24) and L. Edzard (1998), for which see in particular R. M. Voigt’s review in OLZ 97 (2002) 7–26. 20.  For a detailed discussion, see Huehnergard 2002a: 128–33 and 2005b: 155–64, 191–92. 21.  As I have stated in §1.4.2 (pp. 19–20), the position of Arabic is a hotly debated issue that lies beyond the scope of this study. For the reason explained there, I include Arabic in Central Semitic. 22.  See Faber 1997; Stempel 1999: 18–21; Huehnergard 2005b.

596

The Sub-grouping of Semitic  18.4.

main branches of Proto-Semitic has innovated (see Huehnergard 2006: 6–18 for a more extensive discussion). Thus, West Semitic is the part of Semitic that did not go along with the innovations of (Proto‑) East Semitic. Presumably at a later stage, it developed its own defining feature as a result of a major innovation in the verbal paradigm, the replacement of the inherited perfective *yiqtVl with the suffix conjugation qatVla, ultimately related to the Akkadian stative. In the fairly long period in which it existed independently of East Semitic—except for possible areal influence, which is difficult to detect because of the scarcity, not to say absence, of reliable historical information— West Semitic developed a strong individuality of its own. Apart from qatVla, this is visible in characteristics such as the loss of the Proto-Semitic pluractional *yiqattalu, the use of the D‑stem paradigm for the conjugation of quadriradical verbs, the apophonic passive and the new causative by means of a laryngeal prefix in the verb, the plural formation in the noun, and numerous lexical correspondences (Faber 1980: 230–40 and 1997). This occurred in spite of the fact that, because of its geographic location in a very large area with a constantly shifting population, it is likely that West Semitic was or very soon became a dialect cluster rather than a (uniform) language (see Faber 1997 for a list of features separating the various subgroups of West Semitic). Therefore, its unity must have been under pressure for a long time, before a major split occurred through the introduction of (again) a new imperfective in the dialects that we now define as South Semitic, mainly on the basis of this very feature. This new imperfective had the same basic feature as the new imperfective of East Semitic several millennia earlier, namely, gemination of R2, and in many respects had the same consequence: a renewal of most of the ancient imperfective forms by means of the extension of gemination to all non-basic imperfective forms. Other innovations of South Semitic are the generalization of ‑k‑ in the personal suffixes of the perfect at the expense of ‑t‑ and the extension of ʾal as a negation to indicative clauses (Faber 1997: 11). Central Semitic (including Arabic) did not take part in the innovation and clung to its ancient imperfective *yiqtVlu and, therefore, to a verbal system that—as far as the prefix categories are concerned—was still very similar to that of Proto-Semitic. The position of Arabic itself is highly controversial, since it shares important features with both South Semitic and Central Semitic (Faber 1997: 12–13; Huehnergard 2005b: 158–59). As explained in §1.4.2 (pp. 19–20), I have included it in Central Semitic because it does not share the South Semitic innovation of the imperfective, but in many respects it more closely belongs to South Semitic (so also Stempel 1999: 19). It must have developed together with South Semitic for a fairly long period but did not join in when South Semitic developed its new geminated imperfective and subsequently rebuilt its entire system of derived verbal stems. After this split, it may have adopted more Central Semitic features through geographic proximity with Central Semitic languages. A consequence of this scenario is that it offers a better explanation for the ambivalent position of Arabic, since by far the most important commonality between Arabic and (the rest of) Central Semitic is precisely the absence of an imperfective with gemination. The fact that this is a shared retention rather than a shared innovation weakens the connection between Arabic and Central Semitic and brings it closer to South Semitic. This agrees with the fact that there are hardly any momentous shared innovations left in Central Semitic, including Arabic, if we exclude the alleged introduction of *yiqtVlu as new imperfective.23 23.  Faber (1997: 8–9) mentions four other features defining Central Semitic: pharyngealization of the “emphatic” consonants instead of ejective or glottalized pronunciation, reanalysis of the prefix vowels of the G‑stem according to conjugation, replacement of ‑k‑ in the first-person singular ending of the suffix conjugation with ‑t‑, and the development of a negative marker *bal. Only the first and the third are really

18.4.  The Sub-grouping of Semitic

597

The plausibility of this historical sketch is further confirmed by the nature of the relationship between the verbal paradigms of Arabic and Geʿez. The two systems show striking commonalities in some respects and systematic differences in others. The commonalities include the vowel patterns of the derived stems outside the imperfective, especially those discussed in §4.6.1 (pp. 117–120), and of individual verbs in the G‑stem, the personal endings of the perfect (apart from the generalization of k in Geʿez—a very superficial change), and the conjugation of quadriradical verbs as D‑stems. In particular, the commonalities in the vowel patterns of the nonimperfective forms of the verb are so detailed that they can only be explained from a common origin. The differences, on the other hand, concern two main points. The first is the form of the imperfective of all categories, which, as I already stated, is a consequence of the renewal of the G‑stem imperfective by means of gemination. The second is the emergence of a triple system of derived stems in which the D‑stem and the “L‑stem” dispose of a set of derived stems parallel to that of the G‑stem, as already mentioned in the preceding section. The Geʿez verbal system can be explained on the basis of the system we can reconstruct for Proto-West Semitic, of which it is a rather straightforward elaboration. The reverse is much more difficult: explaining the Central Semitic verbal system from the system in South Semitic is not possible without positing unlikely developments: the loss of the imperfective with gemination without leaving any traces in the system and the extension of *yiqtVlu from subordinate to main clauses, as discussed in chap. 4. The development proposed here, then, can be represented as a straightforward succession of splits, as shown in Table 18.6, with the main isoglosses being those concerning the expression of the imperfective and the perfective: East Sem. Stage I (PSem) Stage II (PAkkªWSem) Stage III (PWSem) Stage IV (CSemªSSem)

Central Sem. *yiqtVlu/*yiqtVl

yiqattalu/yiqtVl •

South Sem. •

yiqtVlu/qatVla •

yuqattil/qatVla

Table 18.6: Stages in the dialectal development of imperfective and perfective.

Thus, instead of Central Semitic as the most innovating branch of Semitic in Hetzron’s classification, it turns out that South Semitic is the most innovating, renewing both the perfective and the imperfective at different moments in time, whereas Central Semitic is fairly conservative, with its renewal of the perfective only. This classification does not explain the facts less plausibly than Hetzron’s approach, and in many respects it is even more plausible. The most difficult point may be that one has to sacrifice the genetic relationship between iparrVs and yəqattəl, the “Haupt’sche Gleichung.” In my view, this is not a high price to pay, since that relationship is dubious for formal reasons as well, as I argued in chap. 4. If we separate Akkadian from South Semitic, we also understand why there are hardly any other commonalities between Akkadian and Geʿez in beyond doubt, and both are superficial features that could easily be adopted from neighbouring languages or dialects. Huehnergard (2005b: 191–92) accepts six features that “can be said with some confidence to reflect shared innovations in a common Central Semitic ancestor.” However, two of these involve the alleged introduction of *yiqtVlu as new imperfective and can therefore be left aside, and the remaining four are too uncertain or insignificant to be decisive. There is no unequivocal major innovation identifying Central Semitic, including Arabic, as a subgroup of Semitic.

598

The Sub-grouping of Semitic  18.4.

the field of morphology.24 The striking lexical commonalities between them can plausibly be explained as shared retentions from the Proto-Semitic lexicon.25 24.  See von Soden 1987; Parpola 1988: 296–97; and Rubio 2003a: 176–89, 2006: 132–36. The only other commonality von Soden mentions (1987: 564) is the parallelism in the form and the conjugation of the quadriradical verbs. It shows that the category of quadriradical verbs in itself is a shared retention from Proto-Semitic, but this does not imply that also their conjugation goes directly back to Proto-Semitic. As I argued in §4.6.2 (pp. 123–125), it does not, insofar as the forms of the imperfective are concerned. The morphological and morphosyntactic commonalities mentioned by Parpola and Rubio can all be explained as shared retentions. 25.  Cf. Greenberg 1952: 2: “The acceptance of the thesis that the Akkadian present and the Ethiopic imperfect indicative are related does not involve the espousal of a special relationship between the South Semitic and Akkadian branches of Semitic. This proposition is otherwise so improbable that many have rejected the viewpoint presented here [i.e. the genetic relationship between iparrVs and yəqattəl—NJCK] because it seemed to involve such an assumption.” According to Cantineau (1932), such commonalities as exist between Akkadian and South Semitic are shared retentions. For a list of cognate words in Akkadian and South Semitic, see Huehnergard 1991, with references to earlier work by W. Leslau.

References Aikhenvald, A. Y., and Dixon, R. M. W. 1998. Dependencies between Grammatical Systems. Language 74: 56–80. Andersen, H. 1990. The structure of drift. Pp. 1–20 in Historical Linguistics 1987: Papers from the 8th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, ed. H. Andersen and K. Koerner. CILT 66. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Anderson, L. B. 1982. The “Perfect” as a Universal and as a Language-Specific Category. Pp. 227–64 in Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics, ed. P. J. Hopper. TSL 1. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Anderson, T. D. 2000. The Evolution of the Hebrew Verbal System. ZAh 13: 1–66. Anttila, R. 1989. Historical and Comparative Linguistics, 2nd revised ed. CILT 6. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Appleyard, D. L. 1996. Ethiopian Semitic and South Arabian. Towards a Re-examination of a Relationship. IOS 16: 203–28. ____. 2001. The verb ‘to say’ as a verb “recycling device” in Ethiopian Languages. Pp. 1–11 in New Data and New Methods in Afroasiatic Linguistics: Robert Hetzron In Memoriam, ed. A. Zaborski. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 2002. New Finds in the 20th Century: The South Semitic Languages. IOS 20: 401–430. Aro, J. 1953. Abnormal Plene Writings in Akkadian Texts. StOr. 19/11. Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica. ____. 1955. Studien zur mittelbabylonischen Grammatik. StOr. 20. Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica. ____. 1957. Glossar zu den mittelbabylonischen Briefen. StOr. 22. Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica. ____. 1961. Die akkadischen Infinitivkonstruktionen. StOr. 26. Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica. ____. 1964. Die Vokalisierung des Grundstammes im semitischen Verbum. StOr. 31. Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica. ____. 1965. Parallels to the Akkadian Stative in the West Semitic Languages. Pp. 407–11 in Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger, ed. H. G. Güterbock et al. AS 16. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ____. 1971. Review of Briefe aus der Leidener Sammlung, by R. Frankena (AbB 3), and of Briefe aus dem Archive des Šamaš-Ḫāzir, by F. R. Kraus (AbB 4). OLZ 66: 245–52. ____. 1975. Der Abfall der kurzen Auslautvokale im Spätbabylonischen und seine Einwirkung auf die Formenlehre. StOr. 46: 11–20. Aronoff, M. 1994. Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 22. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Aspinion, R. 1953. Apprenons le berbère: Initiation aux dialectes chleuhs. Rabat: Moncho. Balkan, K. 1955. Observations on the Chronological Problems of the Kārum Kaniš. Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınlarından, VII. Seri - No. 28. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu. 599

600

References

Banti, G. 2001. New Perspectives on the Cushitic Verbal System. Pp. 1–48 in Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special Session on Afroasiatic Languages, ed. A. Simpson. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. ____. 2005. Comparative Notes on the Cushitic Imperative. Pp. 39–70 in Studia Semitica et Semitohamitica, Festschrift für Rainer Voigt, ed. B. Burtea et al. AOAT 317. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Bar-Am, M. 1938. The Subjunctive in the Cappadocian Texts. Or. 7: 12–31. Barth, J. 1887. Das semitische Perfect im Assyrischen. ZA 2: 375–386. ____. 1894a. Die Nominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen, 2. Aufl. Leipzig: Hinrichs. ____. 1894b. Zur vergleichenden semitischen Grammatik. ZDMG 48: 1–21. Bat-El, O. 2002. True Truncation in Colloquial Hebrew Imperatives. Language 78: 651–83. Battistella, E. L. 1996. The Logic of Markedness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bauer, H. 1910. Die Tempora im Semitischen. Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft 8/1. Leipzig. ____. 1912. Mitteilungen zur semitischen Grammatik II: Die Herkunft der Reflexivformen im Gemeinsemitischen. ZDMG 66: 104–105. Bauer, H., and Leander, P. 1922. Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testamentes. Halle: Niemeyer. Beekes, R. S. P. 1995. Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Beeston, A. F. L. 1962. A Descriptive Grammar of Epigraphic South Arabian. London: Luzac. Beeston, A. F. L., et al. 1982. Sabaic Dictionary (English-French-Arabic). Leuven: Peeters. Benmamoun, E. 1996. The Derivation of the Imperative in Arabic. Pp. 151–64 in Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics IX, ed. M. Eid and D. Parkinson. CILT 141. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ____. 1999. Arabic morphology: The central role of the imperfective. Lingua 108: 175–201. Benveniste, É. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard. Bergsträsser, G. 1928. Einführung in die semitischen Sprachen. Munich: Max Hueber. Biggs, R. D. 1988. The Semitic Personal Names from Abu Salabikh and the Personal Names from Ebla. Pp. 89–98 in Eblaite Personal Names and Semitic Name-giving, ed. A. Archi. ARES 1. Rome: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria. Binnick, R. I. 1991. Time and the Verb: A Guide to Tense and Aspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bittner, M. 1911. Studien zur Laut- und Formenlehre der Mehri-Sprache in Südarabien, Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, 168. Band, 2. Abhandlung. Vienna: Alfred Hölder. Blake, F. R. 1915. Studies in Semitic Grammar. JAOS 35: 375–85. Blasberg, M. 1997. Keilschrift in aramäischer Umwelt: Untersuchungen zur spätbabylonischen Orthographie. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cologne. Blau, J. 1971. Studies in Hebrew Verb Formation. HUCA 42: 133–58. ____. 2003. On the preservation of ancient forms and sound shifts in frequent words resisting analogy in Hebrew and Arabic. Pp. 70–74 in Semitic and Assyriological Studies Presented to Pelio Fronzaroli by Pupils and Colleagues. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Bloch, S. J. 1940. Beiträge zur Grammatik des Mittelbabylonischen. Or. 9: 305–47. Bolozky, S. 1979. On the new imperative in Colloquial Hebrew. Hebrew Annual Review 3: 17–24. Bonechi, M. 1988. Sulle attestazioni archaiche del prefisso di coniugazione TI*. Miscellanea Eblaitica 1 (QuSem. 15): 121–72.

References

601

Booij, G. 1998. The Demarcation of Inflection: a Synoptical Survey. Pp. 11–27 in Models of Inflection, ed. R. Fabri, A. Ortmann, and T. Parodi. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Borghouts, J. F. 2001. On Certain Uses of the Stative. Lingua Aegyptiaca 9: 11–35. Bravmann, M. M. 1968. The Arabic Elative: A New Approach. SSLL 2. Leiden: Brill. ____. 1977. Studies in Semitic Philology. SSLL 6. Leiden: Brill. Brinkman, J. A. 1966. Review Grammatik des Akkadischen, by A. Ungnad, völlig neubearbeiteit von Lubor Matouš. BiOr. 23: 293–96. Brinton, L. J., and Traugott, E. C. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change. Research Surveys in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brockelmann, C. 1908. Grundriß der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, I. Band: Laut- und Formenlehre. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard. ____. 1913. Grundriß der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, II. Band: Syntax. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard. ____. 1951. Die “Tempora” des Semitischen. Zeitschrift für Phonetik und Allgemeine Sprach­ wissenschaft 5: 133–154. Brustad, K. E. 2000. The Syntax of Spoken Arabic: A Comparative Study of Moroccan, Egyptian, Syrian, and Kuwaiti Dialects. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Buccellati, G. 1966. The Amorites of the Ur III Period. Pubblicazioni del Seminario di Semitistica, Ricerche I. Naples: Istituto Orientale di Napoli. ____. 1968. An Interpretation of the Akkadian Stative as a Nominal Sentence. JNES 27: 1–12. ____. 1971. Review of Phonétique comparée des dialectes moyen-babyloniens du nord et de l’ouest, by G. Jucquois. OrAnt. 10: 79–83. ____. 1988. The State of the “Stative”. Pp. 153–189 in FUCUS: A Semitic/Afrasian Gathering in Remembrance of Albert Ehrman, ed. Y. L. Arbeitman. CILT 58. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ____. 1996. A Structural Grammar of Babylonian. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Bybee, J. L. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. TSL 9. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ____. 2001. Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bybee Hooper, J. 1980. Child morphology and morphophonemic change. Pp. 157–187 in Historical Morphology, ed. J. Fisiak. Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 17. The Hague: Mouton. Bybee, J. L., and Brewer, M. A. 1980. Explanation in Morphophonemics: Changes in Provençal and Spanish Preterite Forms. Lingua 52: 201–242. Bybee, J. L., and Dahl, Ö. 1989. The Creation of Tense and Aspect Systems in the Languages of the World. Studies in Language 13/1: 51–103. Bybee, J.; Perkins, R.; and Pagliuca, W. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bynon, T. 1977. Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cancik-Kirschbaum, E. C. 1996. Die mittelassyrischen Briefe aus Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad. Berichte der Ausgrabung Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad/Dūr-Katlimmu, Band 4, Texte 1. Berlin: Reimer. Cannuyer, C. 1983. Les formes dérivées du verbe en ancient égyptien. Göttinger Miszellen 63: 25–35. Cantineau, J. 1932. Accadien et sudarabique. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 33: 175–204. ____. 1946. Esquisse d’une phonologie de l’arabe classique. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 43: 93–140.

602

References

____. 1950a. La notion de “schème” et son altération dans diverses langues sémitiques. Semitica 3: 73–83. ____. 1950b. Racines et schemes. Pp. 119–124 in Mélanges offerts à William Marçais par l’Institut d’Études Islamiques de l’Université de Paris. Paris: Maisonneuve. Castellino, G. R. 1962. The Akkadian Personal Pronouns and Verbal System in the light of Semitic and Hamitic. Leiden: Brill. Catford, J. C. 1977. Fundamental Problems in Phonetics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Chaker, S. 1995. Linguistique Berbère, Études de syntaxe et de diachronie. Leuven: Peeters. Charpin, D. 1987. Tablettes présargoniques de Mari. MARI 5: 65–127. ____. 1989. L’akkadien des lettres d’Ilân-ṣurâ. Pp. 31–40 in Reflets des Deux Fleuves, Volume de mélanges offerts à André Finet, ed. M. Lebeau and P. Talon. Akkadica Supplementum VI. Leuven: Peeters. ____. 1990. Nouvelles tablettes présargoniques de Mari. MARI 6: 245–252. Christian, V. 1953. Untersuchungen zur Laut- und Formenlehre des Hebräischen. Sitzungs­be­ richte der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, 228. Band, 2. Abhandlung. Vienna: Rudolf M. Rohrer. Civil, M. 1962. Un nouveau synchronisme Mari-IIIe dynastie d’Ur. RA 56: 213–14. ____. 1984. Notes on the “Instructions of Šuruppak”. JNES 43: 281–298. ____. 1987. Studies on Early Dynastic Lexicography III. Or. 56: 233–244. ____. 1994. The Farmer’s Instructions: A Sumerian Agricultural Manual. Aula Orientalis Supplementa 5. Barcelona: Editorial AUSA. Clements, G. N. 1990. The Role of the Sonority Cycle in Core Syllabification. Pp. 283–333 in Papers in Laboratory Phonology I: Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech, ed. J. Kingston and M. E. Beckman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cohen, D. 1970–71. Sémitique comparé. Annuaire de l’École Pratique des Hautes Études, IV e section, 1970/71: 171–188. ____. 1983. Égyptien, Araméen et Éthiopien. Pp. 81–98 in Ethiopian Studies Dedicated to Wolf Leslau, ed. S. Segert and A. J. E. Bodrogligeti. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 1984. La phrase nominale et l’évolution du système verbal en sémitique. Études de syntaxe historique. Collection linguistique publiée par la Société de Linguistique de Paris LXXII. Leuven: Peeters. ____. 1989. L’aspect verbal. Linguistique nouvelle. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. ____. 1994‑. . . Dictionnaire des racines sémitiques ou attestées dans les langues sémitiques. Leuven: Peeters. Cohen, D.; Simeone-Senelle, M.-C.; and Vanhove, M. 2002. The grammaticalization of ‘say’ and ‘do’. An areal phenomenon in East Africa. Pp. 227–251 in Reported Discourse: A Meeting Ground for Different Linguistic Domains, ed. T. Güldemann and M. von Roncador. TSL 52. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Cohen, E. 2003–4. Paronomastic Infinitive in Old Babylonian. JEOL 38: 105–112. ____. 2005. The Modal System of Old Babylonian. HSS 56. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. ____. 2006. The Tense-Aspect System of the Old Babylonian Epic. ZA 96: 31–68. Cohen, M. 1935. Verbes déponents internes (ou verbes adhérents) en sémitique. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 23: 225–248. ____. 1953. Sémitique, égyptien, lybico-berbère. BiOr. 10: 88–90. ____. 1955. Cinquante années de Recherches. Paris: Klincksieck.

References

603

Cole, S. W. 1996. The Early Neo-Babylonian Governor’s Archive from Nippur. Nippur IV. OIP 114. Chicago: The Oriental Institute. Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ____. 1981a. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Blackwell. ____. 1981b. Aspect and Voice: Some Reflections on Perfect and Passive. Pp. 65–78 in Tense and Aspect, ed. P. J. Tedeschi and A. Zaenen. Syntax and Semantics 14. New York: Academic Press. ____. 1985a. Tense. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ____. 1985b. Causative verb formation and other verb-deriving morphology. Pp. 309–48 in Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. III: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, ed. T. Shopen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Conti, G. 1980. Studi sul bilitterismo in semitico e in egiziano 1: Il tema verbale N1212. QuSem. 9. Florence: Istituto di linguistica e di lingue orientali, Università di Firenze. ____. 1990. Il syllabario della quarta fonte della lista lessicale bilingue eblaita. Miscellanea Eblaitica 3. QuSem. 17. Florence: Dipartimento di Linguistica, Università di Firenze. ____. 1996. Thèmes “assyriens” et thèmes “babyloniens” Ebla. Pp. 193–202 in Studies in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures: Memorial Volume of Karel Petráček, ed. P. Zemánek. Prague: Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Oriental Institute. Cook, J. A. 2001. The Hebrew Verb: A Grammaticalization Approach. ZAh 14: 117–143. Creason, S. 2004. Aramaic. Pp. 391–426 in Woodard, ed. 2004. Croft, W. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ____. 2003. Typology and Universals. 2nd ed. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Croft, W.; Shyldkrot, H.; and Kemmer, S. 1987. Diachronic Semantic Processes in the Middle Voice. Pp. 179–92 in Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, ed. A. Giacalone Ramat et al. CILT 48. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Dahl, Ö. 1985. Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Blackwell. Dandamaev, M. A. 1984. Slavery in Babylonia: From Nabopolassar to Alexander the Great (626–331 B.C.). DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press. Delitzsch, F. 1889. Assyrische Grammatik mit Paradigmen, Übungsstücken, Glossar und Literatur. Porta linguarum orientalium 10. Berlin: Reuther. Deller, K. 1957a. Zur sprachlichen Einordnung der Inschriften Aššurnaṣirpals II. (883–859). Or. 26: 144–56. ____. 1957b. Assyrisches Sprachgut bei Tukulti-Ninurta II. (888–884). Or. 26: 268–72. ____. 1959. Lautlehre des Neuassyrischen. Ph.D. dissertation, Vienna. ____. 1965. Review of CAD, vol. I part 1. Or. 34: 259–74. Depuydt, L. 1995. On the Stative Ending tj/t in Middle Egyptian. OLP 26: 21–27. Derchain-Urtel, M. Th. 1973. Das n-Präfix im Ägyptischen. Göttinger Miszellen 6: 39–54. Dercksen, J. G. 1996. The Old Assyrian Copper Trade in Anatolia. PIHANS 75. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut. ____. 2004. Old Assyrian Institutions. MOS Studies 4. PIHANS 98. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. ____. 2005. Adad is King! The Sargon Text from Kültepe. JEOL 39: 107–129.

604

References

Deutscher, G. 2000. Syntactic Change in Akkadian: The Evolution of Sentential Complementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ____. 2005. The Unfolding of Language. London: William Heinemann. Deutscher, G., and Kouwenberg, N. J. C., eds. 2006. The Akkadian Language in its Semitic Context. PIHANS 106. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Diakonoff, I. M. 1965. Semito-Hamitic Languages: An Essay in Classification. Moscow: Nauka. ____. 1970. Problems of Root Structure in Proto-Semitic. ArOr. 38: 453–480. ____. 1988. Afrasian Languages. Moscow: Nauka. ____. 1991/92. Proto-Afrasian and Old Akkadian: A Study in Historical Phonetics. Journal of Afroasiatic Languages 4: 1–133. Diem, W. 1977. Die Verba und Nomina tertiae infirmae im Semitischen. ZDMG 127: 15–60. ____. 1982. Die Entwicklung des Derivationsmorphems der t-Stämme im Semitischen. ZDMG 132: 29–84. ____. 1997. Suffixkonjugation und Subjektspronomina: Ein Beitrag zur Rekonstruktion des Ursemitischen und zur Geschichte der Semitistik. ZDMG 147: 10–76. Dik, S. C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar, 2nd ed. revised by K. Hengeveld, 2 vols. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dillmann, A., and Bezold, C. 1907. Ethiopic Grammar. 2nd ed. enlarged and improved by C. Bezold. Translated by J. A. Crichton. London: Williams & Norgate. Dixon, R. M. W. 1982. Where Have All the Adjectives Gone? And Other Essays in Semantics and Syntax. Janua Linguarum Series Major 107. Berlin: Mouton. Dixon, R. M. W., and Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2004. Adjective Classes: A Cross-linguistic Typology. Explorations in Linguistic Typology 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dombradi, E. 1996. Die Darstellung des Rechtsaustrags in den altbabylonischen Prozessur­ kunden. FAOS 20/1 and 20/2. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Dombrowski, F. A. 1988. Bilin and Awngi Verbal Systems: A Critical Evaluation of the Noun in Agaw. Pp. 335–54 in Cushitic – Omotic: Papers from the International Symposium on Cushitic and Omotic Languages, Cologne, January 6–9, 1986, ed. M. Bechhaus-Gerst and F. Serzisko. Hamburg: Buske. Dressler, W. U. 1968. Studien zur verbalen Pluralität: Iterativum, Distributivum, Durativum, Intensivum in der allgemeinen Grammatik, im Lateinischen und Hethitischen. Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Band 259, Abh. 1. Vienna: Böhlau. ____. 1986. Explanation in Natural Morphology, Illustrated with Comparative and Agent-Noun Formation. Linguistics 24/3: 519–548. ____. 1989. Prototypical Differences between Inflection and Derivation. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 42: 3–10. Durand, J.-M. 1989. L’assemblée en Syrie à l’époque pré-amorite. Pp. 27–44 in Miscellanea Eblaitica 2, ed. P. Fronzaroli. QuSem. 16. Florence: Dipartimento di Linguistica, Università di Firenze. ____. 1997/2000. Documents épistolaires du palais de Mari, vols I–III. LAPO 16–18. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf. Durand, J.-M., and Charpin, D. 1988. Nouveaux exemples de «R Stems». NABU 1988/17. Ebeling, E. 1953. Glossar zu den neubabylonischen Briefen. Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Jahrgang 1953, Heft 1. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

References

605

Edel, E. 1955/64. Altägyptische Grammatik. AnOr. 34/39. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. Edzard, D. O. 1959. Review of CAD, vols. VI (I–J) and V (G). ZA 53: 292–300. ____. 1962. m  Ningal-gāmil, f  Ištar-damqat. Die Genuskongruenz im akkadischen theophoren Personennamen. ZA 55: 113–30. ____. 1965. Die Stämme des altbabylonischen Verbums in ihrem Oppositionssystem. Pp. 111– 20 in Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger, ed. H. G. Güterbock et al. AS 16. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ____. 1973. Die Modi beim älteren akkadischen Verbum. Or. 42: 121–41. ____. 1982. Zu den akkadischen Nominalformen parsat-, pirsat- und pursat-. ZA 72: 68–88. ____. 1984. Syntax der Ebla-Texte. Pp. 101–116 in Studies on the Language of Ebla, ed. P. Fronzaroli. QuSem. 13. Florence: Istituto di Linguistica e di Lingue Orientali, Università di Firenze. ____. 1985. Die 3. Person m. pl. tiprusū im Altakkadischen von Mari. Pp. 85–86 in Miscellanea Babylonica: Mélanges offerts à Maurice Birot, ed. J.-M. Durand and J.-R. Kupper. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations. ____. 1986. Review of Greenstein 1984. JAOS 106: 359–62. ____. 1991. Sargon’s Report on Kish. A Problem in Akkadian Philology. Pp. 258–63 in Ah, Assyria. . .: Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor, ed. M. Cogan and I. Ephʾal. Scripta Hierosolymitana 33. Jerusalem: Magnes. ____. 1992. Der Vertrag von Ebla mit A-BAR-QA. Pp. 187–217 in Literature and Literary Language at Ebla, ed. P. Fronzaroli. QuSem. 18. Florence: Dipartimento di linguistica, Università di Firenze. ____. 1996. Die Iterativstämme beim akkadischen Verbum. Die Frage ihrer Entstehung; ihre Funktion; ihre Verbreitung. Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-­ historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte Jahrgang 1996, Heft 2. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. ____. 2001. Silbenschliessendes [ʾ] im Altassyrischen? Pp. 133–35 in Veenhof Anniversary Volume, ed. W. H. van Soldt et al. PIHANS 89. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. ____. 2003. Sumerian Grammar, Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section 1, vol. 71. Leiden: Brill. ____. 2006. Das Ebla-Akkadische als Teil des altakkadischen Dialektkontinuums. Pp. 76–83 in Deutscher and Kouwenberg, eds. 2006. Edzard, L. 1998. Polygenesis, Convergence, and Entropy: An Alternative Model of Linguistic Evolution Applied to Semitic Linguistics. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Ehret, C. 1989. The Origin of Third Consonants in Semitic Roots: An Internal Reconstruction (Applied to Arabic). Journal of Afroasiatic Languages 2/2: 109–202. Eilers, W. 1954/59. Akkad. kaspum “Silber, Geld” und Sinnverwandtes. WdO 2: 322–37. ____. 1968. Der sogenannte Subjunktiv des Akkadischen. Pp. 241–46 in Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft und Kulturkunde: Gedenkschrift für Wilhelm Brandenstein (1898–1967), ed. M. Mayrhofer. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft, Band 14. Innsbruck: AMOE. Eisenstein, H. 1980. Eine Frequenzanalyse der dreiradikaligen Verben des Arabischen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des X. Verbalstammes. WZKM 72: 21–59. Faber, A. 1980. Genetic Subgroupings of the Semitic Languages. Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Texas at Austin. ____. 1981. Phonetic Reconstruction. Glossa 15: 233–62.

606

References

____. 1991. The Diachronic Relationship between Negative and Interrogative Markers in Semitic. Pp. 411–29 in vol. 1 of Kaye, ed. 1991. ____. 1997. Genetic Subgrouping of the Semitic Languages. Pp. 3–15 in Hetzron, ed. 1997. Fabritius, K. 1995. Vowel Dissimilation as a Marker of Plurality in Neo-Assyrian. JCS 47: 51–55. Fales, F. M. 1986. Aramaic Epigraphs on Clay Tablets of the Neo-Assyrian Period. Studi Semitici, nuova serie 2. Rome: Università Degli Studi “La sapienza.” Falkenstein, A. 1960. Kontakte zwischen Sumerern und Akkadern auf sprachlichem Gebiet. Pp. 301–14 in Aspects du contact suméro-akkadien. CRRAI 9. Genava, N.S. 8. Faltz, L. M. 1985. Reflexivization: A Study in Universal Syntax. New York: Garland. Fassberg, S. E. 1999. The Lengthened Imperative ‫ קטלה‬in Biblical Hebrew. Hebrew Studies 90: 7–13. Finet, A. 1956. L’Accadien des lettres de Mari. Académie des Lettres et des Sciences Morales et Politiques, Mémoires, deuxième série, LI. Brussells: Palais des Académies. Fischer, W. 1967. Silbenstruktur und Vokalismus im Arabischen. ZDMG 117: 30–77. ____. 1972. Grammatik des Klassischen Arabisch. Porta Linguarum Orientalium, N.S. 11. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 1982. Das Neuarabische und seine Dialekte. Pp. 83–95 in Grundriß der arabischen Philologie, Band 1: Sprachwissenschaft, ed. W. Fischer. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert. ____. 1993. Die Entstehung reduplizierter Wurzelmorpheme in Semitischen. Pp. 39–61 in Serta Philologica Constantino Tsereteli dicata, ed. R. Contini et al. Torino: Silvio Zamorani. Fischer, W., and Jastrow, O. 1980. Handbuch der arabischen Dialekte. Porta Linguarum Orientalium, neue Serie XVI. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Fleisch, H. 1947/48. Sur le système verbal du sémitique commun et son évolution dans les langues sémitiques anciennes. MUSJ 27: 39–60. ____. 1955. Le nom d’agent faʿal. MUSJ 32: 167–72. ____. 1961. Traité de philologie arabe, vol. I: Préliminaires, phonétique, morphologie nominale. Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique. ____. 1966. Phrase relative en accadien. MUSJ 42: 247–84. ____, 1968. L’arabe classique. Esquisse d’une structure linguistique. Beirut: Dar el-Machreq. ____. 1979. Traité de philologie arabe, vol. II: Pronoms, Morphologie Verbale, Particules. Beirut: Dar el-Machreq. Fleischman, S. 1989. Temporal Distance: a Basic Linguistic Metaphor. Studies in Language 13: 1–50. ____. 1990. Tense and Narrativity: From Medieval Performance to Modern Fiction. Austin: University of Texas Press. Fleming, D. E. 2004. Democracy’s Ancient Ancestors: Mari and Early Collective Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Foster, B. R. 1982a. Archives and Record-keeping in Sargonic Mesopotamia. ZA 72: 1–27. ____. 1982b. Ethnicity and Onomastics in Sargonic Mesopotamia. Or. 51: 297–354. Fox, J. 2003. Semitic Noun Patterns. HSS 59. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Frajzyngier, Z. 1979. Notes on the R1R2R2 Stems in Semitic. JSS 24: 1–12. ____. 1999. Coding of the Reciprocal Function: Two Solutions. Pp. 179–94 in Reciprocals, Forms and Functions, ed. Z. Frajzyngier and T. S. Curl. TSL 41. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Frankena, R. 1978. Kommentar zu den altbabylonischen Briefen aus Lagaba und anderen Orten. SLB 4. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Friedrich, J., and Röllig, W. 1999. Phönizisch-Punische Grammatik, 3. Auflage, neu bearbeitet von M. G. Amadasi Guzzo. AnOr. 55. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico.

References

607

Frolova, T. 2003. The Reconstruction of the Vowel in the Proto-Semitic Verbal Base ‑C1C2VC3‑. The Evidence of Akkadian and Arabic. Pp. 79–101 in Studia Semitica, ed. L. Kogan. Moscow: Russian State University for the Humanities. Fronzaroli, P. 1973. Problems of a Semitic Etymological Dictionary. Pp. 1–17 in Studies on Semitic Lexicography, ed. P. Fronzaroli. QuSem. 2. Firenze: Istituto di Linguistica e di Lingue Orientali, Università di Firenze. ____. 1982. Per una valutazione della morfologia eblaita. StEb. 5: 93–120. ____. 1984. The Eblaic Lexicon: Problems and Appraisal. Pp. 117–157 in Studies in the Language of Ebla, ed. P. Fronzaroli. QuSem. 13. Florence: Istituto di Linguistica e di Lingue Orientali, Università di Firenze. ____. 1991. Niveaux de langue dans les graphies éblaïtes. Pp. 462–76 in Kaye, ed. 1991. ____. 2003. Testi di cancelleria: i rapporti con le città (Archivio L.2769). ARET 13. Rome: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria. Gai, A. 1997. Remarks on Akkadian Grammar through the Prism of West Semitic Grammars. JCS 49: 73–81. ____. 2000. The Connection between Past and Optative in the Classical Semitic Languages. ZDMG 150: 17–28. ____. 2001. Several Points of Semitic and Akkadian Grammar. Le Muséon 114: 1–13. Garbini, G. 1984. Le Lingue Semitiche: Studi di Storia Linguistica, seconda edizione, riveduta e ampliata. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici. Gardiner, A. 1957. Egyptian Grammar, 3rd, revised edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Garelli, P. 1963. Les Assyriens en Cappadoce. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie d’Istanbul XIX. Paris: Maisonneuve. Garr, W. R. 1985. Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000–586 b.c.e. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. ____. 1993. The Niphal Derivational Prefix. Or. 62: 142–62. Gelb, I. J. 1955a. Old Akkadian Inscriptions in Chicago Natural History Museum: Texts of Legal and Business Interest. Chicago: Chicago Natural History Museum. ____. 1955b. Notes on von Soden’s Grammar of Akkadian. BiOr. 12: 93–111. ____. 1957. Glossary of Old Akkadian. Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary 3. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ____. 1960. Sumerians and Akkadians in their Ethno-linguistic Relationship. Pp. 258–71 in Aspects du contact suméro-akkadien. CRRAI 9. Genava, N.S. 8. ____. 1961. Old Akkadian Writing and Grammar, 2nd ed. Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ____. 1965. The origin of the West Semitic QATALA Morpheme. Pp. 72–80 in Symbolae Linguisticae in honorem Georgii Kuryłowicz, ed. W. Taszycki. Wrocław: Ossolineum. ____. 1969. Sequential Reconstruction of Proto-Akkadian. AS 18. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ____. 1970. Comments on the Akkadian Syllabary. Or. 39: 516–546. ____. 1977. Thoughts about Ibla: A Preliminary Evaluation, March 1977. Syro-Mesopotamian Studies 1/1. Malibu: Undena Publications. ____. 1981. Ebla and the Kish Civilization. Pp. 9–73 in La lingua di Ebla: Atti del convegno internazionale (Napoli, 21–23 aprile 1980), ed. L. Cagni. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, Seminario di Studi Asiatici. ____. 1982. Sumerian and Akkadian words for “string of fruit”. Pp. 67–82 in Zikir Šumim: Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. Kraus, ed. G. van Driel et al. Leiden: Brill.

608

References

____. 1984a. The Inscription of Jibbiṭ-Lîm, King of Ebla. StOr. 55: 213–29. ____. 1984b. ŠÎBÛT KUSURRĀʾIM, “Witnesses of the Indemnity.” JNES 43: 263–76. ____. 1987. The Language of Ebla in the Light of the Sources from Ebla, Mari, and Babylonia. Pp. 49–74 in Ebla 1975–1985, dieci anni di studi linguistici e filologici, ed. L. Cagni. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici. ____. 1992. Mari and the Kish Civilization. Pp. 121–202 in Mari in Retrospect: Fifty Years of Mari and Mari Studies, ed. G. D. Young. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Gelb, I. J.; Steinkeller, P.; and Whiting, R. M. Jr. 1991. Earliest Land Tenure Systems in the Near East: Ancient Kudurrus. OIP 104. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Gensler, O. 1997. Reconstructing Quadriliteral Verb Inflection: Ethiopic, Akkadian, Proto-­ Semitic. JSS 42: 229–57. ____. 1998. Verbs with Two Object Suffixes. A Semitic Archaism in its Afroasiatic Context. Diachronica 15: 231–84. ____. 2000. Why Semitic Adverbializers (Akkadian ‑iš, Syriac ‑āʾīṯ) should not be Derived from Existential *ʾīṯ. JSS 45: 233–65. Gianto, A. 1998. Mood and Modality in Classical Hebrew. IOS 18: 183–98. Givón, T. 1971. Historical Syntax and Synchronic Morphology: An Archeologist’s Field Trip. Chicago Linguistic Society 7: 394–415. ____. 1979. On Understanding Grammar. Orlando: Academic Press. ____. 1984 and 1990. Syntax: A Functional-typological Introduction, vols I and II. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ____. 1991. The Evolution of Dependent Clause Morpho-syntax in Biblical Hebrew. Pp. 257– 310 in Approaches to Grammaticalization II, ed. E. C. Traugott and B. Heine. TSL 19. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ____. 1995. Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ____. 1999. Internal Reconstruction: As method, As Theory. Pp. 107–59 in Reconstructing Grammar: Comparative Linguistics and Grammaticalization, ed. S. Gildea. TSL 43. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Goetze, A. 1936. The t-Form of the Old Babylonian Verb. JAOS 56: 297–334. ____. 1942. The So-called Intensive of the Semitic Languages. JAOS 62: 1–8. ____. 1945a. The Akkadian Dialects of the Old-Babylonian Mathematical Texts. Pp. 146–51 in O. Neugebauer and A. Sachs, Mathematical Cuneiform Texts. AOS 29, New Haven: American Oriental Society. ____. 1945b. Review of Heidel 1940. JNES 4: 246–49. ____. 1946a. The Akkadian Masculine Plural in ‑ānū/ī and its Semitic Background. Language 22: 121–30. ____. 1946b. Sequence of Two Short Syllables in Akkadian. Or. 15: 233–38 ____. 1947. The Akkadian Passive. JCS 1: 50–59. Goldenberg, G. 1977. The Semitic Languages of Ethiopia and their Classification. BSOAS 40: 461–507. ____. 1979. The Modern South Arabian Prefix Conjugation: Addendum to BSOAS XL, 3, 1977. BSOAS 42: 541–45. ____. 1994. Principles of Semitic Word-Structure. Pp. 29–64 in Semitic and Cushitic Studies, ed. G. Goldenberg and S. Raz. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 2002. Semitic Linguistics and the General Study of Language. IOS 20: 21–41.

References

609

____. 2005. Semitic Triradicalism and the Biradical Question. Pp. 7–25 in Semitic Studies in Honour of Edward Ullendorff, ed. G. Khan. SSLL 47. Leiden: Brill. Goshen-Gottstein, M. H. 1969. The System of Verbal Stems in the Classical Semitic Languages. Pp. 70–91 in Proceedings of the International Conference on Semitic Studies Held in Jerusalem 19–23 July 1965. Publications of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Section of Humanities. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Gragg, G. 1987. Paradigm Pressure, Verbal Pathology, and Lexical Replacement: A Note on the Development of Weak Roots in Amharic. Pp. 139–45 in Language, Literature, and History: Philological and Historical Studies Presented to Erica Reiner, ed. F. Rochberg-Halton. AOS 67. New Haven: American Oriental Society. ____. 2004. Geʿez (Aksum). Pp. 427–53 in Woodard, ed. 2004. Greenberg, J. H. 1950. The Patterning of Root Morphemes in Semitic. Word 6: 162–81. ____. 1952. The Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic) Present. JAOS 72: 1–9. ____. 1955. Internal a-Plurals in Afroasiatic (Hamito-Semitic). Pp. 198–204 in Afrikanistische Studien, ed. J. Lukas. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. ____. 1963. Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements. Pp. 58–90 in Universals of Language, ed. J. H. Greenberg. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ____. 1966. Language Universals with Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies. Ianua Linguarum Series Minor 59. The Hague: Mouton. ____. 1991. The Semitic “Intensive” as Verbal Plurality. Pp. 577–87 in vol. 1 of Kaye, ed. 1991. ____. 1995. The Diachronic Typological Approach to Language. Pp. 145–66 in Approaches to Language Typology, ed. M. Shibatani and T. Bynon. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Greenstein, E. L. 1984. The Phonology of Akkadian Syllable Structure. Afroasiatic Linguistics 9/1. Malibu: Undena. Groneberg, B. R. M. 1972. Untersuchungen zum hymnisch-epischen Dialekt der altbabylonischen literarischen Texte. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Münster. ____. 1980. Zu den “gebrochenen Schreibungen”. JCS 32: 151–67. ____. 1981. Philologische Bearbeitung des Agušayahymnus. RA 75: 107–34. ____. 1987. Syntax, Morphologie und Stil der jungbabylonischen “hymnischen” Literatur. FAOS 14. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. ____. 1989. Reduplications of Consonants and “R”-stems. RA 83: 27–34. ____. 1996. Towards a Definition of Literariness as Applied to Akkadian Literature. Pp. 59–84 in Mesopotamian Poetic Language: Sumerian and Akkadian, ed. M. E. Vogelzang and H. L. J. Vanstiphout. CM 6. Groningen: Styx. Gzella, H. 2004. Tempus, Aspekt und Modalität im Reichsaramäischen, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 2006. Zu den Verlaufsvormen für die Gegenwart im Aramäischen. Or. 75: 184–88. Hackl, J. 2007. Der subordinierte Satz in den spätbabylonischen Briefen. AOAT 341. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Haiman, J. 1985. Natural Syntax: Iconicity and Erosion. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 44. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hämeen-Anttila, J. 2000. A Sketch of Neo-Assyrian Grammar. SAAS 13. Helsinki: The NeoAssyrian Text Corpus Project. Hamori, A. 1973. A Note on yaqtulu in East and West Semitic. ArOr. 41: 319–324. Harrison, S. P. 2003. On the Limits of the Comparative Method. Pp. 213–243 in The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, ed. B. D. Joseph and R. D. Janda. Oxford: Blackwell.

610

References

Haspelmath, M. 1990. The Grammaticization of Passive Morphology. Studies in Language 14/1: 25–72. ____. 1993. More on the Typology of Inchoative/Causative Verb Alternations. Pp. 87–111 in Causatives and Transitivity, ed. B. Comrie and M. Polinsky. Studies in Language Companion Series 23. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ____. 1994. Passive Participles across Languages. Pp. 151–77 in Voice: Form and Function, ed. B. Fox and P. J. Hopper. TSL 27. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ____. 1996. Word-class-changing Inflection and Morphological Theory. Pp. 43–66 in Yearbook of Morphology 1995, ed. G. Booij and J. van Marle. Dordrecht: Kluwer. ____. 1998. The Semantic Development of Old Presents: New Futures and Subjunctives without Grammaticalization. Diachronica 15: 29–62. Hasselbach, R. 2004. The Markers of Person, Gender, and Number in the Prefixes of G‑Preformative Conjugations in Semitic. JAOS 124: 23–35. ____. 2005. Sargonic Akkadian: A Historical and Comparative Study of the Syllabic Texts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 2006. The Ventive-Energic in Semitic: A Morphological Study. ZDMG 156: 309–28. ____. 2007. The Affiliation of Sargonic Akkadian with Babylonian and Assyrian: New Insights concerning the Internal Sub-grouping of Akkadian. JSS 52: 21–43. Haupt, P. 1878. Studies on the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages, with special Reference to Assyrian. JRAS New Series 10: 244–51. ____. 1907. The name Ištar. JAOS 28/1: 112–19. Hayward, R. J. 1975. Middle Voice Verb Forms in Eastern Cushitic. Transactions of the Philological Society 1975: 203–224. ____. 2000. Afroasiatic. Pp. 74–98 in African Languages: An Introduction, ed. B. Heine and D. Nurse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heath, J. 2002. Arabic Derivational Ablaut, Processing Strategies, and Consonantal “Roots.” Pp. 115–29 in Language Processing and Acquisition in Languages of Semitic, Root-based, Morphology, ed. J. Shimron. Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 28. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ____. 2005. A Grammar of Tamashek (Tuareg of Mali). Mouton Grammar Library 35. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hecker, K. 1968. Grammatik der Kültepe-Texte. AnOr. 44. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. ____. 1984. Doppelt T-erweiterte Formen, oder: der eblaitische Infinitiv. Pp. 205–23 in Il bilinguismo a Ebla, ed. L. Cagni. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici. ____. 1998. Zur Dauer des Intervalls zwischen den Schichten Kārum II und Ib am Kültepe. Pp. 297–308 in Acts of the III  rd International Congress of Hittitology, ed. S. Alp and A. Süel. Ankara. ____. 2000. i oder ī im Status constructus? AoF 27: 260–68. Heidel, A. 1940. The System of the Quadriliteral Verb in Akkadian. AS 13. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ____. 1945. In Reply to Goetze’s Review. JNES 4: 249–53. Heimpel, W. 1996. Šutāwûm und šutaptûm. ZA 86: 163–69. Heimpel, W., and Guidi, G. 1969. Der Koinzidenzfall im Akkadischen. ZDMG Supplementa I/1: 148–52.

References

611

Heine, B. 1993. Auxiliaries: Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalization. New York: Oxford University Press. ____. 1994. Areal Influence on Grammaticalization. Pp. 55–68 in Language Contact and Language Conflict, ed. M. Pütz. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ____. 1999. Polysemy Involving Reflexive and Reciprocal Markers in African Languages. Pp. 1–29 in Reciprocals: Forms and Functions, ed. Z. Frajzyngier and T. S. Curl. TSL 41. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Heine, B., and Claudi, U. 1986. On the Rise of Grammatical Categories. Kölner Beiträge zur Afrikanistik, 13. Band. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer. Heine, B.; Claudi, U.; and Hünnemeyer, F. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hengeveld. K. 1992. Non-verbal Predication: Theory, Typology, Diachrony. Functional Grammar Series 15. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hetzron, R. 1969. The Evidence for Perfect *YÁQTUL and Jussive *YAQTÚL in Proto-Semitic. JSS 14: 1–21. ____. 1972. The Shape of a Rule and Diachrony. BSOAS 35: 451–75. ____. 1973/74. The Vocalization of Prefixes in Semitic Active and Passive Verbs. MUSJ 48: 35–48. ____. 1974. An Archaism in the Cushitic Verbal Conjugation. Pp. 275–81 in IV congresso internazionale di studi etiopici, Tomo II (sezione linguistica). Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Anno CCCLXXI. Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. ____. 1975. Genetic Classification and Ethiopean Semitic. Pp. 103–27 in Hamito-Semitica, ed. J. Bynon and T. Bynon. Janua Linguarum, Series Practica 200. The Hague: Mouton. ____. 1976a. Two Principles of Genetic Reconstruction. Lingua 38: 89–108. ____. 1976b. On the Hungarian Causative Verb and its Syntax. Pp. 371–98 in The Grammar of Causative Constructions, ed. M. Shibatani. Syntax and Semantics 6. New York: Academic Press. ____. 1980. The Limits of Cushitic. Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika 2: 7–126. Hetzron, R., ed. 1997. The Semitic Languages. London: Routledge. Hilgert, M. 2002. Akkadisch in der Ur III-Zeit. Imgula Band 5. Münster: Rhema. ____. 2003. New Perspectives in the Study of Third Millennium Akkadian. CDLJ 2003/4. Hirsch, H. 1967. Review of Grammatik des Akkadischen, by A. Ungnad, völlig neubearbeiteit von Lubor Matouš. ZA 58: 324–27. ____. 1969. Zur Frage der t-Formen in den keilschriftlichen Gesetzestexten. Pp. 119–31 in Lišān Mithurti: Festschrift Wolfram Freiherr von Soden, ed. W. Röllig. AOAT 1. Ke­velaer: Butzon and Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins Neukirchen-Vluyn. ____. 1972. Untersuchungen zur altassyrischen Religion. AfO Beiheft 13/14. Osnabrück: Biblio. ____. 1975. Akkadische Grammatik – Erörterungen und Fragen. Or. 44: 245–322. ____. 1987. Interpretationsversuche II. AfO 34: 45–53. ____. 1998. Kommen und Gehen in Nippur. Pp. 369–82 in “Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf”: Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient, Festschrift für Oswald Loretz, ed. H. Schaudig. AOAT 250. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. ____. 2001. “Ich schrieb mir doch.” Pp. 181–91 in Veenhof Anniversary Volume, ed. W. H. van Soldt et al. PIHANS 89. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. ____. 2002. Gilgamesh-Epos und Erra-Lied. Zu einem Aspekt des Verbalsystems. AfO Beiheft 29. Vienna: Selbstverlag des Instituts für Orientalistik der Universität Wien.

612

References

Hock, H. H. 1991. Principles of Historical Linguistics, 2nd ed., revised and updated. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hodge, C. T. 1970. The Linguistic Cycle. Language Sciences 13: 1–7. Hodge, C. T., ed. 1971. Afroasiatic: A Survey. Janua Linguarum, Series Practica 163. The Hague: Mouton. Reprint from Current Trends in Linguistics, Vol. VI: Linguistics in South West Asia and North Africa, ed. T. A. Sebeok. The Hague: Mouton, 1970. Hoftijzer, J. 1992. Überlegungen zum System der Stammesmodifikationen im klassischen Hebräisch. ZAh 5: 117–34. Holes, C. 1995. Modern Arabic: Structures, Functions and Varieties. London: Longman. Hopper, P. J. 1987. Emergent Grammar. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting, Berkeley Linguistics Society 13: 139–157. ____. 1991. On Some Principles of Grammaticization. Pp. 17–35 in Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. I: Focus on Theoretical and Methodological Issues, ed. E. C. Traugott and B. Heine. TSL 19. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Hopper, P. J., and Thompson, S. A. 1980. Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language 56: 251–299. ____. 1984. The Discourse Basis for Lexical Categories in Universal Grammar. Language 60: 703–752. Hopper, P. J., and Traugott, E. C. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd ed. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Høyrup, J. 1990. Algebra and Naive Geometry. An Investigation of Some Basic Aspects of Old Babylonian Mathematical Thought I. AoF 17: 27–69. Hudson, G. 1991. A and B-Type Verbs in Ethiopian and Proto-Semitic. Pp. 679–89 in vol. 1 of Kaye, ed. 1991. ____. 1994. A Neglected Ethiopian Contribution to Semitic and Afroasiatic Reconstruction. Pp. 47–56 in Proceedings of the 20th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Special Session on Historical Issues in African Linguistics, ed. K. E. Moore et al. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. ____. 2005. Ethiopian Semitic Nonpast C2 Length. Pp. 195–213 in Proceedings of the 10th Meeting of Hamitosemitic (Afroasiatic) Linguistics, ed. P. Fronzaroli and P. Marrassini. QuSem. 25. Florence: Dipartimento di linguistica, Università di Firenze. Huehnergard, J. 1983. Asseverative *la and Hypothetical *lu/law in Semitic. JAOS 103: 569–93. ____. 1986. On Verbless Clauses in Akkadian. ZA 76: 218–49. ____. 1987a. “Stative,” Predicative Form, Pseudo-verb. JNES 46: 215–32. ____. 1987b. Three Notes on Akkadian Morphology. Pp. 181–93 in “Working with no Data”: Semitic and Egyptian Studies Presented to Thomas O. Lambdin, ed. D. M. Golomb and S. T. Hollis. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. ____. 1987c. Northwest Semitic Vocabulary in Akkadian Texts. Review of Grammatical Analysis and Glossary of the Northwest Semitic Vocables in Akkadian Texts of the 15th–13th C. b.c. from Canaan and Syria, by D. Sivan. JAOS 107: 713–25. ____. 1989. The Akkadian of Ugarit. HSS 34. Atlanta: Scholars Press. ____. 1991. Further South Semitic Cognates to the Akkadian Lexicon. Pp. 690–713 in vol. 1 of Kaye, ed. 1991. ____. 1992. Historical Phonology and the Hebrew Piel. Pp. 209–29 in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, ed. W. R. Bodine. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. ____. 1995. Semitic Languages. Pp. 2117–34 in vol. 4 of Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, ed. J. M. Sasson. New York: Scribner’s.

References

613

____. 1996. New Directions in the Study of Semitic Languages. Pp. 251–72 in The Study of the Ancient Near East in the 21st Century: The William Foxwell Albright Centennial Conference, ed. J. S. Cooper and G. M. Schwartz. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. ____. 1997a. A Grammar of Akkadian. HSS 45. Atlanta: Scholars Press. ____. 1997b. Akkadian Grammar (Review of von Soden 1995). Or. 66: 434–44. ____. 1999. On the Etymology and Meaning of Hebrew nābīʾ. Eretz-Israel 26: 88*–93*. ____. 2002a. Comparative Semitic Linguistics. IOS 20: 119–50. ____. 2002b. izuzzum and itūlum. Pp. 161–85 in Riches Hidden in Secret Places: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen, ed. Tzvi Abusch. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. ____. 2003. Akkadian ḫ and West Semitic *ḥ. Pp. 102–19 in Studia Semitica, ed. L. Kogan. Orientalia: Papers of the Oriental Institute 3. Moscow. ____. 2004. Afro-Asiatic. Pp. 138–59 in Woodard, ed. 2004. ____. 2005a. A Grammar of Akkadian. Second Edition. HSS 45. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. ____. 2005b. Features of Central Semitic. Pp. 155–203 in Biblical and Oriental Essays in Memory of William L. Moran, ed. A. Gianto. Biblica et Orientalia 48. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico. ____. 2005c. Hebrew Verbs I-w/y and a Proto-Semitic Sound Rule. Babel und Bibel 2: 457–74. ____. 2006. Proto-Semitic and Proto-Akkadian. Pp. 1–18 in Deutscher and Kouwenberg, eds. 2006. Ismail, F.; Sallaberger, W.; Talon, P.; and van Lerberghe, K. 1996. Administrative Documents from Tell Beydar (Seasons 1993–1995). Subartu II. Turnhout: Brepols. Izre'el, S. 1991. On the Person-Prefixes of the Akkadian Verb. JANES 20: 35–56. ____. 2005. The Akkadian Verbal System: Derivational and Inflectional Strategies. Pp. 533–47 in: “An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing”: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein, ed. Y. Sefati et al. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press. Izre'el, S., and Cohen, E. 2004. Literary Old Babylonian. Languages of the World/Materials 81. Munich: LINCOM Europa. Jacobsen, Th. 1960. ITTALLAK NIĀTI. JNES 19: 101–16. ____. 1988. The Sumerian Verbal Core. ZA 78: 161–220. Jakobson, R. 1990. On Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Jansen-Winkeln, K. 1993. Das Ägyptische Pseudopartizip. OLA 24: 5–28. Janssens, G. 1972. The Present-Imperfect in Semitic. BiOr. 29: 3–7. Jastrow, O. 1997. The Neo-Aramaic Languages. Pp. 334–77 in Hetzron, ed. 1997. Joannès, F., ed. 2001. Dictionnaire de la Civilisation Mésopotamienne. Paris: Robert Lafont. Johnstone, T. M. 1967. Eastern Arabian Dialect Studies. London Oriental Series 17. London: Oxford University Press. ____. 1975. The Modern South Arabian Languages. Afroasiatic Linguistics 1/5: 93–121. ____. 1981. Jibbāli Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Pres. ____. 1987. Mehri Lexicon and English-Mehri Word-list. London: School of African and Oriental Studies, University of London. Jongen, R. 1985. Polysemy, Tropes and Cognition or the Non-Magrittian Art of Closing Curtains Whilst Opening Them. Pp. 121–39 in The Ubiquity of Metaphor: Metaphor in Language and Thought, ed. W. Paprotté and R. Dirven. CILT 29. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Joosten, J. 1999. The Lengthened Imperative with Accusative Suffix in Biblical Hebrew. ZAW 111: 423–26.

614

References

Joseph, B. D., and Janda, R. D., eds. 2003. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. Joüon, P. 1935. Remarques sur les 3me et 7me formes verbales fāʿala et infaʿala de l’arabe. MUSJ 19: 97–116. Joüon, P., and Muraoka, T. 1991. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 2nd edition. Subsidia Biblica 14. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico. Jucquois, G. Review of Aro 1964. BiOr. 24: 310–12. Jursa, M. 1997/98. Review of Cole 1996. AfO 44/45: 419–24. Kammerzell, F. 1990. Funktion und Form: Zur Opposition von Perfekt und Pseudopartizip im Alt- und Mittelägyptischen. Göttinger Miszellen 117/118: 181–202. Katamba, F. 1989. An Introduction to Phonology. London: Longman. Kaufman, S. A. 1974. The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic. AS 19. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kaye, A. S., ed. 1991. Semitic Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau on the Occasion of His Eightyfifth Birthday, November 14th, 1991, 2 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Keenan, E. L. 1985. Passive in the World’s Languages. Pp. 243–81 in Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. I: Clause Structure, ed. T. Shopen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Keller, K. 1996. Der X. Verbalstamm und seine Funktion im modernen Arabisch. Pp. 297–309 in Studies in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures: Memorial Volume of Karel Petráček, ed. P. Zemánek. Prague: Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Oriental Institute. Kemmer, S. 1993. The Middle Voice. TSL 23. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Kerr, R. 2001. Wie lange dauert die Gegenwart? or The Future Revisited. The Verbal Formation yVqattVl in North-West Semitic. Dutch Studies published by NELL 4/2: 129–74. Kienast, B. 1957a. Der Präfixvokal u im Kausativ und im D‑Stamm des Semitischen. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 11: 104–8. ____. 1957b. Verbalformen mit Reduplikation im Akkadischen. Or. 26: 44–50. ____. 1960. Das Punktualthema *japrus und seine Modi. Or. 29: 151–67. ____. 1961. Weiteres zum R-Stamm des Akkadischen. JCS 15: 59–61. ____. 1963. Das System der zweiradikaligen Verben im Akkadischen. ZA 55: 138–55. ____. 1967. Zu den Vokalklassen beim akkadischen Verbum. Pp. 63–85 in Heidelberger Studien zum alten Orient, Adam Falkenstein zum 17. September 1966, ed. D. O. Edzard. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 1981. Die Sprache von Ebla und das Altsemitische. Pp. 83–98 in La lingua di Ebla, Atti del convegno internazionale (Napoli, 21–23 aprile 1980), ed. L. Cagni. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, Seminario di Studi Asiatici. ____. 1982. Zur Geschichte des semitischen Verbums. Pp. 17–23 in The Chad Languages in the Hamitosemitic-Nigritic Border Area, ed. H. Jungraithmayr. Marburger Studien zur Afrikaund Asienkunde, Serie A: Afrika, Bd. 27. Berlin: Reimer. ____. 1984. Nomina mit T-Präfix und T-Infix in der Sprache von Ebla und ihre sumerischen Äquivalente. Pp. 225–55 in Il bilinguismo a Ebla, ed. L. Cagni. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici. ____. 1989. Zur Nominalbildung im Semitischen. Pp. 277–287 in DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A: Studies in Honor of Åke W. Sjöberg, ed. H. Behrens et al. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 11, Philadelphia: The University Museum, Babylonian Section. ____. 1995. Gedanken zur Geschichte der semitischen “Tempora”. Pp. 119–33 in Vom Alten Orient zum Alten Testament: Festschrift für Wolfram Freiherrn von Soden, ed. M. Dietrich

References

615

and O. Loretz. AOAT 240. Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. ____. 2001. Historische Semitische Sprachwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Kienast, B., and Volk, K. 1995. Die sumerischen und akkadischen Briefe des III. Jahrtausends aus der Zeit vor der III. Dynastie von Ur. FAOS 19. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Kiparsky, P. 1968. Tense and Mood in Indo-European Syntax. Foundations of Language 4: 30–57. Klingenheben, A. 1956. Die Präfix- und die Suffixkonjugation des Hamitosemitischen. MIO 4: 211–77. Knudsen, E. E. 1980. Stress in Akkadian. JCS 32: 3–16. ____. 1982. An Analysis of Amorite. A Review Article. JCS 34: 1–18. ____. 1984/86. Innovation in the Akkadian Present. Pp. 231–39 in On the Dignity of Man: Oriental and Classical Studies in Honour of Frithiof Rundgren, ed. T. Kronholm and E. Riad. OrSuec. 33–35. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. ____. 1986. Review of Greenstein 1984. BiOr. 43: 723–32. ____. 1991. Amorite Grammar: A Comparative Statement. Pp. 866–85 in vol. 1 of Kaye, ed. 1991. ____. 1998. Central Semitic *yaqtulum reconsidered: A Rejoinder to J. Tropper. JSS 43: 1–9. Koch, H. 1996. Reconstruction in Morphology. Pp. 218–63 in The Comparative Method Reviewed: Regularity and Irregularity in Language Change, ed. M. Durie and M. Ross. New York: Oxford University Press. Köcher, F. 1965. Urruru, “(am Feuer) dörren”. Pp. 323–25 in Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger, ed. H. G. Güterbock et al. AS 16. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kogan, L. 2001. *ġ in Akkadian. UF 33: 263–98. ____. 2002. Additions and Corrections to “*ġ in Akkadian” (UF 33). UF 34: 315–17. ____. 2003. The Etymological Dictionary of Egyptian (Review article of Etymological Dictionary of Egyptian, Vol. 2, by G. Takács). AuOr. 21: 257–62. ____. 2004. Notes on Barth’s Law in Akkadian. Babel und Bibel 1: 343–48. ____. 2005. Observations on Proto-Semitic Vocalism. AuOr. 23:131–67. ____. 2006a. Old Assyrian vs. Old Babylonian: the Lexical Dimension. Pp. 177–214 in Deutscher and Kouwenberg, eds. 2006. ____. 2006b. Ethiopian Cognates to the Akkadian and Ugaritic Lexicon. Pp. 269–74 in Šapal tibnim mû illakū: Studies Presented to Joaquín Sanmartín, ed. G. del Olmo Lete, L. Feliu, and A. Millet Albà. Aula Orientalis Supplementa 22. Barcelona: Editorial AUSA. Kogan, L., and Markina, K. 2006. Review of Hasselbach 2005. Babel und Bibel 3: 555–88. Kossmann, M. 1999. Essai sur la phonologie du proto-berbère. Grammatische Analysen afrikanischer Sprachen 12. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe. ____. 2001. The Origin of the Glottal Stop in Zenaga and its Reflexes in the other Berber Languages. Afrika und Übersee 84: 61–100. ____. 2002. L’origine de l’aoriste intensif en berbère. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 97: 353–70. Kottsieper, I. 2000. yaqattal – Phantom oder Problem? Erwägungen zum einem hebraistischen Problem und zur Geschichte der semitischen Sprachen. KUSATU 1: 27–100. Kouwenberg, N. J. C. 1997. Gemination in the Akkadian Verb. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 32. Assen: van Gorcum. ____. 1998. Review of Huehnergard 1997a. BiOr. 55: 814–16. ____. 2000. Nouns as Verbs: the Verbal Nature of the Akkadian Stative. Or. 69: 21–71.

616

References

____. 2001. The Interchange of a and e in Old Babylonian. Pp. 225–49 in Veenhof Anniversary Volume, ed. W. H. van Soldt et al. PIHANS 89. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. ____. 2002. Ventive, Dative and Allative in Old Babylonian. ZA 92: 200–240. ____. 2003. Evidence for Post-glottalized Consonants in Assyrian. JCS 55: 75–86. ____. 2003–4a. Initial Plene Writing and the Conjugation of the First Weak Verbs in Akkadian. JEOL 38, 83–103. ____. 2003–4b. Review of Hilgert 2002. AfO 50: 362–66. ____. 2004. Assyrian Light on the History of the N-stem. Pp. 333–52 in Assyria and Beyond: Studies Presented to Mogens Trolle Larsen, ed. J. G. Dercksen. PIHANS 100. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. ____. 2005. Reflections on the Gt-stem in Akkadian. ZA 95: 77–103. ____. 2006. The Reflexes of the Proto-Semitic Gutturals in Old Assyrian. Pp. 150–76 in Deut­ scher and Kouwenberg, eds. 2006. ____. 2008. On the Old Assyrian Verb atawwum ‘to speak’ and Related Issues. Pp. 159–73 in Old Assyrian Studies in Memory of Paul Garelli, ed. C. Michel. OAAS 4; PIHANS 112. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Kozinskij, I. Š. 1988. Resultative: Results and Discussion. Pp. 497–525 in Typology of Resultative Constructions, ed. V. P. Nedjalkov. TSL 12. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Kraus, F. R. 1958. Di til.la. Sumerische Prozessprotokolle und Verwandtes aus der Zeit der III. Dynastie von Ur. BiOr. 15: 70–84. ____. 1960. Altmesopotamisches Lebensgefühl. JNES 19: 117–32. ____. 1967. Altbabylonisch zeʾpum. BiOr. 24: 12–14. ____. 1973a. Ein altbabylonischer “i-Modus”? Pp. 253–65 in Symbolae Biblicae et Mesopotamicae Francisco Mario Theodoro de Liagre Böhl dedicatae, ed. M. A. Beek et al. Leiden: Brill. ____. 1973b. Vom mesopotamischen Menschen der altbabylonischen Zeit und seiner Welt. Me­ de­delingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks, deel 36 No. 6. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company. ____. 1975. Akkadische Wörter und Ausdrücke, IX. RA 69: 31–40. ____. 1979. Akkadische Wörter und Ausdrücke, XIII. RA 73: 135–41. ____. 1984. Nominalsätze in altbabylonischen Briefen und der Stativ. Mededelingen der Konink­ lijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks, deel 47 No. 2. Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij. ____. 1987. Sonderformen akkadischer Parataxe: die Koppelungen. Mededelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks, deel 50 No. 1. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company. Krebernik, M. 1982. Zu Syllabar und Orthographie der lexikalischen Texte aus Ebla. Teil I. ZA 72: 178–236. ____. 1983. Zu Syllabar und Orthographie der lexikalischen Texte aus Ebla. Teil 2 (Glossar). ZA 73: 1–47. ____. 1984. Verbalnomina mit prä- und infigiertem t in Ebla. StEb. 7: 191–211. ____. 1985. Zur Entwicklung der Keilschrift im III. Jahrtausend anhand der Texte aus Ebla. AfO 32: 53–59. ____. 1988a. Prefixed Verbal Forms in Personal Names from Ebla. Pp. 45–63 in Eblaite Personal Names and Semitic Name-Giving, ed. A. Archi. ARES I. Rome: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria.

References

617

____. 1988b. Die Personennamen der Ebla-Texte: Eine Zwischenbilanz, BBVOT 7. Berlin: Reimer. ____. 1991a. Gt- und tD-Stämme im Ugaritischen. Pp. 226–70 in Text, Methode und Grammatik: Wolfgang Richter zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. W. Gross, H. Irsigler, und T. Seidl. St. Ottilien: EOS. ____. 1991b. Review of Die altakkadischen Königsinschriften des dritten Jahrtausends v. Chr., by I. J. Gelb and B. Kienast. ZA 81: 133–43. ____. 1992. Mesopotamian Myths at Ebla: ARET 5, 6 and ARET 5, 7. Pp. 63–149 in Literature and Literary Language at Ebla, ed. P. Fronzaroli. QuSem. 18. Florence: Dipartimento di Linguistica, Università di Firenze. ____. 1993. Verbalformen mit suffigierten n-Morphemen im Ugaritischen. Pp. 123–50 in Syntax und Text, ed. H. Irsigler. Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 40. St. Ottilien: EOS. ____. 1996. Linguistic Classification of Eblaite: Methods, Problems, and Results. Pp. 233–49 in The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-First Century: The W.F. Albright Centennial Conference, ed. J. S. Cooper and G. M. Schwartz. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. ____. 1998. Die Texte aus Fāra und Tell Abū Ṣalābīḫ. Pp. 237–427 in J. Bauer et al., Mesopotamien: Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastische Zeit. Annäherungen I. OBO 160/1. Freiburg Schweiz: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ____. 2001. Tall Biʿa / Tuttul - II. Die altorientalischen Schriftfunde. Ausgrabungen in Tall Biʿa / Tuttul, Band II. WVDOG 100. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag. ____. 2006. Some Questions concerning Word Formation in Akkadian. Pp. 84–95 in Deutscher and Kouwenberg, eds. 2006. Krecher, J. 1985. Die /m/-Präfixe des sumerischen Verbums. Or. 54: 133–81. Krispijn, Th. J. H. 2001. The Sumerian lexeme *urum: a lexico-etymological approach. Pp. 251– 61 in Veenhof Anniversary Volume, ed. W. H. van Soldt et al. PIHANS 89. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Kropp, M. 1999. Gedanken zum Verbalsystem des Ugaritischen im Rahmen des Semitischen. Pp. 97–108 in ‘Schnittpunkt’ Ugarit, ed. M. Kropp and A. Wagner. Nordafrikanisch-west­ asiatische Studien 2. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Kupper, J.-R. 2001. L’akkadien des lettres de Shemshâra. RA 95: 155–73. Kuryłowicz, J. 1945–49. La nature des procès dits analogiques. Acta Linguistica 5: 15–37. ____. 1956. L’apophonie en indo-européen, Prace Językoznawcze 9, Wrocław: Zakładim Ossolińskich. ____. 1962. L’apophonie en sémitique. Prace Językoznawcze 24. Wrocław. ____. 1964. The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. ____. 1968. The Notion of Morpho(pho)neme. Pp. 65–81 in Directions for Historical Linguistics, ed. W. P. Lehmann and Y. Malkiel. Austin: University of Texas Press. ____. 1972. Studies in Semitic Grammar and Metrics. Prace Językoznawcze 67. Wrocław: Zakładim Ossolińskich. ____. 1973. Verbal Aspect in Semitic. Or. 42: 114–20. ____. 1975. Esquisses linguistiques II. Internationale Bibliothek für allgemeine Linguistik 37. Munich: W. Finck. Ladefoged, P., and Maddieson, I. 1996, The Sounds of the World’s Languages. Oxford: Blackwell. Lakoff, R. 1977. Linguistic Gestalts. Pp. 236–87 in Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. A. B. Woodford et al. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

618

References

Lambdin, T. O. 1978. Introduction to Classical Ethiopic (Geʿez). HSS 24. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press. Lambert, W. G. 1959/60. Three Literary Prayers of the Babylonians. AfO 19: 47–66. ____. 1967. The language of Mari. Pp. 29–38 in La civilization de Mari, ed. J.-R. Kupper. ­CRRAI 15. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. ____. 1973. Studies in Nergal. BiOr. 30: 355–63. ____. 1983. A New Verb: *ši’ālum “rejoice”. RA 77: 190–91. ____. 1992. The Language of ARET V 6 and 7. Pp. 41–62 in Literature and Literary Language at Ebla, ed. P. Fronzaroli. QuSem. 18. Firenze: Dipartimento di linguistica, Università di Firenze. Lambert, W. G., and Millard, A. R. 1969. Atra-Ḫasīs: The Babylonian Story of the Flood. Oxford: Clarendon. Landsberger, B. 1924. Der “Ventiv” des Akkadischen. ZA 35: 113–23. ____. 1926a. Die Eigenbegrifflichkeit der babylonischen Welt. Islamica 2: 355–72. ____. 1926b. Prinzipienfragen der semitischen, speziell der hebräischen Grammatik. OLZ 1926: 967–76. ____. 1934. Die Fauna des alten Mesopotamien nach der 14. Tafel der Serie Ḫar-ra = Hubullu, Abhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, Band 42/6. Leipzig: Hirzel. ____. 1960. Einige unerkannt gebliebene oder verkannte Nomina des Akkadischen. WZKM 56: 109–29. ____. 1968. Zur vierten und siebenten Tafel des Gilgamesch-Epos. RA 62: 97–135. Langacker R. 1987. Nouns and Verbs. Language 63: 53–94. Langacker R., and Munro, P. 1975. Passives and their Meaning. Language 51: 789–830. Larcher, P. 1999. Vues “nouvelles” sur la dérivation lexicale en arabe classique”. Pp. 103–23 in Tradition and Innovation: Norm and Deviation in Arabic and Semitic Linguistics, ed. E. Lutz and M. Nekroumi. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 2003. Le système verbal de l’arabe classique. Aix-en-Provence: Publications de l’Université de Provence. Lass, R. 1997. Historical Linguistics and Language Change. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Laver, J. 1994. Principles of Phonetics. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lehmann, C. 1995. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. LINCOM Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 1. Munich: LINCOM Europa. Leichty, E. 1993. The Origins of Scholarship. Pp. 21–29 in Die Rolle der Astronomie in den Kulturen Mesopotamiens, ed. H. D. Galter. Beiträge zum 3. Grazer Morgenländischen Symposion (23.–27. September 1991). Graz. Lentin, J. 1991. A propos de la valeur “intensive” de la IIème forme verbale en arabe syrien: modalité et expressivité. Vers un renouvellement du système verbal? Pp. 891–916 in vol. 2 of Kaye, ed. 1991. Leong, Tien Fock. 1994. Tense, Mood and Aspect in Old Babylonian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Leslau, W. 1937. Sur le préfix n- en soqotri. GLECS 7: 45–46. ____. 1944. Vocabulary Common to Akkadian and South-East Semitic (Ethiopic and SouthArabic. JAOS 64: 53–58. ____. 1953. The Imperfect in South-East Semitic. JAOS 73: 164–66. ____. 1987. Comparative Dictionary of Geʿez (Classical Ethiopic). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

References

619

____. 1995. Reference Grammar of Amharic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Lewy, J. 1949. Apropos of the Akkadian numerals iš-ti-a-na and iš-tí-na. ArOr. 17/2: 110–23. ____. 1957. Apropos of a Recent Study in Old Assyrian Chronology. Or. 26: 12–36. Lichtenberk, F. 1994. Reflexives and Reciprocals. Pp. 3504–9 in vol. 7 of The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, ed. R. E. Asher and J. M. Y. Simpson. Oxford: Pergamon. ____. 1999. Reciprocals without Reflexives. Pp. 31–62 in Reciprocals: Forms and Functions, ed. Z. Frajzyngier and T. S. Curl. TSL 41. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Lieberman, S. J. 1977. The Sumerian Loanwords in Old-Babylonian Akkadian, vol. 1: Prolegomena and Evidence. Missoula, MT: Scholars. ____. 1986. The Afro-Asiatic Background of the Semitic N-Stem: Towards the Origins of the Stem-Afformatives of the Semitic and Afro-Asiatic Verb. BiOr. 43: 577–628. Limet, H. 1975. Observations sur la grammaire des anciennes tablettes de Mari. Syria 52: 37–52. Lipiński, E. 1997. Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. OLA 80. Leuven: Peeters; 2nd ed. 2001. Loesov, S. 2004a. T-Perfect in Old Babylonian: The Debate and a Thesis. Babel und Bibel 1: 83–181. ____. 2004b. Review of Metzler 2002. Babel und Bibel 1: 393–434. ____. 2004c. A Note on the Allative Ventive in Connection with N. J. C. Kouwenberg’s Contribution. Babel und Bibel 1: 349–53. ____. 2005. Akkadian Sentences about the Present Time, Part One. Babel und Bibel 2: 101–48. ____. 2007. Marginalia on the Akkadian Ventive. Babel und Bibel 3: 101–32. Lonnet, A. 1993. Quelques résultats en linguistique sudarabique moderne. Quaderni di Studi Arabi 11: 37–82. van Loon, J. 2005. Principles of Historical Morphology. Untersuchungen zur vergleichenden Grammatik der germanischen Sprachen 5. Heidelberg: Winter. Loprieno, A. 1986. Das Verbalsystem im Ägyptischen und im Semitischen. Göttinger Orientforschungen, IV. Reihe, Band 17. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 1995. Ancient Egyptian. A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Loretz, O. 1960. Die Hebräische Nominalform qattāl. Biblica 41: 411–16. Lumsden, J. S. 2000. Cause, Manner and Means in Berber Change of State Verbs. Pp. 199–220 in Research in Afroasiatic Grammar, ed. J. Lecarme et al. CILT 202. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Luukko, M. 2004. Grammatical Variation in Neo-Assyrian. SAAS 16. Helsinki: The Neo-­ Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics I-II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Malbran-Labat, F. 1979/84. L’expression du serment en akkadien. GLECS 24/8: 233–38. ____. 1991. Le “passif” en Akkadien. Pp. 977–90 in vol. 2 of Kaye, ed. 1991. ____. 2001. Manuel de langue akkadienne. Publications de l’Institut Orientaliste de Louvain 50. Louvain-la-Neuve: Institut Orientaliste. Maldonado, R. 1999. Conceptual Distance and Transitivity Increase in Spanish Reflexives. Pp. 153–85 in Reflexives: Forms and Functions, ed. Z. Frajzyngier and T. S. Curl. TSL 40. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Malkiel, Y. 1968. The Inflectional Paradigm as an Occasional Determinant of Sound Change. Pp. 21–64 in Directions for Historical Linguistic, ed. W. P. Lehmann and Y. Malkiel. Austin: University of Texas Press. Maloney, J. F. 1981. The t-Perfect in the Akkadian of Old Babylonian Letters. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

620

References

Mańczak, W. 1958. Tendances générales des changements analogiques I and II. Lingua 7: 298– 325, 387–420. ____. 1980. Laws of Analogy. Pp. 283–88 in Historical Morphology, ed. J. Fisiak. Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 17. The Hague: Mouton. Martin, W. J. 1957. Some Notes on the Imperative in the Semitic Languages. RSO 32: 315–19 Maslov, I. S. 1988. Resultative, Perfect, and Aspect. Pp. 63–85 in Typology of Resultative Constructions, ed. V. P. Nedjalkov. TSL 12. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Matouš, L., and Petráček, K. 1956. Beiträge zur akkadischen Grammatik I: Die Liquiden in ihrem Verhältnis zum Vokal im Assyrischen. ArOr. 24: 1–14. Mayer, W. 1971. Untersuchungen zur Grammatik des Mittelassyrischen. AOAT Sonderreihe 2. Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungs­ vereins Neukirchen-Vluyn. Mayer, W. R. 1987. Ein Mythos von der Erschaffung des Menschen und des Königs. Or. 56: 55–68. ____. 1994. Akkadische Lexikographie: CAD Š1. Or. 63: 111–20. ____. 2003. Waffen und Stricke in einer altbabylonischen Urkunde. Or. 72: 368–89. ____. 2007. Das akkadische Präsens zum Ausdruck der Nachzeitigkeit in der Vergangenheit. Or. 76: 117– 44. Mayerthaler, W. 1988. Morphological Naturalness. Linguistica Extranea, Studia 17. Ann Arbor: Karoma. Mazzini, G. 2002. Akkadian RʾM as a West Semitic Lexical Trait. UF 34: 577–84. McCawley, J. D. 1971. Tense and Time Reference in English. Pp. 96–113 in Studies in Linguistic Semantics, ed. C. J. Fillmore and D. T. Langendoen. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Meillet, A. 1948a. Note sur une difficulté générale de la grammaire comparé. Pp. 36–43 in Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Champion. ____. 1948b. L’évolution des formes grammaticales. Pp. 130–48 in Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Champion. Original ed. in Scientia 12 (1912). Metzler, K. 2002. Tempora in altbabylonischen literarischen Texten. AOAT 279. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Michel, C. 2003. Old Assyrian Bibliography. Old Assyrian Archives, Studies I. PIHANS 97. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Milano, L.; Sallaberger, W.; Talon, Ph; and van Lerberghe, K. 2004. Third Millennium Cuneiform Texts from Tell Beydar (Seasons 1996–2002). Subartu 12. Turnhout: Brepols. Militarev, A., and Kogan, L. 2000. Semitic Etymological Dictionary, vol. 1: Anatomy of Man and Animals. AOAT 278/1. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. ____. 2005. Semitic Etymological Dictionary, vol. 2: Animal Names. AOAT 278/2. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Mitchell, T. F. 1993. Pronouncing Arabic II. Oxford: Clarendon. Moscati, S., ed. 1964. An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages. Porta Linguarum Orientalium, N.S. 6. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Müller, H.-P. 1988. Das Bedeutungspotential der Afformativkonjugation. ZAh 1: 74–98. ____. 2003. Grammatische Atavismen in semitischen Sprachen. Pp. 430–45 in Semitic and Assyriological Studies Presented to Pelio Fronzaroli by Pupils and Colleagues. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Müller, W. W. 1964. Über Beziehungen zwischen den neusüdarabischen und den abessinischen Sprachen. JSS 9: 50–55.

References

621

Muraoka, T. 1975. The Nun Energicum and the Prefix Conjugation in Biblical Hebrew. Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute 1: 63–71. ____. 1995. Linguistic Notes on the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan. Israel Exploration Journal 45: 19–21. Nebes, N. 1994a. Zur Form der Imperfektbasis des unvermehrten Grundstammes im Altsüd­ arabischen. Pp. 59–81 in Festschrift Ewald Wagner zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. W. Heinrichs and G. Schoeller. Beiruter Texte und Studien 45. Beirut, in Kommission bei Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart. ____. 1994b. Verwendung und Funktion der Präfixkonjugation im Sabäischen. Pp. 191–211 in Arabia Felix: Beiträge zur Sprache und Kultur des vorislamischen Arabien: Festschrift Walter W. Müller, ed. N. Nebes. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Nedjalkov, V. P., and Jaxontov, S. J. 1988. The Typology of Resultative Constructions. Pp. 3–62 in Typology of Resultative Constructions, ed. V. P. Nedjalkov. TSL 12. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Nedyalkov, V. P., and Silnitsky, G. G. 1973. The Typology of Morphological and Lexical Causatives. Pp. 1–32 in Trends in Soviet Theoretical Linguistics, ed. F. Kiefer. Foundations of Language, Supplementary Series 18. Dordrecht: Reidel. Newman, P. 1990. Nominal and Verbal Plurality in Chadic. Publications in African Languages and Linguistics 12. Dordrecht: Foris. Nishida, C. 1994. The Spanish Reflexive Clitic se as an Aspectual Class Marker. Linguistics 32: 425–58. Nöldeke, T. 1910. Neue Beiträge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft. Strassburg: Trübner. Noonan, M. 1985. Complementation. Pp. 42–140 in vol. 2 of Language Typology and Linguistic Description, ed. T. Shopen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nyberg, H. S. 1920. Wortbildung mit Präfixen in den semitischen Sprachen. Le Monde Oriental 14: 177–291. ____. 1954. Zur Entwicklung der mehr als dreikonsonantischen Stämme in den semitischen Sprachen. Pp. 128–36 in Westöstliche Abhandlungen Rudolf Tschudi (. . .) überreicht, ed. F. Meier. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Olmo Lete, G. del. 2003. Questions de linguistique sémitique: Racine et lexème: Histoire de la recherche (1940–2000). Antiquités sémitiques 5. Paris: Maisonneuve. Oppenheim, A. L. 1935. Die mittels T-Infixes gebildeten Aktionsarten des Altbabylonischen. WZKM 42: 1–30. ____. 1964. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Orel, V. E., and Stolbova, O.V. 1995. Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary: Materials for a Reconstruction. Handbook of Oriental Studies 1/18. Leiden: Brill. Osing, J. 1976. Die Nominalbildung des Ägyptischen. Mainz/Rhein: von Zabern. Pagan, J. M. 1998. A Morphological and Lexical Study of Personal Names in the Ebla Texts. ARES 3. Rome: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria. Palmer, F. R. 2001. Mood and Modality, 2nd ed. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pardee, D. 1984. Three Ugaritic Tablet Joins. JNES 43: 239–45. Pardee, D., and Whiting, R. M. 1987. Aspects of Epistolary Verbal Usage in Ugaritic and Akkadian. BSOAS 50: 1–31. Parpola, S. 1974. The alleged Middle/Neo-Assyrian Irregular Verb *naṣṣ- and the Assyrian Sound Change Š > S. Assur 1/1: 1–10.

622

References

____. 1983. Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal, Part 2: Commentary and Appendices. AOAT 5/1–2. Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker / NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins Neukirchen-Vluyn. Repr., Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. ____. 1984. Likalka ittatakku: Two Notes on the Morphology of the Verb alāku in Neo-Assyrian. StOr. 55: 185–209. ____. 1988. Proto-Assyrian. Pp. 293–98 in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft von Ebla, ed. H. Waetzoldt and H. Hauptmann. HSAO 2. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag. Patterson, R. D. 1970. Old Babylonian Parataxis as Exhibited in the Royal Letters of the Middle Old Babylonian Period and in the Code of Hammurapi. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Payne, T. E. 1997. Describing Morphosyntax: A Guide for Field Linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pedersén, O. 1989. Morphological Aspects of Sumerian and Akkadian Linguistic Areas. Pp. 429– 38 in DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A: Studies in Honor of Åke W. Sjöberg, ed. H. Behrens, D. Loding, and M. T. Roth. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 11. Philadelphia: The Samuel Noah Kramer Fund. ____. 1998. Archives and Libraries in the Ancient Near East, 1500–300 b.c. Bethesda, MD: CDL. Petráček, K. 1960. Die innere Flexion in den semitischen Sprachen. ArOr. 28: 547–606. ____. 1963. Die innere Flexion in den semitischen Sprachen IV. ArOr. 31: 577–624. ____. 1964. Die Inkompatibilität in der semitischen Wurzel in Sicht der Informationstheorie. Rocznik Orientalistyczny 27: 133–39. ____. 1984. La méthodologie du chamitosémitique comparé: état, problèmes, perspectives. Pp. 423–62 in Current Progress in Afro-Asiatic Linguistics: Papers of the Third International Hamito-Semitic Congress, ed. J. Bynon. CILT 28. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ____. 1988. Altägyptisch, Hamitosemitisch und ihre Beziehungen zu einigen Sprachfamilien in Afrika und Asien. Prague: Univerzita Karlova. Pettinato, G. 1982. Testi lessicali bilingui della bibliotheca L. 2769. MEE 4. Naples: Istituto universitario orientale di Napoli. ____. 2003. Le lingue semitiche di Ebla, Mari e Tell Beydar nel panorama linguistico del vicino oriente antico del III millennio A.C. Pp. 520–31 in Semitic and Assyriological Studies Presented to Pelio Fronzaroli by Pupils and Colleagues. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Plazikowsky-Brauner, H. 1957. Die Hilfselemente der Konjugation in den kuschitischen Sprachen. ZDMG 107: 7–30. Poebel, A. 1939. Studies in Akkadian Grammar. AS 9. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Polotsky, H. J. 1964. Semitics. Pp. 99–111 and 357–58 in vol. I/1 of The World History of the Jewish People, I/1: At the Dawn of Civilization, ed. E. A. Speiser. London: Allen. Postgate, J. N. 1973. Assyrian Texts and Fragments. Iraq 35: 13–36. ____. 1974. Review of W. Mayer 1971. BiOr. 31: 273–74. Praetorius, F. 1889. Beiträge zur äthiopischen Grammatik und Etymologie. Beiträge zur Assyriologie und vergleichenden semitischen Sprachwissenschaft 1: 21–47. ____. 1894. Über die hamitischen Sprachen Ostafrika’s. Beiträge zur Assyriologie und vergleichenden semitischen Sprachwissenschaft 2: 312–41. Prasse, K.-G. 1972/74. Manuel de grammaire touarègue (tăhăggart), vols. I–III. Copenhagen: Éditions de l’Université de Copenhague.

References

623

Prasse, K.-G.; Alojaly, G.; and Mohamed, G. 1998. Lexique Touareg-Français, 2ème éd., revue et augmentée. Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publications 24. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum / The Carsten Niebuhr Institute of Near Eastern Studies. Procházka, S. 1995. Semantische Funktionen der reduplizierten Wurzeln im Arabischen. ArOr. 63: 39–70. Pustet, R. 2003. Copulas: Universals in the Categorization of the Lexicon. Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Radner, K. 2002. Die neuassyrischen Texte aus Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad. Berichte der Ausgrabung Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad/Dūr-Katlimmu, Band 6, Texte 2. Berlin: Reimer. Rainey, A. F. 1996. Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect Used by the Scribes from Canaan. Handbuch der Orientalistik 1/25. Leiden: Brill. Rankin, R. L. 2003. The Comparative Method. Pp. 183–212 in The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, ed. B. D. Joseph and R. D. Janda. Oxford: Blackwell. Ratcliffe, R. R. 1998a. The “Broken” Plural Problem in Arabic and Comparative Semitic: Allomorphy and Analogy in Non-concatenative Morphology. CILT 168. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ____. 1998b. Defining Morphological Isoglosses: The ‘Broken’ Plural and Semitic Subclassification. JNES 57: 81–123. ____. 2001. Analogy in Semitic Morphology: Where do New Roots and New Patterns Come from? Pp. 153–62 in New Data and New Methods in Afroasiatic Linguistics: Robert Hetzron in Memoriam, ed. A. Zaborski. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Raz, Sh. 1983. Tigre Grammar and Texts. Afroasiatic Dialects 4. Malibu: Undena. Reckendorf, H. 1967. Die syntaktischen Verhältnisse des Arabischen. Leiden: Brill (repr. of 1895). ____. 1977. Arabische Syntax, 2., unveränderte Auflage. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Reiner, E. 1964. The Phonological Interpretation of a Sub-System in the Akkadian Syllabary. Pp. 167–80 in Studies Presented to A. Leo Oppenheim. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. ____. 1966. A Linguistic Analysis of Akkadian. Janua Linguarum, Series Practica 21. The Hague: Mouton. ____. 1970. Akkadian. Pp. 274–303 in Linguistics in South West Asia and North Africa, ed. T. A. Sebeok. Current Trends in Linguistics 6. The Hague: Mouton. ____. 1973. How We Read Cuneiform Texts. JCS 25: 3–58. Reiner, E., and Renger, J. 1974/77. The Case of the Secret Lover. AfO 25: 184–85. Reinisch, L. 1909. Das persönliche Fürwort und die Verbalflexion in den Chamito-Semitischen Sprachen. Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Schriften der Sprachenkommission 1. Vienna: Hölder. Reintges, C. 1994. Egyptian Root-and-Pattern Morphology. Lingua Aegyptia 4: 213–44. ____. 1997. Passive Voice in Older Egyptian: A Morpho-Syntactic Study. The Hague: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics. Renger, J. 1972. Review of Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik and Ergänzungsheft zum Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik, by W. von Soden. JNES 31: 228–32. Retsö, J. 1983. The Finite Passive Voice in Modern Arabic Dialects. Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Göteborg. ____. 1989. Diathesis in the Semitic Languages: A Comparative Morphological Study. SSLL 14. Leiden: Brill.

624

References

Römer, W. H. P. 1971. Frauenbriefe über Religion, Politik und Privatleben in Mari. AOAT 12. Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungs­ vereins Neukirchen-Vluyn. Rössler, O. 1950. Verbalbau und Verbalflexion in den Semitohamitischen Sprachen. ZDMG 100: 461–514. ____. 1951. Akkadisches und libysches verbum, I/II. Or. 20: 101–7 and 366–73. ____. 1952. Der semitische Charakter der libyschen Sprache. ZA 50: 121–50. ____. 1958. Die Sprache Numidiens. Pp. 94–120 in Sybaris: Festschrift für Hans Krahe zur 60. Geburtstag, ed. W. Brandenstein. Wiesbaden. Rowton, M. B. 1962. The Use of the Permansive in Classic Babylonian. JNES 21: 233–303. Rubin, A. D. 2004. An Outline of Comparative Egypto-Semitic Morphology. Pp. 454–86 in Egyptian and Semito-Hamitic (Afro-Asiatic) Studies in Memoriam W. Vycichl, ed. G. Takács. SSLL 39. Leiden: Brill. ____. 2005. Studies in Semitic Grammaticalization. HSS 57. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Rubio, G. 2003a. Falling Trees and Forking Tongues: On the Place of Akkadian and Eblaite within Semitic. Pp. 152–89 in Studia Semitica, ed. L. Kogan. Orientalia: Papers of the Oriental Institute 3. Moscow: Russian State University for the Humanities. ____. 2003b. Review of Sommerfeld 1999. OLZ 98: 362–69. ____. 2005. Chasing the Semitic Root: The Skeleton in the Closet. AuOr. 23: 45–63. ____. 2006. Eblaite, Akkadian, and East Semitic. Pp. 110–39 in Deutscher and Kouwenberg, eds. 2006. ____. 2007a. Sumerian Morphology. Pp. 1327–79 in vol. 2 of Morphologies of Asia and Africa, ed. A. S. Kaye. 2 vols. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. ____. 2007b. Writing in Another Tongue: Alloglottography in the Ancient Near East. Pp. 33–66 in Margins of Writing, Origins of Cultures, ed. S. L. Sanders. Oriental Institute Seminars 2. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Rundgren, F. 1955. Über Bildungen mit š- und n-t-Demonstrativen im Semitischen: Beiträge zur vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. ____. 1959a. Intensiv und Aspektkorrelation: Studien zur Äthiopischen und akkadischen Verbalstammbildung. Uppsala: Lundequistska Bokhandeln / Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 1959b. Akkadisch utlellūm “sich erheben”. Or. 28: 364–69. ____. 1960. Der aspektuelle Charakter des altsemitischen Injunktivs. OrSuec. 9: 75–101. ____. 1963a. Das Verbalpräfix yu- im Semitischen und die Entstehung der faktitiv-kausativischen Bedeutung des D-Stammes. OrSuec. 12: 99–114. ____. 1963b. Erneuerung des Verbalaspekts im Semitischen. Pp. 49–108 in Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, N.S. 1/3. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. ____. 1964. Ablaut und Apothematismus im Semitischen. OrSuec. 13: 48–83. ____. 1965/66. A propos d’une hypothèse nouvelle concernant la provenance du morphème qatal-a. OrSuec. 14/15: 62–74. ____. 1966. Kausativ und Diathese: Ein Beitrag zur allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft. Die Sprache 12: 133–43. ____. 1974. Réflexions sur le participe actif du sémitique. Pp. 195–202 in Actes du premier congrès international de linguistique sémitique et chamito-sémitique, Paris 16–19 juillet 1969, ed. A. Caquot and D. Cohen. Janua Linguarum, Series Practica 159. The Hague: Mouton. ____. 1980. Principia Linguistica Semitica. OrSuec. 29: 32–102. Ryder, S. A. 1974. The D-Stem in Western Semitic. Janua Linguarum, Series Practica 131. The Hague: Mouton.

References

625

Saad, G. N. 1982. Transitivity, Causation and Passivization: A Semantic-Syntactic Study of the Verb in Classical Arabic. Library of Arabic Linguistics, Monograph No. 4. London: Kegan Paul Interntional. Sallaberger, W. 1999. “Wenn du mein Bruder bist, . . .”. Interaktion und Textgestaltung in altbabylonischen Alltagsbriefen. CM 16. Groningen: Styx Publications. ____. 2005. The Sumerian Verb na de5(‑g) “To Clear”. Pp. 229–53 in “An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing”: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein, ed. Y. Sefati et al. Bethesda, MD: CDL. Sanmartín, J. 1995. Über Regeln und Ausnahmen: Verhalten des vorkonsonantischen /n/ im ‘Altsemitischen’. Pp. 433–66 in Vom Alten Orient zum Alten Testament: Festschrift für Wolfram Freiherrn von Soden, ed. M. Dietrich and O. Loretz. AOAT 240. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Saporetti, C. 1970. Onomastica medio-assira. 2 vols. Studia Pohl 6. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. Sasse, H.-J. 1980. Ostkuschitische und semitische Verbalklassen. Pp. 153–74 in Studien aus Arabistik und Semitistik Anton Spitaler zum siebsigsten Geburtstag von seinen Schülern überreicht, ed. W. Diem and S. Wild. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 1981. Afroasiatisch. Pp. 187–238 in Die Sprachen Afrikas, Studienausgabe, Band 2: AfroAsiatisch, ed. B. Heine et al. Hamburg: Buske. ____. 1991. Aspect and Aktionsart: A Reconciliation. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 6: 31–45. Satzinger, H. 1971. “sḏmt.f ‘schliesslich hörte er’”. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 57: 58–69. ____. 1999. Observations in the Field of the Afroasiatic Suffix Conjugation. Pp. 23–33 in: Afro­ asiatica Tergestina, ed. M. Lamberti and L. Tonelli. Padova: Unipress. ____. 2002. The Egyptian Connection: Egyptian and the Semitic Languages. IOS 20: 227–64. Sayce, A. H. 1877. The Tenses of the Assyrian Verb. JRAS 9: 22–58. Schenkel, W. 1994. śč̣m.t-Perfekt und śč̣m.tį-Stativ: Die beiden Pseudopartizipien des Ägyptischen nach dem Zeugnis der Sargtexte. Pp. 157–82 in Quaerentes Scientiam: Festgabe für Wolfhart Westendorf zu seinem 70. Geburtstag, ed. H. Behlmer. Göttingen: Seminar für Ägyptologie und Koptologie. ____. 2005. Tübinger Einführung in die klassisch-ägyptische Sprache und Schrift. Tübingen: W. Schenkel. Schladt, M. 1999. The Typology and Grammaticalization of Reflexives. Pp. 103–24 in Reflexives, Forms and Functions, ed. Z. Frajzyngier and T. S. Curl. TSL 40. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Schramm, G. M. 1991. Semitic Morpheme Structure Typology. Pp. 1402–08 in vol. 2 of Kaye, ed. 1991. Ségéral, P. 2000. Théorie de l’apophonie et organisation des schèmes en sémitique. Pp. 263–99 in Research in Afroasiatic Grammar, ed. J. Lecarme, J. Lowenstamm, and U. Shlonsky. CILT 202. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Segert, S. 1976. A Grammar of Phoenician and Punic. Munich: C. H. Beck. ____. 1990. Altaramäische Grammatik. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie. Seux, M.-J. 1976. Hymnes et prières aux dieux de Babylonie et d’Assyrie. LAPO 8. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf. Shaffer, A., and Wasserman, N. 2003. Iddi(n)-Sîn, King of Simurrum: A New Rock-Relief Inscription and a Reverential Seal. ZA 93: 1–52. Shibatani, M., ed. 1988. Passive and Voice. TSL 16. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Siewierska, A. 1984. The Passive: A Comparative Linguistic Analysis. London: Croom Helm.

626

References

Simeone-Senelle, M.-C. 1997. The Modern South Arabian Languages. Pp. 378–423 in Hetzron, ed. 1997. ____. 1998. La dérivation verbale dans les langues sudarabiques modernes. JSS 43: 71–88. Sivan, D. 1997. A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language. Handbook of Oriental Studies 1/28. Leiden: Brill. Sjöberg, Å. W. 1999. Notes on Selected Entries from the Ebla Vocabulary eš3-bar-kin5 (II). Pp. 513–52 in Munuscula Mesopotamia: Festschrift für Johannes Renger, ed. B. Böck et al. AOAT 267. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. ____. 2004. Notes on Selected Entries from the Ebla Vocabulary èš-bar-kin5 (III). Pp. 257–83 in Von Sumer nach Ebla und zurück: Festschrift Giovanni Pettinato, ed. H. Waetzoldt. HSAO 9. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag. Smith, C. 1997. The Parameter of Aspect. 2nd ed. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Soden, W. von 1931/33. Der hymnisch-epische Dialekt des Akkadischen I–II. ZA 40: 163–227; 41: 90–183. ____. 1947. Zum akkadischen Wörterbuch. 15–30. Or. 16: 437–58. ____. 1948. Vokalfärbungen im Akkadischen. JCS 2: 291–303. ____. 1950a. Verbalformen mit doppeltem t-Infix im Akkadischen. Or. 19: 385–96. ____. 1950b. Review of Heidel 1940. ZA 49: 330–33. ____. 1951. Zum akkadischen Wörterbuch, 41–49. Or. 20: 151–66. ____. 1952a. Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik. AnOr. 33. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico. ____. 1952b. Unregelmässige Verben im Akkadischen. ZA 50: 163–81. ____. 1956. Zum akkadischen Wörterbuch. 81–87. Or. 25: 241–50. ____. 1957. Review of Rundgren 1955. BiOr. 14: 204–8. ____. 1959/81. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 1959. Assyriologische Miszellen. WZKM 55: 49–61. ____. 1961a. Zum Akkusativ der Beziehung im Akkadischen. Or. 30: 156–62. ____. 1961b. Akkadisch. Pp. 33–57 in Linguistica Semitica: presente e futuro, ed. G. Levi della Vida. Studi Semitici 4. Rome: Università di Roma, Centro di Studi Semitici. ____. 1962. Review of CAD, vol. 7 (I–J) and vol. 21 (Z). OLZ 1962: 483–86. ____. 1964. Zu A. Haldar, The Akkadian Verbal System. Or. 33: 437–42. ____. 1965. Das akkadische T-Perfekt in Haupt- und Nebensätzen und sumerische Verbalformen mit den Präfixen BA‑, IMMA‑, und U‑. Pp. 103–10 in Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger, ed. H. G. Güterbock et al. AS 16. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ____. 1968a. n als Wurzelaugment im Semitischen. Pp. 175–84 in Studia Orientalia in Memoriam Caroli Brockelmann. Halle (Saale). ____. 1968b. Die Spirantisierung von Verschlusslauten im Akkadischen: Ein Vorbericht. JNES 27: 214–20. ____. 1968c. Aramäische Wörter in neuassyrischen und neu- und spätbabylonischen Texten: Ein Vorbericht. II (n-z und Nachträge). Or. 37: 261–71. ____. 1972. Ergänzende Bemerkungen zum ‘Liebeszauber’-Text MAD 5 Nr. 8. ZA 62: 273–74. ____. 1973. Der akkadische Subordinativ-Subjunktiv. ZA 63: 56–58. ____. 1975. Seltene akkadische Wörter. StOr. 46: 323–32. ____. 1978. Die erste Tafel des altbabylonischen Atramḫasīs-Mythus: ‘Haupttext’ und Parallelversionen. ZA 68: 50–94. ____. 1985. Präsensformen in frühkanaanäischen Personennamen. Pp. 307–10 in Miscellanea Babylonica: Mélanges offerts à Maurice Birot, ed. J.-M. Durand and J.-R. Kupper. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.

References

627

____. 1987. Äthiopisch-akkadische Isoglossen. Pp. 559–567 in Proceedings of the 4th International Hamito-Semitic Congress, ed. H. Jungraithmayr and W. W. Müller. CILT 44. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ____. 1988. Sonderfälle bei der regressiven Assimilation von l, m und n an stimmlose Konsonanten im Akkadischen. Pp. 269–85 in Ad bene et fideliter seminandum: Festgabe für Karlheinz Deller zum 21. Februar 1987, ed. G. Mauer and U. Magen. AOAT 220. Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. ____. 1989. Aus Sprache, Geschichte und Religion Babyloniens. Gesammelte Aufsätze herausgegeben von L. Cagni und H.-P. Müller. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale. ____. 1991a. Deminutiva nach der Form qutail > qutīl und vergleichbare vierkonsonantige Bildungen im Akkadischen. Pp. 1488–92 in vol. 2 of Kaye, ed. 1991. ____. 1991b. Tempus und Modus im älteren Semitischen. Pp. 463–93 in Babylonien und Israel, ed. H.-P. Müller. Wege der Forschung 633. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. ____. 1995. Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik, 3., ergänzte Auflage. AnOr. 33/47. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico. Soden, W. von, and Röllig, W. 1991. Das akkadische Syllabar, 4., durchgesehene und erweiterte Auflage. AnOr. 42. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico. Soggin, J. A. 1965. Tracce di antichi causativi in š- realizzati come radici autonome in ebraico biblico. AION 15: 17–30. Soldt, W. H. van 1991. Studies in the Akkadian of Ugarit: Dating and Grammar. AOAT 40. Ke­ ve­laer: Butzon and Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Sommerfeld, W. 1999. Die Texte der Akkade-Zeit 1. Das Dijala-Gebiet: Tutub. IMGULA Band 3/1. Münster: Rhema. ____. 2003. Bemerkungen zur Dialektgliederung Altakkadisch, Assyrisch und Babylonisch. Pp. 569–86 in Festschrift für Burkhart Kienast, ed. G. Selz. AOAT 274. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. ____. 2006. Varianten in der Keilschrift-Orthographie und die historische Phonologie des Akkadischen. Pp. 359–76 in Šapal tibnim mû illakū: Studies Presented to Joaquín Sanmartín, ed. G. del Olmo Lete et al. AuOr. Supplementa 22. Barcelona: Editorial AUSA. Song, J. J. 1996. Causatives and Causation: A Universal-Typological Perspective. Longman Linguistics Library. London: Longman. ____. 2001. Linguistic Typology: Morphology and Syntax. Longman Linguistics Library. Harlow: Longman. Sonnek, F. 1940. Die Einführung der direkten Rede in den epischen Texten. ZA 46: 225–35. Speiser, E. A. 1967. Oriental and Biblical Studies: Collected Writings of E. A. Speiser, edited and with an Introduction by J. J. Finkelstein and M. Greenberg. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Stamm, J. J. 1939. Die akkadische Namengebung. Mitteilungen der vorderasiatisch-ägyptischen Gesellschaft 44. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Repr., Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1968. Stassen, L. 1997. Intransitive Predication. Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon. Stein, P. 2000. Die mittel‑ und neubabylonischen Königsinschriften bis zum Ende der Assyrer­ herrschaft. Jenaer Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 2003. Untersuchungen zur Phonologie und Morphologie des Sabäischen. Epigraphische Forschungen auf der Arabischen Halbinsel, Band 3. Rahden/Westf: Marie Leidorf.

628

References

Steiner, G. 1981. Die sog. tan-Stämme des akkadischen Verbums und ihre semitischen Grund­ lagen. ZDMG 131: 9–27. Stempel, R. 1995. Stativ, Perfekt und Medium: Eine vergleichende Analyse für das Indo­ germanische und Semitische. Pp. 517–28 in: Kuryłowicz Memorial Volume, ed. W. Smoc­zyń­ ski. Kraków: Universitas. ____. 1999. Abriß einer historischen Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen. Nordostafrikanischwestasiatische Studien 3. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Stol, M. 1988. Review of Whiting 1987. AfO 35: 177–79. ____. 1991. Old Babylonian Personal Names. SEL 8: 191–212. Streck, M. P. 1994. Funktionsanalyse des akkadischen Št2-Stamms. ZA 84: 161–97. ____. 1995a. Zahl und Zeit: Grammatik der Numeralia und des Verbalsystems im Spätbabylonischen. CM 5. Groningen: Styx Publications. ____. 1995b. ittašab ibakki “weinend setzte er sich”: iparras für die Vergangenheit in der akkadischen Epik. Or. 64: 33–91. ____. 1997. Review of Cancik-Kirschbaum 1996. ZA 87: 271–76. ____. 1997/98. Review of Buccellati 1996. AfO 44/45: 314–25. ____. 1998a. The Tense Systems in the Sumerian-Akkadian Linguistic Area. ASJ 20: 181–99. ____. 1998b. Review of Kouwenberg 1997. Or. 67: 523–31. ____. 1999. Das “Perfekt” iptaras im Altbabylonischen der Hammurapi-Briefe. Pp. 101–26 in Tempus und Aspekt in den semitischen Sprachen, ed. N. Nebes. Jenaer Kolloquium zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 2000. Das amurritische Onomastikon der altbabylonischen Zeit, Band I. AOAT 271/1. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. ____. 2002a. Sprachliche Innovationen und Archaismen in den akkadischen Personennamen. Pp. 109–22 in Altorientalische und Semitische Onomastik, ed. M. P. Streck and S. Weninger. AOAT 296. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. ____. 2002b. Die Nominalformen maPRaS(t), maPRāS und maPRiS(t) im Akkadischen. Pp. 223–57 in Neue Beiträge zur Semitistik, ed. N. Nebes. Jenaer Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 2003a. Die akkadischen Verbalstämme mit ta-Infix. AOAT 303. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. ____. 2003b. Review of Hämeen-Anttila 2000. ZA 93: 126–28. ____. 2005. Simply a Seller, Nothing But Gods: The Nominal Suffix ‑ān in Old Babylonian. Babel und Bibel 2: 233–43. ____. 2006. Sibilants in the Old Babylonian Texts of Hammurapi and of the Governors in Qaṭ­ ṭunān. Pp. 215–51 in Deutscher and Kouwenberg, eds. 2006. Stump, G. T. 2001. Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 93. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Szemerényi, O. J. L. 1996. Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics. Oxford: Clarendon. Taine-Cheikh, C. 2003. L’adjectif et la conjugaison suffixale en berbère. Pp. 661–74 in Mélanges David Cohen, ed. J. Lentin and A. Lonnet. Paris: Maisonneuve & Larose. Tchapygina, V. A. 2004. Observations on the Use of the Subjunctive in the Inscribed Liver Models from Mari. Babel und Bibel 1: 355–60. Testen, D. 1992. A Trace of Barth’s Preradical *i in Akkadian. JNES 51: 131–33. ____. 1993a. On the Development of the Energic Suffixes. Pp. 293–311 in Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics V, ed. M. Eid and C. Holes. CILT 101. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ____. 1993b. The East Semitic Precative Paradigm. JSS 38: 1–13.

References

629

____. 1994a. The I-w Verbal Class and the Reconstruction of the Early Semitic Preradical Vocalism. JAOS 114: 426–34. ____. 1994b. On the Development of the Arabic Subjunctive. Pp. 151–66 in Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics VI, ed. M. Eid, V. Cantarino, and K. Walters. CILT 115. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ____. 1998a. The Derivational Role of the Semitic N-Stem. ZA 88: 127–45. ____. 1998b. Parallels in Semitic Linguistics. SSLL 26. Leiden: Brill. ____. 1999. Arabic Evidence for the Formation of the Verbal Noun of the Semitic Gt-stem. JSS 44: 1–16. ____. 2000. Conjugating the “Prefixed Stative” Verbs of Akkadian. JNES 59: 81–92. ____. 2002. Review of Lipiński 1997. IOS 20: 511–20. ____. 2006. An Akkadian-Arabic Cognate Pair and the Formation of Stem-based Diminutives in Early Semitic. Pp. 140–49 in Deutscher and Kouwenberg, eds. 2006. Tropper, J. 1990. Der ugaritische Kausativstamm und die Kausativbildungen des Semitischen. Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palästinas, Band 2. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. ____. 1994. Present *yaqtulum in Central Semitic. JSS 39: 1–6. ____. 1995a. Die semitische “Suffixkonjugation” im Wandel. Pp. 491–516 in Vom Alten Orient zum Alten Testament: Festschrift für Wolfram Freiherrn von Soden, ed. M. Dietrich and O. Loretz. AOAT 240. Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. ____. 1995b. Akkadisch nuḫḫutu und die Repräsentation des Phonems /ḥ/ im Akkadischen. ZA 85: 58–66. ____. 1997a. Probleme des akkadischen Verbalparadigmas. AoF 24: 189–210. ____. 1997b. Ventiv oder yaqtula-Volitiv in den Amarnabriefen aus Syrien-Palästina? Pp. 397– 405 in Ana šadî Labnāni lū allik: Beiträge zu altorientalischen und mittelmeerischen Kulturen—Festschrift für Wolfgang Röllig, ed. B. Pongratz-Leisten et al. AOAT 247. Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. ____. 1997c. Subvarianten und Funktionen der sabäischen Präfixkonjugation. Or. 66: 34–57. ____. 1998a. Die Infirmen Verben des Akkadischen. ZDMG 148: 7–34. ____. 1998b. Althebräisches und semitisches Aspektsystem. ZAh 11: 153–90. ____. 1999a. Die Endungen der semitischen Suffixkonjugation und der Absolutivkasus. JSS 44: 175–93. ____. 1999b. Zur Etymologie von akkadisch šukênu / šuḫeḫḫunu. WdO 30: 91–94. ____. 2000. Ugaritische Grammatik. AOAT 273. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. ____. 2002. Altäthiopisch. Grammatik des Geʿez mit Übungstexten und Glossar. Elementa Linguarum Orientis 2. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Ullendorff, E. 1955. The Semitic Languages of Ethiopia: A Comparative Phonology. London: Taylor’s (Foreign) Press. ____. 1958. What Is a Semitic Language? Or. 27: 66–75. ____. 1971. Comparative Semitics. Pp. 27–39 in Hodge, ed. 1971. Ultan, R. 1975. Infixes and Their Origins. Pp. 157–205 in Linguistic Workshop III, ed. H. Seiler. Arbeiten des Kölner Universalienprojekts. Structura 9. Munich: Fink. Ungnad, A. 1918. “Haben” im Babylonisch-Assyrischen. ZA 31: 277–81. Ungnad, A., and Matouš, L. 1964. Grammatik des Akkadischen. Munich: C. H. Beck. Unseth, P. 2003. Surveying Bi-consonantal Reduplication in Semitic. Pp. 257–73 in Selected Comparative-Historical Afrasian Linguistic Studies in Memory of Igor M. Diakonoff, ed. D. L. Appleyard et al. LINCOM Studies in Afroasiatic Linguistics 14. Munich: LINCOM Europa.

630

References

Vaan, J. M. C. T. de. 1995. “Ich bin eine Schwertklinge des Königs”: Die Sprache des Bēl-ibni. AOAT 242. Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Veenhof, K. R. 1972. Aspects of Old Assyrian Trade and its Terminology. Studia et Documenta ad Iura Orientis Antiqui Pertinentia 10. Leiden: Brill. ____. 1973. An Old Babylonian Deed of Purchase of Land in the de Liagre Böhl Collection. Pp. 359–79 in Symbolae Biblicae et Mesopotamicae Francisco Mario Theodoro de Liagre Böhl dedicatae, ed. M. A. Beek et al. Leiden: Brill. ____. 1986. Two Akkadian Auxiliary Verbs. Pp. 235–50 in Scripta Signa Vocis: Studies about Scripts, Scriptures, Scribes and Languages in the Near East Presented to J. H. Hospers, ed. H. L. J. van Stiphout et al. Groningen: Forsten. ____. 1995. Old Assyrian iṣurtum, Akkadian eṣērum and Hittite GIŠ.ḪUR. Pp. 311–32 in Studio Historiae Ardens. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Presented to Philo H. J. Houwink ten Cate, ed. T. P. J. van den Hout and J. de Roos. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut. ____. 2001. The Old Assyrian Period. Pp. 93–159 in Security for Debt in Ancient Near Eastern Law, ed. R. Westbrook and R. Jasnow. Culture and History of the Ancient near East, vol. 9. Leiden: Brill. ____. 2002. Notes on a New Volume of Old Assyrian Texts (Review of Kappadokische Keil­ schrift­tafeln aus den Sammlungen der Karlsuniversität Prag, by K. Hecker, G. Kryszat, and L. Matouš). JAOS 107: 797–802. ____. 2003. The Old Assyrian List of Year Eponyms from Karum Kanish and its Chronological Implications. Publications of the Turkish Historical Society, 6th series, no. 64. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu. ____. 2010. The Archive of Kuliya, son of Ali-abum (Kt. 92/k 188–263). Kültepe Tabletleri V. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu. Versteegh, K. 1997. The Arabic Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Vincente, C. A. 1991. The 1987 Tell Leilan Tablets Dated by the Limmu of Habil-Kinu. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University. Voigt, R. M. 1978. Semitohamitisch und Omotisch. Africana Marburgensia 11/2: 33–60. ____. 1981. Inkompatibilitäten und Diskrepanzen in der Sprache und das erste phonologische Inkompatibilitätsgesetz des Semitischen. WdO 12: 136–72. ____. 1985. Die beiden Präfixkonjugationen des Ostkuschitischen. Afrika und Übersee 68: 87–104. ____. 1986. A note on the Alleged Middle/Neo-Assyrian Sound Change sʾ(*šʾ) § ss  ⟨  ṣ⟩. JNES 45: 53–57. ____. 1987a. Die tan-Stämme und das System der Verbalformen im Akkadischen. ZDMG 137: 246–65. ____. 1987b. The Two Prefix-conjugations in East Cushitic, East Semitic, and Chadic. BSOAS 50: 330–45. ____. 1987c. Derivatives und flektives T im Semitohamitischen. Pp. 85–107 in Proceedings of the 4th International Hamito-Semitic Congress, ed. H. Jungraithmayr and W. W. Müller. CILT 44. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ____. 1987d. The Classification of Central Semitic. JSS 32: 1–21. ____. 1987e. Die Personalpronomina der 3. Personen im Semitischen. WdO 18: 49–63. ____. 1988a. Die infirmen Verbaltypen des Arabischen und das Biradikalismus-Problem. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.

References

631

____. 1988b. Einige Überlegungen zum “Aspektsystem” des Beḍauye. Pp. 471–81 in FUCUS, A Semitic/Afrasian Gathering in Remembrance of Albert Ehrman, ed. Y. L. Arbeitman. CILT 58. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ____. 1988c. Zur Bildung des Präsens im Be¡dauye. Pp. 377–407 in Cushitic – Omotic: Papers from the International Symposium on Cushitic and Omotic Languages, Cologne, January 6–9, 1986, ed. M. Bechhaus-Gerst and F. Serzisko. Hamburg: Helmut Buske. ____. 1990a. Die drei Aspekte des Semitohamitischen und des Indogermanischen. Pp. 87–102 in vol. 1 of Proceedings of the Fifth International Hamito-Semitic Congress 1987, ed. H. G. Mukarovsky. Vienna: Afro-Pub. ____. 1990b. The Gemination of the Present-Imperfect Forms in Old Ethiopic. JSS 35: 1–18. ____. 1990c. The Tense-Aspect System of Biblical Hebrew. Pp. 1–8 in Proceedings of the Tenth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division D, vol. I. Jerusalem: The World Union of Jewish Studies. ____. 1994. Neusüdarabisch und Äthiopisch. Pp. 291–307 in Arabia Felix. Beiträge zur Sprache und Kultur des vorislamischen Arabien: Festschrift Walter W. Müller, ed. N. Nebes. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 1995. Akkadisch šumma ‘wenn’ und die Konditionalpartikeln des Westsemitischen. Pp. 517–28 in Vom Alten Orient zum Alten Testament: Festschrift für Wolfram Freiherrn von Soden zum 85. Geburtstag am 19. Juni 1993, ed. M. Dietrich and O. Loretz. AOAT 240. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. ____. 1997. Zur Nominal- und Verbalnasalierung im Semitischen. WZKM 87: 207–30. ____. 2002. The Hamitic Connection: Semitic and Semitohamitic. IOS 20: 265–90. ____. 2004. Die Entwicklung des Aspektsystems vom Ursemitischen zum Hebräischen. ZDMG 154: 35–55. Vycichl, W. 1934. Hausa und Ägyptisch. Ein Beitrag zur historischen Hamitistik. Mitteilungen des Seminars für Orientalische Sprachen zu Berlin, 3. Abt., Afrikanische Studien 37: 36–116. ____. 1991. Nominale Bildungen der sogenannten emphatischen Konjugation des Ägyptischen mit Vergleichen aus dem Arabischen und Berberischen. Pp. 427–35 in Ägypten im afroorientalischen Kontext, Gedenkschrift Peter Behrens, ed. D. Mendel and U. Claudi. Cologne: Institut für Afrikanistik, Universität zu Köln. Wächter, L. 1971. Reste von Šafʿel-Bildungen im Hebräischen. ZAW 83: 380–89. Waerzeggers, C. 1997. Le précatif: forme de politesse en néo-babylonien. Akkadica 101: 30–35. Wagner, E. 1952. Die erste Person Dualis im Semitischen. WZKM 102: 229–33. ____. 1993. Gedanken zum Verb des Mehri aufgrund der neuen Materialien von Johnstone. ZAL 25: 316–39. Waltereit, R. 1999. What It Means to Deceive Yourself: The Semantic Relation of French Reflexive Verbs and Their Corresponding Transitive Verbs. Pp. 257–78 in Reflexives, Forms and Functions, ed. Z. Frajzyngier and T. S. Curl. TSL 40. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Waltisberg, M. 2002a. Zur Ergativitätshypothese im Semitischen. ZDMG 152: 11–62. ____. 2002b. Die Funktionen der altäthiopischen St-Stämme. Ein Kurzbericht. Pp. 281–88 in Neue Beiträge zur Semitistik, ed. N. Nebes. Jenaer Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Waltke, B. K., and O’Connor, M. 1990. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Wasserman, N. 2003. Style and Form in Old-Babylonian Literary Texts. CM 27. Leiden: Brill/ Styx. Welmers, W. E. 1952. Notes on the Structure of Saho. Word 8: 145–62 and 236–51.

632

References

Westenholz, A. 1978. Some Notes on the Orthography and Grammar of the Recently Published Texts from Mari. BiOr. 35: 160–69. ____. 1987. Old Sumerian and Old Akkadian Texts in Philadelphia, Part 2: The ‘Akkadian’ Texts, the Enlilemaba Texts, and the Onion Archive. CNI Publications 3. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum. ____. 1988. Personal Names in Ebla and in Pre-Sargonic Babylonia. Pp. 99–117 in Eblaite Personal Names and Semitic Name-giving, ed. A. Archi. ARES 1. Rome: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria. ____. 1991. The Phoneme /o / in Akkadian. ZA 81: 10–19. ____. 1996. Review of The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods, vol. 2, by D. R. Frayne. BiOr. 53: 116–23. ____. 1999. The Old Akkadian Period: History and Culture. Pp. 17–117 in W. Sallaberger and A. Westenholz, Mesopotamien: Akkade-Zeit und Ur III Zeit. OBO 160/3. Freiburg, Switzerland: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ____. 2007. The Graeco-Babyloniaca Once Again. ZA 97: 262–313. Westenholz, J. Goodnick 1997. Legends of the Kings of Akkade. MC 7. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Westenholz, J. and A. 1977. Help for Rejected Suitors: The Old Akkadian Love Incantation MAD V 8. Or. 46: 198–219. Wetzer, H. 1996. The Typology of Adjectival Predication. Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 17. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Whiting, R. M. 1981. The R Stem(s) in Akkadian. Or. 50: 1–39. ____. 1987. Old Babylonian Letters from Tell Asmar. AS 22. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Wierzbicka, A. 1986. What’s in a Noun? (Or: How do Nouns Differ in Meaning from Adjectives?). Studies in Language 10: 353–89. Wiggermann, F. A. M. 2000. Agriculture in the Northern Balikh Valley: The Case of Middle Assyrian Tell Sabi Abyad. Pp. 171–231 in Rainfall and Agriculture in Northern Mesopotamia, ed. R. M. Jas. MOS Studies 3. PIHANS 88. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut. Wilcke, C. 1978. Zur Deutung der SI.BI-Klausel in den spätaltbabylonischen Kaufverträgen aus Nordbabylonien. WO 9/2: 206–12. ____. 1987. A Riding Tooth: Metaphor, Metonymy and Synecdoche, Quick and Frozen in Everyday Language. Pp. 77–102 in Figurative Language in the Ancient Near East, ed. M. Mindlin et al. London: School of Oriental and African Studies. Willms, A. 1972. Grammatik der südlichen Beraberdialekte (Südmarokko). Afrikanistische Forschungen 6. Glückstadt: Augustin. Wolff, E. 1977. Patterns in Chadic (and Afroasiatic?) Verb Base Formations. Pp. 199–233 in Papers in Chadic Linguistics: Papers from the Leiden Colloquium on the Chadic Language Family, ed. P. Newman & R. M. Newman. Leiden: Afrika-Studiecentrum. ____. 1979. Grammatical Categories of Verb Stems and the Marking of Mood, Aktionsart, and Aspect in Chadic. Afroasiatic Linguistics 6/5: 161–208. ____. 2001. Verbal Plurality in Chadic: Grammaticalisation Chains and Early Chadic History. Pp. 123–67 in Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special Session on Afroasiatic Languages, ed. A. Simpson. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.

References

633

Woodard, R. D., ed. 2004. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Woodington, N. R. 1982. A Grammar of the Neo-Babylonian Letters of the Kuyunjik Collection. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University. Woods, C. E. 2001. The Deictic Foundations of the Sumerian Language. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Worthington, M. 2006. Dialect Admixture of Babylonian and Assyrian in SAA VIII, X, XII, XVII and XVIII. Iraq 68: 59–84. Wright, W. 1890. Lectures on the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ____. 1967. A Grammar of the Arabic Language, 3rd. ed. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ylvisaker, S. 1912. Zur babylonischen und assyrischen Grammatik. Eine Untersuchung auf Grund der Briefe aus der Sargonidenzeit. Leipziger Semitistische Studien V/6. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Zaborski, A. 1975. The Verb in Cushitic. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawn. Naukowe. ____. 1989. Denominal Suffix Conjugations in Beja. Pp. 409–18 in Studia Semitica necnon Iranica Rudolpho Macuch septuagenario ab amicis et discipulis dedicata, ed. M. Macuch et al. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 1991. Biconsonantal Roots and Triconsonantal Root Variation in Semitic: Solutions and Prospects. Pp. 1675–1703 in vol. 2 of Kaye, ed. 1991. ____. 1994a. Archaic Semitic in the Light of Hamito-Semitic. ZAh 7: 234–44. ____. 1994b. Exceptionless Incompatibility Rules and Verbal Root Structure in Semitic. Pp. 1–18 in Semitic and Cushitic Studies, ed. G. Goldenberg and S. Raz. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 1996a. On the Origin of Subjunctive and Energicus in Semitic. Incontri Linguistici 19: 69–76. ____. 1996b. Some Alleged Exceptions to Incompatibility Rules in Arabic Verbal Roots. Pp. 631–58 in Studies in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures: Memorial Volume of Karel Petráček, ed. P. Zemánek. Prague: Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Oriental Institute. ____. 1999a. On Hamitosemitic Participles. Pp. 35–39 in Afroasiatica Tergestina, ed. M. Lamberti and L. Tonelli. Padova: Unipress. ____. 1999b. Remarks on Derived Verbs in Hamitosemitic. Pp. 44–51 in Tradition and Innovation: Norm and Deviation in Arabic and Semitic Linguistics, ed. L. Edzard and M. Nekroumi. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ____. 2001. Verbale Flexion und Derivation mit T und M/N: ein etymologischer Versuch. Pp. 593–99 in Akten des 27. Deutschen Orientalistentages, ed. S. Wild and H. Schild. Würzburg: Ergon. ____. 2003. Les formes verbales intensives avec l’objet direct au pluriel comme une des sources du présent en chamitosémitique. Pp. 723–27 in Mélanges David Cohen, ed. J. Lentin and A. Lonnet. Paris: Maisonneuve & Larose. ____. 2004. Traces of iptaras in Arabic. Pp. 160–71 in Egyptian and Semito-Hamitic (AfroAsiatic) Studies in Memoriam W. Vycichl, ed. G. Takács. SSLL 39. Leiden: Brill. ____. 2005a. Tense, Aspect and Mood Categories of Proto-Semitic. Pp. 11–30 in Current Issues in the Analysis of Semitic Grammar and Lexicon I, ed. L. Edzard and J. Retsö. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

634

References

____. 2005b. The Oldest Periphrastic Conjugations of Hamitosemitic. Pp. 85–94 in Proceedings of the 10th Meeting of Hamitosemitic (Afroasiatic) Linguistics, ed. P. Fronzaroli and P. Marrassini. QuSem. 25. Florence: Dipartimento di linguistica, Università di Firenze. ____. 2007. Non-Causative Verbs of the Causative ʾaqtala Class in Arabic and *yuqtilu Conjugation in Proto-Semitic. Pp. 31–43 in Studies in Semitic and General Linguistics in Honor of Gideon Goldenberg, ed. T. Bar and E. Cohen. AOAT 334. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Zadok, T. 1996. The Subjunctive Morphemes Following the Subordinating Particles inūmī/inu/ inūma when Introducing Temporal Clauses in Old Babylonian Royal Inscriptions. AION 56: 145–58. Zewi, T. 1999. A Syntactical Study of Verbal Forms Affixed by ‑n(n) Endings in Classical Arabic, Biblical Hebrew, El-Amarna Akkadian and Ugaritic. AOAT 260. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Zonhoven, L. 1998. Studies on the sḏm.t=f Verb Form in Classical Egyptian, V the Relative Future Tense sḏm.t=f. BiOr. 55: 600–642.

Subject Index I/a verbs  41, 537–38, 541–43, 546, 548–50 I/e verbs  41, 464–65, 537–38, 541–43, 546, 548–50 I/H verbs  41, 455, 541, 546, 552 I/n verbs  41–42, 68, 73, 317–19, 321, 418, 452–54, 461, 469–71, 472–74, 489–90, 547, 549, 553 I/voc verbs  41, 45, 68, 73, 448, 537–54   G-stem  450–52, 462–65, 492, 542–46   D-stem  450–51, 543–44, 547   Š-stem  90, 456–57, 548–50   N‑stem  338, 291, 321, 469, 550–54   t-stems  454, 546–47, 549   tan-stems  418, 424, 432, 546–47, 549–50, 554   historical background  41, 539–43, 54099 I/w verbs  41–42, 4439, 58, 68, 69–7090, 73, 75, 126, 447–50   G-stem  50–51, 214, 450–53   D-stem  269–70, 454–55   Š-stem  113–14, 271, 328, 455–57, 548–49   N-stem  457   t-stems  135–36, 386, 403, 454   historical background  457–62, 542102, 590 I/*y verbs  58, 75, 462–65, 528 II/ā verbs  41, 44–45, 74, 1622, 300, 448, 474–76, 488–89, 556, 563–72 II/ē verbs  41, 45, 74, 448, 483127, 566, 569–72 II/gem verbs/roots  35, 63–64, 68, 136, 301–2, 334, 429, 439, 588, 590   conjugation  58, 166, 20225, 491–494   semantics  494–96   alternation with other roots  102–350, 477105, 495–96 II/H verbs  41, 134, 256, 346–49, 443, 475–76, 539, 554–72 II/ī and II/ū verbs:  see II/voc verbs/roots II/voc verbs/roots  41, 45, 61, 63, 65–66, 318, 448, 515, 536, 554, 559, 563–69, 572   G-stem  68, 139, 2113, 476–80   D-stem  347, 482–85   Š-stem  325, 336, 485–88   N-stem  255–56, 488   t-stems  47, 480   tan-stems  427, 436, 480–82   semantics  476   historical background  10250, 46152, 474–76, 590–91 III/H verbs  41, 1943, 497–98, 530, 539, 572–83 III/voc verbs  41, 45, 69, 72–75, 78–79, 400–401, 448, 531, 578–83

III/voc verbs (cont.)   G-stem  134, 140, 1943, 20632, 499–509   ŠD-stem  336–37   N-stem  291–92   historical background  496–98 IV/voc verbs  309–10, a > e (MB)  269, 325, 339, 534–36 A/a verbs:  see vowel class A/a Ablaut:  see apophony Ablaut class:  see vowel class abstract nouns  34, 36, 38, 70, 197–99, 342, 345, 444–45, 528 accusative as direct object  66–67, 171   with motion verbs  67, 260   adjunct Acc  20119, 259–60, 272, 274   double Acc  174, 274   as object of Inf  31, 1943, 195–97   as object of PrPartc  20429   of suffix pronouns  238–40   of III/weak Infs  508, 583 action verbs  253, 257, 271–79, 285–86, 328, 421; see also process verbs active vs. passive:  see Voice actuality  91, 128, 131–32, 140–47 adjectival verbs  58–66, 919, 198   identification  58–60, 7398, 494163   vowel class  68, 72–73, 464, 529   Impfv  111–12   Inf  194, 1958   PrPartc  206   derived stems  272–74, 285, 297–98, 328–29, 331   weak verbs   166, 449, 476, 479, 495, 529   in WSem  181, 282–83   in Berber  10655, 17748, 192, 28341 adjectives (see also adjectival verbs and individual adjectival patterns)   derivation  68   conjugation  58–60, 17748, 298   with gemination  34, 283–86, 593   with reduplication  444–46   and adjectival verbs  58–66, 529   and Stat  164–68, 178–79, 185–93   instead of Inf  1958   substantivation  199, 201–2, 359   primary Adj vs. PPartc  30, 161, 200–202, 320, 493 adjectivization  20841 Afar  317

635

636 affectedness (degree of)  66–67, 159, 172 affirmative main clauses  10, 128–29, 144–45, 153–55, 22961 affix(ation)  39, 155, 17962, 258, 311, 369, 382, 496166, 507197 A-forms (vs. E-forms)  310, 530–37 Afroasiatic  2, 20–21, 587   prefix conj.  43, 52, 37880   suffix conj.  189–93   Impfv  90, 99, 104–110, 115, 589–90, 593   Pfv  129–30   Imp  13324   derived stems  254, 280–83   t-infix/suffix   156–57, 267, 375, 381   n-prefix  314–17, 322125   s-prefix  351–52   plural marker ‑a‑  54099 agent (in passive clauses)  257–59, 369, 384 agent nouns  34–35, 49, 57, 96, 10250, 11065, 184–86, 199, 203, 205–10, 2681, 445, 521, 571 agentive, ‑ity  66, 164, 257, 272–74, 278–79, 284, 287, 328–29, 352–53 A/i verbs:  see vowel class A/i Akkadian  passim   attestation  9–11   dialects  9–19, 21–27, 46, 48, 51   peripheral Akk  10   vs. Eblaite  22–23 see also the individual dialects Aktionsart  54–55, 69–70, 72 aleph (spelling of)  520–21, 538–39, 544, 570, 575; see also glottal stop allative  1624, 233–40 allegro vs. lento forms  505 Amarna Akkadian  10, 51, 9937, 184, 189, 36643, 419 Amharic  4127, 22961, 28238, 317, 446 Amorite  9937, 189, 35068, 375, 38085, 473, 51722, 523 analogical change  7, 4647, 5929, 181–83, 216, 256, 289, 306, 339, 347, 379–80, 402, 455, 528, 533, 540, 547, 552, 582 analogy  3, 7, 24–25, 11472, 139, 28543, 321, 392, 393, 420, 452–53, 463, 471, 483–85, 507–8 anaptyctic vowel  321123 anterior  92–93, 95, 127–28, 1418, 147, 153 anticausative  260, 369, 380–81, 386–87 aorist (Beja)  156 aorist (Berber)  104–5, 108, 115, 129, 17748, 192, 589 aorist (Indo-European)  127, 132, 17341 A‑paradigm  531 apophony  39–40, 45, 71, 105, 203, 28647   a/i apophony in Akk  111, 112–14, 120, 122, 125, 315, 456, 473, 529–30, 535, 549 Arabic  20, 38–40, 43   Impfv  56, 95, 98, 103, 111, 228–29   Pfv  129–31, 587   Perfect  179, 181–86   Imp  13325, 135–37, 242

Subject Index Arabic (cont.)   PrPartc  184, 210   Energicus  13739, 22753, 241–44   Subjunctive  241, 590   vowel classes  71, 74, 118–19, 203, 28647, 588   passive  11578, 203, 46153, 589   reduplication  446   derived verbal stems  592, 594    II  39, 9732, 11577, 119–20, 20945, 280–82, 401–2    III  21046, 283, 284    IV  119, 28236, 284, 350, 412–14    V  10250, 281, 382, 392–94, 436, 586    VI  382    VII  321–23, 380–81    VIII  156, 375–76, 380–81    IX  34450    X  350, 412–14    XI-XV  446   quadrilit. verbs  121, 124, 307   II/gem verbs  35   noun patterns:    ʾaqtal  39, 331, 33221    maqtūl  203    qatil  203    qitāl  19911    taqtVl  377–79 Aramaic  9, 19–20   PrPartc  109   derived stems  321–22, 350, 375–76, 379, 380–82, 392–93, 412, 473   status determinatus  17960, 18890   suffix pronouns  243   qatīl  203 Aramaic influence on Akkadian  15, 129, 166, 30769 Archaic Babylonian  12–13, 128, 14625, 180, 226–27, 477, 506, 519, 527 archaic heterogeneity  10040 archaic features:   of literary Bab  14, 27110   of Mari Old Akk  22   in Impfv  76   in Stat  16824, 187–88   in Vet  219 areal influence  108–9, 534, 595–96 argument reduction  258, 261, 370–71, 381 asseverative  1288, 130–31, 213–16, 21934 assertory (oath)  231 assimilation   of vowels  65, 80, 13533, 27112, 481, 489, 490145; see also vowel assimilation (Ass)   of n  242104, 28545, 289, 304, 309, 323, 431–33, 436, 469–70, 520, 539, 550, 552   of t in the t-stems  359–60, 379   of other consonants  233, 319, 320, 390, 47290, 513, 558, 578, 580   in Hebrew  394, 461 atelic activity verbs  5930, 70, 73, 111, 127, 1418, 169, 198, 200, 274, 328, 476, 491

Subject Index autobenefactive  158–59, 263, 265 auxiliary verb  4, 52, 106, 158, 316–17, 353–54, 36957, 58915 A‑verbs  68, 89, 356, 417, 425, 535–37 ay > ē  23–24, 27, 111, 51724 ay > ī  25, 3820, 111 back-formation  345, 382, 420, 454, 478, 565, 567–69 backgrounding vs. foregrounding  93, 144–45, 148, 154, Barth-Ginsberg Law  5272, 135, 463–64, 467 basic (vs. derived)  5–10, 447, 469 basic form (of a paradigm)  5, 7–8, 32, 58, 90, 112, 127, 250, 252, 27112, 434, 531, 534, 537 basic stem/verb (vs. derived stems) (see also G‑stem):   in Akk  112–16, 250–52, 355, 372, 434, 540, 567   in WSem  103, 120–24, 129, 282–83, 380–81, 594   in PSem  40, 100–101, 254, 437, 585, 587–91 Bedeutungsklassen  68 Beja  104, 106–9, 129, 156, 282, 352, 593 benefactive  15960, 243 Berber  20, 199   prefix conj.  52, 589   suffix conj.  182–83, 190–93   Impfv  104–6, 108–9, 192, 282, 437, 593   Pfv  129, 17748   verbal noun  199   derived stems  115, 281–83   t-infix/prefix  156, 37569   t-suffix  37567   m-prefix  315103, 322125   s-prefix  351 biliteral elements  123, 314–15, 318–21, 341 binyanim  2462 biradical imperatives  4231, 318–19, 453 biradical infinitives  318–19 biradical roots  41–42, 317110, 346, 444, 459–61, 474, 495 bisyllabic vs. monosyllabic (statives)  58, 136, 166, 492–93 bitransitive causatives  327 bleaching  7498, 321 bound (vs. free t‑perfects)  141–43, 147, 150 bounded(ness)  94, 1276 broken plural  20 broken spellings  224, 504–5, 511, 520–24, 554–55, 567, 577–80 causative (vs. factitive)  256–57, 282–86, 325 causative categories:   in Akk  5825, 249–54, 302, 307, 315–16, 327–34, 338, 345, 405–7   in WSem  350–54, 412–14, 585–86, 594, 596 Central Semitic  20, 326, 595–97   Impfv  97–103   Pfv  129–30   Perfect  182   Energicus  241–42, 244

637 Central Semitic (cont.)   PrPartc  210   passive  11577, 322–23   quadrirad. verbs  124, 319, 586   I/w verbs  459 Chadic  20, 10041, 108–9, 157, 281, 284, 495166, 589, 593 change-of-state verbs  55, 5930, 169, 272, 285, 328, 476 chiasmus/chiastic  146 circumstantial clauses  93, 14520, 1969, 210, 230 citation form  4442, 5927, 194 Classical Arabic:  see Arabic Classical Old Babylonian  13–14, 220, 485, 506, 519, 527–29, 532, 540 cliticization  52, 215, 369 coalescence  136, 180, 215, 238, 241 collective (nouns)  265 collective (use of reciprocal)  265, 362–64 commands  133, 137, 218–19, 242, 319 comparative method  2–3 comparative Semitics  40–41, 97, 354 compensatory lengthening  507, 519, 544 competition between alternative forms  112, 128–29, 298, 370, 402 completive  130, 159 concessive (use of the precative)  212 concomitant, ‑nce  9627, 107, 210 conditional clauses  94–95, 128, 129, 132, 141, 148, 153–55, 231 conjugation  6–8, 29–33, 6986, 25114, 256, 316–17, 515, 536 conjugational prefix  307, 316, 324, 350 consecutio temporum (CT)  1429, 145–46, 148, 152–53, 155 consecutive imperfect (Hebrew)  129, 131 consonant clusters  10, 113, 121–22, 239, 322, 432, 452, 471, 486, 491, 504–7, 576–78, 580–81 construct state  24, 188, 1942, 19911, 204, 518 continuous (aspect)  256, 384, 415 contraction:  see vowel contraction convergence  180, 595 copula  54, 56, 130, 158, 174, 17856, 28032, 316–17108, 353, 58915 coreferential, ‑ity  261–63, 266, 36956 curse formula  5165, 188, 225 Cushitic  20–21, 316–17   prefix conjugation  52, 45944, 54099   suffix conjugation  190, 192–93   Impfv  106–8, 110, 12091, 434248, 477105, 589   Pfv  129   suffix ‑u/‑nV  10041   t-suffix  157, 37567, 37568, 37569   m/n-prefix  316103, 322125   derived stems  281 cyclical (processes)  4, 374 D tantum verbs  277–79, 282, 33324, 423, 454 damqam-īnim construction  20119

638 Dasenech (Cushitic)  12091 dative  235–40 dative pronouns  12, 18, 23–24, 162–63, 196, 233, 241103, 35276 declension  6, 14, 50, 25114 decline:   of the t-stems  255–56, 322, 355–56, 373–75, 381–82, 385, 388, 402, 419–20, 433–34   of other categories  7, 24, 10250, 16824, 219, 495 deixis/deictic  33, 141, 14521, 316108 demonstrative pronouns  17753, 196, 198, 241, 36957 denominal verbs  3820, 4333, 44, 250, 283   in D-stem  102, 277–78, 282–85, 454   in Š-stem  332–33, 350–51, 353, 397, 406–9, 413–14, 585   in quadrirad. verbs  30155, 306, 30769 denominalization  250 dependency relations  1–2, 164, 200, 252, 316105, 321122, 336, 447, 453, 459, 540 derivation by association  39–40, 402 derivation (vs. inflection)  6–7, 35, 37, 44–45, 139, 250–52, 293, 521 derivational forms  6, 14, 28–29, 33–37, 251–53, 445 derivational processes  39, 41, 54, 177, 253, 285, 407 derived (verbal) stems (see also the individual stems):   in general  68, 16, 28, 4228, 245–46, 393125, 404, 438–39, 447, 591–95   relation to G-stem  53–54, 248–54   formal aspects  68, 70–71, 75, 89–90, 139, 246–48, 529–31, 567   diachronic  100–104, 109–15, 254–56, 407, 413   in WSem  117–123, 28647, 322–23, 443–45 detransitive, ‑ity  251, 253, 258, 261, 54099, 588–89   of the N-stem  293–94, 299, 321–22   of t-stems  155–59, 355–56, 360, 369–75, 380–82, 384, 386, 394–95, 402, 412–14, 433–34, 436, 594 deverbal adjectives  34, 161, 200, 20634, 27111, 377 deverbal derivations  811, 32, 33–34, 37, 40, 43, 11065, 316105, 377 deverbal nouns  811, 34, 37–39, 45, 11475, 198, 265, 2681, 27724, 285, 29010, 325, 377–79, 397–402, 439, 444–45, 460–62, 507, 531, 585 diachronic typology  3, 5 dialect classification  10–12, 20–27, 534, 595–97 dialect variation  135–36, 269, 448, 510 dialects of Akkadian:  see Akkadian dialogue  918, 9627, 142, 237 diathesis  5–6, 30–31, 3820, 194, 28648 diminutives  68, 38, 44, 445, 508202 direct reflexive:  see reflexive direct speech  93, 237 direction, ‑ality  42, 240–44, 318 dissimilation  22–23, 35, 43, 19911, 210, 270, 36431, 436253, 436254, 469–70, 489143, 51518, 553140 dittography  31291, 391 double t‑infix:  see t-perfect doubly weak verbs  75, 13635, 37262, 503–4, 561 drag chain  433

Subject Index D‑stem  14, 5825, 102, 120–21, 246, 268–87   form  134, 215, 268–71, 450–51, 454–55, 482–86, 521, 534–37, 540–41, 547, 563, 568, 571   function  5930, 66, 96, 256–58, 271–79   in relation to other stems  247, 250–54, 293, 306, 319, 324–25, 328–29, 333–37, 378, 382–86, 388, 394–95, 401–2, 407–9, 421, 423, 434   comparative  105–6, 124, 280–82, 284, 350–51, 458–59; see also under the individual languages   in PSem  114–17, 129, 592–95 Dt‑stem  114, 169, 206, 246, 248, 251, 254, 262, 358, 382–88, 392–95, 396, 412–14, 419–20, 440–43, 485, 529–30, 536 Dtn‑stem  206, 246, 419, 422–24, 425, 485, 530 Dtr‑stem  254, 439–43, 585 Dtt‑stem  255, 30769, 384–85, 388–91 dual  10, 13, 22, 24, 51, 179, 18892, 232, 29528, 36432 durative  (Aktionsart) 4, 54, 93–94, 10144, 111, 127, 209, 256, 278, 284, 320121, 337, 361, 373, 415, 491 durative verbs  69, 72, 10250, 494, 497 dynamic (nature of paradigms)  7 dynamic (vs. static)  54 Early Old Babylonian  13, 51, 180, 225–26, 506 Eblaite  14, 299   relation to Akkadian  22–23, 27   syllabary  513–16   vowel syncope  48   E-colouring  526   Impfv  95   Inf  19911, 255, 500179   t-Pf  14934   perfect (suffix conj.)  188–89   ventive  233, 24098   derived verbal stems  255, 270–71, 293–94, 327, 36539, 420–21211   quadrirad. verbs  306–7, 314, 346–47   weak verbs  458, 46049, 46259, 46571, 46778, 475, 500179   prefixes  51–52   noun patterns  3820   verbal nouns with t  395–97, 398–99146, 401156, 401158   word order  22 E-colouring  49–50, 72–75, 79–80, 13430, 291, 310, 31190, 313, 346–49, 455, 465, 511–13, 516–19, 525–37, 538, 541, 555–56, 562, 572–75, 579, 583 E-forms (vs. A-forms)  310, 464, 529–30, 532, 534–37, 572, 583 Egyptian  20–21, 156–57, 190–93, 20945, 281, 315, 317, 321, 351 elative (Ar)  38–39, 201, 284, 331, 373 elative (Akk)  331–32 emotional involvement  142, 150, 2113, 237

Subject Index emphasis, ‑atic  128, 183, 195, 215, 236–37, 240, 244, 369 emphatic consonants  44, 577, 59623 emphatic use of the subjunctive  22757 energicus  13739, 22753, 241–43 English  68, 10, 39–40, 54, 906, 10040, 131–32, 159, 215, 240, 257, 261, 264, 285, 299, 316, 402 Enuma Eliš  329–30 E‑paradigm  525, 528–29, 535 epenthesis, ‑etic  47–48, 5271, 133–36, 358, 376, 393, 432242, 486, 505, 547 epic texts  14, 1429, 329–30 Epigraphic South Arabian  20, 11781, 314100, 350, 414, 475101 epistolary t-perfect  141, 147, 151, 155 epithets  167, 204–6, 27110, 332, 424 ergative  28032, 28339 erosion  10, 266 ethical dative  159, 236–37, 240 Ethiopian Semitic  20, 108, 117–25, 131, 317, 351, 382, 446; see also Geʿez event vs. state  5, 53–57, 5930, 163–65, 168–75 E‑verbs  80, 528–31, 533–38 exhortations  130, 133, 212, 218, 236, 241, 242 expressive, ‑ity  4, 96, 99, 107, 128, 153–54, 185, 27724, 279, 314–15, 332, 351, 37877, 430, 445 external agent (in causative)  257, 286 external inflection  3820 factitive (vs. causative)  256–57   factitive D-stems  5825, 66, 74100, 252, 256–57, 272–74, 282–87, 325, 423   factitive G-stems  25821, 286   factitive Š-stems  254, 328–29, 332 feminine suffix ‑t  4337, 168, 198, 202, 29426, 359, 401, 553–54144 fientive vs. stative  54–60, 74, 919, 162–68, 169, 177, 18168, 185, 260, 272–73, 296–300, 316, 329, 448–50, 462–64, 491–93, 542102, 593 final vowels (loss of)  10, 14, 108, 180, 187–89, 221, 587 finite (vs. non-finite)  5, 31–32, 116, 127, 137, 194, 358, 374 fluctuation (in vowel class)  71, 73, 75–81, 30772, 309–10, fluctuation (in stem vowel)  3575 formulaic style  154, 218–19, 332, 365–66 fossilized categories  42, 13533, 140, 253, 34552, 351, 364, 370, 53679 French  131–32, 19912, 240, 264, 266, 371 frequency, impact of  6, 36, 39, 59, 107, 126, 131, 23891, 246, 250–52, 319, 348, 373–74, 402, 468, 47290, 474, 518, 528, 579, 581 frequentative  93, 108–9, 111, 256, 281, 37569, 415 future  4, 56–57, 91–92, 9626, 107, 131–32, 147–48, 152, 154–55, 164, 231–32, 242 Geʿez  20, 37, 4127, 4335, 4441, 11577, 117–25, 446, 597

639 Geʿez (cont.)   a/*i verbs  74   derived verbal stems  881, 119–22, 125, 21046, 280–83, 350, 375–7670, 379–82, 392–93, 412–14, 594   ʾi (negation)  217–18   Imp  137   Impfv  97–99, 108, 120–21   Perfect  182   Pfv  131   PPartc qətul  203   quadrilit. verbs  121–25, 31186, 314–16, 319–20, 345, 351, 445   reduplicated verbs  121, 123–25, 314–15, 319–20, 345, 351, 445–46, 495   weak verbs  458–59, 475   tVqtVl nouns  378, 401159 gemination (in general)  2113, 245–46 gemination (vs. reduplication)  282, 438–39 gemination of R2:   in Akkadian:    for nominal plurality  3820, 96    in agent nouns  96, 10250, 11065, 207, 2681, 44527    intensive  96, 108    pluractional  96, 100–101, 108, 112–15, 248, 254, 274, 278, 281–82    for Impfv  69, 88–90, 96–106, 108–15, 117–18, 120–24, 126, 248, 456–58, 530, 594    D‑stem  268–69, 283–87    ŠD-stem  336–37    Š(t)-stem  325, 386, 403–4, 530    tan-stems  417, 420, 424, 427, 431–37, 530    quadrirad. verbs  302–4, 320, 432    I/voc verbs  540, 543–44, 548–49, 552    II/weak verbs  476–77, 480, 483–88, 564, 567, 572   in Eblaite  395   in Beja  106–7   in Berber  104–6, 192, 281–82   in Geʿez  117–25, 412 gemination of final radical  2113, 22757, 248, 256, 302–6, 310, 312, 325, 340–41, 344, 348–49, 438–39, 485–87, 489–90, 493–94, 572 gender:  see person generic present  91, 107 genetic relationship  10351, 107, 157, 586, 595–97 genitive  24, 31, 4649, 4752, 166, 195–98, 20119, 204, 402 geographical names  2705 German  54, 10040, 261, 264, 266, 299, 369 Germanic languages  19, 69, 1272, 15960 glide  41, 23167, 306, 436253, 447–48, 477, 479, 482, 498, 500–505, 510, 533, 568, 576 glide spellings (OA)  504–5, 577–80 global E-colouring  80, 525–28, 533–34 glottalized consonants  18, 44, 52549, 559, 576–78, 580–81 glottal stop  516, 520–25, 577–78

640 GPL‑stem  100–101, 116–17, 254, 278, 282, 286, 593–94 grammatical (vs. lexical)  3, 37, 39, 54–55, 9730, 249–52, 277 grammaticalization  3–5, 7, 9419, 137, 187, 228, 250   of geminates  97   of verbal markers  107, 10962, 316–17   of participles  184–86   of modal partices  130–31, 214–16   of voice markers  157–59, 181, 264, 353   of personal pronouns  176–77, 180   of directional elements  240–41, 35276   of derived stems  287 Greek (Classical)  39, 1272, 132, 159, 17341, 240, 265, 284, 432244 G‑stem:   as basis of the verbal par.  28–33, 53–54, 592   semantics  53–54, 298   structure of paradigm  100–104, 109–12, 115–17, 447   vocalization  68–71, 89–90   relation to other stems  66, 246–54, 257–58, 278–79, 283–87, 333, 407, 540   see also the individual verbal categories Gt‑stem:   form  23–24, 246, 356–60, 397, 454, 480, 546–47, 568   vocalization  89, 139, 356–57   function  155–56, 258, 261–62, 265, 360–69   relation to other stems  253–54, 294–96, 300, 391–94   vs. Gtn  374, 417, 419–20, 421212, 433–34, 452   deverbal nouns  377–78, 398–410   hist. development  104, 267, 322, 355–56, 369–82, 433–34, 585, 591–92 Gtn‑stem:   form  96, 246, 454, 480–82, 546–47, 554, 568, 571   vocalization  89–90, 417–18   function  95, 279, 415–22   relation to other stems  249, 252   hist. development  104, 374, 394, 431–37, 593 “Gtt‑stem”  386104, 390–91 guttural consonants  22–26, 39, 41–42, 49, 74–75, 112, 120, 18685, 256, 310, 350–51, 448, 474–76, 496–97, 510–20, 523–28, 523–33, 537–48, 552, 554–56, 566–68, 572–83, 588 habitual, ‑ity  91, 93, 96, 107–9, 184, 204–8, 256, 275, 37569, 415, 574212 Hammurapi’s laws  13, 14, 15, 148, 15348, 45113 Harsūsi  36432 Hebrew  20, 37, 5164, 74, 109, 210, 25922   Impfv  103, 11166, 129–31, 185, 22858, 241, 319, 587   Perfect  181, 185   Imp  13325, 241, 243, 318–19, 323   Inf  318–19, 323    Cohortative  241, 243   Piel  10250, 124, 280–82, 28646

Subject Index Hebrew (cont.)   Hiphil  331, 350–53, 412   Hithpael  10250, 392–94, 436–37, 586   Nifal  321–23, 592   t-infix  375–76   quadrilit. verbs  124, 445   weak verbs  18372, 458–59, 473–74, 54094   reduplicated forms  446   biliteral forms  318–19   adjectives  283   suffixed pronouns  243 hendiadys  14831 hierarchy in verbal paradigm  5–7, 29–30, 11988, 177, 200, 248, 251, 27112, 281, 379, 383, 459 high-transivity verbs  66, 72, 134, 136, 171–72, 200, 253, 275, 279, 284–86, 371–72, 421, 434, 476 historical linguistics  2–3, 108–9 historical present  107 historical spellings  510, 515, 52759 Hittite  284 homonymous verbs  6988 homonymy  1381, 278, 325, 38391, 520 homorganic consonants  43–44 hot news perfect  141–42 hymnisch-epische Dialekt  14, 334 hymns  14, 16, 146, 329 hypercorrect form/spelling  227, 391, 478, 485 hypochoristic forms  18890 iconic, ‑icity  96, 145, 209, 283–84, 286–87, 302, 431, 438, 495, 593 I/i verbs:  see vowel class I/i i‑Modus  2113, 439 imperative   form  74–75, 89, 133–36, 23378, 268, 27112, 289– 90, 309, 356, 417, 453–54, 459–61, 470–71, 474, 476, 489, 531, 543, 565, 579   position in the verbal paradigm  29–33, 137   vs. Pret  40, 68, 126–27, 137   vs. other irrealis forms  212, 218–19   compared to WSem  136–37, 280, 376–79, imperfective:   form  68–71, 75–76, 88–90, 268, 288–94, 302–4, 309–13, 334–37, 33935, 342, 347, 386, 389–91, 403–4, 417, 422, 431–37, 441–44, 446, 447, 450–51, 454–57, 463, 469–70, 473, 476–78, 480–92, 499–500, 529–37, 540–41, 543–53, 555, 557   function  56–57, 91–95, 148, 152   for irrealis  92, 216–1721, 219–20   for past tense  56–57, 92–94   position in the verbal paradigm  29–30, 32, 138–40   influence on other categories  89–90, 109–15, 138, 289–90, 356–57, 403, 417, 453   diachronically  4–5, 710, 10–11, 20, 40, 95–117, 228–32, 539–41, 584–94   compared to WSem  117–25, 457–58, 495 imperfective aspect  56, 91–95, 159, 164, 209–10

Subject Index imperfective vowel  68, 71, 80, 88–89, 109–113, 127, 138–40, 18683, 247, 289, 309, 356, 417–18, 426, 453, 579 incantations  12, 14, 16, 18, 52, 21721 incompatibility  43–44, 13012, 239, 459 incompleted action  92, 95, 137 independent pronouns  24, 17856, 180, 183 indicative  4–5, 7, 29–30, 92, 117, 131–32, 215, 22037, 231, 374 indirect reflexive:  see reflexive Indo-European  19, 39–40, 5271, 9317, 132, 284, 300, 372, 46883 Indo-Iranian  132 infinitive:   comparative  185–86, 199–200, 281, 377–79, 396–98, 590, 592   form  50, 194, 268, 290, 304, 309, 314, 324, 356, 358, 439, 447, 479, 489, 500, 507–9, 527, 542, 553, 561, 579, 581–83   function and syntax  195–98, 26028, 402   position in the verbal paradigm  29–32 infix(ation)  108, 155–56, 245–46, 28545, 289, 355, 379, 382, 593; see also t-infix inflectional (vs. derivational)  5–7, 30–31, 35–36, 41, 44, 101, 251, 293, 444 inflectional categories  29–33, 54–55 inflectional stem  28, 30–32, 40, 46, 88, 97–98, 126, 133, 137, 161–62, 200, 203, 229–30, 246, 383, 396–97, 426, 552, 592 ingressive  54–58, 66, 74100, 919, 9215, 254, 25821, 26026, 294, 296–300, 315–16, 321, 361, 372, 392, 558157 initial consonant clusters  133–34, 289, 322, 358, 376, 383, 471 initial plene writing  451, 492, 543–45 injunctions  92, 130, 13635, 147, 212, 21621 injunctive  132 innovation, -tive features/forms  22–23, 90, 139, 154, 156, 184, 219, 247, 269–70, 283–86, 332, 355, 414, 433, 437, 448, 473, 551–52, 595–97 instability of gutturals  511–13, 524 instability of vowels  39, 58 instrument nouns  22–23, 34, 205, 29010, 311, 528 intensity  96, 108, 276, 279, 281, 283–84, 286–87, 415–16 intensive  96, 108, 245, 256, 274, 276, 27725, 281–85, 337, 373, 416, 445–46 intensive adjectives  186, 27111 interjection  42, 218, 317 internal a-Plurals  18682, 593 internal inflection  3820, 40 internal passive  71 internal reconstruction  1–2, 8, 18, 96 interrogative clauses  144, 152 interrogative particle  218, involvement of the speaker  128, 142, 151, 153, 159, 236–37 irrealis  4, 29–30, 33, 91–93, 128–33, 211–20, 228–29, 242–43, 374

641 isolated nouns  811 isomorphism, -ic  37, 139, 249, 250, 255, 436, isovocalic vs. anisovocalic  60, 68–69, 73, 75–76, 89, 110, 138, 291, 309, 542102 Italian  19912, 372 iterative  54, 93–94, 108, 256, 281, 284, 415–16, 440–41, 443, 494–95, 58913 I‑verbs  68, 89, 3575, 588 jussive  118–21, 124–25, 130–32, 230, 242, 243, 412, 45942, 594 Kettendurativ  494 Kish Civilization  11, 22 Koppelung  273–74 laryngeals  510–11, 515–16, 596 Late Babylonian  16–17, 128, 147, 154, 16721, 17443, 20942, 387, 390, 430 Latin  39, 6986, 1272, 17341, 240, 25114, 264, 284 “laws” of analogy  7, 224, 28543, 53575 legal texts  1118, 17–19, 94, 128, 154–55, 167, 172–73, 201, 207–9, 23173, 509 letters  12–19, 32–337, 918, 141–51, 154, 183, 219, 226, 29325, 366, 406, 421–22, 425, 477107, 499–500 levelling  5164, 11988, 358, 459 lexical texts  5927, 194, 395, 508 lexical meaning  3, 6, 37, 39, 249–51, 321 lexical strength  6–8, 251 lexicalization  6–7, 35–36, 120, 165, 173, 197–98, 201, 207, 250, 27725, 329, 382, 402, 407176, 416 light verb  317–19, 321, 352–54 literary texts  14–19, 34, 5162, 918, 93–94, 142, 146, 154, 167, 176, 204, 20636, 2138, 236–37, 252, 254–55, 277, 294–96, 307, 329, 332, 334–37, 341, 361, 364–65, 371–74, 418, 424, 430, 441, 485, 530 literary tradition  225 literary forms  17, 20634, 255, 455, 489 literary Š‑stems  16, 329–31, 334 liver omina  11, 226, 293, 575 loan words  38, 43–4439, 47, 18890, 385, 508, 517, 523 locative (case)  16, 195, 241, long prefix vowel  463, 539, 543–47 long vowels (in closed syllables)  112–13, 451, 45633, 477102, 492, 543–47 low transitivity  66, 10250, 402 low-transitivity verbs  66–67, 74, 136, 176, 203, 285–86, 307, 421, 434, 437 L-reduction  22, 27 maPRaS(t)  34–35, 48, 528 Mari Old Akkadian  11, 14, 22–23, 27, 4544, 51, 75, 17855, 179, 21722, 219, 293, 326, 344, 398, 478, 496–97, 513, 516–17, 526, 557, 560, 575–76

642 Mari Old Babylonian  14, 128–29, 22140, 227–2857, 23687, 269–70, 304, 320120, 32811, 347–48, 440, 477, 487138, 517, 523–24 marked vs. unmarked  30–32, 53, 59, 90, 104, 126, 132, 167–68, 247, 371, 589 markedness  906, 230, maṣdar  36, 39, 124108, 19911, 281, 34141, 378–79, 398140, 592 mathematical texts  16, 441 mediopassive  74, 158, 258, 260–61, 266, 290, 293–94, 299–300, 321, 369–71, 380–88, 428, 589 Mehri  20, 97, 118–25, 18785, 314–15, 36432, 375–7670, 413–14 metathesis  30154, 359–60, 379, 383, 393, 51930, 522, 580 Middle Assyrian  12, 18   phonology  48–49, 289, 455, 519, 529   spelling  561   Imp  136   PrPartc  207–9   reciprocal  264, 370–71   Subj  223–24   Vent with suffix pronouns  240   t-Pf  128, 140, 148, 153–55   t-stems  357, 365–67   tan-stems  419207, 421213, 430   weak verbs  452, 455, 466, 483–84, 498176, 505–6, 546–47, 549–50, 553, 562, 578–81 Middle Babylonian  12, 15   E-colouring  80, 464, 532–37   phonology  269, 325, 339, 477, 562173   PrPartc  209   reflexive/reciprocal  264, 295–96, 370–71   Subj  221   Vent with suffix pronouns  239–40   t-Pf  128, 148, 153–55, 423   t-stems  255, 357, 366–67, 374, 390   tan-stems  374, 419, 423, 430, 482   Vent  23583   weak verbs  477, 482, 485, 551, 569, 572 middle verbs  69, 71, 74, 17236, 361, 371–72, 588 middle voice:  see voice mimation  166, 178, 195, 23379, 239 Moabite  375, 380 modal, ‑ity  33, 14832, 211, 22037, 227, 244 Modern Arabic  109, 184, 282, 376, 379–82, 393, 524 Modern South Arabian  20, 97, 115, 117–18, 179, 243109, 282–83, 314, 36432, 37570, 413–14, 591 monosyllabic imperatives  136, 318–19, 453, 474 monosyllabic statives  58, 178, 492 mood  5–6, 30, 132, 194, 211, 227, 234, 439 morphologization  107 morphophonemic change  7, 256, 379, 471, 507 morphophonemic spelling  4648, 47, 49, 20426, 506, 581

Subject Index motion verbs  42, 67, 72, 74, 136, 234–35, 237, 240, 244, 266, 279, 328, 371–72, 415, 421 muPRaS  36, 466, 489 names:  see proper names naPRāS  29010, 304, 323 narrative tense  4, 92–93, 127–29 narrative texts  16, 337, 1429, 145–46, 159, 213, 237 natural (vs. prototypical) reciprocal  263–65, 363 natural (vs. prototypical) reflexive  261–62, 266–67, 364, 369–74 negation  92–93, 13324, 148, 20224, 215–20, 596 negative clauses  92, 107, 128, 144, 151–53 Neo-Aramaic  17743 Neo-Assyrian  1015, 17, 19, 519   phonology  47, 49, 436   G Imp  136   G Inf  1942   G Pfv  128   G participles  201–2, 209   G Stat  166, 16721, 181   G t-Pf  128, 140, 155   Subj  224   Vent  233   Dtt-stem  255, 388–91   N-stem  289, 29325, 295–96   Š-stem  327, 339, 487   t-stems  366, 425   tan-stems  419, 430   quadrirad. verbs  30769, 310, 339   predicative nouns/adjectives  166, 16721, 16814   weak verbs  47, 452, 453, 455, 456, 466, 479, 483, 487, 505–6, 546–47, 551, 562, 578, 580–81 Neo-Babylonian  12, 15–17   E-colouring  529, 535–37   G Participles  209   G t-Pf  154   Subj   221   Vent  233   Vent with suffix pronouns  239–40   Dtt-stem  255, 390–91   N-stem  29325, 295   Š-stem  327, 339   t-stems  3512, 13533, 366–67, 385   tan-stems  421–22, 424, 430   quadrirad. verbs  339   predicative nouns/adjectives  166, 16721, 16824   weak verbs  451–52, 569–70 neutralization  6, 30–31, 919, 303, 400, 402, 482, 500 nisbe adjectives  532 ni-subjunctive  12, 23–24, 27, 220–24, 228–31, 503 nominal clause  18168, 352–53 nominal paradigm  5, 44 nominal plurality  96 nominal predicate  3, 1635, 16723 nominal roots  44 ‘nominal’ statives  164, 167–68 nominative  56, 710, 31–32, 195, 197, 204, 257 non-directional motion  73

Subject Index noun patterns  811, 34 N‑stem:   form  49, 89, 288–94, 534, 536, 539, 561, 569, 579   function  66, 169–70, 17546, 201, 249, 251, 258–60, 294–300   of quadrirad. verbs  301–14, 333   of weak verbs  453, 457, 488–89, 504, 550–54   comparative  314–21, 380–81   historical development  1844, 2356, 9731, 254–56, 321–23, 370–71, 405, 434–35, 592   relation to other stems  246–47, 249, 253–54, 333, 425–30, Nt‑stem  246, 254, 391–92, 430, 432, 490 Ntn‑stem:   form  89, 114   function  250, 392, 425–30   of quadrirad. verbs  303–4, 311–14   of weak verbs  469–70, 490, 554   historical development  320, 431–32, 435251   relation to other stems  246, 249–50, 253 N tantum verbs  201, 253, 292, 298–99, 333, 429 number:  see person numerals  7, 4442, 76106 Nuzi Akkadian  10, 29529, 316106, 36643, 419 oaths  213, 231–32 objective resultative  16828 obligatory, ‑iness  107, 132, 165, 215, 227–28, 25114, 284, 303 oblique cases  710, 23–24, 274 Old Akkadian  1015, 11, 21, 27 Old Assyrian  12, 17–18, 23   phonology  46–49, 18581, 508–9, 5113, 518, 525, 529, 558–59160   spelling  504–5, 511, 517–18, 559   G Inf  196, 198, 507–8   G participles  204, 209   G Stat  180   G t-Pf  139–40, 150–53, 255–56   Prec  212   Vet  217–19   Subj  222–23, 228   Vent  23688   Vent with suffix pronouns  238–39   passive  259–61   reciprocal  264, 294–95   D-stem  276, 27724, 459   N-stem  291–92, 294–95, 29845, 550–54   t-stems  357–58, 362–63, 401, 404, 408   tan-stems  31187, 430, 481   quadrirad. verbs  339, 346–49   predicative nouns/adjectives    I/w verbs  4497, 453, 455, 457, 461–62, 466   I/*y verbs  464–68   I/voc verbs  545, 547, 550–51   II/voc verbs  475100, 475101, 477, 481, 482–84   II/H verbs  556, 560–63   III/voc verbs  497, 498, 501–6

643 Old Assyrian (cont.)   III/H verbs  572–73, 576–81   izizzum  488–90   t/nadānum  472–74 Old Babylonian  12–14   phonology  453, 506–7, 519–24   E-colouring  525–34   personal prefixes  5060, 51   G Impfv  216–1721, 219–20,   G Imp  9212, 453   G Inf  1943, 1969   G participles  204, 209   G Stat  179, 187–88   G t-Pf  138–48, 159   Prec  212–14   Subj  220–22, 226–27, 23173   Vent  232–36   Vent with suffix pronouns  239   passive  259–61   reciprocal  264, 295–96   D-stem  269–70   Š-stem  455–56, 486   ŠD-stem  334–37   Dtr-stem  438–443   t-stems  255–56, 358, 363–65, 367, 371–74, 384, 387, 403–4, 408   tan-stems  312, 419, 429–30, 436, 481–82   quadrirad. verbs  111, 304–5, 309–10, 341–44, 349   predicative nouns/adjectives    weak verbs  450–52, 455–56, 463, 46571, 473, 477–78, 481–82, 486, 488–90, 506–9, 543–54, 569–72 omen texts  16, 337, 94, 226, 329, 442–43, 575 Omotic  20 onomatopoea, -ic  42–43, 73, 317–19, 445, 495 onset (soft vs. hard)  516, 51827, 576 oppositions between verbal categories:   in mood  130   in tense/aspect  95, 105, 110, 112, 117, 127, 145, 163–64, 587, 589   in verbal stem  247–48, 250, 252–54, 321, 333, 373, 420, 434–35   in voice  282–83, 28647 ordinal numbers  7, 65 organization (of paradigms)  28–35, orientation (of the speaker)  30, 211, orthography  8, 13, 18–19, 21, 48, 214, 483, 501 palatal glide  448, 482, 516, 533, 575, 578 palatalization  21829 paradigm, structure of  1–2, 5–9, 28–33, 250, 321122, 379, 492, 554–56 paradigmatic pressure parallel developments  106, 109, 118, 122, 153, 155, 181, 191, 229, 243, 287, 317, 387, 389 PaRaS (Adj/Stat)  30, 58, 63, 10351, 13531, 161–62, 185, 475100, 479, 564181 PaRaS (Imp)  74–75, 134–35, 565, 567, 571

644 PaRaSt  1623, 461–62 parataxis, ‑ctic  1955, 210 PaRiS (Adj/Stat)  58, 5930, 60–61, 64, 478–79 PaRiS (PPartc)  30, 32–33, 58, 161–62, 181, 185, 199–203, 320, 478–79 PāRiS  32–34, 203, 20632, 207, 209, 479, 568 PāRiSān  33, 207–9 paronomastic infinitive  194–95, 20221 paronomastic participle  204–6, 36120 PaRRă/āS  34, 96, 10250, 11065, 185–86, 207, 2681, 27110, 283, 359, 401, 44527, 479, 521 PaRRiS  34, 96, 10250, 11065, 207, 2681, 401 PaRRuSītu  27110 PaRRvS  22–23, 27, 5059, 268–71, 547 PaRuS (Adj/Stat)  30, 58, 62–63, 64–65, 73, 161, 571 PaRūS  20634 PaRuSS  345 Pa/uRRuS  96, 268, 271, 27724, 278, 283 Pa/uRRvS  162, 194, 200, 268, 271, 283 passive:  see voice past participle:   form  90, 1622, 200    in derived stems  268–69, 324, 358–59, 383    in weak verbs  478–79, 493, 500, 504, 507–8, 542, 553, 576, 583   function  58, 200–223, 331–32   position in verbal paradigm  29–32, 164, 176–77, 200–203   substantivation  35, 201–2, 52656   comparative  40, 185–86, 202–3, 281, 590, 592 pattern (vs. root or base)  37–39, 44–45 pausa forms  2113, 241 perfect (in West Semitic)  98, 119, 13015, 181, 203, 281, 382, 597; see also qatala perfect perfective:   form  68, 70, 89–90, 112, 126–27, 138–39, 213    in derived stems  268, 289–93, 324, 336, 342, 357, 389, 417, 426    in weak verbs  447, 450–51, 454–56, 458, 488, 499, 529–30, 539–41, 543–44, 546, 550–52, 558–59, 564, 567   function  127–29, 153–55, 171, 176, 45219    vs. Impfv  56, 92, 94–95    vs. t‑Pf  144–46, 148, 151, 153–55, 255    vs. Stat  171, 176   position in verbal paradigm  30–32   comparative  40, 97–102, 108, 110, 129–32, 17748, 185, 229, 244, 458, 499, 587, 589, 594–97 performatives  232, 574 peripheral Akkadian  10, 5164, 390, 419, 553 periphrastic categories  42, 33, 9939, 365–67 permansive:  see stative person (as opp. to number and gender)  5–7, 22, 30–33, 3820, 49–52, 13739, 177, 17856, 220, 238–40, 273

Subject Index personal prefixes  20, 49–52, 13014, 133, 189, 192, 216, 251, 341, 351, 379, 383, 393–94, 412, 459, 465–67, 47189 personal suffixes (stative)  50, 180, 181–83, 596 personal pronouns  23, 52, 177, 190 pharyngealization  192, 533, 59623 pharyngeals  448, 510–11, 515–16, 523, 525, 574 Phoenician  350, 375, 412, 473–74 phonology (of Akkadian)  46, 379, 471, 483, 497–98, 502, 507, 520, 524, 535, 539 phonology (of Proto-Semitic)  586 PiRaS (Imp)  135–36, 567 PiRaS (c. st. Ass.)  19911 PiRāS (Inf)  19911 PiRiSt  34, 460–61 PiRS  34, 42, 19911, 19913, 460, 507, 520 PitRă/āS (Adj)  34, 29010, 359, 377, 379, 398140 PitRuS  338, 34, 46, 13533, 2893, 359–60, 376–77, 470 plene spellings  18891, 20632, 214, 359, 408180, 477102, 484, 492, 501–2, 505, 508, 565, 567, 570 pluperfect  93, 128 pluractional  42, 544, 96, 100–118, 125, 245, 249, 251–53, 254, 256, 278, 282–83, 285, 311, 320, 374, 392, 394–95, 415, 419–25, 429–37, 438, 474, 493–95, 552, 585–86, 593–94 poetry/poetic style  129, 237, 480 polysemy  158, 258, 276, 415193 possessive resultative  169 potentialis  132 precative:   form  30, 5162, 128–29, 16515, 212–13, 390, 418, 451, 468   function  33, 14832, 1955, 212–13   historical background  130–32, 213–19 precative vowel  23–24, 214–15 predicative form (of Adj)  58, 164–65, 178, 181, 18890 predicative form (of PrPartc)  20636 predictable, ‑bility  6–7, 30, 36, 50, 58, 97, 126–27, 194, 245, 248–49, 290, 303, 340, 426, 567 prefix, ‑ation  32, 39, 44, 10249, 156–57, 213–17, 245–47, 251, 375–82, 392–97, 590 prefix ma-  22–23, 34–35, 29010, 311, 527–28 prefix mu-  203, 20945 prefix n(a)‑  124, 246, 288–89, 29426, 300, 302, 305–6, 309, 311, 314–22, 370, 586 prefix š(a)‑:   in Akk  31, 246, 249–54, 302, 307, 315–16, 324, 327–34, 337–50, 345, 406   in WSem  351–54, 412–14 prefix ta- (nouns)  396–402, 527–28, 592; see also t-prefix prefix base  32, 51, 126–27, 133, 137, 247, 288–89, 321–22, 324, 356, 358, 378, 435, 459, 541, 552, 589–90

Subject Index prefix conjugation  20, 29–30, 43, 50, 54–55, 5929, 68, 98, 126, 133, 136, 164–65, 220–22, 232–33, 324, 356, 374–75, 447, 464, 465, 528   in Berber  192, 589   in Proto-Semitic  17748, 242–44, 463, 589   in West Semitic  118–19 prefix stem  31–32, 98 prefix vowel  5059, 58, 116, 214–15, 247, 268, 280, 28339, 293, 394, 450–51, 458–59, 462–65, 467, 473, 539, 545–47, 590, 593 prefixed stative  46572 prepositional phrases  67, 235, 239, 274 prepositions  22–25, 46, 188, 195, 197, 240, 259, 264 Pre-Sargonic Akkadian  11, 26, 51515, 558 present (tense)  4–5, 79, 88–125, 231 present participle:   form  5161, 203    in derived stems  268, 309, 312, 314, 334–36, 348, 356–57, 404, 439, 444    in weak verbs  479, 484–85, 489–90, 542, 547, 553–54, 559, 568, 571, 579   function  184, 203–9, 419–20, 424   position in verbal paradigm  29–33   comparative  40, 109, 18682, 209–10, 280   as an Adj  205   as an agent noun  34–36, 57–58 present renewal  21, 107–9 primary adjectives  58–66, 161, 165, 176, 185, 192, 202–3, 2681, 285, 320, 492–93 primary nouns  37–38, 44, 199, 518 primary derived stems  109, 114, 155, 157, 246–51, 253, 256, 258, 333, 420, 434, 593–94 process verbs  58, 253, 254, 257, 271–74, 278, 284–86, 328–29; see also action verbs proclitics  30, 188, 213, 216–17 productive, ‑ity  6, 30, 33–36, 37, 39–40, 72, 174, 186, 199, 218–19, 230, 249–56, 272, 278, 284–86, 293–94, 327, 386, 402, 435251, 438–39, 460 professions (nouns of)  96, 205–6, 209 progressive  95, 101, 107, 206   in English  90, 100, 14727 prohibitive  10, 33, 92, 132, 133, 216, 218–20 promissory (oath)  92, 231 proper names  46, 14210, 20635, 21516   in Pre-Sargonic  26, 51515, 527   in Sargonic Akk  5717, 135, 150, 1623, 17855, 187–89, 361–62, 421, 465, 478, 497, 557–58   in Mari Old Akk  17855, 23379, 51724, 524–2545, 575   in Ur III Bab  270, 293, 421, 44423, 524   in OB  17855, 179, 187–88, 20119, 20944, 21830   in MB  479114, 188, 366, 374   in OA  20944, 553–54144   in MA  365–66, 46674, 47393, 562175, 564   in Amorite  9937, 189, 38085   in Eblaite  14934, 189, 294, 36539, 45840 prophetic perfect (Hebrew)  131, 18167 prosody, ‑dic  18372, 18891, 2113, 23689, 478

645 protasis  94–95, 128, 148, 242 Proto-Akkadian  48, 215, 255, 448, 465, 512, 539, 541, 543 Proto-Berber  21, 10554, 192101, 589 Proto-Cushitic  21, 129 Proto-East Semitic  95, 99, 255, 595–96 proto-language  8, 10146, 107–8, 586 Proto-Semitic  19, 40, 52, 71, 254, 584–98   phonology  452, 463–64, 512–13, 516, 523, 525, 554, 566   Impfv  97–104, 115–18, 121–23, 228–30, 243, 587–88   Pfv  42, 129, 132, 244, 589–90   Imp  135–37, 589   Inf  199–200, 590   participles  185–87, 203, 209–10, 590   derived stems:    GPL-stem  100–101, 116–17, 282–83, 594    D-stem  280, 592–93    N-stem  290, 321–23, 592    Š-stem  350–52, 592    t-stems  156, 375–82, 394, 412–13, 433, 591–92   quadriradical verbs  125, 315, 586, 590   weak verbs:    I/n verbs  317, 473–74    I/voc verbs  537–39, 552    I/w verbs  452, 458–62, 590    II/gem verbs  491150, 495, 590    II/voc verbs  476–77, 590–91    II/H verbs  566, 571    III/voc verbs  496–97, 499   noun patterns  811, 377–78   roots  41–44   particle *l‑  216 prototype/‑typical  5–6, 30, 38, 41, 55, 58–59, 66, 919, 196, 251, 257, 272, 415, 468 prototypical reciprocal  263–65, 363–64 prototypical reflexive  261–62, 266–67, 369–70 Proto-West Semitic  118, 120, 186–87, 190–91, 393, 414, 591, 597 pseudo-reciprocal  265, 364, 373, 442 PuRāS  4484 PuRRuS names  6035, 27724 PuRS  34, 42, 70, 19913, 460, 577221 PuRSāS(ī)  445 PuRuS (Adj/Stat)  64–65, 162, 565, 571 PuRūS(t)  34, 556151 PuRuSSāʾ  34 push chain  434 QaTāL  185–86, 199–200, 379, 590 QaTăL (participle)  184–86, 210 qatala perfect  40, 6883, 10351, 118–19, 179, 181–87, 18993   in Eblaite  203 qati/ula perfect  10249, 118–19, 130–32, 156, 181, 186–87, 189, 203, 589 QaTiL  184, 186–87, 203, 209–10 QāTiL  184, 186, 209–10, 590

646 QaTTāL  11065, 185 QaTvLL  34450 quadriradical verbs (Akk):   conjugation  306–314, 552   Impfv  112–14, 310   vowel classes  71, 79, 111, 307, 309–10   Ntn-stem  46–47, 302–4, 311–12, 432   Š-stem  333, 337–53, 406   comparative  121–24, 129, 315–17, 319–21, 341, 495 quadriradical verbs (WSem)  121–25, 314–15, 320, 345, 351, 353–54, 445, 596–97 quinqueradical verbs (Geʿez)  121–25, 345 realis (vs non-realis)  5, 33, 127–132, 211–20 reanalysis  13013, 227–30, 232, 283, 420, 436, 474 recentness  128, 15143, 153 reciprocal  51, 258, 263–66, 294–95, 359, 361–75, 380–81, 384–85, 387, 398–400, 405, 407, 409, 420, 439–43 reciprocal markers  264–65 reduplication  38, 108, 136, 245, 248, 254, 256, 314–15, 320, 341, 345–46, 438–46, 460, 494–96, 585 reduplication vs. gemination  9729, 281–82, 438–39, 491147 réemploi de l’intensif  10249, 120 reflexive  156–59, 258, 261–63, 296, 361–73, 375, 380–81, 384–85, 387, 399, 407–410, 413–14   indirect refl.  15039, 158–59, 261–63, 370, 380, 454 reflexive marker  261–264, 266–67 reinterpretation (of Gt as Gtn)  374 relative clause  9834, 144, 155, 166, 227, 575215 relative tense  95, 196, 201 religious texts  14, 16, 1840, 329 renewal (of verbal categories)  4, 7, 811, 3616, 906, 95–101, 107–9, 13220, 183, 266, 433, 437, 596–97 residual forms/categories  51, 74, 98, 104, 124, 129, 132, 185–86, 216, 218, 228, 231, 267, 269, 28647, 3252, 351, 358, 400152, 497, 550–51 resultative  55, 57, 5930, 10040, 10655, 157–58, 168–74, 176–77, 181, 184, 190, 20014, 202, 258, 321122, 468 Romance languages  19, 132, 158, 22961, 266 root (Akkadian)  41–45, 251, 311, 439 root (Semitic)  37, 40–41, 43–44, 315, 317110, 318–19; see also biradical roots root alternation  452, 455, 496 root variants  3253, 462, 46571, 512–13, 52441, 548120, 561169 root vowel  28, 45, 53, 68–69, 89, 11166, 112, 126–27, 133–36, 138, 165, 309–10, 587–88   in weak verbs  45, 467, 474–75, 477102, 491, 496–98, 509, 542102, 565, 566, 571–72, 582, 591 root-and-pattern system  36–39, 44, 70

Subject Index royal inscriptions  12–14, 16–19, 24, 337, 5165, 146, 150, 188, 21519, 225–26, 329, 330–31, 334, 516, 526, 535–37, 551, 559, 571202 R‑stems  438–443, 494161 Sabaic  4335, 242–43, 350, 353, 375, 414 Saho  322, 352, 58915 sandhi  21516, 484, 492152 šaPRvS (Adj in Bab)  325 Sargonic Akkadian  11, 14–1529, 23–27   phonology  5614, 34554, 358, 525–26, 533–34   spelling  513–16, 524   personal prefixes  51–52   G Pfv  5717, 128   G t-Pf  149–50   G Stat  1623, 179–80, 187–88   G Imp  135   G Inf  195–96   Subj  224–25, 230, 590   irrealis forms  214, 217–20   derived stems  270–71, 293, 299, 326, 358, 420–21   quadriradical verbs  31186, 346–47   weak verbs  110–11, 451, 465–66, 472, 478, 483, 488–89143, 496–97, 499, 501, 541, 545–48, 550, 557–60, 573–75 Satzfragen  128, 144, 153–55 ŠD‑stem  248, 255, 306, 329, 333, 334–37, 340–41 secondary derived stems  115, 246–251, 255, 258, 262, 355–56, 366, 385, 420, 422, 431, 593 semantic classes/clusters  67, 299, 409–10, 476, 494–95, 588 separative  1417, 15756, 267, 361 shared innovations  24, 26, 595–98 shared retentions  20, 23, 26, 124, 596–98 sibilant prefix  20, 350–54, 412–14 simplification of geminates  389, 45737 simultaneity  91–92, 229–30 sonorants/ sonority  5271, 122, 379 sound change  3, 7, 4025, 18372, 188, 215, 477104, 483127, 540, 561 South Semitic  20, 40, 97–101, 103, 117–125, 181, 182, 282–83, 314–15, 321–22, 413, 491–92150, 573207, 586, 591, 595–98 Spanish  56, 159, 266, 372 spelling alternation  450–51, 576–78 spontaneous events  158, 266 Š tantum verbs  332, 487, 569 Š‑stem:   form  47, 315–16, 324–27    in weak verbs  455–56, 462, 469, 485–87, 489–90, 530, 534–37, 540, 548, 569, 572    in quadriradical verbs  337–50   function  302, 307, 327–33   in relation to other stems  113–15, 246–47, 249– 57, 269, 271–72, 293, 333, 334–36, 386–87, 406–7, 424–25

Subject Index Š‑stem (cont.)   comparative  350–54, 412–13, 592; see also under the individual languages Št1-stem:   form  113–14, 246, 348, 403, 406175, 456–57, 487, 549   function  169, 206, 253, 339, 348, 383, 386–88   comparative  412–14, 592 Št2‑stem:   form  47, 113–14, 246, 403–4, 456–57, 486–88, 549   function  206, 248, 250, 254, 332, 35380, 404–11   comparative  412–14, 592 Štn‑stem:   form  114, 246, 337, 403, 457, 549–50, 561   function  206, 249, 386–87, 424–25,   historical background  435251, 436–37 Štt‑stem  388–90 stability, stable  4025, 119, 139, 249, 255–56, 524 Standard Babylonian  14–19   phonology  520, 536–37   t-Pf  154   Stat  17443, 176   irrealis forms  128   derived stems:  253–54    D-stem  277    N-stem  295–98, 551, 553    Š-stem  330–32, 333–37    t-stems  357–59, 367–68, 372–74, 404, 409    tan-stems  419–20, 423, 426, 428–30    Dtr-stem  443   quadriradical verbs  309–13, 344–45   weak verbs  457, 480–81, 485–86, 488, 492, 508, 539, 547, 551, 553, 566–67, 572   voice  259, 267   noun patterns  27110, 401 state vs. event  5, 54–56, 141, 158, 163–65, 168–77, 196, 21519, 21721, 219, 237, 488 stative  29–32, 36, 68, 10249, 158, 161–89, 200–203, 213   form  50, 68, 13531, 161–63, 176–81, 528    of derived stems  268–69, 288–89, 324, 342–44, 356–57, 417    of weak verbs  58, 1622, 166, 453, 465, 478, 489, 491–93, 504, 508, 565, 567, 571, 580–81   function  54–55, 57, 141, 158, 163–76, 231, 283, 292–93, 297, 299–300, 330, 332, 372–73, 377, 383, 386, 419, 423–24, 427, 468, 574212   ē + Stat  216–19   la + Stat  22036   lu + Stat  16515, 213, 216   of adjectives  164–66, 168–69, 181   of nouns  166–68   of verbs  168–76   ‘active’ Stat  164–65, 170–74, 176, 186, 201   ‘passive’ Stat  169–70, 174–75, 258–60   + Subj  221–24, 230   + Vent  232–33   comparative  181–93, 584–85, 589–90, 594–96

647 stative conjugations of Afroasiatic  20, 182–83, 189–93 589–90 stative verbs  54–55, 57, 5825, 74, 906, 919, 92, 106, 130, 192, 206, 260, 299, 316, 352, 468 stem  5, 28, 44, 5059, 1272, 137, 224, 438–39; see also inflectional stem and derived (verbal) stems stem alternation  5059, 177, 358 stem vowel (Akk)  28, 88, 90, 109, 115–16, 127, 134, 138, 162, 194, 200, 300, 309–10, 321, 401, 463–64, 480, 508, 565, 568, 582   comparative  119–25, 182–86, 203, 379, 394, 458, 584–85, 593 stress  46, 49, 130–31, 13326, 183, 221, 2694, 36018, 494, 503, 506 strong aleph  24, 450, 457, 479, 482, 512–13, 520–25, 538–39, 547, 567186 strong vs. weak roots  41, 43, 45 structure (of paradigms)  1–2, 5–8, 29, 250 style/stylistic  14, 16–19, 146, 221, 298, 325, 328–29, 332, 373, 380, 418, 485 stylistic variation  176, 237, 277 subgrouping of Semitic  9, 19–20, 595–98 subjective resultative  16928 subjunctive  4, 30, 3820, 98, 103–4, 162, 220–234, 237, 241–42, 244, 503, 575215, 582–83 subordinate clauses  42, 93–94, 101–2, 128, 144–45, 148, 155, 198, 222–24, 227–32, 237 subordination  30, 98, 117, 145, 224, 228–30 substantivization  35, 165, 185–86, 194, 199, 20120, 206, 20841 subtraction  30, 4232, 133–34, 136–37, 166, 178–79, 453, 492 suffix base  32, 161, 194, 247, 289, 317, 320–21, 324, 358, 378, 435, 554, 589–90   of weak verbs  447, 453, 457–59, 473–74, 490, 500, 540–41, 547, 552 suffix conjugation  42, 40, 68, 10142, 1272, 129–31, 156, 17648, 181, 189, 191   in Berber  20, 17648   in Modern South Arabian  179   in Neo-Aramaic  17753   in West Semitic  181, 241, 380, 595–96 suffix pronouns  14, 23–24, 46, 163, 166, 188, 221–22, 235, 238–40, 432242, 486, 499, 579 suffix stem  31–32, 98 suffixation  32, 38–39, 590 Sumerian  93, 18890, 23686, 316106, 440–41, 510   Sumerian loan words  3820, 43–4439, 47, 508   Sumerian influence on Akk  159–60, 17752, 23065, 23173, 244 suppletion  39, 121, 216, 235, 295–96, 467 šuPRuS:  see elative (Akk) syllabary  12–13, 517, 519, 580 syllable boundary  502 syllable-final gutturals  11371, 45530, 514–15, 518–20, 540–41, 548, 560–62, 575 syllable onset  516–18, 54095 syncretism  90

648 syntacticization  148, 153 Syriac  20, 321124, 35272, 381–82, 392–93, 412, 46048 tan‑stems  4857, 90, 103–4, 114–17, 139, 201, 246, 255–56, 312, 394, 415–37, 493, 549, 585, 593–94 taPRă/ās  377, 379, 397–401 taPRīS/taPRiSt  374, 378, 397–402, 408, 462 taPRvS(t)  320, 377–78, 397–414, 430–31 taQTīL  39, 124108, 280–81, 401, 585, 592 taQTvL  377–78 Tashelhit (Berber)  106, 115 telic motion verbs  72, 74, 169 telic vs. atelic  54, 57, 66, 918, 92–93, 111, 127, 1418, 164, 169, 184, temporal distance  131–32 tense/aspect  5–6, 29–31, 3820, 98, 105, 108, 117, 156, 194, 210, 228, 244, 316 terminative  16, 195, 1969, 35276 tertiary derived stems  246–50, 253, 255, 355–57, 422, 436 theophoric proper names  60–6135 third-millennium Akk  11–12, 21–27   t-Pf  149–50   Stat  17443, 465   Imp (in PNs)  135   Subj  230   Vent  233   derived stems  362–62, 326–27   quadriradical verbs  347   weak verbs  451–52, 455–56, 497, 500–501   spelling  513–15, 541, 554   dialect classification  11–12, 21–27, 534 Tigre  4335, 124, 345, 446 Tigrigna  4335, 124 time-stability  164, 207 t-infix  138–39, 155–159, 248, 255, 265, 355–75, 383–91, 396, 431–34, 439, 452, 490, 594–95 t-perfect:   form  68, 89, 138–40    in derived stems  268, 289–90, 293, 357–58, 384, 386, 388–90, 403–4, 419, 422–23    in weak verbs  452–53, 462, 469, 478, 489, 504–5, 543, 547, 553    in quadriradical verbs  309    with double t-infix  139, 255, 295, 357–58, 384, 386–87, 388–91, 403–4, 419, 423–24   function  5616, 94, 127–28, 140–55, 16826, 170–71, 21932, 23172, 23274, 295   position in the verbal paradigm  29–30, 32   historical development  10, 12, 36, 40, 101, 153–55, 157–60, 255, 366, 373–74, 585   comparative  155–57 t-prefix  360, 376–79 transitivity  66–70, 72–74, 11065, 134, 136, 15960, 164, 171–72, 252–53, 278–79, 284–87, 296, 360, 476

Subject Index transparency  36, 43, 99, 124, 176, 247, 249, 360, 370, 432, 469–70, 519, 521 triradical(ity)  36, 42, 44, 53, 68, 111, 122–24, 301–2, 317–20, 344 truncation  13325, 289 t‑stems  10, 12, 90, 116–17, 1381, 14934, 246, 249, 264–65, 374, 388, 396, 589 Tuareg (Berber)  105–6, 115, 191–92, 199, 281–82, 28341, 351, 37567, 37774 typological evidence  1–2, 21, 107–8, 111, 130, 156, 184, 191, 228, 23065, 369 typology  2–5 u > a (MA/NA)  49, 7294, 22346, 31085 Ugaritic  20, 463   Impfv  9937   Pfv  129, 587   qatala perfect  184, 189   cohortative  241   energicus  22858, 242   derived stems  15653, 28031, 321–23, 350, 353, 375–76, 379–81, 392123, 397, 412   personal prefixes  5164   weak verbs  13325, 45943, 473–74 Umlaut  39, 535–36 unconditional sound change  4025 unidirectional(ity)  250 univerbation  130, 176–77, 180 Ur III Babylonian  11–13, 24–27, 5165   phonology  519, 524, 527   G t-Pf  149–50   G Imp  13531   G Inf  196   Subj  225–26   derived stems  270, 293, 326, 421   weak verbs  456, 483, 506, 545 Ur III Period  11–12, 21, 189 U‑verbs  68, 89, 356–57 valency  53, 169, 251, 256–58, 278–79, 286, 325, 401, 422 ventive  30, 33, 3820, 133, 162–63, 196, 220–21, 224–25, 227, 232–44, 33630, 531, 590, 595 ventive anticipation  235 verbal adjective  29, 1942, 20014, 300 verbal derivation  33, 245 verbal nouns  29, 34, 199, 377–78, 395–97 verbal paradigm  55, 58, 70, 88, 90, 111–12, 11988, 126–27, 13012, 137, 157, 200, 202–3, 241, 244, 250, 255, 271, 285, 29010, 316–17, 321, 379, 444, 469, 492, 540, 545113, 552 verbal plurality  92, 94, 96, 108, 251, 256, 282, 337, 415–16, 421, 423, 434, 443, 594 verbal stems:  see derived verbal stems verbal system  4–5, 8–9, 19, 36, 3820, 44, 70 verbalization  32, 36, 40, 5614, 11065, 177, 184, 300, 317, 322, 590 verbs of sound  42, 73, 274, 317 verbs of speech  93, 265–66, 372

Subject Index vetitive  33, 132, 212, 2138, 216–19 virtual subordination  145, 153 vocabulary  12, 14, 16, 18, 23, 277 vocalic radicals  41–42, 269, 547 vocalic sonants  5271, 216, 471 voice (consonantal)  18, 469–70, 523–25 voice (diathesis)  71, 13739, 157–59, 164, 169, 190, 246, 257–58, 267, 299, 316   active  157–58, 169–74, 200–202, 257–58   middle  3, 13739, 158–59, 257–58, 265–67, 371, 380, 588   passive  71, 11577, 11883, 13739, 158, 200–201, 257–60, 371 voice markers  13739, 158–59, 258, 322, 369, 373–75, 402, 434 volition  66, 164, 25924, 261 volitive  128, 131, 212 vowel alternation  38–39, 71, 80, 11065, 119, 28647, 500 vowel assimilation (Ass.)  12, 17, 23, 27, 48–49, 65, 140, 223, 289, 425, 505–6, 51828, 550 vowel class  45, 58, 68–81, 88–90, 110–12, 120, 126, 288, 290, 498, 542102   A/a  60, 67–70, 74–75, 79, 134, 136, 162   A/i  60, 68–69, 71, 75, 111, 448–49   A/u (‘Ablaut class’)  66–67, 68–70, 72–74, 76–78, 80, 426–27, 491   I/i  58–60, 68–75, 77–80, 462, 491, 528–29, 542   U/u  58, 60, 68–71, 73–74, 76–80, 110–12, 290–93, 317, 417–18, 426–27, 500   of quadriradical verbs  71, 79, 111, 307–10 vowel contraction  12, 22–24, 26–27, 95, 112, 214–15, 346, 349, 498–99, 502–4, 506–9, 519, 521 vowel epenthesis  4751, 136, 393 vowel harmony  39, 4855 vowel harmony (Bab.)  25, 46, 525–28, 531–33 vowel lengthening  183, 185, 199, 210, 245, 28339, 439, 499, 518–19 vowel pattern  12, 23, 37–38, 45   of the G-stem  53, 58–59, 68–71, 89, 109, 116, 133, 139

649 vowel pattern (cont.)   of the derived stems  139, 268, 288–90, 300, 324–25, 356, 360, 417, 426   of quadriradical verbs  302, 307–10, 338–43   comparative  119–20, 18685, 192, 376, 379, 393–94, 597 vowel syncope  46–49, 114, 133, 178, 214, 303–4, 311–13, 336–37, 339, 347, 358, 393, 396, 440–41, 44426, 451–52, 486, 49147, 504, 507, 550 weak vs. strong forms  24, 255–56, 28032, 447–48, 454–55, 480–82, 52961, 539, 545, 554 weak radicals  41–42, 45, 68, 214, 346–49, 353, 444, 447–48, 500 weak roots  41, 45, 521 weak verbs  48, 53, 58, 68–69, 129–32, 134, 18372, 447–48, 496, 528, 590–91, 593–94 West Semitic  10–11, 19–20, 23   phonology  511–13, 523–25   G-stem  40, 97–103, 107, 109, 115, 117–121, 137, 156, 181–89, 203, 240–41, 244, 585–91, 594   vowel classes  6883, 71, 74, 28647, 203   passive  589, 596   D-stem  280–81   N-stem  321–23   Š-stem  350–51, 354   t-stems  375–82, 392–95, 401–2, 412–14, 436–37   quadriradical verbs  121–25, 306, 318–20   weak verbs  457–62, 473–74, 476–77, 495, 54094 wishes  130–32, 18167, 214, 218, 236, 242 word-initial aleph  518–20, 523–25, 54097, 544 word order  14, 22, 27 Wortfragen  128, 153, 155 Wurzelvokalklassen  6882 Zenaga (Berber)  191–92 zero derivation  199 zero transitivity  164 Zipf’s law  8

650

Index of words from other languages

Index of words from other languages   (in alphabetic order) Amarna Akkadian da-a-kà  189 na-da-an  184 ṣa-bat  184 ša-ka-an  184 ta-ra  189

Amorite A-ù-da-il  18993 A-aw-te-il  18993 Bataḫrum  38085 yantin/yattin  473 Yatašrum  38085 Arabic ʾabaha  318114 ʿabara  28647 ʿadala  28647 ʾafa/ika  5125 ʾaḥḍabu  446 ʾaḫaða  54094 ʾakāna  347 ʿanāq  3820 ʿarūs  5112 ʾatama  399146 bāʾa  475101 baġā  521 baqbaqa  445 baʾs  564181 bayāḍ  199 bazā  521 buhθa  475101 daʿaẓa  566185 dafdafa  495 daffa  495 dāka/dakka  10350, 495 ḍab(u)ʿ  51930 ḍaḥaka  556150 faḥ/haḍa  5126, 521 faḫara  445 faḫfaḫa  445 faʾr  3820, 445 farā  521 farrūq  283 ġadira  521 ġafara  521 ġalġala  318114 ġarr  34552 ġazāl(ah)  523 ġull  523 ġurāb  522 ġu/irnīq  522 halaka  37877

Arabic (cont.) hamhama  318114 hulūk  37877 ḥafaša  53888 ḥafiya  321124 ḥaza/ina  71, 28647 ḫafā/ḫafiya  28647 ḫarra  34552 idhamma  521 iḥḍawḍaba  446 iʿlawwaṭa  446 istakāna  347 ittajaha  377 kamʾ  522 kubbār  283 labisa  74 lahasa  5126 lahima  5126 laḥama  401156, 5126 laḥisa  5126 laqiya  377 liqāʾ  37877 luġah  522 mala/iʾa  71 maθala  377 miθāl  37877 nabaʿa  5126 nabaġa  5126 nabaḥa  317 nabiha  318114 nadima  318114 naġara  318114 nahama  318114 nahaš/sa  521 naḫaza  318114 našara  318114, 460 nata/i/una  473 naṭaḥa  318114 qamm  34552 quddūs  283 raʾaba  475, 555 raʿd  511 raḥima  556 ri/uġwah  522 sabādiḥ  351 sabaqa  351 sadala  351 sadima  318114 sahafa  5125 saḫ(ḫ)ara  34552 sakana  351 sarhab  351 saʾsaʾa  445

Arabic (cont.) saṭaḥa  351 simah  458 ṣadaqa V  393 ṣarra  445 ṣarṣara  445 šamlala  446 šimlāl  446 ši/arʿah  522 tahlukah  377 tawʾam  377 tilqāʾ  377, 37877 timθāl  377, 37877 tuhlūk  377, 37877 tujāha  377 ṭahara V  393 ṭaḥā  351 θaqala  34554 ʾummah  399146 wāʾama  377 waðaʿa  46048 wafiy  44912 waġala  318114 waġira  318114 waḫaza  318114 wakala  45425 waqafa  28647 wasama  458 wasina  46048 waswasa  445 wašara  318114, 460 waṭaḥa  318114 wazana  458 Aramaic (mainly Syriac) bəhet  475–76101 duʿtā  46048 eštəʿī  38599, 521 ʾītay  46776 laḥḥem  401156 mʿs  555 nəḥef  321124 talbəštā  378 ymʾ  573 Eblaite a-ba(-lu)-um  395 a-ba-ad  18994 a-bí-lu-um  395 ʾax(NI)-bù-ḫu/ḫa  270 A-bù-na-im  189 a-ga-lu-um  19911 a-me-tum  5163, 29426

Index of words from other languages Eblaite (cont.) an-da  29426 an-da-nu  29426 ʾà/a-šu-bù(-um)  401158 ba/bí-da-gi-i-tim  19911 ba-É-lu-um/lum  556 ba-ga(-ù)-um  500179 ba-ḫa-lumum  398146 ba-ša-šum/šu-um  19911 ba-ša-um  500179 da-bíl  45840 da-da-bí-lu  395 da-da-ga-bù-um  395 da-da-ì-lum  440100 da-da-mu  398–99146 da-ir-iš-du-um  401158 da-na-i-si-du/tum  401158 da-ne-a-al6  5268 da-nu-nu/na  270 dar-da-bí-tum  395 da-áš-da-mì-lum  395 da-šè-ba-tum  401158 da-zi  45840 du-bíl  45840 du-da-li-gú-um  395 du-uš-da-ḫi-sum  396 du-uš-da-gi-lum  396 du-uš-da-gi-nu/núm  395-96 du-uš-da-na/ne-um/u4  396 du-zi  45840 É-ba-gú-um  395 En-a-mar/mi-ir  294, 552137 É-ra/la-bù-um  299 é-rí-tum  53889 ga-du-ru12  270 ga-na(-u9)-um  500179 ga-rí-bu  52443 i-ba-ti-É-AN  24098, 294 i-da-ḫa-ú  5163, 9526 i-da-kam4  24098 i-me-tum  5163, 29426 i-na-É-áš  9526, 556 i-ra-ad  475 i-ša-wu  46778 iš-da-al  14934 iš11-da-mar  14934 la/a-i-mu  401156 la-ti-ba-t [um?]  6258 la-ti-tum  6258 li-ba/bí-tum  29426 lu-sa-ti-AN  24098 má-ba-ḫu  51516 má-ba-la/ra-zu-um  51516 ma-ḫi-la  18994 mi-za-i 2-šu  19911 mu-da-bar-si-ù-tum  314 mu-sa/su-ga-ì-núm/nu-um  347 mu-sa-ma-a/É-lum  306–7 na-a-um  475100

Eblaite (cont.) na-bar-su-um  314 na-bù-ù  270 na-ga-bù(-um)  395 na-sar-du-lu-um  314 na-zi-bù  18994 ne-da-la  18994 ne-sa-gu(-um)  19911 ni-da-za-an  14934, 458 nu-da-bi-AN  24098 ra-a-zu-um  566184 ra-ba-tum  395 rí-ì-zum, rí-zú  566184 sa-bù-tum  2709 sa-É-lum  556 sa-ḫu-sum  327 si-ga-pù-um  19911 su-bù-tum  2709 ša-ga-núm  396 ša-gu-˹nu˺-um  396 ša-ma-lum  395 ša/šè-na-u4/um/úm?  396 šu-ga-ga-bù-um  3820 te-rí-iš-du  401158 ti-a-ba-an  5268 ti-ʾà-ma-tum  401156 ti-ig-da-ra-ab  5268 ti-ir-iš-du-um  401158 ti-iš-da-gi-lum  395 ù-bù-tum  2709 u9-ga-da-ra  5163, 270 ù-na-ba-ga-ma  270 uš-a-na-ga  327, 46571 ù-sa-ti-an  24098, 327 uš-da-a-bí-la  404165, 45529 uš-da-si-ir  327 uš-ga-i-na  346 ù-wa-ì-da-an  24098 u9-za-an  458 wa-za-nu-um/núm  19911, 458 wa-zi-lum  46259 wa-zi-in  189, 458 za-a-rum  556 za-É-gú-um  556150 zi-in  458 Epigraphic South Arabian wkn  46152 Ethiopian Semitic   (unmarked = Geʿez,   Amh = Amharic,   Te = Tigre,   Tña = Tigriña) ʾangargara (Tña)  123 ʾangōgawa  320120 ʾansōsawa (Tña)  123 ʾasnaqnaqa (Te)  345 ʾasqamqama (Te)  345

651 Ethiopian Semitic (cont.) ʾasqōqawa  320120, 345 ʾasqōrara  345 bəhla  131, 556 boʾa  475–76101, 556 fadfada  445 fat(a)ta  495 fatfata  495 ḥafaśa  53888 ḥamalmīl  446 ḥanqaqa  446 ʾi  217–18 laʿala  44213 nazʿa  573 nəʾda  555 nəhk/qa  475 rōṣa  475–76101 saʾaka  475 säbabära (Amh, Te)  446 sabara  446 saḥala  556 saḥaṭa  556 *sargawa  31186 ṣaʿala  557152 ṣaḥafa  522 śāʾn  511 tamayṭa  378 tamyāṭ  378 tanśəʾa  38290 taṭab(a)ba  378 taṭbāb  378 tawakkala  45425 wagara  45942 walwala  445 yəbē  131 yəstay  496170 zäl/nma (Te)  4335 zänäb/mä (Tña)  4335 Hebrew   (unmarked = Biblical,   Mod = Modern) ʾadamdam  446 ʿāšōq  199 bālā  318114 bāzā  521 bēʾēr  475 bōʾ  475-76101, 556 bōš  556 dibbẹr  10250 ftexi (Mod)  13325 gālal  495 gešet  318 gilgẹl  445, 495 hālak  319   Pi  10250, 394131   Hithp  394, 436–37 hāpak  5125 hištaḥ awā  412

652 Hebrew (cont.) hitpāqẹd  37671 ḥāmōṣ  199 lāqaḥ  319 lẹk  319 lōac  522 māḥōl  306 mālā/ẹ̄  28647 məḥōlā  306 mll  495 mwl  495 nābẹ̄l  318114 nāgaš  319 nāpal  4230, 318114 nāšaq  317 nāśā  318 nātan  318, 473 ʿōrēb  522 pəʿullā  35067 poʿal  35067 qaḥ  13325, 319 raʿ  ana/ān  446 riqqẹd  10250 rūṣ  475-76101 sābab  18372 sābal  43 sanwẹrīm  351 səḥarḥar  446 səʿōn  511 ṣā ʿaq  43 ṣabūaʿ  51930 ṣāḥaq  556150 śəʾẹt  318 šāʿā  555 šāʾap  5125 šākab  19911 šalhebet  351 šāpẹl  318114 šqaʿrūrōt  351 talbōšet  378 tẹt  318 tmale (Mod)  13325 tōʾ  amīm  377 tōṣāʾōt  378 yādaʿ  319 yāpeh  44912 yāšab  319 yēš  46776 yezaʿ  46048 yinhaq  47599 yištē  496170 zā ʿaq  43 zē ʿā  46048 zerem  4335 zimmẹr  10250 zrr/zwr  10350, 495 Moabite lḥm Gt  380

Index of words from other languages Modern South Arabian ś  ʾm  555 Proto-Semitic *ʾanθ-  511 *ʾarṣ́-  474 ʾgr  537 ʾḫð  537 ʾkl  455, 537 ʾmr  537 ʾnš  538 ʾpī  538 ʾrk  537 *ʿarś-  511 ʿbr  538 ʿkm  538 ʿlī  538 ʿlṣ  538 ʿmd  538 ʿnb  538 ʿqb  53891 ʿrb  455, 538 ʿtq  538 ʿzb  538 ʿzz  538 *baʿl-  519 *bayn  23 bʾš  555 bʿl  512, 555 bhʾ  475–76101 bhl  556 bḥr  556 bkī  41 bll  491–92150 dšʾ  4442 dšp  4442 ðāð  488–89143 *ðiʾb   519 ðrū  41 *halāk   511 hlk  538 hrī  538 hwī  538 hwū  538 *ḥamm   511 ḥdd  538 ḥdθ  538 ḥkl  538 ḥll  538 ḥlp  35067 ḥmm  538 ḥnn  538 ḥrr  538 ḥrθ  512, 538 ḥṣī  538 klʾ  573 knʿ  34758 kūn  42 *la‑   216

Proto-Semitic (cont.) *lū/law  216 lḥk  556 lḥm  401156, 512, 556 lqḥ  573 *min  23 mʾd  555 mlʾ  573 msḥ  573 mšḥ  521 mūt  41 *nahr‑  519 nʾd  475 nʿr  511 nḥr  556 nḥš  512 nsʿ  573 nwr 475101 ph/ḥṣ́  512 p/brġθ  522 pṣḥ  573 ptḥ  573 qmḥ  573 rʾm  555 rʿī  555 rdʿ  573 rhṣ  475–76101, 556 rḥm  362–6326 rḥq  474, 556 rtʿ  573 rwṣ  475–76101, 556 ṣġr  511 ś  ʿr  511 śīm  41 ś/šbʿ  573, 574213 šʾl ‘to ask’  475, 555 š/sʾl ‘to cough’  511 šḥq  556 šḥr  556 šmʿ  573 šṭḥ  573 *tawʾǎ/ām–  377 tšʿ  4442 ṭḥn  556 θʿī  555 θġr  521 θlθ  4442 ̣θʿn  555, 559 wbl  458 wdʿ  522 wdd  458 wðʿ  46048 wgʿ  464 wld  458 wqī  458 wqr  461 wrd  458 wrq  461 wrū  458

Index of Akkadian words

653

Proto-Semitic (cont.) wṣ́ ʾ  458 wtr  461 wθb  458 ynq  455, 464 yšr  464 zāz  488–89143

Sumerian (cont.) U-  159 Ugaritic ʾabl  45943 ʾard  45943 ʾsp Gt  380 ʾštʾir  376 ʾištmʿ  376 ḫṣb Gt  380 kms Dt?  392123 lʾik  18476 mḫṣ Gt  38083 mlʾa  189 nšʾa  189 qḥ  13325 rḥṣ Gt  380 sʾid  18476 ṣa-ma-ta  184 šʾil  18476

Sabaic ðnm  4335 Sumerian BA-  159 DAM.ḪA.RA  18890 IMMA-  159 LUGAL  17752 MA.DA  18890 NA.GADA  18890 ŠU.BAL  35067 ŠU.TAG.GA.AB  13635

Ugaritic (cont.) šal-li-ma  189 ta-ba-ʾa  184 tbʿ  573 tḫtṣb  397 tmtḫṣ  397 West Semitic bhl  475 kbd  4337 lhṭ  521 nʾq  475 nbḥ  52549 nhm  475–76101 nhq/k  475 nhr  475–76101 nwm  475–76101 rġm  522 rh/ʿb  521 ṭpḥ  573

Index of Akkadian words abālu  55, 542102;

D  401 abātu ‘to flee’  72 ʾabātu ‘to destroy’  521, 538; Dt  384; Ntn  428 A-bí-i-sar  465 abiktu  202 Abī-ṭāb(u)  187 abu  3820, 96 Abum-bēlum  187 Abu-ṭāb  187 ʾad(i)ānu  522 Adad-šarrum  187 adāru ‘to fear’  7294, 26026 ʾ/ḫadāru  ‘to be dark, worried’ 521, 525, 538; Dt  388113; Št2  409; Ntn  428, 430 ʾâdu  318114, 327–28, 566; Š:  see šuʾuddu agāgu  73, 491, 494 agāru  206, 537 agru Nn  20120, 202 aḫāmiš  264, 265, 295 aḫātu  96 aḫātu (reciprocal)  264

aḫāzu  149, 537; Gt  361, 398; Š  29637, 541, 548, 549124, 549126; Št2  37364, 405172, 411, 549; Štn  549; N  201, 295, 405172, 551; for D, see uḫḫuzu Vb Aḫī-ṭāba  187 aḫu  3820, 96, 370 aḫu (reciprocal)  264, 370 akalu Nn  47 akālu  51, 72, 537; Gt  36226, 399; Š  201, 327, Št2  408, 549; N  551 akāšu Gt  371; D  547; Dt  547 ‑akkum  239 alaktu  3820, 198, 444 alāku  67, 75, 92, 136, 234, 260, 511, 538, 542102, 545–46; Gt  14935, 357–58, 362–63, 371, 546; Gtn  415, 418, 419206; “Gtt”  389–90

ʾ/ḫalālu ‘to hang’  494, 521, 525, 538 (ʾ)alālu ‘to jubilate’ Gt  362, 371, 524–2545; Š  548; Štn  549 ʾalātu  74, 521, 538 ālikānu  20942 āliku  205, 206 alkakātu  3820 alluttu  436254 amāru  72, 173, 537; Gt  362, 398; Gtn  416, 419204, 546; Št2  405, 410; N  294, 550 ana Prep  25, 46, 240 ana maḫar  235 ana ṣēr  235 anāḫu  79, 23688, 542102; Gtn  419206; Št2  409; N  29842 anāku  182 andurāru  34141 ‑anni  238 ‑anniāšim  238 ‑anniāti  238 annû ‘this’  198, 513

654 anqullu  30155 anumma  147 apālu  13635, 545109; Gt  365–66, 377, 398, 400, 418200; Gtn  14625, 421; Dtt  390; Št2  407, 410 ʾapāru  20223, 521, 524, 538, 542102; N  296 apâtu Adj   53679 āpiu  505 ʾapparrû  522 ʾar(t)u  522 arāḫu ‘to be quick’  5930, 273, 542102 arāku  529, 537; Š  329 ʾarāmu  521, 52961, 53993, 542102 arāru ‘to curse’  494 arāru ‘to tremble’  4232, 494, 542102; Gtn  493; N  293; Ntn  426, 429, 430 ʾarāru ‘to dry out’  493 arāšu (Ass)  538 arḫu Adj  5930 āribu  52443 Arnaba  18890 arraku Adj  96 asītu  4856 Asqudānum  20841 aš(a)ru Nn  46, 4857 ašāru  389115, 4481, 545111 ašāšu ‘to be worried’  7192, 493, 542102; Ntn  426, 429, 430, 554 ʾašāšu ‘to catch’  7192 ašqulālu  30155, 34141 Ašrilīšu  46, 20119 ašru:  see aš(a)ru aššatu  511 ‑aššum  239 ‑aššunūti  239 Ātamar-DN  14210 Ātanaḫ(-ilī)  14210, 150 atānu  199 atḫū  3820, 201, 359, 363 atta ‘you’  182 attī ‘you (Fem)  182 atwû Vb  78, 265, 357, 364, 37262, 400, 47498, 494, 502183, 538, 546; Št2  406–7, 410 awātu  198, 513, 517, 53887 *awāʾum  198; N  36327 ay (Vet)  217–19

Index of Akkadian words ayyum  504190 ʾazannu  484, 485 baʾālu  512, 520, 521 babālu  4439 babbanû Adj  444 babbilu  34 baḫāru Dtn  423 baḫû Vb  78 bakkāʾu  520 bakû Vb Gt  371 balāṣu  27110 balāṭu Vb  75, 162, 1943; Ntn  427, 429 balāṭu Nn  36, 197 baliltu  493 balluṣītu  27110 bâlu Vb  475, 556, 567 banû Vb Š  33118 banû Adj  444 baqāmu  27111 baqāru  4334, 73, 76–78, 202 Bāqilānum  20944 baqru/ū Nn  202 barāmu ‘to seal’  77 barāmu ‘to be multi­ coloured’  1941 barāqu  72; Ntn  427, 429 barāru  444, 494 barmu Adj  445 barû Vb ‘to see’  27725 bâru ‘to catch’  566; Gtn  568; D  568; N  569 bâru ‘to appear’  475 baṣāṣu  544, 494 bâštu  564181 bašû Vb  55, 56, 92, 110–11, 499–500; N  297; Ntn  426, 428, 430 bašû Adj  20632 bâšu Vb  ‘to be ashamed’  476, 556, 557153, 563–64; D  569 bâšu Vb  ‘to be bad’ 475, 555 batāqu  15039, 202; Gt(?)  52 batiqtu  202 bātiqum (OA)  27726 batqu Nn  202 battuqum  27726 bâtu Vb  3511, 4337; Gtn  481–82; Š  487 baṭālu  202 baṭlu  Nn 202

bâʾu Vb  475–76, 521, 556, 564; Š  569 Baʾu-ila  17855 baʾūlu  20634 Bēlī-ṭāb(um)  187 belû Vb N  297 bêlu Vb  56, 512, 555, 561–62, 570, 570200; N  572 bēlu Nn  26, 519, 527 berû Vb  533, 573; Gtn  419208; D  530 bêru Vb  556, 559, 564–65, 570 bêšu Vb  556 biādu  4337 biblu  460 birbirrū  444 bun(n)annû  445 buqqumu Adj  27111 burbuʾātu  522 burmāmu  445 burrû Vb  27725 būṣu  51930 bûštu   556151 buʾʾû Vb  15552, 278, 521; Dt  38494; Dtn  423 buzzuʾu Vb  521 daʾāmu  78113, 521; N  29842 daʾāpu  26336 dababābu Nn  439, 444 dabābu Vb  73, 136, 439, 444, 493, 494; Gtn  418; D  15039, 276; Št1  388108 dabābu (Nn)  198 daddaru  320 dādu  46048 dagālu  72 dāʾik(ān)u  208 da-ir-timx  46257 dakāku ‘to crush’  4232, 2707, 496 dakāku ‘to gambol’  494 dakkukum  2707 dâku Vb  4232, 175, 235, 496; Gt  480; D  484–85; N  17546, 488 dalāḫu Š  33118 dalālu  494 dâlu Š  47, 487 damāmu  494; Gtn  418 damāqu D  273 damāqu (Nn)  1941 damqu Adj  17962

Index of Akkadian words danānu Vb D  273; Dtr  440, 442–43; ŠD  334–35 danānu Nn  36, 1941 dandannu Adj  444 Dan-ʾilum  524 Dann-Aššur  492152 dannu Adj  34, 444, 492 darāru  7294 dâṣu Vb  566 dašāpu  4442; D  278 dašpu Adj  4442, 278 dâšu Vb D  485 dašʾum (Ass)  4442 daʾtu  46048 daʾummatu  345 daʾummu Adj  345, 522 daw/mû Vb  47498 dayyānu  34, 484 de/aʾ(a)tu  522 dekû Vb  537, 573 dešû Vb  278; D  508 dešû Adj  4442, 20632, 278 diʾatu  46048 dišpu  4442 dīšu  4442 di/uʾu ‘platform’  522 diʾu (an illness)  522 diy(y)āntu  479114 DN-kašid  1623 DN-muštēšer  20635 DN-nāṣir  20635 dulūtu  508 Dumāqa  18890 dunnu  34 Duššumum  270 duššupu Adj  270 e lā (OA)  216 e/ay  217–19 ebbu Adj  492 ebbu Nn  20120 ebēbu  492, 527; D  15039, 529, 53269; Dt  53269; Št2  408 ebēlu  512 ebēru  140, 538; Gtn  419206 ebēṭu  2709, 51620; N/Ntn  428 ebirtum  51724 edēdu  6464, 80118, 538; D  273 edēlu N  553140 edēqu Št2  4853 edēru N  295 edēšu  529, 538

655 eʾēlu  521; Št2  404, 406, 410 egēru Št2  410; N/Ntn  428 egirtu  202 egû Vb  78, 464, 498 ekdu Adj   541100 *ekēdu  541100; Š  326 ekēku  491, 494 ekēlu  538 ekēmu  79, 538 ekēpu  529, 538; Gt  399150; “Nt”  391–92 elēlu Vb  538; D  545111, 547 elēlu Nn  306 elēpu Gt  36848; Št2  410 elēṣu  512, 538 eli Prep  2559 ellu Adj  492 elû Vb  234, 528, 529, 534; Gt  371; Gtn  419206; Dtr  440, 443; Š  329, 541, 548, 549124; Št2  411; Štt  389 elû Adj ‘upper’  517, 531–32 emēdu  67, 80, 286, 538; Gt  361, 546; D  530; Dt  547; Š  548; Št2  403, 406, 410; N  295, 553; “Nt”  391–92 emēmu  529, 538 emēru N/Ntn  428 emēṣu ‘to become hungry’  80118, 545 emmu Adj  492, 511 *enēbu  512, 538 enēnu ‘to punish’  491, 494 enēnu ‘to do a favour’  80118, 538 enēqu  400153, 464, 528; Š  327, 46571 enēšu  529 Ē-nibāš(at)   564180 enna   147 enû Vb  13635; Gt  362, 400; Št2  406, 410 enzu  513 eperu  47 epēru Gt  36120; Štn  550

epēšu Vb  76, 80, 1622, 316106, 438, 445, 526, 538, 545, 545109; Gtn  546; D  275; Š  549123; Št1  386103; Št2  4853, 407176, 411; N  291, 550, 552138 epēšu Nn  198 epiātu  53679 ēpišānu  209 epû Vb  528, 538 eqlu  518 eqû Vb  13635 erbān (Imp)  23378 erbe  436254 erbettu  436 erdum (OA)  46256 ʾere/ibu  522, 52443 erēbu  67, 73, 76, 80, 260, 538; Gt  357, 371, 400, 546; Š  527, 541; Štn  424, 550 erēmu  53993 erēpu  80118 erēru  6363, 80118, 493158, 538 erēšu ‘to ask’  80, 5112, 528; Gt  371 erēšu Vb ‘to cultivate’  78, 80, 512, 526, 542103; Gtn  419204 erēšu Nn ‘harvest’  197 ēribu PrPartc  205 erqum Adj (OA)  46256 Erra-bēlum  187 errēšu  34, 14936, 543103 erṣetu  511 eršu ‘bed’  511 eršu ‘cultivated field’  35, 542–43103 erû Vb ‘to be pregnant’   528, 538 erû Adj ‘pregnant’  531 esēku  464; Dt  547 esēlu N/Ntn  428 esēpu  529, 538 esēru ‘to confine’  528, 538, 542102; Dt  385 esēru ‘to press for payment’ D  530 eṣēdu Vb  80 eṣēdu Nn  198 eṣēlu N/Ntn  429 eṣēpu  52237; Št2  411 eṣēru  80, 464–65 Ēṣidānum  20944

656 eṣû Vb  538 ešēbu  445 eše/ar, ešeret ‘ten’  47, 518 ešēru  60, 464, 46571; Š  548; Št  37364; “Štt”  391–92; Št2  404, 411; N  295 eššu Adj  36019 Eštar-alia  17855, 18788 Eštar-damqa  17855 ešû Vb  29116 etamdu Adj  359 etēqu  80, 15142, 260, 538; Gt  362; Š  549123, 549124; Štn  425 eṭēru  545; Ntn  430 eṭium Adj (OA)  6469 eṭû Vb  78; Dt  38494 eṭû Adj  6246 ew/mû Vb  47498, 528, 538 ezēbu  80, 538; Gt  371; Š  328; Št1  387; N  294 ezēḫu N  553 ezēzu  80118, 492, 494163, 538; Dt  384 ezû Vb  4232, 318114 ezzu Adj  492 galābu  27111, 27724; Š  33324 galātu  7498, 78, 31186; Dtn  423; Š  329; “ŠD”  337 galītu  202 gallābu  27724 gamālu  77; Št2  409 gamāru  273, 277; Dtt  389 ganāḫu  72, 529 gapāšu N  292 g/qarāru ‘to roll’  5930; Ntn  430 garāru ‘to be scared’ Gtn  422 garāšu  444 g/qarru Adj  5930 gaṣāṣu  5930 gaṣṣu Adj  5930 gašāru  529; Dt  385

Index of Akkadian words gerû Vb  583; Gt  400; Gtn  419208; N  294 gillatu  277 gulībātu  27724 gullubu Vb  27724 gullubu Adj  27111 gullulu Vb  277 gunnuṣu Vb  5930 gunnuṣu Adj  5930 guppušu Adj  470 gurušgaraš  444 ḫabābu  111, 494 ḫabālu ‘to owe’  74, 26026, 274; N  296 ḫabālu ‘to wrong’  77 ḫabālu ‘to bind, catch’  512 ḫabālu Nn ‘wrongdoing’  198 ḫabātu ‘to rob’  77; Gtn  419205 ḫabātu ‘to move across’  7294 ḫabbulānum  20840 ḫābilu  512 ḫābiru  479 ḫadādu  494 ḫadārum (OA):  see ʾ/ḫadāru ḫadû Vb  74, 149; N  297 ḫaḫû Vb  4339 ḫakāmu Š  388109 ḫalālu ‘to pipe, wheeze’  444, 494 ḫalālu ‘to creep, steal’  7294 ḫalālu “Štr”  44320 ḫalālum (OA):  see ʾ/ḫalālu ḫalāpu  525; Gt  399, 400; N  296 ḫalāqu  72, 162; Dt  384; Št1  388108; Št2  404; ŠD  334–35 ḫ /  ʾalāṣu  512; Gt  36432 ḫalāšu  277 ḫalḫallatu  444 ḫâlu Vb  479; D  485 ḫamādu  52548 ḫamāṣu D  276; Št1  388108 ḫamāšu  76106 ḫamāṭu ‘to be quick’  5930, 273 ḫamāṭu ‘to burn’  77; Š  329 ḫamqum  523

ḫamṭu Adj  5930 ḫanābu  444, 512 ḫanāmu Dtn  423 ḫananābu Nn  444 ḫanāqu  72; Ntn  428, 430 ḫapāpu  444 ḫapḫappatu  444 ḫâqu Vb Št2  47, 409, 487; N  488 ḫarābu  78 ḫarāru ‘to dig’  494, 496 ḫarāru ‘to be parched’ N  513 ḫarāṣu  80; Št2  403, 409 ḫarāšu ‘to plant’  512 *harbum  299 Ḫarruwātum  2705 ḫâru Vb Gtn  481 ḫārum Nn  523 ḫasāru  529 ḫasāsu  72, 17443, 274, 493; Gt  360; Gtn  421; D  401 ḫašaḫtu  1623, 46256 ḫašāḫu  4439, 55, 5718, 75, 78, 26026; N  296 ḫašālu  27111; Dt  38494 ḫašlātu Nn  202 ḫâšu  475, 566 ḫātu/ḫattu  42 ḫaṭû Vb  44, 140, 498, 577220, 577221; Št2  409 ḫaṭû Adj  20632 ḫâṭu Vb  475, 555, 560–61166; Gtn  481–82; N  488 ḫāw/mirum  479 ḫazzum  513, 523 ḫepēru  529 ḫepû Vb  583; D  530, 536; Ntn  428, 430 ḫerû Vb  496 ḫesû Vb D  534 (Ḫ)i-it-làl-Èr-ra  52545 ḫiṭʾu  577221 ḫubšāšū  445 ḫulāpum  525 (ḫ)ullu  52442 Ḫunābu  512 (Ḫ)unnubu  512 ḫurba/āšu  311 ḫuššulu Adj  27111

Index of Akkadian words ḫuzīru  3820 ‑ī (‘me’)  23892 i (Prec)  2138, 216–17 Iddi(n)-ʾabum  524 idû Vb  51, 5612, 130, 274, 465–68, 573, 575, 582–83 igaru  4750 iḫzū  278 I-ku-pá-ra-ša  524 Ilān-dannā  179 Ilān-rabiā  179 ilittu  460 imēru  513, 518, 53370 Imtīda(m)  14210, 150 in(a) Prep  24, 25, 259 ina bi/arī-  264 ina qāt-  25924 inanna  147, 210 Ina-šamê-wasum  60–6135 inūma  14829 iṣabtum  461 I-sar-be-lí  465 išaru Adj  46, 4750, 1958, 465 išbabtu  445 isītu  4856 Iš-ma-AḪ-dDa-gan  51722 Iš-má-dDa-gan  51722 Ištar-utlalī  4407 išti Prep  25, 265 ištu Conj  14829 iṣu  96 iṣurtum  461, 465 išû Vb  51, 5612, 130, 467–68 ʾišû Nn  522 *itaGawaGGûm Ntn  320120 itaḫlaṣānu  31294 ita/ertum  461 itbāru  34, 359, 363 itepšu Adj  359 It-làl-dDa-gan  524–2545 Ittabši-dēn-Aššur  14210 ittaḫāmiš  385 itti Prep  25, 259, 265 itû ‘border’  51414 itû ‘neighbour’  516–17 itūlu  3512, 13533, 299, 357, 371, 480; Gtn  481120 izuzzu  3512, 36, 55, 57, 75101, 92, 13533, 136, 22039, 299, 35812, 471, 47395, 488–90; Gtn  418; Š  490; “Nt”  392 kabāru  399149, 529; Ntn  427231, 429

657 kabāsu  111; Š  174, 330 kabattu  18580 kabātu  4337, 55; Dt  423 kabbaru Adj  34 kabru Adj  34 kadāru  529; Ntn  427231, 429 kakkabu  320 kalbu  3820, 445 kalû Vb  79, 134, 1943, 573, 576, 579, 582; N  294 kālû Nn  205 kalūmu  4856 kamālu  25924; Gt  373; N  290 kamāmu  7294 kamāru  77 kamāsu ‘to gather’  6988, 286 kamāsu ‘to kneel’  6988, 72; D  181; Ntn  427231, 429 kamʾātum/kamʾū   522 kamû Vb  74, 78 kanāku  4439 k/qanānu  493; Štn(?)  425; Ntn  429 kanāšu  78, 20224; ŠD  334–35 kânu Vb  36, 42; Gtn  432, 481; D  35, 252, 401, 482–85; Dtn  423; Dtt  389; Št2  47, 406, 408, 487 kapādu  67, 74, 274 kapāpu  494, 496 kapāru  277 karābu Vb  67, 72 karābu Nn  198 karāku  4439; Št2  411 karāru  136, 494 karāṣu  78, 202 karpatum  48 karṣu Nn  202 karû Vb  78 karūbu Adj  20634 kasāmu  77, 96 kasāpu  111 kasāru  529 kasāsu  494 kaspu  18580 kasû Vb  74, 78; D  276

kaṣāpu D  18166 kaṣāru  80; Dtr  440; Št2  409 kaṣāṣu ‘to grind one’s teeth’  494; Št2  411; Ntn  429 kaṣāṣu ‘to trim’  494 kaṣṣāru  34 kaṣû Vb  44, 79, 573; N  488 kašādu  67, 1623, 164, 175, 18166, 26026; D  276; Dtn  423; Št2  411; Ntn  429 kašāru  77, 529; D  270 kašāšu  77, 439, 493 kašdu Adj  164 kaškaššu  444 kâšu Št2  411 katāmu  173, 260, 277; Dt  388113; Š  33118; “ŠD”  337; Ntn  429 katātu Št2  411 katāʾum  134, 573 kaw/mû Vb  47498 kayyāntam  1276 kayyānu  36, 1635, 479, 484 Kazubtum  6359 kē/īnu Adj  478 kepû Vb  496 kisallu  53574 kīṣu  559162 kû ‘your’  508, 521 kubbulu Vb Dt  385 Kubbutum  270 kulbābu  3820, 445 kullu Vb  55, 5721, 92, 26026, 483–85; Dtn  423; Št2  408180 kullumu Vb  401; Dtn  423; Dtr  440; Štn  424; ŠD  334–35 kulu ‘all’  4857 kulūmu  4856 kupputu Vb Dt  385 Kurbilak  46 kussimtu  96 kuṣʾum  577221, 580 kuzbum Adj  6573, 162

658 lā  14832, 21620, 220 La-á-ra-ab  299 laʾātu  7395, 74, 521 labābu  326; Št2  410 labānu ‘to make bricks’  140, 529 labānu ‘to prostrate’  529 labāru Vb  75102, 529; Š  329 labāru Nn  1941 labāšu  74, 25821, 274, 37058; Gt  3575, 363; D  535; Š  329; N  296 labiru Adj  46 labû Vb  79 laḫāmu  512 lalû Nn  3820, 277, 508 lamādu  74, 134, 173, 26026, 274; Š  329; N  296 lamāmu  494 lâmātu  21516 lapānu  6253, 78113 lapātu  111, 26437, 27725, 37058; Gt  51, 3575, 361, 363, 364, 37363; Š  328, 387; Št  403161; Št1  386104; Št2  405 laqātu  76105 Lā-qēpum  478 lasāmu  5930, 73, 206; Gtn  415 lasmu Adj  5930 lašḫu/laḫšu  523 lašlašu  444 laššu  444, 46776 Lā-tubaššanni  564 law/mû Vb  1289, 173, 47498; N  294–95 lazāzu  491, 494, 496 lazzu Adj  493 lêku Vb  556, 570 lemēnu  529; Št2  406, 410 lemnu Adj  65 lêmu ‘to consume’  512, 517, 556, 557, 559 lê/îmu ‘he does not want’  21516, 570 leqû Vb  134, 173, 526, 53269, 534, 537, 573, 575–78, 580, 582–83; Gtn  419205, 577218 letû Vb  573

Index of Akkadian words leʾû Vb  55, 75, 496–97, 503, 521, 557154, 558; Gt  363 leʾû Adj  20632 lezû Vb  496 libbu  1957, 326 lidānu  460 lidu  46049 likalka Imp  136 lillidu  444, 460 littu  460 lū  14935, 16515, 2125, 214–16, 216–1721, 231, 36223 lullû Vb  3820, 43–4439, 277 lupputu Vb ‘to be delayed’  27725, 278 luqūtum  518 luʾʾu Nn  522 luʾʾû Vb  521 ‑ma  145, 153, 195 maʾādu:  see mâdu madādu  136, 491147, 492, 494 madakku  35 maddattu  436 mâdu Vb  15142, 475, 555, 560, 570; N  297 magāgu  77 magāru  7294, 73, 76, 20224, 398144; Gt  365, 373, 399, 407; Št  403161; Št2  405, 409; N  29012, 294; Ntn  427 maḫāḫu  494 maḫāru  173, 17443; Gt  3575, 35810, 398; Gtn  19710, 421; Št2  403, 405, 409; N  295 maḫāṣu  74, 134; Gt  3575, 35810, 361, 362, 398, 399; D  276; Št2  405, 410; N  295 maḫḫû  29219 māḫiṣu  35, 205 maḫû Vb N  292, 297 maḫʾum Adj  29219 māʾitānu  209 makāru ‘to irrigate’  80, 529 makāru ‘to trade’  398; Št2  406, 407 makāsu N  291

maknaku  49 malāku  72; Gt  3575, 362, 398; Gtn  421; Št2  410; N  295 malās/šu  78112 malû Vb  55, 79, 272, 573, D  401, 535; Š  329; ŠD  334–35; Št2  406, 409; N  297 Mama-alia  17855 māmītu  444, 460 manû Vb  79, 498; Dtt  390; ŠD  334–35; N  291 manzastu  359–60 maqātu  74; Gtn  418 Mārān-kīnā  179 marāqu  277 marāru  529 marāṣu  “ŠD” 337; Št2  407176, 410 marraru Adj  27725 marṣu Adj  179 māru ‘son’  519 marû Vb Št2  411; N  29323 masāku N  297 maṣallu  34, 35 maṣāru  7294 maṣû Vb  44, 18166, 498, 577, 580; Št2  411 mašaddu  35 mašālu  73, 80, 162, 529; Gt  362, 377; Št2  410 mašāru Gtn  415 mašāšu  44320, 494 mašāʾu  77, 520, 521; Gt  36120 mašdaḫu  34 mašʾenum  511 maškakātu  35 mašqalillu  307, 344 maššiʾu  34 matāḫu  136 matqu Adj  96 mâtu Vb  45, 175, 265, 476–77; Š  486 maṭû Vb ŠD  334–35; Št2  407176 mâʾu Vb  475, 521, 566 mazāqu Dtt  389

Index of Akkadian words mazāʾu  521 me-da-a (É-wa-tim)  466 mekû Vb  67; Št2  411 mēlultu  30564 mēlulu Vb  305 mēlulû Nn  30564 mēraštum  5128 mēreš(t)u  34 meršu  48 mesû Vb  51, 573, 575; ŠD  334–35 mêsu Vb  555 mēšeltu  51931 mēšenu  511, 517, 519 mēšequ  519–2031 mêšu  556, 570; Gtn  571; D  571; N  572 mēṭenu  52031, 527 meṭlūtu  48 migru  34 mīlu  51930 mīnu Nn  507 mitgur (Stat)  373 mitḫā/ăru Adj  34, 359, 366 mitḫur (Stat)  36641 mû  508 muāʾu Vb  56 mūdadu  20326 mūde(ʾ)um/mūdû  36, 20326, 466 mudikku  484–85 Muḫaddû/-ium  506196 muḫḫû  29219 mukarris/šu  205 mukillu  484–85 mukinnu  35, 484–85 muktaššaššu  439, 494161 multaḫṭu  367 munaqqītu  205 mundaḫ(ḫi)ṣu  366, 420 Munnabittu  551131 munnābitu/munnabtu  206, 553–54 munna/erbu  2892, 551, 554 muntalku  367 munzêru  36431 mupparkium  506196 mupparšu  206, 2892 muqerribu  205 muqqu Vb  278 murabbânu  209 muribbānu  209 murruru Vb  27725 murtap(pi)du  420 muṣarrirtu  205 muṣiḫḫu  486 mušāḫizu  205

659 mušallimānu  209 mušimmu  484–85 muškênu  16721, 347–48 mušlu (Stat)  65 mušmellilu  306 muššuʾu Vb  521 muštab(ar)rû  404 muštabbabbu  439, 494161 muštaḫalqu  404 muštaḫḫizu  424 muštap(pi)tu  420 muštar(ri)ḫu  420 muštar(ri)qu  36224, 420 muštaškinu  34861 mušteneʾʾû  418 muštēpišu  404166 mūtap(pi)lu  420 mutirru  484–85 mutlellû  441–42 mutnennû  444 muttak(ki)pu  420 muttāqu Nn  96 muttatīku  4394 mutte/illû  31398 muttīl(t)u  31398, 480117 mūtu  45 *mutuzzu  385 muʾʾû Vb  278 muzza/izzu  36, 20326, 489 naʾādu ‘to be concerned’  7395, 318114, 520, 521; N  297 naʾādu ‘to praise’:  see nâdu naʾarruru  304–5, 34245, 521 naʾāru  317, 511 naʾāsu  521 nabāḫu  274, 317 nabalkutu  111; 307–12; Š  315, 338; Ntn  312, 432 nabāṭu ŠD  334–35; Ntn  426, 429 nabāzu  317 nablaṭu  35 nabû Vb  498; Gtn  418 nābudu Vb  4337 nābutu Vb  4337, 72, 201, 298, 551, 553 nābutu Adj  201 nadānu Vb  4439, 110, 136, 149, 198, 318, 472–74; Gtn  418, 419205; Š  327, 387, 549122; Št2  403161, 409 nadānu Nn  36, 198 nadarruru  301, 320, 34141 nadāru Ntn  428

naddudum Vb  278 nadintu/nadittu  472 nadû Vb  174, 318, 498, 535, 577; Gtn  419208; Ntn  428, 430 nâdu Vb  3265, 475, 555, 566, 567187; D  560, 568; Št2  47, 406, 408 nagāgu  73, 76, 317, 491, 494 nagalmušu  30877 nag/qarruru  301, 303, 320; Š  340 nagāšu Gtn  415, 418198 nāgiru  27826 naglabu  34, 27724 naḫallulu  301, 303 naḫālu  42, 318114 *naḫarbušu  308, 311 naḫarmumu  308; Š  338 naḫarmuṭu  308; Š  338 naḫaršušu  308 naḫāru  317 naḫāšu  512; N  297 naḫbalu  512 naḫbutu Vb  299, 333 naḫduru/naʾduru Vb  29218, 297 naḫlaptu  399, 525 naḫparu  524 nâḫu Vb  318 nakādu  7498; N  292, 297 nakāmu  77 nakāru  529; Gt  362; Dtn  423 nakāsu  72, 535; Ntn  427 nâku  318; Gtn  482; N  488 nalbābu Adj  29010 nâlu Vb  1623, 475, 477, 566; Gtn  481–82 namaddu  35 namanšuʾu  524 namarkû Š  338 namāru:  see naw/māru namašši/ušu  44320 namāšu  74, 140 namašuḫu  524 namʾudum  518 namurratu  30154, 345 namurru Adj  179, 345 nanduru Vb  297

660 nanḫuzu Adj  201 nanza/āzu  29010 napāḫu  76106, 1637, 23376, 23482, 317, 444; Ntn  427, 428, 430 napalsuḫu  308; Š  338 napalṭû  308; Š  338 napālu  111 napardû  308; Š  338 naparkû  79, 308; Š  338 naparqudu  308; Ntn  312 naparrurtu  30154 naparruru  301, 303, 320; Š  340 naparšudu  308, 420; Ntn  312 napaštu  1623, 46256 naplāsu  29010 naplusu Vb  293, 299, 333; Ntn  425–26, 429, 430 naprušu Vb  201, 299, 333; ŠD  334–35; “Nt”  391–92 naprušu Adj  201 napšaštu  35 napurratu  30154 *naqallulu  301; “Nt”  391–92 naqû Vb  277; Gtn  418 nâqu Vb  475, 556 Nar(ʾ)amtum  558–59160 narʾamtu ‘mace’  522 narāmu  558–59160 naʾrāru/nārāru:  see neʾrāru narāṭu ŠD  334–35 narqû Vb  299 nāru ‘river’  519 nāru ‘musician’  570 nasāḫu  149; Š  328; 46987 nasāku  74, 76, 78; Š  328, 46987 nasāq/ku Št2  411 nasāqu ŠD  334–35 nasarruru  301 nasāsu  317 nasluʾu Vb  297 naṣarruru  301 naṣāru  72, 76105, 262, 318; Gt  360; Š  328; Ntn  428235 naṣṣ‑  581 nâṣu Vb  566

Index of Akkadian words našāḫu  274 našāku  77; D  275 našallulu  302, 303, 320 našāpu  111 našāqu  317; Dt  384, 4394; N  295 našarbuṣ/ṭu  308; Ntn  312 *našarruru  302 ‑nâši(n)  1222 našû Vb  7499, 136, 173, 17443, 318, 46776, 498, 573, 574212, 581; Gtn  419205; N  296, 299–300 nâšu Vb  318 natāku  317; Dt(n)  423, 470 naṭālu  67, 72, 318; Gt  362; Gtn  418; N  294 nātiktu  205 naṭû Vb ‘to hit’  74, 79; N  291 naṭû Adj ‘appropriate’  65 naw/bašuḫu  524 naw/māru  234, 318, 445, 47498, 529; Š  329; ŠD  334–35 naw/mrirrū  445 naw/mû Vb  47498 nazāmu  274, 317; Gtn  418; D  1381; Dt  1381, 423; Dt(n)  470; Dtt  389 nazāqu  72, 317; N  290, 298 nazarbubu  308, 310 nazāru  77; Gtn  419206 nazāzu  317, 494 nazzāzu Nn  29010 nēbaḫu  52860 nebû Adj  53679 neʾellû  313 negeltû  308 neḫelṣû  308, 310; Š  338; Ntn  312 nēʾiru  571 nekelmû  308, 310; Ntn  312 nēkepu  527 nēmequ  34

nemerkû  308, 310 nentû  292, 299 nepelkû  308; Š  338 neperdû  308 neperkû Ntn  31190 nepû Vb  506196, 533, 537, 573 neqelpû  79, 308, 310; Š  338, 53269; Ntn  312 neʾrāru/nērāru  29010, 304, 522 nērebu  527 nêrtu  16722 nêru Vb  514, 556, 557 nērubu  292, 299, 53890, 551 nēruru  553 nesû Vb  5930, 573; Š  329; ŠD  334–35 nesû Adj  5930 nešelpû  308 nešgû Vb  297 nêšu ‘to live, recover’  9526, 512, 556, 559, 570 neʾû Vb  559 nezû Vb  318114 ‑ni (‘me’)  238 nikkassu  3820, 27828 nīlu/niʾlu  31396 nīšu ‘oath’  520 nīšu ‘raising’  507, 520 nubattu  3511 nubbû Nn  198 nubbuḫu Vb  285 nugguru Vb  27726 nukkusu Vb  3820, 27828 nūru  318 paʾāṣu  512, 521; Ntn  427 pâdu  566; D  568; Š  569 pagālu  1941 pagru  261, 370 paḫāru  55, 74, 162, 25011; Dt  385; Dtr  440; Dtt  389 paḫāzu  27110 paḫḫuzû  27110 palāḫu  74, 134, 162, 20224; D  274; Dtn  423 palāku “ŠD”  337 palālu  491 palāq/ku  78 palāsu  7294 palāšu N  293 pālišu  205

Index of Akkadian words palkû Adj  311 pānānum  9212, 1276 panû Vb  79 paqādu Gt  13533, 3575, 35812; D  275; Š  33118 paqāru  4334 pāqirānu  209 pāqu Adj:  see pīqu parādu  75, 78; Dtn  423; ŠD  334–35 parāku  77, 31186; Ntn  427231 parāru  74, 494 parāsu  72, 111; Š  33118; Št2  410; N  295 parāʾu ‘to cut off’  521 parāʾu ‘to sprout’  521 paršumu Vb  27826, 30769; Dtt  389 pa/uršumu Nn  27826, 30769 pasālu  72 pasāmu Dt  384 pasāsu  493 paṣādu Dtt  389 pašāḫu  79, 135; Š  329; ŠD  334–35; N  298; Ntn  429 pašālu  72 pašāqu Št2  410 pašāru  277; N  294 pašāšu  26437, 37058, 494; Gt  360, 363; N  290, 296 pašāṭu  72; ŠD  334–35 paṭāru Dt  384; ŠD  334–35; N  294 pazāru Št2  406, 411; ŠD  334–35 peʾettu  436 pêntu (pêndu)  47497, 518 pêrtu  51930 pērūrūtu 3820, 445 peṣû Vb  573 pêṣu Vb  512 petû Vb  134, 526, 533, 537, 573, 575, 577; D  274, 534; Š  530; Št2  411, 530; ŠD  334–35 pinna(na)ru  445

661 piqittu  436 pīqu (pāqu)  65–66, 479 pirʾu (pirḫu)  520, 522 pirʾašu/Pirḫašum   524 piršaʾu  522 Pīša-dannu  188 pištu  460 pitqudu Vb  3512 pi/utqudu Adj  367 puāgu  478 puḫḫu Vb  27828; Dt  485134 puḫpuḫḫû  444 puḫrū (Stat)  65 pūḫu  27828 pulḫum Adj  6572 puqqu Vb  278; Dt  385, 485134 purqidam  311 puršumu:  see pa/uršumu Nn qabbāʾu  521 qabû Vb  111, 154, 27725, 499–500, 504, 508–9, 580; Ntn  430 qabû Nn  197, 198, 508 qadādu  76, 494 qâdu Vb  46152 qāʾipu  479 qalāpu  111 qallu Adj  30155, 34554, 492 qalû Vb  74, 79; N  291 qâlu Vb  564182; Gtn  482 qamû Vb  74, 79 qanānu  7294, 76, 494–95 qâpu Vb  164, 476–77, 478, 479; D  483; Št2  47, 409, 487; N  488 qaqqadānu  20841 qaqqadu  261, 370 qaqqaru  320 qarābu:  see qerēbu qarānu Št2  411 qarāru  7192 Qarnāna  18890 qaššu Adj  36019 qâšu Vb  478; Gtn  481; D  485 qatāpu  111 qātātum  36328 Qattunān  2705 qatû Vb  273; Dt  385; Št2  411 qebēru  528 qemû Vb  573

qēmu  51930 qēpu Nn  201–2 qerbu Adj  5930 qerbû Adj  532 qerbu(m) Prep  1957 qerēbu  5930, 76, 79, 80118, 162, 25011, 528–29, 565; Gt  357, 399; D  252, 53269, 535; Št2  408 Qēšum  478 *qidmē  22 qīptu  409 qīpu  164 qubbû Vb  27725 qurbu Adj  6470 Quttunān  2705 quʾʾû Vb  67, 278, 44910, 560 raʾābu ‘to trembe’  7398, 521 raʾābu ‘to replace’:  see râbu rabābu  78, 326; ŠD  334–35 rabāṣu  72, 399 rabbû Adj  96 rābiṣu  206 rabû Vb ‘to be big’  234; Dtr  44110; Š  329; Štn  424; ŠD  334–35; Ntn  429 rabû Adj  270, 508 râbu ‘to replace’  475, 478, 514, 558; Gt  15039 radādu  496 râdu Vb  475 rādu Nn  511 ragāmu  73, 76; Gt  362 raḫ/ʾāṣu ‘to come to aid’  13427, 512–13 raḫāṣu ‘to flood, destroy’  7192; Ntn  427231, 430 raḫāṣu ‘to wash’  7192 raḫāṣu ‘to trust’  78 râḫu Vb Š  329, 487 rakābu  37, 919, 134, 173, 202; Gt  400; Š  327; “ŠD”  337 rakāsu  155; D  276; Dt  385; N  29531 rākibu  205 rakkābu  34, 37 ramāmu  494 ramā/anu  261, 263, 370

662 ramû Vb ŠD  334–35 râmu Vb  56, 5717, 555, 557–58, 567, 570; Gt  363, 36432, 398; Dt  568 râmu Nn  198 rapādu  73; Gtn  415, 420 rapāšu  399149; ŠD  334–35 raqādu “ŠDtn”  337 raqqu Adj  492 rāqu Adj:  see rīqu râqu Vb  235; Š  329, 487 râs/šu ‘to kill’  566; D  560 rasānu  80 râṣu Vb  475–76101 rašāšu  494 rašû Vb  1289, 26026, 467; Š  327; ŠD  334–35 râšu ‘to rejoice’ Gtn  481 rašubbatu  345 rašubbu Adj  345 ratātu  494 raṭbu Adj  6258 raʾūmu Adj  20634 rebû Vb  76106 rebû Adj ‘fourth’  51828, 531 redû Vb  134, 496, 53065, 573207, 574–75, 577220, 577221; D  401, 530, 534–35; Dt  423; Št2  408; ŠD  334–35 rēdû  206, 579 rêmu Vb  556, 570; Gt  36226; Š  572 rêqu Vb  5930, 76, 556, 563, 565, 570; D  565, 571; Š  572 rēqu Adj  5930, 571 rêṣu Vb  475101, 512, 519, 556, 566184; D  572 retû Vb  573 reʾû Vb  75, 496–97, 503, 555, 558, 559 rēʾû  503187, 531 rīqu (rāqu)  65, 66, 479 Rigmadad  4649 riksu  34 rimku  34 ruāqum (Ass)  76, 162, 565 rugbu  3820

Index of Akkadian words ruggubu Vb  3820 rūqu Adj  5930, 64–6571, 571 ruʾtu  522, 52443 ruʾʾumu Vb  522 saʾālu  73, 274, 511 saʾāšu  521 sabāsu  4439 sâbu Vb  566, 567 sadāru  77, 23376, 273, 529 sâdu  566 saḫāḫu  493 saḫālu  77 saḫāpu  77; Št2  410 saḫāru  67, 73, 140, 273; Š  1289; Št2  37364, 411; N  292–93, 297; Ntn  426, 428 sakāku Ntn  429 sakāpu ‘to lie down’  20224 sâku Vb  475 salāmu Vb  6031, 79, 46466 salāmu Nn  1941 salātu  78112; Dt  384 salāʾu  521; Ntn  428 salīmu  398144 Salluḫān  2705 samādu  74; N  291 samāḫu  80, 529 sâmu Vb  44911 sāndu  47497 sapādu  72 sapāḫu  72 sapānu  111 saqāru:  see zakāru sāqu:  see sīqu sarāru D  273; N  6465 sarru Adj  444, 492 sarruru Vb ‘to pray’  67, 278 sarsarru  444 se/aḫû Vb N  29842 sekēru  38, 528 sêru Vb  556, 570 sikaru  46 sikkūru  38 simānu  460 simtu  460 sin (Prep)  22 Sin-waqrum  188 sīqu/sāqu  6575, 66, 479 sitnuq (Stat)  37365 s/ṣullû Vb  67, 278; Dtn  423, 530

s/ṣullû Nn  198 suppû Vb  278; Dtn  423 suppû Nn  198 sūqāqu  445 sūqu  445 ṣabābu  494; Ntn  429 ṣabāru  27110; Gt  295; “Nt”  391–92 ṣabātu  74, 134, 173, 17443, 273; Gt  400; Št1  388108; Št2  405, 407176, 410; N  1289, 294; “Nt”  391–92; Ntn  428235, 430 ṣabburītu  27110 ṣabbutītu  27110 ṣa/ebû  408177 ṣābu  265 ṣâdu ‘to melt’  6988 ṣâdu ‘to spin, prowl’  6988, 479; Gtn  415, 481; Dtn  423 ṣâḫu  556150; Gtn   481; D  486 ṣāʾidu/Ṣāʾidum   479 ṣalālu  919, 134, 202, 491, 495 ṣalāmu Ntn  427231, 429 ṣalmu Nn  18580 ṣâltum   556–57152 ṣâlu/ṣêlu   4440, 556–57152; Gtn  568193; Št2  405, 410 ṣamādu Vb  72, 198; Št2  411 ṣamādu Nn  198 ṣamû Vb  7499, 445, 498 ṣanāḫu  513 ṣânu Vb  4440, 566, 568193 ṣapāru  7294, 80 ṣapû Vb   74, 79 ṣarāḫu  75102 ṣarāmu  72, 274 ṣarāpu  111 ṣarāru  494 ṣarātu  78 ṣarpu Nn  35, 202 ṣayyādu  27110 ṣayyāḫu  27110 ṣeḫēru  1958, 528, 529 ṣeḫḫeru Adj  96 ṣeḫru Adj  179, 523, 528

Index of Akkadian words ṣêlu:  see ṣâlu ṣēlu  519 ṣenû Vb  513 ṣênu Vb  555, 559, 570 ṣēnu Nn  519 ṣeʾpu  522 ṣēru ‘back’  519 ṣī (šamši)  46049 ṣibittu  34 ṣibtu  460 ṣillu  278 ṣītu  460 ṣubbu/ṣumbu  470 ṣubbû Vb ‘to observe’  278; Št2  406, 408 ṣubbuʾu Vb ‘to wage war’  514, 574211 ṣullû:  see sullû ṣullulu Vb  278 ṣulūl(t)u  278 ṣum(m)ǎ/āmītu  445 šaʾāru  521, 52441, 559 šabābu  439, 494 šabartu  1623, 46256 š/sabāsu ‘to be angry’ Dt  385 šabāšu ‘to collect taxes’  4439, 73, 76 šâbu Vb  478 šābulu Adj  325 šadādu  491147; Gt  360 šadāḫu  72; Gt  371; Ntn  429 šadduttu  325 šadittu Nn  493 šagāgu  494; Ntn  429 šagalmušu  30877 šagāmu  73 šagapūru  34553 šagāšu  4439 šaggišu  34 šāgišu  20531 šaḫāḫu  495; Ntn  429 šaḫālu  42, 318114, 352 šaḫānu N  292 šaḫātu ‘to fear’  42, 26026, 352 šaḫāṭu ‘to jump, attack’  6988, 72, 27110; Gtn  415, 419208 šaḫāṭu ‘to tear off’  6988 šaḫḫuṭītu  27110 šaḫluqtu  326 šaḫrabbatu  326 šaḫrartu  326 šaḫurratu  342

663 šaḫurru Adj  342, 345 Šāʾimānum  20944 šakāku  77, 492–93, 494 šakānu  42, 174, 262, 352; Gt  363–64; Gtn  15037, 419204, 419208, 421; N  294, 296; Ntn  426230, 430 šakāru  38, 96, 529 šakkūru  37–38, 96 šaklultu  326 šaknāt napištim  20119 šaknu Nn  35, 202 šākultum  326 šalālu  494; N  30257 šalamtu  18580 šalāmu Vb  6034, 79, 234, 46466; D  423222; Dt  385; Dtt  389 šalāmu Nn  1941 šalāpu  77 šalāš  4442 šalāšu  4439, 75, 76106, 273 šalāṭu  77 šalāʾu  573; Gtn  422 šalbā/ubu  325, 326 šalimtu Nn  202 šallatu  493154 Šalmaḫum  46 šalmu Adj  179 šalputtu  326 šalû Vb  79 šâlu Vb  136, 475, 555, 557, 560, 567, 570; Gt  198, 357–58, 362, 365, 559, 568; Gtn  422, 561, 568; “Gtt”  389; D  568 šalummatu  345 šalummu Adj  345 šamāḫu Dt  385; Ntn  429 šamāmu  494 šamāru ‘to praise’ Gt  366, 371; “Nt”  391–92; Ntn  430 šamāru ‘to rage’ Gt  371 šammunu  3820; Dtt  389 šamnu  389 Šamruṣum  326 šamû Nn  506196, 508

šâmu ‘to buy’  479, 555, 557, 560–62, 567; Gtn  568; N  569 šâmu ‘to destine’ D  484–85; Št2  406, 408, 410184; N  488 šanānu  494; Gt  358, 399 šanāʾu  44320, 521; D  423222; Dt  38494 šandun/ttu  325 šanû Vb  273, 501; D  409; Š  329; Št2  406, 409 šanû Adj  508 šânu Vb  480; Gt  375 šanūdu Adj  3265, 331 *šānuḫu Adj  325 šapāku Gt  360, 362, 364 šapālu  4230; Dtt  389 šapāru  4230, 111, 136, 154, 419207; Gtn  419206, 420; Št2  411 šapāru Nn  197 šapāṣu  5930 šāpiru  206 šapṣu Adj  5930 šapšāqu  326 šaptu Nn  17962 šapû Vb ‘to be loud, thick’  79; Gt  371; N  29842 šapû Adj ‘loud, thick’  270 šapû Vb ‘to be silent’ Gt  14935, 21932, 362–63, 371, 504–5 šapû Adj ‘silent’  20632 šapultu/šapûssu  349 šaqālu  77, 276, 34554 šaqû Vb ‘to give to drink’  6988 šaqû Vb ‘to be high’  60, 6988, 79, 23482; Dtr  440; Ntn  427 šaqummatu  345 šaqummiš  342 šaqummu Adj  342, 345 šarāḫu  420; Dt  38392; Ntn  429 šarāku  77 šarāmu  80 šarāpu  77

664 šarāqu  3618, 23687, 420; Gt  36224 šarbābu Adj  326 šarḫu Adj  34 šarrāqānu  20839, 3618 šarrāqu/šarruqum  34, 18581, 359 šârtu  511 šarû Vb  79; Š  329 šarû Adj  64 šasû Vb  13635, 504; Gtn  416, 419205 šaššāru  318114, 460 šāšû Adj  325 šatānu  375 šaṭāru Vb  72, 198 šaṭāru Nn  198 šatû Vb ‘to drink’  22, 4544, 51, 75, 496, 517 šatû Vb ‘to weave’  74 šaw/mû Vb  47498 šebēru  528; D  530; Ntn  428 šebû Vb ‘to be satisfied’  573, 578; D  579; N  298 šebû Adj  20632, 531 šebû Vb ‘to be seventh’  574213 segû Vb  79, 498, 578; Ntn  428 šēʾiqu  571 šelû Vb  79 šêlu Vb  556, 572 šemû Vb  26, 134, 527, 573, 574, 576, 579, 580; Gt  35810, 366, 390–91, 398; Gtn  416, 418, 419208, 422, 577218; Š  579; Št2  410 šênu Vb  555149 šēnu Nn  511, 517 šêqu Vb  556 šerʾānu  522, 525 šerēmu  80 šerk/gûm Adj  31186 šeršerr(at)u  444 šertu ‘ring’  444 šêrtu ‘morning’  51724 šerʾu  522 šêru Vb  556 šeššu Adj  36019 šeṭû Vb  573 šêṭu Vb  556 šeʾû Vb  75, 496–97, 503, 555, 558; Gtn  418

Index of Akkadian words šēzubtu  326 šēzuzu Adj  325 Šī-banât  188 Šī-banītum  188 Šī-bēla  17855 šību Adj ‘gray, old’  520 šību Nn ‘satiety’  520 šību (šēbu) Nn ‘witness’  20120, 478 šībultu  325, 46258 šimtu  4485, 46048 šinšerû  531 šipru  34 šiptu  460 šīsu  507 šitarḫu  359 šitarqīšu (Inf)  36224 šitqulū (Stat)  36641 šitrā/uḫu  34, 359 šittu ‘sleep’  46048 šitūltu  198, 367 Šū-bēla  187 šubeʾʾû  34656 šubtu  460 šūbultu  3263, 34966 šudlupu Adj  331 šuʾduru Adj  331 šuglutu Adj  331 šugurruru Adj  340 šuḫarriš  343 šuḫarruru  341–46, 34966 šuḫmuṭu Adj  331 šuḫruru Vb  34347, 386104 šukennu  346–50, 514 šuklulu Vb  332; Št1  387 šuknān (Imp)  23378 šuknušu Adj  331 šūkud (Stat)  326 šūkulu Adj  201 Šulgi-nāda  187 šulputu Vb  201 šulputu Adj  201 šūlû Adj  331 šūlulu Vb  332 šumma  148, 153, 231–32 šummu Vb  278 *šummunu:  see šammunu šumruṣu Adj  331 šumṣulu Vb  332 šumšû Vb  332 šūnuḫu Adj  331 šup/barzuḫu  338 šupellu  346–50, 37364 šupêltu  349 šupšuḫu Adj  331 šupšuqu Vb  332 šupšuqu Adj  331 šūpû Adj  331

šuqallulu  30155, 341–46 šuqammumu  341–46 šuqullālu  34141 šūquru Adj  331 šurbû Adj  181, 331 šurru Vb Dtn  423 šuršubu Adj  331 šuršudu Adj  331 šūsumu Adj  331 šušqû Adj  331 šušruḫu Adj  331 šutablakkuttu  340 šutāḫû Vb  407 šutāḫû Adj  201 šutarruḫūtu  38392 šutātû Adj  201 šutaʾʾû Vb  384–85, 520–21 šutāwû Vb  408 šutēb/puru  411 šute/abrû  404, 411, 530 šutēkub/pu  399150, 411 šutelūʾu  404162 šutēmuqu  406–7 šutersû  404, 406, 408, 503 šutēṣû  386, 407 šutētunu  411 šutlumu Vb  332 šuttu  46048 šūtuqu Adj  331 šūturu Adj  331 šuʾû Nn  522 šuʾuddu Vb  327, 424–25, 487, 569 šūzuzu Adj  331 ta(ḫ)tammum  398146 tabāku  277, 36641 tabālu  74–75, 134, 14935, 263, 370, 374, 37774, 452 tābīlū  401 tabku Nn  202 tadānu  42, 75, 140, 472–74 tadduntu  400 tādirtu  409 tāḫāzu  36121, 398 taḫīqtu  409 taḫlaptu  399 taḫluptu  400 taḫsistu  401 taʾʾittu  520 takālu  55, 79, 135, 164, 454; N  297 takbaru  399149 Takil-ilīšu  20119 takiltu  408180 takittu  401 taklīmu  401 taklu Adj  164 tākultu  265, 399

Index of Akkadian words talbuštu  399150 tallaktu  399 taltabšu  397 tāluku  377, 400 tam(m)ǎ/āmītu  444 tāmartu  398 tamgu/irtu  399, 400, 407 tamḫartu  398 tamḫāṣu  398 tamḫuṣu  399 tamkāru  398 tamlāku  398 tamlītu  401, 409 tamlû  401 tamšīlu  377 tamṭītu  409 tamû Vb  6780, 79, 135, 444, 573–74; Dtr  440 tāmurtu  400 tānī/ēḫu  15040, 409 tāpālu  377, 398 tapḫaru  399 tapḫiram  399147 tapḫur(t)u  400 tappû  508 tapšaḫu  399149 tapšuḫtu  400151 tāpultu  400 taqānu D  34759 Taqnabum  46 taqrubtu  399 Tarʾam-Akkade  5717, 557–58157 Tarām-Uram  567, 557–58157, 567 tarāru  4232, 5930, 29116, 494; N  293, 298 tarāṣu  7192, 78, 202; N  295–9633 tarbāṣu  265, 399 tarbuʾ(t)u  522 tarkību  400 tarpašu  399149 tarru Adj  5930 tarṣu Nn  202 tartāmū  397, 398 tarû Vb  74, 263, 370, 374, 37774, 452, 45426, 501, 504 târu  36, 273, 478; Gtn  480–81; D  175; Dtn  423, 485134 taṣbâtu  53679 taṣbittu  400 taṣī  454 *tašmaʾum  398 tašmētu (Tašmētu)  398, 51515, 527 tašna/i  409

665 tašnintu  400 tašnû/tašnītu  409 tašnuntu  399 ta-ú-pí-a  46363 tāw/mītu  400 tāwītu  408 tawnītum  4497 tayyāru  36, 479 tebû Vb  537, 573, 575, 577, 580; Ntn  429 tegrītu  400 tēkuptu  399150 temēru  526, 528; Š  534 tēnīqu  400153 tēnû/tēnîtu  400, 407 teptītu  531 terdītu  401 têrtu  462 tērubtu  400 teṣbîš  408177 *teṣbītu/taṣbiātu  408177, 53679 *teṣbû  408177 tēṣī/ētu  401, 457, 46257, 531 tēṣubū  400151, 462 tešmû  398 tez/ṣû Vb  4232, 318114 tiamtu  514 tīku  318 tilmu  332 tīnuqu  400153 tiṣbuttu  400152 tišē  4442 tuʾǎ/āmu  377, 398142 tūʾīmu  398142 tûltu  51930 tum(m)ǎ/āmītu  444 Tūra-Dagan  23379 tūṣātu  378, 399 tūšaru  399149 ṭabāḫu  72 ṭabbiḫu  34 ṭābu Adj  479 ṭâbu Vb Š  47, 329, 486 ṭaw/mû Vb  47498 ṭebû Vb  7499, 80, 134, 498 ṭeḫû Vb  9526, 134, 53269, 573 ṭēʾinu  571 ṭêmu Vb  555149 ṭênu  556, 565, 570; Š  486, 572 ṭepû Vb  573 Ubārum  513 Ú-da-ad-zé-na-at  4496 udāʾu (MA)  466

uḫḫuru Vb  278, 545111, 547 uḫḫuzu Vb  278, 547; Dt  384 uḫūlu  508 ukāpu  4484 ukullû  514 ulā  21620, 23171 ʾullu Nn  523 ummānu  399146 Ummī-nāda  17855 Ummī-ṭāba  17855 unīqu  3820 Unnēnu  44423 unūtu  49 uplu  3820 uppulu Vb  3820 upšašū  445 urinnu  523 urīṣu  3820 ʾurnīqu  522 ʾurnû  522 ʾurʾudu  523 uruḫḫu  508 urullu  523 Uṣi-dannum  20944 ušḫeḫḫan  34657 ušubtu  460 utaqqû  385 utlellû  440–42 utnēnu/utnennu  443–44 uṭṭetu  53370 ʾuzālu  523 uznu  3820, 278 wabālu  4439, 47, 136, 37774, 448, 451, 453; Gtn  14625, 418, 421; Š  25–26, 248, 252, 327, 387, 455; Št2  404165, 409, 457; Štn  4857, 424; N  457 wabāʾu  4439, 44911 *wadādu  20326, 449, 46048 wadû:  see wuddû and idû *wakālu  454 wakāmu  44911 wakāpu  448 waklu  45425 walādu  175, 444, 448; Š  455; N  457 walāʾu  4481 wālittu  20328 wamālu  4439, 44911 wamāʾum/wamû  4439, 444, 449, 573 wanāʾum  4497 wāniqum  462

666 wapāšu  4439, 448 wapû Vb  4439, 449, 462, 46363; Š  455; Št1  387 waqāru  449, 462, 529; Š  329, 456 waqû  67, 449, 453; Dt  385 warādu  448, 451, 453; Gtn  418201; Š  22 warāqu  449, 462; N  457 Wardilīšu  46 wardu  18580 warkû  31186 waršu  44911 warû Vb  74, 79, 136, 37774, 449, 453, 501; Š  328, 455–56 wâru (âru, mâru) Vb  450, 475; Gtn  481 wasāmu  460 (w)asāqu  4481 wasmu  60–6135 waṣābu  400151, 448; N  457 wāṣītum (OA)  518 waṣû Vb  44, 67, 6985, 7499, 136, 206, 23379, 234, 260, 449, 453, 454, 498, 503, 575, 577, 580; Gt  371, 399; Š  252, 455, 574; Št1  403; Št2  457; Štn  424, 578–79 wâṣu Vb  450 wašābu  67, 919, 135–36, 162, 1943, 202, 448, 453; Gtn  419206

Index of Akkadian words wašāmu  448, 46048 *wašānu  46048 wašāpu  448 wašāru  399149, 4481 wašāṭu  44911 wašbum  179 wašru  44911 wašṭu  44911 watāru  449, 462, 529; D  269; Dt  423; Š  2661, 329 watû Vb  449, 573; Št2  406, 410 wazzunum Vb  3820, 278, 454, 459 wēdu  519 wildu  460 wuddû Vb  274, 454; Š  581; ŠD  334–35 wurrû Vb  454 wusmu  460 wussû Vb  454 Wussum(t)um  60–6135 wuṣṣû Vb  454 wuṣṣuṣu Vb  454 wuššuru Vb  269 wuʾʾuru Vb  454, 462, 475, 521, 560, 568; Dtn  423, 424224 yānu  570 yû ‘mine’  521 zaʾānu D  13635 zabālu  43, 72, 27725 zabbilu  11065 zaḫalû  523

zakāru  4334, 72, 37262; Gt  364; Dtr  440; “Nt”  391–92; Ntn  430 zakû Vb  79, 505; Dtt  389 zakû Adj  65 zamāru  73, 76, 29115 zamāru Nn  198 zanānu ‘to provide’  494 zanānu ‘to rain’  4335, 76, 494 zaqāpu  3820, 7192, 444 zaqāru Dtr  440; Ntn  429 zaqātu  5930, 77 zāqipānu  209 za/iqīpu  4856 za/iqīqu  445 zaqtu  5930 zâqu  444–45 zarāqu  77 zarû Vb  79 zâru D  485 zâzu  200; N  488 zenû Vb  573 zēru Nn  51828 zêru  56, 556, 571; Gt  363–64; N  572 zību  519 zī/ēzu  179, 186, 200–201 zikaru  46 ziqziqqu  444 zubbu/zumbu  470 zubbulu Vb  27725, 278 zuqāqīpu  3820, 444 zuqqunu Adj  179 zūtu/zuʾtu  46048, 523