The Morphophonological Development of the Classical Aramaic Verb 9781646020171

Citation preview

The Morphophonological Development of the Classical Aramaic Verb

Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic edited by

Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Jacobus A. Naudé The series Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic is devoted to the ancient West Semitic languages, including Hebrew, Aramaic, Ugaritic, and their near congeners. It includes monographs, collections of essays, and text editions informed by the approaches of linguistic science. The material studied will span from the earliest texts to the rise of Islam.  1. The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches, edited by Cynthia L. Miller  2. Phonology and Morphology of Biblical Hebrew: An Introduction, by Joshua Blau  3. A Manual of Ugaritic, by Pierre Bordreuil and Dennis Pardee  4. Word Order in the Biblical Hebrew Finite Clause: A Syntactic and Pragmatic Analysis of Preposing, by Adina Moshavi  5. Oath Formulas in Biblical Hebrew, by Blane Conklin  6. Biblical Hebrew Grammar Visualized, by Francis I. Andersen and A. Dean Forbes  7. Time and the Biblical Hebrew Verb: The Expression of Tense, Aspect, and Modality in Biblical Hebrew, by John A. Cook  8. Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, edited by Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Ziony Zevit  9. The Syntax of Volitives in Biblical Hebrew and Amarna Canaanite Prose, by Hélène Dallaire 10.  The Relative Clause in Biblical Hebrew, by Robert D. Holmstedt 11.  Language Change in the Wake of Empire: Syriac in Its Greco-Roman Context, by Aaron Michael Butts 12.  Advances in Biblical Hebrew Linguistics: Data, Methods, and Analyses, edited by Adina Moshavi and Tania Notarius 13.  The Morphophonological Development of the Classical Aramaic Verb, by Joseph L. Malone 14.  Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible: A Lexicon of Language Contact, by Benjamin J. Noonan

The Morphophonological Development of the

Classical Aramaic Verb

by

J oseph L. M alone

E isenbrauns   |  University Park, PA

This book’s seeing the publicational light of day owes much to the excellent work of publisher and editor Jim Eisenbraun, for which the author is profoundly grateful. Warm thanks also for subventional assistance are proffered to Barnard College, Columbia University, in particular to Provost Linda Bell and Dean Bobby O’Rourke. Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data Names: Malone, Joseph L., author. Title: The morphophonological development of the classical Aramaic verb / by Joseph L. Malone. Other titles: Linguistic studies in ancient West Semitic ; 13. Description: University Park, Pennsylvania : Eisenbrauns [2019] | Series: Linguistic studies in ancient West Semitic ; 13 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Summary: “A diachronic and synchronic account of the verb morphology and phonology of Aramaic, a subfamily of Semitic, from its appearance in history early in the first millennium BCE until approximately the second millennium CE”— Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2019021298 | ISBN 9781575069753 (cloth) Subjects: LCSH: Aramaic language—Verb. | Aramaic language—Morphology. | Aramaic language—Phonology. Classification: LCC PJ5207.M35 2019 | DDC 492/.2—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019021298 Copyright © 2019 The Pennsylvania State University All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Published by The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA 16802–1003 Eisenbrauns is an imprint of The Pennsylvania State University Press. The Pennsylvania State University Press is a member of the Association of University Presses. It is the policy of The Pennsylvania State University Press to use acid-​free paper. Publications on uncoated stock satisfy the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Material, ansi z39.48–1992.

to the spirit of Michael Patrick O’Connor

OLLAMH ÁRD I bhFOGHLAIM CARA CAOINTE I mBÁS Scholar lofty in learning Friend mourned in death

Contents 0. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   1 0.1.  Goals of the Book; Dialects Covered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0.2.  Preliminary Set-Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 0.2.1.  The Core Structure of Aramaic Morphology . . . . . . . 4 0.2.2.  Some Basic Symbological Conventions . . . . . . . . . . 5 Notes to §0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Part One Patterns and Processes 1.  System of Verb Stems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   11 1.1.  Strong Verb Stems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.1.1. Simple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.1.2. Intensive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.1.3. Causative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.2.  Geminate (gem) Verb Stems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.2.1. Simple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.2.2. Intensive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.2.3. Causative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.3.  Hollow (hol) Verb Stems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1.3.1. Simple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1.3.2. Intensive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1.3.2. Causative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1.4.  Defective (def) Verb Stems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1.4.1. Simple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1.5.  1√w Verb Stems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1.5.1. Simple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1.6.  1√n Verb Stems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1.6.1. Simple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Notes to §1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.  System of Verb Affixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.1.  Prefixes (Imperfective) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.2. Suffixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.2.1.  Before Bridge Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.2.1.1.  Mood Suffixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.2.1.2.  Number-Gender Suffixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.2.1.3.  Subject Suffixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2.2.1.4.  Object Suffixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2.2.2.  After Bridge Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2.2.2.1.  Mood Suffixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2.2.2.2.  Number-Gender Suffixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2.2.2.3.  Subject Suffixes (pf) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2.2.2.4.  Object Suffixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

vi

Contents

vii

2.3.  Analysis of Suffixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2.3.1. Ancipitality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2.3.2.  Bridge Formation (brf) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2.3.2.1.  The Mechanics of brf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2.3.2.2.  brf and Ancipitality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2.3.2.3.  a as the Unmarked Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2.3.2.4.  Spreading of Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2.3.3.  Composition of Suffix Complexes . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2.3.4.  Discussion of the Suffixes Class by Class . . . . . . . . . 30 2.3.4.1.  Mood Suffixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 2.3.4.2.  Number-Gender Suffixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 2.3.4.3.  Subject Suffixes (pf) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 2.3.4.4.  Object Suffixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Notes to §2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

3.  Geminate Formation (gmf) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 3.1.  The Autosegmental Framework to Be Assumed . . . . . . . . 44 3.2.  The Autosegmental Structure of Geminates . . . . . . . . . . 49 3.3.  The Individual Dialects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 3.4.  Some Special Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Notes to §3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

4.  Stress and Processes of Syllabic Mutation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 4.1.  Stress (str) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 4.1.1.  The Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 4.1.2.  The Individual Dialects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 4.2.  Reduction (red) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 4.2.1.  The Mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 4.2.2.  The Individual Dialects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 4.3.  Excrescence (exc) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 4.4.  Aufsprengung (auf) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 4.4.1.  Excrescent Aufsprengung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 4.4.2.  Sonorant Aufsprengung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 4.4.3.  Some General Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 4.5. Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Notes to §4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

5.  Spirantization (spr) and Reocclusion (reo) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 5.1.  The Fundamental Nature of Spirantization . . . . . . . . . . 82 5.2.  Spirantization and Reocclusion; The Individual Dialects (in Particular B, TR, SR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 5.3.  Diachronic Origins of spr-reo Patterning . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Notes to §5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

6.  Hollow-Geminate Rapprochement (hgr) and Hollow-Geminate Neutralization (hgn) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 6.1.  Hollow-Geminate Rapprochement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 6.1.1.  Short Schematic Generalization (ssg) . . . . . . . . . . . 92 6.1.1.1.  ssg in the Causative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 6.1.1.2.  ssg in the Simple Verb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 6.1.2.  Causative Initial Strengthening (cis) . . . . . . . . . . . 95

viii

Contents 6.2.  Hollow-Geminate Neutralization (hgn) . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 6.2.1. Intensives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 6.2.2. Simples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 6.2.2.1.  The Case of Mandaic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 6.3.  The Geminate-Hollow-rmp Nexus (ghr) . . . . . . . . . . . 101 6.4.  Summary; Developmental Profiles of the Individual Dialects for hgr and hgn . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Notes to §6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

7. Suffixal n(n) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 7.1.  Energic *(i)nn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 7.2. Long-Imperfective *V̄n(a) (Including Energic *V̄̊n(n(a)) . . 124 7.3.  2fp pf *tinn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 7.4.  Independent 3p Pronouns Containing n(n) . . . . . . . . . . 129 7.4.1. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 7.4.2.  Formatives Containing n(nə̆)-h . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 7.4.3.  Generalization of the Function of n(n) . . . . . . . . . 133 7.5.  The 1s Suffix *nī . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 7.6.  Mitosis of Etymologically Justified n . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 7.7.  Generalization and Spread of n(n)-Bearing Patterns . . . . . 135 Notes to §7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

8.  Condensation (cnd) of Vowel-Glide-Vowel Sequences (V Γ V) . . . . 143 8.1.  Early Condensation (e-cnd), Including Partial Condensation (p-cnd) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 8.1.1.  Description and Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 8.1.2.  Competition from Alef-Defective Neutralization or Transparentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 8.1.3.  Auslaut of the Defective Imperative . . . . . . . . . . 147 8.1.4.  Possible Early Condensation of ayhu . . . . . . . . . . 149 8.2.  Late Condensation (l-cnd) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 8.2.1.  Description and Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 8.2.2.  3ms suffix *-hī ~ *-hū . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 Notes to §8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

9. Gutturals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 9.1.  Special Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 9.1.1.  Alef Dissimilation (ads) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 9.1.2.  Causative Prefix h vs. ˀ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 9.1.3.  Pharyngeal Dissimilation (phd); The Uvular Fricatives X, R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 9.1.4.  The Merger of 3√y and 3√ ˀ Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . 159 9.2.  The Major Aramaic Gutturals: ˀ, h, 9, ḥ . . . . . . . . . . . 160 9.2.1.  The Laryngeal Stop / Lax Laryngeal Glide (alef) ˀ . . . 160 9.2.1.1.  Loss of ˀ by Contact Assimilation . . . . . . . 160 9.2.1.2.  Other Losses of ˀ ; Semivocalization of 1√ˀ in the Simple Imperfective and the Causative at Large . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 9.2.2.  The Laryngeal Fricative / Tense Laryngeal Glide h . . 164 9.2.3.  The Voiced Pharyngeal Fricative / lax Pharyngeal Glide 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 9.2.3.1.  Loss and Retention of 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 9.2.3.2.  Excursus on Analogically Induced Reprises; Some Aramaic Cases in Point Involving 9 > ˀ . 167

Contents

ix

9.2.4.  The Voiceless Pharyngeal Fricative / Tense Pharyngeal Glide ḥ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 9.3.  Special Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 9.3.1.  Proclivity of Gutturals Toward Vowels . . . . . . . . . 173 9.3.2.  Profiles of Degutturalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 Notes to §9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

10.  Reflexive Mediopassive (rmp) T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 Notes to §10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

11.  Coalescent Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 11.1. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 11.2.  The Individual Dialects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 Notes to §11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

12. Attenuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 11.1. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 12.2.  The Individual Dialects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 Notes to §12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218

13.  Vowel Copy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 Notes to §13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228

14.  Promotion (prm) and y-Monophthongization (ymn) . . . . . . . . 230 14.1. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 14.2.  The Individual Dialects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 14.3.  Summary Profiles of the Dialects on ymn . . . . . . . . . 235 Notes to §14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

15. Transparentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 15.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 15.2.  Stem-Based Transparentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 15.2.1.  Least-Marked Homoparadigmatic Stem Base . . . . . 244 15.2.1.1.  General Introduction; Strong Stem Bases   with Light Subject Suffixes . . . . . . . . . 244 15.2.1.2.  Strong Stem Bases with 3p Object Suffixes . 246 15.2.1.3.  Strong Stem Bases with   Heavy Subject Suffixes . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 15.2.1.4.  Hollow Stem Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 15.2.1.5.  Defective Stem Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 15.2.2.  Less-Marked Homoparadigmatic Stem Base . . . . . 248 15.2.2.1.  General Introduction; 3fs Stem Bases   with Object Suffixes . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 15.2.2.2.  1s Stem Bases with Object Suffixes . . . . . 249 15.2.2.3.  1s Stem Bases with Object Suffixes, Cont.:   Permissibly Alternative Analyses . . . . . . 250 15.3.  Affix-Based Transparentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 15.3.1.  Prefix- and Suffix-Based Transparentation . . . . . . 251 15.3.1.1.  Impf Prefix Strengthening (ips) . . . . . . . 252 15.3.1.2.  Geminate Integrity at Stem-Affix Seams . . . 255 15.3.1.3.  Spirantization and Suffixal T . . . . . . . . . 257 15.3.2.  Quasi-Inert Strings (q.i.s.s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 15.4.  Stem-Based Transparentation, Cont.; (Anti)Process-Implemented Transparentation . . . . . . 261

x

Contents 15.5.  Extensions and Additions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 15.5.1.  Extended Patterns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 15.5.2.  Partial Transparentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264 15.6.  Summary and Consolidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 Notes to §15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268

16.  Syncretism (syn) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 16.1. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 16.2.  The Individual Dialects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 16.3.  Summary and General Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 Notes to §16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305

17.  Other Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311 17.1.  Ā̊-Replacement (arp) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311 17.2.  ay Development (ayd) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312 17.3.  Bring Blending (brb) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313 7.4.  Closed-Syllabic Shortening (css) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313 17.5. Causative y/w-Spread (cys) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314 17.6.  Epenthesis (epn) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 17.6.1. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 17.6.2.  The Individual Dialects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316 17.7.  First Radical Filling (frf) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318 17.8.  Geminate Dissimilation (gds) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322 17.9.  Long Apocope (lap); Infixing Long Apocope (i-lap) . . . . 324 17.9.1. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 17.9.2.  The Individual Dialects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 17.10.  Lowering (low) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 17.11.  Midding (mid); Adguttural Midding (a-mid);   Atonic Opening (aop) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328 17.11.1. Midding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328 17.11.2.  Adguttural Midding and Atonic Opening . . . . . . 330 17.11.3.  The Individual Dialects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 17.12.  Morpholexical Truncation (mtr) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336 17.12.1. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336 17.12.2.  The Individual Dialects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 17.13. n-drop (ndr) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338 17.14.  Occlusion (occ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 17.15.  Pronoun Attachment (pat) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342 17.15.1.  Immediate Pronoun Attachment (i-pat) . . . . . . . 342 17.15.2.  Mediate Pronoun Attachment (m-pat) . . . . . . . . 351 17.16.  Pataḥ Gĕnuva (pgn) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355 17.17.  Participial Intrusion (pin) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356 17.17.1. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356 17.17.2.  The Individual Dialects; Synopsis . . . . . . . . . . 358 17.18.  Prothesis (pro) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360 17.18.1.  Description and Illustration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360 17.18.2.  Theoretical Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363 17.19.  Prefix Replacement (prp) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365 17.19.1.  Jussive-Precative prp ( j-prp); Nasalizing prp (n-prp) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365 17.20.  put Causativization (ptc) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366 17.21. Regressive n-Assimilation (rna); l-Assimilation (las) . . 367

Contents

xi

17.21.1. Regressive n-Assimilation (rna) . . . . . . . . . . . 367 17.21.2.  l-assimilation (las) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368 17.22.  Short Apocope (sap) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369 17.23.  Schwa Coloring (sco) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370 17.23.1.  Two Excursuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370 17.23.1.1.  The Identity of ə̆ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370 17.23.1.2.  The Specter of Schematisierung . . . . . . . 371 17.23.2. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372 17.23.3.  The Individual Dialects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373 17.24.  Spirant Hopping (shp) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379 17.25.  Simple Imperative Promotion (sip) . . . . . . . . . . . . 379 17.26.  Simplification (smp) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382 17.27.  Sin Merger (snm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382 17.28.  Second Schematic Lengthening (ssl): rmp ssl, cau(sative) ssl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384 17.29.  Tonic Lengthening (tln); Tonic Opening (top) . . . . . . 386 17.30.  T Object Marking (tom) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387 17.31.  u Apocope (uap) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388 17.32.  w Drop (wdr) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389 17.33.  Weak Imperative Change (wic) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390 17.34.  w Palatalization (wpl) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392 Notes to §17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393

Part Two Genealogy and Dialectology 18.  Family Tree Theory, Wave Theory, and Reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435 18.1.  Family Tree Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435 18.2.  Wave Theory: The Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437 18.3.  Wave Theory: Modalities of Isogloss . . . . . . . . . . . . 441 18.4.  Reconstruction: Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444 18.5.  Limitations of Reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447 Notes to §18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448

19.  Aramaic Dialect Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453 Notes to §19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474

Part Three Appendixes and Supplemental Matters 20.  Phonetic Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483 20.1. Consonants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483 20.2. Vowels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486 20.3.  Stress and Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491 Notes to §20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493

21.  Orthography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497 21.1  Letters Representing Consonants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497

xii

Contents 21.2.  Letters Representing Vowels (Matres Lectionis) . . . . . . 503 21.3.  Letters Representing Empty (Ghost) Consonants . . . . . 506 21.4.  Vowel Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507 21.5.  The Representation of Reduced Vowels . . . . . . . . . . 509 21.6.  Accentual Diacritics (tĕ9amim) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511 21.7.  Other Graphemic Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513 21.8.  Mandaic Orthography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 514 Notes to §21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516

22.  Traditions of Pronunciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 521 22.1. Samaritan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 521 22.2. Talmudic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525 22.3. Mandaic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 528 Notes to §22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 529

23.  The Generative-Phonological Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533 23.1.  Classical Generative Phonology (GP) . . . . . . . . . . . 533 23.2.  Synchronic-Diachronic Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535 23.3.  Lexical Phonology (LP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539 23.4.  Autosegmental Phonology (AP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541 23.5.  Syllabic and Prosodic Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 544 Notes to §23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 547

Part Four Indexes 24.  Aramaic Verb Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553 24.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553 24.2.  Index of Forms by Dialect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 556 Yaˀudic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 556 Old Aramaic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 557 Imperial Aramaic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 557 Biblical Aramaic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 559 Palmyrene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567 Nabatean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 568 Targumic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 568 Christian Palestinian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579 Samaritan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 582 Galilean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592 Syriac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 596 Talmudic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600 Mandaic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 616 24.3.  Cross-Dialectal Distribution of the Roots in the Index . . . 627

25.  Technical Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 641

26.  Abbreviations and Symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 662 26.1. Alphabetic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 662 26.2. Analphabetic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 665

27.  Bibliographical References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 669

0. Introduction 0.1.  Goals of the Book; Dialects Covered This book offers a diachronic and to some extent synchronic account of the verb morphology and phonology of Aramaic (A) from its appearance in history, early in the first millennium BCE, until approximately the second millennium CE—a 2000-year period for convenience to be dubbed “Classical.” Aramaic is a subfamily of Semitic closely related to Hebrew and other Canaanite languages, the two subfamilies constituting together the Northwest branch of the Semitic phylum. Though the number of processes and patterns to be covered is substantial, the study makes no claim to exhaustiveness, a reservation that holds all the more so with respect to the “dialects” focused by the study: thirteen chosen from a total nearly twice that number. And yet the varieties selected do make for a good chronological and geographical spread, thus facilitating reasonably adequate extrapolation for Classical A as a whole. The reservation on exhaustiveness also holds, explicitly in the book’s title, on the internal-linguistic domain of the study: The Morphophonological Development of the Classical Aramaic Verb. The feeling was that the operation of A morphophonology should be largely demonstrable through its manifestation in the verb—specifically, the finite verb—and that extension of the purview to other parts of speech, though desirable in principle, would entail inordinate inflation of an already extremely long volume. It may be noted toward the beginning of the preceding paragraph that reference to the language-variety objects of study appeared in scare-quotes: the “dialects” focused. Though in the sequel the quotation marks will for expository convenience be dropped, the reservation on the bona fide dialectal nature of several of the targeted varieties will hold. This is because the varieties are approached via, and hence tend to be identified with, the orthographic texts where they are manifested. Since, moreover, the texts in question appertain to language forms no longer spoken for a millennium or more, and there can be no firm warrants on textual homogeneity or linguistic consistency, we necessarily work with multiple analytic handicaps, and in the process run multiple analytic risks. However, as historical linguists we have no choice but to proceed despite at times severe and unavoidable limitations.[1] The ins and outs of 1

2

0. Introduction

all these factors will be picked up again in specific settings at many junctures throughout. Thumbnail characterizations of the thirteen dialects follow immediately. These sketches are pooled composites from various sources, principally Garbini 1960, Moscati et al. 1964, Kutscher 1972, as well as the individual dialect sources listed under each heading. (Some of these sketches may be too simple to capture the full reality of A dialect relations, an issue that will be returned to in §19—in particular under consideration of the detailed portrayal in Beyer 1986.) Yaˀudic (Y), the language of the state of Šamˀal Yaˀudi, 10th–8th centuries BCE. Attested in two inscriptions, those of Panamuwa I and Bar-Rakib (Panamuwa II), sometimes referred to as the Żincirli inscriptions. Primary source for this book: Donner and Röllig 1966–69 (= DR) I 38–40 (with translation and discussion in DR II 214–32), whence citations will be given as “214:n” or “215:n,” 214/215 being Donner and Röllig’s numerical tags for Panamuwa I/II respectively, and n. = pertinent line(s). (Yaˀudic is sometimes considered nonAramaic, an independent Northwest Semitic dialect. Though the evidence for non-Aramaic status is weightier in the nominal system than in that of the verb, a few points concerning the verb will be noted throughout which do appear to set Y apart from (the rest of) Aramaic; see, e.g., §7.1 w n. 2 (= with note 2), §7.2(α), §9.1.2, §11.2. In this book, Y is in any event included as one of the thirteen prime types of Aramaic studied, if only to see where the chips may fall. Readers may determine to their own satisfaction whether the evidence adduced seems compelling enough to merit admitting Yaˀudic to the ranks of the Aramaic dialects.) Old Aramaic (O), roughly contemporaneous with Yaˀudic (10th–8th centuries BCE), known from a variety of inscriptions found mainly in northern Syria. Primary source for this book: Degen 1969 (De). Imperial Aramaic (I), the lingua franca of the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian empires, 7th to 4th centuries BCE. Primary source for this book is the Jewish-Egyptian variety presented and analyzed in Leander 1928 (L) as well as Muraoka and Porten 2003 (MP). Biblical Aramaic (B), the type of A codified in the Bible, primarily in the books of Ezra and Daniel (Ezra, Dan), and held to manifest a form of language of approximate vintage 5th–2nd centuries BCE. Biblical Aramaic will be considered in two registers[2] correlating with rather significant phonological differences, or appearing to: that corresponding to redactions in Tiberian (Tib, tbB) orthography on the one hand, and that corresponding to redactions in Babylonian (Bab, bbB) on the other. The Tiberian register will be taken as the usual object of study in this book, and accordingly forms marked simply “B” will, context allowing, implicitly refer to Tiberian items. The primary source for this book is Bauer and Leander 1927 (BL)—though occasionally forms

0.1.  Goals of the Book; Dialects Covered

3

will be referenced directly to their biblical source in the format “book chapter: verse” (e.g., [hɔḥɔrväθ], Ezra 4:15). (Though Biblical Aramaic is widely considered to be a late form of Imperial Aramaic, it will be seen to manifest a number of morphophonological properties setting it apart. Additionally, the richness of detail represented in vocalized texts—especially the Tiberian— also sets it off as a unitary object of study.) Palmyrene (P) is the language of the oasis city-state of Palmyra, flourishing between the 1st century BCE and the 3rd century CE. Primary source for this book: Hillers and Cussini 1996 (HC). Nabatean (N) is the language of the kingdom of Nabatea, centered in the city of Petra (present-day southern Jordan), 1st century BCE – 3rd century CE. Primary sources for this book: Cantineau 1932a, 1932b (Cg, Cl). Targumic (TR), referring specifically to the language investing the Onkelos Targum (of the Pentateuch) and the Jonathan Targum (of the Prophets), itself a manifestation of that sort of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic once called “Judean,” roughly 2nd century – 5th century CE. Redactions include both Babylonian and Tiberian vocalizations, the Bab manifestation making for the usual object of study in this book; hence, conversely to the treatment of Biblical Aramaic (above), an unprefixed citation of a TR form should, in want of a statement to the contrary, be understood as bbTR. Among Tib redactions, the version of the Onkelos Targum published at Sabbioneta in 1557 appears to sport a type of TR with a number of special characteristics and will accordingly be granted subregisterial status of its own: Sab (sbTR), to be taken as a subregister of Tib (tbTR). Primary TR source for this book: Dalman 1905, 1927 (Da). (TR is frequently taken to be a split language type, having a Western (W) A consonantal text overlaid by a vocalization of Eastern (E) A vintage. It is unclear whether the findings of this book can support such a view, which tend rather to peg TR as a moderately conservative dialect of vintage predating the W–E split, and in point of morphophonological features—at least in the verb—relatively homogeneous to boot; for some discussion, see §19(γ).) Christian Palestinian (CP) is the language used by the Melkites, 5th – 8th centuries CE. Primary sources for this book: Schulthess 1903, 1924 (Sl, Sg). Samaritan (SM), the Aramaic dialect of the Samaritans, its prime codification being the Samaritan Targum to the Pentateuch though there are later embodiments as well; roughly 4th – 10th centuries CE. Primary source for this book: Macuch 1982 (Macs). (SM is one of three dialects for which traditional pronuniciation (trad pron) is taken as part of the evidence, relevant forms being tagged with “t”; e.g., t[qǽbbəl] ‘nimm an’, Macs 81. See §22.1.) Galilean (G), the dialect of Galilee, especially as codified in the Jerusalem Talmud but also in the aggadic Midrashim and various other documents; roughly 3rd – 10th centuries CE. Primary sources for this book: Dalman 1905, 1927 (Da); and as supplementary and amendatory to Da, Kutscher 1972, 1976.[3]

4

0. Introduction

Syriac (SR), pristinely the language of Edessa, later, on the basis of theological disputes, split into two opposed registers, a (linguistically more conservative) Eastern branch, Nestorian (Nes, nsSR), maintaining its see in Edessa, and a Western branch, Jacobite (Jac, jcSR), centered in Nisibis. The usual register taken as object of study in this book is Nestorian, whose forms accordingly will, context ensuring clarity, be tagged simply “SR” rather than “nsSR.” SR, of the classical type focused in this book, may be dated roughly from the 3rd to 10th centuries CE (though reference will occasionally be made to a precedent language type, Old Syriac). Primary sources for this book: Nöldeke 1898 (Ns), Brockelmann 1965 (B). Talmudic (TL), par excellence the language of the Babylonian Talmud, also extends to later texts such as the writings of the Gĕˀonim, and may be dated roughly 3rd – 10th centuries CE. TL will be considered per se in accordance with the consonantal text (normally of the Babylonian Talmud), but usually more fully on the supplementary basis of two traditional pronunciations: Yemeni (Yem, yTL) and Ashkenazic (Ash, aTL). Primary sources for this book: Morag 1988 (Mor) for Yemeni, and Margolis 1910 (Mar) for Ashkenazic. (It will not be disguised that Margolis’s Ashkenazic renditions often fall under suspicion of being more like scholarly interpretations than oral transmissions uncontrivedly passed down through the generations; and worse yet, evidence will be seen here and there that his renditions may have been distorted by undue influence from Tiberian orthography (Schematisierung). And yet the very presentation of such evidence may have the value of whetting our acumen at separating out the chaff from the grain in the pursuit of linguistic reconstruction. And on the other side, we will occasionally see evidence {§0.1, §0.2, §0.2.1} that Margolis’s renditions actually preserve some features of the original TL dialect more faithfully than do the justly prized renditions of Morag’s Yemeni informants. Both brands of TL trad pron are treated in §22.2.) Mandaic (M), more specifically Classical Mandaic, is the liturgical language of the Gnostic Mandeans, flourishing in Mesopotamia and Persia roughly from the 3rd to 8th centuries CE. Primary sources for this book: Macuch 1965 (Macm), Nöldeke 1875 (Nm), Malone 1967 (Mal). (Mandaic is the third dialect in this book whose reconstruction is based in part on traditional pronunciation; see §22.3. Moreover, the testimony of Modern Mandaic is also strongly evidential.) 0.2.  Preliminary Set-Up

0.2.1.  The Core Structure of Aramaic Morphology Aramaic, being a Semitic language, is possessed of the kind of morphology sometimes called internal-flective. In a Semitic internal-flective system, core stems, most perspicuously of the major morphological categories verb

5

0.2.  Preliminary Set-Up

and nominal (subsuming nouns and adjectives), are decomposable into two discontinuously organized constituents: a (typically) consonantal root “interdigitated” with a (typically vocalic) scheme.[4] In turn, roots and schemes are made up of radicals (√) and schematics (ʃ). Since a Semitic root typically consists of three radicals, it will be symbologically convenient to adopt a “type root” as a variable notation for root-at-large. For reasons adduced in Malone 1993 (THP), traditional candidates like pʕ l and qtl are eschewed in favor of qsm, in this book set off in capitals to make unambiguous its role as type root (as opposed to actual, concrete root). Hence QSM is equivalent to the more cumbersome 1 √2 √ 3√ {§0.2.1} (equivalently 1√C 2√C 3√C). Interdigitation with the scheme for the dynamic (as opposed to neuter) active (as opposed to passive) simple perfect (sim pf), 1ʃa 2ʃa, thus produces an internal-flective stem (henceforth miškal, plural miškalim)[5] 1√C 1ʃa 2√C 2ʃa 3√C, more tersely 1√Cʃa 2√Cʃa 3√C, and more tersely yet QaSaM. Roots are typically lexical morphemes, and schemes grammatical morphemes. Semitic miškalim are most frequently supplemented by affixes (suffixes, prefixes, sometimes infixes) of a run-of-the-mill sort attached to the hosting miškal by “-” (indicating attachment generically) or by “+” (indicating specifically morphemic attachment). Thus, when QaSaM is joined by the second masculine singular (2ms) suffix tā, we have QaSaM-tā or QaSaM+tā. A more condensed (and less informative) representation will be given as QaSaMtā, attachment boundary suppressed. (Context will dictate which sort of representation is best deployed, all three referring to the identical linguistic object.) More on internal-flection will be presented as the occasion arises, next in §1 n. 1. Also, as soon will be seen, a third sort of internal-flective representation is appealed to in autosegmental applications, the so-called skeleton. An autosegmental version of QaSaM is given in (0A) without comment. Autosegmentalism is per se discussed in §23.4 and frequently appealed to throughout the book (next in §1.3.2 n. 14). {§0.2.1, §0.2.2} (0A)

root skeleton scheme

Q | C

V | a

S | C

V | a

M | C

0.2.2.  Some Basic Symbological Conventions Several sorts of linguistic and paralinguistic representation types (or levels) are used throughout. Some of the most frequently appearing instances are briefly introduced here; all are comprehensively listed and defined in §25.

6

0. Introduction

Linguistic forms are large, with no further commitment to type/level, appear in italics, transcribed in accordance with the general symbological system detailed in §20. Thus QaSaM. Specifically phonetic forms appear in square brackets ([QaSaM]), while specifically phonological forms are adorned with solidi (/QaSaM/). Intermediate representations—those derivationally “between” /  / and [  ]—appear bounded by verticals (|QaSaM|). (Details on these Generative-Phonological distinctions, and more, are laid out in §23.) The prime paralinguistic symbol in the book is a pair of angle brackets, indicating transliteration, i.e., orthographic as opposed to phonetic or other linguistic representation. Thus might stand for an unpointed (ḥaser) spelling of SR [Qə˘SáM], while represents the pointed spelling of the same linguistic item. For transliteration, see §21. Even as italics signal neutrality (noncommitment) with respect to form type/level, the single-shafted arrow (→) is neutral with respect to whether a process is functioning {§0.2.2} diachronically (as a change) or synchronically (as a rule). Thus X → Y = “X is replaced by Y,” irrespective of whether X has diachronically (historically) changed into Y (X > Y), or rather X is being (re)represented as Y by a synchronic rule (X ∅ Y). Accident aside, an item X may be unattested for any of three reasons: (*) Its earlier (diachronic) existence is inferred; i.e., it is reconstructed: *X. (*) It is ruled out as ill-formed (e.g., ungrammatical, or flying in the face of prevailing phonological canons): @X. (*) The specific form itself fails to show up in extant (or available) texts but is believed to constitute a linguistic legitimate object at the same time as (synchronically with) the other linguistic objects being discussed; i.e., it is constructed: cX. Notes to §0

[1] Just one frequent handicap encountered in working in historical linguistics may be mentioned here: the necessity of dealing with statistically impoverished samples. Several years ago, a paper by the author focusing on Classical Mandaic was rejected by a distinguished linguistics journal on the advice of an anonymous referee who, reacting to the fact that the author had supported his argument on the basis of a solitary linguistic form, stated in the report to the editor that “Spring is not of one lark made.” Ah, good sir or madam, but sometimes it must be. Historical linguists have no choice but to proceed on whatever corpus remains from the wear and tear of the centuries, be it ever so paltry. (Nor of course does the moral hold for Semitic linguistics alone; see, e.g., Klar and Jones 2005.) [2] The locution “register” is pressed into service as a technical term for subtypes of what is meant by “dialect,” a term explained above to be used in an unconventional way. In short, neither “dialect” nor “register” are used in this book in their fully conventional senses.

Notes to §0

7

[3] Kutscher considers the forms cited by Dalman to be frequently suspect of bowdlerization by European transmitters, a danger he attempts to avert by adhering to texts devoid of unwarranted interference, texts which came to light subsequent to Dalman’s work. Kutscher’s cautions will be sounded and illustrated at pertinent spots throughout (e.g., §7.4.1, §17.9.2 n. 26a, §17.19 n. 102). [4] In the conventional literature, schematics are often called “vowel patterns.” [5] Quite a few Hebrew (especially), Aramaic, and Arabic technical terms will be employed in this book, each to be defined upon first appearance and all listed alphabetically and redefined in §25. All metalinguistically functioning Hebrew/Aramaic forms, including technical terms, will be presented in Israeli Levantine Hebrew transcription, making use of a Romanization adapted from Rosén 1962.

1.  System of Verb Stems[1] 1.1.  Strong Verb Stems

1.1.1.  Simple (sim) perfective (pf) plain[2]: QaSaM, QaSiM, QaSuM labial passive (pas)[3]: QuSaM palatal passive (pas)[3]: QaSīM or QuSīM reflexive-mediopassive (rmp): h-it+QaSiM,  (occasionally h-it+QaSaM)[4] imperfective (impf)[5] plain[6]: aSQuM, iQSaM, aQSiM labial pas: uQSaM palatal pas: aQSīM rmp: it+QaSiM (occasionally it+QaSaM)[4] imperative (impa)[7] plain: QăSuM (~QĭSuM?), QĭSaM, QăSiM labial pas: QŭSaM palatal pas: QăSīM rmp: h-it+QaSiM (occasionally h-it+QaSaM)[4] 1.1.2.  Intensive (int)[8] pf, impa plain: passive: rmp: imperfective plain: passive: rmp:

QaSSim (occasionally QaSSaM)[4] QuSSaM h-it+QaSSaM i+QaSSiM i+QuSSaM it+QaSSaM

1.1.3.  Causative (cau)[9] pf, impa plain: h+aQSiM (occasionally h+aQSaM)[4] passive: h+uQSaM rmp: h-it+h+aQSaM 11

12

1.  System of Verb Stems imperfective[10] plain: (i+h+)aQSiM passive: (i+h+)uQSaM rmp: it+h+aQSaM

1.2.  Geminate (gem) Verb Stems[11] 1.2.1. Simple perfective plain: QaM(M); QaMaM, QaMiM, QaMuM labial pas: QuM(M); QuMaM palatal pas: QaMīM or QuMīM rmp: h-it+QaMiM; h-it+QiM(M) imperfective plain: aQQuM, iQQaM, aQQiM; aQMuM, iQMaM,  aQMiM labial pas: uQQaM; uQMaM palatal pas: aQMīM rmp: it+QaMiM; it+QiM(M) imperative plain: QuM(M), QaM(M), QiM(M); QăMuM, QĭMaM,  QăMiM labial pas: QuM(M); QŭMaM palatal pas: QăMīM rmp: h-it+QaMiM; h-it+QiM(M) 1.2.2. Intensive pf, impa plain: QaMMiM passive: QuMMaM rmp: h-it+QaMMaM imperfective plain: i+QaMMiM passive: i+QuMMaM rmp: it+QaMMaM 1.2.3. Causative pf, impa plain: passive: rmp:

h+aQQiM; h-aQMiM h+uQQaM; h-uQMaM h-it+h+aQQaM; h-it+h+aQMaM

1.3.  Hollow (hol) Verb Stems[12] imperfective plain: passive: rmp:

(i+h+)aQQiM; (i+h+)aQMiM (i+h+)uQQaM; (i+h+)uQMaM it+h+aQQaM; it+h+aQMaM

1.3.  Hollow (hol) Verb Stems[12] 1.3.1. Simple pf, impa plain: Qā̊M, Qī̊M, Qū̊M labial pas[13]: Qū̊M palatal pas[13]: Qī̊M rmp: h-it+Qī̊M imperfective plain: aQū̊M, iQā̊M, aQī̊M labial pas: uQā̊M palatal passive: aQī̊M rmp: it+Qī̊M 1.3.2.  [14] Intensive pf, impa plain: QayyiM, QawwiM, QawMiM passive: QuyyaM, QuwwaM, QuwMaM = QūMaM rmp: h-it+QayyaM, h-it+QawwaM, h-itQawMaM imperfective plain: i+QayyiM, i+QawwiM, i+QawMiM passive: i+QuyyaM, i+QuwwaM, i+QuwMaM =  i+QūMaM rmp: it+QayyaM, it+QawwaM, it+QawMaM 1.3.2. Causative pf, impa plain: h+aQī̊M passive[13]: h+uQī̊M (and h+iQī̊M?) rmp: h+it+h+aQā̊M imperfective plain: (i+h+)aQī̊M passive[13]: (i+h+)uQī̊M rmp: it+h+aQā̊M

13

14

1.  System of Verb Stems

1.4.  Defective (def) Verb Stems[15] 1.4.1. Simple perfect plain: labial pas: palatal pas: rmp: imperfective plain: labial pas: palatal pas: rmp: imperative plain: labial pas: palatal pas: rmp:

QaSay, QaSiy QuSay, QuSiy QaSiy or QuSiy h-it+QaSay, h-it+QaSiy aQSay, aQSiy, iQSay, iQSiy uQSay, uQSiy aQSiy it+QaSay, it+QaSiy QăSay, QăSiy, QĭSay, QĭSiy QŭSay, QŭSiy QăSīy h-it+QaSay, h-it+QaSiy

1.5.  1 √w Verb Stems[16] 1.5.1. Simple imperfective plain: aSuM, iSaM, aSiM labial pas: uSaM palatal pas: aSīM rmp: it+waSiM imperative plain: SuM, SaM, SiM labial pas: SuM? palatal pas: SīM? rmp: h-it+waSiM 1.6.  1 √n Verb Stems[17] 1.6.1. Simple imperative plain: (nă)SuM (~(nĭ)SuM?), (nĭ)SaM, (nă)SiM labial pas: nŭSaM, SuM? palatal pas: (nă)SīM? rmp: h-it+naSiM

Notes to §1 Notes to §1

15

[1] Miškalim are indicated by QSM (for the standard three radicals) interdigitated with (schematic) vowels. Miškalim with more than three radicals (n. 8 below) are indicated in one and/or two ways, illustrable on the basis of the SR quadriradical (quad) 9Awdɛð (for the hedge A, see §20.2 n. 7b) ‘enslave’ (built on √9bdd): “representationally,” whereby this miškal instantiates QASS ′ɛM, bringing out the fact that the cluster wd functions as a complex 2 √ (SS ′); or “derivationally,” whereby the same miškal instantiates QaSMɛM, bringing out the fact that the last two radicals stand/stood in a derivational relation (one being a copy—reduplicate—of the other). “+” marks standard (linear) morpheme boundaries, in §1 exclusively setting off prefixes from stems (miškalim) or from other prefixes. “–” hedges on the presence/nature of a boundary at the indicated juncture (e.g., whether in the rmp-prefixed alternation hit~it the h should be segmented out as a (sub)morphemic entity sui generis, a hedge indicated by h-it). [2] The plain simple stem evidences at least residual distinctions in event type absent from the passive, reflexive-mediopassive (rmp), and all other categories of the derived verb. Exponence of this event type is via the second schematic, whereby there are at least loose, statistical ablaut relations between the perfective system on the one hand and the imp system (that of the imperfective-imperative) on the other. Thus while 2ʃ*a in the pf tends to mark dynamic lexemes (sometimes called “active,” a term to be eschewed for possible ambiguity vis-à-vis the antonym of passive)—i.e., verbs prototypically denoting volitional physical action on the part of the denotatum of the subject—the corresponding imp encodation of dynamism is usually via 2ʃ*u, sometimes 2ʃ*i. And where neuter lexemes tend to be marked in the pf by 2*ʃ i or 2*ʃu, corresponding imp marking is usually via 2 *a and 2 *u, respectively (cf. Brockelmann 1908: 544)—“neuter” being antonymous to “dynamic,” in reference to verbs prototypically of involuntary nonaction (in the literature frequently called “stative”). Also, from the earliest days, phonological factors appear to have interacted with semantic (event type) in favoring 2ʃselection; e.g., 2ʃ*a tends to correlate with 2∼H or 3∼H (as in Hebrew, cf. THP 56)—an effect typologically but not genetically akin to the historically subsequent process of lowering (§17.10). [3] (a) The labels “labial” and “palatal” reflect invariance of schematic /u/ and /ī/, respectively, plausibly even when schematic assignment varies under certain phonological conditions (see note 13). This much said, it should be observed that there is some evidence for hybrid passives, housing both u and ī; thus QuSīM posited here as a variant to QaSīM for at least the perfective of the simple passive—cf. the B Bab variant [gŭl] < *gulī́y with labial color of 1ʃ preserved via schwa coloring by inheritance, §17.23; as well as evidence for occasional u-ī hybridism in other binyanim, note 13b below. Such hybrids will provisionally be classified as palatal, inasmuch as they appear to occur as variants to forms lacking u but always containing ī. (b) The assumption is made that the simple verb originally inflected freely for both types of passive, while the derived verb was by and large restricted to the labial type, though u-ī hybrids occasionally appear as well. This assumed tendency for simple-derived cleavage may, however, be too sweeping (Bauer and Leander assume that the palatal sort was exclusive to the simple verb and the labial to the derived, BL §28o) but extant data are just too meager to be sure.

16

1.  System of Verb Stems

In any event, though the passive is to be found in the earliest dialects—at least Y, O, I, and B—it has with one possible exception been replaced by the reflexivemediopassive (rmp) in the later dialects. The one possible exception is SM, though it is uncertain whether forms such as t[dαanṣrən] ‘die sich unterworfen haben’ (Macs 145) are genuine residua of the palatal passive (here < *ðī=naṣī́rū) or rather might be morphologically participial forms functioning syntactically as perfectives (